Re: [Vo]:a long paper about and mainly against the E-cat

Jed, All what is required is that in the first experiments the trick used was different. In the first experiments calorimetry was based on how much vaporization was achieved. When people demanded a different way of calculating heat production the trick changed and now the access to the inner core w

Re: [Vo]:a long paper about and mainly against the E-cat

Mary Yugo wrote: > I suppose one could hypothesize that the previous ones were real and this >> one is fake >> > > Straw man hypothesis. Nobody claims that. > Actually, several people have claimed that. Perhaps you are not. The point is, we know the cell is a small object. If you do not know

Re: [Vo]:a long paper about and mainly against the E-cat

> I suppose one could hypothesize that the previous ones were real and this > one is fake > Straw man hypothesis. Nobody claims that.

Re: [Vo]:a long paper about and mainly against the E-cat

Robert Leguillon wrote: Mats referenced a box inside, bolted to the bottom with a heat sink on top, measuring 30cmx30cmx30cm. He couldn't see inside of it, just a box with some port connections for hydrogen, heater, and, presumably, RF. So, assuming, say 4cm for the heat exchanger, this coul

RE: [Vo]:a long paper about and mainly against the E-cat

ot;) we have to treat the 30x30x26 block as a complete unknown. No assumptions made to "rule out" chemical reactions should preclude the entire 23,400cm^3 from being used. Date: Thu, 8 Dec 2011 13:06:47 -0200 Subject: Re: [Vo]:a long paper about and mainly against the E-cat From:

Re: [Vo]:a long paper about and mainly against the E-cat

On Thu, Dec 8, 2011 at 6:54 AM, Jed Rothwell wrote: > Mary Yugo wrote: > > >> So there was an uninspected volume of about 30 cube centimeters cube. >> > In other words 27,000 cc. Not 30 cc. You can't hide a lot of stuff in some 30,000 cc of space?

Re: [Vo]:a long paper about and mainly against the E-cat

Isn't the hidden volume 24x24x5= 2880cm^3 large? 2011/12/8 Jed Rothwell > Mary Yugo wrote: > > >> So there was an uninspected volume of about 30 cube centimeters cube. >> > > Right. That's what I said. There is no way equipment in such a small cube > can explain the heat. I said: "They have not

Re: [Vo]:a long paper about and mainly against the E-cat

On Thu, Dec 8, 2011 at 8:54 AM, Jed Rothwell wrote: > Mary Yugo wrote: > > >> So there was an uninspected volume of about 30 cube centimeters cube. >> > > Right. That's what I said. There is no way equipment in such a small cube > can explain the heat. I said: "They have not seen inside the cell

Re: [Vo]:a long paper about and mainly against the E-cat

Mary Yugo wrote: > So there was an uninspected volume of about 30 cube centimeters cube. > Right. That's what I said. There is no way equipment in such a small cube can explain the heat. I said: "They have not seen inside the cell (which is inside the reactor) but the volume of the cell is too

Re: [Vo]:a long paper about and mainly against the E-cat

On Wed, Dec 7, 2011 at 8:28 PM, Jed Rothwell wrote: > Giovanni Santostasi wrote: > > >> In normal circumstances we would be able to see what is inside the box >> and take it apart but we are not allowed to do so. >> > > That is incorrect. The box has been taken apart. Many people have seen > ins

Re: [Vo]:a long paper about and mainly against the E-cat

Giovanni Santostasi wrote: > In normal circumstances we would be able to see what is inside the box and > take it apart but we are not allowed to do so. > That is incorrect. The box has been taken apart. Many people have seen inside it. > We could trust Rossi in claiming that the box is not

Re: [Vo]:a long paper about and mainly against the E-cat

On Wed, Dec 7, 2011 at 7:02 PM, Jed Rothwell wrote: > > To put it another way, older laws trump newer ones. > You mean like Newton's laws trump relativity and QM? > If calorimetry and thermodynamics prove that cold fusion does exist, you > cannot point to the newer laws governing plasma fusion

Re: [Vo]:a long paper about and mainly against the E-cat

We should not forget though that there is a gap here between input and output and that is what happens inside the e-cat. It is not just some mysterious process inside the lattice but everything that happens inside the black box. In normal circumstances we would be able to see what is inside the box

Re: [Vo]:a long paper about and mainly against the E-cat

Giovanni Santostasi wrote: Jed, > With all respect I cannot understand where you come from when you make > such comments: > laws of nature-- > Rossi's claim is a violation of known laws of nature . . . > Sure. I meant the *calorimetry* must follow the laws of nature. As Harry Veeder wrote: "Only

Re: [Vo]:a long paper about and mainly against the E-cat

No problem here, I was hoping for a short answer from the gentleman. Dave -Original Message- From: Jeff Sutton To: vortex-l Sent: Wed, Dec 7, 2011 7:48 pm Subject: Re: [Vo]:a long paper about and mainly against the E-cat Will you please stop cluttering this otherwise fine site

Re: [Vo]:a long paper about and mainly against the E-cat

Will you please stop cluttering this otherwise fine site with you endless bickering. Just agree to disagree and wait for more evidence. Please. Enough is enough. On Dec 7, 2011 7:43 PM, "Joshua Cude" wrote: > > > On Wed, Dec 7, 2011 at 6:07 PM, David Roberson wrote: > >> >> Give the poor guy a b

Re: [Vo]:a long paper about and mainly against the E-cat

On Wed, Dec 7, 2011 at 6:07 PM, David Roberson wrote: > > Give the poor guy a break. > You should give him a break about the trap. > He measured the input flow rate accurately. You and I and everyone else > would agree that the output flow rate and the input flow rate must be equal > in the l

Re: [Vo]:a long paper about and mainly against the E-cat

Jed, With all respect I cannot understand where you come from when you make such comments: laws of nature-- Rossi's claim is a violation of known laws of nature, that would be ok, if he would make open the details of the experiment set up to third parties even just in terms of reliable input and ou

Re: [Vo]:a long paper about and mainly against the E-cat

>>Again, I do not need to apply the ignorant engineer card every time things do >>not add up. >But you do. You have to claim he was ignorant of the output flow rate, when he >in fact claimed he knew the output flow rate. And I submit that knowing that >the output flow rate was equal t

Re: [Vo]:a long paper about and mainly against the E-cat

On Wed, Dec 7, 2011 at 4:51 PM, David Roberson wrote: > Of course you are correct if water is being forced out of the ECAT. I see > no reason to believe that that is the situation since an attempt was made > to measure the water and some was captured. > But we don't know how successful this att

Re: [Vo]:a long paper about and mainly against the E-cat

On 7 December 2011 21:51, Robert Leguillon wrote: > A lot of responses have already been kicked up by JC and MY, but I'd > like to continue, if I may, to Jed. > This is a long reply, and was in discussion of using the primary of the > October 6th test in any considerations as to test validity.

Re: [Vo]:a long paper about and mainly against the E-cat

Robert Leguillon wrote: We do not have the incoming flow rate, and all we have for the outgoing > rate are the two from Lewan (one while it was running, and one during > purging). > Rossi stated the incoming flow rate was 15 L per hour. I think it was, because it took two hours to fill the vesse

Re: [Vo]:a long paper about and mainly against the E-cat

: vortex-l Sent: Wed, Dec 7, 2011 5:03 pm Subject: Re: [Vo]:a long paper about and mainly against the E-cat On Wed, Dec 7, 2011 at 3:21 PM, David Roberson wrote: Of course you are making a good point that they did use extra equipment to ensure that the steam was very dry. The question is what is

Re: [Vo]:a long paper about and mainly against the E-cat

On Wed, Dec 7, 2011 at 3:21 PM, David Roberson wrote: > Of course you are making a good point that they did use extra equipment to > ensure that the steam was very dry. The question is what is the dryness of > the steam before it entered those devices? Do you have any reference to > this inform

RE: [Vo]:a long paper about and mainly against the E-cat

l. Rossi's claims of taming the reaction and having Kilowatts of tabletop power has not, in my opinion, been demonstrated. I would LOVE to be wrong about this. > Date: Wed, 7 Dec 2011 14:01:09 -0500 > From: jedrothw...@gmail.com > To: vortex-l@eskimo.com > Subject: Re: [Vo

Re: [Vo]:a long paper about and mainly against the E-cat

always suggest that those making the claims are somehow in error or being paid by Rossi or ignorant like the customer engineer(not my opinion), etc. Dave -Original Message- From: Joshua Cude To: vortex-l Sent: Wed, Dec 7, 2011 4:15 pm Subject: Re: [Vo]:a long paper about and mainly

Re: [Vo]:a long paper about and mainly against the E-cat

On Wed, Dec 7, 2011 at 12:52 PM, Jed Rothwell wrote: > You are welcome to have the last word if you please. > No, thank you. LOL.

Re: [Vo]:a long paper about and mainly against the E-cat

, Dave -Original Message- From: Stephen A. Lawrence To: vortex-l Sent: Wed, Dec 7, 2011 4:10 pm Subject: Re: [Vo]:a long paper about and mainly against the E-cat On 11-12-07 04:01 PM, David Roberson wrote: Dear Josh, at least you are consistent. Always claiming that someone or

Re: [Vo]:a long paper about and mainly against the E-cat

Stephen A. Lawrence wrote: If by "steam engine" you mean "steam locomotive engine", then they actually > incorporated steam driers specifically to dry the steam after it left the > boiler and, IIRC, before it entered the superheater. That's what at least > some of those funny domes on the tops o

Re: [Vo]:a long paper about and mainly against the E-cat

On Wed, Dec 7, 2011 at 3:01 PM, David Roberson wrote: > Now, do you sincerely think that the large generator was supplying the > heat energy to vaporize the water? > I don't have sincere thoughts about anything on this subject. It could be, and that weakens Rossi's case. Those ecats could all h

Re: [Vo]:a long paper about and mainly against the E-cat

paper about and mainly against the E-cat On Wed, Dec 7, 2011 at 12:38 PM, David Roberson <mailto:dlrober...@aol.com>> wrote: I have always maintained that I will follow the evidence and have been faithful to that end. That is not consistent with your frequently expressed

Re: [Vo]:a long paper about and mainly against the E-cat

take for you to be finally convinced that the 1 MW system is real? I would honestly like to know the answer to that question. Dave -Original Message- From: Joshua Cude To: vortex-l Sent: Wed, Dec 7, 2011 3:11 pm Subject: Re: [Vo]:a long paper about and mainly against the E-cat

Re: [Vo]:a long paper about and mainly against the E-cat

On Wed, Dec 7, 2011 at 2:33 PM, Jed Rothwell wrote: > Mary Yugo wrote: > > >> As I have pointed out before, that is an invalid argument. Rossi can >> invalidate the entire line of thought simply by giving an E-cat to a >> university, >> > > Your statement applies to Rossi, not your own argument

Re: [Vo]:a long paper about and mainly against the E-cat

On Wed, Dec 7, 2011 at 2:30 PM, Jed Rothwell wrote: > Mary Yugo wrote: > > >> >>> A person who thinks it is possible to keep water at boiling temperatures > for four hours at a poorly insulated vessel is not capable, by definition. > By any method? In a 100 kg device that holds 30 L of water.

Re: [Vo]:a long paper about and mainly against the E-cat

Mary Yugo wrote: My statement has to be falsifiable and it is: simply by Rossi submitting his device to proper independent verification. I meant your first statement, which is that "there are probably potential methods" of stage magic or faking kilowatt levels of heat. "Probably potential"

Re: [Vo]:a long paper about and mainly against the E-cat

On Wed, Dec 7, 2011 at 2:03 PM, Jed Rothwell wrote: > Mary Yugo wrote: > > >> And I always have to remind you that there are probably many potential >> methods to cheat we may not have thought of. >> > > You do not have to remind me of that. I have to remind *you* that is a > violation of the sc

Re: [Vo]:a long paper about and mainly against the E-cat

On Wed, Dec 7, 2011 at 12:33 PM, Jed Rothwell wrote: > Mary Yugo wrote: > > >> As I have pointed out before, that is an invalid argument. Rossi can >> invalidate the entire line of thought simply by giving an E-cat to a >> university, >> > > Your statement applies to Rossi, not your own argumen

Re: [Vo]:a long paper about and mainly against the E-cat

On Wed, Dec 7, 2011 at 1:54 PM, Jed Rothwell wrote: > Mary Yugo wrote: > > >> I consider the Oct. 6 test definitive. >>> >> >> Many capable scientists and engineers do not agree. >> > > I have not heard from any yet. > How to break this to you? They don't care about you. You'll have to go looki

Re: [Vo]:a long paper about and mainly against the E-cat

Mary Yugo wrote: > As I have pointed out before, that is an invalid argument. Rossi can > invalidate the entire line of thought simply by giving an E-cat to a > university, > Your statement applies to Rossi, not your own argument. *Your argument* has to be falsifiable. It is not. You are the o

Re: [Vo]:a long paper about and mainly against the E-cat

On Wed, Dec 7, 2011 at 1:47 PM, Jed Rothwell wrote: > > > Fortunately, it is predicated on immutable laws of physics and first > principle observations made by dozens of people who I know to be honest. > No. The laws of physics and ordinary chemistry can explain all the observations without invo

Re: [Vo]:a long paper about and mainly against the E-cat

Mary Yugo wrote: > Everyday experience with boiling water in poorly insulated pots proves you >> are wrong. You should think about the evidence and basic physics and stop >> repeating absurdities. >> > > What seems absurd to you is not to other capable people. > A person who thinks it is possib

Re: [Vo]:a long paper about and mainly against the E-cat

On Wed, Dec 7, 2011 at 12:03 PM, Jed Rothwell wrote: > Mary Yugo wrote: > > >> And I always have to remind you that there are probably many potential >> methods to cheat we may not have thought of. >> > > You do not have to remind me of that. I have to remind *you* that is a > violation of the s

Re: [Vo]:a long paper about and mainly against the E-cat

On Wed, Dec 7, 2011 at 11:54 AM, Jed Rothwell wrote: > Mary Yugo wrote: > > >> I consider the Oct. 6 test definitive. >>> >> >> Many capable scientists and engineers do not agree. >> > > I have not heard from any yet. > > You've heard here and elsewhere on the internet. Perhaps you are not list

Re: [Vo]:a long paper about and mainly against the E-cat

On Wed, Dec 7, 2011 at 1:12 PM, Jed Rothwell wrote: > Mary Yugo wrote: > > >> There is no need to postulate energy storage in the megawatt plant >> demonstration. It is only necessary to consider that Rossi's client may be >> fictitious and that the engineer may work for Rossi, perhaps for quit

Re: [Vo]:a long paper about and mainly against the E-cat

On Wed, Dec 7, 2011 at 1:01 PM, Jed Rothwell wrote: > I agree there may have been some liquid flowing through at times, but > Lewan performed Method 2 after a very large burst of heat, and he found the > flow rate was much lower than the flow rate going into the reactor. > Therefore the reactor w

Re: [Vo]:a long paper about and mainly against the E-cat

On Wed, Dec 7, 2011 at 12:38 PM, David Roberson wrote: > > > I have always maintained that I will follow the evidence and have been > faithful to that end. > That is not consistent with your frequently expressed absolute certainty that LENR is occurring. > > Why should we assume that a well trai

Re: [Vo]:a long paper about and mainly against the E-cat

Mary Yugo wrote: > And I always have to remind you that there are probably many potential > methods to cheat we may not have thought of. > You do not have to remind me of that. I have to remind *you* that is a violation of the scientific method. It is proposition that cannot be tested or falsif

Re: [Vo]:a long paper about and mainly against the E-cat

Mary Yugo wrote: > I consider the Oct. 6 test definitive. >> > > Many capable scientists and engineers do not agree. > I have not heard from any yet. There has to be a time limit for these things. As Melich and I wrote regarding cold fusion in general: ". . . [S]keptics have had 20 years to ex

Re: [Vo]:a long paper about and mainly against the E-cat

Mary Yugo wrote: > I have no idea of the probability that Rossi is honest. I hope he is. > He is not, I assure you. He often dissembles about personal matters. If the truth or falsity of this claim is predicated on his personal honesty, we must dismiss it. Fortunately, it is predicated on imm

Re: [Vo]:a long paper about and mainly against the E-cat

On Wed, Dec 7, 2011 at 11:30 AM, Jed Rothwell wrote: > Mary Yugo wrote: > > >> I suspect you will take wild notions like mine more seriously if much >> more time passes without any absolutely definitive determination of Rossi's >> veracity. >> > > I consider the Oct. 6 test definitive. > Many c

Re: [Vo]:a long paper about and mainly against the E-cat

On Wed, Dec 7, 2011 at 11:25 AM, David Roberson wrote: > Mary, you are clearly suggesting that this is a scam. > Let me correct the wording -- I am suggesting strongly that it *may be* a scam. I am cautious to allow for the small probability that it is not one and simply looks and feels like on

Re: [Vo]:a long paper about and mainly against the E-cat

On Wed, Dec 7, 2011 at 1:30 PM, Jed Rothwell wrote: > Mary Yugo wrote: > > >> I suspect you will take wild notions like mine more seriously if much >> more time passes without any absolutely definitive determination of Rossi's >> veracity. >> > > I consider the Oct. 6 test definitive. The chance

Re: [Vo]:a long paper about and mainly against the E-cat

Mary Yugo wrote: > I suspect you will take wild notions like mine more seriously if much more > time passes without any absolutely definitive determination of Rossi's > veracity. > I consider the Oct. 6 test definitive. The chance of fraud is so low I do not take that seriously. It is no more l

Re: [Vo]:a long paper about and mainly against the E-cat

Mary, you are clearly suggesting that this is a scam. Are you that convinced? Where is the possibility that it might be honest? Dave -Original Message- From: Mary Yugo To: vortex-l Sent: Wed, Dec 7, 2011 2:08 pm Subject: Re: [Vo]:a long paper about and mainly against the E-cat

Re: [Vo]:a long paper about and mainly against the E-cat

On Wed, Dec 7, 2011 at 11:12 AM, Jed Rothwell wrote: > Mary Yugo wrote: > > >> There is no need to postulate energy storage in the megawatt plant >> demonstration. It is only necessary to consider that Rossi's client may be >> fictitious and that the engineer may work for Rossi, perhaps for qui

Re: [Vo]:a long paper about and mainly against the E-cat

Mary Yugo wrote: > There is no need to postulate energy storage in the megawatt plant > demonstration. It is only necessary to consider that Rossi's client may be > fictitious and that the engineer may work for Rossi, perhaps for quite a > very large fee or share. > In other words, you have to

Re: [Vo]:a long paper about and mainly against the E-cat

On Wed, Dec 7, 2011 at 10:38 AM, David Roberson wrote: Are you convinced that the only way for the system to release 470 kW would > be for LENR action to be taking place? Is that your hang-up? Where are > the skeptics that claim that energy is stored for long enough and intense > enough to cont

Re: [Vo]:a long paper about and mainly against the E-cat

*This also will be posted to Vortex - Hi Mats, *In theory I suppose he could have removed the flanges and the shielding to show the reactors, but that would probably have taken some time. *Rossi's demos have always emphasized saving time over b

Re: [Vo]:a long paper about and mainly against the E-cat

Robert Leguillon wrote: This is the same thing that may be happening in the "Ottoman" E-Cat: water gurgling out, and some steam. The assumption of complete vaporization cannot be relied upon, and is actually contradicted by the measurements. This is why your "Method 2" for the October 6th test

Re: [Vo]:a long paper about and mainly against the E-cat

I feel that the description of my analysis of the October 6, 2011 test as the work of a Rossi fan boy requires that I respond. Mr. Cude, you should read my analysis before coming to such a conclusion since you seem to think of yourself as open minded and honest in your assessment of the Rossi

RE: [Vo]:a long paper about and mainly against the E-cat

as opposed to gently overflowing. Still the diagram demonstrates that 100% dry steam being measured would still not preclude 99.9% of the water from pouring down the hose. Date: Wed, 7 Dec 2011 10:00:32 -0600 Subject: Re: [Vo]:a long paper about and mainly against the E-cat From: joshua.c...

Re: [Vo]:a long paper about and mainly against the E-cat

On Wed, Dec 7, 2011 at 9:41 AM, Robert Leguillon < robert.leguil...@hotmail.com> wrote: > > The steam experts were right in the INITIAL steam discussions. I agree > with you. But they were being asked about steam quality, not water > "overflow." > Krivit raised his questions on steam quality whic

RE: [Vo]:a long paper about and mainly against the E-cat

quot; for the October 6th test was unuseable. Now, I need to go do something productive. Date: Wed, 7 Dec 2011 09:43:42 -0500 Subject: Re: [Vo]:a long paper about and mainly against the E-cat From: jedrothw...@gmail.com To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Robert Leguillon wrote: You cite the temperat

Re: [Vo]:a long paper about and mainly against the E-cat

On Wed, Dec 7, 2011 at 8:50 AM, Jed Rothwell wrote: > Here is another comment from Mats Lewan > > As for energy storing I believe that has been clearly shown not to be a > possible explanation in itself.You simply would need an additional heat > source inside to have water boiling after 4 hours w

Re: [Vo]:a long paper about and mainly against the E-cat

Here is another comment from Mats Lewan Hi Mary (Jed’s in CC again), What I saw inside the Ecat is more or less what I published and what my photos from the inside showed – a block covered with flanges of heat exchanger type, I believe I said approximately 30x30x30 cm. There’s a photo from above

Re: [Vo]:a long paper about and mainly against the E-cat

On Wed, Dec 7, 2011 at 8:43 AM, Jed Rothwell wrote: > Robert Leguillon wrote: > > >> You cite the temperature as evidence, but the temperature actually >> contradicts full vaporization. >> All of this has been explained succinctly ad nauseum, so please do not >> ask for any details on it >> > >

Re: [Vo]:a long paper about and mainly against the E-cat

Robert Leguillon wrote: > You cite the temperature as evidence, but the temperature actually > contradicts full vaporization. > All of this has been explained succinctly ad nauseum, so please do not ask > for any details on it > I do not need any details. As I mentioned, every expert in steam I

RE: [Vo]:a long paper about and mainly against the E-cat

do not ask for any details on it Date: Tue, 6 Dec 2011 18:02:55 -0500 Subject: Re: [Vo]:a long paper about and mainly against the E-cat From: jedrothw...@gmail.com To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Robert Leguillon wrote: This appears to be the Houkes data that you're referring to: http://len

Re: [Vo]:a long paper about and mainly against the E-cat

Here is a version of Houkes in Acrobat format. This has some problems: http://lenr-canr.org/RossiData/Houkes%20Oct%206%20Calculation%20of%20influence%20of%20Tin%20on%20Tout.pdf The original in Excel format is better: http://lenr-canr.org/RossiData/Houkes%20Oct%206%20Calculation%20of%20influence%

Re: [Vo]:a long paper about and mainly against the E-cat

Robert Leguillon wrote: This appears to be the Houkes data that you're referring to: > > http://lenr-canr.org/RossiData/Houkes%20Oct%206%20Calculation%20of%20influence%20of%20Tin%20on%20Tout.xlsx > > I cannot open this file. I get a zip with dissociated .xml's. > I know that I'd quickly discoun

RE: [Vo]:a long paper about and mainly against the E-cat

From: robert.leguil...@hotmail.com To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: RE: [Vo]:a long paper about and mainly against the E-cat Date: Tue, 6 Dec 2011 16:51:40 -0600 This appears to be the Houkes data that you're referring to: http://lenr-canr.org/RossiData/Houkes%20Oct%206%20Calculation%20of%20influ

RE: [Vo]:a long paper about and mainly against the E-cat

yond) : twice the value of delta-T itself. So, let's review Haukes analysis if you have it in a useable form... Date: Tue, 6 Dec 2011 17:14:22 -0500 Subject: Re: [Vo]:a long paper about and mainly against the E-cat From: jedrothw...@gmail.com To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Mary Yugo wrote:

Re: [Vo]:a long paper about and mainly against the E-cat

Mary Yugo wrote: > 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? The best way to rule out pro

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 -- m

Re: [Vo]:a long paper about and mainly against the E-cat

Here is a comment from Lewan Mats about this topic: Hi Mary and Ahsoka, Saw your discussion about power cords on Vortex. You can rule them out. I made my own connection cord which I put in series, both at the main power supply and between the blue control box and the resistor in the Ecat.

Re: [Vo]:a long paper about and mainly against the E-cat

: [Vo]:a long paper about and mainly against the E-cat On Tue, Dec 6, 2011 at 10:24 AM, David Roberson wrote: I suggest that the fact that the current into the resistive heater elements was measured also eliminates this kind of magic. I don't believe that was ever done. It probably do

RE: [Vo]:a long paper about and mainly against the E-cat

-0800 Subject: Re: [Vo]:a long paper about and mainly against the E-cat From: maryyu...@gmail.com To: vortex-l@eskimo.com On Tue, Dec 6, 2011 at 10:24 AM, David Roberson wrote: I suggest that the fact that the current into the resistive heater elements was measured also eliminates this kind o

Re: [Vo]:a long paper about and mainly against the E-cat

On Tue, Dec 6, 2011 at 10:24 AM, David Roberson wrote: > I suggest that the fact that the current into the resistive heater > elements was measured also eliminates this kind of magic. > I don't believe that was ever done. It probably doesn't matter but if anyone knows of it being done, I'd sure

Re: [Vo]:a long paper about and mainly against the E-cat

Authors of the article "The Physics of why the e-Cat's Cold Fusion Claims Collapse" : *Ethan Siegel is a theoretical astrophysicist

Re: [Vo]:a long paper about and mainly against the E-cat

I suggest that the fact that the current into the resistive heater elements was measured also eliminates this kind of magic. Dave -Original Message- From: Mary Yugo To: vortex-l Sent: Tue, Dec 6, 2011 11:38 am Subject: Re: [Vo]:a long paper about and mainly against the E-cat

Re: [Vo]:a long paper about and mainly against the E-cat

At 08:44 AM 12/6/2011, Peter Gluck wrote: The Physics of why the e-Cat's Cold Fusion Claims Collapse http://scienceblogs.com/startswithabang/2011/12/the_nuclear_physics_of_why_we.php?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+ScienceblogsChannelEnvironment+%28ScienceBlogs+Chan

Re: [Vo]:a long paper about and mainly against the E-cat

At 08:37 AM 12/6/2011, Mary Yugo wrote: By the way, the article has an interesting way of cheating the power-in measurement. See the last figure. I don't think Rossi does this but I can't rule it out. In the photos, the line cord is taken apart and the wire being measured looks like it's a s

Re: [Vo]:a long paper about and mainly against the E-cat

On Tue, Dec 6, 2011 at 8:43 AM, Robert Leguillon < robert.leguil...@hotmail.com> wrote: > No, that simple scenario is not possible. If you ran the circuit > backwards, the current would not change; if you switched wires the ammeter > would read zero, which it never has (it always showed the curre

RE: [Vo]:a long paper about and mainly against the E-cat

or to the test. It didn't happen. Rossi does not seem interested in "conclusive" tests. I'm anxiously awaiting more Defkalion and Piantelli information. As for Rossi, I am no longer holding my breath. Date: Tue, 6 Dec 2011 11:28:07 -0500 Subject: Re: [Vo]:a long paper a

Re: [Vo]:a long paper about and mainly against the E-cat

On Tue, Dec 6, 2011 at 8:10 AM, Peter Gluck wrote: > But if you wish, I can retract 'poisonous' > Well, it's just that it doesn't fit most skeptical criticism of Rossi any more than does "snake" or "clown" with which Rossi is so fond of labeling people. > I am just writing an essay > about Ro

Re: [Vo]:a long paper about and mainly against the E-cat

Ethan Siegel is suggesting a rigged power cord to explain the self sustained heat observation: "In fact, the entire "observed" effect of having your system continue to generate heat even after it's been turned off is remarkably simple to rig." Possible? rigged power cord: http://db.tt/RFOa0EAa O

Re: [Vo]:a long paper about and mainly against the E-cat

I was speaking specifically about the article, its logic is poisonous, typical post-logical thinking and mixing points of view. Influential skeptics, on other hand are poisoning the funding sources of New Energy. But if you wish, I can retract 'poisonous' I am just writing an essay about Rossi. Not

Re: [Vo]:a long paper about and mainly against the E-cat

On Tue, Dec 6, 2011 at 6:15 AM, Peter Gluck wrote: > A few good demos could make the skeptics to swallow their poisonous words > and to shut up. I hope eventually these demos will happen. Now I hope they > will happen at Defkalion. > Peter > One can be, at the same time, agnostic about cold fusi

RE: EXTERNAL: Re: [Vo]:a long paper about and mainly against the E-cat

ran From: alain.coetm...@gmail.com [mailto:alain.coetm...@gmail.com] On Behalf Of Alain dit le Cycliste Sent: Tuesday, December 06, 2011 9:59 AM To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: EXTERNAL: Re: [Vo]:a long paper about and mainly against the E-cat there are interesting theoretical arguments. If they ar

Re: [Vo]:a long paper about and mainly against the E-cat

there are interesting theoretical arguments. If they are right it means that all Ni+H experiments are fraud, not only e-cat and hyperions. this is an all or nothing argument, for NiH reactions. about their (seems good) stellar argument, that nickel cannot transmute to copper in star for billions

Re: [Vo]:a long paper about and mainly against the E-cat

Skeptics? Can we please stop calling these people "skeptics". I am a skeptic. This is not skepticism. This is dogmatism. We are the skeptics. We are skeptical of official dogma that says that hundreds of scientists are incompetent, frauds or self-deluded and that you can't produce energy from

Re: [Vo]:a long paper about and mainly against the E-cat

A few good demos could make the skeptics to swallow their poisonous words and to shut up. I hope eventually these demos will happen. Now I hope they will happen at Defkalion. Peter On Tue, Dec 6, 2011 at 3:44 PM, Peter Gluck wrote: > The Physics of why the e-Cat's Cold Fusion Claims > Collapse<

Re: [Vo]:a long paper about and mainly against the E-cat

On 2011-12-06 14:44, Peter Gluck wrote: http://scienceblogs.com/startswithabang/2011/12/the_nuclear_physics_of_why_we.php?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+ScienceblogsChannelEnvironment+%28ScienceBlogs+Channel+%3A+Environment%29