I think that there are a group of competitors that are working together to try
and bash Rossi, so they can slow down the commercialization of the E-Cat until
they can make their systems produce 1/10th as much output. For the time being
they are putting aside their differences.
I agree that hot fusion was the biggest boondoggle of the 21st century.
Cold fusion is going to make everyone realize how the mainstream scientific
community kept us in the dark ages.
From: Terry Blanton hohlr...@gmail.com
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Sent:
At 12:53 AM 11/18/2011, Axil Axil wrote:
Scientists create light
from vacuum
http://www.physorg.com/news/2011-11-scientists-vacuum.html
Note the coincidence ...
www.ecat.com :
Magnus Holm has a D.Tech and Niclas Sandström a PhD in elementary
particle physics at Chalmers University of
Hi Terry,
I agree oscillon activity could explain the anomalous heat in the
Rossi
Reactor, and helps to explain why an external exciter of certain frequencies
is necessary but
I don't think this is fast enough for pair separation like the recent
article using SQUIDS to create the
Jed,
You claimed previously that you didn't know of any smart people that disagreed
on the results of Rossi's demos (a swipe at all of the remaining vortex
contrarians). Obviously you respect Ahern's technical abilities. So, now that
Ahern is claiming excess power with Ni-H, but doubting
Robert Leguillon robert.leguil...@hotmail.com wrote:
You claimed previously that you didn't know of any smart people that
disagreed on the results of Rossi's demos . . .
That is not quite what I said. I do not know any smart people -- or stupid
ones either -- who disagree for valid technical
Lewan added this to the article:
UPDATE: Members of the Hydrofusion team were present at the October 6 test
of the Ecat and the October 28 test of the heat plant. They also met with
Rossi for a private demonstration of the Ecat at the end of July.
- Jed
People are odd... I do not see why people see this neutrino thing as a big
news. I predicted something like that to be possible when I was 19 years
old. Just simple first principle physics (i.e. say 'no' to emprically
unsupported a priori assumptions such as principle of relativity).
Also there
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
On Fri, Nov 18, 2011 at 1:55 PM, David Roberson dlrober...@aol.com wrote:
Of course I referred to the temperature. There are other ways to check
the quality besides pressure although that is the usual one.
Pressure can only be used to identify dry steam, if the temperature is
above the
One point I forgot to mention, even though you might not consider a skeletal
cat as capable of granular motion I have noticed many papers refer to a
rigid Casimir geometry. As such you could have a similar frequency
sensitivity of cilia like appendages left when the softer metal is leached
away
I think the answer is simple. He is jealous. In one breath he claims that Rossi
is producing excess heat and wants him to share information. Next, he is making
skeptical remarks. It makes it clear to me that he wishes he could produce the
same output Rossi can. So instead of admitting that, he
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
On Fri, Nov 18, 2011 at 7:13 PM, Joshua Cude joshua.c...@gmail.com wrote:
Believers (or at least claimants) are responsible to provide data to
support their claims.
Skeptics just need to show why the data does not support the claims,
by showing the data is also consistent with another
I appreciate your handling of this issue Berke. I have become weary of
answering some of the skeptic claims that are totally out of touch with reality.
If they wish to discuss one issue in depth, I will attempt to find time, but
they should be required to support their claims instead of just
There has a lot of speculation concerning the alleged identity of the
mysterious engineer Domenico Fioravanti. For example PESN states he is a
NATO Colonel-Engineer. See:
http://pesn.com/2011/11/07/9601950_Bloombergs_EnergyNow_Names_E-Cat_as_Weeks
_HotZone/
I gather Fioravanti's identity, at
This speculative dramatization takes place in a board room of an unnamed
corporation.
Characters in this dramatization:
Fioravanti - Domenico Fioravanti
THE BOSS - Fioravanti's Superior.
THE BOSS: Can I make an offer you can't refuse?
Fioravanti: [hesitates] What did you have in
On Fri, Nov 18, 2011 at 7:38 PM, Berke Durak berke.du...@gmail.com wrote:
For the 1MW demo, the data, as well as the claims, are provided by
Rossi et al.
IT IS THEREFORE EQUALLY EASY TO FAKE THE DATA AS TO FAKE THE CLAIMS.
This is certainly the way I feel about the 18-hour test, where
Thank you Joshua Cude, for being extremely persistent in presenting an
extremely strong case with a lucid analysis of the available data -- it may
even be that the proponents are starting to connect the dots of your
critique...
On Fri, Nov 18, 2011 at 10:36 PM, Rich Murray rmfor...@gmail.com wrote:
Thank you Joshua Cude, for being extremely persistent in presenting an
extremely strong case with a lucid analysis of the available data -- it may
even be that the proponents are starting to connect the dots of your
I guess you did not read the posts that some of us have written. Many cirtics
have succeeded in shouting for a long time, but are clearly in error. I for
one do not wish to keep trying to educate those who will not learn or who
disregard the evidence that is placed before them.
It gets
On Fri, Nov 18, 2011 at 8:13 PM, David Roberson dlrober...@aol.com wrote:
If they wish to discuss one issue in depth, I will attempt to find time,
but they should be required to support their claims instead of just
suppositions.
My claims have been supported in detail. More than I can say
http://www.hulu.com/watch/70135/tales-of-tomorrow-the-golden-ingot
Ok, I just did some calculating about the 1% power regulation you insist upon
and it is bogus. Do you wish to prove your point?
Dave
-Original Message-
From: Joshua Cude joshua.c...@gmail.com
To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com
Sent: Fri, Nov 18, 2011 10:57 pm
Subject: Re: [Vo]:High
I will give you a clue. A 10 % error in input flow rate would take 47 hours to
empty the ECAT. The test was active according the the customer for 5.5 hours,
so where is the problem with water level control?
This I want to hear.
Dave
-Original Message-
From: Joshua Cude
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
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
Dave,
Have you examined the earlier E-Cat tests? Before the Fat-Cat (or as Nasa
calls it the Ottoman, Rossi was claiming complete vaporization under
circumstances that were obviously, I mean REALLY obviously, wrong.
This is the main reason that skeptics have been referring to the condensed,
On Fri, Nov 18, 2011 at 10:54 PM, David Roberson dlrober...@aol.com wrote:
Ok, I just did some calculating about the 1% power regulation you insist
upon and it is bogus. Do you wish to prove your point?
If the output is dry steam, and the flow rate is constant, which would be
the case if the
Robert,
I agree with you completely that the other tests did not have dry vapor output.
I concluded that the October 6 test had a quality of about 20% at the time
that Mats Lewan collected his .91 grams/second measurement. If this latest
monster cat was a copy of those devices in parallel,
On Fri, Nov 18, 2011 at 11:32 PM, Robert Leguillon
robert.leguil...@hotmail.com wrote:
Dave,
Have you examined the earlier E-Cat tests? Before the Fat-Cat (or as
Nasa calls it the Ottoman, Rossi was claiming complete vaporization under
circumstances that were obviously, I mean REALLY
On Fri, Nov 18, 2011 at 11:47 PM, David Roberson dlrober...@aol.com wrote:
But, Rossi definitely appears to have 3 cores active for the 1 MW
components. They put out at least 2 times the power in the self sustaining
mode as
the October 6 test device and the positive feedback due to core
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
Lets make sure we agree on the terms. Then we can proceed to discuss the
details. See below.
-Original Message-
From: Joshua Cude joshua.c...@gmail.com
To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com
Sent: Sat, Nov 19, 2011 12:45 am
Subject: Re: [Vo]:High school physics says 1 GJ excess energy for
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
I agree that the old cats were quite a bit different than the new ones. The
new devices have a lot of potential volume to contain vapor above the water.
And of course the very tiny hole associated with the
output valve would make water have a hard time finding its way out with the dry
steam.
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
-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
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
-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
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.
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
I am not sure whether this material has already been posted to Vortex, but
if not, it may be of interest.
First, (Ahern's) Vibronic Energy Techologies Corp. presentation can be
found at:
http://www.scribd.com/doc/39076066/Vibronic-Energy-Technologies
-
Second, his patent -
101 - 143 of 143 matches
Mail list logo
