1. Centralization vs. decentralization? Where in between is the golden mean?

2. Doubts are not about Rossi, but about those who will be buying and using his decentralized devices.

3. What happens when a central authority in a state collapses or is sidelined or can be ignored?

4. Is Plato’s idea of a benign dictator (philosopher king) relevant, for which Karl Popper includes him among the enemies of an open society in his book “The open society and its enemies” (as also Hegel and Marx). How open can a society be?

5. google the following words together: “jaitapur nuclear power project latest news police firing”
30-year-old Tabrez Sayekar was killed in this police firing (19.04.2011)
Jaitapur (India) nuclear power project 6 x 1600 MW

http://www.thehindubusinessline.com/industr....s=print

6. Power plants producing less than 10 or 20 or 50 (?) MW will cause excessive decentralization which can become uncontrollable and hence socially dangerous. The controlling authority can become overstretched and may lose or give up control. Or... smaller power-producing units means the controlling authority will (have to) intrude into smaller units of social life. This authority will then demand corresponding powers and thus become a new big brother.

7. Anyone with money can buy a Rossi device (soon). The buyer can camouflage his motives. How dangerous will that be?

8. Every natural calamity can become a (mini) Fukushima.

Hence: decentralization of power production is not advisable/desirable.

V. Godbole

Points to think over

.....
8. Every natural calamity can become a (mini) Fukushima.

Hence: decentralization of power production is not advisable/desirable.

And I suppose that 200 controlling governments, run by dictators and/or corrupt politicians, all bought and controlled by a 'central' bank, is?

Andrew

An example of how Andrea Rossi answers questions:

V. Godbole asks:
April 25th, 2011 at 8:11 PM
Dear Andrea
The number of Rossi modules that can be linked parallel is unlimited but what is the upper limit of the number that can be linked in series? For electricity production a large number in a series link will be necessary. Is electricity production really possible this way? What about a direct conversion of energy to electricity?
------------------------------
Andrea Rossi replies:
April 26th, 2011 at 1:45 AM
Dear Mr V. Godbole:
We are working on this issue.
Warm regards,
A.R.
------------------------------
------------------------------
Such answers by Rossi do not raise the trust or confidence level. He is still working on this issue? He alone or "we"? We don't know who these "we" are. How come that this issue is still not resolved? Does he not know the difficulty involved in connecting his modules in series? It is a crucial question. Does he intend to use sodium (Na) or high-pressure water as heat transporter? The Rossi device for heating buildings in cold regions is no real solution to our real energy problems.

-------------------------------

Does >decentralized< power production (especially by using nuclear activity) help the good to subvert the evil or the evil to subvert the good? The good usually are shy of resorting to subversion.

--
Empfehlen Sie GMX DSL Ihren Freunden und Bekannten und wir
belohnen Sie mit bis zu 50,- Euro! https://freundschaftswerbung.gmx.de

He just politely gave the short answer.
_______________________________________

On Wed, Apr 27, 2011 at 9:19 AM, Vasudev Godbole <godbole@gmx.de> wrote:

An example of how Andrea Rossi answers questions:

V. Godbole asks:
April 25th, 2011 at 8:11 PM
Dear Andrea
The number of Rossi modules that can be linked parallel is unlimited but what is the upper limit of the number that can be linked in series? For electricity production a large number in a series link will be necessary. Is electricity production really possible this way? What about a direct conversion of energy to electricity?
------------------------------
Andrea Rossi replies:
April 26th, 2011 at 1:45 AM
Dear Mr V. Godbole:
We are working on this issue.
Warm regards,
A.R.
------------------------------
------------------------------
Such answers by Rossi do not raise the trust or confidence level. He is still working on this issue? He alone or "we"? We don't know who these "we" are. How come that this issue is still not resolved? Does he not know the difficulty involved in connecting his modules in series? It is a crucial question. Does he intend to use sodium (Na) or high-pressure water as heat transporter? The Rossi device for heating buildings in cold regions is no real solution to our real energy problems.

-------------------------------

Does >decentralized< power production (especially by using nuclear activity) help the good to subvert the evil or the evil to subvert the good? The good usually are shy of resorting to subversion.

The hot outlet water of one module becomes inlet water in the next and so on in a series arrangement! By having a high flow rate you can arrange for the water to pick up 4 to 8 deg C in each step. If pressurized you can even exceed a final outlet temp of over 100 dg C

Srini

On Wed, Apr 27, 2011 at 10:01 AM, Andrew Meulenberg <mules333@gmail.com> wrote:

I assumed his answer referred to direct conversion to electricity only. How do you put heat in 'series'? That is a much more difficult question. For normal heat to electricity, you don't need higher temperature - just more heat.

He just politely gave the short answer.
_______________________________________

On Wed, Apr 27, 2011 at 9:19 AM, Vasudev Godbole <godbole@gmx.de> wrote:

An example of how Andrea Rossi answers questions:

V. Godbole asks:
April 25th, 2011 at 8:11 PM
Dear Andrea
The number of Rossi modules that can be linked parallel is unlimited but what is the upper limit of the number that can be linked in series? For electricity production a large number in a series link will be necessary. Is electricity production really possible this way? What about a direct conversion of energy to electricity?
------------------------------
Andrea Rossi replies:
April 26th, 2011 at 1:45 AM
Dear Mr V. Godbole:
We are working on this issue.
Warm regards,
A.R.
------------------------------
------------------------------
Such answers by Rossi do not raise the trust or confidence level. He is still working on this issue? He alone or "we"? We don't know who these "we" are. How come that this issue is still not resolved? Does he not know the difficulty involved in connecting his modules in series? It is a crucial question. Does he intend to use sodium (Na) or high-pressure water as heat transporter? The Rossi device for heating buildings in cold regions is no real solution to our real energy problems.

-------------------------------

Does >decentralized< power production (especially by using nuclear activity) help the good to subvert the evil or the evil to subvert the good? The good usually are shy of resorting to subversion.

--
Empfehlen Sie GMX DSL Ihren Freunden und Bekannten und wir
belohnen Sie mit bis zu 50,- Euro! https://freundschaftswerbung.gmx.de

--
Dr.M.Srinivasan
25/15, Rukmani Road, Kalakshetra Colony,
Besant Nagar, Chennai 600 090
(M) (0) 93805.60672

You are showing the validity of my comment that heat in series is a more difficult question. If your 1st module has the most efficient transfer of internal heat to water, then the only way to increase efficiency and thermal output is to send it thru another unit that is operating at a higher temperature. (Otherwise, simply returning the water to the original input would be useful (the efficiency goes down but the output goes up).

Unless the systems can operate at higher temperatures (in which case other transfer fluids would be useful) the best process is to run them all in parallel and optimize the fluids and conversion operation. One problem that I have been thinking about is the best method of transferring heat out of a CF 'reactor'. The different systems must be handled in different manners.

BTW I am still finding repeated readings of your "LENR: Transmutations" article to be useful. When does the Wiley Encyclopedia issue? It should be an excellent reference to put into the Wikipedia article on CF.

Andrew
______________________

On Wed, Apr 27, 2011 at 1:57 PM, Dr.Mahadeva Srinivasan <chino37@gmail.com> wrote:

Andrew,

Such answers by Rossi do not raise the trust or confidence level. He is still working on this issue? He alone or "we"? We don't know who these "we" are.

Defkalion is reportedly spending $140 million on this project. They can afford to hire experts to solve the kinds of problems you describe. They are reportedly working with top people in the Greek government, including the President. It is reasonable to assume that such people will insist on careful engineering and product testing.

The Rossi device for heating buildings in cold regions is no real solution to our real energy problems.

That is not in evidence! Of course it is a solution. It will soon be thousands of times cheaper than conventional energy, and the fuel is available in unlimited amounts. The reactors are cheap to build. Why is it not a solution?

You may not agree that decentralized nuclear energy is a good idea. I share some of your concerns. But to go from that to saying that, to saying it is "no real solution" is an exaggeration. You might say it is "not an ideal solution" or "it is a solution fraught with possible danger from radiation."

I think you are exaggerating these dangers, and you are overlooking the danger and expense inherent in today's energy systems. Even taking into account Chernobyl and Fukushima, conventional coal generators have probably put far more radioactive material into the environment than nuclear reactors have, by burning coal with radioactive elements in it. If the entire world depends on decentralized Rossi-style reactors for energy, I predict they will release much less radioactive material such as tritium than present-day coal-fired plants do.

Even if the Rossi reactors as presently configured are somewhat unsafe, they will be improved rapidly. If Rossi succeeds, corporations will soon be investing billions of dollars in cold fusion R&D. Every aspect of the technology will be explored in depth, and any problems with safety will soon be fixed. A full range of devices will be developed including power supplies for implanted medical devices. This will not be the first nuclear-energy powered medical device, by the way. In the 1960s there were plutonium thermoelectric power supplies for implanted pacemakers. A photo of one is shown in my book, chapter 2:

http://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/RothwellJcoldfusiona.pdf

- Jed

It is not clear whether Rossi reactors produce any radioactive species. Rossi says that one day after turning them off, they were tested and no measurable radioactivity was found. On the other hand, he says the reactors need lead shielding, and there may be some intermediate products during the reaction which have not been detected.

I assume that any radioactive products can be contained in the reactor during normal operation. in the US, we have emergency "exit" signs for buildings with tritium in them, which is safely contained. However, if Rossi reactors are used for things like automobiles and airplanes there will be accidents from time to time that fracture the reactor vessel and release whatever materials are in there, so it is likely that some radioactive contamination will occur.

No energy system is without risk. Present day energy systems are extremely dangerous, but we fail to appreciate that fact, because we are used to them. People are killed every day from gasoline fires. Fossil fuel is the source of global warming. We are more attuned to the potential dangers from cold fusion because we tend to discount the dangers of existing technology and exaggerate the dangers of new technology.

- Jed

1) 7.5 MW GE STG 60Hz. 525psig, and 725 F. (35.7 atm and 385 C)

2) 4.6MW Steam Turbine Generator, 2.25MW GE Generator, The STG parameters are 410psig, 725F, (27.89 atm, 385 C)

3) 150MW STG Power Plant Equipment, GE Steam Turbine, 1,800psig, 1,000 F, 19 stages. (122.48 atm, 538 C)

That was what I thought about when I asked Rossi about the series linking of his modules.

It must go up to 30 to 120 atm steam pressure and 350 to 500 C temperature

Even a one MW unit will need high pressures and temperatures.

4) Consciousness about the environment and population control must PRECEDE any energy plethora. That is my position.

5) In the short term petroleum prices will fall and let loose a huge sell-quick-and-earn pressure on the petroleum producers and a burn-the-cheap-petroleum pressure on the users (consumers). That would be catastrophic. In no case should petroleum prices fall but must be increased drastically (through taxes so that the govts. can reduce their wanton deficits)

Rossi, Greece, EU, USA, Japan et al must shoulder this responsibility. We must make them aware of this. NOW. It is difficult to get China or OPEC to behave responsibly.

Scientists, physicists, esp. the CF community, environmentalists will have to advise - gently but firmly.

V.Godbole

Дата: Wed, 27 Apr 2011 18:31:04 -0400
Перевод текста на иностранный язык Платная услуга по профессиональному переводу предоставляется компанией Переведем.ру
Vasudev Godbole <godbole@gmx.de> wrote:

That was what I thought about when I asked Rossi about the series linking of his modules.

It must go up to 30 to 120 atm steam pressure and 350 to 500 C temperature

Even a one MW unit will need high pressures and temperatures.

No, it will not. It is intended for space heating or low temperature process heat, not power generation. Rossi told me that.

- Jed

Дата: Wed, 27 Apr 2011 15:48:46 -0700
Перевод текста на иностранный язык Платная услуга по профессиональному переводу предоставляется компанией Переведем.ру
Jed,

I thought you said last week that the ultimate product that Defkalion was interested in was on the order of 20kW. The 1MW demo was just a Milestone.

Fran

On Apr 27, 2011, at 3:31 PM, Jed Rothwell wrote:

> Vasudev Godbole <godbole@gmx.de> wrote:
>
>
> That was what I thought about when I asked Rossi about the series linking of his modules.
>
> It must go up to 30 to 120 atm steam pressure and 350 to 500 C temperature
>
> Even a one MW unit will need high pressures and temperatures.
>
>
> No, it will not. It is intended for space heating or low temperature process heat, not power generation. Rossi told me that.
>
> - Jed
>

Francis L. Tanzella, Ph. D.
Senior Chemist
SRI International
333 Ravenswood Ave.
Menlo Park, CA 94025
francis.tanzella@sri.com
Ph. 650-859-4701
Fx. 650-859-2111

Дата: Wed, 27 Apr 2011 20:14:21 -0400
Перевод текста на иностранный язык Платная услуга по профессиональному переводу предоставляется компанией Переведем.ру
Francis Tanzella <francis.tanzella@sri.com> wrote:

I thought you said last week that the ultimate product that Defkalion was interested in was on the order of 20kW. The 1MW demo was just a Milestone.

That is correct. That is what Rossi and the people at Defkalion say. I do not understand why a "milestone" is 50 times larger than the target product, but that is what they say.

Rossi told me this is 1 MW thermal. Not electric (1 MWe) which calls for 3 MW thermal. He said it will be used for low grade heat. He did not say space heating, and this is enough to heat 4 large shopping malls, so that makes no sense. I assume it is for process heat -- hot water -- and perhaps space heating as well.

I cannot imagine why an equipment factory would need that much hot water. The carpet factories in Georgia need a lot of hot water and steam, but this is an equipment factory, like one that assembles refrigerators. Everything about the 1 MW reactor is baffling.

By the way, I do not think that a series of small reactors would be needed to reach the optimum temperature for a steam turbine. The reaction works best at around 600°C. A pressurized reactor vessel could produce this with only one reactor. However, Rossi prefers multiple small reactors because he says they are safer. I do not know why they are safer. He also says 32 of his prototype reactors have exploded, so evidently safety is a concern.

Note that boiling water fission reactor water is at 285°C and pressurized water reactors are at 315°C. If the reactor core is 600°C I do not think it would be difficult to achieve these temperatures in the surrounding cooling water. These temperatures are lower than the ones in combustion reactors, and nuclear power plant Carnot efficiency is low. That is deliberate. They trade off Carnot efficiency for comparatively mild, low temperature conditions, which reduces wear and tear on the equipment. See:

http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/nucene/reactor.html

Rossi has said a number things in his blog and in private e-mail to me. I summarized his remarks in a document that someone else converted to Wiki format, here:

http://www.peswiki.com/index.p....s_Hints

My contribution begins where it says "Andrea Rossi's Hints." A few of these Hints were added by other people. This is confusing and contradictory in places, which is to be expected. The notebooks kept by Thomas Edison and the early papers on fission were also confused, and often wrong. See the quote from Segre, in "Fire from Ice," p. 22, describing Hahn and Meitner:

"Their early papers are a mixture of error and truth as complicated as a mixture of fission products resulting from the bombardments. Such confusion was to remain for a long time the characteristic of much of the work on uranium."

- Jed

Дата: Thu, 28 Apr 2011 03:53:28 +0200
Перевод текста на иностранный язык Платная услуга по профессиональному переводу предоставляется компанией Переведем.ру
Jed wrote:

It is intended for space heating or low temperature process heat, not power generation. Rossi told me that.
> - Jed
------------------

But

1) If we care about the environment then space heating MUST be done by using waste heat from thermal power stations. The same with low temperature (LT) process heat (production processes that need such LT heat must be near the power stations)

2) So for hot climate regions Rossi's device brings no comfort!?

3) Sooner or later they will want electricity (the highest quality of material energy) in huge many MW's. (even from this Rossi device)

4) A typical thermal power station outputs 300 MW total energy of which 100 comes as electricity and 200 as LT heat at various lower temperatures (30 C to 95 C)

5) Ecologically meaningful it is to use these "wastes" intelligently and NOT install an extra Rossi device for them. Law-makers must intervene to enable/enforce that. Sufficient LT heat is already available globally.

6) What we need is high quality energy as electricity (30%) , coupled with use of rest heat (70%) for as many good purposes as possible (i. e. least wastage) that need heat at 1 atm and <100 C. (or < 5 atm, 159 C , as given in steam tables)

7) In other words: Rossi device makes sense only if it is used to produce electricity. And as I argued earlier - centralized (> 50 or 150 MW Thermal) and not decentralized. Nuclear active devices must be highly localized and confined to a small well-supervised space and not scattered all over the landscape. Human beings are generally not reliable in decentralized matters, esp. nuclear. Some central control has proved to be necessary - better do it right from the beginning.

8) Does a decentralized nuclear power production help the good subvert the evil or the evil subvert the good? How many rogue engineers, technicians and scintists have joined hands with the terrorists, anarchists, ideologues of anarchist or divine totalitarianism etc.?

Дата: Wed, 27 Apr 2011 22:20:42 -0400
Перевод текста на иностранный язык Платная услуга по профессиональному переводу предоставляется компанией Переведем.ру
Vasudev Godbole <godbole@gmx.de> wrote:

But

1) If we care about the environment then space heating MUST be done by using waste heat from thermal power stations. The same with low temperature (LT) process heat (production processes that need such LT heat must be near the power stations)

In my book I recommend this technique. This is called cogeneration. However, I recommend it only to save money by reducing the amount of equipment needed. It will not benefit the environment. Building separate heaters and generators will not hurt the environment. Cold fusion produces no pollution and it does not consume significant resources, so it does not matter how much energy you use. The only limit is waste heat. There are problems with heat islands in cities, but waste heat leaves the atmosphere in a half hour or so, so this is not a problem elsewhere. In any case, direct use of cold fusion will improve machine efficiency, so overall energy consumption is likely to fall.

2) So for hot climate regions Rossi's device brings no comfort!?

3) Sooner or later they will want electricity (the highest quality of material energy) in huge many MW's. (even from this Rossi device) . . .

That may or may not be the case, but you are missing the point. This particular 1 MW prototype reactor is intended to supply low grade heat.

This is the first 1 MW reactor they plan to make. If they succeed, in the years to come, I have no doubt that hundreds of industrial corporations will manufacture hundreds of millions of other reactors of various sizes, for various purposes. Perhaps your discussion will apply to them, but it has nothing do with this first reactor.

I believe the main reason they are building such a large reactor is to prove that they can. In other words, they want to prove that the reaction can be scaled up to 1 MW. I do not see how anyone would doubt that, since they have already scaled up to 16 kW and apparently they produced 130 kW for a while. Ganging together multiple units will be an engineering headache, but it is not a serious technical challenge, and doing it does not prove anything we do not already know. It seems like a waste of Rossi's talent. He should let a skilled expert engineer handle this problem, using some of the $140 million of the project's money.

- Jed

Дата: Thu, 28 Apr 2011 10:48:24 +0800
Перевод текста на иностранный язык Платная услуга по профессиональному переводу предоставляется компанией Переведем.ру
Did I miss something? Is the 1 MW plant for electricity or thermal applications?

Your concern about political and economic stability is well founded. I believe that this is one of the reasons that CF has been so harshly suppressed by both petroleum industry and government. I'm not sure that we are the community that needs to address the issue. However, Rossi's claims should be bringing the ostrichs' heads out of the ground. They may simply decide that eliminating the small group of 'troublemakers' is more convenient than the alternatives.

There are of course many who will see the opportunities. However, will they be able to protect us from the others? Probably not. They may not even intend to - if they think that they can 'get there from here' on their own.

Andrew
____________

http://www.journal-of-nuclear-physics.com/?p=473&cpage=5#comment-34549

QUOTE:

Luke Mortensen
April 22nd, 2011 at 4:06 PM

AR,
You’ve been working on these reactors for some time. Instead of asking about technical details which you cannot provide, perhaps you could tell us some of the *fun* parts of being an inventor.

1. What were a few of the most exciting moments as you invented these reactors over the last few years? (moments of discovery!)

2. Another fun question: How many reactors have you blown up?
(You have experimented to determine the safest size/pressures/temperatures. Stress testing is important!)

Thanks,
~Luke Mortensen

Andrea Rossi
April 23rd, 2011 at 2:55 AM

Dear Mr Luke Mortensen:
1- when for the first time I got substantial gain of energy, that kind of gain which is beyond any reasonable doubt
2- 37 (all recorded, with the supposed reasons of the event)
Warm Regards
A.R.

As you see, Rossi is remarkably forthright about technical problems.

Andrew Meulenberg <mules333@gmail.com> wrote:

Did I miss something? Is the 1 MW plant for electricity or thermal applications?

1 MW thermal, as I noted previously.

- Jed

Дата: Fri, 29 Apr 2011 01:00:08 +0200
Перевод текста на иностранный язык Платная услуга по профессиональному переводу предоставляется компанией Переведем.ру
Jed wrote:

> As you see, Rossi is remarkably forthright about technical problems.
Jed

------------------------------

Such a product must therefore be absolutely non-manipulable by the customer. Any attempt by any customer to change location or performance of the device or to copy it must send a signal via internet/antennna and alarm some supervising body. The device must be big, broad and heavy enough (not easily transportable) and permanently connected to the internet (or somthing similar). Those who have no ulterior motives do not mind being suppervised (within certain civil-juridical-constitutional provisions and limits). They won't raise any unnecessary alarm about "big brother" etc.

How far can the device (its waste heat) be coupled to a water distillation equipment (for purifying salty or filthy water)? Besides that all roofs and roads must be whitened/silvered to reflect maximum amount of sunlight back into space. How far can the coming ecological disaster be met, can it be or is it too late? Should the Rossi device have come up 60 years ago? Is it too late (although the basic idea and technology is really not new)

V. Godbole
--
NEU: FreePhone - kostenlos mobil telefonieren und surfen!
Jetzt informieren: http://www.gmx.net/de/go/freephone