Abd ul-Rahman Lomax <a...@lomaxdesign.com> wrote:
> The data provided can be found here: >> >> <http://lenr-canr.org/News.htm**>http://lenr-canr.org/News.htm >> > > Who wrote that? Whose testimony is it? I wrote it! Who do you think? I talked to the people there and I wrote it. If you don't like my version read Levi's: http://www.nyteknik.se/nyheter/energi_miljo/energi/article3108242.ece > This data is similar to what you find on a boiler test form, filled in by >> an inspector. >> > > The inspector signs the form and is legally responsible for having actually > made the recorded measurements. Oh please. Levi's by-line is in the NyTekNik article. Take it or leave it. Cut the legalese. > You are nuts, Jed. Sorry. You really are in denial about this, and I don't > know why. Experts are commenting, and Kullander and Essen are quietly > backing away. They are not. Where did you hear that nonsense? > In particular, it appears to me that the reactor is designed and operated > very differently from a standard boiler. This, indeed, fooled many people. > Normal boilers produce wet steam, all right, but down around 5% wet. So > nobody expected that steam might be, say, 95% water by mass. I am talking the 18-hour flowing water test. That's what it says in the heading of this thread. Forget about steam. - Jed
