On Sat, Nov 26, 2011 at 9:25 PM, Charles Hope
wrote:
> Absolutely. And American ladies never, ever use foul language. We maintain
> them as creatures of proper breeding and pleasant temperament. You really
> must try one some time. They're the envy of all the world.
:-)
Especially the Souther
On Nov 26, 2011, at 19:52, Berke Durak wrote:
.
>
> Actually, some women will find your statement offensive - are ladies
> precious flowers unable to speak up for themselves and that should be
> protected from vulgar language?
Absolutely. And American ladies never, ever use foul language. We
On Sat, Nov 26, 2011 at 4:52 PM, Berke Durak wrote:
>
> PS. How about a ban on ad hominem attacks and unsusbtantiated
> accusations or insinuations of scam or incompetence?
>
The possibility of Rossi's E-cat being a scam has been widely discussed all
over the internet and is a valid issue when
On Sat, Nov 26, 2011 at 5:57 PM, Terry Blanton wrote:
> In the 15 or some odd years, I have never seen anyone use this word
> on this forum. If English is not your first language, you might
> understand that this in inappropriate for this forum. I invite you
> to seek a more appropriate phrase:
On Sat, Nov 26, 2011 at 6:58 PM, Jones Beene wrote:
> For years on the hydrino group - a well-known scientist and University
> Professor - Dr. John Connet used the screen name "Nora Barron", for whatever
> reason.
Yes, I was following the group at that time. And I do remember when
his (p)alias
-Original Message-
From: Terry Blanton
> And, on behalf of Vortex-l, I apologize to Mary Yugo and any other
ladies who might be participating or lurking.
Well, cough-cough ... before yugo overboard don't forget that screen
names are essentially genderless.
For years on the hydrino gr
On Sat, Nov 26, 2011 at 1:01 PM, Berke Durak wrote:
> That's part of the same fuck-up.
>
>> Then he subtracts this from a value that means gramm. but is mistakenly
>> labeled as "kg".
>
> That's part of the same fuck-up.
In the 15 or some odd years, I have never seen anyone use this word on
this
On Sat, Nov 26, 2011 at 2:19 PM, Jed Rothwell wrote:
> I am sure they will continue to assert that Fioravanti does not know the
> difference between grams and kilograms for as long as this dispute lasts,
> until Rossi is either accepted by the mass media, or forgotten.
Perhaps. But I am much c
Berke Durak wrote:
> > This colonel engineer confuses kg and g.
>
> False. The correct sentence would be :
>
> > This coloned engineer CONFUSED kg and g.
>
> That is, he made a mistake in the report. You can't claim with
> a straight face that he doesn't know a gram from a kilogram.
>
I expec
7;s E-cat is claimed to have a COP of around 6
On Sat, Nov 26, 2011 at 8:29 AM, Peter Heckert wrote:
The question is, how did they measure the energy input?
This is not documented.
Were you being sarcastic? I'll assume you weren't.
To answer your first question, it is not document
Peter Heckert wrote:
There are several other words crossed out. By the logic of the skeptics
>> here, this proves that transistors do not exist.
>>
> No.
> I know the difference between a notepad and an undersigned document.
>
That was not a notepad. It was the experiment log. It was an importan
Am 26.11.2011 19:49, schrieb Jed Rothwell:
I have heard they wrote the document in Italian and then translated
it. People often make mistakes like this.
In the document by Brattain you can see he made a correction on the
second page and then crossed it out, where it says "5.4 x 10^-7 Watts":
On Sat, Nov 26, 2011 at 10:01 AM, Berke Durak wrote:
> I'd be happier when you guys come up with real arguments and not silly "I
> don't
> like his handwriting!" arguments.
Sure. The argument against the October 28 test is that the customer
is anonymous and who Fioravanti works for is also un
Berke Durak wrote:
> The power was entirely supplied by a diesel generator. The diesel
> generator had a fuel level meter or an electricity meter built-in . . .
They used the built in meters in the generator (genset).
> > He uses decimal point and decimal "," alternating in one and the sam
On Sat, Nov 26, 2011 at 8:29 AM, Peter Heckert wrote:
> The question is, how did they measure the energy input?
> This is not documented.
Were you being sarcastic? I'll assume you weren't.
To answer your first question, it is not documented but it seems quite
obvious.
The power was entirely su
Robert Lynn wrote:
I do not doubt that Rossi's device works, but I have a lot of doubts
> over his power output because his demos are so useless. He is
> claiming 100kW/kg output levels, while Miley appears to be closer to
> 10kW/kg levels (IIRC 30g 200W). But given the 8:1 steam to water
> rat
I do not doubt that Rossi's device works, but I have a lot of doubts
over his power output because his demos are so useless. He is
claiming 100kW/kg output levels, while Miley appears to be closer to
10kW/kg levels (IIRC 30g 200W). But given the 8:1 steam to water
ratio enthalpy ratio it is quite
crisply summarizes a lot of the critical evaluation by Cude, Heffner,
and Murray... elementary over estimation of excess heat by Rossi in
all his demos... thanks to Mary Yugo and the original source 123star
--
https://mail.google.com/mail/u/0/?tab=nm#inbox/133dbc70ac37ba45
123star
November 23, 20
The question is, how did they measure the energy input?
This is not documented.
This colonel engineer confuses kg and g.
He measures a hydrogen consumtion of 1.7000 kg and dont write down all
significant digits.
Then he subtracts this from a value that means gramm. but is mistakenly
labeled as
On Fri, Nov 25, 2011 at 12:30 PM, Mary Yugo wrote:
> I didn't originate this. I reprint it with minor changes from ecatnews.com.
> ...
Interesting! Let's run the figures for the 1 MW demo.
Energy input : 66 kWh -> 238 MJ
Water claimed to be vaporized : 3716 l
Average output temperature : 104.5
20 matches
Mail list logo
