>An ongoing argument here is about the adequacy of the inspection done on the >device of October 6.
Another good question: why was used so little water flux? Why not redurece the water flux and get 30-40 degrees Celsiusof difference instead of 4-5 degrees? From: Mary Yugo Sent: Tuesday, December 06, 2011 11:03 PM To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: [Vo]:a long paper about and mainly against the E-cat Darn. Between the vagaries of the gmail system and Vortex, half the time I can end up responding to the wrong people. Seems I did respond only to Mats to what was a personal email to me and a few others and which Jed posted on Vort. OK. So here is my reply, now public (sorry I got confused -- my serum caffeine may be too low). Reply to Mats Lewan: Good job! Thanks. Mats, I didn't think that the cheating method with the power line was very likely because it would be very risky. I'm thinking Rossi may have a way of storing some of the preheat energy and maybe also a way of generating energy other than LENR. That and planned mis-measurement of the output energy. Obviously, I don't know how he does it if he does it. An ongoing argument here is about the adequacy of the inspection done on the device of October 6. If you read this, Mats, your opinion on that would be appreciated along with a description of what was seen inside. Also how you feel about the lack of a blank/calibration run ahead of the test, using the electrical heater as a calibrating energy source before hydrogen was added to the E-cat. Wouldn't that rule out such issues as thermocouple placement? And about the possibility of running much longer and why that was apparently not asked of Rossi. Thanks!
