More bizarreness.
Note that in all the apparent anger over the wetness of the effluent,
nobody has stated *any* measurement which was made and which indicated
the steam was dry. We've got temperature, we've got pressure (relative
to ambient, please note, not even an actual pressure number, so
On 11-06-29 10:06 AM, Rich Murray wrote:
Ad hominem responses are always confirmations that the responder is
unable to support his position with evidence and reason...
Lack of playful humor is another sign.
Abd and Jed have shown this too, in recent days.
Nonsense. Please don't make such
On 11-06-29 10:23 AM, Jouni Valkonen wrote:
Very good response by Andrea. We see that those movie clowns have
also infiltrated Vortex, like Joshua, Abd and few other pseudoskeptics.
So Abd is a pseudoskeptic because he questioned the dryness of the
steam, and asked if it's possible the
On 11-07-11 08:31 AM, Terry Blanton wrote:
On Mon, Jul 11, 2011 at 5:57 AM, noone noonethesteornpa...@yahoo.com wrote:
Also, a previous cold fusion researcher used carbon as a catalyst, but did
not produce near as much heat as Rossi's system. Here is a link about his
work...
On 11-07-12 03:04 PM, Alan J Fletcher wrote:
At 11:58 AM 7/12/2011, Terry Blanton wrote:
There's an audio interview with AR on the right column. He's at home
in Miami.
No hard questions. (Don't mention the Steam quality!) ... the only
clarification I got was that the original factory
On 11-07-12 05:36 PM, noone noone wrote:
I find nothing strange about this report.
So what if he sold the building. He kept the reactor, and has produced
hundreds more since then. Defkalion has proceeded to build hundreds
more. Defkalion has actually built their own units, tested them, and
Looks like there's a good chance the Webb telescope will be scratched:
http://www.futura-sciences.com/fr/news/t/astronautique/d/le-futur-telescope-spatial-james-webb-pourrait-etre-abandonne_31339/#xtor=RSS-19
Headline: The future James Webb space telescope could be abandoned.
The rest of the
Orionworks wrote:
Joshua,
I waited in anticipation to see if you could help explain to me the
errors I might have made in my reasoning. I was astonished to discover
that the jest of your replies struck me as being just as much of a
seat-of-the-pants explanation as you apparently accuse me of
So here's a cute experiment, done by accident while on vacation.
Take a smooth china mug, and fill it with water.
Stir the water, so it's swirling nicely (if you don't do this only the
surface will get hot and the experiment probably won't work).
Put it in a microwave on high power for a
- Original Message -
From: Stephen A. Lawrencesa...@pobox.com
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Cc:
Sent: Friday, July 15, 2011 5:03:11 PM
Subject: [Vo]:They say liquid water can't be hotter than boiling...
So here's a cute experiment, done by accident while on vacation.
Take a smooth china
On 11-07-18 03:15 PM, Jed Rothwell wrote:
Rossi wrote:
I received him to get those suggestions, curious to know about what
he had to suggest. I was working in my Bologna lab when I received
him and he saw one E-Cat under test for no more that 30 seconds,
after which I invited him to exit.
Thank you, Bill!
That was a good move IMO, which should certainly improve the atmosphere
here.
On 11-08-01 02:11 AM, William Beaty wrote:
Removed for repeated flagrant violation of Rule #2 No Sneering. See:
On 11-07-31 10:10 PM, OrionWorks - Steven Vincent Johnson wrote:
Upon closer inspection, this counter-intuitive configuration is
actually less bizarre to comprehend to those (such as me) who have
studied magnetic characteristics, and who have performed countless
Finite Element Method
OK, not literally LOL, but that photo certainly got a chuckle out of me.
The Florida factory and Rossi's factory which was heated for two years
with a Rossi amplifier (and then sold before anyone else got to see it)
seem to me to share some significant characteristics.
Oh, and the
Cool!
Terry, can you give a link to something on the Art's Parts isotopic
anomalies?
And do you know if the isotope shifts were the same or similar in the
stuff Kimbler found?
On 11-08-01 01:37 PM, Terry Blanton wrote:
Like Art's Parts, these artifacts of the Roswell crash show isotopic
Oh, dear. That went over the top.
So John Smith took a sojourn on one of the Longer Boats, I assume...?
I have an awful lot of trouble getting my disbelief sufficiently
suspended to deal with aliens who take people away, stick things in
them, and then put them back, even if Cat Stevens did
On 11-08-02 06:44 PM, Abd ul-Rahman Lomax wrote:
I now conclude that Rossi is a fraud. He may be finding some excess
heat, but his demonstrations and comments amount to fraud anyway.
Exaggerating his results is a form of fraud, and that kind of fraud
has happened before. Come to think of
Interesting note in the article:
The shape was found at the bottom of the Gulf of Bothnia during a
search for a sunken wreck which contained several cases of champagne.
Seems like an awful lot of trouble to go through to get a few cases of
champagne.
On 11-08-03 06:12 PM,
2011/8/4 Abd ul-Rahman Lomaxa...@lomaxdesign.com:
Now, if you assessed the probability at 70%, rationally you would bet 40
euros against a lesser amount from me. Suppose my bet is X euros. Forget the
charity thing, it complicates it.
It is impossible to assess probabilities for one time
On 11-08-04 04:24 PM, Peter Gluck wrote:
But Cousin, cold water has a greater viscosity! It is excatky the
opposite!
Arrgh -- that's totally irrelevant. The (viscous) cold water flows into
the water heater instead of the tub, the heater acts as a flow reduction
device, and from there the
On 11-08-05 11:00 AM, Jouni Valkonen wrote:
Also
it is even more impossible that steam temperature is above boiling
point of local pressure.
Heavens, Jouni, where have you been?
That silly argument leads directly to the conclusion that the atmosphere
can't be any hotter than the
On 11-08-06 11:04 AM, Jouni Valkonen wrote:
2011/8/6 Craig Hayniecchayniepub...@gmail.com:
You propose to end war with a
global democracy, but wars will never end as long as we give the power
seekers the ability to wage war.
I have not seen a war in 66 years, because I live in civilized and
negatives, they're too easy to mess up.
On 11-08-06 03:36 PM, Stephen A. Lawrence wrote:
On 11-08-06 02:56 PM, Harry Veeder wrote:
- Original Message -
From: Stephen A. Lawrencesa...@pobox.com
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Cc:
Sent: Saturday, August 6, 2011 1:44:02 PM
Subject: Re: [Vo
On 11-08-06 04:09 PM, Harry Veeder wrote:
You said AT LEAST one party which was not nuclear armed, which I took to mean
one or both parties which were not nuclear armed.
Right you were.
My comment was scrambled; mine was the error. Sorry!
LOL (well, OK, just chuckling, really)
And so Rossi's exit strategy from the Defkalion situation has
materialized. It's probably not quite what anyone expected, but it's
certainly gotten him off the hook for delivering anything to them.
Lots of tortuous explanations of the split are
On 11-08-07 01:32 PM, Abd ul-Rahman Lomax wrote:
Rossi, from his announcement, never trusted them with the catalyst.
Therefore, if they did discover the catalyst, they did not obtain it
from disclosure, and he's going to have a devil of a time trying to
prove that they stole the process.
On 11-08-07 01:08 PM, Abd ul-Rahman Lomax wrote:
At 10:52 AM 8/7/2011, noone noone wrote:
Perhaps Rossi saw how far they had advanced the technology, and got
spooked.
We don't know the whole story. We don't know what is true at this point.
Before there is any sign that Defkalion is making
On 11-08-25 01:56 PM, Jed Rothwell wrote:
If Rossi turns out to be a fraud, or hugely mistaken for some reason,
the skeptics here will deserve no credit for predicting this.
Getting a little defensive, are we, Jed?
On 11-08-25 10:33 AM, Abd ul-Rahman Lomax wrote:
At 06:55 PM 8/24/2011, Jed Rothwell wrote:
Here is an interesting footnote to history. I believe the speed of
sound was not established with this much precision until later. This
was done by assuming for simplicity that the speed of light is
On 11-09-12 05:18 PM, Horace Heffner wrote:
On Sep 12, 2011, at 10:59 AM, Stephen A. Lawrence wrote:
On 11-08-25 10:33 AM, Abd ul-Rahman Lomax wrote:
At 06:55 PM 8/24/2011, Jed Rothwell wrote:
Here is an interesting footnote to history. I believe the speed of
sound was not established
On 11-09-15 10:49 AM, Jed Rothwell wrote:
Horace Heffner hheff...@mtaonline.net
mailto:hheff...@mtaonline.net wrote:
More importantly, the claim that all the water was being converted
to steam, the repeated, defended, and heralded basis for thinking
something practical has been
strategy is going to
be, and wait to see whether he can throw enough dust into the air to
leave some people permanently convinced that he really had something
before ... whatever ... happened.
On 11-09-15 01:11 PM, Stephen A. Lawrence wrote:
On 11-09-15 10:49 AM, Jed Rothwell wrote:
Horace
On 11-09-15 01:49 PM, Jed Rothwell wrote:
Stephen A. Lawrence sa...@pobox.com mailto:sa...@pobox.com wrote:
I would get testy if people addressed me the way they have addressed
him. Also, if I were Levi I would have tossed Krivit...
I wasn't talking about the Krivit interview, which I
On 11-09-15 02:15 PM, Jed Rothwell wrote:
Stephen A. Lawrence sa...@pobox.com mailto:sa...@pobox.com wrote:
Sorry -- I'm afraid I crossed over the line in my previous post
into sneering.
The truth is I feel kind of bitter about this whole thing.
Don't fret about it. Forget
On 11-09-15 02:23 PM, Jed Rothwell wrote:
Stephen A. Lawrence sa...@pobox.com mailto:sa...@pobox.com wrote:
I would get testy if people addressed me the way they have
addressed him. Also, if I were Levi I would have tossed Krivit...
I wasn't talking about the Krivit
On 11-09-15 03:02 PM, Jed Rothwell wrote:
Stephen A. Lawrence sa...@pobox.com mailto:sa...@pobox.com wrote:
My concern is actually rather different.
My concern is that I suspect he knows perfectly well what the
flaws were in his analysis, and realizes that the steam wasn't dry
On 11-09-16 12:36 PM, Jones Beene wrote:
Hey guys - isn't Rossi-mania already reading like a geek gossip column?
(Dear Daniel:)
The bogosity level hovering around the E-Cat is already so extreme that
further speculation pushes into the realm of Sci-Fi ... after all, I am just
re-interpreting
On 11-09-20 02:48 AM, Horace Heffner wrote:
Excuses, excuses, excuses, piled on more excuses for using methods
which produce no reliable conclusions, for taking shortcuts around
things so simple teenagers can do them, and not diligently working to
disprove claims. How sad. I suppose you
Ouch -- that sounds pretty scary. Best of luck, Horace!!
I hope you have a quick and complete recovery!
On 11-09-20 05:24 PM, Horace Heffner wrote:
I have just lost about 50% (left side) of my left eye. It may be a
retinal detachment. It seems to be coming back. I may not respond for
a
Just a few comments on your comments (parts I didn't comment on have
been snipped away)...
On 11-09-21 08:18 PM, Horace Heffner wrote:
[ ... ]
However, the graph makes no sense. There is no sign of things coming
asymptotically to an equilibrium as would be expected.
Yes, indeed. The graph
This is a nice story of a dedicated inventor making large sacrifices in
the zealous pursuit of his vision, but is there really any reason to
believe it?
Rossi has not exactly been a pinnacle of truth in the past.
Absent more information I'd tend to lump it in with the tale of the
factory
Very cool -- thank you, Steven!
If nothing else, this shoots down the old canard (often claimed by those
trying to argue that SR is just a big conspiracy) that any scientist who
actually measured a particle going faster than light would suppress the
result to avoid going against the
On 11-09-22 06:32 PM, Alexander Hollins wrote:
Note, Faster in ATMOSPHERE than light travels in ATMOSPHERE. not faster than C.
Say what?? But that would be, like, totally ordinary -- electrons do it
all the time. That's where Cherenkov radiation comes from.
It's also *not* what the
On 11-09-22 08:40 PM, Horace Heffner wrote:
This is in regard to the 7 Sept. Lewan Test of Energy Catalyzer
report. URL:
http://www.nyteknik.se/incoming/article3264365.ece/BINARY/Report+E-cat+test+September+7+%28pdf%29
http://tinyurl.com/3lqn52r
The report says: Calibration peristaltic
In fact, the questions aren't nonsense; they just need to be carefully
posed to get sensible answers out of them in a universe where SR applies.
There is a distinguished frame for the universe: The rest frame of
the three degree background radiation. There just is one inertial frame
of
On 11-09-23 03:30 PM, Dr Josef Karthauser wrote:
On 23 Sep 2011, at 00:55, Mark Iverson-ZeroPoint wrote:
My understanding of that postulate of relativity was nothing with
mass could attain or exceed C. Because, as the speed of the object
approaches C, inertial mass approaches infinity,
On 11-09-23 02:42 PM, Alexander Hollins wrote:
Wouldn't the light pulses only return at the same time if you also
were at the center of the sphere?
Sorry, I wasn't clear. The compact manifold in that case is the
*/surface/* of the sphere. And in that case, you can't be at the
center of
On 11-09-24 01:58 AM, Kyle Mcallister wrote:
[ ... ]
It should be pointed out that there are formulations of relativistic transforms
(Tangherlini, Selleri, etc.) which allow some form of absolute reference frame,
and therefore absolute simultaneity. There is a distinct 'past' and 'future'.
And by the way...
On 11-09-24 01:58 AM, Kyle Mcallister wrote:
Now, the article goes on to say that maybe the neutrinos did some funny travel through
another dimension, and arrived at the destination sooner by taking a shortcut. So, no, they
never really traveled faster than light. This is
First, you hit a sore point here, and I'm going to address it first.
The sore point is people giving some special, unusual meaning to a
common word, and then pretending that they've done something more clever
than just introduce a monkey wrench into the discussion.
On 11-09-23 07:32 PM,
On 11-09-30 10:39 AM, OrionWorks - Steven V Johnson wrote:
From Jed:
Toyota announced a plug-in previous hybrid car will be available nationwide
starting January 1, 2012. The base price is around $32,000. Battery range is
greater than 20 km.
I assume you meant to say Prius whereas Dragon
On 11-10-03 12:38 PM, Man on Bridges wrote:
Hi,
On 2-10-2011 14:25, Horace Heffner wrote:
In other words, if there is any possibility of failure, i.e. q1,
then repeated events eventually, much more quickly than ordinary
common sense dictates, result in failure. For example, if the
On 11-10-05 03:55 PM, Harry Veeder wrote:
When the wires have nothing holding them together or apart there is no
opposition. In any case you do not answer my question which I will rephrase: if
the electricity is used to power a motor, and the same electricity is used to
compress or stretch
On 11-10-07 09:30 AM, Jed Rothwell wrote:
I wrote:
Someone else suggested that there might be a Castro gas hidden in the
table leg.
A canister of gas, for crying out loud.
A... Thanks for the correction.
I was thinking this must be yet another odd thingy which I'd never heard
of
On 11-10-07 11:03 AM, Jed Rothwell wrote:
I wrote:
You say there was [a 0.1°C bias] between the inlet and outlet
thermocouples. That is also a disgrace. It is ridiculous. Such things
are easily corrected, and should be corrected before the test begins.
[Dedicated, computer-based
Golly... I finally looked, very briefly, at the Nyteknik report. (I've
been, and am, tied up with other stuff these days.)
For some reason I had assumed it was friendly to Rossi.
The report is eight pages long, and uses the word supposedly seven
times. I'm not used to seeing that word used
On 11-10-09 09:39 PM, Horace Heffner wrote:
Here are some charts of possible interest.
...
It appears the RF power was ramped up at 16:38 (326 min)and down at
18:53 (461 min). The T2 curve mysteriously responds, despite the
input RF power being nominal. The thermal mass of the metal and
On 11-10-10 11:04 AM, Joe Catania wrote:
Newton's Law is irrelevant. Your the type of buffoon who ...
And you, /Mister/ Catania, are apparently the type of poster who resorts
to ad hominems when he's having trouble expressing himself clearly
enough to get his point across.
Jed's may be a
On 11-10-10 12:33 PM, Stephen A. Lawrence wrote:
On 11-10-10 11:04 AM, Joe Catania wrote:
Newton's Law is irrelevant. Your the type of buffoon who ...
And you, /Mister/ Catania, are apparently the type of poster who
resorts to ad hominems when he's having trouble expressing himself
On 11-10-10 11:56 AM, Horace Heffner wrote:
I continue to update the review at:
http://www.mtaonline.net/~hheffner/Rossi6Oct2011Review.pdf
Thanks, Horace!
There's a lot of light reading there, and I can't claim to have read
all of it as yet -- very nice analysis.
I found out I need
On 11-10-10 10:58 AM, OrionWorks - Steven V Johnson wrote:
From Stephen:
Mysterious RF oscillators with undocumented connections
and functions add so much interest to the question of
How It Works
Has Rossi become the New Ron Stiffler?
I'm inclined to think that Stephen's speculation
On 11-10-10 01:14 PM, OrionWorks - Steven V Johnson wrote:
I'm reminded of something recently stated over at the PESN web site,
author, Hank Mills:
See:
http://pesn.com/2011/10/08/9501929_E-Cat_Test_Validates_Cold_Fusion_Despite_Challenges/
http://tinyurl.com/6a7zcw2
Specifically:
No
On 11-10-10 04:35 PM, Robert Leguillon wrote:
If someone Couldn't care less, it means that they care so little
that it's impossible for them to care any less than they do right now.
If someone Could care less, it means that they care enough that it's
possible to care less.
On 11-10-12 03:38 PM, Peter Heckert wrote:
Another possibility is to make a small modification to each component:
Measure the flow rate a little bit wrong, measure temperatures a
little bit wrong, calculate a little bit wrong, introduce so much
errors and inaccuracies that a single one -if
OMG -- of course! You can't synchronize (all) clocks on the Earth's
surface -- it's a rotating frame, and Sagnac comes around and bites you
on the bumm if you try! Yet by using the GPS satellite signals, which
are available everywhere, they were doing essentially that: using a
universal time
system, then
you've automatically failed to take account of the motion of the Earth's
surface.
Maybe their problem was more subtle than this, but it doesn't sound like it.
2011/10/14 Stephen A. Lawrence sa...@pobox.com mailto:sa...@pobox.com
OMG -- of course! You can't synchronize (all
-14 03:11 PM, Daniel Rocha wrote:
They do take account of that.
-- Forwarded message --
From: *Stephen A. Lawrence* sa...@pobox.com mailto:sa...@pobox.com
Date: 2011/10/14
Subject: Re: [Vo]:CERN clocks subatomic particles traveling faster
than light
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
On 11-09-26 01:56 AM, Dr Josef Karthauser wrote:
On 23 Sep 2011, at 20:46, Stephen A. Lawrence wrote:
On 11-09-23 03:30 PM, Dr Josef Karthauser wrote:
From first principles if one starts with the notion that everyone
should see light as travelling at the same speed, then a simple
On 11-10-14 05:58 PM, Man on Bridges wrote:
Hi,
On 14-10-2011 21:04, Stephen A. Lawrence wrote:
The point is they're using a time value which is universal. An
observer hanging in space, stationary, directly over the pole,
looking down at GPS receivers all over the Earth would see
On 11-10-14 09:44 PM, Harry Veeder wrote:
On Fri, Oct 14, 2011 at 2:50 PM, Stephen A. Lawrencesa...@pobox.com wrote:
Using clocks in another frame (the GPS clocks) to synchronize the clocks in
the rotating frame (on the surface of the earth) just adds confusion, it
doesn't avoid the problem,
On 11-10-16 10:18 PM, Harry Veeder wrote:
As you can hear from the nervous laughter in the video Steorn staff
like to joke, but do you still think Steorn's Orbo is a joke?
Yup. (Joke, scam, fake -- pick your term, they all apply.)
This is another typical Steorn production -- nothing's
On 11-10-17 03:50 PM, OrionWorks - Steven V Johnson wrote:
Robert,
You state:
You [Mr. Rothwell] may disagree, and now be 100% convinced, but it's your
personal attacks that are troubling.
Where has Mr. Rothwell attacked you personally?
Well, if Robert is claiming that there was no
On 11-10-18 04:13 PM, pagnu...@htdconnect.com wrote:
George Miley (U. of Illinois) recent published a Powerpoint presentation
(dated Oct-3-2011 on Google) entitled
Nuclear Battery Using D-Clusters in Nano-materials ---
plus some comments about prior H2-Ni power cell studies
at the following
On 11-10-18 07:34 PM, pagnu...@htdconnect.com wrote:
Yes. I think you are correct.
The slides' text is terse. It does appear that the more current
experiments fall short of Patterson's results. But, unless the reaction
products have been measured incorrectly, some anomalous nuclear
On 11-10-18 10:13 PM, Jed Rothwell wrote:
Again, I told him that. He response was to accuse me of sabotaging his
work, and to blame me for his decision to make the Oct. 28 test
private.
So this test is to be private?
What does that mean, really? Does it mean we'll have to take the word
On 11-10-21 02:37 PM, Jed Rothwell wrote:
Here is a containership engine:
http://www.emma-maersk.com/engine/Wartsila_Sulzer_RTA96-C.htm
Very cool!
It appears to be an internal combustion engine, which seems bizarre. I
thought super high scale power was all generated with external
On 11-10-21 03:39 PM, Terry Blanton wrote:
On Fri, Oct 21, 2011 at 2:59 PM, Stephen A. Lawrencesa...@pobox.com wrote:
Any idea where the beast is actually
made?
Would you believe Finland?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/W%C3%A4rtsil%C3%A4
No way! That's a surprise, all right!
And the
On 11-10-21 03:45 PM, Terry Blanton wrote:
On Fri, Oct 21, 2011 at 3:39 PM, Terry Blantonhohlr...@gmail.com wrote:
On Fri, Oct 21, 2011 at 2:59 PM, Stephen A. Lawrencesa...@pobox.com wrote:
Any idea where the beast is actually
made?
Would you believe Finland?
On 11-10-24 01:22 PM, Jed Rothwell wrote:
Let us think of Rossi in terms of how he would fit into the great
works of literature and drama. Think of the role that would best fit
his larger-than-life persona. Merlin? Prospero? John Galt?
Bernard Madoff comes first to mind.
But then, one
On 11-10-24 03:17 PM, Jed Rothwell wrote:
Stephen A. Lawrence sa...@pobox.com mailto:sa...@pobox.com wrote:
On 11-10-24 01:22 PM, Jed Rothwell wrote:
Let us think of Rossi in terms of how he would fit into the
great works of literature and drama. Think of the role
On 11-10-25 10:40 AM, Jed Rothwell wrote:
Andrea Rossi said to reporters:
We do not use radioactive materials, do not leave radioactive
material and the highes temperature we can reach is the melting
point of nickel : once the nickel melts, the E-Cat stops and this
fact makes
On 11-10-29 12:06 PM, Jed Rothwell wrote:
Peter Gluck peter.gl...@gmail.com mailto:peter.gl...@gmail.com wrote:
I will make a people search for the US.
He appears to be Italian. Why would he be registered in the U.S?
Registered as what?
I've worked as an engineer in the U.S. and I
On 11-10-31 09:15 AM, vorl bek wrote:
A while back, somebody here did a rough calculation that, given
the size of the outlet in the 1mw ecat, steam would have to be
flying out of it at greater than the speed of sound if it were
really putting out 1mw.
Since there were two outlets from the
On 11-10-31 04:30 PM, Peter Heckert wrote:
Am 31.10.2011 21:17, schrieb Jed Rothwell:
Peter Heckert wrote:
I cannot imagine this heating energy being compressed on some m^3
small space without becoming very hot.
There must be an air flow of 4 m^3 / s if 20° air is heated to 100°
(without
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
On 11-11-01 10:25 PM, Rich Murray wrote:
Steven A. Lawrence has presented a new argument,
No I didn't. (No credit where no credit is due, please.) It's the same
argument that's been bashed around for the last how-ever-many months.
I think it's vanishingly unlikely that the power level
On 11-11-01 10:36 PM, Terry Blanton wrote:
On Tue, Nov 1, 2011 at 10:25 PM, Rich Murrayrmfor...@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.
Boy, that sure saves a lot of
On 11-11-02 02:22 PM, Man on Bridges wrote:
Hi,
On 2-11-2011 19:07, Stephen A. Lawrence wrote:
On 11-11-01 10:25 PM, Rich Murray wrote:
Steven A. Lawrence has presented a new argument,
No I didn't. (No credit where no credit is due, please.) It's the
same argument that's been bashed
On 11-11-01 09:36 PM, Jed Rothwell wrote:
Stephen A. Lawrence sa...@pobox.com mailto: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
On 11-11-02 04:48 PM, Jed Rothwell wrote:
Stephen A. Lawrence wrote:
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.
This is, of course, all old stuff being reiterated here
On 11-11-03 03:41 PM, Jed Rothwell wrote:
I wrote:
The colonel and others who know a lot about steam have all said
that they are certain this was dry steam.
I mean that he said that about Rossi's previous tests. And this one too.
There is no doubt the Oct. 28 test produced only dry
On 11-11-03 04:20 PM, Stephen A. Lawrence wrote:
On 11-11-03 03:41 PM, Jed Rothwell wrote:
I wrote:
The colonel and others who know a lot about steam have all said
that they are certain this was dry steam.
I mean that he said that about Rossi's previous tests. And this one too
On 11-11-06 10:10 PM, Terry Blanton wrote:
Earlier, I asked if AR would fulfill his promise to send money to
fight childhood cancer. Well, it seems someone else also wonders.
klaatu
November 6th, 2011 at 12:30 PM
Dear Dr. Rossi
Thank you again for the considerate answer to the previous
On 11-11-07 09:12 AM, Jed Rothwell wrote:
Stephen A. Lawrence sa...@pobox.com mailto:sa...@pobox.com wrote:
Eh? This will make it impossible to verify that the anything was
given to anybody, and we'll just have to take Rossi's word for it,
right?
Or we can not take his word
Quick question, Horace: Are you going for the 470kW which was claimed,
or are you working with a reduced number?
The 470 value seems to have been predicated, once again, on total
vaporization of the input water. If that didn't take place then the
generated power may have been substantially
On 11-11-07 09:35 AM, Jed Rothwell wrote:
Stephen A. Lawrence sa...@pobox.com mailto:sa...@pobox.com wrote:
That is true up to the moment when he makes public commitments as
to what he's doing with it.
As he has done.
What commitments? Has he signed a contract?
Excuse me -- I
On 11-11-07 01:42 PM, Jed Rothwell wrote:
Stephen A. Lawrence sa...@pobox.com mailto:sa...@pobox.com wrote:
1. As I said before, I have never seen Rossi lie about
engineering technical claims.
Granted that's not a blanket defense but it certainly can be
applied to lots
On 11-11-07 02:29 PM, Jed Rothwell wrote:
Stephen A. Lawrence wrote:
Isotope shifts!?! I must have said a hundred times these shifts make
no sense and I suppose they are errors.
Sorry! I thought you had defended that one. (It was, after all, one
of Rossi's technical claims, as I recall
Ah -- Sorry, Horace, disregard my question. I overlooked the fact that
you're ignoring the Oct 28 test, which was the (alleged) 470kW run.
(In any case, you obviously are well aware of the heat-of-vaporization
issues.)
On 11-11-07 09:25 AM, Stephen A. Lawrence wrote:
Quick question, Horace
On 11-11-09 11:21 AM, Jeff Sutton wrote:
Hello. I have been following Rossi and the posts since the beginning
and am very fascinated.
Rather than a fraud, I believe Rossi is on to something incrementally
better than those that came before. He has more success starting the
reaction, however
1 - 100 of 1901 matches
Mail list logo
