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
On Sat, Dec 10, 2011 at 12:46 PM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.comwrote:
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
On Sat, Dec 10, 2011 at 1:20 PM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com 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
On Sat, Dec 10, 2011 at 5:04 PM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com 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
AG, look at the date.
The Gallentini pages you refer to were produced in July, for the December and
January tests, as a direct answer to Krivit's concerns; that is why BY MASS was
all in caps. Steven Krivit, of New Energy Times, had traveled to Italy for an
interview with Rossi. An E-Cat was
I would expect the pump noise to alter. Before boiling occurred the pump
only had to contend with flow loss induced pressure requirements. When
steam was generated it had to handle the flow losses plus the steam
pressure on the unboiled water that would be trying to force the feed
water back
On Sun, Dec 11, 2011 at 3:23 AM, Aussie Guy E-Cat
aussieguy.e...@gmail.comwrote:
As for Krivit in Italy did you actually listen to the way he asked
questions? He was rude and insulting. To an Italian his actions would have
just shut them down. Did you see Levi's reactions as Krivit questioned
You are both going over the top here. I think in scientific discourse
something along the lines of Yeat's Second Coming is worth holding in
mind:
The best lack all conviction, while the worst are full of passionate
intensity
On 11 December 2011 16:13, Mary Yugo maryyu...@gmail.com wrote:
On
I wish someone had taken the considerable trouble to duplicate Rossi's
small E-cat and Ottoman (Oct 6) experiments. By this, I mean to make
devices as similar as possible as Rossi's and to show that the experimental
results KE and Lewan got could be obtained by mismeasurement rather than
LENR
I believe you should do a much simpler test. As I said, an experiment is
best when reduced to minimum number of components. That is, when you test
the claim to its essence. You keep it clean. Test one thing at a time, in
isolation, rather than the entire range of behavior the eCat exhibits.
There
Adding the heat initially with a gas fire produces the same results as adding
it with an electric heater.
Jed,
Do you really not understand the difference, here? Using an external gas heat
vs. An internal heater is absolutely crucial to the argument of stored heat.
Your statement really
Robert Leguillon robert.leguil...@hotmail.com wrote:
Adding the heat initially with a gas fire produces the same results as
adding it with an electric heater.
Jed,
Do you really not understand the difference, here? Using an external gas
heat vs. An internal heater is absolutely crucial to
I wrote:
I was leaving out the core altogether. I assume that adding any kind of
simulated core will only make the thing cool down faster.
By thing I mean the entire insulated vessel. The whole system. Not the
core by itself. That will cool at various different rates depending on many
factors.
I wrote:
HOWEVER, if you want to do this test, and you feel the core is important,
you should simulate it. That may mean you heat it up a core separately and
then immerse it in the liquid. . . .
This would not make the experiment significantly more complicated, so why
not? Go for it.
On Sat, Dec 10, 2011 at 11:20 AM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.comwrote:
I wrote:
HOWEVER, if you want to do this test, and you feel the core is important,
you should simulate it. That may mean you heat it up a core separately and
then immerse it in the liquid. . . .
This would not make
Hi Jed,
I think the simple test would be to put a 25kg block of lead (for big ecat
simulation) on the gas with a pan of water on top of the lead, all well
insulated. Turn on the gas and heat until the water boils. Turn off the gas
and with whole container well sealed and insulated see how long
Jed: Now I see what you were shooting for:
You were recommending replacing the core with the same volume of water based on
specific heat.
The reason that that was insufficient, is due the the total energy storage
possible.Though iron has a lower volumetric heat capacity that water (3.5 Jc3/K
vs
Am 10.12.2011 17:51, schrieb Mary Yugo:
I wish someone had taken the considerable trouble to duplicate Rossi's
small E-cat and Ottoman (Oct 6) experiments. By this, I mean to make
devices as similar as possible as Rossi's and to show that the experimental
results KE and Lewan got could be
Peter Heckert peter.heck...@arcor.de wrote:
By this, I mean to make
devices as similar as possible as Rossi's and to show that the
experimental
results KE and Lewan got could be obtained by mismeasurement rather than
LENR heat production.
Possibly it is sufficient to test the heat
Am 11.12.2011 00:04, schrieb Jed Rothwell:
Peter Heckertpeter.heck...@arcor.de wrote:
By this, I mean to make
devices as similar as possible as Rossi's and to show that the
experimental
results KE and Lewan got could be obtained by mismeasurement rather than
LENR heat production.
Possibly
Peter Heckert peter.heck...@arcor.de wrote:
You should know, I have said it can be done with a secret wireless heater
switch and/or with a vacuum sucking out water.
I suggest you prove that. Build something with wires large enough to
produce this much heat yet which remain invisible when
Am 11.12.2011 00:53, schrieb Jed Rothwell:
Peter Heckertpeter.heck...@arcor.de wrote:
You should know, I have said it can be done with a secret wireless heater
switch and/or with a vacuum sucking out water.
I suggest you prove that. Build something with wires large enough to
produce this
This is silly. There was a clamp on amp meter on the mains cord and on
the heater wires going into the E-Cat. Power consumption was recorded
during the self power run. Refer to the Higgins data. Are you suggesting
that during the self powering period NONE of the MANY people in the room
would
Am 11.12.2011 01:46, schrieb Aussie Guy E-Cat:
This is silly. There was a clamp on amp meter on the mains cord and on
the heater wires going into the E-Cat. Power consumption was recorded
during the self power run. Refer to the Higgins data. Are you
suggesting that during the self powering
Peter, don't you think your statement is a little extreme? I suspect you
should have more evidence before you condemn everyone who believes in this
field?
Dave
-Original Message-
From: Peter Heckert peter.heck...@arcor.de
To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com
Sent: Sat, Dec 10, 2011
Am 11.12.2011 01:57, schrieb David Roberson:
Peter, don't you think your statement is a little extreme? I suspect you
should have more evidence before you condemn everyone who believes in this
field?
Now, I am not a fanatic believer, but often I tend to believe, it should
be possible.
I dont
You can clearly see in the video there were a volt meter and amp meter
at the wall plug measuring the energy delivered to the Blue Box and
another set between the Blue Box and the E-Cat. According to the Higgins
data, power input was measured many times during the self sustain mode.
Are you
On Sat, Dec 10, 2011 at 7:56 PM, Aussie Guy E-Cat
aussieguy.e...@gmail.comwrote:
The same thing applies to the earlier Kullander test / demo. Those guys
were not fools. They would have been looking for any sign of fraud. They
found none. In the end, Rossi removed all the insulation so they
On Sat, Dec 10, 2011 at 7:56 PM, Aussie Guy E-Cat
aussieguy.e...@gmail.comwrote:
You can clearly see in the video there were a volt meter and amp meter at
the wall plug measuring the energy delivered to the Blue Box and another
set between the Blue Box and the E-Cat. According to the Higgins
They used a WATTS UP Pro Es power meter and recorded input power every 8
second via a USB port to the PC:
http://www.journal-of-nuclear-physics.com/files/Levi,%20Bianchini%20and%20Villa%20Reports.pdf
As for the hold button, you think that NONE of these people do not know
that or NONE would
On Sun, Dec 11, 2011 at 1:16 AM, Mary Yugo maryyu...@gmail.com wrote:
I can't access that paper at the moment -- the site
returns an account suspended error.
He just needs to buy bytes. But Jed posted the Levi report here:
http://www.lenr-canr.org/acrobat/LeviGreportonhe.pdf
T
On Sat, Dec 10, 2011 at 10:29 PM, Terry Blanton hohlr...@gmail.com wrote:
On Sun, Dec 11, 2011 at 1:16 AM, Mary Yugo maryyu...@gmail.com wrote:
I can't access that paper at the moment -- the site
returns an account suspended error.
He just needs to buy bytes. But Jed posted the Levi
You need to watch and read the subtitles in this video,
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L4JUJhkpc3I especially when Celani starts
talking around 23:20. He states he observed short Gamma bursts as the
reactor was starting up and as it shut down. Also claimed a 50% non
steady state increase in
So you did not read the last 2 pages? Where an expert in steam quality,
measured and made adjustments in the order of -2% to the energy output.
There was no invalidation, no matter how much you wish there was.
On 12/11/2011 5:38 PM, Mary Yugo wrote:
On Sat, Dec 10, 2011 at 10:29 PM, Terry
34 matches
Mail list logo
