Stephen A. Lawrence sa...@pobox.com wrote:
There was no feedback from the applied power level to the input flow rate,
and there is no apparent reason for the output temperature to hold steady at
barely above boiling, as it did.
There is no feedback in the Hydrodynamics gadget either, just a
On 02/09/2011 09:37 AM, Jed Rothwell wrote:
Stephen A. Lawrence sa...@pobox.com mailto:sa...@pobox.com wrote:
There was no feedback from the applied power level to the input
flow rate, and there is no apparent reason for the output
temperature to hold steady at barely above
Stephen A. Lawrence sa...@pobox.com wrote:
The energy produced was apparently *exactly* what was needed to boil away
the input water -- no more, no less.
And *that* is strange.
Nope. That's steam at 1 atm. It never gets any hotter than just above
boiling.
It comes out faster with more
Rich,
S30430 is soft temper wire stock !
Good grief - Why would you blindly try to debunk a potentially useful
finding by claiming that an alloy which is not used in Dewars, is the source
for anomalous copper ?
Geeze, I've got no problem with good debunking, because most of the
claimants need
On 02/09/2011 10:22 AM, Jed Rothwell wrote:
Stephen A. Lawrence sa...@pobox.com mailto:sa...@pobox.com wrote:
The energy produced was apparently *exactly* what was needed to
boil away the input water -- no more, no less.
And *that* is strange.
Nope. That's steam at 1 atm.
Jed is right, it is an open system and even if the surface of heating is at
300 C, the time of contact is short and the steam cannot be overheated
much.
On Wed, Feb 9, 2011 at 5:50 PM, Stephen A. Lawrence sa...@pobox.com wrote:
On 02/09/2011 10:22 AM, Jed Rothwell wrote:
Stephen A. Lawrence
Stephen A. Lawrence sa...@pobox.com wrote:
Now, if you boil water in an *open* boiler with a *submerged* heating
element, the temperature of the steam will never go above 100C (give or take
a degree).
Exactly. And that's still how it works if you turn the pot sideways. That's
what the Rossi
Krivit agreed that Helium is a nuclear product and it has been measured
repeatedly and rigorously in LENR.
That being the case, I cannot imagine why he thinks cold fusion is not
fusion. He hasn't actually said that deuterium is the starting product, but
what else is there?!? He also makes strange
Jed, did you actually read what I wrote? It sounds like you stopped
after the first paragraph.
On 02/09/2011 11:14 AM, Jed Rothwell wrote:
Stephen A. Lawrence sa...@pobox.com mailto:sa...@pobox.com wrote:
Now, if you boil water in an /open/ boiler with a /submerged/
heating
I meant to say it makes NO difference whether the water is on top of the
submerged heating element, or the heating element is on top of the water, or
a joule heater in the water, or -- for that matter -- a laser hitting the
water, or a Hydrodynamics gadget that imparts the energy with ultrasound.
I'm getting really tired of this.
Peter, you didn't read, or didn't understand, what I wrote.
You don't seem to understand the fundamental point, which is that the
rate of boil-off is being determined by the pump, with no feedback from
the reactor. The flow rate is fixed and 100% of the water
I suspect that many vorticians will have already bookmarked this site:
http://freeenergy.tv/
. but the real reason for mentioning it now is the fabulous presentation at
Mizzou in 2009 by Larry Forsley. If you have not seen it, is a must-see:
On 02/09/2011 11:43 AM, Jed Rothwell wrote:
I meant to say it makes NO difference whether the water is on top of
the submerged heating element, or the heating element is on top of the
water, or a joule heater in the water, or -- for that matter -- a
laser hitting the water, or a
Stephen A. Lawrence sa...@pobox.com wrote:
The steam can NOT exit the tube going faster unless IT IS HOTTER.
You've got a fixed flow rate in moles per minute, man -- doesn't that mean
anything to you?
It isn't fixed at the outlet. It comes out as fast as it likes. Only the
inlet rate is
On 02/09/2011 11:58 AM, Jed Rothwell wrote:
Stephen A. Lawrence sa...@pobox.com mailto:sa...@pobox.com wrote:
The steam can NOT exit the tube going faster unless IT IS HOTTER.
You've got a fixed flow rate in moles per minute, man -- doesn't
that mean anything to you?
It
Fwd: Bologna 14-jan-11 test on Rossi E-cat: Franco Mattei: Rich Murray
2011.02.09
[ permission given to forward ]
-- Forwarded message --
From: Franco Mattei fm1986...@gmail.com
Date: Wed, Feb 9, 2011 at 6:00 AM
Subject: Bologna 14-jan-11 test on Rossi E-cat
To:
I put some water in a teakettle.
I put it on the stove.
I turn on the burner, on high.
After a while the water in the kettle boils.
The steam from the boiling water entirely fills the kettle, pushing out
*all* the air.
The steam is rushing out the little hole (making an awful whistling
From: Stephen A. Lawrence
If the reactor were generating 10% more power than needed to exactly boil
off the water, just where do you think that excess power would go?
Steven - it is you who is making the wrong assumption. You have missed the
forest for the trees.
Do you not see the
Jones, I this has already been mentioned and briefly discussed, in an
exchange with Robin.
Feedback from the output temp to control the reactor is the *only*
mechanism which has been proposed which accounts for this, and it was
proposed long before you wrote your message.
If that is what was
I have understood. I have even worked with many types of pumps, including
those with constant, fixed flow, as in this case- the peristaltic pump..
Very probably the system works in this way- you have a core, very hot
in the center of the device- Ni and H reacting in a metallic tube.. By
external
Of course this method of direct temperature control via the included
hardware is what is being done, and it is not speculation!
The possibility of control via water flow is ABSURD! Where did that come
from?
That is the basis of my comment - not seeing the forest for the trees.
This type
Thank you for the clarification.
My only point was that there was a coincidence in need of explaining:
the power in and power out *seem* to be set independently and yet they
match to a nicety.
Your explanation of that coincidence, given below, is in rough agreement
with Jones's, which is that
On 02/09/2011 01:07 PM, Jones Beene wrote:
Of course this method of direct temperature control via the included
hardware is what is being done, and it is not speculation!
Who, besides yourself, has said the reaction rate is being electrically
controlled to keep the steam temperature at
On Wed, Feb 9, 2011 at 11:51 AM, Jones Beene jone...@pacbell.net wrote:
But geeze, folks, let’s stay away from semantics – it only gives the
irrational skeptic an additional hook to hang their stinkin’ hats on.
I've always been antisemantic.
T
Been following this discussion carefuly, since I can understand the point being
made...
Stephen asked,
And if the reactor is putting out an extra 500 watts over and above the amount
to exactly vaporize
the water, exactly *where* do you think that extra 500 watts is going?
The answer, which
On Wed, Feb 9, 2011 at 1:15 PM, Stephen A. Lawrence sa...@pobox.com wrote:
Who, besides yourself, has said the reaction rate is being electrically
controlled to keep the steam temperature at 101.6 C?
Levi's report says the control box contains 5 digital PLC's. I
presumed they were
On 02/09/2011 01:28 PM, Terry Blanton wrote:
On Wed, Feb 9, 2011 at 1:15 PM, Stephen A. Lawrence sa...@pobox.com wrote:
Who, besides yourself, has said the reaction rate is being electrically
controlled to keep the steam temperature at 101.6 C?
Levi's report says the control box
Very good and clear lecture.
As Frank asks how many do think that something is going on, I would
positively raise my hand.
It seems to me that there are some parallels with what Rossi is doing.
Would be great if similar data for Protium could be placed next to those
of Deuterium.
My
In reply to Harry Veeder's message of Tue, 8 Feb 2011 21:31:46 -0800 (PST):
Hi Harry,
[snip]
If something like neutron capture is involved would it help if the
palladium had
a particular isotopic composition?
[snip]
I would expect neutron poor/light isotopes to be more susceptible to neutron
Jones has explained the case better than me.
It was a peristaltic pump, see Celani's report peristaltic pump, small size
10-20 W power I have used this type of pump for many liquids, including
phosgene- so I noticed it immediately.
The temperature of the steam was 101 C- and to be again personal
On 02/09/2011 02:28 PM, Peter Gluck wrote:
Jones has explained the case better than me.
It was a peristaltic pump, see Celani's report peristaltic pump,
small size 10-20 W power I have used this type of pump for many
liquids, including phosgene- so I noticed it immediately.
Interesting.
To be sincere, it is not essential if it was a peristaltic pump or a
positive displacement pump as you can see here:
http://www.engineeringtoolbox.com/positive-displacement-pumps-d_414.html
By the way positive displacement is a generic concept peristaltic is a
sub-category of it. Fiat voluntas
On Wed, Feb 9, 2011 at 1:39 PM, Stephen A. Lawrence sa...@pobox.com wrote:
On 02/09/2011 01:28 PM, Terry Blanton wrote:
On Wed, Feb 9, 2011 at 1:15 PM, Stephen A. Lawrence sa...@pobox.com wrote:
Who, besides yourself, has said the reaction rate is being electrically
controlled to keep the
On Wed, Feb 9, 2011 at 3:49 PM, Terry Blanton hohlr...@gmail.com wrote:
On Wed, Feb 9, 2011 at 1:39 PM, Stephen A. Lawrence sa...@pobox.com wrote:
On 02/09/2011 01:28 PM, Terry Blanton wrote:
On Wed, Feb 9, 2011 at 1:15 PM, Stephen A. Lawrence sa...@pobox.com wrote:
Who, besides yourself,
Is Vortex constipated again?
On Wed, Feb 9, 2011 at 8:13 PM, Terry Blanton hohlr...@gmail.com wrote:
Is Vortex constipated again?
I guess everyone went to bed early.
I want to thank all for the conversations this day. I work for a
railroad and was quite interested in the discussions. It lead me to
research on the steam
FWIW, it seems like there have been efforts underway to vilify the term
Cold Fusion as a defunct, incorrect, out-of-date concept - a name based on
faulty scientific evidence. Such efforts strike me personally as nothing
more than an unproductive semantics game, a game caught in the act of
trying
On Wed, Feb 9, 2011 at 8:47 PM, OrionWorks - Steven Vincent Johnson
orionwo...@charter.net wrote:
FWIW, it seems like there have been efforts underway to vilify the term
Cold Fusion as a defunct, incorrect, out-of-date concept - a name based on
faulty scientific evidence.
Hey, Adobe liked it:
Thank you for not adding all the livelong day G
Seriously ... Check out ORC
http://www.infinityturbine.com/ORC/ORC_Waste_Heat_Turbine.html
This looks interesting for conversion of low heat to electricity is a Rossi
type reactor
-Original Message-
From: Terry Blanton
I want to thank
Terry sez:
Hey, Adobe liked it:
http://www.adobe.com/products/coldfusion/
Adobe knows! ;-)
Regards,
Steven Vincent Johnson
www.OrionWorks.com
www.zazzle.com/orionworks
Stephen A. Lawrence sa...@pobox.com wrote:
The kettle is still filled with water vapor -- dry steam -- and the
pressure inside is still 1 atmosphere, give or take a few millibars.
What temperature do you suppose the steam inside the kettle is at?
Could this be -- gasp! -- an example of
On 02/09/2011 09:43 PM, Jed Rothwell wrote:
Stephen A. Lawrence sa...@pobox.com mailto:sa...@pobox.com wrote:
(I'm going to put back a few lines you snipped, just for context clarity:)
After a while, all the water boils to steam.
The kettle is still filled with water vapor, of course! But
As Terry said it was a very interesting day for topics on vortex. Rossi
demos were mentioned that were able to work with missing heaters but
interestingly unable to work closed loop with this deficit.. hot spots and
temperature gradients seemingly part of the start up procedure? The
controversy
This whole thread started by the critique by Joshua Cude posted by Rich
Murray...
It would appear that Joshua (and Rich) have not read all of the comments and
reports on Rossi's
website, so they were UNinformed as to the purpose of the 'control box'.
Rich,
would you please correct Joshua on
Although this discussion thread is really a moot point after it was pointed out
that there are 5
PLCs which are controlling the power to the resistive heaters, there's one
thing I'd like to point
out...
Stephen said:
Jed, it's a container, with all the walls at several hundred degrees C or
pV = nRT. If the temperature increases, there must be a corresponding increase
in the pressure or the volume (or both). In this tea kettle case, the volume of
the steam increases right out the top of the kettle. But the temperature can
increase above 100.
Sent from my iPhone.
On Feb 9,
Mark,
I dimly recall Jed said a few days ago, Rossi and Levi would soon
rewrite their report on the two demos -- I will alert Joshua Cude --
I'm struck that so many important factors are really unclear -- there
are a lot of important claims in Focardi and Rossi, March 22, 2010
9-page A new energy
probably, the Rossi demos have a complex control box with thermal
controls that lower the electric input heater power when the reactor
gets too hot: Cude: Murray 2011.02.09
fromMark Iverson zeropo...@charter.net
reply-tovortex-l@eskimo.com
to vortex-l@eskimo.com
dateWed, Feb
Dear Steven,
At least and eventually the community at Chennai tries to determine
what the PROBLEM with field, see please Krivit's blog - and if you will be
so kind, my comment to it.
By the way- why you are speaking about scientific genes? They are more-
are cultural and are called MEMEs
49 matches
Mail list logo
