Re: [Vo]:Levi's likely attitude
trust. The point was to examine the species to which the Essen and Kullander report belongs. Is it informal or objective? On Thu, Jul 14, 2011 at 11:27 AM, Terry Blanton hohlr...@gmail.com wrote: Trust but verify. T
Re: [Vo]:Levi's likely attitude
Since only Rossi and Levi were present at the 18 hr test, it is possible that Rossi fooled Levi by tampering with the instruments prior to the tests. Harry
Re: [Vo]:Levi's likely attitude
At 09:42 AM 7/15/2011, Harry Veeder wrote: Since only Rossi and Levi were present at the 18 hr test, it is possible that Rossi fooled Levi by tampering with the instruments prior to the tests. Krivit gave us an observer list at http://newenergytimes.com/v2/sr/RossiECat/RossiECatPortal.shtml Giuseppe Levi Andrea Rossi Daniele Passerini David Bianchini === Jed gave us data from a source close to the experiment.
Re: [Vo]:Levi's likely attitude
Harry Veeder wrote: Since only Rossi and Levi were present at the 18 hr test, it is possible that Rossi fooled Levi by tampering with the instruments prior to the tests. This is not possible. It is very easy to confirm that the instruments were more-or-less correct with visual and tactile senses. That is to say, you can see the flow rate is about 1 L/s; you can see that the inlet wire cannot support more than ~2 kW of input power (or it will burn); and you can feel the inlet is substantially warmer than the outlet. Given maximum possible input power, the outlet would not be more than 0.1°C warmer than output, and you cannot feel this difference. I do not know for a fact that someone felt the outlet hose, but I have never met an experimentalist who would fail to do this. In the other tests, people I know who attended made several common-sense visual and tactile confirmations. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:Levi's likely attitude
I am going by this report: http://www.nyteknik.se/nyheter/energi_miljo/energi/article3108242.ece Harry From: Alan J Fletcher a...@well.com To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Friday, July 15, 2011 1:44:31 PM Subject: Re: [Vo]:Levi's likely attitude At 09:42 AM 7/15/2011, Harry Veeder wrote: Since only Rossi and Levi were present at the 18 hr test, it is possible that Rossi fooled Levi by tampering with the instruments prior to the tests. Krivit gave us an observer list at http://newenergytimes.com/v2/sr/RossiECat/RossiECatPortal.shtml Giuseppe Levi Andrea Rossi Daniele Passerini David Bianchini === Jed gave us data from a source close to the experiment.
Re: [Vo]:Levi's likely attitude
Obviously I meant to write: . . . you can feel the OUTLET is substantially warmer than the INLET. . . . I meant in the 18-hour test with flowing liquid water. As described here: http://www.nyteknik.se/nyheter/energi_miljo/energi/article3108242.ece . . . the inlet was tap-water temperature, around 15°C and the outlet was around 20°C for most of the test, and for a while it was 40°C. It is very easy to confirm that these temperature difference are real, and not an instrument artifact or caused by fake instruments. Of course you cannot tell if the outlet is 35°C or 45°C, but you can tell it is much warmer than the inlet, and the input power would only make it a fraction of a degree warmer. People who imagine it is impossible to visually confirm that the flow rate is about 1 L/s, and not -- say -- 10 times less or 100 times less have no experience doing experiments, plumbing, or working with ornamental ponds. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:Levi's likely attitude
Ok, I accept it is not possible to fake the results by tampering with the instruments, but there might be other ways such as the water diversion trick using a hose within a hose. This would make the outside of the hose feel warm. In order to rule this out the the end of the hose should be placed in a bucket periodically and the temperature of the collected water should be measured. Did Levi do that or did he leave the hose stuck in the drain? Harry From: Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Friday, July 15, 2011 2:40:42 PM Subject: Re: [Vo]:Levi's likely attitude Obviously I meant to write: . . . you can feel the OUTLET is substantially warmer than the INLET. . . . I meant in the 18-hour test with flowing liquid water. As described here: http://www.nyteknik.se/nyheter/energi_miljo/energi/article3108242.ece . . . the inlet was tap-water temperature, around 15°C and the outlet was around 20°C for most of the test, and for a while it was 40°C. It is very easy to confirm that these temperature difference are real, and not an instrument artifact or caused by fake instruments. Of course you cannot tell if the outlet is 35°C or 45°C, but you can tell it is much warmer than the inlet, and the input power would only make it a fraction of a degree warmer. People who imagine it is impossible to visually confirm that the flow rate is about 1 L/s, and not -- say -- 10 times less or 100 times less have no experience doing experiments, plumbing, or working with ornamental ponds. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:Levi's likely attitude
In this case there is only one problem/question. 1L per second i.e. 15.65 gpm is an incredibly high flow for a tap and for the water feeding tubes. Perhaps a garden hose could do it. It seems it was a surprise- the 130kW heat peak and this was quenched with the maximum available flow. No flowmeter was installed. Anyway I have performed many industrial tests/experiment in the chemical industry and we had an axiomatic saying- 1 test is no test, 1 result is no result. Why all the other teste were performed with water to steam? And why the enthalpy of the steam was not measured? Peter On Fri, Jul 15, 2011 at 9:40 PM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com wrote: Obviously I meant to write: . . . you can feel the OUTLET is substantially warmer than the INLET. . . . I meant in the 18-hour test with flowing liquid water. As described here: http://www.nyteknik.se/nyheter/energi_miljo/energi/article3108242.ece . . . the inlet was tap-water temperature, around 15°C and the outlet was around 20°C for most of the test, and for a while it was 40°C. It is very easy to confirm that these temperature difference are real, and not an instrument artifact or caused by fake instruments. Of course you cannot tell if the outlet is 35°C or 45°C, but you can tell it is much warmer than the inlet, and the input power would only make it a fraction of a degree warmer. People who imagine it is impossible to visually confirm that the flow rate is about 1 L/s, and not -- say -- 10 times less or 100 times less have no experience doing experiments, plumbing, or working with ornamental ponds. - Jed -- Dr. Peter Gluck Cluj, Romania http://egooutpeters.blogspot.com
Re: [Vo]:Levi's likely attitude
Peter Gluck wrote: In this case there is only one problem/question. 1L per second i.e. 15.65 gpm is an incredibly high flow for a tap and for the water feeding tubes. Perhaps a garden hose could do it. In a commercial building it should not be a problem. It seems it was a surprise- the 130kW heat peak and this was quenched with the maximum available flow. The flow rate was set at the beginning and not changed. No flowmeter was installed. They told me they used a standard water-meter style flowmeter, such as you use for a house or building main supply. These things are very reliable. They cost about $50. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:Levi's likely attitude
To be fair, in this report http://www.journal-of-nuclear-physics.com/files/Rossi-Focardi_paper.pdf Rossi and Focardi describe some other water flow tests on page 3. Harry From: Peter Gluck peter.gl...@gmail.com To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Friday, July 15, 2011 3:08:17 PM Subject: Re: [Vo]:Levi's likely attitude In this case there is only one problem/question. 1L per second i.e. 15.65 gpm is an incredibly high flow for a tap and for the water feeding tubes. Perhaps a garden hose could do it. It seems it was a surprise- the 130kW heat peak and this was quenched with the maximum available flow. No flowmeter was installed. Anyway I have performed many industrial tests/experiment in the chemical industry and we had an axiomatic saying- 1 test is no test, 1 result is no result. Why all the other teste were performed with water to steam? And why the enthalpy of the steam was not measured? Peter On Fri, Jul 15, 2011 at 9:40 PM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com wrote: Obviously I meant to write: . . . you can feel the OUTLET is substantially warmer than the INLET. . . . I meant in the 18-hour test with flowing liquid water. As described here: http://www.nyteknik.se/nyheter/energi_miljo/energi/article3108242.ece . . . the inlet was tap-water temperature, around 15°C and the outlet was around 20°C for most of the test, and for a while it was 40°C. It is very easy to confirm that these temperature difference are real, and not an instrument artifact or caused by fake instruments. Of course you cannot tell if the outlet is 35°C or 45°C, but you can tell it is much warmer than the inlet, and the input power would only make it a fraction of a degree warmer. People who imagine it is impossible to visually confirm that the flow rate is about 1 L/s, and not -- say -- 10 times less or 100 times less have no experience doing experiments, plumbing, or working with ornamental ponds. - Jed -- Dr. Peter Gluck Cluj, Romania http://egooutpeters.blogspot.com
Re: [Vo]:Levi's likely attitude
Harry Veeder wrote: To be fair, in this report http://www.journal-of-nuclear-physics.com/files/Rossi-Focardi_paper.pdf Rossi and Focardi describe some other water flow tests on page 3. This link does not work. Want to try again? - Jed
Re: [Vo]:Levi's likely attitude
This link does not work. Want to try again? It's in this list: http://www.journal-of-nuclear-physics.com/files/ Craig Manchester, NH On Fri, 2011-07-15 at 16:17 -0400, Jed Rothwell wrote: Harry Veeder wrote: To be fair, in this report http://www.journal-of-nuclear-physics.com/files/Rossi-Focardi_paper.pdf Rossi and Focardi describe some other water flow tests on page 3. This link does not work. Want to try again? - Jed
Re: [Vo]:Levi's likely attitude
From: Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Friday, July 15, 2011 4:17:16 PM Subject: Re: [Vo]:Levi's likely attitude Harry Veeder wrote: To be fair, in this report http://www.journal-of-nuclear-physics.com/files/Rossi-Focardi_paper.pdf Rossi and Focardi describe some other water flow tests on page 3. This link does not work. Want to try again? - Jed Hmm I guess only direct downloading is allowed, so go here: http://www.journal-of-nuclear-physics.com/ and look for Rossi-Focardi paper listed under resources on the left side of the page. Harry
Re: [Vo]:Levi's likely attitude
Harry Veeder wrote: Hmm I guess only direct downloading is allowed, so go here: http://www.journal-of-nuclear-physics.com/ and look for Rossi-Focardi paper listed under resources on the left side of the page. You mean the RIGHT side. Right bottom, where it says Rossi-Focardi paper. I am forever getting my right and left mixed up. I think it is a symptom of dyslexia. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:Levi's likely attitude
Harry Veeder wrote: To be fair, in this report http://www.journal-of-nuclear-physics.com/files/Rossi-Focardi_paper.pdf Rossi and Focardi describe some other water flow tests on page 3. The text is confusing. The liquid flowing water tests are listed in Table 1, p. 4. Flowing water is method B, in the tests conducted in 2009. There are two tests: Feb. 17 to March 3 (15 days), input was 5.1 kWh, output was 1006.5 kWh. That's 375 hours, so input is 14 W and output is 2,684 W. Right? March 5 to April 26 (22 days), input was 18.45 kWh and output was 3768 kWh. 527 hours. Input 35 W, output 7,150 W. The heading for Table 1 is below the table. This is a confusing document. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:Levi's likely attitude
From: Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Friday, July 15, 2011 4:36:48 PM Subject: Re: [Vo]:Levi's likely attitude Harry Veeder wrote: Hmm I guess only direct downloading is allowed, so go here: http://www.journal-of-nuclear-physics.com/ and look for Rossi-Focardi paper listed under resources on the left side of the page. You mean the RIGHT side. Right bottom, where it says Rossi-Focardi paper. I am forever getting my right and left mixed up. I think it is a symptom of dyslexia. - Jed I do not have dyslexia, although I often mix up the labels right and left. Harry
Re: [Vo]:Levi's likely attitude
I think these old boy were given to believe they were among critically objective scientists giving a warm welcome with nothing to hide. I think they all had a little to much trust in each other's obvectivity and the whole think snowballed into what we have today. I don't disclude myself from the little-to-much trust failing, by the way. A lot of small mistakes along the way make an interesting story. It's all present in the series of reports with each small error adding to the varacity. On Thu, Jul 14, 2011 at 2:50 AM, Joshua Cude joshua.c...@gmail.com wrote: The thing that's most amazing about all of this is that 2 doddering Swedish academics were sucked in by it.
Re: [Vo]:Levi's likely attitude
Technically speaking I don't believe there is such a thing as too much trust. We are born to trust, although depending on our personal life experiences we may lose our capacity to trust in different areas of our lives. On the other hand, vanity and ambition may blind us to the abuse of our trust in those areas of our lives where we do not expect our trust to be earned first. Harry From: Damon Craig decra...@gmail.com To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Thursday, July 14, 2011 6:44:54 AM Subject: Re: [Vo]:Levi's likely attitude I think these old boy were given to believe they were among critically objective scientists giving a warm welcome with nothing to hide. I think they all had a little to much trust in each other's obvectivity and the whole think snowballed into what we have today. I don't disclude myself from the little-to-much trust failing, by the way. A lot of small mistakes along the way make an interesting story. It's all present in the series of reports with each small error adding to the varacity. On Thu, Jul 14, 2011 at 2:50 AM, Joshua Cude joshua.c...@gmail.com wrote: The thing that's most amazing about all of this is that 2 doddering Swedish academics were sucked in by it.
Re: [Vo]:Levi's likely attitude
Terry sez: Trust but verify. The phrase, of course, has a tendency to contradict its original intent. However, I appreciate the meaning (and spirit) in which it is given. The phrase was one of the few things Ronald Reagan sed while he was in office that made any sense to me. Humans are often a contradictory lot. ;-) Regards Steven Vincent Johnson www.OrionWorks.com www.zazzle.com/orionworks
Re: [Vo]:Levi's likely attitude
Terry Blanton wrote: Trust but verify. I don't get that. If you have verified, you don't need to trust. It makes more sense to say: Don't trust; verify. OR Why bother trusting if you can verify? This was with regard to weapons reductions in the Reagan era. By that time, both sides had excellent satellite spy systems so they implement a treaty wherein missile solos were blown up, the top covers smashed, and both sides could confirm the other side had done that. It was wise of the leaders to agree to this. It was enlightened. But trust did not enter into it -- it was based on what had become verifiable. The wisdom was in recognizing that technology had developed enough to allow such verification, and that it was in everyone's best interest to reduce the number of weapons. With regard to experimental claims, I never trust people. I only trust instruments, and only after I have verified them by comparing them to other instruments. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:Levi's likely attitude
On Thu, Jul 14, 2011 at 2:53 PM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com wrote: Terry Blanton wrote: Trust but verify. I don't get that. If you have verified, you don't need to trust. Yes, well, I think Reagan was being amusing. At least, that's how *I* intended it. T
