Re: [Vo]:Put your money where your mouth is - for charity
Hi Mary Yugo, You might be able to get away with your pseudo-identity on long bets. There's no harm in trying to register at the website. Let me know how it goes. Regards, Patrick On Tue, Nov 29, 2011 at 8:50 PM, Peter Gluck peter.gl...@gmail.com wrote: My bet is: at 30 nov 2013 at least 5 companies other than Rossi's will manufacture commercial energy generators based on Transition Metals-H LENR. Peter On Tue, Nov 29, 2011 at 10:53 AM, Patrick Ellul ellulpatr...@gmail.comwrote: Fair enough Mary Yugo. But surely someone else in this forum is willing to bet $200 that will go to charity, on the E-Cat not working. Anyone?? Or has the E-Cat already been accepted by the wide majority already? :) Regards, Patrick On Tue, Nov 29, 2011 at 6:14 PM, Mary Yugo maryyu...@gmail.com wrote: On Mon, Nov 28, 2011 at 8:11 PM, Mark Iverson-ZeroPoint zeropo...@charter.net wrote: To hide behind the veil of anonymity on a discussion group such as this is cowardly. I have followed vortex-l since the 90s, and can’t remember any dispute between contributors which might have caused one to be fearful of ‘retaliation’ This has nothing to do with Vortex of cold fusion issues. I have been involved in issues in which a lot of money was involved and the unscrupulous sociopaths responsible for the scams would never think twice before using violence if it could be done without their being detected and prosecuted. -- Patrick www.tRacePerfect.com The daily puzzle everyone can finish but not everyone can perfect! The quickest puzzle ever! -- Dr. Peter Gluck Cluj, Romania http://egooutpeters.blogspot.com -- Patrick www.tRacePerfect.com The daily puzzle everyone can finish but not everyone can perfect! The quickest puzzle ever!
Re: [Vo]:Congress cuts the Gordian knot of aviation patents in 1917
A tax on cold fusion devices? The last thing we need is another tax! Our government wastes billions of dollars as it is. They could save billions by ending hot fusion research, and bringing our troops home from around the world. The ITER needs to be abolished. From: Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Tuesday, November 29, 2011 5:10 PM Subject: Re: [Vo]:Congress cuts the Gordian knot of aviation patents in 1917 Craig Haynie cchayniepub...@gmail.com wrote: But you're not proposing a solution within a moral framework. You're advocating that people take money from those who may not want to give it . . . In that case it should come from a temporary tax on the sale of cold fusion devices. A royalty, in other words. Taxation is theft because it sits outside of any moral framework . . . I do not think so but that is beyond the scope of the discussion. Wrong forum. I fully support their claims to intellectual property, but that's where the battle should be fought. It has been fought and lost there already, thanks to the U.S.P.O., the DoE and others. Experts tell me it is too late for anyone to get a patent for cold fusion, probably including Rossi. Some other equitable and pragmatic solution should be found. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:Congress cuts the Gordian knot of aviation patents in 1917
I think what we need to do is convince the world that the E-Cat works, and then promote a peaceful uprising of the people to force the patent office to grand Rossi's patents. From: Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Tuesday, November 29, 2011 4:50 PM Subject: Re: [Vo]:Congress cuts the Gordian knot of aviation patents in 1917 Robert Leguillon robert.leguil...@hotmail.com wrote: Due to the international nature of these patents, what do you predict today? I know little about patents. My only prediction is that the people who deserve a patent for the basic invention of cold fusion will not get one. Cold fusion is essentially in the public domain. That is what intellectual property experts have told me. Would LENR be coopted by the IAEA or UN? Would there be a declaration of energy as a human right, and thus richer countries subsidizing the energy needs of poorer nations? I do not think that will be necessary. Cold fusion devices will be so cheap that even people in the Third World will be able to purchase them, just as they purchase automobiles and bicycles today. They also purchase large amounts of kerosene for illumination. If they stop spending money on kerosene and gasoline for automobiles and motorcycles, there will be plenty of money left over for them to buy cold fusion devices instead. They pay much more for kerosene per liter than we do. They pay thousands of times more per lumen for lighting than we do. I predict this problem will solve itself. However, the tangle of intellectual property and the injustice against people such as Fleischmann will not be solved except with deliberate government action. Governments and big industry caused this problem in the first place by ignoring cold fusion for 22 years despite conclusive evidence that it exists and it is a potential source of energy. They caused the problem; let them fix it. As for how the US citizens might pay our share of this, the amount of money we will save by abolishing the Department of Energy and bankrupting Exxon will easily pay for it. The money we will save in a single day will pay for it. The 20,000 lives we save per year by closing down the coal industry will pay for it hundreds of times over. Add in the benefits from bankrupting Iran and reducing military threats in the Middle East and the cost of compensating Fleischmann et al. becomes a rounding-off error. Bankrupting Saudi Arabia will probably not have any direct benefits for us other than schadenfreude. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:Congress cuts the Gordian knot of aviation patents in 1917
I don't agree with the government using tax dollars to pay cold fusion inventors. In my opinion, the government needs to be forced (peacefully) to grant Rossi's patent. When the government tries to fix a problem they helped create, 9 out of 10 times they make it worse. From: Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Tuesday, November 29, 2011 4:34 PM Subject: Re: [Vo]:Congress cuts the Gordian knot of aviation patents in 1917 Craig Haynie cchayniepub...@gmail.com wrote: On Tue, 2011-11-29 at 16:01 -0500, Jed Rothwell wrote: Someone here suggested that the best solution to this problem would be for governments to throw a large pile of money that everyone involved in the initial development of cold fusion. I think that would probably be a good idea. I hope that Fleischmann and Pons get a large chunk of it. Rossi deserves a lot too. Many people do. When we start talking about morality, I feel a need to step in... It's not good to take money from people who do not want to give it up, even if someone has a 'noble' way in which to use it. If you are I did this, it would be called theft. I do not understand this argument. Fleischmann, Pons, Rossi and many others have intellectual property rights. They invented cold fusion. They deserve a patent just like any other inventors. History and circumstances probably will deny them this patent, so they deserve compensation. This problem was primarily caused by the Patent Office, but many other institutions such as the Department of Energy and the Washington Post contributed to the morass. Blame cannot be assigned to any single person or institution. Rather than argue about this for years and rather than spend hundreds of millions of dollars on legal fees, it would make sense to sweep aside the arguments, give people what they deserve, and proceed with industrial production of cold fusion devices. The total amount of royalties paid will be trivial compared to the benefits to society. Cold fusion is likely save billions of dollars every day worldwide, and 50,000 lives per week. Paying a few billion dollars to Fleischmann, Pons, Rossi and others would be trivial fraction of this. And to take money from people to give to those working in one of the largest pent-up markets in history, is just adding insult to injury. I am not talking about getting anyone to people who be working on cold fusion in the near future. They will learn plenty from the market. I'm talking about diverting a tiny fraction of this to pay the people who invented the technology. Normally they would be granted a patent a paid by that mechanism. Fleischmann is not working on anything. He is old and suffering from a fatal disease. He got nothing for his efforts in cold fusion. Neither did any of the other pioneers. They are mostly old or dead. All they got was 22 years of grief and opprobrium. These people or their survivors deserve something. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:Virtual Particles are Gravitational Dipoles
On Nov 29, 2011, at 11:44 AM, Terry Blanton wrote: I had always wondered about this: Four reasons why the quantum vacuum may explain dark matter November 28, 2011 by Lisa Zyga (PhysOrg.com) -- Earlier this year, PhysOrg reported on a new idea that suggested that gravitational charges in the quantum vacuum could provide an alternative to dark matter. The idea rests on the hypothesis that particles and antiparticles have gravitational charges of opposite sign. As a consequence, virtual particle-antiparticle pairs in the quantum vacuum form gravitational dipoles (having both a positive and negative gravitational charge) that can interact with baryonic matter to produce phenomena usually attributed to dark matter. Although CERN physicist Dragan Slavkov Hajdukovic, who proposed the idea, mathematically demonstrated that these gravitational dipoles could explain the observed rotational curves of galaxies without dark matter in his initial study, he noted that much more work needed to be done. http://www.physorg.com/news/2011-11-quantum-vacuum-dark.html more Hajdukovic wrote in his paper: It is difficult to believe that quantum vacuum does not interact gravitationally with the baryonic matter immersed in it. In spite of it, the quantum vacuum is ignored in astrophysics and cosmology; not because we are not aware of its importance but because no one has any idea what the gravitational properties of the quantum vacuum are. In absence of any knowledge, as a starting point, we have conjectured that particles and antiparticles have the gravitational charge of opposite sign. What hubris. He is apparently unfamiliar with Jefimenko. The gravitational properties of the vacuum are described by the values epsilon_g = 1/(4 Pi G), and mu_g = 4 Pi G/(C_g)^2, where c_g is the speed of gravity waves, and epsilon_g and mu_g correspond to their electromagnetic analogs. In 2007 I converted Jemimenko's theory into a full isomorphism between the laws of electromagnetism and the laws of gravimagnetism. Creating this isomorphism involves the use of the imaginary number i in gravimagnetic terms, and thus the potential addition of 3 dimensions to any theory of everything. For a quick synopsis see: http://www.mtaonline.net/~hheffner/CosmicSearch.pdf especially Table 2 and related discussion. The gravitational properties of the vacuum are defined. The simplistic model of positrons having negative gravitational charge leaves some potential gaping holes with regards to symmetry in nature, relating to mirror matter in particular. See: http://www.mtaonline.net/~hheffner/GravityPairs.pdf The main thing Hajdukovic misses with regards to the applicability of the MOND equation to galactic mechanics, is that black holes necessarily manufacture negative gravitational charge matter, spewing it into space at cosmic ray velocities, creating approximately spherical halos around galaxies. In the process balck holes increase in mass correspondingly. Space is filled with negative gravitational mass as well as invisible (mirror matter) positive gravitational mass. The negative charge gravitational mass makes the universe expand. This is not dipolar mass which provide vacuum properties, but rater fully separated gravitational charge mass produced from black holes. For a description as to why the MOND theory (coincidentally and fundamentally erroneously) fits galactic rotational motion, see p. 24 ff of: http://mtaonline.net/~hheffner/FullGravimag.pdf That is my take on all this, anyway, a renegade view. A quantum view of gravity is necessarily at odds with GR and thus immediately rejected as wrong. There will not be any serious effort to consider that GR is wrong until it becomes obvious that gravity waves in the form predicted by GR do not exist. The alternative, the existence of gravitons and thus also graviphotons is far more exciting due to the stunning astronomical and practical applications (see CosmicSearch.pdf for some of those.) Best regards, Horace Heffner http://www.mtaonline.net/~hheffner/
Re: [Vo]:Lattice Energy LLC comments on Rossi
I like his theory, it may well be the process happening. Even if it isn't entirely, it provides a good starting point for further research. I also very much like his notion of other systems that may show LENR processes already. Including failing Li-Ion batteries, (natural) isotope fractionation and processes in ordinairy car catalysts. After all if it's possible at low energy nature must already know about it! I don't understand his objection to cold fusion. From a science perspective, what he describes: H or D + Metal going in == very detailed and particle physics sound description of processes happening == Metal + He + E coming out. Most experimental claims from cold fusioneers don't disagree with his theory. cold fusion is just the abstract of the thing in the middle of his reaction scheme. I don't understand it from a business perspective either. What merit is there in claiming that all cold-fusion experiments are wrong and your theory is right? If he plays it right he might end up with the Nobel price for correctly describing cold fusion processes, which might have helped experimentalists. He might do further research building onto the Rossi device and making it better. If he plays it wrong, he will be the theorist who knows it all but have nothing. Nobody cares about the right theory for something that doesn't work, very few people care about the right theory for something that does work. On Sat, Nov 26, 2011 at 8:02 PM, pagnu...@htdconnect.com wrote: More controversy between LENR competitors --- Lewis Larsen-Lattice Energy LLC-Comments re Mr. Andrea Rossi E-Cat Technology-Nov 26 2011 http://www.slideshare.net/lewisglarsen/lewis-larsenlattice-energy-llccomments-re-mr-andrea-rossi-ecat-technologynov-26-2011
RE: [Vo]:Virtual Particles are Gravitational Dipoles
-Original Message- From: Horace Heffner NICE, Horace - thanks for explaining this once again in the context of an incorrect view (Hajdukovic). I finally understand where you are coming from. This is the best stuff to appear on Vortex in months and makes me glad I did not sign off when the incessant rehash-of-the-rehash started. Jones Hajdukovic wrote in his paper: It is difficult to believe that quantum vacuum does not interact gravitationally with the baryonic matter immersed in it. In spite of it, the quantum vacuum is ignored in astrophysics and cosmology; not because we are not aware of its importance but because no one has any idea what the gravitational properties of the quantum vacuum are. In absence of any knowledge, as a starting point, we have conjectured that particles and antiparticles have the gravitational charge of opposite sign. What hubris. He is apparently unfamiliar with Jefimenko. The gravitational properties of the vacuum are described by the values epsilon_g = 1/(4 Pi G), and mu_g = 4 Pi G/(C_g)^2, where c_g is the speed of gravity waves, and epsilon_g and mu_g correspond to their electromagnetic analogs. In 2007 I converted Jemimenko's theory into a full isomorphism between the laws of electromagnetism and the laws of gravimagnetism. Creating this isomorphism involves the use of the imaginary number i in gravimagnetic terms, and thus the potential addition of 3 dimensions to any theory of everything. For a quick synopsis see: http://www.mtaonline.net/~hheffner/CosmicSearch.pdf especially Table 2 and related discussion. The gravitational properties of the vacuum are defined. The simplistic model of positrons having negative gravitational charge leaves some potential gaping holes with regards to symmetry in nature, relating to mirror matter in particular. See: http://www.mtaonline.net/~hheffner/GravityPairs.pdf The main thing Hajdukovic misses with regards to the applicability of the MOND equation to galactic mechanics, is that black holes necessarily manufacture negative gravitational charge matter, spewing it into space at cosmic ray velocities, creating approximately spherical halos around galaxies. In the process black holes increase in mass correspondingly. Space is filled with negative gravitational mass as well as invisible (mirror matter) positive gravitational mass. The negative charge gravitational mass makes the universe expand. This is not dipolar mass which provide vacuum properties, but rater fully separated gravitational charge mass produced from black holes. For a description as to why the MOND theory (coincidentally and fundamentally erroneously) fits galactic rotational motion, see p. 24 ff of: http://mtaonline.net/~hheffner/FullGravimag.pdf That is my take on all this, anyway, a renegade view. A quantum view of gravity is necessarily at odds with GR and thus immediately rejected as wrong. There will not be any serious effort to consider that GR is wrong until it becomes obvious that gravity waves in the form predicted by GR do not exist. The alternative, the existence of gravitons and thus also graviphotons is far more exciting due to the stunning astronomical and practical applications (see CosmicSearch.pdf for some of those.) Best regards, Horace Heffner http://www.mtaonline.net/~hheffner/
Re: [Vo]:Virtual Particles are Gravitational Dipoles
On Nov 29, 2011, at 3:27 PM, Jones Beene wrote: -Original Message- From: Horace Heffner NICE, Horace - thanks for explaining this once again in the context of an incorrect view (Hajdukovic). I finally understand where you are coming from. This is the best stuff to appear on Vortex in months and makes me glad I did not sign off when the incessant rehash-of-the-rehash started. Jones Thanks, Jones. I've missed your sometimes wildly speculative but always fascinating and informative essays on many subjects. I'm hoping the Rossi circus will come to a definitive end soon, one way or another. Maybe then the URL and citation free innumerate arm waving noise level will be reduced. I have thousands of unread vortex messages from the past year I did not have time to read. I've undoubtedly missed some wheat in discarding the chaff. Best regards, Horace Heffner http://www.mtaonline.net/~hheffner/
RE: [Vo]:Defkalion
I've been looking through the Defkalion site again. They previously supplied the Rossi patent material and Kullander reports as supporting documentation. They have since removed Rossi references and claim the rights to market globally. Praxen Defkalion Green Technologies (Global) Ltd., is based in Cyprus. It owns full rights to its own technologies and will sell exclusive rights globally for the production of its proprietary products (Hyperion). Defkalion Green Technologies S.A. is based in Greece. It is the first license holder acting as a show case for international partners and producing Hyperion to supply the Greek market. In-so-doing, Defkalion shall become an international supplier of innovative patented technology producing cheap and clean thermal energy, offering significant improvements in energy costs and energy sustainability through applications ranging from households, light industry and even to utility providers. Date: Tue, 29 Nov 2011 12:49:57 -0600 Subject: Re: [Vo]:Defkalion From: svj.orionwo...@gmail.com To: vortex-l@eskimo.com FWIW I would recommend if at all possible trying to find a place of neutrality on the Rossi/Defkalion matter. In my view, there is too much rampant anticipation going on - and that's not a good thing. Inevitably, unbridled anticipation tends to generate profound disappointment when the anticipated event doesn't go according to what one had hoped. Granted, it IS exciting to anticipate the possibility that a major foundation is being laid out for a brave new Rossi world of cheap energy for the entire planet. Shoot! Who isn't for that! But we are not there yet. And despite what Defkalion may or may not reveal to the public on Nov. 30 - even if the best case scenario manifests it is likely to take a massive multi-billion dollar financial investment in RD + engineering to get Rossi's little understood technology ready for prime time - and by prime time I mean truly ready for Joe Public, the consumer. Some predictions would seem to suggest the evolution of this (still not 100% proven) technology could take as long as 5 - 10 years (and probably longer) before we in the peanut gallery see anything rolling off the shelves of Wall Mart. And this all assumes that Rossi and his ecat technology is for real. That's still a really BIG assumption in many corners of society - and ya know, they have every reason at this stage of the game to remain skeptical. In the meantime, I hope fort the best. Regards Steven Vincent Johnson www.OrionWorks.com www.zazzle.com/orionworks
Re: [Vo]:Lattice Energy LLC comments on Rossi
The Widom-Larsen transmutation experiments, e.g., electon beam impinging on copper target (slides 21-23 in Widom's presentation [*]) certainly are verifiable/falsifiable. It would be suprising if NASA's Bushnell has not verified them. Many other credible researchers confirm them. Is it reasonable to dismiss so many reports as mass delusion without extremely careful testing? Also, Widom's slides 27-34 [*] (Nickel Hydride Sources) corroborate some of Rossi-Focardi-Piantelli Ni-LENR results. However, the hypothesized reaction paths are different. Widom states weak interactions transmutate 58Ni to Cobalt isotopes + neutrons, which then decay to Fe, Mn and Cr. If LENR actually delivers on its promise, then no matter which, if any, theory turns out to be correct, all the researchers and writers who stood up against the establishment deserve to awardes. [*] Collective Nuclear Reactions in Condensed Matter Searching for Clean Nuclear Energy Sources Presentation Feb 10, 2010 Army Research Labs - Allan Widom http://www.newenergytimes.com/v2/conferences/2010/ARL/Pres/02Widom-WidomLarsenTheory.pdf I like his theory, it may well be the process happening. Even if it isn't entirely, it provides a good starting point for further research. I also very much like his notion of other systems that may show LENR processes already. Including failing Li-Ion batteries, (natural) isotope fractionation and processes in ordinairy car catalysts. After all if it's possible at low energy nature must already know about it! I don't understand his objection to cold fusion. From a science perspective, what he describes: H or D + Metal going in == very detailed and particle physics sound description of processes happening == Metal + He + E coming out. Most experimental claims from cold fusioneers don't disagree with his theory. cold fusion is just the abstract of the thing in the middle of his reaction scheme. I don't understand it from a business perspective either. What merit is there in claiming that all cold-fusion experiments are wrong and your theory is right? If he plays it right he might end up with the Nobel price for correctly describing cold fusion processes, which might have helped experimentalists. He might do further research building onto the Rossi device and making it better. If he plays it wrong, he will be the theorist who knows it all but have nothing. Nobody cares about the right theory for something that doesn't work, very few people care about the right theory for something that does work. On Sat, Nov 26, 2011 at 8:02 PM, pagnu...@htdconnect.com wrote: More controversy between LENR competitors --- Lewis Larsen-Lattice Energy LLC-Comments re Mr. Andrea Rossi E-Cat Technology-Nov 26 2011 http://www.slideshare.net/lewisglarsen/lewis-larsenlattice-energy-llccomments-re-mr-andrea-rossi-ecat-technologynov-26-2011
[Vo]:WMO: Our science is solid and it proves unequivocally that the world is warming and that this warming is due to human activities
That is a VERY strong statement the WMO has just published: http://www.abc.net.au/news/2011-11-30/climate-change-to-kill-australians2c-report-says/3703062 say he sitting in Australia with 42 Ac GWs of thermal plants on line. Hey Rossi how long to deliver 120 thermal GWs of E-Cats? Am I serious? You must be joking. This will turn out to be the biggest infrastructure project the planet has ever undertaken.
[Vo]:Test / robot panic
This is only a test. But as long as I am writing it, here are some great pictures of robots gone wild from the 1930s: http://www.slate.com/slideshows/technology/the-robot-panic-of-the-great-depression.html
Re: [Vo]:WMO: Our science is solid and it proves unequivocally that the world is warming and that this warming is due to human activities
Better link: http://www.wmo.int/pages/mediacentre/press_releases/pr_935_en.html AG On 11/30/2011 12:53 PM, Aussie Guy E-Cat wrote: That is a VERY strong statement the WMO has just published: http://www.abc.net.au/news/2011-11-30/climate-change-to-kill-australians2c-report-says/3703062 say he sitting in Australia with 42 Ac GWs of thermal plants on line. Hey Rossi how long to deliver 120 thermal GWs of E-Cats? Am I serious? You must be joking. This will turn out to be the biggest infrastructure project the planet has ever undertaken.
[Vo]:Congress cuts the Gordian knot of aviation patents in 1917
noone noone thesteornpa...@yahoo.com wrote: I don't agree with the government using tax dollars to pay cold fusion inventors. In my opinion, the government needs to be forced (peacefully) to grant Rossi's patent. As I said, having the government grant a patent is functionally equivalent to using a tax surcharge on cold fusion equipment to pay the discoverers. The only difference is that it is too late to grant patents. The discovery is already in the public domain. Patents cannot be granted retroactively. Rather than try to rewrite the patent laws on the fly, or making an exception to them, I think it would be better to address the problem directly. When the government tries to fix a problem they helped create, 9 out of 10 times they make it worse. I do not think there is any evidence for that in technology. As I have pointed out before, the US and British governments together have played an essential role in developing just about every major technology in the last 200 years, from railroads to telegraphs to electricity, aviation, computers, nuclear energy and the Internet. Government researchers themselves invented a large fraction of technology, or the government paid for the research as with the laser and most integrated circuit technology. Nearly all cold fusion breakthroughs were paid for by governments, such as the government of Utah, and various agencies such as MITI, DARPA, DTR, ENEA and BARC. Industry and capitalism have contributed nothing so far. No doubt they will contribute in the future, but without government we would have no cold fusion. Not only did these agencies fund the research, but most researchers spent their entire careers working for national or state universities, national laboratories and other publicly funded institutions. I mean people such as Fleischmann, Pons, Arata, Storms, Miley, Szpak, Boss, Miles, Celani, Focardi, Piantelli, De Ninno. Frattolillo, Violante, Scaramuzzi, Mizuno and Takahashi. A few are with industry, such as McKubre, but most of his funding comes from DARPA. Just about the only major figure I can think of who has not been paid by a government all his life is Rossi. Needless to say, he owes a lot of credit to others I listed above. - Jed
[Vo]:As a guide
As a guide: 1) thermal to electrical conversion efficiency of 35%, generating 350 Ac kWs from 1 MW thermal 2) COP 6, feeding 167 kWs of electricity generated back into the input to generate 1 MW thermal 3) 183 Ac kWs available to be sold (350 Ac kWs generated - 167 Ac kWs looped back) 4) Total plant cost (thermal and electrical) of $2,500,000 for a 1 MW thermal plant that produces 183 Ac kW after internal usage / losses 5) 30 year life 6) 5% interest 7) $2 / MWh (thermal) fuel and maintenance cost we get a LCOE of around $0.065 / Ac kWh. Needs to be more like $0.02 / Ac kWh to make the massive change needed. To do that 1) the COP needs to be at least 20 2) reducing the loop back Ac kWhs losses to no more than 50 Ac kWs 3) which increases the Ac kWhs to be delivered to the grid to 300 Ac kW 4) the plant cost (including thermal to electrical plant) needs to be no more than $1.5 / thermal watt at the multi MW size. Lets see if Defkalion, Leonardo or someone else can achieve that. Then the world will change because then there is profit and a good ROI to be made making it change. Sorry to be a cynic but unless everybody in the chain makes money it will not happen. It will be business as usual.
Re: [Vo]:As a guide
On Tue, Nov 29, 2011 at 7:30 PM, Aussie Guy E-Cat aussieguy.e...@gmail.comwrote: 4) Total plant cost (thermal and electrical) of $2,500,000 for a 1 MW thermal plant that produces 183 Ac kW after internal usage / losses Playing the game for a moment, why does the thing have to cost $2.5M? Does it really look to you as if it has millions of dollars of materials and fabrication in it? If this thing is real, I bet it can be made for much less in the megawatt size or for the same price but then it would be a much larger, more powerful device.Just because Rossi says it's limited to some 10 kW or less per core doesn't mean it's so indefinitely. But of course, all of this hand wringing about costs is very premature. It's a bit like worrying what to feed invisible unicorns.
Re: [Vo]:As a guide
I'm working from currently published figures. $2 million for a 1 MW thermal plant and $500 k for the hot fluid to steam generator to steam turbine to Ac generator plus control systems, valves, pumps, waste heat radiators, etc. My projection is based on what I believe may be achievable in the next 12 months and showing why a min COP of 20 is needed for a thermal MW class LENR plant with a capex of $1.50 / thermal watt to achieve a LCOE of around $0.02 / Ac kWh. As you should well know, in the end it is all about ROI. A LENR plant will need to show a superior ROI and significantly lower LCOE than any other Ac kWh generation technology or no one will take a change on it and it will be business as usual. AG On 11/30/2011 2:14 PM, Mary Yugo wrote: On Tue, Nov 29, 2011 at 7:30 PM, Aussie Guy E-Cat aussieguy.e...@gmail.com mailto:aussieguy.e...@gmail.com wrote: 4) Total plant cost (thermal and electrical) of $2,500,000 for a 1 MW thermal plant that produces 183 Ac kW after internal usage / losses Playing the game for a moment, why does the thing have to cost $2.5M? Does it really look to you as if it has millions of dollars of materials and fabrication in it? If this thing is real, I bet it can be made for much less in the megawatt size or for the same price but then it would be a much larger, more powerful device.Just because Rossi says it's limited to some 10 kW or less per core doesn't mean it's so indefinitely. But of course, all of this hand wringing about costs is very premature. It's a bit like worrying what to feed invisible unicorns.
Re: [Vo]:As a guide
Talking about money, didn't Rossi say that a big chunk of the money he is going to make will go to children with cancer? What happened to that? G On Tue, Nov 29, 2011 at 9:56 PM, Aussie Guy E-Cat aussieguy.e...@gmail.comwrote: I'm working from currently published figures. $2 million for a 1 MW thermal plant and $500 k for the hot fluid to steam generator to steam turbine to Ac generator plus control systems, valves, pumps, waste heat radiators, etc. My projection is based on what I believe may be achievable in the next 12 months and showing why a min COP of 20 is needed for a thermal MW class LENR plant with a capex of $1.50 / thermal watt to achieve a LCOE of around $0.02 / Ac kWh. As you should well know, in the end it is all about ROI. A LENR plant will need to show a superior ROI and significantly lower LCOE than any other Ac kWh generation technology or no one will take a change on it and it will be business as usual. AG On 11/30/2011 2:14 PM, Mary Yugo wrote: On Tue, Nov 29, 2011 at 7:30 PM, Aussie Guy E-Cat aussieguy.e...@gmail.com mailto:aussieguy.ecat@gmail.**comaussieguy.e...@gmail.com wrote: 4) Total plant cost (thermal and electrical) of $2,500,000 for a 1 MW thermal plant that produces 183 Ac kW after internal usage / losses Playing the game for a moment, why does the thing have to cost $2.5M? Does it really look to you as if it has millions of dollars of materials and fabrication in it? If this thing is real, I bet it can be made for much less in the megawatt size or for the same price but then it would be a much larger, more powerful device.Just because Rossi says it's limited to some 10 kW or less per core doesn't mean it's so indefinitely. But of course, all of this hand wringing about costs is very premature. It's a bit like worrying what to feed invisible unicorns.
Re: [Vo]:As a guide
As a potential customer it is not my concern as it has no effect on the ROI or LCOE of any plant and / or equipment he may supply to us. AG On 11/30/2011 3:17 PM, Giovanni Santostasi wrote: Talking about money, didn't Rossi say that a big chunk of the money he is going to make will go to children with cancer? What happened to that? G On Tue, Nov 29, 2011 at 9:56 PM, Aussie Guy E-Cat aussieguy.e...@gmail.com mailto:aussieguy.e...@gmail.com wrote: I'm working from currently published figures. $2 million for a 1 MW thermal plant and $500 k for the hot fluid to steam generator to steam turbine to Ac generator plus control systems, valves, pumps, waste heat radiators, etc. My projection is based on what I believe may be achievable in the next 12 months and showing why a min COP of 20 is needed for a thermal MW class LENR plant with a capex of $1.50 / thermal watt to achieve a LCOE of around $0.02 / Ac kWh. As you should well know, in the end it is all about ROI. A LENR plant will need to show a superior ROI and significantly lower LCOE than any other Ac kWh generation technology or no one will take a change on it and it will be business as usual. AG
Re: [Vo]:As a guide
On Tue, Nov 29, 2011 at 8:57 PM, Aussie Guy E-Cat aussieguy.e...@gmail.comwrote: As a potential customer it is not my concern as it has no effect on the ROI or LCOE of any plant and / or equipment he may supply to us. Apparently you're also not too concerned that Rossi may be a liar.
Re: [Vo]:As a guide
I'm not buying Rossi. I'm buying a piece of hardware with specifications that define how it should work. Hardware does not lie. Humans do lie and I accept that happens. Are you asking me to believe you have never lied? IMHO Rossi has never lie to or mislead me. We exchange emails several times a day. In fact he is very conservative and cautious that I do not expect more from his plant that what the specs claim. He does say his specs are mins or maxs as the case may be but will not be drawn as to the max / min or average specs. He guides me to work from the specs and I respect him for that. Several times he has said We are not ready for that yet. IF he had intended to deceive me, it would have been easy but then it would have fallen apart at the acceptance test. Mary what you seem to totally not factor in, is he will not get $1 from us unless his plant passes his openly published technical specifications. I can tell you that if the plant doesn't pass the test, I will not be silent. AG On 11/30/2011 3:35 PM, Mary Yugo wrote: On Tue, Nov 29, 2011 at 8:57 PM, Aussie Guy E-Cat aussieguy.e...@gmail.com mailto:aussieguy.e...@gmail.com wrote: As a potential customer it is not my concern as it has no effect on the ROI or LCOE of any plant and / or equipment he may supply to us. Apparently you're also not too concerned that Rossi may be a liar.
Re: [Vo]:As a guide
On Tue, Nov 29, 2011 at 9:22 PM, Aussie Guy E-Cat aussieguy.e...@gmail.comwrote: I'm not buying Rossi. I'm buying a piece of hardware with specifications that define how it should work. Hardware does not lie. Humans do lie and I accept that happens. Are you asking me to believe you have never lied? IMHO Rossi has never lie to or mislead me. We exchange emails several times a day. In fact he is very conservative and cautious that I do not expect more from his plant that what the specs claim. He does say his specs are mins or maxs as the case may be but will not be drawn as to the max / min or average specs. He guides me to work from the specs and I respect him for that. Several times he has said We are not ready for that yet. IF he had intended to deceive me, it would have been easy but then it would have fallen apart at the acceptance test. Mary what you seem to totally not factor in, is he will not get $1 from us unless his plant passes his openly published technical specifications. I can tell you that if the plant doesn't pass the test, I will not be silent. OK. Can you say a delivery date? And FOB point is where (if you can say)?
Re: [Vo]:As a guide
Rossi has not yet released the technical specs for the 1 MW thermal oil / fluid plant. It is still under RD as he says. But he works fast and I expect this to happen soon. When he does so we can rapidly move forward as from the outlet fluid temperature spec, we can determine the max steam temperature we can generate and from that match the steam temperature to a good steam turbine and be able to give my board a budgetary estimate for what it will cost us to build a 350 Ac kW plant. AG On 11/30/2011 4:09 PM, Mary Yugo wrote: On Tue, Nov 29, 2011 at 9:22 PM, Aussie Guy E-Cat aussieguy.e...@gmail.com mailto:aussieguy.e...@gmail.com wrote: I'm not buying Rossi. I'm buying a piece of hardware with specifications that define how it should work. Hardware does not lie. Humans do lie and I accept that happens. Are you asking me to believe you have never lied? IMHO Rossi has never lie to or mislead me. We exchange emails several times a day. In fact he is very conservative and cautious that I do not expect more from his plant that what the specs claim. He does say his specs are mins or maxs as the case may be but will not be drawn as to the max / min or average specs. He guides me to work from the specs and I respect him for that. Several times he has said We are not ready for that yet. IF he had intended to deceive me, it would have been easy but then it would have fallen apart at the acceptance test. Mary what you seem to totally not factor in, is he will not get $1 from us unless his plant passes his openly published technical specifications. I can tell you that if the plant doesn't pass the test, I will not be silent. OK. Can you say a delivery date? And FOB point is where (if you can say)?
Re: [Vo]:Virtual Particles are Gravitational Dipoles
On 29 Nov 2011, at 22:49, Horace Heffner wrote: In 2007 I converted Jemimenko's theory into a full isomorphism between the laws of electromagnetism and the laws of gravimagnetism. Creating this isomorphism involves the use of the imaginary number i in gravimagnetic terms, and thus the potential addition of 3 dimensions to any theory of everything. For a quick synopsis see: http://www.mtaonline.net/~hheffner/CosmicSearch.pdf Hey Horace, What role does the 'i' play in the geometry, or is this an entirely algebraic approach? Joe
Re: [Vo]:As a guide
On Tue, Nov 29, 2011 at 9:52 PM, Aussie Guy E-Cat aussieguy.e...@gmail.comwrote: Rossi has not yet released the technical specs for the 1 MW thermal oil / fluid plant. It is still under RD as he says. But he works fast and I expect this to happen soon. When he does so we can rapidly move forward as from the outlet fluid temperature spec, we can determine the max steam temperature we can generate and from that match the steam temperature to a good steam turbine and be able to give my board a budgetary estimate for what it will cost us to build a 350 Ac kW plant. OK, then. You're not buying a piece of hardware yet. You're waiting for specifications, delivery date, cost, FOB point, regulatory approval for shipping much less installing and starting up a FUSION REACTOR and ...Yikes! Just thinking about all that makes me tired. Here's a suggestion: don't make a final commitment to buy the turbine until you have finished testing the megawatt plant, LOL.
Re: [Vo]:Detailed 1-MW demo temperature analysis ; peak power = 490 kW, mean power 461 kW.
On Tue, Nov 29, 2011 at 12:18 PM, Joshua Cude joshua.c...@gmail.com wrote: I could have made a mistake, but by my calculations, if the power increases at a constant Pdot = 160 W/s, then 13.5 L of water (per unit) will begin to boil in t = sqrt(2Q/Pdot) = 40 minutes, not 90. And the power at 90 minutes will be 160*90*60 = 864 kW, and at 13:22, it will be 160*144*60 = 1.4 MW. On the other hand, if boiling begins at 11:00, then the power increase should be Pdot = 2Q/t^2 = 31 W/s, giving a power of 31*144*60 = 270 kW at 13:22. Indeed, I got that wrong, 160 W/s doesn't make sense, but 45 W/s may fit. Here are parameters that seem to fit: 0) Let time t0 be the start of the warmup period. I have selected the earliest time at which the output temperature exceeds its 5th percentile. This is the 717th record in the XLS file and the timestamp is 11:00:04. 1) At t0, total reactor power (electrical + alleged nuclear) is P0 = 0. Note: Actually, I think P0 0 because the output temperature is 30 degrees. P0 is probably small, maybe 12 kW, given that the energy consumption in self-sustaining mode was 66 kWh over 5.5 h. 2) I still think the pump was turned on at 13:22:50 or t0 + 1 seconds, because we have a nice linear increase in input temperature starting right at that moment, that also coincides with the sharp input temperature drop. This also fits with the water clog theory. I assume that at this point the power is P1 = 450 kW approximately. 3) So power went from ~0 to 450 kW in 10 000 seconds or an increase rate of beta = 45 W/s. 4) Assume all this power goes into heating a thermal mass C expressed in J/K. The formula T_out = 27.34 + 2.124e-6 (t - t0)^2 is a good fit. Call alpha = 2.124e-6 [K/s^2] the rate of increase of temperature increase. Then E = C T_out and thus P = dE/dT = C dT_out/ dt = 2 alpha C. Thus we have : beta = 2 alpha C 5) With beta = 45 W/s and alpha given above, we deduce : C = beta / (2 * alpha) = 10.6 MJ/K. 6) The quantity of water required for this thermal mass is 2523 kg. The reactor is, of course, not pure water, so that's an upper limit. 7) Given that we have 321 submodules, this is 7.9 l per submodule, a reasonable amount. I still find that quantity a bit high. Do we know the water-containing volume of the e-Cats? Since the ecats are not full, water will not flow out of them when the pumps are turned on and turning them on only adds a volume flow rate of 675L/h = .19 L/s, or 1.8 mL/s per module, which is a tiny fraction of a per cent of the total volume flow rate. In fact, since adding cool water will remove heat otherwise going into steam, the total volume flow rate of steam stays the same (at 490 kW). Therefore this increase in the temperature of the input reservoir cannot correlate with the pump turning on as you describe. Water did not necessarily flow out directly. I'd like to invoke the water clog theory (see my other post). To resume: (a) You have 2523 liters of water boiling in the e-cats. (b) The heaters are not fully immersed. (c) Therefore each submodule has a portion of its heating surfaces that is exposed and heating steam. (d) Steam has about 1/25th the thermal conductivity of water. (e) Therefore the exposed portion is significantly hotter than the unexposed portion. (f) When pumps are turned on, water is added and the level rises until evaporation. (g) Thus the contact area between water and the heating elements increases momentarily. (h) In addition, the formerly exposed and hotter area of the heating elements is now in contact with water. (i) The cold water picks up some energy, but that's only about 15% of the vaporization energy. The rate of steam production still increases significantly, because heat transfer is proportional to area of contact and increases dramatically with the temperature difference. (By a couple of orders of magnitude over 30 degrees above the boiling point, see the graph I posted.) Of course these are all transient effects. The extra water also takes up some volume. (j) Because there is a water clog somewhere (I guess in the condenser), the pressure increases. (k) The increased pressure finally overcomes the lukewarm water clog, which goes back into the reservoir. I concede that point (i) should be analyzed in further detail. There are many other problems, but these two are significant enough to leave it at that. I'm listening. Finally, Rossi and his engineer claim a constant input flow rate for the full 5.5 hours, and this is not an assumption about which they could be reasonably be mistaken (like the output flow rate, or the effectiveness of their trap). They don't explicitly claim that. They manifestly computed the flow rate of 675.6 l/h by dividing 3716 l by 5.5 h, because they state that the regulated flow rate is 700 l (2 x 350 l/h). If the pumps did turn on at 13:22:50 (presumably automatically, maybe based on the water level), then the flow time would have
Re: [Vo]:Lattice Energy LLC comments on Rossi
On Nov 29, 2011, at 2:36 PM, Bastiaan Bergman wrote: I like his theory, it may well be the process happening. Even if it isn't entirely, it provides a good starting point for further research. I also very much like his notion of other systems that may show LENR processes already. Including failing Li-Ion batteries, (natural) isotope fractionation and processes in ordinairy car catalysts. After all if it's possible at low energy nature must already know about it! I don't understand his objection to cold fusion. From a science perspective, what he describes: H or D + Metal going in == very detailed and particle physics sound description of processes happening == Metal + He + E coming out. Most experimental claims from cold fusioneers don't disagree with his theory. cold fusion is just the abstract of the thing in the middle of his reaction scheme. I don't understand it from a business perspective either. What merit is there in claiming that all cold-fusion experiments are wrong and your theory is right? If he plays it right he might end up with the Nobel price for correctly describing cold fusion processes, which might have helped experimentalists. He might do further research building onto the Rossi device and making it better. If he plays it wrong, he will be the theorist who knows it all but have nothing. Nobody cares about the right theory for something that doesn't work, very few people care about the right theory for something that does work. On Sat, Nov 26, 2011 at 8:02 PM, pagnu...@htdconnect.com wrote: More controversy between LENR competitors --- Lewis Larsen-Lattice Energy LLC-Comments re Mr. Andrea Rossi E-Cat Technology-Nov 26 2011 http://www.slideshare.net/lewisglarsen/lewis-larsenlattice-energy- llccomments-re-mr-andrea-rossi-ecat-technologynov-26-2011 The theory in the slides is nonsense if applied to Rossi's E-cat. One of the early tests involved use a coincidence counter, a pair of gamma counters with coincidence circuitry, which picks up the gamma pairs from positron annihilations. None were observed above background. It was used up close to the reactor. Here is a photo in which the pair of opposed coincidence counters can be seen: http://www.ccemt.org/Energy%20Alternatives/cold_fusion/files/ rossi_cold_fusion_aparatus_scintillator_300.jpg posted on this blog: http://www.cce-mt.org/Energy%20Alternatives/cold_fusion/cold_fusion.html regarding a February 2011 test. Part of the second counter can be seen protruding below the surface on which the E-cat rests. Celani has observed some single (not positron annihilation) counts : I brought my own gamma detector, a battery-operated 1.25″ NaI(Tl) with an energy range=25keV-2000keV. I measured some increase of counts near the reactor (about 50-100%) during operation, in an erratic (unstable) way, with respect to background. See: http://blog.newenergytimes.com/2011/01/18/rossi-and-focardi-lenr- device-celani-report/ http://tin*yurl.com/4djya8 Further, the number of neutrons produced generating 10 kW thermal by the suggested reactions, much less 0.5 MW, would be dangerous in the extreme. Neutron activation would produce long lasting radioactive products. For example 58CO27 + n - 59CO27, then comes the famous 59CO27 + n -- 60Co27, which is used to produce radioactive cobalt used in medicine (half life over 5 years.) Furthermore, the neutrons could activate (make radioactive) many elements likely present in the device or water, like Ni, Fe, Cu, Pb, Sn, Zn, Cl, Ca, Mg, S, Mn, Na, etc. No residual radioactivity was detected. I don't know how this stuff gets passed off as credible. The implications of the theory are not credible: http://www.mail-archive.com/vortex-l@eskimo.com/msg38261.html Hagelstein and Chaudhary pretty much demolished the theory as well. Further, it seems to me if the gamma shielding part of the theory were correct, i.e. the ability of heavy electrons to shield all gammas produced at close range, then it could easily be checked by passing gammas through a metal film supposedly exhibiting the shielding property. The Larsen Windom Patent on gamma shielding: Apparatus and method for absorption of incident gamma radiation and its conversion to outgoing radiation at less penetrating, lower energies and frequencies : http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser? Sect1=PTO2Sect2=HITOFFp=1u=%2Fnetahtml%2FPTO%2Fsearch- bool.htmlr=1f=Gl=50co1=ANDd=PTXTs1=7893414.PN.OS=PN/ 7893414RS=PN/7893414 http://tin*yurl.com/47al74f It was discussed by NET: http://blog.newenergytimes.com/2011/02/22/cold-fusioneers-complain- lenr-researchers-patent/ http://tin*yurl.com/46zgbfu It is notable that, despite the huge amount of content on cold fusion and LENR, it is not a patent on a nuclear energy production method, merely a gamma shielding method. Also, unless I missed it, there does not seem to be any test data provided in the patent
Re: [Vo]:Piantelli's amazing claims
“where one of the two protons fuses, and the other is ejected carrying the energy of the fusion reaction of the first proton.” Could these two protons derive from a cooper pair of protons coming from a Bose-Einstein condensate of entangled protons? On Tue, Nov 29, 2011 at 3:59 PM, mix...@bigpond.com wrote: In reply to Jed Rothwell's message of Tue, 29 Nov 2011 14:38:04 -0500: Hi, [snip] * Confirms the presence of 6-7 Mev Protons The suggestion that 6-7 MeV protons are responsible doesn't add up. If you bombard Nickel with 6-7 MeV protons you don't get enough energy from the fusion reactions to accelerate the original protons (otherwise this method would have been employed years ago). It also leaves open the question of where the 6-7 MeV protons came from in the first place. IOW this sounds like a half-baked theory. Of course it's possible that either a small Hydrino molecule or IRH is fusing with the Ni, and the energy is being carried away by unfused protons, some of which achieve an energy of 6-7 MeV. A few of these would then also undergo the occasional fusion reaction, contributing a little extra. However most of the energy must of necessity come from the original reaction that gave the protons their energy. Note also that 6-7 MeV is the energy that you get from fusing a proton with a Ni nucleus, so a likely reaction is the fusion of a Hydrino molecule with a Ni nucleus, where one of the two protons fuses, and the other is ejected carrying the energy of the fusion reaction of the first proton. Regards, Robin van Spaandonk http://rvanspaa.freehostia.com/project.html
Re: [Vo]:Congress cuts the Gordian knot of aviation patents in 1917
the need to merge the patent like it has been for plane seems reasonable. the notion of taxing cold fusion is classic for IP or any business. Windows is a tax on PC... state or private is a polemic detail. the CF inventors could merge their patents to accelerate the developpement of applications before the patents expires. patent is a temporary monopoly granted in exchange of publication, to avoid secret and inventor abuse... one national or international body could help, or even be create to help, that mutualisation. stealing the patent to the ublic will be a solution hard to impose in today's world, but possible sine the real bosses of the worlds are big corp, that don't yet own the patent... so asking the pupet state to steal it is an option. this will be explained in a popular way, but will be done to avoid the incumbent elit to lose their position... so in my opinion the inventors should mutualize quickly before being screwed by big players.
