- Original Message -
From: Eric Walker
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Sent: Sunday, March 08, 2015 8:50 AM
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Critique of Levi et al. Lugano experiment
Just to be clear, I'm not saying I disagree with the objections to Rossi
having handled the charge.
In general one
kept them
around.
Bob Cook
- Original Message - *m:* Bob Higgins rj.bob.higg...@gmail.com
*To:* vortex-l@eskimo.com
*Sent:* Sunday, March 08, 2015 9:51 AM
*Subject:* Re: [Vo]:Critique of Levi et al. Lugano experiment
Some features of the Lugano HotCat ash can now be identified
English society,
jesters were such people and the kings and queens wisely kept them around.
Bob Cook
- Original Message - m: Bob Higgins
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Sent: Sunday, March 08, 2015 9:51 AM
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Critique of Levi et al. Lugano experiment
Some features
2015-03-08 16:50 GMT+01:00 Eric Walker eric.wal...@gmail.com:
The standard of extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof is a
phrase that goes back to Marcello Truzzi. It has been debated here on
several different occasions. It has been used by skeptics to justify
whatever they want.
the reactor,
these particles had come.
What MS studies are you talking about?
Bob Cook
- Original Message -
From: Bob Higgins
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Sent: Sunday, March 08, 2015 1:31 PM
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Critique of Levi et al. Lugano experiment
I don't believe Ed
On Sun, Mar 8, 2015 at 12:32 PM, Bob Cook frobertc...@hotmail.com wrote:
Besides the idea of testing the Ni particles, which I cannot comment on
due to lack of understanding, the rest of your statement I really like. In
particular the sentence below is great.
The Lugano test was
Eric, the standard amongst academic colleagues is extraordinary claims
require extraordinary proof. The standard is that replication should be
done by uninvolved parties. Neither Rossi nor Levi, et all was
uninvolved. Levi and friends had their reputation on the line from the
claims from the
In reply to Bob Higgins's message of Sun, 8 Mar 2015 14:31:01 -0600:
Hi Bob,
[snip]
IIRC Ed is also an expert in Tritium detection, though I'm not sure whether or
not he has the equipment needed at present. You should ask.
Regards,
Robin van Spaandonk
.
What MS studies are you talking about?
Bob Cook
- Original Message -
*From:* Bob Higgins rj.bob.higg...@gmail.com
*To:* vortex-l@eskimo.com
*Sent:* Sunday, March 08, 2015 1:31 PM
*Subject:* Re: [Vo]:Critique of Levi et al. Lugano experiment
I don't believe Ed Storms and Kiva Labs has
Just to be clear, I'm not saying I disagree with the objections to Rossi
having handled the charge.
In general one has the impression scientists are pretty collegial with one
another. They place a lot of trust in one another. One scientist will say
to another, I'd like to take a second look at
Some features of the Lugano HotCat ash can now be identified based on the
follow-on work of MFMP and Parkhomov.
When trying to decide whether the Lugano team actually sampled the
important part of the HotCat ash, have a look at the TPR2 - Apendix 3 -
Figure 2, the SEM photo of Particle 1. This
From: alain.coetm...@gmail.com
Ø the statement I refer to were not in the report, but were specific answer
given later.
Yes that is a major problem – a recollection coming months later from the
memory of an embarrassed scientist who had already been caught napping on the
job – is
the statement I refer to were not in the report, but were specific answer
given later.
in fact teh statement in the report was ambiguous.
They explain that he was just present...
It seems to be said by Bo Hoistad
.
Bob Cook
From: Eric Walker
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Sent: Friday, March 06, 2015 11:00 PM
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Critique of Levi et al. Lugano experiment
On Fri, Mar 6, 2015 at 11:47 AM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com wrote:
Some recent experimental measurements
et al. Lugano experiment
On Fri, Mar 6, 2015 at 11:47 AM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com
wrote:
Some recent experimental measurements by the Martin Fleischmann Memorial
Project (MFMP) highlighted a possible error in the Hot-Cat calorimetric
measurement; the calorimetric measurement we
Eric Walker eric.wal...@gmail.com wrote:
Does the faulty analysis of the Lugano test cast doubt on the conclusions
of the earlier test?
Only insofar as it casts doubt on the competence of the researchers. They
did not make any of these serious mistakes in the first tests.
I cannot imagine
From: alain.coetm...@gmail.com
* Rossi had physical control of the samples which were tested.
* non, the testers refuted that claim. he was watching, but did not
operate
No, Alain – you did
https://rossiisreal.wordpress.com/2015/03/07/probability-now-9/
Have fun everyone, it's been a blast.
On Sat, Mar 7, 2015 at 7:26 AM, Jones Beene jone...@pacbell.net wrote:
*From:* *alain.coetm...@gmail.com* alain.coetm...@gmail.com
Ø Rossi had physical control of the samples which
Rossi had physical control of the samples which were tested.
non,
the testers refuted that calim.
he was watching, but did not operate
2015-03-07 1:45 GMT+01:00 Jones Beene jone...@pacbell.net:
*From:* Bob Cook
Jones--
What about Levi's Ni isotopic changes? Does your 1COP2 fit with
this does not change the fact that Industrial Heat gave a reactor with
freedom to test anything on it.
This happened also in Ferrara.
this alone rule out fraud.
once you rule out fraud on the calorimetry, you know that at least IH think
it's reactor works.
The hypothesis og isotope manipulation
On Fri, Mar 6, 2015 at 11:47 AM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com wrote:
See:
https://gsvit.wordpress.com/2015/03/02/tpr2-calorimetry-of-hot-cat-performed-by-means-of-ir-camera-2/
See also:
https://docs.google.com/a/node.io/file/d/0B5Pc25a4cOM2Zl9FWDFWSUpXc0U/edit
This experiment was never independent and there never was freedom to test
samples without permission. Fraud cannot be ruled out. The only good thing that
came out of it was Parkhomov’s experiment and others in progress which we will
hear more about soon. Patience, Peter, patience.
Rossi had
There are still a possible fraud in isotopes in purpose to mislead
competitors.
On Sat, 7 Mar 2015 21:46:45 +0100, Alain Sepeda wrote:
this does not change the fact that Industrial Heat gave a reactor with
freedom to test anything on it.
This happened also in Ferrara.
this
alone rule out
On Sat, Mar 7, 2015 at 5:57 PM, Jones Beene jone...@pacbell.net wrote:
Since Rossi was in control at the critical points – the fraud issue
revolves around his honesty.
What you say is true. But in applying this standard, it seems we are going
well beyond the kind of protocol that academic
Post by MFMP:
https://www.facebook.com/MartinFleischmannMemorialProject/posts/934143689949664
On Fri, Mar 6, 2015 at 6:48 PM, Blaze Spinnaker blazespinna...@gmail.com
wrote:
Great post by MFMP:
On Fri, Mar 6, 2015 at 4:45 PM, Jones Beene jone...@pacbell.net wrote:
*From:* Bob Cook
Great post by MFMP:
On Fri, Mar 6, 2015 at 4:45 PM, Jones Beene jone...@pacbell.net wrote:
*From:* Bob Cook
Jones--
What about Levi's Ni isotopic changes? Does your 1COP2 fit with those
observations, which seem to suggest more than your f/H idea? Or were both
of Levi's isotopic
conception = consumption
On Fri, Mar 6, 2015 at 6:58 PM, Axil Axil janap...@gmail.com wrote:
The way to maximize the COP is to apply energy pumping (heat) for a short
a period as possible to minimize energy input conception. The Lagano test
did not do that. The testers applied heat all the
Another kind, sort of, good news it is that the temperature is below the
melting point of nickel. So, we don't have another factor to make things
worse.
Adrian,
With a COP of 2 in any single unit - it is possible using stacking and feedback
of many units – for the operator to achieve any arbitrarily high net COP – even
infinite COP (no input required).
For instance with 50 units in a module, none of which have a COP of greater
than 2,
Jones,
I had speculated earlier that the COP of the Hot Cat might be lower than
the regular E-Cat as the low temperature version is what Rossi has
pursued. As Rossi has claimed a COP of at least 6 in earler days it is
not a stretch to think that he is expecting 6 from the new 1 MW plant
-
From: Jones Beene
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Sent: Friday, March 06, 2015 1:38 PM
Subject: RE: [Vo]:Critique of Levi et al. Lugano experiment
From: Jed Rothwell
Ø
https://gsvit.wordpress.com/2015/03/02/tpr2-calorimetry-of-hot-cat-performed-by-means-of-ir-camera-2/
TPR2
The way to maximize the COP is to apply energy pumping (heat) for a short
a period as possible to minimize energy input conception. The Lagano test
did not do that. The testers applied heat all the time. That is like
running your car in first gear. Your gas milage will be very bad.
On Fri, Mar 6,
of the suggested
Ni isotopic concentrations that were observed in the Lugano test ash.
Bob Cook
- Original Message -
From: Jones Beene
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Sent: Friday, March 06, 2015 4:45 PM
Subject: RE: [Vo]:Critique of Levi et al. Lugano experiment
From: Bob Cook
From: Bob Cook
Jones--
What about Levi's Ni isotopic changes? Does your 1COP2 fit with those
observations, which seem to suggest more than your f/H idea? Or were both of
Levi's isotopic analyses incorrect as well?
Bob,
Well - the analyses were correct, insofar as you do not
See:
https://gsvit.wordpress.com/2015/03/02/tpr2-calorimetry-of-hot-cat-performed-by-means-of-ir-camera-2/
TPR2 – Calorimetry of Hot-Cat performed by means of IR camera
Pubblicato il 2 marzo 2015di gsvit
First issue: 08/02/2015
Introduction
Some recent experimental measurements by the Martin
From: Jed Rothwell
*
https://gsvit.wordpress.com/2015/03/02/tpr2-calorimetry-of-hot-cat-performed-by-means-of-ir-camera-2/
TPR2 – Calorimetry of Hot-Cat performed by means of IR camera
--
Conclusions: The MFMP experimental
On Fri, Mar 6, 2015 at 11:47 AM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com wrote:
Some recent experimental measurements by the Martin Fleischmann Memorial
Project (MFMP) highlighted a possible error in the Hot-Cat calorimetric
measurement; the calorimetric measurement we are referring to is described
37 matches
Mail list logo
