On 01/21/2011 01:37 AM, Harry Veeder wrote:
Stephen A. Lawrence wrote:
On 01/20/2011 01:29 AM, Harry Veeder wrote:
Would weighing the entire apparatus before and after reveal
a concealed chemical reaction?
I don't think so. The sort of reaction proposed here replaces
the reactants
by someone other than Rossi,
before and after the run, that would be very good to know!
Harry
*From:* Stephen A. Lawrence sa...@pobox.com
*To:* vortex-l@eskimo.com
*Sent:* Wed, January 19, 2011 11:35:12 PM
*Subject:* Re: [Vo]:Krivit relents
On 01/19/2011 05:37 PM
Playing devil's advocate in situations like this serve a useful
purpose. Honoring our skeptical bones hopefully help keep our feet
firmly planted on the ground, particularly when our wings would love
to start flapping right now! ...to soar into the stratosphere is
everyone's dream.
Rossi on his blog explains that the heat output during the demo came
from the nuclear reaction of several picograms of Ni -- about 3 X
10E-12 gm ... a millionth of a microgram, while the mass of the
nuclear reacting H would be 1 atom of H for each atom of Ni reacting,
with the most common isotope
On 01/20/2011 10:48 AM, Rich Murray wrote:
Rossi on his blog explains that the heat output during the demo came
from the nuclear reaction of several picograms of Ni -- about 3 X
10E-12 gm ... a millionth of a microgram, while the mass of the
nuclear reacting H would be 1 atom of H for each
I found this comment.
Dear Pierre,
Thank you for your important questions, here are the answers:
1- the Ni powder I utilized were pure Ni, no copper . At the end of the
operations in the reactor the percentage of copper was integrally bound to the
amount of energy produced. A charge which has
He admits on his website that they have not tried components from other
suppliers.
From: Stephen A. Lawrence sa...@pobox.com
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Sent: Thu, January 20, 2011 10:37:28 AM
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Krivit relents
On 01/20/2011 09:57 AM
On Thu, Jan 20, 2011 at 10:37 AM, Stephen A. Lawrence sa...@pobox.com wrote:
Erm -- Rossi, not Rossi and Focardi. I haven't read anything indicating
Focardi knows what the secret ingredient is -- as far as I know, only
Rossi knows.
Focardi stated that he indeed did not know the nature of the
On 01/20/2011 03:44 PM, Terry Blanton wrote:
On Thu, Jan 20, 2011 at 10:37 AM, Stephen A. Lawrence sa...@pobox.com wrote:
Erm -- Rossi, not Rossi and Focardi. I haven't read anything indicating
Focardi knows what the secret ingredient is -- as far as I know, only
Rossi knows.
In reply to Rich Murray's message of Thu, 20 Jan 2011 08:48:32 -0700:
Hi,
[snip]
Rossi on his blog explains that the heat output during the demo came
from the nuclear reaction of several picograms of Ni -- about 3 X
10E-12 gm ... a millionth of a microgram, while the mass of the
nuclear reacting
Stephen A. Lawrence wrote:
Is Rossi honest?
If he is, it's for real.
As of Friday, Jan. 14, this question no longer hangs on Rossi's honesty.
Thank goodness!
If he isn't, then a chemical scam, using thermite or some other
high-energy-density fuel, hasn't been ruled out. Furthermore, in
Stephen wrote:
In the latter case, one can assume there will be delays and unexpected
problems with continuing to
create the effect on demand a few months down the road...
I think that is what happened with his grant with the DOD... perhap's Jones
might know more about
this, but I started
Stephen A. Lawrence sa...@pobox.com wrote:
That was in previous tests, not in this particular one-hour
run. I do not know whether Levi et al. observed any long-duration
runs, but other people have.
In that case, the public demonstration on Jan 14 was unnecessary --
right?
Au contraire,
In reply to Jed Rothwell's message of Thu, 20 Jan 2011 20:31:38 -0500:
Hi,
[snip]
But we knew all along there has to be a control factor
somewhere, because the reaction manifestly does turn on, turn up, and turn
off, sometimes quickly. It must be responding to some stimulus.
[snip]
According to
Stephen A. Lawrence wrote:
On 01/20/2011 01:29 AM, Harry Veeder wrote:
Would weighing the entire apparatus before and after reveal a concealed
chemical reaction?
I don't think so. The sort of reaction proposed here replaces the reactants
with solid ash, which remains on the spot, so the
Dear Jones,
Have you read my answer to Ed Storms's message you have cited here?
I do not agree with him regarding the main points.
The things are always much more complicated than they seem to be.
Re your point 1) what do you know about this nano-Ni work- what when was
accomplished?
Do you know
Peter,
As a humorous note, in an ethnocentric kind of way, you can probably
appreciate this comment.
The name Dr Andrea Rossi, has been around for some time in thermoelectrics,
but prior to recently I had been under the impression that this person was a
woman, since that name in the USA is
The Q and A between Krivit and Rossi (on the NET link that Jones refers to
below) has Rossi giving
many additional tidbits...
One is that books by Greiner and Cooks were important to his success...
This is what Rossi has to say about it:
the more important books (for me, Greiner and Cooks) do
Dear Jones,
I have no problems with the masculinity of the name Andrea, I am very fond
of opera music and Andrea Chenier by U. Giordano is one opera I like much.
To be sincere I absolutely do not care if somebody is a PhD or not. Do you
know Cipolla's Laws of Stupidity? One of these laws says
Would weighing the entire apparatus before and after reveal a concealed
chemical
reaction?
Harry
From: Stephen A. Lawrence sa...@pobox.com
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Sent: Wed, January 19, 2011 11:35:12 PM
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Krivit relents
On 01/19/2011 05:37 PM, Jed Rothwell wrote
20 matches
Mail list logo
