On Mon, Jul 11, 2011 at 3:14 PM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com wrote:
This document, “the E-Cat does not produce excess Energy” has some some
strange assertions.
On Mon, Jul 11, 2011 at 10:23 AM, Craig Haynie cchayniepub...@gmail.comwrote:
5. The pressure in the ecat cannot be room pressure, or the fluid
would not flow out of the ecat into the room.
As I understand the operation, fluid does not flow out. Steam is venting
from a hole in the device.
This document, “the E-Cat does not produce excess Energy” has some some
strange assertions.
http://www.fysik.org/WebSite/fragelada/resurser/cold_fusion_krivit.pdf
Where does the power go? Out of the E-Cat or the tube? Not very likely
since the
losses are small, 5 kW is a lot of power and it
In reply to Mark Iverson's message of Wed, 29 Jun 2011 17:14:40 -0700:
Hi,
I suspect that instead of controlled he meant checked. The Dutch word
kontroleren means to check. and a similar situation may exist with
Swedish/Norwegian (due to the Norse/Germanic origin of the Dutch language).
Here's
In reply to Mark Iverson's message of Wed, 29 Jun 2011 17:14:40 -0700:
Hi,
I suspect that instead of controlled he meant checked. The Dutch word
kontroleren means to check. and a similar situation may exist with
Swedish/Norwegian (due to the Norse/Germanic origin of the Dutch language).
Here's
On Wed, Jun 29, 2011 at 1:06 AM, Harry Veeder hlvee...@yahoo.com wrote:
Peter Ekstrom's analysis:
“the E-Cat does not produce excess Energy”.
http://www.fysik.org/WebSite/fragelada/resurser/cold_fusion_krivit.pdf
Rossi responds to Peter Ekstrom's analysis:
nothing to get all steamed up about...
To: Harry Veeder hlvee...@yahoo.com
Cc:
Sent: Wednesday, June 29, 2011 11:32:59 PM
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Rossi responds to movie professor and Peter Ekstrom's
analysis
I'd like to see a practical person rig up an empty demo version
of
the Rossi device -- about the same power electric
More bizarreness.
Note that in all the apparent anger over the wetness of the effluent,
nobody has stated *any* measurement which was made and which indicated
the steam was dry. We've got temperature, we've got pressure (relative
to ambient, please note, not even an actual pressure number, so
Ad hominem responses are always confirmations that the responder is
unable to support his position with evidence and reason...
Lack of playful humor is another sign.
Abd and Jed have shown this too, in recent days.
Very good response by Andrea. We see that those movie clowns have also
infiltrated Vortex, like Joshua, Abd and few other pseudoskeptics. One thing
also what must be considered, but what was ignored by pseudoskeptics was
that the room temperature was over 30 degrees. This makes steam less visible
On 11-06-29 10:06 AM, Rich Murray wrote:
Ad hominem responses are always confirmations that the responder is
unable to support his position with evidence and reason...
Lack of playful humor is another sign.
Abd and Jed have shown this too, in recent days.
Nonsense. Please don't make such
On 11-06-29 10:23 AM, Jouni Valkonen wrote:
Very good response by Andrea. We see that those movie clowns have
also infiltrated Vortex, like Joshua, Abd and few other pseudoskeptics.
So Abd is a pseudoskeptic because he questioned the dryness of the
steam, and asked if it's possible the
Lawrence, the definition of movie clown is to make conclusive deductions
from low resolution video footage without knowing what is a) surrounding
temperature b) temperature of the hose and c) current power output of E-Cat.
There was just too many unknowns to make strong conclusions.
On Wed, Jun 29, 2011 at 9:23 AM, Jouni Valkonen jounivalko...@gmail.comwrote:
Mysterious AND measured boiling point of water was 99.7±0.1°C. Therefore if
steam temperature is above 100.1±0.1°C, then the steam is dry, because water
cannot remain in liquid phase in normal atmospheric pressure
Original-Nachricht
Datum: Wed, 29 Jun 2011 09:53:12 -0400
Von: Stephen A. Lawrence sa...@pobox.com
An: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Betreff: Re: [Vo]:Rossi responds to movie professor and Peter Ekstrom\'s
analysis
More bizarreness.
Note that in all the apparent anger over the
Why are you subtracting the in Bologna if it was actually measured there?
BTW, the boiling point for water at 1016hPa is 100.1, according to this
boiling point calculator (pure water)
http://www.partyman.se/boiling-point-calculator/
Original-Nachricht
Datum: Wed, 29 Jun 2011 13:10:41 -0300
Von: Daniel Rocha danieldi...@gmail.com
An: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Betreff: Re: [Vo]:Rossi responds to movie professor and Peter Ekstrom\'s
analysis
Why are you subtracting the in Bologna if it was actually measured
So, the boiling temperature is 99.9C.
Original-Nachricht
Datum: Wed, 29 Jun 2011 13:10:41 -0300
Von: Daniel Rocha danieldi...@gmail.com
An: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Betreff: Re: [Vo]:Rossi responds to movie professor and Peter Ekstrom\'s
analysis
Why are you subtracting the in Bologna if it was actually measured
[mailto:angela.kemm...@gmx.de]
Sent: Wednesday, June 29, 2011 10:12 AM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Rossi responds to movie professor and Peter Ekstrom's
analysis
Original-Nachricht
Datum: Wed, 29 Jun 2011 13:10:41 -0300
Von: Daniel Rocha danieldi...@gmail.com
From Angela:
no, they measured it a bit away, but still in Bologna. I you
want the precise position, I may tell you that later, I have
access to all the historic weather data. I think it is the
airport there. Meteorology was my business for a long
time. Every station transmits the local air
-Original Message-
From: OrionWorks - Steven V Johnson [mailto:svj.orionwo...@gmail.com]
Sent: Wednesday, June 29, 2011 11:55 AM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Rossi responds to movie professor and Peter Ekstrom's
analysis
From Angela:
no, they measured it a bit away, but still
On Jun 29, 2011 6:03 PM, Joshua Cude joshua.c...@gmail.com wrote:
You yourself argued at length that the temperature
is not above the boiling point, as evidenced by its
perfectly flat nature. You argued it was because only
liquid water is heated directly. If the steam is dry
and above the
this site says:
Steam - produced in a boiler where the heat is supplied to the water and where
the steam are in contact with the water surface of the boiler - will contain
approximately 5% water by mass.
http://www.engineeringtoolbox.com/wet-steam-quality-d_426.html
Harry
On Wed, Jun 29, 2011 at 2:53 PM, Mark Iverson zeropo...@charter.net wrote:
Steven:
Another proposal here is that liquid water is ejected out of the chimney,
which may very well
happen. This is certainly possible with the new, smaller e-Cats which have
a much shorter chimney,
but I would
On Wed, Jun 29, 2011 at 3:20 PM, Jouni Valkonen jounivalko...@gmail.comwrote:
Good try but you forgot the surface tension. When you boil water in the
kettle then you will get bubbles. Therefore steam can be hotter than actual
boiling point. If you reduce the surface tension or make fine mist
_
From: Joshua Cude [mailto:joshua.c...@gmail.com]
Sent: Wednesday, June 29, 2011 1:32 PM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Rossi responds to movie professor and Peter Ekstrom's
analysis
On Wed, Jun 29, 2011 at 2:53 PM, Mark Iverson zeropo...@charter.net wrote:
Steven:
Another proposal
On Wed, Jun 29, 2011 at 4:04 PM, Mark Iverson zeropo...@charter.net wrote:
**
Geezus Josh, you're grasping at straws... and obviously flawed ones at
that.
First:
It should be COMPELETLY obvious that we're talking about the
behavior/performance of the system at steady-state -- NOT start-up.
to movie professor and Peter Ekstrom's
analysis
On Wed, Jun 29, 2011 at 4:04 PM, Mark Iverson zeropo...@charter.net wrote:
Geezus Josh, you're grasping at straws... and obviously flawed ones at that.
First:
It should be COMPELETLY obvious that we're talking about the
behavior/performance
On Wed, Jun 29, 2011 at 5:13 PM, Mark Iverson zeropo...@charter.net wrote:
**
Again, I think it would be obvious that ***IF*** the heat production of the
reactor is not enough to vaporize nearly all of the water flowing in each
second, then YES, the chimney will eventually fill up and spill
Joshua wrote:
I guess I misunderstood you when you said
The chimney could also have some baffles inside that would prevent liquid
water from being
ejected; it would simple fall back down into the boiling water. [iverson]
Ever hear of an 'ejection' seat... or the phrase, 'the person was
On Wed, Jun 29, 2011 at 6:26 PM, Mark Iverson zeropo...@charter.net wrote:
There is a concern that due to the likely rigorous boiling inside, some
(macroscopic) liquid water is being thrown upward and some of it exiting
thru the opening in the side of the chimney...
Depends what you mean by
that there are significant concerns and no end to the
frustrations that
come from how the tests/demos were conducted!
-Mark
_
From: Joshua Cude [mailto:joshua.c...@gmail.com]
Sent: Wednesday, June 29, 2011 4:11 PM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Rossi responds to movie professor and Peter Ekstrom's
From: Mark Iverson zeropo...@charter.net
This is certainly a concern in that there seems to be no
feedback of outlet temperature in order to provide data to the control boxes
(PLCs)..
Is the operation of the E-Cat so consistent that so long as
there's a steady flowrate and fairly
Joshua wrote:
No, this is not the way it would happen. Even if the power is enough to
vaporize only a few per
cent of the water (by mass), then gas will occupy nearly all the volume (ninety
some per cent). So,
there is no way that the chimney would fill up with water; that would block the
Mark, I put an entire book on 2-phase flow on this discussion list, 3 days
ago.
From: Joshua Cude joshua.c...@gmail.com
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Sent: Wednesday, June 29, 2011 5:20:37 PM
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Rossi responds to movie professor and Peter Ekstrom's
analysis
The pump is still operating at steady state, meaning fluid is entering the
chimney all the time. It's
On Wed, Jun 29, 2011 at 7:14 PM, Mark Iverson zeropo...@charter.net wrote:
**
Josh wrote:
they will have seen a mist coming out of the chimney.
No, Kullander specifically states in his report:
The 100 °C temperature is reached at 10:42 and at about 10:45 all the
water is completely
On Wed, Jun 29, 2011 at 8:21 PM, Mark Iverson zeropo...@charter.net wrote:
**
I did as you suggest and searched for '2-phase flow', and even refined it
by adding steam quality to the search terms... I'm sorry to disappoint
you, but it only took the first two references I looked at to satisfy
Joshua Cude's most recent 2 posts are excellent, lucid, crisp, point
by point, spot on, concise, pertinent -- they deserve reading and
rereading.
He mobilizes the available evidence to show a great likelihood that
the outflow includes a lot of liquid water and mist, and therefore no
evidence of
Murray [mailto:rmfor...@gmail.com]
Sent: Wednesday, June 29, 2011 10:49 PM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Rossi responds to movie professor and Peter Ekstrom's
analysis
Joshua Cude's most recent 2 posts are excellent, lucid, crisp, point by point,
spot on, concise,
pertinent
43 matches
Mail list logo
