RE: [Vo]: UK's DECC Monitoring the sector (LENR)
- Original Nachricht Von: Mark Iverson-ZeroPoint zeropo...@charter.net An: vortex-l@eskimo.com Datum: 18.11.2011 06:56 Betreff: RE: [Vo]: UK's DECC Monitoring the sector (LENR) Mary stated, In other words, they don't believe Rossi either, on the evidence that he's provided. This means also, they would take this for serious if Rossi provides evidence. Because he is now selling, evidence /must/ turn up /soon/, if there is evidence. So the most rational thing to do is: ignore it, until something unexpected happens. So far however, only stuff happened that -sadly- had to be expected: a lot of rumour, dubios websites and news and a lot of hype witout substance.
Re: [Vo]: UK's DECC Monitoring the sector (LENR)
On Fri, Nov 18, 2011 at 12:06 AM, peter.heck...@arcor.de wrote: Because he is now selling, evidence /must/ turn up /soon/, if there is evidence. I think what we know is that he *says* he's selling. We have, far as I know, no direct credible evidence that he has ever sold an E-cat. Nobody can name or interview a customer.
Re: [Vo]:Nanomagnetism Theory
Rossi is not the only show in town. There is good promise that there will be a hand full of other LENR events that will hold our interest over the winter. Rossi is just one of many interesting LENR players that are in the offing. First off, I am interested in what Brian Ahern of Ames National Laboratory has to say in early December. This will hold interest for quite a while. Ahern has also been guiding George Miley’s group at UIUC on this nanotechnology, and the group seems to be enjoying a great deal of success in the month of October. Interesting… Miley has been the patron saint of my LENR opinions for sometime now. Miley has researched Rydberg hydrogen species and I have not seen any deviation to reduce his interest in this possible causation. What is missing in Miley's theories includes exact details on how Rydberg species produces LENR power. Bose Einstein condensates were often mentioned as involved. But maybe this has been recently replaced with a new powder causation mechanism. It seems to me that the long term survival of the transiton metal lattice excludes nuclear reactions as we commonly understand them. IT PROVIDES A CONCISE EXPLANATION FOR THE BIOENERGETICS OBSERVED IN ALL ASPECTS OF NATURE.” LENR in living systems also exclude traditional nuclear reactions. * * * * * * On Fri, Nov 18, 2011 at 1:20 AM, Rich Murray rmfor...@gmail.com wrote: Given that REAL is single, self-interactive, fractal and infinite in every possible way, then it is a reasonable fantasy to guess that something like adjacent nearby realms of yet undiscovered energetic things exist, able to feed tiny to huge to infinite amounts of energy and momentum into our realm in unexpected ways, just as in 1896 when unexpected and inexplicable excess heat output appeared in ancient uranium atoms, with various lighter weight heavy element inpurities, including lead -- so all of us have to always be alert for black swan anomalies -- in the long run, more fun, too... from an incompetent scientific layman and pragmatic skeptic... the new realm was the nuclear, incredibly deep within the flighty little clouds of the chemical level of electrons and a million times more energetic... Anyone predict that? Rutherford looked for and found proof for the nucleus in 1911, using theory to measure the size and density of the nucleus in the first nuclear scattering experiments with alpha particles from radium, with the scientist peering at a screen in the dark, counting the little flashes -- did he ever shiver, hair standing on end? Only 34 years to Hiroshima... the output of the Sun in all directions for hundreds of millions of years was a similar embarassment, until 1905, when E = MC^2 opened the door to more of REAL a crack -- On Thu, Nov 17, 2011 at 9:38 PM, Axil Axil janap...@gmail.com wrote: Examining the web's limited oscillon information, it would appear that it is important that the powder not be bound to the side of the reactor as conjectured by others. The powder must remain free and could be located in the center of the reactor as stated on the ecat.com web site. In defense of the “particles bound to the side of the reactor conjecture’ made with the greatest respect to your opinion… I don’t yet see a justification that the powder must vibrate. In fact, Rossi has stated that the powder was in the micron range which may be too heavy to be affected by sub-nanometer quantum mechanical vibrations which affect atoms at very low temperatures. Rossi has indicated that his powder is micron sized. It is the tubercle surface coverings on the particles that are nano-sized. Vacuum energy springing forth from any particular point in space, is most probably too feeble to move a micron sized particle into motion. But the particle may need to be as small as those found in cold hydrogen dusty plasma. A dusty plasma contains tiny charged particles of dust (as typically found in space), which also behaves like a plasma. Plasma that contains larger particles is called grain plasma. The information we have about the Rossi reaction points to the formation of exotic hydrogen spices comprised of multiple atoms configured in a number of crystalline forms. It may be these plasma derived dust particles which are the subject to vibrations. Next, the temperatures within the Rossi reactor are above the Curie temperature of nickel which would remove any magnetic property interactions that are mentioned associated with these vibrations. However, Rydberg hydrogen crystals are exquisitely reactive to magnetic influence because of their electromagnetic characteristics. Furthermore, in living systems that have been referenced, nickel is seldom if ever involved, but hydrogen in some form or another are always found. In short, Rydberg hydrogen crystals may be the subject of the oscillon mechanism. On Thu, Nov 17, 2011 at 12:37 PM, Terry Blanton hohlr...@gmail.comwrote:
Re: [Vo]: UK's DECC Monitoring the sector (LENR)
- Original Nachricht Von: Mary Yugo maryyu...@gmail.com An: vortex-l@eskimo.com Datum: 18.11.2011 09:09 Betreff: Re: [Vo]: UK's DECC Monitoring the sector (LENR) On Fri, Nov 18, 2011 at 12:06 AM, peter.heck...@arcor.de wrote: Because he is now selling, evidence /must/ turn up /soon/, if there is evidence. I think what we know is that he *says* he's selling. We have, far as I know, no direct credible evidence that he has ever sold an E-cat. Nobody can name or interview a customer. Not a problem. If he shows evidence he can sell. If he doesnt want this, we can do nothing. He will die within this century and take his secret catalyzer with him into his grave. No problem, he has the right to do so. Many others have done so. Peter
Re: [Vo]:Rossi feeding skeptics with much more skepticism.
You really know how to cause injury to someone. -Original Message- From: Marcello Vitale mvit...@ucsbalum.net To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Fri, Nov 18, 2011 1:55 am Subject: Re: [Vo]:Rossi feeding skeptics with much more skepticism. All I can say is that you have an uncanny ability to always find a way to twist anything in a negative direction. A sitcom mother-in-law :- On Thu, Nov 17, 2011 at 6:17 PM, Mary Yugo maryyu...@gmail.com wrote: On Thu, Nov 17, 2011 at 8:12 AM, Marcello Vitale mvit...@ucsbalum.net wrote: Having agents or other sales organizations is normal for B2B, where the customer wants support for the product, asks a lot of questions, is an expert of what he/she is buying. Again, it is not normal for retail snake-oil peddlers to also recruit agents, unless those are the scam victims themselves. The figure of the scamming agent is, instead, sooo normal. Not sure what you're saying here. It seems as if Rossi is asking a scammer to sell his ecat. Why? He can't get a legitimate sales company for heavy equipment or power equipment to do it?
[Vo]:Scientists create light from vacuum
Scientists create light from vacuum http://www.physorg.com/news/2011-11-scientists-vacuum.html Is this new? this demo of the dynamical Casimir effect was done in the recent past.I remember.
Re: [Vo]:Scientists create light from vacuum
- Original Nachricht Von: Axil Axil janap...@gmail.com An: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Datum: 18.11.2011 09:53 Betreff: [Vo]:Scientists create light from vacuum Scientists create light from vacuum http://www.physorg.com/news/2011-11-scientists-vacuum.html Is this new? this demo of the dynamical Casimir effect was done in the recent past.I remember. citation: Relatively little energy is therefore required in order to excite them out of their virtual state. In principle, one could also create other particles from vacuum, such as electrons or protons, but that would require a lot more energy. end citation If they succeed to make artificial muons this way, then we get real cold fusion one day. Also this confirms existence of zero point energy. Thanks heaven! A new hype was needed desparately. Peter
Re: [Vo]:Interesting *English* article from Focus.it - letter by Celani to Rossi and Rossi's answer
I'm sorry, I corrected the error On Fri, Nov 18, 2011 at 1:24 AM, Alan J Fletcher a...@well.com wrote: At 04:10 PM 11/17/2011, Akira Shirakawa wrote: .. There's a zero missing somewhere : *WHO IS THE CUSTOMER?*Customer's spokesman,*Domenico Fioravanti*, retired colonel of the Genio, doesn't tell anything that would be revealing of its identity, but is *Rossi* himself who gives Focus something more: «We are building a 130 MW thermal plant, made of 13 plant such as the one you saw on October 28th: but it's a military research and I can't reveal any further detail, not the name, nor the place, nor the nationality of the customer». 13 * 1MW = 13 MW OR 130* 1MW = 130 MW
[Vo]:another Focardi brief interview
http://www.greenme.it/approfondire/interviste/6255-fusione-fredda-e-cat-intervista-focardi in writing, as one can understand from one of the answers More evidence of a big scam, HUGE! :-
Re: [Vo]:Ahern to announce LENR findings on December 7 in New York City
On 2011-11-18 04:37, Terry Blanton wrote: Check this link from their main site: http://citi5.org/launch/?p=1833 they are watching us! LOL! I'm quoting the message from the comment section below for the sake of clarity. They're indeed watching! Citi5Fund Moderator 10 hours ago Note to our friends at http://www.mail-archive.com/vortex-l@eskimo.com/msg55636.html Lets get the record straight here: 1. We may be opportunists, but our intentions are good. This isn't about Citi5 - it is about social and environmental justice. LENR is new to us, but it is clear the value is tremendous. 2. Brian has asked us to act as a liaison with the public, and continues to update us frequently. 3. E3Blue has NO AFFILIATION whatsoever with Citi5. 4. WE ARE CERTAINLY NOT OWNED BY ANYONE: non profits cannot be owned, they are their an entity unto themselves. Watch the ego guys. We are all on the same team here, and this is about freedom. So, I take that for further updates on Ahern's plans and announcements we'll have to watch that space (although I would have expected Krivit to cover them as well). Cheers, S.A.
Re: [Vo]: UK's DECC Monitoring the sector (LENR)
Moving into acceptance? Seems to me that governments are taking the same policy of Cude, Yugo, and Park. On Nov 18, 2011, at 0:09, Craig Brown cr...@overunity.co wrote: I never said they DID believe Rossi. This has nothing to do with Rossi, this sector refers to LENR in general where Rossi is only one of a growing number of people with interesting and commercially useful results. Mary, you can try and spin their statement any way you like, but it's very clear. Their Chief Scientific Advisor has just admittted that it is appropriate for DECC to maintain a watch on this sector. Their words, not mine. If you are having difficulty in accepting the fact that LENR is now moving slowly into mainstream acceptance by gov agencies then just say so. Original Message Subject: Re: [Vo]: UK's DECC Monitoring the sector (LENR) From: Mary Yugo maryyu...@gmail.com Date: Fri, November 18, 2011 2:53 pm To: vortex-l@eskimo.com On Thu, Nov 17, 2011 at 8:46 PM, Craig Brown cr...@overunity.co wrote: I recently contacted DECC (UK equivalent of DoE) to get their view on what they thought about the ecat, and to see if they had even heard of it. I got quite an interesting reply. Trigger for further action is an interesting phrase. DECC is aware of this alleged power source: the DECC CSA, David MacKay FRS, has read some of the literature and has met Sven Kulander, who has reviewed an experiment and whose report is on the Defkalion website. The CSA's judgment is that it is appropriate for DECC to maintain a watch on this sector, with the key trigger for further action being the publication of the work in a reputable peer-refereed journal, including full details so that academic scientists can replicate the results. SNIP In other words, they don't believe Rossi either, on the evidence that he's provided.
Re: [Vo]:Steorn's HephaHeat Eclipses Rossi's ECat
From Jwinter: ... But still Rossi's device does get the higher end - right up over a megawatt. And it's market ready. Well, I must confess a personal opinion that I suspect Steorn is not dead yet! ;-) However, regarding Rossi's ecats. Assuming one of the most positive Polly-Anna scenarios possible, the technology behind Rossi's mysterious eCats is NOT market ready. Not by a long shot. It's going to take a huge amount of RD, and a huge amount of money, to figure out how to make the phenomenon Rossi stumbled across... a phenomenon for which we know next to nothing about, safe for consumption. Fire! Good! Fire is your friend! Regards Steven Vincent Johnson www.OrionWorks.com www.zazzle.com/orionworks
[Vo]:Swedish physicists run the site Ecat.com
See: http://www.nyteknik.se/nyheter/energi_miljo/energi/article3347150.ece
Re: [Vo]: UK's DECC Monitoring the sector (LENR)
I consider this DECC response as the safe one. They apparently know that cold fusion devices such as Rossi's may actually work, but they are afraid to be considered stupid if it turns out to be a scam. The skeptics have done a good job of scaring upper level government employees. The day of reckoning is coming when Mary Yugo may morf her name into Merry I Go. Dave -Original Message- From: Charles Hope lookslikeiwasri...@gmail.com To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Cc: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Fri, Nov 18, 2011 9:33 am Subject: Re: [Vo]: UK's DECC Monitoring the sector (LENR) Moving into acceptance? Seems to me that governments are taking the same policy of Cude, Yugo, and Park. On Nov 18, 2011, at 0:09, Craig Brown cr...@overunity.co wrote: I never said they DID believe Rossi. This has nothing to do with Rossi, this sector refers to LENR in general where Rossi is only one of a growing number of people with interesting and commercially useful results. Mary, you can try and spin their statement any way you like, but it's very clear. Their Chief Scientific Advisor has just admittted that it is appropriate for DECC to maintain a watch on this sector. Their words, not mine. If you are having difficulty in accepting the fact that LENR is now moving slowly into mainstream acceptance by gov agencies then just say so. Original Message Subject: Re: [Vo]: UK's DECC Monitoring the sector (LENR) From: Mary Yugo maryyu...@gmail.com Date: Fri, November 18, 2011 2:53 pm To: vortex-l@eskimo.com On Thu, Nov 17, 2011 at 8:46 PM, Craig Brown cr...@overunity.co wrote: I recently contacted DECC (UK equivalent of DoE) to get their view on what they thought about the ecat, and to see if they had even heard of it. I got quite an interesting reply. Trigger for further action is an interesting phrase. DECC is aware of this alleged power source: the DECC CSA, David MacKay FRS, has read some of the literature and has met Sven Kulander, who has reviewed an experiment and whose report is on the Defkalion website. The CSA's judgment is that it is appropriate for DECC to maintain a watch on this sector, with the key trigger for further action being the publication of the work in a reputable peer-refereed journal, including full details so that academic scientists can replicate the results. SNIP In other words, they don't believe Rossi either, on the evidence that he's provided.
Re: [Vo]:Steorn's HephaHeat Eclipses Rossi's ECat
On Fri, Nov 18, 2011 at 9:37 AM, OrionWorks - Steven V Johnson svj.orionwo...@gmail.com wrote: From Jwinter: ... But still Rossi's device does get the higher end - right up over a megawatt. And it's market ready. Well, I must confess a personal opinion that I suspect Steorn is not dead yet! ;-) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dGFXGwHsD_A T
Re: [Vo]:Rossi feeding skeptics with much more skepticism.
Mary, you're doing many things on target, to reduce other players to the level of having nothing to respond with except ad hominem retorts... On Fri, Nov 18, 2011 at 12:46 AM, David Roberson dlrober...@aol.com wrote: You really know how to cause injury to someone. -Original Message- From: Marcello Vitale mvit...@ucsbalum.net To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Fri, Nov 18, 2011 1:55 am Subject: Re: [Vo]:Rossi feeding skeptics with much more skepticism. All I can say is that you have an uncanny ability to always find a way to twist anything in a negative direction. A sitcom mother-in-law :- On Thu, Nov 17, 2011 at 6:17 PM, Mary Yugo maryyu...@gmail.com wrote: On Thu, Nov 17, 2011 at 8:12 AM, Marcello Vitale mvit...@ucsbalum.netwrote: Having agents or other sales organizations is normal for B2B, where the customer wants support for the product, asks a lot of questions, is an expert of what he/she is buying. Again, it is not normal for retail snake-oil peddlers to also recruit agents, unless those are the scam victims themselves. The figure of the scamming agent is, instead, sooo normal. Not sure what you're saying here. It seems as if Rossi is asking a scammer to sell his ecat. Why? He can't get a legitimate sales company for heavy equipment or power equipment to do it?
Re: [Vo]:Swedish physicists run the site Ecat.com
Interesting statement: But because there are powerful forces who want to argue that it’s all about fraud, we will make one or more of the following to prove our honesty. T
Re: [Vo]:High school physics says 1 GJ excess energy for the Oct. 28 demo
On Fri, Nov 18, 2011 at 1:34 AM, Harry Veeder hveeder...@gmail.com wrote: You used a thermodynamic argument in one location to reject a measurement at a different location. This is a rejection of a measurement based on an implausibility, rather than on deficiencies of the instrumentation. Not a rejection of a measurement, a rejection of the claim that the water is all vaporized, based on an implausibility that has nothing to do with his claimed reaction. I think he did such a dramatic demonstration for his customer's reps. The measurements were just a formality. Other people at the Oct 28 demonstration were not allowed to experience the drama up close, so all we have to go on are some measurements contained in a short report. But that short report contains implausible interpretations of the thermodynamics that, once again, are completely independent of the claimed new heat producing reaction. I already agreed with this. If Rossi's reactions depends on new physics to produce heat from nickel and hydrogen, then so be it. My objection in this instance was not that. It was that the observations he is basing the claim on depend on *other* implausibilities. The new physics is presumably in the H-Ni, but that shouldn't change the way water gets heated by the hot conduits it flows through. Those are still implausibilities, and IMO the truth of a claim should not be assessed against them or any other implausibilities. A claim should be assessed against the evidence. That's what I'm doing. They're the ones who aren't. They are claiming that all the water is being vaporized, but there is *no evidence* presented or even suggested to support that claim. Based on the evidence, it is mostly liquid. Where measurements provide evidence they should be be taken at face value unless it can be shown that the instruments are unreliable, or rigged or misplaced. Right. Take the temperature at face value. But they didn't measure the pressure. So, we don't know the phase, yet they claim it is dry steam. Take the stability of the temperature at face value. That suggests a mixture of phases. Yet they claim, contrary to this evidence at face value, that it is pure steam. Take the time it takes to heat the ecat up to the onset of steam at face value. That's about 2 hours. To get dry steam, you need 8 times that power. The ecat is claimed to produce about the same heat as was used for the warm-up, so it should take about 8 times as long to reach dry steam, or about 16 hours. Taking the evidence at face value, there is no way you can get to dry steam from the onset of boiling in 5 minutes. So their interpretation is directly *contrary* to the evidence taken at face value. Heat is still heat, surely. Maybe not. What if the temperature read 90C at atmospheric pressure, and he claimed complete vaporization. [...] Would you then say that this is a new phenomenon, and so we don't know what temperature water boils at when the heat comes from a Rossi reaction? Rossi's reaction might be boiling water by removing cold, rather than by adding heat. OK, I can see this is a waste of time.
Re: [Vo]:Rossi feeding skeptics with much more skepticism.
Actually, we are getting bored by her continued repetition of the same old arguments so we are resorting to the same methods. She needs to come up with new complaints to air if she is really serious. Why do we have to keep repeating the same lines just to keep her old points alive? I have requested that she make a list of all of her questions and post them once daily for us to review and then we can address anything new that comes up. You skeptics need to find real issues to harp upon instead of rehashing the same old lineRossi did not test it wellHe is scamming...etc. Dave -Original Message- From: Rich Murray rmfor...@gmail.com To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com; Rich Murray rmfor...@gmail.com; Rich Murray rmfor...@comcast.net Sent: Fri, Nov 18, 2011 10:08 am Subject: Re: [Vo]:Rossi feeding skeptics with much more skepticism. Mary, you're doing many things on target, to reduce other players to the level of having nothing to respond with except ad hominem retorts... On Fri, Nov 18, 2011 at 12:46 AM, David Roberson dlrober...@aol.com wrote: You really know how to cause injury to someone. -Original Message- From: Marcello Vitale mvit...@ucsbalum.net To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Fri, Nov 18, 2011 1:55 am Subject: Re: [Vo]:Rossi feeding skeptics with much more skepticism. All I can say is that you have an uncanny ability to always find a way to twist anything in a negative direction. A sitcom mother-in-law :- On Thu, Nov 17, 2011 at 6:17 PM, Mary Yugo maryyu...@gmail.com wrote: On Thu, Nov 17, 2011 at 8:12 AM, Marcello Vitale mvit...@ucsbalum.net wrote: Having agents or other sales organizations is normal for B2B, where the customer wants support for the product, asks a lot of questions, is an expert of what he/she is buying. Again, it is not normal for retail snake-oil peddlers to also recruit agents, unless those are the scam victims themselves. The figure of the scamming agent is, instead, sooo normal. Not sure what you're saying here. It seems as if Rossi is asking a scammer to sell his ecat. Why? He can't get a legitimate sales company for heavy equipment or power equipment to do it?
Re: [Vo]:High school physics says 1 GJ excess energy for the Oct. 28 demo
On Fri, Nov 18, 2011 at 10:12 AM, Joshua Cude joshua.c...@gmail.com wrote: On Fri, Nov 18, 2011 at 1:34 AM, Harry Veeder hveeder...@gmail.com wrote: Rossi's reaction might be boiling water by removing cold, rather than by adding heat. OK, I can see this is a waste of time. As Josh walks away shaking his head, I'll just say, on behalf of Harry, that this is exactly what P.A.M. Dirac discovered in his famous energy equations: that there exists a great sea of negative energy. Feynmann became famous for removing all the infinities that resulted from the bizarro world of the square root of negative one. So, one interpretation of a system which runs on negative energy could certainly be thought of as removing the cold. :Þ T
Re: [Vo]:Rossi feeding skeptics with much more skepticism.
On Fri, Nov 18, 2011 at 10:05 AM, Rich Murray rmfor...@gmail.com wrote: Mary, you're doing many things on target, to reduce other players to the level of having nothing to respond with except ad hominem retorts... Ad hominem? LOL! You wanna see ad hominem? Go read some transactions here: http://www.moletrap.co.uk/forum/ T
Re: [Vo]:High school physics says 1 GJ excess energy for the Oct. 28 demo
Most if not all of the arguments that you are making are based upon speculation. Both sides of this discussion are not privy to the data required to prove their points. Let me make a suggestion to you guys. Is it possible for you to list your one major issue and not a dozen as here? If you do, those of us who want to determine the truth can concentrate upon each one until they are either resolved, or left undecided. I for one will be willing to play that game with you. So give me you best argument for one factor and lets discuss. Dave -Original Message- From: Joshua Cude joshua.c...@gmail.com To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Fri, Nov 18, 2011 10:15 am Subject: Re: [Vo]:High school physics says 1 GJ excess energy for the Oct. 28 demo On Fri, Nov 18, 2011 at 1:34 AM, Harry Veeder hveeder...@gmail.com wrote: You used a thermodynamic argument in one location to reject a measurement at a different location. This is a rejection of a measurement based on an implausibility, rather than on deficiencies of the instrumentation. Not a rejection of a measurement, a rejection of the claim that the water is all vaporized, based on an implausibility that has nothing to do with his claimed reaction. I think he did such a dramatic demonstration for his customer's reps. The measurements were just a formality. Other people at the Oct 28 demonstration were not allowed to experience the drama up close, so all we have to go on are some measurements contained in a short report. But that short report contains implausible interpretations of the thermodynamics that, once again, are completely independent of the claimed new heat producing reaction. I already agreed with this. If Rossi's reactions depends on new physics to produce heat from nickel and hydrogen, then so be it. My objection in this instance was not that. It was that the observations he is basing the claim on depend on *other* implausibilities. The new physics is presumably in the H-Ni, but that shouldn't change the way water gets heated by the hot conduits it flows through. Those are still implausibilities, and IMO the truth of a claim should not be assessed against them or any other implausibilities. A claim should be assessed against the evidence. That's what I'm doing. They're the ones who aren't. They are claiming that all the water is being vaporized, but there is *no evidence* presented or even suggested to support that claim. Based on the evidence, it is mostly liquid. Where measurements provide evidence they should be be taken at face value unless it can be shown that the instruments are unreliable, or rigged or misplaced. Right. Take the temperature at face value. But they didn't measure the pressure. So, we don't know the phase, yet they claim it is dry steam. Take the stability of the temperature at face value. That suggests a mixture of phases. Yet they claim, contrary to this evidence at face value, that it is pure steam. Take the time it takes to heat the ecat up to the onset of steam at face value. That's about 2 hours. To get dry steam, you need 8 times that power. The ecat is claimed to produce about the same heat as was used for the warm-up, so it should take about 8 times as long to reach dry steam, or about 16 hours. Taking the evidence at face value, there is no way you can get to dry steam from the onset of boiling in 5 minutes. So their interpretation is directly *contrary* to the evidence taken at face value. Heat is still heat, surely. Maybe not. What if the temperature read 90C at atmospheric pressure, and he claimed complete vaporization. [...] Would you then say that this is a new phenomenon, and so we don't know what temperature water boils at when the heat comes from a Rossi reaction? Rossi's reaction might be boiling water by removing cold, rather than by adding heat. OK, I can see this is a waste of time.
Re: [Vo]:Rossi feeding skeptics with much more skepticism.
now, now, Rich, don't be silly. Just because Mary is obviously a shut-in with nothing else to do but write the same superficial drivel on every blog devoted to this topic, over and over again, and just because people just stop wasting their time answering her, that does not mean she is winning the argument. She is just shouting the loudest, the others are leaving her alone, not stopping to do what they did before she started her yelling. I follow blogs to gather information from other people taking different views of an argument. Participate only when I have some contribution to give. My expertise in industrial B2B, intellectual property and research makes me really wonder how this could ever be a scam. The arguments of the skeptics don't make sense from a business point of view, as I wrote in a long post before: I am still waiting for a reasonable hypothesis on how is Rossi ever going to make money unless he is truthful. Whereas the intellectual property position partly explains the (risky) business strategy. Finally, the objections to the experiments and demonstrations, not just of Rossi but of many others in the LENR pursuit, are just ludicrous for somebody like me who works every day through the fog of the always inconsistent experimental results to try and get to salable products. He who shows you pictures of a perfectly clean lab with perfectly clean devices is unbelievable, in the lab duct tape is king! And she who asks for something without having an agreement to buy on agreed-upon specs is just white noise :-)) On Fri, Nov 18, 2011 at 4:05 PM, Rich Murray rmfor...@gmail.com wrote: Mary, you're doing many things on target, to reduce other players to the level of having nothing to respond with except ad hominem retorts... On Fri, Nov 18, 2011 at 12:46 AM, David Roberson dlrober...@aol.comwrote: You really know how to cause injury to someone. -Original Message- From: Marcello Vitale mvit...@ucsbalum.net To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Fri, Nov 18, 2011 1:55 am Subject: Re: [Vo]:Rossi feeding skeptics with much more skepticism. All I can say is that you have an uncanny ability to always find a way to twist anything in a negative direction. A sitcom mother-in-law :- On Thu, Nov 17, 2011 at 6:17 PM, Mary Yugo maryyu...@gmail.com wrote: On Thu, Nov 17, 2011 at 8:12 AM, Marcello Vitale mvit...@ucsbalum.netwrote: Having agents or other sales organizations is normal for B2B, where the customer wants support for the product, asks a lot of questions, is an expert of what he/she is buying. Again, it is not normal for retail snake-oil peddlers to also recruit agents, unless those are the scam victims themselves. The figure of the scamming agent is, instead, sooo normal. Not sure what you're saying here. It seems as if Rossi is asking a scammer to sell his ecat. Why? He can't get a legitimate sales company for heavy equipment or power equipment to do it?
Re: [Vo]:Rossi feeding skeptics with much more skepticism.
see -- you start with a big ad hominem blast, full of pure speculations to justify ignoring Mary's cogent points, which have many times advanced my own thinking, such as the possibly of financial fraud based on secretly accepting cash from credulous investors who sign iron clad nondisclosure secrecy agreements -- hence, no evidence for skeptics to cite... On Fri, Nov 18, 2011 at 7:31 AM, Marcello Vitale mvit...@ucsbalum.netwrote: now, now, Rich, don't be silly. Just because Mary is obviously a shut-in with nothing else to do but write the same superficial drivel on every blog devoted to this topic, over and over again, and just because people just stop wasting their time answering her, that does not mean she is winning the argument. She is just shouting the loudest, the others are leaving her alone, not stopping to do what they did before she started her yelling. I follow blogs to gather information from other people taking different views of an argument. Participate only when I have some contribution to give. My expertise in industrial B2B, intellectual property and research makes me really wonder how this could ever be a scam. The arguments of the skeptics don't make sense from a business point of view, as I wrote in a long post before: I am still waiting for a reasonable hypothesis on how is Rossi ever going to make money unless he is truthful. Whereas the intellectual property position partly explains the (risky) business strategy. Finally, the objections to the experiments and demonstrations, not just of Rossi but of many others in the LENR pursuit, are just ludicrous for somebody like me who works every day through the fog of the always inconsistent experimental results to try and get to salable products. He who shows you pictures of a perfectly clean lab with perfectly clean devices is unbelievable, in the lab duct tape is king! And she who asks for something without having an agreement to buy on agreed-upon specs is just white noise :-)) On Fri, Nov 18, 2011 at 4:05 PM, Rich Murray rmfor...@gmail.com wrote: Mary, you're doing many things on target, to reduce other players to the level of having nothing to respond with except ad hominem retorts... On Fri, Nov 18, 2011 at 12:46 AM, David Roberson dlrober...@aol.comwrote: You really know how to cause injury to someone. -Original Message- From: Marcello Vitale mvit...@ucsbalum.net To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Fri, Nov 18, 2011 1:55 am Subject: Re: [Vo]:Rossi feeding skeptics with much more skepticism. All I can say is that you have an uncanny ability to always find a way to twist anything in a negative direction. A sitcom mother-in-law :- On Thu, Nov 17, 2011 at 6:17 PM, Mary Yugo maryyu...@gmail.com wrote: On Thu, Nov 17, 2011 at 8:12 AM, Marcello Vitale mvit...@ucsbalum.netwrote: Having agents or other sales organizations is normal for B2B, where the customer wants support for the product, asks a lot of questions, is an expert of what he/she is buying. Again, it is not normal for retail snake-oil peddlers to also recruit agents, unless those are the scam victims themselves. The figure of the scamming agent is, instead, sooo normal. Not sure what you're saying here. It seems as if Rossi is asking a scammer to sell his ecat. Why? He can't get a legitimate sales company for heavy equipment or power equipment to do it?
Re: [Vo]:High school physics says 1 GJ excess energy for the Oct. 28 demo
On Fri, Nov 18, 2011 at 9:20 AM, Terry Blanton hohlr...@gmail.com wrote: As Josh walks away shaking his head, I'll just say, on behalf of Harry, that this is exactly what P.A.M. Dirac discovered in his famous energy equations: [...] So, let me ask you: If the temperature of the output fluid was 90C, and the pressure was 1 atmosphere, and Rossi claimed it was 100% dry steam because water boils at a lower temperature when the heat is produced by a Rossi reaction, would you consider it plausible, with no additional evidence? Because it's exactly that type of violation of ordinary, well characterized (experimentally) thermodynamics, that Rossi's claim of dry steam in the Oct 28 demo requires, completely independent of his other extraordinary claim of cold fusion. And Harry seemed to suggest he would accept a claim of water boiling at 90C at atmosphere, without additional evidence, because Rossi might be removing cold. If you sign up for that as well, then you are also a waste of time.
Re: [Vo]:High school physics says 1 GJ excess energy for the Oct. 28 demo
On Fri, Nov 18, 2011 at 10:52 AM, Joshua Cude joshua.c...@gmail.com wrote: So, let me ask you: I have made my personal position on Rossi's turning water into whine very clear several months ago. I find all this chatter just so much pink noise. T
[Vo]:[Vo] : ECAT 1 MW System-Dazzle or Fizzle
The October 28, 2011 test of the Rossi 1 MW LENR system was either a success or a failure depending upon your point of view. The skeptics have decided to totally disregard the test results without allowing the ECAT any reasonable chance of success. What would you expect for them to do? They see the glass as half empty while the proponents of the ECAT see it as half full. There is no possibility for a resolution of this impasse without a large quantity of data. Mr. Rossi was expecting to dazzle us with his brilliant 1 MW ECAT system. I am afraid that Murphy of Murphy’s Law located his equipment and went to work. Making one ECAT operate into a well defined load is not easy, but Rossi was able to accomplish it well. He probably tested a “zillion” of his ECATs into the heat exchanger that we are all familiar with and got the results that he desired. The back pressure applied to the ECAT under test was controlled by the plumbing to the degree that he needed to keep the unit under test from blowing a gasket. The operating temperature within Rossi’s device must not be allowed to exceed the point of damage. Then along comes the combination of 107 ECAT’s into 1 enormous, complicated system. Rossi most likely underestimated the difficulty of combining this many units. Even worse yet, he did not have control upon the output system demanded by the customer. The new output plumbing appears to have a large amount of additional frictional loss for the vapor and condensed liquid as it travels to the holding bins. The elevated pressure facing Rossi’s individual ECATs could have spelled doom for them at the expected 1 MW power level and he knew of this problem. It would be logical for Rossi to make an arrangement with the customer that did not result in a dangerous operational condition. Both of them would understand the reason to throttle back the power level to the 470 kW output region. Any sensible customer would accept this arrangement since they are witness to a historical demonstration. The customer knows that he can adjust his loading system later to keep the pressure head to a reasonable level once the system is installed and verified. It would be a no brainer to add an output pump that directs the liquid water toward the storage bin while keeping the pressure near atmospheric at the output to Rossi’s ECATs. All the customer would need to witness is that the ECAT system vaporized the water input and output dry steam at an approximately defined level. This was apparently what the customer engineer saw. Who would doubt that water would initially be collected within the water trap before the ECATs came up to power? The engineer would have a serious case of ignorance disease if he did not verify that water was being trapped under the cold ECAT condition. Give the guy a little slack here. After proving that water is indeed trapped with no power applied, the test was begun and the data that we see was obtained. Rossi knows perfectly well how much water is required in order to produce 500 kW of output power in self sustaining mode. Do you question this? He also knows that his ECAT 1 MW system puts out approximately 500 kW without drive. If you put two and two together at this point, you would see that it makes a lot of sense to lower the input water flow rate to a level below the 500 kW need so that the level of the water residing within the ECATs is slowly dropping with time and only vapor exits the check valves. How simple. With this arrangement, all Rossi and the engineer have to do is watch the water collected within the liquid trap and keep emptying it until no more water appears. Everyone is happy except for our skeptic members. All of the water is vaporized so the power can be determined to be 470 kW. There is not liquid water being ejected by the ECATs. The ECATs are capable of self sustaining mode for hours due to the operation of a 3 core device with positive heat feedback beyond what we saw in the 1 core test of October 6. The only element that might be an issue is that the liquid level within the ECATs could become too low at some lengthy point in time. If this were to become a problem, the water input flow rate could be raised to compensate. There is no indication that this occurred during the test. So, I am dazzled by the demonstration of a 1 MW cold fusion heat device which is an historic event. The fizzle is only in the mind of those that will not see through the fog of reality. Do you honestly think that 470 kW is too low of a power to witness for a cold fusion device? What does it take to get your attention? Maybe we need to invite aliens to the show.
Re: [Vo]:High school physics says 1 GJ excess energy for the Oct. 28 demo
This post is completely out of touch with reality. Who has ever claimed anything about dry steam and Rossi's device at 90 C? Why not discuss the real world instead of dreamland? Dave -Original Message- From: Joshua Cude joshua.c...@gmail.com To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Fri, Nov 18, 2011 10:55 am Subject: Re: [Vo]:High school physics says 1 GJ excess energy for the Oct. 28 demo On Fri, Nov 18, 2011 at 9:20 AM, Terry Blanton hohlr...@gmail.com wrote: As Josh walks away shaking his head, I'll just say, on behalf of Harry, that this is exactly what P.A.M. Dirac discovered in his famous energy equations: [...] So, let me ask you: If the temperature of the output fluid was 90C, and the pressure was 1 atmosphere, and Rossi claimed it was 100% dry steam because water boils at a lower temperature when the heat is produced by a Rossi reaction, would you consider it plausible, with no additional evidence? Because it's exactly that type of violation of ordinary, well characterized (experimentally) thermodynamics, that Rossi's claim of dry steam in the Oct 28 demo requires, completely independent of his other extraordinary claim of cold fusion. And Harry seemed to suggest he would accept a claim of water boiling at 90C at atmosphere, without additional evidence, because Rossi might be removing cold. If you sign up for that as well, then you are also a waste of time.
Re: [Vo]:Rossi feeding skeptics with much more skepticism.
financial fraud based on secretly accepting cash from credulous investors who sign iron clad nondisclosure secrecy agreements and remain silent after they have been swindled because they are too ashamed, or something. Sure. That is about as good a scam hypothesis as I can come up with. However, it does not fit the available information, which seems to indicate that Rossi is refusing investments because he wants to maintain control. And it requires numerous leaps of faith. My experience with RD financing is also inconsistent with the secrecy hypothesis. Lots of companies get (have gotten in the past and will get in the future) private investment money for projects in an RD phase, with failure to deliver not being automatically a scam: investors put money there for the potential large payoff, related to the large risk. That means they want a large share of the resulting profits, usually written as shares in the company itself. The financed company likes to publicize investment, in order to attract more investments. Even more so should be true for a scammer, who needs to get money quickly, before he is found out. There is anyway no legitimate reason for the RD company to ask for secrecy from the investors, as any lawyer would point out. So, it should be more financial fraud based on secretly accepting cash from VERY credulous investors who sign iron clad nondisclosure secrecy agreements IN OTHERWISE VERY WISHY-WASHY CONTRACTS THEY CANNOT ENFORCE, and all that because convinced by the shining personality of Rossi and his perfectly run experiments, and neglecting to take along a lawyer. OK, hypnosis could be an explanation, then. With your permission, I will keep thinking that a scam seems highly unlikely from a business case point of view. On Fri, Nov 18, 2011 at 4:39 PM, Rich Murray rmfor...@gmail.com wrote: see -- you start with a big ad hominem blast, full of pure speculations to justify ignoring Mary's cogent points, which have many times advanced my own thinking, such as the possibly of financial fraud based on secretly accepting cash from credulous investors who sign iron clad nondisclosure secrecy agreements -- hence, no evidence for skeptics to cite... On Fri, Nov 18, 2011 at 7:31 AM, Marcello Vitale mvit...@ucsbalum.netwrote: now, now, Rich, don't be silly. Just because Mary is obviously a shut-in with nothing else to do but write the same superficial drivel on every blog devoted to this topic, over and over again, and just because people just stop wasting their time answering her, that does not mean she is winning the argument. She is just shouting the loudest, the others are leaving her alone, not stopping to do what they did before she started her yelling. I follow blogs to gather information from other people taking different views of an argument. Participate only when I have some contribution to give. My expertise in industrial B2B, intellectual property and research makes me really wonder how this could ever be a scam. The arguments of the skeptics don't make sense from a business point of view, as I wrote in a long post before: I am still waiting for a reasonable hypothesis on how is Rossi ever going to make money unless he is truthful. Whereas the intellectual property position partly explains the (risky) business strategy. Finally, the objections to the experiments and demonstrations, not just of Rossi but of many others in the LENR pursuit, are just ludicrous for somebody like me who works every day through the fog of the always inconsistent experimental results to try and get to salable products. He who shows you pictures of a perfectly clean lab with perfectly clean devices is unbelievable, in the lab duct tape is king! And she who asks for something without having an agreement to buy on agreed-upon specs is just white noise :-)) On Fri, Nov 18, 2011 at 4:05 PM, Rich Murray rmfor...@gmail.com wrote: Mary, you're doing many things on target, to reduce other players to the level of having nothing to respond with except ad hominem retorts... On Fri, Nov 18, 2011 at 12:46 AM, David Roberson dlrober...@aol.comwrote: You really know how to cause injury to someone. -Original Message- From: Marcello Vitale mvit...@ucsbalum.net To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Fri, Nov 18, 2011 1:55 am Subject: Re: [Vo]:Rossi feeding skeptics with much more skepticism. All I can say is that you have an uncanny ability to always find a way to twist anything in a negative direction. A sitcom mother-in-law :- On Thu, Nov 17, 2011 at 6:17 PM, Mary Yugo maryyu...@gmail.com wrote: On Thu, Nov 17, 2011 at 8:12 AM, Marcello Vitale mvit...@ucsbalum.net wrote: Having agents or other sales organizations is normal for B2B, where the customer wants support for the product, asks a lot of questions, is an expert of what he/she is buying. Again, it is not normal for retail snake-oil peddlers to also recruit agents, unless those are the
Re: [Vo]:Swedish physicists run the site Ecat.com
They won't reveal their contract with Rossi. I wonder why. Maybe they paid him? And this comment: *NyT: There is great skepticism about Rossi’s technology. How do comment on that? * Holm: “Until he makes an independent test, there is obviously a small chance that it does not work. We are willing to take that risk. That means they apparently never tested a device.
Re: [Vo]:[Vo] : ECAT 1 MW System-Dazzle or Fizzle
Why are you dazzled by a test in which results were never verified by any credible and known independent observers? Even though there was more than a dozen invited guests there who could have done so? And could you explain why a test of a large machine is necessary or helpful when it's composed of 50+ subunits, none of which have been properly and independently shown to actually work as advertised?
Re: [Vo]:Swedish physicists run the site Ecat.com
Am 18.11.2011 16:11, schrieb Terry Blanton: Interesting statement: But because there are powerful forces who want to argue that it’s all about fraud, we will make one or more of the following to prove our honesty. Honesty is already proven. They have never seen it and say it is highly improbable that it is a fraud, but their website describes as if it where a secure fact tells theory details and delivery times and prices and financial estimations. This is not a usual behaviour of scientists or engineers. At the same time Rossi says on his forum he has sold 13 1MW plants to an secret military organisation in a secret country. If he continues to sell so sucessfully, then he cannot fulfill a delivery time of 3 months. ;-) Adolf Schneider wrote in July in his german NET magazine, they have already 100 pieces of 1MW plants build in USA. This was before the Bologna 1MW prototype was ready. This all doesnt fit together. If we forget all demos and all data and look only to the behaviour of the persons, then this all looks like the usual scam. Spread inconclusive rumours over the internet. The internet acts as a ruour amplifier and converts rumours into facts. By the pure amount of information thats available an uninformed layman, who is only seldom on the internet, is easily fooled.
Re: [Vo]:[Vo] : ECAT 1 MW System-Dazzle or Fizzle
I guess that I am easy to dazzle. Rossi explained the reason for the secrecy, and I believe him. And finally, I did see proof that the small units work as advertised. Dave -Original Message- From: Mary Yugo maryyu...@gmail.com To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Fri, Nov 18, 2011 11:37 am Subject: Re: [Vo]:[Vo] : ECAT 1 MW System-Dazzle or Fizzle Why are you dazzled by a test in which results were never verified by any credible and known independent observers? Even though there was more than a dozen invited guests there who could have done so? And could you explain why a test of a large machine is necessary or helpful when it's composed of 50+ subunits, none of which have been properly and independently shown to actually work as advertised?
Re: [Vo]:Rossi feeding skeptics with much more skepticism.
On Fri, Nov 18, 2011 at 7:16 AM, David Roberson dlrober...@aol.com wrote: Actually, we are getting bored by her continued repetition of the same old arguments so we are resorting to the same methods It's not boring but it is certainly amazing and amusing that people keep counting chickens that are as far from hatching now as they were last January. On the other hand, it's boring to hear theory after theory about *how* Rossi's machine works before it has been properly proven *that* Rossi's machine works (Rossi is creating cold now, is he?) . Why do we have to keep repeating the same lines just to keep her old points alive? ... You skeptics need to find real issues to harp upon instead of rehashing the same old lineRossi did not test it wellHe is scamming...etc. Those responses are only presented when people keep insisting and writing as if Rossi's device has been properly proven to work. It most certainly has not. And the response is that Rossi *may* be scamming, not that he has been proven to be scamming -- perhaps this subtle distinction isn't clear for you because you continue to misstate the skeptical position. If determining whether Rossi's machine works or not is not a real issue to you, what is and why?
Re: [Vo]:Steorn's HephaHeat Eclipses Rossi's ECat
Steorn is not stating anything about the input power requirements for their HephaHeat product in that product's web pages. The personal communication about 1kW was made regarding a FaceBook video of a device that might be construed to be related but is not claimed to be related by the Steorn HephaHeat pages. It might also be construed, given the ambiguity, to be a continuous power input drawn down as heat in short periods of time (say during a shower). Indeed, that is the interpretation given the 1kW statement by many skeptics. On Fri, Nov 18, 2011 at 7:03 AM, jwin...@cyllene.uwa.edu.au wrote: I think Steorn must have got word of Rossi's E-Cat and decided to go one better. Checkout http://tinyurl.com/6rg6pzu A clever gentleman at the bottom of the page has calculated the HephaHeat's coefficient of performance: ...the Orbo heater has a minimum output power of 346.12 kW with an input power of 1 kW, which yields a COP of *346*... Isn't that amazing. That has to leave Rossi's E-Cat (with a COP of only around 6) for dead! But still Rossi's device does get the higher end - right up over a megawatt. And it's market ready. So I think the sensible thing would a cross-licensing agreement between Steorn and Rossi - let Steorn include the E-Cat in their range of products to cover the top end, and let Rossi incorporate HephaHeat technology into his home units. After all it seems HephaHeat doesn't need the complications of a catalyst and hydrogen feed, but simply runs from ordinary 50 or 60Hz mains power. That's got to be an enormous advantage for home use. While we are considering the cross-licensing business, we shouldn't forget about Transaltec (English site at www.gammamanager.com) who Rossi has just accepted to market his ECat in Switzerland. The only two products that this company now sells are very large - their 1.5 to 225 MW EBM power plants and now the Megawatt ECat. I reckon Steorn's new HephaHeat device, and the even smaller powered Orbo motor would fill out the low end of their product range perfectly. They would be able to offer Energy by Motion, Energy by Fusion, Energy by Foolishness and Energy by Mistake! I am sure if they hired Sean as their marketing manager that they could make plenty of money. As others have suggested long ago they might change the company's name to something more dynamic and star-studded - Sean's Connery for instance. But still I think the highlight for this week was reading about the man eating monsters that might have got Obama while he was trying to be seen but not eaten on mars! Probably the most amazing thing about this report is the incredibly large percentage of serious comments at the bottom of the page with almost no one taking the mickey! Maybe they have a rule against that like on vortex-l. But I had a serious question about this article - anyone know why some of these predators on mars are impossible to evade if encountered? Even Arni managed to beat the predator that visited Earth so why couldn't Obama use some of Arni's tricks to evade these predators? Here is a link if you want to look for an answer http://tinyurl.com/79teosh or direct http://tinyurl.com/7rx4taj
[Vo]:Still faster than light...
New results show neutrinos still faster than light 01:09 18 November 2011 by Lisa Grossman One of the most staggering results in physics – that neutrinos may go faster than light – has not gone away with two further weeks of observations. The researchers behind the jaw-dropping finding are now confident enough in the result that they are submitting it to a peer-reviewed journal. http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn21188-more-data-shows-neutrinos-still-faster-than-light.html Harry
Re: [Vo]:Rossi feeding skeptics with much more skepticism.
On Fri, Nov 18, 2011 at 8:24 AM, Marcello Vitale mvit...@ucsbalum.netwrote: However, it does not fit the available information, which seems to indicate that Rossi is refusing investments because he wants to maintain control. Really? How do you know? Do you have Rossi's word on it? What legitimate large investor who offered money has Rossi turned down please? If there is such an entity, could it be that the reason they were turned down was that they required due diligence and proper testing and knew how to do it? Apparently that may have happened with both Quantum and NASA. On the days they showed up to do due diligence, Rossi's machine apparently did not work. Strange. I suspect more about this has not been heard because the people who tried to do the testing had to sign some sort of silencing agreement. And it requires numerous leaps of faith. Not as large a leap of faith as to believe that Rossi has what he claims and can't be bothered to do a simple, quick, safe and cheap independent test to prove it. My experience with RD financing is also inconsistent with the secrecy hypothesis. Lots of companies get (have gotten in the past and will get in the future) private investment money for projects in an RD phase, with failure to deliver not being automatically a scam: investors put money there for the potential large payoff, related to the large risk. That means they want a large share of the resulting profits, usually written as shares in the company itself. The financed company likes to publicize investment, in order to attract more investments. Even more so should be true for a scammer, who needs to get money quickly, before he is found out. There is anyway no legitimate reason for the RD company to ask for secrecy from the investors, as any lawyer would point out. I have no idea what that means. Failure to deliver is not automatically a scam. In Rossi's case, self-delusion can be ruled out at this point because of his behavior and his statements. That means that in Rossi's case, if the machine doesn't work, it has to be either a scam or I suppose Rossi could plead insanity. I don't see any other choices in the event that the device does not work. I don't understand the rest of the paragraph. So, it should be more financial fraud based on secretly accepting cash from VERY credulous investors who sign iron clad nondisclosure secrecy agreements IN OTHERWISE VERY WISHY-WASHY CONTRACTS THEY CANNOT ENFORCE, and all that because convinced by the shining personality of Rossi and his perfectly run experiments, and neglecting to take along a lawyer. That theory, which you present sarcastically I think, actually explains the cases of the convicted felon fraudsters Tilley and Lee. It also explains how Steorn's investors got sucked in. Stock fraud explains the Sniffex explosive detector (convicted) scam. And a joke was the reason some guy calling himself Mylow fooled Sterling Allan into running all over the country after a free energy motor that actually ran on the mains via a monofilament fishing line! It is not beyond belief that Rossi has fooled some wealthy investors. People get fooled all the time which is why the independent testing is so needed. OK, hypnosis could be an explanation, then. How? With your permission, I will keep thinking that a scam seems highly unlikely from a business case point of view. Sure. If you're so certain, I suggest you invest.
Re: [Vo]:Rossi feeding skeptics with much more skepticism.
not investing for two basic reasons - I have no money, hence I cannot benefit from your generous laying out of your life to protect the rich and stupid - Daniele Passerini, whom I could go through to invest, has stated that Rossi refused to take money from willing investors I'd also like to note that none of the examples you gave include secrecy, and most involved retail sale to small guys, not well lawyered up. On Fri, Nov 18, 2011 at 5:58 PM, Mary Yugo maryyu...@gmail.com wrote: On Fri, Nov 18, 2011 at 8:24 AM, Marcello Vitale mvit...@ucsbalum.netwrote: However, it does not fit the available information, which seems to indicate that Rossi is refusing investments because he wants to maintain control. Really? How do you know? Do you have Rossi's word on it? What legitimate large investor who offered money has Rossi turned down please? If there is such an entity, could it be that the reason they were turned down was that they required due diligence and proper testing and knew how to do it? Apparently that may have happened with both Quantum and NASA. On the days they showed up to do due diligence, Rossi's machine apparently did not work. Strange. I suspect more about this has not been heard because the people who tried to do the testing had to sign some sort of silencing agreement. And it requires numerous leaps of faith. Not as large a leap of faith as to believe that Rossi has what he claims and can't be bothered to do a simple, quick, safe and cheap independent test to prove it. My experience with RD financing is also inconsistent with the secrecy hypothesis. Lots of companies get (have gotten in the past and will get in the future) private investment money for projects in an RD phase, with failure to deliver not being automatically a scam: investors put money there for the potential large payoff, related to the large risk. That means they want a large share of the resulting profits, usually written as shares in the company itself. The financed company likes to publicize investment, in order to attract more investments. Even more so should be true for a scammer, who needs to get money quickly, before he is found out. There is anyway no legitimate reason for the RD company to ask for secrecy from the investors, as any lawyer would point out. I have no idea what that means. Failure to deliver is not automatically a scam. In Rossi's case, self-delusion can be ruled out at this point because of his behavior and his statements. That means that in Rossi's case, if the machine doesn't work, it has to be either a scam or I suppose Rossi could plead insanity. I don't see any other choices in the event that the device does not work. I don't understand the rest of the paragraph. So, it should be more financial fraud based on secretly accepting cash from VERY credulous investors who sign iron clad nondisclosure secrecy agreements IN OTHERWISE VERY WISHY-WASHY CONTRACTS THEY CANNOT ENFORCE, and all that because convinced by the shining personality of Rossi and his perfectly run experiments, and neglecting to take along a lawyer. That theory, which you present sarcastically I think, actually explains the cases of the convicted felon fraudsters Tilley and Lee. It also explains how Steorn's investors got sucked in. Stock fraud explains the Sniffex explosive detector (convicted) scam. And a joke was the reason some guy calling himself Mylow fooled Sterling Allan into running all over the country after a free energy motor that actually ran on the mains via a monofilament fishing line! It is not beyond belief that Rossi has fooled some wealthy investors. People get fooled all the time which is why the independent testing is so needed. OK, hypnosis could be an explanation, then. How? With your permission, I will keep thinking that a scam seems highly unlikely from a business case point of view. Sure. If you're so certain, I suggest you invest. -- Marcello Vitale via Cavallotti 5, 20093 Cologno Monzese, MI, ITALY phone: +39 338 484 9724 skype: marcello_vitale_UK email: mvit...@ucsbalum.net
Re: [Vo]:another Focardi brief interview
On Fri, Nov 18, 2011 at 4:51 AM, Marcello Vitale mvit...@ucsbalum.netwrote: More evidence of a big scam, HUGE! :- It's not evidence of anything. It's a dreadfully dull interview with nothing but softball questions. There's not a single difficult or important issue which was addressed in it. Why is that?
Re: [Vo]:[Vo] : ECAT 1 MW System-Dazzle or Fizzle
Am 18.11.2011 17:41, schrieb David Roberson: I guess that I am easy to dazzle. Rossi explained the reason for the secrecy, and I believe him. And finally, I did see proof that the small units work as advertised. My domestic 10kW gasboiler is in any case better proven than the e-cat. It works as advertised. When it is -20° outside then I have +21° inside. This is impossible with a 2kW heater.
Re: [Vo]:Swedish physicists run the site Ecat.com
On Fri, Nov 18, 2011 at 8:38 AM, Peter Heckert peter.heck...@arcor.dewrote: At the same time Rossi says on his forum he has sold 13 1MW plants to an secret military organisation in a secret country. If he continues to sell so sucessfully, then he cannot fulfill a delivery time of 3 months. ;-) Rossi seems to be buying time before he has to disclose the identity of a buyer. Adolf Schneider wrote in July in his german NET magazine, they have already 100 pieces of 1MW plants build in USA. This was before the Bologna 1MW prototype was ready. Amazing. Thank you for reading and interpreting the German text. Of course, that has to be simply a lie. There could not be a plant in the US that made 100 large nuclear fusion devices and escaped public scrutiny and proper investigation by the Homeland Security Agency and many others.
Re: [Vo]:Steorn's HephaHeat Eclipses Rossi's ECat
On Fri, Nov 18, 2011 at 8:49 AM, James Bowery jabow...@gmail.com wrote: Steorn is not stating anything about the input power requirements for their HephaHeat product in that product's web pages. The personal communication about 1kW was made regarding a FaceBook video of a device that might be construed to be related but is not claimed to be related by the Steorn HephaHeat pages. It might also be construed, given the ambiguity, to be a continuous power input drawn down as heat in short periods of time (say during a shower). Indeed, that is the interpretation given the 1kW statement by many skeptics. Steorn has never sold a product. They are exceedingly unlikely to sell this to anyone. Not more than once anyway.
Re: [Vo]:Rossi feeding skeptics with much more skepticism.
On Fri, Nov 18, 2011 at 9:06 AM, Marcello Vitale mvit...@ucsbalum.netwrote: not investing for two basic reasons - I have no money, hence I cannot benefit from your generous laying out of your life to protect the rich and stupid Many people who contributed money now lost to the scams I named were neither rich nor stupid. They were bamboozled and flummoxed by clever if somewhat standard methods. Some were retail (Lee and Otto). Others were pretty wholesale-- they involved large stock deals (Sniffex). Steorn involved substantial investors some of whom contributed more than a million Euros. Yes they did not do due diligence. Neither did the guys who set up ecat.com. They admit it in the NyTeknik article. And they won't reveal the nature of their contract with Rossi. One of those people is a qualified nuclear physicist, who of all people, should know better. - Daniele Passerini, whom I could go through to invest, has stated that Rossi refused to take money from willing investors And Passerini gets his information from where? Rossi of course. For release on his blog, of course. I say again: please support your position that Rossi isn't taking money by naming one large company or investor who has been turned down by Rossi and who has complained about it. Maybe there are some out there but so far we don't know about them. I suspect he's turning down orders (or putting them on backlog) for megawatt plants by the drove but that's because I suspect they all require due diligence and proper testing before money is handed over. I will guess he says he has too many orders already.
Re: [Vo]:[Vo] : ECAT 1 MW System-Dazzle or Fizzle
On Fri, Nov 18, 2011 at 10:17 AM, David Roberson dlrober...@aol.com wrote: The October 28, 2011 test of the Rossi 1 MW LENR system was either a success or a failure depending upon your point of view. The skeptics have decided to totally disregard the test results without allowing the ECAT any reasonable chance of success. Not true. This skeptic has considered the measurements reported on Rossi's 3-page report, and found that the measurements do not support Rossi's claim of heat from nuclear reactions. His calculation of 470 kW is based on an unsupportable assumption of dry steam at the output. No evidence is given on the report or verbally, that it is in fact dry. There is only the claim. In fact, the evidence excludes the possibility. What would you expect for them to do? They see the glass as half empty while the proponents of the ECAT see it as half full. There is no possibility for a resolution of this impasse without a large quantity of data. A small quantity of good data would resolve this impasse. Rossi is careful not to supply it, because the impasse is essential to his modus operandi. Mr. Rossi was expecting to dazzle us with his brilliant 1 MW ECAT system. I think he was expecting to confuse people with it, and to maintain a following of true believers who want desperately to believe his claims have merit. In that, he succeeded. Making one ECAT operate into a well defined load is not easy, [...] You're just trying to make excuses for why Rossi can't give a convincing demo of gigajoules of energy from a few grams of nickel. Both of them would understand the reason to throttle back the power level to the 470 kW output region. The throttling back by a factor of 2 was not the problem with the megacat demo. It was the failure to demonstrate more energy out than energy in, that was the problem. All the customer would need to witness is that the ECAT system vaporized the water input and output dry steam at an approximately defined level. This was apparently what the customer engineer saw. He didn't even *claim* to see that. The fluid was inside a closed system. According to his interview with Lewan, he based his claim of dry steam on the temperature, and the claim the liquid was captured. But without pressure the temperature does not prove dry steam, and capturing liquid with a tee in the conduit doesn't work if the water is entrained in fast moving steam, and it works even less well, if the valve is closed, as appears to have been the case. Oops. If it was dry steam, then he is claiming an eightfold increase in power transfer in a matter of minutes. How does that work? Who would doubt that water would initially be collected within the water trap before the ECATs came up to power? The engineer would have a serious case of ignorance disease if he did not verify that water was being trapped under the cold ECAT condition. Give the guy a little slack here. But that says nothing about whether the water will be trapped when 1% of the water is vaporized. In that case, the vapor occupies more than 90% of the volume in the conduit, increasing the pressure and boiling point, and producing a mist of entrained droplets in the pipe. The mist will not be trapped, especially if the valve is closed. And why should we cut him slack? He clearly failed to demonstrate any expertise in this event. After proving that water is indeed trapped with no power applied, the test was begun and the data that we see was obtained. It only proved that water was trapped when 100% liquid. That says nothing about whether or not water was trapped when 1% (by mass) is steam, giving 90% steam by volume. And especially if the valve was closed. Rossi knows perfectly well how much water is required in order to produce 500 kW of output power in self sustaining mode. Why is water required to produce heat? I goes you mean how much water is required to get 100% vaporization to within one per cent or less. Do you question this? He also knows that his ECAT 1 MW system puts out approximately 500 kW without drive. I have no reason to believe he knows that. And approximately isn't good enough. If he's claiming dry steam, then he'd have to know it to a per cent or so, which seems unlikely. And the power would have to be stable to a per cent or so, which is also unlikely. With this arrangement, all Rossi and the engineer have to do is watch the water collected within the liquid trap and keep emptying it until no more water appears. But with the trap they were using, water would stop appearing at the onset of boiling, because it would immediately produce a high speed gas containing entrained mist. Of course, closing the valve would also cause water to stop being trapped. Everyone is happy except for our skeptic members. Right, because no one can explain: (1) why is the temperature so stable, requiring power stability of 1% (2) how does he get an 8-fold increase in
Re: [Vo]:[Vo] : ECAT 1 MW System-Dazzle or Fizzle
On Fri, Nov 18, 2011 at 9:10 AM, Peter Heckert peter.heck...@arcor.dewrote: Am 18.11.2011 17:41, schrieb David Roberson: My domestic 10kW gasboiler is in any case better proven than the e-cat. Rossi has reported several times and it's in his patent application that he had a 35 kW E-cat Ni-H *fusion* heater heating his factory in N. Italy for more than a year. Unfortunately, nobody but Rossi has ever reported seeing it and nobody at all has ever reported testing and verifying it. Somehow it was lost. (sarcasm omitted with considerable difficulty)
Re: [Vo]:Rossi feeding skeptics with much more skepticism.
Rossi's machine has been shown to work to me. It has been discussed on many occasions which you do not accept. So, I guess we should realize that there is not possible compromise except for the future ahead. We all know that the skeptics believe that Rossi may be scammingleave it at that. Why repeat it? Do you believe that we have not heard you enough times? Please respond. Dave -Original Message- From: Mary Yugo maryyu...@gmail.com To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Fri, Nov 18, 2011 11:50 am Subject: Re: [Vo]:Rossi feeding skeptics with much more skepticism. On Fri, Nov 18, 2011 at 7:16 AM, David Roberson dlrober...@aol.com wrote: Actually, we are getting bored by her continued repetition of the same old arguments so we are resorting to the same methods It's not boring but it is certainly amazing and amusing that people keep counting chickens that are as far from hatching now as they were last January. On the other hand, it's boring to hear theory after theory about *how* Rossi's machine works before it has been properly proven *that* Rossi's machine works (Rossi is creating cold now, is he?) . Why do we have to keep repeating the same lines just to keep her old points alive? ... You skeptics need to find real issues to harp upon instead of rehashing the same old lineRossi did not test it wellHe is scamming...etc. Those responses are only presented when people keep insisting and writing as if Rossi's device has been properly proven to work. It most certainly has not. And the response is that Rossi *may* be scamming, not that he has been proven to be scamming -- perhaps this subtle distinction isn't clear for you because you continue to misstate the skeptical position. If determining whether Rossi's machine works or not is not a real issue to you, what is and why?
Re: [Vo]:[Vo] : ECAT 1 MW System-Dazzle or Fizzle
On Fri, Nov 18, 2011 at 9:29 AM, Joshua Cude joshua.c...@gmail.com wrote: Right, because no one can explain: (1) why is the temperature so stable, requiring power stability of 1% (2) how does he get an 8-fold increase in power transfer in a few minutes, if the first-fold power increase took 2 hours. Excellent questions. Perhaps Jed Rothwell can address them?
[Vo]:Gain from the cold side
Terry, and/or Harry, and/or others who may remember 'compreture' ... Rossi's reaction might be boiling water by removing cold, rather than by adding heat. OK, I can see this is a waste of time. This comes up on Vortex from time to time and it is far from a waste of time. Formerly, Frank Grimer introduced the brilliant concept of 'compreture' - a feature of physical reality in which there is no true basement or ceiling (of the temperature/pressure continuum, when we move to a lower geometry or cross-dimension). To make a long story short, we be on the verge of now finding a more cogent place for Grimer's insight - in Nanomagnetism. Coldness may not be the way to boil water, on its own - but it may be a way to capture Dirac radiation from the negative sea at -6.8 eV ! It does not matter if the sign is negative or positive, so perhaps Steorn will usurp this one, as well :) I put a smiley there to alert people like Mary, who seldom carefully read the posts of others before spouting out a new dose of ignorance - that yes, we are all aware that the photon is its own antiparticle. A photon and an anti-photon (or negative photon) - are exactly the same thing. A negative photon from reciprocal space would act just like a regular photon in 3-space. This is how water is boiled with coldness. This information could be more accurately worded, if this were going to become an integral part of Nanomagnetism and will be in the future - but the underlying sentiment is absolutely correct based on Dirac's theory. Specifically, since all heat engines work on the differential between the hot and cold side - with the zero Kelvin set as an (arbitrary) bottom, they are artificially constrained if there is no absolute bottom, at all scales. The bottom of coldness, so to speak, may not be the a real bottom after all, once we reach the nanoscale. Helsinki University of Technology has a specialty Lab investigating the low end - and the coincidental thing is that this does relate to directly to Nanomagnetism - mentioned yesterday. Of course, they are not yet aware of the cross-connection. http://ltl.tkk.fi/triennial/positive.html This Lab may be just scratching the surface of the Dirac sea of Negative energy, and the following quote from them - will be not a limit, but instead the threshold to opening QM door to another dimension (a version of Dirac's reciprocal space). A rather unique property of nuclear magnets is the possibility of producing negative spin temperatures. This does not violate the laws of thermodynamics, i.e. inaccessibility of the absolute zero, because the negative side of the temperature scale is reached by a rapid magnetic field reversal. During this process the spin temperature is strictly speaking ill defined, but can be thought of evolving via infinity. In a sense, negative absolute temperatures are not colder than zero but actually hotter than infinite temperature! Yes, these guys are hedging a bit at this point, and do not want to sound too radical, given the implications of what should be startling results; but there is much more out there wrt the possibility of achieving gain via coldness, so to speak. UV light from Dirac's negative sea, at -6.8 eV, may not be hotter than infinite temperature but it will easily boil water. Jones attachment: winmail.dat
Re: [Vo]:High school physics says 1 GJ excess energy for the Oct. 28 demo
On Fri, Nov 18, 2011 at 10:20 AM, David Roberson dlrober...@aol.com wrote: This post is completely out of touch with reality. Who has ever claimed anything about dry steam and Rossi's device at 90 C? Why not discuss the real world instead of dreamland? I did discuss reality. I said it is implausible from thermodynamics that the power transfer can increase 8-fold in a matter of minutes, as Rossi claims, if the first-fold power increase takes 2 hours. Then I was told that implausible thermodynamics don't matter because Rossi is introducing a new phenomenon. So then to test whether they really believed that suggestion, I proposed an even more thermodynamically implausible scenario, and asked if they would accept that implausibility if Rossi claimed it, because Rossi is introducing a new phenomenon. That's an analogy. All of us, except, as you say, those in dreamland, would reject the notion that water would boil at 90C at atmosphere, just because the heat comes from a Rossiaction. The idea that an 8-fold increase in the power transfer requires an 8-fold increase in the temperature difference between the water and the heating element is a less obvious thermodynamic concept. But it is nevertheless just as true. So, just because the heat comes from a Rossiaction, it remains implausible that the power transfer could increase that fast.
Re: [Vo]:Rossi feeding skeptics with much more skepticism.
On Fri, Nov 18, 2011 at 9:32 AM, David Roberson dlrober...@aol.com wrote: Rossi's machine has been shown to work to me. It has been discussed on many occasions which you do not accept. So, I guess we should realize that there is not possible compromise except for the future ahead. We all know that the skeptics believe that Rossi may be scammingleave it at that. Why repeat it? Do you believe that we have not heard you enough times? Please respond. I responded to other such comments. I think it's important to answer believers whenever they say something strange or wrong in support of Rossi. Not to do that would leave the wrong impression. Not everyone reads every post as is evident from the continuing rash of unsupported claims -- that Rossi has a customer, that he's turning down investments, that he never accepted money, and so on. This is a discussion. Some points bear repeating especially since so many people don't seem to grasp them. Sometimes, saying it again a slightly different way helps to clarify the issue further. Admittedly, sometimes it doesn't seem to. What's interesting about Rossi's story is that there seems to be a new twist on it every day. Now we have the Swedish company with a nuclear physicist that admits they didn't do due diligence and have some sort of undisclosed contract with Rossi. And there is Rossi's association with Schneider who makes extremely bizarre claims that Peter Heckert was kind enough to provide in English from the German original. It's tons of fun, this story!
Re: [Vo]:Gain from the cold side
On Fri, Nov 18, 2011 at 9:40 AM, Jones Beene jone...@pacbell.net wrote: I put a smiley there to alert people like Mary, who seldom carefully read the posts of others before spouting out a new dose of ignorance ... My understanding was that ad hominems are frowned upon and precluded from this email list. Does that only apply to skeptics?
Re: [Vo]:Swedish physicists run the site Ecat.com
Am 18.11.2011 18:11, schrieb Mary Yugo: On Fri, Nov 18, 2011 at 8:38 AM, Peter Heckert peter.heck...@arcor.de mailto:peter.heck...@arcor.de wrote: At the same time Rossi says on his forum he has sold 13 1MW plants to an secret military organisation in a secret country. If he continues to sell so sucessfully, then he cannot fulfill a delivery time of 3 months. ;-) Rossi seems to be buying time before he has to disclose the identity of a buyer. Adolf Schneider wrote in July in his german NET magazine, they have already 100 pieces of 1MW plants build in USA. This was before the Bologna 1MW prototype was ready. Amazing. Thank you for reading and interpreting the German text. Of course, that has to be simply a lie. There could not be a plant in the US that made 100 large nuclear fusion devices and escaped public scrutiny and proper investigation by the Homeland Security Agency and many others. Ok, I have reread it and must admit, I made a small error. I feel the obligation not to spread rumors, but fight rumors and give precise information. What he actually wrote, reads as follows: Für jene Länder, die noch keine Lizenz erworben haben, können ab November bei Dr. Rossi Bestellungen für 1-MW-Anlagen inAuftrag gegeben werden, die laut Dr. Rossi innert zwei Monaten, und zwar als komplette Container, geliefert werden. Deren Preis liegt bei 2 Mio Euro. In den USA seien laut Dr. Rossi bereits Tausende solcher 1-MW-Anlagen bestellt worden. http://www.borderlands.de/net_pdf/NET0911S4-15.pdf page 13 This is from september/october 2011. First, he writes in those countries where it is not licensed, orders can be made directly to Rossi from November on. This means, he implies, many countries have already bought licenses, without actually saying this. Delivery is within 2 months, price is 2 million Euro for a 1MW plant He doesnt mention, if this is with or without tax and customs fees and who brings it over custom. This shows, the offer is not real. Transportation costs are not mentioned. (There is an easy trick for fraud. Deliver, but make intentional formal errors in documents and adress and then it will not go over customs, but will go back. So you never get it and must fight for the money.) He former writes In USA there are already thousands 1 MW plants ordered. He did not write, they are ready built. I was in error about this, sorry.
Re: [Vo]:[Vo] : ECAT 1 MW System-Dazzle or Fizzle
Mary Yugo wrote: Rossi has reported several times and it's in his patent application that he had a 35 kW E-cat Ni-H *fusion* heater heating his factory in N. Italy for more than a year. Unfortunately, nobody but Rossi has ever reported seeing it . . . That is incorrect. Focardi and many other people reported seeing it, including several people I know. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:[Vo] : ECAT 1 MW System-Dazzle or Fizzle
On Fri, Nov 18, 2011 at 11:58 AM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.comwrote: Mary Yugo wrote: Rossi has reported several times and it's in his patent application that he had a 35 kW E-cat Ni-H *fusion* heater heating his factory in N. Italy for more than a year. Unfortunately, nobody but Rossi has ever reported seeing it . . . That is incorrect. Focardi and many other people reported seeing it, including several people I know. Please indicate where. I have not seen such reports.
Re: [Vo]:[Vo] : ECAT 1 MW System-Dazzle or Fizzle
Am 18.11.2011 18:58, schrieb Jed Rothwell: Mary Yugo wrote: Rossi has reported several times and it's in his patent application that he had a 35 kW E-cat Ni-H *fusion* heater heating his factory in N. Italy for more than a year. Unfortunately, nobody but Rossi has ever reported seeing it . . . That is incorrect. Focardi and many other people reported seeing it, including several people I know. So we may assume it is as real as an UFO, which was seen and reported by many people. Now, this is the scientific proof that was missing. There are even unsharp images in Focardis TEDx event video, so it must be true! Peter
Re: [Vo]:[Vo] : ECAT 1 MW System-Dazzle or Fizzle
On Fri, Nov 18, 2011 at 9:58 AM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com wrote: Mary Yugo wrote: Rossi has reported several times and it's in his patent application that he had a 35 kW E-cat Ni-H *fusion* heater heating his factory in N. Italy for more than a year. Unfortunately, nobody but Rossi has ever reported seeing it . . . That is incorrect. Focardi and many other people reported seeing it, including several people I know. Anyone independent of Rossi? And who confirmed it's operation? And that the energy source was nuclear? And as Joshua Cude asked, where did this appear?
Re: [Vo]:[Vo] : ECAT 1 MW System-Dazzle or Fizzle
I do not know where to begin. There is at least as much speculation in the response as I used to explain what was a likely scenario. On Fri, Nov 18, 2011 at 10:17 AM, David Roberson dlrober...@aol.com wrote: The October 28, 2011 test of the Rossi 1 MW LENR system was either a success or a failure depending upon your point of view. The skeptics have decided to totally disregard the test results without allowing the ECAT any reasonable chance of success. Not true. This skeptic has considered the measurements reported on Rossi's 3-page report, and found that the measurements do not support Rossi's claim of heat from nuclear reactions. His calculation of 470 kW is based on an unsupportable assumption of dry steam at the output. No evidence is given on the report or verbally, that it is in fact dry. There is only the claim. In fact, the evidence excludes the possibility. No water is trapped within the little water trap. Why do you think he has a shut off valve after of the trap location? Do you think it is to stop the high speed vapor from forcing it past the take out when he is measuring water? What would you expect for them to do? They see the glass as half empty while the proponents of the ECAT see it as half full. There is no possibility for a resolution of this impasse without a large quantity of data. A small quantity of good data would resolve this impasse. Rossi is careful not to supply it, because the impasse is essential to his modus operandi. Prove it. Mr. Rossi was expecting to dazzle us with his brilliant 1 MW ECAT system. I think he was expecting to confuse people with it, and to maintain a following of true believers who want desperately to believe his claims have merit. In that, he succeeded. Just your opinion. Making one ECAT operate into a well defined load is not easy, [...] You're just trying to make excuses for why Rossi can't give a convincing demo of gigajoules of energy from a few grams of nickel. I guess you know how to make a 1 MW system. Please explain how you would do it. Both of them would understand the reason to throttle back the power level to the 470 kW output region. The throttling back by a factor of 2 was not the problem with the megacat demo. It was the failure to demonstrate more energy out than energy in, that was the problem. Not true. Prove this is the reason. All the customer would need to witness is that the ECAT system vaporized the water input and output dry steam at an approximately defined level. This was apparently what the customer engineer saw. He didn't even claim to see that. The fluid was inside a closed system. According to his interview with Lewan, he based his claim of dry steam on the temperature, and the claim the liquid was captured. But without pressure the temperature does not prove dry steam, and capturing liquid with a tee in the conduit doesn't work if the water is entrained in fast moving steam, and it works even less well, if the valve is closed, as appears to have been the case. Oops. He used good engineering practices to prove to himself that the test was valid. Do you question his knowledge? Do you know better? If it was dry steam, then he is claiming an eightfold increase in power transfer in a matter of minutes. How does that work? Does the data support the claim? You always insist on data. Why do you now say it is irrelevant? Who would doubt that water would initially be collected within the water trap before the ECATs came up to power? The engineer would have a serious case of ignorance disease if he did not verify that water was being trapped under the cold ECAT condition. Give the guy a little slack here. But that says nothing about whether the water will be trapped when 1% of the water is vaporized. In that case, the vapor occupies more than 90% of the volume in the conduit, increasing the pressure and boiling point, and producing a mist of entrained droplets in the pipe. The mist will not be trapped, especially if the valve is closed. Close the lower valve after the collection point to stop steam flow in that path. This is the lowest point so the water will flow freely into it. Do you doubt that this will occur? Why? And why should we cut him slack? He clearly failed to demonstrate any expertise in this event. I guess we are to assume that you know all the facts. Were you there? Did you discuss anything with the gentleman to determine that he might know far more than yourself? After proving that water is indeed trapped with no power applied, the test was begun and the data that we see was obtained. It only proved that water was trapped when 100% liquid. That says nothing about whether or not water was trapped when 1% (by mass) is steam, giving 90% steam by volume. And especially if the valve was closed. The valve following the trap can be closed. Please think about the system.
Re: [Vo]:[Vo] : ECAT 1 MW System-Dazzle or Fizzle
I already did. Do you need clarification? Dave -Original Message- From: Mary Yugo maryyu...@gmail.com To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Fri, Nov 18, 2011 12:35 pm Subject: Re: [Vo]:[Vo] : ECAT 1 MW System-Dazzle or Fizzle On Fri, Nov 18, 2011 at 9:29 AM, Joshua Cude joshua.c...@gmail.com wrote: Right, because no one can explain: (1) why is the temperature so stable, requiring power stability of 1% (2) how does he get an 8-fold increase in power transfer in a few minutes, if the first-fold power increase took 2 hours. Excellent questions. Perhaps Jed Rothwell can address them?
Re: [Vo]:[Vo] : ECAT 1 MW System-Dazzle or Fizzle
Mary Yugo wrote: That is incorrect. Focardi and many other people reported seeing it, including several people I know. Anyone independent of Rossi? They are as independent of him as I am. None of them work for him, and none are in business relationships as far as I know. Focardi is a close friend, of course. And who confirmed it's operation? All of them did, in test results they showed me, which unfortunately I cannot upload. And that the energy source was nuclear? We know it is nuclear for the same reason we know any cold fusion reaction is: there is no chemical fuel in the cell, there are no chemical transformations, and the cell produces thousands of times more energy than any chemical cell of equivalent mass could. They may have done other nuclear tests but I did not hear about that. And as Joshua Cude asked, where did this appear? These results have not been published. Stremmenos and Focardi discussed them briefly in the press. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:[Vo] : ECAT 1 MW System-Dazzle or Fizzle
Personally, I like the 18 hr water heating only run done in February. Seems good to me. I'd like the hard core skeptics (e.g. Mary, Joshua Rich) to go away and leave us poor believers to our delusions. Ron --On Friday, November 18, 2011 11:41 AM -0500 David Roberson dlrober...@aol.com wrote: I guess that I am easy to dazzle. Rossi explained the reason for the secrecy, and I believe him. And finally, I did see proof that the small units work as advertised. Dave -Original Message- From: Mary Yugo maryyu...@gmail.com To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Fri, Nov 18, 2011 11:37 am Subject: Re: [Vo]:[Vo] : ECAT 1 MW System-Dazzle or Fizzle Why are you dazzled by a test in which results were never verified by any credible and known independent observers? Even though there was more than a dozen invited guests there who could have done so? And could you explain why a test of a large machine is necessary or helpful when it's composed of 50+ subunits, none of which have been properly and independently shown to actually work as advertised?
Re: [Vo]:High school physics says 1 GJ excess energy for the Oct. 28 demo
OK, I see your reason for the post. Well, did you consider that the measurement device could have actually shown that result? No one can be sure as to exactly what it is reading under the test conditions. I personally would agree with you that it is hard to believe that such an increase actually happened, but we need to find out what lead to the measurement. This is the type of anomalous happenings that lead to new discoveries. Dave -Original Message- From: Joshua Cude joshua.c...@gmail.com To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Fri, Nov 18, 2011 12:44 pm Subject: Re: [Vo]:High school physics says 1 GJ excess energy for the Oct. 28 demo On Fri, Nov 18, 2011 at 10:20 AM, David Roberson dlrober...@aol.com wrote: This post is completely out of touch with reality. Who has ever claimed anything about dry steam and Rossi's device at 90 C? Why not discuss the real world instead of dreamland? I did discuss reality. I said it is implausible from thermodynamics that the power transfer can increase 8-fold in a matter of minutes, as Rossi claims, if the first-fold power increase takes 2 hours. Then I was told that implausible thermodynamics don't matter because Rossi is introducing a new phenomenon. So then to test whether they really believed that suggestion, I proposed an even more thermodynamically implausible scenario, and asked if they would accept that implausibility if Rossi claimed it, because Rossi is introducing a new phenomenon. That's an analogy. All of us, except, as you say, those in dreamland, would reject the notion that water would boil at 90C at atmosphere, just because the heat comes from a Rossiaction. The idea that an 8-fold increase in the power transfer requires an 8-fold increase in the temperature difference between the water and the heating element is a less obvious thermodynamic concept. But it is nevertheless just as true. So, just because the heat comes from a Rossiaction, it remains implausible that the power transfer could increase that fast.
Re: [Vo]:[Vo] : ECAT 1 MW System-Dazzle or Fizzle
On Fri, Nov 18, 2011 at 10:17 AM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.comwrote: Mary Yugo wrote: That is incorrect. Focardi and many other people reported seeing it, including several people I know. Anyone independent of Rossi? They are as independent of him as I am. None of them work for him, and none are in business relationships as far as I know. Focardi is a close friend, of course. And who confirmed it's operation? All of them did, in test results they showed me, which unfortunately I cannot upload. SNIP Yet another lovely story which can not be confirmed. That's a pity! We only need *one* that can be and we never seem to get it. Why is that, Jed?
Re: [Vo]:Rossi feeding skeptics with much more skepticism.
Fun it is. But you must realize that saying something does not make it so. Why should both sides of this discussion have to repeat or shout their positions over and over? Lets try to discuss the technical details on occasions instead of the scamming part of things. It is much more interesting to most of us technical types. Just call it a truce and move on. Dave -Original Message- From: Mary Yugo maryyu...@gmail.com To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Fri, Nov 18, 2011 12:47 pm Subject: Re: [Vo]:Rossi feeding skeptics with much more skepticism. On Fri, Nov 18, 2011 at 9:32 AM, David Roberson dlrober...@aol.com wrote: Rossi's machine has been shown to work to me. It has been discussed on many occasions which you do not accept. So, I guess we should realize that there is not possible compromise except for the future ahead. We all know that the skeptics believe that Rossi may be scammingleave it at that. Why repeat it? Do you believe that we have not heard you enough times? Please respond. I responded to other such comments. I think it's important to answer believers whenever they say something strange or wrong in support of Rossi. Not to do that would leave the wrong impression. Not everyone reads every post as is evident from the continuing rash of unsupported claims -- that Rossi has a customer, that he's turning down investments, that he never accepted money, and so on. This is a discussion. Some points bear repeating especially since so many people don't seem to grasp them. Sometimes, saying it again a slightly different way helps to clarify the issue further. Admittedly, sometimes it doesn't seem to. What's interesting about Rossi's story is that there seems to be a new twist on it every day. Now we have the Swedish company with a nuclear physicist that admits they didn't do due diligence and have some sort of undisclosed contract with Rossi. And there is Rossi's association with Schneider who makes extremely bizarre claims that Peter Heckert was kind enough to provide in English from the German original. It's tons of fun, this story!
Re: [Vo]:[Vo] : ECAT 1 MW System-Dazzle or Fizzle
This one is for you to explain. You always complain about the lack of data. If you think about the system long enough, I am confident you will understand why. That's an answer? Yes, please, by all means clarify. (1) why is the temperature so stable, requiring power stability of 1% Easy. The water level is adjusting. No requirement of 1% exists. Lets argue this point in a separate posting if you wish. I wish you two would. That would be educational. M. Y. *--- On Fri, Nov 18, 2011 at 10:15 AM, David Roberson dlrober...@aol.com wrote: I already did. Do you need clarification? Dave -Original Message- From: Mary Yugo maryyu...@gmail.com To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Fri, Nov 18, 2011 12:35 pm Subject: Re: [Vo]:[Vo] : ECAT 1 MW System-Dazzle or Fizzle On Fri, Nov 18, 2011 at 9:29 AM, Joshua Cude joshua.c...@gmail.comwrote: Right, because no one can explain: (1) why is the temperature so stable, requiring power stability of 1% (2) how does he get an 8-fold increase in power transfer in a few minutes, if the first-fold power increase took 2 hours. Excellent questions. Perhaps Jed Rothwell can address them?
Re: [Vo]:[Vo] : ECAT 1 MW System-Dazzle or Fizzle
Mary Yugo maryyu...@gmail.com wrote: On Fri, Nov 18, 2011 at 9:29 AM, Joshua Cude joshua.c...@gmail.comwrote: Right, because no one can explain: (1) why is the temperature so stable, requiring power stability of 1% The temperature is not stable. It fluctuates considerably, as you see in the cooling loop data. People who believe in the stable do not understand that water at one atmosphere does not get any hotter than ~100°C. When you increase power, more water boils but the temperature does not go up. You will see this in any grade school level science textbook. It is surprising that adults do not know this. (2) how does he get an 8-fold increase in power transfer in a few minutes, if the first-fold power increase took 2 hours. This question is nonsense. The reaction took a long time to initiate, but once it got going it increased rapidly. With Fleischmann and Pons' original experiments it took a week for the metal to load and reaction to begin, but after that it sometimes increased very rapidly in a matter of minutes. Excellent questions. Perhaps Jed Rothwell can address them? Anyone can address them. The answers are obvious. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:[Vo] : ECAT 1 MW System-Dazzle or Fizzle
Am 18.11.2011 19:23, schrieb Mary Yugo: On Fri, Nov 18, 2011 at 10:17 AM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com mailto:jedrothw...@gmail.com wrote: Mary Yugo wrote: That is incorrect. Focardi and many other people reported seeing it, including several people I know. Anyone independent of Rossi? They are as independent of him as I am. None of them work for him, and none are in business relationships as far as I know. Focardi is a close friend, of course. Assuming, that this was a top secret years ago, how did they know what it is, when they have seen it? Has Rossi demonstrated and explained it in detail? If not, how can they know, it worked? Peter
Re: [Vo]:[Vo] : ECAT 1 MW System-Dazzle or Fizzle
On Fri, Nov 18, 2011 at 10:19 AM, Ron Wormus prot...@frii.com wrote: Personally, I like the 18 hr water heating only run done in February. Seems good to me. It's not a bit good. Did you see the Youtube interview Krivit did with Levi about this issue? Levi has had since last February to repeat the test but with proper records and calibrations that the original test lacked ... and he has failed to do it. Why do you think that is? I'd like the hard core skeptics (e.g. Mary, Joshua Rich) to go away and leave us poor believers to our delusions. Sort of like an ostrich hides their head in the sand when confronted with a threat (admittedly apocryphal)? What sort of interesting discussion can you have when only one side is represented?
Re: [Vo]:Gain from the cold side
Yes. The restriction on ad hominems only applies to skeptics. A Rossi-believer can call you ignorant, blind, lacking in a seventh grade education, unable to understand elementary science, pseudo-skeptic, pathological skeptic, an agent of big oil, LENR-denier, even accuse you of intentionally spreading disinformation. If you call them on it, they'll just get more personal. I recall entire threads dedicated to insulting Cude. But, to be fair, the sheer volume of your posts makes you a more likely target. Furthermore, anytime that you compare LENR to unicorn flatulence, no matter the intention, you will draw fire. There are a few skeptics on this list that have provided damning evidence against Rossi's demonstrations, but the tact with which they presented it has kept them relatively unscathed. The trick is knowing when to agree to disagree. Mary Yugo maryyu...@gmail.com wrote: On Fri, Nov 18, 2011 at 9:40 AM, Jones Beene jone...@pacbell.net wrote: I put a smiley there to alert people like Mary, who seldom carefully read the posts of others before spouting out a new dose of ignorance ... My understanding was that ad hominems are frowned upon and precluded from this email list. Does that only apply to skeptics?
Re: [Vo]:[Vo] : ECAT 1 MW System-Dazzle or Fizzle
Mary Yugo maryyu...@gmail.com wrote: All of them did, in test results they showed me, which unfortunately I cannot upload. SNIP Yet another lovely story which can not be confirmed. That's a pity! We only need *one* that can be and we never seem to get it. You have got it. Rossi has given out *far* more proof than any previous cold fusion researcher. There are videos and data from the Oct. 6 test. That test is irrefutable by first principles. The tests from earlier this year were also excellent despite the poor instrumentation. You and the other skeptics have not raised a single objection to the proof shown in the October 6 test, which is the fact that the water remained at boiling temperature for four hours with no input power. You yourself have not even addressed this issue. You talk about the position of the thermocouples -- which is irrelevant -- or you yell about fraud or Steorn, fraud, Steorn, fraud. You refuse to address the issues; you refuse to look at the facts; you do not even understand steam at one atmosphere never gets much hotter than 100°C. You refuse to learn anything about cold fusion. Really, you have no business discussing this matter. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:Rossi feeding skeptics with much more skepticism.
On Fri, Nov 18, 2011 at 10:26 AM, David Roberson dlrober...@aol.com wrote: Lets try to discuss the technical details on occasions instead of the scamming part of things. It is much more interesting to most of us technical types. Sure. But the problem is that many essential technical details are mostly lacking or are unreliable because they all come only from Rossi. So I see a lot of conjecture just based on what Rossi says. For example that he has had a customer and has made a delivery. Such conjecture is amusing but not very informative. Jed's input is also interesting but for too much of it, he can't produce any reliable documentation and for some of it, he can't even say who saw what much less what they said! And for some of us, the possibility that after all this time and all the tests, this could still be (and is likely to be, IMO) a scam is part of the fascination. Sorry if you don't share that amusement. Technical types tend not to be suspicious and they want a wonderful story to be true. They are some of the most easily scammed. The example that comes to mind again is the ruthless and amazing way Uri Geller scammed no less that Puthoff and Targ and even the journal Nature into believing that he had psychic powers and could bend and alter metals with his mind alone. It's a good story to remember.
Re: [Vo]:[Vo] : ECAT 1 MW System-Dazzle or Fizzle
Peter Heckert peter.heck...@arcor.de wrote: Assuming, that this was a top secret years ago, how did they know what it is, when they have seen it? I do not understand the question. It was not top secret to these people. They went into the factory, examined the reactor, and measured the input and output power. Has Rossi demonstrated and explained it in detail? He did not have to explain anything. Focardi et al. know what cold fusion reactor is. If not, how can they know, it worked? By calorimetry. How else? - Jed
Re: [Vo]:[Vo] : ECAT 1 MW System-Dazzle or Fizzle
I wrote: There are videos and data from the Oct. 6 test. That test is irrefutable by first principles. The tests from earlier this year were also excellent despite the poor instrumentation. Let me add that if you are not convinced by the Oct. 6 test I do not think the earlier tests with the factory heater and the others I have seen would convince you. Calorimetry is calorimetry. On this scale it is always done the same way. There were no blank tests as far as I know -- no one ever does them with kilowatt scale reactions. The instrumentation was all standard off-the-shelf industrial HVAC type. You have already said that is not good enough for you. If these results are published, I am sure you will invent a bunch of malarkey such as: the temperatures measured at 100°C were really 80°C; steam does not stay at 100°C at 1 atm; it is possible to input 10 kW with a wire that would burn up above 3 kW. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:[Vo] : ECAT 1 MW System-Dazzle or Fizzle
OK Mary, you have heard my position on this manner, now explain why it is not possible? I refer to the (1) item you list. I expect for you to cry that no one has proved that this is what is happening, etc. Instead, for once let me know why it is not possible. So, if the water level is changing within the ECAT, why should the power level output be required to hold within 1%? It is your turn now. The first one about the fast action is left for the student. I probably could explain it if I took the time, but why should I ruin your fun? Dave -Original Message- From: Mary Yugo maryyu...@gmail.com To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Fri, Nov 18, 2011 1:30 pm Subject: Re: [Vo]:[Vo] : ECAT 1 MW System-Dazzle or Fizzle This one is for you to explain. You always complain about the lack of data. If you think about the system long enough, I am confident you will understand why. That's an answer? Yes, please, by all means clarify. (1) why is the temperature so stable, requiring power stability of 1% Easy. The water level is adjusting. No requirement of 1% exists. Lets argue this point in a separate posting if you wish. I wish you two would. That would be educational. M. Y. *--- On Fri, Nov 18, 2011 at 10:15 AM, David Roberson dlrober...@aol.com wrote: I already did. Do you need clarification? Dave -Original Message- From: Mary Yugo maryyu...@gmail.com To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Fri, Nov 18, 2011 12:35 pm Subject: Re: [Vo]:[Vo] : ECAT 1 MW System-Dazzle or Fizzle On Fri, Nov 18, 2011 at 9:29 AM, Joshua Cude joshua.c...@gmail.com wrote: Right, because no one can explain: (1) why is the temperature so stable, requiring power stability of 1% (2) how does he get an 8-fold increase in power transfer in a few minutes, if the first-fold power increase took 2 hours. Excellent questions. Perhaps Jed Rothwell can address them?
Re: [Vo]:[Vo] : ECAT 1 MW System-Dazzle or Fizzle
I do not think Krivit is someone to be believed. He intentionally sets traps with questions that most people would not give consideration to. Nowhere within Dr. Levi's answers is anything but honest discussion. Dr. Levi is an honest, decent man and you have no right to dishonor him. Dave -Original Message- From: Mary Yugo maryyu...@gmail.com To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Fri, Nov 18, 2011 1:34 pm Subject: Re: [Vo]:[Vo] : ECAT 1 MW System-Dazzle or Fizzle On Fri, Nov 18, 2011 at 10:19 AM, Ron Wormus prot...@frii.com wrote: Personally, I like the 18 hr water heating only run done in February. Seems good to me. It's not a bit good. Did you see the Youtube interview Krivit did with Levi about this issue? Levi has had since last February to repeat the test but with proper records and calibrations that the original test lacked ... and he has failed to do it. Why do you think that is? I'd like the hard core skeptics (e.g. Mary, Joshua Rich) to go away and leave us poor believers to our delusions. Sort of like an ostrich hides their head in the sand when confronted with a threat (admittedly apocryphal)? What sort of interesting discussion can you have when only one side is represented?
Re: [Vo]:[Vo] : ECAT 1 MW System-Dazzle or Fizzle
David Roberson wrote: So, if the water level is changing within the ECAT, why should the power level output be required to hold within 1%? It is your turn now. Oh right. Power level. I was talking about the T2 temperature remaining stable. I confused the issue. Naturally, the water level might have fluctuated. It must have, given the very low flow rate recorded by Lewan when the power was at at the lowest point during the self sustaining event. It could not have been overflowing at that time. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:Swedish physicists run the site Ecat.com
On Fri, Nov 18, 2011 at 12:51 PM, Peter Heckert peter.heck...@arcor.de wrote: Transportation costs are not mentioned. Come on, Peter. Rossi's Reactor constitutes one TEU which can be shipped from Europe to China for about $1400. T
Re: [Vo]:[Vo] : ECAT 1 MW System-Dazzle or Fizzle
David Roberson dlrober...@aol.com wrote: I do not think Krivit is someone to be believed. He intentionally sets traps with questions that most people would not give consideration to. Nowhere within Dr. Levi's answers is anything but honest discussion. Right. The parts that Krivit described as suspicious were caused by the fact that Levi was speaking a second language. I could not have done as well if I had been interviewed in Japanese. I doubt that Krivit speaks a second language fluently. He seems to have no idea how difficult it is. Rossi also speaks English quite well. Krivit made fun of his accent and his Italian-influenced hesitation noises. A hesitation noise is the linguistic term for interjections such as ah, umm. We do not hear these noises in our own language, and we do not include them in a transcript, the way Krivit did. That was outrageous. Dr. Levi is an honest, decent man and you have no right to dishonor him. Yup. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:Rossi feeding skeptics with much more skepticism.
You know that us technical types would prefer to have a large, accurate volume of data to review, but that is not going to happen anytime soon. We are forced to work doggedly on what we are given and much can be learned by what has been demonstrated thus far. A lot of concentrated data would answer all of your questions quickly, but I still suspect that more questions would pop up. If I recall, Uri was tricked once by a scientist controlling the stage props and he failed. I would like to have seen that one. We might tend to be a little too trusting, but it takes trust to make things work. I have found that you can keep lawyers busy forever if you are making a contract that requires absolutely every item to be fool proof and without any trust in the other party. My conclusion is that you should not do business with anyone you do not trust. Rossi is bull headed, elusive, and a lot of other things, but he is a great hands on guy that gets the job done. We need a lot more people with those characteristics. (Less bull headed would be better I think) Dave -Original Message- From: Mary Yugo maryyu...@gmail.com To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Fri, Nov 18, 2011 1:41 pm Subject: Re: [Vo]:Rossi feeding skeptics with much more skepticism. On Fri, Nov 18, 2011 at 10:26 AM, David Roberson dlrober...@aol.com wrote: Lets try to discuss the technical details on occasions instead of the scamming part of things. It is much more interesting to most of us technical types. Sure. But the problem is that many essential technical details are mostly lacking or are unreliable because they all come only from Rossi. So I see a lot of conjecture just based on what Rossi says. For example that he has had a customer and has made a delivery. Such conjecture is amusing but not very informative. Jed's input is also interesting but for too much of it, he can't produce any reliable documentation and for some of it, he can't even say who saw what much less what they said! And for some of us, the possibility that after all this time and all the tests, this could still be (and is likely to be, IMO) a scam is part of the fascination. Sorry if you don't share that amusement. Technical types tend not to be suspicious and they want a wonderful story to be true. They are some of the most easily scammed. The example that comes to mind again is the ruthless and amazing way Uri Geller scammed no less that Puthoff and Targ and even the journal Nature into believing that he had psychic powers and could bend and alter metals with his mind alone. It's a good story to remember.
RE: [Vo]:Gain from the cold side
From: Mary Yugo * My understanding was that ad hominems are frowned upon and precluded from this email list. Does that only apply to skeptics? No - all such attacks are frowned on and precluded, but is my criticism over your habit of posting of dozens of repetitive and shallow messages 'ad hominem' in the first place? Criticism about message content, based on failure to read the preceding message constitutes a correctable kind of ignorance; so this is not a personal attack. All that we (long time subscribers to this list) are asking, is that you provide some level intelligent content - to go along with the acidic level of skepticism. We can see that you are intelligent, but strongly predisposed to not trust Rossi. We do not need to be reminded of your distrust 20 times per day. Intelligent comment usually includes reading and understanding the post to which you responded, and some understanding of the science involved. BTW - I am completely skeptical of Rossi in the sense of his business approach and inherent dishonesty, but absolutely convinced that we are on the cusp of a new energy paradigm - and in fact I resent that Rossi's scam-like business plan may inflict another delay onto what has been 'brewing' since 1989. This list is about a new paradigm - not about an Italian clown of operatic proportions. Plus, as everyone can now see - Rossi's momentum has peaked towards either eventual self-destruction or possibly a grand success that will put Steve Jobs to shame (not likely) - but nothing we can do on this list will change the situation. We do not need to be reminded of Rossi's numerous faults twice per hour now that we are almost a year down the road from when the story broke. As for the scammed investors: fools and their money will always be parted - with or without our help. Rossi represents chump-change compared to Enron or Madoff - or especially the hot fusion swindle. Jones
Re: [Vo]:Rossi feeding skeptics with much more skepticism.
On Fri, Nov 18, 2011 at 11:06 AM, David Roberson dlrober...@aol.com wrote: If I recall, Uri was tricked once by a scientist controlling the stage props and he failed. I would like to have seen that one. He was tricked by an editor of Popular Photography magazine who used a fisheye super wide angle lens without telling Geller when he attempted psychic photography. The resulting images showed that Geller was using sleight of hand and not psychic power to produce the images. I don't have time to search for the images but an article about the test appears here: http://www.zem.demon.co.uk/photb.htm
Re: [Vo]:Rossi feeding skeptics with much more skepticism.
Marcello Vitale mvit...@ucsbalum.net wrote: So, it should be more financial fraud based on secretly accepting cash from VERY credulous investors who sign iron clad nondisclosure secrecy agreements IN OTHERWISE VERY WISHY-WASHY CONTRACTS THEY CANNOT ENFORCE, and all that because convinced by the shining personality of Rossi and his perfectly run experiments, and neglecting to take along a lawyer. OK, hypnosis could be an explanation, then. Well said! That's hysterical. Rossi: the confidence-man who inspires no confidence. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:Gain from the cold side
On Fri, Nov 18, 2011 at 11:07 AM, Jones Beene jone...@pacbell.net wrote: *From:* Mary Yugo ** ** **Ø **My understanding was that ad hominems are frowned upon and precluded from this email list. Does that only apply to skeptics? ** ** No – all such attacks are frowned on and precluded, but is my criticism over your habit of posting of dozens of repetitive and shallow messages ‘ad hominem’ in the first place? OK, I'll bite. What is the dose of ignorance I am supposedly spouting exactly?
Re: [Vo]:[Vo] : ECAT 1 MW System-Dazzle or Fizzle
I proposed a scenario of how the 1 MW system was operated and it seemed obvious that it would be quite simple to allow the water level within the ECAT to slowly drop throughout the test. This process would eliminate the demand for super accurate power output that is a sticking point for the skeptical among us. They insist that the output flow must always be exactly equal to the input flow, which is most likely in error. This also allows the ECAT water level to be below full which has several advantages. With this condition, there is a relatively large space above the water for vapor to exist which can then exit at 100 % quality. Also, the internal temperature of the individual ECATs depends upon the pressure at the output port. If I were Rossi, this is the way I would have wanted to run the big test. And, if too much water was evaporating from the ECATs, the pump flow could be increased slightly. Dave -Original Message- From: Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Fri, Nov 18, 2011 1:57 pm Subject: Re: [Vo]:[Vo] : ECAT 1 MW System-Dazzle or Fizzle David Roberson wrote: So, if the water level is changing within the ECAT, why should the power level output be required to hold within 1%? It is your turn now. Oh right. Power level. I was talking about the T2 temperature remaining stable. I confused the issue. Naturally, the water level might have fluctuated. It must have, given the very low flow rate recorded by Lewan when the power was at at the lowest point during the self sustaining event. It could not have been overflowing at that time. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:From Focus.it Customer? Celani test?
At 04:54 PM 11/17/2011, Mary Yugo wrote: On Thu, Nov 17, 2011 at 4:47 PM, Alan J Fletcher a...@well.com wrote: He's already said that deliveries to new customers will be in 2 months ... and that he's fully booked (ie 12 more for this one). Sorry but where does he say that. I missed it. Is there a link please? Correction ... it was 3 months on Oct 31. But that was almost 3 weeks ago. I think he said 2 months more recently, but I can't find the link. Andrea Rossi November 10th, 2011 at 11:11 AM Dear Wladimir Guglinski: So far we are manufacturing 1 MW plants, and our next 2 years capacity of production has been already saturated. For the small units we need at least 1-2 years for the approvals. Warm Regards, A.R. Andrea Rossi October 31st, 2011 at 11:20 AM Dear GP: 1- we are ready for 30-100 units per year Gabriel B. November 2nd, 2011 at 9:23 AM Dear Ing. Rossi, You told further customers are buying your 1MW E-cat. Can You tell us what nations they are from? Can You tell us what nations from They Are? Are they Americans too or what else? Thank you. Dear Gabriel B.: USA and Europe. Warm Regards, AR T.R. October 31st, 2011 at 9:47 AM Dear mr. Rossi when the second customer will recive his plant? Andrea Rossi October 31st, 2011 at 10:44 AM Dear T.R. 3 months, Warm regards, A.R. . . . . G P October 31st, 2011 at 11:17 AM Dear Mr. Rossi, I have followed for some time with passion and hope your endeavours, and hope you will be able to change things for the better. If you have time could you let me know: 1- How will you be able to build between 30 to 100 plants in 2012 if it is going to take 3 months to deliver the second one. 2- Is the second customer requiring the same level of secrecy as the first one? I am asking you this because all the skeptics/snakes will argue that you are just buying more time here (without any real buyer in sight), so if you dont have a nondisclosure agreement as strict as the one with the first customer, you would be doing yourself and all people that are supporting you a great favour giving a little more detail. Thank you in advance for the consideration. G P Andrea Rossi October 31st, 2011 at 11:20 AM Dear GP: 1- we are ready for 30-100 units per year 2- no Warm regards, A.R.
Re: [Vo]:Rossi feeding skeptics with much more skepticism.
On Fri, Nov 18, 2011 at 11:16 AM, Mary Yugo maryyu...@gmail.com wrote: On Fri, Nov 18, 2011 at 11:06 AM, David Roberson dlrober...@aol.comwrote: If I recall, Uri was tricked once by a scientist controlling the stage props and he failed. I would like to have seen that one. Off topic: but here are the images and more discussion of how Geller was fooling gullible people including scientists with his psychic photography and how he was caught. And there is much more about Geller in this New Scientist article-- nauseating amounts: *http://tinyurl.com/7dtb82q* http://tinyurl.com/7dtb82q
Re: [Vo]: UK's DECC Monitoring the sector (LENR)
At 08:53 PM 11/17/2011, Mary Yugo wrote: In other words, they don't believe Rossi either, on the evidence that he's provided. I personally think their position is way too cover-their-a***/// conservative. They don't even include a more public 1MW acceptance test as a possible trigger. I think I reported on an MBA thesis recently, on what government response is appropriate, ranging from (my scale, as I recall it) 0 deny its existence 1 watch progress ... 9 urgent program 10 national crash program On that scale, DECC's position is 0.5
Re: [Vo]:Gain from the cold side
On Fri, Nov 18, 2011 at 2:07 PM, Jones Beene jone...@pacbell.net wrote: As for the scammed investors: fools and their money will always be parted – with or without our help. Rossi represents chump-change compared to Enron or Madoff – or especially the hot fusion swindle. Hah! If you look at the real cost of the hot fusion swindle you have to consider the consequential costs. Had MIT correctly reported their positive results at the time, we could be will within a LENR energy society. And it's not just the dollars but the cost in human lives, the wars fought over oil, and on and on. Future history will condemn those who perpetrated and participated in this swindle. If there is a future history. T
[Vo]:Clarifications from Brian Ahern
Brian Ahern wrote to me: I [will] give a presentation on the topic of energy localization. I believe [Rossi] did in fact see lots of heat on certain occasions, but he lacks the ability to probe for the conditions that produce the energy. . . . As I said yesterday, the topic of energy localization is over my head. Brian was reiterating what he told me before, which is that he definitely does believe Rossi has seen anomalous energy, but he does not think Rossi has good control over it, or good understanding of it. As I remarked here, it would be weird for Ahern not to believe Rossi when he himself has seen the same effects. (Someone here claimed that Ahern does not believe Rossi . . . I do not recall who.) Ahern does not like Rossi's business practices. He thinks that Rossi is being selfish because he does not share information. I told him: This discovery is worth billions of dollars. It is unreasonable for you to demand Rossi give it away for nothing. Until he gets a patent he should keep it secret. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:High school physics says 1 GJ excess energy for the Oct. 28 demo
On Fri, Nov 18, 2011 at 12:22 PM, David Roberson dlrober...@aol.com wrote: OK, I see your reason for the post. Well, did you consider that the measurement device could have actually shown that result? What measurement device are you referring to? They measured the temperature. Without pressure, that does not indicate the phase. No one can be sure as to exactly what it is reading under the test conditions. It's not the measurement of the temperature that is at issue. It's taking the value of the temperature as evidence of dry steam that is not plausible. I personally would agree with you that it is hard to believe that such an increase actually happened, but we need to find out what lead to the measurement. They *didn't* measure the increase. They *inferred* it incorrectly from a temperature measurement. This is the type of anomalous happenings that lead to new discoveries. It's not an anomalous happening. It's a claim of dry steam without evidence. If they proved the steam was dry a few minutes after boiling, then you could call it an anomalous happening.
Re: [Vo]:Rossi feeding skeptics with much more skepticism.
Mouthy Mary - filtered to junk email folder Nick Palmer On the side of the Planet - and the people - because they're worth it Blogspot - Sustainability and stuff according to Nick Palmer http://nickpalmer.blogspot.com
Re: [Vo]:Gain from the cold side
I agree with what you say Terry. Dave -Original Message- From: Terry Blanton hohlr...@gmail.com To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Fri, Nov 18, 2011 2:30 pm Subject: Re: [Vo]:Gain from the cold side On Fri, Nov 18, 2011 at 2:07 PM, Jones Beene jone...@pacbell.net wrote: As for the scammed investors: fools and their money will always be parted – with or without our help. Rossi represents chump-change compared to Enron or Madoff – or especially the hot fusion swindle. Hah! If you look at the real cost of the hot fusion swindle you have o consider the consequential costs. Had MIT correctly reported their ositive results at the time, we could be will within a LENR energy ociety. And it's not just the dollars but the cost in human lives, he wars fought over oil, and on and on. Future history will condemn those who perpetrated and participated in his swindle. If there is a future history. T
Re: [Vo]:Clarifications from Brian Ahern
Krivit claimed that a few days ago. It was the topic of one of his blog posts, I think. 2011/11/18 Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com (Someone here claimed that Ahern does not believe Rossi . . . I do not recall who.)
Re: [Vo]:High school physics says 1 GJ excess energy for the Oct. 28 demo
From: Joshua Cude joshua.c...@gmail.com On Fri, Nov 18, 2011 at 12:22 PM, David Roberson dlrober...@aol.com wrote: OK, I see your reason for the post. Well, did you consider that the measurement device could have actually shown that result? What measurement device are you referring to? They measured the temperature. Without pressure, that does not indicate the phase. Why be so dramatic. Of course I referred to the temperature. There are other ways to check the quality besides pressure although that is the usual one. No one can be sure as to exactly what it is reading under the test conditions. It's not the measurement of the temperature that is at issue. It's taking the value of the temperature as evidence of dry steam that is not plausible. Seems like I discussed this earlier. Close the lower steam path valve, collect any water that flows into the collection vessel, and then see how dry the steam is. Seems trivial to me (very little water). Do not forget to open the valve after you have finished collecting the water. I personally would agree with you that it is hard to believe that such an increase actually happened, but we need to find out what lead to the measurement. They *didn't* measure the increase. They *inferred* it incorrectly from a temperature measurement. Are you stating that temperature can not under any circumstance show a rapid rise? I suggest you look into the experiment in details before you can be sure that the results are not possible. Even skeptics can jump to erroneous conclusions. This is the type of anomalous happenings that lead to new discoveries. It's not an anomalous happening. It's a claim of dry steam without evidence. If they proved the steam was dry a few minutes after boiling, then you could call it an anomalous happening. Does the data suggest it is dry? Is data considered evidence? I guess it is OK to cherry pick the data that suits our conclusions. Pretty hard to be held to the same standards that the believers are held to is it not?
Re: [Vo]:Interesting *English* article from Focus.it - letter by Celani to Rossi and Rossi's answer
At 04:24 PM 11/17/2011, Alan J Fletcher wrote: At 04:10 PM 11/17/2011, Akira Shirakawa wrote: .. There's a zero missing somewhere : «We are building a 130 MW thermal plant, made of 13 plant such as the one you saw on October 28th». Andrea Rossi November 18th, 2011 at 5:33 AM November 18th, 2011 at 5:33 AM Dear Matthew: There is a typo: WE ARE MANUFACTURING 13 1MW THERMAL PLANTS LIKE THE ONE TESTED ON THE 28TH OF OCTOBER. T This is the correct version. Warm Regards. AR Oh dear ... more Rossi speak. 13 separate plants, or one 13MW plant ... ?
Re: [Vo]:Clarifications from Brian Ahern
Daniel Rocha danieldi...@gmail.com wrote: Krivit claimed that a few days ago. It was the topic of one of his blog posts, I think. Ah. Well, he did not ask Ahern. Brian always speaks his mind. He is quite clear about this issue. I can't imagine where Krivit got his information. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:Interesting *English* article from Focus.it - letter by Celani to Rossi and Rossi's answer
Alan J Fletcher wrote: Oh dear ... more Rossi speak. 13 separate plants, or one 13MW plant ... ? I am pretty sure that means 13 plants, each 1 MW. That's what I gather from reading the tea leaves. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:Gain from the cold side
I for one forgive Jones for his slight breech of posting etiquette for briefly expressing the understandable frustrations that will eventually bubble up in the trench warfare that surrounds the Rossi issue. But looking beyond the noise, the scientific implications of LENR discoveries could open a doorway into some seemingly unresolvable questions in cutting edge physics. LENR may provide a doorway of understanding into dark/zero point/vacuum energy, additional dimensions of space time, quantum mechanical entanglement, oscillon vibrations, and many other neat ideas that jones will introduce us to. Jones and his like make this site interesting and I forgive his venial sins of protocol as trivial. The equation in this case is clear. You do not condemn a man when he steps on an ant. On Fri, Nov 18, 2011 at 2:39 PM, David Roberson dlrober...@aol.com wrote: I agree with what you say Terry. Dave -Original Message- From: Terry Blanton hohlr...@gmail.com To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Fri, Nov 18, 2011 2:30 pm Subject: Re: [Vo]:Gain from the cold side On Fri, Nov 18, 2011 at 2:07 PM, Jones Beene jone...@pacbell.net wrote: As for the scammed investors: fools and their money will always be parted – with or without our help. Rossi represents chump-change compared to Enron or Madoff – or especially the hot fusion swindle. Hah! If you look at the real cost of the hot fusion swindle you have to consider the consequential costs. Had MIT correctly reported their positive results at the time, we could be will within a LENR energy society. And it's not just the dollars but the cost in human lives, the wars fought over oil, and on and on. Future history will condemn those who perpetrated and participated in this swindle. If there is a future history. T
[Vo]:Rossi Interview Questions *** DO NOT REPLY ON VORTEX ***
* DO NOT REPLY ON VORTEX Please reply directly to a...@well.com * Suppose you knew someone who has an upcoming skype interview with Rossi, and who asked you for advice on what to ask. I was originally inclined to ask for one more test ... but I don't think that would fly. Likewise, questions about UofB, Defkalion, Krivit, Scams etc etc Please email me your suggestions -- which I might or might not submit (and without any attribution) to the interviewer. By Monday morning PST, please. I'm not even going to list my thoughts on vortex ... I'll share by email-only with anyone who submits questions. (lenr.qumbu.com -- analyzing the Rossi/Focardi eCat -- Hi, google!)
Re: [Vo]:Clarifications from Brian Ahern
Someone pointed out to me that Ahern has been posting incendiary comments to Krivit's blog, such as this one, in which he loses the argument, according to Goodwin's Law; a.k.a. *Reductio ad Hitlerum:* * * This criticism of Rossi is far to leient. He is making his beggest claim yet with no back up data whatsoever! Hitler got away with the big lie by deftly mixing in some small amount of truth. Rossi doesn’t seem to need to mix in even small amounts of truth any longer.* * I expect Ahern is jealous. He knows perfectly well that Rossi has real heat. He is pretty stupid posting baseless accusations. Ahern does not like Rossi personally. That is his business. I do not think it is wise to plaster your private dislikes all over the Internet. Who cares whether you like someone or not? Ahern should not let his feelings interfere with a technical evaluation. People betting against Rossi are playing a losing hand. Ahern should know that, based on his own results. Anyway, I quoted his message to me. He has said that many times. He has also often claimed that Rossi is a fraud and so on. Apparently he thinks the heat is real but exaggerated, and even though Rossi has a real effect, he is a fraud. That seems unlikely to me. It seems irrational. I suppose most of the scientists attacking Rossi are jealous. That is not surprising. He is miles ahead of them. Academic scientists are prone to hissy fits. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:Clarifications from Brian Ahern
He is very jealous. From what I hear, he has only been able to produce small amounts of output (perhaps 10-50 watts). Rossi has produced a technology that generates huge amounts of output. Rossi once stated that a 50cc reactor core has a maximum safe output of 10 kilowatts. The problem with the Rossi tech is not producing enough heat, it is not producing too much! There are a bunch of competitors going around bad mouthing Rossi right now. They may have a right to criticize his business practices, but they have no right to criticize his technology. No one has produced a cold fusion technology that produces anywhere close as much output. Also, I wonder why he is wanting Rossi to share so much information. I wonder if he had a technology that could produce 10 kW from a 50cc reactor if he would share much information. From: Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Friday, November 18, 2011 4:43 PM Subject: Re: [Vo]:Clarifications from Brian Ahern Someone pointed out to me that Ahern has been posting incendiary comments to Krivit's blog, such as this one, in which he loses the argument, according to Goodwin's Law; a.k.a. Reductio ad Hitlerum: This criticism of Rossi is far to leient. He is making his beggest claim yet with no back up data whatsoever! Hitler got away with the big lie by deftly mixing in some small amount of truth. Rossi doesn’t seem to need to mix in even small amounts of truth any longer. I expect Ahern is jealous. He knows perfectly well that Rossi has real heat. He is pretty stupid posting baseless accusations. Ahern does not like Rossi personally. That is his business. I do not think it is wise to plaster your private dislikes all over the Internet. Who cares whether you like someone or not? Ahern should not let his feelings interfere with a technical evaluation. People betting against Rossi are playing a losing hand. Ahern should know that, based on his own results. Anyway, I quoted his message to me. He has said that many times. He has also often claimed that Rossi is a fraud and so on. Apparently he thinks the heat is real but exaggerated, and even though Rossi has a real effect, he is a fraud. That seems unlikely to me. It seems irrational. I suppose most of the scientists attacking Rossi are jealous. That is not surprising. He is miles ahead of them. Academic scientists are prone to hissy fits. - Jed
