On Sep 1, 2011, at 10:24 AM, Jed Rothwell wrote:
Horace Heffner wrote:
Here is what all the opinions in the world cannot change: liquid
flow test proves that the machine is producing 12 to 16 kW of
excess heat. Period.
Again, where is the data for this test.
On Fri, Sep 2, 2011 at 6:48 AM, Horace Heffner hheff...@mtaonline.net wrote:
My first reaction is: did it not occur to anyone in 18 hours to reduce the
flow by a factor of 10 so as to get more reliable numbers? The restriction
would not have to be precise. Everything depends on the flow
Horace Heffner hheff...@mtaonline.net wrote:
My first reaction is: did it not occur to anyone in 18 hours to reduce the
flow by a factor of 10 so as to get more reliable numbers?
I would not recommend that:
1. The machine went bonkers when they started the run, producing very high
heat. I
2011/9/1 Horace Heffner hheff...@mtaonline.net:
If you want to see wet steam as I have described it, as generated by the
peroclator effect
Your description is wrong, because percolator effect does not produce
wet steam, but hot water and little dry steam (steam quality ca. 98%).
What you are
2011/9/1 Jouni Valkonen jounivalko...@gmail.com:
But Horace, why do you constantly ignore the fact that steam
generation in closed container is always generating excess pressure?
And in this case, excess pressure was 100 kPa.
oops, here was a mistake. Excess pressure was of course 10 kPa and
Horace Heffner wrote:
All the opinions in the world can not change the fact that water was
probably coming out of the device in large mass proportions, whither
or not the device produced some nuclear heat.
Here is what all the opinions in the world cannot change: liquid flow
test proves
On Aug 31, 2011, at 10:33 PM, Jouni Valkonen wrote:
2011/9/1 Horace Heffner hheff...@mtaonline.net:
If you want to see wet steam as I have described it, as generated
by the
peroclator effect
Your description is wrong, because percolator effect does not produce
wet steam, but hot water and
On Sep 1, 2011, at 6:17 AM, Jed Rothwell wrote:
Horace Heffner wrote:
All the opinions in the world can not change the fact that water
was probably coming out of the device in large mass proportions,
whither or not the device produced some nuclear heat.
Here is what all the opinions
2011/9/1 Horace Heffner hheff...@mtaonline.net:
Lying is not an important issue with the public tests.
What if there was a hidden hydrogen bottle? 200 grams of hydrogen is enough.
The issue is whether
the calorimetry showed anything at all.
Indeed, it showed. I will return this issue
You should measure the increase in your sparging more accurately for
instance in a graduated cylinder.
- Original Message -
From: Jouni Valkonen jounivalko...@gmail.com
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Sent: Thursday, September 01, 2011 1:07 PM
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Corrections to heat after death
Horace Heffner wrote:
Here is what all the opinions in the world cannot change: liquid flow
test proves that the machine is producing 12 to 16 kW of excess heat.
Period.
Again, where is the data for this test.
http://lenr-canr.org/News.htm#Rossi18HourTest
(with links to NyTeknik)
And do
This Catania bloke didn't take the hint.
Jed appears to be pursued by demons. What else would induce a Japlish
translator to take up residence in a cold fusion forum.
Apart from the actual researchers, Jed is, and always has been since 1989, one
of the most significant figures in the cold
On Thu, Sep 1, 2011 at 6:38 PM, Nick Palmer ni...@wynterwood.co.uk wrote:
Obviously,
Catania does not realise this but, like so many in the past, shoots from the
hip to fill up the forum with dubious logic, false assertions and acres of
attacking prose. These types go away in the end.
I love
One final addition considering December E-Cat.
This value of total heating power of 6-9 kW is reliable, because it is
calculated using three different data sets and three distinct methods.
–There was 100 kPa overpressure, and from Mats Lewan E-Cat we get one
reference point (there was 32 kPa
Jouni Valkonen wrote:
I am sure that Rossi
was quite well familiar with the real power of E-Cat, because water
inflow rate was adjusted in right level.
I believe he does it the other way. He leaves the water inflow rate
steady and adjusts the power output to vaporize all of the water. In the
On Aug 31, 2011, at 6:23 AM, Jed Rothwell wrote:
Jouni Valkonen wrote:
I am sure that Rossi
was quite well familiar with the real power of E-Cat, because water
inflow rate was adjusted in right level.
I believe he does it the other way. He leaves the water inflow rate
steady and adjusts
Horace Heffner hheff...@mtaonline.net wrote:
Of course Rossi has perfect control operating in the range chosen. All
he has to do is provide enough sustained power to heat the water flow to
boiling temperature, call it Pb, or a enogh above that for a momentary
steam demonstration.
It isn't
On Aug 31, 2011, at 6:23 AM, Jed Rothwell wrote:
Jouni Valkonen wrote:
I am sure that Rossi
was quite well familiar with the real power of E-Cat, because water
inflow rate was adjusted in right level.
I believe he does it the other way. He leaves the water inflow rate
steady and adjusts
On Aug 31, 2011, at 9:43 AM, Jed Rothwell wrote:
Horace Heffner hheff...@mtaonline.net wrote:
Of course Rossi has perfect control operating in the range
chosen. All he has to do is provide enough sustained power to heat
the water flow to boiling temperature, call it Pb, or a enogh above
Horace Heffner hheff...@mtaonline.net wrote:
The public demonstrations to date prove nothing because the methods used
are so flawed.
That is incorrect. As Rossi and I have pointed out many times, if there were
flaws in the steam test, the flowing water test would have revealed them.
Since it
Sigh. I can't seem to get anything right the first time. Some typos
corrected below.
On Aug 31, 2011, at 9:43 AM, Jed Rothwell wrote:
Horace Heffner hheff...@mtaonline.net wrote:
Of course Rossi has perfect control operating in the range
chosen. All he has to do is provide enough
On Aug 31, 2011, at 10:38 AM, Jed Rothwell wrote:
Horace Heffner hheff...@mtaonline.net wrote:
The public demonstrations to date prove nothing because the methods
used are so flawed.
That is incorrect. As Rossi and I have pointed out many times, if
there were flaws in the steam test,
Horace Heffner hheff...@mtaonline.net wrote:
The flowing water test was not public as far as I know. Where is the
report showing the data etc.?
The data is in NyTeknik and LENR-CANR.org.
If you do not trust Levi et al. to report the results of the flow test
honestly and accurately, then
I didn't know it was possible to insult nature with just words.
You can insult the Pope with just words.
Harry
From: Joe Catania zrosumg...@aol.com
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Sent: Tuesday, August 30, 2011 12:35:15 PM
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Corrections to heat after death calculations
Joe Catania zrosumg...@aol.com wrote:
Not only have I been the subject of ad hominems for a presentaion that is
obvious by the very nature of what is being discussed, there have been false
allegations and insults to nature
ahem Mother Nature has authorized me act on Her behalf, as Her
to take up residence in a cold fusion forum.
- Original Message -
From: Jed Rothwell
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Sent: Wednesday, August 31, 2011 4:25 PM
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Corrections to heat after death calculations
Joe Catania zrosumg...@aol.com wrote:
Not only have I been
On Wed, Aug 31, 2011 at 5:03 PM, Joe Catania zrosumg...@aol.com wrote:
Jed appears to be pursued by demons. What else would induce a Japlish
translator to take up residence in a cold fusion forum.
Joe appears to be pursued by demonstrations. What else would induce a
pseudoskeptic to take up
Joe Catania wrote:
ahem Mother Nature has authorized me act on Her behalf, as Her
agent. I am authorized to forgive these insults. But also to warn you
people to Watch Your Step. Next time She may not be so magnanimous.
- Jed
Jed appears to be pursued by demons. What else would induce a
I begin to see you can be gracious where Mother Nature isn't.
- Original Message -
From: Jed Rothwell
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Sent: Wednesday, August 31, 2011 5:57 PM
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Corrections to heat after death calculations
Joe Catania wrote:
ahem Mother Nature
PM
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Corrections to heat after death calculations
On Wed, Aug 31, 2011 at 5:03 PM, Joe Catania zrosumg...@aol.com wrote:
Jed appears to be pursued by demons. What else would induce a Japlish
translator to take up residence in a cold fusion forum.
Joe appears to be pursued
On Aug 31, 2011, at 1:45 PM, Joe Catania wrote:
You're the one that believes they are demonstrations. I stated they
were not. Yiu also failed to convince anyone they were (but did
try). Why you believe in this nonsense is beyond me. Did Rossi make
a large cash contribution? I sense much
On Aug 31, 2011, at 11:30 AM, Jed Rothwell wrote:
Horace Heffner hheff...@mtaonline.net wrote:
The flowing water test was not public as far as I know. Where is
the report showing the data etc.?
The data is in NyTeknik and LENR-CANR.org.
If you do not trust Levi et al. to report the
I wrote: I don't know of any two serious theorists that agree!
That should have said: I don't know of any two serious theorists
that agree with theories they didn't help develop themselves. Some
obvious exceptions to the first statement are Windom Larsen, and
Chubb Chubb.
Best
Horace wrote: «What you say might be true if the public tests were
reasonably well done. They weren't. There is thus no reason to believe
closed door results were done any more competently unless sufficient
information is published to make that determination.»
This is not the case. There was
On Aug 31, 2011, at 6:03 PM, Jouni Valkonen wrote:
Horace wrote: «What you say might be true if the public tests were
reasonably well done. They weren't. There is thus no reason to
believe closed door results were done any more competently unless
sufficient information is published to
I think Catania needs to be banned..
Talking about Horace he wrote You just don't have the patience, are
incompetent or are plain ignorant and You're nuts .
Pay attention to this, Catania. Both Horace and Jed, in different ways, are
mental giants. You are a midget and a very rude incorrigible
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Corrections to heat after death calculations
On Aug 29, 2011, at 5:14 PM, Joe Catania wrote:
[snip ad hominem and continued mistakes]
We aren't discussing water flow.
[snip ad hominem and continued mistakes]
Of course we are discussing
Hi Joe,
I found an error in my calculation of the critical temperature, the
temperature at which all energy merely goes into heating the water to
100°C, with none left to produce steam. You will probably like the
improvements. I have reposted:
2011/8/30 Horace Heffner hheff...@mtaonline.net:
Note especially in RossiThermal2.pdf, in Mode 2, that a mass of between 5
and 10 kg, at initial Mass Temp. of 300*C, provides a 15 minute thermal
decline curve with no nuclear energy involved.
Good thinking, expect that the total metal weight of
On Aug 30, 2011, at 4:52 AM, Jouni Valkonen wrote:
2011/8/30 Horace Heffner hheff...@mtaonline.net:
Note especially in RossiThermal2.pdf, in Mode 2, that a mass of
between 5
and 10 kg, at initial Mass Temp. of 300*C, provides a 15 minute
thermal
decline curve with no nuclear energy
I concur, Nick. These are violations of forum rules.
Amazing how we can go for years on Vortex with no bannings; then, a
controversial issue comes along and we have to ban those children who
cannot act like human beings.
I think Catania will be the third Rossi fatality. :)
T
On Tue, Aug 30,
Mark Iverson-ZeroPoint wrote:
Compare the heat capacity of any metal with water and you will see
that water can store 100 to 1000 times more heat per mass than any metal.
It is a factor of 10 for most metals, per unit of mass. Not 100 or 1000.
The eCat is mostly steel which is 0.49 kJ/kg
Horace wrote: «If you provide numbers for Mass, Thermal Power (before
shutoff), Inlet Temp., Mass Temp., and Inlet Flow then I will then be happy
to provide the corresponding data.»
Perhaps 500 grams was too small value. I re-estimated that if the outer
volume of core chamber is 50cc, then
Jouni Valkonen wrote:
Ps. I do not know what model of E-Cat we are talking about. Does we
have pictures? Or is it just some mythical test what was seen by nobody.
The 15 minute heat-after-death event was with the large eCat used in the
January and February tests. This produces 12 kW to 16
. - Original Message -
From: Mark Iverson-ZeroPoint
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Sent: Tuesday, August 30, 2011 3:30 AM
Subject: RE: [Vo]:Corrections to heat after death calculations
Joe:
Water flow is most certainly pertinent to any energy calculations concerning
the E-Cat
.
- Original Message -
From: Horace Heffner
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Sent: Monday, August 29, 2011 10:59 PM
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Corrections to heat after death calculations
On Aug 29, 2011, at 5:14 PM, Joe Catania wrote:
[snip ad hominem and continued mistakes]
We aren't
Terry Blanton wrote:
I concur, Nick. These are violations of forum rules.
Perhaps, but let us not be too thin-skinned. Or politically correct.
Let's not ban anyone. If someone irritates you, just add the name to
your own auto-delete list.
- Jed
to attribute it to a successful cold
fusion demo.
- Original Message -
From: Horace Heffner
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Sent: Tuesday, August 30, 2011 8:36 AM
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Corrections to heat after death calculations
Hi Joe,
I found an error in my calculation
: Jed Rothwell [mailto:jedrothw...@gmail.com]
Sent: Tuesday, August 30, 2011 7:00 AM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Corrections to heat after death calculations
Mark Iverson-ZeroPoint wrote:
Compare the heat capacity of any metal with water and you will see that
water can store 100
]:Corrections to heat after death calculations
2011/8/30 Horace Heffner hheff...@mtaonline.net:
Note especially in RossiThermal2.pdf, in Mode 2, that a mass of between 5
and 10 kg, at initial Mass Temp. of 300*C, provides a 15 minute thermal
decline curve with no nuclear energy involved.
Good thinking
water
although this does not contribute directly to steam.
- Original Message -
From: Joe Catania zrosumg...@aol.com
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Sent: Tuesday, August 30, 2011 11:20 AM
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Corrections to heat after death calculations
I belive you are saying the heating mantle
@eskimo.com
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Corrections to heat after death calculations
Until we know whether Levi turned the flow off along with the heater we will
not know how to calculate this for sure. I also have suspicion that the
metal may get hotter than 550C according to several staments by Rossi
:17 PM
Subject: RE: [Vo]:Corrections to heat after death calculations
Perhaps someone can provide specific reference to a statement by one of the
participants in the E-Cat demos that the water flow was maintained during the
heat-after-death tests.
Joe Catania:
Your post below
Joe Catania wrote:
Oops! I assumed that there actually was outflow water at this stage
but there does not seem to be evidence of that.
You have an extraordinary imagination, thinking that people run flow
calorimeters without a flow.
- Jed
On Aug 30, 2011, at 6:18 AM, Jed Rothwell wrote:
As far as I know, this is the only eCat that Levi et al. tested in
December, which is when the event occurred. The flow rate was
typically ~300 ml/min I believe.
Are you sure about that flow rate being present in the heat after
death
3:40 PM
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Corrections to heat after death calculations
Joe Catania wrote:
Oops! I assumed that there actually was outflow water at this stage but
there does not seem to be evidence of that.
You have an extraordinary imagination, thinking that people run flow
calorimeters
On Aug 30, 2011, at 6:02 AM, Jouni Valkonen wrote:
Horace wrote: «If you provide numbers for Mass, Thermal Power
(before shutoff), Inlet Temp., Mass Temp., and Inlet Flow then I
will then be happy to provide the corresponding data.»
Perhaps 500 grams was too small value. I re-estimated
Horace Heffner wrote:
As far as I know, this is the only eCat that Levi et al. tested in
December, which is when the event occurred. The flow rate was
typically ~300 ml/min I believe.
Are you sure about that flow rate being present in the heat after
death observation?
How else could it
Horace Heffner wrote:
You are providing the input data so you should know which test you are
talking about. Jed says the first test.
No, I said it was the device used in the first public test. The large
eCat, shown in many photos. As far as I know this was the only eCat they
used in
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Sent: Tuesday, August 30, 2011 4:12 PM
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Corrections to heat after death calculations
Horace Heffner wrote:
As far as I know, this is the only eCat that Levi et al. tested in
December, which is when the event occurred. The flow rate was typically
~300 ml
Joe Catania wrote:
Until I see the data you refer to all I can say is its seems like more
of a guess.
Okay. Ask Krivit to show it to you again. It was there before.
It seems like a pretty good guess to me, since they told me they worked
with the gadget for a month before demonstrating it.
On Aug 30, 2011, at 12:12 PM, Jed Rothwell wrote:
Horace Heffner wrote:
As far as I know, this is the only eCat that Levi et al. tested
in December, which is when the event occurred. The flow rate was
typically ~300 ml/min I believe.
Are you sure about that flow rate being present in
.
- Original Message -
From: Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Sent: Tuesday, August 30, 2011 5:55 PM
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Corrections to heat after death calculations
Joe Catania wrote:
Until I see the data you refer to all I can say is its seems like more of
a guess.
Okay
Horace Heffner wrote:
How else could it work? It would run out of water. Very little fits
into the cell. You cannot do flow calorimetry without a flow. It
would be like trying to do it without measuring the temperature.
Obviously my question is are you sure that *precise magnitude* of flow
, August 30, 2011 6:26 PM
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Corrections to heat after death calculations
Horace Heffner wrote:
How else could it work? It would run out of water. Very little fits into
the cell. You cannot do flow calorimetry without a flow. It would be
like trying to do it without measuring
Hi,
On 31-8-2011 0:01, Horace Heffner wrote:
On Aug 30, 2011, at 12:12 PM, Jed Rothwell wrote:
If the only source of heat was electricity, two things are certain:
1. It could not be 12 kW in the first place. The wire would melt. You
can't possibly conduct that much electricity over an
On Aug 30, 2011, at 4:15 PM, Man on Bridges wrote:
Hi,
On 31-8-2011 0:01, Horace Heffner wrote:
On Aug 30, 2011, at 12:12 PM, Jed Rothwell wrote:
If the only source of heat was electricity, two things are certain:
1. It could not be 12 kW in the first place. The wire would melt.
You
2011/8/30 Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com:
Jouni Valkonen wrote:
Ps. I do not know what model of E-Cat we are talking about. Does we have
pictures? Or is it just some mythical test what was seen by nobody.
The 15 minute heat-after-death event was with the large eCat used in the
January
Small addition, this 6kW figure is minimum possible heating power. We
have also empirical way for calculating total enthalphy, that gives
higher value than 6 kW. If it is assumed that E-Cat was full of water
when 1.2kW heating element was turned on, then 1.2kW was enough to
cause ΔT to be 20°C in
Actually I took still another look for the graph:
http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_852Sj2_TNC4/TTwDi8cYrtI/E1E/TT603dSfpzs/s1600/report3.jpg
It is really difficult to try to estimate temperatures from this graph.
However it looks that my estimations were somewhat inaccurate. But it
looks that
On Aug 28, 2011, at 5:37 PM, Joe Catania wrote:
No one to my knowledge is showing data that the heat after pulling
the plug continues at the rate it had before power-off for a full
15 minutes.
I can not see how the above remark is relevant in any way. Did you
not see that I am
. The problem is that you used it without
understanding it. This is not a plug-in.
- Original Message -
From: Horace Heffner
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Sent: Monday, August 29, 2011 2:53 AM
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Corrections to heat after death calculations
On Aug 28, 2011, at 5:37
]:Corrections to heat after death calculations
On Aug 28, 2011, at 5:37 PM, Joe Catania wrote:
No one to my knowledge is showing data that the heat after pulling
the plug continues at the rate it had before power-off for a full
15 minutes.
I can not see how the above remark is relevant in any
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Sent: Monday, August 29, 2011 2:53 AM
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Corrections to heat after death calculations
On Aug 28, 2011, at 5:37 PM, Joe Catania wrote:
No one to my knowledge is showing data that the heat after pulling the
plug continues at the rate
On Aug 29, 2011, at 10:00 AM, Joe Catania wrote:
Try to understand there is no way that the temperature can decay in
only a few minutes. If you start with 1MJ and subtracted 1kJ/sec
you'd get 1000sec.
This is woefully wrong on two counts, (a) the 1 MJ number is a wild
guess on your part
1MJ per sec. If you can solve that you may be ready to proceed
to non-steady cooling.
- Original Message -
From: Horace Heffner
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Sent: Monday, August 29, 2011 8:43 PM
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Corrections to heat after death calculations
On Aug 29, 2011
On Aug 29, 2011, at 5:14 PM, Joe Catania wrote:
[snip ad hominem and continued mistakes]
We aren't discussing water flow.
[snip ad hominem and continued mistakes]
Of course we are discussing water flow. The device had water pumped
into it at a constant rate. If you chose to ignore
No one to my knowledge is showing data that the heat after pulling the plug
continues at the rate it had before power-off for a full 15 minutes. My
interpretation of Levu's comment in Part 3 of the Krivit video is that the rate
natually declines until after 15 minutes it was judged that steam
Joe, I think that you are enormous fiasco yourself, because you are making
aggressive asumptions that does not have any rational basis.
For example you fail to understand even the basics, because metal
temperature cannot exceed 160°C because insulation rubber starts to melt and
burn. This
79 matches
Mail list logo
