On Fri, Jul 15, 2011 at 12:50 AM, Joshua Cude joshua.c...@gmail.com wrote:
On Thu, Jul 14, 2011 at 10:19 PM, Abd ul-Rahman Lomax a...@lomaxdesign.com
wrote:
Semantics. Yes, steam can be much wetter than 20%, particularly after
condenstation, under marginal conditions it could approach
You're right. Someone of the group of seven attendees had placed an ammeter
on the line. The line voltage is either assumed or measured to be 220 VAC.
(Levan reports ~236 VAC.)
At least once, the ammeter was read. The quoted phrase referring to start
up:
The electric heater was switched on at
Why did you choose the words red herring for a discriptive? Who uses
these?
On Thu, Jul 14, 2011 at 8:30 AM, Abd ul-Rahman Lomax
a...@lomaxdesign.comwrote:
In many discussions of this, it was assumed that the only issue was steam
quality. If we were to assume very wet steam, say 20% by
2011/7/15 Abd ul-Rahman Lomax a...@lomaxdesign.com:
I don't know what it is about this, but Jed seems to have lost his ability
to read and understand Of course, it could be me, I suppose. Aren't we
always the last to know?
I think that it is both, because you speak different language. You
Robin,
I have always maintained that Casimir geometry can form between the
grains of metal powders but the present thread is making a good point
regarding the shape of these grains. Perhaps even the term tubercles is still
too rounded or organic sounding when we should be considering a
You want Young's Modulus, see Wikipedia
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Young%27s_modulus
- Original Message -
From: Mark Iverson zeropo...@charter.net
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Sent: Thursday, July 14, 2011 7:02 PM
Subject: RE: [Vo]:Ecatreport part 2
But Robin, how about the 2nd half of
Daniel Rocha wrote:
So,
why not making an LENR experiment close to a big neutrino detector,
like the kamiokande?
This was done at Kamiokande. Unfortunately the experiment was amateur
and there is no chance it produced a cold fusion effect. It would be a
good idea to try again with a
Any link to the experiment?
Abd ul-Rahman Lomax wrote:
And this has been said to you many times, Jed, and you keep repeating
that this is nonsense.
It is all nonsense and bullshit. The 18-hour tests with flowing water
proved that the large cell is producing ~17 kW. The Lewan video proved
that the smaller cells are
Damon Craig wrote:
1) How often the ammeter was observed is unreported.
People have done any number of cold fusion experiments, including Ni-H
ones, in which input power was recorded on computer. If you don't wish
to believe this particular experiment then I suggest you look at some of
On Fri, Jul 15, 2011 at 8:53 AM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com wrote:
It is all nonsense and bullshit. The 18-hour tests with flowing water
proved that the large cell is producing ~17 kW.
If it did, then the steam should have been a few hundred degrees C in the
January test, and not
Since only Rossi and Levi were present at the 18 hr test, it is possible that
Rossi fooled Levi by tampering with the instruments prior to the tests.
Harry
From Jed and Josh:
It is all nonsense and bullshit. The 18-hour tests with
flowing water proved that the large cell is producing
~17 kW.
If it did, then the steam should have been a few hundred
degrees C in the January test, and not 100C. But of course
it doesn't prove anything other than
On Fri, Jul 15, 2011 at 11:44 AM, OrionWorks - Steven V Johnson
svj.orionwo...@gmail.com wrote:
From Jed and Josh:
It is all nonsense and bullshit. The 18-hour tests with
flowing water proved that the large cell is producing
~17 kW.
If it did, then the steam should have been a few
Well, since now it is pretty clear to many of us that none of the
demos provide proof of excess heat, then the judgement call is whether
to decide that there is no Rossi excess heat.
I came up intuitively, out of my sensitive vapors, with the scenario
that Rossi found that increasing the electric
[ duplicate from parallel discussion }
Well, since now it is pretty clear to many of us that none of the
demos provide proof of excess heat, then the judgement call is whether
to decide that there is no Rossi excess heat.
I came up intuitively, out of my sensitive vapors, with the scenario
that
At 09:42 AM 7/15/2011, Harry Veeder wrote:
Since only Rossi and Levi were present at the 18 hr test, it is
possible that Rossi fooled Levi by tampering with the instruments
prior to the tests.
Krivit gave us an observer list at
http://newenergytimes.com/v2/sr/RossiECat/RossiECatPortal.shtml
Harry Veeder wrote:
Since only Rossi and Levi were present at the 18 hr test, it is
possible that Rossi fooled Levi by tampering with the instruments
prior to the tests.
This is not possible. It is very easy to confirm that the instruments
were more-or-less correct with visual and tactile
I am going by this report:
http://www.nyteknik.se/nyheter/energi_miljo/energi/article3108242.ece
Harry
From: Alan J Fletcher a...@well.com
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Sent: Friday, July 15, 2011 1:44:31 PM
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Levi's likely attitude
At 09:42 AM 7/15/2011, Harry Veeder wrote:
Since
I wander here into what I'm currently excited about
At 09:44 AM 7/15/2011, Jed Rothwell wrote:
Daniel Rocha wrote:
So,
why not making an LENR experiment close to a big neutrino detector,
like the kamiokande?
This was done at Kamiokande. Unfortunately the experiment was
amateur and
Obviously I meant to write:
. . . you can feel the OUTLET is substantially warmer than the INLET. . . .
I meant in the 18-hour test with flowing liquid water. As described here:
http://www.nyteknik.se/nyheter/energi_miljo/energi/article3108242.ece
. . . the inlet was tap-water temperature,
On Fri, Jul 15, 2011 at 1:21 PM, Mark Iverson zeropo...@charter.net wrote:
**
JC stated:
...and the heated walls are at a higher temperature. So, it must get
hotter.
What makes you think that the walls of the vertical section (i.e., the
'chimney') are at a higher temperature than the walls
At 09:53 AM 7/15/2011, Jed Rothwell wrote:
Abd ul-Rahman Lomax wrote:
And this has been said to you many times, Jed,
and you keep repeating that this is nonsense.
It is all nonsense and bullshit.
Sure, with proper specification of the it. Nice to be able to agree.
The 18-hour tests with
At 10:32 AM 7/15/2011, Joshua Cude wrote:
On Fri, Jul 15, 2011 at 8:53 AM, Jed Rothwell
mailto:jedrothw...@gmail.comjedrothw...@gmail.com wrote:
It is all nonsense and bullshit. The 18-hour
tests with flowing water proved that the large cell is producing ~17 kW.
If it did, then the steam
Ok, I accept it is not possible to fake the results by tampering with the
instruments,
but there might be other ways such as the water diversion trick using a hose
within a hose. This would make the outside of the hose feel warm. In order to
rule this out the the end of the hose should be
In this case there is only one problem/question. 1L per second i.e. 15.65
gpm is an incredibly high flow for a tap
and for the water feeding tubes. Perhaps a garden hose
could do it. It seems it was a surprise- the 130kW heat peak and this was
quenched with the maximum available flow.
No flowmeter
Joshua,
I waited in anticipation to see if you could help explain to me the
errors I might have made in my reasoning. I was astonished to discover
that the jest of your replies struck me as being just as much of a
seat-of-the-pants explanation as you apparently accuse me of doing.
For example:
Abd ul-Rahman Lomax a...@lomaxdesign.com wrote:
There is no other way to be sure you have a cold fusion effect in the first
place. There is no point to testing a cell that is not producing heat.
That's not *entirely true*, but it is a huge caveat. In the early days,
lots of experiments
Peter Gluck wrote:
In this case there is only one problem/question. 1L per second i.e.
15.65 gpm is an incredibly high flow for a tap
and for the water feeding tubes. Perhaps a garden hose could do it.
In a commercial building it should not be a problem.
It seems it was a surprise- the
To be fair, in this report
http://www.journal-of-nuclear-physics.com/files/Rossi-Focardi_paper.pdf
Rossi and Focardi describe some other water flow tests on page 3.
Harry
From: Peter Gluck peter.gl...@gmail.com
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Sent: Friday, July 15, 2011 3:08:17 PM
Subject: Re:
Harry Veeder wrote:
To be fair, in this report
http://www.journal-of-nuclear-physics.com/files/Rossi-Focardi_paper.pdf
Rossi and Focardi describe some other water flow tests on page 3.
This link does not work. Want to try again?
- Jed
On Fri, Jul 15, 2011 at 2:15 PM, OrionWorks - Steven V Johnson
svj.orionwo...@gmail.com wrote:
Joshua,
I waited in anticipation to see if you could help explain to me the
errors I might have made in my reasoning.
And yet you responded to everything except the part where I explained the
This link does not work. Want to try again?
It's in this list:
http://www.journal-of-nuclear-physics.com/files/
Craig
Manchester, NH
On Fri, 2011-07-15 at 16:17 -0400, Jed Rothwell wrote:
Harry Veeder wrote:
To be fair, in this report
From: Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Sent: Friday, July 15, 2011 4:17:16 PM
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Levi's likely attitude
Harry Veeder wrote:
To be fair, in this report
http://www.journal-of-nuclear-physics.com/files/Rossi-Focardi_paper.pdf
Rossi and Focardi describe
Harry Veeder wrote:
Hmm I guess only direct downloading is allowed,
so go here:
http://www.journal-of-nuclear-physics.com/
and look for Rossi-Focardi paper listed under resources on the left side of the
page.
You mean the RIGHT side. Right bottom, where it says Rossi-Focardi paper.
I am
Lewan addresses, in this report, some of the issues which had been
raised by discussions.
http://www.nyteknik.se/nyheter/energi_miljo/energi/article3166552.ece
As previously, the power output was calculated from the amount of
water boiled into steam, and thus depends on the water flow. At the
Harry Veeder wrote:
To be fair, in this report
http://www.journal-of-nuclear-physics.com/files/Rossi-Focardi_paper.pdf
Rossi and Focardi describe some other water flow tests on page 3.
The text is confusing. The liquid flowing water tests are listed in
Table 1, p. 4. Flowing water is method
Orionworks wrote:
Joshua,
I waited in anticipation to see if you could help explain to me the
errors I might have made in my reasoning. I was astonished to discover
that the jest of your replies struck me as being just as much of a
seat-of-the-pants explanation as you apparently accuse me of
From: Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Sent: Friday, July 15, 2011 4:36:48 PM
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Levi's likely attitude
Harry Veeder wrote:
Hmm I guess only direct downloading is allowed,
so go here:
http://www.journal-of-nuclear-physics.com/
and look for
So here's a cute experiment, done by accident while on vacation.
Take a smooth china mug, and fill it with water.
Stir the water, so it's swirling nicely (if you don't do this only the
surface will get hot and the experiment probably won't work).
Put it in a microwave on high power for a
Superheated, and it requires some special circumstances.
On Fri, Jul 15, 2011 at 2:03 PM, Stephen A. Lawrence sa...@pobox.com wrote:
So here's a cute experiment, done by accident while on vacation.
Take a smooth china mug, and fill it with water.
Stir the water, so it's swirling nicely (if
I suspect you were using pure water and it superheated. You were lucky -
superheated water from a microwave can explode and cause a burn.
Myth-buster did short vid on it - using a sugar cube instead of tea bag.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1_OXM4mr_i0
-Original Message-
From: Stephen
2011/7/15 Abd ul-Rahman Lomax a...@lomaxdesign.com:
I must say, I'm appalled at how much time has been wasted on
inadequate demonstrations.
This is surprising considering that anyone here has never said
anything that those demonstrations has any scientific relevance. That
is simply because they
- Original Message -
From: Stephen A. Lawrence sa...@pobox.com
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Cc:
Sent: Friday, July 15, 2011 5:03:11 PM
Subject: [Vo]:They say liquid water can't be hotter than boiling...
So here's a cute experiment, done by accident while on vacation.
Take a smooth
Ive never done swirling, but if you heat to boiling, then let cool, it
removes a lot of gas, and lets you superheat tap water.
On Fri, Jul 15, 2011 at 2:27 PM, Harry Veeder hlvee...@yahoo.com wrote:
- Original Message -
From: Stephen A. Lawrence sa...@pobox.com
To:
Never tried the superheating water in china. I would assume that it's the lack
of nucleation sites on the smooth china. Pure water can be driven well outside
of normal phase-change temperatures when there's a lack of nucleation sites.
The tea bag or sugar cube would merely serve as a place
Joshua, Stephen,
I have no desire to incessantly argue my POV - till I'm blue in the
face. As I've stated many times in the past, I might be wrong.
In any case I think I now understand where our mutual misunderstanding
might lie. There appears to be a semantics problem, one that may have
Stephen A. Lawrence wrote:
Pure steam, hotter than 100C, is a stable effluent: If the power
output varies a little bit, you'll still be making pure steam at some
temperature above 100C.
Pure steam, at 100C, is *not* stable: If the output power varies just
a little, you'll either be making
- Original Message -
From: Stephen A. Lawrencesa...@pobox.com
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Cc:
Sent: Friday, July 15, 2011 5:03:11 PM
Subject: [Vo]:They say liquid water can't be hotter than boiling...
So here's a cute experiment, done by accident while on vacation.
Take a smooth china
Jouni Valkonen wrote:
These are just demonstrations, not scientific validations. And the
purpose of them was that Rossi let some people to observe, while he
was doing his own tests for the E-Cat units. Only January
demonstration was actual demonstration.
Exactly right. Rossi said this, very
The reason is because you need nucleation sites for boiling to start. The
teabag adds them.
- Original Message -
From: Stephen A. Lawrence sa...@pobox.com
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Sent: Friday, July 15, 2011 5:55 PM
Subject: Re: [Vo]:They say liquid water can't be hotter than boiling...
Hello group,
A new interview to Sergio Focardi has been posted on Passerini's blog here:
http://22passi.blogspot.com/2011/07/intervista-di-focardi-energylab.html
Google translated short link: http://goo.gl/nxcMG
It contains some interesting bits of information. I recommend reading it.
At 03:21 PM 7/15/2011, Akira Shirakawa wrote:
A new interview to Sergio Focardi has been posted on Passerini's blog here:
http://22passi.blogspot.com/2011/07/intervista-di-focardi-energylab.html
Google translated short link: http://goo.gl/nxcMG
It contains some interesting bits of information. I
Martin
July 14th, 2011 at 1:57 PM
Dear mr Rossi,
Today there was a meeting with NASA about your invention. Is it possible
to give some information about this meeting? If it is not possible no
problem!
Im just very curious.
Best regards
Martin
Andrea Rossi
July 15th, 2011 at 7:24 AM
Dear
Cold Fusion, Warm Future. A New Day Dawning?
http://www.thesussexnewspaper.com/columnists/3061-cold-fusion-warm-future-a-new-day-dawning.html
You may be happy to learn that while lunatics have been busy knocking
seven bells out of foreign countries so as to purloin oil, which is soon
going to
Hi,
From what I know, is that when you want to boil a cup of water in a
microwave (b.t.w. over here we tend to call it a magnetron),
you are required to put a metal spoon in the cup of water to make sure
it will boil in a regular way.
I seem to recall it has to do something with the surface
I suppose they know the secret sauce?
T
ermmm... putting metal in microwave can be BD, mmmkay.
On Fri, Jul 15, 2011 at 5:37 PM, Man on Bridges manonbrid...@aim.com wrote:
Hi,
From what I know, is that when you want to boil a cup of water in a
microwave (b.t.w. over here we tend to call it a magnetron),
you are required to
A decade ago I would clean the microwave by putting a bowl in the microwave
with water and dishliquid and nuke the crap out of it, it wouldn't boil but
then I'd throw a teaspoon in it and it would explode with hot bubbles and
froth, the microwave was cleaned with superheated water and steam, but
Dear Alan,
please let me know what's the source (url) of this info; it is not in his
1072 answers at his website. And there are other places where Rossi speaks?
Thanks!
Peter
On Sat, Jul 16, 2011 at 2:22 AM, Alan J Fletcher a...@well.com wrote:
Martin
July 14th, 2011 at 1:57
60 matches
Mail list logo
