[Vo]:Krivit's June video interview to Sergio Focardi
Hello group, Here's a three-part video interview of Sergio Focardi by Steven Krivit (New Energy Times), with interpreting by Andrea Rossi: Video Interview – Focardi Discusses Andrea Rossi’s Energy Catalyzer Part 1 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OmWbVH5A4gI Part 2 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Qa_5oEtx1NY Part 3 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J65maznCyiM Cheers, S.A.
Re: [Vo]:Krivit's June video interview to Sergio Focardi
Part. 2, 7 minutes. Focardi answers it is more likely that a proton reacts with the nucleus than a neutron ACCORDING TO EXPERIMENTAL DATA. Damn, you can notice that immediately Krivit changes his tone of voice, probably also his mind, and probably starts thinking that the whole thing is a scam because, according to him, onl Widom Larsen theory is correct. Krivit even makes a dramatic cut and ends part 2!
Re: [Vo]:Krivit's June video interview to Sergio Focardi
On Aug 26, 2011, at 2:49 AM, Daniel Rocha wrote: Part. 2, 7 minutes. Focardi answers it is more likely that a proton reacts with the nucleus than a neutron ACCORDING TO EXPERIMENTAL DATA. Damn, you can notice that immediately Krivit changes his tone of voice, probably also his mind, and probably starts thinking that the whole thing is a scam because, according to him, onl Widom Larsen theory is correct. Krivit even makes a dramatic cut and ends part 2! Though Krivit's seven points regarding Rossi seem rational, his support for the WL theory does not. Consolidated comments on the validity of WL theory: http://www.mail-archive.com/vortex-l@eskimo.com/msg38261.html Larsen Windom Patent - no test data?: http://www.mail-archive.com/vortex-l@eskimo.com/msg42900.html Best regards, Horace Heffner http://www.mtaonline.net/~hheffner/
Re: [Vo]:The Krivit Videos Part 3
Joe Catania wrote: No, its not out of the question at all. Since we don't know the flow rate of water (whether its flowing or not) and since it isn't particularly relevant I neglect it. The water is always flowing. This is a flow calorimeter. It is completely unrealistic to suppose that you can boil water in device this size, save up heat in metal, and then continue boiling at any observable rate for more than a few seconds after the power goes off. That is out of the question. The temperature of the metal would be far above the melting point. The metal would be incandescent. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:The Krivit Videos Part 3
I've already prooven it. Furthermore I demonstrated it. So if by unrealistic you mean realistic then we agree. Its quite obvious that the water will boil for a considerable time after the power is off. This does not require anything in addition to the normal functioning of the device. It is not an act of storage but in the very nature of materials (which have nonzero heat capacity). You have no evidence that what Levi leaves the flow on but I've already shown it won't help your argument if he does. - Original Message - From: Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Friday, August 26, 2011 9:37 AM Subject: Re: [Vo]:The Krivit Videos Part 3 Joe Catania wrote: No, its not out of the question at all. Since we don't know the flow rate of water (whether its flowing or not) and since it isn't particularly relevant I neglect it. The water is always flowing. This is a flow calorimeter. It is completely unrealistic to suppose that you can boil water in device this size, save up heat in metal, and then continue boiling at any observable rate for more than a few seconds after the power goes off. That is out of the question. The temperature of the metal would be far above the melting point. The metal would be incandescent. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:The Krivit Videos Part 3
Joe Catania wrote: I've already prooven it. Furthermore I demonstrated it. Your demonstration employed roughly 50,000 times less water than the eCat, and nichrome metal heated to incandescence. The eCat never gets that hot. So your demonstration was so different from the December eCat test that I think it proves nothing. - Jed
[Vo]:NI-H Generator
Hi, I am new to this list, greet you all! I had an idea to make an electrolytic device in order to make NiH thinfilms. Of course the final purpose is to get NI-H fusion or nuclear reactions. My english is not so good, but it should be obvious from the picture: http://hphsite.de/temp/NiH-Generator.png I want to know, if this has been already tried. If not, and if you are interested, feel free to try it. Its my original idea, but I put it into public domain hereby. Best, Peter
Re: [Vo]:The Krivit Videos Part 3
The proof has nothing to do with the demonstration. I indicated this many times. The facts are in. As it stands it is a given that thermal inertia could easily explain the 15 minute boiling. Your arguments are unsubstatiated. As for my demonstration it suggests the metal can stay hot for longer than 15 min while rapidly cooling through convection conduction and radiation. Can you say the same for the E-Cat. It can lose heat through boiling water to steam (and at a rate low enough to be explicable by the means I suggest). Your dogma is a contradiction to this. - Original Message - From: Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Friday, August 26, 2011 1:24 PM Subject: Re: [Vo]:The Krivit Videos Part 3 Joe Catania wrote: I've already prooven it. Furthermore I demonstrated it. Your demonstration employed roughly 50,000 times less water than the eCat, and nichrome metal heated to incandescence. The eCat never gets that hot. So your demonstration was so different from the December eCat test that I think it proves nothing. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:The Krivit Videos Part 3
Here are some comments by Levi about the video and the Heat After Death event. Not terribly important, but . . . http://22passi.blogspot.com/2011/08/agosto-comincia-molto-bene.html Note that if you use Google to translate this, Rossi converts to Smith. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:The Krivit Videos Part 3
Joe Catania zrosumg...@aol.com wrote: The facts are in. There are no facts in this discussion; only speculation. As it stands it is a given that thermal inertia could easily explain the 15 minute boiling. Your arguments are unsubstatiated. And your arguments would require the metal to be over a thousand degrees, if we are to believe the engineering tables of specific heat. I suggest you demonstrate this with ~10 kg of metal not particularly well insulated. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:The Krivit Videos Part 3
There certainly are facts involved namely could the boiling be caused by the heat stored in the metal, etc. of the E-Cat to last 15 minutes. The answer is a definitive yes. It is not speculation. We know enough about the E-Cat to posit this as the only significant source of heat known in a powered-off reactor. To call it impossible (as you have done) shows a bias toward disbelief of the facts and a hint to us, I presume, that you think Rossi's reactor is producing anomalous heat. Certainly I have elucidated the source of this heat and that it is not speculation whereas you bid us into a speculative denial of the heat source on the grounds of your bad math. - Original Message - From: Jed Rothwell To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Friday, August 26, 2011 3:52 PM Subject: Re: [Vo]:The Krivit Videos Part 3 Joe Catania zrosumg...@aol.com wrote: The facts are in. There are no facts in this discussion; only speculation. As it stands it is a given that thermal inertia could easily explain the 15 minute boiling. Your arguments are unsubstatiated. And your arguments would require the metal to be over a thousand degrees, if we are to believe the engineering tables of specific heat. I suggest you demonstrate this with ~10 kg of metal not particularly well insulated. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:The Krivit Videos Part 3
Joe Catania wrote: There certainly are facts involved namely could the boiling be caused by the heat stored in the metal, etc. of the E-Cat to last 15 minutes. Facts. H. . . . Okay then, tell us: How much metal? How hot did it get? Assume 3 kWh are stored, enough to vaporize 4.4 kg of water. Recall that 2 ordinary middle-aged professors easily lifted the machine and put on a weight scale. How long would it take to store up this heat with 3 kW maximum input? That is the most you can input with ordinary wires. Remember your hypothesis is that there is no anomalous heat, and therefore no input power after the electricity is turned off. The only source of input energy is the ordinary wire shown going into the machine, which cannot conduct more than 3 kW -- which is nowhere near enough to even boil the water in the first place, but we'll ignore that. We assuming that for some inexplicable reason their power meter is wrong, and we'll ignore that, too. Remember also that they were boiling water before the heat after death, and the temperature was already at the maximum. How did it manage to store 3 kWh? You have 3 kW input, 12 kW goes to boiling, and some other power goes to heating the metal to well over 1000°C. Perhaps you have in mind they vectored the negative 10 kW into antimatter. Your model seems implausible but as you say, there certainly are facts here. How good would the insulation have to be so keep the metal from cooling off during this storing-up period? How good do you think the insulation shown in the photo might be? (Answer: not very.) Where do you find a conventional joule heater or a wire going into the device that can withstand such high temperatures? These are ordinary wires and a machine made of ordinary steel, not nichrome. Why didn't the 50 people attending the demonstration notice that the machine was incandescent? Some of them held their hands over it. Some parts of the machine metal are exposed. I think you need to work on this model. I suggest you try doing some tests with hot metal. You can heat a large chunk to incandescence and then drop it into a pail of water, the way a blacksmith does. Measure the water temperature. You will find it does not increase much. This demonstrate the tremendous difference between the specific heat of water and metal. Just bringing the water up to boiling temperature would take far more metal than this device has. Vaporizing it would take hundreds of kilograms of metal, extremely well insulated. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:The Krivit Videos Part 3
You are misrepresenting the truth and misunderstanding. I made none of the claims you presented and they are completely irrelevant to the subject. 3kW is not negligible- one of Rossi's E-Cat's only supposedly vaporizes 2g/s of water which takes less than 5kW. Obviously the steam is not dry. Also according to Mattia Rizzi the true rate is 1/2 what Rossi states. Numbers aren't crucial to seein the qualitative argument. Also the numbers you present aren't correct as far as I know and I won't assume Rossi info is correct. Nevertheless thermal inertia is real and will continue the boiling after power is shut off at the same rate it was proceeding at before. Cooling of metal won't decline as fast as nuclear reaction rate will unless the heater is a hoax to begin with. Why would it take 15 minutes for the nuclear reaction to cease when 15 minutes is a perfectly plausible time for continued steam production by thermal inertia. In fact there's nothing about Rossi's steam E-Cat that is inconsistent with the heat being supplied by electric heater only. From: Jed Rothwell To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Friday, August 26, 2011 5:45 PM Subject: Re: [Vo]:The Krivit Videos Part 3 Joe Catania wrote: There certainly are facts involved namely could the boiling be caused by the heat stored in the metal, etc. of the E-Cat to last 15 minutes. Facts. H. . . . Okay then, tell us: How much metal? How hot did it get? Assume 3 kWh are stored, enough to vaporize 4.4 kg of water. Recall that 2 ordinary middle-aged professors easily lifted the machine and put on a weight scale. How long would it take to store up this heat with 3 kW maximum input? That is the most you can input with ordinary wires. Remember your hypothesis is that there is no anomalous heat, and therefore no input power after the electricity is turned off. The only source of input energy is the ordinary wire shown going into the machine, which cannot conduct more than 3 kW -- which is nowhere near enough to even boil the water in the first place, but we'll ignore that. We assuming that for some inexplicable reason their power meter is wrong, and we'll ignore that, too. Remember also that they were boiling water before the heat after death, and the temperature was already at the maximum. How did it manage to store 3 kWh? You have 3 kW input, 12 kW goes to boiling, and some other power goes to heating the metal to well over 1000°C. Perhaps you have in mind they vectored the negative 10 kW into antimatter. Your model seems implausible but as you say, there certainly are facts here. How good would the insulation have to be so keep the metal from cooling off during this storing-up period? How good do you think the insulation shown in the photo might be? (Answer: not very.) Where do you find a conventional joule heater or a wire going into the device that can withstand such high temperatures? These are ordinary wires and a machine made of ordinary steel, not nichrome. Why didn't the 50 people attending the demonstration notice that the machine was incandescent? Some of them held their hands over it. Some parts of the machine metal are exposed. I think you need to work on this model. I suggest you try doing some tests with hot metal. You can heat a large chunk to incandescence and then drop it into a pail of water, the way a blacksmith does. Measure the water temperature. You will find it does not increase much. This demonstrate the tremendous difference between the specific heat of water and metal. Just bringing the water up to boiling temperature would take far more metal than this device has. Vaporizing it would take hundreds of kilograms of metal, extremely well insulated. - Jed
[Vo]:Rich Murray added your name to the Academia.edu directory of academics
Hi, Rich Murray added your name to Academia.edu, the global directory of academics and graduate students. We checked your department directory, and it looks like you are an academic/graduate student. You are currently listed as an 'unknown' academic/graduate student: resolve your 'unknown' status by following one of the links below: Yes, I am an academic/graduate student: http://academia.edu/Yes-vortex-L-at-eskimo.com-is-an-academic-or-graduate-student No, I am not an academic/graduate student: http://academia.edu/Remove-vortex-L-at-eskimo.com-from-the-directory-of-academics Stephen Hawking, Richard Dawkins, Noam Chomsky and Steven Pinker have all confirmed their membership of their departments on Academia.edu. Thanks, The Academia.edu Team
Re: [Vo]:The Krivit Videos Part 3
Joe Catania zrosumg...@aol.com wrote: 3kW is not negligible- one of Rossi's E-Cat's only supposedly vaporizes 2g/s of water which takes less than 5kW. I did not explain that correctly. 3 kW is the most the reactor could produce in the absence of any anomalous heat. It is the maximum electric power input. In fact, the reactor produced 12 kW. Cooling of metal won't decline as fast as nuclear reaction rate will unless the heater is a hoax to begin with. Why would it take 15 minutes for the nuclear reaction to cease when 15 minutes is a perfectly plausible time for continued steam production by thermal inertia. You misunderstand. It did not take 15 minutes for the nuclear reaction to cease. It did not cease. It was continuing unabated at the same power level after 15 minutes. They turned on the power again. If they had not, the anomalous power might have continued indefinitely. Some heat after death reactions have lasted for hours, and some for days. Of course if it had been stored up heat in metal, the apparent power would have declined. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:what do ypu think of this within the latest wave of UFO and the History Channel show
I have a low regard for the History Channel. I have seen documentaries there occasionally. When they are about a subject I know well, even one that is well documented such as the Battle of Midway, I have seen that they are filled with mistakes. They are written by people who know nothing about the subject. The production values are sloppy. In the Midway documentary, the voice-over announcers had no idea how to pronounce Japanese words, and they don't bother asking anyone. They resemble Wikipedia. Perhaps Wikipedia is the source of recent ones, come to think of it. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:what do ypu think of this within the latest wave of UFO and the History Channel show
You are once again correct Jed. I looked at the recent wave of UFO's, some look like clouds, some look like reflections off of a window, some are flairs, reentering space junk, or gas off of reentering space junk. The one I linked to appears to be fake as stated in the comments. I saw a UFO many years ago in PA. It was called the Kecksburg Incident. It looked like burring up piece of reentering space junk. I saw another about 15 years ago during a lunar eclipse. It proved to be a reentering booster from a Japan space launch. It gave off gas and looked much bigger than it was. Others have made much more of these incidents. They don''t care that they are wrong. There stories just keep getting bigger. I will watch the History Channel special for the fun of it. NASA recently said the global CO2 may attracted aliens. Perhaps someone knows something that I don't. One thing I have noted about UFO sightings is that they are firmly rooted in the technology past. All of the craft have a pilot as would a WW2 plane. Our most advanced probes are robotic. We are now planning for carrier launched robot planes. The little UFO craft with creatures controlling it is firmly rooted in the technology of the past. Organic creatures, if they ever go intersteller, are going one way to a place fully explored by robots. Frank Z -Original Message- From: Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Fri, Aug 26, 2011 9:10 pm Subject: Re: [Vo]:what do ypu think of this within the latest wave of UFO and the History Channel show I have a low regard for the History Channel. I have seen documentaries there occasionally. When they are about a subject I know well, even one that is well documented such as the Battle of Midway, I have seen that they are filled with mistakes. They are written by people who know nothing about the subject. The production values are sloppy. In the Midway documentary, the voice-over announcers had no idea how to pronounce Japanese words, and they don't bother asking anyone. They resemble Wikipedia. Perhaps Wikipedia is the source of recent ones, come to think of it. - Jed
