Hello group,
Here's a three-part video interview of Sergio Focardi by Steven Krivit
(New Energy Times), with interpreting by Andrea Rossi:
Video Interview – Focardi Discusses Andrea Rossi’s Energy Catalyzer
Part 1 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OmWbVH5A4gI
Part 2
Part. 2, 7 minutes. Focardi answers it is more likely that a proton reacts
with the nucleus than a neutron ACCORDING TO EXPERIMENTAL DATA. Damn, you
can notice that immediately Krivit changes his tone of voice, probably also
his mind, and probably starts thinking that the whole thing is a scam
On Aug 26, 2011, at 2:49 AM, Daniel Rocha wrote:
Part. 2, 7 minutes. Focardi answers it is more likely that a proton
reacts with the nucleus than a neutron ACCORDING TO EXPERIMENTAL
DATA. Damn, you can notice that immediately Krivit changes his tone
of voice, probably also his mind, and
Joe Catania wrote:
No, its not out of the question at all. Since we don't know the flow
rate of water (whether its flowing or not) and since it isn't
particularly relevant I neglect it.
The water is always flowing. This is a flow calorimeter.
It is completely unrealistic to suppose that you
I've already prooven it. Furthermore I demonstrated it. So if by unrealistic
you mean realistic then we agree. Its quite obvious that the water will boil
for a considerable time after the power is off. This does not require
anything in addition to the normal functioning of the device. It is not
Joe Catania wrote:
I've already prooven it. Furthermore I demonstrated it.
Your demonstration employed roughly 50,000 times less water than the
eCat, and nichrome metal heated to incandescence. The eCat never gets
that hot. So your demonstration was so different from the December eCat
test
Hi,
I am new to this list, greet you all!
I had an idea to make an electrolytic device in order to make NiH thinfilms.
Of course the final purpose is to get NI-H fusion or nuclear reactions.
My english is not so good, but it should be obvious from the picture:
The proof has nothing to do with the demonstration. I indicated this many
times. The facts are in. As it stands it is a given that thermal inertia
could easily explain the 15 minute boiling. Your arguments are
unsubstatiated. As for my demonstration it suggests the metal can stay hot
for
Here are some comments by Levi about the video and the Heat After Death
event. Not terribly important, but . . .
http://22passi.blogspot.com/2011/08/agosto-comincia-molto-bene.html
Note that if you use Google to translate this, Rossi converts to Smith.
- Jed
Joe Catania zrosumg...@aol.com wrote:
The facts are in.
There are no facts in this discussion; only speculation.
As it stands it is a given that thermal inertia could easily explain the 15
minute boiling. Your arguments are unsubstatiated.
And your arguments would require the metal to be
There certainly are facts involved namely could the boiling be caused by the
heat stored in the metal, etc. of the E-Cat to last 15 minutes. The answer is a
definitive yes. It is not speculation. We know enough about the E-Cat to posit
this as the only significant source of heat known in a
Joe Catania wrote:
There certainly are facts involved namely could the boiling be caused
by the heat stored in the metal, etc. of the E-Cat to last 15 minutes.
Facts. H. . . . Okay then, tell us:
How much metal? How hot did it get? Assume 3 kWh are stored, enough to
vaporize 4.4 kg of
You are misrepresenting the truth and misunderstanding. I made none of the
claims you presented and they are completely irrelevant to the subject. 3kW is
not negligible- one of Rossi's E-Cat's only supposedly vaporizes 2g/s of water
which takes less than 5kW. Obviously the steam is not dry.
Hi,
Rich Murray added your name to Academia.edu, the global directory of academics
and graduate students. We checked your department directory, and it looks like
you are an academic/graduate student. You are currently listed as an 'unknown'
academic/graduate student: resolve your 'unknown'
Joe Catania zrosumg...@aol.com wrote:
3kW is not negligible- one of Rossi's E-Cat's only supposedly vaporizes
2g/s of water which takes less than 5kW.
I did not explain that correctly. 3 kW is the most the reactor could produce
in the absence of any anomalous heat. It is the maximum electric
I have a low regard for the History Channel. I have seen documentaries
there occasionally. When they are about a subject I know well, even one that
is well documented such as the Battle of Midway, I have seen that they are
filled with mistakes. They are written by people who know nothing about the
You are once again correct Jed. I looked at the recent wave of UFO's, some
look like clouds, some look like reflections off of a window, some are flairs,
reentering space junk, or gas off of reentering space junk. The one I linked to
appears to be fake as stated in the comments. I saw a
17 matches
Mail list logo
