Does your psychoanalyst know what you are doing on the internet?
Are you currently institutionalized?
Do you still see you analyst? I hope so.
If you are not seeing your analyst I think you should.
Because you should tell him how it makes you feel to mimic him when he
whispers into his littlte
Keep going Lomax. You are in over your head, and far out classed.
When I arrived at Vortex-L you were stumbling around in the dark stuck on a
humidity meter.
On Tue, Jul 26, 2011 at 1:56 PM, Abd ul-Rahman Lomax
a...@lomaxdesign.comwrote:
At 04:06 PM 7/26/2011, Damon Craig wrote:
Try to keep
The by mass and the by volume jargon that has evolved here--or where
ever--to describe steam quality is a bit screwy.
In each case a volume is examined and by mass and by volume are
both unitless values.
by mass units: m/dx^3 / MdX^3
by volume units: dx^3/dX^3.
In no manner will there ever be
Corrections:
by mass units: int(m dX^3) / int(MdX^3) = unitless
by volume units: int(dx^3)/int(dX^3) = unitless
We can't just drop the integral out of the units equations and examine the
characteristic vectors. This would be a little pretensious dividing a tensor
by a tensor to get a scalar.
On
At 07:22 AM 7/26/2011, Damon Craig wrote:
The by mass and the by volume jargon that has evolved here--or
where ever--to describe steam quality is a bit screwy.
Not when you know what you are talking about. Each way of expressing
steam quality has its value.
In each case a volume is
Try to keep up.
On Tue, Jul 26, 2011 at 10:10 AM, Abd ul-Rahman Lomax
a...@lomaxdesign.comwrote:
At 07:22 AM 7/26/2011, Damon Craig wrote:
The by mass and the by volume jargon that has evolved here--or where
ever--to describe steam quality is a bit screwy.
Not when you know what you are
At 04:06 PM 7/26/2011, Damon Craig wrote:
Try to keep up.
Try not to fill this list with posts with no new content except
useless statements plus what's been copied from before.
However, to provide some utility here, I will reproduce part of a
multiplication table, in case Damon needs it
Abd ul-Rahman Lomax wrote:
At 04:11 PM 7/22/2011, Harry Veeder wrote:
It would be more accurate to say the reaction depends on a temperature
difference between the reactor and the water rather than on the temperature
of
the reactor.
No?
Probably not true. The reaction, on the
Yeah, your right. What was I thinking??
My boyancy argument is just wrong. Thank's for straightening that out to me.
(And, darn it, don't I look stupid.)
As such, I can't see any way to solidly determine if the bulk of the liquid
water exits the device suspended in vapor, or simply pours out
Joshua Cude, and other astute observerse:
We could model an exothermic reactions with unlimited (over the course of
the experiment) heat generation as a simple bump function.
A simple bump function for this is p = p_o / {1+[(T-T_o)/T_w]^2 }.
At T=T_o the power, p is maximal.
T_w is the
Very well said. There is no obvective measuring stick to measure burden.
I was attempting to reveil the hidden hypocracy in the burden of proof
argument.
On Fri, Jul 22, 2011 at 9:46 AM, Abd ul-Rahman Lomax
a...@lomaxdesign.comwrote:
Essentially, burden is a social construct, it doesn't exist
At 10:55 AM 7/22/2011, Joshua Cude wrote:
On Fri, Jul 22, 2011 at 5:48 AM, Damon Craig
mailto:decra...@gmail.comdecra...@gmail.com wrote:
The key word is boyancy. What is the densest thing you have ever
seen floating in a vapor of steam, Joshua?
I'll answer that, I've never seen anything
Yeah, maybe i'm confused. When I get my brain back I'll be capable of
thinking about it--maybe.
the fucks im working for are working me to death.
On Fri, Jul 22, 2011 at 6:59 AM, Joshua Cude joshua.c...@gmail.com wrote:
On Fri, Jul 22, 2011 at 5:48 AM, Damon Craig decra...@gmail.com wrote:
Josh: I don't think you read what I wrote.
Maybe I didn't get it, Josh. I'll try to get back. My poor brain is too
fried at this time.
On Fri, Jul 22, 2011 at 6:59 AM, Joshua Cude joshua.c...@gmail.com wrote:
On Fri, Jul 22, 2011 at 5:48 AM, Damon Craig decra...@gmail.com wrote:
I think
On Thu, Jul 21, 2011 at 2:28 PM, Abd ul-Rahman Lomax
a...@lomaxdesign.comwrote:
At 07:56 AM 7/21/2011, Damon Craig wrote:
Cude, Lomax:
To you two, and myself, its fairly obvious this device doesn't do what it
is reported to do, but we have no solid, unrefutable evidence--yet.
One
On Thu, Jul 21, 2011 at 2:33 PM, Abd ul-Rahman Lomax
a...@lomaxdesign.comwrote:
At 11:58 AM 7/21/2011, Joshua Cude wrote:
On Thu, Jul 21, 2011 at 6:56 AM, Damon Craig mailto:decra...@gmail.com
de**cra...@gmail.com decra...@gmail.com wrote:
Cude, Lomax:
To you two, and myself, its fairly
I think I'll have to take this one step at a time.
Do you all realize that you could swim up into the sky in
steam containing 90% by mass water?
It is not a part of our life experiences to have witnessed steam at anytime
having this anywhere near this liquid water content. Keep the eyes open to
The steam temperature is not measure at the location of evolution but futher
along in the device toward the exit.
For those of us adhering to the Water Flow-though Hypothesis, the
thermometer is further toward the water surface at the height of the outlet
where the pressure is less than that
On Fri, Jul 22, 2011 at 1:06 AM, Joshua Cude joshua.c...@gmail.com wrote:
I don't get that. If it takes one unit of power to bring the temperature up
to the ignition threshold, and then the thing generates 6 or more units of
power on its own, I can't see how removing the first one could
Craig, indeed that is true, liquid water does not contribute to the pressure
at all, because water does not gently flow out of the E-Cat, but is spilled
due to rather violent boiling at kW range in closed container.
Only thing that contributes for the pressure is steam flow pressure out of
the
I don't know how to visually estimate the wetness of steam. Why do you think
it's less than 5%?
On Thu, Jul 21, 2011 at 5:28 AM, Daniel Rocha danieldi...@gmail.com wrote:
Damon,
This is what I tried to explain before. Discussing about wetness of
the steam is a moot point. The mass of liquid
Do you have an online reference or text reference to the 1-2% value for
typical wetness of steam?
I would like to have a reference source.
On Fri, Jul 22, 2011 at 4:24 AM, Jouni Valkonen jounivalko...@gmail.comwrote:
It was well established that wetness of the steam was something in order of
Damon, little two sec googling with cell phone gave me this link:
http://brewery.org/library/SteInjCS1295.html
It says that all boiling chambers produces about 98% dry steam. Therefore
wetness measurement that was 1.4-1.2% feels very reliable. I think that
wetness depens slightly on temperature
the burden of proof lies with the claimant
it does?
1) prove it.
2) in having made the burden-of-proof argument, are you obligated to me to
prove it?
3) what is your burden/penalty if you decide not to oblige me?
On Thu, Jul 21, 2011 at 8:58 AM, Joshua Cude joshua.c...@gmail.com wrote:
On Fri, Jul 22, 2011 at 5:48 AM, Damon Craig decra...@gmail.com wrote:
I think I'll have to take this one step at a time.
Do you all realize that you could swim up into the sky in
steam containing 90% by mass water?
I don't think you read what I wrote. The density of water vapor at 100C is
Yes its not measured but it follows that it must be higher due to the increased
pressure.
- Original Message -
From: Damon Craig
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Sent: Friday, July 22, 2011 6:59 AM
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Uppsala University Denies Rossi Research Agreement
The steam
: Joe Catania
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Sent: Friday, July 22, 2011 8:43 AM
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Uppsala University Denies Rossi Research Agreement
Yes its not measured but it follows that it must be higher due to the
increased pressure.
- Original Message -
From: Damon Craig
On Fri, Jul 22, 2011 at 5:48 AM, Damon Craig decra...@gmail.com wrote:
It is not a part of our life experiences to have witnessed steam at anytime
having this anywhere near this liquid water content.
It depends on your life experience. It is certainly part of Mitra et al's
experience as
At 04:06 AM 7/22/2011, Joshua Cude wrote:
On Thu, Jul 21, 2011 at 2:28 PM, Abd ul-Rahman Lomax
mailto:a...@lomaxdesign.coma...@lomaxdesign.com wrote:
It's plausible as a control method, depending on the temperature
response of the active material.
The active material will presumably have an
At 06:48 AM 7/22/2011, Damon Craig wrote:
I think I'll have to take this one step at a time.
Do you all realize that you could swim up into the sky in steam
containing 90% by mass water?
Absolutly not. You are thinking, Damon, of 90% by volume.
At 06:59 AM 7/22/2011, Damon Craig wrote:
The steam temperature is not measure at the location of evolution
but futher along in the device toward the exit.
For those of us adhering to the Water Flow-though Hypothesis, the
thermometer is further toward the water surface at the height of the
At 07:24 AM 7/22/2011, Jouni Valkonen wrote:
Craig, indeed that is true, liquid water does
not contribute to the pressure at all, because
water does not gently flow out of the E-Cat, but
is spilled due to rather violent boiling at kW range in closed container.
No, that's an error. The E-Cat
At 07:48 AM 7/22/2011, Jouni Valkonen wrote:
Damon, little two sec googling with cell phone gave me this link:
http://brewery.org/library/SteInjCS1295.htmlhttp://brewery.org/library/SteInjCS1295.html
It says that all boiling chambers produces about 98% dry steam.
Therefore wetness
At 07:48 AM 7/22/2011, Damon Craig wrote:
the burden of proof lies with the claimant
it does?
1) prove it.
2) in having made the burden-of-proof argument, are you obligated to
me to prove it?
3) what is your burden/penalty if you decide not to oblige me?
Arguments like this assume
2011/7/22 Abd ul-Rahman Lomax a...@lomaxdesign.com:
However, claims that the data is contradictory, on the basis of steam
pressure calculations, seem to fail.
Thanks for these calculations – they sound reasonable. For me it seems
that E-Cat worked properly only in Mats Lewan's hands where
On Fri, Jul 22, 2011 at 11:01 AM, Abd ul-Rahman Lomax
a...@lomaxdesign.comwrote:
At 04:06 AM 7/22/2011, Joshua Cude wrote:
I don't get that. If it takes one unit of power to bring the temperature
up to the ignition threshold, and then the thing generates 6 or more units
of power on its own,
2011/7/22 Abd ul-Rahman Lomax a...@lomaxdesign.com:
Essentially, burden is a social construct, it doesn't exist aside from
human conventions. There is no burden meter.
Again you are on a roll! This burden of proof argument is silly and
widely spread pseudoargument.
Usually it works, because
]:Uppsala University Denies Rossi Research Agreement
On Fri, Jul 22, 2011 at 11:01 AM, Abd ul-Rahman Lomax a...@lomaxdesign.com
wrote:
At 04:06 AM 7/22/2011, Joshua Cude wrote:
I don't get that. If it takes one unit of power to bring the temperature up
to the ignition threshold
22, 2011 4:11:42 PM
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Uppsala University Denies Rossi Research Agreement
It would be more accurate to say the reaction depends on a temperature
difference between the reactor and the water rather than on the temperature of
the reactor.
No?
Harry
From: Joshua Cude joshua.c
On Fri, Jul 22, 2011 at 12:01 PM, Abd ul-Rahman Lomax
a...@lomaxdesign.com wrote:
It's like opening a can of spaghetti and finding that half of the pasta is
actually worms. Gee, it looked like pasta to me!
Hey, that's an insult to us pastafarians!
Look, guys. If no one is pursuing the really wet steam theory anymore the
steam wetness issue is pretty much moot. Sorry if I didn't realize that.
Originally, you may recall, numbers caste about were as high as 97% liquid
by mass. This is dense enough a chunk of oak would float in it. Even 10%
OK. Excuse my caution.
I am simply not comfortable helping witch hunters hunt witches.
On Tue, Jul 19, 2011 at 4:10 PM, Abd ul-Rahman Lomax
a...@lomaxdesign.comwrote:
At 04:55 PM 7/19/2011, Damon Craig wrote:
In my more-or-less last communication with Krivit, I told him the wet
steam
Cude, Lomax:
To you two, and myself, its fairly obvious this device doesn't do what it is
reported to do, but we have no solid, unrefutable evidence--yet.
One presumption is that an auxillary source of heat energy, such as
resistive heating, is capable of controlling an exothermic reaction
Damon,
This is what I tried to explain before. Discussing about wetness of
the steam is a moot point. The mass of liquid in any of those video
is visually less 5%, if that much. More than that, the liquid hose
would pour bubbles. But forget about it, people won't listen to this.
It seems they
Wherever the input power resistor is, its gradual surface
deterioration and fractal cracking will accelerate the flow of
electric current along the outside of the resistor, increasing the
direct transfer of heat energy into the input cooling water, 2 cc/sec
into a perhaps 200 cc interior volume,
On Thu, Jul 21, 2011 at 5:22 AM, Damon Craig decra...@gmail.com wrote:
Look, guys. If no one is pursuing the really wet steam theory anymore the
steam wetness issue is pretty much moot. Sorry if I didn't realize that.
What gives you that idea? To my mind, really wet steam is still the most
On Thu, Jul 21, 2011 at 6:56 AM, Damon Craig decra...@gmail.com wrote:
Cude, Lomax:
To you two, and myself, its fairly obvious this device doesn't do what it
is reported to do, but we have no solid, unrefutable evidence--yet.
Evidence is the responsibility of the guy making the claim.
On Thu, Jul 21, 2011 at 7:28 AM, Daniel Rocha danieldi...@gmail.com wrote:
The mass of liquid in any of those video
is visually less 5%, if that much.
You should get a job working for turbine manufacturers. They go to a lot of
trouble to evaluate steam quality, when all they need is for you
At 06:22 AM 7/21/2011, Damon Craig wrote:
Look, guys. If no one is pursuing the really wet steam theory
anymore the steam wetness issue is pretty much moot. Sorry if I
didn't realize that.
I have to say that really wet steam is not implausible, Joshua has
made a decent case for it. However,
At 07:56 AM 7/21/2011, Damon Craig wrote:
Cude, Lomax:
To you two, and myself, its fairly obvious this device doesn't do
what it is reported to do, but we have no solid, unrefutable evidence--yet.
One presumption is that an auxillary source of heat energy, such as
resistive heating, is
At 11:55 AM 7/21/2011, Joshua Cude wrote:
On Thu, Jul 21, 2011 at 5:22 AM, Damon Craig
mailto:decra...@gmail.comdecra...@gmail.com wrote:
Originally, you may recall, numbers caste about were as high as 97%
liquid by mass. This is dense enough a chunk of oak would float in it.
Please. 97%
At 11:58 AM 7/21/2011, Joshua Cude wrote:
On Thu, Jul 21, 2011 at 6:56 AM, Damon Craig
mailto:decra...@gmail.comdecra...@gmail.com wrote:
Cude, Lomax:
To you two, and myself, its fairly obvious this device doesn't do
what it is reported to do, but we have no solid, unrefutable evidence--yet.
.
- Original Message -
From: Abd ul-Rahman Lomax a...@lomaxdesign.com
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com; vortex-l@eskimo.com
Sent: Thursday, July 21, 2011 2:53 PM
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Uppsala University Denies Rossi Research Agreement
At 06:22 AM 7/21/2011, Damon Craig wrote:
Look, guys. If no one
.
- Original Message -
From: Abd ul-Rahman Lomax a...@lomaxdesign.com
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com; vortex-l@eskimo.com
Sent: Thursday, July 21, 2011 2:53 PM
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Uppsala University Denies Rossi Research Agreement
At 06:22 AM 7/21/2011, Damon Craig wrote:
Look, guys. If no one
I was under the presumption that there a few here that understood elementry
physics. Good Grief!
On Thu, Jul 21, 2011 at 8:55 AM, Joshua Cude joshua.c...@gmail.com wrote:
On Thu, Jul 21, 2011 at 5:22 AM, Damon Craig decra...@gmail.com wrote:
Look, guys. If no one is pursuing the really wet
On Tue, Jul 19, 2011 at 11:26 PM, Jouni Valkonen jounivalko...@gmail.comwrote:
This is probably correct analysis. I think that this is possible to
calculate fairly accurately, if we know the diameter of opening for the
hose. As boiling point of water inside E-Cat is what is measured with the
Or, to ask a little more precisely: How wet does steam get?
I don't know the answer to this. However, it takes energy to overcome
volumetic tension (commonly called surface tension). How much water will
break off a boiling surface into small suspendable droplets, and how many of
these will be
If all you had were small bits of various density styrofoam and various
means to boil water, I think some of you could eventially come up with the
answer to: how wet does steam get under conditions X?
On Wed, Jul 20, 2011 at 5:28 AM, Damon Craig decra...@gmail.com wrote:
Or, to ask a little
At 10:50 PM 7/19/2011, Joshua Cude wrote:
I wouldn't call it an overflow issue, but a lot of people were wise
to only a small fraction of the water being vaporized a long time ago.
I certainly didn't invent that idea. You could be correct with your
idea that there would be a lot of froth.
On Wed, Jul 20, 2011 at 10:28 AM, Abd ul-Rahman Lomax
a...@lomaxdesign.comwrote:
The overall question is How much of the water is actually vaporized? And
there isn't an answer. No steps were taken to demonstrate this critical
aspect of the demonstrations.
On this, we are in complete
Here's a bone for you and Krivit, Lomax.
Do you believe a cork will float on stream saturated with water vapor?
Thinking about it sorta makes the saturated steam theory look stupid,
doesn't it?
Why don't you find a piece of cheap, light styrofoam packing and see if it
will float over a boiling
At 08:24 AM 7/19/2011, Damon Craig wrote:
Here's a bone for you and Krivit, Lomax.
Arrggh. Classified with Krivit! Ah, well, even a stopped clock is
right twice a day. This is once for me, I still get to be right once more
Do you believe a cork will float on stream saturated with
In my more-or-less last communication with Krivit, I told him the wet steam
hypothesis, inspired by an abused humidity meter, was a red herring, and
the water was simply flowing through it.
Then you turn up using the same phrase.
Krivit has his wall of shame on his blog--a trophie wall of photos,
On Mon, Jul 18, 2011 at 8:29 PM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com wrote:
I expect it is well mixed from the heat alone. There are gradients in a pot
of hot water and it is hot near the bottom, but the water moves around
pretty quickly.
There are gradients in pure water, sure. Always below
On Tue, Jul 19, 2011 at 10:45 AM, Abd ul-Rahman Lomax
a...@lomaxdesign.comwrote:
Why don't you find a piece of cheap, light styrofoam packing and see if it
will float over a boiling pot of water.
Extra question answered, free of charge. I won't bother trying it, because
it won't float,
At 04:55 PM 7/19/2011, Damon Craig wrote:
In my more-or-less last communication with Krivit, I told him the
wet steam hypothesis, inspired by an abused humidity meter, was a
red herring, and the water was simply flowing through it.
Then you turn up using the same phrase.
I've been using it
At 05:42 PM 7/19/2011, Joshua Cude wrote:
On Tue, Jul 19, 2011 at 10:45 AM, Abd ul-Rahman Lomax
mailto:a...@lomaxdesign.coma...@lomaxdesign.com wrote:
Why don't you find a piece of cheap, light styrofoam packing and see
if it will float over a boiling pot of water.
Extra question
On Tue, Jul 19, 2011 at 7:12 PM, Abd ul-Rahman Lomax
a...@lomaxdesign.comwrote:
Sure, if you sufficiently obstruct the flow, you could lift styrofoam
easily. I was referring to a *piece* of styrofoam, presumably small. And the
question was about bouyancy, not about flow. You can support a
Abd ul-Rahman wrote: My conclusion is that there is very likely *some*
overflow water, but it might be small. I have no way of telling how much
there is, the demonstrations were not set up to make it possible to tell.
This is probably correct analysis. I think that this is possible to
calculate
/90
[ you may have to Copy and Paste URLs into your browser ]
https://mail.google.com/mail/u/0/?hl=enshva=1#drafts/1311fbb2b67e473f
[Vo]: Uppsala University Denies Rossi Research Agreement
Vortex-L@eskimo.com discussion group
Thanks, Joshua Cude, for your clear, earnest interpretations.
What
On Mon, Jul 18, 2011 at 12:37 AM, Joshua Cude joshua.c...@gmail.com wrote:
On Sun, Jul 17, 2011 at 8:24 PM, Terry Blanton hohlr...@gmail.com wrote:
I do not argue with ghosts.
I don't blame you, after the pathetic wet steam is not possible salvo.
Ah yes, those ghosts which grab splashy
Abd ul-Rahman Lomax wrote:
Jed, this is dead wrong. This is obvious. Suppose you have *almost*
full vaporization, not all the water is boiling, so water level in the
E-Cat will rise.
Almost full vaporization is a degree or two below boiling. That's my point.
Eventually, some will spill out.
On Mon, Jul 18, 2011 at 9:46 AM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com wrote:
Abd ul-Rahman Lomax wrote:
Jed, this is dead wrong. This is obvious. Suppose you have *almost* full
vaporization, not all the water is boiling, so water level in the E-Cat will
rise.
Almost full vaporization is a
At 10:46 AM 7/18/2011, Jed Rothwell wrote:
Abd ul-Rahman Lomax wrote:
Jed, this is dead wrong. This is obvious. Suppose you have *almost*
full vaporization, not all the water is boiling, so water level in
the E-Cat will rise.
Almost full vaporization is a degree or two below boiling. That's
Abd ul-Rahman Lomax a...@lomaxdesign.com wrote:
Mmmm... this gets pretty complicated. Water at the inlet would obviously be
cooler, much cooler. So there would be a temperature gradient in the E-Cat,
with cooler water near the inlet and hotter water near the outlet.
Only water rising to the
At 09:29 PM 7/18/2011, Jed Rothwell wrote:
Well, Rossi is changing the power when he twiddles the controls.
Maybe he is trying to keep it stable. But anyway if it overflows I
am pretty sure he turns up the power.
How does he know when it overflows? You've been assuming that the
temperature
From Joshua:
OrionWorks - Steven V Johnson;
My perception on the reactor core has always implied that the
volume of water entering the reactor core could vary.
Well, that's the difference then. But I think you're mistaken.
Rossi uses a pump designed to maintain a constant flow, and all
Joshua apparently wrote:
Well, that's the difference then. But I think you're mistaken.
Rossi uses a pump designed to maintain a constant flow, and all
his calculations (including Krivit's video of him calculating
the power) assume constant flow rate. And if the flow is constant
at 5
On Sun, Jul 17, 2011 at 2:13 PM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com wrote:
Joshua apparently wrote:
Well, that's the difference then. But I think you're mistaken.
Rossi uses a pump designed to maintain a constant flow, and all
his calculations (including Krivit's video of him calculating
On Sun, Jul 17, 2011 at 1:10 PM, OrionWorks - Steven Vincent Johnson
orionwo...@charter.net wrote:
From my POV it is conceivable that Rossi, while monitoring the January
demonstration, might have occasionally adjusted water inflow to help
maintain a consistent volume of water within the
At 02:10 PM 7/17/2011, OrionWorks - Steven Vincent Johnson wrote:
From Joshua:
OrionWorks - Steven V Johnson;
My perception on the reactor core has always implied that the
volume of water entering the reactor core could vary.
Well, that's the difference then. But I think you're mistaken.
From Jed:
No, he adjusts the power.
Same thing then. The key point being Rossi was constantly monitoring and
manually adjusting the power according to current conditions.
(Seat-of-the-pants adjusting, that is.) 100.1 C steam output could then
still be possible without violating the laws of
At 03:13 PM 7/17/2011, Jed Rothwell wrote:
Joshua apparently wrote:
Well, that's the difference then. But I think you're mistaken.
Rossi uses a pump designed to maintain a constant flow, and all
his calculations (including Krivit's video of him calculating
the power) assume constant flow
Abd ul-Rahman Lomax a...@lomaxdesign.com wrote:
Cude may be making an obvious error, assuming power figures from one test
apply to another.
He is. Partly my fault, since I quoted 17 kW without specifying which test I
meant. People should look here for the numbers:
On Sun, Jul 17, 2011 at 8:54 PM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com wrote:
Abd ul-Rahman Lomax a...@lomaxdesign.com wrote:
Jed, it's important to read statements from critics like Cude very
carefully.
No can do. He is in my kill file. I only see snippets when other people
quote him. Life is
At 08:54 PM 7/17/2011, Jed Rothwell wrote:
Abd ul-Rahman Lomax mailto:a...@lomaxdesign.coma...@lomaxdesign.com wrote:
However, just right in terms of exact full vaporization is
difficult to reach, from an engineering perspective . . .
Naa. It is a piece of cake. Just listen to the boiling
On Sun, Jul 17, 2011 at 6:36 PM, Abd ul-Rahman Lomax
a...@lomaxdesign.comwrote:
Cude may be making an obvious error, assuming power figures from one test
apply to another.
No. I'm objecting to Rothwell making exactly that assumption.
I have no problem with Rothwell arguing that the
On Sun, Jul 17, 2011 at 7:54 PM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com wrote:
Jed, it's important to read statements from critics like Cude very
carefully.
No can do. He is in my kill file. I only see snippets when other people
quote him. Life is too short to read such blather and nonsense.
On Sun, Jul 17, 2011 at 8:24 PM, Terry Blanton hohlr...@gmail.com wrote:
I do not argue with ghosts.
I don't blame you, after the pathetic wet steam is not possible salvo.
On Fri, Jul 15, 2011 at 4:50 PM, OrionWorks - Steven V Johnson
svj.orionwo...@gmail.com wrote:
My perception on the reactor core has always implied that the volume
of water entering the reactor core could vary.
Well, that's the difference then. But I think you're mistaken. Rossi uses a
pump
You're right. Someone of the group of seven attendees had placed an ammeter
on the line. The line voltage is either assumed or measured to be 220 VAC.
(Levan reports ~236 VAC.)
At least once, the ammeter was read. The quoted phrase referring to start
up:
The electric heater was switched on at
2011/7/15 Abd ul-Rahman Lomax a...@lomaxdesign.com:
I don't know what it is about this, but Jed seems to have lost his ability
to read and understand Of course, it could be me, I suppose. Aren't we
always the last to know?
I think that it is both, because you speak different language. You
Abd ul-Rahman Lomax wrote:
And this has been said to you many times, Jed, and you keep repeating
that this is nonsense.
It is all nonsense and bullshit. The 18-hour tests with flowing water
proved that the large cell is producing ~17 kW. The Lewan video proved
that the smaller cells are
Damon Craig wrote:
1) How often the ammeter was observed is unreported.
People have done any number of cold fusion experiments, including Ni-H
ones, in which input power was recorded on computer. If you don't wish
to believe this particular experiment then I suggest you look at some of
On Fri, Jul 15, 2011 at 8:53 AM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com wrote:
It is all nonsense and bullshit. The 18-hour tests with flowing water
proved that the large cell is producing ~17 kW.
If it did, then the steam should have been a few hundred degrees C in the
January test, and not
From Jed and Josh:
It is all nonsense and bullshit. The 18-hour tests with
flowing water proved that the large cell is producing
~17 kW.
If it did, then the steam should have been a few hundred
degrees C in the January test, and not 100C. But of course
it doesn't prove anything other than
On Fri, Jul 15, 2011 at 11:44 AM, OrionWorks - Steven V Johnson
svj.orionwo...@gmail.com wrote:
From Jed and Josh:
It is all nonsense and bullshit. The 18-hour tests with
flowing water proved that the large cell is producing
~17 kW.
If it did, then the steam should have been a few
[ duplicate from parallel discussion }
Well, since now it is pretty clear to many of us that none of the
demos provide proof of excess heat, then the judgement call is whether
to decide that there is no Rossi excess heat.
I came up intuitively, out of my sensitive vapors, with the scenario
that
On Fri, Jul 15, 2011 at 1:21 PM, Mark Iverson zeropo...@charter.net wrote:
**
JC stated:
...and the heated walls are at a higher temperature. So, it must get
hotter.
What makes you think that the walls of the vertical section (i.e., the
'chimney') are at a higher temperature than the walls
At 09:53 AM 7/15/2011, Jed Rothwell wrote:
Abd ul-Rahman Lomax wrote:
And this has been said to you many times, Jed,
and you keep repeating that this is nonsense.
It is all nonsense and bullshit.
Sure, with proper specification of the it. Nice to be able to agree.
The 18-hour tests with
1 - 100 of 126 matches
Mail list logo
