Alan,
I guess I'm not making myself clear. There is no need for a DC bias of the
power input.
The wire trick (simply running a complete second circuit with both conductors
hidden in a single wire), uses only the normal A/C voltage supplied by the
mains.
It isn't the voltage that is rigged,
Jack Cole said:
Jack Cole said:
This is easily disproved. Look at the temperature output graph. How does
you notion of constant power instead of a 33% duty cycle explain the dips
as rises indicative of a 33% duty cycle in the output corresponding with
the measured power on cycles.
I'm not saying anything of
Your analysis requires fraud. There is no evidence of fraud, at best what you
have proposed is a remote possibility assuming the testers failed to closely
evaluate the wires.
Nothing close to something a reasonable person would conclude as the likely
event.
That's the problem with your
John Milstone john_sw_orlan...@yahoo.com wrote:
The wire trick (simply running a complete second circuit with both
conductors hidden in a single wire), uses only the normal A/C voltage
supplied by the mains.
A wire cannot be hidden. It is not invisible. It is a macroscopic object.
Anyone
The freedom let to have access independently to the socket, the entry
cable, and the reactor exterior, let few possibility for fraud.
If a fraud is done, it should not be possible to detect it with the freedom
taht Rossi concede to the testers.
the coaxial hypothesis, is technically hard since
From: John Milstone john_sw_orlan...@yahoo.com
Sent: Sunday, June 23, 2013 3:50:21 AM
Alan,
I guess I'm not making myself clear. There is no need for a DC bias
of the power input.
[ etc etc ]
In my simulation I refer to DC as a constant source of Spice CURRENT,
(representing thermal
John Milstone john_sw_orlan...@yahoo.com wrote:
*PLEASE FIX YOUR REPLY-TO ADDRESS **
(Last warning --- I'm not going to reply to anything you send which doesn't go
straight back to vortex )
From: John Milstone john_sw_orlan...@yahoo.com
Sent:
On Sun, Jun 23, 2013 at 10:29 AM, John Milstone
john_sw_orlan...@yahoo.comwrote:
Please provide the page and/or diagram from the report which supports your
claim that they measured input power in between the controller and the tube
furnace.
I recall them specifically stating that they were
[Accidentally sent to John Milstone's personal email address.]
On Sun, Jun 23, 2013 at 1:42 PM, Eric Walker eric.wal...@gmail.com wrote:
On Sun, Jun 23, 2013 at 10:29 AM, John Milstone
john_sw_orlan...@yahoo.com wrote:
Please provide the page and/or diagram from the report which supports
John Milstone john_sw_orlan...@yahoo.com wrote:
Please provide the page and/or diagram from the report which supports your
claim that they measured input power in between the controller and the tube
furnace.
They did not. You misunderstand. Not to put words in Jones Beene's mouth, I
think he
[Accidentally sent directly to John Milstone . . .]
John Milstone john_sw_orlan...@yahoo.comwrote:
Please provide the page and/or diagram from the report which supports your
claim that they measured input power in between the controller and the tube
furnace.
They did not. You misunderstand.
Eric Walker eric.wal...@gmail.com wrote:
I recall them specifically stating that they were not permitted to measure
anything coming out of the controller, although I do not have a reference
for this.
There has been some talk about that, but they did not mention restrictions
in the paper.
If it can be agreed that the IR measurements were, to within some
reasonable margin of error, accurately measuring output power then the only
issue in dispute is how much input power was provided. If, and this
obviously may not happen, Rossi were to allow another test and the only
point at which
Mark Gibbs mgi...@gibbs.com wrote:
If, and this obviously may not happen, Rossi were to allow another test and
the only point at which electrical measurements were allowed to be
taken (as before) was on the input side at 'X' in the diagram below . . .
He has agreed to another test. They are
From: Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com
Sent: Sunday, June 23, 2013 3:34:27 PM
He has agreed to another test. They are getting ready to do it. I
believe the seven researchers prefer to measure between the wall and
the controller box. I would, if I were doing it. Also, the skeptics
would
Alan Fletcher a...@well.com wrote:
3. Use two thermocouples for the entire test (also logged) -- eCat
cylinder (test point chosen by use of IR camera) and ambient.
I believe the IR camera has an on-board thermocouple for ambient.
Another would not hurt.
Nobody's pointed it out, but the
From: Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com
Sent: Sunday, June 23, 2013 5:25:47 PM
Been there. Done that. I don't recommend it. Just ignore convection
if you don't believe the textbooks. You get significant excess even if you
leave it out.
Agreed. Quite a big component for the March COP=3
At 11:03 AM 6/23/2013, Alan Fletcher wrote:
John Milstone john_sw_orlan...@yahoo.com wrote:
*PLEASE FIX YOUR REPLY-TO ADDRESS
**
(Last warning --- I'm not going to reply to anything you send which
doesn't go straight back to vortex )
I guess the
Alan Fletcher a...@well.com wrote:
I guess the headers say it IS going to vortex, despite the name (which is
all that shows up in Zimbra web, which tries to be TOO clever with email
addresses)
From: John Milstone john_sw_orlan...@yahoo.com
Reply-To: John Milstone vortex-l@eskimo.com
I agree, but initially many people will see that physics is held
accountable, to the extent this is possible these days. Apparently, no
one can be held accountable any longer unless they suggest controlling
guns or not controlling abortion. Every other action, including fraud,
lies and
I disagree.
Although the more superfluous speculations of religious authority about
natural sciences were invalidated, the core doctrine of the church was not
at all under any kind of threat because they had, wisely as professional
fraud artists, distanced themselves from testable theories in
--
*From:* Alan Fletcher a...@well.com
*To:* vortex-l@eskimo.com
*Sent:* Thursday, June 20, 2013 7:28 PM
*Subject:* Re: [Vo]: About the March test
From: Andrew andrew...@att.net
Sent: Sunday, May 26, 2013 3:45:27 PM
2. The report shows the device temperature varying synchronously, up
OK --- I have a calibrated (but still to be checked) run for the main waveforms
:
http://lenr.qumbu.com/web_hotcat_spice/130621_spice_02.png
Right now the Triangle/Sawtooth look the best (they differ only in the fall
time).
That 02 plot's for the output temperature. I'll get some preliminary
OK --- I have a calibrated (but still to be checked) run for the main
waveforms :
http://lenr.qumbu.com/web_hotcat_spice/130621_spice_02.png
Right now the Triangle/Sawtooth look the best (they differ only in
the fall time).
The triangle (150-sec rise, 150-sec fall) has its peak too far
).
This would produce an apparent COP of 2.5 (avg 666 Watts vs avg 266 Watts),
which is just what the testers reported.
John
From: Alan Fletcher a...@well.com
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Sent: Thursday, June 20, 2013 7:28 PM
Subject: Re: [Vo]: About the March test
[Sent directly by accident!]
I wrote:
When something like this happens normally, it is a mistake, not a
deliberate effort at fraud. This would be a very dangerous mistake.
I mean that when a wire which is supposed to be dead actually carries
current, that is dangerous. That sort of
[Sent directly by accident!]
John Milstone john_sw_orla...@yahoo.com
mailto:john_sw_orla...@yahoo.com wrote:
Have you tried your model with what I think is the most likely
method of fraud: running full current through the supposedly dead
3rd phase wire?
The power meter would detect
[Sent directly by accident! Sorry about this.]
John Milstone john_sw_orla...@yahoo.com
mailto:john_sw_orla...@yahoo.com wrote:
It wouldn't have found the fraud in the cheese videos.
But as I pointed out, anyone who strips the wire to measure voltage
would spot this instantly, and there
I'll summarize the multiple emails, since I certainly don't want to flood the
channel by responding to each email individually.
Regarding the meter: Both the instruction manual and Mats Lewan (through an
email from the manufacturer) verifies that the meter DOES NOT measure DC
current.
David Roberson said:
The problem is that the bar can always be raised higher when one is seeking
proof of a system. Maybe I am wrong, but I have a strong suspicion
that there is virtually no test that Rossi could perform which would not afford
those who seek misconduct an avenue of attack.
From: John Milstone
For starters, CERN isn't selling franchises to the Higgs Boson. CERN
doesn't rely on secret customers and secret experts to validate their
work. Etc, etc.
This is complete bull crap ! Big Science is doing much worse than that.
But more so with regard to
Your only question should be whether or not the total heat is what is being
measured by the camera system, not how it is generated.
'Nonsense! If the input was faked, then the output is meaningless. I have
suggested a simple trick to add a constant ~400 Watts to the input power level,
and
Well said, JONES!!! This is exactly the situation. Physics has sold
the governments of the world on spending money for research that has
practically no value. This use of money limits what else can be
explored and greatly distorts what can be discovered. LENR has been
rejected and held
]: About the March test
Well said, JONES!!! This is exactly the situation. Physics has sold
the governments of the world on spending money for research that has
practically no value. This use of money limits what else can be
explored and greatly distorts what can be discovered. LENR has been
@eskimo.com
Sent: Friday, June 21, 2013 12:42 PM
Subject: Re: [Vo]: About the March test
Your only question should be whether or not the total heat is what is being
measured by the camera system, not how it is generated.
'Nonsense! If the input was faked, then the output is meaningless. I
You miss (ok you avoid) a key point on all of your critics.
Since Rossi wasn't allowed to forbid DC measurement with my home voltmeter,
or removing insulator, or installing a connection box, on the fly, with
classic wired ammeter/powermeter, since he was not allowed to forbid any
reasonable test
From: John Milstone john_sw_orla...@yahoo.com
Sent: Friday, June 21, 2013 9:07:40 AM
Subject: Re: [Vo]: About the March test
For starters, CERN isn't selling franchises to the Higgs Boson.
CERN doesn't rely on secret customers and secret experts to
validate their work. Etc, etc.
Well
I've been answering mail in sequence -- I see Jones said much the same thing
already.
.
John
From: David Roberson dlrober...@aol.com
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Sent: Friday, June 21, 2013 1:21 PM
Subject: Re: [Vo]: About the March test
I agree Ed. Both you and Jones have stated the situation eloquently and I hope
that John gives considerable
stor...@ix.netcom.com
Sent: Fri, Jun 21, 2013 12:56 pm
Subject: Re: [Vo]: About the March test
Well said, JONES!!! This is exactly the situation. Physics has sold
the governments of the world on spending money for research that has
practically no value. This use of money limits what else can
, June 21, 2013 1:21 PM
Subject: Re: [Vo]: About the March test
I agree Ed. Both you and Jones have stated the situation eloquently and I
hope that John gives considerable thought to what has been said.
I suppose that one reason that any current modern physics determination can
nothing to enhance
LENR.
John
From: David Roberson dlrober...@aol.com
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Sent: Friday, June 21, 2013 1:21 PM
Subject: Re: [Vo]: About the March test
I agree Ed. Both you and Jones have stated the situation eloquently
and I hope that John gives considerable thought
this is so? Reference to
continuous power input is not consistent with any of the data.
Dave
-Original Message-
From: John Milstone john_sw_orla...@yahoo.com
To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com
Sent: Fri, Jun 21, 2013 1:47 pm
Subject: Re: [Vo]: About the March test
Nice attempt by Benne
To: John Milstone
Cc: Edmund Storms
Subject: Re: [Vo]: About the March test
John, it is not a rant. Hot fusion is dead. It will never be a practical
source of energy in its present form. I'm not the only person who has come
to this conclusion. Nevertheless, as long as money is spent on this method
...@ix.netcom.com
Sent: Friday, June 21, 2013 1:58 PM
Subject: Re: [Vo]: About the March test
John, it is not a rant. Hot fusion is dead. It will never be a practical source
of energy in its present form. I'm not the only person who has come to this
conclusion. Nevertheless, as long as money is spent
anything, why was it left in
the circuit?)
John
From: David Roberson dlrober...@aol.com
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Sent: Friday, June 21, 2013 2:08 PM
Subject: Re: [Vo]: About the March test
John,
Please explain how the dead wire you discuss is able to deliver
was it left in the circuit?)
John
--
*From:* David Roberson dlrober...@aol.com
*To:* vortex-l@eskimo.com
*Sent:* Friday, June 21, 2013 2:08 PM
*Subject:* Re: [Vo]: About the March test
John,
Please explain how the dead wire you discuss is able to deliver
.
Dave
-Original Message-
From: John Milstone john_sw_orla...@yahoo.com
To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com
Sent: Fri, Jun 21, 2013 2:28 pm
Subject: Re: [Vo]: About the March test
I guess you haven't bothered actually reading my earlier posts. sigh
With the dead wire rigged to supply
approximation of an
inert lump of metal.
The chart is here: http://s10.postimg.org/btaoiv6eh/E_Cat_Power.png
John
From: David Roberson dlrober...@aol.com
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Sent: Friday, June 21, 2013 2:08 PM
Subject: Re: [Vo]: About the March test
John Milstone john_sw_orla...@yahoo.com wrote:
Regarding the wiring trick: Rothwell keeps stating that there must be a
bare conductor available to measure the voltage, and that's true. But
there is nothing in the report that indicates that the testers were the
ones who did the surgery to
: David Roberson dlrober...@aol.com
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Sent: Friday, June 21, 2013 2:58 PM
Subject: Re: [Vo]: About the March test
I admit I did not see your other posts. Sorry about that one. What you said
does not add up yet. Current must go into a device and then return by some
path
Jed Rothwell said:
Anyone who glances at voltmeter probe connected to a wire will see there
is one conductor only, and not a second, insulated one under it.
The second cheese video shows that this isn't true. He measures the voltage
of his rigged power cord at about 10:30 into the video:
John Milstone john_sw_orla...@yahoo.com wrote:
There is nothing in the report that describes the testers performing
surgery on the power lines.
Please rephrase this. The report clearly states that they checked. QUOTE:
The three-phase power cables were checked and connected directly to the
From: John Milstone john_sw_orla...@yahoo.com
Sent: Friday, June 21, 2013 12:01:07 PM
FWIW, I put together a new version of Plot 8 from the original
report, showing the full Y axis and adding the power-in if the wire
trick were being used.
The chart is here:
Just a reminder --
Read the LEFT scale V as Temperature (Green line Ladder )
Read the RIGHT scale A as Power (Red : Starter pattern, Green-gray : pulse,
Blue : Fake DC)
http://lenr.qumbu.com/web_hotcat_spice/130621_spice_01.png
Sent: Fri, Jun 21, 2013 3:17 pm
Subject: Re: [Vo]: About the March test
The wire trick puts both sides of the circuit in the same wire. It's nothing
more than using a lamp cord masquerading as a single conductor wire (only using
wires that don't make it obvious that there are actually two
...@gmail.com
To: John Milstone vortex-l@eskimo.com
Sent: Friday, June 21, 2013 3:28 PM
Subject: Re: [Vo]: About the March test
John Milstone john_sw_orla...@yahoo.com wrote:
There is nothing in the report that describes the testers performing surgery
on the power lines.
Please rephrase
physics) does nothing to enhance
LENR.
John
From: David Roberson dlrober...@aol.com
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Sent: Friday, June 21, 2013 1:21 PM
Subject: Re: [Vo]: About the March test
I agree Ed. Both you and Jones have stated the situation
eloquently and I hope that John gives considerable
David Roberson dlrober...@aol.com wrote:
Read what Jed says about your misrepresentation of the facts.
He is not misrepresenting facts! He does not believe what the authors say.
He thinks they looked for insulated wires and did not check under the
insulation, and he thinks they let Rossi attach
Speaking of the next Rossi testing, there is a village in North Carolina,
you probably know the one nearby - which may well be the new home of the big
blue box - which was shipped out of Italy recently.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mayodan,_North_Carolina
. and which is fairly close to
David Roberson dlrober...@aol.com wrote:
Every line had a current probe surrounding it. Are you back to DC power
sneaking in?
I believe that is Milstone's hypothesis.
Let me explain to John Milstone that we discussed this DC power issue here
previously. I think the electrical engineers
From: Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com
Sent: Friday, June 21, 2013 2:19:11 PM
Let me explain to John Milstone that we discussed this DC power issue
here previously. I think the electrical engineers here agree that is
ruled out. I doubt that anyone will bother to respond to you about
this
: [Vo]: About the March test
Speaking of the next Rossitesting, there is a village in North Carolina, you
probably know the one nearby- which may well be the new home of the big blue
box – which was shippedout of Italy recently.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mayodan,_North_Carolina
it out when more
information is available. It would be less than 100 miles from my home.
Dave
-Original Message-
From: Jones Beene jone...@pacbell.net
To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com
Sent: Fri, Jun 21, 2013 4:41 pm
Subject: RE: [Vo]: About the March test
Speaking of the next Rossi
Hi,
On 21-6-2013 21:49, John Milstone wrote:
Again, it's clear from the full description that they were looking for
additional WIRES. There is nothing about checking what was IN the wires.
Just to borrow a phrase from Jones: This is complete bull crap !
It seems you are completely clueless
Subject: Re: [Vo]: About the March test
I've been following the endless arguments about how the tests could have been
rigged and it seems like every theory has been repeated over and over again but
no one who claims it's a fraud seems to be willing to admit they just don't
know even though
From: Mark Gibbs mgi...@gibbs.com
Sent: Friday, June 21, 2013 6:15:18 PM
Subject: Re: [Vo]: About the March test
I'd be interested in seeing a breakdown of the criticisms and the
arguments for and against as a sort of FAQ to add to the test
results.
I don't know if you ever looked at my
I don't know if you ever looked at my fakes document (the lost post which
never DID show up ...)
Did you post that on Technobabble? I never saw anything like that ... only
the two posts we discussed.
[m]
From: Mark Gibbs mgi...@gibbs.com
Sent: Friday, June 21, 2013 8:16:21 PM
Did you post that on Technobabble? I never saw anything like that ...
only the two posts we discussed.
It was one of the two posts. It remained disappeared (lost, or stolen or
strayed .. it seems to have been mislaid)
On Fri, Jun 21, 2013 at 8:22 AM, John Milstone john_sw_orla...@yahoo.comwrote:
There are at least 9 or 10 problems with the report:
In order to appreciate the report as being potentially interesting, one
must assume good faith on the part of Rossi. If one assumes fraud or the
likelihood of
On Fri, Jun 21, 2013 at 9:56 AM, Edmund Storms stor...@ix.netcom.comwrote:
When LENR is finally applied at a level that even an idiot will have to
accept, the physics community will have to explain why this acceptance took
so long when so much evidence was available and when the need for the
On Fri, Jun 21, 2013 at 10:10 PM, Eric Walker eric.wal...@gmail.com wrote:
Sometimes you can't separate input coming into the system from generated
heat, so you use calorimetry to measure the input and then subtract it from
the power out.
That came out a little mangled, but the point still
(Accidentally sent to John Milstone's personal email address.)
I wrote:
On Fri, Jun 21, 2013 at 8:22 AM, John Milstone john_sw_orla...@yahoo.comwrote:
There are at least 9 or 10 problems with the report:
In order to appreciate the report as being potentially interesting, one
must assume
-l@eskimo.com
Sent: Mon, May 27, 2013 1:39 am
Subject: Re: [Vo]: About the March test
You have stopped processing information and now are talking about bullfrogs.
When you return from bullfrog land, we might be able to resume a serious
dialogue. Until then, have a hoppingly great time
I agree with that!
First MIT attempt at Rossi Reactor:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gBy01pgJrEofeature=youtube_gdata_player
On Monday, May 27, 2013, David Roberson wrote:
A little humor never hurts! The bottom line is that the average power
being emitted by the ECAT must be equal to the
: David Roberson
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Sent: Monday, May 27, 2013 7:03 AM
Subject: Re: [Vo]: About the March test
A little humor never hurts! The bottom line is that the average power being
emitted by the ECAT must be equal to the peak duty cycled drive when the COP is
3 and the duty
: Mon, May 27, 2013 1:06 pm
Subject: Re: [Vo]: About the March test
Sure, I completely understand that the calculated COP in the report is wholly
due to the 35% duty cycle. But this misses my point. Let me say it again: If
input and output power are equal, then there is no energy generation
OFF time. It
seems clear that during ON time the device behaves just like an electrical
resistor.
Andrew
- Original Message -
From: David Roberson
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Sent: Monday, May 27, 2013 10:26 AM
Subject: Re: [Vo]: About the March test
Yes, what you say
.
Dave
-Original Message-
From: Andrew andrew...@att.net
To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com
Sent: Mon, May 27, 2013 1:39 pm
Subject: Re: [Vo]: About the March test
I am not acknowledging any such thing - yet :). That's because I don't know
what's going on during the pulse OFF time
The input reading is from the wall plug.
--
Daniel Rocha - RJ
danieldi...@gmail.com
On Sun, May 26, 2013 at 3:45 PM, Andrew andrew...@att.net wrote:
**
B) seems unlikely because it would require batteries, and Hartman states
that it was much lighter than that. Battery technology does not exist that
could be that light, and/or occupy so little volume, and make up that total
I have a thought about your item 1. below. We do not know for certain that
Rossi is using a direct switch between the mains and the resistors when power
is applied to them. Actually, if we assume that the pf reading is determined
by the instantaneous current into the blue box and the voltage
-
From: Eric Walker
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Sent: Sunday, May 26, 2013 4:00 PM
Subject: Re: [Vo]: About the March test
On Sun, May 26, 2013 at 3:45 PM, Andrew andrew...@att.net wrote:
B) seems unlikely because it would require batteries, and Hartman states
that it was much
correction in a modern
application once the dust settles.
Dave
-Original Message-
From: Eric Walker eric.wal...@gmail.com
To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com
Sent: Sun, May 26, 2013 7:00 pm
Subject: Re: [Vo]: About the March test
On Sun, May 26, 2013 at 3:45 PM, Andrew andrew...@att.net wrote
, because at the power
levels being pumped in the experiment, single-phase mains is wholly adequate,
up to a few kilowatts.
Andrew
- Original Message -
From: David Roberson
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Sent: Sunday, May 26, 2013 4:24 PM
Subject: Re: [Vo]: About the March test
system.
Dave
-Original Message-
From: Andrew andrew...@att.net
To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com
Sent: Sun, May 26, 2013 7:37 pm
Subject: Re: [Vo]: About the March test
Eric makes a good point though. It therefore looks like there exist at least
two separate mains outlets in the lab
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Sent: Sunday, May 26, 2013 4:23 PM
Subject: Re: [Vo]: About the March test
Eric,
The idea here is that the extras (DC and/or RF) are undetectable to the meter
using clamp ammeters (we know this for a fact), and when this extra gets passed
on to the control
Where does this statement appear? I suspect that you are misreading.
Dave
-Original Message-
From: Andrew andrew...@att.net
To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com
Sent: Sun, May 26, 2013 8:12 pm
Subject: Re: [Vo]: About the March test
I continue to be worried about the fact
: Re: [Vo]: About the March test
Where does this statement appear? I suspect that you are misreading.
Dave
-Original Message-
From: Andrew andrew...@att.net
To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com
Sent: Sun, May 26, 2013 8:12 pm
Subject: Re: [Vo]: About the March test
I
andrew...@att.net
To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com
Sent: Sun, May 26, 2013 8:20 pm
Subject: Re: [Vo]: About the March test
p22.
Emitted Power
E-Cat HT2 = (741.3 + 17 + 58) [W] = (816.3± 2%) [W] = (816±16) [W] (24)
Instantaneous Power Consumption
E-Cat HT2
= (920 110) [W ]= 810 [W] (25
: Sunday, May 26, 2013 6:29 PM
Subject: Re: [Vo]: About the March test
I read that section and found that this is not a problem. The input is
applied for 1/3 of the time while the average output is roughly equal to that
value. The calculation shows that the COP is therefore approximately 3
92 matches
Mail list logo
