Re: [Vo]:The U.S. Patent Office's formal policy to reject all cold fusion applications

[Mary Yugo]

On Sat, Nov 12, 2011 at 8:38 PM, Jed Rothwell  wrote:

>
>
> On Sat, Nov 12, 2011 at 10:33 PM, Mary Yugo  wrote:
>
>>
>> Yes, I think most experts would say they do.
>>>
>>
>> That I would like to know more about.  It should be easy to show -- add
>> the catalyst and get evidence for a nuclear reaction namely neutrons and/or
>> radiation.
>>
>
> This test will not work. Cold fusion does not produce neutrons and it
> seldom produces radiation. I have told you that before. If you do not
> believe me, please review the literature on your own.
>

Well that's inconvenient, isn't it?  So we just look for anomalous heat and
nothing else?  How about "products of reaction"?  You know -- like the ones
that were *not* found when a sample of Rossi's "ash" analyzed in Sweden
turned out to have the same ratio of copper isotopes as is found in
ordinary mined copper?


> I think most readers here are familiar with the literature. Please do not
> make assertions about cold fusion that all readers here know to be
> incorrect. This is not a beginner's forum. Beginners should read the
> introductory papers by Storms at LENR-CANR.org, or the first chapter of my
> book.
>

Please don't be patronizing.  I already admitted I know little about the
whole field of cold fusion and I do not have the time to study it until it
is robustly proven and much better accepted by "mainstream" science
publications.  I do follow Rossi because the claim is incredibly
extravagant, the style is flamboyant yet furtive and evasive, and nothing
the guy does makes sense.  That's interesting and fun for me.


  Run the same way without the catalyst and the evidence of nuclear
>> reaction disappears.  Someone has done that?  Can you provide a link or
>> citation?
>>
>
> Of course. Hundreds of researchers have done that. Typically they run Pt
> instead of Pd, or H instead of D (with Pd). If you did not know that, you
> need to read the literature.
>

Sorry but I looked at a couple of papers your referred me early on in our
discussions and I couldn't understand them.  There was no clear plot of
anomalous energy vs time for long period and high outputs.  Anything else
claimed, at the moment, sorry but I have no interest.


Please avoid trying to read my mind.  I would be totally, completely and
>> unequivocally delighted if cold fusion turns out to be feasible and
>> substantial.
>>
>
> I doubt that. Every expert I know -- except for Britz -- who has looked
> carefully at the evidence was convince that cold fusion is real. You say it
> is not real. It is difficult not to read your mind. You almost force me to
> suppose:
>

You can doubt my veracity but unless you're psychic, you won't know what
I'm thinking. And nobody as far as I know has ever demonstrated psychic
powers.  So basically, you're just calling me liar.  Nice.I'll tell you
again:  I fervently hope cold fusion is real and gets robustly developed.
I will jump up and down with joy the day it happens.  Even if it's Rossi
that does it although I will still dislike the guy for all the garbage he's
done while developing it.


You are no expert despite the fact that you say you have worked with
> calorimeters. I doubt that.
>

No expert in what?  I helped to design a family of specialized Seebeck
effect calorimeters similar or identical to the device you bought for
Storms.  I didn't do the basic design of the sensing elements -- I was
involved in other aspects of design and testing for end users.  I don't
know calorimeters?  Calorimetry?  Of course I do.  Very very well.  With
all your references to boilers and HVAC systems and the similarities you
suggest between that technology and what is needed to test Rossi's
machines, I am starting to doubt that you understand calorimetry though at
one time, I thought you did.

OR
>
> You refuse to look at the evidence, despite all the effort you put into
> writing these messages and campaigning against cold fusion on the Internet.
>

Once and for all, I am not in any way, shape or form campaigning against
cold fusion ANYWHERE.  Show me exactly where I am or where I did and
exactly how I did it or please don't mention that again.  I am campaigning
for proper testing and proper critiques of Rossi's machines and Rossi's
tests and claims instead of the fawning acceptance and undeserved praise
and adulation he has gotten from too many people without proper evidence.
If you want to raise objections to that, please feel free to justify it.


It seems extraordinary to me that someone who expends so much effort on the
> subject knows practically nothing about cold fusion. In this very message
> you claim that cold fusion produces neutrons and radiation, even though I
> have told you many times that they do not. Either you are
> being disingenuous or you cannot bring yourself to study or remember *
> anything* about this subject, even the ABC's that have been common
> knowledge for 22 years!
>

Sorry.  I was under the impression that neutrons are expected in many cold

Re: [Vo]:Swedish Radio : advertising a scam ?

[Mary Yugo]

On Sat, Nov 12, 2011 at 6:39 PM, Alan Fletcher  wrote:

> I'm beginning to see why you've been banned from so many forums.
>

Sorry, I don't keep track.   How many was that and which ones if you know?
And were they all run by fervent believers in Rossi?

If you don't know which ones and who runs them, perhaps don't claim it?

Re: [Vo]:Steorn Bombshell - Orbo was all a sign error!

[Harry Veeder]

Jwinter,
I have a print-out of Steorn's report dated Oct. 31, 2008. At the moment I
can't locate the pdf file, but I downloaded it from their website two or
three years ago, and the name Mr. Rice does not appear in this report. The
title is _Asymmetry and Energy in Magnetic Systems_.  It includes ten
diagrams and five graphs and describes four experimental configurations:

1) symmetric and linear MH
2) asymmetric and linear MH
3) symmetric and non-linear MH
4) asymmetric and non-lnear MH

Only the last configuration showed an anomaly.  Dr. Quack Pot's analsysis
seems to discount the symmetric/asymmetric parameters since they aren't
mentioned in your summary.

Harry

On Sat, Nov 12, 2011 at 3:09 AM,  wrote:

>  On 11/12/2011 11:50 AM, Harry Veeder wrote:
>
> I think Steorn stumbled upon a real anomally but they erred in assuming
> that measurement alone was sufficient to demonstrate the reality of energy
> creation.
>
>
> Since there seems to still be some belief around here that "Steorn
> stumbled upon a real anomaly", I feel that I should point out some recent
> postings that may have gone unnoticed.
>
> Also since Mary Yugo has just joined us (and very welcome you are Mary,
> with your sharp mind and tongue to match), who took a lot of interest in
> the Steorn affair in the early days - I am sure she will appreciate this
> information, if not already aware of it.
>
> About a month ago Steorn released four apparently significant supporting
> documents to Stirling's news service (www.pesn.com) which were reported
> on 
> here.
> PESN was not allowed to post the actual documents or reveal the authors
> names, but it turned out that one of the documents (a pretty important one
> it seems describing measurement of the "Steorn Effect" in detail) was found
> to be available on Steorn's website 
> here!
> Anyway sometime later someone calling themselves "Dr Quack Pot" picked up
> on this paper and wrote some comments on the results reported in it (see
> comments after the PESN article) which make pretty revealing reading!  To
> save people having to chase the links and read through the discussions,
> here is a summary of the facts as I understand them.
>
> The available document is a Consultant Engineer's (John Rice) report
> describing energy balance measurements made on an Orbo mechanism while it
> was displaying the "anomaly".  In each case the torque is measured as a
> function of angular position, in some cases using a step, stop and measure
> method, and in other cases the torque is sampled during continuous rotation.
>
> One of the measurements (chart 5 orange curve) shows the torque resulting
> from the interaction between a fixed (stator) permanent magnet and a soft
> ferrite core rotated on an armature (rotor) in its vicinity.  Since we know
> that this interaction is always attractive, this allows the sign of the
> torque to be determined.  Another measurement (chart 4259 red curve) shows
> the torque between the same fixed magnet stator but with a permanent magnet
> on the rotor.  The sign of this curve indicates that that the force between
> the permanent magnets was primarily repelling.  A third measurement (chart
> 4259 blue curve) then shows the result of having the soft ferrite and the
> permanent magnet stuck together and rotated together on the armature.
>
> The energy balance in each case is obtained by subtracting frictional and
> gravitational effects (measured during calibration runs), and then
> integrating the remaining magnetic interaction torque over a complete
> revolution - which of course gives net energy gained or lost per revolution
> (see chart 4260).  In a linear system one would expect that
> (PM<>ferrite effect) + (PM<>PM effect) = (PM<>(PM+ferrite) effect)
> But this is not what is measured!  Using the first measurement as a null
> calibration, the energy balance from the second measurement is very good,
> while the energy balance from the third shows a highly significant (~1 mJ
> per rev) discrepancy.
>
> So there we have it - the "Steorn Anomaly"!
>
> But the million dollar question is of course, was it an energy gain or an
> energy loss!  What was the *sign* of the discrepancy.  With some simple
> logic and knowing the sign of the torque, it is very easy to determine that
> what was measured was an energy *loss*!!!  "Orbo technology" is a method
> of turning mechanical energy into heat using magnetic interactions!  WOW!
>
> So here you have at last the key to understanding the amazing puzzle of
> the Steorn $75k "challenge", the SPDC excitement and discussions, the
> scientific jury, the "Steorn 300" engineering companies, the SKDB
> investors, etc, etc, etc!  An amazingly long lived buzz of discussion and
> activity and money changing hands, all resulting from a simple sign error
> that seems to have only very recent

Re: [Vo]:Hypothetical diagram of the Oct. 28th E-Cat

[Berke Durak]

On Sun, Nov 13, 2011 at 1:32 AM, Aussie Guy E-Cat
 wrote:

> There should be power and control cables going into the E-Cat
> container.

Right, added as a single power/control line.  (I don't want
to clutter the diagram -- maybe a separate electrical diagram is
warranted.)

http://imgur.com/Nxaj2
-- 
Berke Durak

Re: [Vo]:Hypothetical diagram of the Oct. 28th E-Cat

[Aussie Guy E-Cat]

That is interesting as I'm sure I read / heard they were both 300 kva 
gensets. There should be power and control cables going into the E-Cat 
container.


AG


On 11/13/2011 4:55 PM, Berke Durak wrote:

On Sun, Nov 13, 2011 at 1:20 AM, Aussie Guy E-Cat
  wrote:


I believe Rossi or someone said the genset was rated at 300 kva and
they had a spare on site, in case the prime genset failed.

I see only one genset in the pictures: the big orange one that is
visible in the video available on Youtube.  It has a sticker that
reads "Altertecno 450 KVA".  I can add another 300 KVA genset for
version 2.

Re: [Vo]:Steorn Bombshell - Orbo was all a sign error!

[jwinter]

On 11/13/2011 1:39 AM, Harry Veeder wrote:
Even if it is a "loss", why is one direction better at turning motion 
into heat?

Conventional theory predicts the same "loss".
This is a good question because I have heard the same claim - that of an 
energy discrepancy which is different if you rotate it in one direction 
from the other.  Unfortunately we have no information or measurements on 
what configuration produces this effect and so we can only guess.  
However I am so sure that it is not anomalous, that I can't be bothered 
taking the time to think it through properly and prove it.  But I will 
wave my hands around to show that it is, at least in principle, possible.


I believe the main reason for the energy loss in the case described in 
Rice's report, is that, because of the anisotropy of the ferrite in the 
rod (or because it is a long thin rod and not a sphere), the field in it 
flicks very suddenly from one direction to the opposite direction.  I 
think that these sharp transitions with overshoot are what is seen in 
chart 4251 at about 130 degrees and 150 degrees when the torque is 
monitored continuously while being rotated.  Remember that in this case 
the ferrite is glued hard against the conducting surface of a neo magnet 
- which means that these sudden changes of magnetization direction will 
induce significant Eddy current losses in the close conducting surface.


This effect is non-linear - in the sense that if you were to cycle the 
structure through the same field changes but ensure that it happens 
slowly and not by a positive feedback avalanche mechanism, then you 
would not loose nearly as much energy as the same cycle with the sudden 
switch.


So the question is, is there a method of arranging permanent magnets and 
anisotropic ferrite in such a manner that if you cycle it in one 
direction, then the ferrite flips its magnetization in an avalanching 
manner, whereas if rotated the other direction, then the magnetization 
changes smoothly and without sudden flips.  I would guess that there is, 
although I must admit that it is not obvious how it might be arranged 
with a single moving part.  It would certainly be easy with two moving 
parts.  But the effect is certainly possible to achieve in principle, 
and I don't want to spend time proving whether it can be done with a 
single moving part when we don't even know if that is what has been done.

Re: [Vo]:Hypothetical diagram of the Oct. 28th E-Cat

[Berke Durak]

On Sun, Nov 13, 2011 at 1:20 AM, Aussie Guy E-Cat
 wrote:

> I believe Rossi or someone said the genset was rated at 300 kva and
> they had a spare on site, in case the prime genset failed.

I see only one genset in the pictures: the big orange one that is
visible in the video available on Youtube.  It has a sticker that
reads "Altertecno 450 KVA".  I can add another 300 KVA genset for
version 2.
-- 
Berke Durak

Re: [Vo]:Hypothetical diagram of the Oct. 28th E-Cat

[Aussie Guy E-Cat]

I believe Rossi or someone said the genset was rated at 300 kva and they 
had a spare on site, in case the prime genset failed.


AG


On 11/13/2011 4:44 PM, Berke Durak wrote:

After watching the available footage and looking at the pictures of
the Oct. 28th demo, I have
just drawn a diagram of the system as I think it was that day.

http://i.imgur.com/Ipn7W.png

Please report any inaccuracies or misuse of engineering symbols.

[Vo]:NI-H cell replication, some thoughts

[Aussie Guy E-Cat]

While considering the fabrication of my Ni-H cell, several points 
concerning the Door Knob Rossi LENR reactor have come to light.


1) Rossi used a wrap around external heater to bring the core up to 
operational temperature.


2) This external heater could not be the source of the necessary 
electrons needed to create the H- ions needed to be captured by the Ni 
atoms.


3) He would need another naked, so to speak, element heater to boil off 
the electrons needed to form the H- ions, once they were broken apart 
from the supplied H2.


4) Vacuum tubes do this by using a thermionic emissive coating on the 
cathode tube structure surrounding the heater element.


5) In vacuum tubes a positive charge on the plate causes the electrons 
to leave the cathode and to travel to the plate.


6) Rossi may be using a voltage difference between his cathode and the 
Ni powder to control electron availability and to control the reaction.


6) He seems to have the ability to disable sections of the 3 core 
reactor assembly.


Maybe Rossi's catalysis is nothing more than a selected thermionic 
emissive coating on a thin metal tube surrounding the electron source 
buried deep in the heart of each of his reactor cores?


This may imply that his "Frequencies" are a variable pulse width, 
selected polarity, signal that can increase the effective release of 
electrons from the cathode with a positive polarity pulse train or 
retard them with a negative polarity pulse train. This would make it 
relatively simple to control the strength / heat gain of the reaction.


In the middle of the heater power wire feed module, there is a removable 
plug that may allow Rossi to disable selected reactor cores by using a 
small 3 pole slide switch block that may be accessible behind that plug. 
See attached photo.


Comments?
<>

[Vo]:Hypothetical diagram of the Oct. 28th E-Cat

[Berke Durak]

After watching the available footage and looking at the pictures of
the Oct. 28th demo, I have
just drawn a diagram of the system as I think it was that day.

http://i.imgur.com/Ipn7W.png

Please report any inaccuracies or misuse of engineering symbols.
-- 
Berke Durak

[Vo]:fusion hot

[fznidarsic]

http://www.npr.org/2011/11/09/141931203/-power-for-the-planet-company-bets-big-on-fusion

[Vo]:So, Really.. Who would buy a 1MW WildCat?

[Robert Leguillon]

If someone wanted to buy the current E-Cat manifestation for anything other 
than debunking or reverse engineering, what would that look like? (Assuming 
that the technology is 100% real and has a COP of 6. I'm skeptical, but think 
this could be a fun intellectual exercise)

Current Cats produce steam for heat. There is no mechanism in place for 
superheating, so the steam would more than likely condense quickly, and be 
unsuitable for motive force. Let's examine the heat output, assuming an hour of 
1 MW heat production:

  Using an E-Cat for 1 hour: 
  1 MW out for one hour/ COP of 6 = 166.67 kWh input
  Current average electrical rate is 10.58 cents/kWh
  166.67 kWh x 0.1058 = $17.68 per hour

  Using natural gas:
  1MW out for one hour = 3,414,000 BTU
  1020 BTU per Cubic Foot of Natural Gas
  3,414,000 / 1020 = 3347 CF
  2011 prices varied $9.79 to $15.97 per thousand CF
  3.347 x $9.79~$15.97 = $32.77 ~ $53.45 per hour
  
(I hope that my calculations/conversions are on-the-money, these are literally 
back-of-napkin and cellphone calculations. I could've easily botched a 
conversion.)

So, in the event that you have a need for 24 hour steam at roughly 1ATM 
pressure, the E-Cat could provide some price savings and stability.  In the 
event of varying demands, though, a four-hour warmup (or only needing a 
percentage of the produced output), could quickly skew the savings into losses. 
 A natural gas system could vary ouput easily, in a way that Rossi's reactor 
doesn't seem capable of.

What would YOU use an E-Cat for?

Re: [Vo]:Steorn Bombshell - Orbo was all a sign error!

[Harry Veeder]

On Sat, Nov 12, 2011 at 6:19 PM, Terry Blanton  wrote:

> On Sat, Nov 12, 2011 at 12:39 PM, Harry Veeder 
> wrote:
>
> > Even if it is a "loss", why is one direction better at turning motion
> into
> > heat?
> >
> > Conventional theory predicts the same "loss".
>
> Everyone believes the repulsive force should be the same as the
> attractive force between magnets; however, the repulsive force is
> always less.  Here is a handy calculator to demonstrate this:
>
>
> http://www.magnetsales.com/Design/Calc_filles/PullAndPushBetween2DiscMagnets.asp
>
> I think this might be what led to Steorn's confusion.
>
>
>

Since the magnets are moving in a loop, asymmetrical differences between
replusive and attractive forces cannot explain the anomaly. The
anomaly only appeared in the presence of soft ferrite magnet.


harry

Re: [Vo]:The U.S. Patent Office\'s formal policy to reject all cold fusion applications

[francis]

I can understand the patent office denying cold fusion as a "source" of
energy. As I understand it  there is never enough ash to explain the amount
of heat being claimed but, the patent they granted to Haisch and Moddel was
based on  manipulation of Casimir effect instead of catalytic action and the
energy is rectified via a mechanism they term "Lamb Pinch". Their patent
focuses more on the environment as the energy source while Lamb Pinch is the
extraction method. The problem with claiming cold fusion or LENR as the
extraction method is they are focusing on just one end "effect" of another
as yet undefined  interim extraction method that is providing the energy to
make these rather unlikely nuclear reactions. much more likely. The energy
source in both cases is gas motion /fractional translation relative to a
tapestry of rigid Casimir geometries. Although LENR may be a beneficial
contribution I don't think it is a necessary one and am convinced  there is
some sort of relativistic Heisenberg trap that is allowing these researchers
to tap Zero Point Energy.

 

The US patent office also denied Randell Mills a patent based on his Black
Light process described in terms of catalytic action causing "fractional
states" of hydrogen but then  in May 2008 granted a patent
   to Haisch and Moddel
describing a manipulation of Casimir geometry causing a lamb pinch of noble
gases.. Mills recently described the hydrino as a fractional Rydberg atom
further aligning himself with other researchers. This new definition for
hydrino as fractional Rydberg can therefore be applied to a 2005  math paper
by  Jan Naudts which proposed a relativistic solution
  for the hydrino. Unlike hydrogen
being ejected from the suns corona near C and slowing down time, the
hydrogen inside Casimir geometry is being negatively accelerated through
equivalence and accelerates time..instead of increasing vacuum energy
density like at the bottom of a gravity well this method uses suppression to
limit the longer vacuum wavelengths and REDUCE the total energy density so
time is accelerated. The fractional hydrogen it is at the top of a gravity
hill [warp] due to suppression and we outside the Casimir geometry appear to
be at the bottom of a deep gravity well and existing in slow time from the
perspective of the fractional hydrogen.

 

 

 

Jed Rothwell
Fri, 11 Nov 2011 12:27:18 -0800

I wrote:
 
 
> When you apply for any cold fusion related patent, they automatically
> reject it with a form letter. . . .
> 
 
 
> 
> Let me upload a copy:
> 
> http://lenr-canr.org/Collections/PatentOfficeMemo.jpg
> 
 
That is a copy of their policy, not the form letter. Sorry for the
confusion.
 
I tossed out my copy of the form letter, which a researcher gave me. I
should have scanned it. I will ask around for another copy.
 
- Jed

 

Re: [Vo]:New E-Cat customers to reveal their identity

[Jed Rothwell]

Mary Yugo  wrote:

Sure but it really is a waste of space.  Here are some of the idiotic
> nonsense actively promoted on Sterling's pages...  as if Obama going to
> Mars alone wasn't enough.   Tell you what-- rather than my boring everyone,
> choose from the list here:
>
> http://pesn.com/Radio/Free_Energy_Now/Let me give a brief summary:
>
> -  A guy who propose to save energy because he shows how to make an
> ordinary LED light that he claims equals a 75W bulb.  It doesn't and it
> won't.  It uses disposable AA batteries!  Just moronic.
>
> -  Freddy Cell and Stanley Myers claim they can make energy from plain
> water.  Water as a fuel.  Yah shoore.  . . .
>

These are examples of strange beliefs. There are countless strange beliefs
which are not part of a fraud. A belief can be strange, ignorant,
misguided, and even dangerous yet perfectly sincere, and not fraudulent.
Faith healing and creationism, for example.

As far as I know, Stanley Meyer sincerely believed that his devices could
make energy from plain water.

You claimed that "Allan's more serious problem is that he supports obvious
and less obvious scams and he actively solicits money for them by asking
people to contribute." Which of these things you listed are scams, and
which did Allan "actively solicit money" for?

- Jed

Re: [Vo]:The U.S. Patent Office's formal policy to reject all cold fusion applications

[Jed Rothwell]

On Sat, Nov 12, 2011 at 10:33 PM, Mary Yugo  wrote:

>
> Yes, I think most experts would say they do.
>>
>
> That I would like to know more about.  It should be easy to show -- add
> the catalyst and get evidence for a nuclear reaction namely neutrons and/or
> radiation.
>

This test will not work. Cold fusion does not produce neutrons and it
seldom produces radiation. I have told you that before. If you do not
believe me, please review the literature on your own.

I think most readers here are familiar with the literature. Please do not
make assertions about cold fusion that all readers here know to be
incorrect. This is not a beginner's forum. Beginners should read the
introductory papers by Storms at LENR-CANR.org, or the first chapter of my
book.



>   Run the same way without the catalyst and the evidence of nuclear
> reaction disappears.  Someone has done that?  Can you provide a link or
> citation?
>

Of course. Hundreds of researchers have done that. Typically they run Pt
instead of Pd, or H instead of D (with Pd). If you did not know that, you
need to read the literature.



> Please avoid trying to read my mind.  I would be totally, completely and
> unequivocally delighted if cold fusion turns out to be feasible and
> substantial.
>

I doubt that. Every expert I know -- except for Britz -- who has looked
carefully at the evidence was convince that cold fusion is real. You say it
is not real. It is difficult not to read your mind. You almost force me to
suppose:

You are no expert despite the fact that you say you have worked with
calorimeters. I doubt that.

OR

You refuse to look at the evidence, despite all the effort you put into
writing these messages and campaigning against cold fusion on the Internet.
It seems extraordinary to me that someone who expends so much effort on the
subject knows practically nothing about cold fusion. In this very message
you claim that cold fusion produces neutrons and radiation, even though I
have told you many times that they do not. Either you are
being disingenuous or you cannot bring yourself to study or remember *
anything* about this subject, even the ABC's that have been common
knowledge for 22 years!

A person who spends years writing about something yet who does not know the
first thing about it in denial. Strongly in denial. That is a sign of a
person who does not want to know. Who cannot face facts. That is
not characteristic of someone who would be "delighted" to be proven wrong.
If you were the least bit delighted at that prospect, you would read the
literature to find out if there is some tantalizing hope the claims might
be true. You would acquire some basic knowledge of the phenomenon. Instead,
you are aggressively ignorant, to the point where you repeatedly ask
questions about things that everyone knows.

Robert Park is the same way, by the way. He brags to people that he has
never read a single paper on cold fusion. I am sure he has read nothing,
because his books and his columns about it are grossly ignorant.



> I am not aware that Park has done what you accuse him of.
>

I do not accuse him of anything! He *brags* about doing these things. To
large crowds of people at the APS. He bragged about it to me, in person. He
publishes columns in the Washington Post accusing cold fusion researchers
of being criminals, lunatics and frauds.

Perhaps he is not as ruthless as he claims to be. Perhaps he did not
actually destroy as many lives and "root out" as many scientists as he
claims. I know he managed to root out some, and I am sure he would love to
nail them all.

But in any case, I am not accusing him of anything; I am telling you what
he says. If you do not believe me, read his columns, or the WaPost, or ask
him yourself.


When he realizes that he himself should have been "rooted out" decades ago,
>> I expect he will be devastated.
>>
>
> Any idea why anyone would do that?
>

Are you asking why Park "roots out" cold fusion researchers? As I
mentioned, in his newspaper columns and speeches he says he roots them out
because they are criminals, lunatics and frauds. I suppose he sincerely
believes that. I take his statements at face value. But as I said, ask him.


  It makes no sense and I tend to doubt it.
>

You tend to doubt that Park said what he said? It is right there in the
WaPost! Maybe he is beginning to have doubts . . . but in the past, he
loved to attack cold fusion.


As for destroying reputations, nothing restores them more than a few good
> experiments with convincing results and reliable data subject to
> replication by others.
>

That is nonsense. Hundreds of impeccable, irrefutable cold fusion
experiments have been published and replicated. That has had no effect on
public opinion. Park says he will never read any of those papers because he
is sure they are nonsense, lies and fraud. That's what he told McKubre, and
me. Heck, *you* have not read them, or you have forgotten everything they
say.

When Park, or the people at the DoE

Re: [Vo]:The U.S. Patent Office's formal policy to reject all cold fusion applications

[mixent]

In reply to  Mary Yugo's message of Sat, 12 Nov 2011 08:54:31 -0800:
Hi,
[snip]
>What I am suggesting is that the evidence for Rossi's claims is scant and
>his *modus operandi *is suspicious.  I don't know the details of the other
>claims.  Rossi claims a secret sauce catalyst.  That seems unlikely to
>work.  I may have missed it (it's not my field) but I don't know of any
>proven and properly tested and documented catalysts that facilitate fusion
>or any other nuclear reaction.Do the other claims involve catalysts?

If there is anything to Mills' Hydrino theory, then any of his catalysts may
indirectly be seen as a fusion catalyst, in as much as severely shrunken
Hydrinos could be small enough to increase the fusion rate to measurable levels.

Regards,

Robin van Spaandonk

http://rvanspaa.freehostia.com/project.html

Re: [Vo]:Swedish Radio : advertising a scam ?

[Rich Murray]

err-roars here-inn ?

On Sat, Nov 12, 2011 at 6:39 PM, Alan Fletcher  wrote:

> I'm beginning to see why you've been banned from so many forums.
>
> Why was that again?
> PS: the Bacardi company recently reported that I was a customer and their
> rum is to blame for any typographical erroars hereinn.
>
>
>

Re: [Vo]:OT: Impostor Syndrome

[mixent]

In reply to  Harry Veeder's message of Sat, 12 Nov 2011 12:03:26 -0500:
Hi,
[snip]
>What happens when two people with the complementary syndrome walk into a
>bar?... ;)
>
>Harry

 ...free energy in the form of hot air. ;)

Regards,

Robin van Spaandonk

http://rvanspaa.freehostia.com/project.html

Re: [Vo]:New E-Cat customers to reveal their identity

[Jouni Valkonen]

2011/11/13 Mary Yugo :
>
> It is harmful to our society to have people believing that you
> can run a car on water without fuel or even that adding on-board
> electrolysis to an internal combustion engine will somehow magically double
> it's mileage figures.

That is egoistic nonsense. People can think by themselves as well as
you can, you are not special although you have extraordinary ability
to flood all the discussion forums. It is no problem for you to think
critically. Neither it is for anyone else.

There are no scientific studies that show that Sterling's journalism
causes net-harm for the society, but it is just plain speculation and
most probably nonsense. And as it has no scientific relevance, it is
very insulting, because it spreads unconfirmed negative disinformation
about the Sterling.

There is quite clearly written at PES-site that the idea of the site
is to help creative inventors to get some visibility and thus help to
raise money. This is what Sterling does, and there is absolutely no
bad thing in what he is doing. It is up to reader to decide the
reliability of the source, and Sterling has done nothing that tries to
actively mislead reader. He just gives more visibility for the
creative people and their claims.

–Jouni

Re: [Vo]:New E-Cat customers to reveal their identity

[Mary Yugo]

On Sat, Nov 12, 2011 at 7:42 PM, Daniel Rocha  wrote:

> Not everything there is a scam. At least one is not, which is plasma
> focus, which they frequently feature among the top 5 and is based in an old
> technology. But they never claimed overunity, just 1/10 of the input
> energy, in the form of neutrons. Actually, a few of their shots is enough
> to kill a person. Their aim is to achieve extremely hot fusion with proton
> and boron 11 (which is the novelty and never attempted before) at 7billionK
> without neutron waste, "only" a huge quantity of high energy x-rays formed
> by collapsing plasma.
>

OK, I admit I didn't review that one in detail but maybe if I had, I'd have
found a much more encompassing claim than that.  Be that as it may, maybe
they did get one right out of a dozen or more.  But basically, they're
merchants of "woo".  They're not, in my estimation, anything resembling
journalists.  It is harmful to our society to have people believing that
you can run a car on water without fuel or even that adding on-board
electrolysis to an internal combustion engine will somehow magically double
it's mileage figures.  But that's typical of what they do.  And worse yet,
they claim such nonsense is being suppressed by oil interests, power
companies, government agencies -- you choose something and they have
probably blamed suppression on it.   People who believe Allan and Mills and
think of them as reliable journalists are at high risk for being scammed by
unscrupulous merchants through no fault of their own.  Such writing is thus
unconscionable.

Re: [Vo]:Order Form

[Mary Yugo]

>
> You seem to have some difficulty with logic.
>

No.  It seems that you are disregarding the original intent of the link to
the order form.  It was to suggest that Rossi is legitimate and his device
is real because such a form is available. It was implied that now, for
sure, properly qualified people can order an E-cat.  That's nonsense.   I
ridiculed that (sorry, won't happen again) because it is so absurd.  That's
all.  You are arguing against the propositions that only scammers have on
line orders.  I never said that.

If that was not the intent of showing the link, what was?

Re: [Vo]:Rossi E-Cat web site up

[Mary Yugo]

On Sat, Nov 12, 2011 at 7:23 PM, Jed Rothwell  wrote:

> Mary Yugo  wrote:
>
>
>> Of course nothing.  But there is a lot wrong with misleading and
>> deceptive advertising.
>>
>
> Rossi has not done any advertising as far as I know. Perhaps you are
> talking about Steorn.
>

Well, Rossi's site is advertising and to me, much of it seems misleading
and deceptive, as much by what it omits as by what it says.



>
>   Also with saying you sold something when you didn't.
>>
>
> Do you have any reason to think that Rossi has not sold the reactor, as he
> claims? Do you have any reason to think the Fioravanti is not an HVAC
> engineer, as he claims? Everyone who has talked to him is convinced that he
> is.
>
> Please do not make unfounded accusations here.
>

If everyone is to take everyone else at their word for what they say they
sold and for what they claim they can do, the world will not be a better
place!   Nobody has reason to think Rossi sold anything other than what
Rossi said. And Rossi constantly lies and misstates things and says bizarre
things as you will be the first to admit and have said.   I don't know
anything about Fioravanti.  I am less concerned that he may not be an HVAC
engineer than about the possibility that he works for Rossi and will say
whatever Rossi wants him to.  That's a concern.  I admit I have no
evidence.  However the method for conducting the tests -- running the big
generator and not letting any of the invited reporters and scientists see
anything of probative value supports my suspicions.   There is no valid
reason I know of for not allowing at least representatives of the press and
scientists see and verify the operating parameters of the megawatt plant
while running.  And if Rossi lies about a lot of things, he could well be
lying about the sale.


 I cannot understand this attitude that Rossi should do whatever *you* say,
>>> or Mary Yugo says, even though what you want him to do would ruin his
>>> business. I wish he would do as I say only because I think it would be
>>> bring him more money, and it would bring cold fusion to the world more
>>> quickly
>>>
>>
>> So how does selling a bundle of 50+ sample reactors help him keep a
>> secret?   How does doing this 10 -12 times in the coming year help?
>>
>
> You seem to have missed my point. Let me repeat myself:
>
> These things are for Rossi to decide. Not us. This is *his* business, and
> his alone.
>

Well then maybe we should all shut up about what Rossi says, does and has.
I was giving an opinion the same as you and many other people do.  I think
I know how a legitimate scientist and businessman who has what Rossi claims
to have would most likely behave.  He doesn't behave that way in any
manner, shape or form.  That makes me suspicious.  That's the summary of
what I've said.  What part do you object to other than that we have
different opinions about it?


> If I were him, not having patent protection, I would not know what to do.
> No matter who you sell to it could end badly. If you don't sell at all, it
> ends badly. He is between a rock and a hard place.
>

I don't know a lot about patents but patent specialists have told Rossi
publicly that if he disclosed more about the invention, he could get patent
protection that would be effective.   If he chooses not to do that, his
invention will be copied if it works, regardless of claims of self-destruct
devices and other similar nonsense.   The lesser of the evils is disclosure.


>
>
>> Capitalism would not work if they did. Without capitalism we would all
>>> live in poverty.
>>>
>>
>> Agreed.  For all the good it will do in helping to determine whether
>> Rossi's machine is real or a scam.
>>
>
> First principle physics has already proved it is real. You have not come
> up with any reasons to question that proof. You are scrambling to find some
> reason to ignore the laws of physics instead. You want us to look at Rossi
> business strategy, or his personality, or the order form, or the web site
> software or aesthetics . . . ANYTHING to change the subject and not face
> facts.
>

We don't differ on laws of physics but on how to interpret the experiments
and results obtained with Rossi's machines.  That Rossi has used first
principle physics to prove it's real is your opinion and you're entitled to
it but that doesn't make it fact and many people disagree.  The peripheral
features you noted that I attend to enhance the possibility of a scam in my
view.  The main reasons I doubt Rossi have already been stated many times
and I won't bore people again by mentioning them.


> It seems likely to me that the mechanisms of the free market will also
> determine the truth about Rossi's machine. If several machines are sold and
> customers are clamoring for them, that will prove they are real. But we
> don't need the free market. We already know that a 30 L vessel of water
> cannot stay at boiling temperatures for 4 hours, and we already know there
> cannot be any hidden wires o

Re: [Vo]:Order Form

[Jed Rothwell]

Mary Yugo  wrote:

>
> That Rossi provides an order blank is in no way any evidence that he has
> ever taken an order, accepted money for a device,  actually delivered a
> device or that filling in the order will get you anything more than not
> doing so.


How could an order form do this? Here is an order form for voice input
software:

https://shop.nuance.com/store?Action=DisplayPage&Locale=en_US&SiteID=nuanceus&id=QuickBuyCartPage

Do you see any proof here that Nuance has taken an order or delivered a
product?



>   Order forms are common among scammers.


Order forms are universal among legitimate corporations. *Every single
company* has order forms.

You seem to have some difficulty with logic. Take an attribute X which is
universally found in Group A, and sometimes found in Group B. You see
attribute X. You jump to the conclusion we are looking at Group B when it
is just as likely -- or perhaps more likely -- we are looking at Group A.

The attributes you ascribe to scammers are equally likely to be found in
legitimate companies. They all have web pages. Many legitimate companies
have ugly web pages based on obsolete software. They all keep secrets;
McDonald's is a legitimate company and they originated the term "secret
sauce." Legitimate companies and scammers alile seldom tell the public who
their customers are. They all have business strategies. Many have bad
strategies. Not one of them asks you, Mary Yugo, to approve of their
strategies.

- Jed

Re: [Vo]:New E-Cat customers to reveal their identity

[Daniel Rocha]

Not everything there is a scam. At least one is not, which is plasma focus,
which they frequently feature among the top 5 and is based in an old
technology. But they never claimed overunity, just 1/10 of the input
energy, in the form of neutrons. Actually, a few of their shots is enough
to kill a person. Their aim is to achieve extremely hot fusion with proton
and boron 11 (which is the novelty and never attempted before) at 7billionK
without neutron waste, "only" a huge quantity of high energy x-rays formed
by collapsing plasma.

2011/11/13 Mary Yugo 
>
>
> You REALLY want me to go on with this steaming pile of llama dung?   Tell
> you what, read the rest for yourself here
> http://pesn.com/Radio/Free_Energy_Now/   and please save me the bother.
> And this is less than a week's garbage collection.  These people are total
> whack jobs and nut cases.  I can't recall that Sterling Allan and Hank
> Mills have EVER found a SINGLE example of technology that worked but if
> they did, it must have been by accident.   What a waste of time!
>

Re: [Vo]:The U.S. Patent Office's formal policy to reject all cold fusion applications

[Mary Yugo]

>
>   That seems unlikely to work.  I may have missed it (it's not my field)
>> but I don't know of any proven and properly tested and documented catalysts
>> that facilitate fusion or any other nuclear reaction.Do the other
>> claims involve catalysts?
>>
>


> Yes, I think most experts would say they do.
>

That I would like to know more about.  It should be easy to show -- add the
catalyst and get evidence for a nuclear reaction namely neutrons and/or
radiation.  Run the same way without the catalyst and the evidence of
nuclear reaction disappears.  Someone has done that?  Can you provide a
link or citation?



>
>
>> I get frustrated with Rossi's shenanigans which is why I get sarcastic.
>> I'll try to tone it down but a lot of what he does is funny if you look at
>> it a certain way.
>>
>
> As someone else pointed out, you should tone it down because those are
> the rules here:
>

I'll try.  I will simply have to avoid humor.  I'm sorry but I suffer fools
badly and I tend to respond to what I see as stupid or wildly illogical
posts with sarcasm.  I see that is not welcome here so I will abstain as
well as I can.  It will be difficult.



> I have no vendetta and I'd be delighted if Rossi would prove his point.
>>
>
> I doubt that. I think you would be abashed or embarrassed. Of course you
> would not be as upset as Robert Park -- you are not that far out on a limb!
> -- but I would be surprised if you did not have mixed feelings.
>

Please avoid trying to read my mind.  I would be totally, completely and
unequivocally delighted if cold fusion turns out to be feasible and
substantial.  I have no reservations about it whatsoever.  I am not aware
that Park has done what you accuse him of.  Rather, I think of him as
someone who, like me, hates scams and despises scammers.  But I have not
followed his work since the days of Uri Geller and that well known "psychic
power" scam that Randi and Park so wonderfully exposed, in the process
making Puthoff and Targ (and the journal *Nature*) look like fools.

Park would be devastated because he he has devoted a large fraction of his
> life to suppressing cold fusion and savaging the reputations of
> researchers. He will know that he will go down in history as a
> laughingstock. People like him, who make themselves famous by ridiculing
> people and destroying reputations, are themselves highly sensitive to
> ridicule, and protective of their own reputations. They take politics to
> extremes. Park boasted to a large crowd of cheering people that he would
> "root out and destroy any federal scientist" who believes in cold fusion,
> or even tries to attend a conference. He thinks that is a good idea. He
> thinks people should do that. He brags about how many scientists he has
> taken down. When he realizes that he himself should have been "rooted out"
> decades ago, I expect he will be devastated.
>

Any idea why anyone would do that?  It makes no sense and I tend to doubt
it. As for destroying reputations, nothing restores them more than a few
good experiments with convincing results and reliable data subject to
replication by others.



>   The problem is that he could do it easily in a number of different
>> ways.  His nose has been repeatedly rubbed in that issue and he simply
>> won't do it.  Then he apparently commissions two total fools to do his web
>> site (talk about "clowns"!) and he writes strange things like this claim .
>> . .
>>
>
> This is a discussion of Rossi's personality. It is on-topic, but you
> should not confuse this issue with the validity or evidence for his claims.
> You are right that he is an odd person who writes things that seem strange
> by our standards. You are incorrect when you say "the evidence for Rossi's
> claims is scant . . ." The two are different subjects. Please do not let
> Rossi's personality or his sloppiness affect your evaluation of his results.
>

I am not holding out Rossi's sloppiness as *prima facia* evidence of bad
work or scamming.  However, I think there is some correlation with writing
logically and making sense and telling the truth and an inverse correlation
between truth and the sort of evasion, double talk, blog censorship, and
tangential response that Rossi provides.   As for his results, we'll just
have to continue for a while to disagree on their credibility.  I suspect
in some months it will become clear who is correct.

Re: [Vo]:Rossi E-Cat web site up

[Jed Rothwell]

Mary Yugo  wrote:


> Of course nothing.  But there is a lot wrong with misleading and deceptive
> advertising.
>

Rossi has not done any advertising as far as I know. Perhaps you are
talking about Steorn.



>   Also with saying you sold something when you didn't.
>

Do you have any reason to think that Rossi has not sold the reactor, as he
claims? Do you have any reason to think the Fioravanti is not an HVAC
engineer, as he claims? Everyone who has talked to him is convinced that he
is.

Please do not make unfounded accusations here.


 I cannot understand this attitude that Rossi should do whatever *you* say,
>> or Mary Yugo says, even though what you want him to do would ruin his
>> business. I wish he would do as I say only because I think it would be
>> bring him more money, and it would bring cold fusion to the world more
>> quickly
>>
>
> So how does selling a bundle of 50+ sample reactors help him keep a
> secret?   How does doing this 10 -12 times in the coming year help?
>

You seem to have missed my point. Let me repeat myself:

These things are for Rossi to decide. Not us. This is *his* business, and
his alone.

If I were him, not having patent protection, I would not know what to do.
No matter who you sell to it could end badly. If you don't sell at all, it
ends badly. He is between a rock and a hard place.



> Capitalism would not work if they did. Without capitalism we would all
>> live in poverty.
>>
>
> Agreed.  For all the good it will do in helping to determine whether
> Rossi's machine is real or a scam.
>

First principle physics has already proved it is real. You have not come up
with any reasons to question that proof. You are scrambling to find some
reason to ignore the laws of physics instead. You want us to look at Rossi
business strategy, or his personality, or the order form, or the web site
software or aesthetics . . . ANYTHING to change the subject and not face
facts.

It seems likely to me that the mechanisms of the free market will also
determine the truth about Rossi's machine. If several machines are sold and
customers are clamoring for them, that will prove they are real. But we
don't need the free market. We already know that a 30 L vessel of water
cannot stay at boiling temperatures for 4 hours, and we already know there
cannot be any hidden wires or stage magic tricks.

- Jed

Re: [Vo]:New E-Cat customers to reveal their identity

[Rich Murray]

I never even checked the site out  to find all this stuff -- however, I'm
tolerant of really weird claims, because at least  they introduce a bit of
openness within our overwrought 3D space 1D time virtual reality
simulation, within fabulous single entire unified creative fractal
hyperinfinity... all stuff that's made of the stuff dreams are made of...

On Sat, Nov 12, 2011 at 6:57 PM, Mary Yugo  wrote:

  That's unconscionable.  I can give examples if you like but I'd rather
>>> not waste more space. . . .
>>>
>>
>> Please do. That would not be a waste of space. You tend to make blanket
>> accusations without specifics. Let's hear some specifics. It may be that
>> what you consider unethical, others consider a reasonable risk.
>>
>
> Sure but it really is a waste of space.  Here are some of the idiotic
> nonsense actively promoted on Sterling's pages...  as if Obama going to
> Mars alone wasn't enough.   Tell you what-- rather than my boring everyone,
> choose from the list here:
>
> http://pesn.com/Radio/Free_Energy_Now/Let me give a brief summary:
>
> -  A guy who propose to save energy because he shows how to make an
> ordinary LED light that he claims equals a 75W bulb.  It doesn't and it
> won't.  It uses disposable AA batteries!  Just moronic.
>
> -  Freddy Cell and Stanley Myers claim they can make energy from plain
> water.  Water as a fuel.  Yah shoore.  No device shown, no evidence,
> nothing but bullpuckey for years.  Water as fuel, on board electrolysis of
> water to inject hydrogen, so-called HHO gas which of course is just an
> explosive mixture of hydrogen and oxygen and which recently killed several
> people in an explosion near Los Angeles.  Yet Allan constantly pushes such
> flagrant crappola.
>
> -  PlasmERG "noble gas engine" that runs on ... well... noble gases.
> Can't work, doesn't work, involves a convicted felon.  Sure, send him money.
>
> -  Temporal and spiritual aspects of Japan's earthquake... as if they
> don't have enough trouble without contributions from whackoes.  These nut
> jobs predicted the earthquakes 12 years ago.  Pity they didn't get jobs at
> Fukushima.
>
> -  Aviso, an obvious crook who claims to have a "motionless magnetic
> motor" that makes free energy and the claim is based on running tiny loads
> and the battery voltage doesn't drop "much".  Probably hidden wires also.
>
> -  Massive yet tiny internal combustion engine except that it has never
> been shown to run on anything except compressed air at a factor of 5 less
> than supposedly rated power and not all that well then.  Would explode or
> burn up if fueled by anything practical.  Has never been demonstrated to
> work.  Keeps reappearing in Sterling's pages, no questions asked.  That's
> reporting?
>
> - Caggiano's gravity motor that runs only on gravity and puts out 15 x
> more power than you put in.  Newton would have socked his silly ears.
>
> You REALLY want me to go on with this steaming pile of llama dung?   Tell
> you what, read the rest for yourself here
> http://pesn.com/Radio/Free_Energy_Now/   and please save me the bother.
> And this is less than a week's garbage collection.  These people are total
> whack jobs and nut cases.  I can't recall that Sterling Allan and Hank
> Mills have EVER found a SINGLE example of technology that worked but if
> they did, it must have been by accident.   What a waste of time!
>

Re: [Vo]:Order Form

[Mary Yugo]

OK then, and thanks for the heads up.   Let me put it another  way:

That Rossi provides an order blank is in no way any evidence that he has
ever taken an order, accepted money for a device,  actually delivered a
device or that filling in the order will get you anything more than not
doing so.  Order forms are common among scammers.  Steorn, for example, put
up order blanks for a kit they said anyone could build to test their "solid
state Orbo" device. The price was 419 Euros.   Many people applied but
nobody has ever said that any payments were accepted or kits delivered (see
exception below). Anyone can put up an order blank on the internet for
anything.  It means nothing.

Exception to Steorn story:  apparently one or two friends of the company's
received free (complimentary) kits.  One reported back that it did not
work.  Far as I know, there have been no reports ever that it did.  The
order blank was left on the site for months until recently it was removed.

Better?

On Sat, Nov 12, 2011 at 6:15 PM, Daniel Rocha  wrote:

> This post, among others, violates the rules of this community. You are
> using too much irony and scorn. And I am not the first to note that.
>
> Where are the moderators of this forum?
>
>
> 2011/11/12 Mary Yugo 
>
>> Whoopee.  I have to rush to put up an order form for my pink, invisible
>> flying unicorns that make free energy.  When you can name and preferably
>> interview a customer, that sort of news will become interesting.
>>
>>
>> On Sat, Nov 12, 2011 at 4:40 PM, Michele Comitini <
>> michele.comit...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> Available on-line:
>>>
>>>
>>> http://www.leonardo-ecat.com/fp/Products/1MW_Plant/1MW_Offer_Template.docx
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> mic
>>>
>>>
>>
>

Re: [Vo]:New E-Cat customers to reveal their identity

[Mary Yugo]

>
>
> Krivit seems to have good contacts who are willing to talk to him,
>> including some at the U of Bologna and U of Uppsala and many scientists who
>> work in cold fusion and LENR.
>>
>
> So do I. As far as I know, the people in Bologna and Uppsala have been
> telling Krivit just the opposite of what he is reporting. See, for example,
> the abstract from Kullander's upcoming lecture.
>


Really?  You'd think those misquoted people would complain!  Why don't you
interview them yourself and publish the truth of what they had to say.
Abstract of Kullander's lecture?  I read it and I have no idea what you
mean.  I doubt the lecture itself  will be glowing praise for Rossi but
seeing what K has done thus far, I suppose it's possible.  I think it will
be optimistic (wildly more than it should) but I suspect Kullander will be
cautious and will say that he really wishes Rossi would allow independent
tests.

Anyway, what are we referring to?   Krivit said, IRRC, that nobody at U of
U or UBO is associated in any way with Rossi officially and what they do
and say about him is on their own.  Also that none will claim that they
have received a device from Rossi?  Isn't that true?   What did I miss
here?  What did Krivit say about the U's that's wrong or opposite of what
the people there say?  Which people?  What do they say *officially* about
Rossi?  How about unofficially?  I have yet to see a single endorsement of
Rossi from either U.  And of course no data either.

Re: [Vo]:New E-Cat customers to reveal their identity

[Jouni Valkonen]

2011/11/13 Jed Rothwell :
> Mary Yugo  wrote:
>> So let's see.  If I send a report to Allan about my pink, invisible,
>> flying unicorns that eat nickel and fart hydrogen he should report that
>> too?  I disagree.  I think a journalist must use judgement in choosing what
>> to report.
>
> I agree. It was silly for Allan to report on the trip to Mars, and it does
> call into question his technical judgement. I find it unnerving.
> On the other hand, otherwise sane people have crazy beliefs, in religion,
> faith healing, 9/11 conspiracies and so on. Sometimes it is best to ignore
> part of what a person says, while you take something else seriously. People
> are complicated.
>

Indeed, there are hundreds of journalists who do believe in silly
fairy tails such as tooth fairies, unicorns and Jesus. If someone
believes that Barak is from Mars, I would say that is far more
scientifically convincing if some crackpots believes in Jesus as a
savior.

It is also important to remember that Sterling's work is to find
funding for free energy inventors. To be credible in his work he
should report what inventor is claiming, and not to practice
investigative journalism. After all, Sterling gets his fair share for
raised funding, that is he is doing real work that helps it to support
his family.

   –Jouni

Re: [Vo]:New E-Cat customers to reveal their identity

[Mary Yugo]

>
>   That's unconscionable.  I can give examples if you like but I'd rather
>> not waste more space. . . .
>>
>
> Please do. That would not be a waste of space. You tend to make blanket
> accusations without specifics. Let's hear some specifics. It may be that
> what you consider unethical, others consider a reasonable risk.
>

Sure but it really is a waste of space.  Here are some of the idiotic
nonsense actively promoted on Sterling's pages...  as if Obama going to
Mars alone wasn't enough.   Tell you what-- rather than my boring everyone,
choose from the list here:

http://pesn.com/Radio/Free_Energy_Now/Let me give a brief summary:

-  A guy who propose to save energy because he shows how to make an
ordinary LED light that he claims equals a 75W bulb.  It doesn't and it
won't.  It uses disposable AA batteries!  Just moronic.

-  Freddy Cell and Stanley Myers claim they can make energy from plain
water.  Water as a fuel.  Yah shoore.  No device shown, no evidence,
nothing but bullpuckey for years.  Water as fuel, on board electrolysis of
water to inject hydrogen, so-called HHO gas which of course is just an
explosive mixture of hydrogen and oxygen and which recently killed several
people in an explosion near Los Angeles.  Yet Allan constantly pushes such
flagrant crappola.

-  PlasmERG "noble gas engine" that runs on ... well... noble gases.  Can't
work, doesn't work, involves a convicted felon.  Sure, send him money.

-  Temporal and spiritual aspects of Japan's earthquake... as if they don't
have enough trouble without contributions from whackoes.  These nut jobs
predicted the earthquakes 12 years ago.  Pity they didn't get jobs at
Fukushima.

-  Aviso, an obvious crook who claims to have a "motionless magnetic motor"
that makes free energy and the claim is based on running tiny loads and the
battery voltage doesn't drop "much".  Probably hidden wires also.

-  Massive yet tiny internal combustion engine except that it has never
been shown to run on anything except compressed air at a factor of 5 less
than supposedly rated power and not all that well then.  Would explode or
burn up if fueled by anything practical.  Has never been demonstrated to
work.  Keeps reappearing in Sterling's pages, no questions asked.  That's
reporting?

- Caggiano's gravity motor that runs only on gravity and puts out 15 x more
power than you put in.  Newton would have socked his silly ears.

You REALLY want me to go on with this steaming pile of llama dung?   Tell
you what, read the rest for yourself here
http://pesn.com/Radio/Free_Energy_Now/   and please save me the bother.
And this is less than a week's garbage collection.  These people are total
whack jobs and nut cases.  I can't recall that Sterling Allan and Hank
Mills have EVER found a SINGLE example of technology that worked but if
they did, it must have been by accident.   What a waste of time!

Re: [Vo]:Order Form

[Jed Rothwell]

Daniel Rocha  wrote:

This post, among others, violates the rules of this community. You are
> using too much irony and scorn. And I am not the first to note that.
>
> Where are the moderators of this forum?
>

There is only one: Bill Beaty.

Perhaps Mary Yugo has gone a little overboard. That is for Bill to decide.
Let me suggest that she and others new to this forum should please review
these rules:

http://www.amasci.com/weird/wvort.html

Start where it says:

"Vortex-L Rules:

1. $10/yr donation
2. NO SNEERING
3. KEEP MESSAGES UNDER 40K
4. DON'T QUOTE ENTIRE MESSAGES NEEDLESSLY
5. DON'T CC OTHER LIST SERVERS
6. NO SPAMMING

1. If VORTEX-L proves very useful or interesting to you, please consider
making a $10US/yr donation to help cover operating expenses. If you
cannot afford this, please feel free to participate anyway. If you
would like to give more, please do! Direct your check to the
moderator, address above.

2. NO SNEERING. Ridicule . . ."

Not exactly rules, more like guidelines. See "Pirates of the Caribbean:"

*Elizabeth *: Wait! You have to take
me to shore. According to the Code of the Order of the Brethren...

*Barbossa *: First, your return to
shore was not part of our negotiations nor our agreement so I must do
nothing. And secondly, you must be a pirate for the pirate's code to apply
and you're not. And thirdly, the code is more what you'd call "guidelines"
than actual rules.

I do not think think Yugo has attained the status of a buccaneer yet,
having but lately joined this motley crew. We're under no obligation to
return her to shore, nor maroon her. MY ancestors, I must point out, were
reputed to be pirates of the Caribbean. Or at least, smugglers on the Isle
of Wight and later Bermuda. Avast ye swabbies! Arrrgggh!

- Jed

Re: [Vo]:Swedish Radio : advertising a scam ?

[Alan Fletcher]

I'm beginning to see why you've been banned from so many forums. > Why was that 
again?
> PS: the Bacardi company recently reported that I was a customer and
> their rum is to blame for any typographical erroars hereinn.

Re: [Vo]:Order Form

[Alan Fletcher]

> Whoopee. I have to rush to put up an order form for my pink, invisible flying 
> unicorns that make free energy. And I suppose that if they DIDN'T have an 
> order form then that would be proof that they weren't actually offering to 
> sell the 1MW system. (Did I violate any excessive sarcasm rules?) ps -- the 
> order form is in .docx but I've only got .doc (and no translator on this 
> laptop), so I don't know what it says. 

Re: [Vo]:Swedish Radio : advertising a scam ?

[Mary Yugo]

> Of course Mr Rossi won't let anyone look inside the eCat : until he has
> world-wide patents he must protect it as a trade secret. But he has invited
> several teams of scientists to conduct calorimetric tests to measure the
> excess energy, using their own instruments. In particular, Lewan brought
> his own calibrated thermometers. (Should a motoring journalist not accept a
> test drive in a Volvo, and bring his own stopwatch?).
>

The issue isn't only or even mainly the instruments except for Bianchini
using some silly Testo HVAC meter to pronounce the steam "dry" when the
meter couldn't do that.  The issue is a lack of a calibration run including
a blank. The issue is arguing about the evaporation of water and the
dryness of steam. The issue is no independent verification.  The issue is
that there is no way to verify that Rossi has a client, much less ask who
it is.  The issue is that the supposed megawatt test ran a brief
period with a huge generator connected to the device the entire time and no
visiting scientist or reporter was allowed to see any of the data that were
allegedly collected.

Lewan has reported accurately on his observations, with few comments of his
> own. This is in NO way "in support of a scam".
>

Lewan, IMO, has been very soft on Rossi so that he could continue to get
coverage.  Rossi ferociously eliminates anyone who asks him the most
relevant and probing questions and he never publishes such questions on his
blog.  When, rarely,  an interesting question is published, Rossi gives a
tangential response, a silly one (like about isotope enrichment and self
destruct devices) or an insulting one or he simply says he can't say
because it's confidential.  Lewan doesn't object.   So much for accurate
reports.

I congratulate Lewan and NyTeknik on their coverage.
>

Why was that again?

PS: the Bacardi company recently reported that I was a customer and their
rum is to blame for any typographical erroars hereinn.

Re: [Vo]:New E-Cat customers to reveal their identity

[Jed Rothwell]

Mary Yugo  wrote:

>
> So let's see.  If I send a report to Allan about my pink, invisible,
> flying unicorns that eat nickel and fart hydrogen he should report that
> too?  I disagree.  I think a journalist must use judgement in choosing what
> to report.
>

I agree. It was silly for Allan to report on the trip to Mars, and it does
call into question his technical judgement. I find it unnerving.

On the other hand, otherwise sane people have crazy beliefs, in religion,
faith healing, 9/11 conspiracies and so on. Sometimes it is best to ignore
part of what a person says, while you take something else seriously. People
are complicated.


Allan's more serious problem is that he supports obvious and less obvious
> scams and he actively solicits money for them by asking people to
> contribute.
>

I don't know about that. This web site has a disclaimer on ever page:

*Cautionary Statement for Purposes of the "Safe Harbor" Provisions of the
U.S. Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995*

Any disclosure and analysis on this website may contain forward-looking
information that involves risks and uncertainties. Our forward-looking
statements . . .


  That's unconscionable.  I can give examples if you like but I'd rather
> not waste more space. . . .
>

Please do. That would not be a waste of space. You tend to make blanket
accusations without specifics. Let's hear some specifics. It may be that
what you consider unethical, others consider a reasonable risk.



> Krivit seems to have good contacts who are willing to talk to him,
> including some at the U of Bologna and U of Uppsala and many scientists who
> work in cold fusion and LENR.
>

So do I. As far as I know, the people in Bologna and Uppsala have been
telling Krivit just the opposite of what he is reporting. See, for example,
the abstract from Kullander's upcoming lecture.

- Jed

Re: [Vo]:Order Form

[Daniel Rocha]

This post, among others, violates the rules of this community. You are
using too much irony and scorn. And I am not the first to note that.

Where are the moderators of this forum?

2011/11/12 Mary Yugo 

> Whoopee.  I have to rush to put up an order form for my pink, invisible
> flying unicorns that make free energy.  When you can name and preferably
> interview a customer, that sort of news will become interesting.
>
>
> On Sat, Nov 12, 2011 at 4:40 PM, Michele Comitini <
> michele.comit...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Available on-line:
>>
>> http://www.leonardo-ecat.com/fp/Products/1MW_Plant/1MW_Offer_Template.docx
>>
>>
>>
>> mic
>>
>>
>

Re: [Vo]:Order Form

[Mary Yugo]

Whoopee.  I have to rush to put up an order form for my pink, invisible
flying unicorns that make free energy.  When you can name and preferably
interview a customer, that sort of news will become interesting.

On Sat, Nov 12, 2011 at 4:40 PM, Michele Comitini <
michele.comit...@gmail.com> wrote:

> Available on-line:
>
> http://www.leonardo-ecat.com/fp/Products/1MW_Plant/1MW_Offer_Template.docx
>
>
>
> mic
>
>

Re: [Vo]:Oct. 28 demo: 3716 liters of water vaporized

[Jed Rothwell]

Berke Durak  wrote:

>
> > If we assume only a small amount was vaporized and the major amount
> > of water was neither heated nor vaporized and flew back through the
> > second pipe, then excess energy is not required.
>
> So you say no water was heated now?  Do you have any basis for that
> assumption?  How did Fiovaranti get the 104.5 degrees reading then?
> Did Rossi hide heaters in the pipe?!?  With that kind of assumption,
> one can dismiss even the most careful demonstration.
>

Right. And, as I pointed out above, the customer has presumably hauled the
machine away to their labs, and they are now looking at it closely and
performing many more tests. Assuming there is customer, it is certain they
will do this. They will find anything like heaters hidden in the pipes. It
is absurd to speculate that Rossi did this, because he would be caught in a
matter of days. Corporations do not pay millions of dollars for novel
equipment without breaking it down and checking every centimeter of it, to
see how it works. That is why they buy it! That is the only reason anyone
would buy an eCat.

If there are any stupid tricks such as hidden heaters, they are *certain to
be caught*, and Rossi is certain to be arrested and jailed. He knows that.
He also knows what it is like being in jail.

I think the chances of fooling someone like Fioravanti with a hidden heater
are between zero and none, but even if you fooled him, you would be caught
a few weeks later.

- Jed

Re: [Vo]:Oct. 28 demo: 3716 liters of water vaporized

[Mary Yugo]

Peter Heckert  wrote:
>
>
>> The upper pipe was not measured and had no (visible) control mechanism.
>>
>
>
>> If the final customer was not aware about this possibility, he could have
>> been fooled.
>
>
> How long would the customer be fooled? No corporation would give Rossi $2
> million without doing additional tests. This trick would only last a few
> weeks, and then Rossi would be arrested.
>

I agree that it would be impossible to fool a customer long with a
non-working megawatt plant.  On the other hand, I'm not sure a corporation
or an investor group would necessarily do due diligence.  Where was the due
diligence with Steorn's 21 million Euro initial investment?   It wouldn't
have been any more difficult to have done it there than it would be to do
it with Rossi, probably easier.  I could name other easily detected scams
that earned huge amounts of money before being discovered.

But the main problem I see in Rossi's story for the moment is that there
is, so far, no way to tell if Rossi even has a customer.  In my view,
that's the key question *du jour*.  The only reason some people think he
does is that he and that engineer with the name I always forget and please
don't bother to remind me, both said so.

Re: [Vo]:Perendev, Was: Rossi E-Cat web site up

[Terry Blanton]

On Sat, Nov 12, 2011 at 6:59 PM, Peter Heckert  wrote:

>> The Perendev motor operates in repulsion mode.  Magnets in repulsion
>> degrade over time; so, assuming it did work as the videos imply, it
>> would not last.
>
> Im not an magnet expert, but I think the degradation of modern neodyme
> magnets is low or almost zero.

If you take a magnet and hit it with a hammer, you will degrade the
magnetic force.  Constant abuse of the domain alignment degrades the
magnet.  However, magnets in attraction reinforce the magnet domain
alignment.

I have had years of experience with magnets, especially Neodymium Iron
Boron.  Some on the list might be aware of this.  ;-)

T

Re: [Vo]:Rossi E-Cat web site up

[Mary Yugo]

Peter Heckert's post is interesting!  But I still don't think Rossi can
even get a law suit heard in the United States if I were to call him a
scammer which of course I have not done.  I said he *may* be scamming.
That isn't really arguable (and also it doesn't say much).

What is wrong with selling goods?!?
>

Of course nothing.  But there is a lot wrong with misleading and deceptive
advertising.  Also with saying you sold something when you didn't.


> Do you have some ivory-tower objection to capitalism? You don't like to
> see people making a living? Do you think Rossi is obligated to give away
> secrets worth a trillion dollars? If you think people should give away
> their property, please send all of your money to me, at 1954 Airport Road.
> I cannot understand why people criticize Rossi for keeping this secret when
> it is the U.S. Patent Office that refuses to grant patents for cold fusion
>
>  I cannot understand this attitude that Rossi should do whatever *you* say,
> or Mary Yugo says, even though what you want him to do would ruin his
> business. I wish he would do as I say only because I think it would be
> bring him more money, and it would bring cold fusion to the world more
> quickly
>

So how does selling a bundle of 50+ sample reactors help him keep a
secret?   How does doing this 10 -12 times in the coming year help?
Doesn't he know that sooner than later, one of the devices he gleefully
sells will be disassembled and reverse engineered if they work (a gigantic
"if")?  Actually, the existing messy leaking kludge he showed on October 28
that worked a lame few hours coupled to a huge generator could only be sold
for reverse engineering.  I can't think of any other reason anyone else
would buy one!   And of course nobody would buy one unless Rossi has shown
them a heck of a lot better evidence that it works than I have ever seen or
read about.


> .This is *his* discovery, *his* intellectual property, and *his*business. He 
> can run his business any way he wants to. He has no obligation
> to tell us anything, or to do any public tests. If he wants to use obsolete
> web page software, that is his decision. We can criticize these decisions,
> or ridicule them, but people here act as if Rossi has a moral obligation to
> follow our orders. He does not. No businessman does. Thank goodness for
> that. Capitalism would not work if they did. Without capitalism we would
> all live in poverty.
>

Agreed.  For all the good it will do in helping to determine whether
Rossi's machine is real or a scam.

Re: [Vo]:Oct. 28 demo: 3716 liters of water vaporized

[Berke Durak]

On Sat, Nov 12, 2011 at 8:02 PM, Peter Heckert
 wrote:
> Am 13.11.2011 01:47, schrieb Berke Durak:
>> Even if only water flowed through the pipe, and even if we assume
>> that its temperature was actually only 100 degrees, then at least
>> 1.17 GJ of energy would be required.  The input energy was only 238
>> MJ.
>
> If we assume only a small amount was vaporized and the major amount
> of water was neither heated nor vaporized and flew back through the
> second pipe, then excess energy is not required.

So you say no water was heated now?  Do you have any basis for that
assumption?  How did Fiovaranti get the 104.5 degrees reading then?
Did Rossi hide heaters in the pipe?!?  With that kind of assumption,
one can dismiss even the most careful demonstration.

If we stick to the report, then 3716 liters of H2O went into the
reactor at 18.3 degrees and came out through the lower steam pipe at
104.5 degrees.  The report also states that 66 kWh of energy was used
(from the diesel generator).  Even with extremely unfavorable
assumptions, that requires, at minimum, hundreds of megajoules of excess
energy.
-- 
Berke Durak

Re: [Vo]:New E-Cat customers to reveal their identity

[Mary Yugo]

In Allan's case he performed no crime other than simply reporting on the
> alleged Obama event. IMHO, Allan showed professionalism by NOT adding his
> own personal thoughts and personal beliefs on the matter.
>

So let's see.  If I send a report to Allan about my pink, invisible, flying
unicorns that eat nickel and fart hydrogen he should report that too?  I
disagree.  I think a journalist must use judgement in choosing what to
report.  That's done by considering both the source and the content and by
checking and crosschecking the information if it seems wobbly.   Most
people don't want to waste time and energy reading fanciful and unlikely
garbage,  It's not necessary to report on Obama's trip to Mars, is it?
Really?  Or shall I write an article for Vortex about his next trip -- to
Jupiter and Uranus?

Allan's more serious problem is that he supports obvious and less obvious
scams and he actively solicits money for them by asking people to
contribute.  That's unconscionable.  I can give examples if you like but
I'd rather not waste more space.  Allan and Hank Mills are only by the most
incredibly generous stretch of definition "journalists".They're more
like people who write perpetual nonsense on a lame, ugly web site.  Ask
Allan which of his free energy schemes and weird engines worked in all the
time he's been publishing his blog.  Answer: ZERO.  NONE.  Zip.

Meanwhile, Krivit seems incapable of NOT introducing his own personal
> beliefs into the Rossi affair. WHO is behaving more professionally here? In
> any case, Allan should not be publicly ridiculed for doing nothing more
> than reporting the alleged event.
>

Krivit seems to have good contacts who are willing to talk to him,
including some at the U of Bologna and U of Uppsala and many scientists who
work in cold fusion and LENR.  I think what he writes is interesting even
if it isn't always particularly polite.



> Let me try to end this personal rant of mine (painstakingly performed on
> an ipad without spellchecker on) by stressing the fact that BELIEF has
> nothing to do with the issues here. However, Krivit is exploiting what
> Allan reported. krivit is attempting to insinuate to readers that what
> Allan reported is by default what Allan must believes, and therefore by
> deliberate innuendo destroy, Allan's professional reputation as a reporter.
>

Far as I know, Allan (and Hank Mills) has no reputation whatever as a
reporter or as a journalist.  If you have evidence to the contrary, I'd
love to see it.


Krivit knows this is exactly the kind of innuendo that many skeptics love
> to wallow in - and subsequently parrot. It was a deliberate calculated
> attempt on Krivit's part to get others (particularly skeptics) to do his
> dirty work for him. This is the exact same dispicable behavior i witnessed
> from Kriviypt when he went on a radio interview to indirecly insinuate that
> certain CF researchers had deliberately manipulated their experimental
> results. It also got me removed from Krivit's NET BoD when I complained to
> him about what it exactly was that he did. Krivit is showing that he wants
> to get OTHERS to say the dirty things for him, and by doing so, add the
> illusion of additional authenticity to his personal beliefs. By resorting
> to these kinds of seedy tactics Krivit is burning his bridges faster than
> what is healthy for any "reporter" to undertake.
>

I have no idea what you're talking about-- maybe someone else here knows.
So far, some of the more interesting material about Rossi has come from
Krivit who took the trouble to fly to Bologna and whom for his time and
trouble,  was treated to a large helping of what seems to have been
entirely baloney.

Re: [Vo]:Rossi E-Cat web site up

[Jed Rothwell]

Michele Comitini  wrote:

A. Final note
> There is a big difference between your efforts on http://www.lenr-canr.organd 
> the e-cat site.  The first is a service to the community, the other is
> for selling goods.
>

What is wrong with selling goods?!?

Do you have some ivory-tower objection to capitalism? You don't like to see
people making a living? Do you think Rossi is obligated to give away
secrets worth a trillion dollars? If you think people should give away
their property, please send all of your money to me, at 1954 Airport Road.

I cannot understand why people criticize Rossi for keeping this secret when
it is the U.S. Patent Office that refuses to grant patents for cold fusion

 I cannot understand this attitude that Rossi should do whatever *you* say,
or Mary Yugo says, even though what you want him to do would ruin his
business. I wish he would do as I say only because I think it would be
bring him more money, and it would bring cold fusion to the world more
quickly.

This is *his* discovery, *his* intellectual property, and *his* business.
He can run his business any way he wants to. He has no obligation to tell
us anything, or to do any public tests. If he wants to use obsolete web
page software, that is his decision. We can criticize these decisions, or
ridicule them, but people here act as if Rossi has a moral obligation to
follow our orders. He does not. No businessman does. Thank goodness for
that. Capitalism would not work if they did. Without capitalism we would
all live in poverty.

- Jed

Re: [Vo]:Oct. 28 demo: 3716 liters of water vaporized

[Peter Heckert]

Am 13.11.2011 01:47, schrieb Berke Durak:

The average temperature of steam flowing out of the pipe is reported
as 104.5 degrees.

The average temperature of the water input is reported as 18.3
degrees.

The reservoir capacity is less than a cubic meter, therefore its
contents went a couple times through the reactor.

If the reservoir contents got too hot, it would have been noticed.
Therefore the reservoir water temperature did not exceed, say, 25
degrees.

Even if only water flowed through the pipe, and even if we assume that
its temperature was actually only 100 degrees, then at least 1.17 GJ
of energy would be required.  The input energy was only 238 MJ.
If we assume only a small amount was vaporized and the major amount of 
water was neither heated nor vaporized and flew back through the second 
pipe, then excess energy is not required.



There is clearly a large amount of excess energy, unless we assume
that the whole report and everything else was falsified.

Yes, this is the problem.
The consumption of Diesel is a 100% secure input energy indicator and a 
perfect proof would be possible.
The consumption of Diesel Oil should be documented and a raw but correct 
schematic  of the water and steam flow and test points  should be 
presented. Such a scheme with basic technical data is also needed for sale.


Also it should be documented, how the second pipe was examined or 
measured, even if it possibly was unused.

There is a lack of information.

Peter

Re: [Vo]:Oct. 28 demo: 3716 liters of water vaporized

[Berke Durak]

The average temperature of steam flowing out of the pipe is reported
as 104.5 degrees.

The average temperature of the water input is reported as 18.3
degrees.

The reservoir capacity is less than a cubic meter, therefore its
contents went a couple times through the reactor.

If the reservoir contents got too hot, it would have been noticed.
Therefore the reservoir water temperature did not exceed, say, 25
degrees.

Even if only water flowed through the pipe, and even if we assume that
its temperature was actually only 100 degrees, then at least 1.17 GJ
of energy would be required.  The input energy was only 238 MJ.

There is clearly a large amount of excess energy, unless we assume
that the whole report and everything else was falsified.
-- 
Berke Durak

[Vo]:Order Form

[Michele Comitini]

Available on-line:

http://www.leonardo-ecat.com/fp/Products/1MW_Plant/1MW_Offer_Template.docx



mic

Re: [Vo]:Swedish Radio : advertising a scam ?

[Alan Fletcher]

Passed moderation (pretty quickly) It was in reply to : (google translate) 
Embarrassing prestige, Lewan! The media scrutiny of Ny Teknik hype of an 
incomparable Mackaper makes me even more hesitant development of the editorial 
content of the magazine. Is not it annoying that the NT often writes crazy 
energy but I can handle because I know a lot about the area. Not even the 
simple knowledge that energy can neither be produced or consumed first law of 
thermodynamics seems to have taken hold of the editorial staff and definitely 
not with Lewan. When I timidly pointed this out to the administrator for errors 
in the NT dismissed it with the newspaper have to write so that people 
understand sic Prove it to ask someone for the theoretical foundation for a 
perpetual motion machine, for example, Italian cut can work. In the meantime 
you're looking so I expect that Lewan replaced by another to write about 
unprecedented mackapärer. And how do you do with everything else that is 
written in the NT that I do not have particularly good knowledge of it is 
equally scant and biased as the marketing of the unprecedented Mackaper. Roger 
Fredriksson, Energy Analyst Thanks, Mr Lewan and NyTeknik Please forgive my 
English : attempting to answer in Swedish would be more insulting. Mr 
Fredriksson says (via google translate) "Not even the simple knowledge that 
energy can neither be produced or consumed first law of thermodynamics seems to 
have taken hold of the editorial staff and definitely not with Lewan." The eCat 
is presumed to be a Cold Fusion device. Has Mr Fredriksson heard of Einstein 
and his famous equation e = mc2 ? Cold Fusion is most likely real --- see 
http://lenr-canr.org / for numerous successful experiments -- and is being 
actively investigated by NASA : see 
http://www.evworld.com/article.cfm?storyid=1983 Of course Mr Rossi won't let 
anyone look inside the eCat : until he has world-wide patents he must protect 
it as a trade secret. But he has invited several teams of scientists to conduct 
calorimetric tests to measure the excess energy, using their own instruments. 
In particular, Lewan brought his own calibrated thermometers. (Should a 
motoring journalist not accept a test drive in a Volvo, and bring his own 
stopwatch?). Lewan has reported accurately on his observations, with few 
comments of his own. This is in NO way "in support of a scam". I congratulate 
Lewan and NyTeknik on their coverage.

Re: [Vo]:Rossi E-Cat web site up

[Michele Comitini]

Jed,

Il giorno 12/nov/2011 02:26, "Jed Rothwell"  ha
scritto:

> Michele Comitini  wrote:
>
> Digging in to the html code, the headers tell it all about quality...
>> made with FrontPage software that was discontinued in 2003!
>>
>
> I do not see why that matters.
>
> For LENR-CANR.org I use Borland Delphi 4, discontinued in 1999. I
> sometimes tweak the HTML *by hand*. With Programmers Text Editor. For
> shame!
>
> You got a problem with retro-looking HTML? You got a problem with old
> programs, and old programmers?
>
> I was going to complain that these screens look too modern. Too busy. I
> like Google's main page.
>
>
>
Here you are making wrong guesses on my ideas about:

1. Software development tools.

2. Quality on the Web.


The following is a reply to the above erroneous assumptions on your side.


1. Software development tools

I have nothing against old programmers (I am one of those by now) or old
(good) programs.  As a matter of fact if i often have to select programmers
for projects I am directly involved in. I always ask what kind of tools
they use.  One key point is that they understand the difference between an
IDE and a text editor, between handmade code and automated code generation.

I am deeply skeptic about automatic code generation with the aid of a
graphical tools, myself being a die hard command line guy.  I  often say
that using a GUI vs CLI is like cavemen paintings vs the greatest invention
of mankind ever: writing. Of course it is an exaggeration, but if you look
at the question in term of  expressiveness, exactness and reproducibility
nothing can beat writing.   The death of things like UML (Unified Modeling
Language) tell a lot about that.

Dealing with real problems using many programming languages creates
oftentimes repeated patterns.  You have three practical approaches that do
not require repeating the typing :

1. Use a GUI that generates the "boiler plate" code for you.
2. Have a tool to automatically generate the code.
3. Choose a language that comes with the pattern solved.

Me being a lazy kind of person that likes typing short, expressive and
clean code, I naturally prefer option 3.  But the others can do equally
good with patterns.
A pattern in programming resembles the notion of a concept.
Think to the concept of  "aeroplane/airplane" we can do with analogy to the
above:
1. A drawing or a picture:
http://carseatblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/07/airplane.jpg
2. Have a *code* *preprocessor* writing "A powered fixed-wing aircraft that
is propelled forward by thrust  from a jet
engine  or propeller
...*"* where needed.
3. Write the instruction "airplane".

Suppose that those tool developed by businesses  that all ended just before
the advent of the 20th century and now is 1910.  Since at the time they
where written there was some confusion about airplanes , the definitions
are slightly outdated (wrong for 1910( and you generate code without
knowing it.  Well in your code the airplane will always *crash*!  This is
what happens with FrontPage.  Just to be clear Frontpage falls under type 1

Your situation is *completely* different.  You do not use any automated
code generation.   You have to write by *hand* "A powered fixed-wing
aircraft that is propelled forward by
thrustfrom a jet
engine  or
propeller...
*"*  every where you need to express an airplane.  That is what you do with
delphi and it is perfectly fair.  If you keep yourself updated your code at
the time of writing is *correct*.  You are not automating anything and *you
could use any other text editor* to get the same result.

Just to give you an idea of how much I am against "old" stuff look at what
I  use to do my daily work:
- Unix or Linux
- Emacs
- LaTex

Take a look around to find how young are those toys (the youngest is Linux:
20 years old, but not is good old cousin Unix).  But there is a main
difference with FrontPage: "*they are and they will** constantly updated
and improved*".  I am not going to explain why and how because this is
getting too long already, I just state that it is all related to the fact
that it is *free software* i.e. driven by the user (person or business)
need and not by sale needs.

Dead proprietary development software is good if you are the only one that
is going to use the resulting program.  On the contrary on the Internet it
is good policy to adhere to standards, because anyone could come to visit
you. Think of someone speaking Shakespeare English on a international
business confcall, they other mute him off.  Also keep an eye on possible
malicious attacks must be kept.  That is why keeping the code up to date is
important.

2. Quality on the Web

*"De gustibus non disputandum"*

I would like you to explain h

Re: [Vo]:Perendev, Was: Rossi E-Cat web site up

[Peter Heckert]

Am 13.11.2011 00:40, schrieb Terry Blanton:

On Sat, Nov 12, 2011 at 8:03 AM, Peter Heckert  wrote:


This is why Brady finally was convicted at court in munich.
To avoid misunderstanding: He was not convicted, because the motors did 
not work.
He had some witnesses that the motors worked, but there where no motors 
available, and he had no possibility to build motors.
But he has sold motors and so it was decided that he has sold some 
motors without ever having possibility or stocks for delivery.

This was the reason.

The Perendev motor operates in repulsion mode.  Magnets in repulsion
degrade over time; so, assuming it did work as the videos imply, it
would not last.
Im not an magnet expert, but I think the degradation of modern neodyme 
magnets is low or almost zero.
In an DC motor the magnets work in an alternating field and dont degrade 
too much.
So when it stops due to degradation then can never have delivered 
considerable power, because the amont of degradation is small.

[Vo]:Swedish Radio : advertising a scam ?

[Alan Fletcher]

Swedish Public Radio Turns Spotlight on Lewan and Ny Teknik 

 

[Thanks to KHM and PT for translation improvement] 

The idea that we will one day be able to provide us with cheap, simple and 
green energy is an eternal dream. Now two Italians say that they have found a 
solution, they have developed the ultimate perpetual motion machine. It’s just 
that no one is allowed to look into it. And no outsider may test if it really 
works. Science Journalists are skeptical and many warning bells are ringing. 
For example, the main character has a fake degree from Kensington University, 
and the findings have not been published in a scientific journal but only on 
Rossi’s own page. Almost all media have for this reason chosen not to pay this 
alleged invention any more attention. But there is one exception. Ny Teknik 
(New Technology) in Sweden has in the past year written over 20 articles on 
Andrea Rossi’s stunning gizmo – and now the newspaper is accused of advertising 
a scam. 

http://sverigesradio.se/sida/gruppsida.aspx?programid=2795&grupp=9286&artikel=4797694
 

I have a reply in support of ML awaiting moderation. 

Re: [Vo]:New E-Cat customers to reveal their identity

[Aussie Guy E-Cat]

It matters not who the web site administrator is or who typed the text 
on the pages. The web site is owned by Leonardo Corp, it is their 
official web site and any pages there are approved and binding on that 
corporation.


So stop with the Sterling references. It does not matter and has no 
bearing on the official statements made on the web site by Leonardo corp.


AG


On 11/12/2011 7:28 PM, Jouni Valkonen wrote:

Aussie, I too have hard time to think what could be the motivation for
Mary to do what she is doing, because there could not be any positive
outcome for her. If eCat is for real, like it seems to be, then Mary
just loses all the credibility and is required to change her name if
she is ever going to appear in the Internet again.

And if she is right, then she has just wasted countless of hours for
debunking something that did not have any interest for anyone (expect
for few free energy crackpots, who believe that Barak has visited in
Mars). So, no matter what is the outcome, she has already spoiled her
reputation.

However, I think that here Mary is right. It seems that the site and
content was fully produced by Sterling and Hank, and Andrea has only
approved the half baked concept. This indicates that there seems not
to be any first hand information in the site, but everything is taken
from Andrea's public comments, PES wiki or third party public sources.

That upcoming event was just put there because Andrea has perhaps
suggested that production facilities and associates are revealed on
time, very soon.

For example, very relevant upcoming event is also the start of
research program with University Bologna and Uppsala. But this was not
included, because there are no public sources that would give even a
hint when it actually begins for real.

Right now any information that the site contained must be considered
with similar respect than to information that is contained in
PES-wiki. That is, that the information is purely fan produced. Right
now it is official fan page for eCat, that does not include first hand
information. But things may change if/when Andrea is taking more
public approach and reveals more background information on Leonardo
Corp, EON Srl and E-Cat.

I think that Andrea has seriously considered to hire Sterling his
official webmaster and some sort of information representative. (This
is of course pure speculation)

 –Jouni


2011/11/12 Aussie Guy E-Cat:

The web site belongs to Leonardo Corp. It matters not who wrote the words as
long as they are the words of the web site owner. You again attempt to cast
into doubt credibility of Rossi and statements made on the Leonardo web site
by involving the credibility of an unknown writer.

Mary you do this all over the internet, so you have more than a passing
interest in making unprovable negative statement in what appears to be a
effort to cause Rossi and his E-Cat to lose credibility. May I ask why you
are putting so much effort into this? What do you have to gain by doing
this?

Do you understand what a "Fair Go" means?

As for the web site statement below, I believe it will happen because it is
on the official Rossi web site. The man met his end of Oct 2011 1 MW demo
date. Maybe that means nothing to you but to me as a engineer it says
volumes about meeting deadlines and meeting customer expectations,
especially with new technology.

AG


On 11/12/2011 5:49 PM, Mary Yugo wrote:


"Next Few Months

 * New customers of the one megawatt E-Cat plant reveal their identity
  publicly.
 * Location of first E-Cat factory in the United States revealed."


And why do you believe that will happen?  Because Sterling Allan wrote it?
  He's the same guy who had Obama in Mars for Cripes' sake!

Re: [Vo]:Rossi E-Cat web site up

[Terry Blanton]

On Sat, Nov 12, 2011 at 8:03 AM, Peter Heckert  wrote:

> This is why Brady finally was convicted at court in munich.

The Perendev motor operates in repulsion mode.  Magnets in repulsion
degrade over time; so, assuming it did work as the videos imply, it
would not last.

T

Re: [Vo]:Steorn Bombshell - Orbo was all a sign error!

[Terry Blanton]

On Sat, Nov 12, 2011 at 12:39 PM, Harry Veeder  wrote:

> Even if it is a "loss", why is one direction better at turning motion into
> heat?
>
> Conventional theory predicts the same "loss".

Everyone believes the repulsive force should be the same as the
attractive force between magnets; however, the repulsive force is
always less.  Here is a handy calculator to demonstrate this:

http://www.magnetsales.com/Design/Calc_filles/PullAndPushBetween2DiscMagnets.asp

I think this might be what led to Steorn's confusion.

T

Re: [Vo]:Oct. 28 demo: 3716 liters of water vaporized

[Jed Rothwell]

Peter Heckert  wrote:


> The upper pipe was not measured and had no (visible) control mechanism.
>


> If the final customer was not aware about this possibility, he could have
> been fooled.


How long would the customer be fooled? No corporation would give Rossi $2
million without doing additional tests. This trick would only last a few
weeks, and then Rossi would be arrested.

- Jed

Re: [Vo]:Rossi E-Cat web site up

[Peter Heckert]

Am 12.11.2011 08:12, schrieb Mary Yugo:

Yikes!

Defamation would be:  "Rossi is a scammer"

Whats if we say "Rossi is a master scammer" ;-)
A personal opinion and perfectly legal:  "Rossi may be a scammer (also 
he may not be one).  Freedom of speech on that one, I think."


Really -- I had this issue come up before and I checked with an 
attorney who specializes in it.  There's no defamation in suggestion a 
possibility.  And the first sentence is only defamation if Rossi is 
not a scammer and can prove it in court.  I'm not sure he could! 


Im sure he can. Consider the case of Mike Brady.
They couldnt prove at court that the motors dont work. He had several 
witnesses, but no working examples.
He refused to tell the names of customers and said these will be 
murdered, he must protect them.
There where a scientist who presented theories how these motors might 
work and an engineer and inventor who said they have seen them working.
The engineer (Adolf Schneider) has bought a motor himself and this did 
not work, but Schneider said he understands well why it doesnt work, and 
he is sure Brady will soon be able to solve the problem.
Schneider is tightly connected with the free energy scene. Rossi visited 
Adolf Schneider in switzerland, probably it was Sterling Allan who made 
the contact. There is a photo at PESWiki.

Im sure Rossi could learn a lot during this visit.

He was not convicted because the motors did not work. He was convicted 
because he could not show a factory, because he had no stock parts. So 
he was unable to deliver but he has sold motors, took the money.

He pretended this is in a secret location in south africa.
He pretended he cannot build and demonstrate the motor because some 
unobtainable shielding material was not available.


This is why Brady finally was convicted at court in munich.

Rossi will deliver.
And should the e-cat fail to work, then this are technical problems. 
There are so many scientist that can witness the demonstrations.
He can always say "it worked for sure, but sorry there is some secret 
and proprietary inobtanium needed for the catalyst and due to sabotage 
this vanished and I cannot get it now".


He'd have to show to the court's satisfaction that the E-cat was real 
and worked as advertised!  Would he do that?  He sure hasn't so far.
As said, Rossi has enough witnesses. He does not need to prove it works 
at court, at least not in germany.


If he has good advocates and good contracts then he can keep his 
customers silent


Peter

Re: [Vo]:Steorn Bombshell - Orbo was all a sign error!

[Harry Veeder]

On Sat, Nov 12, 2011 at 3:09 AM,  wrote:

>  On 11/12/2011 11:50 AM, Harry Veeder wrote:
>
> I think Steorn stumbled upon a real anomally but they erred in assuming
> that measurement alone was sufficient to demonstrate the reality of energy
> creation.
>
>
> Since there seems to still be some belief around here that "Steorn
> stumbled upon a real anomaly", I feel that I should point out some recent
> postings that may have gone unnoticed.
>
> Also since Mary Yugo has just joined us (and very welcome you are Mary,
> with your sharp mind and tongue to match), who took a lot of interest in
> the Steorn affair in the early days - I am sure she will appreciate this
> information, if not already aware of it.
>
> About a month ago Steorn released four apparently significant supporting
> documents to Stirling's news service (www.pesn.com) which were reported
> on 
> here.
> PESN was not allowed to post the actual documents or reveal the authors
> names, but it turned out that one of the documents (a pretty important one
> it seems describing measurement of the "Steorn Effect" in detail) was found
> to be available on Steorn's website 
> here!
> Anyway sometime later someone calling themselves "Dr Quack Pot" picked up
> on this paper and wrote some comments on the results reported in it (see
> comments after the PESN article) which make pretty revealing reading!  To
> save people having to chase the links and read through the discussions,
> here is a summary of the facts as I understand them.
>
> The available document is a Consultant Engineer's (John Rice) report
> describing energy balance measurements made on an Orbo mechanism while it
> was displaying the "anomaly".  In each case the torque is measured as a
> function of angular position, in some cases using a step, stop and measure
> method, and in other cases the torque is sampled during continuous rotation.
>
> One of the measurements (chart 5 orange curve) shows the torque resulting
> from the interaction between a fixed (stator) permanent magnet and a soft
> ferrite core rotated on an armature (rotor) in its vicinity.  Since we know
> that this interaction is always attractive, this allows the sign of the
> torque to be determined.  Another measurement (chart 4259 red curve) shows
> the torque between the same fixed magnet stator but with a permanent magnet
> on the rotor.  The sign of this curve indicates that that the force between
> the permanent magnets was primarily repelling.  A third measurement (chart
> 4259 blue curve) then shows the result of having the soft ferrite and the
> permanent magnet stuck together and rotated together on the armature.
>
> The energy balance in each case is obtained by subtracting frictional and
> gravitational effects (measured during calibration runs), and then
> integrating the remaining magnetic interaction torque over a complete
> revolution - which of course gives net energy gained or lost per revolution
> (see chart 4260).  In a linear system one would expect that
> (PM<>ferrite effect) + (PM<>PM effect) = (PM<>(PM+ferrite) effect)
> But this is not what is measured!  Using the first measurement as a null
> calibration, the energy balance from the second measurement is very good,
> while the energy balance from the third shows a highly significant (~1 mJ
> per rev) discrepancy.
>
> So there we have it - the "Steorn Anomaly"!
>
> But the million dollar question is of course, was it an energy gain or an
> energy loss!  What was the *sign* of the discrepancy.  With some simple
> logic and knowing the sign of the torque, it is very easy to determine that
> what was measured was an energy *loss*!!!  "Orbo technology" is a method
> of turning mechanical energy into heat using magnetic interactions!  WOW!
>
>
Even if it is a "loss", why is one direction better at turning motion into
heat?

Conventional theory predicts the same "loss".


Harry


> So here you have at last the key to understanding the amazing puzzle of
> the Steorn $75k "challenge", the SPDC excitement and discussions, the
> scientific jury, the "Steorn 300" engineering companies, the SKDB
> investors, etc, etc, etc!  An amazingly long lived buzz of discussion and
> activity and money changing hands, all resulting from a simple sign error
> that seems to have only very recently been noticed!  (Of course Steorn must
> have made the error way back before their challenge of 2006, and then
> induced John Rice to repeat and document the same error in 2008).
>
> I am guessing that this Rice report might have been made available to the
> SPDC (under NDA, maybe someone could confirm or deny that?), almost
> certainly to the Jury, and more recently to the engineering companies and
> SKDB, and finally after no more gain was to be had from it, it was (maybe a
> month or so ago) released to the public.  How is i

Re: [Vo]:Information on Dr. George Kelly

[Jed Rothwell]

Craig Haynie  wrote:


> Rossi: I do not know him well. I met him ten years ago when I made a
> test of a Seebeck Effect apparatus in the UNH. Anybody can enter in the
> Board Of Advisers of the Journal Of Nuclear Physics . . .

It is necessary
> to be a University Professor in Scientific matter. Prof. Kelly is
> specialized in Environmental Engineering, as I remember."
>


Craig:

So I think Rossi is mistaken when he assigns George Kelly to the
> University of New Hampshire. He may have met him there, but Kelly worked
> for the Department of Energy at the time. . . .


Ah, that explains it. I mentioned this before, when I wrote:

"Rossi is also careless and he gets facts wrong. He does not care about
details. He REALLY does not care about details, to an extent that most of
us find pathological. Take his webpage. He has a board of advisors listed
including a professor who does not exist . . ."

By my standards, putting someone's name on your web site with the wrong
affiliation, and leaving the name there long after people advise you there
is no such person at that institution is an *extraordinary* thing to do.
Rossi considers it unimportant. As you see from his response, he is casual
about it.

It would incorrect to call this "lying." He simply does not care whether he
is right or wrong. It is like asking me whether I paid $3.50 or $4.00 for a
gallon of milk. If I give the wrong answer, I am not lying. I am simply not
making the effort to recall the right answer because it is trivial matter.



> In either case, this can be
> confirmed with the contact information on Kelly's profile page, and I've
> sent an email this morning to him. Rossi may also be embellishing the
> idea that Dr. Kelly is an 'advisor'.
>

In his mind, Kelly is an adviser. I think he is sincere about this. You, or
I, or Kelly himself might not see it that way, but Rossi lives in his own
world. He sees things in ways that no one else does. This is both a
strength and a weakness.

- Jed

Re: [Vo]:Andrea rossi: This is not yet our official website

[Dusty]

What I find funny, is Rossi can write and author great English when he wants 
to, and then at other times he writes like this... funny..

Mary Yugo  wrote:

>Latest Rossi-ism:
>
>
>   -  Andrea Rossi
>November 12th, 2011 at 8:57
>AM
>
>   WARNING: THE WEBSITE
>http://WWW.LEONARDO-ECAT.COMIS NOT OUR
>WEBSITE. IT HAS NOT BEEN APPROVED, IT IS A DRAFT OF A PROPOSAL
>   WHOSE TEXT HAS TO BE CONTROLLED, APPROVED. WE ASKED TO THE INFORMATIC WHO
>   PROPOSED IT TO PUT IT IMMEDIATELY OUT OF THE NET, BECAUSE IT CONTAINS
>   SUBSTANTIAL ERRORS, WRONG NAMES IN WRONG PLACES :SPECIFICALLY, ALL THE
>   NAMES PUT IN THE PAGE “BONA FIDE” ARE TOTALLY WRONG AND SUCH NAMES HAVE NOT
>   TO BE PUT IN THAT POST.
>   WARM REGARDS,
>   ANDREA ROSSI
>
>http://www.journal-of-nuclear-physics.com/?p=510#comments
>
>Good old Sterling and Hank apparently not only jumped the shark but also
>screwed the pooch!

Re: [Vo]:The U.S. Patent Office's formal policy to reject all cold fusion applications

[Jed Rothwell]

Mary Yugo  wrote:


> You seem to be suggesting that there is something fundamentally different
>> about Rossi's Ni nanopowder compared to the nanopowder cells of Arata and
>> Miles, or the Ni cells of Patterson or Piantelli. . . .
>>
>
> What I am suggesting is that the evidence for Rossi's claims is scant . . .
>

Of course you have a right to your opinion, but bear in mind that most
experts such as Kullander and Storms disagree with you. They say the
evidence is irrefutable. More to the point, the evidence for Rossi's claims
is much stronger than for most other cold fusion claims. It is also much
stronger than things like the top quark, which can only be observed in one
laboratory, and cannot be even partially replicated. It is reasonable to
say that Piantelli and Arata are partial replications of Rossi. (They came
first, but anyway . . .)

To put it another way, instead of attacking Rossi so vigorously, I suppose
you should be denouncing the entire field. Rossi is no worse than many
others. Even his secrecy is not unusual. It is caused by the U.S.P.O.


. . . and his *modus operandi *is suspicious.  I don't know the details of
> the other claims.  Rossi claims a secret sauce catalyst.
>

I suggest you learn the details of other claims, although I fear you may
lash out at them, too. Many researchers have secret sauces. So
does McDonald's, which is where the term originated. So do all corporations
and businesses. Do you claim they are all suspicious? Rossi is running a
business, not a charity.



>   That seems unlikely to work.  I may have missed it (it's not my field)
> but I don't know of any proven and properly tested and documented catalysts
> that facilitate fusion or any other nuclear reaction.Do the other
> claims involve catalysts?
>

Yes, I think most experts would say they do.



> I get frustrated with Rossi's shenanigans which is why I get sarcastic.
> I'll try to tone it down but a lot of what he does is funny if you look at
> it a certain way.
>

As someone else pointed out, you should tone it down because those are
the rules here:

http://www.amasci.com/weird/wvort.html

A modicum of academic decorum is called for. It is hypocritical but helpful.


I have no vendetta and I'd be delighted if Rossi would prove his point.
>

I doubt that. I think you would be abashed or embarrassed. Of course you
would not be as upset as Robert Park -- you are not that far out on a limb!
-- but I would be surprised if you did not have mixed feelings.

Park would be devastated because he he has devoted a large fraction of his
life to suppressing cold fusion and savaging the reputations of
researchers. He will know that he will go down in history as a
laughingstock. People like him, who make themselves famous by ridiculing
people and destroying reputations, are themselves highly sensitive to
ridicule, and protective of their own reputations. They take politics to
extremes. Park boasted to a large crowd of cheering people that he would
"root out and destroy any federal scientist" who believes in cold fusion,
or even tries to attend a conference. He thinks that is a good idea. He
thinks people should do that. He brags about how many scientists he has
taken down. When he realizes that he himself should have been "rooted out"
decades ago, I expect he will be devastated.

I am not vindictive and I never hold a grudge for more than an hour, but I
will make an exception for Park and a few others. I hope he lives to see
the day when people everywhere laugh at him, and the Washington Post will
not answer his calls, or do his bidding and destroy people's lives because
he disagrees with their scientific conclusions.


  The problem is that he could do it easily in a number of different ways.
> His nose has been repeatedly rubbed in that issue and he simply won't do
> it.  Then he apparently commissions two total fools to do his web site
> (talk about "clowns"!) and he writes strange things like this claim . . .
>

This is a discussion of Rossi's personality. It is on-topic, but you should
not confuse this issue with the validity or evidence for his claims. You
are right that he is an odd person who writes things that seem strange by
our standards. You are incorrect when you say "the evidence for Rossi's
claims is scant . . ." The two are different subjects. Please do not let
Rossi's personality or his sloppiness affect your evaluation of his results.

- Jed

Re: [Vo]:Andrea rossi: This is not yet our official website

[Jed Rothwell]

Half cocked, as usual.

- Jed

Re: [Vo]:Rossi E-Cat web site up

[Aussie Guy E-Cat]

Like everything I build it was a work in progress and was continually 
evolving. The switch panel went when I got an old teletype. Was so 
excited that I had a printer and real keyboard. The system code was then 
about 1 k. The last work I did on that system involved designing in a 
video terminal as my human interface with the main system of 64k of 
dynamic ram using 1 x 16k chips and a Z80 processor. Thought the string 
transfer op on the Z80 was fantastic. Even had a programmable character 
generator so I could do graphics. I wrote my own version of CPM and 
actually sold a few systems to friends. Back then 64k of ram, a 4 MHz 
Z80 and a 5 MB hard drive was all that was needed to run everything a 
small business needed, word processing (WordStar), spreadsheet (VisiCalc 
I think) and a data base program for accounting. Then Bill Gates came 
along and changed everything.


AG


On 11/13/2011 5:40 AM, Dr Joe Karthauser wrote:

On 12 Nov 2011, at 01:39, Aussie Guy E-Cat  wrote:


Nothing wrong with old programmers and old engineers. Cut by first code on a 
8008 system that I designed and built. Had a whole 256 bytes of ram. Put the 
program in with switches. Now that is old code.


Do you still have it? I'm sure that although I've still got the physical 
artefacts of old programmes I wrote when I was a kid, the patterns are long 
gone.

Joe

[Vo]:Special Report on the Nuclear Accident at the Fukushima Daiichi Nuclear Power Station

[Jed Rothwell]

See:

http://www.nei.org/resourcesandstats/documentlibrary/safetyandsecurity/reports/special-report-on-the-nuclear-accident-at-the-fukushima-daiichi-nuclear-power-station

(Download link on right)

Description:

Special Report on the Nuclear Accident at the Fukushima Daiichi Nuclear
Power Station

The Institute of Nuclear Power Operations has compiled a detailed timeline
of events at the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear power station after the March 11
earthquake and tsunami in Japan. The detailed report, prepared as part of
the integrated response to the Japan events, was delivered on Nov. 11,
2011, to U.S. industry executives, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission and
members of Congress.

Re: [Vo]:Steorn Bombshell - Orbo was all a sign error!

[Terry Blanton]

WOW!  That's much stupider than the Sprain measurement error.

Thanks, I feel much better now.

T

Re: [Vo]:Andrea rossi: This is not yet our official website

[Aussie Guy E-Cat]

Here we agree Mary. Both Sterling and Rossi must wear the cost of this 
stuff-up.


AG


On 11/13/2011 2:59 AM, Mary Yugo wrote:

Latest Rossi-ism:

 *
Andrea Rossi
November 12th, 2011 at 8:57 AM



WARNING: THE WEBSITE http://WWW.LEONARDO-ECAT.COM
 IS NOT OUR WEBSITE. IT HAS NOT
BEEN APPROVED, IT IS A DRAFT OF A PROPOSAL WHOSE TEXT HAS TO BE
CONTROLLED, APPROVED. WE ASKED TO THE INFORMATIC WHO PROPOSED IT
TO PUT IT IMMEDIATELY OUT OF THE NET, BECAUSE IT CONTAINS
SUBSTANTIAL ERRORS, WRONG NAMES IN WRONG PLACES :SPECIFICALLY, ALL
THE NAMES PUT IN THE PAGE “BONA FIDE” ARE TOTALLY WRONG AND SUCH
NAMES HAVE NOT TO BE PUT IN THAT POST.
WARM REGARDS,
ANDREA ROSSI

http://www.journal-of-nuclear-physics.com/?p=510#comments

Good old Sterling and Hank apparently not only jumped the shark but 
also screwed the pooch!

Re: [Vo]:New E-Cat customers to reveal their identity

[Steven Johnson]

Quite frankly, The fact that Allan seems to posses what many might consider 
less than well vetted reports is irrelevant to the discussion of his reporting 
on Rossi. This was another dispicaple example of krivit exploiting the 
investigative content and style of an individual practicing the same profession 
Krivit thinks he himself is practicing. Its sole intention was to suggest 
through innuenendo that Allan, because he reported what someone else told him 
about a secret trip to Mars that Obama was alleged to have completed, should be 
openly ridiculed for reporting it. What was conveniently lost in the attack on 
Allan's Obama article is that Allen is willing to report unorthodox sources of 
news that are not well vetted, whereas most others aren't. IMHO to attack an 
individual for nothing more than their professional philosophy to report more 
-things- than what the rest of the reporting pack are willing to report on was 
another opportunistic cheap shot, complements of Krivit. This was scraping the 
bottom of the barrel. It suggests to me that Krivit is running out of actual 
facts he can use against those he disagrees with. Threrfore, attack their 
professional character. And by innuendo it conveniently attacks their personal 
character by attempting throw dispursions on their beliefs. Deflect. Deflect. 
Deflect.

By the very same reasoning I should be publicly ridiculed for having risked 
reporting on my occasional conservations of what the "witch doctor" has said to 
me. I reported on the WD because I found such conversations interesting and 
hoped that others might find the content occasionally thought provoking as 
well. Reporting on such matters is not the same thing as believing in them, nor 
expecting others to believe in them either. In Allan's case he performed no 
crime other than simply reporting on the alleged Obama event. IMHO, Allan 
showed professionalism by NOT adding his own personal thoughts and personal 
beliefs on the matter. Meanwhile, Krivit seems incapable of NOT introducing his 
own personal beliefs into the Rossi affair. WHO is behaving more professionally 
here? In any case, Allan should not be publicly ridiculed for doing nothing 
more than reporting the alleged event.

Let me try to end this personal rant of mine (painstakingly performed on an 
ipad without spellchecker on) by stressing the fact that BELIEF has nothing to 
do with the issues here. However, Krivit is exploiting what Allan reported. 
krivit is attempting to insinuate to readers that what Allan reported is by 
default what Allan must believes, and therefore by deliberate innuendo destroy, 
Allan's professional reputation as a reporter.

Krivit knows this is exactly the kind of innuendo that many skeptics love to 
wallow in - and subsequently parrot. It was a deliberate calculated attempt on 
Krivit's part to get others (particularly skeptics) to do his dirty work for 
him. This is the exact same dispicable behavior i witnessed from Kriviypt when 
he went on a radio interview to indirecly insinuate that certain CF researchers 
had deliberately manipulated their experimental results. It also got me removed 
from Krivit's NET BoD when I complained to him about what it exactly was that 
he did. Krivit is showing that he wants to get OTHERS to say the dirty things 
for him, and by doing so, add the illusion of additional authenticity to his 
personal beliefs. By resorting to these kinds of seedy tactics Krivit is 
burning his bridges faster than what is healthy for any "reporter" to undertake.

Regards
Svj 
Orionworks.com

Sent from my iPad

On Nov 12, 2011, at 1:19 AM, Mary Yugo  wrote:

> 
> 
> "Next Few Months
> 
>  * New customers of the one megawatt E-Cat plant reveal their identity
>   publicly.
>  * Location of first E-Cat factory in the United States revealed."
> 
> And why do you believe that will happen?  Because Sterling Allan wrote it?  
> He's the same guy who had Obama in Mars for Cripes' sake!

[Vo]:Information on Dr. George Kelly

[Craig Haynie]

This must be him, Dr. George E. Kelly of the Department of Energy...

The user Rembrandt, found here:

http://www.theoildrum.com/node/7942

asked Rossi this question:

Guest: Who is Prof. George Kelly (University of New Hampshire, USA) is
on your board of advisors? (The university doesn’t seem to know him).

Rossi: I do not know him well. I met him ten years ago when I made a
test of a Seebeck Effect apparatus in the UNH. Anybody can enter in the
Board Of Advisers of the Journal Of Nuclear Physics (Rossis egen
websajt, reds anm) so far he wants to make for free (the Journal pays
nobody, is based only upon voluntary free work)a peer reviewing.
Everybody is free to enter and to go out when he wants. It is necessary
to be a University Professor in Scientific matter. Prof. Kelly is
specialized in Environmental Engineering, as I remember.

And this fellow seems to fit:

http://www.nist.gov/el/building_environment/gkelly.cfm

who in 1999 was chief of the Building Environment Division of the
Department of Energy.

"In 1999, Dr. Kelly became Chief of the Building Environment Division,
where he served for eight years."

So I think Rossi is mistaken when he assigns George Kelly to the
University of New Hampshire. He may have met him there, but Kelly worked
for the Department of Energy at the time. In either case, this can be
confirmed with the contact information on Kelly's profile page, and I've
sent an email this morning to him. Rossi may also be embellishing the
idea that Dr. Kelly is an 'advisor'.

Craig Haynie
Manchester, NH

[Vo]:Special Report on the Nuclear Accident at the Fukushima . . . [second copy]

[Jed Rothwell]

See:

http://www.nei.org/resourcesandstats/documentlibrary/safetyandsecurity/reports/special-report-on-the-nuclear-accident-at-the-fukushima-daiichi-nuclear-power-station

(Download link on right)

Description:

Special Report on the Nuclear Accident at the Fukushima Daiichi Nuclear
Power Station

The Institute of Nuclear Power Operations has compiled a detailed timeline
of events at the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear power station after the March 11
earthquake and tsunami in Japan. The detailed report, prepared as part of
the integrated response to the Japan events, was delivered on Nov. 11,
2011, to U.S. industry executives, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission and
members of Congress.

[Vo]:OT: Impostor Syndrome

[Harry Veeder]

This must be another name for the fraud complex:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Impostor_syndrome\

quote:"The impostor syndrome, in which competent people find it impossible
to believe in their own competence, can be viewed as complementary to
the Dunning–Kruger
effect , in
which incompetent people find it impossible to believe in their own
incompetence."

What happens when two people with the complementary syndrome walk into a
bar?... ;)

Harry

Re: [Vo]:Rossi E-Cat web site up

[Rich Murray]

 Hello! Welcome to AptyeryxOz

*Ever wondered what life would be like if electricity cost next to nothing
to generate and the resulting products from the actual generation (The
"ashes") was essentially household copper.*

*What if the component materials used to create the heat required to
generate the electricity were in the top ten most common elements in the
Universe.*

Well, that's where we will be if recent work done in Low Energy Nuclear
Reaction (LENR) pans out as expected. The work I'm writing about is that of
*Mr. Andrea Rossi*
 and *Prof. Sergio Focardi*  both
of Bologna, in Italy.

 Read more 


http://www.apteryxoz.com/


On Sat, Nov 12, 2011 at 8:28 AM, Rich Murray  wrote:

http://www.blongerbros.com/gang/rag.asp
>
> Vivid details on extremely cunning, well organized, intricate street scam
> to catch wealthy tourists one by one within a web of fake stock market
> speculation in the 1920's... an education for me...
>
>
>

Re: [Vo]:Oct. 28 demo: 3716 liters of water vaporized

[Peter Heckert]

Am 12.11.2011 21:17, schrieb Alan Fletcher:

Peter Heckert
Sat, 12 Nov 2011 00:20:47 -0800

- Original Message -

Nevertheless only 50% of all e-cats where used finally.

ALL of the Oct 28 test is "Rossi said..." : but I don't recall him or anyone 
else saying that. Is a deduction that there were two pipes, but only one was used?

I think Rossi said that they started the eCat with full-pressure hydrogen, it 
was unstable so they stopped it, recharged it with lower pressure, and 
restarted it at 1/2 MW.

Anyone got links to support either of these scenarios?

Sorry I have no links, its taken out of memory.
I dont even remember who has said it.
In the Testprotokol is nothing mentioned. So both versions can be true.
Maybe Rossis forum has infos directly from Rossi.

Re: [Vo]:The U.S. Patent Office's formal policy to reject all cold fusion applications

[Mary Yugo]

>
> You seem to be suggesting that there is something fundamentally different
> about Rossi's Ni nanopowder compared to the nanopowder cells of Arata and
> Miles, or the Ni cells of Patterson or Piantelli. I do not see any gigantic
> differences. The claims seem mutually supportive to me, and to Fleischmann.
> He was the first to propose the use of Ni instead of Pd, as I recall, so he
> get some credit for this branch of the research.
>

What I am suggesting is that the evidence for Rossi's claims is scant and
his *modus operandi *is suspicious.  I don't know the details of the other
claims.  Rossi claims a secret sauce catalyst.  That seems unlikely to
work.  I may have missed it (it's not my field) but I don't know of any
proven and properly tested and documented catalysts that facilitate fusion
or any other nuclear reaction.Do the other claims involve catalysts?
* *

> I do not understand why you respond to this with sarcasm, or why you think
> the people who express carefully considered, well-informed technical views
> are "irresponsible and foolish." You seem to have a vendetta against Rossi,
> similar to Mr. Krivit's. You give the impression that you think anyone who
> proposes a technical reason in support of Rossi's claims is being
> irresponsible and foolish. I suggest you cool it.
>

I get frustrated with Rossi's shenanigans which is why I get sarcastic.
I'll try to tone it down but a lot of what he does is funny if you look at
it a certain way.  I have no vendetta and I'd be delighted if Rossi would
prove his point.  The problem is that he could do it easily in a number of
different ways.  His nose has been repeatedly rubbed in that issue and he
simply won't do it.  Then he apparently commissions two total fools to do
his web site (talk about "clowns"!) and he writes strange things like this
claim:

*Helmut H.
November 12th, 2011 at 9:24 AM

Dear Ing. Rossi,

as far as i know, you haven’t received Patents for the US and other markets
yet. Isn’t there a big danger, that single E-Cats of your sold 1MW-unit are
reverse engineered?

==

Andrea Rossi
November 12th, 2011 at 10:06 AM

Dear Helmut H.
With the 1 MW plants the reverse engineering is impossible. We have put
very strong barriers.
Warm Regards,
A.R.*

(from his blog)   http://www.journal-of-nuclear-physics.com/?p=510#comments

Strong barriers?  What do you think those could be and how would they
work?  Are they going to harm people?   How could he get away with anything
that remotely could?

Such statements, and there have been plenty of them, degrade any residual
credibility Rossi has.  So does his association with Hank Mills and
Sterling Allan who have virtually never met a scam or scammer they wouldn't
publicize.  If anyone doubts that, I'm happy to repost the evidence for
that statement.

Re: [Vo]:Rossi E-Cat web site up

[Rich Murray]

http://www.blongerbros.com/gang/rag.asp

Vivid details on extremely cunning, well organized, intricate street scam
to catch wealthy tourists one by one within a web of fake stock market
speculation in the 1920's... an education for me...

Re: [Vo]:Andrea rossi: This is not yet our official website

[Peter Heckert]

Am 12.11.2011 22:59, schrieb Peter Heckert:

They have now modified their site.
References to National Instruments are removed, so far I can see.
Also the references to 


are removed.

Oops it is still here under "News":

Lets see if they discover it ;-)


Am 12.11.2011 12:44, schrieb David ledin:

Andrea Rossi
November 12th, 2011 at 6:22 AM

Dear Italo:
This is not yet our official website, contains many errors to be
corrected, contains wrong names in wrong places. It needs a lot of
corrections, so pèlease disregard it for at least three days.
A.R.


#
Andrea Rossi
November 12th, 2011 at 6:23 AM

Goumy:
It is a draft with many errors, needs many corrections. Please
disregard it for at least three days.
A.R.

Re: [Vo]:Oct. 28 demo: 3716 liters of water vaporized

[Alan Fletcher]

Peter Heckert
Sat, 12 Nov 2011 00:20:47 -0800

- Original Message -
> Nevertheless only 50% of all e-cats where used finally.

ALL of the Oct 28 test is "Rossi said..." : but I don't recall him or anyone 
else saying that. Is a deduction that there were two pipes, but only one was 
used?

I think Rossi said that they started the eCat with full-pressure hydrogen, it 
was unstable so they stopped it, recharged it with lower pressure, and 
restarted it at 1/2 MW.

Anyone got links to support either of these scenarios?

Re: [Vo]:Andrea rossi: This is not yet our official website

[Peter Heckert]

They have now modified their site.
References to National Instruments are removed, so far I can see.
Also the references to 


are removed.

Am 12.11.2011 12:44, schrieb David ledin:

Andrea Rossi
November 12th, 2011 at 6:22 AM

Dear Italo:
This is not yet our official website, contains many errors to be
corrected, contains wrong names in wrong places. It needs a lot of
corrections, so pèlease disregard it for at least three days.
A.R.


#
Andrea Rossi
November 12th, 2011 at 6:23 AM

Goumy:
It is a draft with many errors, needs many corrections. Please
disregard it for at least three days.
A.R.

Re: [Vo]:Rossi E-Cat web site up

[Craig Haynie]

On Fri, 2011-11-11 at 18:12 -0800, Mary Yugo wrote:

> 
> Someone at Ecatnews.com pointed out that the web site is so bad that
> someone left in this name:
> 
> Prof. George Kelly (University of New Hampshire – USA)
> 
> That is a throw back to Rossi's "board of directors" for his silly
> blog he pretends is a peer reviewed journal.  Except that the guy
> apparently doesn't exist.  At least that's what I've read on the
> ultrareliable internet.  Anyone know Professor Kelly personally at U
> of NH?   

Different spelling perhaps?

A George E. Kelley, (class of 1957), is listed here as having died:

http://unhmagazine.unh.edu/w09/obituaries.html

A George F. Kelley is listed here in the class of 1943:

http://www.foundation.unh.edu/honor-roll-donors
https://www.alumni.unh.edu/keep/reunion/reunion_reg.html
http://extension.unh.edu/CommDev/Docs/THEGILMANTONCIVICPROFILE.pdf
http://www.foundation.unh.edu/granite-cornerstone-society

Craig
Manchester, NH

Re: [Vo]:Andrea rossi: This is not yet our official website

[Daniel Rocha]

He meant this is not the final version.

2011/11/12 David ledin 

> Andrea Rossi
> November 12th, 2011 at 6:22 AM
>
> Dear Italo:
> This is not yet our official website, contains many errors to be
> corrected, contains wrong names in wrong places. It needs a lot of
> corrections, so pèlease disregard it for at least three days.
> A.R.
>
>
> #
> Andrea Rossi
> November 12th, 2011 at 6:23 AM
>
> Goumy:
> It is a draft with many errors, needs many corrections. Please
> disregard it for at least three days.
> A.R.
>
>

Re: [Vo]:Andrea rossi: This is not yet our official website

[Mary Yugo]

Latest Rossi-ism:


   -  Andrea Rossi
November 12th, 2011 at 8:57
AM

   WARNING: THE WEBSITE
http://WWW.LEONARDO-ECAT.COMIS NOT OUR
WEBSITE. IT HAS NOT BEEN APPROVED, IT IS A DRAFT OF A PROPOSAL
   WHOSE TEXT HAS TO BE CONTROLLED, APPROVED. WE ASKED TO THE INFORMATIC WHO
   PROPOSED IT TO PUT IT IMMEDIATELY OUT OF THE NET, BECAUSE IT CONTAINS
   SUBSTANTIAL ERRORS, WRONG NAMES IN WRONG PLACES :SPECIFICALLY, ALL THE
   NAMES PUT IN THE PAGE “BONA FIDE” ARE TOTALLY WRONG AND SUCH NAMES HAVE NOT
   TO BE PUT IN THAT POST.
   WARM REGARDS,
   ANDREA ROSSI

http://www.journal-of-nuclear-physics.com/?p=510#comments

Good old Sterling and Hank apparently not only jumped the shark but also
screwed the pooch!

Re: [Vo]:Andrea rossi: This is not yet our official website

[Harry Veeder]

The officiate annouces the  website is unofficially official.


Harry
On Sat, Nov 12, 2011 at 6:44 AM, David ledin
wrote:

> Andrea Rossi
> November 12th, 2011 at 6:22 AM
>
> Dear Italo:
> This is not yet our official website, contains many errors to be
> corrected, contains wrong names in wrong places. It needs a lot of
> corrections, so pèlease disregard it for at least three days.
> A.R.
>
>
> #
> Andrea Rossi
> November 12th, 2011 at 6:23 AM
>
> Goumy:
> It is a draft with many errors, needs many corrections. Please
> disregard it for at least three days.
> A.R.
>
>

Re: [Vo]:Rossi E-Cat web site up

[Dr Joe Karthauser]

On 12 Nov 2011, at 01:39, Aussie Guy E-Cat  wrote:

> Nothing wrong with old programmers and old engineers. Cut by first code on a 
> 8008 system that I designed and built. Had a whole 256 bytes of ram. Put the 
> program in with switches. Now that is old code.
> 

Do you still have it? I'm sure that although I've still got the physical 
artefacts of old programmes I wrote when I was a kid, the patterns are long 
gone.

Joe
-- 
Dr Joe Karthauser

[Vo]:Andrea rossi: This is not yet our official website

[David ledin]

Andrea Rossi
November 12th, 2011 at 6:22 AM

Dear Italo:
This is not yet our official website, contains many errors to be
corrected, contains wrong names in wrong places. It needs a lot of
corrections, so pèlease disregard it for at least three days.
A.R.


#
Andrea Rossi
November 12th, 2011 at 6:23 AM

Goumy:
It is a draft with many errors, needs many corrections. Please
disregard it for at least three days.
A.R.

Re: [Vo]:New E-Cat customers to reveal their identity

[Jouni Valkonen]

Aussie, I too have hard time to think what could be the motivation for
Mary to do what she is doing, because there could not be any positive
outcome for her. If eCat is for real, like it seems to be, then Mary
just loses all the credibility and is required to change her name if
she is ever going to appear in the Internet again.

And if she is right, then she has just wasted countless of hours for
debunking something that did not have any interest for anyone (expect
for few free energy crackpots, who believe that Barak has visited in
Mars). So, no matter what is the outcome, she has already spoiled her
reputation.

However, I think that here Mary is right. It seems that the site and
content was fully produced by Sterling and Hank, and Andrea has only
approved the half baked concept. This indicates that there seems not
to be any first hand information in the site, but everything is taken
from Andrea's public comments, PES wiki or third party public sources.

That upcoming event was just put there because Andrea has perhaps
suggested that production facilities and associates are revealed on
time, very soon.

For example, very relevant upcoming event is also the start of
research program with University Bologna and Uppsala. But this was not
included, because there are no public sources that would give even a
hint when it actually begins for real.

Right now any information that the site contained must be considered
with similar respect than to information that is contained in
PES-wiki. That is, that the information is purely fan produced. Right
now it is official fan page for eCat, that does not include first hand
information. But things may change if/when Andrea is taking more
public approach and reveals more background information on Leonardo
Corp, EON Srl and E-Cat.

I think that Andrea has seriously considered to hire Sterling his
official webmaster and some sort of information representative. (This
is of course pure speculation)

–Jouni


2011/11/12 Aussie Guy E-Cat :
> The web site belongs to Leonardo Corp. It matters not who wrote the words as
> long as they are the words of the web site owner. You again attempt to cast
> into doubt credibility of Rossi and statements made on the Leonardo web site
> by involving the credibility of an unknown writer.
>
> Mary you do this all over the internet, so you have more than a passing
> interest in making unprovable negative statement in what appears to be a
> effort to cause Rossi and his E-Cat to lose credibility. May I ask why you
> are putting so much effort into this? What do you have to gain by doing
> this?
>
> Do you understand what a "Fair Go" means?
>
> As for the web site statement below, I believe it will happen because it is
> on the official Rossi web site. The man met his end of Oct 2011 1 MW demo
> date. Maybe that means nothing to you but to me as a engineer it says
> volumes about meeting deadlines and meeting customer expectations,
> especially with new technology.
>
> AG
>
>
> On 11/12/2011 5:49 PM, Mary Yugo wrote:
>>
>>
>>        "Next Few Months
>>
>>     * New customers of the one megawatt E-Cat plant reveal their identity
>>      publicly.
>>     * Location of first E-Cat factory in the United States revealed."
>>
>>
>> And why do you believe that will happen?  Because Sterling Allan wrote it?
>>  He's the same guy who had Obama in Mars for Cripes' sake!
>
>

Re: [Vo]:Oct. 28 demo: 3716 liters of water vaporized

[Peter Heckert]

Am 12.11.2011 04:36, schrieb Berke Durak:

The three-page public report states that 3716 liters of water have
been vaporized.

1) Is 3716 liters the difference in the quantity of water contained in
the reservoirs before and after the demonstration?

2) Was this water mostly released to the air, or was there a drain
somewhere?

3) If the water has been mostly released to the air, can we assume that
it has been vaporized, i.e. turned into steam?

4) If yes, would that require 2.26 MJ per kilogram?

5) How much energy does it take to nebulize water so that the droplets
can be evacuated to the air (i.e. not condense nearby)?

6) Are there other techniques for "getting rid" of water?


There is no public proof that all water was vaporized, because the 
system was a closed circuit.
After first announcement it was visible that the steam output pipe had a 
diameter equal or less than 10 cm.
It is rather obvious and so Rossi must have calculated this before and 
it was doubted if this is enough.


At the real demonstration a second output pipe was added and additional 
e-cats where mounted on the roof of the container. Nevertheless only 50% 
of all e-cats where used finally.
Rossi could have planned this all before and with these last minute 
modification he could have introduced a hidden pipe connection on the 
roof and part of the water could flow back through the second pipe 
without vaporization.


An observer who has not seen the plant in reality, it is impossible to 
see if all water was vaporized. Possibly the lower pipe had a small 
output of steam, which was measured in temperature, but not in flow.

The upper pipe was not measured and had no (visible) control mechanism.

If the final customer was not aware about this possibility, he could 
have been fooled.
Even if he collaborated in the scam and if it was a real registered 
engineer, he has nothing to loose.
(Jed Rothwell has repeatedly said otherwise, but I disagree, and I think 
he is able to know it better, but he does not want to admit this)


1) The engineer can always say he was fooled by Rossis clever tricks.
2) The engineer has never made an official report, there is only a 
preliminary document, written at midnight by two very tired people, and 
so this cannot be a final conclusive report, but a preliminary report 
with handwritten modifications.

This document has no legal value.
So there was no public final report made, and we dont know what they 
negotiated in the next morning when they recapitulated the events and 
rechecked everything in bright daylight.


Peter

Re: [Vo]:New E-Cat customers to reveal their identity

[Aussie Guy E-Cat]

The web site belongs to Leonardo Corp. It matters not who wrote the 
words as long as they are the words of the web site owner. You again 
attempt to cast into doubt credibility of Rossi and statements made on 
the Leonardo web site by involving the credibility of an unknown writer.


Mary you do this all over the internet, so you have more than a passing 
interest in making unprovable negative statement in what appears to be a 
effort to cause Rossi and his E-Cat to lose credibility. May I ask why 
you are putting so much effort into this? What do you have to gain by 
doing this?


Do you understand what a "Fair Go" means?

As for the web site statement below, I believe it will happen because it 
is on the official Rossi web site. The man met his end of Oct 2011 1 MW 
demo date. Maybe that means nothing to you but to me as a engineer it 
says volumes about meeting deadlines and meeting customer expectations, 
especially with new technology.


AG


On 11/12/2011 5:49 PM, Mary Yugo wrote:



"Next Few Months

 * New customers of the one megawatt E-Cat plant reveal their identity
  publicly.
 * Location of first E-Cat factory in the United States revealed."


And why do you believe that will happen?  Because Sterling Allan wrote 
it?  He's the same guy who had Obama in Mars for Cripes' sake!

[Vo]:Steorn Bombshell - Orbo was all a sign error!

[jwinter]

On 11/12/2011 11:50 AM, Harry Veeder wrote:
I think Steorn stumbled upon a real anomally but they erred in 
assuming that measurement alone was sufficient to demonstrate the 
reality of energy creation.


Since there seems to still be some belief around here that "Steorn 
stumbled upon a real anomaly", I feel that I should point out some 
recent postings that may have gone unnoticed.


Also since Mary Yugo has just joined us (and very welcome you are Mary, 
with your sharp mind and tongue to match), who took a lot of interest in 
the Steorn affair in the early days - I am sure she will appreciate this 
information, if not already aware of it.


About a month ago Steorn released four apparently significant supporting 
documents to Stirling's news service (www.pesn.com) which were reported 
on here 
.  
PESN was not allowed to post the actual documents or reveal the authors 
names, but it turned out that one of the documents (a pretty important 
one it seems describing measurement of the "Steorn Effect" in detail) 
was found to be available on Steorn's website here 
! 
Anyway sometime later someone calling themselves "Dr Quack Pot" picked 
up on this paper and wrote some comments on the results reported in it 
(see comments after the PESN article) which make pretty revealing 
reading!  To save people having to chase the links and read through the 
discussions, here is a summary of the facts as I understand them.


The available document is a Consultant Engineer's (John Rice) report 
describing energy balance measurements made on an Orbo mechanism while 
it was displaying the "anomaly".  In each case the torque is measured as 
a function of angular position, in some cases using a step, stop and 
measure method, and in other cases the torque is sampled during 
continuous rotation.


One of the measurements (chart 5 orange curve) shows the torque 
resulting from the interaction between a fixed (stator) permanent magnet 
and a soft ferrite core rotated on an armature (rotor) in its vicinity.  
Since we know that this interaction is always attractive, this allows 
the sign of the torque to be determined.  Another measurement (chart 
4259 red curve) shows the torque between the same fixed magnet stator 
but with a permanent magnet on the rotor.  The sign of this curve 
indicates that that the force between the permanent magnets was 
primarily repelling.  A third measurement (chart 4259 blue curve) then 
shows the result of having the soft ferrite and the permanent magnet 
stuck together and rotated together on the armature.


The energy balance in each case is obtained by subtracting frictional 
and gravitational effects (measured during calibration runs), and then 
integrating the remaining magnetic interaction torque over a complete 
revolution - which of course gives net energy gained or lost per 
revolution (see chart 4260).  In a linear system one would expect that

(PM<>ferrite effect) + (PM<>PM effect) = (PM<>(PM+ferrite) effect)
But this is not what is measured!  Using the first measurement as a null 
calibration, the energy balance from the second measurement is very 
good, while the energy balance from the third shows a highly significant 
(~1 mJ per rev) discrepancy.


So there we have it - the "Steorn Anomaly"!

But the million dollar question is of course, was it an energy gain or 
an energy loss!  What was the */sign/* of the discrepancy.  With some 
simple logic and knowing the sign of the torque, it is very easy to 
determine that what was measured was an energy /*loss*/!!!  "Orbo 
technology" is a method of turning mechanical energy into heat using 
magnetic interactions!  WOW!


So here you have at last the key to understanding the amazing puzzle of 
the Steorn $75k "challenge", the SPDC excitement and discussions, the 
scientific jury, the "Steorn 300" engineering companies, the SKDB 
investors, etc, etc, etc!  An amazingly long lived buzz of discussion 
and activity and money changing hands, all resulting from a simple sign 
error that seems to have only very recently been noticed!  (Of course 
Steorn must have made the error way back before their challenge of 2006, 
and then induced John Rice to repeat and document the same error in 2008).


I am guessing that this Rice report might have been made available to 
the SPDC (under NDA, maybe someone could confirm or deny that?), almost 
certainly to the Jury, and more recently to the engineering companies 
and SKDB, and finally after no more gain was to be had from it, it was 
(maybe a month or so ago) released to the public.  How is it possible 
that out of all the investigators provided with this report, not one 
bothered to check the sign of the well documented anomaly.  That is now 
the biggest puzzle!  Someone should update Wikipedia to reflect this 
additional information!