Nope
On Mon, Jul 18, 2011 at 3:54 PM, Abd ul-Rahman Lomax
a...@lomaxdesign.comwrote:
At 05:57 AM 7/18/2011, Damon Craig wrote:
Tell me Lomax. Would you destroy the reputations of others to advance your
own.
I risk my reputation with everything I write, since I'm a known person. And
you,
I hope your piping is better than class 150, and your fittings better than
schedule 40. Preferably you would want to use class 3000 pipe and schedule
80 fittings of 316/316L stainless steal. The strength of stainless steal
decreases rapidly with an increase in temperature. I imaging, the same is
It took me nearly 2 months to reverse enineer it, and come up with a parts
list.
On Mon, Jul 18, 2011 at 3:34 PM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com wrote:
It took Rossi 15 years and hundreds of tests to figure out how to make this
work. Highly experienced experts are trying to replicate him,
On 11-07-18 03:15 PM, Jed Rothwell wrote:
Rossi wrote:
I received him to get those suggestions, curious to know about what
he had to suggest. I was working in my Bologna lab when I received
him and he saw one E-Cat under test for no more that 30 seconds,
after which I invited him to exit.
From the ISP Users Group for Vortex:
http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/EskimoNorthUsers/message/1599
More bad news... someone levied all of Eskimo's bank accounts dry, in fact it
even over drafted one of them by 238 bucks! The bank of course didn't tell me
who in their notice, so I'm going to
Here's a bone for you and Krivit, Lomax.
Do you believe a cork will float on stream saturated with water vapor?
Thinking about it sorta makes the saturated steam theory look stupid,
doesn't it?
Why don't you find a piece of cheap, light styrofoam packing and see if it
will float over a boiling
The discussion lists on Yahoo never had a slow response time to me...
I am ok with that.
I agree. I hadn't considered the submersion depth of the probe for
additional pressure head.
On Mon, Jul 18, 2011 at 5:44 PM, Abd ul-Rahman Lomax
a...@lomaxdesign.comwrote:
At 12:20 PM 7/18/2011, P.J van Noorden wrote:
To conventionally explain the boilingpoint of 100.5 degrC the backpressure
President Alexandros Xanthoulis sez At the end of September there will be a
public demonstration of the final product (the Hyperion) , the power output
of the device would be 35KW/h.
from the website e-cat world
attachment: winmail.dat
On 2011-07-19 14:48, Jones Beene wrote:
President Alexandros Xanthoulis sez At the end of September there will be a
public demonstration of the final product (the Hyperion) , the power output
of the device would be 35KW/h.
That's interesting information. Here's the link and the text:
This looks like a Brazilian soap opera! LOL! :D
...or so says Rossi in one of his latest messages on JONP. That looks
like a big improvement since the previous input electrical energy will
be 1/6 of the output thermal energy claim:
http://www.journal-of-nuclear-physics.com/?p=501cpage=2#comment-54414
Andrea Rossi
July 19th, 2011 at 7:57
On 2011-07-19 14:19, Terry Blanton wrote:
Carl has a plan to keep the site up which brought to mind the word
'kite'. I don't know how long the site could be down if the
provider-provider shuts down Eskimo but there is the alternative
during that period:
What about a forum instead of a discussion list?
Robert Leguillon wrote:
I made the comment about someone flushing the toilet to demonstrate that some
of the momentary power spikes could be caused by correlating drops in water pressure.
I do not see how this could cause a 20-minute event.
There was no continuous monitoring of flow
Jed sez:
They told me the flow rate was continuously monitored
with a video camera. The meter keeps track of total
consumption, as I said. There was no pump; just water
pressure from the tap. That is very reliable. Water
pressure does not change measurably at 1 L/s for
20 minutes when
Is there anything against the creation of a Google Group instead?
Anyway, this is going either way to hugely affect the public reach of the
vortex-l discussion group.
Google groups are the old Usenet, right? Yahoo offers file folders,
piccys, etc.
Anyway, I created a google group too.
I realize it's not that important in the big scheme of things, but I
wish you hadn't put 'backup' in the name. :)
Craig
On Tue, 2011-07-19 at 10:36 -0400, Terry Blanton wrote:
Is there anything against the creation of a Google Group instead?
Anyway, this is going either way to hugely affect
Is there anything against the creation of a Google Group instead?
Anyway, this is going either way to hugely affect the public reach of the
vortex-l discussion group.
Google groups are the old Usenet, right? Yahoo offers file folders,
piccys, etc.
Anyway, I created a google group too.
This from Akira's quoting of Xanthoulis in the Subject thread, FWIW, started
by Jones:
...and that the device is protected by a patent and that patent will be
open in 9 years.
Hmmm, so someone in Defkalion, with close Greek government ties (gee, who might
that be?), got the
Greek
On Tue, Jul 19, 2011 at 10:47 AM, OrionWorks - Steven V Johnson
svj.orionwo...@gmail.com wrote:
Who decides?
I'm not trying to be flippant. if we determine it might be wise to
migrate, exactly who makes the decision... the final determination.
Do we vote on it?
Run some test messages
While I agree with you, this has been argued to DEATH and back.
Of course, I'd be willing to set up a Vortex Fan Page on Facebook if
anyone else here uses it.
On Tue, Jul 19, 2011 at 6:25 AM, Daniel Rocha danieldi...@gmail.com wrote:
What about a forum instead of a discussion list?
I guess that statement could also be interpreted as...
... The patent will EXPIRE in 9 years
But that doesn't add up since that means it was granted over 11 years ago (20
year term?)...
Any other interpretations for that statement???
-Mark
-Original Message-
From: Mark Iverson
I'm all in favor of moving to a more modern venue as well since there are times
when I've wanted to
upload files or photos and am frustrated that we're operating with such
limitations...
As far as 'Who decides'?
I think most of the 'regulars' and ol' Timers would agree that, out of respect
20 year from the day the patent was filled in... But Rossi's was in
2009, so, that's more 18 years...
At 08:24 AM 7/19/2011, Damon Craig wrote:
Here's a bone for you and Krivit, Lomax.
Arrggh. Classified with Krivit! Ah, well, even a stopped clock is
right twice a day. This is once for me, I still get to be right once more
Do you believe a cork will float on stream saturated with
No, not critics. The director of those Swedish physicists denied there
was a contract, Rossi also denied that, and in fact what will happen
is a collaboration of the professors of Bologna and Uppsal to develop
the e-cat.
Original-Nachricht
Datum: Tue, 19 Jul 2011 12:54:26 -0300
Von: Daniel Rocha danieldi...@gmail.com
An: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Betreff: Re: [Vo]: Prof. Kullander now an Ecat critic?
No, not critics. The director of those Swedish physicists denied there
was a contract, Rossi
Not really, but it refers to a post of Krivit. We discussed that last week :)
On Tue, Jul 19, 2011 at 11:41 AM, Mark Iverson zeropo...@charter.net wrote:
I think most of the 'regulars' and ol' Timers would agree that, out of
respect for the founder, the
decision should be done by Mr. Beaty himself...
Well, I never intended a permanent relocation. The list belongs to
This is what he writes:
In realtà, sembra che a Uppsala ci stiano nettamente ripensando. Io stesso
avevo scritto la settimana scorsa ai miei colleghi di Uppsala per sentire come
andavano le cose. Avevo sentito parlare di un accordo con Rossi per fare un
test di uno degli E-cat, ma i colleghi
This is not very different from what Krivit did...
On Tue, Jul 19, 2011 at 11:30 AM, Alexander Hollins
alexander.holl...@gmail.com wrote:
While I agree with you, this has been argued to DEATH and back.
Really? When?
Of course, I'd be willing to set up a Vortex Fan Page on Facebook if
anyone else here uses it.
Many organizations (including
On 2011-07-19 16:36, Terry Blanton wrote:
Anyway, I created a google group too.
http://groups.google.com/group/vortex-l-backup
Youse guys can decide which you would prefer in the event of failure here.
Google Groups looks and feels great; I'd stick with it, personally.
Cheers,
S.A.
Angela,
The article does not say much. As a matter of fact Bardi does not give any
scientific fact to confirm what he has written, just rumors hence just
blather on which he bases his bufala (scam) assumption.
You can find him on some rainews interviews posted earlier on this list.
The guy is
+1 for Google groups
http://groups-beta.google.com/googlegroups/tour3/index.html
Il giorno 19/lug/2011 18:16, Terry Blanton hohlr...@gmail.com ha
scritto:
On Tue, Jul 19, 2011 at 11:30 AM, Alexander Hollins
alexander.holl...@gmail.com wrote:
While I agree with you, this has been argued to
Guess what Rossi says ... :-)
Andrea Rossi July 19th, 2011at 9:22AM
Dear Carlo: Probably there has been a misunderstanding, no 35 kW reactors
will be demonstrated anywhere in public. In October will be put in operation
our 1 MW plant. I continue to work on it 16 hours perday,and so far we are
On Tue, Jul 19, 2011 at 1:16 PM, Michele Comitini
michele.comit...@gmail.com wrote:
Guess what Rossi says ... :-)
Andrea Rossi July 19th, 2011at 9:22AM
Dear Carlo: Probably there has been a misunderstanding, no 35 kW reactors
will be demonstrated anywhere in public.
I guess it boils down to
I did the same, using a water cooker, and got about 90% efficiency
assuming textbook heat to vaporize water.
I am a little worried though, about:
1) The, to my feeling, rather slow rate of vapor/steam escaping
Rossi's hose as seen in Krivits video
My water cooker is 1.5kW, Rossi's water cooker is
On Mon, Jul 18, 2011 at 9:34 AM, Jouni Valkonen jounivalko...@gmail.comwrote:
2011/7/18 Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com:
P.J van Noorden wrote:
It is very important to notice that water boils at 100.5 C when the
outside air pressure is 1030 mBar, which can be the case when a high
At 12:06 PM 7/19/2011, Terry Blanton wrote:
On Tue, Jul 19, 2011 at 11:41 AM, Mark Iverson zeropo...@charter.net wrote:
I think most of the 'regulars' and ol' Timers would agree that,
out of respect for the founder, the
decision should be done by Mr. Beaty himself...
Well, I never intended
On Mon, Jul 18, 2011 at 11:20 AM, P.J van Noorden pjvannoor...@caiway.nlwrote:
To conventionally explain the boilingpoint of 100.5 degrC the backpressure
in the Ecat must have been 30mbar (for a boilingpoint of 99.6degC) and
20mbar for a boilingpoint of 99.9degC. This compares to resp 30.6
At 12:49 PM 7/19/2011, Michele Comitini wrote:
Angela,
The article does not say much.  As a matter
of fact Bardi does not give any scientific fact
to confirm what he has written, just rumors
hence just blather on which he bases his bufala (scam) assumption.
You can find him on some
On Mon, Jul 18, 2011 at 9:08 AM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com wrote:
P.J van Noorden wrote:
It is very important to notice that water boils at 100.5 C when the
outside air pressure is 1030 mBar, which can be the case when a high
pressure system is covering Italy . . .
In the April
On Mon, Jul 18, 2011 at 12:53 PM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.comwrote:
P.J van Noorden wrote:
the airpressure on April 28th 2011 was 1011 mbar, so the boilingpoint must
have been 99.9 degC. The difference in boilingtemperature can be
explained by the accuracy of the thermometer (+/- 0.4
On Mon, Jul 18, 2011 at 1:59 PM, Abd ul-Rahman Lomax
a...@lomaxdesign.comwrote:
At 12:55 AM 7/18/2011, Joshua Cude wrote:
On Sun, Jul 17, 2011 at 10:40 PM, Abd ul-Rahman Lomax mailto:
a...@lomaxdesign.coma**b...@lomaxdesign.com a...@lomaxdesign.com wrote:
At 09:14 PM 7/17/2011, Akira
On Mon, Jul 18, 2011 at 3:42 PM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com wrote:
Damon Craig decra...@gmail.com wrote:
How do you take a 30 minute glance?
Well, Brown said in his report that Rossi showed him heat after death for
about 2 minutes. (He also told me this.) That's more than 30
Abd ul-Rahman Lomax wrote:
In my opinion, Kullander made some mistakes, and he should simply
acknowledge them and move on.
Where, in his report, are these mistakes? Someone here claimed that he
did not measure input power, when the report clearly states he did.
Simple, clean and clear.
http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/sunearth/news/dark-fireworks.html
On June 7, 2011, Earth-orbiting satellites detected a flash of X-rays
coming from the western edge of the solar disk. Registering only M
(for medium) on the Richter scale of solar flares, the blast at first
appeared to be a
On Mon, Jul 18, 2011 at 8:03 PM, Mark Iverson zeropo...@charter.net wrote:
Abd wrote:
Whatever is the cause, that the temperature is nailed shows that there is
steam and water in
equilibrium.
It's only been recently that Rossi admits to achieving completely dry
steam,
The claim is
On Mon, Jul 18, 2011 at 8:06 PM, Mark Iverson zeropo...@charter.net wrote:
In all the talk about the start up slope and thermal mass, one can almost
forget the metals. Here
are the specific heats for most of the materials that make up the majority
of the e-Cat:
- Hydrogen (gas) 14.30
So not only is very wet steam with 95% liquid by mass possible, but there are
ways to measure it accurately. Not with an RH probe, though.
On Tue, Jul 19, 2011 at 3:11 PM, Robert Leguillon
robert.leguil...@hotmail.com wrote:
So not only is very wet steam with 95% liquid by mass possible, but there
are ways to measure it accurately. Not with an RH probe, though.
Sorry, but some people seem to think that horse is still
On Tue, Jul 19, 2011 at 2:26 PM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com wrote:
Abd ul-Rahman Lomax wrote:
In my opinion, Kullander made some mistakes, and he should simply
acknowledge them and move on.
Where, in his report, are these mistakes? Someone here claimed that he did
not measure
At 03:15 PM 7/19/2011, Joshua Cude wrote:
The 120 kW excursion makes the 18-hr test less credible to me. It
means that during that excursion the delta T between the ecat walls
and the water would have to increase by an order of magnitude. If
ordinary operation is at 300C or 400C, this would
On Mon, Jul 18, 2011 at 2:13 PM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com wrote:
1 minute after turn off, boiling was mostly stopped. T1 99.7 ~ 99.8°C
(marginally hotter than before turn off, because the metal pot was still
hot). T2 98.7°C
2 minutes after turn off. T1 99.3°C, T2 97.7°C
7
In my more-or-less last communication with Krivit, I told him the wet steam
hypothesis, inspired by an abused humidity meter, was a red herring, and
the water was simply flowing through it.
Then you turn up using the same phrase.
Krivit has his wall of shame on his blog--a trophie wall of photos,
On Mon, Jul 18, 2011 at 2:48 PM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com wrote:
I forgot to mention there were ~2 L of water in the pot.
I wrote:
3 Omega GT-736590 thermometers, red liquid, total immersion, -10 to 100°C,
marked in 1°C increments
Correction: -10 to 110°C
Regarding the
2011/7/19 Abd ul-Rahman Lomax a...@lomaxdesign.com:
At 03:15 PM 7/19/2011, Joshua Cude wrote:
The 120 kW excursion makes the 18-hr test less credible to me. It means
that during that excursion the delta T between the ecat walls and the water
would have to increase by an order of magnitude. If
At 03:26 PM 7/19/2011, Jed Rothwell wrote:
Abd ul-Rahman Lomax wrote:
In my opinion, Kullander made some mistakes,
and he should simply acknowledge them and move on.
Where, in his report, are these mistakes?
Someone here claimed that he did not measure
input power, when the report clearly
At 03:58 PM 7/19/2011, Joshua Cude wrote:
In the paper they show how their technique can measure steam quality
to within a few per cent between 5% and 80%. 5% corresponds to 5 %
steam by mass, and yes, that means 95% liquid by mass.
That seems to be the official definition of steam quality:
On 2011-07-18 06:04, Daniel Rocha wrote:
How can we make sure that 1MW e-cat is true during a presentation? It
is certainly not hard to emulate the e-cat performance at home with
600W, 1KW or maybe a laboratory with a 5KW source to heat water. But
for a fake e-cat, it would be required 140KW to
200W from the hose and 200W from the e cat structure, at lest. 100Watt
to heat the water 0.3g/s. So, if the output looked like a 800W steam
from a stove, we have 500W of excess power. Could be more, but
probably Rossi didn't want to harm Krivit, just show that steam was
being made.
On Mon, Jul 18, 2011 at 8:29 PM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com wrote:
I expect it is well mixed from the heat alone. There are gradients in a pot
of hot water and it is hot near the bottom, but the water moves around
pretty quickly.
There are gradients in pure water, sure. Always below
On Tue, Jul 19, 2011 at 10:45 AM, Abd ul-Rahman Lomax
a...@lomaxdesign.comwrote:
Why don't you find a piece of cheap, light styrofoam packing and see if it
will float over a boiling pot of water.
Extra question answered, free of charge. I won't bother trying it, because
it won't float,
From Akira
...
Perhaps the best way to make sure that the 1MW plant is true
would be to measure the output energy while the input is zero.
1 MW of heat in such conditions would be quite hard to fake
(the test would have to run long enough, ie more than a few
seconds - possibly minutes -
On Tue, Jul 19, 2011 at 4:30 PM, Daniel Rocha danieldi...@gmail.com wrote:
200W from the hose
Maybe.
and 200W from the e cat structure, at lest.
I don't believe it. Rossi never claims it, and this 200W would figure in his
power calculation (the losses in the hose don't), and he never
On Tue, Jul 19, 2011 at 4:14 PM, Abd ul-Rahman Lomax
a...@lomaxdesign.comwrote:
At 03:58 PM 7/19/2011, Joshua Cude wrote:
In the paper they show how their technique can measure steam quality to
within a few per cent between 5% and 80%. 5% corresponds to 5 % steam by
mass, and yes, that
At 04:55 PM 7/19/2011, Damon Craig wrote:
In my more-or-less last communication with Krivit, I told him the
wet steam hypothesis, inspired by an abused humidity meter, was a
red herring, and the water was simply flowing through it.
Then you turn up using the same phrase.
I've been using it
At 05:06 PM 7/19/2011, Jouni Valkonen wrote:
2011/7/19 Abd ul-Rahman Lomax a...@lomaxdesign.com:
At 03:15 PM 7/19/2011, Joshua Cude wrote:
The 120 kW excursion makes the 18-hr test less credible to me. It means
that during that excursion the delta T
between the ecat walls and the water
At 05:42 PM 7/19/2011, Joshua Cude wrote:
On Tue, Jul 19, 2011 at 10:45 AM, Abd ul-Rahman Lomax
mailto:a...@lomaxdesign.coma...@lomaxdesign.com wrote:
Why don't you find a piece of cheap, light styrofoam packing and see
if it will float over a boiling pot of water.
Extra question
On Tue, Jul 19, 2011 at 7:12 PM, Abd ul-Rahman Lomax
a...@lomaxdesign.comwrote:
Sure, if you sufficiently obstruct the flow, you could lift styrofoam
easily. I was referring to a *piece* of styrofoam, presumably small. And the
question was about bouyancy, not about flow. You can support a
Abd ul-Rahman wrote: My conclusion is that there is very likely *some*
overflow water, but it might be small. I have no way of telling how much
there is, the demonstrations were not set up to make it possible to tell.
This is probably correct analysis. I think that this is possible to
calculate
thermal electrochemical corrosion of the electric input power heating
resistor in the Rossi device: Rich Murray 2011.07.19
http://rmforall.blogspot.com/2011_07_01_archive.htm
Tuesday, July 19, 2011
[ at end of each long page, click on Older Posts ]
74 matches
Mail list logo
