On Feb 21, 2011, at 6:27 PM, Jed Rothwell wrote:
Horace Heffner hheff...@mtaonline.net wrote:
As a double check on concepts, if you plug x=0.02856 into x/((x+(1-
x)*0.0006)) then you get 0.98. That is to say, 98% of the mass of
the volume expelled is water, and 2% steam - your starting
OK, gentlemen, now you have a steamless- Wasser uber alles experiment too.
Peter
On Tue, Feb 22, 2011 at 9:50 AM, Horace Heffner hheff...@mtaonline.netwrote:
On Feb 21, 2011, at 6:50 PM, Stephen A. Lawrence wrote:
On 02/21/2011 09:48 PM, Horace Heffner wrote:
On Feb 21, 2011, at 1:40
On Mon, Feb 21, 2011 at 8:48 PM, Horace Heffner hheff...@mtaonline.netwrote:
That said, let's proceed on with your defined problem where 2% of the water
is vaporized, i.e. the ejecta is 98% liquid by mass, 98% wet by mass.
|For an input flow rate of 300 cc/min = 300 mg/min,
The above
On Mon, Feb 21, 2011 at 9:27 PM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com wrote:
Horace Heffner hheff...@mtaonline.net wrote:
As a double check on concepts, if you plug x=0.02856 into
x/((x+(1-x)*0.0006)) then you get 0.98. That is to say, 98% of the mass of
the volume expelled is water, and 2%
On Tue, Feb 22, 2011 at 2:04 AM, Horace Heffner hheff...@mtaonline.netwrote:
I look forward to the report. This is obviously well beyond chemical if
the consumables actually are H and Ni. The energy E per H is:
E = (270kwh) /(0.4 g * Na / (1 gm/mol)) = 2.52x10^4 eV / H = 25 kEv per
On Mon, Feb 21, 2011 at 1:56 PM, Mark Iverson zeropo...@charter.net wrote:
Joshua:
A few clarifications from you would be helpful...
Jed wrote:
You do have to trust Levi, Celani and Dufour and some other people.
To which Joshua stated:
Why? They were hand-picked by Rossi.
Where
On Tue, Feb 22, 2011 at 5:28 AM, Peter Gluck peter.gl...@gmail.com wrote:
Dear Joshua,
Perhaps *a possibly flawed demo* would be more fair
and more technical.
It was flawed in that data to prove the steam was dry was not given, the
pump model was not provided, the hydrogen bottle was left
This is a resend test. I sent this yesterday, but it did not show up
in the archives. Something is going wrong with vortex-l.
On Feb 21, 2011, at 6:50 PM, Stephen A. Lawrence wrote:
On 02/21/2011 09:48 PM, Horace Heffner wrote:
On Feb 21, 2011, at 1:40 PM, Joshua Cude wrote:
On
This is a resend test to see if this shows up in the archives this time.
On Feb 21, 2011, at 6:27 PM, Jed Rothwell wrote:
Horace Heffner hheff...@mtaonline.net wrote:
As a double check on concepts, if you plug x=0.02856 into x/((x+(1-
x)*0.0006)) then you get 0.98. That is to say, 98% of
On Thu, Feb 17, 2011 at 12:39 PM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.comwrote:
Joshua Cude joshua.c...@gmail.com wrote:
The professors tested and calibrated this machine for 6 weeks. They would
have discovered that it has a large hidden thermal mass.
They did. It takes 30 minutes to bring the
On Thu, Feb 17, 2011 at 2:27 PM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com wrote:
Joshua Cude joshua.c...@gmail.com wrote:
Well, it is if an experiment can be easily designed to make such
suspicions impossible. As would be the case here, if the claims were true.
Seriously, It is nearly
On Thu, Feb 17, 2011 at 2:57 PM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com wrote:
I wrote:
The scientific method demands that an arbitrary limit be placed on
objections. It is a matter of opinion how much proof is needed, and how many
objections should be met, but you cannot leave the question
On Thu, Feb 17, 2011 at 5:16 PM, Terry Blanton hohlr...@gmail.com wrote:
On Thu, Feb 17, 2011 at 5:54 PM, Joshua Cude joshua.c...@gmail.com
wrote:
Gotta run. I'll catch up in 3 or 4 days. Don't take my absence as a
concession.
Concession to what? We are truthseekers, not competitors.
On 02/18/2011 06:56 PM, mix...@bigpond.com wrote:
Hi,
Putt putt boats draw in water which flashes into steam and is then ejected
mostly as fluid. Given that the water was delivered to Rossi's device in
pulses,
it seems possible that it also ejected water in pulses, at least to some
Joshua Cude joshua.c...@gmail.com wrote:
It is silly to leave objections like this in the air, when they are so easy
to answer. Just give the model of the pump. Is that so hard? The more they
neglect to do that, the more justified the suspicion becomes.
No, it isn't hard, but they are not
On Mon, Feb 21, 2011 at 8:12 AM, Stephen A. Lawrence sa...@pobox.comwrote:
On 02/18/2011 06:56 PM, mix...@bigpond.com wrote:
Hi,
Putt putt boats draw in water which flashes into steam and is then
ejected
mostly as fluid. Given that the water was delivered to Rossi's device in
pulses,
On 02/21/2011 09:41 AM, Jed Rothwell wrote:
Joshua Cude joshua.c...@gmail.com mailto:joshua.c...@gmail.com wrote:
It is silly to leave objections like this in the air, when they
are so easy to answer. Just give the model of the pump. Is that so
hard? The more they neglect to
On Feb 21, 2011, at 5:50 AM, Joshua Cude wrote:
One should also bear in mind that it takes only 2% steam by mass to
make up 97.5% of the expelled fluid by volume. And since the steam
is created in the horizontal portion, it is forced up 50 cm of pipe
through liquid, which would presumably
Joshua Cude still impresses me as the only adult in the class in
junior high school -- very impressive clarity of comprehension, speedy
assessment of essential factors, vigorous lucid communication, terse
effortless pointed prose, alert compassion, as he tackles the tedious
task of pointing out to
This list was formed to get away from the interminable, meaningless
and unproductive debate between pathological skeptics and true
believers. The list was formed especially to get away from the ego
feeding pathological skeptics on sci.physics.fusion that filled the
bandwidth and prevented
As a consummate skeptic, I don't even experience an external physical
reality, whether body, society, or universe...
Let's say, Rich is on all levels within a virtual simulation, a
Rich's life world dream...
So, as always, the reality status of this very flowing moment of
perception-cognition is
Joshua:
A few clarifications from you would be helpful...
Jed wrote:
You do have to trust Levi, Celani and Dufour and some other people.
To which Joshua stated:
Why? They were hand-picked by Rossi.
Where is your evidence that the scientists that were there to instrument the
demo were
21, 2011 1:52:20 PM
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Revised version Celani reports on gamma emission from Rossi
device
This list was formed to get away from the interminable, meaningless and
unproductive debate between pathological skeptics and true believers. The
list was formed especially to get away
: Horace Heffner hheff...@mtaonline.net
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Cc: michael barron mhbar...@gmail.com; Rich Murray
rmfor...@gmail.com; Rich
Murray rmfor...@comcast.net
Sent: Mon, February 21, 2011 1:52:20 PM
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Revised version Celani reports on gamma emission
from Rossi
device
On Mon, Feb 21, 2011 at 11:52 AM, Horace Heffner hheff...@mtaonline.netwrote:
On Feb 21, 2011, at 5:50 AM, Joshua Cude wrote:
One should also bear in mind that it takes only 2% steam by mass to make
up 97.5% of the expelled fluid by volume. And since the steam is created in
the horizontal
On Feb 21, 2011, at 1:40 PM, Joshua Cude wrote:
On Mon, Feb 21, 2011 at 11:52 AM, Horace Heffner
hheff...@mtaonline.net wrote:
On Feb 21, 2011, at 5:50 AM, Joshua Cude wrote:
|One should also bear in mind that it takes only 2% steam by mass
to make up 97.5% of the expelled fluid by
Horace Heffner hheff...@mtaonline.net wrote:
As a double check on concepts, if you plug x=0.02856 into
x/((x+(1-x)*0.0006)) then you get 0.98. That is to say, 98% of the mass of
the volume expelled is water, and 2% steam - your starting assumptions.
As a double check on this discussion,
On 02/21/2011 09:48 PM, Horace Heffner wrote:
On Feb 21, 2011, at 1:40 PM, Joshua Cude wrote:
On Mon, Feb 21, 2011 at 11:52 AM, Horace Heffner
hheff...@mtaonline.net wrote:
On Feb 21, 2011, at 5:50 AM, Joshua Cude wrote:
|One should also bear in mind that it takes only 2% steam by
On Feb 21, 2011, at 6:50 PM, Stephen A. Lawrence wrote:
On 02/21/2011 09:48 PM, Horace Heffner wrote:
On Feb 21, 2011, at 1:40 PM, Joshua Cude wrote:
On Mon, Feb 21, 2011 at 11:52 AM, Horace Heffner
hheff...@mtaonline.net wrote:
On Feb 21, 2011, at 5:50 AM, Joshua Cude wrote:
Hi,
Putt putt boats draw in water which flashes into steam and is then ejected
mostly as fluid. Given that the water was delivered to Rossi's device in pulses,
it seems possible that it also ejected water in pulses, at least to some extent,
as the leading edge of each pulse flashed into steam.
Joshua Cude joshua.c...@gmail.com wrote:
Questioned by who? For what reason? Lots of people have questioned lots of
things, but there is no rational reason to doubt the flow rate.
How about a commercial pump that looks exactly like the one in the
picture, with a max flow rate less than
Here are a couple of additional comments from Celani:
a) The NaI (Tl) gamma detector had an energy range from 25 to 2000 keV;
b) Celani asked, in several public mail to Rossi, that for a conclusive
SCIENTIFIC demonstration of such wonderful device, the maximum temperature
of the outgoing water
On Thu, Feb 17, 2011 at 7:45 AM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com wrote:
Joshua Cude joshua.c...@gmail.com wrote:
Questioned by who? For what reason? Lots of people have questioned lots of
things, but there is no rational reason to doubt the flow rate.
How about a commercial pump that
Joshua Cude joshua.c...@gmail.com wrote:
And a good way to measure car speed is with a speedometer. But if someone
claims have driven 250 mph in a chevy Volt, I'm gonna suspect the honesty
first, and the speedometer second.
If you suspect that Levi and the others at U. Bologna are not honest,
Joshua Cude joshua.c...@gmail.com wrote:
With 1 kW, you can raise the temperature of the water at 300 mL/min about
50C to give 65C or so, definitely too hot to touch.
That is true, but the power was not 1 kW. It was 400 W. It was 1 kW at the
beginning of the experiment, but a flow
Peristaltic pumps of exactly this size deliver flows between a few
microliters and 2000 ml/minute, depending on the ID of the tube and the
number of pulses per minute.
However a good report must answer in advance to all the possible (and
impossible too) questions of the amateur and professional
On Thu, Feb 17, 2011 at 8:45 AM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com wrote:
Joshua Cude joshua.c...@gmail.com wrote:
With 1 kW, you can raise the temperature of the water at 300 mL/min about
50C to give 65C or so, definitely too hot to touch.
That is true, but the power was not 1 kW. It
On Thu, Feb 17, 2011 at 8:45 AM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com wrote:
Joshua Cude joshua.c...@gmail.com wrote:
With 1 kW, you can raise the temperature of the water at 300 mL/min about
50C to give 65C or so, definitely too hot to touch.
That is true, but the power was not 1 kW. It
On Thu, Feb 17, 2011 at 8:35 AM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com wrote:
Joshua Cude joshua.c...@gmail.com wrote:
And a good way to measure car speed is with a speedometer. But if someone
claims have driven 250 mph in a chevy Volt, I'm gonna suspect the honesty
first, and the speedometer
Those are good points but the most important thing of all is being left
unsaid:
NO TIN CUP
100% of all the inventors in the past - who have tried to pull of scams have
been seeking immediate funding.
That is not the case with Rossi. He has funds in hand to build a MW unit, he
says
On Thu, Feb 17, 2011 at 8:45 AM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com wrote:
Joshua Cude joshua.c...@gmail.com wrote:
With 1 kW, you can raise the temperature of the water at 300 mL/min about
50C to give 65C or so, definitely too hot to touch.
That is true, but the power was not 1 kW. It
Peter Gluck wrote:
However a good report must answer in advance to all the possible (and
impossible too) questions of the amateur and professional skeptics.
That is impossible. Skeptics can come up with an unlimited number of
skeptical objections, especially after they assume that the
Joshua Cude wrote:
I suspect it is designed to have large thermal mass (maybe in hot oil,
or even water under pressure), so that after the power is turned off,
the thermal mass keeps the output at the bp for some time. That way,
they can claim it is self-sustaining, even though it's just
On Thu, Feb 17, 2011 at 9:22 AM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com wrote:
Peter Gluck wrote:
However a good report must answer in advance to all the possible (and
impossible too) questions of the amateur and professional skeptics.
That is impossible. Skeptics can come up with an unlimited
Jones Beene jone...@pacbell.net wrote:
That is not the case with Rossi. He has funds in hand to build a MW unit, he
says that this plan is underway, and essentially is telling skeptics: stuff
it.
These are good points. They are not the same kind of evidence as Dufour
feeling a hot pipe. They
Joshua Cude joshua.c...@gmail.com wrote:
If we are simply to trust people's claims, then what's a demo for?
I do not trust Rossi's claims. I trust that Levi can read a weight scale,
and that Dufour is telling me the truth when he says the pipe was too hot to
tough. I trust that the power meter
On Thu, Feb 17, 2011 at 9:35 AM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com wrote:
Joshua Cude wrote:
I suspect it is designed to have large thermal mass (maybe in hot oil, or
even water under pressure), so that after the power is turned off, the
thermal mass keeps the output at the bp for some
On Thu, Feb 17, 2011 at 10:08 AM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.comwrote:
I do not think this demo required any trust.
But you said, if you trust... then there's no point.
On 02/17/2011 11:41 AM, Joshua Cude wrote:
On Thu, Feb 17, 2011 at 10:08 AM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com
mailto:jedrothw...@gmail.com wrote:
I do not think this demo required any trust.
But you said, if you trust... then there's no point.
Calm down, Joshua. Jed meant
On Thu, Feb 17, 2011 at 12:54 PM, Stephen A. Lawrence sa...@pobox.comwrote:
If there *are* investors, on the other hand, then the demo is a much
tougher sell, IMO, because when there's a pile of money involved, even
seemingly far-fetched explanations can no longer be discarded out of hand.
Joshua Cude joshua.c...@gmail.com wrote:
The professors tested and calibrated this machine for 6 weeks. They would
have discovered that it has a large hidden thermal mass.
They did. It takes 30 minutes to bring the temperature up to the level
needed to deliver water at 100C.
They
On Thu, Feb 17, 2011 at 11:54 AM, Stephen A. Lawrence sa...@pobox.comwrote:
On 02/17/2011 11:41 AM, Joshua Cude wrote:
On Thu, Feb 17, 2011 at 10:08 AM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.comwrote:
I do not think this demo required any trust.
But you said, if you trust... then there's
Joshua Cude joshua.c...@gmail.com wrote:
Well, it is if an experiment can be easily designed to make such suspicions
impossible. As would be the case here, if the claims were true.
Seriously, It is nearly impossible to design a demonstration that will
eliminate all suspicions, in all people.
On 02/17/2011 03:27 PM, Jed Rothwell wrote:
... I meant you do not have to trust Rossi. You do have to trust Levi,
Celani and Dufour and some other people. They might be conspiring
together to fool us. If they can keep a secret, it would be easy for
them to fool us. I have no actual proof
I wrote:
The scientific method demands that an arbitrary limit be placed on
objections. It is a matter of opinion how much proof is needed, and
how many objections should be met, but you cannot leave the question
undecided indefinitely. . . .
In this case, I think we need to start drawing
On Thu, Feb 17, 2011 at 3:52 PM, Stephen A. Lawrence sa...@pobox.com wrote:
Why was that? It seems very strange.
(Image of Rossi, a la Bear Gryllis, with a firesteel trying to start
his fire.)
firesteel.com
T
If we had a spectrum, we would know what it was - or more to the point, what
it wasn't.
I really, REALLY want a spectrum. Just one.
On Thu, Feb 17, 2011 at 3:52 PM, Stephen A. Lawrence sa...@pobox.comwrote:
On 02/17/2011 03:27 PM, Jed Rothwell wrote:
... I meant you do not have to trust
From: albedo5
If we had a spectrum, we would know what it was - or more to the point, what
it wasn't.
I really, REALLY want a spectrum. Just one.
Hmm . could it be simply a matter of deduction ?
. connect the dots with Celani being specifically the only party being
disallowed,
Also, the fact that both meters were pegged. That sounds more like an event,
and less like the momentary exposure of a shielded catalyst.
On Thu, Feb 17, 2011 at 4:43 PM, Jones Beene jone...@pacbell.net wrote:
From: albedo5
If we had a spectrum, we would know what it was - or more to the
If you want a natural emitter that would do a burst that would saturate a
small NaI detector, that's easy. You would have to have access to something
like a Cs137 or Co60/Co57 source, or even something as common as Tc99m, but
any medical imaging facility or drilling outfit would have something.
Gotta run. I'll catch up in 3 or 4 days. Don't take my absence as a
concession.
JC
On Thu, Feb 17, 2011 at 2:27 PM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com wrote:
Joshua Cude joshua.c...@gmail.com wrote:
Well, it is if an experiment can be easily designed to make such
suspicions impossible. As
On Thu, Feb 17, 2011 at 5:54 PM, Joshua Cude joshua.c...@gmail.com wrote:
Gotta run. I'll catch up in 3 or 4 days. Don't take my absence as a
concession.
Concession to what? We are truthseekers, not competitors.
If you are an eternal septic, you will never be convinced. Albedo5
(who ran the
Debbie,
It is very frustrating that someone with an ID-capable detector didn't
collect something.
That is not a given. There could easily have been data collected but not
disclosed.
Celani may have been covering his tracks with what seems to be a persistent
effort to explain to
Stephen A. Lawrence sa...@pobox.com wrote:
According to Celani, observers were not allowed into the room until the
experiment began to work:
The device did not work at first. He and others were waiting impatiently in
a room next to the room with the device.
I don't think he said they
Jed said,
Notice in the update he [ Celani ] sent to me today, he refers to
this as a wonderful device.
I think he is pretty much convinced it is real, despite his complaints
about the test and the fact that Rossi prevented him from taking a [
gamma ] spectrum.
Melich and I are also pretty much
Here is a revised version of the message I sent the other day.
Villa reported no gamma emissions or other radiation significantly above
background from the Rossi device. Celani, however, said that he did detect
something. Here are the details he related to me at ICCF16, from my notes,
with
On Feb 16, 2011, at 10:48 AM, Jed Rothwell wrote:
Here is a revised version of the message I sent the other day.
Villa reported no gamma emissions or other radiation significantly
above background from the Rossi device. Celani, however, said that
he did detect something. Here are the
Horace Heffner hheff...@mtaonline.net wrote:
Set up hot plate and adjust input to 600 W. Watt meters, combined with
integrated kWh metering, can be obtained relatively cheaply. Place a
covered pan on the burner until water boils. The pan lid will be too hot to
touch. The steam can
On Wed, Feb 16, 2011 at 8:32 PM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com wrote:
Now we hear the input power was unstable, fluctuating between 400 and
800 W, so was actually probably 600 W.
Actually that is not what the power meter showed in Fig. 5 of the Levi
report. That was Celani's
On Wed, Feb 16, 2011 at 8:32 PM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com wrote:
Also, the actual flow rate has been questioned.
Questioned by who? For what reason? Lots of people have questioned lots of
things, but there is no rational reason to doubt the flow rate.
How about a commercial
70 matches
Mail list logo
