FIRST FREE ENERGY DEVICE REACHES MARKET IN OCTOBER -- The Game Changer is Here

[Hope]

Sounds like the "Eye of Horus" project we have as a thread here.   I must work today, would one of you please research that thread and post links, thank you.  BFN   If it works like the thread then we call can make our own (insure you have shielding before you heat it up please).

[chessnyt]

Sounds like the "Eye of Horus" project we have as a thread here.   I must work today, would one of you please research that thread and post links, thank you.  BFN   If it works like the thread then we call can make our own (insure you have shielding before you heat it up please).

I found a link that gives a pretty accurate overview of the technology and its byproducts, Hope.
The link below has also opened my eyes to the possible explanation for the mainstream media’s eclipse of this wonderful new revolutionary discovery:

http://www.prwatch.org/news/2011/04/10661/media-ignores-energy-breakthrough-worry-free-nuclear-power?page=4

“Most of the news about the E-Cat has been reported in blogs operated by people and organizations interested in energy issues, and in the general press and media in Italy, Sweden, Greece and throughout Europe. By contrast, the Energy Catalyzer has received virtually no coverage in the U.S. mainstream media. The American media seems either unwilling or unable to grasp the potential significance of the Energy Catalyzer, or is omitting discussion of it for other reasons. The absence of news about the Energy Catalyzer, one could postulate, might be because it poses a threat to powerful American corporations that both control big media outlets and are vested in the energy production status quo. (Think General Electric, which both owns NBC and manufactures traditional nuclear fission reactors.) There would also appear to be motive enough to continue this news block as climate change pushes more policymakers to reconsider the more dangerous traditional nuclear power, and as corporations that benefit from recent huge price hikes in fossil fuels continue to rake in fabulous wealth with no end in sight.”

I had no idea that General Electric owns the powerful news media outlet NBC or that it also manufactures traditional nuclear fission reactors.  No wonder NBC has blacked out ALL coverage of this important new discovery.

I was so pissed off and outraged about the unscrupulous practices I discovered through the above article that I am going to make a personal mission on my own behalf to boycott ANY products that are produced by General Electric in the future by patronizing its competitors EVEN if I have to pay more for the product.  And by the way, GE stock is down so poetic justice isn’t far behind.


Chess 

[mscoffman]

Concerning the Oct 6 Rossi LENR Demo,

Rossi for the first time showed his reactor's self powered continuous
mode. For about 100Watts of AC input power that was supplied by an
"oscillatory device", which I take to mean a square wave frequency
generator, he can keep his reactor running continuously at about the
4KW level once the reactor has reached the 100deg. C set-point, boiling
water. Rossi does not say how he injects the AC power into the reaction
chamber nor does he say the frequency used. It could be higher then
the utility line frequency or below it, as he has yet to disclose this
information.

The reason for observer's delay in reporting results is, I think, technical
people there were taken aback by the above being demonstrated for the first
time, and Rossi's tendency to use scientific and instrumentation
methods that are about 30 to 40 years obsolete. These two things create
unexpected implications for the observers who then have to go back and
rethink them. So the demo could *not* be called a clear-cut high resolution
demonstration of Rossi's reactor for this reason. In Rossi's favor one may
guess that a lack of financial resources are precipitating him to use outdated
methodologies.

Here are some of these Rossi's instrumentation drawbacks;

a) lack of a multipoint input multiplexer so that all instrumentation data
can be entered into a one computer. A number of data channels had to be
discarded simply because of his recording method wouldn't allow them.
This included excising instantaneous flow rate data from the calorimeter.
This would have allowed one computer to sample things at it's own rate
and create timestamps for the data. So for the most part data was taken
by hand. Also more channels would have allowed verification using outside
observers instrumentation tools for comparison by offering them use of a
spare data channel during the experiment.

b) Many of his instruments were not computer interfaced.

c) He has no variable flow rate calorimeter. He has to set the flow
rate manually ahead to the maximum flow rate he is going to need
all during high energy conditions. This cause the calorimetry flow
to act as a heat sink when devices should be warming up and created
low accuracy useless data at the beginning of the experiment. If Rossi's
calorimetry is state of the art then, I am getting into this field.

d) By in large, operations were done by hand and not by any programmable
controller. This caused readings to be taken only once and not receive
any repeat verification. He had to make settings ahead of the time that
the actual observations were to be taking place.

You can see the actual observation data at the Nysec web link.

Because some of us expected Rossi methods to not be first class, I
think, it helped us in evaluating the results. I have done a miniature spreadsheet
below that lists very approximate values to try to show what is gong on during
the demonstration and that we can expect to see during the 1MW demonstration.
Rossi' could make the actual 1MW demonstration "hotter" by boosting
hydrogen gas pressures. These should be eventually controlled by a
bellows type automatic transducer so they can be used as an input
control variable eventually IMHO.


Approximate Figures

Stage1 - Warm Up   Stage2 - Stable      Stage3 - Continuous Self Power
2KW                      2KW                     100W             ; Module input power (watts)
0+KW                    6KW                     4KW              ; Module output power (heat eqv. watts) inclds inpt.
first 3 hours            next hour              next 3 hours    ; Demonstration times
COP 0.0                  COP 3.0                COP 40.0        ; Module Gain

--- Estimated will be observed in a 1MW reactor test    ; Below this point -- calculated 1MW not observed

104KW                  104KW                  5.2KW            ; 1MWr 1 chamber per module active Input power
0+KW                   312KW                  208KW            ; 1MWr 1 chamber per module active Output
COP 0.0                 COP 3.0                 COP 40.0        ; 1MWr 1 chamber per module reactor Gain

312KW                  312KW                   15.6KW           ; 1MWr 3 chambers per module active Input    
0+KW                   936KW*                 624KW             ; 1MWr 3 chambers per module active Output
COP 0.0                 COP 3.0                 COP 40.0         ; 1MWr 3 chambers per module reactor Gain

Notes:  The output power drops with input power during self sustain because input power adds to output.
            Output power needs to be supported by adequate flow rate.
           *~~1MW if all three chambers in 52 modules are used
           624KW are output in high efficiency self sustain mode which is lower due to lack of input power
           208KW are output in single chamber mode with existing hardware.           
                  - low output cost and infrastructure issues operating in self sustain mode.


   

[chessnyt]

@Mr. Coffman:
It’s over Mr. Coffman, unless you possess credentials that supersede the credentials of two Swedish scientists who carefully examined the demo setup and declared it a nuclear reaction and that the output energy was considerably greater than the input energy.  These two Swedish scientists were the chairman of the Swedish Skeptics Society and the chairman of the Energy Committee of the Swedish Royal Academy of Science. (The one that nominates people for the Nobel Prize! ).  So if you don’t possess some expertise above even one of these individuals, then you’re in no position to override their conclusions as they were there, Mr. Coffman.  Kindly refrain from trying to discredit a technology in which you were NOT even present to make a valid determination of. 

It’s over!  It’s not a matter of “if” anymore, Mr. Coffman.  It’s a matter of when and where.


Sincerely,

Chess Knight

[mscoffman]

@Mr. Coffman:
It’s over Mr. Coffman, unless you possess credentials that supersede the credentials of two Swedish scientists who carefully examined the demo setup and declared it a nuclear reaction and that the output energy was considerably greater than the input energy.  These two Swedish scientists were the chairman of the Swedish Skeptics Society and the chairman of the Energy Committee of the Swedish Royal Academy of Science. (The one that nominates people for the Nobel Prize!).  So if you don’t possess some expertise above even one of these individuals, then you’re in no position to override there conclusions as they were there, Mr. Coffman.  Kindly refrain from trying to discredit a technology in which you were NOT even present to make a valid determination of. 

It’s over!  It’s not a matter of “if” anymore, Mr. Coffman.  It’s a matter of when and where.


Sincerely,

Chess Knight

Mr Chess Knight,

You really need to read my post for carefully before
you inaccurately characterize it as being negative!

Nowhere in it do I say that the results of the
test were negative in fact it indicates the results
were quite sufficiently positive.

I am critical of the man Rossi and his methods and
this is simply a summary of those criticisms most
which are most likely held by others attending the demonstration.

You see, nothing is really black and white. Rossi's
demonstration was horrible but not a failure and
I was attempting to explain why. Also, there are cost issues
associated with running 1MW reactor hardware
below full power output that needs to be considered
in the future. The reaction may be success but the product
can still fail in the marketplace - A Rossi selection,
I might add. This real lack of having a high resolution demonstration may also be a factor in US press refusing to report it.

So please next time, read first before you post.

:S:MarkSCoffman