Re: [Vo]:[Vo] : ECAT 1 MW System-Dazzle or Fizzle
Am 19.11.2011 07:48, schrieb David Roberson: On Sat, Nov 19, 2011 at 12:25 AM, David Roberson dlrober...@aol.com mailto:dlrober...@aol.com wrote: On Fri, Nov 18, 2011 at 12:35 PM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com mailto:jedrothw...@gmail.com wrote: Rossi has given out _far_ more proof than any previous cold fusion researcher. The COP of any domestic or industrial gas boiler prototype is measured with better precision and evidency than Rossis e-cat was measured. Not to forget, a gas boiler is more difficult to measure, because it produces hot combustion products, that must be released into the air. Rossi friends have not reached the lowest industrial prototype testing standards with their demonstrations and measurements. Peter
Re: [Vo]:[Vo] : ECAT 1 MW System-Dazzle or Fizzle
Why are you dazzled by a test in which results were never verified by any credible and known independent observers? Even though there was more than a dozen invited guests there who could have done so? And could you explain why a test of a large machine is necessary or helpful when it's composed of 50+ subunits, none of which have been properly and independently shown to actually work as advertised?
Re: [Vo]:[Vo] : ECAT 1 MW System-Dazzle or Fizzle
I guess that I am easy to dazzle. Rossi explained the reason for the secrecy, and I believe him. And finally, I did see proof that the small units work as advertised. Dave -Original Message- From: Mary Yugo maryyu...@gmail.com To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Fri, Nov 18, 2011 11:37 am Subject: Re: [Vo]:[Vo] : ECAT 1 MW System-Dazzle or Fizzle Why are you dazzled by a test in which results were never verified by any credible and known independent observers? Even though there was more than a dozen invited guests there who could have done so? And could you explain why a test of a large machine is necessary or helpful when it's composed of 50+ subunits, none of which have been properly and independently shown to actually work as advertised?
Re: [Vo]:[Vo] : ECAT 1 MW System-Dazzle or Fizzle
Am 18.11.2011 17:41, schrieb David Roberson: I guess that I am easy to dazzle. Rossi explained the reason for the secrecy, and I believe him. And finally, I did see proof that the small units work as advertised. My domestic 10kW gasboiler is in any case better proven than the e-cat. It works as advertised. When it is -20° outside then I have +21° inside. This is impossible with a 2kW heater.
Re: [Vo]:[Vo] : ECAT 1 MW System-Dazzle or Fizzle
On Fri, Nov 18, 2011 at 10:17 AM, David Roberson dlrober...@aol.com wrote: The October 28, 2011 test of the Rossi 1 MW LENR system was either a success or a failure depending upon your point of view. The skeptics have decided to totally disregard the test results without allowing the ECAT any reasonable chance of success. Not true. This skeptic has considered the measurements reported on Rossi's 3-page report, and found that the measurements do not support Rossi's claim of heat from nuclear reactions. His calculation of 470 kW is based on an unsupportable assumption of dry steam at the output. No evidence is given on the report or verbally, that it is in fact dry. There is only the claim. In fact, the evidence excludes the possibility. What would you expect for them to do? They see the glass as half empty while the proponents of the ECAT see it as half full. There is no possibility for a resolution of this impasse without a large quantity of data. A small quantity of good data would resolve this impasse. Rossi is careful not to supply it, because the impasse is essential to his modus operandi. Mr. Rossi was expecting to dazzle us with his brilliant 1 MW ECAT system. I think he was expecting to confuse people with it, and to maintain a following of true believers who want desperately to believe his claims have merit. In that, he succeeded. Making one ECAT operate into a well defined load is not easy, [...] You're just trying to make excuses for why Rossi can't give a convincing demo of gigajoules of energy from a few grams of nickel. Both of them would understand the reason to throttle back the power level to the 470 kW output region. The throttling back by a factor of 2 was not the problem with the megacat demo. It was the failure to demonstrate more energy out than energy in, that was the problem. All the customer would need to witness is that the ECAT system vaporized the water input and output dry steam at an approximately defined level. This was apparently what the customer engineer saw. He didn't even *claim* to see that. The fluid was inside a closed system. According to his interview with Lewan, he based his claim of dry steam on the temperature, and the claim the liquid was captured. But without pressure the temperature does not prove dry steam, and capturing liquid with a tee in the conduit doesn't work if the water is entrained in fast moving steam, and it works even less well, if the valve is closed, as appears to have been the case. Oops. If it was dry steam, then he is claiming an eightfold increase in power transfer in a matter of minutes. How does that work? Who would doubt that water would initially be collected within the water trap before the ECATs came up to power? The engineer would have a serious case of ignorance disease if he did not verify that water was being trapped under the cold ECAT condition. Give the guy a little slack here. But that says nothing about whether the water will be trapped when 1% of the water is vaporized. In that case, the vapor occupies more than 90% of the volume in the conduit, increasing the pressure and boiling point, and producing a mist of entrained droplets in the pipe. The mist will not be trapped, especially if the valve is closed. And why should we cut him slack? He clearly failed to demonstrate any expertise in this event. After proving that water is indeed trapped with no power applied, the test was begun and the data that we see was obtained. It only proved that water was trapped when 100% liquid. That says nothing about whether or not water was trapped when 1% (by mass) is steam, giving 90% steam by volume. And especially if the valve was closed. Rossi knows perfectly well how much water is required in order to produce 500 kW of output power in self sustaining mode. Why is water required to produce heat? I goes you mean how much water is required to get 100% vaporization to within one per cent or less. Do you question this? He also knows that his ECAT 1 MW system puts out approximately 500 kW without drive. I have no reason to believe he knows that. And approximately isn't good enough. If he's claiming dry steam, then he'd have to know it to a per cent or so, which seems unlikely. And the power would have to be stable to a per cent or so, which is also unlikely. With this arrangement, all Rossi and the engineer have to do is watch the water collected within the liquid trap and keep emptying it until no more water appears. But with the trap they were using, water would stop appearing at the onset of boiling, because it would immediately produce a high speed gas containing entrained mist. Of course, closing the valve would also cause water to stop being trapped. Everyone is happy except for our skeptic members. Right, because no one can explain: (1) why is the temperature so stable, requiring power stability of 1% (2) how does he get an 8-fold increase in
Re: [Vo]:[Vo] : ECAT 1 MW System-Dazzle or Fizzle
On Fri, Nov 18, 2011 at 9:10 AM, Peter Heckert peter.heck...@arcor.dewrote: Am 18.11.2011 17:41, schrieb David Roberson: My domestic 10kW gasboiler is in any case better proven than the e-cat. Rossi has reported several times and it's in his patent application that he had a 35 kW E-cat Ni-H *fusion* heater heating his factory in N. Italy for more than a year. Unfortunately, nobody but Rossi has ever reported seeing it and nobody at all has ever reported testing and verifying it. Somehow it was lost. (sarcasm omitted with considerable difficulty)
Re: [Vo]:[Vo] : ECAT 1 MW System-Dazzle or Fizzle
On Fri, Nov 18, 2011 at 9:29 AM, Joshua Cude joshua.c...@gmail.com wrote: Right, because no one can explain: (1) why is the temperature so stable, requiring power stability of 1% (2) how does he get an 8-fold increase in power transfer in a few minutes, if the first-fold power increase took 2 hours. Excellent questions. Perhaps Jed Rothwell can address them?
Re: [Vo]:[Vo] : ECAT 1 MW System-Dazzle or Fizzle
Mary Yugo wrote: Rossi has reported several times and it's in his patent application that he had a 35 kW E-cat Ni-H *fusion* heater heating his factory in N. Italy for more than a year. Unfortunately, nobody but Rossi has ever reported seeing it . . . That is incorrect. Focardi and many other people reported seeing it, including several people I know. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:[Vo] : ECAT 1 MW System-Dazzle or Fizzle
On Fri, Nov 18, 2011 at 11:58 AM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.comwrote: Mary Yugo wrote: Rossi has reported several times and it's in his patent application that he had a 35 kW E-cat Ni-H *fusion* heater heating his factory in N. Italy for more than a year. Unfortunately, nobody but Rossi has ever reported seeing it . . . That is incorrect. Focardi and many other people reported seeing it, including several people I know. Please indicate where. I have not seen such reports.
Re: [Vo]:[Vo] : ECAT 1 MW System-Dazzle or Fizzle
Am 18.11.2011 18:58, schrieb Jed Rothwell: Mary Yugo wrote: Rossi has reported several times and it's in his patent application that he had a 35 kW E-cat Ni-H *fusion* heater heating his factory in N. Italy for more than a year. Unfortunately, nobody but Rossi has ever reported seeing it . . . That is incorrect. Focardi and many other people reported seeing it, including several people I know. So we may assume it is as real as an UFO, which was seen and reported by many people. Now, this is the scientific proof that was missing. There are even unsharp images in Focardis TEDx event video, so it must be true! Peter
Re: [Vo]:[Vo] : ECAT 1 MW System-Dazzle or Fizzle
On Fri, Nov 18, 2011 at 9:58 AM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com wrote: Mary Yugo wrote: Rossi has reported several times and it's in his patent application that he had a 35 kW E-cat Ni-H *fusion* heater heating his factory in N. Italy for more than a year. Unfortunately, nobody but Rossi has ever reported seeing it . . . That is incorrect. Focardi and many other people reported seeing it, including several people I know. Anyone independent of Rossi? And who confirmed it's operation? And that the energy source was nuclear? And as Joshua Cude asked, where did this appear?
Re: [Vo]:[Vo] : ECAT 1 MW System-Dazzle or Fizzle
I do not know where to begin. There is at least as much speculation in the response as I used to explain what was a likely scenario. On Fri, Nov 18, 2011 at 10:17 AM, David Roberson dlrober...@aol.com wrote: The October 28, 2011 test of the Rossi 1 MW LENR system was either a success or a failure depending upon your point of view. The skeptics have decided to totally disregard the test results without allowing the ECAT any reasonable chance of success. Not true. This skeptic has considered the measurements reported on Rossi's 3-page report, and found that the measurements do not support Rossi's claim of heat from nuclear reactions. His calculation of 470 kW is based on an unsupportable assumption of dry steam at the output. No evidence is given on the report or verbally, that it is in fact dry. There is only the claim. In fact, the evidence excludes the possibility. No water is trapped within the little water trap. Why do you think he has a shut off valve after of the trap location? Do you think it is to stop the high speed vapor from forcing it past the take out when he is measuring water? What would you expect for them to do? They see the glass as half empty while the proponents of the ECAT see it as half full. There is no possibility for a resolution of this impasse without a large quantity of data. A small quantity of good data would resolve this impasse. Rossi is careful not to supply it, because the impasse is essential to his modus operandi. Prove it. Mr. Rossi was expecting to dazzle us with his brilliant 1 MW ECAT system. I think he was expecting to confuse people with it, and to maintain a following of true believers who want desperately to believe his claims have merit. In that, he succeeded. Just your opinion. Making one ECAT operate into a well defined load is not easy, [...] You're just trying to make excuses for why Rossi can't give a convincing demo of gigajoules of energy from a few grams of nickel. I guess you know how to make a 1 MW system. Please explain how you would do it. Both of them would understand the reason to throttle back the power level to the 470 kW output region. The throttling back by a factor of 2 was not the problem with the megacat demo. It was the failure to demonstrate more energy out than energy in, that was the problem. Not true. Prove this is the reason. All the customer would need to witness is that the ECAT system vaporized the water input and output dry steam at an approximately defined level. This was apparently what the customer engineer saw. He didn't even claim to see that. The fluid was inside a closed system. According to his interview with Lewan, he based his claim of dry steam on the temperature, and the claim the liquid was captured. But without pressure the temperature does not prove dry steam, and capturing liquid with a tee in the conduit doesn't work if the water is entrained in fast moving steam, and it works even less well, if the valve is closed, as appears to have been the case. Oops. He used good engineering practices to prove to himself that the test was valid. Do you question his knowledge? Do you know better? If it was dry steam, then he is claiming an eightfold increase in power transfer in a matter of minutes. How does that work? Does the data support the claim? You always insist on data. Why do you now say it is irrelevant? Who would doubt that water would initially be collected within the water trap before the ECATs came up to power? The engineer would have a serious case of ignorance disease if he did not verify that water was being trapped under the cold ECAT condition. Give the guy a little slack here. But that says nothing about whether the water will be trapped when 1% of the water is vaporized. In that case, the vapor occupies more than 90% of the volume in the conduit, increasing the pressure and boiling point, and producing a mist of entrained droplets in the pipe. The mist will not be trapped, especially if the valve is closed. Close the lower valve after the collection point to stop steam flow in that path. This is the lowest point so the water will flow freely into it. Do you doubt that this will occur? Why? And why should we cut him slack? He clearly failed to demonstrate any expertise in this event. I guess we are to assume that you know all the facts. Were you there? Did you discuss anything with the gentleman to determine that he might know far more than yourself? After proving that water is indeed trapped with no power applied, the test was begun and the data that we see was obtained. It only proved that water was trapped when 100% liquid. That says nothing about whether or not water was trapped when 1% (by mass) is steam, giving 90% steam by volume. And especially if the valve was closed. The valve following the trap can be closed. Please think about the system.
Re: [Vo]:[Vo] : ECAT 1 MW System-Dazzle or Fizzle
I already did. Do you need clarification? Dave -Original Message- From: Mary Yugo maryyu...@gmail.com To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Fri, Nov 18, 2011 12:35 pm Subject: Re: [Vo]:[Vo] : ECAT 1 MW System-Dazzle or Fizzle On Fri, Nov 18, 2011 at 9:29 AM, Joshua Cude joshua.c...@gmail.com wrote: Right, because no one can explain: (1) why is the temperature so stable, requiring power stability of 1% (2) how does he get an 8-fold increase in power transfer in a few minutes, if the first-fold power increase took 2 hours. Excellent questions. Perhaps Jed Rothwell can address them?
Re: [Vo]:[Vo] : ECAT 1 MW System-Dazzle or Fizzle
Mary Yugo wrote: That is incorrect. Focardi and many other people reported seeing it, including several people I know. Anyone independent of Rossi? They are as independent of him as I am. None of them work for him, and none are in business relationships as far as I know. Focardi is a close friend, of course. And who confirmed it's operation? All of them did, in test results they showed me, which unfortunately I cannot upload. And that the energy source was nuclear? We know it is nuclear for the same reason we know any cold fusion reaction is: there is no chemical fuel in the cell, there are no chemical transformations, and the cell produces thousands of times more energy than any chemical cell of equivalent mass could. They may have done other nuclear tests but I did not hear about that. And as Joshua Cude asked, where did this appear? These results have not been published. Stremmenos and Focardi discussed them briefly in the press. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:[Vo] : ECAT 1 MW System-Dazzle or Fizzle
Personally, I like the 18 hr water heating only run done in February. Seems good to me. I'd like the hard core skeptics (e.g. Mary, Joshua Rich) to go away and leave us poor believers to our delusions. Ron --On Friday, November 18, 2011 11:41 AM -0500 David Roberson dlrober...@aol.com wrote: I guess that I am easy to dazzle. Rossi explained the reason for the secrecy, and I believe him. And finally, I did see proof that the small units work as advertised. Dave -Original Message- From: Mary Yugo maryyu...@gmail.com To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Fri, Nov 18, 2011 11:37 am Subject: Re: [Vo]:[Vo] : ECAT 1 MW System-Dazzle or Fizzle Why are you dazzled by a test in which results were never verified by any credible and known independent observers? Even though there was more than a dozen invited guests there who could have done so? And could you explain why a test of a large machine is necessary or helpful when it's composed of 50+ subunits, none of which have been properly and independently shown to actually work as advertised?
Re: [Vo]:[Vo] : ECAT 1 MW System-Dazzle or Fizzle
On Fri, Nov 18, 2011 at 10:17 AM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.comwrote: Mary Yugo wrote: That is incorrect. Focardi and many other people reported seeing it, including several people I know. Anyone independent of Rossi? They are as independent of him as I am. None of them work for him, and none are in business relationships as far as I know. Focardi is a close friend, of course. And who confirmed it's operation? All of them did, in test results they showed me, which unfortunately I cannot upload. SNIP Yet another lovely story which can not be confirmed. That's a pity! We only need *one* that can be and we never seem to get it. Why is that, Jed?
Re: [Vo]:[Vo] : ECAT 1 MW System-Dazzle or Fizzle
This one is for you to explain. You always complain about the lack of data. If you think about the system long enough, I am confident you will understand why. That's an answer? Yes, please, by all means clarify. (1) why is the temperature so stable, requiring power stability of 1% Easy. The water level is adjusting. No requirement of 1% exists. Lets argue this point in a separate posting if you wish. I wish you two would. That would be educational. M. Y. *--- On Fri, Nov 18, 2011 at 10:15 AM, David Roberson dlrober...@aol.com wrote: I already did. Do you need clarification? Dave -Original Message- From: Mary Yugo maryyu...@gmail.com To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Fri, Nov 18, 2011 12:35 pm Subject: Re: [Vo]:[Vo] : ECAT 1 MW System-Dazzle or Fizzle On Fri, Nov 18, 2011 at 9:29 AM, Joshua Cude joshua.c...@gmail.comwrote: Right, because no one can explain: (1) why is the temperature so stable, requiring power stability of 1% (2) how does he get an 8-fold increase in power transfer in a few minutes, if the first-fold power increase took 2 hours. Excellent questions. Perhaps Jed Rothwell can address them?
Re: [Vo]:[Vo] : ECAT 1 MW System-Dazzle or Fizzle
Mary Yugo maryyu...@gmail.com wrote: On Fri, Nov 18, 2011 at 9:29 AM, Joshua Cude joshua.c...@gmail.comwrote: Right, because no one can explain: (1) why is the temperature so stable, requiring power stability of 1% The temperature is not stable. It fluctuates considerably, as you see in the cooling loop data. People who believe in the stable do not understand that water at one atmosphere does not get any hotter than ~100°C. When you increase power, more water boils but the temperature does not go up. You will see this in any grade school level science textbook. It is surprising that adults do not know this. (2) how does he get an 8-fold increase in power transfer in a few minutes, if the first-fold power increase took 2 hours. This question is nonsense. The reaction took a long time to initiate, but once it got going it increased rapidly. With Fleischmann and Pons' original experiments it took a week for the metal to load and reaction to begin, but after that it sometimes increased very rapidly in a matter of minutes. Excellent questions. Perhaps Jed Rothwell can address them? Anyone can address them. The answers are obvious. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:[Vo] : ECAT 1 MW System-Dazzle or Fizzle
Am 18.11.2011 19:23, schrieb Mary Yugo: On Fri, Nov 18, 2011 at 10:17 AM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com mailto:jedrothw...@gmail.com wrote: Mary Yugo wrote: That is incorrect. Focardi and many other people reported seeing it, including several people I know. Anyone independent of Rossi? They are as independent of him as I am. None of them work for him, and none are in business relationships as far as I know. Focardi is a close friend, of course. Assuming, that this was a top secret years ago, how did they know what it is, when they have seen it? Has Rossi demonstrated and explained it in detail? If not, how can they know, it worked? Peter
Re: [Vo]:[Vo] : ECAT 1 MW System-Dazzle or Fizzle
On Fri, Nov 18, 2011 at 10:19 AM, Ron Wormus prot...@frii.com wrote: Personally, I like the 18 hr water heating only run done in February. Seems good to me. It's not a bit good. Did you see the Youtube interview Krivit did with Levi about this issue? Levi has had since last February to repeat the test but with proper records and calibrations that the original test lacked ... and he has failed to do it. Why do you think that is? I'd like the hard core skeptics (e.g. Mary, Joshua Rich) to go away and leave us poor believers to our delusions. Sort of like an ostrich hides their head in the sand when confronted with a threat (admittedly apocryphal)? What sort of interesting discussion can you have when only one side is represented?
Re: [Vo]:[Vo] : ECAT 1 MW System-Dazzle or Fizzle
Mary Yugo maryyu...@gmail.com wrote: All of them did, in test results they showed me, which unfortunately I cannot upload. SNIP Yet another lovely story which can not be confirmed. That's a pity! We only need *one* that can be and we never seem to get it. You have got it. Rossi has given out *far* more proof than any previous cold fusion researcher. There are videos and data from the Oct. 6 test. That test is irrefutable by first principles. The tests from earlier this year were also excellent despite the poor instrumentation. You and the other skeptics have not raised a single objection to the proof shown in the October 6 test, which is the fact that the water remained at boiling temperature for four hours with no input power. You yourself have not even addressed this issue. You talk about the position of the thermocouples -- which is irrelevant -- or you yell about fraud or Steorn, fraud, Steorn, fraud. You refuse to address the issues; you refuse to look at the facts; you do not even understand steam at one atmosphere never gets much hotter than 100°C. You refuse to learn anything about cold fusion. Really, you have no business discussing this matter. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:[Vo] : ECAT 1 MW System-Dazzle or Fizzle
Peter Heckert peter.heck...@arcor.de wrote: Assuming, that this was a top secret years ago, how did they know what it is, when they have seen it? I do not understand the question. It was not top secret to these people. They went into the factory, examined the reactor, and measured the input and output power. Has Rossi demonstrated and explained it in detail? He did not have to explain anything. Focardi et al. know what cold fusion reactor is. If not, how can they know, it worked? By calorimetry. How else? - Jed
Re: [Vo]:[Vo] : ECAT 1 MW System-Dazzle or Fizzle
I wrote: There are videos and data from the Oct. 6 test. That test is irrefutable by first principles. The tests from earlier this year were also excellent despite the poor instrumentation. Let me add that if you are not convinced by the Oct. 6 test I do not think the earlier tests with the factory heater and the others I have seen would convince you. Calorimetry is calorimetry. On this scale it is always done the same way. There were no blank tests as far as I know -- no one ever does them with kilowatt scale reactions. The instrumentation was all standard off-the-shelf industrial HVAC type. You have already said that is not good enough for you. If these results are published, I am sure you will invent a bunch of malarkey such as: the temperatures measured at 100°C were really 80°C; steam does not stay at 100°C at 1 atm; it is possible to input 10 kW with a wire that would burn up above 3 kW. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:[Vo] : ECAT 1 MW System-Dazzle or Fizzle
OK Mary, you have heard my position on this manner, now explain why it is not possible? I refer to the (1) item you list. I expect for you to cry that no one has proved that this is what is happening, etc. Instead, for once let me know why it is not possible. So, if the water level is changing within the ECAT, why should the power level output be required to hold within 1%? It is your turn now. The first one about the fast action is left for the student. I probably could explain it if I took the time, but why should I ruin your fun? Dave -Original Message- From: Mary Yugo maryyu...@gmail.com To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Fri, Nov 18, 2011 1:30 pm Subject: Re: [Vo]:[Vo] : ECAT 1 MW System-Dazzle or Fizzle This one is for you to explain. You always complain about the lack of data. If you think about the system long enough, I am confident you will understand why. That's an answer? Yes, please, by all means clarify. (1) why is the temperature so stable, requiring power stability of 1% Easy. The water level is adjusting. No requirement of 1% exists. Lets argue this point in a separate posting if you wish. I wish you two would. That would be educational. M. Y. *--- On Fri, Nov 18, 2011 at 10:15 AM, David Roberson dlrober...@aol.com wrote: I already did. Do you need clarification? Dave -Original Message- From: Mary Yugo maryyu...@gmail.com To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Fri, Nov 18, 2011 12:35 pm Subject: Re: [Vo]:[Vo] : ECAT 1 MW System-Dazzle or Fizzle On Fri, Nov 18, 2011 at 9:29 AM, Joshua Cude joshua.c...@gmail.com wrote: Right, because no one can explain: (1) why is the temperature so stable, requiring power stability of 1% (2) how does he get an 8-fold increase in power transfer in a few minutes, if the first-fold power increase took 2 hours. Excellent questions. Perhaps Jed Rothwell can address them?
Re: [Vo]:[Vo] : ECAT 1 MW System-Dazzle or Fizzle
I do not think Krivit is someone to be believed. He intentionally sets traps with questions that most people would not give consideration to. Nowhere within Dr. Levi's answers is anything but honest discussion. Dr. Levi is an honest, decent man and you have no right to dishonor him. Dave -Original Message- From: Mary Yugo maryyu...@gmail.com To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Fri, Nov 18, 2011 1:34 pm Subject: Re: [Vo]:[Vo] : ECAT 1 MW System-Dazzle or Fizzle On Fri, Nov 18, 2011 at 10:19 AM, Ron Wormus prot...@frii.com wrote: Personally, I like the 18 hr water heating only run done in February. Seems good to me. It's not a bit good. Did you see the Youtube interview Krivit did with Levi about this issue? Levi has had since last February to repeat the test but with proper records and calibrations that the original test lacked ... and he has failed to do it. Why do you think that is? I'd like the hard core skeptics (e.g. Mary, Joshua Rich) to go away and leave us poor believers to our delusions. Sort of like an ostrich hides their head in the sand when confronted with a threat (admittedly apocryphal)? What sort of interesting discussion can you have when only one side is represented?
Re: [Vo]:[Vo] : ECAT 1 MW System-Dazzle or Fizzle
David Roberson wrote: So, if the water level is changing within the ECAT, why should the power level output be required to hold within 1%? It is your turn now. Oh right. Power level. I was talking about the T2 temperature remaining stable. I confused the issue. Naturally, the water level might have fluctuated. It must have, given the very low flow rate recorded by Lewan when the power was at at the lowest point during the self sustaining event. It could not have been overflowing at that time. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:[Vo] : ECAT 1 MW System-Dazzle or Fizzle
David Roberson dlrober...@aol.com wrote: I do not think Krivit is someone to be believed. He intentionally sets traps with questions that most people would not give consideration to. Nowhere within Dr. Levi's answers is anything but honest discussion. Right. The parts that Krivit described as suspicious were caused by the fact that Levi was speaking a second language. I could not have done as well if I had been interviewed in Japanese. I doubt that Krivit speaks a second language fluently. He seems to have no idea how difficult it is. Rossi also speaks English quite well. Krivit made fun of his accent and his Italian-influenced hesitation noises. A hesitation noise is the linguistic term for interjections such as ah, umm. We do not hear these noises in our own language, and we do not include them in a transcript, the way Krivit did. That was outrageous. Dr. Levi is an honest, decent man and you have no right to dishonor him. Yup. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:[Vo] : ECAT 1 MW System-Dazzle or Fizzle
I proposed a scenario of how the 1 MW system was operated and it seemed obvious that it would be quite simple to allow the water level within the ECAT to slowly drop throughout the test. This process would eliminate the demand for super accurate power output that is a sticking point for the skeptical among us. They insist that the output flow must always be exactly equal to the input flow, which is most likely in error. This also allows the ECAT water level to be below full which has several advantages. With this condition, there is a relatively large space above the water for vapor to exist which can then exit at 100 % quality. Also, the internal temperature of the individual ECATs depends upon the pressure at the output port. If I were Rossi, this is the way I would have wanted to run the big test. And, if too much water was evaporating from the ECATs, the pump flow could be increased slightly. Dave -Original Message- From: Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Fri, Nov 18, 2011 1:57 pm Subject: Re: [Vo]:[Vo] : ECAT 1 MW System-Dazzle or Fizzle David Roberson wrote: So, if the water level is changing within the ECAT, why should the power level output be required to hold within 1%? It is your turn now. Oh right. Power level. I was talking about the T2 temperature remaining stable. I confused the issue. Naturally, the water level might have fluctuated. It must have, given the very low flow rate recorded by Lewan when the power was at at the lowest point during the self sustaining event. It could not have been overflowing at that time. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:[Vo] : ECAT 1 MW System-Dazzle or Fizzle
On Fri, Nov 18, 2011 at 12:14 PM, David Roberson dlrober...@aol.com wrote: Not true. This skeptic has considered the measurements reported on Rossi's 3-page report, and found that the measurements do not support Rossi's claim of heat from nuclear reactions. His calculation of 470 kW is based on an unsupportable assumption of dry steam at the output. No evidence is given on the report or verbally, that it is in fact dry. There is only the claim. In fact, the evidence excludes the possibility. No water is trapped within the little water trap. Why do you think he has a shut off valve after of the trap location? Do you think it is to stop the high speed vapor from forcing it past the take out when he is measuring water? From Lewan's video that valve to the trap was closed at 3:00, but it's not clear that any water would be trapped from a mist of 99% liquid water by mass (90% steam by volume). I don't know what the valve after the trap is for. What do you think it is for, and what is it's relevance? It was open in any case. There is no possibility for a resolution of this impasse without a large quantity of data. A small quantity of good data would resolve this impasse. Rossi is careful not to supply it, because the impasse is essential to his modus operandi. Prove it. So, you can make statements without proof, but I can't? I think my claim is self-evident. For example, an isolated 1-kg device that could heat an olympic pool to boiling in an hour would resolve the impasse, and that's a small quantity of good data. Far less than that would be required, but it justifies the statement. On the other hand, your suggestion that a several kW device can't be unequivocally demonstrated (with ease) is insupportable. Mr. Rossi was expecting to dazzle us with his brilliant 1 MW ECAT system. I think he was expecting to confuse people with it, and to maintain a following of true believers who want desperately to believe his claims have merit. In that, he succeeded. Just your opinion. ...expressed to counter yours. Big deal. Both of them would understand the reason to throttle back the power level to the 470 kW output region. The throttling back by a factor of 2 was not the problem with the megacat demo. It was the failure to demonstrate more energy out than energy in, that was the problem. Not true. Prove this is the reason. Not sure if you understood my statement. I meant, the throttling back was not the objection I had to the demonstration, so your justification of it is wasted on me. The objection to the demo is that it failed to demonstrate more energy out than in. I don't have to prove what my objection was. But I don't think other skeptics had a problem with the throttling either. Do you have some complaints about that? Most of the complaints centered around unverifiable measurements, connected generators, and the like. He used good engineering practices to prove to himself that the test was valid. Do you question his knowledge? Do you know better? I question his report and his competence. The information on the report does not prove the test was valid, and a competent engineer would have made sure the report contained the necessary information to prove the test was valid. [...] If it was dry steam, then he is claiming an eightfold increase in power transfer in a matter of minutes. How does that work? Does the data support the claim? You always insist on data. Why do you now say it is irrelevant? What claim are you referring to? Rossi is claiming an 8-fold increase in power transfer in a matter of minutes, not me. And no, the data doesn't support that. That's why I don't believe it. Where do I say data is irrelevant? I guess we are to assume that you know all the facts. Were you there? Did you discuss anything with the gentleman to determine that he might know far more than yourself? I know what they reported. The report was supposed to justify their claim. If you accept their *measurements*, it doesn't. The assumption they make on the report is not justified. To that extent, he has not done his job. After proving that water is indeed trapped with no power applied, the test was begun and the data that we see was obtained. It only proved that water was trapped when 100% liquid. (And that proof is not in the report either.) That says nothing about whether or not water was trapped when 1% (by mass) is steam, giving 90% steam by volume. And especially if the valve was closed. The valve following the trap can be closed. Please think about the system. What's your point? If you close that valve, everything goes into the trap. What does that prove? You are kidding I guess about the 1 % figure. Ha Ha. Please explain how that is required if the water level within the ECAT is dropping or rising with power. This is not required to be a constant input water flow - constant output flow system (full ECAT). Water and
Re: [Vo]:[Vo] : ECAT 1 MW System-Dazzle or Fizzle
On Fri, Nov 18, 2011 at 12:17 PM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.comwrote: And who confirmed it's operation? All of them did, in test results they showed me, which unfortunately I cannot upload. So, for all we know, you just made it up. And as Joshua Cude asked, where did this appear? These results have not been published. So, for all we know, you made it up. Stremmenos and Focardi discussed them briefly in the press. What press was that? Doesn't press mean published? Where was it published?
Re: [Vo]:[Vo] : ECAT 1 MW System-Dazzle or Fizzle
On Fri, Nov 18, 2011 at 12:27 PM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.comwrote: Mary Yugo maryyu...@gmail.com wrote: (1) why is the temperature so stable, requiring power stability of 1% The temperature is not stable. It fluctuates considerably, as you see in the cooling loop data. The fluctuation is clearly less than +/- 5C. If that is dry steam, and the flow rate is constant, then the power is proportional to (620 + 0.5 deltaT). Which means that +/- 5C corresponds to +/- .5 %, or stable within a 1% range. If the output is a mixture of phases, then it would be at the boiling point, and then the small fluctuation would correspond to fluctuations in pressure, which is not too hard to believe. People who believe in the stable do not understand that water at one atmosphere does not get any hotter than ~100°C. Everyone understands that. We're talking about dry steam. Rossi claims the output is dry steam, and dry steam can get hotter than 100C at atmospheric pressure. When you increase power, more water boils but the temperature does not go up. That's only true if the heating elements are submerged. But what would happen if more water boils, is the water level would drop, exposing the heating elements, and causing the steam to increase in temperature. But if you're claiming that the reason for the stable temperature is that the heaters are submerged, and that the water is at the boiling point, then we agree. Yay. If the output is at the boiling point, then how does Rossi know that it is dry steam? If it's at the boiling point, it could be anywhere from 0% to 100% steam. You need some other measurement to determine the fraction of the water that gets vaporized. (2) how does he get an 8-fold increase in power transfer in a few minutes, if the first-fold power increase took 2 hours. This question is nonsense. The reaction took a long time to initiate, but once it got going it increased rapidly. ..revealing that you don't even understand the question. I have no problem with the power from the ecat core jumping instantly from zero to 470 kW. But to transfer that heat to the water requires the heating system to get much hotter. There's a lot of thermal mass there that has to get hot, as is observed in the pre-heating stage. How does the heat from the ecat heat up that thermal mass so much faster than the electric heater does. It has about 3 times higher power, but the claim is it heats it up the thermal mass 8 times as much in 40 times less time. How does that work? And it's worse than that, because as more of the water is vaporized, it takes more of the power out, leaving less power to heat the element, so as total vaporization is approached, the heating up slows down. It would almost certainly take hours to reach dry steam if the ecat really did produce 470 kW, which means that until that point is reached, the temperature is at the boiling point. Then the chance that the temperature would not increase when dry steam was reached is astronomically remote. In any case, the fact the temperature *doesn't* increase above boiling, means there is simply no evidence that the steam is dry. Excellent questions. Perhaps Jed Rothwell can address them? No point in asking him. He's been over this dozens of times, and not just with me, but with Lawrence and others. He will never understand these points. In the spring, Rothwell insisted until he was blue in the face that steam cannot be heated above 100C at atmospheric pressure, even though it was pointed out to him that the air he breathes is ~200C above its boiling point at atmospheric pressure. It wasn't until a scientist friend (presumably Storms) took him aside, that he relented. But he still has problems with the concept as illustrated in his response above. It was after this that I realized that one can't put much confidence in his technical analyses, and that he can be supremely confident, even when he is wrong about something taught in grade school. Of course he'll never learn from my posts, because he doesn't read them unless they're quoted. I guess it's the ostrich mentality. Anyone can address them. Not you, evidently.
Re: [Vo]:[Vo] : ECAT 1 MW System-Dazzle or Fizzle
I am sorry, but I can not actually tell what is your response as compared to the others. You need to make your own statements so I can straighten them out if they are coherent. I want to mention that you make a great case for the fact that the ECAT system actually puts out more power than the original estimate. The upper limit is not too well defined by the test that was conducted. All the HVAC guy did was to assume that all of the input water was vaporized. He did not actually measure whether or not the level of the water within the ECATs is becoming lower. More power output would make that level drop. The fact that the steam is dry suggests bias toward extra power. So, please use your own words to state your point and I will be able to test it. Thanks. Dave -Original Message- From: Joshua Cude joshua.c...@gmail.com To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Sat, Nov 19, 2011 12:14 am Subject: Re: [Vo]:[Vo] : ECAT 1 MW System-Dazzle or Fizzle On Fri, Nov 18, 2011 at 12:27 PM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com wrote: Mary Yugo maryyu...@gmail.com wrote: (1) why is the temperature so stable, requiring power stability of 1% The temperature is not stable. It fluctuates considerably, as you see in the cooling loop data. The fluctuation is clearly less than +/- 5C. If that is dry steam, and the flow rate is constant, then the power is proportional to (620 + 0.5 deltaT). Which means that +/- 5C corresponds to +/- .5 %, or stable within a 1% range. If the output is a mixture of phases, then it would be at the boiling point, and then the small fluctuation would correspond to fluctuations in pressure, which is not too hard to believe. People who believe in the stable do not understand that water at one atmosphere does not get any hotter than ~100°C. Everyone understands that. We're talking about dry steam. Rossi claims the output is dry steam, and dry steam can get hotter than 100C at atmospheric pressure. When you increase power, more water boils but the temperature does not go up. That's only true if the heating elements are submerged. But what would happen if more water boils, is the water level would drop, exposing the heating elements, and causing the steam to increase in temperature. But if you're claiming that the reason for the stable temperature is that the heaters are submerged, and that the water is at the boiling point, then we agree. Yay. If the output is at the boiling point, then how does Rossi know that it is dry steam? If it's at the boiling point, it could be anywhere from 0% to 100% steam. You need some other measurement to determine the fraction of the water that gets vaporized. (2) how does he get an 8-fold increase in power transfer in a few minutes, if the first-fold power increase took 2 hours. This question is nonsense. The reaction took a long time to initiate, but once it got going it increased rapidly. ..revealing that you don't even understand the question. I have no problem with the power from the ecat core jumping instantly from zero to 470 kW. But to transfer that heat to the water requires the heating system to get much hotter. There's a lot of thermal mass there that has to get hot, as is observed in the pre-heating stage. How does the heat from the ecat heat up that thermal mass so much faster than the electric heater does. It has about 3 times higher power, but the claim is it heats it up the thermal mass 8 times as much in 40 times less time. How does that work? And it's worse than that, because as more of the water is vaporized, it takes more of the power out, leaving less power to heat the element, so as total vaporization is approached, the heating up slows down. It would almost certainly take hours to reach dry steam if the ecat really did produce 470 kW, which means that until that point is reached, the temperature is at the boiling point. Then the chance that the temperature would not increase when dry steam was reached is astronomically remote. In any case, the fact the temperature *doesn't* increase above boiling, means there is simply no evidence that the steam is dry. Excellent questions. Perhaps Jed Rothwell can address them? No point in asking him. He's been over this dozens of times, and not just with me, but with Lawrence and others. He will never understand these points. In the spring, Rothwell insisted until he was blue in the face that steam cannot be heated above 100C at atmospheric pressure, even though it was pointed out to him that the air he breathes is ~200C above its boiling point at atmospheric pressure. It wasn't until a scientist friend (presumably Storms) took him aside, that he relented. But he still has problems with the concept as illustrated in his response above. It was after this that I realized that one can't put much confidence in his technical analyses, and that he can
Re: [Vo]:[Vo] : ECAT 1 MW System-Dazzle or Fizzle
On Fri, Nov 18, 2011 at 11:26 PM, David Roberson dlrober...@aol.com wrote: All the HVAC guy did was to assume that all of the input water was vaporized. Right. But the assumption was not based on any evidence. The temperature is consistent with 1% steam. He did not actually measure whether or not the level of the water within the ECATs is becoming lower. Right. He only measured the temperature, which only proves 70 kW. So, please use your own words to state your point I have used only my own words.. and I will be able to test it. I no longer believe you are able to do that, if you can't understand that there is no evidence for dry steam presented.
Re: [Vo]:[Vo] : ECAT 1 MW System-Dazzle or Fizzle
On Fri, Nov 18, 2011 at 12:35 PM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.comwrote: Rossi has given out *far* more proof than any previous cold fusion researcher. That is a damning statement for the field of cold fusion. Now, if Rossi fizzles in a few years, that should mean there was never anything to cold fusion. There are videos and data from the Oct. 6 test. That test is irrefutable by first principles. The tests from earlier this year were also excellent despite the poor instrumentation. Once again, cold fusion standards are pitifully low... You and the other skeptics have not raised a single objection to the proof shown in the October 6 test, which is the fact that the water remained at boiling temperature for four hours with no input power. Wrong. You just ignore them, and then claim they don't exist. The thing weighs 100 kg, and it gets heated for several hours beforehand. If it's losing heat at 1 kW, 30 kg of fire brick heated to 500 or 1000C would have no problem holding the temperature at boiling for 3.25 hours. And 1 kg of alcohol could do it too. Live with it. You yourself have not even addressed this issue. You talk about the position of the thermocouples -- which is irrelevant It means you can ignore the power calculation based on that, meaning the best guess is (once again) from the primary fluid, which can be as low as 1 kW. you do not even understand steam at one atmosphere never gets much hotter than 100°C. Oh god, you're relapsing. Steam can be heated to any temperature you want at 1 atmosphere. Don't you know anything?
Re: [Vo]:[Vo] : ECAT 1 MW System-Dazzle or Fizzle
On Fri, Nov 18, 2011 at 12:48 PM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.comwrote: I wrote: There are videos and data from the Oct. 6 test. That test is irrefutable by first principles. The tests from earlier this year were also excellent despite the poor instrumentation. Let me add that if you are not convinced by the Oct. 6 test I do not think the earlier tests with the factory heater and the others I have seen would convince you. Well, if the ecat in his factory was plugged in drawing 5 kW of power, then you may be right. But if it was isolated and producing 5 kW of heat continuously for weeks, or months, anyone would be convinced. The Oct 6 test on the other hand did not produce more heat than it consumed, so it proved nothing,
Re: [Vo]:[Vo] : ECAT 1 MW System-Dazzle or Fizzle
-Original Message- From: Joshua Cude joshua.c...@gmail.com To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Sat, Nov 19, 2011 1:03 am Subject: Re: [Vo]:[Vo] : ECAT 1 MW System-Dazzle or Fizzle On Fri, Nov 18, 2011 at 11:26 PM, David Roberson dlrober...@aol.com wrote: All the HVAC guy did was to assume that all of the input water was vaporized. Right. But the assumption was not based on any evidence. The temperature is consistent with 1% steam. Lets wait on this discussion. It will become clear later. He did not actually measure whether or not the level of the water within the ECATs is becoming lower. Right. He only measured the temperature, which only proves 70 kW. Give it a little time to consider the facts. So, please use your own words to state your point I have used only my own words.. and I will be able to test it. I no longer believe you are able to do that, if you can't understand that there is no evidence for dry steam presented.
Re: [Vo]:[Vo] : ECAT 1 MW System-Dazzle or Fizzle
Lets approach this from a logical point of view. We should be able to agree about something. -Original Message- From: Joshua Cude joshua.c...@gmail.com To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Sat, Nov 19, 2011 1:15 am Subject: Re: [Vo]:[Vo] : ECAT 1 MW System-Dazzle or Fizzle On Fri, Nov 18, 2011 at 12:35 PM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com wrote: Rossi has given out far more proof than any previous cold fusion researcher. That is a damning statement for the field of cold fusion. Now, if Rossi fizzles in a few years, that should mean there was never anything to cold fusion. Rossi is not the only horse in the race. It is not fair to use a broad sweep. There are videos and data from the Oct. 6 test. That test is irrefutable by first principles. The tests from earlier this year were also excellent despite the poor instrumentation. Once again, cold fusion standards are pitifully low... Why rush to judgement. You and the other skeptics have not raised a single objection to the proof shown in the October 6 test, which is the fact that the water remained at boiling temperature for four hours with no input power. Wrong. You just ignore them, and then claim they don't exist. The thing weighs 100 kg, and it gets heated for several hours beforehand. If it's losing heat at 1 kW, 30 kg of fire brick heated to 500 or 1000C would have no problem holding the temperature at boiling for 3.25 hours. And 1 kg of alcohol could do it too. Live with it. Why should we be so combative? Point by point discussions should allow some agreement. You yourself have not even addressed this issue. You talk about the position of the thermocouples -- which is irrelevant It means you can ignore the power calculation based on that, meaning the best guess is (once again) from the primary fluid, which can be as low as 1 kW. Is this attitude going to convince anyone of anything? you do not even understand steam at one atmosphere never gets much hotter than 100°C. Oh god, you're relapsing. Steam can be heated to any temperature you want at 1 atmosphere. Don't you know anything? This is not the proper way to address fellow vortex mates.
Re: [Vo]:[Vo] : ECAT 1 MW System-Dazzle or Fizzle
-Original Message- From: Joshua Cude joshua.c...@gmail.com To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Sat, Nov 19, 2011 1:22 am Subject: Re: [Vo]:[Vo] : ECAT 1 MW System-Dazzle or Fizzle On Fri, Nov 18, 2011 at 12:48 PM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com wrote: I wrote: There are videos and data from the Oct. 6 test. That test is irrefutable by first principles. The tests from earlier this year were also excellent despite the poor instrumentation. Let me add that if you are not convinced by the Oct. 6 test I do not think the earlier tests with the factory heater and the others I have seen would convince you. Well, if the ecat in his factory was plugged in drawing 5 kW of power, then you may be right. But if it was isolated and producing 5 kW of heat continuously for weeks, or months, anyone would be convinced. The Oct 6 test on the other hand did not produce more heat than it consumed, so it proved nothing, The power calculated for the October test was a bit high due to poor thermocouple location. Even then, extra power is generated by the LENR process. Rossi did a good job of confusing the issue.
Re: [Vo]:[Vo] : ECAT 1 MW System-Dazzle or Fizzle
On Sat, Nov 19, 2011 at 12:25 AM, David Roberson dlrober...@aol.com wrote: On Fri, Nov 18, 2011 at 12:35 PM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.comwrote: Rossi has given out *far* more proof than any previous cold fusion researcher. That is a damning statement for the field of cold fusion. Now, if Rossi fizzles in a few years, that should mean there was never anything to cold fusion. Rossi is not the only horse in the race. It is not fair to use a broad sweep. The broad sweep came from Rothwell. Rossi may not be the only horse, but according to Rothwell, he is the best and fastest horse. So if he goes down, that won't say much for the rest of the field. There are videos and data from the Oct. 6 test. That test is irrefutable by first principles. The tests from earlier this year were also excellent despite the poor instrumentation. Once again, cold fusion standards are pitifully low... Why rush to judgement. Because, even if he's right, the demo has not convinced the world. And with the claims he's made, he should be able to do it easily. So the judgement is on the quality of the demo, which is pitiful, even if he is right . you do not even understand steam at one atmosphere never gets much hotter than 100°C. Oh god, you're relapsing. Steam can be heated to any temperature you want at 1 atmosphere. Don't you know anything? This is not the proper way to address fellow vortex mates. You're probably right, but have you seen the way he addressed me, that is, when he still read my posts? I'll do my best to keep my comments respectful.
Re: [Vo]:[Vo] : ECAT 1 MW System-Dazzle or Fizzle
On Sat, Nov 19, 2011 at 12:25 AM, David Roberson dlrober...@aol.com wrote: On Fri, Nov 18, 2011 at 12:35 PM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com wrote: Rossi has given out far more proof than any previous cold fusion researcher. That is a damning statement for the field of cold fusion. Now, if Rossi fizzles in a few years, that should mean there was never anything to cold fusion. Rossi is not the only horse in the race. It is not fair to use a broad sweep. The broad sweep came from Rothwell. Rossi may not be the only horse, but according to Rothwell, he is the best and fastest horse. So if he goes down, that won't say much for the rest of the field. I must admit, a lot is riding on him and the ECAT. How do you feel about the subject? Do you think that it is possible to have a LENR device or are you totally convinced the concept is non sense? There are videos and data from the Oct. 6 test. That test is irrefutable by first principles. The tests from earlier this year were also excellent despite the poor instrumentation. Once again, cold fusion standards are pitifully low... Why rush to judgement. Because, even if he's right, the demo has not convinced the world. And with the claims he's made, he should be able to do it easily. So the judgement is on the quality of the demo, which is pitiful, even if he is right We certainly agree on this. The demos have been totally atrocious. I am not sure why Rossi does not make an attempt to clean these up. . you do not even understand steam at one atmosphere never gets much hotter than 100°C. Oh god, you're relapsing. Steam can be heated to any temperature you want at 1 atmosphere. Don't you know anything? This is not the proper way to address fellow vortex mates. You're probably right, but have you seen the way he addressed me, that is, when he still read my posts? It is unfortunate that things may have gotten out of hand on this. Perhaps it works better if fewer points are discussed at a time. This way no one will get too weary of the long postings. I prefer to get directly to the point and go into details. I'll do my best to keep my comments respectful. Thank you. We can reach some form of understanding if we carefully consider all sides of the argument. I will do my best to study your points, but I can not say I will always agree.
