Re: [Vo]:E-CAT Home to be $50/kW
Just because the price is so low per kilowatt doesn't mean that you can buy it per kilowatt. I imagine that that's the price for the big ones, and the smaller ones are more expensive. Joe -- Dr Joe Karthauser On 13 Jan 2012, at 15:28, Energy Liberator wrote: > I've been thinking about this a little more and am starting to wonder how > Rossi is able to achieve such a low price. At $500 for 10kW, that's way lower > than any conventional boiler that I know of. I'd image the actual process of > machining and automated assembly, of the unit can be kept quite low with the > volumes Rossi is talking about but what about the instrumentation and control > costs? I would have thought that they would be a significant cost in the > production of the unit. NI must have come up with some smart and economical > ways for performing the monitoring and control of the device. I would > also hope that each device is tested before being packaged for shipping which > must involve some manual labour and so would account for a significant > portion of the device's production cost. There is also the industrial design > aspect. Rossi must have come up with some sort of design for an enclosure for > the unit which must be cheap to manufacture and easy to remove for refuelling. > > > On 13/01/12 10:53, Energy Liberator wrote: >> >> On Rossi's JONP - >> http://www.journal-of-nuclear-physics.com/?p=563&cpage=11#comment-169012 >> >> Andrea Rossi >> January 13th, 2012 at 3:03 AM >> Dear Albert Ellul: >> Thank you. >> The big science, after trying to ridiculize us, now has understood that the >> E-Cat works, so now they are trying to copy and make patents >> to overcome us, discourage us and trying with this sophysticated way to stop >> us under a disguise of an indirect vindication. Is a smart move, but they >> are underevaluating us. I will never stop, within one year we >> will start the delivery of million pieces at 50 $/kW, with a totally new >> concept, at that point the game will be over. This technology must be >> popular, must cost a very low price, must be a real revoluton, not a bunch >> of theoretical (wrong) chatters. >> Warm Regards, >> A.R. >> >> The price is really tumbling now.
Re: [Vo]:Hyperion Hyperlink
Yes, the Amiga circuit diagram was full of jokes :). -- Dr Joe Karthauser On 30 Nov 2011, at 16:10, Peter Heckert wrote: > Am 30.11.2011 16:52, schrieb Mary Yugo: >> I knew they were coming out with something sexy. It has a pleasure sensor! >> I kid you not: >> >> http://i.imgur.com/X8AZQ.jpg > Remembers me of good old Amiga which had a BEER line connected to the > processor. > >
Re: [Vo]:Rossi E-Cat web site up
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
Re: [Vo]:Re: [Vo]:Rossi’s customer
> > I expect the EU has similar fair trade laws so I do not think Defkalion will > be able to enforce this policy. I think it makes them look stupid even > mentioning it. Who are they kidding? I suppose they are trying to kid Rossi, > or at least humoring him. I'm not sure that we do. I don't think that there's any requirement for anyone to necessarily sell anything to anyone at any given price. We do however have protections in law that things are fit for the purposes that they are sold for. Joe
Re: [Vo]:Hypothesis explaining FTL neutrinos
Love it! :) -- Dr Joe Karthauser On 5 Oct 2011, at 00:27, Terry Blanton wrote: > "We don't allow faster than light neutrinos in here," > says the bartender. > > A neutrino walks into a bar. > >
[Vo]:Neutrinos
Neutrinos xkcd.com Sent with Reeder -- Dr Joe Karthauser
Re: [Vo]: Another advancement toward an atomic 'strobe-light'...
On 23 Sep 2011, at 02:33, "Mark Iverson-ZeroPoint" wrote: > > According to my model, I would be willing to bet that one would see the > electron move thru the nucleus with every oscillation… but it traverses the > center region much more quickly than when it reaches the outer bounds of its > oscillation where it has to slow down and reverse direction. > > Hey Mark, You're idea is that the electron oscillates through the nucleus, not around it? How does that change your picture of the quantised angular momentum? Thanks Joe
Re: [Vo]:Universe Resolution Just Increased 13 Orders
Hey Jouni, How does it falsify inflation theory? It's not immediately obvious to be how that conclusion can be reached from those results. Thanks, Joe -- Dr Joe Karthauser On 1 Jul 2011, at 20:04, Jouni Valkonen wrote: > I think that proper interpretation is that this just falsifies inflation > theory of cosmology, but we did already knew this that inflation theory does > not have any relevance with our cosmos. Only thing that can rival inflation > theory in ludicrousness is the theory of dark matter! > > But I am glad if we can throw all those Brian Green's and Michio Kaku's books > into thrash bin or just preserve them as a monument that reminds us from > sheer arrogance of theoretical cosmologists and how much it is just wasting > of brain power to ignore proper scientific method and replace observations > with unjustified speculations. > > We just need to find better theories that can explain CMB! One thing what > what would be first in line is to try to model big bang, if antimater's > gravitational effect is repulsive towards regular matter. > > —Jouni > On Jul 1, 2011 5:56 PM, "Terry Blanton" wrote:
[Vo]:Revolutionary new aircraft engine.
Jed, Here's one for you! (if you've not already seen it.) http://www.gizmag.com/d-dalus-uav-design/18972/ I've not found any video footage of it yet. I bet it's something to behold. Joe -- Dr Joe Karthauser
Re: EXTERNAL: Re: [Vo]:New BLP commercial - On You Tube
Hey Fran, FYI, unlinked pages can't be captured by mirror/spider software, because they are orphaned, and no software would know that they existed. Joe -- Dr Joe Karthauser On 4 Jun 2011, at 00:53, "Roarty, Francis X" wrote: > Robin, > your solution seems most likely, probably an orphaned url for a page that > didn't quite pass muster and then they forgot to take it down. If someone > came along and ran Site capture software on BLP's website it would download > everything including unlinked pages. > Fran > > -Original Message- > From: mix...@bigpond.com [mailto:mix...@bigpond.com] > Sent: Friday, June 03, 2011 6:17 PM > To: vortex-l@eskimo.com > Subject: EXTERNAL: Re: [Vo]:New BLP commercial - On You Tube > > In reply to OrionWorks - Steven Vincent Johnson's message of Fri, 3 Jun 2011 > 07:43:13 -0500: > Hi, > [snip] >> From Jed: >> >>> That is WEIRD. What is the point of airing it? Did BLP pay for it? >> >> I would speculate that BLP did indeed pay for the commercial. I have no >> proof of that however. Who else would pay for it, and for what purpose since >> it's obviously pro BLP & for the existence of hydrinos. If the commercial >> was initially sourced out to Europe (i.e.: Switzerland) maybe BLP has >> considered the possibility of drumming up more business overseas where they >> might receive a more friendly reception, at least during the initial steps. >> (Perhaps they have been studying Rossi's strategy. Of course, they will >> emphatically deny this!) > [snip] > My guess would be that whoever posted it on YouTube actually found it > somewhere > on BLP's website. > > Regards, > > Robin van Spaandonk > > http://rvanspaa.freehostia.com/project.html > >
Re: [Vo]:Happy Pi Day!
Where is the derivation of phi in terms of a circle published? There are no references or names in that article. Thanks Joe -- Dr Joe Karthauser On 14 Mar 2011, at 18:19, Shek Singhal wrote: > Just curious if anyone else here has looked at alternate derivations of Pi > based upon Phi - given that there really should only be one universal > curvature constant for space-time? > > I thought I would present this here before I write-up my full formal > illustrated proof and find an audience for it: > http://vortexspace.org/display/~integral54/Closed-Form-Derivation+of+Pi+from+Phi > > Basically I claim that the starting digits of Pi are 3.1446(...) > http://goldennumber.net/phiformulageometry.htm > > I have received reports that certain people at NASA already know this and are > already using this new (corrected) value of Pi. > > On Mon, Mar 14, 2011 Alan J Fletcher wrote: > At 07:10 AM 3/14/2011, Terry Blanton wrote: > 3.14 > Thought we needed a smile. > > This afternoon you have a second chance for: > > 3/14 1:59:26 > > =8=) >
Re: [Vo]:Discovery News Article
On 22 Jan 2011, at 01:43, Harry Veeder wrote: > Article uses Robert Park as an authority on the subject. > > http://news.discovery.com/tech/cold-fusion-claims-resurface.html > > Harry > What a horrible article. I'd be ashamed to have written that. It wasn't reporting by any stretch of the imagination. Joe
Re: [Vo]:Miles Mathis
On 14 Jan 2011, at 10:04, Mauro Lacy wrote: > A demolishing criticism of Miles Mathis, particularly on his paper about Pi > being 4 (among many other things, Miles shows that Pi equals four, with an > elegant(and wrong) "proof", which basically boils down to this) That was a fun read. Thanks :) Joe
