Terry Blanton wrote:
After AR said he did not give them the sauce, it looks like:
1) DGT has no working Hyperions.
2) DGT has working Hyperions and stole the sauce.
3) DGT has their own receipe.
You are saying these are the only three likely scenarios, right? They seem
to cover all
Axil Axil wrote:
Even if DGT can build a Rossi knockoff, their own testing has shown
the knockoff to be potentially dangerous and hard to control.
I do not know where you got that information. The Defkalion reactors
appear to be better controlled and safer than Rossi's own prototypes.
OrionWorks - Steven V Johnson svj.orionwo...@gmail.com wrote:
FWIW, the one little itch that I can't ignore is why does DGT continue to
behave in what strikes me as being distinctly conciliatory in
their characterization of Rossi's recent actions. DGT claims they
have developed more control
pca pierre.carbonne...@gmail.com wrote:
Deploying one, let alone millions, of Hyperion units in unsecured places
gives plenty of opportunity for competitors to acquire the device and
reverse engineer its secret. Defkalion's attempts to add security within
the Hyperions are not credible.
I wrote:
It's much better for Rossi to have licencee(s) build a few large
electricity-generating units in well-garded places, and sell the electricity
to resellers.
The strategy would not work, and it would not be allowed. It would not work
because security by obscurity for such a
Alan Fletcher a...@well.com wrote:
Defkalion believes they will be allowed to distribute these things in
Europe before the devices have been vetted by nuclear experts worldwide and
before there is complete understanding the the reaction.
But hasn't Rossi has always said that mini-eCats will
Harry Veeder hlvee...@yahoo.com wrote:
Governments and Corporations don't have to over rule public opinion, as
long as they can shape public opinion to suit their own interests. (Noam
Chomosky's concept of manufactured consent).
No one denies that powerful institutions and people with money
I know little about cosmology, but is it not the case that:
If dark matter exists the universe is more likely to end in a cosmic
crunch, relatively soon.
If it does not exist the universe will end with heat death much farther
into the future.
Just curious about this . . .
Freeman Dyson
That's nifty. The robots are working together like ants in a colony,
with some specialization in roles. The capability of the whole swarm is
greater than that of the individual.
In my opinion, a colony of ants or bees should be though of as a single
biological entity, like an animal body.
An
Daniel Rocha wrote:
But there is a crucial difference between dividing in organs and in
different individuals which is the ability to reach resources. A
colony of cells cannot do much other dividing tasks among themselves
but it cannot reach anything beyond its volume or it must count on
Scroll down article for interesting YouTube video. See:
http://www.wired.com/wiredscience/2009/01/retailrobots/
- Jed
Here is an important link inside of Peter's web page, summarizing
progress by Piantelli:
http://coldfusionnow.wordpress.com/2011/08/16/roy-virgilio-on-piantelli-plus-the-2008-piantelli-hypothesis/
- Jed
Daniel Rocha wrote:
I really do not understand why people trust Piantelli if they do not
trust Rossi.
Some reasons:
Piantelli has done better calorimetry than Rossi.
Piantelli has better academic credentials.
He has published peer-reviewed papers.
He does not publish a blog with
Daniel Rocha danieldi...@gmail.com wrote:
But Focardi assited Rossi, just like he assited Piantelli. If people think
Focardi could be fooled by a demonstration of huge power excess he could
well be get wrong the measurment of a demonstration of low power excess.
I agree this does not make
Alan J Fletcher a...@well.com wrote:
http://lenr.qumbu.com/rossi_ecat_steam_v410A.php
http://lenr.qumbu.com/rossi_ecat_steam_v410A.php%A0 (Working Draft)
The hidden portion of the URL is wrong. This should be:
http://lenr.qumbu.com/rossi_ecat_steam_v410A.php
(looks the same but isn't)
-
Daniel Rocha danieldi...@gmail.com wrote:
I suppose there are also wasted energy to manage the operate the device.
You mean, to power the electronics. I believe this is ~30 W.
- Jed
Joe Catania wrote:
How do you explain the low velocity of steam at exit of E-Cat?
No one measured the velocity as far as I know. There were some videos
taken of it, but they do not prove anything.
I recently borrowed a steam cleaner trying to fix bathroom grout. I
looked at videos of
Joe Catania wrote:
The Rossi machine, judging from what comes out of the hose is not
producing any anomalous heat.
You cannot judge what comes out of the hose. You have not measured it;
not the speed, or the temperature, the dryness or any other parameter.
You know practically nothing about
Alan J Fletcher a...@well.com wrote:
If you mean my numbers -- Given 75% dry I just read off the wattage on the
Nasa diagram. Steam quality on the T-h diagram is linear between points B
and C. I grew up with REAL instruments, where one learns to read a scale to
about 5% accuracy between tick
Abd ul-Rahman Lomax a...@lomaxdesign.com wrote:
No one measured the velocity as far as I know. There were some videos taken
of it, but they do not prove anything.
To anyone who has studied the volume of steam expected from full
vaporization as claimed, those videos raise substantial
This one covers the Feb. 14-hour test with flowing water:
Part 4)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?**v=0vYJIG3ymOkhttp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0vYJIG3ymOk
Continuing in part 5:
Part 5)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?**v=LbDgeAz91VMhttp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LbDgeAz91VM
He mentions
Horace Heffner hheff...@mtaonline.net wrote:
It is you who does not get it. Investing in a free energy scheme which
supposedly produces excess or free heat is not sensible without expert
independent calorimetry being applied which determines a total energy
balance for critical demonstration
Jouni Valkonen jounivalko...@gmail.com wrote:
I stumbled upon in the internet a very simple method for doing
extremely accurate (up to two or three significant digits, depending
on insulation) calorimetric analysis for any water boiler. Method is
simple and all measurements are accurate:
–
Horace Heffner hheff...@mtaonline.net wrote:
If the results indeed were obtained and were positive and useful it is
strange that Defkalion did not pay up according to its contract.
Rossi said repeatedly that he will only be paid after he delivers the 1 MW
reactor. He has not delivered it, so
Originally posted by Angela Kemmler:
The Licence and Technology Transfer Agreement (The LTTA) contains a mile
stone payment arrangement. According to said arrangement, DGT's release of
the first payment to EFA is pending on that EFA meet several technical
requirements. As anticipated in the
Alan J Fletcher a...@well.com wrote:
My attention was drawn to an excellent Rossi eCat simulator by a Rick
Cantwell
http://www.youtube.com/watch?**v=yXTl8z_2Uqohttp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yXTl8z_2Uqo
(It's main deficiency is that he's measuring temperatures on the surface of
the tubes,
Alan Fletcher a...@well.com wrote:
- Percolator effect happens quickly (Lots of water at the outlet -- at
3:30 he empties the hose, and it refills in about 7 seconds.)
This is operating as a TUBE Boiler.
Do you mean it is overflowing? Water mixed with steam is pouring over of the
I have been nonplussed by Levi the last few months, because I was expecting
he would provide more details about the February 2011 18-hour test with
flowing water. I still wish he would do that. As I said, I wish he would
tell me the made and model of the flow meter. I asked; he did not respond.
In
Horace Heffner hheff...@mtaonline.net wrote:
This does not happen with the eCat, as shown in the videos made by Lewan.
How is it shown by Lewan's videos that water does not overflow from the
E-Cat?
In some of the videos he showed the hose removed from the bucket for a few
minutes with
Mattia Rizzi wrote:
In krivit’s video the bucket is removed for around 30seconds, not few
minutes. From 11:10 to 11:20 and from 11:26 to 11:46 (SEE KRIVIT’S VIDEO)
That is correct, but I saw a longer video from Lewan.
- Jed
Mattia Rizzi wrote:
And the water flow can’t be 7 liter/h since the pump is pumping every
2.5-3 seconds, so the true water flow is lower than 3 liter/h
LMI P18 pump has a maximum flow of 12 l/h at 100 strikes/minutes. With
25 strikes/minute is (maximum) 3 l/h. It can be lower than 3 liter/h.
Mattia Rizzi wrote:
In this video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sVEBCN6D13w ? (lewan in
april)
Again, you can see it (removed from water) at 3:17 to 3:37, 20
seconds. And in this video you can hear that there is some (liquid
water) since is very noisy.
I believe I saw a longer one
Susan Gipp susan.g...@gmail.com wrote:
Here the flow meter
http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-0LCgn_05ZGY/TWGehaAfm-I/E5w/Ew3nHhdHUDQ/s1600/E-Cat110211.jpg
It's a simple house utility water meter like this
Thanks. They said it was an ordinary utility meter. Why did you put the word
flow
Jouni Valkonen jounivalko...@gmail.com wrote:
It is kind of sad that Levi refuses to admit that he did poor
measurements with steam tests . . .
1. He does not think he did poor tests; neither do I; and neither does any
expert I have heard from. People here who know little about calorimetry
I wrote:
I believe I saw a longer one somewhere. Will ask Lewan.
I stand corrected. Lewan said he has no videos of steam longer than this.
Here is his entire response, with permission:
Jed,
I only observed the tube held upright once and did not study it carefully.
There did come some water
Mattia Rizzi mattia.ri...@gmail.com wrote:
2. Apart from the initial heat burst, the temperature was steady, as
shown
in the laptop photos they took. So the flow must have been steady.
You have a terrible confusion in your head.
The “laptop photos” doesn’t exists at all for the february
Mattia Rizzi mattia.ri...@gmail.com wrote:
Again, if you write “7 l/h flow” you are talking about the test done in
june, with Krivit.
In june, there wan’t a weight scale . . .
That is not clear. There may have been one. In any case, this same argument
about how the pump works has been
Susan Gipp susan.g...@gmail.com wrote:
Jed have you had any a chance to live in Italy for some time ?
The test location is just in the middle of an industrial area.
- At any time any business facility around could have drown an abnormal
water consumption (there is a car wash nearby)
At this
Mattia Rizzi wrote:
Again, you wrote that “the temperature was steady, as shown in the
laptop photos they took”.
These photos are not pubblicated. So there isn’t “as show”, it’s again
a “RossiLevi said”.
It would be easy to make fake photos or a fake video. So even if they
published photos,
I do not like to be argumentative. Perhaps I misunderstand Abd's argument
here. But it seems to me he repeatedly claimed that in order to measure a
mysterious source of heat from an unknown phonomenon, you must have
detailed, time-sequenced data. It is not enough to have one number. Even if
the
Sorry. I meant to say measuring the UFO speed does NOT call for modern
methods, or photography. George Washington, who was well trained in
surveying, could have done it with ease. (I suppose that training and
tramping around in the wilderness surveying property must have proved
invaluable to him
Mattia Rizzi mattia.ri...@gmail.com wrote:
Yeah. There is a problem: in Lewan’s test, where the flow was accurately
measured by an independent observer (Lewan), the noise from the pump is
consistent with the water flow written inside the report.
Which report by Lewan do you refer to? What
Jouni Valkonen jounivalko...@gmail.com wrote:
Was this approach right or wrong, it can be debated. I think that it was
just wrong approach.
I agree. Plus I think a test of a 1 MW reactor is fraught with difficulties.
It is much easier to test 1 to 10 kW.
In my opinnion Rossi should have
I wrote:
Scientific instruments and techniques hundreds of years old can measure
temperature, the speed of an object, the speed of light and many other
important values with as much confidence as the best technology can today;
albeit with far less precision.
Note that the speed of light
Mattia Rizzi mattia.ri...@gmail.com wrote:
Report of 28 april:
http://www.nyteknik.se/incoming/article3166569.ece/BINARY/Report+test+of+E-cat+28+April+2011.pdf
As you can hear, the stroke frequency is around 32 strokes/minute, which
equals to a maximum flow of 3.8 liters/h (= 12.1 *
Horace Heffner hheff...@mtaonline.net wrote:
The correct thing to do is to do calorimetry on the output using a well
calibrated professionally designed calorimeter independent of the device
itself . . .
Defkalion claims they have done this.
Alarm bells should go off in your head when you
Joe Catania zrosumg...@aol.com wrote:
**
One should stay away from E-Cat calorimetry and instead perform calorimetry
on the actual nickel-hydrogen reaction.
What is the difference? An eCat is a reactor vessel, and so is a Defkalion
reactor. You can only perform calorimetry on a vessel of some
Abd ul-Rahman Lomax wrote:
The instruments prove that radium and the Rossi reactor produce
stable, unvarying heat. That much we know.
No, we don't know that at all. Jed, sometimes I can't figure out where
you get this nonsense. We sort-of-know that the temperature in the
reactor chimney is
Abd ul-Rahman Lomax wrote:
You are perfectly aware that Rossi chose to use a method of measuring
heat that was utterly inconclusive.
You meant the steam method. I am aware that some people think it is
inconclusive. As far as I know, experts in calorimetry and steam think
it is conclusive.
Abd ul-Rahman Lomax wrote:
A single measure can be of interest, but rarely would it be conclusive.
This may be a misunderstanding. They did not perform a single
measurement. They measured repeatedly, and recorded the numbers. The
numbers were about the same in all cases, ~5°C, so that is
Alan J Fletcher wrote:
5°C 5°C 5°C 5°C 5°C 5°C 5°C 5°C 5°C 5°C 5°C 5°C 5°C 5°C 5°C 5°C 5°C
5°C 5°C 5°C
If I saw THAT I'd yell FAKE.
5.01°C 4.98°C 4.98°C 5.00°C ...
Yes, I was kidding.
| Abd ul-Rahman Lomax said
| .. and given the ubiquity of cheap logging devices ..
Ah .. the cheap
Joe Catania wrote:
I'm suggesting what I believe many others have. What should be
eliminated is complications like anything flowing, anything shanging
phase, heat leakage.
Phase changes are a problem, although ice calorimetry has been around
for a long time.
The only kind of calorimetry
Horace Heffner hheff...@mtaonline.net wrote:
Hold on there! I assume you refer to the discussions and churning here, in
this group.
You assume wrongly. I refer in addition to Rossi's blog, the CMNS news
list, Krivit's blog, public press, etc., etc.
Ah, well these other forums are also
Daniel Rocha danieldi...@gmail.com wrote:
Pretty much the total destruction of all confidence I have in LENR. If so
many competent people in the field were cheated that easily by Rossi, I can
expect much worse from everyone, even in the sense of self deception.
Some questions:
How many
Jouni Valkonen wrote:
On Aug 25, 2011 5:45 PM, Mattia Rizzi wrote:
In krivit’s video Rossi said that water flow was 7 kg/h.
Rossi is lying.
This is obvious. But question is why Rossi did lie in such a trivial
way that everyone can see it?
I do not find it so obvious. It seems likely to
Jouni Valkonen wrote:
«LENR is another avenue. It's not just about Rossi. If the Rossi thing
doesn't happen, then maybe something else will. Rossi has brought a
lot of attention to the field. Any researchers who have a legitimate
claim are going to benefit from this.»
–Michael A. Nelson,
Stephen A. Lawrence wrote:
If Rossi turns out to be a fraud, or hugely mistaken for some reason,
the skeptics here will deserve no credit for predicting this.
Getting a little defensive, are we, Jed?
No, but I am sick of people who play it safe by predicting failure where
failure is
Horace Heffner wrote:
It is not primarily the people competent in this field that stand to
be cheated if Rossi's device is a fraud or self deception. There are
plenty of people with a lot of money who are scientifically clueless.
These are the kind of people that can be suckered in by
Mattia Rizzi wrote:
Jed, what is your academic background?
Japanese language and literature.
- Jed
Joe Catania zrosumg...@aol.com wrote:
**
The 3rd video refers to Levi shutting of the power to the E-Cat and steam
production continuing for 15 minutes. This could easily be explained by
thermal inertia. IE the metal and hydrogen of the E-Cat will still be at a
high temperature when power is
Susan Gipp wrote:
Jed, how many words wasted !
Just recall how Rossi reacted, time ago, when you proposed to make a
test in Bologna using your own tools and what he said when you asked
him to visit his Florida plant !
Didn't any alarm bell ring ?
Yes, as I have said again and again, if we
Joe Catania wrote:
Yes I honestly mean toward 100C. If the metal is below 100C to start
we never get boiling so of course its above 100C (by alot) and will
cool to 100C which is the temp of boiling water.
I still don't follow what you have in mind. Take the metal at the bottom
of a pot on
Finlay MacNab wrote:
Since the January announcement at the University of Bologna sparked my
interest in the topic, your library of CF literature has been an
extremely useful resource for me. I value your point of view and in
my estimation you have the mind of a true scientist regardless of
I meant to say: I did not write all those papers, so the real credit goes to
the authors.
The researchers have done a terrific job with practically no resources. With
funding the size of sparrow's tears, as they say in Japanese. People often
say there has been no progress in cold fusion. I say
On 8/25/2011 5:36 PM, Joe Catania wrote:
No, the metal is certainly 100C (I think alot greater).
Electric heaters such as the ones in the eCat have an upper limit in
temperature. It is much lower than a stove nichrome heating element,
which goes up to about 1200°C.
As for an experiment I
Oops. 3 kWh in 15 minutes, not 4. 10,800 kJ. Assuming the eCat weighs 10
kg and it is mostly carbon steel the temperature goes up 2,200 K, not
2,930 K. I guess it has to go up this much starting at 100°C, in order
to cool down to 100°C after releasing 3 kW. That's 373 K + 2,200 K which
is
Joe Catania wrote:
No, its not out of the question at all. Since we don't know the flow
rate of water (whether its flowing or not) and since it isn't
particularly relevant I neglect it.
The water is always flowing. This is a flow calorimeter.
It is completely unrealistic to suppose that you
Joe Catania wrote:
I've already prooven it. Furthermore I demonstrated it.
Your demonstration employed roughly 50,000 times less water than the
eCat, and nichrome metal heated to incandescence. The eCat never gets
that hot. So your demonstration was so different from the December eCat
test
Here are some comments by Levi about the video and the Heat After Death
event. Not terribly important, but . . .
http://22passi.blogspot.com/2011/08/agosto-comincia-molto-bene.html
Note that if you use Google to translate this, Rossi converts to Smith.
- Jed
Joe Catania zrosumg...@aol.com wrote:
The facts are in.
There are no facts in this discussion; only speculation.
As it stands it is a given that thermal inertia could easily explain the 15
minute boiling. Your arguments are unsubstatiated.
And your arguments would require the metal to be
Joe Catania wrote:
There certainly are facts involved namely could the boiling be caused
by the heat stored in the metal, etc. of the E-Cat to last 15 minutes.
Facts. H. . . . Okay then, tell us:
How much metal? How hot did it get? Assume 3 kWh are stored, enough to
vaporize 4.4 kg of
Joe Catania zrosumg...@aol.com wrote:
3kW is not negligible- one of Rossi's E-Cat's only supposedly vaporizes
2g/s of water which takes less than 5kW.
I did not explain that correctly. 3 kW is the most the reactor could produce
in the absence of any anomalous heat. It is the maximum electric
I have a low regard for the History Channel. I have seen documentaries
there occasionally. When they are about a subject I know well, even one that
is well documented such as the Battle of Midway, I have seen that they are
filled with mistakes. They are written by people who know nothing about the
Joe Catania zrosumg...@aol.com wrote:
When the power is cut the steam will still be produced according to thermal
inertia. Thermal inertia isn't heater input and it isn't fusion.
If it was thermal inertia the power would decline rapidly and total stored
up energy would run out in a minute or
Peter Heckert peter.heck...@arcor.de wrote:
BTW, there is an elegant method to see if the steam is dry: Dissolve a
marker substance in the water, salt or sugar or something else. When the
input concentration is known, the concentration in output water can be
measured and compared.
When the
Joe Catania zrosumg...@aol.com wrote:
**
Again thermal inertia is a fact- not an if. Thermail inertia does not run
out after one minute as I have shown.
You have asserted that, but in order to show it you would have to
demonstrate that the specific heat of metal is much higher than the
ecat builder wrote:
With October fast approaching, I have some easy questions:
Where is Rossi right now?
Where is his lab/factory that is producing E-cats for the 1MW test?
Wouldn't it be easy for someone to follow him from his apartment to
the factory? Give an address, count cars in the
Terry Blanton hohlr...@gmail.com wrote:
You cannot sell
commercial products in the United States, the EU or Japan without telling
people how they work and without first submitting them to safety
regulatory
agencies for testing and licensing.
In the US, approval will be required from the
Mark Iverson-ZeroPoint wrote:
Compare the heat capacity of any metal with water and you will see
that water can store 100 to 1000 times more heat per mass than any metal.
It is a factor of 10 for most metals, per unit of mass. Not 100 or 1000.
The eCat is mostly steel which is 0.49 kJ/kg
Jouni Valkonen wrote:
Ps. I do not know what model of E-Cat we are talking about. Does we
have pictures? Or is it just some mythical test what was seen by nobody.
The 15 minute heat-after-death event was with the large eCat used in the
January and February tests. This produces 12 kW to 16
Terry Blanton wrote:
I concur, Nick. These are violations of forum rules.
Perhaps, but let us not be too thin-skinned. Or politically correct.
Let's not ban anyone. If someone irritates you, just add the name to
your own auto-delete list.
- Jed
Joe Catania wrote:
Oops! I assumed that there actually was outflow water at this stage
but there does not seem to be evidence of that.
You have an extraordinary imagination, thinking that people run flow
calorimeters without a flow.
- Jed
Horace Heffner wrote:
As far as I know, this is the only eCat that Levi et al. tested in
December, which is when the event occurred. The flow rate was
typically ~300 ml/min I believe.
Are you sure about that flow rate being present in the heat after
death observation?
How else could it
Horace Heffner wrote:
You are providing the input data so you should know which test you are
talking about. Jed says the first test.
No, I said it was the device used in the first public test. The large
eCat, shown in many photos. As far as I know this was the only eCat they
used in
Joe Catania wrote:
Until I see the data you refer to all I can say is its seems like more
of a guess.
Okay. Ask Krivit to show it to you again. It was there before.
It seems like a pretty good guess to me, since they told me they worked
with the gadget for a month before demonstrating it.
Horace Heffner wrote:
How else could it work? It would run out of water. Very little fits
into the cell. You cannot do flow calorimetry without a flow. It
would be like trying to do it without measuring the temperature.
Obviously my question is are you sure that *precise magnitude* of flow
See the remarkable progress in fake artificial intelligence at Cornell (yes,
that's what I meant):
http://www.slate.com/blogs/future_tense/2011/08/29/two_chatbots_walk_into_a_room_video_.html
This chatbot, seen here in an illuminating debate with itself, should join
the discussion here and also
See:
http://www.renewableenergyworld.com/rea/news/article/2011/08/batteries-for-energy-storage-new-developments-promise-grid-flexibility-and-stability
QUOTE:
The Electric Reliability Council of Texas Inc. (ERCOT) faced the renewable
power industry's most critical issue in February 2008. With a
Jouni Valkonen jounivalko...@gmail.com wrote:
The 15 minute heat-after-death event was with the large eCat used in the
January and February tests. . . .
Ah, now I know exactly what is going on.
Here is the premilinary report (Test1):
On 8/31/2011 9:46 AM, Robert Leguillon wrote:
That 1.21 Gigawatt drop in production could correspond to some kind of a flux
capacitor being attached to the grid.
Wouldn't that be an increase in demand? Not a drop in production.
I don't think it takes long to charge up a flux capacitor. It
Two months is more like it.
However, Rossi statement appears to contradict the title of this thread
which is . . . with full access to cores. Rossi says with full access to
all but the reactors which I take to mean the reactor cores.
- Jed
Jouni Valkonen wrote:
I am sure that Rossi
was quite well familiar with the real power of E-Cat, because water
inflow rate was adjusted in right level.
I believe he does it the other way. He leaves the water inflow rate
steady and adjusts the power output to vaporize all of the water. In the
Horace Heffner hheff...@mtaonline.net wrote:
Of course Rossi has perfect control operating in the range chosen. All
he has to do is provide enough sustained power to heat the water flow to
boiling temperature, call it Pb, or a enogh above that for a momentary
steam demonstration.
It isn't
The Levi interview Part 3 was originally here, I think:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N9Vyjlj8PLM
That video is no longer available. However, Part 3 has been moved here:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LN289NOs6Mk
The URLs for all interviews are listed here:
http://rossiportal.com/
- Jed
Daniel Rocha danieldi...@gmail.com wrote:
Now he also has a mnemonical domain that just redirects to his site!!!
He installed that domain name a couple of months ago, I think.
I added a link to it from LENR-CANR.org.
- Jed
Horace Heffner hheff...@mtaonline.net wrote:
The public demonstrations to date prove nothing because the methods used
are so flawed.
That is incorrect. As Rossi and I have pointed out many times, if there were
flaws in the steam test, the flowing water test would have revealed them.
Since it
Horace Heffner hheff...@mtaonline.net wrote:
The flowing water test was not public as far as I know. Where is the
report showing the data etc.?
The data is in NyTeknik and LENR-CANR.org.
If you do not trust Levi et al. to report the results of the flow test
honestly and accurately, then
Alan J Fletcher a...@well.com wrote:
Rossi: The Scientific Verdict
http://blog.newenergytimes.com/2011/08/28/rossi-the-scientific-verdict/
His summary doesn't exactly match the history that I recall ... but I don't
feel up to a point-by-point rebuttal.
Neither do I. Here is my rebuttal:
Joe Catania zrosumg...@aol.com wrote:
Not only have I been the subject of ad hominems for a presentaion that is
obvious by the very nature of what is being discussed, there have been false
allegations and insults to nature
ahem Mother Nature has authorized me act on Her behalf, as Her
Joe Catania wrote:
ahem Mother Nature has authorized me act on Her behalf, as Her
agent. I am authorized to forgive these insults. But also to warn you
people to Watch Your Step. Next time She may not be so magnanimous.
- Jed
Jed appears to be pursued by demons. What else would induce a
201 - 300 of 13565 matches
Mail list logo
