Re: Aw: [Vo]:God Revealed Tomorrow?
Of course they are not like Rossi. They have not designed a paradigm shifting technology. Instead, they are just searching for some particle, with no idea of how to make it into a technology. By the way, Rossi has tested his device over and over again. He is satisfied the technology works and the US military is too. From: peter.heck...@arcor.de peter.heck...@arcor.de To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Tuesday, December 13, 2011 1:57 AM Subject: Aw: [Vo]:God Revealed Tomorrow? So far I have read, they got strong evidence, but not this high evidence that is needed for such a fundamental discovery. They are not like Rossi. They will test it again and again and doubt and harden it by all possible methods, before they confirm it. Scientific evidence is yet not reached. - Original Nachricht Von: Terry Blanton hohlr...@gmail.com An: vortex-l@eskimo.com Datum: 13.12.2011 00:50 Betreff: [Vo]:God Revealed Tomorrow? Has the 'God Particle' Been Found? Major Announcement Expected Tuesday Published December 12, 2011 CERN A proton-proton collision at the Large Hadron Collider particle accelerator at CERN laboratory in Geneva that produced more than 100 charged particles. The world of physics is abuzz with speculation over an announcement expected Tuesday, Dec. 13, from the CERN laboratory in Geneva -- home of the world's largest particle accelerator, the Large Hadron Collider (LHC). The announcement, planned for 8 a.m. EST (2 p.m. CET), will address the status of the search for the elusive Higgs boson particle, sometimes called the God Particle because of its importance to science. Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/scitech/2011/12/12/has-god-particle-been-found-major- announcement-expected-tuesday/#ixzz1gMqOkd19
Re: [Vo]:Cold Fusion Economic Effects
I am all for vertical agriculture, but I am totally opposed to a global basic income. I do not support socialism or communism. With cold fusion technology, the price of everything will go down. Even a job at McDonalds will be capable of paying for a nice house, nice cars, etc. We can have a world in which there is almost no poverty, without a global basic income. From: Jouni Valkonen jounivalko...@gmail.com To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Tuesday, December 13, 2011 2:10 AM Subject: Re: [Vo]:Cold Fusion Economic Effects Cold fusion will solve every major global problems. And they can be defined with two words: For environmental problems: _vertical agriculture_ For political problems: _global basic income_ And ALL known political, economical and environmental problems are solved and we live in the age of Star Trek more than 100 years earlier than in Star Trek time line. We could do this already without cold fusion, but I would say that people are slow, so they need a little push. Cold fusion will render anyway all conventional thinking useless. Therefore with cold fusion new ideas are easier to accept. —Jouni
Re: [Vo]:Cold Fusion Economic Effects
I can't wait until the cost of everything has went down dramatically. I think combining cold fusion with robotics and nanotechnology could allow us to end up in a world where there is no such thing as scarcity. Everything could be dirt cheap, and a simple part-time job would allow someone to live in a nice house, have nice cars, etc. From: Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Monday, December 12, 2011 8:28 PM Subject: Re: [Vo]:Cold Fusion Economic Effects The Internet has improved efficiency in a wide range of industries, such as grocery store inventory. Has it had a deflationary effect on these industries? I do not know. It has deflated goods and services directly produced by the Internet itself, such as publishing books. Amazon Kindle books are much cheaper than printed ones. But has it reduced the cost of carrots? Hard to say. Energy has a direct impact on the cost of even more goods and services than the Internet does, so I suppose cold fusion might be deflationary across the board. One way of describing a deflationary effect is to say it improves productivity. I think those are two sides of the same coin. - Jed
[Vo]:Cold Fusion and the 2012 Election Cycle
I think the election cycle this year is going to be very interesting. Actually, I think it will be more exciting than ever before! With the US military satisfied the Rossi technology works, purchasing thirteen systems, and helping with R and D, I think the politicians are bound to be told about the reality of cold fusion sooner rather than later. What do you think the politicians will say about cold fusion? I think there is going to be a big debate, due to all of the implications of cold fusion. For example, the impact on the energy crisis, the economy, the middle east, etc. Here are a few thoughts of mine. -- Cold fusion technology will make politicians who wasted money on conventional alternative energy technologies look stupid. -- Cold fusion will make politicians who supported free market solutions to the energy crisis gain support. -- Cold fusion will make politicians who support a continual presence in the Middle East look bad. -- Cold fusion will make fake environmentalists -- who will not support cold fusion -- look bad. -- Cold fusion will make there be no need for carbon taxes. -- Cold fusion will make politicians who support globalism look bad, because the E-Cat technology can make all nations much more independent. No nation will ever need to depend on another nation for energy. -- Cold fusion will make politicians who support hot fusion research look bad.
Re: [Vo]:Cold Fusion Economic Effects
Bushnell had the vision to make Mars habitable. Ok, thats an utopy. But can make deserts green and siberia habitable. Its unclear what this does to global climate. It can solve the water problems in far east and israel and can prevent wars for oil. But this all must be seen with care. Each new technology has unwanted effects. The fertility of biological life, vegetables, animals and humans grows exponential in time when the resources are available. Space can only grow cubic in best case, when we increase our radius. This is the basic problem of biological live and it is purely mathematical. Even if space where filled with habitable paradisic planets, infinite growth is impossible. There is no heaven in this side of reality where we live physically. There is always a purely mathematical limit of growth and if this is not seen and handled with care and with ratio, then it will produce new conflicts, this is foreseeable. best regards, Peter - Original Nachricht Von: Jouni Valkonen jounivalko...@gmail.com An: vortex-l@eskimo.com Datum: 13.12.2011 08:10 Betreff: Re: [Vo]:Cold Fusion Economic Effects Cold fusion will solve every major global problems. And they can be defined with two words: For environmental problems: _vertical agriculture_ For political problems: _global basic income_ And ALL known political, economical and environmental problems are solved and we live in the age of Star Trek more than 100 years earlier than in Star Trek time line. We could do this already without cold fusion, but I would say that people are slow, so they need a little push. Cold fusion will render anyway all conventional thinking useless. Therefore with cold fusion new ideas are easier to accept. ?Jouni
Re: [Vo]:Reviewing Lewan's test of April 2011
On Mon, Dec 12, 2011 at 6:07 PM, Mary Yugo maryyu...@gmail.com wrote: I understand and agree with all the reasons but the problem I see is accounting for the water. But how much water? I can't really tell what Lewan measured. It's pretty simple. Lewan measured about 11 liters going in to the ecat over 3 hours. His calculations assume all of it was vaporized, to give about 8 kWh of energy out. The input power was 380 W to give about 1.1 kWh in. But at the end of the hose, he collected 5.4 liters of water. (That's in the note at the end.) He claimed it was due to condensation, which is not likely. Ransom's argument is that at least 11 - 5.4 = 5.6 liters had to be vaporized because it was not collected. That means that the output would be about 4 kWh, for a gain of 4/1.1 = 3.6. That calculation assumes that any steam that escaped at the end of the hose was completely dry. That is, that there was no mist entrained in it. I don't believe that. I guess I will look again for it. An ultrasonic nebulizer is certainly possibly but it's a bit far fetched. It may be far-fetched, and probably not necessary, since fast moving steam pushing past the liquid will form some mist, and a simple nozzle could promote the formation of mist. But far-fetched or not, it's not nearly as far-fetched as heat from radiationless nuclear reactions. However, Lewan did not inspect under the insulation. So if Ransompw read it right, where did 5 liters go if not steam? Into the room in the form of a mist. I am still not sure what experiment Ransompw was referring to. You had the link to the detailed report in your first post. The information is there.
Re: [Vo]:Reviewing Lewan's test of April 2011
On Mon, Dec 12, 2011 at 7:31 PM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com wrote: Mary Yugo maryyu...@gmail.com wrote: An ultrasonic nebulizer is certainly possibly but it's a bit far fetched. A bit? How would the water from this reach the end of the hose without forming drops and becoming an ordinary flow of water? I would say that is impossible. So some things are impossible? You should keep an open mind. It doesn't violate any principles of physics for a mist of micrometer droplets to travel through a hose, and it is far more plausible than radiationless nuclear reactions producing heat. The steam is flowing at something close to a m/s, depending on the fraction that gets vaporized, and the diameter of the hose. A fine mist or fog carried along with the steam would take only a few seconds to get through the hose. It seems entirely plausible that half of it would survive as a mist, while the other half is collected as a liquid.
Re: [Vo]:Why not duplicate Rossi\'s setups and see how theyworkwithout LENR?
On Mon, Dec 12, 2011 at 11:28 PM, Randy Wuller rwul...@freeark.com wrote: Lewan's 2nd test in april adequately measured the output energy to establish O/I of over 3/1. Since steam quality and output measurements have been questioned and used as a basis to argue that the various Rossi tests failed to demonstrate O/I, it is unique. That calculation also requires an assumption that the steam that escapes at the end of the hose is dry. That is highly unlikely. If in fact, a fine mist or fog was entrained in that steam, to explain the disappearance of water, very little gain is established. The best test is the EK demo, because in that case, if the numbers are accepted, then it required an energy gain of at least 2, because the input energy was only enough to bring the water to about 60C. But as in the Lewan test, the input power was not monitored, and moreover, the total energy needed to explain wet steam is rather modest, and certainly does not rule out chemical heat. While manipulation of input energy, a hidden energy source or chemical energy were not excluded by Lewan's 2nd test, it did confirm significant measured output over input. If the input energy was manipulated, then no, it doesn't, even if you accept that half the water was vaporized. But it's kind of academic anyway if a chemical source is not excluded. That was the point after all. Since the measured energy input was insufficient to vaporize any of the 11.160 liters of water pumped through the Ecat True, it was marginal, so accepting the input as reported, some energy would be needed from the ecat to produce steam. But, judging by the feeble puff of steam at the end of the hose, not much. and since all the output, vapor and condensed water was collected by Lewan in a bucket, Vapor and mist and fog were not collected. They escaped into the room.
Re: [Vo]:Reviewing Lewan's test of April 2011
So some things are impossible? You should keep an open mind. It doesn't violate any principles of physics for a mist of micrometer droplets to travel through a hose, and it is far more plausible than radiationless nuclear reactions producing heat. Joshua: Considering this mist after traveling meters in a hose had to then travel through water allowed to stand at room temperature before being exposed to air, I suggest impossible would be a good word for it. Ransom
Re: [Vo]:Why not duplicate Rossi\'s setups and see howtheyworkwithout LENR?
That calculation also requires an assumption that the steam that escapes at the end of the hose is dry. That is highly unlikely. If in fact, a fine mist or fog was entrained in that steam, to explain the disappearance of water, very little gain is established. Sure, but the output after traveling through meters of hose also had to then travel through water allowed to stand at room temperature. The calculation ignores any steam condensed in the process and would be very conservative. The best test is the EK demo, because in that case, if the numbers are accepted, then it required an energy gain of at least 2, because the input energy was only enough to bring the water to about 60C. But as in the Lewan test, the input power was not monitored, and moreover, the total energy needed to explain wet steam is rather modest, and certainly does not rule out chemical heat. I disagree, the output was not measured in the E K demo, it was in Lewan's 2nd test and O/I is clearly greater then 2/1 in Lewan's test. While manipulation of input energy, a hidden energy source or chemical energy were not excluded by Lewan's 2nd test, it did confirm significant measured output over input. If the input energy was manipulated, then no, it doesn't, even if you accept that half the water was vaporized. I'd say more then half the water was vaporized. The output also included 1/2 a liter of water while the Ecat was heating up which also went into the bucket. Lewan may have also let the pump trial water go into the bucket another 3/4 liter but you'd have to ask him. If he did that 3/4 of a liter of 20C water may have been in the bucket before the steam began. But ignoring that at least (11.7 - 5.4) is 6.2 of the water disappeared. You say it is virtually all mist taking into account no condensation and ignoring the cooling taking place over 3 hours. Just what level of entrapped steam do you believe can account for this physical evidence? Sorry, mankind has understood steam a lot longer then nuclear physics and without most of the lost water being steam, I'd say that physical evidence is impossible. Radiation less nuclear reactions which have been suggested and ignored for 20 years because we theorize they are impossible is lot more likely.
Re: [Vo]:Reviewing Lewan's test of April 2011
Cude wrote: So some things are impossible? You should keep an open mind. It doesn't violate any principles of physics for a mist of micrometer droplets to travel through a hose, and it is far more plausible than radiationless nuclear reactions producing heat. What is possible and impossible can only be determined by experiment. Our state of mind, being open or closed, has nothing to do with it. We know that radiationless nuclear reactions are real because they have been widely replicated at high signal-to-noise ratios. It would be easy to test whether micrometer droplets can travel through a hose. I could set up a test to do that this afternoon, since I have an ultrasonic humidifier. I would use a plastic bag to funnel the mist into a short garden hose, and put a bucket at the end of the hose to collect the water. However, I am certain that the mist will all condense into liquid water, so I will not bother to do this. If Cude wants anyone to believe this is possible it is incumbent upon him to do a test. He should publish photographs and data showing that a measurable fraction the mist traveled through the hose and was released into the air. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:Cold Fusion Economic Effects
noone noone thesteornpa...@yahoo.com wrote: I am all for vertical agriculture, but I am totally opposed to a global basic income. I do not support socialism or communism. Socialism, communism and capitalism are all based on ordinary people trading labor for money. In a few decades human labor will be worth nothing. All economic systems will be obsolete. See: http://www.thelightsinthetunnel.com/ With cold fusion technology, the price of everything will go down. Even a job at McDonalds will be capable of paying for a nice house, nice cars, etc. Even today we have automobiles capable of driving in California traffic. That is a more difficult task than any job at McDonald's. It is just a matter of time before all jobs such as this will be done by robots. A robot the replaces a person (or the entire staff) will cost McDonald's a few thousand dollars a year. you cannot buy a nice house were nice cars with that kind of money. The most difficult job at McDonald's is human language: cashiers have to understand what the customers are ordering. Cashiers can easily be replaced today by having most customers enter the order by touchscreens, and pay with credit cards. This would be like the self checkout lines at grocery stores. In the near future, computers will understand speech well enough to take verbal orders. McDonald's has not installed touchscreen ordering devices for the same reason the US automobile industry did not install robots in the 1960s. The government and labor organizations are putting pressure on McDonald's not to automate. McDonald's is one of the biggest employers in the US. Walmart is another huge employer that could easily replace much of its staff with robots. I'm sure that it will within 20 years. Robots capable of stocking shelves are already available. At present people are cheaper for an environment such as a Walmart store, but people are not becoming twice as fast and far cheaper every few years. At places like Amazon.com, and the newest university libraries that still handle paper books, robots do the inventory work. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:Acceleration Under Load
Mary Yugo wrote: So why not take some of the output heat, run it through a simple and reliable control system, and then return the heat to the input end? Then, Rossi could self sustain after a brief initial period of electrical heating, for as long as he liked. He did that! What are you talking about?!? He has made the thing self-sustain from internally generated heat for 4 hours. It would have cooled down in 40 min. if it had not been generating heat. Rossi has done _exactly_ what you demand. It seems you will not take yes for an answer. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:Reviewing Lewan's test of April 2011
I wrote: I could set up a test to do that this afternoon, since I have an ultrasonic humidifier. I would use a plastic bag to funnel the mist into a short garden hose, and put a bucket at the end of the hose to collect the water. Use a scale to weigh the bucket and the humidifier reservoir before the test, and again after several hours of operation. Be sure to drain the hose into the bucket before weighing the bucket. I say go for it. I am sick of skeptics making assertions without doing a test or pointing to a real-world example to back up these assertions. If you seriously believe it is possible to send mist from a humidifier through a hose and then into the air, you should take the trouble to prove this. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:Reviewing Lewan's test of April 2011
I have one of those, 5L. At maximum power, it takes 33W and 15 hours to empty all the reservoir, but the fog is so dense that it falls within a meter but it is so opaque cannot see through it. Despite all this, putting my hand in front of exit of the fog, it takes a few seconds to make my hand feel humid. This is why I think all this talk about vapor quality is useless and I don't believe it is possible to carry over 3 meters vapor with more than 1/1 in volume of liquid. 2011/12/13 Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com I wrote: I could set up a test to do that this afternoon, since I have an ultrasonic humidifier. I would use a plastic bag to funnel the mist into a short garden hose, and put a bucket at the end of the hose to collect the water. Use a scale to weigh the bucket and the humidifier reservoir before the test, and again after several hours of operation. Be sure to drain the hose into the bucket before weighing the bucket. I say go for it. I am sick of skeptics making assertions without doing a test or pointing to a real-world example to back up these assertions. If you seriously believe it is possible to send mist from a humidifier through a hose and then into the air, you should take the trouble to prove this. - Jed -- Daniel Rocha - RJ danieldi...@gmail.com
Re: [Vo]:Reviewing Lewan's test of April 2011
BTW, the vertical component of the exit tube of my humidifier is only 5cm long... 2011/12/13 Daniel Rocha danieldi...@gmail.com I have one of those, 5L. At maximum power, it takes 33W and 15 hours to empty all the reservoir, but the fog is so dense that it falls within a meter but it is so opaque cannot see through it. Despite all this, putting my hand in front of exit of the fog, it takes a few seconds to make my hand feel humid. This is why I think all this talk about vapor quality is useless and I don't believe it is possible to carry over 3 meters vapor with more than 1/1 in volume of liquid. 2011/12/13 Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com I wrote: I could set up a test to do that this afternoon, since I have an ultrasonic humidifier. I would use a plastic bag to funnel the mist into a short garden hose, and put a bucket at the end of the hose to collect the water. Use a scale to weigh the bucket and the humidifier reservoir before the test, and again after several hours of operation. Be sure to drain the hose into the bucket before weighing the bucket. I say go for it. I am sick of skeptics making assertions without doing a test or pointing to a real-world example to back up these assertions. If you seriously believe it is possible to send mist from a humidifier through a hose and then into the air, you should take the trouble to prove this. - Jed -- Daniel Rocha - RJ danieldi...@gmail.com -- Daniel Rocha - RJ danieldi...@gmail.com
Re: [Vo]:Reviewing Lewan's test of April 2011
Daniel Rocha wrote: BTW, the vertical component of the exit tube of my humidifier is only 5cm long... Mine too. As I said, I think you could use a plastic bag to funnel the vapor into a hose. Put a plastic bag around the exit tube, and tape it. Cut off one corner of the bag leaving a small hole. The vapor should all emerge from that hole. There is a fan blowing the vapor out. Insert that corner of the bag into a hose (or insert the hose into the bag) and tape that off too. It should be pushed through the hose. Little or none will emerge. After water builds up in the hose, none will emerge. Technically it is not vapor. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:Acceleration Under Load
On Tue, Dec 13, 2011 at 6:52 AM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com wrote: Mary Yugo wrote: So why not take some of the output heat, run it through a simple and reliable control system, and then return the heat to the input end? Then, Rossi could self sustain after a brief initial period of electrical heating, for as long as he liked. He did that! What are you talking about?!? He has made the thing self-sustain from internally generated heat for 4 hours. It would have cooled down in 40 min. if it had not been generating heat. Rossi has done *exactly* what you demand. It seems you will not take yes for an answer. Rossi ran a nuclear reactor for four hours with a claimed six month capability and I am supposed to be ecstatic? There is nothing in any Rossi device's design that routes heat BACK from output to input via a controller. That was my suggestion in response to someone suggesting that the reactor needs to be kept warm at its input. Even Rossi hasn't claimed to do what I suggested he do! Rossi has not explained why he needs a safety heater which in the original E-cat can only HEAT the COOLANT. He has never explained why there is a relatively short time limit for self-sustaining running. None of that makes the slightest sense and it never has. You seem to be writing his script for him now and you seem to be making stuff up.
Re: [Vo]:Reviewing Lewan's test of April 2011
On Tue, Dec 13, 2011 at 8:45 AM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com wrote: Cude wrote: So some things are impossible? You should keep an open mind. It doesn't violate any principles of physics for a mist of micrometer droplets to travel through a hose, and it is far more plausible than radiationless nuclear reactions producing heat. What is possible and impossible can only be determined by experiment. Our state of mind, being open or closed, has nothing to do with it. Of course. I was mocking all the believers who so often adjure skeptics to keep an open mind. We know that radiationless nuclear reactions are real because they have been widely replicated at high signal-to-noise ratios. This would only be effective for the small minority of people who accept the evidence that expert panels have rejected. It is a useless argument for those of us, including you, who before Rossi, did not accept that the evidence suggested such reactions were possible in H-Ni. You said: As far as I can tell, they disproved the Focardi claims. It would be easy to test whether micrometer droplets can travel through a hose. I could set up a test to do that this afternoon, since I have an ultrasonic humidifier. I would use a plastic bag to funnel the mist into a short garden hose, and put a bucket at the end of the hose to collect the water. Even if your mist did not survive, that doesn't prove it's impossible. It just proves that it doesn't work for your hose, at your temperature, and with your flow rate, and on the particular day of the week. Rossi may use a special catalyst on the inner hose surface that promotes the formation of surface plasmon polaritons in a fluctuation of the electromagnetic field that violates the Born-Oppenheimer approximation and promotes the survival of mist. But to be serious, it would seem the temperature, flow rate, and hose diameter would be pretty important parameters. You'd need at least to add in the flow of gas from a bottle at high speed to simulate the presence of steam in Rossi's hose. If Cude wants anyone to believe this is possible it is incumbent upon him to do a test. Again, you're mixing up the onus. Rossi has done a demonstration, and I'm simply explaining why it is not convincing. It's not as if it would burden Rossi in any particular way to avoid these ambiguities, as everyone has frequently pointed out. He could have sparged the output and measured the heat; he could have increased the flow rate to prevent phase change; he could have measured the speed of the output fluid. Instead he measured the temperature of boiling water to keep things sufficiently uncertain that his followers would not turn away. I'm sure it's true that believers will not accept the skeptical argument about mist without a demonstration, but to me the definition of impossible is trying to convince a believer. But likewise, skeptics will not accept Rossi's claims without an unequivocal demonstration.
Re: [Vo]:Reviewing Lewan's test of April 2011
On Tue, Dec 13, 2011 at 9:30 AM, Daniel Rocha danieldi...@gmail.com wrote: I have one of those, 5L. At maximum power, it takes 33W and 15 hours to empty all the reservoir, but the fog is so dense that it falls within a meter but it is so opaque cannot see through it. Despite all this, putting my hand in front of exit of the fog, it takes a few seconds to make my hand feel humid. A few seconds is all it takes for the mist to go through the hose. In the ecat's case, the mist is carried along by vapor (steam) moving at high speed. The fraction of vapor (steam) by volume is probably a lot higher, even if only a few per cent of the water (by mass) is converted to steam.
Re: [Vo]:Reviewing Lewan's test of April 2011
On Tue, Dec 13, 2011 at 9:39 AM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com wrote: Daniel Rocha wrote: BTW, the vertical component of the exit tube of my humidifier is only 5cm long... Mine too. As I said, I think you could use a plastic bag to funnel the vapor into a hose. Be sure to mix it with a high velocity gas, and put the whole thing at close to the boiling point, if you want to simulate the conditions accurately.
Re: [Vo]:Reviewing Lewan's test of April 2011
Even if all is carried, the fog is extremely think and doesn't match the video. And even with a such thick fog, my hand, it takes seconds for my hand to feel the moisture. This leads me to think that it is impossible that more than 1/1 of liquid by liquid is present in that video. 2011/12/13 Joshua Cude joshua.c...@gmail.com On Tue, Dec 13, 2011 at 9:30 AM, Daniel Rocha danieldi...@gmail.comwrote: I have one of those, 5L. At maximum power, it takes 33W and 15 hours to empty all the reservoir, but the fog is so dense that it falls within a meter but it is so opaque cannot see through it. Despite all this, putting my hand in front of exit of the fog, it takes a few seconds to make my hand feel humid. A few seconds is all it takes for the mist to go through the hose. In the ecat's case, the mist is carried along by vapor (steam) moving at high speed. The fraction of vapor (steam) by volume is probably a lot higher, even if only a few per cent of the water (by mass) is converted to steam. -- Daniel Rocha - RJ danieldi...@gmail.com
Re: [Vo]:Reviewing Lewan's test of April 2011
*liquid by volume 2011/12/13 Daniel Rocha danieldi...@gmail.com Even if all is carried, the fog is extremely think and doesn't match the video. And even with a such thick fog, my hand, it takes seconds for my hand to feel the moisture. This leads me to think that it is impossible that more than 1/1 of liquid by liquid is present in that video. 2011/12/13 Joshua Cude joshua.c...@gmail.com On Tue, Dec 13, 2011 at 9:30 AM, Daniel Rocha danieldi...@gmail.comwrote: I have one of those, 5L. At maximum power, it takes 33W and 15 hours to empty all the reservoir, but the fog is so dense that it falls within a meter but it is so opaque cannot see through it. Despite all this, putting my hand in front of exit of the fog, it takes a few seconds to make my hand feel humid. A few seconds is all it takes for the mist to go through the hose. In the ecat's case, the mist is carried along by vapor (steam) moving at high speed. The fraction of vapor (steam) by volume is probably a lot higher, even if only a few per cent of the water (by mass) is converted to steam. -- Daniel Rocha - RJ danieldi...@gmail.com -- Daniel Rocha - RJ danieldi...@gmail.com
Re: [Vo]:Acceleration Under Load
On Tue, Dec 13, 2011 at 8:52 AM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com wrote: He did that! What are you talking about?!? He has made the thing self-sustain from internally generated heat for 4 hours. It's not self-sustaining if you have to cycle the input power, and Rossi has admitted that the input power has to be cycled on periodically. It would have cooled down in 40 min. if it had not been generating heat. No. When they shut it down, doubled the coolant rate, it took more than 40 minutes to cool down by 10C. And this was after drawing heat of the thermal mass for 3.25 hours. Did you notice the difference between the ecat that could self-sustain, and the one that did not? About 70 kg more mass, and 8 kW less power. Hmmm. Coincidence?
Re: [Vo]:Acceleration Under Load
On Tue, Dec 13, 2011 at 9:22 AM, Joshua Cude joshua.c...@gmail.com wrote: Did you notice the difference between the ecat that could self-sustain, and the one that did not? About 70 kg more mass, and 8 kW less power. Hmmm. Coincidence? NO! Progress!
Re: Aw: [Vo]:God Revealed Tomorrow?
At 10:57 PM 12/12/2011, peter.heck...@arcor.de wrote: So far I have read, they got strong evidence, but not this high evidence that is needed for such a fundamental discovery. They are not like Rossi. They will test it again and again and doubt and harden it by all possible methods, before they confirm it. Scientific evidence is yet not reached. New Scientist calls it a hint : The ATLAS data restricts the Higgs to within 115 and 131 GeV; CMS rules out a Higgs heavier than 127 GeV. Although both teams see an excess around the same mass, there is not yet enough data to claim a discovery. The ATLAS signal has a statistical significance at 126 GeV of 2.3 sigma, meaning that the result has around a 2 per cent chance of being down to a random fluctuation; the comparable excess at CMS has a significance of just 1.9 sigma. So ... just above elimination, and well below discovery. (5 sigma or whatever turns you on.) Anyway, it's not the God particle, it's the Godammed particle.
[Vo]:New Posting from Lattice Energy - LENR compared to CF
Lattice Energy LLC-LENRs and Cold Fusion are Different Concepts - Dec 13 2011 http://dev2.slideshare.com/lewisglarsen/lattice-energy-llclenrs-and-cold-fusion-are-different-conceptsdec-13-2011
Re: [Vo]:New Posting from Lattice Energy - LENR compared to CF
I don't know if anyone stopped to think that WL claims are much more spectacular than Rossi's. While Rossi's claims only refer to small black boxe(s), WL includes things that work with the ecat's super qualities plus that nearly all natural phenomena should include some LENR, almost like all nuclear physics, plasma physics, biological systems, normal conducting wires, cannot be described properly without it. 2011/12/13 pagnu...@htdconnect.com Lattice Energy LLC-LENRs and Cold Fusion are Different Concepts - Dec 13 2011 http://dev2.slideshare.com/lewisglarsen/lattice-energy-llclenrs-and-cold-fusion-are-different-conceptsdec-13-2011 -- Daniel Rocha - RJ danieldi...@gmail.com
Re: [Vo]:Reviewing Lewan's test of April 2011
I'm sorry if this has been discussed before. What I find odd about Newan's documentation is that he notes the boiling point at 99.5 C. He then adds .5 C to that on page two when explaining the outlet under approximately 200 mm or so of water. So he gets 100 C overall and a measured T out of slightly above 100 C - which would result in steam if we assume that the hose itself plus the valve its connected to don't need any pressure to let the steam pass through. However on April 28 pressure in Bologna was recorded at 1012 hPa throughout most of the afternoon which would lead to a boiling point of 100 C for pure water - not 99.5 C. However with a boiling point of 100 C and the outlet 200 mm under water the measured temperatures could not lead to boiling, let alone vaporization.
Re: [Vo]:New Posting from Lattice Energy - LENR compared to CF
On Tue, Dec 13, 2011 at 10:42 AM, Daniel Rocha danieldi...@gmail.comwrote: I don't know if anyone stopped to think that WL claims are much more spectacular than Rossi's. While Rossi's claims only refer to small black boxe(s), WL includes things that work with the ecat's super qualities plus that nearly all natural phenomena should include some LENR, almost like all nuclear physics, plasma physics, biological systems, normal conducting wires, cannot be described properly without it. As Carl Sagan was fond of pointing out, the more extreme the claim, the better the evidence has to be. Anyone can claim anything and there are plenty of strange and not wonderful web sites that demonstrate the phenomenon. The interesting thing to me is always the evidence and not the claim, especially when it comes to Rossi.
Re: [Vo]:Acceleration Under Load
Mary Yugo wrote: Rossi ran a nuclear reactor for four hours with a claimed six month capability and I am supposed to be ecstatic? Since it would have cooled down immediately in the absence of anomalous heat, 4 hours proves the point as well as 40 years would. There is nothing in any Rossi device's design that routes heat BACK from output to input via a controller. This make no sense. The heat is there in the reactor. There is no need to conduct, convect or convey it back anywhere. It is already right where it is needed. The hydride is hot. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:New Posting from Lattice Energy - LENR compared to CF
The topic now is WL theory... Rossi's claims are just too shy in comparison. 2011/12/13 Mary Yugo maryyu...@gmail.com On Tue, Dec 13, 2011 at 10:42 AM, Daniel Rocha danieldi...@gmail.comwrote: I don't know if anyone stopped to think that WL claims are much more spectacular than Rossi's. While Rossi's claims only refer to small black boxe(s), WL includes things that work with the ecat's super qualities plus that nearly all natural phenomena should include some LENR, almost like all nuclear physics, plasma physics, biological systems, normal conducting wires, cannot be described properly without it. As Carl Sagan was fond of pointing out, the more extreme the claim, the better the evidence has to be. Anyone can claim anything and there are plenty of strange and not wonderful web sites that demonstrate the phenomenon. The interesting thing to me is always the evidence and not the claim, especially when it comes to Rossi. -- Daniel Rocha - RJ danieldi...@gmail.com
Re: [Vo]:Acceleration Under Load
On Tue, Dec 13, 2011 at 12:51 PM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.comwrote: Mary Yugo wrote: Rossi ran a nuclear reactor for four hours with a claimed six month capability and I am supposed to be ecstatic? Since it would have cooled down immediately in the absence of anomalous heat, 4 hours proves the point as well as 40 years would. It wouldn't have, and it didn't. When they removed the hydrogen pressure, and doubled the coolant rate, it only decreased by 10C in 40 minutes, and that was after 3.25 hours of drawing down on the stored heat. Four hours is *nothing* for a 100 kg device. You can buy chemical stoves that will give you 40 hours at 3 kW with a tenth of that weight. Forty years would be *something*. The heat is there in the reactor. There is no need to conduct, convect or convey it back anywhere. It is already right where it is needed. The hydride is hot. I agree with this. Which is why the absence of real self-sustaining operation (beyond what is possible from thermal storage alone, let alone chemical fuels) makes the claims completely unbelievable.
Fwd: [Vo]:Why not duplicate Rossi\'s setups and see howtheyworkwithout LENR?
This went to personal mail, so I'm forwarding to the list: On Tue, Dec 13, 2011 at 7:29 AM, Ransom Wuller rwul...@peaknet.net wrote: Sure, but the output after traveling through meters of hose also had to then travel through water allowed to stand at room temperature. It's exactly what you're claiming for the steam. If the steam contained suspended fog, there is no reason it would not survive similarly. The calculation ignores any steam condensed in the process and would be very conservative. Several estimates of heat loss by that hose were done, and it's probably around 100W; not enough to facilitate much condensation. I disagree, the output was not measured in the E K demo, it was in Lewan's 2nd test and O/I is clearly greater then 2/1 in Lewan's test. Far be it from me to defend any of the demos, but the EK demo gives 2:1 if the measurements are accepted, without assumptions. The Lewan demo requires an assumption of dry steam at the end of the hose to get 3:1. Without that assumption, very little excess heat is in evidence. I'd say more then half the water was vaporized. [...] I'd say far less than half. Maybe less than 10%. But it should not be about guessing. It should be about evidence. And the evidence doesn't support the claim. You say it is virtually all mist taking into account no condensation and ignoring the cooling taking place over 3 hours. Just what level of entrapped steam do you believe can account for this physical evidence? The evidence proves the water was heated to boiling, and the electrical input pretty well accounts for that. Beyond that, there is no credible evidence, and no claim of extraordinary effects can possibly be based on guesses and suggestions. The flow of steam looked consistent with maybe a hundred watts (or a few hundred tops, when Rossi goosed the power in the next room). I suspect the ecat can produce a few hundred watts of power by some pretty ordinary means, such as the ones Talbot suggested. Sorry, mankind has understood steam a lot longer then nuclear physics Yes, and still professors of physics think they can measure steam quality using a relative humidity probe. And mankind has had language for a long time, and still, people who make their living by it don't know the difference between then and than. and without most of the lost water being steam, I'd say that physical evidence is impossible. Radiation less nuclear reactions which have been suggested and ignored for 20 years because we theorize they are impossible is lot more likely. To a lawyer, maybe. I'm gonna take my likelihoods from people who understand both steam and nuclear physics. And LENR has been ignored because of the lack of good evidence, *and* the theoretical unlikelihood.
Re: [Vo]:New Posting from Lattice Energy - LENR compared to CF
The statement from Lattice Energy LLC strikes me as essentially saying: Accept no other theory than our own. IOW, product placement. If LE LLC eventually gets around to unveiling their own Dog Pony show, meaning the presentation of a product (or just a prototype), then by all means, let the chips fall where they may. However, until they do get around to doing so it would seem to me that keeping an eye on the DP shows of Rossi, DGT, and related competitors will likely be a better use of my time. My two cents. Regards Steven Vincent Johnson www.OrionWorks.com www.zazzle.com/orionworks
Re: [Vo]:Acceleration Under Load
On Tue, Dec 13, 2011 at 10:51 AM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.comwrote: Mary Yugo wrote: There is nothing in any Rossi device's design that routes heat BACK from output to input via a controller. This make no sense. The heat is there in the reactor. There is no need to conduct, convect or convey it back anywhere. It is already right where it is needed. The hydride is hot. OK. Then why does it have to be reheated by a safety heater at regular intervals? Both Defkalion and Rossi claim that this is necessary. It makes absolutely no sense. And while we're on the subject, can you explain why the so-called safety heater on the original E-cat is situated on the outside of the coolant jacket so in effect, it mainly heats the cooling water? That is a very strange geometry. And now that I think about it, so if the entire geometry of the original E-cat. It doesn't seem to be designed to shed heat from a core. It seems too small and tight to do that well. I'd expect many more passages for the amount of power (up to 130 kW according to Levi's claimed transient measurement). What it seems designed for is two large electrical heaters warming coolant.
[Vo]:Higgs, Alpha, and Ebenezer
On 12th Day before Christmas, the ATLAS money-pit collaboration found that a Higgs mass from 145 to 206 GeV has been excluded by their testing, and today the geniuses have ‘probably’ limited the particle to a range of 115–130 GeV. What a bunch of unmitigated pomposity. Give them a continuing 5 billion per annum - and in few decades, wow - they could probably get it right. Isn’t it about time for a big dose of “Occupy CERN”. I have not followed this boondoggle too closely, as the wastefulness of the entire program makes me quite ill (juxtaposed against more promising endeavors that go unfunded). The cost of whatever knowledge is derived from this deep pit will greatly exceeds its value… and to make things worse… for the spiritually inclined, the hypocrites (many openly atheistic) who pocket these gigabucks, have the gall to associate their search closely with divinity in order to keep the millions of taxpayer largess pouring into the bottomless pit. “God-particle” my ass. More like the perfect swindle. Bah humbug. Why does this bring out the Ebenezer in those of us who try to show some sympathy for the downtrodden, this time of year? CERN is to science what Goldman-Sucks is to banking. Nevertheless…. There could be a bit of potential coincidence in the numbers being bandied about, vis-à-vis the mass of the proton. Just out of curiosity – is there any suggestion that (or how) the fine structure constant could be involved in Higgs? … and what is a gaggle of protons anyway – 137? Is that coincidental with the GeV mass/energy range they are talking about. If Higgs turns out to be exactly 137 times 938+ MeV (or whatever it is, as even this mass is not certain) then have we really found anything that could not be predicted as accurately by an old man sitting in front of a computer? Maybe by the 12th day of Christmas in 2121, 137 protons will magically fall from the money tree …. and the ATLAS collaborators will say announce to an adoring New World Order … thanks to our continuing efforts, you-know-who has finally returned. Pass the collection plate, please. attachment: winmail.dat
Re: [Vo]:New Posting from Lattice Energy - LENR compared to CF
Members of the Vortex: I joined last night to address an issue raised by Maryyugo. Being a lawyer I really have no special expertise in the sciences and thus have little to offer on technical issue. Thus, not wanting to burden all of you I will likely either stay a member and be quiet or exit the membership in the near term. I do read your website and have enjoyed all the debates and wonderful information many of your members have to offer. The above being said, I have a very strong opinion about this latest posting by Lattice Energy. I think it is utter nonsense to draw a distinction between the term Cold Fusion and LENR. In my opinion they are both moniker's for the same physical anomaly, ie anomalous heat described by Pons and Fleischmann in 1989 and many others thereafter. I don't think a definitive theory has been accepted, indeed plenty of mainstream scientists seem not to accept it at all under either moniker. While I appreciate that theories for the anomalous heat differ, I could care less which turns out to be correct and talking for the general public (only because I like them am not a scientist) I doubt they do either. I also don't care if the name given to the process is particularly accurate from a scientific standpoint, you guys can call it whatever you want once you figure it out. Personally, I think the term Cold Fusion is cool and would prefer to keep it as the moniker of choice. What troubles me about this letter from Lattice Energy and Krivit's apparent obsession with the distinction is the notion that somehow the people who have used the term Cold Fusion to describe what they have been doing are talking about a different physical anomaly. It also suggests these people who from what I understand simply have a different theory to explain the anomaly have been doing bad science. This in my opinion is outlandish and the scientific community (ie YOU guys) shouldn't stand for it. If LENR, Cold Fusion CANR (call it what you wish) becomes a commercial energy source for the world, everyone who has worked on it regardless of their theory should be applauded and recognized for keeping the torch burning for mankind while many of your brethren scoffed at the subject. Just a lawyer's two cents. Ransom - Original Message - From: pagnu...@htdconnect.com To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Tuesday, December 13, 2011 12:12 PM Subject: [Vo]:New Posting from Lattice Energy - LENR compared to CF Lattice Energy LLC-LENRs and Cold Fusion are Different Concepts - Dec 13 2011 http://dev2.slideshare.com/lewisglarsen/lattice-energy-llclenrs-and-cold-fusion-are-different-conceptsdec-13-2011
Re: [Vo]:New Posting from Lattice Energy - LENR compared to CF
On Tue, Dec 13, 2011 at 12:12 PM, pagnu...@htdconnect.com wrote: Lattice Energy LLC-LENRs and Cold Fusion are Different Concepts - Dec 13 2011 As usual, he points out 1) the absurdity of breaching the Coulomb barrier in ordinary fusion, which would take something approaching 100 keV for appreciable tunneling probability, and 2) the absence of a Coulomb barrier in neutron capture (hooray!) And, as usual, he neglects to point out 3) the 780 keV energy barrier to the formation of those neutrons by electron capture. The existence of relativistic, 780 keV electrons in ordinary matter (without copious x-rays) is far more implausible than 100 keV deuterons, and that leaves aside the implausibility of the complete absorption of gammas from all the proposed reactions. He's just after more investment in Lattice Energy, LLC.
Re: [Vo]:Acceleration Under Load
Mary Yugo maryyu...@gmail.com wrote: OK. Then why does it have to be reheated by a safety heater at regular intervals? I do not know, but there must be a reason. Nothing happen in nature without a cause. Perhaps they will find a way to make it run without this in the future. In any case, it continues in self-sustaining mode far beyond the limits of chemistry, and the energy used to reheat it is far less than the energy it produces continuously during the self-sustaining period. Both Defkalion and Rossi claim that this is necessary. It makes absolutely no sense. Unless you understand the physics of cold fusion you cannot say whether it makes sense or not. You have no basis for judging that. And while we're on the subject, can you explain why the so-called safety heater on the original E-cat is situated on the outside of the coolant jacket so in effect, it mainly heats the cooling water? That is a very strange geometry. I cannot explain that. Perhaps Rossi or someone else will in the future. In any case, that has no bearing on the heat balance, and the fact that the heat is where it is needed during the self-sustaining operation, and does not need to be conveyed anywhere else. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:Acceleration Under Load
On Tue, Dec 13, 2011 at 2:13 PM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com wrote: In any case, it continues in self-sustaining mode far beyond the limits of chemistry, Not more than a few per cent on *this* side of the limits of chemistry. and the energy used to reheat it is far less than the energy it produces continuously during the self-sustaining period. I don't recall he ever actually went through a complete cycle: preheat, self-sustain, reheat, self-sustain. The demos are all pre-heat and self-sustain and then shut-down. And the energy used in the pre-heating phase is comparable, if not more than that extracted during the self-sustain phase.
Re: [Vo]:New Posting from Lattice Energy - LENR compared to CF
On Tue, Dec 13, 2011 at 2:42 PM, Randy Wuller rwul...@freeark.com wrote: Members of the Vortex: I joined last night to address an issue raised by Maryyugo. Being a lawyer I really have no special expertise in the sciences and thus have little to offer on technical issue. Thus, not wanting to burden all of you I will likely either stay a member and be quiet or exit the membership in the near term. I do read your website and have enjoyed all the debates and wonderful information many of your members have to offer. Welcome. Nobody's perfect. We have at least one other juris doktor in the audience, Mr. Beene. The above being said, I have a very strong opinion about this latest posting by Lattice Energy. I think it is utter nonsense to draw a distinction between the term Cold Fusion and LENR. In my opinion they are both moniker's for the same physical anomaly, ie anomalous heat described by Pons and Fleischmann in 1989 and many others thereafter. I don't think a definitive theory has been accepted, indeed plenty of mainstream scientists seem not to accept it at all under either moniker. While I appreciate that theories for the anomalous heat differ, I could care less which turns out to pardon my interruption; but, you really mean I could *not* care less . . . (sorry a pet peeve [prepare for chastising from SVJ]) be correct and talking for the general public (only because I like them am not a scientist) I doubt they do either. I also don't care if the name given to the process is particularly accurate from a scientific standpoint, you guys can call it whatever you want once you figure it out. Personally, I think the term Cold Fusion is cool and would prefer to keep it as the moniker of choice. Adobe likes Cold Fusion too. What troubles me about this letter from Lattice Energy and Krivit's apparent obsession with the distinction is the notion that somehow the people who have used the term Cold Fusion to describe what they have been doing are talking about a different physical anomaly. It also suggests these people who from what I understand simply have a different theory to explain the anomaly have been doing bad science. This in my opinion is outlandish and the scientific community (ie YOU guys) shouldn't stand for it. If LENR, Cold Fusion CANR (call it what you wish) becomes a commercial energy source for the world, everyone who has worked on it regardless of their theory should be applauded and recognized for keeping the torch burning for mankind while many of your brethren scoffed at the subject. In all honesty, there are probably several different reactions happening which we tend to group under one term. As we are better educated, we will find more descriptive names for these reactions. Just a lawyer's two cents. And you bill at, what, $300/hr. Ransom Indeed! Welcome! T
Re: [Vo]:New Posting from Lattice Energy - LENR compared to CF
From Randy Wuller: ... ... I also don't care if the name given to the process is particularly accurate from a scientific standpoint, you guys can call it whatever you want once you figure it out. Many on this list have argued this very issue. So have I. Before I was asked to resign, while I was still a BoD member on Krivit's New Energy Time's (NET) publication I asked Steve Krivit why is NET making such a big deal out of knocking the word cold fusion out of the ball park. I noticed that Krivt seemed strongly inclined to replace the cold fusion word with another word, nuclear reaction - as if the term nuclear reaction explained everything more succinctly. The only problem is: nobody really knows what's going on. ...not yet. Whether this is true or not, Krivit's attempt to destroy the cold fusion word helped brand him as a Widom Larsen cheer leader advocate. I think it has also left many observers with the distinct impression that certain corners of the CF field have a bone to pick. Much of the pickings seem to be blatant product placement. Accept no imitations other than our own brand. Regards Steven Vincent Johnson www.OrionWorks.com www.zazzle.com/orionworks
[Vo]:ENEA endorses the phenomenon
my first post ... Mary Yugo wrote As Carl Sagan was fond of pointing out, the more extreme the claim, the better the evidence has to be. Anyone can claim anything and there are plenty of strange and not wonderful web sites that demonstrate the phenomenon. The interesting thing to me is always the evidence and not the claim, especially when it comes to Rossi. In their 2009 book *COLD FUSION The history of research in Italy* http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cold_fusion#cite_note-ENEAbook-14 The Italian National agency ENEA present an overview of the research in ENEA departments, CNR http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Consiglio_Nazionale_delle_Ricerche Laboratories, INFN, Universities and Industrial laboratories in Italy. In the foreword of the book Luigi Paganetto, president of ENEA says: *In other words, two government programs – carried out in close interaction and with check of results – have proved the existence of this phenomenon in terms that are not ascribable to a chemical process. This must be considered a starting point. The results achieved so far represent an obligation to continue on the scientific path already started with the aim of achieving a complete definition of the studied phenomenon.* My question to Mary Yugo: Why would the president from ENEA endorse the existance of the phenomenon ? What would be is the rationale for that in your opinion ? If you use rhetoric to dismiss the ENEA as competent research agency or to dismiss its president as a loony then I will know that you have no real answer. Thank you Moab
Re: [Vo]:Higgs, Alpha, and Ebenezer
Jones sez: ... What a bunch of unmitigated pomposity. Give them a continuing 5 billion per annum - and in few decades, wow - they could probably get it right. Isn’t it about time for a big dose of “Occupy CERN”. From: http://science.nasa.gov/astrophysics/focus-areas/what-is-dark-energy/ ... By fitting a theoretical model of the composition of the Universe to the combined set of cosmological observations, scientists have come up with the composition that we described above, ~70% dark energy, ~25% dark matter, ~5% normal matter. What is dark matter? If they do occupy CERN, I would suggest the next order of business would be attempt to discover where the missing 95% of the total mass energy of the universe resides. THEN DEMAND IT BE RETURNED!!! ;-) Regards Steven Vincent Johnson www.OrionWorks.com www.zazzle.com/orionworks
[VO]: ENEA endorses the phenomenon
my first post ... Mary Yugo wrote As Carl Sagan was fond of pointing out, the more extreme the claim, the better the evidence has to be. Anyone can claim anything and there are plenty of strange and not wonderful web sites that demonstrate the phenomenon. The interesting thing to me is always the evidence and not the claim, especially when it comes to Rossi. In their 2009 book *COLD FUSION The history of research in Italy* http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cold_fusion#cite_note-ENEAbook-14 The Italian National agency ENEA present an overview of the research in ENEA departments, CNR Laboratories, INFN, Universities and Industrial laboratories in Italy. In the foreword of the book Luigi Paganetto, president of ENEA says: *In other words, two government programs – carried out in close interaction and with check of results – have proved the existence of this phenomenon in terms that are not ascribable to a chemical process. This must be considered a starting point. The results achieved so far represent an obligation to continue on the scientific path already started with the aim of achieving a complete definition of the studied phenomenon.* My question to Mary Yugo: Why would the president from ENEA endorse the existance of the phenomenon ? What would be is the rationale for that in your opinion ? If you use rhetoric to dismiss the ENEA as competent research agency or to dismiss its president as a loony then I will know that you have no real answer. Thank you Moab
Re: [Vo]:Reviewing Lewan's test of April 2011
Here is a message from Mats Lewan. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - A couple of comments. - The report you should refer to is this: http://www.nyteknik.se/incoming/article3166569.ece/BINARY/Report+test+of+E-cat+28+April+2011.pdf Mary referred correctly to this report, but someone referred also to the report from the test one week before when several measurements were not made. - Please don’t bother referring to air pressure that day to calculate the boiling point. I calibrated the thermocouple in a pot of boiling water before the test and it was 99.6 deg C. That’s all you need to know. It’s in the report. - My method of verifying that the T/C probe was not immerged in water was most probably not valid, unless you can suppose that the steam could be superheated by the part of the reactor/heater that was above water and thus possibly notably hotter than the part under water. I have not been able to validate that possibility. The higher temperature might as well be due to a slightly increased pressure inside the Ecat resulting in a higher boiling point (added to the increase due to the outlet hose being immerged in the bucket with condensed water), and consequently the probe could possibly have been immerged in water. - Still you have to account for the water that didn’t end up in the bucket. The theory of fog travelling 3 meter in the hose, exit the hose under water and make it to the surface, and still remaining fog, seems pure fantasy. Feel free to share on Vortex (I’m sorry that I haven’t time to take active part in the discussion on Vortex). Mats
Re: [Vo]:Reviewing Lewan's test of April 2011
On 13 December 2011 23:25, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com wrote: The higher temperature might as well be due to a slightly increased pressure inside the Ecat resulting in a higher boiling point Abd ul-Rahman Lomax calculated this many months ago. If steam was saturated (what is almost certain), then there must have been considerable amount of steam produced in order to explain one degree temperature increase. Even if the orifice for the outlet hose was relatively small. That means that at least 60-80 % of the water must have been vaporized inside ecat in order to explain excess pressure and temperature of the steam. This kind of analysis is of course vain, if we assume a fraud, because it is easy to manipulate thermocouple readings (just write a fake computer software, not very difficult). But if we assume, that the setup was real and honest, then data shows quite clearly, that ecat was operating rather well with Mats Lewan. However, it is very sad, that Lewan forgot to do simple steam sparging test, what would have been given simple datapoint of the overall performance. He had all the the necessary _scientific_ instruments: A cell phone's clock for timing, thermometer and the famous blue water bucket. So, there is just one person to blame if data is hard to analyze and that is Mats Lewan! So Mats is the real culprit behind the great ecat hoax! ^^ –Jouni
Re: [Vo]:Reviewing Lewan's test of April 2011
Jouni Valkonen jounivalko...@gmail.com wrote: However, it is very sad, that Lewan forgot to do simple steam sparging test, what would have been given simple datapoint of the overall performance. I discussed this with him. I think the bucket was too far from the reactor to do this effectively. They should have used a hose ~1 m long for that purpose, and a lot more water in the bucket to start with. - Jed
[Vo]:Replication News from Chan
Hi All, Just a brief update on the replication attempt by Chan. Chan is an anonymous poster who claims to have replicated the Rossi reaction using powders on two builder sites, ecatbuilder.com and buildecat.com. He uses an RFG connected to a induction coil to heat the contents of a copper reaction vessel that he fills with a mixture of MgH2, Ni, and Fe. He provides molar percentages and possible catalysts. Quoting: Experiment with RFG to determine sweet spot for initial heating and then sweet spot for maintaining reaction, modulating pulse rate, frequency and power. Wave shape is important. Half wave sweet spots also exist. Key is sending Hydride ion into oscillations (e+p+e = n+e = e + Fusion) http://www.ecatplanet.net/showthread.php?100-Chan-Method-of-Ni-H-fusion Standard disclaimers apply: This is unconfirmed. No videos, images, documented results, or peer reviewed papers to substantiate. Just interesting! This RFG approach is also used by Brian Ahern in his recent patent: http://www.buildecat.com/article_detail/brian-ahern-and-nano-magnetism-3.html - Brad
Re: [Vo]:Replication News from Chan
Am 13.12.2011 23:21, schrieb ecat builder: Hi All, Just a brief update on the replication attempt by Chan. Chan is an anonymous poster who claims to have replicated the Rossi reaction using powders on two builder sites, ecatbuilder.com and buildecat.com. He uses an RFG connected to a induction coil to heat the contents of a copper reaction vessel that he fills with a mixture of MgH2, Ni, and Fe. He provides molar percentages and possible catalysts. This is rather exactly what they use at Max Plank Institute for their high temperature heat storage system. http://www.mdpi.com/1422-0067/10/1/325/pdf Quoting: Experiment with RFG to determine sweet spot for initial heating and then sweet spot for maintaining reaction, modulating pulse rate, frequency and power. Wave shape is important. Half wave sweet spots also exist. Key is sending Hydride ion into oscillations (e+p+e = n+e = e + Fusion) http://www.ecatplanet.net/showthread.php?100-Chan-Method-of-Ni-H-fusion Standard disclaimers apply: This is unconfirmed. No videos, images, documented results, or peer reviewed papers to substantiate. Just interesting! This RFG approach is also used by Brian Ahern in his recent patent: http://www.buildecat.com/article_detail/brian-ahern-and-nano-magnetism-3.html - Brad
Re: [Vo]:Reviewing Lewan's test of April 2011
On Tue, Dec 13, 2011 at 3:25 PM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com wrote: I calibrated the thermocouple in a pot of boiling water before the test and it was 99.6 deg C. That’s all you need to know. It’s in the report. The temperatures +/- a degree or two within boiling are not informative. The flat temperature indicates pretty clearly that it is at the boiling point. Measuring temperature in a pot of boiling water is not very reliable way to get the bp, considering it is only boiling near the element, and there will be gradients in the water, even if it is rolling. The higher temperature might as well be due to a slightly increased pressure inside the Ecat Right, this is necessary to ensure the flow of water plus steam to the output. - Still you have to account for the water that didn’t end up in the bucket. The theory of fog travelling 3 meter in the hose, exit the hose under water and make it to the surface, and still remaining fog, seems pure fantasy. That appears to be a consensus around here, but I'm not convinced. If the steam can survive the trip down the hose and through the water, then I don't see why fog suspended or entrained in the steam wouldn't also survive, or at least half of it. The steam flow rate just didn't seem to be enough to represent one L/s, in spite of the fact that there is a good chance that Rossi goosed the power in the other room just as Lewan was inspecting the hose. So, whether the pail got bumped, or whether a mist got transported, it looks to me like pure fantasy that the output shown in the video represents enough steam to account for the missing water. And of course you know that most people regard the idea of radiationless nuclear reactions in H-Ni to produce enough heat to vaporize the water as even purer fantasy. So the mist theory is the lesser of the fantasies. It's just a shame that we have to try to interpret these demos based on such indirect observations, when direct and relevant measurements would have been very easy. And still would be. Rossi could resolve the issue if he wanted to. So it seems likely that he doesn't want to.
Re: [Vo]:Cold Fusion Economic Effects
Chris Zell wrote: Once the emergence is established, there will be evidence of public grief by various enviromentalists and climate change activists. Only a few will observe what this teaches about their real motives were I'm not having a go at Chris directly here but he repeats a common theme. I'm getting a bit sick and tired of assorted flavours of self interested political ideologies ascribing black motives to environmentalists and attempting to traduce them by hoodwinking the views of the too gullible public. I won't deny that within the broad spectrum of people that would describe themselves as environmentalists are a minority those with peculiar motivations, as there probably is in any defined group, but to take isolated pieces of ambiguous evidence and extrapolate from the exceptions to suggest that those are the rule is just deceitful. There are real and obvious reasons why true environmentalists would be concerned if everyone got access to vast amounts of energy because of what they might do with it. Simplistic views that energy=good, more energy=better, most energy=best are a bit one dimensional in outlook. Nick Palmer On the side of the Planet - and the people - because they're worth it Blogspot - Sustainability and stuff according to Nick Palmer http://nickpalmer.blogspot.com
Re: [Vo]:Cold Fusion Economic Effects
Thanks Jed for explaining this automation argument in detail again. It is surprising how it seems impossible for humans to comprehend that argument, because this has been the reality for decades. And we have all the evidence if we just look around. However automation is not bad thing. We just need to find new economic rules and distribute the wealth produced by robots to the consumers in some other means than wages. And really, we have only two choices. Either we use Keynesian socialism or basic income. And we have already tried almost every variant of socialism and mixed economic systems, so we have only one real choice and that is basic income for all and free market economy. This will buy us several decades of time that humans can do little (part time) jobs in service sectors what are still left for uneducated people to do, and still get formidable level of income and without that income distribution widens too much. (400 richest US-citizens could buy the whole Finland, with credit of course!) After all, the availability of jobs in the first place is only depended on the median purchasing power of consumers. If we maximize the net purchasing power of median people with basic income, then there will be plenty of more jobs available in the first place. Therefore basic income can give simple and complete fix to the problem that Martin Ford proposed in the cited book. And turn it into the huge economic asset. And cold fusion will be integral part of this development, because it renders current economic systems obsolete in overnight. It is like throwing a frog into boiling water. –Jouni
Re: [Vo]:Replication News from Chan
On Tue, Dec 13, 2011 at 4:32 PM, Peter Heckert peter.heck...@arcor.dewrote: Am 13.12.2011 23:21, schrieb ecat builder: Hi All, Just a brief update on the replication attempt by Chan. Chan is an anonymous poster who claims to have replicated the Rossi reaction using powders on two builder sites, ecatbuilder.com and buildecat.com. He uses an RFG connected to a induction coil to heat the contents of a copper reaction vessel that he fills with a mixture of MgH2, Ni, and Fe. He provides molar percentages and possible catalysts. This is rather exactly what they use at Max Plank Institute for their high temperature heat storage system. http://www.mdpi.com/1422-0067/**10/1/325/pdfhttp://www.mdpi.com/1422-0067/10/1/325/pdf Interesting paper as it describes a perfectly feasible way for Rossi to be storing energy from the pre-heating cycle in reversible metal hydride reactions. It means he could be using nickel and hydrogen and possibly Mg, so that inspection, if he ever allowed it, would reveal nothing but the components he's claiming. Except some kind of pressure vessel is needed to store the hydrogen as the heat dissociates it from the metal. The unit described in table 2 is about 3 times larger than Rossi might need for his fat cat demos. It stores 36 MJ at 450C, and produces 4 kW power output, weighs 40 kg total, and requires a 20 L pressure vessel. So to store the 12 MJ needed for the Oct 6 demo, a 7L vessel would be needed, and the total weight might be 13 kg. What this should make clear is that energy storage is a well-developed science, and that if Rossi wants to convince skeptics that he is *producing* energy, he will need clear evidence of energy output significantly and unambiguously greater than energy input, whether or not it seems feasible to internet observers that the input could be usefully stored. (Of course, to really remove all doubt, the output should exceed the total mass of the unit in the best chemical fuel, but one step at a time...)
RE: [Vo]:Reviewing Lewan's test of April 2011
I have to say, I think that Mats did a great job in these tests. An input flowmeter would've been nice, but I think that the biggest criticism that I have is that the input power was not continually monitored. The results cannot entirely be explained away by the vaporization question. For these results, either additional chemical/nuclear heat would be necessary, or the input power would have to have been increased surreptitiously. What did Mats think about the famous stable, stable video? Krivit's discussion: http://blog.newenergytimes.com/2011/08/05/reviewing-ny-teknik-video-did-rossi-play-with-power-setting/ The actual Youtube video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embeddedv=uviXoafHWrU Does he believe that Rossi could have been Jockeying the controls? Does he recall what the settings were on the black box throughout the demonstrations? Date: Tue, 13 Dec 2011 17:16:31 -0500 Subject: Re: [Vo]:Reviewing Lewan's test of April 2011 From: jedrothw...@gmail.com To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Jouni Valkonen jounivalko...@gmail.com wrote: However, it is very sad, that Lewan forgot to do simple steam sparging test, what would have been given simple datapoint of the overall performance. I discussed this with him. I think the bucket was too far from the reactor to do this effectively. They should have used a hose ~1 m long for that purpose, and a lot more water in the bucket to start with. - Jed
RE: [Vo]:Replication News from Chan
No, Chan's mix isn't really close to the paper cited. Did you cite the wrong paper? Chan uses nickel and copper - plus the MgH2 and iron Max Plank uses no nickel or copper -Original Message- From: Peter Heckert He uses an RFG connected to a induction coil to heat the contents of a copper reaction vessel that he fills with a mixture of MgH2, Ni, and Fe. He provides molar percentages and possible catalysts. This is rather exactly what they use at Max Plank Institute for their high temperature heat storage system. http://www.mdpi.com/1422-0067/10/1/325/pdf
Re: [Vo]:Replication News from Chan
Nickel was used. On Tue, Dec 13, 2011 at 6:35 PM, Jones Beene jone...@pacbell.net wrote: No, Chan's mix isn't really close to the paper cited. Did you cite the wrong paper? Chan uses nickel and copper - plus the MgH2 and iron Max Plank uses no nickel or copper .. http://www.mdpi.com/1422-0067/10/1/325/pdf attachment: HTMHasHeatStorage1.gif
RE: EXTERNAL: Re: [Vo]:Replication News from Chan
On Tuesday, December 13, 2011 5:32 PM Peter Heckert said [snip] This is rather exactly what they use at Max Plank Institute for their high temperature heat storage system. http://www.mdpi.com/1422-0067/10/1/325/pdf [/snip] Peter, In the past I have mentioned the Lyne furnace and MAHG which claim an endless reaction between H1 and H2 but this paper offers a similar endless reaction between metal- hydrides and the metal and hydrogen atoms forming the compound. I would posit the compound is broken down by the effects of changes in Casimir force on the hydrogen atoms and then nature immediately reforms the compound releasing heat in an endless loop. Adding agitation like RF at resonant frequencies could contribute in multiple ways by pushing strained bonds over the disassociation threshold before the atom dissipates the force by repulsion away from the change in geometry, and by actual vibration of the rigid geometry such that the smallest and therefore most active geometries are rapidly varying the space between boundaries making dynamic changes in the Casimir force perceived by the hydrogen. A nano shaker machine where the axis of jerk is incremented in fractional states of hydrogen. Fran -Original Message- From: Peter Heckert [mailto:peter.heck...@arcor.de] Sent: Tuesday, December 13, 2011 5:32 PM To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: EXTERNAL: Re: [Vo]:Replication News from Chan Am 13.12.2011 23:21, schrieb ecat builder: Hi All, Just a brief update on the replication attempt by Chan. Chan is an anonymous poster who claims to have replicated the Rossi reaction using powders on two builder sites, ecatbuilder.com and buildecat.com. He uses an RFG connected to a induction coil to heat the contents of a copper reaction vessel that he fills with a mixture of MgH2, Ni, and Fe. He provides molar percentages and possible catalysts. This is rather exactly what they use at Max Plank Institute for their high temperature heat storage system. http://www.mdpi.com/1422-0067/10/1/325/pdf Quoting: Experiment with RFG to determine sweet spot for initial heating and then sweet spot for maintaining reaction, modulating pulse rate, frequency and power. Wave shape is important. Half wave sweet spots also exist. Key is sending Hydride ion into oscillations (e+p+e = n+e = e + Fusion) http://www.ecatplanet.net/showthread.php?100-Chan-Method-of-Ni-H-fusion Standard disclaimers apply: This is unconfirmed. No videos, images, documented results, or peer reviewed papers to substantiate. Just interesting! This RFG approach is also used by Brian Ahern in his recent patent: http://www.buildecat.com/article_detail/brian-ahern-and-nano-magnetism-3.html - Brad
Re: [Vo]:Reviewing Lewan's test of April 2011
I don't see how boiling a pot of water and sticking a thermometer somewhere into the swirling flow can possibly be as accurate as calculating it. Depending on the heat source, the pot and the placement of the thermometer you should always find a range of temperatures at least one or two degrees C wide. If it was pure water, then the 99.6 C measurement is just a confirmation for that (unless the pressure sensors of the Italian meteorological society are significantly less accurate than the thermocouples used by Mats - which is not imossible, of course). As far as the unaccounted for water is concerned: I found before/after weights of the hydrogen cylinder in the report but not from the machine itself. So the missing water is only unaccounted for if we assume that the eCat didn't contain any more liquid after the test than before - or did I miss the weight and it has been mentioned somewhere else?
Re: [Vo]:New Posting from Lattice Energy - LENR compared to CF
Joshua, I believe, Zawodny does explain the creation of ULM neutrons through the plasmonic creation of heavy electrons. See (slide 16) of http://newenergytimes.com/v2/news/2011/36/2010-Zawodny-AviationUnleashed.pdf I am unsure as to whether Zawodny is correct, but page 9 of INTENSE FOCUSING OF LIGHT USING METALS (-JB Pendry) -- http://www.cmth.ph.ic.ac.uk/photonics/Newphotonics/pdf/pendry_crete.pdf -- states that by super-focusing of E-M fields and by confining electrons to thin wires we have enhanced their mass by four orders of magnitude so that they are now as heavy as nitrogen atoms! This is far beyond 780 KeV - and even greater effective mass increases are possible. For sure, though, these electron wave functions are delocalized, but are you sure that such massive pseudo-particles (heavy electrons) cannot donate some of their mass-energy to create ULM neutrons? or possibly provide enhanced screening? Also see papers by Alexandrov and by Breed in vol.2 of Proc. ICCF-14 http://www.iscmns.org/iccf14/ProcICCF14b.pdf On Tue, Dec 13, 2011 at 12:12 PM, pagnu...@htdconnect.com wrote: Lattice Energy LLC-LENRs and Cold Fusion are Different Concepts - Dec 13 2011 As usual, he points out 1) the absurdity of breaching the Coulomb barrier in ordinary fusion, which would take something approaching 100 keV for appreciable tunneling probability, and 2) the absence of a Coulomb barrier in neutron capture (hooray!) And, as usual, he neglects to point out 3) the 780 keV energy barrier to the formation of those neutrons by electron capture. The existence of relativistic, 780 keV electrons in ordinary matter (without copious x-rays) is far more implausible than 100 keV deuterons, and that leaves aside the implausibility of the complete absorption of gammas from all the proposed reactions. He's just after more investment in Lattice Energy, LLC.
Re: [Vo]:Acceleration Under Load
Yes, thane's research was the inspiration for this experiment. Harry On Mon, Dec 12, 2011 at 11:34 PM, Robert Leguillon robert.leguil...@hotmail.com wrote: Reminds me of Thane Heins' Regenerative Acceleration. http://ottawaskeptics.org/local-investigations/121-in-this-town-we-obey-the-laws-of-thermodynamics To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: [Vo]:Acceleration Under Load From: dlrober...@aol.com Date: Mon, 12 Dec 2011 23:23:24 -0500 To get the attention of physicists you will need to find a way to connect the output power back to the input and have the device increase its energy. No other test would convince them that your device is effective. Have you been able to achieve this benchmark? This requirement reminds me of the skeptic's demand that Rossi's device needs to run a generator to supply the input power and it is valid. One day I hope to see this test performed. Dave -Original Message- From: Harry Veeder hveeder...@gmail.com To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Mon, Dec 12, 2011 9:20 pm Subject: Re: [Vo]:Acceleration Under Load Hopefully it will become free energy device. Dozens of amateur researchers ( Steorn included ) have established that it is possible to circumvent Lenz's law. The hope is this will eventually lead to a free energy device. But even if you can't use a violation of lenz law to generate free energy, this achievement alone deserves attention from mainstream engineers and physicists, which it isn't getting. It is a strange state of affairs. Harry On Sun, Dec 11, 2011 at 1:21 PM, David Roberson dlrober...@aol.com wrote: I am confused about the purpose of the experiment. Is this some kind of free energy device? If it really works, you should be able to drive the input with the output and have it to accelerate in speed or at least keep freely moving. If this can not be done, then most likely there is a difficulty in reading the true power output and input. Dave -Original Message- From: Harry Veeder hveeder...@gmail.com To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Sun, Dec 11, 2011 12:53 pm Subject: [Vo]:Acceleration Under Load acceleration under load effect, by deepcut66 http://youtu.be/vBDOOSOhbz0 The previous setup had physical limitations although it was excellent for demonstrating the AUL [acceleration under load] effect. This setup lends itself better to harnessing the effect for power-generation. I've done away with the Bedini drive circuitry and replaced it with a 12v/6w motor from an Audi message-pump system : http://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/12v-DC-electric-motor-UK-SELLER-/110739940158?pt=UK... This gives me twice the RPM for a third of the input power, coupled with the fact that the rotor has 24 poles, arranged N/S i can now get higher frequencies. This is running at around six or seven hudred Hz. According to the meters more power is coming out than going in, but we all know how deceptive things can be and i can't do proper measurements until i get my hands on a scope, which i will get in the new year.
Re: [Vo]:Acceleration Under Load
On Tue, Dec 13, 2011 at 12:12 AM, Robert Leguillon robert.leguil...@hotmail.com wrote: The central issue is that Acceleration Under Load (AUL) is a misnomer. No. It describes exactly what is observed. The acceleration is occurring when coils are being shorted. Two issues arise: 1) The initial power/rpm ratio is set while these same regenerative coils are presenting opposition to movement. In most experiments, just moving the coils out of the way would result in more rpm/watt. If you remove the coils then you are missing the point of the experiment. According according to Lenz law the coils should should slow the rotor when the coils are shorted and remain shorted. 2) Shorting the coil does create a collapsing magnetic field. The time constant of the collapsing field is proportional to the resistance to electrical current. If the shorted coil collapses at just the right speed w.r.t. the disk rotation, it would cause a push in the direction of rotation. There could be a higher rpm of rotation at a lower torque value, and only within the narrow band of rotation frequency. Assuming this is possible, the effect you mention will only result in momentary jerk in the direction of rotation. However, what is observed is a steady acceleration in the direction of rotation while the coils remain shorted. Anyway Thane Heins youtube channel has better examples because you can hear the acceleration. harry Date: Mon, 12 Dec 2011 21:19:52 -0500 Subject: Re: [Vo]:Acceleration Under Load From: hveeder...@gmail.com To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Hopefully it will become free energy device. Dozens of amateur researchers ( Steorn included ) have established that it is possible to circumvent Lenz's law. The hope is this will eventually lead to a free energy device. But even if you can't use a violation of lenz law to generate free energy, this achievement alone deserves attention from mainstream engineers and physicists, which it isn't getting. It is a strange state of affairs. Harry On Sun, Dec 11, 2011 at 1:21 PM, David Roberson dlrober...@aol.com wrote: I am confused about the purpose of the experiment. Is this some kind of free energy device? If it really works, you should be able to drive the input with the output and have it to accelerate in speed or at least keep freely moving. If this can not be done, then most likely there is a difficulty in reading the true power output and input. Dave -Original Message- From: Harry Veeder hveeder...@gmail.com To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Sun, Dec 11, 2011 12:53 pm Subject: [Vo]:Acceleration Under Load acceleration under load effect, by deepcut66 http://youtu.be/vBDOOSOhbz0 The previous setup had physical limitations although it was excellent for demonstrating the AUL [acceleration under load] effect. This setup lends itself better to harnessing the effect for power-generation. I've done away with the Bedini drive circuitry and replaced it with a 12v/6w motor from an Audi message-pump system : http://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/12v-DC-electric-motor-UK-SELLER-/110739940158?pt=UK... This gives me twice the RPM for a third of the input power, coupled with the fact that the rotor has 24 poles, arranged N/S i can now get higher frequencies. This is running at around six or seven hudred Hz. According to the meters more power is coming out than going in, but we all know how deceptive things can be and i can't do proper measurements until i get my hands on a scope, which i will get in the new year.
Re: [Vo]:Acceleration Under Load
Please remember that the impluse required to produce a jump in angular velocity is not the same as the torque required to produce a steady angular acceleration. Harry On Tue, Dec 13, 2011 at 9:31 PM, Harry Veeder hveeder...@gmail.com wrote: On Tue, Dec 13, 2011 at 12:12 AM, Robert Leguillon robert.leguil...@hotmail.com wrote: The central issue is that Acceleration Under Load (AUL) is a misnomer. No. It describes exactly what is observed. The acceleration is occurring when coils are being shorted. Two issues arise: 1) The initial power/rpm ratio is set while these same regenerative coils are presenting opposition to movement. In most experiments, just moving the coils out of the way would result in more rpm/watt. If you remove the coils then you are missing the point of the experiment. According according to Lenz law the coils should should slow the rotor when the coils are shorted and remain shorted. 2) Shorting the coil does create a collapsing magnetic field. The time constant of the collapsing field is proportional to the resistance to electrical current. If the shorted coil collapses at just the right speed w.r.t. the disk rotation, it would cause a push in the direction of rotation. There could be a higher rpm of rotation at a lower torque value, and only within the narrow band of rotation frequency. Assuming this is possible, the effect you mention will only result in momentary jerk in the direction of rotation. However, what is observed is a steady acceleration in the direction of rotation while the coils remain shorted. Anyway Thane Heins youtube channel has better examples because you can hear the acceleration. harry Date: Mon, 12 Dec 2011 21:19:52 -0500 Subject: Re: [Vo]:Acceleration Under Load From: hveeder...@gmail.com To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Hopefully it will become free energy device. Dozens of amateur researchers ( Steorn included ) have established that it is possible to circumvent Lenz's law. The hope is this will eventually lead to a free energy device. But even if you can't use a violation of lenz law to generate free energy, this achievement alone deserves attention from mainstream engineers and physicists, which it isn't getting. It is a strange state of affairs. Harry On Sun, Dec 11, 2011 at 1:21 PM, David Roberson dlrober...@aol.com wrote: I am confused about the purpose of the experiment. Is this some kind of free energy device? If it really works, you should be able to drive the input with the output and have it to accelerate in speed or at least keep freely moving. If this can not be done, then most likely there is a difficulty in reading the true power output and input. Dave -Original Message- From: Harry Veeder hveeder...@gmail.com To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Sun, Dec 11, 2011 12:53 pm Subject: [Vo]:Acceleration Under Load acceleration under load effect, by deepcut66 http://youtu.be/vBDOOSOhbz0 The previous setup had physical limitations although it was excellent for demonstrating the AUL [acceleration under load] effect. This setup lends itself better to harnessing the effect for power-generation. I've done away with the Bedini drive circuitry and replaced it with a 12v/6w motor from an Audi message-pump system : http://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/12v-DC-electric-motor-UK-SELLER-/110739940158?pt=UK... This gives me twice the RPM for a third of the input power, coupled with the fact that the rotor has 24 poles, arranged N/S i can now get higher frequencies. This is running at around six or seven hudred Hz. According to the meters more power is coming out than going in, but we all know how deceptive things can be and i can't do proper measurements until i get my hands on a scope, which i will get in the new year.
Re: [Vo]:Acceleration Under Load
On Tue, Dec 13, 2011 at 12:12 AM, Robert Leguillon 2) Shorting the coil does create a collapsing magnetic field. The time constant of the collapsing field is proportional to the resistance to electrical current. If the shorted coil collapses at just the right speed w.r.t. the disk rotation, it would cause a push in the direction of rotation. There could be a higher rpm of rotation at a lower torque value, and only within the narrow band of rotation frequency. If there is a right speed the values start at lower speed limit and range upwards continuously. Thane does not know if there is an upper limit. Harry
[Vo]:Xenon-hydrogen
Occasionally the MAHG comes up in regard to Rossi... as much in the context of a 'missed opportunity' as anything else. The original device was constructed 8 or more years ago in Russia by Alexander Frolov. Having seen his name recently (in mention of Yan Kucherov), I googled to see if he is still pursuing this device, in light of Rossi. There is a new site (needs a lot of work) but the working principle of the device seems to have changed drastically - to one involving xenon and hydrogen. He does show Rossi's device as a competitor. http://www.faraday.ru/ah.pdf This is not the first time xenon and hydrogen have been proposed to work together for gain. Jones attachment: winmail.dat
Re: [Vo]:ENEA endorses the phenomenon
On Tue, Dec 13, 2011 at 12:43 PM, Moab Moab moab2...@googlemail.com wrote: my first post ... Mary Yugo wrote As Carl Sagan was fond of pointing out, the more extreme the claim, the better the evidence has to be. Anyone can claim anything and there are plenty of strange and not wonderful web sites that demonstrate the phenomenon. The interesting thing to me is always the evidence and not the claim, especially when it comes to Rossi. In their 2009 book *COLD FUSION The history of research in Italy* http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cold_fusion#cite_note-ENEAbook-14 The Italian National agency ENEA present an overview of the research in ENEA departments, CNR http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Consiglio_Nazionale_delle_Ricerche Laboratories, INFN, Universities and Industrial laboratories in Italy. In the foreword of the book Luigi Paganetto, president of ENEA says: *In other words, two government programs – carried out in close interaction and with check of results – have proved the existence of this phenomenon in terms that are not ascribable to a chemical process. This must be considered a starting point. The results achieved so far represent an obligation to continue on the scientific path already started with the aim of achieving a complete definition of the studied phenomenon.* My question to Mary Yugo: Why would the president from ENEA endorse the existance of the phenomenon ? What would be is the rationale for that in your opinion ? If you use rhetoric to dismiss the ENEA as competent research agency or to dismiss its president as a loony then I will know that you have no real answer. Thank you Moab I have no idea what the ENEA is much less what they're talking about. Sorry if that disappoints you. FYI, I am interested in discussing Rossi's claim-- not LENR/cold fusion in general. That's because I don't know much about nuclear physics but I do know about calorimetry. Rossi's claims depend on calorimetry and the calorimetry he's done is not reliable or credible in my opinion. As I've said probably too many times, much better methods could be used if Rossi could be persuaded to make use of them. I am suspicious about the veracity of his claims because he makes no effort to prove them by the best and most reliable methods possible. Also because his tangential answers to simple safe questions and some of his weirder claims (self funding which is probably a lie, self destruct systems and isotope enrichment on the cheap) suggest the same sort of pretenses and responses scammers often make.
Re: [Vo]:Higgs, Alpha, and Ebenezer
Hi, On 13-12-2011 21:50, OrionWorks - Steven V Johnson wrote: From: http://science.nasa.gov/astrophysics/focus-areas/what-is-dark-energy/ By fitting a theoretical model of the composition of the Universe to the combined set of cosmological observations, scientists have come up with the composition that we described above, ~70% dark energy, ~25% dark matter, ~5% normal matter. What is dark matter? From the same page: What Is Dark Energy? More is unknown than is known. We know how much dark energy there is because we know how it affects the Universe's expansion. Other than that, it is a complete mystery. But it is an important mystery. It turns out that roughly 70% of the Universe is dark energy. Dark matter makes up about 25%. The rest - everything on Earth, everything ever observed with all of our instruments, all normal matter - adds up to less than 5% of the Universe. Come to think of it, maybe it shouldn't be called normal matter at all, since it is such a small fraction of the Universe. As the writer correctly states, it depends of the POV what you call normal. As I understand it, the fact that we do exist in this form is actually the exception on the rule! About 15 years ago I've come to the conclusion that EVERYTHING that exists (including black holes), no matter in what state/condition it is, is actually energy in some kind of form, which is able to transform in several appearances. So said, this means that any kind of matter is equivalent to any kind of energy and vice versa. The thing that all these appearances have in common is the fact that they all work via a transformation-mechanism, which works with vibrations, but I guess that is also what Albert Einstein more or less meant when he made the following not commonly understood comment. Concerning matter, we have been all wrong. What we have called matter is energy, whose vibration has been so lowered as to be perceptible to the senses. There is no matter. - Albert Einstein Kind regards, MoB
[Vo]:Fwd: check out this 10,000 volt single cell battery near end of lecture
Subject: check out this 10,000 volt single cell battery near end of lecture I see it but I still don't believe it. http://academicearth.org/lectures/batteries-emf-energy-conservation-kirchoffs-rules
Re: [Vo]:Xenon-hydrogen
In reply to Jones Beene's message of Tue, 13 Dec 2011 19:09:15 -0800: Hi, [snip] http://www.faraday.ru/ah.pdf This is not the first time xenon and hydrogen have been proposed to work together for gain. Indeed. Papp used a mixture of all the noble gasses, including Xe. (With the H coming from lubricating oil IMO). When you get hundred to thousands of eV / H atom, the small amount of oil consumed by an engine can supply the need. Regards, Robin van Spaandonk http://rvanspaa.freehostia.com/project.html
Re: [Vo]:Higgs, Alpha, and Ebenezer
In reply to Man on Bridges's message of Wed, 14 Dec 2011 04:26:08 +0100: Hi, [snip] Concerning matter, we have been all wrong. What we have called matter is energy, whose vibration has been so lowered as to be perceptible to the senses. There is no matter. - Albert Einstein I don't think it's a matter of the frequency being lowered. I think particles of matter are the automatic result when energy is trapped going around in closed 3D form. When it's only a circle we call it a photon. The properties of space time itself impose certain constraints on which 3D forms are stable, hence the particle zoo. Regards, Robin van Spaandonk http://rvanspaa.freehostia.com/project.html
Re: [Vo]:Fwd: check out this 10,000 volt single cell battery near end of lecture
In reply to fznidar...@aol.com's message of Tue, 13 Dec 2011 23:30:30 -0500 (EST): Hi, [snip] Subject: check out this 10,000 volt single cell battery near end of lecture I see it but I still don't believe it. http://academicearth.org/lectures/batteries-emf-energy-conservation-kirchoffs-rules The water picks up a static charge as it travels through a hollow can, and transfers it to the bucket. Because of the crossed wires, the charge on the bucket increases the charge on the opposite hollow can. IOW the two streams end up carrying opposite charges and reinforcing the charge carried by the other stream. This continues until the voltage is high enough to cause a spark. Nature uses a similar method to create lightning. (Falling charged raindrops carry charge from cloud to ground until the voltage is so high that a lightning strike shorts out the stored potential.) Regards, Robin van Spaandonk http://rvanspaa.freehostia.com/project.html
Re: [Vo]:Replication News from Chan
In reply to ecat builder's message of Tue, 13 Dec 2011 14:21:23 -0800: Hi, [snip] Quoting: Experiment with RFG to determine sweet spot for initial heating and then sweet spot for maintaining reaction, modulating pulse rate, frequency and power. Wave shape is important. Half wave sweet spots also exist. Key is sending Hydride ion into oscillations (e+p+e = n+e = e + Fusion) http://www.ecatplanet.net/showthread.php?100-Chan-Method-of-Ni-H-fusion Note that even two electrons + proton are still 270 keV short of a neutron mass. Or at least they are short of the mass of a free neutron. A bound neutron OTOH has about 5-10 MeV less mass, so if the binding can occur at the same time, then the mass for a free neutron doesn't need to be found. This implies IMO that it is an electron proton ensemble that is fusing, not a preformed neutron. Regards, Robin van Spaandonk http://rvanspaa.freehostia.com/project.html
Re: [Vo]:Fwd: check out this 10,000 volt single cell battery near end of lecture
- Original Nachricht Von: mix...@bigpond.com An: vortex-l@eskimo.com Datum: 14.12.2011 07:22 Betreff: Re: [Vo]:Fwd: check out this 10,000 volt single cell battery near end of lecture In reply to fznidar...@aol.com's message of Tue, 13 Dec 2011 23:30:30 -0500 (EST): Hi, [snip] Subject: check out this 10,000 volt single cell battery near end of lecture I see it but I still don't believe it. http://academicearth.org/lectures/batteries-emf-energy-conservation-kirchof fs-rules The water picks up a static charge as it travels through a hollow can, and transfers it to the bucket. Because of the crossed wires, the charge on the bucket increases the charge on the opposite hollow can. IOW the two streams end up carrying opposite charges and reinforcing the charge carried by the other stream. This continues until the voltage is high enough to cause a spark. Nature uses a similar method to create lightning. (Falling charged raindrops carry charge from cloud to ground until the voltage is so high that a lightning strike shorts out the stored potential.) I am unable to view this at work, but according to your description, this is the historical water electricity experiment invented by Lord Kelvin more than 100 years ago. Its a classic experiment of electrostatics physics, and of course it works with any conductive media, water is not required (but easiest to do). The principle is charge separation. A modern machine that uses the same principle is the pelletron made by NEC. It is used as high voltage source for article accelerators. http://www.pelletron.com/charging.htm Peter
Re: [VO]: ENEA endorses the phenomenon
- Original Nachricht Von: Moab Moab moab2...@googlemail.com An: vortex-l@eskimo.com Datum: 13.12.2011 21:51 Betreff: [VO]: ENEA endorses the phenomenon my first post ... Mary Yugo wrote As Carl Sagan was fond of pointing out, the more extreme the claim, the better the evidence has to be. Anyone can claim anything and there are plenty of strange and not wonderful web sites that demonstrate the phenomenon. The interesting thing to me is always the evidence and not the claim, especially when it comes to Rossi. In their 2009 book *COLD FUSION The history of research in Italy* http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cold_fusion#cite_note-ENEAbook-14 The Italian National agency ENEA present an overview of the research in ENEA departments, CNR Laboratories, INFN, Universities and Industrial laboratories in Italy. In the foreword of the book Luigi Paganetto, president of ENEA says: *In other words, two government programs ? carried out in close interaction and with check of results ? have proved the existence of this phenomenon in terms that are not ascribable to a chemical process. This must be considered a starting point. The results achieved so far represent an obligation to continue on the scientific path already started with the aim of achieving a complete definition of the studied phenomenon.* Yes, the proof is in the pudding. The problem is: There is no pudding. I looked up Piantelli in this document. Piantelli reports neutrons 2000 times above natural background and gamma radiation that darkenes a photographic film. Remember, Bequerel discovere radiactivity by accident, when he used urane as a paperweight for a photographic film. He also had a scissor on the film and he found its shadow picture at the film. This experiment was repeated many times and changed history of science. So, if Piantelli where able to give definitive proof about this, he could change history of science again. Why doesnt he do it? I dont know his reasons, but probably he wants to protect his secrets. This is always the problem with these LENR guys, they must protect their industrial secrets. So nobody knows, do they industrial RD or unversitary fundamental research. They are always between two chairs, you dont know what they want. Of course they cannot get public funding and scientific acknowledgement, if they keep their methods secret and dont show definitive results. So they think they can do without public funding, then they should not complain, if they get none. My question to Mary Yugo: Why would the president from ENEA endorse the existance of the phenomenon ? Possibly because he is professor in economics, but not professor in physics? What would be is the rationale for that in your opinion ? If you use rhetoric to dismiss the ENEA as competent research agency or to dismiss its president as a loony then I will know that you have no real answer. Thank you Moab
RE: [Vo]:Acceleration Under Load
I think I've watched all of Thane's vids and from what I remember, there is a lower limit (RPM) where the acceleration will not happen, but if you start at, or above, that RPM, then shorting the coils causes very significant acceleration (IIRC, 100rpm/sec) from say 1700 RPM to over 3000. I wouldn't be surprised if it would continue to well past 3400 which is double where he started from... not sure what to make of it yet! At one point he was using two different types of coils, hi-frequency coils and hi-current coils; not sure if his latest stuff is still using both types. Just engaging the high current coils to light a bank of small incandescent bulbs WILL bring the induction motor to a HALT. Engaging the high current coils AND the hi-frequency coils results in not only lighting the bulbs, but a very large increase in speed which he limits to ~3000-3100 RPM. Go figure? -Mark -Original Message- From: Harry Veeder [mailto:hveeder...@gmail.com] Sent: Tuesday, December 13, 2011 7:03 PM To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: [Vo]:Acceleration Under Load On Tue, Dec 13, 2011 at 12:12 AM, Robert Leguillon 2) Shorting the coil does create a collapsing magnetic field. The time constant of the collapsing field is proportional to the resistance to electrical current. If the shorted coil collapses at just the right speed w.r.t. the disk rotation, it would cause a push in the direction of rotation. There could be a higher rpm of rotation at a lower torque value, and only within the narrow band of rotation frequency. If there is a right speed the values start at lower speed limit and range upwards continuously. Thane does not know if there is an upper limit. Harry
