Abd ul-Rahman Lomax wrote:
There is a classic demonstration, used to be common in high school
physics labs: you boil water in a paper cup, over a flame, as I recall.
A paper cup!?
Please, folks, don't stick your hand in that invisible steam. It may
only be at 100 degrees, but it's
Abd ul-Rahman Lomax wrote:
No it didn't because it wasn't public and details weren't documented.
Lost performative here. That's why Stephen and Jed are talking past
each other. Jed means confirmed for Levi and Rossi, Stephen means
didn't confirm for the rest of us. Basically, confirmed is
I wrote:
Lost performative here. That's why Stephen and Jed are talking past
each other. Jed means confirmed for Levi and Rossi, . . .
That's exactly what I meant. Obviously if you don't take Levi's word
for it, this is not proof for you.
I should have said: this is not CONFIRMATION for
From Jed:
...
Another factor is that I have some unpublished information about this test,
and about some other private tests. I do not have a huge amount of
information, but enough to give me more confidence in the results. Stephen
Lawrence does not have this information so naturally he is
OrionWorks - Steven V Johnson wrote:
Can you elaborate a little more about such unpublished information.
Nope. Sorry. Over the past year I mentioned several times that I heard
about private tests of the eCats. Some worked, others did not. Some of
the people doing these tests shared a few
At 04:59 PM 6/19/2011, Stephen A. Lawrence wrote:
On 11-06-19 04:38 PM, Abd ul-Rahman Lomax wrote:
At 11:57 AM 6/19/2011, Stephen A. Lawrence wrote:
I won't argue this with you again, Jed, I had enough trouble
getting you to admit that it's possible to have steam at higher
than 100 C at 1
At 05:32 PM 6/19/2011, Stephen A. Lawrence wrote:
Also think about how you find yourself responding to my comment. Do
you find yourself imagining that I have a motive,
You must have a motive but I can't imagine what it is.
(It never, in a million years, would have occurred to me that you
At 10:52 AM 6/20/2011, Jed Rothwell wrote:
Abd ul-Rahman Lomax wrote:
There is a classic demonstration, used to be
common in high school physics labs: you boil
water in a paper cup, over a flame, as I recall.
A paper cup!?
Yeah. I think one of my high school science
teachers, the
At 02:19 PM 6/20/2011, Jed Rothwell wrote:
Another factor is that I have some unpublished information about
this test, and about some other private tests. I do not have a huge
amount of information, but enough to give me more confidence in the
results. Stephen Lawrence does not have this
At 04:38 PM 6/20/2011, Jed Rothwell wrote:
The fact that Rossi has done what he claims is equally self-evident
to me. The speculation about wet and dry steam is bunk. The second
test proved that beyond any doubt. It is a waste of time even discussing it.
Jed might be right. However, in the
Abd ul-Rahman Lomax a...@lomaxdesign.com wrote:
The fact that Rossi has done what he claims is equally self-evident to me.
The speculation about wet and dry steam is bunk. The second test proved that
beyond any doubt. It is a waste of time even discussing it.
Jed might be right. However,
At 11:06 PM 6/20/2011, Jed Rothwell wrote:
Abd ul-Rahman Lomax mailto:a...@lomaxdesign.coma...@lomaxdesign.com wrote:
The fact that Rossi has done what he claims is equally self-evident
to me. The speculation about wet and dry steam is bunk. The second
test proved that beyond any doubt. It is
I think the fact that Levi was caught telling a white lie about a report
that does not exist is certainly news since it brings into question Levi's
trustworthiness. If he was caught lying about the existence of that
Galantini report, what else is he lying about? If you read the comments
section
On 11-06-18 10:57 PM, Harry Veeder wrote:
Stephen A. Lawrence wrote:
On 11-06-18 09:21 PM, Terry Blanton wrote:
I don't think Galantini is a thermodynamics expert. Jed is right
about sparging the steam.
Why do they insist on using phase change measurements anyway? There
are a dozen
Stephen A. Lawrence sa...@pobox.com wrote:
Coupled with the admission that the steam was wet (which has seemed pretty
obvious to me for quite a while, though, as I've said before, I'm no expert)
this makes Galantini's assertions about steam look pretty unreliable.
1. I do not see them
Harry Veeder hlvee...@yahoo.com wrote:
Why do they insist on using phase change measurements anyway? There
are a dozen better ways to measure energy flow.
I think Levi and Rossi did the private flow test in feburary to really
convince
themselves, and not to the arm chair skeptics,
Ooops, overlooked something in your message.
On 11-06-19 11:39 AM, Jed Rothwell wrote:
3. The second test with liquid phase flow calorimetry confirmed that
the first test was right
No it didn't because it wasn't public and details weren't documented.
It was viewed, in private, by exactly
Stephen A. Lawrence sa...@pobox.com wrote:
1. I do not see them admitting any such thing.
2. It cannot be obvious to you because you were not there and you have
not used instruments or done tests to measure the enthalpy of the steam.
It was obvious from the output temperature curves and
Stephen A. Lawrence sa...@pobox.com wrote:
3. The second test with liquid phase flow calorimetry confirmed that the
first test was right
No it didn't because it wasn't public and details weren't documented.
I said that too. Only a few details were released. If you believe these
details,
On 11-06-19 12:04 PM, Jed Rothwell wrote:
Stephen A. Lawrence sa...@pobox.com mailto:sa...@pobox.com wrote:
1. I do not see them admitting any such thing.
2. It cannot be obvious to you because you were not there and
you have not used instruments or done tests to measure the
On 11-06-19 11:39 AM, Jed Rothwell wrote:
Stephen A. Lawrence sa...@pobox.com mailto:sa...@pobox.com wrote:
Coupled with the admission that the steam was wet (which has
seemed pretty obvious to me for quite a while, though, as I've
said before, I'm no expert) this makes
On 2011-06-19 02:37, Harry Veeder wrote:
If I recall correctly someone wrote on the vortex list back in feburary or march
that Galantini never wrote a report, so that fact is not news. Steven
Kirvit managed to catch Levi uttering a 'white lie' to *him*. Is that fact
news?
Try read the
At 10:57 PM 6/18/2011, Harry Veeder wrote:
If you were Rossi the businessman, and you knew your device has
turned water into steam for short periods of time without any input
power, wouldn't you treat the steam quality issue as a minor concern? Harry
Sure, I might, but I would also understand
On 11-06-19 12:13 PM, Jed Rothwell wrote:
Stephen A. Lawrence sa...@pobox.com mailto:sa...@pobox.com wrote:
That's like a poker game where nobody has to show their cards,
they just state what they have and everyone believes them.
In poker, you do not have to show your card if
From Andrea Rossi:
June 18th, 2011 at 4:02 AM
... By the way: in a statement he released further, he [Krivit]
said that while Prof. Levi told him there was a report about this issue,
I said in the interview that there was not a report about this issue.
This is a translation
At 11:39 AM 6/19/2011, Jed Rothwell wrote:
He is a very frank.He said emphatically he wants no more tests
before the 1 MW demonstration. I think that policy is ill-advised. I
do not understand it. But it is his decision, and I suppose he has his reasons.
Well, there are two possible reasons
At 08:37 PM 6/18/2011, you wrote:
Why Levi is upset is more evident in this
exchange between Steven Krivit and Luigi
Versaggi P.
https://www.facebook.com/#!/notes/cold-fusion-andrea-rossi-method/i-made-a-question-to-steven-krivit/235485236468276
If I recall correctly someone wrote on the
At 11:57 AM 6/19/2011, Stephen A. Lawrence wrote:
I won't argue this with you again, Jed, I had enough trouble getting
you to admit that it's possible to have steam at higher than 100 C
at 1 atmosphere of pressure.
Stephen, perhaps you are making the same mistake here,
misunderstanding
At 12:03 PM 6/19/2011, Stephen A. Lawrence wrote:
Ooops, overlooked something in your message.
On 11-06-19 11:39 AM, Jed Rothwell wrote:
3. The second test with liquid phase flow calorimetry confirmed
that the first test was right
No it didn't because it wasn't public and details weren't
On 11-06-19 04:38 PM, Abd ul-Rahman Lomax wrote:
At 11:57 AM 6/19/2011, Stephen A. Lawrence wrote:
I won't argue this with you again, Jed, I had enough trouble getting
you to admit that it's possible to have steam at higher than 100 C at
1 atmosphere of pressure.
Stephen, perhaps you are
At 12:09 PM 6/19/2011, Stephen A. Lawrence wrote:
I won't argue this with you again, Jed, I had enough trouble
getting you to admit that it's possible to have steam at higher
than 100 C at 1 atmosphere of pressure.
Oh come now. Don't make false accusations. I admitted fully and
frankly that
On 11-06-19 05:22 PM, Abd ul-Rahman Lomax wrote:
At 12:09 PM 6/19/2011, Stephen A. Lawrence wrote:
I won't argue this with you again, Jed, I had enough trouble getting
you to admit that it's possible to have steam at higher than 100 C
at 1 atmosphere of pressure.
Oh come now. Don't make
- Original Message
From: Stephen A. Lawrence sa...@pobox.com
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Sent: Sun, June 19, 2011 12:03:30 PM
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Why Levi is upset
Ooops, overlooked something in your message.
On 11-06-19 11:39 AM, Jed Rothwell wrote:
3. The second test
ahh... so it is nothing more than misunderstanding about the meaning of the
word
report.
Harry
- Original Message
From: Akira Shirakawa shirakawa.ak...@gmail.com
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Sent: Sun, June 19, 2011 1:32:02 PM
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Why Levi is upset
On 2011-06-19 02:37
- Original Message
From: Stephen A. Lawrence sa...@pobox.com
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Sent: Sun, June 19, 2011 8:01:26 AM
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Why Levi is upset
On 11-06-18 10:57 PM, Harry Veeder wrote:
Stephen A. Lawrence wrote:
On 11-06-18 09:21 PM, Terry Blanton wrote
Why Levi is upset is more evident in this exchange between Steven Krivit and
Luigi Versaggi P.
https://www.facebook.com/#!/notes/cold-fusion-andrea-rossi-method/i-made-a-question-to-steven-krivit/235485236468276
If I recall correctly someone wrote on the vortex list back in feburary or
march
I don't think Galantini is a thermodynamics expert. Jed is right
about sparging the steam.
Why do they insist on using phase change measurements anyway? There
are a dozen better ways to measure energy flow.
T
- Original Message
From: Terry Blanton hohlr...@gmail.com
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Sent: Sat, June 18, 2011 9:21:53 PM
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Why Levi is upset
I don't think Galantini is a thermodynamics expert. Jed is right
about sparging the steam.
Why do they insist on using
On 11-06-18 08:37 PM, Harry Veeder wrote:
Why Levi is upset is more evident in this exchange between Steven Krivit and
Luigi Versaggi P.
https://www.facebook.com/#!/notes/cold-fusion-andrea-rossi-method/i-made-a-question-to-steven-krivit/235485236468276
If I recall correctly someone wrote
On 11-06-18 09:21 PM, Terry Blanton wrote:
I don't think Galantini is a thermodynamics expert. Jed is right
about sparging the steam.
Why do they insist on using phase change measurements anyway? There
are a dozen better ways to measure energy flow.
OK, you asked for it, somebody should
On 2011-06-19 04:06, Stephen A. Lawrence wrote:
I can't be sure from Krivit's rather murky summary of events whether
Levi was actually lying about it, or was confused, mistaken, or had been
misled by Rossi, but whatever the underlying situation is, Levi comes
across looking very bad here, IMHO.
Stephen A. Lawrence wrote:
On 11-06-18 09:21 PM, Terry Blanton wrote:
I don't think Galantini is a thermodynamics expert. Jed is right
about sparging the steam.
Why do they insist on using phase change measurements anyway? There
are a dozen better ways to measure energy flow.
42 matches
Mail list logo
