date:20111017

Mostly speculative

http://www.forbes.com/sites/markgibbs/2011/10/17/hello-cheap-energy-hello-brave-new-world/

Mostly harmless.

Regards
Steven Vincent Johnson
www.OrionWorks.com
www.zazzle.com/orionworks

Re: [Vo]:OrboCat

On Sun, Oct 16, 2011 at 10:18 PM, Harry Veeder hveeder...@gmail.com wrote:


 . . . but do you still think Steorn's Orbo is a joke?

With a name like that?

T

Re: [Vo]:Forbes weighs in on the controversial Rossi's eCat phenomenon

 Mostly speculative

 http://www.forbes.com/sites/markgibbs/2011/10/17/hello-cheap-energy-hello-brave-new-world/

 Mostly harmless.

http://www.singularity.com/charts/page50.html

On a related point, and after following a few links, the author, Mark
Gibss, points the reader to an interesting web site The Singularity
is Near where we see how advances in technology are changing the face
of society more quickly (exponentially) each year.

http://www.singularity.com/charts/page50.html

Regards
Steven Vincent Johnson
www.OrionWorks.com
www.zazzle.com/orionworks

Re: [Vo]:Forbes weighs in on the controversial Rossi's eCat phenomenon

2011-10-17 Thread Daniel Rocha

WOW, now that is really a mainstream magazine!

2011/10/17 OrionWorks - Steven V Johnson svj.orionwo...@gmail.com

  Mostly speculative
 
 
 http://www.forbes.com/sites/markgibbs/2011/10/17/hello-cheap-energy-hello-brave-new-world/
 
  Mostly harmless.

 http://www.singularity.com/charts/page50.html

 On a related point, and after following a few links, the author, Mark
 Gibss, points the reader to an interesting web site The Singularity
 is Near where we see how advances in technology are changing the face
 of society more quickly (exponentially) each year.

 http://www.singularity.com/charts/page50.html

 Regards
 Steven Vincent Johnson
 www.OrionWorks.com
 www.zazzle.com/orionworks

Re: [Vo]:OrboCat

peter.heck...@arcor.de wrote:


 1 kW is barely enough to make a cup of tee in the morning in reasonable
 time.
 I use 2 kW, thats faster.


2 kW equipment is not allowed on ordinary U.S. 120 VAC circuits. 15 amps is
the limit nowadays. That is 1.8 kW but actually all heaters and teapots are
1.5 kW. I have 2 electric teapots: a 1.5 kW one at home and a 600 W 1 L one
in the office. Both make a cup of tea quickly. much faster than the kettle
on a gas or electric stove.

- Jed

Re: [Vo]:The style is the man himself.


peter.heck...@arcor.de wrote:


On October 6 the eCat ran for 4 hours without input.

It is questioned if there where any output


Questioned by who? Where? On what basis? Anything can be questioned 
including the moon landings and whether an airplane actually did smash 
into the towers on 9/11 or whether that was a hologram. Let us limit 
ourselves to rational doubts and reasonable questions.




, and if there where output it is still not clear how much it was and if the 
energy where really made by a nuclear process.


The amount of output is a relevant. There was definitely output power 
the entire time unless you believe thermocouples do not work or the 
Second law of Thermodynamics and Newton's law of cooling are invalid.


This reaction has been observed thousands of times. There is not a 
single instance in which chemical reactions were observed or chemical 
fuel was present, whereas commensurate helium has been discovered in 
experiments using deuterium. Therefore it is most likely a nuclear 
reaction. Unless you can cite better evidence I think we should assume 
it is.


- Jed

Re: [Vo]:The style is the man himself.

I meant to say

The amount of power is IRRELEVANT.

It varied between somewhere between 2 and 8 kW. the instrumentation was not
good enough to determine whether the low-end was 2 kW or 3 kW. That is
annoying, but it has absolutely no bearing on whether there was energy
production or not. It is not possible that two sets of thermocouples both
indicated the temperature rose and yet there was no energy production. If
you believe that might be the case, you are willing to believe far more
radical and theoretically impossible claims than cold fusion. That is not a
skeptical position. It is one that would trash all of the textbooks in
physics and chemistry going back to 1780 to preserve one half-baked, largely
untested plasma fusion model that has already been shown wrong by other
experiments.

The skeptical, conservative position is to believe in conventional physics
and to trust that laboratory grade instruments have worked correctly in
thousands of experiments (including this one) and therefore cold fusion must
be real.

- Jed

[Vo]:Jed why don't you shoot done from Ga to Fla to witness tests

2011-10-17 Thread fznidarsic

You can do it Jed.




Frank

Re: [Vo]:Jed why don't you shoot done from Ga to Fla to witness tests


fznidar...@aol.com wrote:

You can do it Jed. 


The test will be held in Italy, not Florida, and Rossi told me 
emphatically that I am NOT invited. He was upset by my recent 
criticisms. I was upset by the fact that he didn't even bother to insert 
an SD card into a meter, for crying out loud. That's symptomatic of a 
bad attitude. It is inexcusably sloppy. When I see a person do a thing 
like that, I do not trust that they are capable of going from a test of 
~8 kW today (6? 5? 10?) to 1000 kW in two weeks. That is like suggesting 
that the flying machines in this video might be ready to fly 100 km two 
weeks after these flight tests:


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iMhdksPFhCM

(The last one shown was capable of that, by the way.)

- Jed

Re: [Vo]:Jed why don't you shoot done from Ga to Fla to witness tests

I wrote:


 The test will be held in Italy, not Florida, and Rossi told me emphatically
 that I am NOT invited. He was upset by my recent criticisms. I was upset by
 the fact that he didn't even bother to insert an SD card into a meter, for
 crying out loud.


To be fair de Rossi, I should add that not only did I criticize the October
6 test, I also told him I think the upcoming test is unwise.

Okay, I admit, I said more than unwise.

One of the people he is inviting suggested that they have an ambulance
parked at the factory in case something goes wrong. I told Rossi and that
person they should have the entire fire department attend, plus someone from
the coroner's office.

I also told them I am pretty sure they do not have a license or permission
to do this because no sane government official would allow such a thing.

This is 1 MW nuclear reactor that works by unknown principles. They intended
test it in a populated area, for the first time, in front of an audience.

Before you turn on such a machine, it is essential that you spend months and
thousands of hours gradually working your way up to that power level with
smaller units. You need to test the software and hardware that multiplexes
many units. You need to use a conventional 1 MW steam generator to test the
overall ability of the machine to handle that much steam. These tests must
be performed by hundreds of experts in many different locations, at many
different national and corporate laboratories. A machine of this size should
be tested the first time someplace like the White Sands Missile Range, with
observers located a good distance away in a block house.

This is common sense. Doing it any other way is lunacy. It is also as
amateur as a would-be pilots shown in the video I posted in the previous
message. Yes, it is as bad as that. I am not exaggerating. A person who
would even *think* of turning on such a large machine without extensive
tests beforehand is completely unqualified to be testing any kind of nuclear
process.

- Jed

Re: [Vo]:Forbes weighs in on the controversial Rossi's eCat phenomenon

On Mon, Oct 17, 2011 at 9:49 AM, Daniel Rocha danieldi...@gmail.com wrote:
 WOW, now that is really a mainstream magazine!

His Infoweek article is better.

T

RE: [Vo]:The style is the man himself.

2011-10-17 Thread Robert Leguillon



The skeptical, conservative position is to believe in conventional physics and 
to trust that laboratory grade instruments have worked correctly in thousands 
of experiments (including this one) and therefore cold fusion must be real.

 
Am I to understand that even the most pragmatic skepticism it to be dismissed? 
 
So the open-minded position is that:
 
1)It doesn't matter if the E-Cat thermocouple was resting on the heat-sink 
fins, because the thermocouples are laboratory grade and they read correctly. 
Skeptics are foolish to look at this.
 
2)Any attempt to quantify the flow rate into the primary doesn't matter.  It 
must have been consistent, and large enough to imply significant power gains.  
Skeptics are foolish to look at this.
 
3)The proximity of the secondary thermocouple to the steam input doesn't 
matter. It may have been influenced by the steam/water input, but it must have 
been less than a few percent.  It's not worth attempting to quantify any 
effects, because there must have been observed power gains.  Skeptics are 
foolish to look at this. 
 
4)Temperature fluctuations in the secondary-side thermocouple cannot be caused 
by overflowing water, because specific heats of steam/water don't change the 
efficientcy of heat transfer to the heat-exchanger fitting.  Skeptics are 
foolish to look at this.
 
5)The sporadic checking of the output temperature hurts calculations of heat 
output, but the actual gains don't really matter in the end. They must have 
been large.  Skeptics are foolish to look at this.
 
6)It doesn't matter if there was never any evidence of heat-before-death, 
because there is ample evidence of heat-after-death. Cold fusion is a more 
likely explanation than bad calorimetry or stored heat.  Skeptics are foolish 
to look at this.

Re: [Vo]:Forbes weighs in on the controversial Rossi's eCat phenomenon

Mark Gibbs' article in Network World

http://www.networkworld.com/columnists/2011/101411-backspin.html?page=3

...ends with:

...

 It remains to be seen whether this is really all some
 kind of mistake, which seems unlikely, or a hoax, which
 seems equally implausible because, if it is all bogus,
 then there's no obvious upside for Rossi or any of the
 others involved.

 So, Oct. 28 will be a big day. If the demonstration goes
 ahead as planned either we're going to be really
 disappointed or we'll be on the brink of something that
 will change the world forever.

Mark strikes me as uncharacteristically optimistic in his view of the
eCat's chances.

On a cautionary note, some of these recent Rossi articles are
reminiscent of Dean Kamen, when he tried to introduce his Segway
invention to the public. Unfortunately for Mr. Kamen the hype
surrounding his project got way out of hand due to no fault of his
own. I recall that some of the unwarranted speculation included
stories that the inventor would soon reveal a cold fusion device of
his own.

Personally, I think it is ludicrous to assume Oct. 28 is the big day
for humanity. The pessimist within me currently speculates that a more
likely scenario will be that as Oct 28 arrives and the demo begins
Rossi's 1 MW prototype may begin to experience technical
difficulties. If, as Jed has speculated, the entire contraption has
never been turned on before. Well Shoot! WHAT COULD GO WRONG In
any case, unexpected difficulties or anomalies may eventually result
in cancellation of the demo half way through the presentation. Rossi's
team tries to put their best face forward by concluding that the demo
was a resounding success, but that that they now need to analyze the
new data before proceeding to the next step of commercialization.
Hopefully, no explosions will occur, and no injuries either. We hope.

As Oct 28 concludes uneventfully, disappointingly, self proclaimed
skeptics will immediately clamor on-line and start gloating: See! I
told you so! Nothing there!, while believers remain unfazed by the
latest setback.

Eventually, perhaps in another year or so, or perhaps even sooner, a
new-and-improved eCat, a cat that has gone through several
additional generations, (or perhaps more likely, a competitor), will
slip in through the back door of the industrial market and start
making inroads. Eventually, the Joe Public will begin to catch on...
while Joe SixPack puzzles over why his Oil portfolio seems to be
flagging a little bit.

Regards
Steven Vincent Johnson
www.OrionWorks.com
www.zazzle.com/orionworks

Re: [Vo]:OrboCat


Am 17.10.2011 15:57, schrieb Jed Rothwell:

peter.heck...@arcor.de mailto:peter.heck...@arcor.de wrote:

1 kW is barely enough to make a cup of tee in the morning in
reasonable time.
I use 2 kW, thats faster.


2 kW equipment is not allowed on ordinary U.S. 120 VAC circuits. 15 
amps is the limit nowadays. That is 1.8 kW but actually all heaters 
and teapots are 1.5 kW. I have 2 electric teapots: a 1.5 kW one at 
home and a 600 W 1 L one in the office. Both make a cup of tea 
quickly. much faster than the kettle on a gas or electric stove.


I bought a brandnew kettle boiler for my kitchen, because the old was 
used up.

The label says 1850W-2200W. (I have 230VAC) Probably its a PTC heater.

Anyway, I didnt question that 1kW is enough for 1 or more cups of tea.
Just try a 2kW tube boiler and test if this outputs water fast enough 
for a 60° shower. I doubt it.

RE: [Vo]:The style is the man himself.

2011-10-17 Thread Alan J Fletcher



At 09:23 AM 10/17/2011, Robert Leguillon wrote:


The skeptical, conservative position is to believe in
conventional physics and to trust that laboratory grade instruments have
worked correctly in thousands of experiments (including this one) and
therefore cold fusion must be real.


Am I to understand that even the most pragmatic skepticism it to be
dismissed? 
If you'd stopped at #5 you would have had my total agreement.

Re: [Vo]:Forbes weighs in on the controversial Rossi's eCat phenomenon


Am 17.10.2011 18:35, schrieb OrionWorks - Steven V Johnson:
Personally, I think it is ludicrous to assume Oct. 28 is the big day 
for humanity. The pessimist within me currently speculates that a more 
likely scenario will be that as Oct 28 arrives and the demo begins 
Rossi's 1 MW prototype may begin to experience technical difficulties. 

If its a scam, there is a next logical step:
It will fail and they will have somebody guilty for it.

There are enough snakes and imbeciles. Everything is prepared ;-)

[Vo]: Changing the subject... nuclear-to-electrical, Cockcroft and Walton

2011-10-17 Thread Mark Iverson-ZeroPoint

I don't know about the rest of you, but I've had enough of the E-Cat fiasco
until the end of the month.

 

I was going thru some old papers and found an s.p.f newsgroup article  from
1991. yes, I'm kind of a pack-rat when it comes to sci-tech stuff.

 

The article was posted by Bill Goffe at the Univ of Texas, and he was
writing about an article he had seen in the NYTimes.  The article was
written by Glenn Seaborg and Paul Nitze (GS shared a Nobel prize in '51, and
Nitze was an arms control advisor to every president from Truman to Reagan).

 

Here is what I wanted to ask the Vort Collective to see what, if anything,
is in its consciousness about the following excerpt taken from the
Seaborg/Nitze article:

 

In 1932, two British scientists, John Cockcroft and Ernest T.S. Walton,
demonstrated that nuclear energy could be generated by the collision of
artificially accelerated atomic nuclei in which both the initial and
resulting nuclei were nonradioactive.  Energy was released in the form of
electrically charged atoms. This opens the possibility of converting the
nuclear energy directly into electrical energy, avoiding the heat conversion
that is common to all electric-power generating processes and that warms the
planet.

 

Does Mills mention these two scientists?  Is this what Moray's device did?

 

Enjoy,

-Mark

RE: [Vo]:Forbes weighs in on the controversial Rossi's eCat phenomenon

2011-10-17 Thread Mark Iverson-ZeroPoint

Peter left out one minor detail...

The purpose of a scam is to make money at other people's expense... If the 1MW 
demo fails, nobody gets paid, and Rossi has just FLUSHED his entire net worth 
down the drain.

Peter, answer the question as to why Rossi would flush his money down the 
drain.  He had enough money prior to the E-Cat to live very comfortably for the 
rest of his life... so why risk your entire future by starting a scam, and then 
doing a demo that can't work and will kill all interest before you get oodles 
of $?

I doubt it’s a scam, but it most certainly can be that because of poor testing 
procedures, Rossi has tricked himself into believing that this is real, and he 
has been so convinced of that that he feels he doesn't need to do meticulous 
testing...

-Mark

-Original Message-
From: Peter Heckert [mailto:peter.heck...@arcor.de] 
Sent: Monday, October 17, 2011 9:51 AM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Forbes weighs in on the controversial Rossi's eCat phenomenon

Am 17.10.2011 18:35, schrieb OrionWorks - Steven V Johnson:
 Personally, I think it is ludicrous to assume Oct. 28 is the big day 
 for humanity. The pessimist within me currently speculates that a more 
 likely scenario will be that as Oct 28 arrives and the demo begins 
 Rossi's 1 MW prototype may begin to experience technical difficulties. 
If its a scam, there is a next logical step:
It will fail and they will have somebody guilty for it.

There are enough snakes and imbeciles. Everything is prepared ;-)

Re: [Vo]:Forbes weighs in on the controversial Rossi's eCat phenomenon

It should be obvious to all but the blind that this is not a hoax nor a scam.

T

Re: [Vo]:The style is the man himself.

Robert Leguillon robert.leguil...@hotmail.com wrote:


 Am I to understand that even the most pragmatic skepticism it to be
 dismissed?

 So the *open-minded* position is that:


The 6 statements that follow are not open-minded or pragmatic skepticism.
They all mistakes. You do not understand what I and others have been saying
despite the fact that we have repeated some of these points several times.
Please pay closer attention.




 1)It doesn't matter if the E-Cat thermocouple was resting on the heat-sink
 fins, because the thermocouples are laboratory grade and they read
 correctly. Skeptics are foolish to look at this.


The thermocouples are definitely reading correctly. It is not possible for
two sets of thermocouples to show the same trend in both be wrong. It is not
clear what they are reading but that does not matter. Suppose for the sake
of argument is the heat sink fins. Those fins did not cool off when the
power was cut. They heated up. Therefore there is heat being generated. In a
steady-state system with no power being generated every molecule in the
system must cool down.



 2)Any attempt to quantify the flow rate into the primary doesn't
 matter.  It must have been consistent, and large enough to imply significant
 power gains.  Skeptics are foolish to look at this.


This does not matter because the reservoir did not fill up. There was no
outflow from the pump action. (I base this on an analysis by David Roberson
which has not yet been presented here.)




 3)The proximity of the secondary thermocouple to the steam input doesn't
 matter. It may have been influenced by the steam/water input, but it must
 have been less than a few percent.


You misunderstand. The error could be 95%. That is irrelevant. No one said
it was a few percent. This is a strawman argument. The proof is in the
trend, not the actual power level. However, different methods of measuring
the power all indicate that at 18:34 power was ~3.5 kW. Since there was no
input power at this time calorimetry is simplified. It is not likely that
different methods yielded the same answer but they are all wrong.



   It's not worth attempting to quantify any effects, because there must
 have been observed power gains.  Skeptics are foolish to look at this.


Of course it's possible to quantify the effects! This is another strawman
argument; i.e., one that no one here has made. It is not possible to
quantify the effects up to the usual standard of modern science. Rossi
conducted the test ineptly, preventing this.



 4)Temperature fluctuations in the secondary-side thermocouple cannot be
 caused by overflowing water, because specific heats of steam/water don't
 change the efficientcy of heat transfer to the heat-exchanger fitting.
 Skeptics are foolish to look at this.


Skeptics are wrong. The water did not overflow. The analysis at 18:34 and
the analysis from Roberson demonstrate this. And no, I do not think overflow
water can change the heat transfer enough. In any case, after 4 hours there
it not the slightest chance the reservoir water would still be at the same
temperature -- or hotter. The surface of the reactor was ~80°C, meaning it
is not well insulated. 30 L of water cannot continue boiling that long
without input energy. If you believe that is possible, you need a refresher
course in everyday reality. Better yet, you need to boil 30 L of water (8
gallons) in a large pot, insulate it such that the surface is still too hot
to touch, and wait 4 hours.

I seriously recommend you try that before making more assertions about this
test. It is not expensive or difficult to put insulation around an 8-gallon
pot of boiling hot water. Turn off the gas, move the pot to an blanket of
insulation, and cover it up. Use ordinary household insulation and don't
make it thick or well sealed, because you have to leave the surface so hot
you cannot touch it. I promise you will find that it does not remain at
100°C for four hours. It will cool down considerably and after the system
stabilizes, with the insulation reaching terminal temperature, the
temperature in every part of the pot and insulation will fall monotonically.


5)The sporadic checking of the output temperature hurts calculations of heat
 output, but the actual gains don't really matter in the end. They must have
 been large.  Skeptics are foolish to look at this.


Skepics who claim that the temperature did not really go up, or that it went
up but there was no energy generated and yet this is not a violation of the
second law are not foolish. They are ignorant. They lack 7th grade knowledge
of physics.



 6)It doesn't matter if there was never any evidence of heat-before-death,
 because there is ample evidence of heat-after-death.


This is deliberate nonsense. The rest was mistaken.



 Cold fusion is a more likely explanation than bad calorimetry or stored
 heat.  Skeptics are foolish to look at this.


The calorimetry was bad but not that bad. Stored heat cannot do this. Try

Re: [Vo]:Forbes weighs in on the controversial Rossi's eCat phenomenon


Am 17.10.2011 19:20, schrieb Mark Iverson-ZeroPoint:

Peter left out one minor detail...

The purpose of a scam is to make money at other people's expense... If the 1MW 
demo fails, nobody gets paid, and Rossi has just FLUSHED his entire net worth 
down the drain.
I dont think about this. It happens quite often that people do something 
thats hard to understand, and I am aware that I cannot understand everybody.

I doubt it’s a scam, but it most certainly can be that because of poor testing 
procedures, Rossi has tricked himself into believing that this is real, and he 
has been so convinced of that that he feels he doesn't need to do meticulous 
testing...

The problem is, that they claim they have heated an office before.
Rossi also claimed before they had done mass flow calorimetry before.
If so, they must have a lot of experience.

If this all is true then I cannot believe this latest demonstration. Why 
dont they place the thermo-sensors in a larger distance where error is 
impossible? Did they do their previous measurements and the whole 
development and optimization in the same risky way?


The water cannot loose much energy if he had placed the sensors some cm 
away. In any commercial central heating system the heat is still there 
meters away at the heat radiators. Doesnt he know that energy cannot vanish?


If they want to go commercial why didnt they demonstrate a commercial 
usable form of heat, eg 60° or more?
This would also be MUCH easier to measure and with higher undeniable 
evidency.


Everything what they do appears unlogical to me if this really work and 
if they really want to commercialise this.


Also Rossi often says, he is not a mediatist, he doesnt want 
publicity, he doesnt care about opinions of others. Now, if this is true 
then he cannot go the commercial route. Then he must go the scientific 
route. But for this, his measurement methods are too crappy.


There is nothing with all that that makes real sense to me.
Maybe he is a genius-inventor and a little bit mad, as it is often the 
case with inventors and geniusses.


Best,

Peter

Re: [Vo]:OrboCat

2011-10-17 Thread Stephen A. Lawrence




On 11-10-16 10:18 PM, Harry Veeder wrote:

As you can hear from the nervous laughter in the video Steorn staff
like to joke,  but do you still think Steorn's Orbo is a joke?


Yup.  (Joke, scam, fake -- pick your term, they all apply.)

This is another typical Steorn production -- nothing's measured (at 
least, not enough to show anything).


Their previous PMM ran on batteries, which had to be replaced from time 
to time when they ran down.  Why would anyone expect anything real to 
come out of an outfit like that?  Steorn certainly *is* the sort of 
outfit where you need to check the table legs for concealed pipes!


And the Orbo was a magmo; what's it mean to have a magmo with no moving 
parts?  Sounds like a lot of word salad to me...  the new gadgets are 
essentially unrelated to the Orbo, AFAICT; the only things they share in 
common is the silly claims for them and the use of slight of hand in 
place of solid measurements.






Harry



On Sun, Oct 16, 2011 at 8:55 PM, Terry Blantonhohlr...@gmail.com  wrote:

Steorn has steeeammm heat:

http://pesn.com/2011/10/05/9501927_Steorn_CEO_Posts_Overunity_Heater_Video/

The bandwagon is overunity, er, overloaded.

T

Re: [Vo]:OrboCat


Peter Heckert wrote:

I bought a brandnew kettle boiler for my kitchen, because the old was 
used up.

The label says 1850W-2200W. (I have 230VAC) Probably its a PTC heater.


You have 230 VAC because you are in Europe. In the US, ordinary circuits 
are 120 VAC. Washing machines or electric water heaters are 220 VAC.




Anyway, I didnt question that 1kW is enough for 1 or more cups of tea.
Just try a 2kW tube boiler and test if this outputs water fast enough 
for a 60° shower. I doubt it.

60°C is too hot for a shower! 60°F is too cold. Do you mean 35 or 40°C?

Anyway, a tankless, on-demand electrically heated water heater for a 
shower takes 15 to 25 kW. Here is a 24 kW unit that can support a two 
showers at one time in Canada where the incoming water is cold:


http://www.e-tankless.com/stiebel-eltron-tempra-24-tankless-water-heater.php

Most showers are 1.5 to 2.0 GPM (gallons per minute), so if all you want 
is to run one shower at a time, this 14.4 kW model will do:


http://www.e-tankless.com/stiebel-eltron-tempra-15-tankless-water-heater.php

See:

http://www.e-tankless.com/choose_heater.php

- Jed

Re: [Vo]:Forbes weighs in on the controversial Rossi's eCat phenomenon

2011/10/17 Terry Blanton hohlr...@gmail.com:
 It should be obvious to all but the blind that this is not a hoax nor a scam.


Indeed. I think it is completely out of the question that this is a
hoax. It might be theoretically possible, to make illusion of excess
heat if Rossi has e.g. falsified two ammeters. But the amount of money
and time Rossi and his wife have been invested this thing is just out
of the any reasonable proportions for a scam, because monetary gain
for Rossi is essentially zero. He might have gained some money, but it
is no way enough to compensate the investments. It is not entirely
free to build at least 52 fake eCats even if there is only outer
shell. Not to mentioning that 500 kiloeuros what went for bribing
Levi...

I preindicated that October demonstration will be great success. And
indeed it was a phenomenal success! I will also predict same for the
late October test. It hard to even imagine how much world will be
changing on upcoming next week.

–Jouni

Ps. I already started to write a book about eCat, because I wanted to
be first in Finnish markets. I have still ten days time to finish the
first edition.

Re: [Vo]:OrboCat

On Mon, Oct 17, 2011 at 1:53 PM, Stephen A. Lawrence sa...@pobox.com wrote:

 This is another typical Steorn production -- nothing's measured (at least,
 not enough to show anything).

Ketchup, Stephen.  It's the Orbo of the solid state variety.  No magnets.

It's not true that nothing is measured.  The pints are measured with
3rd order precision (on all three orders).  ;-)

T

Re: [Vo]:Forbes weighs in on the controversial Rossi's eCat phenomenon


Im not so sure.
He is trained to buy waste from his oil company ;-)
You can buy all this stuff on the surplus market or on the industrial 
section of ebay just for the copper price, if you look around.

There is absolutely no evidency that he invested much money.
Maybe he got this stuff accidentially and now tries to make money from 
waste as he tried before.


Am 17.10.2011 20:19, schrieb Jouni Valkonen:

2011/10/17 Terry Blantonhohlr...@gmail.com:

It should be obvious to all but the blind that this is not a hoax nor a scam.


Indeed. I think it is completely out of the question that this is a
hoax. It might be theoretically possible, to make illusion of excess
heat if Rossi has e.g. falsified two ammeters. But the amount of money
and time Rossi and his wife have been invested this thing is just out
of the any reasonable proportions for a scam, because monetary gain
for Rossi is essentially zero. He might have gained some money, but it
is no way enough to compensate the investments. It is not entirely
free to build at least 52 fake eCats even if there is only outer
shell. Not to mentioning that 500 kiloeuros what went for bribing
Levi...

I preindicated that October demonstration will be great success. And
indeed it was a phenomenal success! I will also predict same for the
late October test. It hard to even imagine how much world will be
changing on upcoming next week.

 –Jouni

Ps. I already started to write a book about eCat, because I wanted to
be first in Finnish markets. I have still ten days time to finish the
first edition.

Re: [Vo]:Forbes weighs in on the controversial Rossi's eCat phenomenon


Peter Heckert wrote:


The problem is, that they claim they have heated an office before.


This is not a problem. On the contrary it strengthens Rossi's claim. 
Several people said they saw the heater in operation so I suppose this 
is true.




Rossi also claimed before they had done mass flow calorimetry before.
If so, they must have a lot of experience.


No one denies that Rossi has a lot of experience! He is somewhat sloppy, 
but that has no bearing on how much experience he has. I know some 
elderly farmers and fishermen in Yamaguchi Japan and in Pennsylvania who 
work in a sloppy, slipshod and dangerous manner. They have been doing 
that for 60 years. How they survived so long is a mystery.


They are extremely good at what they do. That is to say, they can fix 
machinery or harvest oranges much faster than most people could. But 
they climb up on packing crates tied together to fix live electric wires 
or they stick their arms into working threshing machines in ways that 
would give OSHA a heart attack. Sometimes when they are drunk. One of 
them drove a bulldozer off of a high cliff and somehow was not badly hurt.



If this all is true then I cannot believe this latest demonstration. 
Why dont they place the thermo-sensors in a larger distance where 
error is impossible? Did they do their previous measurements and the 
whole development and optimization in the same risky way?


Why does a 65-year-old fisherman set out in stormy weather, with a 
leaking 10 m boat, three sheets to the wind (drunk)? Because he is 
reckless and stupid. Because he has spent a lifetime doing things like 
that and he manages to do a good job anyway. I mean a boat like this 
one, only rusting with no radar and the radio doesn't work:


http://www.suouoshima.com/turi/ship/yonetoshi.html


The water cannot loose much energy if he had placed the sensors some 
cm away.


The water cannot gain energy or rise in temperature unless there is a 
source of heat.



If they want to go commercial why didnt they demonstrate a commercial 
usable form of heat, eg 60° or more?
This would also be MUCH easier to measure and with higher undeniable 
evidency.


That's actually harder to measure, for reasons beyond the scope of the 
discussion. This test peaked with a Delta T of 10°C, which is ideal.



Everything what they do appears unlogical to me if this really work 
and if they really want to commercialise this.


Agreed!



There is nothing with all that that makes real sense to me.
Maybe he is a genius-inventor and a little bit mad, as it is often the 
case with inventors and geniusses.


That he is. Definitely. I have seen worse ones but he's pretty bad.

- Jed

Re: [Vo]:Forbes weighs in on the controversial Rossi's eCat phenomenon


Am 17.10.2011 20:58, schrieb Jed Rothwell:

Peter Heckert wrote:


The problem is, that they claim they have heated an office before.


This is not a problem. On the contrary it strengthens Rossi's claim. 
Several people said they saw the heater in operation so I suppose this 
is true.




Rossi also claimed before they had done mass flow calorimetry before.
If so, they must have a lot of experience.


No one denies that Rossi has a lot of experience!
From his way to answer or ignore reasonable and logical questions I 
conclude that he has no experience how to discuss with educated people 
that have another opinion than his own

Re: [Vo]:Forbes weighs in on the controversial Rossi's eCat phenomenon

On Mon, Oct 17, 2011 at 2:58 PM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com wrote:

 Why does a 65-year-old fisherman set out in stormy weather, with a leaking
 10 m boat, three sheets to the wind (drunk)?


A very appropriate phrase considering it's etymology:

http://www.phrases.org.uk/meanings/three-sheets-to-the-wind.html

T

RE: [Vo]:The style is the man himself.

2011-10-17 Thread Robert Leguillon









 
Obviously, you have come to your conclusions.  I have found this test 
inconclusive.  You may disagree, and now be 100% convinced, but it's your 
personal attacks that are troubling.  You continue to strike down questions 
with comments like:

 

Skepics who claim that the temperature did not really go up, or that it went 
up but there was no energy generated and yet this is not a violation of the 
second law are not foolish. They are ignorant. They lack 7th grade knowledge of 
physics.
 
This only serves to stifle conversations that very well could enlighten 
everyone involved.  These E-Mails are readily available to the public, and your 
comments do not serve anyone well.  



 
1)It doesn't matter if the E-Cat thermocouple was resting on the heat-sink 
fins, because the thermocouples are laboratory grade and they read correctly. 
Skeptics are foolish to look at this.



The thermocouples are definitely reading correctly. It is not possible for two 
sets of thermocouples to show the same trend in both be wrong. It is not clear 
what they are reading but that does not matter. Suppose for the sake of 
argument is the heat sink fins. Those fins did not cool off when the power was 
cut. They heated up. Therefore there is heat being generated. In a steady-state 
system with no power being generated every molecule in the system must cool 
down.


The E-Cat temperature is a curious artifact with interesting implications.
It could indicate that there is pressure and the boiling point is raised to 
over 124 degrees C.  If that's the case, we're over the rating of the back 
pressure on the paristaltic pump.  We can see in the September test that the 
water flow decreases when presented with pressure. It's important to look 
primary temperature and flow rate if you don't trust the secondary thermocouple 
measurements.
If we're at 1 ATM, then we're superheating some or all of the steam.  This 
would be really, really, bad news, because the steam temperature doesn't appear 
to change when we are in periods of quadruple output power. 
 _


2)Any attempt to quantify the flow rate into the primary doesn't matter.  It 
must have been consistent, and large enough to imply significant power gains.  
Skeptics are foolish to look at this.


This does not matter because the reservoir did not fill up. There was no 
outflow from the pump action. (I base this on an analysis by David Roberson 
which has not yet been presented here.)
 





 You've also asserted that there was no water overflow in all of the previous 
tests, so I apologize if I don't just take your word on this. Nobody, present 
or otherwise, claims to have accessed the steam output hose between the E-Cat 
and heat exchanger.  A gurgling sound or boiling feeling at the E-Cat does 
not preclude overflow.
 
___ 





3)The proximity of the secondary thermocouple to the steam input doesn't 
matter. It may have been influenced by the steam/water input, but it must have 
been less than a few percent.


You misunderstand. The error could be 95%. That is irrelevant. No one said it 
was a few percent. This is a strawman argument. The proof is in the trend, 
not the actual power level. However, different methods of measuring the power 
all indicate that at 18:34 power was ~3.5 kW. Since there was no input power at 
this time calorimetry is simplified. It is not likely that different methods 
yielded the same answer but they are all wrong.


If the water vs. steam overflow has any bearing on heat conductance, then this 
is quite relevant.  Temperature spikes caused by differing thermal conductivity 
would be felt across the junction.  I hope that I, or anyone else, can look at 
the difference experimentally between heat transfer in water/steam of the same 
temperature.  The problem with this is that the flow rates into the heat 
exchanger would be dramatically different per gram, due to the water/steam 
density.  If the E-Cat is percolating, I would expect erratic output. If this 
conducts to the secondary output, it would appear to be power spikes/troughs.
 





  It's not worth attempting to quantify any effects, because there must have 
been observed power gains.  Skeptics are foolish to look at this. 


Of course it's possible to quantify the effects! This is another strawman 
argument; i.e., one that no one here has made. It is not possible to quantify 
the effects up to the usual standard of modern science. Rossi conducted the 
test ineptly, preventing this.
 
There has been analysis ongoing in this forum for estimations of heat 
conductance.  Maybe you missed it.  
It is quite telling, that on the secondary, the input thermocouple was placed 
as far from the heat exchanger as possible and the output was placed as close 
as possible.  A cynical observer would say that this could be to optimize 
apparent gains.


 ___





4)Temperature fluctuations in the secondary-side thermocouple cannot

Re: [Vo]:The style is the man himself.


I wrote:

I seriously recommend you try that before making more assertions about 
this test. It is not expensive or difficult to put insulation around 
an 8-gallon pot of boiling hot water. Turn off the gas, move the pot 
to an blanket of insulation, and cover it up. Use ordinary household 
insulation and don't make it thick or well sealed . . .


Several layers of bubble wrap are probably as good as the insulation 
Rossi used. The pink fiberglass blanket insulation in U.S. houses is too 
good, but you could use that. I promise you will see the water is 
lukewarm after four hours. It will not continue boiling, or remain close 
to boiling temperature. It will not continue producing steam that goes 
through a heat exchanger and causes a 5 or 10°C temperature rise 
anywhere in the heat exchanger. It will not make a pipe so hot it burns 
someone who touches it accidentally. All these things are physically 
impossible.


This is especially the case when you continue filling the pot with tap 
water, replacing the entire volume of it twice.


Seriously, try it! Don't keep making assertions that fly in the face of 
common sense and elementary physics.


The evidence for heat production is so overwhelming it is ridiculous 
that anyone would question it. It would be overwhelming even if there 
was not a single temperature sensor anywhere in the system. Yes, it is 
infuriating that Rossi did not calibrate, properly place the sensors, 
test with a blank, or even bother to insert an SD card into the meter. 
But you cannot ignore basic physics just because you are upset with 
Rossi, or just because the test could have been done better.


- Jed

[Vo]:Why has Rossi to build a 1MW plant?


He always said he /has/ to build a 1 MW plant.
Why /had/ he to do this, when he had no written contract?
The only explanation I can think about, is, he has to do this because he 
already purchased the material (without having a contract to sell it).
Maybe he got the boxes in a fortunate deal on industrial ebay for almost 
nothing and now /has/ to sell them?
Maybe he bought this when he strongly believed, he can build working 
ecats, but the research was unfinished at this time?

Who knows

Re: [Vo]:The style is the man himself.

Robert,

You state:

 You [Mr. Rothwell] may disagree, and now be 100% convinced, but it's your 
 personal attacks that are troubling.

Where has Mr. Rothwell attacked you personally? As far as I can tell
Mr. Rothwell has attacked your opinions - some of the conclusions and
speculations you have drawn. Not you personally.

With all due respect, warning Mr. Rothwell with statements, like
These e-Mails are readily available to the public, and your comments
to do not serve anyone well. Do not serve your opinions any better
than Jed's.

If you don't like having your personal opinions attacked, I would
suggest you get out of the kitchen, especially since I gather you
don't seem interested in performing an actual experiment, like boiling
eight gallons of water in an insulated pot.

Regards
Steven Vincent Johnson
www.OrionWorks.com
www.zazzle.com/orionworks

Re: [Vo]:The style is the man himself.

Robert Leguillon wrote:

Obviously, you have come to your conclusions. I have found this test
inconclusive. You may disagree, and now be 100% convinced, but it's
your personal attacks that are troubling.

Pointing out that your assertions violate elementary laws of physics is
NOT a personal attack. In a steady-state system the temperature can only
fall. It cannot rise. It falls until it reaches thermal equilibrium.
That is true of every molecule.

If you disagree, please point to a paper, an article, or even a
Wikipedia article that contradicts this. Show us some reason to believe
the textbooks are wrong and you are right.

The E-Cat temperature is a curious artifact with interesting implications.

But it does not violate the laws of thermodynamics.

You've also asserted that there was no water overflow in all of the
previous tests, so I apologize if I don't just take your word on this.

You don't have to take my word. Lewan measured flow rate at 0.9 ml/s for
6 minutes. That is about 3 times less less than the incoming flow rate.
It cannot be producing steam and overflowing and yet the total is less
than the incoming flow rate.

Obviously it would have overflowed eventually, if the power had remained
down at 3.5 kW.

If the water vs. steam overflow has any bearing on heat conductance,
then this is quite relevant.

No, this has no bearing on it. This was liquid flow calorimetry, badly done.

Remember that this is NOT a gas stove. This is an electric stove with
a massive burner.

Not massive at all. It was measured at 2.5 kW, which is the size of an
ordinary electric kitchen range:

GE - 30 Self-Cleaning Freestanding Electric Range - White

http://www.bestbuy.com/site/GE+-+30%22+Self-Cleaning+Freestanding+Electric+Range+-+White/1072934.p;jsessionid=056A145CE5A7396B2B48244F5B4D53D9.bbolsp-app05-43?id=1218217266193skuId=1072934

Model:*JB640DRWW*

SKU:*1072934*

QuickSet IV oven controls; 4 heating elements; dual element; 1500 - 3000
watts of power; TrueTemp temperature management system; built-in storage
drawer

No one disputes the input power measurements.

It takes HOURS to get the water boiling, and thatlarge, hot burner
is inside the E-Cat, inside a blanket.

It took hours because there was only 2.5 kW going into a poorly
insulated 30 L (8 gallon) pot. It does not take HOURS to boil an
8-gallon pot of water on a stove when you are making lots of corn or
stew, like this one:

http://homebrew-supplies.homebrewmart.com/8-gallon-33-quart-ceramic-on-steel-pot-p675.aspx

It does take a while, especially when you are hungry.

Again, try this. Boil a large pot of water. You will see that this is
not massive burner and does not take hours.

We never remove the pot from the burner, we simply turn off the
burner. The burner still has energy to release after power is removed.

It is metal. The specific heat of metal is 10 times smaller than that of
water. Only a little energy is left in it.

Horace Heffner had some excellent calculations of the slow release
of thermal energy from the core. It's worth a read.

His calculations are wrong. He should try this. You should try this. You
cannot add 60 L of tap water to a poorly insulated 30 L pot and keep the
temperature at boiling with no input power.

Skeptics are saying that the secondary thermocouple may be influenced
by slugs of hot water overflowing the E-Cat. Puffs of steam and shots
of water impart differing amounts of thermal energy.

There is no water coming through.

In all of the previous tests, the E-Cat had a gain while it was powered.

No, in the most recent test before this, it was off for 30 minutes, in
heat after death, yet the temperature increased during this event.

The calorimetry was bad but not that bad. Stored heat cannot do
this. Try it, and you will see.

Do I need to make an Orbo, while I'm at it?
You need to boil ordinary water on an ordinary stove. Find out if it
takes hours to boil 8 gallons. (You can extrapolate from a smaller
amount if you do not wish to waste energy.) Wrap it in insulation, let
cool for four hours and see whether it is still close to boiling
temperature. If it is not, you are wrong. This is a simple test that
anyone can do. If you sincerely believe your assertions you try it. I
have done many similar tests, albeit with smaller amounts of water, in
Mizuno's lab in elsewhere. I used containers with better insulation than
Rossi's

- Jed

Re: [Vo]:The style is the man himself.

2011-10-17 Thread Stephen A. Lawrence




On 11-10-17 03:50 PM, OrionWorks - Steven V Johnson wrote:

Robert,

You state:


You [Mr. Rothwell] may disagree, and now be 100% convinced, but it's your 
personal attacks that are troubling.

Where has Mr. Rothwell attacked you personally?


Well, if Robert is claiming that there was no energy generated, then the 
item from Jed which he quoted would apply to him, and that sure sounds 
like an ad hominem to me:


Skepics who claim that ... there was no energy generated ... are 
ignorant. They lack 7th grade knowledge of physics.


That is not an attack on the arguments.  That is an attack on the 
skeptics, themselves.  Jed has personally attacked /all/ Rossi 
skeptics, it would seem.

Re: [Vo]:Why has Rossi to build a 1MW plant?

From Peter:

 He always said he /has/ to build a 1 MW plant.
 Why /had/ he to do this, when he had no written
 contract? The only explanation I can think about, is, he has to
 do this because he already purchased the material (without having
 a contract to sell it). Maybe he got the boxes in a fortunate deal
 on industrial ebay for almost nothing and now /has/ to sell them?
 Maybe he bought this when he strongly believed, he can build
 working ecats, but the research was unfinished at this time?
 Who knows

The explanation I've heard (coming from a well known CF researcher) as
to why Rossi intends to publicly demo a 1 MW reactor before the end of
this month is for a carefully calculated commercial reason. Remember,
Rossi was telling everyone he would do this October demo back in
January/February. This was not an impulsive decision on Rossi's part.

The reasoning being, Rossi needs to show prospective clients that his
controversial technology is NOW ready for prime time exploitation.
IOW, Rossi isn't interested in validating his little-understood
technology within the scientific community. Rossi prefers to go
straight to gates of commercial enterprise. Theory can wait.

I hope for the best. I sincerely wish Rossi success in his endeavor,
for we would all benefit.

Nevertheless, it remains to be seen if Rossi's technology really IS
ready for prime time exploitation. It would probably be prudent to
prepare for some serious setbacks. As Jed has already expressed, I
hope nobody gets hurt.

Regards
Steven Vincent Johnson
www.OrionWorks.com
www.zazzle.com/orionworks

Re: [Vo]:Forbes weighs in on the controversial Rossi's eCat phenomenon


Peter Heckert wrote:


No one denies that Rossi has a lot of experience!
From his way to answer or ignore reasonable and logical questions I 
conclude that he has no experience how to discuss with educated people 
that have another opinion than his own


He is not very good at this. He has spent a lifetime inventing things 
that other people claimed could not be done. He has grown used to 
arguing with people, and he is used to being right despite what everyone 
else says. In this case I have no serious doubt he is right. The problem 
is that he made practically no effort to prove he is right because he is 
so confident. He did not even bother to put an SD card into the meter, I 
suppose because he figured the observers would glance at the temperature 
readings and that would satisfy them. It was enough to satisfy him. 
Fortunately for us, Lewan wrote them down.


I know many people with the same kind of attitude, especially 
scientists. Arata is a prime example. He is not good at explaining 
things. His lectures and papers are incoherent in both English and 
Japanese. His experiments are awful:


http://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/RothwellJreportonar.pdf

Arata is also irascible, excitable, and bad tempered to such an extent 
he makes Rossi seem like the soul of serenity in comparison. He bellows 
and curses and pushes around sixty-year-old full professors. Arata's 
public relation skills are much worse than Rossi's. Worse than anyone I 
have ever seen. When top science reporters from Japan's newspapers and 
NHK national TV asked him technical questions during a press conference, 
he bellows out in response: Don't ask idiotic questions! Don't you know 
anything?!? Don't they teach these young whippersnappers anything?!?


The thing is, Arata is a superlative genius and his claims are correct. 
He has dozens of major patents, an international award named in his 
honor, dozens of other awards including two from the past and present 
Emperor of Japan, a building named in his honor at a National 
University, etc. etc. There is no doubt he is a genius. As he will tell 
you (at the drop of hat, repeatedly), the Shinkansen trains would not 
run without his inventions. So the fact that a person is not good at 
communicating is no indication he is wrong. A bad temper is also no 
indication whatever that he is wrong. You cannot judge a technical claim 
by looking at the person, or the presentation. You must look at facts 
only, in isolation, evaluating them by the laws of physics only.


- Jed

Re: [Vo]:Why has Rossi to build a 1MW plant?


Am 17.10.2011 22:15, schrieb OrionWorks - Steven V Johnson:
I hope for the best. I sincerely wish Rossi success in his endeavor, 
for we would all benefit.
I wish him the best, if he really has done honest and carefully 
research, even if he failed.


Remember, scientific and technological progress doesnt only come from 
these few that had success, it also comes from those who failed and this 
to an underestimated amount.


But this idea to build an 1 MW plant with this unapproved technology is 
silly.
Heating an office or a swimming pool with 10 kW or  very big ones with 
100 kW and demonstrating this to the public and to scientists would be a 
much better and cheaper idea.
I think, any professional who builds offices or swimming pools knows the 
energy needs to heat them. So this would be in first respect an 
economical and commercial proof, but would also be a scientific 
measurable proof with much lower financial risk.


I myself would be satisfied with a well documented 10 kW experiment. He 
could use a 1 kW stirling engine for the electric needs and even the 
hardest skeptic couldnt doubt it.


 Peter.

Re: [Vo]:Why has Rossi to build a 1MW plant?

2011-10-17 Thread Frank Acland

Remember, he was initially going to build it for Defkalion GT. Perhaps that
is what Defklalion, the first customer, ordered. He started building it and
then cancelled the contract and now he has a 1MW plant on his hands. So
maybe he just decided to keep going.


On Mon, Oct 17, 2011 at 2:44 PM, Peter Heckert peter.heck...@arcor.dewrote:

 He always said he /has/ to build a 1 MW plant.
 Why /had/ he to do this, when he had no written contract?
 The only explanation I can think about, is, he has to do this because he
 already purchased the material (without having a contract to sell it).
 Maybe he got the boxes in a fortunate deal on industrial ebay for almost
 nothing and now /has/ to sell them?
 Maybe he bought this when he strongly believed, he can build working ecats,
 but the research was unfinished at this time?
 Who knows




-- 
Frank Acland
Publisher, E-Cat World http://www.e-catworld.com
Author, The Secret Power Beneath https://www.smashwords.com/books/view/

Re: [Vo]:Why has Rossi to build a 1MW plant?


Am 17.10.2011 23:12, schrieb Frank Acland:
Remember, he was initially going to build it for Defkalion GT. Perhaps 
that is what Defklalion, the first customer, ordered. He started 
building it and then cancelled the contract and now he has a 1MW plant 
on his hands. So maybe he just decided to keep going.


So, if a mad customer orders a moon rocket from our small engineering 
company, should we accept this order and buy the parts, without a 
contract? Silly idea. ;-)

Re: [Vo]:Why has Rossi to build a 1MW plant?

Frank Acland ecatwo...@gmail.com wrote:

Remember, he was initially going to build it for Defkalion GT. Perhaps that
 is what Defklalion, the first customer, ordered. He started building it and
 then cancelled the contract and now he has a 1MW plant on his hands. So
 maybe he just decided to keep going.


That is my impression.

I have implored him to put this project aside and demonstrate smaller units.
I have lined up people from important places who have large sums of money
burning a hole in their pockets, who say they would be convinced by a
kilowatt scale demonstration. I told Rossi I have these people on the line.
He said he was not interested.

As we saw here, Rossi now says he has another customer who wants to see the
megawatt reactor, and this customer is in charge of the October 28 test.

I do not know how or why this one megawatt reactor project was designated a
milestone in the Defkalion contract. If the contract is now void as Rossi
claims I cannot imagine why he continues to work on the megawatt reactor. It
makes no sense.

It seems odd to that he is found yet another customer who demands a megawatt
reactor. Why isn't this customer satisfied with 10 kW, as my wealthy friends
would be? It is a remarkable coincidence that Rossi has twice found a
potential investor with an idee fixe that only a 1 MW reactor is sufficient
proof of the claim. I suspect that this idee fixe is Rossi's, and his alone.
I even suspect that Rossi himself is in charge of the October 28 test, and
this other customer he describes may possibly be a figment of his
imagination.

- Jed

Re: [Vo]:Why has Rossi to build a 1MW plant?


I wrote:

It seems odd to that he is found yet another customer who demands a 
megawatt reactor.


Excuse me:

It seems odd that he has found yet another customer who demands a 
megawatt reactor.




You see what you will soon be up against with Siri, who also works with 
NaturallySpeaking based software. You may think that you are in charge, 
but not for long. As Churchill said, we shape our dwellings, and then 
they shape us. Ditto for Virtual Assistants.


By the way, here are some more gems fromhttp://shitthatsirisays.tumblr.com/
http://shitthatsirisays.tumblr.com/

USER: Who is on first

SIRI: Correct.

USER: Who is on first

SIRI: Right. That's the man's name.

USER: Who is on first

SIRI: That's right


USER: What are you wearing

SIRI: Aluminosilicate glass and stainless steel. Nice, huh?


- Jed

[Vo]:quantum levitation

2011-10-17 Thread Esa Ruoho

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ws6AAhTw7RA


pretty

Re: [Vo]:Why has Rossi to build a 1MW plant?

2011/10/18 Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com:
 It seems odd to that he is found yet another customer who demands a megawatt
 reactor.

I think that this is misinterpretation. The Customer who wanted the MW
demonstration was Rossi himself, or more accurately it was LTI that
was separated from Leonardo Corporation, but shared still the same
postal address. Which later took also the name Ampenergo. For sure
three companies fit nicely under the same roof, but they still can be
in legal sense separate entities. I do not remember all the details,
but Rossi's Customer is Rossi himself. ^^

I doubt that MW project was never for the Defkalion, because there was
nothing but talks from the beginning.

–Jouni

Re: [Vo]:Why has Rossi to build a 1MW plant?

Perhaps Rossi wanted to one up Bloom Energy's 100kW power cell.

1,000,000 watts is a nice round number.

T

Re: [Vo]:quantum levitation


Astounding!

- Jed

Re: [Vo]:Why has Rossi to build a 1MW plant?


Jouni Valkonen wrote:


I doubt that MW project was [ever] for the Defkalion, because there was
nothing but talks from the beginning.


Rossi and Defkalion both said there was a contract, not just talk. Why 
do you think both of them are lying about their business relationship? 
If they were only talking, why wouldn't they say so?


There is nothing unusual or unethical about being in talks without a 
contract yet. There is no reason why either of them would hide that fact.


- Jed

Re: [Vo]:quantum levitation

2011-10-17 Thread fznidarsic

Not so, now you see the states are locked by a discontinuity placed in the 
superconductor.  The superconductor will drop with the application of a radio 
wave a dimensional frequency of 1 million meters per second.  been there done 
that.  Now in the process of forming a company to produce electrical energy 
directly from a cold fusion reaction.. I have a friend at DARPA.



-Original Message-
From: Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com
To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com
Sent: Mon, Oct 17, 2011 2:47 pm
Subject: Re: [Vo]:quantum levitation


Astounding!

- Jed

Re: [Vo]:Why has Rossi to build a 1MW plant?

There are many kinds of contracts. Those that are just talking, those that
are preliminary and those that are legally binding. I meant with contracts
those that are legally binding contracts. It was certainly not the case,
because Rossi does not do contracts without seeing the cash first. Therefore
Rossi has not find Customers, I would suppose.

—Jouni

tiistai, 18. lokakuuta 2011 Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com kirjoitti:
 Jouni Valkonen wrote:

 I doubt that MW project was [ever] for the Defkalion, because there was
 nothing but talks from the beginning.

 Rossi and Defkalion both said there was a contract, not just talk. Why do
you think both of them are lying about their business relationship? If they
were only talking, why wouldn't they say so?

 There is nothing unusual or unethical about being in talks without a
contract yet. There is no reason why either of them would hide that fact.

 - Jed

Re: [Vo]:The style is the man himself.

2011-10-17 Thread Rich Murray

As one of the pragmatic skeptics, I quote today's Waterloo moment --
in gratitude to Robert Leguillon and Alan J. Fletcher:


fromRobert Leguillon robert.leguil...@hotmail.com
to  vortex-l@eskimo.com
dateMon, Oct 17, 2011 at 9:23 AM


[ Jed Rothwell : ]
The skeptical, conservative position is to believe in conventional
physics and to trust that laboratory grade instruments have worked
correctly in thousands of experiments (including this one) and
therefore cold fusion must be real.


Am I to understand that even the most pragmatic skepticism is to be dismissed?

So the open-minded position is that:

1)It doesn't matter if the E-Cat thermocouple was resting on the
heat-sink fins, because the thermocouples are laboratory grade and
they read correctly. Skeptics are foolish to look at this.

2)Any attempt to quantify the flow rate into the primary doesn't
matter.  It must have been consistent, and large enough to imply
significant power gains.  Skeptics are foolish to look at this.

3)The proximity of the secondary thermocouple to the steam input
doesn't matter. It may have been influenced by the steam/water input,
but it must have been less than a few percent.  It's not worth
attempting to quantify any effects, because there must have been
observed power gains.  Skeptics are foolish to look at this.

4)Temperature fluctuations in the secondary-side thermocouple cannot
be caused by overflowing water, because specific heats of steam/water
don't change the efficientcy of heat transfer to the heat-exchanger
fitting.  Skeptics are foolish to look at this.

5)The sporadic checking of the output temperature hurts calculations
of heat output, but the actual gains don't really matter in the end.
They must have been large.  Skeptics are foolish to look at this.

6)It doesn't matter if there was never any evidence of
heat-before-death, because there is ample evidence of
heat-after-death. Cold fusion is a more likely explanation than bad
calorimetry or stored heat.  Skeptics are foolish to look at this.


from  Alan J Fletcher a...@well.com via eskimo.com
to  vortex-l@eskimo.com
dateMon, Oct 17, 2011 at 9:45 AM
subject RE: [Vo]:The style is the man himself.
9:45 AM (7 hours ago)
At 09:23 AM 10/17/2011, Robert Leguillon wrote:

The skeptical, conservative position is to believe in conventional
physics and to trust that laboratory grade instruments have worked
correctly in thousands of experiments (including this one) and
therefore cold fusion must be real.

Am I to understand that even the most pragmatic skepticism is to be dismissed?


If you'd stopped at #5 you would have had my total agreement.

RE: [Vo]:The style is the man himself.

2011-10-17 Thread OrionWorks - Steven Vincent Johnson

From Mr. Lawrence,

  You [Mr. Rothwell] may disagree, and now be 100% convinced, but it's
  your personal attacks that are troubling.

SVJ sez:
  Where has Mr. Rothwell attacked you personally?
 
 Well, if Robert is claiming that there was no energy generated, then
 the item from Jed which he quoted would apply to him, and that sure
 sounds like an ad hominem to me:

Jed sez:
 Skepics who claim that ... there was no energy generated ... are
 ignorant. They lack 7th grade knowledge of physics.
 
 That is not an attack on the arguments.  That is an attack on the
 skeptics, themselves.  Jed has personally attacked /all/ Rossi
 skeptics, it would seem.

Once again, Mr. Lawrence, it leave it to u to ferret out the fiddledebits of
an argument. Well... shoot. Maybe you're right. ;-)

I'm forced to go on the offense with the following equally questionable
counter argument:

Doesn't it also depend on whether Robert identifies himself as a cheer
leader for the skeptics society, whomever that society might be?  Well...
maybe Robert does identify himself so. Who knows. ;-)

I would personally hope that Robert is speaking strictly for himself and
does not need to personally identify nor align himself with any particular
society, be they skeptical or not.

Regards,
Steven Vincent Johnson
www.OrionWorks.com
www.zazzle.com/orionworks

RE: [Vo]:The style is the man himself.

2011-10-17 Thread OrionWorks - Steven Vincent Johnson

From: Rich Murray

 As one of the pragmatic skeptics, I quote today's Waterloo moment --
 in gratitude to Robert Leguillon and Alan J. Fletcher:

In regards to Rossi and the whole CF movement, just how many waterloo
moments have you had lately? 

I seem to recall not long ago you were predicting that Jed would likely
capitulate in the overwhelming face of another so-called pragmatic skeptical
argument you personally approve of.

Cry wolf too many times and, well... you know...

Regards,
Steven Vincent Johnson
www.OrionWorks.com
www.zazzle.com/orionworks

Re: [Vo]:The style is the man himself.

Stephen A. Lawrence sa...@pobox.com wrote:




 On 11-10-17 03:50 PM, OrionWorks - Steven V Johnson wrote:

 Robert,

 You state:

  You [Mr. Rothwell] may disagree, and now be 100% convinced, but it's your
 personal attacks that are troubling.

 Where has Mr. Rothwell attacked you personally?


 Well, if Robert is claiming that there was no energy generated, then the
 item from Jed which he quoted would apply to him, and that sure sounds like
 an ad hominem to me:

 Skepics who claim that ... there was no energy generated ... are ignorant.
 They lack 7th grade knowledge of physics.

 That is not an attack on the arguments.  That is an attack on the skeptics,
 themselves.  Jed has personally attacked /all/ Rossi skeptics, it would
 seem.


It would not be an attack on Robert if Robert is, in fact, in the 7th grade.
He might be. Or his science education may have ended then.

There are many people who have no knowledge of science beyond junior high
levels. I have met some high and mighty Wall Street investment bankers
interested in cold fusion who would not know the Second Law of
Thermodynamics if it bit them on the butt.

Such people are common in the U.S., and always have been. Read Mark Twain
and you will see.

Being ill-educated it not dishonorable. What is dishonorable is to refuse to
educate yourself more; to challenge your assumptions; or to perform a simple
test in the kitchen to see what happens to hot water in a poorly insulated
metal vessel in 4 hours.

I am pretty sure this is junior high level material because somewhere I have
a junior high physics textbook, in Japanese. I recall this kind of thing was
covered in it. Granted, their classes tend to be more advanced than ours.
Anyway, I can't find it.

- Jed

Re: [Vo]:The style is the man himself.

2011-10-17 Thread Robert Leguillon

Mr. Rothwell never attacked me personally. He merely labeled all remaining 
skeptics as ignorant/blind/foolish/etc. I think that there is still room to 
question the results, and I'm certainly not the only one. I think that the ad 
hominems can stifle open communication, and I thought that they did not have 
place here.
Now, in questioning the thermocouples, I'm apparently violating the laws of 
physics and
without a 7th grade education. A public forum should be a safe environment from 
ad hominems, but maybe I misunderstood. 
I may not have a degree in Japanese, but I was studying quantum mechanics at 
Fermilab while still in high school.  Nevertheless, I'll take a back seat, or 
get out of the kitchen if this is how you guys cook.

Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com wrote:

Stephen A. Lawrence sa...@pobox.com wrote:




 On 11-10-17 03:50 PM, OrionWorks - Steven V Johnson wrote:

 Robert,

 You state:

  You [Mr. Rothwell] may disagree, and now be 100% convinced, but it's your
 personal attacks that are troubling.

 Where has Mr. Rothwell attacked you personally?


 Well, if Robert is claiming that there was no energy generated, then the
 item from Jed which he quoted would apply to him, and that sure sounds like
 an ad hominem to me:

 Skepics who claim that ... there was no energy generated ... are ignorant.
 They lack 7th grade knowledge of physics.

 That is not an attack on the arguments.  That is an attack on the skeptics,
 themselves.  Jed has personally attacked /all/ Rossi skeptics, it would
 seem.


It would not be an attack on Robert if Robert is, in fact, in the 7th grade.
He might be. Or his science education may have ended then.

There are many people who have no knowledge of science beyond junior high
levels. I have met some high and mighty Wall Street investment bankers
interested in cold fusion who would not know the Second Law of
Thermodynamics if it bit them on the butt.

Such people are common in the U.S., and always have been. Read Mark Twain
and you will see.

Being ill-educated it not dishonorable. What is dishonorable is to refuse to
educate yourself more; to challenge your assumptions; or to perform a simple
test in the kitchen to see what happens to hot water in a poorly insulated
metal vessel in 4 hours.

I am pretty sure this is junior high level material because somewhere I have
a junior high physics textbook, in Japanese. I recall this kind of thing was
covered in it. Granted, their classes tend to be more advanced than ours.
Anyway, I can't find it.

- Jed

Re: [Vo]:Forbes weighs in on the controversial Rossi's eCat phenomenon

Terry Blanton hohlr...@gmail.com wrote:

 Why does a 65-year-old fisherman set out in stormy weather, with a leaking
  10 m boat, three sheets to the wind (drunk)?


 A very appropriate phrase considering it's etymology:

 http://www.phrases.org.uk/meanings/three-sheets-to-the-wind.html


Yup. That's what my dad would have called it. He grew up in the 1920s in
Freeport Long Island and Bermuda, sailing and motoring boats. He got out of
the business in the late 30s after he was hurt, and went to college on
Workman's Comp. A good thing too, because that ship was torpedoed in WWII.
He was in the black gang (engine room crew) and they seldom escaped from a
torpedo.

It is a funny thing about sailors from that era and people who grew up
around the sea, such as my father-in-law. They might be able to swim like
seals but they never did if they could avoid it. I saw my dad swim in the
ocean maybe a dozen times. He said he probably set a new swimming record
once when the police in Caracas were coming after him and he dove into the
harbor to swim to the ship, and realized the harbor was filled with sharks .
. . but he never swam for fun.

Many sailors back then could not swim.

By the way, sheets are ropes, not sails.

- Jed

Re: [Vo]:The style is the man himself.

2011-10-17 Thread Charles Hope

I'm just interested in what kind of unpowered system can use insulation to 
increase its temperature after the power has been shut off. 

It seems to me Jed has a point. 



Sent from my iPhone. 

On Oct 17, 2011, at 21:37, Robert Leguillon robert.leguil...@hotmail.com 
wrote:

 Mr. Rothwell never attacked me personally. He merely labeled all remaining 
 skeptics as ignorant/blind/foolish/etc. I think that there is still room to 
 question the results, and I'm certainly not the only one. I think that the ad 
 hominems can stifle open communication, and I thought that they did not have 
 place here.
 Now, in questioning the thermocouples, I'm apparently violating the laws of 
 physics and
 without a 7th grade education. A public forum should be a safe environment 
 from ad hominems, but maybe I misunderstood. 
 I may not have a degree in Japanese, but I was studying quantum mechanics 
 at Fermilab while still in high school.  Nevertheless, I'll take a back seat, 
 or get out of the kitchen if this is how you guys cook.
 
 Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com wrote:
 
 Stephen A. Lawrence sa...@pobox.com wrote:
 
 
 
 
 On 11-10-17 03:50 PM, OrionWorks - Steven V Johnson wrote:
 
 Robert,
 
 You state:
 
 You [Mr. Rothwell] may disagree, and now be 100% convinced, but it's your
 personal attacks that are troubling.
 
 Where has Mr. Rothwell attacked you personally?
 
 
 Well, if Robert is claiming that there was no energy generated, then the
 item from Jed which he quoted would apply to him, and that sure sounds like
 an ad hominem to me:
 
 Skepics who claim that ... there was no energy generated ... are ignorant.
 They lack 7th grade knowledge of physics.
 
 That is not an attack on the arguments.  That is an attack on the skeptics,
 themselves.  Jed has personally attacked /all/ Rossi skeptics, it would
 seem.
 
 
 It would not be an attack on Robert if Robert is, in fact, in the 7th grade.
 He might be. Or his science education may have ended then.
 
 There are many people who have no knowledge of science beyond junior high
 levels. I have met some high and mighty Wall Street investment bankers
 interested in cold fusion who would not know the Second Law of
 Thermodynamics if it bit them on the butt.
 
 Such people are common in the U.S., and always have been. Read Mark Twain
 and you will see.
 
 Being ill-educated it not dishonorable. What is dishonorable is to refuse to
 educate yourself more; to challenge your assumptions; or to perform a simple
 test in the kitchen to see what happens to hot water in a poorly insulated
 metal vessel in 4 hours.
 
 I am pretty sure this is junior high level material because somewhere I have
 a junior high physics textbook, in Japanese. I recall this kind of thing was
 covered in it. Granted, their classes tend to be more advanced than ours.
 Anyway, I can't find it.
 
 - Jed

Re: [Vo]:The style is the man himself.

2011-10-17 Thread Rich Murray

Wolf!  Wolf! wolf? wolf... WOOF! WOOF!  WOOF!Rich

Prediction is an hazardous pasttime, especially about the future...  Woody Allen

On Mon, Oct 17, 2011 at 5:56 PM, OrionWorks - Steven Vincent Johnson
orionwo...@charter.net wrote:
 From: Rich Murray

 As one of the pragmatic skeptics, I quote today's Waterloo moment --
 in gratitude to Robert Leguillon and Alan J. Fletcher:

 In regards to Rossi and the whole CF movement, just how many waterloo
 moments have you had lately?

 I seem to recall not long ago you were predicting that Jed would likely
 capitulate in the overwhelming face of another so-called pragmatic skeptical
 argument you personally approve of.

 Cry wolf too many times and, well... you know...

 Regards,
 Steven Vincent Johnson
 www.OrionWorks.com
 www.zazzle.com/orionworks

Re: [Vo]:The style is the man himself.

tiistai, 18. lokakuuta 2011 Robert Leguillon robert.leguil...@hotmail.com
kirjoitti:
 I think that there is still room to question the results, and I'm
certainly not the only one.

I think that the problem here is not that are there still room to question
the results. But problem is that skeptics have run out of the arguments, but
the still continue to being critical and are presenting more and more
silly arguments that are either plain speculation and assumptions, or are
just removed from this world.

Just look about Krivit. He has made himself a cuspidor, because he refuses
to accept that he was wrong with his debunking. And continues to write
more and more ad hominem and disinformation and less and less imaginative
and fact based criticism. Although I admit, that it was very nasty thing to
do from Rossi to present him that silly dummy eCat and just a 15 min demo,
with old and expired eCat model. (in Defkalion's rethorics it was version 2
eCat although Rossi was already testing with version 3 eCat)

   —Jouni

[Vo]:Tel Aviv Superconductor- Levitation

2011-10-17 Thread Ron Kita

Greetings Vortex,

I haven t had a chance look for the  superconductor material used in the
levitation video,
but it seems like this is not the usual flux pinning as experienced by
1-2-3 SC materials:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flux_pinning

Ron Kita, Chiralex

Few people realize that when one spins a symmetical magnet as a ring magnet-
the flux lines remain stationary in space. This is the principle of the One
Piece Farady Homopolar Generator.

[Vo]:Primary Flow Calculation

2011-10-17 Thread David Roberson


I am attaching an Excel simulation which uses the power measured via the 
secondary water path of the heat exchanger to estimate the primary vapor flow.  
With this information it is possible to estimate the water mass in grams 
remaining within the ECAT as it responds to water pump input flow and vapor 
escape.

There are two adjustable variables: Correction Factor for the thermocouple 
error in the secondary; and, water flow rate into the ECAT in grams per second.

There are two types of charts to view.  One shows the water remaining within 
the ECAT in grams as a function of time.  The second displays the total vapor 
flow out of the ECAT at any chosen time.

The information contained demonstrates that the ECAT should not overflow under 
normal operational conditions.  Of course this is based upon assumptions which 
may need adjustments.

This is my first post to the vortex and I have my fingers crossed.

Dave


Temp data with charts oct 6.xlsx
Description: application/vnd.openxmlformats-officedocument.spreadsheetml.sheet

Re: [Vo]:quantum levitation


Am 18.10.2011 00:19, schrieb Esa Ruoho:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ws6AAhTw7RA


pretty

Wow!

Re: [Vo]:Why has Rossi to build a 1MW plant?