RE: EXTERNAL: Re: [Vo]:Light and matter merge in quantum coupling

[MarkI-ZeroPoint]

Interesting find Fran!

 

The idea that a very small force applied resonantly producing effects which 
‘normally’ require a much stronger force is nothing new, and I’ve certainly 
brought up a number of articles over the years on this matter… 

 

http://www.mail-archive.com/vortex-l%40eskimo.com/msg83767.html

 

http://www.mail-archive.com/vortex-l%40eskimo.com/msg67390.html

 

http://www.mail-archive.com/vortex-l%40eskimo.com/msg73037.html

 

http://www.mail-archive.com/vortex-l%40eskimo.com/msg104970.html

 

***What may be novel is that, in Fran’s reference, it’s the vacuum fluctuations 
which are the minute forces acting in resonance… 

Does this represent the link or method to extract energy from the vacuum? Does 
it at least represent the physical possibility rather than a theoretical one?

 

-mark iverson 

 

From: Roarty, Francis X [mailto:francis.x.roa...@lmco.com] 
Sent: Monday, August 22, 2016 6:18 PM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Subject: RE: EXTERNAL: Re: [Vo]:Light and matter merge in quantum coupling

 

What caught my eye was that this can change the ground state, initiate phase 
changes, fueled by polaritons in a confined cavity… all the ingredients we hear 
mentioned by Jones and axil,  but…. done  with low power [snip] Kono said the 
amount of terahertz light put into the cavity is very weak. "What we depend on 
is the vacuum fluctuation. Vacuum, in a classical sense, is an empty space. 
There's nothing. But in a quantum sense, a vacuum is full of fluctuating 
photons, having so-called zero-point energy. These vacuum photons are actually 
what we are using to resonantly excite electrons in our cavity.[/snip]  

 

]Fran

 

From: Che [mailto:comandantegri...@gmail.com] 
Sent: Monday, August 22, 2016 8:55 PM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Subject: EXTERNAL: Re: [Vo]:Light and matter merge in quantum coupling

 

 

 

On Mon, Aug 22, 2016 at 7:53 PM, Roarty, Francis X  
wrote:

https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2016/08/160822152626.htm

 

“"This general subject is what's known as cavity quantum electrodynamics 
(QED)," Kono said. "In cavity QED, the cavity enhances the light so that matter 
in the cavity resonantly interacts with the vacuum field. What is unique about 
solid-state cavity QED is that the light typically interacts with this huge 
number of electrons, which behave like a single gigantic atom."”

 

Light and matter are essentially manifestations of the same energetic motions 
(of whatever): so it's not surprising that, with the proper geometries and 
harmonics, they can be effortlessly made to manifest each other 
'symbiotically', on-demand, in a lab. Sooner or later Humans were going to find 
out how.

 

But who beat us to it..!?

:P

 

 

 

 

[Vo]:Physicists discover 'apparent departure from the laws of thermodynamics'

[MarkI-ZeroPoint]

While I'm distracted from what I should be doing. I'll throw this in:

"Physicists discover 'apparent departure from the laws of thermodynamics' "

http://phys.org/news/2016-08-physicists-apparent-departure-laws-thermodynami
cs.html

 

-mark

Re: EXTERNAL: Re: [Vo]:Light and matter merge in quantum coupling

[Axil Axil]

Spelling of last post corrected as follows:

If hydrogen is packed into a Nano cavity of the ideal size a strong
coupling state might be achieved between the protons in the hydrogen and
the light. In this way a state of superconductive coherence of protons
might be formed.



This state of superconductivity has been detected by Holmlid and Miley in
iron oxide. The high temperature proton BEC might produce a super-dense
state of hydrogen the Jones likes so much where the electrons and protons
are delocalized from each other. What actually comprises the protons is
vacuum energy because the cavity squeezes the light/matter condensate
greatly.



By looking for a hydrogen BEC in cavities, a researcher could find the
ideal dimensions of the Nano cavity that produces the condensed hydrogen
and engineer a material that produces this ultra-dense hydrogen crystal in
abundance.



What really compresses hydrogen to the ultra-dense metalized state is not
high pressure, but the ideal combination of cavity shape/size, light
frequency, and EMF environment and vacuum energy.

On Tue, Aug 23, 2016 at 1:10 AM, Axil Axil  wrote:

> If hydrogen is packed into a nanocavity of the ideal size a storm
> couponing state might be achieved between the protons in the hydrogen and
> the light. In this way a state of superconductive coherence of protons
> might be formed.
>
> This state of superconductivity has be detected by Holmlid and Miley. The
> high temperature proton BEC might produce a superdense state of hydrogen
> the Jones likes so much where the electrons and protons are delocalized
> from each other. What actually comprises the protons is vacuum energy
> because the cavity squeezes the light/matter condinsate greatly.
>
> By looking for a hydrogen BEC in cavities, a researcher could find the
> ideal dimensions of the nanocavity that produces the condensed hydrogen and
> engineer a material that produces this hydrogen crystal in abundance.
>
> What really compresses hydrogen to the ultra-dense metabolized state is
> not high pressure, but the ideal combination of cavity shape/size, light
> frequency, and EMF environment.
>
> On Mon, Aug 22, 2016 at 9:18 PM, Roarty, Francis X <
> francis.x.roa...@lmco.com> wrote:
>
>> What caught my eye was that this can change the ground state, initiate
>> phase changes, fueled by polaritons in a confined cavity… all the
>> ingredients we hear mentioned by Jones and axil,  but…. done  with low
>> power [snip] Kono said the amount of terahertz light put into the cavity
>> is very weak. "What we depend on is the vacuum fluctuation. Vacuum, in a
>> classical sense, is an empty space. There's nothing. But in a quantum
>> sense, a vacuum is full of fluctuating photons, having so-called zero-point
>> energy. These vacuum photons are actually what we are using to resonantly
>> excite electrons in our cavity.[/snip]
>>
>>
>>
>> ]Fran
>>
>>
>>
>> *From:* Che [mailto:comandantegri...@gmail.com]
>> *Sent:* Monday, August 22, 2016 8:55 PM
>> *To:* vortex-l@eskimo.com
>> *Subject:* EXTERNAL: Re: [Vo]:Light and matter merge in quantum coupling
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> On Mon, Aug 22, 2016 at 7:53 PM, Roarty, Francis X <
>> francis.x.roa...@lmco.com> wrote:
>>
>> https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2016/08/160822152626.htm
>>
>>
>>
>> “"This general subject is what's known as cavity quantum electrodynamics
>> (QED)," Kono said. "In cavity QED, the cavity enhances the light so that
>> matter in the cavity resonantly interacts with the vacuum field. What is
>> unique about solid-state cavity QED is that the light typically interacts
>> with this huge number of electrons, which behave like a single gigantic
>> atom."”
>>
>>
>>
>> Light and matter are essentially manifestations of the same energetic
>> motions (of whatever): so it's not surprising that, with the proper
>> geometries and harmonics, they can be effortlessly made to manifest each
>> other 'symbiotically', on-demand, in a lab. Sooner or later Humans were
>> going to find out how.
>>
>>
>>
>> But who beat us to it..!?
>>
>> :P
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>

Re: EXTERNAL: Re: [Vo]:Light and matter merge in quantum coupling

[Axil Axil]

If hydrogen is packed into a nanocavity of the ideal size a storm couponing
state might be achieved between the protons in the hydrogen and the light.
In this way a state of superconductive coherence of protons might be
formed.

This state of superconductivity has be detected by Holmlid and Miley. The
high temperature proton BEC might produce a superdense state of hydrogen
the Jones likes so much where the electrons and protons are delocalized
from each other. What actually comprises the protons is vacuum energy
because the cavity squeezes the light/matter condinsate greatly.

By looking for a hydrogen BEC in cavities, a researcher could find the
ideal dimensions of the nanocavity that produces the condensed hydrogen and
engineer a material that produces this hydrogen crystal in abundance.

What really compresses hydrogen to the ultra-dense metabolized state is not
high pressure, but the ideal combination of cavity shape/size, light
frequency, and EMF environment.

On Mon, Aug 22, 2016 at 9:18 PM, Roarty, Francis X <
francis.x.roa...@lmco.com> wrote:

> What caught my eye was that this can change the ground state, initiate
> phase changes, fueled by polaritons in a confined cavity… all the
> ingredients we hear mentioned by Jones and axil,  but…. done  with low
> power [snip] Kono said the amount of terahertz light put into the cavity
> is very weak. "What we depend on is the vacuum fluctuation. Vacuum, in a
> classical sense, is an empty space. There's nothing. But in a quantum
> sense, a vacuum is full of fluctuating photons, having so-called zero-point
> energy. These vacuum photons are actually what we are using to resonantly
> excite electrons in our cavity.[/snip]
>
>
>
> ]Fran
>
>
>
> *From:* Che [mailto:comandantegri...@gmail.com]
> *Sent:* Monday, August 22, 2016 8:55 PM
> *To:* vortex-l@eskimo.com
> *Subject:* EXTERNAL: Re: [Vo]:Light and matter merge in quantum coupling
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> On Mon, Aug 22, 2016 at 7:53 PM, Roarty, Francis X <
> francis.x.roa...@lmco.com> wrote:
>
> https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2016/08/160822152626.htm
>
>
>
> “"This general subject is what's known as cavity quantum electrodynamics
> (QED)," Kono said. "In cavity QED, the cavity enhances the light so that
> matter in the cavity resonantly interacts with the vacuum field. What is
> unique about solid-state cavity QED is that the light typically interacts
> with this huge number of electrons, which behave like a single gigantic
> atom."”
>
>
>
> Light and matter are essentially manifestations of the same energetic
> motions (of whatever): so it's not surprising that, with the proper
> geometries and harmonics, they can be effortlessly made to manifest each
> other 'symbiotically', on-demand, in a lab. Sooner or later Humans were
> going to find out how.
>
>
>
> But who beat us to it..!?
>
> :P
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

Re: [Vo]:Interesting Steam Calculation

[David Roberson]

Dave--




Where did the pressure of 15.75 psi abs come from?  I  thought the pressure of 
the 102C dry steam (assumed) was 1 atmos.--not 15.75 abs.


I  think your assumed conditions above 1 atmos. were never measured.


Bob Cook

Bob, I used a steam table calculator located at 
http://www.tlv.com/global/TI/calculator/steam-table-pressure.html to obtain my 
data points.

According to that source, 14.6954 psi abs is 0 bar at a temperature of 99.9743 
C degrees.
At 102 C degrees the pressure is shown as 15.7902 psi absolute.
Also, at 15.75 psi abs you should be at 101.928 C.  I must have accidentally 
written the last digit in error for some reason.

Does this answer your first question?

You are correct about the assumed pressures above 1 atmosphere not being 
measured directly.  I admit that I rounded off the readings a bit, but the 
amount of error resulting from the values I chose did not appear to impact the 
answers to a significant degree.  In one of Rossi's earlier experiments the 
temperature within his ECAT was measured to reach a high of about 135 C just as 
the calculated power being measured at the output of his heat exchanger reached 
the maximum.  At the time I concluded that this must have occurred as a result 
of the filling of his device by liquid water.

I chose 130 C for my latest calculations mainly as an estimate of the 
temperature within the ECAT modules.  The higher pressure (39.2 psi absolute) 
was the value required to keep the liquid water in saturation with the vapor.  
Rossi is using a feedback system to control the heating of his modules and that 
requires him to operate each at a few degrees above the output temperature(102 
C?) as a minimum.  There is no guarantee that he regulates them at 130 C as I 
assumed, but that temperature was consistent with having a ratio of vapor 
volume to liquid volume of nearly 100 to 1.

Of course I could have raised the ECAT temperature to get a larger ratio of 
flash vapor to liquid water at the output stream.  Likewise, the ratio would 
drop if a lower temperature is assumed.   The 130 C appeared to be near to his 
earlier design, and I had to choose something.  Do you have a suggestion for a 
better temperature or pressure to assume?

Dave

Re: [Vo]:Interesting Steam Calculation

[Bob Cook]

Dave--


Where did the pressure of 15.75 psi abs come from?  I  thought the pressure of 
the 102C dry steam (assumed) was 1 atmos.--not 15.75 abs.


I  think your assumed conditions above 1 atmos. were never measured.


Bob Cook





From: David Roberson 
Sent: Monday, August 22, 2016 3:49 PM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Interesting Steam Calculation

I followed the calculation below with an additional one to further my research. 
 For the second calculation I used the flow rate information supplied by 
Engineer48 for the 24 pumps that were manually set from the front panel.  With 
this data I determined that the power delivered to the customer would be 30.1 
kW under the following assumptions:

Twenty two of the pumps were delivering full flow of 18 kg per hour while two 
were operating at 1/2 full rate of 9 kg per hour.  The total was therefore 414 
kg per hour which translates to .115 kg/second.

The temperature of the water inside all of the ECAT sections was controlled at 
130 C, which is in line with what was seen during several of Rossi's single 
unit demonstrations.

All of this water then escaped through a restrictive, pressure dropping orifice 
such that some of the liquid flashed into steam according to the below analysis.

The resulting water filled vapor flow was sent to the customer with a pressure 
reading of approximately atmospheric and a temperature of 102 C as below.  In 
this case the gauges would read correctly.

Water finally returned from the customer at 68 C, in liquid form, back to the 
Rossi system.

A further calculation of the power delivered to the customer if it is assumed 
that all of the water is in the form of vapor with zero water at 102 C and 
atmospheric pressure would be  275 kW.  Within this scenario the water returns 
at 68 C as before.

The purpose of these calculations is to seek a possible hypothesis as to how 
the power being sent to the customer could be dramatically less than one might 
calculate if he depended upon the gauge readings and did not have a method to 
verify that the mass supplied to the customer was dry steam.   If it can be 
shown that a steam quality measuring device was located between the Rossi 
system and the customer that indicated dry steam then the power delivered would 
be much closer to the 275 kW level.  If not, then 30.1 kW could well be 
possible.

Detailed calculation are available upon request.

Dave



On 8/20/2016 1:51 PM, David Roberson wrote:
Today I made an interesting calculation that some may find relevant to the 
ongoing discussions.

According to steam tables, the following could be possible, assuming that I did 
not make a mistake in my calculations.

Assume you have 1kg of water inside a solid container at 130 C and 39.2 psi 
absolute.  Then you place a restriction device that allows all of the liquid to 
eventually escape.  Some of the liquid will immediatly flash into vapor while 
most of the 1 kg remains in the liquid form as it exits the restriction.  If 
you assume that the resulting mixture ends up at 102 C and 15.75 psi absolute 
then it is possible to calculate the amount of vapor and liquid that is present 
at that location.

The internal energy of the initial liquid at 130 C is 546.388 kj/kg which in 
this case yields 546.388 thousand joules.  I am assuming that this same amount 
of energy remains within the liquid and vapor combintation of the lower 
temperature and pressure stream.

When I solved the equation relating the quality of the mixture to the various 
heat contents I determined that there would be .053 kg or vapor and .947 kg of 
liquid water at the output.  On first glance, this result suggests that it 
should be easy to separate the water from the steam, but actually calculating 
the two volumes makes that not so evident.

The volume of the vapor would be .053 kg * 1.565 cubic meters per kg = .0826 
cubic meters.  The volume of the liquid water would be .947 kg* .001045 cubic 
meters per kg = .000989 cubic meters.

Using the above numbers it appears that you would have 83.488 times as much 
vapor by volume as liquid.  This is quite a large ratio which suggests that it 
might well be possible to mistake a stream of mass with this consistency as 
consisting of only vapor.  Especially if a visual technique were used.

I am not saying that this calculation reveals the source of the Rossi test 
confusion, but that perhaps it might open discussions that have not been 
considered so far.  I do recall that on earlier demonstrations that the 
temperature within the ECATs was reported to be in the range of 130 C.

Perhaps some of our mathematically inclined vortex residents can take a few 
moments to verify that my assumptions and calculations make sense.

Dave

RE: EXTERNAL: Re: [Vo]:Light and matter merge in quantum coupling

[Roarty, Francis X]

What caught my eye was that this can change the ground state, initiate phase 
changes, fueled by polaritons in a confined cavity… all the ingredients we hear 
mentioned by Jones and axil,  but…. done  with low power [snip] Kono said the 
amount of terahertz light put into the cavity is very weak. "What we depend on 
is the vacuum fluctuation. Vacuum, in a classical sense, is an empty space. 
There's nothing. But in a quantum sense, a vacuum is full of fluctuating 
photons, having so-called zero-point energy. These vacuum photons are actually 
what we are using to resonantly excite electrons in our cavity.[/snip]

]Fran

From: Che [mailto:comandantegri...@gmail.com]
Sent: Monday, August 22, 2016 8:55 PM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Subject: EXTERNAL: Re: [Vo]:Light and matter merge in quantum coupling



On Mon, Aug 22, 2016 at 7:53 PM, Roarty, Francis X 
> wrote:
https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2016/08/160822152626.htm

“"This general subject is what's known as cavity quantum electrodynamics 
(QED)," Kono said. "In cavity QED, the cavity enhances the light so that matter 
in the cavity resonantly interacts with the vacuum field. What is unique about 
solid-state cavity QED is that the light typically interacts with this huge 
number of electrons, which behave like a single gigantic atom."”

Light and matter are essentially manifestations of the same energetic motions 
(of whatever): so it's not surprising that, with the proper geometries and 
harmonics, they can be effortlessly made to manifest each other 
'symbiotically', on-demand, in a lab. Sooner or later Humans were going to find 
out how.

But who beat us to it..!?
:P

Re: [Vo]:Light and matter merge in quantum coupling

[Che]

On Mon, Aug 22, 2016 at 7:53 PM, Roarty, Francis X <
francis.x.roa...@lmco.com> wrote:

> https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2016/08/160822152626.htm
>
>
>
> “"This general subject is what's known as cavity quantum electrodynamics
> (QED)," Kono said. "In cavity QED, the cavity enhances the light so that
> matter in the cavity resonantly interacts with the vacuum field. What is
> unique about solid-state cavity QED is that the light typically interacts
> with this huge number of electrons, which behave like a single gigantic
> atom."”
>

Light and matter are essentially manifestations of the same energetic
motions (of whatever): so it's not surprising that, with the proper
geometries and harmonics, they can be effortlessly made to manifest each
other 'symbiotically', on-demand, in a lab. Sooner or later Humans were
going to find out how.

But who beat us to it..!?
:P

[Vo]:Light and matter merge in quantum coupling

[Roarty, Francis X]

https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2016/08/160822152626.htm

“"This general subject is what's known as cavity quantum electrodynamics 
(QED)," Kono said. "In cavity QED, the cavity enhances the light so that matter 
in the cavity resonantly interacts with the vacuum field. What is unique about 
solid-state cavity QED is that the light typically interacts with this huge 
number of electrons, which behave like a single gigantic atom."”


Worth reading!
Fran

Re: [Vo]:Interesting Steam Calculation

[David Roberson]

I followed the calculation below with an additional one to further my research. 
 For the second calculation I used the flow rate information supplied by 
Engineer48 for the 24 pumps that were manually set from the front panel.  With 
this data I determined that the power delivered to the customer would be 30.1 
kW under the following assumptions:

Twenty two of the pumps were delivering full flow of 18 kg per hour while two 
were operating at 1/2 full rate of 9 kg per hour.  The total was therefore 414 
kg per hour which translates to .115 kg/second.

The temperature of the water inside all of the ECAT sections was controlled at 
130 C, which is in line with what was seen during several of Rossi's single 
unit demonstrations.

All of this water then escaped through a restrictive, pressure dropping orifice 
such that some of the liquid flashed into steam according to the below analysis.

The resulting water filled vapor flow was sent to the customer with a pressure 
reading of approximately atmospheric and a temperature of 102 C as below.  In 
this case the gauges would read correctly.

Water finally returned from the customer at 68 C, in liquid form, back to the 
Rossi system.

A further calculation of the power delivered to the customer if it is assumed 
that all of the water is in the form of vapor with zero water at 102 C and 
atmospheric pressure would be  275 kW.  Within this scenario the water returns 
at 68 C as before.

The purpose of these calculations is to seek a possible hypothesis as to how 
the power being sent to the customer could be dramatically less than one might 
calculate if he depended upon the gauge readings and did not have a method to 
verify that the mass supplied to the customer was dry steam.   If it can be 
shown that a steam quality measuring device was located between the Rossi 
system and the customer that indicated dry steam then the power delivered would 
be much closer to the 275 kW level.  If not, then 30.1 kW could well be 
possible.

Detailed calculation are available upon request.

Dave

 
  

On 8/20/2016 1:51PM, David Roberson wrote:





Today I made an interestingcalculation that 
some may find relevantto the ongoing 
discussions.

According to steam tables, the following
could be possible, assuming that I did  
  not make a mistake in my calculations.

Assume you have 1kg of water inside a   
 solid container at 130 C and 39.2 psi  
  absolute.  Then you place a restriction   
 device that allows all of the liquid to
eventually escape.  Some of the liquidwill 
immediatly flash into vapor whilemost of the 1 
kg remains in the liquidform as it exits the 
restriction.  Ifyou assume that the resulting 
mixtureends up at 102 C and 15.75 psi absolute  
  then it is possible to calculate the  
  amount of vapor and liquid that is
present at that location.

The internal energy of the initial  
  liquid at 130 C is 546.388 kj/kg which
in this case yields 546.388 thousand
joules.  I am assuming that this sameamount of 
energy remains within theliquid and vapor 
combintation of thelower temperature and 
pressure stream.

When I solved the equation relating the 
   quality of the mixture to the various
heat contents I determined that there   
 would be .053 kg or vapor and .947 kg ofliquid 
water at the output.  On firstglance, this 
result suggests that itshould be easy to 
separate the waterfrom the steam, but actually 
calculatingthe two volumes makes that not so
evident.

The volume of the vapor would be .053 kg
* 1.565 cubic meters per kg = .0826 
   cubic 

Re: [Vo]:useful LENR is based on multiplicative excess heat

[Daniel Rocha]

What that picture show is that all equipment was dismantled since JM did
not buy the reactor, it only tested it. Also, there are  signs of a leaking
pipe bellow an open pipe above the wall, some turned off fans and a closed
hole in the ceiling. That's all. Nothing you say will convince me or Peter
of otherwise when talking about Exhibit 5. You can save yourself to mimic a
keyboard parrot.

If I were cynical, I'd say IH and Rossi were cahoot in a scheme to defraud
investors, but they broke up like thieves trying to split the money, or are
making a show to morally laundry the money in a settlement. And IH is
moving forward using other serious researches to defraud more investors, in
the same way Rossi did with Focardi.

2016-08-22 17:11 GMT-03:00 Jed Rothwell :

> The COP of 50 to 60 is a lie. It is impossible, as you see from the photos
> of the ceiling, and from Exhibit 5.
>
>
>
>


-- 
Daniel Rocha - RJ
danieldi...@gmail.com

Re: [Vo]:useful LENR is based on multiplicative excess heat

[Jed Rothwell]

Peter Gluck  wrote:

COP-.1.8 is additive
> COP 50-60 is multiplicative
>

The COP of 50 to 60 is a lie. It is impossible, as you see from the photos
of the ceiling, and from Exhibit 5.

- Jed

[Vo]:useful LENR is based on multiplicative excess heat

[Peter Gluck]

COP-.1.8 is additive
COP 50-60 is multiplicative

http://egooutpeters.blogspot.ro/2016/08/aug-22-2016-lenr-must-be-based-on.html


peter

-- 
Dr. Peter Gluck
Cluj, Romania
http://egooutpeters.blogspot.com

[Vo]:Article: Australian scientists just set a world record for solar thermal efficiency

[Jack Cole]

Australian scientists just set a world record for solar thermal efficiency

http://flip.it/ZSMW9I

Re: [Vo]: Jed's flowmeter comments chanllenged.

[Giovanni Santostasi]

Jed said:
*The only wild conclusions in this debate are assertions that a machine can
be nearly 100% *

Even if this was taken at face value it would be impossible from a logistic
point of view because it would be 30 tons of material processed every week
(using the most endothermic reactions known), coming in and out of that
small warehouse in a non-industrial area (without causing a complaint from
nearby businesses or calling the attention of zoning authorities).

Giovanni


On Sun, Aug 21, 2016 at 3:02 PM, Jed Rothwell  wrote:

> a.ashfield  wrote:
>
> No, the doubters on this thread have hijacked the topic.  Obviously there
>> is dispute so the thing to do is to wait for hard evidence before jumping
>> to wild conclusions . . .
>>
>
> The photo of the ceiling *is* hard evidence. It is not a wild conclusion
> that it precludes the possibility of 1 MW of heat. It is just common sense.
> Anyone who has seen the ventilation system in a kitchen or factory would
> know that.
>
> The only wild conclusions in this debate are assertions that a machine can
> be nearly 100% endothermic, or that pumps can maintain a flow rate of
> exactly 36,000 kg per day for a month, or that the pressure might actually
> be zero, etc.
>
> - Jed
>
>