"
*Please try to be logically consistent and if you contradict the story of
above, give proofs, not suppositions. OK?"The burden of proof is on Rossi.
He's the one making a bold assertion, and must therefore prove it. To date,
we have seen nothing that would prove this effect; though I think the
On 08/26/2016 05:39 PM, Jed Rothwell wrote:
Actually, that is central to the legal questions. People on Planet
Rossi have the peculiar notion that contracts are enforced based
strictly on the words in them. If you can write a clever enough
contract, you can force someone to pay you no
Eric Walker writes:
> ... It's now time
> for you to pay up. Suppose for the sake of argument that the thing did
> in fact flibbertygibbet. If you're being realistic, would you hand
> over the money, given that you've had good reason in other contexts to
> think that the
That the client is no longer in business at the end of the 350 day test,
is telling...
Craig
On 08/14/2016 09:11 PM, Giovanni Santostasi wrote:
Here a picture and information about the "customer" warehouse. It is
only 6000 square feet and the height is 20 feet.
Let's do a Fermi problem to
On 08/11/2016 06:21 PM, Che wrote:
But this is the point: You can't prove that we live in an
Objective Universe. You can't prove that you're not in some
computer simulation, and that the people around you are real. You
can't prove your axioms. That's why they're axioms. We
On 08/11/2016 05:47 PM, Che wrote:
On Thu, Aug 11, 2016 at 2:22 PM, Craig Haynie
<cchayniepub...@gmail.com <mailto:cchayniepub...@gmail.com>> wrote:
Actually, you have to have faith in an objective Universe.
Craig
Having faith in things which can be prove
>>>The word "faithful" has no place in science or engineering.
- Jed
Actually, you have to have faith in an objective Universe.
Craig
On 07/03/2016 08:25 PM, Jed Rothwell wrote:
a.ashfield > wrote:
But I have reason whatsoever to believe that somebody's idea of
how Rossi could cheat was actually implemented.
Yes, you do have a clear idea. The person who told
No way Rossi's actions are fraud, from reselling the licensing, (unless
he has a known faulty product). The best IH can hope for is a null
contract; not the rights to the IP.
On 07/01/2016 03:59 PM, Bob Higgins wrote:
It is interesting and self-destructive that Rossi appears to have
>>> Now over time, huge amounts of power are being produced that are
beyond chemical means, so the cause must be nuclear. Mills must have
been doing LENR experiments for the last 25 years but with the huge
increase in SunCell power levels only LENR can explain what is happening
inside the
.
To me, this really makes him look bad. If he's legitimate, he needs to
push this new discovery aside, and get something out as soon as possible
to maintain any kind of credibility.
Craig
On 06/17/2016 04:06 PM, Craig Haynie wrote:
This is discouraging. What makes Mills special is that he
am at a loss as to how he could have discovered
another amazing energy source without using theory.
Craig
On 06/17/2016 03:57 PM, Axil Axil wrote:
From the quote, that is a conclusion that is now coming out of BLP.
On Fri, Jun 17, 2016 at 3:50 PM, Craig Haynie
<cchayniepub...@gmail.
Axil, are you saying that Mills' theory, which he has used to develop
this process, has now failed him and can no longer explain it?
Craig
On 06/17/2016 03:38 PM, Axil Axil wrote:
R, Mills has alway asserted that the energy that he sees in his
experiments were based on CHEMICAL processes
On 06/06/2016 09:50 PM, Jed Rothwell wrote:
In their motion to dismiss, I.H. mentioned multiple "reactors" that
apparently all failed. I did not know there were multiple reactors. I
know nothing about the others, but if you take their word for it,
there were multiple failures, and no
On 06/06/2016 10:26 AM, Jed Rothwell wrote:
The test proved beyond doubt that the device does not work. I repeat:
IT DOES NOT WORK. There is no excess heat. At no time in this test did
the device show excess heat. You could watch it for a half hour, or
you could collect 6 months of data
On 06/06/2016 10:01 AM, a.ashfield wrote:
Seeing that Cherokee have been having some problems, I wonder if the
failure to pay Rossi $89 million is partly because they are short of
ready money.
This makes the most sense to me. I don't believe there's any way they
would have continued a
There's nothing in the dispute which hinges on whether the device works,
or not. That point may never be brought up.
Craig
On 06/03/2016 10:04 AM, a.ashfield wrote:
IH has apparently sent Krivit a copy of their legal response to the
court case.
From a quick scan it doesn’t look like they
>>>It seems that there would be a way to test the hypothesis that grays are
living under the White House and get some hard data.
Why would you want to?
Craig
On Fri, May 27, 2016 at 11:19 AM, Eric Walker wrote:
> On Thu, May 26, 2016 at 10:34 PM, Stephen A. Lawrence
Learned something new today. What are "grays"?
https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/736x/92/65/96/926596fc73fadc74a03a639b60968884.jpg
Craig
On 05/17/2016 10:30 PM, Jed Rothwell wrote:
Now that you know Rossi explicitly refused to allow an inspection of
the customer's equipment, you should realize he has zero credibility,
and you should not believe a word he says.
I've got to object to this statement; not that I believe, or
WHAT? Sorry, but this isn't what I quoted. Something is playing tricks.
Nevermind...
Craig
On 05/16/2016 07:03 PM, Craig Haynie wrote:
On 05/16/2016 06:46 PM, Jed Rothwell wrote:
This building is 10,800 sq. ft.
Not that it changes much, but according to Mats, the building was
1,000
On 05/16/2016 06:46 PM, Jed Rothwell wrote:
This building is 10,800 sq. ft.
Not that it changes much, but according to Mats, the building was 1,000
sq meters, which converts to 10763.9 sq feet.
On 05/13/2016 04:20 PM, Axil Axil wrote:
What confuses the analysis of the motives of IH is that IH patented
the Lugano device, as Rossi's IP. This indicated that IH knew that
Rossi's IP worked and gave Rossi credit for it in a patent
application, I cannot figure out their motive here??? It
Russ George wrote in his article @
http://atom-ecology.russgeorge.net/2016/04/27/em-drive-rises-despite-pathoskeptic-dirge/
"The labs and Shawyer though have not been able to offer a ‘theory’ to
explain the observed experimental evidence"
As I understand it, this is not correct. Shawyer is
. Actually the heater wire itself could be part of the
heat transfer problem.
*From:*Craig Haynie
The optical imager is typically reading between an 18c and 20c difference.
Craig
Eric Walker wrote:
Interesting. I hope a post-run calibration shows that when the
fuel is removed, the active
uncertainty. This will be critical to
show before concluding anything.
Eric
On Sat, Apr 16, 2016 at 9:58 AM, Craig Haynie
<cchayniepub...@gmail.com <mailto:cchayniepub...@gmail.com>> wrote:
60c on the latest...
https://youtu.be/VLK19pllG9g?t=6278
On 04/16/2016 10
60c on the latest...
https://youtu.be/VLK19pllG9g?t=6278
On 04/16/2016 10:53 AM, Eric Walker wrote:
On Sat, Apr 16, 2016 at 2:01 AM, CB Sites > wrote:
I have to say. This one is pretty fascinating. At 1000+C they
had a delta T of 30C
difference is between 3 and 4 standard deviations from the
calibration, and 60c, (which occured for a few minutes), is over 4
standard deviations from the calibration.
Is this the correct way to calculate error?
Craig
On 04/16/2016 09:15 AM, Craig Haynie wrote:
Now 60c
On 04/16/2016 07:19 AM
Now 60c
On 04/16/2016 07:19 AM, Craig Haynie wrote:
Now 50c.
On 04/16/2016 03:01 AM, CB Sites wrote:
I have to say. This one is pretty fascinating. At 1000+C they had a
delta T of 30C between a fueled and unfueled cell that lasted for
hours, until I gave up.
On Fri, Apr 15, 2016 at 2
Now 50c.
On 04/16/2016 03:01 AM, CB Sites wrote:
I have to say. This one is pretty fascinating. At 1000+C they had a
delta T of 30C between a fueled and unfueled cell that lasted for
hours, until I gave up.
On Fri, Apr 15, 2016 at 2:35 PM, Che
This is just rhetorical, but who on the IH team made the evaluation that
the device did not perform? They didn't do any type of testing on their
own; and unless Rossi is mis-reporting Penon's report, then it wasn't
him. I doubt if it was Fulvio Fabiana. The only other person who may be
On Thu, Apr 14, 2016 at 10:14 AM, Jed Rothwell <jedrothw...@gmail.com>
wrote:
> Craig Haynie <cchayniepub...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>> It is for the courts to decide whether the omission of a clause like this
>>> prevents the application of common sen
On Thu, Apr 14, 2016 at 9:59 AM, Jed Rothwell <jedrothw...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Craig Haynie <cchayniepub...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>> IH had already paid Rossi $11.5 million, and Rossi had already given IH
>> his IP.
>>
>
> I.H. says the device does n
On Thu, Apr 14, 2016 at 9:14 AM, Eric Walker wrote:
>
> It is for the courts to decide whether the omission of a clause like this
> prevents the application of common sense...
>
But I think we agree that 'common sense' does not necessarily mean that
either side would have
On Wed, Apr 13, 2016 at 3:36 PM, Jed Rothwell wrote:
>
>
> Some people have said that Penon is the sole ERV author listed in the
> contract and therefore whatever he says must be accepted by both sides.
> Last year I.H. said they would abide by whatever he said, so now
This is a good point. IH can just as easily release the report. It's not
just Rossi's reluctance.
Craig
On 04/13/2016 06:08 PM, a.ashfield wrote:
Jed,
If the ERV report supports IH, why have they not released it?
On 04/12/2016 10:00 PM, Jed Rothwell wrote:
[...] and according to I.H. the 1-year test did not work.
How would they know? Did Rossi let them do another independent test
after they signed the agreement? The 'independent ERV test' was the
definitive test. IH released their pessimistic
There is one thing I want to bring up, and why I give Rossi any chance
at having something interesting...
Mats Lewan mentioned this in his latest blog, and I had thought I lost
track of this test from 2011. After the test, the e-cat went into
heat-after-death for almost four hours. I
On 04/12/2016 07:59 PM, Jed Rothwell wrote:
Craig Haynie <cchayniepub...@gmail.com
<mailto:cchayniepub...@gmail.com>> wrote:
The legal case does not hinge on whether the device works. As the
agreement is worded, IH pays IF and WHEN the ERV signs a document
tha
On 04/12/2016 03:21 PM, Axil Axil wrote:
How dos a legal case handle an issue whereby everybody believes that
LENR is impossible and a pseudoscience square with the main contention
that Rossi has not revealed how LENR can be made to work? The
predicate of such a case seems crazy to me.
>>>He says he has not read the Penon report yet, so he cannot judge.
The people at I.H. have read it. At this point, we can only compare
Rossi's evaluation with I.H.'s. In my informed opinion, they are better
at calorimetry, so it is likely they are right.
Does the license agreement look like
Rossi also wants his intellectual property back. Last year, IH filed a
patent on Rossi's technology.
Craig
On 04/10/2016 09:47 PM, Jed Rothwell wrote:
Axil Axil > wrote:
IH is now being discarded,
If he is discarding I.H. why is he suing
>>>And if I were 'there', I'd too be calling for different testing.
You'd be calling for a lot more than that if you discovered that someone
was cheating you!
But asking for new testing is not part of the agreement which was signed.
There are several reasons why IH would want to default on
>>>First, there isnoproofthatIHagreedtoanyERV…
I find this to be an odd thing to believe. The license agreement
requires that both Rossi and IH agree to an ERV, and that the ERV will
evaluate the device according to criteria which are laid out. If IH
never agreed to the ERV, then why wait
Reading the license agreement, it looks to me like IH doesn't get the
option to bail if they don't agree with the result of the 350 day test.
As I read it, it looks like their only say in completing this deal,
occurred when they agreed with Rossi who would do the independent
evaluation. Once
If Industrial Heat says that the reactor doesn't work, then why did they
apply for a patent with Rossi's technology?
https://patentscope.wipo.int/search/en/detail.jsf?docId=WO2015127263=1==PCT+Biblio
https://www.google.com/patents/WO2015127263A3?cl=en
Rossi is now saying that they have
Rossi:
" I have to comment the press release of IH, being a press release and
not a forensic act.
They made the Lugano reactor ( they also signed it ) they made many
replications of which we have due record and witnesses, they made
multiple patent applications ( without my authotization )
On 04/07/2016 09:50 PM, Daniel Rocha wrote:
I am actually trying to defend Rossi, because this time is a big deal.
According to the terms of the contract and IH, Rossi only got
1.5million, and nothing from the escrow account. So, for any decent
research, well, decent in terms of using
On 04/07/2016 09:36 PM, Jones Beene wrote:
*From:*Craig Haynie
ØThey also paid Rossi $10 million dollars, after validating that the
device was working…
Not exactly. The logical error is cause and effect. Yes, they paid the
installment, but elsewhere they clearly state that "Indus
On 04/07/2016 08:19 PM, Daniel Rocha wrote:
But now that IH said they could not get Rossi to prove anything, Rossi
shouldn't have got anything. And note that the claim that the
experiment prove anything came from Rossi's side. So, we are
concluding that he got 10 million based on what "Rossi
On 04/07/2016 08:00 PM, Daniel Rocha wrote:
Isnt the 10 million on an escrow account? As far as I understood, IH
even bought a unit before completing the reactor.
The $10 million was on escrow at the beginning, until IH validated that
the machine was working, and producing at least 6 COP.
You're right. I have made two mistakes in two days. Something's wrong.
I'm just not concentrating on what I'm writing. :)
Craig
On 04/07/2016 07:54 PM, Robert Dorr wrote:
It wasn't a month long test, it was a 24 hour test performed in
Ferrara Italy. I keep seeing that supposedly I.H. was
They also paid Rossi $10 million dollars after validating that the
device was working for a month.
Craig
On 04/07/2016 06:54 PM, Daniel Rocha wrote:
"Industrial Heat has worked for over three years to substantiate the
results claimed by Mr. Rossi from the E-Cat technology – all without
I agree; the $10 million was paid. Sorry for the confusion.
On Thu, Apr 7, 2016 at 11:39 AM, Blaze Spinnaker <blazespinna...@gmail.com>
wrote:
>
>
> On Thu, Apr 7, 2016 at 8:21 AM, Craig Haynie <cchayniepub...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>> See section 3.2(b).
See section 3.2(b). The $10,000,000 is held in escrow.
http://www.sifferkoll.se/sifferkoll/wp-content/uploads/2016/04/Rossi_et_al_v_Darden_et_al__flsdce-16-21199__0001.2.pdf
On Thu, Apr 7, 2016 at 8:22 AM, Blaze Spinnaker
wrote:
> "I think the fight is over the $10
aig
On 04/06/2016 11:57 PM, Jones Beene wrote:
-Original Message-----
From: Craig Haynie
Actually, this whole mystery could be the result of a failure by IH to raise
the expected $89 million to finalize the deal.
Maybe, but if Rossi really has the goods ... given that useless concepts like
"‘The attached photo has been made in our factory in Miami, Florida, and
is related to the plant “E-Cat the New Fire” manufactured by Leonardo
Corporation to supply thermal energy’"
From 2015:
http://www.e-catworld.com/2015/05/05/new-image-of-the-e-cat-plant-on-trademark-application/
Craig
Actually, this whole mystery could be the result of a failure by IH to
raise the expected $89 million to finalize the deal. This might explain
why they took this to the end of the trial.
Craig
Here's something I found interesting in the lawsuit. During the test, IH
had hired two people to monitor the test, and they were kept well
informed of its progress. I wonder if they signed the document, as well?
"67.
During the Guaranteed Performance Test period, IH and/or IPH engaged and
And the winner is Jone Beene!!
"I have recently re-read the Pinon report, which is an absolute mockery
of the scientific system, and if Pinon turns out to be the ERV, then we
are in the early stages of a gigantic lawsuit. "
Craig
On 03/31/2016 08:54 PM, Jones Beene wrote:
I have
This doesn't make any sense. If there was some kind of thrust being
developed in the ecat, along the lines of the emdrive, then no one would
ever know. If no one tries to measure it, they'll never see it, or
suspect it.
Craig
On 04/04/2016 10:00 AM, Ron Kita wrote:
Greetings Vortex-L,
I
have people who've purchased these machines, come out in unison that
they're all amazed at how much money they're saving. Neither Rossi, nor
Mills, seem to be interested in the former.
Craig
On 03/31/2016 07:35 PM, Jed Rothwell wrote:
Craig Haynie <cchayniepub...@gmail.com
<mailto:cchay
To be a little more clear, I don't think Rossi is going to provide any
proof for anyone, other than his investors -- assuming he does indeed
have something. This report is probably an engineering report. What he
needs to know before selling these expensive machines, is the knowledge
that they
Rossi has released a lot more than Mills, and they both seem to be on
similar paths. Like Rossi, Mills is planning to start selling next year.
If Rossi starts selling, that will be all the proof he needs.
Craig
This won't be resolved completely until Rossi sells a few of these things.
Craig
On Wed, Mar 30, 2016 at 10:48 AM, Stephen Cooke
wrote:
> Thanks for the thought provoking post… I agree.
>
> Group think and consensus can be more powerful, more widespread and more
>
This is an interesting video. He takes a load off of the Orbo, and
watches the voltage increase.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_UbKcgyCVzI#t=14.024172
Craig
On 03/28/2016 10:33 PM, Craig Haynie wrote:
http://www.e-catworld.com/2016/03/29/ecw-orbo-testing-week-8-orbo-cell-now-behaving
http://www.e-catworld.com/2016/03/29/ecw-orbo-testing-week-8-orbo-cell-now-behaving-according-to-steorns-claims/
Craig
Rossi is the man in the lead?
Unless Mills is lying, he is miles ahead of Rossi. If this is the case,
then all Mills has to do is walk up and claim his Nobel prize.
Craig
On 03/25/2016 09:40 AM, Ron Kita wrote:
Nice presentation..I almost missed it:
"Acceleration produces a force. Force times distance = energy. "
I am aware that this is a well-vetted, common equation; but if used in
this case, then an object accelerating at 1 m/s^2 for 10 seconds, and
travelling at 200 m/s, with respect to a common point, would require
approximately
This doesn't make any sense:
"For a given acceleration period, the higher the mean velocity, the
longer the distance travelled, hence the higher the energy lost by the
engine."
Since we're not talking about relativistic speeds, then the idea that a
device will consume more energy, over a
One advantage the EMDrive has over LENR, is that it's fairly replicable.
The amateurs can do it.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Rbf7735o3hQ
Craig
Reading between the lines... Does it sound like they're preparing us for
a negative report on Rossi's one year test?
Craig
On Thu, 2016-03-10 at 11:32 -0500, Jed Rothwell wrote:
> [Marianne Macy asked me to post this]
>
>
> The following statement has been released from Industrial Heat for
>
The number is a little too perfect, don't you think?
8,400,000 kwh / 350 days / 24 hours/day = exactly 1.000 mw of power
output.
Craig
On Fri, 2016-03-04 at 19:57 +0200, Peter Gluck wrote:
>
>
> do not take this literally
>
>
> I bet we will have more info tomorrow or even later today
>
>
On Wed, 2016-02-24 at 06:43 -0800, Jones Beene wrote:
> What am I missing?
>
Gamma Rays!
Craig
From: Martin Fleischmann Memorial Project QuantumHeat.org
[mailto:m.fleischmann.memor...@gmail.com]
Sent: Tuesday, February 23, 2016 7:13 PM
To: Martin Fleischmann Memorial Project QuantumHeat.org
Subject: We. did. it... together.
Dear Donor,
During ICCF-17 in
On Sun, 2016-02-14 at 20:33 -0500, Jed Rothwell wrote:
> I am glad to see people paying attention to this issue. I hope it is
> not politicized. Many people feel that that work is a moral issue;
> that able-bodied people who do not work should not be given
> sustenance. This was a reasonable
On Thu, 2016-01-28 at 09:30 -0800, Jones Beene wrote:
> Mills does not want to address the problem of having no verifiable
> data to share.
>
As we've seen from previous attempts, there is no such thing as
verifiable data at a public demonstration. Everything will be
questioned, and nothing can
"Energy is roughly 10Wh"
They're saying it will self-recharge indefinitely.
Craig
On Thu, Oct 29, 2015 at 1:54 AM, Teslaalset
wrote:
> Price is 1200 Euro
> Power generation is 0.4W
> Energy is roughly 10Wh
> Weight is 300 grams, most of it is due to the aluminum
"Perhaps the Steorn device also has a lithium battery to account for its
higher cost."
Yes, they said it has a lithium battery in their presentation. Supposedly,
the battery recharges continuously.
Craig
On Thu, Oct 29, 2015 at 10:44 AM, Teslaalset
wrote:
> Bob,
On Mon, 2015-10-19 at 17:26 -0400, Jed Rothwell wrote:
> Note that this work was done in the 1990s, so it was not affected by
> Rossi.
The paper references work in the 90s, but the paper and the latest work,
is current.
Craig
>
>
What am I missing here? Is hydrogen not really necessary for this reaction?
Then why was it considered so important?
Craig
On Fri, Oct 16, 2015 at 8:21 PM, Hoyt A. Stearns Jr.
wrote:
> Add some BORAX to the water, I hear that's even better.
>
> -Original
On Thu, 2015-08-13 at 17:57 +0100, Ian Walker wrote:
Hi all
In all honesty we need to consider a post capitalism world.
http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/video/2015/aug/12/paul-mason-capitalism-failing-time-to-panic-video?CMP=fb_us
There are only two types of economies that have
On Thu, 2015-08-13 at 06:11 -0800, Lennart Thornros wrote:
deflation in 1929 was because people stopped buying goods, buying
work, to look less indepbted.
No. Deflation in 1929 - 1933 was due to the Federal Reserve's response
to a gold run. At the time, the US dollar was still considered to be
On Thu, 2015-08-13 at 09:48 -0500, Orionworks - Steven Vincent Johnson
wrote:
The appeal for gold is based on an illusion that gold has some kind of
mystical value of its own, as if the it was ordained by God.
Opinions and desires can't be universalized, but I believe that most of
the people
Electric cars in the 90s were only built as a result of the California
mandate. There was no demand for them back then.
Now, with improved technology, and much higher gas prices, a lot of
people are starting to like the idea and the market is becoming viable.
Craig
On Thu, 2015-06-18 at 12:15 -0700, Bob Cook wrote:
My bet is on Industrial Heat. I think they have a more urgent
attachment of their objective of producing something useful for
society—more philanthropic IMHO.
Unless Mills is committing fraud, then he's miles ahead of everyone
else. He has
The MFMP data is really compelling. As the temperature rises; as the
internal pressure drops, the difference between the fueled cell and the
control gets wider.
https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/u/1/d/15ODbN9Oq6Pjyp9A61hdX0-fBJIXBBKMk7Ei06PzTc-Q/htmlview?sle=true#gid=1291075296
Craig
On Sat,
On Thu, 2015-05-14 at 13:01 -0500, David L. Babcock wrote:
The way to the stars better be an under-$1000 Portal in every village.
Spaceships are too frigin expensive to move any but a tiny fraction of
our billions.
Expensive? That thinking is so... 20th century. :)
Cheap energy makes
Why concentrate upon a very special case instead of the more general
applications for these drives? Hovering is useful, but it is not going to
enable one to travel among the stars.
Hovering gives us flying cars.
On Tue, May 12, 2015 at 1:50 AM, John Berry berry.joh...@gmail.com wrote:
Yes,
this in one second. So it
agrees
with the previous result.
So, I don't understand how any device could hover an object with the
mass
of a tonne for less than a theoretical 48 kilowatts. Any thoughts on
this
would be appreciated.
Craig Haynie ( Manchester, NH)
Regards
Thanks Robin. You're right. He does say that this force of 1 tonne per
kilowatt is for 'static thrust'.
I found an answer from the website. He is referring specifically to a
'static thrust', not used to do work.
The static thrust/power ratio is calculated assuming a superconducting
EmDrive with
with the previous result.
So, I don't understand how any device could hover an object with the mass
of a tonne for less than a theoretical 48 kilowatts. Any thoughts on this
would be appreciated.
Craig Haynie ( Manchester, NH)
be appreciated.
Craig Haynie ( Manchester, NH)
Regards,
Robin van Spaandonk
http://rvanspaa.freehostia.com/project.html
My opinion is that this was the best documented, reported, and
instrumented Parkhomov replication experiment to date. There are sure
to be better experiments to come, but lets give Alan his due for
putting together a good experiment.
Hear, Hear!
My comments sounded more negative that I
MFMP didn't show COP1, with the dog bone test, last night
It was a bit more disappointing than that. They didn't seem to have a
clear understanding of the protocol. They leveled the temperature at 855
C, initially; then decided it should be leveled at 875 C. Then they
decided to raise it
.
I think you have the papers published by Alexander till now, isn't it?
What is especially interesting you?
Greetings,
Peter
On Sun, Mar 22, 2015 at 1:52 PM, Craig Haynie cchayniepub...@gmail.com
wrote:
Did Parkhomov publish his experimental protocol? If so, how can I get a
hold
Did Parkhomov publish his experimental protocol? If so, how can I get a
hold of it?
Craig
On Sun, Mar 22, 2015 at 2:56 AM, Peter Gluck peter.gl...@gmail.com wrote:
Dear Friends,
The good news have arrived when I was sleeping, however they are really
good and bring the promise of even
Pressure inside the dog bone is calculated to have been near 19,861 psi
at the time of failure.
https://docs.google.com/document/d/1BWYbi6tBHcjZ4PyQ0BaWn-G1NkdQdkirb-_Qx2HypKs/edit
Craig
Short segment showing the explosion.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dDfRaDY2R_Afeature=youtu.be
Craig
They just ran a test with a live rossi core, and the reactor exploded
and broke just as it entered the range where they were expecting the
LENR effect to begin. Temp was around 1010C or thereabouts, around 3:45
on the clock.
1 - 100 of 295 matches
Mail list logo