Re: [Vo]:New private E-Cat test with no input energy

On 2011-06-18 16:07, Akira Shirakawa wrote: Hello group, Today Rossi posted on his Blog some interesting info: When E-Cats work without a drive, Rossi has to operate alone on them for safety reasons. However Dr.Bianchini from the University of Bologna had special permission to witness one on

Re: [Vo]:Why Levi is upset

I think the fact that Levi was caught telling a white lie about a report that does not exist is certainly news since it brings into question Levi's trustworthiness. If he was caught lying about the existence of that Galantini report, what else is he lying about? If you read the comments section o

[Vo]:Message and INFORMAVORE's SUNDAY Nr 460

Dear Friends, It was a rather interesting week for the E-cat, due to the steam dryness dispute between Krivit and Rossi & Levi. We could see that the E-cat has very sharp verbal claws if infuriated. *The visit has not put doubts on the functionality* *of the E-cat, but raised serious questions* *

Re: [Vo]:Why Levi is upset

On 11-06-18 10:57 PM, Harry Veeder wrote: Stephen A. Lawrence wrote: On 11-06-18 09:21 PM, Terry Blanton wrote: I don't think Galantini is a thermodynamics expert. Jed is right about sparging the steam. Why do they insist on using phase change measurements anyway? There are a dozen better

Re: [Vo]:New private E-Cat test with no input energy

On 11-06-19 05:34 AM, Akira Shirakawa wrote: On 2011-06-18 16:07, Akira Shirakawa wrote: Hello group, Today Rossi posted on his Blog some interesting info: When E-Cats work without a drive, Rossi has to operate alone on them for safety reasons. This is such a facile explanation ... We m

Re: [Vo]:New private E-Cat test with no input energy

> How many reactions, which produce heat, and which may produce > runaway heat, can be quenched by ... *heating them up* ? > > I would call that another big red flag. > I hope this thing is not a fake; I am just barely over the trauma of the Steorn debacle.

Re: [Vo]:New private E-Cat test with no input energy

On 2011-06-19 14:08, Stephen A. Lawrence wrote: How many reactions, which produce heat, and which may produce runaway heat, can be quenched by ... *heating them up* ? To be fair, I don't think this is what Rossi actually means. Self-sustaining reactors probably operate on a closed loop, heate

Re: [Vo]:New private E-Cat test with no input energy

Fran, Your point even better. Use round fins ~2 mm apart brazed to the center heat transfer fluid tube. Center tube brazed to bottom cap which has a hole for center tube, this brazed as well. Would use copper tubing for all these tubes and fins, standard plumbing parts. Fill from upper side with

FW: Re: [Vo]:New private E-Cat test with no input energy

Stephen, I think you might be missing the point, in free running the OOP is AT the critical temperature and the heat sinking must be exactly balanced between quenching and runaway while "normal" operation is kept slightly below the critical temperature such that a PWM can push the m

Re: [Vo]:Why Levi is upset

Stephen A. Lawrence wrote: Coupled with the admission that the steam was wet (which has seemed pretty > obvious to me for quite a while, though, as I've said before, I'm no expert) > this makes Galantini's assertions about steam look pretty unreliable. 1. I do not see them "admitting" any such

Re: [Vo]:Why Levi is upset

Harry Veeder wrote: > > Why do they insist on using phase change measurements anyway? There > > are a dozen better ways to measure energy flow. > > > > I think Levi and Rossi did the private flow test in feburary to really > convince > themselves, and not to the arm chair skeptics, that their i

Re: [Vo]:Why Levi is upset

Ooops, overlooked something in your message. On 11-06-19 11:39 AM, Jed Rothwell wrote: 3. The second test with liquid phase flow calorimetry confirmed that the first test was right No it didn't because it wasn't public and details weren't documented. It was viewed, in private, by exactly t

[Vo]:Steven Chu

http://the-explorer.com/steven-chu-looks-at-lattice-assisted-nuclear-reactions-cold-fusion/2011/3429583.html/ It *suggests* that Steven Chu was at the MIT meeting. But it clearly *states* that he is looking at Cold Fusion. Anyone has a link supporting the last claim? Thanks! Bastiaan.

Re: [Vo]:Steven Chu

This appears to be bunk. See this thread: http://www.mail-archive.com/vortex-l@eskimo.com/msg47764.html T On Sun, Jun 19, 2011 at 12:44 PM, Bastiaan Bergman wrote: > http://the-explorer.com/steven-chu-looks-at-lattice-assisted-nuclear-reactions-cold-fusion/2011/3429583.html/ > > It *suggests*

Re: [Vo]:Why Levi is upset

Stephen A. Lawrence wrote: > > 1. I do not see them "admitting" any such thing. > > 2. It cannot be "obvious" to you because you were not there and you have > not used instruments or done tests to measure the enthalpy of the steam. > > > It was obvious from the output temperature curves and descr

Re: [Vo]:Why Levi is upset

Stephen A. Lawrence wrote: > 3. The second test with liquid phase flow calorimetry confirmed that the >> first test was right >> > > No it didn't because it wasn't public and details weren't documented. I said that too. Only a few details were released. If you believe these details, then the s

[Vo]:A worldwide conspiracy against the Rossi effect

...Or at least, this is what Rossi is implying in the comment below pasted from his blog. It looks like we will know more details about it after the presentation of the 1-MW plant in October. Rossi paints a grim picture where LENR researchers backstab each other in order to obtain research fund

RE: [Vo]:Rossi: our reactors now produce a totally dry steam

At 06:13 PM 6/18/2011, OrionWorks - Steven Vincent Johnson wrote: From Rossi, ... > ... For example, we had recently a fake journalist here who wrote > stupidities about the water in the steam: ... I guess Rossi is still pissed off. For many years, since I first started on-line "conferencing

Re: [Vo]:Rossi: our reactors now produce a totally dry steam

Rossi: "About all the others, honestly, I do not care too much, they are either competitors, sometimes disguised as Research Laboratories anxious to validate, fake journalists sent by the same, or just honest sceptic who are not important for our market. Our universal credibility will come from o

Re: [Vo]:Why Levi is upset

On 11-06-19 12:04 PM, Jed Rothwell wrote: Stephen A. Lawrence mailto:sa...@pobox.com>> wrote: 1. I do not see them "admitting" any such thing. 2. It cannot be "obvious" to you because you were not there and you have not used instruments or done tests to measure the enthalpy o

Re: [Vo]:A worldwide conspiracy against the Rossi effect

On 2011-06-19 18:05, Terry Blanton wrote: Anyone have any idea what he means here? I do not recall a diagram. Is he speaking of a water phase graph? Yes, I think he's speaking of a water phase graph they (i.e. him and Levi) have been shown, although privately as of yet. Perhaps the witnesse

Re: [Vo]:A worldwide conspiracy against the Rossi effect

On Sun, Jun 19, 2011 at 11:17 AM, Akira Shirakawa wrote: > 1- The fake diagram of steam has been given to the “snake” Anyone have any idea what he means here? I do not recall a diagram. Is he speaking of a water phase graph? T

Re: [Vo]:Why Levi is upset

On 11-06-19 11:39 AM, Jed Rothwell wrote: Stephen A. Lawrence mailto:sa...@pobox.com>> wrote: Coupled with the admission that the steam was wet (which has seemed pretty obvious to me for quite a while, though, as I've said before, I'm no expert) this makes Galantini's assertions

[Vo]:"We" Need to Stop Lying!

As with most alleged conspiracies. People with similar interests naturally do the same things. It is just plain old-fashioned non-orchestrated Self-interest. While on the topic, yes there really are people who "conspire" to pull a lot of strings, but the diversity of their individual self-inter

Re: [Vo]:Why Levi is upset

On 2011-06-19 02:37, Harry Veeder wrote: If I recall correctly someone wrote on the vortex list back in feburary or march that Galantini never wrote a report, so that fact is not news. Steven Kirvit managed to catch Levi uttering a 'white lie' to *him*. Is that fact news? Try read the followin

Re: [Vo]:New private E-Cat test with no input energy

Rossi adds externally generated heat to reach and maintain steady state heat production equilibrium. One passive way to decrease reactor heat production is to decrease hydrogen pressure. This can be done by absorbing hydrogen from the hydrogen envelope using a hydride producing metal; for example,

Re: [Vo]:New private E-Cat test with no input energy

Please add at this top as an edit... Rossi runs his reactor subcritically. That is, the maximum amount of heat that his reactor can produce will NOT increase internal reactor heat production beyond a self-reinforcing increasing takeoff point. On Sun, Jun 19, 2011 at 1:40 PM, Axil Axil wrote:

Re: [Vo]:Rossi: our reactors now produce a totally dry steam

Nick Palmer wrote: > He's certainly got a very bad case of Chris Tinsley's inventor's disease or > he's faking. His mention now of totally dry steam has clearly been made > because of Steve K's visit.. . . Rossi does show some symptoms of that syndrome, but there is a TREMENDOUS difference bet

Re: [Vo]:Rossi: our reactors now produce a totally dry steam

Jed Rothwell wrote: >Abd ul-Rahman Lomax wrote: > >>He [Rossi] could apologize. What would he lose if he did? Nothing that I can >>see! >> >It would be out of character. Yeah, just like Steven Kirvit could apologize for insinuating incompetency. lol. Harry

Re: [Vo]:Why Levi is upset

At 10:57 PM 6/18/2011, Harry Veeder wrote: If you were Rossi the businessman, and you knew your device has turned water into steam for short periods of time without any input power, wouldn't you treat the steam quality issue as a minor concern? Harry Sure, I might, but I would also understand

Re: [Vo]:New private E-Cat test with no input energy

At 10:57 PM 6/18/2011, mix...@bigpond.com wrote: In reply to Abd ul-Rahman Lomax's message of Sat, 18 Jun 2011 13:32:54 -0400: Hi, [snip] >It's being operated, apparently, at a balance point. Other designs ...or as Dr. Schwartz would say, an OOP. Well, no, even though I did refer to that term

Re: [Vo]:Why Levi is upset

On 11-06-19 12:13 PM, Jed Rothwell wrote: Stephen A. Lawrence mailto:sa...@pobox.com>> wrote: That's like a poker game where nobody has to show their cards, they just state what they have and everyone believes them. In poker, you do not have to show your card if everyone else folds.

RE: [Vo]:Why Levi is upset

>From Andrea Rossi: > June 18th, 2011 at 4:02 AM > ... By the way: in a statement he released further, he [Krivit] > said that while Prof. Levi told him there was a report about this issue, > I said in the interview that there was not a report about this issue. > This is a translation pr

Re: [Vo]:New private E-Cat test with no input energy

At 08:08 AM 6/19/2011, Stephen A. Lawrence wrote: On 11-06-19 05:34 AM, Akira Shirakawa wrote: On 2011-06-18 16:07, Akira Shirakawa wrote: Today Rossi posted on his Blog some interesting info: When E-Cats work without a drive, Rossi has to operate alone on them for safety reasons. This is

Re: [Vo]:New private E-Cat test with no input energy

On 11-06-19 02:40 PM, Abd ul-Rahman Lomax wrote: At 08:08 AM 6/19/2011, Stephen A. Lawrence wrote: On 11-06-19 05:34 AM, Akira Shirakawa wrote: On 2011-06-18 16:07, Akira Shirakawa wrote: Today Rossi posted on his Blog some interesting info: When E-Cats work without a drive, Rossi has to

Re: [Vo]:A worldwide conspiracy against the Rossi effect

At 11:17 AM 6/19/2011, Akira Shirakawa wrote: ...Or at least, this is what Rossi is implying in the comment below pasted from his blog. It looks like we will know more details about it after the presentation of the 1-MW plant in October. Rossi paints a grim picture where LENR researchers back

Re: [Vo]:Why Levi is upset

At 11:39 AM 6/19/2011, Jed Rothwell wrote: He is a very frank.He said emphatically he wants no more tests before the 1 MW demonstration. I think that policy is ill-advised. I do not understand it. But it is his decision, and I suppose he has his reasons. Well, there are two possible reasons th

Re: [Vo]:Why Levi is upset

At 08:37 PM 6/18/2011, you wrote: Why Levi is upset is more evident in this exchange between Steven Krivit and Luigi Versaggi P. https://www.facebook.com/#!/notes/cold-fusion-andrea-rossi-method/i-made-a-question-to-steven-krivit/235485236468276 If I recall correctly someone wrote on the vort

[Vo]:Something more on the steam

I've asserted recently that it was "obvious" to me that the steam was wet, and I've said, several times, that it would take too long to explain why. I've got a few minutes, so I'll see if I can fit in a coherent explanation. The attached graph (with my annotations) is from the paper http://l

Re: [Vo]:Why Levi is upset

At 11:57 AM 6/19/2011, Stephen A. Lawrence wrote: I won't argue this with you again, Jed, I had enough trouble getting you to admit that it's possible to have steam at higher than 100 C at 1 atmosphere of pressure. Stephen, perhaps you are making the same mistake here, misunderstanding what'

Re: [Vo]:Why Levi is upset

At 12:03 PM 6/19/2011, Stephen A. Lawrence wrote: Ooops, overlooked something in your message. On 11-06-19 11:39 AM, Jed Rothwell wrote: 3. The second test with liquid phase flow calorimetry confirmed that the first test was right No it didn't because it wasn't public and details weren't do

Re: [Vo]:Why Levi is upset

On 11-06-19 04:38 PM, Abd ul-Rahman Lomax wrote: At 11:57 AM 6/19/2011, Stephen A. Lawrence wrote: I won't argue this with you again, Jed, I had enough trouble getting you to admit that it's possible to have steam at higher than 100 C at 1 atmosphere of pressure. Stephen, perhaps you are m

Re: [Vo]:A worldwide conspiracy against the Rossi effect

At 12:05 PM 6/19/2011, Terry Blanton wrote: On Sun, Jun 19, 2011 at 11:17 AM, Akira Shirakawa wrote: > 1- The fake diagram of steam has been given to the "snake" Anyone have any idea what he means here? I do not recall a diagram. Is he speaking of a water phase graph? You need a program, wi

Re: [Vo]:Why Levi is upset

At 12:09 PM 6/19/2011, Stephen A. Lawrence wrote: I won't argue this with you again, Jed, I had enough trouble getting you to admit that it's possible to have steam at higher than 100 C at 1 atmosphere of pressure. Oh come now. Don't make false accusations. I admitted fully and frankly that

Re: [Vo]:Why Levi is upset

On 11-06-19 05:22 PM, Abd ul-Rahman Lomax wrote: At 12:09 PM 6/19/2011, Stephen A. Lawrence wrote: I won't argue this with you again, Jed, I had enough trouble getting you to admit that it's possible to have steam at higher than 100 C at 1 atmosphere of pressure. Oh come now. Don't make fa

Re: [Vo]:Steven Chu

At 12:44 PM 6/19/2011, Bastiaan Bergman wrote: http://the-explorer.com/steven-chu-looks-at-lattice-assisted-nuclear-reactions-cold-fusion/2011/3429583.html/ It *suggests* that Steven Chu was at the MIT meeting. But it clearly *states* that he is looking at Cold Fusion. Anyone has a link supporti

Re: [Vo]:Why Levi is upset

- Original Message > From: Stephen A. Lawrence > To: vortex-l@eskimo.com > Sent: Sun, June 19, 2011 12:03:30 PM > Subject: Re: [Vo]:Why Levi is upset > > Ooops, overlooked something in your message. > > On 11-06-19 11:39 AM, Jed Rothwell wrote: > > > > 3. The second test with liqui

Re: [Vo]:Rossi: our reactors now produce a totally dry steam

At 01:57 PM 6/19/2011, Jed Rothwell wrote: Abd ul-Rahman Lomax <a...@lomaxdesign.com> wrote: Generally, what the record showed wasn't what some of the participants thought. They were reacting to, not what had actually been said, but how they had, themselves, interp

Re: [Vo]:Rossi: our reactors now produce a totally dry steam

At 02:11 PM 6/19/2011, Harry Veeder wrote: Jed Rothwell wrote: >Abd ul-Rahman Lomax wrote: > >>He [Rossi] could apologize. What would he lose if he did? Nothing that I can >>see! >> >It would be out of character. Yeah, just like Steven Kirvit could apologize for insinuating incompetency. lo

Re: [Vo]:New private E-Cat test with no input energy

In reply to Abd ul-Rahman Lomax's message of Sun, 19 Jun 2011 14:16:03 -0400: Hi, [snip] >At 10:57 PM 6/18/2011, mix...@bigpond.com wrote: >>In reply to Abd ul-Rahman Lomax's message of Sat, 18 Jun 2011 13:32:54 -0400: >>Hi, >>[snip] >> >It's being operated, apparently, at a balance point. Other

Re: FW: Re: [Vo]:New private E-Cat test with no input energy

In reply to francis 's message of Sun, 19 Jun 2011 09:11:41 -0400: Hi, [snip] Why not control the pump speed electronically (as well)? >Stephen, > > I think you might be missing the point, in free running the >OOP is AT the critical temperature and the heat sinking must be exactly

Re: [Vo]:Something more on the steam

In reply to Stephen A. Lawrence's message of Sun, 19 Jun 2011 16:02:22 -0400: Hi, [snip] >If the effluent isn't flowing, however, the >temperature rise is limited only by the need to heat the thermal mass of >the device, which is fixed. > >The "linearity" argument is very far from conclusive, of

Re: [Vo]:Something more on the steam

In reply to Stephen A. Lawrence's message of Sun, 19 Jun 2011 16:02:22 -0400: Hi, [snip] >Complex explanations have been proposed, ranging from insensitive >equipment to bizarre multibody fusion theories. Yet, a very simple >explanation covers the result very well: Rossi lies. My own personal

Re: [Vo]:New private E-Cat test with no input energy

At 02:46 PM 6/19/2011, Stephen A. Lawrence wrote: On 11-06-19 02:40 PM, Abd ul-Rahman Lomax wrote: At 08:08 AM 6/19/2011, Stephen A. Lawrence wrote: On 11-06-19 05:34 AM, Akira Shirakawa wrote: On 2011-06-18 16:07, Akira Shirakawa wrote: Today Rossi posted on his Blog some interesting info:

RE: [Vo]:Something more on the steam

>From Robin, > My own personal impression (for what it's worth) is that Rossi has something > important and knows it, but doesn't understand it completely, and consequently > can't control it perfectly, which makes him a little insecure, so he easily > feels threatened, and says whatever he thinks

Re: [Vo]:Why Levi is upset

ahh... so it is nothing more than misunderstanding about the meaning of the word "report". Harry - Original Message > From: Akira Shirakawa > To: vortex-l@eskimo.com > Sent: Sun, June 19, 2011 1:32:02 PM > Subject: Re: [Vo]:Why Levi is upset > > On 2011-06-19 02:37, Harry Veeder wrot

Re: [Vo]:Something more on the steam

On 11-06-19 06:44 PM, mix...@bigpond.com wrote: In reply to Stephen A. Lawrence's message of Sun, 19 Jun 2011 16:02:22 -0400: Hi, [snip] If the effluent isn't flowing, however, the temperature rise is limited only by the need to heat the thermal mass of the device, which is fixed. The "linea

Re: [Vo]:Why Levi is upset

- Original Message > From: Stephen A. Lawrence > To: vortex-l@eskimo.com > Sent: Sun, June 19, 2011 8:01:26 AM > Subject: Re: [Vo]:Why Levi is upset > > > > On 11-06-18 10:57 PM, Harry Veeder wrote: > > > > Stephen A. Lawrence wrote: > >> On 11-06-18 09:21 PM, Terry Blanton wrote:

Re: [Vo]:Something more on the steam

- Original Message > From: Stephen A. Lawrence > To: vortex-l@eskimo.com > Sent: Sun, June 19, 2011 9:09:23 PM > Subject: Re: [Vo]:Something more on the steam > > > > On 11-06-19 06:44 PM, mix...@bigpond.com wrote: > > In reply to  Stephen A. Lawrence's message of Sun, 19 Jun 2011

Re: [Vo]:New private E-Cat test with no input energy

Rossi could use tungsten as a replacement for stainless steel (SS) as the shell of his reaction vessel. The nano-powder has a higher melting temperature then SS. Tungsten is also opaque to x-rays/gamma-rays can replace lead shielding; and very importantly, it is also impermeable to hydrogen As a c