Rich sez:
Wolf! Wolf! wolf? wolf... WOOF! WOOF! WOOF!
Technically speaking, wolves don't woof, or bark. They howl.
It is theorized that dogs acquired the unique barking characteristic
as a result of thousands of years of acclimating to a cooperative
symbiotic relationship with human beings.
On Tue, 2011-10-18 at 09:58 -0500, OrionWorks - Steven V Johnson wrote:
Rich sez:
Wolf! Wolf! wolf? wolf... WOOF! WOOF! WOOF!
If wolves don't say 'Woof! Woof!', then why are they called wolves?
Craig
On Tue, Oct 18, 2011 at 11:09 AM, Craig Haynie cchayniepub...@gmail.com wrote:
On Tue, 2011-10-18 at 09:58 -0500, OrionWorks - Steven V Johnson wrote:
Rich sez:
Wolf! Wolf! wolf? wolf... WOOF! WOOF! WOOF!
If wolves don't say 'Woof! Woof!', then why are they called wolves?
They bark. See
Terry sez:
If wolves don't say 'Woof! Woof!', then why are they called wolves?
They bark. See here:
http://www.wolfcountry.net/WolfSounds.html
under Yipping.
Well whatdya know. I stand corrected!
Those yipping sounds sound pretty much like barking to me.
Mr. Murry and his bark has been
From Robert Leguillon
Mr. Rothwell never attacked me personally. He merely labeled
all remaining skeptics as ignorant/blind/foolish/etc. I think
that there is still room to question the results, and I'm
certainly not the only one. I think that the ad hominems can
stifle open communication,
A Swedish Mayan calendar researcher, Carl Johan Calleman, thinks that
the end date of this world period is October 28th 2011. He also thinks
that it is not the end of the world but the beginning of the new era.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carl_Johan_Calleman
This would explain Rossi's
- Original Nachricht
Von: Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com
An: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Datum: 16.10.2011 23:24
Betreff: Re: [Vo]:The style is the man himself.
Peter Heckert peter.heck...@arcor.de wrote:
E-Cat can also use natural gas as a heat source. Would you buy
peter.heck...@arcor.de wrote:
On October 6 the eCat ran for 4 hours without input.
It is questioned if there where any output
Questioned by who? Where? On what basis? Anything can be questioned
including the moon landings and whether an airplane actually did smash
into the towers on 9/11
I meant to say
The amount of power is IRRELEVANT.
It varied between somewhere between 2 and 8 kW. the instrumentation was not
good enough to determine whether the low-end was 2 kW or 3 kW. That is
annoying, but it has absolutely no bearing on whether there was energy
production or not. It is not
The skeptical, conservative position is to believe in conventional physics and
to trust that laboratory grade instruments have worked correctly in thousands
of experiments (including this one) and therefore cold fusion must be real.
Am I to understand that even the most pragmatic skepticism
At 09:23 AM 10/17/2011, Robert Leguillon wrote:
The skeptical, conservative position is to believe in
conventional physics and to trust that laboratory grade instruments have
worked correctly in thousands of experiments (including this one) and
therefore cold fusion must be real.
Am I to
Robert Leguillon robert.leguil...@hotmail.com wrote:
Am I to understand that even the most pragmatic skepticism it to be
dismissed?
So the *open-minded* position is that:
The 6 statements that follow are not open-minded or pragmatic skepticism.
They all mistakes. You do not understand what
Obviously, you have come to your conclusions. I have found this test
inconclusive. You may disagree, and now be 100% convinced, but it's your
personal attacks that are troubling. You continue to strike down questions
with comments like:
Skepics who claim that the temperature
I wrote:
I seriously recommend you try that before making more assertions about
this test. It is not expensive or difficult to put insulation around
an 8-gallon pot of boiling hot water. Turn off the gas, move the pot
to an blanket of insulation, and cover it up. Use ordinary household
Robert,
You state:
You [Mr. Rothwell] may disagree, and now be 100% convinced, but it's your
personal attacks that are troubling.
Where has Mr. Rothwell attacked you personally? As far as I can tell
Mr. Rothwell has attacked your opinions - some of the conclusions and
speculations you have
Robert Leguillon wrote:
Obviously, you have come to your conclusions. I have found this test
inconclusive. You may disagree, and now be 100% convinced, but it's
your personal attacks that are troubling.
Pointing out that your assertions violate elementary laws of physics is
NOT a personal
On 11-10-17 03:50 PM, OrionWorks - Steven V Johnson wrote:
Robert,
You state:
You [Mr. Rothwell] may disagree, and now be 100% convinced, but it's your
personal attacks that are troubling.
Where has Mr. Rothwell attacked you personally?
Well, if Robert is claiming that there was no
to vortex-l@eskimo.com
dateMon, Oct 17, 2011 at 9:45 AM
subject RE: [Vo]:The style is the man himself.
9:45 AM (7 hours ago)
At 09:23 AM 10/17/2011, Robert Leguillon wrote:
The skeptical, conservative position is to believe in conventional
physics and to trust that laboratory grade instruments have
From Mr. Lawrence,
You [Mr. Rothwell] may disagree, and now be 100% convinced, but it's
your personal attacks that are troubling.
SVJ sez:
Where has Mr. Rothwell attacked you personally?
Well, if Robert is claiming that there was no energy generated, then
the item from Jed which he
From: Rich Murray
As one of the pragmatic skeptics, I quote today's Waterloo moment --
in gratitude to Robert Leguillon and Alan J. Fletcher:
In regards to Rossi and the whole CF movement, just how many waterloo
moments have you had lately?
I seem to recall not long ago you were predicting
Stephen A. Lawrence sa...@pobox.com wrote:
On 11-10-17 03:50 PM, OrionWorks - Steven V Johnson wrote:
Robert,
You state:
You [Mr. Rothwell] may disagree, and now be 100% convinced, but it's your
personal attacks that are troubling.
Where has Mr. Rothwell attacked you personally?
Mr. Rothwell never attacked me personally. He merely labeled all remaining
skeptics as ignorant/blind/foolish/etc. I think that there is still room to
question the results, and I'm certainly not the only one. I think that the ad
hominems can stifle open communication, and I thought that they
I'm just interested in what kind of unpowered system can use insulation to
increase its temperature after the power has been shut off.
It seems to me Jed has a point.
Sent from my iPhone.
On Oct 17, 2011, at 21:37, Robert Leguillon robert.leguil...@hotmail.com
wrote:
Mr. Rothwell never
Wolf! Wolf! wolf? wolf... WOOF! WOOF! WOOF!Rich
Prediction is an hazardous pasttime, especially about the future... Woody Allen
On Mon, Oct 17, 2011 at 5:56 PM, OrionWorks - Steven Vincent Johnson
orionwo...@charter.net wrote:
From: Rich Murray
As one of the pragmatic skeptics, I quote
tiistai, 18. lokakuuta 2011 Robert Leguillon robert.leguil...@hotmail.com
kirjoitti:
I think that there is still room to question the results, and I'm
certainly not the only one.
I think that the problem here is not that are there still room to question
the results. But problem is that skeptics
Today this message was published on Rossi's Blog.
Andrea Rossi
October 16th, 2011 at 2:14
AMhttp://www.journal-of-nuclear-physics.com/?p=510cpage=22#comment-97993
Dear Giovanni:
We will run also in self sustained mode, the periods will depend on many
factors. In any case, the power output will
I know customers.
with complicated products it quite often happens, that they complain
even when everything is fine ;-)
Hope, he is prepared for this.
It also happens that customers fanatically believe in products and are
totally happy, but the product doesnt work at all.
Look here, these
Yes customer psychology can be strange, but the best
marketing will not sell a perpetuum stabile - or if you wish
it in German a clock ohne Mechanismus
The E-cat is not an energy source yet. Punktum!
Peter
On Sun, Oct 16, 2011 at 7:37 PM, Peter Heckert peter.heck...@arcor.dewrote:
I know
Here they write, the Household e-cat will be tested in Upsalla.
http://ecathome.com/e-cat/vafter-the-bologna-test-next-up-is-the-uppsala-test-of-an-e-cat-home-unit
If so, and if this has a definitive result, he has won.
So far I know, the test will be designed by the university and by Rossi.
Not so simple, what is a definitive result?
I take for comparison my BOSCH 3000W home heater.
I also don't say it doesn't work, but I have well founded doubts it does not
work well yet.
And the demonstration tests have eroded my confidence
both in the E-cats (3, 4 types?) and in their author.
Am 16.10.2011 19:06, schrieb Peter Gluck:
Not so simple, what is a definitive result?
I take for comparison my BOSCH 3000W home heater.
I also don't say it doesn't work, but I have well founded doubts it
does not work well yet.
And the demonstration tests have eroded my confidence
both in the
2011/10/16 Peter Heckert peter.heck...@arcor.de:
However, with a COP of 6 the ecat is probably not cheaper, because electric
energy is so expensive and will probably become much more expensive in
future. So I will probably not buy one, even, if it works.
E-Cat can also use natural gas as a
I think Rossi is saying that the demonstration will be the first time he
turns on all units in the big reactor. In my opinion, the chances of it
working the first time are between zero and none, in my opinion. That is not
to say it cannot work, but only that an untested machine of such complexity
Am 16.10.2011 19:47, schrieb Jouni Valkonen:
2011/10/16 Peter Heckertpeter.heck...@arcor.de:
However, with a COP of 6 the ecat is probably not cheaper, because electric
energy is so expensive and will probably become much more expensive in
future. So I will probably not buy one, even, if it
Peter Heckert peter.heck...@arcor.de wrote:
E-Cat can also use natural gas as a heat source. Would you buy it then
even if COP is mere 6?
I have never believed it can. If it can why cant it heat itself and run
standalone, using only the electric for electronics control purposes?
On
35 matches
Mail list logo
