[Vo]:Oct 6 Test

[Craig Haynie]

I've been reading Passerini's tweets, and it looks like this eCat has
been running in self-sustained mode for about 4 hours now.

https://twitter.com/#!/22passi

Craig 

[Vo]:Oct 6 Test

[vorl bek]

> 
> 1666 ml/s should be 166.7 ml/s but it still results in 3.5 kW

This was 1/50 of the 1MW assembly, so it should be putting out
20kw. 3.5kw is a disappointment.

And so is the fact that it ran for only 4 hours, which may not
rule out a chemical reaction.

If that is the best Rossi can do I guess we will have to stick
with Big Oil.

Re: [Vo]:Oct 6 Test

[Esa Ruoho]

Nice one, will start following 22passi

On Thu, Oct 6, 2011 at 7:19 PM, Craig Haynie wrote:

> I've been reading Passerini's tweets, and it looks like this eCat has
> been running in self-sustained mode for about 4 hours now.
>
> https://twitter.com/#!/22passi
>
> Craig
>
>
>

Re: [Vo]:Oct 6 Test

[Alan J Fletcher]

At 09:19 AM 10/6/2011, Craig Haynie wrote:
I've been reading Passerini's
tweets, and it looks like this eCat has
been running in self-sustained mode for about 4 hours now.

https://twitter.com/#!/22passi
I make it not quite an HOUR :
22passi Daniele Passerini

the E-Cat goes on in autosustaining
51
minutes ago

Re: [Vo]:Oct 6 Test

[Esa Ruoho]

22passi  Daniele Passerini
The E-Cat module keeps working in self-sustained mode
45 minutes ago 

On Thu, Oct 6, 2011 at 8:05 PM, Alan J Fletcher  wrote:

>  At 09:19 AM 10/6/2011, Craig Haynie wrote:
>
> I've been reading Passerini's tweets, and it looks like this eCat has
> been running in self-sustained mode for about 4 hours now.
>  https://twitter.com/#!/22passi
>
>
> I make it not quite an HOUR :
>
> 22passi  Daniele Passerini
> the E-Cat goes on in autosustaining
> 51 minutes ago 
>
>
>

Re: [Vo]:Oct 6 Test

[Jed Rothwell]

Alan J Fletcher  wrote:


> I make it not quite an HOUR :
>
> 22passi  Daniele Passerini
> the E-Cat goes on in autosustaining
> 51 minutes ago 
>

Did you auto-translate that somewhere? The Google version says 4 hours, as
does the original Italian:

22passi Daniel Passerini
Reactor self-sustaining!
4 hours ago

Original Italian, which as now says 5 hours:

22passi Daniele Passerini
Reattore in autosostentamento!!
5 hours ago

We do not know whether it is still self-sustaining at this moment. It might
have stopped some time ago but Daniel may not have tweeted that fact yet.

It may need to be bumped a little to keep it self-sustaining. Previous
models had to be bumped every 30 min. or so.


Things appear to be going according to plan. The plan was to make it
self-sustain throughout most of the test.

- Jed

Re: [Vo]:Oct 6 Test

[Craig Haynie]

On Thu, 2011-10-06 at 10:05 -0700, Alan J Fletcher wrote:
> At 09:19 AM 10/6/2011, Craig Haynie wrote:
> > I've been reading Passerini's tweets, and it looks like this eCat
> > has
> > been running in self-sustained mode for about 4 hours now.
> > https://twitter.com/#!/22passi
> 
> I make it not quite an HOUR :

Keep going back in the list.

---
22passi Daniel Passerini 

Reactor self-sustaining!
5 hours ago Favorite Retweet Reply
---

Craig

Re: [Vo]:Oct 6 Test

[Alan J Fletcher]

At 10:28 AM 10/6/2011, Jed Rothwell wrote:
Alan J Fletcher
 wrote:
 


I make it not quite an HOUR :

22passi Daniele Passerini


the E-Cat goes on in autosustaining

51
minutes ago


Did you auto-translate that somewhere? The Google version says 4 hours,
as does the original Italian:
22passi Daniel Passerini
Reactor self-sustaining!
4 hours ago 
Original Italian, which as now says 5 hours:
22passi Daniele Passerini 
Reattore in autosostentamento!!
5 hours ago
We do not know whether it is still self-sustaining at this moment. It
might have stopped some time ago but Daniel may not have tweeted that
fact yet.
It may need to be bumped a little to keep it self-sustaining. Previous
models had to be bumped every 30 min. or so.

Things appear to be going according to plan. The plan was to make it
self-sustain throughout most of the test.
- Jed
 From Chrome :  (But I DID turn on auto-translate for 22passi's
website : maybe it's a global setting. I'll unset it.)
http://twitter.com/#!/22passi
   ---  but I'm getting new posts in English, not Italian
?
22passi Daniele Passerini

Everything is ready to inerview the special guest
1
minute ago Favorite
Retweet
Reply
That JUST came up 
22passi Daniele Passerini

The E-Cat module keeps working in self-sustained mode
1 hour
ago 

Re: [Vo]:Oct 6 Test

[Craig Haynie]

22passi Daniel Passerini 

At 19:00, after 4 hours in continuous self-sustaining mode, the reaction
has been interrupted as planned...


If confirmed, this should remove all doubt.

Woot...

Craig

Re: [Vo]:Oct 6 Test

[Alan J Fletcher]

22passi Daniele Passerini

At 19:00, after 4 hours in continuous self-sustaining mode, the reaction
has been interrupted as planned...
3
minutes ago Favorite

Gee .. I thought they were going for 12+ hours.
22passi Daniele Passerini

...the end of the operations is planned for 00:00.
3
minutes ago Favorite
Retweet
Reply
22passi Daniele
Passerini 
...this will allow some time for the E-Cat module to cool down.
Afterwards, it will be disassembled and inspected...
4
minutes ago 

Re: [Vo]:Oct 6 Test

[Jed Rothwell]

Alan J Fletcher wrote:

From Chrome :  (But I DID turn on auto-translate for 22passi's website 
: maybe it's a global setting. I'll unset it.)


http://twitter.com/#!/22passi 
---  but I'm getting new posts in English, not Italian ?


I believe he is now posting in English.

- Jed

Re: [Vo]:Oct 6 Test

[Man on Bridges]

Hi,

On 6-10-2011 22:30, vorl bek wrote:

1666 ml/s should be 166.7 ml/s but it still results in 3.5 kW

This was 1/50 of the 1MW assembly, so it should be putting out
20kw. 3.5kw is a disappointment.

Excuse me?
This would result still for 52 eCats in 182 kW !

Kind regards,

MoB

Re: [Vo]:Oct 6 Test

[Man on Bridges]

Hi,

On 6-10-2011 22:32, Man on Bridges wrote:

Hi,

On 6-10-2011 22:30, vorl bek wrote:

1666 ml/s should be 166.7 ml/s but it still results in 3.5 kW

This was 1/50 of the 1MW assembly, so it should be putting out
20kw. 3.5kw is a disappointment.

Excuse me?
This would result still for 52 eCats in 182 kW !

Wait a minute, didn't each eLion consist of four eCats.
So multipling by 4 results in 728 kW !

Kind regards,

MoB

Re: [Vo]:Oct 6 Test

[vorl bek]

> Hi,
> 
> On 6-10-2011 22:32, Man on Bridges wrote:
> > Hi,
> >
> > On 6-10-2011 22:30, vorl bek wrote:
> >>> 1666 ml/s should be 166.7 ml/s but it still results in 3.5 kW
> >> This was 1/50 of the 1MW assembly, so it should be putting out
> >> 20kw. 3.5kw is a disappointment.
> > Excuse me?
> > This would result still for 52 eCats in 182 kW !
> Wait a minute, didn't each eLion consist of four eCats.
> So multipling by 4 results in 728 kW !

Are you saying there are 4 ecats in each fatcat (or elion)? That
is even worse: 3.5kw / 4 = .875kw per ecat.

Rossi was touting the ecats as putting out 6kw or more each. Now
we are down to .875kw.

It sounds like this whole ecat OU business is no more than a
fantasy.

> 
> Kind regards,
> 
> MoB
> 

Re: [Vo]:Oct 6 Test

[Daniel Rocha]

.875kw is the power of a coffee machine of Krivitz test!

Re: [Vo]:Oct 6 Test

[Peter Heckert]

Am 06.10.2011 22:36, schrieb Man on Bridges:

Hi,

On 6-10-2011 22:32, Man on Bridges wrote:

Hi,

On 6-10-2011 22:30, vorl bek wrote:

1666 ml/s should be 166.7 ml/s but it still results in 3.5 kW

This was 1/50 of the 1MW assembly, so it should be putting out
20kw. 3.5kw is a disappointment.

Excuse me?
This would result still for 52 eCats in 182 kW !

Wait a minute, didn't each eLion consist of four eCats.
So multipling by 4 results in 728 kW !



It could also be, because the primary circuit is a closed circuit, that 
the input temperature for the e-cat is too high an so it gets no chance 
to show the full power.


Anyway, tommorow morning I must go to a customer, diagnosing an 
electronic fire-alarm system.
If I dont find the source of trouble and cannot offer a solution he will 
probably kill me.

So I will never learn about the full e-cat truth ;-)

Re: [Vo]:Oct 6 Test

[Jed Rothwell]

vorl bek  wrote:


> This was 1/50 of the 1MW assembly, so it should be putting out
> 20kw. 3.5kw is a disappointment.
>

In what universe is that a "disappointment"? If any other cold fusion test
have produced 50.4 MJ in four hours with no input the researchers would
think they had died and gone to heaven. If you showed that test to Robert
Park I guarantee he would think he had died and gone to hell.

Rossi announced previously that he would run the cell below the level it
will be at in the 1 MW reactor. I was hoping it would be somewhat higher but
3.5 kW, measured in the secondary loop, is plenty high.



> And so is the fact that it ran for only 4 hours, which may not
> rule out a chemical reaction.
>

Only 4 hours?

It does rule out a chemical reaction. That is more energy than you get from
1 kg of gasoline (45 MJ), which also requires oxygen, which is not present
in the cell. After they open up the machine they will find that the cell is
small. The best possible chemical fuel is hydrogen and oxygen and you could
not begin to produce 50 MJ with a small cell. You could not store it or
ignite it.

(Note that 1 kg of gasoline is considerably more than 1 L. I don't recall
how much, but gasoline is lighter than water.)



> If that is the best Rossi can do I guess we will have to stick
> with Big Oil.
>

There is no indication that this is the best Rossi can do.

- Jed

Re: [Vo]:Oct 6 Test

[Alan J Fletcher]

At 01:42 PM 10/6/2011, vorl bek wrote:

Rossi was touting the ecats as putting out 6kw or more each. Now
we are down to .875kw.



It sounds like this whole ecat OU business is no more than a fantasy.


(.875 + 0) / 0 = ..?


This test was probably limited by the water flow and heat exchanger size.

Re: [Vo]:Oct 6 Test

[vorl bek]

> vorl bek  wrote:
> 
> 
> > This was 1/50 of the 1MW assembly, so it should be putting out
> > 20kw. 3.5kw is a disappointment.
> >
> 
> In what universe is that a "disappointment"? If any other cold
> fusion test have produced 50.4 MJ in four hours with no input
> the researchers would think they had died and gone to heaven. If
> you showed that test to Robert Park I guarantee he would think
> he had died and gone to hell.
> 
> Rossi announced previously that he would run the cell below the
> level it will be at in the 1 MW reactor. I was hoping it would
> be somewhat higher but 3.5 kW, measured in the secondary loop,
> is plenty high.
> 
> 
> 
> > And so is the fact that it ran for only 4 hours, which may not
> > rule out a chemical reaction.
> >
> 
> Only 4 hours?
> 
> It does rule out a chemical reaction. That is more energy than
> you get from 1 kg of gasoline (45 MJ), which also requires
> oxygen, which is not present in the cell. After they open up the
> machine they will find that the cell is small. The best possible
> chemical fuel is hydrogen and oxygen 

Really? I should have thought that by now some exotic space-age
compound would exist that would Allow Rossi to power the device
for 4.1 hours.


> and you could not begin to
> produce 50 MJ with a small cell. You could not store it or
> ignite it.
> 
> (Note that 1 kg of gasoline is considerably more than 1 L. I
> don't recall how much, but gasoline is lighter than water.)
> 
> 
> 
> > If that is the best Rossi can do I guess we will have to stick
> > with Big Oil.
> >
> 
> There is no indication that this is the best Rossi can do.

This is 11 out of 11 tries, according to Krivit, and most people
are yawning, if not indignant, at the lack of results. He really
knows how to hide his light under a bushel.


> 
> - Jed

Re: [Vo]:Oct 6 Test

[Axil Axil]

> There is no indication that this is the best Rossi can do.



I think that want limits the COP of the E-Cat is controllablility. Rossi has
been trading off contollability against power density for a long while now
over many design iterations.



This demo is the “weakest yet” per reactor core power density. I doubt that
Rossi will ever figure out how his E-Cat really works. That theory of
operation is central to controlling the E-Cat effectively. It will be up to
others to form a theory of operations that will allow for a E-Cat core with
good power density together with absolute controllability.



IMHO, the E-Cat will improve going forward once the commercial possibilities
of the E-Cat are generally accepted as realistic and supported widely by
business through product development.







On Thu, Oct 6, 2011 at 4:49 PM, Jed Rothwell  wrote:

> vorl bek  wrote:
>
>
>> This was 1/50 of the 1MW assembly, so it should be putting out
>> 20kw. 3.5kw is a disappointment.
>>
>
> In what universe is that a "disappointment"? If any other cold fusion test
> have produced 50.4 MJ in four hours with no input the researchers would
> think they had died and gone to heaven. If you showed that test to Robert
> Park I guarantee he would think he had died and gone to hell.
>
> Rossi announced previously that he would run the cell below the level it
> will be at in the 1 MW reactor. I was hoping it would be somewhat higher but
> 3.5 kW, measured in the secondary loop, is plenty high.
>
>
>
>> And so is the fact that it ran for only 4 hours, which may not
>> rule out a chemical reaction.
>>
>
> Only 4 hours?
>
> It does rule out a chemical reaction. That is more energy than you get from
> 1 kg of gasoline (45 MJ), which also requires oxygen, which is not present
> in the cell. After they open up the machine they will find that the cell is
> small. The best possible chemical fuel is hydrogen and oxygen and you could
> not begin to produce 50 MJ with a small cell. You could not store it or
> ignite it.
>
> (Note that 1 kg of gasoline is considerably more than 1 L. I don't recall
> how much, but gasoline is lighter than water.)
>
>
>
>> If that is the best Rossi can do I guess we will have to stick
>> with Big Oil.
>>
>
> There is no indication that this is the best Rossi can do.
>
> - Jed
>
>

Re: [Vo]:Oct 6 Test

[Jed Rothwell]

Axil Axil  wrote:

This demo is the “weakest yet” per reactor core power density.
>

What is the reactor core size?

What was the highest output power during the initial powered phase?

- Jed