If the device was in the 1 to 5 kW range, then a simple hot tub should work.
A typical 6 foot spa heats at about 1 degree F per hour at 1 kW. That, some
copper tubing coils, and a utility pole meter should be enough. If you really
wanted to be sure no extra wiring/power was going into it, pe
I don't think "a couple hundred bucks" would cover the spa-based system you
describe. "On the cheap" is relative.
On Mon, Jun 3, 2013 at 12:29 PM, DJ Cravens wrote:
> If the device was in the 1 to 5 kW range, then a simple hot tub should
> work. A typical 6 foot spa heats at about 1 degree F
OK, I'll ask the question a different way:
Is there any explanation offered, even if only in an interview, by the
researchers as to why they did not use normal calorimetry?
On Mon, Jun 3, 2013 at 12:32 PM, James Bowery wrote:
> I don't think "a couple hundred bucks" would cover the spa-based s
James Bowery wrote:
Is there any explanation offered, even if only in an interview, by the
> researchers as to why they did not use normal calorimetry?
>
They used perfectly normal calorimetry. There is not the slightest chance
output is any less than 3 times input. There is nothing for them to
ginal Message-
From: DJ Cravens
To: vortex-l
Sent: Mon, Jun 3, 2013 1:29 pm
Subject: RE: [Vo]:A Couple Hundred Bucks Maybe...
If the device was in the 1 to 5 kW range, then a simple hot tub should work.
A typical 6 foot spa heats at about 1 degree F per hour at 1 kW. That, some
copper t
On Mon, Jun 3, 2013 at 1:00 PM, Jed Rothwell wrote:
> James Bowery wrote:
>
> Is there any explanation offered, even if only in an interview, by the
>> researchers as to why they did not use normal calorimetry?
>>
>
> They used perfectly normal calorimetry. There is not the slightest chance
> ou
David Roberson wrote:
> If Rossi were to place his device into a tank of water much more heat
> would be conducted away from the core.
>
I think the plan by Brian Ahern is to put the device in an air filled box
with a copper pipe wound around the outside or the inside wall, and water
flowing th
I would think that most of the $20K went to airfare, hotels and meals. you
can't expect the scientists to work for free.
-Mark
From: James Bowery [mailto:jabow...@gmail.com]
Sent: Monday, June 03, 2013 9:42 AM
To: vortex-l
Subject: [Vo]:A Couple Hundred Bucks Maybe...
I've seen it claimed
James Bowery wrote:
There is nothing for them to explain.
>>
>
> That may be the case and if so one would not expect to see an explanation
> in the paper itself. On the other hand, given the controversial
> environment they might reasonably be expected to say something like the
> following, at l
Subject: Re: [Vo]:A Couple Hundred Bucks Maybe...
David Roberson wrote:
If Rossi were to place his device into a tank of water much more heat would be
conducted away from the core.
I think the plan by Brian Ahern is to put the device in an air filled box with
a copper pipe wound around
Do the arithmetic, Mark.
Although it is true that "a couple hundred bucks" is only 1% of $20,000 and
that it is ridiculous think of the other 99% as going into technical
aspects alone, even if 90% of the budget were for "overhead" that would
still leave a budget of $2,000 for the technical aspects
James Bowery wrote:
> Although it is true that "a couple hundred bucks" is only 1% of $20,000
> and that it is ridiculous think of the other 99% as going into technical
> aspects alone, even if 90% of the budget were for "overhead" . . .
>
I have significant experience with flow calorimeters. I
OK, so the take-away messages is:
"No, the authors of the paper have not provided any rational for choosing
their form of calorimetry -- not even informally. Moreover, the claim that
adequate flow calorimetry for the E-Cat HT would cost 'a couple hundred
bucks' likely indicates pseudoskepticism."
ere
there is none and leave a trail. Ralph Waldo Emerson
D2
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Subject: Re: [Vo]:A Couple Hundred Bucks Maybe...
From: dlrober...@aol.com
Date: Mon, 3 Jun 2013 14:01:20 -0400
Dennis,
I don't think it would be quite so easy for Rossi to perform the experiment
t
criticisms. I think it prudent to wait and see if the 6
month test makes further improvements given the feedback from the recent
tests.
-Mark
From: James Bowery [mailto:jabow...@gmail.com]
Sent: Monday, June 03, 2013 11:22 AM
To: vortex-l
Subject: Re: [Vo]:A Couple Hundred Bucks Maybe...
On Mon, Jun 3, 2013 at 2:40 PM, James Bowery wrote:
> OK, so the take-away messages is:
>
> "No, the authors of the paper have not provided any rational for choosing
> their form of calorimetry -- not even informally.
>
I do not see why they need to provide a rationale. The choice is manifestly
R. W. Emerson wrote:
> "Whatever course you decide upon, there is always someone to tell you
> that you are wrong. There are always difficulties arising which tempt you
> to believe that your critics are right. To map out a course of action and
> follow it to an end requires courage..Do not g
I wrote:
> It is not precise, but it is reliable, and accurate enough to prove the
> point.
>
The point is, this is a huge effect. It runs at high temperatures and it is
at least three times input. McKubre needed a high precision flow
calorimeter because he was trying to measure an effect that u
that a standalone unplugged demo is the best approach - not high
wattage and fancy instruments and lots of wires and computer programs.
D2
Date: Mon, 3 Jun 2013 15:05:57 -0400
Subject: Re: [Vo]:A Couple Hundred Bucks Maybe...
From: jedrothw...@gmail.com
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
R. W. Emerson
simplest measure of heat.
D2
Date: Mon, 3 Jun 2013 15:21:06 -0400
Subject: Re: [Vo]:A Couple Hundred Bucks Maybe...
From: jedrothw...@gmail.com
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
I wrote:
It is not precise, but it is reliable, and accurate enough to prove the point.
The point is, this is a huge effect
Even though I'm still wearing my skeptic's hat (that's the one with the
propeller on top) isn't the argument about the need for calorimetry made
irrelevant the amount of energy observed to have been generated? In other
words, even with more precise measurements the exact energy output couldn't
have
> From: "DJ Cravens"
> Sent: Monday, June 3, 2013 10:29:52 AM
> For smaller units (1 to 100W), perhaps heating a tea pot would be
> reasonable.
Unfortunately, I think that the person who made the "cup of tea" bet has passed
on.
(My forgetory will produce his name in about 10 minutes while I'm
DJ Cravens wrote:
do not try to take the quote out of the obvious intended context.
>
Sure, we get that. I was just ragging on "extraordinary claims" claim,
which I despise.
> I still think that a standalone unplugged demo is the best approach - not
> high wattage and fancy instruments and lo
> Unfortunately, I think that the person who made the "cup of tea" bet
> has passed on.
> (My forgetory will produce his name in about 10 minutes while I'm
> doing something else)
It wasn't tea .. it was a bet by a professor that would be paid off when a cold
fusion device delivered 1 kWh to the
The reputed gain is so high - Rossi would be wise to forego calorimetry and
go directly to conversion of heat to electricity.
Here is the device that could do that - ORC in a small format. This device
is perfect for the HotCat.
http://www.infinityturbine.com/ORC/IT10_ORC_System.html
de- Only a factor of perhaps 6. I need to go back and check that.
D2
From: mgi...@gibbs.com
Date: Mon, 3 Jun 2013 12:55:19 -0700
Subject: Re: [Vo]:A Couple Hundred Bucks Maybe...
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Even though I'm still wearing my skeptic's hat (that's the one with
Mark Gibbs wrote:
Even though I'm still wearing my skeptic's hat (that's the one with the
> propeller on top) isn't the argument about the need for calorimetry made
> irrelevant the amount of energy observed to have been generated?
>
Yes. But power, not energy. If the difference between input an
> From: "DJ Cravens"
> Sent: Monday, June 3, 2013 1:22:05 PM
> And no, I don't think that they were over unity by more than an order
> of magnitude- Only a factor of perhaps 6. I need to go back and
> check that.
The COP was 6 (Dec) and 3 (March).
The order of magnitude was energy density over
bob park
> Date: Mon, 3 Jun 2013 13:16:16 -0700
> From: a...@well.com
> To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
> Subject: Re: [Vo]:A Couple Hundred Bucks Maybe...
>
> > Unfortunately, I think that the person who made the "cup of tea" bet
> > has passed on.
> > (My
DJ Cravens wrote:
> yes, calorimetry is not needed IF you believe the claims, methods, and the
> effect. As you may know, I don't doubt the reality of CF/LENR in general.
> However, if you goal is to convince "non-believer" then it is best to avoid
> systems where you have to know the exact wav
DJ Cravens wrote:
Notice I did not say flow calorimetry was needed. Just heating a
> container of water - pool, spa, teapot
>
I have thought about that. During the initial warm up phase you would get
an interesting result. After that, when it reaches a steady state, you
would maintain the
It will take more than just a generator and an extension cord to close the
loop. Some form of energy storage will be required to do the job.
Dave
-Original Message-
From: Jones Beene
To: vortex-l
Sent: Mon, Jun 3, 2013 4:20 pm
Subject: RE: [Vo]:A Couple Hundred Bucks Maybe
Defkalion will be blowing steam. Who knows?
The last I heard Brillion was around 2:1 in liquid.
Perhaps it is time to step aside and let the commercial people do their thing.
D2
Date: Mon, 3 Jun 2013 16:30:43 -0400
Subject: Re: [Vo]:A Couple Hundred Bucks Maybe...
From: jedrothw...@gmail.com
To
I wrote:
>You do not need to measure flow rates if the effect is significant.
>>
>
> You don't need to measure it now. You have to depend on Drs. Stefan and
> Boltzmann being right. As for convection, you just gotta look up the
> numbers in an HVAC textbook.
>
I confused the issue a little h
rs happy not Crude. I hope the best for them.
D2
Date: Mon, 3 Jun 2013 16:46:12 -0400
Subject: Re: [Vo]:A Couple Hundred Bucks Maybe...
From: jedrothw...@gmail.com
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
DJ Cravens wrote:
Notice I did not say flow calorimetry was needed. Just heating a container o
DJ Cravens wrote:
That is not what I want to hear.
>
You do not want to hear that the cell will go out of control and melt? It
will though, whether you want to hear that or not. It has already melted.
I do not understand what you have in mind here. Nature allows us to do some
things and not
DJ Cravens wrote:
You may want to refigure that if you want to run for extended times- an
> Olympic pool (likely overkill) has a volume of 2.5 million liters and some
> are indoors and have covers.
>
That would be extremely noisy, to say the least. Changes in air
temperature, humidity, sunlight,
perhaps they were wrong in the beliefs. Not this group.
Dave
-Original Message-
From: DJ Cravens
To: vortex-l
Sent: Mon, Jun 3, 2013 5:03 pm
Subject: RE: [Vo]:A Couple Hundred Bucks Maybe...
You may want to refigure that if you want to run for extended times- an Olympic
pool (likely
David Roberson wrote:
It will take more than just a generator and an extension cord to close the
> loop. Some form of energy storage will be required to do the job.
>
Correctomundo. This will complicate matters. It probably means they need
batteries and inverters. As sure as day follows night,
On Mon, Jun 3, 2013 at 1:22 PM, DJ Cravens wrote:
> yes, calorimetry is not needed IF you believe the claims, methods, and the
> effect.
>
The claims are that the device produces significantly over unity, the
methods have been alluded to but Rossi is definitely not public with this
and he may we
Mark Gibbs wrote:
> Indeed, making steam and using it to, say, drive a car across Italy
> without stopping would be pretty damn convincing.
>
Not really. The skeptics would come up with a hundred reasons why that was
faked. They would say this was actually two identical electric vehicles,
which
Mark Gibbs wrote:
Ah, now we have it ... it's the questions of reproducability and
> controlability,
>
But these questions have no bearing on whether the effect is real or not.
During the Vanguard era of US rocket development in the 1950s, rockets were
extremely difficult to reproduce and they
On Mon, Jun 3, 2013 at 4:07 PM, Alan Fletcher wrote:
> Unfortunately, I think that the person who made the "cup of tea" bet has
> passed on.
Dr. Richard L. Garwin is alive and well and will likely live to have his tea.
Terry Blanton wrote:
> Dr. Richard L. Garwin is alive and well and will likely live to have his
> tea.
>
I'm hoping we can do something more dramatic, on a larger scale. Something
like what the Japanese authorities did to the notorious criminal Ishikawa
Goemon in 1594 would be ideal, but I gues
Dave,
It would be nice to get Infinity Turbine to donate a few weeks of testing time
on their ORC device which had been modified with a DC generator driving a bank
of Ultracaps.
The caps would be sized so that there is maybe 15 minutes of cushion in the
energy storage – but no batteries
Jones Beene wrote:
> It would be nice to get Infinity Turbine to donate a few weeks of testing
> time on their ORC device which had been modified with a DC generator
> driving a bank of Ultracaps.
>
This would be nice. It would be a lot of fun. I personally would feel
gratified and pleased to s
From: Jed Rothwell
This would be nice. It would be a lot of fun. I personally would feel
gratified and pleased to see this. However, it would not convince a single
skeptic. They would simply say that all this equipment is fake or there is a
hidden wire or some other trick.
Frankly I
On Mon, Jun 3, 2013 at 6:15 PM, Jed Rothwell wrote:
> I'm hoping we can do something more dramatic, on a larger scale. Something
> like what the Japanese authorities did to the notorious criminal Ishikawa
> Goemon in 1594 would be ideal, but I guess that's out.
Raising the temperature a little b
On Mon, Jun 3, 2013 at 3:02 PM, Jed Rothwell wrote:
> Mark Gibbs wrote:
>
> Ah, now we have it ... it's the questions of reproducability and
>> controlability,
>>
>
> But these questions have no bearing on whether the effect is real or not.
>
> We're talking about Rossi's device and whether it w
On Mon, Jun 3, 2013 at 7:08 PM, Mark Gibbs wrote:
> If Rossi can make devices that demonstrably and reliably work and don't blow
> up, he proves the E-Cat is real. If they reliably blow up, he's in the
> armaments business.
LOL! Proving the reaction to be HIGHLY OVER UNITY!
e and derivatives of it. Patience
is good.
Dave
-Original Message-
From: Mark Gibbs
To: vortex-l
Sent: Mon, Jun 3, 2013 7:09 pm
Subject: Re: [Vo]:A Couple Hundred Bucks Maybe...
On Mon, Jun 3, 2013 at 3:02 PM, Jed Rothwell wrote:
Mark Gibbs wrote:
Ah, now we have it ... it&
Mark Gibbs wrote:
> We're talking about Rossi's device and whether it works, not whether
> CF/LENR/LENR+/Pixie-Mediated-Power/Whatever is real.
>
If it is real it is the most important advance in technology since the
discovery of fire. If the scientific community is convinced it is real,
every
Jones Beene wrote:
> And yes, there is a significant qualitative difference between COP of 6
> and COP of 2.5 in terms of market value. The HotCat could be on either end
> of that spectrum, based on what the last report indicated.
>
I am certain that you can have any COP you want with cold fusi
David Roberson wrote:
> It might take a little time for Rossi to gain total control over his
> device. How would you like to have been the pilot of the first plane built
> by the Wright brothers?
>
As I recall the Wrights trained 12 pilots in 1908, and 10 were killed
within a year. Their first
On Jun 3, 2013, at 10:55 PM, Mark Gibbs wrote:
> Even though I'm still wearing my skeptic's hat
Presenting skepticism is very healthy.
However convincing proof, if that is desired, is just that ecat is made to do
real work while it is completely unplugged. Simplest real work could be heating
Puts the shuttle disasters in perspective... ie: They weren't "disasters"
-- they were more like "wrecks".
On Mon, Jun 3, 2013 at 7:40 PM, Jed Rothwell wrote:
> David Roberson wrote:
>
>
>> It might take a little time for Rossi to gain total control over his
>> device. How would you like to
Jouni Valkonen wrote:
However convincing proof, if that is desired, is just that ecat is made to
> do real work while it is completely unplugged.
Yes. If they could do this without melting the machine it would be a good
idea. Since they already melted one, no one should doubt that will happen
a
James Bowery wrote:
Puts the shuttle disasters in perspective... ie: They weren't "disasters"
> -- they were more like "wrecks".
>
They were flight tests.
Those were prototypes. It turned out that was not a good design. See:
"Beam Me Out Of This Death Trap, Scotty"
http://www.washingtonmonth
-Original Message-
From: Jed Rothwell
To: vortex-l
Sent: Mon, Jun 3, 2013 9:36 pm
Subject: Re: [Vo]:A Couple Hundred Bucks Maybe...
Jouni Valkonen wrote:
However convincing proof, if that is desired, is just that ecat is made to do
real work while it is completely unplugged.
Yes. If
On Jun 4, 2013, at 4:36 AM, Jed Rothwell wrote:
> if the people doing the test have any doubt about that, they can bring a
> portable generator.
Portable generator is also fine and even better, because it leaves very little
room for tricks and doubt. But after 10 or so demonstrations we have h
Jouni Valkonen wrote:
> Portable generator is also fine and even better, because it leaves very
> little room for tricks and doubt.
Very little room? Where would this room be? I mean in real life.
> But after 10 or so demonstrations we have had only one portable generator
> and that also wa
From: Jed Rothwell
And yes, there is a significant qualitative difference
between COP of 6 and COP of 2.5 in terms of market value. The HotCat could
be on either end of that spectrum, based on what the last report indicated.
I am
On Jun 4, 2013, at 4:55 AM, Jed Rothwell wrote:
> Jouni Valkonen wrote:
>
>> But after 10 or so demonstrations we have had only one portable generator
>> and that also was brought by Rossi.
>
> Nothing in the recent test was brought by Rossi. This test was a hands-off
> "black box" test, exa
Jones Beene wrote:
> There have been a handful of runaway reactions in 23 years. Very rare.
> There
> is no reliable evidence of infinite COP for more than a few hours, without
> runaway.
>
There have been many high COP runs lasting hours, and some heat after death
events lasting hours or days.
Jouni Valkonen wrote:
> Leading scam hypothesis does assume that Giuseppe Levi is a scammer and he
> is as bad as Rossi. And he brought most of the instruments.
>
I see. And these other co-authors are so stupid they do not even notice the
equipment is not working? Even though they calibrated th
On Jun 4, 2013, at 5:29 AM, Jed Rothwell wrote:
> I think this "leading scam hypothesis" is far, far removed from reality.
>
How much money you are willing to bet? A couple hundred bucks maybe?
―Jouni
Jouni Valkonen wrote:
>
> How much money you are willing to bet? A couple hundred bucks maybe?
>
I never place bets.
I once had to spend a few weeks in Las Vegas installing computers in
casinos. I never spent a nickel in a slot machine.
Las Vegas is the worst place I have ever been to. I'd rat
On Mon, Jun 3, 2013 at 7:51 PM, Jed Rothwell wrote:
> Jouni Valkonen wrote:
>
>>
>> How much money you are willing to bet? A couple hundred bucks maybe?
>>
>
> I never place bets.
>
***I do. It was my pleasure to put my money where my mouth was on Cold
Fusion and cash in. But, alas, Intrade ha
On Mon, Jun 3, 2013 at 2:03 PM, DJ Cravens wrote:
You may want to refigure that if you want to run for extended times- an
> Olympic pool (likely overkill) has a volume of 2.5 million liters and some
> are indoors and have covers. ( I would just use bubble wrap) You could
> easily go long enough
I wrote:
I don't know what kind of thermal load the E-Cat can sustain, but I agree
> that dropping it into a backyard swimming pool for two weeks until the
> water starts boiling would be a pretty good publicity stunt. I don't
> actually have a sense how long it would take for the water to boil -
A visual demonstration would impress the masses.
Use a real ecat and a dummy ecat with the same input power to inflate a
balloon
The real ecat will inflate the balloon faster.
Harry
On Mon, Jun 3, 2013 at 4:46 PM, Jed Rothwell wrote:
> DJ Cravens wrote:
>
> Notice I did not say flow calorime
On Mon, Jun 3, 2013 at 11:42 AM, James Bowery wrote:
> I've seen it claimed by a rather emotionally committed skeptic -- with
> some background in conducting CF runs with calorimetry -- that an adequate
> 19th century technology water-bath style calorimetry of the E-Cat HT would
> cost "a couple
On Mon, Jun 3, 2013 at 12:38 PM, James Bowery wrote:
> OK, I'll ask the question a different way:
>
> Is there any explanation offered, even if only in an interview, by the
> researchers as to why they did not use normal calorimetry?
>
>
>
In the December run, the experiment was already running
On Mon, Jun 3, 2013 at 1:00 PM, Jed Rothwell wrote:
>
> They used perfectly normal calorimetry.
>
Normal to me means common. But I have not seen calorimetry performed with
IR thermometry. Do you have some references for where it has been used?
> There is not the slightest chance output is
On Mon, Jun 3, 2013 at 1:01 PM, David Roberson wrote:
> Dennis,
>
> I don't think it would be quite so easy for Rossi to perform the
> experiment that you propose.
>
It's amazing the excuses true believers contrive to explain why inferior
experiments were used. If the thing is to be useful, it s
On Mon, Jun 3, 2013 at 1:20 PM, David Roberson wrote:
>
> The ECAT will need adjustment depending upon the environment into which it
> operates. This is what should be expected.
>
>
>
Exactly, and controlled cooling provides a way to adjust it. Sitting in the
open air does not.
On Mon, Jun 3, 2013 at 1:29 PM, Jed Rothwell wrote:
>
> I have significant experience with flow calorimeters. I would say:
>
> 1. It would end up costing much more than a few hundred dollars.
>
True. But not more than 10k for an off-the-shelf unit. That sounds like a
bargain for what Rossi's doi
On Mon, Jun 3, 2013 at 2:55 PM, Mark Gibbs wrote:
> Even though I'm still wearing my skeptic's hat (that's the one with the
> propeller on top) isn't the argument about the need for calorimetry made
> irrelevant the amount of energy observed to have been generated? In other
> words, even with mor
On Mon, Jun 3, 2013 at 2:05 PM, Jed Rothwell wrote:
>
> Extraordinary claims call for the most ordinary proof you can come up with.
>
>
>
That's true for true believers. For everyone else the usual saying
represents common sense, and the opinion of great thinkers from Pascal
through Sagan. I see
On Mon, Jun 3, 2013 at 3:09 PM, Jed Rothwell wrote:
>
>
>
>> I still think that a standalone unplugged demo is the best approach - not
>> high wattage and fancy instruments and lots of wires and computer programs.
>>
>
> That would be nice, but evidently that would probably cause the reactor to
>
On Mon, Jun 3, 2013 at 3:30 PM, Jed Rothwell wrote:
>
> Flow calorimetry has much to be said for it but it is more complicated and
> less believable than this. A lot more can go wrong with it, and usually
> does go wrong with it for the first several weeks.
>
>
>
It is both more believable, wh
On Mon, Jun 3, 2013 at 3:46 PM, Jed Rothwell wrote:
>
>
> I have thought about that. During the initial warm up phase you would get
> an interesting result. After that, when it reaches a steady state, you
> would maintain the entire body of water at a certain temperature for weeks.
> The body (th
On Mon, Jun 3, 2013 at 3:50 PM, David Roberson wrote:
> It will take more than just a generator and an extension cord to close the
> loop. Some form of energy storage will be required to do the job.
>
>
>
To close the loop with electricity, probably yes. But if you used
controlled cooling, yo
On Mon, Jun 3, 2013 at 4:03 PM, DJ Cravens wrote:
> They only need to make their sponsors happy not Crude. I hope the best
> for them.
>
>
Hey, if you're referring to me, I'm with you all the way on the
self-sustaining water-tank heating demo. So the insult is particularly
hurtful.
On Mon, Jun 3, 2013 at 4:07 PM, Jed Rothwell wrote:
>
> I do not understand what you have in mind here. Nature allows us to do
> some things and not others. We have to work with what nature allows, not
> what we would wish for in an ideal universe.[...]
>
> Obviously with more engineering R&D a s
On Mon, Jun 3, 2013 at 4:18 PM, David Roberson wrote:
>
>
> The best proof is one that has the least possibility of error.
>
Or the least possibility of error that favors the ecat, or the least
possibility of tampering. An isolated ecat eliminates input tampering. A
heated tank of water eliminat
On Mon, Jun 3, 2013 at 4:36 PM, Mark Gibbs wrote:
>
>>
>>
> Indeed, making steam and using it to, say, drive a car across Italy
> without stopping would be pretty damn convincing.
>
>
>
Nice to see you can envision a demo that would convince skeptics.
Unfortunately the actual demos don't ever get
On Mon, Jun 3, 2013 at 4:37 PM, Jed Rothwell wrote:
>
> There was a time when this field desperately needed a standalone self
> powered reactor to prove the reaction is real. That is because absolute
> power was low, ranging from 5 to 100 W. However, now that Rossi has
> developed high-powered re
On Mon, Jun 3, 2013 at 5:06 PM, Terry Blanton wrote:
>
> Dr. Richard L. Garwin is alive and well and will likely live to have his
> tea.
>
>
If you believe Rothwell and Roberson, skeptics will never have to concede,
because no application of cold fusion is obvious enough to make them
believe it.
On Mon, Jun 3, 2013 at 5:57 PM, Jones Beene wrote:
>
> If the device cannot self-power, it is still valuable with a lower COP,
> the proverbial hot water or space heater -
>
A COP of 3 is not useful if the electricity was made with fossil fuels at
an efficiency of 1/3. That's a wash.
On Mon, Jun 3, 2013 at 7:25 PM, Jed Rothwell wrote:
>
> If it is real it is the most important advance in technology since the
> discovery of fire. If the scientific community is convinced it is real,
> every industrial corporation and university will be hard at work on this.
> ~$100 million per
On Mon, Jun 3, 2013 at 8:36 PM, Jed Rothwell wrote:
>
> WHY are you so certain that wattmeters do not work?!?
>
You know that's not the objection.
> There is no chance Rossi can fool one, and if the people doing the test
have any doubt about that, they can bring a portable generator.
Would
On Mon, Jun 3, 2013 at 8:43 PM, Jouni Valkonen wrote:
>
> Portable generator is also fine and even better, because it leaves very
> little room for tricks and doubt. But after 10 or so demonstrations we have
> had only one portable generator and that also was brought by Rossi.
>
>
And it had the
On Mon, Jun 3, 2013 at 8:55 PM, Jed Rothwell wrote:
>
> Nothing in the recent test was brought by Rossi. This test was a hands-off
> "black box" test, exactly what the skeptics have been demanding. It seems
> you will not take "yes" for an answer.
>
>
>
So much nonsense. The test was running wh
On Mon, Jun 3, 2013 at 9:29 PM, Jed Rothwell wrote:
> Jouni Valkonen wrote:
>
>
>> Leading scam hypothesis does assume that Giuseppe Levi is a scammer and
>> he is as bad as Rossi. And he brought most of the instruments.
>>
>
> I see. And these other co-authors are so stupid they do not even not
On Jun 4, 2013, at 2:26 PM, Joshua Cude wrote:
> On Mon, Jun 3, 2013 at 9:29 PM, Jed Rothwell wrote:
>> Jouni Valkonen wrote:
>>
>>> Leading scam hypothesis does assume that Giuseppe Levi is a scammer and he
>>> is as bad as Rossi.
>>
> > So you are saying Levi wants to destroy his own re
Jouni Valkonen wrote:
> That is true. The risk for Levi is negligible and he can always claim
> ignorance.
>
The risk is that his reputation would be shattered. He would be forced to
retire at least.
> So If Levi is making few dozens of kiloeuros extra money with Rossi with
> very little eff
, Jun 4, 2013 7:00 am
Subject: Re: [Vo]:A Couple Hundred Bucks Maybe...
On Mon, Jun 3, 2013 at 1:01 PM, David Roberson wrote:
Dennis,
I don't think it would be quite so easy for Rossi to perform the experiment
that you propose.
It's amazing the excuses true believers c
, Jun 4, 2013 7:01 am
Subject: Re: [Vo]:A Couple Hundred Bucks Maybe...
On Mon, Jun 3, 2013 at 1:20 PM, David Roberson wrote:
The ECAT will need adjustment depending upon the environment into which it
operates. This is what should be expected.
Exactly, and controlled cooling provi
Try to be serious Cude. You know that you would find fault with any test
system regardless of its performance. Your record speaks for itself.
Dave
-Original Message-
From: Joshua Cude
To: vortex-l
Sent: Tue, Jun 4, 2013 7:02 am
Subject: Re: [Vo]:A Couple Hundred Bucks Maybe
1 - 100 of 124 matches
Mail list logo
