I have to say, I think that Mats did a great job in these tests. An input flowmeter would've been nice, but I think that the biggest criticism that I have is that the input power was not continually monitored. The results cannot entirely be explained away by the vaporization question. For these results, either additional chemical/nuclear heat would be necessary, or the input power would have to have been increased surreptitiously. What did Mats think about the famous "stable, stable" video? Krivit's discussion: http://blog.newenergytimes.com/2011/08/05/reviewing-ny-teknik-video-did-rossi-play-with-power-setting/
The actual Youtube video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=uviXoafHWrU Does he believe that Rossi could have been Jockeying the controls? Does he recall what the settings were on the black box throughout the demonstrations? Date: Tue, 13 Dec 2011 17:16:31 -0500 Subject: Re: [Vo]:Reviewing Lewan's test of April 2011 From: jedrothw...@gmail.com To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Jouni Valkonen <jounivalko...@gmail.com> wrote: However, it is very sad, that Lewan forgot to do simple steam sparging test, what would have been given simple datapoint of the overall performance. I discussed this with him. I think the bucket was too far from the reactor to do this effectively. They should have used a hose ~1 m long for that purpose, and a lot more water in the bucket to start with. - Jed
