Re: [Vo]:July 7th E-Cat test report
I wouldn't evn take more output heat as input heat as the sine qua non. In fact there's nothing going on in the e-cat that can proove cold fusion- its not about a cold fusion "proof", there just isn't one of those contemplated. If you want CF proof maybe look at the Navy's data. - Original Message - From: Robert Leguillon To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Thursday, October 06, 2011 1:37 PM Subject: RE: [Vo]:July 7th E-Cat test report I think that you're misunderstanding me. If-And-Only-If the power at the secondary is LESS than the peak power input to the primary, there will be arguments about the "heat after death" or "self-sustaining" operation. If the most energy that you put into the E-Cat is 1 kW, and 2 kW is observed at the output, then the H.A.D. operation is totally unnecessary, but may impress some people. However, if you put 1 kW into the input for two hours, seeing a slow build-to-parity at the secondary (where the secondary only achieves 1 kW), then how long the heat takes to decay when power is removed will be a bone of contention. I think H.A.D. could serve as a distraction. What we HAVE TO SEE is more kW at the secondary than is ever applied to the primary. Was that cogent? This was the prediction I'd supplied yesterday - that power gains would be reliant on the "no input" mode of operation, less than the peak power applied at the primary. And this would leave people arguing over residual, or stored, heat vs. a maintained reaction. I truly hope that they are observing 3kW out, and less than 10 Amps peak power consumption. ------------------ Date: Thu, 6 Oct 2011 12:58:55 -0400 Subject: Re: [Vo]:July 7th E-Cat test report From: jedrothw...@gmail.com To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Robert Leguillon wrote: We can only hope and pray that there is more power observed on the secondary than is supplied to the primary during peak energy application. If gains are only observed during "heat after death", we will be arguing the results ad infinitum. Why do you say that?!? It is much easier to be sure the heat is real when there is no input power. It is much more definitive, not less. What you say makes no sense to me. Please explain. - Jed
RE: [Vo]:July 7th E-Cat test report
I think that you're misunderstanding me. If-And-Only-If the power at the secondary is LESS than the peak power input to the primary, there will be arguments about the "heat after death" or "self-sustaining" operation. If the most energy that you put into the E-Cat is 1 kW, and 2 kW is observed at the output, then the H.A.D. operation is totally unnecessary, but may impress some people. However, if you put 1 kW into the input for two hours, seeing a slow build-to-parity at the secondary (where the secondary only achieves 1 kW), then how long the heat takes to decay when power is removed will be a bone of contention. I think H.A.D. could serve as a distraction. What we HAVE TO SEE is more kW at the secondary than is ever applied to the primary. Was that cogent? This was the prediction I'd supplied yesterday - that power gains would be reliant on the "no input" mode of operation, less than the peak power applied at the primary. And this would leave people arguing over residual, or stored, heat vs. a maintained reaction. I truly hope that they are observing 3kW out, and less than 10 Amps peak power consumption. Date: Thu, 6 Oct 2011 12:58:55 -0400 Subject: Re: [Vo]:July 7th E-Cat test report From: jedrothw...@gmail.com To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Robert Leguillon wrote: We can only hope and pray that there is more power observed on the secondary than is supplied to the primary during peak energy application. If gains are only observed during "heat after death", we will be arguing the results ad infinitum. Why do you say that?!? It is much easier to be sure the heat is real when there is no input power. It is much more definitive, not less. What you say makes no sense to me. Please explain. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:July 7th E-Cat test report
Robert Leguillon wrote: We can only hope and pray that there is more power observed on the secondary > than is supplied to the primary during peak energy application. > If gains are only observed during "heat after death", we will be arguing > the results ad infinitum. > Why do you say that?!? It is much easier to be sure the heat is real when there is no input power. It is much more definitive, not less. What you say makes no sense to me. Please explain. - Jed
RE: [Vo]:July 7th E-Cat test report
I think that there has not been any serious arguments presented on heat after death discussion. Frankly it was just silly episode in discussion, where some who violently are opposing Rossi are just inventing ad hoc explantions when we are presenting them real data that is in direct contradiction to their beliefs and prejudices. But if we are judging tweets correctly E-Cat has now run four hours in "heat after death" mode. —Jouni On Oct 6, 2011 7:39 PM, "Robert Leguillon" wrote: > > > > Is there a long report for July 7th? > > I've noticed that the times on the graph do not match Bianchini's report at all. It appears that the graph may have been clipped during its "stability phase". If it had leveled for a long period (during phase change) and then rose again, that would be interesting. What the graph currently shows contraindicates total water evaporation. > This would make it a 1.22 kW E-Cat, not a 10.6 kW E-Cat. > Again, this may just be a bad graph. > > Of course, none of this matters after today. The phase change and overflow water are taken out of the picture, right? > We can only hope and pray that there is more power observed on the secondary than is supplied to the primary during peak energy application. > If gains are only observed during "heat after death", we will be arguing the results ad infinitum. > > Watching Intently, > > R.L.
RE: [Vo]:July 7th E-Cat test report
Is there a long report for July 7th? I've noticed that the times on the graph do not match Bianchini's report at all. It appears that the graph may have been clipped during its "stability phase". If it had leveled for a long period (during phase change) and then rose again, that would be interesting. What the graph currently shows contraindicates total water evaporation. This would make it a 1.22 kW E-Cat, not a 10.6 kW E-Cat. Again, this may just be a bad graph. Of course, none of this matters after today. The phase change and overflow water are taken out of the picture, right? We can only hope and pray that there is more power observed on the secondary than is supplied to the primary during peak energy application. If gains are only observed during "heat after death", we will be arguing the results ad infinitum. Watching Intently, R.L.
Re: [Vo]:July 7th E-Cat test report
This was my number one hypothesis why Rossi did not let Krivit to see working E-Cat, because he had already perfected the self-sustaining E-Cat back then. He announced self-sustaining model in June 20th. Therefore there was not point of showing for Krivit an obsolete model, therefore electricity only was used. —Jouni On Oct 6, 2011 6:01 PM, "Akira Shirakawa" wrote: > On 2011-10-06 16:11, Akira Shirakawa wrote: > >> http://22passi.blogspot.com/2011/10/test-e-cat-7-luglio-2011.html > > According to Passerini (in one of his comments), there were "Fat-Cat" > modules ready for use back in June, but they haven't been shown to > Krivit during his visit in Bologna for a reason or another. I wonder why. > > Cheers, > S.A. >
Re: [Vo]:July 7th E-Cat test report
On 2011-10-06 16:11, Akira Shirakawa wrote: http://22passi.blogspot.com/2011/10/test-e-cat-7-luglio-2011.html According to Passerini (in one of his comments), there were "Fat-Cat" modules ready for use back in June, but they haven't been shown to Krivit during his visit in Bologna for a reason or another. I wonder why. Cheers, S.A.
