Search

Create an account	Home  ·  Topics  ·  Downloads  ·  Your Account  ·  Submit News  ·  Top 10

	Mission Statement Modules · Home · Forum · LATEST COMMENTS · Special Sections · SUPPORT ZPEnergy · Advertising · AvantGo · Books · Downloads · Events · Feedback · Link to us · Private Messages · Search · Stories Archive · Submit News · Surveys · Top 10 · Topics · Web Links · Your Account Who's Online There are currently, 303 guest(s) and 0 member(s) that are online. You are Anonymous user. You can register for free by clicking here Events Hot Links Aetherometry American Antigravity Closeminded Science EarthTech ECW E-Cat World Innoplaza Integrity Research Institute New Energy Movement New Energy Times Panacea-BOCAF RexResearch Science Hobbyist T. Bearden Mirror Site USPTO Want to Know Other Info-Sources NE News Sites AER_Network E-Cat World NexusNewsfeed ZPE NE Discussion Groups Energetic Forum EMediaPress Energy Science Forum Free_Energy FB Group The KeelyNet Blog OverUnity Research Sarfatti_Physics Tesla Science Foundation (FB) Vortex (old Interact) Magazine Sites Electrifying Times (FB) ExtraOrdinary Technology IE Magazine New Energy Times Interesting Links		The comments are owned by the poster. We aren't responsible for their content. No Comments Allowed for Anonymous, please register Rossi’s 11th Test, 11th Failure (Score: 1) by vlad on Monday, October 10, 2011 @ 20:36:35 UTC (User Info | Send a Message) http://www.zpenergy.com Posted on October 10, 2011 by Steven B. Krivit here: Rossi’s 11th Test, 11th Failure [blog.newenergytimes.com] Below are some comments to his original post: Jed Rothwell says: October 8, 2011 at 01:49 Krivit wrote: “However, Rossi heated the device with 2.7 kilowatts of electricity for four hours in advance. This amounts to 38.88 megaJoules of energy.” The implication here appears to be that during 4 hours in advance, the 33.88 MJ of input were somehow stored in the device. If that had been the case, the device would have remained at room temperature. There would a heat deficit. There was no such deficit, and it is physically impossible for there to be one. Nearly the entire 33.88 MJ that went in during this period came right out again. There was a balance. Actually it was slightly exothermic. In any case, even if 38 gigawatts had been input before the event, that would make no difference if all of that heat came out as soon as it went in. The heat after death event can only have been caused by heat generated internally during the event. ------------------------ Ben Rising says: October 8, 2011 at 16:30 The calculation that finds an 8.82 MJ loss assumes the E-Cat produced zero energy during the 4 hr warm-up period. Is this really the case? It seems unlikely. I was unable to find graphs or test data online but I would think that the e-cat output was ramping up during the 4 hr period. The output may have been less than the input during the 4 hr period but I can’t imagine it was zero. As long as it was greater than 8.82 MJ, you would have a net positive energy for the 7.5 hr period. ------------------ Gianni Bedini says: October 8, 2011 at 20:12 Mr. Krivit, your calculation seems based on the assumption that the Ecat’s electric resistance was switched on at full power and then powered without interruption for four hours. Indeed, the report published by Lewan show that the total “power on” time is 202 minutes, not 240 as you suggest, because of on-off cycling between 14.01 and 14.59. Furthermore, the resistance was switched on at 61% of full power and gradually set to full power between 11.25 and 12.32. So, by using the actual V-A values measured through resistance (reported as zero in self-sustaining mode), the energy input in the system amounts to 30.89 MJ. The RF device did not feed current through the resistance. If indeed the Ecat produced 31.5 MJ of energy, its efficiency is 102%. While Rossi failed to show the high efficiency he has been claiming since the first test, the last test did not demonstrate the energy loss stated in your article. Best wishes Gianni Bedini ----------------- J.Q. Hullekes says: October 8, 2011 at 11:21 Hi Steve, You are completely right here: the moment output temperature of the cell reaches around 100 C, the heater is shut down. But all that energy (put into it in the first 4 hours) is used later on to produce the energy required to heat up the water. When that energy is depleted (seen by a sudden drop in temperature of the steam) the experiment is quickly ended. It’s just silly people would fall for that. Because it’s just all talk and make believe. The only remaining question is: how do they do store the energy, and release it later? Regards, Jeffrey | Parent

All logos and trademarks in this site are property of their respective owner. The comments are property of their posters, all the rest © 2002-2016 by ZPEnergy. Disclaimer: No content, on or affiliated with ZPEnergy should be construed as or relied upon as investment advice. While every effort is made to ensure that the information contained on ZPEnergy is correct, the operators of ZPEnergy make no warranties as to its accuracy. In all respects visitors should seek independent verification and investment advice. Keywords: ZPE, ZPF, Zero Point Energy, Zero Point Fluctuations, ZPEnergy, New Energy Technology, Small Scale Implementation, Energy Storage Technology, Space-Energy, Space Energy, Natural Potential, Investors, Investing, Vacuum Energy, Electromagnetic, Over Unity, Overunity, Over-Unity, Free Energy, Free-Energy, Ether, Aether, Cold Fusion, Cold-Fusion, Fuel Cell, Quantum Mechanics, Van der Waals, Casimir, Advanced Physics, Vibrations, Advanced Energy Conversion, Rotational Magnetics, Vortex Mechanics, Rotational Electromagnetics, Earth Electromagnetics, Gyroscopes, Gyroscopic Effects PHP-Nuke Copyright © 2005 by Francisco Burzi. This is free software, and you may redistribute it under the GPL. PHP-Nuke comes with absolutely no warranty, for details, see the license.