Re: [Vo]:PesWiki's report on Focardi and Rossi
Harry Veeder noted the PesWiki report: http://pesn.com/2011/01/17/9501746_Focardi-Rossi_10_kW_cold_fusion_prepping_for_market/ This is a good summary. Lots of details in one place, such as the fact that Rossi says they plan to ship the first units in three months, and they are manufacturing a 1 megawatt plant composed of 125 modules. I have been hearing rumors to this effect for months. I discounted them because I had no proof the device even exists. I cannot believe something like that just because trustworthy informed sources tell me it is true. I need to see experimental proof. Now, I have seen it. Needless to say his credibility is much higher now that several professors have signed off on his work. It is a great relief to me. I did not suspect him of fraud but to be frank I worried that he might be crazy. After all, many people have often made bold claims that turned out to be wrong. People have made honest mistake even on the 1 kW heat reaction scale. Wishful thinking or ignorance of basic physics are usually the cause. Of course there are risks and Rossi may yet fail. I think there is no chance this is fraud, but he might trip up over technical issues. It might be more difficult to replicate that he realizes. Maybe he will run out of active material and find out he cannot make more. Or the gadget might blow up, and blow him to kingdom come. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:PesWiki's report on Focardi and Rossi
On 01/18/2011 12:03 AM, Harry Veeder wrote: Rossi also says that they have had one reactor that has run continually for two years, providing heat for a factory. Slightly longer quote from the Peswiki page: Rossi also says that they have had one reactor that has run continually for two years, providing heat for a factory. Also, the reactors can self sustain by turning off the input, but they prefer to have an input. So if they need some electricity to control it, why don't they use the output to run a generator, and close the loop? At 10:1, they ought to be able to turn the heat output into enough electricity to drive the thing with a good bit left over. Then they could provide heat /and/ run the lights in the factory. And at that point they'd be off the grid, and they'd be completely shut of the old Well are you /sure/ it's OU? question. And wouldn't /that/ make a whizzy demo! Starting can be done with batteries, of course, just like you start your car with a battery. You need some electricity to run an ICE, but /nobody/ plugs their gasoline car into the mains to get it going in the morning (block heaters excepted). We don't close the loop because we /prefer/ to have an input.That seems strange, to put it mildly. Kind of like saying, I make all the electricity I need with photoelectrics on the roof, but I /prefer/ to buy some from Ontario Hydro as well. The results of last week's demonstration pale in comparison to this claim. Harry
Re: [Vo]:PesWiki's report on Focardi and Rossi
Stephen A. Lawrence sa...@pobox.com wrote: So if they need some electricity to control it, why don't they use the output to run a generator, and close the loop? At 10:1, they ought to be able to turn the heat output into enough electricity to drive the thing with a good bit left over. Designing or purchasing a heat engine for this would be expensive and time consuming. In the first round of installations it makes more sense to use AC power for the control current And at that point they'd be off the grid, and they'd be completely shut of the old Well are you *sure* it's OU? question. And wouldn't *that* make a whizzy demo! It would make a great demo, and I would love to see it, but anyone not convinced by 0.4 kW in and 12 kW out will not be convinced by anything. At this stage, engineering a heat engine just to close the loop would be a distraction. If the control current were 1000 times smaller than the output, you could use thermoelectric chips which require little engineering and work over a broad range of temperature. The Russians have some for camping and remote villages, which can be used with burning wood. In the U.S. there are some for small yachts which use burning natural gas, I think. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:PesWiki's report on Focardi and Rossi
On 01/18/2011 11:00 AM, Jed Rothwell wrote: Stephen A. Lawrence sa...@pobox.com mailto:sa...@pobox.com wrote: So if they need some electricity to control it, why don't they use the output to run a generator, and close the loop? At 10:1, they ought to be able to turn the heat output into enough electricity to drive the thing with a good bit left over. Designing or purchasing a heat engine for this would be expensive and time consuming. In the first round of installations it makes more sense to use AC power for the control current And at that point they'd be off the grid, and they'd be completely shut of the old Well are you /sure/ it's OU? question. And wouldn't /that/ make a whizzy demo! It would make a great demo, and I would love to see it, but anyone not convinced by 0.4 kW in and 12 kW out will not be convinced by anything. At this stage, engineering a heat engine just to close the loop would be a distraction. Sure. But the quote from PW makes it sound like they have had this in place for some time. Seems like it would have been an obvious thing to do back when they were setting up to heat the factory with a reactor -- unless, of course, the factory is one room and the heating is done just by running the generator and letting it warm up its surroundings a bit. (Depending on where they are in Italy, the heat required might be pretty minimal, come to think of it.) And as to not being convinced by anything ... as long as the conclusions are based on precise heat measurements there is room for doubt. Once the loop is closed there is no more room for doubt. This issue has come up time and again with perpetual motion machine claimants, along with rumors of a factory powered by a magic motor. There *is* a good reason for closing the loop, and their assertion that they could run with no electrical input, but just don't want to, sounds absurd. I do not need to take measurements to be sure the furnace in this house really works. All I need to do is step in the front door, and my senses give me a conclusive, albeit qualitative, answer. Here is a truism: /As long as you need calorimetry to determine if a heater works, it doesn't work well enough to be interesting./ Their device works well enough that they could dispense with the calorimetry, just by running it /unplugged/ and showing that it still gets hot. But they prefer not to. Errrm. If the control current were 1000 times smaller than the output, you could use thermoelectric chips which require little engineering and work over a broad range of temperature. The Russians have some for camping and remote villages, which can be used with burning wood. In the U.S. there are some for small yachts which use burning natural gas, I think. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:PesWiki's report on Focardi and Rossi
Stephen A. Lawrence wrote: And as to not being convinced by anything ... as long as the conclusions are based on precise heat measurements there is room for doubt. These conclusions are based on somewhat imprecise measurements, and you can be just as certain with no measurements at all. Just look at the thing. You see water going in at about a liter every three minutes, steam coming out, and only a thin, ordinary wire going to the power supplies. It would be physically impossible for that wire to supply the electricity needed to vaporize that much water. Impossible by a wide margin; at least a factor of 4. You don't even need to see the power meter or thermometers to be sure of this. Once the loop is closed there is no more room for doubt. As far as I am concerned, this is first principle proof, and it is as convincing as a self sustaining machine, or as Fleischmann's boil-off video. Unless there are camera tricks or hidden wires involved this is massive anomalous heat. I do not think there are tricks or hidden wires because the professors involved would notice that, and they would not stand for it. If it were only the inventor, and everything was under his exclusive control, I might suspect a fake, but I would be just as suspicious of a self-sustaining demo under the control of the inventor. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:PesWiki's report on Focardi and Rossi
In reply to Jed Rothwell's message of Tue, 18 Jan 2011 13:52:45 -0500: Hi, [snip] They sure do! I wish I knew the name of that factory, and I could see photos or interviews. [snip] It's probably the factory mentioned in the patent:- A practical embodiment of the inventive apparatus, installed on October 16, 2007, is at present perfectly operating 24 hours per day, and provides an amount of heat sufficient to heat the factory of the Company EON of via Carlo Ragazzi 18, at Bondeno (Province of Ferrara) . For better understanding the invention, the main components of the above mentioned apparatus have been schematically shown in Table 2. (See http://www.wipo.int/pctdb/en/wo.jsp?WO=2009125444IA=IT2008000532DISPLAY=DESC) Regards, Robin van Spaandonk http://rvanspaa.freehostia.com/Project.html
Re: [Vo]:PesWiki's report on Focardi and Rossi
- Original Message From: mix...@bigpond.com mix...@bigpond.com To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Tue, January 18, 2011 4:52:48 PM Subject: Re: [Vo]:PesWiki's report on Focardi and Rossi In reply to Jed Rothwell's message of Tue, 18 Jan 2011 13:52:45 -0500: Hi, [snip] They sure do! I wish I knew the name of that factory, and I could see photos or interviews. [snip] It's probably the factory mentioned in the patent:- A practical embodiment of the inventive apparatus, installed on October 16, 2007, is at present perfectly operating 24 hours per day, and provides an amount of heat sufficient to heat the factory of the Company EON of via Carlo Ragazzi 18, at Bondeno (Province of Ferrara) . For better understanding the invention, the main components of the above mentioned apparatus have been schematically shown in Table 2. (See http://www.wipo.int/pctdb/en/wo.jsp?WO=2009125444IA=IT2008000532DISPLAY=DESC) Regards, Robin van Spaandonk http://rvanspaa.freehostia.com/Project.html great work Robin. I used google maps and input: via Carlo Ragazzi 18 Bondeno Ferrara. The satellite view shows something like a factory at that location. harry
Re: [Vo]:PesWiki's report on Focardi and Rossi
Harry Veeder hlvee...@yahoo.com wrote: great work Robin. I used google maps and input: via Carlo Ragazzi 18 Bondeno Ferrara. The satellite view shows something like a factory at that location. Oh brave new world! Now, if you could only zoom in and see inside the building, we'd have it. See: The Googling http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fPgV6-gnQaE - Jed
Re: [Vo]:PesWiki's report on Focardi and Rossi
A hidden factor of 4 increase in electric power input to a resistive heater is possible: Rich Murray 2011.01.18 1. Use four power input wires, one hidden from the floor up through the inside of each of the four table legs -- in fact table legs could conceal as many as 4 -- 9 wires each -- has anyone tried moving the table? 2. A single thin wire can supply power at lower current and higher voltage, as a thin layer of insulating plastic can insulate 880 AC volts, 4 X 220 volts, and 1/4 the current at 220 volts, as Er = V**2 X I = 4**2 X 1/4 = 16 X 1/4 = 4 ...,ie, 4X more energy. Such an additional thin wire, 1/2 the diameter (1/4 the area) of a 220 volt wire, could be easily hidden within a regular 3 wire extension cord, for instance by being disguised as the third ground wire -- or such extra wires may be in power cables made for special purposes, where some device needs a high voltage feed in addition to 240 volt AC. 3. Gold wires carry much more power than Cu wires... Strict testing might necessitate bringing in a standard propane gas motor electric generator, or a special power input box to monitor the actual power outputs from the 3-prong plug, with attention to capability to detect current flows from hidden wires of metal or conducting plastic, glass, films, or paint. Also, H2 gas and other gas or liquid fluids could be fed into the device via tubes hidden in the H2 and H20 input and exit tubes. The reported gamma rays are, however, possibly definite evidence of nuclear reactions. So, there are many feasible ways for fraud to elude the usual scrutiny of academic scientists -- and these are ideas from an unskilled layman... Rich Murray 505-819-7388 rmfor...@gmail.com On Tue, Jan 18, 2011 at 11:27 AM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com wrote: Stephen A. Lawrence wrote: And as to not being convinced by anything ... as long as the conclusions are based on precise heat measurements there is room for doubt. These conclusions are based on somewhat imprecise measurements, and you can be just as certain with no measurements at all. Just look at the thing. You see water going in at about a liter every three minutes, steam coming out, and only a thin, ordinary wire going to the power supplies. It would be physically impossible for that wire to supply the electricity needed to vaporize that much water. Impossible by a wide margin; at least a factor of 4. You don't even need to see the power meter or thermometers to be sure of this. Once the loop is closed there is no more room for doubt. As far as I am concerned, this is first principle proof, and it is as convincing as a self sustaining machine, or as Fleischmann's boil-off video. Unless there are camera tricks or hidden wires involved this is massive anomalous heat. I do not think there are tricks or hidden wires because the professors involved would notice that, and they would not stand for it. If it were only the inventor, and everything was under his exclusive control, I might suspect a fake, but I would be just as suspicious of a self-sustaining demo under the control of the inventor. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:PesWiki's report on Focardi and Rossi
But, Rich, the input power was measured -- /not/ by Rossi -- and the setup was apparently done by the other profs, /not/ by Rossi himself. The power supply and the other paraphernalia (aside from the reactor) were apparently provided by various other profs, /not/ by Rossi. So unless you're assuming a conspiracy of at least two or three of the presenters, scenarios which require hollow legs in the table, special wiring to the outlet, phony power supply leads, and so forth just will not fly. On 01/18/2011 10:25 PM, Rich Murray wrote: A hidden factor of 4 increase in electric power input to a resistive heater is possible: Rich Murray 2011.01.18 1. Use four power input wires, one hidden from the floor up through the inside of each of the four table legs -- in fact table legs could conceal as many as 4 -- 9 wires each -- has anyone tried moving the table? 2. A single thin wire can supply power at lower current and higher voltage, as a thin layer of insulating plastic can insulate 880 AC volts, 4 X 220 volts, and 1/4 the current at 220 volts, as Er = V**2 X I = 4**2 X 1/4 = 16 X 1/4 = 4 ...,ie, 4X more energy. Such an additional thin wire, 1/2 the diameter (1/4 the area) of a 220 volt wire, could be easily hidden within a regular 3 wire extension cord, for instance by being disguised as the third ground wire -- or such extra wires may be in power cables made for special purposes, where some device needs a high voltage feed in addition to 240 volt AC. 3. Gold wires carry much more power than Cu wires... Strict testing might necessitate bringing in a standard propane gas motor electric generator, or a special power input box to monitor the actual power outputs from the 3-prong plug, with attention to capability to detect current flows from hidden wires of metal or conducting plastic, glass, films, or paint. Also, H2 gas and other gas or liquid fluids could be fed into the device via tubes hidden in the H2 and H20 input and exit tubes. The reported gamma rays are, however, possibly definite evidence of nuclear reactions. So, there are many feasible ways for fraud to elude the usual scrutiny of academic scientists -- and these are ideas from an unskilled layman... Rich Murray 505-819-7388 rmfor...@gmail.com On Tue, Jan 18, 2011 at 11:27 AM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com wrote: Stephen A. Lawrence wrote: And as to not being convinced by anything ... as long as the conclusions are based on precise heat measurements there is room for doubt. These conclusions are based on somewhat imprecise measurements, and you can be just as certain with no measurements at all. Just look at the thing. You see water going in at about a liter every three minutes, steam coming out, and only a thin, ordinary wire going to the power supplies. It would be physically impossible for that wire to supply the electricity needed to vaporize that much water. Impossible by a wide margin; at least a factor of 4. You don't even need to see the power meter or thermometers to be sure of this. Once the loop is closed there is no more room for doubt. As far as I am concerned, this is first principle proof, and it is as convincing as a self sustaining machine, or as Fleischmann's boil-off video. Unless there are camera tricks or hidden wires involved this is massive anomalous heat. I do not think there are tricks or hidden wires because the professors involved would notice that, and they would not stand for it. If it were only the inventor, and everything was under his exclusive control, I might suspect a fake, but I would be just as suspicious of a self-sustaining demo under the control of the inventor. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:PesWiki's report on Focardi and Rossi
Rich Murray rmfor...@gmail.com wrote: A hidden factor of 4 increase in electric power input to a resistive heater is possible: Rich Murray 2011.01.18 It would have to be a factor of 30, not 4. The power meter shows 400 W, and the output is 12 kW. 1. Use four power input wires, one hidden from the floor up through the inside of each of the four table legs -- in fact table legs could conceal as many as 4 -- 9 wires each -- has anyone tried moving the table? That's preposterous. You can see that the machine is sitting on a board with rubber feet and has been moved around from one photo to the next. You know that the researchers who verified it inserted the temperature probes and tubes, insulation and blue tape all over it. Do you really, seriously think they would not notice wires going into it? This is real life, not a pulp thriller novel or James Bond. 2. A single thin wire can supply power at lower current and higher voltage, as a thin layer of insulating plastic can insulate 880 AC volts, 4 X 220 volts, and 1/4 the current at 220 volts, as Er = V**2 X I = 4**2 X 1/4 = 16 X 1/4 = 4 ...,ie, 4X more energy. Have you ever seen the size of the wires going into a 10 kW electric motor or heater? It is enormous! - Jed
Re: [Vo]:PesWiki's report on Focardi and Rossi
Thanks for the lively counter-arguments! Say, was or was not the demo on the same table in the same corner in the same room in the same huge industrial building within which tests have been run over and over in recent months?... High voltages allow much thinner wires to carry the same energy with smaller currents... I suggest skeptical ideas, so they can hopefully be decisively dispatched. I was impressed by Ed Storms' explanation that steady input energy can serve to stabilize a positive feedback energy generation process just under the level of high output beyond which meltdown or explosion occurs... So, also, it seems that a undercover operator could use hidden portable gamma and neutron intensity and spectral analyzers to accurately and quickly garner critical information while hanging around near a operating unit, wearing a tweed jacket, if not a trench coat or a white lab coat? I'd like to know more about NiH as a spillover catalyst -- can someone explain in detail and give sources? Thanks, Rich On Tue, Jan 18, 2011 at 9:29 PM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com wrote: Rich Murray rmfor...@gmail.com wrote: A hidden factor of 4 increase in electric power input to a resistive heater is possible: Rich Murray 2011.01.18 It would have to be a factor of 30, not 4. The power meter shows 400 W, and the output is 12 kW. 1. Use four power input wires, one hidden from the floor up through the inside of each of the four table legs -- in fact table legs could conceal as many as 4 -- 9 wires each -- has anyone tried moving the table? That's preposterous. You can see that the machine is sitting on a board with rubber feet and has been moved around from one photo to the next. You know that the researchers who verified it inserted the temperature probes and tubes, insulation and blue tape all over it. Do you really, seriously think they would not notice wires going into it? This is real life, not a pulp thriller novel or James Bond. 2. A single thin wire can supply power at lower current and higher voltage, as a thin layer of insulating plastic can insulate 880 AC volts, 4 X 220 volts, and 1/4 the current at 220 volts, as Er = V**2 X I = 4**2 X 1/4 = 16 X 1/4 = 4 ...,ie, 4X more energy. Have you ever seen the size of the wires going into a 10 kW electric motor or heater? It is enormous! - Jed
Re: [Vo]:PesWiki's report on Focardi and Rossi
In reply to Rich Murray's message of Tue, 18 Jan 2011 20:25:31 -0700: Hi, [snip] 3. Gold wires carry much more power than Cu wires... Gold is not as good a conductor as copper. Silver is slightly better. Regards, Robin van Spaandonk http://rvanspaa.freehostia.com/Project.html
[Vo]:PesWiki's report on Focardi and Rossi
In addition to Jed's recent, and highly appreciated, report on the Energy Catalyzer), I noticed that one of my latest Google news feeds keyed to Blacklight Power directed me to the pesn.com Pure Energy Systems (PesWiki) web site where a verbose (and HIGHLY optimistic and probably unrealistic) report on the Focardi and Rossi's device ensues. See: http://pesn.com/2011/01/17/9501746_Focardi-Rossi_10_kW_cold_fusion_prepping_for_market/ http://tinyurl.com/4vluzrt Excerpt samples: * This recent public demonstration alone is a huge development, but what's more, they also claim to be going into production, expecting to have these available for purchase commercially within a year.This would become the world's first commercially-ready cold fusion device.The first units are supposed to ship in three months, with mass production commencing by the end of 2011. ... Rossi estimates that the cost of energy made with this system will be below 1 cent/kWh, in case of electric power made by means of a Carnot cycle, and below 1 cent/4,000 M J in case of thermal power production for heating purposes. That is several times cheaper than energy from fossil fuel sources such as coal or natural gas. ... Rossi also says that they have had one reactor that has run continually for two years, providing heat for a factory. Also, the reactors can self sustain by turning off the input, but they prefer to have an input. The device will be scheduled for maintenance every six months. You control it just as you turn on and off your television set. ... Doing a lot of digging into Rossi's Journal of Nuclear Physics blog shows that scientists are posting and linking speculation that hydrinos (of Blacklight Power fame) or shrunken hydrogen atoms may be involved in this cold fusion and process and their formation may be the source of most of the energy released. * The last paragraph must have been the reason why the email showed up in my Blacklight Power news feed. I especially liked the part where they predict they will have mass production commencing by the end of 2011. Personally, I'd be ecstatic if we had verified independent replication by the end of 2011. Regards Steven Vincent Johnson www.OrionWorks.com www.zazzle.com/orionworks
Re: [Vo]:PesWiki's report on Focardi and Rossi
On Mon, Jan 17, 2011 at 7:06 PM, OrionWorks - Steven V Johnson svj.orionwo...@gmail.com wrote: Personally, I'd be ecstatic if we had verified independent replication by the end of 2011. I think Andrea Rossi has made it clear that there will be no replication. He says he wants to sell product. T
Re: [Vo]:PesWiki's report on Focardi and Rossi
Steven V Johnson wrote: In addition to Jed's recent, and highly appreciated, report on the Energy Catalyzer), I noticed that one of my latest Google news feeds keyed to Blacklight Power directed me to the pesn.com Pure Energy Systems (PesWiki) web site where a verbose (and HIGHLY optimistic and probably unrealistic) report on the Focardi and Rossi's device ensues. See: http://pesn.com/2011/01/17/9501746_Focardi-Rossi_10_kW_cold_fusion_prepping_for_market/ / http://tinyurl.com/4vluzrt Excerpt samples: snip Rossi also says that they have had one reactor that has run continually for two years, providing heat for a factory. The results of last week's demonstration pale in comparison to this claim. Harry
