On Sun, Nov 20, 2011 at 10:27 PM, Berke Durak wrote:
> On Sun, Nov 20, 2011 at 9:24 PM, David Roberson
> wrote:
> > There is a five minute period during which water would be flowing
> > through the ECATs and into the steam pipes. During this 5 minute
> > period, I would expect (675.6 liters/hou
On Sun, Nov 20, 2011 at 8:24 PM, David Roberson wrote:
>
> I wanted to point out this discrepancy so that other members of the Vortex
> can indicate my error or verify the problem.
>
>
I agree. But the results are consistent with the valve to the trap being
closed, or with the trap being ineffect
On Sun, Nov 20, 2011 at 10:46 AM, David Roberson wrote:
>
> I want to make one observation for you and others to consider. If the
> output power delivered during the test were in the range of 500 kW, then
> all of the vapor exiting toward
> the heat exchanger would be high quality.
>
Agreed.
On Sun, Nov 20, 2011 at 3:12 AM, Jouni Valkonen wrote:
> Joshua refering to wikipaedia: "The quality of steam can be quantitatively
> described by steam quality (steam dryness), the proportion of saturated
> steam in a saturated water/steam mixture. [4] i.e., a steam quality of 0
> indicates 100%
On Sun, Nov 20, 2011 at 1:08 AM, Aussie Guy E-Cat
wrote:
> I have just emailed Rossi with my interest in purchasing a 100 kW E-Cat
> plant.
Wasn't someone here saying that Rossi doesn't inspire confidence? This
takes confidence, I'd say.
On Sun, Nov 20, 2011 at 1:08 AM, Terry Blanton wrote:
> On Sun, Nov 20, 2011 at 1:38 AM, Joshua Cude
> wrote:
>
> > It's very unlikely that support from MIT would have attracted much more
> > interest in cold fusion.
>
> As MIT attracted little research in
On Sat, Nov 19, 2011 at 7:49 PM, Jones Beene wrote:
> *
> *
>
> What it means, of course, is that getting clean cost effective energy from
> non-combustion, non fission sources is extremely difficult, and requires
> proper funding levels.
>
That's obviously true of hot fusion. You can't contai
On Sat, Nov 19, 2011 at 6:51 PM, Terry Blanton wrote:
>
> I'll start with Dr. Mallove's conclusion:
>
> "What it boils down to is this: By studying the history MIT and cold
> fusion, one learns that paradigm-paralyzed and unethical scientists
> have the motive and means to wreck massive damage ag
On Sat, Nov 19, 2011 at 6:34 PM, Jones Beene wrote:
>
> Have you seen such a paper for hot fusion?
Why yes. Have a look at http://www.progressive.org/images/pdf/1179.pdf.
It's an article from 1979 in The Progressive on the H-Bomb secret. I guess
there are many earlier papers, but they're probab
On Sat, Nov 19, 2011 at 8:49 PM, David Roberson wrote:
> It is only a matter of time before you will be proven wrong MY. We will
> all celebrate on that day.
>
>
You should carry a sign. You'd fit right in with the ones carrying signs
about "The End is Near".
On Sat, Nov 19, 2011 at 11:52 PM, David Roberson wrote:
>
> I made a good faith effort to explain the system to one of them to no
> avail. That particular one refused to discuss the operation of Rossi's 1
> MW system in details point by point.
> It is apparent that he realized that his argument
On Sat, Nov 19, 2011 at 11:30 PM, David Roberson wrote:
> Daniel, I think that the poster believes that the ECATs are full of water
> in Rossi's 1 MW test.
>
Well, full of water and steam. The steam takes up most of the volume and so
it moves much faster entraining water droplets in it. As Heffn
On Sat, Nov 19, 2011 at 6:38 PM, Daniel Rocha wrote:
> Not if the output is actually much higher than the input!
>
>
>
If only half the water is vaporized, and the output is higher than the
input, then the output must contain more than half liquid water, which was
the point to begin with.
On Sat, Nov 19, 2011 at 6:19 PM, Jouni Valkonen wrote:
> Joshua wrote: »In the 2-phase literature, this mixture of percolated hot
> water and steam is still called low-quality steam.»
>
> Outside Krivit-inspired Rossi discussion I have never heard this kind of
> definition for steam quality.
>
Th
On Sat, Nov 19, 2011 at 7:59 PM, David Roberson wrote:
> Unless you have a change of attitude, I will not devote any more energy in
> trying to teach you how the system works. Your mind is closed.
>
Again, with the condescension. But that kind of statement actually shows
that it is your mind th
On Sat, Nov 19, 2011 at 6:10 PM, Daniel Rocha wrote:
> That means that part does not leave.
That could work for a while, but eventually the ecat would fill up. Anyway,
Rossi always uses the input flow rate to calculate the output power, so he
is assuming it is coming out. If it's not, then his
On Sat, Nov 19, 2011 at 6:01 PM, Jouni Valkonen wrote:
> And if there is low quality steam, then steam velocity cannot be high
> because water mass flow was low, few gramms per second. So no matter how
> you look it, low quality steam is physical impossibility with ecat.
>
Defined as a mixture of
On Sat, Nov 19, 2011 at 5:37 PM, Jouni Valkonen wrote:
> Peter wrote: » Thank you for pointing this out, it is probably correct and
> I was in error.»
>
> No, what Joshua said does not even resemble physics. If his explanation
> would be even remotely truthful, kettle boilers would be impossible,
On Sat, Nov 19, 2011 at 4:33 PM, Peter Heckert wrote:
>
> But even at steam quality of 0% most of the experiments would give a COP >
> 1, because the input energy measured was not enough to heat the water to
> 100° and definitely there was boiling and some steam observed.
>
In the E&K test the in
On Sat, Nov 19, 2011 at 3:34 PM, Peter Heckert wrote:
>
> If we assume steam was 50% wet, which is physically impossible, then we
> still get a COP of about 3.
> 50% wet is rain and not fog or steam.
>
>
In 2-phase flow, steam (or vapor) quality is simply the ratio of the mass
of steam to the tota
On Sat, Nov 19, 2011 at 1:34 PM, Mary Yugo wrote:
>
>
> On Sat, Nov 19, 2011 at 11:05 AM, Joshua Cude wrote:
>
>>
>> And the nice thing about passive energy storage, is that it allows Rossi
>> plausible deniability of intent to commit fraud. He can admit to some
On Fri, Nov 18, 2011 at 1:28 PM, Terry Blanton wrote:
> Had MIT correctly reported their
> positive results at the time, we could be will within a LENR energy
> society.
You want someone to blame because your hopes of cold fusion have not been
realized. But pinning it on MIT is silly, and a hu
On Sat, Nov 19, 2011 at 9:44 AM, Berke Durak wrote:
> so maybe it is obvious to you how everything is
> connected, but it seems to me that you are making lots of assumptions
> on how the structure of the system is.
>
No. I make very few assumptions. I am simply using the data that's in the
repo
On Sat, Nov 19, 2011 at 9:55 AM, David Roberson wrote:
>
>
> >If you claim the heating elements are submerged, then I completely agree
> that if the steam were dry, fluctuations in power in the ecats would be
> accommodated by fluctuations in output flow rate, and variations in the
> water level.
On Sat, Nov 19, 2011 at 12:17 AM, David Roberson wrote:
> I have a report that is in the hands of Ny Teknik that shows my
> calculations for the October test. The results come very close to what
> Rossi claims for his 3 core ECAT that is used in the 1 MW plant.
>
I'm not surprised. It seems to
On Sat, Nov 19, 2011 at 12:07 AM, David Roberson wrote:
Here I do not agree that the ECAT is filled 11 times during the test. I
> obtain 3 grams/ECAT / 1.7539 grams/seconds = 17105 seconds/ECAT. This
> is 4.75 hours to empty one cat. That is only a bit more than one refill in
> the 5.5 hou
On Sat, Nov 19, 2011 at 12:25 AM, David Roberson wrote:
> On Fri, Nov 18, 2011 at 12:35 PM, Jed Rothwell wrote:
>
>>
>> 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
On Fri, Nov 18, 2011 at 12:48 PM, Jed Rothwell wrote:
> 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 are not c
On Fri, Nov 18, 2011 at 12:35 PM, Jed Rothwell wrote:
>
> 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 to cold
fusion.
On Fri, Nov 18, 2011 at 11:26 PM, David Roberson 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 or not the lev
On Fri, Nov 18, 2011 at 11:47 PM, David Roberson 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
> interaction mak
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 REALL
On Fri, Nov 18, 2011 at 10:54 PM, David Roberson 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 heating element
On Fri, Nov 18, 2011 at 12:27 PM, Jed Rothwell wrote:
> Mary Yugo 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 fluctuation is clearly less than
On Fri, Nov 18, 2011 at 8:13 PM, David Roberson 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 for yours or
Ro
On Fri, Nov 18, 2011 at 7:38 PM, Berke Durak 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 there were
zero out
On Fri, Nov 18, 2011 at 12:17 PM, Jed Rothwell wrote:
> 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
On Fri, Nov 18, 2011 at 1:55 PM, David Roberson 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 local boiling poin
On Fri, Nov 18, 2011 at 12:14 PM, David Roberson 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 based on an unsu
On Fri, Nov 18, 2011 at 12:22 PM, David Roberson wrote:
> OK, I see your reason for the post. Well, did you consider that the
> measurement device could have actually shown that result?
>
What measurement device are you referring to? They measured the
temperature. Without pressure, that does no
On Fri, Nov 18, 2011 at 11:58 AM, Jed Rothwell wrote:
> Mary Yugo wrote:
>
> Rossi has reported several times and it's in his patent application that
>> he had a 35 kW E-cat Ni-H *fusion* heater heating his factory in N. Italy
>> for more than a year. Unfortunately, nobody but Rossi has ever rep
On Fri, Nov 18, 2011 at 10:20 AM, David Roberson wrote:
> This post is completely out of touch with reality. Who has ever claimed
> anything about dry steam and Rossi's device at 90 C? Why not discuss the
> real world instead of dreamland?
>
>
>
I did discuss reality. I said it is implausible f
On Fri, Nov 18, 2011 at 10:17 AM, David Roberson wrote:
>
> The October 28, 2011 test of the Rossi 1 MW LENR system was either a
> success or a failure depending upon your point of view. The skeptics
> have decided to totally disregard the test results without allowing the
> ECAT any reasonable
On Fri, Nov 18, 2011 at 9:20 AM, Terry Blanton wrote:
>
> As Josh walks away shaking his head, I'll just say, on behalf of
> Harry, that this is exactly what P.A.M. Dirac discovered in his famous
> energy equations: [...]
So, let me ask you: If the temperature of the output fluid was 90C, and
On Fri, Nov 18, 2011 at 1:34 AM, Harry Veeder wrote:
>
> You used a thermodynamic argument in one location to reject a measurement
> at a different location. This is a rejection of a measurement based on
> an implausibility,
> rather than on deficiencies of the instrumentation.
>
Not a rejectio
On Thu, Nov 17, 2011 at 10:14 PM, Terry Blanton wrote:
> We can use Rossi's invention to gather the heat of the
> sun during the day and release it at night!
Sorry, nature has beat Rossi to it. That already happens. The ground and
water absorb heat in the day and release it at night. If that
On Thu, Nov 17, 2011 at 9:49 PM, Jed Rothwell wrote:
>
> If he had actually pre-heated it, the skeptics would all be screaming that
> he magically "stored up" the heat in advance.
>
Well yes, that would have to be taken in to account. There's nothing magic
about storing heat. But there are limit
On Thu, Nov 17, 2011 at 9:24 PM, Robert Leguillon <
robert.leguil...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> I believe that he was recommending warming up the E-Cats before most of
> the reporters show up, with minimal supervision, if their time is too
> precious.
> It was not a theory on what may have occurred, me
On Thu, Nov 17, 2011 at 9:07 PM, Harry Veeder wrote:
>
> Rossi claims his device produces more energy (in the form of heat)
> than it consumes (in the form of electricity). This is a performance
> claim, and it should not be characterised as being more or less
> plausible.
But I wasn't talking
On Thu, Nov 17, 2011 at 6:02 PM, Mary Yugo wrote:
> snip>
> Not the same at all. The web site in question is full of claims of free
> energy or practical energy based on some exotic new physical phenomenon. Of
> your examples, only sono fusion comes close (as a claim), and none of them
> have del
On Thu, Nov 17, 2011 at 4:15 PM, Jed Rothwell wrote:
> David Roberson wrote:
>
>
>> Why the relatively short test?
>>
>
> That, I know the answer to. Rossi stopped the test because the people
> observing it asked him to stop it. They wanted to look inside. Also, it was
> late in the day and they
On Thu, Nov 17, 2011 at 4:03 PM, David Roberson wrote:
> I do not think anyone could say that it is not possible to make a
> sophisticated scam of an ECAT. Rossi has helped the skeptical among us by
> allowing this to be the case.
> Do you honestly think that he is not aware of this possibility?
On Thu, Nov 17, 2011 at 3:59 PM, Jed Rothwell wrote:
>
> During the 18 hour test in February, the machine clearly went out of
> control. If I had something like that I would not run it as hot as it can
> go. In this case, running with only one cell enabled produces a clear
> signal. I do not see
On Thu, Nov 17, 2011 at 3:39 PM, Jed Rothwell wrote:
> Mary Yugo wrote:
>
>
>> There are a lot of these claims, aren't there?
>>>
>>>
>> Yes and so far, all have been scams or failures or both.
>>
>
> Untrue. The Curies' claim of anomalous energy was not a failure.
> Muon-catalyzed fusion and th
On Thu, Nov 17, 2011 at 3:29 PM, David Roberson wrote:
>
> It is clear to me that Rossi does not want it to be easy to determine.
>
At least, in that, he succeeds.
But, the results of this test speak for themselves.
>
But like you just said, they don't speak clearly. Actually, none of the
re
On Thu, Nov 17, 2011 at 2:46 PM, Jed Rothwell wrote:
> Mary Yugo wrote:
>
>
>> Perhaps you miss the point about the hydrogen. It has to be completely
>>> removed from the Ni or you may get a cold fusion reaction. It will not be
>>> blank.
>>>
>>
>> Let's see if that's true. I doubt it. It's ea
On Thu, Nov 17, 2011 at 1:36 PM, Harry Veeder wrote:
>
> If you came from a community that did not use levers and never
> developed the rudiments of lever science, how would you react upon
> hearing a story that one man shifted a stone with a branch that you
> KNOW from the stones description sho
On Thu, Nov 17, 2011 at 11:35 AM, Alan J Fletcher wrote:
> At 02:40 AM 11/17/2011, Joshua Cude wrote:
>
>> Or use two ecats. Then of course you'd need someone independent to select
>> which one to use for the blank run.
>>
>
> Solves nothing. In fact, nor d
On Thu, Nov 17, 2011 at 11:16 AM, Peter Heckert wrote:
> No no. Schneiders Company is a successful long time runner in this
> business.
> [...]
>
> He says the energy comes out of space and electronspin.
>
> Schneider's company is currently building a prototype for Professor
> Turturs magnetic
On Thu, Nov 17, 2011 at 10:57 AM, Harry Veeder wrote:
> On Thu, Nov 17, 2011 at 3:15 AM, Joshua Cude
> wrote:
> >
>
> > So, if you trust the reported *measurements*, then they are consistent
> with
> > no excess energy at all. You have to trust their *assumptions
On Wed, Nov 16, 2011 at 7:22 PM, Stephen A. Lawrence wrote:
> I've got too much other stuff I'm not getting too, and the Rossi
> discussion is looking to be interminable.
>
> If my will power falters I'll unsubscribe for a while; absent that I'll be
> trying to ignore goings-on here, partly in the
On Thu, Nov 17, 2011 at 8:23 AM, Berke Durak wrote:
> Theory 1.
>
> At some point Rossi decided to attempt a large scam. He somehow
> talked Focardi and some others into this.
I don't think that's necessary. Focardi was already a strong believer in
H-Ni fusion, so he would have been easy to co
tted to that either, but whatever, he's said things
that turned out wrong. It's possible is all that matters.
>
> Joshua Cude also wrote:
> > Finally, the input power does not include any energy added by chemical
> > reactions between the hydrogen and nickel, which could
On Wed, Nov 16, 2011 at 1:11 PM, Stephen A. Lawrence wrote:
> **
>
> OK, OK, you don't like any of Jed's examples.
>
> But here's one you may find harder to dismiss: For a couple of
> generations dinosaurs were said to be very much like big lizards: Cold
> blooded, slow moving, and most importan
On Wed, Nov 16, 2011 at 4:44 PM, Mary Yugo wrote:
>
> Just out of curiosity, do I need to keep arguing in favor of calibration
> with a blank? Is there anyone else who doesn't get why it's desirable?
> Even essential? I understand a blank may not be perfect because of the
> hydrogen issue and I
On Wed, Nov 16, 2011 at 4:40 PM, Stephen A. Lawrence wrote:
> **
>
>
> On 11-11-16 05:32 PM, Mary Yugo wrote:
>
>
>
> On Wed, Nov 16, 2011 at 11:33 AM, Stephen A. Lawrence wrote:
>
>> There are actually some technical difficulties with a "blank run" in the
>> Rossi E-cat.
>>
>> Wet cold fusion res
On Wed, Nov 16, 2011 at 3:56 PM, Jed Rothwell wrote:
> Mary Yugo wrote:
>
> If so, the entire scientific community must be incredibly obstinate or
>> the proof for cold fusion isn't very good or some combination of both.
>>
>
> It is entirely the first. That is true of all other examples in whi
On Wed, Nov 16, 2011 at 1:33 PM, Stephen A. Lawrence wrote:
>
> The trouble is that H2(gas)+Ni(powder) reacts exothermically, as the
> hydrogen is adsorbed onto the nickel.
This is true, and it means that the run would still have to be long enough
to account for this. But this should be rather e
On Wed, Nov 16, 2011 at 2:59 PM, Jed Rothwell wrote:
> This is a problem because of powder is expensive and difficult to
> fabricate.
>
Not according to Rossi, who says it is easy to fabricate, and the cost is
negligible.
> It is also a problem because after you contaminate it, you could not
On Wed, Nov 16, 2011 at 12:34 PM, Jouni Valkonen wrote:
>
> This is true that the Rossi's effect is trivial to demonstrate
> unconditionally. But this is also the reason, that Rossi has not had
> any interests to provide conclusive evidence to the public.
Speculation about reverse psychology an
On Wed, Nov 16, 2011 at 2:18 PM, Jed Rothwell wrote:
> James Bowery wrote:
>
> Is there a plausible explanation for why the temperature at which reaction
>> initiates in the E-Cat just happens to be so close to the boiling point of
>> water?
>>
>
> The water never goes above 100°C because it is
On Wed, Nov 16, 2011 at 1:32 PM, James Bowery wrote:
> Is there a plausible explanation for why the temperature at which reaction
> initiates in the E-Cat just happens to be so close to the boiling point of
> water?
>
We don't know the temperature of the core when the reaction is claimed to
init
On Wed, Nov 16, 2011 at 9:36 PM, Jed Rothwell wrote:
> If that is what you mean, you are wrong. Input power is much smaller than
> output, and there is no chance it might be confused with output.
>
Output power may be larger than input in some demos, but the evidence does
not support the claim t
On Wed, Nov 16, 2011 at 7:49 PM, Jed Rothwell wrote:
> Of course I understand the necessity for blank runs and controls when you
> are trying to measure a fraction of a watt, or even ~10 W. But with
> kilowatt levels of heat that anyone can confirm by sense of touch, running
> a blank is ridiculo
On Wed, Nov 16, 2011 at 7:28 PM, Berke Durak wrote:
> Joshua Cude wrote:
>
> > Actually, even if you trust F. about the energy during the run the
> > data is entirely consistent with no excess heat.
>
> Not according to Ny Teknik's "This is how the test was don
On Wed, Nov 16, 2011 at 5:35 PM, Terry Blanton wrote:
> On Wed, Nov 16, 2011 at 6:31 PM, Joshua Cude
> wrote:
>
> > Do you have a photo of the same model genset running full bore? The hinge
> > may only open to 80 degrees. (A peripheral point, to be sure, because
> >
On Wed, Nov 16, 2011 at 12:58 PM, James Bowery wrote:
> On Wed, Nov 16, 2011 at 12:41 PM, James Bowery wrote:
>
>> I recall the manometer registered 3 bar, which is 300kPa which
>> corresponds to a potential liquid water temperature of 130C at the exit
>> from the reaction vessel. This doesn't
On Wed, Nov 16, 2011 at 12:41 PM, James Bowery wrote:
>
> I recall the manometer registered 3 bar,
>
Where? I didn't see any reference to pressure inside the conduits in the
Oct 28 ecat, but I might have missed it.
which is 300kPa which corresponds to a potential liquid water temperature
> of 1
On Wed, Nov 16, 2011 at 12:19 PM, James Bowery wrote:
>
>
> On Wed, Nov 16, 2011 at 10:55 AM, Joshua Cude wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> On Wed, Nov 16, 2011 at 10:12 AM, James Bowery wrote:
>>
>>> OK, I've now conceived of how the temperature is stabi
On Wed, Nov 16, 2011 at 5:24 PM, Terry Blanton wrote:
> On Wed, Nov 16, 2011 at 6:03 PM, Terry Blanton wrote:
>
> > Ackshully, looks more like 450 kVA.
>
> Even is it is a 470 kVA genset, some of the skeptics are likely wrong
> because:
>
> 1) The measured thermal heat was 479 kW. A 470 kVA ge
On Wed, Nov 16, 2011 at 4:46 PM, Jed Rothwell wrote:
> Mary Yugo wrote:
>
>
>> How do we know the genset output? It's probably capable of 8x that much.
>>
>
> We do not know the output. We have to trust that Fioravaniti is telling
> the truth. There is no way to independently verify this test.
On Wed, Nov 16, 2011 at 2:55 PM, Berke Durak wrote:
> On Wed, Nov 16, 2011 at 3:48 PM, Joshua Cude
> wrote:
> > Excess, or stored, or chemically produced?
> > As Albert said, the ecats were heated for 2 hours beforehand, and the
> power
> > was not given, but at 250
On Wed, Nov 16, 2011 at 12:36 PM, Berke Durak wrote:
> So you have water in the two 1000 l reservoirs with an average temperature
> of
> ~18 degrees (Celsius).
>
> Output temperature was 104.5 C average.
>
> I don't give a damn about steam. I presume the boiler wasn't operating at
> sub-atmosphe
On Wed, Nov 16, 2011 at 11:15 AM, Mary Yugo wrote:
> If Rossi prevails, Krivit will certainly look bad, and so will the entire
>> scientific establishment.
>>
>
> I disagree. With the present evidence, there is every reason to be
> skeptical of Rossi.
>
That's true. The skepticism of Rossi is j
On Wed, Nov 16, 2011 at 6:34 AM, Jouni Valkonen wrote:
>
>
> Anyway, it will be very interesting history written when all the
> background connections are exposed and investigated. I would say that
> poor Steven the Snake...
>
>
If Rossi prevails, Krivit will certainly look bad, and so will the
On Wed, Nov 16, 2011 at 10:12 AM, James Bowery wrote:
> OK, I've now conceived of how the temperature is stabilized without
> feedback control, and it doesn't require anything like mixed phase flow.
> All it requires is pressure in the reaction vessel high enough to keep the
> liquid flow at the
On Wed, Nov 16, 2011 at 9:58 AM, James Bowery wrote:
> By the way, this means that if the water in the reactor vessel is under
> enough pressure, the water pressure can be very high. This means, in turn,
> that if it goes through a pressure drop, it can be completely vaporized --
> indeed superh
On Wed, Nov 16, 2011 at 9:56 AM, James Bowery wrote:
>
> Since the effective specific heat does not remain constant with
> temperature -- there is a discontinuous rise at the boiling point -- there
> is a dramatic rise in the effective heat transport with temperature at the
> boiling point (whate
On Wed, Nov 16, 2011 at 10:03 AM, Marcello Vitale wrote:
> There is the only problem with the investment story that it does not
> appear to be true. The only source of money Krivit cites is Ampenergo, that
> is Rossi himself.
>
>
>
That may be the only source that he claims succeeded, and I don't
On Wed, Nov 16, 2011 at 9:16 AM, Marcello Vitale wrote:
>
> To the hard-core skeptics, two questions:
>
> - did man actually set foot on the moon? Compare and contrast level of
> proof.
>
I agree, the moon-landing requires some trust, because there is no way for
us to witness it directly. But the
On Wed, Nov 16, 2011 at 9:17 AM, James Bowery wrote:
> The temperature control system doesn't necessarily have to sense right at
> the reactor. It can take any output measurement that has a reasonably
> short time constant.
>
>
Right, but then we're back to the question of stabilization of the
t
On Wed, Nov 16, 2011 at 9:05 AM, James Bowery wrote:
> This doesn't apply to the reaction chamber itself if we presume Rossi's
> temperature-enhanced reaction rate is in play there.
That's true, but then we don't know that the temperature there is
well-regulated. There is no evidence the temper
On Wed, Nov 16, 2011 at 7:59 AM, James Bowery wrote:
>
> The pseudoskeptics are basically saying that all we have to do is look at
> the circumstantial evidence to know that even cursory investigation of the
> direct evidence of the Rossi phenomenon (which implies suspending
> skepticism about Ro
On Wed, Nov 16, 2011 at 1:00 AM, Marcello Vitale wrote:
> I remember a graduate student in a group in which I was a postdoc, crying
> (crying!) over a series of IR spectra that resulted from her latest series
> of experiments, saying "I will never graduate, this system just does not
> work, everyt
On Wed, Nov 16, 2011 at 1:18 AM, Marcello Vitale wrote:
> Gee, I guess their behavior seems highly suspicious :-)))
>
It seemed a little evasive, but in spite of that, in 1904 the prestigious
journal Science wrote:
"The newspapers of December 18 contained the announcement that Wilbur
Wright had
On Tue, Nov 15, 2011 at 7:53 PM, Jed Rothwell wrote:
>
> Great crowds of people, including many scientists, opposed Edison, the
> Wrights,
>
People were skeptical of the Wrights, they did not "oppose" them. And they
certainly didn't oppose powered flight.
> the laser,
>
There were no crowds o
On Tue, Nov 15, 2011 at 7:53 PM, Jed Rothwell wrote:
>
> Suppose, in a parallel universe, scientists in 1990 did science instead of
> treating theory as a form of religion.
>
If theory were treated as religion, no one would have paid attention to
P&F, but they did. They were given a standing ova
On Tue, Nov 15, 2011 at 6:06 PM, Alan J Fletcher wrote:
>
> There is no dispute that Edison produced light.
> Nobody knew (or needed to know) the formula for his filaments, or
> challenged their possibility.
>
What I meant was that no one disputed the fact that he produced light from
electricit
On Tue, Nov 15, 2011 at 3:54 PM, Jed Rothwell wrote:
> People who think Rossi and Defkalion are faking or fooling around because
> they are late and their devices produce only 470 kW instead of 1 MW know
> nothing about history, and nothing about technology. "Only 470 kW" is an
> incredible thin
On Tue, Nov 15, 2011 at 4:12 PM, Jed Rothwell wrote:
>
> They were not saying "incandescent lights are impossible." [...] The
> parallels to cold fusion are interesting. No scientist denies that fusion
> is possible. They say metal lattice fusion without neutrons is impossible.
>
Right. They say
501 - 600 of 939 matches
Mail list logo
