Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: PapaBear3625; marktwain; Wonder Warthog; Free Vulcan; dennisw; rokkitapps; B4Ranch; Liberty1970; ...
Rossi shows his computations for the 517 tons of oil equivalency in [0074] thru [0087] in Table 1 of the patent application. All the computations seem to be there. Somebody with better math skills than mine will have to verify or reject the accuracy. Can somebody on this thread check the data? This info is either a chink in his armor or confirmation in favor of him.
152 posted on 05/25/2011 7:01:24 AM PDT by badgerlandjim
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 148 | View Replies ]


To: badgerlandjim
I have looked at the data. It looks to be solid but that doesn’t mean the unit performs that way. BTW I genuinely hope it does!!
153 posted on 05/25/2011 7:08:31 AM PDT by mad_as_he$$ ("Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic." A. C. Clarke)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 152 | View Replies ]

To: badgerlandjim
"Rossi shows his computations for the 517 tons of oil equivalency in [0074] thru [0087] in Table 1 of the patent application. All the computations seem to be there. Somebody with better math skills than mine will have to verify or reject the accuracy. Can somebody on this thread check the data? This info is either a chink in his armor or confirmation in favor of him."

Neither. Rossi is assuming a particular mechanism happens. Neither he nor we know if that mechanism is even a remote approximation of reality.

At this point, the only thing that matters is experimental data. And of that, we have only a small amount. Assuming this is not a deliberate scam, those data look pretty good. But it is "way" too early to try to set an "energy output" number from theory.

158 posted on 05/25/2011 7:59:48 AM PDT by Wonder Warthog
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 152 | View Replies ]

To: badgerlandjim
Rossi shows his computations for the 517 tons of oil equivalency in [0074] thru [0087] in Table 1 of the patent application. All the computations seem to be there. Somebody with better math skills than mine will have to verify or reject the accuracy.

In my calculation in #136 and #142, I got 7.9E11 (E = shorthand for "times 10 to the") joules. Rossi arrives at [0086] with 9.63E11 joules per 59 gram mole (probably because he uses 10 MeV per atom, and I was going with 8.2 Mev based on his earlier article). This is 2.3E8 kcal.

The problem arrives in [0087].

According to DOE, a metric ton of oil is 7.3 barrels, 4.3E7 BTU, or 4.5E10 joules, or 1.1E7 kcal. A kg of oil is therefore 4.5E7 joules, = 11,000 kcal. Taking 9.6E11 joules / 4.5E10 joules/ton gives 21 tons/mole or 0.36 tons of oil per gram of nickel, not 30,000 tons.

159 posted on 05/25/2011 8:00:44 AM PDT by PapaBear3625 ("It is only when we've lost everything, that we are free to do anything" -- Fight Club)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 152 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson