A visual demonstration would impress the masses.
Use a real ecat and a dummy ecat with the same input power to inflate a
balloon
The real ecat will inflate the balloon faster.
Harry
On Mon, Jun 3, 2013 at 4:46 PM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com wrote:
DJ Cravens djcrav...@hotmail.com
On Mon, Jun 3, 2013 at 11:42 AM, James Bowery jabow...@gmail.com wrote:
I've seen it claimed by a rather emotionally committed skeptic -- with
some background in conducting CF runs with calorimetry -- that an adequate
19th century technology water-bath style calorimetry of the E-Cat HT would
On Mon, Jun 3, 2013 at 12:38 PM, James Bowery jabow...@gmail.com wrote:
OK, I'll ask the question a different way:
Is there any explanation offered, even if only in an interview, by the
researchers as to why they did not use normal calorimetry?
In the December run, the experiment was
On Mon, Jun 3, 2013 at 1:00 PM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com wrote:
They used perfectly normal calorimetry.
Normal to me means common. But I have not seen calorimetry performed with
IR thermometry. Do you have some references for where it has been used?
There is not the slightest
On Mon, Jun 3, 2013 at 1:01 PM, David Roberson dlrober...@aol.com wrote:
Dennis,
I don't think it would be quite so easy for Rossi to perform the
experiment that you propose.
It's amazing the excuses true believers contrive to explain why inferior
experiments were used. If the thing is to
On Mon, Jun 3, 2013 at 1:20 PM, David Roberson dlrober...@aol.com wrote:
The ECAT will need adjustment depending upon the environment into which it
operates. This is what should be expected.
Exactly, and controlled cooling provides a way to adjust it. Sitting in the
open air does not.
On Mon, Jun 3, 2013 at 1:29 PM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com wrote:
I have significant experience with flow calorimeters. I would say:
1. It would end up costing much more than a few hundred dollars.
True. But not more than 10k for an off-the-shelf unit. That sounds like a
bargain for
On Mon, Jun 3, 2013 at 2:55 PM, Mark Gibbs mgi...@gibbs.com wrote:
Even though I'm still wearing my skeptic's hat (that's the one with the
propeller on top) isn't the argument about the need for calorimetry made
irrelevant the amount of energy observed to have been generated? In other
words,
On Mon, Jun 3, 2013 at 2:05 PM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com wrote:
Extraordinary claims call for the most ordinary proof you can come up with.
That's true for true believers. For everyone else the usual saying
represents common sense, and the opinion of great thinkers from Pascal
On Mon, Jun 3, 2013 at 3:09 PM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com wrote:
I still think that a standalone unplugged demo is the best approach - not
high wattage and fancy instruments and lots of wires and computer programs.
That would be nice, but evidently that would probably cause the
On Mon, Jun 3, 2013 at 3:30 PM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com wrote:
Flow calorimetry has much to be said for it but it is more complicated and
less believable than this. A lot more can go wrong with it, and usually
does go wrong with it for the first several weeks.
It is both more
On Mon, Jun 3, 2013 at 3:46 PM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com wrote:
I have thought about that. During the initial warm up phase you would get
an interesting result. After that, when it reaches a steady state, you
would maintain the entire body of water at a certain temperature for
On Mon, Jun 3, 2013 at 3:50 PM, David Roberson dlrober...@aol.com wrote:
It will take more than just a generator and an extension cord to close the
loop. Some form of energy storage will be required to do the job.
To close the loop with electricity, probably yes. But if you used
On Mon, Jun 3, 2013 at 4:03 PM, DJ Cravens djcrav...@hotmail.com wrote:
They only need to make their sponsors happy not Crude. I hope the best
for them.
Hey, if you're referring to me, I'm with you all the way on the
self-sustaining water-tank heating demo. So the insult is particularly
Greetings Vortex-L,
As most know, Rossi s official website gets infrequently updated.
This morning the site was down for an update:
http://www.ecat.com
Update= a Biggie or a yawn?
Respectfully,
Ron Kita, Chiralex
Doylestown PA
On Mon, Jun 3, 2013 at 4:07 PM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com wrote:
I do not understand what you have in mind here. Nature allows us to do
some things and not others. We have to work with what nature allows, not
what we would wish for in an ideal universe.[...]
Obviously with more
On Mon, Jun 3, 2013 at 4:18 PM, David Roberson dlrober...@aol.com wrote:
The best proof is one that has the least possibility of error.
Or the least possibility of error that favors the ecat, or the least
possibility of tampering. An isolated ecat eliminates input tampering. A
heated tank of
On Mon, Jun 3, 2013 at 4:36 PM, Mark Gibbs mgi...@gibbs.com wrote:
Indeed, making steam and using it to, say, drive a car across Italy
without stopping would be pretty damn convincing.
Nice to see you can envision a demo that would convince skeptics.
Unfortunately the actual demos don't
On Mon, Jun 3, 2013 at 4:37 PM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com wrote:
There was a time when this field desperately needed a standalone self
powered reactor to prove the reaction is real. That is because absolute
power was low, ranging from 5 to 100 W. However, now that Rossi has
On Mon, Jun 3, 2013 at 5:06 PM, Terry Blanton hohlr...@gmail.com wrote:
Dr. Richard L. Garwin is alive and well and will likely live to have his
tea.
If you believe Rothwell and Roberson, skeptics will never have to concede,
because no application of cold fusion is obvious enough to make
On Mon, Jun 3, 2013 at 5:57 PM, Jones Beene jone...@pacbell.net wrote:
If the device cannot self-power, it is still valuable with a lower COP,
the proverbial hot water or space heater -
A COP of 3 is not useful if the electricity was made with fossil fuels at
an efficiency of 1/3. That's a
On Mon, Jun 3, 2013 at 7:25 PM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com wrote:
If it is real it is the most important advance in technology since the
discovery of fire. If the scientific community is convinced it is real,
every industrial corporation and university will be hard at work on this.
On Mon, Jun 3, 2013 at 8:36 PM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com wrote:
WHY are you so certain that wattmeters do not work?!?
You know that's not the objection.
There is no chance Rossi can fool one, and if the people doing the test
have any doubt about that, they can bring a portable
On Mon, Jun 3, 2013 at 8:43 PM, Jouni Valkonen jounivalko...@gmail.comwrote:
Portable generator is also fine and even better, because it leaves very
little room for tricks and doubt. But after 10 or so demonstrations we have
had only one portable generator and that also was brought by Rossi.
I'm sure you've seen this one, as well:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bQLCZOG202k
On 06/03/2013 09:14 PM, Jed Rothwell wrote:
See a flash mob performance celebrating the reopening of the Rijksmuseum:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embeddedv=a6W2ZMpsxhg
This kind of thing is
On Mon, Jun 3, 2013 at 8:55 PM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com wrote:
Nothing in the recent test was brought by Rossi. This test was a hands-off
black box test, exactly what the skeptics have been demanding. It seems
you will not take yes for an answer.
So much nonsense. The test was
On Mon, Jun 3, 2013 at 9:29 PM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com wrote:
Jouni Valkonen jounivalko...@gmail.com wrote:
Leading scam hypothesis does assume that Giuseppe Levi is a scammer and
he is as bad as Rossi. And he brought most of the instruments.
I see. And these other co-authors
On Fri, May 31, 2013 at 1:55 PM, David Roberson dlrober...@aol.com wrote:
Why not give a direct answer to a direct question. Do you agree that the
COP is greater than 1? Yes or no?
Read the reply again, with particular attention to the first word.
I would have thought that elaboration
On Fri, May 31, 2013 at 1:59 PM, David Roberson dlrober...@aol.com wrote:
No reason for any of your issues is given except that there is no reason
that you are aware of to do what makes sense to most other engineers and
scientists on the list.
3-phase is not needed. He ran higher power
On Fri, May 31, 2013 at 2:09 PM, David Roberson dlrober...@aol.com wrote:
I admit that I do not believe that the magnetic field is important in this
case.
I am very pleased to see that some progress is being made.
It is not too close to zero with this particular geometry
Well, the
On Fri, May 31, 2013 at 2:17 PM, MarkI-ZeroPoint zeropo...@charter.netwrote:
If you genuinely want an explanation of how the eCAT is positive feedback,
which Dave is trying to do, backed up by his model, then it requires
following a line of reasoning.
Wrong discussion. The question of COP
On Sat, Jun 1, 2013 at 9:50 AM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com wrote:
The effects of heat and the use of heat to control chemical and nuclear
reactions is well established.
Perhaps, but elsewhere I asked for an example where the addition of heat is
used to control a positive thermal
On Sat, Jun 1, 2013 at 10:35 AM, David Roberson dlrober...@aol.com wrote:
Applying more heat to make it stop is not what he does. He ceases to
apply the excess drive heat to make it stop. This is 180 degrees
different. The extra drive power to the resistors is added to the internal
power
On Sat, Jun 1, 2013 at 10:44 AM, David Roberson dlrober...@aol.com wrote:
The group at moletrap has a hobby of trying to debunk anything that they
do not understand. You should have realized by now that these clowns can
not admit when they are shown in error to keep up appearances of
On Sat, Jun 1, 2013 at 11:07 AM, David Roberson dlrober...@aol.com wrote:
Cude and the others of this group can not accept that LENR is anything
except for a scam.
Not true in my case. I think most of LENR research is not a scam; it is
probably just pathological science. But I don't even
On Fri, May 31, 2013 at 12:57 PM, David Roberson dlrober...@aol.com wrote:
There is a wealth of information contained within the shape of the output
temperature curve associated with operation of the ECAT.
That's total speculative and nonsensical over-interpretation.
It's based in the
On Fri, May 31, 2013 at 1:11 PM, David Roberson dlrober...@aol.com wrote:
No problem, I will meet you here in a couple of years and we can compare
notes.
Good, but I was hoping you'd be able to tell us now if you might get a
little skeptical if the hot cat has a similar fate that the steam
On Fri, May 31, 2013 at 1:13 PM, David Roberson dlrober...@aol.com wrote:
I am attempting to keep you form getting banned since I want to use you to
clear up a number of issues. It is hoped that you will go back to the
other skeptics and then set them straight.
Garbage. You don't need
On Fri, May 31, 2013 at 2:25 PM, David Roberson dlrober...@aol.com wrote:
Maybe we are making headway in this discussion. Can I assume that you are
now saying that the hot cat can actually produce heat by some unknown
process? So far it is not clear that you accept this premise.
For
Hi,
An appropriate anagram of cold fusion would be ;-) :
Coils Found
Kind regards,
Rob
On Sat, Jun 1, 2013 at 8:08 AM, David Roberson dlrober...@aol.com wrote:
Josh, once you understand how the ECAT uses heat for control you will
realize that the heat can not be applied continuously.
Well, you're gonna have to explain it if you expect me to understand it.
And then you're
On Sat, Jun 1, 2013 at 8:57 AM, Jones Beene jone...@pacbell.net wrote:
**
Yes it was a poor analogy, but so what? Cude’s analysis is wrong no matter
how much he obfuscates and by jumping on a poor analogy – he does not gain
credibility.
**
Which analogy is that? I was suggesting
On Sat, Jun 1, 2013 at 12:27 AM, Harry Veeder hveeder...@gmail.com wrote:
On Fri, May 31, 2013 at 2:58 AM, Joshua Cude joshua.c...@gmail.comwrote:
But I think you misunderstood. I was not referring to new science
theories there. I was saying that it's common sense that if Rossi's claims
On Sat, Jun 1, 2013 at 8:58 AM, Eric Walker eric.wal...@gmail.com wrote:
On Sat, Jun 1, 2013 at 3:51 AM, Joshua Cude joshua.c...@gmail.com wrote:
No, you don't. Plenty of ICEs (outboards, motorcycles) run without
batteries. Car engines would run without batteries too, unless they use
some
On Sun, Jun 2, 2013 at 1:39 PM, Eric Walker eric.wal...@gmail.com wrote:
On Sat, Jun 1, 2013 at 3:54 AM, Joshua Cude joshua.c...@gmail.com wrote:
But the ecat just uses electricity to make heat. So if the ecat already
makes heat, it should self-sustain on that. Like combustion.
I passed
Hi Axil, very plausible theory! Explains radioactive decay anomalies and at
lesser levels will fit most of the different categories. sonoluminescence,
plasma engines. Ni H in powders or skeletal cats. I would only suggest the
H2O as the difference with LeClair vs H2 for Rossi and Mills not the
On Sun, Jun 2, 2013 at 2:29 PM, Eric Walker eric.wal...@gmail.com wrote:
There is a third possibility as well. The reaction is localized, and it
depends upon an elevated temperature to kick off. But the local region is
destroyed by the reaction, so you have apply heat once more to initiate
On Sun, Jun 2, 2013 at 3:22 PM, David Roberson dlrober...@aol.com wrote:
Eric,
The resistive heating requirement is to be able to reverse the
temperature excursion at the proper time by removing the extra input.
Constant heat input will result in the destruction of the device when
useful
On Jun 4, 2013, at 2:26 PM, Joshua Cude joshua.c...@gmail.com wrote:
On Mon, Jun 3, 2013 at 9:29 PM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com wrote:
Jouni Valkonen jounivalko...@gmail.com wrote:
Leading scam hypothesis does assume that Giuseppe Levi is a scammer and he
is as bad as Rossi.
On Sun, Jun 2, 2013 at 4:10 PM, David Roberson dlrober...@aol.com wrote:
Eric,
Model 1 appears to be more in line with what I suspect is happening
except for the explanation of the lack of external heat for control issue.
You need to consider that the peak heat power being generated
On Sun, Jun 2, 2013 at 9:21 AM, David Roberson dlrober...@aol.com wrote:
I have requested that Cude or any others interested in finding the truth
construct a similar model and prove me wrong.
I never made any claims about dc rectification. I said that the
experimental design leaves
On Fri, May 31, 2013 at 1:36 PM, David Roberson dlrober...@aol.com wrote:
This is a good start Josh. I think I can explain that to you since you
seem to be a pretty sharp guy.
Thank you Mr Roberson for that kind compliment.
Unfortunately it also takes an explanation that is realistic and
On Fri, May 31, 2013 at 1:47 PM, David Roberson dlrober...@aol.com wrote:
So, do you need help with that spice model?
You're just repeating your arguments and ignoring the responses I've
already given to them. Obviously I have no proof. How could I? True
believers insist on an explanation of
On Sat, Jun 1, 2013 at 9:50 PM, Axil Axil janap...@gmail.com wrote:
The tactic of the obstructionist is to avoid dealing with the case
The avoidance here is from the true believers who insist that any
alternative explanation must described in detail, whereas they refuse to
explain the
On Sat, Jun 1, 2013 at 11:35 PM, David Roberson dlrober...@aol.com wrote:
It is apparent that Mr. Cude does not have a valid case and is not willing
to discuss the issues.
I've written a lot of words, so obviously I'm willing to discuss. I'm kind
of outnumbered here, so it's not possible to
On Sat, Jun 1, 2013 at 11:53 PM, Kevin O'Malley kevmol...@gmail.com wrote:
On Fri, May 31, 2013 at 10:57 AM, Joshua Cude joshua.c...@gmail.comwrote:
On Fri, May 31, 2013 at 4:29 AM, Kevin O'Malley kevmol...@gmail.comwrote:
Put yourself in the shoes of those 7 scientists who have placed
On Sat, Jun 1, 2013 at 10:10 AM, Jones Beene jone...@pacbell.net wrote:
Anyway the Farnsworth Fusor is a fusion reactor that many high school level
students have built, including Conrad.
It involves adding electrical energy in order to achieve LENR reactions.
Sound familiar, Joshua?
You
On Sat, Jun 1, 2013 at 11:25 AM, Edmund Storms stor...@ix.netcom.comwrote:
We are taking about two different phenomenon of nature. Trying to use the
same concepts and words to describe both results in confusion. Those of us
who have studied cold fusion for the last 23 years have a definition
Mr. Beaty,
When I opened up my mail box this morning I was flooded with over 40 posted
messages from Joshua Cude. And it's only 7:10 AM in the morning. I know of
no one within the Vort Collective besides Cude that has displayed this
amount of excessive and obsessive posting behavior. How many
Jouni Valkonen jounivalko...@gmail.com wrote:
That is true. The risk for Levi is negligible and he can always claim
ignorance.
The risk is that his reputation would be shattered. He would be forced to
retire at least.
So If Levi is making few dozens of kiloeuros extra money with Rossi
OrionWorks - Steven Vincent Johnson orionwo...@charter.net wrote:
But at what point does this incessant (IMO) kind posting behavior
considered a nuisance and hindrance to on-going Vortex discussions?
It is not a problem. Just filter the messages out. Frankly, I do not see
why you raise the
On Tue, 4 Jun 2013 07:35:47 -0500
OrionWorks - Steven Vincent Johnson orionwo...@charter.net
wrote:
Mr. Beaty,
When I opened up my mail box this morning I was flooded with over 40 posted
messages from Joshua Cude. And it's only 7:10 AM in the morning. I know of
no one within the Vort
Finally, a direct answer to a simple question. Although you still leave it up
to me to interpret the response. Unless you say otherwise, I now accept that
you do not believe that there is any level of internally generated heat being
released during this test series.
With this position, it
The guy is a liar. I showed how he's doing his probability wrong, because
he assumes EVERY one of 14,700 replications is in error. He just keeps
repeating his error:
No, you don't know your mathematics, because that's like saying that the
chance of rolling 10 sixes out of 60 dice is (1/6)^10.
Cude,
You always over simplify the system. If these types of devices were easy to
control and to work with, everyone could do it. How much time do you think
Rossi should devote to trying to prove this to skeptics with your opinion? I
think he should concentrate his efforts upon those that
There has been some discussion here as to whether you could heat an Olympic
pool to boiling with a 900 W heater. The answer is no, you cannot. In fact
there is no way you could even detect this much heat with that much water.
As I mentioned that is the heat from two people swimming. That does not
Nope, each takes a lot of engineering effort to achieve. When did you become
an expert on the design of ECATs? You don't even believe they work in the
first place, how can you offer solutions to the problems?
Dave
-Original Message-
From: Joshua Cude joshua.c...@gmail.com
To:
Try to be serious Cude. You know that you would find fault with any test
system regardless of its performance. Your record speaks for itself.
Dave
-Original Message-
From: Joshua Cude joshua.c...@gmail.com
To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com
Sent: Tue, Jun 4, 2013 7:02 am
Subject: Re:
Cude,
I was of the understanding that you have accepted the accuracy of the thermal
imaging output power measurement. Are you now returning to that lost cause?
Dave
-Original Message-
From: Joshua Cude joshua.c...@gmail.com
To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com
Sent: Tue, Jun 4, 2013
Kevin O'Malley kevmol...@gmail.com wrote:
The guy is a liar.
I doubt that. I get a sense he is somewhat innumerate. People who claim
that 14,700 tests are all errors do not have a strong grasp of probability,
or the basis of experimental science.
I am sure he sincerely believes that. No one
Wrong. The ECat at low gain would be valuable to the segment of the
population whose only affordable alternative is a resistance space heater
COP=1 versus LENR heater COP=3. Next is the home electric water heater. For
them, net power for heat is cut by two thirds. DoE says space heating and
water
Do you promise to accept the results if he uses one of these calorimeters? Why
do I think not?
Dave
-Original Message-
From: Joshua Cude joshua.c...@gmail.com
To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com
Sent: Tue, Jun 4, 2013 7:07 am
Subject: Re: [Vo]:A Couple Hundred Bucks Maybe...
On Mon,
Wrong again Cude. No one has ever claimed that an ECAT has run in SSM without
connection to the power mains. Read what Rossi has written. His definition of
SSM is restricted to a brief period of time during which the device is slowly
cooling off but generating internal heat. Controlled
Jones Beene jone...@pacbell.net wrote, regarding a COP of 3:
Wrong. The ECat at low gain would be valuable to the segment of the
population whose only affordable alternative is a resistance space heater
COP=1 versus LENR heater COP=3.
There are not many people like that in the first world.
I wrote:
No matter how difficult it is to control the thing at higher COPs, methods
will be found, and then perfected.
This control problem only seems to be an issue with the high temperature
Hot Cat model. At moderate temperatures Rossi ran for long periods with
less input power, and a much
Again, how confident are you that controlled cooling will perform this
function? I have serious doubts that it is easy and you have serious doubts
that it is possible at all. Please tell us how sure you are that this will
work? Do you now believe that the ECAT is real?
Dave
Cude, you are consistent at least. You are like a Mary Yugo on steroids. Both
of you repeat your statements over and over and they have no substance. I just
proved your DC cheat trick inert and the others you insist upon depend upon
Rossi running a scam so you have nothing but straws.
I
How much of an impact will it have upon you (Cude) to hear that an ECAT self
distructed because the input control was removed? Hum, seems like that has
been stated.
Get real, admit that there is no level of performance that would convince you
except for the next one you dig up.
Dave
must be connected to the mains--bingo- if your process requires electrical
input you must have a high COP. The conversion from heat back into electrical
power places restrictions on you ability to make it self sustaining. IF you
can get heat out at around 300C you theoretically could self
You know that we are just being truthful Cude. The evidence is overwhelming at
this point but you do not see it. And I have tried to educate you about how
heat controls the ECAT and you fail to understand. Frankly, I do not know what
else can be done except to have you burn yourself sitting
So why would you want to buy three tons of coal to generate electricity if only
one ton were needed? Rossi has pointed out on several occasions that his
device will operate with gas heating. Would you prefer to put out that extra
carbon dioxide and pay the extra cost for the coal if you had
DJ Cravens djcrav...@hotmail.com wrote:
must be connected to the mains--bingo- if your process requires
electrical input you must have a high COP.
Where did that graph come from? Did you make it?
I have never heard of mechanical work from temperatures below 100 deg C.
By the way, I
That is right Josh, keep raising the bar. There has been sufficient proof
shown so far and you and your friends have not accepted it. Why should Rossi
think that any additional level of proof would be anything but a waste of his
time? He is smarter than you realize. I can hardly wait for
Why don't you review the actual peak input drive levels required Josh? Once
you understand how it operates your statement will become non sense even to you.
Some form of energy storage will be required as has been said several times.
Please try to understand the system.
Dave
Cude, I hope that one day you will be subjected to the same level of scrutiny
as you love to throw at everyone else. To claim that these men are all
scamming is contemptuous. To deny that all the previous replications by
various labs is fake or due to ignorance is beyond belief.
We would be
I just ripped it off the net. It is just the limiting Carnott efficiency
1-t/T like.
Yes there are small Stirlings that can convert down in the sub 100C range
fairly efficiently,
but with them you would have to go heatmechanical electrical control you
cell. Peltiers give you direct
Jed,
you admit that you haven't read most of his postings so you haven't a clue.
He is a liar. His goal is to debunk. That should be obvious. He has
violated a number of rules, and we have been quite tolerant. 10% of his
verbal diarrhea is useful, but the rest is sweeping generalizations,
It occurred to me that if heat energy becomes free enough, you could use it
to sterilize a swimming
pool by putting the heater in the circulation pump line and boiling, then
condensing the water back to its
original temperature briefly as it travels through the plumbing. A
circulation pump can
Yes when a pseudoskeptic comes up with a scattershot of arguments in the
alternative it is thought crime to take one of them and determine its
veracity so as to eliminate a possibility. The pseudoskeptic's purpose is
not for you to evaluate the arguments but to be frightened of thinking.
On
I find it interesting that one who avoids any quantitative work would expect
others to supply him with that information. josh, it would be a major waste of
my time to do as you ask since it would be amazing for you to even take a
glance at the data.
I do admit that Rossi has done an
I recall you taking up the DC cheating issue from your friend. You are
searching for straws and wishing to throw as much non sense into the fray as
possible. This is your technique to confuse people who are monitoring the
site. They will not realize that you do not have a clue since all
Josh, back to the same type of arguments. A long list that would be exhaustive
to anyone reading is not the way to sort this out. I refuse to react to this
non sense. Why do you not understand my explanation as to how heat can be used
in a positive feedback system as a control? It is
Scientific background's can be manufactured on the spot. Big deal!
Ruby Carat
Bachelor's in Physics
Master's in Math
Free jazz musician
(All true)
Best credential? No afraid to ask questions and admit ignorance.
But I sure don't want to confuse Cude with my booklearnin...
On 6/4/13
Dennis, please look at the many descriptions that have been written about why
the COP must be beyond a certain level to supply itself without having
problems. A COP of 2 to 1 could not make enough electricity to supply the
drive by any means.
Electronic control required electrical energy and
... at what point does this incessant (IMO) kind posting behavior
considered
a nuisance and hindrance to on-going Vortex discussions? Now, if Cude is
genuinely making a good contribution I'll have nothing more to say on
this matter. But it would be interesting to hear a consensus on how
electricity is more efficient for that:
Adamant Technologies SA have developed a technology to clean water with
electrolysis and doped diamond coated electrodes.
http://investing.businessweek.com/research/stocks/private/snapshot.asp?privcapid=32571440
It is under chapter11 because they could not
Robert,
Please forgive me for responding to Cude and perhaps allowing his non sense to
escape the filter. I will restrict that situation from this point forth. I
feel badly for how I have contributed to this mess, but he was directly
attacking me and I hated to just stand by and let his
Vorl:
You haven't a clue either...
When it comes to LENR, there is overwhelming evidence, and most of the
people on this forum who 'appear' as TBs, have read the literature, so to
call them TBs is in error; they are basing their decision on having read the
evidence themselves. To someone who
There are bad ones too:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bHyug2PvpB8
that is why I said: if your process requires electrical input you must have a
high COP. for a real world device when you have to also make electrical
conversion, fight heat losses, power to the controlling units, and such.
You may want to re read my post.
But also realize that Ecats
1 - 100 of 194 matches
Mail list logo
