In reply to Bob Higgins's message of Sun, 8 Mar 2015 14:31:01 -0600:
Hi Bob,
[snip]
IIRC Ed is also an expert in Tritium detection, though I'm not sure whether or
not he has the equipment needed at present. You should ask.
Regards,
Robin van Spaandonk
http://rvanspaa.freehostia.com/project.html
es had come."
>
> What "MS studies" are you talking about?
>
> Bob Cook
>
> - Original Message -
> *From:* Bob Higgins
> *To:* vortex-l@eskimo.com
> *Sent:* Sunday, March 08, 2015 1:31 PM
> *Subject:* Re: [Vo]:Critique of Levi et al. Lugano experiment
where, within the reactor,
these particles had come."
What "MS studies" are you talking about?
Bob Cook
- Original Message -
From: Bob Higgins
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Sent: Sunday, March 08, 2015 1:31 PM
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Critique of Levi et al. Lugano experiment
On Sun, Mar 8, 2015 at 12:32 PM, Bob Cook wrote:
>
>
Besides the idea of testing the Ni particles, which I cannot comment on
due to lack of understanding, the rest of your statement I really like. In
particular the sentence below is great.
The Lugano test was restricted by plan it seems
en a heyoka person. In early English
> society, jesters were such people and the kings and queens wisely kept them
> around.
>
> Bob Cook
>
> - Original Message - *m:* Bob Higgins
>
> *To:* vortex-l@eskimo.com
> *Sent:* Sunday, March 08, 2015 9:51 AM
> *Subject
English society,
jesters were such people and the kings and queens wisely kept them around.
Bob Cook
- Original Message - m: Bob Higgins
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Sent: Sunday, March 08, 2015 9:51 AM
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Critique of Levi et al. Lugano experiment
Some features of
Bob
- Original Message -
From: Eric Walker
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Sent: Sunday, March 08, 2015 8:50 AM
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Critique of Levi et al. Lugano experiment
Just to be clear, I'm not saying I disagree with the objections to Rossi
having handled the charge.
In g
2015-03-08 16:50 GMT+01:00 Eric Walker :
> The standard of "extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof" is a
> phrase that goes back to Marcello Truzzi. It has been debated here on
> several different occasions. It has been used by skeptics to justify
> whatever they want. To that extent,
Some features of the Lugano HotCat ash can now be identified based on the
follow-on work of MFMP and Parkhomov.
When trying to decide whether the Lugano team actually sampled the
important part of the HotCat ash, have a look at the TPR2 - Apendix 3 -
Figure 2, the SEM photo of "Particle 1". This
Just to be clear, I'm not saying I disagree with the objections to Rossi
having handled the charge.
In general one has the impression scientists are pretty collegial with one
another. They place a lot of trust in one another. One scientist will say
to another, I'd like to take a second look at w
Eric, the standard amongst academic colleagues is extraordinary claims
require extraordinary proof. The standard is that replication should be
done by uninvolved parties. Neither Rossi nor Levi, et all was
uninvolved. Levi and friends had their reputation on the line from the
claims from the
On Fri, Mar 6, 2015 at 11:47 AM, Jed Rothwell wrote:
See:
>
>
> https://gsvit.wordpress.com/2015/03/02/tpr2-calorimetry-of-hot-cat-performed-by-means-of-ir-camera-2/
>
See also:
https://docs.google.com/a/node.io/file/d/0B5Pc25a4cOM2Zl9FWDFWSUpXc0U/edit
http://www.e-catworld.com/2015/03/08/alumi
On Sat, Mar 7, 2015 at 5:57 PM, Jones Beene wrote:
Since Rossi was in control at the critical points – the fraud issue
> revolves around his honesty.
What you say is true. But in applying this standard, it seems we are going
well beyond the kind of protocol that academic scientists would apply
This experiment was never independent and there never was freedom to test
samples without permission. Fraud cannot be ruled out. The only good thing that
came out of it was Parkhomov’s experiment and others in progress which we will
hear more about soon. Patience, Peter, patience.
Rossi had
There are still a possible fraud in isotopes in purpose to mislead
competitors.
On Sat, 7 Mar 2015 21:46:45 +0100, Alain Sepeda wrote:
this does not change the fact that Industrial Heat gave a reactor with
freedom to test anything on it.
This happened also in Ferrara.
this
alone rule out f
this does not change the fact that Industrial Heat gave a reactor with
freedom to test anything on it.
This happened also in Ferrara.
this alone rule out fraud.
once you rule out fraud on the calorimetry, you know that at least IH think
it's reactor works.
The hypothesis og isotope manipulation i
what I would call good engineering and will be
> necessary to coming up with good theory.
>
> Bob Cook
>
>
>
>
>
>
> *From:* Eric Walker
> *To:* vortex-l@eskimo.com
> *Sent:* Friday, March 06, 2015 11:00 PM
> *Subject:* Re: [Vo]:Critique of Levi et al. Lugano
From: alain.coetm...@gmail.com
Ø the statement I refer to were not in the report, but were specific answer
given later.
Yes that is a major problem – a recollection coming months later from the
memory of an embarrassed scientist who had already been caught napping on the
job – is essen
the statement I refer to were not in the report, but were specific answer
given later.
in fact teh statement in the report was ambiguous.
They explain that he was just present...
It seems to be said by Bo Hoistad
http://www.e-catworld.com/2014/12/13/transcript-of-radio-interview-with-bo-hoistad-
oming up with good theory.
Bob Cook
From: Eric Walker
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Sent: Friday, March 06, 2015 11:00 PM
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Critique of Levi et al. Lugano experiment
On Fri, Mar 6, 2015 at 11:47 AM, Jed Rothwell wrote:
Some recent experimental measurements
https://rossiisreal.wordpress.com/2015/03/07/probability-now-9/
Have fun everyone, it's been a blast.
On Sat, Mar 7, 2015 at 7:26 AM, Jones Beene wrote:
> *From:* *alain.coetm...@gmail.com*
>
> Ø "Rossi had physical control of the samples which were tested."
>
> Ø non, the testers
From: alain.coetm...@gmail.com
* "Rossi had physical control of the samples which were tested."
* non, the testers refuted that claim. he was watching, but did not
operate
No, Alain – you did n
Eric Walker wrote:
> Does the faulty analysis of the Lugano test cast doubt on the conclusions
> of the earlier test?
>
Only insofar as it casts doubt on the competence of the researchers. They
did not make any of these serious mistakes in the first tests.
I cannot imagine why they did not use
"Rossi had physical control of the samples which were tested."
non,
the testers refuted that calim.
he was watching, but did not operate
2015-03-07 1:45 GMT+01:00 Jones Beene :
> *From:* Bob Cook
>
>
>
> Jones--
>
> What about Levi's Ni isotopic changes? Does your 1 observations, which seem to
On Fri, Mar 6, 2015 at 11:47 AM, Jed Rothwell wrote:
Some recent experimental measurements by the Martin Fleischmann Memorial
> Project (MFMP) highlighted a possible error in the Hot-Cat calorimetric
> measurement; the calorimetric measurement we are referring to is described
> in the document kn
suggested
Ni isotopic concentrations that were observed in the Lugano test ash.
Bob Cook
- Original Message -
From: Jones Beene
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Sent: Friday, March 06, 2015 4:45 PM
Subject: RE: [Vo]:Critique of Levi et al. Lugano experiment
From: Bob Cook
Post by MFMP:
https://www.facebook.com/MartinFleischmannMemorialProject/posts/934143689949664
On Fri, Mar 6, 2015 at 6:48 PM, Blaze Spinnaker
wrote:
> Great post by MFMP:
>
>
> On Fri, Mar 6, 2015 at 4:45 PM, Jones Beene wrote:
>
>> *From:* Bob Cook
>>
>>
>>
>> Jones--
>>
>> What about Levi's
Great post by MFMP:
On Fri, Mar 6, 2015 at 4:45 PM, Jones Beene wrote:
> *From:* Bob Cook
>
>
>
> Jones--
>
> What about Levi's Ni isotopic changes? Does your 1 observations, which seem to suggest more than your f/H idea? Or were both
> of Levi's isotopic analyses incorrect as well?
>
>
>
>
>
From: Bob Cook
Jones--
What about Levi's Ni isotopic changes? Does your 1
Adrian,
With a COP of 2 in any single unit - it is possible using stacking and feedback
of many units – for the operator to achieve any arbitrarily high net COP – even
infinite COP (no input required).
For instance with 50 units in a module, none of which have a COP of greater
than 2, on
Another kind, sort of, good news it is that the temperature is below the
melting point of nickel. So, we don't have another factor to make things
worse.
conception => consumption
On Fri, Mar 6, 2015 at 6:58 PM, Axil Axil wrote:
> The way to maximize the COP is to apply energy pumping (heat) for a short
> a period as possible to minimize energy input conception. The Lagano test
> did not do that. The testers applied heat all the time. That is lik
The way to maximize the COP is to apply energy pumping (heat) for a short
a period as possible to minimize energy input conception. The Lagano test
did not do that. The testers applied heat all the time. That is like
running your car in first gear. Your gas milage will be very bad.
On Fri, Mar 6,
Jones,
I had speculated earlier that the COP of the Hot Cat might be lower than
the regular E-Cat as the low temperature version is what Rossi has
pursued. As Rossi has claimed a COP of at least 6 in earler days it is
not a stretch to think that he is expecting 6 from the new 1 MW plant
und
RE: [Vo]:Critique of Levi et al. Lugano experimentJones--
What about Levi's Ni isotopic changes? Does your 1https://gsvit.wordpress.com/2015/03/02/tpr2-calorimetry-of-hot-cat-performed-by-means-of-ir-camera-2/
TPR2 – Calorimetry of Hot-Cat performed by means of IR camera
--
From: Jed Rothwell
*
https://gsvit.wordpress.com/2015/03/02/tpr2-calorimetry-of-hot-cat-performed-by-means-of-ir-camera-2/
TPR2 – Calorimetry of Hot-Cat performed by means of IR camera
--
Conclusions: The MFMP experimental d
36 matches
Mail list logo
