Re: [Vo]:LENR energy dispute, straight answer to Jed Rothwell
Axil Axil wrote: By the way, IMHO, no industrial heat boiler is restricted to producing a > constant amount of heat. These units are "heat on demand" systems. > Yes, of course. Those are actual, real-world boilers. Rossi's device is fake. The data shows it produces the same amount of heat even when half the reactors are turned off, or when all of the reactors are turned off, because *the data is fake*. > A thermostatically controlled valve controls the flow of steam into the > customer's process. > Yes, in a real system it would. In this case, there is no customer and there is probably little or no steam. It is hot water. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:LENR energy dispute, straight answer to Jed Rothwell
By the way, IMHO, no industrial heat boiler is restricted to producing a constant amount of heat. These units are "heat on demand" systems. A thermostatically controlled valve controls the flow of steam into the customer's process. On Mon, Aug 15, 2016 at 9:28 PM, Jed Rothwell wrote: > Axil Axil wrote: > > When steam is required, water is removed from the circuit and sent to the >> customer, then that condensed water from condensed steam is return to the >> circuit. >> > > Perhaps you are suggesting that heat not needed is dumped out. The > imaginary heat rate is 1 MW but some fraction goes to the customer and the > rest is removed with the invisible fans and non-existent vents? > > Anyway, this statement of yours is wrong, according to Rossi himself: > > "Rossi's reactor control mechanism must self throttle to reduce heat > production based on demand." > > The reactor itself is never self-throttled. It continues to produce steady > 1 MW heat even when you turn it off and take it apart. > > Hey, that's what the man claims, okay? > > - Jed > >
Re: [Vo]:LENR energy dispute, straight answer to Jed Rothwell
Axil Axil wrote: When steam is required, water is removed from the circuit and sent to the > customer, then that condensed water from condensed steam is return to the > circuit. > Perhaps you are suggesting that heat not needed is dumped out. The imaginary heat rate is 1 MW but some fraction goes to the customer and the rest is removed with the invisible fans and non-existent vents? Anyway, this statement of yours is wrong, according to Rossi himself: "Rossi's reactor control mechanism must self throttle to reduce heat production based on demand." The reactor itself is never self-throttled. It continues to produce steady 1 MW heat even when you turn it off and take it apart. Hey, that's what the man claims, okay? - Jed
Re: [Vo]:LENR energy dispute, straight answer to Jed Rothwell
When steam is required, water is removed from the circuit and sent to the customer, then that condensed water from condensed steam is return to the circuit. This simplifies the "steam on demand" control logic and does not effect the pump speed. The only component that the logic effects is a water diversion switch to the steam circuit on the reactor side. On Mon, Aug 15, 2016 at 8:47 PM, Axil Axil wrote: > The flow meter flow values implies that the steam flow control logic might > not have affected the pump speeds used to circulate water between the > reactor and the company. Do you have the piping layout? > > On Mon, Aug 15, 2016 at 8:36 PM, Jed Rothwell > wrote: > >> Axil Axil wrote: >> >> >>> There must have been an "heat on demand" relationship between the >>> customer and the reactor such that the demand for heat varied with the >>> "maximum heat production rate" being limited to 3.66 gallons per second. >>> Rossi's reactor control mechanism must self throttle to reduce heat >>> production based on demand. >>> >> Wrong. Rossi's data shows almost exactly the same level of heat >> production every day for the entire test. Even on days when Rossi himself >> said the reactor was turned off it produced a steady 1 MW. So there was no >> control on demand. >> >> Of course, Rossi's data is impossible and manifestly fake. He actually >> only produced ~20 kW. But if you are going to indulge in a fantasy, you >> should stick to the pretend information that Rossi gave you. When you do an >> analysis of Harry Potter you don't get to make up new characters or magic >> powers not described in the book. When you discuss Rossi's preposterous >> claims and you make up imaginary justifications for them, you have to stick >> to his claims, and those claims rule out heat on demand. >> >> - Jed >> >> >
Re: [Vo]:LENR energy dispute, straight answer to Jed Rothwell
The flow meter flow values implies that the steam flow control logic might not have affected the pump speeds used to circulate water between the reactor and the company. Do you have the piping layout? On Mon, Aug 15, 2016 at 8:36 PM, Jed Rothwell wrote: > Axil Axil wrote: > > >> There must have been an "heat on demand" relationship between the >> customer and the reactor such that the demand for heat varied with the >> "maximum heat production rate" being limited to 3.66 gallons per second. >> Rossi's reactor control mechanism must self throttle to reduce heat >> production based on demand. >> > Wrong. Rossi's data shows almost exactly the same level of heat production > every day for the entire test. Even on days when Rossi himself said the > reactor was turned off it produced a steady 1 MW. So there was no control > on demand. > > Of course, Rossi's data is impossible and manifestly fake. He actually > only produced ~20 kW. But if you are going to indulge in a fantasy, you > should stick to the pretend information that Rossi gave you. When you do an > analysis of Harry Potter you don't get to make up new characters or magic > powers not described in the book. When you discuss Rossi's preposterous > claims and you make up imaginary justifications for them, you have to stick > to his claims, and those claims rule out heat on demand. > > - Jed > >
Re: [Vo]:LENR energy dispute, straight answer to Jed Rothwell
Peter-- Me thinks arrogance and stupidity are brothers in the same family. Bob Cook From: Peter Gluck Sent: Monday, August 15, 2016 7:50 AM To: VORTEX Subject: Re: [Vo]:LENR energy dispute, straight answer to Jed Rothwell who has inspired you to this idea of reducing the volume of water drained. No, with the know n data 10-20 cu.m of warm 40-50 cu.m water will be drained per hour I am traanslating a long Russian ppaer fror my Blog when ready will make calculations. Go to ECtaWorld you will see more considerations- for example Abd has understood much faster than you tthe soluton. The idea is that the 1MW heat is NOT an unmanageable problem and you have to see endothermic largo sensu. For the sake of your reputation, please get the facts faster. Peter On Mon, Aug 15, 2016 at 5:39 PM, Jed Rothwell mailto:jedrothw...@gmail.com>> wrote: Peter Gluck mailto:peter.gl...@gmail.com>> wrote: please do not insult Jed! He simply does not understand how the heat exchangers work. Explain how a heat exchanger would reduce the total volume of water needed to remove the heat. With 1 heat exchange, to cool 1 MJ down to the legal limit of 80°C you need 239 L/min. Explain why the total volume of water would be reduced with a series of exchangers instead of one. Go ahead, please. You are a chemical engineer. Enlighten us. - Jed -- Dr. Peter Gluck Cluj, Romania http://egooutpeters.blogspot.com
Re: [Vo]:LENR energy dispute, straight answer to Jed Rothwell
Axil Axil wrote: > There must have been an "heat on demand" relationship between the customer > and the reactor such that the demand for heat varied with the "maximum heat > production rate" being limited to 3.66 gallons per second. Rossi's reactor > control mechanism must self throttle to reduce heat production based on > demand. > Wrong. Rossi's data shows almost exactly the same level of heat production every day for the entire test. Even on days when Rossi himself said the reactor was turned off it produced a steady 1 MW. So there was no control on demand. Of course, Rossi's data is impossible and manifestly fake. He actually only produced ~20 kW. But if you are going to indulge in a fantasy, you should stick to the pretend information that Rossi gave you. When you do an analysis of Harry Potter you don't get to make up new characters or magic powers not described in the book. When you discuss Rossi's preposterous claims and you make up imaginary justifications for them, you have to stick to his claims, and those claims rule out heat on demand. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:LENR energy dispute, straight answer to Jed Rothwell
The water warmed from 13C to 75C at 1 MW/second is 3.66 gallons per second. There must have been an "heat on demand" relationship between the customer and the reactor such that the demand for heat varied with the "maximum heat production rate" being limited to 3.66 gallons per second. Rossi's reactor control mechanism must self throttle to reduce heat production based on demand. The reactor must automatically reduce power production based on the heat required by the customer on a heat required per second basis. This must be true because the customer was billed by IH for the amount of heat consumed. The high power rating of the reactor provides fast water warmup. This would have produced a high productivity capability to the customer by reducing water process warmup time. Somebody should ask Rossi if this speculation on steam volume control is true. On Mon, Aug 15, 2016 at 6:44 PM, Axil Axil wrote: > Andrea Rossi > April 8, 2016 at 9:54 AM > Teemu: > I knew the Customer in the office of my Attorney Henry Johnson. They were > enthusiast to test our 1 MW plant, to see if it really worked, because they > were ( and are ) interested to buy more plants for their facilities in > Europe. They wanted not to be exposed, though, therefore incorporated JM > Products and made a plant for their production to make the test and > appointed President their Attorney, who was also, as I said, my Attorney. > IH knew all this and agreed, obviously, on this, making a rental agreement > with JM Products to make the test in their factory. When IH met with the > President of JM in Raleigh, I was present and I explained that he was also > my Attorney. No problem has been raised by IH. > Warm Regards, > A.R. > > The nickel powder could be used in battery electrode applications. > >- > >Please allow me to revise my speculation on the relationship between >the 1 year test customer and Rossi as follows: > >Rossi and the customer were introduced when Rossi submitted his nickel >powder preparation process patent. Rossi was informed that his powder >preparation was already patented by the customer and a meeting of the minds >regarding licensing fees on IP between Rossi and the customer went on in >Rossi's lawyer's office. > > > On Mon, Aug 15, 2016 at 6:21 PM, Axil Axil wrote: > >> http://joam.inoe.ro/arhiva/pdf6_3/Lucaci.pdf >> >> A NEW FAMILY OF NICKEL POWDER FOR ELECTRICAL ENGINEERING APPLICATIONS >> >> Quote: "The specific surface area values using BET method show that the >> chemically processed Ni powders have a very high specific surface area (> >> 60 m 2 /g), which recommend them for electrical applications, especially >> for electrode applications. >> >> For Ni carbonyl powder the specific surface area was found 0.68 m 2 /g. >> The evaluation of the chemosorbtion caracteristics by using hydrogen >> selective adsorbtion method shows that the modified Ni powder exhibits high >> power of hydrogen adsorption (600 µgH2/g), which recommend them as >> catalysts in hydrogen addition reaction" >> >> This powder is used for battery electrodes. It would be great to use in a >> LENR reactor. >> >> On Mon, Aug 15, 2016 at 6:09 PM, Giovanni Santostasi < >> gsantost...@gmail.com> wrote: >> >>> See if you can get the water bills of JM products. >>> >>> Good idea. >>> >>> Also the list of the personnel, shipments received and sent and so on. >>> Easily subpoena documents. >>> Rossi should get them to defend himself and IH to make a strong case >>> against Rossi. >>> >>> I just hope IH doesn't settle just to get rid of Rossi's bs once and for >>> ever. >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> On Mon, Aug 15, 2016 at 6:00 PM, Axil Axil wrote: >>> See if you can get the water bills of JM products. On Mon, Aug 15, 2016 at 5:56 PM, Jed Rothwell wrote: > Axil Axil wrote: > > How did Rossi become familiar with this customer who is really holding >> their technology very closely? >> > > It is obvious how he became familiar with the customer. The customer > is Rossi's own lawyer! They made up the stuff about closely held > technology. There is no sign of production of anything, and such > production > would be impossible since there is only ~20 kW of low grade heat (probably > hot water). > > > >> A SPECULATIVE answer to this might be that Rossi is a customer of >> this secretive customer. Ross must use the product of this customer. >> > > There is no product. No one was seen in the production area. There is > no machinery in use there. Nothing was seen shipped in or shipped out of > the factory. > > > >> There must be a pre-established longstanding relationship between >> this customer and Rossi. >> > > There is indeed a long-standing relationship. The customer is Rossi's > own lawyer. He is the president of the company. There is no one else in > the > company. > > - J
Re: [Vo]:LENR energy dispute, straight answer to Jed Rothwell
Andrea Rossi April 8, 2016 at 9:54 AM Teemu: I knew the Customer in the office of my Attorney Henry Johnson. They were enthusiast to test our 1 MW plant, to see if it really worked, because they were ( and are ) interested to buy more plants for their facilities in Europe. They wanted not to be exposed, though, therefore incorporated JM Products and made a plant for their production to make the test and appointed President their Attorney, who was also, as I said, my Attorney. IH knew all this and agreed, obviously, on this, making a rental agreement with JM Products to make the test in their factory. When IH met with the President of JM in Raleigh, I was present and I explained that he was also my Attorney. No problem has been raised by IH. Warm Regards, A.R. The nickel powder could be used in battery electrode applications. - Please allow me to revise my speculation on the relationship between the 1 year test customer and Rossi as follows: Rossi and the customer were introduced when Rossi submitted his nickel powder preparation process patent. Rossi was informed that his powder preparation was already patented by the customer and a meeting of the minds regarding licensing fees on IP between Rossi and the customer went on in Rossi's lawyer's office. On Mon, Aug 15, 2016 at 6:21 PM, Axil Axil wrote: > http://joam.inoe.ro/arhiva/pdf6_3/Lucaci.pdf > > A NEW FAMILY OF NICKEL POWDER FOR ELECTRICAL ENGINEERING APPLICATIONS > > Quote: "The specific surface area values using BET method show that the > chemically processed Ni powders have a very high specific surface area (> > 60 m 2 /g), which recommend them for electrical applications, especially > for electrode applications. > > For Ni carbonyl powder the specific surface area was found 0.68 m 2 /g. > The evaluation of the chemosorbtion caracteristics by using hydrogen > selective adsorbtion method shows that the modified Ni powder exhibits high > power of hydrogen adsorption (600 µgH2/g), which recommend them as > catalysts in hydrogen addition reaction" > > This powder is used for battery electrodes. It would be great to use in a > LENR reactor. > > On Mon, Aug 15, 2016 at 6:09 PM, Giovanni Santostasi < > gsantost...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> See if you can get the water bills of JM products. >> >> Good idea. >> >> Also the list of the personnel, shipments received and sent and so on. >> Easily subpoena documents. >> Rossi should get them to defend himself and IH to make a strong case >> against Rossi. >> >> I just hope IH doesn't settle just to get rid of Rossi's bs once and for >> ever. >> >> >> >> >> On Mon, Aug 15, 2016 at 6:00 PM, Axil Axil wrote: >> >>> See if you can get the water bills of JM products. >>> >>> On Mon, Aug 15, 2016 at 5:56 PM, Jed Rothwell >>> wrote: >>> Axil Axil wrote: How did Rossi become familiar with this customer who is really holding > their technology very closely? > It is obvious how he became familiar with the customer. The customer is Rossi's own lawyer! They made up the stuff about closely held technology. There is no sign of production of anything, and such production would be impossible since there is only ~20 kW of low grade heat (probably hot water). > A SPECULATIVE answer to this might be that Rossi is a customer of this > secretive customer. Ross must use the product of this customer. > There is no product. No one was seen in the production area. There is no machinery in use there. Nothing was seen shipped in or shipped out of the factory. > There must be a pre-established longstanding relationship between this > customer and Rossi. > There is indeed a long-standing relationship. The customer is Rossi's own lawyer. He is the president of the company. There is no one else in the company. - Jed >>> >> >
Re: [Vo]:LENR energy dispute, straight answer to Jed Rothwell
http://joam.inoe.ro/arhiva/pdf6_3/Lucaci.pdf A NEW FAMILY OF NICKEL POWDER FOR ELECTRICAL ENGINEERING APPLICATIONS Quote: "The specific surface area values using BET method show that the chemically processed Ni powders have a very high specific surface area (> 60 m 2 /g), which recommend them for electrical applications, especially for electrode applications. For Ni carbonyl powder the specific surface area was found 0.68 m 2 /g. The evaluation of the chemosorbtion caracteristics by using hydrogen selective adsorbtion method shows that the modified Ni powder exhibits high power of hydrogen adsorption (600 µgH2/g), which recommend them as catalysts in hydrogen addition reaction" This powder is used for battery electrodes. It would be great to use in a LENR reactor. On Mon, Aug 15, 2016 at 6:09 PM, Giovanni Santostasi wrote: > See if you can get the water bills of JM products. > > Good idea. > > Also the list of the personnel, shipments received and sent and so on. > Easily subpoena documents. > Rossi should get them to defend himself and IH to make a strong case > against Rossi. > > I just hope IH doesn't settle just to get rid of Rossi's bs once and for > ever. > > > > > On Mon, Aug 15, 2016 at 6:00 PM, Axil Axil wrote: > >> See if you can get the water bills of JM products. >> >> On Mon, Aug 15, 2016 at 5:56 PM, Jed Rothwell >> wrote: >> >>> Axil Axil wrote: >>> >>> How did Rossi become familiar with this customer who is really holding their technology very closely? >>> >>> It is obvious how he became familiar with the customer. The customer is >>> Rossi's own lawyer! They made up the stuff about closely held technology. >>> There is no sign of production of anything, and such production would be >>> impossible since there is only ~20 kW of low grade heat (probably hot >>> water). >>> >>> >>> A SPECULATIVE answer to this might be that Rossi is a customer of this secretive customer. Ross must use the product of this customer. >>> >>> There is no product. No one was seen in the production area. There is no >>> machinery in use there. Nothing was seen shipped in or shipped out of the >>> factory. >>> >>> >>> There must be a pre-established longstanding relationship between this customer and Rossi. >>> >>> There is indeed a long-standing relationship. The customer is Rossi's >>> own lawyer. He is the president of the company. There is no one else in the >>> company. >>> >>> - Jed >>> >>> >> >
Re: [Vo]:LENR energy dispute, straight answer to Jed Rothwell
Not a good idea for both of us, given that neither of us can do that. 2016-08-15 19:09 GMT-03:00 Giovanni Santostasi : > Good idea. >
Re: [Vo]:LENR energy dispute, straight answer to Jed Rothwell
See if you can get the water bills of JM products. Good idea. Also the list of the personnel, shipments received and sent and so on. Easily subpoena documents. Rossi should get them to defend himself and IH to make a strong case against Rossi. I just hope IH doesn't settle just to get rid of Rossi's bs once and for ever. On Mon, Aug 15, 2016 at 6:00 PM, Axil Axil wrote: > See if you can get the water bills of JM products. > > On Mon, Aug 15, 2016 at 5:56 PM, Jed Rothwell > wrote: > >> Axil Axil wrote: >> >> How did Rossi become familiar with this customer who is really holding >>> their technology very closely? >>> >> >> It is obvious how he became familiar with the customer. The customer is >> Rossi's own lawyer! They made up the stuff about closely held technology. >> There is no sign of production of anything, and such production would be >> impossible since there is only ~20 kW of low grade heat (probably hot >> water). >> >> >> >>> A SPECULATIVE answer to this might be that Rossi is a customer of this >>> secretive customer. Ross must use the product of this customer. >>> >> >> There is no product. No one was seen in the production area. There is no >> machinery in use there. Nothing was seen shipped in or shipped out of the >> factory. >> >> >> >>> There must be a pre-established longstanding relationship between this >>> customer and Rossi. >>> >> >> There is indeed a long-standing relationship. The customer is Rossi's own >> lawyer. He is the president of the company. There is no one else in the >> company. >> >> - Jed >> >> >
Re: [Vo]:LENR energy dispute, straight answer to Jed Rothwell
Occam razor demands nothing here. 2016-08-15 19:00 GMT-03:00 Giovanni Santostasi : > > Occam'razor basically demands that Rossi=customer= no heat produced. > > >
Re: [Vo]:LENR energy dispute, straight answer to Jed Rothwell
Finally Axil-Axil arrived and he brings with him the usual fantastic speculations. Axil-Axil, IH bought all the eCat related IP from Rossi. If the creation of the catalyst is essential to the eCat working properly Rossi had to reveal the production of the catalyst by contract. Keeping it secret was a violation of the IP transfer contract. And anyway you still cannot avoid all the thermo arguments we discussed. Even a very efficient endothermic process would still process tons and tons of material every week. As we noted several times this would have been done in a small warehouse in a non industrial area without causing complaints of neighbor business. Explain how that can be done. You are right there is a special relationship between customer and Rossi. Occam'razor basically demands that Rossi=customer= no heat produced. On Mon, Aug 15, 2016 at 5:49 PM, Axil Axil wrote: > The reaction that Rossi's customer has come up with is just as mysterious > as the one that Rossi is using. How did Rossi become familiar with this > customer who is really holding their technology very closely? > > A SPECULATIVE answer to this might be that Rossi is a customer of this > secretive customer. Ross must use the product of this customer. There must > be a pre-established longstanding relationship between this customer and > Rossi. > > Rossi must get a precursor of his nickel powder from this company. We have > heard the the reaction that this mystery company uses is a variation of the > one that Johnson Matthey uses. So this endothermic mystery reaction must be > one that produces a nickel based catalyst because we fairly much know that > Rossi uses nickel powder. > > IH must not know what nickel based catalyst product that Rossi is using, > and Rossi is not about to let anybody know who this company is and what > product that this company generates. > > Rossi must have wanted to improve this company's cost effectiveness for > his own benefit to reduce the cost of the catalyst that he is using. There > must be a friendly relationship between the secret company and Rossi that > would inspire this company to get involved with Rossi. > > When the test was setup, Rossi must not have envisioned that the identity > of this company would be an issue in a court case. > > The takeaway from this speculation, being part of Rossi's product supply > chain, the degree of secrecy that this company was subjected to must be > integrally linked to Rossi's own technology. > > > Nano-skeletal catalyst: https://www.google.com/patents/US9023754 > > Quote: "The oxide etching apparatus preferably employs a supercritical > etch solution, while the leaching apparatus preferably employs a > supercritical leaching solution. In certain embodiments where the use of > leaching is appropriate, selective leaching with a basic solution is > preferably used to remove the substantial portion of the filler material > from the bulk structure. Preferably, the filler material left is present in > a relatively stable alloy phase (e.g., the alloy phase is more stable than > other alloy phases given the set of materials)." > > > The production of Nano dimensioned nickel requires multiple leching > operations using water near the boiling point. The aluminum substrate must > be removed to reveal the microparticles of nickel with nano dimensional > surface features. multiple leaching operations using a fluorine based gas > or acid may be used and the application of plasma treatment as was seen in > the Lugano powder. The waste heat would be flushed down the drain on > repeated cycles until all substrate material is removes from the nickel > micro powder. > > Evidence of plasma sintering and the presence of molybdenum, chromium. and > rare earths upon assay examination of the Lugano fuel was a mystery until > the plasma sintering of equal parts aluminum and nickel micron sized > particles with additives is revealed in the nickel Nano-skeletal catalyst > patent. Acid or gas etching of aluminum oxide to remove the aluminum > substrate using multiple etching cycles would be needed to produce a highly > purified resulting product. > > For every leaching cycle, how much heat would be required to bring 500 > gallons of 13C ground water up 75C optimum leaching temperature. How many > leaching cycles are required to purify a batch of nano nickel powder is not > known. The leaching process must use a double tank configuration to > maintain the constant flow of steam with one tank receiving steam while the > other tank is being drained down the effluent disposal. > > Rossi will not allow IH to see this process since it is central and > pivotal to the functioning of his technology. > > On Sun, Aug 14, 2016 at 3:51 PM, Jed Rothwell > wrote: > >> Peter Gluck wrote: >> >> >> >>> a) the test does not depend on what the Customer makes with the nergy >>> makes useful things as chemicals or throws it away- via a sytem of more >>> heat exchangers- steam water is in a close
Re: [Vo]:LENR energy dispute, straight answer to Jed Rothwell
See if you can get the water bills of JM products. On Mon, Aug 15, 2016 at 5:56 PM, Jed Rothwell wrote: > Axil Axil wrote: > > How did Rossi become familiar with this customer who is really holding >> their technology very closely? >> > > It is obvious how he became familiar with the customer. The customer is > Rossi's own lawyer! They made up the stuff about closely held technology. > There is no sign of production of anything, and such production would be > impossible since there is only ~20 kW of low grade heat (probably hot > water). > > > >> A SPECULATIVE answer to this might be that Rossi is a customer of this >> secretive customer. Ross must use the product of this customer. >> > > There is no product. No one was seen in the production area. There is no > machinery in use there. Nothing was seen shipped in or shipped out of the > factory. > > > >> There must be a pre-established longstanding relationship between this >> customer and Rossi. >> > > There is indeed a long-standing relationship. The customer is Rossi's own > lawyer. He is the president of the company. There is no one else in the > company. > > - Jed > >
Re: [Vo]:LENR energy dispute, straight answer to Jed Rothwell
1.It's on google earth, the exit. 2.The same. 3. Check 1 2016-08-15 18:22 GMT-03:00 Jed Rothwell : > You need to address the technical issues. You have not done this. > > >
Re: [Vo]:LENR energy dispute, straight answer to Jed Rothwell
Axil Axil wrote: How did Rossi become familiar with this customer who is really holding > their technology very closely? > It is obvious how he became familiar with the customer. The customer is Rossi's own lawyer! They made up the stuff about closely held technology. There is no sign of production of anything, and such production would be impossible since there is only ~20 kW of low grade heat (probably hot water). > A SPECULATIVE answer to this might be that Rossi is a customer of this > secretive customer. Ross must use the product of this customer. > There is no product. No one was seen in the production area. There is no machinery in use there. Nothing was seen shipped in or shipped out of the factory. > There must be a pre-established longstanding relationship between this > customer and Rossi. > There is indeed a long-standing relationship. The customer is Rossi's own lawyer. He is the president of the company. There is no one else in the company. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:LENR energy dispute, straight answer to Jed Rothwell
The reaction that Rossi's customer has come up with is just as mysterious as the one that Rossi is using. How did Rossi become familiar with this customer who is really holding their technology very closely? A SPECULATIVE answer to this might be that Rossi is a customer of this secretive customer. Ross must use the product of this customer. There must be a pre-established longstanding relationship between this customer and Rossi. Rossi must get a precursor of his nickel powder from this company. We have heard the the reaction that this mystery company uses is a variation of the one that Johnson Matthey uses. So this endothermic mystery reaction must be one that produces a nickel based catalyst because we fairly much know that Rossi uses nickel powder. IH must not know what nickel based catalyst product that Rossi is using, and Rossi is not about to let anybody know who this company is and what product that this company generates. Rossi must have wanted to improve this company's cost effectiveness for his own benefit to reduce the cost of the catalyst that he is using. There must be a friendly relationship between the secret company and Rossi that would inspire this company to get involved with Rossi. When the test was setup, Rossi must not have envisioned that the identity of this company would be an issue in a court case. The takeaway from this speculation, being part of Rossi's product supply chain, the degree of secrecy that this company was subjected to must be integrally linked to Rossi's own technology. Nano-skeletal catalyst: https://www.google.com/patents/US9023754 Quote: "The oxide etching apparatus preferably employs a supercritical etch solution, while the leaching apparatus preferably employs a supercritical leaching solution. In certain embodiments where the use of leaching is appropriate, selective leaching with a basic solution is preferably used to remove the substantial portion of the filler material from the bulk structure. Preferably, the filler material left is present in a relatively stable alloy phase (e.g., the alloy phase is more stable than other alloy phases given the set of materials)." The production of Nano dimensioned nickel requires multiple leching operations using water near the boiling point. The aluminum substrate must be removed to reveal the microparticles of nickel with nano dimensional surface features. multiple leaching operations using a fluorine based gas or acid may be used and the application of plasma treatment as was seen in the Lugano powder. The waste heat would be flushed down the drain on repeated cycles until all substrate material is removes from the nickel micro powder. Evidence of plasma sintering and the presence of molybdenum, chromium. and rare earths upon assay examination of the Lugano fuel was a mystery until the plasma sintering of equal parts aluminum and nickel micron sized particles with additives is revealed in the nickel Nano-skeletal catalyst patent. Acid or gas etching of aluminum oxide to remove the aluminum substrate using multiple etching cycles would be needed to produce a highly purified resulting product. For every leaching cycle, how much heat would be required to bring 500 gallons of 13C ground water up 75C optimum leaching temperature. How many leaching cycles are required to purify a batch of nano nickel powder is not known. The leaching process must use a double tank configuration to maintain the constant flow of steam with one tank receiving steam while the other tank is being drained down the effluent disposal. Rossi will not allow IH to see this process since it is central and pivotal to the functioning of his technology. On Sun, Aug 14, 2016 at 3:51 PM, Jed Rothwell wrote: > Peter Gluck wrote: > > > >> a) the test does not depend on what the Customer makes with the nergy >> makes useful things as chemicals or throws it away- via a sytem of more >> heat exchangers- steam water is in a closed circuit >> > > It is impossible to "throw away" heat. That violates the conservation of > energy. Put in all the heat exchangers you want, you still have 1 MW of > heat coming from the overall system. This is easy to detect. If this heat > is not ventilated, it will kill everyone in the warehouse area. If it is > ventilated, the stream of hot air or steam from ventilation system will be > easy to detect. NOT SUCH HEAT HAS BEEN DETECTED. Not anywhere. There is no > heat. > > Rossi now claims that the product in factory magically swallows up the > heat in an endothermic reaction. That is impossible, as I am sure you know. > > - Jed > >
Re: [Vo]:LENR energy dispute, straight answer to Jed Rothwell
Daniel Rocha wrote: Who cares who cooled 1MW? It can be cooled. > Sure. If you have very large vents, or a chiller the size of a truck, 1 MW can be cooled. No one disputes that. The problem is: there is no such equipment at this site. No one saw it. It does not show up in photographs. Rossi never claimed he had a chiller or anything like that. So *no one cooled it*. So there was no such heat in the first place. That's the whole point. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:LENR energy dispute, straight answer to Jed Rothwell
Daniel Rocha wrote: That is a fixed idea of yours, I can't argue with that. > You can easily argue with this. Just show: 1. How is it possible to cool the warehouse with equipment shown in the photographs. 2. What endothermic industrial process can remove nearly all heat, and what sort of cooling does he use on other days when the industrial process is not in use? 3. If there is a vent or chiller, why didn't people see it? You need to address the technical issues. You have not done this. You might also want to explain how the reactor produces 1 MW of heat on days when Rossi said it was turned off. That is remarkable performance. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:LENR energy dispute, straight answer to Jed Rothwell
*Why are you insisting with a "magic" endothermic reactor?* Why Rossi says works just when sometime and other when he makes no sense at at all it doesn't matter? That is what he says, that the heat was mostly used for an endothermic reaction. I have explained that if you do the math you get tons of material processed every few days. The area where the building is located is not set up for this kind of operations. The size of the warehouse could not have the machinery to process these tons and tons of material, host the 1 MW plant, have offices, bathrooms and so on all in 6000 sqr feet. Tons of chemical material coming in and out of that warehouse in a retailer zoned area would be an incredible nuisance and probably illegal. As I said this is why probably they even changed the company name of JM Chemical Products to JM Products. The ad in the link I have provided that is listing the same facility is mentioning that the warehouse is good for "light manufacturing" for a reason. The warehouse is mostly surrounded by retailers and service offices. On Mon, Aug 15, 2016 at 5:04 PM, Jed Rothwell wrote: > Daniel Rocha wrote: > > Why are you insisting with a "magic" endothermic reactor? >> > > That is an inside joke. Some people here and elsewhere insist there can be > an industrial endothermic process that magically swallows up all of the > heat. That is impossible. > > > >> Endothermic can just mean anything that cools the input. He cooled >> 500kw-1000MW before. >> > > No he did not. That is a lie. He never produced more than 20 kW in Florida > and he never cooled anything larger than that. > > > Not a big deal. >> > > It would be a big deal if he actually managed to cool something like that. > It would take thousands of dollars of equipment that anyone could see. > However, he never did that. > > - Jed > >
Re: [Vo]:LENR energy dispute, straight answer to Jed Rothwell
Who cares who cooled 1MW? It can be cooled. 2016-08-15 18:05 GMT-03:00 Giovanni Santostasi : > Who cooled? >
Re: [Vo]:LENR energy dispute, straight answer to Jed Rothwell
That is a fixed idea of yours, I can't argue with that. 2016-08-15 18:04 GMT-03:00 Jed Rothwell : > He never produced more than 20 kW in Florida and he never cooled anything > larger than that. > >
Re: [Vo]:LENR energy dispute, straight answer to Jed Rothwell
Who cooled? You believe anything Rossi says? On Mon, Aug 15, 2016 at 4:45 PM, Daniel Rocha wrote: > Why are you insisting with a "magic" endothermic reactor? Endothermic can > just mean anything that cools the input. He cooled 500kw-1000MW before. Not > a big deal. > > 2016-08-15 17:40 GMT-03:00 Jed Rothwell : > >> >> >> More to the point, why would Rossi hide this equipment? It would prove >> that he really has 1 MW. Supposedly his hiding the magical endothermic >> customer machine because it incorporates IP. >> >
Re: [Vo]:LENR energy dispute, straight answer to Jed Rothwell
Daniel Rocha wrote: Why are you insisting with a "magic" endothermic reactor? > That is an inside joke. Some people here and elsewhere insist there can be an industrial endothermic process that magically swallows up all of the heat. That is impossible. > Endothermic can just mean anything that cools the input. He cooled > 500kw-1000MW before. > No he did not. That is a lie. He never produced more than 20 kW in Florida and he never cooled anything larger than that. Not a big deal. > It would be a big deal if he actually managed to cool something like that. It would take thousands of dollars of equipment that anyone could see. However, he never did that. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:LENR energy dispute, straight answer to Jed Rothwell
Why are you insisting with a "magic" endothermic reactor? Endothermic can just mean anything that cools the input. He cooled 500kw-1000MW before. Not a big deal. 2016-08-15 17:40 GMT-03:00 Jed Rothwell : > > > More to the point, why would Rossi hide this equipment? It would prove > that he really has 1 MW. Supposedly his hiding the magical endothermic > customer machine because it incorporates IP. >
Re: [Vo]:LENR energy dispute, straight answer to Jed Rothwell
Daniel Rocha wrote: It fits well inside the room. > What fits well inside a room? A vent? You have to put on the roof or does no good. It is the size of a person, as I noted. A water or air-cooled chiller of 1 MW capacity is the size of 2 or 3 automobiles. You could put the water cooled one indoors but people would notice it, I think. The air cooled one would take up several spaces in the parking lot. You couldn't miss it! More to the point, why would Rossi hide this equipment? It would prove that he really has 1 MW. Supposedly his hiding the magical endothermic customer machine because it incorporates IP. A air cooled chiller does not, so why would he hide it? > It looks like Rossi used something of these in his filmed 1MW experiment. > The exist vent was quite of the same size of that one in google maps. > And that is far too small, especially since it does not have a working fan. Here is what Rossi actually has: an automotive radiator capable of shedding about 50 kW maximum. See the photos here: https://www.lenr-forum.com/forum/index.php/Thread/3626-Industrial-Heat-Amends-Answer-to-Rossi%E2%80%99s-Complaint-on-Aug-11th/?postID=32735#post32735 That is all he has, and all he needs. It is working at about half capacity. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:LENR energy dispute, straight answer to Jed Rothwell
It fits well inside the room. It looks like Rossi used something of these in his filmed 1MW experiment. The exist vent was quite of the same size of that one in google maps. 2016-08-15 16:17 GMT-03:00 Jed Rothwell : > > Needless to say, there is no such machine outside the facility. There are > also no restaurant or factory size vents on the roof. These are roughly as > tall as a person, and bigger than a person, so you could not miss seeing > them. > > -- Daniel Rocha - RJ danieldi...@gmail.com
Re: [Vo]:LENR energy dispute, straight answer to Jed Rothwell
Rather, not easier, but 1MW is not too much 2016-08-15 16:54 GMT-03:00 Daniel Rocha : > I think the problem is keeping T0 constant or low. Suppose T0=20C, T1=100, > T2=70 > > 10^6=4^10^2*D*L*(100-60)/(log((100-20)/(70-20))~1.0*10^8 > > D*L~40 > > The higher the energy to be exchanged, the easier is to build the system. > > > > 2016-08-15 13:41 GMT-03:00 Giovanni Santostasi : > >> So actually the solution for the differential equation of a heat >> exchanger is the following: >> >> dQ/dt=h*D*L*(T1-T2)/log( (T1-)/(T2-T0)) >> > -- Daniel Rocha - RJ danieldi...@gmail.com
Re: [Vo]:LENR energy dispute, straight answer to Jed Rothwell
I think the problem is keeping T0 constant or low. Suppose T0=20C, T1=100, T2=70 10^6=4^10^2*D*L*(100-60)/(log((100-20)/(70-20))~1.0*10^8 D*L~40 The higher the energy to be exchanged, the easier is to build the system. 2016-08-15 13:41 GMT-03:00 Giovanni Santostasi : > So actually the solution for the differential equation of a heat exchanger > is the following: > > dQ/dt=h*D*L*(T1-T2)/log( (T1-)/(T2-T0)) >
Re: [Vo]:LENR energy dispute, straight answer to Jed Rothwell
I wrote: > A normal commercial building in Florida has a 2" water supply pipe, which > is not large enough for the flow of water you need to keep the temperature > below the legal maximum of 80°C, with 1 MW of heat. > > 1 MJ/s = 239,000 calories/s. 80°C - 20°C = 60°C. 239,000 calories / 60°C = > 3,983 g/s = 239 L/min (61 gallons), which far exceeds the capacity of the > entire building. > Oops. I got that wrong. The code says the maximum temperature is 60°C, not 80°C. See: http://codes.iccsafe.org/app/book/content/PDF/2001%20Florida%20Codes/Plumbing/Chapter%207_Sanitary%20Drainage.pdf Revised estimate: 239,000 calories / 40°C = 5,975 g/s = 359 L/min (95 gallons). Giovanni Santostasi's estimate is more realistic. As I said, the water service of the building like this would not support that. What you need is an air cooled unit outside the building: http://www.airedale.com/web/Products/Chillers/DeltaChill-Free-Cooling-Chiller.htm I think you need two of these, both the size of a truck: file:///C:/Users/Admin/Downloads/IM_DELTACHILL_MK2_FREECOOL_MK1_F_7025232_V1.14.0_04_16.pdf Some interesting points arise: 1. This equipment is not invisible. A person visiting Rossi would see it, and hear it. 2. Rossi would have to have something like this because he claims the reactor produced 1 MW every day, 24/7, even on days when it was turned off. Whatever the customer's magical endothermic machine, was surely it was turned off at times. When it was off, he needed a way to dump the heat. 3. Rossi claimed he could not show the customer's magical endothermic machine because it had IP in it. This is nonsense, because you cannot read IP by looking at a machine. Be that as it may, there is no conceivable reason why Rossi would want to hide the gigantic chiller outside the building. On the contrary, this would prove that he really is producing 1 MW, so he would want to show it off. Needless to say, there is no such machine outside the facility. There are also no restaurant or factory size vents on the roof. These are roughly as tall as a person, and bigger than a person, so you could not miss seeing them. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:LENR energy dispute, straight answer to Jed Rothwell
One more calculation. Using equation given in previous message, if you are using pipes with one cm diameter and a differential between in and out temperatures of 60 degrees, you need 12 km worth of pipes to get rid of 1 MW. Please check my calculations but again if this is true it gives a good mental picture of why any real world physical solution of "where the heat go" is completely absurd. On Mon, Aug 15, 2016 at 12:41 PM, Giovanni Santostasi wrote: > So actually the solution for the differential equation of a heat exchanger > is the following: > > dQ/dt=h*D*L*(T1-T2)/log( (T1-T0)/(T2-T0)) > > where Q is the heat exchanged, h is the heat transfer coefficient (if you > have a pipe made of steel and water is the cooling material h=400 W/m^2 K), > D is the size of the pipe, L is the length of the pipe, T1 is the incoming > temperature, T2 final temperature and T0 is the constant temperature of the > pipe. > You can play with this equation and envision the size of the pipe, initial > and final temperature and you will have really hard time to get rid of 1 MW > with any reasonable size pipe and temperatures. > > > > On Mon, Aug 15, 2016 at 11:57 AM, Giovanni Santostasi < > gsantost...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> Peter: >> *very simple in principle and the drain carries so much warm water with >> ease in an industrial area.* >> >> It is NOT an industrial area. And that is an essential part of what Jed >> and I are communicating over and over. >> >> >> >> On Mon, Aug 15, 2016 at 11:53 AM, Giovanni Santostasi < >> gsantost...@gmail.com> wrote: >> >>> Jed calculations is an order of estimate but actually on the >>> conservative side: >>> >>> 1 MJ/s = 239,000 calories/s. 80°C - 20°C = 60°C. 239,000 calories / 60°C >>> = 3,983 g/s = 239 L/min (61 gallons), which far exceeds the capacity of the >>> entire building. >>> >>> It would take time to heat up the water to 80 degrees, then it will take >>> time to exchange heat with the 20 degree water and so on, this will reduce >>> the efficiency of the exchange. The right solution is probably a >>> differential equation and I bet you get a even higher value of water flow >>> needed. >>> Unless you had enormous pools of water involved (cold and hot) you >>> cannot think of this as a thermo-equilibrium situation. >>> >>> For an order of magnitude estimate I prefer to think that you will need >>> a ton of water with 1 degree difference coming in an out of the building >>> every second to deal with 1 MW poer (similar considerations about time >>> needed to heat up and cool down the water applies but it is easier to think >>> about 1 m^3 of water with a slight higher temperature involved to represent >>> a solution closer to the non-equilibrium realistic one). >>> >>> In any case even if one adopted the conservative Jed estimate one can >>> see easily the heat exchange idea is nonsense. >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> On Mon, Aug 15, 2016 at 10:17 AM, Jed Rothwell >>> wrote: >>> Peter Gluck wrote: > Both, Jed and goiovanni are trying to show tht they are not > understanding > what I have told about the energy: the cut the Gordian solution of > consuming the energy is to pass the steam pipe through a system of heat > exchangers where it heats water. that is discraded to the drain channel as > water at 40-50 C. being, (exactly as this discussion diluted to > insignificance) > The heat exchangers would produce waste heat, which would be readily apparent. It would heat up the entire warehouse. More to the point, the heat exchangers would not serve any purpose. They do not make heat vanish, they merely transfer it. The total amount of water you need is the same with or without the exchangers (except for the waste heat lost from the exhangers). So, you might as well leave out the exchangers and use the water to cool the main loop. This, however, is impossible. A normal commercial building in Florida has a 2" water supply pipe, which is not large enough for the flow of water you need to keep the temperature below the legal maximum of 80°C, with 1 MW of heat. 1 MJ/s = 239,000 calories/s. 80°C - 20°C = 60°C. 239,000 calories / 60°C = 3,983 g/s = 239 L/min (61 gallons), which far exceeds the capacity of the entire building. Your plan makes no sense. Evidently you do not understand the conservation of energy or thermodynamics. - Jed >>> >> >
Re: [Vo]:LENR energy dispute, straight answer to Jed Rothwell
So actually the solution for the differential equation of a heat exchanger is the following: dQ/dt=h*D*L*(T1-T2)/log( (T1-T0)/(T2-T0)) where Q is the heat exchanged, h is the heat transfer coefficient (if you have a pipe made of steel and water is the cooling material h=400 W/m^2 K), D is the size of the pipe, L is the length of the pipe, T1 is the incoming temperature, T2 final temperature and T0 is the constant temperature of the pipe. You can play with this equation and envision the size of the pipe, initial and final temperature and you will have really hard time to get rid of 1 MW with any reasonable size pipe and temperatures. On Mon, Aug 15, 2016 at 11:57 AM, Giovanni Santostasi wrote: > Peter: > *very simple in principle and the drain carries so much warm water with > ease in an industrial area.* > > It is NOT an industrial area. And that is an essential part of what Jed > and I are communicating over and over. > > > > On Mon, Aug 15, 2016 at 11:53 AM, Giovanni Santostasi < > gsantost...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> Jed calculations is an order of estimate but actually on the conservative >> side: >> >> 1 MJ/s = 239,000 calories/s. 80°C - 20°C = 60°C. 239,000 calories / 60°C >> = 3,983 g/s = 239 L/min (61 gallons), which far exceeds the capacity of the >> entire building. >> >> It would take time to heat up the water to 80 degrees, then it will take >> time to exchange heat with the 20 degree water and so on, this will reduce >> the efficiency of the exchange. The right solution is probably a >> differential equation and I bet you get a even higher value of water flow >> needed. >> Unless you had enormous pools of water involved (cold and hot) you cannot >> think of this as a thermo-equilibrium situation. >> >> For an order of magnitude estimate I prefer to think that you will need a >> ton of water with 1 degree difference coming in an out of the building >> every second to deal with 1 MW poer (similar considerations about time >> needed to heat up and cool down the water applies but it is easier to think >> about 1 m^3 of water with a slight higher temperature involved to represent >> a solution closer to the non-equilibrium realistic one). >> >> In any case even if one adopted the conservative Jed estimate one can see >> easily the heat exchange idea is nonsense. >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> On Mon, Aug 15, 2016 at 10:17 AM, Jed Rothwell >> wrote: >> >>> Peter Gluck wrote: >>> >>> Both, Jed and goiovanni are trying to show tht they are not understanding what I have told about the energy: the cut the Gordian solution of consuming the energy is to pass the steam pipe through a system of heat exchangers where it heats water. that is discraded to the drain channel as water at 40-50 C. being, (exactly as this discussion diluted to insignificance) >>> >>> The heat exchangers would produce waste heat, which would be readily >>> apparent. It would heat up the entire warehouse. >>> >>> More to the point, the heat exchangers would not serve any purpose. They >>> do not make heat vanish, they merely transfer it. The total amount of water >>> you need is the same with or without the exchangers (except for the waste >>> heat lost from the exhangers). So, you might as well leave out the >>> exchangers and use the water to cool the main loop. This, however, is >>> impossible. A normal commercial building in Florida has a 2" water supply >>> pipe, which is not large enough for the flow of water you need to keep the >>> temperature below the legal maximum of 80°C, with 1 MW of heat. >>> >>> 1 MJ/s = 239,000 calories/s. 80°C - 20°C = 60°C. 239,000 calories / 60°C >>> = 3,983 g/s = 239 L/min (61 gallons), which far exceeds the capacity of the >>> entire building. >>> >>> Your plan makes no sense. Evidently you do not understand the >>> conservation of energy or thermodynamics. >>> >>> - Jed >>> >>> >> >
Re: [Vo]:LENR energy dispute, straight answer to Jed Rothwell
Peter: *very simple in principle and the drain carries so much warm water with ease in an industrial area.* It is NOT an industrial area. And that is an essential part of what Jed and I are communicating over and over. On Mon, Aug 15, 2016 at 11:53 AM, Giovanni Santostasi wrote: > Jed calculations is an order of estimate but actually on the conservative > side: > > 1 MJ/s = 239,000 calories/s. 80°C - 20°C = 60°C. 239,000 calories / 60°C = > 3,983 g/s = 239 L/min (61 gallons), which far exceeds the capacity of the > entire building. > > It would take time to heat up the water to 80 degrees, then it will take > time to exchange heat with the 20 degree water and so on, this will reduce > the efficiency of the exchange. The right solution is probably a > differential equation and I bet you get a even higher value of water flow > needed. > Unless you had enormous pools of water involved (cold and hot) you cannot > think of this as a thermo-equilibrium situation. > > For an order of magnitude estimate I prefer to think that you will need a > ton of water with 1 degree difference coming in an out of the building > every second to deal with 1 MW poer (similar considerations about time > needed to heat up and cool down the water applies but it is easier to think > about 1 m^3 of water with a slight higher temperature involved to represent > a solution closer to the non-equilibrium realistic one). > > In any case even if one adopted the conservative Jed estimate one can see > easily the heat exchange idea is nonsense. > > > > > > > > On Mon, Aug 15, 2016 at 10:17 AM, Jed Rothwell > wrote: > >> Peter Gluck wrote: >> >> >>> Both, Jed and goiovanni are trying to show tht they are not >>> understanding >>> what I have told about the energy: the cut the Gordian solution of >>> consuming the energy is to pass the steam pipe through a system of heat >>> exchangers where it heats water. that is discraded to the drain channel as >>> water at 40-50 C. being, (exactly as this discussion diluted to >>> insignificance) >>> >> >> The heat exchangers would produce waste heat, which would be readily >> apparent. It would heat up the entire warehouse. >> >> More to the point, the heat exchangers would not serve any purpose. They >> do not make heat vanish, they merely transfer it. The total amount of water >> you need is the same with or without the exchangers (except for the waste >> heat lost from the exhangers). So, you might as well leave out the >> exchangers and use the water to cool the main loop. This, however, is >> impossible. A normal commercial building in Florida has a 2" water supply >> pipe, which is not large enough for the flow of water you need to keep the >> temperature below the legal maximum of 80°C, with 1 MW of heat. >> >> 1 MJ/s = 239,000 calories/s. 80°C - 20°C = 60°C. 239,000 calories / 60°C >> = 3,983 g/s = 239 L/min (61 gallons), which far exceeds the capacity of the >> entire building. >> >> Your plan makes no sense. Evidently you do not understand the >> conservation of energy or thermodynamics. >> >> - Jed >> >> >
Re: [Vo]:LENR energy dispute, straight answer to Jed Rothwell
Jed calculations is an order of estimate but actually on the conservative side: 1 MJ/s = 239,000 calories/s. 80°C - 20°C = 60°C. 239,000 calories / 60°C = 3,983 g/s = 239 L/min (61 gallons), which far exceeds the capacity of the entire building. It would take time to heat up the water to 80 degrees, then it will take time to exchange heat with the 20 degree water and so on, this will reduce the efficiency of the exchange. The right solution is probably a differential equation and I bet you get a even higher value of water flow needed. Unless you had enormous pools of water involved (cold and hot) you cannot think of this as a thermo-equilibrium situation. For an order of magnitude estimate I prefer to think that you will need a ton of water with 1 degree difference coming in an out of the building every second to deal with 1 MW poer (similar considerations about time needed to heat up and cool down the water applies but it is easier to think about 1 m^3 of water with a slight higher temperature involved to represent a solution closer to the non-equilibrium realistic one). In any case even if one adopted the conservative Jed estimate one can see easily the heat exchange idea is nonsense. On Mon, Aug 15, 2016 at 10:17 AM, Jed Rothwell wrote: > Peter Gluck wrote: > > >> Both, Jed and goiovanni are trying to show tht they are not understanding >> what I have told about the energy: the cut the Gordian solution of >> consuming the energy is to pass the steam pipe through a system of heat >> exchangers where it heats water. that is discraded to the drain channel as >> water at 40-50 C. being, (exactly as this discussion diluted to >> insignificance) >> > > The heat exchangers would produce waste heat, which would be readily > apparent. It would heat up the entire warehouse. > > More to the point, the heat exchangers would not serve any purpose. They > do not make heat vanish, they merely transfer it. The total amount of water > you need is the same with or without the exchangers (except for the waste > heat lost from the exhangers). So, you might as well leave out the > exchangers and use the water to cool the main loop. This, however, is > impossible. A normal commercial building in Florida has a 2" water supply > pipe, which is not large enough for the flow of water you need to keep the > temperature below the legal maximum of 80°C, with 1 MW of heat. > > 1 MJ/s = 239,000 calories/s. 80°C - 20°C = 60°C. 239,000 calories / 60°C = > 3,983 g/s = 239 L/min (61 gallons), which far exceeds the capacity of the > entire building. > > Your plan makes no sense. Evidently you do not understand the conservation > of energy or thermodynamics. > > - Jed > >
Re: [Vo]:LENR energy dispute, straight answer to Jed Rothwell
Peter, Nonsense. Jed just told you. You need to have this setup in an industrial zone with a river near by or swimming pools of steaming water outside. Again, do not close your eyes. Go and look at the building online. It is a small warehouse in a commercial area, with retailers around. Porca Miseria ! See my other reply and my thread "customer warehouse". Can you do the calculations and show us? Using basic physics? I will show my simple code in a second. I have posted graphs and shared results of several calculations in my other thread. Tell me what is wrong in them. On Mon, Aug 15, 2016 at 11:20 AM, Peter Gluck wrote: > Thsnk you for your help, you got the idea, it si a problem of design, one > great or more smaller heat excghangers working counter- or equicurrent. > Just see that it s very simple in principle and the drain carries so much > warm water with ease in an industrial area. > THERE IS NO UNMANAGEABLE HEAT REMOVAL PROBLEM > You have lost the flowmeter game, you are losing this heat game too. > peter > > On Mon, Aug 15, 2016 at 6:09 PM, Jed Rothwell > wrote: > >> Peter Gluck wrote: >> >> who has inspired you to this idea of reducing the volume of water >>> drained. >>> >> >> Okay if it does not reduce the volume, what is the point of using >> multiple exchangers? Why not use a single heat exchanger enough capacity to >> cool 1 MW? Or a chiller. Here is a 394 kW unit. You need 3 of these: >> >> http://www.airedale.com/web/Products/Chillers/TurboChill-Wat >> er-Cooled-AC-Chiller.htm >> >> This is 1 m high x 1 m x 1.9 m. You need 3. Someone would see them! >> >> As I pointed out, this would not work because you cannot get this much >> water in a building of this size. A factory located by a river or with much >> greater water service, or a cooling pond, could use these things. >> >> >> In real life, someone found a photo of a pickup truck radiator sitting in >> Rossi's facility. That has a cooling capacity of around 50 kW I think, >> about twice as much is he needs. I expect that is what they are using. >> >> - Jed >> >> > > > -- > Dr. Peter Gluck > Cluj, Romania > http://egooutpeters.blogspot.com >
Re: [Vo]:LENR energy dispute, straight answer to Jed Rothwell
Peter Gluck wrote: Thsnk you for your help, you got the idea, it si a problem of design, one > great or more smaller heat excghangers working counter- or equicurrent. > Okay so instead of using these three gigantic exchangers you would need, let us say, fifty small ones. They would use the same amount of water, which is more than the city can supply. And they would not fit in the building. Just see that it s very simple in principle and the drain carries so much > warm water with ease in an industrial area. > THERE IS NO UNMANAGEABLE HEAT REMOVAL PROBLEM > Sure. In this case all you need is three gigantic machines which anyone would see instantly, which would make a terrific amount of noise, and which would use more water than you can get in this building. That sounds simple and manageable to me! You can manage it with magic. You have lost the flowmeter game, you are losing this heat game too. > No, I have not "lost" that "game" for several reasons: 1. I.H. made that claim, not me. You need to stop pretending this my claim. 2. IH has extensive physical proof of the claim. 3. They filed this claim with the court in Florida. It is not lost; it is right there in Exhibit 5. If they cannot prove it with physical evidence then it will be lost. 4. As I noted, the manufacturer warns against running this pump with half-full pipe, therefore despite what you say this problem can occur. It is not imaginary. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:LENR energy dispute, straight answer to Jed Rothwell
Peter,
Porca miseria !!!
Use some basic physics please.
Can you show the detailed calculations?
When I do them (please see my thread "customer warehouse") I cannot get out
of the fact you need to process 30 tons of material every week to account
for the energy involved in this "experiment". No matter if you melt ice,
salt, electrolysis, the most endothermic reaction you can find. I did the
calculations with many of these scenarios and when you consider the orders
of magnitudes involved you get dozens of tons of material in and out of the
building.
Your heat exchange system would require to have piping outside the
building, swimming pools worth of water sitting outside to come in
equilibrium with environment. Please in the other thread ("customer
warehouse") I showed an ad of the renting of the warehouse that gives
precise dimensions of the warehouse and the address. We are talking a
warehouse of 6000 sqr feet !!!
Also take a look at the address, look it on Google, zoom in, go to the
street level. See the type of business there is around. All retailers. It
is a commercial but not an industrial zone.
Where are you going to put your heat exchanger? In the parking lot?
You will need to remove thousands of tons of water per day to get rid even
of a part of the heat produced. And if you are claiming it was a
combination of material produced and heat dumped to environment now you
created two problems instead of one: removing tons of water to the
environment and tons of other chemical materials in and out of the
building. In a light commercial zone. Without harassing the neighbors,
pissing off the owner of the building or calling the attention of the
authorities. Probably this why they changed the name JM Chemical Products
to JM Products. They were not zoned to process chemicals in this area so
even the name would have caused problems, imagine moving in and out tons of
dangerous chemicals.
You cannot escape these basic facts. And this why where the heat went is
CRUCIAL to the argument and not irrelevant at all. It is CRUCIAL not just
from a physical point of view if you think about the experiment as a system
but also CRUCIAL from a legal point of view given that Rossi made up for
sure that there was a consumer given the absurdity of the physics
conclusions I described above (and there are also economical, human, social
implications of these conclusions).
You are right, something needs to be stopped: the irresponsibility and
idiocy of supporting Rossi at any cost.
On Mon, Aug 15, 2016 at 10:50 AM, Peter Gluck wrote:
> who has inspired you to this idea of reducing the volume of water
> drained. No, with the know n data 10-20 cu.m of warm 40-50 cu.m water will
> be drained per hour I am traanslating a long Russian ppaer fror my Blog
> when ready will make calculations.
> Go to ECtaWorld you will see more considerations- for example Abd has
> understood much faster than you tthe soluton.
> The idea is that the 1MW heat is NOT an unmanageable problem and you have
> to see endothermic largo sensu.
> For the sake of your reputation, please get the facts faster.
> Peter
>
> On Mon, Aug 15, 2016 at 5:39 PM, Jed Rothwell
> wrote:
>
>> Peter Gluck wrote:
>>
>> please do not insult Jed! He simply does not understand how the heat
>>> exchangers work.
>>>
>>
>> Explain how a heat exchanger would reduce the total volume of water
>> needed to remove the heat. With 1 heat exchange, to cool 1 MJ down to the
>> legal limit of 80°C you need 239 L/min. Explain why the total volume of
>> water would be reduced with a series of exchangers instead of one.
>>
>> Go ahead, please. You are a chemical engineer. Enlighten us.
>>
>> - Jed
>>
>>
>
>
> --
> Dr. Peter Gluck
> Cluj, Romania
> http://egooutpeters.blogspot.com
>
Re: [Vo]:LENR energy dispute, straight answer to Jed Rothwell
Thsnk you for your help, you got the idea, it si a problem of design, one great or more smaller heat excghangers working counter- or equicurrent. Just see that it s very simple in principle and the drain carries so much warm water with ease in an industrial area. THERE IS NO UNMANAGEABLE HEAT REMOVAL PROBLEM You have lost the flowmeter game, you are losing this heat game too. peter On Mon, Aug 15, 2016 at 6:09 PM, Jed Rothwell wrote: > Peter Gluck wrote: > > who has inspired you to this idea of reducing the volume of water drained. >> > > Okay if it does not reduce the volume, what is the point of using multiple > exchangers? Why not use a single heat exchanger enough capacity to cool 1 > MW? Or a chiller. Here is a 394 kW unit. You need 3 of these: > > http://www.airedale.com/web/Products/Chillers/TurboChill- > Water-Cooled-AC-Chiller.htm > > This is 1 m high x 1 m x 1.9 m. You need 3. Someone would see them! > > As I pointed out, this would not work because you cannot get this much > water in a building of this size. A factory located by a river or with much > greater water service, or a cooling pond, could use these things. > > > In real life, someone found a photo of a pickup truck radiator sitting in > Rossi's facility. That has a cooling capacity of around 50 kW I think, > about twice as much is he needs. I expect that is what they are using. > > - Jed > > -- Dr. Peter Gluck Cluj, Romania http://egooutpeters.blogspot.com
Re: [Vo]:LENR energy dispute, straight answer to Jed Rothwell
Peter Gluck wrote: who has inspired you to this idea of reducing the volume of water drained. > Okay if it does not reduce the volume, what is the point of using multiple exchangers? Why not use a single heat exchanger enough capacity to cool 1 MW? Or a chiller. Here is a 394 kW unit. You need 3 of these: http://www.airedale.com/web/Products/Chillers/TurboChill-Water-Cooled-AC-Chiller.htm This is 1 m high x 1 m x 1.9 m. You need 3. Someone would see them! As I pointed out, this would not work because you cannot get this much water in a building of this size. A factory located by a river or with much greater water service, or a cooling pond, could use these things. In real life, someone found a photo of a pickup truck radiator sitting in Rossi's facility. That has a cooling capacity of around 50 kW I think, about twice as much is he needs. I expect that is what they are using. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:LENR energy dispute, straight answer to Jed Rothwell
who has inspired you to this idea of reducing the volume of water drained. No, with the know n data 10-20 cu.m of warm 40-50 cu.m water will be drained per hour I am traanslating a long Russian ppaer fror my Blog when ready will make calculations. Go to ECtaWorld you will see more considerations- for example Abd has understood much faster than you tthe soluton. The idea is that the 1MW heat is NOT an unmanageable problem and you have to see endothermic largo sensu. For the sake of your reputation, please get the facts faster. Peter On Mon, Aug 15, 2016 at 5:39 PM, Jed Rothwell wrote: > Peter Gluck wrote: > > please do not insult Jed! He simply does not understand how the heat >> exchangers work. >> > > Explain how a heat exchanger would reduce the total volume of water needed > to remove the heat. With 1 heat exchange, to cool 1 MJ down to the legal > limit of 80°C you need 239 L/min. Explain why the total volume of water > would be reduced with a series of exchangers instead of one. > > Go ahead, please. You are a chemical engineer. Enlighten us. > > - Jed > > -- Dr. Peter Gluck Cluj, Romania http://egooutpeters.blogspot.com
Re: [Vo]:LENR energy dispute, straight answer to Jed Rothwell
Peter Gluck wrote: please do not insult Jed! He simply does not understand how the heat > exchangers work. > Explain how a heat exchanger would reduce the total volume of water needed to remove the heat. With 1 heat exchange, to cool 1 MJ down to the legal limit of 80°C you need 239 L/min. Explain why the total volume of water would be reduced with a series of exchangers instead of one. Go ahead, please. You are a chemical engineer. Enlighten us. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:LENR energy dispute, straight answer to Jed Rothwell
Daniel, please do not insult Jed! He simply does not understand how the heat exchangers work. peter On Mon, Aug 15, 2016 at 5:27 PM, Daniel Rocha wrote: > I think you are running out of your quota of arrogance. > > 2016-08-15 11:17 GMT-03:00 Jed Rothwell : > >> Evidently you do not understand the conservation of energy or >> thermodynamics. >> >> -- Dr. Peter Gluck Cluj, Romania http://egooutpeters.blogspot.com
Re: [Vo]:LENR energy dispute, straight answer to Jed Rothwell
Daniel Rocha wrote: > I think you are running out of your quota of arrogance. > Okay, so you should please explain how a heat exchanger, or a series of exchanges, would cause the heat to vanish or reduce the amount of water needed to flush it down the drain. If I am being arrogant, please correct my mistake. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:LENR energy dispute, straight answer to Jed Rothwell
I think you are running out of your quota of arrogance. 2016-08-15 11:17 GMT-03:00 Jed Rothwell : > Evidently you do not understand the conservation of energy or > thermodynamics. > >
Re: [Vo]:LENR energy dispute, straight answer to Jed Rothwell
Peter Gluck wrote: > Both, Jed and goiovanni are trying to show tht they are not understanding > what I have told about the energy: the cut the Gordian solution of > consuming the energy is to pass the steam pipe through a system of heat > exchangers where it heats water. that is discraded to the drain channel as > water at 40-50 C. being, (exactly as this discussion diluted to > insignificance) > The heat exchangers would produce waste heat, which would be readily apparent. It would heat up the entire warehouse. More to the point, the heat exchangers would not serve any purpose. They do not make heat vanish, they merely transfer it. The total amount of water you need is the same with or without the exchangers (except for the waste heat lost from the exhangers). So, you might as well leave out the exchangers and use the water to cool the main loop. This, however, is impossible. A normal commercial building in Florida has a 2" water supply pipe, which is not large enough for the flow of water you need to keep the temperature below the legal maximum of 80°C, with 1 MW of heat. 1 MJ/s = 239,000 calories/s. 80°C - 20°C = 60°C. 239,000 calories / 60°C = 3,983 g/s = 239 L/min (61 gallons), which far exceeds the capacity of the entire building. Your plan makes no sense. Evidently you do not understand the conservation of energy or thermodynamics. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:LENR energy dispute, straight answer to Jed Rothwell
Exactly as privileges are always stronger than rights, certainties once irreversibly acquired are stronger than facts and logic. Both Jed and Giovanni- a relatively new kid on the block have certainties: zero excess heat and Rossi scammer. Difficult to discuss with such people. For me, Rossi has to discuss only with the Court. Both, Jed and goiovanni are trying to show tht they are not understanding what I have told about the energy: the cut the Gordian solution of consuming the energy is to pass the steam pipe through a system of heat exchangers where it heats water. that is discraded to the drain channel as water at 40-50 C. being, (exactly as this discussion diluted to insignificance) Economics- heat energy 5 cents per kWh- 1200 $ loss per day, 422.500 $ per the experiment valued as 89.00 $. However a part of the heat energy was surely used industrially, this will be made known tto the Law. Both Jed and Giovanni also try to ignore he fact that what was done with the energy is not relevant for the test, the very parameters of the stem and water show how much energy was produced. Jed comes with fairy tales that water volume was exactly 36000 mc daily citing some unknown chapter of the ERV report he received from Rossi. Giovani makes great efforts to show that Penon has no real, US-like Doctorate as if this would be something relevant, better look what he has done work. Doctorate is a qusetion of vanity for an engineer, it was a saying about it: doctorate is as a hmen, if you hsve it, it is of no use, f or ou, if not, everybody ask why you do not have it? Let's focus on important things- as why the Tets, now a catastrophy went unperturbed so long, 3 ERV reports anyway. Jed can tell a lot about IH protesting, where is the proof? He is unable to show a single message he has received in 2015. Only the text if he wants keep secrets- and the datum. Porca miseria- that's for Giovanni. Wish you a better day with facts and logic not stories and gossip. peter On Mon, Aug 15, 2016 at 3:09 AM, Jed Rothwell wrote: > Giovanni Santostasi wrote: > > >> Can you comment on this? >> > > I do not know anything about it. > > - Jed > > -- Dr. Peter Gluck Cluj, Romania http://egooutpeters.blogspot.com
Re: [Vo]:LENR energy dispute, straight answer to Jed Rothwell
Giovanni Santostasi wrote: > Can you comment on this? > I do not know anything about it. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:LENR energy dispute, straight answer to Jed Rothwell
a.ashfield wrote: > So far there is only speculation about both sides. I prefer to wait for > more solid data. > You have solid data, in Exhibit 5. You prefer to say it is lie, and ignore it. Exhibit 5 is not speculation at all. It is fact. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:LENR energy dispute, straight answer to Jed Rothwell
Jed, This report is very interesting. It is obvious that the two physicists should be believed vs Rossi. They had absolutely no reason to claim that Vaughn said "Rossi is not credible". What I don't understand is why it seems that the R & D building had not trace of Rossi's work (not necessarily trace radiation) but not even a bench and that the accountant that received the two health physicists had no knowledge of Rossi. I thought from the legal documents IH says there was a lot of experimentation and testing happening in NC before Rossi moved the plant to Florida. Also Vaughn says the plant is being built in Florida (and not just moved there). Can you comment on this? Giovanni On Sun, Aug 14, 2016 at 4:59 PM, Jed Rothwell wrote: > I wrote: > > >> While this was happening, they told a local reporter in North Carolina >> they doubted Rossi, and they me and many other people, so I think we can >> assume they also told the investor. >> > > Now I cannot find that article. I find this letter from 2015 quoted Vaughn > as saying Rossi is not "credible." > > This statement from I.H. somewhat denies that is what Vaughn said: > > http://www.e-catworld.com/2015/02/05/statement-from- > industrial-heat-regarding-state-inspections/ > > Maybe their statements to the press were not as clear as I recall. > > > Anyway, as I pointed out before, the investors surely now know that I.H. > does not believe Rossi. If the investors feel they were deceived > previously, surely they will now withdraw the money or file suit against > I.H. If that does not happen I think we can conclude that no deception took > place. I think it would have happened by now. > > - Jed > >
Re: [Vo]:LENR energy dispute, straight answer to Jed Rothwell
Eric, I was impressed by Darden's speech and later interview. I know nothing about Vaughn although I recall he wrote a positive message about Rossi to Acland, in Feb 2015 while saying something quite different to the nuclear inspectors.Rossi has refrained from talking much It is not IH that has been making the noise, but their surrogates like Jed and Weaver. So far there is only speculation about both sides. I prefer to wait for more solid data. On 8/14/2016 3:55 PM, Eric Walker wrote: On Sun, Aug 14, 2016 at 2:29 PM, Giovanni Santostasi mailto:gsantost...@gmail.com>> wrote: IH is not a saint but it is clear who is the worst scammer here. Honestly, I haven't seen anything other than speculation that IH have done anything improper. They've been admirably quiet this whole time. Through all of this I get the impression they're pretty decent folks. People have been quick to attribute the actions of some of the friends of Darden and Vaughn to IH itself. I get the sense these people just wanted to stick up for them in the face of a lot of misleading statements that were being made, but they were not specifically called upon to do anything. It's 100 percent incorrect to draw any inferences to decisions made by IH without specific information. People believe exactly what they want to believe. Eric
Re: [Vo]:LENR energy dispute, straight answer to Jed Rothwell
I wrote: > While this was happening, they told a local reporter in North Carolina > they doubted Rossi, and they me and many other people, so I think we can > assume they also told the investor. > Now I cannot find that article. I find this letter from 2015 quoted Vaughn as saying Rossi is not "credible." This statement from I.H. somewhat denies that is what Vaughn said: http://www.e-catworld.com/2015/02/05/statement-from-industrial-heat-regarding-state-inspections/ Maybe their statements to the press were not as clear as I recall. Anyway, as I pointed out before, the investors surely now know that I.H. does not believe Rossi. If the investors feel they were deceived previously, surely they will now withdraw the money or file suit against I.H. If that does not happen I think we can conclude that no deception took place. I think it would have happened by now. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:LENR energy dispute, straight answer to Jed Rothwell
I have the impression that IH had significant worries about Rossi from 2014 on. But, as their Answer says, they also had several reports from teams of scientists with far more knowledge then them that seemed to substantiate some of Rossi's claims. If they were straightforward with prospective investors about the risks and open questions, and if they said this whole Rossi thing is a big unknown, but there's some people who are reporting that some of his results are positive despite their own difficulties substantiating his IP, and that the field in general is pretty exciting, and if they were transparent with those investors that did join the pool once things started souring, I do not see how they can be faulted. Eric On Sun, Aug 14, 2016 at 3:01 PM, Giovanni Santostasi wrote: > Eric, > The only thing that I would complain about IH is that they trusted Rossi > too much. He is using this against them. > > If it is true that IH received money from investors while they were > doubting Rossi veracity then it is somehow a problem for them even if not > fatal. > They could have thrown their money after Rossi but bringing in external > money without being sure about the technology and Rossi behavior it is a > little problematic. > > But investment comes with risks so in absence of evidence that Rossi was > fraudulent one could still understand why they would trying to continue the > fund raising effort. > But it is not perfectly kosher I think. But even if that was true it > doesn't exonerate Rossi conduct at all. > > Giovanni > > > > > > > > > > > > On Sun, Aug 14, 2016 at 3:55 PM, Eric Walker > wrote: > >> On Sun, Aug 14, 2016 at 2:29 PM, Giovanni Santostasi < >> gsantost...@gmail.com> wrote: >> >> IH is not a saint but it is clear who is the worst scammer here. >>> >> >> Honestly, I haven't seen anything other than speculation that IH have >> done anything improper. They've been admirably quiet this whole time. >> Through all of this I get the impression they're pretty decent folks. >> >> People have been quick to attribute the actions of some of the friends of >> Darden and Vaughn to IH itself. I get the sense these people just wanted >> to stick up for them in the face of a lot of misleading statements that >> were being made, but they were not specifically called upon to do >> anything. It's 100 percent incorrect to draw any inferences to decisions >> made by IH without specific information. People believe exactly what they >> want to believe. >> >> Eric >> >> >
Re: [Vo]:LENR energy dispute, straight answer to Jed Rothwell
Jed, That is a good point and very reassuring. If IH told of their doubts to the investors, or if their position was easy to find online then it was just due diligence of the investors to understand the risks involved. As I said if they were not 100 percent sure about Rossi being fraudulent warning investors of possible problems (but also possible opportunities if the eCat was real) was an ok thing to do in this case (I personally would have wanted to be more than 50 percent sure at least given I have been scammed before and it is a horrible experience). But in general is irrelevant and it seems Rossi uses this as his strongest argument against IH and it is completely ridiculous, smoke and mirrors as usual. Giovanni On Sun, Aug 14, 2016 at 4:28 PM, Jed Rothwell wrote: > Giovanni Santostasi wrote: > > > Eric, >> The only thing that I would complain about IH is that they trusted Rossi >> too much. He is using this against them. >> >> > >> If it is true that IH received money from investors while they were >> doubting Rossi veracity then it is somehow a problem for them even if not >> fatal. >> > > It was not a problem, because they must have told the investor they > doubted Rossi's veracity. While this was happening, they told a local > reporter in North Carolina they doubted Rossi, and they me and many other > people, so I think we can assume they also told the investor. If the > investor had Googled I.H. statements about Rossi I am sure he would have > found the statements to the reporter. > > I refer to the newspaper article describing the inspection of the lab in > North Carolina after Rossi moved the equipment to Florida. > > - Jed > >
Re: [Vo]:LENR energy dispute, straight answer to Jed Rothwell
Peter Gluck wrote: > How do you explain the very late reaction of IH? > It was not a late reaction. They reacted from the start of the test. > Couldn't they observe zero excess heat in few days after the strat of the > test? > Yes, they did. > Do you like Jed's tales about the flowmeter and pipes half full? > Please refrain from calling these "Jed's tales." This is a claim made by experts at I.H. in Exhibit 5, filed with the court. They have physical evidence for it. You do not believe this, but you have no reason to ascribe this assertion to me. > The problem is not so much what Rossi said it is what IH did not say in > time. > Rossi claimed the machine produce 1 MW of heat on days when Rossi himself claimed it was turned off. Why do you say this is not important? It is obviously a lie. Rossi claims that an endothermic process can make heat vanish. You now claim that heat can be hidden underground, as if it never radiates out. Both assertions are violations of the conservation of energy. That also matters. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:LENR energy dispute, straight answer to Jed Rothwell
Giovanni Santostasi wrote: Eric, > The only thing that I would complain about IH is that they trusted Rossi > too much. He is using this against them. > > > If it is true that IH received money from investors while they were > doubting Rossi veracity then it is somehow a problem for them even if not > fatal. > It was not a problem, because they must have told the investor they doubted Rossi's veracity. While this was happening, they told a local reporter in North Carolina they doubted Rossi, and they me and many other people, so I think we can assume they also told the investor. If the investor had Googled I.H. statements about Rossi I am sure he would have found the statements to the reporter. I refer to the newspaper article describing the inspection of the lab in North Carolina after Rossi moved the equipment to Florida. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:LENR energy dispute, straight answer to Jed Rothwell
Eric, The only thing that I would complain about IH is that they trusted Rossi too much. He is using this against them. If it is true that IH received money from investors while they were doubting Rossi veracity then it is somehow a problem for them even if not fatal. They could have thrown their money after Rossi but bringing in external money without being sure about the technology and Rossi behavior it is a little problematic. But investment comes with risks so in absence of evidence that Rossi was fraudulent one could still understand why they would trying to continue the fund raising effort. But it is not perfectly kosher I think. But even if that was true it doesn't exonerate Rossi conduct at all. Giovanni On Sun, Aug 14, 2016 at 3:55 PM, Eric Walker wrote: > On Sun, Aug 14, 2016 at 2:29 PM, Giovanni Santostasi < > gsantost...@gmail.com> wrote: > > IH is not a saint but it is clear who is the worst scammer here. >> > > Honestly, I haven't seen anything other than speculation that IH have done > anything improper. They've been admirably quiet this whole time. Through > all of this I get the impression they're pretty decent folks. > > People have been quick to attribute the actions of some of the friends of > Darden and Vaughn to IH itself. I get the sense these people just wanted > to stick up for them in the face of a lot of misleading statements that > were being made, but they were not specifically called upon to do > anything. It's 100 percent incorrect to draw any inferences to decisions > made by IH without specific information. People believe exactly what they > want to believe. > > Eric > >
Re: [Vo]:LENR energy dispute, straight answer to Jed Rothwell
"Just - to mke a 6 years fraud when you have no trace of excess heat is a
performance!" Peter..
Yes, it is "masterpiece" using one of Rossi's favorite expression. A
masterpiece of fraud.
But not at all impossible if you are a fraudster and you have a lot of
believers. That is the problem with belief. Think religion, alternative
medicine, quackery of all kind. Religion has lasted thousands of years and
what does it have to show?
A lot of believers in all these areas of human activity.
This why belief doesn't belong to science.
On Sun, Aug 14, 2016 at 3:37 PM, Peter Gluck wrote:
> it is rather late but I will answer to this tomorrow.
>
> Just - to mke a 6 years fraud when you have no trace of excess heat is a
> performance!
> peter
>
> On Sun, Aug 14, 2016 at 10:29 PM, Giovanni Santostasi <
> gsantost...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Also Peter,
>> I resent that you attack Jed and dismiss him as a defender of IH. You
>> call him in a satirical way IHoptimist.
>> I don't think at all that people like Jed and others like me that despise
>> the way Rossi behaves as shrills of IH. IH is not a saint but it is clear
>> who is the worst scammer here. And there is nothing to be optimistic about
>> this. It is incredibly sad and depressing. But one has to accept reality
>> even when it is depressing. Rossi is an enemy of LENR not a friend.
>>
>> I have a PhD in physics and I'm aware both of the promises but also the
>> possible pitfalls of this field. I was in my first year of college Physics
>> studies (in Bologna) when the discovery of Pons and Fleischman was
>> announced. I remember exactly the moment and place when it was announced in
>> radio and television. There was so much enthusiasm and excitement both at
>> the public level and among professors and students. I remember having long
>> discussions with a professor that thought he understood how it all worked.
>> And I remember even more clearly the disappointment and broken heart for
>> what followed within a year.
>>
>> I stared to follow Rossi and ecats news several years ago because I
>> thought it was an amazing story of redemption both for LENR and himself as
>> a person.
>> I wished the best and for the field and Rossi because if LENR proves true
>> it would indeed the world for the better.
>>
>> But then more I understood what was beyond Rossi's claims and actions
>> more I realized that he has absolutely nothing and it is obvious he is
>> pulling another fraud.
>>
>> "Il lupo perde il pelo ma non il vizio" is a famous Italian saying ("The
>> wolf can lose his fur but never his vice"), meaning "old habits die hard".
>>
>> Giovanni
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> On Sun, Aug 14, 2016 at 3:10 PM, Giovanni Santostasi <
>> gsantost...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> A part of the energy. And that needs to be demonstrated by Rossi. It is
>>> not trivial. And Rossi didn't say that is the case, he said it was used in
>>> chemical reactions. That makes no sense.
>>>
>>> Giovanni
>>>
>>> On Sun, Aug 14, 2016 at 3:07 PM, Peter Gluck
>>> wrote:
>>>
But I have explained about the heat exchangers. Energy consumed and
sent underground. Do you exclude this simple possibility for apart of
energy?
peter
On Sun, Aug 14, 2016 at 9:59 PM, Giovanni Santostasi <
gsantost...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Also Peter can you explain the difference between use and consumed?
> What that means?
> Unless there was a black hole inside the building of the "customer"
> doesn't matter what you do with the energy eventually the energy needs to
> be somehow radiated or removed from the building to the outside
> environment
> in a way or another. It cannot be "consumed".
> It can maybe stored if this is what you mean but what kind of process
> can store all that energy in this efficient manner? If the "customer"
> invented such a storing process it would be even more valuable than a
> working ecat.
>
>
>
>
>
> On Sun, Aug 14, 2016 at 2:50 PM, Giovanni Santostasi <
> gsantost...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Peter,
>> It is not a straight answer at all.
>> Where is Rossi evidence that there was a real chemical plant having
>> any use of the energy at all?
>> Yours are just incredible speculations.
>>
>> Giovanni
>>
>>
>>
>> On Sun, Aug 14, 2016 at 2:37 PM, Peter Gluck
>> wrote:
>>
>>> when things go too far, they must be stopped, situation calmed down
>>>
>>> http://egooutpeters.blogspot.ro/2016/08/aug-14-2016-lenr.html
>>> --
>>> Dr. Peter Gluck
>>> Cluj, Romania
>>> http://egooutpeters.blogspot.com
>>>
>>
>>
>
--
Dr. Peter Gluck
Cluj, Romania
http://egooutpeters.blogspot.com
>>>
>>>
>>
>
>
> --
> Dr. Peter Gluck
> Cluj, Romania
> http://egooutpeters.blogspot.com
>
Re: [Vo]:LENR energy dispute, straight answer to Jed Rothwell
On Sun, Aug 14, 2016 at 2:29 PM, Giovanni Santostasi wrote: IH is not a saint but it is clear who is the worst scammer here. > Honestly, I haven't seen anything other than speculation that IH have done anything improper. They've been admirably quiet this whole time. Through all of this I get the impression they're pretty decent folks. People have been quick to attribute the actions of some of the friends of Darden and Vaughn to IH itself. I get the sense these people just wanted to stick up for them in the face of a lot of misleading statements that were being made, but they were not specifically called upon to do anything. It's 100 percent incorrect to draw any inferences to decisions made by IH without specific information. People believe exactly what they want to believe. Eric
Re: [Vo]:LENR energy dispute, straight answer to Jed Rothwell
Peter Gluck wrote: > a) the test does not depend on what the Customer makes with the nergy > makes useful things as chemicals or throws it away- via a sytem of more > heat exchangers- steam water is in a closed circuit > It is impossible to "throw away" heat. That violates the conservation of energy. Put in all the heat exchangers you want, you still have 1 MW of heat coming from the overall system. This is easy to detect. If this heat is not ventilated, it will kill everyone in the warehouse area. If it is ventilated, the stream of hot air or steam from ventilation system will be easy to detect. NOT SUCH HEAT HAS BEEN DETECTED. Not anywhere. There is no heat. Rossi now claims that the product in factory magically swallows up the heat in an endothermic reaction. That is impossible, as I am sure you know. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:LENR energy dispute, straight answer to Jed Rothwell
Peter, If I'm correct you are assuming that is was ok to waste energy because in the end IH would pay 89 millions so the "customer" could be reimbursed by that. Do you realize what you are saying? You are saying that the "customer" and Rossi were working together. Even if the intention was to prove that the technology really worked (that is insanely nice interpretation in favor of Rossi) is still an incredible misinterpretation to call then the "customer" a customer. Rossi clearly explains in his own words (quoted in the legal documents) how important would have been to have an independent customer that made real use of the heat. If your theory is right, that this was an experiment and not a real life case of use of the energy (because most of it was damped), why to go to Florida? Why the plant could not stay in North Carolina under the close inspection of IH? Because in North Carolina the plant didn't work ! Only when finally Rossi could play all alone with the plant (well, he and his cronies) the plant "worked" and according to Rossi the customer was so happy to use the energy that was willing to pay hundred of thousands of dollars for it. Your explanation of the role of the "customer" in the experiment scenario is not what Rossi or IH said the role of the customer was and it makes no sense in the overall narrative. Again, use Occam's razor. Rossi is a liar and a scammer. It explains everything. Giovanni On Sun, Aug 14, 2016 at 3:33 PM, Peter Gluck wrote: > Giovanni, > > Let's repeat: > a) the test does not depend on what the Customer makes with the nergy > makes useful things as chemicals or throws it away- via a sytem of more > heat exchangers- steam water is in a closed circuit > I told clearly consumed= extracted and removed. At such a high value > experiment you can waste the energy. > Why store it? > You will see it soon. > You have accused your comptriots of scamming, OK, but why of stupidity? > Are they so suicidal to enter in this Trial if they cannot tell what has > happened with the energy? > Do you believe they take such risks? > How do you explain the very late reaction of IH? Couldn't they observe > zero excess heat in few days after the strat of the test? > Do you like Jed's tales about the flowmeter and pipes half full? > And do you really believe it is important what kind of doctorate has > Penon? > > The problem is not so much what Rossi said it is what IH did not say in > time. > > What motivates you? > > Best wishes, > Peter > > > On Sun, Aug 14, 2016 at 10:06 PM, Giovanni Santostasi < > gsantost...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> Peter, >> I read it and it doesn't make a lot of sense. Please explain how energy >> can be "consumed". Energy is always transformed in a form to another. This >> is elementary physics. >> Unless they used some crazy unknown process to store energy the energy >> would be radiated soon or later. >> Did the "customer" found a way to create matter from energy at chemical >> reaction energy levels? That would be a very efficient energy storing >> mechanism and very fascinating indeed and in violation of several physical >> laws. >> >> Giovanni >> >> >> >> >> >> >> On Sun, Aug 14, 2016 at 2:59 PM, Giovanni Santostasi < >> gsantost...@gmail.com> wrote: >> >>> Also Peter can you explain the difference between use and consumed? What >>> that means? >>> Unless there was a black hole inside the building of the "customer" >>> doesn't matter what you do with the energy eventually the energy needs to >>> be somehow radiated or removed from the building to the outside environment >>> in a way or another. It cannot be "consumed". >>> It can maybe stored if this is what you mean but what kind of process >>> can store all that energy in this efficient manner? If the "customer" >>> invented such a storing process it would be even more valuable than a >>> working ecat. >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> On Sun, Aug 14, 2016 at 2:50 PM, Giovanni Santostasi < >>> gsantost...@gmail.com> wrote: >>> Peter, It is not a straight answer at all. Where is Rossi evidence that there was a real chemical plant having any use of the energy at all? Yours are just incredible speculations. Giovanni On Sun, Aug 14, 2016 at 2:37 PM, Peter Gluck wrote: > when things go too far, they must be stopped, situation calmed down > > http://egooutpeters.blogspot.ro/2016/08/aug-14-2016-lenr.html > -- > Dr. Peter Gluck > Cluj, Romania > http://egooutpeters.blogspot.com > >>> >> > > > -- > Dr. Peter Gluck > Cluj, Romania > http://egooutpeters.blogspot.com >
Re: [Vo]:LENR energy dispute, straight answer to Jed Rothwell
it is rather late but I will answer to this tomorrow.
Just - to mke a 6 years fraud when you have no trace of excess heat is a
performance!
peter
On Sun, Aug 14, 2016 at 10:29 PM, Giovanni Santostasi wrote:
> Also Peter,
> I resent that you attack Jed and dismiss him as a defender of IH. You call
> him in a satirical way IHoptimist.
> I don't think at all that people like Jed and others like me that despise
> the way Rossi behaves as shrills of IH. IH is not a saint but it is clear
> who is the worst scammer here. And there is nothing to be optimistic about
> this. It is incredibly sad and depressing. But one has to accept reality
> even when it is depressing. Rossi is an enemy of LENR not a friend.
>
> I have a PhD in physics and I'm aware both of the promises but also the
> possible pitfalls of this field. I was in my first year of college Physics
> studies (in Bologna) when the discovery of Pons and Fleischman was
> announced. I remember exactly the moment and place when it was announced in
> radio and television. There was so much enthusiasm and excitement both at
> the public level and among professors and students. I remember having long
> discussions with a professor that thought he understood how it all worked.
> And I remember even more clearly the disappointment and broken heart for
> what followed within a year.
>
> I stared to follow Rossi and ecats news several years ago because I
> thought it was an amazing story of redemption both for LENR and himself as
> a person.
> I wished the best and for the field and Rossi because if LENR proves true
> it would indeed the world for the better.
>
> But then more I understood what was beyond Rossi's claims and actions more
> I realized that he has absolutely nothing and it is obvious he is pulling
> another fraud.
>
> "Il lupo perde il pelo ma non il vizio" is a famous Italian saying ("The
> wolf can lose his fur but never his vice"), meaning "old habits die hard".
>
> Giovanni
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> On Sun, Aug 14, 2016 at 3:10 PM, Giovanni Santostasi <
> gsantost...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> A part of the energy. And that needs to be demonstrated by Rossi. It is
>> not trivial. And Rossi didn't say that is the case, he said it was used in
>> chemical reactions. That makes no sense.
>>
>> Giovanni
>>
>> On Sun, Aug 14, 2016 at 3:07 PM, Peter Gluck
>> wrote:
>>
>>> But I have explained about the heat exchangers. Energy consumed and sent
>>> underground. Do you exclude this simple possibility for apart of energy?
>>> peter
>>>
>>> On Sun, Aug 14, 2016 at 9:59 PM, Giovanni Santostasi <
>>> gsantost...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
Also Peter can you explain the difference between use and consumed?
What that means?
Unless there was a black hole inside the building of the "customer"
doesn't matter what you do with the energy eventually the energy needs to
be somehow radiated or removed from the building to the outside environment
in a way or another. It cannot be "consumed".
It can maybe stored if this is what you mean but what kind of process
can store all that energy in this efficient manner? If the "customer"
invented such a storing process it would be even more valuable than a
working ecat.
On Sun, Aug 14, 2016 at 2:50 PM, Giovanni Santostasi <
gsantost...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Peter,
> It is not a straight answer at all.
> Where is Rossi evidence that there was a real chemical plant having
> any use of the energy at all?
> Yours are just incredible speculations.
>
> Giovanni
>
>
>
> On Sun, Aug 14, 2016 at 2:37 PM, Peter Gluck
> wrote:
>
>> when things go too far, they must be stopped, situation calmed down
>>
>> http://egooutpeters.blogspot.ro/2016/08/aug-14-2016-lenr.html
>> --
>> Dr. Peter Gluck
>> Cluj, Romania
>> http://egooutpeters.blogspot.com
>>
>
>
>>>
>>>
>>> --
>>> Dr. Peter Gluck
>>> Cluj, Romania
>>> http://egooutpeters.blogspot.com
>>>
>>
>>
>
--
Dr. Peter Gluck
Cluj, Romania
http://egooutpeters.blogspot.com
Re: [Vo]:LENR energy dispute, straight answer to Jed Rothwell
Giovanni, Let's repeat: a) the test does not depend on what the Customer makes with the nergy makes useful things as chemicals or throws it away- via a sytem of more heat exchangers- steam water is in a closed circuit I told clearly consumed= extracted and removed. At such a high value experiment you can waste the energy. Why store it? You will see it soon. You have accused your comptriots of scamming, OK, but why of stupidity? Are they so suicidal to enter in this Trial if they cannot tell what has happened with the energy? Do you believe they take such risks? How do you explain the very late reaction of IH? Couldn't they observe zero excess heat in few days after the strat of the test? Do you like Jed's tales about the flowmeter and pipes half full? And do you really believe it is important what kind of doctorate has Penon? The problem is not so much what Rossi said it is what IH did not say in time. What motivates you? Best wishes, Peter On Sun, Aug 14, 2016 at 10:06 PM, Giovanni Santostasi wrote: > Peter, > I read it and it doesn't make a lot of sense. Please explain how energy > can be "consumed". Energy is always transformed in a form to another. This > is elementary physics. > Unless they used some crazy unknown process to store energy the energy > would be radiated soon or later. > Did the "customer" found a way to create matter from energy at chemical > reaction energy levels? That would be a very efficient energy storing > mechanism and very fascinating indeed and in violation of several physical > laws. > > Giovanni > > > > > > > On Sun, Aug 14, 2016 at 2:59 PM, Giovanni Santostasi < > gsantost...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> Also Peter can you explain the difference between use and consumed? What >> that means? >> Unless there was a black hole inside the building of the "customer" >> doesn't matter what you do with the energy eventually the energy needs to >> be somehow radiated or removed from the building to the outside environment >> in a way or another. It cannot be "consumed". >> It can maybe stored if this is what you mean but what kind of process can >> store all that energy in this efficient manner? If the "customer" invented >> such a storing process it would be even more valuable than a working ecat. >> >> >> >> >> >> On Sun, Aug 14, 2016 at 2:50 PM, Giovanni Santostasi < >> gsantost...@gmail.com> wrote: >> >>> Peter, >>> It is not a straight answer at all. >>> Where is Rossi evidence that there was a real chemical plant having any >>> use of the energy at all? >>> Yours are just incredible speculations. >>> >>> Giovanni >>> >>> >>> >>> On Sun, Aug 14, 2016 at 2:37 PM, Peter Gluck >>> wrote: >>> when things go too far, they must be stopped, situation calmed down http://egooutpeters.blogspot.ro/2016/08/aug-14-2016-lenr.html -- Dr. Peter Gluck Cluj, Romania http://egooutpeters.blogspot.com >>> >>> >> > -- Dr. Peter Gluck Cluj, Romania http://egooutpeters.blogspot.com
Re: [Vo]:LENR energy dispute, straight answer to Jed Rothwell
Also Peter,
I resent that you attack Jed and dismiss him as a defender of IH. You call
him in a satirical way IHoptimist.
I don't think at all that people like Jed and others like me that despise
the way Rossi behaves as shrills of IH. IH is not a saint but it is clear
who is the worst scammer here. And there is nothing to be optimistic about
this. It is incredibly sad and depressing. But one has to accept reality
even when it is depressing. Rossi is an enemy of LENR not a friend.
I have a PhD in physics and I'm aware both of the promises but also the
possible pitfalls of this field. I was in my first year of college Physics
studies (in Bologna) when the discovery of Pons and Fleischman was
announced. I remember exactly the moment and place when it was announced in
radio and television. There was so much enthusiasm and excitement both at
the public level and among professors and students. I remember having long
discussions with a professor that thought he understood how it all worked.
And I remember even more clearly the disappointment and broken heart for
what followed within a year.
I stared to follow Rossi and ecats news several years ago because I thought
it was an amazing story of redemption both for LENR and himself as a
person.
I wished the best and for the field and Rossi because if LENR proves true
it would indeed the world for the better.
But then more I understood what was beyond Rossi's claims and actions more
I realized that he has absolutely nothing and it is obvious he is pulling
another fraud.
"Il lupo perde il pelo ma non il vizio" is a famous Italian saying ("The
wolf can lose his fur but never his vice"), meaning "old habits die hard".
Giovanni
On Sun, Aug 14, 2016 at 3:10 PM, Giovanni Santostasi
wrote:
> A part of the energy. And that needs to be demonstrated by Rossi. It is
> not trivial. And Rossi didn't say that is the case, he said it was used in
> chemical reactions. That makes no sense.
>
> Giovanni
>
> On Sun, Aug 14, 2016 at 3:07 PM, Peter Gluck
> wrote:
>
>> But I have explained about the heat exchangers. Energy consumed and sent
>> underground. Do you exclude this simple possibility for apart of energy?
>> peter
>>
>> On Sun, Aug 14, 2016 at 9:59 PM, Giovanni Santostasi <
>> gsantost...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> Also Peter can you explain the difference between use and consumed? What
>>> that means?
>>> Unless there was a black hole inside the building of the "customer"
>>> doesn't matter what you do with the energy eventually the energy needs to
>>> be somehow radiated or removed from the building to the outside environment
>>> in a way or another. It cannot be "consumed".
>>> It can maybe stored if this is what you mean but what kind of process
>>> can store all that energy in this efficient manner? If the "customer"
>>> invented such a storing process it would be even more valuable than a
>>> working ecat.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On Sun, Aug 14, 2016 at 2:50 PM, Giovanni Santostasi <
>>> gsantost...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
Peter,
It is not a straight answer at all.
Where is Rossi evidence that there was a real chemical plant having any
use of the energy at all?
Yours are just incredible speculations.
Giovanni
On Sun, Aug 14, 2016 at 2:37 PM, Peter Gluck
wrote:
> when things go too far, they must be stopped, situation calmed down
>
> http://egooutpeters.blogspot.ro/2016/08/aug-14-2016-lenr.html
> --
> Dr. Peter Gluck
> Cluj, Romania
> http://egooutpeters.blogspot.com
>
>>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> Dr. Peter Gluck
>> Cluj, Romania
>> http://egooutpeters.blogspot.com
>>
>
>
Re: [Vo]:LENR energy dispute, straight answer to Jed Rothwell
A part of the energy. And that needs to be demonstrated by Rossi. It is not trivial. And Rossi didn't say that is the case, he said it was used in chemical reactions. That makes no sense. Giovanni On Sun, Aug 14, 2016 at 3:07 PM, Peter Gluck wrote: > But I have explained about the heat exchangers. Energy consumed and sent > underground. Do you exclude this simple possibility for apart of energy? > peter > > On Sun, Aug 14, 2016 at 9:59 PM, Giovanni Santostasi < > gsantost...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> Also Peter can you explain the difference between use and consumed? What >> that means? >> Unless there was a black hole inside the building of the "customer" >> doesn't matter what you do with the energy eventually the energy needs to >> be somehow radiated or removed from the building to the outside environment >> in a way or another. It cannot be "consumed". >> It can maybe stored if this is what you mean but what kind of process can >> store all that energy in this efficient manner? If the "customer" invented >> such a storing process it would be even more valuable than a working ecat. >> >> >> >> >> >> On Sun, Aug 14, 2016 at 2:50 PM, Giovanni Santostasi < >> gsantost...@gmail.com> wrote: >> >>> Peter, >>> It is not a straight answer at all. >>> Where is Rossi evidence that there was a real chemical plant having any >>> use of the energy at all? >>> Yours are just incredible speculations. >>> >>> Giovanni >>> >>> >>> >>> On Sun, Aug 14, 2016 at 2:37 PM, Peter Gluck >>> wrote: >>> when things go too far, they must be stopped, situation calmed down http://egooutpeters.blogspot.ro/2016/08/aug-14-2016-lenr.html -- Dr. Peter Gluck Cluj, Romania http://egooutpeters.blogspot.com >>> >>> >> > > > -- > Dr. Peter Gluck > Cluj, Romania > http://egooutpeters.blogspot.com >
Re: [Vo]:LENR energy dispute, straight answer to Jed Rothwell
Peter, I read it and it doesn't make a lot of sense. Please explain how energy can be "consumed". Energy is always transformed in a form to another. This is elementary physics. Unless they used some crazy unknown process to store energy the energy would be radiated soon or later. Did the "customer" found a way to create matter from energy at chemical reaction energy levels? That would be a very efficient energy storing mechanism and very fascinating indeed and in violation of several physical laws. Giovanni On Sun, Aug 14, 2016 at 2:59 PM, Giovanni Santostasi wrote: > Also Peter can you explain the difference between use and consumed? What > that means? > Unless there was a black hole inside the building of the "customer" > doesn't matter what you do with the energy eventually the energy needs to > be somehow radiated or removed from the building to the outside environment > in a way or another. It cannot be "consumed". > It can maybe stored if this is what you mean but what kind of process can > store all that energy in this efficient manner? If the "customer" invented > such a storing process it would be even more valuable than a working ecat. > > > > > > On Sun, Aug 14, 2016 at 2:50 PM, Giovanni Santostasi < > gsantost...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> Peter, >> It is not a straight answer at all. >> Where is Rossi evidence that there was a real chemical plant having any >> use of the energy at all? >> Yours are just incredible speculations. >> >> Giovanni >> >> >> >> On Sun, Aug 14, 2016 at 2:37 PM, Peter Gluck >> wrote: >> >>> when things go too far, they must be stopped, situation calmed down >>> >>> http://egooutpeters.blogspot.ro/2016/08/aug-14-2016-lenr.html >>> -- >>> Dr. Peter Gluck >>> Cluj, Romania >>> http://egooutpeters.blogspot.com >>> >> >> >
Re: [Vo]:LENR energy dispute, straight answer to Jed Rothwell
By the way even black holes eventually radiate their energy though Hawkins radiation. On Sun, Aug 14, 2016 at 3:06 PM, Giovanni Santostasi wrote: > Peter, > I read it and it doesn't make a lot of sense. Please explain how energy > can be "consumed". Energy is always transformed in a form to another. This > is elementary physics. > Unless they used some crazy unknown process to store energy the energy > would be radiated soon or later. > Did the "customer" found a way to create matter from energy at chemical > reaction energy levels? That would be a very efficient energy storing > mechanism and very fascinating indeed and in violation of several physical > laws. > > Giovanni > > > > > > > On Sun, Aug 14, 2016 at 2:59 PM, Giovanni Santostasi < > gsantost...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> Also Peter can you explain the difference between use and consumed? What >> that means? >> Unless there was a black hole inside the building of the "customer" >> doesn't matter what you do with the energy eventually the energy needs to >> be somehow radiated or removed from the building to the outside environment >> in a way or another. It cannot be "consumed". >> It can maybe stored if this is what you mean but what kind of process can >> store all that energy in this efficient manner? If the "customer" invented >> such a storing process it would be even more valuable than a working ecat. >> >> >> >> >> >> On Sun, Aug 14, 2016 at 2:50 PM, Giovanni Santostasi < >> gsantost...@gmail.com> wrote: >> >>> Peter, >>> It is not a straight answer at all. >>> Where is Rossi evidence that there was a real chemical plant having any >>> use of the energy at all? >>> Yours are just incredible speculations. >>> >>> Giovanni >>> >>> >>> >>> On Sun, Aug 14, 2016 at 2:37 PM, Peter Gluck >>> wrote: >>> when things go too far, they must be stopped, situation calmed down http://egooutpeters.blogspot.ro/2016/08/aug-14-2016-lenr.html -- Dr. Peter Gluck Cluj, Romania http://egooutpeters.blogspot.com >>> >>> >> >
Re: [Vo]:LENR energy dispute, straight answer to Jed Rothwell
But I have explained about the heat exchangers. Energy consumed and sent underground. Do you exclude this simple possibility for apart of energy? peter On Sun, Aug 14, 2016 at 9:59 PM, Giovanni Santostasi wrote: > Also Peter can you explain the difference between use and consumed? What > that means? > Unless there was a black hole inside the building of the "customer" > doesn't matter what you do with the energy eventually the energy needs to > be somehow radiated or removed from the building to the outside environment > in a way or another. It cannot be "consumed". > It can maybe stored if this is what you mean but what kind of process can > store all that energy in this efficient manner? If the "customer" invented > such a storing process it would be even more valuable than a working ecat. > > > > > > On Sun, Aug 14, 2016 at 2:50 PM, Giovanni Santostasi < > gsantost...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> Peter, >> It is not a straight answer at all. >> Where is Rossi evidence that there was a real chemical plant having any >> use of the energy at all? >> Yours are just incredible speculations. >> >> Giovanni >> >> >> >> On Sun, Aug 14, 2016 at 2:37 PM, Peter Gluck >> wrote: >> >>> when things go too far, they must be stopped, situation calmed down >>> >>> http://egooutpeters.blogspot.ro/2016/08/aug-14-2016-lenr.html >>> -- >>> Dr. Peter Gluck >>> Cluj, Romania >>> http://egooutpeters.blogspot.com >>> >> >> > -- Dr. Peter Gluck Cluj, Romania http://egooutpeters.blogspot.com
Re: [Vo]:LENR energy dispute, straight answer to Jed Rothwell
Also Peter can you explain the difference between use and consumed? What that means? Unless there was a black hole inside the building of the "customer" doesn't matter what you do with the energy eventually the energy needs to be somehow radiated or removed from the building to the outside environment in a way or another. It cannot be "consumed". It can maybe stored if this is what you mean but what kind of process can store all that energy in this efficient manner? If the "customer" invented such a storing process it would be even more valuable than a working ecat. On Sun, Aug 14, 2016 at 2:50 PM, Giovanni Santostasi wrote: > Peter, > It is not a straight answer at all. > Where is Rossi evidence that there was a real chemical plant having any > use of the energy at all? > Yours are just incredible speculations. > > Giovanni > > > > On Sun, Aug 14, 2016 at 2:37 PM, Peter Gluck > wrote: > >> when things go too far, they must be stopped, situation calmed down >> >> http://egooutpeters.blogspot.ro/2016/08/aug-14-2016-lenr.html >> -- >> Dr. Peter Gluck >> Cluj, Romania >> http://egooutpeters.blogspot.com >> > >
Re: [Vo]:LENR energy dispute, straight answer to Jed Rothwell
Caro Giovanni you had not understood well, it is assoluttamente irrelevant what happens with the energy what counts is the energy balance. The Customer can waste, dump the energy this does not change a iota from the test. Prego read with more attention what I have written, 'Grazie, peter On Sun, Aug 14, 2016 at 9:50 PM, Giovanni Santostasi wrote: > Peter, > It is not a straight answer at all. > Where is Rossi evidence that there was a real chemical plant having any > use of the energy at all? > Yours are just incredible speculations. > > Giovanni > > > > On Sun, Aug 14, 2016 at 2:37 PM, Peter Gluck > wrote: > >> when things go too far, they must be stopped, situation calmed down >> >> http://egooutpeters.blogspot.ro/2016/08/aug-14-2016-lenr.html >> -- >> Dr. Peter Gluck >> Cluj, Romania >> http://egooutpeters.blogspot.com >> > > -- Dr. Peter Gluck Cluj, Romania http://egooutpeters.blogspot.com
Re: [Vo]:LENR energy dispute, straight answer to Jed Rothwell
Peter, It is not a straight answer at all. Where is Rossi evidence that there was a real chemical plant having any use of the energy at all? Yours are just incredible speculations. Giovanni On Sun, Aug 14, 2016 at 2:37 PM, Peter Gluck wrote: > when things go too far, they must be stopped, situation calmed down > > http://egooutpeters.blogspot.ro/2016/08/aug-14-2016-lenr.html > -- > Dr. Peter Gluck > Cluj, Romania > http://egooutpeters.blogspot.com >
[Vo]:LENR energy dispute, straight answer to Jed Rothwell
when things go too far, they must be stopped, situation calmed down http://egooutpeters.blogspot.ro/2016/08/aug-14-2016-lenr.html -- Dr. Peter Gluck Cluj, Romania http://egooutpeters.blogspot.com
