Re: [Vo]:ANTICIPATING THE 1 MW DEMO
RE: “I don't see how doing a 1 MW demonstration would fit into a good strategy, but since I know nothing about his plans I cannot judge.” Rossi is terrified and perplexed by occasional runaways and subsequent burnouts of his reactors that he does not understand, prevent from beginning or can control in an orderly way once begun. This control problem has forced Rossi to downsize the capacity of his basic reactor to a very small energy production capability and use many of these small units ganged together to form a large capacity unit. There are a number of ways to cover up or mitigate this intractable and little understood reactor control problem which can occur from time to time in the Rossi reactor design. Reactor run away conditions can be easily handled if this fault can be segregated to a single and easily isolate-able low powered component of a very large capacity system. For example, a 2.5 kw reactor unit may runaway with power output of 25 Kws. This runaway condition can be hidden from any user visibility in a megawatt reactor because the anomalous spiking power output maxes out at a very small fraction of the total large composite reactor output. The runaway component will burn itself out is short order after it has temporally increased the output of steam by about 1% of total capacity. Once the runaway burns itself out being one of 1,000 small subunits, it can be easily replaced in an inexpensive way through an on-the-fly procedure without markedly affecting the total composite output of the other 1000 subunits that comprise the large reactor. On Wed, Aug 24, 2011 at 6:09 PM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com wrote: Jouni Valkonen jounivalko...@gmail.com wrote: Was this approach right or wrong, it can be debated. I think that it was just wrong approach. I agree. Plus I think a test of a 1 MW reactor is fraught with difficulties. It is much easier to test 1 to 10 kW. In my opinnion Rossi should have opensourced this technology back in 2009 when he filed patent application. I think what you mean here is that he should have revealed the technology in anticipation of getting a patent. Not that he should have given it away. Some people have suggested he should give it away because it is so important, and it will save so many lives. That would make him the most generous philanthropist in history. I think it is asking too much that he should be both a brilliant inventor and also a philanthropist. The problem with your plan may be that his patent is weak. He and Defkalion have both said they will rely on trade secrets to protect their intellectual property. That tells me his patent is weak. I do not know much about patents but his other patent seems weak. Very weak. Like trying to stop an automobile with a spider's web. I do know about trade secrets. I predict that a few months after corporations worldwide realize the Rossi reactors are real, this trade secret will be broken in dozens of corporations in the U.S., Europe, Japan and China. You can protect a trade secret for a product with a niche market that calls for inside knowledge, skill, and lots of art. Conventional catalysts are a good example. You cannot protect a trade secret for a rather simple device that is vital to every industry on earth, and that is worth hundreds of trillions of dollars over the next 100 years. I am only guessing here, but my impression is that Rossi is stuck. He seems to have no good method of protecting his intellectual property. That's awful. Assuming it works, it is the most valuable discovery in history and he deserves a trillion dollars in royalties. I fear he may get nothing. If he gets nothing in the end, this will be partly his own fault. His personality may be causing problems. But it seems to me his main problem is that this particular intellectual property is very tough to protect. I cannot think of a good marketing strategy. I wouldn't know how to do this. If he asked my advice, I would suggest he talk to experts in patent law and intellectual property. Perhaps he has talked to them. Maybe he has a good strategy. I don't see how doing a 1 MW demonstration would fit into a good strategy, but since I know nothing about his plans I cannot judge. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:People such as Edison, Jobs, Whitman and Rossi are not always lying when they say things that are obviously false
None of us live in the honesty of the objective universe; a cold and uncaring domain where brutal science holds sway. Such a frigid and unfeeling place is far to large and painful for us to bear in the lives we live. We each of us are artists who paint our world as in a dream born darkly in fading memories, prejudices, and reeling from the slings and arrows of outrageous fortune that color our lives. And in the illusion of our dream we seek solace and the strength to keep going. Axil On Thu, Aug 25, 2011 at 2:44 PM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com wrote: I wrote: If Jobs seriously believes that without him there would be no proportional fonts in modern computers, he is delusional. . . . to call it a lie is an overstatement, because even Jobs knows this isn't true, and he must know he is not fooling anyone. I mean he is not fooling anyone who knows the history of computers. Jobs got the idea for the Mac when he saw a Xerox Parc computer. The Parc had proportional fonts, and many other innovations that Jobs later took credit for. Modesty is not his strong suit. On the other hand, Xerox never even tried to sell the Parc, whereas Jobs went through hell getting the Lisa and then the Mac to market. That's genius enough. I don't begrudge him his fame or money. - Jed
[Vo]:a few + words re the 1MW DEMO plus IS No 470
My dear Friends It is my weekly pleasure to send you my INFORMAVORE’s SUNDAY- this time no 470 http://egooutpeters.blogspot.com/2011/08/informavores-sunday-no-470.html with a rather sad mini-editorial in it, plus a few words in addition to http://egooutpeters.blogspot.com/2011/08/anticipating-1mw-demo.html This will be an interesting event or a very interesting non-event. So many E-cats working together is Flea Circus Management problem. The Complex has to be very well automated otherwise it will be like a negative orgy of multitasking. A good demo is like a good preach, I remember reading what a famous pastor told: “First, I tell them what I will say them in the preach. Then I say it. When finished, I explain them what I have told. Then, I sit down.” It is about openness, thre times openness- the demo has to be described before starting it, including the expected results. Then it has to be done, fast smooth start, to continue to function a decent period of time, 5 to 8 hours seems to be a minimum, with clear continuous display of the main parameters: energy in, energy out the first much smaller than the second- no disturbing variations and a smooth, perfectly controlled shut-down. If I remember my work in great plants (in 3 shifts) with so many things to take care, with attention not only distributed but broken n small parts I am developing a kind of empathy for Rossi's problems.. If he succeeds to get technological control and functional discipline four such a great group of Ecats, he will demonstrate us that he is not only a genius but also a witch as great as Albus Dumbledore. Yours as always, Peter -- Dr. Peter Gluck Cluj, Romania http://egooutpeters.blogspot.com
[Vo]:heat after death at 3 liters per hour flow rate
In the Corrections to heat after death calculations I posted values assuming a flow rate of 7 liters per hour: http://www.mtaonline.net/~hheffner/RossiThermal.pdf However, Mattia Rizzi made a sound argument for a flow rate of 3 liters per hour, or about 0.83 g/s, for the Krivit demo, in his post: http://www.mail-archive.com/vortex-l@eskimo.com/msg50685.html There is thus a good possibility this setting was used in other tests. If true then the feasibility of a 15 minute heat after death observation without any excess (nuclear) heat being provided looks far more feasible. See: http://www.mtaonline.net/~hheffner/RossiThermal2.pdf Best regards, Horace Heffner http://www.mtaonline.net/~hheffner/
[Vo]:Corrections to heat after death calculations
On Aug 27, 2011, at 12:51 PM, Joe Catania wrote: For the umpteenth time it is not an assertion. The thermal mass of the reactor is about 1MJ (based on specific heat), the energy outflow is a mere fraction (~1kW). OK? There has been no demonstration that output is higher than inout. Steam quality is not measured, therma; inertia not accounted for. and there is Rizzi's determination that flow is over estimated. I hope I don't have to repeat these facts again. The source of heat in the 15 minutes is thermal inertia since it would account for all steam produced. Cold fusion is not indicated by what Levi has said. I have not seen the graphs you speak of and I'm not sure they are coincident with cutting the power but thermal inertia needs to be accounted for. So show me the data. And all I can say is one does not assume cold fusion to prove cold fusion. CF proof is totally elusive by the means exploited. Its more likely a flaw in technique of measurement. But if there is proof of anomalous heat it has eluded my detection so far. The properway to do the calorimetry is not with flow as I've detailed before. Levi said steam stopped after 15 minutes so it seems you need to get on the same page. My two cents on this is it is a typical one of a kind anecdote - with no solid measurements to back it up. We don't really know if the device was initially outputting 5000 W or just the input wattage, for example. For the sake of discussion, let's just assume the story is correct and the device was outputting 5 kW as advertised. Let's also be generous with regard to mass, and assume it was equivalent to 20 kg of copper, and stored 1 MJ of energy as specified above. Using a heat capacity of copper, 0.385 J/(gm K), a 20 kg mass requires delta T = (10^6 J)/((0.385 J/(gm °C))*(2*10^4 gm)) = 130 °C to store the 1 MJ thermal energy. If we assume inlet temperature of 23°C then this is an absolute temperature of 153°C. The thermal mass, Cth, is given by: Cth = (0.385 J/(gm °C)*(2*10^4 gm) = 7700 J/°C Assume the device transfers 5 kW of output heat when the internal temperature is 153°C and inlet temperature is 23°C, i.e. delta T is 130°C. This gives a thermal resistance of R = (130°C)/(5^10^3 W) = 2.6x10^-2 °C/W. The decay time constant, tau, for the 1 MJ thermal mass, C, is is given by: tau = R*Cth = (2.6x10^-2 °C/W)*(7700 J/°C) = 200 s We now have the thermal decline curve: T(t) = T0 * e^-(t/tau) = (153 °C) * 1/e^(t/tau) If we want steam to disappear at time t, then T(t) = 100°C. So: (100°C) = (153 °C) * 1/e^(t/tau) (t/tau) = ln((153°C) /(100 °C) t = ln((153°C) /(100 °C)) * (200 s) t = 85 s So, if all is as assumed above (very unlikely!) the device should not be able to output steam for 15 minutes, or even more than 2 minutes, unless a source of heat was present after the power was cut off. The problem is we just do not have enough data to make the above calculation credibly. This is not a new kind of problem with regard to the E-Cat. Hopefully in any case the above example is useful to others for theorizing. We just have to wait until October to see what happens. I hope for the best. I hope we don't see non-credible delays and moving target objectives as we have seen before in similar situations. I wish Rossi great success. Even the most minor technical success for Rossi would be one of the greatest scientific breakthroughs ever, and have great importance for all mankind. Rossi is not a young man. I hope he considers how limited his time on earth is and makes the right decisions. Horace Heffner http://www.mtaonline.net/~hheffner/
Re: [Vo]:a few + words re the 1MW DEMO plus IS No 470
The Army version is Tell 'em what you're gonna tell 'em. Tell 'em. Tell 'em what you told 'em. - Original Message - A good demo is like a good preach, I remember reading what a famous pastor told: “First, I tell them what I will say them in the preach. Then I say it. When finished, I explain them what I have told. Then, I sit down.”
Re: [Vo]:Corrections to heat after death calculations
No one to my knowledge is showing data that the heat after pulling the plug continues at the rate it had before power-off for a full 15 minutes. My interpretation of Levu's comment in Part 3 of the Krivit video is that the rate natually declines until after 15 minutes it was judged that steam production had ceased. Either way thermal inertia plays a role. You're really stretch credulity to ask me to believe you calculation shows only a few minutes is possible. You haven't set it up carefully enough, i.e. it is flawed. For one thing it would appear that more than 1 MJ would be stored in the case you discuss. Your temperature seems low. I remember Rossi saying he was able to heat a working fluid to 450C so the thermal mass would seem to get hotter than that. Your calculation of time constant is clearly unacceptable as heat output cannot remain constant. The analysis, if done properly, leaves no doubt about the correct conclusion. To say its all off for a factor of 3 is laughable in my judgment, esp. when you've underestimated values and overestimated outout and failed to understand the decay of output. Also it seems hydride formation probably explains any anomalous heat produced- that is if it can be determined that its produced and how much. So far this has been an enormous fiasco. - Original Message - From: Horace Heffner To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Sunday, August 28, 2011 8:58 AM Subject: [Vo]:Corrections to heat after death calculations On Aug 27, 2011, at 12:51 PM, Joe Catania wrote: For the umpteenth time it is not an assertion. The thermal mass of the reactor is about 1MJ (based on specific heat), the energy outflow is a mere fraction (~1kW). OK? There has been no demonstration that output is higher than inout. Steam quality is not measured, therma; inertia not accounted for. and there is Rizzi's determination that flow is over estimated. I hope I don't have to repeat these facts again. The source of heat in the 15 minutes is thermal inertia since it would account for all steam produced. Cold fusion is not indicated by what Levi has said. I have not seen the graphs you speak of and I'm not sure they are coincident with cutting the power but thermal inertia needs to be accounted for. So show me the data. And all I can say is one does not assume cold fusion to prove cold fusion. CF proof is totally elusive by the means exploited. Its more likely a flaw in technique of measurement. But if there is proof of anomalous heat it has eluded my detection so far. The properway to do the calorimetry is not with flow as I've detailed before. Levi said steam stopped after 15 minutes so it seems you need to get on the same page. My two cents on this is it is a typical one of a kind anecdote - with no solid measurements to back it up. We don't really know if the device was initially outputting 5000 W or just the input wattage, for example. For the sake of discussion, let's just assume the story is correct and the device was outputting 5 kW as advertised. Let's also be generous with regard to mass, and assume it was equivalent to 20 kg of copper, and stored 1 MJ of energy as specified above. Using a heat capacity of copper, 0.385 J/(gm K), a 20 kg mass requires delta T = (10^6 J)/((0.385 J/(gm °C))*(2*10^4 gm)) = 130 °C to store the 1 MJ thermal energy. If we assume inlet temperature of 23°C then this is an absolute temperature of 153°C. The thermal mass, Cth, is given by: Cth = (0.385 J/(gm °C)*(2*10^4 gm) = 7700 J/°C Assume the device transfers 5 kW of output heat when the internal temperature is 153°C and inlet temperature is 23°C, i.e. delta T is 130°C. This gives a thermal resistance of R = (130°C)/(5^10^3 W) = 2.6x10^-2 °C/W. The decay time constant, tau, for the 1 MJ thermal mass, C, is is given by: tau = R*Cth = (2.6x10^-2 °C/W)*(7700 J/°C) = 200 s We now have the thermal decline curve: T(t) = T0 * e^-(t/tau) = (153 °C) * 1/e^(t/tau) If we want steam to disappear at time t, then T(t) = 100°C. So: (100°C) = (153 °C) * 1/e^(t/tau) (t/tau) = ln((153°C) /(100 °C) t = ln((153°C) /(100 °C)) * (200 s) t = 85 s So, if all is as assumed above (very unlikely!) the device should not be able to output steam for 15 minutes, or even more than 2 minutes, unless a source of heat was present after the power was cut off. The problem is we just do not have enough data to make the above calculation credibly. This is not a new kind of problem with regard to the E-Cat. Hopefully in any case the above example is useful to others for theorizing. We just have to wait until October to see what happens. I hope for the best. I hope we don't see non-credible delays and moving target objectives as we have seen before in similar situations. I wish Rossi great success. Even the most minor technical success
Re: [Vo]:People such as Edison, Jobs, Whitman and Rossi are not always lying when they say things that are obviously false
Jed, there many plausible explanations why Rossi did lie. One of my guesses is that Rossi did lie to Krivit, because he insulted him and others therefore he denied the E-Cat demo from Krivit. It depends only your imagination how many similar and plausible scenarios there might be. It may be difficult to find how he would benefit from lying in so obvious manner, but if Rossi has the real thing, then there is no way that there is any harm done even if he lied. Obviously Rossi does not want that mass media will reach E-Cat until October. As media got too interested in May and early June, it made perfectly sense that he wanted to discredit himself. Presenting silly demonstration to overly scientific journalist, is the best way to tarnish own reputation. And there has not been much media attention since. Logic is simple. If Rossi had wanted that we believe him, he would have taken a swimming pool and and boiled all the water away. This did not happen, but only unconclusive short demonstrations. Therefore Rossi does not want publicity outside cold fusion circles. There was, however significant media attention because Swedish and particularly Mats Lewan took it seriously. Therefore making silly Demonstration in June was good opportunity to send a message that demonstrations were dubious, please do not bother me before October. —Jouni
Re: [Vo]:Corrections to heat after death calculations
Joe, I think that you are enormous fiasco yourself, because you are making aggressive asumptions that does not have any rational basis. For example you fail to understand even the basics, because metal temperature cannot exceed 160°C because insulation rubber starts to melt and burn. This phenomenom is hard to not to notice if there are poisonous fumes in the surroundings. Other thing what you fail to understand, is that Krivit's demonstration has nothing to do with anything, because there was completely different type of E-Cat used in heat after death experiments. That in June demonstration was old and discarded prototype, because it's efficiency was very bad and could not be commercially viable reactor type. (This was probably the reason why Rossi showed to Krivit this old type module as a dummy with no excess heat at all.) What else what you seem to fail to understand, that metal is extremely good thermal conductor. Therefore if we assume your 450°C temperature (sic), then there cannot be any wet steam, but system produces hot steam with temperature of 150-300°C. Your reasoning is full of flaws, so please do not try to present your speculations as facts. If you do not believe E-Cat, please assume that there is a hidden power source. There has not been done any public actions to seek and exclude hidden power sources, such as hydrogenperoxide, hidden hydrogen bottle, lithium-ion battery, hidden wires and I am sure that David Copperfield can come up even more clever illusions for excess heat. I just fail completely understand why critics think that measurements must be flawed, but they do not present simplest explanation that E-Cat may be a honest fraud. It is trivial to fake excess heat! —Jouni
Re: [Vo]:a few + words re the 1MW DEMO plus IS No 470
Dear Alan, Thank you really much. I have a rather good collection of quotations, sayings, proverbs in more languages but those of the U.S Army are missing. The first 437 issues of the newsletter- in Romanian had a all a section of Quotations re the same subject/concept that was discussed in the Editorial. Focus point management and good thinking. Average 120 quotations per concept. Peter On Mon, Aug 29, 2011 at 1:50 AM, Alan Fletcher a...@well.com wrote: The Army version is Tell 'em what you're gonna tell 'em. Tell 'em. Tell 'em what you told 'em. -- A good demo is like a good preach, I remember reading what a famous pastor told: “First, I tell them what I will say them in the preach. Then I say it. When finished, I explain them what I have told. Then, I sit down.” -- Dr. Peter Gluck Cluj, Romania http://egooutpeters.blogspot.com
