Re: [Vo]:Lewan video is informative

In reply to Angela Kemmler's message of Tue, 03 May 2011 06:25:50 +0200: Hi, [snip] >@Robin: there is also another error: Levi said, that the device was heated >with 600-700 W (his words). In reality, the value was much higher. Over 1 kW. >That's more than 40% error, always in favor of the Rossi

[Vo]:NASA is not going to replicate E-Cat

http://blog.newenergytimes.com/2011/05/02/rumor-of-nasa-replication-attempt-of-rossi-is-false/ Harry

Re: [Vo]:Lewan video is informative

In reply to Angela Kemmler's message of Tue, 03 May 2011 06:20:48 +0200: Hi, [snip] >But doing this, all the calculations of Mats Lewan are garbage. And, it would >be a sort of fraud against the journalist, not telling him that. If the test were done properly all quantities would be continuously

Re: [Vo]:Lewan video is informative

In reply to Angela Kemmler's message of Tue, 03 May 2011 06:35:41 +0200: Hi, [snip] >wasn't it 350 Watt? It is also a bit strange that he talks about two heating >resistors. Maybe the second one was switched off. I do not understand why >Rossi heats his reactor chamber with an external heater ou

Re: [Vo]:Lewan video is informative

Is the power input measurement correct ? I saw a clamp amp-meter only on the blue wire. But there are 3 wires and who can assert that the one supposed to be grounded, is not connected to another power source ? 2011/5/3 Angela Kemmler > wasn't it 350 Watt? It is also a bit strange that he talks

Re: [Vo]:Focusing on Excess Heat Prevents Red Herrings

I wonder how long the excess heat debate will take to settle. In my opinion, the evidence is clear there is a huge amount of excess heat. No one has been able to make a significant argument otherwise. Perhaps data from a month long run in Sweden will settle the minds of some skeptics. If not,

Re: [Vo]:Lewan video is informative

wasn't it 350 Watt? It is also a bit strange that he talks about two heating resistors. Maybe the second one was switched off. I do not understand why Rossi heats his reactor chamber with an external heater outside the copper tube, as if he wants to heat water by electricity. Or he does it becau

Re: [Vo]:Lewan video is informative

If he reduced the input without telling Mats it would only hurt the results and not help it. It would not really be fraud if you are doing something that does not help you. From: Angela Kemmler To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Mon, May 2, 2011 9:20:48 PM Subj

Re: [Vo]:Lewan video is informative

@Robin: there is also another error: Levi said, that the device was heated with 600-700 W (his words). In reality, the value was much higher. Over 1 kW. That's more than 40% error, always in favor of the Rossi-claims. Together with the other error we reach 280% error, and that lowers the power d

Re: [Vo]:Lewan video is informative

I bet Rossi was trying to keep the reaction perfectly stable throughout the experiment. He could have detected an increase in temperature and wanted to throttle down the input slightly. Yes, why not. We may also imagine an automatic regulating system in that blue box. But doing this, all th

Re: [Vo]:Lewan video is informative

In reply to Angela Kemmler's message of Tue, 03 May 2011 05:55:22 +0200: Hi, [snip] >Here we have (it's easy to hear in the video, listen to the regular "tok..tok" >noise) 31 strokes/minute. Lewan tells us: 63.3 ml/min. This confirms, the the >stroke volume was 2 ml. Now, we know also, that the

Re: [Vo]:Lewan video is informative

Q: Is it certain that the pump used is this experiment is the same one used in Jan? Oh yes! It looks exactly the same, and: look to the dirty fingerprints on the side! By the way, other people identifyed already the pump a couple of days ago. This raises also the question: who's pump is it? Is

Re: [Vo]:Lewan video is informative

I bet Rossi was trying to keep the reaction perfectly stable throughout the experiment. He could have detected an increase in temperature and wanted to throttle down the input slightly. From: Angela Kemmler To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Mon, May 2, 2011 8:

Re: [Vo]:Lewan video is informative

In reply to Angela Kemmler's message of Tue, 03 May 2011 05:55:22 +0200: Hi, [snip] >Here we have (it's easy to hear in the video, listen to the regular "tok..tok" >noise) 31 strokes/minute. Lewan tells us: 63.3 ml/min. This confirms, the the >stroke volume was 2 ml. Now, we know also, that the

Re: [Vo]:Lewan video is informative

> > On 11-05-02 10:36 PM, Angela Kemmler wrote: > > I just saw the video. And there is something interesting: at the end of > the video, Mats Lewan goes in an other room to follow the black hose ending > in that dirty bucket. And turning the camera, we can clearly see that > Rossi is "doing" somet

Re: [Vo]:Let us exercise some common sense in terms of dimensional analysis.

The natural isotope ratio issue is not an issue at all. Copper was found. There is no source of copper inside the reactor other than transmutations. The reactor is composed of stainless steel that does not contain copper. I read the V and B report. The simple fact is that cold fusion does not

Re: [Vo]:FAKE or REAL -- April test -- NO Chemical Fakes eliminated

Thanks for the response. I think the chance the technology is a fraud is very, very low. I would say less than 1%. I'm at the point where I think anyone who thinks this is a fraud must have an agenda, be a paid troll, or have a severe case of pathological skepticism. I'm not too concerned abo

Re: [Vo]:Lewan video is informative

On 11-05-02 10:36 PM, Angela Kemmler wrote: I just saw the video. And there is something interesting: at the end of the video, Mats Lewan goes in an other room to follow the black hose ending in that dirty bucket. And turning the camera, we can clearly see that Rossi is "doing" something with

Re: [Vo]:Lewan video is informative

In reply to Angela Kemmler's message of Tue, 03 May 2011 04:36:20 +0200: Hi, [snip] >I just saw the video. And there is something interesting: at the end of the >video, Mats Lewan goes in an other room to follow the black hose ending in >that dirty bucket. And turning the camera, we can clearly

RE: [Vo]:Let us exercise some common sense in terms of dimensional analysis.

From: noone noone * The proof is the copper produced by nuclear transmutations. No absolutely not. The natural isotope ratio means just the opposite. It means that this CANNOT be a nuclear reaction. * Once again, those scientists did not have a probe inside of the reaction ves

Re: [Vo]:FAKE or REAL -- April test -- NO Chemical Fakes eliminated

noone noone wrote: > I do not know why some people keep bringing up the notion that this > technology is a fake. It is not rational in my opinion. > It seems odd to me, as well. I am much more worried about other aspects of the technology, such as: 37 devices blew up; the device may not be as

Re: [Vo]:Let us exercise some common sense in terms of dimensional analysis.

The proof is the copper produced by nuclear transmutations. Once again, those scientists did not have a probe inside of the reaction vessel. They could not detect if radiation was being produced there. From: Jones Beene To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Mon, Ma

Re: [Vo]:Lewan video is informative

correction: 31/min, I checked it again with earphones. The values fit together! -- NEU: FreePhone - kostenlos mobil telefonieren und surfen! Jetzt informieren: http://www.gmx.net/de/go/freephone

RE: [Vo]:Let us exercise some common sense in terms of dimensional analysis.

From: noone > The E-Cat is producing nuclear reactions. You have amply demonstrated your ignorance on this subject. If it is producing nuclear reactions where is the proof? Only a fool would take Rossi’s word over the fine study by V&B …. Jones

Re: [Vo]:Lewan video is informative

I just saw the video. And there is something interesting: at the end of the video, Mats Lewan goes in an other room to follow the black hose ending in that dirty bucket. And turning the camera, we can clearly see that Rossi is "doing" something with the blue box. As if he was touching one of the

Re: [Vo]:Let us exercise some common sense in terms of dimensional analysis.

*“Do not let the perfect be the enemy of the good.”* On the contrary, it is perfect. Is that possible? What angel let this thing through the gates of heaven? *“The E-Cat does not produce Tritium or any other radioactive waste.”* Is it possible that some flaw has been overlooked? I have not

Re: [Vo]:Let us exercise some common sense in terms of dimensional analysis.

In reply to noone noone's message of Mon, 2 May 2011 19:03:56 -0700 (PDT): Hi, [snip] >The fact is that none of the E-Cats tested have ran out of hydrogen fuel. They >have all kept working until they were turned off. To say that an E-Cat only >produces less than a hundred times the energy of bur

Re: [Vo]:Let us exercise some common sense in terms of dimensional analysis.

In reply to Jones Beene's message of Mon, 2 May 2011 16:11:31 -0700: Hi, [snip] >Well it is a big surprise, if it is exact. I assume you mean if the "16" is exact. No it isn't. To start with, it's highly unlikely that all Hydrinos would shrink to exactly the same level, though it is possible tha

Re: [Vo]:The Virtual Retraction

It is hard for me to believe you are being sincere in your posts. The only reason for the output being less is the size of the reactor vessel is 50cc rather than one liter! There is no retraction here at all. If anything, this is a BOOST for the technology because the actual power density has

Re: [Vo]:The Virtual Retraction

There is proof of it! Look at the tiny bulge in the copper pipe. That is where the reactor is located. The reactor vessels are NOT the same size at all! The original one was huge and this one is tiny. Rossi is not hiding anything. From: Jones Beene To: vo

Re: [Vo]:Let us exercise some common sense in terms of dimensional analysis.

The fact is that none of the E-Cats tested have ran out of hydrogen fuel. They have all kept working until they were turned off. To say that an E-Cat only produces less than a hundred times the energy of burning hydrogen is ridiculous. If the E-Cat was left on for an extended period of time it

Re: [Vo]:Let us exercise some common sense in terms of dimensional analysis.

In reply to Jed Rothwell's message of Mon, 2 May 2011 20:59:42 -0400: Hi, [snip] >It is much too early to reach any conclusions about any of this. We do not >even know if this produces tritium, but only that the Pd-D system >does, occasionally. But that's to be expected, because T is frequently

Re: [Vo]:The Virtual Retraction

Note E&K report title refers to a "Experimental test of a mini-Rossi device . . ." Note para 2: "The present test was done on a smaller device [5] than the 10 kW device that has been used earlier during the January press conference. One of the reasons for going to smaller dimensions is safety acc

Re: [Vo]:Let us exercise some common sense in terms of dimensional analysis.

The E-Cat does not produce Tritium or any other radioactive waste. The E-Cat has been approved for use in Greece, and this would obviously not be allowed if it produced radioactive waste. From: Axil Axil To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Mon, May 2, 2011 2:26:5

Re: [Vo]:Lewan video is informative

This makes the test even more impressive. There is no way less than a gram of hydrogen could have produced a constant 2.3 or 2.6 kW of heat for hours! From: Harry Veeder To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Mon, May 2, 2011 1:27:26 PM Subject: Re: [Vo]:Lewan video

Re: [Vo]:FAKE or REAL -- April test -- NO Chemical Fakes eliminated

The E-Cat has been proven to be most probably real to anyone but the most extreme of skeptics. I will be the first to admit that I want to see additional testing, but the chance of this system being fake is extremely low. I would say one percent or less. Too many people have performed tests on t

Re: [Vo]:The Virtual Retraction

Jones Beene wrote: > Ø The 12 kW was with a much larger device, with a cell of ~1 L. > > > > There is no proof of that - other than typical double-talk. The physical > devices are approximately the same size when wrapped and shielded. No one > has seen anything other than what is now seen. > Y

Re: [Vo]:RE:The APPEARANCE of "In your face" type attitude

The skeptical naysayers are the ones that started this conflict. They have attacked cold fusion for twenty years. Instead of being honestly skeptical and stating more research needed to be done, they claimed it was impossible. We now need to prove to them cold fusion is a reality. We do not need

Re: [Vo]:New tests- by Nyteknyk

I very seriously doubt that the testing to determine the quality of the steam was done at the end of the hose. I agree that it would be impossible to check the quality of the steam there. They must have checked the steam with the hose disconnected. From: Jeff

RE: [Vo]:The Virtual Retraction

From: Jed Rothwell * The 12 kW was with a much larger device, with a cell of ~1 L. There is no proof of that - other than typical double-talk. The physical devices are approximately the same size when wrapped and shielded. No one has seen anything other than what is now seen. Many in Swed

Re: [Vo]:The Virtual Retraction

Jones Beene wrote: Are you serious? The Swedes published the numbers, which are in the > citation you provided, and they indicate an average of 2.6 kW in the two > recent tests - as opposed to 12 kW earlier. > The 12 kW was with a much larger device, with a cell of ~1 L. This test and the E&K t

Re: [Vo]:Let us exercise some common sense in terms of dimensional analysis.

Axil Axil wrote: > Your caviler attitude toward conforming to the world wide nuclear > regulatory infrastructure is counterproductive to the commercialization of > cold fusion. > > This attitude worries and saddens me. > It is much too early to reach any conclusions about any of this. We do not

[Vo]:The Virtual Retraction

Are you serious? The Swedes published the numbers, which are in the citation you provided, and they indicate an average of 2.6 kW in the two recent tests - as opposed to 12 kW earlier. That is quite a drop from the initial claim. And it is all easily explainable by the wet steam in January, as

Re: [Vo]:Jed's Terminology Point is very valid but . . .

Wm. Scott Smith wrote: > . . . I am simply saying that better terminologies would help us > avoid unnecessary misunderstanding and ridicule and to avoid causing others > to stumble. > No one is in charge of language. You cannot compel a change in terminology, except in rare cases of highly tech

Re: [Vo]:Let us exercise some common sense in terms of dimensional analysis.

Jones Beene wrote: > Neither does Mills’ devices – but Rossi should know after these many months > of testing and thousands of reactors, the average consumption within a close > range, and even if it leaks out twice as much as it consumes . . . > I do not see how he would know this, unless all o

Re: [Vo]:Let us exercise some common sense in terms of dimensional analysis.

Jones Beene wrote: > However, the Swedes at least are backing off the high power numbers and > these cells are probably in the range of 2500 watts if Mats' numbers are > correct. > No one has backed off from any high power numbers as far as I know. There have been no retractions. - Jed

Re: [Vo]:Let us exercise some common sense in terms of dimensional analysis.

On Mon, May 2, 2011 at 6:24 PM, Jones Beene wrote: > Neither does Mills’ devices – but Rossi should know after these many months > of testing and thousands of reactors, the average consumption within a close > range, and even if it leaks out twice as much as it consumes - based on that > and the

RE: [Vo]:Let us exercise some common sense in terms of dimensional analysis.

This makes no sense. All tritium is radioactive. Where does the hypothetical tritium in the Rossi reactor come from? You seem to be confusing tritium with the hydrino. You do understand the Mills' hydrino theory, no? It does not involve tritium and neither does Rossi's reaction.

[Vo]:Jed's Terminology Point is very valid but . . .

Jed's Terminology Point is very valid: Old words become new terms and have done so for millennia; I am not making a technical point, I am simply saying that better terminologies would help us avoid unnecessary misunderstanding and ridicule and to avoid causing others to stumble. Furthermore, LE

Re: [Vo]:Lewan video is informative

On Mon, May 2, 2011 at 4:46 PM, Jed Rothwell wrote: > Yup. They gas it up and then disconnect it. Not sure why. Perhaps to > eliminate skeptical doubts about the energy coming from hydrogen combustion? 'Cause it only took 0.11 g of hydrogen to generate all those watts that the Swedes got a samp

Re: [Vo]:We have a theory: Relativistic Casimir Cavities!

*“We have a theory: Relativistic Casimir Cavities! Re-Read the many posts by Fran Roarty and me.”* What does this theory (Relativistic Casimir Cavities) say about the items that interest me; the production rate of tritium if any, or the production of U-233 from thorium-232 or PU-239 from U-238? H

Re: [Vo]:RE:The APPEARANCE of "In your face" type attitude

prof. Focardi in a recent interview asserted that "Cold Fusion" was a name sticked by "hot fusionists" in scorn of LENR research. Of course there is a chance that he was just joking. mic 2011/5/2 Jed Rothwell : > Wm. Scott Smith wrote: >> >> When we say "Cold Fusion" they are almost justified i

[Vo]:We have a theory: Relativistic Casimir Cavities!

We have a theory: Relativistic Casimir Cavities! Re-Read the many posts by Fran Roarty and me. This potentially explains transmutation and heat production. Look at the patents by Modell and Haisch where they propose circulating a gas through Casimir Cavities. Scott Date: Mon, 2 May 2011 16:13

Re: [Vo]:Let us exercise some common sense in terms of dimensional analysis.

If there is no tritium, then there is no need for tritium regulation. If the Rossi reactor does not produce tritium, then it does not require regulation. If its does not produce tritium then the Rossi reaction would be a different type of reaction manifest than other cold fusion reactions. Non ra

RE: [Vo]:Let us exercise some common sense in terms of dimensional analysis.

Well it is a big surprise, if it is exact. However, the Swedes at least are backing off the high power numbers and these cells are probably in the range of 2500 watts if Mats' numbers are correct. BTW - the cells could not be leaking very much hydrogen at all - if they are able to fill once, and

Re: [Vo]:New tests- by Nyteknyk

In reply to Michele Comitini's message of Mon, 2 May 2011 10:06:21 +: Hi, [snip] >some math: > >300*2.6KW = 780KW = 0.780 MW > >1 MW / 2.6 KW = 1000 KW / 2.6 KW ~ 385 > >He has to build some 85 more e-cats for October... > >mic ..maybe, or perhaps he can just run each of them at a slightly hig

Re: [Vo]:Let us exercise some common sense in terms of dimensional analysis.

In reply to mix...@bigpond.com's message of Tue, 03 May 2011 08:55:06 +1000: Hi, [snip] >Perhaps coincidentally this coincides with a >Hydrino level of 16 not exactly the best choice of words :( Regards, Robin van Spaandonk http://rvanspaa.freehostia.com/Project.html

Re: [Vo]:Let us exercise some common sense in terms of dimensional analysis.

In reply to Jed Rothwell's message of Mon, 02 May 2011 17:56:14 -0400: Hi, [snip] >The Rossi cell did not peter out in this test. It did not stop producing >energy. For all anyone knows, it might have gone on for months, or >years. Supposedly some cells have run for months. So you cannot draw an

Re: [Vo]:Let us exercise some common sense in terms of dimensional analysis.

In reply to Axil Axil's message of Mon, 2 May 2011 17:26:54 -0400: Hi, [snip] >However, the Cat-E will leak tritium with a vengeance and produce tritiated >water. *Tritiated water* is a form of water where the usual hydrogen atoms >are replaced with tritium. What makes you think the E-cat produce

Re: [Vo]:Let us exercise some common sense in terms of dimensional analysis.

In reply to Axil Axil's message of Mon, 2 May 2011 16:13:20 -0400: Hi, [snip] >If the Cat-E can run for 6 months without shutdown, then about 180 grams of >hydrogen enter the Cat-E. Where does it all go? ..once it has been converted into Hydrinos, it can leak out through the walls. Regards, Rob

RE: [Vo]:Let us exercise some common sense in terms of dimensional analysis.

You are completely off base, Axil. Do you not know Mills' work at all? It is NOT nuclear. There is NO tritium. There is NO problem with any regulation. Please - for you own edification, do your homework and read and learn CQM before making silly comments like this. Jones

RE: [Vo]:Let us exercise some common sense in terms of dimensional analysis.

From: Jed Rothwell * The heating value of H2 is 130 kJ/g which is equal to .04 kWhr. This seems to work out to the Rossi reactor being about 65 time more than chemical. A nuclear reaction should be about one million times more energetic, and a Millsean reaction should be about 200 times. >

Re: [Vo]:Let us exercise some common sense in terms of dimensional analysis.

Your caviler attitude toward conforming to the world wide nuclear regulatory infrastructure is counterproductive to the commercialization of cold fusion. This attitude worries and saddens me. There is no doubt; no exceptions will be made in the licensing requirements of the Rossi Cat-E as a nucle

Re: [Vo]:Let us exercise some common sense in terms of dimensional analysis.

Jones Beene wrote: The heating value of H2 is 130 kJ/g which is equal to .04 kWhr. This seems to work out to the Rossi reactor being about 65 time more than chemical. A nuclear reaction should be about one million times more energetic, and a Millsean reaction should be about 200 times. Th

Re: [Vo]:Let us exercise some common sense in terms of dimensional analysis.

Axil Axil wrote: The leakage of hydrogen argument is a good new bad news explanation. If hydrogen leaks out of the Rossi reactor with little or no resistance, then this “good news” can explain and justify the theory behind Rossi’s explanation (aka hydrogen-nickel fusion). However, the Cat-E

RE: [Vo]:Let us exercise some common sense in terms of dimensional analysis.

From: Axil Axil * One gram of hydrogen per day is a HUGE amount of hydrogen inputted into a closed system and consumed. * Where could it all be going? It is really difficult to seal against leaks of pressurized H2 with top quality equipment and this appears to be far from top quality

Re: [Vo]:Let us exercise some common sense in terms of dimensional analysis.

The leakage of hydrogen argument is a good new bad news explanation. If hydrogen leaks out of the Rossi reactor with little or no resistance, then this “good news” can explain and justify the theory behind Rossi’s explanation (aka hydrogen-nickel fusion). However, the Cat-E will leak tritium with

Re: [Vo]:Let us exercise some common sense in terms of dimensional analysis.

Axil Axil wrote: Jed you are doing well, now tell me how the other 30 elements are formed? No idea, but bear in mind that things tend to leak out of pressurized tanks, not in. - Jed

Re: [Vo]:Let us exercise some common sense in terms of dimensional analysis.

Also, by the way, knowing Rossi as I do, that estimate of 1 g per 24 hours probably means something like: "~1 gram every day or every week, whenever we get around to checking, but it might be one-tenth gram because we measure the entire tank with a weight scale." Rossi is not the kind of per

Re: [Vo]:Let us exercise some common sense in terms of dimensional analysis.

Jed you are doing well, now tell me how the other 30 elements are formed? On Mon, May 2, 2011 at 4:43 PM, Jed Rothwell wrote: > Axil Axil wrote: > > One gram of hydrogen per day is a HUGE amount of hydrogen inputted into a > closed system and consumed. > > > > Where could it all be going? > >

Re: [Vo]:Lewan video is informative

Harry Veeder wrote: This E-cat seems not to be connected to a hydrogen supply. Yup. They gas it up and then disconnect it. Not sure why. Perhaps to eliminate skeptical doubts about the energy coming from hydrogen combustion? - Jed

Re: [Vo]:Let us exercise some common sense in terms of dimensional analysis.

Axil Axil wrote: One gram of hydrogen per day is a HUGE amount of hydrogen inputted into a closed system and consumed. Where could it all be going? Some of it is absorbing into the metal hydride, and some is leaking out of the cell into the air. It would only be a huge amount if it were

Re: [Vo]:Let us exercise some common sense in terms of dimensional analysis.

Axil, I like your systematic break down of the process. I sure don't know WTF is going on! ;-) I luv a good mystery. Regards Steven Vincent Johnson www.OrionWorks.com www.zazzle.com/orionworks

Re: [Vo]:Lewan video is informative

This E-cat seems not to be connected to a hydrogen supply. Harry > >From: Jed Rothwell >To: vortex-l@eskimo.com >Sent: Mon, May 2, 2011 3:35:17 PM >Subject: [Vo]:Lewan video is informative > >This article has a 4.5 minute video linked at the top of the page: > > >http://www.nyteknik.se/nyhete

[Vo]:FAKE or REAL -- April test -- NO Chemical Fakes eliminated

http://lenr.qumbu.com/fake_rossi_ecat_frames_v331.php http://lenr.qumbu.com/fake_rossi_ecat_v331.pdf Updated conclusion : Two new tests were run in April. These definitely rule out a Tarallo fake. The experimental setup was adequate, but since the eCat was NOT unwrapped the time of the run was

[Vo]:Let us exercise some common sense in terms of dimensional analysis.

Let us exercise some common sense in terms of dimensional analysis. As revealed on the Rossi web site as follows: Dear Mr Mauro Rossi: 1- we consume about 1 gram of hydrogen in 24 hours 2- I never saw neutrons and neutrinos, with exception of few times, when I saw neutrons, captured in bu

Re: [Vo]:[OT]Osama Bin Laden Morte

On Tue, May 3, 2011 at 1:04 AM, OrionWorks - Steven Vincent Johnson < orionwo...@charter.net> wrote: > The implication of this post seems to infer that there is no credible "hard > evidence" to support a hypothesis that BL & Co. was involved in bringing > down the Twin Towers. Perhaps a refresher

Re: [Vo]:RE:The APPEARANCE of "In your face" type attitude

Wm. Scott Smith wrote: When we say "Cold Fusion" they are almost justified in assuming that it > should work the same way as hot fusion. > No one picked the name "cold fusion." It just came along. F&P did not like it. Researchers have often gather to pick another name, such as LENR. See p. iv h

[Vo]:Lewan video is informative

This article has a 4.5 minute video linked at the top of the page: http://www.nyteknik.se/nyheter/energi_miljo/energi/article3166552.ece Watch it several times. There is lots of interesting stuff in it! Nice close-ups of the equipment. It shows there is definitely a heater mounted axially presum

[Vo]:RE:The APPEARANCE of "In your face" type attitude

When we say "Cold Fusion" they are almost justified in assuming that it should work the same way as hot fusion. We will get much further with more people if we emphasize that "something" is new and different, and can THEY explain THAT. If we get them thinking enough to come up with something

Re: [Vo]:"Non-Chemical Heat Phenomenon" Label more neutral.

I like the term cold fusion better. The skeptics have been challenging cold fusion for decades. We need to shove cold fusion in their face. From: Wm. Scott Smith To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Sun, May 1, 2011 6:18:00 PM Subject: [Vo]:"Non-Chemical Heat Phenome

RE: [Vo]:Watts-up with 28, 30, 33 day cycles?

Right, all of these things could be different aspects of a fifth force. And that may include neutrinos as well, which even though they are referred to as particles are both particle-like and wave-like - so it is not clear why they cannot be an aspect of a putative fifth force. Even if not - the

[Vo]:Watts-up with 28, 30, 33 day cycles?

Hi Jones, Nice citation! I would speculate the neutrinos are NOT interacting with the radioactive gas to change the decay rate, Could the neutrinos simply indicate when a solar scale fluctuation in the rate at which the ether intersects the spatial axis occurs? As relativistic be

Re: [Vo]:[OT]Osama Bin Laden Morte

On 11-05-02 01:46 PM, Jed Rothwell wrote: Stephen A. Lawrence wrote: If Berry is right and this is a big misunderstanding, Mr. bin Laden should have had enough sense to surrender himself to authorities at the nearest U.S. Embassy. He would have been treated humanely and he would have been

Re: [Vo]:Why NyTeknik tests did not include a sparge test

Jeff Driscoll wrote: I'm absolutely certain that the RH probe is not giving *any* useful information on the steam quality. Whereas Galantini and various other experts are absolutely certain that it does. I wouldn't know. The issue is moot, because the Feb. 10 test proves the first test was

Re: [Vo]:[OT]Osama Bin Laden Morte

Stephen A. Lawrence wrote: If Berry is right and this is a big misunderstanding, Mr. bin Laden should have had enough sense to surrender himself to authorities at the nearest U.S. Embassy. He would have been treated humanely and he would have been given every opportunity to clear up the misu

RE: [Vo]:Watts-up with 28, 30, 33 day cycles?

Sturrock said: "If the mystery particle is not a neutrino, "It would have to be something we don't know about, an unknown particle that is also emitted by the sun and has this effect, and that would be even more remarkable," And this article from a few weeks ago... which was mentioned on Vortex

[Vo]:Watts-up with 28, 30, 33 day cycles?

Curious thing happens when you keep good lab notes over extended periods ... Without getting into details yet, or addressing such niceties as Men Are from Mars, Women Are from Venus... it is clear that different cosmological cycles can influence activity in subtle ways ... and in not-so-subtle way

Re: [Vo]:[OT]Osama Bin Laden Morte

The Clinton Administration had been acutely aware BL many years prior to the Bush administration. BL could not be considered a new phenomenon by any stretch of the imagination when the Bush administration took over. Hell, during the changeover, Clinton and Bush had a joint security meeting to brie

Re: [Vo]:[OT]Osama Bin Laden Morte

On 11-05-02 10:47 AM, Jed Rothwell wrote: OrionWorks - Steven Vincent Johnson > wrote: Perhaps a refresher course consisting of a recovered video of BL personally talking about the planning and implementation of 9/11 to followers of his cause (vid

Re: [Vo]:Why NyTeknik tests did not include a sparge test

I wrote too quickly without thinking when I wrote 537 times more energy, It takes about 537 times more energy to vaporize 1 gram of water than to raise that same gram of water by 1 degree C, but this is not that relevant. What is more relevant is that it takes 1 unit of energy to raise the tempera

Re: [Vo]:New tests- by Nyteknyk

Jeff Driscoll wrote: But this is a moot point because any test that Rossi does is going to have 100% Relative humidity at the end of the hose because the steam is partially condensing already when it leaves the hose. When the probe was used, it was placed in the machine before the junction t

Re: [Vo]:Why NyTeknik tests did not include a sparge test

Jeff Driscoll wrote: Gaseous water vapor has 537 times more energy than liquid water droplets on > a gram for gram comparison (you wrote 20 times) > Various people have come up with different numbers. I think I recall 20 times. > Jed, you wrote "If he had used the RH meter used previously, th

Re: [Vo]:[OT]Osama Bin Laden Morte

OrionWorks - Steven Vincent Johnson wrote: Perhaps a refresher course consisting of a recovered > video of BL personally talking about the planning and implementation of > 9/11 > to followers of his cause (video shot in Afghanistan back in 2001) of will > help straighten out any disinformation on

Re: [Vo]:New tests- by Nyteknyk

you wrote "People who understand these meters tell me it is not a joke at all. The meter with that probe is fine for that purpose. There would not be much point to making an RH meter probe is intended for a range of temperature up to 300°C that does not work with steam." My guess (without digging

Re: [Vo]:New tests- by Nyteknyk

Jeff Driscoll wrote: 100% vapor is steam that is completely transparent, it is termed 100% > quality. The H2O molecules are completely free from each other and not stuck > together, it is a gas. see here > > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vapor_quality > > 0% steam quality looks like white fog -

Re: [Vo]:Why NyTeknik tests did not include a sparge test

Gaseous water vapor has 537 times more energy than liquid water droplets on a gram for gram comparison (you wrote 20 times) Jed, you wrote "If he had used the RH meter used previously, the skeptics would not have believed him any case, even though various experts has said that meter is fine for th

[Vo]:Defkalion G.T. rights

Inside Defkalion's homepage there's written "global rights excepts Americas". Rossi, interviewed at Coast to Coast AM said that Defklaion had rights for Greek and Balkan. Defkalion didn't reply my mail (yet). Somebody has some clue about this issue?

Re: [Vo]:New tests- by Nyteknyk

100% vapor is steam that is completely transparent, it is termed 100% quality. The H2O molecules are completely free from each other and not stuck together, it is a gas. see here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vapor_quality 0% steam quality looks like white fog - like the fogging machines or whit

[Vo]:Why NyTeknik tests did not include a sparge test

When I heard about these tests, I suggest they sparge the steam into a bucked. (You would not need a 55 gallon drum at this power level.) It turns out my message arrived after the tests were complete. That's a shame. Here is the procedure I suggested: 1. Weigh the container. 2. Add water, weigh i

  1   2   >