Re: [Vo]:Rossi responds to "movie professor" and Peter Ekstrom's analysis

On Mon, Jul 11, 2011 at 3:14 PM, Jed Rothwell wrote: > This document, “the E-Cat does not produce excess Energy” has some some > strange assertions. > > > http://www.fysik.org/WebSite/**fragelada/resurser/cold_**fusion_krivit.pdf

Re: [Vo]:Rossi responds to "movie professor" and Peter Ekstrom's analysis

In reply to Mark Iverson's message of Wed, 29 Jun 2011 17:14:40 -0700: Hi, I suspect that instead of "controlled" he meant "checked". The Dutch word kontroleren means "to check". and a similar situation may exist with Swedish/Norwegian (due to the Norse/Germanic origin of the Dutch language). >H

Re: [Vo]:Rossi responds to "movie professor" and Peter Ekstrom's analysis

This document, “the E-Cat does not produce excess Energy” has some some strange assertions. http://www.fysik.org/WebSite/fragelada/resurser/cold_fusion_krivit.pdf "Where does the power go? Out of the E-Cat or the tube? Not very likely since the losses are small, 5 kW is a lot of power and it w

Re: [Vo]:Rossi responds to "movie professor" and Peter Ekstrom's analysis

On Mon, Jul 11, 2011 at 10:23 AM, Craig Haynie wrote: > >>> 5. The pressure in the ecat cannot be room pressure, or the fluid > would not flow out of the ecat into the room. > > As I understand the operation, fluid does not flow out. Steam is venting > from a hole in the device. Steam is a fluid

Re: [Vo]:Rossi responds to "movie professor" and Peter Ekstrom's analysis

>>> 5. The pressure in the ecat cannot be room pressure, or the fluid would not flow out of the ecat into the room. As I understand the operation, fluid does not flow out. Steam is venting from a hole in the device. Therefore, the pressure should be 'near' room pressure. So perhaps the disagreemen

Re: [Vo]:Rossi responds to "movie professor" and Peter Ekstrom's analysis

On 11-07-04 04:47 PM, Joshua Cude wrote: On Wed, Jun 29, 2011 at 1:06 AM, Harry Veeder > wrote: Peter Ekstrom's analysis: "the E-Cat does not produce excess Energy". http://www.fysik.org/WebSite/fragelada/resurser/cold_fusion_krivit.pdf Rossi r

Re: [Vo]:Rossi responds to "movie professor" and Peter Ekstrom's analysis

In reply to Mark Iverson's message of Wed, 29 Jun 2011 17:14:40 -0700: Hi, I suspect that instead of "controlled" he meant "checked". The Dutch word kontroleren means "to check". and a similar situation may exist with Swedish/Norwegian (due to the Norse/Germanic origin of the Dutch language). >H

Re: [Vo]:Rossi responds to "movie professor" and Peter Ekstrom's analysis

On Wed, Jun 29, 2011 at 1:06 AM, Harry Veeder wrote: > Peter Ekstrom's analysis: > “the E-Cat does not produce excess Energy”. > http://www.fysik.org/WebSite/fragelada/resurser/cold_fusion_krivit.pdf > > > > Rossi responds to Peter Ekstrom's analysis: > http://www.journal-of-nuclear-physics.com/

Re: [Vo]:Rossi responds to "movie professor" and Peter Ekstrom's analysis

Harry Veeder > Cc: > Sent: Wednesday, June 29, 2011 11:32:59 PM > Subject: Re: [Vo]:Rossi responds to "movie professor" and Peter Ekstrom's > analysis > > I'd like to see a practical person rig up an "empty" demo version > of > the Rossi devic

Re: [Vo]:Rossi responds to "movie professor" and Peter Ekstrom's analysis

nothing to get all steamed up about...

RE: [Vo]:Rossi responds to "movie professor" and Peter Ekstrom's analysis

Rich Murray [mailto:rmfor...@gmail.com] Sent: Wednesday, June 29, 2011 10:49 PM To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: [Vo]:Rossi responds to "movie professor" and Peter Ekstrom's analysis Joshua Cude's most recent 2 posts are excellent, lucid, crisp, point by point, spot on, c

Re: [Vo]:Rossi responds to "movie professor" and Peter Ekstrom's analysis

Joshua Cude's most recent 2 posts are excellent, lucid, crisp, point by point, spot on, concise, pertinent -- they deserve reading and rereading. He mobilizes the available evidence to show a great likelihood that the outflow includes a lot of liquid water and mist, and therefore no evidence of my

Re: [Vo]:Rossi responds to "movie professor" and Peter Ekstrom's analysis

On Wed, Jun 29, 2011 at 8:21 PM, Mark Iverson wrote: > ** > > I did as you suggest and searched for '2-phase flow', and even refined it > by adding "steam quality" to the search terms... I'm sorry to disappoint > you, but it only took the first two references I looked at to satisfy me > that your

Re: [Vo]:Rossi responds to "movie professor" and Peter Ekstrom's analysis

On Wed, Jun 29, 2011 at 7:14 PM, Mark Iverson wrote: > ** > > Josh wrote: > "they will have seen a mist coming out of the chimney." > > No, Kullander specifically states in his report: > "The 100 °C temperature is reached at 10:42 and at about 10:45 all the > water is completely vaporized found b

Re: [Vo]:Rossi responds to "movie professor" and Peter Ekstrom's analysis

From: Joshua Cude >To: vortex-l@eskimo.com >Sent: Wednesday, June 29, 2011 5:20:37 PM >Subject: Re: [Vo]:Rossi responds to "movie professor" and Peter Ekstrom's >analysis > > > > >The pump is still operating at steady state, meaning fluid is entering t

Re: [Vo]:Rossi responds to "movie professor" and Peter Ekstrom's analysis

Mark, I put an entire book on 2-phase flow on this discussion list, 3 days ago.

RE: [Vo]:Rossi responds to "movie professor" and Peter Ekstrom's analysis

Joshua wrote: "No, this is not the way it would happen. Even if the power is enough to vaporize only a few per cent of the water (by mass), then gas will occupy nearly all the volume (ninety some per cent). So, there is no way that the chimney would fill up with water; that would block the hig

Re: [Vo]:Rossi responds to "movie professor" and Peter Ekstrom's analysis

From: Mark Iverson >  >This is certainly a concern in that there seems to be no feedback of outlet temperature in order to provide data to the control boxes (PLCs)..   >Is the operation of the E-Cat so consistent that so long as there's a steady flowrate and fairly constant input temperature

RE: [Vo]:Rossi responds to "movie professor" and Peter Ekstrom's analysis

wait... I have always recognized that there are significant concerns and no end to the frustrations that come from how the tests/demos were conducted! -Mark _ From: Joshua Cude [mailto:joshua.c...@gmail.com] Sent: Wednesday, June 29, 2011 4:11 PM To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re:

Re: [Vo]:Rossi responds to "movie professor" and Peter Ekstrom's analysis

On Wed, Jun 29, 2011 at 6:26 PM, Mark Iverson wrote: > > > There is a concern that due to the likely rigorous boiling inside, some > (macroscopic) liquid water is being thrown upward and some of it exiting > thru the opening in the side of the chimney... > Depends what you mean by macroscopic. Co

RE: [Vo]:Rossi responds to "movie professor" and Peter Ekstrom's analysis

Joshua wrote: "I guess I misunderstood you when you said " "The chimney could also have some baffles inside that would prevent liquid water from being ejected; it would simple fall back down into the boiling water." [iverson] Ever hear of an 'ejection' seat... or the phrase, 'the person

Re: [Vo]:Rossi responds to "movie professor" and Peter Ekstrom's analysis

On Wed, Jun 29, 2011 at 5:13 PM, Mark Iverson wrote: > ** > Again, I think it would be obvious that ***IF*** the heat production of the > reactor is not enough to vaporize nearly all of the water flowing in each > second, then YES, the chimney will eventually fill up and spill water out of > the

RE: [Vo]:Rossi responds to "movie professor" and Peter Ekstrom's analysis

o: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: [Vo]:Rossi responds to "movie professor" and Peter Ekstrom's analysis On Wed, Jun 29, 2011 at 4:04 PM, Mark Iverson wrote: Geezus Josh, you're grasping at straws... and obviously flawed ones at that. First: It should be COMPELETLY

Re: [Vo]:Rossi responds to "movie professor" and Peter Ekstrom's analysis

On Wed, Jun 29, 2011 at 4:04 PM, Mark Iverson wrote: > ** > Geezus Josh, you're grasping at straws... and obviously flawed ones at > that. > > First: > It should be COMPELETLY obvious that we're talking about the > behavior/performance of the system at steady-state -- NOT start-up. > I get that.

RE: [Vo]:Rossi responds to "movie professor" and Peter Ekstrom's analysis

baffles are... -Mark _ From: Joshua Cude [mailto:joshua.c...@gmail.com] Sent: Wednesday, June 29, 2011 1:32 PM To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: [Vo]:Rossi responds to "movie professor" and Peter Ekstrom's analysis On Wed, Jun 29, 2011 at 2:53 PM, Mark Iverson wrote:

Re: [Vo]:Rossi responds to "movie professor" and Peter Ekstrom's analysis

On Wed, Jun 29, 2011 at 3:20 PM, Jouni Valkonen wrote: > > Good try but you forgot the surface tension. When you boil water in the > kettle then you will get bubbles. Therefore steam can be hotter than actual > boiling point. If you reduce the surface tension or make fine mist like in > your setup

Re: [Vo]:Rossi responds to "movie professor" and Peter Ekstrom's analysis

On Wed, Jun 29, 2011 at 2:53 PM, Mark Iverson wrote: > Steven: > > Another proposal here is that liquid water is ejected out of the chimney, > which may very well > happen. This is certainly possible with the new, smaller e-Cats which have > a much shorter chimney, > but I would think that its v

Re: [Vo]:Rossi responds to "movie professor" and Peter Ekstrom's analysis

this site says: "Steam - produced in a boiler where the heat is supplied to the water and where the steam are in contact with the water surface of the boiler - will contain approximately 5% water by mass." http://www.engineeringtoolbox.com/wet-steam-quality-d_426.html Harry

Re: [Vo]:Rossi responds to "movie professor" and Peter Ekstrom's analysis

On Jun 29, 2011 6:03 PM, "Joshua Cude" wrote: > > You yourself argued at length that the temperature > is not above the boiling point, as evidenced by its > perfectly flat nature. You argued it was because only > liquid water is heated directly. If the steam is dry > and above the bp, then the ste

RE: [Vo]:Rossi responds to "movie professor" and Peter Ekstrom's analysis

nk that would have to be by mass. -Mark -Original Message- From: OrionWorks - Steven V Johnson [mailto:svj.orionwo...@gmail.com] Sent: Wednesday, June 29, 2011 11:55 AM To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: [Vo]:Rossi responds to "movie professor" and Peter Ekstrom's analysis

Re: [Vo]:Rossi responds to "movie professor" and Peter Ekstrom's analysis

>From Angela: > no, they measured it a bit away, but still in Bologna. I you > want the precise position, I may tell you that later, I have > access to all the historic weather data. I think it is the > airport there. Meteorology was my business for a long > time. Every station transmits the local

RE: [Vo]:Rossi responds to "movie professor" and Peter Ekstrom's analysis

Angela Kemmler [mailto:angela.kemm...@gmx.de] Sent: Wednesday, June 29, 2011 10:12 AM To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: [Vo]:Rossi responds to "movie professor" and Peter Ekstrom's analysis Original-Nachricht > Datum: Wed, 29 Jun 2011 13:10:41 -0300 &g

Re: [Vo]:Rossi responds to "movie professor" and Peter Ekstrom's analysis

Original-Nachricht > Datum: Wed, 29 Jun 2011 13:10:41 -0300 > Von: Daniel Rocha > An: vortex-l@eskimo.com > Betreff: Re: [Vo]:Rossi responds to "movie professor" and Peter Ekstrom\'s > analysis > Why are you subtracting the in Bologna if it was actually measured there? Its th

Re: [Vo]:Rossi responds to "movie professor" and Peter Ekstrom's analysis

So, the boiling temperature is 99.9C.

Re: [Vo]:Rossi responds to "movie professor" and Peter Ekstrom's analysis

Original-Nachricht > Datum: Wed, 29 Jun 2011 13:10:41 -0300 > Von: Daniel Rocha > An: vortex-l@eskimo.com > Betreff: Re: [Vo]:Rossi responds to "movie professor" and Peter Ekstrom\'s > analysis > Why are you subtracting the in Bologna if it was actually measured there? no, th

Re: [Vo]:Rossi responds to "movie professor" and Peter Ekstrom's analysis

BTW, the boiling point for water at 1016hPa is 100.1, according to this boiling point calculator (pure water) http://www.partyman.se/boiling-point-calculator/

Re: [Vo]:Rossi responds to "movie professor" and Peter Ekstrom's analysis

Why are you subtracting the in Bologna if it was actually measured there?

Re: [Vo]:Rossi responds to "movie professor" and Peter Ekstrom's analysis

Original-Nachricht > Datum: Wed, 29 Jun 2011 09:53:12 -0400 > Von: "Stephen A. Lawrence" > An: vortex-l@eskimo.com > Betreff: Re: [Vo]:Rossi responds to "movie professor" and Peter Ekstrom\'s > analysis > More bizarreness. > > Note that in all the apparent anger over the wetn

Re: [Vo]:Rossi responds to "movie professor" and Peter Ekstrom's analysis

On Wed, Jun 29, 2011 at 9:23 AM, Jouni Valkonen wrote: > Mysterious AND measured boiling point of water was 99.7±0.1°C. Therefore if > steam temperature is above 100.1±0.1°C, then the steam is dry, because water > cannot remain in liquid phase in normal atmospheric pressure when > temperature is s

Re: [Vo]:Rossi responds to "movie professor" and Peter Ekstrom's analysis

Lawrence, the definition of movie clown is to make conclusive deductions from low resolution video footage without knowing what is a) surrounding temperature b) temperature of the hose and c) current power output of E-Cat. There was just too many unknowns to make strong conclusions. Pseudosceptic

Re: [Vo]:Rossi responds to "movie professor" and Peter Ekstrom's analysis

On 11-06-29 10:23 AM, Jouni Valkonen wrote: Very good response by Andrea. We see that those "movie clowns" have also infiltrated Vortex, like Joshua, Abd and few other pseudoskeptics. So Abd is a "pseudoskeptic" because he questioned the dryness of the steam, and asked if it's possible t

Re: [Vo]:Rossi responds to "movie professor" and Peter Ekstrom's analysis

On 11-06-29 10:06 AM, Rich Murray wrote: Ad hominem responses are always confirmations that the responder is unable to support his position with evidence and reason... Lack of playful humor is another sign. Abd and Jed have shown this too, in recent days. Nonsense. Please don't make such c

Re: [Vo]:Rossi responds to "movie professor" and Peter Ekstrom's analysis

Very good response by Andrea. We see that those "movie clowns" have also infiltrated Vortex, like Joshua, Abd and few other pseudoskeptics. One thing also what must be considered, but what was ignored by pseudoskeptics was that the room temperature was over 30 degrees. This makes steam less visible

Re: [Vo]:Rossi responds to "movie professor" and Peter Ekstrom's analysis

Ad hominem responses are always confirmations that the responder is unable to support his position with evidence and reason... Lack of playful humor is another sign. Abd and Jed have shown this too, in recent days.

Re: [Vo]:Rossi responds to "movie professor" and Peter Ekstrom's analysis

More bizarreness. Note that in all the apparent anger over the wetness of the effluent, nobody has stated *any* measurement which was made and which indicated the steam was dry. We've got temperature, we've got pressure (relative to ambient, please note, not even an actual pressure number, so

[Vo]:Rossi responds to "movie professor" and Peter Ekstrom's analysis

Peter Ekstrom's analysis: “the E-Cat does not produce excess Energy”. http://www.fysik.org/WebSite/fragelada/resurser/cold_fusion_krivit.pdf Rossi  responds to Peter Ekstrom's analysis: http://www.journal-of-nuclear-physics.com/?p=497#comments Andrea Rossi June 28th, 2011 at 5:24 PM Dear Mich