In reply to Axil Axil's message of Sun, 8 May 2011 16:07:23 -0400:
Hi,
[snip]
>So Sorry, I had an order of magnitude error. But the point still applies.
>The point I was trying to make was that the 130 kw heat spike could not come
>from a reactor vessel with a limited surface area of a reaction ve
worth doing though ... 50cc vs 180cc isn't a significant difference.
>
>
> --------------
>
> *From: *"Axil Axil"
>
> *To: *vortex-l@eskimo.com
> *Sent: *Sunday, May 8, 2011 9:48:59 AM
>
> *Subject: *Re: [Vo]:Only one size E-Cat?
>
>
e.
This could be compared to the total bulge volume.
Not worth doing though ... 50cc vs 180cc isn't a significant difference.
From: "Axil Axil"
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Sent: Sunday, May 8, 2011 9:48:59 AM
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Only one size E-Cat?
If 500 cc volume were true.
peatbog wrote:
As I understand it, Rossi is claiming to do something that people
> who know a lot about this sort of thing believe is not possible.
>
Not quite. Rossi and several hundred others have published definitive proof
that they are doing something that some other people -- mainly hot fus
>
> A person can believe anything, but you do not have a rational
> reason for believing this particular assertion. You cannot show
> how or why they are mired in confusion, or point to any likely
> error in their technique.
As I understand it, Rossi is claiming to do something that people
who k
- Original Message
> From: peatbog
> To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
> Sent: Sun, May 8, 2011 1:00:00 PM
> Subject: Re: [Vo]:Only one size E-Cat?
>
>
> If Steorn, with a bunch of engineers working for it, could make a
> measurement error and not spot it for a y
I am not sure about the size of E-Cat's "stomach", but the foil covered animal
from janurary appears to be slightly longer from nose to tail
than the march/april animal.
Harry
>
>From: Jones Beene
>To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
>Sent: Sun, May 8, 2011 12:38:29 PM
>Sub
peatbog wrote:
> > It is clear now that both of these tests were juvenile efforts at
> > calorimetry - below high school standards...
>
That's not a bit clear. This is industry standard calorimetry for heating
systems of this size. These procedures are done hundreds of thousands of
times a day
Jones Beene wrote:
There is no “50 CC” which is relevant. There is no factuality in the
> Rothwell appraisal of what others saw, or what he has heard that they saw
>
That should be: What they told me and what they stated publicly they saw.
If Beene does not believe Levi, that's his prerogative,
> It is clear now that both of these tests were juvenile efforts at
> calorimetry - below high school standards...
If Steorn, with a bunch of engineers working for it, could make a
measurement error and not spot it for a year or more, and have to
have it pointed out to them by an outside engineer
If 500 cc volume were true...
A cubed shaped reaction chamber with a volume of 50 CC that can produce a
130,000 kw heat spike would radiate at a power of 1 kilowatt per square
centimeter give or take.
The absolute black body radiation temperature of such a vessel would be
17,636,684,303 degree
Well I can see that Rothwell is in now full retreat - since he has started
to distort the facts to conform with his prior erroneous assumptions -
rather than doing the basic reality check and admitting that he could be
wrong.
There is no "50 CC" which is relevant. There is no factuality in the
Jones Beene wrote:
If one trusted observer (namely Levi) were to have been given a quick peek
> inside the original device, back in January
>
1. It was not a "quick peek." Who told you it was quick?
2. Others saw it too.
3. What difference does it make whether it was January, February, March o
One further point - the dimensions of the "bulge only" on the smallest
device - the one with the ruler scale as seen in the images indicate the
bulge is 7 cm in length and about the same 7 cm in diameter or ~260 cc in
volume, maybe more. That is without the long flanges.
If one trusted observe
14 matches
Mail list logo
