Re: [Vo]:Cold fusion - thoughts

On Tue, Nov 15, 2011 at 3:54 PM, Jed Rothwell wrote: > > > On the contrary, Edison's strategy resembled Rossi's. He did > demonstrations with goal of impressing the public and causing a tremendous > buzz. His demonstrations looked impressive to the public but they proved > nothing. The scientific

Re: [Vo]:Stop Destroying Keyboards

On Tue, Nov 15, 2011 at 4:51 PM, Jed Rothwell wrote: > > Oh come now. You know perfectly well there is a good reason for not > telling people this sort of thing. This information is worth a trillion > dollars. The secret to producing cold fusion is worth a lot. That he claims is his catalyst. I

Re: [Vo]:Stop Destroying Keyboards

On Tue, Nov 15, 2011 at 4:37 PM, Jed Rothwell wrote: > > There is no doubt he has control over it. > Wrong. I doubt he has control over it, other than the obvious input current to heat it up, and maybe start some kind of reaction, and cooling water to cool it down, and maybe stop it. But I serio

Re: [Vo]:Stop Destroying Keyboards

On Tue, Nov 15, 2011 at 1:43 PM, Stephen A. Lawrence wrote: > > > On 11-11-15 12:10 PM, Joshua Cude wrote: > >> The total reactor (the ecat) clearly participates in the heating of the >> fluid, so the comparison of the overall power density is relevant. The much >>

Re: [Vo]:Imputing pressure at the output thermocouple for Rossi's Oct 28 demo

On Tue, Nov 15, 2011 at 1:18 PM, James Bowery wrote: > On Tue, Nov 15, 2011 at 11:56 AM, Joshua Cude wrote: > >> 2011/11/15 James Bowery >> >>> If the pressure at the output thermocouple of the Oct 28 demo exceeds >>> the critical pressure of steam at the

Re: [Vo]:Imputing pressure at the output thermocouple for Rossi's Oct 28 demo

2011/11/15 James Bowery > If the pressure at the output thermocouple of the Oct 28 demo exceeds the > critical pressure of steam at the reported temperature, then there is no > heat of vaporization represented in the mass flow hence in the imputed > power level. > > As Stephen Lawrence has emphas

Re: [Vo]:Stop Destroying Keyboards

On Tue, Nov 15, 2011 at 10:46 AM, Jed Rothwell wrote: > Mary Yugo wrote: > >> >> Let me see if I understand. You're making claims about the amount of >> catalyst present in the cells? Isn't this a bit like counting the angels >> on the head of a pin? >> > > Except that angels do not obey Archim

Re: [Vo]:Stop Destroying Keyboards

On Tue, Nov 15, 2011 at 10:44 AM, Jed Rothwell wrote: > When many experiments in different laboratories all show anomalous heat > from metal hydrides, with Pd, Ni and Ti, most people say they are mutually > supportive. That is why replications are considered valuable. The > similarities seem obvi

Re: [Vo]:Stop Destroying Keyboards

On Tue, Nov 15, 2011 at 10:33 AM, Jed Rothwell wrote: > > Right, that's what I meant. It is the part labeled "Reactor" in Higgins' > diagram, which is not to scale: > > http://lenr-canr.org/RossiData/Higgins%20Oct%206%2027kWreactorDiagram4.png > > > That device is where the power leads and hydroge

Re: [Vo]:Stop Destroying Keyboards

On Tue, Nov 15, 2011 at 9:55 AM, Jed Rothwell wrote: > Mary Yugo wrote: > > >> His October 6 demo featured a much larger and heavier device which was >> poorly inspected and had a lower power density than ever before. >> > > What do you mean by that? The power was 8 kW nominal. That is considera

Re: [Vo]:a modest proposal

On Tue, Nov 15, 2011 at 5:29 AM, Michele Comitini < michele.comit...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > Much simpler to read Krivit's latest comment on his latest post. It seems > > pretty clear Rossi's after someone's money. Anyway, I don't have the > capital > > to do the experiment you propose, even if

Re: [Vo]:a modest proposal

On Tue, Nov 15, 2011 at 4:25 AM, Michele Comitini < michele.comit...@gmail.com> wrote: > Joshua, > > What you say can be proved easily. Just offer some money to Rossi in > different amounts, at different times and from different identities. > See what happens, and *then* of course report here...

Re: [Vo]:a modest proposal

On Mon, Nov 14, 2011 at 6:39 PM, Charles Hope wrote: > > > He's shifty and does not inspire confidence. > Oh, but he does. Several people have written to him offering him money. That clearly indicates he has their confidence. And even among those who don't publicly offer money, the obvious Rossi-

Re: [Vo]: Rossi Deserves Our Gratitude

On Tue, Nov 15, 2011 at 1:04 AM, Axil Axil wrote: > If SCAMMING was Rossi’s intent, why would Rossi complicate each and every > demo with a new reactor design? > To maintain uncertainty. If he stuck with the same design, gradually, the ins and outs would become clearer, and if he is trying to d

Re: [Vo]:Let Rossi Be Rossi?

On Mon, Nov 14, 2011 at 11:24 PM, Jouni Valkonen wrote: > Joshua Cude wrote: > > They weighed it before the warm-up period. > > > > But heating a brick eCat into 100°C takes about 20 MJ energy. And as there > was additional heat loss due to poor insulation som

Re: [Vo]:When faced with reality

On Mon, Nov 14, 2011 at 10:45 AM, OrionWorks - Steven V Johnson < svj.orionwo...@gmail.com> wrote: > Jed, > > Since you are a pretty decent historian on a number of events... > > Regarding the Right Brothers, when proof became irrefutable that their > contraption could fly under power, how did som

Re: [Vo]:Cold fusion, heat from primary energy consumption, and global warming

On Mon, Nov 14, 2011 at 9:32 PM, Jed Rothwell wrote: > wrote: > >> >> This figure is too high. The amount intercepted by the Earth is 5 million >> quads >> per annum above the atmosphere, and then some of this is directly >> reflected back >> into space by cloud cover. >> > > Where did you get t

Re: [Vo]:This forum is not a supermarket checkout line tabloid

On Mon, Nov 14, 2011 at 9:22 PM, Jed Rothwell wrote: > > Ahern told me he is sure that Rossi is getting some heat. He doubts the > extent of it, not the reality of it. > Right. But the extent of it is the point with respect to the feasibility of retail reactors. Here's what he wrote to Krivit:

Re: [Vo]:This forum is not a supermarket checkout line tabloid

On Mon, Nov 14, 2011 at 8:40 PM, Jed Rothwell wrote: > > Please do not be legalistic. [...] I do not care what constitutes libel > strictly according to the law. What you are doing is libelous, in my > opinion. > It's not even close to libelous. But why exactly is your opinion more important tha

Re: [Vo]:Let Rossi Be Rossi?

On Mon, Nov 14, 2011 at 8:10 PM, Jed Rothwell wrote: > Joshua Cude wrote: > >> >> Except the fundamental physics, and the fact that a 30 L poorly insulated >>> vessel of water cannot stay at boiling temperature for 4 hours. >>> >> >> It most cer

Re: [Vo]:Let Rossi Be Rossi?

On Mon, Nov 14, 2011 at 7:12 PM, Jed Rothwell wrote: > > Except the fundamental physics, and the fact that a 30 L poorly insulated > vessel of water cannot stay at boiling temperature for 4 hours. > It most certainly can, if it weighs 100 kg, and consists in part of fire brick, or something simi

Re: [Vo]:a modest proposal

On Mon, Nov 14, 2011 at 3:40 PM, Jed Rothwell wrote: > > Even if that were true, a 30 L vessel of water cannot remain at boiling > temperature for 4 hours, > Why not? If it's perfectly insulated it can stay at boiling temperature indefinitely. It all depends on the rate that energy is removed, a

Re: [Vo]: Rossi Deserves Our Gratitude

On Mon, Nov 14, 2011 at 3:00 PM, Jed Rothwell wrote: > > I do not know any very smart people who say this. > That's because anyone who says it is automatically defined by you as not very smart; it's a tautology. But Peter Ekstrom says it, and so do a dozen or more people Krivit consulted, and th

Re: FW: Re: [Vo]:History of gigantic boondoggle

On Sat, Jul 30, 2011 at 6:43 PM, francis wrote: > On Sat, 30 Jul 2011 08:20: *Joshua Cude wrote* > > [snip] Are you suggesting that because of the billions gambled on fusion > research, > > that money should also be invested in perpetual motion claims? [/snip] &g

Re: [Vo]:History of gigantic boondoggle

On Fri, Jul 29, 2011 at 8:28 AM, Jones Beene wrote: > > How much precious R&D resources have been funneled into this abysmal joke > (by the skeptics of LENR) ? > > $100 billion from the USA alone (in 2010 dollars) ? Maybe more. > > Not a one of these monstrosities has produced as much excess powe

Re: [Vo]:Wet Steam: Energy required disperse and suspend small droplets in the vapor state

On Sat, Jul 30, 2011 at 8:06 AM, Jouni Valkonen wrote: > > > > > No, that cannot be happening. As Storms pointed out, there would be no > steam at the end of the hose. As I pointed out, the temperature would > immediately fall below boiling. It would be obvious. > > > > > That is very true, it req

Re: [Vo]:Wet Steam: Energy required disperse and suspend small droplets in the vapor state

On Sat, Jul 30, 2011 at 7:49 AM, Jed Rothwell wrote: > Damon Craig wrote: > > It irritates me to no end. All the rational evidence we have been presented >> supports the claim that water spills through the outlet. >> > > No, that cannot be happening. As Storms pointed out, there would be no > st

Re: [Vo]:Wet Steam: Energy required disperse and suspend small droplets in the vapor state

On Sat, Jul 30, 2011 at 4:54 AM, Damon Craig wrote: > It irritates me to no end. All the rational evidence we have been presented > supports the claim that water spills through the outlet. > I have not seen this evidence. There is a mixture of liquid water and mist/steam at the end of the hose.

Re: [Vo]:Wet Steam: Energy required disperse and suspend small droplets in the vapor state

On Fri, Jul 29, 2011 at 5:30 AM, Damon Craig wrote: > In order to resolve the disagreement between the wet steam hyposesis and > the water spill-though hypothesis it's reasonable to ask how much energy it > takes to break water into droplets and lift these a few inches before > sending them out t

Re: [Vo]:Uppsala University Denies Rossi Research Agreement

On Fri, Jul 22, 2011 at 11:01 AM, Abd ul-Rahman Lomax wrote: > At 04:06 AM 7/22/2011, Joshua Cude wrote: > > >> I don't get that. If it takes one unit of power to bring the temperature >> up to the ignition threshold, and then the thing generates 6 or more units >&

Re: [Vo]:Uppsala University Denies Rossi Research Agreement

On Fri, Jul 22, 2011 at 5:48 AM, Damon Craig wrote: > It is not a part of our life experiences to have witnessed steam at anytime > having this anywhere near this liquid water content. > It depends on your life experience. It is certainly part of Mitra et al's experience as documented in IEEE Se

Re: [Vo]:Uppsala University Denies Rossi Research Agreement

On Fri, Jul 22, 2011 at 5:48 AM, Damon Craig wrote: > I think I'll have to take this one step at a time. > > Do you all realize that you could swim up into the sky in > steam containing 90% by mass water? > I don't think you read what I wrote. The density of water vapor at 100C is 1700 times low

Re: [Vo]:New Sergio Focardi interview

On Thu, Jul 21, 2011 at 2:17 PM, Abd ul-Rahman Lomax wrote: > > While two heaters is possible, it's not what is reported. The description > here is a bit garbled. There are two chambers, the reaction chamber and the > cooling chamber. There may be a third chamber, a closed coolant chamber that >

Re: [Vo]:European Patent Office observer criticizes Rossi's E-Cat

On Thu, Jul 21, 2011 at 1:42 PM, Abd ul-Rahman Lomax wrote: > No, increased pressure is caused by the pump (I have little idea how much > it will cause, but my guess is that this isn't enough to raise the pressure > to atmospheric), and by steam pressure from boiling. Even a little boiled > water

Re: [Vo]:Uppsala University Denies Rossi Research Agreement

On Thu, Jul 21, 2011 at 2:33 PM, Abd ul-Rahman Lomax wrote: > At 11:58 AM 7/21/2011, Joshua Cude wrote: > > > On Thu, Jul 21, 2011 at 6:56 AM, Damon Craig <<mailto:decra...@gmail.com> >> de**cra...@gmail.com > wrote: >> Cude, Lomax: >> >> To you

Re: [Vo]:Uppsala University Denies Rossi Research Agreement

On Thu, Jul 21, 2011 at 2:28 PM, Abd ul-Rahman Lomax wrote: > At 07:56 AM 7/21/2011, Damon Craig wrote: > >> Cude, Lomax: >> >> To you two, and myself, its fairly obvious this device doesn't do what it >> is reported to do, but we have no solid, unrefutable evidence--yet. >> >> One presumption is

Re: [Vo]:Uppsala University Denies Rossi Research Agreement

On Thu, Jul 21, 2011 at 7:28 AM, Daniel Rocha wrote: > The mass of liquid in any of those video > is visually less 5%, if that much. You should get a job working for turbine manufacturers. They go to a lot of trouble to evaluate steam quality, when all they need is for you to look at it. > B

Re: [Vo]:Uppsala University Denies Rossi Research Agreement

On Thu, Jul 21, 2011 at 6:56 AM, Damon Craig wrote: > Cude, Lomax: > > To you two, and myself, its fairly obvious this device doesn't do what it > is reported to do, but we have no solid, unrefutable evidence--yet. > Evidence is the responsibility of the guy making the claim. > > One presumptio

Re: [Vo]:Uppsala University Denies Rossi Research Agreement

On Thu, Jul 21, 2011 at 5:22 AM, Damon Craig wrote: > Look, guys. If no one is pursuing the "really wet steam" theory anymore the > steam wetness issue is pretty much moot. Sorry if I didn't realize that. > What gives you that idea? To my mind, really wet steam is still the most likely explanati

Re: [Vo]:E-Cat explained - Final chapter for steam controversy

On Wed, Jul 20, 2011 at 7:53 PM, Abd ul-Rahman Lomax wrote: > >> A skeptic doesn't need excuses. >> > > They have the Magic Right-as-Rain Protective Shield? > Someone who makes a claim and is challenged may need an excuse. The skeptic is not the one making a claim. > > The problem with the E-C

Re: [Vo]:E-Cat explained - Final chapter for steam controversy

On Wed, Jul 20, 2011 at 6:07 PM, Abd ul-Rahman Lomax wrote: > > The demand for self-powered operation is a classic pseudo-skeptical excuse, > that's not necessary for an independent test, where input power can be > nailed down accurately, and simply complicates the device. > A skeptic doesn't ne

Re: [Vo]:E-Cat explained - Final chapter for steam controversy

On Wed, Jul 20, 2011 at 3:48 PM, Jouni Valkonen wrote: > > > Due to these blunders, their measurements were meaningless. Probably true. > However, > there is one useful information in that March experiment, what has > been ignored. They observed that E-Cat heated water for the first 9 > min wi

Re: [Vo]:Uppsala University Denies Rossi Research Agreement

On Wed, Jul 20, 2011 at 10:28 AM, Abd ul-Rahman Lomax wrote: > The overall question is "How much of the water is actually vaporized?" And > there isn't an answer. No steps were taken to demonstrate this critical > aspect of the demonstrations. > On this, we are in complete agreement.

Re: [Vo]:Bravo to Jed on the Freedonia Clip

On Wed, Jul 20, 2011 at 7:47 AM, Ron Kita wrote: > > Why don t people realize that Ni-H LENR ..has intrinisc merit. > Because people like to see evidence before they accept extraordinary claims. > > Also, I think the Dennis Bushnell is quite knowledgeable on this topic. > What makes you thin

Re: [Vo]:Uppsala University Denies Rossi Research Agreement

On Tue, Jul 19, 2011 at 11:26 PM, Jouni Valkonen wrote: > > This is probably correct analysis. I think that this is possible to > calculate fairly accurately, if we know the diameter of opening for the > hose. As boiling point of water inside E-Cat is what is measured with the > probe, then we can

Re: [Vo]:Uppsala University Denies Rossi Research Agreement

On Tue, Jul 19, 2011 at 7:12 PM, Abd ul-Rahman Lomax wrote: > > Sure, if you sufficiently obstruct the flow, you could lift styrofoam > easily. I was referring to a *piece* of styrofoam, presumably small. And the > question was about bouyancy, not about flow. You can support a whole person > with

Re: [Vo]:European Patent Office observer criticizes Rossi's E-Cat

On Tue, Jul 19, 2011 at 4:14 PM, Abd ul-Rahman Lomax wrote: > At 03:58 PM 7/19/2011, Joshua Cude wrote: > > In the paper they show how their technique can measure steam quality to >> within a few per cent between 5% and 80%. 5% corresponds to 5 % steam by >> mass, and yes,

Re: [Vo]:Calibrating a pair of K-type thermocouples

On Tue, Jul 19, 2011 at 4:30 PM, Daniel Rocha wrote: > 200W from the hose Maybe. > and 200W from the e cat structure, at lest. I don't believe it. Rossi never claims it, and this 200W would figure in his power calculation (the losses in the hose don't), and he never takes account of it. I

Re: [Vo]:Uppsala University Denies Rossi Research Agreement

On Tue, Jul 19, 2011 at 10:45 AM, Abd ul-Rahman Lomax wrote: > > Why don't you find a piece of cheap, light styrofoam packing and see if it >> will float over a boiling pot of water. >> > > Extra question answered, free of charge. I won't bother trying it, because > it won't float, because the st

Re: [Vo]:Uppsala University Denies Rossi Research Agreement

On Mon, Jul 18, 2011 at 8:29 PM, Jed Rothwell wrote: > > I expect it is well mixed from the heat alone. There are gradients in a pot > of hot water and it is hot near the bottom, but the water moves around > pretty quickly. > There are gradients in pure water, sure. Always below or at the bp. Th

Re: [Vo]:Calibrating a pair of K-type thermocouples

On Mon, Jul 18, 2011 at 2:48 PM, Jed Rothwell wrote: > I forgot to mention there were ~2 L of water in the pot. > > I wrote: > > >> 3 Omega GT-736590 thermometers, red liquid, total immersion, -10 to 100°C, >> marked in 1°C increments >> > > Correction: -10 to 110°C > > Regarding the heat-after-d

Re: [Vo]:Calibrating a pair of K-type thermocouples

On Mon, Jul 18, 2011 at 2:13 PM, Jed Rothwell wrote: > > > 1 minute after turn off, boiling was mostly stopped. T1 99.7 ~ 99.8°C > (marginally hotter than before turn off, because the metal pot was still > hot). T2 98.7°C > > 2 minutes after turn off. T1 99.3°C, T2 97.7°C > > 7 minutes after turn

Re: [Vo]: Prof. Kullander now an Ecat critic?

On Tue, Jul 19, 2011 at 2:26 PM, Jed Rothwell wrote: > Abd ul-Rahman Lomax wrote: > > In my opinion, Kullander made some mistakes, and he should simply > acknowledge them and move on. > > > Where, in his report, are these mistakes? Someone here claimed that he did > not measure input power, when

Re: [Vo]:European Patent Office observer criticizes Rossi's E-Cat

On Tue, Jul 19, 2011 at 3:11 PM, Robert Leguillon < robert.leguil...@hotmail.com> wrote: > > > > > "So not only is very wet steam with 95% liquid by mass possible, but there > are ways to measure it accurately. Not with an RH probe, though." > > Sorry, but some people seem to think that horse is s

Re: [Vo]:European Patent Office observer criticizes Rossi's E-Cat

On Mon, Jul 18, 2011 at 8:06 PM, Mark Iverson wrote: > > > In all the talk about the start up slope and thermal mass, one can almost > forget the metals. Here > are the specific heats for most of the materials that make up the majority > of the e-Cat: > - Hydrogen (gas) 14.30 J/g*K > - Water

Re: [Vo]:European Patent Office observer criticizes Rossi's E-Cat

On Mon, Jul 18, 2011 at 8:03 PM, Mark Iverson wrote: > Abd wrote: > "Whatever is the cause, that the temperature is nailed shows that there is > steam and water in > equilibrium." > > It's only been recently that Rossi admits to achieving completely dry > steam, The claim is implicit in the pow

Re: [Vo]:European Patent Office observer criticizes Rossi's E-Cat

On Mon, Jul 18, 2011 at 3:42 PM, Jed Rothwell wrote: > Damon Craig wrote: > > How do you take a 30 minute glance? > > > Well, Brown said in his report that Rossi showed him heat after death for > about 2 minutes. (He also told me this.) That's more than 30 seconds. > > Perhaps Rossi just means "

Re: [Vo]:European Patent Office observer criticizes Rossi's E-Cat

On Mon, Jul 18, 2011 at 1:59 PM, Abd ul-Rahman Lomax wrote: > At 12:55 AM 7/18/2011, Joshua Cude wrote: > > > > On Sun, Jul 17, 2011 at 10:40 PM, Abd ul-Rahman Lomax <> a...@lomaxdesign.com>a**b...@lomaxdesign.com > wrote: >> At 09:14 PM 7/17/2011, Akira Shirak

Re: [Vo]:European Patent Office observer criticizes Rossi's E-Cat

On Mon, Jul 18, 2011 at 12:53 PM, Jed Rothwell wrote: > P.J van Noorden wrote: > > the airpressure on April 28th 2011 was 1011 mbar, so the boilingpoint must >> have been 99.9 degC. The difference in boilingtemperature can be >> explained by the accuracy of the thermometer (+/- 0.4 degrC). >> > >

Re: [Vo]:European Patent Office observer criticizes Rossi's E-Cat

On Mon, Jul 18, 2011 at 9:08 AM, Jed Rothwell wrote: > P.J van Noorden wrote: > > It is very important to notice that water boils at 100.5 C when the >> outside air pressure is 1030 mBar, which can be the case when a high >> pressure system is covering Italy . . . >> > > In the April 28 tests,

Re: [Vo]:European Patent Office observer criticizes Rossi's E-Cat

On Mon, Jul 18, 2011 at 11:20 AM, P.J van Noorden wrote: > > > To conventionally explain the boilingpoint of 100.5 degrC the backpressure > in the Ecat must have been 30mbar (for a boilingpoint of 99.6degC) and > 20mbar for a boilingpoint of 99.9degC. This compares to resp 30.6 cm and > 20.4cm wa

Re: [Vo]:European Patent Office observer criticizes Rossi's E-Cat

On Mon, Jul 18, 2011 at 9:34 AM, Jouni Valkonen wrote: > 2011/7/18 Jed Rothwell : > > P.J van Noorden wrote: > > > >> It is very important to notice that water boils at 100.5 C when the > >> outside air pressure is 1030 mBar, which can be the case when a high > >> pressure system is covering Ital

Re: [Vo]:Uppsala University Denies Rossi Research Agreement

On Mon, Jul 18, 2011 at 9:46 AM, Jed Rothwell wrote: > Abd ul-Rahman Lomax wrote: > > Jed, this is dead wrong. This is obvious. Suppose you have *almost* full >> vaporization, not all the water is boiling, so water level in the E-Cat will >> rise. >> > Almost full vaporization is a degree or two

Re: [Vo]:European Patent Office observer criticizes Rossi's E-Cat

On Sun, Jul 17, 2011 at 10:40 PM, Abd ul-Rahman Lomax wrote: > At 09:14 PM 7/17/2011, Akira Shirakawa wrote: > >> So most of the time he now performs stress tests on his modules in >> self-sustaining mode, apparently. That's an amazing claim! Just >> demonstrating one of those running for a reason

Re: [Vo]:European Patent Office observer criticizes Rossi's E-Cat

On Sun, Jul 17, 2011 at 8:14 PM, Akira Shirakawa wrote: > > So most of the time he now performs stress tests on his modules in > self-sustaining mode, apparently. That's an amazing claim! Just > demonstrating one of those running for a reasonable amount of time would > have rendered pointless most

Re: [Vo]:How can we make sure that 1MW e-cat is true?

On Sun, Jul 17, 2011 at 11:04 PM, Daniel Rocha wrote: > Dear people, > > How can we make sure that 1MW e-cat is true during a presentation? That's a good question. Individual ecats have produced nothing but controversy. If the MW reactor is just multiple ecats, and they use the same sort of demo

Re: [Vo]:Uppsala University Denies Rossi Research Agreement

On Sun, Jul 17, 2011 at 8:24 PM, Terry Blanton wrote: > > I do not argue with ghosts. I don't blame you, after the pathetic "wet steam is not possible" salvo.

Re: [Vo]:Uppsala University Denies Rossi Research Agreement

On Sun, Jul 17, 2011 at 7:54 PM, Jed Rothwell wrote: > >> Jed, it's important to read statements from critics like Cude very >> carefully. > > > No can do. He is in my kill file. I only see snippets when other people > quote him. Life is too short to read such blather and nonsense. > I prefer it

Re: [Vo]:Uppsala University Denies Rossi Research Agreement

On Sun, Jul 17, 2011 at 6:36 PM, Abd ul-Rahman Lomax wrote: > > Cude may be making an obvious error, assuming power figures from one test > apply to another. No. I'm objecting to Rothwell making exactly that assumption. I have no problem with Rothwell arguing that the 18-hour test proves the

Re: [Vo]:European Patent Office observer criticizes Rossi's E-Cat

On Sun, Jul 17, 2011 at 8:11 PM, Abd ul-Rahman Lomax wrote: > You've apparently missed a lot of the discussion here. There is an issue > with wet vs dry steam, and you are probably correct about the steam value, > but all bets are off if water actually starts to overflow. > There is no reason th

Re: [Vo]:European Patent Office observer criticizes Rossi's E-Cat

On Sun, Jul 17, 2011 at 6:19 PM, Jouni Valkonen wrote: > Julian Brown wrote: > > > Basically, the whole set up defies even approximate quantitative > > calorimetric analysis. > > > This is nonsensical speculation. E-Cat is designed to be a standard > boiling water reactor and boiling water reactor

Re: [Vo]:The Mats Lewan demo

On Sun, Jul 17, 2011 at 9:25 AM, Jed Rothwell wrote: > Abd ul-Rahman Lomax wrote: > > I know quite what Rossi would have said: "Too dangerous. I emptied it just >> now, so it's safe to hold this up, but water condenses inside the hose, >> because the steam cools, and eventually enough will build

Re: [Vo]:The Mats Lewan demo

On Sun, Jul 17, 2011 at 1:19 PM, Abd ul-Rahman Lomax wrote: > At 12:40 AM 7/17/2011, Joshua Cude wrote: > >> (Remember the skeptics evolution as a phenomenon is proved: >> >> 1. It's not true; 2. It may be true, but not important. 3. It's true and >>

Re: [Vo]:New Sergio Focardi interview

On Sun, Jul 17, 2011 at 1:26 PM, Abd ul-Rahman Lomax wrote: > At 03:27 AM 7/17/2011, Damon Craig wrote: > >> Uhhh. I give up. How is a kink in a thermal curve evidence of exothermic >> activity? >> > > It's unclear what Damon is responding to. However, a change in the slope of > a heating curve w

Re: [Vo]:European Patent Office observer criticizes Rossi's E-Cat

On Sun, Jul 17, 2011 at 2:16 PM, Akira Shirakawa wrote: > Hello group, > Andrea Rossi > >> July 17th, 2011 at 1:54 PM >> >> Dear Paul Story: >> Very funny: this clown, named Julian Brown, wrote me saying he was an >> officer of the Patent Office and that he wanted give me suggestions. >> I receive

Re: [Vo]:Uppsala University Denies Rossi Research Agreement

On Sun, Jul 17, 2011 at 1:10 PM, OrionWorks - Steven Vincent Johnson < orionwo...@charter.net> wrote: > > From my POV it is conceivable that Rossi, while monitoring the January > demonstration, might have occasionally adjusted water inflow to help > maintain a consistent volume of water within the

Re: [Vo]:Uppsala University Denies Rossi Research Agreement

On Sun, Jul 17, 2011 at 2:13 PM, Jed Rothwell wrote: > Joshua apparently wrote: > > >> > Well, that's the difference then. But I think you're mistaken. >> > Rossi uses a pump designed to maintain a constant flow, and all >> > his calculations (including Krivit's video of him calculating >> > the

Re: [Vo]:Uppsala University Denies Rossi Research Agreement

On Fri, Jul 15, 2011 at 4:50 PM, OrionWorks - Steven V Johnson < svj.orionwo...@gmail.com> wrote: > My perception on the reactor core has always implied that the volume > of water entering the reactor core could vary. Well, that's the difference then. But I think you're mistaken. Rossi uses a pu

Re: [Vo]:The Mats Lewan demo

On Fri, Jul 15, 2011 at 4:25 PM, Jouni Valkonen wrote: > 2011/7/15 Abd ul-Rahman Lomax : > > I must say, I'm appalled at how much time has been wasted on > > inadequate demonstrations. > > This is surprising considering that anyone here has never said > anything that those demonstrations has any s

Re: [Vo]:Uppsala University Denies Rossi Research Agreement

On Fri, Jul 15, 2011 at 2:15 PM, OrionWorks - Steven V Johnson < svj.orionwo...@gmail.com> wrote: > Joshua, > > I waited in anticipation to see if you could help explain to me the > errors I might have made in my reasoning. And yet you responded to everything except the part where I explained th

Re: [Vo]:Uppsala University Denies Rossi Research Agreement

On Fri, Jul 15, 2011 at 1:21 PM, Mark Iverson wrote: > ** > JC stated: > "...and the heated walls are at a higher temperature. So, it must get > hotter." > > What makes you think that the walls of the vertical section (i.e., the > 'chimney') are at a higher temperature than the walls of the horiz

Re: [Vo]:Uppsala University Denies Rossi Research Agreement

On Fri, Jul 15, 2011 at 11:44 AM, OrionWorks - Steven V Johnson < svj.orionwo...@gmail.com> wrote: > From Jed and Josh: > > >> It is all nonsense and bullshit. The 18-hour tests with > >> flowing water proved that the large cell is producing > >> ~17 kW. > > > > If it did, then the steam should ha

Re: [Vo]:Uppsala University Denies Rossi Research Agreement

On Fri, Jul 15, 2011 at 8:53 AM, Jed Rothwell wrote: > > It is all nonsense and bullshit. The 18-hour tests with flowing water > proved that the large cell is producing ~17 kW. If it did, then the steam should have been a few hundred degrees C in the January test, and not 100C. But of course i

Re: [Vo]:Estimated range of possible power shown by 2 ml/second water flow in a Rossi-type demonstration

On Fri, Jul 15, 2011 at 12:50 AM, Joshua Cude wrote: > > > On Thu, Jul 14, 2011 at 10:19 PM, Abd ul-Rahman Lomax > wrote: > >> >> Semantics. Yes, steam can be much wetter than 20%, particularly after >> condenstation, under marginal conditions it could approach

Re: [Vo]:Estimated range of possible power shown by 2 ml/second water flow in a Rossi-type demonstration

On Thu, Jul 14, 2011 at 10:19 PM, Abd ul-Rahman Lomax wrote: > > Semantics. Yes, steam can be much wetter than 20%, particularly after > condenstation, under marginal conditions it could approach 100%. This, > however, wouldn't be called "steam." It would be called "hot water." Yes, 100% liquid

Re: [Vo]:Spring constant between water molecules derived from bulk modulus

On Thu, Jul 14, 2011 at 5:52 PM, David Jonsson wrote: > Hi > > Can someone help me to derive the spring constant between water molecules > based on the bulk modulus of water? It seems simple but i just > can't figure it out. > > How does spring constant between water molecules in > F = - k x > re

Re: [Vo]:Uppsala University Denies Rossi Research Agreement

On Thu, Jul 14, 2011 at 1:45 PM, Jed Rothwell wrote: > Abd ul-Rahman Lomax wrote: > > Nevertheless, this report from Kullander and Essen could be interpreted >> quite in line with what Krivit is claiming: >> >> http://www.nyteknik.se/**nyheter/energi_miljo/energi/**article324.ece

Re: [Vo]:Estimated range of possible power shown by 2 ml/second water flow in a Rossi-type demonstration

On Thu, Jul 14, 2011 at 10:30 AM, Abd ul-Rahman Lomax wrote: > > In many discussions of this, it was assumed that the only issue was "steam > quality." If we were to assume very wet steam, say 20% by weight, we would > then be able to infer excess heat, assuming complete boiling (only merely > "we

Re: [Vo]:Uppsala University Denies Rossi Research Agreement

On Tue, Jul 12, 2011 at 5:26 PM, Jed Rothwell wrote: > Alan J Fletcher wrote: > > [KRIVIT] Professors Sven Kullander, retired from Uppsala University, and >>> Hanno Essen, with the Royal Institute of Technology, endorsed Rossi's >>> claimed technology in a news story on Feb. 23, 2011, before the

Re: [Vo]:Levi's likely attitude

2011/7/13 Jed Rothwell > > In the video, Rossi did a rough approximation of the heat balance on a > paper chart. I am sure that result is correct as far as it goes. I expect it > is no more than 10% or 20% off. > But your expectation does not constitute evidence. > This is fundamental physics

Re: [Vo]:Rossi responds to "movie professor" and Peter Ekstrom's analysis

On Mon, Jul 11, 2011 at 3:14 PM, Jed Rothwell wrote: > This document, “the E-Cat does not produce excess Energy” has some some > strange assertions. > > > http://www.fysik.org/WebSite/**fragelada/resurser/cold_**fusion_krivit.pdf

Re: [Vo]:Rossi responds to "movie professor" and Peter Ekstrom's analysis

On Mon, Jul 11, 2011 at 10:23 AM, Craig Haynie wrote: > >>> 5. The pressure in the ecat cannot be room pressure, or the fluid > would not flow out of the ecat into the room. > > As I understand the operation, fluid does not flow out. Steam is venting > from a hole in the device. Steam is a fluid

Re: [Vo]:The great oil sniffer hoax

On Fri, Jul 8, 2011 at 3:09 PM, Jed Rothwell wrote: > Here is a technological hoax that bamboozled $150 million from high > officials in oil companies and governments. I did not realize such large, > high-level hoaxes existed: > > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Oil_Sniffer_Hoax > > A skeptic

Re: [Vo]:Perfect simulation of e-cat with 1200W, for Lewan's video.

On Thu, Jul 7, 2011 at 3:37 PM, Jouni Valkonen wrote: > If considered that in E-Cat there is constantly flowing cool water to > replenish boiled water, then it is quite obvious that 2.5 kilowatt is > very much possible with Mats' E-Cat. I disagree. Heating the constant flow of cool water (at

Re: [Vo]:Perfect simulation of e-cat with 1200W, for Lewan's video.

On Thu, Jul 7, 2011 at 1:16 PM, Daniel Rocha wrote: > Take a look at this video, simulating steam production at 1200W with a > 4m long hose: > > http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FVwINedGR_Q > > It does look like the swedish's magzine video, NyTeknik, including the > weird sounds, around 1200W: > >

Re: [Vo]:Suppose the DoE were testing a device instead of the Greek Min. of Energy

On Thu, Jul 7, 2011 at 10:09 AM, Jed Rothwell wrote: > There is not the slightest chance the government will make a mistake > measuring 450 W in and 20,000 W out. No engineer or scientists on planet > earth could make a mistake on that scale. > Perhaps not, but if it's true, any engineer or scie

Re: [Vo]:Analysis of e-Cat test by E. Storms

On Wed, Jul 6, 2011 at 4:23 PM, OrionWorks - Steven V Johnson < svj.orionwo...@gmail.com> wrote: > Joshua, > > You may recall, I conjectured: > > > ... how can this newly formed H2O gas be > > expected to be much above 100 C if it doesn't > > have a chance to hang around long enough to > > absorb

Re: [Vo]:Analysis of e-Cat test by E. Storms

On Wed, Jul 6, 2011 at 9:53 AM, Abd ul-Rahman Lomax wrote: > > The "inconclusive" epithet is from roughly twenty years ago, and we can see > this crumbling by the time of the 2004 U.S. DoE review, where "excess heat" > evidence was considered "conclusive" by half the panel, and it's clear that > t

Re: [Vo]: Survey based on Steam Phase diagram...

On Tue, Jul 5, 2011 at 11:26 PM, Harry Veeder wrote: > Assuming the boiling is always happening at the same pressure, you can > extend the horizontal line B-C to the temperature axis and treat that as the > temperature of boiling. Wet steam is present only AT the temperature of > boiling. As lon

Re: [Vo]:Analysis of e-Cat test by E. Storms

On Tue, Jul 5, 2011 at 10:59 PM, Mark Iverson wrote: > ** > > What if the E-Cat is operating with a 98% 'full charge' on the > heat-capacitor? It would still have considerable capacity left to absorb > heat fluctuations without significantly changing steam temperature. > It would be able to ab

<    2   3   4   5   6   7   8   9   10   >