Jed, to be a good test you would need to have a hot pipe connected metallically
a short distance from the cold pipe you were measuring. It would be ideal if
you could obtain a heat exchanger and make a setup very much like Rossi's. I
do not think anyone would doubt that the temperature of
That is what I was saying, maybe in a convoluted way. The check valve was a
technique that actually would allow higher temperature and pressure to exist
outside of the main boiler region.
-Original Message-
From: Joshua Cude joshua.c...@gmail.com
To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com
On Wed, Dec 7, 2011 at 3:04 PM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com wrote:
I wrote:
Try placing at thermocouple on a hot pipe, in various spots, under
various covers. You will find the differences are insignificant.
I did this years ago, working at Hydrodynamics. I happen to have a nice
I bet they did not allow children to ride in the locomotive with their fathers!
I wonder why the superheating was so dangerous? I guess we might find out in
the future if the main source of output power for LENR devices are steam
engines.
Dave
-Original Message-
From: Jed
On Wed, Dec 7, 2011 at 3:22 PM, David Roberson dlrober...@aol.com wrote:
Jed, to be a good test you would need to have a hot pipe connected
metallically a short distance from the cold pipe you were measuring. It
would be ideal if you could obtain a heat exchanger and make a setup very
much
Many modern power plants run at close to 1,000F and at 3,000 psi. The weight
of steam equals the weigh of water under this super-critical condition. Water
does not boil but gets thinner and thinner. Solids do not accumulate in the
boiler and there is no boiler blow down. Any solids in the
Of course. The issue is not whether a thermocouple can be placed under
insulation on a pipe. It's a thermocouple being placed at a union with steam
(theoretically) on one side and 38C water on the other.
I address the insulation only as it spans both the hot and cold side, creating
a common
That pressure gives me visions of people being cut in to pieces by steam
pressure. I recall an old friend saying that they once carried brooms within
ships using high pressure steam. The broom was swept in front of you as you
searched for small leaks. It was better to replace brooms than
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
On Wed, Dec 7, 2011 at 6:15 PM, pagnu...@htdconnect.com wrote:
Lewis Larsen (Widom-Larsen) just posted a paper entitled:
Are LENRs causing some of the 'UFO' dust observed in the Large Hadron
Collider? Maybe somebody should look.
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
On Wed, Dec 7, 2011 at 6:58 PM, Terry Blanton hohlr...@gmail.com wrote:
and Horace makes some great points.
There are some interesting points in the WL presentation also.
T
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 11-12-07 06:11 PM, Joshua Cude wrote:
On Wed, Dec 7, 2011 at 4:38 PM, David Roberson dlrober...@aol.com
mailto:dlrober...@aol.com wrote:
The pressure must be established within the boiler so I guess the
hotter steam does not make its way back to the boiler. Is
it likely
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
On Wed, Dec 7, 2011 at 7:36 PM, Stephen A. Lawrence sa...@pobox.com wrote:
Somewhat similarly, when you drive a fuel-injected car, the fuel is injected
into the cylinders at high pressure, and the point in burning it is to
increase its volume.
You know that it is only recently that gasoline
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
In reply to Axil Axil's message of Wed, 7 Dec 2011 15:21:38 -0500:
Hi,
[snip]
In this low temperature lattice case, coulomb shielding from the ultra
strong dipole moments of Rydberg matter produced by the internal heater
will still occur and cold fusion will still result in a cold lattice. But
in
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
On Tue, Dec 6, 2011 at 6:43 PM, Akira Shirakawa
shirakawa.ak...@gmail.comwrote:
From NextBigFuture:
http://nextbigfuture.com/2011/**12/brian-ahern-will-not-be-**
presenting-on.htmlhttp://nextbigfuture.com/2011/12/brian-ahern-will-not-be-presenting-on.html
This is unexpected. Does anybody
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
Hi…
Why should coherent protons be any better at thermalizing gamma radiation
than
ordinary protons? (Especially if that coherence is limited to pairs).
I am reading this paper to try and figure out what is taking about.
Adiabatic entanglement transport in Rydberg aggregates
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
Hi…corrected spelling
Why should coherent protons be any better at thermalizing gamma radiation
than ordinary protons? (Especially if that coherence is limited to pairs).
I am reading this paper to try and figure out what is talking about.
Adiabatic entanglement transport in Rydberg
http://citi5.org/launch/wp-content/uploads/2011/12/Energy-Localization-No8-11.ppt
101 - 128 of 128 matches
Mail list logo
