date:20111101

Terry Blanton hohlr...@gmail.com wrote:
 Smart man.  He is exactly right contrary to many discussions here.

Yes indeed, It is curious how hard this thing has been for many to
understand, that it is impossible to get low quality steam by boiling in
low pressure. But low quality steam can be made only by rapidly cooling
high pressure and high velocity steam.

  —Jouni

Re: [Vo]:AP Journalist Response - Supression Of eCat Coverage

Craig, I think that Peter is in very difficult situation, because If Andrea
did not provide him any exclusive material, then there is nothing to write.
There is just words and claims but those have zero scientific relevance.

  —Jouni

tiistai, 1. marraskuuta 2011 Craig Brown cr...@overunity.co kirjoitti:

 I Tweeted PeterSvensson (the AP journalist who attended the 1MW test)
to ask why AP what exactly had happened to the news report?
 The response was Sorry, there's nothing I can say at this point.
 Today I recieved some more worrying information from a concerned member
of the public.  He had emailed Kit Frieden and recieved the following
response - I’m sorry, but the AP doesn’t discuss its coverage plans with
people outside the organization.
 I hate to say suppression, but when it looks like a dog, and barks like a
dog, it's a dog.
 Craig
 Free Energy Truth

[Vo]:Tuesday...New York Times- Science Times--No Rossi Coverage

2011-11-01 Thread Ron Kita

Greetings Vortex,

I usually check the tuesday  NYT  Science Times Section on-line, and
there is no coverage of Rossi.
http://www.nytimes.com/pages/science/index.html

I can now understand how big media is going broke- it wants to
give us- the news that they want us to see. hmm

Ron Kita, Chiralex
there is a list of e-mail addresses of NYT journalists- I doubt that CF is
of any interest to them.

Re: [Vo]:Tuesday...New York Times- Science Times--No Rossi Coverage

Most Internet sites don't even have a science section - if even present, it 
gets lumped under Tech. The Times science section is like most of the others, 
credulous and sensationalist.

-drl

--
I write a little. I erase a lot. - Chopin



--- On Tue, 11/1/11, Ron Kita chiralex.k...@gmail.com wrote:
I usually check the tuesday  NYT  Science Times Section on-line, and there is 
no coverage of Rossi.http://www.nytimes.com/pages/science/index.html

RE: [Vo]:AP Journalist Response - Supression Of eCat Coverage

2011-11-01 Thread *** Craig Brown ***

Jouni,

 

He has more exclusive material than you can shake a stick at – and a full day 
to cover the events properly.

“Words and claims” for UFOs, Yeti and the Loch Ness Monster still get good 
coverage on the newswires, so I don’t see how this is any different. In fact, 
it’s far more credible in the light of the fact it’s been seen by quite a few 
respected individuals from academia.

This “spiking” of an eCat story is not the first instance of this.  I have 
heard other accounts of stories about the eCat that made it all the way to the 
editor and then mysteriously were killed at the last moment.

 

 

 

Craig, I think that Peter is in very difficult situation, because If Andrea did 
not provide him any exclusive material, then there is nothing to write. There 
is just words and claims but those have zero scientific relevance. 

  —Jouni

tiistai, 1. marraskuuta 2011 Craig Brown cr...@overunity.co kirjoitti:

 I Tweeted PeterSvensson (the AP journalist who attended the 1MW test) to 
 ask why AP what exactly had happened to the news report?
 The response was Sorry, there's nothing I can say at this point.
 Today I recieved some more worrying information from a concerned member of 
 the public.  He had emailed Kit Frieden and recieved the following response - 
 I’m sorry, but the AP doesn’t discuss its coverage plans with people outside 
 the organization.
 I hate to say suppression, but when it looks like a dog, and barks like a 
 dog, it's a dog.
 Craig
 Free Energy Truth

Re: [Vo]:AP Journalist Response - Supression Of eCat Coverage


Hi,

Am 01.11.2011 07:13, schrieb Jouni Valkonen:


 The response was Sorry, there's nothing I can say at this point.
 Today I recieved some more worrying information from a concerned 
member of the public.  He had emailed Kit Frieden and recieved the 
following response - I’m sorry, but the AP doesn’t discuss its 
coverage plans with people outside the organization.
 I hate to say suppression, but when it looks like a dog, and barks 
like a dog, it's a dog.
This is probably what they think about  Rossi and his invisible hidden 
steam and unknown customer.
He barks like a dog, the demos look like this, the unknown customer 
looks like this.
This is why they hesitate. If the customer where Google (Passi supported 
these rumors some time ago) then they would report.


One must not forget there are hundrets of inventors and conmans that try 
to get big coverage in press. They where already burned before.


Rossi and his fanboys must understand, these demos and customers are not 
good enough. There are other and very real projects like converting sun 
and windenergy into methane, that dont get big press.


Peter.

[Vo]:Rossi 1MW : Why is the energy hidden behind pressboard?


Hi,

isnt Rossi and everybody else aware that the energy produced is the most 
important thing in this experiment?

Why did they hide the dissipators behind pressboard that looks like junk?
This is the most important thing, and they try to make it look 
uninteresting.
Why did they obviously underdimension and misconstruct the heat 
dissipators and pipes?
Why didnt they measure air temperatures and air flow there and give some 
data about the dimensionig?


From a psychological point of view this is telling much.

Peter

Re: [Vo]:Rossi 1MW : Why is the energy hidden behind pressboard?

Who cares what it's behind?? Maybe he doesn't want people getting burned! Most 
machinery has some form of idiot fence around it!

I find it amazing that people seize on the tiniest details, like a matron 
dissatisfied with her curtains.

Rossi's test was a shambles of science - but what difference does it make? It 
once again demonstrated the reality of the phenomenon. That's all that matters. 

--
I write a little. I erase a lot. - Chopin

--- On Tue, 11/1/11, Peter Heckert peter.heck...@arcor.de wrote:

From: Peter Heckert peter.heck...@arcor.de

Why did they hide the dissipators behind pressboard that looks like junk?

[Vo]:Faith!

My strongest reason for believing that Rossi is on the up and up - plain old 
faith.

1)
 QCD, the theory of the strong interaction that controls how protons and
 neutrons interact, is a beautiful structure that is just about 
completely useless. Almost nothing can be calculated with it. I don't 
mean a restricted number of things - I mean just about nothing. Not only
 is it completely sterile computationally, it is also absolutely useless
 as a heuristic phenomenology to pave the way forward, the way the 
London theory of superconductivity paved the way for the real deal of 
the Bardeen-Cooper-Schrieffer theory.

2) Neutrino physics is in 
complete disarray. The discovery of oscillations and the failure to find
 the Higgs boson (something many of us thought would never be found 
years ago) has thrown even the successful part of the standard model, 
the
 electroweak sector, into chaos.

3) Even bare QED, the quantum 
version of electrodynamics, is plagued with mathematical ambiguities 
that caused both Dirac and Feynman to ultimately reject it. Despite all 
the hubris about calculations to 8 decimal places, as a theory it is 
hopelessly flawed by reliance on ambiguous mathematics and poorly 
defined physical concepts. As Dirac said, one ignore a quantity because 
it is small, not because it is infinite!

In other words, the 
standard model, for all its publicity, is a ramshackle of phenomenology 
that borrowed shall we say, its main tools from the theory of 
superconductivity and pushed them way beyond the brink of 
reasonableness. Even the fundamental idea, gauge invariance, does not 
last past square 1, and one must sacrifice it to have a short range 
force.

Now consider the situation in 1820, when Faraday was 
working. Almost nothing was known about the true nature of light, there 
was no
 cooperative theory of electricity and magnetism, much less one that 
united them is a single scheme - that would have to wait until 1865. But
 Faraday forged ahead with his experiments. He discovered that a current
 loop in the presence of a magnet experienced a torque - the first clue 
to their actual relationship. Within a decade, people were making 
electric motors, completely without any real understanding of what was 
going on! Yet that did not stop people from tinkering and inventing and 
moving forward. It was the utility of the phenomenon that drove the 
science, not the other way around! And of course who in his right mind 
would have imagined the key to their relationship was nothing but light 
itself? That had to wait for a epochal genius, Maxwell.

Friends, 
there are no epochal geniuses around. But we do have limited knowledge -
 a great deal of phenomenology - about the nucleus, and a bandy-legged, 
cross-eyed theory that at least makes up a
 sort-of consistent whole. The LENR researchers of today are like 
Faraday - Rossi is like the guys who made motors (and got rich!) - we 
wait for the Maxwell to cut the Gordian knot. But for the knot to be cut
 - you first have to believe it is possible. You have to have faith!

Did
 we really think we would go down into the mud again without ever making
 any progress? Did we really imagine it was all over? Here's a brand new
 phenomenon, exactly when one was desperately needed! both in the 
practical world and in the abstract world of pure research. I could not 
imagine that we would all just turn out the lights, turn off our 
computers, shut down our universities and libraries, dismantle their 
buildings for firewood, and simply return to the dark ages. I had faith 
that some day, something new would happen. I am painfully aware of my 
own limitations, but that is exactly why I'm allowed to believe, when 
the self-satisfied and arrogant skeptic can only
 stew in his own cynicism.

It's faith that tells me, more than 1000 experts and gauges, that this is real.

-drl

--
I write a little. I erase a lot. - Chopin

Re: [Vo]:Rossi 1MW : Why is the energy hidden behind pressboard?


Am 01.11.2011 09:19, schrieb Danny Ross Lunsford:
Who cares what it's behind?? Maybe he doesn't want people getting 
burned! Most machinery has some form of idiot fence around it!


I find it amazing that people seize on the tiniest details, like a 
matron dissatisfied with her curtains.


This is not a tiny detail. This is the final result. Arent you aware 
about this?
From beginning on I was mostly interested in this, because anything 
else of importance - the steam is made invisible.
Had he documented the airflow and temperatures in a credible way or had 
he used an industrial cooler that has known calibration data, then the 
energy would have been proven almost irrefutable.

Re: [Vo]:Rossi 1MW : Why is the energy hidden behind pressboard?

The previous tests were done, if not perfectly, then at least with care enough 
to demonstrate massive excess heat. Since the big plant is just a lot of small 
ecats thrown together, what point to Rossi would there have been? He was making 
a sale, not impressing his neighbors, or us. That he even threw this open to 
(as it turns out disinterested) reporters is amazing. The customer (NATO or 
NASA?) wanted to remain secret. If I'm selling something, the customer is 
always right!

I think many people are projecting their own expectations onto Rossi. He's not 
a scientist, or even a hardcore engineer at this point. He's the lead sales 
tech for his company. Perhaps one day he'll hire another person to take over 
this role and he can get back to engineering and study. But without capital 
from sales, that's going to be hard.

-drl

--
I write a little. I erase a lot. - Chopin



--- On Tue, 11/1/11, Peter Heckert peter.heck...@arcor.de wrote:

From: Peter Heckert peter.heck...@arcor.de
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Rossi 1MW : Why is the energy hidden behind pressboard?
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Date: Tuesday, November 1, 2011, 3:26 AM


  


  
  
Am 01.11.2011 09:19, schrieb Danny Ross Lunsford:

  

  
Who cares what it's
  behind?? Maybe he doesn't want people getting burned! Most
  machinery has some form of idiot fence around it!

  

  I find it amazing that people seize on the tiniest
  details, like a matron dissatisfied with her curtains.

  


  

  

This is not a tiny detail. This is the final result. Arent you aware
about this?

From beginning on I was mostly interested in this, because anything
else of importance - the steam is made invisible.

Had he documented the airflow and temperatures in a credible way or
had he used an industrial cooler that has known calibration data,
then the energy would have been proven almost irrefutable.

Re: [Vo]:Faith!


Am 01.11.2011 09:25, schrieb Danny Ross Lunsford:
My strongest reason for believing that Rossi is on the up and up - 
plain old faith.


It is absolutely wrong to have to use faith for something that can be 
easily measured and tested.


Rossi wants real money and he will count it without doubt as every 
businessman does, why dont they use faith?


Peter

Re: [Vo]:Rossi 1MW : Why is the energy hidden behind pressboard?


Am 01.11.2011 09:31, schrieb Danny Ross Lunsford:
The previous tests were done, if not perfectly, then at least with 
care enough to demonstrate massive excess heat. Since the big plant is 
just a lot of small ecats thrown together, what point to Rossi would 
there have been? He was making a sale, not impressing his neighbors, 
or us. That he even threw this open to (as it turns out disinterested) 
reporters is amazing. The customer (NATO or NASA?) wanted to remain 
secret. If I'm selling something, the customer is always right!


I think many people are projecting their own expectations onto Rossi. 
He's not a scientist, or even a hardcore engineer at this point. He's 
the lead sales tech for his company. Perhaps one day he'll hire 
another person to take over this role and he can get back to 
engineering and study. But without capital from sales, that's going to 
be hard.


He could rent or lease these plants. This would be a reasonable business 
model.

In this case he should get acceptance.
Anyway these will nee constant supervision by him or his unssen support 
organization.

Re: [Vo]:AP Journalist Response - Supression Of eCat Coverage

2011/11/1 *** Craig Brown *** cr...@overunity.co
 “Words and claims” for UFOs, Yeti and the Loch Ness Monster still
 get good coverage on the newswires, so I don’t see how this is any
 different.

That is good point... There has been in recent months in main stream
media news about Himalayan Yeti and the UFO of Gulf of Bothnia. I have
not heard about Loch Ness monster in news lately, but it was mentioned
in Dr. Who few days ago when I watched it (second season). Cold fusion
is rare even in science fiction.

    –Jouni

Re: [Vo]:AP Journalist Response - Supression Of eCat Coverage

I just wrote a short story featuring it. In it, the Rossi effect is a 
matter-antimatter reaction slowed down enormously, but destined to pick up 
speed, so the world's energy woes may be solved, but everyone is walking around 
with a ticking matter-antimatter bomb in his/her cell phone :) The problem is, 
there are so many objects using ecats, that there is no time to blast them into 
space or throw them in the ocean!

-drl

PS to reporters - the above is about fiction. Don't throw your phone in the 
ocean.

--
I write a little. I erase a lot. - Chopin



--- On Tue, 11/1/11, Jouni Valkonen jounivalko...@gmail.com wrote:
Cold fusion
is rare even in science fiction.

–Jouni

Re: [Vo]:AP Journalist Response - Supression Of eCat Coverage

2011/11/1 Jouni Valkonen jounivalko...@gmail.com:
 Cold fusion
 is rare even in science fiction.


By the way, can anyone recommend (preferably good) near future science
fiction novels that have cold fusion device as a plot generator? Is
there even any?!

–Jouni

Re: [Vo]:My involvement with Mr. Krivit as a former BoD - Part 2 of 3

2011-11-01 Thread vorl bek

 What can Krivit do if it turns out that Rossi's
 controversial work is determined to be authentic?

Surely he would blame Rossi: 

It is a pity that Rossi did not conduct proper tests and release
the data earlier; think of all the starving and thirsting Africans
and others who could have been saved...

Re: [Vo]:OT: an engineer's guide to cats

On Mon, Oct 31, 2011 at 10:49 PM, Harry Veeder hveeder...@gmail.com wrote:
 I think this engineer's guide to cats is the next best thing until an
 engineer's guide to ecats becomes available.

Cat yodeling.  Maxx and Mia will have to try this tonight!

T

Re: [Vo]:Tuesday...New York Times- Science Times--No Rossi Coverage

Well, the Grey Lady sent no reporters there contrary to my previous report.
 NYT was NyT or Nyteknik, a Swedish magazine.  And the AP reporter ain't
speakin'.  So, we will see no major media reports.unless the AP
reporter is unleashed.

T

Re: [Vo]:Faith!

On Tue, Nov 1, 2011 at 4:33 AM, Peter Heckert peter.heck...@arcor.dewrote:



 Rossi wants real money and he will count it without doubt as every
 businessman does, why dont they use faith?


Rossi was allegedly paid by TC (The Customer) for his Reactor.  Now, I
wonder how much?  Was he paid based on the capability or on the test value.
 He has often quoted the price of $2000/kW; so, a megawatt reactor costs
$2M; but, he only demonstrated 479 kW.  So, did he get a check for only
$958,000?

Regardless, he seems happy.  Does that mean TCs check cleared the bank?  Or
was it escrowed?  Or, did those Men In Black carry cases of cash?

Now that TC has their eCat, can we speculate on who has bought the next one
(TC2) as Rossi has said the already has it sold? He said he would sell to
any country.  Maybe it would be China?  Japan could use some heat this
winter.  I doubt it would go to Defkalion.

T

Re: [Vo]:AP Journalist Response - Supression Of eCat Coverage

2011-11-01 Thread Michele Comitini

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Saint_(film)

But The Rossi Legacy is much much better!  ;-)

mic

mic
Il giorno 01/nov/2011 12:32, Jouni Valkonen jounivalko...@gmail.com ha
scritto:

 2011/11/1 Jouni Valkonen jounivalko...@gmail.com:
  Cold fusion
  is rare even in science fiction.
 

 By the way, can anyone recommend (preferably good) near future science
 fiction novels that have cold fusion device as a plot generator? Is
 there even any?!

–Jouni

[Vo]:Recent Ni-H LENR replications?

2011-11-01 Thread Robert Lynn

Are there any recent reports of Ni-H LENR other than Rossi?

I know there was Brillouin back in March:
http://www.brillouinenergy.com/Brillouin_Second_Round_Data.pdf

Brian Ahern in May:
http://www.mail-archive.com/vortex-l@eskimo.com/msg47437.html
Also seems to have gone quiet

Piantelli? Others? Rumours?

All seems to have gone quiet - does this mean that all researchers have the
money they need and are now chasing commercial advantage?

Re: [Vo]:Recent Ni-H LENR replications?

2011-11-01 Thread Craig Haynie

Miley has replicated the original Patterson' Nickel-Hydrogen reaction,
but he modified the metal. Now he says it's totally replicable and
that there are 'no more show-stoppers.' If Rossi wasn't the news, he
would be the news now, I think.

Go past minute 4 to get to Miley's presentation.

http://www.youtube.com/user/kiholobay#p/u/2/N1m2wQevFAY

Craig Haynie
Manchester, NH

On Tue, Nov 1, 2011 at 8:44 AM, Robert Lynn
robert.gulliver.l...@gmail.com wrote:
 Are there any recent reports of Ni-H LENR other than Rossi?

 I know there was Brillouin back in March:
 http://www.brillouinenergy.com/Brillouin_Second_Round_Data.pdf

 Brian Ahern in May:
 http://www.mail-archive.com/vortex-l@eskimo.com/msg47437.html
 Also seems to have gone quiet

 Piantelli? Others? Rumours?

 All seems to have gone quiet - does this mean that all researchers have the
 money they need and are now chasing commercial advantage?

Re: [Vo]:Rossi 1MW : Why is the energy hidden behind pressboard?


Peter Heckert wrote:

Had he documented the airflow and temperatures in a credible way or 
had he used an industrial cooler that has known calibration data, then 
the energy would have been proven almost irrefutable.


He documented the water flow. The water was vaporized. The temperature 
was well over 100 deg C. Fioravanti and all other experts in steam say 
this proves it was dry steam, fully vaporized. For that matter, even if 
it was wet steam or magically hot water in liquid state, there was 
massive anomalous energy. If you believe that Fioravanti honestly 
reported input power, the flow rate and the temperatures you do not need 
any other proof. If he was honest, this is not almost irrefutable; it 
is utterly irrefutable. It is ridiculous to raise any questions.


On the other hand, if you do not believe he is honest, then you cannot 
believe these results. There is no middle ground and nothing to quibble 
with. The fact that you cannot see the steam is irrelevant.


Stop making up silly reasons to doubt this. You need only say that you 
do not trust a person you have never heard of from an unnamed company. 
That is reasonable. That is a perfectly valid objection. Demanding to 
see the steam and complaining about the quality of the pressboard is not 
reasonable. You have a valid reason to doubt this, so stop inventing 
silly, childish reasons.


- Jed

Re: [Vo]:Rossi 1MW : Why is the energy hidden behind pressboard?


Am 01.11.2011 14:56, schrieb Jed Rothwell:


He documented the water flow. The water was vaporized. The temperature 
was well over 100 deg C. Fioravanti and all other experts in steam say 
this proves it was dry steam, fully vaporized. For that matter, even 
if it was wet steam or magically hot water in liquid state, there was 
massive anomalous energy.


No. if it was hot water, then the energy was 5 times less than 100 kW.
If there was a cold water flow in the other pipe, then it was less than 
50 kW.

If there was a heater near the thermoelement, then it was almost zero.

Especially Domenico Fioravanti (customer engineer) must know this if he 
is an expert.

He did not mention the heat blowing out from this airtight pressboard jail.
There was no abnormal heat.
This is a proof that this guy was not interested in the real energy, but 
interested in a successful scam.


Because nobody was talking about remarkable heat at the dispensers, we 
must assume there was no abnormal energy.
All observers there where obviously technical ignorants or mentally 
handicapped or fanatical believers or scientific conmans.


I think the experts from NASA and military experts will know how to 
analyze the visible diameters of pipes and the misconstruction of the 
heat dissipators and will recognize what is going on there.
So much thermal energy (470 kW) streaming up into the sky must be 
visible to the naked eye like air on a hot tin roof on a summerday.

Why did nobody look up and point to this?
This demo was a perfect disproof, this is my impression.

kind regards,

Peter

Re: [Vo]:AP Journalist Response - Supression Of eCat Coverage

2011-11-01 Thread ecat builder

 By the way, can anyone recommend (preferably good) near future science
 fiction novels that have cold fusion device as a plot generator? Is
 there even any?!

Our very own Jed Rothwell's book Cold Fusion and the Future  is the
best I know of on near future sci-fi CF technology.

It costs $.99 from amazon and requires a kindle reader (available for
any platform, including iOS devices.)
http://tinyurl.com/4xm492m
Should be required reading here.

I'd personally like to see more discussion of the near future uses of
CF-- replication, of course, miniaturization, ecats to volts
discussions, economic impacts, stock market picks, etc.

- Brad

Re: [Vo]:Recent Ni-H LENR replications?

2011-11-01 Thread ecat builder

Blacklight Power just released a video that was posted on vortex:
Replication and testing at Rowan University.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DfjOIoPwolg

A number of people are trying to replicate on a small scale. Here is
the latest, in the planning stage:
http://www.alienscientist.com/forum/showthread.php?699-Ni-H2-ECat-Project

I think the mystery pulsing and/or catalyst is hard to crack.

- Brad

Re: [Vo]:Faith!

Good post Danny. ;-)

Dave

-Original Message-
From: Danny Ross Lunsford antimatte...@yahoo.com
To: vortex list vortex-L@eskimo.com
Sent: Tue, Nov 1, 2011 4:25 am
Subject: [Vo]:Faith!

My strongest reason for believing that Rossi is on the up and up - plain old 
faith.

1) QCD, the theory of the strong interaction that controls how protons and 
neutrons interact, is a beautiful structure that is just about completely 
useless. Almost nothing can be calculated with it. I don't mean a restricted 
number of things - I mean just about nothing. Not only is it completely sterile 
computationally, it is also absolutely useless as a heuristic phenomenology to 
pave the way forward, the way the London theory of superconductivity paved the 
way for the real deal of the Bardeen-Cooper-Schrieffer theory.

2) Neutrino physics is in complete disarray. The discovery of oscillations and 
the failure to find the Higgs boson (something many of us thought would never 
be found years ago) has thrown even the successful part of the standard model, 
the electroweak sector, into chaos.

3) Even bare QED, the quantum version of electrodynamics, is plagued with 
mathematical ambiguities that caused both Dirac and Feynman to ultimately 
reject it. Despite all the hubris about calculations to 8 decimal places, as a 
theory it is hopelessly flawed by reliance on ambiguous mathematics and poorly 
defined physical concepts. As Dirac said, one ignore a quantity because it is 
small, not because it is infinite!

In other words, the standard model, for all its publicity, is a ramshackle of 
phenomenology that borrowed shall we say, its main tools from the theory of 
superconductivity and pushed them way beyond the brink of reasonableness. Even 
the fundamental idea, gauge invariance, does not last past square 1, and one 
must sacrifice it to have a short range force.

Now consider the situation in 1820, when Faraday was working. Almost nothing 
was known about the true nature of light, there was no cooperative theory of 
electricity and magnetism, much less one that united them is a single scheme - 
that would have to wait until 1865. But Faraday forged ahead with his 
experiments. He discovered that a current loop in the presence of a magnet 
experienced a torque - the first clue to their actual relationship. Within a 
decade, people were making electric motors, completely without any real 
understanding of what was going on! Yet that did not stop people from tinkering 
and inventing and moving forward. It was the utility of the phenomenon that 
drove the science, not the other way around! And of course who in his right 
mind would have imagined the key to their relationship was nothing but light 
itself? That had to wait for a epochal genius, Maxwell.

Friends, there are no epochal geniuses around. But we do have limited knowledge 
- a great deal of phenomenology - about the nucleus, and a bandy-legged, 
cross-eyed theory that at least makes up a sort-of consistent whole. The LENR 
researchers of today are like Faraday - Rossi is like the guys who made motors 
(and got rich!) - we wait for the Maxwell to cut the Gordian knot. But for the 
knot to be cut - you first have to believe it is possible. You have to have 
faith!

Did we really think we would go down into the mud again without ever making any 
progress? Did we really imagine it was all over? Here's a brand new phenomenon, 
exactly when one was desperately needed! both in the practical world and in the 
abstract world of pure research. I could not imagine that we would all just 
turn out the lights, turn off our computers, shut down our universities and 
libraries, dismantle their buildings for firewood, and simply return to the 
dark ages. I had faith that some day, something new would happen. I am 
painfully aware of my own limitations, but that is exactly why I'm allowed to 
believe, when the self-satisfied and arrogant skeptic can only stew in his own 
cynicism.

It's faith that tells me, more than 1000 experts and gauges, that this is real.

-drl

--
I write a little. I erase a lot. - Chopin

[Vo]:Re: Rossi 1MW : Why is the energy hidden behind pressboard?

2011-11-01 Thread Mattia Rizzi

Peter, have you seen this comment on NyTeknik?
The video is inside the last article by Lewan.
The valve appear almost closed, so that’s why there was not so much liquid 
water (5 liters according to the report).


[h=3]Closed water condensate drainage valve[/h] 
Somebody asked Mr. Rossi about the water-condensate drainage valve, which is 
obviously shown closed in the latest posted movie.
Here the explanation from Mr. Rossi:

Andrea Rossi
October 31st, 2011 at 6:07 PM
Dear Paul Gordon:
The valve has been always open, under the strict control of the Consultant of 
the Customer. The video you talk of has been made during the cooling down of 
the E-Cat, after it has been turned off.
Warm Regards,
A.R
---

But if you watch the movie, you hear at the end very clear the voice of Mats 
Lewan saying: It is now almost 3 o clock.
That means, that time the movie was recorded, the e-cat should have been in the 
middle of the so called 'self sustaining' mode.

So, who is wrong?
I hope Mr. Mats Lewan can clarify.

Actually, I believe the time given by Mats Lewan, because - as you can see - it 
was still bright daylight.

-Messaggio originale- 
From: Peter Heckert 
Sent: Tuesday, November 01, 2011 3:17 PM 
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com 
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Rossi 1MW : Why is the energy hidden behind pressboard? 

Am 01.11.2011 14:56, schrieb Jed Rothwell:

 He documented the water flow. The water was vaporized. The temperature 
 was well over 100 deg C. Fioravanti and all other experts in steam say 
 this proves it was dry steam, fully vaporized. For that matter, even 
 if it was wet steam or magically hot water in liquid state, there was 
 massive anomalous energy.

No. if it was hot water, then the energy was 5 times less than 100 kW.
If there was a cold water flow in the other pipe, then it was less than 
50 kW.
If there was a heater near the thermoelement, then it was almost zero.

Especially Domenico Fioravanti (customer engineer) must know this if he 
is an expert.
He did not mention the heat blowing out from this airtight pressboard jail.
There was no abnormal heat.
This is a proof that this guy was not interested in the real energy, but 
interested in a successful scam.

Because nobody was talking about remarkable heat at the dispensers, we 
must assume there was no abnormal energy.
All observers there where obviously technical ignorants or mentally 
handicapped or fanatical believers or scientific conmans.

I think the experts from NASA and military experts will know how to 
analyze the visible diameters of pipes and the misconstruction of the 
heat dissipators and will recognize what is going on there.
So much thermal energy (470 kW) streaming up into the sky must be 
visible to the naked eye like air on a hot tin roof on a summerday.
Why did nobody look up and point to this?
This demo was a perfect disproof, this is my impression.

kind regards,

Peter

Re: [Vo]:Rossi 1MW : Why is the energy hidden behind pressboard?


Peter Heckert wrote:


No. if it was hot water, then the energy was 5 times less than 100 kW.
If there was a cold water flow in the other pipe, then it was less 
than 50 kW.

If there was a heater near the thermoelement, then it was almost zero.

Especially Domenico Fioravanti (customer engineer) must know this if 
he is an expert.


Yes, he is an expert. And as an expert he would have know there was a 
heater near the thermocouple, or that there was cold water in the other 
pipe. Any expert would notice this. Heck, I would notice this in an instant.


Look, stop telling us that Fioravanti and Rossi might have faked this. 
That is perfectly obvious. No one disputes it. That is not news. If they 
wanted to present fake results they would not bother to put a heater 
near the thermocouple; they would simply present fake numbers. No one 
saw the power input measurements or temperature measurements. For all we 
know, the genset was powering the reactor the whole time.


This situation is very, very simple. It is binary. If you think 
Fioravanti is telling the truth, this must be a real result with real 
anomalous heat. If you think that he and Rossi got together to put fake 
heaters near the thermocouples or pretend flow rates or any of a dozen 
other ways to make a fake demonstration, then you do not believe it. 
There is no point to listing all the ways they might have cheated. We 
know these ways. Listing them proves nothing. Okay, it illustrates how 
easy it is to fake a demonstration and why we must have independent 
verification and replication. I am sure that all readers here agree with 
that, so there is no need to keep repeating it.


- Jed

Re: [Vo]:AP Journalist Response - Supression Of eCat Coverage

On Tue, Nov 1, 2011 at 10:17 AM, ecat builder ecatbuil...@gmail.com wrote:
 By the way, can anyone recommend (preferably good) near future science
 fiction novels that have cold fusion device as a plot generator? Is
 there even any?!

 Our very own Jed Rothwell's book Cold Fusion and the Future  is the
 best I know of on near future sci-fi CF technology.

 It costs $.99 from amazon and requires a kindle reader (available for
 any platform, including iOS devices.)

It's free in .pdf format here:

http://www.lenr-canr.org/acrobat/RothwellJcoldfusiona.pdf

I like the robochicks.

T

Re: [Vo]:Re: Rossi 1MW : Why is the energy hidden behind pressboard?


Am 01.11.2011 15:28, schrieb Mattia Rizzi:

Peter, have you seen this comment on NyTeknik?
The video is inside the last article by Lewan.
The valve appear almost closed, so that’s why there was not so much 
liquid water (5 liters according to the report).
Probably they left it open partially, so that so much water dropped out 
as they wanted ;-)



[h=3]*Closed water condensate drainage valve*[/h]
Somebody asked Mr. Rossi about the water-condensate drainage valve, 
which is obviously shown closed in the latest posted movie.

Here the explanation from Mr. Rossi:

Andrea Rossi
October 31st, 2011 at 6:07 PM
Dear Paul Gordon:
The valve has been always open, under the strict control of the 
Consultant of the Customer. The video you talk of has been made during 
the cooling down of the E-Cat, after it has been turned off.

Typical Rossi answer. Definitive false.
If they leave it totally open, then a considerable amount of steam must 
come out. (If there was steam)
Lewan said it was 3 o clock and the reactor was in selfsustaining mode. 
I have seen this before.
At this time the pressboard jail must be totally hot. He did not notice 
anything.

Experts should be able to determine the time from the shadows in sunlight.
Rossi does never consider what he says. He will be caught.


Warm Regards,
A.R
---
But if you watch the movie, you hear at the end very clear the voice 
of Mats Lewan saying: It is now almost 3 o clock.
That means, that time the movie was recorded, the e-cat should have 
been in the middle of the so called 'self sustaining' mode.

So, who is wrong?
I hope Mr. Mats Lewan can clarify.
Actually, I believe the time given by Mats Lewan, because - as you can 
see - it was still bright daylight.

-Messaggio originale-
From: Peter Heckert
Sent: Tuesday, November 01, 2011 3:17 PM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Rossi 1MW : Why is the energy hidden behind pressboard?
Am 01.11.2011 14:56, schrieb Jed Rothwell:

 He documented the water flow. The water was vaporized. The temperature
 was well over 100 deg C. Fioravanti and all other experts in steam say
 this proves it was dry steam, fully vaporized. For that matter, even
 if it was wet steam or magically hot water in liquid state, there was
 massive anomalous energy.
No. if it was hot water, then the energy was 5 times less than 100 kW.
If there was a cold water flow in the other pipe, then it was less than
50 kW.
If there was a heater near the thermoelement, then it was almost zero.
Especially Domenico Fioravanti (customer engineer) must know this if he
is an expert.
He did not mention the heat blowing out from this airtight pressboard 
jail.

There was no abnormal heat.
This is a proof that this guy was not interested in the real energy, but
interested in a successful scam.
Because nobody was talking about remarkable heat at the dispensers, we
must assume there was no abnormal energy.
All observers there where obviously technical ignorants or mentally
handicapped or fanatical believers or scientific conmans.
I think the experts from NASA and military experts will know how to
analyze the visible diameters of pipes and the misconstruction of the
heat dissipators and will recognize what is going on there.
So much thermal energy (470 kW) streaming up into the sky must be
visible to the naked eye like air on a hot tin roof on a summerday.
Why did nobody look up and point to this?
This demo was a perfect disproof, this is my impression.
kind regards,
Peter

Re: [Vo]:Rossi 1MW : Why is the energy hidden behind pressboard?


Am 01.11.2011 15:34, schrieb Jed Rothwell:

Peter Heckert wrote:


No. if it was hot water, then the energy was 5 times less than 100 kW.
If there was a cold water flow in the other pipe, then it was less 
than 50 kW.

If there was a heater near the thermoelement, then it was almost zero.

Especially Domenico Fioravanti (customer engineer) must know this if 
he is an expert.


Yes, he is an expert. And as an expert he would have know there was a 
heater near the thermocouple, or that there was cold water in the 
other pipe. Any expert would notice this. Heck, I would notice this in 
an instant.

So you have X ray eyes?
He did not want to see it. If he had seen it, he had immediately closed 
his eyes and goto somewhere else.
Possibly he was an independent consultant and got monetary provision 
for the sale.

Nothing new. Stuff like this has happened before.

Re: [Vo]:Rossi 1MW : Why is the energy hidden behind pressboard?

2011-11-01 Thread Daniel Rocha

I think if there is a scam, you can put Levi with all of them. He was with
Rossi and the costumer all the time.

-- Forwarded message --
From: Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com
Date: 2011/11/1
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Rossi 1MW : Why is the energy hidden behind pressboard?
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
. It is binary. If you think Fioravanti is telling the truth, this must be
a real result with real anomalous heat. If you think that he and Rossi got
together to put fake heaters near the thermocouples or pretend flow rates
or any of a dozen other ways to make a fake demonstration, then you do not
believe it. There is no point to listing all the ways they might have
cheated. We know these ways. Listing them proves nothing. Okay, it
illustrates how easy it is to fake a demonstration and why we must have
independent verification and replication. I am sure that all readers here
agree with that, so there is no need to keep repeating it.

- Jed

Re: [Vo]:Rossi 1MW : Why is the energy hidden behind pressboard?

2011-11-01 Thread vorl bek

 There is no point to listing all the ways
 they might have cheated.

I thought he pointed out evidence that they DID cheat, i.e. not
enough heat from the radiator corral.

Re: [Vo]:Rossi 1MW : Why is the energy hidden behind pressboard?


Peter Heckert wrote:

Yes, he is an expert. And as an expert he would have know there was a 
heater near the thermocouple, or that there was cold water in the 
other pipe. Any expert would notice this. Heck, I would notice this 
in an instant.

So you have X ray eyes?


When you insert a large thermocouple, you look at the thermowell and 
make sure it is properly placed. In a test of this nature you would 
remove it and make sure the pipe is clear.



He did not want to see it. If he had seen it, he had immediately 
closed his eyes and goto somewhere else.


You are saying that he is taking part in the scam. Yes, we know you 
think that. Yes, we agree it is possible. Tell us something new. Don't 
keep repeating something that everyone here agrees may be true.



Possibly he was an independent consultant and got monetary provision 
for the sale.

Nothing new. Stuff like this has happened before.


Yes, indeed. It has happened. That is why everyone agrees this could be 
a scam. Do you have some other point? Do you think no one noticed this? 
Do you think we are all gullible fools and you are the only person on 
Vortex who realizes this might be a scam?


- Jed

Re: [Vo]:Rossi 1MW : Why is the energy hidden behind pressboard?


vorl bek wrote:


There is no point to listing all the ways
they might have cheated.

I thought he pointed out evidence that they DID cheat, i.e. not
enough heat from the radiator corral.


That was a different discussion. I think that is debatable. In this 
case, Heckert was listing various other ways to cheat:


1. Using magical hot water that is liquid at 100 deg C and 1 atm; i.e. 
if it was hot water, then the energy was 5 times less than 100 kW. 
That seems impossible to me, but okay.


2. Blatant cheating: If there was a cold water flow in the other pipe, 
then it was less than 50 kW. If there was a heater near the 
thermoelement, then it was almost zero. Well, okay. But I say why 
bother? Just tell people the wrong flow rate, or make up fake 
temperatures, or leave the genset powering the reactor. No one was 
allowed to check so they might have easily done that.


- Jed

Re: [Vo]:Rossi 1MW : Why is the energy hidden behind pressboard?


Am 01.11.2011 15:55, schrieb Jed Rothwell:

vorl bek wrote:


There is no point to listing all the ways
they might have cheated.

I thought he pointed out evidence that they DID cheat, i.e. not
enough heat from the radiator corral.


That was a different discussion. I think that is debatable. In this 
case, Heckert was listing various other ways to cheat:


1. Using magical hot water that is liquid at 100 deg C and 1 atm; i.e. 
if it was hot water, then the energy was 5 times less than 100 kW. 
That seems impossible to me, but okay.

Sorry, I edited this sentence and dismissed something. It should read:
if it was hot water, then the energy was 5 times less than 470 kW, that 
means less than 100 kW.
Water is at 100° can be steam and can be solid. Impossible to tell, 
because the pressure is not held precisely constant.
Water does not suddenly explode, when the temperature goes from 99.99° 
to 100 degree, because any vaporization causes a small increase in 
pressure and consumes thermal energy and this stops vaporization.

Re: [Vo]:Rossi 1MW : Why is the energy hidden behind pressboard?


Am 01.11.2011 15:55, schrieb Jed Rothwell:

vorl bek wrote:


There is no point to listing all the ways
they might have cheated.

I thought he pointed out evidence that they DID cheat, i.e. not
enough heat from the radiator corral.


That was a different discussion. I think that is debatable. In this
case, Heckert was listing various other ways to cheat:

1. Using magical hot water that is liquid at 100 deg C and 1 atm; i.e.
if it was hot water, then the energy was 5 times less than 100 kW.
That seems impossible to me, but okay.

Sorry, I edited this sentence and dismissed something. It should read:
if it was hot water, then the energy was 5 times less than 470 kW, that 
means less than 100 kW.
Water is at 100° can be steam and can be solid. Impossible to tell, 
because the pressure is not held precisely constant.
Water does not suddenly explode, when the temperature goes from 99.99° 
to 100 degree, because any vaporization causes a small increase in 
pressure and consumes thermal energy and this stops vaporization.

Re: [Vo]:Rossi 1MW : Why is the energy hidden behind pressboard?


Am 01.11.2011 15:50, schrieb Jed Rothwell:

Peter Heckert wrote:


Yes, he is an expert. And as an expert he would have know there was
a heater near the thermocouple, or that there was cold water in the
other pipe. Any expert would notice this. Heck, I would notice this
in an instant.

So you have X ray eyes?


When you insert a large thermocouple, you look at the thermowell and
make sure it is properly placed. In a test of this nature you would
remove it and make sure the pipe is clear.
This proves nothing. If there is a special device inside with a heater 
then it will be clear (dry).




He did not want to see it. If he had seen it, he had immediately
closed his eyes and goto somewhere else.


You are saying that he is taking part in the scam.
Not necessarily. He might be convinced it works from the previous demos. 
If he has too much faith then he is fooled.
But anyway I say, he takes part. He can sue me. Then we learn about the 
customers idenity.

Yes, we know you think that. Yes, we agree it is possible. Tell us
something new. Don't keep repeating something that everyone here
agrees may be true.



Possibly he was an independent consultant and got monetary
provision for the sale.
Nothing new. Stuff like this has happened before.


Yes, indeed. It has happened. That is why everyone agrees this could
be a scam. Do you have some other point? Do you think no one noticed
this? Do you think we are all gullible fools and you are the only
person on Vortex who realizes this might be a scam?
Somebody must say this and point to the visible and observable facts to 
make it clear.

Re: [Vo]:Rossi 1MW : Why is the energy hidden behind pressboard?



I have been monitoring this argument for quite a while.  It is getting humorous.
 
Peter, can you name one scientific experiment that has been conducted where 
there is absolutely no possible way to scam the results?
The level of scrutiny that you seem to subject the ECAT to is incredible.
I would venture a bet that you would not accept the reality of this device if 
you were given one to test for a year.
For this suggestion, we shall assume that the ECAT actually is functioning as a 
LENR device, just you must prove it.
What is the reason for the repetition over and over of the same arguments?
Please try to come up with new concepts to suggest as we are very aware of the 
hot air question.
I am confident that you can make many important contributions to the vortex 
with your vast knowledge.
 
Dave



-Original Message-
From: Peter Heckert peter.heck...@arcor.de
To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com
Sent: Tue, Nov 1, 2011 10:41 am
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Rossi 1MW : Why is the energy hidden behind pressboard?


Am 01.11.2011 15:34, schrieb Jed Rothwell:
 Peter Heckert wrote:

 No. if it was hot water, then the energy was 5 times less than 100 kW.
 If there was a cold water flow in the other pipe, then it was less 
 than 50 kW.
 If there was a heater near the thermoelement, then it was almost zero.

 Especially Domenico Fioravanti (customer engineer) must know this if 
 he is an expert.

 Yes, he is an expert. And as an expert he would have know there was a 
 heater near the thermocouple, or that there was cold water in the 
 other pipe. Any expert would notice this. Heck, I would notice this in 
 an instant.
o you have X ray eyes?
e did not want to see it. If he had seen it, he had immediately closed 
is eyes and goto somewhere else.
ossibly he was an independent consultant and got monetary provision 
or the sale.
othing new. Stuff like this has happened before.

Re: [Vo]:Re: Rossi 1MW : Why is the energy hidden behind pressboard?


Am 01.11.2011 15:28, schrieb Mattia Rizzi:


Andrea Rossi
October 31st, 2011 at 6:07 PM
Dear Paul Gordon:
The valve has been always open, under the strict control of the 
Consultant of the Customer. The video you talk of has been made during 
the cooling down of the E-Cat, after it has been turned off.

Warm Regards,
A.R
---
But if you watch the movie, you hear at the end very clear the voice 
of Mats Lewan saying: It is now almost 3 o clock.
That means, that time the movie was recorded, the e-cat should have 
been in the middle of the so called 'self sustaining' mode.

So, who is wrong?
I hope Mr. Mats Lewan can clarify.
Actually, I believe the time given by Mats Lewan, because - as you can 
see - it was still bright daylight.


Of course the camera can modify the impression of light, but it cannot 
modify the lengths of shadows.


We have now 18:30 and during the 1MW test the european clock was still 
set to summertime. Its now set to wintertime.

So this is equivalent to 17:30.
The shadows are very long now. In the video the shadows are much shorter.
Im in germany and this should not be much different in italy at this time.

Re: [Vo]:Rossi 1MW : Why is the energy hidden behind pressboard?


Am 01.11.2011 16:26, schrieb David Roberson:
I have been monitoring this argument for quite a while.  It is getting 
humorous.
Peter, can you name one scientific experiment that has been conducted 
where there is absolutely no possible way to scam the results?

The level of scrutiny that you seem to subject the ECAT to is incredible.
I would venture a bet that you would not accept the reality of this 
device if you were given one to test for a year.
You are in error. There was a time when I believed. (After analyzing the 
Essen Kullander demo)
When I see it output 470 kW energy and heat at the dissipators then I 
still dont believe, then I know ;-)

If I then know the fuel consuption of the generator, then I know double ;-)
Because this is impossible to fake.

Re: [Vo]:AP Journalist Response - Supression Of eCat Coverage

The title of this thread, asserting that there may be press suppression,
seems llike nonsense to me. No major mass media this paper will report this
kind of event. What are they going to say? An engineer from an unknown
company made a claim that no scientist or engineer would believe, without
providing any proof and without letting any independent observers verify
the facts. The mass media is doing us a big favor by not reporting this.
It is an embarrassment.

Unless you know a great deal about cold fusion and Rossi you will not
believe a word of this. Our resident skeptics are perfectly justified in
not believing any of this. I only object to their messages because they are
making up frivolous reasons to disbelieve, instead of simply pointing out
the undeniable weaknesses. And because they seem to think the rest of us do
not realize this could easily be a scam. That is annoying.

I personally do not think it is a scam, but of course I see why other
people legitimately think it is.

- Jed

Re: [Vo]: Large ECAT System Test Convincing But Not Pretty


At 06:38 PM 10/31/2011, Danny Ross Lunsford wrote:

Hi all, I'm new.

What I find astounding is the knee-jerk reactions of the intelligent 
lay person, who may even be an engineer or a scientist in a softer 
discipline (no disrespect intended). I participate in an amateur 
astronomy forum where, as things go, I'm probably the senior physics 
person in the Science discussions. When I lately attempted to 
bring up the exciting news about LENR, there appeared from nowhere a 
couple of computer types who just practically shouted me down with 
stupid, derisive comments. When I finally lost my patience with this 
treatment, I was berated by the MODERATOR and the thread was locked.


Now this sort of behavior is just irrational. It's just as 
irrational as refusing to look through Galileo's telescope because 
it's blasphemous to do so. So why it is so widespread?


Hi, Danny 


... you'll get used to it.

I've been on the well for quite a while ... but there's practically 
no interest in CF/LENR : and the scientists there demand absolute 
proof. (And those who did look into the 1MW  at all accept Krivit's version.)


Alan

Re: [Vo]: Large ECAT System Test Convincing But Not Pretty


At 06:57 PM 10/31/2011, Jed Rothwell wrote:
Just assign a new thread title in the Subject  line and you will 
create a new top level item.


It's a bit trickier than that ... you have to start a brand new message.

A reply to goes into the middle of the existing thread, not a new one.

Re: [Vo]:AP Journalist Response - Supression Of eCat Coverage



At 04:31 AM 11/1/2011, Jouni Valkonen wrote:
2011/11/1 Jouni Valkonen
jounivalko...@gmail.com:
 Cold fusion
 is rare even in science fiction.

By the way, can anyone recommend (preferably good) near future
science
fiction novels that have cold fusion device as a plot generator? Is
there even any?!
 Jouni
Per wiki : The term cold fusion was used as early as 1956 in
a New York Times article about
Luis W.
Alvarez' work on

muon-catalyzed fusion 
Again, distinguishing between Hot (Plasma) and Cold.
Theodore Sturgeon picked that up, and used Muon-catalyzed
Cold Fusion reactors in The Pod in the Barrier
(1957) -- with a twist : Extreme disbelief disabled them!

http://books.google.com/books?id=3vstCdOrqbUClpg=PA46dq=cold%20fusionpg=PA13#v=onepageq=cold%20fusionf=false

Re: [Vo]: Large ECAT System Test Convincing But Not Pretty


The blanket statement that those who did look into the 1 MW system and accept 
Krivit's version is far to encompassing.  How can I determine that all of the 
scientists made that conclusion?

Krivit seems to have a blinded version of events where he can see nothing good 
in Mr. Rossi.  There is plenty of question as to what his agenda is and who 
pays his bills.

Krivit does not support his position at all with his closed minded assertions. 

Some of Mr. Rossi's supporters, including myself, have reviewed his test data 
and see LENR effects.  No one argues that the data that has been gathered 
during these tests is difficult to interpret.

Dave


-Original Message-
From: Alan J Fletcher a...@well.com
To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com
Sent: Tue, Nov 1, 2011 12:28 pm
Subject: Re: [Vo]: Large ECAT System Test Convincing But Not Pretty


At 06:38 PM 10/31/2011, Danny Ross Lunsford wrote:
Hi all, I'm new.

What I find astounding is the knee-jerk reactions of the intelligent 
lay person, who may even be an engineer or a scientist in a softer 
discipline (no disrespect intended). I participate in an amateur 
astronomy forum where, as things go, I'm probably the senior physics 
person in the Science discussions. When I lately attempted to 
bring up the exciting news about LENR, there appeared from nowhere a 
couple of computer types who just practically shouted me down with 
stupid, derisive comments. When I finally lost my patience with this 
treatment, I was berated by the MODERATOR and the thread was locked.

Now this sort of behavior is just irrational. It's just as 
irrational as refusing to look through Galileo's telescope because 
it's blasphemous to do so. So why it is so widespread?
Hi, Danny 

.. you'll get used to it.
I've been on the well for quite a while ... but there's practically 
o interest in CF/LENR : and the scientists there demand absolute 
roof. (And those who did look into the 1MW  at all accept Krivit's version.)
Alan

[Vo]:Mill's and Lu paper define hydrino as fractional Rydberg

2011-11-01 Thread Roarty, Francis X

A recent  paper Time-resolved hydrino continuum transitions with cutoffs at 
22.8 nm and 10.1 nm 
http://www.springerlink.com/content/q8005267210x3568/fulltext.pdf
by R.L. Mills and Y. Lu  published in The European Physical Journal D - Atomic, 
Molecular, Optical and Plasma 
Physicshttp://www.springerlink.com/content/1434-6060/ now defines the hydrino 
in the same terms of fractional Rydberg atoms that other researchers have 
postulated for years. Previously Mr Mill's has cautioned others not to use his 
hydrino label in referring to their own research or theories because it was 
somehow different from fractional hydrogen, inverse Rydberg matter, condensed 
hydrogen or other such terms. Now the tables are turned and perhaps we should 
extract the same penalty and demand Mill's abandon the term hydrino since 
inverse Rydberg hydrogen is already a known entity. I predict Mill's papers 
will soon embrace the work of Jan Naudts that the hydrino or inverse Rydberg 
state of hydrogen is actually relativistic.  Mills has previously compared the 
hydrino to  hydrogen ejected from the suns corona at fractions of C  but this 
may have been very misleading. IMHO hydrogen accelerated to fractions of C 
experiences time dilation like the accelerated twin paradox and ages very 
SLOWLY relative to us on earth while hydrogen in Mill's Rayney nickel would 
need to age very RAPIDLY. This would require us outside the Mill's reactor to 
appear equivalently accelerated to fractions of C from the perspective of the 
fractional Rydberg hydrogen in the reactor.  Since we on earth can be 
considered stationary on a luminal scale of velocity then it remains that the 
fractional hydrogen inside the reactor must experience  EQUIVALENT  NEGATIVE 
acceleration.  This is opposite to normal time dilation. Casimir theory states 
vacuum energy density is reduced between the Casimir geometry of skeletal 
catalysts or the voids formed between Ni nano powders. This reduced density 
phenomena only occurs at the nano scale as opposed to increased density which 
requires an object to approach fractional values of C or equivalent 
acceleration due to gravity on the scale of a black hole. The Casimir effect 
manipulates energy density via  suppression of longer vacumm energy wavelengths 
[larger virtual particles can't fit between plates]. This does not require 
exponentially higher energy to achieve velocities approaching C but depends 
instead on physical properties of conductive material in specific geometries.
It directly modifies the energy density independent of any velocity.
The  time delays for Plasma spectrum in Mill's paper also lend  
support to  Jan Naudt's proposal of a relativistic interpretation of the 
hydrino.  If truly relativistic then the fractional hydrogen and the spectrum 
they emit locally when reacting with other local fractional hydrogen may be 
effected by time dilation -  Like the Twins paradox a local observer always 
experiences normal time flow,  It is only when the twins meet in a common 
inertial frame that the effects of time dilation become apparent and likewise 
it is only when the spectra emitted by the fractional hydrogen propagate out of 
the skeletal catalyst that changes due to dilation can be measured.  One might 
assume that this effect would simply return the spectrum to normal condition 
but claims regarding this Black Light plasma seem to indicate a relationship 
between changes in bond state where fractional hydrogen is both disassociated 
and then re-associated. IMHO there is difference between accomplishing 
fractional Rydberg state changes between  fractional atomic hydrogen vs 
fractional molecular hydrogen  where molecular hydrogen opposes fractional 
changes more than atomic hydrogen and leads to a skewing of the spectrum 
propagation when molecular bonds hold H2 in fractional states at odds with the 
local energy density.
Regards
Fran

Re: [Vo]:Mill's and Lu paper define hydrino as fractional Rydberg

You can forget the hydrino. It does no good to adhere to bad ideas. Angular 
momentum conservation prevents it. We need to use good physics to get to the 
bottom of this phenomenon, and ruthlessly eliminate the bad ideas.

--
I write a little. I erase a lot. - Chopin



--- On Tue, 11/1/11, Roarty, Francis X francis.x.roa...@lmco.com wrote:

A recent  paper “Time-resolved hydrino continuum transitions with cutoffs at 
22.8 nm and 10.1 nm” 
http://www.springerlink.com/content/q8005267210x3568/fulltext.pdf...

RE: EXTERNAL: Re: [Vo]:Mill's and Lu paper define hydrino as fractional Rydberg

2011-11-01 Thread Roarty, Francis X

That is exactly what I was saying…  Now that Mills admits the “hydrino” is 
actually fractiona Rydberg hydrogen the term hydrino not only becomes redundant 
but also carries all the baggage of his previously wrong definition that caused 
so much controversy. The term should be eradicated with extreme predjudice.

From: Danny Ross Lunsford [mailto:antimatte...@yahoo.com]
Sent: Tuesday, November 01, 2011 1:28 PM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Subject: EXTERNAL: Re: [Vo]:Mill's and Lu paper define hydrino as fractional 
Rydberg

You can forget the hydrino. It does no good to adhere to bad ideas. Angular 
momentum conservation prevents it. We need to use good physics to get to the 
bottom of this phenomenon, and ruthlessly eliminate the bad ideas.

--
I write a little. I erase a lot. - Chopin

--- On Tue, 11/1/11, Roarty, Francis X francis.x.roa...@lmco.com wrote:

A recent  paper “Time-resolved hydrino continuum transitions with cutoffs at 
22.8 nm and 10.1 nm” 
http://www.springerlink.com/content/q8005267210x3568/fulltext.pdf...http://www.springerlink.com/content/q8005267210x3568/fulltext.pdf

Re: EXTERNAL: Re: [Vo]:Mill's and Lu paper define hydrino as fractional Rydberg


Does anyone understand what happens to one of these fractional Rydberg hydrogen 
atoms once it is released into the atmosphere?  Does it gain energy from the 
air and become standard hydrogen?  I am just curious?

Dave



-Original Message-
From: Roarty, Francis X francis.x.roa...@lmco.com
To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com
Sent: Tue, Nov 1, 2011 1:41 pm
Subject: RE: EXTERNAL: Re: [Vo]:Mill's and Lu paper define hydrino as 
fractional Rydberg



That is exactly what I was saying…  Now that Mills admits the “hydrino” is 
actually fractiona Rydberg hydrogen the term hydrino not only becomes redundant 
but also carries all the baggage of his previously wrong definition that caused 
so much controversy. The term should be eradicated with extreme predjudice.
 

From: Danny Ross Lunsford [mailto:antimatte...@yahoo.com] 
Sent: Tuesday, November 01, 2011 1:28 PM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Subject: EXTERNAL: Re: [Vo]:Mill's and Lu paper define hydrino as fractional 
Rydberg

 


You can forget the hydrino. It does no good to adhere to bad ideas. Angular 
momentum conservation prevents it. We need to use good physics to get to the 
bottom of this phenomenon, and ruthlessly eliminate the bad ideas.

--
I write a little. I erase a lot. - Chopin



--- On Tue, 11/1/11, Roarty, Francis X francis.x.roa...@lmco.com wrote:
 


A recent  paper “Time-resolved hydrino continuum transitions with cutoffs at 
22.8 nm and 10.1 nm” 
http://www.springerlink.com/content/q8005267210x3568/fulltext.pdf...

RE: EXTERNAL: Re: [Vo]:Mill's and Lu paper define hydrino as fractional Rydberg

Fractional Rydberg? That's nonsense too - this isn't chemistry, it's not 
electrons. It's nucleons. The key point is that nickel 62 is at the peak of the 
binding-energy-per-nucleon curve. Somehow I think a circular reaction is going 
on around the peak - call it fussion.

--
I write a little. I erase a lot. - Chopin



--- On Tue, 11/1/11, Roarty, Francis X francis.x.roa...@lmco.com wrote:

From: Roarty, Francis X francis.x.roa...@lmco.com
Subject: RE: EXTERNAL: Re: [Vo]:Mill's and Lu paper define hydrino as 
fractional Rydberg
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com vortex-l@eskimo.com
Date: Tuesday, November 1, 2011, 12:40 PM

That is exactly what I was saying…  Now that Mills admits the “hydrino” is 
actually fractiona Rydberg hydrogen the term hydrino not only becomes redundant 
but also carries all the baggage of his previously wrong definition that caused 
so much controversy. The term should be eradicated with extreme predjudice.  
From: Danny Ross Lunsford [mailto:antimatte...@yahoo.com] 
Sent: Tuesday, November 01, 2011 1:28 PM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Subject: EXTERNAL: Re: [Vo]:Mill's and Lu paper define hydrino as fractional 
Rydberg  You can forget the hydrino. It does no good to adhere to bad ideas. 
Angular momentum conservation prevents it. We need to use good physics to get 
to the bottom of this phenomenon, and ruthlessly eliminate the bad ideas.

--
I write a little. I erase a lot. - Chopin



--- On Tue, 11/1/11, Roarty, Francis X francis.x.roa...@lmco.com wrote:  A 
recent  paper “Time-resolved hydrino continuum transitions with cutoffs at 22.8 
nm and 10.1 nm” 
http://www.springerlink.com/content/q8005267210x3568/fulltext.pdf...

Re: EXTERNAL: Re: [Vo]:Mill's and Lu paper define hydrino as fractional Rydberg

2011-11-01 Thread P.J van Noorden

Hello Fran,

I don`t understand your statement: Now that Mills admits the “hydrino” is 
actually fractiona Rydberg hydrogen the term hydrino not only becomes redundant 
but also carries all the baggage of his previously wrong definition that caused 
so much controversy.
I thought Mills has always said that the hydrino = hydrogen in a fractional 
quantum state. 

BTW the continuum spectrum in discharges of H2 gas is 100% reproducible and has 
no known explanation.

Peter van Noorden
  - Original Message - 
  From: Roarty, Francis X 
  To: vortex-l@eskimo.com 
  Sent: Tuesday, November 01, 2011 6:40 PM
  Subject: RE: EXTERNAL: Re: [Vo]:Mill's and Lu paper define hydrino as 
fractional Rydberg


  That is exactly what I was saying…  Now that Mills admits the “hydrino” is 
actually fractiona Rydberg hydrogen the term hydrino not only becomes redundant 
but also carries all the baggage of his previously wrong definition that caused 
so much controversy. The term should be eradicated with extreme predjudice.

   

  From: Danny Ross Lunsford [mailto:antimatte...@yahoo.com] 
  Sent: Tuesday, November 01, 2011 1:28 PM
  To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
  Subject: EXTERNAL: Re: [Vo]:Mill's and Lu paper define hydrino as fractional 
Rydberg

   

You can forget the hydrino. It does no good to adhere to bad ideas. 
Angular momentum conservation prevents it. We need to use good physics to get 
to the bottom of this phenomenon, and ruthlessly eliminate the bad ideas.

--
I write a little. I erase a lot. - Chopin



--- On Tue, 11/1/11, Roarty, Francis X francis.x.roa...@lmco.com 
wrote:

 

A recent  paper “Time-resolved hydrino continuum transitions with 
cutoffs at 22.8 nm and 10.1 nm” 
http://www.springerlink.com/content/q8005267210x3568/fulltext.pdf...

Re: [Vo]: Large ECAT System Test Convincing But Not Pretty


At 09:28 AM 11/1/2011, Alan J Fletcher wrote:

At 06:38 PM 10/31/2011, Danny Ross Lunsford wrote:

Hi all, I'm new.


btw : I see you have lots of hits in google .. and that you've had 
run-ins with arXiv (sympathetic to rossi, then!), motl, not-even-wrong etc etc.

Re: [Vo]: Large ECAT System Test Convincing But Not Pretty

Not too bad, Motl is a pain in mine and everyone else's nucleus, that's about 
it. My work is already published, so I don't much care if it's on the arXiv, 
you can get it from Academia.edu.

--
I write a little. I erase a lot. - Chopin

Re: [Vo]:Rossi 1MW : Why is the energy hidden behind pressboard?


Peter Heckert wrote:

You are in error. There was a time when I believed. (After analyzing 
the Essen Kullander demo)


I do not see how anyone can believe that and disbelieve the Oct. 6. I 
thought the latter was much more convincing.



When I see it output 470 kW energy and heat at the dissipators then I 
still dont believe, then I know ;-)


If you think the EK demonstration is real then it stands to reason the 
big machine must be real. The individual reactors in the large 
demonstration are not putting out more power than they did during 
desktop tests. Why assume this is fake when the smaller tests were 
clearly real?


It is not as if Rossi has become more controversial since EK. His 
credibility is no worse than it was back then.


I was a little surprised it worked so well. I feared it might be 
difficult to coordinate so many units, or there might be a problem with 
a steam pipe getting plugged up or one of the machines overheating. I 
feared there might be an accident. I was relieved to hear that they ran 
at moderate temperatures and low pressure.


I never thought it could not work in principle. If one reactor can 
produce 4 or 8 kW, it stands to reason that 100 can produce 470 kW. Why 
would anyone here who believes the smaller tests suddenly think the big 
one is fake? That makes no sense.


For that matter, why would anyone think the Krivit test was fake? I do 
not understand why people think Rossi would go to the trouble to make a 
real system and a fake one too. If he has one that works he will use it 
every time. The big reactor was clearly made up of an array of the 
smaller ones. Anyone can see those were not fake boxes. If one works, 
why shouldn't they all???


- Jed

[Vo]: Why did Rossi use the RF generator??? Hi-frequency electrolysis paper out.

2011-11-01 Thread Mark Iverson-ZeroPoint

At Physics Today.

http://physicstoday.org/resource/1/phtoad/v64/i11/p17_s1

 

High-frequency electrolysis begets spontaneously combusting nanobubbles 

The key is to feed the bubbles a balanced diet of hydrogen and oxygen
before they have a chance to grow.

Ashley G. Smart 

November 2011, page 17

Permalink:  http://dx.doi.org/10.1063/PT.3.1319 

 

I know this probably doesn't apply to the 1MW test, but perhaps for the
previous one that used the RFG.

So Rossi could be producing and burning the fuel at the same time,
internally. does he even realize it?

 

-Mark

Re: EXTERNAL: Re: [Vo]:Mill's and Lu paper define hydrino as fractional Rydberg

2011-11-01 Thread Axil Axil

I will remind the theorists among us again that Rossi states in his patent
that copper can be used as a micro powder material as an alternative to
nickel. This implies that the physical and/or chemical properties of Nickel
are not critical to the Rossi reaction.

Rossi has surveyed many other transition metals to support his reaction. He
found that nickel performed the best but conversely the other transition
metals work almost as well.

Nano-engineering is all important in the Rossi process. This indicates to
me that the nuclear and/or chemical properties of the micro-metal are not
as important as the nano surface preparation of the micro-powder.

In simple terms in my opinion, the topology of the nano-structures is what
makes the Rossi reaction go. Rossi calls this topology tubules and spent
six months working day and night to optimize this surface structure.

The changing work functions of the varied polycrystalline structures of
these tubules will break apart H2 into H. Somehow inverse Rydberg matter
may be formed between and among these tubules with the help of the high
pressure and temperature of the hydrogen envelop and the mediating action
of an alkaline catalyst.

When all those electrons and protons that comprise a inverse Rydberg
molecule are packed into the very small space between these surface
tubules, this set of subatomic particles gain a lot of energy… maybe from
Zero Point Energy…or just from the uncertainty principle.

Dr. George Miley shows in his experiments and also in the Rossi ash, what
comes out of this process is a zoo of other transmuted elements all up and
down the periodic table.

On Tue, Nov 1, 2011 at 1:44 PM, David Roberson dlrober...@aol.com wrote:

Does anyone understand what happens to one of these fractional Rydberg
hydrogen atoms once it is released into the atmosphere? Does it gain
energy from the air and become standard hydrogen? I am just curious?

Dave

-Original Message-
From: Roarty, Francis X francis.x.roa...@lmco.com
To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com
Sent: Tue, Nov 1, 2011 1:41 pm
Subject: RE: EXTERNAL: Re: [Vo]:Mill's and Lu paper define hydrino as
fractional Rydberg

That is exactly what I was saying… Now that Mills admits the “hydrino”
is actually fractiona Rydberg hydrogen the term hydrino not only becomes
redundant but also carries all the baggage of his previously wrong
definition that caused so much controversy. The term should be eradicated
with extreme predjudice.

*From:* Danny Ross Lunsford
[mailto:antimatte...@yahoo.comantimatte...@yahoo.com?]

*Sent:* Tuesday, November 01, 2011 1:28 PM
*To:* vortex-l@eskimo.com
*Subject:* EXTERNAL: Re: [Vo]:Mill's and Lu paper define hydrino as
fractional Rydberg

You can forget the hydrino. It does no good to adhere to bad ideas.
Angular momentum conservation prevents it. We need to use good physics to
get to the bottom of this phenomenon, and ruthlessly eliminate the bad
ideas.

*--
I write a little. I erase a lot. *- Chopin

--- On *Tue, 11/1/11, Roarty, Francis X francis.x.roa...@lmco.com*wrote:

A recent paper “Time-resolved hydrino continuum transitions with
cutoffs at 22.8 nm and 10.1 nm”
http://www.springerlink.com/content/q8005267210x3568/fulltext.pdf...http://www.springerlink.com/content/q8005267210x3568/fulltext.pdf

Re: [Vo]:Mill's and Lu paper define hydrino as fractional Rydberg

2011-11-01 Thread Roarty, Francis X

The appropriate term is Inverse Rydberg  states but “fractional Rydberg”states  
is the term Mills and Lu used to describe the hydrino in their paper
http://www.blacklightpower.com/papers/Time-resolved%20paper.pdf
from the introduction [snip] The product is H(1/P), fractional Rydberg states 
of atomic hydrogen called “hydrino atoms”,[/snip]
It is unwise to discount chemistry as the bootstrap stage powering the nuclear 
reaction. From day 1 with the atomic welder it was clear something odd happens 
when hydrogen is disassociated by an arc between tungsten catalysts and then 
re-associates to weld [melt] metals all the way up to tungsten. Just because 
there is transmutation doesn’t mean that is the sole source of energy or that 
it is even the initial source of heat. There is not enough lead shielding for 
fusion to be occurring at a level that would explain the output of an e-cat. 
Other more exotic  nuclear paths would be necessary to accomplish the task with 
the sort of shielding Rossi used and I am saying we already know there is 
something special about atomic hydrogen from it’s welding abilities.. heating 
it in a catalyst is a way to lower the energy needed to disassociate it into 
atomic form

From: Danny Ross Lunsford [mailto:antimatte...@yahoo.com]
Sent: Tuesday, November 01, 2011 1:47 PM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Subject: RE: EXTERNAL: Re: [Vo]:Mill's and Lu paper define hydrino as 
fractional Rydberg

Fractional Rydberg? That's nonsense too - this isn't chemistry, it's not 
electrons. It's nucleons. The key point is that nickel 62 is at the peak of the 
binding-energy-per-nucleon curve. Somehow I think a circular reaction is going 
on around the peak - call it fussion.

--
I write a little. I erase a lot. - Chopin



--- On Tue, 11/1/11, Roarty, Francis X francis.x.roa...@lmco.com wrote:

From: Roarty, Francis X francis.x.roa...@lmco.com
Subject: RE: EXTERNAL: Re: [Vo]:Mill's and Lu paper define hydrino as 
fractional Rydberg
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com vortex-l@eskimo.com
Date: Tuesday, November 1, 2011, 12:40 PM

That is exactly what I was saying…  Now that Mills admits the “hydrino” is 
actually fractiona Rydberg hydrogen the term hydrino not only becomes redundant 
but also carries all the baggage of his previously wrong definition that caused 
so much controversy. The term should be eradicated with extreme predjudice.



From: Danny Ross Lunsford [mailto:antimatte...@yahoo.com]
Sent: Tuesday, November 01, 2011 1:28 PM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Subject: EXTERNAL: Re: [Vo]:Mill's and Lu paper define hydrino as fractional 
Rydberg



You can forget the hydrino. It does no good to adhere to bad ideas. Angular 
momentum conservation prevents it. We need to use good physics to get to the 
bottom of this phenomenon, and ruthlessly eliminate the bad ideas.

--
I write a little. I erase a lot. - Chopin



--- On Tue, 11/1/11, Roarty, Francis X francis.x.roa...@lmco.com wrote:



A recent  paper “Time-resolved hydrino continuum transitions with cutoffs at 
22.8 nm and 10.1 nm” 
http://www.springerlink.com/content/q8005267210x3568/fulltext.pdf...http://www.springerlink.com/content/q8005267210x3568/fulltext.pdf

Re: EXTERNAL: Re: [Vo]:Mill's and Lu paper define hydrino as fractional Rydberg

2011-11-01 Thread Peter Gluck

Dear Axil,

what you say is more true for Piantelli who has created
Transition Metals LENR.

Peter

On Tue, Nov 1, 2011 at 9:38 PM, Axil Axil janap...@gmail.com wrote:

Rossi has surveyed many other transition metals to support his reaction.
He found that nickel performed the best but conversely the other transition
metals work almost as well.

Dr. George Miley shows in his experiments and also in the Rossi ash, what
comes out of this process is a zoo of other transmuted elements all up and
down the periodic table.

On Tue, Nov 1, 2011 at 1:44 PM, David Roberson dlrober...@aol.com wrote:

Dave

*From:* Danny Ross Lunsford
[mailto:antimatte...@yahoo.comantimatte...@yahoo.com?]

*Sent:* Tuesday, November 01, 2011 1:28 PM
*To:* vortex-l@eskimo.com
*Subject:* EXTERNAL: Re: [Vo]:Mill's and Lu paper define hydrino as
fractional Rydberg

*--
I write a little. I erase a lot. *- Chopin

--- On *Tue, 11/1/11, Roarty, Francis X francis.x.roa...@lmco.com*wrote:

--
Dr. Peter Gluck
Cluj, Romania
http://egooutpeters.blogspot.com

[Vo]:Pricing for E-cat?

2011-11-01 Thread Sean True

Not that I expect to buy one soon, but I've seen the price/Kw given as
$2000. It actually appears to be in Euros, although customers in the US
might benefit from the common practice of leaving the number alone, and
just changing the currency. I don't think this changes the economics at all
for early adopters, but it may make the price curve go out a little further
in time before it hits a more manageable $500/Kw.

Re: [Vo]:Rossi 1MW : Why is the energy hidden behind pressboard?


Hi,

On 1-11-2011 19:43, Jed Rothwell wrote:
I was a little surprised it worked so well. I feared it might be 
difficult to coordinate so many units, or there might be a problem 
with a steam pipe getting plugged up or one of the machines 
overheating. I feared there might be an accident. I was relieved to 
hear that they ran at moderate temperatures and low pressure.


In hindsight I'm glad Rossi pursued his approach of building a big 
system to be shown to the World, which can produce up to 1 MW i.s.o. of 
showing only a couple of small e-cats with only a couple of kW.
In fact I think Rossi did us all a tremendous favor as it just proves 
that this technology is absolutely mature and through it's basic 
simplicity and modularity just like building with Lego Bricks is 
extremely well scalable to any required size from small to extremely large.


Kind regards,

MoB

Re: [Vo]:Pricing for E-cat?



At 01:33 PM 11/1/2011, Sean True wrote:
Not that I expect to buy one
soon, but I've seen the price/Kw given as $2000. It actually appears to
be in Euros, although customers in the US might benefit from the common
practice of leaving the number alone, and just changing the currency. I
don't think this changes the economics at all for early adopters, but it
may make the price curve go out a little further in time before it hits a
more manageable $500/Kw. 
I also note that reality is setting in with respect to domestic ecat
certification (I think he said he'd be taking orders in 2012):
Andrea Rossi 

November 1st, 2011 at 2:01 PM

November 1st, 2011 at 2:01 PM 
Dear Paolo: 
To be ready to sell household E-Cats we need from 1 to 2 years. 
Warm Regards, 
AR

Re: [Vo]:Rossi 1MW : Why is the energy hidden behind pressboard?

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


 In hindsight I'm glad Rossi pursued his approach of building a big system
 to be shown to the World, which can produce up to 1 MW i.s.o. of showing
 only a couple of small e-cats with only a couple of kW.


I still disagree, vehemently. I think this is a terrible approach, from the
business point of view. I think he wasted 10 months on this reactor. This
reactor is entirely too big and it serves no useful purpose. It is a crude
prototype which the customer will not be able to use for any real world
application.

Rossi should have done a proper test of a kilowatt scale device back in
January. Many venture capitalists and business people have approached me
since then, and said they would give him large sums of money and all the
support he needs if he will only do a properly instrumented engineering
test.



 In fact I think Rossi did us all a tremendous favor as it just proves that
 this technology is absolutely mature and through it's basic simplicity and
 modularity. . .


It does not prove a damn thing, because he did not allow independent
verification of the claims, and we do not even know who the customer is. It
suggests the technology is real. It is further evidence of that, which fits
in with previous evidence. It is not proof in the engineering or scientific
sense.

It does not look mature to me. Obviously you can use modules in this method
but I think that is a wacky way to build a megawatt scale reactor. It has
way too many individual modules and pipes, and way too many things that can
go wrong and will go wrong. Many small cells integrated into a larger
device would be better.

Also, square reactors are a really, really bad idea.

- Jed

Re: [Vo]:Rossi 1MW : Why is the energy hidden behind pressboard?


Hi Jed,

Am 01.11.2011 19:43, schrieb Jed Rothwell:

Peter Heckert wrote:

You are in error. There was a time when I believed. (After analyzing 
the Essen Kullander demo)


I do not see how anyone can believe that and disbelieve the Oct. 6. I 
thought the latter was much more convincing.


This is simple to explain, it has a reason:
Essen  Kullander observed clearly that the input energy was not enough 
to heat the water flow to 100°C.

So there was a definitive massflow proof of overunity.
It was witnessed by 2 independend and trustable scientists. Of course 
this is not a scientific proof, but it is impressing.
It was not enough to exclude tricks like a secret remote switch that 
activates the heater when no one watches the Amp meter.


There where no contradictions in the explanations.

With the October 6 test there was so much false selfcontradicting 
information about Defkalion, Steam, Pressure and so on, and the claims 
where not coincident with the observations, for example hot water 
shooting out with obviously high pressure while Rossi claimed it is 
almost air pressure inside.


So I decided to ignore this. To much misinformation. If you dig into 
dirt you get dirty so better stop.


Hope you understand.

Peter

Re: [Vo]:Mats Lewan on Steam Quality

2011-11-01 Thread Stephen A. Lawrence


Alan J. Fletcher wrote [quoting Colonel Fioravanti):
The only case when you have low steam quality or droplets or liquid 
water in this steam is in long or poorly isolated tubes fro steam 
transport. Steam then condenses and there will be a flow of water 
together with the steam.


This is not the case with the Ecat he said, and he saw no doubt what 
so ever on the steam quality at atmospheric pressure and 105 degrees.


On 11-10-31 08:36 PM, Terry Blanton wrote:

Smart man.  He is exactly right contrary to many discussions here.


Perhaps.  Or perhaps he's turning an expert eye on the trees and 
ignoring the forest.


Let's try to put some numbers on the thing which is apparently not a 
problem save in the minds of a few silly worrywarts, shall we?


Specific heat of water is about 4 j/g; specific heat of steam is about 2 
j/g (according to Wikipedia).  Heat of vaporization of water is about 
2000 j/g (according to Wikipedia).  So, to take a gram of water from 30 
degrees to 100 degrees takes about 280 joules; to vaporize it takes 
another 2000 joules; to raise the temperature of the steam to 101, 102, 
105, and 110 C takes, respectively, an additional 2, 4, 10, or 20 joules.


The totals, then for 100, 101, 102, 105, and 110 C steam output are 
2280, 2282, 2284, 2290, and 2300 joules per gram of 30 degree input 
water pumped through the system.


First, let's look at the test from last spring, where there was 
presumably also no problem with the steam quality.


The steam output temperature was held between 100C and 102C during that 
test.  The water flow rate was set, a priori, with (supposedly) no 
adjustments made to control variations in the output temperature; 
indeed, that was a *requirement* for the calorimetry which was done.  
Consequently, the power level was apparently matched, a posteriori, to 
the water flow rate, to within some amount of variation which we shall 
now calculate.


To achieve the demonstrated level of control over the output 
temperature, which was held to a variation of less than +/- 1 degree 
centered on 101C, the power generated must have been held to between 
2280 and 2284 joules per gram of water pumped through the system.  Since 
the pump rate was constant, that means the power level was constant with 
a precision of +/- 0.09 percent.   (That's 9/100 of 1 percent.)  This, 
in a process which is said to be hard to start and hard to control.  Can 
you really say you don't see any problem with that claim?


Now, I haven't been through the reports on the 1 MW test (sorry, don't 
have time, really, and I mean it, I sure would like to), but what I've 
read on Vortex is that, once again, the claim is being made that during 
the test, the generator made dry steam out of all the input water, with 
a fixed pump rate.  This time the output temp was 105C.  Now, let's take 
that at face value, and say it was 105C at 1 atm, and that, in fact, the 
output temp may actually have varied from 100C to 110C (give the man a 
little wiggle room!).  In that case, given a fixed flow rate of cooling 
water, the actual power generated must have been held to between 2280 
and 2300 joules per gram of water.  Since the flow rate was fixed, that 
implies the power level was matched to the flow rate with a variation in 
power of +/- 0.44 percent (that's less than 1/2 of a percent variation 
in power level).  That's with multiple E-cats working together, and with 
a system which was flaky enough that the final power level measured was 
just under half what it was supposed to be (that's a 50% variation from 
what was predicted).


So, we've got a system whose output can't be predicted to better than 
50%, yet its power output can be controlled with a precision of better 
than +/- 1/2 of a percent.


Doesn't that strike you as just a little strange?





T

Re: [Vo]:Rossi 1MW : Why is the energy hidden behind pressboard?

2011/11/1 Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com:
 For that matter, why would anyone think the Krivit test was fake?

In Krivit's E-Cat we can directly calculate that power output was
significantly less than with Mats Lewan's E-Cat. Something like
0.9-1.5 kW, depending on real flow rate. As lower limit was so close
to input that was 800 watts, it is reasonable assumption that there
was no excess heat. At least, not much.

It is not about thinking Rossi's motive to do such parlor trick, but
calculating the numbers. But Rossi did not mind about the bad
publicity, and that E-Cat was already outdated model.

   –Jouni

Re: [Vo]:Rossi 1MW : Why is the energy hidden behind pressboard?


Am 01.11.2011 22:33, schrieb Jouni Valkonen:

2011/11/1 Jed Rothwelljedrothw...@gmail.com:

For that matter, why would anyone think the Krivit test was fake?
For Krivit, Rossi /claimed/ the water flow and it was doubted by others 
and this was so early I did not understand everything and was confused 
by Krivits wetz steam argument. (I dont believe in wet steam today, 
but at this time I was unsure)


Essen  Kullander /measured/ the water flow, so this was secured 
believable data. When they then found, that the input energy is too low 
for boiling, I was impressed.

[Vo]:Re: Rossi 1MW : Why is the energy hidden behind pressboard?

2011-11-01 Thread Mattia Rizzi

According to the report, EK measured the water flow before the test, but 
not *during* the test.
I asked to Essen and confirmed that they doesn't have measured the flow 
during the test.


-Messaggio originale- 
From: Peter Heckert

Sent: Tuesday, November 01, 2011 10:43 PM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Rossi 1MW : Why is the energy hidden behind pressboard?

Am 01.11.2011 22:33, schrieb Jouni Valkonen:

2011/11/1 Jed Rothwelljedrothw...@gmail.com:

For that matter, why would anyone think the Krivit test was fake?

For Krivit, Rossi /claimed/ the water flow and it was doubted by others
and this was so early I did not understand everything and was confused
by Krivits wetz steam argument. (I dont believe in wet steam today,
but at this time I was unsure)

Essen  Kullander /measured/ the water flow, so this was secured
believable data. When they then found, that the input energy is too low
for boiling, I was impressed.

Re: [Vo]:Re: Rossi 1MW : Why is the energy hidden behind pressboard?


Am 01.11.2011 22:59, schrieb Mattia Rizzi:
According to the report, EK measured the water flow before the test, 
but not *during* the test.
I asked to Essen and confirmed that they doesn't have measured the 
flow during the test.

I had this thougt too, but:
The pump is so loud, any significant change in flow rate would have been 
noticed by them.


If these guys do a positive test in Upsalla then I am ready to believe it.
Im not against this.

I am against all this contradictions false promises and confusion that 
have been since this.
Cannot understand why didnt they give some details about pipes and 
heatdissipator for the 1 MW plant and why didnt they measure the 
temperatures there. This is most disappointing to me, it is like 
demonstrating a car on a brake tester and not letting the rubber hit the 
real street.


Best,
Peter


-Messaggio originale- From: Peter Heckert
Sent: Tuesday, November 01, 2011 10:43 PM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Rossi 1MW : Why is the energy hidden behind pressboard?

Am 01.11.2011 22:33, schrieb Jouni Valkonen:

2011/11/1 Jed Rothwelljedrothw...@gmail.com:

For that matter, why would anyone think the Krivit test was fake?

For Krivit, Rossi /claimed/ the water flow and it was doubted by others
and this was so early I did not understand everything and was confused
by Krivits wetz steam argument. (I dont believe in wet steam today,
but at this time I was unsure)

Essen  Kullander /measured/ the water flow, so this was secured
believable data. When they then found, that the input energy is too low
for boiling, I was impressed.

[Vo]:Re: Rossi 1MW : Why is the energy hidden behind pressboard?

2011-11-01 Thread Mattia Rizzi


I had this thougt too, but:

The pump is so loud, any significant change in flow rate would have been
noticed by them.

The pump used is LMI P18.
You can regulate the flow by adjusting the stroke frequency (and it's 
noticeable) or by adjusting the injected volume (up to 2ml per stroke).

If you adjust the injected it's not noticeable.

-Messaggio originale- 
From: Peter Heckert

Sent: Tuesday, November 01, 2011 11:11 PM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Re: Rossi 1MW : Why is the energy hidden behind 
pressboard?


Am 01.11.2011 22:59, schrieb Mattia Rizzi:
According to the report, EK measured the water flow before the test, but 
not *during* the test.
I asked to Essen and confirmed that they doesn't have measured the flow 
during the test.

I had this thougt too, but:
The pump is so loud, any significant change in flow rate would have been
noticed by them.

If these guys do a positive test in Upsalla then I am ready to believe it.
Im not against this.

I am against all this contradictions false promises and confusion that
have been since this.
Cannot understand why didnt they give some details about pipes and
heatdissipator for the 1 MW plant and why didnt they measure the
temperatures there. This is most disappointing to me, it is like
demonstrating a car on a brake tester and not letting the rubber hit the
real street.

Best,
Peter


-Messaggio originale- From: Peter Heckert
Sent: Tuesday, November 01, 2011 10:43 PM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Rossi 1MW : Why is the energy hidden behind pressboard?

Am 01.11.2011 22:33, schrieb Jouni Valkonen:

2011/11/1 Jed Rothwelljedrothw...@gmail.com:

For that matter, why would anyone think the Krivit test was fake?

For Krivit, Rossi /claimed/ the water flow and it was doubted by others
and this was so early I did not understand everything and was confused
by Krivits wetz steam argument. (I dont believe in wet steam today,
but at this time I was unsure)

Essen  Kullander /measured/ the water flow, so this was secured
believable data. When they then found, that the input energy is too low
for boiling, I was impressed.

Re: [Vo]:Steam engines

2011-11-01 Thread mixent

In reply to  Jed Rothwell's message of Thu, 20 Oct 2011 17:19:49 -0400:
Hi,
[snip]
mix...@bigpond.com wrote:

 Efficiency does matter for two reasons.

 1) Nickel availability.
 2) Global warming.

Nope.

1. Even at very low efficiency this would only require a tiny fraction 
of the available nickel in the world. That is assuming it does not 
rapidly transmit the nickel into other elements. That would be another 
story.

I don't think we can assume at this point that the Ni is not transmuted.


2. Global warming is not caused by -- or affected by -- heat releases 
from combustion or nuclear power. Heat generated at the Earth's surface 
leaves the atmosphere at about 30 min. This is why deserts soon grow 
cold at night. Massive local heat releases do cause some problems, such 
as urban heat islands.

This is currently true, however as energy becomes cheaper (much) more will be
used, and those heat islands will grow. (However this will at least initially be
offset by the reduction in CO2 etc.)


3. No matter how inefficient cold fusion devices may be, the overall 
efficiency of the system is likely to be better than our present system.

Not necessarily so. However it does have the potential through direct conversion
to electric power (rather than through heat) to become extremely efficient.
Let's hope that happens before the buffer period created by the reduction in CO2
expires.
 
Our present system needs 15 to 20% of fuel for energy overhead, that is, 
energy required to extract and process fuel. It wastes 62% of what is 
left with inefficient machinery and transmission losses. See the last 
page here:

http://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/NRELenergyover.pdf


This shows 57.8 quads of rejected energy (waste), 34.3 quads of 
useful energy. This does not include energy overhead used to run oil 
wells, mine coal, transport fuel and so on. It does not include the 
energy overhead needed to convert corn into ethanol, which exceeds the 
amount of energy you get from the ethanol by a large margin, wasting 
several hundred million barrels of oil per year (a gift from the U.S. 
taxpayers to OPEC).

No matter how bad cold fusion systems turn out to be, it is unimaginable 
that they would be as wasteful and inefficient as our present energy 
system. 

Most of the waste in the present system is due to use of heat as an
intermediary, and materials that can only operate at restricted temperatures.
CF as it stands at the moment would also use heat as an intermediary, and
consequently also be stuck with the same inefficiencies (fission power
demonstrates this point quite well).
(BTW since fission produces fast charged particles, it also has the potential
for direct conversion.)
[snip]
Regards,

Robin van Spaandonk

http://rvanspaa.freehostia.com/project.html

Re: [Vo]:Mats Lewan on Steam Quality


Hi,

On 1-11-2011 22:31, Stephen A. Lawrence wrote:
That's with multiple E-cats working together, and with a system which 
was flaky enough that the final power level measured was just under 
half what it was supposed to be (that's a 50% variation from what was 
predicted).


So, we've got a system whose output can't be predicted to better than 
50%, yet its power output can be controlled with a precision of better 
than +/- 1/2 of a percent.


Doesn't that strike you as just a little strange?


Not at all, as you are ignoring some simple facts.

As Sterling Allan points out at: 
http://pesn.com/2011/10/28/9501940_1_MW_E-Cat_Test_Successful/
Early in the day with a glitch showing up, Rossi said that they had to 
make a decision about whether to go for 1 MW output, not in self-sustain 
mode, or with self-sustain mode at a lower power level.  The customer 
opted to go for the self-sustain mode.


So in fact 1 MW was actually achieved by  107  (10 kW) modules 
containing each 3 e-Cats of 3.3 kW; see also the pictures of Rossi's 
report for these details. http://db.tt/wu4OLbgk


In my opinion it only shows that to get 1 MW with a COP of infinite from 
such a system in self-sustain-mode it needs to be dimensioned to produce 
2 MW with a COP of 6 in not-self-sustain-mode.


Kind regards,

MoB

Re: [Vo]:Rossi 1MW : Why is the energy hidden behind pressboard?


Hi,

On 1-11-2011 22:33, Jouni Valkonen wrote:

2011/11/1 Jed Rothwelljedrothw...@gmail.com:

For that matter, why would anyone think the Krivit test was fake?

In Krivit's E-Cat we can directly calculate that power output was
significantly less than with Mats Lewan's E-Cat. Something like
0.9-1.5 kW, depending on real flow rate. As lower limit was so close
to input that was 800 watts, it is reasonable assumption that there
was no excess heat. At least, not much.
Wait a minute, if the e-Cat during this test in June was running in 
self-sustained-mode this matches approximately the results from the 28 
October test.


Kind regards,

MoB

[Vo]:Fwd: [EVGRAY] Major OU breakthrough unfolding.

2011-11-01 Thread MJ

 Original Message 
Subject:[EVGRAY] Major OU breakthrough unfolding.
Date:   Tue, 01 Nov 2011 21:38:31 -
From:   silverhealtheu silverhealt...@gmail.com
Reply-To:   evg...@yahoogroups.com
To: evg...@yahoogroups.com

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gbeseiPPCeM

Very interesting breakthru seams to be happening now from a small group @ 
OU.com using ferrite NMR ferroresonance with a modulated sub carrier. The claim 
so far is sig gen of only around 10 watts is providing 100w+ o/p and up to 1kw 
with spark.

First decent bit of news to happen in many months possibly years! Too early to 
confirm anything yet but i been waiting for a break like this (i been a bit 
pre-occupied with other things for forum chat but i been watching closely) to 
happen as we approach 2012 -it was ON THE CARDS!

These guys are real open source they have no plans to hide anything. In case 
you don't know stivep went on a fact finding mission to Kapanadze home a few 
months ago to try and unravel some more info but Kapanadze despite being very 
sick is fulfilling his contract gagging orders.

Re: [Vo]:Rossi 1MW : Why is the energy hidden behind pressboard?


Peter Heckert wrote:

With the October 6 test there was so much false selfcontradicting 
information about Defkalion, Steam, Pressure and so on, and the claims 
where not coincident with the observations, for example hot water 
shooting out with obviously high pressure while Rossi claimed it is 
almost air pressure inside.


Are you talking about the Oct. 6 test? It sounds like the Sept. 14 one. 
I mean the one with the heat exchanger, no hot water shooting out.


The instrument readings on that are questionable, but I think the fact 
that it remained hot for 4 hours is first-principle proof of tremendous 
anomalous heat, as I wrote here:


http://lenr-canr.org/News.htm

I do not see how you can quibble with that.

In this analysis I am assuming there are no hidden wires or chemical fuel.


So I decided to ignore this. To much misinformation. If you dig into 
dirt you get dirty so better stop.
There can be no misinformation at the most basic level. 30 L of water in 
a poorly insulated container, that was quite hot to the touch (80 deg C 
surface temperature) remained very hot for 4 hours. That cannot be 
caused by anything other than heat generation. You can ignore all other 
aspects of the test, and you can be certain of that. I do not think 
there was any misinformation but only confusion. However, if you think 
it was misinformation then you should ignore it  and look only at the 
temperature of that vessel.


- Jed

Re: [Vo]:Rossi 1MW : Why is the energy hidden behind pressboard?


Hi,

On 1-11-2011 22:27, Jed Rothwell wrote:
It does not look mature to me. Obviously you can use modules in this 
method but I think that is a wacky way to build a megawatt scale 
reactor. It has way too many individual modules and pipes, and way too 
many things that can go wrong and will go wrong. Many small cells 
integrated into a larger device would be better.


Yes, this takes a lot of effort and time but that's just the power and 
essence of modularity, think small and put small modules that work well 
together to build large systems and achieve huge results. This is also 
how really large computer systems are designed and build.
This is due to the fact that there is a limit to what technically can be 
achieved with single components and parts because of the constraints of 
the laws of physics and then you need to follow a different approach 
such as by designing and building for going in parallel.
I have seen this years ago with capacity of digital transmission via 
light passing through optic fibers.
The only way that Lucent's Bell Labs was able to tackle this problem and 
achieve higher capacity through their optic fibers was, by multiplexing 
light signals with a technique called DWDM (Dense Wavelength Division 
Multiplexing).


Therefore in my opinion Rossi has understood the concept of modularity 
perfectly well.


Kind regards,

MoB

Re: [Vo]:Rossi 1MW : Why is the energy hidden behind pressboard?

rofl! aleays start with a sphere

Also, square reactors are a really, really bad idea.
- Jed

[Vo]:Did anyone hear about Miley's Pd-Zr results?

Did someone here attend the recent conference shown on YouTube? Apparently
George Miley gave an informal extra presentation about recent results with
the Arata technique, gas loaded Pd-Zr. He is out of touch. When I can reach
him I will ask for any PowerPoint slides on this. The slides I saw in the
YouTube lecture were about electrochemical cells.

Brian Ahern told me Miley reported a couple hundred watts stable heat from
a small sample of powder. Power density works out to be in the same
ballpark as Rossi's reaction, and probably a lot more than Arata himself
has reported. Ni-H is a lot cheaper material, but it would be good to see
an independent replication of high power density with gas loading.

Ever since Arata introduced this technique I have felt it is probably more
practical and better than electrochemical loading. It is a little
surprising that it works at all, because most people say that loading
cannot be as high as it is with electrochemistry, and high loading seems to
be necessary for heat.

I hope to learn more about this soon, and get something to upload.

- Jed

Re: [Vo]:Mats Lewan on Steam Quality

Stephen A. Lawrence sa...@pobox.com wrote:


 Since the pump rate was constant, that means the power level was constant
 with a precision of +/- 0.09 percent.   (That's 9/100 of 1 percent.)  This,
 in a process which is said to be hard to start and hard to control.


Either that, or the water level fluctuated. That seems more likely to me.
When it starts to rise, you increase the reaction. When it falls too far,
you throttle it.

- Jed

Re: [Vo]:Re: Rossi 1MW : Why is the energy hidden behind pressboard?

2011-11-01 Thread Colin Hercus

Hi Peter,

I'm not familiar with these pumps but it has variable rate and stroke and I
wonder if someone changed the stroke would the sound change, certainly the
frequency wouldn't and it would be really easy to do without being noticed.

Colin


On Wed, Nov 2, 2011 at 6:11 AM, Peter Heckert peter.heck...@arcor.dewrote:

 Am 01.11.2011 22:59, schrieb Mattia Rizzi:

  According to the report, EK measured the water flow before the test, but
 not *during* the test.
 I asked to Essen and confirmed that they doesn't have measured the flow
 during the test.

 I had this thougt too, but:
 The pump is so loud, any significant change in flow rate would have been
 noticed by them.

 If these guys do a positive test in Upsalla then I am ready to believe it.
 Im not against this.

 I am against all this contradictions false promises and confusion that
 have been since this.
 Cannot understand why didnt they give some details about pipes and
 heatdissipator for the 1 MW plant and why didnt they measure the
 temperatures there. This is most disappointing to me, it is like
 demonstrating a car on a brake tester and not letting the rubber hit the
 real street.

 Best,
 Peter


  -Messaggio originale- From: Peter Heckert
 Sent: Tuesday, November 01, 2011 10:43 PM
 To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
 Subject: Re: [Vo]:Rossi 1MW : Why is the energy hidden behind pressboard?

 Am 01.11.2011 22:33, schrieb Jouni Valkonen:

 2011/11/1 Jed Rothwelljedrothw...@gmail.com**:

 For that matter, why would anyone think the Krivit test was fake?

 For Krivit, Rossi /claimed/ the water flow and it was doubted by others
 and this was so early I did not understand everything and was confused
 by Krivits wetz steam argument. (I dont believe in wet steam today,
 but at this time I was unsure)

 Essen  Kullander /measured/ the water flow, so this was secured
 believable data. When they then found, that the input energy is too low
 for boiling, I was impressed.

Re: [Vo]:Mats Lewan on Steam Quality

2011-11-01 Thread Rich Murray

Steven A. Lawrence has presented a new argument, worthy of the level
of critical acumen shown by the very astute Joshua Cude, that Rossi
claims a stablility of control of the level of power output that seems
unbelievable, given the evident problems of controlling the chaotic
output of a very poorly understood process, which in the past has
produced dozens of explosions, according to Rossi, and which at the
start of this run created enough danger of runaway heat as to make it
necessary to reduce power input by half, reducing the claimed output
heat by half -- this claim, however, based on the implausible
assertion that most of the input water is vaporized... whereas if only
tiny percent of the weight of input water is vaporized, then at the
low pressures within the over 100 reactors in parallel, the
water-steam froth will naturally stay at 105-110 C for 4.5 hours, as
observed, coasting on the stored electric energy from the initial
heating -- the froth probably is impeding the flow in complex, chaotic
ways within the over 100 reactors, so that the single output
temperature is some kind of average of over 100 reactors -- any ideas
how much boiler scale would build up from the minerals in city water
at the places within each reactor that have the slowest water flow and
the highest temperatures from the electric heater?

Did the buyer take away the huge eKat in its storage container?

within mutual service, Rich Murray

Re: [Vo]:Mats Lewan on Steam Quality

On Tue, Nov 1, 2011 at 10:25 PM, Rich Murray rmfor...@gmail.com wrote:

 Did the buyer take away the huge eKat in its storage container?

No he left it in Rossi's care.  Andrea plans to sell it again to another buyer.

T

Re: [Vo]:Mats Lewan on Steam Quality

2011-11-01 Thread Rich Murray

Thanks for reading my post and answering the question -- I wonder if
the buyer has the right to cancel the purchase and get his money back
at this point?  R

On Tue, Nov 1, 2011 at 7:36 PM, Terry Blanton hohlr...@gmail.com wrote:
 On Tue, Nov 1, 2011 at 10:25 PM, Rich Murray rmfor...@gmail.com wrote:

 Did the buyer take away the huge eKat in its storage container?

 No he left it in Rossi's care.  Andrea plans to sell it again to another 
 buyer.

 T

Re: [Vo]:Mats Lewan on Steam Quality