Re: [Vo]:pictures of 1mw E-cat plant shipping

[Alan Fletcher]

Interview with Andrea Rossi About 1 MW E-Cat Plant Delivery
http://pesn.com/2013/05/07/9602310_Interview_with_Andrea_Rossi_About_1-MW-E-Cat-Plant_Delivery/

Re: [Vo]:pictures of 1mw E-cat plant shipping

[Alan Fletcher]

Rossi interview (Stirling Allen and Frank Acland)

Main news : A

Early in the interview, Rossi explained that the 1 MW plant that I saw 
demonstrated on October 28, 2011 was not delivered to the confidential military 
customer. There were many glitches that needed to be worked through first: 
"hydraulics, distribution, common rail distribution, choice of coolant; didn't 
have well-balanced distribution of 100+ of reactors." In contrast, he said: 
"The plant as of now is very mature."

A separate unit was built for the military customer then shipped, and Rossi 
said that it has now logged "many thousands of hours" of run time. He said the 
data from this plant easily corroborates the guaranteed coefficient of 
performance of 6 (six times more energy out than what is put in to make it run).

Main news B : (US customer)

We had thought that this customer was going to be publicly announced, and that 
the unveiling of this unit would be public. However, at this time, it turns out 
that the customer wishes to remain confidential. "This is not a theatre."

Re: [Vo]:pictures of 1mw E-cat plant shipping

[Axil Axil]

You criticize others for being disconnected from reality, from experimental
data, having preconceptions, and using imagination to invent thinks
disengaged from reality.
This conversation is a good example of the "The pot calling the kettle
black".

Look at the experimental data describing the assay of the NAE before and
after a run of the DGT reactor.

http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&frm=1&source=web&cd=1&cad=rja&ved=0CCQQFjAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fnewenergytimes.com%2Fv2%2Fconferences%2F2012%2FICCF17%2FICCF-17-Hadjichristos-Technical-Characteristics-Paper.pdf&ei=wYdRUO6bKqH20gGC64H4BQ&usg=AFQjCNGT9S6MSfTNDMcAs1KjI6lnTbzMNA&sig2=J0nTrYnPz0dbSOKYgP5VPg

 TECHNICAL CHARACTERISTICS & PERFORMANCE OF THE DEFKALION’S HYPERION
PRE-INDUSTRIAL PRODUCT


>From the before and after data, you will see that the amount of nickel more
than doubled after the test run compared to what was there before the test
run. In addition, all kinds of new metal ash were produced.

And of major interest, no copper was formed.

Consistent with Ed Storms crack theory, the NAE is a geometric entity and
has little to do with the material that makes it up.

 From a topological viewpoint, the NAE constantly renews itself from one
nanosecond to the next like falling snow covering a rutted muddy road at
least in the Ni/H type reactors.




On Sat, May 4, 2013 at 12:43 PM, Jed Rothwell  wrote:

> Edmund Storms  wrote:
>
> While all of the proposed mechanism are applied to Pd, this does not mean
>> Pd is the only material that supports the NAE. People have used Ti, Ni,
>> various alloys, and various oxides with success.
>
>
> The ENEA and others still research mainly Pd, or exclusively Pd. I wish
> more people could get Ni to work, but I do not know many who have.
>
>
>
>> Once the NAE can be made on purpose and in large amount, use of Pd will
>> not be necessary. So, why keep using Pd as the example?
>
>
> I use it as an example because there is a lot of literature on it. No
> other reason. As I said in the book and elsewhere, Ni is more promising
> from a commercial point of view, mainly because it is abundant and cheap.
>
> I described my back-of-the-envelope estimate based on Pd in catalytic
> converters because converters are where half the world's Pd ends up;
>  because it is an interesting comparison; and because I used this to
> estimate how much energy we might produce with the world supply of Pd. My
> conclusion was roughly in line with Martin Fleischmann's. I do not know the
> basis for his estimate. As I recall, we both figured you could produce
> roughly a third of the world energy supply with Pd.
>
> I do not think anyone advocates the use of Pd as a practical source of
> energy. Martin was the first to suggest Ni would be better.
>
>
>
>>  Palladium only has historical interest because F-P chose this material.
>>  It actually is the worst choice, as many people have found.
>
>
> Well, in bulk the power density of Pd is lot higher than Ni. For now it
> is. I don't know about in powder form. If Rossi is correct than of course
> powder Ni is better than anything.
>
> With Ni you would not have to worry about conserving metal. You could use
> as much as you like per watt of generator capacity. So, the catalytic
> converter model is less useful. You would want to minimize the amount of
> metal used in some applications, where the heat engine has to be as small
> and compact as possible. Such as a wrist watch battery, or a spacecraft
> power supply.
>
> - Jed
>
>

RE: [Vo]:pictures of 1mw E-cat plant shipping

[Jones Beene]

Harry - I liked that paper - but aren't you adding up the miracles ? i.e.
the thermal miracle first and with spin current as the second miracle?

 

One conceivable scenario using only the original miracle is this - if the
reaction rate is so strong that hot ions of intermediate energy (tens of
keV) are produced from fusion reactions in the nickel at a remarkably
constant rate, and the powder is spread thinly so than no bulk heating
occurs in it - then these ions can be absorbed in the walls of the reactor
and thermalized as heat. They also give electrical charge.

 

The problem then goes back to the lack of gammas and lack of bremsstrahlung.
There are not many candidate materials for this. However, in prior message,
there is the one candidate in Ni-63. It appears to be the only candidate in
the periodic table for a beta-voltaic reaction according to the Russians.
Apparently they have presented a way, in that paper, to enrich nickel to
about 80% Ni-62, which is Rossi's named active isotope. How he gets it to
Ni-63 could be his single miracle.

 

Does anyone know if AR has a Russian connection? 

 

Is her name Tatiana?

 

 

From: Harry Veeder 

 

The local production of energy does not necessarily have to result in a
local production of heat.

 

For example see this article posted by pagnucco a few days ago.

 

http://physicsworld.com/cws/article/news/2013/apr/22/spin-waves-carry-energy
-from-cold-to-hot

 

 

This could be absurdly false - and could kill any remaining credibility that
Rossi has.  

I will defer to anyone who does this kind heat transfer calculation on a
regular basis but it looks absurd to me now based on the one basic simple
issue - heat transfer limitations.

With only 20 grams of active material, I'm pretty sure that it can be shown
that it is physically impossible to transfer that much heat to the rest of
the reactor before the nickel or any other known metal turns into a gas. 

The boiling point of nickel is 2,900+ .  think about the implications ! what
this all "boils down to" is can 20 grams of nickel transfer that much heat -
roughly 14+ kWhr for several hundred hours?

Forget the energy implications - as a straight-up heat transfer issue, this
looks to be beyond physical reality. Of course - Rossi could say that the
nickel boils inside the reactor at 10,000 degrees, but is that logical?

 

From: Jed Rothwell 

I wrote:

That's the small incandescent gadget in the foreground. Right? Much smaller
than a 1 MW reactor, shown behind it. 

Here is Rossi's description of the incandescent gadget:

http://www.e-catworld.com/2012/10/final-update-corrected-again-pordenone-hot
-cat-report/

 

- Jed

 

 

Re: [Vo]:pictures of 1mw E-cat plant shipping

[Harry Veeder]

The local production of energy does not necessarily have to result in a
local production of heat.

For example see this article posted by pagnucco a few days ago.

http://physicsworld.com/cws/article/news/2013/apr/22/spin-waves-carry-energy-from-cold-to-hot


On Sat, May 4, 2013 at 10:15 AM, Jones Beene  wrote:

>  This could be absurdly false - and could kill any remaining credibility
> that Rossi has. 
>
> ** **
>
> I will defer to anyone who does this kind heat transfer calculation on a
> regular basis but it looks absurd to me now based on the one basic simple
> issue – heat transfer limitations.
>
> ** **
>
> With only 20 grams of active material, I’m pretty sure that it can be
> shown that it is physically impossible to transfer that much heat to the
> rest of the reactor before the nickel or any other known metal turns into a
> gas. 
>
> ** **
>
> The boiling point of nickel is 2,900+ …  think about the implications !
> what this all “boils down to” is can 20 grams of nickel transfer that much
> heat – roughly 14+ kWhr for several hundred hours?
>
> 
>
> Forget the energy implications – as a straight-up heat transfer issue,
> this looks to be beyond physical reality… Of course – Rossi could say that
> the nickel boils inside the reactor at 10,000 degrees, but is that logical?
> 
>
> ** **
>
> *From:* Jed Rothwell 
>
> ** **
>
> I wrote:
>
>  
>
>   That's the small incandescent gadget in the foreground. Right? Much
> smaller than a 1 MW reactor, shown behind it.
>
>  ** **
>
> Here is Rossi's description of the incandescent gadget:
>
> ** **
>
>
> http://www.e-catworld.com/2012/10/final-update-corrected-again-pordenone-hot-cat-report/
> 
>
> ** **
>
> - Jed
>
> ** **
>

Re: [Vo]:pictures of 1mw E-cat plant shipping

[Jed Rothwell]

Edmund Storms  wrote:

While all of the proposed mechanism are applied to Pd, this does not mean
> Pd is the only material that supports the NAE. People have used Ti, Ni,
> various alloys, and various oxides with success.


The ENEA and others still research mainly Pd, or exclusively Pd. I wish
more people could get Ni to work, but I do not know many who have.



> Once the NAE can be made on purpose and in large amount, use of Pd will
> not be necessary. So, why keep using Pd as the example?


I use it as an example because there is a lot of literature on it. No other
reason. As I said in the book and elsewhere, Ni is more promising from a
commercial point of view, mainly because it is abundant and cheap.

I described my back-of-the-envelope estimate based on Pd in catalytic
converters because converters are where half the world's Pd ends up;
 because it is an interesting comparison; and because I used this to
estimate how much energy we might produce with the world supply of Pd. My
conclusion was roughly in line with Martin Fleischmann's. I do not know the
basis for his estimate. As I recall, we both figured you could produce
roughly a third of the world energy supply with Pd.

I do not think anyone advocates the use of Pd as a practical source of
energy. Martin was the first to suggest Ni would be better.



>  Palladium only has historical interest because F-P chose this material.
>  It actually is the worst choice, as many people have found.


Well, in bulk the power density of Pd is lot higher than Ni. For now it is.
I don't know about in powder form. If Rossi is correct than of course
powder Ni is better than anything.

With Ni you would not have to worry about conserving metal. You could use
as much as you like per watt of generator capacity. So, the catalytic
converter model is less useful. You would want to minimize the amount of
metal used in some applications, where the heat engine has to be as small
and compact as possible. Such as a wrist watch battery, or a spacecraft
power supply.

- Jed

Re: [Vo]:pictures of 1mw E-cat plant shipping

[Edmund Storms]

The role of the substrate depends on the mechanism. While all of the  
proposed mechanism are applied to Pd, this does not mean Pd is the  
only material that supports the NAE. People have used Ti, Ni, various  
alloys, and various oxides with success. Once the NAE can be made on  
purpose and in large amount, use of Pd will not be necessary. So, why  
keep using Pd as the example?  Palladium only has historical interest  
because F-P chose this material.  It actually is the worst choice, as  
many people have found. Ni apparently is a better choice, but this  
metal has not been explore enough to give it credibility and is  
surrounded by controversy thanks to Rossi. The idea that Ni only works  
with H and Pd only works with D is not supported by any credible  
understanding of the process and too few studies have been done to  
determine if the idea is correct or not. We need to keep an open mind  
and not focus only on Pd.


Ed Storms


On May 4, 2013, at 10:02 AM, Jed Rothwell wrote:


I wrote:

An automobile catalytic converter has very little Pd in it. The  
metal is exposed to a terrific flow of hot gas. Yet the Pd does not  
sublime or vaporize.


Plus, most of the hot gas must come in contact with the Pd  
particles, because it is all catalyzed (cleaned up). I assume if  
there was a lot unprocessed nitric oxide left over they would add  
more Pd.


A lot of the Pd does, gradually, erode. Or sublime, I guess you  
would call it.


Because Pd is expensive, I assume that the Pd is spread as thinly as  
possible, with the least amount of metal you can use to achieve  
complete catalysis. I am going out on a limb here, but I also assume  
that one of the limiting factors is the heat. You could not expose a  
much smaller sample of Pd to this much heat without it melting, or  
vaporizing.


Assuming this is about the best that modern technology is capable  
of, I figure this indicates approximately how much Pd you would need  
in a Pd-based cold fusion heat engine with the capacity of an  
automobile engine. I am assuming you have complete control over the  
reaction and you can make the Pd as hot as you like, up to the  
melting point, so the practical limit is the heat transfer capacity  
of the metal and substrate. As Jones Beene indicated.


- Jed

Re: [Vo]:pictures of 1mw E-cat plant shipping

[Jed Rothwell]

I wrote:


> An automobile catalytic converter has very little Pd in it. The metal is
> exposed to a terrific flow of hot gas. Yet the Pd does not sublime or
> vaporize.
>

Plus, most of the hot gas must come in contact with the Pd particles,
because it is all catalyzed (cleaned up). I assume if there was a lot
unprocessed nitric oxide left over they would add more Pd.

A lot of the Pd does, gradually, erode. Or sublime, I guess you would call
it.

Because Pd is expensive, I assume that the Pd is spread as thinly as
possible, with the least amount of metal you can use to achieve complete
catalysis. I am going out on a limb here, but I also assume that one of the
limiting factors is the heat. You could not expose a much smaller sample of
Pd to this much heat without it melting, or vaporizing.

Assuming this is about the best that modern technology is capable of, I
figure this indicates approximately how much Pd you would need in a
Pd-based cold fusion heat engine with the capacity of an automobile engine.
I am assuming you have complete control over the reaction and you can make
the Pd as hot as you like, up to the melting point, so the practical limit
is the heat transfer capacity of the metal and substrate. As Jones Beene
indicated.

- Jed

Re: [Vo]:pictures of 1mw E-cat plant shipping

[Jed Rothwell]

Jones Beene  wrote:

 This could be absurdly false - and could kill any remaining credibility
> that Rossi has.
>

If absurdity could kill credibility Rossi would have none. He is a charming
fellow but he tends to say and do absurd things. At least, they seem absurd
from the outside. Such as buying a thermocouple meter costing hundreds of
dollars and then neglecting to put an SD card into it.

He also sometimes makes sloppy errors. If there is only 20 g of material
and the heat transfer is as limited as you suspect, he might have made a
sloppy error. However, if the 20 g of metal is spread out thinly on a
substrate with the particles well separated it might work. An automobile
catalytic converter has very little Pd in it. The metal is exposed to
a terrific flow of hot gas. Yet the Pd does not sublime or vaporize. I
think there is only about 1 oz of Pd in a converter (28 g). Various sources
list different amounts.

Arata separates particles of Pd by putting them in a Zr substrate. When he
used pure Pd particles they heated up and stuck together, reducing surface
area. Some people said they were sintering together. Others said a hydrogen
reaction was making them stick together. Anyway, the Zr keeps them apart.
With the catalyst Les Case used, the C substrate keeps the particles apart.

- Jed

RE: [Vo]:pictures of 1mw E-cat plant shipping

[Jones Beene]

This could be absurdly false - and could kill any remaining credibility that
Rossi has. 

 

I will defer to anyone who does this kind heat transfer calculation on a
regular basis but it looks absurd to me now based on the one basic simple
issue - heat transfer limitations.

 

With only 20 grams of active material, I'm pretty sure that it can be shown
that it is physically impossible to transfer that much heat to the rest of
the reactor before the nickel or any other known metal turns into a gas. 

 

The boiling point of nickel is 2,900+ .  think about the implications ! what
this all "boils down to" is can 20 grams of nickel transfer that much heat -
roughly 14+ kWhr for several hundred hours?



Forget the energy implications - as a straight-up heat transfer issue, this
looks to be beyond physical reality. Of course - Rossi could say that the
nickel boils inside the reactor at 10,000 degrees, but is that logical?

 

From: Jed Rothwell 

 

I wrote:

 

That's the small incandescent gadget in the foreground. Right? Much smaller
than a 1 MW reactor, shown behind it.

 

Here is Rossi's description of the incandescent gadget:

 

http://www.e-catworld.com/2012/10/final-update-corrected-again-pordenone-hot
-cat-report/

 

- Jed

 

Re: [Vo]:pictures of 1mw E-cat plant shipping

[Eugen Leitl]

On Sat, May 04, 2013 at 09:37:17AM -0400, Jed Rothwell wrote:
> Susanna Gipp  wrote:
> 
> 
> > I know that for hard believing fans these worth gold but for us poor
> > skeptics it looks like one of our smart energy hero's countless jokes.
> >
> 
> It might be a joke, but it would be an expensive and pointless one. What
> purpose would it serve? If he is engaged in fraud, how will this help? Why
> would he care what large numbers of people believe? It isn't as if his fans
> are sending him small donations.

unsuckscribe LENR-kook-list
 
> Your hypothesis is that this is a joke of some sort. I see no evidence for
> this. None of us knows what Rossi is up to, or which statements he makes
> are true and which are not. You have no more justification for your views
> than anyone else, so I do not see why you are so certain you are right.
> 
> To justify the notion that this is a joke or fraud, a person can string
> together a long chain of suppositions, maybe this, suppose that, but there
> is no evidence for any of this speculation. It is a sterile waste of time.
> For every link in that chain there is inexplicable counter-evidence.
> 
> For example, if we assume that Rossi's tests are fake, then why on earth
> did he do a real test when NASA visited? A real test that was an utter
> failure! Why would he make a fool of himself and show them a machine that
> does not work when he routinely shows people a fake machine that looks like
> it is working? I guess you could say suppose this and that and he did not
> think he could fool NASA so he used a non-working demo and blah, blah, but
> that does not add up either. The experts from U. Bologna would be as hard
> to fool as the people from NASA. He worked with them for months with what
> appear to be real systems. Besides, people of this caliber would see
> through a fake in no time. The NASA people realized from the start that the
> test was not working. It did not fool them. Rossi claimed it was working,
> but they could see he was being sloppy and he was wrong.
> 
> I agree that none of this makes sense, at least from the outside. People's
> actions often fail to make sense.
> 
> - Jed

Re: [Vo]:pictures of 1mw E-cat plant shipping

[Jed Rothwell]

Susanna Gipp  wrote:


> I know that for hard believing fans these worth gold but for us poor
> skeptics it looks like one of our smart energy hero's countless jokes.
>

It might be a joke, but it would be an expensive and pointless one. What
purpose would it serve? If he is engaged in fraud, how will this help? Why
would he care what large numbers of people believe? It isn't as if his fans
are sending him small donations.

Your hypothesis is that this is a joke of some sort. I see no evidence for
this. None of us knows what Rossi is up to, or which statements he makes
are true and which are not. You have no more justification for your views
than anyone else, so I do not see why you are so certain you are right.

To justify the notion that this is a joke or fraud, a person can string
together a long chain of suppositions, maybe this, suppose that, but there
is no evidence for any of this speculation. It is a sterile waste of time.
For every link in that chain there is inexplicable counter-evidence.

For example, if we assume that Rossi's tests are fake, then why on earth
did he do a real test when NASA visited? A real test that was an utter
failure! Why would he make a fool of himself and show them a machine that
does not work when he routinely shows people a fake machine that looks like
it is working? I guess you could say suppose this and that and he did not
think he could fool NASA so he used a non-working demo and blah, blah, but
that does not add up either. The experts from U. Bologna would be as hard
to fool as the people from NASA. He worked with them for months with what
appear to be real systems. Besides, people of this caliber would see
through a fake in no time. The NASA people realized from the start that the
test was not working. It did not fool them. Rossi claimed it was working,
but they could see he was being sloppy and he was wrong.

I agree that none of this makes sense, at least from the outside. People's
actions often fail to make sense.

- Jed

Re: [Vo]:pictures of 1mw E-cat plant shipping

[Jed Rothwell]

I wrote:


> That's the small incandescent gadget in the foreground. Right? Much
> smaller than a 1 MW reactor, shown behind it.
>

Here is Rossi's description of the incandescent gadget:

http://www.e-catworld.com/2012/10/final-update-corrected-again-pordenone-hot-cat-report/

- Jed

Re: [Vo]:pictures of 1mw E-cat plant shipping

[Susanna Gipp]

There's non need to compare scratches for who carefully followed the 2011
Oct demo.
What i wanted to point out is that A.R. promised pictures of the customer
delivery of three assets but what we saw is just the moving of the same old
box from a dismissing facility (bologna) to the new one (Ferrara).
I know that for hard believing fans these worth gold but for us poor
skeptics it looks like one of our smart energy hero's countless jokes.
Cheers




2013/5/3 Alan Fletcher 

> At 12:10 PM 5/3/2013, you wrote:
>
>> I would better title this thread as "pictures of 1MW E-cat towing".
>> Who didn't recognize the same Oct 2011 demo big box at the Bologna's
>> facility?
>>
>
> I suppose you could compare the scratch marks etc etc.
>
> Myself, I would have taken greater care to strap down all the connectors.
> 
> >
>
> The one at the bottom-left, with the blue tip, is going to go cachonka -
> cachonka - cocahonka for twenty days. I wonder if it will survive the trip.
>

Re: [Vo]:pictures of 1mw E-cat plant shipping

[Eugen Leitl]

On Fri, May 03, 2013 at 01:06:21PM -0500, Jack Cole wrote:
> Looks like AR has delivered on his promise.
> 
> http://www.e-catworld.com/2013/05/e-cat-shipping-pictures-posted-on-the-jonp/

That being showing photos of a shipping container?

Re: [Vo]:pictures of 1mw E-cat plant shipping

[Patrick Ellul]

Direct link to high definition of the panorama photo:
http://postimg.org/image/6v14pk649/full/


On Sat, May 4, 2013 at 8:49 AM, Michele Comitini  wrote:

> If exif is true the picture was shot by an iPhone4.  Supposedly
> Passerini's phone
>
> http://www.findexif.com/?l=1r9hJxo
>
>
>
>
> 2013/5/4 Jed Rothwell 
>
>> Akira Shirakawa  wrote:
>>
>>
>>> Source: http://22passi.blogspot.it/**2013/05/fino-al-limite-di-**
>>> rottura.html
>>>
>>> It's a 6 months old photo (previously unreleased) of a "Hot-Cat" being
>>> pushed to its operating limits.
>>> It does look hot.
>>>
>>
>> That's the small incandescent gadget in the foreground. Right? Much
>> smaller than a 1 MW reactor, shown behind it.
>>
>> Maybe I have not been paying attention but I thought Rossi claims he is
>> still at the stage of making small hot cats.
>>
>> - Jed
>>
>>
>


-- 
Patrick

www.tRacePerfect.com
The daily puzzle everyone can finish but not everyone can perfect!
The quickest puzzle ever!

Re: [Vo]:pictures of 1mw E-cat plant shipping

[Michele Comitini]

If exif is true the picture was shot by an iPhone4.  Supposedly Passerini's
phone

http://www.findexif.com/?l=1r9hJxo




2013/5/4 Jed Rothwell 

> Akira Shirakawa  wrote:
>
>
>> Source: http://22passi.blogspot.it/**2013/05/fino-al-limite-di-**
>> rottura.html
>>
>> It's a 6 months old photo (previously unreleased) of a "Hot-Cat" being
>> pushed to its operating limits.
>> It does look hot.
>>
>
> That's the small incandescent gadget in the foreground. Right? Much
> smaller than a 1 MW reactor, shown behind it.
>
> Maybe I have not been paying attention but I thought Rossi claims he is
> still at the stage of making small hot cats.
>
> - Jed
>
>

Re: [Vo]:pictures of 1mw E-cat plant shipping

[Jed Rothwell]

Akira Shirakawa  wrote:


> Source: http://22passi.blogspot.it/**2013/05/fino-al-limite-di-**
> rottura.html
>
> It's a 6 months old photo (previously unreleased) of a "Hot-Cat" being
> pushed to its operating limits.
> It does look hot.
>

That's the small incandescent gadget in the foreground. Right? Much smaller
than a 1 MW reactor, shown behind it.

Maybe I have not been paying attention but I thought Rossi claims he is
still at the stage of making small hot cats.

- Jed

Re: [Vo]:pictures of 1mw E-cat plant shipping

[Akira Shirakawa]

On 2013-05-03 20:06, Jack Cole wrote:

Looks like AR has delivered on his promise.

http://www.e-catworld.com/2013/05/e-cat-shipping-pictures-posted-on-the-jonp/

This photo just posted by Daniele Passerini is way more interesting:

http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-XuKgtxpqL9U/UYQSyPJP-OI/JYI/96mRUBJjs1w/s1600/hot-cat.JPG

Source: http://22passi.blogspot.it/2013/05/fino-al-limite-di-rottura.html

It's a 6 months old photo (previously unreleased) of a "Hot-Cat" being 
pushed to its operating limits.

It does look hot.

Cheers,
S.A.

RE: [Vo]:pictures of 1mw E-cat plant shipping

[Arnaud Kodeck]

We can see on the panorama picture ( <http://postimg.org/image/6v14pk649/>
http://postimg.org/image/6v14pk649/), the hot cat still in the metallic
shelf without electrical feedings.

 

The boxes of the cold cat are different from the October, 2011.

 

It looks like very amateur workshop behind the garage.

  _  

From: Jed Rothwell [mailto:jedrothw...@gmail.com] 
Sent: vendredi 3 mai 2013 22:14
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Subject: Re: [Vo]:pictures of 1mw E-cat plant shipping

 

Susanna Gipp  wrote:

 

I would better title this thread as "pictures of 1MW E-cat towing". 

Who didn't recognize the same Oct 2011 demo big box at the Bologna's
facility? 

 

It is the same one, isn't it? This is the 1 MW reactor, not the "hot cat."
That's smaller than 1 MW isn't it?

 

This is being taken somewhere to be tested, by someone name Fabiani. These
photos are prefaced with a letter:

 

Dear Doc.Rossi,

please, find the photos of 24H performace test of the MW1-Ecat made on april
30 - may 01 and the photos of when it has been transported from Bologna to
Ferrara to pepare it for the test.

Best regards
M.Eng. F.Fabiani

 

- Jed

 

Re: [Vo]:pictures of 1mw E-cat plant shipping

[Jed Rothwell]

Oops! It seems I was incorrect. Apparently that might be the "hot cat" or
the "warm cat." I get these mixed up. Someone informed me:

"To be fair Rossi did say that the 'warm-cat' would be in the re-fitted
container from the 2011 demo!"

The point is, something is being shipped to someone for testing. Or it was
shipped years ago these photos were taken then and Rossi is pretending they
are recent. Or it was loaded on a truck and then taken off again. Who
knows?!? All kinds of things are possible. As to what plausible, that is
hard to say with Rossi.

- Jed

Re: [Vo]:pictures of 1mw E-cat plant shipping

[Terry Blanton]

Let's hope it's not Dempsey Dumpster. :-)

Re: [Vo]:pictures of 1mw E-cat plant shipping

[Jed Rothwell]

Susanna Gipp  wrote:

I would better title this thread as "pictures of 1MW E-cat towing".
> Who didn't recognize the same Oct 2011 demo big box at the Bologna's
> facility?
>

It is the same one, isn't it? This is the 1 MW reactor, not the "hot cat."
That's smaller than 1 MW isn't it?

This is being taken somewhere to be tested, by someone name Fabiani. These
photos are prefaced with a letter:


Dear Doc.Rossi,

please, find the photos of 24H performace test of the MW1-Ecat made on
april 30 – may 01 and the photos of when it has been transported from
Bologna to Ferrara to pepare it for the test.

Best regards
M.Eng. F.Fabiani

- Jed

Re: [Vo]:pictures of 1mw E-cat plant shipping

[Alan Fletcher]

At 12:10 PM 5/3/2013, you wrote:

I would better title this thread as "pictures of 1MW E-cat towing".
Who didn't recognize the same Oct 2011 demo big box at the Bologna's 
facility?


I suppose you could compare the scratch marks etc etc.

Myself, I would have taken greater care to strap down all the connectors.


The one at the bottom-left, with the blue tip, is going to go 
cachonka - cachonka - cocahonka for twenty days. I wonder if it will 
survive the trip. 

Re: [Vo]:pictures of 1mw E-cat plant shipping

[Susanna Gipp]

I would better title this thread as "pictures of 1MW E-cat towing".
Who didn't recognize the same Oct 2011 demo big box at the Bologna's
facility?


2013/5/3 Jack Cole 

> Looks like AR has delivered on his promise.
>
>
> http://www.e-catworld.com/2013/05/e-cat-shipping-pictures-posted-on-the-jonp/
>

Re: [Vo]:pictures of 1mw E-cat plant shipping

[Jed Rothwell]

Jack Cole  wrote:

Looks like AR has delivered on his promise.
>
>
> http://www.e-catworld.com/2013/05/e-cat-shipping-pictures-posted-on-the-jonp/
>

Ha! Good for him. He often does what he says he will do.

It may be there really are 11 professors working on an evaluation. Based on
my experience with professors, when they say they will finish up in "April"
that could mean April 2013, or April 2014 or April 2020. I have never seen
people so late at turning in assignments. If I had known this about profs
when I was in college I might have felt differently about deadlines.

- Jed

[Vo]:pictures of 1mw E-cat plant shipping

[Jack Cole]

Looks like AR has delivered on his promise.

http://www.e-catworld.com/2013/05/e-cat-shipping-pictures-posted-on-the-jonp/