At 02:40 AM 6/30/2011, Rich Murray wrote:
Re: Ad Hominem against Joshua Cude, or is that Ad Pseudonym against
Joshua Cude ?
Rich: So I couldn't manage to find any quotes by Abd that were Ad
Psdudonym against Joshua, so I retract that claim and regret my error
and remind myself how very easy it
At 11:28 AM 6/30/2011, Rich Murray wrote:
This team was competent enough to dismiss their own excess energy claims.
Transmutations and isotope shifts may well be the most convincing
evidence for low levels of LENR -- widely reported in a variety of
setups -- has this area been reviewed in
At 03:44 AM 6/30/2011, Joshua Cude wrote:
On Thu, Jun 30, 2011 at 1:40 AM, Rich Murray
mailto:rmfor...@gmail.comrmfor...@gmail.com wrote:
Rich: So I couldn't manage to find any quotes by Abd that were Ad
Psdudonym against Joshua, so I retract that claim and regret my error
and remind myself
At 10:48 AM 7/3/2011, Jeff Driscoll wrote:
Rossi has not done a definitive test. I don't trust him on his input
mass flow rate (2 grams per second) or whether or not it was turned
to vapor or just spurted out as liquid slugs of water into the drain.
Or something in between.
Levi has a lot
At 10:06 AM 7/3/2011, Jed Rothwell wrote:
Here is an analysis of Rossi's e-Cat steam test
from Ed Storms. Actually, this is a combination
of two messages he sent me, with a clarification inserted into item 2.
- Jed
Thanks for forwarding this, Jed, and thanks to
Dr. Storms for writing it.
At 06:12 PM 7/3/2011, Jed Rothwell wrote:
Damon Craig mailto:decra...@gmail.comdecra...@gmail.com wrote:
Calculating the output velocity is a good sanity check. Could you
see what you get?
No, it isn't a good sanity check at the end of a 3 m hose. It would
be good with a short hose.
It
At 06:17 PM 7/3/2011, Jed Rothwell wrote:
Jeff Driscoll mailto:hcarb...@gmail.comhcarb...@gmail.com wrote:
2. Rossi's assertions of that steam quality can be measured with a
Relative Humidity meter (it can't).
Yes, it can.
No it can't, I wrote a detailed email on Vortex as to why it can't,
At 01:38 PM 7/4/2011, OrionWorks - Steven Vincent Johnson wrote:
[with some personal history, which I very much appreciate, there are
valuable lessons for all of us in this, so I sincerely thank Steven
for sharing this, there is some historical pain there.)
As to Driscoll -- and myself-- some
At 04:47 AM 7/5/2011, Joshua Cude wrote:
BASIC CONCLUSION: None of the plausible
assumptions are consistent with the claim for excess energy being wrong.
These conclusions are an indication of what
passes for evidence for cold fusion advocates.
And are consistent (but much more obviously
At 08:50 PM 7/5/2011, Rich Murray wrote:
MISTer Joshua Cude, you are, as always, right...
No evidence at all for excess heat production...
From defective evidence to no evidence is a leap.
I just looked over the Kullander and Essen report, and what I see is
that some assumptions were made.
At 09:45 PM 7/5/2011, Harry Veeder wrote:
The Kirvit video *might* be explained in terms of the Tarallo Water
Diversion Fake:
http://lenr.qumbu.com/fake_rossi_ecat_details_v323.phphttp://lenr.qumbu.com/fake_rossi_ecat_details_v323.php
Tarallo suggests that there is a hose leading water out
At 08:54 AM 7/7/2011, Rock_nj wrote:
Exactly the way free energy inventor
(scammer)Â Dennis Lee raised money, by selling
dealerships. Why would Defkaâlion need to
sell dealerships to raise money if they have
such a blockbuster energy product? This thing
is really starting to smell
At 06:26 PM 7/12/2011, Jed Rothwell wrote:
[KRIVIT] Professors Sven Kullander, retired from
Uppsala University, and Hanno Essén, with the
Royal Institute of Technology, endorsed
Rossiâs claimed technology in a news story on
Feb. 23, 2011, before they had seen or inspected
the device.
At 05:25 AM 7/13/2011, Damon Craig wrote:
What does NASA have to say about this?
On Tue, Jul 12, 2011 at 5:31 PM, Alan J Fletcher
mailto:a...@well.coma...@well.com wrote:
http://ecatreport.com/e-cat/andrea-rossi-on-the-e-cat-part-22http://ecatreport.com/e-cat/andrea-rossi-on-the-e-cat-part-22
At 08:55 PM 7/12/2011, Akira Shirakawa wrote:
On 2011-07-13 02:31, Alan J Fletcher wrote:
http://ecatreport.com/e-cat/andrea-rossi-on-the-e-cat-part-22
The following excerpt from the above interview is wow news to me.
Is NASA going to get actively involved with Rossi? Wow again if true:
At 04:01 AM 7/13/2011, Harry Veeder wrote:
If we apply the logic of the block box to the eCat then it is
possible to argue it is a hoax even if the output is only dry steam.
This is based on the assumption that it is theoretically possible to
use a 600-700 watt resistance heater to
At 12:50 PM 7/14/2011, Joshua Cude wrote:
On Thu, Jul 14, 2011 at 10:30 AM, Abd ul-Rahman Lomax
mailto:a...@lomaxdesign.coma...@lomaxdesign.com wrote:
In many discussions of this, it was assumed that the only issue was
steam quality. If we were to assume very wet steam, say 20% by
weight
I don't know what it is about this, but Jed seems to have lost his
ability to read and understand Of course, it could be me, I
suppose. Aren't we always the last to know?
At 02:45 PM 7/14/2011, Jed Rothwell wrote:
Abd ul-Rahman Lomax wrote:
Nevertheless, this report from Kullander
At 02:49 PM 7/14/2011, Rich Murray wrote:
The 15 seconds when Rossi waved the misty end of the black hose
against the black sweater were the Waterloo of this mistaken claim...
Any signs that his associates are starting to face this unwelcome reality?
Rich, you are making an assumption, that a
I wander here into what I'm currently excited about
At 09:44 AM 7/15/2011, Jed Rothwell wrote:
Daniel Rocha wrote:
So,
why not making an LENR experiment close to a big neutrino detector,
like the kamiokande?
This was done at Kamiokande. Unfortunately the experiment was
amateur and
At 09:53 AM 7/15/2011, Jed Rothwell wrote:
Abd ul-Rahman Lomax wrote:
And this has been said to you many times, Jed,
and you keep repeating that this is nonsense.
It is all nonsense and bullshit.
Sure, with proper specification of the it. Nice to be able to agree.
The 18-hour tests
At 10:32 AM 7/15/2011, Joshua Cude wrote:
On Fri, Jul 15, 2011 at 8:53 AM, Jed Rothwell
mailto:jedrothw...@gmail.comjedrothw...@gmail.com wrote:
It is all nonsense and bullshit. The 18-hour
tests with flowing water proved that the large cell is producing ~17 kW.
If it did, then the steam
Lewan addresses, in this report, some of the issues which had been
raised by discussions.
http://www.nyteknik.se/nyheter/energi_miljo/energi/article3166552.ece
As previously, the power output was calculated from the amount of
water boiled into steam, and thus depends on the water flow. At the
At 03:20 PM 7/15/2011, Jed Rothwell wrote:
Abd ul-Rahman Lomax mailto:a...@lomaxdesign.coma...@lomaxdesign.com wrote:
There is no other way to be sure you have a cold fusion effect in
the first place. There is no point to testing a cell that is not
producing heat.
That's not *entirely
At 06:08 PM 7/15/2011, Jed Rothwell wrote:
Having said that, I feel that Krivit should have paid more attention
to some technical details. He should have made more observations and
reported more facts, such as whether Rossi placed the feedwater
reservoir on a weight scale, and if so, how much
At 06:38 PM 7/15/2011, Alan J Fletcher wrote:
At 03:21 PM 7/15/2011, Akira Shirakawa wrote:
A new interview to Sergio Focardi has been posted on Passerini's blog here:
http://22passi.blogspot.com/2011/07/intervista-di-focardi-energylab.html
Google translated short link: http://goo.gl/nxcMG
It
At 12:40 AM 7/17/2011, Joshua Cude wrote:
(Remember the skeptics evolution as a phenomenon is proved:
1. It's not true; 2. It may be true, but not important. 3. It's true
and important, but we have always known it.)
Here's the believers' progression:
1. The experiment proves it's true.
2.
At 03:27 AM 7/17/2011, Damon Craig wrote:
Uhhh. I give up. How is a kink in a thermal curve evidence of
exothermic activity?
It's unclear what Damon is responding to. However, a change in the
slope of a heating curve will generally indicate some variation in
condition, such as changed input
At 12:00 PM 7/17/2011, Terry Blanton wrote:
The end was the best.
Yeah, the card and the coin completely disappear, right at the end,
showing that this was indeed a visual trick. Waste of time. That's
why I'm disclosing that here.
It's not impossible that some radio frequency phenomenon
At 02:10 PM 7/17/2011, OrionWorks - Steven Vincent Johnson wrote:
From Joshua:
OrionWorks - Steven V Johnson;
My perception on the reactor core has always implied that the
volume of water entering the reactor core could vary.
Well, that's the difference then. But I think you're mistaken.
At 03:13 PM 7/17/2011, Jed Rothwell wrote:
Joshua apparently wrote:
Well, that's the difference then. But I think you're mistaken.
Rossi uses a pump designed to maintain a constant flow, and all
his calculations (including Krivit's video of him calculating
the power) assume constant flow
At 04:54 PM 7/17/2011, Daniel Rocha wrote:
Julian Brown seems to be a clown. At least he is what you guys call a
pseudoskeptic.
I'll be blunt. You are an idiot, Mr. Rocha.
Brown shows no signs of being a pseudoskeptic, he did not knee-jerk
reject Rossi's work, and apparently travelled to see
At 04:30 PM 7/17/2011, Akira Shirakawa wrote:
On 2011-07-17 22:16, Daniel Rocha wrote:
I did not find any name Julian Brown related to EPO, except for an
inventor with this name:
Then it's possible that it isn't his real name or that he isn't
related with EPO or other patent offices. If the
At 05:04 PM 7/17/2011, Daniel Rocha wrote:
It seems that this EPO's Julian mentioned that he worked at Oxford
during the 80's, to make some kind of smoke screan with Julian Brown
from Oxford. They do not have anything to do with each other:
At 05:24 PM 7/17/2011, Daniel Rocha wrote:
So, why does he uses the Oxford address? That doesn't make sense since
the EPO's Julian, according to himself, was just in Oxford only during
the 80's.
Serious Imagination Deficiency.
How come? as an argument. People sometimes use academic
At 06:21 PM 7/17/2011, Joshua Cude wrote:
On Sun, Jul 17, 2011 at 1:26 PM, Abd ul-Rahman Lomax
mailto:a...@lomaxdesign.coma...@lomaxdesign.com wrote:
At 03:27 AM 7/17/2011, Damon Craig wrote:
Uhhh. I give up. How is a kink in a thermal curve evidence of
exothermic activity?
It's unclear
At 06:33 PM 7/17/2011, Joshua Cude wrote:
On Sun, Jul 17, 2011 at 1:19 PM, Abd ul-Rahman Lomax
mailto:a...@lomaxdesign.coma...@lomaxdesign.com wrote:
Both of these pseudoskeptical [yada, yada, yada].
I have no idea what you said there, but I admit, I didn't try very
hard to understand
At 07:19 PM 7/17/2011, Jouni Valkonen wrote:
Julian Brown wrote:
Basically, the whole set up defies even approximate quantitative
calorimetric analysis.
This is nonsensical speculation. E-Cat is designed to be a standard
boiling water reactor and boiling water reactor is exactly similar
At 07:20 PM 7/17/2011, Terry Blanton wrote:
http://ecatnews.com/?p=489#comment-85
Julian Brown
July 17, 2011 - 10:25 pm
Can i ask you, for the sake of my family, to remove my submission to
your blog.
It was sent in good faith, because I really care about the LENR field
and don't want it to
At 08:54 PM 7/17/2011, Jed Rothwell wrote:
Abd ul-Rahman Lomax mailto:a...@lomaxdesign.coma...@lomaxdesign.com wrote:
However, just right in terms of exact full vaporization is
difficult to reach, from an engineering perspective . . .
Naa. It is a piece of cake. Just listen to the boiling
At 09:14 PM 7/17/2011, Akira Shirakawa wrote:
So most of the time he now performs stress tests on his modules in
self-sustaining mode, apparently. That's an amazing claim! Just
demonstrating one of those running for a reasonable amount of time
would have rendered pointless most of the
At 12:55 AM 7/18/2011, Joshua Cude wrote:
On Sun, Jul 17, 2011 at 10:40 PM, Abd ul-Rahman Lomax
mailto:a...@lomaxdesign.coma...@lomaxdesign.com wrote:
At 09:14 PM 7/17/2011, Akira Shirakawa wrote:
So most of the time he now performs stress tests on his modules in
self-sustaining mode
At 05:57 AM 7/18/2011, Damon Craig wrote:
Tell me Lomax. Would you destroy the reputations of others to
advance your own.
Would you ask leading questions to preserve your own position?
I reserve what can be called personal attacks for those who
personally attack.
I risk my reputation with
At 10:08 AM 7/18/2011, Jed Rothwell wrote:
P.J van Noorden wrote:
It is very important to notice that water boils at 100.5 C when the
outside air pressure is 1030 mBar, which can be the case when
a high pressure system is covering Italy . . .
In the April 28 tests, Lewan reported: we
At 10:46 AM 7/18/2011, Jed Rothwell wrote:
Abd ul-Rahman Lomax wrote:
Jed, this is dead wrong. This is obvious. Suppose you have *almost*
full vaporization, not all the water is boiling, so water level in
the E-Cat will rise.
Almost full vaporization is a degree or two below boiling. That's
At 12:07 PM 7/18/2011, Akira Shirakawa wrote:
On 2011-07-17 21:16, Akira Shirakawa wrote:
And this was Rossi's answer:
http://www.journal-of-nuclear-physics.com/?p=497cpage=16#comment-53792
It looks like Rossi has updated his answer on
JONP, without adding a note about that. I
personally
At 12:20 PM 7/18/2011, P.J van Noorden wrote:
To conventionally explain the boilingpoint of 100.5 degrC the
backpressure in the Ecat must have been 30mbar (for a boilingpoint
of 99.6degC) and 20mbar for a boilingpoint of 99.9degC. This
compares to resp 30.6 cm and 20.4cm water and this is
At 03:15 PM 7/18/2011, 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.
At 03:42 PM 7/18/2011, Robert Leguillon wrote:
[snip]
However, we know that Rossi is, shall we say, enthusiastic, and not
terribly careful about what he says. The 18-hour test allegedly
showed a transient temperature phenomenon that has been interpreted
as 120 kW. Just for starters, that might
At 05:25 PM 7/18/2011, Jed Rothwell wrote:
Daniel Rocha mailto:danieldi...@gmail.comdanieldi...@gmail.com wrote:
So, can you confirm that Julian Brown from the European Patent Office
is the same as the one of this paper:
http://arxiv.org/abs/0711.1878http://arxiv.org/abs/0711.1878 ?
Who else
At 06:13 PM 7/18/2011, ecat builder wrote:
I created a simple wordpress blog where I will try to follow
replicators. (http://ecatbuilder.comecatbuilder.com) I will write
about my research and say what works and what doesn't. Hope to hear
from those with constructive ideas for experiments. If
At 08:49 PM 7/18/2011, Daniel Rocha wrote:
I am not sure if you could do this procedure in any place. In not all
places the accused is allowed to produce evidences against
his/herself.
If Brown didn't say what Rossi claims, I'd
suggest Brown may want those recordings *immediately* subpoenaed.
At 09:20 PM 7/18/2011, Jed Rothwell wrote:
Abd ul-Rahman Lomax mailto:a...@lomaxdesign.coma...@lomaxdesign.com wrote:
They were not regulating flow in the 18 hour test. It was a direct
feed from the tap (or spigot), and the utility water-meter served as
their impromptu flow meter.
I don't
At 09:22 PM 7/18/2011, Jed Rothwell wrote:
Abd ul-Rahman Lomax mailto:a...@lomaxdesign.coma...@lomaxdesign.com wrote:
Who else would he be? I wasn't aware there was a controversy.
Jed, haven't you read Rossi's comment? He's claiming that Brown is
an imposter.
I missed that.
As far as I
At 09:29 PM 7/18/2011, Jed Rothwell wrote:
Well, Rossi is changing the power when he twiddles the controls.
Maybe he is trying to keep it stable. But anyway if it overflows I
am pretty sure he turns up the power.
How does he know when it overflows? You've been assuming that the
temperature
At 10:22 PM 7/18/2011, Daniel Rocha wrote:
The meeting took place in Bologna. The thing that could happen is
Brown accusing Rossi of defamation and show a picture of the website
as a proof. If Rossi didn't present defense, the purported recordings,
he would get a sentence. No need for a
standards.
On Mon, Jul 18, 2011 at 7:29 PM, Abd ul-Rahman Lomax
mailto:a...@lomaxdesign.coma...@lomaxdesign.com wrote:
At 09:29 PM 7/18/2011, Jed Rothwell wrote:
Well, Rossi is changing the power when he twiddles the controls.
Maybe he is trying to keep it stable. But anyway if it overflows I
am
At 12:06 PM 7/19/2011, Terry Blanton wrote:
On Tue, Jul 19, 2011 at 11:41 AM, Mark Iverson zeropo...@charter.net wrote:
I think most of the 'regulars' and ol' Timers would agree that,
out of respect for the founder, the
decision should be done by Mr. Beaty himself...
Well, I never intended
At 12:49 PM 7/19/2011, Michele Comitini wrote:
Angela,
The article does not say much.  As a matter
of fact Bardi does not give any scientific fact
to confirm what he has written, just rumors
hence just blather on which he bases his bufala (scam) assumption.
You can find him on some
At 03:15 PM 7/19/2011, Joshua Cude wrote:
The 120 kW excursion makes the 18-hr test less credible to me. It
means that during that excursion the delta T between the ecat walls
and the water would have to increase by an order of magnitude. If
ordinary operation is at 300C or 400C, this would
At 03:26 PM 7/19/2011, Jed Rothwell wrote:
Abd ul-Rahman Lomax wrote:
In my opinion, Kullander made some mistakes,
and he should simply acknowledge them and move on.
Where, in his report, are these mistakes?
Someone here claimed that he did not measure
input power, when the report clearly
At 03:58 PM 7/19/2011, Joshua Cude wrote:
In the paper they show how their technique can measure steam quality
to within a few per cent between 5% and 80%. 5% corresponds to 5 %
steam by mass, and yes, that means 95% liquid by mass.
That seems to be the official definition of steam quality:
At 04:55 PM 7/19/2011, Damon Craig wrote:
In my more-or-less last communication with Krivit, I told him the
wet steam hypothesis, inspired by an abused humidity meter, was a
red herring, and the water was simply flowing through it.
Then you turn up using the same phrase.
I've been using it
At 05:06 PM 7/19/2011, Jouni Valkonen wrote:
2011/7/19 Abd ul-Rahman Lomax a...@lomaxdesign.com:
At 03:15 PM 7/19/2011, Joshua Cude wrote:
The 120 kW excursion makes the 18-hr test less credible to me. It means
that during that excursion the delta T
between the ecat walls and the water
At 05:42 PM 7/19/2011, Joshua Cude wrote:
On Tue, Jul 19, 2011 at 10:45 AM, Abd ul-Rahman Lomax
mailto:a...@lomaxdesign.coma...@lomaxdesign.com wrote:
Why don't you find a piece of cheap, light styrofoam packing and see
if it will float over a boiling pot of water.
Extra question
At 10:50 PM 7/19/2011, Joshua Cude wrote:
I wouldn't call it an overflow issue, but a lot of people were wise
to only a small fraction of the water being vaporized a long time ago.
I certainly didn't invent that idea. You could be correct with your
idea that there would be a lot of froth.
At 11:22 AM 7/20/2011, Daniel Rocha wrote:
According to some theories of LENR, like Lewis Larsen, there is a
layer on the surface of the metal which strongly shields against
radiation.
That's right. It's how he explains the lack of gammas. It's just as
outrageous an explanation as the claim
At 06:00 PM 7/20/2011, Daniel Rocha wrote:
The dineutron or polyneutron theory belongs to Fisher:
http://www.lenr-canr.org/acrobat/FisherJCoutlineofp.pdf
W-L. is just a 1-neutron theory. Anyway, it gives weird results, for
example, the resulting materials should be very radioactive.
I
At 06:07 PM 7/20/2011, Jouni Valkonen wrote:
One interesting conspiracy theory hole is that in all demonstrations
(January, March and May) total excess energy production was roughly 22
MJ, what is energy contained in 170 g of hydrogen. This kind of
coincidence could be easily interpreted that
At 07:17 PM 7/20/2011, Joshua Cude wrote:
On Wed, Jul 20, 2011 at 6:07 PM, Abd ul-Rahman Lomax
mailto:a...@lomaxdesign.coma...@lomaxdesign.com wrote:
The demand for self-powered operation is a classic pseudo-skeptical
excuse, that's not necessary for an independent test, where input
power
There are some pretty sloppy statements. I know that Damon is being
sarcastic, but that sarcasm is based on certain understandings. Let's
be more careful, everyone!
At 05:41 AM 7/21/2011, Damon Craig wrote:
The greatest souce of pressure is the water standing in the hose.
Probably not, but
At 06:22 AM 7/21/2011, Damon Craig wrote:
Look, guys. If no one is pursuing the really wet steam theory
anymore the steam wetness issue is pretty much moot. Sorry if I
didn't realize that.
I have to say that really wet steam is not implausible, Joshua has
made a decent case for it. However,
At 06:47 AM 7/21/2011, Damon Craig wrote:
OK. So no one has looked closely at the goofy temperature curve in
the Levi report of the December 16, 2010 demonstration which he
claimed was evidence of an exothermic reaction (and cold fusion).
There is a copy of the report at
At 07:30 AM 7/21/2011, Damon Craig wrote:
Essen and Kullander:
At the end of the horizontal section there is an auxiliary
electric heater to initialize the burning and also to act as a
safety if the heat evolution should get out of control.
This is the first mistake: presumption
At 07:56 AM 7/21/2011, Damon Craig wrote:
Cude, Lomax:
To you two, and myself, its fairly obvious this device doesn't do
what it is reported to do, but we have no solid, unrefutable evidence--yet.
One presumption is that an auxillary source of heat energy, such as
resistive heating, is
At 11:55 AM 7/21/2011, Joshua Cude wrote:
On Thu, Jul 21, 2011 at 5:22 AM, Damon Craig
mailto:decra...@gmail.comdecra...@gmail.com wrote:
Originally, you may recall, numbers caste about were as high as 97%
liquid by mass. This is dense enough a chunk of oak would float in it.
Please. 97%
At 11:58 AM 7/21/2011, Joshua Cude wrote:
On Thu, Jul 21, 2011 at 6:56 AM, Damon Craig
mailto:decra...@gmail.comdecra...@gmail.com wrote:
Cude, Lomax:
To you two, and myself, its fairly obvious this device doesn't do
what it is reported to do, but we have no solid, unrefutable evidence--yet.
At 04:49 PM 7/21/2011, Damon Craig wrote:
I find your statements bewildering.
Projection of internal state onto external reality.
On Thu, Jul 21, 2011 at 11:42 AM, Abd ul-Rahman Lomax
mailto:a...@lomaxdesign.coma...@lomaxdesign.com wrote:
There are some pretty sloppy statements. I know
At 04:06 AM 7/22/2011, Joshua Cude wrote:
On Thu, Jul 21, 2011 at 2:28 PM, Abd ul-Rahman Lomax
mailto:a...@lomaxdesign.coma...@lomaxdesign.com wrote:
It's plausible as a control method, depending on the temperature
response of the active material.
The active material will presumably have
At 06:48 AM 7/22/2011, Damon Craig wrote:
I think I'll have to take this one step at a time.
Do you all realize that you could swim up into the sky in steam
containing 90% by mass water?
Absolutly not. You are thinking, Damon, of 90% by volume.
At 06:59 AM 7/22/2011, Damon Craig wrote:
The steam temperature is not measure at the location of evolution
but futher along in the device toward the exit.
For those of us adhering to the Water Flow-though Hypothesis, the
thermometer is further toward the water surface at the height of the
At 07:24 AM 7/22/2011, Jouni Valkonen wrote:
Craig, indeed that is true, liquid water does
not contribute to the pressure at all, because
water does not gently flow out of the E-Cat, but
is spilled due to rather violent boiling at kW range in closed container.
No, that's an error. The E-Cat
At 07:27 AM 7/22/2011, Robert Leguillon wrote:
http://evworld.com/press/e-cat_cutaway.jpg
Two heaters. The internal heater makes sense for bringing up the
Ni-H to operating temperatures (and, presumably, keep it there).
It's the purpose of the external heater that's puzzling.
How
At 07:48 AM 7/22/2011, Jouni Valkonen wrote:
Damon, little two sec googling with cell phone gave me this link:
http://brewery.org/library/SteInjCS1295.htmlhttp://brewery.org/library/SteInjCS1295.html
It says that all boiling chambers produces about 98% dry steam.
Therefore wetness
At 07:48 AM 7/22/2011, Damon Craig wrote:
the burden of proof lies with the claimant
it does?
1) prove it.
2) in having made the burden-of-proof argument, are you obligated to
me to prove it?
3) what is your burden/penalty if you decide not to oblige me?
Arguments like this assume
At 10:55 AM 7/22/2011, Joshua Cude wrote:
On Fri, Jul 22, 2011 at 5:48 AM, Damon Craig
mailto:decra...@gmail.comdecra...@gmail.com wrote:
The key word is boyancy. What is the densest thing you have ever
seen floating in a vapor of steam, Joshua?
I'll answer that, I've never seen anything
At 02:26 PM 7/22/2011, Jed Rothwell wrote:
I think someone here referred to the idea that the device is a sort
of energy amplifier. That is, something that uses a flow of energy
to tap into a source of energy and extract it at rate depending on
input power. I do not think any cold fusion
At 02:26 PM 7/25/2011, Jed Rothwell wrote:
Abd ul-Rahman Lomax mailto:a...@lomaxdesign.coma...@lomaxdesign.com wrote:
With the electrochemical cells, all else being equal, output is
somewhat proportional to input because high input boosts high
loading which in turn boosts the heat. But I
At 07:22 AM 7/26/2011, Damon Craig wrote:
The by mass and the by volume jargon that has evolved here--or
where ever--to describe steam quality is a bit screwy.
Not when you know what you are talking about. Each way of expressing
steam quality has its value.
In each case a volume is
At 04:06 PM 7/26/2011, Damon Craig wrote:
Try to keep up.
Try not to fill this list with posts with no new content except
useless statements plus what's been copied from before.
However, to provide some utility here, I will reproduce part of a
multiplication table, in case Damon needs it
At 01:27 PM 7/29/2011, Terry Blanton wrote:
http://blog.newenergytimes.com/2011/07/29/possible-low-or-no-levels-of-excess-heat-in-rossi-device/http://blog.newenergytimes.com/2011/07/29/possible-low-or-no-levels-of-excess-heat-in-rossi-device/
Our analysis shows a possible energy gain of one to
At 05:19 PM 8/1/2011, Jed Rothwell wrote:
I have not had a chance to read the Krivit newsletter yet, but I
agree with Fletcher's comments here. He wrote:
Last year Rossi and Focardi claimed an energy gain of 213 times.
This year, Rossi downgraded that to six.
But now he's claiming
At 03:42 AM 8/3/2011, Jouni Valkonen wrote:
Accoriding Steven Krivit (#3 report and some earlier writing),
Daniele was also present at 18 hour test (i have not seen other
sources). Therefore he is within the greates fraud of cold fusion or
tells truth that world is saved, because he knows
At 08:14 PM 8/2/2011, Jones Beene wrote:
Mark,
Why measure steam quality at all? If there is one lesson we all should have
learned from the many painful gigabytes of wasted bandwidth on Vortex about
steam quality, it is that you simply cannot satisfy everyone this way. Too
many variables.
But
At 02:19 PM 8/1/2011, Jed Rothwell wrote:
I think there is good evidence for Rossi's claims. I hope that
Defkalion soon publishes good evidence for their claims, with more
rigorous professional reports than Rossi and Levi et al. have
produced so far. I do not think that any of the arguments
At 01:39 PM 8/1/2011, Terry Blanton wrote:
On Mon, Aug 1, 2011 at 1:25 PM, Andrea Selva
andreagiuseppe.se...@gmail.com wrote:
Michele, if you look at this
page http://newenergytimes.com/v2/news/2011/37/3705report3.shtml scrolling
down just past 50% you can see a note and a picture of the
At 11:04 AM 7/30/2011, Joshua Cude wrote:
On Sat, Jul 30, 2011 at 8:06 AM, Jouni Valkonen
mailto:jounivalko...@gmail.comjounivalko...@gmail.com wrote:
That is very true, it requires lots of steam to rise boiling point
temperature by one degree of celsius.
How much is lots? If 2% of the
At 03:18 PM 7/30/2011, you wrote:
Damon Craig mailto:decra...@gmail.comdecra...@gmail.com wrote:
What further amazes me is the degree of disconnect between simple
newtonian physics and everyday life experiences displayed by so many.
I agree. People seem to have no experience with teapots or
At 11:39 AM 7/30/2011, Ron Kita wrote:
Greetings Vortex,
IF my memory is correct there was a hot water test on the Rossi Device.
Also, it appears the the results of the hot water test were. OK.
Well, that's, shall we say, optimistic. It's true, in a way. That is
Levi claims to have
At 10:01 AM 8/1/2011, Jed Rothwell wrote:
Something that has not been clarified here is that the flow rate is
rather slow; 120 ml/min. Before the water boils, when the liquid
overflows, It would take a long time to fill up the hose. There
would be a lot of water in there. Once it starts
1 - 100 of 1743 matches
Mail list logo
