On Fri, Dec 23, 2011 at 6:06 PM, Harry Veeder hveeder...@gmail.com wrote:
It is not sufficient evidence, but it still can be interpreted as
evidence of nuclear reactions.
I don't agree. Not if the heat is coming from a 100 kg device that we're
not allowed to inspect.
If it were heat +
On Fri, Dec 23, 2011 at 9:02 PM, Ruby r...@hush.com wrote:
1. Jed, I won't make a stink with the Navy. I do not want trouble for the
lone woman researcher in this field. However, if a stink *does* need
raising, just say the word.
Question: Is there another female cold fusion scientist?
On Thu, Dec 22, 2011 at 10:29 AM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.comwrote:
Mary Yugo maryyu...@gmail.com wrote:
Am I to assume you examined the mathematical modeling and resulting
curves in the links I provided and have analyzed and rejected them for some
good reason?
Yes. I have seen
On Thu, Dec 22, 2011 at 2:41 PM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com wrote:
It does not matter what rate you add the heat. The flow rate of the water
is unimportant. It might be stopped altogether.
It takes a certain amount of energy to keep the surface of the reactor at
80°C for four hours.
On Thu, Dec 22, 2011 at 4:30 PM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com wrote:
If they had set a timetable back in June and they had met it on time I
would suspect they are fake. It never goes smoothly.
I was amazed that Rossi managed to pull off his 1 MW demo. I am pretty
sure it was real. The
On Tue, Dec 20, 2011 at 4:27 PM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com wrote:
I guess there is no evidence if you cover your eyes and your ears and yell
nya, nya, I can't hear you!! like a 5-year-old.
There is plenty of evidence if you look up Ni-H experiments at
LENR-CANR.org. There is a
On Tue, Dec 20, 2011 at 7:37 PM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com wrote:
But what is wrong with that?!? Nearly every effect discovered since 1700
has started off on a small scale, and was later scaled up:
High temperature superconductivity has not yet been scaled up successfully
for
On Tue, Dec 20, 2011 at 7:47 PM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com wrote:
How do you know these are extravagant claims?
The claims are extravagant, whether true or not. Why else is everyone so
excited about them?
If these claims were true then they were not bluster. We don't know yet.
I
On Wed, Dec 21, 2011 at 2:41 PM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com wrote:
Are you serious? Do you sincerely believe that a professional scientist
could spend several days in the laboratory talking to people, looking at
instruments and data, and not recognize that the equipment is fake and the
On Wed, Dec 21, 2011 at 2:49 PM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com wrote:
Giovanni Santostasi gsantost...@gmail.com wrote:
Until LENR is something that every amateur enthusiast can reproduce and
post on youtube, it will remain in the realm of pseudoscience.
That will never happen. But
On Wed, Dec 21, 2011 at 3:00 PM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com wrote:
And remember, ... you're the person who thought the Rossi demo of October
6 was iron clad.
I still do. So do many others.
It probably did involve some iron (or steel) but hardly was conclusive.
Iron has 10
On Wed, Dec 21, 2011 at 3:13 PM, OrionWorks - Steven V Johnson
svj.orionwo...@gmail.com wrote:
From Giovanni:
Until LENR is something that every amateur enthusiast can
reproduce and post on youtube, it will remain in the realm
of pseudoscience.
I disagree with that assumption. What the
On Wed, Dec 21, 2011 at 3:42 PM, Stephen A. Lawrence sa...@pobox.comwrote:
Are you kidding, or what?
On 11-12-21 04:33 PM, Giovanni Santostasi wrote:
I didn't say that being reproducible by amateurs would be the only way I
would take LENR seriously.
Multiple tests done by respectable
On Wed, Dec 21, 2011 at 3:43 PM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com wrote:
Giovanni Santostasi gsantost...@gmail.com wrote:
I didn't say that being reproducible by amateurs would be the only way I
would take LENR seriously.
Multiple tests done by respectable scientists, with high sigmas,
On Wed, Dec 21, 2011 at 4:32 PM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com wrote:
Joshua Cude joshua.c...@gmail.com wrote a message that I happened to
notice:
Cold fusion is a simple experiment, and anyone should be able to follow
the recipe, even if not from scratch. If the material is tricky
On Wed, Dec 21, 2011 at 4:32 PM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com wrote:
Joshua Cude joshua.c...@gmail.com wrote a message that I happened to
notice:
Cold fusion is a simple experiment, and anyone should be able to follow
the recipe, even if not from scratch. If the material is tricky
On Mon, Dec 19, 2011 at 6:46 PM, Mark Iverson-ZeroPoint
zeropo...@charter.net wrote:
Joshua wrote:
“… And a top academic career would be a chair at a university or director
of a research institute.”
** **
Well, Josh, by your own definition, Dr. Robert Duncan, Vice Chancellor of
On Mon, Dec 19, 2011 at 7:35 AM, Aussie Guy E-Cat
aussieguy.e...@gmail.comwrote:
Christ man high school students replicated PF with both excess heat and
transmutations, in a MIT lab and in front of over 100 ICCF 10 attendees?
This reminded me of a Dilbert cartoon (since you seem interested in
On Sun, Dec 18, 2011 at 7:01 PM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com wrote:
Gene went from a top academic career to working in a warehouse at night
to feed his family.
He was a science writer. Respectable, yes. Top academic career, no.
Fleischmann and Pons had a terrible time.
Too much
On Sun, Dec 18, 2011 at 8:38 PM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com wrote:
He sure knew what he was getting into. Fleischmann wrote a lighthearted
account of this, quoted in Beaudette's book. It starts off with Arrhenius
in 1883. He was one of the most important electrochemists in history,
On Sun, Dec 18, 2011 at 8:54 PM, Aussie Guy E-Cat
aussieguy.e...@gmail.comwrote:
This is so wrong as to make me very upset. I'll do anything I can to get
hold of a FPE device from Leonardo or Defkalion or who ever and shove it up
some FPE deniers back side so far the sun will never shine on it
apparently contribute to this list is trashing the
FPE.
On 12/19/2011 11:23 PM, Joshua Cude wrote:
On Sun, Dec 18, 2011 at 8:38 PM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.commailto:
jedrothw...@gmail.com** wrote:
He sure knew what he was getting into. Fleischmann wrote a
lighthearted account
On Mon, Dec 19, 2011 at 7:15 AM, Aussie Guy E-Cat
aussieguy.e...@gmail.comwrote:
I state again. 1 professor, 1 grad and 2 high school students replicated
FP in a MIT lab in front of over 100 ICCF 10 participants in 2002 and
2003. The observed excess heat and transmutations.
It wasn't enough
On Mon, Dec 19, 2011 at 7:35 AM, Aussie Guy E-Cat
aussieguy.e...@gmail.comwrote:
Christ man high school students replicated PF with both excess heat and
transmutations, in a MIT lab and in front of over 100 ICCF 10 attendees?
And what did those 100 people see? A power supply pumping 3 A into
On Mon, Dec 19, 2011 at 7:43 AM, Aussie Guy E-Cat
aussieguy.e...@gmail.comwrote:
Did the DOE visit the students results? I suggest not. Did they sit in
front of a SEM and see the transmutated products? I suggest they did not
and never left their office.
I suggest you didn't either.
Sorry
On Mon, Dec 19, 2011 at 8:50 AM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com wrote:
Vorl Bek vorl@antichef.com wrote:
Gene went from a top academic career to working in a
warehouse at night to feed his family.
He was a science writer. Respectable, yes. Top academic career,
no.
In
On Mon, Dec 19, 2011 at 9:06 AM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com wrote:
I do have him killfiled. For my peace of mind.
What a coincidence. Your posts all go to a special file too: my
must-reply-to file. In a way, it's a kill file, too. Unfortunately, I can't
always keep up with your
On Thu, Dec 15, 2011 at 6:56 PM, Giovanni Santostasi
gsantost...@gmail.comwrote:
There is an example that is interesting.
Gravitational wave detection.
As a practical field was created more than 40 years ago and no detection
has been done yet.
Doesn't fit the question though, since the
On Thu, Dec 15, 2011 at 7:19 PM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com wrote:
Charles Hope lookslikeiwasri...@gmail.com wrote:
Are there any examples of pathological science persisting 20 years without
being properly debunked?
Not to my knowledge. Unless you count things like water memory,
On Thu, Dec 15, 2011 at 7:27 PM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com wrote:
Joshua Cude wrote:
Contrary to popular argument, science actually celebrates novelty and
revolution, and scientists are not afraid of disruptive experiments;
they
crave them.
This is complete bullshit. Most
On Thu, Dec 15, 2011 at 7:33 PM, Harry Veeder hveeder...@gmail.com wrote:
Geocentrism took over 1000 years to debunk.
But considering it was accepted by the mainstream, it was not a
pathological science.
On Fri, Dec 16, 2011 at 2:20 AM, Axil Axil janap...@gmail.com wrote:
Following this line of reasoning, it is logical to assume that MY is more
likely than not a male. I would guesstimate that the odds on this
speculation are 70/30 that MY is a man.
Who the hell cares?
On Wed, Dec 14, 2011 at 3:59 PM, Horace Heffner hheff...@mtaonline.netwrote:
http://www.heise.de/tp/**artikel/35/35803/1.htmlhttp://www.heise.de/tp/artikel/35/35803/1.html
English translation
http://translate.google.com/**translate?sl=detl=enjs=n**
On Wed, Dec 14, 2011 at 5:50 PM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com wrote:
The other tests cannot be faked as far as I know. No skeptic has come up
with a plausible method. After all this time, I do not think any skeptic
will come up with anything. At least, not with anything that can be
On Thu, Dec 15, 2011 at 12:18 AM, Axil Axil janap...@gmail.com wrote:
This experiment supports my contention that entanglement, a key mechanism
in the cold fusion process, can be broadcast from one entangled ensemble
to induce entanglement in another ensemble even at high temperatures.
On Thu, Dec 15, 2011 at 8:31 AM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com wrote:
You ignore the central fact about this test which is that the reactor
remained at boiling temperatures for four hours with no input power.
Big deal. It weighs 100 kg. Ten kg is enough to stay at boiling for 40
hours,
On Thu, Dec 15, 2011 at 9:21 AM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com wrote:
1. Stored energy can only cause the temperature to decline monotonically,
very rapidly at first (Newton's law of cooling). Yet this heat increased
during the event.
Not true. If the inside is hotter than the outside,
The whole thing is related to pseudoscience and ignorance, and it's all
relevant. Here it is:
1. HACKS: SHODDY PRESS COVERAGE OF SCIENCE.
The Leveson Inquiry into the standards and ethics of the UK press, headed
by Lord Justice Brian Leveson, was prompted by the News of the World phone-
hacking
On Thu, Dec 15, 2011 at 3:47 PM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com wrote:
Most confirmed skeptics refuse to read anything.
It's not refusal. It's that they are not interested. Most skeptics are
satisfied that if the grandiose claims were real, simple and obvious
demonstrations would not only
On Thu, Dec 15, 2011 at 11:49 AM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.comwrote:
Oh come now. I have dealt with fraud by pointing that Yugo's claims of
stage magic is not falsifiable.
I don't know who you think is convinced by that. Of course it's
falsifiable. Just run the experiment long enough
On Thu, Dec 15, 2011 at 1:08 PM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com wrote:
The power between 150 and 250 shown in the cooling loop is more or less
stable, meaning the thing has reached the terminal temperature. It has
achieved a balance between input and output.
It's stable because it's
On Thu, Dec 15, 2011 at 12:45 PM, Horace Heffner hheff...@mtaonline.netwrote:
Rossi's tests and explanations are full of holes and self contradictions,
impossibilities. It is Rossi's tests and explanations that matter. All
the blather from the peanut gallery is irrelevant, except possibly
On Thu, Dec 15, 2011 at 1:08 PM, Alan J Fletcher a...@well.com wrote:
I need to add phase-change salts (and possibly even ceramic bricks) to my
fakes paper. Can you give me / point me to a likely candidate?
You might also consider reversible metal-hydride reactions.
On Thu, Dec 15, 2011 at 1:49 PM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com wrote:
Other than Talbot Chubb every researcher I have discussed this with
believes most of the claims.
Not many on record though. It will be interesting if the ecat comes to
nothing, to see how they will rationalize their
On Thu, Dec 15, 2011 at 2:12 PM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com wrote:
It is a problem of logic, as I explained to Yugo. An assertion that cannot
be tested or falsified cannot be debated. I cannot dispute it. Or agree
with it, for that matter. It is meaningless.
This sounds like the
On Thu, Dec 15, 2011 at 2:28 PM, Alan J Fletcher a...@well.com wrote:
At 11:08 AM 12/15/2011, Alan J Fletcher wrote:
I need to add phase-change salts (and possibly even ceramic bricks) to my
fakes paper. Can you give me / point me to a likely candidate?
On Thu, Dec 15, 2011 at 2:42 PM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com wrote:
I am saying that as a rule of logic, all assertions much be falsifiable,
Resorting to misunderstood rules is the refuge of people who have no good
arguments left. Falsifiability just means it should be possible to
On Thu, Dec 15, 2011 at 4:08 PM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com wrote:
If you can't think of a specific way this EXPERIMENTAL scientist's work
could have jumped the tracks, then you have no basis to challenge the
conclusions.
First of all, there are many specific ways suggested to
On Thu, Dec 15, 2011 at 5:35 PM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com wrote:
Then I suggest you read Christensen and some other books about business.
Some of these ideas are complicated. You have to do your homework.
An amazing new revolutionary technology promising to replace fossil
fuels...
On Thu, Dec 15, 2011 at 5:37 PM, Charles Hope
lookslikeiwasri...@gmail.comwrote:
It's not relevant, because his criticism is against innumeracy, which
applies to such delusions as astrology and homeopathy, but not cold fusion,
where the most serious advocates are scientists, who certainly know
On Thu, Dec 15, 2011 at 5:50 PM, Charles Hope
lookslikeiwasri...@gmail.comwrote:
Are there any examples of pathological science persisting 20 years without
being properly debunked? Are there any examples of new science remaining on
the fringe for 20 years before being finally accepted into the
On Tue, Dec 13, 2011 at 6:26 PM, pagnu...@htdconnect.com wrote:
Joshua,
I believe, Zawodny does explain the creation of ULM neutrons through the
plasmonic creation of heavy electrons. See (slide 16) of
http://newenergytimes.com/v2/news/2011/36/2010-Zawodny-AviationUnleashed.pdf
That's not
On Mon, Dec 12, 2011 at 6:07 PM, Mary Yugo maryyu...@gmail.com wrote:
I understand and agree with all the reasons but the problem I see is
accounting for the water. But how much water? I can't really tell what
Lewan measured.
It's pretty simple. Lewan measured about 11 liters going in to
On Mon, Dec 12, 2011 at 7:31 PM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com wrote:
Mary Yugo maryyu...@gmail.com wrote:
An ultrasonic nebulizer is certainly possibly but it's a bit far fetched.
A bit? How would the water from this reach the end of the hose without
forming drops and becoming an
On Mon, Dec 12, 2011 at 11:28 PM, Randy Wuller rwul...@freeark.com wrote:
Lewan's 2nd test in april adequately measured the output energy to
establish O/I of over 3/1. Since steam quality and output measurements have
been questioned and used as a basis to argue that the various Rossi tests
On Tue, Dec 13, 2011 at 8:45 AM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com wrote:
Cude wrote:
So some things are impossible? You should keep an open mind. It doesn't
violate any principles of physics for a mist of micrometer droplets to
travel through a hose, and it is far more plausible than
On Tue, Dec 13, 2011 at 9:30 AM, Daniel Rocha danieldi...@gmail.com wrote:
I have one of those, 5L. At maximum power, it takes 33W and 15 hours to
empty all the reservoir, but the fog is so dense that it falls within a
meter but it is so opaque cannot see through it. Despite all this, putting
On Tue, Dec 13, 2011 at 9:39 AM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com wrote:
Daniel Rocha wrote:
BTW, the vertical component of the exit tube of my humidifier is only 5cm
long...
Mine too. As I said, I think you could use a plastic bag to funnel the
vapor into a hose.
Be sure to mix it
On Tue, Dec 13, 2011 at 8:52 AM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com wrote:
He did that! What are you talking about?!? He has made the thing
self-sustain from internally generated heat for 4 hours.
It's not self-sustaining if you have to cycle the input power, and Rossi
has admitted that the
On Tue, Dec 13, 2011 at 12:51 PM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.comwrote:
Mary Yugo wrote:
Rossi ran a nuclear reactor for four hours with a claimed six month
capability and I am supposed to be ecstatic?
Since it would have cooled down immediately in the absence of anomalous
heat, 4
This went to personal mail, so I'm forwarding to the list:
On Tue, Dec 13, 2011 at 7:29 AM, Ransom Wuller rwul...@peaknet.net wrote:
Sure, but the output after traveling through meters of hose also had to
then travel through water allowed to stand at room temperature.
It's exactly what
On Tue, Dec 13, 2011 at 12:12 PM, pagnu...@htdconnect.com wrote:
Lattice Energy LLC-LENRs and Cold Fusion are Different Concepts - Dec 13
2011
As usual, he points out
1) the absurdity of breaching the Coulomb barrier in ordinary fusion, which
would take something approaching 100 keV for
On Tue, Dec 13, 2011 at 2:13 PM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com wrote:
In any case, it continues in self-sustaining mode far beyond the limits of
chemistry,
Not more than a few per cent on *this* side of the limits of chemistry.
and the energy used to reheat it is far less than the
On Tue, Dec 13, 2011 at 3:25 PM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com wrote:
I calibrated the thermocouple in a pot of boiling water before the test
and it was 99.6 deg C. That’s all you need to know. It’s in the report.
The temperatures +/- a degree or two within boiling are not informative.
On Tue, Dec 13, 2011 at 4:32 PM, Peter Heckert peter.heck...@arcor.dewrote:
Am 13.12.2011 23:21, schrieb ecat builder:
Hi All,
Just a brief update on the replication attempt by Chan. Chan is an
anonymous poster who claims to have replicated the Rossi reaction
using powders on two builder
On Fri, Dec 9, 2011 at 7:34 PM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com wrote:
It means we acknowledge the possibility of error or fraud, and *then we
move on* to the rest of the discussion.
Lawrence already showed how silly this claim is. You repeatedly say there
is no chance of fraud; that the
I'm coming to this discussion a little late, I know, and I'll probably
repeat points others have covered, but as I read through the nonsense
Rothwell writes, I can't carry on to the next nonsensical paragraph until
I've dealt with the previous, so I'll post my thoughts as I work through
it. If you
On Sat, Dec 10, 2011 at 12:46 PM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.comwrote:
I was assuming that nearly all of the heat is stored in water, and that
heat stored in the core is insignificant because it is metal, and most
metals have about 10 times lower specific heat than water. I was leaving
On Sat, Dec 10, 2011 at 1:20 PM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com wrote:
If you trust there was water flowing thorough at the rate reported by
Rossi, then replace 4 L every 15 minutes as I originally suggested:
This seems wrong. The pump is rated at 12L/h, and at the end of the run the
On Sat, Dec 10, 2011 at 5:04 PM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com wrote:
If you wish to disprove these claims, you must demonstrate by
conventional means that you can keep a reactor of this size at boiling
temperatures for 4 hours, while it remains too hot to touch.
There is no need to
On Sun, Dec 11, 2011 at 12:58 PM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.comwrote:
This theory has no bearing on the results. The theory may be wrong, but
the technique has been independently tested, and it works.
So they claim. But the demonstrations are not impressive. I'm not aware of
any
Ransompw is desperate to justify his faith in Rossi, but this experiment is
hardly the one to do it, for several reasons:
1) If half the liquid is escaping the hose as steam as ransom claims, then
there should be a flow of gas at the output close to 1 L/s. There is no way
the gas coming out of
On Mon, Dec 12, 2011 at 3:41 PM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com wrote:
Also, if the water was in the mythical state discussed here in which it is
90% liquid and 10% vapor, the liquid portion would definitely fall into the
bucket. The only way it could not have reached the bucket would be
On Fri, Dec 9, 2011 at 12:09 PM, Alan J Fletcher a...@well.com wrote:
Akito Takahashi, a retired professor of nuclear engineering from Osaka
University, and now affiliated with Technova Inc., is shifting his thinking
about low-energy nuclear reactions.
For two decades, Takahashi, a LENR
Krivit has put up the abstract for Takahashi's paper at the JCF-12 meeting.
In it he proposes a WL-like electron capture by a proton. He claims the
energy threshold for this reaction is 272 keV, and that it is exceeded by
600 keV electrons in his magic lattice.
Could someone explain how they get
On Thu, Dec 8, 2011 at 8:54 AM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com wrote:
Mary Yugo maryyu...@gmail.com wrote:
So there was an uninspected volume of about 30 cube centimeters cube.
Right. That's what I said. There is no way equipment in such a small cube
can explain the heat. I said: They
Krivit has written another smug, self-satisfied, sneery, sarcastic piece
about the Widom Larsen theory. I posted a reply in the comments, but of
course it won't pass moderation, so I'll post it here as well:
Although I think you are sincere, and your motives are true, as is quite
clear in your
On Thu, Dec 8, 2011 at 1:44 PM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com wrote:
Houkes is right. Live with it.
When you no longer have to insist repeatedly that something is right, there
might be a chance that it in fact is.
On Thu, Dec 8, 2011 at 3:17 PM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com wrote:
Did you read what I wrote about this? What I wrote SEVERAL DOZEN TIMES?!?
Unfortunately repetition does not make it true.
Although some experts question these results, most believe that the reactor
must have produced
On Thu, Dec 8, 2011 at 2:54 PM, Robert Leguillon
robert.leguil...@hotmail.com wrote:
1) We don't know the flow rate of the primary, but Rossi says it's 15
l/h, and you've never known him to lie, so let's assume 15 l/h, or 4.17 g/s
I don't think this can be right, because this is already
On Wed, Dec 7, 2011 at 8:43 AM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com wrote:
Robert Leguillon robert.leguil...@hotmail.com wrote:
You cite the temperature as evidence, but the temperature actually
contradicts full vaporization.
All of this has been explained succinctly ad nauseum, so please do
On Wed, Dec 7, 2011 at 8:39 AM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com wrote:
peter.heck...@arcor.de wrote:
Focardi said also not much above environment.
Possibly there was a dentist or internist doctor or a antique colortv in
neighbourhood.
As I reported here, Celani said the burst was so
On Wed, Dec 7, 2011 at 8:45 AM, Berke Durak berke.du...@gmail.com wrote:
THE MINI GEIGER HAD HIT
THE TOP OF THE SCALE,
Means nothing. What scale was it on? Did a hyperthyroid patient (treated
with I-131) walk past? It takes very little to put some meters off-scale.
And yes, some (older)
On Wed, Dec 7, 2011 at 8:50 AM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com wrote:
Here is another comment from Mats Lewan
As for energy storing I believe that has been clearly shown not to be a
possible explanation in itself.You simply would need an additional heat
source inside to have water
On Wed, Dec 7, 2011 at 9:41 AM, Robert Leguillon
robert.leguil...@hotmail.com wrote:
The steam experts were right in the INITIAL steam discussions. I agree
with you. But they were being asked about steam quality, not water
overflow.
Krivit raised his questions on steam quality which were,
On Wed, Dec 7, 2011 at 1:30 PM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com wrote:
Mary Yugo maryyu...@gmail.com wrote:
I suspect you will take wild notions like mine more seriously if much
more time passes without any absolutely definitive determination of Rossi's
veracity.
I consider the Oct. 6
On Wed, Dec 7, 2011 at 12:38 PM, David Roberson dlrober...@aol.com wrote:
I have always maintained that I will follow the evidence and have been
faithful to that end.
That is not consistent with your frequently expressed absolute certainty
that LENR is occurring.
Why should we assume that
On Wed, Dec 7, 2011 at 1:01 PM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com wrote:
I agree there may have been some liquid flowing through at times, but
Lewan performed Method 2 after a very large burst of heat, and he found the
flow rate was much lower than the flow rate going into the reactor.
On Wed, Dec 7, 2011 at 1:12 PM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com wrote:
Mary Yugo maryyu...@gmail.com wrote:
There is no need to postulate energy storage in the megawatt plant
demonstration. It is only necessary to consider that Rossi's client may be
fictitious and that the engineer may
On Wed, Dec 7, 2011 at 1:47 PM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com wrote:
Fortunately, it is predicated on immutable laws of physics and first
principle observations made by dozens of people who I know to be honest.
No. The laws of physics and ordinary chemistry can explain all the
On Wed, Dec 7, 2011 at 1:54 PM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com wrote:
Mary Yugo maryyu...@gmail.com wrote:
I consider the Oct. 6 test definitive.
Many capable scientists and engineers do not agree.
I have not heard from any yet.
How to break this to you? They don't care about you.
On Wed, Dec 7, 2011 at 2:03 PM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com wrote:
Mary Yugo maryyu...@gmail.com wrote:
And I always have to remind you that there are probably many potential
methods to cheat we may not have thought of.
You do not have to remind me of that. I have to remind *you*
On Wed, Dec 7, 2011 at 2:30 PM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com wrote:
Mary Yugo maryyu...@gmail.com wrote:
A person who thinks it is possible to keep water at boiling temperatures
for four hours at a poorly insulated vessel is not capable, by definition.
By any method? In a 100 kg
On Wed, Dec 7, 2011 at 2:33 PM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com wrote:
Mary Yugo maryyu...@gmail.com wrote:
As I have pointed out before, that is an invalid argument. Rossi can
invalidate the entire line of thought simply by giving an E-cat to a
university,
Your statement applies to
On Wed, Dec 7, 2011 at 3:01 PM, David Roberson dlrober...@aol.com wrote:
Now, do you sincerely think that the large generator was supplying the
heat energy to vaporize the water?
I don't have sincere thoughts about anything on this subject. It could be,
and that weakens Rossi's case. Those
On Wed, Dec 7, 2011 at 3:21 PM, David Roberson dlrober...@aol.com wrote:
Of course you are making a good point that they did use extra equipment to
ensure that the steam was very dry. The question is what is the dryness of
the steam before it entered those devices? Do you have any reference
On Wed, Dec 7, 2011 at 4:38 PM, David Roberson dlrober...@aol.com wrote:
The pressure must be established within the boiler so I guess the hotter
steam does not make its way back to the boiler. Is it likely that some
form of check valve is used at the throttle? If that were possible, then
On Wed, Dec 7, 2011 at 4:51 PM, David Roberson dlrober...@aol.com wrote:
Of course you are correct if water is being forced out of the ECAT. I see
no reason to believe that that is the situation since an attempt was made
to measure the water and some was captured.
But we don't know how
On Wed, Dec 7, 2011 at 6:07 PM, David Roberson dlrober...@aol.com wrote:
Give the poor guy a break.
You should give him a break about the trap.
He measured the input flow rate accurately. You and I and everyone else
would agree that the output flow rate and the input flow rate must be
On Wed, Dec 7, 2011 at 7:02 PM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com wrote:
To put it another way, older laws trump newer ones.
You mean like Newton's laws trump relativity and QM?
If calorimetry and thermodynamics prove that cold fusion does exist, you
cannot point to the newer laws
301 - 400 of 906 matches
Mail list logo
