Re: [Vo]:Japanese news plays up Kamiokande neutrino experiment
They bet the millions $ on a what could be a statistical error. Analogy would say that CF would have a trillion $ budget ... :) mic Il giorno 16/giu/2011 02:28, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com ha scritto: This was featured on NHK today: http://news.sciencemag.org/sciencenow/2011/06/first-results-from-japanese-neut.html What gets me is that one of the reports in Japanese ( http://www.asahi.com/science/update/0615/TKY201106150551.html) says they have been at it since 2010 and they have seen 6 particles. Six! And these high-energy physicists claim that cold fusion is not reproducible enough to be believe! - Jed
Re: [Vo]:mass-energy of virtual photons in our universe
If light exerted a negative pressure on certain materials you would have a violation of the laws of motion and with it the conservation of energy as you could make a device that produces thrust from emitting and reabsorbing the same light. On Thu, Jun 16, 2011 at 7:19 AM, Wm. Scott Smith scott...@hotmail.comwrote: Just calculating the energy density of a single wavelength appears to give us infinite mass-energy at a point as the particle size approaches zero. John Wheeler pointed out that one cannot *physically *go smaller than the planck length for a wavelength size, because the Universe would collapse into a giant black hole at these neutron-star type mass-energy densities. Cosmologically speaking, others worry that allowing wavelengths that are quite a bit larger than that would make the universe expand out of control. Now I don't know if somehow these two considerations balance each other out. All I know is that ZPE proponents have argued that very small wavelengths exist, but are somehow gravitationally neutral or that their Gravitational attraction wears out as we consider ever-smaller sizes. I have heard that around the size where the em wavelengths are strong enough to explain the Strong Nuclear Force, is about where a runaway inflation of the Universe is no longer a concern. Personally, I don't think that runaway inflation is a problem to this model, because I think that gravity is *caused *by these smaller wavelengths. Recent papers in advanced optical theory have calculated that ordinary light can exert a negative pressure on certain materials. Perhaps the reverse could also be true: that some kinds of light can exert negative pressure on ordinary matter. At this level of consideration, one would have to think of Energy, momentum, inertia and gravity as forces that are informing matter where to go and how fast. Scott Date: Wed, 15 Jun 2011 13:37:46 Scott0500 From: svj.orionwo...@gmail.com To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: [Vo]:What is the aggregate mass of virtual particles in our universe These are follow-up questions, and the questions posed are very much related to my previous subject thread: A Third Way. It's my understanding that certain types of subatomic virtual particles possess mass, such as fermions, electrons, positrons, etc... It's also my understanding virtual particles are no different than real particles - only that their existence in our universe is fleeting. Nevertheless, I gather there are circumstances (which includes special experiments that have been conducted) where the fleeting nature of virtual particles can be disentangled in such a manner that causes their fundamental nature to become permanent in our universe. I could be wrong on this point but I get the impression that the universe as it, how shall I put it... -quantum fluctuates- produces a LOT of virtual particles, this despite the fact that individually speaking their life spans are exceedingly short. Nevertheless this suggests that at any moment in time, the aggregate total mass of all of these virtual particles could turn out to be a LOT. This begs several questions... Could the aggregate total mass of all these virtual particles account for some of the dark matter detected in our universe? Better yet, has this premise already been questioned and pursued by scientists and physicists? Due to the fact that individual virtual particles exist ever-so briefly in our universe, they would NEVER EVER get the chance to clump up into physical objects like planets, stars, and such. The mass of virtual particles would just sort of suddenly hang around in certain areas of the universe and remain frustratingly undetectable. This has also let me to wonder whether r if quantum fluctuations DO vary in different areas of the universe, thus producing more virtual mass than in other areas... there would seem to be more dark matter detected in certain areas of the universe than in other areas. If so, what circumstances would produce an increase in quantum fluctuations in these areas of the universe. In conclusion, I'm speculat'in here that... state changes in various types of elements (and/or alloys) as they transition back and forth between crystalline solids and that of a liquid might also possibly account for an increase in certain kinds of quantum fluctuations, which in turn results in an increase in sub-atomic particle generation, as well as additional mass. Inquiring minds want to know. ;-) Regards Steven Vincent Johnson www.OrionWorks.com www.zazzle.com/orionworks
Re: [Vo]:Steve Krivit's initiative
Hi, On 16-6-2011 2:46, Akira Shirakawa wrote: On 2011-06-16 02:37, Alan J Fletcher wrote: The black wrapping first appeared on the vertical column the mini eCat -- see the March experiment by Kullander and Essén. It's shown partly unwrapped at http://lenr.qumbu.com/110406-c-Img+4+OUTPUT.jpg Looks like fancy duct tape. It looks quite thick to me. Couldn't it be lead-bitumen or lead sheet wrapping? Cheers, S.A. The thick black material looks like something such as armaflex (but then for hot systems) to me. This a kind of special industrial insulation material for pipes and metal bodies to prevent temperature inside it to raise or drop and respectively pick up and loose energy from/to the environment around the equipment. See also: http://www.armacell.com/www/armacell/ACwwwAttach.nsf/ansFiles/ArmaflexColdSystemsUK.pdf/$File/ArmaflexColdSystemsUK.pdf Kind regards, MoB
[Vo]:2011 Silver Gold Salons - Washington, D.C. area
See alsohttp://iambloggerhearmeroar.blogspot.com/11-11-11 Gold SalonNovember 11-13, 2011Washington, D.C.http://psci.us/gold.htmAs a follow-up to the2007 Advanced Energy Technology Colloquiumin Bethesda, Maryland, the 11-11-11 Gold Salon will present the most advanced energy technologies available for demonstration today, through live Internet feeds, pre-recorded videos, and in-person presentations.Admission is free. This will be an indoor event and broadcast live on the Internet atwww.justin.tv/psci.Funding for presenters may be available to offset travel expenses.ContactLarry Jarboeat 240-298-5253 orTodd Hathawayat 202-367-5921 for more information.2011 Silver SalonSeptember 2-5, 2011Washington, D.C.http://psci.us/silver.htmAs a follow-up to the2008 Alternative Energy Partnership Conference(AEPC) at Jarboe’s Mill in Charlotte Hall, Maryland, and the2009 AEPC Show n’ Tellat the Izaak Walton League Center in Waldorf, Maryland, the 2011 Silver Salon will present the best alternative energy technologies available for purchase through public channels. Admission is free.This will be both an indoor/outdoor event and broadcast live on the Internet atwww.justin.tv/psci.Funding for presenters may be available to offset transportation costs.ContactLarry Jarboeat 240-298-5253 orTodd Hathawayat 202-367-5921 for more information."The fear of the Lord is the beginning of wisdom: and the knowledge of the holy is understanding." ~Proverbs 9:10"These things I have spoken to you, so that in Me you may have peace. In the world you have tribulation, but take courage; I have overcome the world." ~John 16:33
Re: [Vo]:OT:Economic crisis and post-capitalism
Steven V Johnson wrote: Who all this global debt is owed to is of course the 64 quadrillion dollar question National debt has existed for a long time. When I was growing up I used to wonder why, if just about every country had a debt, they didn't simply pay each other off and then most countries would be debt free. It was only subsequently that the answer became clear - the debts are owed to our future selves. The banks loan money into existence because of the fractional reserve banking system http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fractional-reserve_banking and that is why growth is so obsessed about by economists and politicians. There can never be enough real money around to pay back current debt and so the economy has to continue expanding/growing to generate enough new real funds to pay back those past debts. The big problem that we face is that the economy can only be made to grow by yet further debt obligations being taken on - more money loaned into existence. The debt alway races ahead of our ability to pay it back. The entire world economy is a a form of Ponzi scheme. While we still had room to expand into and resources looked effectively infinite, the Ponzi scheme continued to work. Nowadays we are reaching the limits of growth - population, raw materials extraction, soil erosion, habitat destruction etc. We are almost certainly wrecking a benign climate. Standard growth of the global economy cannot continue without continuing to deteriorate the natrual systems that sustain us. If we don't grow the economy, there will be a gigantic financial crash to make the 1930s look like a wonderful time. There are no easy answers to what we need to do. Nick Palmer On the side of the Planet - and the people - because they're worth it Blogspot - Sustainability and stuff according to Nick Palmer http://nickpalmer.blogspot.com
RE: [Vo]:OT:Economic crisis and post-capitalism
It doesn't look like the burgeoning debt is going away anytime soon...seehttp://www.infowars.com/u-s-invasion-of-libya-set-for-october/Hence, the 2011 Silver Gold Salon events to move alternative techs forward in order to reduce our nation's dependence on foreign oil...yes, it's a Hail Mary pass, but it beats rocking back and forth in a corner. Other peace initiatives are also in the works - see http://psci.us/2012-2015.htm;
Re: [Vo]:Steve Krivit's initiative
Some kind of aerogel? http://www.aerogel.com/markets/industrial-hot-products.html mic Il giorno 16/giu/2011 12:00, Man on Bridges manonbrid...@aim.com ha scritto: Hi, On 16-6-2011 2:46, Akira Shirakawa wrote: On 2011-06-16 02:37, Alan J Fletcher wrote: The black wrapping first appeared on the vertical column the mini eCat -- see the March experiment by Kullander and Essén. It's shown partly unwrapped at http://lenr.qumbu.com/110406-c-Img+4+OUTPUT.jpg Looks like fancy duct tape. It looks quite thick to me. Couldn't it be lead-bitumen or lead sheet wrapping? Cheers, S.A. The thick black material looks like something such as armaflex (but then for hot systems) to me. This a kind of special industrial insulation material for pipes and metal bodies to prevent temperature inside it to raise or drop and respectively pick up and loose energy from/to the environment around the equipment. See also: http://www.armacell.com/www/armacell/ACwwwAttach.nsf/ansFiles/ArmaflexColdSystemsUK.pdf/$File/ArmaflexColdSystemsUK.pdf Kind regards, MoB
Re: [Vo]:Hot air rises, even in constant volume
Good to hear. I have been thinking since March last year. First step is to determine if Coreolis or centrifugal acceleration is the case. David On Jun 15, 2011 10:42 PM, Stephen A. Lawrence sa...@pobox.com wrote: On 11-06-15 09:03 AM, David Jonsson wrote: On Sun, Jun 12, 2011 at 10:50 PM, Stephen A. Lawrence sa...@pobox.com mailto:sa...@pobox.com wrote: But using the Newtonian mechanics model itself, if you arrive at the conclusion that the box is lighter when the ball is bouncing, you can safely conclude that you did something wrong. That's not a conclusion you can ever get to from the Newtonian model. OK, sorry, but I also later came with a correction. Lets change the setup so that the ball bounces sideways. Do you agree that it now becomes lighter? This is because the centrifugal forces. The increase and decrease does not balance to zero. Do you also agree that with the sideways bouncing ball there is also a small torque on the box, due to the same differences in centrifugal acceleration? Dunno -- I'm going to have to think about that one, and I haven't had the time to really understand it. It seemed wrong when a similar assertion was first posted (months ago) and still seems wrong to me but I haven't got a proof that it's wrong, so I could be the one who's wrong.
Re: [Vo]:Hot air rises, even in constant volume
Air baloon float because of Archimedes' principle. Pressure inside the baloon balances external pressure + baloon surface elastic force any time. So if inner temperature is high enough air density inside is lower that air density outside. pV = nRT mic 2011/6/11 David Jonsson davidjonssonswe...@gmail.com: Hi This obvious fact from hot air balloons and rising smoke is also the case in constant volume. Just do the math if you can't see what I mean. Imagine a ball on lying at rest in a box. This is equivalent of a cold gas. All pressure from the ball is on the bottom of the box. The weight of the ball is just added to the box. Now let the ball do very fast bounces up and down. The box will not weigh as much as before because the ball is also bouncing on the ceiling of the box with almost as strong impulse as it is bouncing on the bottom. The box + ball weighs less. The faster the ball moves the less time it spends between bounces and the less can it's speed change. Speed change is time multiplied with gravitational acceleration and the faster it moves the less the speed can increase and decrease between the bounces. The same must be the case for a gas. Gas is just a collection of small balls. The same must be the case if the box is removed and the gas molecules bounce against each other. Right? I have written before about this on the Internet but only for tangential motion but today I realized it must also be the case for vertical motion. In tangential motion the centrifugal acceleration increases and thus makes balls as well as gas molecules appear as having less weight. From the garden of the Stockholm Observatory, David David Jonsson, Sweden, phone callto:+46703000370
Re: [Vo]:Italian voters reject nuclear power
Terry Blanton wrote: The Japanese will be colder. Already, they have totally changed their business culture. They are wearing Hawaiian shirts and sandals to work because the air conditioning is off. I have not seen sandals, but short-sleeved shirts and no tie -- the so-called cool-biz look -- has been in vogue for several years. Even the Prime Minister sometimes appears like that, which is a little disconcerting. I notice the cops and body guards hovering in the background wear neckties. In small towns on the Inland Sea local officials and even Post Office employees have been wearing aloha shirts in summer for several years now. Partly an effort to sell these places as tourist destinations, I think. Mostly because it is sub-tropical, and it never made any sense for people to wear European clothing. The governor of Okinawa has been wearing native shirts lately. - Jed
[Vo]:Momentum Energy Conservation Entropy End-Run
Momentum Energy Conservation Entropy End-Run Conservation Principles assume a closed system. One can view the Quantum Flux as a high-potential energy reservoir when it introduces a virtual photon; it can be viewed as a low energy reservoir when it removes a higher-entropy virtual photon after it has done work, (which happens all of the time anyway!) From our standpoint it is as though it is reversing entropy; although, perhaps the Quantum Flux in some global sense is in fact increasing in entropy.Actually, no device consumes energy, since no energy can be made (by us) or destroyed; really, devices run on changes in entropy. Plants and animals locally decrease entropy, at the expense of increasing entropy, globally.ScottFrom: aethe...@gmail.com From: aethe...@gmail.com Date: Thu, 16 Jun 2011 21:27:36 +1200 Subject: Re: [Vo]:mass-energy of virtual photons in our universe To: vortex-l@eskimo.com If light exerted a negative pressure on certain materials you would have a violation of the laws of motion and with it the conservation of energy as you could make a device that produces thrust from emitting and reabsorbing the same light. On Thu, Jun 16, 2011 at 7:19 AM, Wm. Scott Smith scott...@hotmail.com wrote: Just calculating the energy density of a single wavelength appears to give us infinite mass-energy at a point as the particle size approaches zero. John Wheeler pointed out that one cannot physically go smaller than the planck length for a wavelength size, because the Universe would collapse into a giant black hole at these neutron-star type mass-energy densities. Cosmologically speaking, others worry that allowing wavelengths that are quite a bit larger than that would make the universe expand out of control. Now I don't know if somehow these two considerations balance each other out. All I know is that ZPE proponents have argued that very small wavelengths exist, but are somehow gravitationally neutral or that their Gravitational attraction wears out as we consider ever-smaller sizes. I have heard that around the size where the em wavelengths are strong enough to explain the Strong Nuclear Force, is about where a runaway inflation of the Universe is no longer a concern. Personally, I don't think that runaway inflation is a problem to this model, because I think that gravity is caused by these smaller wavelengths. Recent papers in advanced optical theory have calculated that ordinary light can exert a negative pressure on certain materials. Perhaps the reverse could also be true: that some kinds of light can exert negative pressure on ordinary matter. At this level of consideration, one would have to think of Energy, momentum, inertia and gravity as forces that are informing matter where to go and how fast. Scott Date: Wed, 15 Jun 2011 13:37:46 Scott0500 From: svj.orionwo...@gmail.com To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: [Vo]:What is the aggregate mass of virtual particles in our universe These are follow-up questions, and the questions posed are very much related to my previous subject thread: A Third Way. It's my understanding that certain types of subatomic virtual particles possess mass, such as fermions, electrons, positrons, etc... It's also my understanding virtual particles are no different than real particles - only that their existence in our universe is fleeting. Nevertheless, I gather there are circumstances (which includes special experiments that have been conducted) where the fleeting nature of virtual particles can be disentangled in such a manner that causes their fundamental nature to become permanent in our universe. I could be wrong on this point but I get the impression that the universe as it, how shall I put it... -quantum fluctuates- produces a LOT of virtual particles, this despite the fact that individually speaking their life spans are exceedingly short. Nevertheless this suggests that at any moment in time, the aggregate total mass of all of these virtual particles could turn out to be a LOT. This begs several questions... Could the aggregate total mass of all these virtual particles account for some of the dark matter detected in our universe? Better yet, has this premise already been questioned and pursued by scientists and physicists? Due to the fact that individual virtual particles exist ever-so briefly in our universe, they would NEVER EVER get the chance to clump up into physical objects like planets, stars, and such. The mass of virtual particles would just sort of suddenly hang around in certain areas of the universe and remain frustratingly undetectable. This has also let me to wonder whether r if quantum fluctuations DO vary in different areas of the universe, thus producing more virtual mass than in other areas... there would seem to be more dark matter detected in certain areas of the universe than in other areas. If so, what circumstances would
Re: [Vo]:2011 Silver Gold Salons - Washington, D.C. area
WTF?!? On Thu, Jun 16, 2011 at 7:44 AM, t...@wonksmedia.com wrote: See also http://iambloggerhearmeroar.blogspot.com/ 11-11-11 Gold Salon November 11-13, 2011 Washington, D.C. http://psci.us/gold.htm As a follow-up to the 2007 Advanced Energy Technology Colloquium in Bethesda, Maryland, the 11-11-11 Gold Salon will present the most advanced energy technologies available for demonstration today, through live Internet feeds, pre-recorded videos, and in-person presentations. Admission is free. This will be an indoor event and broadcast live on the Internet at www.justin.tv/psci. Funding for presenters may be available to offset travel expenses. Contact Larry Jarboe at 240-298-5253 or Todd Hathaway at 202-367-5921 for more information. 2011 Silver Salon September 2-5, 2011 Washington, D.C. http://psci.us/silver.htm As a follow-up to the 2008 Alternative Energy Partnership Conference (AEPC) at Jarboe’s Mill in Charlotte Hall, Maryland, and the 2009 AEPC Show n’ Tell at the Izaak Walton League Center in Waldorf, Maryland, the 2011 Silver Salon will present the best alternative energy technologies available for purchase through public channels. Admission is free. This will be both an indoor/outdoor event and broadcast live on the Internet at www.justin.tv/psci. Funding for presenters may be available to offset transportation costs. Contact Larry Jarboe at 240-298-5253 or Todd Hathaway at 202-367-5921 for more information. The fear of the Lord is the beginning of wisdom: and the knowledge of the holy is understanding. ~Proverbs 9:10 These things I have spoken to you, so that in Me you may have peace. In the world you have tribulation, but take courage; I have overcome the world. ~John 16:33
Re: [Vo]:2011 Silver Gold Salons - Washington, D.C. area
This is awesome stuff to see catching more momentum. The Alternative Energy SHowTell has been organized a couple of years already, and now with the Bedini Renaissance Charge conference and this and the usual stuff (Extraordinary Technology Conference) - things be heating up :) On Thu, Jun 16, 2011 at 5:30 PM, Terry Blanton hohlr...@gmail.com wrote: WTF?!? On Thu, Jun 16, 2011 at 7:44 AM, t...@wonksmedia.com wrote: See also http://iambloggerhearmeroar.blogspot.com/ 11-11-11 Gold Salon November 11-13, 2011 Washington, D.C. http://psci.us/gold.htm As a follow-up to the 2007 Advanced Energy Technology Colloquium in Bethesda, Maryland, the 11-11-11 Gold Salon will present the most advanced energy technologies available for demonstration today, through live Internet feeds, pre-recorded videos, and in-person presentations. Admission is free. This will be an indoor event and broadcast live on the Internet at www.justin.tv/psci. Funding for presenters may be available to offset travel expenses. Contact Larry Jarboe at 240-298-5253 or Todd Hathaway at 202-367-5921 for more information. 2011 Silver Salon September 2-5, 2011 Washington, D.C. http://psci.us/silver.htm As a follow-up to the 2008 Alternative Energy Partnership Conference (AEPC) at Jarboe’s Mill in Charlotte Hall, Maryland, and the 2009 AEPC Show n’ Tell at the Izaak Walton League Center in Waldorf, Maryland, the 2011 Silver Salon will present the best alternative energy technologies available for purchase through public channels. Admission is free. This will be both an indoor/outdoor event and broadcast live on the Internet at www.justin.tv/psci. Funding for presenters may be available to offset transportation costs. Contact Larry Jarboe at 240-298-5253 or Todd Hathaway at 202-367-5921 for more information. The fear of the Lord is the beginning of wisdom: and the knowledge of the holy is understanding. ~Proverbs 9:10 These things I have spoken to you, so that in Me you may have peace. In the world you have tribulation, but take courage; I have overcome the world. ~John 16:33
Re: [Vo]:The irony if Pd turns out to be suboptimal
Alan J Fletcher a...@well.com wrote: I recently collected some obsidian .. and cut my hand while doing so. It's reportedly still used for ultra-sharp scalpels. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Obsidian As much as I hate to admit there is something of value on Wikipedia, that article has a fascinating detail: Obsidian has been used for blades in surgery, as well-crafted obsidian blades have a cutting edge many times sharper than high-quality steel surgical scalpels, the cutting edge of the blade being only about 3 nano meters thick. Even the sharpest metal knife has a jagged, irregular blade when viewed under a strong enough microscope; when examined even under an electron microscope an obsidian blade is still smooth and even. So here is a stone-age technology with a pronounced advantage over the best modern technology. Wow! - Jed
Re: [Vo]:Steve Krivit's initiative
Abd ul-Rahman Lomax a...@lomaxdesign.com wrote: Krivit's previous blog entry is a doozy: http://blog.newenergytimes.**com/2011/06/06/cold-fusion-** may-ye-rest-in-peace/http://blog.newenergytimes.com/2011/06/06/cold-fusion-may-ye-rest-in-peace/ http://**blog.newenergytimes.com/2011/**06/06/cold-fusion-may-ye-rest-** in-peace/http://blog.newenergytimes.com/2011/06/06/cold-fusion-may-ye-rest-in-peace/ He's nuts on this. There is some ambiguity in the term fusion, a confusion between process and result. This is even nuttier than usual. Krivit wrote: 'Cold fusion' was a metaphor for a utopian dream: clean, inexpensive, universally available, virtually unlimited energy from water. It is not a metaphor; it is a fact. This is like saying that the atomic bomb was a metaphor for killing hundreds of thousands of people in Hiroshima. The concept of 'cold fusion' inspired hope for a greener planet, local energy production, freedom from the shackles of the petrocracy and, among other benevolent ideals, world peace. My first book, The Rebirth of Cold Fusion: Real Science, Real Hope, Real Energy, espoused this perspective. Why would any of this be nullified by the W-L theory, or if Mills is right? Theory has nothing to do with these predictions. For many years, proponents claimed 'cold fusion' as a nuclear process that emulated thermonuclear fusion at room temperature. LENR is nuclear, but it looks nothing like fusion. Unless it *is* fusion, in which case it looks like a different kind of fusion. He mean it looks nothing like plasma fusion, which is a different assertion. Not even cold fusion proponents propose that light-hydrogen nuclei fuse with each other at room temperature. Of course they do! Why wouldn't they? It is not that much more a stretch than deuterons fusing. Chubb’s last words to me about our ideological disagreement revolved around the absence of experimental evidence for the theory of 'cold fusion.' This followed my revelation of the data manipulation and fabrication by electrochemist Michael McKubre. This is nuts. Completely around the bend. This revelation exists in Krivit's own mind only. As I said, this is a doozy. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:Steve Krivit's initiative
On 2011-06-15 00:47, Akira Shirakawa wrote: A week of news is incoming, apparently: http://22passi.blogspot.com/2011/06/e-cat-settimana-di-novita-in-arrivo.html A couple more photos from the latest blogpost there: Short link: http://goo.gl/x50lj http://translate.google.com/translate?js=nprev=_thl=enie=UTF-8layout=2eotf=1sl=ittl=enu=http%3A%2F%2F22passi.blogspot.com%2F2011%2F06%2Fquattro-gatti-e-sette-persone-2.html Cheers, S.A.
Re: [Vo]:The irony if Pd turns out to be suboptimal
At 03:45 PM 6/16/2011, Jed Rothwell wrote: Alan J Fletcher mailto:a...@well.coma...@well.com wrote: I recently collected some obsidian .. and cut my hand while doing so. It's reportedly still used for ultra-sharp scalpels. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Obsidianhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Obsidian As much as I hate to admit there is something of value on Wikipedia, that article has a fascinating detail: Obsidian has been used for blades in surgery, as well-crafted obsidian blades have a cutting edge many times sharper than high-quality steel surgical scalpels, the cutting edge of the blade being only about 3 nano meters thick. Even the sharpest metal knife has a jagged, irregular blade when viewed under a strong enough microscope; when examined even under an electron microscope an obsidian blade is still smooth and even. So here is a stone-age technology with a pronounced advantage over the best modern technology. Wow! Wikipedia is great for certain kinds of things. If there is no serious controversy, articles tend to improve over time. When there is controversy, though, Wikipedia supposedly has a neutrality policy, but they never figured out how to find true neutrality, instead they decided to ban POV-pushers. I.e., one side or sometimes both sides. Where one side engages a faction of editors, Wikipedia becomes hopeless, as you know. As few as two or three can wreak havoc. When there are two dozen -- for prespective, there are about 1800 administrators and the active core is a few hundred editors and administrators, but many thousands are reasonably active -- it's nearly impossible for Wikipedia to even recognize the problem, because it typically takes expertise to understand bias, other than the use of peacock words, which is pretty simple. And experts get banned first, since experts have a strong point of view and a tendency to dismiss others as ignorant of their field, because ... they are! Instead of recognizing the problem and providing support for experts (which would include expecting civility, by the way), Wikipedia took the easy way out: just ban troublemakers. On controversial articles, that would mean anyone whose position is perceived as being fringe or minority. And there goes neutrality, right out the door. I was just going over the Cold fusion article, and the text about rejection by most scientists and pathological science. While I know the text in the article to be more-or-less true, on this point, it hardly tells the whole story, and, much to my surprise, the sources cited completely fail to support the text. The most scientists phrase was sourced to a report of the 1989 APS catastrophe, and doesn't support scientists. It was about most who attended that meeting, mostly physicists. Pathological science wasn't mentioned, and, later in the article, Morrison was supposedly the first to term cold fusion pathological science. Might be true, but it's completely missing from the source. http://www.ibiblio.org/pub/academic/physics/Cold-fusion/vince-cate/aps.ascii Very sloppy, indeed. Weak sources (that source is truly weak: who was the author?) are used to make claims that aren't even supported by the source cited! And then strong sources, in peer-reviewed mainstream journals, are rejected as fringe, based on ... editor point-of-view, I'm sure. Not the Wikipedia guidelines and standards which, as far as they go, are pretty decent. That, in fact, misleads many, who expect that the policies and guidelines will be enforced. No, they aren't, they are routinely flouted by those with political clout on the project.
RE: [Vo]:Steve Krivit's initiative
-Original Message- From: Akira Shirakawa A couple more photos from the latest blogpost there: Short link: http://goo.gl/x50lj Well, the pessimists amongst us will opine that this is looking worse and worse as an decent energy solution, especially compared to solar or wind. Most troubling, it is not living up to the guaranteed COP 8 at least not in this testing. Funny how Matts glosses over that fact. Why can they not get a decent engineer involved ? The device is drawing 800 watts electrical and producing 2.5 kW heat with an investment of $5000 and a lifetime before refueling of 5000 hours. This makes the cost of low grade heat about triple the cost of solar electricity (or much more), if you extrapolate everything according to the guarantee. Jones
Re: [Vo]:Steve Krivit's initiative
On 2011-06-16 22:53, Jones Beene wrote: [...] The device is drawing 800 watts electrical and producing 2.5 kW heat with an investment of $5000 and a lifetime before refueling of 5000 hours. This makes the cost of low grade heat about triple the cost of solar electricity (or much more), if you extrapolate everything according to the guarantee. According to one of the comments below, it seems that more than one device was active during the test (there is mention of two Energy Catalyzers connected in series or possibly more, though I have been unable to find a reference for this), thereby justifying the increased power draw. I hope Passerini will elaborate on this later. Cheers, S.A.
Re: [Vo]:Steve Krivit's initiative
On the meter you read 3.5A so electrical input power is: 3.5A x 230 V 800W mic 2011/6/16 Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com: Jones Beene wrote: Well, the pessimists amongst us will opine that this is looking worse and worse as an decent energy solution, especially compared to solar or wind. Most troubling, it is not living up to the guaranteed COP8 at least not in this testing. Funny how Matts glosses over that fact. Why can they not get a decent engineer involved ? Jones: I don't follow what is being said here. I am having difficulty understanding the Google-translation. Can you briefly summarize what Daniel said did here, and why you draw these conclusions? I see from the photo it has to do with a meter but I can't follow. The comments below are even harder to understand. - Jed
RE: [Vo]:Steve Krivit's initiative
Well, aside from the issue of whether or not this is AC, in which case the RMS would be lower - we should await more data and clarification - especially if there is the possibility that this is electrical input is powering more than one E-Cat. -Original Message- From: Michele Comitini On the meter you read 3.5A so electrical input power is: 3.5A x 230 V 800W mic 2011/6/16 Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com: Jones Beene wrote: Well, the pessimists amongst us will opine that this is looking worse and worse as an decent energy solution, especially compared to solar or wind. Most troubling, it is not living up to the guaranteed COP8 at least not in this testing. Funny how Matts glosses over that fact. Why can they not get a decent engineer involved ? Jones: I don't follow what is being said here. I am having difficulty understanding the Google-translation. Can you briefly summarize what Daniel said did here, and why you draw these conclusions? I see from the photo it has to do with a meter but I can't follow. The comments below are even harder to understand. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:Steve Krivit's initiative
On 2011-06-16 23:00, Jed Rothwell wrote: Jones: I don't follow what is being said here. I am having difficulty understanding the Google-translation. Can you briefly summarize what Daniel said did here, and why you draw these conclusions? I see from the photo it has to do with a meter but I can't follow. The comments below are even harder to understand. A quick-ish human translation: * * * Last Tuesday in Bologna, by request of Mats Lewan, I documented with my Nikon [photocamera] the electric current measurements with a current probe on every power supply cable conductor - brown (live), blue (neutral) yellow-green (ground) - while the E-Cat was running. I would like to remember that the usual ones who give good suggestions as if they were Jesus on Earth admonished Mats for not doing the same check himself during the Ny Teknik April tests; because according to the most evil-minded ones, obviously, in the ground cable there was a Flash Gordon ray justifying the E-Cat energy surplus! I never tire of telling that this is not a scientific blog. In fact, of the 8 exams of Engineering I took 25 years ago - before continuing classical studies - I don't remember anything, except for the basis. I only have the luck to be a friend of a good physicist [Levi], who is himself appreciated by a professor emeritus [Focardi], who is himself consultant of the inventor of the Energy Catalyzer [Rossi]. Therefore, I leave further comments to these photos to those who have a solid scientific background. * * * Cheers, S.A.
Re: [Vo]:Steve Krivit's initiative
Akira Shirakawa wrote: A quick-ish human translation: * * * Last Tuesday in Bologna, by request of Mats Lewan, I documented with my Nikon [photocamera] the electric current measurements with a current probe on every power supply cable conductor - brown (live), blue (neutral) yellow-green (ground) - while the E-Cat was running. Ah, thanks. So the problem here is not what what Daniel said, but rather what the meter itself shows. As Jones Beene just added, we do not even know what this meter is connected to. It may be the power supplies to more than one eCat. Maybe it is connected to that large blue box of control electronics. That looks to me like a multiplexed box capable of controlling many eCats. I suppose it has a lot of overhead. So this high power input is a concern but we cannot draw a firm conclusion from it yet. Do I have that right? - Jed
Re: [Vo]:Steve Krivit's initiative
At 03:56 PM 6/16/2011, Jed Rothwell wrote: Abd ul-Rahman Lomax mailto:a...@lomaxdesign.coma...@lomaxdesign.com wrote: Krivit's previous blog entry is a doozy: http://blog.newenergytimes.com/2011/06/06/cold-fusion-may-ye-rest-in-peace/http://blog.newenergytimes.com/2011/06/06/cold-fusion-may-ye-rest-in-peace/http://blog.newenergytimes.com/2011/06/06/cold-fusion-may-ye-rest-in-peace/ He's nuts on this. There is some ambiguity in the term fusion, a confusion between process and result. This is even nuttier than usual. Disagree. It's usual. Krivit wrote: 'Cold fusion' was a metaphor for a utopian dream: clean, inexpensive, universally available, virtually unlimited energy from water. It is not a metaphor; it is a fact. This is like saying that the atomic bomb was a metaphor for killing hundreds of thousands of people in Hiroshima. Well, the dream is a fact, i.e., there is that dream. We don't have that energy from cold fusion yet, nor from any form of LENR. What Krivit does is to claim that neutron activation, under the special conditions W-L propose, isn't fusion, based on a pedantic distinction. In my book, if you take deuterium and make it into two neutrons by adding an electron, then insert this into a nucleus, which then spits out the electron, you have just accomplished fusion of deuterium with that nucleus, by neutralizing it with that original electron. It's fusion even before the electron is ejected. Adding an electron is a possible way to accomplish fusion. There are others. And we don't know which one is active, and it's possible that more than one is active. The concept of 'cold fusion' inspired hope for a greener planet, local energy production, freedom from the shackles of the petrocracy and, among other benevolent ideals, world peace. My first book, The Rebirth of Cold Fusion: Real Science, Real Hope, Real Energy, espoused this perspective. Somehow I think that the hope of world peace is a tad thin. Maybe, if there is less to fight over. And maybe not. I suspect that people will still find things to fight over, such as the definition of fusion. Maybe we should run the W-L people out of town on a rail, or tar and feather them. How does that sound? Game? My disappointment is that a man who thought of himself as a hard-hitting investigative journalist became a shill for one side of a dispute. However, isn't this what he originally did with cold fusion itself? He acknowledges being influenced by PhDs. Methinks that Krivit had a preference for PhDs with erratic views, the underdog, so to speak. I can understand that, but it's dangerous, and makes for poor investigative journalism. Sometimes the majority is right! (Usually, actually, but the exceptions can be doozies!) Why would any of this be nullified by the W-L theory, or if Mills is right? Theory has nothing to do with these predictions. Right. Cold fusion was very difficult to replicate, and for the same reason, commercial applications were even more difficult. That, however, simply sets the challenge. I saw, at the LANR conference, designs being proposed for LENR reactors, when we don't know nearly enough about sustaining these reactions to have a clue how to design them yet. Rossi, if this isn't fraud, did his homework well, and it's not about superior theory, as far as I can tell, but, again, we need to know more. I found this remarkable quote from the soul who wrote the report of that APS meeting in 1989: Jones' data were challenged by Morrison of CERN, who said Jones had overstated the statistical significance of his data. This summarizes the most optimistic outcome of the entire session. Whether it's 2 or 5.7 standard deviations, if it is reproducible then it does seem to indicate SOMETHING, perhaps cold fusion, is possible in metals, though at an extremely low rate. One other speaker mentioned the possibility of looking for the K-alpha x-ray emission from Pd as a signal of fusion.Most of the other papers represent essentially gloomy forecasts on the whole predicament. It may be time for most people to sit back and let Los Alamos (with Pons' collaboration) either reproduce or repudiate the FP results. On the other hand it's possible, even if FP are wrong (and it sure looks that way), that some good will have come out of all this: people may be inspired now to look in completely new directions.After all, some of the possible ideas (boson condensation, screening, etc.) that have been touted to explain this cold fusion in a metal do not sound so terribly off base. And there still are the Jones' results to contend with.Perhaps now research will proceed via the responsible scientific approach. Whoever wrote that
Re: [Vo]:Steve Krivit's initiative
On 2011-06-16 23:41, Jed Rothwell wrote: [...] So this high power input is a concern but we cannot draw a firm conclusion from it yet. Do I have that right? Yes, basically the point is that the meter shows a high power draw (~800 W) compared to last time (~350 W, see the April reports by Ny Teknik/Mats Lewan for more detailed info) which could mean, as suspected by some, that more than one E-Cat was running during the test or that for some reason a single device now requires more power (and if the output power is still ~2.5 kW, that the coefficient of performance is now lower than 6 - the bare minimum that Rossi supposedly will guarantee for production units, as he stated several times). Cheers, S.A.
Re: [Vo]:Steve Krivit's initiative
On 2011-06-16 23:53, Akira Shirakawa wrote: Yes, basically the point is that... Passerini just added a clarifying note in the comments: - Only one E-Cat was being tested - Rossi was testing special settings which could have determined the increased power consumption. Reportedly, during electric current measurements the red LED on the right was set to 9, but during the test got often lowered to 5. At 5 - Passerini supposes - the reaction was unstable, with the output temperature warbling (more often up than down), while at 9 output temperature was more or less constant. Cheers, S.A.
Re: [Vo]:The irony if Pd turns out to be suboptimal
Hi, On 16-6-2011 22:50, Abd ul-Rahman Lomax wrote: Wikipedia is great for certain kinds of things. If there is no serious controversy, articles tend to improve over time. When there is controversy, though, Wikipedia supposedly has a neutrality policy, but they never figured out how to find true neutrality, instead they decided to ban POV-pushers. I.e., one side or sometimes both sides. Where one side engages a faction of editors, Wikipedia becomes hopeless, as you know. As few as two or three can wreak havoc. When there are two dozen -- for prespective, there are about 1800 administrators and the active core is a few hundred editors and administrators, but many thousands are reasonably active -- it's nearly impossible for Wikipedia to even recognize the problem, because it typically takes expertise to understand bias, other than the use of peacock words, which is pretty simple. And experts get banned first, since experts have a strong point of view and a tendency to dismiss others as ignorant of their field, because ... they are! Instead of recognizing the problem and providing support for experts (which would include expecting civility, by the way), Wikipedia took the easy way out: just ban troublemakers. On controversial articles, that would mean anyone whose position is perceived as being fringe or minority. And there goes neutrality, right out the door. Hear, hear ... I fully agree with thou. Just a thought, as Wikipedia seems not to be able (or isn't willing) to solve this problem, what about setting up a website with so-called green- and red-lists for wikipedia subjects that are respectively not and are biased by administrators just as a tool to help everybody so it is known which subjects should be treated with a grain of salt. Naturally input for these lists should be provided by REAL experts that are proven to be an active expert in that particular area; in my book that means that someone who is working in the field of hot-fusion is most-likely NOT an expert in the cold-fusion or LENR or CANR area! Kind regards, MoB
RE: [Vo]:Steve Krivit's initiative
At 04:53 PM 6/16/2011, Jones Beene wrote: The device is drawing 800 watts electrical and producing 2.5 kW heat with an investment of $5000 and a lifetime before refueling of 5000 hours. This makes the cost of low grade heat about triple the cost of solar electricity (or much more), if you extrapolate everything according to the guarantee. They are claiming very low refueling costs, so it isn't nearly as bad as it looks. Unless those low cost claims go south also!
[Vo]:E-Cat: mass loss
If i'm right: During 6 months of operation at 10kW, 43200kWh are produced. As E=mc^2, there should be a loss of 1.7mg reactive mass, which should be measurable. It would be interesting if Mr. Rossi et al did that kind of measurement. --- Powered by http://www.init7.net
[Vo]:Defkalion press conference to be held on 2011-06-23
Hello group, Have a look here: http://goo.gl/Q348o http://22passi.blogspot.com/2011/06/press-conferece-defkalion-il-230611.html Daniele Passerini (22passi) received today an invitation for a Defkalion press conference, to be held on June 23rd. Unfortunately for him (and for us too) he won't be able to attend, so we will have to rely on other sources for detailed information, although I expect Defkalion to provide it to the public in a timely manner. This is the content of the email he received, as reported on his blog: * * * * * * Press Conference Invitation GREECE's ANSWER TO THE INTERNATIONAL CRISIS HYDROGEN NICKEL EXOTHERMIC REACTION CHEAP, CLEAN GREEN ENERGY Thursday 23rd June, 2011 @ 14:30 Municipality of Palaio Faliro Terpsihoris 51 Artemidos Today, there is great pessimism regarding the future energy needs of our planet. Energy will soon become universally cheap, clean and readily usable. Andrea Rossi and Sergio Focardi have discovered and patented a technology that will change the world’s energy field. This technology will be made commercially available by Defkalion Green Technologies s.a., a Greek company. By combining Hydrogen and Nickel to create an exothermic reaction (at room temperatures and in a device that can be safely placed in households and also industry) heat is emitted on a 24-hour basis. This energy is produced at a fraction of the cost in comparison to currently available energy sources, it is clean and totally green. Furthermore, using conventional, readily available third-party technologies, the heat can also be used to produce electricity. Defkalion Green Technologies s.a. has secured exclusive distribution rights for the entire world, except for the USA and military applications. It will start production and first distribution of its products from its factory in Xanthi for the Greek and Balkan markets, initially. Two more factories are scheduled within 2012. International sales are already strong in demand, which will spur exports. Suffice to say, that Greece possesses 83% of Europe’s Nickel deposits, a key strategic consideration. Furthermore, at this time of the global financial crisis, Greece is faced with a golden opportunity to become energy self-sufficient, gain in employment in one of its most underdeveloped regions, as well as become a technological leader in this new scientific field. The press conference will comprise of undisclosed to-date information relating the technology’s commercial and industrial applications, the company’s strategic placements, as well as commercial issues that are of interest not only to Defkalion’s future customers, but also to the political society of our country. It goes without saying that such an important development also possesses a strong international dimension in many aspects. Sincerely, Defkalion Green Technologies s.a. 2-4 Messogeion Ave., Athens Tower, Bldg A. 18th floor, Athens, 11527, Greece T: +30-210-7770602 * i...@defkalion-energy.com * F: +30-210-777060 * * * * * * Cheers, S.A.
Re: [Vo]:Defkalion press conference to be held on 2011-06-23
I guess they got their safety certification from the Greek government. Not a moment too soon for the Greeks! T
Re: [Vo]:Steve Krivit's initiative
On 2011-06-14 08:20, Peter Gluck wrote: My friend Steve Krivit is in Italy investigating the E-cat http://blog.newenergytimes.com/2011/06/14/solving-the-mystery-of-the-energy-catalzyer/ The E-cat has more unknowns, hopefully after Steve's visit their number will be smaller Krivit posted a preliminary report here a while ago: Short URL: http://goo.gl/7jVM6 http://blog.newenergytimes.com/2011/06/16/preliminary-report-of-interviews-with-e-cat-trio-rossi-focardi-and-levi/ He doesn't sound very enthusiastic. My impression is that he's become quite skeptical after his trip to Italy. Cheers, S.A.
RE: [Vo]:E-Cat: mass loss
If specifics are available on this tech, we could coordinate with the Italian Embassy here in D.C. to showcase this tech at either the Silver or Gold Salon this fall, as we haven't firmed up the location yet, so it would only make sense to focus one or both events are a 'silver bullet' technology such as E-cat...comments/suggestions welcome, as PSCI-NET is a loose-knit network of folks, just like vortex-l. Original Message Subject: [Vo]:E-Cat: mass loss From: "Beinsen Kurt" 5...@paranoya.ch During 6 months of operation at 10kW, 43200kWh are "produced". As E=mc^2, there should be a loss of 1.7mg reactive mass, which should be measurable.
Re: [Vo]:E-Cat: mass loss
Beinsen Kurt 5...@paranoya.ch wrote: If i'm right: During 6 months of operation at 10kW, 43200kWh are produced. As E=mc^2, there should be a loss of 1.7mg reactive mass, which should be measurable. It would be interesting if Mr. Rossi et al did that kind of measurement. Given the nature of this equipment, and the amount of hydrogen that must leak out of those pipes, it would be impossible to measure a change of 1.7 mg. Over 6 months, I am sure the machine loses far more than that from leaking hydrogen. I expect it picks up far more than than from dust settling on the machine, solids from water (scale) sticking to the insides and pipes, and many other sources. This is a dirty, industrial-scale machine. To measure a change in mass at milligram level you would need clean equipment, ultrapurified water, Swagelok connectors and other laboratory grade equipment. Even with that it would not be easy. One problem is that laboratory grade equipment generally works with small effects, and small samples. When I was a child I visited the National Bur. of Standards (now NIST) and saw them stress testing samples of concrete. There was a sample no bigger than your fist, and from that they could extrapolate that the Bonneville Dam might collapse. I was impressed. I saw that the scale of the test does not matter; the data tells the story. You would be surprised how many skeptics never learned that lesson, including some distinguished scientists. Some of them dismiss the results from Energetics Technologies because they are only 20 W. Only?!? There is barely any input, or no input. It is no less convincing than 20 MW would be. The problem with those results, and all results before Rossi, was control and reproducibility, not scale. Scale should not matter to a scientist or engineer. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:Steve Krivit's initiative
Oh, oh... what is the water flow? How is the hose draped from device to sink? What are the heights of the device water output and the edge of the sink? How much water might be in the 3 m black hose that wasn't in the end that was lifted above the sink and drained? Seems necessary to have a transparent hose... I feel sad, resigned... Steven B. Krivit deserves credit for focused, careful scientific investigation. Rich http://blog.newenergytimes.com/2011/06/16/preliminary-report-of-interviews-with-e-cat-trio-rossi-focardi-and-levi/ Solving the Mystery of the Energy Catalzyer Preliminary Report of Interviews with E-Cat Trio Rossi, Focardi and Levi, Posted on June 16, 2011 by Steven B. Krivit Bologna, Italia -- Here is a quick status report of my visit to Andrea Rossi’s showroom on Tuesday afternoon and Wednesday to look at his invention which he calls the Energy Catalyzer. In addition to Rossi, I also came to speak with Sergio Focardi, professor emeritus from the University of Bologna, and Giuseppe Levi, a current member of the University of Bologna department of physics. All three have been actively involved in the experiments and promotion of the E-Cat. I arrived at the address Dell’Elettricista 6-C, Zona Industriale Roveri on Tuesday at noon. 6-C is one of the suites in a single story building that houses a variety of light industrial companies. The name shown for suite 6-C is Filli Rossi Pneumatica, which translates to Rossi Brothers Tires. In March, Swedish professors Hanno Essen and Sven Kullander, who came to see the E-Cat, wrote in their travel report that this was a “Leonardo Corporation” building, but there was nothing visible to indicate that. The large bay door of suite 6-C was open and I saw lots of equipment and a few men inside working. I asked a man for Andrea Rossi and he brought me back outside and around to the back of the building. I entered a large room, approximately 7,500 square feet in size. Nothing was installed in it and electrical power came into the room from an extension cable. Except for a few dozen folding chairs, a few tables, and a small portable coffee machine (essential in Italy,) the room was barren. Adjacent to this large room were two smaller rooms. One was a bathroom and next to that, in a room about 80 square feet in size, Rossi’s E-Cat sat on a small table. Two large tanks of hydrogen stood next to it. I observed and filmed the E-Cat in operation though there was not that much to see. I also recorded several hours of videotaped interviews of Rossi, Focardi and Levi. Details of my investigation, travel report and production of my videos will take a few weeks to complete. The primary validity of the E-Cat trio’s dramatic energy claim is highly contingent on and derived from the heat output which they calculate indirectly from a claimed full or near-full vaporization of 100-degree water to steam. Complete vaporization of 100-degree water into steam requires the complete absence of suspended water droplets in steam. The water droplets suspended in the steam may be measured on a volumetric, or possibly, on a mass basis. The difference is crucial, because a measurement by mass has a linear effect on the output enthalpy, and a measurement by volume has more of an exponential effect. Volumetrically, a mere five percent of water in steam reduces the vaporization enthalpy to a trivial level. Even one percent of water in the steam will make a major reduction in the Rossi-Focardi-Levi claims. My full report will include a detailed assessment of their methodology, and, as much as they will provide, their data. The steam and/or water that comes immediately out of the E-Cat is hidden from sight because the outlet from the E-Cat goes directly to a three-meter black rubber hose, which then feeds into a drain in the plumbing system. On my request Tuesday, Rossi removed the hose from the drain. Before doing so, he carefully lifted the last meter of the hose above the height of the drain, allowed any water in it to flow down the drain for a few seconds, and then removed the hose from the drain, keeping the open end pointed up. I could see some white steam slowly exiting from the hose. He said he had to put it back in the drain quickly, after a few seconds, otherwise it could be dangerous. Thus far, the scientific details provided by the E-Cat trio have been highly deficient and have not enabled the public to make an objective evaluation. The Essen-Kullander report, while written with confident-sounding language, has significant weakness in its presentation of data and calculations and is highly constrained by the methodology dictated and instrumentation provided by the E-Cat trio. I discussed the crucial difference in steam enthalpy calculations by mass versus by volume with Levi on Wednesday afternoon. Based on his initial response, I could not be sure if he had previously understood the potential impact. By the end of our conversation, after I showed him my
[Vo]:New Italian video on CF.
New video in italian with some historical excerpts in english. Harry Low Energy Nuclear Revolution http://vimeo.com/25150844 by Giacomo Guidi 1 day ago1 day ago: Wed, Jun 15, 2011 3:24pm EST (Eastern Standard Time) Un ingegnere e uno scienziato presentano al pubblico un controverso apparecchio. Si tratta di un reattore che sembra funzionare tramite una reazione nucleare a bassa energia.
Re: [Vo]:Steve Krivit's initiative
At 08:46 PM 6/16/2011, Akira Shirakawa wrote: Krivit posted a preliminary report here a while ago: Short URL: http://goo.gl/7jVM6 http://blog.newenergytimes.com/2011/06/16/preliminary-report-of-interviews-with-e-cat-trio-rossi-focardi-and-levi/ He doesn't sound very enthusiastic. My impression is that he's become quite skeptical after his trip to Italy. I'd say, so far, so good. Let's hope he gets some decent answers.
Re: [Vo]:The irony if Pd turns out to be suboptimal
At 06:24 PM 6/16/2011, Man on Bridges wrote: Just a thought, as Wikipedia seems not to be able (or isn't willing) to solve this problem, what about setting up a website with so-called green- and red-lists for wikipedia subjects that are respectively not and are biased by administrators just as a tool to help everybody so it is known which subjects should be treated with a grain of salt. Naturally input for these lists should be provided by REAL experts that are proven to be an active expert in that particular area; in my book that means that someone who is working in the field of hot-fusion is most-likely NOT an expert in the cold-fusion or LENR or CANR area! Well, several thoughts. Citizendium was supposedly founded to respect expert opinion, but it had difficulty with critical mass. It's still stumbling along. Some people think that Wikiversity, which is another WikiMedia Foundation wiki like Wikipedia, is the shining hope. Maybe. I'm active there. Expertise is respected. It's not an encyclopedia, it's much more an academic environment, though with a pop edge. You really can create educational resources there, and neutrality is handled by inclusion, rather than exclusions. Subpages are allowed, and what would be prohibited on Wiipedia, as an encyclopedia, is encouraged there: content forks. If two people can't agree on a page, why, let each one create one. The agreement only has to be on how they are linked from the top level of the hierarchy. Original research is allowed on Wikiversity, just as it would be in any academic seminar. Check it out! http://en.wikiversity.org/wiki/Cold_fusion. Come on in, the water's fine. If you look around, you will see extensive debates, often on attached Talk pages, between me and Barry Kort, a skeptic. Barry, in those debates, after some preposterous starts, came up with two at least reasonable (even if wrong) skeptical hypotheses to explain excess heat, one of which led Dieter Britz to write a study of the effect of bubble noise on the measurement of input power by the McKubre technique (constant current power supply, voltage varies and is captured as samples which are averaged, so input power is current times average voltage. That works if the current is constant, but if the bubble noise causes significant current variation, an AC power component would be missed. Right now, those debates look like a mess, but eventually I hope to refactor them to summarize the positions and conclusions. It was quite useful to me, I know, for my continued learning of What The Hell Happened with Cold Fusion. Indeed, I just gave a presentation on SRI P13/P14, at the 2011 LANR Colloquium at MIT, based on what I found, in those debates, about that famous experiment, the graph of the deuterium excess heat vs. that from the hydrogen cell, presented with red and blue lines, was in the presentation to the DoE in 2004, where it was inadequately explained. It's really a stunning result, demonstrating the nature of the beast, quite clearly. I call it the chimera. You could do everything exactly the same and see nothing, and then, third time's a charm, the beast walks through the lab and licks your face, and you are never the same again. Same equipment, same materials, same loading, same current profile apparently the third time you had the right attitude or something. Or, more to the point, the process of formation of reaction sites of just the right dimensions took time and multiple cycles and you were lucky.
Re: [Vo]:Steve Krivit's initiative
Filli Rossi Pneumatica can have another meaning: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pneumatics mic 2011/6/17 Abd ul-Rahman Lomax a...@lomaxdesign.com: At 08:46 PM 6/16/2011, Akira Shirakawa wrote: Krivit posted a preliminary report here a while ago: Short URL: http://goo.gl/7jVM6 http://blog.newenergytimes.com/2011/06/16/preliminary-report-of-interviews-with-e-cat-trio-rossi-focardi-and-levi/ He doesn't sound very enthusiastic. My impression is that he's become quite skeptical after his trip to Italy. I'd say, so far, so good. Let's hope he gets some decent answers.
Re: [Vo]:Steve Krivit's initiative
- Original Message From: Abd ul-Rahman Lomax a...@lomaxdesign.com To: vortex-l@eskimo.com; vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Wed, June 15, 2011 10:58:59 PM Subject: Re: [Vo]:Steve Krivit's initiative At 02:30 PM 6/14/2011, Harry Veeder wrote: Since the Widom-Larsen theory explains the positive results, can it also explain the negative results. A good theory should be able to do both. I don't see W-L theory explaining positive results, at all. If so, it's been very badly explained! There are lots observations explained here: http://www.newenergytimes.com/v2/sr/WL/WLTheory.shtml#slides Krivit completely failed to be the investigative journalist, asking hard questions, with W-L theory. Yes, a good theory would explain both positive and negative results. Nothing is really close to that yet, though what I heard at MIT last weekend does give me some hope. Among the many things WL say their theory can explain is why D kills the reaction in Ni-H systems and why H kills the reaction in D-Pd systems. Kirvit does include some informal criticism of the WL theory on his website, http://www.newenergytimes.com/v2/sr/WL/WLTheory.shtml Harry Still, Peter Hagelstein was struggling with models for electrochemical loading. Apparently the standard models suck, to use a technical term. Peter has more or less figured out why, but it's very difficult to model, since it depends on quite a chaotic and very individual process, for each cathode, as it develops what he calls internal leaks, that is, leaks into internal cavities and domain boundaries, that eventually communicate to the outside. Put another way, the palladium can develop a high surface area, with most of the surface being internal and not exposed to the electrolyte and thus to loading, only to deloading.
[Vo]:Fusion as process or result
- Original Message From: Abd ul-Rahman Lomax a...@lomaxdesign.com To: vortex-l@eskimo.com; vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Wed, June 15, 2011 10:52:34 PM Subject: Re: [Vo]:Steve Krivit's initiative At 02:15 PM 6/14/2011, Alan Fletcher wrote: He sure is a hard-liner on the term Cold Fusion. -- Krivit's previous blog entry is a doozy: http://blog.newenergytimes.com/2011/06/06/cold-fusion-may-ye-rest-in-peace/http://blog.newenergytimes.com/2011/06/06/cold-fusion-may-ye-rest-in-peace/ He's nuts on this. There is some ambiguity in the term fusion, a confusion between process and result. If I have a black box and you put deuterium in, and get helium and energy out, is it a fusion box? Or does fusion refer only to a specific process, say two deuterons being slammed together at high velocity, or coaxed together with some catalyst, such as muons? Abd, You hit the nail on the head. Does the term 'fusion' identify a special process or does it refer to the end result(s) of a unspecified process? It seems to me that without an adjective in front of the word 'fusion', the nature of the process remains unspecified. However, because the plasma/hot fusion physicists have dominated the field of fusion research for the last 60 years, the fusion process known as plasma fusion or hot fusion, has become indistinquishable from the term 'fusion' in the mind of many physicists. Harry
