Many items are manufactured so they can be transported as if they were common shipping containers. Some of them are quite complex and entail a lot of design/engineering effort. Imagine that....
http://api.ning.com/files/-KD-UoFzQWSc7 ... rsmall.jpg
[note: to see the pic, you must cut/paste the link; the link is too long to show up as same in the "message body" of this thread; the end of it is showing up as text only]
****************************
Simon here - you could learn how to make links - it shouldn't be hard for a bright guy like you.
long link
Well it doesn't work anyway - too bad.
10KW LENR Demonstrator?
Facebook was software. Apple started as a hobby computer maker. Rossi is claiming to be making power plants!raphael wrote:Seedload: And your point is what?
When new business entities are being set up, this kind of thing is not unusual.
Wasn't Facebook started in a dorm room?
I wonder what the first address of Apple Computer was? Have you checked the market capitalization of AAPL lately?
He was at apartment 505 apparently.Rossi wrote:“Today I am in the USA factory of Leonardo Corporation where I signed a contract of tremendous importance. As soon as I will be allowed to announce it, believe me, it will be extremely important”.
Link doesn't open, but it does not matter.
A container is just an envelope.
You make all the structural work for your machine outside, than load the final product inside the container and block it.
It can be a side door container, a front door container, a top loading container, but whatever you wanted to link to the post will respect what I just stated because this is the way it works.
Exceptions to this are only loads that exceed the maximum container load, in which case you need to add structural works on the container.
A container is just an envelope.
You make all the structural work for your machine outside, than load the final product inside the container and block it.
It can be a side door container, a front door container, a top loading container, but whatever you wanted to link to the post will respect what I just stated because this is the way it works.
Exceptions to this are only loads that exceed the maximum container load, in which case you need to add structural works on the container.
I think the biggest problem with getting a container to move his power plant is that it won't fit through the door to the apartment where the power plant was manufactured.Giorgio wrote:Link doesn't open, but it does not matter.
A container is just an envelope.
You make all the structural work for your machine outside, than load the final product inside the container and block it.
It can be a side door container, a front door container, a top loading container, but whatever you wanted to link to the post will respect what I just stated because this is the way it works.
Exceptions to this are only loads that exceed the maximum container load, in which case you need to add structural works on the container.
And, they can't get the power plant out of the apartment to put into the container because they forgot to measure the door before final assembly.
I saw the same problem on Cake Boss the other day.
The link doesn't open because this website has, apparently, a length limit.
It can be cut/pasted.
Suggest you do so before displaying any more of your "expertise" regarding containers and/or equipment built to be transported by container-moving cranes, trucks (lorries?), etc.
It can be cut/pasted.
Suggest you do so before displaying any more of your "expertise" regarding containers and/or equipment built to be transported by container-moving cranes, trucks (lorries?), etc.
"As long as the roots are not severed, all is well. And all will be well in the garden." Chauncey Gardiner
Seen it. Exactly as I stated.raphael wrote:The link doesn't open because this website has, apparently, a length limit.
It can be cut/pasted.
Suggest you do so before sharing any more of your "expertise" regarding containers and/or equipment built to be moved by container-moving cranes, trucks (lorries?), etc.
Is a normal side doors container manufactured from a basic container.
Plenty of companies doing that type of work and selling it to equipment manufacturer.
What you do not understand is that no one will actually build his own container unless forced by limitation of size or maximum load of existing containers.
The reason are two:
First is cost.
Second is insurance. Standard containers get a lower rate in respect to custom containers.
Additionally INCOTERMS and insurance policies do establish quite different rules for final responsibilities of damages inside a container if the equipment has his own structural frame than in respect of damage to equipment that is fixed directly to the container (using it as a structural means).
But what do I know after all.
And, the notion that a company so experienced in producing and distributing large scale commercial equipment, such as Leonardo Corporation, would not have planned ahead for the container is ridiculous.
I mean, look at what they built before the ECAT. You would figure they knew enough about shipping this stuff to have ordered the container in advance.
I mean, look at what they built before the ECAT. You would figure they knew enough about shipping this stuff to have ordered the container in advance.
ONE Power plant (maybe two?) made of 40 units made of ~3' pieces of pipe. Not something that TRULY needs massive industrial capability. As to the "box", don't you think that all the electronics / control / shielding / etc. would be in the box? Well, certainly everything except the shielding which may go with each unit for maintainablilty reasons.seedload wrote: Facebook was software. Apple started as a hobby computer maker. Rossi is claiming to be making power plants!
CONTAINER, not shipping carton.
Wrong.KitemanSA wrote:CONTAINER, not shipping carton.
Container IS a shipping carton.
Its function is exactly the one of the carton. That is to absorb external damages due to handling and protect the goods inside, thus allowing safe delivery.
Whenever the container becomes structural to an equipment it looses the definition of shipping container. The whole container becomes an equipment and is stowed, handled and shipped according different rules.
Edited to fix some spelling
cg66 wrote:Some info from Peter Ekstrom regarding analysis of the Rossi fuel and other updates – translated from Swedish.
http://www.energikatalysatorn.se/forum/ ... p?f=2&t=57by Peter Ekstrom »Today, 14:35
As Professor Sven Kullander neither read or participate in the discussions in this forum, or NT, I get to act messengers. I had a meeting with Prof. Kullander, 18 / 5. We discussed the many different aspects of E-Cat.
The most important thing right now for understanding the function of the E-Cat (if any) is the analysis of the fuel. Kullander will soon publish a detailed report describing the analysis and results in detail. I have seen data on elemental analysis and isotope analysis. The data looks very convincing in appearance. The result is as it says in the NT article
http://www.nyteknik.se/nyheter/energi_m ... 144772.ece
New fuel: 100% Ni
Spent fuel approximately 11% Fe, 10% Cu, remainder Ni
All subjects are within limits of error (a few percent), natural isotope distribution.
I agree with Kullander's assessment that Rossi's explanation of the capture of a proton in the nickel is unlikely. Kullander has proposed an alternative possibility for explaining the energy development (which does not have to nickel to do).
One can see a weak copper green color of the spent fuel. It has not examined the structure, ie the Cu, Fe occurs in grains separate from you (this was further enhanced to test not authentically).
In the case of Uppsala, shall receive an E-Cat for the tests, there will be no earlier than the end of June (determined by Rossi). The precondition is that in Uppsala are free to do what measurements you want.
It is quite clear that the Uppsala could verify the function of the E-Cat. Most LenRas results lies in the noise at the limit of what can be measured. E-Cat gives, according to Rossi's demonstrations, a large and easily measurable signal.
To refute is more difficult because Rossi can always say: it did not work because you did wrong.
I regret that I have nothing more exciting to tell ("I heard the spinning of a Cat that stood in one corner of the Ångström Laboratory ..."). As consolation, I recommend
http://undsci.berkeley.edu/article/0_0_0/cold_fusion_01
which is a good summary of the origin of cold fusion and why it went so wrong.
Peter Ekstrom
Isn't Ekstrom on record as having said, quite definitively, that RossiFusion is a scam? The smell of a smoking gun is getting quite distinct now; and it's not a smoking gun of the negative kind vis-a-vis Rossi's assertions.
Last edited by raphael on Thu May 19, 2011 6:15 pm, edited 1 time in total.
"As long as the roots are not severed, all is well. And all will be well in the garden." Chauncey Gardiner
Well, Leonardo Corp is just the US supplier of EON Srl GENSETs. And EON Srl is supposed to have a factory in Italy. So, it all gets even more confusing. If there is a factory there, then why build it in an apartment in the US.Luzr wrote:Thinking about it, what is actually strange is why they had to build this in US. From what I have seen, E-Cat is quite trivial piece of hardware, the only special thing there is "Ni powder". Why not to build it in Greece and ship only the powder?
But then I might be missing something...
And, if you are looking for a container, then just use this one -
http://leonardocorp1996.com/prodotti_eng.htm
It's possible Ekstrom has changed his opinion from "definitely a scam" to "possibly a scam", but that last link in his post seems to throw some cold water on your smoking gun hypothesis, unless he believes RossiFusion is (or will soon be) good science built on top of bad.raphael wrote:Isn't Ekstrom on record as having said, quite definitively, that RossiFusion is a scam? The smell of a smoking gun is getting quite distinct now; and it's not a smoking gun of the negative kind vis-a-vis Rossi's assertions.
Temperature, density, confinement time: pick any two.
According to Ekstrom:
"I agree with Kullander's assessment that Rossi's explanation of the capture of a proton in the nickel is unlikely. Kullander has proposed an alternative possibility for explaining the energy development (which does not have to nickel to do)."
From another source:
Ekström has been so critical of the whole thing... I think its really really fascinating that he regards Kullanders explanation as "physically possible and therefore interesting"
"Min åsikt är att det är fysikaliskt möjligt, och därför intressant..."
May 19, 2011 6:39 PM
"I agree with Kullander's assessment that Rossi's explanation of the capture of a proton in the nickel is unlikely. Kullander has proposed an alternative possibility for explaining the energy development (which does not have to nickel to do)."
From another source:
Ekström has been so critical of the whole thing... I think its really really fascinating that he regards Kullanders explanation as "physically possible and therefore interesting"
"Min åsikt är att det är fysikaliskt möjligt, och därför intressant..."
May 19, 2011 6:39 PM
"As long as the roots are not severed, all is well. And all will be well in the garden." Chauncey Gardiner
Sorry to drag this back to facts.raphael wrote:cg66 wrote:Some info from Peter Ekstrom regarding analysis of the Rossi fuel and other updates – translated from Swedish.
http://www.energikatalysatorn.se/forum/ ... p?f=2&t=57by Peter Ekstrom »Today, 14:35
As Professor Sven Kullander neither read or participate in the discussions in this forum, or NT, I get to act messengers. I had a meeting with Prof. Kullander, 18 / 5. We discussed the many different aspects of E-Cat.
The most important thing right now for understanding the function of the E-Cat (if any) is the analysis of the fuel. Kullander will soon publish a detailed report describing the analysis and results in detail. I have seen data on elemental analysis and isotope analysis. The data looks very convincing in appearance. The result is as it says in the NT article
http://www.nyteknik.se/nyheter/energi_m ... 144772.ece
New fuel: 100% Ni
Spent fuel approximately 11% Fe, 10% Cu, remainder Ni
All subjects are within limits of error (a few percent), natural isotope distribution.
I agree with Kullander's assessment that Rossi's explanation of the capture of a proton in the nickel is unlikely. Kullander has proposed an alternative possibility for explaining the energy development (which does not have to nickel to do).
One can see a weak copper green color of the spent fuel. It has not examined the structure, ie the Cu, Fe occurs in grains separate from you (this was further enhanced to test not authentically).
In the case of Uppsala, shall receive an E-Cat for the tests, there will be no earlier than the end of June (determined by Rossi). The precondition is that in Uppsala are free to do what measurements you want.
It is quite clear that the Uppsala could verify the function of the E-Cat. Most LenRas results lies in the noise at the limit of what can be measured. E-Cat gives, according to Rossi's demonstrations, a large and easily measurable signal.
To refute is more difficult because Rossi can always say: it did not work because you did wrong.
I regret that I have nothing more exciting to tell ("I heard the spinning of a Cat that stood in one corner of the Ångström Laboratory ..."). As consolation, I recommend
http://undsci.berkeley.edu/article/0_0_0/cold_fusion_01
which is a good summary of the origin of cold fusion and why it went so wrong.
Peter Ekstrom
Isn't Ekstrom on record as having said, quite definitively, that RossiFusion is a scam? The smell of a smoking gun is getting quite distinct now; and it's not a smoking gun of the negative kind vis-a-vis Rossi's assertions.
Rossi, on his blog, quite definitely said that he enriched his Ni to get get Ni62, Ni64 because other isotopes did not work.
This is not consistent with the above isotopic measurements.
Rossi said this maybe because it was consistent with his proton capture idea and Cu63, Cu65 in ash.
But he must know whether or not he enriches the Ni.
So is he lying on his blog? Or what?
Tom
This page of Rossi blog comments and next are when Rossi reveals the enrichment:
http://www.journal-of-nuclear-physics.c ... 2#comments