Re: [Vo]:Rossi responds to movie professor and Peter Ekstrom's analysis
On Mon, Jul 11, 2011 at 3:14 PM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com wrote: This document, “the E-Cat does not produce excess Energy” has some some strange assertions. http://www.fysik.org/WebSite/**fragelada/resurser/cold_**fusion_krivit.pdfhttp://www.fysik.org/WebSite/fragelada/resurser/cold_fusion_krivit.pdf Where does the power go? Out of the E-Cat or the tube? Not very likely since the losses are small, 5 kW is a lot of power and it would heat the room perceptibly. It would heat the area around the e-cat, and people who have observed the tests tell me that it does. Tell you? Which people? Why is it not mentioned in any of the reports or the videos? In the January video, the ambient temperature is recorded and you can see from a frame capture on esowatch that it is constant from before the experiment begins until after it is shut down. And from Levi's report, you can see that it is quite cool in the room, at 17.2C. It's not clear where the ambient temperature is measured, but the only connections to the computer come from those two probes (input water, output steam), and the power. So, probably the ambient temperature is measured in the handle of one of the probes, quite near the ecat. So, there is no indication that the area around the ecat is significantly warmed up. However it would not heat the room if the thermostat is nearby the reactor. On the contrary, it would cool down the rest of the room, in winter with central heating or in summer with central air. The ecat is in the middle of the room. That's an unlikely place for the thermostat. In fact, in Krivit's video, there appears to be a thermostat near one of the doors, quite a distance from the ecat, and not by the door that the hose goes through. Anyway, the idea that the rest of the room would cool would only apply if the heating and cooling capacities were greater than 5 kW, and I doubt it's true in either case. 5 kW heating for that room is highly unlikely in Bologna, where the coldest mean temperatures are above freezing. On Jan 14, the high was 4C, and the indoor temperature of 17.2 C (before the experiment) suggests modest heating capacity, and that it was probably going full strength. This is also consistent with the steam radiator that appears in the video, which looks like about 2 kW in size using the radiator sizing guide at colonialsupply.com. The adjacent rooms seem to have electric space heaters in them about 1.5 kW each. Significant heat from the ecat (5 kW) would certainly have heated the room under those conditions. It is also very likely that the room has no air conditioning, considering on the day Krivit was there the ambient temperature was 30ºC, and the steam radiator can't supply cooling. There doesn't appear to be any forced air, nor any windows to the outside. The high on that day was 27C. A 5 kW heater in such a room without air conditioning on such a day would heat it by much more than 3C. (The temperature does climb in the room during the experiment, according to the computer screen, but it is over a few hours in mid-afternoon, in a room with no evident air conditioning.) It is a big room and I doubt that 5 kW would make much difference. That would be the equivalent of 3 U.S. electric room heaters. There are large offices with more heaters than that under people's desks. Maybe, if the offices are in tents pitched in Alaska in winter. Each of those heaters would require its own 15 A circuit, and offices typically supply no more than one such circuit for every few desks. A 5 kW heater will heat a 4 by 6 foot sauna to 100C. 5 kW heaters are used to heat large machine sheds. The observers would not fail to comment on that level of heat. I have one myself. That's probably a violation of fire laws but anyway, they do not make the offices warm. Also, the aggregate office equipment and lighting in a large office or grocery store consumes a lot more than 5 kW but those places are not noticeably hot. The room in which the ecat is demonstrated is not that big. There is room for 2 or maybe 3 desks, and office computers typically consume 150W. Lighting for such a room would be maybe 500W florescent, for a total of 1 kW or so. At the very most, double that, and still it is less than half of the claimed power of the ecat. Anyway, Ekstrom is wrong. Most of the heat is going down the drain, as steam or hot water. You're confused. That's what Ekstrom is saying. He's saying there is no way, the hose and ecat can dissipate more than a few hundred watts, so most of the power is going down the drain. The problem is, to look at what is going down the drain, it is not more than a few hundred watts itself. It was *Rossi*, who after evidently agreeing with Ekstrom that what is coming out of the hose represents very little power, said that the hose is dissipating 5 kW of heat. He actually claims it's more than 5 kW, meaning what comes out of the hose must be negative power. Rossi's response
Re: [Vo]:Rossi responds to movie professor and Peter Ekstrom's analysis
On Mon, Jul 11, 2011 at 10:23 AM, Craig Haynie cchayniepub...@gmail.comwrote: 5. The pressure in the ecat cannot be room pressure, or the fluid would not flow out of the ecat into the room. As I understand the operation, fluid does not flow out. Steam is venting from a hole in the device. Steam is a fluid. I don't know about a hole in the device other than the one the hose is connected to, but the reason steam vents to the room is because the pressure in the device is higher than in the room. A ball rolls downhill, and fluid flows down pressure. Of course gravity affects fluid flow too, but the ecat has to push the fluid up first, meaning still higher pressure is needed. Therefore, the pressure should be 'near' room pressure. Near, maybe, but higher, definitely. It doesn't need to be very much higher to increase the boiling point a little. It only takes 30 cm of water depth to increase the bp by one degree C. So perhaps the disagreement on pressure is simply a communication issue. If Rossi uses a slightly elevated bp as evidence of dry steam, then the issue is more than communication. The fact that the temperature is perfectly flat indicates the steam is at, not above, the boiling point.
Re: [Vo]:Rossi responds to movie professor and Peter Ekstrom's analysis
This document, “the E-Cat does not produce excess Energy” has some some strange assertions. http://www.fysik.org/WebSite/fragelada/resurser/cold_fusion_krivit.pdf Where does the power go? Out of the E-Cat or the tube? Not very likely since the losses are small, 5 kW is a lot of power and it would heat the room perceptibly. It would heat the area around the e-cat, and people who have observed the tests tell me that it does. However it would not heat the room if the thermostat is nearby the reactor. On the contrary, it would cool down the rest of the room, in winter with central heating or in summer with central air. It is a big room and I doubt that 5 kW would make much difference. That would be the equivalent of 3 U.S. electric room heaters. There are large offices with more heaters than that under people's desks. I have one myself. That's probably a violation of fire laws but anyway, they do not make the offices warm. Also, the aggregate office equipment and lighting in a large office or grocery store consumes a lot more than 5 kW but those places are not noticeably hot. Anyway, Ekstrom is wrong. Most of the heat is going down the drain, as steam or hot water. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:Rossi responds to movie professor and Peter Ekstrom's analysis
In reply to Mark Iverson's message of Wed, 29 Jun 2011 17:14:40 -0700: Hi, I suspect that instead of controlled he meant checked. The Dutch word kontroleren means to check. and a similar situation may exist with Swedish/Norwegian (due to the Norse/Germanic origin of the Dutch language). Here's a statement from Kullander that is a bit confusing... The temperature at the outlet was controlled continually to be above 100°C. According to the electronic log-book, it remained always between 100.1 and 100.2 °C during the operation from 10:45 to 16:30 as can be seen in figure 7. The outlet was controlled is obviously not right... there's nothing to control at the outlet! This must be more an issue with english not being his native language. What he means is that the temperature of the steam exiting the outlet was always maintained between 100.1 and 100.2. [snip] Regards, Robin van Spaandonk http://rvanspaa.freehostia.com/project.html
Re: [Vo]:Rossi responds to movie professor and Peter Ekstrom's analysis
In reply to Mark Iverson's message of Wed, 29 Jun 2011 17:14:40 -0700: Hi, I suspect that instead of controlled he meant checked. The Dutch word kontroleren means to check. and a similar situation may exist with Swedish/Norwegian (due to the Norse/Germanic origin of the Dutch language). Here's a statement from Kullander that is a bit confusing... The temperature at the outlet was controlled continually to be above 100°C. According to the electronic log-book, it remained always between 100.1 and 100.2 °C during the operation from 10:45 to 16:30 as can be seen in figure 7. The outlet was controlled is obviously not right... there's nothing to control at the outlet! This must be more an issue with english not being his native language. What he means is that the temperature of the steam exiting the outlet was always maintained between 100.1 and 100.2. [snip] Regards, Robin van Spaandonk http://rvanspaa.freehostia.com/project.html
Re: [Vo]:Rossi responds to movie professor and Peter Ekstrom's analysis
On Wed, Jun 29, 2011 at 1:06 AM, Harry Veeder hlvee...@yahoo.com wrote: Peter Ekstrom's analysis: “the E-Cat does not produce excess Energy”. http://www.fysik.org/WebSite/fragelada/resurser/cold_fusion_krivit.pdf Rossi responds to Peter Ekstrom's analysis: http://www.journal-of-nuclear-physics.com/?p=497#comments Andrea Rossi June 28th, 2011 at 5:24 PM Dear Michael Cox: The “analysis” of Peter Ekstrom is wrong, based on wrong data. Days ago a clown made a similar “analysis” calculating difficult data from the television. I thought that this kind of thing were made only by clowns. Now I see that there are physics that do the same. I answered to the clown that I was impressed from his ability. To a physic I answer that I am very much impressed. The “movie professor” has forgot that the steam condensates, that when condensates it turns into very hot water and the heat lost goes to the surface of the pipe, heating it,therefore : 1- the pipe gets very hot (80-90 °C) radiating up to 1 Wh/h (thermal) per square cm across a surface of thousands of square cm (5400 in this case). This heat has to be calculated. If not we forget that when we keep warm our house during the winter, radiators heat up at expense of the circulating hot water. 5400 sq. cm x 1 wh/h makes up to 5.4 thermal kW that can go that way. 2- the hot water burns, so I emptied the condensed water from the pipe to avoid that a jet of hot water could burn my face (as once, unfortunately, happened): why did I make this? Because I am not masochist. And: shaking the pipe I made it free from the morse of the mouth of the sink. 3- the temperature of the fluid inside the vertical chimney was more than 100.1 °C, and the pressure measured was room pressure. Should the water have been liquid, at room pressure the temperature in a vertical chimney would have been 99 °C, because, for the gravity, the chimney would have been filled up by water, and water at 100.1 °C, at room P, cannot be liquid. I have not the time to correct the many other mistakes of our “movie-professor”, because I worked 16 hours, time is 2 a.m. and I must go to sleep, tomorrow other 16 hours of work: no more time for “movie-professors” Besides, clowneries apart, I answer with my plants. In October we will start up our first plant of 1 MW in Greece. I will send a movie of it to the clown and to Peter Ekstrom , maybe they will join together to find the way to explain to the persons that will utilize the plant that it does not work, because they saw it in the movie! By the way: we made as well tests heating water, without phase change, and the efficiency has been the same, as published. Anyway, let me set up a good operating plant, and all the snakes, clowns and movie-professors will be swept away; their arms are chatters (and movies too), my arms are working plants. …and I have a surprise…but it will come in October. Warm regards, A.R. Rossi has completely lost it. 1. He compares his hose to a radiator, but a steam radiator at 100C emits heat at about 240 BTU/(hr*ft^2); see e.g. http://www.colonialsupply.com/resources/radiator.htm, or many other sites that talk about steam radiators. That converts to about 750 W/m^2 or .075 W/cm^2, about 14 times lower than he claims for rubber at 80 or 90C. (And what is it with Wh/h instead of the simpler synonym W?) 2. A 3-m hose, 2.5 cm in diameter, has a surface area of 3*pi*.025 m^2 = 0.235 m^2 = 2350 cm^2. His value is twice this. This seems unlikely, but not completely implausible, if the hose is really 4.5 m long, and really 3.5 cm (almost 1.5) in diameter. 3. Has he ever been near a 5 kW heater, used in heating machine shops and the like? The claim that hose emits 5 kW is too implausible for words. 4. In the video, Rossi says to Krivit, there is some condensation, but not much. Here he says there is complete condensation. 5. The pressure in the ecat cannot be room pressure, or the fluid would not flow out of the ecat into the room. (I wrote this a week ago, but did not realize it was off-list.)
Re: [Vo]:Rossi responds to movie professor and Peter Ekstrom's analysis
nothing to get all steamed up about...
Re: [Vo]:Rossi responds to movie professor and Peter Ekstrom's analysis
Thanks Rich, I am done debating the steam issue. Until someone builds a *trustworthy* demo that can simulate the behaviour of the eCat with 600-800 watts input, I am unimpressed by the method of debunking by calculation. Harry - Original Message - From: Rich Murray rmfor...@gmail.com To: Harry Veeder hlvee...@yahoo.com Cc: Sent: Wednesday, June 29, 2011 11:32:59 PM Subject: Re: [Vo]:Rossi responds to movie professor and Peter Ekstrom's analysis I'd like to see a practical person rig up an empty demo version of the Rossi device -- about the same power electric heater inside a chamber with a water inlet from a constant rate pump, and short outlet chimney, etc. with two faucets at the top of the outlet tube: one to allow fast sequential measures of any exiting invisible steam that turns into a mist in a few cm, then to be condensed and dripped into a container for measurement of weight and volume, and the other faucet leading to a transparent glass tube 3 m long that drains into a second measuring container, via weight and volume. I wager anomalous excess money that the heat input can be adjusted to closely replicate what we saw in the Krivit video. Be a neat project for a high school science fair...
Re: [Vo]:Rossi responds to movie professor and Peter Ekstrom's analysis
More bizarreness. Note that in all the apparent anger over the wetness of the effluent, nobody has stated *any* measurement which was made and which indicated the steam was dry. We've got temperature, we've got pressure (relative to ambient, please note, not even an actual pressure number, so we can't compute the boiling point from it), and we've got anger and offended dignity and insults hurled at those who dare to question him, but we haven't got a number which indicates a measurement was done which would show the steam was dry. We saw much the same thing from Galantini earlier in blog posts, albeit with less of the offended dignity business that Rossi's giving us. Am I the only one who sees this behavior as a big red flag? On 11-06-29 02:06 AM, Harry Veeder wrote: Peter Ekstrom's analysis: “the E-Cat does not produce excess Energy”. http://www.fysik.org/WebSite/fragelada/resurser/cold_fusion_krivit.pdf Rossi responds to Peter Ekstrom's analysis: http://www.journal-of-nuclear-physics.com/?p=497#comments Andrea Rossi June 28th, 2011 at 5:24 PM Dear Michael Cox: The “analysis” of Peter Ekstrom is wrong, based on wrong data. Days ago a clown made a similar “analysis” calculating difficult data from the television. I thought that this kind of thing were made only by clowns. Now I see that there are physics that do the same. I answered to the clown that I was impressed from his ability. To a physic I answer that I am very much impressed. The “movie professor” has forgot that the steam condensates, that when condensates it turns into very hot water and the heat lost goes to the surface of the pipe, heating it,therefore : 1- the pipe gets very hot (80-90 °C) radiating up to 1 Wh/h (thermal) per square cm across a surface of thousands of square cm (5400 in this case). This heat has to be calculated. If not we forget that when we keep warm our house during the winter, radiators heat up at expense of the circulating hot water. 5400 sq. cm x 1 wh/h makes up to 5.4 thermal kW that can go that way. 2- the hot water burns, so I emptied the condensed water from the pipe to avoid that a jet of hot water could burn my face (as once, unfortunately, happened): why did I make this? Because I am not masochist. And: shaking the pipe I made it free from the morse of the mouth of the sink. 3- the temperature of the fluid inside the vertical chimney was more than 100.1 °C, and the pressure measured was room pressure. Should the water have been liquid, at room pressure the temperature in a vertical chimney would have been 99 °C, because, for the gravity, the chimney would have been filled up by water, and water at 100.1 °C, at room P, cannot be liquid. I have not the time to correct the many other mistakes of our “movie-professor”, because I worked 16 hours, time is 2 a.m. and I must go to sleep, tomorrow other 16 hours of work: no more time for “movie-professors” Besides, clowneries apart, I answer with my plants. In October we will start up our first plant of 1 MW in Greece. I will send a movie of it to the clown and to Peter Ekstrom , maybe they will join together to find the way to explain to the persons that will utilize the plant that it does not work, because they saw it in the movie! By the way: we made as well tests heating water, without phase change, and the efficiency has been the same, as published. Anyway, let me set up a good operating plant, and all the snakes, clowns and movie-professors will be swept away; their arms are chatters (and movies too), my arms are working plants. …and I have a surprise…but it will come in October. Warm regards, A.R.
Re: [Vo]:Rossi responds to movie professor and Peter Ekstrom's analysis
Ad hominem responses are always confirmations that the responder is unable to support his position with evidence and reason... Lack of playful humor is another sign. Abd and Jed have shown this too, in recent days.
Re: [Vo]:Rossi responds to movie professor and Peter Ekstrom's analysis
Very good response by Andrea. We see that those movie clowns have also infiltrated Vortex, like Joshua, Abd and few other pseudoskeptics. One thing also what must be considered, but what was ignored by pseudoskeptics was that the room temperature was over 30 degrees. This makes steam less visible than in 20°C. I wonder if people finally understand how utterly silly was that steam dryness discussion. Here in Vortex, but especially by Steven and Peter who made themself a clown and fine target for public ridicule. But interesting indeed was the reaction by people in general, although understanding this required no more engineering skill than boiling water in the kettle. —Jouni Ps. Mysterious AND measured boiling point of water was 99.7±0.1°C. Therefore if steam temperature is above 100.1±0.1°C, then the steam is dry, because water cannot remain in liquid phase in normal atmospheric pressure when temperature is significantly above boiling point. Therefore it is completely ridiculous and lack of imagination to stick in this silly misconception. On Jun 29, 2011 4:54 PM, Stephen A. Lawrence sa...@pobox.com wrote: More bizarreness. Note that in all the apparent anger over the wetness of the effluent, nobody has stated *any* measurement which was made and which indicated the steam was dry. We've got temperature, we've got pressure (relative to ambient, please note, not even an actual pressure number, so we can't compute the boiling point from it), and we've got anger and offended dignity and insults hurled at those who dare to question him, but we haven't got a number which indicates a measurement was done which would show the steam was dry. We saw much the same thing from Galantini earlier in blog posts, albeit with less of the offended dignity business that Rossi's giving us. Am I the only one who sees this behavior as a big red flag? On 11-06-29 02:06 AM, Harry Veeder wrote: Peter Ekstrom's analysis: “the E-Cat does not produce excess Energy”. http://www.fysik.org/WebSite/fragelada/resurser/cold_fusion_krivit.pdf Rossi responds to Peter Ekstrom's analysis: http://www.journal-of-nuclear-physics.com/?p=497#comments Andrea Rossi June 28th, 2011 at 5:24 PM Dear Michael Cox: The “analysis” of Peter Ekstrom is wrong, based on wrong data. Days ago a clown made a similar “analysis” calculating difficult data from the television. I thought that this kind of thing were made only by clowns. Now I see that there are physics that do the same. I answered to the clown that I was impressed from his ability. To a physic I answer that I am very much impressed. The “movie professor” has forgot that the steam condensates, that when condensates it turns into very hot water and the heat lost goes to the surface of the pipe, heating it,therefore : 1- the pipe gets very hot (80-90 °C) radiating up to 1 Wh/h (thermal) per square cm across a surface of thousands of square cm (5400 in this case). This heat has to be calculated. If not we forget that when we keep warm our house during the winter, radiators heat up at expense of the circulating hot water. 5400 sq. cm x 1 wh/h makes up to 5.4 thermal kW that can go that way. 2- the hot water burns, so I emptied the condensed water from the pipe to avoid that a jet of hot water could burn my face (as once, unfortunately, happened): why did I make this? Because I am not masochist. And: shaking the pipe I made it free from the morse of the mouth of the sink. 3- the temperature of the fluid inside the vertical chimney was more than 100.1 °C, and the pressure measured was room pressure. Should the water have been liquid, at room pressure the temperature in a vertical chimney would have been 99 °C, because, for the gravity, the chimney would have been filled up by water, and water at 100.1 °C, at room P, cannot be liquid. I have not the time to correct the many other mistakes of our “movie-professor”, because I worked 16 hours, time is 2 a.m. and I must go to sleep, tomorrow other 16 hours of work: no more time for “movie-professors” Besides, clowneries apart, I answer with my plants. In October we will start up our first plant of 1 MW in Greece. I will send a movie of it to the clown and to Peter Ekstrom , maybe they will join together to find the way to explain to the persons that will utilize the plant that it does not work, because they saw it in the movie! By the way: we made as well tests heating water, without phase change, and the efficiency has been the same, as published. Anyway, let me set up a good operating plant, and all the snakes, clowns and movie-professors will be swept away; their arms are chatters (and movies too), my arms are working plants. …and I have a surprise…but it will come in October. Warm regards, A.R.
Re: [Vo]:Rossi responds to movie professor and Peter Ekstrom's analysis
On 11-06-29 10:06 AM, Rich Murray wrote: Ad hominem responses are always confirmations that the responder is unable to support his position with evidence and reason... Lack of playful humor is another sign. Abd and Jed have shown this too, in recent days. Nonsense. Please don't make such claims about individuals unless you can back them up (which you can't, in this case). Rich, you cited no specific messages here, probably because you couldn't. This turns your argument into an ad hominem attack in itself: It's just a vague accusation directed at individuals. Jed gets a little peeved now and then when somebody isn't following his argument, and he gets seriously peeved when dealing with pathological skeptics, but I don't think I've ever seen Abd do anything even vaguely like that, and a quick perusal of his recent messages shows him attacking arguments, pointing out flaws in reasoning, picking logical holes in things ... but I see not a shred of an ad hominem attack. Rich, please don't mistake attacks on *your* reasoning or arguments as ad hominems, by the way. Just because you think you sound sensible doesn't mean anybody else is going to agree with you!
Re: [Vo]:Rossi responds to movie professor and Peter Ekstrom's analysis
On 11-06-29 10:23 AM, Jouni Valkonen wrote: Very good response by Andrea. We see that those movie clowns have also infiltrated Vortex, like Joshua, Abd and few other pseudoskeptics. So Abd is a pseudoskeptic because he questioned the dryness of the steam, and asked if it's possible the thing is ejecting liquid water? Sounds like somebody has widened the definition of the term a bit. Jouni, pseudoskeptic doesn't mean I don't like you, which is how you just used the term. And calling Abd and Joshua movie clowns is just an empty ad hominem, just as it was when used by Rossi himself.
Re: [Vo]:Rossi responds to movie professor and Peter Ekstrom's analysis
Lawrence, the definition of movie clown is to make conclusive deductions from low resolution video footage without knowing what is a) surrounding temperature b) temperature of the hose and c) current power output of E-Cat. There was just too many unknowns to make strong conclusions. Pseudoscepticism was even reinforced by lack of explanation how steam can be wet AND two centigrades above boiling point. Ignoring this kind of simple detail and replacing it with conspiracy theory, is sure sign of pseudoskepticism. —Jouni Ps. as i suggested steam temperature is very easy to fake. Energy can also be from chemical sources, they are not excluded. But this not what was said but asumption was that there was just two orders of magnitude measurement error what is just ridiculous. On Jun 29, 2011 5:33 PM, Stephen A. Lawrence sa...@pobox.com wrote: On 11-06-29 10:23 AM, Jouni Valkonen wrote: Very good response by Andrea. We see that those movie clowns have also infiltrated Vortex, like Joshua, Abd and few other pseudoskeptics. So Abd is a pseudoskeptic because he questioned the dryness of the steam, and asked if it's possible the thing is ejecting liquid water? Sounds like somebody has widened the definition of the term a bit. Jouni, pseudoskeptic doesn't mean I don't like you, which is how you just used the term. And calling Abd and Joshua movie clowns is just an empty ad hominem, just as it was when used by Rossi himself.
Re: [Vo]:Rossi responds to movie professor and Peter Ekstrom's analysis
On Wed, Jun 29, 2011 at 9:23 AM, Jouni Valkonen jounivalko...@gmail.comwrote: Mysterious AND measured boiling point of water was 99.7±0.1°C. Therefore if steam temperature is above 100.1±0.1°C, then the steam is dry, because water cannot remain in liquid phase in normal atmospheric pressure when temperature is significantly above boiling point. You yourself argued at length that the temperature is not above the boiling point, as evidenced by its perfectly flat nature. You argued it was because only liquid water is heated directly. If the steam is dry and above the bp, then the steam must be heated directly, and then there is no explanation for its perfect flatness. Put that it yer pipe and smoke it.
Re: [Vo]:Rossi responds to movie professor and Peter Ekstrom's analysis
Original-Nachricht Datum: Wed, 29 Jun 2011 09:53:12 -0400 Von: Stephen A. Lawrence sa...@pobox.com An: vortex-l@eskimo.com Betreff: Re: [Vo]:Rossi responds to movie professor and Peter Ekstrom\'s analysis More bizarreness. Note that in all the apparent anger over the wetness of the effluent, nobody has stated *any* measurement which was made and which indicated the steam was dry. We've got temperature, we've got pressure (relative to ambient, please note, not even an actual pressure number, so we can't compute the boiling point from it),.. my remark: I looked up the air pressure in Bologna the day 14th of june, 2011. It was 1016 hPa (=1016 mBar) calculated at sealevel (air pressure is always related to its sealevel value, exept for some exceptions in mountain regions). Bologna, via dell'Elettricista 16 is 43 m above sealevel. So, the real air pressure was 1016 - 5.3 = 1010.7 hPa in the Rossi showroom that day. Angela -- NEU: FreePhone - kostenlos mobil telefonieren! Jetzt informieren: http://www.gmx.net/de/go/freephone
Re: [Vo]:Rossi responds to movie professor and Peter Ekstrom's analysis
Why are you subtracting the in Bologna if it was actually measured there?
Re: [Vo]:Rossi responds to movie professor and Peter Ekstrom's analysis
BTW, the boiling point for water at 1016hPa is 100.1, according to this boiling point calculator (pure water) http://www.partyman.se/boiling-point-calculator/
Re: [Vo]:Rossi responds to movie professor and Peter Ekstrom's analysis
Original-Nachricht Datum: Wed, 29 Jun 2011 13:10:41 -0300 Von: Daniel Rocha danieldi...@gmail.com An: vortex-l@eskimo.com Betreff: Re: [Vo]:Rossi responds to movie professor and Peter Ekstrom\'s analysis Why are you subtracting the in Bologna if it was actually measured there? no, they measured it a bit away, but still in Bologna. I you want the precise position, I may tell you that later, I have access to all the historic weather data. I think it is the airport there. Meteorology was my business for a long time. Every station transmits the local air pressure and adds the lacking pressure that comes from local height above sea level. See wikipedia barometric formula for details, its about 1 hPa per 8 m. If every station of the world would simply transmit local air pressure, you would not be able to draw the ground pressure charts. All values are sl-values. -- NEU: FreePhone - kostenlos mobil telefonieren! Jetzt informieren: http://www.gmx.net/de/go/freephone
Re: [Vo]:Rossi responds to movie professor and Peter Ekstrom's analysis
So, the boiling temperature is 99.9C.
Re: [Vo]:Rossi responds to movie professor and Peter Ekstrom's analysis
Original-Nachricht Datum: Wed, 29 Jun 2011 13:10:41 -0300 Von: Daniel Rocha danieldi...@gmail.com An: vortex-l@eskimo.com Betreff: Re: [Vo]:Rossi responds to movie professor and Peter Ekstrom\'s analysis Why are you subtracting the in Bologna if it was actually measured there? Its the altitude compensation. http://www.ehow.com/how_7716999_adjust-altitude-barometer.html a simple value like 1010.7 is not helpful itself. But, in relation to my long time working with air pressure values, I estimate an error of about 1 hpa is correct. Good barometers have an accuracy of about 0.2 hPa, but in reality it is a bit worse. Also, the exact height over sl for that location may be a bit different from 43 m. I looked it up at Google earth. There is perhaps another 5 m error or so. Its better to say: 1010.7 +/- 1 hPa I suppose, Rossi had a barometer there, I think it is included in the recording instrument collecting the temperature values. But we dont know if he looked up the value and if it was exacly compensated for altitude. -- Empfehlen Sie GMX DSL Ihren Freunden und Bekannten und wir belohnen Sie mit bis zu 50,- Euro! https://freundschaftswerbung.gmx.de
RE: [Vo]:Rossi responds to movie professor and Peter Ekstrom's analysis
Angela: Thanks for providing some hopefully more accurate data! I posted a question a few days ago as to what the altitude was for the location of Rossi's office where all the tests/demos have been done. We can't make the mistake of thinking they were done at the University. Just how well do you know the area, and how accurate are your estimates of the altitude of Rossi's office? Unfortunately, the system is running (just above) the phase-transition parameters and that makes the measurement of temp/pressure very important... -Mark -Original Message- From: Angela Kemmler [mailto:angela.kemm...@gmx.de] Sent: Wednesday, June 29, 2011 10:12 AM To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: [Vo]:Rossi responds to movie professor and Peter Ekstrom's analysis Original-Nachricht Datum: Wed, 29 Jun 2011 13:10:41 -0300 Von: Daniel Rocha danieldi...@gmail.com An: vortex-l@eskimo.com Betreff: Re: [Vo]:Rossi responds to movie professor and Peter Ekstrom\'s analysis Why are you subtracting the in Bologna if it was actually measured there? no, they measured it a bit away, but still in Bologna. I you want the precise position, I may tell you that later, I have access to all the historic weather data. I think it is the airport there. Meteorology was my business for a long time. Every station transmits the local air pressure and adds the lacking pressure that comes from local height above sea level. See wikipedia barometric formula for details, its about 1 hPa per 8 m. If every station of the world would simply transmit local air pressure, you would not be able to draw the ground pressure charts. All values are sl-values. -- NEU: FreePhone - kostenlos mobil telefonieren! Jetzt informieren: http://www.gmx.net/de/go/freephone
Re: [Vo]:Rossi responds to movie professor and Peter Ekstrom's analysis
From Angela: no, they measured it a bit away, but still in Bologna. I you want the precise position, I may tell you that later, I have access to all the historic weather data. I think it is the airport there. Meteorology was my business for a long time. Every station transmits the local air pressure and adds the lacking pressure that comes from local height above sea level. See wikipedia barometric formula for details, its about 1 hPa per 8 m. If every station of the world would simply transmit local air pressure, you would not be able to draw the ground pressure charts. All values are sl-values. It looks like some are seriously looking into altitude and historical weather pattern data... looking for clues in operational behavior. This is a daunting task. Good luck in your endeavors. Only time will tell if research into this matter proves to be revealing... or not as the case may be. Regards Steven Vincent Johnson www.OrionWorks.com www.zazzle.com/orionworks
RE: [Vo]:Rossi responds to movie professor and Peter Ekstrom's analysis
Steven: If you're implying that Angela (or someone) might be proposing that weather conditions might have some effect OTHER THAN simply affecting the BP of water, then NO, I don't think that's the case. As has been discussed at length here, the E-Cat's performance critically depends on the steam quality (dryness), and Rossi/Gallantini/Levi/Kullander are all basing their numbers on the steam being nearly completely dry... The reasoning is based on basic physics. Liquid water cannot exist in any significant amounts in steam when the temperature of the steam is clearly above the BP, and the steam is at ambient pressure. So any information that Angela could provide would help significantly since we were not given details of the atmospheric pressure outside the reactor -- we were only told that the pressure inside the chimney was the same as outside. Obviously, that requirement could be violated if the heat output of the reactor is fluctuating. Another proposal here is that liquid water is ejected out of the chimney, which may very well happen. This is certainly possible with the new, smaller e-Cats which have a much shorter chimney, but I would think that its very unlikely with the older e-Cats whose chimney looks like its at least 16 inches tall. The chimney could also have some baffles inside that would prevent liquid water from being ejected; it would simple fall back down into the boiling water. Perhaps that's why the newer e-Cats have a shorter chimney -- because baffles were put inside. We just don't know... The only real figures we have about the steam quality are from Kullander's report which calculated the liquid content of the steam was less than 1.4% to 1.2% -- Don't remember, but I think that would have to be by mass. -Mark -Original Message- From: OrionWorks - Steven V Johnson [mailto:svj.orionwo...@gmail.com] Sent: Wednesday, June 29, 2011 11:55 AM To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: [Vo]:Rossi responds to movie professor and Peter Ekstrom's analysis From Angela: no, they measured it a bit away, but still in Bologna. I you want the precise position, I may tell you that later, I have access to all the historic weather data. I think it is the airport there. Meteorology was my business for a long time. Every station transmits the local air pressure and adds the lacking pressure that comes from local height above sea level. See wikipedia barometric formula for details, its about 1 hPa per 8 m. If every station of the world would simply transmit local air pressure, you would not be able to draw the ground pressure charts. All values are sl-values. It looks like some are seriously looking into altitude and historical weather pattern data... looking for clues in operational behavior. This is a daunting task. Good luck in your endeavors. Only time will tell if research into this matter proves to be revealing... or not as the case may be. Regards Steven Vincent Johnson www.OrionWorks.com www.zazzle.com/orionworks
Re: [Vo]:Rossi responds to movie professor and Peter Ekstrom's analysis
On Jun 29, 2011 6:03 PM, Joshua Cude joshua.c...@gmail.com wrote: You yourself argued at length that the temperature is not above the boiling point, as evidenced by its perfectly flat nature. You argued it was because only liquid water is heated directly. If the steam is dry and above the bp, then the steam must be heated directly, and then there is no explanation for its perfect flatness. Good try but you forgot the surface tension. When you boil water in the kettle then you will get bubbles. Therefore steam can be hotter than actual boiling point. If you reduce the surface tension or make fine mist like in your setup, then steam temperature is closer to boiling point. Of course there is a limit how big steam bubles can get and how hot steam can go through liquid water in bubbles. Therefore steam is heated to about 101.0±1.0°C, if boiling point is calbrated to be 99.7±0.1°C. This of course depends heat difference between heating element and boiling water. Daniel calculated the actual boiling point. But thermometers absolute accuracy is ±0.4°C, although it's relative accuracy is ±0.1°C. Therefore thermometer must be calibrated and actual boiling point must be measured. In absolute sense boiling point was 99.7±0.4°C, but we do not need this figure because we measure relative temperatures where accuracy is ±0.1°C. —Jouni
Re: [Vo]:Rossi responds to movie professor and Peter Ekstrom's analysis
this site says: Steam - produced in a boiler where the heat is supplied to the water and where the steam are in contact with the water surface of the boiler - will contain approximately 5% water by mass. http://www.engineeringtoolbox.com/wet-steam-quality-d_426.html Harry
Re: [Vo]:Rossi responds to movie professor and Peter Ekstrom's analysis
On Wed, Jun 29, 2011 at 2:53 PM, Mark Iverson zeropo...@charter.net wrote: Steven: Another proposal here is that liquid water is ejected out of the chimney, which may very well happen. This is certainly possible with the new, smaller e-Cats which have a much shorter chimney, but I would think that its very unlikely with the older e-Cats whose chimney looks like its at least 16 inches tall. Before the water boils, where would the liquid be going, if not ejected out of the chimney? There is a pump pushing the water into the reactor at a constant flow rate. Assuming the pressure does not increase outside the range of the pumps specs, regardless of the phase, the water will exit through the chimney. The chimney could also have some baffles inside that would prevent liquid water from being ejected; it would simple fall back down into the boiling water. Then what happens before the water boils? And where does the water fall back to, if the space is taken up by new water pumped in. If the chimney were filled with water, as some people claim, then that alone would cause a pressure increase in the ecat. The pressure increase is given by density*g*height, or 10 kPa * height (in m). So if the height of the chimney is 10 cm, then the increase in the pressure is 1 kPa, which increases the bp by 0.3C. Perhaps that's why the newer e-Cats have a shorter chimney -- because baffles were put inside. We just don't know... We know there are no baffles stopping liquid, because water runs through it before it is boiling.
Re: [Vo]:Rossi responds to movie professor and Peter Ekstrom's analysis
On Wed, Jun 29, 2011 at 3:20 PM, Jouni Valkonen jounivalko...@gmail.comwrote: Good try but you forgot the surface tension. When you boil water in the kettle then you will get bubbles. Therefore steam can be hotter than actual boiling point. If you reduce the surface tension or make fine mist like in your setup, then steam temperature is closer to boiling point. The surface tension is part of the picture either way. The argument stands. If you claim that liquid is providing the temperature regulation, then the steam is not above the boiling point. Daniel calculated the actual boiling point. But thermometers absolute accuracy is ±0.4°C, although it's relative accuracy is ±0.1°C. If the absolute accuracy is .4C, then that undermines the argument completely, if it was not calibrated. If the bp in the lab really was 99.9C, and the measured value was 100.1C, then even calibrated, the confidence with which the difference can be regarded as significant is only marginal. If the chimney is filled with water, as you claim, the pressure inside the ecat is increased by about 1 kPa, and this would cause an increase in the bp by 0.3C.
RE: [Vo]:Rossi responds to movie professor and Peter Ekstrom's analysis
Geezus Josh, you're grasping at straws... and obviously flawed ones at that. First: It should be COMPELETLY obvious that we're talking about the behavior/performance of the system at steady-state -- NOT start-up. Start-up is only a transient state and performance calcs are made on measurements taken during steady-state, not start-up. Yes, of course the liquid water must fill-up the entire device and flows out of the chimney during the start-up phase... Second: You wrote: We know there are no baffles stopping liquid, because water runs through it before it is boiling. You comment here really makes me question your objectivity at least, if not your intelligence. Baffles inside the chimney would not significantly impede the water (liquid or vapor) flow up and out of the chimney! I find it hard to believe that you don't understand what baffles are... -Mark _ From: Joshua Cude [mailto:joshua.c...@gmail.com] Sent: Wednesday, June 29, 2011 1:32 PM To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: [Vo]:Rossi responds to movie professor and Peter Ekstrom's analysis On Wed, Jun 29, 2011 at 2:53 PM, Mark Iverson zeropo...@charter.net wrote: Steven: Another proposal here is that liquid water is ejected out of the chimney, which may very well happen. This is certainly possible with the new, smaller e-Cats which have a much shorter chimney, but I would think that its very unlikely with the older e-Cats whose chimney looks like its at least 16 inches tall. Before the water boils, where would the liquid be going, if not ejected out of the chimney? There is a pump pushing the water into the reactor at a constant flow rate. Assuming the pressure does not increase outside the range of the pumps specs, regardless of the phase, the water will exit through the chimney. The chimney could also have some baffles inside that would prevent liquid water from being ejected; it would simple fall back down into the boiling water. Then what happens before the water boils? And where does the water fall back to, if the space is taken up by new water pumped in. If the chimney were filled with water, as some people claim, then that alone would cause a pressure increase in the ecat. The pressure increase is given by density*g*height, or 10 kPa * height (in m). So if the height of the chimney is 10 cm, then the increase in the pressure is 1 kPa, which increases the bp by 0.3C. Perhaps that's why the newer e-Cats have a shorter chimney -- because baffles were put inside. We just don't know... We know there are no baffles stopping liquid, because water runs through it before it is boiling.
Re: [Vo]:Rossi responds to movie professor and Peter Ekstrom's analysis
On Wed, Jun 29, 2011 at 4:04 PM, Mark Iverson zeropo...@charter.net wrote: ** Geezus Josh, you're grasping at straws... and obviously flawed ones at that. First: It should be COMPELETLY obvious that we're talking about the behavior/performance of the system at steady-state -- NOT start-up. I get that. But the behavior during start up can be used to give information about the device. Like, for example, it indicates that the device has thermal mass, and in this case, it indicates that there is nothing in the chimney preventing liquid water from getting out. Yes, of course the liquid water must fill-up the entire device and flows out of the chimney during the start-up phase... Good, then what would prevent water from going through the chimney during steady state. Second: You wrote: We know there are no baffles stopping liquid, because water runs through it before it is boiling. You comment here really makes me question your objectivity at least, if not your intelligence. Baffles inside the chimney would not significantly impede the water (liquid or vapor) flow up and out of the chimney! I guess I misunderstood you when you said The chimney could also have some baffles inside that would prevent liquid water from being ejected; it would simple fall back down into the boiling water. What did you mean by that then? The pump is still operating at steady state, meaning fluid is entering the chimney all the time. It's gonna push whatever is in the chimney out, whether gas or liquid. If there's not enough steam to carry away the input mass, then liquid has to get pushed out. Where else can it go? It can't fall back; there's more water taking up the space it might like to fall back to. Please indulge my obviously inferior intelligence and limited experience. But your explanation just doesn't make sense to me.
RE: [Vo]:Rossi responds to movie professor and Peter Ekstrom's analysis
Again, I think it would be obvious that ***IF*** the heat production of the reactor is not enough to vaporize nearly all of the water flowing in each second, then YES, the chimney will eventually fill up and spill water out of the inlet... And yes, a clear hose would be a very simple way to eliminate that concern... No disagreements there! I think the reason Levi and other don't puch that issue is because they've seen the unit in operation without the hose on and know that liquid water is not coming out. Do you honestly think that Levi or the Swedes or ANY scientist or engineer who witnessed liquid water flowing out of the chimney during steady -state would endorse Rossi as they have??? No one is that stupid or gullible... I think the disconnect here is that your mind simply cannot even CONSIDER the possibility that the reacor ***IS*** keeping up with water inlet flowrate and vaporizing all of it... it seems to really bother you, and you look for any shread of evidence, regardless of how insignificant, in order to satisfy your intellect, or you are trying to generate doubt in the mind of readers who aren't technically savvy. I at least feel its a reasonable possibility, and am trying, on a daily basis, to determine how likely this is what it seems to be... that to me is more rational than someone who only notices and points out what is questionable, and not the supportive evidence. It seems as if you look at this as black or white. You look at what data there is and given the fact that we don't have irrefutable evidence, your only conclusion is it doesn't work. I look at it as a continuum... and at any point in time, my confidence level can vary according to any new details or analysis I come across. Your analyses are helpful at times, but it is very obvious that you just don't want to even consider that this MIGHT be working that's certainly your perogative. -Mark _ From: Joshua Cude [mailto:joshua.c...@gmail.com] Sent: Wednesday, June 29, 2011 2:21 PM To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: [Vo]:Rossi responds to movie professor and Peter Ekstrom's analysis On Wed, Jun 29, 2011 at 4:04 PM, Mark Iverson zeropo...@charter.net wrote: Geezus Josh, you're grasping at straws... and obviously flawed ones at that. First: It should be COMPELETLY obvious that we're talking about the behavior/performance of the system at steady-state -- NOT start-up. I get that. But the behavior during start up can be used to give information about the device. Like, for example, it indicates that the device has thermal mass, and in this case, it indicates that there is nothing in the chimney preventing liquid water from getting out. Yes, of course the liquid water must fill-up the entire device and flows out of the chimney during the start-up phase... Good, then what would prevent water from going through the chimney during steady state. Second: You wrote: We know there are no baffles stopping liquid, because water runs through it before it is boiling. You comment here really makes me question your objectivity at least, if not your intelligence. Baffles inside the chimney would not significantly impede the water (liquid or vapor) flow up and out of the chimney! I guess I misunderstood you when you said The chimney could also have some baffles inside that would prevent liquid water from being ejected; it would simple fall back down into the boiling water. What did you mean by that then? The pump is still operating at steady state, meaning fluid is entering the chimney all the time. It's gonna push whatever is in the chimney out, whether gas or liquid. If there's not enough steam to carry away the input mass, then liquid has to get pushed out. Where else can it go? It can't fall back; there's more water taking up the space it might like to fall back to. Please indulge my obviously inferior intelligence and limited experience. But your explanation just doesn't make sense to me.
Re: [Vo]:Rossi responds to movie professor and Peter Ekstrom's analysis
On Wed, Jun 29, 2011 at 5:13 PM, Mark Iverson zeropo...@charter.net wrote: ** Again, I think it would be obvious that ***IF*** the heat production of the reactor is not enough to vaporize nearly all of the water flowing in each second, then YES, the chimney will eventually fill up and spill water out of the inlet... No, this is not the way it would happen. Even if the power is enough to vaporize only a few per cent of the water (by mass), then gas will occupy nearly all the volume (ninety some per cent). So, there is no way that the chimney would fill up with water; that would block the high volume of gas forming behind it. What you have is high velocity gas in the presence of a small volume of liquid. The liquid gets entrained in the gas in the form of small droplets and gets sent through the chimney as a mist. This is not hard to conceive. Just think of an ultrasonic mister, or google 2-phase flow. The mist behaves like a gas, but has a very different enthalpy. That's Rossi's game. It's amazing how many smart people he has sucked in with it. Do you honestly think that Levi or the Swedes or ANY scientist or engineer who witnessed liquid water flowing out of the chimney during steady -state would endorse Rossi as they have??? They did not witness liquid water flowing out of the chimney. If Rossi showed them, they will have seen a mist coming out of the chimney. And yes, I have no doubt at all that many academics inexperienced with steam and steam/mist mixtures would accept that it was dry steam. I think the disconnect here is that your mind simply cannot even CONSIDER the possibility that the reacor ***IS*** keeping up with water inlet flowrate and vaporizing all of it... it seems to really bother you, and you look for any shread of evidence, regardless of how insignificant, in order to satisfy your intellect, or you are trying to generate doubt in the mind of readers who aren't technically savvy. No. I think it is the opposite situation. That you so want to believe it is true that you are ignoring obvious flaws in the demonstrations. Like how the ecat knows to turn on exactly when the water boils. How the power transfer can increase from 600W to 5 kW in a minute or 3, when the increase from 0 to 600 W takes more than 10 minutes. How the temperature can remain so perfectly regulated in the absence of liquid water. And so on. What Rossi is claiming is unlikely, and therefore without evidence, I remain skeptical. He has not provided evidence. Everything he has shown can be easily explained without resorting to nuclear reactions. No exotic explanations are needed to understand his demos, so why would I invoke exotic explanations? It seems as if you look at this as black or white. You look at what data there is and given the fact that we don't have irrefutable evidence, your only conclusion is it doesn't work. No. Without evidence, I am skeptical that it works. I do not conclude that it doesn't work. But I am not ready to conclude that it does work, until the evidence is much stronger, even irrefutable. As long as it's refutable, why should anyone accept it? I look at it as a continuum... and at any point in time, my confidence level can vary according to any new details or analysis I come across. I have not seen any indication of doubt from you, but ok, if you are less confident than you indicate, that's good.
RE: [Vo]:Rossi responds to movie professor and Peter Ekstrom's analysis
Joshua wrote: I guess I misunderstood you when you said The chimney could also have some baffles inside that would prevent liquid water from being ejected; it would simple fall back down into the boiling water. [iverson] Ever hear of an 'ejection' seat... or the phrase, 'the person was ejected from the vehicle' ? Come on Josh, someone with your intelligence and vocabulary certainly understands that 'ejection' is very different from 'flowing'. There is a concern that due to the likely rigorous boiling inside, some (macroscopic) liquid water is being thrown upward and some of it exiting thru the opening in the side of the chimney... ( images of the mayans throwing a ball thru a hole in the wall) ... This is a very reasonable concern that could have easily been assuaged if a clear hose was used. Baffles would be a simple solution to that problem. But again, the scientists involved have seen E-Cats operate without the hose, and any significant liquid water coming out of the chimney would have been a major red flag and seriously questioned... -Mark
Re: [Vo]:Rossi responds to movie professor and Peter Ekstrom's analysis
On Wed, Jun 29, 2011 at 6:26 PM, Mark Iverson zeropo...@charter.net wrote: There is a concern that due to the likely rigorous boiling inside, some (macroscopic) liquid water is being thrown upward and some of it exiting thru the opening in the side of the chimney... Depends what you mean by macroscopic. Considering that more than 90% (probably close to 99%) of the fluid is gas (by volume), flowing at about 1700 times faster than the liquid water is coming in, the liquid would probably get broken up into pretty small (but still possibly macroscopic) droplets, and carried along with the high speed gas, right out of that chimney. That's a kind of ejection; it's also a kind of flow. But whatever you prefer to call it, it has no choice but to get out of the chimney, was the point. This is a very reasonable concern that could have easily been assuaged if a clear hose was used. I'm not so sure. A mist, and steam are not that different. Baffles would be a simple solution to that problem. I don't see how. The water has to get out. It has no choice. I think it would do it as a mist, and I don't see how baffles that allow gas to get through, wouldn't also allow a mist to get through. But again, the scientists involved have seen E-Cats operate without the hose, and any significant liquid water coming out of the chimney would have been a major red flag and seriously questioned... Maybe not if it came out as a mist. What should be a red flag is that Rossi didn't show the video makers what comes out of that chimney. It's supposed to be a demo, after all.
RE: [Vo]:Rossi responds to movie professor and Peter Ekstrom's analysis
Josh wrote: they will have seen a mist coming out of the chimney. No, Kullander specifically states in his report: The 100 °C temperature is reached at 10:42 and at about 10:45 all the water is completely vaporized found by visual checks of the outlet tube and the valve letting out steam from the chimney. Kullander would NOT have made that statement if there was visible mist... And Galantini specifically stated several times that the steam exiting the chimney was transparent... why do you think they make a point of it? Because they understand the importance that the steam quality will have on performance figures being reported (not just by Rossi, but in their own reports). These people have satisfied to themselves that the steam was very nearly dry... Here's a statement from Kullander that is a bit confusing... The temperature at the outlet was controlled continually to be above 100°C. According to the electronic log-book, it remained always between 100.1 and 100.2 °C during the operation from 10:45 to 16:30 as can be seen in figure 7. The outlet was controlled is obviously not right... there's nothing to control at the outlet! This must be more an issue with english not being his native language. What he means is that the temperature of the steam exiting the outlet was always maintained between 100.1 and 100.2. This is certainly a concern in that there seems to be no feedback of outlet temperature in order to provide data to the control boxes (PLCs).. Is the operation of the E-Cat so consistent that so long as there's a steady flowrate and fairly constant input temperature, the unit can operate in an open loop manner??? We just do not know at this time and we just have to wait... I have always recognized that there are significant concerns and no end to the frustrations that come from how the tests/demos were conducted! -Mark _ From: Joshua Cude [mailto:joshua.c...@gmail.com] Sent: Wednesday, June 29, 2011 4:11 PM To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: [Vo]:Rossi responds to movie professor and Peter Ekstrom's analysis On Wed, Jun 29, 2011 at 5:13 PM, Mark Iverson zeropo...@charter.net wrote: Again, I think it would be obvious that ***IF*** the heat production of the reactor is not enough to vaporize nearly all of the water flowing in each second, then YES, the chimney will eventually fill up and spill water out of the inlet... No, this is not the way it would happen. Even if the power is enough to vaporize only a few per cent of the water (by mass), then gas will occupy nearly all the volume (ninety some per cent). So, there is no way that the chimney would fill up with water; that would block the high volume of gas forming behind it. What you have is high velocity gas in the presence of a small volume of liquid. The liquid gets entrained in the gas in the form of small droplets and gets sent through the chimney as a mist. This is not hard to conceive. Just think of an ultrasonic mister, or google 2-phase flow. The mist behaves like a gas, but has a very different enthalpy. That's Rossi's game. It's amazing how many smart people he has sucked in with it. Do you honestly think that Levi or the Swedes or ANY scientist or engineer who witnessed liquid water flowing out of the chimney during steady -state would endorse Rossi as they have??? They did not witness liquid water flowing out of the chimney. If Rossi showed them, they will have seen a mist coming out of the chimney. And yes, I have no doubt at all that many academics inexperienced with steam and steam/mist mixtures would accept that it was dry steam. I think the disconnect here is that your mind simply cannot even CONSIDER the possibility that the reacor ***IS*** keeping up with water inlet flowrate and vaporizing all of it... it seems to really bother you, and you look for any shread of evidence, regardless of how insignificant, in order to satisfy your intellect, or you are trying to generate doubt in the mind of readers who aren't technically savvy. No. I think it is the opposite situation. That you so want to believe it is true that you are ignoring obvious flaws in the demonstrations. Like how the ecat knows to turn on exactly when the water boils. How the power transfer can increase from 600W to 5 kW in a minute or 3, when the increase from 0 to 600 W takes more than 10 minutes. How the temperature can remain so perfectly regulated in the absence of liquid water. And so on. What Rossi is claiming is unlikely, and therefore without evidence, I remain skeptical. He has not provided evidence. Everything he has shown can be easily explained without resorting to nuclear reactions. No exotic explanations are needed to understand his demos, so why would I invoke exotic explanations? It seems as if you look at this as black or white. You look at what data there is and given the fact that we don't have irrefutable evidence, your only conclusion
Re: [Vo]:Rossi responds to movie professor and Peter Ekstrom's analysis
From: Mark Iverson zeropo...@charter.net This is certainly a concern in that there seems to be no feedback of outlet temperature in order to provide data to the control boxes (PLCs).. Is the operation of the E-Cat so consistent that so long as there's a steady flowrate and fairly constant input temperature, the unit can operate in an open loop manner??? We just do not know at this time and we just have to wait... I suspect he found the sweetspot with trial and error. Harry
RE: [Vo]:Rossi responds to movie professor and Peter Ekstrom's analysis
Joshua wrote: No, this is not the way it would happen. Even if the power is enough to vaporize only a few per cent of the water (by mass), then gas will occupy nearly all the volume (ninety some per cent). So, there is no way that the chimney would fill up with water; that would block the high volume of gas forming behind it. What you have is high velocity gas in the presence of a small volume of liquid. The liquid gets entrained in the gas in the form of small droplets and gets sent through the chimney as a mist. This is not hard to conceive. Just think of an ultrasonic mister, or google 2-phase flow. The mist behaves like a gas, but has a very different enthalpy. That's Rossi's game. It's amazing how many smart people he has sucked in with it. I did as you suggest and searched for '2-phase flow', and even refined it by adding steam quality to the search terms... I'm sorry to disappoint you, but it only took the first two references I looked at to satisfy me that your explanation here is very unlikely, if not a total guess. First ref I looked at was wikipedia, which makes no mention of entrainment of liquid water in the vapor... the 2-phases are referring to the fact that liquid is flowing thru a heated pipe, which is apparently heated over more than just a few inches, and there are three distinct regions: a region where you have all liquid, then a transition region where there are varying degrees of liquid and vapor, and then vapor. No mention of entrainment. Then I found this article discussing 2-phase flow in horizontal vs vertical piping, and it is at least CONTRADICTORY to your claim: A relation between steam quality and void fraction in two-phase flow Hideo Fujie First published online: 17 JUN 2004, AIChE Journal, Volume 10, Issue 2, pages 227-232, March 1964 http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/aic.690100219/abstract?systemMessage=Wiley+Online+Library +will+be+disrupted+2+July+from+10-12+BST+for+monthly+maintenance If you read the fourth paragraph, it says: The effects of entrained liquid quantity on the void fractions as well as on the momentum changes are neglected because in accordance with Dukler (3) the entrained liquid quantity is small compared with the quantity of the film along the wall, unless the gas velocity in the core exceeds 100ft./sec. Sounds to me like the liquid water on the walls is more than likely greater than what's entrained, unless the flowrate is real high... Certainly not the case we are dealing with. In addition, your use of the term 'high velocity gas' seems to be in contradiction to the MEASURED pressure inside the chimney, which is ambient, within the error limit of the sensor My problem with you Josh, is that you bring up what SEEM like reasonable objections, but there is no real detailed explanation as to how its relevent... this 2-phase issue is a perfect example. Yes, 2-phase flow does happen in steam generation systems, and there's a shitload of research on it primarily because of boiling water reactors which produce the majority of the planet's electricity, but you have NO specifics as to exactly how the 2-phase flow supports your CLAIM that there is alot of entrained liquid water in Rossi's system, nor any third-party supporting references to support your position. In fact, the second webpage I went to in the search that you suggested I do, resulted in finding a statement that could very well refute your claim... it is at least contradictory. Gotta git... -Mark
Re: [Vo]:Rossi responds to movie professor and Peter Ekstrom's analysis
Mark, I put an entire book on 2-phase flow on this discussion list, 3 days ago.
Re: [Vo]:Rossi responds to movie professor and Peter Ekstrom's analysis
From: Joshua Cude joshua.c...@gmail.com To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Wednesday, June 29, 2011 5:20:37 PM Subject: Re: [Vo]:Rossi responds to movie professor and Peter Ekstrom's analysis The pump is still operating at steady state, meaning fluid is entering the chimney all the time. It's gonna push whatever is in the chimney out, whether gas or liquid. If there's not enough steam to carry away the input mass, then liquid has to get pushed out. Where else can it go? It can't fall back; there's more water taking up the space it might like to fall back to. If the water doesn't fall back in the chimney, then it shouldn't fall back anywhere, and you should be able to see some water splatter from the end of the hose the moment Rossi pulls it from the drain. Harry
Re: [Vo]:Rossi responds to movie professor and Peter Ekstrom's analysis
On Wed, Jun 29, 2011 at 7:14 PM, Mark Iverson zeropo...@charter.net wrote: ** Josh wrote: they will have seen a mist coming out of the chimney. No, Kullander specifically states in his report: The 100 °C temperature is reached at 10:42 and at about 10:45 all the water is completely vaporized found by visual checks of the outlet tube and the valve letting out steam from the chimney. Kullander would NOT have made that statement if there was visible mist... We don't know that. He didn't describe what he saw. He just said visible checks. There have been plenty of pictures and videos of the device made, but none of this. Why not? There are good reasons not to place much confidence in any of the observers used so far: 1) They are measuring the the temperature every few seconds and logging it in a computer, when during the 8-fold increase in power, no change in the temperature is expected. Yet the steam quality, which changes dramatically over that 8-fold change in power is reported with a visual check, and a measurement of relative humidity. What they saw in the visual check is not reported. The value of the RH is not reported. It is not logged. And above all, the relative humidity does not give the steam quality. That indicates incompetence, regardless of their education and position. 2) The claim that in 3 minutes the power can go from 600W to 5 kW is not credible. You can see the effect of the thermal mass in the startup period. It takes time to warm up the ecat. In order to transfer 8 times the power to the water requires 8 times the temperature difference between the walls of the ecat and the water. - They even claim that the ecat ignites before the bp is reached. If you extrapolate the gradient after ignition to get the temperature required for 5 kW power transfer, it would take at least 30 min, but probably more like an hour (depending on the actual temperature of the ecat when boiling is first reached). - If by some miracle, the ecat increases to 5 kW output power exactly when boiling begins, it would still take more than twice that time to reach the necessary temperature to get a 5 kW power transfer to the water. - The only way to get the necessary gradient to get to 5 kW transfer from 600 W transfer in 3 minutes is if the ecat power was briefly much higher, somewhere in the range of 15 kW. But then when the power transfer approached the necessary 5 kW, the ecat power output would have to decrease back to 5 kW. That would be some trick! 3) Closely related to the last dash point, they accept the idea that no matter what input flow rate Rossi chooses in his various demos, the ecat somehow gives out just the right amount of power to convert all the water to steam, and not a per cent more, because a per cent increase in power would increase the temperature of the steam by something close to 10C. How is that possible? In fact, the demos aren't necessary. You tell me an input flow rate, and I'll tell you the power output. If you believe anything about the secret run, it is clear that not only does he not know exactly what the power output will be, but that it fluctuates considerably, even by as much as a factor of 10. The only way it can be pinned to the bp the way it is is if the steam is very wet indeed. And Galantini specifically stated several times that the steam exiting the chimney was transparent... I missed that statement. Can you tell me where this is reported? why do you think they make a point of it? The problem is that they don't. They make a point of measuring the temperature over and over. But they don't measure the steam velocity (or volume flow rate) which would indicate how dry it is. They don't make a point of showing the audience what the steam looks like by means of a photo or video. E and K don't even describe the steam qualitatively. They seem to make a point of obscuring the appearance of the chimney output. Because they understand the importance that the steam quality will have on performance figures being reported (not just by Rossi, but in their own reports). These people have satisfied to themselves that the steam was very nearly dry... Maybe, but they were too easily satisfied. Their satisfaction does not satisfy me. I'd like to see evidence. Here's a statement from Kullander that is a bit confusing... The temperature at the outlet was controlled continually to be above 100°C. According to the electronic log-book, it remained always between 100.1 and 100.2 °C during the operation from 10:45 to 16:30 as can be seen in figure 7. The outlet was controlled is obviously not right... there's nothing to control at the outlet! This must be more an issue with english not being his native language. What he means is that the temperature of the steam exiting the outlet was always maintained between 100.1 and 100.2. Well, it's a passive statement. Maybe he meant it was controlled by the process. I have little doubt it was controlled by
Re: [Vo]:Rossi responds to movie professor and Peter Ekstrom's analysis
On Wed, Jun 29, 2011 at 8:21 PM, Mark Iverson zeropo...@charter.net wrote: ** I did as you suggest and searched for '2-phase flow', and even refined it by adding steam quality to the search terms... I'm sorry to disappoint you, but it only took the first two references I looked at to satisfy me that your explanation here is very unlikely, if not a total guess. Not a total guess. The paper I had looked at is: Wang et al., Photographic Study on Two-Phase Flow Patterns of Water in a Single-Side Heated Narrow Rectangular Channel, J Eng Gas Turbines Power 133 (2011) 052907. These are vertical channels (like the chimney), and they identify 4 stages within the 2-phase stage: *Four discernible flow patterns, which names dispersed bubbly, coalesced bubbly, churn flow, and annular flow are observed.* * * Conditions are not the same as the ecat, but the paper was enough to suggest to me that a mist is reasonable. The photos of annular flow, at vapor speeds not that different from the ecat (with 1 inch tube), show droplets entrained in the flow. We don't know what is inside that chimney. It could be coiled tubing with a small diameter, which would produce higher speed of vapor, and a greater percentage of entrained drops. Or maybe he has concealed some kind of atomizer in the chimney. Or maybe a vertical chimney with a larger diameter produces more entrained drops. Who knows. What we do know is that liquid water has to get out of the chimney if it is not completely vaporized. Even if most of the liquid is along the walls, it's not clear what we would see at the output of a small opening. The gas speed through a 1 inch opening would be several hundred cm/s (depending on the degree of vaporization), and if the valve at the top of the chimney has a smaller opening, the speed would be even higher. The gas would expand at the exit and might entrain the water right there to form a fine mist. You can produce something approaching mist from 100% liquid by holding your thumb at the end of a hose, or with a suitable attachment. Most importantly, when they open the valve at the top of the chimney to examine the steam, they don't close the valve to the hose, which is vertically lower on the chimney. It is therefore entirely plausible that what comes out at the top contains considerably less liquid than what is forced through the hose lower down. You are right though to say that I don't know what is actually going on in that thing. The point is that what has been shown to us is not convincing evidence of dry steam. And if it were dry steam, there are very easy ways to prove it. Measure the volume flow rate. Reduce the input flow rate and see if the steam temperature climbs. The fact that they don't prove it when they could is very suspicious. Yes, 2-phase flow does happen in steam generation systems, and there's a shitload of research on it primarily because of boiling water reactors which produce the majority of the planet's electricity, but you have NO specifics as to exactly how the 2-phase flow supports your CLAIM that there is alot of entrained liquid water in Rossi's system, nor any third-party supporting references to support your position. It's Rossi's invention. The burden of proof is on him. He has no specifics to support his claim that it is dry steam. My claim is simply that if the power is lower than 5 kW but higher than 600W, the fluid has to be a mixture of 2 phases. I don't need references for that. And I argue with less certainty that what Rossi has shown us is at least consistent with a mixture of phases. As the ecat makes the transition from pure water to pure steam, it has to go through a stage where there is a mixture of phases. Why doesn't Rossi show us that stage so we can see how it changes as it becomes drier over what must be a period of at least tens of minutes. That's yet another way he could make his claim of dry steam more credible. And another thing he has not done.
Re: [Vo]:Rossi responds to movie professor and Peter Ekstrom's analysis
Joshua Cude's most recent 2 posts are excellent, lucid, crisp, point by point, spot on, concise, pertinent -- they deserve reading and rereading. He mobilizes the available evidence to show a great likelihood that the outflow includes a lot of liquid water and mist, and therefore no evidence of mysterious excess heat. The Rossi team will have to concede... no cat in the catalyser bag.
RE: [Vo]:Rossi responds to movie professor and Peter Ekstrom's analysis
Okay Rich, what have you been smokin' this evening? There are too many unknowns, unfortunately, to come to any real conclusion for or against... So we just wait and continue to discuss the information as it slowly flows out... Pun intended. :-) -Mark -Original Message- From: Rich Murray [mailto:rmfor...@gmail.com] Sent: Wednesday, June 29, 2011 10:49 PM To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: [Vo]:Rossi responds to movie professor and Peter Ekstrom's analysis Joshua Cude's most recent 2 posts are excellent, lucid, crisp, point by point, spot on, concise, pertinent -- they deserve reading and rereading. He mobilizes the available evidence to show a great likelihood that the outflow includes a lot of liquid water and mist, and therefore no evidence of mysterious excess heat. The Rossi team will have to concede... no cat in the catalyser bag.
RE: [Vo]:Rossi responds to some of his critics
Thanks for the posts. For better or worse, Rossi strikes me as the ultimate micromanager. Perhaps it part of an engineer's internal makeup - to want to stay in control of everything, including the purse strings. I can dig it. Regards, Steven Vincent Johnson www.OrionWorks.com www.zazzle.com/orionworks
Re: [Vo]:Rossi responds to some of his critics
On 02/08/2011 08:52 AM, OrionWorks - Steven Vincent Johnson wrote: Thanks for the posts. For better or worse, Rossi strikes me as the ultimate micromanager. Perhaps it part of an engineer's internal makeup - to want to stay in control of everything, including the purse strings. It's a truism in the world of startups that the longer you can go before you get outside financing, the better off you are: if you have more to show, you can sell a smaller share of the company for more dollars. If you get financing when there's hardly anything there but an idea, then you're likely to end up selling almost the whole company before you get to square 1. The trouble is, without money, it can be hard to get anywhere.
Re: [Vo]:Rossi responds to some of his critics
This, and other words and actions of Rossi show that he is NOT an idealist. On the contrary. Idealist has three opposites: materialist, realist and pragmatist- and Rossi tries to be these all, it seems. On Tue, Feb 8, 2011 at 8:02 AM, Harry Veeder hlvee...@yahoo.com wrote: http://www.journal-of-nuclear-physics.com/?p=360#comments February 7th, 2011 at 6:06 PM A LOT OF BLOGS ARE SAYING, AMONG INSULTS TO ME, THAT THERE ARE IN THE WORLD SOME LOTS OF “COLD FUSION” PROCESSES WHICH WORK PERFECTLY AND WHICH ARE FAR BETTER THAN THE ONE THAT, MODESTLY, I MADE. GOOD. SOME SAY THAT HIS PROCESS IS THE SAME OF MINE, BUT THAT HE MADE IT MANY YEARS AGO. GOOD. I APPRECIATE THIS. WHAT I WANT TO SAY TO ALL THOSE GUYS IS: PLEASE, INSTEAD OF CHATTERING , MAKE A REAL REACTOR, PUT IT IN OPERATION, PRODUCE kWhS, AS WE ARE DOING. AND DO ALL THIS, AS I DID, WITH YOUR MONEY, WITHOUT ASKING FOR FINANCING. IF YOU REALLY BELIEVE IN YOUR WORK YOU DO NOT NEED MONEY, YOU HAVE JUST TO WORK, WORK, WORK. WHEN YOU WILL HAVE BEEN ABLE TO PUT IN THE MARKET REAL AND OPERATIONAL REACTORS,ONLY AT THAT POINT YOU WILL QUALIFY TO BE COMPETITORS. FOR NOW YOU ARE JUST GTFMS (GOOD TALKERS FREE MONEY SEEKERS). ALL I DID I DID WITH MY MONEY, NO HELP FROM ANYWHERE. THIS MUST BE CLEAR. TO MAKE WHAT I MADE I HAD TO SELL ALL I HAD. THIS HAS TO BE VERY CLEAR TO THE IMBECILES WHO ARE INSULTING MY WORK. IN OCTOBER I WILL PUT IN OPERATION A 1 MW PLANT. DO NOT CHATTER, IF YOU WANT TO COMPETE, GO TO STUDY AND WORK, AS I DO, AND DO THE SAME. ANDREA ROSSI Harry
Re: [Vo]:Rossi Responds
Hello, What I don`t understand is that with this system producing 15 kW of power the temperature in the room isn`t higher then 23 degrees Celcius. This amount of power corresponds to a group of 150 people or an intense perpendicular solar flux through a large window of 15 m2. It seems that everybody in the room during the Rossi experiments was feeling very comfortable. Normally when such an amount of heat is dumped into a room the aircon will fail. Peter - Original Message - From: Terry Blanton hohlr...@gmail.com To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Monday, January 17, 2011 1:50 AM Subject: [Vo]:Rossi Responds Three pages of questions and answers at his weblog: http://www.journal-of-nuclear-physics.com/?p=360cpage=3#comments including: Daniel G. Zavela January 15th, 2011 at 4:28 AM Greetings from California and congratulations on your successful work! Can you simply state what the Watts IN are versus Watts OUT? Can you turn off the input current? Does the reaction become self-sustaining? Andrea Rossi January 15th, 2011 at 5:05 AM Dear Mr Daniel Zavela: Watts in: 400 wh/h Watts out: 15,000 wh/h Yes, we can turn off the input current, but we prefer to maintain a drive and the reasons are very difficult to explain without violating my confidentiality restraints. The reaction becomes self sustaining. Warm Regards, A.R. end COP = 37.5 T
Re: [Vo]:Rossi Responds
This heat was removed by condensing the steam- by the cooling water. Peter the Older On Mon, Jan 17, 2011 at 1:45 PM, P.J van Noorden pjvan...@xs4all.nl wrote: Hello, What I don`t understand is that with this system producing 15 kW of power the temperature in the room isn`t higher then 23 degrees Celcius. This amount of power corresponds to a group of 150 people or an intense perpendicular solar flux through a large window of 15 m2. It seems that everybody in the room during the Rossi experiments was feeling very comfortable. Normally when such an amount of heat is dumped into a room the aircon will fail. Peter - Original Message - From: Terry Blanton hohlr...@gmail.com To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Monday, January 17, 2011 1:50 AM Subject: [Vo]:Rossi Responds Three pages of questions and answers at his weblog: http://www.journal-of-nuclear-physics.com/?p=360cpage=3#comments including: Daniel G. Zavela January 15th, 2011 at 4:28 AM Greetings from California and congratulations on your successful work! Can you simply state what the Watts IN are versus Watts OUT? Can you turn off the input current? Does the reaction become self-sustaining? Andrea Rossi January 15th, 2011 at 5:05 AM Dear Mr Daniel Zavela: Watts in: 400 wh/h Watts out: 15,000 wh/h Yes, we can turn off the input current, but we prefer to maintain a drive and the reasons are very difficult to explain without violating my confidentiality restraints. The reaction becomes self sustaining. Warm Regards, A.R. end COP = 37.5 T
Re: [Vo]:Rossi Responds
Hello Peter, On the photo http://translate.google.com/translate?js=nprev=_thl=enie=UTF-8layout=2eotf=1sl=ittl=enu=http://22passi.blogspot.com/2011/01/bolognia-14111-cronaca-test-fusione_14.html I see a black flexible pipe, which must be the cold water input. The other transparent pipe is ending in a plastic vessel. Is this heated water removed out of the room through a drainpipe? The somewhat younger Peter This heat was removed by condensing the steam- by the cooling water. Peter the Older On Mon, Jan 17, 2011 at 1:45 PM, P.J van Noorden pjvan...@xs4all.nl wrote: Hello, What I don`t understand is that with this system producing 15 kW of power the temperature in the room isn`t higher then 23 degrees Celcius. This amount of power corresponds to a group of 150 people or an intense perpendicular solar flux through a large window of 15 m2. It seems that everybody in the room during the Rossi experiments was feeling very comfortable. Normally when such an amount of heat is dumped into a room the aircon will fail. Peter - Original Message - From: Terry Blanton hohlr...@gmail.com To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Monday, January 17, 2011 1:50 AM Subject: [Vo]:Rossi Responds Three pages of questions and answers at his weblog: http://www.journal-of-nuclear-physics.com/?p=360cpage=3#comments including: Daniel G. Zavela January 15th, 2011 at 4:28 AM Greetings from California and congratulations on your successful work! Can you simply state what the Watts IN are versus Watts OUT? Can you turn off the input current? Does the reaction become self-sustaining? Andrea Rossi January 15th, 2011 at 5:05 AM Dear Mr Daniel Zavela: Watts in: 400 wh/h Watts out: 15,000 wh/h Yes, we can turn off the input current, but we prefer to maintain a drive and the reasons are very difficult to explain without violating my confidentiality restraints. The reaction becomes self sustaining. Warm Regards, A.R. end COP = 37.5 T - Original Message - From: Peter Gluck To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Monday, January 17, 2011 12:53 PM Subject: Re: [Vo]:Rossi Responds This heat was removed by condensing the steam- by the cooling water. Peter the Older On Mon, Jan 17, 2011 at 1:45 PM, P.J van Noorden pjvan...@xs4all.nl wrote: Hello, What I don`t understand is that with this system producing 15 kW of power the temperature in the room isn`t higher then 23 degrees Celcius. This amount of power corresponds to a group of 150 people or an intense perpendicular solar flux through a large window of 15 m2. It seems that everybody in the room during the Rossi experiments was feeling very comfortable. Normally when such an amount of heat is dumped into a room the aircon will fail. Peter - Original Message - From: Terry Blanton hohlr...@gmail.com To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Monday, January 17, 2011 1:50 AM Subject: [Vo]:Rossi Responds Three pages of questions and answers at his weblog: http://www.journal-of-nuclear-physics.com/?p=360cpage=3#comments including: Daniel G. Zavela January 15th, 2011 at 4:28 AM Greetings from California and congratulations on your successful work! Can you simply state what the Watts IN are versus Watts OUT? Can you turn off the input current? Does the reaction become self-sustaining? Andrea Rossi January 15th, 2011 at 5:05 AM Dear Mr Daniel Zavela: Watts in: 400 wh/h Watts out: 15,000 wh/h Yes, we can turn off the input current, but we prefer to maintain a drive and the reasons are very difficult to explain without violating my confidentiality restraints. The reaction becomes self sustaining. Warm Regards, A.R. end COP = 37.5 T
Re: [Vo]:Rossi Responds
Very probably..I cannot find other explanation, your observation re heat in the room was very wise. It seem we will receive the quantitative data only toward the end of the week- I think 1/2 hour would be sufficient for a thermotechnician- vederemo! (Let's see. I have just published my thoughts feelings re that event. at http://egooutpeters.blogspot.com Are you still following Blacklightpower? This year will be VERY interesting due to them. Peter de oudere On Mon, Jan 17, 2011 at 2:10 PM, P.J van Noorden pjvan...@xs4all.nl wrote: Hello Peter, On the photo http://translate.google.com/translate?js=nprev=_thl=enie=UTF-8layout=2eotf=1sl=ittl=enu=http://22passi.blogspot.com/2011/01/bolognia-14111-cronaca-test-fusione_14.html I see a black flexible pipe, which must be the cold water input. The other transparent pipe is ending in a plastic vessel. Is this heated water removed out of the room through a drainpipe? The somewhat younger Peter This heat was removed by condensing the steam- by the cooling water. Peter the Older On Mon, Jan 17, 2011 at 1:45 PM, P.J van Noorden pjvan...@xs4all.nlwrote: Hello, What I don`t understand is that with this system producing 15 kW of power the temperature in the room isn`t higher then 23 degrees Celcius. This amount of power corresponds to a group of 150 people or an intense perpendicular solar flux through a large window of 15 m2. It seems that everybody in the room during the Rossi experiments was feeling very comfortable. Normally when such an amount of heat is dumped into a room the aircon will fail. Peter - Original Message - From: Terry Blanton hohlr...@gmail.com To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Monday, January 17, 2011 1:50 AM Subject: [Vo]:Rossi Responds Three pages of questions and answers at his weblog: http://www.journal-of-nuclear-physics.com/?p=360cpage=3#comments including: Daniel G. Zavela January 15th, 2011 at 4:28 AM Greetings from California and congratulations on your successful work! Can you simply state what the Watts IN are versus Watts OUT? Can you turn off the input current? Does the reaction become self-sustaining? Andrea Rossi January 15th, 2011 at 5:05 AM Dear Mr Daniel Zavela: Watts in: 400 wh/h Watts out: 15,000 wh/h Yes, we can turn off the input current, but we prefer to maintain a drive and the reasons are very difficult to explain without violating my confidentiality restraints. The reaction becomes self sustaining. Warm Regards, A.R. end COP = 37.5 T - Original Message - *From:* Peter Gluck peter.gl...@gmail.com *To:* vortex-l@eskimo.com *Sent:* Monday, January 17, 2011 12:53 PM *Subject:* Re: [Vo]:Rossi Responds This heat was removed by condensing the steam- by the cooling water. Peter the Older On Mon, Jan 17, 2011 at 1:45 PM, P.J van Noorden pjvan...@xs4all.nlwrote: Hello, What I don`t understand is that with this system producing 15 kW of power the temperature in the room isn`t higher then 23 degrees Celcius. This amount of power corresponds to a group of 150 people or an intense perpendicular solar flux through a large window of 15 m2. It seems that everybody in the room during the Rossi experiments was feeling very comfortable. Normally when such an amount of heat is dumped into a room the aircon will fail. Peter - Original Message - From: Terry Blanton hohlr...@gmail.com To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Monday, January 17, 2011 1:50 AM Subject: [Vo]:Rossi Responds Three pages of questions and answers at his weblog: http://www.journal-of-nuclear-physics.com/?p=360cpage=3#comments including: Daniel G. Zavela January 15th, 2011 at 4:28 AM Greetings from California and congratulations on your successful work! Can you simply state what the Watts IN are versus Watts OUT? Can you turn off the input current? Does the reaction become self-sustaining? Andrea Rossi January 15th, 2011 at 5:05 AM Dear Mr Daniel Zavela: Watts in: 400 wh/h Watts out: 15,000 wh/h Yes, we can turn off the input current, but we prefer to maintain a drive and the reasons are very difficult to explain without violating my confidentiality restraints. The reaction becomes self sustaining. Warm Regards, A.R. end COP = 37.5 T
Re: [Vo]:Rossi Responds
Is this a misdirection or could the drive also be needed to prevent the sort of runaway we saw in Rayney nickel? First the drive aids in causing the effect - perhaps triggering an avalanche and then slaves the energy release to a certain duty factor? Fran Daniel G. Zavela January 15th, 2011 at 4:28 AM Greetings from California and congratulations on your successful work! Can you simply state what the Watts IN are versus Watts OUT? Can you turn off the input current? Does the reaction become self-sustaining? Andrea Rossi January 15th, 2011 at 5:05 AM Dear Mr Daniel Zavela: Watts in: 400 wh/h Watts out: 15,000 wh/h Yes, we can turn off the input current, but we prefer to maintain a drive and the reasons are very difficult to explain without violating my confidentiality restraints. The reaction becomes self sustaining. Warm Regards, A.R. end COP = 37.5 T - Original Message - From: Peter Gluckmailto:peter.gl...@gmail.com To: vortex-l@eskimo.commailto:vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Monday, January 17, 2011 12:53 PM Subject: Re: [Vo]:Rossi Responds This heat was removed by condensing the steam- by the cooling water. Peter the Older On Mon, Jan 17, 2011 at 1:45 PM, P.J van Noorden pjvan...@xs4all.nlmailto:pjvan...@xs4all.nl wrote: Hello, What I don`t understand is that with this system producing 15 kW of power the temperature in the room isn`t higher then 23 degrees Celcius. This amount of power corresponds to a group of 150 people or an intense perpendicular solar flux through a large window of 15 m2. It seems that everybody in the room during the Rossi experiments was feeling very comfortable. Normally when such an amount of heat is dumped into a room the aircon will fail. Peter - Original Message - From: Terry Blanton hohlr...@gmail.commailto:hohlr...@gmail.com To: vortex-l@eskimo.commailto:vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Monday, January 17, 2011 1:50 AM Subject: [Vo]:Rossi Responds Three pages of questions and answers at his weblog: http://www.journal-of-nuclear-physics.com/?p=360cpage=3#comments including: Daniel G. Zavela January 15th, 2011 at 4:28 AM Greetings from California and congratulations on your successful work! Can you simply state what the Watts IN are versus Watts OUT? Can you turn off the input current? Does the reaction become self-sustaining? Andrea Rossi January 15th, 2011 at 5:05 AM Dear Mr Daniel Zavela: Watts in: 400 wh/h Watts out: 15,000 wh/h Yes, we can turn off the input current, but we prefer to maintain a drive and the reasons are very difficult to explain without violating my confidentiality restraints. The reaction becomes self sustaining. Warm Regards, A.R. end COP = 37.5 T
Re: [Vo]:Rossi Responds
In reply to Roarty, Francis X's message of Mon, 17 Jan 2011 08:02:40 -0500: Hi, [snip] Andrea Rossi January 15th, 2011 at 5:05 AM Dear Mr Daniel Zavela: Watts in: 400 wh/h Watts out: 15,000 wh/h [snip] Watts of heat are not expressed in wh/h (where presumably the second h stands for hour), just wh. Or is this Watthours/hour? Regards, Robin van Spaandonk http://rvanspaa.freehostia.com/Project.html
RE: [Vo]:Rossi Responds
LOL. Class ! quiz time ! ... would you categorize these answers as: 1) Not exactly forthcoming 2) Deceptive 3) Complete crock 4) Genuinely helpful Jones From: Terry Blanton Three pages of questions and answers at his weblog: http://www.journal-of-nuclear-physics.com/?p=360cpage=3#comments
Re: [Vo]:Rossi Responds
As I said before, their strategy is to manufacture and sell reactors. Here is one of Rossi's responses making that clear. I like the part about mental masturbations. This is what he has been saying all along. As I said, I would not go about this quite the same way. I would recommend more academic verification tests at universities, like the Jan. 14 test. But hey, I'm not complaining! Quoting Rossi: 3- We have passed already the phase to convince somebody. We are arrived to a product that is ready for the market. Our judge is the market. In this field the phase of the competition in the field of theories, hypothesis, conjectures etc etc is over. The competition is in the market. If somebody has a valid technology, he has not to convince people by chattering, he has to make a reactor that work and go to sell it, as we are doing. You are not convinced? It is not my problem. My problem is make my reactors work. I think that the reason for which I arrived to a working reactor is that I bellieved in my work, therefore, instead of chattering and play the big genius with mental masturbations, spent all my money, without help and financing from anywhere, to make thousands of reactors that didn’t work, until I made the right one, following my theories that may be are wrong, but in any case gave me the result I wanted. If somebody is convinced he has a good idea, he has not to convince anybody by chattering, he has to make something that works and sell it to a Customer who decides to buy because can see a product which works. If a Customer wants not my product no problem, I go to another, without chattering or giving away free technology. What I made is not a “Holy Graal”, as you ironically say, is just a product. My Customers know it works, this is why they bought it,that’s enough for me. We are investing to make thousands of reactors and is totally irrilevant for us if somebody or manybodies make negative chatterings about our work. To ask us to give away as a gift our technology, in which I invested my life, to convince somebody or morebodies that my reactors work is contrary to the foundamental rules of the economy. To convince the World of our product we have just to sell products which work well, not to chatter. If somebody is convinced to have invented something better or equal to our product, he has not to chatter, he has to make a product better or equal to ours and sell it. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:Rossi Responds
Note that he says Prof. Levi hopes to distribute a report describing the Jan. 14 test in about a week. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:Rossi Responds
It is sad, like Mills he recognizes without the correct theory his patent will only allow him a brief window of opportunity before the theory is understood and a far simpler and more efficient embodiment can be produced. Jed Rothwell Sun, 16 Jan 2011 17:12:45 -0800 As I said before, their strategy is to manufacture and sell reactors. Here is one of Rossi's responses making that clear. I like the part about mental masturbations. This is what he has been saying all along. As I said, I would not go about this quite the same way. I would recommend more academic verification tests at universities, like the Jan. 14 test. But hey, I'm not complaining! Quoting Rossi: 3- We have passed already the phase to convince somebody. We are arrived to a product that is ready for the market. Our judge is the market. In this field the phase of the competition in the field of theories, hypothesis, conjectures etc etc is over. The competition is in the market. If somebody has a valid technology, he has not to convince people by chattering, he has to make a reactor that work and go to sell it, as we are doing. You are not convinced? It is not my problem. My problem is make my reactors work. I think that the reason for which I arrived to a working reactor is that I bellieved in my work, therefore, instead of chattering and play the big genius with mental masturbations, spent all my money, without help and financing from anywhere, to make thousands of reactors that didn't work, until I made the right one, following my theories that may be are wrong, but in any case gave me the result I wanted. If somebody is convinced he has a good idea, he has not to convince anybody by chattering, he has to make something that works and sell it to a Customer who decides to buy because can see a product which works. If a Customer wants not my product no problem, I go to another, without chattering or giving away free technology. What I made is not a Holy Graal, as you ironically say, is just a product. My Customers know it works, this is why they bought it,that's enough for me. We are investing to make thousands of reactors and is totally irrilevant for us if somebody or manybodies make negative chatterings about our work. To ask us to give away as a gift our technology, in which I invested my life, to convince somebody or morebodies that my reactors work is contrary to the foundamental rules of the economy. To convince the World of our product we have just to sell products which work well, not to chatter. If somebody is convinced to have invented something better or equal to our product, he has not to chatter, he has to make a product better or equal to ours and sell it. - Jed
RE: [Vo]:Rossi Responds
Sell reactors to who? A lead-shielded reactor producing enough radioactivity to measure is NOT going to sold in the USA or Europe to the anyone in the public, PERIOD, and perhaps not even to other researchers without proper licensing which could take years. He should be looking for a partner in Russia :-) Besides, it appears that LTI owns this IP, as far as I can tell. There is no indication that he has even been authorized to show it publicly. His only hope, if he is trying to force a clean break with LTI, as it appears- could be to get the attention of the a rogue nation ... . shades of Gerald Bull. No bull. Jones From: francis Subject: Re: [Vo]:Rossi Responds It is sad, like Mills he recognizes without the correct theory his patent will only allow him a brief window of opportunity before the theory is understood and a far simpler and more efficient embodiment can be produced. Jed Rothwell Sun, 16 Jan 2011 17:12:45 -0800 As I said before, their strategy is to manufacture and sell reactors. Here is one of Rossi's responses making that clear. I like the part about mental masturbations. This is what he has been saying all along. As I said, I would not go about this quite the same way. I would recommend more academic verification tests at universities, like the Jan. 14 test. But hey, I'm not complaining! Quoting Rossi: 3- We have passed already the phase to convince somebody. We are arrived to a product that is ready for the market. Our judge is the market. In this field the phase of the competition in the field of theories, hypothesis, conjectures etc etc is over. The competition is in the market. If somebody has a valid technology, he has not to convince people by chattering, he has to make a reactor that work and go to sell it, as we are doing. You are not convinced? It is not my problem. My problem is make my reactors work. I think that the reason for which I arrived to a working reactor is that I bellieved in my work, therefore, instead of chattering and play the big genius with mental masturbations, spent all my money, without help and financing from anywhere, to make thousands of reactors that didn't work, until I made the right one, following my theories that may be are wrong, but in any case gave me the result I wanted. If somebody is convinced he has a good idea, he has not to convince anybody by chattering, he has to make something that works and sell it to a Customer who decides to buy because can see a product which works. If a Customer wants not my product no problem, I go to another, without chattering or giving away free technology. What I made is not a Holy Graal, as you ironically say, is just a product. My Customers know it works, this is why they bought it,that's enough for me. We are investing to make thousands of reactors and is totally irrilevant for us if somebody or manybodies make negative chatterings about our work. To ask us to give away as a gift our technology, in which I invested my life, to convince somebody or morebodies that my reactors work is contrary to the foundamental rules of the economy. To convince the World of our product we have just to sell products which work well, not to chatter. If somebody is convinced to have invented something better or equal to our product, he has not to chatter, he has to make a product better or equal to ours and sell it. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:Rossi Responds
On Sun, Jan 16, 2011 at 8:50 PM, Jones Beene jone...@pacbell.net wrote: Sell reactors to who? Iran? Stuxnet free. T
