Re: [Vo]:Rossi: it is shared now and does not anymore depend only on me
Axil Axil janap...@gmail.com wrote: From past information, the Rossi reactor is hard to startup; it takes a long time to startup and a long time to shut down. . . . This is tolerable in industry but not in the home. It would not be a problem at home either. Especially not if the machine can be turned down to stand-by mode. It would use more fuel, but the fuel costs nothing. It would increase wear and tear on the machine only a little. You are thinking in terms of fossil fuel energy systems. My gut feeling is that Rossi will soon find a way to fix this problem. As I have said, I also think that the COP will not be an issue for long. I base that on gas loaded systems that run without input power or auxiliary heating, such as Arata's. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:Rossi: it is shared now and does not anymore depend only on me
With active control you can go from a COP of 6 to infinite. Then the question is how often does failure of the control system occur and what are the cleanup costs. It is entirely conceivable, if not likely, that an active control version will go to market that has a relatively low frequency of failure times cost of cleanup. On Fri, Jul 19, 2013 at 1:03 PM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com wrote: Axil Axil janap...@gmail.com wrote: From past information, the Rossi reactor is hard to startup; it takes a long time to startup and a long time to shut down. . . . This is tolerable in industry but not in the home. It would not be a problem at home either. Especially not if the machine can be turned down to stand-by mode. It would use more fuel, but the fuel costs nothing. It would increase wear and tear on the machine only a little. You are thinking in terms of fossil fuel energy systems. My gut feeling is that Rossi will soon find a way to fix this problem. As I have said, I also think that the COP will not be an issue for long. I base that on gas loaded systems that run without input power or auxiliary heating, such as Arata's. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:Rossi: it is shared now and does not anymore depend only on me
I suspect that ECAT active cooling would be possible with thermal control. This would behave in a reverse manner to active heating which is how he currently controls the ECAT. To make it work he would have to figure out a method of modulating the amount of heat that he extracts from the core at a relatively rapid rate and under controlled conditions. Earlier I suggested some form of spray of coolant onto the core which would vaporize quickly taking away a lot of heat during that phase. Once the lower turn around temperature is reached, the spray would cease and if lucky, the core would turn around its direction of temperature movement. This would indeed have a large COP since all of the heat is derived from the core that is used to activate and control the device. Of course startup would still require some external source of heat as now. And, thermal run away would still be possible unless the cooling had some form of fail safe feature that activates when the core gets too hot. The current version appears to be simple to build and Rossi has a great deal of experience with its performance so I would be surprised for him to abandon it this soon. The first units will likely use added heat thermal control as now. DGT may have an advantage in their design as has been discussed before. If the spark type system truly acts like a starved fuel device, then they should be safer to operate without thermal problems. Unfortunately, they have released far too little data for us to have great confidence in their design as of this time but things may change quickly in the next few days. Dave -Original Message- From: James Bowery jabow...@gmail.com To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Fri, Jul 19, 2013 3:42 pm Subject: Re: [Vo]:Rossi: it is shared now and does not anymore depend only on me With active control you can go from a COP of 6 to infinite. Then the question is how often does failure of the control system occur and what are the cleanup costs. It is entirely conceivable, if not likely, that an active control version will go to market that has a relatively low frequency of failure times cost of cleanup. On Fri, Jul 19, 2013 at 1:03 PM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com wrote: Axil Axil janap...@gmail.com wrote: From past information, the Rossireactor is hard to startup; it takes a long time to startup and a long time to shutdown. . . . This is tolerable in industry but notin the home. It would not be a problem at home either. Especially not if the machine can be turned down to stand-by mode. It would use more fuel, but the fuel costs nothing. It would increase wear and tear on the machine only a little. You are thinking in terms of fossil fuel energy systems. My gut feeling is that Rossi will soon find a way to fix this problem. As I have said, I also think that the COP will not be an issue for long. I base that on gas loaded systems that run without input power or auxiliary heating, such as Arata's. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:Rossi: it is shared now and does not anymore depend only on me
James Bowery jabow...@gmail.com wrote: With active control you can go from a COP of 6 to infinite. Then the question is how often does failure of the control system occur and what are the cleanup costs. The cleanup cost in this case should be no worse than a ruined cell. Like a light bulb that fails long before the rated hours shown on the package, or an automobile transmission that wears out before the warranty expires. The only consequences should be that the manufacturer has to honor the warranty and replace the ruined part. (I had a manual transmission that wore out quickly because of a defective clutch spring. It was annoying but of no consequence to me. Why should I care if GM has to pay a few hundred dollars to my dealer? These things happen.) It is entirely conceivable, if not likely, that an active control version will go to market that has a relatively low frequency of failure times cost of cleanup. Whatever the failure rate is, the manufacturer will have to measure it, and set the product price to take it into account. Some early transistors cost $10 or $20, replacing vacuum tubes that cost ten cents. The transistors were expensive for various reasons: It was a niche product, well suited for some markets. They could charge more and get away with it. The production failure rate was high. The failure rate after installation was high. Especially so-called infant mortality soon after installation was high. So they had to honor warranties. They built this cost into the sale price of the devices. As long as the buyer and seller understand the limits of the product and the failure rate, and as long failures can be contained to prevent danger or damage to the environment, there is no problem. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:Rossi: it is shared now and does not anymore depend only on me
This is in response to a message from Guglinski: Wladimir Guglinski July 11th, 2013 at 7:28 PMhttp://www.journal-of-nuclear-physics.com/?p=810cpage=4#comment-736348 Dear Andrea Rossi the Sergio Focardi death makes us to think about how fragile is the life. And the fragility of life makes us to worry about this following fact: *the future of humanity is in the hand of one man*. All of us fell ourselves very afraid regards wlad I think Rossi's comment is reasonable. I wish he would license the technology to spread it around the world more quickly, but perhaps he cannot because he lacks valid Intellectual Property. I wouldn't know. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:Rossi: it is shared now and does not anymore depend only on me
On Thu, Jul 18, 2013 at 1:05 PM, James Bowery jabow...@gmail.com wrote: Andrea Rossi July 11th, 2013 at 9:18 PMhttp://www.journal-of-nuclear-physics.com/?p=810cpage=4#comment-736400 Dear Wladimir Guglinski: If you refer to our technology, it is shared now and does not anymore depend only on me. The E-Cat technology is undergoing rigorous testing and the results- positive, negative, or inconclusive- will provide further guidance about its potential. Warm Regards, A.R. I wonder if this means the six month test by the authors of the third party report has begun. harry
Re: [Vo]:Rossi: it is shared now and does not anymore depend only on me
H Veeder hveeder...@gmail.com wrote: I wonder if this means the six month test by the authors of the third party report has begun. I think it means more than that. I think he refers to the fact that the device has now been independently manufactured in the U.S. This is a critically important step. It is a replication, only better. A replication in laboratory science is loosely defined. Some replications are quite different from the original. Whereas a technology transfer in industry means -- or should mean -- they made the same machine down to the screws on the faceplate, and it worked the same way, according to specs. This puts to rest Guglinski's worry that Rossi might drop dead, and the secrets might die with him, the way Patterson's secrets did. Ross has transferred his knowledge to another group of people, who have proved they mastered his knowledge. They are not all going to die at one time, so the secret will not be lost no matter what happens. (This is real life, not a thriller movie.) - Jed
Re: [Vo]:Rossi: it is shared now and does not anymore depend only on me
From: H Veeder hveeder...@gmail.com Sent: Thursday, July 18, 2013 5:59:58 PM I wonder if this means the six month test by the authors of the third party report has begun. No ... research testing --- trying to get a COP 6, I suspect.
Re: [Vo]:Rossi: it is shared now and does not anymore depend only on me
Defkalion has a much superior technology. You can just ignore Rossi. 2013/7/18 Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com This puts to rest Guglinski's worry that Rossi might drop dead, and the secrets might die with him, the way Patterson's secrets did. Ross has transferred his knowledge to another group of people, who have proved they mastered his knowledge. They are not all going to die at one time, so the secret will not be lost no matter what happens. (This is real life, not a thriller movie.) -- Daniel Rocha - RJ danieldi...@gmail.com
Re: [Vo]:Rossi: it is shared now and does not anymore depend only on me
How do you know this? [mg] On Thu, Jul 18, 2013 at 7:03 PM, Daniel Rocha danieldi...@gmail.com wrote: Defkalion has a much superior technology. You can just ignore Rossi. 2013/7/18 Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com This puts to rest Guglinski's worry that Rossi might drop dead, and the secrets might die with him, the way Patterson's secrets did. Ross has transferred his knowledge to another group of people, who have proved they mastered his knowledge. They are not all going to die at one time, so the secret will not be lost no matter what happens. (This is real life, not a thriller movie.) -- Daniel Rocha - RJ danieldi...@gmail.com
Re: [Vo]:Rossi: it is shared now and does not anymore depend only on me
I just know. 2013/7/18 Mark Gibbs mgi...@gibbs.com How do you know this? [mg] On Thu, Jul 18, 2013 at 7:03 PM, Daniel Rocha danieldi...@gmail.comwrote: Defkalion has a much superior technology. You can just ignore Rossi. 2013/7/18 Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com This puts to rest Guglinski's worry that Rossi might drop dead, and the secrets might die with him, the way Patterson's secrets did. Ross has transferred his knowledge to another group of people, who have proved they mastered his knowledge. They are not all going to die at one time, so the secret will not be lost no matter what happens. (This is real life, not a thriller movie.) -- Daniel Rocha - RJ danieldi...@gmail.com -- Daniel Rocha - RJ danieldi...@gmail.com
Re: [Vo]:Rossi: it is shared now and does not anymore depend only on me
:) I cannot say much. 2013/7/18 Mark Gibbs mgi...@gibbs.com How do you know this? [mg] On Thu, Jul 18, 2013 at 7:03 PM, Daniel Rocha danieldi...@gmail.comwrote: Defkalion has a much superior technology. You can just ignore Rossi. 2013/7/18 Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com This puts to rest Guglinski's worry that Rossi might drop dead, and the secrets might die with him, the way Patterson's secrets did. Ross has transferred his knowledge to another group of people, who have proved they mastered his knowledge. They are not all going to die at one time, so the secret will not be lost no matter what happens. (This is real life, not a thriller movie.) -- Daniel Rocha - RJ danieldi...@gmail.com -- Daniel Rocha - RJ danieldi...@gmail.com
Re: [Vo]:Rossi: it is shared now and does not anymore depend only on me
From past information, the Rossi reactor is hard to startup; it takes a long time to startup and a long time to shut down. In the recent Rossi reactor test, the testers did not see how poorly the reactor startup process was. This is tolerable in industry but not in the home. This must be due to the mouse and cat design. From public reports and demo witnesses, the Defkalion reactor starts up briskly and shuts down responsively. Defkalion is proud to show their startup/shutdown process in the upcoming demo/tests. They must believe that this responsive control feature is a competitive advantage for them. This responsive control is required in home installations and shows that the Defkalion reactor has a decent level of adjustable control whereas the Rossi reactor does not have good control. On Thu, Jul 18, 2013 at 10:10 PM, Mark Gibbs mgi...@gibbs.com wrote: How do you know this? [mg] On Thu, Jul 18, 2013 at 7:03 PM, Daniel Rocha danieldi...@gmail.comwrote: Defkalion has a much superior technology. You can just ignore Rossi. 2013/7/18 Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com This puts to rest Guglinski's worry that Rossi might drop dead, and the secrets might die with him, the way Patterson's secrets did. Ross has transferred his knowledge to another group of people, who have proved they mastered his knowledge. They are not all going to die at one time, so the secret will not be lost no matter what happens. (This is real life, not a thriller movie.) -- Daniel Rocha - RJ danieldi...@gmail.com
Re: [Vo]:Rossi: it is shared now and does not anymore depend only on me
From: Axil Axil janap...@gmail.com Sent: Thursday, July 18, 2013 8:28:32 PM From past information, the Rossi reactor is hard to startup; it takes a long time to startup and a long time to shut down. In the recent Rossi reactor test, the testers did not see how poorly the reactor startup process was. They did -- 2 hours (to 300C) : During the test experiment we observed that, after an initial phase lasting about two hours, in which power fed to the resistor coils was gradually increased up to operating regime, an ON/OFF phase was reached, automatically regulated by the temperature feedback signal from a PT100 sensor.
