Castro? Castro!
Just as I suspected. Rossi is part of a commie plot to undermine our
way of life.
Harry
On Fri, Oct 7, 2011 at 9:20 AM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com wrote:
Craig Haynie wrote:
I would like to point out that if it were a battery, then it would have
been hidden and
TV: New test of the E-cat enhances proof of heat
http://www.nyteknik.se/nyheter/energi_miljo/energi/article3284823.ece
Test of Energy Catalyzer
Bologna October 6, 2011
http://www.nyteknik.se/incoming/article3284962.ece/BINARY/Test+of+E-cat+October+6+%28pdf%29
Some preliminary notes about the test.
The weight of E-Cat before test: 98kg and after the test 99 kg. I
think that this may be explained with inaccuracy of the scale and
remaining water residuals. Therefore no chemical combustion inside
E-Cat!
Of course metal-oxide production is still possible,
On 2011-10-07 13:37, Jouni Valkonen wrote:
Test of Energy Catalyzer
Bologna October 6, 2011
http://www.nyteknik.se/incoming/article3284962.ece/BINARY/Test+of+E-cat+October+6+%28pdf%29
This must be the secret sauce:
15:53 Power to the resistance was set to zero. A device “producing
Maybe the secret source was charging a battery for around 4 hours with an
energy above 2KW coupled with some other kind of auxiliary battery...
2011/10/7 Akira Shirakawa shirakawa.ak...@gmail.com
On 2011-10-07 13:37, Jouni Valkonen wrote:
Test of Energy Catalyzer
Bologna October 6, 2011
Maybe the secret source was charging a battery for around 4
hours with an energy above 2KW coupled with some other kind of
auxiliary battery...
This test was almost as ludicrous as the Steorn waterways test.
There, they kept things running by periodically swapping out the
devices, presumably
This must be the secret sauce:
15:53 Power to the resistance was set to zero. A device “producing
frequencies” was switched on. Overall current 432 mA. Voltage 230 V.
Current through resistance was zero, voltage also zero. From this moment
the E-cat ran in self sustained mode
On Fri, 2011-10-07 at 08:59 -0400, vorl bek wrote:
Maybe the secret source was charging a battery for around 4
hours with an energy above 2KW coupled with some other kind of
auxiliary battery...
This test was almost as ludicrous as the Steorn waterways test.
There, they kept things
But that was what happened...
2011/10/7 Craig Haynie cchayniepub...@gmail.com
On Fri, 2011-10-07 at 08:59 -0400, vorl bek wrote:
Maybe the secret source was charging a battery for around 4
hours with an energy above 2KW coupled with some other kind of
auxiliary battery...
This test
Craig Haynie wrote:
I would like to point out that if it were a battery, then it would have
been hidden and pre-charged before anyone came into the room. There
would be no need to charge it up in front of everyone then.
If there was a battery than when they opened the device they would have
I would like to point out that if it were a battery, then it
would have been hidden and pre-charged before anyone came into
the room. There would be no need to charge it up in front of
everyone then.
I guess I should have referred to it as a 'battery'. That cylinder
of nickel powder could
I wrote:
Someone else suggested that there might be a Castro gas hidden in the
table leg.
A canister of gas, for crying out loud.
There is no gas, no wires and no batteries. Get that through your heads.
That is nonsense.
- Jed
I made some initial calculations for the COP. They are just rough estimations.
Electricity provided to the E-Cat was approximately 30 MJ (average
input power when electricity was on, was 2 kW). It was little tricky
to calculate, because input power was variable. Here we can see that
most of the
My Two Cents:
Whiskey. Tango. Foxtrot.
Most of the previous experimental problems were solved in this setup. We
could've seen measurable, stable, power gains completely unaffected by
phase-change or water overflow. We should have been presented with an
operating E-Cat producing 6 or more
Now that Jed has told me my utility pension is at risk and I have vested
interests. I will have to agree there is probably something wrong with the
tests. Perhaps a laser was heating it from the ceiling?
Frank Z
Von: Jouni Valkonen jounivalko...@gmail.com
However, as E-Cat was producing ca. 5-8 kW power (60% efficiency for
heat exchanger is assumed)
If the heat exchanger has only 60% efficieny, then the energy loss is 5kW * 0.4
= 2kW.
Where does the enrgy go? Energy cannot vanish magically, it
Frank sez:
Now that Jed has told me my utility pension is at risk and I have
vested interests. I will have to agree there is probably something
wrong with the tests. Perhaps a laser was heating it from the
ceiling?
...will have to agree
I can't tell if Frank is being serious or not.
peter.heck...@arcor.de wrote:
If the heat exchanger has only 60% efficieny, then the energy loss is 5kW * 0.4
= 2kW.
Where does the enrgy go? Energy cannot vanish magically, it must go into the
ambient.
Correct. It radiates into the surroundings, from the reactor and the
heat exchanger.
On Fri, 2011-10-07 at 09:01 -0500, Robert Leguillon wrote:
My Two Cents:
Whiskey. Tango. Foxtrot.
Most of the previous experimental problems were solved in this setup.
We could've seen measurable, stable, power gains completely unaffected
by phase-change or water overflow. We should
The lastest version of Steorn's 'orbo' technology also produces steam
and uses nickel.
I think Rossi and Steorn are both exploiting the same underlying
phenomena, or they are both mistaken or ...
Harry
On Fri, Oct 7, 2011 at 8:59 AM, vorl bek vorl@antichef.com wrote:
Maybe the secret source
producing its own
heat for the first 4 hours, and now it only operates when you REMOVE power from
the heaters?
These questions would never have to be asked if we were only evaluating 8 hours
of operating gains, and that's point in its entirety.
Subject: RE: [Vo]:NyTeknik report
Message -
From: Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Sent: Friday, October 07, 2011 10:59 AM
Subject: Re: [Vo]:NyTeknik report on October 6th test
peter.heck...@arcor.de wrote:
If the heat exchanger has only 60% efficieny, then the energy loss is 5kW
* 0.4 = 2kW.
Where
. Therefore reasonable figure is 5 kW
typically and in peak after power was cut it was more close to 6-8 kW.
–Jouni
These questions would never have to be asked if we were only evaluating 8
hours of operating gains, and that's point in its entirety.
Subject: RE: [Vo]:NyTeknik report
2011/10/7 Joe Catania zrosumg...@aol.com:
Lewan's report states that hydrogen pressure was lowered during shut-down.
This is the angle they should have exploited. With constant heating and
water flow conditions they should vary the hydrogen pressure and record the
results. They should also try
Am 07.10.2011 16:59, schrieb Jed Rothwell:
peter.heck...@arcor.de wrote:
If the heat exchanger has only 60% efficieny, then the energy loss is
5kW * 0.4 = 2kW.
Where does the enrgy go? Energy cannot vanish magically, it must go
into the ambient.
I think even if the heat exchanger at this size
Inaccurate calorimetry?
Thermocouples INSIDE the box, provided by Ross?
Do I understand that the thermocouples were attached to the OUTSIDE
of the heat exchanger in well-established positions -- and not IN
the water flow?
Where they could be affected by the ambient heat from the eCat ?
And not
BTW, if the heat exchanger is inside the housing of the e-cat, then its
energy loss is zero, if we compare the steam measurement in the
september test to the water measurement in october.
The output temperature will of course be lower, but the thermal mass
flow in the secondary circuit must
On Oct 7, 2011, at 3:37 AM, Jouni Valkonen wrote:
TV: New test of the E-cat enhances proof of heat
http://www.nyteknik.se/nyheter/energi_miljo/energi/article3284823.ece
Test of Energy Catalyzer
Bologna October 6, 2011
http://www.nyteknik.se/incoming/article3284962.ece/BINARY/Test+of+E-
Fake paper updated : http://lenr.qumbu.com/rossi_ecat_proof_frames_v401.php
I used Lewan's size of the box as t 50 x 60 x 35 centimeters = 105 liters
From his (only) photo I estimated that about 60 litres is still hidden.
Power : 3.125 kW
Time : 4 hours
Based on this, even Lithium-ion
On 11-10-07 09:30 AM, Jed Rothwell wrote:
I wrote:
Someone else suggested that there might be a Castro gas hidden in the
table leg.
A canister of gas, for crying out loud.
A... Thanks for the correction.
I was thinking this must be yet another odd thingy which I'd never heard
of
be able to
subtract out the helium data to account for thermal inertia and warm up and
cool down w/ the heater.--- Original Message -
From: Jouni Valkonen jounivalko...@gmail.com
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Sent: Friday, October 07, 2011 12:14 PM
Subject: Re: [Vo]:NyTeknik report on October 6th test
Peter Heckert wrote:
BTW, if the heat exchanger is inside the housing of the e-cat, then
its energy loss is zero,
That can't be. That would violate CoE. All heat exchangers lose heat. If
the heat exchanger is inside the housing, that means the housing is
hotter and radiates more heat than
At 11:23 AM 10/7/2011, Jed Rothwell wrote:
Peter Heckert wrote:
BTW, if the heat exchanger is inside the housing of the e-cat, then
its energy loss is zero,
That can't be. That would violate CoE. All heat exchangers lose
heat. If the heat exchanger is inside the housing, that means the
Golly... I finally looked, very briefly, at the Nyteknik report. (I've
been, and am, tied up with other stuff these days.)
For some reason I had assumed it was friendly to Rossi.
The report is eight pages long, and uses the word supposedly seven
times. I'm not used to seeing that word used
Alan J Fletcher wrote:
The radio24 pics show the heat exchanger outside. The corrugated
section inside the eCat is part of its internal core-to-steam heat
exchanger.
I don't get it. Please explain. Are there two heat exchangers?
One to condense the steam maybe?? I thought that's what the
Am 07.10.2011 20:23, schrieb Jed Rothwell:
Peter Heckert wrote:
BTW, if the heat exchanger is inside the housing of the e-cat, then
its energy loss is zero,
That can't be. That would violate CoE. All heat exchangers lose heat.
If the heat exchanger is inside the housing, that means the
At 11:44 AM 10/7/2011, Jed Rothwell wrote:
Alan J Fletcher wrote:
The radio24 pics show the heat exchanger outside. The corrugated
section inside the eCat is part of its internal core-to-steam heat exchanger.
I don't get it. Please explain. Are there two heat exchangers?
One to condense the
Eric Hustedt made new graph that shows power output without
considering the efficiency of heat exchanger, what is probably 60-80%
http://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=10150844451570375set=o.135474503149001type=1theater
Jouni Valkonen wrote:
Eric Hustedt made new graph that shows power output without
considering the efficiency of heat exchanger, what is probably 60-80%
http://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=10150844451570375set=o.135474503149001type=1theater
Am 07.10.2011 13:37, schrieb Jouni Valkonen:
TV: New test of the E-cat enhances proof of heat
http://www.nyteknik.se/nyheter/energi_miljo/energi/article3284823.ece
Test of Energy Catalyzer
Bologna October 6, 2011
40 matches
Mail list logo
