No, it isn't. He's talking about energy (Kwh) flow (/h)
It's amazing that nobody reads the report.
He wrote ENERGY PRODUCED. That's not energy flow, is energy produced.
ANd it's not a typo, because he wrote it many many times.
2011/10/8 Mauro Lacy ma...@lacy.com.ar
On 10/07/2011 10:31 AM,
Hi,
On 8-10-2011 17:44, Mattia Rizzi wrote:
No, it isn't. He's talking about energy (Kwh) flow (/h)
It's amazing that nobody reads the report.
He wrote ENERGY PRODUCED. That's not energy flow, is energy produced.
ANd it's not a typo, because he wrote it many many times.
2011/10/8 Mauro Lacy
I think the reason for easy confusion is that kWh is not a term that the lay
person normally deals with.
1 KWh, or 1 kilowatt-hour, does not indicate 1 kilowatt per hour, but
represents 1 kilowatt over a span of 1 hour.
Hence, 500 watts for two hours = 1 kWh.
The layperson inherently links kWh
to kW) and wrote “energy produced”. That’s very
wrong.
From: Jed Rothwell
Sent: Friday, October 07, 2011 3:32 AM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Re: July 7th E-Cat test report
Mattia Rizzi mattia.ri...@gmail.com wrote:
Jed, i have a scientific degree. I know what are the unit
Mattia Rizzi wrote:
You didn’t get the point. What is wrong is that they means kilowatt
but they talk about energy.
Stremmeson used kwh/h (equals to kW) and wrote “energy produced”.
That’s very wrong.
Ah, I see your point. Let us assume this was a mistake. Everyone makes
mistakes.
- Jed
Even a emeritus professor in physics who's mission is supposed to teach
others ?
Jed, you're or too indulgent or too naive.
This is not a single error. They keep doing the same mistake over and over.
A poor student will fail any test with this little mistake.
2011/10/7 Jed Rothwell
: Jed Rothwell
Sent: Friday, October 07, 2011 3:13 PM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Re: July 7th E-Cat test report
Mattia Rizzi wrote:
You didn’t get the point. What is wrong is that they means kilowatt but they
talk about energy.
Stremmeson used kwh/h (equals to kW) and wrote
On 10/07/2011 10:31 AM, Mattia Rizzi wrote:
Stremmeson was a physics/chemistry professor from university of bologna.
He made several error inside this report. That’s not a typo, is a conceptual
error, a big one.
No, it isn't. He's talking about energy (Kwh) flow (/h).
The test was done in July, not June.
And we have a university professor that measure Energy with Kwh/h intead of
kWh.
And that can't do a correct integral (the formula of integral are wrong).
That's italy :(
-Messaggio originale-
From: Akira Shirakawa
Sent: Thursday, October 06, 2011
That part was written by a Greek not an Italian, LOL. But that is probably a
typo given that it is unusual to write power as kwh/h and that the original
text was in greek.
2011/10/6 Mattia Rizzi mattia.ri...@gmail.com
The test was done in July, not June.
And we have a university professor that
, 2011 5:32 PM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Re: July 7th E-Cat test report
That part was written by a Greek not an Italian, LOL. But that is probably a
typo given that it is unusual to write power as kwh/h and that the original
text was in greek.
2011/10/6 Mattia Rizzi mattia.ri
Ah, Stremmenson was an professor from University of Bologna, Italy.
From: Daniel Rocha
Sent: Thursday, October 06, 2011 5:32 PM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Re: July 7th E-Cat test report
That part was written by a Greek not an Italian, LOL. But that is probably a
typo given
At 08:10 AM 10/6/2011, Mattia Rizzi wrote:
And we have a university professor that measure Energy with Kwh/h
intead of kWh.
per http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kilowatt_hour, that's most likely
kWh/Heat -- but doesn't explain the Kw instead of kW
*Subject:* Re: [Vo]:Re: July 7th E-Cat test report
That part was written by a Greek not an Italian, LOL. But that is probably
a typo given that it is unusual to write power as kwh/h and that the
original text was in greek.
2011/10/6 Mattia Rizzi mattia.ri...@gmail.com
The test was done in July
of POWER.
The report is totally wrong about this.
-Messaggio originale-
From: Alan J Fletcher
Sent: Thursday, October 06, 2011 6:53 PM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Re: July 7th E-Cat test report
At 08:10 AM 10/6/2011, Mattia Rizzi wrote:
And we have a university
OF MEASURE.
By semplification kWh/h equal to kW, which is a measure of POWER.
The report is totally wrong about this.
-Messaggio originale-
From: Alan J Fletcher
Sent: Thursday, October 06, 2011 6:53 PM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Re: July 7th E-Cat test report
At 08:10 AM 10/6/2011
Mattia Rizzi wrote:
Here in ITALY, WE USE kWh for ENERGY and kW for POWER.
Not all of you. I know several Italians who use kWh/h, as I mentioned.
Not just Rossi.
kWh/h IS NOT AN INTERNATIONAL STANDARD (IS) UNIT OF MEASURE.
By semplification kWh/h equal to kW, which is a measure of POWER.
In reply to Mattia Rizzi's message of Thu, 6 Oct 2011 19:31:58 +0200:
Hi,
[snip]
The precise calculation of the output ***thermal energy in Kwh per hour***,
which the reactor produces through the exothermal nuclear reaction of
NICKEL-HYDROGEN.
Look at image:
In reply to Mattia Rizzi's message of Thu, 6 Oct 2011 19:31:58 +0200:
Hi,
[snip]
PS -
Try reading it like this:
9,412 Kwh/h *** ENERGY produced in a hour *** during the
or if it makes it clearer,
9,412 Kwh/h *** ENERGY produced per hour *** during the
(Energy per unit time = power).
phase
:35 PM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Re: July 7th E-Cat test report
Mattia Rizzi wrote:
Here in ITALY, WE USE kWh for ENERGY and kW for POWER.
Not all of you. I know several Italians who use kWh/h, as I mentioned.
Not just Rossi.
kWh/h IS NOT AN INTERNATIONAL STANDARD
-l@eskimo.com
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Re: July 7th E-Cat test report
In reply to Mattia Rizzi's message of Thu, 6 Oct 2011 19:31:58 +0200:
Hi,
[snip]
The precise calculation of the output ***thermal energy in Kwh per
hour***,
which the reactor produces through the exothermal nuclear reaction of
NICKEL
Hi,
On 7-10-2011 0:30, Mattia Rizzi wrote:
Stremmenson wrote:
As a consequence, the total production of thermal energy of this
particular reactor was: 9,412 Kwh/h + 1,22 Kwh/h = 10,6 Kwh/h
He used kWh/h as an ENERGY.
Hmmm, I think what he meant to say was that he was referring to the
was: 9,412 Kw + 1,22 Kw = 10,6 Kw
It's simply wrong.
-Messaggio originale-
From: Man on Bridges
Sent: Friday, October 07, 2011 12:38 AM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Re: July 7th E-Cat test report
Hi,
On 7-10-2011 0:30, Mattia Rizzi wrote:
Stremmenson wrote:
As a consequence
Hi,
On 7-10-2011 0:46, Mattia Rizzi wrote:
Man on Bridges, kWh/h if you leave the two h means kW, POWER.
As a consequence, the total production of thermal energy of this
particular reactor was: 9,412 Kwh/h + 1,22 Kwh/h = 10,6 Kwh/h
equals to
As a consequence, the total production of *thermal
It is good to understand, that power is the energy production rate or energy
per time unit. If you set timeunit to one, then power and energy are the
same thing.
This is also called as common sense. . . And perhaps Mattia should also need
a degree on common sense. . .
—Jouni
On Oct 7, 2011
Mattia Rizzi mattia.ri...@gmail.com wrote:
Jed, i have a scientific degree. I know what are the unit of measuremnts.
kWh/h, by semplification, is kW, is a unit of POWER.
Using kWh/h for ENERGY is totally wrong. Totally.
Open a physic book and study it.
Yes, I am aware of this. I learned it
26 matches
Mail list logo
