Eric, I agree with your assessment of what is wrong with 911 conspiracy theories. The problems with these theories is how to coordinate so many people involved in the conspiracy without any of them revealing what happened. In the case of the Rossi story we have mostly him behaving in a completely nonsensical way. It is mostly one person (or few of his associates) that are pulling this off. They don't even have to have a coherent plan in particular if Rossi is paying off few actors and some will participants in this charade. As a scam goes it doesn't make much sense either. But let me remind you that Rossi is not new to scams or/and strange actions involving energy breakthroughs. The last one didn't turn good for him as a scam either. Maybe he is not as good as a scam artist after all. Giovanni
On Thu, Nov 24, 2011 at 4:11 AM, Eric Woudenberg <[email protected]> wrote: > I went back and looked at the Levi interview ( > http://www.youtube.com/watch?**v=0vYJIG3ymOk<http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0vYJIG3ymOk>starting > at 3:00). Levi says: > > 3:00 feb 2011 test w/o steam >> 4:00 "system started in an almost explosive way" >> 6:00 "15 kw for 18 hours" >> 6:20 "we connected the system directly to the water pipe with flux [flow] >> measuring 1 liter/second" >> 6:50 "almost 40 degree delta t -- if you make calculations this is about >> 120kw" >> 7:11 krivit: "what was the power input?" levi: "less than 1 kw" >> 7:18 "rossi was very worried about that and damped (dumped?) the system >> and restarted the system and obtained about 40kw" >> 7:50 "i will not write up that test" >> 15:00 still arguing with krivit about whether to write up the feb 2011 >> test >> > > My sense is that the core was in thermal runaway, and that even at 1 > liter/sec they could not cool it enough to get it stable. Rossi then > 'dumps' the system (unspecified as to how), quenching the reaction. > > My guess is that this configuration was not possible to recreate on demand > -- it was apparently an unusual event. > > Anyway -- there are possibly many reasons why a second test of this sort > was not performed, not least of which may have been Rossi's disinterest. > But my sense is that running the system with liquid water at 1 atm. is not > easy, hence Rossi's use of a steam-to-water heat-exchanger in October. > > Mary -- I see that you are helpfully skeptical of much of what Rossi is > putting out. But what I'm missing is a coherent narrative of what you think > is happening. You know, people put out theories about how 9/11 was an > "inside job" by pointing out all the inconsistencies. But can they put > together an alternate narrative that fits the discrepancies and makes sense? > > I'm not saying that if you can't do this Rossi is not faking it, but it > would be nice to hear a coherent story that you feel explains what is going > on. > > Eric > > > Mary Yugo writes: > >> Eric Woudenberg writes: >> > My guess is that running it with liquid water ends up leaving the core >> too >> > cold to produce much excess heat. Somehow 100c or thereabouts appears >> to be >> > the reactor's sweet spot (by accident or design). >> > >> Well, didn't you just say Levi's experiment alarmed Rossi by running >> too hot? With liquid coolant, you can control temperature by varying >> the flow rate of the coolant which is easily done with a manual or >> automatic valve or even by varying the pressure head of the fluid by >> simply raising and lowering the container! It's a snap. I used to do >> something similar when calibrating calorimeters with liquid coolant >> jackets. And Rossi has claimed that regulating the hydrogen pressure >> also controls the reaction. Getting a decent coolant flow and delta T >> should be very doable with a bit of experimenting. >> > >
