On Sat, Nov 19, 2011 at 12:07 AM, David Roberson dlrober...@aol.com wrote:
Here I do not agree that the ECAT is filled 11 times during the test. I
obtain 3 grams/ECAT / 1.7539 grams/seconds = 17105 seconds/ECAT. This
is 4.75 hours to empty one cat. That is only a bit more than one refill
On Sat, Nov 19, 2011 at 12:17 AM, David Roberson dlrober...@aol.com wrote:
I have a report that is in the hands of Ny Teknik that shows my
calculations for the October test. The results come very close to what
Rossi claims for his 3 core ECAT that is used in the 1 MW plant.
I'm not
Joshua, when I look at the pictures of the 1 MW module, I see an awful
lot of pipes, tubes, valves and connections. Now pipes etc. are quite
removed from my trade, so maybe it is obvious to you how everything is
connected, but it seems to me that you are making lots of assumptions
on how the
On Sat, Nov 19, 2011 at 12:07 AM, David Roberson dlrober...@aol.com wrote:
Here I do not agree that the ECAT is filled 11 times during the test. I obtain
3 grams/ECAT / 1.7539 grams/seconds = 17105 seconds/ECAT. This is 4.75
hours to empty one cat. That is only a bit more than one
On Sat, Nov 19, 2011 at 12:17 AM, David Roberson dlrober...@aol.com wrote:
I have a report that is in the hands of Ny Teknik that shows my calculations
for the October test. The results come very close to what Rossi claims for his
3 core ECAT that is used in the 1 MW plant.
I'm not
On Sat, Nov 19, 2011 at 7:44 AM, Berke Durak berke.du...@gmail.com wrote:
As I said, steam or not steam, this thing produces lots of excess
energy. This argument hasn't been properly countered by skeptics.
Fire bricks/hot graphite/molten lead/batteries/garden gnomes etc.
are not allowable
On Sat, Nov 19, 2011 at 9:55 AM, David Roberson dlrober...@aol.com wrote:
If you claim the heating elements are submerged, then I completely agree
that if the steam were dry, fluctuations in power in the ecats would be
accommodated by fluctuations in output flow rate, and variations in the
On Sat, Nov 19, 2011 at 9:44 AM, Berke Durak berke.du...@gmail.com wrote:
so maybe it is obvious to you how everything is
connected, but it seems to me that you are making lots of assumptions
on how the structure of the system is.
No. I make very few assumptions. I am simply using the data
On Sat, Nov 19, 2011 at 11:05 AM, Joshua Cude joshua.c...@gmail.com wrote:
And the nice thing about passive energy storage, is that it allows Rossi
plausible deniability of intent to commit fraud. He can admit to some
storage, but his claim was based on dry steam, which he can insist he
On Sat, Nov 19, 2011 at 1:34 PM, Mary Yugo maryyu...@gmail.com wrote:
On Sat, Nov 19, 2011 at 11:05 AM, Joshua Cude joshua.c...@gmail.comwrote:
And the nice thing about passive energy storage, is that it allows Rossi
plausible deniability of intent to commit fraud. He can admit to some
On Sat, Nov 19, 2011 at 11:43 AM, Joshua Cude joshua.c...@gmail.com wrote:
On Sat, Nov 19, 2011 at 11:05 AM, Joshua Cude joshua.c...@gmail.comwrote:
And the nice thing about passive energy storage, is that it allows Rossi
plausible deniability of intent to commit fraud. He can admit to some
Ooops... Correction to my last post: a prosecution would be a criminal
action and I was describing a civil law suit. I can see both civil suits
(if there are investors or even customers) and criminal prosecution as
possible if the E-cat turns out to be fraudulent rather than real.
On Sat, Nov 19, 2011 at 2:34 PM, Mary Yugo maryyu...@gmail.com wrote:
Maybe it does for some of the public demos but it hardly takes him off the
hook for the claim of a 35 kW heater that ran for a year
. . .
You shall see evidence of this . . . SOON! :-)
...@gmail.com
To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com
Sent: Sat, Nov 19, 2011 1:18 pm
Subject: Re: [Vo]:High school physics says 1 GJ excess energy for the Oct. 28
demo
On Sat, Nov 19, 2011 at 9:55 AM, David Roberson dlrober...@aol.com wrote:
If you claim the heating elements are submerged
On Sat, Nov 19, 2011 at 7:59 PM, David Roberson dlrober...@aol.com wrote:
Unless you have a change of attitude, I will not devote any more energy in
trying to teach you how the system works. Your mind is closed.
Again, with the condescension. But that kind of statement actually shows
that it
On Fri, Nov 18, 2011 at 1:34 AM, Harry Veeder hveeder...@gmail.com wrote:
You used a thermodynamic argument in one location to reject a measurement
at a different location. This is a rejection of a measurement based on
an implausibility,
rather than on deficiencies of the instrumentation.
On Fri, Nov 18, 2011 at 10:12 AM, Joshua Cude joshua.c...@gmail.com wrote:
On Fri, Nov 18, 2011 at 1:34 AM, Harry Veeder hveeder...@gmail.com wrote:
Rossi's reaction might be boiling water by
removing cold, rather than by adding heat.
OK, I can see this is a waste of time.
As Josh walks
Cude joshua.c...@gmail.com
To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com
Sent: Fri, Nov 18, 2011 10:15 am
Subject: Re: [Vo]:High school physics says 1 GJ excess energy for the Oct. 28
demo
On Fri, Nov 18, 2011 at 1:34 AM, Harry Veeder hveeder...@gmail.com wrote:
You used a thermodynamic argument in one
On Fri, Nov 18, 2011 at 9:20 AM, Terry Blanton hohlr...@gmail.com wrote:
As Josh walks away shaking his head, I'll just say, on behalf of
Harry, that this is exactly what P.A.M. Dirac discovered in his famous
energy equations: [...]
So, let me ask you: If the temperature of the output
On Fri, Nov 18, 2011 at 10:52 AM, Joshua Cude joshua.c...@gmail.com wrote:
So, let me ask you:
I have made my personal position on Rossi's turning water into whine
very clear several months ago. I find all this chatter just so much
pink noise.
T
: Fri, Nov 18, 2011 10:55 am
Subject: Re: [Vo]:High school physics says 1 GJ excess energy for the Oct. 28
demo
On Fri, Nov 18, 2011 at 9:20 AM, Terry Blanton hohlr...@gmail.com wrote:
As Josh walks away shaking his head, I'll just say, on behalf of
Harry, that this is exactly what P.A.M
On Fri, Nov 18, 2011 at 10:20 AM, David Roberson dlrober...@aol.com wrote:
This post is completely out of touch with reality. Who has ever claimed
anything about dry steam and Rossi's device at 90 C? Why not discuss the
real world instead of dreamland?
I did discuss reality. I said it is
: [Vo]:High school physics says 1 GJ excess energy for the Oct. 28
demo
On Fri, Nov 18, 2011 at 10:20 AM, David Roberson dlrober...@aol.com wrote:
This post is completely out of touch with reality. Who has ever claimed
anything about dry steam and Rossi's device at 90 C? Why not discuss
On Fri, Nov 18, 2011 at 12:22 PM, David Roberson dlrober...@aol.com wrote:
OK, I see your reason for the post. Well, did you consider that the
measurement device could have actually shown that result?
What measurement device are you referring to? They measured the
temperature. Without
From: Joshua Cude joshua.c...@gmail.com
On Fri, Nov 18, 2011 at 12:22 PM, David Roberson dlrober...@aol.com wrote:
OK, I see your reason for the post. Well, did you consider that the
measurement device could have actually shown that result?
What measurement device are you referring to?
On Fri, Nov 18, 2011 at 1:55 PM, David Roberson dlrober...@aol.com wrote:
Of course I referred to the temperature. There are other ways to check
the quality besides pressure although that is the usual one.
Pressure can only be used to identify dry steam, if the temperature is
above the
On Fri, Nov 18, 2011 at 7:13 PM, Joshua Cude joshua.c...@gmail.com wrote:
Believers (or at least claimants) are responsible to provide data to
support their claims.
Skeptics just need to show why the data does not support the claims,
by showing the data is also consistent with another
]:High school physics says 1 GJ excess energy for the Oct. 28
demo
On Fri, Nov 18, 2011 at 7:13 PM, Joshua Cude joshua.c...@gmail.com wrote:
Believers (or at least claimants) are responsible to provide data to
support their claims.
Skeptics just need to show why the data does not support
On Fri, Nov 18, 2011 at 7:38 PM, Berke Durak berke.du...@gmail.com wrote:
For the 1MW demo, the data, as well as the claims, are provided by
Rossi et al.
IT IS THEREFORE EQUALLY EASY TO FAKE THE DATA AS TO FAKE THE CLAIMS.
This is certainly the way I feel about the 18-hour test, where
Thank you Joshua Cude, for being extremely persistent in presenting an
extremely strong case with a lucid analysis of the available data -- it may
even be that the proponents are starting to connect the dots of your
critique...
On Fri, Nov 18, 2011 at 10:36 PM, Rich Murray rmfor...@gmail.com wrote:
Thank you Joshua Cude, for being extremely persistent in presenting an
extremely strong case with a lucid analysis of the available data -- it may
even be that the proponents are starting to connect the dots of your
Murray rmfor...@comcast.net
Sent: Fri, Nov 18, 2011 10:39 pm
Subject: Re: [Vo]:High school physics says 1 GJ excess energy for the Oct. 28
demo
Thank you Joshua Cude, for being extremely persistent in presenting an
extremely strong case with a lucid analysis of the available data -- it may
On Fri, Nov 18, 2011 at 8:13 PM, David Roberson dlrober...@aol.com wrote:
If they wish to discuss one issue in depth, I will attempt to find time,
but they should be required to support their claims instead of just
suppositions.
My claims have been supported in detail. More than I can say
school physics says 1 GJ excess energy for the Oct. 28
demo
On Fri, Nov 18, 2011 at 8:13 PM, David Roberson dlrober...@aol.com wrote:
If they wish to discuss one issue in depth, I will attempt to find time, but
they should be required to support their claims instead of just suppositions
...@gmail.com
To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com
Sent: Fri, Nov 18, 2011 10:57 pm
Subject: Re: [Vo]:High school physics says 1 GJ excess energy for the Oct. 28
demo
On Fri, Nov 18, 2011 at 8:13 PM, David Roberson dlrober...@aol.com wrote:
If they wish to discuss one issue in depth, I
Dave,
Have you examined the earlier E-Cat tests? Before the Fat-Cat (or as Nasa
calls it the Ottoman, Rossi was claiming complete vaporization under
circumstances that were obviously, I mean REALLY obviously, wrong.
This is the main reason that skeptics have been referring to the condensed,
On Fri, Nov 18, 2011 at 10:54 PM, David Roberson dlrober...@aol.com wrote:
Ok, I just did some calculating about the 1% power regulation you insist
upon and it is bogus. Do you wish to prove your point?
If the output is dry steam, and the flow rate is constant, which would be
the case if the
rate much less.
These devices are different animals due to the added cores.
Dave
-Original Message-
From: Robert Leguillon robert.leguil...@hotmail.com
To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com
Sent: Sat, Nov 19, 2011 12:35 am
Subject: Re: [Vo]:High school physics says 1 GJ excess energy
On Fri, Nov 18, 2011 at 11:32 PM, Robert Leguillon
robert.leguil...@hotmail.com wrote:
Dave,
Have you examined the earlier E-Cat tests? Before the Fat-Cat (or as
Nasa calls it the Ottoman, Rossi was claiming complete vaporization under
circumstances that were obviously, I mean REALLY
On Fri, Nov 18, 2011 at 11:47 PM, David Roberson dlrober...@aol.com wrote:
But, Rossi definitely appears to have 3 cores active for the 1 MW
components. They put out at least 2 times the power in the self sustaining
mode as
the October 6 test device and the positive feedback due to core
Lets make sure we agree on the terms. Then we can proceed to discuss the
details. See below.
-Original Message-
From: Joshua Cude joshua.c...@gmail.com
To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com
Sent: Sat, Nov 19, 2011 12:45 am
Subject: Re: [Vo]:High school physics says 1 GJ excess energy
-
From: Joshua Cude joshua.c...@gmail.com
To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com
Sent: Sat, Nov 19, 2011 12:54 am
Subject: Re: [Vo]:High school physics says 1 GJ excess energy for the Oct. 28
demo
On Fri, Nov 18, 2011 at 11:32 PM, Robert Leguillon
robert.leguil...@hotmail.com wrote:
Dave
On Wed, Nov 16, 2011 at 7:28 PM, Berke Durak berke.du...@gmail.com wrote:
Joshua Cude wrote:
Actually, even if you trust F. about the energy during the run the
data is entirely consistent with no excess heat.
Not according to Ny Teknik's This is how the test was done box at
Oops, I made a mistake. We have
320 kWh x 3600 s/h = 1.15 GJ
and not 576 MJ. And Joshua Cude wrote:
As I've said before, the temperatures are consistent with 70 kW output, to
give 385 kWh total.
So Joshua is right that the figures are consistent if we suppose a hidden energy
storage
On Thu, Nov 17, 2011 at 7:56 AM, Berke Durak berke.du...@gmail.com wrote:
The problem is that I know of a storage mechanism that doesn't involve
Rossi,
Focardi, etc. conspiring to deceive and developing specific technology for
that.
How one can accidentally store 1 GJ in the modules and
On Thu, Nov 17, 2011 at 3:15 AM, Joshua Cude joshua.c...@gmail.com wrote:
So, if you trust the reported *measurements*, then they are consistent with
no excess energy at all. You have to trust their *assumptions* to get a lot
of excess energy. And their assumptions are highly implausible,
On Thu, Nov 17, 2011 at 12:09 PM, Joshua Cude joshua.c...@gmail.com wrote:
On Thu, Nov 17, 2011 at 10:57 AM, Harry Veeder hveeder...@gmail.com wrote:
On Thu, Nov 17, 2011 at 3:15 AM, Joshua Cude joshua.c...@gmail.com
wrote:
So, if you trust the reported *measurements*, then they are
If you came from a community that did not use levers and never
developed the rudiments of lever science, how would you react upon
hearing a story that one man shifted a stone with a branch that you
KNOW from the stones description should require at least 8 strong men?
Is the story a tall
At 11:45 AM 11/17/2011, Mary Yugo wrote:
I believe that is what the demand for independent university or
government tests are for.
If he offered to sell you one, on condition that you could test it to
your satisfaction before paying (clams?), would you buy it?
On Thu, Nov 17, 2011 at 12:05 PM, Alan J Fletcher a...@well.com wrote:
At 11:45 AM 11/17/2011, Mary Yugo wrote:
I believe that is what the demand for independent university or
government tests are for.
If he offered to sell you one, on condition that you could test it to your
satisfaction
On Thu, Nov 17, 2011 at 1:36 PM, Harry Veeder hveeder...@gmail.com wrote:
If you came from a community that did not use levers and never
developed the rudiments of lever science, how would you react upon
hearing a story that one man shifted a stone with a branch that you
KNOW from the stones
At 12:25 PM 11/17/2011, Mary Yugo wrote: No secrets-- just results in
terms of methods used, instruments used, raw data obtained and
computed results. No gamma spectrum or anything else he supposedly objects to.
You demand the trade secrets of everything you buy? I thought you'd
be happy
Alan J Fletcher wrote:
At 12:25 PM 11/17/2011, Mary Yugo wrote: No secrets-- just results in
terms of methods used, instruments used, raw data obtained and
computed results. No gamma spectrum or anything else he supposedly
objects to.
You demand the trade secrets of everything you buy? I
On Thu, Nov 17, 2011 at 12:55 PM, Alan J Fletcher a...@well.com wrote:
At 12:25 PM 11/17/2011, Mary Yugo wrote: No secrets-- just results in
terms of methods used, instruments used, raw data obtained and computed
results. No gamma spectrum or anything else he supposedly objects to.
You
Voice input can be annoying. I need to adjust this latest upgrade. It works
better but I get careless.
I meant to say:
Most cold fusion devices do not PRODUCE any dangerous radiation.
I said Most devices are small. Perhaps when you scale them up to kilowatts
or megawatts they do produce
At 12:55 PM 11/17/2011, Alan J Fletcher wrote:
At 12:25 PM 11/17/2011, Mary Yugo wrote: No secrets-- just results
in terms of methods used, instruments used, raw data obtained and
computed results. No gamma spectrum or anything else he supposedly objects to.
You demand the trade secrets of
Be careful what you ask for Mary. I just wish Rossi had a good sense of humor.
-Original Message-
From: Mary Yugo maryyu...@gmail.com
To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com
Sent: Thu, Nov 17, 2011 3:29 pm
Subject: Re: [Vo]:High school physics says 1 GJ excess energy for the Oct. 28
demo
On Thu, Nov 17, 2011 at 1:35 PM, David Roberson dlrober...@aol.com wrote:
Be careful what you ask for Mary.
I don't understand. Do you mean I'd be upset to get an Ecat for $100K?
Why? (oh why?)
I just wish Rossi had a good sense of humor.
I just wish he had a good sense of fairness and
? Why the broken record?
Dave
-Original Message-
From: Mary Yugo maryyu...@gmail.com
To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com
Sent: Thu, Nov 17, 2011 6:53 pm
Subject: Re: [Vo]:High school physics says 1 GJ excess energy for the Oct. 28
demo
On Thu, Nov 17, 2011 at 1:35 PM, David Roberson
On Thu, Nov 17, 2011 at 3:54 PM, Joshua Cude joshua.c...@gmail.com wrote:
On Thu, Nov 17, 2011 at 1:36 PM, Harry Veeder hveeder...@gmail.com wrote:
If you came from a community that did not use levers and never
developed the rudiments of lever science, how would you react upon
hearing a
On Thu, Nov 17, 2011 at 9:07 PM, Harry Veeder hveeder...@gmail.com wrote:
Rossi claims his device produces more energy (in the form of heat)
than it consumes (in the form of electricity). This is a performance
claim, and it should not be characterised as being more or less
plausible.
But I
On Thu, Nov 17, 2011 at 10:40 PM, Joshua Cude joshua.c...@gmail.com wrote:
On Thu, Nov 17, 2011 at 9:07 PM, Harry Veeder hveeder...@gmail.com wrote:
Rossi claims his device produces more energy (in the form of heat)
than it consumes (in the form of electricity). This is a performance
claim,
So you have water in the two 1000 l reservoirs with an average temperature of
~18 degrees (Celsius).
Output temperature was 104.5 C average.
I don't give a damn about steam. I presume the boiler wasn't operating at
sub-atmospheric pressure, right? So let's just say that the water was heated
to
Yes. I was going to say this. Thanks.
- Jed
You forgot to add the energy deposited during the heating period, about 2
hours, before the demonstration started the self-sustained mode.
On Wed, Nov 16, 2011 at 12:36 PM, Berke Durak berke.du...@gmail.com wrote:
So you have water in the two 1000 l reservoirs with an average temperature
of
~18 degrees (Celsius).
Output temperature was 104.5 C average.
I don't give a damn about steam. I presume the boiler wasn't operating at
On Wed, Nov 16, 2011 at 3:48 PM, Joshua Cude joshua.c...@gmail.com wrote:
Excess, or stored, or chemically produced?
As Albert said, the ecats were heated for 2 hours beforehand, and the power
was not given, but at 250 kW input for 2 hours, less an average of (at most)
35 kW output during that
Iron is far from the best heat storage medium. Graphite can store up to
1.5kWh/kg or nearly 3kWh/l in a vacuum enclosure. 1.5GJ from 50 modules
would only require about 16kg or 8 liters per module.
There are also a lot of high heat of fusion materials:
LiH that requires about 1.6kWh/kg to heat
On Wed, Nov 16, 2011 at 10:36 AM, Berke Durak berke.du...@gmail.com wrote:
Genset output was 66 kWh ie 238 MJ.
How do we know the genset output? It's probably capable of 8x that much.
Mary Yugo maryyu...@gmail.com wrote:
Genset output was 66 kWh ie 238 MJ.
How do we know the genset output? It's probably capable of 8x that much.
We do not know the output. We have to trust that Fioravaniti is telling the
truth. There is no way to independently verify this test. The
On Wed, Nov 16, 2011 at 2:55 PM, Berke Durak berke.du...@gmail.com wrote:
On Wed, Nov 16, 2011 at 3:48 PM, Joshua Cude joshua.c...@gmail.com
wrote:
Excess, or stored, or chemically produced?
As Albert said, the ecats were heated for 2 hours beforehand, and the
power
was not given, but at
On Wed, Nov 16, 2011 at 4:46 PM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com wrote:
Mary Yugo maryyu...@gmail.com wrote:
How do we know the genset output? It's probably capable of 8x that much.
We do not know the output. We have to trust that Fioravaniti is telling
the truth. There is no way to
On Wed, Nov 16, 2011 at 5:25 PM, Mary Yugo maryyu...@gmail.com wrote:
On Wed, Nov 16, 2011 at 10:36 AM, Berke Durak berke.du...@gmail.com wrote:
Genset output was 66 kWh ie 238 MJ.
How do we know the genset output? It's probably capable of 8x that much.
470 kVA from the nameplate in
On Wed, Nov 16, 2011 at 6:02 PM, Terry Blanton hohlr...@gmail.com wrote:
On Wed, Nov 16, 2011 at 5:25 PM, Mary Yugo maryyu...@gmail.com wrote:
On Wed, Nov 16, 2011 at 10:36 AM, Berke Durak berke.du...@gmail.com wrote:
Genset output was 66 kWh ie 238 MJ.
How do we know the genset output?
On Wed, Nov 16, 2011 at 6:03 PM, Terry Blanton hohlr...@gmail.com wrote:
Ackshully, looks more like 450 kVA.
Even is it is a 470 kVA genset, some of the skeptics are likely wrong because:
1) The measured thermal heat was 479 kW. A 470 kVA genset will not
constantly provide 479 kW and also
On Wed, Nov 16, 2011 at 5:24 PM, Terry Blanton hohlr...@gmail.com wrote:
On Wed, Nov 16, 2011 at 6:03 PM, Terry Blanton hohlr...@gmail.com wrote:
Ackshully, looks more like 450 kVA.
Even is it is a 470 kVA genset, some of the skeptics are likely wrong
because:
1) The measured thermal
On Wed, Nov 16, 2011 at 6:31 PM, Joshua Cude joshua.c...@gmail.com wrote:
Do you have a photo of the same model genset running full bore? The hinge
may only open to 80 degrees. (A peripheral point, to be sure, because
nuclear reactions are not needed to explain the observations even if the
On Wed, Nov 16, 2011 at 5:35 PM, Terry Blanton hohlr...@gmail.com wrote:
On Wed, Nov 16, 2011 at 6:31 PM, Joshua Cude joshua.c...@gmail.com
wrote:
Do you have a photo of the same model genset running full bore? The hinge
may only open to 80 degrees. (A peripheral point, to be sure, because
At 03:24 PM 11/16/2011, Terry Blanton wrote:
2) Take a look at the
exhaust cap. A genset running full bore vent
cap will be at a 90 degree angle to the exhaust pipe. In Mat's
vid,
it looks to be at about 80 degrees or less. A genset exhaust vent
cap
will open this wide on idle. Sure, a small
Joshua Cude wrote:
Actually, even if you trust F. about the energy during the run the
data is entirely consistent with no excess heat.
Not according to Ny Teknik's This is how the test was done box at
http://www.nyteknik.se/nyheter/energi_miljo/energi/article3303682.ece
Subtracting the
80 matches
Mail list logo
