probably, the Rossi demos have a complex control box with thermal
controls that lower the electric input heater power when the reactor
gets too hot: Cude: Murray 2011.02.09
from Mark Iverson <zeropo...@charter.net>
reply-to vortex-l@eskimo.com
to vortex-l@eskimo.com
date Wed, Feb 9, 2011 at 9:50 PM
subject RE: [Vo]:Levi's interpretation of the two Rossi demos does not
hold water
9:50 PM (51 minutes ago)
This whole thread started by the critique by Joshua Cude posted by
Rich Murray...
It would appear that Joshua (and Rich) have not read all of the
comments and reports on Rossi's website, so they were UNinformed as to
the purpose of the 'control box'.
Rich,
would you please correct Joshua on this so he doesn't go spreading
MISinformation about the demo!
-Mark
This whole thread started by the critique by Joshua Cude posted by Rich Murra...
9:50 PM (53 minutes ago)
from Rich Murray <rmfor...@gmail.com>
to vortex-l@eskimo.com,
michael barron <mhbar...@gmail.com>,
Rich Murray <rmfor...@gmail.com>,
Rich Murray <rmfor...@comcast.net>
date Wed, Feb 9, 2011 at 10:31 PM
subject Re: [Vo]:Levi's interpretation of the two Rossi demos does not
hold water
10:31 PM (13 minutes ago)
Mark,
I dimly recall Jed said a few days ago, Rossi and Levi would soon
rewrite their report on the two demos -- I will alert Joshua Cude --
I'm struck that so many important factors are really unclear -- there
are a lot of important claims in Focardi and Rossi, March 22, 2010
9-page "A new energy source from nuclear fusion", which gives data
from 6 runs, using 3 different methods for measuring excess energy,
from 2008.05.28 to 2009.10.22, with one up to 53 days long -- plus no
data from the Italian factory 2009.06.25, the "DOE aided" series of
tests 2009.11.19 in Bedford NH, and the DOD 2009.11.20 -- how much has
the device changed in 2 years and 4 months? -- have all these large
output energy measures really been badly bungled in a total of 11
tests, with "similar results" ? -- can we get some highly qualified
physicists to summarize the claims into a coherent review, along with
some evaluations, judgements, and proposals -- also, do we have any
info at all about the "explosions" mentioned by Rossi? -- a risk for
all who venture into their own experiments. Huh, it's got my head
spinning...why?
Rich
RE: [Vo]:Levi's interpretation of the two Rossi demos does hold water
from Jones Beene <jone...@pacbell.net>
reply-to vortex-l@eskimo.com
to vortex-l@eskimo.com
date Wed, Feb 9, 2011 at 10:23 AM
subject RE: [Vo]:Levi's interpretation of the two Rossi demos does hold water
10:23 AM (12 hours ago)
From: Stephen A. Lawrence
> If the reactor were generating 10% more power than needed to exactly boil off
> the water, just where do you think that excess power would go?
Steven – it is you who is making the wrong assumption. You have missed
the forest for the trees.
Do you not see the blue box? Do you not appreciate its function?
It contains five controllers that feed back temperature readings to
control the heater tape. This is “differential heating” over and above
the base level of heat produced by the reaction itself.
If and when the reactor begins to heat up above the set level, over
the known rate of heat removal due to pumping (predetermined, and
based on prior runs) then the electrical input is instantaneously
lowered. The water flow is constant but the temperature is modulated
electrically by the in the “differential” zone. Get it? You can
control 10 kW of net heating with only 400 watts of differential
heating.
Jed is (mostly but not entirely) correct. The logical error in your
LOX comparison is clear. Oxygen cannot get hotter than its boiling
point – so long as a significant mass of liquid oxygen remains nearby
to effectively shield recently boiled-off gas from additional gain.
PV = nRT is NOT involved at this stage. You have completely
overlooked the obvious function of the five heater controllers.
Jones
from Terry Blanton <hohlr...@gmail.com>
reply-to vortex-l@eskimo.com
to vortex-l@eskimo.com
date Wed, Feb 9, 2011 at 11:28 AM
subject Re: [Vo]:Levi's interpretation of the two Rossi demos does hold water
11:28 AM (11 hours ago)
On Wed, Feb 9, 2011 at 1:15 PM, Stephen A. Lawrence <sa...@pobox.com> wrote:
> Who, besides yourself, has said the reaction rate is being electrically
> controlled to keep the steam temperature at 101.6 C?
Levi's report says the control box contains 5 digital PLC's.
I presumed they were programmable logic controllers and regulated the
"hot spots" in the reactor.
I think Rossi's Ecat is far more complex than you give him credit.
T
