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
Hello group,
Roy Virgilio (a close source to the Piantelli group who often posted
reliable news on their ongoing work) wrote a post today in the italian
Energeticambient forum that might interest Rossi followers as well. I
will translate it below:
Hello. I'd like to share some
Hallo!
I made simple steam sparging experiment by measuring the steam quality
and enthalpy of my Espresso machine's steam wand (for making
capuchino).
– 200ml cool water (11°C) was measured into tea cup.
– Steam was sparged into mug for 32 seconds and there was not observed
splattering or
This post is just to check my understanding of the supposed structure
of the Rossi device.
As I understand it, the device elements, in cross section of the
reactor portion, are annular in nature, radially symmetric, except
for the band heaters which roughly approximate radial symmetry. The
Am 01.09.2011 17:27, schrieb Akira Shirakawa:
Roy Virgilio (a close source to the Piantelli group who often posted
reliable news on their ongoing work) wrote a post today in the italian
Energeticambient forum that might interest Rossi followers as well. I
will translate it below:
It seems
I have to question that order, esp the heater abutting the lead. Also I'm
not entirely convinced there isn't electrical conduction through the water.
- Original Message -
From: Horace Heffner hheff...@mtaonline.net
To: Vortex-L vortex-l@eskimo.com
Sent: Thursday, September 01, 2011
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
This was just posted on the facebook page _Cold Fusion Andrea Rossi Method_
Rossi has agreed to carry out tests at the NASA laboratories, beginning
tomorrow, September 3.
(???)
energeticambientei
Armando de Para posted:
“Rossi ha accettato di effettuare delle prove presso i laboratori NASA,
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
On 2011-09-01 18:06, Joe Catania wrote:
I think that should be Aug. 22
No, it's really September 22nd. By the way, in that very same thread, a
well-informed and reliable user (who has got contacts from CNR [1] and
INFN [2]) added some more information that has been also partially
confirmed
Horace,
What is unseen remains a matter of conjecture.
T
On Thu, Sep 1, 2011 at 12:01 PM, Horace Heffner hheff...@mtaonline.net wrote:
This post is just to check my understanding of the supposed structure of the
Rossi device.
As I understand it, the device elements, in cross section of the
Do we know which lab is performing the tests? I have contacts at some.
T
Probably Marshall Space Flight Center in Huntsville, Alabama.
http://newenergytimes.com/v2/news/2011/37/3705report3.shtml#nasa
Am 01.09.2011 19:12, schrieb Akira Shirakawa:
- Although Rossi initially complained about it, he agreed to perform
tests without phase changes (no steam)
I dont understand this. The devices where tested all the times with
steam successfully.
So they should be tested with steam, but the steam
That would be excellent!
T
On Thu, Sep 1, 2011 at 2:09 PM, Daniel Rocha danieldi...@gmail.com wrote:
Probably Marshall Space Flight Center in Huntsville, Alabama.
http://newenergytimes.com/v2/news/2011/37/3705report3.shtml#nasa
Jouni Valkonen jounivalko...@gmail.com wrote:
Horace wrote: «I would note that steam sparging can have large errors due
to steam escaping, due to variability in measuring the temperature decline
curve, due to variations in the calorimetry constant with temperature, and
due to imperfect
On 2011-09-01 20:11, Peter Heckert wrote:
I dont understand this. The devices where tested all the times with
steam successfully. [...]
I guess they want to remove completely any possible source of error or
ambiguity which steam brings, in a way or another, if the source
reporting this
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
Am 01.09.2011 20:12, schrieb Jed Rothwell:
Jouni Valkonen jounivalko...@gmail.com
mailto:jounivalko...@gmail.com wrote:
Horace wrote: «I would note that steam sparging can have large
errors due to steam escaping, due to variability in measuring the
temperature decline curve, due to
Am 01.09.2011 20:20, schrieb Akira Shirakawa:
On 2011-09-01 20:11, Peter Heckert wrote:
I dont understand this. The devices where tested all the times with
steam successfully. [...]
I guess they want to remove completely any possible source of error or
ambiguity which steam brings, in a way
Peter Heckert wrote:
- Although Rossi initially complained about it, he agreed to perform
tests without phase changes (no steam)
I dont understand this. The devices where tested all the times with
steam successfully.
So they should be tested with steam . . .
Many people prefer to avoid the
Hi,
On 1-9-2011 20:20, Akira Shirakawa wrote:
I guess they want to remove completely any possible source of error or
ambiguity which steam brings, in a way or another, if the source
reporting this information is to be trusted (it should. At the very
least, Daniele Passerini confirmed that
I think it is fine that eventually an influential and powerful organization
asks Rossi to perform Perfect Experiments.
And I also hope he will be obliged to test individual E-cats
instead of that monstruous combination of 330 E-cats.
With such an impossible set-up everything is possible.
Peter
On
Am 01.09.2011 20:53, schrieb Jed Rothwell:
Peter Heckert wrote:
- Although Rossi initially complained about it, he agreed to perform
tests without phase changes (no steam)
I dont understand this. The devices where tested all the times with
steam successfully.
So they should be tested with
Peter Gluck peter.gl...@gmail.com wrote:
And I also hope he will be obliged to test individual E-cats
instead of that monstruous combination of 330 E-cats.
With such an impossible set-up everything is possible.
I believe NASA is testing smaller units. The 1 MW gadget is not ready.
Akira
On 2011-09-01 21:04, Man on Bridges wrote:
Hmmm, this was possibly the plan after all, seen the fact that it is
confirmed by Daniele Passerini who is a very close contact to Andrea
Rossi e.o. and besides it fits perfectly in the two month time-span
until the public demonstration/test end of
On Thu, Sep 1, 2011 at 7:12 PM, Akira Shirakawa
shirakawa.ak...@gmail.com wrote:
On 2011-09-01 18:06, Joe Catania wrote:
I think that should be Aug. 22
No, it's really September 22nd. By the way, in that very same thread, a
well-informed and reliable user (who has got contacts from CNR [1]
Am 01.09.2011 21:13, schrieb Peter Heckert:
That is a good rule of thumb. However, as I said these devices have
been tested with liquid phase only. Rossi prefers steam because it is
easier, more convenient,
Yes, Rossi can look inside, but we cannot, so we cannot accept it.
Even if the pope
Hi,
On 1-9-2011 21:23, Enzo wrote:
This post of Armando de Para on energeticambiente in forum giving the
date of September 3rd at nasa has been deleted. Anyway it appeared to
me a well informed person. Maybe he was asked to delete it.
Passerini didn't really confirmed, he said that he had some
Peter Heckert wrote:
Yes, Rossi can look inside, but we cannot, so we cannot accept it.
Even if the pope himself swears it on the holy bible I would not
finally believe this before I have seen it myself.
Do you mean: 1. Until you see an actual machine in operation? Or 2.
Until you have
At 09:01 AM 9/1/2011, Horace Heffner wrote:
This post is just to check my understanding of the supposed structure
of the Rossi device.
I think that this (speculative!) diagram best shows the location of
the heating resistors.
http://newenergytimes.com/v2/news/2011/37/3724appendixc8.shtml
Am 01.09.2011 22:45, schrieb Jed Rothwell:
Peter Heckert wrote:
Yes, Rossi can look inside, but we cannot, so we cannot accept it.
Even if the pope himself swears it on the holy bible I would not
finally believe this before I have seen it myself.
Do you mean: 1. Until you see an actual
Peter Heckert peter.heck...@arcor.de wrote:
If they use a transparent measuring method like massflow calorimetry that
excludes any possible error, then I believe it.
You mean liquid state mass flow calorimetry, with no phase change. Not steam
or ice calorimetry.
That is a reasonable demand.
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 Sep 1, 2011, at 8:01 AM, Jouni Valkonen wrote:
Hallo!
I made simple steam sparging experiment by measuring the steam quality
and enthalpy of my Espresso machine's steam wand (for making
capuchino).
– 200ml cool water (11°C) was measured into tea cup.
– Steam was sparged into mug for 32
On Thu, Sep 1, 2011 at 7:10 PM, Horace Heffner hheff...@mtaonline.net wrote:
I take it this kind of discussion is all academic now NASA is involved.
Assuming they *are* involved. I have a friend in Huntsville who is
checking this out. She is quite connected.
T
Horace Heffner hheff...@mtaonline.net wrote:
This test shows your true colors. It indicates that you actually expect the
steam power to be on the order of 100 watts, not 10,000 watts or even 1,000
watts. If you put a wand issuing 10,000 watts steam power into the bucket
you will get a notion
On Sep 1, 2011, at 1:07 PM, Alan J Fletcher wrote:
At 09:01 AM 9/1/2011, Horace Heffner wrote:
This post is just to check my understanding of the supposed structure
of the Rossi device.
I think that this (speculative!) diagram best shows the location of
the heating resistors.
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
On Sep 1, 2011, at 3:39 PM, Jed Rothwell wrote:
I don't see your point. I used to do this test with a hose
producing 75 kW at Hydrodynamics Inc. It worked fine. The results
were close to the expected amount from that heater.
If that was a Griggs device I wonder if your memory might be
Horace Heffner hheff...@mtaonline.net wrote:
I don't see your point. I used to do this test with a hose producing 75 kW
at Hydrodynamics Inc. It worked fine. The results were close to the expected
amount from that heater.
If that was a Griggs device I wonder if your memory might be failing
2011/9/2 Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com:
Horace Heffner hheff...@mtaonline.net wrote:
This test shows your true colors. It indicates that you actually expect
the steam power to be on the order of 100 watts, not 10,000 watts or even
1,000 watts. If you put a wand issuing 10,000 watts
46 matches
Mail list logo
