Re: [Vo]:Re: I was impressed by Levi in the video interview
Mattia Rizzi wrote: Again, you wrote that “the temperature was steady, as shown in the laptop photos they took”. These photos are not pubblicated. So there isn’t “as show”, it’s again a “Rossi&Levi said”. It would be easy to make fake photos or a fake video. So even if they published photos, it would prove nothing. If you do not trust what Rossi and Levi said, then you will not believe any of this. You might as well not participate in the discussion, because "Rossi and Levi may be lying" is an argument that cannot be refuted or falsified, and it can be used to explain away every aspect of every claim. They told me they took photos. I believe them. You don't. There is nothing more to be said, and no point to debating the issue. - Jed
[Vo]:Re: I was impressed by Levi in the video interview
Again, you wrote that “the temperature was steady, as shown in the laptop photos they took”. These photos are not pubblicated. So there isn’t “as show”, it’s again a “Rossi&Levi said”. From: Jed Rothwell Sent: Wednesday, August 24, 2011 8:25 PM To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: [Vo]:Re: I was impressed by Levi in the video interview Mattia Rizzi wrote: >2. Apart from the initial heat burst, the temperature was steady, as shown in the laptop photos they took. So the flow must have been steady. You have a terrible confusion in your head. The “laptop photos” doesn’t exists at all for the february test (liquid water calorimetry) They told me they recorded the whole thing with a camera, since they could not be there for the whole 18 hours. I do not know if it is a laptop camera or some other kind. Anyway, while they were there, they watched the temperature display and it did not fluctuate much. I doubt it fluctuated when they turned their backs or went home to sleep but you never know. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:Re: I was impressed by Levi in the video interview
Mattia Rizzi wrote: >2. Apart from the initial heat burst, the temperature was steady, as > shown > in the laptop photos they took. So the flow must have been steady. > > You have a terrible confusion in your head. > The “laptop photos” doesn’t exists at all for the february test (liquid > water calorimetry) > They told me they recorded the whole thing with a camera, since they could not be there for the whole 18 hours. I do not know if it is a laptop camera or some other kind. Anyway, while they were there, they watched the temperature display and it did not fluctuate much. I doubt it fluctuated when they turned their backs or went home to sleep but you never know. - Jed
[Vo]:Re: I was impressed by Levi in the video interview
>2. Apart from the initial heat burst, the temperature was steady, as shown in the laptop photos they took. So the flow must have been steady. You have a terrible confusion in your head. The “laptop photos” doesn’t exists at all for the february test (liquid water calorimetry) From: Jed Rothwell Sent: Wednesday, August 24, 2011 3:45 PM To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: [Vo]:I was impressed by Levi in the video interview Susan Gipp wrote: Here the "flow meter" http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-0LCgn_05ZGY/TWGehaAfm-I/E5w/Ew3nHhdHUDQ/s1600/E-Cat110211.jpg It's a simple house utility water meter like this Thanks. They said it was an ordinary utility meter. Why did you put the word "flow meter" in quotes? That's a meter. For the purposes of this test it as good as a $10,000 meter would be. They mounted above a camera connected to the laptop taking pictures at some interval. This meter has in the middle a kind of star. Its spinning speed shows the water flow. Visually you can only rougly extimate the flow rate. A rough estimate would be fine, but like any other utility meter it shows the cumulative flow, and I am sure that is accurate. Water utility billing would be chaotic if meters did not work. To get the flow rate per second you read the total amount and divide by duration. It's not very unlikely that, if for any reason the water pressure temporarly dropped, they could think of an unexplanable power peak. There were no unexplained power peaks, except for the first one. So your statement is hypothetical. It is also extremely unlikely for the following reasons: 1. Pressure does not vary with a municipal water supply, except when there is construction and they shut off the supply at the street. You can tell when this happens. 2. Apart from the initial heat burst, the temperature was steady, as shown in the laptop photos they took. So the flow must have been steady. 3. If the temperature had gone up, they would have checked the instantaneous flow rate. It isn't that difficult to read. They also would have watched the cumulative flow for a while. Anyway, they said the temperature did not fluctuate. - Jed
