On Oct 10, 2011, at 4:57 PM, OrionWorks - Steven Vincent Johnson wrote:
Ed Storms said it was ok for me to post the following analysis he
made:
* * * * * *
A careful examination of the attached graph reveals an interesting
conclusion. The Pout (power out) and the Eout (Energy out)
The hyperlink to graph 3 is mistakenly pointing to graph 2 I think.
On Tue, Oct 11, 2011 at 2:44 AM, Horace Heffner hheff...@mtaonline.netwrote:
On Oct 10, 2011, at 4:57 PM, OrionWorks - Steven Vincent Johnson wrote:
Ed Storms said it was ok for me to post the following analysis he made:
On Oct 10, 2011, at 11:10 PM, Axil Axil wrote:
The hyperlink to graph 3 is mistakenly pointing to graph 2 I think.
Right you are. Thanks! Should have been:
http://www.mtaonline.net/~hheffner/RossiT2_RF.png
On Tue, Oct 11, 2011 at 2:44 AM, Horace Heffner
hheff...@mtaonline.net
“As already speculated by a few here, Rossi continues to give me the
impression that he operates very much on intuition. Recording scientific
data is almost incidental to him, a characteristic I suspect probably drives
a few of his colleagues to distraction. “
After watching Rossi for some months
On 11-10-10 04:35 PM, Robert Leguillon wrote:
If someone Couldn't care less, it means that they care so little
that it's impossible for them to care any less than they do right now.
If someone Could care less, it means that they care enough that it's
possible to care less.
That was intentional - just keeping you guys on your toes.
Irregardless: should be regardless
Four corners of the Earth: the earth does not have four corners
Supposably: should be SupposeDLy
Commonplaced: should be commonplace (no d)
Stephen A. Lawrence sa...@pobox.com wrote:
On 11-10-10
That appears to be a graph of power noy yemperature.
- Original Message -
From: Jed Rothwell
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Sent: Sunday, October 09, 2011 9:24 PM
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Look at the BIG PICTURE and you will see this is
irrefutable proof
Joe Catania zrosumg...@aol.com
If its passive cooling? Excuse me but are we discussing something here?
- Original Message -
From: Jed Rothwell
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Sent: Sunday, October 09, 2011 9:41 PM
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Look at the BIG PICTURE and you will see this is
irrefutable proof
Excuse me I
On Oct 9, 2011, at 7:05 PM, Robert Leguillon wrote:
Alright, if it's conclusive without the thermocouples
Does anyone have a decent water capacity for the E-Cat? I see that
H.H. calculated 14.2 liters, but has there been any confirmed
number out of the Rossi camp?
I only ask, because
Joe Catania zrosumg...@aol.com wrote:
**
That appears to be a graph of power noy yemperature.
It is derived from Lewan's temperature readings. The flow rate was unchanged
so correspondence to the temperature is unchanged for the entire dataset. In
other words, you could replace the vertical
Robert Leguillon robert.leguil...@hotmail.com wrote:
The rapid overfilling was at .91 grams/second (It turns out the 1.92 g/s
was for quenching)
The rapid overfill I refer to is the quenching, at 1.92 g/s. I believe
0.91 was the rate during the test when Lewan checked it. 1.92 isn't very
Newton's Law is irrelevant. Your the type of buffoon who believes that since
there's an Ohms LAw every conductor obeys it. The temperature law the e-cat
obeys is ostensibly written in the temperature data if we can consider that
valid. Whether that confirms its Newton's Law or notr is not
Newton's Law is irrelevant. Your the type of buffoon who believes that since
there's an Ohms LAw every conductor obeys it. The temperature law the e-cat
obeys is ostensibly written in the temperature data if we can consider that
valid. Whether that confirms its Newton's Law or notr is not
From Joe Catania:
On Mon, Oct 10, 2011 at 10:04 AM, Joe Catania wrote:
Newton's Law is irrelevant. Your the type of buffoon who believes that since
there's an Ohms LAw every conductor obeys it. The temperature law the
e-cat obeys is ostensibly written in the temperature data if we can
Jed,
I said:
An additional 2,056 watts is required for the phase-change, but, of course, we
have no idea how much is boiling away.
Greater than 2,437 watts would completely vaporize the input water.
You said:
Since the temperature is 120°C I believe it has to be completely vaporized. I
On 11-10-10 11:04 AM, Joe Catania wrote:
Newton's Law is irrelevant. Your the type of buffoon who ...
And you, /Mister/ Catania, are apparently the type of poster who resorts
to ad hominems when he's having trouble expressing himself clearly
enough to get his point across.
Jed's may be a
On 11-10-10 12:33 PM, Stephen A. Lawrence wrote:
On 11-10-10 11:04 AM, Joe Catania wrote:
Newton's Law is irrelevant. Your the type of buffoon who ...
And you, /Mister/ Catania, are apparently the type of poster who
resorts to ad hominems when he's having trouble expressing himself
Jed Rothwell is a serious, intelligent, dedicated, honorable, careful,
scientific layman with the highest motives to benefit our world -- he
always acknowledges his bias clearly and openly.
I think it would be much to his credit to agree that the term
pathological skeptic is as unworthy in public
Quit picking on Catania who does not know the difference between
'your' and 'you're'. He passed away some time ago as is evidenced by
this piccy of him surrounded by flowers. RIP JOE!
http://www.theeestory.com/posts/199540
T
LOL. That's hypocritical.
- Original Message -
From: Rich Murray rmfor...@gmail.com
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com; Rich Murray rmfor...@gmail.com; Rich Murray
rmfor...@comcast.net
Sent: Monday, October 10, 2011 12:49 PM
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Look at the BIG PICTURE and you will see this is
LOL. That's hypocritical.
- Original Message -
From: Rich Murray rmfor...@gmail.com
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com; Rich Murray rmfor...@gmail.com; Rich Murray
rmfor...@comcast.net
Sent: Monday, October 10, 2011 12:49 PM
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Look at the BIG PICTURE and you will see this is
Funny, you don't seem annoyed. All Jed is capable with regard to this matter
is condescension.
- Original Message -
From: Stephen A. Lawrence sa...@pobox.com
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Sent: Monday, October 10, 2011 12:33 PM
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Look at the BIG PICTURE and you will see this
No that was part of the decor in a restaurant in Taormina. Its nice to know
that the only thing that counts here is spelling (and self-affected
narcissists).
- Original Message -
From: Terry Blanton hohlr...@gmail.com
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Sent: Monday, October 10, 2011 1:41 PM
Congratulations, Mr. Catania.
Further posts from you will be routed to my block list.
I'm sure you could care less. I guess the feeling is mutual.
Regards
Steven Vincent Johnson
www.OrionWorks.com
www.zazzle.com/orionworks
What do my posts matter anyway? Yes please block me.
- Original Message -
From: OrionWorks - Steven V Johnson svj.orionwo...@gmail.com
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Sent: Monday, October 10, 2011 2:50 PM
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Look at the BIG PICTURE and you will see this is
irrefutable proof
On Mon, Oct 10, 2011 at 2:50 PM, OrionWorks - Steven V Johnson
svj.orionwo...@gmail.com wrote:
Congratulations, Mr. Catania.
Further posts from you will be routed to my block list.
I'm sure you could care less. I guess the feeling is mutual.
whisper: . . . not care less
g, d r
-the
From one narcissist to another...
Seems ol Joe thinks he's converted the lot of us...
http://www.theeestory.com/users/1681/posts#
80kgs of metal can easily store over 40MJ. It's not on the level of a
discussion. My arguments have been extremely convincing as I think you can
tell by the
If that were the approach you would use graphite inductively heated to 3500
deg C in a graphite foil/foam insulated vacuum flask, add hydrogen to start
convective heat transfer. Stores about 1.3kWh/kg and about 2.7kWh/liter, so
would need about 10 liters for 80MJ of latest demo.
Note I am sure
Terry sez:
...
I'm sure you could care less.
whisper: . . . not care less
g, d r
Really? I wuz never good at grammar.
Grammatically speaking I always thought it is better form to avoid
cluttering up one's literary intent with the use of double negatives.
Regards
Steven Vincent Johnson
If someone Couldn't care less, it means that they care so little that it's
impossible for them to care any less than they do right now.
If someone Could care less, it means that they care enough that it's possible
to care less.
Irregardless, people will continue to use the phrase to the
Since you know nothing of the e-cat your remarks have been dismissed. Yes it
was prooveable in the September e-cat that the effects were purely based on
thermal inertia. I suspect the same here. Rothwwell has not been able to
substantiate his position which seems to be a blind acceptance of CF
Joe:
Is that the way to rebut someone who has only questioned some of your
reasoning regarding the heat storage capacity of the E-Cat? Your rebuttal is
to claim they know nothing about the E-Cat and dismiss their points with no
facts or explanation! Then you go on continuing to claim that all your
Ed Storms said it was ok for me to post the following analysis he made:
* * * * * *
A careful examination of the attached graph reveals an interesting
conclusion. The Pout (power out) and the Eout (Energy out) appear to
describe the net excess, not the total as everyone seems to assume.
Ed Storms wrote:
A careful examination of the attached graph reveals an interesting
conclusion.
This refers to Heffner's graph 1:
http://www.mtaonline.net/~hheffner/Rossi6Oct2011Review.pdf
- Jed
On Mon, Oct 10, 2011 at 8:57 PM, OrionWorks - Steven Vincent Johnson
orionwo...@charter.net wrote:
Ed Storms said it was ok for me to post the following analysis he made:
Isn't PoutE a bit funny?
T
On Oct 10, 2011, at 5:01 PM, Jed Rothwell wrote:
Ed Storms wrote:
A careful examination of the attached graph reveals an interesting
conclusion.
This refers to Heffner's graph 1:
http://www.mtaonline.net/~hheffner/Rossi6Oct2011Review.pdf
- Jed
BTW, I finally figured out how to make
Or if it is refutable, let's see someone make a serious effort to refute it.
Stop quibbling about details. Get the heart of the matter, and tell us how a
box of this size with no input power can boil water for 3 hours and remain
at the same high temperature while you cool it with 1.8 tons of
With 40MJ of heat in the system it would be impossible for the temperature to
drop suddenly. I heat a block of steel to 900C, then I stop heating it, and
drop a gram of water on it. What's the temperature? 900C. Notice there was no
precipitous drop. Nor would there be after many grams of water.
On 2011-10-09 22:59, Jed Rothwell wrote:
http://a2.sphotos.ak.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ak-ash4/304196_10150844451570375_818270374_20774905_1010742682_n.jpg
This is another graphical analysis which shows an overall energy gain:
http://imgur.com/a/oix51
(conveniently grouped in a single image
Thanks for the analysis, Jed. Will be interesting to read what others have
to say.
BTW, what did Rossi have to say?
* * * * *
When I look at the graph I continue to be drawn to the curious fact that the
input power is cycled on and off a total of three or four times starting
from
On 2011-10-10 01:12, OrionWorks - Steven Vincent Johnson wrote:
In any case, it looks to me as if Rossi had three false starts
before he finally hit pay dirt on the fourth crank.
I haven't thought of this before, but after pondering a bit about it I
believe it really might have been the
I don't know if Rossi would consider them false starts. From what he has
said in the past it seems that cycling the input on and off is now standard
operating procedure to run the E-Cat in a stable mode. He has said that in
commercial models this cycling will be automated.
On Sun, Oct 9, 2011 at
From Akira:
This is another graphical analysis which shows an overall energy gain:
http://imgur.com/a/oix51
The I/O energy values listed at Imgur certainly bear little resemblance the
values reported over in Mr. Krivit's blog:
http://blog.newenergytimes.com/
Of particular interest to me,
Joe Catania zrosumg...@aol.com wrote:
**
With 40MJ of heat in the system it would be impossible for the temperature
to drop suddenly. I heat a block of steel to 900C, then I stop heating it,
and drop a gram of water on it. What's the temperature? 900C. Notice there
was no precipitous drop.
No the band heater is at 900C but that metal block talk was only for
illustrative purposes. Newtons LAw is irrelevant. An insulated metal block that
loses heat at a rate of 1W loses heat at the rate of 1W. You mention lack of
monotonicity but what's the example (be specific, post link).
-
Joe Catania zrosumg...@aol.com wrote:
**
No the band heater is at 900C but that metal block talk was only for
illustrative purposes. Newtons LAw is irrelevant.
Newton's law governs passive heat loss, which is what this has to be if
there is not energy input and the flow rate does change.
On Sun, Oct 9, 2011 at 9:24 PM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com wrote:
Joe Catania zrosumg...@aol.com wrote:
No the band heater is at 900C but that metal block talk was only for
illustrative purposes. Newtons LAw is irrelevant.
Newton's law governs passive heat loss, which is what this
Excuse me I meant to say that the cooling rate must obey Newton's law if
there is NO energy generation and the flow rate does NOT change. In other
words, if it passive cooling in unchanging conditions. Lewan's observations
and report show that the flow rate and other essential parameters did not
Jed, I hate to ask, really.
You seem to be impressed by that graph. If you look closely at the Ny Teknik
results, the output at the heat exchanger doesn't seem to track the logged
E-Cat temperatures in any meaningful way.
A quick example is between 19:03 and 19:22: In that time frame, E-Cat
Robert Leguillon robert.leguil...@hotmail.com wrote:
You seem to be impressed by that graph. If you look closely at the Ny
Teknik results, the output at the heat exchanger doesn't seem to track the
logged E-Cat temperatures in any meaningful way.
It cannot track them. The eCat is boiling
Alright, if it's conclusive without the thermocouples
Does anyone have a decent water capacity for the E-Cat? I see that H.H.
calculated 14.2 liters, but has there been any confirmed number out of the
Rossi camp?
I only ask, because multiple references have been made to tons of cooling
Robert Leguillon robert.leguil...@hotmail.com wrote:
Does anyone have a decent water capacity for the E-Cat? I see that H.H.
calculated 14.2 liters, but has there been any confirmed number out of the
Rossi camp?
I only ask, because multiple references have been made to tons of cooling
water
The rapid overfilling was at .91 grams/second (It turns out the 1.92 g/s was
for quenching)
I've wanted to look at these numbers, and back-of-the-envelope, 381 watts
would raise the water entering the E-Cat by 100 degrees (from 24 to 124 degrees
C).
An additional 2,056 watts is required for
53 matches
Mail list logo
