Peter Heckert wrote:
> The feedwater temperature is recorded in the spreadsheet, and it gradually
> rises.
>
> Yes this can be. Unfortunately the usage of the second watertank is
> not known.
> It is also not known if the second heatdissipator and the second stem tube
> where in use. Possibly
Peter Heckert wrote:
A 10 MW transformer, if it has an efficiency of 99% produces 10 kW
waste heat.
Good point.
In any case, I do not think you can show the temperature of the
condensate must have been at some temperature or another.
- Jed
Am 31.10.2011 22:44, schrieb Jed Rothwell:
I wrote:
I think there was more than 5,400 L in the holding tanks. The
condensate could have been coming back at a higher temperature
than the tanks.
I should have said the condensate _must_ have been coming back at a
higher temperature t
Am 31.10.2011 22:18, schrieb Jed Rothwell:
Anyway, there is no problem cooling down equipment in this situation.
I have seen large power company transformers behind shopping malls
placed in small confined areas, sometimes bricked in to keep people
away from them. They produce a great deal of
I wrote:
> I think there was more than 5,400 L in the holding tanks. The condensate
> could have been coming back at a higher temperature than the tanks.
I should have said the condensate *must* have been coming back at a higher
temperature than the water in the tanks. It must have been well ab
Peter Heckert wrote:
What I have meant is an airtight fence made out of plywood boards,
going down to ground and going above the hight of the fans.
This arrangement /must/ become hot, because the airflow is hindered,
especially the inflow of cold air is hindered, and the air is
enturbulated. T
Am 31.10.2011 21:57, schrieb Jed Rothwell:
I seem to be missing your point here. Are you talking about a
hypothetical test in an enclosed space? This test was nothing like
that. There is no expectation that anything will get hot.
Obviously you do not want to understand. I will not explain every
Am 31.10.2011 21:47, schrieb Peter Heckert:
Am 31.10.2011 21:41, schrieb Jed Rothwell:
What do you mean airtight? Those are not even a little airtight. The
top is open to the sky!
What I have meant is an airtight fence made out of plywood boards,
going down to ground and going above the hig
Peter Heckert wrote:
What do you mean airtight? Those are not even a little airtight. The
top is open to the sky!
What I have meant is an airtight fence made out of plywood boards,
going down to ground and going above the hight of the fans.
It is very obvious that it was open to the sky I did
Am 31.10.2011 21:41, schrieb Jed Rothwell:
What do you mean airtight? Those are not even a little airtight. The
top is open to the sky!
What I have meant is an airtight fence made out of plywood boards, going
down to ground and going above the hight of the fans.
It is very obvious that it wa
Peter Heckert wrote:
When you walk by a locomotive you feel a blast of hot air but the air
is not confined and the platform does not get hot.
The use some splywood boards like Rossi and build these airtight
around the locomotive, this way that the flow of cold input air is
inhibited, set the l
On 11-10-31 04:30 PM, Peter Heckert wrote:
Am 31.10.2011 21:17, schrieb Jed Rothwell:
Peter Heckert wrote:
I cannot imagine this heating energy being compressed on some m^3
small space without becoming very hot.
There must be an air flow of 4 m^3 / s if 20° air is heated to 100°
(without th
Am 31.10.2011 21:17, schrieb Jed Rothwell:
Peter Heckert wrote:
I cannot imagine this heating energy being compressed on some m^3
small space without becoming very hot.
There must be an air flow of 4 m^3 / s if 20° air is heated to 100°
(without thermal expansion of air being considered)
I c
Peter Heckert wrote:
I cannot imagine this heating energy being compressed on some m^3
small space without becoming very hot.
There must be an air flow of 4 m^3 / s if 20° air is heated to 100°
(without thermal expansion of air being considered)
I cannot imagine that either, but what is your
http://www.nyteknik.se//template/ver03/fragments/comment/commentsFetch.jsp?articleId=3303682&endPosition=25
[ Comment by Joshua Cude, after his comment very similar to the post
quoted here. ]
It's the old steam trick again
In the first place, the report comes from Rossi, with no
identification o
Am 31.10.2011 15:40, schrieb Jed Rothwell:
Peter Heckert mailto:peter.heck...@arcor.de>>
wrote:
This amount of heat cannot been unnoticed, it must have bee rather
hot near the heatradiators.
Yes, it was. I believe that is why they were surrounded by barriers.
You can see this more cl
2011/10/31 Jed Rothwell
>
> It is a shame that Rossi did not allow the observers to confirm the claim.
>
> - Jed
>
>
Probably Peter Svensson did look closely. Look at his tweets today, right
after he came back from his trip to watch the E-Cat:
http://twitter.com/#!/petersvensson
petersvensson p
Peter Heckert wrote:
> This amount of heat cannot been unnoticed, it must have bee rather hot
> near the heatradiators.
>
Yes, it was. I believe that is why they were surrounded by barriers. You
can see this more clearly in Lewan's video, that was just uploaded. You can
also see that the radiat
Because all energy was finally converted into hot air, this should
become obvious from the fan-driven heat radiators.
I have developed this formula for air flow:
air flow[m^3/s] = 0.77 * P[kW] / delta_T[°K]
At 470 kW and initial air temperature of 20°C and final air temperature
of 100°C we h
megawatt ecat produces 70 kW [very little steam, mixed with water --
cup of tea, anyone?]: Joshua Cude: Rich Murray 2011.10.31
[ Rich Murray: this nail in the coffin goes right to the point...
using Rossi's own data... ]
http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/H-Ni_Fusion/message/791
[H-Ni_Fusion] me
20 matches
Mail list logo
