Mary Yugo maryyu...@gmail.com wrote:
So there was an uninspected volume of about 30 cube centimeters cube.
Right. That's what I said. There is no way equipment in such a small cube
can explain the heat. I said: They have not seen inside the cell (which is
inside the reactor) but the volume of
On Thu, Dec 8, 2011 at 8:54 AM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com wrote:
Mary Yugo maryyu...@gmail.com wrote:
So there was an uninspected volume of about 30 cube centimeters cube.
Right. That's what I said. There is no way equipment in such a small cube
can explain the heat. I said: They
Isn't the hidden volume 24x24x5= 2880cm^3 large?
2011/12/8 Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com
Mary Yugo maryyu...@gmail.com wrote:
So there was an uninspected volume of about 30 cube centimeters cube.
Right. That's what I said. There is no way equipment in such a small cube
can explain
On Thu, Dec 8, 2011 at 6:54 AM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com wrote:
Mary Yugo maryyu...@gmail.com wrote:
So there was an uninspected volume of about 30 cube centimeters cube.
In other words 27,000 cc. Not 30 cc. You can't hide a lot of stuff in
some 30,000 cc of space?
Mats referenced a box inside, bolted to the bottom with a heat sink on top,
measuring 30cmx30cmx30cm. He couldn't see inside of it, just a box with some
port connections for hydrogen, heater, and, presumably, RF. So, assuming, say
4cm for the heat exchanger, this could be 30x30x26, or
Robert Leguillon wrote:
Mats referenced a box inside, bolted to the bottom with a heat sink on
top, measuring 30cmx30cmx30cm. He couldn't see inside of it, just a
box with some port connections for hydrogen, heater, and, presumably,
RF. So, assuming, say 4cm for the heat exchanger, this
I suppose one could hypothesize that the previous ones were real and this
one is fake
Straw man hypothesis. Nobody claims that.
Mary Yugo maryyu...@gmail.com wrote:
I suppose one could hypothesize that the previous ones were real and this
one is fake
Straw man hypothesis. Nobody claims that.
Actually, several people have claimed that. Perhaps you are not.
The point is, we know the cell is a small object. If you
Jed,
All what is required is that in the first experiments the trick used was
different.
In the first experiments calorimetry was based on how much vaporization was
achieved.
When people demanded a different way of calculating heat production the
trick changed and now the access to the inner core
Robert Leguillon robert.leguil...@hotmail.com wrote:
You cite the temperature as evidence, but the temperature actually
contradicts full vaporization.
All of this has been explained succinctly ad nauseum, so please do not ask
for any details on it
I do not need any details. As I mentioned,
On Wed, Dec 7, 2011 at 8:43 AM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com wrote:
Robert Leguillon robert.leguil...@hotmail.com wrote:
You cite the temperature as evidence, but the temperature actually
contradicts full vaporization.
All of this has been explained succinctly ad nauseum, so please do
Here is another comment from Mats Lewan
Hi Mary (Jed’s in CC again),
What I saw inside the Ecat is more or less what I published and what my
photos from the inside showed – a block covered with flanges of heat
exchanger type, I believe I said approximately 30x30x30 cm. There’s a photo
from above
On Wed, Dec 7, 2011 at 8:50 AM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com wrote:
Here is another comment from Mats Lewan
As for energy storing I believe that has been clearly shown not to be a
possible explanation in itself.You simply would need an additional heat
source inside to have water
God, I hate to address this, but you either:
1) fundamentally misunderstand,
2) are asking the wrong question
3) are willfully ignoring clarification
If you don not understand the arguments, you need to look back to the early
E-Cats, where the question first arose.
The steam experts were
On Wed, Dec 7, 2011 at 9:41 AM, Robert Leguillon
robert.leguil...@hotmail.com wrote:
The steam experts were right in the INITIAL steam discussions. I agree
with you. But they were being asked about steam quality, not water
overflow.
Krivit raised his questions on steam quality which were,
Agreed. The picture is an over-simplification; it is dumbed-down to illustrate
the very basic tenet of the argument. I think that it is an exceptional
illustration to get the basic points across (think Neils Bohr).
You're right that it's more than likely gurgling and sputtering, as opposed
I feel that the description of my analysis of the October 6, 2011 test as the
work of a Rossi fan boy requires that I respond. Mr. Cude, you should read my
analysis before coming to such a conclusion since you seem to think of yourself
as open minded and honest in your assessment of the
Robert Leguillon wrote:
This is the same thing that may be happening in the Ottoman E-Cat:
water gurgling out, and some steam. The assumption of complete
vaporization cannot be relied upon, and is actually contradicted by
the measurements. This is why your Method 2 for the October 6th test
*This also will be posted to Vortex
-
Hi Mats,
*In theory I suppose he could have removed the flanges and the shielding to
show the reactors, but that would probably have taken some time.
*Rossi's demos have always emphasized saving time over
On Wed, Dec 7, 2011 at 10:38 AM, David Roberson dlrober...@aol.com wrote:
Are you convinced that the only way for the system to release 470 kW would
be for LENR action to be taking place? Is that your hang-up? Where are
the skeptics that claim that energy is stored for long enough and intense
Mary Yugo maryyu...@gmail.com wrote:
There is no need to postulate energy storage in the megawatt plant
demonstration. It is only necessary to consider that Rossi's client may be
fictitious and that the engineer may work for Rossi, perhaps for quite a
very large fee or share.
In other
On Wed, Dec 7, 2011 at 11:12 AM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com wrote:
Mary Yugo maryyu...@gmail.com wrote:
There is no need to postulate energy storage in the megawatt plant
demonstration. It is only necessary to consider that Rossi's client may be
fictitious and that the engineer may
Mary, you are clearly suggesting that this is a scam. Are you that convinced?
Where is the possibility that it might be honest?
Dave
-Original Message-
From: Mary Yugo maryyu...@gmail.com
To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com
Sent: Wed, Dec 7, 2011 2:08 pm
Subject: Re: [Vo]:a long paper
Mary Yugo maryyu...@gmail.com wrote:
I suspect you will take wild notions like mine more seriously if much more
time passes without any absolutely definitive determination of Rossi's
veracity.
I consider the Oct. 6 test definitive. The chance of fraud is so low I do
not take that seriously.
On Wed, Dec 7, 2011 at 1:30 PM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com wrote:
Mary Yugo maryyu...@gmail.com wrote:
I suspect you will take wild notions like mine more seriously if much
more time passes without any absolutely definitive determination of Rossi's
veracity.
I consider the Oct. 6
On Wed, Dec 7, 2011 at 11:25 AM, David Roberson dlrober...@aol.com wrote:
Mary, you are clearly suggesting that this is a scam.
Let me correct the wording -- I am suggesting strongly that it *may be* a
scam. I am cautious to allow for the small probability that it is not one
and simply looks
On Wed, Dec 7, 2011 at 11:30 AM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com wrote:
Mary Yugo maryyu...@gmail.com wrote:
I suspect you will take wild notions like mine more seriously if much
more time passes without any absolutely definitive determination of Rossi's
veracity.
I consider the Oct.
Mary Yugo maryyu...@gmail.com wrote:
I have no idea of the probability that Rossi is honest. I hope he is.
He is not, I assure you. He often dissembles about personal matters. If the
truth or falsity of this claim is predicated on his personal honesty, we
must dismiss it.
Fortunately, it is
Mary Yugo maryyu...@gmail.com wrote:
I consider the Oct. 6 test definitive.
Many capable scientists and engineers do not agree.
I have not heard from any yet. There has to be a time limit for these
things. As Melich and I wrote regarding cold fusion in general:
. . . [S]keptics have had
Mary Yugo maryyu...@gmail.com wrote:
And I always have to remind you that there are probably many potential
methods to cheat we may not have thought of.
You do not have to remind me of that. I have to remind *you* that is a
violation of the scientific method. It is proposition that cannot be
On Wed, Dec 7, 2011 at 12:38 PM, David Roberson dlrober...@aol.com wrote:
I have always maintained that I will follow the evidence and have been
faithful to that end.
That is not consistent with your frequently expressed absolute certainty
that LENR is occurring.
Why should we assume that
On Wed, Dec 7, 2011 at 1:01 PM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com wrote:
I agree there may have been some liquid flowing through at times, but
Lewan performed Method 2 after a very large burst of heat, and he found the
flow rate was much lower than the flow rate going into the reactor.
On Wed, Dec 7, 2011 at 1:12 PM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com wrote:
Mary Yugo maryyu...@gmail.com wrote:
There is no need to postulate energy storage in the megawatt plant
demonstration. It is only necessary to consider that Rossi's client may be
fictitious and that the engineer may
On Wed, Dec 7, 2011 at 11:54 AM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com wrote:
Mary Yugo maryyu...@gmail.com wrote:
I consider the Oct. 6 test definitive.
Many capable scientists and engineers do not agree.
I have not heard from any yet.
You've heard here and elsewhere on the internet.
On Wed, Dec 7, 2011 at 12:03 PM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com wrote:
Mary Yugo maryyu...@gmail.com wrote:
And I always have to remind you that there are probably many potential
methods to cheat we may not have thought of.
You do not have to remind me of that. I have to remind *you*
Mary Yugo maryyu...@gmail.com wrote:
Everyday experience with boiling water in poorly insulated pots proves you
are wrong. You should think about the evidence and basic physics and stop
repeating absurdities.
What seems absurd to you is not to other capable people.
A person who thinks it
On Wed, Dec 7, 2011 at 1:47 PM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com wrote:
Fortunately, it is predicated on immutable laws of physics and first
principle observations made by dozens of people who I know to be honest.
No. The laws of physics and ordinary chemistry can explain all the
Mary Yugo maryyu...@gmail.com wrote:
As I have pointed out before, that is an invalid argument. Rossi can
invalidate the entire line of thought simply by giving an E-cat to a
university,
Your statement applies to Rossi, not your own argument. *Your argument* has
to be falsifiable. It is
On Wed, Dec 7, 2011 at 1:54 PM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com wrote:
Mary Yugo maryyu...@gmail.com wrote:
I consider the Oct. 6 test definitive.
Many capable scientists and engineers do not agree.
I have not heard from any yet.
How to break this to you? They don't care about you.
On Wed, Dec 7, 2011 at 12:33 PM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com wrote:
Mary Yugo maryyu...@gmail.com wrote:
As I have pointed out before, that is an invalid argument. Rossi can
invalidate the entire line of thought simply by giving an E-cat to a
university,
Your statement applies to
On Wed, Dec 7, 2011 at 2:03 PM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com wrote:
Mary Yugo maryyu...@gmail.com wrote:
And I always have to remind you that there are probably many potential
methods to cheat we may not have thought of.
You do not have to remind me of that. I have to remind *you*
Mary Yugo wrote:
My statement has to be falsifiable and it is: simply by Rossi
submitting his device to proper independent verification.
I meant your first statement, which is that there are probably
potential methods of stage magic or faking kilowatt levels of heat.
Probably potential
On Wed, Dec 7, 2011 at 2:30 PM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com wrote:
Mary Yugo maryyu...@gmail.com wrote:
A person who thinks it is possible to keep water at boiling temperatures
for four hours at a poorly insulated vessel is not capable, by definition.
By any method? In a 100 kg
On Wed, Dec 7, 2011 at 2:33 PM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com wrote:
Mary Yugo maryyu...@gmail.com wrote:
As I have pointed out before, that is an invalid argument. Rossi can
invalidate the entire line of thought simply by giving an E-cat to a
university,
Your statement applies to
Dear Josh, at least you are consistent. Always claiming that someone or
something is not as it appears. MY realizes she might be in error and I
respect her for some honesty. Now, do you sincerely think that the large
generator was supplying the heat energy to vaporize the water? If all of
On 11-12-07 04:01 PM, David Roberson wrote:
Dear Josh, at least you are consistent. Always claiming that someone
or something is not as it appears. MY realizes she might be in error
and I respect her for some honesty. Now, do you sincerely think that
the large generator was supplying the
On Wed, Dec 7, 2011 at 3:01 PM, David Roberson dlrober...@aol.com wrote:
Now, do you sincerely think that the large generator was supplying the
heat energy to vaporize the water?
I don't have sincere thoughts about anything on this subject. It could be,
and that weakens Rossi's case. Those
Stephen A. Lawrence sa...@pobox.com wrote:
If by steam engine you mean steam locomotive engine, then they actually
incorporated steam driers specifically to dry the steam after it left the
boiler and, IIRC, before it entered the superheater. That's what at least
some of those funny domes on
Of course you are making a good point that they did use extra equipment to
ensure that the steam was very dry. The question is what is the dryness of the
steam before it entered those devices? Do you have any reference to this
information? Are we talking about only 5% at this point?
On Wed, Dec 7, 2011 at 12:52 PM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com wrote:
You are welcome to have the last word if you please.
No, thank you. LOL.
OK, I think I understand your position now. You have a gut feeling that Rossi
is attempting a scam, but you could actually be convinced it is a real system
under the proper circumstances. You will get no argument from me regarding
your statements needed for proof as I am quite unhappy about
A lot of responses have already been kicked up by JC and MY, but I'd like to
continue, if I may, to Jed.
This is a long reply, and was in discussion of using the primary of the October
6th test in any considerations as to test validity.
I completely understand your argument of rising
On Wed, Dec 7, 2011 at 3:21 PM, David Roberson dlrober...@aol.com wrote:
Of course you are making a good point that they did use extra equipment to
ensure that the steam was very dry. The question is what is the dryness of
the steam before it entered those devices? Do you have any reference
Of course you are correct if water is being forced out of the ECAT. I see no
reason to believe that that is the situation since an attempt was made to
measure the water and some was captured. It should also be noted that Rossi
and company had the input power set to 180 kWatts during the
Robert Leguillon robert.leguil...@hotmail.com wrote:
We do not have the incoming flow rate, and all we have for the outgoing
rate are the two from Lewan (one while it was running, and one during
purging).
Rossi stated the incoming flow rate was 15 L per hour. I think it was,
because it took
On 7 December 2011 21:51, Robert Leguillon robert.leguil...@hotmail.comwrote:
A lot of responses have already been kicked up by JC and MY, but I'd
like to continue, if I may, to Jed.
This is a long reply, and was in discussion of using the primary of the
October 6th test in any
On Wed, Dec 7, 2011 at 4:51 PM, David Roberson dlrober...@aol.com wrote:
Of course you are correct if water is being forced out of the ECAT. I see
no reason to believe that that is the situation since an attempt was made
to measure the water and some was captured.
But we don't know how
Again, I do not need to apply the ignorant engineer card every time things do
not add up.
But you do. You have to claim he was ignorant of the output flow rate, when he
in fact claimed he knew the output flow rate. And I submit that knowing that
the output flow rate was equal to the
Jed,
With all respect I cannot understand where you come from when you make such
comments:
laws of nature--
Rossi's claim is a violation of known laws of nature, that would be ok, if
he would make open the details of the experiment set up to third parties
even just in terms of reliable input and
On Wed, Dec 7, 2011 at 6:07 PM, David Roberson dlrober...@aol.com wrote:
Give the poor guy a break.
You should give him a break about the trap.
He measured the input flow rate accurately. You and I and everyone else
would agree that the output flow rate and the input flow rate must be
Will you please stop cluttering this otherwise fine site with you endless
bickering. Just agree to disagree and wait for more evidence.
Please. Enough is enough.
On Dec 7, 2011 7:43 PM, Joshua Cude joshua.c...@gmail.com wrote:
On Wed, Dec 7, 2011 at 6:07 PM, David Roberson dlrober...@aol.com
No problem here, I was hoping for a short answer from the gentleman.
Dave
-Original Message-
From: Jeff Sutton jsutton.sudb...@gmail.com
To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com
Sent: Wed, Dec 7, 2011 7:48 pm
Subject: Re: [Vo]:a long paper about and mainly against the E-cat
Will you please
Giovanni Santostasi gsantost...@gmail.com wrote:
Jed,
With all respect I cannot understand where you come from when you make
such comments:
laws of nature--
Rossi's claim is a violation of known laws of nature . . .
Sure. I meant the *calorimetry* must follow the laws of nature. As Harry
We should not forget though that there is a gap here between input and
output and that is what happens inside the e-cat. It is not just some
mysterious process inside the lattice but everything that happens inside
the black box.
In normal circumstances we would be able to see what is inside the
On Wed, Dec 7, 2011 at 7:02 PM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com wrote:
To put it another way, older laws trump newer ones.
You mean like Newton's laws trump relativity and QM?
If calorimetry and thermodynamics prove that cold fusion does exist, you
cannot point to the newer laws
Giovanni Santostasi gsantost...@gmail.com wrote:
In normal circumstances we would be able to see what is inside the box and
take it apart but we are not allowed to do so.
That is incorrect. The box has been taken apart. Many people have seen
inside it.
We could trust Rossi in claiming
On Wed, Dec 7, 2011 at 8:28 PM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com wrote:
Giovanni Santostasi gsantost...@gmail.com wrote:
In normal circumstances we would be able to see what is inside the box
and take it apart but we are not allowed to do so.
That is incorrect. The box has been taken
The Physics of why the e-Cat's Cold Fusion Claims
Collapsehttp://scienceblogs.com/startswithabang/2011/12/the_nuclear_physics_of_why_we.php
On 2011-12-06 14:44, Peter Gluck wrote:
http://scienceblogs.com/startswithabang/2011/12/the_nuclear_physics_of_why_we.php?utm_source=feedburnerutm_medium=emailutm_campaign=Feed%3A+ScienceblogsChannelEnvironment+%28ScienceBlogs+Channel+%3A+Environment%29
A few good demos could make the skeptics to swallow their poisonous words
and to shut up. I hope eventually these demos will happen. Now I hope they
will happen at Defkalion.
Peter
On Tue, Dec 6, 2011 at 3:44 PM, Peter Gluck peter.gl...@gmail.com wrote:
The Physics of why the e-Cat's Cold
Skeptics? Can we please stop calling these people skeptics. I am a skeptic.
This is not skepticism. This is dogmatism. We are the skeptics. We
are skeptical
of official dogma that says that hundreds of scientists are
incompetent, frauds or
self-deluded and that you can't produce energy from
there are interesting theoretical arguments.
If they are right it means that all Ni+H experiments are fraud, not only
e-cat and hyperions.
this is an all or nothing argument, for NiH reactions.
about their (seems good) stellar argument, that nickel cannot transmute to
copper in star for
On Tuesday 12/6/11 Alain wrote [snip] I can add few excuse. -first of all the
current isotopic ration of Ni might be the consequence of an equlibrium
reaction, in a very hot system, under neutron flux...-second, it seems that the
shape of the metal lattice (surface, temperature), and some other
On Tue, Dec 6, 2011 at 6:15 AM, Peter Gluck peter.gl...@gmail.com wrote:
A few good demos could make the skeptics to swallow their poisonous words
and to shut up. I hope eventually these demos will happen. Now I hope they
will happen at Defkalion.
Peter
One can be, at the same time,
I was speaking specifically about the article, its logic is poisonous,
typical post-logical thinking and mixing points of view.
Influential skeptics, on other hand are poisoning the funding sources of
New Energy.
But if you wish, I can retract 'poisonous' I am just writing an essay
about Rossi.
Ethan Siegel is suggesting a rigged power cord to explain the self
sustained heat observation:
In fact, the entire observed effect of having your system continue to
generate heat even after it's been turned off is remarkably simple to rig.
Possible?
rigged power cord: http://db.tt/RFOa0EAa
On
On Tue, Dec 6, 2011 at 8:10 AM, Peter Gluck peter.gl...@gmail.com wrote:
But if you wish, I can retract 'poisonous'
Well, it's just that it doesn't fit most skeptical criticism of Rossi any
more than does snake or clown with which Rossi is so fond of labeling
people.
I am just writing an
No, that simple scenario is not possible. If you ran the circuit backwards, the
current would not change; if you switched wires the ammeter would read zero,
which it never has (it always showed the current for the controls and/or radio
frequency generator).
Unfortunately, the input power is
On Tue, Dec 6, 2011 at 8:43 AM, Robert Leguillon
robert.leguil...@hotmail.com wrote:
No, that simple scenario is not possible. If you ran the circuit
backwards, the current would not change; if you switched wires the ammeter
would read zero, which it never has (it always showed the current
At 08:37 AM 12/6/2011, Mary Yugo wrote:
By the way, the article has an interesting way of cheating the
power-in measurement. See the last figure. I don't think Rossi
does this but I can't rule it out. In the photos, the line cord is
taken apart and the wire being measured looks like it's a
At 08:44 AM 12/6/2011, Peter Gluck wrote:
The Physics of why the e-Cat's Cold Fusion Claims Collapse
I suggest that the fact that the current into the resistive heater elements was
measured also eliminates this kind of magic.
Dave
-Original Message-
From: Mary Yugo maryyu...@gmail.com
To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com
Sent: Tue, Dec 6, 2011 11:38 am
Subject: Re: [Vo]:a long paper
Authors of the article The Physics of why the e-Cat's Cold Fusion Claims
Collapse :
*Ethan Siegel http://www.facebook.com/people/Ethan-Siegel/1207789153
is a theoretical
On Tue, Dec 6, 2011 at 10:24 AM, David Roberson dlrober...@aol.com wrote:
I suggest that the fact that the current into the resistive heater
elements was measured also eliminates this kind of magic.
I don't believe that was ever done. It probably doesn't matter but if
anyone knows of it
For the simple wire-swap to have occurred, you would really need binary power
states of on and off. In the September and early October tests, as the power
was never zero, you would have to get more creative to explain the non-zero
amperage observed for the power controller and frequency
Mary, there are measurements conducted throughout the test of October 6. See
the attached:
http://www.nyteknik.se/incoming/article3284962.ece/BINARY/Test+of+E-cat+October+6+%28pdf%29
Dave
-Original Message-
From: Mary Yugo maryyu...@gmail.com
To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com
Sent:
Here is a comment from Lewan Mats about this topic:
Hi Mary and Ahsoka,
Saw your discussion about power cords on Vortex. You can rule them out.
I made my own connection cord which I put in series, both at the main power
supply and between the blue control box and the resistor in the Ecat.
Darn. Between the vagaries of the gmail system and Vortex, half the time I
can end up responding to the wrong people. Seems I did respond only to
Mats to what was a personal email to me and a few others and which Jed
posted on Vort. OK. So here is my reply, now public (sorry I got confused
--
Mary Yugo maryyu...@gmail.com wrote:
Also how you feel about the lack of a blank/calibration run ahead of the
test, using the electrical heater as a calibrating energy source before
hydrogen was added to the E-cat. Wouldn't that rule out such issues as
thermocouple placement?
The best way
This appears to be the Houkes data that you're referring to:
http://lenr-canr.org/RossiData/Houkes%20Oct%206%20Calculation%20of%20influence%20of%20Tin%20on%20Tout.xlsx
I cannot open this file. I get a zip with dissociated .xml's.
I know that I'd quickly discounted it in the past, as it
But, I must say that your allusion to
the fact that two calorimetric methods were in reasonable agreement
is just hogwash. The secondary calorimetric observations cited previously were
entirely contingent upon the acceptance of the first. This is a circular
argument.
From:
Robert Leguillon robert.leguil...@hotmail.com wrote:
This appears to be the Houkes data that you're referring to:
http://lenr-canr.org/RossiData/Houkes%20Oct%206%20Calculation%20of%20influence%20of%20Tin%20on%20Tout.xlsx
I cannot open this file. I get a zip with dissociated .xml's.
I know
Here is a version of Houkes in Acrobat format. This has some problems:
http://lenr-canr.org/RossiData/Houkes%20Oct%206%20Calculation%20of%20influence%20of%20Tin%20on%20Tout.pdf
The original in Excel format is better:
Thanks for converting the file. It may have been saved in Excel 2007 without
compatible mode.
As to the methods you discuss:
Method 1 is great if you can trust the power in, secondary flow rate, and the
thermocouple readings. - Even though the power in was only spot-checked, I feel
good about
94 matches
Mail list logo
