Jones,
Did he make the background measure and the active run measure with the
detector in the same place and same orientation?
If he did, then the dip recorded during the active run would mean an
_active_ ecat can reduce background radiation.
Harry
On Sun, Jun 2, 2013 at 12:08 AM, wrote:
>
On Fri, May 31, 2013 at 9:11 AM, Edmund Storms wrote:
>
> On May 30, 2013, at 11:39 PM, Harry Veeder wrote:
>
> On Thu, May 30, 2013 at 11:00 AM, Edmund Storms wrote:
>
>> Harry, imagine balls held in line by springs. If the end ball is pull
>> away with a force and let go, a resonance wave will p
LENR could be a gateway into the theory of everything.
The central dilemma at the very heart of LENR is what causes nuclear
reactions at low energy levels.
But are the energies generated in LENR low, or are they potentially
gigantic beyond the reach of any possible supercollider.
Grand unifi
In reply to David Roberson's message of Sun, 2 Jun 2013 00:41:42 -0400 (EDT):
Hi,
[snip]
>
>Robin, how would Rossi prevent the lead from melting at the elevated
>temperatures? Do you suspect that he has it confined within a closed shell of
>some kind? I do not recall seeing any place for it to
On Sat, Jun 1, 2013 at 9:35 PM, David Roberson wrote:
> It is apparent that Mr. Cude does not have a valid case and is not willing
> to discuss the issues. We can show that every one of his positions is
> nothing more than speculation with absolutely no substantiation.
>
> He refuses to acknowle
On Fri, May 31, 2013 at 10:57 AM, Joshua Cude wrote:
> On Fri, May 31, 2013 at 4:29 AM, Kevin O'Malley wrote:
>
>>
>>
>>
>> Put yourself in the shoes of those 7 scientists who have placed their
>> reputations on the line.
>>
>
>
>
>
>
> I don't think it's a big risk. They can plausibly claim igno
Robin, how would Rossi prevent the lead from melting at the elevated
temperatures? Do you suspect that he has it confined within a closed shell of
some kind? I do not recall seeing any place for it to hide.
Dave
-Original Message-
From: mixent
To: vortex-l
Sent: Sun, Jun 2, 2013 1
It is apparent that Mr. Cude does not have a valid case and is not willing to
discuss the issues. We can show that every one of his positions is nothing
more than speculation with absolutely no substantiation.
He refuses to acknowledge errors that he continues to present as fact when he
knows
In reply to Jones Beene's message of Sat, 1 Jun 2013 19:59:52 -0700:
Hi,
[snip]
>Let me add that in the appendix to the Penon report, David Bianchini finds
>not only "no significant radiation" over background, but actually the peak
>radiation counts are slightly less during the experiment than bac
In reply to Jones Beene's message of Sat, 1 Jun 2013 19:35:11 -0700:
Hi,
[snip]
>-Original Message-
>From: mix...@bigpond.com
>
>Hi Robin,
>
>>> The H2 is of course f/H molecules.
>
>> Still three body reactions - no way
>
>>> No, these are all two body reactions, because the f/H is bound
Hello Vortex-L participants,
First, I'd like to introduce myself, since this is my first time posting to
the list.
Thus far, I've only read the web archives sporadically, and have found the
most interesting discussion matters to be well over my head, since I have no
formal nuclear physics
Well, that's the general strategy of group selection: Get the group on
your side and go after the individual, or, failing that, after the smaller
group. It isn't the human condition so much as it is the civil condition
to which humanity has subjected itself. It is _very_ difficult to maintain
soc
Let me add that in the appendix to the Penon report, David Bianchini finds
not only "no significant radiation" over background, but actually the peak
radiation counts are slightly less during the experiment than background,
indicating the apparatus shields the detector from cosmic rays slightly.
than that I wonder if the barrier is lower on the
time axis.
Fran
Jones
<http://www.mail-archive.com/search?l=vortex-l@eskimo.com&q=from:%22Jones+Be
ene%22> Beene Sat,
<http://www.mail-archive.com/search?l=vortex-l@eskimo.com&q=date:20130601>
01 Jun 2013 19:35:5
The tactic of the obstructionist is to avoid dealing with the case
presented by the derided through justly committed believer, but to
prejudice the less technically conversant members of the general public who
might be evaluating the debate.
The obstructionist realizes that neither his farfetche
-Original Message-
From: mix...@bigpond.com
Hi Robin,
>> The H2 is of course f/H molecules.
> Still three body reactions - no way
>> No, these are all two body reactions, because the f/H is bound in a
pico/femto molecule, and approaches the target nucleus as a single
(composite) entity
In reply to Robert Lynn's message of Fri, 31 May 2013 11:44:44 +0100:
Hi,
[snip]
>Killing off opposing views like Abd, Andrew and others does not improve the
>quality of the discourse. I like that imagination, wild ideas and hope
>have free rein here, but I also think it is essential to temper th
In reply to Jones Beene's message of Sat, 1 Jun 2013 17:27:32 -0700:
Hi,
[snip]
>-Original Message-
>
>From: mix...@bigpond.com
>
>Hi Robin,
>
>> The H2 is of course f/H molecules.
>
>Still three body reactions - no way
No, these are all two body reactions, because the f/H is bound in a
> From: "Claudio C Fiorini"
> Sent: Saturday, June 1, 2013 2:20:48 PM
> I checked it: I made an error. 147 V / 24 A were used in the test you
> mentioned, in august 2012, not november 20 in 2013.
Phew! For a minute I thought Rossi had mastered time travel.
That would explain a lot: he could
I asked George X if they were going to present at ICCF and demo at NI Week.
[I have leased a booth at NI Week (under the name of Neo-Coulombic) and I have
not seen the Defkalion company name on the exhibitor list.
https://niweek2013.activeevents.com/connect/search.ww ]
The answer I got back
Extra heat in the form of thermal pulse might disrupt a resonance that was
enabling the production excess heat.
Harry
On Sat, Jun 1, 2013 at 5:56 PM, David L Babcock wrote:
> Apparently there's two threads of thought here:
>
> a: Apply heat to make the process start, and more heat to take
On Sat, Jun 1, 2013 at 5:10 PM, Eric Walker wrote:
> On Sat, Jun 1, 2013 at 2:02 PM, Jones Beene wrote:
>
> The ultimate source of energy cannot be determined as of now but
>> Rossi’s hundreds of hours of operation at kilowatt levels with no gammas
>> clearly indicates NO fusion.
>>
>
> I don'
-Original Message-
From: mix...@bigpond.com
Hi Robin,
> The H2 is of course f/H molecules.
Still three body reactions - no way
> Nevertheless, I suspect that indeed the primary source of energy in his
reactor is the formation of f/H.
Yup. By a large factor.
There is actually an eas
Does anyone know if the power analyzer sees DC *VOLTAGES*?
--
Berke Durak
In reply to Jones Beene's message of Sat, 1 Jun 2013 14:33:22 -0700:
Hi,
[snip]
>Eric,
>
>
>
>I have dined on crow before and prefer mine well-charred with a nice Pinot
>Noir
>
>
>
>The ultimate source of energy cannot be determined as of now but Rossis
>hundreds of hours of operation at kil
On Sat, Jun 1, 2013 at 5:33 PM, Jones Beene wrote:
> I have dined on crow before and prefer mine well-charred with a nice Pinot
> Noir…
Foul! Fowl demands a white, say chardonnay,
Jones Beene wrote:
> Ockham be damned ! Don’t forget that appeals to “parsimony” were used by
> skeptics to argue the wrong side of many past issues - against DNA for
> instance, as the carrier of genetic information. . . .
>
It is a rule of thumb, not a law of physics.
". . . more what you'd
On Sat, Jun 1, 2013 at 3:36 AM, Joshua Cude wrote:
> It should be as demonstrable as the Wright's 1908 flight, which converted
> all serious skeptics long before commercial flight. There are plenty of
> anomalies that were accepted instantly because the evidence was strong.
> Your statement has
On Sat, Jun 1, 2013 at 5:40 PM, Jed Rothwell wrote:
> Harry Veeder wrote:
>
>
>> Likewise if the testers concluded that the ecat did not work, the true
>> believers will reject the assessment
>> because they consider the testers untrustworthy.
>>
>
> There have been several failed tests, such as
Apparently there's two threads of thought here:
a: Apply heat to make the process start, and more heat to take it to a
higher cop. Stop the heat (or increase cooling) to bring the process
back from cascade and ruin. This one seems to describe what Rossi has,
and what Dave Roberson is modeling
Cude wrote:
> The simple fact is that the measurements made and reported are woefully
>> inadequate to exclude deception.
>>
>
That is not a simple fact. It is an imaginary fact, like all of Cude's
statements about McKubre. He says things and then assumes they are correct,
but saying does not mak
On Sat, Jun 1, 2013 at 6:36 AM, Joshua Cude wrote:
>
> Skeptics would change their minds in a heart beat with good evidence, just
> as they did in 1908. But there is nothing that will convince true believers
> in cold fusion that they are wrong.
>
>>
>
>
You should persuade the youtube poster t
Harry Veeder wrote:
> Likewise if the testers concluded that the ecat did not work, the true
> believers will reject the assessment
> because they consider the testers untrustworthy.
>
There have been several failed tests, such as the one NASA did. I do not
know anyone who claims these tests ac
Eric,
I have dined on crow before and prefer mine well-charred with a nice Pinot Noir…
The ultimate source of energy cannot be determined as of now but Rossi’s
hundreds of hours of operation at kilowatt levels with no gammas clearly
indicates NO fusion.
I don't exclude the possibility
I checked it: I made an error. 147 V / 24 A were used in the test you
mentioned, in august 2012, not november 20 in 2013.
On Sat, Jun 1, 2013 at 6:02 AM, Joshua Cude wrote:
> The simple fact is that the measurements made and reported are woefully
> inadequate to exclude deception.
>
>
Unless Rossi tells people how to build an ecat or starts selling them, no
test will ever exclude deception.
It always possible that
On Sat, Jun 1, 2013 at 2:02 PM, Jones Beene wrote:
The ultimate source of energy cannot be determined as of now but Rossi’s
> hundreds of hours of operation at kilowatt levels with no gammas clearly
> indicates NO fusion.
>
I don't exclude the possibility that there's something Millsean going
Jed wrote:
I do not understand what you are saying here. Are you saying that Rossi was
present? Or that that he interfered with the experiment?
I do not think that Levi or his co-authors has said that Rossi was absent.
Only that he played no role in the testing, and he did not touch the
equipmen
Jones Beene wrote:
Most cold fusion experiments have been milliwatt level and do not use the
> very sophisticated setup of Bianchini . . .
>
Fleischmann and Pons ran hundreds of tests with boiling cells, at 20 to 100
W. They has sophisticated detectors. They found nothing as far as I know.
>
From: Jed Rothwell wrote:
Bianchini finds zero radiation over hundreds of hours of careful radiation
testing.
Most cold fusion experiments produce no measurable radiation over hundreds
of hours, including Pd-D ones.
Most cold fusion experiments have been milliwatt level and do not
"Why do entangled proton pairs pass through the coulomb barrier of a heavy
element nucleus with high probability in collisions with energies well below
those required to breach this barrier?"
Those who have been hangin' out in the Dime Box Saloon for a few years know
of my descriptions of subat
I know this email list is for discussing "alternative" and "unconventional"
power sources, but sometimes it can be useful to look back at some
"conventional" projects (which went nowhere), and see how the press handled the
news.
55 years ago Britain was going to save the world:
http://www.brit
Charles, a week before they started the test in december 2012 (dec. 7 to
dec. 17, testing: december 13 to 17), on november 20, they did the same.
The reactor was supplied that day by a AC tension of 147 V, and current was
24 to 25 A. Power is then 3.5 to 3.6 kW. The two resistors were connected
in
> From: "David Roberson"
> Sent: Saturday, June 1, 2013 9:28:13 AM
> Let me make a suggestion Robert. The linear technology company
> publishes a spice program that can be downloaded and used by the
> general public.
That's the LTspice I just recommended.
> From: "Robert Lynn"
> Sent: Saturday, June 1, 2013 9:14:06 AM
>
> Don't think I have Microsim pspice lying around anywhere anymore (and
> non-GUI is very slow and clumsy if not using it frequently), it was
> an excellent little tool (or was in late 90's when I used it last)
> that I spent 100's
Alan Fletcher wrote:
That was the Italian wiki.
>
There is an article in English:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Andrea_Rossi_(entrepreneur)
It is linked to an Italian one, which is gone, as you say.
- Jed
> This is the post you wanted to see as follows:
>
> =
>
> See references:
Interesting paper.
I've only perused it, but it may be that eigenstates of unstable atoms are
sometimes dramatically shifted in these environments
- deep potential wells can become much shall
It takes two to tango. maybe the NI people did not take kindly to the idea.
Such a demo would be a major distraction from the other things that NI want
to do at their show.
Just think if you invite Elvis or Bill Clinton to your party, you may not
receive the personal attention form the other party
Peter,
If it will be a real demo why didn't she write that?
I listened to Sterling Allan's audio interview from two months ago and the
representative from Defkalion stated quite clearly
that they intended to set up working device at National Instruments Week
this august. Perhaps
Defkalion is no lo
Jones Beene wrote:
> Bianchini finds zero radiation over hundreds of hours of careful radiation
> testing.
Most cold fusion experiments produce no measurable radiation over hundreds
of hours, including Pd-D ones.
Essen finds no radioactivity in the ash. No excess deuterium or
> tritium have
Sterling put together a handy compilation of recent mass media articles,
and claims:
http://pesn.com/2013/05/30/9602324_LENR-to-Market_Weekly_May30/
He also advocates signing this petition:
https://petitions.whitehouse.gov/petition/form-national-commission-research-lenr-energy-production-devices
-Original Message-
From: Edmund Storms
> The Mills effect is a different phenomenon all together. His effect is not
nuclear, as he admits.
Yes, but that is not relevant to understanding Rossi. Many other
researchers, including Miley have incorporated major parts of Mills theory
into a n
This is the post you wanted to see as follows:
=
See references:
http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&frm=1&;
source=web&cd=1&cad=rja&sqi=2&ved=0CC4QFjAA&url=http%3A%2F%
2Farxiv.org%2Fpdf%2F1112.6276&ei=nI6UUeG1Fq-N0QGypIAg&usg=AFQjCNFB59F1wkDv-
NzeYg5Tp
The central dilemma at the very heart of LENR is what causes nuclear
reactions at low energy levels.
What causes the nuclei of most elements to fall apart and reassemble their
subatomic parts in new ways?
Two new papers dealing with the nature and workings of the vacuum lend
insight into the LENR
Did you see this recent post as follows:
===
If you remember this thread as follows:
* *
Entangled proton pairs show enhanced tunneling – 1/31/12
Why do entangled proton pairs pass through the coulomb barrier of a heavy
element nucleus with high probability in
Axil,
I missed that post. Can you repost the reference.
Does it have any relationship with the following arxiv.org paper that
might be relevant in plasmons?
"New Enhanced Tunneling in Nuclear Processes"
http://arxiv.org/abs/nucl-th/0307012
ABSTRACT:
The small sub-barrier tunneling probability
On Jun 1, 2013, at 11:16 AM, Jones Beene wrote:
-Original Message-
From: Edmund Storms
We are taking about two different phenomenon of nature. Trying to use
the same concepts and words to describe both results in confusion.
Those of us who have studied cold fusion for the last 23 yea
You can call it what you want. Jones called the muon reaction ""cold
fusion" before he applied the term was applied to the F-P effect.
Nevertheless, the products are those that result from hot fusion, i.e.
equal amounts of neutron and tritium that result from fragmentation of
the resulting
-Original Message-
From: Edmund Storms
> We are taking about two different phenomenon of nature. Trying to use
the same concepts and words to describe both results in confusion.
Those of us who have studied cold fusion for the last 23 years have a
definition of CF that is not up for
I thought we agreed to call Muon assisted fusion "warm fusion".
On Sat, Jun 1, 2013 at 12:25 PM, Edmund Storms wrote:
> We are taking about two different phenomenon of nature. Trying to use the
> same concepts and words to describe both results in confusion. Those of us
> who have studied cold fu
I showed Joshua Cude an experiment using Nanoplasmonic processes that
changed the alpha particle emission half-life of U232 form 69 years to 6
microseconds.
>From his post, I conclude that either Cude is not intellectually honest in
that he does not let facts or experiments get in the way of his
Joshua:
I have keyed up on your sneering in the past, so it is only right that I
point out that your skepticism on this post is quite healthy and, with the
cheese analogy, even interesting to read. Once you drop the sneering, you
bring value to Vortex.
The next thing to learn is the difference b
On Jun 1, 2013, at 8:57, Vorl Bek wrote:
> The moletrap people ... seem
> knowledgeable about this stuff, so even their sneering opinions
> might be worth considering.
I agree. I think they have many interesting points to make.
I just wish discussing things with them was more like talking to n
Let me make a suggestion Robert. The linear technology company publishes a
spice program that can be downloaded and used by the general public. This is a
fantastic offering and I have found it extremely accurate. Anyone who has an
interest in electronic modeling would be well advised to get
We are taking about two different phenomenon of nature. Trying to use
the same concepts and words to describe both results in confusion.
Those of us who have studied cold fusion for the last 23 years have a
definition of CF that is not up for discussion. Please try to
understand what I'm t
Don't think I have Microsim pspice lying around anywhere anymore (and
non-GUI is very slow and clumsy if not using it frequently), it was an
excellent little tool (or was in late 90's when I used it last) that I
spent 100's of hours with, and is useful even for the amateur, probably
still out there
Vorl,
They do not understand this type of product at all. They believe that the
entire concept of LENR is not possible so they attack. This is not the
behavior of a true skeptic who at least will give consideration to what the
proponents of the concept say.
Cude and the others of this grou
The moletrap people are certainly, most of them, emotionally
adolescent, self-congratulatory clowns, but they seem
knowledgeable about this stuff, so even their sneering opinions
might be worth considering.
I am sure they would be as happy as you are to see lenr cars,
hot-water heaters, furnaces,
Dear Peter,
I agree with you that all the parties developing products need time to enhance
their performance. You asked for my opinion so I gave you my best guess of the
current situation. There is little doubt that my crystal ball can use polish.
No one can know what will eventually arise
A document "HIGH TEMPERATURE E-CAT MODULE Test of July 16th" can be viewed
here:
http://coldfusionnow.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/09/105322688-Penon4-1.pdf
Unlike the paper of Levi et al., it doesn't appear to have been prepared for
the research community, but is perhaps meant as an interna
-Original Message-
From: Edmund Storms
> Jones, please do not confuse hot fusion with cold fusion. The difference
is in the products.
Not necessarily. Perhaps that is your definition, but as I stated - the
Farnsworth Fusor is LENR on the input side. Same with sonofusion - it is the
inpu
Applying more heat to make it stop is not what he does. He ceases to apply the
excess drive heat to make it stop. This is 180 degrees different. The extra
drive power to the resistors is added to the internal power during the time the
device is heating up and hence gaining temperature. When
You must be kidding! Those guys do not have a clue and anyone that follows
that non sense is being fooled. The group at moletrap has a hobby of trying to
debunk anything that they do not understand. You should have realized by now
that these clowns can not admit when they are shown in error
Dear Dave,
Let the facts speak, I think we cannot compare and or judge
such new technologies when we (you and I) have so lmited
information about those technologies. Let's Rossi and DGT
develop their generators. In my terminology both are on
the way from enhanced excess heat to a controlled commer
Jones, please do not confuse hot fusion with cold fusion. The
difference is in the products. Cold fusion does not produce neutrons
and energetic radiation. Hot fusion produce neutrons and radiation
because the conditions require the nuclear product to fragment. This
fragmentation does not
2013/6/1 Joshua Cude
>
>
> Nothing against Elforsk or NI, but is there a recent example of a
> revolution in science that was adopted first by instrument makers and
> energy companies. And interest from NI is not surprising; it's a potential
> market.
>
>
What was the industry of Lumière brother b
it will be a demo, do not worry
Peter
On Sat, Jun 1, 2013 at 6:22 PM, Alain Sepeda wrote:
> the only new point I notice is that
> - they rent a lab in University of BC
> - they think about "audio visual material" for NIWeek2013...
> -> I was enthusiastic about the "demo", and if it is only vide
There is another one: Rossi failed until now to achieve either reliable
control of the ecat at 6COP or the means to do it whenever he wants and
DGTG succeed..
2013/6/1 James Bowery
> What is nonsense here is the idea that Defkalion came up with a technology
> independent of Rossi. It seems the
Dear Steven,
Yes, the things are REALLY very different from
what we have believed so many years.
Please try to put flesh on the LENR+ skeleton.
Very few colleagues will enjoy this and in order
to get Useful LENR, many of our most sacred
idea cows will go to the scientific slaughterhouse.
You well
the only new point I notice is that
- they rent a lab in University of BC
- they think about "audio visual material" for NIWeek2013...
-> I was enthusiastic about the "demo", and if it is only video it is less
an event
it confirm the paper for iccf18
2013/6/1 Peter Gluck
> My dear friends,
>
>
Peter,
You have done an excellent job of listing the main issues that will need
attention. At this point we do not have sufficient information about the
actual processes occurring and a good theory of how the energy is released.
Until that occurs it will take a lot of empirical testing which
What is nonsense here is the idea that Defkalion came up with a technology
independent of Rossi. It seems the plausibilities are that Defkalion has:
- nothing because Rossi has nothing.
- nothing because their attempt to replicate Rossi was a failure.
- something because their attempt t
On Sat, 1 Jun 2013 10:50:12 -0400
Jed Rothwell wrote:
> Vorl Bek wrote:
>
> >
> > > Why is this nonsense?
> >
> > I don't have the eloquence to explain, but if you ask over at
> > moletrap.co.uk, or wavewatching.net/fringe, they can clear it up
> > for you.
> >
>
> Where, specifically, in wave
In the category of "truth is stranger than fiction" here is an amazing story
of "impersonation" on several levels
http://trib.com/news/state-and-regional/wyoming-teen-who-built-fusion-reacto
r-disqualified-from-science-fair/article_15dda5ab-b68e-5fa7-a13f-7b30d22f850
f.html
A Wyoming high school
Akira Shirakawa wrote:
> That wasn't a rumor, it's what Xanthoulis supposedly told to Sterling
> Allan a couple months ago:
>
Ah, thanks. You do a good job of keeping track of things!
> There could have been a misunderstanding regarding this, however.
>
I suppose it is a change of plans.
-
Vorl Bek wrote:
>
> > Why is this nonsense?
>
> I don't have the eloquence to explain, but if you ask over at
> moletrap.co.uk, or wavewatching.net/fringe, they can clear it up
> for you.
>
Where, specifically, in wavewatching.net? They reference Krivit, who is not
a credible source of informati
>From Peter:
> I have just published:
>
http://egooutpeters.blogspot.ro/2013/05/jeane-manning-writes-about-defkalion
.html
>
> The Canadian New Energy writer Jeane Manning discovers and describes
> the new paradigm of LENR+ - and I am also trying to describe LENR+
> for you, inviting you
On Sat, 1 Jun 2013 10:28:03 -0400
Jed Rothwell wrote:
> Vorl Bek wrote:
>
>
> > No crazy "apply more heat to make it stop" nonsense.
> >
>
> Why is this nonsense?
I don't have the eloquence to explain, but if you ask over at
moletrap.co.uk, or wavewatching.net/fringe, they can clear it up
fo
On 2013-06-01 16:20, Jed Rothwell wrote:
I heard rumors that they were going to have an actual demonstration at
the NI conference. Their previous presentations and audiovisual material
has not been impressive in my opinion. Perhaps I missed something, but
as far as I know they have not presented
Vorl Bek wrote:
> No crazy "apply more heat to make it stop" nonsense.
>
Why is this nonsense?
- Jed
I do not understand why this is in image format, but anyway, it says:
"[Defkalion] will present a paper on July 21-27 International Conference on
Condensed Matter Nuclear Science at the University of Missouri and are
strongly considering presenting audiovisual material during the August 5-8
nation
On Sat, Jun 1, 2013 at 6:57 AM, Jones Beene wrote:
But the ecat just uses electricity to make heat. So if the ecat already
> makes heat, it should self-sustain on that. Like combustion.
>
> ** **
>
> An ICE is self-sustaining. The ecat needs external power. They're
> different. Your example
On Sat, Jun 1, 2013 at 3:51 AM, Joshua Cude wrote:
No, you don't. Plenty of ICEs (outboards, motorcycles) run without
> batteries. Car engines would run without batteries too, unless they use
> some kind of electronic fault detection that shuts it down without a
> battery. But the spark doesn't n
From: Joshua Cude
Eric Walker wrote:
the analogy only goes so far, in that it is harder in Rossi's case to
recapture the heat and channel it back into the secondary source.
But the ecat just uses electricity to make heat. So if the ecat already
makes heat, it should self-sustain on
OK, David I have the impression you are an experienced
man, what else can be done than testing the duration, solve
the material problems, and improve the system? And this was done
and will be continued in the professional way. Est modus in rebus.
Peter
On Sat, Jun 1, 2013 at 4:15 PM, David Robers
It has been apparent to me for a long time that DGT uses a different method for
generation of heat than does Rossi. Both techniques appear to work.
The main question is whether or not one of the processes has a significantly
long life span before internal damage makes it require maintenance.
Josh, once you understand how the ECAT uses heat for control you will realize
that the heat can not be applied continuously. Please take time to study what
I have been and am currently writing so that you will not keep making this
statement when it is not accurate.
Remember, continuous heat i
Jed wrote: "No, it was their idea."
How do you know that? And in case this is one of those "oh well, they didn't
say so but to me it sounds obvious that..." assumptions of yours: why on earth
would anybody who has to write a paper like that bind their own hands behind
their backs with such a pr
See please what says Yiannis about Rossi. It is place
for many players on the market of energy and it is not about competition
but coopetition
Peter
On Sat, Jun 1, 2013 at 2:27 PM, Vorl Bek wrote:
> On Sat, 1 Jun 2013 06:52:44 -0400
> Ron Kita wrote:
>
> > Greeting Vortex-L
> >
> > Boring
Actually thinking about it. the reason these people reject big new thing is
because the have very small minds/vision, this is why they reject anything
big.
That is not the same as stupid, but literally they have very real limits to
them.
They reject these things because they want to keep a very s
1 - 100 of 117 matches
Mail list logo
