Re: [Vo]:[Rossi] University RD has gone away?
- Original Nachricht Von: Aussie Guy E-Cat aussieguy.e...@gmail.com An: vortex-l@eskimo.com Datum: 07.12.2011 08:36 Betreff: Re: [Vo]:[Rossi] University RD has gone away? Rossi has said the 1st customer is a US military research contractor and that the first plant is installed in the US. If this where true they would jail him for telling it. Dont you see how ridiculous his claims are? University RD cannot go away because it never existed. Only a contract exists and it is broken. If he made a contract, he must fulfill it. It was promised and announced for a much earlier time. A lot of Rossi Fan websites have said in July it is a fact and Rossi got a lot of advertising from it. NASA verification did not happen. Upsalla verification did not happen. He has multiply in BIG LETTERS written, this will happen and how it will be precisely done. International high level scientists and high level scientific press was not there for the 1MW demonstration. Now he has definitely exceeded the deadline. He can be called a liar. It is proven. Peter Why would Rossi need to pay a local Italian university to do research when that is probably already happening in the US and at no cost to Rossi. You did read, in the 3 LENR workshop slide presentations, the benefits that LENR would deliver? You think the US would want to share that technology leap with other countries? On 12/7/2011 5:36 PM, Susan Gipp wrote: A.R. like a wet piece of soap, is a master in answering with void answers. The user asked why he doesn't start the University RD program and he answer that it's already started by the *Customer*. So there's no need anymore to waste half a million euros to start wit the U: the *Customer *is happy !
Re: [Vo]:[Rossi] University RD has gone away?
This would be the worst scenario possible. It is of vital importance to create a strong reak competition to Rossi, tens of manufacturers of Ni-H LENR based energy generators. Actually Chemically Assisted and Transition Metals based LENR- many technical solutions. On Wed, Dec 7, 2011 at 9:43 AM, Axil Axil janap...@gmail.com wrote: Rossi’s fairy tale: The US military is the customer. The DOD RD guys bought the Big-cat to see how it works. When they find out, they will keep it quiet as a post. Why give another country the benefit of their well spent procurement money? The US military will take the E-Cat to pieces, see what makes it tick, and improve on the E-Cat; way more than Rossi could have ever done on his own. Rossi has a boatload of money, his baby is improving and he is happy. All Rossi’s secrets are protected in perpetuity by the DOD, people who really know how to keep secrets. Everyone has everything that they ever wanted and they all live happily ever after. On Wed, Dec 7, 2011 at 2:06 AM, Susan Gipp susan.g...@gmail.com wrote: A.R. like a wet piece of soap, is a master in answering with void answers. The user asked why he doesn't start the University RD program and he answer that it's already started by the *Customer*. So there's no need anymore to waste half a million euros to start wit the U: the *Customer *is happy ! 2011/12/6 Mattia Rizzi mattia.ri...@gmail.com A. Casali December 6th, 2011 at 7:09 AMhttp://www.journal-of-nuclear-physics.com/?p=563cpage=3#comment-139978 5) Considering the importance of university RD for the acceptance of your technology in terms of certification and authorisations, not to speek about the performance improvements that they may bring to your great invention, why are you still holding on instead of letting the RD start? Andrea Rossi December 6th, 2011 at 3:55 PMhttp://www.journal-of-nuclear-physics.com/?p=563cpage=3#comment-140329 5- I am holding nothing, we are already making our RD with all our Consultants, and our Customers are accepting our technology already. They don’t care too much who is testing our plants, they care the plants work properly, that’s all they want. Thank you for your direct and useful questons, Warm Regards, A.R. That’s all folks! -- Dr. Peter Gluck Cluj, Romania http://egooutpeters.blogspot.com
Re: [Vo]:[Rossi] University RD has gone away?
- Original Nachricht Von: Aussie Guy E-Cat aussieguy.e...@gmail.com An: vortex-l@eskimo.com Datum: 07.12.2011 08:57 Betreff: Re: [Vo]:[Rossi] University RD has gone away? It is about which nation controls LENR as it has the capability to reshape the world. As for living happily ever after, well that may be the fairy story. As soon as there is a definitive proof and it works, worldwide research will start and others will find it. If Piantelli Focardi Patterson Rossi Defkalion can find it, do you really think, others cannot, when they do serious research? Its nonsense what you say, sorry. Peter On 12/7/2011 6:13 PM, Axil Axil wrote: Rossi?s fairy tale: The US military is the customer. The DOD RD guys bought the Big-cat to see how it works. When they find out, they will keep it quiet as a post. Why give another country the benefit of their well spent procurement money? The US military will take the E-Cat to pieces, see what makes it tick, and improve on the E-Cat; way more than Rossi could have ever done on his own. Rossi has a boatload of money, his baby is improving and he is happy. All Rossi?s secrets are protected in perpetuity by the DOD, people who really know how to keep secrets. Everyone has everything that they ever wanted and they all live happily ever after.
Re: [Vo]:Domestic LENR steam/electricity front end
You have good arguments. anyway, using the grid, or local grid, to average the production capacity, might be interesting. because most of the cost of e-cat/hyperion is not in fuel, or even refueling, but in building the plant. so reducing the total capacity, will reduce the cost. anyway the grid itself, and the smart grid controller, also have a cost, so it should be analysed. also if LENR is not expensive for home use, it can even be less expensive if managed like big plant. also the buying price of home CHP electricity migh be very interesting, because the grid need it , and it allow the grid to reduce it's max capacity... we have to see how the cost structure evolve... 2011/12/7 Aussie Guy E-Cat aussieguy.e...@gmail.com I grew up supporting the grid and will fight to see it retained. However LENR brings new business opportunities. With 45 kW of heat from a Hyperion unit, it is possible to build a relative low cost and simple CHP system to interface to the Hyperion unit. There is simply no commercial reason to feed the Ac kWhs back into the grid. We do have the opportunity to build 10 - 50 MW LENR plants as peaking generators. With that business model, there is very rapid payback. The idea is to cherry pick the most profitable markets for LENR systems, to develop turn key solutions and then to make sales. As we see it, market resistance is the lowest in domestic CHP followed by investor owned non dispatched 10+ MW peaking plants and finally base load plants or retro fits to replace fossil fuel powered boilers.
Re: [Vo]:[Rossi] University RD has gone away?
Technically Rossi and the US has a working LENR reactor. They have a BIG head start. But you may be right and in 12 months there may be 50,000 scientists and engineers working to bring LENR devices to market. That is my hope. On 12/7/2011 6:41 PM, peter.heck...@arcor.de wrote: - Original Nachricht Von: Aussie Guy E-Cataussieguy.e...@gmail.com An: vortex-l@eskimo.com Datum: 07.12.2011 08:57 Betreff: Re: [Vo]:[Rossi] University RD has gone away? It is about which nation controls LENR as it has the capability to reshape the world. As for living happily ever after, well that may be the fairy story. As soon as there is a definitive proof and it works, worldwide research will start and others will find it. If Piantelli Focardi Patterson Rossi Defkalion can find it, do you really think, others cannot, when they do serious research? Its nonsense what you say, sorry. Peter
[Vo]:Giant Casimir Effect Is Predicted
Axil, Welcome aboard! To go even one step further consider that this ability to bend light may actually be more not than just simulating the bending of space time, that it actually is bending space time! Jan Naudt's paper that the hydrino is relativistic is a big clue that Casimir effect is the environment that make it so. Consider a relativistic interpretation where those longer wavelengths are NOT displaced but rather are squeezed into the existing gap by bending space time to make room for themselves. Instead of the typical relativistic scenario like the Twin Paradox where the vacuum energy density is INCREASED due to velocity or a deep gravitational well we have here instead a situation where energy density is DECREASED through a quantum alignment of the Ni geometry. IOW a gravity warp instead of a well. Reports of anomalous half lives of radioactive gases in bulk powders would support this contention and it suggests catalytic action might be based on rapid change in these suppression values that act like an environmental shaker table to jerk matter passing through these chaotic regions into accelerated reactions - the time dilation doesn't have to be great because it is the rapid change / oscillation in the dilation factor proportional to change in geometry that shakes these reactants into rapid motion. Just like the Paradox twin these time dilations would be invisible to the local reactants and be perceived instead as acceleration forces. Fran The explanation is that when the distance between the plates is small enough, it can exclude any waves that are too big to fit in the gap. Since there is nothing between the plates to oppose the effect of these waves, they generate a force that pushes the plates together.
Re: [Vo]:Room-temperature superconductivity
this is a scam. this is totally impossible to have superconduction at high temperature. no cooper pair can survive at that temperature. I'm sure the scientist that make those experiments either make mistakes or fraud. we should look at the video of their experiment. their ampmeter are tricked. anyway, every scientist that work in that domain is a bit off mainstream science... many of them have been seen working in fake science, like SC at high temp and alike... END OF IRONY more seriously, imagine what would be that domaine if journalist have decided that this domain is fake...L no researcher would be trusted, no publication allowed, no funding, just a ring of non-mainstream researcher... hopefully that domain is less controversial. 2011/12/7 Axil Axil janap...@gmail.com Room-temperature superconductivity in a copper-oxide was detected for the first time by heating it to observe a superconductive transition. The question of whether room-temperature superconductivity (RTSC) is possible in the copper-oxides has been answered. Superconductors.ORG herein reports the observation of superconductivity near 28 Celsius (83F, 301K) in a senary oxycuprate. For details see: http://www.superconductors.org/28c_rtsc.htm
Re: [Vo]:Brian Ahern Will Not Be Presenting on December 7, 2011
On 2011-12-07 01:43, Akira Shirakawa wrote: From NextBigFuture: http://nextbigfuture.com/2011/12/brian-ahern-will-not-be-presenting-on.html This is unexpected. Does anybody know why Dr. Brian Ahern won't be presenting his findings on LENR tomorrow as originally planned? The organizer appears to confirm. He's posted the presentation Ahern was supposed to show as a compensation on this page: http://citi5.org/launch/?p=1885 Cheers, S.A.
[Vo]:E-cat paper on the Blog Ego Out
Dear Friends, I have just published a most positive possible opinion paper about Rossi and his E-cat: http://egooutpeters.blogspot.com/2011/12/e-cat-problem.html Asking your help for the UAQ list! Peter -- Dr. Peter Gluck Cluj, Romania http://egooutpeters.blogspot.com
[Vo]:Celani: gamma spike during ignition of Rossi reactor
On Mon, Dec 5, 2011 at 1:52 PM, Mary Yugo maryyu...@gmail.com wrote: Remember that guy who measured a gamma spike while Rossi was adjusting a reactor in the other room? I don't. Is there a link or citation? (thanks) Now there is: see my transcript of the LENR documentary: http://www.mail-archive.com/vortex-l@eskimo.com/msg58293.html It was Celani. Here is the relevant part. After various vicissitudes, because the reactor was having major problems, some inner resistors had broken down, Mr. Rossi came out of the room delighted: The reactor has started. Before he came out, a few minutes before, I had independently measured that both the gamma detector and the mini Geiger had hit the top of the scale, whereas the two detectors of electromagnetic interference were not showing anything. This meant that a short but intense emission of gamma radiation had taken place. -- Berke Durak
Re: [Vo]:Celani: gamma spike during ignition of Rossi reactor
Probably Rossi used some duct tape to repair the reactor. This makes Gamma rays ;-) Honestly, after all was happened, better: NOT happened, such a singular observation is without worth. Of course there might be a strange mechanism producing gamma rays, possibly a welding apparatus or another industrial x-ray apparatus in neighbourhood, but this proves nothing. It is an industrial location and the source of the rays is unknown and so it is ridiculous to discuss this. Peter - Original Nachricht Von: Berke Durak berke.du...@gmail.com An: vortex-l@eskimo.com Datum: 07.12.2011 14:08 Betreff: [Vo]:Celani: gamma spike during ignition of Rossi reactor On Mon, Dec 5, 2011 at 1:52 PM, Mary Yugo maryyu...@gmail.com wrote: Remember that guy who measured a gamma spike while Rossi was adjusting a reactor in the other room? I don't. Is there a link or citation? (thanks) Now there is: see my transcript of the LENR documentary: http://www.mail-archive.com/vortex-l@eskimo.com/msg58293.html It was Celani. Here is the relevant part. After various vicissitudes, because the reactor was having major problems, some inner resistors had broken down, Mr. Rossi came out of the room delighted: The reactor has started. Before he came out, a few minutes before, I had independently measured that both the gamma detector and the mini Geiger had hit the top of the scale, whereas the two detectors of electromagnetic interference were not showing anything. This meant that a short but intense emission of gamma radiation had taken place. -- Berke Durak
Re: [Vo]:[Rossi] University RD has gone away?
On Wed, Dec 7, 2011 at 12:52 AM, Peter Gluck peter.gl...@gmail.com wrote: OK, dear Berke- can you suggest how it is done, provided that it does not multiply the cost of Ni. How can Rossi do this enrichment in practice? Please give some literature. I'm gonna quote Jones Beene's Nov. 4th message on this list: If you are going for enriching an isotope that is 10% denser, it will take at least seven stages for every doubling (not counting losses). This is the rule of seventy (similar to formula used in compound interest). Therefore, to increase a 1% isotope to 16% might require a minimum of 28 stages of progressive enrichment, but when losses are included, it is probably closer to 50 stages. Automation makes a big difference with this many stages. For the NiCl solution (hexa-hydrate) the solubility is 254 g/100 mL at 20 °C - and 600 g/100 mL at 100 °C. That difference could help a lot in automating the processing, so that even 50 stages in a continuous centrifuging would not be a insurmountable problem to get 64Ni enriched to a level in the mid-teens at an affordable cost. Peter Gluck peter.gl...@gmail.com wrote: By the way I have retired in 1999 from an Institute http://www.itim-cj.ro/ specialized in isotopes. Well if that's the case, I assume you are familiar with, or know people familiar with isotope enrichment. Could you then estimate the cost for enriching the heavier isotopes using known methods? Note that we don't know how much enrichment is needed, but we cannot rule out the possibility that raising the Ni-64 fraction by a couple percentage points would not be sufficient. -- Berke Durak
Re: [Vo]:Celani: gamma spike during ignition of Rossi reactor
Francesco Celani is a professor at the Italian National Institute of Nuclear Physics. He performed measurements on the Rossi device. Sergio Focardi, emeritus professor physics, confirms what Celani said: there were gamma emissions during the functioning of the device. --- 00:23:37 | Focardi http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S7lAlzMBzLQt=23m37s During the first experiments, when we were working in Bondeno, we were using an open experimental system, and on those occasions I was using a Geiger detector, set for the gamma scale, through which I verified the presence of gamma emissions during its functioning. -- Berke Durak
Re: [Vo]:Celani: gamma spike during ignition of Rossi reactor
- Original Nachricht Von: Berke Durak berke.du...@gmail.com An: vortex-l@eskimo.com Datum: 07.12.2011 14:48 Betreff: Re: [Vo]:Celani: gamma spike during ignition of Rossi reactor Francesco Celani is a professor at the Italian National Institute of Nuclear Physics. He performed measurements on the Rossi device. Sergio Focardi, emeritus professor physics, confirms what Celani said: there were gamma emissions during the functioning of the device. --- 00:23:37 | Focardi http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S7lAlzMBzLQt=23m37s During the first experiments, when we were working in Bondeno, we were using an open experimental system, and on those occasions I was using a Geiger detector, set for the gamma scale, through which I verified the presence of gamma emissions during its functioning. Focardi said also not much above environment. Possibly there was a dentist or internist doctor or a antique colortv in neighbourhood. Possibly there where suneruptions. He did not give more details, and so everything can be believed or not believed. An multiply observed fact is: No Gamma above environment are measured with Rossis's e-cat during operation. None is measured with 50 ecats in operation. Even if screened, a little bit must come through and must be measureable. So there is no high energy radiation inside. Peter
Re: [Vo]:Celani: gamma spike during ignition of Rossi reactor
peter.heck...@arcor.de wrote: Focardi said also not much above environment. Possibly there was a dentist or internist doctor or a antique colortv in neighbourhood. As I reported here, Celani said the burst was so intense both of his meters went off the scale. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:a long paper about and mainly against the E-cat
Robert Leguillon robert.leguil...@hotmail.com wrote: You cite the temperature as evidence, but the temperature actually contradicts full vaporization. All of this has been explained succinctly ad nauseum, so please do not ask for any details on it I do not need any details. As I mentioned, every expert in steam I have consulted with says this is bullshit. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:Celani: gamma spike during ignition of Rossi reactor
since we don't know the theory of operation of the reactor, and especially because the absence of gamma in nuclear reaction seems strange, we cannot rule out some change of regime, especially when temperature get abnormal... eg: if you play with U235 in big pots, sometimes, given enough quantity and temperature, it can shortly diverge. some japanese workers have died of such mistake. anyway, should investigate, but with the secrecy (because if IP battle in preparation), and lack of mainstream research, it is hard to make good experiments... at least I would (I have in fact) advice Defkalion to include a radiation detector to shut-down the reactor in case of strange burst of radiation. nb: what is funny for me is how we, the humans, have forgotten about experimental science when we have no theory... the reality of ignorance is no more understood... 2011/12/7 peter.heck...@arcor.de n multiply observed fact is: No Gamma above environment are measured with Rossis's e-cat during operation
Re: [Vo]:Celani: gamma spike during ignition of Rossi reactor
On Wed, Dec 7, 2011 at 9:24 AM, peter.heck...@arcor.de wrote: Focardi said also not much above environment. Possibly there was a dentist or internist doctor or a antique colortv in neighbourhood. Possibly there where suneruptions. Solar flares, really? Read again. I have capitalized the relevant parts. Before he came out, a few minutes before, I had independently measured that both the gamma detector and THE MINI GEIGER HAD HIT THE TOP OF THE SCALE, whereas the two detectors of electromagnetic interference were not showing anything. This meant that a SHORT BUT INTENSE EMISSION OF GAMMA RADIATION had taken place. So what does that mean? THE MINI GEIGER HAD HIT THE TOP OF THE SCALE Was the Geiger counter in unexperienced hands? No. What was Celardi's interpretation? This: This meant that a SHORT BUT INTENSE EMISSION OF GAMMA RADIATION had So, no solar flares, dentists, welding apparatus, etc. Why did this happen? I assume this was because it was a prototype with partial shielding. Or maybe the reaction was pushed into an unsafe zone, or... time will tell! An multiply observed fact is: No Gamma above environment are measured with Rossis's e-cat during operation. Right, that's because the aim of the e-Cats is not to produce radiation, but to produce heat. As the engineering advances, shielding gets better, the reaction is better controlled, so there is less and less radiation escaping. None is measured with 50 ecats in operation. Same answer. Even if screened, a little bit must come through and must be measureable. No, it depends on thickness and flux. Photons below 200 keV are easy to completely shield. See previous discussions. So there is no high energy radiation inside. If by high energy you mean on the order of MeVs, you may be right about that. But there might very well be low energy radiation. Also, there might still be high-enery radiation since the physics of the device are not understood -- how about that heavy electron shielding? -- Berke Durak
Re: [Vo]:a long paper about and mainly against the E-cat
On Wed, Dec 7, 2011 at 8:43 AM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com wrote: Robert Leguillon robert.leguil...@hotmail.com wrote: You cite the temperature as evidence, but the temperature actually contradicts full vaporization. All of this has been explained succinctly ad nauseum, so please do not ask for any details on it I do not need any details. As I mentioned, every expert in steam I have consulted with says this is bullshit. Because you know how to pick experts to consult.
Re: [Vo]:a long paper about and mainly against the E-cat
Here is another comment from Mats Lewan Hi Mary (Jed’s in CC again), What I saw inside the Ecat is more or less what I published and what my photos from the inside showed – a block covered with flanges of heat exchanger type, I believe I said approximately 30x30x30 cm. There’s a photo from above where you can see cable and gas feedthroughs from the outside going into this block, which was bolted to the enclosing. Rossi told us that beneath the flanges there was supposedly a block of three reactor chambers, each 20x20x1 cm, enclosed by 4 cm shielding – I think he said lead. That is possible, as is of course any other object of that size. In theory I suppose he could have removed the flanges and the shielding to show the reactors, but that would probably have taken some time. As for energy storing I believe that has been clearly shown not to be a possible explanation in itself. You simply would need an additional heat source inside to have water boiling after 4 hours with cold water added continuously (I heard and felt the water boiling), hot water leaking and an external surface still at 60-85 degrees centigrade (I measured that with my own thermometer). A blank calibration poses some problems as once you have run the reactor with hydrogen, and that had certainly been made previously, you always have hydrogen loaded in the nickel even without pressure (if that is what’s inside) and because of that you cannot exclude that the reaction starts (if there’s a reaction). In any case a blank test wouldn’t exclude a fraud as you in theory could choose not to start the magic heat producing fraud technology in the blank test and then start it in the ‘real’ test. In that sense a blank test wouldn’t change anything. But all sorts of improvements could of course have been made in the measurements. Lots of them. They have been pointed out several times. Just to have the thermocouples in contact with the water flow, have them well calibrated before the test, and have data logged on an sd-card in the display unit would have been a fundamental improvement. Possible explanations as to why Rossi didn’t do this have all been presented – either he’s sloppy, either he wants to hide a fraud, or he’s basically not interesting in doing a proper test in order not to reveal too much. We cannot prove neither of them at this point. And at this point there’s not much more we can do but wait for more proof in one way or another. I suppose you have seen the analyses of October 6 by Heffner, Higgins and Roberson: http://www.nyteknik.se/nyheter/energi_miljo/energi/article3295411.ece Roberson has made an updated version but I haven’t had time to publish it yet on the web. Kind Regards, Mats
[Vo]:Mesauremtn of gamma without shielding
There’s a fact that somebody don’t get, or don’t want to get. In January experiemnt, the shielding was cutted (for Villa’s detector). Bianchi used a gamma detector with 20keV – some MeV range. He placed it close to the shielding hole. No gamma radiation was measured over background. If inside the reactor there was a 10kW gamma source, with a hole in shielding, everybody had died. All these data is inside the Bianchini report, in January.
Re: [Vo]:Celani: gamma spike during ignition of Rossi reactor
On Wed, Dec 7, 2011 at 8:39 AM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com wrote: peter.heck...@arcor.de wrote: Focardi said also not much above environment. Possibly there was a dentist or internist doctor or a antique colortv in neighbourhood. As I reported here, Celani said the burst was so intense both of his meters went off the scale. Very typical of cold fusion evidence. Anecdotal. Not quantitative. Apocryphal. Useless. Off-scale means nothing. Meters can have very sensitive scales. When I was treated for hyperthyroidism with I-131, I could send GM tubes off scale at a distance of meters, even on the less sensitive scales. (I was told not to hold children on my lap for a few weeks.) Salt substitute (KCl) can send some meters off scale on the most sensitive setting (from the K-40).
Re: [Vo]:Domestic LENR steam/electricity front end
Aussie Guy E-Cat wrote: Aussie FITs require the grid to be fed via a grid connect inverter and the inverter fed by a Renewable energy source. I doubt LENR would qualify. A few years after the introduction of cold fusion, no one will be talking about renewable energy anymore. All the laws pertaining to it will be a dead letter. The most expensive sources of energy will be the first to go. Despite rapid improvements wind and solar are still cheaper than fossil fuel, so they will go bankrupt before fossil fuel does. Fossil fuel especially oil will drop in price radically with the introduction of cold fusion. The producers will rush to sell off their stocks as quickly as possible, before they become worthless. Also their own costs will be reduced because they will not do much maintenance on their fleets of oil tankers and refineries. They will run this equipment until it wears out. There will be no need to replace it. I grew up supporting the grid and will fight to see it retained. However LENR brings new business opportunities. I grew up using slide rules, and programming mainframe computers and minicomputers, but I felt no loyalty toward that technology. I was glad to see it replaced by microcomputers. It makes no sense to cling to obsolete technology. LENR will not just bring new business opportunities, it will obliterate all other sources of energy, and all supporting technology that is no longer needed. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:Mesauremtn of gamma without shielding
Mattia Rizzi wrote: No gamma radiation was measured over background. If inside the reactor there was a 10kW gamma source, with a hole in shielding, everybody had died. All these data is inside the Bianchini report, in January. I do not think that contradicts Celani's findings. Celani discussed Bianchi's detector. I do not recall what he said. (I could ask him.) The burst he measured was very brief. If it had continued for a fraction of a second it would have killed everyone. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:Celani: gamma spike during ignition of Rossi reactor
On Wed, Dec 7, 2011 at 8:45 AM, Berke Durak berke.du...@gmail.com wrote: THE MINI GEIGER HAD HIT THE TOP OF THE SCALE, Means nothing. What scale was it on? Did a hyperthyroid patient (treated with I-131) walk past? It takes very little to put some meters off-scale. And yes, some (older) welding rods can easily do it. Many old glazed ceramic dishes will do it to, as will KCl, although the latter takes a sensitive meter. Again, if cold fusion can't find some systematic, reproducible, meaningful evidence to hang its hat on, it's just not gonna get respect from some guy's meter went off scale somewhere at about the right time. Deliberate attempts to measure radiation in correlation with the operation of ecats have not measured anything. That should mean much more.
[Vo]:Re: Mesauremtn of gamma without shielding
This fact contradicts those peole that are saying that there is a gamma activity inside the reactor which is responsable of heat. There isn’t constant gamma activity, with or without shielding. From: Jed Rothwell Sent: Wednesday, December 07, 2011 4:03 PM To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: [Vo]:Mesauremtn of gamma without shielding Mattia Rizzi wrote: No gamma radiation was measured over background. If inside the reactor there was a 10kW gamma source, with a hole in shielding, everybody had died. All these data is inside the Bianchini report, in January. I do not think that contradicts Celani's findings. Celani discussed Bianchi's detector. I do not recall what he said. (I could ask him.) The burst he measured was very brief. If it had continued for a fraction of a second it would have killed everyone. - Jed
[Vo]:Re: a long paper about and mainly against the E-cat
As I mentioned, every expert in steam I have consulted with says this is bullshit. Yours “experts” are the same that measure dryness fraction with RH probes? From: Jed Rothwell Sent: Wednesday, December 07, 2011 3:43 PM To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: [Vo]:a long paper about and mainly against the E-cat Robert Leguillon robert.leguil...@hotmail.com wrote: You cite the temperature as evidence, but the temperature actually contradicts full vaporization. All of this has been explained succinctly ad nauseum, so please do not ask for any details on it I do not need any details. As I mentioned, every expert in steam I have consulted with says this is bullshit. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:Domestic LENR steam/electricity front end
I support your vision , extending it according to my It experience. PC were really a great progress for IT in enterprises, but also a hell, because it was hard to collaborate. reliability, backup, sharing was very complicated and expensive. networking start to exist, then be reliable, then easy to install, then inter-operating, and then it became natural (end then Internet came, and that is another story)... laptop can work off the network, but enjoy to work on the network, and even can use wireless... this is why I believe in the grid, even with PC-like energy... but I agree that home energy will, like laptop, be able sometime to work off-line, or in local network only. instead of home energy , off the grid, I believe more in a competition between very low cost farmed energy (like virtualization/cloud in IT, or classic power plant in energy), medium scale servers (like department/enterprise database/app/file servers), and PC sized energy (playing like Seti@home with the grid, home), and even maybe the thin-client/mobile who simply connect to the grid and participate a minimum (CHP, Hybrid cars, cooking oven)... there will be force like Aussie toward down-scaling/autonomy, force like me for seti@home smart grid, and probably people like Areva to propose Virtualized farmed energy from big plants, or people like Apple to propose LENR powered phone/laptop/pad or rice-cooker/bread-machine/minioven... and the winner, if any, is not know yet. 2011/12/7 Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com I grew up using slide rules, and programming mainframe computers and minicomputers, but I felt no loyalty toward that technology. I was glad to see it replaced by microcomputers. It makes no sense to cling to obsolete technology. LENR will not just bring new business opportunities, it will obliterate all other sources of energy, and all supporting technology that is no longer needed. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:a long paper about and mainly against the E-cat
On Wed, Dec 7, 2011 at 8:50 AM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com wrote: Here is another comment from Mats Lewan As for energy storing I believe that has been clearly shown not to be a possible explanation in itself.You simply would need an additional heat source inside to have water boiling after 4 hours with cold water added continuously (I heard and felt the water boiling), hot water leaking and an external surface still at 60-85 degrees centigrade (I measured that with my own thermometer). It's not clear to me. Ten or 20 kg of firebrick heated to 1000C could produce a kW for 3.5 hours. And that could have been hidden in that 100-kg device. And that's enough to heat the water coming in to boiling. At 60C, with low emissivity foil (below 10%), it would only radiate 50 W or so. And phase-change storage (molten lead, or some other compounds) gives much higher storage density still. But it should be enough to dismiss the demonstration if the possibility of storage is even within an order of magnitude. A blank calibration poses some problems as once you have run the reactor with hydrogen, and that had certainly been made previously, you always have hydrogen loaded in the nickel even without pressure (if that is what’s inside) and because of that you cannot exclude that the reaction starts (if there’s a reaction). In any case a blank test wouldn’t exclude a fraud as you in theory could choose not to start the magic heat producing fraud technology in the blank test and then start it in the ‘real’ test. In that sense a blank test wouldn’t change anything. But if you could ensure that the energy going in during the blank was legit, that would mean the energy measurement of the fraudulent source would be more meaningful, and so the comparison to chemical energy density would be more useful. But a better control would be to have several ecats, and let a skeptic choose which ones to charge, and which ones not to. Then compare the outputs. And in particular, increase the electric input of a blank to match the claimed lenr output of a real device, and see if the output is the same. But all sorts of improvements could of course have been made in the measurements. Lots of them. They have been pointed out several times. Just to have the thermocouples in contact with the water flow, have them well calibrated before the test, and have data logged on an sd-card in the display unit would have been a fundamental improvement. Agreed. Possible explanations as to why Rossi didn’t do this have all been presented – either he’s sloppy, either he wants to hide a fraud, or he’s basically not interesting in doing a proper test in order not to reveal too much. We cannot prove neither of them at this point. I don't think sloppy fits. It's too easy to improve the demo. So it's almost certain that he deliberately makes things uncertain. The simplest explanation is to hide fraud, but some sort of devious reverse-psychology, fear of competition, secrecy motive could be contrived as well, I suppose. I suppose you have seen the analyses of October 6 by Heffner, Higgins and Roberson: There is not really enough data (by design, presumably) to do a serious analysis, and Roberson's is more like a fanboy's endorsement than an analysis.
RE: [Vo]:a long paper about and mainly against the E-cat
God, I hate to address this, but you either: 1) fundamentally misunderstand, 2) are asking the wrong question 3) are willfully ignoring clarification If you don not understand the arguments, you need to look back to the early E-Cats, where the question first arose. The steam experts were right in the INITIAL steam discussions. I agree with you. But they were being asked about steam quality, not water overflow. Krivit raised his questions on steam quality which were, more than likely, bullshit. Steam quality and entrained droplets were totally unnecessary and confused a valid issue. It is true that the steam was measured with the wrong probe plugged into the meter, using it for measurements it was never intended. It couldn't have measured pressure or steam quality; but that's irrelevant. People continued arguing the point because they were right, and needed to be recongnized for it - Ignore it. Even though the method used to determine the steam quality was useless, steam quality was a red herring - a misnormer, really. The steam was measured out of the top port, and it may have been 100%. Water would have been pouring out of the hose. The reason that people say that the temperature contradicts 100% dry steam is that the temperature never indicated a phase change. The temperature would have climbed to whatever the local boiling point was, remained there for quite some time, and then elevated. Attached is a graph showing temperature elevation with a fixed heat source. The fact that this didn't occur means that the slightly elevated boiling temperature represented either impurities, poor calorimetry (sinking heat from adjoining metal, for example), or elevated pressure. The closest example to ANYTHING like this graph occurring was in the 1MW demo, from which only the graph itself was supplied. Look at the EK graph, which is the most convincing of all that I'd seen: Rossi claims full vaporization, because the temperature is 100.2C! If you don't understand how the evidence directly contradicts complete vaporization, there is nothing that will open your eyes. The temperature indicates only that boiling is occurring. You could open the steam port, and have dry steam coming out, but the evidence shows that water is flowing out the hose and down the drain. Period. This is the same thing that may be happening in the Ottoman E-Cat: water gurgling out, and some steam. The assumption of complete vaporization cannot be relied upon, and is actually contradicted by the measurements. This is why your Method 2 for the October 6th test was unuseable. Now, I need to go do something productive. Date: Wed, 7 Dec 2011 09:43:42 -0500 Subject: Re: [Vo]:a long paper about and mainly against the E-cat From: jedrothw...@gmail.com To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Robert Leguillon robert.leguil...@hotmail.com wrote: You cite the temperature as evidence, but the temperature actually contradicts full vaporization. All of this has been explained succinctly ad nauseum, so please do not ask for any details on it I do not need any details. As I mentioned, every expert in steam I have consulted with says this is bullshit. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:a long paper about and mainly against the E-cat
On Wed, Dec 7, 2011 at 9:41 AM, Robert Leguillon robert.leguil...@hotmail.com wrote: The steam experts were right in the INITIAL steam discussions. I agree with you. But they were being asked about steam quality, not water overflow. Krivit raised his questions on steam quality which were, more than likely, bullshit. Steam quality and entrained droplets were totally unnecessary and confused a valid issue. While I agree with your fundamental point, that the data do not show that more than a small fraction of the water was vaporized, I think the picture you show cannot represent reality, and that the idea of steam quality and mist and entrained drops is relevant to what was observed at the end of the hose, and in particular, why Lewan only collected about half the liquid that went in. The reason that picture is wrong is because the steam is formed in the ecat, not at the water surface. Then it has to bubble through the water. It takes only 1% vaporization (by mass) to produce 94% gas by volume. So, you would not see the chimney full of quiet water like that. The chimney would be mostly gas, and the turbulence would produce a lot of droplets that would be carried into the hose by the fast moving steam. Depending on the actual geometry of the chimney, the water might be forced up the walls into the hose (a kind of annular flow). Or Rossi might use a nozzle to promote the formation of mist. That way, much of the water could disappear into the air as a mist at the end of the hose. And that could easily explain why Lewan collected only half the liquid, even if only a few per cent was actually vaporized.
Re: [Vo]:Domestic LENR steam/electricity front end
On Wed, Dec 7, 2011 at 10:01 AM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com wrote: I grew up using slide rules, and programming mainframe computers and minicomputers, but I felt no loyalty toward that technology. I have a bamboo Post Versalog leather cased slide rule in my office. Our intern engineers do not know what it is or what to believe when I tell them that it was the calculator that took us to the moon. I make them read the instruction book and do some simple calculations with the rule out of spite for their youth! T
Re: [Vo]:Mesauremtn of gamma without shielding
Am 07.12.2011 16:03, schrieb Jed Rothwell: Mattia Rizzi wrote: No gamma radiation was measured over background. If inside the reactor there was a 10kW gamma source, with a hole in shielding, everybody had died. All these data is inside the Bianchini report, in January. I do not think that contradicts Celani's findings. Celani discussed Bianchi's detector. I do not recall what he said. (I could ask him.) The burst he measured was very brief. If it had continued for a fraction of a second it would have killed everyone. It is immoral to discuss this because it is a trial to reveal Rossis proprietary hard earned secrets. Celani is a snake and a competitor spreading false rumours, because he wants Rossi's ruin. Rossi has already accused Celani about stealing his secrets. All people who are discussing this seriously are snakes and imbeciles. If there is anything important to know for us about gamma radiation or steam generation or energy production, Rossi will without doubt tell us. Peter
RE: [Vo]:a long paper about and mainly against the E-cat
Agreed. The picture is an over-simplification; it is dumbed-down to illustrate the very basic tenet of the argument. I think that it is an exceptional illustration to get the basic points across (think Neils Bohr). You're right that it's more than likely gurgling and sputtering, as opposed to gently overflowing. Still the diagram demonstrates that 100% dry steam being measured would still not preclude 99.9% of the water from pouring down the hose. Date: Wed, 7 Dec 2011 10:00:32 -0600 Subject: Re: [Vo]:a long paper about and mainly against the E-cat From: joshua.c...@gmail.com To: vortex-l@eskimo.com On Wed, Dec 7, 2011 at 9:41 AM, Robert Leguillon robert.leguil...@hotmail.com wrote: The steam experts were right in the INITIAL steam discussions. I agree with you. But they were being asked about steam quality, not water overflow. Krivit raised his questions on steam quality which were, more than likely, bullshit. Steam quality and entrained droplets were totally unnecessary and confused a valid issue. While I agree with your fundamental point, that the data do not show that more than a small fraction of the water was vaporized, I think the picture you show cannot represent reality, and that the idea of steam quality and mist and entrained drops is relevant to what was observed at the end of the hose, and in particular, why Lewan only collected about half the liquid that went in. The reason that picture is wrong is because the steam is formed in the ecat, not at the water surface. Then it has to bubble through the water. It takes only 1% vaporization (by mass) to produce 94% gas by volume. So, you would not see the chimney full of quiet water like that. The chimney would be mostly gas, and the turbulence would produce a lot of droplets that would be carried into the hose by the fast moving steam. Depending on the actual geometry of the chimney, the water might be forced up the walls into the hose (a kind of annular flow). Or Rossi might use a nozzle to promote the formation of mist. That way, much of the water could disappear into the air as a mist at the end of the hose. And that could easily explain why Lewan collected only half the liquid, even if only a few per cent was actually vaporized.
[Vo]:Attenuation of decay rate in E-Cat
We have to agree with the comments that the prior testing clearly indicates that there is no significant radioactivity detected during operation of E-Cat. One unanswered question relates to startup. Not just startup, but a possible method after startup of attenuation of the decay rate to levels that can lower the reading by a large factor on the type of positron detector used in the testing. This has not been addressed adequately before: the way in which a significant reading can be made to look similar to background. But it can be done, has been done, and can be validated by anyone interested. IOW, there is a known way that natural decay radioactivity is either masked or altered - and it relates to high voltage. Ref: The two patents of Wm. Barker. The implication is that the radioactivity of potassium carbonate, enriched in the 40K isotope in particular, can be masked to an extreme level by the application of high voltage. If you have a Tesla coil and a gamma scout, and a supply of potassium carbonate, then you can perform this experiment yourself. U.S. Pat. No. 4,961,880 Electrostatic Voltage Excitation Process and Apparatus issued to William Barker in 1990 and a second patent also expired disclose an apparatus for utilizing HV electrostatic charge to accelerate or decelerate the apparent decay rate of a few mineral radioisotopes. This patent has been replicated independently but not published in a peer reviewed journal, AFAIK. Electrostatic fields are generally not sufficient to influence decay rates in pure elements, and there is no dispute over that. But RF at HV from a Tesla-type device has been shown to be surprisingly effective to change the apparent decay rate (increase or decrease) in *some minerals* by a factor of up to 10^6. It is not clear why some minerals respond and others do not, or if the change is real or being masked somehow, but the presence of oxygen and carbon are indicated. The Barker technique does not work for every mineral, but for unknown reasons the net effect (change in counts) is almost unbelievably accelerated in a few like pitchblende, in particular - and decelerated in others. A particular potassium compound could be in that category. One might be more inclined to consider this possibility if there was an indication that Rossi's so-called RF generator was in fact a transformer of the kind used for Tesla coils. Jones attachment: winmail.dat
[Vo]:learn physics watch Walter
* ONE HUNDRED AND THREE LECTURES * You can watch 103 of my lectures (with great demos) on the web, 95 on OpenCourseWare (OCW) and 7 on MITWorld and 1 given at the Tecnical University (TU) in Delft, the Netherlands. Most can also be viewed on YouTube, iTunes U, Academic Earth and Facebook. These lectures are being watched by about 5000 people daily from all over the world, that's about two million people per year! Many teachers show them regularly in their class rooms. The many responses that I receive daily are quite wonderful and often very moving. You can read about this in the following articles: http://web.mit.edu/newsoffice/2007/itunesu-lewin-0725.html http://www.nytimes.com/2007/12/19/education/19physics.html?_r=1hporef=slogin http://www.boston.com/ae/celebrity/articles/2008/01/02/a_star_in_the_classroom/ http://www.usnews.com/articles/education/online-education/2008/01/10/a-new-physics-superstar.html OCW http://ocw.mit.edu/index.html * 8.01 Physics I, Fall 1999, Newtonian Mechanics - 35 (+1) lectures * 8.02 Electricity and Magnetism, Spring 2002 - 36 lectures * 8.03 Physics III - Fall 2004 - Waves and Vibrations - 23 lectures * There is a very Special Lecture I gave at MIT on May 16, 2011. It's called For the Love of Physics. It's posted as the last lecture on 8.01 but you can also view it from 8.02 and 8.03 (it's linked). To get the flavor of my lectures, look at http://www.videosurf.com/videos/Walter+Lewin Both 8.01 and 8.02 have now been expanded by OCW with some 20 hours of video taken from my earlier TV programs at MIT. They both have now been converted into a complete course. Of course, my lectures are the heart of these courses. It may be to your benefit to take 8.01 and/or 8.02 as a course, rather than just watching the lectures. http://ocw.mit.edu/courses/physics/8-01sc-physics-i-classical-mechanics-fall-2010/ http://ocw.mit.edu/courses/physics/8-02sc-physics-ii-electricity-and-magnetism-fall-2010/ Problem Solving. If you are only interested in problem solving, the following sites may be useful (keep in mind though that this is only a small part of problems I solve in lectures and on my assignments). http://www.youtube.com/user/mit?blend=3D1ob=3D4#g/c/D3F1BAAA7783D5EB http://www.youtube.com/user/mit?blend=3D1ob=3D4#g/c/A0988AB0397B879A There are 20 wikipedia sites which use clips from my lectures. If this experiment is successful, more will be added. Here are 3 examples. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Newton's_laws_of_motion http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hooke's_law http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Newton's_law_of_universal_gravitation http://mitworld.mit.edu/speaker/view/55 * How to Make Teaching Come Alive? - for middle school science teachers * Polarization, Rainbows and Cheap Sunglasses - for kids parents * The Birth and Death of Stars - for a general audience * The Sounds of Music - for kids their parents. * The Mystery of Light - for high school students science teachers * The Wonders of Electricity and Magnetism - for kids their parents * Looking at 20th Century Art Through the Eyes of a Physicist * I gave a lecture in Delft, the Netherlands on October 26, 2011. Title: Rainbows and Blue Skies http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6QVbE_tU2sA * I received the first OCW Award for Excellence on May 5, 2011. http://techtv.mit.edu/collections/ocwcglobal2011/videos/13882-inaugural- awards-for-opencourseware-excellence Greetings, \\/\//@lter For brief CVs: http://web.mit.edu/physics/people/faculty/lewin_walter.html http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Walter_Lewin
Re: [Vo]:Brian Ahern Will Not Be Presenting on December 7, 2011
On Wed, Dec 7, 2011 at 1:38 AM, Akira Shirakawa shirakawa.ak...@gmail.comwrote: On 2011-12-07 01:43, Akira Shirakawa wrote: From NextBigFuture: http://nextbigfuture.com/2011/**12/brian-ahern-will-not-be-** presenting-on.htmlhttp://nextbigfuture.com/2011/12/brian-ahern-will-not-be-presenting-on.html This is unexpected. Does anybody know why Dr. Brian Ahern won't be presenting his findings on LENR tomorrow as originally planned? The organizer appears to confirm. He's posted the presentation Ahern was supposed to show as a compensation on this page: http://citi5.org/launch/?p=1885 Interesting. But just looking at the slides, it seems once again, theory is given much more importance than proving that the effect is real. There is a suggestion in the slides that a self-sustaining LENR reaction has been achieved. But how much power and sustained for how long? And measured how and by whom?
Re: [Vo]:Celani: gamma spike during ignition of Rossi reactor
In an experimental series performed by Piantelli, he observed the production of either heat or gamma radiation but not both at the same time, if memory serves. From the demo of the first one liter Rossi reactor during the time at startup when the lattice was cold, a massive radiation burst appeared for a second or two. From this, I deduce that the energy production mechanism will generate large amounts of radiation if the lattice is cold and the phonons present in the lattice are not energetic enough. One problem of that early design was the generation of bursts of radiation during startup and shutdown. I assume that the lattice was cold at those times. Rossi was greatly concerned by these radiation bursts, and changed his design so that an external heater warmed the nickel lattice before the reaction begins. This tells me that there is a second quantum mechanical reaction that converts the radiation generated in the metal atom’s nucleus to thermal energy within the lattice. The lack of radioactive decay products after the Rossi reactor is shut down also speaks to a radiation thermalization mechanism rather than a radiation suppression mechanism. From Otto Reifenschweiler: This assumption is confirmed by the observation, that a decrease of tritium radioactivity is never observed with Ti-preparations which are generally used for storage of tritium. Such preparations don.t have the above stated properties. They consist of single and big non monocrystalline Ti-particles, in my experience. The radiation thermalization mechanism is a surface phenomenon that is maximized by the large surface area of nano-powder. The a variant of the quantum Zeno effect in which an unstable particle, if observed continuously or in the case of quantum activity in a metal lattice cycles rapidly through repeating cycles of entanglement in a continuing process of quantum decoherence, that particle will thermalize its nuclear power output as thermal energy in the metal lattice. The originating mechanism of the nuclear energy is not caused by vibrations (phonons) in the lattice. However, the thermalization of that nuclear energy is caused by the rapid cycling decoherence of the entangled metal atoms caused by quantum phonons vibrating in that lattice. Phonons in the metal lattice will cause the energy of the unstable particle to be transferred away from its originating nucleus and enter the metal lattice non-locally some large distance away. This may be why Rossi went with a micron sized particle rather than a nano-sized particle. The question now is what particle produces the LENR energy. Speculating, that unstable particle is probably the transition metal atom; in Rossi’s case, it is the nickel atom. This nuclear reaction is very weird in the Rossi reactor where it does not rip that lattice apart but contrary to all good sense, thermalizes the lattice into a gentle low grade heat. I can only speculate that the entanglement mechanism provides an otherworldly energy pipeline that gently moves energy/heat away from the nuclear production zone. On Wed, Dec 7, 2011 at 9:45 AM, Berke Durak berke.du...@gmail.com wrote: On Wed, Dec 7, 2011 at 9:24 AM, peter.heck...@arcor.de wrote: Focardi said also not much above environment. Possibly there was a dentist or internist doctor or a antique colortv in neighbourhood. Possibly there where suneruptions. Solar flares, really? Read again. I have capitalized the relevant parts. Before he came out, a few minutes before, I had independently measured that both the gamma detector and THE MINI GEIGER HAD HIT THE TOP OF THE SCALE, whereas the two detectors of electromagnetic interference were not showing anything. This meant that a SHORT BUT INTENSE EMISSION OF GAMMA RADIATION had taken place. So what does that mean? THE MINI GEIGER HAD HIT THE TOP OF THE SCALE Was the Geiger counter in unexperienced hands? No. What was Celardi's interpretation? This: This meant that a SHORT BUT INTENSE EMISSION OF GAMMA RADIATION had So, no solar flares, dentists, welding apparatus, etc. Why did this happen? I assume this was because it was a prototype with partial shielding. Or maybe the reaction was pushed into an unsafe zone, or... time will tell! An multiply observed fact is: No Gamma above environment are measured with Rossis's e-cat during operation. Right, that's because the aim of the e-Cats is not to produce radiation, but to produce heat. As the engineering advances, shielding gets better, the reaction is better controlled, so there is less and less radiation escaping. None is measured with 50 ecats in operation. Same answer. Even if screened, a little bit must come through and must be measureable. No, it depends on thickness and flux. Photons below 200 keV are easy to completely shield. See previous discussions. So there is no high energy radiation inside. If by high energy you mean on
Re: [Vo]:a long paper about and mainly against the E-cat
I feel that the description of my analysis of the October 6, 2011 test as the work of a Rossi fan boy requires that I respond. Mr. Cude, you should read my analysis before coming to such a conclusion since you seem to think of yourself as open minded and honest in your assessment of the Rossi devices. We would be far better served if you were to devote some of your energy to seeking the truth instead of hiding facts and evidence. I am convinced that you have talent, but that it is being misdirected at the moment and hopefully will begin to make a positive contribution to the discussion one day. It was interesting to follow your disagreement with another of the more skeptical members of the group earlier today. He was cowered by you for some reason and decided to abandon his position. He was correct but his analysis was in direct opposition to your only island to stand upon in trying to prove Rossi is a scammer. Of course you howled until he realized his mistake and dropped out of the argument. You skeptics must stay together at all costs of course. I have always maintained that I will follow the evidence and have been faithful to that end. My fan boy analysis as you say feeds fresh meat to both sides of the argument. My conclusions have slowly been sharpened up with time and new ways of reviewing the data. Rossi’s tests have been more like a CSI job instead of a simple physics experiment and I am sure you understand that. The latest document that Mats Lewan refers to has a third and final section where I made my best effort to make sense of the space data. Please read the total document before you trash it. My conclusions are somewhat speculative because of the situation, but seem to fit the data fairly well. Your ridiculous warping of the facts regarding the 1 MW test are just laughable. We both agree that if the output of the ECATs is just water, then the power would be far less than certified by the engineer conducting the test. On the other hand, the maximum power delivered could be in excess of 500 kW if we are to assume that everyone is honest and reporting facts. Why should we assume that a well trained engineer would be so stupid as to be incapable of catching water? Your explanation does not hold water any better than his method. Please read the Wikipedia article on steam locomotives to put things in some perspective. I would estimate that the total area of Rossi’s 107 ECATs is comparable to that of boiler within one of these devices. How do you think that they can function at all if most of the steam leaving has a quality of 5% or so as you keep repeating? This is what you peg your argument upon and it does not hold water. You have demonstrated that you are not looking at the facts, but make up whatever you like to argue your case. My model of the 1 MW systems does not require me to do any of this maneuvering. If a straight forward model fits all of the facts, why should we go out of the way to insist upon one that requires dishonest behavior, ignorance or just plain deception as you suggest? Come on. Are you convinced that the only way for the system to release 470 kW would be for LENR action to be taking place? Is that your hang-up? Where are the skeptics that claim that energy is stored for long enough and intense enough to continue to heat the output for the full 5.5 hours? Have they all given up on this possibility and now leave it up to people like yourself to throw uncertainty at the entire test system? Please examine your motives here and if your conscience is clear, keep supporting your side of the argument. I just hope that you are not making your statements to be argumentative as that is a waste of all of our time. Dave
Re: [Vo]:Celani: gamma spike during ignition of Rossi reactor
On Wed, Dec 7, 2011 at 10:07 AM, Joshua Cude joshua.c...@gmail.com wrote: Means nothing. What scale was it on? Did a hyperthyroid patient (treated with I-131) walk past? It takes very little to put some meters off-scale. And yes, some (older) welding rods can easily do it. Many old glazed ceramic dishes will do it to, as will KCl, although the latter takes a sensitive meter. This is getting ridiculous. The Geiger counter was on the scale that allowed Celani to say with a straight face that a short but INTENSE emission of gamma radiation had taken place. Because Celani is perfectly qualified (hello, he is working at a nuclear physics lab!), he probably wouldn't qualify as intense the radiation emitted by a bag of bananas or some irradiated mammal. Also, nuked patients walk at finite speeds. Therefore, they wouldn't register as a short spike. Again, if cold fusion can't find some systematic, reproducible, meaningful evidence to hang its hat on, The systematic, reproductible, meaningful evidence is the industrial amount of heat that has been harnessed by Rossi et al. over the last years. it's just not gonna get respect from some guy's meter went off scale somewhere at about the right time. Deliberate Some guy... right. You and I are some guy. Celani and Focardi are not. attempts to measure radiation in correlation with the operation of ecats have not measured anything. That should mean much more. First of all, radiation is not a necessity. If the Rossi device produces no radiation at all, that's fine by me, as long as it produces a good amount of energy. Which I don't have any reason to think that it doesn't. Secondly, did someone insert a radiation probe INSIDE the reactor? Did someone use any kind of ultra-sensitive equipment? No. They used ordinary scintillators and probes. There was a hole in the shielding, but there's plenty of material left to shield the reactions. So you just cannot say that there was or wasn't low-energy ( 200 keV) gammas. Finally, why all the hate? -- Berke Durak
Re: [Vo]:Domestic LENR steam/electricity front end
I wrote: Despite rapid improvements wind and solar are still cheaper than fossil fuel, so they will go bankrupt before fossil fuel does. I mean they are still nominally *more expensive* than fossil fuel, because we do not take into account the cost of pollution or global warming. Terry Blanton hohlr...@gmail.com wrote: I have a bamboo Post Versalog leather cased slide rule in my office. Our intern engineers do not know what it is or what to believe when I tell them that it was the calculator that took us to the moon. I make them read the instruction book and do some simple calculations with the rule out of spite for their youth! Ha, ha! My mother said that slide rules are good for students because they force you to pay attention to what you are doing. You have to remember where the decimal point is. She and others of her generation felt that two decimal places of precision was enough for most purposes. They thought that modern calculators with all those extra digits give people the wrong idea. People tend to go for highly precise looking numbers that mean nothing. On the other hand, I read an article somewhere recently that said that civil engineering projects such as bridges and even aircraft designed with slide rules tended to be overengineered. They were stronger than they needed to be, and used more material, because the calculations were not precise. They did have more precise means of computation. My mother was an expert at using a Comptometer, which she did during WWII. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:Attenuation of decay rate in E-Cat
Jones Beene wrote: We have to agree with the comments . . . Who's we? You? As Mark Twain put it: Only kings, presidents, editors, and people with tapeworms have the right to use the editorial 'we.' that the prior testing clearly indicates that there is no significant radioactivity detected during operation of E-Cat. One unanswered question relates to startup. Not just startup, but a possible method after startup of attenuation of the decay rate to levels that can lower the reading by a large factor on the type of positron detector used in the testing. We agree. Celani observed a burst at startup. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:Mesauremtn of gamma without shielding
Your sense of morality is not to talk about possible gamma radiation that could kill the observers? All of whom were assured by Rossi that it was safe? On Wed, Dec 7, 2011 at 11:09 AM, Peter Heckert peter.heck...@arcor.dewrote: Am 07.12.2011 16:03, schrieb Jed Rothwell: Mattia Rizzi wrote: No gamma radiation was measured over background The burst he measured was very brief. If it had continued for a fraction of a second it would have killed everyone. It is immoral to discuss this because it is a trial to reveal Rossis proprietary hard earned secrets... Peter
Re: [Vo]:a long paper about and mainly against the E-cat
Robert Leguillon wrote: This is the same thing that may be happening in the Ottoman E-Cat: water gurgling out, and some steam. The assumption of complete vaporization cannot be relied upon, and is actually contradicted by the measurements. This is why your Method 2 for the October 6th test was unuseable. I agree there may have been some liquid flowing through at times, but Lewan performed Method 2 after a very large burst of heat, and he found the flow rate was much lower than the flow rate going into the reactor. Therefore the reactor water level was low and the vessel was filling up. All of the water coming out of the heat exchanger hose at that time was condensed from steam. I think you are right that at other times there may have been a mixture. If they had measured the flow rate constantly with two precision flow meters (for the inlet and outlet) they might have found something like that, where the overall flow coming out was higher than the flow coming in. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:a long paper about and mainly against the E-cat
*This also will be posted to Vortex - Hi Mats, *In theory I suppose he could have removed the flanges and the shielding to show the reactors, but that would probably have taken some time. *Rossi's demos have always emphasized saving time over being accurate and complete. Of course, that makes no sense when introducing the greatest invention of the century. Rossi should have taken the time even if it meant running into the night or in shifts. He should have run for days or even weeks under continuous observation. I often read the excuse that Rossi doesn't want to be convincing. In that case, why show anything at all to reporters and scientists? Why not have only private demos?* As for energy storing I believe that has been clearly shown not to be a possible explanation in itself. You simply would need an additional heat source inside to have water boiling after 4 hours with cold water added continuously (I heard and felt the water boiling), hot water leaking and an external surface still at 60-85 degrees centigrade (I measured that with my own thermometer). *I understand. But a famous con man once said, if there is any the part of the con that you don't get, it's the part that will get you. I don't pretend to know how Rossi may be faking if he is. One needs to consider it could be that he's audacious and resourceful enough to rely on combinations of illusions. He could rely on storage of the warmup heat *and* a source of chemical, change of state, or other extraneous source. And if it's an illusion, it could also depend on deliberately inaccurate measurement of enthalpy at the output end. Different methods of cheating could be used in different demonstrations. And Rossi could have been lucky although I admit most con men don't rely on luck. Rossi has resisted many suggestions from many sources. He won't use foolproof methods of enthalpy measurement such as direct liquid cooling or sparging the steam into an insulated contained. He refuses to make long runs. He uses tangential excuses that he's more interested in customer satisfaction than in proving the principle to the world -- yet he won't name a single customer. Even more telling, after all the time that went by, he won't name a single credible person or organization who has independently tested the device and has come up with a positive result. He has not given an E-cat to any university despite his claims to a plentiful supply. And he won't let anyone repeat Levi's excellent and fairly long February run which was said to have gone 18 hours and used only liquid coolant.* A blank calibration poses some problems as once you have run the reactor with hydrogen, and that had certainly been made previously, you always have hydrogen loaded in the nickel even without pressure (if that is what’s inside) and because of that you cannot exclude that the reaction starts (if there’s a reaction). In any case a blank test wouldn’t exclude a fraud as you in theory could choose not to start the magic heat producing fraud technology in the blank test and then start it in the ‘real’ test. In that sense a blank test wouldn’t change anything.* The blank could have been done with new E-cats, innocent of hydrogen. That might be a bit hard on Rossi but he claims to have made and tested hundreds or even thousands. Of course Rossi could control an extraneous heat source, even in a blank test. However, the purpose of the blank/control/calibration run isn't so much to rule out extraneous heat sources. It's to verify the proper functioning and approximate calibration of the heat exchanger and of the output temperature and flow sensors -- the whole enthalpy measurement chain. That includes such things as thermocouple placement.Why go at that with a complex simulation when you can simply make a measurement to rule it in or out as a factor? To further rule out an extraneous heat source would require a long experiment -- much longer than any Rossi has done to date and in keeping with NASA's suggestions published by Krivit.I suppose that a fraudulent, extraneous heat input could possibly be continuous but that can be ruled out pretty well by the sort of inspection you did before the run. And there is absolutely no valid reason to shut down a purported nuclear fusion reactor after a four hour run when the reactor is claimed to go for six or more months without refueling or any other attention. I understand that only completely independent experiments (not involving Rossi's lab, his power source, his pump and coolant and especially his enthalpy measurement methods) are necessary to absolutely rule out fraud. However, simply by insisting on a control/blank/calibration run and a long enough run, and the pre-run inspections, one could make it vastly more difficult and impractical for Rossi to cheat. To date, I have not seen that done. I am also struck by the absence of such questions from
Re: [Vo]:Celani: gamma spike during ignition of Rossi reactor
Axil Axil wrote: In an experimental series performed by Piantelli, he observed the production of either heat or gamma radiation but not both at the same time, if memory serves. I do not recall that, but that is a very interesting observation. In other words, a burst of gamma rays may be a precursor reaction. Takahashi and some others say that with the bulk palladium electrochemical method, neutrons may be anti-correlated with excess heat. They appear when there is no heat, and vice versa. Takahashi thought that neutrons may be generated when the lattice is insufficiently loaded. It has been a long time since I read this. As I recall Storms disputed this hypothesis because he said the lattice is never loaded evenly. One part of the bulk palladium cathode will be fully loaded while another is not. He ascribes neutrons to some conventional fusion reaction such as fracto-fusion. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:a long paper about and mainly against the E-cat
On Wed, Dec 7, 2011 at 10:38 AM, David Roberson dlrober...@aol.com wrote: Are you convinced that the only way for the system to release 470 kW would be for LENR action to be taking place? Is that your hang-up? Where are the skeptics that claim that energy is stored for long enough and intense enough to continue to heat the output for the full 5.5 hours? Dave There is no need to postulate energy storage in the megawatt plant demonstration. It is only necessary to consider that Rossi's client may be fictitious and that the engineer may work for Rossi, perhaps for quite a very large fee or share. It is also useful to remember that the device was hooked to a running diesel generator capable of 400+ kW of output, and that the experiment was derated to half the original estimated power output. The generator could have supplied all the thermal energy produced in the experiment via the heaters conveniently built in to every E-cat. Because the invited scientists and reporters were not allowed to see any data collection, it would not even have been needed to fake the enthalpy measurement -- it all had to be taken on faith anyway.
Re: [Vo]:a long paper about and mainly against the E-cat
Mary Yugo maryyu...@gmail.com wrote: There is no need to postulate energy storage in the megawatt plant demonstration. It is only necessary to consider that Rossi's client may be fictitious and that the engineer may work for Rossi, perhaps for quite a very large fee or share. In other words, you have to believe in conspiracy theories. Which I do not. Unless you have some evidence for these wild notions, I cannot take them seriously. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:Mesauremtn of gamma without shielding
Am 07.12.2011 19:59, schrieb Ahsoka Tano: Your sense of morality is not to talk about possible gamma radiation that could kill the observers? All of whom were assured by Rossi that it was safe? Of course it is safe. Look at Rossi his coworkers. They look healthy. Why discuss something that obviously does not exist, and generate and spread false rumours? This is against my morality. It is a pity that no observers with real oldfashioned filmcameras where there. If there was a strong gamma burst, they should have had black and noisy negatives. Also a pity that no oldfashioned computer screen was there. This should flash. But wait! Where not fluorescent lamps there? What do these? Shouldnt they flash? How does a laptop react to gamma bursts that can kill? best regards, Peter On Wed, Dec 7, 2011 at 11:09 AM, Peter Heckert peter.heck...@arcor.dewrote: Am 07.12.2011 16:03, schrieb Jed Rothwell: Mattia Rizzi wrote: No gamma radiation was measured over background The burst he measured was very brief. If it had continued for a fraction of a second it would have killed everyone. It is immoral to discuss this because it is a trial to reveal Rossis proprietary hard earned secrets... Peter
Re: [Vo]:a long paper about and mainly against the E-cat
On Wed, Dec 7, 2011 at 11:12 AM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com wrote: Mary Yugo maryyu...@gmail.com wrote: There is no need to postulate energy storage in the megawatt plant demonstration. It is only necessary to consider that Rossi's client may be fictitious and that the engineer may work for Rossi, perhaps for quite a very large fee or share. In other words, you have to believe in conspiracy theories. Which I do not. Unless you have some evidence for these wild notions, I cannot take them seriously. Of course, you don't have to take them seriously. A lot of Irish farmers did not seriously consider fraud with the Steorn situation and so far, in something like four years, they have lost 20 million Euros with nothing whatever to show for it. Steorn's CEO and a few upper echelon employees have, I am sure, enjoyed spending their money. Rossi for the most part, talks and walks like Steorn did early on. Earlier in this discussion, I have named other scams that operated similarly including such notables as convicted felons Dennis Lee and Carl Tilley (multiple convictions). I suspect you will take wild notions like mine more seriously if much more time passes without any absolutely definitive determination of Rossi's veracity. Of course, Rossi could dispel the wild notions in a comparatively short time and at low cost and low risk to his intellectual property. He could also dispel them instantly -- simply by giving an E-cat for testing to any university and allowing them to make a quick test of whether or not it works as advertised and to report the results. That he doesn't do that is very suspicious and excuses about his not wanting to get more attention or to reveal secrets are not persuasive for a whole bunch of reasons we have discussed before.
Re: [Vo]:a long paper about and mainly against the E-cat
Mary, you are clearly suggesting that this is a scam. Are you that convinced? Where is the possibility that it might be honest? Dave -Original Message- From: Mary Yugo maryyu...@gmail.com To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Wed, Dec 7, 2011 2:08 pm Subject: Re: [Vo]:a long paper about and mainly against the E-cat On Wed, Dec 7, 2011 at 10:38 AM, David Roberson dlrober...@aol.com wrote: Are you convinced that the only way for the system to release 470 kW would be for LENR action to be taking place? Is that your hang-up? Where are the skeptics that claim that energy is stored for long enough and intense enough to continue to heat the output for the full 5.5 hours? Dave There is no need to postulate energy storage in the megawatt plant demonstration. It is only necessary to consider that Rossi's client may be fictitious and that the engineer may work for Rossi, perhaps for quite a very large fee or share. It is also useful to remember that the device was hooked to a running diesel generator capable of 400+ kW of output, and that the experiment was derated to half the original estimated power output. The generator could have supplied all the thermal energy produced in the experiment via the heaters conveniently built in to every E-cat. Because the invited scientists and reporters were not allowed to see any data collection, it would not even have been needed to fake the enthalpy measurement -- it all had to be taken on faith anyway.
Re: [Vo]:a long paper about and mainly against the E-cat
Mary Yugo maryyu...@gmail.com wrote: I suspect you will take wild notions like mine more seriously if much more time passes without any absolutely definitive determination of Rossi's veracity. I consider the Oct. 6 test definitive. The chance of fraud is so low I do not take that seriously. It is no more likely than a supernatural event. Neither you nor any other skeptic has suggested any viable reason why this demonstration was not definitive. You have never come up with a method of committing fraud. If you could suggest a method, you would have done so by now. You are asking us to believe in fraud with a trace of evidence for it. Not a trace! You are a true believer clinging to an absurd hypothesis that is contrary to the laws of physics. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:a long paper about and mainly against the E-cat
On Wed, Dec 7, 2011 at 1:30 PM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com wrote: Mary Yugo maryyu...@gmail.com wrote: I suspect you will take wild notions like mine more seriously if much more time passes without any absolutely definitive determination of Rossi's veracity. I consider the Oct. 6 test definitive. The chance of fraud is so low I do not take that seriously. It is no more likely than a supernatural event. Neither you nor any other skeptic has suggested any viable reason why this demonstration was not definitive. You have never come up with a method of committing fraud. If you could suggest a method, you would have done so by now. You are asking us to believe in fraud with a trace of evidence for it. Not a trace! You are a true believer clinging to an absurd hypothesis that is contrary to the laws of physics. Foot stomping. Nothing more.
Re: [Vo]:a long paper about and mainly against the E-cat
On Wed, Dec 7, 2011 at 11:25 AM, David Roberson dlrober...@aol.com wrote: Mary, you are clearly suggesting that this is a scam. Let me correct the wording -- I am suggesting strongly that it *may be* a scam. I am cautious to allow for the small probability that it is not one and simply looks and feels like one due to Rossi's acting mostly like I'd expect a scammer to talk and behave. Are you that convinced? I am convinced that a scam is the most likely explanation. If by convinced you mean certain, I am NOT certain. I have no evidence to make it certain. I never said I did. Where is the possibility that it might be honest? I have no idea of the probability that Rossi is honest. I hope he is. However his honesty has been questioned many times before and in many settings unrelated to his current activity. I urge everyone to be cautious in accepting his claims and to hold his feet to the fire, as I said before, to prove his truthfulness. And that is as simple and quick and cheap as giving a single E-cat to a university with permission to do quick tests of its reality and reveal the conclusion. And of course Rossi has not done that yet and seems to be increasingly making absurd excuses for not doing it.
Re: [Vo]:a long paper about and mainly against the E-cat
On Wed, Dec 7, 2011 at 11:30 AM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com wrote: Mary Yugo maryyu...@gmail.com wrote: I suspect you will take wild notions like mine more seriously if much more time passes without any absolutely definitive determination of Rossi's veracity. I consider the Oct. 6 test definitive. Many capable scientists and engineers do not agree. The measurement method was questionable and unverified and the run was way too short. We've gone over this before and I guess we have to agree to disagree. The chance of fraud is so low I do not take that seriously. It is no more likely than a supernatural event. Neither you nor any other skeptic has suggested any viable reason why this demonstration was not definitive. You have never come up with a method of committing fraud. If you could suggest a method, you would have done so by now. Well, we did suggest several methods but you don't agree. That's OK too. And I always have to remind you that there are probably many potential methods to cheat we may not have thought of. You are asking us to believe in fraud with a trace of evidence for it. Not a trace! Behaving like a scammer and resisting all reasonable and safe suggestions to prove that the device is real is definitely evidence suggesting a scam. I agree it isn't proof. You are a true believer clinging to an absurd hypothesis that is contrary to the laws of physics. Perhaps in your view but I find myself in good company. Your company includes George Hants, Sterling Allan, Hank Mills and Craig Brown. Not so great. And yes, that's not conclusive evidence for a scam either but everything they have supported thus far has, for the most part, been delusions and scams.
Re: [Vo]:Attenuation of decay rate in E-Cat
I speculate… When a compound or transition metal has a high degree of quantum mechanical(QM) proton coherence; large numbers of cooper pairs of protons, radiation reduction will be observed when this coherence is momentarily broken by a trigger event. In a variant of the quantum Zeno effect in which an unstable particle, if observed continuously in a continuing process of quantum decoherence, that particle will thermalize its nuclear power output as thermal energy. After this QM breakdown of coherence, the coherence of the assemblage will be immediately reestablished in the compound or metal by the crystal structure of that material. This comes from the fact that entangled particles will absorb energy as a group and release this potential energy over the entire assemblage when the coherence of the assemblage is broken by some trigger. In this way, the high energy of radioactive decay will be spread out over many coherent particles of the assemblage and thermalized across the entire assemblage when a trigger effect distorts the coherence therein. It is not the trigger that imposes the order that mitigate the nuclear radiation but the crystal structure of the compound that imposes quantum mechanical coherence on its member protons. Best regards, Axil On Wed, Dec 7, 2011 at 12:08 PM, Jones Beene jone...@pacbell.net wrote: We have to agree with the comments that the prior testing clearly indicates that there is no significant radioactivity detected during operation of E-Cat. One unanswered question relates to startup. Not just startup, but a possible method after startup of attenuation of the decay rate to levels that can lower the reading by a large factor on the type of positron detector used in the testing. This has not been addressed adequately before: the way in which a significant reading can be made to look similar to background. But it can be done, has been done, and can be validated by anyone interested. IOW, there is a known way that natural decay radioactivity is either masked or altered - and it relates to high voltage. Ref: The two patents of Wm. Barker. The implication is that the radioactivity of potassium carbonate, enriched in the 40K isotope in particular, can be masked to an extreme level by the application of high voltage. If you have a Tesla coil and a gamma scout, and a supply of potassium carbonate, then you can perform this experiment yourself. U.S. Pat. No. 4,961,880 Electrostatic Voltage Excitation Process and Apparatus issued to William Barker in 1990 and a second patent also expired disclose an apparatus for utilizing HV electrostatic charge to accelerate or decelerate the apparent decay rate of a few mineral radioisotopes. This patent has been replicated independently but not published in a peer reviewed journal, AFAIK. Electrostatic fields are generally not sufficient to influence decay rates in pure elements, and there is no dispute over that. But RF at HV from a Tesla-type device has been shown to be surprisingly effective to change the apparent decay rate (increase or decrease) in *some minerals* by a factor of up to 10^6. It is not clear why some minerals respond and others do not, or if the change is real or being masked somehow, but the presence of oxygen and carbon are indicated. The Barker technique does not work for every mineral, but for unknown reasons the net effect (change in counts) is almost unbelievably accelerated in a few like pitchblende, in particular - and decelerated in others. A particular potassium compound could be in that category. One might be more inclined to consider this possibility if there was an indication that Rossi's so-called RF generator was in fact a transformer of the kind used for Tesla coils. Jones
Re: [Vo]:a long paper about and mainly against the E-cat
Mary Yugo maryyu...@gmail.com wrote: I have no idea of the probability that Rossi is honest. I hope he is. He is not, I assure you. He often dissembles about personal matters. If the truth or falsity of this claim is predicated on his personal honesty, we must dismiss it. Fortunately, it is predicated on immutable laws of physics and first principle observations made by dozens of people who I know to be honest. It is predicated on the work of Piantelli and others, and on experimental results obtained with instruments supplied by other people such as Ampenergo and whoever bought the 1 MW reactor. You need to forget about Rossi's behavior and his personality. They have nothing to do with this issue. He could be the most dishonest person in the world but he cannot change the laws of nature. I do not understand why you are so obsessed with Rossi's personality to the point that you ignore physics. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:a long paper about and mainly against the E-cat
Mary Yugo maryyu...@gmail.com wrote: I consider the Oct. 6 test definitive. Many capable scientists and engineers do not agree. I have not heard from any yet. There has to be a time limit for these things. As Melich and I wrote regarding cold fusion in general: . . . [S]keptics have had 20 years to expose an experimental artifact, but they have failed to do so. A reasonable time limit to find errors must be set, or results from decades or centuries ago will remain in limbo, forever disputed, and progress will ground to a halt. The calorimeters used by cold fusion researchers were developed in the late 18th and early 19th century. A skeptic who asserts that scientists cannot measure multiple watts of heat with confidence is, in effect, rejecting most textbook chemistry and physics from the last 130 years. The measurement method was questionable and unverified and the run was way too short. Nonsense. It was 4 hours long. You can tell at a glance that the reactor would have reached room temperature after 40 min. You can repeat this nonsense as many times as you like but the graphs show you are wrong. Everyday experience with boiling water in poorly insulated pots proves you are wrong. You should think about the evidence and basic physics and stop repeating absurdities. And stop obsessing with Rossi personality. Enough already. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:Attenuation of decay rate in E-Cat
The ONLY way that nuclear transactions can proceed smoothly with out producing radiation is under a condition where the range of the strong nuclear force exceeds the range of the coulombic. The static forces are conserved and immutable. The dynamic magnetic components are not conserved and are mutable. The force that mutates is the nuclear spin orbit force. Its as simple at that. Frank Z
Re: [Vo]:a long paper about and mainly against the E-cat
Mary Yugo maryyu...@gmail.com wrote: And I always have to remind you that there are probably many potential methods to cheat we may not have thought of. You do not have to remind me of that. I have to remind *you* that is a violation of the scientific method. It is proposition that cannot be tested or falsified. It is like saying there is probably an invisible undetectable fairy godmother hovering in the air causing these effects. I find it incredible that you still do not understand this. An argument is not valid or meaningful *at all* unless you can describe some specific means of testing it and proving it is true -- or false. No one can prove that there are probably potential methods. You have to list actual methods. You might as well claim there are probably potential methods of proving that the world is flat. Okay, show us the methods! - Jed
Re: [Vo]:a long paper about and mainly against the E-cat
On Wed, Dec 7, 2011 at 12:38 PM, David Roberson dlrober...@aol.com wrote: I have always maintained that I will follow the evidence and have been faithful to that end. That is not consistent with your frequently expressed absolute certainty that LENR is occurring. Why should we assume that a well trained engineer would be so stupid as to be incapable of catching water? Because of the geometry of the trap. It would not capture entrained mist. Why should we assume that a well-trained engineer would be so stupid as to be incapable of knowing the output flow rate? Please read the Wikipedia article on steam locomotives to put things in some perspective. I would estimate that the total area of Rossi’s 107 ECATs is comparable to that of boiler within one of these devices. How do you think that they can function at all if most of the steam leaving has a quality of 5% or so as you keep repeating? How does steam engines producing dry steam mean that the ecats are? You need more than the same area. You also need the power. The water level in steam engine boilers is regulated to ensure dry steam. In the ecat it's not. So if the power is too low, liquid water is forced through. It has no choice. If a straight forward model fits all of the facts, why should we go out of the way to insist upon one that requires dishonest behavior, ignorance or just plain deception as you suggest? Low vaporization is the most straightforward model that fits all the facts. It requires only the assumption that the trap is not effective for an entrained mist, and the closed valve kind of suggests it was not effective at all. 470 kW out requires unrealistic power regulation and stability and/or ignorance of the output flow rate. Are you convinced that the only way for the system to release 470 kW would be for LENR action to be taking place? No. I've answered this already. Playing with the report numbers is nothing more than academic, since we have no way to verify any of the results of that test. Even Rothwell agrees with that. To be convinced that heat was being produced by nuclear reactions would require disconnecting the 450 kW generator, verifying the energy out with a properly used heat exchanger, and demonstrably independent observation, and running it much much longer. Where are the skeptics that claim that energy is stored for long enough and intense enough to continue to heat the output for the full 5.5 hours? First, it didn't. The output temperature bounced around, and for the last half, mostly decreased, in spite of the fact that the input crept up a little because of recycling the output. But all you need is a slight increase in pressure to increase the temperature, as long as you've got liquid vapor equilibrium. Second, there is little point for any skeptics to waste their time trying to analyze the Oct 28 test, because there was no independent verification. Without trust in Rossi and his engineer of unknown connection, we have absolutely nothing. And from what we do have, there was a 450 kW generator connected, no evidence of dry steam, and unknown pre-heating conditions, and 107 completely uninspected ecats, which could easily contain more than just thermal mass for energy storage. Just look at the 450 kW generator beside it. It's a fraction of the size, and is capable of producing 3 times the thermal energy, at a temperature high enough to convert it to electricity. And it doesn't need to be plugged in to anything. It makes the giant ecat pretty feeble in comparison. The only thing that the megacat might have going for it over the generator would be run time, but, sadly, that was not demonstrated.
[Vo]:Bill Gates to build a new nuclear reactor -- with China
http://www.foxnews.com/scitech/2011/12/07/bill-gates-to-build-next-gen-nuclear-reactors-with-china/ BEIJING Microsoft co-founder Bill Gates confirmed Wednesday he is in discussions with China to jointly develop a new and safer kind of nuclear reactor. The idea is to be very low cost, very safe and generate very little waste, said the billionaire during a talk at China's Ministry of Science and Technology. Gates has largely funded a Washington state-based company, TerraPower, that is developing a Generation IV nuclear reactor that can run on depleted uranium. OK .. start with the MS Blue pool of death etc jokes (lenr.qumbu.com -- analyzing the Rossi/Focardi eCat -- Hi, google!)
Re: [Vo]:a long paper about and mainly against the E-cat
On Wed, Dec 7, 2011 at 1:01 PM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com wrote: I agree there may have been some liquid flowing through at times, but Lewan performed Method 2 after a very large burst of heat, and he found the flow rate was much lower than the flow rate going into the reactor. Therefore the reactor water level was low and the vessel was filling up. All of the water coming out of the heat exchanger hose at that time was condensed from steam. You don't know any of that. There was steam and mist coming out of the hose, both at unknown flow rates. All Lewan measured was the collected water over a period of time. If they had measured the flow rate constantly with two precision flow meters (for the inlet and outlet) they might have found something like that, where the overall flow coming out was higher than the flow coming in. Yes. Wouldn't it be nice if things were actually measured. But Rossi doesn't allow us near the tree of knowledge. That would not serve his purpose.
Re: [Vo]:Attenuation of decay rate in E-Cat
If you remember this from the Kim paper: *http://www.physics.purdue.edu/people/faculty/yekim/BECNF-Ni-Hydrogen.pdf* ...local magnetic field is very weak in the surface regions, providing a suitable environment in which two neighboring protons can couple their spins anti-parallel to form spin-zero singlet state (S=0). Relatively low Curie temperature (nickel has the Curie temperature of 631 oK (~358 oC)) is expected to help to maintain the weak magnetic field in the surface regions. If Ross's device is operated at temperatures greater than the Curie temperature ~ 358 oC and with hydrogen pressures of up to ~ 22 bars, the conditions (1) and (2) may have been achieved in Rossis device. ..,thus creating a favorable environment for the case of two species of Bosons (Ni nuclei and composite Bosons of paired two protons). If the velocities of mobile Ni atoms/nuclei under the condition... In order for cooper paired protons to form, the nickel lattice must be above the Curie temperature of nickel. When this critical temperature is reached, radiation will be mitigated. Before that temperature is reached gamma radiation will be produced because there is no paired protons possible, the formation of cooper pairs of protons being stopped by the strong magnetic properties of nickel. In this low temperature lattice case, coulomb shielding from the ultra strong dipole moments of Rydberg matter produced by the internal heater will still occur and cold fusion will still result in a cold lattice. But in this case, large amounts of unthermalized gamma radiation will be released because there will be no coherent protons to thermalize that radiation. On Wed, Dec 7, 2011 at 2:47 PM, Axil Axil janap...@gmail.com wrote: I speculate... When a compound or transition metal has a high degree of quantum mechanical(QM) proton coherence; large numbers of cooper pairs of protons, radiation reduction will be observed when this coherence is momentarily broken by a trigger event. In a variant of the quantum Zeno effect in which an unstable particle, if observed continuously in a continuing process of quantum decoherence, that particle will thermalize its nuclear power output as thermal energy. After this QM breakdown of coherence, the coherence of the assemblage will be immediately reestablished in the compound or metal by the crystal structure of that material. This comes from the fact that entangled particles will absorb energy as a group and release this potential energy over the entire assemblage when the coherence of the assemblage is broken by some trigger. In this way, the high energy of radioactive decay will be spread out over many coherent particles of the assemblage and thermalized across the entire assemblage when a trigger effect distorts the coherence therein. It is not the trigger that imposes the order that mitigate the nuclear radiation but the crystal structure of the compound that imposes quantum mechanical coherence on its member protons. Best regards, Axil On Wed, Dec 7, 2011 at 12:08 PM, Jones Beene jone...@pacbell.net wrote: We have to agree with the comments that the prior testing clearly indicates that there is no significant radioactivity detected during operation of E-Cat. One unanswered question relates to startup. Not just startup, but a possible method after startup of attenuation of the decay rate to levels that can lower the reading by a large factor on the type of positron detector used in the testing. This has not been addressed adequately before: the way in which a significant reading can be made to look similar to background. But it can be done, has been done, and can be validated by anyone interested. IOW, there is a known way that natural decay radioactivity is either masked or altered - and it relates to high voltage. Ref: The two patents of Wm. Barker. The implication is that the radioactivity of potassium carbonate, enriched in the 40K isotope in particular, can be masked to an extreme level by the application of high voltage. If you have a Tesla coil and a gamma scout, and a supply of potassium carbonate, then you can perform this experiment yourself. U.S. Pat. No. 4,961,880 Electrostatic Voltage Excitation Process and Apparatus issued to William Barker in 1990 and a second patent also expired disclose an apparatus for utilizing HV electrostatic charge to accelerate or decelerate the apparent decay rate of a few mineral radioisotopes. This patent has been replicated independently but not published in a peer reviewed journal, AFAIK. Electrostatic fields are generally not sufficient to influence decay rates in pure elements, and there is no dispute over that. But RF at HV from a Tesla-type device has been shown to be surprisingly effective to change the apparent decay rate (increase or decrease) in *some minerals* by a factor of up to 10^6. It is not clear why some minerals respond and others do not, or if the
Re: [Vo]:a long paper about and mainly against the E-cat
On Wed, Dec 7, 2011 at 1:12 PM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com wrote: Mary Yugo maryyu...@gmail.com wrote: There is no need to postulate energy storage in the megawatt plant demonstration. It is only necessary to consider that Rossi's client may be fictitious and that the engineer may work for Rossi, perhaps for quite a very large fee or share. In other words, you have to believe in conspiracy theories. Which I do not. Except for the one about suppressing cold fusion research. A 2-person con does not a conspiracy theory make. Sorry.
Re: [Vo]:a long paper about and mainly against the E-cat
On Wed, Dec 7, 2011 at 11:54 AM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com wrote: Mary Yugo maryyu...@gmail.com wrote: I consider the Oct. 6 test definitive. Many capable scientists and engineers do not agree. I have not heard from any yet. You've heard here and elsewhere on the internet. Perhaps you are not listening. The measurement method was questionable and unverified and the run was way too short. Nonsense. It was 4 hours long. You can tell at a glance that the reactor would have reached room temperature after 40 min. You can repeat this nonsense as many times as you like but the graphs show you are wrong. Everyday experience with boiling water in poorly insulated pots proves you are wrong. You should think about the evidence and basic physics and stop repeating absurdities. What seems absurd to you is not to other capable people. And stop obsessing with Rossi personality. You have that wrong. I may be obsessive about Rossi's **actions** but I don't care a bit about his ridiculous if funny personality. Met any snakes and clowns lately? Think every critique comes from a competitor? Rossi is hilarious.
Re: [Vo]:a long paper about and mainly against the E-cat
On Wed, Dec 7, 2011 at 12:03 PM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com wrote: Mary Yugo maryyu...@gmail.com wrote: And I always have to remind you that there are probably many potential methods to cheat we may not have thought of. You do not have to remind me of that. I have to remind *you* that is a violation of the scientific method. It is proposition that cannot be tested or falsified. It is like saying there is probably an invisible undetectable fairy godmother hovering in the air causing these effects. I find it incredible that you still do not understand this. An argument is not valid or meaningful *at all* unless you can describe some specific means of testing it and proving it is true -- or false. No one can prove that there are probably potential methods. You have to list actual methods. You might as well claim there are probably potential methods of proving that the world is flat. Okay, show us the methods! As I have pointed out before, that is an invalid argument. Rossi can invalidate the entire line of thought simply by giving an E-cat to a university, allowing them to test it and report the results. At this point, it wouldn't need to cost anything, would be quick and would be definitive and HE WON'T DO IT even though he started to promise he would as early as last Spring! If Rossi got a proper test, it would falsify the proposition that he is a scammer. It is exactly that simple. Until he does it, you have no way of knowing that he's not simply more clever at hiding bamboozling than you are at suspecting or detecting it!
Re: [Vo]:a long paper about and mainly against the E-cat
Mary Yugo maryyu...@gmail.com wrote: Everyday experience with boiling water in poorly insulated pots proves you are wrong. You should think about the evidence and basic physics and stop repeating absurdities. What seems absurd to you is not to other capable people. A person who thinks it is possible to keep water at boiling temperatures for four hours at a poorly insulated vessel is not capable, by definition. Anyone who even imagines that is possible is a crackpot. Anyone who thinks it is valid to propose there are probably potential methods of proving a proposition, without specifics beyond that, is ignorant of basic logic and the scientific method. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:Bill Gates to build a new nuclear reactor -- with China
On Wed, Dec 7, 2011 at 12:10 PM, Alan J Fletcher a...@well.com wrote: http://www.foxnews.com/scitech/2011/12/07/bill-gates-to-build-next-gen-nuclear-reactors-with-china/ OK .. start with the MS Blue pool of death etc jokes Q: What is the most common cause of death of laboratory animals? A: Tada! (familiarity with MS Windows, especially older versions is helpful!)
Re: [Vo]:a long paper about and mainly against the E-cat
On Wed, Dec 7, 2011 at 1:47 PM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com wrote: Fortunately, it is predicated on immutable laws of physics and first principle observations made by dozens of people who I know to be honest. No. The laws of physics and ordinary chemistry can explain all the observations without invoking nuclear reactions. It is predicated on the work of Piantelli and others, Work about which *you* were skeptical before Rossi came along. Shall I dig up the quotations again?
Re: [Vo]:a long paper about and mainly against the E-cat
Mary Yugo maryyu...@gmail.com wrote: As I have pointed out before, that is an invalid argument. Rossi can invalidate the entire line of thought simply by giving an E-cat to a university, Your statement applies to Rossi, not your own argument. *Your argument* has to be falsifiable. It is not. You are the one invoking fairy godmothers that no one can ever detect, even in principle. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:a long paper about and mainly against the E-cat
On Wed, Dec 7, 2011 at 1:54 PM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com wrote: Mary Yugo maryyu...@gmail.com wrote: I consider the Oct. 6 test definitive. Many capable scientists and engineers do not agree. I have not heard from any yet. How to break this to you? They don't care about you. You'll have to go looking for their judgements. Start with Krivit's 200 page report. There has to be a time limit for these things. Yes, but on Rossi's side. Really, tell us, if there is no commercial ecat available that you or I can buy in a year, will you be as certain as you are now? What about 2 years? 5 years? It's already 12 years after the time you predicted cold fusion cars would be available. As Melich and I wrote regarding cold fusion in general: . . . [S]keptics have had 20 years to expose an experimental artifact, but they have failed to do so. Wrong onus. Advocates have had 22 years to demonstrate what should be dead easy to demonstrate, and have failed to do so. That's why most people don't pay attention anymore. When a really convincing demo comes along, like the one you have described with an isolated device that stays palpably warmer than its surroundings long enough to exclude chemical reactions. Nothing close to that exists yet. A reasonable time limit to find errors must be set, or results from decades or centuries ago will remain in limbo, forever disputed, and progress will ground to a halt. Sorry, the only people in limbo are believers, and it's true, they will spin their wheels into their graves. The skeptics just ignore the voodoo and carry on making progress in their respective fields. It has always been thus. The measurement method was questionable and unverified and the run was way too short. Nonsense. It was 4 hours long. You can tell at a glance that the reactor would have reached room temperature after 40 min. You keep saying that, but it took 50 minutes to drop 10 degrees after it was shut down. That means you're just plain wrong. You can repeat this nonsense as many times as you like but the graphs show you are wrong. Everyday experience with boiling water in poorly insulated pots proves you are wrong. Are your pots 100 kg in mass? Are they wrapped in insulation and foil? Is that what counts as proof in the field of cold fusion? Sad!
Re: [Vo]:a long paper about and mainly against the E-cat
On Wed, Dec 7, 2011 at 12:33 PM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com wrote: Mary Yugo maryyu...@gmail.com wrote: As I have pointed out before, that is an invalid argument. Rossi can invalidate the entire line of thought simply by giving an E-cat to a university, Your statement applies to Rossi, not your own argument. *Your argument*has to be falsifiable. It is not. You are the one invoking fairy godmothers that no one can ever detect, even in principle. My statement has to be falsifiable and it is: simply by Rossi submitting his device to proper independent verification. I have no idea what you're saying above. Maybe someone can translate? It makes no sense at all to me. I'm really trying to understand you but I don't. Well... I suppose if Rossi's device proved to be fake, it still wouldn't necessarily reveal how he faked it. Is that what you're saying? If so, so what? If not, maybe say it some other way. The point I made was simply that you (or anyone) are unable to anticipate all the ways in which Rossi can fool you. Do you have a problem with that specific limited statement?
Re: [Vo]:a long paper about and mainly against the E-cat
On Wed, Dec 7, 2011 at 2:03 PM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com wrote: Mary Yugo maryyu...@gmail.com wrote: And I always have to remind you that there are probably many potential methods to cheat we may not have thought of. You do not have to remind me of that. I have to remind *you* that is a violation of the scientific method. You don't know anything about the scientific method. Why is a non-scientist telling scientists how to do their job. Do you also advise Tiger Woods on his golf swing? It is proposition that cannot be tested or falsified. It is like saying there is probably an invisible undetectable fairy godmother hovering in the air causing these effects. It's nothing like that. In fact that's what advocates are doing. They are saying nuclear but can't specify a reaction or a mechanism to thermalize. That' s done by the fairy godmother. Yet, when skeptics claim it is chemical because the energy density fits, somehow *they* are required to specify the reaction and mechanism, or they won't be believed. It's a double standard. No, worse. Because surely the onus on proving the mechanism falls to the claimant. If the proof of a nuclear reaction relies on energy density, then it is enough to show the energy density is far below that of chemical fuel, to reject the evidence. An argument is not valid or meaningful *at all* unless you can describe some specific means of testing it and proving it is true -- or false. No one can prove that there are probably potential methods. You have to list actual methods. You might as well claim there are probably potential methods of proving that the world is flat. Okay, show us the methods! Again. This is what advocates are doing. They say there are probably nuclear methods to provide the observed heat, but don't show us how.
Re: [Vo]:Bill Gates to build a new nuclear reactor -- with China
From Alan, http://www.foxnews.com/scitech/2011/12/07/bill-gates-to-build-next-gen-nuclear-reactors-with-china/ BEIJING – Microsoft co-founder Bill Gates confirmed Wednesday he is in discussions with China to jointly develop a new and safer kind of nuclear reactor. The idea is to be very low cost, very safe and generate very little waste, said the billionaire during a talk at China's Ministry of Science and Technology. Gates has largely funded a Washington state-based company, TerraPower, that is developing a Generation IV nuclear reactor that can run on depleted uranium. I believe others have made the observation that BG's success has always revolved around exploiting technologies that have already been reasonably tested and vetted. It has been a conservative business strategy that has worked very well for BG. Nevertheless, I lament the fact that BG appears to have rarely shown much backbone towards exploring and subsequently exploiting unproven/cutting edge technologies such as those purported from Rossi, Piantelli, Defkalion, and Ampenegro, etc. One would think that Microsoft certainly has the financial resources to explore pie-in-the-sky matters. I sometimes find myself wondering: Starting ten years ago, if BG HAD the balls to look into such matters, where would we be today? If BG had caught wind of Piantelli or Rossi, and looked into the matter... could we possibly have today PCs factory installed with their own power modules guaranteed to supply all the power requirements for 5 years? Regards Steven Vincent Johnson www.OrionWorks.com www.zazzle.com/orionworks
Re: [Vo]:a long paper about and mainly against the E-cat
Mary Yugo wrote: My statement has to be falsifiable and it is: simply by Rossi submitting his device to proper independent verification. I meant your first statement, which is that there are probably potential methods of stage magic or faking kilowatt levels of heat. Probably potential phenomena not otherwise named or specified are not admissible evidence in a science-based discussion. Only in theology, as far as I know. Your second statement about Rossi is correct. No one disputes it. Let's agree to disagree, and drop the subject. You are welcome to have the last word if you please. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:a long paper about and mainly against the E-cat
On Wed, Dec 7, 2011 at 2:30 PM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com wrote: Mary Yugo maryyu...@gmail.com wrote: A person who thinks it is possible to keep water at boiling temperatures for four hours at a poorly insulated vessel is not capable, by definition. By any method? In a 100 kg device that holds 30 L of water. Come on. You're not serious. 20 kg of fire brick at 1000C, no problem. Molten lead? Easy peasy. A few liters of alcohol? Simple. etc. Anyone who even imagines that is possible is a crackpot. Anyone who thinks it's not is ignorant. Anyone who thinks it is valid to propose there are probably potential methods of proving a proposition, without specifics beyond that, is ignorant of basic logic and the scientific method. The demonstrated energy density is a tiny fraction of chemical energy density. That is no evidence of nuclear reactions, no matter how you slice it, or how many times you stomp your feet.
Re: [Vo]:a long paper about and mainly against the E-cat
On Wed, Dec 7, 2011 at 2:33 PM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com wrote: Mary Yugo maryyu...@gmail.com wrote: As I have pointed out before, that is an invalid argument. Rossi can invalidate the entire line of thought simply by giving an E-cat to a university, Your statement applies to Rossi, not your own argument. *Your argument*has to be falsifiable. It is not. You are the one invoking fairy godmothers that no one can ever detect, even in principle. Again. That's you. No one can explain the nuclear reaction. You're invoking fairies. The claimed evidence for a nuclear effect is energy density. Rejection of that evidence because the energy density is lower than chemical energy density only requires evidence that chemical energy density is higher (much higher). You don't have a clue what role falsifiability plays in science.
Re: [Vo]:a long paper about and mainly against the E-cat
Dear Josh, at least you are consistent. Always claiming that someone or something is not as it appears. MY realizes she might be in error and I respect her for some honesty. Now, do you sincerely think that the large generator was supplying the heat energy to vaporize the water? If all of us on the vortex tried to find ways to scam the public as you seem to enjoy, do you not think we could be successful like you? Sometimes realism needs to float to the top. All you ever seem to do is to tear down things and people. Why not use your talents for the good instead? What would it take for you to be finally convinced that the 1 MW system is real? I would honestly like to know the answer to that question. Dave -Original Message- From: Joshua Cude joshua.c...@gmail.com To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Wed, Dec 7, 2011 3:11 pm Subject: Re: [Vo]:a long paper about and mainly against the E-cat On Wed, Dec 7, 2011 at 12:38 PM, David Roberson dlrober...@aol.com wrote: I have always maintained that I will follow the evidence and have been faithful to that end. That is not consistent with your frequently expressed absolute certainty that LENR is occurring. Why should we assume that a well trained engineer would be so stupid as to be incapable of catching water? Because of the geometry of the trap. It would not capture entrained mist. Why should we assume that a well-trained engineer would be so stupid as to be incapable of knowing the output flow rate? Please read the Wikipedia article on steam locomotives to put things in some perspective. I would estimate that the total area of Rossi’s 107 ECATs is comparable to that of boiler within one of these devices. How do you think that they can function at all if most of the steam leaving has a quality of 5% or so as you keep repeating? How does steam engines producing dry steam mean that the ecats are? You need more than the same area. You also need the power. The water level in steam engine boilers is regulated to ensure dry steam. In the ecat it's not. So if the power is too low, liquid water is forced through. It has no choice. If a straight forward model fits all of the facts, why should we go out of the way to insist upon one that requires dishonest behavior, ignorance or just plain deception as you suggest? Low vaporization is the most straightforward model that fits all the facts. It requires only the assumption that the trap is not effective for an entrained mist, and the closed valve kind of suggests it was not effective at all. 470 kW out requires unrealistic power regulation and stability and/or ignorance of the output flow rate. Are you convinced that the only way for the system to release 470 kW would be for LENR action to be taking place? No. I've answered this already. Playing with the report numbers is nothing more than academic, since we have no way to verify any of the results of that test. Even Rothwell agrees with that. To be convinced that heat was being produced by nuclear reactions would require disconnecting the 450 kW generator, verifying the energy out with a properly used heat exchanger, and demonstrably independent observation, and running it much much longer. Where are the skeptics that claim that energy is stored for long enough and intense enough to continue to heat the output for the full 5.5 hours? First, it didn't. The output temperature bounced around, and for the last half, mostly decreased, in spite of the fact that the input crept up a little because of recycling the output. But all you need is a slight increase in pressure to increase the temperature, as long as you've got liquid vapor equilibrium. Second, there is little point for any skeptics to waste their time trying to analyze the Oct 28 test, because there was no independent verification. Without trust in Rossi and his engineer of unknown connection, we have absolutely nothing. And from what we do have, there was a 450 kW generator connected, no evidence of dry steam, and unknown pre-heating conditions, and 107 completely uninspected ecats, which could easily contain more than just thermal mass for energy storage. Just look at the 450 kW generator beside it. It's a fraction of the size, and is capable of producing 3 times the thermal energy, at a temperature high enough to convert it to electricity. And it doesn't need to be plugged in to anything. It makes the giant ecat pretty feeble in comparison. The only thing that the megacat might have going for it over the generator would be run time, but, sadly, that was not demonstrated.
Re: [Vo]:a long paper about and mainly against the E-cat
On 11-12-07 04:01 PM, David Roberson wrote: Dear Josh, at least you are consistent. Always claiming that someone or something is not as it appears. MY realizes she might be in error and I respect her for some honesty. Now, do you sincerely think that the large generator was supplying the heat energy to vaporize the water? If all of us on the vortex tried to find ways to scam the public as you seem to enjoy, do you not think we could be successful like you? Sometimes realism needs to float to the top. All you ever seem to do is to tear down things and people. Why not use your talents for the good instead? What would it take for you to be finally convinced that the 1 MW system is real? I would honestly like to know the answer to that question. Dave -Original Message- From: Joshua Cude joshua.c...@gmail.com To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Wed, Dec 7, 2011 3:11 pm Subject: Re: [Vo]:a long paper about and mainly against the E-cat On Wed, Dec 7, 2011 at 12:38 PM, David Roberson dlrober...@aol.com mailto:dlrober...@aol.com wrote: I have always maintained that I will follow the evidence and have been faithful to that end. That is not consistent with your frequently expressed absolute certainty that LENR is occurring. Why should we assume that a well trained engineer would be so stupid as to be incapable of catching water? Because of the geometry of the trap. It would not capture entrained mist. Why should we assume that a well-trained engineer would be so stupid as to be incapable of knowing the output flow rate? Please read the Wikipedia article on steam locomotives to put things in some perspective.I would estimate that the total area of Rossi's 107 ECATs is comparable to that of boiler within one of these devices.How do you think that they can function at all if most of the steam leaving has a quality of 5% or so as you keep repeating? How does steam engines producing dry steam mean that the ecats are? You need more than the same area. You also need the power. The water level in steam engine boilers is regulated to ensure dry steam. If by steam engine you mean steam locomotive engine, then they actually incorporated steam driers specifically to dry the steam after it left the boiler and, IIRC, before it entered the superheater. That's what at least some of those funny domes on the tops of the old locomotives had inside them. The designers did not simply assume the steam came straight out of the boiler already dry.
Re: [Vo]:Bill Gates to build a new nuclear reactor -- with China
OrionWorks - Steven V Johnson svj.orionwo...@gmail.com wrote: I believe others have made the observation that BG's success has always revolved around exploiting technologies that have already been reasonably tested and vetted. Right. That's what he does. He has never developed an original software idea in his life. Neither have I. It has been a conservative business strategy that has worked very well for BG. Nevertheless, I lament the fact that BG appears to have rarely shown much backbone towards exploring and subsequently exploiting unproven/cutting edge technologies such as those purported from Rossi. . . I do not think that is fair to Gates. That is not what he does for a living. That is not his forte. A person should know his own strengths. As the expression goes: The cobbler should stick to his last. Do what you are good at, and leave other jobs to other people. A person such as Gates or I is fundamentally uncreative and incapable of coming up with new ideas, yet we can make valuable contributions. We can recognize talent and good ideas in other people. During the 1907 market panic, J.P. Morgan assembled the leading bankers and industry leaders in his house. He demanded they come up with a solution. They discussed one thing after another. He kept saying 'no that won't work,' 'no find some other solution.' He was suffering from a terrible cold and it was late at night. Finally his secretary said, Mr. Morgan why don't you just tell them what to do? He said, 'I don't know what to do. I don't know the solution, but when someone comes up with a good idea I will recognize it.' They finally did come up with good idea and he did see it. He acted upon it decisively after Pres. Roosevelt gave his okay. The solution was risky but also highly profitable to Morgan if it worked. As in the event, it did. As one person commented, that is how Morgan was made. I expect whatever Bill Gates comes up with in China will be profitable to him (unless cold fusion derails his plans). People such as Morgan and Gates benefit humanity a lot, but always at a large profit to themselves. I think Arthur Clarke and I recognized radical new good ideas better than Gates does -- as least with regard to cold fusion. As Clarke said in another context: if you follow all my suggestions now you will go bankrupt in this generation. If you ignore all of my suggestions future generations will be bankrupt. Clarke discussed cold fusion with Gates. He evinced no knowledge or interest in the subject. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:a long paper about and mainly against the E-cat
On Wed, Dec 7, 2011 at 3:01 PM, David Roberson dlrober...@aol.com wrote: Now, do you sincerely think that the large generator was supplying the heat energy to vaporize the water? I don't have sincere thoughts about anything on this subject. It could be, and that weakens Rossi's case. Those ecats could all have little burners in them too. Or thermite. There are too many possibilities to accept the highly unlikely claim of radiation less nuclear reactions producing heat. What would it take for you to be finally convinced that the 1 MW system is real? This has been covered. First, I would prefer a single ecat to simplify the scale. 100 ecats making 100 times the power is pointless, and I think a deliberate distraction. Either way, it should be completely and obviously isolated, with verification from skeptical observers. It should produce heat in an obvious and verifiable way, by heating up large bodies of water, or doing mechanical work, or at least using a properly calibrated heat exchanger, and verified by skeptical observers. The more obvious, the less verification needed. For example. heating a few thousand liters of water to boiling with a single ecat would be visible. Boiling it to half the volume, even better. It should keep going long enough to really exclude chemical fuels. In other words, produce more heat than the entire weight of the thing in the best chemical fuel. There's a factor of a million to work with. Why not at least demonstrate a factor of 10 or 100?
Re: [Vo]:a long paper about and mainly against the E-cat
Stephen A. Lawrence sa...@pobox.com wrote: If by steam engine you mean steam locomotive engine, then they actually incorporated steam driers specifically to dry the steam after it left the boiler and, IIRC, before it entered the superheater. That's what at least some of those funny domes on the tops of the old locomotives had inside them. They did indeed! But the steam was reasonably dry without them. Steam locomotives worked without those superheaters. In some applications, especially slow-moving yard engines that stopped and started often, the super heaters would malfunction and explode. So they did not use them with small switching engines or mining engines. Those engines were less efficient because of this. On mainline engines there were two domes, by the way. The larger one was filled with sand, which they sometimes had to drop on wet or icy tracks to improve traction. Locomotives still use sand. The point of the discussion is that engineers (railroad and HVAC) know from steam -- to put it in Yiddish syntax. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:a long paper about and mainly against the E-cat
Of course you are making a good point that they did use extra equipment to ensure that the steam was very dry. The question is what is the dryness of the steam before it entered those devices? Do you have any reference to this information? Are we talking about only 5% at this point? Thanks, Dave -Original Message- From: Stephen A. Lawrence sa...@pobox.com To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Wed, Dec 7, 2011 4:10 pm Subject: Re: [Vo]:a long paper about and mainly against the E-cat On 11-12-07 04:01 PM, David Roberson wrote: Dear Josh, at least you are consistent. Always claiming that someone or something is not as it appears. MY realizes she might be in error and I respect her for some honesty. Now, do you sincerely think that the large generator was supplying the heat energy to vaporize the water? If all of us on the vortex tried to find ways to scam the public as you seem to enjoy, do you not think we could be successful like you? Sometimes realism needs to float to the top. All you ever seem to do is to tear down things and people. Why not use your talents for the good instead? What would it take for you to be finally convinced that the 1 MW system is real? I would honestly like to know the answer to that question. Dave -Original Message- From: Joshua Cude joshua.c...@gmail.com To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Wed, Dec 7, 2011 3:11 pm Subject: Re: [Vo]:a long paper about and mainly against the E-cat On Wed, Dec 7, 2011 at 12:38 PM, David Roberson dlrober...@aol.com wrote: I have always maintained that I will follow the evidence and have been faithful to that end. That is not consistent with your frequently expressed absolute certainty that LENR is occurring. Why should we assume that a well trained engineer would be so stupid as to be incapable of catching water? Because of the geometry of the trap. It would not capture entrained mist. Why should we assume that a well-trained engineer would be so stupid as to be incapable of knowing the output flow rate? Please read the Wikipedia article on steam locomotives to put things in some perspective. I would estimate that the total area of Rossi’s 107 ECATs is comparable to that of boiler within one of these devices. How do you think that they can function at all if most of the steam leaving has a quality of 5% or so as you keep repeating? How does steam engines producing dry steam mean that the ecats are? You need more than the same area. You also need the power. The water level in steam engine boilers is regulated to ensure dry steam. If by steam engine you mean steam locomotive engine, then they actually incorporated steam driers specifically to dry the steam after it left the boiler and, IIRC, before it entered the superheater. That's what at least some of those funny domes on the tops of the old locomotives had inside them. The designers did not simply assume the steam came straight out of the boiler already dry.
Re: [Vo]:a long paper about and mainly against the E-cat
On Wed, Dec 7, 2011 at 12:52 PM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com wrote: You are welcome to have the last word if you please. No, thank you. LOL.
Re: [Vo]:Bill Gates to build a new nuclear reactor -- with China
From Jed: It has been a conservative business strategy that has worked very well for BG. Nevertheless, I lament the fact that BG appears to have rarely shown much backbone towards exploring and subsequently exploiting unproven/cutting edge technologies such as those purported from Rossi. . . I do not think that is fair to Gates. That is not what he does for a living. That is not his forte. A person should know his own strengths. As the expression goes: The cobbler should stick to his last. Do what you are good at, and leave other jobs to other people. A person such as Gates or I is fundamentally uncreative and incapable of coming up with new ideas, yet we can make valuable contributions. We can recognize talent and good ideas in other people. I was wondering if someone would come to BG's defense. Of course, Jed, I agree. I was only wishing BG had the ability to see something new on the horizon, something potentially innovative - something he could take advantage of. As dirty Harry was famous for saying: A good man always has to know his limitations. Regards Steven Vincent Johnson www.OrionWorks.com www.zazzle.com/orionworks
Re: [Vo]:a long paper about and mainly against the E-cat
OK, I think I understand your position now. You have a gut feeling that Rossi is attempting a scam, but you could actually be convinced it is a real system under the proper circumstances. You will get no argument from me regarding your statements needed for proof as I am quite unhappy about the lack of good solid data that has been made available to us. I have spent far too much effort plowing through the mess looking for solid leads that can not be refuted. You must realize that your standards are probably not capable of being fulfilled without some doubt remaining. One can always suggest that those making the claims are somehow in error or being paid by Rossi or ignorant like the customer engineer(not my opinion), etc. Dave -Original Message- From: Joshua Cude joshua.c...@gmail.com To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Wed, Dec 7, 2011 4:15 pm Subject: Re: [Vo]:a long paper about and mainly against the E-cat On Wed, Dec 7, 2011 at 3:01 PM, David Roberson dlrober...@aol.com wrote: Now, do you sincerely think that the large generator was supplying the heat energy to vaporize the water? I don't have sincere thoughts about anything on this subject. It could be, and that weakens Rossi's case. Those ecats could all have little burners in them too. Or thermite. There are too many possibilities to accept the highly unlikely claim of radiation less nuclear reactions producing heat. What would it take for you to be finally convinced that the 1 MW system is real? This has been covered. First, I would prefer a single ecat to simplify the scale. 100 ecats making 100 times the power is pointless, and I think a deliberate distraction. Either way, it should be completely and obviously isolated, with verification from skeptical observers. It should produce heat in an obvious and verifiable way, by heating up large bodies of water, or doing mechanical work, or at least using a properly calibrated heat exchanger, and verified by skeptical observers. The more obvious, the less verification needed. For example. heating a few thousand liters of water to boiling with a single ecat would be visible. Boiling it to half the volume, even better. It should keep going long enough to really exclude chemical fuels. In other words, produce more heat than the entire weight of the thing in the best chemical fuel. There's a factor of a million to work with. Why not at least demonstrate a factor of 10 or 100?
RE: [Vo]:a long paper about and mainly against the E-cat
A lot of responses have already been kicked up by JC and MY, but I'd like to continue, if I may, to Jed. This is a long reply, and was in discussion of using the primary of the October 6th test in any considerations as to test validity. I completely understand your argument of rising and falling E-Cat levels. I know that its based on Roberson's water-level analysis, but you know the problem with it. We do not have the incoming flow rate, and all we have for the outgoing rate are the two from Lewan (one while it was running, and one during purging). His measurements could coincide with overflow just as easily as a decrease in output power. Without knowing the input flow rate, this cannot be determined with any level of confidence. And I really appreciated David's well-thought analysis on power/water levels. I'm sure he had a great Aha! moment or two, where the scenario seemed to match up. Immediately after the test, I had begun my own analysis, building the same graphs and tables that everyone else was. The error margins due to unknown variables were so large as to make a null output just as possible as the claimed output. It was aggravating, but it really makes one understand just how few data points are there when they are most critical. You can't see how tenuous the conclusion is until you try to reproduce it yourself. If the output thermocouples are jeopardized by their placement, the test is moot. You look at the September data, and find that: not only is the pump he's chosen variable frequency and variable stroke, but its output also varies substantially based on the amount of back pressure - If you measure the output into a reservoir, it will read higher than when it is actually being used for pumping water into the E-Cat. You start to realize, for example, that Mats raising the end of the line, trying to get SOME idea of flow rate, is effecting the test. While he's pooling up the condensate line for a careful measure, this length of water actually creates additional back pressure all of the way to the heat exchanger, and respectively, the E-Cat. That back pressure results in a higher boiling point, raising the recorded temperature at the E-Cat probe with no power increase necessary. You realize that a large spike can be seen at the heat exchanger simply by water overflowing. I've said this before, but imagine the E-Cat filling taking in water at a rate of 1 g/s, but only boiling off .1 g/s. At the moment of overflow, the temperature at the thermocouple would actually increase with no change in core power. Without knowing the input water flow and output water flow of the E-Cat, trying to derive any power data from its temperature is a fool's errand. I will politely ask to agree to disagree on the October 6th data; the two methods of determining the power are, in my opinion, insufficient. In Method 1: the calorimetry in the secondary was, in my opinion, inconclusive. The thermal transfer between the brass and the water, the air surrounding the brass, the unknown conductivity between the braided wire and the nut, the environment under the insulation, all make the thermocouple placement suspect, and are not properly alotted in the Excel data that you graciously provided. Furthermore, it looked to be placed specifically to maximize heat contamination with the primary input. In Method 2: there is insufficient data on water flow to make any reasonable approximations on output power. The most conclusive piece of the demonstration, as you often refer to as first principle, is that Mats said it was still boiling, and the surface was still hot. I have avoided publicly addressing this, because I would have to address this as fraud, instead of bad calorimetry. I have tried to avoid any such claims, but it's inescapable. The earlier tests could have failed and been simply bad calorimetry. If the October tests did not produce any excess heat, then I cannot think of any determination that doesn't involve intentional desception. I will openly admit that a very large part of why I am so critical is my impression of Rossi. But, due to a lack of independent testing, and variables whose origin is Rossi says... I have rely on the data that we have available. If the data is not specifically meausured by an impartial instrument or observer, and Rossi supplies the evidence, then his credibility is added to the equation. I do not think that Rossi has credibility. I would be just as critical if he was claiming a lithium battery technology that gives an electric car 5,000 miles per charge. I believe that the evidence of his past points towards exaggerated claims of performance based on real technology (http://www.mail-archive.com/vortex-l@eskimo.com/msg56290.html). Claiming orders-of-magnitude performance better than everyone else on thermoelectric generators or biodeisel refinement is not that much different than claiming
Re: [Vo]:Celani: gamma spike during ignition of Rossi reactor
Axil, Interesting comment. Maybe it's worth noting that the Zeno-effect (decay deceleration) and the anti-Zeno effect (decay acceleration) can coexist and see-saw in some some systems. See: Observation of the Quantum Zeno and Anti-Zeno effects in an unstable system http://arxiv.org/abs/quant-ph/0104035 Quantum Zeno and anti-Zeno effects in an Unstable System with Two Bound State http://arxiv.org/abs/quant-ph/0502075 Reifenschweiler's results are a real puzzle. Lou Pagnucco In an experimental series performed by Piantelli, he observed the production of either heat or gamma radiation but not both at the same time, if memory serves. From the demo of the first one liter Rossi reactor during the time at startup when the lattice was cold, a massive radiation burst appeared for a second or two. From this, I deduce that the energy production mechanism will generate large amounts of radiation if the lattice is cold and the phonons present in the lattice are not energetic enough. One problem of that early design was the generation of bursts of radiation during startup and shutdown. I assume that the lattice was cold at those times. Rossi was greatly concerned by these radiation bursts, and changed his design so that an external heater warmed the nickel lattice before the reaction begins. This tells me that there is a second quantum mechanical reaction that converts the radiation generated in the metal atoms nucleus to thermal energy within the lattice. The lack of radioactive decay products after the Rossi reactor is shut down also speaks to a radiation thermalization mechanism rather than a radiation suppression mechanism. From Otto Reifenschweiler: This assumption is confirmed by the observation, that a decrease of tritium radioactivity is never observed with Ti-preparations which are generally used for storage of tritium. Such preparations don.t have the above stated properties. They consist of single and big non monocrystalline Ti-particles, in my experience. The radiation thermalization mechanism is a surface phenomenon that is maximized by the large surface area of nano-powder. The a variant of the quantum Zeno effect in which an unstable particle, if observed continuously or in the case of quantum activity in a metal lattice cycles rapidly through repeating cycles of entanglement in a continuing process of quantum decoherence, that particle will thermalize its nuclear power output as thermal energy in the metal lattice. The originating mechanism of the nuclear energy is not caused by vibrations (phonons) in the lattice. However, the thermalization of that nuclear energy is caused by the rapid cycling decoherence of the entangled metal atoms caused by quantum phonons vibrating in that lattice. Phonons in the metal lattice will cause the energy of the unstable particle to be transferred away from its originating nucleus and enter the metal lattice non-locally some large distance away. This may be why Rossi went with a micron sized particle rather than a nano-sized particle. The question now is what particle produces the LENR energy. Speculating, that unstable particle is probably the transition metal atom; in Rossis case, it is the nickel atom. This nuclear reaction is very weird in the Rossi reactor where it does not rip that lattice apart but contrary to all good sense, thermalizes the lattice into a gentle low grade heat. I can only speculate that the entanglement mechanism provides an otherworldly energy pipeline that gently moves energy/heat away from the nuclear production zone. On Wed, Dec 7, 2011 at 9:45 AM, Berke Durak berke.du...@gmail.com wrote: On Wed, Dec 7, 2011 at 9:24 AM, peter.heck...@arcor.de wrote: Focardi said also not much above environment. Possibly there was a dentist or internist doctor or a antique colortv in neighbourhood. Possibly there where suneruptions. Solar flares, really? Read again. I have capitalized the relevant parts. Before he came out, a few minutes before, I had independently measured that both the gamma detector and THE MINI GEIGER HAD HIT THE TOP OF THE SCALE, whereas the two detectors of electromagnetic interference were not showing anything. This meant that a SHORT BUT INTENSE EMISSION OF GAMMA RADIATION had taken place. So what does that mean? THE MINI GEIGER HAD HIT THE TOP OF THE SCALE Was the Geiger counter in unexperienced hands? No. What was Celardi's interpretation? This: This meant that a SHORT BUT INTENSE EMISSION OF GAMMA RADIATION had So, no solar flares, dentists, welding apparatus, etc. Why did this happen? I assume this was because it was a prototype with partial shielding. Or maybe the reaction was pushed into an unsafe zone, or... time will tell! An multiply observed fact is: No Gamma above environment are measured with Rossis's e-cat during operation. Right, that's because the
[Vo]:Discussion of saturated steam locomotive versus superheated from Railroad Age Gazette
See Railway age gazette, Volume 53, No. 24, 1912, p. 1148. I kid you not. http://books.google.com/books?id=QrElMAAJpg=PA1148lpg=PA1148 This document says superheating is safe and effective for switching engines. I read somewhere else they tended to explode, so they stopped putting superheaters in them. Maybe that was before 1912. This says: Steam of such high degrees of superheat can be exposed to the cooling action of the steam chest and cylinder walls without condensation and at the same time has about 30 per cent, greater specific volume than saturated steam of the same pressure. A large part of this increased specific volume is again lost before expansion of the steam in the cylinders takes place on account of the cooling action of the steam chest and cylinder walls. While the superheat of the steam leaving the superheater may be 200 to 250 deg., the average superheat of the steam in the cylinder at the moment the cut-off takes place is hardly more than 100 deg.; but the entire elimination of all losses through condensation, together with the remaining increased volume of the steam, effects under average conditions a saving of 30 per cent, and more in the steam consumption per indicated horse power, which gain corresponds to a saving in fuel consumption of from 20 to 25 per cent., compared with a saturated steam locomotive working under the same conditions. . . . . . . The second requirement assumes that the increased volume of steam be expanded as efficiently, or in other words, that the same cut-offs be used as in the.saturated steam engine. This would mean a corresponding increase in cylinder dimensions which in many cases is not possible on account of limitations in adhesive weight, strength of running gear and other limitations There will always be an increase in hauling capacity obtainable, but whether the theoretical maximum can be obtained depends on the size of cylinders, and depends also on the quality of the saturated steam engines with which the superheater engine is compared, or to which the superheater has been applied, whether the engine is correctly proportioned or over cylindered, or deficient in boiler capacity, etc. It depends also on the service in which the locomotives are used; whether the service is such as to be favorable to developments of higher degrees of superheat and more or less unfavorable to the saturated steam locomotive. In switching service superheater engines make a very favorable showing, although only a moderate degree of superheat is being developed, but the improvement in efficiency is so remarkable because the saturated switch engine is the most inefficient locomotive type. Under all these varying service conditions the increased hauling capacity of superheater locomotives obtained in practical service varies between 20 and 30 per cent., and frequently even more. . . . Elsewhere it says that saturated steam caused a lot of wear and tear. I think the second dome at the top is the steam distributor, not the superheater. I hate to point to this but . . . see: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Steam_locomotive_components Item 9. See also: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Steam_locomotive QUOTE: Steam circuit The steam generated in the boiler fills the steam space above the water in the partially filled boiler. Its maximum working pressure is limited by spring-loaded safety valves. It is then collected either in a perforated tube fitted above the water level or from a dome that often houses the regulator valve, or throttle, the purpose of which is to control the amount of steam leaving the boiler. The steam then either travels directly along and down a steam pipe to the engine unit or may first pass into the wet header of a superheater, the role of the latter being to improve thermal efficiency and eliminate water droplets suspended in the saturated steam, the state in which it leaves the boiler. . . . END QUOTE - Jed
Re: [Vo]:a long paper about and mainly against the E-cat
On Wed, Dec 7, 2011 at 3:21 PM, David Roberson dlrober...@aol.com wrote: Of course you are making a good point that they did use extra equipment to ensure that the steam was very dry. The question is what is the dryness of the steam before it entered those devices? Do you have any reference to this information? Are we talking about only 5% at this point? Water is never forced through boilers by design, so the steam would be more than 90% dry. In the ecat, the input water flow is constant. If the power doesn't keep up, water is forced out with the steam. And then it can be very wet indeed.
Re: [Vo]:Discussion of saturated steam locomotive versus superheated from Railroad Age Gazette
That is an interesting article isn't it? I guess those guys knew how to make good steam engines in the old days. I noticed that the superheated steam is at a temperature a bit higher than the direct steam generated in the boiler. The pressure must be established within the boiler so I guess the hotter steam does not make its way back to the boiler. Is it likely that some form of check valve is used at the throttle? If that were possible, then higher pressure could be applied to the cylinders due to the super heater. This might be dangerous to do, since then the boiler would be forced to increase pressure to overcome the check valve blockage. Maybe I just talked myself out of the check valve possibility. :-) (thinking Rossi's design) I hope these steam locomotives are not bombs looking for a chance to explode! Jed, I gather from the remainder of the article that a saturated steam locomotive is used in some applications. This suggests to me that the quality of the steam is pretty good. Does anyone else have engineering data concerning the expected value? Dave -Original Message- From: Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Wed, Dec 7, 2011 5:02 pm Subject: [Vo]:Discussion of saturated steam locomotive versus superheated from Railroad Age Gazette See Railway age gazette, Volume 53, No. 24, 1912, p. 1148. I kid you not. http://books.google.com/books?id=QrElMAAJpg=PA1148lpg=PA1148 This document says superheating is safe and effective for switching engines. I read somewhere else they tended to explode, so they stopped putting superheaters in them. Maybe that was before 1912. This says: Steam of such high degrees of superheat can be exposed to the cooling action of the steam chest and cylinder walls without condensation and at the same time has about 30 per cent, greater specific volume than saturated steam of the same pressure. A large part of this increased specific volume is again lost before expansion of the steam in the cylinders takes place on account of the cooling action of the steam chest and cylinder walls. While the superheat of the steam leaving the superheater may be 200 to 250 deg., the average superheat of the steam in the cylinder at the moment the cut-off takes place is hardly more than 100 deg.; but the entire elimination of all losses through condensation, together with the remaining increased volume of the steam, effects under average conditions a saving of 30 per cent, and more in the steam consumption per indicated horse power, which gain corresponds to a saving in fuel consumption of from 20 to 25 per cent., compared with a saturated steam locomotive working under the same conditions. . . . . . . The second requirement assumes that the increased volume of steam be expanded as efficiently, or in other words, that the same cut-offs be used as in the.saturated steam engine. This would mean a corresponding increase in cylinder dimensions which in many cases is not possible on account of limitations in adhesive weight, strength of running gear and other limitations There will always be an increase in hauling capacity obtainable, but whether the theoretical maximum can be obtained depends on the size of cylinders, and depends also on the quality of the saturated steam engines with which the superheater engine is compared, or to which the superheater has been applied, whether the engine is correctly proportioned or over cylindered, or deficient in boiler capacity, etc. It depends also on the service in which the locomotives are used; whether the service is such as to be favorable to developments of higher degrees of superheat and more or less unfavorable to the saturated steam locomotive. In switching service superheater engines make a very favorable showing, although only a moderate degree of superheat is being developed, but the improvement in efficiency is so remarkable because the saturated switch engine is the most inefficient locomotive type. Under all these varying service conditions the increased hauling capacity of superheater locomotives obtained in practical service varies between 20 and 30 per cent., and frequently even more. . . . Elsewhere it says that saturated steam caused a lot of wear and tear. I think the second dome at the top is the steam distributor, not the superheater. I hate to point to this but . . . see: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Steam_locomotive_components Item 9. See also: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Steam_locomotive QUOTE: Steam circuit The steam generated in the boiler fills the steam space above the water in the partially filled boiler. Its maximum working pressure is limited by spring-loaded safety valves. It is then collected either in a perforated tube fitted above the water level or from a dome that often houses the regulator valve, or throttle, the purpose of which is to control the amount of steam leaving the boiler. The
Re: [Vo]:a long paper about and mainly against the E-cat
Of course you are correct if water is being forced out of the ECAT. I see no reason to believe that that is the situation since an attempt was made to measure the water and some was captured. It should also be noted that Rossi and company had the input power set to 180 kWatts during the initial portion of the self sustaining mode. The ECATs should have been producing 1 MW under that condition before the power was shut down. If that was the case, then twice as much water was being evaporated as inputted to the ECATs during that time. This is further evidence that they were not full of water and overflowing. Again, I do not need to apply the ignorant engineer card every time things do not add up. The only way that anyone can suggest that the ECATs were full and overflowing is to assume bad test procedures. Dave -Original Message- From: Joshua Cude joshua.c...@gmail.com To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Wed, Dec 7, 2011 5:03 pm Subject: Re: [Vo]:a long paper about and mainly against the E-cat On Wed, Dec 7, 2011 at 3:21 PM, David Roberson dlrober...@aol.com wrote: Of course you are making a good point that they did use extra equipment to ensure that the steam was very dry. The question is what is the dryness of the steam before it entered those devices? Do you have any reference to this information? Are we talking about only 5% at this point? Water is never forced through boilers by design, so the steam would be more than 90% dry. In the ecat, the input water flow is constant. If the power doesn't keep up, water is forced out with the steam. And then it can be very wet indeed.
Re: [Vo]:a long paper about and mainly against the E-cat
Robert Leguillon robert.leguil...@hotmail.com wrote: We do not have the incoming flow rate, and all we have for the outgoing rate are the two from Lewan (one while it was running, and one during purging). Rossi stated the incoming flow rate was 15 L per hour. I think it was, because it took two hours to fill the vessel. That is a constant displacement pump, which is a highly reliable gadget. No one saw him change the flow rate. The sound of the pump did not change in the video. So I am pretty sure it was 15 L the whole time. As I said, I have *never* seen Rossi lie about this kind of detail. Never. Nor do I see any reason why he would. You can't see how tenuous the conclusion is until you try to reproduce it yourself. Have done. If the output thermocouples are jeopardized by their placement, the test is moot. Those things will pick up the pipe temperature reliably. I have used them for that purpose. They do not pick up the temperature inches away, or the air temp. You start to realize, for example, that Mats raising the end of the line, trying to get SOME idea of flow rate, is effecting the test. While he's pooling up the condensate line for a careful measure, this length of water actually creates additional back pressure all of the way to the heat exchanger, and respectively, the E-Cat. That back pressure results in a higher boiling point, raising the recorded temperature at the E-Cat probe with no power increase necessary. No way Jose. There is no way the back pressure from this can measurably affect kilowatt level steam production temperatures or behavior at the other side of a heat exchanger! Lewan's method was crude and I doubt he can measure the flow rate to within 20%. The difference between this result and Method 1 is probably explained by Method 2 inaccuracy. You realize that a large spike can be seen at the heat exchanger simply by water overflowing. I believe you have that backwards. I've said this before, but imagine the E-Cat filling taking in water at a rate of 1 g/s, but only boiling off .1 g/s. That would lower to total enthalpy going to the heat exchanger. There would be more enthalpy when it is boiling enough to prevent an overflow. The test does not begin until the vessel is full, so it has to be either overflowing, or boiling off, or a combination of the two the whole time. You get the most heat when it is all steam; the least when it is all overflowing water; and midway between them when it is mixed. Without knowing the input water flow and output water flow of the E-Cat, trying to derive any power data from its temperature is a fool's errand. We do know the water flow rate. But anyway Method 1 is reliable, and the problems with thermocouple placement are mostly imaginary, in my opinion, and in my experience with similar thermocouples and hot pipes. In Method 1: the calorimetry in the secondary was, in my opinion, inconclusive. The thermal transfer between the brass and the water, the air surrounding the brass, the unknown conductivity between the braided wire and the nut, the environment under the insulation, all make the thermocouple placement suspect . . . Try placing at thermocouple on a hot pipe, in various spots, under various covers. You will find the differences are insignificant. People put temperature probes on pipe surfaces all the time in equipment rooms. As far as I know, Rossi did this exactly the right way, putting it under tape. That is the way I have seen it done by experienced HVAC people, and the way it is recommended in manuals. For a permanent installation they usually use a dial thermometer with the probe inside the fluid, but there are plenty of installations with a surface mounted sensor on a pipe. See, for example: http://www.us.sbt.siemens.com/sbttemplates/library/pdf/129460.pdf QUOTE: To ensure accuracy, the sensor must be mounted under insulation, away from drafts. They recommend heavier insulation that Rossi used. I have seen ones for sale with lighter insulating tape than Siemens recommends, packaged in with the sensor. I do not recall where . . . Try it! - Jed
[Vo]:Will tests surface mounted thermocouples on pipe
I wrote: Try placing at thermocouple on a hot pipe, in various spots, under various covers. You will find the differences are insignificant. I did this years ago, working at Hydrodynamics. I happen to have a nice dual input thermocouple, with a T1 - T2 mode, so I will try it again with a copper hot water pipe, with and without insulation and so on. I will do this under the kitchen sink. Varying water temperatures do not matter because I am looking for a difference between T1 and T1 (when they are mounted differently), and the response is quick. I have insulated all of the hot water pipes in my house foam pipe insulation. Look it up at Lowe's. It works remarkably well. Anyway, I'll try it with and without that, in air, under bubble wrap and a few other ways. I have different kinds of probes too. I use a shielded probe for cooking turkey. I'll just use the regular ones for this test. I can compare the actual fluid temp to the pipe temp if you like. I'll bet it is the same to within 0.3 deg C. You people should do stuff like this, instead of blabbing for weeks at a time about magic pots full of water that do not cool down. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:Bill Gates to build a new nuclear reactor -- with China
On Wed, Dec 7, 2011 at 3:50 PM, OrionWorks - Steven V Johnson svj.orionwo...@gmail.com wrote: One would think that Microsoft certainly has the financial resources to explore pie-in-the-sky matters. I must admit that I am disappointed to see MS's absence from this customer list: http://www.bloomenergy.com/customers/ T
Re: [Vo]:Discussion of saturated steam locomotive versus superheated from Railroad Age Gazette
On Wed, Dec 7, 2011 at 4:38 PM, David Roberson dlrober...@aol.com wrote: The pressure must be established within the boiler so I guess the hotter steam does not make its way back to the boiler. Is it likely that some form of check valve is used at the throttle? If that were possible, then higher pressure could be applied to the cylinders due to the super heater. It's not necessary to use higher pressure to superheat steam. In fact, the point is that the temperature of the steam is above the boiling point at the local pressure. Otherwise, it's saturated.
Re: [Vo]:Discussion of saturated steam locomotive versus superheated from Railroad Age Gazette
David Roberson dlrober...@aol.com wrote: I hope these steam locomotives are not bombs looking for a chance to explode! They often did explode, unfortunately, even in the 1930s, at the pinnacle of the technology. Maybe a single pipe explosion or an accident was more common than a boiler failure . . . I do not know. As I said, I read somewhere that superheater failures and explosions were common in some types of locomotives, so they stopped using them. I remember reading the memoir of a steam locomotive engineer who said they lived in fear of explosions, and saw a lot of people killed by them. Marine steam engines were terribly dangerous, according to my dad who was a fireman in the 1930s. These were oil fired, when you finally got the damn thing to light. Jed, I gather from the remainder of the article that a saturated steam locomotive is used in some applications. This suggests to me that the quality of the steam is pretty good. Yup. It was definitely used on the simpler, cheaper engines. That is what this and other sources say, including Wikipedia. - Jed
[Vo]:New Larsen paper on Large Hadron Collider UFO Dust
Lewis Larsen (Widom-Larsen) just posted a paper entitled: Are LENRs causing some of the 'UFO' dust observed in the Large Hadron Collider? Maybe somebody should look. http://dev2.slideshare.com/lewisglarsen/lattice-energy-llccould-lenrs-be-producing-ufos-in-large-hadron-colliderdec-7-2011 An interesting hypothesis.
Re: [Vo]:a long paper about and mainly against the E-cat
On 7 December 2011 21:51, Robert Leguillon robert.leguil...@hotmail.comwrote: A lot of responses have already been kicked up by JC and MY, but I'd like to continue, if I may, to Jed. This is a long reply, and was in discussion of using the primary of the October 6th test in any considerations as to test validity. Thank you Robert, that was a sensible and dispassionate summary that I agree with. While I am convinced that Ni H is working at commercially useful 1-10kW/kg output levels based on results from Piantelli, Ahern, Arata, Miley, Patterson et al as well as Rossi, Rossi has not conclusively demonstrated that he is operating at the significantly higher 100kW/kg power levels that he claims, and may have initially fooled even himself due to his bad latent-heat-of-water based calorimetry. As time passes and we get more back-story from the failed demos being done for potentially big investors (who could have answered his financial prayers but unfortunately for Rossi demanded proper experimental technique), Rossi's ongoing bluster, delaying tactics and diversionary behaviour do nothing but reinforce my impression that he is trying to hide an inability to match his claimed performance - eg it only works reliably for a few hours at a time, or only works at substantially lower power levels. In short he may have found himself trapped by his earlier excessive claims that he now finds were in error. It so it would be a pattern repeated from other ventures in his career.
