just to say that Krivit just make an article about his mistakes
http://blog.newenergytimes.com/2012/02/06/swartz-responds-to-our-reports-about-his-claims/
he recognize them, but also blame of lack of clarity of data at the time he
made the claims...
maybe should stop calling for conspiracy, and
Greetings Vortex-L
I saw this posted on Dr Mitchell Schwartz s website on Krivit:
http://world.std.com/~mica/krivit02052012.html
I am merely a messager. I am sure that there will be interesting comments.
Ron Kita, Chiralex
On 02/05/2012 10:31 AM, Ron Kita wrote:
Greetings Vortex-L
I saw this posted on Dr Mitchell Schwartz s website on Krivit:
http://world.std.com/~mica/krivit02052012.html
http://world.std.com/%7Emica/krivit02052012.html
I am merely a messager. I am sure that there will be interesting
Mitchel is correct. Krivit is making a fool of himself and is unable to
evaluate anything or anyone that does not support WL theory. He is a
pathetic and idiot sold out.
2012/2/5 Ron Kita chiralex.k...@gmail.com
Greetings Vortex-L
I saw this posted on Dr Mitchell Schwartz s website on
Mitchell Swartz published this:
http://world.std.com/~mica/krivit02052012.html
In the first figure, the green line appears to be the response to input
power being stepped up. I guess this green line shows the temperature in a
control cell. Anyway, that is a splendid stable response, well in
If you take the error to be the difference between the upper and lower
interval of the fluctuations, you still get, visibly, COP of more than 8. I
guess this is a strong evidence that if there is an error, it is one of
carelessness setting up the experiment. That's way too above the
background.
accurate or
not.
-Mark
From: Daniel Rocha [mailto:danieldi...@gmail.com]
Sent: Sunday, February 05, 2012 9:23 AM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Comment from Dr Mitchell Schwartz on Krivit
Mitchel is correct. Krivit is making a fool of himself and is unable to
evaluate anything
:29 AM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Comment from Dr Mitchell Schwartz on Krivit
Mitchell Swartz published this:
http://world.std.com/~mica/krivit02052012.html
http://world.std.com/%7Emica/krivit02052012.html
In the first figure, the green line appears to be the response
it, and hopefully Dr.
Schwartz will provide them…
-mark
** **
*From:* Jed Rothwell [mailto:jedrothw...@gmail.com]
*Sent:* Sunday, February 05, 2012 10:29 AM
*To:* vortex-l@eskimo.com
*Subject:* Re: [Vo]:Comment from Dr Mitchell Schwartz on Krivit
** **
Mitchell Swartz
Mark Iverson-ZeroPoint zeropo...@charter.net wrote:
The LEFT half of the chart has the word ‘CONTROL’ written above it in BIG
letters, the RIGHT half has NANOR above it; NANOR being Schwartz’s acronym
for his version of LENR technology. The traces look to be continuous (i.e.,
from the
Oops. There is a key on the top right. The green line is pinCF. Power in CF I
guess. So it is not impressive. Anyone can measure electric power with
precision. The blue line is pinohmic. The other lines appear to be output
temperatures in a control cell (left) and the active cell (right).
seen to be an apples-to-apples comparison.
Why?
CC: vortex-l@eskimo.com; vortex-l@eskimo.com
From: jedrothw...@gmail.com
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Comment from Dr Mitchell Schwartz on Krivit
Date: Sun, 5 Feb 2012 14:45:32 -0500
To: jedrothw...@gmail.com
Oops. There is a key on the top right
In reply to Robert Leguillon's message of Sun, 5 Feb 2012 14:57:35 -0600:
Hi,
[snip]
So, they made a control run, with a purely resistive load, but then used a
different input power on the CF run?
It seems that the red output delta T/input power is then scaled up for the
lower CF input power.
13 matches
Mail list logo
