Re: [Vo]:RE: Supersizing the BJT
Presumably the external band heater is necessary for the smaller E-cat because the internal heater cannot provide enough heat at start up unlike the internal heater of the larger E-cat. So while the external _heater_ may not be necessary, the extra _heat_ is necessary for start-up. A useful analogy may be made with the necessary conditions for making a fire without a match. Such a fire requires three things 1) a supply of fresh air 2) dry grass as a fuel (rather than green grass), and 3) sufficient heat initially provided by rubbing two sticks together or the spark from striking flint or sunlight focused through a magnifying lens. Similarly the E-Cat requires 1) a supply of fresh hydrogen gas, 2) powdered nickel as fuel (rather than solid nickel) and sufficient heat initially provided by a resistance heater. A fire can be controlled by reducing the supply of fresh air, removing the fuel or by cooling it. The latter is not practical in the case of most fires. However, it appears the E-Cat's fire as a practical matter can be controlled by cooling. Harry From: Axil Axil janap...@gmail.com To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Sun, May 8, 2011 12:10:07 AM Subject: Re: [Vo]:RE: Supersizing the BJT The Principle of operation: (the secret process that makes the Cat-E go) between the small 2.5 kw reactor in which the band heater is used and the 10 kw Cat-E in which only the internal heater is used is the same. Logically, the band heater does not drive or in any way affect the “secret” motive force behind the Rossi reactor. If the external band heater were a driver of the reaction and since the big Cat-E does not have one, then the big Cat-E should not work … but it does. Logic says that the external band heater is not central to the basic mechanisms of the Cat-E and it is just a startup source of heat.
RE: [Vo]:RE: Supersizing the BJT
More like 6 minutes than 6 months - for nanopowder degradation from current flow -Original Message- From: mix...@bigpond.com As I understand the dynamics of this situation, one cannot pass a current through a nanopowder without promoting instant agglomeration - which over time proceeds progressively back into a bulk conductor. ...perhaps that's why it needs to be replaced after 6 months? Regards, Robin van Spaandonk
RE: [Vo]:RE: Supersizing the BJT
From: Axil Axil * The Principle of operation: (the secret process that makes the Cat-E go) between the small 2.5 kw reactor in which the band heater is used and the 10 kw Cat-E in which only the internal heater is used is the same. There is no evidence for that at all. If anything, logic dictates that the larger model would have only external and no internal heating In fact, there is no visual evidence that there ever was a larger model at all. Everything seen so far - when exposed looks nearly identical, and the only reason to suggest that there ever was a larger model is for Rossi to hide the fact that the results of the January test (Focardi tribute) were wet steam and three times more than actual. Jones
[Vo]:Relativistic Casimir Cavities
Scott, Nice post but you assigned the hydrino theory to Haisch and Moddel - I made the same error early on and was taken to task by both Professor Moddel and Dr Haisch- they use noble gas, much larger - weaker .1u geometry and no chemistry based on a theory they call Lamb Pinch. they make up for the smaller changes in Casimir effect/energy density by endless circulation through alternate layers of insulation and Casimir geometry. It is a totally different extraction method than that used by Mills even though it is based on a similar environment. I know we discussed downsizing the H-M prototype for use with hydrogen -it would have many benefits but the .1u is already at the limits of mechanical fabrication..Jones Beene suggested backfilling foamed nickel with zeolites as a step toward natural assembly, Perhaps Rossi's secret ingredient is actually a tiny insulating molecule that backfills existing cavities and amplifies the local changes in Casimir force in each cavity. Regards Fran [Vo]:Relativistic Casimir Cavities Wm. Scott Smith Sat, 07 May 2011 14:04:03 -0700 The Casimir Effect is often explained by the example of two grounded, metal plates that are separated by a very small distance, usually, 100 to a 1000 nm separation. Small frequencies of the electromagnetic quantum flux of the Quantum Vacuum or Zero-Point Energy field exist both inside the cavity between the two plates as well as outside of the cavity. Therefore, these small waves exert the same amount of radiation pressure on both sides of each plate; however, the em waves that do not fit inside the cavity without grounding out on the plates do not exert radiation pressure inside the cavity; therefore, we are left with a net radiation pressure of the larger waves outside of the cavity that act only on the outside of the cavity, pushing the one-moveable plate toward the other. Other interpretations include such things as explaining Van de Waals forces in terms of London Force, but on a larger distance scale, then explaining Casimir Forces in terms of adjusting the Van de Waals Theory (which is already quite a stretch) to explain the yet larger distances in the Casimir Experiment. A third explanation says that the Quantum Vacuum becomes polarize, the virtual photons acting perpendicular to the two plates. Francis and I are investigating a fourth explanation that is a sort of Inverse Relativity wherein, due to Lorentz Invariance, we believe that the same wavelengths exist and outside the cavity (as do some of the Vacuum-Polarization People) but that these frequencies are somehow blue shifted so as to fit inside the cavity. But this seems odd to Francis and I if one doesn't also account for relativistic contraction or dilation of motion along the local time axis; in other words, the shortened oscillations of these photons force some of their oscillation motion to be expressed in their motion along the time axis. (We do not think in terms of time passing, rather we think in terms of different object moving through time-space at different rates, even though spatially they are right next to each other, but one object is in the cavity and one is outside the cavity. We predicted , for example, that radioactive gases would decay slower or faster, according to various possible conditions inside of cavities made of different material. This has been experimentally confirmed, independent of us, and without a know connection to our Relativistic Cavity Theory. Light can traverse these cavities seemingly in excess of c, but we argue instead, that the speed of light is the same inside the cavity, but travel along the time axis is accelerated. Several Patent by Haisch discuss the possibility of cycling a gas into and out of nano-spongeous array. When the orbitals contract, heat is given off. They call this the hydrino theory and seemingly can be bothered with considering the Relativistic possibilities. We further believe that this may be part or all of the Anomalous Heat Phenomenon aka LENR, or Cold Fusion. One of my more recent posts discusses this from the standpoint of certain Van de Graaf generator phenomena of like-charge clustering and Literal-Spin. ScottWm. Scott SmithHome 509 326 1307 Work 509 315 1194 Experiments have shown that
Re: [Vo]:RE: Supersizing the BJT
Jones Beene jone...@pacbell.net wrote: Everything seen so far – when exposed looks nearly identical, and the only reason to suggest that there ever was a larger model is for Rossi to hide the fact that the results of the January test (Focardi tribute) were wet steam and three times more than actual. Everything, that is, except: 1. Levi et al. looked inside the reactor and saw a 1-liter cell. That is to say, everything seen by looking so far proves it is 1 liter. It is not clear what you mean by seen. 2. The flow test in February which produced the same results. It is not clear to me what else everything consists of. As far as know your imagination is the only source of this information. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:RE: Supersizing the BJT
On Sun, May 8, 2011 at 12:15 AM, Mark Iverson zeropo...@charter.net wrote: Do we have any idea on what kinds of voltages the heaters are being subjected to??? Assuming no transforming of the mains, only rectification, the peak voltage would 2^-2 x 230 or ~325 V. T
RE: [Vo]:Thermal diode
Jones http://www.rle.mit.edu/media/pr147/33.pdf Is there such a beast as an electrothermal diode? Woah! If thermal diodes exist, wouldn't the little buggers violate the laws of thermodynamics? Seems to me it would be Kinda like finding a convenient Maxewll Demon mechanism. Wouldn't thermal diodes essentially allow us to pump heat into a heat box where the stored thermal energy could subsequently be extracted to heat steam, turn turbines. OTOH, how would this differ from your basic mill of the run solar collector? Regards, Steven Vincent Johnson www.OrionWorks.com www.zazzle.com/orionworks
RE: [Vo]:RE: Supersizing the BJT
So when did Levi authorize you to speak for him? After all, Levi is no longer independent, and is apparently Rossi's top technical advisor. Plus, he has every incentive to be disingenuous on this point - since he does not want to be blamed for the gross measurement error. The results in February cannot be trusted because of incorrect thermocouple placement. Again, there is no physical evidence of two distinct configurations. Since Rossi is now committed to the design which we can see, there is no incentive to be secretive on the one which does not matter - so why not show the insides of the one tested in Jan/Feb? Answer: it is the probably same design. Jones From: Jed Rothwell * JB: Everything seen so far - when exposed looks nearly identical, and the only reason to suggest that there ever was a larger model is for Rossi to hide the fact that the results of the January test (Focardi tribute) were wet steam and three times more than actual. Everything, that is, except: 1. Levi et al. looked inside the reactor and saw a 1-liter cell. That is to say, everything seen by looking so far proves it is 1 liter. It is not clear what you mean by seen. 2. The flow test in February which produced the same results. It is not clear to me what else everything consists of. As far as know your imagination is the only source of this information. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:RE: Supersizing the BJT
Hello Jed Do you know if there is a independent report about the flow test in February in which the water was not heated to the boilingpoint? Peter - Original Message - From: Jed Rothwell To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Sunday, May 08, 2011 4:03 PM Subject: Re: [Vo]:RE: Supersizing the BJT Jones Beene jone...@pacbell.net wrote: Everything seen so far – when exposed looks nearly identical, and the only reason to suggest that there ever was a larger model is for Rossi to hide the fact that the results of the January test (Focardi tribute) were wet steam and three times more than actual. Everything, that is, except: 1. Levi et al. looked inside the reactor and saw a 1-liter cell. That is to say, everything seen by looking so far proves it is 1 liter. It is not clear what you mean by seen. 2. The flow test in February which produced the same results. It is not clear to me what else everything consists of. As far as know your imagination is the only source of this information. - Jed
RE: [Vo]:Thermal diode
OK - Not sure exactly how (or if) - this paper can be related to the Rossi device, which was why I sent it alone - but there is a vague notion that what Hagelstein has labeled weakly n-type bulk layer could be the Rossi supported nickel nanopowder filled with spillover H - to make it semiconductive, and that the emitter gets much hotter than it should at the expense of ZPE. Thus, if there is a connection to Rossi, then I was wrong about PnP, and the E-Cat may be of the NpN configuration ... assuming that these two, Peter Hagelstein and Yan Kucherov are in the same ballpark with us on the cross-connection... However, my guess is that neither of them have even considered that this paper could relate to Rossi in any possible way; but if you want to write PH and ask if there could be a connection - and how it would operate - then be my guest... I also doubt that he is in the Cavity-QED/ZPE camp, so he would probably reject the implications out of hand Jones -Original Message- From: OrionWorks - Steven Vincent Johnson http://www.rle.mit.edu/media/pr147/33.pdf Is there such a beast as an electrothermal diode? Whoa! If thermal diodes exist, wouldn't the little buggers violate the laws of thermodynamics? Seems to me it would be Kinda like finding a convenient Maxwell Demon mechanism. ... or a Rossi mechanism Wouldn't thermal diodes essentially allow us to pump heat into a heat box where the stored thermal energy could subsequently be extracted to heat steam, turn turbines. :) OTOH, how would this differ from your basic mill of the run solar collector? ... does not need the sun? Regards, Steven Vincent Johnson www.OrionWorks.com www.zazzle.com/orionworks
[Vo]:Only one size E-Cat?
One further point - the dimensions of the bulge only on the smallest device - the one with the ruler scale as seen in the images indicate the bulge is 7 cm in length and about the same 7 cm in diameter or ~260 cc in volume, maybe more. That is without the long flanges. If one trusted observer (namely Levi) were to have been given a quick peek inside the original device, back in January - and then included the flanges in his rough estimation of the volume - then one liter as a rough guess would not be a surprise, since the heater makes it appear more voluminous than it is. Jones Beene wrote: Everything seen so far - when exposed looks nearly identical, and the only reason to suggest that there ever was a larger model is for Rossi to hide the fact that the erroneous results of the January test (Focardi tribute) where 'wet steam' was giving three times more energy than actual.
RE: [Vo]:RE: Supersizing the BJT
Jones sez: ... I know, it is too bizarre to mention in polite company, but where is the sanity in a great society like our own that pays out millions for a stupid horse race, or an illiterate baseball star, and yet cannot support basic RD in this vitally important field This technology should have been in place 20 years ago. Shoot. Looking at Rossi's slow-tech, low-tech, no-tech copper pipe configuration and I think this technology is more like 75 years overdue! I'm steamed. (No pun intended.) Regards, Steven Vincent Johnson www.OrionWorks.com www.zazzle.com/orionworks
RE: [Vo]:RE: Supersizing the BJT
Jones sez: ... I know, it is too bizarre to mention in polite company, but where is the sanity in a great society like our own that pays out millions for a stupid horse race, or an illiterate baseball star, and yet cannot support basic RD in this vitally important field This technology should have been in place 20 years ago. Shoot. Looking at Rossi's slow-tech, low-tech, no-tech copper pipe configuration and I think this technology is more like 75 years overdue! I'm steamed. (No pun intended.) I should temper my outrage with the fact that such lo-tech technology would presumably not be possible until after nickel (nano-)powder became available. I'm not sure when nickel nano-powder was developed. I assume fairly recently. Regards, Steven Vincent Johnson www.OrionWorks.com www.zazzle.com/orionworks
Re: [Vo]:RE: Supersizing the BJT
On Sun, May 8, 2011 at 11:37 AM, OrionWorks - Steven Vincent Johnson orionwo...@charter.net wrote: I'm steamed. Don't be steamed, be steam punked. Steam power is seeing a renaissance today even without Rossi. Here are several steam punked devices including a steam powered PC: http://www.wired.com/gadgets/mods/multimedia/2007/06/gallery_steampunk T
Re: [Vo]:RE: Supersizing the BJT
Jones Beene jone...@pacbell.net wrote: So when did Levi authorize you to speak for him? That's what he said; take it or leave it. When did you look inside the machine? The results in February cannot be trusted because of incorrect thermocouple placement. That can't be. A 5 deg C temperature difference is too small for that. The larger temperature difference might be affected by the position of the thermocouples. Again, there is no physical evidence of two distinct configurations. Yes, there is. That is what people who looked inside the machines say they saw. Since Rossi is now committed to the design which we can see, there is no incentive to be secretive on the one which does not matter – so why not show the insides of the one tested in Jan/Feb? He did show the insides. Levi and others say they saw the insides. Unless you have heard from someone who looked inside and saw a 50 ml cell, I think you have no basis for making these assertions. This seems to be the word of Levi et al. on one side, and you unsupported imagination on the other. Why should anyone believe you? - Jed
Re: [Vo]:Only one size E-Cat?
Jones Beene jone...@pacbell.net wrote: If one trusted observer (namely Levi) were to have been given a quick peek inside the original device, back in January 1. It was not a quick peek. Who told you it was quick? 2. Others saw it too. 3. What difference does it make whether it was January, February, March or April? The size does not change with the season. 4. Anyone can tell at a glance the difference between an object roughly 1 L and one that is 50 ml. Even a quick peek would be enough. Look, there is not a shred of evidence for this idea of yours. Not one person has said one thing that indicates this might be the case. I do not know how or why this idee fixe entered your mind, but it is incorrect. - Jed
RE: [Vo]:Thermal diode
If we go back to Akira's original sketch: http://i.imgur.com/llVoU.png where the external heater is in contact with supported Ni nanopowder, and the device operates as a thermal diode, then we have solved two huge conceptual problems: the first being - why do we need applied heat input at all, after startup? A thermal (or electrothermal diode) as described in the Hagelstein paper would effectively push heat in one direction - and if we assume that it is pushing heat towards an axial tube, with water coolant, then we need to trigger the reaction from the outside on a continuous basis at a precise temperature, or else it can quench unexpectedly. This all fits nicely together, and the so-called 'cartridge heater' is either auxiliary, and 'off' except at startup... or else it is NOT a cartridge heated at all, BUT instead is the thermocouple which tells the PLC how much power to send to the band heater. In fact, the axial leads seen, and the long (suspected) length inside the left arm of the arrangement - favors this interpretation - that the item is a thermocouple instead of an auxiliary heater, since thermocouples are narrower and longer in geometry, than are cartridge heaters. Jones -Original Message- From: Jones Beene Subject: Thermal diode OK - Not sure exactly how (or if) - this paper can be related to the Rossi device, which was why I sent it alone - but there is a vague notion that what Hagelstein has labeled weakly n-type bulk layer could be the Rossi supported nickel nanopowder filled with spillover H - to make it semiconductive, and that the emitter gets much hotter than it should at the expense of ZPE. Thus, if there is a connection to Rossi, then I was wrong about PnP, and the E-Cat may be of the NpN configuration ... assuming that these two, Peter Hagelstein and Yan Kucherov are in the same ballpark with us on the cross-connection... However, my guess is that neither of them have even considered that this paper could relate to Rossi in any possible way; but if you want to write PH and ask if there could be a connection - and how it would operate - then be my guest... I also doubt that he is in the Cavity-QED/ZPE camp, so he would probably reject the implications out of hand Jones -Original Message- From: OrionWorks - Steven Vincent Johnson http://www.rle.mit.edu/media/pr147/33.pdf Is there such a beast as an electrothermal diode? Whoa! If thermal diodes exist, wouldn't the little buggers violate the laws of thermodynamics? Seems to me it would be Kinda like finding a convenient Maxwell Demon mechanism. ... or a Rossi mechanism Wouldn't thermal diodes essentially allow us to pump heat into a heat box where the stored thermal energy could subsequently be extracted to heat steam, turn turbines. :) OTOH, how would this differ from your basic mill of the run solar collector? ... does not need the sun? Regards, Steven Vincent Johnson www.OrionWorks.com www.zazzle.com/orionworks attachment: winmail.dat
RE: [Vo]:Only one size E-Cat?
Well I can see that Rothwell is in now full retreat - since he has started to distort the facts to conform with his prior erroneous assumptions - rather than doing the basic reality check and admitting that he could be wrong. There is no 50 CC which is relevant. There is no factuality in the Rothwell appraisal of what others saw, or what he has heard that they saw - and it simply does not add up that Rossi would be hiding the insides of a reactor that is no longer the one to be used in October. If we look at facts only, there is no evidence of a larger device. Ockham sez: only one size E-Cat. The 50 CC is pure BS and typical rossi-speak. The cm scale is shown in the images, and the smallest bulge alone is at least five time more, and there is every 'logical' reason to suspect, given Rossi's abundant history of disinformation - that there always was only one size - and that the reason for why the coverup remains in place is to disguise Levi's gross measurement errors in the 'Focardi tribute' (the wet steam error) which was compounded by a further error in February (the misplaced thermocouple error). It is clear now that both of these tests were juvenile efforts at calorimetry - below high school standards - and thankfully the Swedes have at least given us something closer to the truth - but as Mats admits, they are not there yet Jones From: Jed Rothwell If one trusted observer (namely Levi) were to have been given a quick peek inside the original device, back in January 1. It was not a quick peek. Who told you it was quick? 2. Others saw it too. 3. What difference does it make whether it was January, February, March or April? The size does not change with the season. 4. Anyone can tell at a glance the difference between an object roughly 1 L and one that is 50 ml. Even a quick peek would be enough. Look, there is not a shred of evidence for this idea of yours. Not one person has said one thing that indicates this might be the case. I do not know how or why this idee fixe entered your mind, but it is incorrect. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:Only one size E-Cat?
If 500 cc volume were true... A cubed shaped reaction chamber with a volume of 50 CC that can produce a 130,000 kw heat spike would radiate at a power of 1 kilowatt per square centimeter give or take. The absolute black body radiation temperature of such a vessel would be 17,636,684,303 degrees. On Sun, May 8, 2011 at 12:38 PM, Jones Beene jone...@pacbell.net wrote: Well I can see that Rothwell is in now full retreat - since he has started to distort the facts to conform with his prior erroneous assumptions – rather than doing the basic reality check and admitting that he could be wrong. There is no “50 CC” which is relevant. There is no factuality in the Rothwell appraisal of what others saw, or what he has heard that they saw – and it simply does not add up that Rossi would be hiding the insides of a reactor that is no longer the one to be used in October. If we look at facts only, there is no evidence of a larger device. Ockham sez: only one size E-Cat. The “50 CC” is pure BS and typical rossi-speak. The cm scale is shown in the images, and the smallest bulge alone is at least five time more, and there is every ‘logical’ reason to suspect, given Rossi’s abundant history of disinformation - that there always was only one size - and that the reason for why the coverup remains in place is to disguise Levi’s gross measurement errors in the ‘Focardi tribute’ (the wet steam error) which was compounded by a further error in February (the misplaced thermocouple error). It is clear now that both of these tests were juvenile efforts at calorimetry – below high school standards - and thankfully the Swedes have at least given us something closer to the truth – but as Mats admits, they are not there yet Jones *From:* Jed Rothwell If one trusted observer (namely Levi) were to have been given a quick peek inside the original device, back in January 1. It was not a quick peek. Who told you it was quick? 2. Others saw it too. 3. What difference does it make whether it was January, February, March or April? The size does not change with the season. 4. Anyone can tell at a glance the difference between an object roughly 1 L and one that is 50 ml. Even a quick peek would be enough. Look, there is not a shred of evidence for this idea of yours. Not one person has said one thing that indicates this might be the case. I do not know how or why this idee fixe entered your mind, but it is incorrect. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:Only one size E-Cat?
It is clear now that both of these tests were juvenile efforts at calorimetry - below high school standards... If Steorn, with a bunch of engineers working for it, could make a measurement error and not spot it for a year or more, and have to have it pointed out to them by an outside engineer, Philip forget last name, then I can believe Rossi and company are mired in confusion as well.
Re: [Vo]:Only one size E-Cat?
Jones Beene jone...@pacbell.net wrote: There is no “50 CC” which is relevant. There is no factuality in the Rothwell appraisal of what others saw, or what he has heard that they saw That should be: What they told me and what they stated publicly they saw. If Beene does not believe Levi, that's his prerogative, but he should not accuse me of putting words into Levi's mouth. This is not about me. It is about what Levi said. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:Only one size E-Cat?
peatbog peat...@teksavvy.com wrote: It is clear now that both of these tests were juvenile efforts at calorimetry - below high school standards... That's not a bit clear. This is industry standard calorimetry for heating systems of this size. These procedures are done hundreds of thousands of times a day successfully. Claiming they don't work is like saying that no airline pilot ever makes a successful landing, and all commercial aircraft always crash. If Steorn, with a bunch of engineers working for it, could make a measurement error and not spot it for a year or more, and have to have it pointed out to them by an outside engineer, Philip forget last name, then I can believe Rossi and company are mired in confusion as well. A person can believe anything, but you do not have a rational reason for believing this particular assertion. You cannot show how or why they are mired in confusion, or point to any likely error in their technique. Jones Beene asserts there is problem because they used a 50 ml cell instead of a 1 liter cell. However, there is not a shred of evidence for that. You can invent some nonsensical claim the way he did in this case, but making up a fantasy and then declaring it must be true does not actually make it true. You have to have some supporting evidence, or at least a minimal reasons to suspect it is true, and you have none. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:Only one size E-Cat?
I am not sure about the size of E-Cat's stomach, but the foil covered animal from janurary appears to be slightly longer from nose to tail than the march/april animal. Harry From: Jones Beene jone...@pacbell.net To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Sun, May 8, 2011 12:38:29 PM Subject: RE: [Vo]:Only one size E-Cat? Well I can see that Rothwell is in now full retreat - since he has started to distort the facts to conform with his prior erroneous assumptions – rather than doing the basic reality check and admitting that he could be wrong. There is no “50 CC” which is relevant. There is no factuality in the Rothwell appraisal of what others saw, or what he has heard that they saw – and it simply does not add up that Rossi would be hiding the insides of a reactor that is no longer the one to be used in October. If we look at facts only, there is no evidence of a larger device. Ockham sez: only one size E-Cat. The “50 CC” is pure BS and typical rossi-speak. The cm scale is shown in the images, and the smallest bulge alone is at least five time more, and there is every ‘logical’ reason to suspect, given Rossi’s abundant history of disinformation - that there always was only one size - and that the reason for why the coverup remains in place is to disguise Levi’s gross measurement errors in the ‘Focardi tribute’ (the wet steam error) which was compounded by a further error in February (the misplaced thermocouple error). It is clear now that both of these tests were juvenile efforts at calorimetry – below high school standards - and thankfully the Swedes have at least given us something closer to the truth – but as Mats admits, they are not there yet Jones From:Jed Rothwell If one trusted observer (namely Levi) were to have been given a quick peek inside the original device, back in January 1. It was not a quick peek. Who told you it was quick? 2. Others saw it too. 3. What difference does it make whether it was January, February, March or April? The size does not change with the season. 4. Anyone can tell at a glance the difference between an object roughly 1 L and one that is 50 ml. Even a quick peek would be enough. Look, there is not a shred of evidence for this idea of yours. Not one person has said one thing that indicates this might be the case. I do not know how or why this idee fixe entered your mind, but it is incorrect. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:Only one size E-Cat?
- Original Message From: peatbog peat...@teksavvy.com To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Sun, May 8, 2011 1:00:00 PM Subject: Re: [Vo]:Only one size E-Cat? If Steorn, with a bunch of engineers working for it, could make a measurement error and not spot it for a year or more, and have to have it pointed out to them by an outside engineer, Philip forget last name, . where is this explained? harry
[Vo]:Patent application shows the flow-around configuration
The patent application shows the water flowing around a cell inside a pipe. Rossi claims this is the present configuration. Storms and others suspect the water flows through the middle of a torus-shaped cell. There are three possibilities here: this configuration may be immaterial, or important, or sub-optimal. Suppose the configuration makes no difference to performance, and Rossi settled on this configuration at the time of the patent for no particular reason. In that case, this detail of the patent is immaterial and it will have no effect on the validity of the patent. It will be like forward-canard elevator configuration shown in the Wright brother's patent. Their patent was still valid when airplanes all had the elevators moved to the rear. That patent also shows no motors or propellers on the machine, because the Wrights were only patenting the control system, not those other systems. This configuration may have some material advantage. I cannot judge what that might be, but from his comments I have the impression that Rossi thinks this is important. It could be that this configuration makes the cells work less well than a torus design. If it is later shown that when Rossi submitted the patent, he knew this was a sub-optimal configuration, the patent might be judged invalid. I am sure his patent lawyer told him that. I do not think he would run that risk. Assuming the patent is similar to the application, it seems to cover only the machine, not the nickel powder. I assume he has another patent application for the powder. This is somewhat analogous to the fact that Edison patented the light bulb first, and later a host of peripheral inventions such as the improved generators and so on. Except that in this case, it seems to me Rossi has patented the peripheral first, rather than the central discovery. He can do that if he wants. Perhaps the final patent covers a broader range than the application. Perhaps it even shows a configuration other than the flow-around one. I do not know enough about patents to judge, but I suppose it is similar to the application, or they would have changed the application text. - Jed
[Vo]:Stealth Helicopter in Osama Raid?
http://www.wired.com/dangerroom/2011/05/aviation-geeks-scramble-to-i-d-osama-raids-mystery-copter/ Some speculated designs: http://defensetech.org/2011/05/04/what-the-secret-bin-laden-raid-helo-might-look-like/ T
Re: [Vo]:Stealth Helicopter in Osama Raid?
On Sun, May 8, 2011 at 1:38 PM, Terry Blanton hohlr...@gmail.com wrote: http://www.wired.com/dangerroom/2011/05/aviation-geeks-scramble-to-i-d-osama-raids-mystery-copter/ Some speculated designs: http://defensetech.org/2011/05/04/what-the-secret-bin-laden-raid-helo-might-look-like/ Like the Rossi ECat, speculation abounds about the stealth helo. One geek speculates that the copter did not have a mechanical failure; but, the walls around the compound interfered with the lift of the silent rotor. T
[Vo]:A question about patents…
A question about patents… If the nickel catalyst turns out to be pure nickel nano-powder, but processed and prepared in a special way… Let’s say it is bombarded with fast high energy ions that produce many defects in the lattice structure of nickel nano-powder. Is the powder patentable or is the ion processing of the powder. If the same ion processing is done to copper nano-powder, is a separate patent needed to protest the IP of the nano-powder for that element or should the patent be used to protect the ion treatment of all metal nano-powders?
Re: [Vo]:Patent application shows the flow-around configuration
As pointed out previously, there is excellent short document describing this issue here: http://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/pac/mpep/documents/2100_2165.htm QUOTE: The failure to disclose a better method will not invalidate a patent if the inventor, at the time of filing the application, did not know of the better method *OR* did not appreciate that it was the best method. So, if at the time of filing, Rossi sincerely thought the flow-around method was better, even if it turns out he was wrong he still gets to keep the patent. Some people have said the torus is better because it would be easier to manufacture. That may be true, but I do not think that would impact on the viability of the patent because it is a side issue. It does not go the heart of the discovery. The implementation may be awkward to manufacture, but as long as it functions just as well as another implementation would for the job it is supposed to do -- generating heat, in this case -- I do not think it will be ruled invalid. Getting back to the Wrights, they show the wings being flexed with wing-warping. That is a technique they developed, that flexes the entire wing. It was soon supplanted with wing flaps, where only the trailing edge of the wing is flexed. That was more practical, and more convenient. The people who invented it said it meant they owed no royalties to the Wrights. After a long legal battle the courts ruled in favor of the Wrights. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:Only one size E-Cat?
A person can believe anything, but you do not have a rational reason for believing this particular assertion. You cannot show how or why they are mired in confusion, or point to any likely error in their technique. As I understand it, Rossi is claiming to do something that people who know a lot about this sort of thing believe is not possible. Until enough people have reverse-engineered his device and gotten the same amazing performance that he claims, it seems more likely that he and his colleagues have made a mistake than that they have an amazing new invention.
[Vo]:Re: [Vo]:A question about patents…
Axil Axil janap...@gmail.com wrote: Let’s say it is bombarded with fast high energy ions that produce many defects in the lattice structure of nickel nano-powder. Is the powder patentable or is the ion processing of the powder. If the same ion processing is done to copper nano-powder, is a separate patent needed to protest the IP of the nano-powder for that element or should the patent be used to protect the ion treatment of all metal nano-powders? I believe that depends on who writes the patent, and how good a job they do. There are broad patents and narrow patents. Questions like this will probably launch a thousand lawsuits no matter who wrote the patent. In the discussions between Rossi's patent attorney and the patent office, you see the attorney raising nit-picking narrow objections to Arata's patent, to narrow the scope of it, and reduce the share of royalties that Arata would get. He claims that Arata said this but not that, so his patent application is narrow. For example, as I recall, he said something about Arata never said it was a *metal* cell, he just said 'a cell.' I do not recall where I read Rossi's patent attorney's arguments. They are part of the public record. They are revealing. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:Only one size E-Cat?
peatbog peat...@teksavvy.com wrote: As I understand it, Rossi is claiming to do something that people who know a lot about this sort of thing believe is not possible. Not quite. Rossi and several hundred others have published definitive proof that they are doing something that some other people -- mainly hot fusion scientists who claim they are experts -- say is not possible. Until enough people have reverse-engineered his device and gotten the same amazing performance that he claims . . . People have already gotten the same amazing performance, albeit on a smaller scale. They got that performance back in 1992. Scientifically speaking, cold fusion results then were as astounding, and convincing, as Rossi's results are today. The only difference is that Rossi's device has more commercial potential. , it seems more likely that he and his colleagues have made a mistake than that they have an amazing new invention. It does not seem likely because there is no evidence for that. It would have to be that Rossi, his colleagues, everyone else who has observed heat from Ni-H made a mistake. Or, if you go by the standards of the above mentioned hot fusion experts, it has to be that every scientist who has ever observed cold fusion in any form was wrong. It is not possible all of these people are wrong. It is not even possible that the entire Ni-H group is wrong. And Rossi's tests are definitive. The best proof of that are the absurd objections. If the best objection anyone can come up with is that the thermocouples shown in the photos, with a 1 L/s flow, might be too close to the cell, all of meaningful objections are exhausted. That's not scraping the bottom of the barrel; it is scraping right through it into the ground. There are only two possibilities here: 1. Rossi, Focardi and everyone else who has examined this cell or reported on it are in cahoots in a gigantic scam, and everything they have claimed is made-up nonsense. 2. It is real. - Jed
[Vo]:22 Steps of Love
Our favorite blogger implies today that UoB is about to speak . . . or, at least, that's how I interpreted it. http://22passi.blogspot.com/ If it purrs like a duck . . . T
Re: [Vo]:22 Steps of Love
On 2011-05-08 21:29, Terry Blanton wrote: Our favorite blogger implies today that UoB is about to speak . . . or, at least, that's how I interpreted it. http://22passi.blogspot.com/ About to speak *soon*, apparently. As for *how* soon, however, we aren't allowed to know yet. It's speculated this will happen by a few weeks of time, maybe 2-3 at most (though, this announcement by UoB for a reason or another got delayed several times over the past weeks). I wonder if this has got something to do with Piantelli planning to step up this month his work/research on Ni-H LENR, according to sources in contact with him. Understandably, Rossi might want to be under the spotlight alone. Cheers, S.A.
Re: [Vo]:Only one size E-Cat?
Where did the 130,000 kW come from? Levi reported 130 kW for a brief period. Levi only reported that he saw the OUTSIDE of the reactor ... presumably a longer version of the bulge in the nekkid mini eCat. Essen and Kullander accepted ROSSI's statement that the current reactor is 50cc. All that we actually know is the size of the nearly-spherical 7cm bulge. Reactor Sphere diameter: 7.00 cm OUTER volume: 179.59 cm 3 EK didn't measure the weight of the Hydrogen. Lewan gives the weight AND the pressure: Weight hydrogen bottle (attached, opened, closed, and detached): - before: 13653.1 grams - after: 13652.6 grams Total loaded: 0.5 grams Pressure H2 Bottle: 85 bar Reduced: 12 bar From the weight (0.5g) and pressure (12 bar) we could compute the total pressurized volume. That would give an upper limit on the reactor volume. H Cylinder === valve 1 lost hydrogen === valve 2 === visible tubing === reactor The hydrogen between valve 1 and valve 2 is lost when the cylinder is disconnected. This is all industry-standard stuff, so one could build a dummy without a reactor, and subtract that volume from the observed volume. This could be compared to the total bulge volume. Not worth doing though ... 50cc vs 180cc isn't a significant difference. From: Axil Axil janap...@gmail.com To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Sunday, May 8, 2011 9:48:59 AM Subject: Re: [Vo]:Only one size E-Cat? If 500 cc volume were true... A cubed shaped reaction chamber with a volume of 50 CC that can produce a 130,000 kw heat spike would radiate at a power of 1 kilowatt per square centimeter give or take. The absolute black body radiation temperature of such a vessel would be 17,636,684,303 degrees.
Re: [Vo]:22 Steps of Love
That's the first report listing the observers for the February 18-hour test: Giuseppe Levi Andrea Rossi Daniele Passerini David Bianchini === must be Jed's source close to the test ! - Original Message - From: Terry Blanton Sent: Sunday, May 8, 2011 12:29:39 PM Subject: [Vo]:22 Steps of Love Our favorite blogger implies today that UoB is about to speak . . . or, at least, that's how I interpreted it. http://22passi.blogspot.com/ If it purrs like a duck . . . T
Re: [Vo]:Only one size E-Cat?
So Sorry, I had an order of magnitude error. But the point still applies. The point I was trying to make was that the 130 kw heat spike could not come from a reactor vessel with a limited surface area of a reaction vessel the size of a golf ball without melting. That heat spike must have only come from a vessel with a volume of at least one liter. On Sun, May 8, 2011 at 3:43 PM, Alan Fletcher a...@well.com wrote: Where did the 130,000 kW come from? Levi reported 130 kW for a brief period. Levi only reported that he saw the OUTSIDE of the reactor ... presumably a longer version of the bulge in the nekkid mini eCat. Essen and Kullander accepted ROSSI's statement that the current reactor is 50cc. All that we actually know is the size of the nearly-spherical 7cm bulge. Reactor Sphere diameter: 7.00 cm OUTER volume: 179.59 cm3 EK didn't measure the weight of the Hydrogen. Lewan gives the weight AND the pressure: Weight hydrogen bottle (attached, opened, closed, and detached): - before: 13653.1 grams - after: 13652.6 grams Total loaded: 0.5 grams Pressure H2 Bottle: 85 bar Reduced: 12 bar From the weight (0.5g) and pressure (12 bar) we could compute the total pressurized volume. That would give an upper limit on the reactor volume. H Cylinder === valve 1 lost hydrogen === valve 2 === visible tubing === reactor The hydrogen between valve 1 and valve 2 is lost when the cylinder is disconnected. This is all industry-standard stuff, so one could build a dummy without a reactor, and subtract that volume from the observed volume. This could be compared to the total bulge volume. Not worth doing though ... 50cc vs 180cc isn't a significant difference. -- *From: *Axil Axil janap...@gmail.com *To: *vortex-l@eskimo.com *Sent: *Sunday, May 8, 2011 9:48:59 AM *Subject: *Re: [Vo]:Only one size E-Cat? If 500 cc volume were true... A cubed shaped reaction chamber with a volume of 50 CC that can produce a 130,000 kw heat spike would radiate at a power of 1 kilowatt per square centimeter give or take. The absolute black body radiation temperature of such a vessel would be 17,636,684,303 degrees.
Re: [Vo]:NASA Working on LENR Replication and Theory Confirmation
On Sat, May 7, 2011 at 3:09 AM, Harry Veeder hlvee...@yahoo.com wrote: NASA Working on LENR Replication and Theory Confirmation http://blog.newenergytimes.com/2011/05/06/nasa-working-on-lenr-replication-and-theory-confirmation/ I finally got a chance to listen to the podcast: http://evworld.com/general.cfm?page=audiolist The Future of Energy: Part 1 23-Apr-2011 -- Part one of two part dialogue with the chief scientist at NASA's Langley research center on the most promising new energy sources, as well as the obstacles they face. dennis_bushnell_part1.mp3 The plan for NASA Langley to test LENR starts around 7:30. No need to register to access. Terry
Re: [Vo]:The UIBM has granted Rossi's patent
Hi, On 7-5-2011 22:26, Akira Shirakawa wrote: They've already put references to the Italian patent approved last month but that only recently (in the last couple days) people discovered. I don't think they would have done that without the exposure on Wikipedia and other channels (maybe even Vortex-l ?) on the Internet. It's even worse it seems there are some scammers active from the Netherlands. However visiting these domain-names is not possible anymore; it seems Defkalion has put their lawyer onto the matter. Kind regards, MoB
Re: [Vo]:22 Steps of Love
In reply to Terry Blanton's message of Sun, 8 May 2011 15:29:39 -0400: Hi, [snip] Our favorite blogger implies today that UoB is about to speak . . . or, at least, that's how I interpreted it. http://22passi.blogspot.com/ If it purrs like a duck . . . T ...if looks could kill..;) Regards, Robin van Spaandonk http://rvanspaa.freehostia.com/project.html
RE: [Vo]:NASA Working on LENR Replication and Theory Confirmation
-Original Message- From: mix...@bigpond.com In reply to Terry Blanton's message If NASA succeeds in getting excess energy, how are they going to prove that WL is responsible, rather than some other theory? Hmm ... let Krivit report the results ... ?g?
Re: [Vo]:Fraud Warning msg posted at Defkalion, May 7
Hi, On 8-5-2011 2:39, OrionWorks - Steven Vincent Johnson wrote: Anyone notice the Fraud warning message posted at the Defkalion web site? Yep, Did some digging in this, it seems there are 45 registered domain-names that are involved in this fraud. Sofar none of them is active anymore. But I've found proof that at least 12 people fell for this scam in the Netherlands/Belgium. Each of them paid at least $ 50.00 investment. Kind regards, MoB
Re: [Vo]:Only one size E-Cat?
In reply to Axil Axil's message of Sun, 8 May 2011 16:07:23 -0400: Hi, [snip] So Sorry, I had an order of magnitude error. But the point still applies. The point I was trying to make was that the 130 kw heat spike could not come from a reactor vessel with a limited surface area of a reaction vessel the size of a golf ball without melting. That heat spike must have only come from a vessel with a volume of at least one liter. You are assuming incorrectly that the heat would have to be disposed of by radiation. In fact it is disposed of by water cooling, which is capable of removing heat much more rapidly, and at a much lower temperature. Regards, Robin van Spaandonk http://rvanspaa.freehostia.com/project.html
[Vo]:Gas centrifuges
I surfed on gas centrifuges and two models were mentioned. One was about solid body rotation and the other about a pancake model. The physics in a gas centrifuge is very complex. Can anyone liste all the effects taking place? Just the adiabatic heat gradient there must be enormous. David David Jonsson, Sweden, phone callto:+46703000370
RE: [Vo]:RE: Supersizing the BJT
Terry sez: orionwo...@charter.net wrote: I'm steamed. Don't be steamed, be steam punked. Steam power is seeing a renaissance today even without Rossi. Here are several steam punked devices including a steam powered PC: http://www.wired.com/gadgets/mods/multimedia/2007/06/gallery_steampunk Cheered me right up. Thanks, Terry. Regards, Steven Vincent Johnson www.OrionWorks.com www.zazzle.com/orionworks
Re: RE: [Vo]:Thermal diode
This reminds me Andrea Rossis claim, that he invented a thermoelectrical element with 20% efficacy. Saw it here: http://esowatch.com/en/index.php?title=Focardi-Rossi_Energy-Catalyzer#Leonardo_Technologies_Inc. -- NEU: FreePhone - kostenlos mobil telefonieren und surfen! Jetzt informieren: http://www.gmx.net/de/go/freephone
Re: [Vo]:Fraud Warning msg posted at Defkalion, May 7
not only energycatalyzer.us was deleted. The same day disappeared also rossiportal.com. Is there a link? Days ago I made screenshots of all the pages. -- Empfehlen Sie GMX DSL Ihren Freunden und Bekannten und wir belohnen Sie mit bis zu 50,- Euro! https://freundschaftswerbung.gmx.de
Re: [Vo]:Fraud Warning msg posted at Defkalion, May 7
Hi, On 9-5-2011 1:50, Angela Kemmler wrote: not only energycatalyzer.us was deleted. The same day disappeared also rossiportal.com. Is there a link? Days ago I made screenshots of all the pages. Here is the list with 45 sites: http://www.energycatalyzer.us http://www.energycatalyzers.us http://www.energy-catalyzer.us http://www.ecatalyzer.us http://www.ecatalyzers.us http://www.e-catalyzer.us http://www.energycatalyzer.biz http://www.energycatalyzers.biz http://www.energy-catalyzer.biz http://www.ecatalyzer.biz http://www.ecatalyzers.biz http://www.e-catalyzer.biz http://www.energycatalyzer.eu http://www.energycatalyzers.eu http://www.energy-catalyzer.eu http://www.ecatalyzer.eu http://www.ecatalyzers.eu http://www.e-catalyzer.eu http://www.energycatalyzer.de http://www.energycatalyzer.nl http://www.energy-catalyzer.de http://www.energy-catalyzer.nl http://www.energycatalyzers.nl http://www.energycatalyzer.co.uk http://www.energycatalyzers.co.uk http://www.energy-catalyzer.co.uk http://www.ecatalyzer.co.uk http://www.ecatalyzers.co.uk http://www.e-catalyzer.co.uk http://www.energycatalyzer.info http://www.energycatalyzers.info http://www.energy-catalyzer.info http://www.ecatalyzer.info http://www.ecatalyzers.info http://www.e-catalyzer.info http://www.energycatalyzer.net http://www.energycatalyzers.net http://www.energy-catalyzer.net http://www.ecatalyzer.net http://www.ecatalyzers.net http://www.e-catalyzer.net http://www.e-catalyzer.com http://www.e-catalyzers.com http://www.rossicatalyzer.com http://www.rossicatalyzers.com Kind regards, MoB
Re: [Vo]:Fraud Warning msg posted at Defkalion, May 7
Hi, On 9-5-2011 1:50, Angela Kemmler wrote: not only energycatalyzer.us was deleted. The same day disappeared also rossiportal.com. Is there a link? Days ago I made screenshots of all the pages. Not as far as I can tell; http://www.rossiportal.com/ (or http://newenergytimes.com/v2/sr/RossiECat/RossiECatPortal.shtml) is accessible from here (i.e. the Netherlands) Kind regards, MoB
[Vo]:Self Running Free Energy
A Muller inspired Motor/Generator powering it's self suspended in air... http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8iNrjKFSLu4
Re: [Vo]:Self Running Free Energy
BTW, that thing dangling is an Electrolytic cap, not a battery. He has shared most of the construction details and is holding nothing back. On Mon, May 9, 2011 at 12:13 PM, John Berry aethe...@gmail.com wrote: A Muller inspired Motor/Generator powering it's self suspended in air... http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8iNrjKFSLu4
[Vo]:Re: [Vo]:A question about patents…
The ion processing of powders is the work seeking protection, the element used would not be limiting. The burden is whether this particular processing would be obvious to someone schooled in the art. In that case, no patent would issue. - Original Message - From: Axil Axil To: vortex-l Sent: Sunday, May 08, 2011 12:57 PM Subject: [Vo]:A question about patents… A question about patents… If the nickel catalyst turns out to be pure nickel nano-powder, but processed and prepared in a special way… Let’s say it is bombarded with fast high energy ions that produce many defects in the lattice structure of nickel nano-powder. Is the powder patentable or is the ion processing of the powder. If the same ion processing is done to copper nano-powder, is a separate patent needed to protest the IP of the nano-powder for that element or should the patent be used to protect the ion treatment of all metal nano-powders?
Re: [Vo]:Self Running Free Energy
The orientation of the magnets reminds me of Thane Heins' Perepiteia. Harry From: John Berry aethe...@gmail.com To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Sun, May 8, 2011 8:18:41 PM Subject: Re: [Vo]:Self Running Free Energy BTW, that thing dangling is an Electrolytic cap, not a battery. He has shared most of the construction details and is holding nothing back. On Mon, May 9, 2011 at 12:13 PM, John Berry aethe...@gmail.com wrote: A Muller inspired Motor/Generator powering it's self suspended in air...http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8iNrjKFSLu4
Re: [Vo]:Fraud Warning msg posted at Defkalion, May 7
On Sun, May 8, 2011 at 7:50 PM, Angela Kemmler angela.kemm...@gmx.de wrote: not only energycatalyzer.us was deleted. The same day disappeared also rossiportal.com. Is there a link? Days ago I made screenshots of all the pages. I have spoken to Krivit. He has a glitch on rossiportal.com. After you enter rossiportal.com and get the error message, hit F5 on your keyboard and it will pop up. He's working on it. (The direct link is http://newenergytimes.com/v2/sr/RossiECat/RossiECatPortal.shtml ) T
RE: RE: [Vo]:Thermal diode
Yes the similarity is striking, in many ways ... -Original Message- From: Angela Kemmler This reminds me Andrea Rossis claim, that he invented a thermoelectrical element with 20% efficacy. Saw it here: http://esowatch.com/en/index.php?title=Focardi-Rossi_Energy-Catalyzer#Leonardo_Technologies_Inc.
RE: [Vo]:Self Running Free Energy
A Muller inspired Motor/Generator powering it's self suspended in air... http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8iNrjKFSLu4 What are the details? ...it's history. How much energy does it allegedly generate? Regards, Steven Vincent Johnson www.OrionWorks.com www.zazzle.com/orionworks
RE: [Vo]:Self Running Free Energy
10 watts. Ironic that the one thing which can nullify the significance of the Rossi invention is an even more 'impossible' invention which is not only self-powering, which the E-Cat is not, but also with excess electrical power instead of heat. Which is not to say that this is not a repeat of Steorn/Mylow ... are we living in interesting times, or what? -Original Message- From: OrionWorks - Steven Vincent Johnson How much energy does it allegedly generate?
RE: [Vo]:Fraud Warning msg posted at Defkalion, May 7
From MoB: Here is the list with 45 [phishing] sites: [snip] Gak! Gag me with a spoon! Ya know... It's kind of weird to see so many phishing expeditions attempting to steal investors away from an official website that many consider equally dubious! ;-) Regards, Steven Vincent Johnson www.OrionWorks.com www.zazzle.com/orionworks
[Vo]:PM Orbo revisited
CLaNZeR is revisiting the very first claim by Steorn by constructing his own very well built apparatus. In his latest video he notes some unusual speeding up and slowing down...(or is it just a glitch...?) Automated PM-Orbo Rig Part 14 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tNlByHm8hZ8feature=feedu Steorn's initial paper (which did not depend on any proprietary secrets): http://www.overunity.org.uk/showthread.php?869-Steorns-PM-Orbo... Harry
Re: [Vo]:Self Running Free Energy
Details: http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/EVGRAYTOO/files/ (join up to access pdf) http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/EVGRAYTOO/files/ http://www.overunity.com/index.php?topic=3842.0 http://www.overunity.com/index.php?topic=10705.msg285087#new http://www.overunity.com/index.php?topic=3842.0 On Mon, May 9, 2011 at 1:05 PM, OrionWorks - Steven Vincent Johnson orionwo...@charter.net wrote: A Muller inspired Motor/Generator powering it's self suspended in air... http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8iNrjKFSLu4 What are the details? ...it's history. How much energy does it allegedly generate? Regards, Steven Vincent Johnson www.OrionWorks.com www.zazzle.com/orionworks
Re: [Vo]:Fraud Warning msg posted at Defkalion, May 7
What a waste of valuable domain names. Please don't confuse my site http://e-cat.us/ as a scam or phishing site.
