Re: [Vo]:Estimated range of possible power shown by 2 ml/second water flow in a Rossi-type demonstration

Well, since now it is pretty clear to many of us that none of the demos provide proof of excess heat, then the judgement call is whether to decide that there is no Rossi excess heat. I came up intuitively, out of my sensitive vapors, with the scenario that Rossi found that increasing the electric

Re: [Vo]:Estimated range of possible power shown by 2 ml/second water flow in a Rossi-type demonstration

Why did you choose the words "red herring" for a discriptive? Who uses these? On Thu, Jul 14, 2011 at 8:30 AM, Abd ul-Rahman Lomax wrote: > > > In many discussions of this, it was assumed that the only issue was "steam > quality." If we were to assume very wet steam, say 20% by weight, we would >

Re: [Vo]:Estimated range of possible power shown by 2 ml/second water flow in a Rossi-type demonstration

On Fri, Jul 15, 2011 at 12:50 AM, Joshua Cude wrote: > > > On Thu, Jul 14, 2011 at 10:19 PM, Abd ul-Rahman Lomax > wrote: > >> >> Semantics. Yes, steam can be much wetter than 20%, particularly after >> condenstation, under marginal conditions it could approach 100%. This, >> however, wouldn't b

Re: [Vo]:Estimated range of possible power shown by 2 ml/second water flow in a Rossi-type demonstration

On Thu, Jul 14, 2011 at 10:19 PM, Abd ul-Rahman Lomax wrote: > > Semantics. Yes, steam can be much wetter than 20%, particularly after > condenstation, under marginal conditions it could approach 100%. This, > however, wouldn't be called "steam." It would be called "hot water." Yes, 100% liquid

Re: [Vo]:Estimated range of possible power shown by 2 ml/second water flow in a Rossi-type demonstration

kimo.com" > >Sent: Thursday, July 14, 2011 11:30:55 AM >Subject: [Vo]:Estimated range of possible power shown by 2 ml/second water >flow in a Rossi-type demonstration > >At 04:01 AM 7/13/2011, Harry Veeder wrote: >> >> If we apply the logic of the "block b

Re: [Vo]:Estimated range of possible power shown by 2 ml/second water flow in a Rossi-type demonstration

At 02:49 PM 7/14/2011, Rich Murray wrote: The 15 seconds when Rossi waved the misty end of the black hose against the black sweater were the Waterloo of this mistaken claim... Any signs that his associates are starting to face this unwelcome reality? Rich, you are making an assumption, that a

Re: [Vo]:Estimated range of possible power shown by 2 ml/second water flow in a Rossi-type demonstration

At 12:50 PM 7/14/2011, Joshua Cude wrote: On Thu, Jul 14, 2011 at 10:30 AM, Abd ul-Rahman Lomax <a...@lomaxdesign.com> wrote: In many discussions of this, it was assumed that the only issue was "steam quality." If we were to assume very wet steam, say 20% by wei

Re: [Vo]:Estimated range of possible power shown by 2 ml/second water flow in a Rossi-type demonstration

On Thu, Jul 14, 2011 at 5:43 PM, Mark Iverson wrote: > As Richard Feynman said, there are some who are very uncomfortable not making > a decision... > > Some individuals tend to operate in a binary mode, and are constantly > changing their 'decision' as > new data comes in.  I, like Steven, am

RE: [Vo]:Estimated range of possible power shown by 2 ml/second water flow in a Rossi-type demonstration

Steven wrote: "For now, I think I'll reserve a definitive conclusion on the Rossi matter." As Richard Feynman said, there are some who are very uncomfortable not making a decision... Some individuals tend to operate in a binary mode, and are constantly changing their 'decision' as new data come

Re: [Vo]:Estimated range of possible power shown by 2 ml/second water flow in a Rossi-type demonstration

>From Richard: > I examined the video frame by frame for the 15 frames > that were part of the 15 seconds that showed the end > of the black hose -- several frames clearly show the > water mist expanding as a cone directly from the end > of the hose -- thus no proof that invisible steam made > it

Re: [Vo]:Estimated range of possible power shown by 2 ml/second water flow in a Rossi-type demonstration

I examined the video frame by frame for the 15 frames that were part of the 15 seconds that showed the end of the black hose -- several frames clearly show the water mist expanding as a cone directly from the end of the hose -- thus no proof that invisible steam made it to the end of the 3 m hose.

Re: [Vo]:Estimated range of possible power shown by 2 ml/second water flow in a Rossi-type demonstration

>From Rich: > The 15 seconds when Rossi waved the misty end of the black hose > against the black sweater were the Waterloo of this mistaken claim... > > Any signs that his associates are starting to face this unwelcome reality? The "waterloo of [Rossi's] mistaken claim?" Heavens, Rich, how many

Re: [Vo]:Estimated range of possible power shown by 2 ml/second water flow in a Rossi-type demonstration

The 15 seconds when Rossi waved the misty end of the black hose against the black sweater were the Waterloo of this mistaken claim... Any signs that his associates are starting to face this unwelcome reality?

Re: [Vo]:Estimated range of possible power shown by 2 ml/second water flow in a Rossi-type demonstration

On Thu, Jul 14, 2011 at 10:30 AM, Abd ul-Rahman Lomax wrote: > > In many discussions of this, it was assumed that the only issue was "steam > quality." If we were to assume very wet steam, say 20% by weight, we would > then be able to infer excess heat, assuming complete boiling (only merely > "we

Re: [Vo]:Estimated range of possible power shown by 2 ml/second water flow in a Rossi-type demonstration

Hmm, I wonder if Krivit was really telling the truth and he played tricks on Rossi. On his website, Rossi said that there wasn't an output of 4KW: http://www.journal-of-nuclear-physics.com/?p=497&cpage=9#comment-47686 Dear Marcia Pires: ***4000 kW is a power we never reached. The speed in ou

[Vo]:Estimated range of possible power shown by 2 ml/second water flow in a Rossi-type demonstration

At 04:01 AM 7/13/2011, Harry Veeder wrote: If we apply the logic of the "block box" to the eCat then it is possible to argue it is a hoax even if the output is only dry steam. This is based on the assumption that it is theoretically possible to use a 600-700 watt resistance heater to transfo