;regardless" is the word you want there. "Irregardless" is not
>an "official word" but if it were it would mean the opposite of what you
>intended. (Some modern dictionaries have surrendered to the
>ungrammatical hordes and now define it as a synonym for "rega
t were it would mean the opposite of what you
intended. (Some modern dictionaries have surrendered to the
ungrammatical hordes and now define it as a synonym for "regardless",
but all us nit-pickers out here know they're wrong.)
> Date: Mon, 10 Oct 2011 15:24:41 -0500
> Su
“As already speculated by a few here, Rossi continues to give me the
impression that he operates very much on intuition. Recording scientific
data is almost incidental to him, a characteristic I suspect probably drives
a few of his colleagues to distraction. “
After watching Rossi for some months
On Oct 10, 2011, at 11:10 PM, Axil Axil wrote:
The hyperlink to graph 3 is mistakenly pointing to graph 2 I think.
Right you are. Thanks! Should have been:
http://www.mtaonline.net/~hheffner/RossiT2_RF.png
On Tue, Oct 11, 2011 at 2:44 AM, Horace Heffner
wrote:
On Oct 10, 2011, at
The hyperlink to graph 3 is mistakenly pointing to graph 2 I think.
On Tue, Oct 11, 2011 at 2:44 AM, Horace Heffner wrote:
>
> On Oct 10, 2011, at 4:57 PM, OrionWorks - Steven Vincent Johnson wrote:
>
> Ed Storms said it was ok for me to post the following analysis he made:
>>
>> * * * * * *
>>
On Oct 10, 2011, at 4:57 PM, OrionWorks - Steven Vincent Johnson wrote:
Ed Storms said it was ok for me to post the following analysis he
made:
* * * * * *
A careful examination of the attached graph reveals an interesting
conclusion. The Pout (power out) and the Eout (Energy out) appear
On Oct 10, 2011, at 5:01 PM, Jed Rothwell wrote:
Ed Storms wrote:
A careful examination of the attached graph reveals an interesting
conclusion.
This refers to Heffner's graph 1:
http://www.mtaonline.net/~hheffner/Rossi6Oct2011Review.pdf
- Jed
BTW, I finally figured out how to make the
On Mon, Oct 10, 2011 at 8:57 PM, OrionWorks - Steven Vincent Johnson
wrote:
> Ed Storms said it was ok for me to post the following analysis he made:
Isn't PoutE a bit funny?
T
Ed Storms wrote:
> A careful examination of the attached graph reveals an interesting
> conclusion.
>
This refers to Heffner's graph 1:
http://www.mtaonline.net/~hheffner/Rossi6Oct2011Review.pdf
- Jed
Ed Storms said it was ok for me to post the following analysis he made:
* * * * * *
A careful examination of the attached graph reveals an interesting
conclusion. The Pout (power out) and the Eout (Energy out) appear to
describe the net excess, not the total as everyone seems to assume.
conversion and elaborate journalism on this point. You seem to
confuse your total ignorance with lack of merit. You will regret that.
----- Original Message -
From: "Mark Iverson-ZeroPoint"
To:
Sent: Monday, October 10, 2011 3:44 PM
Subject: RE: [Vo]:Look at the
To:
Sent: Monday, October 10, 2011 3:44 PM
Subject: RE: [Vo]:Look at the BIG PICTURE and you will see this is
irrefutable proof
From one narcissist to another...
Seems ol Joe thinks he's converted the lot of us...
http://www.theeestory.com/users/1681/posts#
"80kgs of metal c
l continue to use the phrase to the four corners of the
earth. Supposably, it's commonplaced.
> Date: Mon, 10 Oct 2011 15:24:41 -0500
> Subject: Re: [Vo]:Look at the BIG PICTURE and you will see this is
> irrefutable proof
> From: svj.orionwo...@gmail.com
> To: vortex-l@e
Terry sez:
...
>> I'm sure you could care less.
>
> whisper: ". . . not care less"
>
>
Really? I wuz never good at grammar.
Grammatically speaking I always thought it is better form to avoid
cluttering up one's literary intent with the use of double negatives.
Regards
Steven Vincent Johnson
If that were the approach you would use graphite inductively heated to 3500
deg C in a graphite foil/foam insulated vacuum flask, add hydrogen to start
convective heat transfer. Stores about 1.3kWh/kg and about 2.7kWh/liter, so
would need about 10 liters for 80MJ of latest demo.
Note I am sure th
>From one narcissist to another...
Seems ol Joe thinks he's converted the lot of us...
http://www.theeestory.com/users/1681/posts#
"80kgs of metal can easily store over 40MJ. It's not on the level of a
discussion. My arguments have been extremely convincing as I think you can
tell by the rec
On Mon, Oct 10, 2011 at 2:50 PM, OrionWorks - Steven V Johnson
wrote:
> Congratulations, Mr. Catania.
>
> Further posts from you will be routed to my block list.
>
> I'm sure you could care less. I guess the feeling is mutual.
whisper: ". . . not care less"
-the narcissist
What do my posts matter anyway? Yes please block me.
- Original Message -
From: "OrionWorks - Steven V Johnson"
To:
Sent: Monday, October 10, 2011 2:50 PM
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Look at the BIG PICTURE and you will see this is
irrefutable proof
Congratulations, Mr. Catania
Congratulations, Mr. Catania.
Further posts from you will be routed to my block list.
I'm sure you could care less. I guess the feeling is mutual.
Regards
Steven Vincent Johnson
www.OrionWorks.com
www.zazzle.com/orionworks
at the BIG PICTURE and you will see this is
irrefutable proof
Quit picking on Catania who does not know the difference between
'your' and 'you're'. He passed away some time ago as is evidenced by
this piccy of him surrounded by flowers. RIP JOE!
http://www.theeestory.com/posts/199540
T
LOL. That's hypocritical.
- Original Message -
From: "Rich Murray"
To: ; "Rich Murray" ; "Rich Murray"
Sent: Monday, October 10, 2011 12:49 PM
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Look at the BIG PICTURE and you will see this is
irrefutable proof
Jed Rothwell i
Funny, you don't seem annoyed. All Jed is capable with regard to this matter
is condescension.
- Original Message -
From: "Stephen A. Lawrence"
To:
Sent: Monday, October 10, 2011 12:33 PM
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Look at the BIG PICTURE and you will see this is
irrefutable pr
LOL. That's hypocritical.
- Original Message -
From: "Rich Murray"
To: ; "Rich Murray" ; "Rich Murray"
Sent: Monday, October 10, 2011 12:49 PM
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Look at the BIG PICTURE and you will see this is
irrefutable proof
Jed Rothwell i
Quit picking on Catania who does not know the difference between
'your' and 'you're'. He passed away some time ago as is evidenced by
this piccy of him surrounded by flowers. RIP JOE!
http://www.theeestory.com/posts/199540
T
Jed Rothwell is a serious, intelligent, dedicated, honorable, careful,
scientific layman with the highest motives to benefit our world -- he
always acknowledges his bias clearly and openly.
I think it would be much to his credit to agree that the term
"pathological skeptic" is as unworthy in publi
On 11-10-10 12:33 PM, Stephen A. Lawrence wrote:
On 11-10-10 11:04 AM, Joe Catania wrote:
Newton's Law is irrelevant. Your the type of buffoon who ...
And you, /Mister/ Catania, are apparently the type of poster who
resorts to ad hominems when he's having trouble expressing himself
clear
On 11-10-10 11:04 AM, Joe Catania wrote:
Newton's Law is irrelevant. Your the type of buffoon who ...
And you, /Mister/ Catania, are apparently the type of poster who resorts
to ad hominems when he's having trouble expressing himself clearly
enough to get his point across.
Jed's may be a
not alone.
But, in my own opinion, this was certainly not a conclusive test. I think that
extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence; it's just not here. This
could have very easily been a conclusive test, but it went just as predicted.
Date: Mon, 10 Oct 2011 10:39:58 -0400
>From Joe Catania:
On Mon, Oct 10, 2011 at 10:04 AM, Joe Catania wrote:
> Newton's Law is irrelevant. Your the type of buffoon who believes that since
> there's an Ohms LAw every conductor obeys it. The temperature "law" the
> e-cat obeys is ostensibly written in the temperature data if we can co
Rothwell
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Sent: Monday, October 10, 2011 10:28 AM
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Look at the BIG PICTURE and you will see this is
irrefutable proof
Joe Catania wrote:
That appears to be a graph of power noy yemperature.
It is derived from Lewan's temperature r
Rothwell
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Sent: Monday, October 10, 2011 10:28 AM
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Look at the BIG PICTURE and you will see this is
irrefutable proof
Joe Catania wrote:
That appears to be a graph of power noy yemperature.
It is derived from Lewan's temperature r
Robert Leguillon wrote:
The "rapid overfilling" was at .91 grams/second (It turns out the 1.92 g/s
> was for quenching)
>
The "rapid overfill" I refer to is the quenching, at 1.92 g/s. I believe
0.91 was the rate during the test when Lewan checked it. 1.92 isn't very
rapid, is it? Apparently it
Joe Catania wrote:
**
> That appears to be a graph of power noy yemperature.
>
It is derived from Lewan's temperature readings. The flow rate was unchanged
so correspondence to the temperature is unchanged for the entire dataset. In
other words, you could replace the vertical axis power numbers
On Oct 9, 2011, at 7:05 PM, Robert Leguillon wrote:
Alright, if it's conclusive without the thermocouples
Does anyone have a decent water capacity for the E-Cat? I see that
H.H. calculated 14.2 liters, but has there been any confirmed
number out of the Rossi camp?
I only ask, because mu
If its passive cooling? Excuse me but are we discussing something here?
- Original Message -
From: Jed Rothwell
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Sent: Sunday, October 09, 2011 9:41 PM
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Look at the BIG PICTURE and you will see this is
irrefutable proof
Excuse me I
That appears to be a graph of power noy yemperature.
- Original Message -
From: Jed Rothwell
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Sent: Sunday, October 09, 2011 9:24 PM
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Look at the BIG PICTURE and you will see this is
irrefutable proof
Joe Catania wrote:
No
The "rapid overfilling" was at .91 grams/second (It turns out the 1.92 g/s was
for quenching)
I've wanted to look at these numbers, and back-of-the-envelope, 381 watts
would raise the water entering the E-Cat by 100 degrees (from 24 to 124 degrees
C).
An additional 2,056 watts is required for
Robert Leguillon wrote:
Does anyone have a decent water capacity for the E-Cat? I see that H.H.
> calculated 14.2 liters, but has there been any confirmed number out of the
> Rossi camp?
> I only ask, because multiple references have been made to "tons of cooling
> water" to quench the reaction d
Alright, if it's conclusive without the thermocouples
Does anyone have a decent water capacity for the E-Cat? I see that H.H.
calculated 14.2 liters, but has there been any confirmed number out of the
Rossi camp?
I only ask, because multiple references have been made to "tons of cooling
wate
Robert Leguillon wrote:
> You seem to be impressed by that graph. If you look closely at the Ny
> Teknik results, the output at the heat exchanger doesn't seem to track the
> logged E-Cat temperatures in any meaningful way.
>
It cannot track them. The eCat is boiling water at a given pressure,
Jed, I hate to ask, really.
You seem to be impressed by that graph. If you look closely at the Ny Teknik
results, the output at the heat exchanger doesn't seem to track the logged
E-Cat temperatures in any meaningful way.
A quick example is between 19:03 and 19:22: In that time frame, E-Cat tem
Excuse me I meant to say that the cooling rate must obey Newton's law if
there is NO energy generation and the flow rate does NOT change. In other
words, if it passive cooling in unchanging conditions. Lewan's observations
and report show that the flow rate and other essential parameters did not
ch
On Sun, Oct 9, 2011 at 9:24 PM, Jed Rothwell wrote:
> Joe Catania wrote:
>>
>> No the band heater is at 900C but that metal block talk was only for
>> illustrative purposes. Newtons LAw is irrelevant.
>
> Newton's law governs passive heat loss, which is what this has to be if
> there is not energ
Joe Catania wrote:
**
> No the band heater is at 900C but that metal block talk was only for
> illustrative purposes. Newtons LAw is irrelevant.
>
Newton's law governs passive heat loss, which is what this has to be if
there is not energy input and the flow rate does change.
> An insulated me
link).
- Original Message -
From: Jed Rothwell
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Sent: Sunday, October 09, 2011 8:14 PM
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Look at the BIG PICTURE and you will see this is
irrefutable proof
Joe Catania wrote:
With 40MJ of heat in the system it would be impossible fo
Joe Catania wrote:
**
> With 40MJ of heat in the system it would be impossible for the temperature
> to drop suddenly. I heat a block of steel to 900C, then I stop heating it,
> and drop a gram of water on it. What's the temperature? 900C. Notice there
> was no precipitous drop.
>
Please see New
>From Akira:
> This is another graphical analysis which shows an overall energy gain:
>
> http://imgur.com/a/oix51
The I/O energy values listed at Imgur certainly bear little resemblance the
values reported over in Mr. Krivit's blog:
http://blog.newenergytimes.com/
Of particular interest to me
I don't know if Rossi would consider them false starts. From what he has
said in the past it seems that cycling the input on and off is now standard
operating procedure to run the E-Cat in a stable mode. He has said that in
commercial models this cycling will be automated.
On Sun, Oct 9, 2011 at 6
On 2011-10-10 01:12, OrionWorks - Steven Vincent Johnson wrote:
In any case, it looks to me as if Rossi had three false starts
before he finally hit pay dirt on the fourth crank.
I haven't thought of this before, but after pondering a bit about it I
believe it really might have been the case.
Thanks for the analysis, Jed. Will be interesting to read what others have
to say.
BTW, what did Rossi have to say?
* * * * *
When I look at the graph I continue to be drawn to the curious fact that the
input power is cycled on and off a total of three or four times starting
from around
On 2011-10-09 22:59, Jed Rothwell wrote:
http://a2.sphotos.ak.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ak-ash4/304196_10150844451570375_818270374_20774905_1010742682_n.jpg
This is another graphical analysis which shows an overall energy gain:
http://imgur.com/a/oix51
(conveniently grouped in a single image gallery
water. In fact 40MJ is
stored in the metal. This is enough to boil ~20kg of water. Where are you
getting 1.8 tons?
- Original Message -
From: Jed Rothwell
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Sent: Sunday, October 09, 2011 4:59 PM
Subject: [Vo]:Look at the BIG PICTURE and you will see th
Or if it is refutable, let's see someone make a serious effort to refute it.
Stop quibbling about details. Get the heart of the matter, and tell us how a
box of this size with no input power can boil water for 3 hours and remain
at the same high temperature while you cool it with 1.8 tons of water.
53 matches
Mail list logo
