On Wed, Jul 20, 2011 at 7:53 PM, Abd ul-Rahman Lomax
a...@lomaxdesign.comwrote:
A skeptic doesn't need excuses.
They have the Magic Right-as-Rain Protective Shield?
Someone who makes a claim and is challenged may need an excuse. The skeptic
is not the one making a claim.
The problem
The greatest souce of pressure is the water standing in the hose. If the
hose end loops up 12 inches to dump into a bucket. There is a head of water
was the hose decends to the floor from the device of 12 inches. The steam
must push down upon this head to escape raising the pressure in the
device.
Will I be misunderstood if I don't say this was said with sarcasm and
exageration?
Actually, the best head of water you can get require both the device is and
exit are on the roof.
On Thu, Jul 21, 2011 at 2:41 AM, Damon Craig decra...@gmail.com wrote:
If it rises 30 to dump into a sink, think
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. So no one has looked closely at the goofy temperature curve in the Levi
report of the December 16, 2010 demonstration which he claimed was evidence
of an exothermic reaction (and cold fusion).
Here's an analysis I wrote a few weeks ago:
In his report Levi claimed the temperature curve of
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
Essen and Kullander:
At the end of the horizontal section there is an auxiliary electric heater
to initialize the burning and also to act as a safety if the heat evolution
should get out of control.
This is the first mistake: presumption presented as fact. The presumption is
that there exists
On Thu, Jul 21, 2011 at 4:30 AM, Damon Craig decra...@gmail.com wrote:
Essen and Kullander:
At the end of the horizontal section there is an auxiliary electric
heater to initialize the burning and also to act as a safety if the heat
evolution should get out of control.
This is the first
Excuse me Lomax. My last email was directed to Rothwell not yourself. This
email interface is not the best mode of communication.
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
Hi Damon,
I hope your piping is better than class 150, and your fittings better than
schedule 40. Preferably you would want to use class 3000 pipe and schedule
80 fittings of 316/316L stainless steal. The strength of stainless steal
Thank you for the safety concern. I'm using schedule 40 pipe
You can buy commercial pressure relief valves which will prevent an
explosion. See globalspec.com
T
What are the exact details of your setup and runs so far?
In mutual service, Rich Murray
rmfor...@gmail.com 505-819-7388
On Thu, Jul 21, 2011 at 9:33 AM, ecat builder ecatbuil...@gmail.com wrote:
Hi Damon,
I hope your piping is better than class 150, and your fittings better than
schedule
A few replies:
Terry: Thanks for the link. If I start to see pressure exceed 300PSI (20
bars) I'll think about a rupture disk (but at what pressure?). So far I'm
pressurizing up to 150 PSI (10 bars) and with mild heating it has not
increased more than a few PSI. (I haven't logged pressure very
Brad,
Shouldn't an EM be applied into the powder? Loading with gas only won't work.
There are some pretty sloppy statements. I know that Damon is being
sarcastic, but that sarcasm is based on certain understandings. Let's
be more careful, everyone!
At 05:41 AM 7/21/2011, Damon Craig wrote:
The greatest souce of pressure is the water standing in the hose.
Probably not, but
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 06:47 AM 7/21/2011, Damon Craig wrote:
OK. So no one has looked closely at the goofy temperature curve in
the Levi report of the December 16, 2010 demonstration which he
claimed was evidence of an exothermic reaction (and cold fusion).
There is a copy of the report at
I will attempt to address this question from ecat builder:
“Does the catalyst convert hydrogen to H+? Is there something else to try?
What would you like to see tried for a catalyst?”
First some background quoted from ecatrepor:
“although one might first think “the finer the
At 07:30 AM 7/21/2011, Damon Craig wrote:
Essen and Kullander:
At the end of the horizontal section there is an auxiliary
electric heater to initialize the burning and also to act as a
safety if the heat evolution should get out of control.
This is the first mistake: presumption
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.
I think the topology of the E-Cat would reveal alot about its
characteristics as a boiler. But one thing is for sure: it would seem that
the metal surface which gives rise to the steam is under some mass of water
which will increase the pressure somewhat over ambient. This raises the
steam
I think the topology of the E-Cat would reveal alot about its
characteristics as a boiler. But one thing is for sure: it would seem that
the metal surface which gives rise to the steam is under some mass of water
which will increase the pressure somewhat over ambient. This raises the
steam
I find your statements bewildering.
.
On Thu, Jul 21, 2011 at 11:42 AM, Abd ul-Rahman Lomax
a...@lomaxdesign.comwrote:
There are some pretty sloppy statements. I know that Damon is being
sarcastic, but that sarcasm is based on certain understandings. Let's be
more careful, everyone!
At
Hi Axil: As usual, very interesting.. and way over my head.. Dimpling
and bringing something up to the temperature of melting stainless
steel is beyond my ability.. but hopefully others are listening and
can try..
I'm not sure that powder coating the reactor wall is required to get
transmutation.
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
I would think that anyone seriously investigating should have the reports
and video evidence closer at hand.
It's embedded in Lewans Ny Teknik article.
http://www.nyteknik.se/nyheter/energi_miljo/energi/article3166552.ece
It would be nice if someone would post the link, if they have it handy
The evidence for nano-powder welding as one of Rossi’s secrets is strong but
circumstantial in the 10kw unit whose reaction vessel volume is 1 liter.
First, the 100 gram pure nickel nano-powder fills only 1% of the volume of
this one liter reaction vessel. This small amount of powder cannot
At 04:49 PM 7/21/2011, Damon Craig wrote:
I find your statements bewildering.
Projection of internal state onto external reality.
On Thu, Jul 21, 2011 at 11:42 AM, Abd ul-Rahman Lomax
mailto:a...@lomaxdesign.coma...@lomaxdesign.com wrote:
There are some pretty sloppy statements. I know that
36 matches
Mail list logo
