[Vo]:Re: [Vo]:Re: [Vo]:Re: [Vo]:Re: [Vo]:Can Rossi generate steam hotter than 110 °C ?
Blush. Some corrections to my overly hasty post below: I misread the table I found for heat transfer coefficients at http://www.engineeringtoolbox.com/overall-heat-transfer-coefficients-d_284.html. It turns out heat transfer coefficients are not so easy to predict, but (consistent with intuition, which I foolishly overruled) liquid water is 50 to 100 times more effective at removing heat than vapour, for the same temperature difference. So that means if the water vaporizes in the first 90% of the reactor, the steam would only come out at 101C or so. But you could still reach 110C if it boils to vapour in the first half of the reactor. But using the second argument, that at lower flow rate, the lower cooling rate of the steam would cause the reactor to get hotter, and therefore the water to boil away earlier in the reactor, it is still true that if you reduce the flow rate by 10%, the steam would still have to go to 200C, except for losses through the insulation. Also, the molecules in the steam don't move faster than the ones in liquid at the same temperature; the reason they collide more often with the walls is because they collide less often with each other. On Mon, May 9, 2011 at 11:19 PM, Joshua Cude joshua.c...@gmail.com wrote: On Mon, May 9, 2011 at 4:43 PM, OrionWorks - Steven V Johnson svj.orionwo...@gmail.com wrote: Let me add my two cents: Sorry, it's not worth even that. (I've stayed away from this list because its terms of reference clearly exclude people of my mindset, but this discussion of higher temperatures of steam originated (several months back) from a post of mine that was cross-posted here, and I feel compelled to defend it, and to correct the sort of elementary, mistaken ideas people here seem to have. I will refrain this time from entering any discussion not directly related to this topic.) If Rossi's e-Cat reactor core can regularly sustain temperatures of 500c or higher, water that is in contact with the reactor core's surface FOR LONG ENOUGH PERIODS will most certainly exceed temperatures 100.1 C, and by quite a large margin. This is quite true. But the question is simply what are long enough periods? It turns out that the distance is more relevant than the time, because heat transfer coefficients are given as power transferred per unit area per unit temperature difference. And the coefficient for steam/copper is slightly *higher* than it is for water/copper. However, the tick would be to keep the water that has just been transformed into steam contained long enough AT the e-cat reactor core's surface so that it has the chance to absorb the additional heat. Currently this doesn't happen. All you know is that the steam is not heated above the boiling point. But that is what would happen if there were still liquid present. What would happen if the water were all converted to steam before the end of the reactor, say because the flow rate were reduced, as suggested at the beginning of this thread. Say the water is all converted to steam within the first 90% of the reactor. Then amount of heat transferred to the steam will about 10% of what was transferred to the water. Let's see: 10% of 540 cal/g (to produce steam) is 54 cal/g. Since the specific heat of steam is about 0.5, that gives about 100C increase in the temperature of the steam. So you see, if all the water were converted to steam, keeping it at 100C would be extremely difficult indeed. There is no doubt at all that the temperature indicates the presence of some liquid water. This can be argued another way as well, which doesn't require any knowledge of heat transfer coefficients. If the flow rate were reduced, and there weren't enough time to heat the steam, then the additional power would cause the reactor to get hotter. And that would cause the water to boil earlier, giving the steam more time to get hotter. A new equilibrium would be reached, but at a lower flow rate, the only ways to remove the same amount of thermal power would be for the steam to get hotter, or for more heat to leak through the insulation, and the insulation would have to get extremely hot to dissipate power in the range of kW. It's my understanding that the current Rossi prototypes (perhaps for demonstration purposes) do not appear to be built in such a way as to physically contain the transformed steam. It's not designed to behave like a pressure cooker! For heaven's sake. Please get this notion that higher pressure is needed to heat steam above the boiling point out of your heads. Your furnace has no trouble heating air to about 220C above its boiling point at atmospheric pressure. Have you never looked at a phase diagram? The reason a pressure cooker needs pressure is because _there is still water present_ in a pressure cooker, and it is only the water that is heated directly; not the steam. In an ecat, after the water has boiled, the steam
Re: [Vo]:You do NOT need dry steam to get electricity
Original-Nachricht Datum: Mon, 9 May 2011 21:20:04 -0400 Von: Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com An: vortex-l@eskimo.com Betreff: Re: [Vo]:You do NOT need dry steam to get electricity Years ago a lot of money was put into OTEC generation, which has very small temperature differences. Those techniques could be revived. Yes, why not. But please consider the practical efficiency: 3%. That is a value you reach also with thermoelectric elements. The theoretically highest value you may reach with OREC is around 6% (having sea water at 26/6 degrees C). But it is unclear if one day someone will reach these 6%. If I remember it correctly, Rossi wanted to guarantee 6 times more heat than input power. Thats 16%, much higher than 3 or 6%. So, it will not work. -- Empfehlen Sie GMX DSL Ihren Freunden und Bekannten und wir belohnen Sie mit bis zu 50,- Euro! https://freundschaftswerbung.gmx.de
Re: [Vo]:You do NOT need dry steam to get electricity
Hi, If I recall correctly Rossi already mentioned coupling his device with a Stirling engine, which only needs a hot and cold side. The Stirling engine can then be used with a linear generator to generate electricity. These Stirling engines/generators are already used on a small scale (in the Netherlands) in Central Heating/Boiler systems (e.g. Remeha, Vaillant) to produce 1 - 5 kW electricity. Stirling engines/generators are also used in the focal point of large parabolic mirrors in the US for generating electricity. Kind regards, MoB
[Vo]:RE: [Vo]:Re: [Vo]:Re: [Vo]:Re: [Vo]:Can Rossi generate steam hotter than 110 °C ?
Joshua, You are free to express your opinion on the Rossi's e-Cat matter, and you certainly have done that in more than one discussion group. Typically, after I make my case I try to move on. Flawed as I may be on occasion, I also try to learn something new about this controversial process from others. If warranted I'll even change my mind. I suggest you make your case, then move on too. ...Except it never seems to be the case that you ever move on, or learn anything new after making your case. That tells me pretty much everything I need to know about engaging in any kind of a worthwhile discussion with you. I've noticed that many individuals on this list have attempted to engage you in an intelligent methodical manner. But to no avail. It's not worth it for me to even try. I certainly won't learn anything new from you. As best as I can tell, you appear to be transfixed at ground zero, seemingly acting as the last remaining sane skeptic in this sorry gullible world, the one last intelligent, logical, rational, person left who knows better, who knows he is absolutely certain Rossi's e-cats are nothing more than a scam operation. I do have to admit one thing: it's certainly one way to stand out from the crowd. You certainly have accomplished that goal. As for Rossi's admittedly controversial e-Cats - we shall see if it's all a scam operation or not. Until then, have fun storming the castle! Special regards Steven Vincent Johnson www.OrionWorks.com zazzle.com/orionworks From: Joshua Cude [mailto:joshua.c...@gmail.com] Sent: Monday, May 09, 2011 11:19 PM To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: [Vo]:Re: [Vo]:Re: [Vo]:Re: [Vo]:Can Rossi generate steam hotter than 110 °C ? On Mon, May 9, 2011 at 4:43 PM, OrionWorks - Steven V Johnson wrote: Let me add my two cents: Sorry, it's not worth even that. (I've stayed away from this list because its terms of reference clearly exclude people of my mindset, but this discussion of higher temperatures of steam originated (several months back) from a post of mine that was cross-posted here, and I feel compelled to defend it, and to correct the sort of elementary, mistaken ideas people here seem to have. I will refrain this time from entering any discussion not directly related to this topic.) If Rossi's e-Cat reactor core can regularly sustain temperatures of 500c or higher, water that is in contact with the reactor core's surface FOR LONG ENOUGH PERIODS will most certainly exceed temperatures 100.1 C, and by quite a large margin. This is quite true. But the question is simply what are long enough periods? It turns out that the distance is more relevant than the time, because heat transfer coefficients are given as power transferred per unit area per unit temperature difference. And the coefficient for steam/copper is slightly *higher* than it is for water/copper. However, the tick would be to keep the water that has just been transformed into steam contained long enough AT the e-cat reactor core's surface so that it has the chance to absorb the additional heat. Currently this doesn't happen. All you know is that the steam is not heated above the boiling point. But that is what would happen if there were still liquid present. What would happen if the water were all converted to steam before the end of the reactor, say because the flow rate were reduced, as suggested at the beginning of this thread. Say the water is all converted to steam within the first 90% of the reactor. Then amount of heat transferred to the steam will about 10% of what was transferred to the water. Let's see: 10% of 540 cal/g (to produce steam) is 54 cal/g. Since the specific heat of steam is about 0.5, that gives about 100C increase in the temperature of the steam. So you see, if all the water were converted to steam, keeping it at 100C would be extremely difficult indeed. There is no doubt at all that the temperature indicates the presence of some liquid water. This can be argued another way as well, which doesn't require any knowledge of heat transfer coefficients. If the flow rate were reduced, and there weren't enough time to heat the steam, then the additional power would cause the reactor to get hotter. And that would cause the water to boil earlier, giving the steam more time to get hotter. A new equilibrium would be reached, but at a lower flow rate, the only ways to remove the same amount of thermal power would be for the steam to get hotter, or for more heat to leak through the insulation, and the insulation would have to get extremely hot to dissipate power in the range of kW. It's my understanding that the current Rossi prototypes (perhaps for demonstration purposes) do not appear to be built in such a way as to physically contain the transformed steam. It's not designed to behave like a pressure cooker! For heaven's sake. Please get this notion that higher pressure is needed to heat steam above the boiling point out of your heads. Your furnace has no trouble
[Vo]:An update to NyTeknic article on patent -- Italian P.O. did not vet discovery
Lewan added a note to this article: http://www.nyteknik.se/nyheter/energi_miljo/energi/article3173090.ece NOTE: *Update: Investigation of patentability is made for applications to the Italian Patent Office from 1 July 2008 onwards (see decree herehttp://www.va.camcom.it/files/marchi_brevetti/decreto_27_giu_2008.pdf **). The patent application for the energy catalyzer was filed in April 2008.* - Jed
Re: [Vo]:You do NOT need dry steam to get electricity
Angela Kemmler wrote: Yes, why not. But please consider the practical efficiency: 3%. That is a value you reach also with thermoelectric elements. I believe it is more like 10% these days. I am assuming that rapid progress in thermoelectricity will be made, in response to cold fusion. As I explained in the book, this will be similar to progress in hard disks that came about in response the microcomputer. The microcomputer opened up new markets for peripherals such as small hard disks. Cold fusion will open up new markets for many peripherals. If I remember it correctly, Rossi wanted to guarantee 6 times more heat than input power. Thats 16%, much higher than 3 or 6%. So, it will not work. This is just a matter of engineering. Rossi's device can run with no input at all. It is reportedly dangerous in that mode, but in any case I'm sure the control current can be reduced to a minimum, perhaps 1%. Development on Rossi's device has hardly begun. Whatever practical limits and problems it now has, they will soon be overcome. - Jed
[Vo]:Re: [Vo]:Re: [Vo]:Re: [Vo]:Steam hotter than 110 °C / Internal heater
noone noone wrote: I think the NRC can try, but it will not last long. I am a bit more concerned about the powers that be trying to tax the energy produced to high heaven. It would be difficult to do this, because the energy will eventually be generated on site by small machines. To tax it you would have to meter it, and meters can always be disabled. People occasionally reset odometers in automobiles to enhance the resale value of a used car. This is against the law. They do not do this often because there's not much point to it; it does not increase resale value much. On the other hand, when the odometer breaks people seldom bother to fix it. I'm sure that if the government started taxing heat and electricity from home generators, millions of consumers would cut a few wires or download a patch for the control electronics computer to report false readings. The government would soon find this untenable. (I have thought about stuff like this!) - Jed
RE: [Vo]:You do NOT need dry steam to get electricity
Yes - that is exactly why I mentioned a particular organic Rankine cycle Turbine which can provide close to 15% thermal efficiency at 500 C : http://www.infinityturbine.com/ORC/ORC_Waste_Heat_Turbine.html There are others, but the Stirling is in a lower range of efficiency. Since Infinity Turbine is obviously in production now, there is not wait on their end. As for the TEG - there is no thermoelectric generator available as a commercial item which will guaranteed 5% efficiency today. Wiki says the best is 3%. Even at 3% you get no guarantee, and they fail easily. Rossi knows not waste his time with thermoelectrics, which BTW was his most recent and glaring failure to deliver. His vaunted TEGs - built at US taxpayer expense, were a gigantic disappointment - since Rossi claimed to get 20+ %, but in actual testing averaged 1%. That should be a warning of what to expect from the E-Cat, as well. Jones. -Original Message- From: Angela Kemmler JR: Years ago a lot of money was put into OTEC generation, which has very small temperature differences. Those techniques could be revived. Yes, why not. But please consider the practical efficiency: 3%. That is a value you reach also with thermoelectric elements. The theoretically highest value you may reach with OREC is around 6% (having sea water at 26/6 degrees C). But it is unclear if one day someone will reach these 6%. If I remember it correctly, Rossi wanted to guarantee 6 times more heat than input power. That's 16%, much higher than 3 or 6%. So, it will not work. -- attachment: winmail.dat
[Vo]:Re: [Vo]:Re: [Vo]:Re: [Vo]:Re: [Vo]:Steam hotter than 110 °C / Internal heater
Hello Jed, First of all, I would personally like to thank you for being a voice of reason on this forum. My concern is that energy is taxed heavily right now, and the powers that be will try to find some way to make up for the lost revenue. I think there are many ways they could go about this. Here are a few possibilities. 1) They could try to put a tax on every E-Cat unit sold. For example, they could claim the energy savings are so great having an E-Cat to provide electricity, heat in winter, and hot water that a 90% sales tax on units would be acceptable. Their argument would be, The average family of four will save ten thousand dollars in the first five years of owning an E-Cat unit. After that, their energy costs will be near zero. Due to this, a $4,500 dollar tax on a $5,000 dollar unit is acceptable. 2) They could try to tax every vehicle that uses the E-Cat. They could state, Since we are losing revenue from taxes on gasoline, we will need to add an upfront tax on every E-Cat powered vehicle. Otherwise, we will not be able to pay to maintain the roads. What is even more scary than an upfront tax, would be if they demanded some sort of GPS tracking device on every vehicle monitoring the miles driven, and hence the energy consumed! Consumers could then get a bill in the mail for lets say $1.00 for every mile driven. 3) They could add an extra tax on every electric bill. Although I think home based E-Cats will be sold, the power grid will probably be augmented with E-Cat units. Although the price of the electricity could go down, the government might step in and use that as an excuse to raise taxes. You could end up paying a special E-Cat tax per kilowatt hour of power consumed. I really do hope you are right, and the government will not try to tax the energy produced by E-Cats. However, with an increasingly out of control government I think they will at least try. From: Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Tue, May 10, 2011 6:51:50 AM Subject: [Vo]:Re: [Vo]:Re: [Vo]:Re: [Vo]:Steam hotter than 110 °C / Internal heater noone noone wrote: I think the NRC can try, but it will not last long. I am a bit more concerned about the powers that be trying to tax the energy produced to high heaven. It would be difficult to do this, because the energy will eventually be generated on site by small machines. To tax it you would have to meter it, and meters can always be disabled. People occasionally reset odometers in automobiles to enhance the resale value of a used car. This is against the law. They do not do this often because there's not much point to it; it does not increase resale value much. On the other hand, when the odometer breaks people seldom bother to fix it. I'm sure that if the government started taxing heat and electricity from home generators, millions of consumers would cut a few wires or download a patch for the control electronics computer to report false readings. The government would soon find this untenable. (I have thought about stuff like this!) - Jed
[Vo]:Re: [Vo]:RE: [Vo]:Re: [Vo]:Re: [Vo]:Re: [Vo]:Can Rossi generate steam hotter than 110 °C ?
In other words, you've got nothin' but vague, unsupported insults. On Tue, May 10, 2011 at 7:59 AM, OrionWorks - Steven Vincent Johnson orionwo...@charter.net wrote: Joshua, You are free to express your opinion on the Rossi's e-Cat matter, and you certainly have done that in more than one discussion group. Typically, after I make my case I try to move on. Flawed as I may be on occasion, I also try to learn something new about this controversial process from others. If warranted I'll even change my mind. I suggest you make your case, then move on too. ...Except it never seems to be the case that you ever move on, or learn anything new after making your case. That tells me pretty much everything I need to know about engaging in any kind of a worthwhile discussion with you. I've noticed that many individuals on this list have attempted to engage you in an intelligent methodical manner. But to no avail. It's not worth it for me to even try. I certainly won't learn anything new from you. As best as I can tell, you appear to be transfixed at ground zero, seemingly acting as the last remaining sane skeptic in this sorry gullible world, the one last intelligent, logical, rational, person left who knows better, who knows he is absolutely certain Rossi's e-cats are nothing more than a scam operation. I do have to admit one thing: it's certainly one way to stand out from the crowd. You certainly have accomplished that goal. As for Rossi's admittedly controversial e-Cats - we shall see if it's all a scam operation or not. Until then, have fun storming the castle! Special regards Steven Vincent Johnson www.OrionWorks.com zazzle.com/orionworks
[Vo]:RE: [Vo]:Re: [Vo]:Re: [Vo]:Re: [Vo]:Re: [Vo]:Steam hotter than 110 °C / Internal heater
The money saved by not being at all involved in the midEast, reduced military expenses, oil, wind, solar subsidies, nuclear regulatiory agency, and anti pollution efforts will more than make up for the loss of fuel taxes, but the gov't will find a way anyway -- hence the home made E-Cat business will thrive. -Original Message- From: noone noone [mailto:thesteornpa...@yahoo.com] Sent: Tuesday, May 10, 2011 7:44 AM My concern is that energy is taxed heavily right now, and the powers that be will try to find some way to make up for the lost revenue. I think there are many ways they could go about this. Here are a few possibilities. 1) They could try to put a tax on every E-Cat unit sold. For example, they could claim the energy savings are so great having an E-Cat to provide electricity, heat in winter, and hot water that a 90% sales tax on units would be acceptable. Their argument would be, The average family of four will save ten thousand dollars in the first five years of owning an E-Cat unit. After that, their energy costs will be near zero. Due to this, a $4,500 dollar tax on a $5,000 dollar unit is acceptable. 2) They could try to tax every vehicle that uses the E-Cat. They could state, Since we are losing revenue from taxes on gasoline, we will need to add an upfront tax on every E-Cat powered vehicle. Otherwise, we will not be able to pay to maintain the roads. What is even more scary than an upfront tax, would be if they demanded some sort of GPS tracking device on every vehicle monitoring the miles driven, and hence the energy consumed! Consumers could then get a bill in the mail for lets say $1.00 for every mile driven. 3) They could add an extra tax on every electric bill. Although I think home based E-Cats will be sold, the power grid will probably be augmented with E-Cat units. Although the price of the electricity could go down, the government might step in and use that as an excuse to raise taxes. You could end up paying a special E-Cat tax per kilowatt hour of power consumed. I really do hope you are right, and the government will not try to tax the energy produced by E-Cats. However, with an increasingly out of control government I think they will at least try. -- From: Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Tue, May 10, 2011 6:51:50 AM Subject: [Vo]:Re: [Vo]:Re: [Vo]:Re: [Vo]:Steam hotter than 110 °C / Internal heater noone noone wrote: I think the NRC can try, but it will not last long. I am a bit more concerned about the powers that be trying to tax the energy produced to high heaven. It would be difficult to do this, because the energy will eventually be generated on site by small machines. To tax it you would have to meter it, and meters can always be disabled. People occasionally reset odometers in automobiles to enhance the resale value of a used car. This is against the law. They do not do this often because there's not much point to it; it does not increase resale value much. On the other hand, when the odometer breaks people seldom bother to fix it. I'm sure that if the government started taxing heat and electricity from home generators, millions of consumers would cut a few wires or download a patch for the control electronics computer to report false readings. The government would soon find this untenable. (I have thought about stuff like this!) - Jed
[Vo]:Taxing vehicles for road maintenance in the cold fusion era
noone noone wrote: 2) They could try to tax every vehicle that uses the E-Cat. They could state, Since we are losing revenue from taxes on gasoline, we will need to add an upfront tax on every E-Cat powered vehicle. Otherwise, we will not be able to pay to maintain the roads. This is already becoming an issue, with high efficiency hybrid vehicles and electric vehicles. I think three solutions are available: 1. Tax odometer use. This would trigger a lot of cheating and broken odometers! I do not think a GPS solution would be cost effective or workable, although some insurance companies offer discounts to people who seldom drive and can prove it with vehicle-mounted GPS monitors. 2. Tax driving the way they now do in the City of London. This would greatly reduce traffic, which is an advantage. 3. Use many more toll roads, with electronic toll collection rather than toll gates, so that traffic does not have to slow down or stop. This has been proposed in Georgia to replace some of the High Occupancy Vehicle (HOV) lanes. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:Taxing vehicles for road maintenance in the cold fusion era
Hi, On 10-5-2011 17:03, Jed Rothwell wrote: noone noone wrote: 2) They could try to tax every vehicle that uses the E-Cat. They could state, Since we are losing revenue from taxes on gasoline, we will need to add an upfront tax on every E-Cat powered vehicle. Otherwise, we will not be able to pay to maintain the roads. This is already becoming an issue, with high efficiency hybrid vehicles and electric vehicles. I think three solutions are available: 1. Tax odometer use. This would trigger a lot of cheating and broken odometers! I do not think a GPS solution would be cost effective or workable, although some insurance companies offer discounts to people who seldom drive and can prove it with vehicle-mounted GPS monitors. This is one of the (major) reasons why Europe is working on the Galileo satellite project. Kind regards, MoB
Re: [Vo]:Taxing vehicles for road maintenance in the cold fusion era
From Jed: 3. Use many more toll roads, with electronic toll collection rather than toll gates, so that traffic does not have to slow down or stop. This has been proposed in Georgia to replace some of the High Occupancy Vehicle (HOV) lanes. They already have set up a lot of fast lane toll gates in Illinois. You purchase a box and affix it to the inside of your windshield. You go to a web site and monitor your funds account. It's pretty painless. Regards Steven Vincent Johnson www.OrionWorks.com www.zazzle.com/orionworks
[Vo]:A call for power
After it is requested to make electric power, the responsiveness of the Cat-E is problematical. The Cat-E is not the ideal home power generator because it will take time to get steam up. Upon a call for power, it may take 5 or 10 minutes before the steam generator is putting out the amount of power needed. Furthermore, a good deal of power will be wasted in this on/off cycling. The Cat-E may need battery storage to even out the power demand curve. In any case, the Cat-E will still require a connection to the power grid to be maintained.
Re: [Vo]:Taxing vehicles for road maintenance in the cold fusion era
This is already becoming an issue, with high efficiency hybrid vehicles and electric vehicles. I think three solutions are available: Or we could sell the roads and let the market work out pricing and payment. :) Craig Haynie Manchester, NH
[Vo]:The waste heat problem
Where is the best place to site the Cat-E in a home? In order to keep the need for distilled water low, a steam condenser will be required to reject waste heat to the immediate environment. In a 10 kw system, 8.5 Kws of waste heat will be pumped into the environment. Installing the Cat-E electrical system in your basement make be difficult to take in the summer. It might be problematical for your air-conditioners to overcome this waste heat problem. Pumping the waste heat underground may be a solution, but would add substantially to the cost of a Cat-E installation.
[Vo]:Re: [Vo]:Re: [Vo]:RE: [Vo]:Re: [Vo]:Re: [Vo]:Re: [Vo]:Can Rossi generate steam hotter than 110 °C ?
From Joshua: In other words, you've got nothin' but vague, unsupported insults. In my view, it doesn't matter if my vague unsupported insults (which I freely admit were done at your expense) are correct or not. You seem to believe that you have Rossi's occasionally troubling heat measurements pretty much figured out. Well... certainly more than me. Be that as it may, in the greater scheme of things it doesn't matter if your detailed heat analysis seems less vague than my unsupported insults. We will all know soon enuf whether Rossi's controversial e-cats deliver the bacon, or not. Again, have fun storming the castle. Regards Steven Vincent Johnson www.OrionWorks.com www.zazzle.com/orionworks
Re: [Vo]:Taxing vehicles for road maintenance in the cold fusion era
On Tue, May 10, 2011 at 11:32 AM, OrionWorks - Steven V Johnson svj.orionwo...@gmail.com wrote: They already have set up a lot of fast lane toll gates in Illinois. You purchase a box and affix it to the inside of your windshield. You go to a web site and monitor your funds account. It's pretty painless. Yes, they are converting the HOV lanes to such here in Atlanta on I-85. They are called the Lexus Lanes because only those who can afford them will use them. T
Re: [Vo]:Taxing vehicles for road maintenance in the cold fusion era
On Tue, May 10, 2011 at 11:03 AM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com wrote: This is already becoming an issue, with high efficiency hybrid vehicles and electric vehicles. I think three solutions are available: Washington state is considering a flat fee: http://green.autoblog.com/2011/02/09/state-of-washington-mulls-100-annual-registration-fee-for-elect/ T
Re: [Vo]:A call for power
Hi, On 10-5-2011 17:36, Axil Axil wrote: After it is requested to make electric power, the responsiveness of the Cat-E is problematical. The Cat-E is not the ideal home power generator because it will take time to get steam up. Upon a call for power, it may take 5 or 10 minutes before the steam generator is putting out the amount of power needed. Furthermore, a good deal of power will be wasted in this on/off cycling. The Cat-E may need battery storage to even out the power demand curve. In any case, the Cat-E will still require a connection to the power grid to be maintained. I disagree, as Rossi already proved that you can leave the E-Cat running continuously for months, which I think is also the original intent of Rossi. While running continuously in a steady pace you have all the heat you instantly need. In the mean time when there is no demand for heat, it can be used for conversion through a Stirling Engine into electricity which can be stored into an array of batteries, while the remaining excess heat can be used to heat water in a boiler, in the same way as a solar-collector-boiler works. Such configuration is already (except naturally the E-Cat, but a solar-collector and PV-panels) installed in a couple of houses over here; these houses do have no connection to the power grid and gas-net anymore. Nowadays special batteries for this purpose are largely available. Two big advantages of Rossi's E-cat are that you don't need to do an expensive investment into Solar collector and PV-panels anymore and you are not dependent (during night) of the availability of the Sun. Kind regards, MoB
Re: [Vo]:The waste heat problem
From Axil: ... Pumping the waste heat underground may be a solution, but would add substantially to the cost of a Cat-E installation. Speculating a bit more on this topic... It seems to me that waste heat could eventually turn into a global environmental problem. Assuming e-Cat technology doesn't improve over the years, which I suspect would NOT be the case, the planet could end up with billions of e-cats radiating unusable heat into the environment. It could turn out to be worse the CO2 or methane. ACC actually speculated on this matter (in an incidental manner) in his less spectacular novel 3001 A Space Odyssey. ACC's solution was to construct several huge space elevators in geo-synchronic orbit around the equator that doubled as massive heat sinks. As fluffy as that novel was I loved reading it. Regards Steven Vincent Johnson www.OrionWorks.com www.zazzle.com/orionworks
Re: [Vo]:A call for power
Most people live in big cities. They congregate at high densities. Personal electric production is not possible in big cities. City dwellers live in high rise apartments, condos and row houses. There is no place to put all that waste heat. A personal electric production system with an efficiency of less then 1% will produce so much waste heat in the city, that it will literally melt the streets. On Tue, May 10, 2011 at 12:15 PM, Man on Bridges manonbrid...@aim.comwrote: Hi, On 10-5-2011 17:36, Axil Axil wrote: After it is requested to make electric power, the responsiveness of the Cat-E is problematical. The Cat-E is not the ideal home power generator because it will take time to get steam up. Upon a call for power, it may take 5 or 10 minutes before the steam generator is putting out the amount of power needed. Furthermore, a good deal of power will be wasted in this on/off cycling. The Cat-E may need battery storage to even out the power demand curve. In any case, the Cat-E will still require a connection to the power grid to be maintained. I disagree, as Rossi already proved that you can leave the E-Cat running continuously for months, which I think is also the original intent of Rossi. While running continuously in a steady pace you have all the heat you instantly need. In the mean time when there is no demand for heat, it can be used for conversion through a Stirling Engine into electricity which can be stored into an array of batteries, while the remaining excess heat can be used to heat water in a boiler, in the same way as a solar-collector-boiler works. Such configuration is already (except naturally the E-Cat, but a solar-collector and PV-panels) installed in a couple of houses over here; these houses do have no connection to the power grid and gas-net anymore. Nowadays special batteries for this purpose are largely available. Two big advantages of Rossi's E-cat are that you don't need to do an expensive investment into Solar collector and PV-panels anymore and you are not dependent (during night) of the availability of the Sun. Kind regards, MoB
Re: [Vo]:A call for power
Hi, On 10-5-2011 18:27, Axil Axil wrote: Most people live in big cities. They congregate at high densities. Personal electric production is not possible in big cities. City dwellers live in high rise apartments, condos and row houses. There is no place to put all that waste heat. A personal electric production system with an efficiency of less then 1% will produce so much waste heat in the city, that it will literally melt the streets. First the houses I refer to are located in cities. And I can tell from my personal experience that a sun-collector-boiler combi doesn't take so much space after all. Second these systems do have a much higher efficiency then 1%. If you consider that a CHP-system generates around 20 kW of heat of which max. 5 kW is converted into electricity. Kind regards, MoB
Re: [Vo]:A call for power
You stated that the Cat-E should be maintained in hot mode 24/7/365. For almost all of that time, the Cat-E in this mode supports only a few watts of needed electric power. This reduces its effective efficiency to very low levels since almost all of its power is sent to waste heat. Today people with solar panels send their unused (waste) power back into the grid. The grid provides a backup power source for this type of renewable power. To mitigate the waste heat problem, I think the same will be true for the Cat-E. On Tue, May 10, 2011 at 12:48 PM, Man on Bridges manonbrid...@aim.comwrote: Hi, On 10-5-2011 18:27, Axil Axil wrote: Most people live in big cities. They congregate at high densities. Personal electric production is not possible in big cities. City dwellers live in high rise apartments, condos and row houses. There is no place to put all that waste heat. A personal electric production system with an efficiency of less then 1% will produce so much waste heat in the city, that it will literally melt the streets. First the houses I refer to are located in cities. And I can tell from my personal experience that a sun-collector-boiler combi doesn't take so much space after all. Second these systems do have a much higher efficiency then 1%. If you consider that a CHP-system generates around 20 kW of heat of which max. 5 kW is converted into electricity. Kind regards, MoB
Re: [Vo]:You do NOT need dry steam to get electricity
Jones Beene wrote: As for the TEG - there is no thermoelectric generator available as a commercial item which will guaranteed 5% efficiency today. Wiki says the best is 3%. Even at 3% you get no guarantee, and they fail easily. Here is a commercial TEG that is 5.4% efficient: http://ect2007.its.org/system/files/u1/pdf/30.pdf This group, Zorbas et al., have published some other papers about TEG that look interesting. Rossi knows not waste his time with thermoelectrics, which BTW was his most recent and glaring failure to deliver. His vaunted TEGs - built at US taxpayer expense, were a gigantic disappointment - since Rossi claimed to get 20+ %, but in actual testing averaged 1%. That should be a warning of what to expect from the E-Cat, as well. That is a biased sample. You should look at the totality of Rossi's work, which has been mainly successful. You should also look at the totality of Ni-H and Pd-D cold fusion studies. That should be a warning that you are excessively pessimistic and strangely biased against Rossi. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:A call for power
Axil Axil wrote: After it is requested to make electric power, the responsiveness of the Cat-E is problematical. The Cat-E is not the ideal home power generator because it will take time to get steam up. Upon a call for power, it may take 5 or 10 minutes before the steam generator is putting out the amount of power needed. You forget, there is no need to turn off a cold fusion generator. It can stay hot all the time, in a standby mode. The wasted fuel costs nothing. (I do not believe Rossi's cost estimates will hold up for long.) I do not think that small turbines take long to power up, but if they do, this just means the device will need batteries. It will need them anyway, for load balancing. Appliances draw a lot of power when you first turn them on. In any case, the Cat-E will still require a connection to the power grid to be maintained. Only the first generation ones will need this. Once the generator and battery backup are perfected and highly reliable, the device will be more reliable than mains electricity. At least, in Atlanta it will be. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:A call for power
Hi, On 10-5-2011 19:05, Axil Axil wrote: You stated that the Cat-E should be maintained in hot mode 24/7/365. For almost all of that time, the Cat-E in this mode supports only a few watts of needed electric power. This reduces its effective efficiency to very low levels since almost all of its power is sent to waste heat. Today people with solar panels send their unused (waste) power back into the grid. The grid provides a backup power source for this type of renewable power. To mitigate the waste heat problem, I think the same will be true for the Cat-E. You are right that this is done by most, but there are also people who prefer to store the electricity in a battery array. This group is slowly growing, which offers the big advantage that in case of a power grid outage, you still have electricity available. But there is an other alternative available, you can make use of Geothermal energy and store the heat produced during summer deep under the ground, which can be retrieved in winter when you need it the most. Kind regards, MoB
Re: [Vo]:cu pipe is sealed inner reactor not Stainless steele
Akira, I think 6 in your dwg http://i.imgur.com/QOLXZ.png might be a temp sensor . Some questions: 1. Since it appears Rossi went from a cu reactor in the patent to a SS reactor presently shown in the photos can we make the assumption that both work in the same capacity when the inner surface is coated with nickel? 2. When the patent refers to the reactor being filled with powder is it all in the form of a coating or otherwise packed against the heat sink of the inner walls? The questions regarding operating temp seem to suggest any loose powder just filling the void would clump together near melting temp. 3. The patent doesn't say what metal the heater is made of but I would guess tungsten since hydrogen and tungsten are best known To initiate the anomaly since Langmuir Regards Fran Akira Shirakawa Mon, 09 May 2011 17:32:32 -0700 I've made this annotated image for clarity: http://i.imgur.com/QOLXZ.png What is 6 ?
Re: [Vo]:The waste heat problem
Axil Axil wrote: Where is the best place to site the Cat-E in a home? It does not matter. You have to have a chimney and blower for the waste heat no matter where you put it. In order to keep the need for distilled water low, a steam condenser will be required to reject waste heat to the immediate environment. In a 10 kw system, 8.5 Kws of waste heat will be pumped into the environment. No. It would be used in co-generation, for heating in winter and thermal refrigeration in summer. This would save a lot of money in equipment. (It will save no money for fuel, because that is free.) Overall primary energy consumption is likely to fall with cold fusion. At least at first, until large scale projects begin, such as desalinating water to irrigate deserts. I looked at some documents about weather and urban heat islands. At present overall energy consumption rates, I think cold fusion will reduce these problems, even when automobiles and home generators are left in standby mode. Human-generated heat is a problem but not severe yet. It is nothing compared to CO2 global warming. Obviously cold fusion will eliminate CO2 emissions. It can also be used to capture carbon from the air and sequester it back in the earth where it came from. I am not talking about sequestering CO2; I mean reverse combustion, separating C from O, putting the O back in the air, and burying the C, perhaps in the form of liquid hydrocarbons that can be conveniently pumped underground. In other words, we may need a few hundred thousand reverse oil wells. All the energy we got out of burning oil and coal we may need to put into undoing the results and burying the fuel. We will need a little oil for plastic feedstock, but most of it will be useless industrial waste. I discussed this in my book. - Jed
[Vo]:Re: [Vo]:Re: [Vo]:Re: [Vo]:Re: [Vo]:RE: [Vo]:Re: [Vo]:Re: [Vo]:Re: [Vo]:Can Rossi generate steam hotter than 110 °C ?
From Joshua: ... Eventually, in a few years Rossi will simply fade away like Patterson from the 90s, and the CF community will make excuses like his stock of lucky catalyst ran out and he found he was unable to make more, and you will refuse to admit you were wrong. Thank you for sharing your speculations on the continuing Rossi saga... and my predicted future behavior patterns. You imply that I have an invested interest in Rossi's e-Cats being the real deal. Well, it's certainly true that I HOPE they are the real deal. However, that's not the same thing as being emotionally invested in such a manner that Rossi's e-Cats HAS to be the real deal. If they turn out to be fakes, or nothing comes of such technology within the next couple of years or so, I will indeed be disappointed, but I'll survive. Based on your prior posting behavior you give me no reason to suspect you comprehend such distinctions. In fact, your posts seem to show very little comprehension of both human behavior and perception. As such, I doubt you have given much thought about your own emotional investments. I have been wrong many times in my life. I expect to be wrong again. Will I be wrong about Rossi's e-cats? It's certainly possible. In the meantime I do what I can to improve my understanding of what is speculated to be happening within Rossi's e-Cats. As you obviously ought to know by now, there are prevailing opinions on the matter. FWIW, it's been my experience that making predictions about the speculated behavior of others is not a terribly productive way of going about the task of getting your points across. Neither is it a good way to go about winning friends and influencing people. Regards Steven Vincent Johnson www.OrionWorks.com www.zazzle.com/orionworks
Re: [Vo]:A call for power
Axil Axil wrote: You stated that the Cat-E should be maintained in hot mode 24/7/365. For almost all of that time, the Cat-E in this mode supports only a few watts of needed electric power. This reduces its effective efficiency to very low levels since almost all of its power is sent to waste heat. When power demand is low, the machine can be turned down to produce low levels of heat, perhaps in a stand-by mode to keep a boiler hot. Efficiency is roughly the same in all power levels. As I said, taking into account space heating, water heating and thermal air conditioning and refrigeration, cold fusion will require much less raw energy than our present systems. With present-day methods we burn gas to make high grade heat which we then degrade into low grade heat for space heating, and we generate electricity and throw away 70% of the energy. This is thermodynamic lunacy. The U.S. wastes 26 quads of energy, which is about 7% of all of the energy consumed in the world. Cold fusion will eliminate much of this waste. Any energy system designed from the ground up in the 21st century would eliminate much of this waste, especially in transportation. As I said in the book, cold fusion cars cannot help but be more efficient than gasoline powered ones. You would have be some kind of perverse mad-scientist to come up with a cold fusion powered car as inefficient as a gasoline-powered one. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:The waste heat problem
Your view of humanity is clouded by unwarranted optimism. I see humanity as selfish, slovenly, and wanton creatures whose unlimited appetites are only constrained by cost. In the face of unlimited free power extreme excess is to be expected; a Jevons paradox run wild. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jevons_paradox People will own a car for every day of the week. For example, I see millions of 1000 horsepower equivalent cars in Cat-E standby mode parked on city streets pumping out gigawatts of waste power every second of the day and night because their users require instant on performance. Unlimited power will corrupt absolutely. On Tue, May 10, 2011 at 1:35 PM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com wrote: Axil Axil wrote: Where is the best place to site the Cat-E in a home? It does not matter. You have to have a chimney and blower for the waste heat no matter where you put it. In order to keep the need for distilled water low, a steam condenser will be required to reject waste heat to the immediate environment. In a 10 kw system, 8.5 Kws of waste heat will be pumped into the environment. No. It would be used in co-generation, for heating in winter and thermal refrigeration in summer. This would save a lot of money in equipment. (It will save no money for fuel, because that is free.) Overall primary energy consumption is likely to fall with cold fusion. At least at first, until large scale projects begin, such as desalinating water to irrigate deserts. I looked at some documents about weather and urban heat islands. At present overall energy consumption rates, I think cold fusion will reduce these problems, even when automobiles and home generators are left in standby mode. Human-generated heat is a problem but not severe yet. It is nothing compared to CO2 global warming. Obviously cold fusion will eliminate CO2 emissions. It can also be used to capture carbon from the air and sequester it back in the earth where it came from. I am not talking about sequestering CO2; I mean reverse combustion, separating C from O, putting the O back in the air, and burying the C, perhaps in the form of liquid hydrocarbons that can be conveniently pumped underground. In other words, we may need a few hundred thousand reverse oil wells. All the energy we got out of burning oil and coal we may need to put into undoing the results and burying the fuel. We will need a little oil for plastic feedstock, but most of it will be useless industrial waste. I discussed this in my book. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:The waste heat problem
Jed sez: ... ...In other words, we may need a few hundred thousand reverse oil wells. All the energy we got out of burning oil and coal we may need to put into undoing the results and burying the fuel. Heh! ... which x'plains how the current supply of underground fossil fuels came into existence. Except our ET friends, the reptoids, aren't taking. Regards Steven Vincent Johnson www.OrionWorks.com www.zazzle.com/orionworks
[Vo]:Re: [Vo]:Re: [Vo]:Re: [Vo]:Re: [Vo]:Re: [Vo]:RE: [Vo]:Re: [Vo]:Re: [Vo]:Re: [Vo]:Can Rossi generate steam hotter than 110 °C ?
In an earlier post svj wrote: As best as I can tell, you appear to be transfixed at ground zero, seemingly acting as the last remaining sane skeptic in this sorry gullible world, the one last intelligent, logical, rational, person left who knows better, who knows he is absolutely certain Rossi's e-cats are nothing more than a scam operation. And now svj wrote: FWIW, it's been my experience that making predictions about the speculated behavior of others is not a terribly productive way of going about the task of getting your points across. Neither is it a good way to go about winning friends and influencing people. So, how's that working out for you then?
RE: [Vo]:You do NOT need dry steam to get electricity
-Original Message- From: Jed Rothwell Jones Beene wrote: As for the TEG - there is no thermoelectric generator available as a commercial item which will guaranteed 5% efficiency today. Wiki says the best is 3%. Even at 3% you get no guarantee, and they fail easily. JR: Here is a commercial TEG that is 5.4% efficient: http://ect2007.its.org/system/files/u1/pdf/30.pdf JB: No. Again, you seem to seldom read the papers you cite for proof. This paper speculates on a part which is not being made anymore, and AFAIK Melcor the maker of this part - went belly-up, and was bought by Laird. Laird apparently does not make any TEG modules at all - only cooling. Would you drop the technology if it really worked? Ergo, it seems that there is no commercial part. Only a second-rate paper making unsubstantiated claims. In summary, the paper you cite makes an estimate, based on a mathematical model which projects from temperatures which are off-spec for the original part - which is no longer in production. This proves nothing except it did not work well enough to keep it in production. JB: Rossi knows not waste his time with thermoelectrics, which BTW was his most recent and glaring failure to deliver. His vaunted TEGs - built at US taxpayer expense, were a gigantic disappointment - since Rossi claimed to get 20+ %, but in actual testing averaged 1%. That should be a warning of what to expect from the E-Cat, as well. JR: That is a biased sample. You should look at the totality of Rossi's work, which has been mainly successful. JB: Oh my! LOL - you must mean the infamous Petrodragon work :) Where is the mainly successful work from Rossi? In fact, has not the guy not been mostly a failure for his entire career? In fact, does not this entire Defkalion Green Technology thing have pump and dump written all over it ? It is completely possible that Rossi was hand-picked by the Greek scammers as a patsy for a sophisticated pump and dump stock IPO, since he was exactly what they were looking for - and could back up with experiment the kind of technology that gets media attention, which it did - and which they can turn into a billion Euro IPO scam this fall. Or sooner. Look for the IPO in July, along with a staged demo of a less than one MW unit. The ironic thing is - the Greeks do not care if it works or not, only that they can get enough media exposure to sell out the IPO. Did you see the interview? Scary characters in my appraisal. The double irony is the technology may actually work ! when all that the Greek scammers need is a successor to the GWE scam. How quickly we forget. Genesis World Energy could be the model stock scam for Defkalion. Where is Chipotle pickle (who uncovered the GWE scam) when we need him? Jones
Re: [Vo]:You do NOT need dry steam to get electricity
Jones Beene wrote: Where is the mainly successful work from Rossi? His biofuel Diesel engines have evidently made him a lot of money. In fact, has not the guy not been mostly a failure for his entire career? Mostly measured how? If you are tallying up the number of failed attempts versus successful ones, every scientist, inventor and programmer is a failure. That metric makes no sense. The ironic thing is - the Greeks do not care if it works or not, only that they can get enough media exposure to sell out the IPO. Did you see the interview? Scary characters in my appraisal. The double irony is the technology may actually work ! when all that the Greek scammers need is a successor to the GWE scam. How quickly we forget. Genesis World Energy could be the model stock scam for Defkalion. This is a public forum, easily accessible to anyone on the Internet. Unless you know of some specific evidence that people are engaged in criminal activity, I strongly recommend you refrain from making wild and unsupported allegations here. You may not get in trouble, but you could cause lots of problems for innocent people. If you do have evidence of a scam, I suggest you contact the authorities in Greece. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:You do NOT need dry steam to get electricity
Hi, On 10-5-2011 19:19, Jed Rothwell wrote: Jones Beene wrote: As for the TEG - there is no thermoelectric generator available as a commercial item which will guaranteed 5% efficiency today. Wiki says the best is 3%. Even at 3% you get no guarantee, and they fail easily. Here is a commercial TEG that is 5.4% efficient: http://ect2007.its.org/system/files/u1/pdf/30.pdf This group, Zorbas et al., have published some other papers about TEG that look interesting. Jed, forget about these TEGs for now, in essence they are Peltier-elements which are used in opposite order and not efficient at all. You need something that is able to take full advantage of the Seebeck effect; sofar I didn't see any of these yet. Kind regards, MoB
Re: [Vo]:You do NOT need dry steam to get electricity
I never could draw a distinction between a scam and shrewd and adroit business practices. On Tue, May 10, 2011 at 3:53 PM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com wrote: Jones Beene wrote: Where is the mainly successful work from Rossi? His biofuel Diesel engines have evidently made him a lot of money. In fact, has not the guy not been mostly a failure for his entire career? Mostly measured how? If you are tallying up the number of failed attempts versus successful ones, every scientist, inventor and programmer is a failure. That metric makes no sense. The ironic thing is - the Greeks do not care if it works or not, only that they can get enough media exposure to sell out the IPO. Did you see the interview? Scary characters in my appraisal. The double irony is the technology may actually work ! when all that the Greek scammers need is a successor to the GWE scam. How quickly we forget. Genesis World Energy could be the model stock scam for Defkalion. This is a public forum, easily accessible to anyone on the Internet. Unless you know of some specific evidence that people are engaged in criminal activity, I strongly recommend you refrain from making wild and unsupported allegations here. You may not get in trouble, but you could cause lots of problems for innocent people. If you do have evidence of a scam, I suggest you contact the authorities in Greece. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:You do NOT need dry steam to get electricity
Hi, On 10-5-2011 22:04, Axil Axil wrote: I never could draw a distinction between a scam and shrewd and adroit business practices. Well the dictionaries are quite clear about this: Definitions of scam 1. [n] - a fraudulent business scheme Definitions of adroit 1. [adj] - skillful (or showing skill) in adapting means to ends 2. [adj] - quick or skillful or adept in action or thought shrewd[ adj.] showing good judgement; wise: a shrewd man Kind regards, MoB
[Vo]:The GWE scam could be the model for Defkalion
In 2002, the GWE (Genesis World Energy) group was in the News, claiming to have 400 scientists and engineers employed, and having developed a fabulous new kind of free energy device... which was demonstrated as a nice looking prototype, and a fully working unit for home power. Deliveries were underway. A New Jersey stock promoter sold millions of dollars worth of worthless stock before the scam was exposed, but the scam was not really a well-done promotion, and it was only local to a few states. However, it would still be going on if a few skeptics had not made extraordinary efforts to expose it. They had to force the truth on the SEC and the state of New Jersey - who were almost complicit. Lessons could have been learned. Did a few Greeks take the genesis course and learn the 10 commandments for a more perfect scam? Let me make it clear that there is no proof that they are planning a better GWE scam, and there is no proof that they are legitimate either. The intent of this post goes to the old Chinese(?) proverb fool me once, shame on you, fool me twice shame on me The Genesis device was essentially a water fuel cell that appeared to separate water into H2 and O2 using less energy that was recovered on recombination. Kelly, the mastermind of it all (not George, who was Rossi's invention, but Patrick) had based the scam loosely on Stanley Meyer, who still to this day has thousands of Fan-boy devotees (most of them think that the invention was suppressed, and Meyer was murdered). http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stanley_Meyer%27s_water_fuel_cell By 2006, the scam had been exposed, mostly on the internet by a guy who drew more nasty name-calling from true believers than Mr Cuda gets here ... and in the end, the company founder Patrick Kelly was sentenced to five years in prison for stealing funds from investors. His big mistake was not to have done it in Calgary, and not to have set-up a fall-guy inventor to take the rap. There were a number of good candidates at the time, and many of them were Rossi-type failed inventors. http://www.nj.gov/oag/newsreleases06/pr20061109d.html So Defkalion, it can be argued - could have improved on the basic pump and dump scam in many ways, but there may be no proof of that until it is too late, since this is all taking place in Europe. But with OPEC oil now four times higher than when the GWE scam was hatched, they could sell out a billion Euro IPO with ease All you need for a good IPO 'penny stock' scam in this economy is a 1) good cover story, 2) some shoddy initial testing, 3) lots of media attention - and 4) a dozen or so dedicated evangelists (with lots of Fan-Boy backup) to spread the word that the new messiah has arrived - and 5) no criticism of the 'great man' will be permitted. I hope none of the type 4) and 5) have settled-in on a science-based forum like vortex, but that seems to be the case, based on a few recent messages. Jones attachment: winmail.dat
Re: [Vo]:You do NOT need dry steam to get electricity
MoB you must be an idealist. The main and some cynics say the only goal of business is to make money. Skillfully adapting means to making money does not necessarily imply meeting the needs and expectations of customers. Today, the overriding mandate of sound business practice is to influence the politicos as much as practicable to eliminate as many business regulations as they can manage to avoid legal entanglements (aka going to jail). Consumer protection and associated regulations is seen in the business community as a restraint of free trade which stifles the economy as a whole and their particular business activities specifically. Intense competition and the forces of natural selection will force the most well meaning CEO to acclimate to this lowest common denominator of business behavior in the due course of time. Kind regards, Axil On Tue, May 10, 2011 at 4:16 PM, Man on Bridges manonbrid...@aim.comwrote: Hi, On 10-5-2011 22:04, Axil Axil wrote: I never could draw a distinction between a scam and shrewd and adroit business practices. Well the dictionaries are quite clear about this: Definitions of scam 1. [n] - a fraudulent business scheme Definitions of adroit 1. [adj] - skillful (or showing skill) in adapting means to ends 2. [adj] - quick or skillful or adept in action or thought shrewd[ adj.] showing good judgement; wise: “a shrewd man” Kind regards, MoB
Re: [Vo]:The GWE scam could be the model for Defkalion
Hi, On 10-5-2011 22:33, Jones Beene wrote: So Defkalion, it can be argued - could have improved on the basic pump and dump scam in many ways, but there may be no proof of that until it is too late, since this is all taking place in Europe. But with OPEC oil now four times higher than when the GWE scam was hatched, they could sell out a billion Euro IPO with ease Ok, then explain me why an attempt to setup the 45 domain-names and raise funds for it etc. was stopped by legal action of Defkalion and in the meantime no other ways for raising funds are applied via internet? Wouldn't you take full advantage of the possibilities offered by internet to raise a maximum of funds in a short time like professional scammers (e.g. Nigeria etc.) do? Kind regards, MoB
Re: [Vo]:The GWE scam could be the model for Defkalion
Jones Beene wrote: So Defkalion, it can be argued - could have improved on the basic pump and dump scam in many ways, but there may be no proof of that until it is too late . . . It can be argued in what sense? Are you or are you not accusing people of criminal activities? Do you have any evidence for this? Is there some kind of connection between the GWE (Genesis World Energy) group and Defkalion? Perhaps this entire discussion is hypothetical, and you are only saying that it is possible this is a scam. Or that there have been scams in the past that resembled this. It that is what you mean -- and you are NOT actually accusing anyone of anything -- please say so. You seem to have no grasp how much trouble you might cause by publishing inflammatory false rumors about people. Libel will get them in trouble, and you in trouble, and possibly this entire forum in trouble. Of course if you have information, that is another matter entirely. In that case you have a civic duty to contact authorities. It is one thing to accuse Rossi, Levi, EK of being incompetent as you have so often done. This is a science discussion forum, and you have every right to make such assertions. They can cause no harm to anything other than your reputation. Even if you are right, it is not against the law for scientists to make stupid mistakes. If it were, all scientists would be in jail. It is an ENTIRELY DIFFERENT MATTER for you to accuse people of conspiring to commit seriously unlawful acts involving huge sums of money. This is a serious matter. Think it over before responding. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:The GWE scam could be the model for Defkalion
I am no expert on this, but doesn’t the first amendment protect Jones Beene from any possible legal harm? On Tue, May 10, 2011 at 4:54 PM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com wrote: Jones Beene wrote: So Defkalion, it can be argued - could have improved on the basic pump and dump scam in many ways, but there may be no proof of that until it is too late . . . It can be argued in what sense? Are you or are you not accusing people of criminal activities? Do you have any evidence for this? Is there some kind of connection between the GWE (Genesis World Energy) group and Defkalion? Perhaps this entire discussion is hypothetical, and you are only saying that it is possible this is a scam. Or that there have been scams in the past that resembled this. It that is what you mean -- and you are NOT actually accusing anyone of anything -- please say so. You seem to have no grasp how much trouble you might cause by publishing inflammatory false rumors about people. Libel will get them in trouble, and you in trouble, and possibly this entire forum in trouble. Of course if you have information, that is another matter entirely. In that case you have a civic duty to contact authorities. It is one thing to accuse Rossi, Levi, EK of being incompetent as you have so often done. This is a science discussion forum, and you have every right to make such assertions. They can cause no harm to anything other than your reputation. Even if you are right, it is not against the law for scientists to make stupid mistakes. If it were, all scientists would be in jail. It is an ENTIRELY DIFFERENT MATTER for you to accuse people of conspiring to commit seriously unlawful acts involving huge sums of money. This is a serious matter. Think it over before responding. - Jed
[Vo]:Re: [Vo]:Can Rossi generate steam hotter than 110 °C ?
Joshua, In one of my original posts I stated the fact that, in my opinion, Rossi's current e-Cat configurations are probably not configured in such a manner as to generate steam that is much above 100 C. I don't think the water once it's transformed into steam has a chance to hang around long enough to increase in temperature all that much. You obviously disagree with my opinion on the matter. I'm puzzled, however. You've also expressed the opinion that my opinions stand on nothing more substantial than vague, unsupported insults. And now you've deduced that I have a problem winning friends and influencing people. Why would anybody with so many problems as I seem to be cursed with be of any interest to you and your opinions? I'm puzzled because you give me the impression that my opinions continue to influence you. Regards Steven Vincent Johnson www.OrionWorks.com www.zazzle.com/orionworks
[Vo]:Question about Coulomb Barrier
Hello all! I've got a question that I believe you could help me with: I understand that the coulomb barrier is the point at which the Strong Force will become dominant, and overcome the natural repulsion of two nuclei as they are moved closer together. But can neutrons penetrate the coulomb barrier without any problem, since they are not repelled by the positive charge in the nucleus? Is this why the Widom-Larsen hypothesis posits the entry of weak neutrons into the nucleus? Craig Haynie Manchester, NH
Re: [Vo]:The GWE scam could be the model for Defkalion
Defences to claims of defamation include: - *Statements made in a good faith and reasonable belief that they were true * are generally treated the same as true statements; however, the court may inquire into the reasonableness of the belief. The degree of care expected will vary with the nature of the defendant: an ordinary person might safely rely on a single newspaper report, while the newspaper would be expected to carefully check multiple sources. - *Opinion * is a defense recognized in nearly every jurisdiction. If the allegedly defamatory assertion is an expression of opinion rather than a statement of fact, defamation claims usually cannot be brought because opinions are inherently not falsifiable . However, some jurisdictions decline to recognize any legal distinction between fact and opinion. The United States Supreme Court, in particular, has ruled that the First Amendment does not require recognition of an opinion privilege.[28]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slander#cite_note-27 - *Fair comment on a matter of public interest *, arguments made with an honest belief in their soundness on a matter of public interest (such as regarding official acts) are defendable against a defamation claim, even if such arguments are logically unsound ; if a reasonable person could honestly entertain such an opinion, the statement is protected. - *Consent * is an uncommon defense and makes the claim that the claimant consented to the dissemination of the statement. - *Innocent disseminatiohttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Innocent_dissemination * is a defense available when a defendan had no actual knowledge of the defamatory statement or no reason to believe the statement was defamatory. The defense can be defeated if the lack of knowledge was due to negligence . Thus, a delivery service cannot be held liable for delivering a sealed defamatory letter. - Claimant is *incapable of further defamation*–e.g., the claimant's position in the community is so poor that defamation could not do further damage to the plaintiff. Such a claimant could be said to be libel-proof, since in most jurisdictions, actual damage is an essential element for a libel claim. Essentially, the defense is that the person had such a bad reputation before the libel, that no further damage could possibly have been caused by the making of the statement. - Statute of limitations . Most jurisdictions require that a lawsuit be brought within a limited period of time. If the alleged libel occurs in a mass media publication such as a newspaper or the Internet, the statute of limitations begins to run at the time of publication, not when the plaintiff first learns of the communication.[29]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slander#cite_note-28 - *No Third-party communication*: If an employer were to bring an employee into a sound-proof, isolated room, and accuse him of embezzling company money, the employee would have no defamation recourse, since no one other than the would-be plaintiff and would-be defendant heard the false statement. - *No actual injury*: If there *is* third-party communication, but the third-party hearing the defamatory statement does not believe the statement, or does not care, then there is no injury, and therefore, no recourse. In addition to the above, the defendant may claim that the allegedly defamatory statement is not actually capable of being defamatory—an insulting statement that does not actually harm someone's reputation is *prima facie http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prima_facie* not libelous. Also, the *public figure* doctrine, also called the absence of malice rule, may be used as a defense. On Tue, May 10, 2011 at 5:01 PM, Axil Axil janap...@gmail.com wrote: I am no expert on this, but doesn’t the first amendment protect Jones Beene from any possible legal harm? On Tue, May 10, 2011 at 4:54 PM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.comwrote: Jones Beene wrote: So Defkalion, it can be argued - could have improved on the basic pump and dump scam in many ways, but there may be no proof of that until it is too late . . . It can be argued in what sense? Are you or are you not accusing people of criminal activities? Do you have any evidence for this? Is there some kind of connection between the GWE (Genesis World Energy) group and Defkalion? Perhaps this entire discussion is hypothetical, and you are only saying that it is possible this is a scam. Or that there have been scams in the past that resembled this. It that is what you mean -- and you are NOT actually accusing anyone of anything -- please say so. You seem to have no grasp how much trouble you might cause by publishing inflammatory false rumors about people. Libel will get them in trouble, and you in trouble, and possibly this entire forum in trouble. Of course if you have information, that is another matter
Re: [Vo]:The GWE scam could be the model for Defkalion
From Jones: ... Let me make it clear that there is no proof that they are planning a better GWE scam, and there is no proof that they are legitimate either. The intent of this post goes to the old Chinese(?) proverb fool me once, shame on you, fool me twice shame on me This is just my opinion, and my opinion could be wrong, but the speculative nature of some of your recent posts are beginning to remind me of the machinations of well known public figure: Donald Trump. It seems to me that if you have actual evidence of wrong-doing it's time to spell it out, or call the authorities. Otherwise, the kind of speculation that you currently seem to be engaged in, particularly in regards to Rossi and/or Defkalion, can IMHO become unhealthy. Regards Steven Vincent Johnson www.OrionWorks.com www.zazzle.com/orionworks
Re: [Vo]:The GWE scam could be the model for Defkalion
On 05/10/2011 06:24 PM, Axil Axil wrote: If it comes down to it, I think Fair comment on a matter of public interest is Jones best defence. I'm not a lawyer, but in general it's very difficult to actually condemn someone on defamation charges. Accusing someone of defamation, and prosecuting him on those grounds, is a different matter. In my country, Argentina, the legal figure was recently removed from the legal system, due to both: a) it's very difficult to actually condemn someone of defamation. b) the accusation, aided by its legal status, was usually employed by relatively powerful people to avoid criticism, and to attempt to counteract bad publicity. Regards, Mauro
Re: [Vo]:The GWE scam could be the model for Defkalion
Axil Axil wrote: I am no expert on this, but doesn’t the first amendment protect Jones Beene from any possible legal harm? Not if it is libel. That is not protected speech. So far I doubt anyone would say it is libel, but I think it would be wise for Beene to state clearly that he is not actually accusing anyone of anything. Making comparisons and speaking in hypotheticals is fine. I myself have often commented that Rossi acts like a scam artist. Anyone can see the resemblance. I myself have been the target of libelous personal attacks. Anyone involved in cold fusion has been. So I am sensitive to the problems this can cause. For example, people have asserted that I stole or fabricated the Defense Intelligence Agency report. Putting an official seal on a fake report would be a serious matter. I would get into trouble if the authorities believed I did that. Fortunately, I can refer them to the authors, who will vouch for me. Obviously, scamming hundreds of millions of dollars would be a far more serious that writing a fake DIA report! I don't mean to compare the two. But even rumors about the DIA report have caused me trouble, so I can just imagine what Defkalion would have to deal with if this rumor gets around. I suppose such rumors are bound to circulate, but for goodness sake, let us not start them here! - Jed
RE: [Vo]:The GWE scam could be the model for Defkalion
As much as I detest Trump's general attitude (and hair style), he is allowed to speak his mind, and occasionally there is something to it. Did you call the authorities on the Donald because he doesn't like unions and you do? You may not agree with him, but he has a right not to like minorities, unions, gays, Democrats, Hispanics and whatever. There has been a lot of talk in Greece and Italy on the forums about the shady connections of Defkalion and the Russian ex-patriot community in Greece, and to known criminals in Greece - but I chose not to repeat those rumors here, because they are unproved so far, and nothing more than warnings of people who may resent all foreigners. Who knows? They have named names, and if you are thinking about investing, buyer beware. Nevertheless, I did not form my negative opinion on this company based on whim. There is a lot there which you will find out in the coming months. Jones -Original Message- From: OrionWorks - Steven V Johnson Let me make it clear that there is no proof that they are planning a better GWE scam, and there is no proof that they are legitimate either. The intent of this post goes to the old Chinese(?) proverb fool me once, shame on you, fool me twice shame on me This is just my opinion, and my opinion could be wrong, but the speculative nature of some of your recent posts are beginning to remind me of the machinations of well known public figure: Donald Trump. It seems to me that if you have actual evidence of wrong-doing it's time to spell it out, or call the authorities. Otherwise, the kind of speculation that you currently seem to be engaged in, particularly in regards to Rossi and/or Defkalion, can IMHO become unhealthy. Regards Steven Vincent Johnson www.OrionWorks.com www.zazzle.com/orionworks
Re: [Vo]:The GWE scam could be the model for Defkalion
Mauro Lacy wrote: I'm not a lawyer, but in general it's very difficult to actually condemn someone on defamation charges. Accusing someone of defamation, and prosecuting him on those grounds, is a different matter. I am not worried that anyone is going to prosecute Beene. Hundreds of people are probably circulating scurrilous rumors about Rossi. And let's face it, sometimes his behavior invites suspicion, as I have often pointed out. The issue here is not legal, but ethical. Defkalion has a ton of problems to deal with. They have -- or soon will have -- powerful enemies in every corner. In my opinion, it is highly unethical for Beene to add fuel to this fire and circulate more rumors and statements that sound a lot like he has inside knowledge of an actual scam. UNLESS OF COURSE he has actual knowledge of such things! In that case, he should tell the authorities. As long as he makes it clear this is hypothetical, I have no objection whatever. It is unethical to accuse anyone of a crime when you have no knowledge of such a thing. Whether you are actually commuting libel according to the letter of the law is not the issue. It is unethical. It causes heartache and problems for the people you accuse. It is unjust. It is impolite. Such behavior should not be allowed here, in this forum, in my opinion. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:The GWE scam could be the model for Defkalion
When it comes down to a legal battle, it's not who is right or who is wrong, it' who has the most money. If some rich SoB wants to come after you for slander or libel, you have to defend yourself. If he has a murder of lawyers at his disposal, he can break you, lose, and drag out the appeals until you die. Look what Ford did to Robert Kearns. http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1054588/ T
[Vo]: On to something potentially useful...at least interesting... isotope ratios need to be rethought.
This just in... Scientists surprised by solar wind data retrieved from Genesis mission May 10, 2011 Amina Khan, Los Angeles Times But much of the collected material did survive the crash, and it's now turning up surprises: unexpected discrepancies between the composition of the sun and that of the inner solar system (which contains the sun's four closest planets, including Earth). The early report, published online Monday in the journal Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, shows among other things that the pattern of isotopes in the solar wind (and thus, presumably, the sun) is very different from that of the inner planets. But it appears that there are significant differences. The Earth, for example, has more heavier oxygen in relation to lighter oxygen than does the sun - and that is at odds with current theories of space chemistry -Mark attachment: winmail.dat
RE: [Vo]:Question about Coulomb Barrier
Craig, I don't if this helps, but most metals tend to be relatively transparent to neutrons, due to the scattering cross-section which is caused by spin, not by anything related to charge. The Coulomb barrier is not involved AFIK with neutrons. A few metals like cadmium will absorb neutrons of the correct velocity to nullify spin effects, but in general neutrons must be slowed way-down (thermalized) before they can interact with say nickel; and usually they easily would escape the reactor long before that happens unless they are extremely cold - low velocity. Thus the WL ULM, which because it is cold/slow can stay around longer and have a much better chance of an interaction. IOW the approaching neutron will only interact at a significant rate if it extraordinarily slow in velocity. Jones -Original Message- From: Craig Haynie Hello all! I've got a question that I believe you could help me with: I understand that the coulomb barrier is the point at which the Strong Force will become dominant, and overcome the natural repulsion of two nuclei as they are moved closer together. But can neutrons penetrate the coulomb barrier without any problem, since they are not repelled by the positive charge in the nucleus? Is this why the Widom-Larsen hypothesis posits the entry of weak neutrons into the nucleus? Craig Haynie Manchester, NH
RE: [Vo]:Question about Coulomb Barrier
Perhaps some more pieces to the puzzle... 1) There was a recent article (within last 2 months) in PhysOrg that had to do with how angular momentum (rotational energy) was converted into other forms of E. 2) Doppler effect found even at molecular level (PhysOrg, May 11, 2011). -Mark -Original Message- From: Jones Beene [mailto:jone...@pacbell.net] Sent: Tuesday, May 10, 2011 3:07 PM To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: RE: [Vo]:Question about Coulomb Barrier Craig, I don't if this helps, but most metals tend to be relatively transparent to neutrons, due to the scattering cross-section which is caused by spin, not by anything related to charge. The Coulomb barrier is not involved AFIK with neutrons. A few metals like cadmium will absorb neutrons of the correct velocity to nullify spin effects, but in general neutrons must be slowed way-down (thermalized) before they can interact with say nickel; and usually they easily would escape the reactor long before that happens unless they are extremely cold - low velocity. Thus the WL ULM, which because it is cold/slow can stay around longer and have a much better chance of an interaction. IOW the approaching neutron will only interact at a significant rate if it extraordinarily slow in velocity. Jones -Original Message- From: Craig Haynie Hello all! I've got a question that I believe you could help me with: I understand that the coulomb barrier is the point at which the Strong Force will become dominant, and overcome the natural repulsion of two nuclei as they are moved closer together. But can neutrons penetrate the coulomb barrier without any problem, since they are not repelled by the positive charge in the nucleus? Is this why the Widom-Larsen hypothesis posits the entry of weak neutrons into the nucleus? Craig Haynie Manchester, NH
[Vo]:Re: [Vo]:Re: [Vo]:Can Rossi generate steam hotter than 110 °C ?
On Tue, May 10, 2011 at 4:02 PM, OrionWorks - Steven V Johnson svj.orionwo...@gmail.com wrote: Joshua, In one of my original posts I stated the fact that, in my opinion, Rossi's current e-Cat configurations are probably not configured in such a manner as to generate steam that is much above 100 C. I don't think the water once it's transformed into steam has a chance to hang around long enough to increase in temperature all that much. You obviously disagree with my opinion on the matter. No. I don't see it as a matter of opinion. It's a matter of conservation of energy. If the ecat produces 12 kW, and at some flow rate that is enough to turn all the water to vapor, and no more, then if the flow rate is reduced by 20%, and the steam still comes out at 100C, then only 9.6 kW of energy is coming out via the steam. Where does the other 2.4 kW go? I don't think it could dissipate through the insulation without it being very obviously hot (think of a 2.4 kW space heater that size.) Now, some people have speculated that the device is regulated to keep the steam temperature constant, but that seems unlikely too, for a number of reasons: 1) There is no evidence of feedback circuits. 2) The temperature of the *steam* would have to be fed back to the control circuits (which is not evident), or a very accurate relationship between the reactor temperature, the flow rate, and the water temperature would have to be known. 3) There is no obvious reason to regulate it at exactly the level that produces all steam at exactly the boiling point, and an excellent reason to allow it to go to say 110C (to prove it's dry). 4) There are 2 experiments with the larger ecat (Dec 2010, Jan 2011) with very different flow rates, and 2 experiments with the smaller ecat, also with very different flow rates, but in all 4 experiments the steam temperature was pinned to the boiling point. If each of them converted all the water to steam, then the reactor would have to have been regulated to different temperatures in the different experiments, emphasizing that it could be run with higher temperature steam to remove ambiguity. For example, if in the Lewan demo, it had been operated at the same temperature that produced all steam for Essen and Kallander, then Lewan would have observed higher temperature steam, because his flow rate was lower. 5) The 18-hour run was evidently not operated with regulation because the power evidently varied considerably over the experiment, in one case increasing by a factor of 10 or so. But in the end, the basic problem is that unambiguous evidence of dry steam would be dead easy to demonstrate, but Rossi fails to do it. Only the 18-hour experiment, on its face, purports evidence of 10 kW power. And yet, although it appears to remove the ambiguities people have complained about, the next two demonstrations for the swedes returned to the dubious steam-generating version. Why? I'm puzzled, however. You've also expressed the opinion that my opinions stand on nothing more substantial than vague, unsupported insults. That was after you insulted me, and it did not refer to your earlier writings on the subject. And now you've deduced that I have a problem winning friends and influencing people. Actually, I was only striking back because that's what you deduced about me for basically doing the same thing you had done; namely speculating about the other's motivation and behaviour. I was hurt, and so I used your weapons against you. It was cheap, and I didn't mean anything very deep by it. Please accept my apologies. Why would anybody with so many problems as I seem to be cursed with be of any interest to you and your opinions? I'm puzzled because you give me the impression that my opinions continue to influence you. Well now, don't you see how I might ask the same thing of you? We've now exchanged more or less the same insults, and yet you seem to give the same impression. But I'm glad in this post you actually said something about the experiment, and gave me an opportunity to state my (non-rhetorical) case in another way. I really don't expect to be able to convince you of anything, but there are other people who read this who might like the opportunity to see the skeptical point of view.
Re: [Vo]:The GWE scam could be the model for Defkalion
On 05/10/2011 06:50 PM, Jed Rothwell wrote: Axil Axil wrote: I am no expert on this, but doesn’t the first amendment protect Jones Beene from any possible legal harm? Not if it is libel. That is not protected speech. So far I doubt anyone would say it is libel, but I think it would be wise for Beene to state clearly that he is not actually accusing anyone of anything. Making comparisons and speaking in hypotheticals is fine. I myself have often commented that Rossi acts like a scam artist. Anyone can see the resemblance. I myself have been the target of libelous personal attacks. Anyone involved in cold fusion has been. So I am sensitive to the problems this can cause. For example, people have asserted that I stole or fabricated the Defense Intelligence Agency report. Putting an official seal on a fake report would be a serious matter. I would get into trouble if the authorities believed I did that. Fortunately, I can refer them to the authors, who will vouch for me. Obviously, scamming hundreds of millions of dollars would be a far more serious that writing a fake DIA report! I don't mean to compare the two. But even rumors about the DIA report have caused me trouble, so I can just imagine what Defkalion would have to deal with if this rumor gets around. Jed, aren't you overreacting? If I remember correctly, I was probably the cause of that rumour. In that particular case, I explained clearly and publicly (even in the same thread) that the only thing I was doing was to publicly express a doubt a friend of mine transmitted me. I don't see how that could have caused you any damage. In particular, if you certainly didn't fabricate that official report. And to call that public expression of doubt a libelous personal attack, with you as the target... I would say that's too much about nothing. Or were you considering me to accuse me of libel and slander for that at that time? I suppose such rumors are bound to circulate, but for goodness sake, let us not start them here! A sincere expression of doubt, intended as a warning to others, does not mean that doubt is based or sustained on evidence. If that were the case, it wouldn't be a doubt. Why couldn't we speculate freely about scamming and fraud scenarios? If other people take that and spread it as a rumour, or undesrtand it out of context, that's certainly not our problem. We are here subscribed to talk, among many issues, about cold fusion and alternative forms of energy. The real ones, but the potentially fake ones too. And by the way: If someone shrouds part of his invention in a cloud of secrecy, citing patentability issues, or whatever, then it's a logical and reasonable thing to start speculating about potential fraud scenarios. In my opinion, the secret catalyst is at the moment, no different from the modified resistor, the unknown waveform, the missing diagram or the special magnet. Regards, Mauro
Re: [Vo]: On to something potentially useful...at least interesting... isotope ratios need to be rethought.
In order to account for discrepancies in the abundance of certain elements in the universe, the cosmologists and astrophysicists have come up with the concept of unusual nuclear-genesis in the layers of fast spinning stars. *“This high rate of spin would cause overlap between inner and outer gas layers of the star that would not otherwise mix. The resulting cascade of nuclear reactions would generate radioactive neon, which in turn would emit neutrons that would collide with iron and other heavy atoms to create strontium and yttrium.”* * * http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/42787604/ns/technology_and_science-space/t/million-mph-now-thats-fast-spinning-star/ Until these myopic people acknowledge that there are other transmutation processes at work in the universe, they will continue to invent invalid and farfetched theories to explain reality. On Tue, May 10, 2011 at 6:02 PM, Mark Iverson zeropo...@charter.net wrote: This just in... Scientists surprised by solar wind data retrieved from Genesis mission May 10, 2011 Amina Khan, Los Angeles Times But much of the collected material did survive the crash, and it's now turning up surprises: unexpected discrepancies between the composition of the sun and that of the inner solar system (which contains the sun's four closest planets, including Earth). The early report, published online Monday in the journal Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, shows among other things that the pattern of isotopes in the solar wind (and thus, presumably, the sun) is very different from that of the inner planets. But it appears that there are significant differences. The Earth, for example, has more heavier oxygen in relation to lighter oxygen than does the sun - and that is at odds with current theories of space chemistry -Mark
Re: [Vo]:NyTeknik reports on Rossi patent
In reply to Jones Beene's message of Mon, 9 May 2011 11:12:34 -0700: Hi, [snip] Hmm ... Well actually, the boron could be the critical difference, and until today it has been under the radar - have you seen anyone even consider the possibility that boron could be the active heat source? Yes - http://www.mail-archive.com/vortex-l@eskimo.com/msg43763.html :) Regards, Robin van Spaandonk http://rvanspaa.freehostia.com/project.html
RE: [Vo]:The GWE scam could be the model for Defkalion
-Original Message- From: Jed Rothwell The issue here is not legal, but ethical. YES, YES, YES - and I think that given the history of scams in the alternative energy field, it is Rothwell's conduct which is unethical and without justification ! There is no doubt, that if the Defkalion company is a scam, that his present comments are aiding and abetting the scam. I warn him, with all sincerity, to cease and desist. Jones
RE: [Vo]:NyTeknik reports on Rossi patent
Good work Robin! However, would you not agree with me that this reaction, however desirable, is unlikely due to VB finding zero gammas? Jones -Original Message- From: mix...@bigpond.com Hmm ... Well actually, the boron could be the critical difference, and until today it has been under the radar - have you seen anyone even consider the possibility that boron could be the active heat source? Yes - http://www.mail-archive.com/vortex-l@eskimo.com/msg43763.html :) Regards, Robin van Spaandonk http://rvanspaa.freehostia.com/project.html
Re: [Vo]:This may be the entire patent
In reply to Kyle Mcallister's message of Mon, 9 May 2011 16:09:30 -0700 (PDT): Hi, [snip] That's not fission level energy, or even fusion level energy. That's talking within the order of magnitude of converting rest mass directly into energy. Assuming by ton of oil he means 'tonne of oil equivalent'... 30,000 tons of oil would yield 1.26x10^15J (42x10^9J/tonne of oil equivalent) Entire rest mass of 58g converted to energy yields 5.22x10^15J... So Rossi is claiming to be able to convert 24.14% of the ENTIRE REST MASS OF THE NICKEL CATALYST to energy??? Someone, tell me I did this math wrong, please. This has to be some theory of his, and not what really happens. The grocery list of stuff he claims in the ash reads like the near-collapse core of a massive star at the end of its life. [snip] I have already communicated with Rossi on this matter, and he admits there is a typo in the patent application. Regards, Robin van Spaandonk http://rvanspaa.freehostia.com/project.html
Re: [Vo]:Lead Boron
In reply to Colin Hercus's message of Tue, 10 May 2011 10:32:34 +0800: Hi, [snip] Hi, Reading Rossi's patent it seems Boron Lead are used not just for shielding but to absorb the energy from the radiation. What I was wondering if there is any specific radiation that would need lead vs a cheaper metal (and thicker) or even concrete to absorb the energy. So is lead essential? And though we have enough Nickel for many years of E-cat energy, do we have enough Boron Lead? Colin There is plenty of Lead. I did that calculation a while back. Haven't done the calculation for Boron. Note that if the sole purpose of the Boron is for neutron shielding, then it can be replaced with other substances. If it's involved in a p-B11 reaction then the energy yield of the reaction is high enough to allow for extraction from very low grade sources, so it would still last for millions of years. Regards, Robin van Spaandonk http://rvanspaa.freehostia.com/project.html
[Vo]:Slow Neutrons
If we are confining protons in the metal lattice where they encounter thermal electrons which move relatively slow, and it these thermal electrons combine with the proton, then voila! Perhaps we then have slow neutrons drifting through the Coulomb Barrier.
[Vo]:Re: [Vo]:Can Rossi generate steam hotter than 110 °C ?
From Joshua ... But I'm glad in this post you actually said something about the experiment, and gave me an opportunity to state my (non-rhetorical) case in another way. I really don't expect to be able to convince you of anything, but there are other people who read this who might like the opportunity to see the skeptical point of view. I think you'll find several skeptics in this group - in varying degrees. For example, there are Jones Beene's comments. Mr. Beene does not appear to express very many favorable opinions of the Rossi evidence that is currently out in the public domain. As for me, I've heard so many different POVs on the heat-to-water transfer matter that under the circumstances the most sensible approach for me is to wait for more forthcoming experimental data from the universities that hopefully will help either confirm or disprove these extraordinary claims. I'm content to wait. PS: Apology accepted. Clean slate. Regards, Steven Vincent Johnson www.OrionWorks.com www.zazzle.com/orionworks
Re: [Vo]:OT (and very far out): Recovered 60 year old Zeta Reticula Leaked Footage of ET
On Tue, May 10, 2011 at 9:11 PM, OrionWorks - Steven Vincent Johnson orionwo...@charter.net wrote: FWIW: http://www.forbiddenknowledgetv.com/videos/ufos--extraterrestrials/alien-fro m-zeta-reticula-leaked-footage.html Whew! All I can say is that with those fingers, it could be a professional pianist. But there is too much nose and mouth to match the classic Grey. Quite compelling anyway. T
[Vo]:Mills or Rossi do not get to decide what theory explains their discoveries
The Rossi patent appears to be full of theoretical blather. Either that, or Rossi is Newton and Einstein rolled into one, and he will revolutionize 21st century physics. We'll see how that comes out. A point I would like to make is that Rossi may well be right about the calorimetry but wrong about the nuclear physics. Furthermore, he does not get to decide what his reaction is, or isn't. When Mills came out years ago, he insisted that his reaction is not cold fusion. He meant it is super-chemistry. He may be right about that for all I know. His theories are closer to the mainstream than Rossi's. But what was irrational about his assertion was that he seemed to think that since he discovered the reaction, he gets to decide how it works. He gets to dictate the physics. Not only that, but as I recall he said cold fusion may be fusion, but my nickel reaction is not. It seems more likely to me that nature has only way to make extraordinary amounts of heat without neutrons from metal hydrides, and whatever the reaction is, it is fundamentally the same in Pd, Ni or Ti. I got the impression Mills was trying to avoid the stigma of cold fusion. His own theory is so radical, it was sure to bring upon him all the stigma mainstream physics can muster, so that seemed like a futile gesture to me. Lately, Rossi stated categorically, my reaction is not the Mills reaction. I don't know whether that means Mills has no reaction or I have a different reaction but anyway, he does not get to decide. Many people will do many experiments, look for products, spin theories, and eventually it will become clear what explains these experiments. Since they are both Ni-H I would be astounded if they had different mechanisms. That is a violation of Ockham's Razor. (Still, one must remember, O.R. that is a rule of thumb, not a law of nature.) Even the skeptics have joined in game when it suits them. One of them told me Rossi said it isn't LENR so don't talk about LENR. Previous experiments have no bearing on this because Rossi says they don't. This person would not, in a million years, buy into the blather in Rossi's patent, so she has no business citing it as proof that previous experiments have no bearing! Skeptics also say: It can't be true because the discover's physics are wrong -- a variation on the theme. That's preposterous. Again, everyone's physics was wrong in ancient times, but their machines, metallurgy and even their medicine worked. To summarize: * Never judge a book by its cover. * Everyone is right about some things and wrong about others. A person can easily be wrong about theory but right about a technical claim. As proof of that, consider that before 1800, everyone was wrong about everything, including the people who perfected Damascus steel and other technologies that still challenge the experts. * The discoverer has no special privilege to explain it. He or she cannot dictate that: This is my discovery so it must work the way I say. Or: my discovery is [or is not] cold fusion. * You must separate in your mind the discovery, the explanation for the discovery, and the person who made the discovery. Put them in different boxes. Try to forget all about theory when evaluating an experiment, and pay no attention to the fact the Robert Stroud was a homicidal lunatic when reading his textbook on canaries. That is not germane. I realize it is tough to separate out different aspects of a thing like this. It goes against human nature. You have a feeling that if Stroud would kill a person just for heck of it, he might also have it in for your canary. He might tell you do something that will hurt the poor thing. But you have to trust the scientific method and peer review. After all these decades, if Stroud has secreted evil advice in his book, veterinarians would have found out. People seem to have great difficulty separating Rossi from his discovery, perhaps because he is so flamboyant. If he were a mousy gray-haired lady professor from Hokkaido or Buffalo NY, people would probably find it easier to believe him. Needless to say, it is naive and unscientific to judge a claim by looking at the personality of the researcher. Flamboyant people are often right. Staid, credentialed academics sometimes present egregious nonsense, such as the anti-cold fusion screeds. A claim must be judged on its own merits, without reference to the person making the claim, the other claims that person makes, or circumstances surrounding the claim. It is tough to live up to that standard, but if you find yourself slipping, and you start to say: How could a person with such strange notions about physics be right!?! or Rossi says he can enhance Ni isotopes at practically no cost -- he must be a liar or crazy! -- stop right there, and remind yourself that you just made a logical error. When the discussion is about calorimetry, that evidence is not admissible. The obverse applies. Just because Rossi is right about calorimetry,
Re: [Vo]:The GWE scam could be the model for Defkalion
On 11-05-10 05:13 PM, Jones Beene wrote: *From:*Axil Axil I am no expert on this, but doesn’t the first amendment protect Jones Beene from any possible legal harm? Of course it does. Jones, am I correct in my impression that you are, in fact, a lawyer? Just wondering Of course, if it were so all-fired horribly illegal in the United States to accuse people of having committed illegal acts, an awful lot of folks would be in jail at this point as a result of claiming 9/11 was a US-led conspiracy, that Dick Cheney was right there covering it up, that George Bush engineered it, and that the mayor of New York was in on the gag... And anyone who claimed bankers had committed fraud during the big real estate meltdown could have been prosecuted for wrongly accusing the bankers of wrongdoing (right up to the moment when the courts agreed that they'd committed fraud, of course). FWIW, Jones, while I have found your rather speculative attacks on Rossi's device interesting, I have, unfortunately, found your scurrilous attacks on Jed in this discussion kind of offensive -- enough so that I've mostly stopped reading the threads where the two of you are lobbing rotten tomatoes at each other. The discussions are more entertaining when everyone remains on a first-name basis. Mudslinging along the lines of Rothwell's blind devotion to Saint Rossi is enough to nauseate a goat..., followed by a response from Jed which might run something like Beene's asinine accusations could be refuted by a profoundly retarded fourth grader... , gets a little old after the first few insults go by.
[Vo]:Re: [Vo]:Can Rossi generate steam hotter than 110 °C ?
Wait a minute Steven, I think Rossi has shown adequate but not rock-solid evidence for a strong energy anomaly. How does that make me a skeptic? However, if you take all the evidence weighted strongly towards the Swedish testing and VB, then it looks like it is non-nuclear gain. Does that make me a skeptic? If one does not idolize Rossi, due to his past history of failures at US taxpayer expense - and the fact he has no clue about the way this device operates - does that make one a skeptic? I am only looking for truth so that others can succeed where he may not be able to succeed due to the predicament he is in. I have no axe to grind, other than that he has deliberately lied about many important and some trivial things - what I call the George Kelly credibility problem. Some observers really want this to be nuclear, because Rossi says it is. It could be, if the evidence ever does turn up - but as of now there is no evidence that it is nuclear, and there is strong evidence that it is not. Does that make me skeptic? If there is a problem with Defkalion management, and Krivit has posted most of the names over there on his blog, then there are three names that stand out. Strongly stand out ! I will be posting more on this very soon, since if the taint of an IPO scam can be addressed and nipped in the bud - as it should be, and this will be to PROTECT Rossi more than anything else. He may not realize the mess he is in. If there is a problem with Defkalion, then I am almost certain that Rossi is NOT a part of the problem. They would have chosen him carefully for a number of reasons, and his role would be as 'patsy' if you understand that term in this context. Same goes for Stremmenos - unwitting 'patsy'. Jones -Original Message- From: OrionWorks - Steven Vincent Johnson But I'm glad in this post you actually said something about the experiment, and gave me an opportunity to state my (non-rhetorical) case in another way. I really don't expect to be able to convince you of anything, but there are other people who read this who might like the opportunity to see the skeptical point of view. I think you'll find several skeptics in this group - in varying degrees. For example, there are Jones Beene's comments. Mr. Beene does not appear to express very many favorable opinions of the Rossi evidence that is currently out in the public domain. As for me, I've heard so many different POVs on the heat-to-water transfer matter that under the circumstances the most sensible approach for me is to wait for more forthcoming experimental data from the universities that hopefully will help either confirm or disprove these extraordinary claims. I'm content to wait. PS: Apology accepted. Clean slate. Regards, Steven Vincent Johnson www.OrionWorks.com www.zazzle.com/orionworks
Re: [Vo]:This may be the entire patent
mix...@bigpond.com wrote: I have already communicated with Rossi on this matter, and he admits there is a typo in the patent application. Imagine making a typo in a patent application! What an amateur thing to do. Disgraceful. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:Re: [Vo]:Re: [Vo]:Re: [Vo]:Can Rossi generate steam hotter than 110 °C ?
In reply to Joshua Cude's message of Mon, 9 May 2011 23:19:05 -0500: Hi, [snip] What makes that private experiment even harder to take seriously is the claimed 130 kW excursion. Rossi has on occasion mentioned an optimum operating temperature of about 400C. If this temperature provides the usual 15 - 20 kW, then 130 kW would require a temperature difference about 9 times higher; for water temperature of 30C say, that would correspond to 370*9 + 30 = 3360C, which is not plausible. This is based on the assumption that the actual operating temperature is indeed 400C @ 15 kW. If it's in fact much less, then 130 kW for a short period may not be a problem. Perhaps it only gets up to 400C when the output is really high? Regards, Robin van Spaandonk http://rvanspaa.freehostia.com/project.html
Re: [Vo]:Re: [Vo]:Re: [Vo]:Re: [Vo]:Steam hotter than 110 °C / Internal heater
In reply to Jed Rothwell's message of Tue, 10 May 2011 09:51:50 -0400: Hi, [snip] ... besides, I suspect that any government trying to do this would find that their reign only lasted until the next election, at which point they would be replaced by whichever party promised to repeal the tax. :) It would be difficult to do this, because the energy will eventually be generated on site by small machines. To tax it you would have to meter it, and meters can always be disabled. People occasionally reset odometers in automobiles to enhance the resale value of a used car. This is against the law. They do not do this often because there's not much point to it; it does not increase resale value much. On the other hand, when the odometer breaks people seldom bother to fix it. I'm sure that if the government started taxing heat and electricity from home generators, millions of consumers would cut a few wires or download a patch for the control electronics computer to report false readings. The government would soon find this untenable. (I have thought about stuff like this!) - Jed Regards, Robin van Spaandonk http://rvanspaa.freehostia.com/project.html
[Vo]:Re: [Vo]:Re: [Vo]:Can Rossi generate steam hotter than 110 °C ?
I wrote: I also agree that Rossi has a habit of getting involved with people he should not, and making himself look bad. His web pages are a case in point. Especially the part where he lists an advisor who does not seem to exist. Now we learn he made a typo in a patent application. This is not a careful person. As I said, he is not someone you would put in charge of measuring isotopic ratios. If he did that, and he got the wrong answer, I would not be surprised. - Jed
[Vo]:RE: [Vo]:Can Rossi generate steam hotter than 110 °C ?
The thing that makes it stranger than fiction is that *IF* there is a problem, and there may not be then the perpetrators may have originally been looking only for a Stanley-Meyer type of self-deluded inventor and yet lo and behold they stumbled onto a guy who really does have a bona fide energy breakthrough; which as fate would have it could be worth a heluva lot more than the few billion that the scam could have netted How bizarre is that? From: Jed Rothwell Jones Beene wrote: If there is a problem with Defkalion management, and Krivit has posted most of the names over there on his blog, then there are three names that stand out. Strongly stand out ! I will be posting more on this very soon, since if the taint of an IPO scam can be addressed and nipped in the bud - as it should be, and this will be to PROTECT Rossi more than anything else. He may not realize the mess he is in. For once we agree completely. (Seriously!) I have been following this story and I don't like the looks of it either. I suggest you tell our friends in the Greek press and also Lewan. If the press exposes a problem now, before the October Dog Pony Show, that would be good. Better the press now than the police later. With high muckety-mucks in the Greek government involved, you would think the press would be swarming around looking for a problem. I also agree that Rossi has a habit of getting involved with people he should not, and making himself look bad. His web pages are a case in point. - Jed
[Vo]:RE: [Vo]:Can Rossi generate steam hotter than 110 °C ?
It wouldn't doubt it if Rossi has been working tirelessly, 16 hour days or more, for 6 months straight or longer... is there any doubt that he might tend to make more than the usual number of errors in his recollections, and mistakes when writing/reviewing patents and such. Don't know about the rest of you, but I have worked 80 to 100 hour weeks for months on end and my accuracy suffers. All the speculations are a distraction until there is a reasonable amount of supporting evidence, circumstantial or direct. -Mark _ From: Jed Rothwell [mailto:jedrothw...@gmail.com] Sent: Tuesday, May 10, 2011 7:39 PM To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: [Vo]:Re: [Vo]:Re: [Vo]:Can Rossi generate steam hotter than 110 °C ? I wrote: I also agree that Rossi has a habit of getting involved with people he should not, and making himself look bad. His web pages are a case in point. Especially the part where he lists an advisor who does not seem to exist. Now we learn he made a typo in a patent application. This is not a careful person. As I said, he is not someone you would put in charge of measuring isotopic ratios. If he did that, and he got the wrong answer, I would not be surprised. - Jed
RE: [Vo]:Slow Neutrons
Abd wrote: Well, if it were that easy to make neutrons, we'd be making them all the time. Perhaps not... Spectroscopy is everywhere and its only specific wavelengths of light that are absorbed/emitted. What if the conditions in the lattice are such that there's a harmonic relationship between the electrons and the protons which enhances the probabilities of the two 'fusing' into a neutron... -Mark -Original Message- From: Abd ul-Rahman Lomax [mailto:a...@lomaxdesign.com] Sent: Tuesday, May 10, 2011 7:39 PM To: vortex-l@eskimo.com; vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: [Vo]:Slow Neutrons At 07:47 PM 5/10/2011, Wm. Scott Smith wrote: If we are confining protons in the metal lattice where they encounter thermal electrons which move relatively slow, and it these thermal electrons combine with the proton, then voila! Well, if it were that easy to make neutrons, we'd be making them all the time. What happens when a slow proton meets a slow electron, assuming they are free, is that a hydrogen atom is formed, not a neutron. The electron cannot reach the nucleus (a proton in this case), it stays at a distance, and the ground state is the minimum Bohr orbit. It takes energy -- a lot of energy, apparently, -- to bring an electron and a proton into close proximity. Perhaps we then have slow neutrons drifting through the Coulomb Barrier. Sure, but this would cause many effects, it's called neutron activation and it will make lots of things radioactive. Getting the slow neutrons is the problem. Widom-Larsen theory proposes that heavy electrons form on the surface of certain metal hydrides, I think, and that these are captured and result in a series of absorptions. If find it a tad Rube-Goldberg for my taste.
[Vo]:News from Mizuno
Tadahiko Mizuno is officially retired from Hokkaido U., but he is hanging around the campus doing research, mainly on cold fusion. He hopes to publish some papers soon. Ten years ago retired profs were not allowed to hang around because they exercised too much influence, I think, but that rule has been bent for Mizuno, who had no influence anyway. He was originally in the fission reactor business, specializing in hydrogen, hydrogen embrittlement, and electrochemical effects, since he studied with Bockris. He used electrochemistry to rapidly embrittle and age samples of reactor steel. He says the industry excommunicated him when he started on cold fusion. But a dozen of his former grad students are now high level engineers in TEPCO. TEPCO and the Japanese government have been frantically rounding up every scientist who knows anything about fission reactors. They more or less drafted him and put him back to work. They have been sending him samples of of soil taken at various distances from the reactor, 1 km, 2 km and so on. He says they are heavily contaminated with long-lived isotopes and he does not think anyone will be able to live within 10 km of the reactor for decades. They are hundreds of times background, causing the Geiger counter to buzz. He is afraid of them! God only knows what they will do with all that soil. He emphasizes that the contamination from the accident does not follow a perfect circle. Depending on wind conditions and the shape of the ground, some areas closer to the reactor are safe, and some farther away are not safe. You cannot just draw an arbitrary 10 km circle. Local radioactivity in Sapporo has risen significantly above normal background, sometimes an order of magnitude. Not enough to be dangerous but enough to measure easily. He was surprised by the accident, as was I. We both thought that after TMI, they tightened up the safety standards, and something like this would never happen to a U.S. or Japanese reactor again. He's an expert, so I feel a little better that I was lulled into thinking this stuff is foolproof. He says he thinks nuclear power in Japan is dead. They will build no more reactors. They just shut down a working one for three years while they build a new taller breakwater. I don't understand why it takes three year to do that. While Mizuno and I were on the phone having this conversation, P.M. Kan was on television saying that Japanese energy policies are hereby scrapped, and we are starting over from scratch. The plan to expand nuclear power to 50% is on hold. Alternatives will be considered. In cold fusion, he is working on -- surprise, surprise -- Ni nanoparticles. Who isn't? He says there is no doubt in his mind that Rossi's claims are right, and the calorimetry good enough. Mizuno's own calorimetry was never as highly precise or complicated as, for example, Storms' but I think it was always good enough. Actually, it resembled Bockris, not coincidentally. I directed him to the Rossi Hints file and suggested he try to figure out what the two magic elements are. Mizuno has a much deeper academic background, and he survived graduate studies with Bockris, who was one of the toughest taskmasters in electrochemistry. Everyone who worked with him tells me it was like the academic equivalent of being in the Marines. Rossi and Mizuno share some personality characteristics and dogged determination. If anyone can replicate Rossi by ESP, Mizuno can. He and I agreed that if Rossi is funded at a huge level, everyone else in this field will soon be awash in cash. He says if the Japanese government finds out about Rossi, and they come to believe the effect is real (for example, after the reactors go on sale and one of them shows up in the Ministry of Education), they will go hog wild and start pumping billions of dollars into Ni-H cold fusion. At the moment I doubt anyone in any ministry in Japan knows much about Rossi, or believes the claims. - Jed
[Vo]:Re: [Vo]:RE: [Vo]:Can Rossi generate steam hotter than 110 °C ?
Mark Iverson zeropo...@charter.net wrote: It wouldn't doubt it if Rossi has been working tirelessly, 16 hour days or more, for 6 months straight or longer... is there any doubt that he might tend to make more than the usual number of errors in his recollections, and mistakes when writing/reviewing patents and such. He drafted that patent years ago. He is a genius in many ways, but sloppy about details, such as the name of his advisor. Being sloppy is not the worst thing in the world. It is a little unusual for an engineer. It just means you have someone else design the safety system and do the isotope analysis. The same personality trait which shows up as sloppiness is also what makes him say low level heat is useless! Forget about anything less than a kilowatt! He does not want to fool around with difficult-to-measure reactions that are only of scientific interest. I like that. Peter Gluck loves that! He has been saying that for years. I sympathize with the researchers who have been working with 50 mW reactions for years, at the ENEA and elsewhere. It wasn't as if they wanted such small reactions. The were hoping to learn more and then scale up. They might have succeeded eventually. They learned a lot, and their knowledge may still be of use. I hope they get lots of funding. We need bold people like Rossi, and careful people too. All the speculations are a distraction until there is a reasonable amount of supporting evidence, circumstantial or direct. I think there is already enough supporting evidence. I have no doubt Essen and Kullander are right. We do not need to rely on Rossi's judgement or techniques. It would be inappropriate to do so. EK provided an independent evaluation, which is the next best thing to an independent replication. The whole point was to avoid depending on Rossi. - Jed
[Vo]:Energy REMOVALl causes e+P fusion.
Bohr orbit. It takes energy -- a lot of energy, apparently, -- to bring an electron and a proton into close proximity. Actually it takes the removal of lots of energy to bring an electron and proton together. it is only orbital energy that can maintain their separation; this is its energy of fusion.
[Vo]:Re: [Vo]:Re: [Vo]:Re: [Vo]:Re: [Vo]:Can Rossi generate steam hotter than 110 °C ?
On Tue, May 10, 2011 at 9:12 PM, mix...@bigpond.com wrote: This is based on the assumption that the actual operating temperature is indeed 400C @ 15 kW. If it's in fact much less, then 130 kW for a short period may not be a problem. Perhaps it only gets up to 400C when the output is really high? That's true, so we can try to work in the other direction. If it's 400C @ 130 kW, then at 15 kW it would be 370/9 + 30 = 70C. That seems rather low to be able to heat water flowing through at 1 L/s by 5C. Taking the temperature at 1500C (mp of steel) for the 130 kW spike, would give 1470/9 + 30 = 190C at 15 kW. If the heat is transferred through copper, then the limit would be its melting point at about 1100C, giving about 150C @ 15 kW. Those values still seem pretty low, but maybe it's possible. One can also try to calculate the necessary area required to transfer the claimed power. The range of heat transfer coefficients for liquid water is huge, but even at the highest value I found (10,000 W/m^2K), this would require an area of 1.5 m^2 to transfer 15 kW at 40C temperature difference (70C), or about .38 m^2 at 160C temp difference (190C). For a one inch id pipe, this would require a 5-m length or 1.2-m length for the two cases. Both seem hard to believe. On the other hand, for a temperature of 1000C, you could get 15 kW with a 20 cm 1 pipe. That begins to be believable, but rules out 130 kW.
Re: [Vo]:Energy REMOVALl causes e+P fusion.
On Tue, May 10, 2011 at 10:53 PM, Wm. Scott Smith scott...@hotmail.comwrote: Bohr orbit. It takes energy -- a lot of energy, apparently, -- to bring an electron and a proton into close proximity. Actually it takes the *removal *of lots of energy to bring an electron and proton together. it is only orbital energy that can maintain their separation; this is its energy of fusion. I'm sorry, but this is just wrong. There are other forces involved in electron capture. Nuclear forces, albeit weak nuclear forces. The rest energy of the neutron is 0.8 MeV higher than the rest energy of the electron plus proton. That means it takes 0.8 MeV to cause the electron capture by a proton. It's endothermic. That's why a free neutron decays spontaneously to a proton plus electron with a half-life of about 15 minutes. This 0.8 MeV barrier to the formation of a W-L neutron is 10 to 100 times higher than the Coulomb barrier to fusion, and fusion is exothermic. W-L try to obscure the energy barrier to the formation of a neutron by calling the electron a heavy electron instead of an energetic electron. The Coulomb barrier is something familiar to most people from static electricity; the energy barrier to electron capture by a proton is not understood by people who only give W-L a superficial look. People, regrettably, like NASA's Bushnell.
