Re: [Vo]:Ongoing Rossi Blog stuff
On 2011-04-05 20:51, Alan J Fletcher wrote: Rossi continues to answer and/or avoid answering questions. I find this of interest too: http://www.journal-of-nuclear-physics.com/?p=473 [...] The walls of the reactor are made of stainless steel, copper free. Yes, I have understood why scaling up we have more difficulties to have a flat curve of Delta T. Also the theory is consolidating. I am learning a lot in this period, I learnt a lot from the Professors of The Universities of Bologna, Stockolm and Uppsala ( in alphabetic order, of course) and from the People of DOE and DOD in the USA. From them there is really to learn. They say 10-20 words and from those words I get a universe of informations. In these last 2 months we made substantial evolution, after every test I redesigned and remade the reactors. Today I am in the USA factory of Leonardo Corporation where I signed a contract of tremendous importance. As soon as I will be allowed to announce it, believe me, it will be extremely important. So, reportedly, he is still in the process of improving his reactors (that's a good thing) and has just made an important agreement with a currently unknown (to us) entity. I wonder what could it be. It sounds like we will find out soon, anyway. Cheers, S.A.
Re: [Vo]:Ongoing Rossi Blog stuff
Thank you very much for signalling this- it si a proof that he is doing healthy logical professional DEVELOPMENT. Very interesting and very different from scientific research- has a lot more dimensions, including human ones. (I was engaged in thsi type of activity for 25 years in nthe chenmical industry) It is possible he will abandon or radically change the idea of modular development. I would not like to get energy from an army of indisciplined generators. We will see. This kind of technological evolution is described in my problem solving rules too: http://egooutpeters.blogspot.com/2011/03/my-rules-of-problem-solving.html 8 .*NOT* the solutions that seem perfect from the start, but those which are very perfectible are the best in many cases. 9*. NOT *the bright, shiny, spectacular solutions but those elaborated, worked out with difficulty and effort and patience are more valuable and have a larger area of applicability. Let's hope Rossi will make the best decisions. Peter On Fri, Apr 8, 2011 at 1:22 PM, SHIRAKAWA Akira shirakawa.ak...@gmail.comwrote: On 2011-04-05 20:51, Alan J Fletcher wrote: Rossi continues to answer and/or avoid answering questions. I find this of interest too: http://www.journal-of-nuclear-physics.com/?p=473 [...] The walls of the reactor are made of stainless steel, copper free. Yes, I have understood why scaling up we have more difficulties to have a flat curve of Delta T. Also the theory is consolidating. I am learning a lot in this period, I learnt a lot from the Professors of The Universities of Bologna, Stockolm and Uppsala ( in alphabetic order, of course) and from the People of DOE and DOD in the USA. From them there is really to learn. They say 10-20 words and from those words I get a universe of informations. In these last 2 months we made substantial evolution, after every test I redesigned and remade the reactors. Today I am in the USA factory of Leonardo Corporation where I signed a contract of tremendous importance. As soon as I will be allowed to announce it, believe me, it will be extremely important. So, reportedly, he is still in the process of improving his reactors (that's a good thing) and has just made an important agreement with a currently unknown (to us) entity. I wonder what could it be. It sounds like we will find out soon, anyway. Cheers, S.A. -- Dr. Peter Gluck Cluj, Romania http://egooutpeters.blogspot.com
Re: [Vo]:Ongoing Rossi Blog stuff
On Fri, Apr 8, 2011 at 6:22 AM, SHIRAKAWA Akira shirakawa.ak...@gmail.com wrote: I wonder what could it be. It sounds like we will find out soon, anyway. My guess is Lockheed-Martin. I've heard rumblings of something coming from Marietta; but, I always thought it was EEStor. T
RE: [Vo]:Ongoing Rossi Blog stuff
From Terry I wonder what could it be. It sounds like we will find out soon, anyway. My guess is Lockheed-Martin. I've heard rumblings of something coming from Marietta; but, I always thought it was EEStor. Wallmart! ...where they treat you like family! Just kidding. (I wish!) Regards, Steven Vincent Johnson www.OrionWorks.com www.zazzle.com/orionworks
Re: [Vo]:Ongoing Rossi Blog stuff
William : My understanding is that the reactor volume in the original E-CAT was around 1 liter or 1000cc and that the new smaller module has a volume of about 1/20th of a liter or 50cc. Is this correct? Also, what is the standard power rating of this smaller module? Is it officially 2.5 kW? April 6th, 2011 at 7:20 PM Dear Mr William: The answer is yes to both questions. A.R. - - - - April 7th, 2011 at 7:42 AM Dear Mr. Mats Heijkenskjold: To change the charge we change the whole module, then the change of the charge is made from us in our factory. The 1 MW plant has more modules than necessary, so that they are changed in turn when it is time. Good question,
Re: [Vo]:Ongoing Rossi Blog stuff
On Thu, Apr 7, 2011 at 3:42 PM, Alan J Fletcher a...@well.com wrote: William : My understanding is that the reactor volume in the original E-CAT was around 1 liter or 1000cc and that the new smaller module has a volume of about 1/20th of a liter or 50cc. Is this correct? Also, what is the standard power rating of this smaller module? Is it officially 2.5 kW? The article indicated 4 kW with 300 ganged to make 1 MW less input. T
[Vo]:Ongoing Rossi Blog stuff
Rossi continues to answer and/or avoid answering questions. http://www.journal-of-nuclear-physics.com/?p=360cpage=14#comments Andrea Rossi April 5th, 2011 at 5:24 AM Dear Mr Antonio Di Stefano: Thank you for your suggestions. The minimum size is a module of 2.5 kW of power, so far. Warm regards, A.R. Peter Gluck April 4th, 2011 at 12:02 PM Dear Ing. Rossi, Metaphorically speaking, why do you intend to combine so many smallish E-cats, instead of creating a greater E-feline- an E-lion, E-tiger or something like that? Is there a size, volume limit for the reactors? Andrea Rossi April 4th, 2011 at 9:28 PM Dear Mr. Gluck: I prefer to use small modules for economy scale and safety issues. To combine even thousands of modules in series and parallels is easy, and zero risk time thousands is always zero. Why risk? Warm regards, A.R.
Re: [Vo]:Ongoing Rossi Blog stuff
I have asked him because I dislike the planned method of scale up. I hope he has already tested step-wise combinations of, say 3, 12, 25 E-cats working together. As with the airplanes- the start period is critical- heat peaks or inhibition, oscillations (I think) An E-lion must have a more sophisticated internal structure. Peter On Tue, Apr 5, 2011 at 9:51 PM, Alan J Fletcher a...@well.com wrote: Rossi continues to answer and/or avoid answering questions. http://www.journal-of-nuclear-physics.com/?p=360cpage=14#comments - Andrea Rossi April 5th, 2011 at 5:24 AMhttp://www.journal-of-nuclear-physics.com/?p=360cpage=14#comment-31263 Dear Mr Antonio Di Stefano: Thank you for your suggestions. The minimum size is a module of 2.5 kW of power, so far. Warm regards, A.R. Peter Gluck http://egooutpeters.blogspot.com April 4th, 2011 at 12:02 PMhttp://www.journal-of-nuclear-physics.com/?p=360cpage=13#comment-31140 Dear Ing. Rossi, Metaphorically speaking, why do you intend to combine so many smallish E-cats, instead of creating a greater E-feline- an E-lion, E-tiger or something like that? Is there a size, volume limit for the reactors? Andrea Rossi April 4th, 2011 at 9:28 PMhttp://www.journal-of-nuclear-physics.com/?p=360cpage=13#comment-31197 Dear Mr. Gluck: I prefer to use small modules for economy scale and safety issues. To combine even thousands of modules in series and parallels is easy, and zero risk time thousands is always zero. Why risk? Warm regards, A.R. -- Dr. Peter Gluck Cluj, Romania http://egooutpeters.blogspot.com
Re: [Vo]:Ongoing Rossi Blog stuff
In reply to Alan J Fletcher's message of Tue, 05 Apr 2011 11:51:18 -0700: Hi, [snip] Dear Mr. Gluck: I prefer to use small modules for economy scale and safety issues. To combine even thousands of modules in series and parallels is easy, and zero risk time thousands is always zero. Why risk? Warm regards, A.R. ...well one good reason would be to save on Lead shielding. The thickness of the Lead is constant, so you use less per unit volume for a larger cylinder radius. Presumably the power would scale with the volume, thus improving the Lead to power ratio and making the power cheaper. Regards, Robin van Spaandonk http://rvanspaa.freehostia.com/Project.html
Re: [Vo]:Ongoing Rossi Blog stuff
I think the problem is heat management and control; it seems that there very frequent heat peaks at the start- and local overheating can destroy the active sites. In the same time the triggering of the reaction needs uniform heat. One problem to be solved is that of design- a good commercial aspect/form has to be worked (as a small refrigerator at PESN (?) now the E-cat looks as a phallos specialized in rape as I wrote to a friend. Peter On Wed, Apr 6, 2011 at 2:40 AM, mix...@bigpond.com wrote: In reply to Alan J Fletcher's message of Tue, 05 Apr 2011 11:51:18 -0700: Hi, [snip] Dear Mr. Gluck: I prefer to use small modules for economy scale and safety issues. To combine even thousands of modules in series and parallels is easy, and zero risk time thousands is always zero. Why risk? Warm regards, A.R. ...well one good reason would be to save on Lead shielding. The thickness of the Lead is constant, so you use less per unit volume for a larger cylinder radius. Presumably the power would scale with the volume, thus improving the Lead to power ratio and making the power cheaper. Regards, Robin van Spaandonk http://rvanspaa.freehostia.com/Project.html -- Dr. Peter Gluck Cluj, Romania http://egooutpeters.blogspot.com
