One method could be that in before summer demonstrations, there was thick
wooden stand that could be hollow and hence store easily required amount of
odorles ethanol. Fuel need was no more than few kilograms. And also it could
provide sufficient supply for air or even compressed oxygen, to avoid
We know that they mean kilowatts. We know this is not standard. You are not
telling me or anyone else here anything we do not know, so I suggest you give
it a rest.
You didn’t get the point. What is wrong is that they means kilowatt but they
talk about energy.
Stremmeson used kwh/h (equals to
TV: New test of the E-cat enhances proof of heat
http://www.nyteknik.se/nyheter/energi_miljo/energi/article3284823.ece
Test of Energy Catalyzer
Bologna October 6, 2011
http://www.nyteknik.se/incoming/article3284962.ece/BINARY/Test+of+E-cat+October+6+%28pdf%29
Some preliminary notes about the test.
The weight of E-Cat before test: 98kg and after the test 99 kg. I
think that this may be explained with inaccuracy of the scale and
remaining water residuals. Therefore no chemical combustion inside
E-Cat!
Of course metal-oxide production is still possible,
On 2011-10-07 13:37, Jouni Valkonen wrote:
Test of Energy Catalyzer
Bologna October 6, 2011
http://www.nyteknik.se/incoming/article3284962.ece/BINARY/Test+of+E-cat+October+6+%28pdf%29
This must be the secret sauce:
15:53 Power to the resistance was set to zero. A device “producing
Maybe the secret source was charging a battery for around 4 hours with an
energy above 2KW coupled with some other kind of auxiliary battery...
2011/10/7 Akira Shirakawa shirakawa.ak...@gmail.com
On 2011-10-07 13:37, Jouni Valkonen wrote:
Test of Energy Catalyzer
Bologna October 6, 2011
Maybe the secret source was charging a battery for around 4
hours with an energy above 2KW coupled with some other kind of
auxiliary battery...
This test was almost as ludicrous as the Steorn waterways test.
There, they kept things running by periodically swapping out the
devices, presumably
This must be the secret sauce:
15:53 Power to the resistance was set to zero. A device “producing
frequencies” was switched on. Overall current 432 mA. Voltage 230 V.
Current through resistance was zero, voltage also zero. From this moment
the E-cat ran in self sustained mode
On Fri, 2011-10-07 at 08:59 -0400, vorl bek wrote:
Maybe the secret source was charging a battery for around 4
hours with an energy above 2KW coupled with some other kind of
auxiliary battery...
This test was almost as ludicrous as the Steorn waterways test.
There, they kept things
Mattia Rizzi wrote:
You didn’t get the point. What is wrong is that they means kilowatt
but they talk about energy.
Stremmeson used kwh/h (equals to kW) and wrote “energy produced”.
That’s very wrong.
Ah, I see your point. Let us assume this was a mistake. Everyone makes
mistakes.
- Jed
But that was what happened...
2011/10/7 Craig Haynie cchayniepub...@gmail.com
On Fri, 2011-10-07 at 08:59 -0400, vorl bek wrote:
Maybe the secret source was charging a battery for around 4
hours with an energy above 2KW coupled with some other kind of
auxiliary battery...
This test
Craig Haynie wrote:
I would like to point out that if it were a battery, then it would have
been hidden and pre-charged before anyone came into the room. There
would be no need to charge it up in front of everyone then.
If there was a battery than when they opened the device they would have
Even a emeritus professor in physics who's mission is supposed to teach
others ?
Jed, you're or too indulgent or too naive.
This is not a single error. They keep doing the same mistake over and over.
A poor student will fail any test with this little mistake.
2011/10/7 Jed Rothwell
I would like to point out that if it were a battery, then it
would have been hidden and pre-charged before anyone came into
the room. There would be no need to charge it up in front of
everyone then.
I guess I should have referred to it as a 'battery'. That cylinder
of nickel powder could
I wrote:
Someone else suggested that there might be a Castro gas hidden in the
table leg.
A canister of gas, for crying out loud.
There is no gas, no wires and no batteries. Get that through your heads.
That is nonsense.
- Jed
Stremmeson was a physics/chemistry professor from university of bologna.
He made several error inside this report. That’s not a typo, is a conceptual
error, a big one.
If this is the quality of report in the cold fusion environment, it’s not
surprisingly that nobody matters the subject.
From:
I made some initial calculations for the COP. They are just rough estimations.
Electricity provided to the E-Cat was approximately 30 MJ (average
input power when electricity was on, was 2 kW). It was little tricky
to calculate, because input power was variable. Here we can see that
most of the
My Two Cents:
Whiskey. Tango. Foxtrot.
Most of the previous experimental problems were solved in this setup. We
could've seen measurable, stable, power gains completely unaffected by
phase-change or water overflow. We should have been presented with an
operating E-Cat producing 6 or more
Now that Jed has told me my utility pension is at risk and I have vested
interests. I will have to agree there is probably something wrong with the
tests. Perhaps a laser was heating it from the ceiling?
Frank Z
Mats Lewan sent me a note with links to his article, a report and the
spreadsheet of temperature data:
http://www.nyteknik.se/nyheter/energi_miljo/energi/article3284823.ece
http://www.nyteknik.se/incoming/article3284962.ece/BINARY/Test+of+E-cat+October+6+%28pdf%29
Von: Jouni Valkonen jounivalko...@gmail.com
However, as E-Cat was producing ca. 5-8 kW power (60% efficiency for
heat exchanger is assumed)
If the heat exchanger has only 60% efficieny, then the energy loss is 5kW * 0.4
= 2kW.
Where does the enrgy go? Energy cannot vanish magically, it
I'd like that someone integrated the energy spent in heating before the
e-cat was turned off for the self sustaining mode. Is anyone up to the
task?
Frank sez:
Now that Jed has told me my utility pension is at risk and I have
vested interests. I will have to agree there is probably something
wrong with the tests. Perhaps a laser was heating it from the
ceiling?
...will have to agree
I can't tell if Frank is being serious or not.
Here are the most recent 4 messages from Zreick:
http://twitter.com/#%21/raymond_zreick
[This was in English:]
raymond_zreick raymond zreick
we couldn't take pictures of the open cell. and thay didn't show us directly
the secret reactor
17 hours ago
[Translated by Google:]
raymond
peter.heck...@arcor.de wrote:
If the heat exchanger has only 60% efficieny, then the energy loss is 5kW * 0.4
= 2kW.
Where does the enrgy go? Energy cannot vanish magically, it must go into the
ambient.
Correct. It radiates into the surroundings, from the reactor and the
heat exchanger.
I wrote:
You say there was [a 0.1°C bias] between the inlet and outlet
thermocouples. That is also a disgrace. It is ridiculous. Such things
are easily corrected, and should be corrected before the test begins.
[Dedicated, computer-based instruments should have a smaller bias than
that.
Just straight line it and do a 1/2 b x h for the triangle. You'll be
within 10% if your line is properly placed.
T
On Fri, Oct 7, 2011 at 10:29 AM, Daniel Rocha danieldi...@gmail.com wrote:
I'd like that someone integrated the energy spent in heating before the
e-cat was turned off for the
I cannot plot anything. And there seems to have wild variations in Lewan's
report. I would like to see that done in the xls report.
On Fri, 2011-10-07 at 09:01 -0500, Robert Leguillon wrote:
My Two Cents:
Whiskey. Tango. Foxtrot.
Most of the previous experimental problems were solved in this setup.
We could've seen measurable, stable, power gains completely unaffected
by phase-change or water overflow. We should
The lastest version of Steorn's 'orbo' technology also produces steam
and uses nickel.
I think Rossi and Steorn are both exploiting the same underlying
phenomena, or they are both mistaken or ...
Harry
On Fri, Oct 7, 2011 at 8:59 AM, vorl bek vorl@antichef.com wrote:
Maybe the secret source
I have not yet had time to compile the four hours of warm up. Obviously, we
don't have all of the data required to even remotely show a balanced energy
equation.
The at or near parity statement was referring to E-Cat performance before it
was turned off. One would expect an operating E-Cat
Lewan's report states that hydrogen pressure was lowered during shut-down.
This is the angle they should have exploited. With constant heating and
water flow conditions they should vary the hydrogen pressure and record the
results. They should also try an inert gas like helium.
- Original
2011/10/7 Robert Leguillon robert.leguil...@hotmail.com:
I have not yet had time to compile the four hours of warm up. Obviously,
we don't have all of the data required to even remotely show a balanced
energy equation.
I disagree. Calculating energy input is straight forward and it is ca.
30
2011/10/7 Joe Catania zrosumg...@aol.com:
Lewan's report states that hydrogen pressure was lowered during shut-down.
This is the angle they should have exploited. With constant heating and
water flow conditions they should vary the hydrogen pressure and record the
results. They should also try
Am 07.10.2011 16:59, schrieb Jed Rothwell:
peter.heck...@arcor.de wrote:
If the heat exchanger has only 60% efficieny, then the energy loss is
5kW * 0.4 = 2kW.
Where does the enrgy go? Energy cannot vanish magically, it must go
into the ambient.
I think even if the heat exchanger at this size
Inaccurate calorimetry?
Thermocouples INSIDE the box, provided by Ross?
Do I understand that the thermocouples were attached to the OUTSIDE
of the heat exchanger in well-established positions -- and not IN
the water flow?
Where they could be affected by the ambient heat from the eCat ?
And not
BTW, if the heat exchanger is inside the housing of the e-cat, then its
energy loss is zero, if we compare the steam measurement in the
september test to the water measurement in october.
The output temperature will of course be lower, but the thermal mass
flow in the secondary circuit must
On Oct 7, 2011, at 3:37 AM, Jouni Valkonen wrote:
TV: New test of the E-cat enhances proof of heat
http://www.nyteknik.se/nyheter/energi_miljo/energi/article3284823.ece
Test of Energy Catalyzer
Bologna October 6, 2011
http://www.nyteknik.se/incoming/article3284962.ece/BINARY/Test+of+E-
Fake paper updated : http://lenr.qumbu.com/rossi_ecat_proof_frames_v401.php
I used Lewan's size of the box as t 50 x 60 x 35 centimeters = 105 liters
From his (only) photo I estimated that about 60 litres is still hidden.
Power : 3.125 kW
Time : 4 hours
Based on this, even Lithium-ion
http://22passi.blogspot.com/2011/10/alcune-considerazioni-preliminari.html
(per google xlate)
...
Yesterday on electricity - name that is likely to become as famous as
that of
Via
Panisperna - we were less than I expected: about forty people. There
were all very-very-very Rossi announced, and
Hello group,
Have a read at this short interview by PESN to Andrea Rossi
October 7, 2012:
http://www.peswiki.com/index.php/News:Real-Time_Updates_on_the_October_6,_2011_E-Cat_Test
* * *
Earlier today, we sent an email to Andrea Rossi, that contained a number
of questions, about the test that
On 11-10-07 09:30 AM, Jed Rothwell wrote:
I wrote:
Someone else suggested that there might be a Castro gas hidden in the
table leg.
A canister of gas, for crying out loud.
A... Thanks for the correction.
I was thinking this must be yet another odd thingy which I'd never heard
of
http://www.radio24.ilsole24ore.com/main.php?articolo=ecat-fusione-fedda-bologna-andrea-rossi
More pictures. The actual heat exchanger IS outside the eCat ..
On 11-10-07 11:03 AM, Jed Rothwell wrote:
I wrote:
You say there was [a 0.1°C bias] between the inlet and outlet
thermocouples. That is also a disgrace. It is ridiculous. Such things
are easily corrected, and should be corrected before the test begins.
[Dedicated, computer-based
I have to disagree that the change in hydrogen pressure wouldn't be almost
immediately obvious. IYou should get an immediate rise in delta T across the
reactor which would immediately boost heat flow. Helium should confirm a
null result- ie no CF and would be used as a control. You should be
Peter Heckert wrote:
BTW, if the heat exchanger is inside the housing of the e-cat, then
its energy loss is zero,
That can't be. That would violate CoE. All heat exchangers lose heat. If
the heat exchanger is inside the housing, that means the housing is
hotter and radiates more heat than
At 11:23 AM 10/7/2011, Jed Rothwell wrote:
Peter Heckert wrote:
BTW, if the heat exchanger is inside the housing of the e-cat, then
its energy loss is zero,
That can't be. That would violate CoE. All heat exchangers lose
heat. If the heat exchanger is inside the housing, that means the
Am 07.10.2011 20:17, schrieb Alan J Fletcher:
http://www.radio24.ilsole24ore.com/main.php?articolo=ecat-fusione-fedda-bologna-andrea-rossi
More pictures. The actual heat exchanger IS outside the eCat ..
Yes it is outside, I learned this now.
Inside the e-cat there is also a device that they
Golly... I finally looked, very briefly, at the Nyteknik report. (I've
been, and am, tied up with other stuff these days.)
For some reason I had assumed it was friendly to Rossi.
The report is eight pages long, and uses the word supposedly seven
times. I'm not used to seeing that word used
Alan J Fletcher wrote:
The radio24 pics show the heat exchanger outside. The corrugated
section inside the eCat is part of its internal core-to-steam heat
exchanger.
I don't get it. Please explain. Are there two heat exchangers?
One to condense the steam maybe?? I thought that's what the
Am 07.10.2011 20:23, schrieb Jed Rothwell:
Peter Heckert wrote:
BTW, if the heat exchanger is inside the housing of the e-cat, then
its energy loss is zero,
That can't be. That would violate CoE. All heat exchangers lose heat.
If the heat exchanger is inside the housing, that means the
At 11:44 AM 10/7/2011, Jed Rothwell wrote:
Alan J Fletcher wrote:
The radio24 pics show the heat exchanger outside. The corrugated
section inside the eCat is part of its internal core-to-steam heat exchanger.
I don't get it. Please explain. Are there two heat exchangers?
One to condense the
Eric Hustedt made new graph that shows power output without
considering the efficiency of heat exchanger, what is probably 60-80%
http://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=10150844451570375set=o.135474503149001type=1theater
Jouni Valkonen wrote:
Eric Hustedt made new graph that shows power output without
considering the efficiency of heat exchanger, what is probably 60-80%
http://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=10150844451570375set=o.135474503149001type=1theater
Am 07.10.2011 13:37, schrieb Jouni Valkonen:
TV: New test of the E-cat enhances proof of heat
http://www.nyteknik.se/nyheter/energi_miljo/energi/article3284823.ece
Test of Energy Catalyzer
Bologna October 6, 2011
On 2011-10-07 19:45, Alan J Fletcher wrote:
http://22passi.blogspot.com/2011/10/alcune-considerazioni-preliminari.html
(per google xlate)
Have a look here as well:
http://22passi.blogspot.com/2011/10/bologna-061011-galleria-fotografica.html
Cheers,
S.A.
On 2011-10-07 21:50, Akira Shirakawa wrote:
On 2011-10-07 19:45, Alan J Fletcher wrote:
http://22passi.blogspot.com/2011/10/alcune-considerazioni-preliminari.html
(per google xlate)
Have a look here as well:
http://22passi.blogspot.com/2011/10/bologna-061011-galleria-fotografica.html
And
Alan J Fletcher wrote:
The radio24 pics show the heat exchanger outside. The corrugated
section inside the eCat is part of its internal core-to-steam heat
exchanger.
I don't get it. Please explain. Are there two heat exchangers?
One to condense the steam maybe?? I thought that's what the
Am 07.10.2011 22:44, schrieb Jed Rothwell:
As shown in the video, the water condensed from steam in the external
heat exchanger is not recycled back into the cell. It goes out the
hose into the drain. So it is not accounted for in the flow
calorimetry. In the plans for this test, someone
At 02:00 PM 10/7/2011, Peter Heckert wrote:
Am 07.10.2011 22:44, schrieb Jed Rothwell:
The primary circuit is closed, the condensed watersteam IS recycled.
The video says NO ... it goes to his usual drain.
Rossi explained this /repeatedly/ in his forum.
He says so on the video.
Peter Heckert wrote:
The primary circuit is closed, the condensed watersteam IS recycled.
Rossi explained this /repeatedly/ in his forum.
The secondary circuit is open. The water is not recycled.
Rossi explained this /repeatedly/ in his forum.
I know he did, and this confused me. As you see
At the risk of starting too many thread . . . There is the graph Jouni
Valkonen mentioned:
http://a2.sphotos.ak.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ak-ash4/304196_10150844451570375_818270374_20774905_1010742682_n.jpg
Here it is with a discussion:
Am 07.10.2011 23:32, schrieb Alan J Fletcher:
At 02:00 PM 10/7/2011, Peter Heckert wrote:
Am 07.10.2011 22:44, schrieb Jed Rothwell:
The primary circuit is closed, the condensed watersteam IS recycled.
The video says NO ... it goes to his usual drain.
Rossi explained this /repeatedly/ in
GoatGuy is very skeptical of e-cat, but he was very positive this time!
http://22passi.blogspot.com/2011/10/bologna-061011-galleria-fotografica.html
It seems the gain was 144% above the input, at least.
Well, that convinced me of having some hope on the device.
On 2011-10-08 00:18, Daniel Rocha wrote:
GoatGuy is very skeptical of e-cat, but he was very positive this time!
http://22passi.blogspot.com/2011/10/bologna-061011-galleria-fotografica.html
I think you posted the wrong link.
Correct one: http://goo.gl/5QrM1
Cheers,
S.A.
I wrote:
The secondary circuit is open. The water is not recycled.
Rossi explained this /repeatedly/ in his forum.
I know he did, and this confused me. As you see in the video he
changed his mind.
This is in the video at around 1:26. We just get rid of it . . . The
camera follows the
Am 08.10.2011 00:35, schrieb Jed Rothwell:
I think this is the meter that Lewan says had a 0.5°C bias. I cannot
imagine why! That's strange. These things are highly reliable and
internally consistent.
If they are well maintained.
A thermocouple delivers only microvolts that must be
On 10/04/2011 08:27 PM, Terry Blanton wrote:
We don't allow faster than light neutrinos in here,
says the bartender.
A neutrino walks into a bar.
It made its way to the news
http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/gone-in-60-nanoseconds/2011/10/06/gIQAf1RERL_story.html
Regards,
Mauro
On 10/07/2011 10:31 AM, Mattia Rizzi wrote:
Stremmeson was a physics/chemistry professor from university of bologna.
He made several error inside this report. That’s not a typo, is a conceptual
error, a big one.
No, it isn't. He's talking about energy (Kwh) flow (/h).
lauantai, 8. lokakuuta 2011 Daniel Rocha danieldi...@gmail.com kirjoitti:
GoatGuy is very skeptical of e-cat, but he was very positive this time!
It seems the gain was 144% above the input, at least.
Well, that convinced me of having some hope on the device.
goatguy is no skeptcal, but he is
Does anybody know if the frequency generator(I am assuming a 50 watt
microwave source) was powered and functioning all throughout the
self-sustaining phase of the Rossi demo.
This seems to be something new in the Rossi design and may be how the
self-sustaining mode was engineered.
The following is in regard to the Rossi 7 Oct E-cat experiment as
reported by NyTeknic here:
http://www.nyteknik.se/nyheter/energi_miljo/energi/article3284823.ece
http://www.nyteknik.se/incoming/article3284962.ece/BINARY/Test+of+E-
cat+October+6+%28pdf%29
A spread sheet of the NyTecnik
From:
http://nextbigfuture.com/2011/10/nyteknik-information-on-rossi-
energy.html?utm_source=feedburnerutm_medium=feedutm_campaign=Feed%3A
+blogspot%2Fadvancednano+(nextbigfuture)#comment-329052535
http://goo.gl/5QrM1
THANK YOU VERY MUCH, AND, SINCE I HAVE ABSOLUTELY NOT TIME TO ANSWER
(I
On Oct 7, 2011, at 1:33 PM, Jed Rothwell wrote:
[snip]
In this discussion, it took Hustedt a while to figure out that the
condensed water from the primary loop is being flushed down the
drain rather than recycled back into the cell. The original plan
called for it to be recycled back
horace, you have two flaws in reasoning. T3 is inlet water temperature. Not
the temperature of output of primary circuit. You are correct, it should be
the value what you thought it to be, but this is the main flaw in the test.
This also means that we do not have any means to know what was the
Hello group,
Have a read at this new blogpost by Steven Krivit. There's also an email
from Brian Ahern in the comments.
http://blog.newenergytimes.com/2011/10/08/e-cat-test-demonstrates-energy-loss/
Cheers,
S.A.
frequency generator was shutdown 19:00, but E-Cat continued runing still
some 40 minutes before reactions stopped because of increased water inflow
rate. Curiously hydrogen pressure seems not to be that important for E-Cat.
It does seem that frequency generator is not necessary, but it certainly
I preliminarily agree with your Preliminary Data Analysis.
What I DON'T understand from Hustedt's graph
http://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=10150844451570375set=o.135474503149001type=1theater
(and your spreadsheet) is why there was NO heat transfer to the
secondary circuit until 13:22.
hmm... it is very hard to describe how stupid Steven is. Perhaps we should
bet some two cents how long time it will take when he notices his slight
errors in calculations. But being such a stupid in basic reasoning ability,
it gives some respect to Levi et al. how difficult it is to understand
a little intemperate, using stupid to dismiss a journalist who
mobilized over 20 experts to contribute to a over 200 page critical
review of Rossi's demos, with no name calling...
within mutual service, Rich Murray
On Fri, Oct 7, 2011 at 6:22 PM, Jouni Valkonen jounivalko...@gmail.com wrote:
But there was not temperature difference before until the temperature in the
inner circuit topped, and after until the self sustaining mode, it seems was
all the heating was caused by the heater and not by an excess heating. I
don`t see where you claim there was an evidence of excess energy before
I posted this response, which I expect Krivit will not allow --
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
On Fri, Oct 7, 2011 at 9:03 PM, Alan J Fletcher a...@well.com wrote:
Maybe they didn't turn on the eCat's input pump until
then.
That was my conclusion also.
T
I wrote:
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.
Other people here have confused this issue. For example, Robert Leguillon
wrote:
I take an old blacksmith's anvil. I warm it in a
here is the proof for abundant excess heat.
http://a2.sphotos.ak.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ak-ash4/304196_10150844451570375_818270374_20774905_1010742682_n.jpg
you can also review Horace's calculations if you prefer numeric data.
—Jouni
lauantai, 8. lokakuuta 2011 Daniel Rocha danieldi...@gmail.com
Yeah, thanks. I am convinced.
2011/10/7 Jouni Valkonen jounivalko...@gmail.com
here is the proof for abundant excess heat.
http://a2.sphotos.ak.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ak-ash4/304196_10150844451570375_818270374_20774905_1010742682_n.jpg
you can also review Horace's calculations if you prefer
Daniel Rocha danieldi...@gmail.com wrote:
But there was not temperature difference before until the temperature in the
inner circuit topped . . .
I do not know what you mean by topped. Do you mean when the steam or hot
water emerged? Nothing registered in the cooling water loop until 13:20,
Terry Blanton hohlr...@gmail.com wrote:
Maybe they didn't turn on the eCat's input pump until
then.
That was my conclusion also.
In other words, there was no steam or water going into the external heat
exchanger, so nothing reached the cooling water. The hot water going into
the eCat sat
Peter Heckert peter.heck...@arcor.de wrote:
If he has drained the water from the primary circuit he has wasted energy.
He said in august or september, they had done flow calorimetry previously
with big success.
Why all these confusing modifications and restrictions if this is true?
I can
So, you will go on the record? The demonstrations have proven excess heat? This
is irrefutable?
Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com wrote:
Peter Heckert peter.heck...@arcor.de wrote:
If he has drained the water from the primary circuit he has wasted energy.
He said in august or september,
On Fri, Oct 7, 2011 at 10:37 PM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com wrote:
Since the curve does not fall monotonically, but it also rises, we know
there must be heat generated in the system.
Yep. It looks like 5 kW out when the heater is turned off when you
normalize Hustedt's plot.
I look
I wrote earlier that the bias offset adjustment knob on the Omega HH12B
thermocouple only adjusts to a fraction of one degree. That's wrong. I
remembered that wrong. Or I hesitated to turn the screw the whole way.
Anyway, just now I set it to the T1-T2 mode, and then turned the OFFSET all
the way
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mu_iwdjf1gI
It's a laugh for the Rossi-FanBoys.
Robert Leguillon robert.leguil...@hotmail.com wrote:
So, you will go on the record? The demonstrations have proven excess heat?
This is irrefutable?
Unless someone refutes it, I suppose. I have not seen any credible
refutations yet. If the Krivit hypothesis is the best the skeptics come up
On Fri, Oct 7, 2011 at 9:49 PM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com wrote:
I posted this response, which I expect Krivit will not allow --
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
On Oct 7, 2011, at 5:03 PM, Alan J Fletcher wrote:
I preliminarily agree with your Preliminary Data Analysis.
What I DON'T understand from Hustedt's graph
http://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=10150844451570375set=o.
135474503149001type=1theater
(and your spreadsheet) is why there was NO
On Oct 7, 2011, at 5:03 PM, Alan J Fletcher wrote:
I preliminarily agree with your Preliminary Data Analysis.
What I DON'T understand from Hustedt's graph
http://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=10150844451570375set=o.
135474503149001type=1theater
(and your spreadsheet) is why there was NO
On Sat, Oct 8, 2011 at 1:14 AM, Harry Veeder hveeder...@gmail.com wrote:
It is not outside the laws of conventional physics that some or all of
the initial input energy was converted to mass and temporarily stored
as mass.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EvGJvzwKqg0
:-)
T
inline: RossiGraph.jpg
On Sat, Oct 8, 2011 at 1:24 AM, Horace Heffner hheff...@mtaonline.net wrote:
Further, the fact the data is highly variable is an indication the hot water
arrives at the heat exchanger in slugs.
Or that the reactor is highly unstable as claimed by Defkalion.
T
1 - 100 of 104 matches
Mail list logo
