On Fri, Nov 11, 2011 at 12:41 AM, Robert Leguillon
robert.leguil...@hotmail.com wrote:
Statement only slightly more ridiculous:
The most energetic thing that they could put inside is a fission reactor.
No, the most energetic thing you could put inside is a fusion reactor.
Oh, wait! They
Any scam must obey the laws of physics.
Oh yes. But you don't necessarily know which laws are used to deceive you.
All propositions and assertions in a scientific debate must be subject to
testing and must be falsifiable, at least in principle. Asserting that
somewhere, someone might
At 08:54 AM 11/11/2011, Mary Yugo wrote:
To sum up, the problem with Rossi's story is that there are too many
things that don't hang together. The short runs,
Lewan called the end of the first self-sustaining experiment. Oct 6
was also done to a timetable, allowing for weighing at the
Both Levi and Lewan were given a second-shot at testing.
Do you mean Levi was given a chance to repeat and record properly his long
high power experiment and refused? If so, WHY?!?!
| With the possible exception of the Oct 6 run, all of the investigators
(not Krivit -- that was a
Mary Yugo wrote:
If there is no way you or any of us can know anything at all about
this method that you imagine might exist somewhere in the
universe, how can you expect us to evaluate it?
The way I said many times. You can falsify the premise that Rossi is
scamming easily
This is a completely different subject. Please do not mix up unrelated
topics. I asked how a person can test or falsify *your* assertion about
stage magic. I did not ask how Rossi can falsify his claims.
If you will not cite a specific stage magic technique, there is no way
anyone can
Mary Yugo wrote:
Claim: Rossi may be faking this -- I don't know how.
Falsification: Someone independent and credible tested the device and
determined by this method (yadadada) it's real and not fake.
Right. Exactly. And in my opinion Rossi did this on Oct. 6. I think he
provided
On 11-11-10 09:49 PM, Mary Yugo wrote:
Does anyone seriously doubt that if Fioravanti is telling the truth, there
can be any doubt the 1 MW reactor is real? Are you seriously suggesting
that a measurement using standard industrial techniques, performed by an
expert, showing 66 kWh input and
Here is my point. if you do not know how he might be cheating, then it
is not logical for you to propose this as a hypothesis to be debated here.
You can say it is your gut feeling he is cheating. That's fine. That's an
informal judgment. We welcome that here. But let us not confuse a gut
I like that expression jumping the shark. Does it mean the same as
screwing the pooch?
It means the voice entry system has added its own improvement to the
original statement.
An obvious guess is that the shark was supposed to be something a train
rides on.
Too bad. It was fun the
Mary, your requirement for blank test run is unreasonable, but you are
misunderstanding the reason why blank tests are used in science. Blank runs
are used when we are measuring effects that may consist on multiple unknown
variables and with controls we try to eliminate those variables that we are
Mary, your requirement for blank test run is unreasonable, but you are
misunderstanding the reason why blank tests are used in science. Blank runs
are used when we are measuring effects that may consist on multiple unknown
variables and with controls we try to eliminate those variables that we
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Sent: Wednesday, November 09, 2011 7:18 PM
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Minor progress
2011/11/10 Joe Catania zrosumg...@aol.com:
requency generator inout? Is there any more info on that? I can tell you
one
thing- the power company is not going to be too happy with Rossi or
whoever
runs
The more I consider Horace’s model of a scam ECAT device, the more I warm up to
the idea. We are all aware of the fact that any excess energy produced by the
core modules will propagate toward the water coolant and result in higher
temperature and increased output power.
If there is no
I generously considered that the insulation value was R6 in my analysis (an
input in the spreadsheet), but much of that insulation may have been lost when
the water leaked into the insulation. If you presume R6, and calculate the
outside area of the eCat, the calculation of the heat loss is
2011/11/10 Higgins Bob-CBH003 bob.higg...@motorolasolutions.com:
Mats Lewan put his hand on the top foil over
the insulation and said that he thought it was about 60C. That information
might be useful to back onto a better guess at insulation value, but it will
not be as simple as presuming
Jouni Valkonen wrote:
Therefore Horaces analysis is not only wrong, but it is utterly
against the normal thermodynamics and cannot explain anything.
I agree, and so do all of the scientists I have asked outside of this forum.
Because it does not consider at all normal thermodynamical
However calorimatric criticism is not relevant, because Rossi has
never forbid for observers to do accurate calorimetry and check all
the necessary calibrations with their own instruments. Therefore bad
calorimetry is not likely source for the cheat, because that cheat
would depend on
It is
irrational to demand 1,000 times more energy than chemistry can produce when
you have already seen 10 times more. The point is already proven.
I think many responsible and capable people don't believe that. The
only absolutely determinative test is an independent one that rules
out
Mary Yugo maryyu...@gmail.com wrote:
However calorimatric criticism is not relevant, because Rossi has
never forbid for observers to do accurate calorimetry and check all
the necessary calibrations with their own instruments.
I do not know who wrote that, but it is incorrect. Rossi does
-- Forwarded message --
From: Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com
Date: 2011/11/10
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Minor progress
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Rossi does not usually let people use their own instruments. He has on
some occasions.
- Jed
He doesn't even want people to bring their own
/snip/
Heffner is saying that since the flow rate may not be 60 L in 4 hours it might
be zero. That is preposterous.
/snip/
Because the flow rate was not at its max (it was sped up during quenching) and
it decreases with back pressure (as demonstrated in the September test), we
have no idea
Mary Yugo wrote:
It is
irrational to demand 1,000 times more energy than chemistry can produce when
you have already seen 10 times more. The point is already proven.
I think many responsible and capable people don't believe that. The
only absolutely determinative test is an independent one
to satisfy my curiosity.
Dave
-Original Message-
From: Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com
To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com
Sent: Thu, Nov 10, 2011 3:53 pm
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Minor progress
Jouni Valkonen wrote:
Therefore Horaces analysis is not only wrong, but it is utterly
against
Andrea Selva wrote:
Rossi does not usually let people use their own instruments. He has on
some occasions.
- Jed
He doesn't even want people to bring their own. Jed, does this ring
you any bell ?
He would not let me bring instruments, which is why I did not go.
However, I have talked to
progress
-- Forwarded message --
From: Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com
Date: 2011/11/10
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Minor progress
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Rossi does not usually let people use their own instruments. He has on some
occasions.
- Jed
He doesn't even want people to bring
On 11-11-10 04:15 PM, Jed Rothwell wrote:
Mary Yugo wrote:
It is
irrational to demand 1,000 times more energy than chemistry can
produce when
you have already seen 10 times more. The point is already proven.
I think many responsible and capable people don't believe that. The
only
David Roberson wrote:
Jed, are you sure that Horace assumes that there is no water flowing
through the ECAT? That would be totally unbelievable.
I believe he said that previously. Actually I think he said something
like we do not know what the flow rate is so it might be zero.
Ask him.
Does anyone seriously doubt that if Fioravanti is telling the truth, there
can be any doubt the 1 MW reactor is real? Are you seriously suggesting
that a measurement using standard industrial techniques, performed by an
expert, showing 66 kWh input and 2,635 kWh might be in error?!? You can't
I think you understood that is what I meant. Please do not be
argumentative. Please do not use straw man arguments.
I am confident there are no hidden wires or tubes going into the reactor.
If you are not confident of that, fair enough, but please do not bring up
that issue when we are
Mary Yugo maryyu...@gmail.com wrote:
How much fuel, and how is that fuel reacted? Please do say there was
something else hidden in the vessel other than the cell, and this other
object magically defies Archimedes' law.
Maybe someone else who's more of a chemist and electrochemist than I am
Statement only slightly more ridiculous:
The most energetic thing that they could put inside is a fission reactor. A
fission reactor produces the most energy, because if it didn't, nuclear power
stations would use something else. And since we can't fit all of the necessary
safety controls in
I apologize. I did not institute my five-minute sarcasm filter.
Robert Leguillon robert.leguil...@hotmail.com wrote:
Statement only slightly more ridiculous:
The most energetic thing that they could put inside is a fission reactor. A
fission reactor produces the most energy, because if it
Robert Leguillon robert.leguil...@hotmail.com wrote:
Statement only slightly more ridiculous:
The most energetic thing that they could put inside is a fission reactor.
A fission reactor produces the most energy, because if it didn't, nuclear
power stations would use something else. And since
On Nov 8, 2011, at 10:35 PM, Aussie Guy E-Cat wrote:
Mate I'm not a physicists or an antagonists. Just a very practical
old power systems engineer. You have come up with a exotic theory
of scam that requires you to prove it.
Not true. It is not I who is making the claims. I merely
I will read your information. I do apologize for assuming you were a
LENR denier. But mate, values in the inside box to do a fraud? Maybe a
bit much.
AG
On 11/9/2011 7:21 PM, Horace Heffner wrote:
On Nov 8, 2011, at 10:35 PM, Aussie Guy E-Cat wrote:
Mate I'm not a physicists or an
On Wed, Nov 9, 2011 at 5:09 AM, Aussie Guy E-Cat
aussieguy.e...@gmail.com wrote:
I will read your information. I do apologize for assuming you were a LENR
denier. But mate, values in the inside box to do a fraud? Maybe a bit much.
Personally, I keep an open mind regarding possible hoaxing; but,
, you will see a treasure trove of data to mine.
Dave
-Original Message-
From: Aussie Guy E-Cat aussieguy.e...@gmail.com
To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com
Sent: Wed, Nov 9, 2011 5:14 am
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Minor progress
I will read your information. I do apologize for assuming you were
On 11-11-09 11:37 AM, David Roberson wrote:
AG, I think that Horace is giving it a good effort to come up with a
scheme to prove it is possible to simulate Rossi's results. That is
OK as Rossi has done everything within his ability to confuse the data
and leave himself open to serious
Stephen A. Lawrence sa...@pobox.com wrote:
How would you determine what his secret catalyst is? Without that you'll
likely be down by an order of magnitude or more from his power levels . . .
That is correct. Probably you would get no heat at all.
Similarly, I don't see how you could
2011/11/9 Horace Heffner hheff...@mtaonline.net:
The material I have analyzed fits inside the 30x30x30 cm box. The 50x60x35
cm exterior box to which others refer is irrelevant, except when water
levels and temperatures are simulated.
If you think that there is a 30×30×30 cm³ black box (it was
, 2011 5:14 am
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Minor progress
I will read your information. I do apologize for assuming you were a
LENR denier. But mate, values in the inside box to do a fraud? Maybe a
bit much.
AG
On 11/9/2011 7:21 PM, Horace Heffner wrote:
On Nov 8, 2011, at 10:35 PM, Aussie Guy E-Cat
First let me correct an earlier statement in this thread. In regards
to the pipe conduits to the interior box from the front of the outer
box I said: There are actually four: 1 water, 1 gas, 2 for
frequency generator input.
That was meant to say: There are actually four: 1 gas, 1 main
2011/11/10 Horace Heffner hheff...@mtaonline.net:
(it was not mine
impression, but my impression is based on indirect conclusion made
that I do not remember anyone saying seen such a large black box
inside),
If you had read my paper you would have seen a photograph appended of the
30x30x30
Horace Heffner hheff...@mtaonline.net wrote:
Fraud or self delusion are of course possibilities I recognize, as do many
others, especially given Rossi's inability numerous times to provide
anything other than highly flawed calorimetry data, or refusal to admit the
importance of such mundane
I might suggest that the 2 RF wires maybe multicore shielded cable. If
it was just 2 wires, why would Rossi need 2 penetration in the outer and
inner box? Way too many holes to seal against leaks. One cable may be
input and the other output, which are separated into 2 cables to reduce
cross
Seems someone did manage to click a few photos anyway.
AG
On 11/10/2011 9:38 AM, Jouni Valkonen wrote:
2011/11/10 Horace Heffnerhheff...@mtaonline.net:
(it was not mine
impression, but my impression is based on indirect conclusion made
that I do not remember anyone saying seen such a large
I don't doubt that Rossi has something new and fantastic, and I don't doubt
that he is eccentric in some way as are most of us and this explains some
of the nonsensical things. I also believe he is quite intelligent.
But the only way to think that his process makes any business-first
approach is
What if the patent theory is wrong and Piantelli or W-L is right? Would
he then be left with no protection other than trade secrets?
I do note he is seeking non disclosed uni research help as he tries to
get them to help him understand how his reactor really works. I don't
envy Rossi, knowing
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Sent: Wednesday, November 09, 2011 5:48 PM
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Minor progress
First let me correct an earlier statement in this thread. In regards
to the pipe conduits to the interior box from the front of the outer
box I said: There are actually four: 1 water, 1 gas, 2
2011/11/10 Joe Catania zrosumg...@aol.com:
requency generator inout? Is there any more info on that? I can tell you one
thing- the power company is not going to be too happy with Rossi or whoever
runs one of these things when they find out they are meter cheaters!
I think too that the
for me to accept this theory.
-- Forwarded message --
From: Aussie Guy E-Cat aussieguy.e...@gmail.com
Date: 2011/11/9
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Minor progress
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
What if the patent theory is wrong and Piantelli or W-L is right? Would he
then be left with no protection
...@pobox.com
To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com
Sent: Wed, Nov 9, 2011 1:33 pm
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Minor progress
On 11-11-09 11:37 AM, David Roberson wrote:
AG, I think that Horace is giving it a good effort to come up with a
scheme to prove it is possible to simulate Rossi's results. That is
OK
On Mon, Nov 7, 2011 at 8:53 PM, Robert Leguillon
robert.leguil...@hotmail.com wrote:
The issue of complete vaporization has plagued the E-Cat from the
beginning. In the early E-Cats, water was able to run straight out
of the E-Cat and down a drain, without ever being collected or
sparged.
Horace Heffner hheff...@mtaonline.net wrote:
Again, I don't know of anyone being allowed to see the insides of the
30x30x30 interior box.
1. Levi and the people at Defkalion say they saw inside. Lewan says you can
see more than the photograph shows. There is no sign of concrete.
2. In
By assuming that all of the water pumped in was evaporated. Unfortunately, it
was fed into the steam condensers and back into the E-Cat in a closed loop.
This us why the October 6th test was so important. It stood the chance to
produce viable calorimetry. Unfortunately, the placement of the
As I soon (4 to 8 weeks) will hopefully be doing my own calorimeter
measurements, Robert will you please assist my learning curve by
pointing how the 6 Oct E-Cat thermocouple input and output heat
exchanger measuring points were incorrect and how they should have been
done properly so I don't
-Original Message-
From: Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com
To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com
Sent: Tue, Nov 8, 2011 9:13 am
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Minor progress
Horace Heffner hheff...@mtaonline.net wrote:
Again, I don't know of anyone being allowed to see the insides of the 30x30x30
David Roberson dlrober...@aol.com wrote:
Jed, I have reason to believe that the output thermocouples are reading
incorrectly.
Then I suggest you address the paper uploaded by Houkes, and show where it
is in error.
- Jed
On Nov 8, 2011, at 5:10 AM, Jed Rothwell wrote:
Horace Heffner hheff...@mtaonline.net wrote:
Again, I don't know of anyone being allowed to see the insides of
the 30x30x30 interior box.
1. Levi and the people at Defkalion say they saw inside.
Levi and Defkalion people saw inside the 6
not be confused by assuming that one core is capable of
generating 10 kW. This is more of Rossi's game as usual.
Dave
-Original Message-
From: Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com
To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com
Sent: Tue, Nov 8, 2011 2:04 pm
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Minor progress
David Roberson
On Nov 8, 2011, at 10:02 AM, Jed Rothwell wrote:
David Roberson dlrober...@aol.com wrote:
Jed, I have reason to believe that the output thermocouples are
reading incorrectly.
Then I suggest you address the paper uploaded by Houkes, and show
where it is in error.
- Jed
Why is this
Horace Heffner hheff...@mtaonline.net wrote:
Then I suggest you address the paper uploaded by Houkes, and show where it
is in error.
Why is this material not in pdf format like other material on
LENR-CANR.org?
Because:
1. I have not got around to it.
2. I figure the authors may want to
Horace Heffner hheff...@mtaonline.net wrote:
Levi and Defkalion people saw inside the 6 Oct E-cat?
So they say.
If they saw inside some other device at some other time then that is
irrelevant.
That one, as far as I know. It was tested before. It shows signs of having
been run many
On Nov 8, 2011, at 11:15 AM, Jed Rothwell wrote:
Horace Heffner hheff...@mtaonline.net wrote:
Levi and Defkalion people saw inside the 6 Oct E-cat?
So they say.
Just to be clear, they say they saw inside the 30x30x30 cm inside box
in the 6 Oct E-cat demo? Do you have a reference on
Horace Heffner hheff...@mtaonline.net wrote:
Just to be clear, they say they saw inside the 30x30x30 cm inside box in
the 6 Oct E-cat demo? Do you have a reference on this?
No, just what they say. Take it or leave it. If you don't believe me, or
them, believe Archimedes.
- Jed
On Tue, Nov 8, 2011 at 3:39 PM, Horace Heffner hheff...@mtaonline.net wrote:
Just to be clear, they say they saw inside the 30x30x30 cm inside box in the
6 Oct E-cat demo? Do you have a reference on this?
http://www.radio24.ilsole24ore.com/Foto/articoli/ecat071011-3.jpg
Source:
Terry Blanton hohlr...@gmail.com wrote:
http://www.radio24.ilsole24ore.com/Foto/articoli/ecat071011-3.jpg
Thanks, Terry.
The corrugated thing at the top which looks like a radiator is the cell.
It is a little hard to see from the photo, but I gather you can actually
see inside the box below
On Tue, Nov 8, 2011 at 5:54 PM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com wrote:
The corrugated thing at the top which looks like a radiator is the cell.
Those heat fins reside on both the top and bottom. Three reactors are
sandwiched within. There were a lot of witnesses who described it.
Concrete
On Tue, Nov 8, 2011 at 6:00 PM, Terry Blanton hohlr...@gmail.com wrote:
On Tue, Nov 8, 2011 at 5:54 PM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com wrote:
The corrugated thing at the top which looks like a radiator is the cell.
Those heat fins reside on both the top and bottom.
Look at Bob Higgins'
Some more inside shots
http://www.nyteknik.se/incoming/article3295952.ece/BINARY/w468/kall_fusion_rossi_sprattad_lada_1_468_320.jpg
Aussie Guy E-Cat aussieguy.e...@gmail.com wrote:
Some more inside shots
http://www.nyteknik.se/**incoming/article3295952.ece/**
Yes it looks a mess but just created a lot more energy than was
inputted, so fair go. As for the fin design, I could do better 40 years
ago. I mean the water enters in the lower left corner at the bottom and
the steam exits at the upper right on the top. I assume the rate of
water flow through
Well I got some sleep and am catching up on this thread. I am very
disappointed. The confusion here is incredible. It also appears no
one has read my paper at all:
http://www.mtaonline.net/~hheffner/Rossi6Oct2011Review.pdf
especially the sections T2 THERMOCOUPLE LOCATION and VOLUME
I wrote: It is a reactor housing that supposedly keeps the reactor
dry and protected, and to which 1 /4 inch and 1 inch water sealed
conduit pipes connect which carry water, main power, and the
frequency generator power from the outside to the stuff inside the
box.
That should read: It
I have spent some time on working out what is what in the Exposed E-Cat
photos.
What can be seen is boiler scale on the reactor heat radiation fins,
external conduits and assembly bolts which seems to indicate water and
steam occur in the outer box as the Higgins drawing suggests and not
On Nov 8, 2011, at 9:52 PM, Aussie Guy E-Cat wrote:
I have spent some time on working out what is what in the Exposed E-
Cat photos.
What can be seen is boiler scale on the reactor heat radiation
fins, external conduits and assembly bolts which seems to indicate
water and steam occur in
Mate I'm not a physicists or an antagonists. Just a very practical old
power systems engineer. You have come up with a exotic theory of scam
that requires you to prove it. If I say I doubt your theory, that is my
right and you have no right to say Nonsense cause you have absolutely
no proof of
You are proposing a theory where a slug of hot iron releases its stored
energy.
The e-Cats have enough internal volume to store the reported amount of energy
produced in very hot iron, and it is theoretically possible to insulate them
using aerogel so that they'll keep their heat for a few hours.
Quick question, Horace: Are you going for the 470kW which was claimed,
or are you working with a reduced number?
The 470 value seems to have been predicated, once again, on total
vaporization of the input water. If that didn't take place then the
generated power may have been substantially
Horace Heffner hheff...@mtaonline.net wrote:
I continue to plod along on a simulation of prospective E-cat designs to
fit the 6 Oct 2011 Rossi test results. I have simulated various
combinations of materials for thermal storage and have found that a couple
slabs of ordinary Portland cement
On Nov 7, 2011, at 12:31 AM, John Bresnahan wrote:
Dear Mr. (Dr.?) Heffner,
I've been eagerly following your posting on the Vortex mailing
list, and wish to thank you for the thoughtful analysis you are
providing.
Regarding the small valve in your model of Rossi's E-Cat device
from
On Nov 7, 2011, at 5:27 AM, Jed Rothwell wrote:
Horace Heffner hheff...@mtaonline.net wrote:
I continue to plod along on a simulation of prospective E-cat
designs to fit the 6 Oct 2011 Rossi test results. I have simulated
various combinations of materials for thermal storage and have
Ah -- Sorry, Horace, disregard my question. I overlooked the fact that
you're ignoring the Oct 28 test, which was the (alleged) 470kW run.
(In any case, you obviously are well aware of the heat-of-vaporization
issues.)
On 11-11-07 09:25 AM, Stephen A. Lawrence wrote:
Quick question,
On Nov 7, 2011, at 5:25 AM, Stephen A. Lawrence wrote:
Quick question, Horace: Are you going for the 470kW which was
claimed, or are you working with a reduced number?
The 470 value seems to have been predicated, once again, on total
vaporization of the input water. If that didn't take
On Nov 7, 2011, at 11:24 AM, Stephen A. Lawrence wrote:
Ah -- Sorry, Horace, disregard my question. I overlooked the fact
that you're ignoring the Oct 28 test, which was the (alleged) 470kW
run.
(In any case, you obviously are well aware of the heat-of-
vaporization issues.)
Yes. I
think that Rossi is
totally dishonest?
I wish you good luck with your endeavor.
Dave
-Original Message-
From: Horace Heffner hheff...@mtaonline.net
To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com
Sent: Mon, Nov 7, 2011 3:12 pm
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Minor progress
On Nov 7, 2011, at 5:27 AM, Jed
Horace Heffner hheff...@mtaonline.net wrote:
If you spent an hour or so looking at what I actually provided instead of
generating arm waving non quantitative babble then you might gain some
understanding.
It is not arm waving to point out that THERE IS NO CONCRETE in the reactor.
None. You
Hi Horace,
I was wondering if it's possible to do this with lead rather than another
material as long as you have sufficient insulation to reduce the heat flow
from the lead to the water. I did a simple simulation and it looked like
about 25kg of lead with about 12W/C heat flow would do the
Cement has more specific heat capacity per mass, but not
per volume.
One cubic meter of iron can hold something like 3.5 MJ per
kelvin, while the same volume of cement can hold something
like 2.33 MJ per kelvin.
In addition I'm not sure cement can go above 800
degrees Celsius, while iron melts
Or 25kg per module if we just bring the water to 105C and make very little
steam
On Tue, Nov 8, 2011 at 9:06 AM, Berke Durak berke.du...@gmail.com wrote:
Cement has more specific heat capacity per mass, but not
per volume.
One cubic meter of iron can hold something like 3.5 MJ per
kelvin,
On Mon, Nov 7, 2011 at 8:12 PM, Colin Hercus colinher...@gmail.com wrote:
Or 25kg per module if we just bring the water to 105C and make very little
steam
But that assumes that the numbers are falsified. In the customer's
public report, it says :
Water vaporized : 3716 l.
So if that figure
On Nov 7, 2011, at 3:43 PM, Jed Rothwell wrote:
Horace Heffner hheff...@mtaonline.net wrote:
If you spent an hour or so looking at what I actually provided
instead of generating arm waving non quantitative babble then you
might gain some understanding.
It is not arm waving to point out
On Nov 7, 2011, at 4:18 PM, Berke Durak wrote:
On Mon, Nov 7, 2011 at 8:12 PM, Colin Hercus
colinher...@gmail.com wrote:
Or 25kg per module if we just bring the water to 105C and make
very little
steam
But that assumes that the numbers are falsified. In the customer's
public report, it
The issue of complete vaporization has plagued the E-Cat from the beginning. In
the early E-Cats, water was able to run straight out of the E-Cat and down a
drain, without ever being collected or sparged. In the 1MW demo, the steam is
condensed and fed back in, there is no way of knowing how
I did try lead in various combinations with other materials. It does
not have very good characteristics. I am working to duplicate the
output power wave form, given the input power vs time, not just
explain the energy balances. I'll have more to say when I finish.
Horace
On Nov 7,
On Nov 7, 2011, at 3:15 PM, David Roberson wrote:
This exercise has me confused. Are you making an attempt to
demonstrate that it is possible to make a scam ECAT? That would of
course be instructive since Rossi has never run an ECAT for an
extended period of time as a single unit. I
Horace, indeed 2 megaeuros would be good investment to check the validity
of Rossi's claim. If it works, then we are hundreds of modules to play
around. And if it does not work in means of cold fusion processes then just
return the device and get full monetary compensation. Rossi has promised
life
...@mtaonline.net
To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com
Sent: Mon, Nov 7, 2011 8:47 pm
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Minor progress
n Nov 7, 2011, at 4:18 PM, Berke Durak wrote:
On Mon, Nov 7, 2011 at 8:12 PM, Colin Hercus
colinher...@gmail.com wrote:
Or 25kg per module if we just bring the water to 105C
Sent: Mon, Nov 7, 2011 8:53 pm
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Minor progress
The issue of complete vaporization has plagued the E-Cat from the beginning. In
he early E-Cats, water was able to run straight out of the E-Cat and down a
rain, without ever being collected or sparged. In the 1MW demo, the steam
1 - 100 of 106 matches
Mail list logo
