Peter Heckert wrote:
What do you think why did he invite an AP journalist who has no
technical or scientific knowledge?
Who told you this journalist has no technical or scientific knowledge?
Did you communicate with the journalist? Where did you get this information?
Please do not make
Mattia Rizzi wrote:
The point 2 is CRITICAL when the measuremnt is done with point 1,
because without using a demister you made a mesuremnt error that
*over-extimate* the real energy produced.
Over-estimate by how much? 470 kW? I doubt it. The exact power level
does not matter. An hour
Someone pointed out to me that when Lewan made the video, the valve leading
to the condensate bucket was closed. It must have been open before that,
because there was condensate in the bucket. Based on how toy steam engines
work, I suppose that pipe had a great deal of water and condensate in it
Mattia Rizzi wrote:
Jed, how can you made such measurements without even a water trap?
That was a water trap. You can see it trapped water and condensate.
Presumably when steam began coming out, they closed it. That's how
people operate steam engines, as I mentioned.
Why you can't
On Fri, Nov 4, 2011 at 1:16 PM, Peter Heckert peter.heck...@arcor.dewrote:
Am 04.11.2011 06:59, schrieb Peter Gluck:
Very well written paper. Bravissimo, Haiko!
If you understand german read my comment:
Peter Heckert peter.heck...@arcor.de wrote:
Rossi is overworked and unable to explain the simplest facts correctly.
In all seriousness, that is true. It is important aspect of his personality.
I do not think it is because he is overworked. I think he is just not good
at explaining things.
Daniel Rocha danieldi...@gmail.com wrote:
Is that really a fake PhD? I thought it was an honorary doctorate for his
biofuel powerplant.
Ah, that may explain it. Perhaps he has two honorary PhDs, one for the
biofuel, and one from the diploma mill. Perhaps he thought I was talking
about the
Peter Heckert peter.heck...@arcor.de wrote:
This explains why the e-cat leaks and fails when really serious customers
and NASA scientists are present.
In all seriousness, I expect it does. It also explains why he ran the
October 6 demonstration without bothering to put an SD card into the
Peter Heckert peter.heck...@arcor.de wrote:
I'm sure he would say go ahead and ignore that if you like; just look at
the physical facts.
If he does it this way, then he cannot know the difference between a
random effect, a systematic measurement error or a real physical fact. How
can he
This one is pretty good too.
http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-205_162-57318762/cold-fusion-debate-heats-up-after-latest-demo/
I told someone who is looking for funding that venture capitalists will not
touch this field as long as we have mass media publishing articles with
titles like Cold Fusion
Here is an interesting comment in the Wikipedia discussion from someone who
claims he or she was present at the Oct. 6 test. Does anyone know what
kettle stone means? Deposits from evaporated water?
Keep, Been present at the oct6 testing of the device, I confirm a 100%
certain that the average
That's hilarious.
What is it with these people? I do not understand why they are so anxious
to keep people from finding out about things they oppose. They hate the
idea that people will discuss the issue, or learn something about it. I
don't like creationism, and I hate these people opposed to
Terry Blanton hohlr...@gmail.com wrote:
Yes, also called boiler scale:
http://www.magnumarchive.com/c/iconographic-encyclopedia-volume-5/Storage-Water-Its-Purification.html
http://www.eutechinst.com/techtips/tech-tips45.htm
I'm sure you can't read all my posts, nor would you want to;
Miley says the results with 100 to 300 W are new. He has not had time to
update the slides with these results. I hope to get more details from him
next week. I will report them here.
- Jed
This statement has been added to some of the articles on Rossi, such as the
Daily Mail one. I assume it is really from the press office. It sounds like
it:
The University of Bologna is not involved on E-Cat experiments conducted by
Leonardo Corp., the company owned by Andrea Rossi. The University
Mary Yugo asked me, how do we know for sure that any of this information
provided by Rossi on Oct. 28 is real? None of the invited scientists and
press people had any access to any sort of meters or measuring devices She
has a valid point. As I said here, we do not know for sure. The Oct. 6 test
OrionWorks - Steven Vincent Johnson orionwo...@charter.net wrote:
For Krivit to have produced a technically accurate word-for-word
translation of Rossi's broken English, a typical Rossi-reply which was
filled with Italian inflections, and pauses, and umms, and as and
ehs, was in my opinion
See:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ASiLOIGAjKsfeature=related
Peter Gluck peter.gl...@gmail.com wrote:
I am really far from being a Rossi-fan but this is a kitschy trick,
irrelevant and inefficient, and the natural reaction is contrary to that
expected by the reporter.
The reporter meaning Krivit? I expect exactly this kind of thing from
him, but
See:
http://www.xecnet.com/publish.htm
Book blurb:
Featured Book
Our featured book is John Michell's new book Rossi's eCat - Free Energy,
Free Money, Free People.
Out Now!
2011 – And an amazing technology has been developed in Italy which has been
described as the greatest scientific
Stephen A. Lawrence sa...@pobox.com wrote:
Eh? This will make it impossible to verify that the anything was given to
anybody, and we'll just have to take Rossi's word for it, right?
Or we can not take his word, and put this subject aside. This has no
bearing at all on cold fusion. What Rossi
Horace Heffner hheff...@mtaonline.net wrote:
I continue to plod along on a simulation of prospective E-cat designs to
fit the 6 Oct 2011 Rossi test results. I have simulated various
combinations of materials for thermal storage and have found that a couple
slabs of ordinary Portland cement
Stephen A. Lawrence sa...@pobox.com wrote:
That is true up to the moment when he makes public commitments as to what
he's doing with it.
As he has done.
What commitments? Has he signed a contract? Did he give a check to some
charitable organization, and did this check bounce? I'm not aware
Stephen A. Lawrence sa...@pobox.com wrote:
1. As I said before, I have never seen Rossi lie about engineering
technical claims.
Granted that's not a blanket defense but it certainly can be applied to
lots of specific details.
Oh come now. I said very specifically that I HAVE seen him lie
Susan Gipp wrote:
An essential requirement to tell credible lies is to have a very good
memory ...
Which indicates that Rossi is not lying, but rather changing his mind
repeatedly. I know that he does that about all kinds of things. It is a
useful trait in a hands-on experimentalist.
-
Stephen A. Lawrence wrote:
Isotope shifts!?! I must have said a hundred times these shifts make
no sense and I suppose they are errors.
Sorry! I thought you had defended that one. (It was, after all, one
of Rossi's technical claims, as I recall -- the 'created' copper has
non-natural
Rossi wrote:
3 - big problem: the patent I have not been recognized outside Italy and
the theory would reveal much.
This confirms what I have suspected for a long time. Rossi's biggest
problem is that he does not have viable intellectual property protection.
He is floundering around trying
Peter Heckert wrote:
Under industrial conditions and full load it would overheat, leak
again, or the electric would fail after the first leak and steam
inside. No normal customer would want to buy this.
You are correct that this is a prototype, not a finished industrial
product. That is
OrionWorks - Steven V Johnson wrote:
This confirms what I have suspected for a long time. Rossi's biggest
problem is that he does not have viable intellectual property protection.
He is floundering around trying to find a way to sell his product, while
protecting it with trade secrets rather
Peter Heckert peter.heck...@arcor.de wrote:
If the self destruction mechanism is inside, they cannot do this.
I doubt there is a self-destruct mechanism. However, if there is one, the
company that bought the 1 MW reactor now has over 100 individual cells to
work with. After experts open up to
Mattia Rizzi mattia.ri...@gmail.com wrote:
Maybe filing a *true* patent request, instead of one that is bullshit.
I suspect he is not capable of doing that.
Contact DoD/DoE (Rossi did it and they refused to finance) . . .
The DoD and DoE cannot finance something like this. DARPA might
Horace Heffner hheff...@mtaonline.net wrote:
If you spent an hour or so looking at what I actually provided instead of
generating arm waving non quantitative babble then you might gain some
understanding.
It is not arm waving to point out that THERE IS NO CONCRETE in the reactor.
None. You
Mattia Rizzi mattia.ri...@gmail.com wrote:
I NEVER, NEVER, NEVER said that he is a great businessman!!! Why do
people keep putting these absurd statements into my mouth? I said the
opposite many times.
Okay, you wrote that he was an “experienced businessman”. Change nothing
in yours and
Horace Heffner hheff...@mtaonline.net wrote:
Again, I don't know of anyone being allowed to see the insides of the
30x30x30 interior box.
1. Levi and the people at Defkalion say they saw inside. Lewan says you can
see more than the photograph shows. There is no sign of concrete.
2. In
I spoke with George Miley of the University of Illinois about his most
recent tests with palladium zirconium alloys with gas loading. Here are
some notes from the conversation and some related information about some of
Mizuno's experiments.
A set of PowerPoint slides here shows his results up
Robert Lynn robert.gulliver.l...@gmail.com wrote:
Suggesting that it is due to his inability to get a patent points again to
why he should have done a proper black box demo in January - then he could
have quickly signed up a large expert technology development partner that
could have quickly
I wrote earlier that Rossi is in a bind because he has no viable patent.
Then just now I wrote that I have urged him to do a proper test, get
funding, and then hire experts, the way, Robert Lynn recommends.
The problem is, Rossi does not trust outsiders. He cannot even bring
himself to give a
Berke Durak berke.du...@gmail.com wrote:
Designing and setting up an iron-clad demonstration for public consumption
is a major task, and is never good enough if there is disinformation by the
mainstream media.
Designing and setting up a demonstration would take a week or two. However,
Rossi
I wrote:
It would not be appropriate for Rossi to assist or kibbutz
I meant kibitz. Voice input does not handle Yiddish well.
This means, To look on and offer unwanted, usually meddlesome advice to
others.
I expect that people in a Kibbutz often kibitz.
- Jed
David Roberson dlrober...@aol.com wrote:
Jed, I have reason to believe that the output thermocouples are reading
incorrectly.
Then I suggest you address the paper uploaded by Houkes, and show where it
is in error.
- Jed
Horace Heffner hheff...@mtaonline.net wrote:
Rossi's behavior is absurd, unless he doesn't believe in the technology
himself. Then it makes complete sense.
His behavior is irrational and absurd. However, such behavior is common
among inventors and discoverers, and it has been throughout
Horace Heffner hheff...@mtaonline.net wrote:
The question though should be which premise is more consistent with
Rossi's behavior, he believes his own claims, or not?
The premise that best fits his behavior is the same one that fits Harrison,
Patterson, William Shockley, and many other
Horace Heffner hheff...@mtaonline.net wrote:
Then I suggest you address the paper uploaded by Houkes, and show where it
is in error.
Why is this material not in pdf format like other material on
LENR-CANR.org?
Because:
1. I have not got around to it.
2. I figure the authors may want to
Horace Heffner hheff...@mtaonline.net wrote:
Levi and Defkalion people saw inside the 6 Oct E-cat?
So they say.
If they saw inside some other device at some other time then that is
irrelevant.
That one, as far as I know. It was tested before. It shows signs of having
been run many
Horace Heffner hheff...@mtaonline.net wrote:
Just to be clear, they say they saw inside the 30x30x30 cm inside box in
the 6 Oct E-cat demo? Do you have a reference on this?
No, just what they say. Take it or leave it. If you don't believe me, or
them, believe Archimedes.
- Jed
Horace Heffner hheff...@mtaonline.net wrote:
It is difficult to believe that Harrison, Patterson, or Shockley would put
on about a dozen demonstrations of their technology, repeatedly botch the
scientific aspects of the demonstrations, and refuse to acknowledge or fix
the problems.
How hard?
Terry Blanton hohlr...@gmail.com wrote:
http://www.radio24.ilsole24ore.com/Foto/articoli/ecat071011-3.jpg
Thanks, Terry.
The corrugated thing at the top which looks like a radiator is the cell.
It is a little hard to see from the photo, but I gather you can actually
see inside the box below
Aussie Guy E-Cat aussieguy.e...@gmail.com wrote:
Some more inside shots
http://www.nyteknik.se/**incoming/article3295952.ece/**
Aussie Guy E-Cat aussieguy.e...@gmail.com wrote:
Still it would not be hard to do a better job, he says inside a fire proof
suit having yet to build and then to get working a LENR device ;)
Speaking for fire-proof suits, here is a Japanese news article and photo of
a robo-suit, or mechanical
David ledin mathematic.analy...@gmail.com wrote:
Report On A Conversation With George Miley
http://e-catsite.com/2011/11/08/report-on-a-conversation-with-george-miley/
That looks impressive with the slides added.
Oops. There is a typo:
Although deloading is chemically endothermic, in some
OrionWorks - Steven Vincent Johnson orionwo...@charter.net wrote:
Rossi's demos have consistently not followed proper scientific protocol.
Therefore, what could any of these individuals say publicly on the matter –
ESPECIALLY from a scientific POV. If I were in their shoes I couldn't say
Stephen A. Lawrence sa...@pobox.com wrote:
How would you determine what his secret catalyst is? Without that you'll
likely be down by an order of magnitude or more from his power levels . . .
That is correct. Probably you would get no heat at all.
Similarly, I don't see how you could
Jeff Sutton jsutton.sudb...@gmail.com wrote:
He has shown it in self-sustaining mode but always shuts it down after a
few hours with some excuse. Why does he do that when the blockbuster note
would be the ecat just keeps on going. I suggest this must mean that the
ecat cannot just keep on
In Japanese, but you can Google translate it:
http://www.yomiuri.co.jp/atcars/news/2009-OYT8T00182.htm
Photo:
http://www.yomiuri.co.jp/zoom/2009-OYT9I00181.htm
It features the ability to park itself after the passenger alights. You
can call it from the parking lot with your cell
U.S. down, China way up. See:
http://www.slate.com/blogs/the_reckoning/2011/11/07/welcome_to_the_reckoning_a_blog_about_american_power_.html
- Jed
Someone asked me how to download all files from LENR-CANR.org including the
HTML screens. I recommend:
http://www.webreaper.net/
Do not open more than three or four channels at a time or you may prevent
others from accessing the site.
This works well with any website that allows direct access
Jorn Erik Ommang j...@enerley.com wrote:
Question:
What Papers on Cold Fusion / LENR do you see as being the best we have in
the field.
Ahem . . . I would like to evade that question, if I might.
I think these papers express the views of most mainstream researchers in
this field:
See:
http://www.physorg.com/news/2011-11-rossi-e-cat-customers.html
Rossi wrote:
Again lecturing about tests !!! We receive 5 to 10 proposals per day to
make tests around the world, most of them from competitors, of course.
Please, read carefully:
1- we made all the tests we had to make
2- no more public tests will be made, the phase of public tests is over
Horace Heffner hheff...@mtaonline.net wrote:
Fraud or self delusion are of course possibilities I recognize, as do many
others, especially given Rossi's inability numerous times to provide
anything other than highly flawed calorimetry data, or refusal to admit the
importance of such mundane
In a thread that has become unwieldy, Jeff Sutton wrote:
But the only way to think that his process makes any business-first
approach is that he has still something to hide. It could be he is
missing something to do with control of the reaction, or he has no
new art for his patent; someone
See:
http://lenr-canr.org/RossiData/Higgins%20Oct%206%2027kWreactorDiagram4.png
I deleted the #3 version of this diagram.
- Jed
Mary Yugo maryyu...@gmail.com wrote:
. . . much less what was in the ones that were contained in his megawatt
plant.
You need not put things in quotation marks every time. We know that you do
not believe this.
If the secret is only in the catalyst sauce, I don't understand why Rossi
I do not know about this hypothesis, but it is well-established that the
human brain takes enormous amounts of energy, and this has had a major
impact on human evolution. Having a large brain is a tremendous burden.
That is probably why there are few other highly intelligent species. During
the
Mary Yugo maryyu...@gmail.com wrote:
Rossi can't rely on anyone else at all to help make the wondrous
machines? If he's afraid of reverse engineering, he'd better not sell any
at all! How does he know what his customers will do with them?
I believe he thinks it is easy to keep track of a
I wrote:
Any cold fusion cathode work harder will self-destruct to some extent
merely by being exposed to air . . .
That was supposed to say, any cold fusion cathode or powder will
self-destruct . . .
They all self-destruct over time from internal contamination. The powder
stops working
Jouni Valkonen wrote:
Therefore Horaces analysis is not only wrong, but it is utterly
against the normal thermodynamics and cannot explain anything.
I agree, and so do all of the scientists I have asked outside of this forum.
Because it does not consider at all normal thermodynamical
Mary Yugo maryyu...@gmail.com wrote:
However calorimatric criticism is not relevant, because Rossi has
never forbid for observers to do accurate calorimetry and check all
the necessary calibrations with their own instruments.
I do not know who wrote that, but it is incorrect. Rossi does
Mary Yugo wrote:
It is
irrational to demand 1,000 times more energy than chemistry can produce when
you have already seen 10 times more. The point is already proven.
I think many responsible and capable people don't believe that. The
only absolutely determinative test is an independent one
Alan J Fletcher wrote:
The entire empty volume of a shipping container? Since the energy
produced is N * the number of modules, the TIME should be the SAME as
a single eCat at the same power.
Well said.
Eh? I'm getting not to trust those NASA engineers. Are you sure they
didn't mix
Andrea Selva wrote:
Rossi does not usually let people use their own instruments. He has on
some occasions.
- Jed
He doesn't even want people to bring their own. Jed, does this ring
you any bell ?
He would not let me bring instruments, which is why I did not go.
However, I have talked to
Robert Leguillon wrote:
/snip/
Heffner is saying that since the flow rate may not be 60 L in 4 hours it
might be zero. That is preposterous.
/snip/
Because the flow rate was not at its max (it was sped up during quenching) and
it decreases with back pressure (as demonstrated in the September
David Roberson wrote:
Jed, are you sure that Horace assumes that there is no water flowing
through the ECAT? That would be totally unbelievable.
I believe he said that previously. Actually I think he said something
like we do not know what the flow rate is so it might be zero.
Ask him.
Robert Leguillon robert.leguil...@hotmail.com wrote:
Maybe I'd overlooked this, when did they measure and film the outpouring
water?
Yes, many people saw the water and bubbles moving through the hose.
FURTHERMORE, we know with certainty that there was steam or hot water
coming out of the
I wrote:
Something had to be coming out of the reactor the entire time. It had to be
coming out at a flow rate large enough to deliver lots of heat to those
thermocouples.
We also know from Lewan's log that he measured the flow rate at the time
when the flow rate was lowest. He measured 0.9
Vorl Bek vorl@antichef.com wrote:
- Nelson's comments just put the cap on what has been asked so often: why
does Rossi's six-month-between-charges e-cat never self-sustain long enough
to eliminate the possibility of the heat
coming from a chemical reaction?
Here is a similar loaded
Higgins Bob-CBH003 bob.higg...@motorolasolutions.com wrote:
One of the reasons that Rossi may not wish to run a very long test is that
I suspect that HE is the control mechanism. When it is run
in self-sustaining mode, after some period it will need to be
briefly reheated to stabilize the
Alan J Fletcher a...@well.com wrote:
AND Krivit invoked Godwin's Law .
Actually, *you* invoked Godwin's law, a.k.a. *Reductio ad Hitlerum*. Krivit
. . . embodied it? Violated it? Triggered it? Not sure what the right verb
would be.
- Jed
Bravo!
I hope it is true.
This is exactly the right thing to do. You have to hand it to Rossi. He has
good technical judgement. Reckless, but good. Mizuno, Ohmori and
Fleischmann are the same way. McKubre says Fleischmann's experiments scared
the pants off of people.
A person does not design a
David Roberson dlrober...@aol.com wrote:
.91 grams/second x 2260 joules/gram = 2056.6 watts. Water all assumed to
be vapor which is not being conservative.
You forgot to add the heat required to go from tap water temp to boiling,
267 J.
(29.8 C - 24.5 C + .8 C) = 6.1 C Measured at time
I wrote:
Granted it might have been less, too, but I suppose it was more. A few
bubbles in the hose or unexpectedly high back pressure from holding up the
hose will retard the flow.
What I am saying here is that this is complicated little system. I'll bet
you can't model it! While 328 g is
I wrote:
If you collected the condensate for an hour while running it through a
precision flowmeter you might get a better handle on this, and a more
meaningful answer. You have to leave it in a steady state.
But I would not actually do that. That's kind of nutty. Way too
complicated. I would
Mary Yugo maryyu...@gmail.com wrote:
Even if Rossi were to run the thing for 40 hours or 40 days, I am certain
you would demand more. You would still be finding excuses not to believe it.
There may be other reasons not to believe in it but certainly a 40 hour
run is more persuasive than a 4
David Roberson dlrober...@aol.com wrote:
The first technique you suggested would spread out the test for too long of
a time(hour).
You misunderstand. I would fix hose at a certain height, let it fill with
water, then let it run through a precision flowmeter. I would record it
constantly, so
Mary Yugo maryyu...@gmail.com wrote:
If he has teamed up with NI, that is exactly the right way to bolster
customer confidence in the safety and reliability of the equipment.
I don't think he teamed up in the sense that NI knows anything about
E-cats and that they work. I think Rossi
David Roberson dlrober...@aol.com wrote:
Mary, you seem to love to find ways to scam scientific tests or do magic
tricks or whatever. Let me ask you a question. Can you name one
scientific experiment that is impossible to scam from the past?
The one I just cited, from the present, right
David Roberson dlrober...@aol.com wrote:
But I do not think that the difference would amount to hardly any
difference in calculations. Mats stated clearly that the flow was steady.
No bubbles, same height, everything I would have hoped to have him state.
The flow varied over time. It might
Mary Yugo maryyu...@gmail.com wrote:
How much fuel, and how is that fuel reacted? Please do say there was
something else hidden in the vessel other than the cell, and this other
object magically defies Archimedes' law.
Maybe someone else who's more of a chemist and electrochemist than I am
David Roberson dlrober...@aol.com wrote:
Pick one to have scammed.
Please, after you. Pick one yourself -- whichever you consider easiest to
scam, and tell us how you would do it.
Mind you, when the telegraph and years later the phonograph were
demonstrated to Members of Congress, some of them
Robert Leguillon robert.leguil...@hotmail.com wrote:
Statement only slightly more ridiculous:
The most energetic thing that they could put inside is a fission reactor.
A fission reactor produces the most energy, because if it didn't, nuclear
power stations would use something else. And since
I wrote:
Pick one to have scammed.
Please, after you. Pick one yourself -- whichever you consider easiest to
scam, and tell us how you would do it.
By the way, I do not mean that it is impossible to make a fake telephone
with gutta percha, or a fake x-ray with a pre-arranged photo. I
David Roberson wrote:
You answer is clearly indicated by the temperature readings at T2.
This was very constant.
Yes, of course. It has to be very constant. The pressure did not change,
so the steam temperature did not change. When heat increased, more steam
was generated, but the
David Roberson wrote:
Jed, I am waiting for Mary to give an example. It is not your question.
Just in case someone were to scam your experiment, you have to realize
that there are no limits on what is acceptable. You would not be able
to set up the final experiment since that is part of the
peter.heck...@arcor.de wrote:
This means, if Rossi has no trademark, he cannot use the NI Trademark.
He must get an own Trademark first.
That is easy. Anyone can get a trademark for around $300 in the U.S.
- Jed
Vorl Bek wrote:
This is what Rossi has said on many occasions. He says he cannot
leave the thing, especially in self-sustaining mode.
The idea that Rossi would do an unconvincing demo because he
needed to empty his bladder or get some sleep, and could not
delegate control for a while, makes
Michele Comitini michele.comit...@gmail.com wrote:
Ergo, se National Instrument è
uscita allo scoperto adesso, significa che anche loro hanno escluso
l'ipotesi (campata in aria) della bufala.
Ergo, if Nat. Instr. came out now, it
means that they too excluded the (too far fetched) hoax
Mary Yugo wrote:
If there is no way you or any of us can know anything at all about
this method that you imagine might exist somewhere in the
universe, how can you expect us to evaluate it?
The way I said many times. You can falsify the premise that Rossi is
scamming easily
Daniel Rocha wrote:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Minor_Scale
An interesting example.
This was a conventional explosion that simulated a 4.8 kt nuclear
explosion. A person observing this from a distance might have difficulty
determining whether it is nuclear or chemical. Of course if you
David Roberson wrote:
The output check valve operates by opening further as the pressure
increases across it. It will not open any additional amount unless
there is a finite pressure applied. There are several reasons for the
ECAT internal pressure to rise.
Yes, I realize that reactor
Stephen A. Lawrence wrote:
In case anybody hasn't gotten it, let me repeat it: The rate of mass
flow *out* of the device is fixed by the *pump* *rate*, not by the
power level.
Only if the vessel is full to overflowing. If the water level is below
the top, then it acts like a pot on the
801 - 900 of 13562 matches
Mail list logo
