Come on Kevin, you know how this works.
In the face of new evidence (Pekka Patent, full throated defense from
co-author) we need to update our priors.
The universe is not static. What's interesting really is not whether or
not the eCat is real, but rather getting an accurate estimate of the
prob
Jones Beene wrote:
>
> However, “Mt Airy” is one place where they would definitely celebrate with
> Coca-Cola instead of Veuve Clicquot.
>
H. . . It is in Surry County. The only "dry" county in the state is
Graham. See:
http://abc.nc.gov/faq/category.aspx
So they could drink. But in rural
On Tue, Jul 9, 2013 at 11:48 AM, Jed Rothwell wrote:
> But I find it disagreeable, because I have been hearing over and over and
> OVER for 20 years about every cold fusion scientist is a fraud. I get sick
> of it. You are beating a dead horse. We know you think that. We don't care,
> and we don
"You are beating a dead horse. I get sick of it."
No, what you are sick of is the cognitive dissonance. The lack of clear,
decisive proof that the eCat is real.
You are unable to embrace the ambiguity and feel that the world must be
black or white. The fact that it isn't is clearly upsetting yo
Although this came out a year and a half ago, this may identify the company
and its CEO
http://ecatmotor.com/e-cat-motor-on-techno-map/
as . Charlie Sutherland of Sutherland Products, Inc. in Mayodan, NC, USA.
On the downside, recent posts of Charlie to JONP give no indication of such
a clo
Rossi has a history of less than forthright dealings. Given his past and
the secretive approach he's taken, it's not hard to conclude that something
fishy might be going on.
Personally, I think he'd probably be able to get patents much easier if he
disclosed everything.
He may find that his sec
blaze spinnaker wrote:
To be clear, obviously I do not know which. However, until the eCat is
> fully in the public eye I don't think anyone can authoritatively say either
> way, and I think it's a bit irresponsible trying to do so (negative or
> positive).
My point exactly. It is a bit irresp
blaze spinnaker wrote:
Or, conversely, he's setting it all up for someone else to be responsible
> for this massive fraud as he tries to detach himself from the entire
> enterprise.
Do you know of any evidence for this? Or are you merely speculating?
> I wouldn't be surprised if we start hea
Jones Beene wrote:
http://www.e-catworld.com/2013/07/rossi-update-e-cat-built-by-partner-works-
> pefectly/
>
> I'm sure the skeptics will double down on AR's unreliability, but to me
> this
> is one more nail in their coffin.
>
They will say -- with some justification -- that he is the only sou
To be clear, obviously I do not know which. However, until the eCat is
fully in the public eye I don't think anyone can authoritatively say either
way, and I think it's a bit irresponsible trying to do so (negative or
positive).
On Tue, Jul 9, 2013 at 10:59 AM, blaze spinnaker
wrote:
> Or, conve
Or, conversely, he's setting it all up for someone else to be responsible
for this massive fraud as he tries to detach himself from the entire
enterprise.
I wouldn't be surprised if we start hearing things like "well, the timeline
is up to my partner CEO.I'm not sure what my partner CEO is doi
http://www.e-catworld.com/2013/07/rossi-update-e-cat-built-by-partner-works-
pefectly/
I'm sure the skeptics will double down on AR's unreliability, but to me this
is one more nail in their coffin.
<>
Excellent news! Rossi's technology is spreading on his terms, with his
contracts, apparently without a US or European patent.
Craig
On 07/09/2013 01:31 PM, Alan Fletcher wrote:
> Andrea Rossi
> July 8th, 2013 at 10:25 PM
> http://www.journal-of-nuclear-physics.com/?p=810&cpage=2#comment-734612
>
Andrea Rossi
July 8th, 2013 at 10:25 PM
http://www.journal-of-nuclear-physics.com/?p=810&cpage=2#comment-734612
Eugenio Mieli:
I already answered to your questions: please see my answers on July 3rd and
July 4th 2013.
Please read carefully those answers:
1- The E-Cat technology is undergoing ri
their fractional value
without the confinement or if they must immediately disassociate and return to
normal hydrogen.
Fran
-Original Message-
From: mix...@bigpond.com [mailto:mix...@bigpond.com]
Sent: Tuesday, June 25, 2013 12:00 AM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Subject: EXTERNAL: Re: [Vo]:Rossi
I wrote:
Another important parameter would be the energy. Perhaps if you multiplied
> the normal d+d cross sections by the curve above you would get a suitable
> function for σ(E,r).
>
I take that back. The distance parameter (r) already implicitly takes
deuteron energy into account, since the
I wrote:
It seems like the cross section would drop off with the square of the
> distance from the spectator nucleus. Perhaps something like this:
>
> σ(r) = 1/(1 + A*r^2),
>
> where A is a constant that is empirically determined; e.g.,
>
> http://i.imgur.com/eWu4K1i.jpg
>
Another import
On Mon, Jun 24, 2013 at 8:56 PM, wrote:
How far away does another nucleus have to be before the influence has
> dwindled
> to the point that it can no longer share in the momentum of the nuclear
> reaction?
>
> According to Ron, a close nucleus can share, and according to you, one far
> away
> ca
reaction time frame that is extremely short. This is an interesting subject.
Dave
-Original Message-
From: mixent
To: vortex-l
Sent: Mon, Jun 24, 2013 11:59 pm
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Rossi and DGT Similarity?
In reply to David Roberson's message of Sun, 23 Jun 2013 20:09:01 -0400 (EDT
ence from the source frame point of view. From the electron's point of
>view, it is responding to its real time environment.
>
>Dave
>
>
>-Original Message-
>From: mixent
>To: vortex-l
>Sent: Sun, Jun 23, 2013 6:30 pm
>Subject: Re: [Vo]:Rossi and DGT Sim
In reply to Eric Walker's message of Sun, 23 Jun 2013 16:05:24 -0700:
Hi,
[snip]
>On Sun, Jun 23, 2013 at 3:50 PM, wrote:
>
>...so what is the boundary condition? I.e. when does it happen, and when
>> not?
>> How strong does the force have to be?
>>
>Maybe I'm misunderstanding a subtlety of your
n
>>
>> ** **
>>
>> *From:* Axil Axil [mailto:janap...@gmail.com]
>> *Sent:* Monday, June 24, 2013 12:52 PM
>> *To:* vortex-l
>> *Subject:* EXTERNAL: Re: [Vo]:Rossi and DGT Similarity?
>>
>> ** **
>>
>> *I know the resistive I
e 24, 2013 11:23 AM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Subject: EXTERNAL: RE: [Vo]:Rossi and DGT Similarity?
-Original Message-
From: Roarty, Francis X
> I also wonder if resonance can occur between fractional states where f/h2
> disassociates and recombines in synch with the plasmon re
vices that average the spectrum from the bulk gas
> is to broaden the spectrum.
>
> Fran
>
> ** **
>
> *From:* Axil Axil [mailto:janap...@gmail.com]
> *Sent:* Monday, June 24, 2013 12:52 PM
> *To:* vortex-l
> *Subject:* EXTERNAL: Re: [Vo]:Rossi and DGT Similar
en the two types of
resonances couple strongly due to incidental surface features such as holes and
projections.
Dave
-Original Message-
From: Roarty, Francis X
To: vortex-l
Sent: Mon, Jun 24, 2013 1:07 pm
Subject: RE: EXTERNAL: Re: [Vo]:Rossi and DGT Similarity?
Axil, I think the
gas is to
broaden the spectrum.
Fran
From: Axil Axil [mailto:janap...@gmail.com]
Sent: Monday, June 24, 2013 12:52 PM
To: vortex-l
Subject: EXTERNAL: Re: [Vo]:Rossi and DGT Similarity?
I know the resistive IR is much lower than the anomalous spectrum reported by
Mills but if it causes the
*I know the resistive IR is much lower than the anomalous spectrum
reported by Mills but if it causes the plasmons in the active material to
resonate at a higher harmonic this would bring it much closer.*
The frequency of light in the hot spot is changed from infrared to the
color blue in the ran
-Original Message-
From: Roarty, Francis X
> I also wonder if resonance can occur between fractional states where f/h2
disassociates and recombines in synch with the plasmon resonance and that
photons emitted from these fractional state hydrogen is responsible for the
spectrum spread ...
I know the resistive IR is much lower than the anomalous spectrum
reported by Mills but if it causes the plasmons in the active material to
resonate at a higher harmonic this would bring it much closer. I also wonder
about the applicability of spectrum measurements to the active environm
of view. From the electron's point of
view, it is responding to its real time environment.
Dave
-Original Message-
From: mixent
To: vortex-l
Sent: Sun, Jun 23, 2013 6:30 pm
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Rossi and DGT Similarity?
In reply to David Roberson's message of Sun, 23 Jun 201
On Sun, Jun 23, 2013 at 3:50 PM, wrote:
...so what is the boundary condition? I.e. when does it happen, and when
> not?
> How strong does the force have to be?
>
I think it would be analogous to the pull of gravity by the sun on the
earth, except in the opposite direction (a repelling force rath
In reply to Eric Walker's message of Sun, 23 Jun 2013 15:36:17 -0700:
Hi,
[snip]
>On Sun, Jun 23, 2013 at 3:30 PM, wrote:
>
>The problem I have with this is that it would allow any energy liberating
>> mechanism (even chemical reactions) to result in a particle simply "taking
>> off"
>> with the
On Sun, Jun 23, 2013 at 3:30 PM, wrote:
The problem I have with this is that it would allow any energy liberating
> mechanism (even chemical reactions) to result in a particle simply "taking
> off"
> with the momentum later to be passed to some other particle somewhere else
> (potentially anywher
On Sun, Jun 23, 2013 at 3:04 PM, Edmund Storms wrote:
If this is the idea, then it is useless out of the box. First of all,
> X-rays are not normally applied, yet LENR occurs.
>
There is at least one other pathway by which the reaction can get started
-- since Ron's mechanism is thought to be sus
In reply to David Roberson's message of Sun, 23 Jun 2013 17:37:39 -0400 (EDT):
Hi,
The problem I have with this is that it would allow any energy liberating
mechanism (even chemical reactions) to result in a particle simply "taking off"
with the momentum later to be passed to some other particle
In reply to David Roberson's message of Sun, 23 Jun 2013 17:15:27 -0400 (EDT):
Hi,
[snip]
>OK Einstein. Sorry, I mean Robin. ;) I am on the fence about this one as
>well, but there are many claims that it has been shown true. I guess
>everything boils down to trust.
>
>
>Dave
I have yet to s
On Jun 23, 2013, at 3:25 PM, Eric Walker wrote:
On Sun, Jun 23, 2013 at 7:13 AM, Edmund Storms
wrote:
Eric, some theories, including Ron's, are so filled with arbitrary
ideas without any connection to what is known that even starting a
critique is difficult. The problem is made worse w
h them. After that period has elapsed, they would be
subject to potentially large dynamic forces.
Dave
-Original Message-
From: mixent
To: vortex-l
Sent: Sun, Jun 23, 2013 5:06 pm
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Rossi and DGT Similarity?
In reply to Eric Walker's message of Sun, 23
On Sun, Jun 23, 2013 at 7:13 AM, Edmund Storms wrote:
Eric, some theories, including Ron's, are so filled with arbitrary ideas
> without any connection to what is known that even starting a critique is
> difficult. The problem is made worse when the description is second hand.
> Many statements m
OK Einstein. Sorry, I mean Robin. ;) I am on the fence about this one as
well, but there are many claims that it has been shown true. I guess
everything boils down to trust.
Dave
-Original Message-
From: mixent
To: vortex-l
Sent: Sun, Jun 23, 2013 5:08 pm
Subject: Re: [Vo
In reply to Eric Walker's message of Sun, 23 Jun 2013 00:25:43 -0700:
Hi,
[snip]
>Very interesting. Maimon proposes that the two d's encounter one another
>at 100 fermis (0.001 angstroms) from the palladium nucleus. Something
>tells me that is not close enough given this ratio; perhaps there's a
In reply to David Roberson's message of Sun, 23 Jun 2013 09:59:23 -0400 (EDT):
Hi,
[snip]
>The other option that looks promising is for an entangled effect involving
>many protons. These couplings are instantaneous according to what I have
>seen, in which case the exact distance to a brother is
In reply to Eric Walker's message of Sun, 23 Jun 2013 12:09:38 -0700:
Hi,
[snip]
>Thinking about this a little more, I want to argue that the influence of
>nearby nuclei on a nuclear reaction that is underway is inherently faster
>than light in a sense. Consider a point in time t, at which a two-
On Sun, Jun 23, 2013 at 6:59 AM, David Roberson wrote:
The other option that looks promising is for an entangled effect involving
> many protons. These couplings are instantaneous according to what I have
> seen, in which case the exact distance to a brother is not quite as
> important.
Now th
there would be no need to
wait for a new response from the originating source.
So, I agree with your statement.
Dave
-Original Message-
From: Eric Walker
To: vortex-l
Sent: Sun, Jun 23, 2013 3:10 pm
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Rossi and DGT Similarity?
On Sat, Jun 22, 2013 at 10:45 PM,
On Sat, Jun 22, 2013 at 10:45 PM, wrote:
In short, in order to make a difference, the "helping-hand" already needs
> to be
> "at hand" before the reaction begins.
>
> (unless momentum can be "tunneled", and the tunneling process itself is
> inherently FTL).
>
Thinking about this a little more, I
Jones,
I believe most of the Sun's energy is expelled as ZPE making up our quantum
gravity field. It is decaying on the way to Earth. I believe Roarty is
correct. These energetic particles are in our jet streams and create our
weather. They pull a vacuum and condense water vapor in our atmosphe
-Original Message-
From: Terry Blanton
> Everything in LENR seems to begin with ground-state redundancy and end in
QM
> tunneling.
Interesting that almost no one attributes the energy to the ZPF.
Roarty does this. And every so often, it is worth dredging up the RPF
hypothesis - Reversi
Eric, some theories, including Ron's, are so filled with arbitrary
ideas without any connection to what is known that even starting a
critique is difficult. The problem is made worse when the description
is second hand. Many statements made in the first paragraph have no
relationship to o
Sent: Sun, Jun 23, 2013 3:26 am
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Rossi and DGT Similarity?
On Sat, Jun 22, 2013 at 10:45 PM, wrote:
Typical separation distances within a lattice are on the order of 1 Angstrom. It
takes light 3E-19 seconds to travel this distance.
Typical nuclear reaction times are order
On Sat, Jun 22, 2013 at 10:45 PM, wrote:
Typical separation distances within a lattice are on the order of 1
> Angstrom. It
> takes light 3E-19 seconds to travel this distance.
> Typical nuclear reaction times are order 1E-23 seconds. I.e. 3 times
> faster.
> In short, long before another ato
On Sun, Jun 23, 2013 at 1:52 AM, Terry Blanton wrote:
> Nothing gets used; but, it gets cold somewhere. :-)
10^500 locations here:
https://www.simonsfoundation.org/features/science-news/is-nature-unnatural/
:-)
Then there's PAM Dirac to consider. Although, it could cause a
retraction of Fey
On Sun, Jun 23, 2013 at 1:49 AM, wrote:
> Actually it reminds me more of Fran's theory than Mills. However the H
> wouldn't
> get used up at all. That might be something to keep an eye on.
Yeah, I love Fran's theory; but, it takes me a while to incorporate
the relativistic effects being of sim
In reply to Terry Blanton's message of Sun, 23 Jun 2013 01:41:18 -0400:
Hi,
[snip]
>On Sun, Jun 23, 2013 at 12:46 AM, David Roberson wrote:
>> I suspect that most of the people believe in COE which excludes any free
>> energy from ZPF. Maybe one day someone will come up with proof that ZPF can
>
On Sun, Jun 23, 2013 at 1:41 AM, Terry Blanton wrote:
> Silly but extremely simple.
Just want to add that the pulsing of energy and the mertranome
principles also apply here; but, I don't always understand my
"inspirations". :-)
In reply to David Roberson's message of Sat, 22 Jun 2013 22:22:23 -0400 (EDT):
Hi,
[snip]
>The fact that T and He3 are typical for the hot reaction and that there is
>much space between reacting bodies tends to support the case that I am
>floating. In LENR, there are always nearby bodies to sha
On Sun, Jun 23, 2013 at 12:46 AM, David Roberson wrote:
> I suspect that most of the people believe in COE which excludes any free
> energy from ZPF. Maybe one day someone will come up with proof that ZPF can
> be practically utilized, but until that time I will abide by COE.
I have yet to see a
In reply to David Roberson's message of Sat, 22 Jun 2013 22:47:15 -0400 (EDT):
Hi,
[snip]
>Apparently a HotCat whichmay be more efficient - at a kW output with only 5
>grams of hydrogen availablein a sealed capsule could not run for over 30 hours
>unless it was better thanthe 200:1.
30*kWh/5*mo
, Jun 23, 2013 12:41 am
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Rossi and DGT Similarity?
On Sat, Jun 22, 2013 at 11:32 PM, Jones Beene wrote:
> Everything in LENR seems to begin with ground-state redundancy and end in QM
> tunneling.
Interesting that almost no one attributes the energy to the ZPF.
On Sat, Jun 22, 2013 at 11:32 PM, Jones Beene wrote:
> Everything in LENR seems to begin with ground-state redundancy and end in QM
> tunneling.
Interesting that almost no one attributes the energy to the ZPF.
Dave,
Over the years - Robin, myself and a few others who regularly post here –
although not being completely taken-in by Mills theory due to promises which
are unfulfilled - yet in awe of what he has accomplished on paper (compared to
others) and in the Lab – have suggested that the redunda
can be
absorbed by "friends" nearby.
Dave
-Original Message-
From: Eric Walker
To: vortex-l
Sent: Sat, Jun 22, 2013 10:49 pm
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Rossi and DGT Similarity?
On Sat, Jun 22, 2013 at 7:33 PM, David Roberson wrote:
Eric, you seem to be suggesting some form of
You are allowed a few typos under those conditions. ;) We will miss him.
Dave
-Original Message-
From: Jones Beene
To: vortex-l
Sent: Sat, Jun 22, 2013 10:28 pm
Subject: RE: [Vo]:Rossi and DGT Similarity?
Already see a couple oftypos – kW is power, not energy.
Calculations
On Sat, Jun 22, 2013 at 7:33 PM, David Roberson wrote:
Eric, you seem to be suggesting some form of isomer of He4. I suppose if
> that is possible, then it would allow the energy a temporary storage
> location before it becomes released. Is there any evidence that this
> happens?
>
None on m
t: RE: [Vo]:Rossi and DGT Similarity?
Dave,
In terms of kg of hydrogenper kW of energy, the rule of thumb is a gain of
200:1 (ratio) if the hydrogengoes to an average redundancy level that Mills
apparently believes is correct. Thiswould be on the low side - if some of that
f/H then converts
: Sat, Jun 22, 2013 9:50 pm
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Rossi and DGT Similarity?
On Sat, Jun 22, 2013 at 4:46 PM, David Roberson wrote:
Is it the momentum that is shared with a spectator nucleus or the excess energy
that wants to cause the He4 to break up?
I think it's considered some
Already see a couple of typos - kW is power, not energy.
Calculations, even with aid of Windows - are not recommend during a (Pinot
Grigio fueled) wake for Sergio.
From: Jones Beene
Dave,
In terms of kg of hydrogen per kW of energy, the rule of thumb is a gain of
200:1 (rat
But no one would believe a skeptic. This has to be done by someone who has
faith in the process.
Dave
-Original Message-
From: mixent
To: vortex-l
Sent: Sat, Jun 22, 2013 9:19 pm
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Rossi and DGT Similarity?
In reply to David Roberson's message of Sat, 22 Jun
stem. Eric has been discussing a nearby friend atom which would possibly
achieve that goal, but it is quite early to know if the process has merit.
Dave
-Original Message-
From: mixent
To: vortex-l
Sent: Sat, Jun 22, 2013 9:16 pm
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Rossi and DGT Similarity?
In
Dave,
In terms of kg of hydrogen per kW of energy, the rule of thumb is a gain of
200:1 (ratio) if the hydrogen goes to an average redundancy level that Mills
apparently believes is correct. This would be on the low side - if some of
that f/H then converts via a nuclear pathway.
Thus, witho
On Sat, Jun 22, 2013 at 4:46 PM, David Roberson wrote:
Is it the momentum that is shared with a spectator nucleus or the excess
> energy that wants to cause the He4 to break up?
>
I think it's considered something different than 4He -- I've heard the
intermediate product called a "two-deuteron
In reply to David Roberson's message of Sat, 22 Jun 2013 20:55:14 -0400 (EDT):
Hi,
[snip]
>
>I was hoping that you or someone else would have calculated the amount of
>hydrogen required to put out a reasonable amount of power for the mandatory
>1/2 year. This has been done for fusion and adds u
In reply to David Roberson's message of Sat, 22 Jun 2013 20:29:00 -0400 (EDT):
Hi,
[snip]
>
>I suppose He4 is a relatively tough little nut to crack, but it seems to
>happen more often than not when D's fuse. Isn't that the reason that T or He3
>tend to remain alive after a free space event? C
short of the
needed energy. Since I do not believe in hydrinos yet, I think I might be
biased to perform that calculation. We need a volunteer.
Dave
-Original Message-
From: mixent
To: vortex-l
Sent: Sat, Jun 22, 2013 8:46 pm
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Rossi and DGT Similarity?
In reply to
In reply to David Roberson's message of Sat, 22 Jun 2013 20:18:02 -0400 (EDT):
Hi,
[snip]
>Have you performed the calculations of the amount of hydrogen that is required
>to run one of these devices for a half year with the relatively meager energy
>released by hydrino processes? That might be
Sat, Jun 22, 2013 8:14 pm
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Rossi and DGT Similarity?
In reply to David Roberson's message of Sat, 22 Jun 2013 19:46:49 -0400 (EDT):
Hi,
[snip]
>
>Is it the momentum that is shared with a spectator nucleus or the excess
>energy
that wants to cause the He4 to break up?
-
From: mixent
To: vortex-l
Sent: Sat, Jun 22, 2013 8:00 pm
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Rossi and DGT Similarity?
In reply to David Roberson's message of Sat, 22 Jun 2013 10:01:53 -0400 (EDT):
Hi,
[snip]
>Robin,
>
>
>If UV is the type of radiation being released and is not capable
In reply to David Roberson's message of Sat, 22 Jun 2013 19:46:49 -0400 (EDT):
Hi,
[snip]
>
>Is it the momentum that is shared with a spectator nucleus or the excess
>energy that wants to cause the He4 to break up?
Both. The momentum is shared equally between both nuclei, i.e. one is the
oppos
In reply to David Roberson's message of Sat, 22 Jun 2013 10:01:53 -0400 (EDT):
Hi,
[snip]
>Robin,
>
>
>If UV is the type of radiation being released and is not capable of ionizing
>the nearby free gas then your point is valid.
>
>
>I have a suspicion that we are speaking of low energy X rays inst
nergy remains to break up the He4.
Dave
-Original Message-
From: mixent
To: vortex-l
Sent: Sat, Jun 22, 2013 7:33 pm
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Rossi and DGT Similarity?
In reply to Eric Walker's message of Sat, 22 Jun 2013 12:45:33 -0700:
Hi,
[snip]
>> Also, why does the system c
In reply to Eric Walker's message of Sat, 22 Jun 2013 12:45:33 -0700:
Hi,
[snip]
>> Also, why does the system choose to release energy this way? What rule
>> makes this the easiest way?
>>
>
>I'm not sure. This is one of the many questions I have. I have been
>trying to understand the system suf
Ed, these are very good questions. At the risk of reiterating points made
in older threads, I'll attempt to address each question as I am able.
On Sat, Jun 22, 2013 at 6:11 AM, Edmund Storms wrote:
In your theory, how is the energy released as kinetic energy without
> particles being emitted?
>
Robin,
Good point, The spark allows DGT to pool their f/h2 further
from the disassociation threshold and then synchronize the release in
packets with the spark where Rossi has to run hotter - actually into the
threshold with a much heavier reliance on the heat sinking to counte
not taken into account.
Dave
-Original Message-
From: mixent
To: vortex-l
Sent: Sat, Jun 22, 2013 1:49 am
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Rossi and DGT Similarity?
In reply to David Roberson's message of Fri, 21 Jun 2013 11:08:53 -0400 (EDT):
Hi,
[snip]
>If it in fact does achieve this go
On Jun 21, 2013, at 11:33 PM, Axil Axil wrote:
I don't see how a gram or two of nano-powder can produce 10
kilowatts of heat output. Without running any numbers, the power
density is too high. Other atoms besides those in the powder must
also be involved in the production of power. How do
Eric, in any theory, a person has to ask how and why. In your theory,
how is the energy released as kinetic energy without particles being
emitted? How is momentum conserved? Kinetic energy is defined as
something moving with a velocity. How is this velocity created from
initially still obj
In reply to David Roberson's message of Fri, 21 Jun 2013 11:08:53 -0400 (EDT):
Hi,
[snip]
>If it in fact does achieve this goal, then is this process not what DGT needs
>for their device to function properly? Why does the release of energy from
>the reaction not supplement that from their spark
I don't see how a gram or two of nano-powder can produce 10 kilowatts of
heat output. Without running any numbers, the power density is too high.
Other atoms besides those in the powder must also be involved in the
production of power. How does Ed's theory handle this?
On Sat, Jun 22, 2013 at 12
On Fri, Jun 21, 2013 at 8:08 AM, David Roberson wrote:
Ed's theory implies that the energy is being released in a series form
> where one photon after the next is radiated from the NAE and into the
> material. The other general type of operation suggests that an emission
> from a more or less e
Remember this post?
http://phys.org/news/2012-12-hot-electrons-impossible-catalytic-chemistry.html
Hot electrons do the impossible...
A spark produces hot electrons and therefore fuel for the reaction.
On Fri, Jun 21, 2013 at 11:08 AM, David Roberson wrote:
> It has appeared that Rossi's ECA
It has appeared that Rossi's ECAT and DGT's device are animals of a different
species. I have modeled the ECAT and find that the COP of 6 seems to be a
consequence of the fact that he uses heat to control the generation of
additional heat in a positive feedback manner. Attempting to achieve a
Bernie Koppenhofer
June 16th, 2013 at 9:19 AM
Dr. Rossi: Thanks for sharing, those of us who believe in your work appreciate
your answers. In the past you have denied any kind of conspiracy against your
work and your E-Cats, has your position changed on this subject? Please inform
us of the “d
> From: "DJ Cravens"
> Sent: Tuesday, June 11, 2013 6:58:51 AM
> Subject: RE: [Vo]:[Vo] Rossi and temperature
> thanks, but most of these are temperature as function of time.
>
> What I am after is power out as a function of temperature.
They are all constant-input-
thanks, but most of these are temperature as function of time.
What I am after is power out as a function of temperature.
Dennis
> Date: Mon, 10 Jun 2013 21:29:09 -0700
> From: a...@well.com
> To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
> Subject: Re: [Vo]:[Vo] Rossi and temperature
>
&
Lewan April 19 :
http://www.nyteknik.se/incoming/article3166567.ece/BINARY/Report+test+of+E-cat+19+April+2011.pdf
Not a clear knee ... maybe two linear slopes, then an exponential at the end
Lewan April 28 :
http://www.nyteknik.se/incoming/article3166569.ece/BINARY/Report+test+of+E-cat+28+April
Lewan Sep 7 :
http://www.nyteknik.se/incoming/article3264365.ece/BINARY/Report+E-cat+test+September+7+%28pdf%29
Near the end -- only starts plotting from 100C (output) -- linear to 130C
http://www.nyteknik.se/incoming/article3144960.ece/BINARY/Download+the+report+by+Kullander+and+Ess%C3%A9n+%28pdf%29
Fig 6 has an example of a "knee" between two linear segments-- presumed to be
heater and then ecat.
> From: "DJ Cravens"
> Sent: Monday, June 10, 2013 7:14:32 PM
>
> somewhere I remember seeing power outputs of Rossi's device as a
> function of temperature.
> It was something like 0 until some threshold.
> Can anyone here remember where that was?
Short answer -- based on the 2011 experiments.
somewhere I remember seeing power outputs of Rossi's device as a function of
temperature.
It was something like 0 until some threshold.
Can anyone here remember where that was?
Thanks,
Dennis
modern times.
> We are nature, the idea that humans should not mess with "Nature" is silly.
>
> Giovanni
>
>
>
> On Thu, Jun 6, 2013 at 12:40 PM, Alan Fletcher wrote:
>
>> > From: "Jones Beene"
>> > Sent: Thursday, June 6, 2013 10
801 - 900 of 2983 matches
Mail list logo
