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
Horace Heffner hheff...@mtaonline.net wrote:
The other tests cannot be faked as far as I know. No skeptic has come up
with a plausible method.
Jed, your memory must be even worse than mine.
I mean it. Take your analysis here:
http://www.mtaonline.net/~hheffner/Rossi6Oct2011Review.pdf
Jed,
You should read the report you cite again. He doesn't ignore that the reactor
remained at boiling temperatures for four hours. He takes it head-on. Go
straight to pages 8 and 9.
Date: Thu, 15 Dec 2011 09:31:17 -0500
Subject: Re: [Vo]:E-cat article by Haiko Leitz
From: jedrothw
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,
Robert Leguillon robert.leguil...@hotmail.com wrote:
You should read the report you cite again. He doesn't ignore that the
reactor remained at boiling temperatures for four hours. He takes it
head-on. Go straight to pages 8 and 9.
I saw that. That is an attempt to explain the Tout
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 fact that it remained hot is all the proof you need.
I don't get it. If there was no nuclear reaction and all of the energy came
from thermal storage, then in deed the device will stay hot for a long time.
However if all the heat came from a nuclear reaction, I'd expect it to cool
down
On Dec 15, 2011, at 5:31 AM, Jed Rothwell wrote:
Horace Heffner hheff...@mtaonline.net wrote:
The other tests cannot be faked as far as I know. No skeptic has
come up with a plausible method.
Jed, your memory must be even worse than mine.
I mean it. Take your analysis here:
Horace Heffner hheff...@mtaonline.net wrote:
Your choice of my paper as an example is diversionary because (1) it only
deals with one test . . .
I have dealt with the other tests, separately, as have others. Some of them
are also definitive. The last one was not!
and (2) it assumes a
Stored heat can only emerge. It cannot stay hot. It has cool monotonically,
according to Newton's law:
You're burning the last point I held for Rossi (which was that I wondered
whether scientists could be fooled so easily - apparently they can). Newton's
law would not be violated, of course.
On Dec 15, 2011, at 6:21 AM, Jed Rothwell wrote:
Robert Leguillon robert.leguil...@hotmail.com wrote:
You should read the report you cite again. He doesn't ignore that
the reactor remained at boiling temperatures for four hours. He
takes it head-on. Go straight to pages 8 and 9.
I
At 10:45 AM 12/15/2011, Horace Heffner wrote:
Just to be clear, no one is talking about
heating the outside box metal envelope. My
focus is entirely the inside box, the 30 cm x 30
cm x 30 cm inside box, the insides of which no
one has seen. It is easy to place a thermal
mass inside this
Horace Heffner hheff...@mtaonline.net wrote:
3. The data shows that the reactor cools in ~40 min. when the power is
cut. That is the actual, measured limit of stored heat with this system, at
these temperatures and inputs.
That is merely a measure of the stored heat and thermal
On Thu, Dec 15, 2011 at 11:08 AM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.comwrote:
As for the rest of your comments . . . I am not the only one who disagrees
with you. So do all of the knowledgeable people I asked to review your
paper. I suggest you ask one of them for a critique.
Does he know who
Mary Yugo maryyu...@gmail.com wrote:
Does he know who these knowledgeable people are? Do we?
Cold fusion researchers who know a lot about calorimetry. The usual
suspects.
Horace is well acquainted with them, and generally held in high regard, I
believe.
- Jed
On Thu, Dec 15, 2011 at 11:31 AM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.comwrote:
Mary Yugo maryyu...@gmail.com wrote:
Does he know who these knowledgeable people are? Do we?
Cold fusion researchers who know a lot about calorimetry. The usual
suspects.
Horace is well acquainted with them, and
On Dec 15, 2011, at 8:49 AM, Jed Rothwell wrote:
Horace Heffner hheff...@mtaonline.net wrote:
Your choice of my paper as an example is diversionary because (1)
it only deals with one test . . .
I have dealt with the other tests, separately, as have others. Some
of them are also
Mary Yugo maryyu...@gmail.com wrote:
So these people support your views about the impossibility of storing
enough heat during the warmup period in the large Ottoman E-cat of
October 6 to account for the results?
It would be more correct to say I support their views, or we arrived at the
I have bowed out of this discussion, but let me clarify this point:
Horace Heffner hheff...@mtaonline.net wrote:
Oh come now. I have dealt with fraud by pointing that Yugo's claims of
stage magic is not falsifiable.
Uhhh how does that differ from just ignoring it?
It is a problem
On Thu, Dec 15, 2011 at 12:12 PM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.comwrote:
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.
You keep saying that but
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?
http://www.seas.upenn.edu/~meam502/project/reviewexample2.pdf
(2007)
Very few with a melting-point above 100C
Mary Yugo maryyu...@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.
You keep saying that but other people and I keep pointing out
On Thu, Dec 15, 2011 at 12:42 PM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.comwrote:
I am talking about YOUR STATEMENT, taken in isolation, strictly from a
logical point of view. I am NOT TALKING ABOUT what Rossi can or cannot do.
Apart from everything else, why on earth would you want to do that?
On 11-12-15 03:52 PM, Mary Yugo wrote:
On Thu, Dec 15, 2011 at 12:42 PM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com
mailto:jedrothw...@gmail.com wrote:
I am talking about YOUR STATEMENT, taken in isolation, strictly
from a logical point of view. I am NOT TALKING ABOUT what Rossi
can
Stephen A. Lawrence sa...@pobox.com wrote:
The problem with Jed's point is that it's vulnerable to a reductio ad
absurdum. Specifically, it leads to a rather obvious logical conclusion,
which goes something like this: If you can't think of a specific way this
scientist's work could have
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 2:08 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.
I can't think of any way (much less a specific way) that
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 11-12-15 06:11 PM, Joshua Cude wrote:
Falsifiability just means it should be possible to conceive of an
experimental result that would contradict the assertion. It's intended
to avoid religious claims in a scientific arena.
It actually has much broader applications than just that. Hang
On 15 December 2011 15:21, 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.
It is easy to create a system in which heat transfer is
On Dec 15, 2011, at 1:30 PM, Joshua Cude wrote:
On Thu, Dec 15, 2011 at 12:45 PM, Horace Heffner
hheff...@mtaonline.net wrote:
Rossi's tests and explanations are full of holes and self
contradictions, impossibilities. It is Rossi's tests and
explanations that matter. All the
Archeologists concern themselves with the reconstruction of cracked pots.
Crackpots have fragments of insight.
Harry
On Dec 15, 2011, at 10:08 AM, Alan J Fletcher wrote:
At 10:45 AM 12/15/2011, Horace Heffner wrote:
Just to be clear, no one is talking about heating the outside box
metal envelope. My focus is entirely the inside box, the 30 cm x
30 cm x 30 cm inside box, the insides of which no one has
http://www.heise.de/tp/artikel/35/35803/1.html
English translation
http://translate.google.com/translate?
sl=detl=enjs=nprev=_thl=enie=UTF-8layout=2eotf=1u=http%3A%2F%
2Fwww.heise.de%2Ftp%2Fartikel%2F35%2F35803%2F1.htmlact=url
Video is in english. Some vorts quoted.
Best regards,
Horace
Leitz references the video:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t9I_CJti-RUfeature=player_embedded
which is in regards to 14 Jan 2011.
Note oscilloscope at time 00:32! Measuring frequency generator output?
Best regards,
Horace Heffner
http://www.mtaonline.net/~hheffner/
inline: Rscope.jpg
Peter G. asked Levi about this device, at the time.
Levi indicated that it was the radiation (positron) detector, IIRC.
-Original Message-
From: Horace Heffner
Leitz references the video:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t9I_CJti-RUfeature=player_embedded
which is in regards to 14
this video, again. The
descriptions of Rossi's ability to fool scientists is in stark contrast to Mr.
Rothwell's contention that Rossi couldn't fool anyone.
From: hheff...@mtaonline.net
Subject: Re: [Vo]:E-cat article by Haiko Leitz
Date: Wed, 14 Dec 2011 13:19:05 -0900
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Robert Leguillon wrote:
I feel even more uneasy about PetrolDragon after seeing this video,
again. The descriptions of Rossi's ability to fool scientists is in
stark contrast to Mr. Rothwell's contention that Rossi couldn't fool
anyone.
This article quotes me saying there is no independent
...@gmail.com
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Subject: Re: [Vo]:E-cat article by Haiko Leitz
Robert Leguillon wrote:
I feel even more uneasy about PetrolDragon after seeing this video,
again. The descriptions of Rossi's ability to fool scientists is in
stark contrast to Mr. Rothwell's
Robert Leguillon wrote:
You said:
No, he is a terrible psychologist.He does not know how to fool
anyone.
That's what I meant by:
The descriptions of Rossi's ability to fool scientists is in stark
contrast to Mr. Rothwell's contention that Rossi couldn't fool anyone.
I stand by that.
@eskimo.com
Subject: Re: [Vo]:E-cat article by Haiko Leitz
Robert Leguillon wrote:
You said:
No, he is a terrible psychologist.He does not know how
to fool anyone.
That's what I meant by:
The descriptions of Rossi's ability
On Dec 14, 2011, at 2:50 PM, Jed Rothwell wrote:
Robert Leguillon wrote:
You said:
No, he is a terrible psychologist.He does not know how to fool
anyone.
That's what I meant by:
The descriptions of Rossi's ability to fool scientists is in
stark contrast to Mr. Rothwell's contention
On Wed, Dec 14, 2011 at 5:08 PM, Horace Heffner hheff...@mtaonline.netwrote:
The other tests cannot be faked as far as I know. No skeptic has come up
with a plausible method.
The usual history of scammers is that they eventually have to do more
demonstrations and then they get caught or
Hi Mary,
Do you intend to ever reveal your true identity? If Rossi is proved right?
Or proved wrong?
Regards,
Patrick
On Thu, Dec 15, 2011 at 12:25 PM, Mary Yugo maryyu...@gmail.com wrote:
On Wed, Dec 14, 2011 at 5:08 PM, Horace Heffner hheff...@mtaonline.netwrote:
The other tests cannot
On Wed, Dec 14, 2011 at 8:19 PM, Patrick Ellul ellulpatr...@gmail.comwrote:
Hi Mary,
Do you intend to ever reveal your true identity? If Rossi is proved right?
Or proved wrong?
My privacy fetish way antedates the Rossi story and has nothing to do with
it. I'd tell you more but it's
53 matches
Mail list logo
