There are other possible sources of error:
So far I have seen, electrical non-insulated NiCrNi Thermoelements where
used.
If these have not close thermal contact to the metal, they will
partially measure the ambient air temperature.
If the air temperature is the average between hot steam 100°
Dr. George Miley Replicates Patterson, Names Rossi
http://ecatsite.wordpress.com/2011/10/22/dr-george-miley-replicates-patterson-names-rossi/
Hi David,
Yours was a very thoughtful post. It has taken some time to digest, and I can
say I have not fully evaluated the implications across the whole experiment.
However, I don’t think something so complicated need be invoked to explain the
power spike immediately after shutdown.
Peter Gluck peter.gl...@gmail.com wrote:
And a reason more to use a simple steam water mixing device (valve) to
condensate steam in the place of this finicky heat exchanger-
There is nothing finicky about the heat exchanger. It is an industrial
product. It is simple, reliable, predictable
On Sat, Oct 22, 2011 at 4:36 AM, David ledin
mathematic.analy...@gmail.com wrote:
Dr. George Miley Replicates Patterson, Names Rossi
http://ecatsite.wordpress.com/2011/10/22/dr-george-miley-replicates-patterson-names-rossi/
Hi, David,
This was discussed earlier in this thread if you are
Jed,
I should have used more careful wording in my post and the title is misleading.
I am thoroughly convinced that a lot of excess energy is produced by the ECAT
device. I made a poorly worded attempt to explain the large immediate peak in
calculated output power when the device is
1) I am not discussing if it was some excess heat the problem is its
control. In order to achieve some degree of control, Rossi has sacrificed
some basic parameters, reducing performance- power from 12-15 kW to 2-6 and
O/U from 200: 1 to 6:1 (actually less than 2:1 as value of the energy,
electric
Am 22.10.2011 16:32, schrieb Jed Rothwell:
This discussion about close contact to the metal and chemogalvanic
or electroosmotic voltages is blather. I am sorry to be harsh, but it
is irrelevant, evasive, nitpicking blather.
It is not.
Put 2 identical copper electrodes in water. Heat one, and
If somebody can understand this. please explain:
Mattia Battistich
October 22nd, 2011 at 9:59 AM
Dear Dr. Rossi,
1) A few weeks ago I remember reading a quote on you saying that by mid
October, a week before the test scheduled for the 28th, you would have
revealed the location where your first
My guess is that AR was approached by one entity who was really
representing a different entity. AR has now found who the first
entity represented and has learned that it wishes to remain anonymous.
LockMart?
T
On Sat, Oct 22, 2011 at 12:59 PM, Terry Blanton hohlr...@gmail.com wrote:
My guess is that AR was approached by one entity who was really
representing a different entity. AR has now found who the first
entity represented and has learned that it wishes to remain anonymous.
LockMart?
Well,
In a discussion here, I said that cold fusion will reduce the spikiness in
residential electric power demand. I referred the reader to chapter 15 of my
book for evidence of this. It turns out I did not actually say this in that
chapter. You have to read between the lines a little. Interpolate.
I
Thanks, very plausible. If this second Entity is satisfied
with a short test, it is OK for Rossi. Not for the value of the test. I ma
not very optimistic re the Customer's virtues.
On Sat, Oct 22, 2011 at 7:59 PM, Terry Blanton hohlr...@gmail.com wrote:
My guess is that AR was approached by one
The Excel simulation that I developed strongly supports the contention that
there is no overflow of water through the output port of the ECAT. There must
be a logical reason for the false secondary thermocouple reading peak at ECAT
turn off that does not include water pulses or overflow
Peter Heckert peter.heck...@arcor.de wrote:
This discussion about close contact to the metal and chemogalvanic or
electroosmotic voltages is blather. I am sorry to be harsh, but it is
irrelevant, evasive, nitpicking blather.
It is not.
Put 2 identical copper electrodes in water. Heat one,
Alan Fletcher a...@well.com wrote:
We have no information for or against water overflow for the October
experiment.
Yes, we do. The fact that the outgoing flow rate varied while the pump
remained steady shows that it was not overflowing. The fact that it
correlated with the power level shows
BTW one thing not discussed earlier was slide #48 - entitled Preliminary
Excess Heat Measurement etc.
This used nanopowder supplied by Brian Ahern, if I am not mistaken, and yet
it was NOT his most active nanopowder. Not even close. There is a typo in
the description which should have included Ni
I meant to write:
You misunderstand. It is blather because it is not important. Even if you
right, it does not affect the conclusion, and it does NOT reduce confidence
in the results.
You fail to understand that when the s/n ratio is gigantic, you do not need
precision to be sure the result
Hi Bob,
I appreciate your response to my post. It is important to me that I have a
clear understanding of the relationship between the real output power delivered
to the heat exchanger and the internal energy of the ECAT. My suspicion is
that ultimately we will be able to correlate the
Sorry again, I meant to write:
Houses will not have power wiring. It is dangerous, after all. It can
electrocute people or cause FIRES, even if it is DC.
Notice the ratio of watts to volt-amps (startup surge) from the calculator:
Scenario 1, lots of electric stuff:
10720 W Total Starting
I have a gas water heater. Thinking it through, it occurred to me that you
really want a rather large pilot light running all the time -- it should put
out just the right amount of heat to keep the water at its temperature set
point under the conditions of the highest ambient temperature around
Maybe there was an acquisition since the arrangement was made.
Sent from my iPhone.
On Oct 22, 2011, at 12:29, Peter Gluck peter.gl...@gmail.com wrote:
If somebody can understand this. please explain:
Mattia Battistich
October 22nd, 2011 at 9:59 AM
Dear Dr. Rossi,
1) A few weeks ago
Am 22.10.2011 19:49, schrieb Jed Rothwell:
Peter Heckert peter.heck...@arcor.de mailto:peter.heck...@arcor.de
wrote:
This discussion about close contact to the metal and
chemogalvanic or electroosmotic voltages is blather. I am sorry
to be harsh, but it is irrelevant, evasive,
On Sat, Oct 22, 2011 at 3:54 PM, Charles Hope
lookslikeiwasri...@gmail.com wrote:
Maybe there was an acquisition since the arrangement was made.
That also fits the story.
T
Large companies have many different subsidiaries. It could be that
they had contacts with the industrial group X without knowing
that the one among the subsidiaries interested in the e-cat is
working for military applications. In US there are a number of those.
US because Rossi says that is
Am 22.10.2011 22:16, schrieb Peter Heckert:
It is common in science and technics, some people repeat the same
error over and over because they refuse to think and instead judge
from experience and belief. They think if it worked 3 times for then
it will work 100 times for others.
But
In 1908, the Wright brothers ignited the first modern worldwide media frenzy
by demonstrating the airplane. They were soon feted by Royalty in Europe,
and by the president in the White House. They were in the headlines for
months. They flew in front of a million people in New York City in 1909.
Peter Heckert peter.heck...@arcor.de wrote:
We know there was energy and we know there was a heater.
Nobody denies there was energy.
You cannot make a conclusion from heat to anamolus energy. This is junk
[science].
Yes, you can make this conclusion. That is why Curies knew that radium
Yes, here is the reason why they did not believe:
http://youtu.be/kEdtvct6Tf0
The Wright brothers where not the only one. There where hundreds of
others, that built -from our todays viewpoint- ridiculous and funny
machines. Most did not fly at all and some did 2 meters and then crashed.
People
Peter Heckert peter.heck...@arcor.de wrote:
Yes, here is the reason why they did not believe:
http://youtu.be/kEdtvct6Tf0
The Wright brothers where not the only one. There where hundreds of others,
that built -from our todays viewpoint- ridiculous and funny machines. . . .
On the other
Why should it be assumed that improper equipment been used in these tests? The
meter used with the thermocouples is listed in Mats Lewan's report:
* Temperature logger Testo 177-T3 0554 1765 Usb Interface
The specification I read listed the temperature range as -40 to +120 C. Does
that
Hoyt A. Stearns Jr. hoyt.stea...@gmail.com wrote:
Thinking it through, it occurred to me that you really want a rather large
pilot light running all the time -- it should put out just the right amount
of heat to keep the water at its temperature set point under the conditions
of the highest
I told Miley to use nanopowder. If you dont believe it check the lecture in
2010. Runs on IE.
http://www.angelfire.com/scifi2/zpt/chaptere.html
--
Jones Beene jone...@pacbell.net wrote:
In one early test in Bologna, a tank of deuterium was seen, which -LOL-
Rossi claimed was use to quench the reaction! In retrospect, this could be
part as an outrageous deception - and D2 is in fact Rossi's only big
secret,
not the catalyst.
So the
34 matches
Mail list logo
