Thanks - Right you are.
I should have realized that SAL makes no math errors, and I am trying to compose too many posts for one morning. To bring the original point back into focus, then - let me restate that this amount of thermal energy will melt 500 pounds of steel in an hour or 125 pounds in the 15 minutes, mas o menos. The reactor weight is not more than 25 pounds and that includes fuel. This thermal intensity should nevertheless raise a fair amount of flash steam from water flowing though the unit even if the temperature rise (delta-T) is manageable. It would seem to be comparable to spraying a garden hose onto a red-hot tube of steel that never cools. Would you agree with that characterization, Mr MacNab ? Thanks for getting this correction into the record, Jones From: Finlay MacNab I think you should reexamine your calculations. The problem is that you are confusing watts and watt*hours. 130kW is = to 130KJ/sec 130kW for 1 hour is equal to 130KW*h 15minutes of 130kW is equal to 130kW*0.25 hours or 32.5kW*H (the energy delivered in 15 mins) If the 130kW had continued for 60 minutes the total power delivered would have been 130KW*h by definition. Please reexamine your calculation, it appears to be incorrect. A Watt is a unit of power a W*h is a unit of energy. _____ From: [email protected] To: [email protected] Date: Tue, 19 Apr 2011 08:58:34 -0700 Subject: [Vo]:RE: Stiffler and Rossi From: Stephen A. Lawrence * Jones, who put such an angry bee in your bonnet over Rossi? There is no anger - just disappointment that so many are jumping to hyperbolic conclusions which are not justified by the record. And disappointment that technology so potentially valuable [to society] goes misunderstood by those chosen by Rossi, and that it could succumb to greed [OPEC for instance] if it is not fully understood, before long. How many times do I have to say it - the NiH reaction is gainful ! The is no doubt it is gainful - I have seen this recently first hand but that does not mean that it is even close to what Rothwell wants to believe it is. In my opinion Rossi does not have a clue and sadly, neither does Focardi. Aren't we all entitled to express that? > You swallowed all the nonsense spewed out by *Doctor* Stiffler, quite some time back Not really. I reported Stiffler's results as they were presented - and he was not hiding anything in a "black box," to his credit. I also reported the problems when they were found, which is where Jed has a blind eye - with Rossi. > Jed's being a whole lot more reasonable about this than you were about the Stiffler "miracle", as far as I can see. You really believe that 130,000 watt in 15 minutes to a reactor will not raise copious steam ? That 'miracle' puts Stiffler's few watts from ground to shame. The point of this being that many creative inventors (artists writers poets etc) are often cranky and weird. That should not be news to anyone. If they are not honest, that adds to the problem when the technology can essentially serve to "save our way of life" and when this happens, and when Rossi has hidden the facts about the $2 million+ he has received from DoE since 2000 to get to where he is now, he should be exposed for that. US taxpayers OWN a stake in this and it will shortly come out as FIA papers have been filed. BTW - Stiffler was NOT hiding the ground looping problem, and continues to try to push it to the limits. I have not talked to him in years but he posts his results to YouTube. Recently it appears he has been able to get a surprising amount of voltage and LED light emission from only a ground connection: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TXYY7TqS380 Can you do anything close to that? If nothing else, the electricity grid suppliers of the world should take note of whatever is going on here. Needless to say they will be taking note of Rossi even if the COP in Sweden turns out to be 10 (my guess) instead of Rothwell's 1000+. Jones
