On Fri, Nov 25, 2011 at 4:58 PM, OrionWorks - Steven Vincent Johnson
wrote:
> Rick,
>
> I see a LOT of opinions & commentary being expressed in the links you
> supplied. However, it's not clear to me if those are opinions you have
> personally arrived at, or whether you are continuing to cite the
Rick,
I see a LOT of opinions & commentary being expressed in the links you
supplied. However, it's not clear to me if those are opinions you have
personally arrived at, or whether you are continuing to cite the opinions of
others.
Regards,
Steven Vincent Johnson
www.OrionWorks.com
www.zazzle.com
whew! got that one out of the gate...
Here's another example, closer to what I'm really doing in life...
Murray's Law: Eternal Exponential Expansion of Science: CSICON, Rich Murray
1997.04.05 2001.06.22 2008.06.04
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/rmforall/message/76
Rich Murray April 5 1997 CSICO
Hello Steven Vincent Johnson, this is my third try at starting a
reply to your compassionate suggestions, having shut down and
restarted my Windows Vista MSi laptop after the first try vanished
after 20 minutes, while the second try lasted only a minute --
sometimes too many web pages and things a
On Tue, Nov 22, 2011 at 3:19 PM, Joshua Cude wrote:
>
>
> On Tue, Nov 22, 2011 at 2:05 PM, Harry Veeder wrote:
>>
>> This is like saying that because a theatre gradually filled with
>> people over two hours it is implausible to believe the same theatre
>> emptied of people in minutes after a fire
Rick sez:
> I am captivated by [Cude's] exceptional
> lucidity of mind -- soon, he will give the Defkalion delusion an
> equally exquisite shave
Your personal objectivity on these matters is something to behold, as what
appears to be your undying faith in the infallibility of your heroes.
Rich,
--Original Message-
From: Mary Yugo
To: vortex-l
Sent: Thu, Nov 24, 2011 1:57 am
Subject: Re: [Vo]: ECAT 1 MW Test Discrepancy
On Wed, Nov 23, 2011 at 1:11 PM, Joshua Cude wrote:
> The poster is
> convinced that Rossi is scamming and there is no level of proof that will be
> ac
Correction: the quotation in my last post should be attributed to
David Roberson about Cude and was not written by Cude. I regret that
this editing error which I made slipped by me on proof reading.
On Wed, Nov 23, 2011 at 1:11 PM, Joshua Cude wrote:
>
>> The poster is
>> convinced that Rossi is scamming and there is no level of proof that will be
>> accepted otherwise.
I find that assertion annoying. Several others including, IIRC, Cude,
and I have said under what criteria Rossi's claims w
Cude's service is similar to Obama's huge and naturally adroit
strategic and tactical success, improvising with purpose and style and
daily persistence, gradually herding feckless cats -- what he somehow
manages to do is much more impressive than any advertisement of
personal skill and quality -- I
On Wed, Nov 23, 2011 at 11:21 PM, Rich Murray wrote:
> Joshua Cude offers sensible and convincing explanations,
> straightforwardly and simply based on the available public data...
We always look forward to your editorial comments, Rich.
Warmest Regards,
T
Joshua Cude offers sensible and convincing explanations,
straightforwardly and simply based on the available public data...
On Wed, Nov 23, 2011 at 8:51 PM, Berke Durak wrote:
>
> > The pumps were run close to capacity, so there is no way you can account
> for
> > 7 times the area in a few minutes by adding water.
>
> How do you know that the pumps were run close to capacity? Please explain.
>
What was the capacity o
Joshua, it seems to me that you are privy to some insider knowledge
about the 1 MW demo.
For instance, you wrote:
> The pumps were run close to capacity, so there is no way you can account for
> 7 times the area in a few minutes by adding water.
How do you know that the pumps were run close to ca
ssage-
From: Joshua Cude
To: vortex-l
Sent: Wed, Nov 23, 2011 4:11 pm
Subject: Re: [Vo]: ECAT 1 MW Test Discrepancy
On Wed, Nov 23, 2011 at 2:19 PM, David Roberson wrote:
I have reviewed the two responses by this poster to my hypothesis and it is
clear that these responses do not represen
On Wed, Nov 23, 2011 at 6:47 PM, Charles Hope
wrote:
> I'm finding Cude's responses informative in this thread, and it seems to me
> that he's adequately proven his case now that dispute has been withdrawn.
lookslikeuwuzrite
T
e output power
> calculation obtained by the engineer is acceptable to me and he is an expert
> at his art.
>
> Dave
>
>
> -Original Message-
> From: Joshua Cude
> To: vortex-l
> Sent: Wed, Nov 23, 2011 4:11 pm
> Subject: Re: [Vo]: ECAT 1 MW Test Discrepancy
expert at his art.
Dave
-Original Message-
From: Joshua Cude
To: vortex-l
Sent: Wed, Nov 23, 2011 4:11 pm
Subject: Re: [Vo]: ECAT 1 MW Test Discrepancy
On Wed, Nov 23, 2011 at 2:19 PM, David Roberson wrote:
I have reviewed the two responses by this poster to my hypothesis and it is
On Wed, Nov 23, 2011 at 2:19 PM, David Roberson wrote:
> I have reviewed the two responses by this poster to my hypothesis and it
> is clear that these responses do not represent reality. The poster is
> convinced that Rossi is scamming and there is no level of proof that will
> be accepted othe
vapor is of low quality.
Dave
-Original Message-
From: Joshua Cude
To: vortex-l
Sent: Wed, Nov 23, 2011 1:47 pm
Subject: Re: [Vo]: ECAT 1 MW Test Discrepancy
On Wed, Nov 23, 2011 at 9:40 AM, David Roberson wrote:
I gave the model you mentioned a great deal of consideration as
On Wed, Nov 23, 2011 at 9:40 AM, David Roberson wrote:
> I gave the model you mentioned a great deal of consideration as well.
> The evidence does not support that concept for several reasons. I could
> not see any explanation for the lack of water being captured by the trap
> set by the engin
On Wed, Nov 23, 2011 at 8:58 AM, David Roberson wrote:
> There is additional evidence to support the hypothesis I put forward. I
> have been following a discussion about the large power output rise in a
> short time that some suggest is not possible. I do not know whether or not
> that is a rea
, Nov 23, 2011 10:10 am
Subject: RE: [Vo]: ECAT 1 MW Test Discrepancy
Are the numbers and slow temperature gradient not entirely consistent with
overflowing E-Cats as well? You take a great deal of time and expend a great
deal of effort constructing intellectually fascinating models.
Consider
vaporization is lower than the rate at which new water is introduced, the
"kettle boiler" construction is completely irrelevant. The incoming water will
be displacing the water at boiling, regardless of its phase.
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Subject: Re: [Vo]: ECAT 1 MW Test Discrepancy
Fro
October 28 test. The bottom line
is that the 1 MW system test demonstrated a working cold fusion device.
Dave
-Original Message-
From: Berke Durak
To: vortex-l
Sent: Wed, Nov 23, 2011 12:43 am
Subject: Re: [Vo]: ECAT 1 MW Test Discrepancy
On Mon, Nov 21, 2011 at 3:26 PM, David Rober
If 60 kW was expended during 1.5 hour (from 11:00 to 12:30) to bring
> water from 30 to 100 degrees, that's 324 MJ;
It was 160 kW from 10:30 to 12:30.
the corresponding amount
> of water is 1102 kg. Since there are 321 sub-modules, that's 3.43 l
> of water per sub-module. Each module is about
On Tue, Nov 22, 2011 at 10:33 PM, Berke Durak wrote:
>
> > You would need to cover 7 times the area in a matter of minutes, also not
> > plausible, and it would still require 7 times the heat transport rate
> from
> > the core, which doesn't depend as simply on the area of contact.
>
> As the dia
On Mon, Nov 21, 2011 at 3:26 PM, David Roberson wrote:
> This humid warm air would enter the steam piping and the water would
> immediately begin to condense upon every surface.
Right, especially given that the pipes are connected to the air cooler, and that
the external temperature was around 15
On Tue, Nov 22, 2011 at 11:46 AM, Joshua Cude wrote:
> Heat flow depends on temperature differentials, so the gradient in
> temperature between the surface and the core would have to be 7
> times steeper.
and also wrote:
> You would need to cover 7 times the area in a matter of minutes, also not
On Tue, Nov 22, 2011 at 8:44 PM, Mary Yugo wrote:
> My predictions are similar in all forums. In Moletrap, they're just a
> bit spicier.
Can you say "Bhut Jolokia (ghost) pepper"?
:-)
T
On Tue, Nov 22, 2011 at 1:13 PM, Jed Rothwell wrote:
>
> In that case there are no true believers here, since we all agree he [Rossi-
> M. Y.] acts
> like a scammer. I have said that countless times.
To make that complete, you have to add that he acts like a scammer yet
you believe he really ha
vorl bek wrote:
My recollection is that she has always said that he *acts* like a
scammer.
Which is what anyone who is not a True Believer would say, in my
humble opinion, given the way he acts.
In that case there are no true believers here, since we all agree he
acts like a scammer. I have
On Tue, Nov 22, 2011 at 12:23 PM, Jed Rothwell wrote:
>
> Oh come now. You have incessantly predicted what would happen! Again, and
> again you have predicted that Rossi is a scammer who will be caught.
If you quote me, please do it accurately.
I have said Rossi *behaves* in manner indistiguisha
> Mary Yugo wrote:
>
> > But I don't like to try to predict what may happen.
>
> Oh come now. You have incessantly predicted what would happen!
> Again, and again you have predicted that Rossi is a scammer who
> will be caught.
My recollection is that she has always said that he *acts* like a
s
On Tue, Nov 22, 2011 at 2:23 PM, Jed Rothwell wrote:
> I prefer opponents such as Robert Park who are proud of the fact that
> they have helped suppress this field, and who brag about the lives they
> have disrupted and destroyed.
>
Are you making stuff up again, or do you have some examples of
Mary Yugo wrote:
But I don't like to try to predict what may happen.
Oh come now. You have incessantly predicted what would happen! Again,
and again you have predicted that Rossi is a scammer who will be caught.
You have reached the point where I and others are on the verge of
blocking you.
On Tue, Nov 22, 2011 at 2:05 PM, Harry Veeder wrote:
> This is like saying that because a theatre gradually filled with
> people over two hours it is implausible to believe the same theatre
> emptied of people in minutes after a fire alarm.
> However it is only implausible based on the assumption
> Rossi uses the latent heat of deception to make a 30-year thermodynamics
> veteran look bad, and to get an audience with archenemies of cold fusion at
> MIT.
Heh! Love that "latent heat of deception". But I don't quite get how
a meeting with some really smart people from MIT would help Rossi (
This is like saying that because a theatre gradually filled with
people over two hours it is implausible to believe the same theatre
emptied of people in minutes after a fire alarm.
However it is only implausible based on the assumption there is only
one entrance/exit or the entrance/exit is small.
On Tue, Nov 22, 2011 at 1:36 PM, Mary Yugo wrote:
> Quoting Rossi:
>
> 1- In the test of October 28th the water flow has been measured by the two
> flowmeters that the Consultant of the Customer has put just minutes before
> the test. He always checked the water flow, and the water trap that
>
If this appeared here before, my apology but I don't think I saw it. Rossi
had this to say in his blog:
"Andrea Rossi
November 21st, 2011 at 2:39 PM
Dear “XY”:
I did not approve your comment, because contains very big stupidities, and
I want not to expose you and your name to a bad portrait.
On Tue, Nov 22, 2011 at 7:33 AM, Berke Durak wrote:
>
> > The behaviour of the fluid during boiling is highly dependent upon >
> > the excess temperature, delta T = T_s - T_sat, measured from the
> > boiling point of the fluid. Figure 9-1 indicates six different
> > regimes for typical pool boil
On Tue, Nov 22, 2011 at 6:20 AM, Joshua Cude wrote:
> It is Rossi that is *claiming* an 8-fold (actually closer to 7)
> instant power increase. When the temperature is 99.9 degrees, if we
> accept Rossi's flow rate, then the output power is about 66 kW. When
> the temperature is 105 degrees or so,
On Tue, Nov 22, 2011 at 5:09 AM, Jouni Valkonen wrote:
> Joshua, I do not think that you have any means to tell what was the power
> output profile of ecat during the test, because detailed data was ommitted
> from the report. Therefore your argument about mysterious eight fold
> instant power inc
Joshua, I do not think that you have any means to tell what was the power
output profile of ecat during the test, because detailed data was ommitted
from the report. Therefore your argument about mysterious eight fold
instant power increase is nonsense.
On average ecat array's total power output w
On Mon, Nov 21, 2011 at 11:14 PM, Berke Durak wrote:
> (7) So Fioravanti had good reasons to believe that the steam was dry.
>
He is obviously assuming dry steam. But if we're (or his company is) simply
supposed to accept that he had good reasons to believe that, then why
bother with the report
On Mon, Nov 21, 2011 at 9:14 PM, Berke Durak wrote:
> Anyone disputing this is basically claiming that the report is fake
> and that Fioravanti doesn't exist or isn't an engineer or became
> senile or was on drugs and/or was conspiring with Rossi.
>
He may also have been careless and/or neglige
On Mon, Nov 21, 2011 at 11:29 PM, Joshua Cude wrote:
> Rossi assumes the output flow rate is equal to the input flow rate
> ...
Here is how I see it.
(1) Fioravanti signed the report.
(2) The report has the following equation:
Total energy produced : (steam kg x 627.5) + (100 - input water T
Rossi assumes the output flow rate is equal to the input flow rate
throughout the 5.5 hours of the power calculation. The only way to be sure
that the output flow rate is *at least* that value is if the ecats started
out full. That also seems most consistent with the temperature profile
during preh
erived from the customer acceptance document. It says the total test started
t 9:00. So, 12:30 - 9:00 = 3.5 hours.
Dave
-Original Message-
From: Robert Leguillon
To: vortex-l
Sent: Mon, Nov 21, 2011 3:52 pm
Subject: RE: [Vo]: ECAT 1 MW Test Discrepancy
The "Ottoman" E
s derived from the customer acceptance document. It says the total test
>started at 9:00. So, 12:30 - 9:00 = 3.5 hours.
>
>Dave
>
>
>
>-Original Message-
>From: Robert Leguillon
>To: vortex-l
>Sent: Mon, Nov 21, 2011 3:52 pm
>Subject: RE: [Vo]: ECAT 1 MW T
3.5 hour period is
derived from the customer acceptance document. It says the total test started
at 9:00. So, 12:30 - 9:00 = 3.5 hours.
Dave
-Original Message-
From: Robert Leguillon
To: vortex-l
Sent: Mon, Nov 21, 2011 3:52 pm
Subject: RE: [Vo]: ECAT 1 MW Test Discrepancy
The
Robert Leguillon wrote:
The "Ottoman" E-Cats appear to be the same from the September and October
> tests. Think about the October 6th test (where we new the Cat started
> empty), and how long it took for the output to register anything at all.
>
I believe that was because the pump was small a
loser that the MegaCat
output thermocouple. ...
Thoughts?
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Subject: Re: [Vo]: ECAT 1 MW Test Discrepancy
From: dlrober...@aol.com
Date: Mon, 21 Nov 2011 15:26:13 -0500
We have been attempting to understand the initial water capture discrepancy and
several issues com
We have been attempting to understand the initial water capture discrepancy and
several issues come up which need an explanation. Mr. Cude and I have been of
the opinion that the ECATs must be full of water during an initiation period
since it seems logical that the check valves at the out
On Mon, Nov 21, 2011 at 8:41 AM, Berke Durak wrote:
>
> > and Rossi's calculation assumes a constant flow rate.
>
> Which calculation? All you need is the quantity of water vaporized; it
> doesn't
> matter if they were vaporized at a constant rate or not.
The calculation in the report determin
Berke Durak wrote:
> It would be surprising if Rossi would know this rate beforehand, since he
> > doesn't actually calculate the power until the end. He would need to get
> it
>
> (a) he probably did test runs and (b) there is a frigging control system.
>
Well said. Hilarious! Yes, control syst
On Mon, Nov 21, 2011 at 12:59 AM, Joshua Cude wrote:
>> What I meant is that the flow rate may have been lower at the
>> beginning during the starting phase. Maybe it was zero.
>
> Then what were they measuring at the output?
I'm under the impression that the temperature sensor was connected to
On Sun, Nov 20, 2011 at 11:05 PM, David Roberson wrote:
> I was of the impression that the ECAT modules were filled with water
> before the main test was conducted. Is there any documented evidence that
> the water level
> was below fill at 12:30? I would like to find this if you can point me i
On Sun, Nov 20, 2011 at 11:19 PM, David Roberson wrote:
> I might be able to answer my own question. I just reviewed the final
> acceptance document and see that the test supposedly started at 9:00. If
> they started the input water flow at that
> time to the 6.314 liter/hour rate, then only 22
On Sun, Nov 20, 2011 at 10:52 PM, Berke Durak wrote:
> Save for what was required to fill the pipes and the devices, the
> input mass flow rate is obviously equal to the output mass flow rate.
>
It's not that obvious, considering at the published flow rate (as Roberson
corrected me), it takes ab
you say. Many difficult issues would be resolved.
Dave
-Original Message-
From: David Roberson
To: vortex-l
Sent: Mon, Nov 21, 2011 12:09 am
Subject: Re: [Vo]: ECAT 1 MW Test Discrepancy
I was of the impression that the ECAT modules were filled with water before the
main test was
-
From: Berke Durak
To: vortex-l
Sent: Sun, Nov 20, 2011 11:55 pm
Subject: Re: [Vo]: ECAT 1 MW Test Discrepancy
On Sun, Nov 20, 2011 at 11:38 PM, Joshua Cude wrote:
If this is the case, then the output mass flow rate has no relation
to the input mass flow rate, and the power output calculation
On Sun, Nov 20, 2011 at 11:38 PM, Joshua Cude wrote:
> If this is the case, then the output mass flow rate has no relation
> to the input mass flow rate, and the power output calculation using
> the input flow rate is meaningless.
Save for what was required to fill the pipes and the devices, the
On Sun, Nov 20, 2011 at 10:27 PM, Berke Durak wrote:
> On Sun, Nov 20, 2011 at 9:24 PM, David Roberson
> wrote:
> > There is a five minute period during which water would be flowing
> > through the ECATs and into the steam pipes. During this 5 minute
> > period, I would expect (675.6 liters/hou
On Sun, Nov 20, 2011 at 8:24 PM, David Roberson wrote:
>
> I wanted to point out this discrepancy so that other members of the Vortex
> can indicate my error or verify the problem.
>
>
I agree. But the results are consistent with the valve to the trap being
closed, or with the trap being ineffect
On Sun, Nov 20, 2011 at 9:24 PM, David Roberson wrote:
> There is a five minute period during which water would be flowing
> through the ECATs and into the steam pipes. During this 5 minute
> period, I would expect (675.6 liters/hour * 1 hour/60 minutes * 5
> minutes = 56.3 liters) of water to be
67 matches
Mail list logo
