[Vo]:Greek TV report says Rossi and Defkalion are back together

If this is true . . . it does not surprise me in the least. Rossi is mercurial. See: http://kanali6.gr/?p=8013 An improved translation is here in the comments section: http://pesn.com/2011/08/10/9501891_Defkalion_Responds_in_Support_of_Rossi/ QUOTED in its entirety: "The process of establishi

Re: [Vo]:Animation of events which caused the Gulf Oil disaster...

Wow. That is a good video. What a nightmare. Fukushima is even worse. I am sorry to say the Japanese government's response in the early days is now coming to light and it is even more appalling than originally reported. There were civilians including children within 10 km of the reactor for s

[Vo]:Defkalion clearly states that Rossi showed them how to make the powder

There have been several comments here wondering if Defkalion has the catalyzer powder or whether they have reverse engineer it. For example, Axil Axil wrote: Ever since one of our number “noone noone” posted this http://www.mail-archive.com/vortex-l@eskimo.com/msg49026.html I have been conce

Re: [Vo]:Defkalion clearly states that Rossi showed them how to make the powder

On 8/11/2011 3:05 PM, Daniel Rocha wrote: Ni powder is not the catalyzer. It is something you can buy in specialized stores online. When I say "Ni powder" I mean the catalyzer: the "ingredients placed within the reactor." I gather it is mostly nickel. The point is, Defkalion says clearly

Re: [Vo]:Defkalion clearly states that Rossi showed them how to make the powder

Terry Blanton wrote: "Defkalion is preparing all of its labs, the industrial production lines and support systems needed for the Hyperion kW range and MW range of products as designed, following all Andrea Rossi's specs on instruments and production machinery, including specializ

Re: [Vo]:PhysOrg reports on Krivit's latest article...

Bastiaan Bergman wrote: Can somebody explain me how, > "it is likely a weak interaction involving neutrons, without fusion" > could possibly gain energy? And where do these neutrons come from? > It looks like people are more skeptical on the claim 'cold fusion' > than on the claim that 'abra-ca-d

Re: [Vo]:The Galantini report examined in detail

Abd ul-Rahman Lomax wrote: Good point. On a meter with a fixed display, you cannot calibrate any finer than the last digit displayed, minus a tad. McKubre can calibrate RTDs (I think they are) to a fraction of a degree because he is looking at a computer screen with as many digits as you like.

Re: [Vo]:DGT Continues Playing Dodge Ball

Terry Blanton wrote: After AR said he did not give them the sauce, it looks like: 1) DGT has no working Hyperions. 2) DGT has working Hyperions and stole the sauce. 3) DGT has their own receipe. You are saying these are the only three likely scenarios, right? They seem to cover all eventu

Re: [Vo]:DGT Continues Playing Dodge Ball

Axil Axil wrote: Even if DGT can build a Rossi knockoff, their own testing has shown the knockoff to be potentially dangerous and hard to control. I do not know where you got that information. The Defkalion reactors appear to be better controlled and safer than Rossi's own prototypes. If

Re: [Vo]:DGT Continues Playing Dodge Ball

OrionWorks - Steven V Johnson wrote: > FWIW, the one little itch that I can't ignore is why does DGT continue to > behave in what strikes me as being distinctly conciliatory in > their characterization of Rossi's recent actions. DGT claims they > have developed more control and a greater safety

Re: [Vo]:more speculations on break-up

pca wrote: > Deploying one, let alone millions, of Hyperion units in unsecured places > gives plenty of opportunity for competitors to acquire the device and > reverse engineer its secret. Defkalion's attempts to add security within > the Hyperions are not credible. It's much better for Rossi

Re: [Vo]:more speculations on break-up

I wrote: > It's much better for Rossi to have licencee(s) build a few large >> electricity-generating units in well-garded places, and sell the electricity >> to resellers. >> > > The strategy would not work, and it would not be allowed. It would not work > because "security by obscurity" for suc

Re: [Vo]:more speculations on break-up

Alan Fletcher wrote: > Defkalion believes they will be allowed to distribute these things in > Europe before the devices have been vetted by nuclear experts worldwide and > before there is complete understanding the the reaction. > > But hasn't Rossi has always said that mini-eCats will be sold i

Fwd: [Vo]:more speculations on break-up

Harry Veeder wrote: Governments and Corporations don't have to over rule public opinion, as > long as they can shape public opinion to suit their own interests. (Noam > Chomosky's concept of manufactured consent). > No one denies that powerful institutions and people with money have great influ

Re: [Vo]:Dark matter may be an illusion caused by the quantum vacuum

I know little about cosmology, but is it not the case that: If dark matter exists the universe is more likely to end in a cosmic crunch, relatively soon. If it does not exist the universe will end with heat death much farther into the future. Just curious about this . . . Freeman Dyson wro

Re: [Vo]:Swarmanoids

That's nifty. The robots are working together like ants in a colony, with some specialization in roles. The capability of the whole swarm is greater than that of the individual. In my opinion, a colony of ants or bees should be though of as a single biological entity, like an animal body. An a

Re: [Vo]:Swarmanoids

Daniel Rocha wrote: But there is a crucial difference between dividing in organs and in different individuals which is the ability to reach resources. A colony of cells cannot do much other dividing tasks among themselves but it cannot reach anything beyond its volume or it must count on pass

[Vo]:Retail robots in action

Scroll down article for interesting YouTube video. See: http://www.wired.com/wiredscience/2009/01/retailrobots/ - Jed

Re: [Vo]:Second Piantelli paper

Here is an important link inside of Peter's web page, summarizing progress by Piantelli: http://coldfusionnow.wordpress.com/2011/08/16/roy-virgilio-on-piantelli-plus-the-2008-piantelli-hypothesis/ - Jed

Re: [Vo]:Second Piantelli paper

Daniel Rocha wrote: I really do not understand why people trust Piantelli if they do not trust Rossi. Some reasons: Piantelli has done better calorimetry than Rossi. Piantelli has better academic credentials. He has published peer-reviewed papers. He does not publish a blog with inflammat

Re: [Vo]:Second Piantelli paper

Daniel Rocha wrote: But Focardi assited Rossi, just like he assited Piantelli. If people think > Focardi could be fooled by a demonstration of huge power excess he could > well be get wrong the measurment of a demonstration of low power excess. I agree this does not make sense. I was only point

Re: [Vo]:Answering Krivit #3: eCat steam quality must be above 75% (above 4300 Watts)

Alan J Fletcher wrote: http://lenr.qumbu.com/rossi_ecat_steam_v410A.php > (Working Draft) > The hidden portion of the URL is wrong. This should be: http://lenr.qumbu.com/rossi_ecat_steam_v410A.php (looks the same but isn't) - Jed

Re: [Vo]:Answering Krivit #3: eCat steam quality must be above 75% (above 4300 Watts)

Daniel Rocha wrote: > I suppose there are also wasted energy to manage the operate the device. You mean, to power the electronics. I believe this is ~30 W. - Jed

Re: [Vo]:Answering Krivit #3: eCat steam quality must be above 75% (above 4300 Watts)

Joe Catania wrote: How do you explain the low velocity of steam at exit of E-Cat? No one measured the velocity as far as I know. There were some videos taken of it, but they do not prove anything. I recently borrowed a steam cleaner trying to fix bathroom grout. I looked at videos of other

Re: [Vo]:Answering Krivit #3: eCat steam quality must be above 75% (above 4300 Watts)

Joe Catania wrote: The Rossi machine, judging from what comes out of the hose is not producing any anomalous heat. You cannot judge what comes out of the hose. You have not measured it; not the speed, or the temperature, the dryness or any other parameter. You know practically nothing about

Re: [Vo]:Answering Krivit #3: eCat steam quality must be above 75% (above 4300 Watts)

Alan J Fletcher wrote: If you mean my numbers -- Given 75% dry I just read off the wattage on the > Nasa diagram. Steam quality on the T-h diagram is linear between points B > and C. I grew up with REAL instruments, where one learns to read a scale to > about 5% accuracy between tick marks. > Am

Re: [Vo]:Answering Krivit #3: eCat steam quality must be above 75% (above 4300 Watts)

Abd ul-Rahman Lomax wrote: > No one measured the velocity as far as I know. There were some videos taken >> of it, but they do not prove anything. >> > > To anyone who has studied the volume of steam expected from full > vaporization as claimed, those videos raise substantial suspicion that the

Re: [Vo]:Krivit's Levi video interview

This one covers the Feb. 14-hour test with flowing water: > Part 4) > http://www.youtube.com/watch?**v=0vYJIG3ymOk > Continuing in part 5: Part 5) http://www.youtube.com/watch?**v=LbDgeAz91VM He mentions

Re: [Vo]:A simple method for extremely accurate enthalpy measurement

Horace Heffner wrote: > It is you who does not "get it". Investing in a free energy scheme which > supposedly produces "excess" or "free" heat is not sensible without expert > independent calorimetry being applied which determines a total energy > balance for critical demonstration tests. It i

Re: [Vo]:A simple method for extremely accurate enthalpy measurement

Jouni Valkonen wrote: > I stumbled upon in the internet a very simple method for doing > extremely accurate (up to two or three significant digits, depending > on insulation) calorimetric analysis for any water boiler. Method is > simple and all measurements are accurate: > > – Just weight 5 kg

Re: [Vo]:A simple method for extremely accurate enthalpy measurement

Horace Heffner wrote: > If the results indeed were obtained and were positive and useful it is > strange that Defkalion did not pay up according to its contract. > Rossi said repeatedly that he will only be paid after he delivers the 1 MW reactor. He has not delivered it, so Defkalion does not

Re: [Vo]:A simple method for extremely accurate enthalpy measurement

Originally posted by Angela Kemmler: > The Licence and Technology Transfer Agreement (The LTTA) contains a mile > stone payment arrangement. According to said arrangement, DGT's release of > the first payment to EFA is pending on that EFA meet several technical > requirements. As anticipated in t

Re: [Vo]:Rossi Steam Quality Updates

Alan J Fletcher wrote: > > My attention was drawn to an excellent Rossi eCat simulator by a Rick > Cantwell > http://www.youtube.com/watch?**v=yXTl8z_2Uqo > > (It's main deficiency is that he's measuring temperatures on the surface of > the tubes, not i

Re: [Vo]:Rossi Steam Quality Updates

Alan Fletcher wrote: > >- Percolator effect happens quickly (Lots of water at the outlet -- at >3:30 he empties the hose, and it refills in about 7 seconds.) > > This is operating as a TUBE Boiler. > > Do you mean it is overflowing? Water mixed with steam is pouring over of the top? I a

[Vo]:I was impressed by Levi in the video interview

I have been nonplussed by Levi the last few months, because I was expecting he would provide more details about the February 2011 18-hour test with flowing water. I still wish he would do that. As I said, I wish he would tell me the made and model of the flow meter. I asked; he did not respond. In

Re: [Vo]:Rossi Steam Quality Updates

Horace Heffner wrote: > This does not happen with the eCat, as shown in the videos made by Lewan. > > > How is it shown by Lewan's videos that water does not overflow from the > E-Cat? > In some of the videos he showed the hose removed from the bucket for a few minutes with steam emerging. Ther

Re: [Vo]:Re: Rossi Steam Quality Updates

Mattia Rizzi wrote: In krivit’s video the bucket is removed for around 30seconds, not few minutes. From 11:10 to 11:20 and from 11:26 to 11:46 (SEE KRIVIT’S VIDEO) That is correct, but I saw a longer video from Lewan. - Jed

Re: [Vo]:Re: Rossi Steam Quality Updates

Mattia Rizzi wrote: And the water flow can’t be 7 liter/h since the pump is pumping every 2.5-3 seconds, so the true water flow is lower than 3 liter/h LMI P18 pump has a maximum flow of 12 l/h at 100 strikes/minutes. With 25 strikes/minute is (maximum) 3 l/h. It can be lower than 3 liter/h.

Re: [Vo]:Re: Rossi Steam Quality Updates

Mattia Rizzi wrote: In this video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sVEBCN6D13w ? (lewan in april) Again, you can see it (removed from water) at 3:17 to 3:37, 20 seconds. And in this video you can hear that there is some (liquid water) since is very noisy. I believe I saw a longer one somewher

Re: [Vo]:I was impressed by Levi in the video interview

Susan Gipp wrote: Here the "flow meter" > > http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-0LCgn_05ZGY/TWGehaAfm-I/E5w/Ew3nHhdHUDQ/s1600/E-Cat110211.jpg > > It's a simple house utility water meter like this > Thanks. They said it was an ordinary utility meter. Why did you put the word "flow meter" in quotes?

Re: [Vo]:I was impressed by Levi in the video interview

Jouni Valkonen wrote: > It is kind of sad that Levi refuses to admit that he did poor > measurements with steam tests . . . 1. He does not think he did "poor tests"; neither do I; and neither does any expert I have heard from. People here who know little about calorimetry and who have done no

Re: [Vo]:Re: Rossi Steam Quality Updates

I wrote: > I believe I saw a longer one somewhere. Will ask Lewan. > I stand corrected. Lewan said he has no videos of steam longer than this. Here is his entire response, with permission: Jed, I only observed the tube held upright once and did not study it carefully. There did come some wate

Re: [Vo]:Re: I was impressed by Levi in the video interview

Mattia Rizzi wrote: >2. Apart from the initial heat burst, the temperature was steady, as > shown > in the laptop photos they took. So the flow must have been steady. > > You have a terrible confusion in your head. > The “laptop photos” doesn’t exists at all for the february test (liquid > wate

Re: [Vo]:Re: Rossi Steam Quality Updates

Mattia Rizzi wrote: Again, if you write “7 l/h flow” you are talking about the test done in > june, with Krivit. > In june, there wan’t a weight scale . . . > That is not clear. There may have been one. In any case, this same argument about how the pump works has been raised regarding earlier

Re: [Vo]:I was impressed by Levi in the video interview

Susan Gipp wrote: Jed have you had any a chance to live in Italy for some time ? > The test location is just in the middle of an industrial area. > - At any time any business facility around could have drown an abnormal > water consumption (there is a car wash nearby) > At this flow rate I doub

Re: [Vo]:Re: I was impressed by Levi in the video interview

Mattia Rizzi wrote: Again, you wrote that “the temperature was steady, as shown in the laptop photos they took”. These photos are not pubblicated. So there isn’t “as show”, it’s again a “Rossi&Levi said”. It would be easy to make fake photos or a fake video. So even if they published photos,

[Vo]:Lomax argument that detailed data is required to confirm unknown phenomena

I do not like to be argumentative. Perhaps I misunderstand Abd's argument here. But it seems to me he repeatedly claimed that in order to measure a mysterious source of heat from an unknown phonomenon, you must have detailed, time-sequenced data. It is not enough to have one number. Even if the peo

Re: [Vo]:Lomax argument that detailed data is required to confirm unknown phenomena

Sorry. I meant to say measuring the UFO speed does NOT call for modern methods, or photography. George Washington, who was well trained in surveying, could have done it with ease. (I suppose that training and tramping around in the wilderness surveying property must have proved invaluable to him du

Re: [Vo]:Re: Rossi Steam Quality Updates

Mattia Rizzi wrote: > Yeah. There is a problem: in Lewan’s test, where the flow was accurately > measured by an independent observer (Lewan), the noise from the pump is > consistent with the water flow written inside the report. > Which report by Lewan do you refer to? What is the URL, and wher

Re: [Vo]:ANTICIPATING THE 1 MW DEMO

Jouni Valkonen wrote: > Was this approach right or wrong, it can be debated. I think that it was > just wrong approach. > I agree. Plus I think a test of a 1 MW reactor is fraught with difficulties. It is much easier to test 1 to 10 kW. > In my opinnion Rossi should have opensourced this techn

[Vo]:I meant confidence that light has a speed

I wrote: > Scientific instruments and techniques hundreds of years old can measure > temperature, the speed of an object, the speed of light and many other > important values with as much confidence as the best technology can today; > albeit with far less precision. > > Note that the speed of lig

Re: [Vo]:Re: Rossi Steam Quality Updates

Mattia Rizzi wrote: > Report of 28 april: > http://www.nyteknik.se/incoming/article3166569.ece/BINARY/Report+test+of+E-cat+28+April+2011.pdf > > As you can hear, the stroke frequency is around 32 strokes/minute, which > equals to a maximum flow of 3.8 liters/h (= 12.1 * 32/100) > From 28 april

Re: [Vo]:The Percolator Effect

Horace Heffner wrote: > The correct thing to do is to do calorimetry on the output using a well > calibrated professionally designed calorimeter independent of the device > itself . . . > Defkalion claims they have done this. Alarm bells should go off in your head when you see the amount of d

Re: [Vo]:The Percolator Effect

Joe Catania wrote: ** > One should stay away from E-Cat calorimetry and instead perform calorimetry > on the actual nickel-hydrogen reaction. > What is the difference? An eCat is a reactor vessel, and so is a Defkalion reactor. You can only perform calorimetry on a vessel of some sort. Are you

Re: [Vo]:Lomax argument that detailed data is required to confirm unknown phenomena

Abd ul-Rahman Lomax wrote: The instruments prove that radium and the Rossi reactor produce stable, unvarying heat. That much we know. No, we don't know that at all. Jed, sometimes I can't figure out where you get this nonsense. We sort-of-know that the temperature in the reactor chimney is s

Re: [Vo]:Lomax argument that detailed data is required to confirm unknown phenomena

Abd ul-Rahman Lomax wrote: You are perfectly aware that Rossi chose to use a method of measuring heat that was utterly inconclusive. You meant the steam method. I am aware that some people think it is inconclusive. As far as I know, experts in calorimetry and steam think it is conclusive. B

Re: [Vo]:Lomax argument that detailed data is required to confirm unknown phenomena

Abd ul-Rahman Lomax wrote: A single measure can be of interest, but rarely would it be conclusive. This may be a misunderstanding. They did not perform a single measurement. They measured repeatedly, and recorded the numbers. The numbers were about the same in all cases, ~5°C, so that is the

Re: [Vo]:Lomax argument that detailed data is required to confirm unknown phenomena

Alan J Fletcher wrote: 5°C 5°C 5°C 5°C 5°C 5°C 5°C 5°C 5°C 5°C 5°C 5°C 5°C 5°C 5°C 5°C 5°C 5°C 5°C 5°C If I saw THAT I'd yell FAKE. 5.01°C 4.98°C 4.98°C 5.00°C ... Yes, I was kidding. | Abd ul-Rahman Lomax said | .. and given the ubiquity of cheap logging devices .. Ah .. the cheap logg

Re: [Vo]:The Percolator Effect

Joe Catania wrote: I'm suggesting what I believe many others have. What should be eliminated is complications like anything flowing, anything shanging phase, heat leakage. Phase changes are a problem, although ice calorimetry has been around for a long time. The only kind of calorimetry th

Re: [Vo]:The Percolator Effect

Horace Heffner wrote: > Hold on there! I assume you refer to the discussions and churning here, in > this group. > > > You assume wrongly. I refer in addition to Rossi's blog, the CMNS news > list, Krivit's blog, public press, etc., etc. > Ah, well these other forums are also populated by peop

Re: [Vo]:The day after Rossi

Daniel Rocha wrote: Pretty much the total destruction of all confidence I have in LENR. If so > many competent people in the field were cheated that easily by Rossi, I can > expect much worse from everyone, even in the sense of self deception. Some questions: How many competent people in the f

[Vo]:People such as Edison, Jobs, Whitman and Rossi are not always lying when they say things that are obviously false

Jouni Valkonen wrote: On Aug 25, 2011 5:45 PM, "Mattia Rizzi" wrote: > In krivit’s video Rossi said that water flow was 7 kg/h. > Rossi is lying. > This is obvious. But question is why Rossi did lie in such a trivial way that everyone can see it? I do not find it so obvious. It seems likel

Re: [Vo]:The day after Rossi

Jouni Valkonen wrote: «LENR is another avenue. It's not just about Rossi. If the Rossi thing doesn't happen, then maybe something else will. Rossi has brought a lot of attention to the field. Any researchers who have a legitimate claim are going to benefit from this.» –Michael A. Nelson, Nasa

Re: [Vo]:People such as Edison, Jobs, Whitman and Rossi are not always lying when they say things that are obviously false

I wrote: > If Jobs seriously believes that without him there would be no proportional > fonts in modern computers, he is delusional. . . . > > to call it a "lie" is an overstatement, because even Jobs knows this isn't > true, and he must know he is not fooling anyone. > I mean he is not foolin

Re: [Vo]:The day after Rossi

Stephen A. Lawrence wrote: If Rossi turns out to be a fraud, or hugely mistaken for some reason, the skeptics here will deserve no credit for predicting this. Getting a little defensive, are we, Jed? No, but I am sick of people who play it safe by predicting failure where failure is likely.

Re: [Vo]:The day after Rossi

Horace Heffner wrote: It is not primarily the people competent in this field that stand to be cheated if Rossi's device is a fraud or self deception. There are plenty of people with a lot of money who are scientifically clueless. These are the kind of people that can be suckered in by scien

Re: [Vo]:Re: People such as Edison, Jobs, Whitman and Rossi are not always lying when they say things that are obviously false

Mattia Rizzi wrote: Jed, what is your academic background? Japanese language and literature. - Jed

Re: [Vo]:The Krivit Videos Part 3

Joe Catania wrote: ** > The 3rd video refers to Levi shutting of the power to the E-Cat and steam > production continuing for 15 minutes. This could easily be explained by > thermal inertia. IE the metal and hydrogen of the E-Cat will still be at a > high temperature when power is shut off theref

Re: [Vo]:The day after Rossi

Susan Gipp wrote: Jed, how many words wasted ! Just recall how Rossi reacted, time ago, when you proposed to make a test in Bologna using your own tools and what he said when you asked him to visit his Florida plant ! Didn't any alarm bell ring ? Yes, as I have said again and again, if we a

Re: [Vo]:The Krivit Videos Part 3

Joe Catania wrote: Yes I honestly mean toward 100C. If the metal is below 100C to start we never get boiling so of course its above 100C (by alot) and will cool to 100C which is the temp of boiling water. I still don't follow what you have in mind. Take the metal at the bottom of a pot on th

Re: [Vo]:Re: People such as Edison, Jobs, Whitman and Rossi are not always lying when they say things that are obviously false

Finlay MacNab wrote: Since the January announcement at the University of Bologna sparked my interest in the topic, your library of CF literature has been an extremely useful resource for me. I value your point of view and in my estimation you have the mind of a true scientist regardless of yo

Re: [Vo]:Re: People such as Edison, Jobs, Whitman and Rossi are not always lying when they say things that are obviously false

I meant to say: I did not write all those papers, so the real credit goes to the authors. The researchers have done a terrific job with practically no resources. With funding the size of sparrow's tears, as they say in Japanese. People often say there has been no progress in cold fusion. I say tha

Re: [Vo]:The Krivit Videos Part 3

On 8/25/2011 5:36 PM, Joe Catania wrote: No, the metal is certainly >100C (I think alot greater). Electric heaters such as the ones in the eCat have an upper limit in temperature. It is much lower than a stove nichrome heating element, which goes up to about 1200°C. As for an experiment I

Re: [Vo]:The Krivit Videos Part 3

Oops. 3 kWh in 15 minutes, not 4. 10,800 kJ. Assuming the eCat weighs 10 kg and it is mostly carbon steel the temperature goes up 2,200 K, not 2,930 K. I guess it has to go up this much starting at 100°C, in order to cool down to 100°C after releasing 3 kW. That's 373 K + 2,200 K which is 2,573

Re: [Vo]:The Krivit Videos Part 3

Joe Catania wrote: No, its not out of the question at all. Since we don't know the flow rate of water (whether its flowing or not) and since it isn't particularly relevant I neglect it. The water is always flowing. This is a flow calorimeter. It is completely unrealistic to suppose that you

Re: [Vo]:The Krivit Videos Part 3

Joe Catania wrote: I've already prooven it. Furthermore I demonstrated it. Your demonstration employed roughly 50,000 times less water than the eCat, and nichrome metal heated to incandescence. The eCat never gets that hot. So your demonstration was so different from the December eCat test

Re: [Vo]:The Krivit Videos Part 3

Here are some comments by Levi about the video and the Heat After Death event. Not terribly important, but . . . http://22passi.blogspot.com/2011/08/agosto-comincia-molto-bene.html Note that if you use Google to translate this, "Rossi" converts to "Smith." - Jed

Re: [Vo]:The Krivit Videos Part 3

Joe Catania wrote: The facts are in. There are no facts in this discussion; only speculation. > As it stands it is a given that thermal inertia could easily explain the 15 > minute boiling. Your arguments are unsubstatiated. And your arguments would require the metal to be over a thousand

Re: [Vo]:The Krivit Videos Part 3

Joe Catania wrote: There certainly are facts involved namely could the boiling be caused by the heat stored in the metal, etc. of the E-Cat to last 15 minutes. Facts. H. . . . Okay then, tell us: How much metal? How hot did it get? Assume 3 kWh are stored, enough to vaporize 4.4 kg of wa

Re: [Vo]:The Krivit Videos Part 3

Joe Catania wrote: > 3kW is not negligible- one of Rossi's E-Cat's only supposedly vaporizes > 2g/s of water which takes less than 5kW. > I did not explain that correctly. 3 kW is the most the reactor could produce in the absence of any anomalous heat. It is the maximum electric power input. In

Re: [Vo]:what do ypu think of this within the latest wave of UFO and the History Channel show

I have a low regard for the History Channel. I have seen documentaries there occasionally. When they are about a subject I know well, even one that is well documented such as the Battle of Midway, I have seen that they are filled with mistakes. They are written by people who know nothing about the

[Vo]:Definition of "heat after death"

Joe Catania wrote: > When the power is cut the steam will still be produced according to thermal > inertia. Thermal inertia isn't heater input and it isn't fusion. > If it was thermal inertia the power would decline rapidly and total stored up energy would run out in a minute or so. You cannot

Re: [Vo]:Comments on separating water at exit of E-Cat

Peter Heckert wrote: BTW, there is an elegant method to see if the steam is dry: Dissolve a > marker substance in the water, salt or sugar or something else. When the > input concentration is known, the concentration in output water can be > measured and compared. > When the steam was dry then th

Re: [Vo]:Definition of "heat after death"

Joe Catania wrote: ** > Again thermal inertia is a fact- not an if. Thermail inertia does not "run > out" after one minute as I have shown. > You have asserted that, but in order to show it you would have to demonstrate that the specific heat of metal is much higher than the textbooks list. Yo

Re: [Vo]:Where's Rossi and other simple questions...

ecat builder wrote: With October fast approaching, I have some easy questions: Where is Rossi right now? Where is his lab/factory that is producing E-cats for the 1MW test? Wouldn't it be easy for someone to follow him from his apartment to the factory? Give an address, count cars in the park

Re: [Vo]:Where's Rossi and other simple questions...

Terry Blanton wrote: > You cannot sell > > commercial products in the United States, the EU or Japan without telling > > people how they work and without first submitting them to safety > regulatory > > agencies for testing and licensing. > > In the US, approval will be required from the Underwri

Re: [Vo]:Corrections to "heat after death" calculations

Mark Iverson-ZeroPoint wrote: Compare the heat capacity of any metal with water and you will see that water can store 100 to 1000 times more heat per mass than any metal. It is a factor of 10 for most metals, per unit of mass. Not 100 or 1000. The eCat is mostly steel which is 0.49 kJ/kg K.

Re: [Vo]:Corrections to "heat after death" calculations

Jouni Valkonen wrote: Ps. I do not know what model of E-Cat we are talking about. Does we have pictures? Or is it just some mythical test what was seen by nobody. The 15 minute heat-after-death event was with the large eCat used in the January and February tests. This produces 12 kW to 16 k

Re: [Vo]:Corrections to "heat after death" calculations

Terry Blanton wrote: I concur, Nick. These are violations of forum rules. Perhaps, but let us not be too thin-skinned. Or politically correct. Let's not ban anyone. If someone irritates you, just add the name to your own auto-delete list. - Jed

Re: [Vo]:Corrections to "heat after death" calculations

Joe Catania wrote: Oops! I assumed that there actually was outflow water at this stage but there does not seem to be evidence of that. You have an extraordinary imagination, thinking that people run flow calorimeters without a flow. - Jed

Re: [Vo]:Corrections to "heat after death" calculations

Horace Heffner wrote: As far as I know, this is the only eCat that Levi et al. tested in December, which is when the event occurred. The flow rate was typically ~300 ml/min I believe. Are you sure about that flow rate being present in the heat after death observation? How else could it wor

Re: [Vo]:Corrections to "heat after death" calculations

Horace Heffner wrote: You are providing the input data so you should know which test you are talking about. Jed says the first test. No, I said it was the device used in the first public test. The large eCat, shown in many photos. As far as I know this was the only eCat they used in Decembe

Re: [Vo]:Corrections to "heat after death" calculations

Joe Catania wrote: Until I see the data you refer to all I can say is its seems like more of a guess. Okay. Ask Krivit to show it to you again. It was there before. It seems like a pretty good guess to me, since they told me they worked with the gadget for a month before demonstrating it. Th

Re: [Vo]:Corrections to "heat after death" calculations

Horace Heffner wrote: How else could it work? It would run out of water. Very little fits into the cell. You cannot do flow calorimetry without a flow. It would be like trying to do it without measuring the temperature. Obviously my question is are you sure that *precise magnitude* of flow

[Vo]:Let's consider inviting chatbots to participate here

See the remarkable progress in fake artificial intelligence at Cornell (yes, that's what I meant): http://www.slate.com/blogs/future_tense/2011/08/29/two_chatbots_walk_into_a_room_video_.html This chatbot, seen here in an illuminating debate with itself, should join the discussion here and also e

[Vo]:Batteries for energy storage on the grid

See: http://www.renewableenergyworld.com/rea/news/article/2011/08/batteries-for-energy-storage-new-developments-promise-grid-flexibility-and-stability QUOTE: "The Electric Reliability Council of Texas Inc. (ERCOT) faced the renewable power industry's most critical issue in February 2008. With a

[Vo]:The 15-minute heat after death event was in Test 1, Jan. 2011

Jouni Valkonen wrote: > > The 15 minute heat-after-death event was with the large eCat used in the > > January and February tests. . . . > > > Ah, now I know exactly what is going on. > > Here is the premilinary report (Test1): > > http://22passi.blogspot.com/2011/01/report-ufficiale-esperimen

Re: [Vo]:Batteries for energy storage on the grid

On 8/31/2011 9:46 AM, Robert Leguillon wrote: That 1.21 Gigawatt drop in production could correspond to some kind of a "flux capacitor" being attached to the grid. Wouldn't that be an increase in demand? Not a drop in production. I don't think it takes long to charge up a flux capacitor. It

Re: [Vo]:1MW's test to last 2 months, with full access to cores.

Two months is more like it. However, Rossi statement appears to contradict the title of this thread which is ". . . with full access to cores." Rossi says with full access to "all but the reactors" which I take to mean the reactor cores. - Jed

Re: [Vo]:Corrections to "heat after death" calculations

Jouni Valkonen wrote: I am sure that Rossi was quite well familiar with the real power of E-Cat, because water inflow rate was adjusted in right level. I believe he does it the other way. He leaves the water inflow rate steady and adjusts the power output to vaporize all of the water. In the

<    1   2   3   4   5   6   7   8   9   10   >