Re: [Vo]:Why Levi is upset

At 11:06 PM 6/20/2011, Jed Rothwell wrote: Abd ul-Rahman Lomax <a...@lomaxdesign.com> wrote: The fact that Rossi has done what he claims is equally self-evident to me. The speculation about wet and dry steam is bunk. The second test proved that beyond any doubt. It

Re: [Vo]:Why Levi is upset

Abd ul-Rahman Lomax wrote: > > The fact that Rossi has done what he claims is equally self-evident to me. >> The speculation about wet and dry steam is bunk. The second test proved that >> beyond any doubt. It is a waste of time even discussing it. >> > > Jed might be right. However, in the absen

Re: [Vo]:Why Levi is upset

At 04:38 PM 6/20/2011, Jed Rothwell wrote: The fact that Rossi has done what he claims is equally self-evident to me. The speculation about wet and dry steam is bunk. The second test proved that beyond any doubt. It is a waste of time even discussing it. Jed might be right. However, in the abs

Re: [Vo]:Why Levi is upset

At 02:19 PM 6/20/2011, Jed Rothwell wrote: Another factor is that I have some unpublished information about this test, and about some other private tests. I do not have a huge amount of information, but enough to give me more confidence in the results. Stephen Lawrence does not have this inform

Re: [Vo]:Why Levi is upset

At 10:52 AM 6/20/2011, Jed Rothwell wrote: Abd ul-Rahman Lomax wrote: There is a classic demonstration, used to be common in high school physics labs: you boil water in a paper cup, over a flame, as I recall. A paper cup!? Yeah. I think one of my high school science teachers, the chemistr

Re: [Vo]:Why Levi is upset

At 05:32 PM 6/19/2011, Stephen A. Lawrence wrote: Also think about how you find yourself responding to my comment. Do you find yourself imagining that I have a motive, You must have a motive but I can't imagine what it is. (It never, in a million years, would have occurred to me that you wer

Re: [Vo]:Why Levi is upset

At 04:59 PM 6/19/2011, Stephen A. Lawrence wrote: On 11-06-19 04:38 PM, Abd ul-Rahman Lomax wrote: At 11:57 AM 6/19/2011, Stephen A. Lawrence wrote: I won't argue this with you again, Jed, I had enough trouble getting you to admit that it's possible to have steam at higher than 100 C at 1 at

Re: [Vo]:Why Levi is upset

OrionWorks - Steven V Johnson wrote: Can you elaborate a little more about such "unpublished information". Nope. Sorry. Over the past year I mentioned several times that I heard about private tests of the eCats. Some worked, others did not. Some of the people doing these tests shared a few r

Re: [Vo]:Why Levi is upset

>From Jed: ... > Another factor is that I have some unpublished information about this test, > and about some other private tests. I do not have a huge amount of > information, but enough to give me more confidence in the results. Stephen > Lawrence does not have this information so naturally he

Re: [Vo]:Why Levi is upset

I wrote: Lost performative here. That's why Stephen and Jed are talking past each other. Jed means "confirmed for Levi and Rossi," . . . That's exactly what I meant. Obviously if you don't take Levi's word for it, this is not proof for you. I should have said: this is not CONFIRMATION for y

Re: [Vo]:Why Levi is upset

Abd ul-Rahman Lomax wrote: No it didn't because it wasn't public and details weren't documented. Lost performative here. That's why Stephen and Jed are talking past each other. Jed means "confirmed for Levi and Rossi," Stephen means "didn't confirm for the rest of us." Basically, "confirmed"

Re: [Vo]:Why Levi is upset

Abd ul-Rahman Lomax wrote: There is a classic demonstration, used to be common in high school physics labs: you boil water in a paper cup, over a flame, as I recall. A paper cup!? Please, folks, don't stick your hand in that invisible steam. It may only be at 100 degrees, but it's dangerous

Re: [Vo]:Why Levi is upset

- Original Message > From: Stephen A. Lawrence > To: vortex-l@eskimo.com > Sent: Sun, June 19, 2011 8:01:26 AM > Subject: Re: [Vo]:Why Levi is upset > > > > On 11-06-18 10:57 PM, Harry Veeder wrote: > > > > Stephen A. Lawrence wrote: > >&

Re: [Vo]:Why Levi is upset

ahh... so it is nothing more than misunderstanding about the meaning of the word "report". Harry - Original Message > From: Akira Shirakawa > To: vortex-l@eskimo.com > Sent: Sun, June 19, 2011 1:32:02 PM > Subject: Re: [Vo]:Why Levi is upset > > On 20

Re: [Vo]:Why Levi is upset

- Original Message > From: Stephen A. Lawrence > To: vortex-l@eskimo.com > Sent: Sun, June 19, 2011 12:03:30 PM > Subject: Re: [Vo]:Why Levi is upset > > Ooops, overlooked something in your message. > > On 11-06-19 11:39 AM, Jed Rothwell wrote: > >

Re: [Vo]:Why Levi is upset

On 11-06-19 05:22 PM, Abd ul-Rahman Lomax wrote: At 12:09 PM 6/19/2011, Stephen A. Lawrence wrote: I won't argue this with you again, Jed, I had enough trouble getting you to admit that it's possible to have steam at higher than 100 C at 1 atmosphere of pressure. Oh come now. Don't make fa

Re: [Vo]:Why Levi is upset

At 12:09 PM 6/19/2011, Stephen A. Lawrence wrote: I won't argue this with you again, Jed, I had enough trouble getting you to admit that it's possible to have steam at higher than 100 C at 1 atmosphere of pressure. Oh come now. Don't make false accusations. I admitted fully and frankly that

Re: [Vo]:Why Levi is upset

On 11-06-19 04:38 PM, Abd ul-Rahman Lomax wrote: At 11:57 AM 6/19/2011, Stephen A. Lawrence wrote: I won't argue this with you again, Jed, I had enough trouble getting you to admit that it's possible to have steam at higher than 100 C at 1 atmosphere of pressure. Stephen, perhaps you are m

Re: [Vo]:Why Levi is upset

At 12:03 PM 6/19/2011, Stephen A. Lawrence wrote: Ooops, overlooked something in your message. On 11-06-19 11:39 AM, Jed Rothwell wrote: 3. The second test with liquid phase flow calorimetry confirmed that the first test was right No it didn't because it wasn't public and details weren't do

Re: [Vo]:Why Levi is upset

At 11:57 AM 6/19/2011, Stephen A. Lawrence wrote: I won't argue this with you again, Jed, I had enough trouble getting you to admit that it's possible to have steam at higher than 100 C at 1 atmosphere of pressure. Stephen, perhaps you are making the same mistake here, misunderstanding what'

Re: [Vo]:Why Levi is upset

At 08:37 PM 6/18/2011, you wrote: Why Levi is upset is more evident in this exchange between Steven Krivit and Luigi Versaggi P. https://www.facebook.com/#!/notes/cold-fusion-andrea-rossi-method/i-made-a-question-to-steven-krivit/235485236468276 If I recall correctly someone wrote on the vort

Re: [Vo]:Why Levi is upset

At 11:39 AM 6/19/2011, Jed Rothwell wrote: He is a very frank.He said emphatically he wants no more tests before the 1 MW demonstration. I think that policy is ill-advised. I do not understand it. But it is his decision, and I suppose he has his reasons. Well, there are two possible reasons th

RE: [Vo]:Why Levi is upset

>From Andrea Rossi: > June 18th, 2011 at 4:02 AM > ... By the way: in a statement he released further, he [Krivit] > said that while Prof. Levi told him there was a report about this issue, > I said in the interview that there was not a report about this issue. > This is a translation pr

Re: [Vo]:Why Levi is upset

On 11-06-19 12:13 PM, Jed Rothwell wrote: Stephen A. Lawrence mailto:sa...@pobox.com>> wrote: That's like a poker game where nobody has to show their cards, they just state what they have and everyone believes them. In poker, you do not have to show your card if everyone else folds.

Re: [Vo]:Why Levi is upset

At 10:57 PM 6/18/2011, Harry Veeder wrote: If you were Rossi the businessman, and you knew your device has turned water into steam for short periods of time without any input power, wouldn't you treat the steam quality issue as a minor concern? Harry Sure, I might, but I would also understand

Re: [Vo]:Why Levi is upset

On 2011-06-19 02:37, Harry Veeder wrote: If I recall correctly someone wrote on the vortex list back in feburary or march that Galantini never wrote a report, so that fact is not news. Steven Kirvit managed to catch Levi uttering a 'white lie' to *him*. Is that fact news? Try read the followin

Re: [Vo]:Why Levi is upset

Stephen A. Lawrence wrote: > 3. The second test with liquid phase flow calorimetry confirmed that the >> first test was right >> > > No it didn't because it wasn't public and details weren't documented. I said that too. Only a few details were released. If you believe these details, then the s

Re: [Vo]:Why Levi is upset

On 11-06-19 12:04 PM, Jed Rothwell wrote: Stephen A. Lawrence mailto:sa...@pobox.com>> wrote: 1. I do not see them "admitting" any such thing. 2. It cannot be "obvious" to you because you were not there and you have not used instruments or done tests to measure the enthalpy o

Re: [Vo]:Why Levi is upset

Stephen A. Lawrence wrote: > > 1. I do not see them "admitting" any such thing. > > 2. It cannot be "obvious" to you because you were not there and you have > not used instruments or done tests to measure the enthalpy of the steam. > > > It was obvious from the output temperature curves and descr

Re: [Vo]:Why Levi is upset

Ooops, overlooked something in your message. On 11-06-19 11:39 AM, Jed Rothwell wrote: 3. The second test with liquid phase flow calorimetry confirmed that the first test was right No it didn't because it wasn't public and details weren't documented. It was viewed, in private, by exactly t

Re: [Vo]:Why Levi is upset

On 11-06-19 11:39 AM, Jed Rothwell wrote: Stephen A. Lawrence mailto:sa...@pobox.com>> wrote: Coupled with the admission that the steam was wet (which has seemed pretty obvious to me for quite a while, though, as I've said before, I'm no expert) this makes Galantini's assertions

Re: [Vo]:Why Levi is upset

Stephen A. Lawrence wrote: Coupled with the admission that the steam was wet (which has seemed pretty > obvious to me for quite a while, though, as I've said before, I'm no expert) > this makes Galantini's assertions about steam look pretty unreliable. 1. I do not see them "admitting" any such

Re: [Vo]:Why Levi is upset

Harry Veeder wrote: > > Why do they insist on using phase change measurements anyway? There > > are a dozen better ways to measure energy flow. > > > > I think Levi and Rossi did the private flow test in feburary to really > convince > themselves, and not to the arm chair skeptics, that their i

Re: [Vo]:Why Levi is upset

On 11-06-18 10:57 PM, Harry Veeder wrote: Stephen A. Lawrence wrote: On 11-06-18 09:21 PM, Terry Blanton wrote: I don't think Galantini is a thermodynamics expert. Jed is right about sparging the steam. Why do they insist on using phase change measurements anyway? There are a dozen better

Re: [Vo]:Why Levi is upset

I think the fact that Levi was caught telling a white lie about a report that does not exist is certainly news since it brings into question Levi's trustworthiness. If he was caught lying about the existence of that Galantini report, what else is he lying about? If you read the comments section o

Re: [Vo]:Why Levi is upset

Stephen A. Lawrence wrote: > On 11-06-18 09:21 PM, Terry Blanton wrote: > > I don't think Galantini is a thermodynamics expert.  Jed is right > > about sparging the steam. > > > > Why do they insist on using phase change measurements anyway?  There > > are a dozen better ways to measure energ

Re: [Vo]:Why Levi is upset

On 2011-06-19 04:06, Stephen A. Lawrence wrote: I can't be sure from Krivit's rather murky summary of events whether Levi was actually lying about it, or was confused, mistaken, or had been misled by Rossi, but whatever the underlying situation is, Levi comes across looking very bad here, IMHO.

Re: [Vo]:Why Levi is upset

On 11-06-18 09:21 PM, Terry Blanton wrote: I don't think Galantini is a thermodynamics expert. Jed is right about sparging the steam. Why do they insist on using phase change measurements anyway? There are a dozen better ways to measure energy flow. OK, you asked for it, somebody should sa

Re: [Vo]:Why Levi is upset

On 11-06-18 08:37 PM, Harry Veeder wrote: Why Levi is upset is more evident in this exchange between Steven Krivit and Luigi Versaggi P. https://www.facebook.com/#!/notes/cold-fusion-andrea-rossi-method/i-made-a-question-to-steven-krivit/235485236468276 If I recall correctly someone wrote on

Re: [Vo]:Why Levi is upset

- Original Message > From: Terry Blanton > To: vortex-l@eskimo.com > Sent: Sat, June 18, 2011 9:21:53 PM > Subject: Re: [Vo]:Why Levi is upset > > I don't think Galantini is a thermodynamics expert.  Jed is right > about sparging the steam. > > W

Re: [Vo]:Why Levi is upset

I don't think Galantini is a thermodynamics expert. Jed is right about sparging the steam. Why do they insist on using phase change measurements anyway? There are a dozen better ways to measure energy flow. T