Am 19.09.2011 05:28, schrieb Mark Iverson-ZeroPoint:
Peter wrote:
So steam speed is about 64 m/s if the pipe diameter is 10^2 cm.
A pipe diameter of 100cm is one heck of a big pipe!
I think you mean cross-sectional area?
Correction:
So steam speed is about 64 m/s if the pipe cross sectional
Peter,
As far as I can see Naudin has never tried an experiment that did not work for
him.
His MAHG power measurements are in error (which has been pointed out to him).
His write ups are beautifully presented but in my opinion generally unreliable.
Ron
--On Sunday, September 18, 2011 10:01 AM
Am 16.09.2011 21:26, schrieb Alan J Fletcher:
At 11:57 AM 9/16/2011, Peter Heckert wrote:
The important information is: There is no superheated steam because
inside the ecat is everything almost at boiling temperature. For
superheated steam you need an extra heater that heats the steam and
Why are you guys referring to really old JLN stuff in 2011!?
http://pesn.com/2011/09/14/9501914_Steorn_Drops_Four_Bombshell_Documents_Validating_Orbo/
September 14, 2011Steorn Drops Four Bombshell Documents Validating Orbo
*The Dublin based, Irish free energy company Steorn, has allowed PESN to
Am 19.09.2011 17:10, schrieb Ron Wormus:
Peter,
As far as I can see Naudin has never tried an experiment that did not
work for him.
His MAHG power measurements are in error (which has been pointed out
to him).
I did not analyze his power measurements. It is clear to me that an
error with
Horace Heffner hheff...@mtaonline.net wrote:
If I did the calculations right, then this indicates the device could blow
up. If there are emergency steam relief valves on the devices the steam
could be released inside the container.
Some friends of mine who wish to remain anonymous know a
Am 19.09.2011 19:30, schrieb Esa Ruoho:
The next step for Steorn may be when a client licenses one of their
technologies and produces a working product.
;-)
At 05:52 PM 9/18/2011, Colin Hercus wrote:
Woops, sorry Alan. I should be more careful.
Good grief ... no problem!! The superheater chamber idea was
directly from Lewan's report (and the literature).. All I added was
direct overflow (which may or may not be true).
My Two Cents--
I must confess that I'm unfamiliar with the effect of electromagnetism on
conductive heating. I thought that I'd throw out a few questions regarding the
observations of the 4th paper, hoping to learn:
Background for the questions: Alternating current (dependent on the
Bastiaan Bergman bastiaan.berg...@gmail.com wrote:
At min 4:24
John Maddox
Editor of Nature magazine
says: It [cold fusion] will remain dead for a long long time
This to me means that it is not dead for forever, or 'temporarily
dead' be it for a long time. Does anyone know what Mr. Maddox
Am 19.09.2011 20:21, schrieb Robert Leguillon:
My Two Cents--
I must confess that I'm unfamiliar with the effect of electromagnetism
on conductive heating. I thought that I'd throw out a few questions
regarding the observations of the 4th paper, hoping to learn:
You must first kow, it is
On Mon, Sep 19, 2011 at 1:50 PM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com wrote:
Horace Heffner hheff...@mtaonline.net wrote:
If I did the calculations right, then this indicates the device could blow
up. If there are emergency steam relief valves on the devices the steam
could be released inside
Terry sez:
I agree with you and Horace. If it can explode, it will explode, and
at the worst possible moment (Murphy's law and first corollary).
It's quite odd to notice that on the skeptical side of the fence the
subject of CF continues to be perceived as a bogus completely
unproven source
I'm not going to take it on faith about the AC power being less than DC. I've
done these types of calculations before and I can tell you they are not simple.
A sawtooth wave can generate some extremely high harmonics which have a large
skin effect. I'd need to see the formula used to evaluate
On Sep 19, 2011, at 9:56 AM, Peter Heckert wrote:
Am 19.09.2011 19:30, schrieb Esa Ruoho:
The next step for Steorn may be when a client licenses one of
their technologies and produces a working product.
;-)
I was going to quote that line, but you saved me the trouble. 8^)
The next
For some context see 1:45 of this video posted by Steven Krivit.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K9Jp9L_6-BI
Harry
From: Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Sent: Monday, September 19, 2011 2:30:59 PM
Subject: Re: [Vo]:John Maddox, editor Nature magazine around 1989
Am 19.09.2011 22:22, schrieb Joe Catania:
I'm not going to take it on faith about the AC power being less than
DC. I've done these types of calculations before and I can tell you
they are not simple.
It is simple. The simplest way to calculate such problems is to use the
law of enery
Now you are asking me to take it on faith from you. I find you less convincing
than Steorn.
- Original Message -
From: Peter Heckert
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Sent: Monday, September 19, 2011 4:29 PM
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Debunking Steorn Orbo
Am 19.09.2011 22:22, schrieb Joe
On Mon, Sep 19, 2011 at 3:46 PM, OrionWorks - Steven V Johnson
svj.orionwo...@gmail.com wrote:
Meanwhile, on the other side of the fence many who have followed CF
for decades, and whose opinions I've learned to heed, are beginning to
raise concerns,. . .
Please understand that most fences
Am 19.09.2011 22:33, schrieb Joe Catania:
Now you are asking me to take it on faith from you. I find you less
convincing than Steorn.
Let me explain. All known rules about electricity and magnetism are
compatible with energy conservation.
It is therefore impossible to derive an extra energy
OrionWorks - Steven V Johnson svj.orionwo...@gmail.com wrote:
It's quite odd to notice that on the skeptical side of the fence the subject
of CF continues to be perceived as a bogus completely unproven source of
energy. Therefore, one would infer from such conclusions that Rossi's 1 MW
Okay.. Two More Cents:
Just for clarification, references to the skin effect were made as an effort
to explain the temperature difference without a magical violation of CoE. I
was proposing a circumstance where misinterpretation of observations are the
root cause of the apparent power.
[This just in, sent by a friend. I don't write to the DoE. I wouldn't
bother.]
Monday, September 19, 2011
Dear Mr. Owens:
This is in response to your e-mail message to Secretary Chu dated September
13, 2011 in which you asked to know where the Department of Energy stands on
“cold fusion.”
On Sep 19, 2011, at 11:46 AM, OrionWorks - Steven V Johnson wrote:
It's quite odd to notice that on the skeptical side of the fence the
subject of CF continues to be perceived as a bogus completely
unproven source of energy. Therefore, one would infer from such
conclusions that Rossi's 1 MW
Ok, Peter. What I'm saying is I've run into this kind of thing before. There
was an electrical engineering professor on TheEEStory.com blog who thought a
patent was invalid and falsified because it showed a fuse blowing at a current
that (if it were DC) would be insufficient to melt the fuse. I
Why do you think the device is under pressure?
- Original Message -
From: Horace Heffner hheff...@mtaonline.net
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Sent: Monday, September 19, 2011 6:11 PM
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Calulations for 1 MW plant.
On Sep 19, 2011, at 11:46 AM, OrionWorks - Steven V Johnson
Greetings Vortex-L
Re: Jed s letter from the DoE on non-funding of CF
It appears the Opdenaker is in the Office of Fusion Sciences...hmm.
I guess that the great promises of Hot Fusion are near, perhaps the
perinnial
5 years from now. A Zeno s Paradox time frame.
This letter is merely
Hi,
On 20-9-2011 0:11, Horace Heffner wrote:
It is not necessarily true that the E-cat can not harm a fly if there
is no excess energy produced. This is because purely normal
electrical input may be enough to blow the thing up.The 4 metric
tons of mostly steel constitute an enormous
I've updated my Sept ecat analysis
http://lenr.qumbu.com/rossi_ecat_sep11_e.php
No radical new conclusions, but I shifted the analysis point from 130C to
118C, when the output fluid measurement was made, and interleaved the
calculations with the explanatory text. (And the pressure calculations
On Sep 19, 2011, at 2:26 PM, Joe Catania wrote:
Why do you think the device is under pressure?
See end of:
http://www.nyteknik.se/nyheter/energi_miljo/energi/article3264362.ece
Best regards,
Horace Heffner
http://www.mtaonline.net/~hheffner/
The device is open to atmosphere- therefore its at atmospheric pressure. The
steam is being created upon water contacting hot metal.
- Original Message -
From: Horace Heffner hheff...@mtaonline.net
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Sent: Monday, September 19, 2011 8:29 PM
Subject: Re:
On Sep 19, 2011, at 3:29 PM, Man on Bridges wrote:
It's funny to notice everyone (believers and skeptics) is talking
about a 1 MW power plant, but if it has at least a COP of 6, which
Rossi claims, then the input is a maximum of 167 kW!
So if it's fake, there is only a 167 kW that can be
Hi Vortex-l eskimo's,
Anyone knows what happened with Les Case's energy catalyzer?
It seems to work in a similar way as Rossi's. Why did he not build the
1MW plant he was planning?
Is he still working on this? Anyone knows where? (what lab/company?)
Thanks,
Bastiaan.
He passed:
LENR Researcher Les Case Dies
From SeacoastOnline
NEWFIELDS, [N.H.] - Leslie C. Case, 79, died Thursday, July 15, 2010,
at his home in Newfields. He was born Sept. 11, 1930, in Tulsa, Okla.,
the son of Leslie and Julia (Catron) Case. Mr. Case received his
doctorate of science degree
It seems with regard to the E-cat that one of the most basic
scientific methods, known to every high school student who studies
science, is overlooked. That is the importance of using experimental
controls. In the case of the E-cat it is clearly important to
calibrate any calorimetry
On Sep 19, 2011, at 4:35 PM, Joe Catania wrote:
The device is open to atmosphere- therefore its at atmospheric
pressure. The steam is being created upon water contacting hot metal.
That is an assumption, not a measurement.
When the valve is opened it looks to me the device is under
2011/9/20 Horace Heffner hheff...@mtaonline.net:
It seems with regard to the E-cat that one of the most basic scientific
methods, known to every high school student who studies science, is
overlooked.
That is the importance of using experimental controls.
Uh. No way it is important!
What is
From: Robert Leguillon [mailto:robert.leguil...@hotmail.com]
Subject: RE: [Vo]:Debunking Steorn Orbo
[deleted]
Thus the original question set:
Q1) Does this uneven current flow (skin effect) translate to potentially
uneven heating - even at equilibrium**?
[deleted]
R.L.
Thanks, Harry, Jed,
Its clear now what his opinion was at least. Never liked Nature anyway :-).
On Sep 19, 2011 1:29 PM, Harry Veeder hlvee...@yahoo.com wrote:
For some context see 1:45 of this video posted by Steven Krivit.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K9Jp9L_6-BI
Harry
From: Jed
2011/9/19 Peter Heckert peter.heck...@arcor.de
.
Someone had the idea Rossi might have multiple small e-cats in this big
box.
Peter
Me too. I don't know why but I haave a strong feeling that inside the
fat-cat there are the 4 well known e-kittyes that Rossi showed us in the
past demos plus
40 matches
Mail list logo
