On Mon, Jun 3, 2013 at 11:42 AM, James Bowery jabow...@gmail.com wrote:
I've seen it claimed by a rather emotionally committed skeptic -- with
some background in conducting CF runs with calorimetry -- that an adequate
19th century technology water-bath style calorimetry of the E-Cat HT would
On Mon, Jun 3, 2013 at 12:38 PM, James Bowery jabow...@gmail.com wrote:
OK, I'll ask the question a different way:
Is there any explanation offered, even if only in an interview, by the
researchers as to why they did not use normal calorimetry?
In the December run, the experiment was
On Mon, Jun 3, 2013 at 1:00 PM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com wrote:
They used perfectly normal calorimetry.
Normal to me means common. But I have not seen calorimetry performed with
IR thermometry. Do you have some references for where it has been used?
There is not the slightest
On Mon, Jun 3, 2013 at 1:01 PM, David Roberson dlrober...@aol.com wrote:
Dennis,
I don't think it would be quite so easy for Rossi to perform the
experiment that you propose.
It's amazing the excuses true believers contrive to explain why inferior
experiments were used. If the thing is to
On Mon, Jun 3, 2013 at 1:20 PM, David Roberson dlrober...@aol.com wrote:
The ECAT will need adjustment depending upon the environment into which it
operates. This is what should be expected.
Exactly, and controlled cooling provides a way to adjust it. Sitting in the
open air does not.
On Mon, Jun 3, 2013 at 1:29 PM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com wrote:
I have significant experience with flow calorimeters. I would say:
1. It would end up costing much more than a few hundred dollars.
True. But not more than 10k for an off-the-shelf unit. That sounds like a
bargain for
On Mon, Jun 3, 2013 at 2:55 PM, Mark Gibbs mgi...@gibbs.com wrote:
Even though I'm still wearing my skeptic's hat (that's the one with the
propeller on top) isn't the argument about the need for calorimetry made
irrelevant the amount of energy observed to have been generated? In other
words,
On Mon, Jun 3, 2013 at 2:05 PM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com wrote:
Extraordinary claims call for the most ordinary proof you can come up with.
That's true for true believers. For everyone else the usual saying
represents common sense, and the opinion of great thinkers from Pascal
On Mon, Jun 3, 2013 at 3:09 PM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com wrote:
I still think that a standalone unplugged demo is the best approach - not
high wattage and fancy instruments and lots of wires and computer programs.
That would be nice, but evidently that would probably cause the
On Mon, Jun 3, 2013 at 3:30 PM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com wrote:
Flow calorimetry has much to be said for it but it is more complicated and
less believable than this. A lot more can go wrong with it, and usually
does go wrong with it for the first several weeks.
It is both more
On Mon, Jun 3, 2013 at 3:46 PM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com wrote:
I have thought about that. During the initial warm up phase you would get
an interesting result. After that, when it reaches a steady state, you
would maintain the entire body of water at a certain temperature for
On Mon, Jun 3, 2013 at 3:50 PM, David Roberson dlrober...@aol.com wrote:
It will take more than just a generator and an extension cord to close the
loop. Some form of energy storage will be required to do the job.
To close the loop with electricity, probably yes. But if you used
On Mon, Jun 3, 2013 at 4:03 PM, DJ Cravens djcrav...@hotmail.com wrote:
They only need to make their sponsors happy not Crude. I hope the best
for them.
Hey, if you're referring to me, I'm with you all the way on the
self-sustaining water-tank heating demo. So the insult is particularly
On Mon, Jun 3, 2013 at 4:07 PM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com wrote:
I do not understand what you have in mind here. Nature allows us to do
some things and not others. We have to work with what nature allows, not
what we would wish for in an ideal universe.[...]
Obviously with more
On Mon, Jun 3, 2013 at 4:18 PM, David Roberson dlrober...@aol.com wrote:
The best proof is one that has the least possibility of error.
Or the least possibility of error that favors the ecat, or the least
possibility of tampering. An isolated ecat eliminates input tampering. A
heated tank of
On Mon, Jun 3, 2013 at 4:36 PM, Mark Gibbs mgi...@gibbs.com wrote:
Indeed, making steam and using it to, say, drive a car across Italy
without stopping would be pretty damn convincing.
Nice to see you can envision a demo that would convince skeptics.
Unfortunately the actual demos don't
On Mon, Jun 3, 2013 at 4:37 PM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com wrote:
There was a time when this field desperately needed a standalone self
powered reactor to prove the reaction is real. That is because absolute
power was low, ranging from 5 to 100 W. However, now that Rossi has
On Mon, Jun 3, 2013 at 5:06 PM, Terry Blanton hohlr...@gmail.com wrote:
Dr. Richard L. Garwin is alive and well and will likely live to have his
tea.
If you believe Rothwell and Roberson, skeptics will never have to concede,
because no application of cold fusion is obvious enough to make
On Mon, Jun 3, 2013 at 5:57 PM, Jones Beene jone...@pacbell.net wrote:
If the device cannot self-power, it is still valuable with a lower COP,
the proverbial hot water or space heater -
A COP of 3 is not useful if the electricity was made with fossil fuels at
an efficiency of 1/3. That's a
On Mon, Jun 3, 2013 at 7:25 PM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com wrote:
If it is real it is the most important advance in technology since the
discovery of fire. If the scientific community is convinced it is real,
every industrial corporation and university will be hard at work on this.
On Mon, Jun 3, 2013 at 8:36 PM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com wrote:
WHY are you so certain that wattmeters do not work?!?
You know that's not the objection.
There is no chance Rossi can fool one, and if the people doing the test
have any doubt about that, they can bring a portable
On Mon, Jun 3, 2013 at 8:43 PM, Jouni Valkonen jounivalko...@gmail.comwrote:
Portable generator is also fine and even better, because it leaves very
little room for tricks and doubt. But after 10 or so demonstrations we have
had only one portable generator and that also was brought by Rossi.
On Mon, Jun 3, 2013 at 8:55 PM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com wrote:
Nothing in the recent test was brought by Rossi. This test was a hands-off
black box test, exactly what the skeptics have been demanding. It seems
you will not take yes for an answer.
So much nonsense. The test was
On Mon, Jun 3, 2013 at 9:29 PM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com wrote:
Jouni Valkonen jounivalko...@gmail.com wrote:
Leading scam hypothesis does assume that Giuseppe Levi is a scammer and
he is as bad as Rossi. And he brought most of the instruments.
I see. And these other co-authors
-
From: Joshua Cude joshua.c...@gmail.com
To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com
Sent: Fri, May 31, 2013 2:23 pm
Subject: Re: [Vo]:new hypothesis to confute regarding input energy in Ecat
test
On Fri, May 31, 2013 at 8:44 AM, David Roberson dlrober...@aol.comwrote:
Josh, your entire theory
On Fri, May 31, 2013 at 1:59 PM, David Roberson dlrober...@aol.com wrote:
No reason for any of your issues is given except that there is no reason
that you are aware of to do what makes sense to most other engineers and
scientists on the list.
3-phase is not needed. He ran higher power
On Fri, May 31, 2013 at 2:09 PM, David Roberson dlrober...@aol.com wrote:
I admit that I do not believe that the magnetic field is important in this
case.
I am very pleased to see that some progress is being made.
It is not too close to zero with this particular geometry
Well, the
On Fri, May 31, 2013 at 2:17 PM, MarkI-ZeroPoint zeropo...@charter.netwrote:
If you genuinely want an explanation of how the eCAT is positive feedback,
which Dave is trying to do, backed up by his model, then it requires
following a line of reasoning.
Wrong discussion. The question of COP
On Sat, Jun 1, 2013 at 9:50 AM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com wrote:
The effects of heat and the use of heat to control chemical and nuclear
reactions is well established.
Perhaps, but elsewhere I asked for an example where the addition of heat is
used to control a positive thermal
On Sat, Jun 1, 2013 at 10:35 AM, David Roberson dlrober...@aol.com wrote:
Applying more heat to make it stop is not what he does. He ceases to
apply the excess drive heat to make it stop. This is 180 degrees
different. The extra drive power to the resistors is added to the internal
power
On Sat, Jun 1, 2013 at 10:44 AM, David Roberson dlrober...@aol.com wrote:
The group at moletrap has a hobby of trying to debunk anything that they
do not understand. You should have realized by now that these clowns can
not admit when they are shown in error to keep up appearances of
On Sat, Jun 1, 2013 at 11:07 AM, David Roberson dlrober...@aol.com wrote:
Cude and the others of this group can not accept that LENR is anything
except for a scam.
Not true in my case. I think most of LENR research is not a scam; it is
probably just pathological science. But I don't even
On Fri, May 31, 2013 at 12:57 PM, David Roberson dlrober...@aol.com wrote:
There is a wealth of information contained within the shape of the output
temperature curve associated with operation of the ECAT.
That's total speculative and nonsensical over-interpretation.
It's based in the
On Fri, May 31, 2013 at 1:11 PM, David Roberson dlrober...@aol.com wrote:
No problem, I will meet you here in a couple of years and we can compare
notes.
Good, but I was hoping you'd be able to tell us now if you might get a
little skeptical if the hot cat has a similar fate that the steam
On Fri, May 31, 2013 at 1:13 PM, David Roberson dlrober...@aol.com wrote:
I am attempting to keep you form getting banned since I want to use you to
clear up a number of issues. It is hoped that you will go back to the
other skeptics and then set them straight.
Garbage. You don't need
On Fri, May 31, 2013 at 2:25 PM, David Roberson dlrober...@aol.com wrote:
Maybe we are making headway in this discussion. Can I assume that you are
now saying that the hot cat can actually produce heat by some unknown
process? So far it is not clear that you accept this premise.
For
On Sat, Jun 1, 2013 at 8:08 AM, David Roberson dlrober...@aol.com wrote:
Josh, once you understand how the ECAT uses heat for control you will
realize that the heat can not be applied continuously.
Well, you're gonna have to explain it if you expect me to understand it.
And then you're
On Sat, Jun 1, 2013 at 8:57 AM, Jones Beene jone...@pacbell.net wrote:
**
Yes it was a poor analogy, but so what? Cude’s analysis is wrong no matter
how much he obfuscates and by jumping on a poor analogy – he does not gain
credibility.
**
Which analogy is that? I was suggesting
On Sat, Jun 1, 2013 at 12:27 AM, Harry Veeder hveeder...@gmail.com wrote:
On Fri, May 31, 2013 at 2:58 AM, Joshua Cude joshua.c...@gmail.comwrote:
But I think you misunderstood. I was not referring to new science
theories there. I was saying that it's common sense that if Rossi's claims
On Sat, Jun 1, 2013 at 8:58 AM, Eric Walker eric.wal...@gmail.com wrote:
On Sat, Jun 1, 2013 at 3:51 AM, Joshua Cude joshua.c...@gmail.com wrote:
No, you don't. Plenty of ICEs (outboards, motorcycles) run without
batteries. Car engines would run without batteries too, unless they use
some
On Sun, Jun 2, 2013 at 1:39 PM, Eric Walker eric.wal...@gmail.com wrote:
On Sat, Jun 1, 2013 at 3:54 AM, Joshua Cude joshua.c...@gmail.com wrote:
But the ecat just uses electricity to make heat. So if the ecat already
makes heat, it should self-sustain on that. Like combustion.
I passed
On Sun, Jun 2, 2013 at 2:29 PM, Eric Walker eric.wal...@gmail.com wrote:
There is a third possibility as well. The reaction is localized, and it
depends upon an elevated temperature to kick off. But the local region is
destroyed by the reaction, so you have apply heat once more to initiate
On Sun, Jun 2, 2013 at 3:22 PM, David Roberson dlrober...@aol.com wrote:
Eric,
The resistive heating requirement is to be able to reverse the
temperature excursion at the proper time by removing the extra input.
Constant heat input will result in the destruction of the device when
useful
On Sun, Jun 2, 2013 at 4:10 PM, David Roberson dlrober...@aol.com wrote:
Eric,
Model 1 appears to be more in line with what I suspect is happening
except for the explanation of the lack of external heat for control issue.
You need to consider that the peak heat power being generated
On Sun, Jun 2, 2013 at 9:21 AM, David Roberson dlrober...@aol.com wrote:
I have requested that Cude or any others interested in finding the truth
construct a similar model and prove me wrong.
I never made any claims about dc rectification. I said that the
experimental design leaves
On Fri, May 31, 2013 at 1:36 PM, David Roberson dlrober...@aol.com wrote:
This is a good start Josh. I think I can explain that to you since you
seem to be a pretty sharp guy.
Thank you Mr Roberson for that kind compliment.
Unfortunately it also takes an explanation that is realistic and
On Fri, May 31, 2013 at 1:47 PM, David Roberson dlrober...@aol.com wrote:
So, do you need help with that spice model?
You're just repeating your arguments and ignoring the responses I've
already given to them. Obviously I have no proof. How could I? True
believers insist on an explanation of
On Sat, Jun 1, 2013 at 9:50 PM, Axil Axil janap...@gmail.com wrote:
The tactic of the obstructionist is to avoid dealing with the case
The avoidance here is from the true believers who insist that any
alternative explanation must described in detail, whereas they refuse to
explain the
On Sat, Jun 1, 2013 at 11:35 PM, David Roberson dlrober...@aol.com wrote:
It is apparent that Mr. Cude does not have a valid case and is not willing
to discuss the issues.
I've written a lot of words, so obviously I'm willing to discuss. I'm kind
of outnumbered here, so it's not possible to
On Sat, Jun 1, 2013 at 11:53 PM, Kevin O'Malley kevmol...@gmail.com wrote:
On Fri, May 31, 2013 at 10:57 AM, Joshua Cude joshua.c...@gmail.comwrote:
On Fri, May 31, 2013 at 4:29 AM, Kevin O'Malley kevmol...@gmail.comwrote:
Put yourself in the shoes of those 7 scientists who have placed
On Sat, Jun 1, 2013 at 10:10 AM, Jones Beene jone...@pacbell.net wrote:
Anyway the Farnsworth Fusor is a fusion reactor that many high school level
students have built, including Conrad.
It involves adding electrical energy in order to achieve LENR reactions.
Sound familiar, Joshua?
You
On Sat, Jun 1, 2013 at 11:25 AM, Edmund Storms stor...@ix.netcom.comwrote:
We are taking about two different phenomenon of nature. Trying to use the
same concepts and words to describe both results in confusion. Those of us
who have studied cold fusion for the last 23 years have a definition
On Fri, May 31, 2013 at 1:22 PM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com wrote:
Joshua Cude joshua.c...@gmail.com wrote:
Watch the cheese video. The ends of the wires that the magician wants you
to measure are already exposed. Clever, huh.
Too clever by half. This would not begin to fool any
On Fri, May 31, 2013 at 4:44 PM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com wrote:
Mark Gibbs mgi...@gibbs.com wrote:
Ah, so it's OK to argue that Cude is, in effect, hand-waving away Ohm's
law and that's indefensible because that law is accepted but it's not OK to
argue that Carat's dismissal of
On Fri, May 31, 2013 at 4:47 PM, Edmund Storms stor...@ix.netcom.comwrote:
Mark, you quoted Siegel as saying that CF violated physics because it did
not act like hot fusion. Carat simply pointed out that CF was not like hot
fusion and this comparison was not valid. She simply made a statement
On Fri, May 31, 2013 at 3:12 PM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com wrote:
The Elforsk web page announcement is better than a signed statement, in
my opinion. So was EPRI's statement. A conclusion issued by an organization
carries more weight than statement signed by one EE.
Along the
On Fri, May 31, 2013 at 4:44 PM, Axil Axil janap...@gmail.com wrote:
LENR complies with all know physical laws. The problem is that few
scientists have a background in this new branch of science.
You don't know what you're talking about. LENR is contrary to predictions
based on a century of
On Fri, May 31, 2013 at 5:03 PM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com wrote:
Let me quote the specific text from Cude that I discussed:
You're just repeating your arguments and ignoring the responses I've
already given to them. Obviously I have no proof. How could I? True
believers insist on
On Fri, May 31, 2013 at 6:50 PM, John Berry berry.joh...@gmail.com wrote:
There is one very very simple truth.
Many will never believe right up until a technology is widely available.
If so, I think it will be a first. I am not aware of a phenomenon that was
widely rejected by the
On Fri, May 31, 2013 at 7:34 PM, Ruby r...@hush.com wrote:
How did quantum mechanics come about?
Experimental phenomenon occurred in blackbody radiation that could not be
explained by the conventional physical theories of the day.
Right, but all the anomalies that led to QM were robust,
On Fri, May 31, 2013 at 9:01 PM, Alan Fletcher a...@well.com wrote:
Levi didn't provide pictures of the resistors, but it's reasonable to
assume that they had the same structure as showed by Penon.
http://coldfusionnow.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/09/105322688-Penon4-1.pdf
The resistors are
On Fri, May 31, 2013 at 6:55 PM, Eric Walker eric.wal...@gmail.com wrote:
On Fri, May 31, 2013 at 12:36 AM, Joshua Cude joshua.c...@gmail.comwrote:
He said you need a battery for an internal combustion engine, and so that
means it's not self-sustaining. That was what I responded to.
My
On Fri, May 31, 2013 at 7:31 PM, Eric Walker eric.wal...@gmail.com wrote:
the analogy only goes so far, in that it is harder in Rossi's case to
recapture the heat and channel it back into the secondary source.
But the ecat just uses electricity to make heat. So if the ecat already
makes
On Thu, May 30, 2013 at 2:52 PM, Harry Veeder hveeder...@gmail.com wrote:
On Thu, May 30, 2013 at 1:26 PM, Joshua Cude joshua.c...@gmail.comwrote:
I'm not talking about initiating. I'm talking about sustaining. I have no
problem using electricity to initiate the ecat. But if it's a source
On Thu, May 30, 2013 at 3:11 PM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com wrote:
Joshua Cude joshua.c...@gmail.com wrote:
A match is needed to ignite a firecracker, but once ignited, the
explosion sustains itself.
A match is needed to start a campfire, but not to sustain it.
Cold
On Thu, May 30, 2013 at 3:23 PM, David Roberson dlrober...@aol.com wrote:
There seems to be a serious hangup over why a heat generating device needs
some form of heating input to sustain itself. The skeptics can not seem to
get their arms around this issue so I will make another short attempt
On Thu, May 30, 2013 at 3:26 PM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com wrote:
If we are going to do analogies, a more useful one would be to compare the
Rossi reactor to an internal combustion engine ICE. With an ICE you have to
apply the spark periodically to small portions of the fuel to
On Thu, May 30, 2013 at 3:36 PM, Harry Veeder hveeder...@gmail.com wrote:
As dave explains it makes sense if the energy input provides cooling power.
Exactly. The whole thing is nuts. If it really needed to be regulated, it
would make sense to regulate with temperature controlled cooling.
On Thu, May 30, 2013 at 3:48 PM, Edmund Storms stor...@ix.netcom.comwrote:
I agree Dave, I have been providing this explanation for several years
without any effect. I'm glad you are adding your voice. The critical point
at which the temperature must be reduced depends on the degree of thermal
On Thu, May 30, 2013 at 3:52 PM, David Roberson dlrober...@aol.com wrote:
Josh, what is common sense now becomes ancient history when the newest
theories come out.
Yes, I know that happens sometimes. And sometimes things that are common
sense remain common sense.
But I think you
On Thu, May 30, 2013 at 4:22 PM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com wrote:
Bill Beaty has an excellent quote on this subject, here:
http://amasci.com/weird/vmore.html
Every fact of science was once damned. Every invention was considered
impossible. Every discovery was a nervous shock to
On Thu, May 30, 2013 at 4:47 PM, David Roberson dlrober...@aol.com wrote:
If someone is looking for an analogy they could look at the behavior of a
power transistor mounted on a heat sink. For this exercise assume that the
collector is directly connected to a power source. Apply enough base
On Thu, May 30, 2013 at 9:29 PM, Eric Walker eric.wal...@gmail.com wrote:
. But my sense tells me that a significant number of scientists are
starting to take genuine interest and that they will stay tuned for further
details.
Read the cold fusion forums for the last 24 years. This has
On Thu, May 30, 2013 at 9:45 PM, Eric Walker eric.wal...@gmail.com wrote:
Yes, and only in a diesel engine do you not need a battery to keep spark
plugs going. Demanding a self-sustaining device is like demanding a diesel
engine. ICEs were first developed in the 1860s, and the diesel engine
On Thu, May 30, 2013 at 10:54 PM, Axil Axil janap...@gmail.com wrote:
I think this is more about who is the gatekeeper to the ideology and
business of science rather than any exercise in ethics.
The gatekeeper class resents this clique of stiff necked maverick
scientists who have the
On Thu, May 30, 2013 at 8:34 PM, Eric Walker eric.wal...@gmail.com wrote:
On Thu, May 30, 2013 at 12:13 PM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.comwrote:
I’m a Professor Ameritus in Electrical Engineering ... Everything I read
in the 29 page report, and following challenges as answered by the
On Thu, May 30, 2013 at 2:33 PM, Alan Fletcher a...@well.com wrote:
OK -- in fig 6 (Dec) they show a blue-and-yellow CONTROL box and three
triacs.
They don't have a picture for March, so we don't know if it includes the
functionality of the blue-and-yellow box or just replaces the triac.
On Thu, May 30, 2013 at 2:34 PM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com wrote:
My guess is that he is designing for industrial applications.
It's not gonna be useful for industrial purposes with a COP of 3; remember
the electricity was made with an efficiency of 1/3. It's gonna have to be
On Thu, May 30, 2013 at 3:39 PM, David Roberson dlrober...@aol.com wrote:
There are advantages to using a three phase power input that have been
pointed out.
For this application, the disadvantages are greater.
Measurements of 3 phase systems are done every day so this is not
important.
On Thu, May 30, 2013 at 7:32 PM, Berke Durak berke.du...@gmail.com wrote:
On Thu, May 30, 2013 at 1:38 PM, Joshua Cude joshua.c...@gmail.com
wrote:
I don't buy it. The reactor is a sealed faraday cage, so it's not going
to
care about ripple or dc vs ac. It's just a thermal interface
On Fri, May 31, 2013 at 2:32 AM, MarkI-ZeroPoint zeropo...@charter.netwrote:
Josh:
** **
Eric’s comment about not needing a battery to keep spark plugs going was
referring to a DIESEL engine, and diesels don’t have spark plugs.
He said you need a battery for an internal combustion
On Thu, May 30, 2013 at 6:01 PM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com wrote:
I do not understand what you are saying here. Are you saying that Rossi
was present? Or that that he interfered with the experiment?
I do not think that Levi or his co-authors has said that Rossi was absent.
Only
On Thu, May 30, 2013 at 3:35 PM, David Roberson dlrober...@aol.com wrote:
I thought that the DC issue was put to rest.
Only according to the credulous true believers. Essen said they excluded
it, but he didn't say how. If we're just going to accept what they say
without scrutiny, then why
On Fri, May 31, 2013 at 8:40 AM, David Roberson dlrober...@aol.com wrote:
Of course it is not the exact same. Positive heat feedback is what we are
mainly interested in. You know that, so why bring up the obvious
differences?
Because it's not positive heat feedback.
On Fri, May 31, 2013 at 8:37 AM, David Roberson dlrober...@aol.com wrote:
It is great to see that we are in such close agreement. Let's handle the
issues related to positive feedback as I requested and you will improve
your understanding.
I thought you were keeping an open mind, not a
On Fri, May 31, 2013 at 8:41 AM, David Roberson dlrober...@aol.com wrote:
Josh, please refrain from insults.
Please refrain from telling me what to refrain from.
On Fri, May 31, 2013 at 8:32 AM, David Roberson dlrober...@aol.com wrote:
With that in mind, please submit for discussion your main reason for
discounting my explanation so that it can be properly addressed and
everyone who is following this concept can draw their own conclusions. It
is my
is irrelevant to you and any discussion is a waste of time.
Ed Storms
On May 31, 2013, at 11:39 AM, Joshua Cude wrote:
On Fri, May 31, 2013 at 8:40 AM, David Roberson dlrober...@aol.comwrote:
Of course it is not the exact same. Positive heat feedback is what we
are mainly interested in. You know
On Fri, May 31, 2013 at 9:26 AM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com wrote:
Even the people here such as Cude cannot come up with anything. They are
scraping the bottom of the barrel when they say that three-phase
electricity is difficult to measure or there might be a hidden wire under
the
On Fri, May 31, 2013 at 4:29 AM, Kevin O'Malley kevmol...@gmail.com wrote:
Put yourself in the shoes of those 7 scientists who have placed their
reputations on the line.
I don't think it's a big risk. They can plausibly claim ignorance. In fact
their ignorance is the most plausible
On Fri, May 31, 2013 at 6:58 AM, Jouni Valkonen jounivalko...@gmail.comwrote:
What is the best thing about this new demonstration that it excludes
definitely steam based tricks from the possible repertoire. So from the
beginning it was all about the feeding extra input power via hidden
demonstrate a lack of understanding of basic EE knowledge.
Dave
-Original Message-
From: Joshua Cude joshua.c...@gmail.com
To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com
Sent: Fri, May 31, 2013 4:19 am
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Ekstrom critique of Levi et al.
On Thu, May 30, 2013 at 3:35 PM, David Roberson
On Fri, May 31, 2013 at 1:05 PM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com wrote:
Joshua Cude joshua.c...@gmail.com wrote:
And I'm not convinced those guys stripped any wires.
How does one measure voltage without stripping wires?
Watch the cheese video. The ends of the wires that the magician
On Fri, May 31, 2013 at 5:52 AM, Berke Durak berke.du...@gmail.com wrote:
On Fri, May 31, 2013 at 3:32 AM, Joshua Cude joshua.c...@gmail.com
wrote:
Good grief. The resistors are coils, presumably helical solenoids with
the
axis parallel to the reactor cylinder. The magnetic field is near
On Fri, May 31, 2013 at 8:44 AM, David Roberson dlrober...@aol.com wrote:
Josh, your entire theory will be shot if you acknowledge that the COP is
greater than 1. Are you now ready to accept this condition?
No. The only thing you seem to be able to do is miss the point.
The claimed COP is
On Fri, May 31, 2013 at 8:48 AM, David Roberson dlrober...@aol.com wrote:
Every one of the points you make are pure speculation. There is
absolutely no evidence that Rossi is using 3 phase power to conduct any
scam.
Right but all the excuses for why he might need them are pure speculation,
On Fri, May 31, 2013 at 8:52 AM, David Roberson dlrober...@aol.com wrote:
I suggest that you study the magnetic fields associated with solenoids
Josh. Obviously you must not realize that they have an external field much
like a bar magnet. This is simple for you to study and realize your
On Fri, May 31, 2013 at 8:59 AM, John Berry berry.joh...@gmail.com wrote:
If he does not know such a simple thing, I think he can be safely ignored
No one's holding a gun to your head.
On Fri, May 31, 2013 at 1:11 PM, David Roberson dlrober...@aol.com wrote:
Lets start with one of your choice regarding the many heat generation
issues. How about how a small amount of heat can control a much larger
amount?
I agree this is possible under certain circumstances. But I don't
On Wed, May 29, 2013 at 2:19 PM, Eric Walker eric.wal...@gmail.com wrote:
On Wed, May 29, 2013 at 3:38 AM, Joshua Cude joshua.c...@gmail.comwrote:
The monitoring of the input was comically inadequate, if there is any
possibility of deception, the blank run used a different power regimen
1 - 100 of 906 matches
Mail list logo
