On Tue, Feb 22, 2011 at 2:04 AM, Horace Heffner wrote:
>
>
> I look forward to the report. This is obviously well beyond chemical if
> the consumables actually are H and Ni. The energy E per H is:
>
>E = (270kwh) /(0.4 g * Na / (1 gm/mol)) = 2.52x10^4 eV / H = 25 kEv per
> atom of H.
>
>
On Mon, Feb 21, 2011 at 9:27 PM, Jed Rothwell wrote:
> Horace Heffner wrote:
>
>
>> As a double check on concepts, if you plug x=0.02856 into
>> x/((x+(1-x)*0.0006)) then you get 0.98. That is to say, 98% of the mass of
>> the volume expelled is water, and 2% steam - your starting assumptions.
On Mon, Feb 21, 2011 at 8:48 PM, Horace Heffner wrote:
>
> That said, let's proceed on with your defined problem where 2% of the water
> is vaporized, i.e. the ejecta is 98% liquid by mass, 98% wet by mass.
>
>
>
>> |For an input flow rate of 300 cc/min = 300 mg/min,
>>
>
> The above should read g
On Mon, Feb 21, 2011 at 10:34 PM, Abd ul-Rahman Lomax
wrote:
>
>
>> Excess heat is an experimental result.
Excess heat is an interpretation of experimental results.
> If it is the result of an artifact, it should be possible to identify the
> artifact.
Maybe, but it takes time and effort. Ti
On Mon, Feb 21, 2011 at 10:34 PM, Abd ul-Rahman Lomax
wrote:
> At 03:01 PM 2/21/2011, Joshua Cude wrote:
>
>
> By whom?
>>
>>
>> Maybe you're new to the field.
>>
>
> Well, not exactly.
It was a joke.
> Promises have been made by Pon
On Mon, Feb 21, 2011 at 11:52 AM, Horace Heffner wrote:
>
> On Feb 21, 2011, at 5:50 AM, Joshua Cude wrote:
>
> One should also bear in mind that it takes only 2% steam by mass to make
>> up 97.5% of the expelled fluid by volume. And since the steam is created in
>> the h
On Mon, Feb 21, 2011 at 1:41 PM, Abd ul-Rahman Lomax
wrote:
>
>
> If you examine what's being published, you don't find an attempt to prove
> it's real, not lately, anyway. You find, in primary research, reports of
> phenomena that imply reality, discussion of possible explanations that
> assume C
On Mon, Feb 21, 2011 at 1:41 PM, Abd ul-Rahman Lomax
wrote:
> At 12:47 PM 2/21/2011, Joshua Cude wrote:
>
>
> On Mon, Feb 21, 2011 at 9:52 AM, Jed Rothwell <> jedrothw...@gmail.com>jedrothw...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> Cude has added that he is not "
On Mon, Feb 21, 2011 at 11:30 AM, Abd ul-Rahman Lomax
wrote:
> At 10:33 AM 2/21/2011, Joshua Cude wrote:
>
>
> On Mon, Feb 21, 2011 at 8:49 AM, Abd ul-Rahman Lomax <> a...@lomaxdesign.com>a...@lomaxdesign.com> wrote:
>>
>
> So I'm going to ask, as
On Mon, Feb 21, 2011 at 12:33 PM, Horace Heffner wrote:
>
> On Feb 21, 2011, at 8:47 AM, Joshua Cude wrote:
>
>
> Your faith is irrelevant to the purpose, and as voiced above actually
> contrary to the stated purpose, of this list.
Yes, I am aware that I do not belong here. I
On Mon, Feb 21, 2011 at 9:52 AM, Jed Rothwell wrote:
>
> Cude has added that he is not "convinced that nuclear reactions in cold
> fusion experiments have produced measurable heat." From my point of view
> that puts him in the category of creationists who are not convinced of the
> evidence that
On Mon, Feb 21, 2011 at 8:49 AM, Abd ul-Rahman Lomax
wrote:
> Subject was Re: [Vo]:Revised version Celani reports on gamma emission from
> Rossi device
>
> At 04:12 AM 2/21/2011, Joshua Cude wrote:
>
> Not true. I have described what it would take to convince me (and so h
On Mon, Feb 21, 2011 at 8:41 AM, Jed Rothwell wrote:
> There can be no rational question that these people can read a weight
> scale, and use a graduated cylinder. There are no rational reasons to doubt
> the flow rate. The reasons you come up with are mere excuses. You are moving
> the goalposts
On Mon, Feb 21, 2011 at 8:12 AM, Stephen A. Lawrence wrote:
>
>
> On 02/18/2011 06:56 PM, mix...@bigpond.com wrote:
> > Hi,
> >
> > Putt putt boats draw in water which flashes into steam and is then
> ejected
> > mostly as fluid. Given that the water was delivered to Rossi's device in
> pulses,
>
On Thu, Feb 17, 2011 at 5:16 PM, Terry Blanton wrote:
> On Thu, Feb 17, 2011 at 5:54 PM, Joshua Cude
> wrote:
> > Gotta run. I'll catch up in 3 or 4 days. Don't take my absence as a
> > concession.
>
> Concession to what? We are truthseekers, not competitors.
On Thu, Feb 17, 2011 at 2:57 PM, Jed Rothwell wrote:
> I wrote:
>
> The scientific method demands that an arbitrary limit be placed on
>> objections. It is a matter of opinion how much proof is needed, and how many
>> objections should be met, but you cannot leave the question undecided
>> indef
On Thu, Feb 17, 2011 at 2:27 PM, Jed Rothwell wrote:
> Joshua Cude wrote:
>
>
>> Well, it is if an experiment can be easily designed to make such
>> suspicions impossible. As would be the case here, if the claims were true.
>>
>
> Seriously, It is nearly imp
On Thu, Feb 17, 2011 at 12:39 PM, Jed Rothwell wrote:
> Joshua Cude wrote:
>
>
>> The professors tested and calibrated this machine for 6 weeks. They would
>>> have discovered that it has a large hidden thermal mass.
>>
>>
>> They did. It takes 30 minute
Gotta run. I'll catch up in 3 or 4 days. Don't take my absence as a
concession.
JC
On Thu, Feb 17, 2011 at 2:27 PM, Jed Rothwell wrote:
> Joshua Cude wrote:
>
>
>> Well, it is if an experiment can be easily designed to make such
>> suspicions impossible. As
On Thu, Feb 17, 2011 at 11:54 AM, Stephen A. Lawrence wrote:
>
>
> On 02/17/2011 11:41 AM, Joshua Cude wrote:
>
>
>
> On Thu, Feb 17, 2011 at 10:08 AM, Jed Rothwell wrote:
>
>>
>> I do not think this demo required any trust.
>>
>
> But
On Thu, Feb 17, 2011 at 10:08 AM, Jed Rothwell wrote:
>
> I do not think this demo required any trust.
>
But you said, if you trust... then there's no point.
On Thu, Feb 17, 2011 at 9:35 AM, Jed Rothwell wrote:
> Joshua Cude wrote:
>
> I suspect it is designed to have large thermal mass (maybe in hot oil, or
>> even water under pressure), so that after the power is turned off, the
>> thermal mass keeps the output at the bp fo
On Thu, Feb 17, 2011 at 9:22 AM, Jed Rothwell wrote:
> Peter Gluck wrote:
>
>> However a good report must answer in advance to all the possible (and
>> impossible too) questions of the amateur and professional skeptics.
>>
> That is impossible. Skeptics can come up with an unlimited number of
> s
On Thu, Feb 17, 2011 at 8:45 AM, Jed Rothwell wrote:
> Joshua Cude wrote:
>
>
>> With 1 kW, you can raise the temperature of the water at 300 mL/min about
>> 50C to give 65C or so, definitely too hot to touch.
>>
>
> That is true, but the power was not 1 kW.
On Thu, Feb 17, 2011 at 8:35 AM, Jed Rothwell wrote:
> Joshua Cude wrote:
>
> And a good way to measure car speed is with a speedometer. But if someone
>> claims have driven 250 mph in a chevy Volt, I'm gonna suspect the honesty
>> first, and the speedometer second.
On Thu, Feb 17, 2011 at 8:45 AM, Jed Rothwell wrote:
> Joshua Cude wrote:
>
>
>> With 1 kW, you can raise the temperature of the water at 300 mL/min about
>> 50C to give 65C or so, definitely too hot to touch.
>>
>
> That is true, but the power was not 1 kW.
On Thu, Feb 17, 2011 at 8:45 AM, Jed Rothwell wrote:
> Joshua Cude wrote:
>
>
>> With 1 kW, you can raise the temperature of the water at 300 mL/min about
>> 50C to give 65C or so, definitely too hot to touch.
>>
>
> That is true, but the power was not 1 kW.
On Thu, Feb 17, 2011 at 7:45 AM, Jed Rothwell wrote:
> Joshua Cude wrote:
>
>
>> Questioned by who? For what reason? Lots of people have questioned lots of
>>> things, but there is no rational reason to doubt the flow rate.
>>>
>>>
>>> How abou
On Wed, Feb 16, 2011 at 8:32 PM, Jed Rothwell wrote:
>
> Also, the actual flow rate has been questioned.
>>
>
> Questioned by who? For what reason? Lots of people have questioned lots of
> things, but there is no rational reason to doubt the flow rate.
>
>
> How about a commercial pump that loo
On Wed, Feb 16, 2011 at 8:32 PM, Jed Rothwell wrote:
>
>
>
>> Now we hear the input power was unstable, fluctuating between 400 and
>> 800 W, so was actually probably 600 W.
>>
>
> Actually that is not what the power meter showed in Fig. 5 of the Levi
> report. That was Celani's mistaken impres
The difference is, your plan depends on the device working. His may not.
On Wed, Feb 16, 2011 at 9:07 AM, Jed Rothwell wrote:
> Peter Gluck wrote:
>
>> As regarding Rossi's bad PR he is just following Pitigrilli's "Do not give
>> me advices, I can err myself" The lack of a theory is disturbing,
On Tue, Feb 15, 2011 at 9:07 AM, Jed Rothwell wrote:
> Stephen A. Lawrence wrote:
>
> Has there been a demonstration with it producing 400 C steam? Do you
>> know who witnessed it?
>>
>
> The steam has not been pressurized as far as I know.
Unless there is significant water content in the exp
On Fri, Feb 11, 2011 at 1:58 PM, Horace Heffner wrote:
>
> On Feb 11, 2011, at 10:39 AM, Joshua Cude wrote:
>
>
> I don't think the calorimetry needs to be that good if there are no energy
> inputs (electrical or chemical), and the test is run long enough. The world
>
On Fri, Feb 11, 2011 at 1:20 PM, Horace Heffner wrote:
> The flow rate was stated as *measured* at 292 ml/min, or 17.5 liters/hr.
> If it actually was 7.6 liter/hr then that is either fraud or major
> incompetence on the part of someone.
>
They collected the water for 30 s and then weighed it. M
falsified somehow as well?
>
>
>
> Also, it is not hard to confirm that 18 liters per hour is being pumped
> through. You can't miss it; you have to replenish the reservoir, which is a
> large transparent plastic box.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> *From:* J
Response to the query fwded by Rich Murray (appended):
I think the only people who can answer your questions are people who
attended the demo, the best person being Levi himself. But I agree
that the pump is suspicious. It looks exactly like the J5 pump you
refer to, that has a max flow rate of 2
;vapore secco" based on a measuring
> instrument (not adequate?) when actually he had "vapore umido?"
>
> Thank you,
> Peter
>
> On Thu, Feb 10, 2011 at 8:19 PM, Joshua Cude wrote:
>
>> Rich Murray wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> "probably,
Jed Rothwell wrote:
"Celani said that on Monday. That was his somewhat arbitrary definition of
self-sustaining, during his talk. However, Levi et al. mentioned that the
machine self-sustained completely, with no power, for about 15 minutes. No
power and no way to turn it off. They exhausted the
Rich Murray wrote:
"probably, the Rossi demos have a complex control box with thermal controls
that lower the electric input heater power when the reactor gets too hot"
You concede to easily.
I don't believe there is any feedback in that system because the wires are
all heavy power cables,
901 - 939 of 939 matches
Mail list logo
