On Fri, Jul 15, 2011 at 12:50 AM, Joshua Cude joshua.c...@gmail.com wrote:
On Thu, Jul 14, 2011 at 10:19 PM, Abd ul-Rahman Lomax a...@lomaxdesign.com
wrote:
Semantics. Yes, steam can be much wetter than 20%, particularly after
condenstation, under marginal conditions it could approach
Why did you choose the words red herring for a discriptive? Who uses
these?
On Thu, Jul 14, 2011 at 8:30 AM, Abd ul-Rahman Lomax
a...@lomaxdesign.comwrote:
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
Well, since now it is pretty clear to many of us that none of the
demos provide proof of excess heat, then the judgement call is whether
to decide that there is no Rossi excess heat.
I came up intuitively, out of my sensitive vapors, with the scenario
that Rossi found that increasing the electric
At 04:01 AM 7/13/2011, Harry Veeder wrote:
If we apply the logic of the block box to the eCat then it is
possible to argue it is a hoax even if the output is only dry steam.
This is based on the assumption that it is theoretically possible to
use a 600-700 watt resistance heater to
Hmm, I wonder if Krivit was really telling the truth and he played
tricks on Rossi. On his website, Rossi said that there wasn't an
output of 4KW:
http://www.journal-of-nuclear-physics.com/?p=497cpage=9#comment-47686
Dear Marcia Pires:
***4000 kW is a power we never reached. The speed in
On Thu, Jul 14, 2011 at 10:30 AM, Abd ul-Rahman Lomax
a...@lomaxdesign.comwrote:
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
The 15 seconds when Rossi waved the misty end of the black hose
against the black sweater were the Waterloo of this mistaken claim...
Any signs that his associates are starting to face this unwelcome reality?
From Rich:
The 15 seconds when Rossi waved the misty end of the black hose
against the black sweater were the Waterloo of this mistaken claim...
Any signs that his associates are starting to face this unwelcome reality?
The waterloo of [Rossi's] mistaken claim? Heavens, Rich, how many
more
I examined the video frame by frame for the 15 frames that were part
of the 15 seconds that showed the end of the black hose -- several
frames clearly show the water mist expanding as a cone directly from
the end of the hose -- thus no proof that invisible steam made it to
the end of the 3 m hose.
From Richard:
I examined the video frame by frame for the 15 frames
that were part of the 15 seconds that showed the end
of the black hose -- several frames clearly show the
water mist expanding as a cone directly from the end
of the hose -- thus no proof that invisible steam made
it to the
Steven wrote:
For now, I think I'll reserve a definitive conclusion on the Rossi matter.
As Richard Feynman said, there are some who are very uncomfortable not making a
decision...
Some individuals tend to operate in a binary mode, and are constantly changing
their 'decision' as
new data comes
On Thu, Jul 14, 2011 at 5:43 PM, Mark Iverson zeropo...@charter.net wrote:
As Richard Feynman said, there are some who are very uncomfortable not making
a decision...
Some individuals tend to operate in a binary mode, and are constantly
changing their 'decision' as
new data comes in. I,
At 12:50 PM 7/14/2011, Joshua Cude wrote:
On Thu, Jul 14, 2011 at 10:30 AM, Abd ul-Rahman Lomax
mailto:a...@lomaxdesign.coma...@lomaxdesign.com 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,
At 02:49 PM 7/14/2011, Rich Murray wrote:
The 15 seconds when Rossi waved the misty end of the black hose
against the black sweater were the Waterloo of this mistaken claim...
Any signs that his associates are starting to face this unwelcome reality?
Rich, you are making an assumption, that a
Abd, you are correct of course. It was 3am when I wrote that post in a vain
effort to persuade myself that Rossi demonstrations are too ambiguous arrive at
any sort of conclusion. However, unlike you, I do think the evidence is
sufficient to make a judgement about the veracity of Rossi claims.
On Thu, Jul 14, 2011 at 10:19 PM, Abd ul-Rahman Lomax
a...@lomaxdesign.comwrote:
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,
16 matches
Mail list logo
