trust. The point was to examine the species to which the Essen and
Kullander report belongs.
Is it informal or objective?
On Thu, Jul 14, 2011 at 11:27 AM, Terry Blanton hohlr...@gmail.com wrote:
Trust but verify.
T
Since only Rossi and Levi were present at the 18 hr test, it is possible that
Rossi fooled Levi by tampering with the instruments prior to the tests.
Harry
At 09:42 AM 7/15/2011, Harry Veeder wrote:
Since only Rossi and Levi were present at the 18 hr test, it is
possible that Rossi fooled Levi by tampering with the instruments
prior to the tests.
Krivit gave us an observer list at
http://newenergytimes.com/v2/sr/RossiECat/RossiECatPortal.shtml
Harry Veeder wrote:
Since only Rossi and Levi were present at the 18 hr test, it is
possible that Rossi fooled Levi by tampering with the instruments
prior to the tests.
This is not possible. It is very easy to confirm that the instruments
were more-or-less correct with visual and tactile
I am going by this report:
http://www.nyteknik.se/nyheter/energi_miljo/energi/article3108242.ece
Harry
From: Alan J Fletcher a...@well.com
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Sent: Friday, July 15, 2011 1:44:31 PM
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Levi's likely attitude
At 09:42 AM 7/15/2011, Harry Veeder wrote:
Since
Obviously I meant to write:
. . . you can feel the OUTLET is substantially warmer than the INLET. . . .
I meant in the 18-hour test with flowing liquid water. As described here:
http://www.nyteknik.se/nyheter/energi_miljo/energi/article3108242.ece
. . . the inlet was tap-water temperature,
PM
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Levi's likely attitude
Obviously I meant to write:
. . . you can feel the OUTLET is substantially warmer than the INLET. . . .
I meant in the 18-hour test with flowing liquid water. As described here:
http://www.nyteknik.se/nyheter/energi_miljo/energi/article3108242.ece
In this case there is only one problem/question. 1L per second i.e. 15.65
gpm is an incredibly high flow for a tap
and for the water feeding tubes. Perhaps a garden hose
could do it. It seems it was a surprise- the 130kW heat peak and this was
quenched with the maximum available flow.
No flowmeter
Peter Gluck wrote:
In this case there is only one problem/question. 1L per second i.e.
15.65 gpm is an incredibly high flow for a tap
and for the water feeding tubes. Perhaps a garden hose could do it.
In a commercial building it should not be a problem.
It seems it was a surprise- the
]:Levi's likely attitude
In this case there is only one problem/question. 1L per second i.e. 15.65 gpm
is an incredibly high flow for a tap
and for the water feeding tubes. Perhaps a garden hose
could do it. It seems it was a surprise- the 130kW heat peak and this was
quenched with the maximum
Harry Veeder wrote:
To be fair, in this report
http://www.journal-of-nuclear-physics.com/files/Rossi-Focardi_paper.pdf
Rossi and Focardi describe some other water flow tests on page 3.
This link does not work. Want to try again?
- Jed
This link does not work. Want to try again?
It's in this list:
http://www.journal-of-nuclear-physics.com/files/
Craig
Manchester, NH
On Fri, 2011-07-15 at 16:17 -0400, Jed Rothwell wrote:
Harry Veeder wrote:
To be fair, in this report
From: Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Sent: Friday, July 15, 2011 4:17:16 PM
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Levi's likely attitude
Harry Veeder wrote:
To be fair, in this report
http://www.journal-of-nuclear-physics.com/files/Rossi-Focardi_paper.pdf
Rossi and Focardi describe
Harry Veeder wrote:
Hmm I guess only direct downloading is allowed,
so go here:
http://www.journal-of-nuclear-physics.com/
and look for Rossi-Focardi paper listed under resources on the left side of the
page.
You mean the RIGHT side. Right bottom, where it says Rossi-Focardi paper.
I am
Harry Veeder wrote:
To be fair, in this report
http://www.journal-of-nuclear-physics.com/files/Rossi-Focardi_paper.pdf
Rossi and Focardi describe some other water flow tests on page 3.
The text is confusing. The liquid flowing water tests are listed in
Table 1, p. 4. Flowing water is method
From: Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Sent: Friday, July 15, 2011 4:36:48 PM
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Levi's likely attitude
Harry Veeder wrote:
Hmm I guess only direct downloading is allowed,
so go here:
http://www.journal-of-nuclear-physics.com/
and look for Rossi
I think these old boy were given to believe they were among critically
objective scientists giving a warm welcome with nothing to hide. I think
they all had a little to much trust in each other's obvectivity and the
whole think snowballed into what we have today. I don't disclude myself from
the
trust in those
areas of our lives where we do not expect our trust to be earned first.
Harry
From: Damon Craig decra...@gmail.com
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Sent: Thursday, July 14, 2011 6:44:54 AM
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Levi's likely attitude
I think these old boy were given to believe they were among
Trust but verify.
T
Terry sez:
Trust but verify.
The phrase, of course, has a tendency to contradict its original
intent. However, I appreciate the meaning (and spirit) in which it is
given.
The phrase was one of the few things Ronald Reagan sed while he was in
office that made any sense to me.
Humans are often
Terry Blanton wrote:
Trust but verify.
I don't get that. If you have verified, you don't need to trust. It
makes more sense to say:
Don't trust; verify.
OR
Why bother trusting if you can verify?
This was with regard to weapons reductions in the Reagan era. By that
time, both sides had
On Thu, Jul 14, 2011 at 2:53 PM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com wrote:
Terry Blanton wrote:
Trust but verify.
I don't get that. If you have verified, you don't need to trust.
Yes, well, I think Reagan was being amusing. At least, that's how *I*
intended it.
T
People wonder why Levi has not given out more information about the 18-hour
flowing water test. I wish he would publish a detailed report listing the
type of flowmeter and so on. It is annoying to me that he has not.
I expect Levi and the others consider that test irrefutable. So do I. If I
had
23 matches
Mail list logo
