Re: [Vo]:[NET] E-Cat Test Demonstrates Energy Loss

2011-10-08 Thread Harry Veeder
hehe. Harry On Sat, Oct 8, 2011 at 1:31 AM, Terry Blanton hohlr...@gmail.com wrote: On Sat, Oct 8, 2011 at 1:14 AM, Harry Veeder hveeder...@gmail.com wrote: It is not outside the laws of conventional physics that some or all of the initial input energy was converted to mass and temporarily

Re: [Vo]:[NET] E-Cat Test Demonstrates Energy Loss

2011-10-08 Thread Alan Fletcher
Harry Veeder wrote (my Zimbra web mail isn't putting in the sender name ) It is not outside the laws of conventional physics that some or all of the initial input energy was converted to mass and temporarily stored as mass. Usually when we think of E=mc^2 we think of mass being converted

[Vo]:[NET] E-Cat Test Demonstrates Energy Loss

2011-10-07 Thread Akira Shirakawa
Hello group, Have a read at this new blogpost by Steven Krivit. There's also an email from Brian Ahern in the comments. http://blog.newenergytimes.com/2011/10/08/e-cat-test-demonstrates-energy-loss/ Cheers, S.A.

Re: [Vo]:[NET] E-Cat Test Demonstrates Energy Loss

2011-10-07 Thread Jouni Valkonen
hmm... it is very hard to describe how stupid Steven is. Perhaps we should bet some two cents how long time it will take when he notices his slight errors in calculations. But being such a stupid in basic reasoning ability, it gives some respect to Levi et al. how difficult it is to understand

Re: [Vo]:[NET] E-Cat Test Demonstrates Energy Loss

2011-10-07 Thread Rich Murray
a little intemperate, using stupid to dismiss a journalist who mobilized over 20 experts to contribute to a over 200 page critical review of Rossi's demos, with no name calling... within mutual service, Rich Murray On Fri, Oct 7, 2011 at 6:22 PM, Jouni Valkonen jounivalko...@gmail.com wrote:

Re: [Vo]:[NET] E-Cat Test Demonstrates Energy Loss

2011-10-07 Thread Jed Rothwell
I posted this response, which I expect Krivit will not allow -- Krivit wrote: However, Rossi heated the device with 2.7 kilowatts of electricity for four hours in advance. This amounts to 38.88 megaJoules of energy. The implication here appears to be that during 4 hours in advance, the 33.88 MJ

Re: [Vo]:[NET] E-Cat Test Demonstrates Energy Loss

2011-10-07 Thread Jed Rothwell
I wrote: In any case, even if 38 gigawatts had been input before the event, that would make no difference if all of that heat came out as soon as it went in. Other people here have confused this issue. For example, Robert Leguillon wrote: I take an old blacksmith's anvil. I warm it in a

Re: [Vo]:[NET] E-Cat Test Demonstrates Energy Loss

2011-10-07 Thread Harry Veeder
On Fri, Oct 7, 2011 at 9:49 PM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com wrote: I posted this response, which I expect Krivit will not allow -- Krivit wrote: However, Rossi heated the device with 2.7 kilowatts of electricity for four hours in advance. This amounts to 38.88 megaJoules of energy. The

Re: [Vo]:[NET] E-Cat Test Demonstrates Energy Loss

2011-10-07 Thread Terry Blanton
On Sat, Oct 8, 2011 at 1:14 AM, Harry Veeder hveeder...@gmail.com wrote: It is not outside the laws of conventional physics that some or all of the initial input energy was converted to mass and temporarily stored as mass. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EvGJvzwKqg0 :-) T