date:20110929


These remarks provide an excellent pedagogical example!

Your argument below is an ad hominem attack.  The statements:"you  
that you are not able for normal social interaction" and "you do not  
have ability to understand sarcasm or hostile intentions, if they are  
hidden behind formally correct language." are both attacks on the  
person, and not the person's statement. I am certainly capable of  
making such attacks, but I usually avoid them. At least I know when I  
am using ad hominem and when I am not.  Ad hominem is a fallacious  
argument based an irrelevant attack on an opponents ability to make  
an argument vs the opponents argument itself.


On Sep 29, 2011, at 4:48 PM, Jouni Valkonen wrote:


It is understandable, for you that you are not able for normal social
interaction, therefore you do not have ability to understand sarcasm
or hostile intentions, if they are hidden behind formally correct
language.

See, no derogatory names used, but the content was EXTREMELY
insulting. At least it was meant as such.


Insulting comments and ad hominem are two different things.




Therefore your theory about ad hominem is flawed.


This is a fallacious argument, based on the false assumption that ad  
hominem and insulting comments are necessarily the same thing.




You really does not use derogatory names, such as "senile", "blind",
"idiot" in order to insult persons.


I did not imply using such names were *necessary*, only that the use  
of such names attacking the person instead of his arguments is  
*sufficient* for an ad hominem.  Such an attack is not a logical  
argument.




Try to understand that. It is
completely irrelevant what words you are using, but only thing that
matters is how people perceive your writings.


You do not seem to understand the meaning of ad hominem.

Do you find this remark insulting?  It is not an attack on you in  
order to discredit your argument. If it said you are too stupid or  
too ignorant to discuss logic then that would be ad hominem. Saying  
your remarks indicate a lack of understanding of a definition is not  
an ad hominem attack.  It is a relevant statement based on the  
content of your argument.




If you did not meant to
be insulting, then it is your fault if someone feels your writing as
offending.


Some people take any disagreement as insulting.  When the degree of  
disagreement is extreme the insult is then extreme.




Most often the most insulting thing is that the one who is
writing is just ignorant and too stupid to admit his ignorance.

–Jouni


Insult, like beauty, is in the mind of the beholder.  Ad hominem is  
another thing altogether. It is a fallacious form of argument.


I am still waiting for an example from you of Krivit using an ad  
hominem attack against Rossi and Levi. If you have none then your  
statement, "... Krivit started vicious ad hominem attacking against  
Rossi and

Levi", is in error.






2011/9/30 Horace Heffner <:


On Sep 29, 2011, at 12:53 PM, Jouni Valkonen wrote:


And Krivit started vicious ad hominem attacking against Rossi and
Levi. By for what reason?


Here the definition of ad hominem seems distorted.  Criticizing a  
paper or
posting or experimental approach is not ad hominem.  Calling  
someone a

derogatory name, like "fool", "snake" or "clown" is.

Where is an example of ad hominem attack by Krivit?  It may well  
exist, but

I don't recall seeing such.

Best regards,

Horace Heffner
http://www.mtaonline.net/~hheffner/







Best regards,

Horace Heffner
http://www.mtaonline.net/~hheffner/

Re: [Vo]:Some personal thoughts on NET & Krivit

I wrote: "My intentions are not obviously not malicious. To what end  
would that serve?"


That was a typo.  It should have read: "My intentions are obviously  
not malicious. To what end would that serve?"


Corollary to Murphy's law: "The probability of a typo is proportional  
to its importance."


Best regards,

Horace Heffner
http://www.mtaonline.net/~hheffner/

Re: [Vo]:Some personal thoughts on NET & Krivit


This is beyond the pale.

On Sep 29, 2011, at 7:58 PM, Jouni Valkonen wrote:


Actually my memory was somewhat clouded by latter blog entries by
Krivit, that were more problematic, arrogant and insulting.

.
I don't know what this is about.  I do not read Krivit's blog  
regularly.  I am sorry to hear your memory is so clouded.

.

Preliminary report was somewhat ok written, although there was deeper
layers in the report, but of course you are blind for them, because it
would require some comprehension of text as a whole.

.
It should be easy to pick out ad hominem attacks since the volume of  
material is large.

.



Levi's response underline quite clearly his feelings toward the  
report:


"Given that you omitted portions of information you had, insulted me
(and my University) trying to say that I’m not knowledgeable enough in
my area, tried (just tried) to scare me and put me under psychological
pressure in order to obtain so far undisclosed data, I will not send
you further information."

.
I don't know anything about that.
.


Therefore I would say, if you get this kind of response, there is
something non-objective written. And indeed there was. As came quite
clearly on latter messages by Steven.

.
I asked for ad hominem examples, not insult examples.
.



Like I said. It is irrelevant how do you formally write something. All
that matters is what kind of thoughts you are conveying with your
text. There is no such thing as objective text if there is something
else than facts. And certainly here was presented mostly opinnions,
subjective observations, and impressions. When you are writing such a
text, then you must consider what kinds of thoughts they are
provoking. And indeed this is why Levi got insulted.

.
Are you talking about me or Krivit or the dozens of other people  
extremely critical of the tests?

.


If you are denying this human part of interpreting test, then you are
proving my point, that your skills are not adequate to follow normal
human communication. Therefore I did not insult you, but I just stated
a fact considering your mental abilities. ^^

.
What human part of interpreting the test? Do you mean my criticism of  
your post? Critcising a post and criticising a test are different  
things.

.


I do not consider Rossi's responses either as appropriate. And they
are written by somewhat mentally unstable person. But You need to also
consider, that Rossi's response is interpreted and also mixed from
other people harsh criticism that he has faced by many self-important
"debunkers".

.
Why can you not stick to the issue?  The issue as far as I am  
concerned is the difference between ad hominem and insults.

.


I know this, because I too, too often are mixing and categorizing
critics and consider them as a single person. E.g. I have some times
wrote an angry message to you that you are not able to think straight
with your own brains, but you just leave Steven to do thinking for you
by your own half.  Luckily I hope that I have deleted most of them
before sending.

.
This is unfortunate for you that you can not keep track of individual  
comments.  You have a poor computer system?

.



However, I am deeply insulted by your insult you have thrown against
me in various occasion. Especially that your brainless message that
ended up into Krivit's blog.

.
I have asked you repeatedly to be specific about what you find  
insulting.  By this I clearly mean what specific sentences and why  
they are insulting.

.



You see, your insults got far more weight when they traveled outside
this mailing list.

.
I did not take them outside this list.  However,surely you must  
realize this is a public list, and all archived posts show up in  
google searches.

.

Therefore you are lucky that you are living in the
other side of the Northern hemisphere, because if you were any closer,
I would have perhaps sued you. If there was not apology coming.

.
I do not react well to bullying.

I find this to be an insult me, to this list, and to my country.   
Here we have freedom of speech.


I normally apologize for the smallest things.  I have intentionally  
not apologized to you because it appeared you were trying to bully me  
into silence. This is why I asked for specifics about what offended  
you. You have provided no specifics.  I therefore conclude this is  
general bullying on your part for my disagreeing with you so  
comprehensively.

.


You must try to not to be a block head but try to understand what kind
of impact you your ideas what you are presenting have, to other people
around you. There are various aspects, and public insult is far worse
than private insult.

.
You still have not defined specifically what you find insulting about  
my post.

.



You cannot hide behind formalism if your
intentions are malicious.

.
My intentions are not obviously not malicious. To what end would that  
serve?

.


Also it is ridiculous to use formal
argumentation mistake as an argument, because there a

Re: [Vo]:Defkalion GT forum appears to be open again



On Sep 29, 2011, at 7:56 PM, Rich Murray wrote:

Lots of situations on V-L, I don't have or else don't share an  
opinion:


1 not worth my time
2 too much effort to gather and comprehend enough fractured details
3 can't bother to write up an adequate discussion
4 the issue is polarized, so each side listens to their own chorus
5 maybe a newbie would benefit
6 maybe can encourage other skeptics
7 maybe can get someone else to provide better analyses
8 like to show paying some cursory attention
9 welcome being wrong, especially when there's a big benefit for all
of us -- albeit an hugely impossible to assess possibly catastrophic
weapons hazard
10 prefer to wave flag clearly, if wave at all, while being brief
11 would hate to see Rossi harm himself
12 do enough appraisals to become convinced -- yes, Rossi is
confidently caught up in delusion
13 as is Piantelli
14 seems like Krivit is saying NASA also saw the darkness at the end
of the stairs
15 I really enjoy Horace Heffner these weeks, and Joshua Cude in  
recent months


Thanks.  I thought maybe it was all for nothing.


16 believe that Krivit, like me, basically wants to find for himself
what the case actually is
17 many big players have goofed -- Defkalion, the USA firm
18 it's valuable that a fairly tolerant discussion has evolved on V-L
and H-Ni_Fusion and Krivit's site
19 basic focus is seeing how the entire shebang, universes on all
levels, arises unaccountably within awareness-being, without any
actual casuality, space, time, or actuality -- always changing, never
satisfying, never establishing a self within any event cluster

neither "Rich" nor "not-Rich"...




Schrödinger Rich?

Best regards,

Horace Heffner
http://www.mtaonline.net/~hheffner/

Re: [Vo]:Defkalion GT forum appears to be open again

2011-09-29 Thread Rich Murray

Lots of situations on V-L, I don't have or else don't share an opinion:

1 not worth my time
2 too much effort to gather and comprehend enough fractured details
3 can't bother to write up an adequate discussion
4 the issue is polarized, so each side listens to their own chorus
5 maybe a newbie would benefit
6 maybe can encourage other skeptics
7 maybe can get someone else to provide better analyses
8 like to show paying some cursory attention
9 welcome being wrong, especially when there's a big benefit for all
of us -- albeit an hugely impossible to assess possibly catastrophic
weapons hazard
10 prefer to wave flag clearly, if wave at all, while being brief
11 would hate to see Rossi harm himself
12 do enough appraisals to become convinced -- yes, Rossi is
confidently caught up in delusion
13 as is Piantelli
14 seems like Krivit is saying NASA also saw the darkness at the end
of the stairs
15 I really enjoy Horace Heffner these weeks, and Joshua Cude in recent months
16 believe that Krivit, like me, basically wants to find for himself
what the case actually is
17 many big players have goofed -- Defkalion, the USA firm
18 it's valuable that a fairly tolerant discussion has evolved on V-L
and H-Ni_Fusion and Krivit's site
19 basic focus is seeing how the entire shebang, universes on all
levels, arises unaccountably within awareness-being, without any
actual casuality, space, time, or actuality -- always changing, never
satisfying, never establishing a self within any event cluster

neither "Rich" nor "not-Rich"...

RE: [Vo]:Some personal thoughts on NET & Krivit

2011-09-29 Thread Mark Iverson-ZeroPoint

Steven:

I share most of your thoughts on Krivit as well... I've had a fair amount of 
interaction w/SK due to reviewing articles and general debates/discussions with 
him, and he has always been open-minded about suggestions, and even made some 
corrections or taken advice on difficult political/legal/editorial issues.  He 
takes the "Rules of Good Journalism" VERY seriously because he is trying to 
establish himself as a serious 'journalist', and has to build his reputation.  
It's clear that he has come a long way toward that end since large publishers 
are using him as a resource to put together major publications for them... they 
would NOT rely on someone for such projects if they didn't feel they were 
capable, competent and objective.

Some on this list made a major issue out of the fact that he misread a decimal 
point/exponent change by a LENR researcher, and as soon as it was brought to 
his attention, he corrected the record.  As far as I was concerned, there were 
more important issues being discussed in that exchange... Please, let's not dig 
up and beat that dead horse! My point here is that when his factual errors are 
pointed out, he will correct the record.

Not sure how to respond to your comments about his gravitating toward the 
'underdogs'... I've kind of felt that at times too.  In today's world, that 
might be a good thing because the OBJECTIVE BEST path, even is science, is not 
always the one taken by the establishment -- the more money at stake, the less 
likely decisions will be objective.

I can tell you that Rusi Taleyarkhan (BubbleGate) is VERY thankful for the 
tremendous effort SK did in uncovering the facts and reporting them in several 
extensive reports.  Steve brought to bear considerable pressure, and turned up 
the heat a notch or three, on Purdue and the Navy; had SK not done this, 
Taleyarkhan would have NO career left.  Even after the considerable attention 
that SK brought to Rusi's battle, it still is only a footnote in science 
history... Purdue would have completely trashed Rusi's career to save their 
asses.  Like it or not, this is how the game is played these days.

One mistake people used to make with Steve, is that they thought he took over 
as the 'cheerleader' for CF/LENR when Gene Mallove was murdered.  NOT the case! 
 Gene was the cheerleader; the torch-bearer.  That is NOT what Steve wanted, or 
wants, to do; his focus is on 'investigative reporting', and one cannot do that 
and be a 'cheerleader'.

My only comment about SK's Italy visit and demo...
The problem I have with that whole fiasco is that Steve reported it as if it 
were meant to be an improvement over previous tests, when I seriously doubt 
that that was what Rossi had in mind, and not what he agreed to.  Did Steve 
make it perfectly clear to Rossi that he was looking for, and would report on, 
clarifications to problems with previous tests?  Only he knows.  With all the 
feedback that SK got from numerous people about the failings and problems with 
the previous E-Cat tests, I think he went there expecting a more rigorous and 
definitive test, but what he got was a very simple, grade-school or layman's 
demonstration (NOT TEST) of how the technology is connected up, started, run 
and shut down.  He went there as if it was a TEST, but received a DEMO; big 
difference.  So the customer was expecting one thing, but received something 
totally different... no surprise that he came to the conclusions that he did.

-Mark

Re: [Vo]:Some personal thoughts on NET & Krivit

2011-09-29 Thread Rich Murray

To keep Krivit in perspective, about 20 qualified experts contributed
carefully  to his >200 page critical report --  so he was hardly the
only one to notice an error being erroneous...

Let's encourage Rossi to see the possibilities of constructively and
humorously sharing how he experienced this dramatic process... after
all, it's no Fukushima...

I think he'll have company with Piantelli...

Wind and solar are well on an exponential growth process, along with
energy storage and transmission breakthroughs, as well as computers
and the Internet in general, while high altitude balloons will rapidly
replace rockets to give us the solar system safely without
pollution...

within mutual service,  Rich Murray

Re: [Vo]:Regarding Rossi and NASA (+ some Piantelli news)



On Sep 29, 2011, at 5:40 AM, Jed Rothwell wrote:


Rossi wrote:

WE WILL MEASURE THE ENERGY TAKING THE DELTA T OF THE WATER, THE  
WATER, THE WATER, NOT OF THE STEAM NOT OF THE STEAM, NOT OF THE  
STEAM, THEREFORE THE ISSUE OF THE QUALITY OF THE STEAM HAS  
ABSOLUTELY NOT IMPORTANCE, BECAURE WE DO NOT MEASURE THE ENERGY  
FROM THE STEAM !!! WE COULD PUT IN THE PRIMARY CIRCUIT STEAM,  
DIATHERMIC OIL, GLYCOLE, COCA COLA . . .


That's hysterical. In every sense of the word.

He is right, though.

- Jed



I wonder whose comment he is addressing, who he is calling the  
"accolite of the snake".  I haven't seen any related criticism of the  
Oct. 6th test.


Best regards,

Horace Heffner
http://www.mtaonline.net/~hheffner/

Re: [Vo]:Some personal thoughts on NET & Krivit



On Sep 29, 2011, at 12:53 PM, Jouni Valkonen wrote:


And Krivit started vicious ad hominem attacking against Rossi and
Levi. By for what reason?


Here the definition of ad hominem seems distorted.  Criticizing a  
paper or posting or experimental approach is not ad hominem.  Calling  
someone a derogatory name, like "fool", "snake" or "clown" is.


Where is an example of ad hominem attack by Krivit?  It may well  
exist, but I don't recall seeing such.


Best regards,

Horace Heffner
http://www.mtaonline.net/~hheffner/

Re: [Vo]:Re: Regarding Rossi and NASA (+ some Piantelli news)



On Sep 29, 2011, at 4:37 AM, OrionWorks - Steven Vincent Johnson wrote:


From MoB:

...

Looking even a bit more closer again this would mean that if the  
chance

of explosion is 0.1% per hour then the chance of explosion is 2,77e-7
per second at any given moment for a single Ecat, which would result
for
52 Ecats into 1-((2,77e-7)^52) =  0,134 or 0,00144% at any
time.


Ah! Understanding the mathematics of Probability can occasionally be a
useful talent to possess! ;-)


Yes. It would be nice if MoB had the above correct though, i.e.  
understood what the numbers mean.





Thanks MoB

Regards,
Steven Vincent Johnson
www.OrionWorks.com
www.zazzle.com/orionworks



Best regards,

Horace Heffner
http://www.mtaonline.net/~hheffner/

Re: Aw: [Vo]:H2 and O2 bubbles <.15 micrometer burn, damaging electrodes in AC electrolysis -- could complicate cold fusion devices: Rich Murray 2011.09.28



On Sep 28, 2011, at 11:03 PM, peter.heck...@arcor.de wrote:





- Original Nachricht 
Von: Rich Murray 
An:  vortex-L@eskimo.com
Datum:   29.09.2011 03:04
Betreff: [Vo]:H2 and O2 bubbles <.15 micrometer burn, damaging  
electrodes in AC  electrolysis -- could complicate cold fusion  
devices: Rich Murray 2011.09.28



H2 and O2 bubbles <.15 micrometer burn, damaging electrodes in AC
electrolysis -- could complicate cold fusion devices: Rich Murray
2011.09.28



It would be interesting to know the frequencies and current  
densities used.


I am still looking for a simple experiment that I could do myself  
at home to prove LENR effects ;-)


Now I had this idea:
Use a NiMH battery. The positive electrode consists out of Nickel 
+Nickeloxide nanoparticles, so far I know.
The electrolyte is KOH. The negative electrode is an unkown alloy  
that is optimized to form metalhydrides, it has high hydrogen  
adsorption capacity.


"Charge" a NiMH battery reverse, of course with very low current,  
otherwise it would explode.
For the current use AC + a DC bias. Then bubbles should form at the  
positive Nickel electrode, that contain HH + O, but if the  
"charging" AC has a negative bias, the bubbles should contain more  
hydrogen than necessary to burn.


This should happen: A microbubble forms inside the Nickel  
Nanomaterial. H2+O combustion ignites. The Bubble expands and  
because the combustion product is water, the bubble should then  
collapse rapidly. Because we have a surplus of Hydrogen, the  
Hydrogen + the Nickel Nanomaterial should now be under high  
pressure inside the bubble. Because electrolysis forms atomar  
hydrogen, I hope that Nickel-Hydrogen LENR reacions happen inside  
the NiMH battery.


;-)

Peter



NiMH batteries have been tested for excess heat both in forward  
current and reverse current mode, with null results.   To my  
knowledge no testing for transmutation or occasional high energy  
radiation has been made.


Best regards,

Horace Heffner
http://www.mtaonline.net/~hheffner/

Re: [Vo]:Re: Regarding Rossi and NASA (+ some Piantelli news)

If you look at my text you will see I wrote "catastrophic failure"
not just failure. This means an E-cat blows up spreading steam
throughout the container, injuring anyone present, and preventing
access to the container, causing the test to fail. I think I was
clear on this point. I did not refer to anything bout an E-cat
performance dropping. The other side of the coin to increased
probability of some E-cat working when multiple devices run together
is the increased probability of catastrophic failure.

Best regards,

Horace Heffner
http://www.mtaonline.net/~hheffner/

On Sep 29, 2011, at 12:26 PM, Axil Axil wrote:

The failure of one module of the Rossi 1 MW reactor will not cause
the entire 1 MW reactor to fail. Its performance will only degrade
gracefully.

When the core of the module overheats or melts, the surface of the
nickel nanopowder will fail before the nanopowder enclosure will
fail since the enclosure will be cooled by low temperature steam or
water which would remove heat, effectively cool the enclosure, and
support its structural strength.

The failure of the nanopowder will cause the individual module to
cool and be ineffective at generating thermal power.

It would be analogous to a failure of one pixel of your computer
screen; if one such pixel grows dark, your screen will not fail but
its performance would degrade. You would still be able to use the
screen, just the picture would not be as sharp.

So too with the Rossi reactor; it would still generate heat, but
not so much as before. Its capacity would be reduced until its
performance would eventually degrade below a certain predefined
lower threshold.

When this low bound threshold is reached, the entire reactor is
considered to have failed.

On Thu, Sep 29, 2011 at 3:34 PM, Horace Heffner
wrote:

On Sep 29, 2011, at 4:02 AM, Man on Bridges wrote:

Hi,

On 29-9-2011 8:27, Horace Heffner wrote:
Looking at the other side of the coin, the probability of
catastrophic failure, suppose there is a 0.1% chance per hour one
of the E-cats can blow up spreading steam throughout the
container. There is thus a 0.999 probability of success, i.e. no
explosion for one E-cat, operating for one hour.The probability
that all 52 E-cats perform successfully for a 24 hour test period
is then 0.999^(52*24) = .287. That means there is a 71.3% chance
of an explosion during a 24 hour test.

Me thinks you are wrong. Your statistical probability calculation
is based upon the fact that the chance of a single Ecat exploding
is influenced by it's behaviour earlier,

This is false. The probability in each time increment is assumed
to be independent. For there to be success there must be no
failures for any time increment. If there are T time increments,
and the probability of failure in any time increment is p, the
probability of success q=1-p in each time increment is independent
of the other time increments, and the probability of success in all
time increments is q^T (only possible if what happens in each time
increment is independent event), and the probability of any failure
having occurred is thus 1-(q^T).

which of course is not true. Statistically each Ecat has it's own
independent chance of explosion at any given moment which does not
change over time.

The instantaneous probability of failure is zero. Zero time results
in zero probability because lim t->0 q^t = 1 for for all 0=and positive t. Therefore lim t->0 1-(q^t) = 0. Note that I
provided an assumption of 0.001 percent probability of failure *per
hour*.

With your probability of 0,1% chance per hour this would result for
the whole of 52 Ecats then in a chance of explosion at any given
moment of 1 - (0.999^52) = .05 or 5%.

No. The probability of at least one E-cat failure in the 52 E-cat
system, based on the assumption of 0.001 probability of failure of
an individual E-cat in an hour is 1-(0.999)^52 = 0.506958 = 5%.
Your number 5% is right, but your interpretation of it representing
an instantaneous moment is wrong.

Looking even a bit more closer again this would mean that if the
chance of explosion is 0.1% per hour then the chance of explosion
is 2,77e-7 per second at any given moment for a single Ecat, which
would result for 52 Ecats into 1-((2,77e-7)^52) = 0,134 or
0,00144% at any time.

The phrase "at any time" makes the above statement nonsensical.

An hour represents 3600 seconds, which are 3600 independent events
of 1 second duration. Let a be the probability of failure in 1
second, and b=(1-a) be the probability of success in 1 second. We
have the given probability p of failure for 3600 seconds being
0.001, and the probability of success of one E-cat for one hour
being q = 0.999. The probability of success (no failures) for the
3600 1 second independent time increments is

q = 0.999 = b^3600

b = q^(1/3600) = 0

Re: [Vo]:Some personal thoughts on NET & Krivit

2011-09-29 Thread Jouni Valkonen

2011/9/30 Jed Rothwell :

> As I said here before, I cannot think of any reason why Rossi would show a
> dummy eCat if he also has real ones.
> Why bother? What is the point?

I have so many theories about the Rossi's motivation that I have
stopped counting. But perhaps I know how Rossi is thinking:

«Jouni Valkonen and Rossi are very similar personalities, so perhaps
Rossi and Jouni Valkonen are really the SAME PERSON ?»
 –Ray Rockingham


> He runs
> the risk of being discovered, and there is no benefit to it.

If he would gain anything from mass media attention, he would have
demonstrated scientifically valid E-Cat back in December 2011. But he
did not. If Rossi had wanted any scientific attention, he would have
submitted a paper into Nature back in 2007. But he did not.

He have had all the hard evidence for at least last four years or
more. But he has not brought them for public.

Therefore he has plenty to gain for discrediting himself. One simple
benefit would be that JoNP server would have collapsed immediately
under the traffic, if he had been taken seriously in scientific
community.

–Jouni

Re: [Vo]:Some personal thoughts on NET & Krivit

Jouni sez:

...

> And it did not cross into Krivit's mind that perhaps,
> Rossi had some awkward motivation to present him a
> dummy demonstration?

Good grief! You actually wrote that as speculation about Krivit's motivations?

You're obviously not a cynic! ;-)

Regards
Steven Vincent Johnson
www.OrionWorks.com
www.zazzle.com/orionworks

Re: [Vo]:Some personal thoughts on NET & Krivit

Jouni Valkonen  wrote:

> And Krivit started vicious ad hominem attacking against Rossi and
> Levi. By for what reason?
>
> What is Krivit's "evidence"? Rossi purposefully showed him a dummy
> E-Cat that does fool no one.

If that is true it should certainly make Krivit upset! It would upset me of
Rossi showed me a dummy eCat. I do not think that was a dummy machine, so it
fooled me.

As I said here before, I cannot think of any reason why Rossi would show a
dummy eCat if he also has real ones. Why bother? What is the point? He runs
the risk of being discovered, and there is no benefit to it.

Rossi often makes people angry. He has made me upset on many occasions, and
I am usually sanguine and used to dealing with eccentric geniuses. Rossi
himself is often mercurial or upset. He is an emotional person. Krivit also
has a bad temper at times. Putting the two of them together was a recipe for
disaster.

- Jed

Re: [Vo]:Re: Regarding Rossi and NASA (+ some Piantelli news)

The sentence below: "This is totally consistent with the probability  
of failure in one E-cat in one hour being 5%." should read: "This is  
totally consistent with the probability of failure of at least one E- 
cat (of 52) in one hour being 5%."



On Sep 29, 2011, at 11:34 AM, Horace Heffner wrote:



On Sep 29, 2011, at 4:02 AM, Man on Bridges wrote:


Hi,

On 29-9-2011 8:27, Horace Heffner wrote:
Looking at the other side of the coin, the probability of  
catastrophic failure, suppose there is a 0.1% chance per hour one  
of the E-cats can blow up spreading steam throughout the  
container.  There is thus a 0.999 probability of success, i.e. no  
explosion for one E-cat, operating for one hour.The  
probability that all 52 E-cats perform successfully for a 24 hour  
test period is then 0.999^(52*24) = .287.  That means there is a  
71.3% chance of an explosion during a 24 hour test.


Me thinks you are wrong. Your statistical probability calculation  
is based upon the fact that the chance of a single Ecat exploding  
is influenced by it's behaviour earlier,


This is false.  The probability in each time increment is assumed  
to be independent. For there to be success there must be no  
failures for any time increment.  If there are T time increments,  
and the probability of failure in any time increment is p, the  
probability of success q=1-p in each time increment is independent  
of the other time increments, and the probability of success in all  
time increments is q^T (only possible if what happens in each time  
increment is independent event), and the probability of any failure  
having occurred is thus 1-(q^T).



which of course is not true. Statistically each Ecat has it's own  
independent chance of explosion at any given moment which does not  
change over time.


The instantaneous probability of failure is zero. Zero time results  
in zero probability because lim t->0 q^t = 1 for for all  0=and positive t.  Therefore lim t->0 1-(q^t) = 0.  Note that I  
provided an assumption of 0.001 percent probability of failure *per  
hour*.



With your probability of 0,1% chance per hour this would result  
for the whole of 52 Ecats then in a chance of explosion at any  
given moment of 1 - (0.999^52) = .05 or 5%.


No.  The probability of at least one E-cat failure in the 52 E-cat  
system, based on the assumption of 0.001 probability of failure of  
an individual E-cat in an hour is 1-(0.999)^52 = 0.506958 = 5%.   
Your number 5% is right, but your interpretation of it representing  
an instantaneous moment is wrong.





Looking even a bit more closer again this would mean that if the  
chance of explosion is 0.1% per hour then the chance of explosion  
is 2,77e-7 per second at any given moment for a single Ecat, which  
would result for 52 Ecats into 1-((2,77e-7)^52) =  0,134  
or 0,00144% at any time.


The phrase "at any time" makes the above statement nonsensical.

An hour represents 3600 seconds, which are 3600 independent events  
of 1 second duration.  Let a be the probability of failure in 1  
second, and b=(1-a) be the probability of success in 1 second.  We  
have the given probability p of failure for 3600 seconds being  
0.001, and the probability of success of one E-cat for one hour  
being q = 0.999.  The probability of success (no failures) for the  
3600 1 second independent time increments is


   q = 0.999 = b^3600

   b = q^(1/3600) = 0.999^(1/3600)

   a = 1 - 0.999^(1/3600) = 2.779x10^-7

Note that a is the probability of failure in one second, not "at  
any time".  This is totally consistent with the probability of  
failure in one E-cat in one hour being 5%.  In other words, going  
backwards:


   p = 1-(1-a)^3600 = 1-(1-2.779x10^-7)^3600 = 1-0.999 = 0.001

My calculations are therefore self consistent.  The time intervals  
are all treated as independent events.  Your interpretation of  
"moment" is perhaps a conceptual problem.





Kind regards,

MoB



Best regards,

Horace Heffner
http://www.mtaonline.net/~hheffner/






Best regards,

Horace Heffner
http://www.mtaonline.net/~hheffner/

Re: [Vo]:Some personal thoughts on NET & Krivit

2011-09-29 Thread Jouni Valkonen

2011/9/29 OrionWorks - Steven V Johnson :
> Krivit strikes me as endeavoring to be a very good investigative
> reporter.

I think that problem with Krivit is that he has lost the perspective
to the story. Bubble fusion scandal was completely in different
proportions to that what Rossi is doing, because Bubble fusion was big
big Science Magazine science. And there was huge research grants and
perhaps large scale replication attempts at stake. Instead what Rossi
is doing; his "science" is self-published, there is only one
self-financed replication attempt, he has not sought any public
investor money nor research grants and we do not have any evidence
that he has raised other money than his own. And what is more
important, Rossi has nothing to do with science community, because he
has zero credibility (outside Vortex).

And Krivit started vicious ad hominem attacking against Rossi and
Levi. By for what reason?

What is Krivit's "evidence"? Rossi purposefully showed him a dummy
E-Cat that does fool no one. And yet, Krivit thought that he has at
hands an "evidence" against Rossi, so that it might be very good idea
to write 200 page report on 20 minute demonstration. That is 20 pages
for each minute of Krivit's "evidence".

Rossi presented a "demonstration" that does not fool even a Junior
high school science class student and presented "calculations" on a
white board that where so filled with errors so, that it would return
instant F for any Junior high school science exam. And it did not
cross into Krivit's mind that perhaps, Rossi had some awkward
motivation to present him a dummy demonstration? Perhaps he just
wanted to return for skeptics needs, because they have been cried for
"control experiment" with electricity only and here was their "control
experiment" with electricity only. Exactly as they have asked for.

It is just that Krivit made himself a fool. If Rossi will turn out to
be right and thus will revolutionize the cold fusion field, Krivit
would get all the fame and glory, because he is (was) perhaps one of
the most resourceful cold fusion science journalists. Therefore
everyone in the world would have listened whatever he has to say on
cold fusion. Now things are more complex because he has tarnished his
reputation with foolish ad hominem attacking.

And if Rossi turn out to be scam artist, then so what? Rossi already
had zero credibility anyway, so Krivit bashed Rossi with null gain.

Therefore, no matter how this thing is going to turn out, Krivit has
already made a fool himself.

–Jouni

Re: [Vo]:Re: Regarding Rossi and NASA (+ some Piantelli news)

2011-09-29 Thread Axil Axil

The failure of one module of the Rossi 1 MW reactor will not cause the
entire 1 MW reactor to fail. Its performance will only degrade gracefully.

When the core of the module overheats or melts, the surface of the nickel
nanopowder will fail before the nanopowder enclosure will fail since the
enclosure will be cooled by low temperature steam or water which would
remove heat, effectively cool the enclosure, and support its structural
strength.

The failure of the nanopowder will cause the individual module to cool and
be ineffective at generating thermal power.

It would be analogous to a failure of one pixel of your computer screen; if
one such pixel grows dark, your screen will not fail but its performance
would degrade. You would still be able to use the screen, just the picture
would not be as sharp.

So too with the Rossi reactor; it would still generate heat, but not so much
as before. Its capacity would be reduced until its performance would
eventually degrade below a certain predefined lower threshold.

When this low bound threshold is reached, the entire reactor is considered
to have failed.


On Thu, Sep 29, 2011 at 3:34 PM, Horace Heffner wrote:

>
> On Sep 29, 2011, at 4:02 AM, Man on Bridges wrote:
>
> Hi,
>>
>> On 29-9-2011 8:27, Horace Heffner wrote:
>>
>>> Looking at the other side of the coin, the probability of catastrophic
>>> failure, suppose there is a 0.1% chance per hour one of the E-cats can blow
>>> up spreading steam throughout the container.  There is thus a 0.999
>>> probability of success, i.e. no explosion for one E-cat, operating for one
>>> hour.The probability that all 52 E-cats perform successfully for a 24
>>> hour test period is then 0.999^(52*24) = .287.  That means there is a 71.3%
>>> chance of an explosion during a 24 hour test.
>>>
>>
>> Me thinks you are wrong. Your statistical probability calculation is based
>> upon the fact that the chance of a single Ecat exploding is influenced by
>> it's behaviour earlier,
>>
>
> This is false.  The probability in each time increment is assumed to be
> independent. For there to be success there must be no failures for any time
> increment.  If there are T time increments, and the probability of failure
> in any time increment is p, the probability of success q=1-p in each time
> increment is independent of the other time increments, and the probability
> of success in all time increments is q^T (only possible if what happens in
> each time increment is independent event), and the probability of any
> failure having occurred is thus 1-(q^T).
>
>
>
> which of course is not true. Statistically each Ecat has it's own
>> independent chance of explosion at any given moment which does not change
>> over time.
>>
>
> The instantaneous probability of failure is zero. Zero time results in zero
> probability because lim t->0 q^t = 1 for for all  0=  Therefore lim t->0 1-(q^t) = 0.  Note that I provided an assumption of
> 0.001 percent probability of failure *per hour*.
>
>
>
> With your probability of 0,1% chance per hour this would result for the
>> whole of 52 Ecats then in a chance of explosion at any given moment of 1 -
>> (0.999^52) = .05 or 5%.
>>
>
> No.  The probability of at least one E-cat failure in the 52 E-cat system,
> based on the assumption of 0.001 probability of failure of an individual
> E-cat in an hour is 1-(0.999)^52 = 0.506958 = 5%.  Your number 5% is right,
> but your interpretation of it representing an instantaneous moment is wrong.
>
>
>
>
>
>> Looking even a bit more closer again this would mean that if the chance of
>> explosion is 0.1% per hour then the chance of explosion is 2,77e-7 per
>> second at any given moment for a single Ecat, which would result for 52
>> Ecats into 1-((2,77e-7)^52) =  0,134 or 0,00144% at any time.
>>
>
> The phrase "at any time" makes the above statement nonsensical.
>
> An hour represents 3600 seconds, which are 3600 independent events of 1
> second duration.  Let a be the probability of failure in 1 second, and
> b=(1-a) be the probability of success in 1 second.  We have the given
> probability p of failure for 3600 seconds being 0.001, and the probability
> of success of one E-cat for one hour being q = 0.999.  The probability of
> success (no failures) for the 3600 1 second independent time increments is
>
>   q = 0.999 = b^3600
>
>   b = q^(1/3600) = 0.999^(1/3600)
>
>   a = 1 - 0.999^(1/3600) = 2.779x10^-7
>
> Note that a is the probability of failure in one second, not "at any time".
>  This is totally consistent with the probability of failure in one E-cat in
> one hour being 5%.  In other words, going backwards:
>
>   p = 1-(1-a)^3600 = 1-(1-2.779x10^-7)^3600 = 1-0.999 = 0.001
>
> My calculations are therefore self consistent.  The time intervals are all
> treated as independent events.  Your interpretation of "moment" is perhaps a
> conceptual problem.
>
>
>
>> Kind regards,
>>
>> MoB
>>
>>
> Best regards,
>
> Horace Heffner
> http://www.mtaonline.net/~**hhe

Re: [Vo]:Re: Regarding Rossi and NASA (+ some Piantelli news)



On Sep 29, 2011, at 4:02 AM, Man on Bridges wrote:


Hi,

On 29-9-2011 8:27, Horace Heffner wrote:
Looking at the other side of the coin, the probability of  
catastrophic failure, suppose there is a 0.1% chance per hour one  
of the E-cats can blow up spreading steam throughout the  
container.  There is thus a 0.999 probability of success, i.e. no  
explosion for one E-cat, operating for one hour.The  
probability that all 52 E-cats perform successfully for a 24 hour  
test period is then 0.999^(52*24) = .287.  That means there is a  
71.3% chance of an explosion during a 24 hour test.


Me thinks you are wrong. Your statistical probability calculation  
is based upon the fact that the chance of a single Ecat exploding  
is influenced by it's behaviour earlier,


This is false.  The probability in each time increment is assumed to  
be independent. For there to be success there must be no failures for  
any time increment.  If there are T time increments, and the  
probability of failure in any time increment is p, the probability of  
success q=1-p in each time increment is independent of the other time  
increments, and the probability of success in all time increments is  
q^T (only possible if what happens in each time increment is  
independent event), and the probability of any failure having  
occurred is thus 1-(q^T).



which of course is not true. Statistically each Ecat has it's own  
independent chance of explosion at any given moment which does not  
change over time.


The instantaneous probability of failure is zero. Zero time results  
in zero probability because lim t->0 q^t = 1 for for all  0=positive t.  Therefore lim t->0 1-(q^t) = 0.  Note that I provided an  
assumption of 0.001 percent probability of failure *per hour*.



With your probability of 0,1% chance per hour this would result for  
the whole of 52 Ecats then in a chance of explosion at any given  
moment of 1 - (0.999^52) = .05 or 5%.


No.  The probability of at least one E-cat failure in the 52 E-cat  
system, based on the assumption of 0.001 probability of failure of an  
individual E-cat in an hour is 1-(0.999)^52 = 0.506958 = 5%.  Your  
number 5% is right, but your interpretation of it representing an  
instantaneous moment is wrong.





Looking even a bit more closer again this would mean that if the  
chance of explosion is 0.1% per hour then the chance of explosion  
is 2,77e-7 per second at any given moment for a single Ecat, which  
would result for 52 Ecats into 1-((2,77e-7)^52) =  0,134 or  
0,00144% at any time.


The phrase "at any time" makes the above statement nonsensical.

An hour represents 3600 seconds, which are 3600 independent events of  
1 second duration.  Let a be the probability of failure in 1 second,  
and b=(1-a) be the probability of success in 1 second.  We have the  
given probability p of failure for 3600 seconds being 0.001, and the  
probability of success of one E-cat for one hour being q = 0.999.   
The probability of success (no failures) for the 3600 1 second  
independent time increments is


   q = 0.999 = b^3600

   b = q^(1/3600) = 0.999^(1/3600)

   a = 1 - 0.999^(1/3600) = 2.779x10^-7

Note that a is the probability of failure in one second, not "at any  
time".  This is totally consistent with the probability of failure in  
one E-cat in one hour being 5%.  In other words, going backwards:


   p = 1-(1-a)^3600 = 1-(1-2.779x10^-7)^3600 = 1-0.999 = 0.001

My calculations are therefore self consistent.  The time intervals  
are all treated as independent events.  Your interpretation of  
"moment" is perhaps a conceptual problem.





Kind regards,

MoB



Best regards,

Horace Heffner
http://www.mtaonline.net/~hheffner/

Re: [Vo]:Some personal thoughts on NET & Krivit

>From MoB:

...

> This appears to me definitely as a one-sided "news report", which in my
> opinion discredits Krivit as an unbiased objective reporter regarding the
> Rossi saga.
> Or as they say what goes around comes around.

You express one of my concerns.

I refer you to to my previous unsolicited advice:

> At present if I were to offer up some unsolicited advice
> to Mr. Krivit, I would suggest that he might want to take
> a closer look at making sure he understands the distinctions
> between being an investigator reporter versus that of an
> advocate reporter, at least insofar as those distinctions are
> likely to be perceived out in the public.

Regards
Steven Vincent Johnson
www.OrionWorks.com
www.zazzle.com/orionworks

Re: [Vo]:Some personal thoughts on NET & Krivit

Hi,

On 29-9-2011 20:40, OrionWorks - Steven V Johnson wrote:

Mr. Krivt also claims he no longer participates in discussion
groups like the Vort Collective. However, I suspect Mr. Krivit has his
helpers who will report anything of interest to him, such as what
occasionally comes out of the Vort Collective.

Ok, than why for example does he in the discussion about steam quality 
etc. refer on his blog to a message posted by Horace and picks only 
those parts that show he is right and purposely neglects any other 
information brought forward by other posters in the Vort Collective?

Ref. 
http://blog.newenergytimes.com/2011/09/15/collected-comments-on-sept-7-afternoon-rossi-test/

This is what is written at his blog:

> By Horace Heffner posted on Vortex
> Wed, 14 Sep 2011 21:14:08 -0700
>
> [Valkonen's] post seems to be utterly out of touch with reality, a 
total fantasy. It is shocking to read. I don’t know whether to respond 
or not.

This appears to me definitely as a one-sided "news report", which in my 
opinion discredits Krivit as an unbiased objective reporter regarding 
the Rossi saga.

Or as they say what goes around comes around.

Kind regards,

MoB

Re: [Vo]:Regarding Rossi and NASA (+ some Piantelli news)

Terry seZ:

...

> Krivit is certainly causing a reaction within Rossi.  AAMOF, it
> appears to me that AR is on the verge of a meltdown.
>
> Do you notice a hint of desperation in AR's writings of late?

LOL. I completely missed the original joke. ...er the joke is on me.

Regards
Steven Vincent Johnson
www.OrionWorks.com
www.zazzle.com/orionworks

Re: [Vo]:Regarding Rossi and NASA (+ some Piantelli news)

2011-09-29 Thread Terry Blanton

On Thu, Sep 29, 2011 at 8:32 AM, OrionWorks - Steven Vincent Johnson
 wrote:
> From: Michele Comitini
>
>> All bets are off. The catalyst that ignites Rossi's powerful
>> hot reactions is now well known and proven: KrIvIt.
>
> Really? Good heavens! I missed that little tidbit.
>
> Can you cite references or links that describe Rossi's secret sauce?
>
> Inquiring minds want to know.

Krivit is certainly causing a reaction within Rossi.  AAMOF, it
appears to me that AR is on the verge of a meltdown.

Do you notice a hint of desperation in AR's writings of late?

T

Re: [Vo]:Re: Regarding Rossi and NASA (+ some Piantelli news)

Man on Bridges  wrote:

> In 1906, the Wrights knew *far* more about aerodynamics and the physics of
> flight than anyone else in the world. They should have concentrated on what
> they knew best, leaving other details to other experts. It was a waste of
> time for them to work on engines at that stage in the development.
>
>
> True, but you have to admit, those other engineers could have done a better
> job then the Wright brothers, but those other engineers didn't for whatever
> reason do it.
>

I know the reason why. It was the same reason Rossi has not gotten
professional assistance. Experts offered to help, but the Wrights refused.
As Harry Combs said, it was a "tragic" waste of their time. I know experts
who have offered to help Rossi at no cost, with no strings attached. He has
turned them down. Combs described the situation in 1907. It sounds familiar:

"The potential contracts were battered and bruised but obstinacy on both
sides -- the Wrights, and the men and groups with whom they were dealing.
The brothers seemed unable to come to an agreement with anyone, and even as
they stumbled from one collapsing deal to another in Europe, back in the
United States, through the continuing interest and efforts of Samuel Cabot
and his brother Godfrey, the capabilities of the rights flying machine were
brought directly to the attention of President Theodore Roosevelt . . ."

(Roosevelt's intervention is what finally turned the situation around.)

Robert Goddard did the same thing, by the way. He spent years of his time
and lots of Guggenheim's money trying to solve engineering problems that the
people at the University of California could have easily solved. They told
him they could. He ignored them. Actually, I think he blew them off, which
is what Rossi has done.

There is an important lesson in this. People here who think that Rossi is
some sort of loser or fake because he acts strange or because he has a bad
temper should read history. Read about Goddard, the Wrights, Edison,
Harrison, Davy (and the way he treated Faraday), Oppenheimer's behavior in
his rental house in the Virgin Islands, or Einstein's sex life. You will see
that these people acted abominably. They were as flaky as Rossi is, or
worse. You may suspect that Rossi is a thief and a double-dealer, but you
can be sure that Edison was. You may suspect Rossi puts on a fake demos and
hides the weaknesses of his device. Maybe he does, and maybe he does not.
There is no question that Edison did that, often, with panache. You need to
stop trying to judge this discovery based on the personality or morality of
the discover. That never works.

I could give dozens more examples. The converse is also true. Upstanding,
honest, reliable, well-educated, highly recommended, top-notch mainstream
scientists -- the kind of people who are appointed to important boards and
high positions in academia -- often make stupid mistakes. In some cases
during their entire career they do not come up with a single important
breakthrough. Any number of such people have made idiotic assertions about
cold fusion. In 1907 dozens of them made similar idiotic assertions that
airplanes cannot exist. In 1879 many of them went on record in major
journals and top newspapers asserting that Edison could not possibly have a
subdivided incandescent light -- such a thing is inherently impossible. (No
expert disputed that incandescent lights are possible. They had been
demonstrated for 20 years.) These were considered the top experts. They
thought they were experts. Actually, they had no idea what they were talking
about, but the journals and newspapers thought they did, just as nowadays
reporters think that Robert Park knows something about cold fusion.

- Jed

Re: [Vo]:Regarding Rossi and NASA (+ some Piantelli news)


Hi,

On 29-9-2011 16:21, OrionWorks - Steven V Johnson wrote:

Nevertheless, Rossi continuing to describe Krivit as a "snake" is not
doing himself any favors. IMO, to constantly reveal such an incredibly
raw emotional side of himself to the general public, particularly in
the midst of trying to convince others as to the accuracy of his
controversial scientific evidence... it does not serve Rossi's goals.
I think it hinders them. Incredibly so.


I prefer based upon the weird and negative behaviour Krivit towards 
Rossi is showing not to call him a "SNAKE", but in chinese analogy to 
call him a "RAT", as he shows the similar kind of behaviour.
It appears to me Krivit has some kind of hidden agenda but I don't 
understand what he is gaining with this, but there must be some kind of 
reason why he behaves like this.
And personally I couldn't care less the way how Rossi reacts upon him, 
as long as Rossi puts his efforts in developing his Ecat, because the 
world is in urgent need of this kind of device.


Kind regards,

MoB

Re: [Vo]:Regarding Rossi and NASA (+ some Piantelli news)

2011-09-29 Thread Peter Heckert


Am 29.09.2011 19:12, schrieb OrionWorks - Steven V Johnson:

 From Peter Heckert&  S. V. Johnson


When I was still a BoD member for Krivit's NET
organization his "sponser(s)", at least during the
time when I was still a BoD, seemed pretty independently-
minded to me. I could be wrong, but I doubt Krivit's
sponsorship [I meant sponser(s)] would have changed all
that much since my departure.

If the sponsors are not known he cannot claim independence.

There may still be some miscommunication between us. Let me try to
clarify my POV.

Krivit most certainly knows who his financial sponsors are. How could
he not. NET is his organization and his organization alone. To the
best of my knowledge the sponsors Krivit revealed to his NET BoD (when
I was still a BoD member) did not strike me as having any kind ties to
any particular energy theory. I don't suspect things have changed all
that much since my departure. For that matter, the nature of the
business these sponsors performed had nothing to do with the
production of energy.
This is the same as with major newspapers (Times, Washington Post, Die 
Welt, Frankfurter Allgemeine, and many others)
We all know, they are independent, and they are, but we all know they 
prefer one political mainstream over another and we know which.

We know the investors and owners.

With Krivit however, we know nothing.
So he is not an independent Journalist. We dont know, what he wants 
aside from publishing and writing books, and so he might prefer those 
that give him the best raw material for (fake or true) stories.



Best,

Peter

[Vo]:Re: OT: Novel Cats

2011-09-29 Thread Harry Veeder





>
> 
>
>
>From: Harry Veeder 
>>To: "vortex-l@eskimo.com" 
>>Sent: Thursday, September 29, 2011 12:14:24 PM
>>Subject: [Vo]:Re: OT: Novel Cats
>>
>>
>>as well as my spelling.
>>Harry
>>
>>
>>From: Harry Veeder 
>>>To: "vortex-l@eskimo.com" 
>>>Sent: Thursday, September 29, 2011 12:11:53 PM
>>>Subject: OT: Novel Cats
>>>
>>>
>>>Novelity can sometimes appear freakish.
>>>
>>>Meet Frank and Louie:
>>>
>>>http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0zvxZF0dQLs&feature=related
>>>
>>>Harry
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>Expected to die after four days, F&L is now 12 years old and is in the 
>guinness book of world records as the longest living Janus cat.
>http://ca.news.yahoo.com/video/odd-26345339/behind-the-horror-at-universal-orlando-26767395.html#crsl=%252Fvideo%252Fodd-26345339%252Ffirst-person-frank-and-louie-the-two-faced-cat-26777625.html
>
>
>Harry
>
>
>
>

Re: [Vo]:Defkalion GT forum appears to be open again

Rich sez:

> snafu -- from WWII, "Situation normal -- all *ucked up"

I should say something snarky like "Thank you so much for expressing
your opinion, Mr. Murray." but the truth of the matter is that I have
endeavored to express my own opinions as well. Therefore I should let
live.

And of course, my educated opinions could be wrong.

OTOH, when it specifically comes to the matter of Rossi Mr. Murray
consistently appears to give me the impression that his aren't. Am I
wrong?

Regards
Steven Vincent Johnson
www.OrionWorks.com
www.zazzle.com/orionworks

Re: [Vo]:Re: Regarding Rossi and NASA (+ some Piantelli news)


OrionWorks - Steven V Johnson wrote:


The concerns I've seen raised have far more to do with
the delicate management of a whole lot of highly pressurized steam - a
megawatt's worth of steam.

Ladies and gentlemen, please don't try this at home!


Exactly. That is what experts have been telling me. The problems have 
nothing to do with fusion per se. On the other hand, we don't know much 
about this form of fusion (or Mills' effect, or zero-point energy, or 
whatever it is), and no one has ever produced it on such a large scale, 
so that also should be a concern. It would be better to go step by step 
to larger devices. They should run 2 or 3 units together first before 
they try to coordinate 50 of them.


- Jed

Re: [Vo]:Re: Regarding Rossi and NASA (+ some Piantelli news)


Hi,

On 29-9-2011 16:28, Jed Rothwell wrote:

Man on Bridges mailto:manonbrid...@aim.com>> wrote:

Statistically each Ecat has it's own independent chance of
explosion at any given moment which does not change over time.


I believe that is incorrect. Boiler explosions are caused by the 
overall temperatures and pressures of the machine. When a machine made 
up of several different components -- such as tube boiler or a fission 
reactor -- the components influence one another. The Fukushima reactor 
meltdown not caused by one fuel rod uncovered that became too hot. It 
was caused by all of them uncovered simultaneously. In the Rossi 1 MW 
reactor, the units are connected. I think they are in series as well 
as in parallel, which means that hot water or steam will go from one 
will go to the next, and one will influence the next.


This may be correct, but my point is that the chance of any mishap 
occurring at any given moment still remains the same.
The Ecats don't have in contrast to living beings like humans and 
animals any memory regarding to what happened in the previous moments to 
decide whether it is time to explode or not.


What he is doing is similar to what the Wright brothers did from 1906 
to 1908. They stopped flying airplanes, stopped designing new ones, 
and concentrated mainly on building better internal combustion engines 
instead. They were quite good at this. The engines they came up with 
were among the best around for aviation, with high ratios of power to 
weight. But there were thousands of experts of internal combustion 
engines who were better qualified than Wrights, and who could have 
done a better job. They did do a better job after 1908. In 1906, the 
Wrights knew _far_ more about aerodynamics and the physics of flight 
than anyone else in the world. They should have concentrated on what 
they knew best, leaving other details to other experts. It was a waste 
of time for them to work on engines at that stage in the development.


True, but you have to admit, those other engineers could have done a 
better job then the Wright brothers, but those other engineers didn't 
for whatever reason do it.
If we would have followed thread according your philosophy starting from 
the invention of the wheel we probably wouldn't have had any computers 
nowadays.
This is what it is all about with inventing anything at all, which makes 
Rossi with his peer persistence stand out of the crowd as a true inventor.


Kind regards,

MoB

Re: [Vo]:Regarding Rossi and NASA (+ some Piantelli news)

>From Peter Heckert & S. V. Johnson

>> When I was still a BoD member for Krivit's NET
>> organization his "sponser(s)", at least during the
>> time when I was still a BoD, seemed pretty independently-
>> minded to me. I could be wrong, but I doubt Krivit's
>> sponsorship [I meant sponser(s)] would have changed all
>> that much since my departure.

> If the sponsors are not known he cannot claim independence.

There may still be some miscommunication between us. Let me try to
clarify my POV.

Krivit most certainly knows who his financial sponsors are. How could
he not. NET is his organization and his organization alone. To the
best of my knowledge the sponsors Krivit revealed to his NET BoD (when
I was still a BoD member) did not strike me as having any kind ties to
any particular energy theory. I don't suspect things have changed all
that much since my departure. For that matter, the nature of the
business these sponsors performed had nothing to do with the
production of energy.

Regards
Steven Vincent Johnson
www.OrionWorks.com
www.zazzle.com/orionworks

Re: [Vo]:Defkalion GT forum appears to be open again

2011-09-29 Thread Rich Murray

snafu -- from WWII, "Situation normal -- all *ucked up"

Re: [Vo]:Re: Regarding Rossi and NASA (+ some Piantelli news)

ecat builder  wrote:

There is NO evidence that Rossi's newer generation E-Cats have ever or will
> ever explode.

Anything that produces steam can explode. Wet coal, for example, is very
dangerous.

> If you happen to be on Rossi's invitation to see his 1MW plant, by all
> means take whatever precautions you like to keep safe. But to suggest Rossi
> is an idiot who might kill the "top scientists" witnessing his invention is
> just plain silly.

No it is not silly. I know several experts in heaters who say that the
reactor is poorly designed. They say that even if the individual reactors
were fake with electric heaters in them it would be dangerous.

Heavy equipment of any type is inherently dangerous, even when it is
designed and operated by experts. Even when it has been run for
decades. Marine engines sometimes catch on fire and kill people -- that
happened a few weeks ago. Nuclear reactors at Three Mile Island, Fukushima
and elsewhere have gone out of control and self-destructed. Billions of
automobile engines have been manufactured and they are among the most
reliable machines ever made, but when one of them leaks fuel or goes out of
control it can easily kill you.

- Jed

Re: [Vo]:Regarding Rossi and NASA (+ some Piantelli news)

2011-09-29 Thread Peter Heckert


Am 29.09.2011 17:29, schrieb OrionWorks - Steven V Johnson:

 From Peter:

...


There seems to (hostile) competition between Piantelli
group and Rossi. Krivit in his website gives the
impression to be independent, but his "sponsor" is
unknown and he seems to prefer the piantelli group
over others.

You seem to be speculating, and therefore insinuating that Krivit's
sponsor(s) might have direct or indirect ties to Piantelli's group. I
seriously doubt this.
Now, Krivit wrote about Rossi "Rossi and Focardi LENR Device: Probably 
Real, With Credit to Piantelli".


It is clear Piantelli and Focardi made the first reports about H-Ni 
fusion. But Rossis device is completely different, using powder instead 
a solid nickle cylinder and using high pressure instead subatmospheric 
pressure.
Of course Piantellis patents tries to cover all other methods that a 
human could think about too, but I think these claims are invalid.

There cannot be a patent on H-Ni fusion in general.
You can have a patent on an Otto Motor but you cannot have a patent on a 
fuel combustion motor in general, otherwise Diesel could not have made 
his motor.
So I really think, Rossis reactor has nothing more to do with Piantellis 
invention as that they both use H-Ni LENR reactions.


Also Piantelli has the patents, but Piantelli is a biologist, while 
Focardi is a nuclear scientist and if they had no contract while 
ressearching, Piantelli cannot claim ownership for Focardis work and 
most of the publications seam to originate from Focardi.


So Krivit clearly tries to emphasize Piantellis  rights here over 
Rossi/Focardi rights.


This is one reason how I came to this assumption.


  When I was still a BoD member for Krivit's NET
organization his "sponser(s)", at least during the time when I was
still a BoD, seemed pretty independently-minded to me. I could be
wrong, but I doubt Krivit's sponsorship would have changed all that
much since my departure.

If the sponsors are not known he cannot claim independence.

Rossi seems to believe Rossi [Did you really mean Krivit???]


Yes I meant Krivit, obviously.
This is a result of errorneous editing (because Im not a good english 
speaker) and a lack of time while writing this.


was acting as a spy for his progress and industrial secret
during the demonstration, that he gave to Krivit.

This is obviously Rossis point of view.
I dont share this necessarily.


Again, we see Rossi's emotional side getting the better of him. He is
not doing himself any favors letting his emotions dictate supposition
&  speculation concerning the actions of others for which probably
knows very little of.


I think Krivit is biased to support his sponsors and
gives not untrue, but biased reports about LENR for
money reasons.

Again, I disagree, based on my own past interactions with Krivit. At
least during the time when I was a BoD member Krivit did NOT appear to
have financial "sponsors" who actively supported any particular
theory, including WLT.

Granted, Krivit does seem to give many the impression that he favors
the Widom-Larsen theory.

I mistrust all theories that are made by companies seeking for investors.
I also dont understand why each new company must have their own theory. 
I suspect here is science abused as a marketing instrument and I dont 
like this.


This is why LENR urgently needs a repeatable simple experiment that 
shows energy production reliable, repeatable.
It wouldnt matter, if the COP is only 120% as long as it easy and 
reliable to measure.

Before this happens, serious research cannot start.
So far I know, several universities and companies had tried to replicate 
Piantellis findings, but did not find any excess energy.



  However, what Krivit seems to show, at least
to me, is a willingness to revise his opinion if additional evidence
were to come about that throws water on the WLT. I suspect Krivit
would change his tune if a better, new and improved theory came about.
Not theories are needed. There are more than anybody could want. An 
experiment that shows repeatable scientific evidence is needed.


Best,

Peter

[Vo]:Re: OT: Novel Cats

2011-09-29 Thread Harry Veeder

as well as my spelling.
Harry

From: Harry Veeder 
>To: "vortex-l@eskimo.com" 
>Sent: Thursday, September 29, 2011 12:11:53 PM
>Subject: OT: Novel Cats
>
>
>Novelity can sometimes appear freakish.
>
>Meet Frank and Louie:
>
>http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0zvxZF0dQLs&feature=related
>
>Harry
>
>
>
>

[Vo]:OT: Novel Cats

2011-09-29 Thread Harry Veeder

Novelity can sometimes appear freakish.
 
Meet Frank and Louie:
 
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0zvxZF0dQLs&feature=related
 
Harry

Re: [Vo]:Re: Regarding Rossi and NASA (+ some Piantelli news)

>From ecat builder:

> There is NO evidence that Rossi's newer generation
> E-Cats have ever or will ever explode.

The concerns I've seen raised do not necessarily have anything to do
with Rossi's reactor cores - whether they work or don't, or are likely
to "explode". The concerns I've seen raised have far more to do with
the delicate management of a whole lot of highly pressurized steam - a
megawatt's worth of steam.

Ladies and gentlemen, please don't try this at home!

Regards
Steven Vincent Johnson
www.OrionWorks.com
www.zazzle.com/orionworks

Re: [Vo]:Re: Regarding Rossi and NASA (+ some Piantelli news)

2011-09-29 Thread ecat builder

There is NO evidence that Rossi's newer generation E-Cats have ever or will
ever explode. Rossi has maintained that in the event that they melt down
that they simply stop producing heat.

If you happen to be on Rossi's invitation to see his 1MW plant, by all means
take whatever precautions you like to keep safe. But to suggest Rossi is an
idiot who might kill the "top scientists" witnessing his invention is just
plain silly. Pressure gauges are a few dollars, and I'm guessing Rossi knows
how to use one. He might even employ a burst disk or pressure relief valve!

Some of you believe there is no reaction, others believe that the reaction
is wildly unstable. Rossi says there is a reaction and he can extract at
least 6x COE. Seems like we need a good parimutuel betting website where we
can put our money next to our opinions.

Peace.
- Brad

Re: Re: [Vo]:Regarding Rossi and NASA (+ some Piantelli news)

>From Peter:

...

> There seems to (hostile) competition between Piantelli
> group and Rossi. Krivit in his website gives the
> impression to be independent, but his "sponsor" is
> unknown and he seems to prefer the piantelli group
> over others.

You seem to be speculating, and therefore insinuating that Krivit's
sponsor(s) might have direct or indirect ties to Piantelli's group. I
seriously doubt this. When I was still a BoD member for Krivit's NET
organization his "sponser(s)", at least during the time when I was
still a BoD, seemed pretty independently-minded to me. I could be
wrong, but I doubt Krivit's sponsorship would have changed all that
much since my departure.

Based on what others have said Piantelli's group has been approaching
the publication of their work in a far more academic & professional
manner than what Rossi has been doing. Therefore, why wouldn't ANYONE
tend to be more favorable towards Piantelli. To many, Rossi's
flamboyant approach could be described as akin to that of a carnival
barker. No wonder he makes many suspicious... ESPECIALLY
cynically-minded investigative reporters.

> Rossi seems to believe Rossi [Did you really mean Krivit???]
> was acting as a spy for his progress and industrial secret
> during the demonstration, that he gave to Krivit.

Again, we see Rossi's emotional side getting the better of him. He is
not doing himself any favors letting his emotions dictate supposition
& speculation concerning the actions of others for which probably
knows very little of.

> I think Krivit is biased to support his sponsors and
> gives not untrue, but biased reports about LENR for
> money reasons.

Again, I disagree, based on my own past interactions with Krivit. At
least during the time when I was a BoD member Krivit did NOT appear to
have financial "sponsors" who actively supported any particular
theory, including WLT.

Granted, Krivit does seem to give many the impression that he favors
the Widom-Larsen theory. However, what Krivit seems to show, at least
to me, is a willingness to revise his opinion if additional evidence
were to come about that throws water on the WLT. I suspect Krivit
would change his tune if a better, new and improved theory came about.
But right now, why does he (why does anyone) need to do that. At
present nobody really has the inside track.

Regards
Steven Vincent Johnson
www.OrionWorks.com
www.zazzle.com/orionworks

Re: [Vo]:Regarding Rossi and NASA (+ some Piantelli news)

2011-09-29 Thread Akira Shirakawa


On 2011-09-28 20:00, Akira Shirakawa wrote:

Hello Group,


More from Rossi on NASA:


1) How is it going with the 1MW plant? is it completed?
2) Did you invited people from NASA to the October 6th test?
3) Is NASA the big customer of your first 1MW plant?



Dear Alessandro Casali:
1- It will be ready by the end of October for the test. We are making 
corrections.
2- Yes, but they prefer to test our Cats in their Facilities in the USA
3- No, they will buy the modular E-Cats to check if this technology is useful 
for their purposes.
Warm Regards,
A.R.


So, NASA is not Rossi's big customer, but people working there 
apparently promised to purchase e-Cat modules for in-house testing as 
soon as they become available.



Should we conclude that the 2nd test (not the one on October 6th) with the 
small e-cat will be done at a NASA facility?



Dear Alessandro Casali:
Not yet,
Warm Regards,
A.R.


And the two tests expected for next month (putting aside the public 
inauguration of the 1-megawatt thermal powerplant planned for the end of 
October, which is a separate event) won't involve NASA yet.


Cheers,
S.A.

Aw: Re: [Vo]:Regarding Rossi and NASA (+ some Piantelli news)

2011-09-29 Thread peter . heckert

 


- Original Nachricht 
Von: OrionWorks - Steven V Johnson 
An:  vortex-l@eskimo.com
Datum:   29.09.2011 16:21
Betreff: Re: [Vo]:Regarding Rossi and NASA (+ some Piantelli news)

> Nevertheless, Rossi continuing to describe Krivit as a "snake" is not
> doing himself any favors. IMO, to constantly reveal such an incredibly
> raw emotional side of himself to the general public, particularly in
> the midst of trying to convince others as to the accuracy of his
> controversial scientific evidence... it does not serve Rossi's goals.
> I think it hinders them. Incredibly so.
> 

Yes, I think he should not express his emotions in public.
However I think there are reasons:

There seems to (hostile) competition between Piantelli group and Rossi.
Krivit in his website  gives the impression to be independent, but his 
"sponsor" is unknown and he seems to prefer the piantelli group over others. 
Rossi seems to believe Rossi was acting as a spy for his progress and 
industrial secret during the demonstration, that he gave to Krivit.

I think Krivit is biased to support his sponsors and gives not untrue, but 
biased reports about LENR for money reasons.

Its just a joke, when they commercialize LENR before having any usable product 
or definitive experiment demonstrated.
Maybe they compete for investors or customers in a unfair way.

Re: [Vo]:Re: Regarding Rossi and NASA (+ some Piantelli news)

Man on Bridges  wrote:

> Statistically each Ecat has it's own independent chance of explosion at any
> given moment which does not change over time.
>

I believe that is incorrect. Boiler explosions are caused by the overall
temperatures and pressures of the machine. When a machine made up of several
different components -- such as tube boiler or a fission reactor -- the
components influence one another. The Fukushima reactor meltdown not caused
by one fuel rod uncovered that became too hot. It was caused by all of them
uncovered simultaneously. In the Rossi 1 MW reactor, the units are
connected. I think they are in series as well as in parallel, which means
that hot water or steam will go from one will go to the next, and one will
influence the next.

I think it would be extremely ill-advised to run this 1 MW unit without
first subjecting the individual units to thousands of hours of individual
testing at many different laboratories, in national laboratories and
corporations. Some experts have told me they feel this reactor as configured
is very dangerous. I see no point whatever to running it.

Ed Storms suggested to me that Rossi may be having some difficulty
coordinating individual reactors to make them work together as a group, and
that his purpose is to show that he can do this. If Storms is right, and
coordinating them is challenging, I think Rossi should leave this job to
someone else. I am certain that experts at corporations such as Mitsubishi
or General Electric can solve this problem. No matter how difficult it may
be, it is trivial compared to the original problem of inventing the reactor.
It is absurd for Rossi to spend his time solving a problem like this,
because this is "merely a matter of engineering" -- meaning many other
experts in the world can solve this.

What he is doing is similar to what the Wright brothers did from 1906 to
1908. They stopped flying airplanes, stopped designing new ones, and
concentrated mainly on building better internal combustion engines instead.
They were quite good at this. The engines they came up with were among the
best around for aviation, with high ratios of power to weight. But there
were thousands of experts of internal combustion engines who were better
qualified than Wrights, and who could have done a better job. They did do a
better job after 1908. In 1906, the Wrights knew *far* more about
aerodynamics and the physics of flight than anyone else in the world. They
should have concentrated on what they knew best, leaving other details to
other experts. It was a waste of time for them to work on engines at that
stage in the development.

- Jed

Re: [Vo]:Regarding Rossi and NASA (+ some Piantelli news)

Nevertheless, Rossi continuing to describe Krivit as a "snake" is not
doing himself any favors. IMO, to constantly reveal such an incredibly
raw emotional side of himself to the general public, particularly in
the midst of trying to convince others as to the accuracy of his
controversial scientific evidence... it does not serve Rossi's goals.
I think it hinders them. Incredibly so.

I wish Rossi would stop emphasizing the scales he perceives his
critics as displaying and simply state the facts & evidence he has
managed to accumulate. As I've suggested before, by nature Krivit
strikes me as a cynic. Being a cynic is neither a good nor bad trait.
What it boils down to is whether Krivit can utilize his innate sense
of "cynicism" as effectively as he can in the pursuit of investigative
journalism. The problem for Rossi is that as he continues to describe
what he perceives as Krivit's scales, all that tends to do to a
cynic-at-heart is to give them the feeling that they have cornered a
warm blooded Italian prairie dog. It tends to drive a cynic to go in
for the kill.

In the final analysis, if Rossi should be so lucky as to eventually
pull a magic eCat out of his hat, it will not be due to his outrageous
flamboyant style of web blogging. Rossi's speculated eventual success
will instead be entirely due to an accumulation of solid evidence, the
kind of evidence that can no longer be dismissed by self-appointed
skeptics, "snakes", and hoax believers.

Regards
Steven Vincent Johnson
www.OrionWorks.com
www.zazzle.com/orionworks

Re: [Vo]:Regarding Rossi and NASA (+ some Piantelli news)


Rossi wrote:

WE WILL MEASURE THE ENERGY TAKING THE DELTA T OF THE WATER, THE 
WATER, THE WATER, NOT OF THE STEAM NOT OF THE STEAM, NOT OF THE 
STEAM, THEREFORE THE ISSUE OF THE QUALITY OF THE STEAM HAS ABSOLUTELY 
NOT IMPORTANCE, BECAURE WE DO NOT MEASURE THE ENERGY FROM THE STEAM 
!!! WE COULD PUT IN THE PRIMARY CIRCUIT STEAM, DIATHERMIC OIL, 
GLYCOLE, COCA COLA . . .


That's hysterical. In every sense of the word.

He is right, though.

- Jed

RE: [Vo]:Re: Regarding Rossi and NASA (+ some Piantelli news)

2011-09-29 Thread OrionWorks - Steven Vincent Johnson

Rizzi sez:

> Guys, the dream is over. It’s time to wake up.
 
It's been my experience that the harder I try to convince others as to the 
correctness of my opinion, the more obvious it becomes to others as to whom I'm 
really trying to convince.

Regards,
Steven Vincent Johnson
www.OrionWorks.com
www.zazzle.com/orionworks

Re: [Vo]:Re: Regarding Rossi and NASA (+ some Piantelli news)


Hi,

Oeps, the commas must be periods so this should of course be red as:

Me thinks you are wrong. Your statistical probability calculation is 
based upon the fact that the chance of a single Ecat exploding is 
influenced by it's behaviour earlier, which of course is not true. 
Statistically each Ecat has it's own independent chance of explosion at 
any given moment which does not change over time.
With your probability of 0.1% chance per hour this would result for the 
whole of 52 Ecats then in a chance of explosion at any given moment of 1 
- (0.999^52) = .05 or 5%.


Looking even a bit more closer again this would mean that if the chance 
of explosion is 0.1% per hour then the chance of explosion is 2.77e-7 
per second at any given moment for a single Ecat, which would result for 
52 Ecats into 1-((2.77e-7)^52) =  0.134 or 0.00144% at any time.


Kind regards,

MoB

[Vo]:Re: Regarding Rossi and NASA (+ some Piantelli news)

2011-09-29 Thread Mattia Rizzi

I found who is the secret customer: Men In Black.

Guys, the dream is over. It’s time to wake up.

From: Michele Comitini 
Sent: Thursday, September 29, 2011 11:21 AM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com 
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Regarding Rossi and NASA (+ some Piantelli news)

All bets are off. The catalyst that ignites Rossi's powerful hot reactions is 
now well known and proven: KrIvIt. 

mic

2011/9/29 Akira Shirakawa 

  On 2011-09-28 20:00, Akira Shirakawa wrote:

Hello Group,

Have a read at Krivit's latest blog post here:

  This is Rossi's rebuttal:

  http://www.journal-of-nuclear-physics.com/?p=510&cpage=9#comment-83748

WARNING:
THE SNAKE HAS WRITTEN IN HIS BLOG THAT NASA MADE A NOT POSITIVE TEST WITH 
US. THIS IS TOTALLY FALSE. I AM BOUND FROM A CONFIDENTIALITY AGREEMENT AND I 
CANNOT GIVE DETAILED INFORMATION, BUT I CAN SAY THAT:
1- WE ARE IN CONTACT WITH NASA, WHO WANTS TO TEST OUR ECATS TO TEST THE 
POSSIBILITY TO MAKE THEM USEFUL FOR THEIR PURPOSES
2- NASA’S DENNIS.M.BUSHNELL HAS SAID PUBILCLY THAT NASA WILL BUY AN E-CAT 
AS SOON AS IT WILL BE POSSIBLE TO TEST IT
3- OUR RELATIONSHIP WITH NASA IS TOTALLY POSITIVE

IN A SEPARATE STATEMENT, A SNAKE’S ACCOLITE WROTE THAT THE TEST WE ARE 
GOING TO DO ON THE 6TH OF OCTOBER WILL BE ALWAYS MADE WITH STEAM. 
UNFORTUNATELY, WHEN YOU SPEAK WITH THIS PEOPLE YOU DEAL WITH PERSONS THAT HAVE 
REAL DIFFICULTIES TO UNDERSTAND A TITLE OF A NEWSPAPER IF THEY ARE AT THE SAME 
TIME CHEWING A GUM, BUT, JUST TO AVOID CONFUSION I REPEAT THAT:
THE MEASUREMENTS WILL BE MADE ON LIQUID WATER. WE WILL HAVE THE STEAM 
PRODUCED FROM THE REACTOR THAT WILL WORK IN A CLOSED LOOP, WHICH IS THE PRIMARY 
CIRCUIT, AND THE STEAM ITSELF EXCHANGES HEAT WITH THE LIQUID WATER IN A 
SECONDARY CLOSED CIRCUIT, SO THAT THE WATER IS HEATED BY THE STEAM THROUGH THE 
WALLS OF A HEAT EXCHANGER. WE WILL MEASURE THE ENERGY TAKING THE DELTA T OF THE 
WATER, THE WATER, THE WATER, NOT OF THE STEAM NOT OF THE STEAM, NOT OF THE 
STEAM, THEREFORE THE ISSUE OF THE QUALITY OF THE STEAM HAS ABSOLUTELY NOT 
IMPORTANCE, BECAURE WE DO NOT MEASURE THE ENERGY FROM THE STEAM !!! WE 
COULD PUT IN THE PRIMARY CIRCUIT STEAM, DIATHERMIC OIL, GLYCOLE, COCA COLA: IT 
IS ABSOLUTELY IRRILEVANT WHICH IS THE FLUID IN THE PRIMARY CIRCUIT AS FOR 
CONCERNS THE MEASUREMENT OF THE ENERGY BECAUSE WE MEASURE THE ENERGY ONLY 
MULTIPLYING THE CUBIC METERS OF WATER FLOWING THROUGH THE SECONDARY CIRCUIT BY 
THE DELTA t OBTAINED SUBTRACTING FROM THE TEMPERATURE OF THE WATER (LIQUID) 

  OF THE SECONDARY CIRCUIT AT THE EXIT FROM THE HEAT EXCHANGER THE TEMPERATURE 
OF THE SAME LIQUID WATER AT THE INPUT OF THE SAME HEAT EXCHANGER.

ANDREA ROSSI

  Cheers,
  S.A.

RE: [Vo]:Re: Regarding Rossi and NASA (+ some Piantelli news)

2011-09-29 Thread OrionWorks - Steven Vincent Johnson

>From MoB:

...

> Looking even a bit more closer again this would mean that if the chance
> of explosion is 0.1% per hour then the chance of explosion is 2,77e-7
> per second at any given moment for a single Ecat, which would result
> for
> 52 Ecats into 1-((2,77e-7)^52) =  0,134 or 0,00144% at any
> time.

Ah! Understanding the mathematics of Probability can occasionally be a
useful talent to possess! ;-)

Thanks MoB

Regards,
Steven Vincent Johnson
www.OrionWorks.com
www.zazzle.com/orionworks

RE: [Vo]:Regarding Rossi and NASA (+ some Piantelli news)

2011-09-29 Thread OrionWorks - Steven Vincent Johnson

From: Michele Comitini

> All bets are off. The catalyst that ignites Rossi's powerful
> hot reactions is now well known and proven: KrIvIt.

Really? Good heavens! I missed that little tidbit.

Can you cite references or links that describe Rossi's secret sauce?

Inquiring minds want to know.

Regards,
Steven Vincent Johnson
www.OrionWorks.com
www.zazzle.com/orionworks

Re: [Vo]:Re: Regarding Rossi and NASA (+ some Piantelli news)