date:20111121



At 08:57 PM 11/20/2011, Joshua Cude wrote:

On Sun, Nov 20, 2011 at 9:38 PM,
Alan Fletcher a...@well.com
wrote:


Absolutely! Widom-Larsen (where an electron combines with a
Proton to form a Neutron and a Neutrino).

has a critical mass, similar to the Coulomb barrier for regular
fusion.


Actually, it's about 10 times higher. And it's an *energy* barrier, just
like fusion, too. WL like to call it a heavy electron to obscure the fact
that you have to concentrate 780 MeV of energy in a single atomic site to
produce electron capture. Since this reaction is endothermic, there is no
possibility of tunneling through it; the energy has to be supplied. In
the case of d-d fusion, reaction probability becomes useful below 100
keV, because that reaction is exothermic, and so tunneling is
possible.



The muon:proton has enough mass, and is known to happen.

But electron:proton doesn't --WL proposes one method of getting an
effective electron mass.


Are you saying that WL -- 

http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/cond-mat/pdf/0505/0505026v1.pdf
Introduction, First Column, up to Eqn (3) -- and Reference 1 -- are
wrong? (I don't have access to Ref 1 or a similar well known
textbook).
I agree that (l-) + (p+) = (n) + (vl) (WL
1)
is probably an approximation of a more detailed quark interaction. (And
that the electron neutrino should possibly be an electron
anti-neutrino).
It's curious that Hagelstein

http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/arxiv/pdf/0801/0801.3810v1.pdf challenges
WL's effective mass -- but does not the underlying equations
(1) to (3).
NASA Langley (Bushnell et al) are strongly in favour of WL. 
 I don't see the comparison to muon-catalyzed fusion. In muon
catalyzed fusion the muon replaces an electron in hydrogen, and since its
average distance from the nucleus is much smaller, it shields the charge
of the nucleus more effectively, allowing closer approach between nuclei
to improve the probability for fusion. WL propose that the heavy
(energetic) electron is captured by the nucleus (proton), so the
resulting neutron is captured by another nucleus. It's a rather different
process. 
I'm not sure that this is the same scenario at all. In
muon-catalyzed fusion the muon escapes. 
But all this is beyond my competence ... Quarks were only proposed when I
was an undergraduate, and certainly hadn't made it into the
curriculum.
All I was doing was summarizing WL (1) to (3), and saying that yes, it
could be relevant.

Re: [Vo]:E-Cat guy: Hire a local HVAC engineering company!

On Mon, Nov 21, 2011 at 1:35 AM, Mark Iverson-ZeroPoint 
zeropo...@charter.net wrote:

 JC, 

 you  used the specific wording,

 “…the evidence has not improved at all.”


OK, that is obviously not a statement of scientific fact, but I thought it
would be clear that it represents a judgement of the evidence, and probably
reflects some exasperation. Detailed qualifications of this sort of thing
take much longer. I agree, it is probably not an effective way to make the
case against cold fusion.

I do know that there have been improvements in the calorimetry, and there
have been many different types of experiments introduced. But to me, these
improvements and variations have not produced a more convincing
demonstration.

The expected and claimed observables in cold fusion are not some subtle
thing. Heat, radiation, transmutations are all dead easy to measure at
ridiculously low levels. If the claims right back to 1989 had merit, some
kind of unequivocal demonstration should be easy. All the claims of heat
after death suggest some sort of isolated beaker that stays hot or boils
without anything connected to it should be possible. But the demos do not
get better, and that includes the demos of Rossi.

So, to me all these improvements in calorimetry or whatever, and variations
in the type of experiment, and no better demonstration represents even
weaker evidence for a real phenomenon. Whereas in 1989, I suspended
disbelief, along with a lot of others, and became excited about the
possibility of clean energy, to me the likelihood of a real effect is
becoming ever smaller.

**  NASA has confirmed the excess heat to their satisfaction…


I know NASA is interested in cold fusion, but I was not aware of any report
of their own experimental results. Can you give the reference for this?



 

 **2)  **Knowledge about what criteria must be met to get successful
 results has definitely come out of the research.

Claims that the criteria are worked out go back to the early 90s (McKubre
e.g.).


 

 **3)  **Due to #2, repeatability has most definitely improved since
 FP’s work; some labs have reported better than 80% repeatability.


The problem is that repeatability in this field is not the same as
repeatability in other fields. In most of science, it means getting the
same or consistent results within margins of error in any laboratory. In
cold fusion, it just means getting the same sign of the result with the
same apparatus. McKubre has said that no one has achieved quantitative
reproducibility in cold fusion, and no one has achieved interlab
reproducibility without the exchange of personnel.

Consider Energetics. They claim more than 70% reproducibility, and they
also claim a COP of 25 and power of 20 W, and they claim a watt or so
without input for several days. The latter would be particularly easy to
demonstrate unequivocally by just putting the activated foil in an isolated
thermos and watching the temperature. And yet, when they were featured on
60 minutes, the best they could demonstrate was someone doing calculations
in a notebook. And in spite of their claim of 70% reproducibility, they
have not reproduced their 2004 results.

Re: [Vo]:Re: Rossi replies to my email


At 11:31 PM 11/20/2011, Aussie Guy E-Cat wrote:
We are ready to pay you USD250,000 for the 5 diathermic oil E-Cat 
modules and the control system. Do we now have a workable proposal?


Sorry he's ummm ... changed his mind.



As always our discussions are Commercial in Confidence.



Ummm ... which you just broke !!!  =8-)

I once went with a corporate atty (in the UK) to discuss some work we 
were dong, and asked whether we should have an NDA.  Oh no! he 
said. This is Commercial in Confidence, and the courts take a much 
dimmer view of breaking a Gentleman's Agreement than a mere contract.

Re: [Vo]:New LENR Patent Appl: Muon Capture v Muon Catalyzed



The best I can find on WL (1) is a list of papers at

http://muon.npl.washington.edu/exp/MuCap/literature1.html
but I don't have access to any of them. 
Muon Capture in Hydrogen 
Experiment 
A. A. Quaranta, A. Bertin, G. Matone, F. Palmonari, G.
Torelli, P. Dalpiaz, A. Placci, E. Zavattini, 
Muon capture in gaseous hydrogen,


Phys. Rev.


177

(1969) 2118 . 
J. E. Rothberg, E. W. Anderson, E. J. Bleser, L. M.
Lederman, S. L. Meyer, J. L. Rosen, I. -T. Wang, 
Muon capture in hydrogen,


Phys. Rev.


132

(1963) 2664 . 
 
.
is separate from
Muon Catalyzed Fusion / Muon Chemistry

Re: [Vo]:Re: Rossi replies to my email

Just maybe those are not the entire contents of the emails. What is not 
public knowledge and is subject to Confidentiality is the identity of 
the company and what we intent to do with the E-Cat. That we are engaged 
in attempting to acquire a 100 kW E-Cat system is public knowledge and 
is nothing new, as was what we disclosed in the portion of the email I 
copied to Vortex. I don't talk behind my potential suppliers back and 
now Rossi knows (if he didn't already know) this potential purchase is 
being discussed on Vortex. Am I using Vortex to encourage Rossi to 
engage with us? Of course I am. Just good business.


I know Rossi and his team are probably VERY busy at the current moment 
in time and that building a 100 kW system and getting involved in the 
acceptance is probably not something Rossi has the man hour availability 
to do. That is why we structured the offer down from supplying a plant 
to just supplying 5 E-Cat modules and the control system. My team and I 
can, with a little guidance from Rossi's team, install the modules and 
the control system into our racking as well as hooking them up to the 
diathermic oil circulatory and heat exchanger system, which we will 
provide inside our 20 ft container. Then we will have a fully 
operational 100 kW LENR heat system that can be shipped anywhere in the 
world to do the hot diathermic oil to Ac kWh conversion, which should 
also fit into the same 20 ft container.


AG


On 11/21/2011 6:42 PM, Alan J Fletcher wrote:

At 11:31 PM 11/20/2011, Aussie Guy E-Cat wrote:
We are ready to pay you USD250,000 for the 5 diathermic oil E-Cat 
modules and the control system. Do we now have a workable proposal?


Sorry he's ummm ... changed his mind.



As always our discussions are Commercial in Confidence.



Ummm ... which you just broke !!!  =8-)

I once went with a corporate atty (in the UK) to discuss some work we 
were dong, and asked whether we should have an NDA.  Oh no! he said. 
This is Commercial in Confidence, and the courts take a much dimmer 
view of breaking a Gentleman's Agreement than a mere contract.

Re: [Vo]:Modern theories of boiling

 


- Original Nachricht 
Von: Harry Veeder hveeder...@gmail.com
An:  vortex-l@eskimo.com
Datum:   21.11.2011 05:49
Betreff: [Vo]:Modern theories of boiling

more...
 
 http://www.hps.cam.ac.uk/people/chang/boiling/discussion3.htm
 
 

Interesting is the discussion that in history they made thermometer and 
calibrated them with boiling water and used these thermometers to measure the 
boiling point ;-).

This seems to be stupid, but it is true.
It is not unique to boiling research it applies to all techniques.
I have learned how to measure a voltage precisely with an inaccurate weathstone 
bridge, by doing two measurements with different orientation and averaging the 
results. More precise measurements are possible by refining this method and 
doing more calculations.

If we look to the history of science and technique then we will see: In the 
early beginnings there where no precise tools and no precise measuring 
instruments. How are precise instruments made?
Precise instruments and tools are made from lesser precise instruments and 
tools by developing a theory and improving instruments and tools iteratively.

Contrary to common believe, in the scientific process accurate tools are not 
made from more accurate tools.
Accurate tools are made from lesser accurate tools! Its a iterative and 
recursive process that includes development of precise theorys and precise 
definitions. This is a proofable historical fact.

If Professor Chang refers to historical researchers and gets the same results, 
this is not surprising:
These researchers did not have a precise definition of boiling point. 
If he works without a precise definition, then he will of course not get 
precise results.

It must also been said, the term boiling point is ill formed. There is no 
precise boiling point, because there is no precise definition of boiling.

It would be better to use the term condensation point.

Re: [Vo]:New LENR Patent Appl: Method for Producing Heavy Electrons

On Mon, Nov 21, 2011 at 2:09 AM, Alan J Fletcher a...@well.com wrote:


 Are you saying that WL --
 http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/cond-mat/pdf/0505/0505026v1.pdf  Introduction,
 First Column, up to Eqn (3)  -- and Reference 1 -- are wrong? (I don't have
 access to Ref 1 or a similar well known textbook).


They are highly misleading on the question of energy requirements. When
they say an electron wanders into a nucleus can be captured, this is not
descriptive of electron capture by a proton. Electron capture can be
exothermic for nuclei with an excess of protons, but it is highly
endothermic for protons. You need 780 MeV to get electron capture by a
proton.

They are highly misleading when they say Note the absence of a Coulomb
barrier to such a weak interaction nuclear process. In fact, a strong
Coulomb attraction which can exist between an electron and a nucleus helps
the nuclear transmutation Eq.(2) proceed. That falls just short (or maybe
just beyond) saying that their proposed electron capture by a proton is
more energetically favored than deuteron fusion because of the absence of a
Coulomb barrier. But in fact electron capture by a proton takes about 10
times more energy than deuteron fusion. For electron capture, you need the
full 780 MeV. The energy for fusion is less definite, because it takes
place by tunneling. The higher the energy, the higher the probability for a
reaction. But the sort of energy aimed for in hot fusion reactors is about
100 keV, but reactions are possible at lower energies.

As for the muon part, I thought you were referring to muon-catalyzed fusion
when you mentioned them. WL refer to muon capture by protons, which is
analogous to their proposed electron capture, except that it is
*exothermic*. The idea of requiring a higher electron mass is, I think,
their way of obscuring the requirement for an energetic electron -- a very
energetic electron.

I wouldn't be surprised if these papers are written for the benefit of a
very naive audience, to make their completely implausible first step look
plausible to potential investors in their Lattice Energy company. It's
certainly true that no mainstream nuclear physicist would take the theory
seriously, and would not read past that first highly misleading section to
get to their lego-like reaction chains.


 I agree that (l-) + (p+) = (n) + (vl) (WL 1)

 is probably an approximation of a more detailed quark interaction. (And
 that the electron neutrino should possibly be an electron anti-neutrino).


They got the neutrino right.



 NASA Langley (Bushnell et al) are strongly in favour of WL.


Bushnell has an impressive cv, but his background is in mechanical
engineering, and he does not have a phd.  His recent ev-world interview, in
which he got most of his facts wrong, and demonstrated confusion about the
Widom-Larsen theory (if you can call it that), was sadly embarrassing.

Here are a few examples:

Bushnell says WL involves only weak interactions, but in fact, strong
interactions (neutron capture) play an essential role, and while the
process involves weak interactions, the energy still comes from strong
interactions.

He talks about ultra-weak neutrons when WL refer to ultra low momentum
neutrons.

He says the energy comes from beta decay, but in the H-Ni system it comes
mostly from neutron capture (or the consequent gamma rays).

He says the Rossi heat generation went on for days, when not a single one
lasted even one day, and the public ones for only hours.

He says Rossi attributed the energy to WL, when in fact Rossi explicitly
says it’s not WL.

And so on. It’s sad really. NASA’s been talking about WL since at least
2007, and have been interested in some way in cold fusion from the
beginning, and have nothing to show for it. So an organization that can go
from primitive rockets to walking on the moon in less than a decade, can’t
seem to make any progress on a desktop experiment introduced 22 years ago.

Re: [Vo]:New LENR Patent Appl: Muon Capture v Muon Catalyzed

On Mon, Nov 21, 2011 at 2:23 AM, Alan J Fletcher a...@well.com wrote:


 Muon Capture in Hydrogen

 is separate from

 Muon Catalyzed Fusion / Muon Chemistry


That's true. When you mentioned muons in the context of fusion, I just
assumed you were referring to muon-catalyzed fusion. Mea Culpa.

That's independent of the energy considerations though.

Re: [Vo]:New LENR Patent Appl: Method for Producing Heavy Electrons

(I decided to bypass the Joshua Cude discussion, to get back to the
patent itself)
The text of the application is at

http://appft1.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PTO1Sect2=HITOFFd=PG01p=1u=%2Fnetahtml%2FPTO%2Fsrchnum.htmlr=1f=Gl=50s1=%2220110255645%22.PGNR.OS=DN/20110255645RS=DN/20110255645A

Inventors:Zawodny; Joseph M.; (Poquoson, VA)
Assignee:USA as represented by the Administrator of the National
Aeronautics and Space Administration
Washington
DC
Serial No.:070552
Series Code:13
Filed:March 24, 2011
and it does, indeed build on WL (whose own patent they include by
reference).
Abstract : A method for producing heavy electrons is based on a material
system that includes an electrically-conductive material is selected. The
material system has a resonant frequency associated therewith for a given
operational environment. A structure is formed that includes a
non-electrically-conductive material and the material system. The
structure incorporates the electrically-conductive material at least at a
surface thereof. The geometry of the structure supports propagation of
surface plasmon polaritons at a selected frequency that is approximately
equal to the resonant frequency of the material system. As a result,
heavy electrons are produced at the electrically-conductive material as
the surface plasmon polaritons propagate along the structure.
See A. Windom (sp?) et al. Ultra Low Momentum Neutron Catalyzed
Nuclear Reactions on Metallic Hydride Surface, European Physical
Journal C-Particles and Fields, 46, pp. 107-112, 2006, and U.S. Pat. No.
7,893,414 issued to Larsen et al. Unfortunately, such heavy electron
production has only occurred in small random regions or patches of sample
materials/devices. In terms of energy generation or gamma ray shielding,
this limits the predictability and effectiveness of the device.

[0020] As mentioned above, U.S. Pat. No. 7,893,414 issued to Larsen et
al. discloses the general relationship link between surface plasmon
polaritons (SPPs) on a metal hydride's surface and the resulting
heavy electron production at random regions or patches of the surface.
Accordingly, U.S. Pat. No. 7,893,414 is incorporated by reference in its
entirety.
[0032] The advantages of the present invention are numerous.
Devices/systems made in accordance with the present invention control the
frequency of the SPP resonance and its uniformity over large surface or
volume regions. This will allow an entire device to participate in heavy
electron production and ensuing energy generation. The present invention
is adaptable to a variety of physical states/geometries and is scalable
in size thereby making it available for energy production in a wide
variety of applications (e.g., hand-held and large scale electronics,
automobiles, aircraft, surface ships, electric power generation, rockets,
etc.)

Re: [Vo]:Rossi replies to my email


On 2011-11-21 02:35, Aussie Guy E-Cat wrote:

Dear Sirs,
We are selling only 1 MW thermal plants, so far.
Warm Regards,
A.R.


That's too bad.


While I do understand what a full order book can do, it is disappointing
to say the least. So much for his 100 kW min size offer. May still be
doable but not until Feb 2012.


Do mean you might be able to order 1 MW plant, but not before Feb 2012?

Cheers,
S.A.

[Vo]:Defkalion did not deny to use Piantelli technology!

Ok, its time to spread some new rumours, to avoid boredness:

http://www.tovima.gr/files/1/2011/11/18/Piantelli-engine%5B1%5D.jpg
http://www.defkalion-energy.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=4t=508

;-)

Peter

Re: [Vo]:Defkalion did not deny to use Piantelli technology!


On 2011-11-21 12:41, peter.heck...@arcor.de wrote:

Ok, its time to spread some new rumours, to avoid boredness:

http://www.tovima.gr/files/1/2011/11/18/Piantelli-engine%5B1%5D.jpg


Also add, from this article, the information that Rossi sought 
collaboration with Piantelli in 2007, but in the end turned instead to 
Focardi. I haven't read this anywhere else. This is either a complete 
journalistic invention (or at the very least severe misunderstanding) or 
information that Defkalion GT provided.



http://www.defkalion-energy.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=4t=508


DGT moderators' behavior doesn't help. They say that they never answer 
to comments based on speculations, but they somewhat did here. A simple 
no comment would have been clearer.


Cheers,
S.A.

Aw: Re: [Vo]:Defkalion did not deny to use Piantelli technology!

It is impossible to ignore, that their latest devices look like Piantelli 
devices and not like Rossi devices:
http://www.defkalion-energy.com/files/DGT_PRESS%20RELEASE_2011-11-14.pdf 
;-)

- Original Nachricht 
Von: Akira Shirakawa shirakawa.ak...@gmail.com
An:  vortex-l@eskimo.com
Datum:   21.11.2011 12:59
Betreff: Re: [Vo]:Defkalion did not deny to use Piantelli technology!

 On 2011-11-21 12:41, peter.heck...@arcor.de wrote:
  Ok, its time to spread some new rumours, to avoid boredness:
 
  http://www.tovima.gr/files/1/2011/11/18/Piantelli-engine%5B1%5D.jpg
 
 Also add, from this article, the information that Rossi sought 
 collaboration with Piantelli in 2007, but in the end turned instead to 
 Focardi. I haven't read this anywhere else. This is either a complete 
 journalistic invention (or at the very least severe misunderstanding) or 
 information that Defkalion GT provided.
 
  http://www.defkalion-energy.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=4t=508
 
 DGT moderators' behavior doesn't help. They say that they never answer 
 to comments based on speculations, but they somewhat did here. A simple 
 no comment would have been clearer.
 
 Cheers,
 S.A.

Re: Re: [Vo]:Defkalion did not deny to use Piantelli technology!

Hmm, MY has already posted comments on thenextbigfuture concerning this
same piece of news... She hasn't shown up here yet. Odd.

Re: [Vo]:Defkalion did not deny to use Piantelli technology!


On 2011-11-21 12:41, peter.heck...@arcor.de wrote:

Ok, its time to spread some new rumours, to avoid boredness:

http://www.tovima.gr/files/1/2011/11/18/Piantelli-engine%5B1%5D.jpg
http://www.defkalion-energy.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=4t=508


By the way, it appears that Christos Stremmenos wrote a comment in the 
Tovima article linked, which he translated in Italian on JONP:


http://www.journal-of-nuclear-physics.com/?p=516cpage=14#comment-125963

I'll attempt a translation of his convoluted Italian to English below:


I feel responsible for the transfer and the fate of Rossi's invention (Cold 
Fusion) in Greece, and also guardian of the moral values it contains. With 
scientific and idealistic motives, involving my friends, colleagues and 
long-term partners eng. A.Rossi and prof. S.Focardi, protagonists of this 
epoch-making invention, we attempted together to transmit to Greece the science 
and technological possibilities for a promising future in this country, 
birthplace of Democritus and Leucippus, and with this symbolism, to promote the 
new energetic era for the sake of the entire humanity.

As for what matters the Greek company Defkalion Green Technologies SA, 
unfortunately and much to my regret, I find myself with mixed feelings for the frivolous 
and incoherent, to say the least, general behavior and documented financial breach of 
contract with A.Rossi that lasted almost a year.

I'll conclude with a wise popular saying from my birthplace Ervytania: The poor's 
lamb can't become a ram.

Prof.Ch. Stremmenos


Cheers,
S.A.

Re: [Vo]:Defkalion did not deny to use Piantelli technology!

What did he mean by that? I don't know how should a view that message.

2011/11/21 Akira Shirakawa shirakawa.ak...@gmail.com

On 2011-11-21 12:41, peter.heck...@arcor.de wrote:

Ok, its time to spread some new rumours, to avoid boredness:

http://www.tovima.gr/files/1/**2011/11/18/Piantelli-engine%**5B1%5D.jpghttp://www.tovima.gr/files/1/2011/11/18/Piantelli-engine%5B1%5D.jpg
http://www.defkalion-energy.**com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=4t=**508http://www.defkalion-energy.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=4t=508

By the way, it appears that Christos Stremmenos wrote a comment in the
Tovima article linked, which he translated in Italian on JONP:

http://www.journal-of-nuclear-**physics.com/?p=516cpage=14#**
comment-125963http://www.journal-of-nuclear-physics.com/?p=516cpage=14#comment-125963

I'll attempt a translation of his convoluted Italian to English below:

I feel responsible for the transfer and the fate of Rossi's invention
(Cold Fusion) in Greece, and also guardian of the moral values it contains.
With scientific and idealistic motives, involving my friends, colleagues
and long-term partners eng. A.Rossi and prof. S.Focardi, protagonists of
this epoch-making invention, we attempted together to transmit to Greece
the science and technological possibilities for a promising future in this
country, birthplace of Democritus and Leucippus, and with this symbolism,
to promote the new energetic era for the sake of the entire humanity.

As for what matters the Greek company Defkalion Green Technologies SA,
unfortunately and much to my regret, I find myself with mixed feelings for
the frivolous and incoherent, to say the least, general behavior and
documented financial breach of contract with A.Rossi that lasted almost a
year.

I'll conclude with a wise popular saying from my birthplace Ervytania:
The poor's lamb can't become a ram.

Prof.Ch. Stremmenos

Cheers,
S.A.

--
Daniel Rocha - RJ
danieldi...@gmail.com

Re: [Vo]:Rossi replies to my email

Defkalion will sell you a 45 kW(th) plant.  We expect to see their
announcement this week.

T

Re: [Vo]:Defkalion did not deny to use Piantelli technology!


On 2011-11-21 13:54, Daniel Rocha wrote:

What did he mean by that? I don't know how should a view that message.


In very few words, that he is not happy with what Defkalion GT is doing 
and has been doing so far. Sorry, this is not really related with the OP 
regarding a possible Piantelli involvement. I should have posted this as 
a new thread.


Cheers,
S.A.

Re: [Vo]:Defkalion did not deny to use Piantelli technology!

What I don't really understand is if he is implying that Defkalion stole
Rossi's invention or if they are just making a scam using Rossi's
invention, which means bad publicity.

2011/11/21 Akira Shirakawa shirakawa.ak...@gmail.com

 On 2011-11-21 13:54, Daniel Rocha wrote:

 What did he mean by that? I don't know how should a view that message.


 In very few words, that he is not happy with what Defkalion GT is doing
 and has been doing so far. Sorry, this is not really related with the OP
 regarding a possible Piantelli involvement. I should have posted this as a
 new thread.

 Cheers,
 S.A.




-- 
Daniel Rocha - RJ
danieldi...@gmail.com

Re: [Vo]:Defkalion did not deny to use Piantelli technology!

On Mon, Nov 21, 2011 at 7:54 AM, Daniel Rocha danieldi...@gmail.com wrote:
 What did he mean by that? I don't know how should a view that message.

Neither do I.  It is obvious from what we read that it is Andrea Rossi
who is in breach of contract if he was to deliver a reactor which was
stable over 48 hours of operation (I assume this means without
intervention by AR).

I'm sure this is the reason he kept reducing the COP of his reactors
from 30+ to 6- trying to find a spot whereby he could initiate the
reaction but remain in control of it.

He told The Customer (TC) that he could make the 10/28 demonstration
at 1 MW but he would have to input almost 170 kW to ensure stability.
He offered to operate the reactor at 1 MW but TC chose operation at
half that without any input power to maintain control of the reaction.

Now, from Rossi's POV, he probably thinks he delivered on the
Defkalion contract at a COP of 6; but, considering that the capital
cost is likely the same for a reactor with a COP of 30 (per kernel),
Defkalion probably felt cheated.  Or maybe it was written into the
agreement that the reactor had to have a minimum COP and Rossi could
not achieve that under stable operation.

Hopefully, we will know more this week.  My bet is that Defkalion
delivers reactors with a COP greater than 30 which will make their
payback period much more attractive.  They are claiming they can
deliver a 5 MW reactor.  Well that would be equivalent to a Rossi 1 MW
reactor except with the higher coefficient of performance.

T

Re: [Vo]:Defkalion did not deny to use Piantelli technology!


On 2011-11-21 14:10, Daniel Rocha wrote:

What I don't really understand is if he is implying that Defkalion
stole Rossi's invention or if they are just making a scam using
Rossi's invention, which means bad publicity.


I don't know myself.
That's not clear from what he's written in his latest comment.

Cheers,
S.A.

[Vo]:A Pyrolysis E-Cat fake


More on the old AguaFuel concepts, Santilli's paper:

http://arxiv.org/pdf/physics/9805031v1

and Nauden's old stuff:

http://jlnlabs.online.fr/bingofuel/html/aquagen.htm

As coincidence would have it, some AquaFuel cousin companies are or  
were located in Florida.  Isn't that the state from which the E-Cat  
parts were shipped to Rossi?  In any case I think Rossi has Florida  
connections.


The Aquafuel name was purchased from Richardson:

http://aquafuelinc.com/

http://www.rexresearch.com/aquafuel/aquafuel.htm

but applied to a different process.

It might be interesting to examine the possibility of pyrolysis being  
a feasible explanation for the E-Cat experiment excess energy.


The density of graphite is about 0.6 g/cm^3.  Coal density is about 1  
gm/cm^3, about the same as water. If coal were being pyrolyzed inside  
the E-Cat its volume could be replaced with water to achieve no mass  
change. Coal has an energy density of about 35,000 kJ per kg, or 35  
MJ/kg, or 9.72 kWh/kg.  The pyrolysis of carbon coincidentally might  
help explain some of the stains inside the E-Cat.


The 6 October 2011 Rossi test provided a net of 17.7 kWh, or 63.7 MJ  
of energy, according to Lewan's data:


http://www.mtaonline.net/~hheffner/Rossi6Oct2011noBias.pdf

This amounts to the pyrolysis of 63.7/35 kg = 1.82 kg of carbon,  
followed by catalytic recombination to produce CO2, over a period of  
about 6 hours requires about 300 g/hr, or 1/12 gram per second of  
carbon.   Using 12.01 as the atomic weight of C, and 43.99 for CO2,  
that is (1/12 g)*43.99/12.01 = 0.305 gm of CO2 per second. At 2 g/ 
liter  that is 0.305 g/(2 g/liter) = 0.153 liters of gas per second.   
CO2 is not very soluble in boiling water, so this will come out in  
the steam/water in gas form, unless sequestered in some way.


Lye could be used to sequester CO2 in a nearly closed system  
releasing little or no gas.  The reaction is:


  2 NaOH + CO2 - Na2CO3 + H2O

NaOH has a molecular weight of 40, so it takes 80 grams of NaOH to  
sequester 44 grams of CO2.  That amounts to 80/44 * 1.82 kg = 3.3 kg  
of NaOH that has to be contained within the 30x30x30 cm, or 27 liter,  
inner box.  With a density of 2.13 g/cm^3 the NaOH requires 3300 g/ 
(2.13 g/cm^3) = 1.55 liters. The carbon requires 1.82 liters for a  
total of 3.37 liters for fuel, leaving over 23 liters, about 87% of  
the box, for other items.


Unless I made a calculation error, which is not unlikely, pyrolysis  
of carbon appears to qualify as a mechanism for faking E-Cat tests of  
the duration actually run, even without hydrino formation, closed ou  
processes, calorimetry errors, etc.  Such pyrolysis can even be run  
in a closed system, provided some current is provided to sustain an  
arc, which should be very feasible at the high temperatures expected  
inside the 30x30x30 cm box if it contains heating elements and  
ceramic thermal storage.  It is notable that the original AquaFuel  
experiments produced an apparent COP of around 7.  If pyrolysis is an  
ou process, as claimed by various people the last decade, then a  
closed recycling process could of course explain Rossi's results in a  
sustainable way.



Best regards,

Horace Heffner
http://www.mtaonline.net/~hheffner/

Re: [Vo]:So Rossi has a real Ph.D. obtained in 1975

2011-11-21 Thread Berke Durak

I'm being told that Dottore Magistrale in Filosofia is the
equivalent to a master's degree,
and not to a Ph.D.

Are there any Italian-speaking persons familiar with Italian research
 education here
that could comment on this?
-- 
Berke Durak

Re: [Vo]:Defkalion did not deny to use Piantelli technology!

Audiatur et altera pars- Defkalion, in this case:
What I understand is:
a) the Rossi Defkalion divorce took place because Rossi was not able to
show generators working more than 48 hours constantly;

b) the Greeks, having a very school of engineering have started very early
to develop the generators and have sytematically improved them. It seems
the secret of the core is much simpler than we imagine- a functional
additive that can be known based on the nechanism of the reaction, as
described by Piantelli;

c) The Tovima paper written by a reputed Greek journalist Tasos
Kafantaris has the aim to present the message of DGT;s CEo's statement- we
will continue! *in the context of LENR.* Piantelli being the creator of
Transition Metals-H LENR, his device for manufacturing nano-nickel was also
presented here. The photo is
taken in Piantelli's lab in Summer 2010 by Roy Virgilio and is on the Web.
It is an impressive high vacuum installation, cannot be taken as proof for
Defkalion using Piantelli's technology.
The paper is well written and balanced.

d) as far I know Rossi has tried to get Piantelli's help even earlier prior
to his depolymerisation gaffe (Petroldragon), but Piantelli works only with
scientists. If Rossi have achieved something it was
by empirical methods- trial and error, not by science,
And he needs now science to make to work well.

On Mon, Nov 21, 2011 at 2:44 PM, Akira Shirakawa
shirakawa.ak...@gmail.comwrote:

On 2011-11-21 12:41, peter.heck...@arcor.de wrote:

Ok, its time to spread some new rumours, to avoid boredness:

By the way, it appears that Christos Stremmenos wrote a comment in the
Tovima article linked, which he translated in Italian on JONP:

http://www.journal-of-nuclear-**physics.com/?p=516cpage=14#**
comment-125963http://www.journal-of-nuclear-physics.com/?p=516cpage=14#comment-125963

I'll attempt a translation of his convoluted Italian to English below:

I'll conclude with a wise popular saying from my birthplace Ervytania:
The poor's lamb can't become a ram.

Prof.Ch. Stremmenos

Cheers,
S.A.

--
Dr. Peter Gluck
Cluj, Romania
http://egooutpeters.blogspot.com

Re: [Vo]:Defkalion did not deny to use Piantelli technology!

Its interesting to watch how this rumour, that is based on pure speculation, 
grows.
The more messages appear online with the words Defkalion, Rossi, Piantelli the 
higher the weight is that Google gives to this associations. This increases the 
number of postings exponentially and grows the expansion speed for the rumour.

Google is a great self-confirming rumour assoziation and spreading machine, 
that works much like human mind.
Its all very similar to the birth of religions.
Lets hope God will confuse their languages and make them hostile to each other 
and stop this nonsense ;-)
 ;-)



- Original Nachricht 
Von: Akira Shirakawa shirakawa.ak...@gmail.com
An:  vortex-l@eskimo.com
Datum:   21.11.2011 14:13
Betreff: Re: [Vo]:Defkalion did not deny to use Piantelli technology!

 On 2011-11-21 14:10, Daniel Rocha wrote:
  What I don't really understand is if he is implying that Defkalion
  stole Rossi's invention or if they are just making a scam using
  Rossi's invention, which means bad publicity.
 
 I don't know myself.
 That's not clear from what he's written in his latest comment.
 
 Cheers,
 S.A.

[Vo]:Re: So Rossi has a real Ph.D. obtained in 1975

2011-11-21 Thread Mattia Rizzi

It's a Master degree.
I'm italian.

-Messaggio originale- 
From: Berke Durak 
Sent: Monday, November 21, 2011 2:22 PM 
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com 
Subject: Re: [Vo]:So Rossi has a real Ph.D. obtained in 1975 

I'm being told that Dottore Magistrale in Filosofia is the
equivalent to a master's degree,
and not to a Ph.D.

Are there any Italian-speaking persons familiar with Italian research
 education here
that could comment on this?
--
Berke Durak

Re: [Vo]:Re: So Rossi has a real Ph.D. obtained in 1975

2011-11-21 Thread Marcello Vitale

Yup, a Master. In philosphy, it required an experimental thesis, that is
an original work, but not of the quality required for a PhD. In Italy, one
is called Dottore with that degree. Indeed, it used to be the highest
degree until 1986, if I remember correctly the year.

On Mon, Nov 21, 2011 at 2:31 PM, Mattia Rizzi mattia.ri...@gmail.comwrote:

 It's a Master degree.
 I'm italian.

 -Messaggio originale- From: Berke Durak Sent: Monday, November 21,
 2011 2:22 PM To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: [Vo]:So Rossi has a
 real Ph.D. obtained in 1975
 I'm being told that Dottore Magistrale in Filosofia is the
 equivalent to a master's degree,
 and not to a Ph.D.

 Are there any Italian-speaking persons familiar with Italian research
  education here
 that could comment on this?
 --
 Berke Durak

Re: [Vo]:A Pyrolysis E-Cat fake

Horace,

Just for your information, I was present at the foundation of the very
first Aquafuel Company in Largo (Tampa). Santilli (a mathematician
of genius) and Leon Toups a businessman (who after his death was declared a
saint- his son was working at the Vatican) have bought the patent of
Richardson- a welder.
I have received a lesson about the American corporate spirit.

Santilli has discovered that Aquafuel contains magnecules. Long story not
beautiful, it ended when Santilli has sued Infinite Energy
for not publishing a n-th paper in the frame of his endless theoretical
dispute with an other Italian guy, Corso (?). Being an adviser I had to pay
12,000 US$. The trial didn't took place, fortunately.

However nothing to learn from this story that I just sketched here
this has happend in an other part of Florida not Miami where Rossi works. I
have stopped at Sarasota, visiting Patterson.

On Mon, Nov 21, 2011 at 3:13 PM, Horace Heffner hheff...@mtaonline.netwrote:

More on the old AguaFuel concepts, Santilli's paper:

http://arxiv.org/pdf/physics/**9805031v1http://arxiv.org/pdf/physics/9805031v1

and Nauden's old stuff:

http://jlnlabs.online.fr/**bingofuel/html/aquagen.htmhttp://jlnlabs.online.fr/bingofuel/html/aquagen.htm

As coincidence would have it, some AquaFuel cousin companies are or were
located in Florida. Isn't that the state from which the E-Cat parts were
shipped to Rossi? In any case I think Rossi has Florida connections.

The Aquafuel name was purchased from Richardson:

http://aquafuelinc.com/

http://www.rexresearch.com/**aquafuel/aquafuel.htmhttp://www.rexresearch.com/aquafuel/aquafuel.htm

but applied to a different process.

It might be interesting to examine the possibility of pyrolysis being a
feasible explanation for the E-Cat experiment excess energy.

The density of graphite is about 0.6 g/cm^3. Coal density is about 1
gm/cm^3, about the same as water. If coal were being pyrolyzed inside the
E-Cat its volume could be replaced with water to achieve no mass change.
Coal has an energy density of about 35,000 kJ per kg, or 35 MJ/kg, or 9.72
kWh/kg. The pyrolysis of carbon coincidentally might help explain some of
the stains inside the E-Cat.

The 6 October 2011 Rossi test provided a net of 17.7 kWh, or 63.7 MJ of
energy, according to Lewan's data:

http://www.mtaonline.net/~**hheffner/Rossi6Oct2011noBias.**pdfhttp://www.mtaonline.net/~hheffner/Rossi6Oct2011noBias.pdf

This amounts to the pyrolysis of 63.7/35 kg = 1.82 kg of carbon, followed
by catalytic recombination to produce CO2, over a period of about 6 hours
requires about 300 g/hr, or 1/12 gram per second of carbon. Using 12.01
as the atomic weight of C, and 43.99 for CO2, that is (1/12 g)*43.99/12.01
= 0.305 gm of CO2 per second. At 2 g/liter that is 0.305 g/(2 g/liter) =
0.153 liters of gas per second. CO2 is not very soluble in boiling water,
so this will come out in the steam/water in gas form, unless sequestered in
some way.

Lye could be used to sequester CO2 in a nearly closed system releasing
little or no gas. The reaction is:

2 NaOH + CO2 - Na2CO3 + H2O

NaOH has a molecular weight of 40, so it takes 80 grams of NaOH to
sequester 44 grams of CO2. That amounts to 80/44 * 1.82 kg = 3.3 kg of
NaOH that has to be contained within the 30x30x30 cm, or 27 liter, inner
box. With a density of 2.13 g/cm^3 the NaOH requires 3300 g/(2.13 g/cm^3)
= 1.55 liters. The carbon requires 1.82 liters for a total of 3.37 liters
for fuel, leaving over 23 liters, about 87% of the box, for other items.

Unless I made a calculation error, which is not unlikely, pyrolysis of
carbon appears to qualify as a mechanism for faking E-Cat tests of the
duration actually run, even without hydrino formation, closed ou processes,
calorimetry errors, etc. Such pyrolysis can even be run in a closed
system, provided some current is provided to sustain an arc, which should
be very feasible at the high temperatures expected inside the 30x30x30 cm
box if it contains heating elements and ceramic thermal storage. It is
notable that the original AquaFuel experiments produced an apparent COP of
around 7. If pyrolysis is an ou process, as claimed by various people the
last decade, then a closed recycling process could of course explain
Rossi's results in a sustainable way.

Best regards,

Horace Heffner
http://www.mtaonline.net/~**hheffner/http://www.mtaonline.net/~hheffner/

--
Dr. Peter Gluck
Cluj, Romania
http://egooutpeters.blogspot.com

Re: [Vo]:its been great

2011-11-21 Thread Charles Hope

I've tossed a few posters into my filter, generally for an excess of unamusing 
puns, but I never understood the theory of compounding the annoyance with long 
announcements of same. 



On Nov 21, 2011, at 0:56, Jouni Valkonen jounivalko...@gmail.com wrote:

 Apparently, Mary is less pathological case than Cude, but problem is that she 
 is a perpetual motion machine that goes endlessly onwards and onwards without 
 need for input energy (food). Like she has moral oblication to protect poor 
 and consideration inable investors from getting cheated.
 
 It would be nice if we could introduce her and other hyperactive posters a 
 special rule that there is a two post per day limit for messages that contain 
 quoted material and after the quota is exceeded there should be required 24 
 hour delay before reply can be sent. This would effectively prevent inboxes 
 to overflow without limiting too much discussion. Actually, it should enhance 
 the quality of discussion, because people would think more carefully what is 
 relavant to say.
 
 For filtering people, usually it is plausible to filter not just messages 
 that come from the address jounivalko...@gmail.com, but also messages where 
 the body contain a phrase Jouni Valkonen or email address. This way also 
 replies will get filtered.
 
 Also with filtering with Gmail, instead of diverting them into thrash bin, it 
 would be better to mark them as read automatically. This way it is easy to 
 ignore them in threads, but if there are new topics posted they still appear 
 in the inbox and will get noted, although not necessarily read.
 
 —Jouni
 
 Ps. After Mary came here I have in my inbox more than 70 threads that contain 
 unread messages. I would say that there is definitely a problem with posting 
 frequency.
 
 
 On Nov 21, 2011 1:33 AM, Daniel Rocha danieldi...@gmail.com wrote:
 Jed, that is NOT possible. He would still see people answering the same 
 things over and over again. What makes MY annoying is not the arguments, but 
 the repetition. But the repetition is not only hers, it is also from whoever 
 answer. So, it won't work just blocking. 
 
 2011/11/20 Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com
 Esa Ruoho esaru...@gmail.com wrote:
 
 you guys had a real nice list going. then mary yugo joined. im out of here.
 
 Why don't you just block out Mary Yugo's message? Problem solved.
 
 I'll do that in a week or so, and stop responding.
 
 - Jed
 
 
 
 
 -- 
 Daniel Rocha - RJ
 danieldi...@gmail.com

Re: [Vo]:Petroldragon and Leonardo Technologies, Inc.

2011-11-21 Thread James Bowery

This is a good example of why circumstantial evidence should be the last
resort. Who can deny that Rossi was indicted and tried? Who can deny that
the Italian government is corrrupt? Most importantly, how do you weigh the
virtually unlimited bits and pieces of circumstantial evidence against each
other when what you are actually demanding is consummation of multiple
layers of inference, each layer of which is fraught with uncertainty?
Agreed, if that's all you've got to go on, that's all you've got to go on.
But IT ISN'T.

On Mon, Nov 21, 2011 at 2:01 AM, Marcello Vitale mvit...@ucsbalum.netwrote:

As I already said, Rossi found himself between a rock and a hard place
with the changing definition of toxic waste and very reduced (for lack of
final regulations which are always late in Italy) disposal opportunities.
Working it up was not any longer legal, and it was not legal transporting
it without a permit he did not have and would have taken years to obtain,
nor was it legal storing it without same permit, and so on. I would have
quit everything and moved to Australia, Rossi tried to fight it. That
really does show he has no business sense.

If you have no idea what it is like trying to do business in Italy, stop
talking about it

On Mon, Nov 21, 2011 at 4:17 AM, Robert Leguillon
robert.leguil...@hotmail.com wrote:

I've reviewed several contemporary Italian articles, and here is an
exerpt of a 1994 article that should shed some light:

http://archiviostorico.corriere.it/1994/marzo/09/petrolio_dai_rifiuti_inservibile_tossico_co_0_94030910061.shtml

LTI
At UNH, Leonardo Technologies, Inc. demonstrated a Thermo Electric
device at 20% efficiency, when the norm was 4%. I am actually curious if
this demonstration involved boiling water. (If anyone can find info on the
University of New Hampshire testing, this could be incredibly telling).
According to the Army pdf below: When it can time to deliver, his
facility caught fire. Then he moved production, and the subcontractors
failed. Upwards of 75% of his units didn't work at all, and the remaining
gave 1 watt instead of 800-1000W. When he was bailed out to the point that
true experts were building him new assembly procedures, he finally built
working devices that performed right on par with

Re: [Vo]:Defkalion did not deny to use Piantelli technology!

On Mon, Nov 21, 2011 at 6:59 AM, Akira Shirakawa
shirakawa.ak...@gmail.com wrote:

 DGT moderators' behavior doesn't help. They say that they never answer to
 comments based on speculations, but they somewhat did here. A simple no
 comment would have been clearer.

It also doesn't help that Piantelli is allegedly working with another
company to introduce products:

http://www.nichenergy.com/

The web site is under construction still; but, would not surprise me
to come alive at any time.

T

Re: [Vo]:Defkalion did not deny to use Piantelli technology!

On Mon, Nov 21, 2011 at 8:28 AM,  peter.heck...@arcor.de wrote:
 Its interesting to watch how this rumour, that is based on pure speculation, 
 grows.
 The more messages appear online with the words Defkalion, Rossi, Piantelli 
 the higher the weight is that Google gives to this associations. This 
 increases the number of postings exponentially and grows the expansion speed 
 for the rumour.

 Google is a great self-confirming rumour assoziation and spreading machine, 
 that works much like human mind.
 Its all very similar to the birth of religions.
 Lets hope God will confuse their languages and make them hostile to each 
 other and stop this nonsense ;-)

This is true.  More than once, I have visited the Defkalion forum and
see who is present :  Engineer, four guests and Google (Bot).

:-)

T

Re: [Vo]:Defkalion did not deny to use Piantelli technology!

On Mon, Nov 21, 2011 at 9:08 AM, Terry Blanton hohlr...@gmail.com wrote:

 It also doesn't help that Piantelli is allegedly working with another
 company to introduce products:

 http://www.nichenergy.com/

 The web site is under construction still; but, would not surprise me
 to come alive at any time.

Site domain registration information:

Registrant:
 ALESSANDRO MEIARINI
 Via Belriguardo, 128
 SIENA, SI 53100
 IT
 Domain name: NICHENERGY.COM
 Administrative Contact:
MEIARINI, ALESSANDRO  nichene...@gmail.com
Via Belriguardo, 128
SIENA, SI 53100
IT
+39.3933313040
 Technical Contact:
MEIARINI, ALESSANDRO  nichene...@gmail.com
Via Belriguardo, 128
SIENA, SI 53100
IT
+39.3933313040
 Registration Service Provider:
Aruba S.p.A. - Servizio Aruba.it, comunicazi...@staff.aruba.it
+39.05750505
+39.0575862000 (fax)
http://www.aruba.it
Supporto tecnico - Technical support - Asistencia tecnica :



http://assistenza.aruba.it
 Registrar of Record: TUCOWS, INC.
 Record last updated on 10-Jun-2011.
 Record expires on 10-Jun-2013.
 Record created on 10-Jun-2011.
 Registrar Domain Name Help Center:
http://tucowsdomains.com
 Domain servers in listed order:
DNS2.TECHNORAIL.COM
DNS.TECHNORAIL.COM

end

T

Re: [Vo]:Defkalion did not deny to use Piantelli technology!

2011-11-21 Thread francis

 

Since Rossi said he never gave Defkallion his secret sauce then we should
treat DK like any other stand alone research team - Instead of chasing after
Rossi based on a broken contract DK should be pursuing a researcher to take
what they claim they already have to the next level. The patent mess for
anyone that produces a successful product is going to be almost impossible
to fix, I don't think anyone will ever be able to lay full claim due to
portions that already exist in public domain. If DK already has a working
product then let them show it and see if Rossi doesn't change his tune fast!

Fran

Re: [Vo]: ECAT 1 MW Test Discrepancy

2011-11-21 Thread Berke Durak

On Mon, Nov 21, 2011 at 12:59 AM, Joshua Cude joshua.c...@gmail.com wrote:
 What I meant is that the flow rate may have been lower at the
 beginning during the starting phase.  Maybe it was zero.

 Then what were they measuring at the output?

I'm under the impression that the temperature sensor was connected to the steam
pipe, and that therefore Tout is the temperature of the pipe.

 In fact, the output increases gradually throughout the warmup period from
 about 30C to the boiling point. This suggests the ecats and pipes etc are
 filled, and the water is flowing through the system.

The pipe is cooled at the other end by the air condensers.  Maybe it is slowly
heating up with heat transferred by larger and larger amounts of steam, and not
water.

 There is no indication anywhere that the flow rate was changed

Why wouldn't it change?  Were you there?  There are electrical pumps, valves, a
control system and sensors.

 and Rossi's calculation assumes a constant flow rate.

Which calculation?  All you need is the quantity of water vaporized; it doesn't
matter if they were vaporized at a constant rate or not.  And flow rate may be
stable once the stable regime has been reached.

 4) Water temperatures in the modules rise.  Steam production starts
 little by little and the sensed output steam temperature increases.

 If the ecats were not full, there would be nothing flowing out of them until
 the onset of boiling,

No, unless you meant empty.  As long as the amount of water in the ecats was
not zero it is conceivable to get steam.

 and then there would be a very steep increase in temperature.

Very steep is very qualitative.  Someone should try to run some numbers.

 Then, to reach
 a rate of vaporization of 675 kg/h, from the onset of boiling (0 kg/h) would
 take much longer than to reach the boiling onset. So, you would see a rapid,
 almost step increase, then a very much longer plateau.

How do you know the water in the ecats wasn't already at boiling temperature for
a long time?

 Or, if the heating elements were not submerged, the steam temperature would
 exceed the boiling point. And if they started submerged, the boiling would
 reduce the level, exposing them and then increasing the temperature of the
 steam.

So?  The output temperature fluctuates between 105 and 112 degrees.  And, again,
you assume that there is no mechanism to regulate the water level.

 In any case, there doesn't seem to be nearly enough time. Nearly all of the
 pre-heat period (2 hours) is used up in bringing the temperature up to the
 onset of boiling.

That's probably the temperature of the pipe.

 Increasing the power transfer by another factor of 8
 cannot happen in a few minutes.

Care to explain this?

 6) Pumps are turned on.  Flow rate matches vaporization capacity.

 It would be surprising if Rossi would know this rate beforehand, since he
 doesn't actually calculate the power until the end. He would need to get it

(a) he probably did test runs and (b) there is a frigging control system.
-- 
Berke Durak

Re: [Vo]: ECAT 1 MW Test Discrepancy

Berke Durak berke.du...@gmail.com wrote:

 It would be surprising if Rossi would know this rate beforehand, since he
  doesn't actually calculate the power until the end. He would need to get
 it

 (a) he probably did test runs and (b) there is a frigging control system.


Well said. Hilarious! Yes, control systems control things.

- Jed

Re: [Vo]:Rossi replies to my email

Terry Blanton hohlr...@gmail.com wrote:

Defkalion will sell you a 45 kW(th) plant.  We expect to see
 their announcement this week.


It might be a good idea for AR to approach Defkalion rather than Rossi.
They claim to have better reactors. I think their pricing is more
reasonable. I cannot see much use for a 100 kW reactor that will be
obsolete in a matter of months. A 1 MW model is even worse.

I have no inside knowledge but I suppose Rossi wants to sell only a few
large reactors so that he can earn a lot of money per unit, and so he can
keep an eye on the customer. From his point of view it is better to sell a
single 1 MW reactor than a hundred 10 kW reactors. If he had a patent,
things would be different.

- Jed

Re: [Vo]:Rossi replies to my email

He also says a 1 MW model cannot be reverse-engineered, but a individual
E-cat can. Can this be true?
Peter

On Mon, Nov 21, 2011 at 4:56 PM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com wrote:

 Terry Blanton hohlr...@gmail.com wrote:

 Defkalion will sell you a 45 kW(th) plant.  We expect to see
 their announcement this week.


 It might be a good idea for AR to approach Defkalion rather than Rossi.
 They claim to have better reactors. I think their pricing is more
 reasonable. I cannot see much use for a 100 kW reactor that will be
 obsolete in a matter of months. A 1 MW model is even worse.

 I have no inside knowledge but I suppose Rossi wants to sell only a few
 large reactors so that he can earn a lot of money per unit, and so he can
 keep an eye on the customer. From his point of view it is better to sell a
 single 1 MW reactor than a hundred 10 kW reactors. If he had a patent,
 things would be different.

 - Jed




-- 
Dr. Peter Gluck
Cluj, Romania
http://egooutpeters.blogspot.com

Re: [Vo]:Rossi replies to my email

I observe their blog. Lets see what they have when they reveal their 
specs and have public Black Box test results like Rossi has. As for unit 
prices, why would they go more than say 10% below Rossi's price? 
Anything above COP 10 will have little influence on buying choice as the 
input energy cost is then very low and the plant cost is the main factor 
in the LCOE determination. Like everything, ROI, reliability, plant life 
span, OM costs and risk drives the buying decision.


AG


On 11/21/2011 11:32 PM, Terry Blanton wrote:

Defkalion will sell you a 45 kW(th) plant.  We expect to see their
announcement this week.

T

Re: [Vo]: ECAT 1 MW Test Discrepancy

On Mon, Nov 21, 2011 at 8:41 AM, Berke Durak berke.du...@gmail.com wrote:


  and Rossi's calculation assumes a constant flow rate.

 Which calculation?  All you need is the quantity of water vaporized; it
 doesn't
 matter if they were vaporized at a constant rate or not.


The calculation in the report determines the quantity of output from the
input flow rate and the time. He assumes it's constant. He doesn't measure
the quantity of output vapor. That's probably because it would give a more
accurate calculation, which he seems to be trying to avoid.

As the power transfer increases, the output volume flow rate increases, the
speed of the steam increases, the enthalpy of the fluid increases. All
these things he doesn't measure. The one thing that *doesn't* increase as
the power transfer increases up to complete vaporization is the
temperature. But *that* he decides to measure every few seconds. And his
expert seemed to be fine with that. That shows that the company he
allegedly works for could have done better.


  4) Water temperatures in the modules rise.  Steam production starts
  little by little and the sensed output steam temperature increases.
 
  If the ecats were not full, there would be nothing flowing out of them
 until
  the onset of boiling,

 No, unless you meant empty.  As long as the amount of water in the ecats
 was
 not zero it is conceivable to get steam.


If there's steam, then that's after the onset of boiling, and then the
temperature would be at the boiling point.


 Then, to reach
  a rate of vaporization of 675 kg/h, from the onset of boiling (0 kg/h)
 would
  take much longer than to reach the boiling onset. So, you would see a
 rapid,
  almost step increase, then a very much longer plateau.

 How do you know the water in the ecats wasn't already at boiling
 temperature for
 a long time?


Because the temperature was below boiling. Going from the onset of boiling
to full vaporization (675 kg/h) would result in an ever increasing rate of
steam flow, but steady temperature at the local boiling point.


  Or, if the heating elements were not submerged, the steam temperature
 would
  exceed the boiling point. And if they started submerged, the boiling
 would
  reduce the level, exposing them and then increasing the temperature of
 the
  steam.

 So?  The output temperature fluctuates between 105 and 112 degrees.


Right, but if it's at the boiling point that represents a pretty small
fluctuation in pressure which is not difficult to imagine. On the other
hand, if the steam is above the boiling point it represents unrealistically
stable output power (within +/- 0.5%).



 And, again,
 you assume that there is no mechanism to regulate the water level.


Right. Because Rossi assumes it. And if there were regulation based on the
output temperature, given the time constant, you would see some kind of
regular oscillation. (The regulation Roberson refers to requires the heater
be submerged, which means the output is at the boiling point.)


  In any case, there doesn't seem to be nearly enough time. Nearly all of
 the
  pre-heat period (2 hours) is used up in bringing the temperature up to
 the
  onset of boiling.

 That's probably the temperature of the pipe.


Well, we're told it's the temperature of the output fluid.


  Increasing the power transfer by another factor of 8
  cannot happen in a few minutes.

 Care to explain this?


I have explained this many times, and people here are tired of repetition.
Briefly, the power transfer is proportional to the temperature difference
between the heating element and the water, So if it takes 2 hours at 170 kW
to bring it to the temperature necessary for the onset of boiling, it could
not produce a delta T 8 times as large in a few minutes with 470 kW. The
thermal mass evident in the warm-up period would prevent that.


  6) Pumps are turned on.  Flow rate matches vaporization capacity.
 
  It would be surprising if Rossi would know this rate beforehand, since he
  doesn't actually calculate the power until the end. He would need to get
 it

 (a) he probably did test runs and (b) there is a frigging control system.


Possibly, but he was talking 1 MW until the last minute, when he throttled
back to 1/2 MW, so that throttling, which he doesn't explain, would have to
be pretty accurate.

And Rossi himself says the flow rate was constant from 12:30 on. A control
system could not have known the output power until it reached its peak,
which could not have happened until 12:35 at the very earliest (when the
temperature went above 100C). And what would be monitored to control the
power? Temperature wouldn't do it, because, like I said, the temperature is
the same for 70 kW and 470 kW, and there is no indication in the report
that anything else was measured. There could be a lot of behind the scenes
stuff, but if it is necessary to prove (or even make plausible) that the
power was 470 kW, then it should be in the report. What is in the report
doesn't

Re: [Vo]:Rossi replies to my email

On Mon, Nov 21, 2011 at 10:24 AM, Aussie Guy E-Cat
aussieguy.e...@gmail.com wrote:
 As for unit prices,
 why would they go more than say 10% below Rossi's price?

Different market segments need to see different ROIs.  Domestic users
would prefer a ROI of 3 years while a Industrial user might be happy
with a 10 year ROI since their investment is so much higher.

T

[Vo]:Interesting next 12 months

It should be an interesting next 12 months with at least 2 companies 
selling LENR systems. I also note that both the EmDrive (Chinese claim 
to have replicated) and the QDrive reactionless space drives apparently 
work and will cause a few cracks in the set in concrete Laws. One 
wonders if the Dean Drive http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dean_drive also 
worked but got buried like LENR because it COULDN'T work as it violated 
the Conservation of Momentum and we lost 50 years of reactionless drive 
development. I do remember seeing the Dean Drive on Dave Garroway's 
Today Show (in 1958 according to Google) as it hung vertical from a 
chain and pulled a load toward it. Yes I do understand stiction. 
Probably time to put on my flame proof suit. ;)

Re: [Vo]:Interesting next 12 months

LENR does not violate neither energy nor momentum.

2011/11/21 Aussie Guy E-Cat aussieguy.e...@gmail.com

 It should be an interesting next 12 months with at least 2 companies
 selling LENR systems. I also note that both the EmDrive (Chinese claim to
 have replicated) and the QDrive reactionless space drives apparently work
 and will cause a few cracks in the set in concrete Laws. One wonders if the
 Dean Drive 
 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/**Dean_drivehttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dean_drivealso
  worked but got buried like LENR because it COULDN'T work as it
 violated the Conservation of Momentum and we lost 50 years of reactionless
 drive development. I do remember seeing the Dean Drive on Dave Garroway's
 Today Show (in 1958 according to Google) as it hung vertical from a chain
 and pulled a load toward it. Yes I do understand stiction. Probably time to
 put on my flame proof suit. ;)




-- 
Daniel Rocha - RJ
danieldi...@gmail.com

Re: [Vo]:Interesting next 12 months

On Mon, Nov 21, 2011 at 8:00 AM, Aussie Guy E-Cat
aussieguy.e...@gmail.comwrote:

 It should be an interesting next 12 months with at least 2 companies
 selling LENR systems.


It will only become very interesting when someone can identify at least
**one** client who actually received a machine, tested it properly and can
prove it works.

Re: [Vo]:Interesting next 12 months

2011-11-21 Thread Ron Kita

Re: Dean DriveJim Cox formerly of TRW Space Park has devoted his entire
life to
the Dean Drive.   Seems to work..but...mechanically difficult.  Jim now
is retired in lives
in Sparks NV  bootstrap...@yahoo.com   The Interial Drive by Professor
Alfio DiBella
of the University of Bologna works in according to a Mobius Path called
Vivendi Window
Patent 3404854

Ron Kita
Doylestown PA  Ad Astra
On Mon, Nov 21, 2011 at 11:00 AM, Aussie Guy E-Cat aussieguy.e...@gmail.com
 wrote:

 It should be an interesting next 12 months with at least 2 companies
 selling LENR systems. I also note that both the EmDrive (Chinese claim to
 have replicated) and the QDrive reactionless space drives apparently work
 and will cause a few cracks in the set in concrete Laws. One wonders if the
 Dean Drive 
 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/**Dean_drivehttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dean_drivealso
  worked but got buried like LENR because it COULDN'T work as it
 violated the Conservation of Momentum and we lost 50 years of reactionless
 drive development. I do remember seeing the Dean Drive on Dave Garroway's
 Today Show (in 1958 according to Google) as it hung vertical from a chain
 and pulled a load toward it. Yes I do understand stiction. Probably time to
 put on my flame proof suit. ;)

Re: [Vo]:its been great

Sorry if anyone is upset.  I might have been a bit prolific at posting but
it was mostly in response to responses.  What shall I do?  Avoid responding
to responses?   Anyway, I will post less -- very little happening currently
except Rossi is contradicting himself again.  This time it's about his
backlog.  It's not worth discussing.

Re: [Vo]:New LENR Patent Appl: Method for Producing Heavy Electrons

2011-11-21 Thread pagnucco

Joshua,

If this is a real phenomenon, might it not involve complex many-body
effects that first-order approximations can't capture?

Also, since this is a NASA patent, doesn't it have to go through a fairly
rigorous review process?  and have some empirical data backing it?


 On Sun, Nov 20, 2011 at 9:38 PM, Alan Fletcher a...@well.com wrote:

 Absolutely!  Widom-Larsen (where an electron combines with a Proton to
 form a Neutron and a Neutrino).
 has a critical mass, similar to the Coulomb barrier for regular fusion.


 Actually, it's about 10 times higher. And it's an *energy* barrier, just
 like fusion, too. WL like to call it a heavy electron to obscure the fact
 that you have to concentrate 780 MeV of energy in a single atomic site to
 produce electron capture. Since this reaction is endothermic, there is no
 possibility of tunneling through it; the energy has to be supplied. In the
 case of d-d fusion, reaction probability becomes useful below 100 keV,
 because that reaction is exothermic, and so tunneling is possible.


 The muon:proton has enough mass, and is known to happen.
 But electron:proton doesn't --WL proposes one method of getting an
 effective electron mass.


 I don't see the comparison to muon-catalyzed fusion. In muon catalyzed
 fusion the muon replaces an electron in hydrogen, and since its average
 distance from the nucleus is much smaller, it shields the charge of the
 nucleus more effectively, allowing closer approach between nuclei to
 improve the probability for fusion. WL propose that the heavy (energetic)
 electron is captured by the nucleus (proton), so the resulting neutron is
 captured by another nucleus. It's a rather different process.

Re: [Vo]:its been great

2011-11-21 Thread vorl bek

 Sorry if anyone is upset.  I might have been a bit prolific at
 posting but it was mostly in response to responses.  What shall
 I do?  Avoid responding to responses? 

Keep posting. The hothouse flowers around here who are bruised by
what you say can use their killfiles.

Re: [Vo]:Interesting next 12 months

Jim Cox videos of Dean Drive replication: 
www.youtube.com/watch?v=mtBvzCjpPcE Must admit I did build a unit but it 
never worked.


AG


On 11/22/2011 2:46 AM, Ron Kita wrote:


Re: Dean DriveJim Cox formerly of TRW Space Park has devoted his 
entire life to
the Dean Drive.   Seems to work..but...mechanically difficult.  Jim 
now is retired in lives
in Sparks NV bootstrap...@yahoo.com mailto:bootstrap...@yahoo.com   
The Interial Drive by Professor Alfio DiBella
of the University of Bologna works in according to a Mobius Path 
called Vivendi Window

Patent 3404854
Ron Kita
Doylestown PA  Ad Astra
On Mon, Nov 21, 2011 at 11:00 AM, Aussie Guy E-Cat 
aussieguy.e...@gmail.com mailto:aussieguy.e...@gmail.com wrote:


It should be an interesting next 12 months with at least 2
companies selling LENR systems. I also note that both the EmDrive
(Chinese claim to have replicated) and the QDrive reactionless
space drives apparently work and will cause a few cracks in the
set in concrete Laws. One wonders if the Dean Drive
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dean_drive also worked but got buried
like LENR because it COULDN'T work as it violated the Conservation
of Momentum and we lost 50 years of reactionless drive
development. I do remember seeing the Dean Drive on Dave
Garroway's Today Show (in 1958 according to Google) as it hung
vertical from a chain and pulled a load toward it. Yes I do
understand stiction. Probably time to put on my flame proof suit. ;)

Re: [Vo]:Interesting next 12 months

On Mon, Nov 21, 2011 at 8:33 AM, Aussie Guy E-Cat
aussieguy.e...@gmail.comwrote:

 Jim Cox videos of Dean Drive replication:
 www.youtube.com/watch?v=mtBvzCjpPcE Must admit I did build a unit but it
 never worked.


Very unconvincing.  If it's not simply sleight of hand, it seems to be
fooling mechanical scales because they have a poor frequency response.
Probably analogous to trying to read a complex AC waveform on a cheap
digital voltmeter -- a lot of so-called free energy of the bargain
basement done-in-my-garage variety relies on that.  It'd be interesting to
see what the device does when connected to a modern fast responding strain
gauge and a nice wide band integrating oscilloscope.

Re: [Vo]:New LENR Patent Appl: Method for Producing Heavy Electrons

On Mon, Nov 21, 2011 at 10:18 AM, pagnu...@htdconnect.com wrote:

 Joshua,

 If this is a real phenomenon, might it not involve complex many-body
 effects that first-order approximations can't capture?


Sure, but saying it's complex does not make it plausible. WL don't actually
predict any reaction rates based on measurable conditions.

If anti--gravity or perpetual motion are real phenomena, they might involve
complex many-body effects that first-order approximations can't capture.

To my mind, evidence is essential to take claims that are otherwise
implausible seriously, and evidence is sorely lacking, especially evidence
for a WL-type scenario.




 Also, since this is a NASA patent, doesn't it have to go through a fairly
 rigorous review process?  and have some empirical data backing it?



I don't think so. A lot of patents are filed on speculation alone. We know
NASA (Bushnell) is enamored of the WL theory, and a big part of it requires
heavy electrons, which of course means energetic electrons, so any
proposed patent that claims methods to make them will capture Bushnell's
attention, and he is likely to push it through. I just scanned the patent
application, and there doesn't seem to be any experimental data, and I
don't think Bushnell would require it. He has publicly endorsed WL without
empirical data (from NASA), so if he thinks it's right, I'm sure he would
be interested in reserving some intellectual property related to it on
speculation alone. I don't think he has the background to evaluate the
theory critically. His take on it seems no more sophisticated than
Krivit's, and that's not saying much. NASA is an impressive organization,
but Bushnell's comments about lenr and WL are much less impressive.

If there are some empirical data obtained by NASA on lenr or the WL theory,
I would be interested to see it.

Re: [Vo]:Interesting next 12 months

Must say that for once we agree that the test protocol needs significant 
improvement. However both the EmDrive and the QDrive seem to work.


AG


On 11/22/2011 3:22 AM, Mary Yugo wrote:



On Mon, Nov 21, 2011 at 8:33 AM, Aussie Guy E-Cat 
aussieguy.e...@gmail.com mailto:aussieguy.e...@gmail.com wrote:


Jim Cox videos of Dean Drive replication:
www.youtube.com/watch?v=mtBvzCjpPcE
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mtBvzCjpPcE Must admit I did
build a unit but it never worked.


Very unconvincing.  If it's not simply sleight of hand, it seems to be 
fooling mechanical scales because they have a poor frequency 
response.  Probably analogous to trying to read a complex AC waveform 
on a cheap digital voltmeter -- a lot of so-called free energy of 
the bargain basement done-in-my-garage variety relies on that.  It'd 
be interesting to see what the device does when connected to a modern 
fast responding strain gauge and a nice wide band integrating 
oscilloscope.

Re: [Vo]:its been great

2011-11-21 Thread Stephen A. Lawrence




On 11-11-20 04:52 PM, OrionWorks - Steven Vincent Johnson wrote:

 From Jed


 From Esa
you guys had a real nice list going. then mary yugo joined.
im out of here.

Why don't you just block out Mary Yugo's message? Problem solved.

I'll do that in a week or so, and stop responding.

Esa, you sound petulant.

Ms. Yugo has a right to express her opinions on the matter, as does Mr.
Cude.

However, after listening to the same stalwart opinions being expressed over
and over... opinions that long ago stopped revealing anything useful


Actually I've found Joshua's comments to be occasionally quite 
insightful.  Furthermore, in his more recent posts he's generally 
dropped, suppressed, or anyway mostly not mentioned his global anti-LENR 
stance, and stuck pretty closely to the topic of Rossi, which makes his 
comments a lot more palatable, IMHO.  (Of course, Jed and others will no 
doubt claim Joshua simply doesn't get the point with regard to the 
recent tests, but that's something else again...)


Mary, OTOH, does the broken-record bit far, far too much of the time, 
with far, far too many posts, and if she's contributed any actual new 
insights on the matter I somehow managed to overlook them.


(And now I'll go back to doing something useful and get out of here.)

Re: [Vo]:Interesting next 12 months


For inquiring minds:

Dean Drive: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dean_drive 
http://www.jerrypournelle.com/science/dean.html

EmDrive: http://emdrive.com/
QDrive: http://www.cannae.com/

AG


On 11/22/2011 2:34 AM, Daniel Rocha wrote:

LENR does not violate neither energy nor momentum.

2011/11/21 Aussie Guy E-Cat aussieguy.e...@gmail.com 
mailto:aussieguy.e...@gmail.com


It should be an interesting next 12 months with at least 2
companies selling LENR systems. I also note that both the EmDrive
(Chinese claim to have replicated) and the QDrive reactionless
space drives apparently work and will cause a few cracks in the
set in concrete Laws. One wonders if the Dean Drive
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dean_drive also worked but got buried
like LENR because it COULDN'T work as it violated the Conservation
of Momentum and we lost 50 years of reactionless drive
development. I do remember seeing the Dean Drive on Dave
Garroway's Today Show (in 1958 according to Google) as it hung
vertical from a chain and pulled a load toward it. Yes I do
understand stiction. Probably time to put on my flame proof suit. ;)




--
Daniel Rocha - RJ
danieldi...@gmail.com mailto:danieldi...@gmail.com

Re: [Vo]:Interesting next 12 months


Again we agree. As we seem to be on a roll, care to make it a hat trick?

AG


On 11/22/2011 2:45 AM, Mary Yugo wrote:



On Mon, Nov 21, 2011 at 8:00 AM, Aussie Guy E-Cat 
aussieguy.e...@gmail.com mailto:aussieguy.e...@gmail.com wrote:


It should be an interesting next 12 months with at least 2
companies selling LENR systems.


It will only become very interesting when someone can identify at 
least **one** client who actually received a machine, tested it 
properly and can prove it works.

Re: [Vo]:Interesting next 12 months

Yeah, I don't think anyone has built a successful Dean Drive.
However, I believe the propulsion system patent granted to Eric R.
Laithwaite posthumously has a chance:

http://ip.com/patent/US5860317

T

[Vo]:USPTO Lawlessness?

2011-11-21 Thread James Bowery

There have been many complaints about the US patent office refusing to
grant anything that smacks of cold fusion ever since the mid 1990s.
Patterson was, I believe, the last person to be granted a patent and he is
now dead.

Does anyone have a cite for an official communication from the USPTO
regarding its refusal to allow patents that smack of cold fusion?

Re: [Vo]:Interesting next 12 months

I did follow up on what G. Harry Stine observed in a long steel rod: 
http://www.rexresearch.com/dean/stine.htm Stine was only one of a few 
that ever saw the Dean Drive in the flesh. I have searched for but never 
found a video of the Dean Drive demo on the Dave Garroway Today Show. 
I'm sure there is a video tape somewhere???  Stine said: ...I saw the 
Dean Drive work, and I think I know how and why it worked...If it is 
impossible, what pushed against my hand?...


AG


On 11/22/2011 3:39 AM, Terry Blanton wrote:

Yeah, I don't think anyone has built a successful Dean Drive.
However, I believe the propulsion system patent granted to Eric R.
Laithwaite posthumously has a chance:

http://ip.com/patent/US5860317

T

[Vo]:Open letter from Brian Josephson to Andrea Rossi (Focus.it)


Hello group,

Have a read at the latest English article from Focus.it on the E-Cat. 
This time it's Brian Josephson who's written an open letter to Andrea Rossi:


http://bit.ly/josephson-rossi-uk


(credits to 22passi for the news: 
http://22passi.blogspot.com/2011/11/lettera-aperta-da-brian-josephson.html )


Cheers,
S.A.

Re: [Vo]:New LENR Patent Appl: Method for Producing Heavy Electrons

2011-11-21 Thread pagnucco

 On Mon, Nov 21, 2011 at 10:18 AM, pagnu...@htdconnect.com wrote:

 Joshua,

 If this is a real phenomenon, might it not involve complex many-body
 effects that first-order approximations can't capture?
[...]

 If there are some empirical data obtained by NASA on lenr or the WL
 theory,
 I would be interested to see it.


Fair enough.  Lewis Larsen's site identifies a number of conditions under
which transmutations have been observed.  His site is at:

http://dev2.slideshare.com/lewisglarsen

I am not sure what lab costs are nowadays, but I can't see why university
labs couldn't perform some of these experiments.

If Larsen is correct, some new physics is hiding in plain sight.

Re: [Vo]:its been great

From Stephen:

...

 Actually I've found Joshua's comments to be occasionally quite insightful.
  Furthermore, in his more recent posts he's generally dropped, suppressed,
 or anyway mostly not mentioned his global anti-LENR stance, and stuck pretty
 closely to the topic of Rossi, which makes his comments a lot more
 palatable, IMHO.  (Of course, Jed and others will no doubt claim Joshua
 simply doesn't get the point with regard to the recent tests, but that's
 something else again...)

I agree. I realized right after I sent the message that I should have
been more specific. It is obvious that Mr. Cude has a decent
educational background on certain matters pertaining to the laws of
physics. I think my only major disagreement with Mr. Cude is that he
has given me the impression that he believes the entire CF community
is either wrong, deluded, or up to something no good. Mr. Cude can
certainly correct me if I have misinterpreted him, but the impression
he has given me is that all the scientific data pertaining to CF for
which he has personally reviewed over the past 20 years is far too
inclusive for him to take seriously. To proclaim that the entire CF
community has been wrong, over and over, strikes me as a perceptual
issue. Life is too short for me to try to figure out why Mr. Cude
might think that is so. It  ceased to be a point of interest to me. I
am far more interested in finding out WHO's in possession of Rossi's
eCats, what Defkalion is planning to do next, and what the rest of the
major players are planning on doing with Rossi's controversial
technology. As blasphemous as this might sound for me to say, right
now, all the arguments both pro and con pertaining to Rossi science
can go to hell, for all I care. I'm far more interested in FOLLOIWNG
THE MONEY

 Mary, OTOH, does the broken-record bit far, far too much of the time, with
 far, far too many posts, and if she's contributed any actual new insights on
 the matter I somehow managed to overlook them.

That was what my previous post was actually meant for.

Regards
Steven Vincent Johnson
www.OrionWorks.com
www.zazzle.com/orionworks

Re: [Vo]:its been great

Low energy nuclear reactions cause cognitive dissonance among many
skeptics.  It is similar to the primal fear of the unknown.

T

Re: [Vo]:Open letter from Brian Josephson to Andrea Rossi (Focus.it)

From Akira:

 Have a read at the latest English article from Focus.it on the E-Cat. This
 time it's Brian Josephson who's written an open letter to Andrea Rossi:

 http://bit.ly/josephson-rossi-uk


From Josephson:

...

 It appears that the UK Department of Energy and
 Climate Change (DECC), unlike its US counterpart,
 has an open mind regarding your reactor, ...

Priceless! That made me laugh.

This is just my opinion, and my opinion might be wrong but I suspect
Rossi will decline Josephson's invitation - for the simple reason that
Rossi does not trust the scientific establishment. I suspect he fears
they would either attempt to falsify his work, or screw up the results
so bad that it would make him and his work look like a scam operation.

Alas, it would be nice if Rossi would follow up on Josephson's invitation.

Regards
Steven Vincent Johnson
www.OrionWorks.com
www.zazzle.com/orionworks

Re: [Vo]:New LENR Patent Appl: Method for Producing Heavy Electrons

In this and previous posts I said a few times that the energy needed for
electron capture by a proton is 780 MeV. That would be something, but it's
actually 780 keV, which is still a lot, and is about 10 times bigger than
what's needed for d-d fusion (less than 100 keV). I hope anyone who
actually read the posts without falling asleep recognized the units error
and took the intended point anyway.


On Mon, Nov 21, 2011 at 10:55 AM, Joshua Cude joshua.c...@gmail.com wrote:



 On Mon, Nov 21, 2011 at 10:18 AM, pagnu...@htdconnect.com wrote:

 Joshua,

 If this is a real phenomenon, might it not involve complex many-body
 effects that first-order approximations can't capture?


 Sure, but saying it's complex does not make it plausible. WL don't
 actually predict any reaction rates based on measurable conditions.

 If anti--gravity or perpetual motion are real phenomena, they might
 involve complex many-body effects that first-order approximations can't
 capture.

 To my mind, evidence is essential to take claims that are otherwise
 implausible seriously, and evidence is sorely lacking, especially evidence
 for a WL-type scenario.




 Also, since this is a NASA patent, doesn't it have to go through a fairly
 rigorous review process?  and have some empirical data backing it?



 I don't think so. A lot of patents are filed on speculation alone. We know
 NASA (Bushnell) is enamored of the WL theory, and a big part of it requires
 heavy electrons, which of course means energetic electrons, so any
 proposed patent that claims methods to make them will capture Bushnell's
 attention, and he is likely to push it through. I just scanned the patent
 application, and there doesn't seem to be any experimental data, and I
 don't think Bushnell would require it. He has publicly endorsed WL without
 empirical data (from NASA), so if he thinks it's right, I'm sure he would
 be interested in reserving some intellectual property related to it on
 speculation alone. I don't think he has the background to evaluate the
 theory critically. His take on it seems no more sophisticated than
 Krivit's, and that's not saying much. NASA is an impressive organization,
 but Bushnell's comments about lenr and WL are much less impressive.

 If there are some empirical data obtained by NASA on lenr or the WL
 theory, I would be interested to see it.

Re: [Vo]:Open letter from Brian Josephson to Andrea Rossi (Focus.it)

Well, the skepticism towards Rossi will be much worse if he refuses
Josephson's invitation. This guy is completely off mainstream and not
taking his word is really, really bad for his business...

2011/11/21 OrionWorks - Steven V Johnson svj.orionwo...@gmail.com

 From Akira:

  Have a read at the latest English article from Focus.it on the E-Cat.
 This
  time it's Brian Josephson who's written an open letter to Andrea Rossi:
 
  http://bit.ly/josephson-rossi-uk
 

 From Josephson:

 ...

  It appears that the UK Department of Energy and
  Climate Change (DECC), unlike its US counterpart,
  has an open mind regarding your reactor, ...

 Priceless! That made me laugh.

 This is just my opinion, and my opinion might be wrong but I suspect
 Rossi will decline Josephson's invitation - for the simple reason that
 Rossi does not trust the scientific establishment. I suspect he fears
 they would either attempt to falsify his work, or screw up the results
 so bad that it would make him and his work look like a scam operation.

 Alas, it would be nice if Rossi would follow up on Josephson's invitation.

 Regards
 Steven Vincent Johnson
 www.OrionWorks.com
 www.zazzle.com/orionworks




-- 
Daniel Rocha - RJ
danieldi...@gmail.com

Re: [Vo]:New LENR Patent Appl: Method for Producing Heavy Electrons

I did recognize, but even so, I am not sure what you mean by energy needed
for capture. For example, in large nuclei, the required energy is 0, since
k-capture doesn't need to be induced or stimulated.

2011/11/21 Joshua Cude joshua.c...@gmail.com

 In this and previous posts I said a few times that the energy needed for
 electron capture by a proton is 780 MeV. That would be something, but it's
 actually 780 keV, which is still a lot, and is about 10 times bigger than
 what's needed for d-d fusion (less than 100 keV). I hope anyone who
 actually read the posts without falling asleep recognized the units error
 and took the intended point anyway.


 On Mon, Nov 21, 2011 at 10:55 AM, Joshua Cude joshua.c...@gmail.comwrote:



 On Mon, Nov 21, 2011 at 10:18 AM, pagnu...@htdconnect.com wrote:

 Joshua,

 If this is a real phenomenon, might it not involve complex many-body
 effects that first-order approximations can't capture?


 Sure, but saying it's complex does not make it plausible. WL don't
 actually predict any reaction rates based on measurable conditions.

 If anti--gravity or perpetual motion are real phenomena, they might
 involve complex many-body effects that first-order approximations can't
 capture.

 To my mind, evidence is essential to take claims that are otherwise
 implausible seriously, and evidence is sorely lacking, especially evidence
 for a WL-type scenario.




 Also, since this is a NASA patent, doesn't it have to go through a fairly
 rigorous review process?  and have some empirical data backing it?



 I don't think so. A lot of patents are filed on speculation alone. We
 know NASA (Bushnell) is enamored of the WL theory, and a big part of it
 requires heavy electrons, which of course means energetic electrons, so
 any proposed patent that claims methods to make them will capture
 Bushnell's attention, and he is likely to push it through. I just scanned
 the patent application, and there doesn't seem to be any experimental data,
 and I don't think Bushnell would require it. He has publicly endorsed WL
 without empirical data (from NASA), so if he thinks it's right, I'm sure he
 would be interested in reserving some intellectual property related to it
 on speculation alone. I don't think he has the background to evaluate the
 theory critically. His take on it seems no more sophisticated than
 Krivit's, and that's not saying much. NASA is an impressive organization,
 but Bushnell's comments about lenr and WL are much less impressive.

 If there are some empirical data obtained by NASA on lenr or the WL
 theory, I would be interested to see it.







-- 
Daniel Rocha - RJ
danieldi...@gmail.com

Re: [Vo]:Open letter from Brian Josephson to Andrea Rossi (Focus.it)

From Daniel:

 Well, the skepticism towards Rossi will be much worse if he refuses
 Josephson's invitation. This guy is completely off mainstream and not taking
 his word is really, really bad for his business...

IMO, if Rossi feels he has successfully pocketed a few select
corporations who believe in his technology he would give a fart about
trying to appease the scientific establishment. In fact it's possible
that trying to appease them would be counterproductive in the sense
that it would draw too much attention to his operations. At this
delicate stage of the game Rossi knows he is exceedingly vulnerable
since I gather he doesn't have adequate patent protection. Best to let
the rest of the world believe he's a scam artist. Doesn't matter to
Rossi, as long as a select few (who have performed due diligence)
think otherwise.

Regards
Steven Vincent Johnson
www.OrionWorks.com
www.zazzle.com/orionworks

Re: [Vo]:Open letter from Brian Josephson to Andrea Rossi (Focus.it)

OrionWorks - Steven V Johnson svj.orionwo...@gmail.com wrote:

IMO, if Rossi feels he has successfully pocketed a few select corporations
 who believe in his technology he would give a fart about trying to appease
 the scientific establishment.


He never did a fart about that. If he has customers, all the more reason to
ignore scientists.



 In fact it's possible that trying to appease them would be
 counterproductive in the sense that it would draw too much attention to his
 operations.


I agree. My guess is, that is what he is thinking.

- Jed

Re: [Vo]:New LENR Patent Appl: Method for Producing Heavy Electrons

I sed:

 IMO, if Rossi feels he has successfully pocketed
 a few select corporations who believe in his technology
 he would give a fart about trying to appease the
 scientific establishment.

Jed sed:

 He never did a fart about that. If he has customers,
 all the more reason to ignore scientists.

Argh! I meant: wouldn't have given a fart! about what the scientific
establishment thought of him. Wouldn't!!!

dyslexia strikes again.

Regards
Steven Vincent Johnson
www.OrionWorks.com
www.zazzle.com/orionworks

Re: [Vo]:Interesting next 12 months

2011-11-21 Thread David Roberson


AG, I took a quick look at the EmDrive and QDrive information and must say that 
it would take a lot more effort to have any idea of how they work.
One question which I would like to have answered is as follows:  Do either of 
these devices emit electromagnetic radiation in a direction that is
opposite to the forward thrust?  In my humble way of thinking, momentum is 
carried away with radio waves just as it would be if actual material
were expelled.  If these devices emit radio waves, then they do not excite me.

Dave

-Original Message-
From: Aussie Guy E-Cat aussieguy.e...@gmail.com
To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com
Sent: Mon, Nov 21, 2011 12:06 pm
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Interesting next 12 months


For inquiring minds:
Dean Drive: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dean_drive 
ttp://www.jerrypournelle.com/science/dean.html
mDrive: http://emdrive.com/
Drive: http://www.cannae.com/
AG

n 11/22/2011 2:34 AM, Daniel Rocha wrote:
 LENR does not violate neither energy nor momentum.

 2011/11/21 Aussie Guy E-Cat aussieguy.e...@gmail.com 
 mailto:aussieguy.e...@gmail.com

 It should be an interesting next 12 months with at least 2
 companies selling LENR systems. I also note that both the EmDrive
 (Chinese claim to have replicated) and the QDrive reactionless
 space drives apparently work and will cause a few cracks in the
 set in concrete Laws. One wonders if the Dean Drive
 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dean_drive also worked but got buried
 like LENR because it COULDN'T work as it violated the Conservation
 of Momentum and we lost 50 years of reactionless drive
 development. I do remember seeing the Dean Drive on Dave
 Garroway's Today Show (in 1958 according to Google) as it hung
 vertical from a chain and pulled a load toward it. Yes I do
 understand stiction. Probably time to put on my flame proof suit. ;)




 -- 
 Daniel Rocha - RJ
 danieldi...@gmail.com mailto:danieldi...@gmail.com

Re: [Vo]:New LENR Patent Appl: Method for Producing Heavy Electrons

OrionWorks - Steven V Johnson svj.orionwo...@gmail.com wrote:


 Argh! I meant: wouldn't have given a fart! about what the scientific
 establishment thought of him. Wouldn't!!!


We get it. Everyone knows Rossi has contempt for scientists. I think he
exaggerates his contempt. I have a feeling he uses that as an excuse not to
do good tests.

He does not want to say outright I do not want too much credibility
because that will encourage competition but I suspect that is the
strategy. Other people, such as Patterson, have used the same strategy.
Patterson himself told me this.

- Jed

Re: [Vo]:USPTO Lawlessness?

2011-11-21 Thread Sean True

I've spoken to two patent attorneys about this, one who has been
involved in patents in this space. They were both clear that it's
policy, but have never seen a written policy, and could not find one
on a casual search. This smacks of unwritten rules, and that smacks of
, well, lawlessness.

One was pretty clear that attempting patents in CF was somewhere
between pointless and professional suicide.

-- Sean

Re: [Vo]:Open letter from Brian Josephson to Andrea Rossi (Focus.it)

I am glad Josephson did this but unfortunately I expect Rossi will decline
the offer. He says he does not want to do tests, and he means it.

Defkalion, on the other hand, said that by the end of this month:

A full specs sheet as well as product's basic design and their scheduled
third party testing will be released as per our announcement of November
14th.

Let us hope they mean that. They announced similar plans earlier. Evidently
the schedule slipped. That is not surprising, given the difficulty of
developing this product and the commotion with Rossi.

They originally announced they would publish the Energy Ministry documents
about their reactor in mid-summer, in July as I recall. They did not meet
that deadline and never explained why. Either they did not meet the
deadline, or the Ministry did not.

Things are chaotic in Greece these days. Perhaps that is part of the
problem.

- Jed

Re: [Vo]:USPTO Lawlessness?

There is a Patent Office memo here:

http://lenr-canr.org/Collections/PatentOfficeMemo.jpg

I take this to mean they plan to deep six any application relating to cold
fusion. That has been the de facto policy ever since this memo was written.
However, the memo is vague enough that someone might argue it means they
plan to give cold fusion special, kid gloves treatment to expedite
applications. These bureaucrats are not stupid. They would not write a
smoking gun memo ordering their staff to summarily reject any cold fusion
application.

Maybe I should add this document to the regular library, along with the
patent just issued.

The patent office has not denied all patents related to cold fusion. Some
have slipped through, mainly a technicality, such as the one they gave
Patterson because he was old.

Honestly, I do not claim the patent office for this mess. Opposition to
cold fusion is society-wide. It is prevalent among scientists although the
number who support cold fusion is larger than most people realize.
Opposition and ignorance is universal in the mass media, and among high
officials such as Sec. of Energy Chu.

- Jed

[Vo]:Tovima: Defkalion says the catalyst formula is not Rossi's

We discussed the Tovima article already. I do not think we have noted this:


And the catalyst? We asked. It's not supposed to be secret Rossi?

[Xanthoulis responded] All the technology used in devices at the Hyperion
KW and systems 1 to 5MW are our own design – different from those of Rossi


That comment was emphasized in this report on the Tovima article:

We Have Our Own eCat Says Defkalion

http://ecatnews.com/?p=1368

The ecatnews author says: That sounds to me like a legal defence in
preparation. It sounds that way to me, too!

There has been some indirect discussion of this. People here have
speculated that the formula comes from Piantelli. I have no idea. As far as
I know Piantelli has not worked with powder, and I think powder is the best
approach.

I predict a monumental knock-down drag-out court battle.


Original article:

http://www.tovima.gr/science/article/?aid=430840

- Jed

Re: [Vo]:Tovima: Defkalion says the catalyst formula is not Rossi's

In their online form, Defkalion is still polite to Rossi, giving him credit
for the discovery. They should be polite. This is how a professional
business organization talks. As I see it, this interview and the tone in
their forum are intended to send a message to Rossi:


You better settle this argument and come to an agreement with us, or we
will begin manufacturing these things with an independently discovered
version of the catalyst.


Some people think Defkalion is bluffing. They say that if Defkalion had
independently developed the catalyst they would go ahead and sell it,
without trying to reach a new agreement with Rossi. I suppose they are
trying to make nice to him for two reasons:

1. It is the right thing to do ethically. He deserves the money.

2. It is less trouble than a huge legal battle.

- Jed

Re: [Vo]:Tovima: Defkalion says the catalyst formula is not Rossi's

2011-11-21 Thread Jeff Sutton

IMHO  if Rossi did indeed discover/create a new catalyst then he has new
art and it would be patent-able.  I think this is part of Rossi's
misdirection and why Defkalion has little to fear; either the catalyst is
nothing new or Rossi;s ownership is in question.

If this is the case I feel for Rossi in that he has opened the door but
might not be able to go through it.

On Mon, Nov 21, 2011 at 3:15 PM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com wrote:

 In their online form, Defkalion is still polite to Rossi, giving him
 credit for the discovery. They should be polite. This is how a professional
 business organization talks. As I see it, this interview and the tone in
 their forum are intended to send a message to Rossi:


 You better settle this argument and come to an agreement with us, or we
 will begin manufacturing these things with an independently discovered
 version of the catalyst.


 Some people think Defkalion is bluffing. They say that if Defkalion had
 independently developed the catalyst they would go ahead and sell it,
 without trying to reach a new agreement with Rossi. I suppose they are
 trying to make nice to him for two reasons:

 1. It is the right thing to do ethically. He deserves the money.

 2. It is less trouble than a huge legal battle.

 - Jed

Re: [Vo]:A Pyrolysis E-Cat fake



On Nov 21, 2011, at 5:02 AM, Peter Gluck wrote:


Horace,

Just for your information, I was present at the foundation of the  
very first Aquafuel Company in Largo (Tampa). Santilli (a  
mathematician
of genius) and Leon Toups a businessman (who after his death was  
declared a saint- his son was working at the Vatican) have bought  
the patent of Richardson- a welder.

I have received a lesson about the American corporate spirit.

Santilli has discovered that Aquafuel contains magnecules. Long  
story not beautiful, it ended when Santilli has sued  Infinite Energy
for not publishing a n-th paper in the frame of his endless  
theoretical dispute with an other Italian guy, Corso (?). Being an  
adviser I had to pay 12,000 US$. The trial didn't took place,  
fortunately.



However nothing to learn from this story that I just sketched here
this has happend in an other part of Florida not Miami where Rossi  
works. I have stopped at Sarasota, visiting Patterson.


That is a very interesting anecdote Peter!   An interesting chapter  
in a checkered past for the field.  Thank you for posting it.  I  
would ask to hear more, but, given the litigious history, I can see  
that would be inappropriate.  Perhaps you would enjoy publishing it  
in detail posthumously?  8^)  Hopefully it will be in your memoirs.


I recall at the time it seemed to me that pyrolysis, even if it  
turned out to not be ou, held great promise for converting pulverized  
garbage into energy.  This is an interesting coincidence, given  
Rossi's prior involvement in garbage incineration for energy and  
eventually in converting garbage into oil via the Petroldragon  
process.  Perhaps it would be well justified if the present scheme  
were designed to wreak revenge on the corrupt bureaucrats and others  
who gave him so much legal grief regarding his green technology.   I  
don't see how it could be focused on them, however.   The old story  
is documented, with links, here:


http://blog.hasslberger.com/2011/02/italian_engineer_announces_com.html

What a great movie Rossi's story would make.  His story might be  
worth millions. That might be the best revenge of all.  Rossi has  
sold his house and business, so perhaps he is prepared to move to  
some nice water front location for retirement ... or perhaps to  
continue work.


Best regards,

Horace Heffner
http://www.mtaonline.net/~hheffner/

Re: [Vo]: ECAT 1 MW Test Discrepancy

2011-11-21 Thread David Roberson






We have been attempting to understand the initial water capture discrepancy and 
several issues come up which need an explanation.  Mr. Cude and I have been of 
the opinion that the ECATs must be full of water during an initiation period 
since it seems logical that the check valves at the output of each module must 
open before water can escape.  According to our previous logic, the 
thermocouple readings suggest that these valves are open due to the input water 
flow.
There is an alternate possibility that might explain what is observed.  We know 
that the ECATs are closed to the world by a gasketing technique which should be 
air tight if performing properly.  I hypothesize that warm air which is of high 
humidity must exit the devices as the water inside heats up and displaces it.  
All of the air eventually must be expelled through the output port as vapor 
becomes dominate.
 This humid warm air would enter the steam piping and the water would 
immediately begin to condense upon every surface.  This would lead to elevated 
readings of the thermocouple at the steam pipe and also would result in liquid 
water pooling within the dissipaters and plumbing.  There would be far too low 
of a pressure at this time to expel the water to the exterior bins so it would 
pool.
Now, when one of the ECATs finally generates enough energy to start to boil, 
this initial fresh supply of hot vapor would have to vaporize the water 
standing within the output system.  This would of course make the temperature 
hover about that required to vaporize water at atmospheric pressure or 100 C.  
This sequence of events would explain the “shoulder” appearing at the boiling 
temperature that exists for a fairly long time before the standing water 
becomes overwhelmed.
If the process that I have proposed is true, then the water levels within the 
various ECAT devices would not have to be at full.  The problem with the 
measurement of liquid water trapped would also become much less of an issue.  
Furthermore, now the output of the 1 MW system could consist of mainly vapor 
and the HVAC guy most likely performed his task correctly.
Dave

Re: [Vo]:Tovima: Defkalion says the catalyst formula is not Rossi's

Piantelli has worked with Ni powder, it is written in his 1995 patent
and this is the main reason Rossi's patent is not approved.
His process and work strategy is even better described in his 2010 patent.

The most probable scenario is this: Rossi has found an additive
that enhances the Ni-H reaction used by Piantelli. Working empirically,
Rossi has problems with the control and the continuity of the generators.
He was unable to make the E-cat to work continuously for 48 hours and DGT
has not paid him, this was probably something stipulated in the contract.
DivorceDGT recognizes the merits of Rossi, however has prefered to
develop alone the generators using good enegineers and systematic work, not
tinkering.
My guess is that the additive pompously called catalyst is not so special
and not so secret. It's probable function was already discussed at this
Forum, many months ago. With some effort you can find good candidates for
the stuff. Not  a secret of Polichinelle but not deep mystery. The
frequency generator is an extra indication for the solution. And the Greek
company has first class professionals.

On Mon, Nov 21, 2011 at 9:56 PM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com wrote:

 We discussed the Tovima article already. I do not think we have noted this:


 And the catalyst? We asked. It's not supposed to be secret Rossi?

 [Xanthoulis responded] All the technology used in devices at the Hyperion
 KW and systems 1 to 5MW are our own design – different from those of Rossi


 That comment was emphasized in this report on the Tovima article:

 We Have Our Own eCat Says Defkalion

 http://ecatnews.com/?p=1368

 The ecatnews author says: That sounds to me like a legal defence in
 preparation. It sounds that way to me, too!

 There has been some indirect discussion of this. People here have
 speculated that the formula comes from Piantelli. I have no idea. As far as
 I know Piantelli has not worked with powder, and I think powder is the best
 approach.

 I predict a monumental knock-down drag-out court battle.


 Original article:

 http://www.tovima.gr/science/article/?aid=430840

 - Jed




-- 
Dr. Peter Gluck
Cluj, Romania
http://egooutpeters.blogspot.com

RE: [Vo]: ECAT 1 MW Test Discrepancy

2011-11-21 Thread Robert Leguillon


The Ottoman E-Cats appear to be the same from the September and October 
tests.  Think about the October 6th test (where we new the Cat started empty), 
and how long it took for the output to register anything at all.  Now add in 
the fact that the October 6th thermocouple was much closer that the MegaCat 
output thermocouple. ...
Thoughts?
 



To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Subject: Re: [Vo]: ECAT 1 MW Test Discrepancy
From: dlrober...@aol.com
Date: Mon, 21 Nov 2011 15:26:13 -0500





We have been attempting to understand the initial water capture discrepancy and 
several issues come up which need an explanation.  Mr. Cude and I have been of 
the opinion that the ECATs must be full of water during an initiation period 
since it seems logical that the check valves at the output of each module must 
open before water can escape.  According to our previous logic, the 
thermocouple readings suggest that these valves are open due to the input water 
flow.
There is an alternate possibility that might explain what is observed.  We know 
that the ECATs are closed to the world by a gasketing technique which should be 
air tight if performing properly.  I hypothesize that warm air which is of high 
humidity must exit the devices as the water inside heats up and displaces it.  
All of the air eventually must be expelled through the output port as vapor 
becomes dominate.
 This humid warm air would enter the steam piping and the water would 
immediately begin to condense upon every surface.  This would lead to elevated 
readings of the thermocouple at the steam pipe and also would result in liquid 
water pooling within the dissipaters and plumbing.  There would be far too low 
of a pressure at this time to expel the water to the exterior bins so it would 
pool.
Now, when one of the ECATs finally generates enough energy to start to boil, 
this initial fresh supply of hot vapor would have to vaporize the water 
standing within the output system.  This would of course make the temperature 
hover about that required to vaporize water at atmospheric pressure or 100 C.  
This sequence of events would explain the “shoulder” appearing at the boiling 
temperature that exists for a fairly long time before the standing water 
becomes overwhelmed.
If the process that I have proposed is true, then the water levels within the 
various ECAT devices would not have to be at full.  The problem with the 
measurement of liquid water trapped would also become much less of an issue.  
Furthermore, now the output of the 1 MW system could consist of mainly vapor 
and the HVAC guy most likely performed his task correctly.
Dave

Re: [Vo]:USPTO Lawlessness?

On Mon, Nov 21, 2011 at 11:27 AM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.comwrote:

 There is a Patent Office memo here:

 http://lenr-canr.org/Collections/PatentOfficeMemo.jpg

 I take this to mean they plan to deep six any application relating to cold
 fusion.


It only says and means that they want to identify a particular technology
issue- probably so it can be assigned to appropriate specialists according
to appropriate protocols.  There is nothing sinister about this.  Following
PF, the patent office was inundated with applications, many absurd and
wrong.  All the whacko web sites promote this memo as some sort of smoking
gun against the patent office but it's not.


 The patent office has not denied all patents related to cold fusion. Some
 have slipped through, mainly a technicality, such as the one they gave
 Patterson because he was old.


That's nonsense.  Nobody gets a patent because they're old.  It's likely
the patent examiner doesn't know their age.


 Honestly, I do not claim the patent office for this mess. Opposition to
 cold fusion is society-wide. It is prevalent among scientists although the
 number who support cold fusion is larger than most people realize.
 Opposition and ignorance is universal in the mass media, and among high
 officials such as Sec. of Energy Chu.


There is no opposition whatever to cold fusion in mass media and most other
places.  There is opposition to unsubstantiated and extravagant claims for
new energy generating systems of any type as well there should be.
Historically, *all*  gravity wheels, magnetic motors, and other free energy
schemes have been scams. And there are plenty of energy scams in more
conventional areas as well.  The press is right to be careful.

If Rossi had gotten independent testing for his device instead of the dog
and pony shows and non-demos like October 28, and if he had a single client
who could talk about it, he'd be all over the newswires.  Even as it is, he
got coverage from Forbes, CNN, MSNBC, CBS news and several other mainstream
places.   Any news media would be morons not to give coverage to a dramatic
new technology for energy production -- if it had been properly and
conclusively proven to be real and useful.

Re: [Vo]:A Pyrolysis E-Cat fake

I will send you the story privately if you wish. I have met very
interesting people. Have you read My cold fusion history I and II on my
blog.? I intend to continue this.
peter

On Mon, Nov 21, 2011 at 10:24 PM, Horace Heffner hheff...@mtaonline.netwrote:


 On Nov 21, 2011, at 5:02 AM, Peter Gluck wrote:

 Horace,

 Just for your information, I was present at the foundation of the very
 first Aquafuel Company in Largo (Tampa). Santilli (a mathematician
 of genius) and Leon Toups a businessman (who after his death was declared
 a saint- his son was working at the Vatican) have bought the patent of
 Richardson- a welder.
 I have received a lesson about the American corporate spirit.

 Santilli has discovered that Aquafuel contains magnecules. Long story
 not beautiful, it ended when Santilli has sued  Infinite Energy
 for not publishing a n-th paper in the frame of his endless theoretical
 dispute with an other Italian guy, Corso (?). Being an adviser I had to pay
 12,000 US$. The trial didn't took place, fortunately.


 However nothing to learn from this story that I just sketched here
 this has happend in an other part of Florida not Miami where Rossi works.
 I have stopped at Sarasota, visiting Patterson.


 That is a very interesting anecdote Peter!   An interesting chapter in a
 checkered past for the field.  Thank you for posting it.  I would ask to
 hear more, but, given the litigious history, I can see that would be
 inappropriate.  Perhaps you would enjoy publishing it in detail
 posthumously?  8^)  Hopefully it will be in your memoirs.

 I recall at the time it seemed to me that pyrolysis, even if it turned out
 to not be ou, held great promise for converting pulverized garbage into
 energy.  This is an interesting coincidence, given Rossi's prior
 involvement in garbage incineration for energy and eventually in converting
 garbage into oil via the Petroldragon process.  Perhaps it would be well
 justified if the present scheme were designed to wreak revenge on the
 corrupt bureaucrats and others who gave him so much legal grief regarding
 his green technology.   I don't see how it could be focused on them,
 however.   The old story is documented, with links, here:

 http://blog.hasslberger.com/2011/02/italian_engineer_announces_com.html

 What a great movie Rossi's story would make.  His story might be worth
 millions. That might be the best revenge of all.  Rossi has sold his house
 and business, so perhaps he is prepared to move to some nice water front
 location for retirement ... or perhaps to continue work.

 Best regards,

 Horace Heffner
 http://www.mtaonline.net/~hheffner/







-- 
Dr. Peter Gluck
Cluj, Romania
http://egooutpeters.blogspot.com

[Vo]:A person claim successful replication of e-cat

2011-11-21 Thread David ledin

A person named Chan has posted a  descriptive method of replicating a
version of the ecat on www.buildecat.com and claim  reached self
sustained fusion at 200 C for days.

http://www.buildecat.com/blog_detail/the-chan-formula-4.html

Re: [Vo]:Published today in the UK



On Nov 21, 2011, at 11:30 AM, fznidar...@aol.com wrote:


http://www.i-sis.org.uk/The_Z_theory_of_everything.php

it a nice article

Frank Znidarsic


It is indeed a nice article.  Congratulations!

 Regarding your equation (6), it is noteworthy that the speed of  
thermal pulses in fine metal wiskers, which are propagated purely by  
conduction electron interaction,  is about 2 Vt = alpha/c.


Best regards,

Horace Heffner
http://www.mtaonline.net/~hheffner/

Re: [Vo]:Published today in the UK



There is a typo.  I meant to say:  Regarding your equation (6), it  
is noteworthy that the speed of thermal pulses in fine metal wiskers,  
which are propagated purely by conduction electron interaction,  is  
about 2 Vt = alpha*c.


On Nov 21, 2011, at 12:07 PM, Horace Heffner wrote:



On Nov 21, 2011, at 11:30 AM, fznidar...@aol.com wrote:


http://www.i-sis.org.uk/The_Z_theory_of_everything.php

it a nice article

Frank Znidarsic


It is indeed a nice article.  Congratulations!

 Regarding your equation (6), it is noteworthy that the speed of  
thermal pulses in fine metal wiskers, which are propagated purely  
by conduction electron interaction,  is about 2 Vt = alpha/c.


Best regards,

Horace Heffner
http://www.mtaonline.net/~hheffner/






Best regards,

Horace Heffner
http://www.mtaonline.net/~hheffner/

Re: [Vo]:A person claim successful replication of e-cat

2011-11-21 Thread Mattia Rizzi

A scam inside a scam. Marvellous.

-Messaggio originale- 
From: David ledin 
Sent: Monday, November 21, 2011 10:07 PM 
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com 
Subject: [Vo]:A person claim successful replication of e-cat 

A person named Chan has posted a  descriptive method of replicating a
version of the ecat on www.buildecat.com and claim  reached self
sustained fusion at 200 C for days.

http://www.buildecat.com/blog_detail/the-chan-formula-4.html

Re: [Vo]: ECAT 1 MW Test Discrepancy

Robert Leguillon robert.leguil...@hotmail.com wrote:

 The Ottoman E-Cats appear to be the same from the September and October
 tests.  Think about the October 6th test (where we new the Cat started
 empty), and how long it took for the output to register anything at all.


I believe that was because the pump was small and it took 2 hours to fill
the vessel. On Oct. 28 they had much more powerful pumps, albeit more
reactors to fill.

- Jed

[Vo]:Zawodny patent, P.O. memo added

See:

Zawodny, J., *Method for Producing Heavy Electrons, Patent US 2011/0255645
Al*. 2011, NASA.

For some reason EndNote puts the assignee at the end of the ID string.

http://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/ZawodnyJmethodforp.pdf

Cage, K., *Memorandum: Cold Fusion Applications*. 1989, U.S. Department of
Commerce, Patent and Trademark office: Washington, DC.

http://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/CageKmemorandum.pdf

Somewhat off-topic for the library, but there it is.

- Jed

Re: [Vo]:Published today in the UK

2011-11-21 Thread fznidarsic

Can you reference this Horace?  The only one to follow up that I know of is Dr. 
Stiffler.

-Original Message-
From: Horace Heffner hheff...@mtaonline.net
To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com
Sent: Mon, Nov 21, 2011 11:17 am
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Published today in the UK

There is a typo.  I meant to say:  Regarding your equation (6), it is 
noteworthy that the speed of thermal pulses in fine metal wiskers, which are 
propagated purely by conduction electron interaction,  is about 2 Vt = alpha*c.

On Nov 21, 2011, at 12:07 PM, Horace Heffner wrote:

On Nov 21, 2011, at 11:30 AM, fznidar...@aol.com wrote:

http://www.i-sis.org.uk/The_Z_theory_of_everything.php 

it a nice article

Frank Znidarsic

It is indeed a nice article.  Congratulations! 

 Regarding your equation (6), it is noteworthy that the speed of thermal pulses 
in fine metal wiskers, which are propagated purely by conduction electron 
interaction,  is about 2 Vt = alpha/c.

 Best regards,

Horace Heffner
http://www.mtaonline.net/~hheffner/

 Best regards,

Horace Heffner
http://www.mtaonline.net/~hheffner/

Re: [Vo]:USPTO Lawlessness?


Mary Yugo wrote:


The patent office has not denied all patents related to cold
fusion. Some have slipped through, mainly a technicality, such as
the one they gave Patterson because he was old.


That's nonsense.  Nobody gets a patent because they're old.


Well, the Patent Office and Patterson both claimed they expedite patents 
and waive the rules for elderly applicants, but perhaps you are right 
and the Patent Office was lying.


- Jed

Re: [Vo]:USPTO Lawlessness?

On Mon, Nov 21, 2011 at 1:35 PM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com wrote:

  Mary Yugo wrote:

 Well, the Patent Office and Patterson both claimed they expedite patents
 and waive the rules for elderly applicants, but perhaps you are right and
 the Patent Office was lying.


Where does the patent office claim that, pls?

Re: [Vo]:USPTO Lawlessness?


Mary Yugo wrote:


Where does the patent office claim that, pls?


I wouldn't know. Good luck finding it in their rules. Anyway, that's 
what they told Jim Patterson. Maybe they changed the rule subsequently.


- Jed

Re: [Vo]:A person claim successful replication of e-cat



On Nov 21, 2011, at 12:07 PM, David ledin wrote:


A person named Chan has posted a  descriptive method of replicating a
version of the ecat on www.buildecat.com and claim  reached self
sustained fusion at 200 C for days.

http://www.buildecat.com/blog_detail/the-chan-formula-4.html





Good grief.  Mineral oil is a fuel: heat of combustion of 45.7 MJ/kg,  
better than coal, fire point coincidentally 196°C.  Chan is probably  
producing low rate controlled ignition using continuous RF electric  
discharge at 200°C local operating temperature.


Best regards,

Horace Heffner
http://www.mtaonline.net/~hheffner/

[Vo]:Rossi's interview with Tom and Doug

The interview took place 11/11/11 -- LOL.  It's an audio mp3 file:

http://tomanddoug.com/podcasts/rossiShow_128.mp3

If Rossi is trying to avoid publicity, it's sort of strange that he was
still giving interviews after the October 28 demo.
If this was already posted, sorry for duplication.  It's new to me.  I saw
it on ecatnews.com .

Main site: http://tomanddoug.com/

Re: [Vo]:USPTO Lawlessness?

I wrote:


 Where does the patent office claim that, pls?


 I wouldn't know. Good luck finding it in their rules. Anyway, that's what
 they told Jim Patterson. Maybe they changed the rule subsequently.


Ah ha. Here's something about it:

If the applicant is more than 65 years of age  or in a state of health
such that they might not be available to assist in prosecution of the
application under the normal examination procedures, a Petition to Make
Special may be filed without a fee.

http://www.sughrue.com/files/Publication/7280eb69-3ced-4d49-abb1-a382404eac6f/Presentation/PublicationAttachment/c0429f1e-6ea2-4898-887c-a3c2f72a0bdb/SRmakespecialOct04.pdf

I gather Patterson also faked them out by hiding the nature of his
discovery. Not mentioning cold fusion, or something like that. I do not
know the details. He was a clever fellow. Maybe too clever.

- Jed

Re: [Vo]:A Pyrolysis E-Cat fake



On Nov 21, 2011, at 12:03 PM, Peter Gluck wrote:

I will send you the story privately if you wish. I have met very  
interesting people. Have you read My cold fusion history I and II  
on my blog.? I intend to continue this.

peter



I would very much appreciate that.

I haven't read those entries I and II.  I don't see them at:


http://egooutpeters.blogspot.com


Do you have URLs for those?

I am going to Anchorage for the day, so will not respond for a while.

BTW, I have been to Florida many times. It has a great highway  
system.  Most of Florida is within a day's drive of Patterson's  
former lab location at West Palm Beach, just north of Miami.  It is a  
great place to be in the winter, but a bit  too hot for me in the  
summer now, though I loved swimming in the ocean in the summer there  
when I was a kid.  On one visit to Daytona Beach in the 1950's I had  
the privilege of having the eye of a hurricane pass directly over my  
location.  I went outside.  It was calm and you could see blue sky  
directly above. It was a most memorable experience.


Best regards,

Horace Heffner
http://www.mtaonline.net/~hheffner/

Re: [Vo]:Tovima: Defkalion says the catalyst formula is not Rossi's

Peter Gluck peter.gl...@gmail.com wrote:


 My guess is that the additive pompously called catalyst is not so special
 and not so secret.


Of course it is secret. If it were not secret hundreds people would be
doing this experiment. Dozens are trying to do it. They have had some
success but they are still 1 or 2 orders of magnitude away from Rossi as
far as I know.

Why do you say pompously? It is a catalyst. Maybe a nuclear catalyst, but
a catalyst is a catalyst. It promotes the reaction without taking part in
it, and without being used up. Presumably. Unless the Ni transmutes, which
would make it an ingredient I suppose.

With Pd reactions, my guess is that the metal acts as a nuclear catalyst
most of the time but occasionally the metal itself is transmuted.

- Jed

Re: [Vo]:USPTO Lawlessness?