[Vo]:Stop Destroying Keyboards
A lot of the keyboard banging could be avoided if folks would simply preface their comments with 3 attributes: Business vs Science viewpoint Circumstantial vs Direct evidence Guilt vs Innocence presumption For instance, if someone has $2M in their retirement account and they're thinking about whether they want to send Rossi a check for $2M or not, it is quite reasonable for them write under the attributes: Business, Circumstantial, Guilt They aren't interested in the exploratory nature of science. They are interested in circumstantial evidence. They must presume guilt on the part of the part of the offer. This particular triplet of attributes best characterizes the true, if extreme, skeptic, when actually making a business decision. The pseudo-skeptic (understand that this applies to true believers posing as genuine skeptics as well as true disbelievers posing as genuine skeptics -- understanding, further that believers are merely disbelievers in the negation) is characterized as someone who imposes inappropriate attributes on a conversation to further their particular true (dis)belief. Let me use myself (as someone who is in a very different situation from the person who is thinking of betting their entire personal retirement account by sending Rossi a check for $2M without so much as accepting Rossi's invitation to do a customer-controlled pre-sale test): I'm advising a national policy planner in a matter involving greenhouse gas emission and the coal industry. The first decision I must make is whether to put any effort into investigating Rossi's claim at all. That choice of putting my personal effort as a research analyst into an area is profoundly different from Obama signing into law a trillion dollar jobs program based on buying Rossi's devices. I am so far from the latter that many if not most arguments that would arise in that context don't concern me in the slightest. My context is: Science, Direct, Innocence By Science I mean, of course, that experiment trumps theory, every time, no exceptions, period -- but I am NOT justified in statements like I'll believe it when its a commercial product a few years hence, even if erroneous planning on my part contributes to the misallocation of a trillion dollars of public money. The only thing that can invalidate an experiment is another experiment replicating the first experiment but controlling for the critical variable(s). This is so elementary that the fact that 90% of the physics establishment finds it even a point of contention means we have to virtually ignore the rest of what they say. This profound betrayal of enlightenment values by the physics establishment is unspeakably tragic and a state of denial over this traumatic condition is probably behind the behavior of so many pseudoskeptics. Their perpetual imputation of mental illness to what they call true believers (in fact, merely those who do not adhere to theory over experiment) is what Freudians called projection and it is, indeed, symptomatic of mental illness arising from trauma. By Direct I mean, of course, what a court of law means when they prefer direct evidence over circumstantial evidence. Its not that circumstantial evidence is invalid in all circumstances, its just that it is trumped by direct evidence only to a lesser degree than does experiment trump theory. The presumption of innocence usually goes hand-in-hand with science. The only time science is compatible with a presumption of guilt is in the case where there has been scientific fraud shown. Note that scientific fraud is different from scientific error and this distinction is widely recognized in academia. Now, having said all that, let me point out one other thing about Direct vs Circumstantial that seems to come up time and time again with regards to cold fusion: The pseudoskeptics continually assert that their criticism of those who are investigating Rossi's claims has nothing to do with whether Pons and Fleischmann had any validity to their claims. This rhetorical maneuver denies the obvious Bayesian law of prior probability distribution: If PF's cold fusion claim was not valid then any subsequent claims of advances on PF's cold fusion claim are likewise invalidated. I don't know whether it is possible to ban people from Vortex-L, but that one claim, alone, should be sufficient if even one keyboard is destroyed arguing with such a person.
Re: [Vo]:Stop Destroying Keyboards
Can't you just ban this noise-box, Jed? On Tue, Nov 15, 2011 at 9:46 AM, Mary Yugo maryyu...@gmail.com wrote: The pseudoskeptics continually assert that their criticism of those who are investigating Rossi's claims has nothing to do with whether Pons and Fleischmann had any validity to their claims. This rhetorical maneuver denies the obvious Bayesian law of prior probability distribution: If PF's cold fusion claim was not valid then any subsequent claims of advances on PF's cold fusion claim are likewise invalidated. That's completely wrong-- both sides of it. If PF are correct, that does not mean that Rossi's entirely different claim is correct. Rossi claims way more power and uses different materials. Second, if PF were wrong, Rossi could still have found the golden goose. Again, his method is different from PF's. The argument against Rossi is simply that it is very easy to test his claim. He has been told by many experts, including enthusiasts of CF like Jed Rothwell, *exactly* how it needs to be done. It's not a risky process, needs not reveal his secrets and can be done cheaply and quickly. And he has *never* done it in nine months of fussing around with lots of people. He has instead gone through one experiment after another based on evaporation of steam. His October 6 demo featured a much larger and heavier device which was poorly inspected and had a lower power density than ever before. Each subsequent device seems to make less power per volume and weight than the one before. And his October 28 demo of the megawatt plant was not properly witnessed by any of the guest scientists and journalists. Those are Rossi's problems. The problems are not that there are pseusoskeptics (whatever the heck that is) any more than the problems are that there are clowns and snakes. The problem is simply and squarely Rossi and his unnecessarily evasive activities.
[Vo]:Imputing pressure at the output thermocouple for Rossi's Oct 28 demo
In the tradition of Alan Fletcher's exemplary skepticism: If the pressure at the output thermocouple of the Oct 28 demo exceeds the critical pressure of steam at the reported temperature, then there is no heat of vaporization represented in the mass flow hence in the imputed power level. We may give Rossi the benefit of the doubt (doubt created in his response to me wherein he said that the pressure at that thermocouple never exceeded 20mm water column) and presume he merely poorly expressed his answer or poorly understood my question (which was repeated later by another person). 20mm water column would most definitely not have been sufficient to drive the fluid flow from that thermocouple, to the condensers, through the condensers and then, as liquid water, back along the ground and then up to the level of the water in the holding tank. The question then becomes: What is the plausible range of pressures at the thermocouple to sustain that flow? If the lower range of those plausible pressures exceeds the critical pressure reported at the thermocouple, then it throws the entire test into serious doubt. Rather than rhetoric, here's some arithmetic: The pressure drop in saturated steam distribution pipes can be calculated in metric units ashttp://www.engineeringtoolbox.com/steam-pressure-drop-calculator-d_1093.html *dp = 0.6753 106 q2 l (1 + 91.4/d) / ρ d5 * *where * *dp = pressure drop (Pa)* *q = steam flow rate (kg/h)* *l = length of pipe (m)* *d = pipe inside diameterhttp://www.engineeringtoolbox.com/asme-steel-pipes-sizes-d_42.html(mm) * *ρ = steam densityhttp://www.engineeringtoolbox.com/saturated-steam-properties-d_457.html(kg/m 3)* Examination of the videos of the steam pipe between the thermocouple and the condenser, and estimating values that will minimize the pressure drop, I would estimate the diameter to be 200mm over a length of 2 meters, followed by a narrowing (over a short distance) down to 100mm, then distributing out to 7 condensing channels, each about 2cm in diameter having a total length (cross and back) of 2 meters, then feeding back about 4 meters along the ground as liquid water through a pipe that's about 100mm, and then rising to the water level of the holding tank, at around 700mm height. So the above equation has to be applied in 2 places: 1. steam to condenser and 2. through one leg of the round trip through a condenser channel (presuming it is gas phase only half way through the condenser channel) The narrowing down from 200mm to 100mm would involve a pressure drop as well, but that may be dominated by the immediate distribution to the condenser's channels. Then, on the return trip, we're dealing with liquid phase water, the head loss due to flow is given by: Summarized Major Losseshttp://www.engineeringtoolbox.com/total-pressure-loss-ducts-pipes-d_625.html The major head losshttp://www.engineeringtoolbox.com/major-loss-ducts-tubes-d_459.htmlfor a single pipe or duct can be expressed as: *hmajor_loss =λ (l / dh) (v2 / 2 g)** (2)* *where* *hloss** = head loss (m, ft)* *λ** = friction coefficient* *l** = length of duct or pipe (m)* *dh** = hydraulic diameterhttp://www.engineeringtoolbox.com/hydraulic-equivalent-diameter-d_458.html(m) * *v** = flow velocity (m/s, ft/s)* *g** = acceleration of gravityhttp://www.engineeringtoolbox.com/accelaration-gravity-d_340.html(m/s 2, ft/s2)* This would, again, apply twice: 1. To the return leg of the condenser channel (one of 7) 2. To the water pipe running along the ground to the holding tank. This doesn't take into account the head loss from rise from ground level to the water level in the holding tank. So a couple of questions: 1. Is this an adequate set up of the problem -- presuming we are attempting to identify the minimum plausible pressure at the output thermocouple? 2. Examining the condenser itself, the condenser channels are horizontal pipes in a vertical array, so the steam feeder and water collector pipes must be vertical. But this creates a problem on the water collection side: What is the water level and how is it to not interfere with the entry of steam at that level?
Re: [Vo]:Stop Destroying Keyboards
On Tue, Nov 15, 2011 at 10:17 AM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.comwrote: James Bowery jabow...@gmail.com wrote: Can't you just ban this noise-box, Jed? I can't ban anyone. Then that ends that discussion.
Re: [Vo]:Imputing pressure at the output thermocouple for Rossi's Oct 28 demo
On Tue, Nov 15, 2011 at 11:56 AM, Joshua Cude joshua.c...@gmail.com wrote: 2011/11/15 James Bowery jabow...@gmail.com If the pressure at the output thermocouple of the Oct 28 demo exceeds the critical pressure of steam at the reported temperature, then there is no heat of vaporization represented in the mass flow hence in the imputed power level. As Stephen Lawrence has emphasized, if the fluid is all steam at the output, then the temperature fluctuation corresponds to about a 1% power fluctuation. If it is all water, then it's about 2%. Neither seems very likely given the huge range of power outputs reported over the year. My understanding is that Rossi's primary problem in achieving self-heating was fine tuning the control of the water flow rate so as to stabilize temperature, rather than relying on an internal resistance heater to assist in setting the lower bound of the target range. If that is the case, then we should expect to see fluctuations in mass flow rate rather than fluctuations in temperature -- regardless of phase.
Re: [Vo]:Imputing pressure at the output thermocouple for Rossi's Oct 28 demo
This is another one of those give Rossi the benefit of the doubt issues: The only way I can conceive of a temperature equilibrium in a temperature-enhanced LENR system that doesn't have a heating element setting its lower bounds (and heat-transport medium's phase change its upper bounds) is to feedback from temperature to the heat-transport medium's mass flow rate. If there is no such control then I can't conceive of how the temperature is stabilized. On Tue, Nov 15, 2011 at 1:36 PM, Joshua Cude joshua.c...@gmail.com wrote: On Tue, Nov 15, 2011 at 1:18 PM, James Bowery jabow...@gmail.com wrote: On Tue, Nov 15, 2011 at 11:56 AM, Joshua Cude joshua.c...@gmail.comwrote: 2011/11/15 James Bowery jabow...@gmail.com If the pressure at the output thermocouple of the Oct 28 demo exceeds the critical pressure of steam at the reported temperature, then there is no heat of vaporization represented in the mass flow hence in the imputed power level. As Stephen Lawrence has emphasized, if the fluid is all steam at the output, then the temperature fluctuation corresponds to about a 1% power fluctuation. If it is all water, then it's about 2%. Neither seems very likely given the huge range of power outputs reported over the year. My understanding is that Rossi's primary problem in achieving self-heating was fine tuning the control of the water flow rate so as to stabilize temperature, rather than relying on an internal resistance heater to assist in setting the lower bound of the target range. If that is the case, then we should expect to see fluctuations in mass flow rate rather than fluctuations in temperature -- regardless of phase. I guess that's possible, although you might expect a kind of oscillation in the temperature, like you get with a thermostat. Where does he describe this? Does he use the output temperature in a feedback loop to adjust the flow? I haven't seen any indication of that in any of the earlier ecats, and not enough of the multi-cat was shown to see any evidence for it.
Re: [Vo]:Stop Destroying Keyboards
On Tue, Nov 15, 2011 at 1:29 PM, Stephen A. Lawrence sa...@pobox.comwrote: On 11-11-15 10:31 AM, James Bowery wrote: The pseudoskeptics continually assert that their criticism of those who are investigating Rossi's claims has nothing to do with whether Pons and Fleischmann had any validity to their claims. This rhetorical maneuver denies the obvious Bayesian law of prior probability distribution: If PF's cold fusion claim was not valid then any subsequent claims of advances on PF's cold fusion claim are likewise invalidated. This is total nonsense. Experimental results must be judged on their own merit, whether or not the reason for doing the experiments in the first place was actually well founded. That would be true if the experimental protocol were available. In Rossi's case, the experimental protocol is NOT available. What we are dealing with in Rossi's case is NOT science, but more in line with doing an intelligence estimate (as in intelligence agency). When doing such an estimate, the distinction between circumstantial evidence is not as important as it is when one is engaged in science, but it is still relevant. My point about PF is that, while it is a mere circumstance of the Rossi phenomenon, it is highly relevant in investing investigative resources. If PF were not valid, then Rossi's failure to provide experimental protocol would enhance the value of other circumstantial evidence and we would be in a world of shit so deep that it would probably not be worth even my relatively cheap time to look into it. The pseudoskeptics are basically saying that all we have to do is look at the circumstantial evidence to know that even cursory investigation of the direct evidence of the Rossi phenomenon (which implies suspending skepticism about Rossi's claims the way one does in a logical proof involving an assumed condition) is ill-advised (to say the least, by Jove!). This would approximate a reasonable opinion ONLY if PF were not valid. If PF are valid, and we have the possibility of invalidating Rossi's claims merely on direct evidence, what is ill-advised is to ignore what direct evidence we have available if there is any plausible expectation that by doing so we can invalidate Rossi's claims.
[Vo]:Temperature Control in E-Cat Self-sustained Mode
What controls the temperature in the E-Cat's self-sustained mode? I had presumed that all the work Rossi did to go from resistivity heated temperature control to self-sustained temperature control was geared around feedback of the temperature to the heat transport mass flow rate. I didn't have direct evidence of this, other than the relatively narrow range of temperatures during self-sustained mode. Keep in mind that Rossi has stated on numerous occasions that his reaction rate is an increasing function of temperature, and that therefore his system can go into a runaway feedback loop thus destroying itself if it is not carefully controlled. If the resistivity power can be varied during the run, and the heat transport mass flow rate is constant, but high enough to quench the reaction in the absence of resistivity heating, the temperature control system is obvious. But if there is no resistivity heating control there has to be control of the heat transport mass flow rate, does there not?
Re: [Vo]:Temperature Control in E-Cat Self-sustained Mode
This doesn't apply to the reaction chamber itself if we presume Rossi's temperature-enhanced reaction rate is in play there. Regardless of how the pressure changes or what the phase mixture is, the temperature will continue to rise and the power level continues to rise. Indeed, the only thing that I can think of that is consistent with a constant temperature at a constant heat transport mass flow rate is a constant power source that operates without regard to its temperature (or in a negative feedback with its temperature). On Wed, Nov 16, 2011 at 8:43 AM, Rich Murray rmfor...@gmail.com wrote: skeptical viewpoints re Rossi: John Pasquarette: Rich Murray 2011.11.11 On Wed, Nov 16, 2011 at 6:24 AM, James Bowery jabow...@gmail.com wrote: What controls the temperature in the E-Cat's self-sustained mode? I had presumed that all the work Rossi did to go from resistivity heated temperature control to self-sustained temperature control was geared around feedback of the temperature to the heat transport mass flow rate. I didn't have direct evidence of this, other than the relatively narrow range of temperatures during self-sustained mode.. Any mixture of water and steam self-regulates at a temperature set by the current pressure at each place in the system -- just like any boiling pot of water on a stove -- in Santa Fe at 7,000 feet altitude, the pressure is lower, while in a pressure cooker the increased pressure inside the sealed container causes the self-regulated boiling temperature to be be higher... Once the water is all turned into steam, then the steam temperature rises much more for each added unit of heat input, inside a pressurized system -- so in the Rossi device self-sustain mode, the fact that the temperature is so stable for hours proves conclusively that the coolant flow is still a mixture of water, mist, and steam gas... megawatt ecat produces 70 kW [very little steam, mixed with water -- cup of tea, anyone?]: Joshua Cude: Rich Murray 2011.10.31 2011.11.10 from Rich Murray rmfor...@gmail.com reply-to vortex-l@eskimo.com to vortex-L@eskimo.com, Rich Murray rmfor...@gmail.com, Rich Murray rmfor...@comcast.net date Mon, Oct 31, 2011 at 5:54 AM subject [Vo]:megawatt ecat produces 70 kW [very little steam, mixed with water]: Joshua Cude: Rich Murray 2011.10.31 megawatt ecat produces 70 kW [very little steam, mixed with water -- cup of tea, anyone?]: Joshua Cude: Rich Murray 2011.10.31 [ Rich Murray: this nail in the coffin goes right to the point... using Rossi's own data... ] http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/H-Ni_Fusion/message/791 [H-Ni_Fusion] megawatt ecat produces 70 kW fromjoshua.cude joshua.c...@yahoo.com to h-ni_fus...@yahoogroups.com dateMon, Oct 31, 2011 at 4:02 AM subject [H-Ni_Fusion] megawatt ecat produces 70 kW mailing list H-Ni_Fusion.yahoogroups.comhttp://h-ni_fusion.yahoogroups.com/ 4:02 AM (1 hour ago) The presented evidence from the megawatt demo does not support output power above 70 kW in the 1 MW reactor. The calculation used by Rossi and Fioravanti to claim 470 kW assumes that essentially all the water pumped through the system is vaporized. However, there is no evidence presented in the report to support that assumption. Rossi collects liquid water at the exit of the reactor, but there is no evidence presented that liquid cannot be carried past this collector, entrained in the fast flowing steam, and into the heat exchanger. The only measurement reported is the temperature of the fluid as it exits. This is on average about 105 C, which probably corresponds to the boiling point inside the conduit at an elevated pressure due to the formation of some steam. The fact that no independent measurement was reported of pressure or steam quality indicates that Fioravanti is no more competent than Essen and Kallunder were. If one accepts the notion that above 100 C, the steam is dry, then the total power transfer is proportional to: T2-T1 if T2 = 100 T2-T1 + 540 + (T2-100)(.5)if T2 100 By this calculation, at 100 C, the power transfer is about 65 kW, and at 100.1 C it is about 470 kW. The blue line in the attached figure (PowerTransfer.jpg) represents the result of this calculation for Rossi's latest data in arbitrary units. (The plateau would be about 470 kW.) Or even if you want to claim that the steam is only dry when it reaches 105 C a few minutes later, then the power would follow the dashed line. So Rossi and Fioravanti want us to believe that although it takes 2 hours for the power transfer to reach 65 kW (100 C), it takes only a few minutes to go from 65 kW to 470 kW. The power transfer to the water is proportional to the temperature difference between the water and the heating elements. So this amounts to a claim that the temperature of the heating elements changes
Re: [Vo]:Temperature Control in E-Cat Self-sustained Mode
Erratum: The parenthetic comment (or in a negative feedback with its temperature) should read (or in a negative feedback with its temperature about a constant temperature). An example of the latter is the purported stability of the Liquid Fluoride Thorium Reactor. On Wed, Nov 16, 2011 at 9:05 AM, James Bowery jabow...@gmail.com wrote: This doesn't apply to the reaction chamber itself if we presume Rossi's temperature-enhanced reaction rate is in play there. Regardless of how the pressure changes or what the phase mixture is, the temperature will continue to rise and the power level continues to rise. Indeed, the only thing that I can think of that is consistent with a constant temperature at a constant heat transport mass flow rate is a constant power source that operates without regard to its temperature (or in a negative feedback with its temperature). On Wed, Nov 16, 2011 at 8:43 AM, Rich Murray rmfor...@gmail.com wrote: skeptical viewpoints re Rossi: John Pasquarette: Rich Murray 2011.11.11 On Wed, Nov 16, 2011 at 6:24 AM, James Bowery jabow...@gmail.com wrote: What controls the temperature in the E-Cat's self-sustained mode? I had presumed that all the work Rossi did to go from resistivity heated temperature control to self-sustained temperature control was geared around feedback of the temperature to the heat transport mass flow rate. I didn't have direct evidence of this, other than the relatively narrow range of temperatures during self-sustained mode.. Any mixture of water and steam self-regulates at a temperature set by the current pressure at each place in the system -- just like any boiling pot of water on a stove -- in Santa Fe at 7,000 feet altitude, the pressure is lower, while in a pressure cooker the increased pressure inside the sealed container causes the self-regulated boiling temperature to be be higher... Once the water is all turned into steam, then the steam temperature rises much more for each added unit of heat input, inside a pressurized system -- so in the Rossi device self-sustain mode, the fact that the temperature is so stable for hours proves conclusively that the coolant flow is still a mixture of water, mist, and steam gas... megawatt ecat produces 70 kW [very little steam, mixed with water -- cup of tea, anyone?]: Joshua Cude: Rich Murray 2011.10.31 2011.11.10 from Rich Murray rmfor...@gmail.com reply-to vortex-l@eskimo.com to vortex-L@eskimo.com, Rich Murray rmfor...@gmail.com, Rich Murray rmfor...@comcast.net date Mon, Oct 31, 2011 at 5:54 AM subject [Vo]:megawatt ecat produces 70 kW [very little steam, mixed with water]: Joshua Cude: Rich Murray 2011.10.31 megawatt ecat produces 70 kW [very little steam, mixed with water -- cup of tea, anyone?]: Joshua Cude: Rich Murray 2011.10.31 [ Rich Murray: this nail in the coffin goes right to the point... using Rossi's own data... ] http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/H-Ni_Fusion/message/791 [H-Ni_Fusion] megawatt ecat produces 70 kW fromjoshua.cude joshua.c...@yahoo.com to h-ni_fus...@yahoogroups.com dateMon, Oct 31, 2011 at 4:02 AM subject [H-Ni_Fusion] megawatt ecat produces 70 kW mailing list H-Ni_Fusion.yahoogroups.comhttp://h-ni_fusion.yahoogroups.com/ 4:02 AM (1 hour ago) The presented evidence from the megawatt demo does not support output power above 70 kW in the 1 MW reactor. The calculation used by Rossi and Fioravanti to claim 470 kW assumes that essentially all the water pumped through the system is vaporized. However, there is no evidence presented in the report to support that assumption. Rossi collects liquid water at the exit of the reactor, but there is no evidence presented that liquid cannot be carried past this collector, entrained in the fast flowing steam, and into the heat exchanger. The only measurement reported is the temperature of the fluid as it exits. This is on average about 105 C, which probably corresponds to the boiling point inside the conduit at an elevated pressure due to the formation of some steam. The fact that no independent measurement was reported of pressure or steam quality indicates that Fioravanti is no more competent than Essen and Kallunder were. If one accepts the notion that above 100 C, the steam is dry, then the total power transfer is proportional to: T2-T1 if T2 = 100 T2-T1 + 540 + (T2-100)(.5)if T2 100 By this calculation, at 100 C, the power transfer is about 65 kW, and at 100.1 C it is about 470 kW. The blue line in the attached figure (PowerTransfer.jpg) represents the result of this calculation for Rossi's latest data in arbitrary units. (The plateau would be about 470 kW.) Or even if you want to claim that the steam is only dry when it reaches 105 C a few minutes later, then the power would follow the dashed line. So Rossi and Fioravanti want us
Re: [Vo]:Temperature Control in E-Cat Self-sustained Mode
The temperature control system doesn't necessarily have to sense right at the reactor. It can take any output measurement that has a reasonably short time constant. The problem is that if there is no such control system, then the reactor has to destroy itself (presuming the truth of Rossi's repeated assertions that reaction rate increases with temperature). On Wed, Nov 16, 2011 at 9:13 AM, Joshua Cude joshua.c...@gmail.com wrote: On Wed, Nov 16, 2011 at 9:05 AM, James Bowery jabow...@gmail.com wrote: This doesn't apply to the reaction chamber itself if we presume Rossi's temperature-enhanced reaction rate is in play there. That's true, but then we don't know that the temperature there is well-regulated. There is no evidence the temperature in the reactor is even measured, but if it is, it is not reported. That would of course be very useful information, because it would have a very direct relationship to the power transferred to the water: if the claims of complete vaporization within minutes of the onset of boiling were true, we should see a very rapid increase in the core temperature just when boiling starts.
Re: [Vo]:Temperature Control in E-Cat Self-sustained Mode
Ooops... my intuition screwed up on this one: Since the effective specific heat does not remain constant with temperature -- there is a discontinuous rise at the boiling point -- there is a dramatic rise in the effective heat transport with temperature at the boiling point (whatever it is for the pressure in the reaction vessel). That's all that's required for temperature control. Rossi's effort required to achieve self-sustained mode then would have been to ensure that the flow rate around the reactor vessel was in the range where it is low enough not to quench the reaction in the 1deg/gm/calorie regime, but high enough that in the regime where its some huge number the reactor reaches an equilibrium with the heat transport. I plead lack of sleep.
Re: [Vo]:Temperature Control in E-Cat Self-sustained Mode
By the way, this means that if the water in the reactor vessel is under enough pressure, the water pressure can be very high. This means, in turn, that if it goes through a pressure drop, it can be completely vaporized -- indeed superheated steam. On Wed, Nov 16, 2011 at 9:56 AM, James Bowery jabow...@gmail.com wrote: Ooops... my intuition screwed up on this one: Since the effective specific heat does not remain constant with temperature -- there is a discontinuous rise at the boiling point -- there is a dramatic rise in the effective heat transport with temperature at the boiling point (whatever it is for the pressure in the reaction vessel). That's all that's required for temperature control. Rossi's effort required to achieve self-sustained mode then would have been to ensure that the flow rate around the reactor vessel was in the range where it is low enough not to quench the reaction in the 1deg/gm/calorie regime, but high enough that in the regime where its some huge number the reactor reaches an equilibrium with the heat transport. I plead lack of sleep.
Re: [Vo]:Imputing pressure at the output thermocouple for Rossi's Oct 28 demo
OK, I've now conceived of how the temperature is stabilized without feedback control, and it doesn't require anything like mixed phase flow. All it requires is pressure in the reaction vessel high enough to keep the liquid flow at the boiling point (for that pressure) and transport away all the power within the heat of latent heat provided by the nearly discontinuous rise in effective specific heat of water at the boiling point. The water pump pressure feeding the E-Cat could be very high relative to atmospheric pressure, and the pressure drop at the exit from the E-Cat could be quite substantial prior to the thermocouple, resulting in a dry -- even superheated -- steam. So my originally post problem of estimating the pressure at the output thermocouple still stands as critical in invalidating the Oct 28 demonstration. On Wed, Nov 16, 2011 at 7:23 AM, James Bowery jabow...@gmail.com wrote: This is another one of those give Rossi the benefit of the doubt issues: The only way I can conceive of a temperature equilibrium in a temperature-enhanced LENR system that doesn't have a heating element setting its lower bounds (and heat-transport medium's phase change its upper bounds) is to feedback from temperature to the heat-transport medium's mass flow rate. If there is no such control then I can't conceive of how the temperature is stabilized. On Tue, Nov 15, 2011 at 1:36 PM, Joshua Cude joshua.c...@gmail.comwrote: On Tue, Nov 15, 2011 at 1:18 PM, James Bowery jabow...@gmail.com wrote: On Tue, Nov 15, 2011 at 11:56 AM, Joshua Cude joshua.c...@gmail.comwrote: 2011/11/15 James Bowery jabow...@gmail.com If the pressure at the output thermocouple of the Oct 28 demo exceeds the critical pressure of steam at the reported temperature, then there is no heat of vaporization represented in the mass flow hence in the imputed power level. As Stephen Lawrence has emphasized, if the fluid is all steam at the output, then the temperature fluctuation corresponds to about a 1% power fluctuation. If it is all water, then it's about 2%. Neither seems very likely given the huge range of power outputs reported over the year. My understanding is that Rossi's primary problem in achieving self-heating was fine tuning the control of the water flow rate so as to stabilize temperature, rather than relying on an internal resistance heater to assist in setting the lower bound of the target range. If that is the case, then we should expect to see fluctuations in mass flow rate rather than fluctuations in temperature -- regardless of phase. I guess that's possible, although you might expect a kind of oscillation in the temperature, like you get with a thermostat. Where does he describe this? Does he use the output temperature in a feedback loop to adjust the flow? I haven't seen any indication of that in any of the earlier ecats, and not enough of the multi-cat was shown to see any evidence for it.
Re: [Vo]:Imputing pressure at the output thermocouple for Rossi's Oct 28 demo
On Wed, Nov 16, 2011 at 10:55 AM, Joshua Cude joshua.c...@gmail.com wrote: On Wed, Nov 16, 2011 at 10:12 AM, James Bowery jabow...@gmail.com wrote: OK, I've now conceived of how the temperature is stabilized without feedback control, and it doesn't require anything like mixed phase flow. All it requires is pressure in the reaction vessel high enough to keep the liquid flow at the boiling point (for that pressure) and transport away all the power within the heat of latent heat provided by the nearly discontinuous rise in effective specific heat of water at the boiling point. Again, I don't follow. That sounds like a mixture of phases. The specific heat of water decreases at the boiling point. The specific heat of steam is about half that of liquid water, but it's more the heat transfer coefficient that is relevant there. If you're talking about the specific heat of liquid, it does not change discontinuously anywhere. My use of the qualifier effective specific heat could be replaced by effective mass flow rate -- the point is to project the effect of latent heat of vaporization into another dimension to illustrate its temperature control effect. I do not, of course, mean either the specific heat or mass flow rate change. The water pump pressure feeding the E-Cat could be very high relative to atmospheric pressure, and the pressure drop at the exit from the E-Cat could be quite substantial prior to the thermocouple, resulting in a dry -- even superheated -- steam. No, it would not convert from liquid to dry steam unless the temperature of the liquid water was over 600C, and that would require implausible pressures. That's true if there is no latent heat of vaporization represented in the liquid water. With careful setting of the water flow rate, one can approach vaporization within the reactor vessel without any actual vaporization. THAT is the critical parameter here. Indeed, for effective heat transfer, you don't want ANY vaporization as the heat transfer drops off precipitously as soon as you start forming surface bubbles. For Rossi to allow bubbles to form on the heat transfer surface would be dangerous if the reaction rate was indeed proportional to temperature as he says. Did Rossi carefully tweak his resistive heating sustained system so that he achieved, say, 200C inside the reaction vessel with a liquid water flow very close to, but not achieving vaporization? At this point, until convinced otherwise, I'm not willing to dispense with any further investigations on the speculation that he could not have done so. So my originally post problem of estimating the pressure at the output thermocouple still stands as critical in invalidating the Oct 28 demonstration. You'll have to explain it again for those of us with shit for brains, because it doesn't make sense to me. I don't see how you've countered the very simple claim that the well regulated temperature corresponds to a 1% regulation in power, unless there is a mixture of phases. Where did I call you shit for brains?
Re: [Vo]:Imputing pressure at the output thermocouple for Rossi's Oct 28 demo
On Wed, Nov 16, 2011 at 12:19 PM, James Bowery jabow...@gmail.com wrote: That's true if there is no latent heat of vaporization represented in the liquid water. With careful setting of the water flow rate, one can approach vaporization within the reactor vessel without any actual vaporization. THAT is the critical parameter here. Indeed, for effective heat transfer, you don't want ANY vaporization as the heat transfer drops off precipitously as soon as you start forming surface bubbles. For Rossi to allow bubbles to form on the heat transfer surface would be dangerous if the reaction rate was indeed proportional to temperature as he says. Did Rossi carefully tweak his resistive heating sustained system so that he achieved, say, 200C inside the reaction vessel with a liquid water flow very close to, but not achieving vaporization? At this point, until convinced otherwise, I'm not willing to dispense with any further investigations on the speculation that he could not have done so. I recall the manometer registered 3 bar, which is 300kPa which corresponds to a potential liquid water temperature of 130C at the exit from the reaction vessel. This doesn't leave him a lot of room to play with before bubbles start forming on the heat transfer surface of the reactors, but there is some -- enough to make the system plausible.
Re: [Vo]:Imputing pressure at the output thermocouple for Rossi's Oct 28 demo
On Wed, Nov 16, 2011 at 12:41 PM, James Bowery jabow...@gmail.com wrote: I recall the manometer registered 3 bar, which is 300kPa which corresponds to a potential liquid water temperature of 130C at the exit from the reaction vessel. This doesn't leave him a lot of room to play with before bubbles start forming on the heat transfer surface of the reactors, but there is some -- enough to make the system plausible. BTW: The heat represented by the difference between 130C and 100C (30calories/gm) is about 5% of the heat of vaporization of water: ([30 * calorie] / gramm) / ([2201.4 * joule] / gramm) = 0.057056419 So that is Rossi's margin of error in the mass flow rate.
Re: [Vo]:Stop Destroying Keyboards
On Wed, Nov 16, 2011 at 10:11 AM, Stephen A. Lawrence sa...@pobox.comwrote: ** On 11-11-16 08:59 AM, James Bowery wrote: On Tue, Nov 15, 2011 at 1:29 PM, Stephen A. Lawrence sa...@pobox.comwrote: On 11-11-15 10:31 AM, James Bowery wrote: The pseudoskeptics continually assert that their criticism of those who are investigating Rossi's claims has nothing to do with whether Pons and Fleischmann had any validity to their claims. This rhetorical maneuver denies the obvious Bayesian law of prior probability distribution: If PF's cold fusion claim was not valid then any subsequent claims of advances on PF's cold fusion claim are likewise invalidated. This is total nonsense. Experimental results must be judged on their own merit, whether or not the reason for doing the experiments in the first place was actually well founded. That would be true if the experimental protocol were available. In Rossi's case, the experimental protocol is NOT available. I guess you missed my point. Let me restate it, more clearly and succinctly. Your blanket statement that any subsequent claims of advances on PF's cold fusion claim are likewise invalidated if PF's result was invalid is false, and that is the case regardless of whether Rossi's work is scientifically impeccable, totally fraudulent, or just a mass hallucination shared by all posters to this list. Excuse my conflation of the Rossi case with the general case. Obviously, any experiment should be considered on its own merits in the scientific disciplines. However, the a priori (ie: Bayesian prior) probability of observing a particular phenomenon does relate to its having been reported before -- and the prior probability distribution does relate to expectation.
[Vo]:Oct 28 Condenser Problem
Examining the condenser, the condenser channels are horizontal pipes in a vertical array. It _appears_ as though each of 7 channels does one round-trip, returning on the pipe just below. One channel would look like: ___ Inflowing vapor (___ Outflowing liquid ___ Inflowing vapor (___ Outflowing liquid ___ Inflowing vapor (___ Outflowing liquid ___ Inflowing vapor (___ Outflowing liquid ___ Inflowing vapor (___ Outflowing liquid ___ Inflowing vapor (___ Outflowing liquid ___ Inflowing vapor (___ Outflowing liquid So the steam feeder and water collector pipes must be vertical. But this creates a problem on the water collection side: What is the water level in the vertical collector pipe and how is it to not interfere with the entry of steam at that level?
[Vo]:E-Cat's Big Scientific Coincidence?
Is there a plausible explanation for why the temperature at which reaction initiates in the E-Cat just happens to be so close to the boiling point of water? A NiH system doesn't bear any particular relationship to water that I can see. Is this a big scientific coincidence/serendipity or is there a plausible explanation for the apparent coincidence?
Re: [Vo]:E-Cat's Big Scientific Coincidence?
On Wed, Nov 16, 2011 at 1:57 PM, Alan J Fletcher a...@well.com wrote: At 11:32 AM 11/16/2011, James Bowery wrote: Is there a plausible explanation for why the temperature at which reaction initiates in the E-Cat just happens to be so close to the boiling point of water? Mostly coincidence, but it also represents the point at which the entire system has heated up to its operating temperature. We have no idea what the core temperature is -- but it's most likely the Ni Curie temperature of 358°C (catalyst?) The Ni Curie temperature may explain it. The core temperature is what I am thinking about when I talk about the coincidence (understanding that we don't have direct read-outs from it). So if it is some sort of ferromagnetic transition phenomenon, then the close proximity to 100C of Ni's Curie temperature is, indeed, a coincidence/serendipity. Now, the question is: Are we dealing with a ferromagnetic transition phenomenon???
Re: [Vo]:Oct 28 Condenser Problem
Erratum: One channel - The seven channels On Wed, Nov 16, 2011 at 1:21 PM, James Bowery jabow...@gmail.com wrote: Examining the condenser, the condenser channels are horizontal pipes in a vertical array. It _appears_ as though each of 7 channels does one round-trip, returning on the pipe just below. One channel would look like: ___ Inflowing vapor (___ Outflowing liquid ___ Inflowing vapor (___ Outflowing liquid ___ Inflowing vapor (___ Outflowing liquid ___ Inflowing vapor (___ Outflowing liquid ___ Inflowing vapor (___ Outflowing liquid ___ Inflowing vapor (___ Outflowing liquid ___ Inflowing vapor (___ Outflowing liquid So the steam feeder and water collector pipes must be vertical. But this creates a problem on the water collection side: What is the water level in the vertical collector pipe and how is it to not interfere with the entry of steam at that level?
Re: [Vo]:Stop Destroying Keyboards
On Wed, Nov 16, 2011 at 9:02 AM, Joshua Cude joshua.c...@gmail.com wrote: On Wed, Nov 16, 2011 at 7:59 AM, James Bowery jabow...@gmail.com wrote: The pseudoskeptics are basically saying that all we have to do is look at the circumstantial evidence to know that even cursory investigation of the direct evidence of the Rossi phenomenon (which implies suspending skepticism about Rossi's claims the way one does in a logical proof involving an assumed condition) is ill-advised (to say the least, by Jove!). This would approximate a reasonable opinion ONLY if PF were not valid. If PF are valid, and we have the possibility of invalidating Rossi's claims merely on direct evidence, what is ill-advised is to ignore what direct evidence we have available if there is any plausible expectation that by doing so we can invalidate Rossi's claims. Whew. My sympathies for your clients, if that's an example of your communication to them. Yeah I should take more than 30 seconds to bang out a report to them. OOPS! I Do! Sorry if I don't accord you the same courtesy. But if I get the gist of it, I agree that if PF is accepted, then Rossi should be considered more seriously. But, Rossi would know that PF is accepted by a lot of people (many who are desperate to spread the word, as if it is religious), and that the unwashed are rather susceptible to its claims. That would make cold fusion a rather fertile area for attracting investment for extraordinary claims, even if one's demos do no more than hint at them. So, whether or not one accepts PF, without good evidence, skepticism of Rossi is well-advised, especially in view of his history. Boy that sounds familiar! From Excess Heat by Beaudette chapter Baltimor, section The Assault: Koonin offered this denouement to the gathered professional audience. We are suffering from the incompetence and perhaps delusions of Drs. Pons and Fleischmann, a comment he knew was likely to destroy their professional stature. The audience sat quietly for a moment, possibly waiting to see if the sky would fall, and then it burst into enthusiastic and sustained applause. The assembly of physicists had found their deliverance...That considerable response of the roomful of physicists ought not be attributed entirely to the persuasive powers of Koonin and Lewis. As scientists the two did not carry great authority within their respective professions. They were only a couple of especially competent professors. Their polemics on that evening in May (1, 1989) simply triggered the pent-up emotions of the audience.
Re: [Vo]:Steorn's HephaHeat Eclipses Rossi's ECat
Steorn is not stating anything about the input power requirements for their HephaHeat product in that product's web pages. The personal communication about 1kW was made regarding a FaceBook video of a device that might be construed to be related but is not claimed to be related by the Steorn HephaHeat pages. It might also be construed, given the ambiguity, to be a continuous power input drawn down as heat in short periods of time (say during a shower). Indeed, that is the interpretation given the 1kW statement by many skeptics. On Fri, Nov 18, 2011 at 7:03 AM, jwin...@cyllene.uwa.edu.au wrote: I think Steorn must have got word of Rossi's E-Cat and decided to go one better. Checkout http://tinyurl.com/6rg6pzu A clever gentleman at the bottom of the page has calculated the HephaHeat's coefficient of performance: ...the Orbo heater has a minimum output power of 346.12 kW with an input power of 1 kW, which yields a COP of *346*... Isn't that amazing. That has to leave Rossi's E-Cat (with a COP of only around 6) for dead! But still Rossi's device does get the higher end - right up over a megawatt. And it's market ready. So I think the sensible thing would a cross-licensing agreement between Steorn and Rossi - let Steorn include the E-Cat in their range of products to cover the top end, and let Rossi incorporate HephaHeat technology into his home units. After all it seems HephaHeat doesn't need the complications of a catalyst and hydrogen feed, but simply runs from ordinary 50 or 60Hz mains power. That's got to be an enormous advantage for home use. While we are considering the cross-licensing business, we shouldn't forget about Transaltec (English site at www.gammamanager.com) who Rossi has just accepted to market his ECat in Switzerland. The only two products that this company now sells are very large - their 1.5 to 225 MW EBM power plants and now the Megawatt ECat. I reckon Steorn's new HephaHeat device, and the even smaller powered Orbo motor would fill out the low end of their product range perfectly. They would be able to offer Energy by Motion, Energy by Fusion, Energy by Foolishness and Energy by Mistake! I am sure if they hired Sean as their marketing manager that they could make plenty of money. As others have suggested long ago they might change the company's name to something more dynamic and star-studded - Sean's Connery for instance. But still I think the highlight for this week was reading about the man eating monsters that might have got Obama while he was trying to be seen but not eaten on mars! Probably the most amazing thing about this report is the incredibly large percentage of serious comments at the bottom of the page with almost no one taking the mickey! Maybe they have a rule against that like on vortex-l. But I had a serious question about this article - anyone know why some of these predators on mars are impossible to evade if encountered? Even Arni managed to beat the predator that visited Earth so why couldn't Obama use some of Arni's tricks to evade these predators? Here is a link if you want to look for an answer http://tinyurl.com/79teosh or direct http://tinyurl.com/7rx4taj
Re: [Vo]:Petroldragon and Leonardo Technologies, Inc.
This is a good example of why circumstantial evidence should be the last resort. Who can deny that Rossi was indicted and tried? Who can deny that the Italian government is corrrupt? Most importantly, how do you weigh the virtually unlimited bits and pieces of circumstantial evidence against each other when what you are actually demanding is consummation of multiple layers of inference, each layer of which is fraught with uncertainty? Agreed, if that's all you've got to go on, that's all you've got to go on. But IT ISN'T. On Mon, Nov 21, 2011 at 2:01 AM, Marcello Vitale mvit...@ucsbalum.netwrote: OK, I have to repeat myself: Rossi was found wholly not guilty (no crime was committed, is the sentence) by not one but three courts in Italy for trafficking in toxic waste, with the last sentence in November 2004. The more I look into it, the more it seems that somebody with good connections had it in for him, moreover he became an easy scapegoat for professional eco-politicians (the green party has imploded in Italy because taken over by a series of ego-driven opportunists). As I already said, Rossi found himself between a rock and a hard place with the changing definition of toxic waste and very reduced (for lack of final regulations which are always late in Italy) disposal opportunities. Working it up was not any longer legal, and it was not legal transporting it without a permit he did not have and would have taken years to obtain, nor was it legal storing it without same permit, and so on. I would have quit everything and moved to Australia, Rossi tried to fight it. That really does show he has no business sense. If you have no idea what it is like trying to do business in Italy, stop talking about it On Mon, Nov 21, 2011 at 4:17 AM, Robert Leguillon robert.leguil...@hotmail.com wrote: If you don't think that Rossi's past has any bearing on the E-Cat, or if you think the October 6th test showed conclusive, first-principle, irrefutable proof, you probably can just skip this E-Mail. For the rest: PETROLDRAGON I really didn't want to get into the Petroldragon stuff, but I can't let the recent posts hang out there unbalanced. Most of the English information on the Petroldragon affair was quite literally penned by Rossi. I've reviewed several contemporary Italian articles, and here is an exerpt of a 1994 article that should shed some light: Based on laboratory tests, hydrocarbons did not exceed 3 per cent, the rest of the product was formed by water (23%) and three-quarters of a cocktail of industrial solvents, acids much to put in serious danger of the same columns Distillation... The State Forestry Department had seized a 'tanker, from the filing of Piossasco Petrol Dragon (Turin), which was unloading about 10 tons of sewage in the tanks of Omar. Toxic waste transported without a permit, the rangers discovered, and so contaminated with PCBs (polidiclorodifenile highly toxic) as to be prohibitive for any disposal plant in Lombardy. The reduced 's turnover of Omar and' small quantity 'of oil actually distilled, the judge wrote, indicate unequivocally that the principal activity' was carried out in Lacchiarella the storage of toxic substances harmful. And he added a curious detail: the best customers of the Dragon Petrol included a paper mill in the province of Frosinone, that between January '91 to March' 92 had purchased 600 tons of fuel self-sufficient. Too bad that the factory had stopped production since '90 The gist of the accusations is that industrial partners were unloading toxic waste (really toxic) for reclamation. Only a tiny percentage was being processed, and that material that was processed was less than 3 percent hydrocarbons. The customers buying the fuel (the best evidence of efficacy) weren't even operating. The article seems to indicate that Rossi discovered an easy out for industry to stockpile waste and circumvent the higher costs of actual disposal. This was the reasoning for the earlier comparison of Petroldragon to the U.S. crematorium that stockpiled bodies instead of using their furnace. http://archiviostorico.corriere.it/1994/marzo/09/petrolio_dai_rifiuti_inservibile_tossico_co_0_94030910061.shtml LTI At UNH, Leonardo Technologies, Inc. demonstrated a Thermo Electric device at 20% efficiency, when the norm was 4%. I am actually curious if this demonstration involved boiling water. (If anyone can find info on the University of New Hampshire testing, this could be incredibly telling). According to the Army pdf below: When it can time to deliver, his facility caught fire. Then he moved production, and the subcontractors failed. Upwards of 75% of his units didn't work at all, and the remaining gave 1 watt instead of 800-1000W. When he was bailed out to the point that true experts were building him new assembly procedures, he finally built working devices that performed right on par with
[Vo]:USPTO Lawlessness?
There have been many complaints about the US patent office refusing to grant anything that smacks of cold fusion ever since the mid 1990s. Patterson was, I believe, the last person to be granted a patent and he is now dead. Does anyone have a cite for an official communication from the USPTO regarding its refusal to allow patents that smack of cold fusion?
Re: [Vo]:USPTO Lawlessness?
Here is a search of uspto.gov for cold fusion: http://goo.gl/groRG I think this hit indicates that the formal stance is that despite it being incredible technology, cold fusion should be evaluated on the basis of utility: Examples of such cases include: ... a cold fusion process for producing energy (In re Swartz, 232 F.3d 862, 56 USPQ2d 1703, (Fed. Cir. 2000)) These examples are fact specific and should not be applied as a per se rule. Thus, in view of the rare nature of such cases, Office personnel should not label an asserted utility incredible, speculative or otherwise unless it is clear that a rejection based on lack of utility is proper. http://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/pac/mpep/documents/2100_2107_01.htm However, there clearly _is_ a perception among intellectual property counsel that the USPTO does treat inventions labeled cold fusion with a jaundiced eye. This, alone, is sufficient to justify an executive to treat the lawfulness of the USPTO with caution and, in cases where what is at stake simply cannot be adequately insured against even the small risk of lawlessness by a government organ in a critical jurisdiction such as the United States, the prudent course of action would be to build a case outside of that jurisdiction with minimum risk exposure given that a patent is not a safe option. Remember, a CEO is answerable to stockholders, not to Mary Yugo. See, for example: Under the current approach to defining practical utility and operability, the USPTO appears to have approached the majority of biotechnology cases with the same jaundiced eye that it casts on perpetual motion machines or cold fusion inventions. http://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/com/hearings/biotech/bioind.html And this: COMMISSIONER LEHMAN: Thank you very much. Next I'd like to call Micheal Farber of Merchant and Gould. // MICHEAL FARBER, MERCHANT and GOULD MR. FARBER: Thank you, Commission Lehman and panelists. My name is Micheal B. Farber and I'm a patent attorney with Merchant and Gould, in Los Angeles. We are a full-service intellectual property firm, and our biotechnology clients include small start-ups, large Fortune 500 multinational corporations, non-profit research institutions and universities in a broad range of biotechnology areas. I would like to address several issues, particularly with respect to enablement and nonobviousness and the level of ordinary skill in the art. I think with respect to enablement, which also ties in to some extent with utility, there has been a perceived lack of credibility for biotechnology which has almost put it into the same weird science standard as perpetual motion or cold fusion, and I don't think this is appropriate. On Mon, Nov 21, 2011 at 1:27 PM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com wrote: There is a Patent Office memo here: http://lenr-canr.org/Collections/PatentOfficeMemo.jpg I take this to mean they plan to deep six any application relating to cold fusion. That has been the de facto policy ever since this memo was written. However, the memo is vague enough that someone might argue it means they plan to give cold fusion special, kid gloves treatment to expedite applications. These bureaucrats are not stupid. They would not write a smoking gun memo ordering their staff to summarily reject any cold fusion application. Maybe I should add this document to the regular library, along with the patent just issued. The patent office has not denied all patents related to cold fusion. Some have slipped through, mainly a technicality, such as the one they gave Patterson because he was old. Honestly, I do not claim the patent office for this mess. Opposition to cold fusion is society-wide. It is prevalent among scientists although the number who support cold fusion is larger than most people realize. Opposition and ignorance is universal in the mass media, and among high officials such as Sec. of Energy Chu. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:Rossi opens 10 KW expression of interest list and sets 10 kW price
While it is almost certainly the case that by the time you take delivery in or about 2013, the most critical questions surrounding the E-Cat will have been answered, it is also almost certainly the case that Rossi will reach the 10,000 customer waiting list before those questions have been answered. That is his threshold for the requiring money. I don't see how Rossi can provide a customer-controlled pre-sale test for each of 10,000 customers. Therefore, he will be accepting money in advance of the most critical questions about the E-Cat being answered. How are you going to deal with this risk, Aussie Guy? On Tue, Nov 22, 2011 at 3:14 AM, Aussie Guy E-Cat aussieguy.e...@gmail.comwrote: Just placed my order for 10 x 10 kW plants. Will install them, at no cost in my, by children and by friends homes. Rossi said in the radio interview that they had cleared the certification issues and they expected the 10 kW plants to be available in less than 12 months. With a price of $5,400 for a 10 kW thermal plant, this will really upset the market. That is $0.54 / Watt of heat. Assuming the 20 year life Rossi claimed in the interview, the simple LCOE is so small as to make the energy almost free at $0.003 / kWh. At 30% efficiency heat kW to Ac kW with 3 Ac kW output, the electricity price rises to $0.01 / kWh. Good bye grid. It all changes. AG On 11/22/2011 7:20 PM, Aussie Guy E-Cat wrote: http://www.journal-of-nuclear-**physics.com/?p=510cpage=34#** comment-126867http://www.journal-of-nuclear-physics.com/?p=510cpage=34#comment-126867 * Andrea Rossi November 21st, 2011 at 11:25 PM http://www.journal-of-**nuclear-physics.com/?p=510** cpage=34#comment-126867http://www.journal-of-nuclear-physics.com/?p=510cpage=34#comment-126867 Dear Felipe From Chile: You are right, we are organizing this. BY THE WAY: WE COLLECT FROM NOW THE NAMES OF ALL THE PERSONS OR ENITITES INTERESTED TO BUY AN E-CAT OF 10 KW. IF WE WILL REACH 10,000 NAMES IN THE LIST, THE PERSONS IN THE WAITING LIST WILL HAVE THE RIGHT TO CONFIRM OR NOT THEIR ORDER AT 400 EURO/THERMAL KW. DO NOT SEND MONEY, WE WILL ACCEPT THE ORDERS ONLY IF WE WILL REACH 10,000 NAMES IN THE WAITING LIST, COMBINING OUR LIST WITH THE WAITING LIST ORGANIZED BY OUR BROTHERS OF HYDROFUSION . WARM REGARDS, ANDREA ROSSI, LEONARDO CORP. (PRESIDENT) EUR4,000 (USD5,400) for a 10 kW heat / hot water plant
Re: [Vo]:Rossi's interview with Tom and Doug
On Mon, Nov 21, 2011 at 9:43 PM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com wrote: Oh well . . . the first reliable historical report of airplane flight was published in Gleanings in Bee Culture by Amos Root, in 1905. Still published: http://www.beeculture.com/ Now only in archive.com: http://web.archive.org/web/20110715203128/http://www.rootcandles.com/index.cfm/Wright-brothers-story
Re: [Vo]:Rossi to come to the Massachusetts State House tomorrow
On Tue, Nov 22, 2011 at 1:44 PM, Joshua Cude joshua.c...@gmail.com wrote: MIT? How is that possible. MIT is the epicenter of the anti-cold fusion conspiracy... Now THAT's hilarious! With one hand MIT was trashing Fleischmann and Pons and with the other hand they were simultaneously bolting out of the gate running a scatter-shot patent mill for Hagelstein. Now, far be it from me to accuse MIT of a CONSPIRACYhttp://jimbowery.blogspot.com/2011/07/institutional-incompetence-conspiracy.htmlto pack the patent files with bogus broad claims defensible only with a mid-Atlantic elite law department, while everyone else was being suppressed -- but it DOES look rather uh hypocritical.
Re: [Vo]:Rossi to come to the Massachusetts State House tomorrow
On Tue, Nov 22, 2011 at 2:43 PM, Joshua Cude joshua.c...@gmail.com wrote: On Tue, Nov 22, 2011 at 2:27 PM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.comwrote: James Bowery wrote: With one hand MIT was trashing Fleischmann and Pons and with the other hand they were simultaneously bolting out of the gate running a scatter-shot patent mill for Hagelstein. Well, seriously, MIT is a large organization with many different people who have different points of view. A university is nothing like a corporation or the White House, with one person in charge and one set of policies. But the claim is that those beneficiaries of government largess at the MIT have been able to squelch cold fusion research on the entire planet. They are the reason it hasn't borne fruit. Now you're saying they can't control their own institution. That kind of takes the wind of the cold fusion's favorite excuse. What is being protected is the establishment. If an establishment institution overcomes the horrible crime against humanity committed by PF when they conducted science by press conference, and despite the horrible incompetence of PF in measuring neutrons, etc., blah-de woof woof -- then the damage is largely contained. No conspiracy is required. Just a self-organizing system of incentives spiced with incompetence.
Re: [Vo]:A U.S.P.O. policy regarding cold fusion
On Tue, Nov 22, 2011 at 5:01 PM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com wrote: Someone was kind enough to dig up this document: http://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/pac/mpep/documents/2100_2107_01.htm -- Forwarded message -- From: James Bowery jabow...@gmail.com Date: Mon, Nov 21, 2011 at 9:12 PM Subject: Re: [Vo]:USPTO Lawlessness? To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Here is a search of uspto.gov for cold fusion: http://goo.gl/groRG I think this hit indicates that the formal stance is that despite it being incredible technology, cold fusion should be evaluated on the basis of utility: Examples of such cases include: ... a cold fusion process for producing energy (In re Swartz, 232 F.3d 862, 56 USPQ2d 1703, (Fed. Cir. 2000)) These examples are fact specific and should not be applied as a per se rule. Thus, in view of the rare nature of such cases, Office personnel should not label an asserted utility incredible, speculative or otherwise unless it is clear that a rejection based on lack of utility is proper. http://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/pac/mpep/documents/2100_2107_01.htm However, there clearly _is_ a perception among intellectual property counsel that the USPTO does treat inventions labeled cold fusion with a jaundiced eye. This, alone, is sufficient to justify an executive to treat the lawfulness of the USPTO with caution and, in cases where what is at stake simply cannot be adequately insured against even the small risk of lawlessness by a government organ in a critical jurisdiction such as the United States, the prudent course of action would be to build a case outside of that jurisdiction with minimum risk exposure given that a patent is not a safe option. Remember, a CEO is answerable to stockholders, not to Mary Yugo. See, for example: Under the current approach to defining practical utility and operability, the USPTO appears to have approached the majority of biotechnology cases with the same jaundiced eye that it casts on perpetual motion machines or cold fusion inventions. http://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/com/hearings/biotech/bioind.html And this: COMMISSIONER LEHMAN: Thank you very much. Next I'd like to call Micheal Farber of Merchant and Gould. // MICHEAL FARBER, MERCHANT and GOULD MR. FARBER: Thank you, Commission Lehman and panelists. My name is Micheal B. Farber and I'm a patent attorney with Merchant and Gould, in Los Angeles. We are a full-service intellectual property firm, and our biotechnology clients include small start-ups, large Fortune 500 multinational corporations, non-profit research institutions and universities in a broad range of biotechnology areas. I would like to address several issues, particularly with respect to enablement and nonobviousness and the level of ordinary skill in the art. I think with respect to enablement, which also ties in to some extent with utility, there has been a perceived lack of credibility for biotechnology which has almost put it into the same weird science standard as perpetual motion or cold fusion, and I don't think this is appropriate.
Re: [Vo]:Rossi to come to the Massachusetts State House tomorrow
On Wed, Nov 23, 2011 at 12:52 PM, Joshua Cude joshua.c...@gmail.com wrote: On Wed, Nov 23, 2011 at 12:06 PM, Stephen A. Lawrence sa...@pobox.comwrote: ** MIT? How is that possible. MIT is the epicenter of the anti-cold fusion conspiracy... If they're the epicenter of the conspiracy it's not a very effective conspiracy. It's not me that claim they are the epicenter, it's the conspiracy theorists, like Mallove's missive, lays the blame for cold fusion's failure at the feet of MIT. (Yes Hagelstein's presence is another counter-example. If they can't even keep their own in line, how are we to believe they can suppress research all over the planet.) (FYI, IIRC, Jed has said, repeatedly, that in his opinion there is no conspiracy to suppress CF, That's because conspiracy theory is usually code for crazy theory. He doesn't label it a conspiracy theory, but what he describes fits the bill. * ``And let it be noted that there is no more delicate matter to take in hand, nor more dangerous to conduct, nor more doubtful in its success, than to set up as the leader in the introduction of changes. For he who innovates will have for his enemies all those who are well off under the existing order of things, and only lukewarm supporters in those who might be better off under the new.'' * Niccolò Machiavelli *The Prince * N. H. Thomson, translator Dover Publications, Inc., New York, 1992, page 13. Originally published by P. F. Collier Son, New York, 1910.
Re: [Vo]:Report on Rossi's visit to Boston
My question: Did Sen. Bruce Tarr ask Rossi any questions to which Rossi provided surprising (to B. Tarr) answers? When an attorney calls a witness, he knows the answers before he asks the questions. The same applies to public hearings where an elected official invests his political capital in calling a witness. It is understandable, perhaps, why Hagelstein didn't act as an attorney or politician, and Rossi was open to give him a surprising answer (even though it was consistent with his other recent statements). On Wed, Nov 23, 2011 at 3:31 PM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com wrote: Someone from Boston just called me to say that Rossi met with Peter Hagelstein at the state capital, and Rossi said exactly what he's been saying all along: No more tests. Let the customers decide. Etc. Peter offered to do a pure black box tests but Rossi turned him down. In other words it was a waste of time and an embarrassment. The state representative probably regrets he ever heard of the man. Why did Rossi even go? What was he thinking? He does at least make it clear that he cannot reveal anything about this because he has no patent. He does not actually say I do not want widespread publicity because I have no patent -- I want to cash in while I can but I am pretty sure that is what he is thinking. What else? He is between a rock and a hard place. On a different subject . . . Assuming Rossi actually did sell that one megawatt react to someone in the US, it is likely to be the US military. No other entity would think of operating a nuclear reactor of unknown etiology without a permit and without any UL certification. Rossi's statement that there will be no more testing is ridiculous. Before he sells to ordinary customers there will have to be a ton of testing by UL and many safety agencies, as I have often pointed out. Defkalion understands this. They have often cited the need for thorough testing and approval before they can begin selling. - Jed
[Vo]:Only the Paranoid Survive
The last book published by Intel founder Andrew S. Grovehttp://www.amazon.com/Andrew-S.-Grove/e/B000AQ48KWwas titled Only the Paranoid Survive. Senility or experience?
[Vo]:Atmospheric Vortex Engine Critical Questions
Chapter 5 (page 107) of the 2011 doctoral thesis Numerical Simulation of Tornado-like Vorticeshttp://vortexengine.ca/cfd/Diwakar_Natarajan_Full_thesis.pdf by Diwakar Natarajan concludes that cross-winds do not affect the power generation capacity of the AVE, but it appears that this is only with respect to ambient temperature. He specifically calls for further research into the significance of temperature gradients with altitude. Is there any further work that discounts the possible cross-wind induced loss of vortex integrity at the altitudes required to achieve lower exhaust temperatures required for higher Carnot efficiency? The AVE CFD page http://vortexengine.ca/cfd.shtml presents a disagreement with Natarajan's use of turbulent mode simulation. This disagreement is based on behavior of physical models showing laminar flow, one of which was water-spouts and the other being a laboratory scale model. The implication is that the adjoining photograph of a laboratory scale modelhttp://www.vortexengine.ca/Physical_Models_LM-3.shtml demonstrates a vortex that is in disagreement with Natarajan's application of turbulent mode simulation at high Rayleigh numbers. Is anyone aware of further resolution of this point of disagreement?
Re: [Vo]:E-Cats and 450 deg C steam
On Sun, Nov 27, 2011 at 12:42 AM, noone noone thesteornpa...@yahoo.comwrote: The big cost difference between E-Cat technology and conventional technologies will of course be the fuel cost. The fuel cost for a one megawatt cold fusion planet will probably be at least 1/1000 times less than one powered by coal or natural gas. At $5/W, clean coal's levelized capital cost plus the process costs to clean up the effluent and sequester the CO2, exceeds its fuel cost.
Re: [Vo]:E-Cats and 450 deg C steam
On Sun, Nov 27, 2011 at 11:01 AM, James Bowery jabow...@gmail.com wrote: On Sun, Nov 27, 2011 at 12:42 AM, noone noone thesteornpa...@yahoo.comwrote: The big cost difference between E-Cat technology and conventional technologies will of course be the fuel cost. The fuel cost for a one megawatt cold fusion planet will probably be at least 1/1000 times less than one powered by coal or natural gas. At $5/W, clean coal's levelized capital cost plus the process costs to clean up the effluent and sequester the CO2, exceeds its fuel cost. Actually, this applies to conventional coal as well, although that is increasingly irrelevant given that conventional coal plants aren't being built anymore except in Asia. See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cost_of_electricity_by_source#US_Department_of_Energy_estimates
[Vo]:Dealing with the noise box
Although the kill file approach doesn't work due to responses, one can use email filters such as gmail's to filter not only on the from field but on words that occur in the body of the message. The increase in signal to noise ratio is a pleasure.
Re: [Vo]:Dealing with the noise box
Oh, I almost forgot: For gmail, the action to take upon filter match is delete. Others won't get rid of the noise. On Sun, Nov 27, 2011 at 12:32 PM, James Bowery jabow...@gmail.com wrote: Although the kill file approach doesn't work due to responses, one can use email filters such as gmail's to filter not only on the from field but on words that occur in the body of the message. The increase in signal to noise ratio is a pleasure.
Re: [Vo]:E-Cats and 450 deg C steam
The only thing I can think of off the top of my head is he wants to keep the power output of each core the same by running each at a different temperature. On Sun, Nov 27, 2011 at 3:50 PM, Robert Leguillon robert.leguil...@hotmail.com wrote: So, Rossi is claiming series E-Cats again? What is the sense of this? The purpose of the coolant is to transfer heat away from the core. A continuous flow through four series E-Cats will remove different amounts of heat from each series Cat. The increasing input temperature of each Cat will result in a smaller temperature differential between core and coolant, and less heat transfer. It's a control nightmare. On the other hand, four parallel E-Cats can have their individual flow rates decreased to approach the required 450C. For increased steam quantity, just add more legs. Can the Vort collective come up with any logic for his series claims? -- Date: Sun, 27 Nov 2011 11:07:33 -0600 Subject: Re: [Vo]:E-Cats and 450 deg C steam From: jabow...@gmail.com To: thesteornpa...@yahoo.com CC: vortex-l@eskimo.com On Sun, Nov 27, 2011 at 11:01 AM, James Bowery jabow...@gmail.com wrote: On Sun, Nov 27, 2011 at 12:42 AM, noone noone thesteornpa...@yahoo.comwrote: The big cost difference between E-Cat technology and conventional technologies will of course be the fuel cost. The fuel cost for a one megawatt cold fusion planet will probably be at least 1/1000 times less than one powered by coal or natural gas. At $5/W, clean coal's levelized capital cost plus the process costs to clean up the effluent and sequester the CO2, exceeds its fuel cost. Actually, this applies to conventional coal as well, although that is increasingly irrelevant given that conventional coal plants aren't being built anymore except in Asia. See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cost_of_electricity_by_source#US_Department_of_Energy_estimates
Re: [Vo]:Dealing with the noise box
On Sun, Nov 27, 2011 at 5:18 PM, Jouni Valkonen jounivalko...@gmail.comwrote: With GMail, it is better to reduce noise by searching unvanted people and keywords and mark them automatically as read. I tried that, but Gmail organizes things in conversations that includes read messages in the stream so you still end up with a bunch of noise in a conversation. I had to delete.
Re: [Vo]:Atmospheric Vortex Engine Critical Questions
This waterspout video seems to support the laminar hypothesis. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hN7ug1zoWWE On Sun, Nov 27, 2011 at 10:02 AM, James Bowery jabow...@gmail.com wrote: Chapter 5 (page 107) of the 2011 doctoral thesis Numerical Simulation of Tornado-like Vorticeshttp://vortexengine.ca/cfd/Diwakar_Natarajan_Full_thesis.pdf by Diwakar Natarajan concludes that cross-winds do not affect the power generation capacity of the AVE, but it appears that this is only with respect to ambient temperature. He specifically calls for further research into the significance of temperature gradients with altitude. Is there any further work that discounts the possible cross-wind induced loss of vortex integrity at the altitudes required to achieve lower exhaust temperatures required for higher Carnot efficiency? The AVE CFD page http://vortexengine.ca/cfd.shtml presents a disagreement with Natarajan's use of turbulent mode simulation. This disagreement is based on behavior of physical models showing laminar flow, one of which was water-spouts and the other being a laboratory scale model. The implication is that the adjoining photograph of a laboratory scale model http://www.vortexengine.ca/Physical_Models_LM-3.shtml demonstrates a vortex that is in disagreement with Natarajan's application of turbulent mode simulation at high Rayleigh numbers. Is anyone aware of further resolution of this point of disagreement?
Re: [Vo]:Atmospheric Vortex Engine Critical Questions
Indeed, there is a similar phenomenon over land known as landspouts that are known to be laminar. It looks like Natarajan screwed up. On Mon, Nov 28, 2011 at 9:07 AM, James Bowery jabow...@gmail.com wrote: This waterspout video seems to support the laminar hypothesis. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hN7ug1zoWWE On Sun, Nov 27, 2011 at 10:02 AM, James Bowery jabow...@gmail.com wrote: Chapter 5 (page 107) of the 2011 doctoral thesis Numerical Simulation of Tornado-like Vorticeshttp://vortexengine.ca/cfd/Diwakar_Natarajan_Full_thesis.pdf by Diwakar Natarajan concludes that cross-winds do not affect the power generation capacity of the AVE, but it appears that this is only with respect to ambient temperature. He specifically calls for further research into the significance of temperature gradients with altitude. Is there any further work that discounts the possible cross-wind induced loss of vortex integrity at the altitudes required to achieve lower exhaust temperatures required for higher Carnot efficiency? The AVE CFD page http://vortexengine.ca/cfd.shtml presents a disagreement with Natarajan's use of turbulent mode simulation. This disagreement is based on behavior of physical models showing laminar flow, one of which was water-spouts and the other being a laboratory scale model. The implication is that the adjoining photograph of a laboratory scale model http://www.vortexengine.ca/Physical_Models_LM-3.shtml demonstrates a vortex that is in disagreement with Natarajan's application of turbulent mode simulation at high Rayleigh numbers. Is anyone aware of further resolution of this point of disagreement?
Re: [Vo]:Congress cuts the Gordian knot of aviation patents in 1917
On Tue, Nov 29, 2011 at 3:01 PM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com wrote: ...There is precedent for this. In 1917, the United States wanted to begin large-scale mass production of aircraft for World War I. The industry was hamstrung by patent fights especially by the original patent which had been bought by Wright-Martin. There was a confused tangle of conflicting claims and different patents. I do not recall exactly how was worked out, but books about aviation say that Congress cut the Gordian knot and establishing a single source for royalty payments owned by the government. It paid everyone who still had a valid patent in aviation, including Wright-Martin. Something like this a world-wide scale, with many different governments contributing, will probably be needed to work through the cold fusion patent mess. The United States of 1917 is long dead and buried. Sorry if I sound cynical, but the behavior of the establishment and its pet physicists during the cold fusion debacle is really not comparable to the behavior of the early 1900s establishment and its Smithsonian equivalent. Yes, there were establishment denials early on and yes there were some red faces but to compare the lack of flight during that era to the lack of cold fusion as a power source during the late 1900s is to miss orders of magnitude, not to mention a qualitative shift in the kind of corruption in high places that rules today. Seriously, these people would rather fry the biosphere than lose social status.
Re: [Vo]: ECAT Triggered by Cosmic Rays?
This morning, I ran across a truly classy cold fusion joke appearing in Charles Beaudette's book Excess Heat in that book's appendix: The Internet Noise Level written as a letter to Dr. I. M. Noteworthy. I was delighted to see Beaudette's association of the word noise with internet regarding cold fusion, as I had just recently been able to silence a particular noise box here to achieve a remarkable rise in the S/N ratio. Its too bad there aren't more I refuse to look through your telescope, Mr. Galileo jokes. It does not bode well for the future of classy jokes such as Beaudette's. On Mon, Dec 5, 2011 at 2:24 PM, Andrea Selva andreagiuseppe.se...@gmail.com wrote: Sorry Jed. I apologize for the quite rude joke. Couldn't resist. By the way I missed this McKubre test in US. Can you tell me more and provide some pointers ? Thanks Andrea -- Forwarded message -- From: Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com Date: 2011/12/5 Subject: Re: [Vo]: ECAT Triggered by Cosmic Rays? To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Andrea Selva andreagiuseppe.se...@gmail.com wrote: Could this theory explain why e-cat works only at exactly 44.50N, 11.40E ( Via dell'Elettricista, 6http://maps.google.it/maps/place?ftid=0x477e2c9d8f052653:0xbb01c2caaede9d3bq=44.503798,11.402594ved=0CA4Q-gswAAsa=Xei=XyHdTs3zLubRmAWdv_DoBwsig2=MSCvhxqFZtuv5lrCZrt8zw40138 Bologna Italy) and A.R. refuses to run tests in different location ? I realize this is a joke, but to give a serious answer, the Ampenergo test shown by McKubre was in the U.S., and there have been various successful tests elsewhere, as well as failed tests in Bologna, such as the NASA one. Jokes like this are a little tiresome. Several people have looked for co-incidence between cosmic rays and cold fusion cell performance. Dave Nagel gave a paper about that, using data from Mizuno and others. There does seem to be some slight correlation. - Jed
[Vo]:Codeposition of Ni/H
Since codeposition of Pd/D seems to be one of the better ways to get reproducible PF effects, and there has been a lot of work done in electrodeposition of Ni, with the inevitable result of Ni/H codeposition, where are the reports of anomalous heat in the world of Ni electrolysis?
Re: [Vo]:Codeposition of Ni/H
Uh, I'm not talking about the E-Cat. I'm talking about a huge industry with a long history. On Tue, Dec 6, 2011 at 10:39 AM, Axil Axil janap...@gmail.com wrote: There are three basic things that must be accomplished to make an E-Cat design successful. - High hydrogen packing into nickel nano-powder. - Strong Coulomb barrier masking. - Gamma Radiation thermalization, mitigation, and prevention. Industry standard electrodeposition of Ni does none of these key things. On Tue, Dec 6, 2011 at 1:57 AM, James Bowery jabow...@gmail.com wrote: Since codeposition of Pd/D seems to be one of the better ways to get reproducible PF effects, and there has been a lot of work done in electrodeposition of Ni, with the inevitable result of Ni/H codeposition, where are the reports of anomalous heat in the world of Ni electrolysis?
Re: [Vo]:Codeposition of Ni/H
A Google search for nickel plating comes up with nearly 3 millions hitshttps://www.google.com/search?gcx=csourceid=chromeie=UTF-8q=nickel+plating . There is going to be a LOT of codeposition of hydrogen with nickel going on in the enormous RD base of this enormous industry. Why hasn't anyone notice excess heat? On Tue, Dec 6, 2011 at 12:58 PM, James Bowery jabow...@gmail.com wrote: Uh, I'm not talking about the E-Cat. I'm talking about a huge industry with a long history. On Tue, Dec 6, 2011 at 10:39 AM, Axil Axil janap...@gmail.com wrote: There are three basic things that must be accomplished to make an E-Cat design successful. - High hydrogen packing into nickel nano-powder. - Strong Coulomb barrier masking. - Gamma Radiation thermalization, mitigation, and prevention. Industry standard electrodeposition of Ni does none of these key things. On Tue, Dec 6, 2011 at 1:57 AM, James Bowery jabow...@gmail.com wrote: Since codeposition of Pd/D seems to be one of the better ways to get reproducible PF effects, and there has been a lot of work done in electrodeposition of Ni, with the inevitable result of Ni/H codeposition, where are the reports of anomalous heat in the world of Ni electrolysis?
[Vo]:Nickel salts for sale?
Where can I get small quantities of soluble nickel salts? Nickel chloride would be fine. Reagent grade would be nice but not absolutely necessary. Hopefully I won't have a SWAT team of wannabe secret police attack dogs bashing down my door if I get my mitts on such an obvious threat to Homeland Security.
Re: [Vo]:E-Cat production in the US has begun
Your interpretation of begun should be constrained by the context of the original question in which begun is contrasted with starting up. However, your interpretation of begun was not so constrained. I suggest you restate your argument with that in mind. On Sat, Dec 10, 2011 at 8:03 AM, OrionWorks - Steven Vincent Johnson orionwo...@charter.net wrote: On a cautionary note: Rossi's terse response strikes me as a matter of personal interpretation. With Rossi, personal interpretation can mean a lot of different scenarios. I find myself asking, how is Rossi choosing to exploit the word begun in this particular case. Maybe it actually does means Rossi Co. are now building eCats in the U.S. ...Or maybe it just means RCo are thinking about what's all involved in producing eCats in the U.S.. In other words, maybe they have done nothing more than to begin thinking about the matter. ...or maybe RCo is still in negotiation with various enterprises within the U.S. about what's all involved in producing eCats. Speculation on the word, begun can be endless. With no specific details we know absolutely nothing other than what Rossi chooses to tell us for public consumption. With Rossi, his use of the word, begun in this particular case, strikes me as having been strategically stated. It strikes me as an attempt to take some of the wind out of DGT's recent public announcements. IOW, Rossi is saying, if you want to cash in on the biggest deal of the century get on board WITH US NOW!!! AVOID CHEAP IMMITATIONS... aka DGT. In matters of marketing, or more specifically, establishing market share, anything goes. The more outrageous the claim, the better. ;-) Regards, Steven Vincent Johnson www.OrionWorks.com www.zazzle.com/orionworks
[Vo]:Recycling high temperature electrolysis with metal oxide fuel cell
It occurs to me that a since high temperature electrolysishttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High-temperature_electrolysisconverts steam heat to chemical energy in the form of separate flows of hydrogen and oxygen, and high temperature fuel cellshttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solid_oxide_fuel_cellconvert chemical energy to electricity and steam, that one can hook them together in a closed cycle electrical generator that simply requires a heat input of some type. If the cathode of the electrolysis is capable of producing fusion energy from hydrogen at high temperature (ie: the Curie temperature of Nickel) and pressure, then the electrolytic pressure should be more than adequate to provide the heat input to the system and the actual steam pressure needn't be high.
Re: [Vo]:Satellite Video Captures Cloaked Klingon Ship
On Sat, Dec 10, 2011 at 3:40 AM, Aussie Guy E-Cat aussieguy.e...@gmail.comwrote: I have no idea of what it is but it is not an imaging fault as it was observed by another solar satellite. Yes it is. Look at the video taken from the opposite side of Mercury. If it was a real object, it would appear on the left hand side rather than the right hand side.
Re: [Vo]:Cold Fusion and the 2012 Election Cycle
With the DoE consistently opposing funding of cold fusion research it is clear that if Rossi let's his e-Cat out of the bag, it will benefit Ron Paul, who has most visibly and consistently over time opposed the existence of the DoE. On Tue, Dec 13, 2011 at 2:52 AM, noone noone thesteornpa...@yahoo.comwrote: I think the election cycle this year is going to be very interesting. Actually, I think it will be more exciting than ever before! With the US military satisfied the Rossi technology works, purchasing thirteen systems, and helping with R and D, I think the politicians are bound to be told about the reality of cold fusion sooner rather than later. What do you think the politicians will say about cold fusion? I think there is going to be a big debate, due to all of the implications of cold fusion. For example, the impact on the energy crisis, the economy, the middle east, etc. Here are a few thoughts of mine. -- Cold fusion technology will make politicians who wasted money on conventional alternative energy technologies look stupid. -- Cold fusion will make politicians who supported free market solutions to the energy crisis gain support. -- Cold fusion will make politicians who support a continual presence in the Middle East look bad. -- Cold fusion will make fake environmentalists -- who will not support cold fusion -- look bad. -- Cold fusion will make there be no need for carbon taxes. -- Cold fusion will make politicians who support globalism look bad, because the E-Cat technology can make all nations much more independent. No nation will ever need to depend on another nation for energy. -- Cold fusion will make politicians who support hot fusion research look bad.
[Vo]:Policy Recommendations
As the theocracy unravels, opportunities for reform may present themselves. We can hope that such Reformation is not as bloody as that which followed Galileo but the modern era has given rise to much worse phenomena in reaction to calcified institutions, such as Pol Pot's Khmer Rougehttp://jimbowery.blogspot.com/2011/07/institutional-incompetence-conspiracy.html . Rather than merely hope for rational, peaceful, reform, what are the policy reforms that may allow us to say with confidence: Never again. ?
[Vo]:National Security and Population Structure
A young Nebraska farmer's son went to war against Germany and came back with code-breaking skills, as well as good DoD contacts. His name was William Norris. He started Control Data Corporation with a young engineer named Seymour Cray and, with 34 people out on Seymour's farm in Wisconsin (only one of whom was a PhD and he was a Jr. programmer) built what is widely regarded as the first supercomputer http://drdobbs.com/184404102-- even as IBM's armies of PhD's and unlimited resources foundered in the effort much to the dismay of IBM's CEO, Thomas Watson, Jr. Somewhere along the line, they hired me. What I learned was that both Bill and Seymour had very strong feelings about the national security implications of an increasingly urbanized population. That's one reason Seymour had his lab out in the north woods of Wisconsin. Bill, as CEO of CDC, had made this allowance for Seymour while keeping CDC HQ in Minneapolis St. Paul (right across from the airport). The reason I signed on with them was the promise that I could fulfill part of Bill's vision for America: National security through dispersed population structure -- both its preservation as an American heritage and its promotion as recovery from the recent urbanization that threatened that heritage. Basically, its virtually impossible to take out a decentralized society -- whether you are a nuclear superpower or an international terrorist organization. My particular part in this effort was that I was to prototype a mass-marketable version of the PLATO network, which I did circa 1980. I won't go into the details of that network except to say that the contribution it would have made to national security would have been to connect smart rural homesteads with information, education and business resources that would contribute to their self-sufficiency. Yes, I know, this is starting to be realized today, but a lot of water has passed under the bridge since 1980, no? The rest of Bill's vision was that these smart homesteads would be energy and food self-sufficient. The reason you never heard of these things is that they were in direct conflict with Wall Street's interests and Wall Street made no secret of its hatred of Bill's vision. I succeeded in prototyping the mass market PLATO system and it was quashed by a mutinous middle management more identified with Wall Street than the crazy old koot in the executive suite. Unlike many of Bill's other technology directions in support of decentralized population structure, the PLATO system was poised to make immediate profits and roll out mass produced Macintosh equivalent network computers for a service that would have cost $40/month in 1980 dollars -- and that includes terminal rental. So it was particularly egregious that this technology was killed for the noble purpose of making America vulnerable to 9/11 type attacks. Bottom line, as technology advances, there is an increasing call for oppression to maintain the centralized population structure, just as there was to create it by moving the boomers out of their small midwestern towns, through universities and into the sterilizing urban environments in which they could not afford children http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=akVL7QY0S8A -- but the attack on national security was conducted by Wall Street against the traditional American way of life. Any discussion, nowadays, about the threat to national security represented by attacks against centralized symbols like the World Trade Center on 9/11/2001 is utter misdirection.
Re: [Vo]:Eatlim claims 50% thermal to electrical conversion efficiency
1000C input temperature can achieve 50% Carnot efficiency with an exhaust temperature of 362C Not quite hot enough for input to MHD ;-) On Fri, Dec 30, 2011 at 12:05 PM, Alan J Fletcher a...@well.com wrote: At 01:31 AM 12/30/2011, Aussie Guy E-Cat wrote: http://www.technologyreview.**com/energy/32267/http://www.technologyreview.com/energy/32267/ But : A second prototype that aims for 20 to 30 percent efficiency at 500 °C is expected this spring. To get from 40 percent to 50 percent, we need to raise the temperature to 1,000 °C, and that requires some use of ceramics.
Re: [Vo]:Lewis Larsen (Lattice Energy) discusses irony of LENR politics
The war against the phrase cold fusion seems to derive from some sort of attempt at spin control on the whole affair. At some level, if the phrase cold fusion can be debunked then the physics establishment can save face in the eyes of the vast majority of the population. It is that concern that is behind the strong emotions about WL theory -- even though WL theory doesn't debunk the FPE and the FPE is all that is needed to see that the nuclear physics establishment is rotten to the core. Public relations is insane, which is why sensible people are rarely successful. On Fri, Dec 30, 2011 at 7:42 PM, OrionWorks - Steven Vincent Johnson orionwo...@charter.net wrote: From Jed: ** ** ... ** ** The researcher quoted here has it right: ** ** http://blog.newenergytimes.com/2011/12/29/lenr-researcher-refuses-to-abandon-fusion-term/ ** ** I feel it would be much better to allow people to use the terms they are comfortable with. Let people use dozens of terms if they like.* *** Let history decide what term sticks after another 20 years or so. It is better to view terms and other people as how their statements can be true instead of trying to force others to use your terms and then assume others wrong. Nature does not care what we call these events. ** ** When I was still a New Energy Times BoD member I recall at one time emailing Krivit and the rest of the BoD members asking Krivit why he was spending so much of his editorial skills going after the cold fusion word. What was the point of trying to prove to the world that the fusion word was such a terribly inaccurate description of what was alleged to be happening on the nuclear level? IMO, I never got a straight answer from Krivit. Alas, none of the other BoD members seemed inclined to question Krivit the same matter either, so obviously my concerns were never addressed. I was left with the impression that either the other BoD members agreed with Mr. Krivit's philosophy - or perhaps they just didn't care. I suspect it was the latter. ** ** I have no bone to pick with the W-L theory itself. I'm not knowledgeable enough to pass judgment for or against it. Privately, however, I have received an earful from certain individuals who I realize are far more knowledgeable than I on prevailing theories pertaining to nuclear reactions. What these critics have had to say would suggest to me that the W-L theory appears to have certain fundamental problems that in their view have not been adequately addressed. Whatever... If it eventually turns out that the W-L theory accurately depicts the way of nuclear reactions… particularly when it comes to LENR (or “cold fusion”), then that is the way of things and the W-L camp can have their cake and eat it too. ** ** However, I detest attempts originating from the W-L camp *and Krivit* to cast researchers and other prevailing theories in a bad light, especially since at present it seems to me that nobody really knows for sure which theory is probably the most accurate one. As for my involvement with Krivit and NET, everything came to a head when I privately complained (in a confrontational email) to Krivit about his criticism of McKubre, after Krivit had indirectly inferred on a radio program that McKubre had lied about some of his experimental data. I think at that point Krivit had had had enough of me. Krivit forwarded my confrontational email, which as a courtesy had been intended for Krivit’s eyes only, to all the other BoD members – presumably, I would speculate, to show everyone what an asshole I was being towards him. Quite frankly, I didn’t give a damn what Krivit had done with my private email. I really had nothing to hide. I sent the email to Krivit privately was a matter of professional courtesy. What he did with it was his business. What Krivit did with it was tack on a message of his own… an ultimatum telling me in front of all the other BoD members that I ought to resign if I couldn’t behave in a more civil manner towards him. I was more than happy to resign. It was, in fact, a tremendous relief to resign. Incidentally, several former NET BoD members have also experienced similar fates. What I encountered is by no means unique. ** ** Years ago my brother drove a delivery truck supplying beer and wine coolers to various grocery stores in the Bend, Oregon area. He constantly complained about how other delivery personnel, when they came through, would shove or hide his product brands to the back of the shelves. There was a constant product placement war going on amongst all the delivery men as they maneuvered to get their merchandise optimally placed. As far as I’m concerned the war against the fusion word is nothing more than a petty self-serving theoretical product placement war. ** ** WTF cares. ** ** Regards, Steven Vincent Johnson
Re: [Vo]: wired.uk on defkalion
If there were a movie portraying a world made continually overcast by the environmental engineering of vampires so they could rule the world and keep humans as livestock -- and the sun breaking through anyway to burn them all alive as the climax, then we would be onto something. Short of that, however, truth is stranger than fiction. On Sat, Dec 31, 2011 at 1:35 PM, Alan Fletcher a...@well.com wrote: The subject line got stripped off the web version. Should be showdown year. (Pick your favorite movie ... High Noon?) -- http://www.wired.co.uk/news/archive/2011-12/30/cold-fusion-rival Dr. Peter Gluck Cluj, Romania http://egooutpeters.blogspot.com
Re: [Vo]:Forbes: The Year of Cold Fusion
A founder of the US Tokamak program proposed just that in 1995: http://www.oocities.org/jim_bowery/BussardsLetter.html On Sun, Jan 1, 2012 at 12:06 PM, David Roberson dlrober...@aol.com wrote: It would be interesting if a form of X-Prize was set up to reward the group that reaches an important LENR goal. The solving of the energy crisis is at least as important as any of the other prizes awarded. Dave -Original Message- From: pagnucco pagnu...@htdconnect.com To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Sun, Jan 1, 2012 12:54 pm Subject: Re: [Vo]:Forbes: The Year of Cold Fusion I agree, Jed. Forbes has deep enough pockets to send Mark Gibbs, along with a technically sophisticated companion, to a lab claiming CF or LENR anomalous energy or transmutation evidence. He should publicly issue a challenge to CF/LENR researchers to allow him to witness and monitor their experiments. I would be surprised if no one accepted it. That would make a great story. Jed Rothwell wrote: Inconclusive blather. See: http://www.forbes.com/sites/markgibbs/2011/12/31/2012-the-year-of-cold-fusion/
Re: [Vo]:COLD FUSION - The Answer to all our energy problems ?
He's off by a factor of ten on the amount of money that has been spent on hot fusion research. The assertion that the theory is now known is nonsense. It may be that one of the many theories out there is correct, but that doesn't mean it is known which of those theories it is. On Sun, Jan 1, 2012 at 8:35 PM, Aussie Guy E-Cat aussieguy.e...@gmail.comwrote: http://www.youtube.com/watch?**v=b3eOWIvb6vMnoredirect=1http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b3eOWIvb6vMnoredirect=1 Hey Frank Z you get a nice mention.
Re: [Vo]:Defkalion described how they got Rossi's formula
On Sun, Jan 1, 2012 at 6:04 PM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com wrote: However, Defkalion spokesman Alexandros Xanthoulis told Swedish science magazine NyTeknik that they know exactly what the catalyst is. In a piece of subterfuge, a spectroscopic examination was carried out on an E-Cat being while it was being tested without Rossi's knowledge. Breach of contract. Everything they do is vitiated.
Re: [Vo]:Cooper pairing of protons
On Sat, Jan 7, 2012 at 12:27 PM, Jones Beene jone...@pacbell.net wrote: In Brian Ahern's work on the Arata effect, which... is NOT the F-P effect So we're witness to not one, but TWO miracles of energy production that just happen to involve hydrogen-metal systems? One miracle is enough to stretch credulity.
Re: [Vo]:Cooper pairing of protons
On Sat, Jan 7, 2012 at 2:52 PM, Jones Beene jone...@pacbell.net wrote: In short, forget the bogus two miracle argument. Sure I'll forget the bogus two miracle argument -- especially since I never encountered it. As for the valid two miracle argument, its not going to go away simply because you argue that there are significant differences in the physics of protium vs deuterium. For instance, you forget that the D+D = He4 reaction involves two pairs of fermions. Tell me I'm wrong.
Re: [Vo]:Cooper pairing of protons
On Sat, Jan 7, 2012 at 7:42 PM, Jones Beene jone...@pacbell.net wrote: You say: D+D = He4 reaction involves two pairs of fermions and even accuse me of 'forgetting' something. Where are these two pairs fermions of which you speak ? What did I forget? Where are two pairs of anything? Two neutrons comprise a pair of fermions. Two protons comprise a pair of fermions. Notice I didn't say Cooper pairs but merely pairs. This is not to say, however, that during the D+D = He reaction these fermions form no Cooper pairs. indeed, conservation of miracles would suggest that if there is something to the proton Cooper pairs theory for nickel+copper+protium systems then one might be advised to look for them in the Fleischmann Pons effect. Merely waving your hands and claiming that the physics is completely different and, on that basis, claiming that there is no additional miracle (or no miracle at all!) is hardly what I would call credible. Have you heard of Langmuir's torch? I actually built one while in 9th grade from the carbon rods drawn from some D-cell batteries inside some clay pots with aluminum-lye hydrogen generator.. Is it not truly wonderful how electrical energy can split apart a hydrogen molecule as it passes through an arc, and then concentrate that energy on an immediately subsequent surface? However, there is no excess heat in that system. PS: My atomic hydrogen torch didn't work very well though so perhaps that explains my poor English skills and general ignorance of something or other.
Re: [Vo]:Cooper pairing of protons
On Sun, Jan 8, 2012 at 2:09 AM, Axil Axil janap...@gmail.com wrote: In our everyday world of illusion, a miracle is a highly improbable event. But in the real world of quantum mechanics (QM), if it can happen, it will happen, but just not very often. That is a sense of the word miracle that is very different from the sense in which I am using it when I cast a jaundiced eye at positing two miracles in energy production. What I am talking about is the political economic miracle of an energy revolution. What we are being asked to believe here is that there is nothing in common between two revolutionary, non-polluting, virtually renewable, low capital investment energy production systems that both require hydrogen saturated metals (other than, of course, the fact that they both involve metals saturated with hydrogen). We're supposed to believe it is unreasonable to suspect such commonality because there are differences in the isotopes of hydrogen used in the two systems.
Re: [Vo]:Cooper pairing of protons
On Sun, Jan 8, 2012 at 2:09 AM, Axil Axil janap...@gmail.com wrote: So if you back off the details a little ways and look at the generalize QM mechanism, the D+D reaction is still caused by QM entanglement and coherence---see Dr. Kim references section in the following: http://www.physics.purdue.edu/people/faculty/yekim/BECNF-Ni-Hydrogen.pdf I'd prefer to not back off, just yet, from the Cooper pairing theory of negative coefficient of temperature in cold fusion systems. The question really becomes largely empirical: Does the Pd+D system exhibit a negative coefficient of temperature as it exhibits the Fleischmann Pons effect?
Re: [Vo]:Cooper pairing of protons
None of which addresses my empirical question: Does Pd+D (as does Ni+Cu+P) exhibit a negative coefficient of temperature as the Fleischmann Pons effect emerges from that system? From your argument below, I take it your answer is No. On Sun, Jan 8, 2012 at 10:10 AM, Jones Beene jone...@pacbell.net wrote: Pd-D has surprisingly little in common with Ni-H, in theory or in practice. ** ** As far as most physical and especially nuclear properties are concerned, the fact that H and D are both chemically reactive volatile gases is the main connection. In fact, on close inspection, it is a big surprise to most observers that the two metals involved have more in common (physical properties) than do the gases D and H. In fact, nickel and palladium are in the same column (10) of the periodic table and are like two peas in a pod – as far as physical properties go. Cost is another issue. ** ** In Pd-D reactions, there is a bona fide nuclear reaction resulting in helium or tritium, plus the reactants are roughly 3 orders of magnitude more costly than Ni-H. The transmutation ash of Pd-D can be polluting (except for the helium); there is little that is renewable; transmutation is common, gamma radiation is seen, and the capital investment will be high. Most of all, Pd-D has never been scaled up to kilowatt level of output. In short, Pd-D is a comparative loser as far as ultimate commercialization is concerned. We have already seen in recent history the price of palladium will soar to astronomical highs, with only a slight change in supply. ** ** Little commercial opportunity exists for Pd-D, *if* and when Ni-H comes to market, and it does work for thermal gain. Fully replicated evidence goes back to the early nineties. ** ** Hydrogen is so completely different from deuterium that it can be considered a separate element, instead of an isotope. The periodic table which we have now, lumping the two together as isotopes, can be a bit arbitrary and misleading insofar as it leads to incorrect assumptions about many physical properties. The difference in physical and nuclear properties between the two (D and H) is staggering – far more pronounced than two elements in the same column of the periodic table, such as nickel and palladium, for instance. ** ** Jones (see footnote) *From:* James Bowery What I am talking about is the political economic miracle of an energy revolution. What we are being asked to believe here is that there is nothing in common between two revolutionary, non-polluting, virtually renewable, low capital investment energy production systems that both require hydrogen saturated metals (other than, of course, the fact that they both involve metals saturated with hydrogen). We're supposed to believe it is unreasonable to suspect such commonality because there are differences in the isotopes of hydrogen used in the two systems. ** ** FOOTNOTE: ** ** Premise: Palladium is far closer in physical and nuclear properties to Nickel, than deuterium is to hydrogen. ** ** The deuteron is a boson, not a fermion and does not obey Fermi–Dirac statistics. Hydrogen (the proton) is a fermion, and in contrast to all bosons like the deuteron, the proton does not obey Bose–Einstein statistics. It cannot occupy the same quantum state with another proton. * *** ** ** The Pauli exclusion principle is the major difference between the two, wrt LENR - and it is precisely the factor which explains why deuterons will fuse easily, while protons will not fuse (outside of solar-like gravity). Plus there is far more mass difference between H and D than between Ni and Pd. Most other physical properties, are equally divergent. ** ** If you consider the bulk of physical properties including density, magnetic sensitivity, NMR receptivity, quadrupole moment, neutron capture cross-section etc, etc. Hydrogen and deuterium are further removed from each other than are Nickel and Palladium (or any two other transition metals in the same column). ** ** Consider the H and D to be essentially *unrelated* insofar as Cooper paring is concerned – this cannot happen with Deuterium in a hydride form. However, the caveat is that the atomic form: deuteron with the electron attached is a composite fermion – leaving open the door to the possibility that a compact “deuterino” (a boson with an shrunken electron orbital, giving a half integer net spin) can pair in the Cooper fashion, as a preliminary step to cavity containment, for instance. ** ** Consider D and H to be as different, if not more different, than two elements in the same column would be, in fact.
[Vo]:Stress-induced negative coefficient of temperature?
Something that occurs to me about the emergence of a negative coefficient of temperature at high loading of hydrogen in metallic lattices is that it may be related to the stress imposed by that loading. If stress reaches a point where charge carriers to emerge, then increasing the temperature may enhance the emergence of those carriers. The emergence of charge carriers with stress is theorized to occur in igneous rock: *Stress-Induced Changes in the Electrical Conductivity of Igneous Rocks and the Generation of Ground Currents* *Author*:Friedemann T. Freund, Akihiro Takeuchi, Bobby W. S. Lau, Rachel Post, John Keefner, Joshua Mellon, and Akthem Al-Manaseer *Abstract* If we can ever hope to understand the non-seismic signals that the Earth sends out before major earthquakes, we need to understand the physics of rocks under increased levels of stress. In particular we need to understand the generation of electrical currents in the ground. We have begun to study how electrical conductivity of igneous rocks changes under stress and what types of charge carriers are involved. We show that quartz-rich granite and quartz-free anorthosite both generate electronic charge carriers when subjected to stress. The charge carriers are positive holes (p-holes), i.e., defect electrons on the oxygen anion sublattice. They spread out of the stressed rock volume, the “source volume”, into the surrounding unstressed rocks. Time-varying ground currents are required to generate pre-earthquake local magnetic field anomalies and low-frequency electromagnetic emissions. We posit that stress-induced activation of p-hole charge carriers and their outflow from the source volume is the basic process by which ground currents can be generated in the Earth’s crust. We propose that the arrival of p-holes at the Earth’s surface leads to changes in the ground potential that may induce ionospheric perturbations. We further propose that the build-up of high electric fields at the ground surface can ionize the air, hence cause ion emission and corona discharges. When p-holes recombine at the ground surface, they are expected to form vibrationally highly excited O-O bonds. The de-excitation of these O-O bonds will lead to stimulated mid-IR emission, which may explain the reported pre-earthquake “thermal anomalies” identified in satellite images. *Key word:Pre-earthquake phenomena, Electrical conductivity, Stress, Magnetic field, Ionization, EM emission, Thermal anomalies* -- *Full_Text(pdf)http://tao.cgu.org.tw/center/article_download_one.php?id=530xv153p437 *
Re: [Vo]:Storms on the Space Show
I think Charles Beaudette did a beautiful job of describing the pathological science of the establishment as the modern equivalent of scholars of Galileo's time refusing to look through Galileo's telescope. The studied ignorance of the excess heat data by modern establishment scholars, due to its violation of their theoretic demand for a commensurate link with nuclear products (neutrons, etc.) does qualify as theocracy. On Tue, Jan 10, 2012 at 6:27 PM, Mark Iverson-ZeroPoint zeropo...@charter.net wrote: Jed: You might want to let Ed know that he could have easily slam-dunked Pooley by simply bringing up the case of superconductors where the experimental side pre-dated the theoretical. It took decades and a lot of funding after the effect was shown to be repeatable, to develop a number of reasonable hypotheses. -Original Message- From: Mark Iverson-ZeroPoint [mailto:zeropo...@charter.net] Sent: Tuesday, January 10, 2012 1:55 PM To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: RE: [Vo]:Storms on the Space Show I would concur with Steven on the show, especially his description of the segment with Pooley as the most 'entertaining'... I would call it comical. Pooley kept on saying, If you can't explain it, it isn't fusion. Meaning, if you can't explain it according to known theory, then it doesn't exist... perfect example of how the human mind has substituted theory for religious belief, and any experimental evidence to the contrary is dismissed based on conflicting with that theory. Pooley has the scientific process backwards... I also agree with SVJ that Pooley might do a cursory look-see at lenr.org, but won't learn a single thing. Not much new really, so anyone looking for new details will be disappointed. -Mark -Original Message- From: OrionWorks - Steven V Johnson [mailto:svj.orionwo...@gmail.com] Sent: Tuesday, January 10, 2012 1:18 PM To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: [Vo]:Storms on the Space Show See: http://www.thespaceshow.com/detail.asp?q=1685 Thank Jed, Just finished listening to The Space Show an interview with Dr. Storms. The segment with skeptic Charles Pooley was perhaps the most entertaining part of the show for me. The ensuing interaction between the host (Dr. David Livingston), Storms, and Pooley really drove home to me how fundamentally oriented a professed scientific-based belief can unfortunately become at times. I think Pooley would need the services of a professional deprogrammer to help get him get to that uncomfortable place in his psyche where he might be willing to consider thinking outside of the box. Storms did the best he could by urging Pooley to review the information at Lenr.org. (Lenr-canr.org). Based on what I heard being expressed our of Pooley mouth, a mouth which by the way was constantly interrupting Dr. Storms to the point that the host had to several times tell him to shut up and just listen to what Storms had to say, I suspect there will be nothing... nada... zilch... that could possible result in even the slightest dent in this skeptic's heavily fortified belief structure. On other matters, I'm curious what Jed might have to say about Storms assessment of how CF technology would likely be implemented within the United States. It is Dr. Storms' assessment that energy costs, at least for the common man, might actually go up, temporarily, as we make what might be a costly transition from traditional energy sources over to CF. According to Storms, he envisions the likelihood of a lengthy transition phase, a phase that traditional energy provides will do their best to stretch out for as long as possible before CF eventually overwhelms the industry. Part of the stretching out phase would deliberately be allowed by the government in order to give traditional energy providers enough time to make the transition. I gather Storms was assuming many of these industrial would attempt to adapt or retool in some viable manner. However, according to what I believe Jed has had to say on the subject, I gather Jed remains highly skeptical that most traditional energy providers would be capable of making the transition. Or am I wrong on that? Regards Steven Vincent Johnson www.OrionWorks.com www.zazzle.com/orionworks
Re: [Vo]:Storms on the Space Show
Its always nice to separate myth from fact. Even though myth may possess more truth at times, it is also true that those who would deceive frequently rely on historical docudrama to abuse the power of myth. On Wed, Jan 11, 2012 at 1:51 PM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com wrote: James Bowery jabow...@gmail.com wrote: . . . the modern equivalent of scholars of Galileo's time refusing to look through Galileo's telescope. I am sorry to be an insufferable pedant, but I must point out that history is apocryphal. They *did look* through the telescope. Some of them were not convinced for good reasons. It was a lousy telescope. Scholars, Popes and Cardinals have often refused to look at the facts, so even though that incident was apocryphal, it is instructive. Many events recorded in history did not happen, or they were so different you would not recognize them. Never let that stand in the way of a good story! One of my favorites is Huxley versus Soapy Sam Wilburforce in the 1860 Oxford U. evolution debate. A pity it did not happen the way Huxley told the story. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:Cold Fusion Economic Effects
The only way to get capitalism to work is to shift the tax base from economic activity to the liquidation value of assets, and set the tax rate to the interest rate used to calculate liquidation value. But no one with wealth wants that to happen even though just about everyone who has high incomes would want it to happen. So, due to political economic considerations, capitalism cannot be made to work. This is not to say that socialism can be made to work, since in order to do so it would require that the liquidation asset interest collected by the government be dispersed equally to all citizens, no means testing. Socialists want to figure out how to spend your dividends for you because they're so smart and all. In other words: All fall down. My 1992 white paperhttp://mysite.verizon.net/res10kjcq/ota/others-papers/NetAssetTax_Bowery.txt introduces an early version of the idea. The impetus for it came from my work to privatize government technology development programs in spacehttp://www.oocities.com/jim_bowery/testimny.htm and energy http://www.oocities.com/jim_bowery/BussardsLetter.html. Charles Murray of the CATO Institute later wrote a book on an idea related to the citizen's dividendhttp://www.aei.org/press/society-and-culture/poverty/in-our-hands-press/ . And, yes, this problem has been known well over a century. On Tue, Dec 13, 2011 at 8:48 AM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com wrote: noone noone thesteornpa...@yahoo.com wrote: I am all for vertical agriculture, but I am totally opposed to a global basic income. I do not support socialism or communism. Socialism, communism and capitalism are all based on ordinary people trading labor for money. In a few decades human labor will be worth nothing. All economic systems will be obsolete. See: http://www.thelightsinthetunnel.com/ With cold fusion technology, the price of everything will go down. Even a job at McDonalds will be capable of paying for a nice house, nice cars, etc. Even today we have automobiles capable of driving in California traffic. That is a more difficult task than any job at McDonald's. It is just a matter of time before all jobs such as this will be done by robots. A robot the replaces a person (or the entire staff) will cost McDonald's a few thousand dollars a year. you cannot buy a nice house were nice cars with that kind of money. The most difficult job at McDonald's is human language: cashiers have to understand what the customers are ordering. Cashiers can easily be replaced today by having most customers enter the order by touchscreens, and pay with credit cards. This would be like the self checkout lines at grocery stores. In the near future, computers will understand speech well enough to take verbal orders. McDonald's has not installed touchscreen ordering devices for the same reason the US automobile industry did not install robots in the 1960s. The government and labor organizations are putting pressure on McDonald's not to automate. McDonald's is one of the biggest employers in the US. Walmart is another huge employer that could easily replace much of its staff with robots. I'm sure that it will within 20 years. Robots capable of stocking shelves are already available. At present people are cheaper for an environment such as a Walmart store, but people are not becoming twice as fast and far cheaper every few years. At places like Amazon.com, and the newest university libraries that still handle paper books, robots do the inventory work. - Jed
[Vo]:Preparata's Intra-Cathode Current?
Ever since talk began about increasing cathodic charge carriers emerging with temperature at high loadings I've been trying to recall the name of the early researcher who attached an anode directly to his cathode as well as having an anode in the electrolyte, and I finally found the cite in Excess Heat by Charles Beaudette: ICCF-6 Progress In New Hydrogen Energy, p. 136 The researcher was Preparata. Moreover, Beaudette makes some astounding statements about Preparata's work: *The same [result] was observed in the about fifty similar experiments that we have conducted. That result produced a power density of 100,000 watts per cm^3...* All I can say is WTF?
Re: [Vo]:Preparata's Intra-Cathode Current?
World Pd reserves are about 1 billion troy
ounceshttp://palladium-bar.blogspot.com/2007/09/palladium-reserves-and-palladium.html.
Pd density is 12.02gm/cm^3. If it were all dedicated to power production
at 100,000W/cm^3 the Pd cold fusion nameplate capacity would be:
([1E9 * ounce_troy] * [{12.02 * gramm} / {(centi*meter)^3}]^-1) * ([100 *
{kilo watt}] / [{centi*meter}^3]) ? watt
= 2.5876415E14 W
over 200 terawatts.
World energy demand for all sources of energy is now at:
474e18J/year?W
(4.74E20 * joule) / year ? watt
= 1.5030441E13 W
under 20 terawatts.
On Thu, Jan 12, 2012 at 9:28 AM, Robert Lynn robert.gulliver.l...@gmail.com
wrote:
100 watts per gram (, = . outside of old British Empire) would be
about the same as the 100kW/kg that Rossi is claiming.
It is a great pity that these great results from Focardi, Preparata et al
15 years ago were not followed up on by others back then - can only have
been because other researchers either didn't hear about it, or didn't think
it was credible.
On 12 January 2012 15:09, James Bowery jabow...@gmail.com wrote:
Ever since talk began about increasing cathodic charge carriers emerging
with temperature at high loadings I've been trying to recall the name of
the early researcher who attached an anode directly to his cathode as well
as having an anode in the electrolyte, and I finally found the cite in
Excess Heat by Charles Beaudette:
ICCF-6 Progress In New Hydrogen Energy, p. 136
The researcher was Preparata.
Moreover, Beaudette makes some astounding statements about Preparata's
work:
*The same [result] was observed in the about fifty similar experiments
that we have conducted. That result produced a power density of 100,000
watts per cm^3...*
All I can say is WTF?
Re: [Vo]:Preparata's Intra-Cathode Current?
I should add that I _did_ attempt to find Preparata's original paper online
and was unable to do so.
On Thu, Jan 12, 2012 at 1:37 PM, James Bowery jabow...@gmail.com wrote:
Ah, I got double-whammied:
1) It was Beaudette that said 100,000 watts per cm^3 (that string is
outside of the quotation marks meant to designated Preparata's words.
2) Lynn said gram rather than cm^3 so his correction on comma vs
period didn't register with me.
Thanks for clearing that up.
Perhaps Beaudette corrected that in his 2002 edition. I was reading from
the 2000 edition.
In any event, the high *reproducibility* of Preparata's work has not yet
been equaled has it?
On Thu, Jan 12, 2012 at 1:21 PM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.comwrote:
James Bowery jabow...@gmail.com wrote:
([1E9 * ounce_troy] * [{12.02 * gramm} / {(centi*meter)^3}]^-1) * ([100 *
{kilo watt}] / [{centi*meter}^3]) ? watt
= 2.5876415E14 W
over 200 terawatts.
Unfortunately, I think Preparata meant 100 not 100,000. The comma is a
decimal point. I do not understand why he added 3 digits of precision to a
rough approximation. Anyway, that comes to 0.2 TW, which is about 1/100 of
world energy production. Fleischmann once estimated that Pd can supply
about 1/3 of total energy. I confirmed it is in that ballpark, ~30% to ~50%.
Here is my estimation.
I assume that power density and temperature with palladium can be
increased to the limits of the material. That is to say up to the highest
temperatures in which thin-film palladium can survive. Or nanoparticles in
aerogel, or what-have-you. The limiting factor is how thinly you can spread
the palladium and have it remain on the substrate and in contact with the
medium, which will probably be D2 gas.
About half of palladium nowadays is used in catalytic converters. Hot gas
from internal combustion engines flows over the palladium surface and is
catalyzed. I assume this technology is pushed to the limit. They use the
smallest amount palladium they can, spreading it as thinly as they can with
maximum exposure to the moving gas. A palladium based cold fusion cell
would have palladium spread roughly as thin as this, producing temperatures
roughly as high as this. If they could make in any thinner, they would.
This technology has been around for a while and it is probably mature.
Nearly all of the energy from an automobile is wasted as hot gas. In
other words, the hot gas that passes over the palladium surface is roughly
equal to the total amount of energy produced by gasoline in the
transportation sector. To put it another way, if the heat was being
produced by the palladium inside the catalytic converter, instead of coming
from the engine to the converter, you would get nearly as much energy as
you get from gasoline now.
To simplify a great deal, assuming that cold fusion can achieve the same
temperatures as palladium experiences in a catalytic converter, half of our
palladium could produce roughly as much energy as the entire automotive
transportation sector does now: 27 out of 99 quads. All of our palladium
could therefore produce roughly 50 out of 99 quads.
Actually the number is higher for various reasons:
* The palladium is not used up as quickly in a cold fusion device as it
is in a catalytic converter.
* The palladium is more easily and completely recovered from a used cold
fusion cell, assuming it is not transmuted.
* Palladium production will be increased as demand increases.
This is a crude estimate but I believe it does show that there is not
enough palladium to produce all the energy we need. If it turns out
palladium is the only suitable metal, we would have large centralized
generators producing most of our energy, supplying it as electricity for
use in electric cars and so on. We would not actually put the palladium in
automobiles, and probably not in houses either.
- Jed
Re: [Vo]:Preparata's Intra-Cathode Current?
Has anyone even tried to replicate Preparata's configuration that he claims he successfully reproduced FIFTY TIMES??? On Thu, Jan 12, 2012 at 2:25 PM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com wrote: James Bowery jabow...@gmail.com wrote: I should add that I _did_ attempt to find Preparata's original paper online and was unable to do so. ICCF-6 Progress In New Hydrogen Energy, p. 136 Title: Everything you always wanted to know about cold fusion calorimetry ICCF6 was published by the NHE. The NHE does not like me. I doubt they would give me permission to upload it. I could maybe upload this one paper. I can't get permission from Preparata because he is deceased. - Jed
[Vo]:Hello? Anyone home?
HAS ANYONE EVEN ATTEMPTED TO REPLICATE PREPARATA? Citing Preparata, Guiliano, Everything You Always Wanted to Know About Cold Fusion Calorimetry, (ICCF-6, vol 1, October 13-18, 1996), p. 136 Excess Heat by Charles Beaudette, 2000 edition, p 207: Preparata ...claims to have obtained *100% reliability* in building Fleischmann and Pons types of cells. (emphasis JAB) The same [result] was observed in the about *fifty similar experiments*that we have conducted. (emphasis JAB)
Re: [Vo]:Hello? Anyone home?
On Fri, Jan 13, 2012 at 11:51 AM, Jones Beene jone...@pacbell.net wrote: Yes, we're home. Yawn. Why should it be a surprise, if the answer is no? Because there do exist some actual scientists.
Re: [Vo]:Hello? Anyone home?
On Fri, Jan 13, 2012 at 12:40 PM, Jones Beene jone...@pacbell.net wrote: Yes, but actual scientists need decent funding to do this kind of work. ... As mentioned in previous postings, palladium has hit $1000/ounce at times $100 for one foot of 1mm diameter palladium wire http://www.bonanza.com/listings/1-FOOT-PALLADIUM-950-ROUND-WIRE-HH-18-GAUGE-JEWELRY/23681238 This is enough to replicate Preparata's experiment. Hardly a bank-buster. Moreover, this result was reported 16 years ago -- long before most actual scientists were convinced that pursuit of replication of the Fleischmann Pons Effect was a moot point.
Re: [Vo]:Hello? Anyone home?
On Fri, Jan 13, 2012 at 1:19 PM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com wrote: James Bowery jabow...@gmail.com wrote: $100 for one foot of 1mm diameter palladium wire http://www.bonanza.com/listings/1-FOOT-PALLADIUM-950-ROUND-WIRE-HH-18-GAUGE-JEWELRY/23681238 This is enough to replicate Preparata's experiment. Hardly a bank-buster. It is all the other stuff that costs you. You need $100,000 in equipment. Plus you have to devote months to the project or you have to have a graduate student. I was responding to Jones' argument that Pd price was a serious impedement nowadays. Moreover, this result was reported 16 years ago -- long before most actual scientists were convinced that pursuit of replication of the Fleischmann Pons Effect was a moot point. They were convinced of that 22 years ago. By 1990 the mass media was firmly entrenched against cold fusion. Most scientists take their opinions from the mass media, just like anyone else. You obviously don't understand what I mean when I say actual scientists. Jones did understand.
Re: [Vo]:Hello? Anyone home?
BTW: The following should not be taken to mean that I believe most actual scientists are convinced that pursuit of replication of the Fleischmann Pons Effect is a moot point. I was merely trying to avert an irrelevant argument with Jones. On Fri, Jan 13, 2012 at 1:08 PM, James Bowery jabow...@gmail.com wrote: Moreover, this result was reported 16 years ago -- long before most actual scientists were convinced that pursuit of replication of the Fleischmann Pons Effect was a moot point.
Re: [Vo]:Cold Fusion Economic Effects
On Sat, Jan 14, 2012 at 5:59 AM, Mauro Lacy ma...@lacy.com.ar wrote: ** On 01/11/2012 11:28 PM, James Bowery wrote: The only way to get capitalism to work is to shift the tax base from economic activity to the liquidation value of assets, and set the tax rate to the interest rate used to calculate liquidation value. But no one with wealth wants that to happen even though just about everyone who has high incomes would want it to happen. So, due to political economic considerations, capitalism cannot be made to work. This is not to say that socialism can be made to work, since in order to do so it would require that the liquidation asset interest collected by the government be dispersed equally to all citizens, no means testing. Socialists want to figure out how to spend your dividends for you because they're so smart and all. In other words: All fall down. given that the western world is so advanced at the technological level, perhaphs it should consider using that wonderful advancement to try to advance also at the social, political and economical levels, where it's clearly lagging behind the curve. You can't have advancement in science hence technology unless you can conduct controlled experiments to untangle correlation from causation. The only way to ethically conduct controlled experiments in the social sciences is to promote assortative migration forming experiments in human ecology under mutual consent. The best way to facilitate that assortative migration, and the associated territorial reallocation, is the citizen's dividend I described. Anything less that claims to do social engineering based on science is bullshit.
Re: [Vo]:Kiplinger Letter, Jan 6 2012, Topic: ENERGY
Although just a kid, I remember being outraged at the Indy 500 committee for handicapping turbines after Parnelli Jones nearly won in 1967 with his turbine car. http://www.autopuzzles.com/Indy1967.htm On Sat, Jan 14, 2012 at 6:23 PM, mix...@bigpond.com wrote: In reply to Jed Rothwell's message of Sat, 14 Jan 2012 18:20:46 -0500: Hi, [snip] Turbines are kind of slow to respond to controls. Jet engine aircraft are less responsive than propeller-driven ones. There was a gas turbine automobile prototype in the 1970s. I do not know what it was like to drive. It made a heck of a noise, I think. There have been gas turbine powered race cars, so the response can't have been too bad. Regards, Robin van Spaandonk http://rvanspaa.freehostia.com/project.html
Re: [Vo]:Rossi comments on the It was sent back statement
Good grief. What is it with the Windom-Larson crowd? I mean while I'm skeptical that anyone has the theory to explain any of this yet, I will admit that Windom-Larson may be right. But still, why the religious wars? What's wrong with these people? On Mon, Jan 16, 2012 at 10:02 AM, Jones Beene jone...@pacbell.net wrote: -Original Message- From: Terry Blanton Another “rumorist” has written somewhere that our Customer has given us back the 1 MW E-Cat: this is another stupidity, totally false. Warm Regards, A.R. Rossi sometimes plays word games. Jones did not claim that it was given back. His comment is more like it was returned for repairs. That is correct. Not only that, Rossi has all the characteristics of a pathological liar, and liars like to use tense to advantage. You know: the meaning of is. In this case he uses has or the past tense - when the BBB would be in transit, if the 'rumorist' is right. Technically, it has not back *yet* but that does not mean it is not on the way back Given back implies that a refund will be requested. Jones implicated that there will be no such request. Yes, but AFAIK Rossi IS contractually obligated to eliminate the quiescence problem. Can he do that now? If so, hats-off to Rossi ! But even if he can do this with better controls, and proves himself to be close to the great inventor he imagines himself to be, he is still a liar. We knew that back when Rossi invented a Board member, George Kelly, which is a complete lie, one of hundreds, even borrowing the name of a deceased faculty member at UNH. This is one of many needless fabrications, and needless is a reason why this personality defect is pathological. Side note: Edison too was both a great liar and a great inventor; and also shared Rossi's habit of borrowing ideas without attribution. He famously promised Nikola Tesla the equivalent of over a $million to significantly improve his DC generator, and when Tesla delivered, TAE reneged, saying: “Tesla, you don’t understand our American humor”... leading Tesla to invent AC. Poetic justice. But Tesla was factually challenged himself, so this could be a common trait of many great inventors. Rossi has admitted elsewhere that he is presently repairing the first Mega-eCat with new gaskets and controls. Are you calling the first Mega-eCat the BBB? If so, you have inadvertently caught him in the lie already, no? Even if he is saying that he is repairing it on the customer's premises, the gist of the rumor, and the reason it pains Rossi so severely - is that the BBB presently has zero economic value. Not to mention that this is also the reason that he missed out on the DGT payment. Now we know there is a good reason for Rossi's ill-humor - 100,000,000 million reasons. If he is repairing BBB on the customer's premises, and it has not been returned, then yes I am guilty of spreading a partly inaccurate rumor on that detail only. But not on the main point that E-Cat does NOT work for extended periods running - and moreover, has zero economic value until it does work for more than a day or two. It never worked continuously for weeks or months to heat a factory - that is another big lie. In the end, Rossi is still no more than a pathological liar on most of his absurd claims, like the million unit factory. And if he wants to sue me for libel - then all the better. (I understand the situation - his wife is an Italian attorney). Unlike Italy, however, we have this little detail in the US court system call Discovery and the aftermath of discovery for Rossi would completely crush this man's gigantic over-inflated ego. Jones
Re: [Vo]:Hank Mills: NASA, MIT, and the DOE have blood on their hands.
On Tue, Jan 17, 2012 at 4:07 PM, Alan J Fletcher a...@well.com wrote: At 01:37 PM 1/17/2012, Robert Leguillon wrote: From Hank Mills - *Pure Energy Systems News*: Original Source: http://pesn.com/2012/01/15/9602013_138_Million_Cold_Fusion_Holocaust/ Good grief : Just imagine that if cold fusion had not been suppressed, there could be 138 million individuals alive today. What if -- One of these individuals would have been the next Tesla? But he doesn't offer the other side of the balance sheet : -- One of these individuals would have been the next nuclear-armed H* We can't risk it!!! Abort all babies!!
Re: [Vo]:Dick Smith warns against investing in cold fusion
This is one reason I focus on promoting Excess Heat: Why Cold Fusion Research Prevailed by Charles Beaudette. My own interest in cold fusion was curtailed by my attempt to get a project going at the Roselle Street offices of Science Applications International Corporationhttp://maps.google.com/maps?ix=hebq=san+diego,+caum=1ie=UTF-8hq=hnear=0x80d9530fad921e4b:0xd3a21fdfd15df79,San+Diego,+CAgl=usei=tzMYT7bEGOjCsQKpip3CCwsa=Xoi=geocode_resultct=imageresnum=1ved=0CC4Q8gEwAA. This is where SAIC's nuclear plant stack monitoring development and manufacture was located and where much of SAIC's the Strategic Defense Initiative work was going on. I managed the software department and had developed the control software for the stack monitor. My effort was curtailed before 1989 was out by a CalTech graduate who had studied under Lewis. I had already over-extended my credibility by going beyond my expertise and suffered professional damage as a result. As a consequence I failed to follow up on cold fusion in subsequent years, turning instead to working with fusion researchers in general to draft legislative reform of fusion development by reorienting it toward objective prize awards for technical milestones independent of the technical approach takenhttp://www.oocities.org/jim_bowery/BussardsLetter.html . Had someone handed me Beaudette's book in 2000, even at that late date my life would have taken a very different turn. I regret that it took the Rossi controvery to get me to revisit the history of cold fusion research by reading Beaudette's essential book. On Wed, Jan 18, 2012 at 11:55 AM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.comwrote: That worked out well. Good job Andrea! See: http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/health-science/dick-smith-warns-against-investment-in-cold-fusion-technology/story-e6frg8y6-1226247794568 - Jed
Re: [Vo]:Podcast interview about Ian Bryce's e-Cat investigation on behalf of Dick Smith
On Fri, Jan 20, 2012 at 11:28 PM, Robert Leguillon robert.leguil...@hotmail.com wrote: It should be quite obvious by now, that there are a lot of people being separated from their money without any product testing...purely as investors. Under what pretext? Sales territories?
Re: [Vo]:Stable Fusion??
In the immortal words of Hunter S. Thompson: WHO SENT YOU? On Sun, Jan 22, 2012 at 4:23 PM, Dusty Bradshaw d_bra...@bellsouth.netwrote: I have been having some success heating my house with a device that consists of unpressurized proteins, sugars, starches, and waters that undergo heating via an electric resistance. Here are the salient facts: Flour Eggs Water Sucrose Vaniila I mix these together in a reactor vessel constructed of stainless steel and place them in an insulated cabinate where they are heated several times for a period of time, and they undergo a transmutation. When the heater is turned off after ramp up the reactants change colors and their physical properties become different. I can then remove the reactor vessel out of the ramp up box and place it carefully on an insulated holder, but have to take great pains not to touch as temperatures are dangerously high. It smells quite delicious and remains quite warm for quite a period of time. After which even the heating box is now hot enough to comfortably warm the entire lab area. I'm considering the manufacture of these as the by product alone may feed an army. Any thoughts??
[Vo]:Full text: Independent Testing on Hyperion Reactors
Independent Testing on Hyperion Reactors Praxen Defkalion Green Technologies Global Ltd. (PDGT) is ready to further allow third parties to evaluate its core technology: a multi stage LENR reaction between Nickel and Hydrogen. PDGT has successfully completed its scientific, technological and engineering steps necessary to sustain such a reaction with results exceeding a COP of 20 and with temperatures capable to exceed 650 degrees Celsius. As it was announced in our November 30th Press Release, a series of third party tests on Hyperion products have been scheduled to be performed within the first months of 2012, immediately after our product’s certification. This announcement does not refer to such product tests. Independent tests have already been scheduled. With this announcement, PDGT welcomes further requests from internationally recognized and reputable scientific and business organizations interested to conduct their independent tests on “bare” Hyperion Reactors. Tests will be conducted following mutually agreed protocols based on the general principles herein. Test Objectives Measurement of excess heat produced by reactions within Hyperion reactors Measurement of “bare” Hyperion Reactor COP (i.e. total energy consumed versus energy produced) Measurement of radioactivity during testing Measurement of reactor’s stability using its control mechanisms Type of Testing Parallel run of two identical Hyperion Reactors connected in parallel to the same electric energy sources for pre-heating and the same Hydrogen input source. The active Reactor #1 will be equipped and prepared ready to trigger and sustain a steady reaction. The Reactor #2 will be empty of any powders and with all triggering and control mechanisms deactivated. Following a parallel test run of both Reactors for at least 48 hours, the two Reactors will be switched for a second run (Reactor #1 empty and Reactor #2 active) in order to authenticate the same results. Configuration Measurements Both Reactors are of the same configuration, placed in the same room with a 50-60cm distance from each other. Both reactors will be identically isolated. Calibrated thermocouples of the same type will be connected inside each Reactor chamber and attached in the outer surface of each reactor. All four thermocouples will report their measurements to the same data logger and PC logging software. The pressure of the Hydrogen circuit will be monitored and logged with the same sample rate as the thermocouples logging (i.e. 1/sec). All electric consuming devises attached to the Reactors will be measured and logged (Volt and Amps). All electric supplies to the reactors will be through a UPS unit to avoid grid problems and any possible fluctuations. Monitoring of any type of radioactivity from the tested Reactors will be performed following a 24hours measurement of the testing environment, to be used as base measurement. Cooling Method Cold air may be blown to both Reactors through their isolation if the maximum safety temperature level as defined in the test protocol is reached in the active Reactor. Measurement Methodologies 1. On Heat Energy and COP Differential Thermal Analysis: Following the test run, the Temperature/Time logged plots of inner and outer thermocouples will be used to calculate: The difference of integrals between the Temperature/Time logged plots of inner thermocouple measurements of the two Reactors. This results to the calculation of the absolute excess heat energy produced by the active Reactor. The difference of integrals between the logged plots of each pair of inner and outer attached thermocouples attached to each Reactor. The difference of the respective energy of the absolute excess heat energy produced by the active Reactor versus the total electric energy consumed by the active Reactor (heater and controls). This results in the COP of the active Reactor. Reactors will be weighed before and after testing. 2. On Radiation A Muller-Geiger tube, calibrated to the environment base radiation level, will be used to measure alpha and gamma emissions from the active Reactor. 3. On Stability The active Reactor’s thermocouples measured temperatures, both inner and on outer surface, will be maintained stable with a fluctuation of no more than +/- 10% during the whole testing period, as observed after the triggering of the reaction in the active Reactor. 4. Other Measurements No other measurements (e.g. calorimetry), will be performed during such “bare” Reactor testing. The existing already released specifications of Hyperion products relating to system performance, stability, safety and functionality will not be tested during this series if tests. Reactor’s Performance It is expected that tests will conclude a COP in excess of 20 Publication of Protocols and Results The detailed test protocols will be published by PGDT before any third party test is performed. Test results may be published by the
Re: [Vo]:Preparata's Intra-Cathode Current?
The error remains in the 2002 edition.
On Thu, Jan 12, 2012 at 1:37 PM, James Bowery jabow...@gmail.com wrote:
Ah, I got double-whammied:
1) It was Beaudette that said 100,000 watts per cm^3 (that string is
outside of the quotation marks meant to designated Preparata's words.
2) Lynn said gram rather than cm^3 so his correction on comma vs
period didn't register with me.
Thanks for clearing that up.
Perhaps Beaudette corrected that in his 2002 edition. I was reading from
the 2000 edition.
In any event, the high *reproducibility* of Preparata's work has not yet
been equaled has it?
On Thu, Jan 12, 2012 at 1:21 PM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.comwrote:
James Bowery jabow...@gmail.com wrote:
([1E9 * ounce_troy] * [{12.02 * gramm} / {(centi*meter)^3}]^-1) * ([100 *
{kilo watt}] / [{centi*meter}^3]) ? watt
= 2.5876415E14 W
over 200 terawatts.
Unfortunately, I think Preparata meant 100 not 100,000. The comma is a
decimal point. I do not understand why he added 3 digits of precision to a
rough approximation. Anyway, that comes to 0.2 TW, which is about 1/100 of
world energy production. Fleischmann once estimated that Pd can supply
about 1/3 of total energy. I confirmed it is in that ballpark, ~30% to ~50%.
Here is my estimation.
I assume that power density and temperature with palladium can be
increased to the limits of the material. That is to say up to the highest
temperatures in which thin-film palladium can survive. Or nanoparticles in
aerogel, or what-have-you. The limiting factor is how thinly you can spread
the palladium and have it remain on the substrate and in contact with the
medium, which will probably be D2 gas.
About half of palladium nowadays is used in catalytic converters. Hot gas
from internal combustion engines flows over the palladium surface and is
catalyzed. I assume this technology is pushed to the limit. They use the
smallest amount palladium they can, spreading it as thinly as they can with
maximum exposure to the moving gas. A palladium based cold fusion cell
would have palladium spread roughly as thin as this, producing temperatures
roughly as high as this. If they could make in any thinner, they would.
This technology has been around for a while and it is probably mature.
Nearly all of the energy from an automobile is wasted as hot gas. In
other words, the hot gas that passes over the palladium surface is roughly
equal to the total amount of energy produced by gasoline in the
transportation sector. To put it another way, if the heat was being
produced by the palladium inside the catalytic converter, instead of coming
from the engine to the converter, you would get nearly as much energy as
you get from gasoline now.
To simplify a great deal, assuming that cold fusion can achieve the same
temperatures as palladium experiences in a catalytic converter, half of our
palladium could produce roughly as much energy as the entire automotive
transportation sector does now: 27 out of 99 quads. All of our palladium
could therefore produce roughly 50 out of 99 quads.
Actually the number is higher for various reasons:
* The palladium is not used up as quickly in a cold fusion device as it
is in a catalytic converter.
* The palladium is more easily and completely recovered from a used cold
fusion cell, assuming it is not transmuted.
* Palladium production will be increased as demand increases.
This is a crude estimate but I believe it does show that there is not
enough palladium to produce all the energy we need. If it turns out
palladium is the only suitable metal, we would have large centralized
generators producing most of our energy, supplying it as electricity for
use in electric cars and so on. We would not actually put the palladium in
automobiles, and probably not in houses either.
- Jed
[Vo]:The Antagonists - Documentary about CF History.
The Antagonists is a better-directed epithet. Although pseudo-skeptics does capture an important dimension of the crime against humanity, it doesn't get as close to the heart of the matter. Perhaps a phrase involving establishment would be even better. The Inquisitors might be better than The Antagonists. On Mon, Jan 30, 2012 at 2:53 PM, Harry Veeder hveeder...@gmail.com wrote: sorry, the correct link is http://www.137films.org/NewsDetailPage/Work-in-progress-screening.aspx Harry On Mon, Jan 30, 2012 at 3:50 PM, Harry Veeder hveeder...@gmail.com wrote: - http://www.137films.org/NewsDetailPage/Work-in-progress-screening. The Believers test screening February 11 Work-in-Progress Screening of The Believers at The Gene Siskel Film Center If you've been waiting to see our new film, The Believers, now is your chance! The Chicago Council on Science and Technology is presenting a work-in-progress screening of The Believers on Saturday, February 11 at noon at the Gene Siskel Film Center, and filmmakers Monica Ross and Clayton Brown will be in attendance for a Q A session after the film. You can attend for free by becoming a 137 Films Backer. Click here for information on how to do it. We hope to see you on February 11! --- Harry
Re: [Vo]:The Antagonists - Documentary about CF History.
To place any sort of mailing list purge in the same context as the purge of rational scientific discourse that occurred within 40 days and 40 nights of the cold fusion announcement by Fleischmann and Pons is making a galaxy out of a mole hill. On Tue, Jan 31, 2012 at 4:25 PM, Jones Beene jone...@pacbell.net wrote: What about a sequel called the Agonists ... a documentary about the drama of ditto-skepticism on the vortex forum... up to the infamous Purge of 2012 ... Agony being the operative word and 'Agonism' being the political doctrine of embracing conflict and acknowledging the positive value of inherent discord, including bloody debates, nasty name-calling, and class warfare... or better yet, what about a hairy tragedy: Vortex Agonistes :-) The punage being a nod to Milton's Samson Agonistes known in Lit circles as a closet drama. No kidding - the term tragic closet drama it is apt for the times, no? ... at least it is pretty clear that we were never intended to perform onstage. On the brighter side, Milton's classic was followed by Paradise Regained ... and just as we are enacting the Last Temptation of Rossi... In forty days we will know if the Snake wins, or the new chosen-one is to be with us in these final days ... From: James Bowery The Antagonists is a better-directed epithet. Although pseudo-skeptics does capture an important dimension of the crime against humanity, it doesn't get as close to the heart of the matter. Perhaps a phrase involving establishment would be even better. The Inquisitors might be better than The Antagonists. Harry Veeder wrote: http://www.137films.org/NewsDetailPage/Work-in-progress-screening. The Believers test screening February 11 Work-in-Progress Screening of The Believers at The Gene Siskel Film Center If you've been waiting to see our new film, The Believers, now is your chance! The Chicago Council on Science and Technology is presenting a work-in-progress screening of The Believers on Saturday, February 11 at noon at the Gene Siskel Film Center, and filmmakers Monica Ross and Clayton Brown will be in attendance for a Q A session after the film. You can attend for free by becoming a 137 Films Backer. Click here for information on how to do it. We hope to see you on February 11! --- Harry
Re: [Vo]:Cross-over technology
The fervor with which W-L adherence advocate that theory is appropriate for a theory that has been strongly inferred experimentally against the array of competing theories. However, I see no such strong inference in evidence. Assuming nanotech can fabricate structures at the 15nm feature size, what sort of experiment would falsify the competing theories while producing results predicted by W-L? On Fri, Feb 3, 2012 at 11:02 AM, Jones Beene jone...@pacbell.net wrote: It is possible that somewhere down the road, a cross-over technology from a completely different field (like information technology) may be needed to take Ni-H to the required level of true on demand repeatability - over many months. To wit, something like this: http://www.rdmag.com/News/2012/02/Information-Tech-Computing-Materials-Fabri cation-method-pushes-recording-density-to-3-3-Tb-per-square-inch/ Imagine a nickel alloy film which is etched into perfectly sized excitons (or Casimir Cavities, or a combination or the two as pictured) ... They are down to below 30 nm now and 15 nm is mentioned. Getting below 10 nm will be optimum (the Forster radius and FRET defines the required range) but the space between the excitons as shown in this image is already there (for Casimir pits). This story is emblematic of the kind of engineering effort that should be going into Ni-H now. We need to expend - not simply millions for RD for this technology - but billions annually. It is that important. In the end the amount spent will be 'chump change' compared to the trillions saved - most of it now ending up in the coffers of OPEC. Jones
Re: [Vo]:Concerning Rossi's attempts to achieve adequate Patent Protection
An executive has fiduciary responsibility to his stockholders. This means he must pursue due diligence regarding the protection of the assets of the company. Since the USPTO has made the patentability status of cold fusion claims unclear, for Rossi to expose his trade secret in a patent disclosure could be viewed as a breach of fiduciary responsibility. Snipers who aren't under this sort of responsibility who demand that Rossi trust the USPTO to act in a rational manner are not to be taken seriously. On Fri, Feb 3, 2012 at 12:16 PM, Daniel Rocha danieldi...@gmail.com wrote: Rossi is being a victim of himself, and only himself, by not making a clear patent. That's all I have to say. 2012/2/3 OrionWorks - Steven V Johnson svj.orionwo...@gmail.com PESN had the following to say concerning the latest info on Rossi's attempt to get adequate patent protection: http://pesn.com/2012/02/02/9602025_E-Cat_Weekly_February2/ * * Patents - On January 17, 2012, T.O. wrote: I have a very good friend, that is high ranking, in the patent office and he said he would check where the application is in the process. - On January 31, 2012, T.O. wrote: I found out today that the E-Cat patent is through the security section and now is in a cue to be assigned to a Patent Examiner. My friend thought that at current workflow that it should be done by the end of the year. Of course things could change. He could not say if it would be approved or denied. When this was forwarded to Andrea Rossi on Feb. 2, he responded: Dear Sterling, we know. Warm Regards, A. * I assume Rossi is referring to his attempts to get adequate USA patent protection. At first glance what Rossi seems to be saying here does not strike me as terribly encouraging news. It's sounds so iffy to me. What would stop the USPO from denying Rossi's patent application as just another one of those infernal CF contraptions for which patent researchers were presumably told to discard? Or worse, what's to stop them from simply placing Rossi's application on-hold, perhaps because a new memo just came down the pipeline instructing that all new CF related applications be placed in a special folder where someone higher up in the food chain will deal with the matter - later. Much later. Comments? Regards Steven Vincent Johnson www.OrionWorks.com www.zazzle.com/orionworks -- Daniel Rocha - RJ danieldi...@gmail.com
Re: [Vo]:Concerning Rossi's attempts to achieve adequate Patent Protection
From the Washington Posthttp://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A54964-2004Nov16_2.html : Research money has dried up. The U.S. Patent and Trademark Office has refused to grant a patent on any invention claiming cold fusion. According to Esther Kepplinger, the deputy commissioner of patents, this is for the same reason it wouldn't give one for a perpetual motion machine: It doesn't work. No one has yet countered my argument. Merely asserting what you think the USPTO will do under various circumstances and merely asserting what you think the relative risks are to the net present value of the intellectual property of keeping it a trade secret is to skirt the issue. You aren't the one responsible for the loss of value if it occurs. You can offer an opinion of what you would do in Rossi's shoes but that is all you are doing. You aren't there. He is. On Fri, Feb 3, 2012 at 7:24 PM, Daniel Rocha danieldi...@gmail.com wrote: We don't know yet if his catalyst is unprotected. There is a secret period of 18months after filing. 2012/2/3 Robert robert.leguil...@hotmail.com There are real problems with his patent. Not only is there a host of un-cited prior art, patent and public domain, but his existing patent application has limited application to even his current product line. IANAL, but his patent application centers on the physical construction of his early tube reactor construction, and seems to only gloss over the underlying process. He cannot patent the Ni-H by itself, because it's prior art. He refused to divulge the catalyst, so he's unprotected. It's messy, but it is what it is. Daniel Rocha danieldi...@gmail.com wrote: Sure, Rossi is basically cornering himself. He could license and protect right now his invention, given that patents, unlike trademarks, are granted provisional protection from the day it was filed. 2012/2/3 Abd ul-Rahman Lomax a...@lomaxdesign.com At 05:21 PM 2/3/2012, Randy Wuller wrote: IAAL, does that stand for I am a lawyer, anyway, I am not a patent lawyer but I do know that the patent application can protect your intellectual property if written correctly. So I think the issue with Rossi is was his application sufficiently clear to protect his intellectual property? And frankly, no matter the answer to that question, lawyers will likely have a field day litigating that question if he starts selling a product. This has not been adequately explained. The USPTO position is based on an assumption that cold fusion is considered impossible. So a patent that claims cold fusion is rejected in the same way that patents for perpetual motion machines are impossible. However, a working model could overturn this. The problem with many failed cold fusion patents was that working models weren't available. My opinion is that a properly written patent on a device that appears to be using LENR could be approved, even without a working model, but if there is a working model, it gets easier. LENR or cold fusion should not be claimed, the theoretical mechanism actually is not important, if the device clearly has the major claimed use. It's certainly possible that the USPTO would claim it's still impossible, but the conditions would have been set up for a legal challenge to the USPTO position, in the courts. Patents have been granted for electrodes used in cold fusion experiments, in fact, where the primary claim did not mention excess energy. But subsidiary claims did. It's complicated and I'd defer to expert opinion. INAL means I'm not a lawyer. But I do have some idea of the legal issues. The real issue is whether or not a patent is defensible in court. The USPTO decision merely establishes some kind of presumption or protection. If the USPTO denies a patent, and someone imitates the technology, the inventor may still be able to claim the protection of patent law, in court. But no patent, no protection. Rossi has been depending on secrecy, which is very, very risky. I'm sure he's heard this advice many times. Maybe he thinks he's able to pull it off, maybe he's a fraud, maybe, maybe. I've read a lot about this, and I don't know. Some people may well know things I don't know. Lots of writers, though, have opinions based on less knowledge -- Daniel Rocha - RJ danieldi...@gmail.com -- Daniel Rocha - RJ danieldi...@gmail.com
Re: [Vo]:Claims of Fraud Heating Up
At this point Krivit's purpose in life appears to be little more than damage control for institutional science. He will fail. On Fri, Feb 10, 2012 at 12:19 PM, Terry Blanton hohlr...@gmail.com wrote: Of course Krivit weights in http://www.livescience.com/18415-ecat-cold-fusion-fraud.html in this article by Natalie Wolchover, Life's Little Mysteries Staff Writer. (Does she know that her illustration is actually He?) T
[Vo]:Russ George's May 6, 1999 Cold Fusion Times article?
I'm attempting to obtain a copy of Production of Helium-Four from Deuterium Using Nano-Particle Palladium by Russ George, published in the May 6, 1999 issue of Cold Fusion Times on page 1.
[Vo]:Re: [Vo]:Vertical farming in Linköping, Sweden
Humans burn calories at a rate greater than 100W. Photosynthesis, in the best conditions (algae) converts only about 6% of insolation to biomass. The plants typically used in vertical gardening are more like 1% efficient at generating biomass, and of that biomass only about 20% is actually edible calories. If you live in the desert southwest of the US, you would require an area 500m^2 to gather enough insolation for one person -- and that's assuming they are strict vegetarians. The year-round insolation of places like Sweeden is less than half that of the desert southwest US so it would be more like 1000m^2. Remember that is 1000m^2 per person of south-facing window, and we haven't even started on protein requirements for non-vegetarian diets. On Sun, Feb 19, 2012 at 6:21 AM, Jouni Valkonen jounivalko...@gmail.comwrote: Hello, First multistory vertical farm is being build into Linköping! It has in sun facing side a vertical farm and dark side is for offices. This is the way to go! Vertical farms may be initially costly, but they will get eventually cheaper, when technology evolves. Imagine this map to be wholly green: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Europe_land_use_map.png I hope that this full scale pilot project will open people's eyes for the future technological possibilities. –Jouni Växthuset skjuter i höjden http://www.nyteknik.se/nyheter/bygg/byggartiklar/article3406014.ece Google translated version: Greenhouse soar By: Charlotta von Schultzhttp://translate.googleusercontent.com/translate_c?hl=enie=UTF8prev=_trurl=translate.google.comsl=svtl=entwu=1u=http://www.nyteknik.se/ovrigt/redaktionen/charlotta_von_schultz/usg=ALkJrhh3ZCJgH1HcDaFm6hr9Z9_SFlRAaA Published February 10, 2012 14:5545 commentshttp://translate.googleusercontent.com/translate_c?hl=enie=UTF8prev=_trurl=translate.google.comsl=svtl=entwu=1u=http://www.nyteknik.se/nyheter/bygg/byggartiklar/article3406014.eceusg=ALkJrhiNU2eWWWC5lebMRxqqSRuLB-Vp7A#comments http://translate.googleusercontent.com/translate_c?hl=enie=UTF8prev=_trurl=translate.google.comsl=svtl=entwu=1u=http://www.nyteknik.se/nyheter/bygg/byggartiklar/article3406014.eceusg=ALkJrhiNU2eWWWC5lebMRxqqSRuLB-Vp7A#latest-comment *Locally grown vegetables are reaching new heights. Now we build a 54 meter high greenhouse in Linköping.* http://translate.google.com/translate?sl=svtl=enjs=nprev=_thl=enie=UTF-8layout=2eotf=1u=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.nyteknik.se%2Fnyheter%2Fbygg%2Fbyggartiklar%2Farticle3406014.ece
Re: [Vo]:Professor Rossi and The Crazy Ones
Grammar correction: Think differently not Think different PS: They forgot Hitler, Stalin, Mao and Pol Pot just sayin' On Wed, Feb 22, 2012 at 7:28 AM, Ron Kita chiralex.k...@gmail.com wrote: Greetings Vortex, In case you haven t seen the Youtube the Crazy Ones by Steve Jobs: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8rwsuXHA7RA Highly inspirational. Ron Kita, Chiralex
Re: [Vo]:Andrea Rossi and Siemens working together.and more
Can't be. Rossi's inlet temperature is 524K. With an outlet temperature at 373K (100C) the maximum Carnot efficiency is only 29%. On Sun, Feb 26, 2012 at 4:35 PM, Alan Fletcher a...@well.com wrote: SST-040 looks a good candidate : 300kW from 1MW http://www.energy.siemens.com/hq/en/power-generation/steam-turbines/sst-040.htm The newly developed predesigned steam turbine SST-040 is a generator drive specially designed for the 75-300 kW power range. This favorably priced turbine features a simple, extremely compact design, short start-up times and a high degree of operational reliability. Application area of the SST-040: * Waste-heat recovery e.g. behind gas engines and biogas engines * Small CHP plants * Decentralized solar facilities Inlet pressure 2 up to 40 bar (a) Inlet temperature dry saturated steam up to 400 °C - Original Message - From: Robert Lynn robert.gulliver.l...@gmail.com This might be possible with supercritical CO2, though not in sizes less than about 100kW. Most definitely not steam
