I wrote:
If you collected the condensate for an hour while running it through a
> precision flowmeter you might get a better handle on this, and a more
> meaningful answer. You have to leave it in a steady state.
>
But I would not actually do that. That's kind of nutty. Way too
complicated. I wou
Mary Yugo wrote:
Even if Rossi were to run the thing for 40 hours or 40 days, I am certain
>> you would demand more. You would still be finding excuses not to believe it.
>>
>
> There may be other reasons not to believe in it but certainly a 40 hour
> run is more persuasive than a 4 hour one . .
David Roberson wrote:
The first technique you suggested would spread out the test for too long of
> a time(hour).
>
You misunderstand. I would fix hose at a certain height, let it fill with
water, then let it run through a precision flowmeter. I would record it
constantly, so that we know the ra
Mary Yugo wrote:
> > If he has teamed up with NI, that is exactly the right way to bolster
> > customer confidence in the safety and reliability of the equipment.
>
> I don't think he "teamed up" in the sense that NI knows anything about
> E-cats and that they work. I think Rossi offered to buy
David Roberson wrote:
>
> Mary, you seem to love to find ways to scam scientific tests or do magic
> tricks or whatever. Let me ask you a question. Can you name one
> scientific experiment that is impossible to scam from the past?
>
The one I just cited, from the present, right here:
http://w
David Roberson wrote:
> But I do not think that the difference would amount to hardly any
> difference in calculations. Mats stated clearly that the flow was steady.
> No bubbles, same height, everything I would have hoped to have him state.
>
The flow varied over time. It might have varied du
Mary Yugo wrote:
How much fuel, and how is that fuel reacted? Please do say there was
>> something else hidden in the vessel other than the cell, and this other
>> object magically defies Archimedes' law.
>>
>
> Maybe someone else who's more of a chemist and electrochemist than I am
> can try to
David Roberson wrote:
Pick one to have scammed.
>
Please, after you. Pick one yourself -- whichever you consider easiest to
scam, and tell us how you would do it.
Mind you, when the telegraph and years later the phonograph were
demonstrated to Members of Congress, some of them did say the inven
Robert Leguillon wrote:
Statement only slightly more ridiculous:
> The most energetic thing that they could put inside is a fission reactor.
> A fission reactor produces the most energy, because if it didn't, nuclear
> power stations would use something else. And since we can't fit all of the
> n
I wrote:
> Pick one to have scammed.
>>
>
> Please, after you. Pick one yourself -- whichever you consider easiest to
> scam, and tell us how you would do it.
>
By the way, I do not mean that it is impossible to make a fake telephone
with gutta percha, or a fake x-ray with a pre-arranged photo.
David Roberson wrote:
You answer is clearly indicated by the temperature readings at T2.
This was very constant.
Yes, of course. It has to be very constant. The pressure did not change,
so the steam temperature did not change. When heat increased, more steam
was generated, but the temperatu
David Roberson wrote:
Jed, I am waiting for Mary to give an example. It is not your question.
Just in case someone were to scam your experiment, you have to realize
that there are no limits on what is acceptable. You would not be able
to set up the final experiment since that is part of the
peter.heck...@arcor.de wrote:
This means, if Rossi has no trademark, he cannot use the NI Trademark.
He must get an own Trademark first.
That is easy. Anyone can get a trademark for around $300 in the U.S.
- Jed
Vorl Bek wrote:
This is what Rossi has said on many occasions. He says he cannot
leave the thing, especially in self-sustaining mode.
The idea that Rossi would do an unconvincing demo because he
needed to empty his bladder or get some sleep, and could not
delegate control for a while, makes lit
Michele Comitini wrote:
> Ergo, se National Instrument è
> uscita allo scoperto adesso, significa che anche loro hanno escluso
> l'ipotesi (campata in aria) della bufala. "
>
>
Ergo, if Nat. Instr. came out now, it
> means that they too excluded the (too far fetched) hoax hypothesis."
>
The
Robert Leguillon wrote:
In the PESN postscript, it is quite obvious that NI is distancing itself
> from any conclusions on authenticity.
Naturally, they are distancing themselves, but I would not say from "any"
conclusions. If they suspected it is fraud they would be crazy to allow
that press r
Mary Yugo wrote:
If there is no way you or any of us can know anything at all about
this method that you imagine might exist somewhere in the
universe, how can you expect us to evaluate it?
The way I said many times. You can falsify the premise that Rossi is
scamming easily enoug
Daniel Rocha wrote:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Minor_Scale
An interesting example.
This was a conventional explosion that simulated a 4.8 kt nuclear
explosion. A person observing this from a distance might have difficulty
determining whether it is nuclear or chemical. Of course if you use
David Roberson wrote:
The output check valve operates by opening further as the pressure
increases across it. It will not open any additional amount unless
there is a finite pressure applied. There are several reasons for the
ECAT internal pressure to rise.
Yes, I realize that reactor vess
Stephen A. Lawrence wrote:
In case anybody hasn't gotten it, let me repeat it: The rate of mass
flow *out* of the device is fixed by the *pump* *rate*, not by the
power level.
Only if the vessel is full to overflowing. If the water level is below
the top, then it acts like a pot on the stov
Call this a CYA memo if you will, but I would like to grant that there is
one part of the October 6 test that could allow fraud. The 2 power meters
might be fake. I do not know where they came from. It is conceivable that
Rossi took 2 genuine power meters and changed out the electronics. I do not
t
Mary Yugo wrote:
Claim: Rossi may be faking this -- I don't know how.
Falsification: Someone independent and credible tested the device and
determined by this method (yadadada) it's real and not fake.
Right. Exactly. And in my opinion Rossi did this on Oct. 6. I think he
provided irrefut
Mary Yugo wrote:
> If they suspected it is fraud they would be crazy to allow that press
>> release. They would issue a strong denial instead.
>>
>
> Most people who have not followed the progress of this story carefully
> from the start have no reason to suspect a fraud. I think NI simply has
Mary Yugo wrote:
> I am not aware of a formal policy to not patent any cold fusion related
> technology and I strongly suspect it doesn't exist.
>
It does exist. It has been in force since June 5, 1989.
Everyone who works in cold fusion knows this. When you apply for any cold
fusion related pa
Mary Yugo wrote:
> I do not think it is likely that the public relations department at
>> National Instruments has not even bothered to do a Google search and they
>> have "no idea" whether Rossi's machines do what he says they do.
>>
>
> So exactly what do you think NI did and why? A Google se
I wrote:
> When you apply for any cold fusion related patent, they automatically
> reject it with a form letter. . . .
>
>
> Let me upload a copy:
>
> http://lenr-canr.org/Collections/PatentOfficeMemo.jpg
>
That is a copy of their policy, not the form letter. Sorry for the
confusion.
I tossed
Alan J Fletcher wrote:
http://lenr-canr.org/RossiData/Higgins%20Oct%206%2027kWreactorDiagram4.png
Do we have any agreement on the volume of the REACTOR (excluding fins).
You mean the cell. Or "core" as they say in the fission biz. The thing
with the three cold fusion cells in it.
I would
Mary Yugo asked Sean True:
The deal with Rossi sounds much more like an OEM contract, and
they are very
likely to have done some diligence on it. Just the risk of adverse PR
(which they are already experiencing,
I suspect) would require a reasonable return on the cost of the
Peter Heckert wrote:
> No, no, wrong, wrong!
>
> NI has not made any press release. They have answered questions via mail.
> When they have seen that PESWiki did not abuse the NI logo . . .
>
They did far more than that. They said:
Thank you Sterling for allowing us to review. We approve the
Stephen A. Lawrence wrote:
> You can't
>>> be serous. If that is the last remaining argument you have against cold
>>> fusion, you have jumped the shark.
>>>
>>> I like that expression "jumping the shark". Does it mean the same as
>> "screwing the pooch"?
>>
>
> It means the voice entry system
Mary Yugo wrote:
That jpg of a memo says only that applications about cold fusion
should be stamped "cold fusion" for identification. Nowhere I can see
does it say they should reject them.
Ah, but they did, in fact, summarily reject them. So that memo was
telling P.O. staff how to identify
Mary Yugo wrote:
I never alleged or even implied that it's forged (talk about straw men!).
You didn't, but I did.
It was not a straw man because it was my own supposition.
I said it's probably meaningless and has no value in determining
whether or not Rossi's claims are real.
True and I
Mary Yugo wrote:
And it (emphatically) does NOT follow that if F&P are right, Rossi is
right, as some people have irresponsibly and foolishly claimed in
several forums.
Fleischmann and I think it does follow. So do most cold fusion
researchers I know. We think it is extremely unlikely there
Mary Yugo wrote:
I see nothing irresponsible or foolish about this opinion. And I see
>> nothing irresponsible or foolish about expressing it here, or in any other
>> forum.
>>
>
> OK then. Airplanes are real so my flying sausage design will work.
>
You seem to be suggesting that there is somet
I wrote:
> You seem to be suggesting that there is something fundamentally different
> about Rossi's Ni nanopowder compared to the nanopowder cells of Arata and
> Miles . . .
>
Meant MILEY. Not a voice input error.
People often confuse, Miles, Miley and Mills in this field.
Miley has made Ni p
See:
http://www.forbes.com/sites/markgibbs/2011/11/11/national-instruments-and-cold-fusion/
QUOTE:
Update#1: A statement from John Pasquarette, Vice President of Corporate
Marketing and eBusiness, National Instruments:
There are thousands of researchers and engineers in the world trying to
solv
Peter Heckert wrote:
> It might be a snide comment, but I dont believe so.
The tone of it is snide, where he says "I'm not making this up . . ." He
implies there is something strange about generators fueled by vegetable
oils and animal fats.
Apparently this author does not know much about bio
An addition to the Forbes article, QUOTE:
Update #2: A followup statement from National Instruments’ John
Pasquarette, Vice President of Corporate Marketing and eBusiness:
We did not buy a 1 MW cold fusion plant.
So, it would appear that the Free Energy Truth blog lacks a certain
truthiness. I s
Michele Comitini wrote:
Digging in to the html code, the headers tell it all about quality...
> made with FrontPage software that was discontinued in 2003!
>
I do not see why that matters.
For LENR-CANR.org I use Borland Delphi 4, discontinued in 1999. I sometimes
tweak the HTML *by hand*. With
Mary Yugo wrote:
>
> Nice to see the web site is registered to Rossi but what the heck does the
>> validity of the E-Cat have to do with the software that was used to create
>> the web site or who the web site was created by or who it is administered
>> by?
>>
>
> I agree, very little. But it's
From:
http://www.oru.se/Kalendarium/Startsida-Kalendarium/offentliga-forelasningar/Offentliga-forelasningar-Morgondagens-karnkraft---blir-den-kall-eller-varm-/
Google translate:
Public lectures: Tomorrow's nuclear power - it becomes cold or hot?
Date: 2011-11-23
Time: 18:30 to 20:00
Location: L
See:
http://www.nei.org/resourcesandstats/documentlibrary/safetyandsecurity/reports/special-report-on-the-nuclear-accident-at-the-fukushima-daiichi-nuclear-power-station
(Download link on right)
Description:
Special Report on the Nuclear Accident at the Fukushima Daiichi Nuclear
Power Station
See:
http://www.nei.org/resourcesandstats/documentlibrary/safetyandsecurity/reports/special-report-on-the-nuclear-accident-at-the-fukushima-daiichi-nuclear-power-station
(Download link on right)
Description:
Special Report on the Nuclear Accident at the Fukushima Daiichi Nuclear
Power Station
Half cocked, as usual.
- Jed
Mary Yugo wrote:
> You seem to be suggesting that there is something fundamentally different
>> about Rossi's Ni nanopowder compared to the nanopowder cells of Arata and
>> Miles, or the Ni cells of Patterson or Piantelli. . . .
>>
>
> What I am suggesting is that the evidence for Rossi's claims
Craig Haynie wrote:
> Rossi: I do not know him well. I met him ten years ago when I made a
> test of a Seebeck Effect apparatus in the UNH. Anybody can enter in the
> Board Of Advisers of the Journal Of Nuclear Physics . . .
It is necessary
> to be a University Professor in Scientific matter. P
Peter Heckert wrote:
> The upper pipe was not measured and had no (visible) control mechanism.
>
> If the final customer was not aware about this possibility, he could have
> been fooled.
How long would the customer be fooled? No corporation would give Rossi $2
million without doing addition
Michele Comitini wrote:
A. Final note
> There is a big difference between your efforts on http://www.lenr-canr.organd
> the e-cat site. The first is a service to the community, the other is
> for selling goods.
>
What is wrong with selling goods?!?
Do you have some ivory-tower objection to ca
Berke Durak wrote:
>
> > If we assume only a small amount was vaporized and the major amount
> > of water was neither heated nor vaporized and flew back through the
> > second pipe, then excess energy is not required.
>
> So you say no water was heated now? Do you have any basis for that
> assum
Mary Yugo wrote:
>
> So let's see. If I send a report to Allan about my pink, invisible,
> flying unicorns that eat nickel and fart hydrogen he should report that
> too? I disagree. I think a journalist must use judgement in choosing what
> to report.
>
I agree. It was silly for Allan to repo
Daniel Rocha wrote:
This post, among others, violates the rules of this community. You are
> using too much irony and scorn. And I am not the first to note that.
>
> Where are the moderators of this forum?
>
There is only one: Bill Beaty.
Perhaps Mary Yugo has gone a little overboard. That is f
Mary Yugo wrote:
> Of course nothing. But there is a lot wrong with misleading and deceptive
> advertising.
>
Rossi has not done any advertising as far as I know. Perhaps you are
talking about Steorn.
> Also with saying you sold something when you didn't.
>
Do you have any reason to thin
Mary Yugo wrote:
>
> That Rossi provides an order blank is in no way any evidence that he has
> ever taken an order, accepted money for a device, actually delivered a
> device or that filling in the order will get you anything more than not
> doing so.
How could an order form do this? Here is
On Sat, Nov 12, 2011 at 10:33 PM, Mary Yugo wrote:
>
> Yes, I think most experts would say they do.
>>
>
> That I would like to know more about. It should be easy to show -- add
> the catalyst and get evidence for a nuclear reaction namely neutrons and/or
> radiation.
>
This test will not work.
Mary Yugo wrote:
Sure but it really is a waste of space. Here are some of the idiotic
> nonsense actively promoted on Sterling's pages... as if Obama going to
> Mars alone wasn't enough. Tell you what-- rather than my boring everyone,
> choose from the list here:
>
> http://pesn.com/Radio/Fre
This looks pretty good.
Ask Rossi if this is correct. Send him the link.
He may want to use it himself, on his website.
- Jed
Sean True wrote:
Customers exchange money for something that meets a current need. That
> can be a need to use a device, a need to gain access to technology
> early, or even a need to do some good. But in any case, there is a
> contract (implicit or explicit) for an exchange of values. The proces
Michele Comitini wrote:
> The difference between a free informative website and a business website
> is about selling. On a business if you damage potential sales, you are
> doing a poor job with the website. Rossi's site does not look like, and it
> is not a business site, it is very "amateuris
I have had it with Mary Yugo. She wrote:
This test will not work. Cold fusion does not produce neutrons and it
>> seldom produces radiation. I have told you that before. If you do not
>> believe me, please review the literature on your own.
>>
>
> Well that's inconvenient, isn't it? So we just lo
This thread is full of strawman arguments. No one is defending Rossi's
behavior, least of all me. We are saying:
His claims can be evaluated independently of his behavior, based strictly
on the laws of physics. This is true even though his experimental
techniques are sloppy.
His business decision
Roarty, Francis X wrote:
> IMHO Defkallion should make their own powder, I don't give Rossi's micro
> tubules have any great advantage over the nano powders of other researchers.
As far as I know, Rossi's powder is much better than anyone else's. It is
far ahead of Piantelli's solid material.
jmp jmp mailto:crossection...@yahoo.com>> wrote:
First, the part about "forget Rossi": I think Rossi has been an
enormous time/talent sink with no benefit to the LENR field.
Arguably, he's set the field back quite a lot.
That is preposterous. He has made more progress toward practica
Well said! I agree completely.
- Jed
I wrote:
> However, others are trying to develop powder, and they may be catching up.
> . . .
>
[Various people] wish to reverse engineer the powder and develop a new type
> not beholden to Rossi.
>
They may be able to do this outside of Italy, where Rossi has no patent. Or
perhaps inside Italy
Mary Yugo wrote:
Nobody can prove *convincingly* that Rossi's E-cat works as he says he does.
>
Except people with a junior high level knowledge of physics, or anyone who
has ever cooked a large pot of stew.
> All of this is entirely Rossi's fault.
>
And all that he has accomplished is ent
Mary Yugo wrote:
Re Mary Yugo, I am reading only what she tells about Rossi and the E-cat,
>> not LENR or CF.
>>
>> Simple and completely correct. Proof of Rossi has nothing to do with
> LENR or CF.
>
Rossi and Defkalion would like you to think so. Rossi's patent attorney, in
the letters publis
Vorl Bek wrote:
> > The fact that he has been able to do this despite rabid
> > opposition and countless baseless accusations by people like you
> > makes the accomplishment all the more remarkable.
>
> I can't see why suggesting that Rossi let an independent lab test
> his device is 'rabid oppo
Mary Yugo wrote:
>
> It's interesting that they showed what appears to be a prototype Hyperion
> apparently with some sort of test set up. It's far from proving that they
> have a working fusion reactor!
> I would have expected them to show a large room filled with people making
> Hyperions.
>From time to time, someone asks me about these issues. For example, someone
sent me this comment from a discussion group, and asked how it might be
addressed:
". . . global warming is about HEAT - atmospheric gasses like co2 & ch4
tend to cause the atmosphere to retain more of it - however, even
Mary Yugo wrote:
> You keep saying the results of Rossi's demos were obvious but there is
> continuing disagreement over that from very smart people so you could be
> wrong.
>
I do not know any very smart people who say this. All of the scientists
I know who have examined the results are convin
Terry Blanton wrote:
> I don't recall Rothwell saying that Rossi lies.
>
Because I never did say that. I said repeatedly that as far as I know, he
always tells the truth about engineering technical details.
Mind your, the list of his statements we compiled includes some
diametrically opposite
Mary Yugo wrote:
I suspect he practices misdirection ...
We agree. I think his entire performance at the demos consists mostly
of misdirection.
Even if that were true, a 30 L vessel of water cannot remain at boiling
temperature for 4 hours, so we can be sure the claims are true. Ther
This document is unprofessional. The photographs should have captions, like
the ones in the Scientific American or a trade magazine. A caption should
tell the reader what this is, and what the significance of it is. Like so:
An reactor (nn cm x nn cm x nn cm). On the left is a canister of bla
Mary Yugo wrote:
They did not say they had a prototype lab. They said they had a factory.
>>
>>
>> Do you have evidence they do not?
>>
>
> Oh come on! YOU know better than THAT! Like it's my job to disprove
> their extravagant claims?
>
Many companies do have factories, so this claim is not
Charles Hope wrote:
Granted that Rossi is producing anomalous heat, nevertheless absolutely
> everything else about this story stinks to high heaven.
Except the fundamental physics, and the fact that a 30 L poorly insulated
vessel of water cannot stay at boiling temperature for 4 hours. That do
Alan J Fletcher wrote:
> (I don't know if there's a name for that kind of chart .. a bit like the
> famous Napoleon chart, showing the energy flow divided up into various uses.
For those unfamiliar with this, the Napoleon chart is a *masterpiece* of
statistical graphics. See:
http://www.edwar
Charles Hope wrote:
Rossi can be devious, but I have not seen *any* evidence that he lies about
>> engineering data.
>>
>
> Except that you wrote
>
> Mind you, the list of his statements we compiled includes some
> diametrically opposite assertions:
>
>
> http://www.peswiki.com/index.php/Director
Joshua Cude wrote:
>
> Except the fundamental physics, and the fact that a 30 L poorly insulated
>> vessel of water cannot stay at boiling temperature for 4 hours.
>>
>
> It most certainly can, if it weighs 100 kg, and consists in part of fire
> brick, or something similar, and starts out at 500
This may be a double posting . . .
Joshua Cude wrote:
>
> Except the fundamental physics, and the fact that a 30 L poorly insulated
>> vessel of water cannot stay at boiling temperature for 4 hours.
>>
>
> It most certainly can, if it weighs 100 kg, and consists in part of fire
> brick, or some
Mary Yugo wrote:
Ah. You must not have been reading what I wrote carefully. I never said
> Rossi is committing fraud. I said that I think he *may be* committing
> fraud. Some places I said "most likely" and "may very well" be committing
> fraud. That isn't libel -- not in the US anyhow.
>
I wrote:
> http://amasci.com/pathsk2.txt
>
I cite example #10, below. This is what you are up to, and if you don't
stop, you will be soon be on my kill file list. Admittedly that is an elite
group (4 people), so perhaps it would please you to join it.
10. Accusing opponents of delusion, lying,
For some reason a message from Joshua Cude popped up. Anyway, he wrote:
> It's not even close to libelous. But why exactly is your opinion more
> important than the legal definition?
>
The spirit of these messages violates the rules set here, and they violate
the rules of academic decorum.
>
wrote:
>
> This figure is too high. The amount intercepted by the Earth is 5 million
> quads
> per annum above the atmosphere, and then some of this is directly
> reflected back
> into space by cloud cover.
>
Where did you get that info?
I looked all around for that. I found that one site that
Robert Leguillon wrote:
Completely concur. These are the kind of test environs that I'd expect to
> see. Also, their technical posts were always at least logical (e.g.,
> experimenting with different coolants for a single-phase primary loop).
That's for sure. Better to keep it in liquid phase,
If I may summarize, this forum resembles a Unitarian Church. Unitarians
welcome atheists. They really do. But they insist the atheists treat
believers with respect and vice versa, and they are suspicious of
certainty. See the Unitarian Jihad:
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/chronic
Mary Yugo wrote:
>
> The homeopaths never do the experiment even in the face of a million
> dollar standing prize from James Randi if someone can simply differentiate
> a properly made homeopathic solution from it's solvent by *any* means
> whatsoever.
>
That is incorrect. Jacques Benveniste inv
Mary Yugo wrote:
> His October 6 demo featured a much larger and heavier device which was
> poorly inspected and had a lower power density than ever before.
>
What do you mean by that? The power was 8 kW nominal. That is considerably
higher than some previous demonstrations. The cell was no big
James Bowery wrote:
Can't you just ban this noise-box, Jed?
I can't ban anyone. This forum belongs to Bill Beaty. The beauty of e-mail
systems is that you can selectively ban individual people. If Mary Yugo
grates on you too much, just add her to your kill file.
Anything I think Yugo's latest
Mary Yugo wrote:
> We don't even know what the cell looked like. Rossi did not show it. All
> we saw was a large machine and inside was another box with some fins. Did
> I miss something?
>
Yes, you did miss something. The box with fins was the cell. But I suspect
you knew that. Please do no
Mary Yugo wrote:
> Yes, you did miss something. The box with fins was the cell. But I suspect
>> you knew that. Please do not play games -- if you did know that, do not
>> pretend you did not.
>>
>>
> I don't think so. What I read was that the finned box was another heat
> exchanger with three
Mary Yugo wrote:
>
> That's completely wrong-- both sides of it. If P&F are correct, that does
> not mean that Rossi's entirely different claim is correct.
>
I do not know anyone else who says it is entirely different. When
many experiments in different laboratories all show anomalous heat from
Mary Yugo wrote:
>
> Let me see if I understand. You're making claims about the amount of
> catalyst present in the cells? Isn't this a bit like counting the angels
> on the head of a pin?
>
Except that angels do not obey Archimedes' law and they are invisible.
Far as I know, Rossi has ne
Mary Yugo wrote:
Benveniste and others disputed that last statement.
>>
>
> This is a bit like the story of Dr. Levi's 18 hour experiment. Why did
> they not repeat the whole thing?
They did not repeat it because Beveniste died soon after all of
this occurred. Also I believe Nature magazine an
Alan J Fletcher wrote:
>
> That's the one! The last graph in particular. US only, and doesn't
> support my "70%" (except as energy LOSS).
>
Here is similar data from the EIEA:
Primary Energy Consumption by Source and Sector
http://www.eia.gov/totalenergy/data/annual/pecss_diagram.cfm
I do
Anyone interested in energy should get this. It is an invaluable resource.
2010 is the latest edition, just published in October 2011
http://www.eia.gov/totalenergy/data/annual/pdf/aer.pdf
I printed out a previous version. This one has a lot of new data such as
U.S. Government energy consumption.
Okay, so if 3.5 million quads are added by solar energy, I should adjust
this:
World primary energy consumption is roughly 400 quads per year. The US
> consumes 100 quads. Solar energy striking the Earth's surface produces
> roughly 8.2 million quads per year, 20,500 times more than this.
>
Solar
Stephen A. Lawrence wrote:
> No, he does not claim way more power. Adjusting for the mass of reactant
> it is about the same as Fleischmann and Pons boiling experiments.
>
>
> Wait ... Does this mean that the Saturn V didn't actually produce "'way
> more power" than my Subaru's 4 cylinder engine,
That is interesting. Rossi said he does not want to sell to the military.
If he sold this the NRL that would be a major change in his policy.
Granted, his policies are not very consistent.
The NRL's budget is a tad over $1 billion, so they could afford this.
I have no idea whether this is true. I
A good summary of the history of modern electronics:
http://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2011/11/the-myth-of-the-innovator-hero/248291/
This includes the famous incident I mentioned here, in which Teal dunked a
silicon amplifier into boiling oil, and it continued to work. That is
another
Peter Heckert wrote:
> Rossis demonstrations are as if Edison had drilled a pinhole in a box, put
> the bulb in and demonstrated that light came out of the pinhole. "Sorry I
> cannot show you more, unless you give me a million after succesful
> demonstration".
>
On the contrary, Edison's strate
901 - 1000 of 14277 matches
Mail list logo
