Re: [Vo]:POLITICAL What is the best way to advocate?

On Fri, Dec 23, 2011 at 5:27 PM, Jed Rothwell wrote: > > Look, they did not "try" -- they succeeded! [...] > > WHO tried to stop P&F's first efforts? HOW did they do it? >> > > > So, you say cold fusion research was stopped. It has produced nothing. $200 million spent (Nagel's estimate) and t

Re: [Vo]:POLITICAL What is the best way to advocate?

On Fri, Dec 23, 2011 at 4:53 PM, Jed Rothwell wrote: > Mary Yugo wrote: > > >> Such a thing would be more revolutionary and would gain faster acceptance >> and more interest than anything done in the last hundred years. >> > > If you believe that, you do not know the first thing about the histor

Re: [Vo]:Mathematical modeling versus a blacksmith

On Fri, Dec 23, 2011 at 12:19 PM, Harry Veeder wrote: > A > plausible method of fakery is not evidence of fakery. > > Obviously not. But heat, by itself, is not evidence of a nuclear reaction, if the same heat can be plausibly produced without nuclear reactions. Similarly, if I claimed to have

Re: [Vo]:A Consolidated List of Defkalion's Claims

On Thu, Dec 22, 2011 at 4:30 PM, Jed Rothwell wrote: > If they had set a timetable back in June and they had met it on time I > would suspect they are fake. It never goes smoothly. > > I was amazed that Rossi managed to pull off his 1 MW demo. I am pretty > sure it was real. The fact that it was

Re: [Vo]:Mathematical modeling versus a blacksmith

On Thu, Dec 22, 2011 at 2:41 PM, Jed Rothwell wrote: > > It does not matter what rate you add the heat. The flow rate of the water > is unimportant. It might be stopped altogether. > > It takes a certain amount of energy to keep the surface of the reactor at > 80°C for four hours. Right. But Le

Re: [Vo]:Mathematical modeling versus a blacksmith

On Thu, Dec 22, 2011 at 10:29 AM, Jed Rothwell wrote: > Mary Yugo wrote: > > >> Am I to assume you examined the mathematical modeling and resulting >> curves in the links I provided and have analyzed and rejected them for some >> good reason? >> > > Yes. I have seen blacksmiths at work. I have se

Re: [Vo]:A competent observer's assessment of Defkalion

On Wed, Dec 21, 2011 at 4:32 PM, Jed Rothwell wrote: > Joshua Cude wrote a message that I happened to > notice: > > >> Cold fusion is a simple experiment, and anyone should be able to follow >> the recipe, even if not from scratch. If the material is tricky, get it >&

Re: [Vo]:A competent observer's assessment of Defkalion

On Wed, Dec 21, 2011 at 4:32 PM, Jed Rothwell wrote: > Joshua Cude wrote a message that I happened to > notice: > > >> Cold fusion is a simple experiment, and anyone should be able to follow >> the recipe, even if not from scratch. If the material is tricky, get it >&

Re: [Vo]:A competent observer's assessment of Defkalion

On Wed, Dec 21, 2011 at 3:43 PM, Jed Rothwell wrote: > Giovanni Santostasi wrote: > > >> I didn't say that being reproducible by amateurs would be the only way I >> would take LENR seriously. >> Multiple tests done by respectable scientists, with high sigmas, and >> blind methods would be accept

Re: [Vo]:A competent observer's assessment of Defkalion

On Wed, Dec 21, 2011 at 3:42 PM, Stephen A. Lawrence wrote: > Are you kidding, or what? > > > > On 11-12-21 04:33 PM, Giovanni Santostasi wrote: > >> I didn't say that being reproducible by amateurs would be the only way I >> would take LENR seriously. >> Multiple tests done by respectable scienti

Re: [Vo]:A competent observer's assessment of Defkalion

On Wed, Dec 21, 2011 at 3:13 PM, OrionWorks - Steven V Johnson < svj.orionwo...@gmail.com> wrote: > From Giovanni: > > > Until LENR is something that every amateur enthusiast can > > reproduce and post on youtube, it will remain in the realm > > of pseudoscience. > > I disagree with that assumptio

Re: [Vo]:A competent observer's assessment of Defkalion

On Wed, Dec 21, 2011 at 3:00 PM, Jed Rothwell wrote: > > > >> And remember, ... you're the person who thought the Rossi demo of October >> 6 was iron clad. > > > I still do. So do many others. > > > >> It probably did involve some iron (or steel) but hardly was conclusive. >> > > Iron has 10 ti

Re: [Vo]:A competent observer's assessment of Defkalion

On Wed, Dec 21, 2011 at 2:49 PM, Jed Rothwell wrote: > Giovanni Santostasi wrote: > >> Until LENR is something that every amateur enthusiast can reproduce and >> post on youtube, it will remain in the realm of pseudoscience. >> > > That will never happen. But tell me something. As you know, amat

Re: [Vo]:A competent observer's assessment of Defkalion

On Wed, Dec 21, 2011 at 2:41 PM, Jed Rothwell wrote: > Are you serious? Do you sincerely believe that a professional scientist > could spend several days in the laboratory talking to people, looking at > instruments and data, and not recognize that the equipment is fake and the > researchers are

Re: [Vo]:A competent observer's assessment of Defkalion

On Tue, Dec 20, 2011 at 7:47 PM, Jed Rothwell wrote: > How do you know these are extravagant claims? > The claims are extravagant, whether true or not. Why else is everyone so excited about them? > If these claims were true then they were not bluster. We don't know yet. > I would say claims

Re: [Vo]:A competent observer's assessment of Defkalion

On Tue, Dec 20, 2011 at 7:37 PM, Jed Rothwell wrote: > But what is wrong with that?!? Nearly every effect discovered since 1700 > has started off on a small scale, and was later scaled up: > High temperature superconductivity has not yet been scaled up successfully for commercial purposes. And

Re: [Vo]:A competent observer's assessment of Defkalion

On Tue, Dec 20, 2011 at 4:27 PM, Jed Rothwell wrote: > > I guess there is no evidence if you cover your eyes and your ears and yell > "nya, nya, I can't hear you!!" like a 5-year-old. > > There is plenty of evidence if you look up Ni-H experiments at > LENR-CANR.org. There is a *mountain* of evid

Re: [Vo]:Miley and other professors can only take money from official sources

On Mon, Dec 19, 2011 at 7:35 AM, Aussie Guy E-Cat wrote: > Christ man high school students replicated P&F with both excess heat and > transmutations, in a MIT lab and in front of over 100 ICCF 10 attendees? This reminded me of a Dilbert cartoon (since you seem interested in comic relief): http:

Re: [Vo]:Miley and other professors can only take money from official sources

On Mon, Dec 19, 2011 at 6:46 PM, Mark Iverson-ZeroPoint < zeropo...@charter.net> wrote: > Joshua wrote: > > “… And a top academic career would be a chair at a university or director > of a research institute.” > > ** ** > > Well, Josh, by your own definition, Dr. Robert Duncan, Vice Chanc

Re: [Vo]:Miley and other professors can only take money from official sources

On Mon, Dec 19, 2011 at 9:06 AM, Jed Rothwell wrote: > > I do have him killfiled. For my peace of mind. > > > What a coincidence. Your posts all go to a special file too: my must-reply-to file. In a way, it's a kill file, too. Unfortunately, I can't always keep up with your verbosity, and sometim

Re: [Vo]:Miley and other professors can only take money from official sources

On Mon, Dec 19, 2011 at 8:50 AM, Jed Rothwell wrote: > Vorl Bek wrote: > > >> > > Gene went from a top academic career to working in a >> > > warehouse at night to feed his family. >> > > >> > >> > He was a science writer. Respectable, yes. Top academic career, >> > no. >> > > In my opinion, be

Re: [Vo]:Miley and other professors can only take money from official sources

On Mon, Dec 19, 2011 at 7:43 AM, Aussie Guy E-Cat wrote: > Did the DOE visit the students results? I suggest not. Did they sit in > front of a SEM and see the transmutated products? I suggest they did not > and never left their office. I suggest you didn't either. Sorry but real word results tr

Re: [Vo]:Miley and other professors can only take money from official sources

On Mon, Dec 19, 2011 at 7:35 AM, Aussie Guy E-Cat wrote: > Christ man high school students replicated P&F with both excess heat and > transmutations, in a MIT lab and in front of over 100 ICCF 10 attendees? And what did those 100 people see? A power supply pumping 3 A into a cell, and a mercury

Re: [Vo]:Miley and other professors can only take money from official sources

On Mon, Dec 19, 2011 at 7:15 AM, Aussie Guy E-Cat wrote: > I state again. 1 professor, 1 grad and 2 high school students replicated > F&P in a MIT lab in front of over 100 ICCF 10 participants in 2002 and > 2003. The observed excess heat and transmutations. It wasn't enough to convince the DOE i

Re: [Vo]:Miley and other professors can only take money from official sources

gt; I ask because all you apparently contribute to this list is trashing the > FPE. > > > On 12/19/2011 11:23 PM, Joshua Cude wrote: > > >> >> On Sun, Dec 18, 2011 at 8:38 PM, Jed Rothwell > jedrothw...@gmail.com>**> wrote: >> >>He sur

Re: [Vo]:Miley and other professors can only take money from official sources

On Sun, Dec 18, 2011 at 8:54 PM, Aussie Guy E-Cat wrote: > This is so wrong as to make me very upset. I'll do anything I can to get > hold of a FPE device from Leonardo or Defkalion or who ever and shove it up > some FPE deniers back side so far the sun will never shine on it again. And > you wond

Re: [Vo]:Miley and other professors can only take money from official sources

On Sun, Dec 18, 2011 at 8:38 PM, Jed Rothwell wrote: > He sure knew what he was getting into. Fleischmann wrote a lighthearted > account of this, quoted in Beaudette's book. It starts off with Arrhenius > in 1883. He was one of the most important electrochemists in history, like > Faraday. He mad

Re: [Vo]:Miley and other professors can only take money from official sources

On Sun, Dec 18, 2011 at 7:01 PM, Jed Rothwell wrote: > Gene went from a top academic career to working in a warehouse at night > to feed his family. > He was a science writer. Respectable, yes. Top academic career, no. > > Fleischmann and Pons had a terrible time. > Too much money? They had

Re: [Vo]:E-cat impact

On Fri, Dec 16, 2011 at 2:20 AM, Axil Axil wrote: > Following this line of reasoning, it is logical to assume that MY is more > likely than not a male. I would guesstimate that the odds on this > speculation are 70/30 that MY is a man. > Who the hell cares?

Re: [Vo]:CF as a historical phenomenon

On Thu, Dec 15, 2011 at 7:33 PM, Harry Veeder wrote: > Geocentrism took over 1000 years to "debunk". > But considering it was accepted by the mainstream, it was not a pathological science.

Re: [Vo]:CF as a historical phenomenon

On Thu, Dec 15, 2011 at 7:27 PM, Jed Rothwell wrote: > Joshua Cude wrote: > > >> > Contrary to popular argument, science actually celebrates novelty and >> > revolution, and scientists are not afraid of disruptive experiments; >> they >> > crave t

Re: [Vo]:CF as a historical phenomenon

On Thu, Dec 15, 2011 at 7:19 PM, Jed Rothwell wrote: > Charles Hope wrote: > > Are there any examples of pathological science persisting 20 years without >> being properly debunked? > > > Not to my knowledge. Unless you count things like water memory, which may > be real after all, and acupunctu

Re: [Vo]:CF as a historical phenomenon

On Thu, Dec 15, 2011 at 6:56 PM, Giovanni Santostasi wrote: > There is an example that is interesting. > Gravitational wave detection. > As a practical field was created more than 40 years ago and no detection > has been done yet. > Doesn't fit the question though, since the concept has never be

Re: [Vo]:CF as a historical phenomenon

On Thu, Dec 15, 2011 at 5:50 PM, Charles Hope wrote: > Are there any examples of pathological science persisting 20 years without > being properly debunked? Are there any examples of new science remaining on > the fringe for 20 years before being finally accepted into the mainstream? > > Perpetual

Re: [Vo]:Bob Park is back!

On Thu, Dec 15, 2011 at 5:37 PM, Charles Hope wrote: > It's not relevant, because his criticism is against innumeracy, which > applies to such delusions as astrology and homeopathy, but not cold fusion, > where the most serious advocates are scientists, who certainly know their > differential equa

Re: [Vo]:eCat Electric COP : 2

On Thu, Dec 15, 2011 at 5:35 PM, Jed Rothwell wrote: > > Then I suggest you read Christensen and some other books about business. > Some of these ideas are complicated. You have to do your homework. > An amazing new revolutionary technology promising to replace fossil fuels... but it's useless i

Re: [Vo]:E-cat article by Haiko Leitz

On Thu, Dec 15, 2011 at 4:08 PM, Jed Rothwell wrote: > > "If you can't think of a specific way this EXPERIMENTAL scientist's work > could have jumped the tracks, then you have no basis to challenge the > conclusions." > First of all, there are many specific ways suggested to explain the ecat, t

Re: [Vo]:E-cat article by Haiko Leitz

On Thu, Dec 15, 2011 at 2:42 PM, Jed Rothwell wrote: > > I am saying that as a rule of logic, all assertions much be falsifiable, > Resorting to misunderstood rules is the refuge of people who have no good arguments left. Falsifiability just means it should be possible to conceive of an experime

Re: [Vo]:E-cat article by Haiko Leitz

On Thu, Dec 15, 2011 at 2:28 PM, Alan J Fletcher wrote: > At 11:08 AM 12/15/2011, Alan J Fletcher wrote: > > I need to add phase-change salts (and possibly even ceramic bricks) to my > fakes paper. Can you give me / point me to a likely candidate? > > > http://www.seas.upenn.edu/~meam502/projec

Re: [Vo]:E-cat article by Haiko Leitz

On Thu, Dec 15, 2011 at 2:12 PM, Jed Rothwell wrote: > It is a problem of logic, as I explained to Yugo. An assertion that cannot > be tested or falsified cannot be debated. I cannot dispute it. Or agree > with it, for that matter. It is meaningless. > This sounds like the tactic of a loser. The

Re: [Vo]:E-cat article by Haiko Leitz

On Thu, Dec 15, 2011 at 1:49 PM, Jed Rothwell wrote: > > > Other than Talbot Chubb every researcher I have discussed this with > believes most of the claims. > Not many on record though. It will be interesting if the ecat comes to nothing, to see how they will rationalize their beliefs in the cla

Re: [Vo]:E-cat article by Haiko Leitz

On Thu, Dec 15, 2011 at 1:08 PM, Alan J Fletcher wrote: > > I need to add phase-change salts (and possibly even ceramic bricks) to my > fakes paper. Can you give me / point me to a likely candidate? > > You might also consider reversible metal-hydride reactions.

Re: [Vo]:E-cat article by Haiko Leitz

On Thu, Dec 15, 2011 at 12:45 PM, Horace Heffner wrote: > > Rossi's tests and explanations are full of holes and self contradictions, > impossibilities. It is Rossi's tests and explanations that matter. All > the blather from the peanut gallery is irrelevant, except possibly to alert > the few g

Re: [Vo]:E-cat article by Haiko Leitz

On Thu, Dec 15, 2011 at 1:08 PM, Jed Rothwell wrote: > The power between 150 and 250 shown in the cooling loop is more or less > stable, meaning the thing has reached the terminal temperature. It has > achieved a balance between input and output. > It's stable because it's measuring the temperat

Re: [Vo]:E-cat article by Haiko Leitz

On Thu, Dec 15, 2011 at 11:49 AM, Jed Rothwell wrote: > > Oh come now. I have dealt with fraud by pointing that Yugo's claims of > stage magic is not falsifiable. > I don't know who you think is convinced by that. Of course it's falsifiable. Just run the experiment long enough without input to e

Re: [Vo]:Bob Park is back!

On Thu, Dec 15, 2011 at 3:47 PM, Jed Rothwell wrote: > Most confirmed skeptics refuse to read anything. > It's not refusal. It's that they are not interested. Most skeptics are satisfied that if the grandiose claims were real, simple and obvious demonstrations would not only be possible, but wo

Re: [Vo]:Bob Park is back!

The whole thing is related to pseudoscience and ignorance, and it's all relevant. Here it is: 1. HACKS: SHODDY PRESS COVERAGE OF SCIENCE. The Leveson Inquiry into the standards and ethics of the UK press, headed by Lord Justice Brian Leveson, was prompted by the News of the World phone- hacking s

Re: [Vo]:E-cat article by Haiko Leitz

On Thu, Dec 15, 2011 at 9:21 AM, Jed Rothwell wrote: > > 1. Stored energy can only cause the temperature to decline monotonically, > very rapidly at first (Newton's law of cooling). Yet this heat increased > during the event. > Not true. If the inside is hotter than the outside, the outside can

Re: [Vo]:E-cat article by Haiko Leitz

On Thu, Dec 15, 2011 at 8:31 AM, Jed Rothwell wrote: > > You ignore the central fact about this test which is that the reactor > remained at boiling temperatures for four hours with no input power. > Big deal. It weighs 100 kg. Ten kg is enough to stay at boiling for 40 hours, without any nuclea

Re: [Vo]:entanglement broadcasting

On Thu, Dec 15, 2011 at 12:18 AM, Axil Axil wrote: > > This experiment supports my contention that entanglement, a key mechanism > in the cold fusion process, can be broadcast from one entangled ensemble > to induce entanglement in another ensemble even at high temperatures. > > > The experime

Re: [Vo]:E-cat article by Haiko Leitz

On Wed, Dec 14, 2011 at 5:50 PM, Jed Rothwell wrote: > > The other tests cannot be faked as far as I know. No skeptic has come up > with a plausible method. After all this time, I do not think any skeptic > will come up with anything. At least, not with anything that can be tested > or falsified.

Re: [Vo]:E-cat article by Haiko Leitz

On Wed, Dec 14, 2011 at 3:59 PM, Horace Heffner wrote: > http://www.heise.de/tp/**artikel/35/35803/1.html > > English translation > > http://translate.google.com/**translate?sl=de&tl=en&js=n&** > prev=_t&hl=en&ie=UTF-8&layout=**2&eotf=1&u=http%3A%2F%

Re: [Vo]:New Posting from Lattice Energy - LENR compared to CF

On Tue, Dec 13, 2011 at 6:26 PM, wrote: > Joshua, > > I believe, Zawodny does explain the creation of ULM neutrons through the > plasmonic creation of heavy electrons. See (slide 16) of > > http://newenergytimes.com/v2/news/2011/36/2010-Zawodny-AviationUnleashed.pdf That's not an explanation. T

Re: [Vo]:Replication News from Chan

On Tue, Dec 13, 2011 at 4:32 PM, Peter Heckert wrote: > Am 13.12.2011 23:21, schrieb ecat builder: > > Hi All, >> >> Just a brief update on the replication attempt by "Chan". Chan is an >> anonymous poster who claims to have replicated the Rossi reaction >> using powders on two builder sites, eca

Re: [Vo]:Reviewing Lewan's test of April 2011

On Tue, Dec 13, 2011 at 3:25 PM, Jed Rothwell wrote: > > I calibrated the thermocouple in a pot of boiling water before the test > and it was 99.6 deg C. That’s all you need to know. It’s in the report. > The temperatures +/- a degree or two within boiling are not informative. The flat temperatu

Re: [Vo]:Acceleration Under Load

On Tue, Dec 13, 2011 at 2:13 PM, Jed Rothwell wrote: > In any case, it continues in self-sustaining mode far beyond the limits of > chemistry, > Not more than a few per cent on *this* side of the limits of chemistry. > and the energy used to reheat it is far less than the energy it produces >

Re: [Vo]:New Posting from Lattice Energy - LENR compared to CF

On Tue, Dec 13, 2011 at 12:12 PM, wrote: > > Lattice Energy LLC-LENRs and Cold Fusion are Different Concepts - Dec 13 > 2011 > > As usual, he points out 1) the absurdity of breaching the Coulomb barrier in ordinary fusion, which would take something approaching 100 keV for appreciable tunneling

Fwd: [Vo]:Why not duplicate Rossi\'s setups and see howtheyworkwithout LENR?

This went to personal mail, so I'm forwarding to the list: On Tue, Dec 13, 2011 at 7:29 AM, Ransom Wuller wrote: > > Sure, but the output after traveling through meters of hose also had to > then travel through water allowed to stand at room temperature. It's exactly what you're claiming for

Re: [Vo]:Acceleration Under Load

On Tue, Dec 13, 2011 at 12:51 PM, Jed Rothwell wrote: > Mary Yugo wrote: > > Rossi ran a nuclear reactor for four hours with a claimed six month >> capability and I am supposed to be ecstatic? >> > > Since it would have cooled down immediately in the absence of anomalous > heat, 4 hours proves th

Re: [Vo]:Acceleration Under Load

On Tue, Dec 13, 2011 at 8:52 AM, Jed Rothwell wrote: > > He did that! What are you talking about?!? He has made the thing > self-sustain from internally generated heat for 4 hours. > It's not self-sustaining if you have to cycle the input power, and Rossi has admitted that the input power has to

Re: [Vo]:Reviewing Lewan's test of April 2011

On Tue, Dec 13, 2011 at 9:39 AM, Jed Rothwell wrote: > Daniel Rocha wrote: > > BTW, the vertical component of the exit tube of my humidifier is only 5cm >> long... >> > > Mine too. As I said, I think you could use a plastic bag to funnel the > vapor into a hose. > > Be sure to mix it with a high

Re: [Vo]:Reviewing Lewan's test of April 2011

On Tue, Dec 13, 2011 at 9:30 AM, Daniel Rocha wrote: > I have one of those, 5L. At maximum power, it takes 33W and 15 hours to > empty all the reservoir, but the fog is so dense that it falls within a > meter but it is so opaque cannot see through it. Despite all this, putting > my hand in front

Re: [Vo]:Reviewing Lewan's test of April 2011

On Tue, Dec 13, 2011 at 8:45 AM, Jed Rothwell wrote: > Cude wrote: > > > So some things are impossible? You should keep an open mind. It doesn't >> > violate any principles of physics for a mist of micrometer droplets to >> > travel through a hose, and it is far more plausible than radiationless

Re: [Vo]:Why not duplicate Rossi\'s setups and see how theyworkwithout LENR?

On Mon, Dec 12, 2011 at 11:28 PM, Randy Wuller wrote: > Lewan's 2nd test in april adequately measured the output energy to > establish O/I of over 3/1. Since steam quality and output measurements have > been questioned and used as a basis to argue that the various Rossi tests > failed to demonstr

Re: [Vo]:Reviewing Lewan's test of April 2011

On Mon, Dec 12, 2011 at 7:31 PM, Jed Rothwell wrote: > Mary Yugo wrote: > > >> An ultrasonic nebulizer is certainly possibly but it's a bit far fetched. >> > > A bit? How would the water from this reach the end of the hose without > forming drops and becoming an ordinary flow of water? I would s

Re: [Vo]:Reviewing Lewan's test of April 2011

On Mon, Dec 12, 2011 at 6:07 PM, Mary Yugo wrote: > > > I understand and agree with all the reasons but the problem I see is > accounting for the water. But how much water? I can't really tell what > Lewan measured. > It's pretty simple. Lewan measured about 11 liters going in to the ecat over

Re: [Vo]:Reviewing Lewan's test of April 2011

On Mon, Dec 12, 2011 at 3:41 PM, Jed Rothwell wrote: > Also, if the water was in the mythical state discussed here in which it is > 90% liquid and 10% vapor, the liquid portion would definitely fall into the > bucket. The only way it could not have reached the bucket would be if it > was vapor, a

Re: [Vo]:Reviewing Lewan's test of April 2011

Ransompw is desperate to justify his faith in Rossi, but this experiment is hardly the one to do it, for several reasons: 1) If half the liquid is escaping the hose as steam as ransom claims, then there should be a flow of gas at the output close to 1 L/s. There is no way the gas coming out of tha

Re: [Vo]:What is so special abbout Rossi?

On Sun, Dec 11, 2011 at 12:58 PM, Jed Rothwell wrote: > > This theory has no bearing on the results. The theory may be wrong, but > the technique has been independently tested, and it works. > So they claim. But the demonstrations are not impressive. I'm not aware of any peer-reviewed papers on i

Re: [Vo]:Why not duplicate Rossi's setups and see how they work without LENR?

On Sat, Dec 10, 2011 at 5:04 PM, Jed Rothwell wrote: > If you wish to disprove these claims, you must demonstrate by > conventional means that you can keep a reactor of this size at boiling > temperatures for 4 hours, while it remains too hot to touch. > There is no need to demonstrate this. It

Re: [Vo]:Why not duplicate Rossi's setups and see how they work without LENR?

On Sat, Dec 10, 2011 at 1:20 PM, Jed Rothwell wrote: > > If you trust there was water flowing thorough at the rate reported by > Rossi, then replace 4 L every 15 minutes as I originally suggested: > This seems wrong. The pump is rated at 12L/h, and at the end of the run the rate is doubled, acco

Re: [Vo]:Why not duplicate Rossi's setups and see how they work without LENR?

On Sat, Dec 10, 2011 at 12:46 PM, Jed Rothwell wrote: > > I was assuming that nearly all of the heat is stored in water, and that > heat stored in the core is insignificant because it is metal, and most > metals have about 10 times lower specific heat than water. I was leaving > out the core altog

Re: [Vo]:Why not duplicate Rossi's setups and see how they work without LENR?

I'm coming to this discussion a little late, I know, and I'll probably repeat points others have covered, but as I read through the nonsense Rothwell writes, I can't carry on to the next nonsensical paragraph until I've dealt with the previous, so I'll post my thoughts as I work through it. If you

Re: [Vo]:The assumption that Rossi is right is made for the sake of argument

On Fri, Dec 9, 2011 at 7:34 PM, Jed Rothwell wrote: > It means we acknowledge the possibility of error or fraud, and *then we > move on* to the rest of the discussion. > Lawrence already showed how silly this claim is. You repeatedly say there is no chance of fraud; that the claims are proven o

Re: [Vo]:LENR-CANR Theory Papers

On Fri, Dec 9, 2011 at 12:09 PM, Alan J Fletcher wrote: > > Akito Takahashi, a retired professor of nuclear engineering from Osaka > University, and now affiliated with Technova Inc., is shifting his thinking > about low-energy nuclear reactions. > > For two decades, Takahashi, a LENR experimenta

Re: [Vo]:Will tests surface mounted thermocouples on pipe

On Thu, Dec 8, 2011 at 2:54 PM, Robert Leguillon < robert.leguil...@hotmail.com> wrote: > > 1) We don't know the flow rate of the primary, but "Rossi says" it's 15 > l/h, and you've never known him to lie, so let's assume 15 l/h, or 4.17 g/s > I don't think this can be right, because this is alre

Re: [Vo]:Will tests surface mounted thermocouples on pipe

On Thu, Dec 8, 2011 at 3:17 PM, Jed Rothwell wrote: > > Did you read what I wrote about this? What I wrote SEVERAL DOZEN TIMES?!? > Unfortunately repetition does not make it true. Although some experts question these results, most believe that the reactor > must have produced large amounts of a

Re: [Vo]:Will tests surface mounted thermocouples on pipe

On Thu, Dec 8, 2011 at 1:44 PM, Jed Rothwell wrote: > > Houkes is right. Live with it. > > > When you no longer have to insist repeatedly that something is right, there might be a chance that it in fact is.

[Vo]:krivit and the WL theory

Krivit has written another smug, self-satisfied, sneery, sarcastic piece about the Widom Larsen theory. I posted a reply in the comments, but of course it won't pass moderation, so I'll post it here as well: Although I think you are sincere, and your motives are true, as is quite clear in your ha

Re: [Vo]:a long paper about and mainly against the E-cat

On Thu, Dec 8, 2011 at 8:54 AM, Jed Rothwell wrote: > Mary Yugo wrote: > > >> So there was an uninspected volume of about 30 cube centimeters cube. >> > > Right. That's what I said. There is no way equipment in such a small cube > can explain the heat. I said: "They have not seen inside the cell

[Vo]:takahashi's electron capture

Krivit has put up the abstract for Takahashi's paper at the JCF-12 meeting. In it he proposes a WL-like electron capture by a proton. He claims the energy threshold for this reaction is 272 keV, and that it is exceeded by 600 keV electrons in his magic lattice. Could someone explain how they get a

Re: [Vo]:Brian Ahern Will Not Be Presenting on December 7, 2011

On Tue, Dec 6, 2011 at 6:43 PM, Akira Shirakawa wrote: > From NextBigFuture: > > http://nextbigfuture.com/2011/**12/brian-ahern-will-not-be-** > presenting-on.html > > This is unexpected. Does anybody know why Dr. Brian A

Re: [Vo]:a long paper about and mainly against the E-cat

On Wed, Dec 7, 2011 at 7:02 PM, Jed Rothwell wrote: > > To put it another way, older laws trump newer ones. > You mean like Newton's laws trump relativity and QM? > If calorimetry and thermodynamics prove that cold fusion does exist, you > cannot point to the newer laws governing plasma fusion

Re: [Vo]:a long paper about and mainly against the E-cat

On Wed, Dec 7, 2011 at 6:07 PM, David Roberson wrote: > > Give the poor guy a break. > You should give him a break about the trap. > He measured the input flow rate accurately. You and I and everyone else > would agree that the output flow rate and the input flow rate must be equal > in the l

Re: [Vo]:a long paper about and mainly against the E-cat

On Wed, Dec 7, 2011 at 4:51 PM, David Roberson wrote: > Of course you are correct if water is being forced out of the ECAT. I see > no reason to believe that that is the situation since an attempt was made > to measure the water and some was captured. > But we don't know how successful this att

Re: [Vo]:Discussion of "saturated steam locomotive" versus "superheated" from Railroad Age Gazette

On Wed, Dec 7, 2011 at 4:38 PM, David Roberson wrote: > The pressure must be established within the boiler so I guess the hotter > steam does not make its way back to the boiler. Is it likely that some > form of check valve is used at the throttle? If that were possible, then > higher pressure

Re: [Vo]:a long paper about and mainly against the E-cat

On Wed, Dec 7, 2011 at 3:21 PM, David Roberson wrote: > Of course you are making a good point that they did use extra equipment to > ensure that the steam was very dry. The question is what is the dryness of > the steam before it entered those devices? Do you have any reference to > this inform

Re: [Vo]:a long paper about and mainly against the E-cat

On Wed, Dec 7, 2011 at 3:01 PM, David Roberson wrote: > Now, do you sincerely think that the large generator was supplying the > heat energy to vaporize the water? > I don't have sincere thoughts about anything on this subject. It could be, and that weakens Rossi's case. Those ecats could all h

Re: [Vo]:a long paper about and mainly against the E-cat

On Wed, Dec 7, 2011 at 2:33 PM, Jed Rothwell wrote: > Mary Yugo wrote: > > >> As I have pointed out before, that is an invalid argument. Rossi can >> invalidate the entire line of thought simply by giving an E-cat to a >> university, >> > > Your statement applies to Rossi, not your own argument

Re: [Vo]:a long paper about and mainly against the E-cat

On Wed, Dec 7, 2011 at 2:30 PM, Jed Rothwell wrote: > Mary Yugo wrote: > > >> >>> A person who thinks it is possible to keep water at boiling temperatures > for four hours at a poorly insulated vessel is not capable, by definition. > By any method? In a 100 kg device that holds 30 L of water.

Re: [Vo]:a long paper about and mainly against the E-cat

On Wed, Dec 7, 2011 at 2:03 PM, Jed Rothwell wrote: > Mary Yugo wrote: > > >> And I always have to remind you that there are probably many potential >> methods to cheat we may not have thought of. >> > > You do not have to remind me of that. I have to remind *you* that is a > violation of the sc

Re: [Vo]:a long paper about and mainly against the E-cat

On Wed, Dec 7, 2011 at 1:54 PM, Jed Rothwell wrote: > Mary Yugo wrote: > > >> I consider the Oct. 6 test definitive. >>> >> >> Many capable scientists and engineers do not agree. >> > > I have not heard from any yet. > How to break this to you? They don't care about you. You'll have to go looki

Re: [Vo]:a long paper about and mainly against the E-cat

On Wed, Dec 7, 2011 at 1:47 PM, Jed Rothwell wrote: > > > Fortunately, it is predicated on immutable laws of physics and first > principle observations made by dozens of people who I know to be honest. > No. The laws of physics and ordinary chemistry can explain all the observations without invo

Re: [Vo]:a long paper about and mainly against the E-cat

On Wed, Dec 7, 2011 at 1:12 PM, Jed Rothwell wrote: > Mary Yugo wrote: > > >> There is no need to postulate energy storage in the megawatt plant >> demonstration. It is only necessary to consider that Rossi's client may be >> fictitious and that the engineer may work for Rossi, perhaps for quit

Re: [Vo]:a long paper about and mainly against the E-cat

On Wed, Dec 7, 2011 at 1:01 PM, Jed Rothwell wrote: > I agree there may have been some liquid flowing through at times, but > Lewan performed Method 2 after a very large burst of heat, and he found the > flow rate was much lower than the flow rate going into the reactor. > Therefore the reactor w

Re: [Vo]:a long paper about and mainly against the E-cat

On Wed, Dec 7, 2011 at 12:38 PM, David Roberson wrote: > > > I have always maintained that I will follow the evidence and have been > faithful to that end. > That is not consistent with your frequently expressed absolute certainty that LENR is occurring. > > Why should we assume that a well trai

Re: [Vo]:a long paper about and mainly against the E-cat

On Wed, Dec 7, 2011 at 1:30 PM, Jed Rothwell wrote: > Mary Yugo wrote: > > >> I suspect you will take wild notions like mine more seriously if much >> more time passes without any absolutely definitive determination of Rossi's >> veracity. >> > > I consider the Oct. 6 test definitive. The chance

Re: [Vo]:a long paper about and mainly against the E-cat

On Wed, Dec 7, 2011 at 9:41 AM, Robert Leguillon < robert.leguil...@hotmail.com> wrote: > > The steam experts were right in the INITIAL steam discussions. I agree > with you. But they were being asked about steam quality, not water > "overflow." > Krivit raised his questions on steam quality whic

Re: [Vo]:a long paper about and mainly against the E-cat

On Wed, Dec 7, 2011 at 8:50 AM, Jed Rothwell wrote: > Here is another comment from Mats Lewan > > As for energy storing I believe that has been clearly shown not to be a > possible explanation in itself.You simply would need an additional heat > source inside to have water boiling after 4 hours w

Re: [Vo]:Celani: gamma spike during ignition of Rossi reactor

On Wed, Dec 7, 2011 at 8:45 AM, Berke Durak wrote: > THE MINI GEIGER HAD HIT > > THE TOP OF THE SCALE, Means nothing. What scale was it on? Did a hyperthyroid patient (treated with I-131) walk past? It takes very little to put some meters off-scale. And yes, some (older) welding rods can easily

<    1   2   3   4   5   6   7   8   9   10   >