Robert Lynn wrote:
And I can think of a number of ways of cheating to get heat into the
reactor: Altering the electrical measurement equipment supplied . . .
How could this fool a clamp on ammeter and a voltmeter attached directly
to the wire? If you know how to fool these instruments you have
Haven't commented here in a while, pretty excited that after a couple of
years of Rossi's shenanigans it's all perhaps about to happen. But I come
from a hard test and measurement background (mechanical and electrical
engineer, specialising in thermodynamics) and am by nature quite skeptical,
so w
Alain Sepeda wrote:
- one way to be wrong would be to make a temperature error. since power in
> in T^4, error is 5^1/4, about 1.5, thus +50%/-33%, assuming no convection.
>
Yes, temperature measurement is critical. That is why they checked the
surface temperature with a thermocouple to confirm
Just one question to all the experts around.
can you correct my reasoning. I'm not experienced in that domain.
The report claim a COP above 5 in one experiments.
My goal is to rule-out COP<=1
since the measure is done by thermography I think naively that to explain
such an error :
- one way to
Mary Yugo is indeed the bravest skeptic- she commented
a lot on my blog. Very inspiring mode of thinking. Others (Cude?)
have much slower reactions.
Peter
On Tue, May 21, 2013 at 9:51 AM, Alain Sepeda wrote:
> it is done.
>
> good prediction.
>
>
>
> 2013/5/21 Jed Rothwell
>
>>
>> Mary Yugo wil
it is done.
good prediction.
2013/5/21 Jed Rothwell
>
> Mary Yugo will claim that Rossi alone is doing this, and the scientists
> are being duped. That can only mean he has a magical ability to change the
> reading in a clamp-on ammeter, a voltmeter, and an IR camera that is not
> even touchin
and that water flow calorimetry is required... (heard it too).
so there is no way to please them.
that is on purpose.
exhausting.
2013/5/20 Harry Veeder
> Debunkers will say water flow calorimetry conceals a trick.
> Harry
>
>
> On Mon, May 20, 2013 at 4:31 PM, David L Babcock
> wrote:
>
>>
Daniel Rocha wrote:
I've been seen some blogs that reported this paper. The most popular
> argument is that all this is a falsification for a scam.
>
Naturally that is what they say. That is what they always say. So, there
are now several new scientists from Uppsala U. taking part in this scam.
I've been seen some blogs that reported this paper. The most popular
argument is that all this is a falsification for a scam.
2013/5/20 Eric Walker
> On Sun, May 19, 2013 at 8:45 PM, Brad Lowe wrote:
>
> Available here:
>> http://arxiv.org/abs/1305.3913
>>
>
> After reading the report pretty c
On Sun, May 19, 2013 at 8:45 PM, Brad Lowe wrote:
Available here:
> http://arxiv.org/abs/1305.3913
>
After reading the report pretty closely, I am cautiously optimistic that
things are proceeding very well. There were things that made me think that
the report was not exactly publication-ready,
Debunkers will say water flow calorimetry conceals a trick.
Harry
On Mon, May 20, 2013 at 4:31 PM, David L Babcock wrote:
> There might be a dozen reasons why NOT water flow calorimetry, but the
> big thing here is, why bother?
>
> They get a torrent of heat, *easily* shown by IR to be far, fa
This is symptomatic of what I mean when I say this is entirely outside the
realm of academic discourse.
The psychology of the academic is that the engineering of the experimental
apparatus is entirely under his control -- hence one would, of course,
design the heat source to be compatible with the
David L Babcock wrote:
There might be a dozen reasons why NOT water flow calorimetry, but the big
> thing here is, why bother?
>
I can think of some very good reasons not to do water flow calorimetry. At
these temperatures and power levels, it would be dangerous. Also difficult.
It would probab
Or the sintering temperature promotes the reaction instead of destroying it.
Harry
On Mon, May 20, 2013 at 1:12 PM, Bob Higgins wrote:
> Kudos to A. Rossi for this huge step forward in validation of his work!
>
> One thing in the report that I find incredible was the amount of fuel that
> was "
There might be a dozen reasons why NOT water flow calorimetry, but the
big thing here is, why bother?
They get a torrent of heat, /easily/ shown by IR to be far, far more
than any that accepted science can explain away, and you want that last
decimal place?
The question that was answered is,
This is one of the most important papers in the history of the field.
***I agree. Here's the primary takeaway:
"Even by the most conservative assumptions as to the errors in the
measurements, the result is still one order of magnitude greater than
conventional energy sources."
That means Rossi c
Eric Walker wrote:
>
> This is one of the most important papers in the history of the field.
>>
>
> We should be patient -- I don't think it's been out long enough to receive
> full scrutiny, so there might be some methodological flaw that is turned up.
>
I doubt there is a problem. These people
Another point, Bob - the low amount of fuel is consistent with the main
patent claim for the use of an enriched isotope of Ni-62.
An enriched isotope would be expensive, even if Rossi has found a way to
enrich it himself. If he had bought .6 gram from Goodfellows it would have
set him back
quot;Edmund Storms"
> > Sent: Monday, May 20, 2013 8:09:29 AM
> > Subject: Re: [Vo]:3rd Party Report Released
>
> > Before we get too excited.
>
> My biggest concern is with the resistive "blank" test.
>
> They should have done TWO blank runs
&
>From the report, an interesting explanation of testing delays:
The tests held in December 2012 and March 2013 are in fact subsequent to a
previous attempt in November 2012 to make accurate measurements on a
similar model of the
*E-Cat HT *on the same premises. In that experiment the device was
Edmund Storms wrote:
Before we get too excited. I think two questions need to be answered.
>
> 1. When was the calibration done and under what conditions.
>
I do not see what difference it makes when it was done. Anyway, it was
after the hot run. The procedure is described in the paper on p. 18.
From: Jed Rothwell
Three cheers for Andrea Rossi!!!
You have to give the man credit. He can be very annoying
some times, but at other times he comes through like no one else in this
field.
Don't bring out the pom-poms just yet -
> From: "Edmund Storms"
> Sent: Monday, May 20, 2013 8:09:29 AM
> Subject: Re: [Vo]:3rd Party Report Released
> Before we get too excited.
My biggest concern is with the resistive "blank" test.
They should have done TWO blank runs
a) (Which they did) -
Before we get too excited. I think two questions need to be answered.
1. When was the calibration done and under what conditions. The
amount of heat being radiated depends on the value of the effective
total emissivity of the surface. This value will change with time and
temperature. Ther
They will now do a 6 month test, heh!
2013/5/20 Eric Walker
> On Mon, May 20, 2013 at 6:06 AM, Jed Rothwell wrote:
>
> We should be patient -- I don't think it's been out long enough to receive
> full scrutiny, so there might be some methodological flaw that is turned
> up.
>
--
Daniel Rocha -
On Mon, May 20, 2013 at 6:06 AM, Jed Rothwell wrote:
This is one of the most important papers in the history of the field.
>
We should be patient -- I don't think it's been out long enough to receive
full scrutiny, so there might be some methodological flaw that is turned
up. Also, not that it
COP of a watercooled reactor will be higher, it's just a matter of
efficiently pull the heat out of the powder.
In this particular set of tests no watercooling has been applied, only air
cooling.
On Mon, May 20, 2013 at 4:00 PM, Daniel Rocha wrote:
> This is "instantaneous" COP. Sometimes, it h
Daniel Rocha wrote:
This is "instantaneous" COP. Sometimes, it has to be ignited. So, it is not
> really infinite.
>
Naturally. But that is true of any energy device. Even a thermonuclear bomb
has to be ignited or triggered with electricity, which triggers a chemical
explosion, which triggers fi
This is "instantaneous" COP. Sometimes, it has to be ignited. So, it is not
really infinite.
2013/5/20 Jed Rothwell
> Daniel Rocha wrote:
>
> Interesting: Rossi canno obtain COP 6 without melting the rector!
>>
>
> Perhaps with this device that is the case, but with previous reactors he
> ofte
Daniel Rocha wrote:
Interesting: Rossi canno obtain COP 6 without melting the rector!
>
Perhaps with this device that is the case, but with previous reactors he
often obtained much better ratios, and an infinite ratio, with no input. On
Oct. 7, 2011, he ran for 4 hours without input.
People exp
Interesting: Rossi canno obtain COP 6 without melting the rector!
2013/5/20 Jed Rothwell
> I sent a note to Andrea:
>
> "I am especially pleased to see this in an open source library. I think I
> will copy it to LENR-CANR.org. Please tell Prof. Levi I intend to to that,
> if you get a chance.
I sent a note to Andrea:
"I am especially pleased to see this in an open source library. I think I
will copy it to LENR-CANR.org. Please tell Prof. Levi I intend to to that,
if you get a chance. Congratulations to all of you."
This is one of the most important papers in the history of the field.
Three cheers for Andrea Rossi!!!
You have to give the man credit. He can be very annoying some times, but at
other times he comes through like no one else in this field.
- Jed
I get it. Thanks James.
On Mon, May 20, 2013 at 5:56 PM, James Bowery wrote:
> On the contrary, Dr. Lewis's snide comment will go down in history as an
> incredibly valuable "teachable moment" and it is quite appropriate to
> remember it in the context of this announcement.
>
>
> On Mon, May 20
On the contrary, Dr. Lewis's snide comment will go down in history as an
incredibly valuable "teachable moment" and it is quite appropriate to
remember it in the context of this announcement.
On Mon, May 20, 2013 at 2:44 AM, Patrick Ellul wrote:
> Snide yes. Of value? Not really.
> On 20/05/2013
Snide yes. Of value? Not really.
On 20/05/2013 5:42 PM, "James Bowery" wrote:
> Giovanni, I am making a snide reference to Dr. Nathan Lewis's snide
> reference to the athletic prowess of the Universities that had reproduced
> the F&P effect -- indicating that, obviously, if you have a good footba
Giovanni, I am making a snide reference to Dr. Nathan Lewis's snide
reference to the athletic prowess of the Universities that had reproduced
the F&P effect -- indicating that, obviously, if you have a good football
team you must be technically inept:
See the youtube video capturing this marvel of
Are they going to publish this report in a respected Physics Journal? Which
one exactly?
Giovanni
On Mon, May 20, 2013 at 1:10 AM, James Bowery wrote:
> Bologna University, Uppsala University and Royal Institute of Technology,
> Stockholm must all have good football teams.
>
>
> On Sun, May 19,
No football teams in Bologna University. In Italy Universities are focused
on academics not sports.
Giovanni
On Mon, May 20, 2013 at 1:10 AM, James Bowery wrote:
> Bologna University, Uppsala University and Royal Institute of Technology,
> Stockholm must all have good football teams.
>
>
> On
Bologna University, Uppsala University and Royal Institute of Technology,
Stockholm must all have good football teams.
On Sun, May 19, 2013 at 10:45 PM, Brad Lowe wrote:
> Available here:
> http://arxiv.org/abs/1305.3913
>
> Press release
>
> http://ecat.com/news/3rd-party-report-shows-anomalou
Re: Seven authors altogether (I think I remember hearing a larger number at
some point).
The number of involved scientists mentioned were high, somewhere around 15.
In the paper, there are various other people mentioned in the
acknowledgements section. These could be counted as involved scientists
>
> Computed volumetric and gravimetric energy densities were found to be far
> above those of any known chemical source. Even by the most conservative
> assumptions as to the errors in the measurements, the result is still one
> order of magnitude greater than conventional energy sources.
This i
42 matches
Mail list logo
