Re: [Vo]:RE: Supersizing the BJT
In reply to Jones Beene's message of Sun, 8 May 2011 05:52:04 -0700: Hi, [snip] More like 6 minutes than 6 months - for nanopowder degradation from current flow This may be relevant. http://mpac.engr.ucdavis.edu/publications/FAS1.PDF -Original Message- From: mix...@bigpond.com As I understand the dynamics of this situation, one cannot pass a current through a nanopowder without promoting instant agglomeration - which over time proceeds progressively back into a bulk conductor. ...perhaps that's why it needs to be replaced after 6 months? Regards, Robin van Spaandonk Regards, Robin van Spaandonk http://rvanspaa.freehostia.com/project.html
Re: [Vo]:RE: Supersizing the BJT
Presumably the external band heater is necessary for the smaller E-cat because the internal heater cannot provide enough heat at start up unlike the internal heater of the larger E-cat. So while the external _heater_ may not be necessary, the extra _heat_ is necessary for start-up. A useful analogy may be made with the necessary conditions for making a fire without a match. Such a fire requires three things 1) a supply of fresh air 2) dry grass as a fuel (rather than green grass), and 3) sufficient heat initially provided by rubbing two sticks together or the spark from striking flint or sunlight focused through a magnifying lens. Similarly the E-Cat requires 1) a supply of fresh hydrogen gas, 2) powdered nickel as fuel (rather than solid nickel) and sufficient heat initially provided by a resistance heater. A fire can be controlled by reducing the supply of fresh air, removing the fuel or by cooling it. The latter is not practical in the case of most fires. However, it appears the E-Cat's fire as a practical matter can be controlled by cooling. Harry From: Axil Axil janap...@gmail.com To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Sun, May 8, 2011 12:10:07 AM Subject: Re: [Vo]:RE: Supersizing the BJT The Principle of operation: (the secret process that makes the Cat-E go) between the small 2.5 kw reactor in which the band heater is used and the 10 kw Cat-E in which only the internal heater is used is the same. Logically, the band heater does not drive or in any way affect the “secret” motive force behind the Rossi reactor. If the external band heater were a driver of the reaction and since the big Cat-E does not have one, then the big Cat-E should not work … but it does. Logic says that the external band heater is not central to the basic mechanisms of the Cat-E and it is just a startup source of heat.
RE: [Vo]:RE: Supersizing the BJT
More like 6 minutes than 6 months - for nanopowder degradation from current flow -Original Message- From: mix...@bigpond.com As I understand the dynamics of this situation, one cannot pass a current through a nanopowder without promoting instant agglomeration - which over time proceeds progressively back into a bulk conductor. ...perhaps that's why it needs to be replaced after 6 months? Regards, Robin van Spaandonk
RE: [Vo]:RE: Supersizing the BJT
From: Axil Axil * The Principle of operation: (the secret process that makes the Cat-E go) between the small 2.5 kw reactor in which the band heater is used and the 10 kw Cat-E in which only the internal heater is used is the same. There is no evidence for that at all. If anything, logic dictates that the larger model would have only external and no internal heating In fact, there is no visual evidence that there ever was a larger model at all. Everything seen so far - when exposed looks nearly identical, and the only reason to suggest that there ever was a larger model is for Rossi to hide the fact that the results of the January test (Focardi tribute) were wet steam and three times more than actual. Jones
Re: [Vo]:RE: Supersizing the BJT
Jones Beene jone...@pacbell.net wrote: Everything seen so far – when exposed looks nearly identical, and the only reason to suggest that there ever was a larger model is for Rossi to hide the fact that the results of the January test (Focardi tribute) were wet steam and three times more than actual. Everything, that is, except: 1. Levi et al. looked inside the reactor and saw a 1-liter cell. That is to say, everything seen by looking so far proves it is 1 liter. It is not clear what you mean by seen. 2. The flow test in February which produced the same results. It is not clear to me what else everything consists of. As far as know your imagination is the only source of this information. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:RE: Supersizing the BJT
On Sun, May 8, 2011 at 12:15 AM, Mark Iverson zeropo...@charter.net wrote: Do we have any idea on what kinds of voltages the heaters are being subjected to??? Assuming no transforming of the mains, only rectification, the peak voltage would 2^-2 x 230 or ~325 V. T
RE: [Vo]:RE: Supersizing the BJT
So when did Levi authorize you to speak for him? After all, Levi is no longer independent, and is apparently Rossi's top technical advisor. Plus, he has every incentive to be disingenuous on this point - since he does not want to be blamed for the gross measurement error. The results in February cannot be trusted because of incorrect thermocouple placement. Again, there is no physical evidence of two distinct configurations. Since Rossi is now committed to the design which we can see, there is no incentive to be secretive on the one which does not matter - so why not show the insides of the one tested in Jan/Feb? Answer: it is the probably same design. Jones From: Jed Rothwell * JB: Everything seen so far - when exposed looks nearly identical, and the only reason to suggest that there ever was a larger model is for Rossi to hide the fact that the results of the January test (Focardi tribute) were wet steam and three times more than actual. Everything, that is, except: 1. Levi et al. looked inside the reactor and saw a 1-liter cell. That is to say, everything seen by looking so far proves it is 1 liter. It is not clear what you mean by seen. 2. The flow test in February which produced the same results. It is not clear to me what else everything consists of. As far as know your imagination is the only source of this information. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:RE: Supersizing the BJT
Hello Jed Do you know if there is a independent report about the flow test in February in which the water was not heated to the boilingpoint? Peter - Original Message - From: Jed Rothwell To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Sunday, May 08, 2011 4:03 PM Subject: Re: [Vo]:RE: Supersizing the BJT Jones Beene jone...@pacbell.net wrote: Everything seen so far – when exposed looks nearly identical, and the only reason to suggest that there ever was a larger model is for Rossi to hide the fact that the results of the January test (Focardi tribute) were wet steam and three times more than actual. Everything, that is, except: 1. Levi et al. looked inside the reactor and saw a 1-liter cell. That is to say, everything seen by looking so far proves it is 1 liter. It is not clear what you mean by seen. 2. The flow test in February which produced the same results. It is not clear to me what else everything consists of. As far as know your imagination is the only source of this information. - Jed
RE: [Vo]:RE: Supersizing the BJT
Jones sez: ... I know, it is too bizarre to mention in polite company, but where is the sanity in a great society like our own that pays out millions for a stupid horse race, or an illiterate baseball star, and yet cannot support basic RD in this vitally important field This technology should have been in place 20 years ago. Shoot. Looking at Rossi's slow-tech, low-tech, no-tech copper pipe configuration and I think this technology is more like 75 years overdue! I'm steamed. (No pun intended.) Regards, Steven Vincent Johnson www.OrionWorks.com www.zazzle.com/orionworks
RE: [Vo]:RE: Supersizing the BJT
Jones sez: ... I know, it is too bizarre to mention in polite company, but where is the sanity in a great society like our own that pays out millions for a stupid horse race, or an illiterate baseball star, and yet cannot support basic RD in this vitally important field This technology should have been in place 20 years ago. Shoot. Looking at Rossi's slow-tech, low-tech, no-tech copper pipe configuration and I think this technology is more like 75 years overdue! I'm steamed. (No pun intended.) I should temper my outrage with the fact that such lo-tech technology would presumably not be possible until after nickel (nano-)powder became available. I'm not sure when nickel nano-powder was developed. I assume fairly recently. Regards, Steven Vincent Johnson www.OrionWorks.com www.zazzle.com/orionworks
Re: [Vo]:RE: Supersizing the BJT
On Sun, May 8, 2011 at 11:37 AM, OrionWorks - Steven Vincent Johnson orionwo...@charter.net wrote: I'm steamed. Don't be steamed, be steam punked. Steam power is seeing a renaissance today even without Rossi. Here are several steam punked devices including a steam powered PC: http://www.wired.com/gadgets/mods/multimedia/2007/06/gallery_steampunk T
Re: [Vo]:RE: Supersizing the BJT
Jones Beene jone...@pacbell.net wrote: So when did Levi authorize you to speak for him? That's what he said; take it or leave it. When did you look inside the machine? The results in February cannot be trusted because of incorrect thermocouple placement. That can't be. A 5 deg C temperature difference is too small for that. The larger temperature difference might be affected by the position of the thermocouples. Again, there is no physical evidence of two distinct configurations. Yes, there is. That is what people who looked inside the machines say they saw. Since Rossi is now committed to the design which we can see, there is no incentive to be secretive on the one which does not matter – so why not show the insides of the one tested in Jan/Feb? He did show the insides. Levi and others say they saw the insides. Unless you have heard from someone who looked inside and saw a 50 ml cell, I think you have no basis for making these assertions. This seems to be the word of Levi et al. on one side, and you unsupported imagination on the other. Why should anyone believe you? - Jed
RE: [Vo]:RE: Supersizing the BJT
Terry sez: orionwo...@charter.net wrote: I'm steamed. Don't be steamed, be steam punked. Steam power is seeing a renaissance today even without Rossi. Here are several steam punked devices including a steam powered PC: http://www.wired.com/gadgets/mods/multimedia/2007/06/gallery_steampunk Cheered me right up. Thanks, Terry. Regards, Steven Vincent Johnson www.OrionWorks.com www.zazzle.com/orionworks
[Vo]:RE: Supersizing the BJT
For those who have not paid particular attention to the images which started the hypothesis of the last two days - that the precise operation of the E-Cat reactor could be either a triode (MAHG) type of accelerator, or a massive semiconductor bipolar junction transistor (as opposed to simply a resistively heated chamber) here is the largest image I could find: http://dibattiti.files.wordpress.com/2011/04/ecat_.jpg ... showing what appears to see a single lead from the band heater and the double leads to the axial component, which was labeled as auxiliary. When Terry noticed the single lead, it was pointed out that there are similar heaters available online with two leads. And there are similar cartridge heaters available, which could be the axial component. Therefore, if one were to believe that Andrea Rossi is being honest about the setup, even though he does not want anyone to replicate his work - then one would have to reject the transistor hypothesis, in favor of a simple configuration with two resistive heaters... ... despite the fact the main heater must transfer its heat THROUGH the water flow, meaning that in the low water temperature run (in February) the internal reactor could not have been heated to much over the water temperature from either heater, and that temperature was well below the trigger temperature. In fact, when one considers all the options, the PNP big transistor mode of operation, possibly combined with some kind of inherent photo-diode effect, makes sense on several levels. Jones attachment: winmail.dat
RE: [Vo]:RE: Supersizing the BJT
-Original Message- From: Terry Blanton When Terry noticed the single lead, it was pointed out that there are similar heaters available online with two leads. Good find, Jones. However, it is evident from the piccy that the band heater does actually have two wires. See the cable on top of the first EKit with the blue tape on it. That cable has two wires and it looks like it terminates in the band heater on the second EKit. However, it doesn't mean Rossi *isn't* flowing current between the two heaters. It just makes it less definite. OK, I see what you are seeing - he spliced wires, apparently. Ron Wormus sent me the same observation. Even with two leads to the band heater, the problem remains of getting high temps into an internal reactor through the water flow - in a situation of the trigger heat being substantially higher temperature than the water flow. Apparently they did pull this off in Fed and it could not have been easy. But, going back to your other observation, how would you flow current between two heaters, exactly? Have one at higher potential? I've never heard of it being done, but it would be worth pursuing, since it would at least provide a way to get the device up to the trigger temperature (even if the transistor hypothesis is false). Is anyone setup to test this hypothesis with two heaters ? Jones
RE: [Vo]:RE: Supersizing the BJT
Yes, I caught that too... Here is the end of the band heater leads for the middle reactor... You can clearly see two (dirty-whitish) wires exiting the braided steel sheath. -Mark Outlook.jpg
Re: [Vo]:RE: Supersizing the BJT
On Sat, May 7, 2011 at 4:23 PM, Jones Beene jone...@pacbell.net wrote: But, going back to your other observation, how would you flow current between two heaters, exactly? Have one at higher potential? Sure. But to know if it is being done, one has to see inside the reactor. I assume the auxiliary heater in the end feeds a nichrome (?) wire inside the reactor to directly heat the inside. If that heater was at a higher potential the band heater, current could flow from the wire into the reactor powder, assuming it is in contact, through the reactor, the copper and to the band heater. Or vice versa. T
RE: [Vo]:RE: Supersizing the BJT
The axial wires look like typical leads to a cartridge heater http://www.tempco.com/new/products5.html A long version off this kind of heater could contact the reactor at the end, and then it could transfer some heat to it, but most of the heat would lost to the water which flows all around it, correct? This kind of heater in operation should not have a surface voltage potential much above ground. That is the problem of imagining current flow. J. -Original Message- From: Terry Blanton But, going back to your other observation, how would you flow current between two heaters, exactly? Have one at higher potential? Sure. But to know if it is being done, one has to see inside the reactor. I assume the auxiliary heater in the end feeds a nichrome (?) wire inside the reactor to directly heat the inside. If that heater was at a higher potential the band heater, current could flow from the wire into the reactor powder, assuming it is in contact, through the reactor, the copper and to the band heater. Or vice versa. T
RE: [Vo]:RE: Supersizing the BJT
A quick and dirty test comes to mind. Anybody got two of the immersion water heaters used by travelers? http://www.amazon.com/Bush-CH-101-Energy-Saving-Immersion-Heater/dp/B003DLB5 KW The idea would be to place two of them in a semi-conductive liquid (water with a dash of salt), and apply higher voltage to one of the two, to see if there is current between the two . .not sure if this is as simple as it sounds.
Re: [Vo]:RE: Supersizing the BJT
On 2011-05-07 23:11, Jones Beene wrote: The axial wires look like typical leads to a cartridge heater http://www.tempco.com/new/products5.html They do look like those. A long version off this kind of heater could contact the reactor at the end, and then it could transfer some heat to it, but most of the heat would lost to the water which flows all around it, correct? That's what I'd figure out. A schematic view of the E-Cat would be something like this: http://i.imgur.com/llVoU.png Cheers, S.A.
RE: [Vo]:RE: Supersizing the BJT
Thanks, Akira A schematic view of the E-Cat would be something like this: http://i.imgur.com/llVoU.png Yes, This is exactly the way it appeared to me at first, given all that is known from the images - with only an internal cooling tube and NO external water flow around the outside of the reactor. My original view is documented in the archive and it is precisely this image. I was completely overruled on that assessment by everyone else on vortex, without exception AFAIK except for Ed Storms - as they were convinced that there must be external water flow, as well as internal. Rossi also claims there is external flow, and since the 'great man' has spoken, I did not pursue the topic and this layout, which I think could be correct, but for one detail. Thanks for reminding me... To be continued... Jones
Re: [Vo]:RE: Supersizing the BJT
If you missed this old post, here is s repeat: When the Cat-E was downsized, the reaction chamber was greatly reduced in size. So was the internal heater in like proportion. But the copper pipes in the water loop are standard commercial grade sizes and therefore stayed the same size. Remaining the same size, these pipes would take away heat by conduction at the same rate in all sized Cat-E systems. The smaller internal heater could not now overcome the thermal inertia that these copper pipes produce when the catalyst/ hydrogen is conditioned during startup. The reaction chamber must get up to 400C to condition the catalyst with hydrogen when the hydrogen is initially loaded. The internal heater could not do that any longer since it would have been greatly downsized. A supplemental external band heater was added to heat these external copper pipes in the water loop so that the internally heater would not have to overcome that heat drain overhead imposed by the structure of the Cat-E. On Sat, May 7, 2011 at 6:25 PM, Jones Beene jone...@pacbell.net wrote: Thanks, Akira A schematic view of the E-Cat would be something like this: http://i.imgur.com/llVoU.png Yes, This is exactly the way it appeared to me at first, given all that is known from the images - with only an internal cooling tube and NO external water flow around the outside of the reactor. My original view is documented in the archive and it is precisely this image. I was completely overruled on that assessment by everyone else on vortex, without exception AFAIK except for Ed Storms - as they were convinced that there must be external water flow, as well as internal. Rossi also claims there is external flow, and since the 'great man' has spoken, I did not pursue the topic and this layout, which I think could be correct, but for one detail. Thanks for reminding me... To be continued... Jones
Re: [Vo]:RE: Supersizing the BJT
On 2011-05-08 00:47, Axil Axil wrote: If you missed this old post, here is s repeat: [...] So, are you suggesting there is a core surrounded by water, like this? http://i.imgur.com/pwZW2.png (Both versions together: http://i.imgur.com/Kf7mO.png ) Cheers, S.A.
Re: [Vo]:RE: Supersizing the BJT
The dubble pipe configuration is pictured in the patent with the addition of the external band heater http://worldwide.espacenet.com/publicationDetails/originalDocument?FT=Ddate=20091015DB=EPODOClocale=en_EPCC=WONR=2009125444A1KC=A1 On Sat, May 7, 2011 at 7:09 PM, Akira Shirakawa shirakawa.ak...@gmail.comwrote: On 2011-05-08 00:47, Axil Axil wrote: If you missed this old post, here is s repeat: [...] So, are you suggesting there is a core surrounded by water, like this? http://i.imgur.com/pwZW2.png (Both versions together: http://i.imgur.com/Kf7mO.png ) Cheers, S.A.
RE: [Vo]:RE: Supersizing the BJT
This is not physically possible. The heat (temperature) transferable from the heaters to the core, even with the lowest possible water flow, cannot greatly exceed 100 C with a design where water separates the exterior heater from the reactor; and water is also surrounding the interior heater for most of its length. All the electrical energy goes to raising steam instead of heating the core. -Original Message- From: Akira Shirakawa So, are you suggesting there is a core surrounded by water, like this? http://i.imgur.com/pwZW2.png
RE: [Vo]:RE: Supersizing the BJT
From Jones, A schematic view of the E-Cat would be something like this: http://i.imgur.com/llVoU.png Yes, This is exactly the way it appeared to me at first, given all that is known from the images - with only an internal cooling tube and NO external water flow around the outside of the reactor. My original view is documented in the archive and it is precisely this image. I was completely overruled on that assessment by everyone else on vortex, without exception AFAIK except for Ed Storms - as they were convinced that there must be external water flow, as well as internal. Rossi also claims there is external flow, and since the 'great man' has spoken, I did not pursue the topic and this layout, which I think could be correct, but for one detail. Thanks for reminding me... As for being completely overruled - not quite true, Jones. I recall posting my own my personal thoughts on the idea that the reactor could be designed in the shape of a toroid. I certainly never overruled the toroid shape. Makes sense to me. I also wasn't initially aware of the fact that Ed Storms had apparently come up with the same concept, and no doubt before I had. It certainly wasn't a collaborative effort on my part. I still think a toroid reactor design makes the most sense. How can one heat a heater much above 100 c if the conductive heat has to pass through water first. Not going to happen. With that said, I offer my own disclaimer: Ed Storms obviously knows a lot more about what's possibly going on here that I. I feel like I was just shooting in the dark, and got lucky for once! Regards, Steven Vincent Johnson www.OrionWorks.com www.zazzle.com/orionworks
Re: [Vo]:RE: Supersizing the BJT
Yeah, we all have been speculumating. Now that the patent is issued, maybe we will get to look to see what is really inside that dark area. :-) T
RE: [Vo]:RE: Supersizing the BJT
I should add that in this second image, if the external water flow was via channels which are machined into a tight fitting internal reactor, such that the internal reactor has good electrical contact with the heater, then this is consistent with the transistor hypothesis, but not with resistive heating. The resistor would still be fighting steam in order to transfer heat. However, electrical current still has an unimpeded a pathway from the axial internal heater to the external band heater (awaiting testing of that precise concept). Therefore, if the internal is at 60 volts and the external at 220 volts, then current can flow DIRECTLY through the absorbed-hydrogen in the nanocavities, and raise the temperature to the trigger level easily without the impediment of raising steam in the coolant first. -Original Message- From: Jones Beene This is not physically possible. The heat (temperature) transferable from the heaters to the core, even with the lowest possible water flow, cannot greatly exceed 100 C with a design where water separates the exterior heater from the reactor; and water is also surrounding the interior heater for most of its length. All the electrical energy goes to raising steam instead of heating the core. -Original Message- From: Akira Shirakawa So, are you suggesting there is a core surrounded by water, like this? http://i.imgur.com/pwZW2.png
Re: [Vo]:RE: Supersizing the BJT
Akira Shirakawa shirakawa.ak...@gmail.com wrote: So, are you suggesting there is a core surrounded by water, like this? http://i.imgur.com/pwZW2.png That is how Rossi described it. There might be a language problem, but I am pretty sure that is what he meant. He also said emphatically that the cell is stainless steel. It does not seem likely that he would put a copper jacket around a stainless steel cell, so if it is stainless steel, I suppose the first configuration ( http://i.imgur.com/llVoU.png) is ruled out. - Jed
RE: [Vo]:RE: Supersizing the BJT
Steven - I did not remember that you were a toroidista :) - but in the end, I think you agree that either it is a toroid or else there has to be some kind of current going through the powder, otherwise - it is not going to heat up. Electrical current directly through the nanopowder has theoretical advantages, as well, since an electron flow could be beneficial to any M.O., but that does not mean it is happening this way, if the facts show otherwise. -Original Message- From: OrionWorks - Steven Vincent Johnson From Jones, A schematic view of the E-Cat would be something like this: http://i.imgur.com/llVoU.png Yes, This is exactly the way it appeared to me at first, given all that is known from the images - with only an internal cooling tube and NO external water flow around the outside of the reactor. My original view is documented in the archive and it is precisely this image. I was completely overruled on that assessment by everyone else on vortex, without exception AFAIK except for Ed Storms - as they were convinced that there must be external water flow, as well as internal. Rossi also claims there is external flow, and since the 'great man' has spoken, I did not pursue the topic and this layout, which I think could be correct, but for one detail. Thanks for reminding me... As for being completely overruled - not quite true, Jones. I recall posting my own my personal thoughts on the idea that the reactor could be designed in the shape of a toroid. I certainly never overruled the toroid shape. Makes sense to me. I also wasn't initially aware of the fact that Ed Storms had apparently come up with the same concept, and no doubt before I had. It certainly wasn't a collaborative effort on my part. I still think a toroid reactor design makes the most sense. How can one heat a heater much above 100 c if the conductive heat has to pass through water first. Not going to happen. With that said, I offer my own disclaimer: Ed Storms obviously knows a lot more about what's possibly going on here that I. I feel like I was just shooting in the dark, and got lucky for once! Regards, Steven Vincent Johnson www.OrionWorks.com www.zazzle.com/orionworks
RE: [Vo]:RE: Supersizing the BJT
Jones: If I might provide some additional thoughts/analysis... 1) The only way the resistance heaters can 'heat' is if there's a low resistance path thru the heating element (i.e., a large current flow). If that's the case, then I doubt you could generate any significant voltage potential between the axial heater and the band heater. 2) The only way I see to generate a signif potential between the two heaters is to leave one of the leads floating, thus, BOTH heater leads are at the same potential. However, this means there is no current flow thru that heater and thus, no heating. 3) Could they be using the heaters as heaters for the pre-ignition phase, and then floating one lead of one of the heaters in order to generate the electric field between the two heaters' leads? -Mark -Original Message- From: Jones Beene [mailto:jone...@pacbell.net] Sent: Saturday, May 07, 2011 5:55 PM To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: RE: [Vo]:RE: Supersizing the BJT Steven - I did not remember that you were a toroidista :) - but in the end, I think you agree that either it is a toroid or else there has to be some kind of current going through the powder, otherwise - it is not going to heat up. Electrical current directly through the nanopowder has theoretical advantages, as well, since an electron flow could be beneficial to any M.O., but that does not mean it is happening this way, if the facts show otherwise. -Original Message- From: OrionWorks - Steven Vincent Johnson From Jones, A schematic view of the E-Cat would be something like this: http://i.imgur.com/llVoU.png Yes, This is exactly the way it appeared to me at first, given all that is known from the images - with only an internal cooling tube and NO external water flow around the outside of the reactor. My original view is documented in the archive and it is precisely this image. I was completely overruled on that assessment by everyone else on vortex, without exception AFAIK except for Ed Storms - as they were convinced that there must be external water flow, as well as internal. Rossi also claims there is external flow, and since the 'great man' has spoken, I did not pursue the topic and this layout, which I think could be correct, but for one detail. Thanks for reminding me... As for being completely overruled - not quite true, Jones. I recall posting my own my personal thoughts on the idea that the reactor could be designed in the shape of a toroid. I certainly never overruled the toroid shape. Makes sense to me. I also wasn't initially aware of the fact that Ed Storms had apparently come up with the same concept, and no doubt before I had. It certainly wasn't a collaborative effort on my part. I still think a toroid reactor design makes the most sense. How can one heat a heater much above 100 c if the conductive heat has to pass through water first. Not going to happen. With that said, I offer my own disclaimer: Ed Storms obviously knows a lot more about what's possibly going on here that I. I feel like I was just shooting in the dark, and got lucky for once! Regards, Steven Vincent Johnson www.OrionWorks.com www.zazzle.com/orionworks
Re: [Vo]:RE: Supersizing the BJT
In reply to Mark Iverson's message of Sat, 7 May 2011 19:39:32 -0700: Hi, [snip] 2) The only way I see to generate a signif potential between the two heaters is to leave one of the leads floating, thus, BOTH heater leads are at the same potential. However, this means there is no current flow thru that heater and thus, no heating. [snip] Unless the current flows to one heater through a wire, then to the next heater through the body of the device, then back to the power supply via one wire of the other heater. Regards, Robin van Spaandonk http://rvanspaa.freehostia.com/project.html
RE: [Vo]:RE: Supersizing the BJT
Several thoughts: 1) If there are ANY dielectrics in the path from one heater to the other, then this is a NO GO since one would need a low resistance path. 2) That would require a low resistance (a few ohms at MOST, if not less) path thru whatever the electric current is traversing... What's the resistivity of Ni/NiO -Mark -Original Message- From: mix...@bigpond.com [mailto:mix...@bigpond.com] Sent: Saturday, May 07, 2011 7:51 PM To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: [Vo]:RE: Supersizing the BJT In reply to Mark Iverson's message of Sat, 7 May 2011 19:39:32 -0700: Hi, [snip] 2) The only way I see to generate a signif potential between the two heaters is to leave one of the leads floating, thus, BOTH heater leads are at the same potential. However, this means there is no current flow thru that heater and thus, no heating. [snip] Unless the current flows to one heater through a wire, then to the next heater through the body of the device, then back to the power supply via one wire of the other heater. Regards, Robin van Spaandonk http://rvanspaa.freehostia.com/project.html
Re: [Vo]:RE: Supersizing the BJT
In reply to Mark Iverson's message of Sat, 7 May 2011 19:58:17 -0700: Hi, [snip] Several thoughts: 1) If there are ANY dielectrics in the path from one heater to the other, then this is a NO GO since one would need a low resistance path. 2) That would require a low resistance (a few ohms at MOST, if not less) path thru whatever the electric current is traversing... What's the resistivity of Ni/NiO Surely the whole point would be to create a current through the Ni? Ni is a metal and as such is a reasonable conductor. As a powder it would be less than a solid, but it also has lots of parallel paths. Regards, Robin van Spaandonk http://rvanspaa.freehostia.com/project.html
RE: [Vo]:RE: Supersizing the BJT
-Original Message- From: Mark Iverson If I might provide some additional thoughts/analysis... 1) The only way the resistance heaters can 'heat' is if there's a low resistance path thru the heating element (i.e., a large current flow). If that's the case, then I doubt you could generate any significant voltage potential between the axial heater and the band heater. Mark, I agree that it does not seem likely at all ! ... but low is a relative term and there are not many other good choices for how the heat gets transferred into the reactor (on startup) and why additional power is needed during operation. Things are not always as they seem, so that's why there is a suggestion that at least some kind of testing should be done to see if there can be a significant current flow between two resistance heaters, as unlikely as it sounds. There is a lack of viable choices to model this. There is little doubt that in the end - the operation of this device is going to surprise all of the experts, and maybe even Rossi. Nothing really adds up now. Jones
RE: [Vo]:RE: Supersizing the BJT
-Original Message- From: Mark Iverson 1) If there are ANY dielectrics in the path from one heater to the other, then this is a NO GO since one would need a low resistance path. Agreed. One thought that came up in the original posting was the negative, or very low bandgap suggestion, where an IR photon (emitted from the Casimir cavity) opens-up, or changes the apparent resistance in the dielectric (photonic semiconductor) from too high to very low (negative) for an instant ... IOW the bandgap for zirconia would shift to negative when a IR photon was absorbed. I know, it is too bizarre to mention in polite company, but where is the sanity in a great society like our own that pays out millions for a stupid horse race, or an illiterate baseball star, and yet cannot support basic RD in this vitally important field This technology should have been in place 20 years ago. Jones
RE: [Vo]:RE: Supersizing the BJT
-Original Message- From: mix...@bigpond.com Surely the whole point would be to create a current through the Ni? Ni is a metal and as such is a reasonable conductor. As a powder it would be less than a solid, but it also has lots of parallel paths. Robin, As I understand the dynamics of this situation, one cannot pass a current through a nanopowder without promoting instant agglomeration - which over time proceeds progressively back into a bulk conductor. That is why a 'support' is required - to prevent conductivity by the metal, which will ruin the nanopowder geometry. However, if the support itself can be made temporarily conductive, such as via the absorption of an IR photon, then this is a way to maintain the process over extended periods with a semblance of electrical conductivity plus nano-geometry coexisting in the same material. Jones
Re: [Vo]:RE: Supersizing the BJT
The Principle of operation: (the secret process that makes the Cat-E go) between the small 2.5 kw reactor in which the band heater is used and the 10 kw Cat-E in which only the internal heater is used is the same. Logically, the band heater does not drive or in any way affect the “secret” motive force behind the Rossi reactor. If the external band heater were a driver of the reaction and since the big Cat-E does not have one, then the big Cat-E should not work … but it does. Logic says that the external band heater is not central to the basic mechanisms of the Cat-E and it is just a startup source of heat. On Sat, May 7, 2011 at 11:47 PM, Jones Beene jone...@pacbell.net wrote: -Original Message- From: mix...@bigpond.com Surely the whole point would be to create a current through the Ni? Ni is a metal and as such is a reasonable conductor. As a powder it would be less than a solid, but it also has lots of parallel paths. Robin, As I understand the dynamics of this situation, one cannot pass a current through a nanopowder without promoting instant agglomeration - which over time proceeds progressively back into a bulk conductor. That is why a 'support' is required - to prevent conductivity by the metal, which will ruin the nanopowder geometry. However, if the support itself can be made temporarily conductive, such as via the absorption of an IR photon, then this is a way to maintain the process over extended periods with a semblance of electrical conductivity plus nano-geometry coexisting in the same material. Jones
RE: [Vo]:RE: Supersizing the BJT
Do we have any idea on what kinds of voltages the heaters are being subjected to??? As I stated in a previous posting, I've tried to look at the oscilloscope screens on some of the videos, but cannot make out the vertical scale nor the timebase scale... As far as the 'ol-timer' Vorts are concerned, I often feel like I'm 'stating the obvious'! But, for the younger crowd that might be a bit intimidated to contribute, I hope this serves to show that we try to critique our own ideas in order to get to the truth; to not fool ourselves. The reason I hang here is because this is much closer to true peer-review as any official peer-reviewed journals out there... I think Vorts are driven by 'truth' and facts, and less by ideologies/theories.. Certainly not tenure and funding. It's not wed to any particular theories; it's open-minded, but requiring facts/empirical data, not anecdotal 'evidence'. -Mark -Original Message- From: Jones Beene [mailto:jone...@pacbell.net] Sent: Saturday, May 07, 2011 8:18 PM To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: RE: [Vo]:RE: Supersizing the BJT -Original Message- From: Mark Iverson If I might provide some additional thoughts/analysis... 1) The only way the resistance heaters can 'heat' is if there's a low resistance path thru the heating element (i.e., a large current flow). If that's the case, then I doubt you could generate any significant voltage potential between the axial heater and the band heater. Mark, I agree that it does not seem likely at all ! ... but low is a relative term and there are not many other good choices for how the heat gets transferred into the reactor (on startup) and why additional power is needed during operation. Things are not always as they seem, so that's why there is a suggestion that at least some kind of testing should be done to see if there can be a significant current flow between two resistance heaters, as unlikely as it sounds. There is a lack of viable choices to model this. There is little doubt that in the end - the operation of this device is going to surprise all of the experts, and maybe even Rossi. Nothing really adds up now. Jones
Re: [Vo]:RE: Supersizing the BJT
In reply to Jones Beene's message of Sat, 7 May 2011 20:47:11 -0700: Hi, [snip] As I understand the dynamics of this situation, one cannot pass a current through a nanopowder without promoting instant agglomeration - which over time proceeds progressively back into a bulk conductor. ...perhaps that's why it needs to be replaced after 6 months? Regards, Robin van Spaandonk http://rvanspaa.freehostia.com/project.html
