At 01:56 PM 4/19/2011, Jones Beene wrote:
Now you can parse all of this information and
look at the images of the size of the reactor
which are small - and estimate how much weight
of material for 'many channels' is possible. The
report which I was made aware of did this, and
as you can see -
Charles Hope wrote:
I was referring to the report Jones Beene refers to, unseen, by an unnamed
author, which uses thermodynamics to raise questions.
Oops. Of course. I see.
I wasn't aware this report has been (will be?) shown to Levi. He will
have good laugh from it. The author should also s
Jones Beene wrote:
We presume (hope) that the Swedes will not use a hose connected to plumbing
where you get free water pressure, and will use a pump. The pump's power
must be included in P-in.
A liter/sec pump seems to require one horsepower or about .75 kW.
As I pointed out in another threa
Jones sez
...
> ...all of this nonsense is explained by Rothwell picking
> out an irrelevant detail in a long thread, and ignoring
> everything else - in order to cover his trail in case the
> Swedish testing does conform to my prediction.
Defense Team: Your honor, I object! The prosecution is d
I was referring to the report Jones Beene refers to, unseen, by an unnamed
author, which uses thermodynamics to raise questions.
Sent from my iPhone.
On Apr 20, 2011, at 9:58, Jed Rothwell wrote:
> Charles Hope wrote:
>
>> Expert opinion, indeed. Not bad enough that the box is black but we
This is the type of heater Rossi is using:
http://www.heaters.in/mica-band-heaters.html
It is affixed to the outside of the exterior copper pipe. In order to get
the heat from the heater onto the surface of the stainless steel reaction
vessel, there needs to be copper vanes between the reaction
mix...@bigpond.com wrote:
It is operating at a fraction of maximum. Even 130 kW is a fraction of 204 kW.
However I have only guessed at the length of the E-cat cylinder (20 cm seemed
reasonable to me, however increasing it to 60 cm while keeping the volume equal,
would increase the power to 354
Dear Jones,
just from curiosity, in what kind of P-in has to be included the pump's
power and why?
Peter
On Wed, Apr 20, 2011 at 4:57 PM, Jones Beene wrote:
> I should add one thing relevant to the Swedish testing.
>
> We presume (hope) that the Swedes will not use a hose connected to plumbing
>
Charles Hope wrote:
Expert opinion, indeed. Not bad enough that the box is black but we're
reacting to a secret report shown only to Levi, the contents of which
can only be guessed at?
It is not a secret report shown to Levi, it is a public report made by
Levi, here:
http://www.nyteknik.se
I should add one thing relevant to the Swedish testing.
We presume (hope) that the Swedes will not use a hose connected to plumbing
where you get free water pressure, and will use a pump. The pump's power
must be included in P-in.
A liter/sec pump seems to require one horsepower or about .75 kW.
Nick,
No, all of this nonsense is explained by Rothwell picking out an irrelevant
detail in a long thread, and ignoring everything else - in order to cover
his trail in case the Swedish testing does conform to my prediction.
There is no factor of 1000 relevant to anything but the high thermal
ex
Re: the Jones/Jed spat
Part of it might be explained by the confusion between "factor of 2 or 3"
and "factor of 1000". If one was meaning orders of magnitude and the other
wasn't, the flame war might become more resolvable.
Nick Palmer
On the side of the Planet - and the people - because t
In reply to Jones Beene's message of Tue, 19 Apr 2011 21:14:06 -0700:
Hi,
[snip]
>Robin.
>
>My initial reaction is that the assumptions could be way off.
They probably are off to some extent, but I don't think they are way off.
>
>The delta-T of 500K is too large,
This is based on an internal o
> Jones
>
>
> -Original Message-
> From: mix...@bigpond.com [mailto:mix...@bigpond.com]
> Sent: Tuesday, April 19, 2011 8:48 PM
> To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
> Subject: Re: [Vo]:RE: Rothwell goes into brain freeze - Thermal power.pdf
>
> In reply to Jones Beene's
o:mix...@bigpond.com]
Sent: Tuesday, April 19, 2011 8:48 PM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Subject: Re: [Vo]:RE: Rothwell goes into brain freeze - Thermal power.pdf
In reply to Jones Beene's message of Tue, 19 Apr 2011 08:27:37 -0700:
Hi,
[snip]
>.plus, stainless conducts heat so poorly that a 5 KG
In reply to Jones Beene's message of Tue, 19 Apr 2011 08:27:37 -0700:
Hi,
[snip]
>.plus, stainless conducts heat so poorly that a 5 KG reactor would surely
>melt before that rate of energy release could be sustained for 15 minutes
>anyway - do you really doubt that?
Please see attached.
Regards,
Right. But with pressurized H2 inside the reactor - you cannot easily risk
having lots of coolant tubes going thru, as sealing them would be a
nightmare - and the narrowness of the form-factor - at least the images
seen, do not seem to permit enough space for copper tubing around the
reactor.
Mark Iverson wrote:
Ever look at how a steam locomotive boiler is constructed? The flow is
> straight thru and the heat xfer surface area is many many times the surface
> area of the outer enclosing cylinder. I posted a reply about this and
> attached a jpeg, but I guess Bill hasn't had time to
OrionWorks - Steven V Johnson wrote:
If it IS 400 C, it would seem to me that the reaction then increasing
> to 600 C... a mere +200 C more, (before it conks out) does not strike
> me as being terribly efficient.
>
I think it is optimum at 600°C and then it starts to go downhill after that.
I am
Jones writes:
"it was claiming that there was neither room nor extra mass for fins or
channels. I listed that as
the caveat. Rossi also says the water flow is straight thru."
Ever look at how a steam locomotive boiler is constructed? The flow is
straight thru and the heat
xfer surface area is
>From Jed:
...
> ... I believe the
> reaction works best at around 600°C and it conks out above that.
Can someone clarify the following: What is the internal temperature
the reactor cell has to reach in order to initiate the Rossi reaction?
I thought the reaction takes over when the tempe
Harry Veeder wrote:
> Do you know if Rossi has ever directly measured the temperature inside his
> reactor?
>
He told me he has, but he does not want to discuss the details.
That is how he knows the minimum operating temperature is 400°C (ref. SL). I
do not recall where I heard the optimum tem
>
>The limiting factor is, of course, how hot it gets inside. I believe the
>reaction works best at around 600°C and it conks out above that.
>
>- Jed
>
Do you know if Rossi has ever directly measured the temperature inside his
reactor?
Harry
Abd ul-Rahman Lomax wrote:
> Somehow the reported facts got lost in this massive thread, which I've not
> been following. So I searched for "130 KW." I found the first message here
> was Jed's, and that "power peaked briefly" at 130 kW.
>
> I am commonly irritated by people who discuss and confu
-Original Message-
From: Abd ul-Rahman Lomax
> Heat transfer is limited by surface area, but the
"surface area" for a Rossi cell might be very
high. You cannot judge it by the gross volume.
What if the cell is constructed with many channels?
Not by the volume alone, correct. This is/
At 11:27 AM 4/19/2011, Jones Beene wrote:
Stephen
To answer the first problem - I believe that the
specific heat goes up as the temperature rises,
and is a higher the closer you get to m.p.
Ø 130 KW for 15 minutes is actually 32.5 KWh.
Only if that heat suddenly comes to a dead stop
and
It would be nice to be able to measure the temperature inside the reactor.
Any estimate on the mass of the stainless steel vessel?
Harry
>
>From: Stephen A. Lawrence
>To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
>Sent: Tue, April 19, 2011 11:01:47 AM
>Subject: Re: [Vo]:RE: Rothwell goes into brai
Stephen
To answer the first problem - I believe that the specific heat goes up as
the temperature rises, and is a higher the closer you get to m.p.
* 130 KW for 15 minutes is actually 32.5 KWh.
Only if that heat suddenly comes to a dead stop and you average over the
hour ! Not likel
Say WHAT?
On 04/19/2011 10:23 AM, Jones Beene wrote:
>
> Query: is "problematic" Rossi-speak or Rothwell-speak for "physically
> impossible"?
>
>
>
>
>
> The specific heat of steel is 420J/KG/Deg C - and this equates to a
> heat requirement of approximately 375 KWh to melt one ton of steel
>
Let me make a slight correction for the record:
Query: is "problematic" Rossi-speak or Rothwell-speak for "physically
impossible"?
The specific heat of steel is 420J/KG/Deg C - and this equates to a heat
requirement of approximately 375 KWh to melt one ton of steel from room
temperature.
Query: is "problematic" Rossi-speak or Rothwell-speak for "physically
impossible"?
The specific heat of steel is 420J/KG/Deg C - and this equates to a heat
requirement of approximately 375 KWh to melt one ton of steel from room
temperature.
130 KW was the supposed heated delivered by th
Baloney. Do you want to keep posting this crap, Rothwell?
You are completely exposed on this, and you will not get the last word in to
safe face - guaranteed
You said yourself the 130 kW was bogus - it is complete bogus, even if
second rate authors say otherwise
Jones
From: Jed R
32 matches
Mail list logo
