>
> Computed volumetric and gravimetric energy densities were found to be far
> above those of any known chemical source. Even by the most conservative
> assumptions as to the errors in the measurements, the result is still one
> order of magnitude greater than conventional energy sources.
This i
On Mon, May 20, 2013 at 6:06 AM, Jed Rothwell wrote:
This is one of the most important papers in the history of the field.
>
We should be patient -- I don't think it's been out long enough to receive
full scrutiny, so there might be some methodological flaw that is turned
up. Also, not that it
On May 20, 2013, at 2:50, Alan Fletcher wrote:
> (Gee whiz : the COP came out the way we calculated it!)
Very impressive location on the chart. But if I may now move the goalposts:
that kind of energy density will never power a warp drive.
Eric
On Sun, May 19, 2013 at 8:45 PM, Brad Lowe wrote:
Available here:
> http://arxiv.org/abs/1305.3913
>
After reading the report pretty closely, I am cautiously optimistic that
things are proceeding very well. There were things that made me think that
the report was not exactly publication-ready,
On Mon, May 20, 2013 at 3:27 PM, Jones Beene wrote:
…that is going to be our collective curse, or opportunity …depending on a
> few political decisions soon to be on the horizon.
>
Yes -- this is an interesting thought. Assume for the moment that Rossi
comes through and we get commercial LENR
On Mon, May 20, 2013 at 11:54 AM, Peter Gluck wrote:
1- is true indeed. The total emissivity changes as evrything changes but
> how great must be these changes in order to invalidate completely the
> results, so we can say NO excess heat, the authors are in total error? Very
> improbable
> they a
On Mon, May 20, 2013 at 8:30 PM, Jed Rothwell wrote:
You can do that from the numbers in Table 8. With average emissivity,
> radiation is 460 W and convection is 282. Throw out convection completely
> (ignore it; pretend it did not happen) and you get:
>
> 460 W / 283 W = COP of 1.6
>
Here you'v
On May 21, 2013, at 8:41, Michele Comitini wrote:
> I see they are starting to call themselves out as being "not competent in the
> field". Like saying they do not know. That's a good sign.
Someone should write a manual for walking back an extreme position. This move
would feature prominently
On May 21, 2013, at 11:39, Jouni Valkonen wrote:
> Rossi just keeps getting COP 6 with all his devices.
There were two main test runs. One achieved a COP of ~6 and the other, slightly
longer one, of ~3.
Eric
On Tue, May 21, 2013 at 8:39 AM, DJ Cravens wrote:
Ni-62
>
> If we assume that speculation about Rossi is correct, what materials other
> than Ni-62 could be used?
>
> If it is p + X reaction, what other isotopes other than Ni62 could be used?
>
> Or perhaps it is really a p+p reaction with Ni-6
On Tue, May 21, 2013 at 7:25 PM, David Roberson wrote:
It appears that you would like to see an experiment where the mix of D to
> P is adjusted. Have you seen any correlation in the data from earlier
> tests that support the idea that a 50/50 mix would be the most active?
>
When it comes to N
On Tue, May 21, 2013 at 3:20 PM, Mark Gibbs wrote:
I'm still somewhat skeptical about the whole thing simply because there are
> too many unknowns but the arguments that it is just a hoax are getting
> harder to believe ... it would have to be the biggest, most elaborate hoax
> in science history
On Tue, May 21, 2013 at 8:56 AM, Michele Comitini <
michele.comit...@gmail.com> wrote:
The following argument is complete nonsense and stops me from reading the
> full article. No one, unless writing a book that requires complex
> mathematical notation is so foul to use TeX instead of LaTeX. If
Hi,
I think we should take Mark's request seriously and avoid posting copyrighted
material to this list. It is not difficult to post links to articles of
interest. By using links instead of the full text, the authors get credit for
page hits from their sponsors and Vortex-L stays out of trouble
On Wed, May 22, 2013 at 1:51 PM, MarkI-ZeroPoint wrote:
Shutting down this forum would be like closing the bar in the Dime Box
> Saloon… and you don’t want to do that!
>
An oil company could shut us down quite quickly with a series of cease and
desist letters and threats of lawsuit. We should sp
On Wed, May 22, 2013 at 2:44 PM, Robert Lynn wrote:
Point is that it looks like it might be possible to hide additional
> electrical power supply within what the testers looked at, and we don't
> have enough information from the testers to check on all of these issues,
> however it is possible th
On Wed, May 22, 2013 at 1:33 PM, Andrew wrote:
**
> Since the experimenters walked up to the experiment *after* it had been
> turned on, we don't know for sure whether the existing cabling was used to
> impart the RF, or a separate kickstart cable.
>
There were three runs. The first run (Novemb
I wrote:
Lubos Motl does not appear to be drawing a distinction between TeX and
> LaTeX; he is drawing a distinction between TeX/LaTeX, on one hand, and a
> simple PDF typed up in a normal word processor, on the other. Presumably
> the former would be the expected form of submission to a mainstre
On Thu, May 23, 2013 at 9:35 AM, Alan Fletcher wrote:
> Another reason to think they do not intend to submit for publication
> > in a reputable scientific journal -- they cite Wikipedia (ref. 8, at
> > the end).
>
> Lordy, lordy -- it's firgin diagram -- a compilation of generally
> available inf
On Thu, May 23, 2013 at 3:41 PM, Andrew wrote:
If I were concerned with my scientific integrity, I would collect together
> all such comments and re-issue that paper. But if I were a veterinarian,
> like one of the authors, it wouldn't be a big concern, because I could
> still make dogs' health b
On Fri, May 24, 2013 at 11:30 AM, Edmund Storms wrote:
I have proposed the heat results from deuterium production, which I'm
> trying to get people to look for.
>
I am very interested to see whether the opposite result is seen -- i.e., a
significant *decrease* in deuterium over time in an Ni/H sy
On Fri, May 24, 2013 at 9:16 AM, James Bowery wrote:
So if we're looking for errors in power measurement, we need to be most
> concerned about frequencies below the IR. The problem for those of us who
> want to find error in the measure is that the peak is in the camera's
> physical sensor bandw
I wrote:
I believe Lubos Motl proposed somewhere that the E-Cat HT surface is not
> well-approximated by a blackbody and that the true emissivity is likely to
> be T^(4+d), where 0 < d < 1; i.e., that in the worst case scenario there
> will be ~T^5 relationship between temperature and power rather
On Fri, May 24, 2013 at 10:56 AM, Robert Lynn <
robert.gulliver.l...@gmail.com> wrote:
As such preventing measurement of current and voltage through the heating
> resistors looks very suspicious - as there is nothing there to be sensibly
> hidden if we take him at his word.
>
My impression is tha
On Fri, May 24, 2013 at 6:38 AM, Jed Rothwell wrote:
DEFINITELY not a vet.
>
I was wondering how a veterinarian would be helpful to the testing. I
figured maybe he was both a veterinarian and a genius, and that it was his
qualifications as a genius that they were chiefly relying upon in this
in
On Fri, May 24, 2013 at 7:30 PM, Edmund Storms wrote:
First Eric, looking for deuterium would automatically see an increase as
> well as a decrease. No additional effort is required.
>
You would be surprised what people will overlook if they're not expecting
it as a possibility -- for example, th
I wrote:
N + p + d → Ni + fast 3He
>
That would be quite impressive. I meant to write:
Ni + p + d → Ni + fast 3He
Eric
On Sat, May 25, 2013 at 12:00 AM, wrote:
I have a Geiger counter and a smoke alarm. When the detector is right in
> front
> of the Am241 pellet it rapidly registers a high count. Put the detector
> behind
> the PC board on which the circuit was built, but at a closer distance to
> the
> pellet, a
On Sat, May 25, 2013 at 12:20 AM, Eric Walker wrote:
Nice sanity check. The next thing to check would be to put your alpha
> source in heavy water. :)
>
Sorry, context switch, there. I was thinking of Pd/D. But that set of
questions is also interesting and possibly relevant here.
Eric
Hi,
We were picking up an ongoing thread concerning whether fast particles are
being generated in any quantity in an Ni/H cold fusion reaction. (We've
been debating it for several months now, I think.) We were proceeding on
the assumption that Ni/H is real. Then I inadvertently mixed in Pd/D.
On Sat, May 25, 2013 at 7:08 AM, Edmund Storms wrote:
Eric, when you speculate, you need to apply some basic science. For
> example, a reaction involving three nuclei, one of which has a very low
> concentration has a probability of occurring that is near zero, based on
> the random chance that al
On Sat, May 25, 2013 at 7:08 AM, Edmund Storms wrote:
For example, a reaction involving three nuclei, one of which has a very low
> concentration has a probability of occurring that is near zero, based on
> the random chance that all three can get together at the same time at the
> same location.
On Sat, May 25, 2013 at 10:05 AM, Eric Walker wrote:
I am currently tracking down the experimental and theoretical basis for the
> conclusion that there are no alphas detected in cold fusion experiments.
>
Sorry -- I meant to say *prompt* alphas. In Pd/D experiments, there is
obvious
On Sat, May 25, 2013 at 10:27 AM, Edmund Storms wrote:
I would expect that if a Ni were able to fuse with 1D and 1H, it would fuse
> with 2 H much more often.
>
There's no presumption of fusion of Ni with d and h. The assumption is
that Ni receives some of the momentum of the d+h reaction, since
On Sat, May 25, 2013 at 1:19 PM, Andrew wrote:
**
> That is precisely why I (and Duncan Cumming) are calling for a test
> whereby there is no power input for a decent amount of time. If there is no
> power input, there's nothing than can be fudged past the limitations of the
> measurement equipme
On Sat, May 25, 2013 at 11:14 AM, Edmund Storms wrote:
You are really suggesting H+D = He3 fusion. This was suggested in 1989 and
> efforts were made to look for the resulting He3 without success. The only
> time He3 was detected, it resulted from tritium decay. Nevertheless,
> tritium IS detecte
On Sat, May 25, 2013 at 11:14 AM, Edmund Storms wrote:
I object to theories that either suggest ideas that have no relationship to
> known behavior or are pure hand waving. This idea seems to be in both
> classes. Would you not expect the nuclear reaction would be very common if
> the Auger effec
On Sat, May 25, 2013 at 5:38 PM, Edmund Storms wrote:
If D+H can fuse, what effect do you think the relative concentration of D
> and H has on the rate? The D2O contains as much H2O as the H2 contains
> deuterium. Therefore, both conditions should produce the same amount of He3.
>
I do not see th
On Sat, May 25, 2013 at 11:54 PM, Andrew wrote:
**
> The *only* way to convince the scientific community is via evidence.
>
They will be carrying out a much longer experiment in the future. If they
were to have an electrical engineer take a close look at the input
power across the entire range
On May 26, 2013, at 7:27, Robert Lynn wrote:
> I find myself in a similar situation to 2011, tests that looked initially
> compelling, appear with greater thought to have potentially significant
> flaws. There is no need for 6 month long tests.
I'm of two minds here. On one hand, I find the
On Sun, May 26, 2013 at 1:36 PM, Jouni Valkonen wrote:
Next time when there is Rossi-demo, someone should bring their own
> generator that supplies genuine AC input power.
>
Yes -- a portable generator, and discretion on the part of the testers to
move the E-Cat anywhere in the building they wish
On Sun, May 26, 2013 at 1:53 PM, David Roberson wrote:
It is apparent that there is no amount of evidence which will convince the
> pseudo skeptics that the recent tests are honest. They are so convinced
> that LENR is fake that they assume there must be some form of trick
> involved.
>
I thin
On Sun, May 26, 2013 at 3:45 PM, Andrew wrote:
**
> B) seems unlikely because it would require batteries, and Hartman states
> that it was much lighter than that. Battery technology does not exist that
> could be that light, and/or occupy so little volume, and make up that total
> energy differen
On Sun, May 26, 2013 at 5:18 PM, Duncan Cumming wrote:
I am not trying to assert anything as fact. I am merely pointing out that
> a simple diode inside the controller box (to which access was forbidden by
> Rossi) COULD HAVE given the observed results. I am NOT saying that it, in
> fact, did, me
I wrote:
On Sun, May 26, 2013 at 5:18 PM, Duncan Cumming wrote:
>
> I am not trying to assert anything as fact. I am merely pointing out
>> that a simple diode inside the controller box (to which access was
>> forbidden by Rossi) COULD HAVE given the observed results. I am NOT saying
>> that it,
On Sun, May 26, 2013 at 7:01 PM, Duncan Cumming wrote:
So unless you use a DC rated current meter (such as a shunt) you will not
> sense all of the current, and hence power, drawn from the wall socket.
>
I see. Then it would seem that if there was any kind of rectification in
the controller tha
On Sun, May 26, 2013 at 10:20 PM, David Roberson wrote:
My model suggests that his device is unstable once a threshold drive level
> is exceeded. Its temperature proceeds toward a dangerous level which might
> lead to device failure if not halted. The drive heat source is abruptly
> ended at
On Mon, May 27, 2013 at 7:05 AM, Rob Dingemans wrote:
If my assumption is right that:
> a: the proprietary waveform is of a much higher frequency/waveform then
> the AC from the wall plug,
>
I get the impression the proprietary waveform might not be all that fancy,
and that it is at a very low f
I wrote:
I get the impression the proprietary waveform might not be all that fancy,
> and that it is at a very low frequency -- on the order of seconds. See
> Plot 8 in the paper; this might be the waveform. (Note that the x axis is
> in seconds.)
>
On second thought, that might just be the dut
On Mon, May 27, 2013 at 8:01 AM, Jones Beene wrote:
This whole collection of dozens of needless postings is itself the pathetic
> invention of frustrated skeptics who think that Rossi "must be cheating" -
> but cannot prove it ... so they are grasping at straws.
>
Perhaps. But it has been very e
On Mon, May 27, 2013 at 10:59 AM, Duncan Cumming wrote:
I don't think Rossi would travel to the USA to see such a demo.
>
How about a YouTube video?
Eric
On Mon, May 27, 2013 at 11:31 AM, Andrew wrote:
**
> Dave, there are a couple of things wrong with your analysis. First off,
> the insertion of an isolation capacitor between the main grid transformer
> and the plug takes care of your "short circuit" problem. And then there's
> the possibility of
On Mon, May 27, 2013 at 12:33 PM, Andrew wrote:
**
> No separate DC power source is necessary if Duncan's diode fudge is used.
>
Yes, but the point is that you'd need to intentionally tamper with the
mains to pull it off, i.e., it implies fraud, if I'm understanding the
diode fudge, in light of
Who would have known the metronomes are bosons and that they could form a
BEC?
Eric
On Mon, May 27, 2013 at 10:39 AM, Terry Blanton wrote:
> And in more complex systems:
>
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=JWToUATLGzs
>
> Does this apply to items of current interest?
>
On Mon, May 27, 2013 at 12:40 PM, Joshua Cude wrote:
It seems likely that Rossi may be using cheese power for his energy. Check
> out these two videos, where equal power is obtained without any
> registration of current with a clamp-on or in-line ammeter. I don't know
> how it works, but I'm pre
On Mon, May 27, 2013 at 3:18 PM, MarkI-ZeroPoint wrote:
>
>
> Why not the same critical comments from you about those so-called
> ‘experts’ who make such an obvious mistake???
>
Confirmation bias. ;)
Eric
On Mon, May 27, 2013 at 11:20 AM, Jed Rothwell wrote:
This document stands as its own rebuttal.
>
I think that overstates things. After reading through the comments,
Ekstrom brings up a number of details that could plausibly be remedied in
any followup test. I think we have exaggerated the defi
On Mon, May 27, 2013 at 5:25 PM, Harry Veeder wrote:
If they take emissivity = 1 then they are assuming the worst value for
> emissivity at all wavelengths. How will a lower emissivity in any
> range lead to an over estimation of power?
>
Joshua's position is that in the present measurements, th
On Tue, May 28, 2013 at 10:00 AM, Jones Beene wrote:
Then they have not considered the obvious. Unless there is fraud at the
> felony level, then Rossi has probably discovered something valid, and
> incredibly important to Society
>
It's the implications that get people caught up in the conspi
On Tue, May 28, 2013 at 8:03 AM, Andrew wrote:
**
> Oh, and I haven't seen any links to videos. Any chance you could post them
> again? Is this cheese power, perchance? If so, I've seen them, and I have a
> theory about how they're done. Should I give that out?
>
I already sussed it out. It's i
On Tue, May 28, 2013 at 11:51 AM, MarkI-ZeroPoint wrote:
And JC is WELL aware of this, yet asks the question as to why they used
> 3-phase power in their tests… the second test was SINGLE phase power, so JC
> is misleading people… but he has a very long history of taking some
> questionable issue
On Tue, May 28, 2013 at 12:32 PM, MarkI-ZeroPoint wrote:
You left out the more important part of my posting:
>
> “And JC is WELL aware of this, yet asks the question as to why they used
> 3-phase power in their tests… the second test was SINGLE phase power, so *
> *JC is misleading people**…”
>
W
Lol.
That's a little bit redonculous. Far more likely: neither he nor I have read
the paper closely enough.
Eric
On May 29, 2013, at 2:02, Joshua Cude wrote:
> I think Mark was mistaken about this, and his failure to acknowledge it
> suggests he is deliberately trying to mislead people, and
On Wed, May 29, 2013 at 3:38 AM, Joshua Cude wrote:
I disagree. The implications of cold fusion are what got the world in a
> tizzy in 1989. Everyone, including many (if not most) scientists were
> prepared to embrace cold fusion *because* of the implications. Thousands of
> scientists cheered an
On Wed, May 29, 2013 at 3:38 AM, Joshua Cude wrote:
That's not the opinion of the majority of observers of the case. Deception
> on this scale -- frauds and scams -- are utterly common. Scientific
> revolutions like this are very rare, especially from someone like Rossi.
>
Perhaps. But I think
On Wed, May 29, 2013 at 3:38 AM, Joshua Cude wrote:
First, the fact that this *source* of energy thousands of times more dense
> than chemical has to be plugged in (to a high power line, no less) will
> turn most observers away.
>
Fine, so "most observers" will be turned away by this. From an e
On Wed, May 29, 2013 at 1:04 PM, Jed Rothwell wrote:
Perhaps you can invite him back after a bit? Also maybe Abd? I miss him.
>
I miss Abd too. I wish he would not post walls of text. But he always has
good counterarguments to make to rain on one's parade. This is a useful
service.
Eric
On Wed, May 29, 2013 at 5:51 AM, Joshua Cude wrote:
Regardless of how it's done, or whether Rossi used the same method, the
> demonstration is very nice illustration that meters can be fooled quite
> easily when there is a little infrastructure to hide things, and that when
> an extraordinary cla
On Wed, May 29, 2013 at 7:29 AM, Bob Higgins wrote:
>
>- We are told that the central reactor core is a 310 stainless steel
>cylinder ( 3cm by 33cm). There is no port for introduction of H2. The
>ends are cold welded closed.
>
> The ends were cone-shaped AISI 316 steel caps that were
On Wed, May 29, 2013 at 8:42 AM, Edmund Storms wrote:
Rossi has done something to the Ni powder that is very stable and not
> affected by high temperature. This fact alone greatly reduces the
> possibilities to anyone familiar with the materials science of this
> material. Rossi is gradually lett
On Wed, May 29, 2013 at 12:37 PM, Jed Rothwell wrote:
The engineers at Elforsk disagree with Cude. They do not think this was a
> farce. They know much more about measuring energy and electricity than he
> does, so I suppose they are correct and he is wrong.
>
This is, unfortunately, proof of th
On Thu, May 30, 2013 at 1:51 AM, ChemE Stewart wrote:
Right, the brethren has so far brought us fission reactors, nuclear bombs
> and hot fu$ion, crowning achievements for our children
I should clarify that I was trying to reproduce the inevitable and circular
logic that some people will draw u
On Thu, May 30, 2013 at 12:13 PM, Jed Rothwell wrote:
I’m a Professor Ameritus in Electrical Engineering ... Everything I read in
> the 29 page report, and following challenges as answered by the authors,
> seems extremely convincing. All objections, typically suggesting fraud, are
> not to me at
On Thu, May 30, 2013 at 5:38 AM, Teslaalset wrote:
I wonder whether silica would do the job to prevent sintering of Ni (powder
> or layered on top)
>
In a related connection, there are some very interesting experiments
involving zeolite substrates (microporous aluminosilicate minerals), with
pall
On Thu, May 30, 2013 at 10:51 AM, Randy wuller wrote:
**
> My speculation is that based on this report the scientific community will
> likely pay more attention to the developments in this area and will await
> further testing and other disclosures before taking active steps to
> investigate. So
On Thu, May 30, 2013 at 1:26 PM, Jed Rothwell wrote:
If we are going to do analogies, a more useful one would be to compare the
> Rossi reactor to an internal combustion engine ICE. With an ICE you have to
> apply the spark periodically to small portions of the fuel to trigger the
> reaction. Cud
On Thu, May 30, 2013 at 7:08 AM, Jed Rothwell wrote:
If we abandon this rule, or if we call it "hand waving" as Gibbs does here,
> progress in science will come to a halt.
>
I think there's been a simple misunderstanding of terms. As an amateur
anthropologist of scientists, I gather that "hand
On Fri, May 31, 2013 at 12:18 AM, Joshua Cude wrote:
Is it unfair to be suspicious if he can't spell his own title?
>
He may not be a native speaker.
Eric
On Fri, May 31, 2013 at 3:55 PM, Eric Walker wrote:
Is it unfair to be suspicious if he can't spell his own title?
>>
>
> He may not be a native speaker.
>
No need to respond to that one. I was too eager to reply with a retort.
It seems I lost my footing there. ;)
Eric
On Fri, May 31, 2013 at 12:36 AM, Joshua Cude wrote:
He said you need a battery for an internal combustion engine, and so that
> means it's not self-sustaining. That was what I responded to.
>
My point was a valid one. It's that for a regular ICE you need a secondary
source of power to drive th
On Fri, May 31, 2013 at 4:55 PM, Eric Walker wrote:
My point was a valid one. It's that for a regular ICE you need a secondary
> source of power to drive the spark plugs (where in a diesel engine you do
> not after the engine gets going).
>
Just to clarify the point (for othe
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
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 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
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
On Sat, Jun 1, 2013 at 3:54 AM, Joshua Cude 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.
>
I passed over this point too quickly. One question is why in Rossi's
device the heat generated by the react
On Sun, Jun 2, 2013 at 11:38 AM, Axil Axil wrote:
As a next step, all positive responses will be reviewed rigorously before
> the holy office of the LENR inquisition for doctrinal purity to assess the
> danger to the best interests of LENR.
>
I'm not sure if you are having fun with my "religiou
I wrote:
>
>- The general area of the reaction is somewhat localized, and the
>normal thermal gradient that would lead heat to dissipate from that
>location must be countered from outside of it by the resistance heaters, so
>that sufficient heat is retained in that area.
>
> There
On Sun, Jun 2, 2013 at 1:22 PM, David Roberson wrote:
The resistive heating requirement is to be able to reverse the temperature
> excursion at the proper time by removing the extra input. Constant heat
> input will result in the destruction of the device when useful output power
> is generated.
On Sun, Jun 2, 2013 at 2:10 PM, David Roberson wrote:
Does this help to explain the operation according to my model?
>
Yes. But I think your SPICE model is working at a higher level than what I
was describing. Your model is looking at the thermodynamics of the system
as a whole, and when you t
On Sun, Jun 2, 2013 at 2:59 PM, David Roberson wrote:
I am afraid there is not much more that we can do beyond constructing a
> model without much more extensive data from Rossi.
>
Perhaps. But I think we can say that given what we know about the need for
the control system and what we've seen
On Mon, Jun 3, 2013 at 5:49 PM, Jouni Valkonen wrote:
On Jun 3, 2013, at 11:31 PM, "a.ashfield" wrote:
> > In fact an independent test has been carried out.
>
> This is not true. The test was arranged in Rossi's facilities and by
> Giuseppe Levi. And problem is that we do not know what is financi
On Mon, Jun 3, 2013 at 1:44 PM, Berke Durak wrote:
I love the mailing list format as its dependence on third-party
> infrastructure is minimal and replaceable but it's a bit too easy for
> opponents to flood and derail discussions.
>
One thing that recently occurred to me is that there is a ver
On Mon, Jun 3, 2013 at 2:03 PM, DJ Cravens wrote:
You may want to refigure that if you want to run for extended times- an
> Olympic pool (likely overkill) has a volume of 2.5 million liters and some
> are indoors and have covers. ( I would just use bubble wrap) You could
> easily go long enough
I wrote:
I don't know what kind of thermal load the E-Cat can sustain, but I agree
> that dropping it into a backyard swimming pool for two weeks until the
> water starts boiling would be a pretty good publicity stunt. I don't
> actually have a sense how long it would take for the water to boil -
On Tue, Jun 4, 2013 at 8:42 PM, Mark Gibbs wrote:
Might I suggest using a smaller point size and any typeface other than
> Comic Sans (it's a typeface that give us type nerds bad dreams).
>
I think Comic Sans is a perfect typeface for this list, since it scares
away anyone who has no stomach for
On Tue, Jun 4, 2013 at 3:27 PM, Terry Blanton wrote:
Hmmm. Interesting, eh? Now, I'm not saying he is a bot; but, can even
> Jed do this in real time with his Dragon?
>
He was like a mighty paladin with a broadsword in the middle of the
battlefield, with the enemy soldiers rushing towards him a
On Tue, Jun 4, 2013 at 7:51 AM, Jed Rothwell wrote:
I have never heard of mechanical work from temperatures below 100 deg C.
>
I recall reading on this list at one point that a Stirling engine could do
something along these lines. There is this post, which says something
similar [1], and this l
On Wed, Jun 5, 2013 at 10:35 AM, Jed Rothwell wrote:
Here is what I don't get about these people. Suppose cold fusion is a
> mistake, or fraud. It is inconsequential. The worst that can happen is that
> a few retired professors waste their time and Rossi steals some money.
>
I suspect there are
On Thu, Jun 6, 2013 at 12:12 AM, David Roberson wrote:
This proved to me that pseudo skeptics are not willing to admit that they
> harbor wrong ideas. He threatened me with a copyright notice which was
> loony.
>
Seriously? That's a little disheartening. We're talking about one of the
two gu
301 - 400 of 2387 matches
Mail list logo
