[Vo]:Irish times reports on Rossi
Why haven't they invented... cold fusion? http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/bang/2011/0216/1224289927976.html harry
Re: [Vo]:Irish times reports on Rossi
From Harry: Why haven't they invented... cold fusion? http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/bang/2011/0216/1224289927976.html H This from the Irish Times. Doesn't another Alternate Energy firm come to mind??? In psychological terms, it's called displacement. The mind is often very good at generating psychological subterfuge in order to obfuscate what's really bugging it. At least the article didn't quote Dr. Park, like Discovery did. Regards Steven Vincent Johnson www.OrionWorks.com www.zazzle.com/orionworks
Re: [Vo]:Where's Dr. Park?
From Peter ... As regarding Rossi's bad PR he is just following Pitigrilli's Do not give me advices, I can err myself The lack of a theory is disturbing, his method of scale-up is strange, but he answers patiently to hundreds of questions of diverse levels of IQ and good/ill-will. Put yourself in his place. What could be an optimal strategy for him? Rossi's work habits sound to me like the actions of a quintessential micro-manager at work. There are obvious advantages and disadvantages. God luv him! (With appropriate apologies to the atheists on this list!) Regards Steven Vincent Johnson www.OrionWorks.com www.zazzle.com/orionworks
Re: [Vo]:Where's Dr. Park?
Goddess Athena should love him, he needs wisdom and one of his decisive actions will take place in Athena's country. Also with apologies to other atheists including myself. On Wed, Feb 16, 2011 at 4:46 PM, OrionWorks - Steven V Johnson svj.orionwo...@gmail.com wrote: From Peter ... As regarding Rossi's bad PR he is just following Pitigrilli's Do not give me advices, I can err myself The lack of a theory is disturbing, his method of scale-up is strange, but he answers patiently to hundreds of questions of diverse levels of IQ and good/ill-will. Put yourself in his place. What could be an optimal strategy for him? Rossi's work habits sound to me like the actions of a quintessential micro-manager at work. There are obvious advantages and disadvantages. God luv him! (With appropriate apologies to the atheists on this list!) Regards Steven Vincent Johnson www.OrionWorks.com www.zazzle.com/orionworks -- Dr. Peter Gluck Cluj, Romania http://egooutpeters.blogspot.com
Re: [Vo]:Where's Dr. Park?
Peter Gluck wrote: As regarding Rossi's bad PR he is just following Pitigrilli's Do not give me advices, I can err myself The lack of a theory is disturbing, his method of scale-up is strange, but he answers patiently to hundreds of questions of diverse levels of IQ and good/ill-will. Put yourself in his place. What could be an optimal strategy for him? 1. Stop responding to all those hundreds of messages. His responses confuse the issue. They contradict one another. In some cases they are flat out factually wrong. 2. Hire the best patent firm money can buy. Have them write a bullet-proof patent. The ones Rossi himself writes are ridiculous and would never withstand a challenge. 3. Make 2 or 3 machine and put them in major corporations and labs such as the NRL, which has a test-bed facility designed for a machine of this size and scale. (They described it at ICCF-16.) Have the corporations and the NRL write authoritative reports describing their verification procedures. 4. Have some national labs verify the transmutations. 5. Take the reports and transmutation data to the Patent Office. They will have no choice but to grant the patent. That is what experts in patents have told me. 6. License the technology to any corporation on earth that wants to build it. Let the corporations, regulators, and governments handle the details. 7. Sit back and count the money. Don't worry about opposition or public relations; the corporations that want to manufacture the machine will take care of it. Don't worry about a thing -- just count the money. Let me summarize the difference in scale and intent between Rossi's business plans and what I propose. Rossi plans to cross the channel from England to France with a dozen of his friends for a day-trip picnic at the shore. I propose the D-Day Normandy Invasion. Rossi's plans will fail, for several reasons, such as the fact that you cannot install a nuclear reactor that works for unknown reasons, and the fact that many powerful forces ranging from the APS, the DoE and the fossil fuel industry will be determined to crush him. My plans will succeed because I propose to bring much the power of the establishment to his side, in an alliance working in his favor. Rossi and that small company in Greece alone have no chance of defeating Exxon Mobile. Rossi plus Mitsubishi, General Electric and the People's Republic of China will go through Exxon Mobile like shit through a goose. My plan has many advantages to making a 1 MW reactor. It will be much faster. His plan will take decades to have a minor effect; mine would bankrupt the fossil fuel industry in a decade. My plan is far cheaper for him to implement. It cannot accidentally irradiate and kill hundreds of residents of Florida (possibly thousands). It will earn him orders of magnitude more money -- assuming his present plans make any money at all, which seems unlikely to me. It is the conventional, tried-and-true way to make money with intellectual property. - Jed
RE: [Vo]:BLP Presentation
Jed Rothwell [mailto:jedrothw...@gmail.com] wrote: Is there a copy of his (Mills) presentation anywhere? From Harry Veeder several days ago: http://www.blacklightpower.com/new.shtml Dr. Mills will present Thermally Reversible Hydrino Catalyst Systems as a New Power Source at the Fuel Cell and Hydrogen Energy Conference on February 14, 2011, at 4:10 PM at the Gaylord National Hotel Conference Center, 201 Waterfront Street, National Harbor, MD, in the Chesapeake 10-11 conference room. Dr. Mills' PowerPoint presentation is available for viewing. GEH: You can find his slide presentation for the conference at the above url . It is long but has some new information. George Holz Varitronics Systems
[Vo]:Robert Duncan's address at ICCF-16
Here is a self-explanatory note to Robert Duncan. He was not able to attend ICCF-16 because of the snowstorms in the U.S. If he sends me a copy of his address, I will post it here. Rob, That was a great address you did not give at ICCF-16. Mike Melich read it aloud from his Ipad. If you would like to send me a copy I would be happy to upload it to LENR-CANR.org. It wasn't much of a conference so it is just as well for you that you missed it. There were few Indian participants. The main purpose of the conference was to spur Indian participation in the field. However even though there were a few Indian participants, that may be accomplished anyway because there was a pre-conference meeting at a university and another meeting there on Wednesday. The people there reportedly seemed enthusiastic. There were also four people from Korea who seem likely to begin research. They may even sponsor the next conference. Still the field remains largely moribund. The most important person at the conference was Rossi who -- like you and Macavity the mystery cat -- was not there. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:Where's Dr. Park?
The difference is, your plan depends on the device working. His may not. On Wed, Feb 16, 2011 at 9:07 AM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com wrote: Peter Gluck wrote: As regarding Rossi's bad PR he is just following Pitigrilli's Do not give me advices, I can err myself The lack of a theory is disturbing, his method of scale-up is strange, but he answers patiently to hundreds of questions of diverse levels of IQ and good/ill-will. Put yourself in his place. What could be an optimal strategy for him? 1. Stop responding to all those hundreds of messages. His responses confuse the issue. They contradict one another. In some cases they are flat out factually wrong. 2. Hire the best patent firm money can buy. Have them write a bullet-proof patent. The ones Rossi himself writes are ridiculous and would never withstand a challenge. 3. Make 2 or 3 machine and put them in major corporations and labs such as the NRL, which has a test-bed facility designed for a machine of this size and scale. (They described it at ICCF-16.) Have the corporations and the NRL write authoritative reports describing their verification procedures. 4. Have some national labs verify the transmutations. 5. Take the reports and transmutation data to the Patent Office. They will have no choice but to grant the patent. That is what experts in patents have told me. 6. License the technology to any corporation on earth that wants to build it. Let the corporations, regulators, and governments handle the details. 7. Sit back and count the money. Don't worry about opposition or public relations; the corporations that want to manufacture the machine will take care of it. Don't worry about a thing -- just count the money. Let me summarize the difference in scale and intent between Rossi's business plans and what I propose. Rossi plans to cross the channel from England to France with a dozen of his friends for a day-trip picnic at the shore. I propose the D-Day Normandy Invasion. Rossi's plans will fail, for several reasons, such as the fact that you cannot install a nuclear reactor that works for unknown reasons, and the fact that many powerful forces ranging from the APS, the DoE and the fossil fuel industry will be determined to crush him. My plans will succeed because I propose to bring much the power of the establishment to his side, in an alliance working in his favor. Rossi and that small company in Greece alone have no chance of defeating Exxon Mobile. Rossi plus Mitsubishi, General Electric and the People's Republic of China will go through Exxon Mobile like shit through a goose. My plan has many advantages to making a 1 MW reactor. It will be much faster. His plan will take decades to have a minor effect; mine would bankrupt the fossil fuel industry in a decade. My plan is far cheaper for him to implement. It cannot accidentally irradiate and kill hundreds of residents of Florida (possibly thousands). It will earn him orders of magnitude more money -- assuming his present plans make any money at all, which seems unlikely to me. It is the conventional, tried-and-true way to make money with intellectual property. - Jed
[Vo]:February 13th A. Rossi interview from 22passi blog
Hello group, Daniele Passerini from 22passi blog interviewed again Andrea Rossi on February 13th. This is the original link: http://22passi.blogspot.com/2011/02/energy-catalyzer-facciamo-un-po-di.html And this is an English translation courtesy of PESN, edited by Hank Mills from a Google translation: http://pesn.com/2011/02/14/9501766_Rossi_catalyzer_clarity_interview/ * * * Energy Catalyzer: Lets get some clarity. Last Monday I had the opportunity to meet Ing. Andrea Rossi for a second interview, this time face to face, in order to collect new details about his invention. I have recorded over 30 minutes of questions and answers that in the days following the interview I summarized in the following text. On the basis of a gentleman's agreement I also was given a number of clarifications, off record and confidential, which reinforce my belief that people - and there are many- that think this has something to do with a hoax are like a half mule and half ostrich. 22PASSI - Congratulations Mr. Rossi, the news of the invention of the E-Cat has been prominent in Greece where the Newco that assumes responsibility for it's production and marketing, Defkalion Green Technologies of Athens, is located. I imagine that Prof. Christos E. Stremmenos has to be played as a sponsor, who was an opponent of the regime of the colonels, former Ambassador of Greece to Rome, Professor of Physics at the University of Athens, and practically a national hero in Greece. In Italy the media have largely ignored the news and discussed it only on the web, often bitterly. The questions that I'm inspired to ask address the doubts and criticisms that I have picked up on the internet. For example, a very controversial question is if the E-Cat can be considered safe. ROSSI - The 10-kW modules we produce are safe and for years now we have been testing and using them with no problems. All possible measures of radiation from the reactor have been taken and the modules have always demonstrated the utmost safety. We control it as we want, switching it on and switching it off and we get power on and power off. It can never exceed a certain power because we have designed it so that there can be no Nickel-Hydrogen reaction above the safety limits and, above all, there is no radiation outside of the reactor significantly over the background level. It is true that with our current state of knowledge we do not know what would happen if we started scaling up the reactor from 10KW to 1000KW. In fact, we take care not to do so. To obtain higher power production we combine the modules in series and parallel, as if they were batteries. A 10 KW reactor connecting in parallel increases the amount of energy produced at a constant temperature and putting them in series multiplies the amount of energy produced at increasing temperature, because you multiply the TD. Combining the two architectures, parallel and series, you can get what you want and stay strictly in the same safety parameters. 22PASSI - We always talk about thermal power, right? ROSSI - yes, when converting to other forms of energy there will be a loss of efficiency. In the Carnot cycle efficiency is usually between 30% and 35% depending on the efficiency of the system, this means that if we convert 1MW of thermal power we can get 300-350 kW electric and thermal energy. 22PASSI - Then we could produce both heat and electricity at the same time.. ROSSI - With the Carnot cycle this is so. Of course nothing is created and nothing is destroyed: the energy balance should be 100. However, if out of 100KW of heat 35 KW of heat was converted into electricity and the other 65KW of heat remained, then you would lose a few percentage points in conversion. In summary, if the E-Cat provides only thermal power directly, only a heat exchanger is needed and you're done. If you need electricity only a portion of the thermal energy can be transformed into electricity, but you will also have the heat that remains. 22PASSI. Then a small village of 50-100 families with a 1 MW unit could be made more energy independent in terms of heating and electricity. ROSSI. Ah yes, this certainly. 22PASSI - If I understand correctly, once enough power is given to the reactor to ignite (in Bologna there was talk of 1-2kW), in this setup the machine might operate autonomously, without a power outlet or battery as the power input (on the order of 0.4 kW / h) is well within the approximately 3.5 kW electricity obtainable. ROSSI - Certainly. There remains, however, the problem of the drive (control system) that is still a little more complex: each reactor has implemented an electrical drive for safety reasons and much be attached to a current line. Precisely because of these controls, we can ensure that there are no safety problems inherent in our E-Cat from 10 kW, as well in our unit from 1MW, consisting of 100 reactors from 10kW each of which has its
Re: [Vo]:Where's Dr. Park?
On 02/16/2011 11:46 AM, Joshua Cude wrote: The difference is, your [Jed's] plan depends on the device working. His may not. As I've said before, and as Jed has agreed, the biggest red flag of all is the casual way this is being treated, both by the UoB professors and by Rossi himself. He's acting more like he's invented a nifty new kind of windshield washing fluid which can be produced in 100 gallon lots in a small factory, rather than like he's invented something which could revolutionize everything and which will necessarily be mass produced in every country on Earth if the potential demand is to be met. He's also spouting total nonsense when he talks about not producing them for military uses. If the thing's real, it will be applied to military uses, whether or not Rossi wants to sell to the military.
[Vo]:Strange and Quarky connections
Many vorticians are familiar with Gilsons paper on quantum coupling. He
looks at the significance of alpha when reduced to geometry (topology)
which seems to be something that everyone can grasp more easily than the
formalism a spherical polygon of 137 sides.
One can imagine a dense cluster - an isomer of hydrogen containing 137
atoms, for instance.
Dr. James Gilson's web site is
www.fine-structure-constant.org
and he proposes this value for alpha:
29 cos({pi}/137) tan({pi}/(137×29)) / {pi}
The long and short of this is that Gilson thinks that the value 29 has a
substantial significance for evaluating
quantum coupling constants via the fine-structure-constant. The 3 values
required are pi, 137, and 29.
Does this insight have any connection to LENR if we assume that this field
is based on QM reactions instead of thermonuclear? Specifically, is it
totally coincidental then that copper element 29 is seen as a
transmutation product in a number of LENR experiments including Rossi, the
Cincinnati group, Pd-d, Ni-h, etc ?
It is easy to opine that there is no logical or scientific connection,
Gilson notwithstanding and in truth it sounds silly seeing it verbalized
this way, since the simplest connection is by virtue of coppers proximity
to nickel in the periodic table and/or the ubiquity of the element in metal
refining, or the ubiquity as an electrical conductor (if there is no LENR).
And why would only protons and not neutrons or the combination of both
relate to enhanced probability of QM-based nuclear reactions?
Short answer to that last question = the EMC effect or rather one of the
newer versions of said effect where quark coherence becomes a factor. This
is still a long way off from a workable hypothesis, for something like the
Rossi reaction where copper shows up with little evidence of beta decay. But
the general idea is that proton clusters of pycno are formed from
spillover via a catalyst, and often accumulated in clusters of exactly 137
atoms which are geometrically favored due to the influence of fine-structure
and/or another variable and that this kind of template somehow interacts
by tunneling with nickel in such a way to encourage the transmutation to
copper which is favored in a bijective transform (Laplace) on occasion,
but at higher probability than expected.
IOW this hypothesis is too bizarre to mention in polite company, and you
will only hear it on Vortex. But it is shaping up in a couple of ways that
seem promising, if not internally consistent (at least for the fringe of
fizzix ).
Jones
[Vo]:Revised version Celani reports on gamma emission from Rossi device
Here is a revised version of the message I sent the other day. Villa reported no gamma emissions or other radiation significantly above background from the Rossi device. Celani, however, said that he did detect something. Here are the details he related to me at ICCF16, from my notes, with corrections and additions by Celani. Celani attended the demonstration on Jan. 14. The device did not work at first. He and others were waiting impatiently in a room next to the room with the device. He estimates that he was around 6 m from the device. He had two battery-powered detectors: 1. A sodium iodide gamma detector (NaI), set for 1 s acquisition time. 2. A Geiger counter (model GEM Radalert II, Perspective Scientific), which was set to 10 s acquisition time. Both were turned on as he waited. The sodium iodide detector was in count mode rather than spectrum mode; that is, it just tells the number of counts per second. Both showed what Celani considers normal background for Italy at that elevation. As he was waiting, suddenly, during a 1-second interval both detectors were saturated. That is to say, they both registered counts off the scale. The following seconds the NaI detector returned to nomal. The Geiger counter had to be switched off to delete overrange, which was 7.5 microsievert/hour, and later switched on again. About 1 to 2 minutes after this event, Rossi emerged from the other room and said the machine just turned on and the demonstration was underway. Celani commented that the only conventional source of gamma rays far from a nuclear reactor would be a rare event: a cosmic ray impact on the atmosphere producing proton storm shower of particles. He and I agreed it is extremely unlikely this happened coincidentally the same moment the reactor started . . . Although, come to think of it, perhaps the causality is reversed, and the cosmic ray triggered the Rossi device. Another scientist said perhaps both detectors malfunctioned because of an electromagnetic source in the building or some other prosaic source. Celani considers this unrealistic because he also had in operation battery-operated radio frequency detectors: an ELF (Extremely Low Frequency) and RF (COM environmental microwave monitor), both made by Perspective Scientific. No radio frequency anomalies were detected. I remarked that it is also unrealistic because the two gamma detectors are battery powered and they work on different principles. The scientist pointed to neutron detectors in an early cold fusion experiment that malfunctioned at a certain time of day every day because some equipment in the laboratory building was turned on every day. That sort of thing can happen with neutron detectors, which are finicky, but this Geiger counter is used for safety monitoring. Such devices have to be rugged and reliable or they will not keep you safe, so I doubt it is easy to fool one of them. Celani expresses some reservations about the reality of the Rossi device. Given his detector results I think it would be more appropriate for him to question the safety of it. When Celani went in to see the experiment in action, he brought out the sodium iodide detector and prepared to change it to spectrum mode, which would give him more information about the ongoing reaction. Rossi objected vociferously, saying the spectrum would give Celani (or anyone else who see it), all they need to know to replicate the machine and steal Ross's intellectual property. Celani later groused that there is no point to inviting scientists to a demo if you have no intentions of letter them use their own instruments. (Note, however, that Levi et al. did use their own instruments.) Jacques Dufour also attended the demonstration. He does not speak much Italian, so he could not follow the discussion. He made some observations, including one that I consider important, namely that the outlet pipe was far too hot to touch. That means the temperature of it was over 70°C. That, in turn, proves there was considerable excess heat. McKubre and others have said the outlet temperature sensor was too close to the body of the device. Others have questioned whether the steam was really dry or not. If the question is whether the machine really produced heat or not, these factors can be ignored. All you need to know is the temperature of the tap water going in (15°C), the flow rate and the power input (400 W). At that power level the outlet pipe would be ~30°C. Celani points out that the input power was quite unstable, fluctuating between 400 and 800 W, but it was still not large enough to explain the excess heat. Celani did not see the steam emerge from the end of the pipe, but he reported the whistling sound of steam passing through the pipe. (Dufour did not notice that but he says he is hard of hearing, especially high frequency sounds.) I think there is no question the water boiled, and much of it was vaporized, so there was massive excess heat. Celani complained that
Re: [Vo]:Where's Dr. Park?
Stephen A. Lawrence wrote: He's acting more like he's invented a nifty new kind of windshield washing fluid which can be produced in 100 gallon lots in a small factory, rather than like he's invented something which could revolutionize everything and which will necessarily be mass produced in every country on Earth if the potential demand is to be met. EXACTLY. He's also spouting total nonsense when he talks about not producing them for military uses. If the thing's real, it will be applied to military uses, whether or not Rossi wants to sell to the military. Again, spot on. As far as I know it would be against trade laws not to sell to the military. It is against the law to refuse to sell to any lawful customer. Anti-trust and anti-discrimination trade laws say you cannot pick and choose your customers. If their money is green and they are in line, you have sell at the same price, terms and conditions anyone else gets. That is one of the reasons technology is readily reverse-engineered. Competing companies put in an order to buy the new model gadget, and you cannot refuse them. I recall that in the old days, telephone equipment companies would drag out delivery of orders placed by competitors, until a court slapped one of them. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:Where's Dr. Park?
I don't recall Rossi saying that the would not sell to the military. He simply said that Decathlon Energy would only produce Ecats for non-military applications. The implication to me is that LockMart (or others) might have already signed up for military applications like they did with EEStor. T
Re: [Vo]:Where's Dr. Park?
Terry Blanton wrote: I don't recall Rossi saying that the would not sell to the military. I recall he said that a couple of times in his blog. He says lots of things, many of them seemingly contradictory. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:February 13th A. Rossi interview from 22passi blog
On Feb 16, 2011, at 9:15 AM, SHIRAKAWA Akira wrote: Hello group, Daniele Passerini from 22passi blog interviewed again Andrea Rossi on February 13th. This is the original link: http://22passi.blogspot.com/2011/02/energy-catalyzer-facciamo-un-po- di.html And this is an English translation courtesy of PESN, edited by Hank Mills from a Google translation: http://pesn.com/2011/02/14/9501766_Rossi_catalyzer_clarity_interview/ * * * [snip] ROSSI - In a nutshell for very nicely measuring the range of radiation we should create a 360 degree hole in the reactor to allow the meter to read what's happening there. But what that implies is giving away the technology completely in the hands of a person prepared to interpret the data. To design the systems security anti spy technology of this kind is not enough to surround himself with collaborators honest and like ... I myself, Andrea, would be in crisis if someone were to say we will give you a figure that will change your life overnight and your next five generations in return for telling us... An offer of this kind would severely test even the honesty of a Saint. [snip] -- Cheers, S.A. Independent evaluation of the commercial viability and utility of an invention like this is typically made, and could have been made in this case, by an independent third party, under a nondisclosure agreement (NDA) before commercial financing is provided. Evaluation of excess heat by calorimetry can even be accomplished free onsite by using companies like Earthtech (www.earthtech.org). Such an evaluation requires no obfuscation and minimal intervention or constraints by the inventor during evaluation. There have been many cases discussed here over the last 15 years of bad or highly debatable calorimetry indicating total energy balances beyond chemical. No one should invest a dime in any CF scheme for business purposes unless expert calorimetry is performed in due diligence. Best regards, Horace Heffner http://www.mtaonline.net/~hheffner/
RE: [Vo]:Where's Dr. Park?
-Original Message- From: Terry Blanton The implication to me is that LockMart (or others) might have already signed up for military applications, like they did with EEStor. BTW - the mention of EEStor, and their unfortunate 'change of focus' brings up two points. 1) As mentioned before, the most probable reason that Barium titanate will never be permitted in a consumer application is related to the 'exploding capacitor' phenomenon and the extraordinarily high shock-wave which is expected from overcharging dielectric material in the kV range. Catch-22 the material has no real advantage unless it is charged to these levels. However, 1a) This device might make an excellent explosive device. 1b) Even more so if Barium is active for some kind of triggered LENR 2) In Gilson's paper on quantum coupling where he looks at the significance of 'alpha' when reduced to geometry - a spherical polygon of 137 units - Barium is the only element with a stable isotope of 137 nucleons. 3) No element with z = 137 is known but would possibly be called feynmanium (symbol Fy) if found, because Richard Feynman noted that the relativistic Dirac equation runs into problems at Z 1/α = 137, and breaks down at this point. The Bohr model too exhibits the same problem since any element Z 137 would require 1s electrons to be traveling faster than c. Conclusion: Of course this is almost ridiculous to speculate about, given the unknowns, but the shockwave from overcharging this kind of capacitor in a short time frame could conceivably trigger Barium into a previously unknown kind of nuclear reaction, based on quantum susceptibility - but at any rate, we will need to look elsewhere for such an advanced 'bettery'. However, today in the SciNews, an even better bettery concept has been announced involving nano copper.
Re: [Vo]:Where's Dr. Park?
So, the barium cap is both the weapon propellant and the payload. What more could one ask? :-) T
Re: [Vo]:February 13th A. Rossi interview from 22passi blog
On Wed, Feb 16, 2011 at 4:35 PM, Horace Heffner hheff...@mtaonline.net wrote: snip Independent evaluation of the commercial viability and utility of an invention like this is typically made, and could have been made in this case, by an independent third party, under a nondisclosure agreement (NDA) before commercial financing is provided. Evaluation of excess heat by calorimetry can even be accomplished free onsite by using companies like Earthtech (www.earthtech.org). But Murray cross posted derogatory comments on the experiment here: http://www.mail-archive.com/vortex-l@eskimo.com/msg42393.html And the archives do not show all the recipients unlike my gmail archives: from Rich Murray rmfor...@gmail.com reply-tovortex-l@eskimo.com to vortex-L@eskimo.com, michael barron mhbar...@gmail.com, Rich Murray rmfor...@gmail.com, Rich Murray rmfor...@comcast.net, Sterling D. Allen sterlin...@pureenergysystems.com, lit...@earthtech.org, mari...@earthtech.org, puth...@earthtech.org, joshua.c...@yahoo.com dateTue, Feb 8, 2011 at 12:15 PM subject [Vo]:Levi's interpretation of the two Rossi demos does not hold water, decisive critique by Joshua Cude: Rich Murray 2011.02.08 mailed-by eskimo.com unsubscribe Unsubscribe from this sender hide details Feb 8 (9 days ago) Levi's interpretation of the two Rossi demos does not hold water, decisive critique by Joshua Cude: Rich Murray 2011.02.08 snip Which included members of Earthtech. When I suggested he include Earthtech in his retraction: http://www.mail-archive.com/vortex-l@eskimo.com/msg42488.html Rich did not respond, leaving Earthtech with a bad taste in their mouth. Unethical, IMO. T
Re: [Vo]:Economic Reality setting in
On Feb 15, 2011, at 10:33 AM, Stephen A. Lawrence wrote: On 02/15/2011 02:22 PM, Horace Heffner wrote: Another interesting quote: Please, what do you mean, in this case when you say “power density”? If you mean which volume is necessary per kW of power, I can say about 5 liters per kW, just for the thermal power. Eh?? For 12 kW that would be 60 liters of volume. That doesn't make sense, given the size of the device in the demo, which was producing 12 kW. That is obviously why it is interesting. http://www.mail-archive.com/vortex-l@eskimo.com/msg42287.html The suggested method of duplicating the Rossi experiment by chemical means can be scaled up, both in parallel and in series. However, the thermal output for 100 devices would then very obviously be 200 kW, not 1.2 MW. The output from 500 devices, or even just 100 devices with 5 times the zeolite, would produce a MW of thermal output, however. Best regards, Horace Heffner http://www.mtaonline.net/~hheffner/
Re: [Vo]:February 13th A. Rossi interview from 22passi blog
Hello Terry, I'm still doubtful about the Rossi claims, due to the enormous confusion about the output water-steam flows, and the weak claims about gamma detection. I am not a doctrinaire skeptic, but as a scientific layman serve as a pragmatic skeptic about the simpler aspects of cold fusion research, while hoping for major benign advances. I am pleased by the overall courteous and thoughtful discussions. I was perplexed to not get any responses whatsoever from Earthtech, so assume they are operating on their own track re surprising, fast-moving matters that impinge on world security. Rossi has not released any details re his explosions. Surely by now many teams worldwide are running their own experiments and checking out all possible leads of information. Amateur networks can contribute by spreading information as widely as possible. The list of elements and their isotopes that might be catalysts may be only a few dozen. The most recent Rossi comments include the claim that the half-lives of radioactives in his cells are less than a few minutes. However, I find it easy to imagine that every facet of this complex drama could be disinformation from multiple players with different agendas. The article on Wikipedia re BlackLight Power shows clearly that 50-100 million dollars can be attracted in two decades by a small scientific cult. I note that it's been 2 months since the private demo by Rossi on December 16, and he published provocative patents and reports in the last 2 years. Rich Murray On Wed, Feb 16, 2011 at 4:13 PM, Terry Blanton hohlr...@gmail.com wrote: On Wed, Feb 16, 2011 at 4:35 PM, Horace Heffner hheff...@mtaonline.net wrote: snip Independent evaluation of the commercial viability and utility of an invention like this is typically made, and could have been made in this case, by an independent third party, under a nondisclosure agreement (NDA) before commercial financing is provided. Evaluation of excess heat by calorimetry can even be accomplished free onsite by using companies like Earthtech (www.earthtech.org). But Murray cross posted derogatory comments on the experiment here: http://www.mail-archive.com/vortex-l@eskimo.com/msg42393.html And the archives do not show all the recipients unlike my gmail archives: from Rich Murray rmfor...@gmail.com reply-to vortex-l@eskimo.com to vortex-L@eskimo.com, michael barron mhbar...@gmail.com, Rich Murray rmfor...@gmail.com, Rich Murray rmfor...@comcast.net, Sterling D. Allen sterlin...@pureenergysystems.com, lit...@earthtech.org, mari...@earthtech.org, puth...@earthtech.org, joshua.c...@yahoo.com date Tue, Feb 8, 2011 at 12:15 PM subject [Vo]:Levi's interpretation of the two Rossi demos does not hold water, decisive critique by Joshua Cude: Rich Murray 2011.02.08 mailed-by eskimo.com unsubscribe Unsubscribe from this sender hide details Feb 8 (9 days ago) Levi's interpretation of the two Rossi demos does not hold water, decisive critique by Joshua Cude: Rich Murray 2011.02.08 snip Which included members of Earthtech. When I suggested he include Earthtech in his retraction: http://www.mail-archive.com/vortex-l@eskimo.com/msg42488.html Rich did not respond, leaving Earthtech with a bad taste in their mouth. Unethical, IMO. T
Re: [Vo]:Revised version Celani reports on gamma emission from Rossi device
On Feb 16, 2011, at 10:48 AM, Jed Rothwell wrote: Here is a revised version of the message I sent the other day. Villa reported no gamma emissions or other radiation significantly above background from the Rossi device. Celani, however, said that he did detect something. Here are the details he related to me at ICCF16, from my notes, with corrections and additions by Celani. Celani attended the demonstration on Jan. 14. The device did not work at first. He and others were waiting impatiently in a room next to the room with the device. He estimates that he was around 6 m from the device. He had two battery-powered detectors: 1. A sodium iodide gamma detector (NaI), set for 1 s acquisition time. 2. A Geiger counter (model GEM Radalert II, Perspective Scientific), which was set to 10 s acquisition time. Both were turned on as he waited. The sodium iodide detector was in count mode rather than spectrum mode; that is, it just tells the number of counts per second. Both showed what Celani considers normal background for Italy at that elevation. As he was waiting, suddenly, during a 1-second interval both detectors were saturated. That is to say, they both registered counts off the scale. The following seconds the NaI detector returned to nomal. The Geiger counter had to be switched off to delete overrange, which was 7.5 microsievert/hour, and later switched on again. About 1 to 2 minutes after this event, Rossi emerged from the other room and said the machine just turned on and the demonstration was underway. Celani commented that the only conventional source of gamma rays far from a nuclear reactor would be a rare event: a cosmic ray impact on the atmosphere producing proton storm shower of particles. He and I agreed it is extremely unlikely this happened coincidentally the same moment the reactor started . . . Although, come to think of it, perhaps the causality is reversed, and the cosmic ray triggered the Rossi device. Another scientist said perhaps both detectors malfunctioned because of an electromagnetic source in the building or some other prosaic source. Celani considers this unrealistic because he also had in operation battery-operated radio frequency detectors: an ELF (Extremely Low Frequency) and RF (COM environmental microwave monitor), both made by Perspective Scientific. No radio frequency anomalies were detected. I remarked that it is also unrealistic because the two gamma detectors are battery powered and they work on different principles. The scientist pointed to neutron detectors in an early cold fusion experiment that malfunctioned at a certain time of day every day because some equipment in the laboratory building was turned on every day. That sort of thing can happen with neutron detectors, which are finicky, but this Geiger counter is used for safety monitoring. Such devices have to be rugged and reliable or they will not keep you safe, so I doubt it is easy to fool one of them. Celani expresses some reservations about the reality of the Rossi device. Given his detector results I think it would be more appropriate for him to question the safety of it. When Celani went in to see the experiment in action, he brought out the sodium iodide detector and prepared to change it to spectrum mode, which would give him more information about the ongoing reaction. Rossi objected vociferously, saying the spectrum would give Celani (or anyone else who see it), all they need to know to replicate the machine and steal Ross's intellectual property. Celani later groused that there is no point to inviting scientists to a demo if you have no intentions of letter them use their own instruments. (Note, however, that Levi et al. did use their own instruments.) Jacques Dufour also attended the demonstration. He does not speak much Italian, so he could not follow the discussion. He made some observations, including one that I consider important, namely that the outlet pipe was far too hot to touch. That means the temperature of it was over 70°C. That, in turn, proves there was considerable excess heat. It proves no such thing. Set up hot plate and adjust input to 600 W. Watt meters, combined with integrated kWh metering, can be obtained relatively cheaply. Place a covered pan on the burner until water boils. The pan lid will be too hot to touch. The steam can drive a whistle to make a loud noise. Proves nothing. McKubre and others have said the outlet temperature sensor was too close to the body of the device. Others have questioned whether the steam was really dry or not. If the question is whether the machine really produced heat or not, these factors can be ignored. All you need to know is the temperature of the tap water going in (15°C), the flow rate and the power input (400 W). At that power level the outlet pipe would be ~30°C. Celani
Re: [Vo]:February 13th A. Rossi interview from 22passi blog
And that changes what I said how? T On Wed, Feb 16, 2011 at 7:09 PM, Rich Murray rmfor...@gmail.com wrote: Hello Terry, I'm still doubtful about the Rossi claims,
Re: [Vo]:Revised version Celani reports on gamma emission from Rossi device
Horace Heffner hheff...@mtaonline.net wrote: Set up hot plate and adjust input to 600 W. Watt meters, combined with integrated kWh metering, can be obtained relatively cheaply. Place a covered pan on the burner until water boils. The pan lid will be too hot to touch. The steam can drive a whistle to make a loud noise. Proves nothing. It proves the water is at boiling and not lukewarm. The input water came from a container exposed to a very warm room temperature for at least 45 minutes before the active test, so was actually maybe 27 °C. That is incorrect. 20 L of water at 15 deg C in a plastic container does not heat up that quickly. In 1 hour it does not heat up measurably at all. Try it and see. I have done this often when cleaning the pond, reserving 5 L buckets of water with fish in them, in hot weather outside. (Also I doubt the room was that hot in January, in Northern Italy.) Also, the actual flow rate has been questioned. Questioned by who? For what reason? Lots of people have questioned lots of things, but there is no rational reason to doubt the flow rate. Now we hear the input power was unstable, fluctuating between 400 and 800 W, so was actually probably 600 W. Actually that is not what the power meter showed in Fig. 5 of the Levi report. That was Celani's mistaken impression. Further, the water in the device was in effect pre-heated for 45 minutes by 1000 - 1500 W. The preheated water left the device a few seconds after it entered. The only thing that stays in the device is metal, which has specific heat ~10 times lower than water, so it cannot retain much heat. Your analysis is wrong. The doubts you have raised about the calorimetry are invalid. It was not the best calorimetry possible, but it was good enough, and there is not the slightest chance the outlet pipe could have been too hot to touch without excess energy (or without some sort of trick with hidden wires). - Jed
Re: [Vo]:Revised version Celani reports on gamma emission from Rossi device
On Wed, Feb 16, 2011 at 8:32 PM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com wrote: Now we hear the input power was unstable, fluctuating between 400 and 800 W, so was actually probably 600 W. Actually that is not what the power meter showed in Fig. 5 of the Levi report. That was Celani's mistaken impression. Right, but the Levi report shows it was at 400 W for less than 15 min. Before that it was 1.25 kW. Then when the water temp started dropping, it seems, someone quickly cranked the power up to 1.5 kW. Levi himself says the average power was about 1 kW, but from the chart, that sounds low. Your analysis is wrong. The doubts you have raised about the calorimetry are invalid. It was not the best calorimetry possible, but it was good enough, and there is not the slightest chance the outlet pipe could have been too hot to touch without excess energy (or without some sort of trick with hidden wires). With 1 kW, you can raise the temperature of the water at 300 mL/min about 50C to give 65C or so, definitely too hot to touch. So, your analysis is wrong. But even if the temp was 100C, indicating some excess heat (beyond the electrical input), it was not so large that it couldn't be provided chemically without tricks or wires. (Much higher power could be provided simply by sabotaging the scale that weighs the hydrogen; considering people were not paying attention to tape stuck to the bottle, that sounds pretty easy.)
Re: [Vo]:Revised version Celani reports on gamma emission from Rossi device
On Wed, Feb 16, 2011 at 8:32 PM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com wrote: Also, the actual flow rate has been questioned. Questioned by who? For what reason? Lots of people have questioned lots of things, but there is no rational reason to doubt the flow rate. How about a commercial pump that looks exactly like the one in the picture, with a max flow rate less than half of what is claimed. But if you can find a commercial pump that looks like the one in the picture that provides the flow rate they claim, *then* you could remove that doubt. Rossi could do it more easily.
Re: [Vo]:February 13th A. Rossi interview from 22passi blog
Murray should apologize to Earthtech for making derogatory comments on Rossi's experiment that were quotes of Cude's criticism? On Wed, Feb 16, 2011 at 9:11 PM, Terry Blanton hohlr...@gmail.com wrote: And that changes what I said how? T On Wed, Feb 16, 2011 at 7:09 PM, Rich Murray rmfor...@gmail.com wrote: Hello Terry, I'm still doubtful about the Rossi claims, -- Never did I see a second sun Never did my skin touch a land of glass Never did my rifle point but true But in a land empty of enemies Waiting for the tick-tick-tick of the want A uranium angel Crying “behold,” This land that knew fire is yours Taken from Corruption To begin anew
