Please check my thread "customer warehouse". I show different types of calculations to demonstrate how nonsensical Rossi's claims are. Somebody should check my calculations are correct but I will share later the MatLab code I used. One could do these calculations also as Fermi problems in their head given that are order of magnitude estimates.
Bottom line: any chemical process that you can conceive of (I looked at warming up water, melting ice and salts, the most endothermic reactions I could find) would require processing of tons of material every few days to use the energy involved in this situation. For example if you use electrolysis that is pretty demanding physical-chemistry process (that will require to transform the heat of the eCat in electrical energy, not efficient but this is just to demonstrate energy and mass involved) we are talking about 30 tons of water coming in and 30 tons of hydrogen and oxygen coming out of that 6000 sq feet warehouse every single week. You get similar numbers when you use reactions with large enthalpies that could use the heat more directly. Please take a look at my thread where I show pics of the building and the address. Google map it. Go at the street level. You can see it is a commercial area but not at all an industrial zoned area. There is absolutely no way to have swimming pools worth of water outside to exchange it with, there is no way to bring in 30 tons of chemical material every few days, process it, packing it in such a small warehouse in particular without causing huge problems with the other businesses around (that are all retailers), the owners of the building or the authorities. How much personnel does it take to process these quantities of material? The warehouse also needs to host the 1 MW plant and so on. I'm still doing calculations for venting the place but I bet you will need hurricane winds strength ventilation to remove the heat. But if you use water that is much more efficient way to exchange heat you will need to move 1 ton of hot water every second outside the building (and bring in an equivalent cold water amount). That is almost 90,000 tons of water every day. Talk about the water bill or even what it will take to get that water from the faucet or down a sink. As I said there is no way to recycle this amount of water without having enormous quantities of pipes (we can do the calculations how big the piping system needs to be) or swimming pools of steaming water outside the building. Where in the parking lot? Please use common sense and some basic physics and you will see how absurd the situation is. Giovanni On Mon, Aug 15, 2016 at 9:43 AM, Jack Cole <[email protected]> wrote: > Adrian, > > Actually, people asked AR if the process was endothermic and he said > "Yes." When later asked if the heat that was not used was collected in > water, he responded "Yes." > > People should consider that they are engaging in crowd sourced excuse > making for him. He just has to sit back and wait for someone to suggest a > possible explanation. > > Imagine how the response (or non-response) may have been different if an > open ended question had been asked (e.g., what took place in the customer > side with the heat?). > > In the case of the actual questions that were asked, a "Yes" can lend > itself to future contradiction. For example, "Oh, I must have > misunderstood the question. Language differences. he, he, he" > > Jack > > > On Sun, Aug 14, 2016 at 10:10 PM a.ashfield <[email protected]> > wrote: > >> Sorry, you should read what Rossi actually said before making a statement >> like that. Rossi said that the customer's process was endothermic and the >> excess heat beyond that was vented. He didn't add how much was by air or >> radiation and how much through cooling water going to the drain. >> >> >> On 8/14/2016 8:34 PM, Giovanni Santostasi wrote: >> >> Daniel, >> The main discussion we had in the last few days was about where the heat >> is dumped. This is basic thermodynamics not sophisticated arguments about >> Coulomb barrier shielding and so on. >> Rossi claiming that the energy was used by chemical reactions and >> therefore this why it didn't leave a thermal signature is bs. >> Plain bs. No field of expertise needed. >> >> >> >> On Sun, Aug 14, 2016 at 8:21 PM, Daniel Rocha <[email protected]> >> wrote: >> >>> What field of expertise? This kind of argument is also used to "show" >>> that cold fusion is bullshit. >>> >>> 2016-08-14 19:35 GMT-03:00 Giovanni Santostasi <[email protected]>: >>> >>>> I have a PhD in Physics so I understand the basics of energy, >>>> >>> >> >>
