On Fri, Oct 10, 2014 at 9:35 AM, Jones Beene jone...@pacbell.net wrote:
Next let’s say the bulb presented is frosted, and you are naïve and do not
know that it contains a hot filament - but I use the camera to focus on an
area of the bulb’s exterior, where from prior experience, I know that the
From: Eric Walker
This is a helpful analogy. I was wondering why the emissivity of alumina was
an issue. I take it this sort of issue is resolved by coating the thing device
being measured in a black refractory coating.
Exactamundo. Any undergrad engineering student could see
From: Blaze Spinnaker
Michael Nelson, Alternate Discipline Leader for SLS
Propulsion at NASA’s Propulsion Research and Development Laboratory, notes,
“I was impressed with the work that was done to insure the measurements
claiming a 3.2 to 3.6 COP
On 10/10/2014 09:49 AM, Jones Beene wrote:
There is no joy in Mudville for this fan. This is because it is now apparent
that there is no real proof of energy gain in the Levi report. There is
slight evidence, but no proof. Most of that evidence comes from
transmutation, but as we know,
-Original Message-
From: Craig Haynie
Any type of transmutation is totally astonishing, and will change the world
as we know it, if people follow up on it and verify it.
Well - you are correct on that, assuming this is verified - but it goes without
saying that we were expecting to
Jones Beene jone...@pacbell.net wrote:
In short, the IR being picked up by the camera and then being raised to 4th
power by the calculations was a bogus reading, which was essentially the
glow of the resistance wires.
Then why did it agree with the thermocouple, and why did it register
I wrote:
. . . why did it register similar high temperatures in places that were
not incandescent?
I refer to Fig. 7.
- Jed
From: Jed
The calibration was done at 486 W and and then the cell was run at 790 W for
two days. That seems reasonably close to me. The temperature should have been
about the same. I cannot imagine any mechanism that would make it go so much
higher, other than anomalous excess heat.
Jones Beene jone...@pacbell.net wrote:
Geeze you are sounding almost as bad as Levi - in not seeing the obvious
... “about the same” is absurd, given what happens later. The difference
between 486 and 790 is enormous when the delta-T is being raised by a
formula which includes a fourth power
I wrote:
Jones Beene jone...@pacbell.net wrote:
Geeze you are sounding almost as bad as Levi - in not seeing the obvious
... “about the same” is absurd, given what happens later. The difference
between 486 and 790 is enormous when the delta-T is being raised by a
formula which includes a
Jed was talking in watts, W ~ T^4, T is the fourth root of W so it is
logarithmic
not exponential in your jargon.
On Fri, Oct 10, 2014 at 4:18 PM, Jones Beene jone...@pacbell.net wrote:
*From:* Jed
The calibration was done at 486 W and and then the cell was run at 790 W
for two days.
The Isotopic shift is interesting, but that's actually what I'm least
impressed with from what I've read so far. It certainly hints at a
nuclear reaction, but it's a bizarre finding. The excess heat is pretty
obvious/irrefutable, but these isotopic measurements are very far from a
sure-thing. If
Transmutation is a huge part of lenr. Spawar has published patents all
over it. I'm sure it's why the Nasa scientist is excited about it,
because he's seen it before and know it's likely true to a point.
On Fri, Oct 10, 2014 at 8:48 AM, Foks0904 . foks0...@gmail.com wrote:
The Isotopic
*Transmutation is a huge part of lenr.*
It's a part of lenr for sure. I don't know if I'd say huge because
we've never, ever, measured transmutation products that are commensurate
with excess heat. This is Widom-Larsen logic based on wishful thinking and
very little empirical evidence.
*Spawar
http://coldfusionnow.org/transmutation-of-nuclear-waste-lenr-spawar-navy-patent/
On Fri, Oct 10, 2014 at 9:08 AM, Foks0904 . foks0...@gmail.com wrote:
*Transmutation is a huge part of lenr.*
It's a part of lenr for sure. I don't know if I'd say huge because
we've never, ever, measured
http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect2=PTO1Sect2=HITOFFp=1u=/netahtml/PTO/search-bool.htmlr=1f=Gl=50d=PALLRefSrch=yesQuery=PN/8419919
BACKGROUND OF THE INVENTION
The embodiments of the invention relate generally to the field of
electrochemistry.
Generated particles may be captured by
Thanks for the link, but again, I'm not really arguing over the patent,
that's beside the point. I'm just saying where their *most extensive*
work has focused over the years. The patent doesn't really suggest anything
about a possible LENR mechanism, just that it's part of the cold fusion
I generally agree with your sentiment, and about the obfuscation. Though
I'm feeling more optimistic now that Darden has personally put his
credibility on the line. Clearly he is excited. And given the 1mw
install they've been doing he must have a pretty good idea of what's going
on.I
* generally agree with your sentiment, and about the obfuscation. Though
I'm feeling more optimistic now that Darden has personally put his
credibility on the line. Clearly he is excited. And given the 1mw
install they've been doing he must have a pretty good idea of what's going
on.I
Here is a reduction ad absurdum example of why this experiment was
unbelievably poorly designed.
NOTE: The experiment could still be gainful, but the Levi’s results do not
prove anything, as presented. The thermocouple does not help – it is
admitted by Levi that it was accurate only on the two
Jones -- I can't say your objections to Rossi being present when it was
open are unfounded. I think that was a rather stupid move/agreement between
the parties. Creates all kind of innuendo which they could/should have
avoided. With that said I'm not so sure it really presented him with much
Foks0904 . foks0...@gmail.com wrote:
Jones -- I can't say your objections to Rossi being present when it was
open are unfounded. I think that was a rather stupid move/agreement between
the parties. Creates all kind of innuendo which they could/should have
avoided.
As far as I know, the
*As far as I know, the people doing these tests do not care about innuendos
or the opinions of Jones Beene, or anyone else. I believe they have good
reasons for imposing restrictions (as Lewan put it). These reasons
override any concerns about public relations or public opinion.*
*I am glad they
Does anyone know if there will be a press release or QA where the
experimenters can answer questions?
It would be extreme negligence to allow Levi or Rossi to open the
reactor or handle the ash.
Two things that lends credence to Jones' fear-- Rossi's constant may
be positive or may be negative
I think you exagerrate to the point of non sense.
even if goatguy make a real point it is just changing the values of the
temperature and the power.
not the fact that COP1, and even 1
one reactor with less energy in, get more bright than one with more power
getting in.
maybe COP is not 3.2 but
Brad, I think part of the problem was control. When you use the hot cat
to actually heat something I suspect it messes with the ability to control
the reaction. The best they can do is let it radiate, which is why the
thermal cameras.
On Fri, Oct 10, 2014 at 12:06 PM, Brad Lowe
The continued use of these two remote IR temperature sensors leads me to
suspect a large output of IR radiation witch would have interfered with
directly wired instrumentation
On Fri, Oct 10, 2014 at 3:06 PM, Brad Lowe ecatbuil...@gmail.com wrote:
Does anyone know if there will be a press
Very perceptive and a great insight into why the test was setup the way
that it was. Rossi has not solved his control issues yet.
On Fri, Oct 10, 2014 at 3:19 PM, Blaze Spinnaker blazespinna...@gmail.com
wrote:
Brad, I think part of the problem was control. When you use the hot cat
to
Brad Lowe ecatbuil...@gmail.com wrote:
Does anyone know if there will be a press release or QA where the
experimenters can answer questions?
It would be extreme negligence to allow Levi or Rossi to open the
reactor or handle the ash.
Extreme negligence toward who, under what law or what set
If there is a real transparancy issue as GoatGuy suggest then the inner
must be of much higher temperature then the surface.
To get a feeling of this issue I tried to look at the published picture of
the cat and see if there was a region of lower temperature
at the upper part of the ecat in the
On Fri, Oct 10, 2014 at 2:54 PM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com wrote:
I am glad they published this report. They were under no obligation to do
so. We are beggars and beggars cannot be choosers.
This is another reason why most scientists will ignore this report because
they see
On Fri, Oct 10, 2014 at 2:48 PM, H Veeder hveeder...@gmail.com wrote:
On Fri, Oct 10, 2014 at 2:54 PM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com
wrote:
I am glad they published this report. They were under no obligation to do
so. We are beggars and beggars cannot be choosers.
This is another
James Bowery jabow...@gmail.com wrote:
This is another reason why most scientists will ignore this report
because they see themselves as a community of equals.
The community that ignores experimental falsification of their theories
is, indeed, a community of equals.
Yes! And a
what impact does it have about the question whether the blank when powered
with more energy, is brighting much less than the one with one gram more of
magic powder ?
to the point that the things inside the reactor bright more than the
resistors ...
if the skeptics are really skeptic, they have
It is worth noting that some FP cells got hot enough to boil off the
electrolytic solution and then remained hot for a while.
Harry
On Fri, Oct 10, 2014 at 3:21 PM, Axil Axil janap...@gmail.com wrote:
Very perceptive and a great insight into why the test was setup the way
that it was. Rossi
Jones Beene jone...@pacbell.net wrote:
$64 question: Was Rossi present at the time the reactor was opened?
Yes, the reports says he was.
If so, and this has been reported on E-Cat World, then that means the
sample
which Bianchini tested was not independently obtained – and could have
, then the test
is suspect. Does anyone on the list have the materials and time available to
perform such a test?
Dave
-Original Message-
From: Jones Beene jone...@pacbell.net
To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com
Sent: Fri, Oct 10, 2014 12:35 pm
Subject: RE: [Vo]:Nasa scientist endorses
On Fri, Oct 10, 2014 at 12:06 PM, Brad Lowe ecatbuil...@gmail.com wrote:
If it were a clear COP of 3, it should be pretty easy to heat a tub of
water or do some kind of obvious work.
This is the most frustrating part of following the E-Cat story. In several
years of watching, I have yet to
38 matches
Mail list logo
