Re: [Vo]:[Vo] : ECAT 1 MW System-Dazzle or Fizzle

Am 19.11.2011 07:48, schrieb David Roberson: On Sat, Nov 19, 2011 at 12:25 AM, David Roberson > wrote: On Fri, Nov 18, 2011 at 12:35 PM, Jed Rothwell mailto:jedrothw...@gmail.com>> wrote: Rossi has given out _far_ more proof than any previous cold

Re: [Vo]:[Vo] : ECAT 1 MW System-Dazzle or Fizzle

On Sat, Nov 19, 2011 at 12:25 AM, David Roberson wrote: On Fri, Nov 18, 2011 at 12:35 PM, Jed Rothwell wrote: Rossi has given out far more proof than any previous cold fusion researcher. >That is a damning statement for the field of cold fusion. Now, if Rossi >fizzles in a few year

Re: [Vo]:[Vo] : ECAT 1 MW System-Dazzle or Fizzle

On Sat, Nov 19, 2011 at 12:25 AM, David Roberson wrote: > On Fri, Nov 18, 2011 at 12:35 PM, Jed Rothwell wrote: > >> >> Rossi has given out *far* more proof than any previous cold fusion >> researcher. >> > > >That is a damning statement for the field of cold fusion. Now, if Rossi > fizzles in

Re: [Vo]:[Vo] : ECAT 1 MW System-Dazzle or Fizzle

-Original Message- From: Joshua Cude To: vortex-l Sent: Sat, Nov 19, 2011 1:22 am Subject: Re: [Vo]:[Vo] : ECAT 1 MW System-Dazzle or Fizzle On Fri, Nov 18, 2011 at 12:48 PM, Jed Rothwell wrote: I wrote: There are videos and data from the Oct. 6 test. That test is

Re: [Vo]:[Vo] : ECAT 1 MW System-Dazzle or Fizzle

Lets approach this from a logical point of view. We should be able to agree about something. -Original Message- From: Joshua Cude To: vortex-l Sent: Sat, Nov 19, 2011 1:15 am Subject: Re: [Vo]:[Vo] : ECAT 1 MW System-Dazzle or Fizzle On Fri, Nov 18, 2011 at 12:35 PM, Jed

Re: [Vo]:[Vo] : ECAT 1 MW System-Dazzle or Fizzle

-Original Message- From: Joshua Cude To: vortex-l Sent: Sat, Nov 19, 2011 1:03 am Subject: Re: [Vo]:[Vo] : ECAT 1 MW System-Dazzle or Fizzle On Fri, Nov 18, 2011 at 11:26 PM, David Roberson wrote: All the HVAC guy did was to assume that all of the input water was vaporized

Re: [Vo]:[Vo] : ECAT 1 MW System-Dazzle or Fizzle

On Fri, Nov 18, 2011 at 12:48 PM, Jed Rothwell wrote: > I wrote: > > >> There are videos and data from the Oct. 6 test. That test is irrefutable >> by first principles. The tests from earlier this year were also excellent >> despite the poor instrumentation. >> > > Let me add that if you are not c

Re: [Vo]:[Vo] : ECAT 1 MW System-Dazzle or Fizzle

On Fri, Nov 18, 2011 at 12:35 PM, Jed Rothwell wrote: > > Rossi has given out *far* more proof than any previous cold fusion > researcher. > That is a damning statement for the field of cold fusion. Now, if Rossi fizzles in a few years, that should mean there was never anything to cold fusion.

Re: [Vo]:[Vo] : ECAT 1 MW System-Dazzle or Fizzle

On Fri, Nov 18, 2011 at 11:26 PM, David Roberson wrote: > All the HVAC guy did was to assume that all of the input water was > vaporized. > Right. But the assumption was not based on any evidence. The temperature is consistent with 1% steam. > He did not actually measure whether or not the lev

Re: [Vo]:[Vo] : ECAT 1 MW System-Dazzle or Fizzle

: [Vo]:[Vo] : ECAT 1 MW System-Dazzle or Fizzle On Fri, Nov 18, 2011 at 12:27 PM, Jed Rothwell wrote: Mary Yugo wrote: (1) why is the temperature so stable, requiring power stability of 1% The temperature is not stable. It fluctuates considerably, as you see in the

Re: [Vo]:[Vo] : ECAT 1 MW System-Dazzle or Fizzle

On Fri, Nov 18, 2011 at 12:27 PM, Jed Rothwell wrote: > Mary Yugo wrote: > >>> (1) why is the temperature so stable, requiring power stability of 1% >>> >> > The temperature is not stable. It fluctuates considerably, as you see in > the cooling loop data. > The fluctuation is clearly less than

Re: [Vo]:[Vo] : ECAT 1 MW System-Dazzle or Fizzle

On Fri, Nov 18, 2011 at 12:17 PM, Jed Rothwell wrote: > And who confirmed it's operation? > > > All of them did, in test results they showed me, which unfortunately I > cannot upload. > So, for all we know, you just made it up. > > And as Joshua Cude asked, where did this appear? > > > These

Re: [Vo]:[Vo] : ECAT 1 MW System-Dazzle or Fizzle

On Fri, Nov 18, 2011 at 12:14 PM, David Roberson wrote: > >Not true. This skeptic has considered the measurements reported on > Rossi's 3-page report, and found that the measurements do not support > Rossi's claim of heat from nuclear reactions. > > >His calculation of 470 kW is based on an unsu

Re: [Vo]:[Vo] : ECAT 1 MW System-Dazzle or Fizzle

could be increased slightly. Dave -Original Message- From: Jed Rothwell To: vortex-l Sent: Fri, Nov 18, 2011 1:57 pm Subject: Re: [Vo]:[Vo] : ECAT 1 MW System-Dazzle or Fizzle David Roberson wrote: So, if the water level is changing within the ECAT, why should the power level

Re: [Vo]:[Vo] : ECAT 1 MW System-Dazzle or Fizzle

David Roberson wrote: I do not think Krivit is someone to be believed. He intentionally sets > traps with questions that most people would not give consideration to. > Nowhere within Dr. Levi's answers is anything but honest discussion. > Right. The parts that Krivit described as suspicious wer

Re: [Vo]:[Vo] : ECAT 1 MW System-Dazzle or Fizzle

David Roberson wrote: So, if the water level is changing within the ECAT, why should the power level output be required to hold within 1%? It is your turn now. Oh right. Power level. I was talking about the T2 temperature remaining stable. I confused the issue. Naturally, the water level

Re: [Vo]:[Vo] : ECAT 1 MW System-Dazzle or Fizzle

Dave -Original Message- From: Mary Yugo To: vortex-l Sent: Fri, Nov 18, 2011 1:34 pm Subject: Re: [Vo]:[Vo] : ECAT 1 MW System-Dazzle or Fizzle On Fri, Nov 18, 2011 at 10:19 AM, Ron Wormus wrote: Personally, I like the 18 hr water heating only run done in February. Seems good

Re: [Vo]:[Vo] : ECAT 1 MW System-Dazzle or Fizzle

: Mary Yugo To: vortex-l Sent: Fri, Nov 18, 2011 1:30 pm Subject: Re: [Vo]:[Vo] : ECAT 1 MW System-Dazzle or Fizzle "This one is for you to explain. You always complain about the lack of data. If you think about the system long enough, I am confident you will understand why." That&#

Re: [Vo]:[Vo] : ECAT 1 MW System-Dazzle or Fizzle

I wrote: > There are videos and data from the Oct. 6 test. That test is irrefutable > by first principles. The tests from earlier this year were also excellent > despite the poor instrumentation. > Let me add that if you are not convinced by the Oct. 6 test I do not think the earlier tests with

Re: [Vo]:[Vo] : ECAT 1 MW System-Dazzle or Fizzle

Peter Heckert wrote: > Assuming, that this was a top secret years ago, how did they know what it > is, when they have seen it? > I do not understand the question. It was not top secret to these people. They went into the factory, examined the reactor, and measured the input and output power.

Re: [Vo]:[Vo] : ECAT 1 MW System-Dazzle or Fizzle

Mary Yugo wrote: > All of them did, in test results they showed me, which unfortunately I >> cannot upload. >> > > Yet another lovely story which can not be confirmed. That's a pity! We > only need *one* that can be and we never seem to get it. > You have got it. Rossi has given out *far*

Re: [Vo]:[Vo] : ECAT 1 MW System-Dazzle or Fizzle

On Fri, Nov 18, 2011 at 10:19 AM, Ron Wormus wrote: > Personally, I like the 18 hr water heating only run done in February. > Seems good to me. > It's not a bit good. Did you see the Youtube interview Krivit did with Levi about this issue? Levi has had since last February to repeat the test bu

Re: [Vo]:[Vo] : ECAT 1 MW System-Dazzle or Fizzle

Am 18.11.2011 19:23, schrieb Mary Yugo: On Fri, Nov 18, 2011 at 10:17 AM, Jed Rothwell > wrote: Mary Yugo wrote: That is incorrect. Focardi and many other people reported seeing it, including several people I know. Anyone independent

Re: [Vo]:[Vo] : ECAT 1 MW System-Dazzle or Fizzle

Mary Yugo wrote: > On Fri, Nov 18, 2011 at 9:29 AM, Joshua Cude wrote: > >> Right, because no one can explain: >> >> (1) why is the temperature so stable, requiring power stability of 1% >> > The temperature is not stable. It fluctuates considerably, as you see in the cooling loop data. People

Re: [Vo]:[Vo] : ECAT 1 MW System-Dazzle or Fizzle

did. Do you need clarification? > > Dave > > > -Original Message- > From: Mary Yugo > To: vortex-l > Sent: Fri, Nov 18, 2011 12:35 pm > Subject: Re: [Vo]:[Vo] : ECAT 1 MW System-Dazzle or Fizzle > > > > On Fri, Nov 18, 2011 at 9:29 AM, Joshua Cude

Re: [Vo]:[Vo] : ECAT 1 MW System-Dazzle or Fizzle

On Fri, Nov 18, 2011 at 10:17 AM, Jed Rothwell wrote: > Mary Yugo wrote: > > That is incorrect. Focardi and many other people reported seeing it, >> including several people I know. >> > > > Anyone independent of Rossi? > > > They are as independent of him as I am. None of them work for him, and

Re: [Vo]:[Vo] : ECAT 1 MW System-Dazzle or Fizzle

I guess that I am easy to dazzle. Rossi explained the reason for the secrecy, and I believe him. And finally, I did see proof that the small units work as advertised. Dave -Original Message- From: Mary Yugo To: vortex-l Sent: Fri, Nov 18, 2011 11:37 am Subject: Re: [Vo]:[Vo] : ECAT 1

Re: [Vo]:[Vo] : ECAT 1 MW System-Dazzle or Fizzle

Mary Yugo wrote: That is incorrect. Focardi and many other people reported seeing it, including several people I know. Anyone independent of Rossi? They are as independent of him as I am. None of them work for him, and none are in business relationships as far as I know. Focardi is

Re: [Vo]:[Vo] : ECAT 1 MW System-Dazzle or Fizzle

I already did. Do you need clarification? Dave -Original Message- From: Mary Yugo To: vortex-l Sent: Fri, Nov 18, 2011 12:35 pm Subject: Re: [Vo]:[Vo] : ECAT 1 MW System-Dazzle or Fizzle On Fri, Nov 18, 2011 at 9:29 AM, Joshua Cude wrote: Right, because no one can explain

Re: [Vo]:[Vo] : ECAT 1 MW System-Dazzle or Fizzle

I do not know where to begin. There is at least as much speculation in the response as I used to explain what was a likely scenario. On Fri, Nov 18, 2011 at 10:17 AM, David Roberson wrote: The October 28, 2011 test of the Rossi 1 MW LENR system was either a success or a failure depending

Re: [Vo]:[Vo] : ECAT 1 MW System-Dazzle or Fizzle

On Fri, Nov 18, 2011 at 9:58 AM, Jed Rothwell wrote: > Mary Yugo wrote: > > Rossi has reported several times and it's in his patent application that >> he had a 35 kW E-cat Ni-H *fusion* heater heating his factory in N. Italy >> for more than a year. Unfortunately, nobody but Rossi has ever rep

Re: [Vo]:[Vo] : ECAT 1 MW System-Dazzle or Fizzle

Am 18.11.2011 18:58, schrieb Jed Rothwell: Mary Yugo wrote: Rossi has reported several times and it's in his patent application that he had a 35 kW E-cat Ni-H *fusion* heater heating his factory in N. Italy for more than a year. Unfortunately, nobody but Rossi has ever reported seeing it . .

Re: [Vo]:[Vo] : ECAT 1 MW System-Dazzle or Fizzle

On Fri, Nov 18, 2011 at 11:58 AM, Jed Rothwell wrote: > Mary Yugo wrote: > > Rossi has reported several times and it's in his patent application that >> he had a 35 kW E-cat Ni-H *fusion* heater heating his factory in N. Italy >> for more than a year. Unfortunately, nobody but Rossi has ever rep

Re: [Vo]:[Vo] : ECAT 1 MW System-Dazzle or Fizzle

Mary Yugo wrote: Rossi has reported several times and it's in his patent application that he had a 35 kW E-cat Ni-H *fusion* heater heating his factory in N. Italy for more than a year. Unfortunately, nobody but Rossi has ever reported seeing it . . . That is incorrect. Focardi and many oth

Re: [Vo]:[Vo] : ECAT 1 MW System-Dazzle or Fizzle

On Fri, Nov 18, 2011 at 9:29 AM, Joshua Cude wrote: > Right, because no one can explain: > > (1) why is the temperature so stable, requiring power stability of 1% > (2) how does he get an 8-fold increase in power transfer in a few minutes, > if the first-fold power increase took 2 hours. > Excel

Re: [Vo]:[Vo] : ECAT 1 MW System-Dazzle or Fizzle

On Fri, Nov 18, 2011 at 9:10 AM, Peter Heckert wrote: > Am 18.11.2011 17:41, schrieb David Roberson: > > My domestic 10kW gasboiler is in any case better proven than the e-cat. > Rossi has reported several times and it's in his patent application that he had a 35 kW E-cat Ni-H *fusion* heater he

Re: [Vo]:[Vo] : ECAT 1 MW System-Dazzle or Fizzle

On Fri, Nov 18, 2011 at 10:17 AM, David Roberson wrote: > > The October 28, 2011 test of the Rossi 1 MW LENR system was either a > success or a failure depending upon your point of view. The skeptics > have decided to totally disregard the test results without allowing the > ECAT any reasonable

Re: [Vo]:[Vo] : ECAT 1 MW System-Dazzle or Fizzle

Am 18.11.2011 17:41, schrieb David Roberson: I guess that I am easy to dazzle. Rossi explained the reason for the secrecy, and I believe him. And finally, I did see proof that the small units work as advertised. My domestic 10kW gasboiler is in any case better proven than the e-cat. It works

Re: [Vo]:[Vo] : ECAT 1 MW System-Dazzle or Fizzle

] : ECAT 1 MW System-Dazzle or Fizzle Why are you dazzled by a test in which results were never verified by any credible and known independent observers? Even though there was more than a dozen invited guests there who could have done so? And could you explain why a test of a large machine is

Re: [Vo]:[Vo] : ECAT 1 MW System-Dazzle or Fizzle

Why are you dazzled by a test in which results were never verified by any credible and known independent observers? Even though there was more than a dozen invited guests there who could have done so? And could you explain why a test of a large machine is necessary or helpful when it's composed o