Rich,
I enjoyed reading about your personal experiences, particularly the mistakes
& hardships you encountered and your honorable endeavors to rectify them. It
gave me some insight into you. Thank you for sharing them. BTW, ten years
ago I lost five grand playing the commodities market. Fortuna
On Fri, Sep 16, 2011 at 11:41 PM, Rich Murray wrote:
> Well, I did get an MA in psychology in 1967 -- decades ago, I read
> about a Neuro Linguistic Programming gambit, to wit:
>
> "Jed, please, above all else, do not just jump swiftly to a completely
> skeptical appraisal of Rossi's demos..."
>
>
Well, I did get an MA in psychology in 1967 -- decades ago, I read
about a Neuro Linguistic Programming gambit, to wit:
"Jed, please, above all else, do not just jump swiftly to a completely
skeptical appraisal of Rossi's demos..."
the strategy being to use supporting the partner in doing the opp
I'm allergic to peanuts...
:-(
-Mark
-Original Message-
>From Horace:
> Just to avoid miscommunication, I just realized that I should note that the
> above refers to vortex-l as a peanut gallery with respect to the Rossi
> extravaganza.
Being a staunch card carrying vortex-l member myse
On Sep 16, 2011, at 6:20 AM, OrionWorks - Steven V Johnson wrote:
From Horace
I wrote: "I would not be surprised that most people here,
including Jed,
feel there are various points which justify skepticism. The
problem seems
to be agreeing on which ones and what a proper course would be.
>From Horace
> I wrote: "I would not be surprised that most people here, including Jed,
> feel there are various points which justify skepticism. The problem seems
> to be agreeing on which ones and what a proper course would be. Not that I
> expect anyone would take any action based on comments
I wrote: "I would not be surprised that most people here, including
Jed, feel there are various points which justify skepticism. The
problem seems to be agreeing on which ones and what a proper course
would be. Not that I expect anyone would take any action based on
comments from the pean
>From Mr. Murray
> You [Horace] present calm, clear, extremely reasonable points to justify
> qualified skepticism -- I suspect Jed is likely to agree within a few
> days.
Horace often presents interesting points worth considering.
However, for you to follow-up with your own prediction that Mr.
On Sep 15, 2011, at 7:24 PM, Rich Murray wrote:
Horace, thanks for
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thermal_diffusivity
It's useful to know that water has one of the lowest values -- so if
some of the water flow is stopped in some parts of the Fat Ecat, for
instance by being in some side chamber,
Rich, as E-Cat is not closed system but there is (small) opening into
ambient pressure and water temperature is above ambient boiling point,
therefore water inside E-Cat is always boiling. That is because pressure
inside E-Cat is generated by steam production. If there is no boiling, then
there wil
Horace, thanks for
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thermal_diffusivity
It's useful to know that water has one of the lowest values -- so if
some of the water flow is stopped in some parts of the Fat Ecat, for
instance by being in some side chamber, bypassed by the main flow,
then it would be slow to
On Sep 15, 2011, at 2:01 PM, Jed Rothwell wrote:
Horace Heffner wrote:
A 0.7°C temperature rise is significant with any thermocouple.
That can't be noise. There is no question there must be a heat
source in the cell.
Yes - it is the 80 kg of cell metal which has stored heat.
Stored hea
Horace Heffner wrote:
A 0.7°C temperature rise is significant with any thermocouple. That
can't be noise. There is no question there must be a heat source in
the cell.
Yes - it is the 80 kg of cell metal which has stored heat.
Stored heat can only be released monotonically declining. The ra
On 2011-09-15 23:32, Jed Rothwell wrote:
The heat-after-death event is marked here in the top graph with the red
cross-hatching, between 22:35 and 23:10.
Correct!
I do not see why you have the Input Current (A) rising at around 18:35
from 0 to 11. I thought that happened at 18:59.
This is f
On Sep 15, 2011, at 12:44 PM, Jed Rothwell wrote:
I wrote:
The thing cools down slowly after the pump is turned off at 23:10.
assuming the reaction is fully quenched at that time . . .
That may be a rash assumption. It is sometimes hard to quench a
cold fusion reaction.
I don't see the
Akira Shirakawa wrote:
I tried making a more detailed chart:
http://i.imgur.com/lU42G.png
Good job.
The heat-after-death event is marked here in the top graph with the red
cross-hatching, between 22:35 and 23:10.
I do not see why you have the Input Current (A) rising at around 18:35
from
On 2011-09-15 22:13, Jed Rothwell wrote:
This is very helpful. See:
http://www.nyteknik.se/incoming/article3267991.ece/BINARY/Temperature+data+Sept+7+%28xls%29
The data is taken at 2 second intervals.
The thing cools down slowly after the pump is turned off at 23:10.
assuming the reaction is f
Daniel Rocha wrote:
There is a curious thing between 23:25:19 and 23:26:23 on column D, where
> probably water enters the cell 2.
I believe this is discussed in the log graph:
"Note: jumps in serie2 to (inlet water temp) are due to the probe being
pulled out of the water for short moments."
-
>>>It doesn't go down. The temperature falls to ~100.3C at 23:19:00 but
starts raising at 23:22:01 an slowly raises continuously until the data
collect is stooped at 23:29:07, with a temperature of 105C.
At 23:15:53 the temperature is 114. Then it begins dropping rapidly. I
am assuming this is wh
Daniel Rocha wrote:
It doesn't go down. The temperature falls to ~100.3C at 23:19:00 but starts
> raising at 23:22:01 an slowly raises continuously until the data collect
> is stooped at 23:29:07, with a temperature of 105C.
Oh! You are right. I should have graphed it. I must have lost track of
There is a curious thing between 23:25:19 and 23:26:23 on column D, where
probably water enters the cell 2. The temperature raises fast ,
but continuously within 10s, from 24.5C to 67.6C, and then goes back to
24.9C within 60s. The slow raising output doesn't change its slow raising
pattern during
It doesn't go down. The temperature falls to ~100.3C at 23:19:00 but starts
raising at 23:22:01 an slowly raises continuously until the data collect
is stooped at 23:29:07, with a temperature of 105C.
I wrote:
> The thing cools down slowly after the pump is turned off at 23:10. assuming
> the reaction is fully quenched at that time . . .
>
That may be a rash assumption. It is sometimes hard to quench a cold fusion
reaction.
I don't see the temperature going up anywhere after 23:10, so I gues
23 matches
Mail list logo
