Carl White wrote:If I remember correctly, Rossi stated that most of the nickel could be recovered and reused. So, perhaps it would be best to hold off buying those futures.
Mr. White, if certain reaction is exothermic and releases some energy and some products, recovery process of those products to initial needs the same quantity of energy. If not taking into consideration efficiency of conversion that by definition is lower than 1 (100%). This follows from Energy Conservation Law.
Rossi lies very primitively. When he said that his device spends 10 kg of Ni and 18 kg of H2. This corresponds to reaction between 1 Ni nucleus with 105 protons. I do not know such type of reaction. You do?
I didn't mean "recover" in the sense of taking the product of the reaction (whatever that is) and returning it to its original state. I meant that a major portion of the "fuel" is not consumed during the operation of the device. So it is available to be separated from the "ash" and reused.
A poor analogy would be burning only 10% of a log of wood, then scraping off the charred portion. The remaining 90% could be put back into the fire. The effort involved in scraping off the charred wood is less than the energy produced by its burning.
In the 1MW example, then, 1 kg of nickel would be "burned" and 9 kg could be separated to be reused.
The implication is that the process wouldn't use as much nickel as icarus calculated, perhaps by an order of magnitude.
If I understand correctly with my bad English you told about inexpediency of buying of Nickel futures. From this I thought that by your opinion the fuel should not be spent at all.
If I remember correctly, Rossi stated that most of the nickel could be recovered and reused. So, perhaps it would be best to hold off buying those futures.
icarus wrote:That's pretty arrogant, you think you know all the "Laws of Nature" do you?
At least the Energy Conservation Law. That is very basic for your note.
Yet I think icraus's point is that we don't really "know" most what we know (at least for certain). How many times has science been turned on its head because it turned out something we "knew" was wrong?
Even the conservation of energy is a postulate. We can't really prove it, it's just assumed to be true.
icarus wrote:That's pretty arrogant, you think you know all the "Laws of Nature" do you?
At least the Energy Conservation Law. That is very basic for your note.
Yet I think icraus's point is that we don't really "know" most what we know (at least for certain). How many times has science been turned on its head because it turned out something we "knew" was wrong?
Even the conservation of energy is a postulate. We can't really prove it, it's just assumed to be true.
Icarus's point of us not knowing everything is a cop-out argument used by the weak minded when backed into a corner. I'm not saying he is weak minded, but the argument itself is invalid. Maybe if we spent more time on trying to understand what we do not know instead of pointing out that we do not know everything, then we'd be in a better place.
As for the Mack Truck analogy, yeah Rossi made a truck body, put it at the top of a hill and said "it works as long as I put it on top of the hill," that's about the equivalent of what we're given.
The fact of the matter is we have no idea what the 10 kg Ni and 18kg H2 relate to in terms of how the process operates.
It could be as simple as when you charge the pipes of the thing you need X gms of H2 and when you do a refill it is easiest to vent that H2 to atmosphere and it becomes unrecoverable. It probably has very little relation to physical laws of the universe but practicalities involved with operating the device. And similarly for the Nickel use/recovery.
The Mach Truck is in reference to the 1 MW machine ... are you going to argue with that if it proves to work?
icarus wrote:
The Mach Truck is in reference to the 1 MW machine ... are you going to argue with that if it proves to work?
1MW device makes no sense.
If you want to prove the e-cat is real, it is much easier to do it measuring smaller units.
"1MW device" has no practical use, it is something that will eat hunderds of KW of electricity and produce some steam. I Rossi failed to to correctly demonstrate KW device, then, well, good luck with MW range...
icarus wrote:
The Mach Truck is in reference to the 1 MW machine ... are you going to argue with that if it proves to work?
1MW device makes no sense.
If you want to prove the e-cat is real, it is much easier to do it measuring smaller units.
"1MW device" has no practical use, it is something that will eat hunderds of KW of electricity and produce some steam. I Rossi failed to to correctly demonstrate KW device, then, well, good luck with MW range...
Not sure how much you know about industry but I'm pretty certain there are potentially 100's of thousands of customers who would buy exceptionally cheap steam by the 1 MW unit.
Edit: Similar power out to two large Mach trucks or big tractors. The semi-truck and shipping container is the global standard for industrial unit scale.
Good luck to Uri Geller and Kreskin too. Lets wish Mills (blacklight power) luck too.
Wasn't blacklight power *the exact scenario* we're running through with Rossi now again, except Rossi is a decade behind Mills? Yogi Berra would point out " This is deja vu all over again!".
Lets wish Mills (blacklight power) luck too.