Re: [Vo]:Revised version Celani reports on gamma emission from Rossi device

This is a resend test to see if this shows up in the archives this time. On Feb 21, 2011, at 6:27 PM, Jed Rothwell wrote: Horace Heffner wrote: As a double check on concepts, if you plug x=0.02856 into x/((x+(1- x)*0.0006)) then you get 0.98. That is to say, 98% of the mass of the volume

Re: [Vo]:Revised version Celani reports on gamma emission from Rossi device

This is a resend test. I sent this yesterday, but it did not show up in the archives. Something is going wrong with vortex-l. On Feb 21, 2011, at 6:50 PM, Stephen A. Lawrence wrote: On 02/21/2011 09:48 PM, Horace Heffner wrote: On Feb 21, 2011, at 1:40 PM, Joshua Cude wrote: On Mo

Re: [Vo]:Revised version Celani reports on gamma emission from Rossi device

On Tue, Feb 22, 2011 at 5:28 AM, Peter Gluck wrote: > Dear Joshua, > > Perhaps "*a possibly flawed demo*" would be more fair > and more technical. > It was flawed in that data to prove the steam was dry was not given, the pump model was not provided, the hydrogen bottle was left connected, and t

Re: [Vo]:Revised version Celani reports on gamma emission from Rossi device

On Mon, Feb 21, 2011 at 1:56 PM, Mark Iverson wrote: > Joshua: > A few clarifications from you would be helpful... > > Jed wrote: > >>You do have to trust Levi, Celani and Dufour and some other people. > > To which Joshua stated: > > Why? They were hand-picked by Rossi. > > Where is your ev

Re: [Vo]:Revised version Celani reports on gamma emission from Rossi device

Dear Joshua, Perhaps "*a possibly flawed demo*" would be more fair and more technical. Wishful thinking is pardonable, wishful reasoning and logic- not so. Edward de Bono says that the majority of errors are errors of perception not of logic. I am convinced that: - a) the steam was bone dry; - b)

Re: [Vo]:Revised version Celani reports on gamma emission from Rossi device

On Tue, Feb 22, 2011 at 2:04 AM, Horace Heffner wrote: > > > I look forward to the report. This is obviously well beyond chemical if > the consumables actually are H and Ni. The energy E per H is: > >E = (270kwh) /(0.4 g * Na / (1 gm/mol)) = 2.52x10^4 eV / H = 25 kEv per > atom of H. > >

Re: [Vo]:Revised version Celani reports on gamma emission from Rossi device

On Mon, Feb 21, 2011 at 9:27 PM, Jed Rothwell wrote: > Horace Heffner wrote: > > >> As a double check on concepts, if you plug x=0.02856 into >> x/((x+(1-x)*0.0006)) then you get 0.98. That is to say, 98% of the mass of >> the volume expelled is water, and 2% steam - your starting assumptions.

Re: [Vo]:Revised version Celani reports on gamma emission from Rossi device

On Mon, Feb 21, 2011 at 8:48 PM, Horace Heffner wrote: > > That said, let's proceed on with your defined problem where 2% of the water > is vaporized, i.e. the ejecta is 98% liquid by mass, 98% wet by mass. > > > >> |For an input flow rate of 300 cc/min = 300 mg/min, >> > > The above should read g

Re: [Vo]:Revised version Celani reports on gamma emission from Rossi device

OK, gentlemen, now you have a steamless- Wasser uber alles experiment too. Peter On Tue, Feb 22, 2011 at 9:50 AM, Horace Heffner wrote: > > On Feb 21, 2011, at 6:50 PM, Stephen A. Lawrence wrote: > > > > On 02/21/2011 09:48 PM, Horace Heffner wrote: > > > On Feb 21, 2011, at 1:40 PM, Joshua Cude

Re: [Vo]:Revised version Celani reports on gamma emission from Rossi device

On Feb 21, 2011, at 6:27 PM, Jed Rothwell wrote: Horace Heffner wrote: As a double check on concepts, if you plug x=0.02856 into x/((x+(1- x)*0.0006)) then you get 0.98. That is to say, 98% of the mass of the volume expelled is water, and 2% steam - your starting assumptions. As a dou

Re: [Vo]:Revised version Celani reports on gamma emission from Rossi device

On Feb 21, 2011, at 6:50 PM, Stephen A. Lawrence wrote: On 02/21/2011 09:48 PM, Horace Heffner wrote: On Feb 21, 2011, at 1:40 PM, Joshua Cude wrote: On Mon, Feb 21, 2011 at 11:52 AM, Horace Heffner wrote: On Feb 21, 2011, at 5:50 AM, Joshua Cude wrote: |One should also bear in m

Re: [Vo]:Revised version Celani reports on gamma emission from Rossi device

On 02/21/2011 09:48 PM, Horace Heffner wrote: > > On Feb 21, 2011, at 1:40 PM, Joshua Cude wrote: > >> >> >> On Mon, Feb 21, 2011 at 11:52 AM, Horace Heffner >> wrote: >> >> On Feb 21, 2011, at 5:50 AM, Joshua Cude wrote: >> >> |One should also bear in mind that it takes only 2% steam by mass to

Re: [Vo]:Revised version Celani reports on gamma emission from Rossi device

Horace Heffner wrote: > As a double check on concepts, if you plug x=0.02856 into > x/((x+(1-x)*0.0006)) then you get 0.98. That is to say, 98% of the mass of > the volume expelled is water, and 2% steam - your starting assumptions. As a double check on this discussion, you should note that t

Re: [Vo]:Revised version Celani reports on gamma emission from Rossi device

On Feb 21, 2011, at 1:40 PM, Joshua Cude wrote: On Mon, Feb 21, 2011 at 11:52 AM, Horace Heffner wrote: On Feb 21, 2011, at 5:50 AM, Joshua Cude wrote: |One should also bear in mind that it takes only 2% steam by mass to make up 97.5% of the expelled fluid by volume. And |since the

Re: [Vo]:Revised version Celani reports on gamma emission from Rossi device

On Mon, Feb 21, 2011 at 11:52 AM, Horace Heffner wrote: > > On Feb 21, 2011, at 5:50 AM, Joshua Cude wrote: > > One should also bear in mind that it takes only 2% steam by mass to make >> up 97.5% of the expelled fluid by volume. And since the steam is created in >> the horizontal portion, it is

Re: [Vo]:Revised version Celani reports on gamma emission from Rossi device

: Horace Heffner To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Cc: michael barron ; Rich Murray ; Rich Murray Sent: Mon, February 21, 2011 1:52:20 PM Subject: Re: [Vo]:Revised version Celani reports on gamma emission from Rossi device This list was formed to get away from the interminable, meaningless and

Re: [Vo]:Revised version Celani reports on gamma emission from Rossi device

its no big deal... http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Th_aBzrV37M harry - Original Message > From: Horace Heffner > To: vortex-l@eskimo.com > Cc: michael barron ; Rich Murray ; > Rich >Murray > Sent: Mon, February 21, 2011 1:52:20 PM > Subject: Re: [Vo]:Revised v

RE: [Vo]:Revised version Celani reports on gamma emission from Rossi device

Joshua: A few clarifications from you would be helpful... Jed wrote: >>You do have to trust Levi, Celani and Dufour and some other people. To which Joshua stated: > Why? They were hand-picked by Rossi. Where is your evidence that the scientists that were there to instrument the demo were

Re: [Vo]:Revised version Celani reports on gamma emission from Rossi device

As a consummate skeptic, I don't even experience an external physical reality, whether body, society, or universe... Let's say, "Rich" is on all levels within a virtual simulation, a "Rich's life world dream"... So, as always, the reality status of this very flowing moment of perception-cognition

Re: [Vo]:Revised version Celani reports on gamma emission from Rossi device

This list was formed to get away from the interminable, meaningless and unproductive debate between "pathological skeptics" and "true believers." The list was formed especially to get away from the ego feeding pathological skeptics on sci.physics.fusion that filled the bandwidth and preven

Re: [Vo]:Revised version Celani reports on gamma emission from Rossi device

Joshua Cude still impresses me as the only adult in the class in junior high school -- very impressive clarity of comprehension, speedy assessment of essential factors, vigorous lucid communication, terse effortless pointed prose, alert compassion, as he tackles the tedious task of pointing out to

Re: [Vo]:Revised version Celani reports on gamma emission from Rossi device

On Feb 21, 2011, at 5:50 AM, Joshua Cude wrote: One should also bear in mind that it takes only 2% steam by mass to make up 97.5% of the expelled fluid by volume. And since the steam is created in the horizontal portion, it is forced up 50 cm of pipe through liquid, which would presumably

Re: [Vo]:Revised version Celani reports on gamma emission from Rossi device

On Mon, Feb 21, 2011 at 8:41 AM, Jed Rothwell wrote: > There can be no rational question that these people can read a weight > scale, and use a graduated cylinder. There are no rational reasons to doubt > the flow rate. The reasons you come up with are mere excuses. You are moving > the goalposts

Re: [Vo]:Revised version Celani reports on gamma emission from Rossi device

On 02/21/2011 09:41 AM, Jed Rothwell wrote: > Joshua Cude mailto:joshua.c...@gmail.com>> wrote: > > > It is silly to leave objections like this in the air, when they > are so easy to answer. Just give the model of the pump. Is that so > hard? The more they neglect to do that, the mo

Re: [Vo]:Revised version Celani reports on gamma emission from Rossi device

On Mon, Feb 21, 2011 at 8:12 AM, Stephen A. Lawrence wrote: > > > On 02/18/2011 06:56 PM, mix...@bigpond.com wrote: > > Hi, > > > > Putt putt boats draw in water which flashes into steam and is then > ejected > > mostly as fluid. Given that the water was delivered to Rossi's device in > pulses, >

Re: [Vo]:Revised version Celani reports on gamma emission from Rossi device

Joshua Cude wrote: > It is silly to leave objections like this in the air, when they are so easy > to answer. Just give the model of the pump. Is that so hard? The more they > neglect to do that, the more justified the suspicion becomes. > No, it isn't hard, but they are not "neglecting" the is

Re: [Vo]:Revised version Celani reports on gamma emission from Rossi device

On 02/18/2011 06:56 PM, mix...@bigpond.com wrote: > Hi, > > Putt putt boats draw in water which flashes into steam and is then ejected > mostly as fluid. Given that the water was delivered to Rossi's device in > pulses, > it seems possible that it also ejected water in pulses, at least to some

Re: [Vo]:Revised version Celani reports on gamma emission from Rossi device

On Thu, Feb 17, 2011 at 5:16 PM, Terry Blanton wrote: > On Thu, Feb 17, 2011 at 5:54 PM, Joshua Cude > wrote: > > Gotta run. I'll catch up in 3 or 4 days. Don't take my absence as a > > concession. > > Concession to what? We are truthseekers, not competitors. > Truth-seekers can disagree, and

Re: [Vo]:Revised version Celani reports on gamma emission from Rossi device

On Thu, Feb 17, 2011 at 2:57 PM, Jed Rothwell wrote: > I wrote: > > The scientific method demands that an arbitrary limit be placed on >> objections. It is a matter of opinion how much proof is needed, and how many >> objections should be met, but you cannot leave the question undecided >> indef

Re: [Vo]:Revised version Celani reports on gamma emission from Rossi device

On Thu, Feb 17, 2011 at 2:27 PM, Jed Rothwell wrote: > Joshua Cude wrote: > > >> Well, it is if an experiment can be easily designed to make such >> suspicions impossible. As would be the case here, if the claims were true. >> > > Seriously, It is nearly impossible to design a demonstration that

Re: [Vo]:Revised version Celani reports on gamma emission from Rossi device

On Thu, Feb 17, 2011 at 12:39 PM, Jed Rothwell wrote: > Joshua Cude wrote: > > >> The professors tested and calibrated this machine for 6 weeks. They would >>> have discovered that it has a large hidden thermal mass. >> >> >> They did. It takes 30 minutes to bring the temperature up to the level

Re: [Vo]:Revised version Celani reports on gamma emission from Rossi device

Hi, Putt putt boats draw in water which flashes into steam and is then ejected mostly as fluid. Given that the water was delivered to Rossi's device in pulses, it seems possible that it also ejected water in pulses, at least to some extent, as the leading edge of each pulse flashed into steam. Sin

Re: [Vo]:Revised version Celani reports on gamma emission from Rossi device

Jed said, "Notice in the update he [ Celani ] sent to me today, he refers to this as a "wonderful device." I think he is pretty much convinced it is real, despite his complaints about the test and the fact that Rossi prevented him from taking a [ gamma ] spectrum. Melich and I are also "pretty m

Re: [Vo]:Revised version Celani reports on gamma emission from Rossi device

Stephen A. Lawrence wrote: > According to Celani, observers were not allowed into the room until the > experiment began to "work": > > The device did not work at first. He and others were waiting impatiently in > a room next to the room with the device. > > I don't think he said they were "not

RE: [Vo]:Revised version Celani reports on gamma emission from Rossi device

Debbie, "It is very frustrating that someone with an ID-capable detector didn't collect something." That is not a given. There could easily have been data collected but not disclosed. Celani may have been covering his tracks with what seems to be a persistent effort to explain to journali

Re: [Vo]:Revised version Celani reports on gamma emission from Rossi device

On Thu, Feb 17, 2011 at 5:54 PM, Joshua Cude wrote: > Gotta run. I'll catch up in 3 or 4 days. Don't take my absence as a > concession. Concession to what? We are truthseekers, not competitors. If you are an eternal septic, you will never be convinced. Albedo5 (who ran the septic forum on Comp

Re: [Vo]:Revised version Celani reports on gamma emission from Rossi device

Gotta run. I'll catch up in 3 or 4 days. Don't take my absence as a concession. JC On Thu, Feb 17, 2011 at 2:27 PM, Jed Rothwell wrote: > Joshua Cude wrote: > > >> Well, it is if an experiment can be easily designed to make such >> suspicions impossible. As would be the case here, if the claim

Re: [Vo]:Revised version Celani reports on gamma emission from Rossi device

If you want a natural emitter that would do a burst that would saturate a small NaI detector, that's easy. You would have to have access to something like a Cs137 or Co60/Co57 source, or even something as common as Tc99m, but any medical imaging facility or drilling outfit would have something. T

Re: [Vo]:Revised version Celani reports on gamma emission from Rossi device

Also, the fact that both meters were pegged. That sounds more like an event, and less like the momentary exposure of a shielded catalyst. On Thu, Feb 17, 2011 at 4:43 PM, Jones Beene wrote: > From: albedo5 > > > > If we had a spectrum, we would know what it was - or more to the point, > what

RE: [Vo]:Revised version Celani reports on gamma emission from Rossi device

From: albedo5 If we had a spectrum, we would know what it was - or more to the point, what it wasn't. I really, REALLY want a spectrum. Just one. Hmm . could it be simply a matter of deduction ? . connect the dots with Celani being specifically the only party being disallowed, hi

Re: [Vo]:Revised version Celani reports on gamma emission from Rossi device

If we had a spectrum, we would know what it was - or more to the point, what it wasn't. I really, REALLY want a spectrum. Just one. On Thu, Feb 17, 2011 at 3:52 PM, Stephen A. Lawrence wrote: > > > On 02/17/2011 03:27 PM, Jed Rothwell wrote: > > > ... I meant you do not have to trust Rossi. Yo

Re: [Vo]:Revised version Celani reports on gamma emission from Rossi device

On Thu, Feb 17, 2011 at 3:52 PM, Stephen A. Lawrence wrote: > Why was that?  It seems very strange. (Image of Rossi, a la Bear Gryllis, with a firesteel trying to start his "fire".) firesteel.com T

Re: [Vo]:Revised version Celani reports on gamma emission from Rossi device

I wrote: The scientific method demands that an arbitrary limit be placed on objections. It is a matter of opinion how much proof is needed, and how many objections should be met, but you cannot leave the question undecided indefinitely. . . . In this case, I think we need to start drawing so

Re: [Vo]:Revised version Celani reports on gamma emission from Rossi device

On 02/17/2011 03:27 PM, Jed Rothwell wrote: > > ... I meant you do not have to trust Rossi. You do have to trust Levi, > Celani and Dufour and some other people. They might be conspiring > together to fool us. If they can keep a secret, it would be easy for > them to fool us. I have no actual pro

Re: [Vo]:Revised version Celani reports on gamma emission from Rossi device

Joshua Cude wrote: > Well, it is if an experiment can be easily designed to make such suspicions > impossible. As would be the case here, if the claims were true. > Seriously, It is nearly impossible to design a demonstration that will eliminate all suspicions, in all people. Some people, such

Re: [Vo]:Revised version Celani reports on gamma emission from Rossi device

On Thu, Feb 17, 2011 at 11:54 AM, Stephen A. Lawrence wrote: > > > On 02/17/2011 11:41 AM, Joshua Cude wrote: > > > > On Thu, Feb 17, 2011 at 10:08 AM, Jed Rothwell wrote: > >> >> I do not think this demo required any trust. >> > > But you said, if you trust... then there's no point. > > > Calm

Re: [Vo]:Revised version Celani reports on gamma emission from Rossi device

Joshua Cude wrote: > The professors tested and calibrated this machine for 6 weeks. They would >> have discovered that it has a large hidden thermal mass. > > > They did. It takes 30 minutes to bring the temperature up to the level > needed to deliver water at 100C. > They reportedly had diffic

Re: [Vo]:Revised version Celani reports on gamma emission from Rossi device

On Thu, Feb 17, 2011 at 12:54 PM, Stephen A. Lawrence wrote: > > > If there *are* investors, on the other hand, then the demo is a much > tougher sell, IMO, because when there's a pile of money involved, even > seemingly far-fetched explanations can no longer be discarded out of hand. > There a

Re: [Vo]:Revised version Celani reports on gamma emission from Rossi device

On 02/17/2011 11:41 AM, Joshua Cude wrote: > > > On Thu, Feb 17, 2011 at 10:08 AM, Jed Rothwell > wrote: > > > I do not think this demo required any trust. > > > But you said, if you trust... then there's no point. Calm down, Joshua. Jed meant there's no need

Re: [Vo]:Revised version Celani reports on gamma emission from Rossi device

On Thu, Feb 17, 2011 at 10:08 AM, Jed Rothwell wrote: > > I do not think this demo required any trust. > But you said, if you trust... then there's no point.

Re: [Vo]:Revised version Celani reports on gamma emission from Rossi device

On Thu, Feb 17, 2011 at 9:35 AM, Jed Rothwell wrote: > Joshua Cude wrote: > > I suspect it is designed to have large thermal mass (maybe in hot oil, or >> even water under pressure), so that after the power is turned off, the >> thermal mass keeps the output at the bp for some time. That way, th

Re: [Vo]:Revised version Celani reports on gamma emission from Rossi device

Joshua Cude wrote: If we are simply to trust people's claims, then what's a demo for? > I do not trust Rossi's claims. I trust that Levi can read a weight scale, and that Dufour is telling me the truth when he says the pipe was too hot to tough. I trust that the power meter was working. > If

Re: [Vo]:Revised version Celani reports on gamma emission from Rossi device

Jones Beene wrote: That is not the case with Rossi. He has funds in hand to build a MW unit, he > says that this plan is underway, and essentially is telling skeptics: stuff > it. > These are good points. They are not the same kind of evidence as Dufour feeling a hot pipe. They are more the kind

Re: [Vo]:Revised version Celani reports on gamma emission from Rossi device

On Thu, Feb 17, 2011 at 9:22 AM, Jed Rothwell wrote: > Peter Gluck wrote: > >> However a good report must answer in advance to all the possible (and >> impossible too) questions of the amateur and professional skeptics. >> > That is impossible. Skeptics can come up with an unlimited number of > s

Re: [Vo]:Revised version Celani reports on gamma emission from Rossi device

Joshua Cude wrote: I suspect it is designed to have large thermal mass (maybe in hot oil, or even water under pressure), so that after the power is turned off, the thermal mass keeps the output at the bp for some time. That way, they can claim it is self-sustaining, even though it's just cooli

Re: [Vo]:Revised version Celani reports on gamma emission from Rossi device

Peter Gluck wrote: However a good report must answer in advance to all the possible (and impossible too) questions of the amateur and professional skeptics. That is impossible. Skeptics can come up with an unlimited number of skeptical objections, especially after they assume that the researcher

Re: [Vo]:Revised version Celani reports on gamma emission from Rossi device

On Thu, Feb 17, 2011 at 8:45 AM, Jed Rothwell wrote: > Joshua Cude wrote: > > >> With 1 kW, you can raise the temperature of the water at 300 mL/min about >> 50C to give 65C or so, definitely too hot to touch. >> > > That is true, but the power was not 1 kW. It was 400 W. It was 1 kW at the > be

RE: [Vo]:Revised version Celani reports on gamma emission from Rossi device

Those are good points but the most important thing of all is being left unsaid: NO TIN CUP 100% of all the inventors in the past - who have tried to pull of scams have been seeking immediate funding. That is not the case with Rossi. He has funds in hand to build a MW unit, he says that

Re: [Vo]:Revised version Celani reports on gamma emission from Rossi device

On Thu, Feb 17, 2011 at 8:35 AM, Jed Rothwell wrote: > Joshua Cude wrote: > > And a good way to measure car speed is with a speedometer. But if someone >> claims have driven 250 mph in a chevy Volt, I'm gonna suspect the honesty >> first, and the speedometer second. >> > > If you suspect that Le

Re: [Vo]:Revised version Celani reports on gamma emission from Rossi device

On Thu, Feb 17, 2011 at 8:45 AM, Jed Rothwell wrote: > Joshua Cude wrote: > > >> With 1 kW, you can raise the temperature of the water at 300 mL/min about >> 50C to give 65C or so, definitely too hot to touch. >> > > That is true, but the power was not 1 kW. It was 400 W. It was 1 kW at the > be

Re: [Vo]:Revised version Celani reports on gamma emission from Rossi device

On Thu, Feb 17, 2011 at 8:45 AM, Jed Rothwell wrote: > Joshua Cude wrote: > > >> With 1 kW, you can raise the temperature of the water at 300 mL/min about >> 50C to give 65C or so, definitely too hot to touch. >> > > That is true, but the power was not 1 kW. It was 400 W. It was 1 kW at the > be

Re: [Vo]:Revised version Celani reports on gamma emission from Rossi device

Peristaltic pumps of exactly this size deliver flows between a few microliters and 2000 ml/minute, depending on the ID of the tube and the number of pulses per minute. However a good report must answer in advance to all the possible (and impossible too) questions of the amateur and professional ske

Re: [Vo]:Revised version Celani reports on gamma emission from Rossi device

Joshua Cude wrote: > With 1 kW, you can raise the temperature of the water at 300 mL/min about > 50C to give 65C or so, definitely too hot to touch. > That is true, but the power was not 1 kW. It was 400 W. It was 1 kW at the beginning of the experiment, but a flow calorimeter or hot water heat

Re: [Vo]:Revised version Celani reports on gamma emission from Rossi device

Joshua Cude wrote: And a good way to measure car speed is with a speedometer. But if someone > claims have driven 250 mph in a chevy Volt, I'm gonna suspect the honesty > first, and the speedometer second. > If you suspect that Levi and the others at U. Bologna are not honest, then nothing they

Re: [Vo]:Revised version Celani reports on gamma emission from Rossi device

On Thu, Feb 17, 2011 at 7:45 AM, Jed Rothwell wrote: > Joshua Cude wrote: > > >> Questioned by who? For what reason? Lots of people have questioned lots of >>> things, but there is no rational reason to doubt the flow rate. >>> >>> >>> How about a commercial pump that looks exactly like the one

Re: [Vo]:Revised version Celani reports on gamma emission from Rossi device

Here are a couple of additional comments from Celani: a) The NaI (Tl) gamma detector had an energy range from 25 to 2000 keV; b) Celani asked, in several public mail to Rossi, that for a conclusive SCIENTIFIC demonstration of such wonderful device, the maximum temperature of the outgoing water ha

Re: [Vo]:Revised version Celani reports on gamma emission from Rossi device

Joshua Cude wrote: > Questioned by who? For what reason? Lots of people have questioned lots of >> things, but there is no rational reason to doubt the flow rate. >> >> >> How about a commercial pump that looks exactly like the one in the > picture, with a max flow rate less than half of what is

Re: [Vo]:Revised version Celani reports on gamma emission from Rossi device

On Wed, Feb 16, 2011 at 8:32 PM, Jed Rothwell wrote: > > Also, the actual flow rate has been questioned. >> > > Questioned by who? For what reason? Lots of people have questioned lots of > things, but there is no rational reason to doubt the flow rate. > > > How about a commercial pump that loo

Re: [Vo]:Revised version Celani reports on gamma emission from Rossi device

On Wed, Feb 16, 2011 at 8:32 PM, Jed Rothwell wrote: > > > >> Now we hear the input power was unstable, fluctuating between 400 and >> 800 W, so was actually probably 600 W. >> > > Actually that is not what the power meter showed in Fig. 5 of the Levi > report. That was Celani's mistaken impres

Re: [Vo]:Revised version Celani reports on gamma emission from Rossi device

Horace Heffner wrote: > Set up hot plate and adjust input to 600 W. Watt meters, combined with > integrated kWh metering, can be obtained relatively cheaply. Place a > covered pan on the burner until water boils. The pan lid will be too hot to > touch. The steam can drive a whistle to make

Re: [Vo]:Revised version Celani reports on gamma emission from Rossi device

On Feb 16, 2011, at 10:48 AM, Jed Rothwell wrote: Here is a revised version of the message I sent the other day. Villa reported no gamma emissions or other radiation significantly above background from the Rossi device. Celani, however, said that he did detect something. Here are the detai