Re: [Vo]:RE: Rothwell goes into brain freeze - Thermal power.pdf

In reply to Jones Beene's message of Tue, 19 Apr 2011 21:14:06 -0700: Hi, [snip] >Robin. > >My initial reaction is that the assumptions could be way off. They probably are off to some extent, but I don't think they are way off. > >The delta-T of 500K is too large, This is based on an internal o

Re: [Vo]:RE: Rothwell goes into brain freeze - Thermal power.pdf

Expert opinion, indeed. Not bad enough that the box is black but we're reacting to a secret report shown only to Levi, the contents of which can only be guessed at? Sent from my iPhone. On Apr 20, 2011, at 0:14, "Jones Beene" wrote: > Robin. > > My initial reaction is that the assumptions

RE: [Vo]:RE: Rothwell goes into brain freeze - Thermal power.pdf

Robin. My initial reaction is that the assumptions could be way off. The delta-T of 500K is too large, and the wall thickness of 2 mm is thin for this application. There could be other problems too. For 25 bar pressure, how are you going not to get by with 2 mm walls - more like 6. If the temp g

Re: [Vo]:RE: Rothwell goes into brain freeze - Thermal power.pdf

In reply to Jones Beene's message of Tue, 19 Apr 2011 08:27:37 -0700: Hi, [snip] >.plus, stainless conducts heat so poorly that a 5 KG reactor would surely >melt before that rate of energy release could be sustained for 15 minutes >anyway - do you really doubt that? Please see attached. Regards,

[Vo]: Something to keep in mind...

All: Now that the emotional vortex has subsided... Funny, so have the atmospheric vortices in the southeast USA! Nah... No possible connection there... Right? I share Jones' frustration in that here we have what is very likely a valid new discovery that we've ALL been waiting for, for decades,

Re: [Vo]:Uppsala experiment April 21 ?

I just posted this message in the blog: I have heard that the tests at Uppsala and Stockolm Universities will begin this week. Is that so? That’s great! - Jed

Re: [Vo]:Uppsala experiment April 21 ?

Rossi wrote: > I must correct you: the test they made had a well controlled flux. > By "flux" he means the water flow rate. - Jed

Re: [Vo]: shrinking felines

Jones Beene wrote: > Still great but at a level which is consistent of my predicted COP in the > Swedish testing of COP of 10. > Get your story straight! Your prediction was "at least 1000:1" not 10. Right here: http://www.mail-archive.com/vortex-l@eskimo.com/msg45088.html > Again – before

Re: [Vo]: shrinking felines

On Tue, Apr 19, 2011 at 7:24 PM, Jones Beene wrote: > Again – before the flood of denials, character assassination and finger > pointing – let’s wait a couple of days for the Swedish results, please. It might talk a bit longer. They don't actually *have* and ECat yet. I would be surprised if t

RE: [Vo]: shrinking felines

RE: reference for the 50 reactors at 20kW... >From the very recent posting of "Rossi's Hints" on peswiki that Jed and >several others have contributed to... http://www.peswiki.com/index.php/Directory:Andrea_A._Rossi_Cold_Fusion_Generator:Rossi's_Hints I have to take issue with your insistence th

RE: [Vo]: Rossi's Marketing spokes-feline

Mar sez: > The marketing for the entire line of e-Cats will be Halley Berry > dressed up in black skin tight leather as Cat-woman... > "Hear me roar!" And e-Cats of various sizes will be purring along > all around her. > :-) My kitty-cat, Zoey, has graciously volunteered to be Rossi's P-Cat, or

Re: [Vo]:Uppsala experiment April 21 ?

At 12:25 PM 4/19/2011, Alan J Fletcher wrote: from randi forums -- no link provided : A new experiment seems to be scheduled for Thursday(April 21) in Uppsala, again supervised by the Swedish scientists. Bill Conley April 19th, 2011 at 2:54 PM Mr. Rossi, First of all, thank you so much for ma

RE: [Vo]: shrinking felines

Mark - For future reference - when did he mention 50 reactors at 20 kW ? Moving on. Awkshully, and in complete candor - as for the rest of it - this appears to be consistent with what we would expect from the same identical reactor as in the Jan demo, but with a present realization (or reapprai

Re: [Vo]: Rossi's Marketing spokes-feline

  - Original Message > From: Mark Iverson > To: vortex-l@eskimo.com > Sent: Tue, April 19, 2011 6:41:50 PM > Subject: [Vo]: Rossi's Marketing spokes-feline > > > The marketing for the entire line of e-Cats will be Halley Berry dressed up > in >black skin tight > leather as Cat-wom

Re: [Vo]:Notes on Rossi Device new version 4/19/2011 -- H gas pressure

Alan J Fletcher wrote: > > That's from the K&E report : > Thanks. - Jed

[Vo]: Rossi's Marketing spokes-feline

The marketing for the entire line of e-Cats will be Halley Berry dressed up in black skin tight leather as Cat-woman... "Hear me roar!" And e-Cats of various sizes will be purring along all around her. :-) -Mark

[Vo]: shrinking felines

So Rossi has gone from: 50 modules of 20 kW each 130 " 10 kW units 300 "3 kW each or more poetically stated, from bobcat, to tom-cat, to kitty-cat! :-) So Steven Vincent Johnson's comment may prove insightful: "However, there is

Re: [Vo]:Notes on Rossi Device new version 4/19/2011 -- H gas pressure

At 02:24 PM 4/19/2011, Jed Rothwell wrote: Below is the latest version. Not many changes. The original is in .docx format. If anyone wants a copy let me know.  H gas pressure in the cell is 25 bar (~360 psi) (Rossi? – Blanton) That's from the K&E report : Startup. Prior to startup, the hydrogen

Re: [Vo]:Notes on Rossi Device new version 4/19/2011

Huh. It does not seem there is much more we can say about this other than what I wrote: "The device produces 100 keV and 300 keV particles. (Rossi? – Iverson reports)" We can change the citation to (Rossi, NyTeknik, 3/18/2011) What does anyone think this means: "Rossi: No radioactivity has been

Re: [Vo]:Fuel rod surface area versus 1 liter bottle

In reply to Peter Gluck's message of Tue, 19 Apr 2011 17:41:27 +0300: Hi, [snip] >I think the most important conclusion of this discussion- is that heat >transfer is the main obstacle in scale up of this type of heat generators. >The surface/volume ratio diminishes with increasing the dimensions.

RE: [Vo]:Notes on Rossi Device new version 4/19/2011

RE: my source for Rossi's statement about seeing 100-300keV particles... Sure, here it is, on March 18: http://www.nyteknik.se/nyheter/energi_miljo/energi/article3126617.ece Titled: "And here are 36 more questions - with Rossi's answers" Specifically, here is the Q&A: -

Re: [Vo]:A wiki for compiling Rossi's hints

> http://www.peswiki.com/index.php/Directory:Andrea_A._Rossi_Cold_Fusion_Generator:Rossi's_Hints To everyone who worked on creating this Wiki Rossi Hints directory. THANKS A BUNCH! I would think it should be fairly easy to update it. Regards Steven Vincent Johnson www.OrionWorks.com www.zazzle.c

[Vo]:Notes on Rossi Device new version 4/19/2011

Below is the latest version. Not many changes. The original is in .docx format. If anyone wants a copy let me know. The purpose of this is to have a handy cheat-sheet look up what Rossi and others have said so far. I am not trying to make sense of these claims, judge how likely they are to be true

Re: [Vo]:A wiki for compiling Rossi's hints

http://www.peswiki.com/index.php/Directory:Andrea_A._Rossi_Cold_Fusion_Generator:Rossi's_Hints

RE: [Vo]:Only a matter of time

From: gotjos...@gmail.com can you provide links to Piantelli's patents? There are two Piantelli’s with LENR IP– Francesco and Silvia, I think they are married, but not sure WO/1995/020816 -ENERGY GENERATION AND GENERATOR BY MEANS OF ANHARMONIC

Re: [Vo]:A wiki for compiling Rossi's hints

On 19-4-2011 2:47, Jed Rothwell wrote: Regarding the choice of Wikis, I have no opinion. I will be happy to help anyone's Wiki . . . except one connected to Wikipedia. - Jed Hi, I've to agree with Jed, as it seems that unfortunately Wikipedia is growing towards like the other hyped stuff

Re: [Vo]:Only a matter of time

Well yes, Rossi has intellectual property problems unless he discloses his secret additives in his patent application. That will separate his patent from prior art. He will still owe something to previous patents regardless, as they incorporate many of the claims Rossi has made in his applicatio

Re: [Vo]:Only a matter of time

can you provide links to Piantelli's patents? On Tue, Apr 19, 2011 at 20:24, Peter Gluck wrote: > Piantelli's

RE: EXTERNAL: RE: [Vo]:RE: Stiffler and Rossi

The energy extraction methods are different but the rapid changes in energy density experienced by gas atoms in motion WRT Casimir geometry is the common denominator that they are all exploiting. Recent comments regarding magnetostriction would seem to fit this model where magnetic fields from t

RE: [Vo]:RE: Rothwell goes into brain freeze

Right. But with pressurized H2 inside the reactor - you cannot easily risk having lots of coolant tubes going thru, as sealing them would be a nightmare - and the narrowness of the form-factor - at least the images seen, do not seem to permit enough space for copper tubing around the reactor.

[Vo]:Addition Rossi quotes

Esa Ruoho wrote: I'm hoping that Jed will soon post that Rossi Quotes .doc file, instead of > doing back'n'forth with Jonas :) Shirakawa posted them here: http://www.mail-archive.com/vortex-l@eskimo.com/msg44890.html Not that many. - Jed

Re: [Vo]:RE: Rothwell goes into brain freeze

Mark Iverson wrote: Ever look at how a steam locomotive boiler is constructed? The flow is > straight thru and the heat xfer surface area is many many times the surface > area of the outer enclosing cylinder. I posted a reply about this and > attached a jpeg, but I guess Bill hasn't had time to

Re: [Vo]: Another Water Fake

+1 ;-) 2011/4/19 Alan J Fletcher : > Maybe I need to add this one : > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Grifo_m%C3%A1gico.JPG > >

Re: [Vo]:RE: Rothwell goes into brain freeze

OrionWorks - Steven V Johnson wrote: If it IS 400 C, it would seem to me that the reaction then increasing > to 600 C... a mere +200 C more, (before it conks out) does not strike > me as being terribly efficient. > I think it is optimum at 600°C and then it starts to go downhill after that. I am

[Vo]:Uppsala experiment April 21 ?

from randi forums -- no link provided : A new experiment seems to be scheduled for Thursday(April 21) in Uppsala, again supervised by the Swedish scientists.

RE: [Vo]:RE: Rothwell goes into brain freeze

Jones writes: "it was claiming that there was neither room nor extra mass for fins or channels. I listed that as the caveat. Rossi also says the water flow is straight thru." Ever look at how a steam locomotive boiler is constructed? The flow is straight thru and the heat xfer surface area is

RE: [Vo]:RE: Stiffler and Rossi

Dear Peter, There are differences and similarities, true - but does it really make sense that there could be two distinct processes of nickel and hydrogen, both of which were previously unknown to physics? Statistically, and to the skeptic, two improbable things happening with no precedent

[Vo]:Two more ACS slide collections uploaded

See: Takahashi, A., et al. Phenomenology of Nano-Particle/Gas-Loading Experiments (PowerPoint slides). in ACS National Meeting. 2011. Anaheim, CA. http://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/TakahashiAphenomenol.pdf Kitamura, A., et al. Hydrogen Isotope Gas Absorption/Adsorption Charactoristics of Pd Nanopowde

[Vo]:Rainews 24

Celani says he hopes to get a transcript of this, and to translate it into English. - Jed

Re: [Vo]:RE: Rothwell goes into brain freeze

>From Jed: ... > ... I believe the > reaction works best at around 600°C and it conks out above that. Can someone clarify the following: What is the internal temperature the reactor cell has to reach in order to initiate the Rossi reaction? I thought the reaction takes over when the tempe

Re: [Vo]:RE: Rothwell goes into brain freeze

Harry Veeder wrote: > Do you know if Rossi has ever directly measured the temperature inside his > reactor? > He told me he has, but he does not want to discuss the details. That is how he knows the minimum operating temperature is 400°C (ref. SL). I do not recall where I heard the optimum tem

Re: [Vo]:RE: Stiffler and Rossi

Dear Jones, I see not deep similarities between the Rossi and the BLP processes Some logical flaw here Quite different approaches to energy generation, I think. Rossi has to control weel the intensity, obtain even better reoroducbility (eliminate start -up peaks), assure long term uniformity

Re: [Vo]:Beene says the error is "at least 1000:1"

P.J van Noorden wrote: > The waterflow was higher. During the test on january 14th one can hear a > pulsating sound. > I suspect that this is caused by a pump which infuses a certain amount of > water into the Rossi cell. > Do you know if the waterflow is continously or pulsating? > On Jan. 14

Re: [Vo]:RE: Rothwell goes into brain freeze

> >The limiting factor is, of course, how hot it gets inside. I believe the >reaction works best at around 600°C and it conks out above that. > >- Jed > Do you know if Rossi has ever directly measured the temperature inside his reactor? Harry

Re: [Vo]:Only a matter of time

As regarding the patent, Rossi needs to offer something patentable different from Piantelli's 1995 and 2010 patents. I do not see how Randy Mills' or Mitch Swartz patents can create him problems. Because it is about bets I don't think Rossi has a real catalyst- it is more probably some additive tha

Re: [Vo]:RE: Rothwell goes into brain freeze

Abd ul-Rahman Lomax wrote: > Somehow the reported facts got lost in this massive thread, which I've not > been following. So I searched for "130 KW." I found the first message here > was Jed's, and that "power peaked briefly" at 130 kW. > > I am commonly irritated by people who discuss and confu

Re: [Vo]:Beene says the error is "at least 1000:1"

Jed, Yes, you are right. The waterflow was higher. During the test on january 14th one can hear a pulsating sound. I suspect that this is caused by a pump which infuses a certain amount of water into the Rossi cell. Do you know if the waterflow is continously or pulsating? Peter - Orig

[Vo]:Only a matter of time

Jones Beene recently stated: > Of all Rossi’s problems, the patent situation seems to > be the most grim if he can get through this year and the > October demo. Don’t forget that in addition to Mills IP, > we know that Mitchell Swartz and several others in Japan, > Italy, India and elsewhere have

RE: [Vo]:RE: Rothwell goes into brain freeze

-Original Message- From: Abd ul-Rahman Lomax > Heat transfer is limited by surface area, but the "surface area" for a Rossi cell might be very high. You cannot judge it by the gross volume. What if the cell is constructed with many channels? Not by the volume alone, correct. This is/

Re: [Vo]: Another Water Fake

Maybe I need to add this one : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Grifo_m%C3%A1gico.JPG

Re: [Vo]:The specific heat of water is ~10 times more than most metals

- Original Message > From: Abd ul-Rahman Lomax > To: vortex-l@eskimo.com; vortex-l@eskimo.com > Sent: Tue, April 19, 2011 1:31:52 PM > Subject: Re: [Vo]:The specific heat of water is ~10 times more than most metals > > At 10:43 AM 4/19/2011, Jed Rothwell wrote: > > It would have mel

Re: [Vo]:The specific heat of water is ~10 times more than most metals

At 10:43 AM 4/19/2011, Jed Rothwell wrote: It would have melted a ton of steel if it had been used for that purpose, but it was used to heat water instead. In 15 minutes, it heated 0.9 tons of water up to 40°C. Hey, cool! If that's a metric ton, that's a liter per second, right? The figure I

Re: [Vo]:Why we should continue studying other modes of cold fusion (in a few years)

At 04:01 PM 4/14/2011, Jed Rothwell wrote: By the way, a couple of people off line have suggested to me that Rossi may not be such a genius. He may be "just lucky." He is a tinkerer who happened to twist the knobs the right way. People used to say that about Edison. I disagree. There are far to

RE: [Vo]:RE: Rothwell goes into brain freeze

At 11:27 AM 4/19/2011, Jones Beene wrote: Stephen To answer the first problem - I believe that the specific heat goes up as the temperature rises, and is a higher the closer you get to m.p. Ø 130 KW for 15 minutes is actually 32.5 KWh. Only if that heat suddenly comes to a dead stop and

RE: [Vo]:RE: Stiffler and Rossi

Thanks - Right you are. I should have realized that SAL makes no math errors, and I am trying to compose too many posts for one morning. To bring the original point back into focus, then - let me restate that this amount of thermal energy will melt 500 pounds of steel in an hour or 125 poun

RE: [Vo]:RE: Stiffler and Rossi

Dear Peter, I wish I had enough information to answer what you ask. You probably know more than I do anyway, with your BLP connection. - Intensity - this is almost too high to be physical even at the 16 kW level, let alone 130 kW. He is riding a knife edge. Look how much larger Mills'

RE: [Vo]:RE: Stiffler and Rossi

Ack I am very sorry to have included the body of the email in the post. Please excuse my error...

RE: [Vo]:RE: Stiffler and Rossi

I think you should reexamine your calculations. The problem is that you are confusing watts and watt*hours. 130kW is = to 130KJ/sec 130kW for 1 hour is equal to 130KW*h 15minutes of 130kW is equal to 130kW*0.25 hours or 32.5kW*H (the energy delivered in 15 mins) If the 130kW had continued for 6

Re: [Vo]:RE: Stiffler and Rossi

Dear Jones, In your opinion, what exactly are Rossi's problems? Perhaps you could use the 5 criteria of an energy source: - intensity, - reproducibility and controllability; - continuity, - safety; - scale-up Add to these his intellectual property problems- not only patenting here. How do you thi

[Vo]:RE: Stiffler and Rossi

From: Stephen A. Lawrence * Jones, who put such an angry bee in your bonnet over Rossi? There is no anger - just disappointment that so many are jumping to hyperbolic conclusions which are not justified by the record. And disappointment that technology so potentially valuable [to society]

Re: [Vo]:RE: Rothwell goes into brain freeze

It would be nice to be able to measure the temperature inside the reactor. Any estimate on the mass of the stainless steel vessel?  Harry > >From: Stephen A. Lawrence >To: vortex-l@eskimo.com >Sent: Tue, April 19, 2011 11:01:47 AM >Subject: Re: [Vo]:RE: Rothwell goes into brain freeze > >Say WHA

RE: [Vo]:RE: Rothwell goes into brain freeze

Stephen To answer the first problem - I believe that the specific heat goes up as the temperature rises, and is a higher the closer you get to m.p. * 130 KW for 15 minutes is actually 32.5 KWh. Only if that heat suddenly comes to a dead stop and you average over the hour ! Not likel

Re: [Vo]:Beene says the error is "at least 1000:1"

On 04/19/2011 10:51 AM, Jones Beene wrote: > > A modern day miracle !! > > But -- not surprising as many are already treating Rossi as some kind > of Messiah figure who can do no wrong -- > Jones, who put such an angry bee in your bonnet over Rossi? You swallowed all the nonsense spewed out by

Re: [Vo]:Beene says the error is "at least 1000:1"

I wrote: > Your assertions make no sense. You seem to think that the e-Cat should have > melted a ton of steel. How can it do that if all of the heat is being > carried off in the form of hot water? > A nuclear reactor could probably melt a ton of steel in a few seconds, but it heats water inste

Re: [Vo]:RE: Rothwell goes into brain freeze

Say WHAT? On 04/19/2011 10:23 AM, Jones Beene wrote: > > Query: is "problematic" Rossi-speak or Rothwell-speak for "physically > impossible"? > > > > > > The specific heat of steel is 420J/KG/Deg C - and this equates to a > heat requirement of approximately 375 KWh to melt one ton of steel >

Re: [Vo]:Beene says the error is "at least 1000:1"

Jones Beene wrote: > I.m.o with such a low flow rate the water will reach the boilingpoint > before it reaches the end of the nickel catalyst. > > > > > > Precisely ! No steam buts this into the category as divine intervention … > > > > And can you imagine – lo and behold NO steam explosion at 1

RE: [Vo]:Beene says the error is "at least 1000:1"

From: P.J van Noorden I find it difficult to understand that in the Rossi reactor with a flow of 6l/h = about 2 ml/sec and a proposed excess energy of 12 kW no vapour "explosions" are heard. I.m.o with such a low flow rate the water will reach the boilingpoint before it reaches the end of th

Re: [Vo]:Beene says the error is "at least 1000:1"

P.J van Noorden wrote: I find it difficult to understand that in the Rossi reactor with a flow of 6l/h = about 2 ml/sec and a proposed excess energy of 12 kW no vapour "explosions" are heard. Which experiment was that? You may be confused. On Jan. 14 the flow rate was 18 L/h, power ~12 kW. O

RE: [Vo]:RE: Rothwell goes into brain freeze

Let me make a slight correction for the record: Query: is "problematic" Rossi-speak or Rothwell-speak for "physically impossible"? The specific heat of steel is 420J/KG/Deg C - and this equates to a heat requirement of approximately 375 KWh to melt one ton of steel from room temperature.

[Vo]:The specific heat of water is ~10 times more than most metals

Jones Beene wrote: > This amount of heat would have melted over a ton of steel and Rothwell > thinks it that it represents reality in a 5 kilo reactor ! > It would have melted a ton of steel if it had been used for that purpose, but it was used to heat water instead. In 15 minutes, it heated 0.

Re: [Vo]:Fuel rod surface area versus 1 liter bottle

I think the most important conclusion of this discussion- is that heat transfer is the main obstacle in scale up of this type of heat generators. The surface/volume ratio diminishes with increasing the dimensions. And E-cats are at the limit- E-lions must have a different internal structure, more c

Re: [Vo]:Beene says the error is "at least 1000:1"

Hello, I have been looking at the calculations from Jed Rothwell, Robin van Spaandonk and Jones Been. I think the proposed heat transfer of 130 kW would be possible, but only with a pressurised system (as in a nuclear reactor) to prevent steam production. I find it difficult to understand tha

Re: [Vo]:Fuel rod surface area versus 1 liter bottle

On Tue, Apr 19, 2011 at 4:28 PM, OrionWorks - Steven V Johnson < svj.orionwo...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > All we can really do at this point is *wait *for the Swedes to present > their findings. Perhaps we can then draw more accurate conclusions. > > Regards > Steven Vincent Johnson > www.OrionWorks

[Vo]:Renewable energy in Japan

Summary: They don't have much. See: http://www.renewableenergyworld.com/rea/news/article/2011/04/what-feed-in-tariffs-could-do-for-japans-electricity-shortage The wind maps I have seen show little exploitable wind resources in Japan. Most of the country is too far south. They have lots of solar.

Re: [Vo]:Fuel rod surface area versus 1 liter bottle

>From Jones, >> From Rothwell: >> I don't bet. I debate technical issues based on experimental >> evidence, not crackpot theories that predict water heaters >> don't work. If you will not give us a plausible reason why >> this calorimetry might be wrong by a factor of 1000 then you >> lose this de

Re: [Vo]:Beene says the error is "at least 1000:1"

I'm hoping that Jed will soon post that Rossi Quotes .doc file, instead of doing back'n'forth with Jonas :) On Tue, Apr 19, 2011 at 5:11 PM, Josef Karthauser wrote: > I love this group. It makes better viewing than a soap opera ;). > Joe >

[Vo]:RE: Rothwell goes into brain freeze

Query: is "problematic" Rossi-speak or Rothwell-speak for "physically impossible"? The specific heat of steel is 420J/KG/Deg C - and this equates to a heat requirement of approximately 375 KWh to melt one ton of steel from room temperature. 130 KW was the supposed heated delivered by th

Re: [Vo]:Beene says the error is "at least 1000:1"

I wrote: > Since the e-Cat is long and slender, I suppose the cell is also long and > slender. > That might also explain why it needs 5 heaters, where the e-Kitten needs only one. Rossi does not want to discuss the shape of the cell. I suppose that means the shape is important. - Jed

Re: [Vo]:Beene says the error is "at least 1000:1"

Jones Beene wrote: This is hilarious and indicative of a child’s playground mentality … did > so, did not, did so … ROTFL > The message is right here: http://www.mail-archive.com/vortex-l@eskimo.com/msg45088.html It says "there is at least a 1000:1 error." Maybe you did not mean that. I sugge

Re: [Vo]:Beene says the error is "at least 1000:1"

I love this group. It makes better viewing than a soap opera ;). Joe On 19 Apr 2011, at 14:58, "Jones Beene" wrote: > This is hilarious and indicative of a child’s playground mentality … did so, > did not, did so … ROTFL > > > > – you said yourself, on the advice of your so-called expert,

RE: [Vo]:Beene says the error is "at least 1000:1"

This is hilarious and indicative of a child's playground mentality . did so, did not, did so . ROTFL - you said yourself, on the advice of your so-called expert, that the 130 kW was BOGUS !! So now are you reversing direction once again, hoping to save face by using the data you already rej

[Vo]:RE: Rothwell goes into brain freeze

Baloney. Do you want to keep posting this crap, Rothwell? You are completely exposed on this, and you will not get the last word in to safe face - guaranteed You said yourself the 130 kW was bogus - it is complete bogus, even if second rate authors say otherwise Jones From: Jed R

Re: [Vo]:Beene says the error is "at least 1000:1"

I quoted: > "Thus there is at least a 1000:1 error in that anecdotal appraisal, which > is not a surprise . . ." > Furthermore, that appraisal was done by the authors themselves, in NyTeknik. It isn't anecdotal -- it is what they measured and reported. - Jed

[Vo]:Beene says the error is "at least 1000:1"

Jones Beene wrote: > This “1000 times” thing is an insane slander with no basis in fact, as are > these other silly pronouncements that you have dreamed up . . . > You said it yourself!!! Right here, 4/18/11 3:03 PM: "Thus there is at least a 1000:1 error in that anecdotal appraisal, which is

RE: EXTERNAL: [Vo]:Neg Energy and ZPE

Scott, Can you fwd me the link for that paper - I saw it on my home PC this morning but it didn't fwd to work, I think the company filters derailed it! Thanks Fran From: Wm. Scott Smith [mailto:scott...@hotmail.com] Sent: Monday, April 18, 2011 7:39 PM To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subj

Re: [Vo]:Fuel rod surface area versus 1 liter bottle

thanks to Robin for this well grounded calculation: in order to transfer 15 kW, the temperature differential across the steel > would have to be about 165 K. Given that the reaction occurs at many > hundreds of > degrees, and steam production would limit the cold side temperature to > about 100 >