RE: reference for the 50 reactors at 20kW... >From the very recent posting of "Rossi's Hints" on peswiki that Jed and >several others have contributed to... http://www.peswiki.com/index.php/Directory:Andrea_A._Rossi_Cold_Fusion_Generator:Rossi's_Hints I have to take issue with your insistence that even the Feb test was only about 3kW... but it really doesn't matter at this point... I think it was more but he was operating it at the edge of what the heat exchange rate could xfer rendering it a bit unstable. Given a good thermodynamics engineer, there's no doubt that reactor designs could be built with more than adequate heat exchange performance to scale it back up. Regardless of who's 'right' about the details, I think things are moving along way faster than any of us would have anticipated since we've seen true frauds out there that drag the spectacle out for years! Thanks to Rossi's willingness to entrust some units to others to test, which can't be an easy thing to do, the establishment of the reality of the technology is really picking up steam! ;-) Meow,
-Mark _____ From: Jones Beene [mailto:jone...@pacbell.net] Sent: Tuesday, April 19, 2011 4:24 PM To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: RE: [Vo]: shrinking felines Mark - For future reference - when did he mention 50 reactors at 20 kW ? Moving on. Awkshully, and in complete candor - as for the rest of it - this appears to be consistent with what we would expect from the same identical reactor as in the Jan demo, but with a present realization (or reappraisal) that the initial output was exaggerated by incorrect testing (the junk data that I have been referring too, with little support from other vorticians) . and that in point of fact, the large units were never much more than 3 kW to being with. Not 16, 15, 12, or 10 but 3. Still great but at a level which is consistent of my predicted COP in the Swedish testing of COP of 10. I have made it abundantly clear by now, that the assertion (which I do not take credit for, but which seems accurate): that wet steam gives the appearance of triple or more - the actual thermal content of dry steam, is in fact the case here. Again - before the flood of denials, character assassination and finger pointing - let's wait a couple of days for the Swedish results, please. Jones From: Mark Iverson So Rossi has gone from: 50 modules of 20 kW each 130 " 10 kW units 300 " 3 kW each or more poetically stated, from bobcat, to tom-cat, to kitty-cat! :-) So Steven Vincent Johnson's comment may prove insightful: ------------------------ "However, there is a subtle point that might have been overlooked here. Consider the flip side. As overall volume decreases excess surface area becomes LESS critical because what volume exists can more easily escape - since all "volume" is relatively close to a surface area. Therefore... it IS conceivable, from my POV, that Rossi's smaller e-kittins might be able to more efficiently transfer heat due to their inherent smaller volume as compared to the bigger sisters, the e-cat." ------------------------ Perhaps this is why the "production" units have been shrinking in size and power output... more stability because heat exchanger has more room for excursions before going into steam flashing mode (unstable). Perhaps Rossi hasn't found a solution to the heat-exchanger issue -- or more likely, hasn't had time since he's wasted hundreds of hours politely answering blog questions and doing interviews! So right now the simple solution is e-kittens. -Mark
