

Gordo wrote:...This is also precisely my take on the stunt. A pre-heated tea kettle.!
...Measured by the customer: 66 kWh in during startup,
2635 kWh out *during self sustaining operation* 12:30 to 18:00.
COP calculated by the test engineer of > 2635 :0


El_Steak wrote:So the 500kW generator was still hooked to the "reactor" that was producing... 470kW. This doesn't smell very good.

Hillhater wrote: why was a "500kW" generator required when only 66kw/hr was used to "start" the process ?
Hillhater wrote: Why was it running throughout the "self sustaining" part of the test ( 6hrs ?)
Hillhater wrote: Why was the full 1MW output not tested ?



AussieJester wrote:I have a sneaking suspicion, Luke thinks this Rossi character is a scammer![]()
KiM

AussieJester wrote:I have a sneaking suspicion, Luke thinks this Rossi character is a scammer![]()
KiM




bigmoose wrote:This video doesn't look good to me: http://www.nyteknik.se/nyheter/energi_miljo/energi/article3303681.ece#comments
Shows the narrator putting his bare hand on the main steam line valve exiting the reactor when in self sustain mode. The published data shows 105 deg C outlet temperature when in self sustain mode. The narrator also grabs the un-insulated blue pipe right as it leaves the container and holds it. I ask, how do you grab hold of a 105 deg C object and not pull away? He also holds his hand on the insulation and says; "Not very hot." or "Not too hot."



Joseph C. wrote:But if you watch the movie, you hear at the end very clear the voice of Mats Lewan saying: It is now almost 3 o clock.
That means, that time the movie was recorded, the e-cat should have been in the middle of the so called 'self sustaining' mode.
So, who is wrong?
I hope Mr. Mats Lewan can clarify.
Actually, I believe the time given by Mats Lewan, because - as you can see - it was still bright daylight.

bigmoose wrote:. The narrator also grabs the un-insulated blue pipe right as it leaves the container and holds it. I ask, how do you grab hold of a 105 deg C object and not pull away? He also holds his hand on the insulation and says; "Not very hot." or "Not too hot."

Hillhater wrote:bigmoose wrote:. The narrator also grabs the un-insulated blue pipe right as it leaves the container and holds it. I ask, how do you grab hold of a 105 deg C object and not pull away? He also holds his hand on the insulation and says; "Not very hot." or "Not too hot."
Lets be honest here guys... he didnt "grab" the un-insulated pipe,..he barely touched it with his finger tips !
..even i can do that on 100 C ...and i am certainly no "Grasshopper"![]()
.. And what would you expect on a insulated pipe lagging ??
There are much bigger questions than these to be answered.


montyp wrote:Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. That goes both ways. At this point with so many people involved, it would be an extraordinary scam. All we can do is wait for more evidence... and speculate the effects of such a device...
If it does work... oddly enough, the short term big winners might be companies that the environmentalist hate the most. Mining and oil extraction require massive amounts of energy, if those energy cost were to drop, these companies would most likely be able to hold on to their margins. While the purchase cost of these products drops consumption would increase. Until battery cost decrease, people will still be driving (and factories producing) ICE vehicles. It is not totally inconceivable that cold fusion would "kill" the electric car... for a while.
I've see this written somewhere else, but shorting commodities and going long on refineries might be a good plan.

Gordo wrote:This religion of blindness and stupidity is how the scam has gotten to this far.

montyp wrote:Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. That goes both ways. At this point with so many people involved, it would be an extraordinary scam. All we can do is wait for more evidence... and speculate the effects of such a device...


On Sept. 5 and 6, a team comprising representatives from an investment group and NASA visited Andrea Rossi’s showroom in Bologna. The team went there with an explicit agreement about test parameters and opportunities to observe and evaluate Rossi’s claims. They did not observe any positive results.
The Sept. 5 test was inconclusive because Rossi’s device sprang a plumbing leak. The Sept. 6 test was inconclusive because there was no outflow of steam or water.
However, when reporter Mats Lewan from Ny Teknik showed up the next day, Rossi’s device produced an outflow of steam and water. But by then, the NASA observers had gone.
...snip
On Sept. 15, New Energy Times asked Dennis Bushnell, chief scientist at NASA’s Langley Research Center in Hampton, Virginia, whether he attended the Sept. 5 and 6 Rossi tests.
“We can’t discuss anything about that,” Bushnell said.

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests