Re: [Vo]:Comment from Dr Mitchell Schwartz on Krivit
just to say that Krivit just make an article about his mistakes http://blog.newenergytimes.com/2012/02/06/swartz-responds-to-our-reports-about-his-claims/ he recognize them, but also blame of lack of clarity of data at the time he made the claims... maybe should stop calling for conspiracy, and critics both scoop hunting and unclear claims... peace and love to all people of good will.
[Vo]:Comment from Dr Mitchell Schwartz on Krivit
Greetings Vortex-L I saw this posted on Dr Mitchell Schwartz s website on Krivit: http://world.std.com/~mica/krivit02052012.html I am merely a messager. I am sure that there will be interesting comments. Ron Kita, Chiralex
Re: [Vo]:Comment from Dr Mitchell Schwartz on Krivit
On 02/05/2012 10:31 AM, Ron Kita wrote: Greetings Vortex-L I saw this posted on Dr Mitchell Schwartz s website on Krivit: http://world.std.com/~mica/krivit02052012.html http://world.std.com/%7Emica/krivit02052012.html I am merely a messager. I am sure that there will be interesting comments. Ron Kita, Chiralex Schwartz has a point but still manages to make a fool of himself by the format of his reaction. It makes him look very unprofessional. (Not to speak about his very unfortunate percentage calculation mistake -- 34200% should be 3400% -- which makes him look like he cannot be trusted with numbers). Reactions like these do so much better if kept short and factual. Andre
Re: [Vo]:Comment from Dr Mitchell Schwartz on Krivit
Mitchel is correct. Krivit is making a fool of himself and is unable to evaluate anything or anyone that does not support WL theory. He is a pathetic and idiot sold out. 2012/2/5 Ron Kita chiralex.k...@gmail.com Greetings Vortex-L I saw this posted on Dr Mitchell Schwartz s website on Krivit: http://world.std.com/~mica/krivit02052012.html I am merely a messager. I am sure that there will be interesting comments. Ron Kita, Chiralex -- Daniel Rocha - RJ danieldi...@gmail.com
Re: [Vo]:Comment from Dr Mitchell Schwartz on Krivit
Mitchell Swartz published this: http://world.std.com/~mica/krivit02052012.html In the first figure, the green line appears to be the response to input power being stepped up. I guess this green line shows the temperature in a control cell. Anyway, that is a splendid stable response, well in proportion to the input power. This allays some of my concerns about the calorimetry. However, I would like to know more about it. I do not not mean I suspect Swartz made a mistake. I wouldn't know. I just meant there are many way to make a mistake doing low power calorimetry, so you have to be careful. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:Comment from Dr Mitchell Schwartz on Krivit
If you take the error to be the difference between the upper and lower interval of the fluctuations, you still get, visibly, COP of more than 8. I guess this is a strong evidence that if there is an error, it is one of carelessness setting up the experiment. That's way too above the background. 2012/2/5 Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com Mitchell Swartz published this: http://world.std.com/~mica/krivit02052012.html In the first figure, the green line appears to be the response to input power being stepped up. I guess this green line shows the temperature in a control cell. Anyway, that is a splendid stable response, well in proportion to the input power. This allays some of my concerns about the calorimetry. However, I would like to know more about it. I do not not mean I suspect Swartz made a mistake. I wouldn't know. I just meant there are many way to make a mistake doing low power calorimetry, so you have to be careful. - Jed -- Daniel Rocha - RJ danieldi...@gmail.com
RE: [Vo]:Comment from Dr Mitchell Schwartz on Krivit
And those of you on both sides of this, including Dr. Schwartz, failed to see/acknowledge that the 'claims' that Krivit was reporting were QUOTES from OTHER LENR researchers (WL???). For example: [researcher#1] New Energy Times had received a tip from a LENR researcher that the gain was 18 milliwatts. [Krivit, restating researcher#2] Today, another LENR researcher provided us with Swartz's data. The first researcher was off, but not by much. It was 80 milliwatts, not 18. [#1 or #2???, not Krivit] In 23 years, he has yet to sustain anything more than 1 watt. There is little in Swartz's work to get excited about. [Krivit] The second researcher, who provided Swartz's slides today, wrote this comment to me in an e-mail: [researcher#2] When you look at the data, you can see, barely, a 1 degree C temperature rise for about three minutes, using about 12 mW of input power to produce less than 100 milliwatts of heat. This is not a breakthrough. So it seems that all of the specific statements that were WRONG, were Krivit reporting what *others* had told him, HOWEVER, that does not excuse his lack of careful review to determine whether those statements were accurate or not. -Mark From: Daniel Rocha [mailto:danieldi...@gmail.com] Sent: Sunday, February 05, 2012 9:23 AM To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: [Vo]:Comment from Dr Mitchell Schwartz on Krivit Mitchel is correct. Krivit is making a fool of himself and is unable to evaluate anything or anyone that does not support WL theory. He is a pathetic and idiot sold out. 2012/2/5 Ron Kita chiralex.k...@gmail.com Greetings Vortex-L I saw this posted on Dr Mitchell Schwartz s website on Krivit: http://world.std.com/~mica/krivit02052012.html I am merely a messager. I am sure that there will be interesting comments. Ron Kita, Chiralex -- Daniel Rocha - RJ danieldi...@gmail.com
RE: [Vo]:Comment from Dr Mitchell Schwartz on Krivit
Don't understand the confusion. The LEFT half of the chart has the word 'CONTROL' written above it in BIG letters, the RIGHT half has NANOR above it; NANOR being Schwartz's acronym for his version of LENR technology. The traces look to be continuous (i.e., from the same sensors), thus, he must have had a calibrating resistor inside that he could use to introduce a known amount of energy. Yes we need more details to feel comfortable about it, and hopefully Dr. Schwartz will provide them. -mark From: Jed Rothwell [mailto:jedrothw...@gmail.com] Sent: Sunday, February 05, 2012 10:29 AM To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: [Vo]:Comment from Dr Mitchell Schwartz on Krivit Mitchell Swartz published this: http://world.std.com/~mica/krivit02052012.html http://world.std.com/%7Emica/krivit02052012.html In the first figure, the green line appears to be the response to input power being stepped up. I guess this green line shows the temperature in a control cell. Anyway, that is a splendid stable response, well in proportion to the input power. This allays some of my concerns about the calorimetry. However, I would like to know more about it. I do not not mean I suspect Swartz made a mistake. I wouldn't know. I just meant there are many way to make a mistake doing low power calorimetry, so you have to be careful. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:Comment from Dr Mitchell Schwartz on Krivit
Hmm, people are suspecting that Schwartz pulled a Rossi? 2012/2/5 Mark Iverson-ZeroPoint zeropo...@charter.net Don’t understand the confusion… ** ** The LEFT half of the chart has the word ‘CONTROL’ written above it in BIG letters, the RIGHT half has NANOR above it; NANOR being Schwartz’s acronym for his version of LENR technology. The traces look to be continuous (i.e., from the same sensors), thus, he must have had a calibrating resistor inside that he could use to introduce a known amount of energy.** ** ** ** Yes we need more details to feel comfortable about it, and hopefully Dr. Schwartz will provide them… -mark ** ** *From:* Jed Rothwell [mailto:jedrothw...@gmail.com] *Sent:* Sunday, February 05, 2012 10:29 AM *To:* vortex-l@eskimo.com *Subject:* Re: [Vo]:Comment from Dr Mitchell Schwartz on Krivit ** ** Mitchell Swartz published this: http://world.std.com/~mica/krivit02052012.html In the first figure, the green line appears to be the response to input power being stepped up. I guess this green line shows the temperature in a control cell. Anyway, that is a splendid stable response, well in proportion to the input power. This allays some of my concerns about the calorimetry. However, I would like to know more about it. I do not not mean I suspect Swartz made a mistake. I wouldn't know. I just meant there are many way to make a mistake doing low power calorimetry, so you have to be careful. - Jed ** ** -- Daniel Rocha - RJ danieldi...@gmail.com
Re: [Vo]:Comment from Dr Mitchell Schwartz on Krivit
Mark Iverson-ZeroPoint zeropo...@charter.net wrote: The LEFT half of the chart has the word ‘CONTROL’ written above it in BIG letters, the RIGHT half has NANOR above it; NANOR being Schwartz’s acronym for his version of LENR technology. The traces look to be continuous (i.e., from the same sensors), thus, he must have had a calibrating resistor inside that he could use to introduce a known amount of energy. If the green line is from a calibration pulse made during the run in the active cell, it would be superimposed on the excess heat. It would be an on-the-fly calibration like the ones Martin loves to do. You would not see it as a separate line and even if you subtract out other stuff it would be noisy. I think this is from a control cell or a calibration before the run. I do not see an explanation here so we will have to wait for a paper. Whatever the green line is, it is impressively stable. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:Comment from Dr Mitchell Schwartz on Krivit
Oops. There is a key on the top right. The green line is pinCF. Power in CF I guess. So it is not impressive. Anyone can measure electric power with precision. The blue line is pinohmic. The other lines appear to be output temperatures in a control cell (left) and the active cell (right). Fluctuations are small on the left. Still, it is hard to judge performance from this. - Jed
RE: [Vo]:Comment from Dr Mitchell Schwartz on Krivit
So, they made a control run, with a purely resistive load, but then used a different input power on the CF run? It seems that the red output delta T/input power is then scaled up for the lower CF input power. Why was the same input power as the control run not used in the CF run? This doesn't seen to be an apples-to-apples comparison. Why? CC: vortex-l@eskimo.com; vortex-l@eskimo.com From: jedrothw...@gmail.com Subject: Re: [Vo]:Comment from Dr Mitchell Schwartz on Krivit Date: Sun, 5 Feb 2012 14:45:32 -0500 To: jedrothw...@gmail.com Oops. There is a key on the top right. The green line is pinCF. Power in CF I guess. So it is not impressive. Anyone can measure electric power with precision. The blue line is pinohmic. The other lines appear to be output temperatures in a control cell (left) and the active cell (right). Fluctuations are small on the left. Still, it is hard to judge performance from this. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:Comment from Dr Mitchell Schwartz on Krivit
In reply to Robert Leguillon's message of Sun, 5 Feb 2012 14:57:35 -0600: Hi, [snip] So, they made a control run, with a purely resistive load, but then used a different input power on the CF run? It seems that the red output delta T/input power is then scaled up for the lower CF input power. Why was the same input power as the control run not used in the CF run? This doesn't seen to be an apples-to-apples comparison. Why? My guess would be that in the control run you need to input more power to see a temperature rise. Note that the input power is probably consumed by different mechanisms between the two runs. [snip] Regards, Robin van Spaandonk http://rvanspaa.freehostia.com/project.html
