RE: [Vo]:The Garbage Collection of a Fool's Imagination
Dear Giovanni, Your post was NOT trolling. I am probably the one most responsible for your reticence or concern about posting because I came down pretty hard on the trolls. and that probably has a few of you concerned about getting the same kind of treatment. *Please forgive me*, that is not my intention for those who play by the rules - we all want this to remain a friendly, respectful forum for discourse. Your posting was most appropriate and welcome! The first thing that comes to mind about your posting, is item 2); that somebody already thought of it. That has happened with cold fusion. and I'm sorry that I'm not good with names, perhaps Jed can help. But there were two papers, one early 1900s, and one decades later (one was by Paneth and Peters?) which stumbled upon what is thought to be CF/LENR. however, these were experimental papers, not theoretical, IIRC. But it was considered some kind of anomaly and never looked into. This is one of my pet peeves! That anomalous empirical data is many times forgotten and explained away as experimental error. But isn't science supposed to be about the unknown, and trying to better understand what we don't know.. Yet, there really are some things that will ruin your career if you attempt to do research on them! That is so anti-science, and yet, that is reality. FP, 1989, were the first to really study CF/LENR extensively.. for YEARS before they come out with it. they knew it was going to cause a lot of heartburn with their colleagues and especially the physics community. And it took guts to do what they did. and they paid dearly. Keep thinking and questioning and posting. Most Sincerely, -Mark From: Giovanni Santostasi [mailto:gsantost...@gmail.com] Sent: Monday, January 23, 2012 9:19 PM To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: [Vo]:The Garbage Collection of a Fool's Imagination Orion, Hopefully my comment is not understood as trolling but as polite criticism. It is nice to have imagination and to think about things that are considered by main stream science as impossible. I wish more professional scientists could do that (some do and they wait until they come close to retirement or at least get tenure). What is also nice, though, is to try to see what could go wrong in a particular imagined idea or scheme as a way of understanding better and making more concrete what one imagines. It happened many times to me to think about ideas that I believed were great to find out almost always that two things were true: 1) the idea had some fundamental problem with it and I could not see it (at least at first) 2) the idea was actually good but somebody already thought about it It is simply difficult to come up with something completely amazing, right and original at the same time. But one can learn a lot from this thinking and it is a good way to learn and think about science and nature that are amazing anyway. Well, about the buoyancy perpetual motion we have the case that it is something unfortunately neither original (in the sense that somebody already thought about it) or really working (even if due to relatively subtle reasons). Somewhere non conservative forces are going to make your device stop. This why there is not a working model of such devices but often simulations can be found on the net. Here one example of a pretty complete discussion about different kinds of buoyancy perpetual machines and why they don't work: http://www.hp-gramatke.net/pmm_physics/english/page0550.htm Giovanni On Mon, Jan 23, 2012 at 9:01 PM, OrionWorks - Steven Vincent Johnson orionwo...@charter.net wrote: Speaking of Regularly Scheduled Programming, here's one from Ski-Fi channel! To my surprise, the troll, Eff Wivakeef, before he was banned, posted something that I personally found fascinating and transformational. Well. let me try to explain what I mean by transformational. * * * Warning! * * * This has to do with another one of those strange synchronistic woo-woo events that occasionally pass through my life. If you don't believe in synchronicity or the existence of strange Unidentified Flying Woo-Woos (UFW2s) you might as well skip the rest of this post. ;-) /* * * Warning! * * * I'm referring to the Troll's attempt to both taunt and ridicule the Vort Collective by posting a You-Tube link to a bogus free energy device allegedly based on the manipulation of gravity, gradient water pressure, and buoyancy. See: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-89SiqG3pI0 We see an individual, James Kwok, owner of a company called Hidro, explaining how his technology works with the aid of a fish tank filled with water and a flexible tube attached at both ends with inflatable bags. One bag has a weight attached to it. Kwok proceeds to give a warm fuzzy spiel with birds chirping away in the background on how gravity affects water pressure, and how this pressure buildup in-turn
RE: [Vo]:The Garbage Collection of a Fool's Imagination
Sure there is.. a hip dude by the name of P. Floyd talks all about it! Hmmm, for some strange reason, I'm feeling comfortably numb... :-) -Original Message- From: Kyle Mcallister [mailto:kyle_mcallis...@yahoo.com] Sent: Monday, January 23, 2012 10:32 PM To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: [Vo]:The Garbage Collection of a Fool's Imagination There is no dark side of the moon, really. Matter of fact it's all dark.
RE: [Vo]:REMOVING RULE2 VIOLATORS, 'subscribe' blocked.
E.L. Mr. Bill Beaty, the list founder and benevolent, and mostly absent, dictator, shut The Collective down for ~24 hours after flushing the trolls down the . well, use your imagination. It is back online now and the signal-to-noise ratio is climbing fast! -Mark From: Energy Liberator [mailto:energylibera...@gmail.com] Sent: Monday, January 23, 2012 11:32 PM To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: [Vo]:REMOVING RULE2 VIOLATORS, 'subscribe' blocked. Thanks Bill Although I'm new to this mailing list and haven't contributed much, I still enjoy reading the opinions, ideas and news from those more knowledgeable then myself. I must confess that I'm here mainly for the Rossi / LENR threads though. It was becoming impossible and time consuming to filter the repetitive garbage from the real posts as they pretty much polluted all the threads. I have to say though it's been deathly quiet here today. On 23/01/12 09:48, William Beaty wrote: Vtx thoughtcriminals. Scoffing and anti-fringe behavior, but didn't leave in disgust as suggested. Ungood! Time for Periodic Cleansing. removed: Mary Yugo effwivakeef Dusty Bradshaw Shaun Taylor Vortex traffic temporarily suspended. Getting everyone's attention. I'll leave subscribe turned off for weeks/months, unsubscribe remains active. Email me directly for problems, suggestions. (( ( ( ( ((O)) ) ) ) ))) William J. BeatySCIENCE HOBBYIST website billb at amasci com http://amasci.com EE/programmer/sci-exhibits amateur science, hobby projects, sci fair Seattle, WA 206-762-3818unusual phenomena, tesla coils, weird sci
[Vo]:insightful and concise...
In the interim, while the Collective was being purged of trolls, there were a few comments that went on thru the backup vortex, and I'd like to bring one very insightful comment by Mr. Beene over to this, the main forum, for posterity. The thread was about Rossi and DGT, what the coming year will bring, and the likelihood of who gets to commercialization first. Jones summed it up like this: I think it will probably *be* neither, but it will be *because of* both That is almost poetic. -m
Re: [Vo]:Defkalion is open for testing as from now
What is really good is that they want to test it for 96 hours (48+48) minimum. I think that will give so much more credibility to the invention. On Tue, Jan 24, 2012 at 6:09 PM, Alain Sepeda alain.sep...@gmail.comwrote: since defkalion feel that the COP is above 20, no need to have a scientist. moreover scientist are easy to manipulate (see the books of William Broad, *Nicholas Wade)*, so good old tricky engineer would be better. if you are really paranoid, a good magician/prestidigitator could be a consultant. but with COP20, assuming good electric measures (UPS is a good idea because it has hard limits in power, if they are of well known model) 2012/1/24 Peter Gluck peter.gl...@gmail.com I think the best would be an engineer- salesman like the one who had installed my home heater BOSCH 3000W plus a technician specialized in radioactivity measurements for an environment protection State authorithy. A good generator needs NO geniuses to confirm that it works well, I think. -- Patrick www.tRacePerfect.com The daily puzzle everyone can finish but not everyone can perfect! The quickest puzzle ever!
Re: [Vo]:The Garbage Collection of a Fool's Imagination
Thanks for clarification re Moon -- has a two-week night, while one of its poles is always dark -- so surface temperatures get low anyplace it's dark for over a day -- that's how it can hold plenty of H2O as ice within the highly insulating dusk on the surface. I saw a reference to a paper by an expert that proposed energy flow from 300 degree Kelvin to much colder solar system mirror matter could run a practical heat engine -- apparently there is enough heat transfer for it to work -- if the cold mirror matter was at 20 degrees Kelvin, even if it was mirror CO2 or mirror H2O, it could have a strong fractal microstructure, like a ceramic, with a bit of C impurity, and be placed as a thin layer on a thin metal surface of ordinary matter, so then it is possible that there will be useful thermal transfer from the ordinary metal to the much colder mirror matter layer, which would radiate its mirror IR into the very cold mirror dust and gas, still bound by gravity to orbit around the Sun, but not heated by the Sun's IR and light output. The very interesting mirror matter web sites will lead you to it: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mirror_matter I'm now imagining creatures that evolved as floaters in the organic clouds of gas giants, gradually evolving to absorb and use mirror matter with their normal matter nanostructures, using the mirror matter as heat sinks to allow their metabolism to be driven by light from the distant Sun, and even the galactic background IR, as their balloons become larger and very thin, filled with normal H2 at just a little over the pressure of the supporting gas layers, until they are actually able to sail on the solar wind and light pressure to slowly build up speed, becoming living spacecraft -- not so unlikely, when we watch a bird that can fly, float on water, dive, walk on land, and sleep in nests on trees, changing its shape radically when flying.
[Vo]:Matts Lewan blog and the ecat.
He has a blog in English, similar to Next Big Future. He posted a few days ago on the e-cat: http://matslew.wordpress.com/ -- Daniel Rocha - RJ danieldi...@gmail.com
Re: [Vo]:Matts Lewan blog and the ecat.
His post: http://matslew.wordpress.com/2012/01/20/the-e-cat-cold-fusion-and-lenr/ 2012/1/24 Daniel Rocha danieldi...@gmail.com He has a blog in English, similar to Next Big Future. He posted a few days ago on the e-cat: http://matslew.wordpress.com/ -- Daniel Rocha - RJ danieldi...@gmail.com -- Daniel Rocha - RJ danieldi...@gmail.com
Re: [Vo]:insightful and concise...
Hi Mark, there have been two different news lately: The first one being that Ampenergo seemingly has gone inactive (although I don't know what this exactly means, if this is even the company which is related to Leonardo, how this would affect Rossi, etc.): http://ecatnews.com/?p=1897 Second: The University of Bologna has seemingly terminated the contract with Rossi, as Krivit has posted: http://blog.newenergytimes.com/2012/01/24/university-of-bologna-terminates-relationship-with-rossi/ I would like to know what Focardi and Levi think of that. Doesn't look like a good start for Rossi, the riddle... Wolf In the interim, while the Collective was being purged of trolls, there were a few comments that went on thru the backup vortex, and I'd like to bring one very insightful comment by Mr. Beene over to this, the main forum, for posterity... The thread was about Rossi and DGT, what the coming year will bring, and the likelihood of who gets to commercialization first... Jones summed it up like this: I think it will probably **be neither, but it will be **because of** both That is almost poetic... -m
[Vo]:University of Bologna Terminates Relationship With Rossi
Hello group, According to Steven Krivit of New Energy Times: Today, Dario Braga, director of scientific research at the University told New Energy Times that the University waited long enough. It terminated the contract because Rossi did not fulfill his agreement to make the first progress payment. http://blog.newenergytimes.com/2012/01/24/university-of-bologna-terminates-relationship-with-rossi/ In a recent ecat.com video interview [1], Rossi stated that a joint work with two unnamed universities for E-Cat core technology research and development would have started soon. The University of Bologna, evidently, is not one of them. [1] http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0c-1EvJK5PQ Cheers, S.A.
[Vo]:insightful and concise...
Mark, I think Jones may be even more correct than he realizes. In addition to all the current research and development by competitors there is a likelihood that one or more nations have already muzzled this technology on the basis of national security. You can bet those muzzled researchers will have their lawyers busy filing suits for lost market share based on the Rossi / DGT projections. With the technology already leaking out from Rossi and DGT anyhow the added threat of financial liability will force governments to release any security restrictions against Ni-H. Assuming only a couple such IP owners exists the addition of even a single puzzle piece at this point could start an avalanche and I am betting there is significantly more than just a single Ni-H clue hidden under the mantle of national security. Fran
[Vo]:Rossi's Best Chance
Wolf Fischer wrote: there have been two different news lately: The first one being that Ampenergo seemingly has gone inactive (although I don't know what this exactly means, if this is even the company which is related to Leonardo, how this would affect Rossi, etc.): http://ecatnews.com/?p=1897 Second: The University of Bologna has seemingly terminated the contract with Rossi, as Krivit has posted: http://blog.newenergytimes.com/2012/01/24/university-of-bologna-terminates-relationship-with-rossi/ It seems to me Rossi's best chance is to hold conference calls with mom-and-pop investors and ask them to contribute $100 so that Rossi can do the last bit of engineering needed to stabilize the e-cat and allow him to run it for more than 4 hours. In return, they will get a $500 credit on whatever e-cat model they decide to buy, whenever the model gets made. The way it looks now, Rossi's enterprise is tottering, but he seems to have a number of Believers who would probably fork over the $100 or even more.
Re: [Vo]:Rossi's Best Chance
I think Rossi's best chance is to stop giving out contradicting information / statements. A couple of weeks ago the home e-cat was going to ship at the end of this year, then yesterday he states that it won't be for another 12-18 months. What happened? There is the continuing inconclusive specification of the home e-cat, not to mention all the issues with the 1MW plant. It strikes me that he seems to be in a bit of panic mode as he's realised that DGT may indeed have something and beat him to market with a superiorly engineered product. Rossi really needs to get a team of professional engineers to take his products and engineer them to refined commercial products. That is assuming he hasn't already got a team doing this. If he has there is not much evidence of it. As for Ampenergo, it still exists and is still active http://www2.sos.state.oh.us/pls/bsqry/f?p=100:7:211773132719711::NO:7:P7_CHARTER_NUM:1852164. Why the e-mail address doesn't work is anyones guess. Saying that has anyone managed to get in contact with Hydrofusion? I sent a couple of e-mails in the past and never got a reply or any acknowledgement of them receiving my e-mail. It's things like this that fuel the sceptics and the scam rumours. What is surprising, assuming DGT have what they say they have, is how quick DGT managed to come up with their own reactor technology. If no information transfer occurred between Rossi and DGT as Rossi states (which I don't believe) then DGT really pulled one out of the hat. I'm surprised no one else has managed to replicate yet if DGT managed it without any IP transfer from Rossi. In a way I feel sorry for Rossi as he has possibly found the answer to clean cheap energy but his personality may prevent him from actually being the first to market it commercially. Rossi is his own worse enemy. It may be as Jed said that he could be doing this deliberately to keep people off his back and to keep competitors from homing in. On 24/01/12 12:18, Vorl Bek wrote: Wolf Fischer wrote: there have been two different news lately: The first one being that Ampenergo seemingly has gone "inactive" (although I don't know what this exactly means, if this is even the company which is related to Leonardo, how this would affect Rossi, etc.): http://ecatnews.com/?p=1897 Second: The University of Bologna has seemingly terminated the contract with Rossi, as Krivit has posted: http://blog.newenergytimes.com/2012/01/24/university-of-bologna-terminates-relationship-with-rossi/ It seems to me Rossi's best chance is to hold conference calls with mom-and-pop investors and ask them to contribute $100 so that Rossi can do the last bit of engineering needed to stabilize the e-cat and allow him to run it for more than 4 hours. In return, they will get a $500 credit on whatever e-cat model they decide to buy, whenever the model gets made. The way it looks now, Rossi's enterprise is tottering, but he seems to have a number of Believers who would probably fork over the $100 or even more.
Re: [Vo]:Rossi's Best Chance
Probably Rossi has some NI persons on the controlling front...? If Rossis statement about production facility planning is true there must be other engineers involved (although the thought of Rossi doing every single piece of engineering on himself makes me laugh :)) Perhaps (my theory): Defkalion started gathering professionals and therefore working on their own reactor from the beginning of August, whereas Rossi started the more professionalized work after the successful 1MW plant test (at least it seems like this to me). Therefore Defkalion might have a 3 to 4 month lead on Rossi? However, what interests me then, is: How long until one can buy a Hyperion? (given that the certification runs fine for Defkalion). As they only sell licenses the licensee has to first start developing a concept on what the production looks like. This in turn might Rossi give some lead back, doesn't it? Wolf I think Rossi's best chance is to stop giving out contradicting information / statements. A couple of weeks ago the home e-cat was going to ship at the end of this year, then yesterday he states that it won't be for another 12-18 months. What happened? There is the continuing inconclusive specification of the home e-cat, not to mention all the issues with the 1MW plant. It strikes me that he seems to be in a bit of panic mode as he's realised that DGT may indeed have something and beat him to market with a superiorly engineered product. Rossi really needs to get a team of professional engineers to take his products and engineer them to refined commercial products. That is assuming he hasn't already got a team doing this. If he has there is not much evidence of it. As for Ampenergo, it still exists and is still active http://www2.sos.state.oh.us/pls/bsqry/f?p=100:7:211773132719711::NO:7:P7_CHARTER_NUM:1852164. Why the e-mail address doesn't work is anyone's guess. Saying that has anyone managed to get in contact with Hydrofusion? I sent a couple of e-mails in the past and never got a reply or any acknowledgement of them receiving my e-mail. It's things like this that fuel the sceptics and the scam rumours. What is surprising, assuming DGT have what they say they have, is how quick DGT managed to come up with their own reactor technology. If no information transfer occurred between Rossi and DGT as Rossi states (which I don't believe) then DGT really pulled one out of the hat. I'm surprised no one else has managed to replicate yet if DGT managed it without any IP transfer from Rossi. In a way I feel sorry for Rossi as he has possibly found the answer to clean cheap energy but his personality may prevent him from actually being the first to market it commercially. Rossi is his own worse enemy.It may be as Jed said that he could be doing this deliberately to keep people off his back and to keep competitors from homing in. On 24/01/12 12:18, Vorl Bek wrote: Wolf Fischer wrote: there have been two different news lately: The first one being that Ampenergo seemingly has gone inactive (although I don't know what this exactly means, if this is even the company which is related to Leonardo, how this would affect Rossi, etc.): http://ecatnews.com/?p=1897 Second: The University of Bologna has seemingly terminated the contract with Rossi, as Krivit has posted: http://blog.newenergytimes.com/2012/01/24/university-of-bologna-terminates-relationship-with-rossi/ It seems to me Rossi's best chance is to hold conference calls with mom-and-pop investors and ask them to contribute $100 so that Rossi can do the last bit of engineering needed to stabilize the e-cat and allow him to run it for more than 4 hours. In return, they will get a $500 credit on whatever e-cat model they decide to buy, whenever the model gets made. The way it looks now, Rossi's enterprise is tottering, but he seems to have a number of Believers who would probably fork over the $100 or even more.
Re: [Vo]:Rossi's Best Chance
From what I understand with regards to DGT's licensing, is that the license fee gives you all the necessary info to start the production. So all you need to do is find a premises of sufficient size and then DGT will give the blue prints for the manufacturing plant. what is not clear is if the license fee also includes the tools and machinery in the plant. I think (just my hunch) DGT were working on their reactor before the agreement with Rossi fell apart. From their dealing with Rossi they probably discovered that they wouldn't be able to work with him and that he most likely would fail to deliver on the terms of their agreement, i.e. demo a device running for 48hours. They probably kept close to Rossi and went along with him all the while they could find out as much as they could about the workings of his reactor and at any opportunity steal his IP. Again this is just my thinking. I find it hard to believe they magically developed their own reactor that quickly (when others are still trying) and have supposedly got it reliable and producing high temp steam without any IP transfer from Rossi. They must have got the secret or seed from Rossi that allowed them to proceed so quickly. It still remains to be seen how quick DGT get their product to market though and it all depends on them getting their certification. On 24/01/12 13:00, Wolf Fischer wrote: Probably Rossi has some NI persons on the controlling front...? If Rossis statement about production facility planning is true there must be other engineers involved (although the thought of Rossi doing every single piece of engineering on himself makes me laugh :)) Perhaps (my theory): Defkalion started gathering professionals and therefore working on their own reactor from the beginning of August, whereas Rossi started the more professionalized work after the "successful" 1MW plant test (at least it seems like this to me). Therefore Defkalion might have a 3 to 4 month lead on Rossi? However, what interests me then, is: How long until one can buy a Hyperion? (given that the certification runs fine for Defkalion). As they only sell licenses the licensee has to first start developing a concept on what the production looks like. This in turn might Rossi give some lead back, doesn't it? Wolf I think Rossi's best chance is to stop giving out contradicting information / statements. A couple of weeks ago the home e-cat was going to ship at the end of this year, then yesterday he states that it won't be for another 12-18 months. What happened? There is the continuing inconclusive specification of the home e-cat, not to mention all the issues with the 1MW plant. It strikes me that he seems to be in a bit of panic mode as he's realised that DGT may indeed have something and beat him to market with a superiorly engineered product. Rossi really needs to get a team of professional engineers to take his products and engineer them to refined commercial products. That is assuming he hasn't already got a team doing this. If he has there is not much evidence of it. As for Ampenergo, it still exists and is still active http://www2.sos.state.oh.us/pls/bsqry/f?p=100:7:211773132719711::NO:7:P7_CHARTER_NUM:1852164. Why the e-mail address doesn't work is anyones guess. Saying that has anyone managed to get in contact with Hydrofusion? I sent a couple of e-mails in the past and never got a reply or any acknowledgement of them receiving my e-mail. It's things like this that fuel the sceptics and the scam rumours. What is surprising, assuming DGT have what they say they have, is how quick DGT managed to come up with their own reactor technology. If no information transfer occurred between Rossi and DGT as Rossi states (which I don't believe) then DGT really pulled one out of the hat. I'm surprised no one else has managed to replicate yet if DGT managed it without any IP transfer from Rossi. In a way I feel sorry for Rossi as he has possibly found the answer to clean cheap energy but his personality may prevent him from actually being the first to market it commercially. Rossi is his own worse enemy. It may be as Jed said that he could be doing this deliberately to keep people off his back and to keep competitors from homing in. On 24/01/12 12:18, Vorl Bek
Re: [Vo]:University of Bologna Terminates Relationship With Rossi
It would be relevant to know what says Giuseppe Levi (directly or via Passerini) and even Focardi. The most negative interpretation is that Rossi ruthlessly and routinely uses people and institutions for his interest and then abandones them The most positive is that Rossi is penniless and can NOT pay. As regarding science there are two alternatives a) all the problems are solved, the process i perfectly understood- by Rossi; b) Rossi does not give a farthing for what is called Science. Bad or worse? On Tue, Jan 24, 2012 at 2:13 PM, Akira Shirakawa shirakawa.ak...@gmail.comwrote: Hello group, According to Steven Krivit of New Energy Times: Today, Dario Braga, director of scientific research at the University told New Energy Times that the University waited long enough. It terminated the contract because Rossi did not fulfill his agreement to make the first progress payment. http://blog.newenergytimes.**com/2012/01/24/university-of-** bologna-terminates-**relationship-with-rossi/http://blog.newenergytimes.com/2012/01/24/university-of-bologna-terminates-relationship-with-rossi/ In a recent ecat.com video interview [1], Rossi stated that a joint work with two unnamed universities for E-Cat core technology research and development would have started soon. The University of Bologna, evidently, is not one of them. [1] http://www.youtube.com/watch?**v=0c-1EvJK5PQhttp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0c-1EvJK5PQ Cheers, S.A. -- Dr. Peter Gluck Cluj, Romania http://egooutpeters.blogspot.com
RE: [Vo]:University of Bologna Terminates Relationship With Rossi
What are the implications? Its the university going to sever all Rossi support? Will they caution Giuseppe Levi from further involvement? Bianchini? If the UNIBO contract is null and void, who are the two universities that Rossi is referring to? Ponderous. Really ponderous... Date: Tue, 24 Jan 2012 13:13:09 +0100 From: shirakawa.ak...@gmail.com To: vortex-L@eskimo.com Subject: [Vo]:University of Bologna Terminates Relationship With Rossi Hello group, According to Steven Krivit of New Energy Times: Today, Dario Braga, director of scientific research at the University told New Energy Times that the University waited long enough. It terminated the contract because Rossi did not fulfill his agreement to make the first progress payment. http://blog.newenergytimes.com/2012/01/24/university-of-bologna-terminates-relationship-with-rossi/ In a recent ecat.com video interview [1], Rossi stated that a joint work with two unnamed universities for E-Cat core technology research and development would have started soon. The University of Bologna, evidently, is not one of them. [1] http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0c-1EvJK5PQ Cheers, S.A.
Re: [Vo]:Rossi's Best Chance
Rossi would have all the money he could ever want from any one of several thousand large multinationals or governments by next week if he did a single proper black box test similar to Jan-Jun 2011 demos (no surrounding water box) but with proper independently installed and recorded calorimetry by qualified independent test observers (including some skeptics) and run for a day or two. It wouldn't even matter if it only ran for 6 hours before falling into quiescence, clear incontrovertible independent validation of powerful LENR would still have the world beating a path to his door to give him millions. Realistically Rossi is in the game of selling a developmental advantage for a massive new field that will advance far ahead of his understanding within months or years. It is naive for him to try to sell a commercial product - he doesn't have the skills or resources to match what bigger players will do in a year or two (see how far ahead Dekaflion appear to be now if their latest claims are true). If he doesn't realise that soon then he will ultimately be left poorer and probably embittered by his bad decisions. On 24 January 2012 12:18, Vorl Bek vorl@antichef.com wrote: Wolf Fischer wrote: there have been two different news lately: The first one being that Ampenergo seemingly has gone inactive (although I don't know what this exactly means, if this is even the company which is related to Leonardo, how this would affect Rossi, etc.): http://ecatnews.com/?p=1897 Second: The University of Bologna has seemingly terminated the contract with Rossi, as Krivit has posted: http://blog.newenergytimes.com/2012/01/24/university-of-bologna-terminates-relationship-with-rossi/ It seems to me Rossi's best chance is to hold conference calls with mom-and-pop investors and ask them to contribute $100 so that Rossi can do the last bit of engineering needed to stabilize the e-cat and allow him to run it for more than 4 hours. In return, they will get a $500 credit on whatever e-cat model they decide to buy, whenever the model gets made. The way it looks now, Rossi's enterprise is tottering, but he seems to have a number of Believers who would probably fork over the $100 or even more.
Re: [Vo]:University of Bologna Terminates Relationship With Rossi
Or c) He is paranoid and doesn't want help after what happened with DGT. Perhaps he has some money, enough to slowly build the 1MW reactor and adjust smaller reactors. 2012/1/24 Peter Gluck peter.gl...@gmail.com It would be relevant to know what says Giuseppe Levi (directly or via Passerini) and even Focardi. The most negative interpretation is that Rossi ruthlessly and routinely uses people and institutions for his interest and then abandones them The most positive is that Rossi is penniless and can NOT pay. As regarding science there are two alternatives a) all the problems are solved, the process i perfectly understood- by Rossi; b) Rossi does not give a farthing for what is called Science. Bad or worse? On Tue, Jan 24, 2012 at 2:13 PM, Akira Shirakawa shirakawa.ak...@gmail.com wrote: Hello group, According to Steven Krivit of New Energy Times: Today, Dario Braga, director of scientific research at the University told New Energy Times that the University waited long enough. It terminated the contract because Rossi did not fulfill his agreement to make the first progress payment. http://blog.newenergytimes.**com/2012/01/24/university-of-** bologna-terminates-**relationship-with-rossi/http://blog.newenergytimes.com/2012/01/24/university-of-bologna-terminates-relationship-with-rossi/ In a recent ecat.com video interview [1], Rossi stated that a joint work with two unnamed universities for E-Cat core technology research and development would have started soon. The University of Bologna, evidently, is not one of them. [1] http://www.youtube.com/watch?**v=0c-1EvJK5PQhttp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0c-1EvJK5PQ Cheers, S.A. -- Dr. Peter Gluck Cluj, Romania http://egooutpeters.blogspot.com -- Daniel Rocha - RJ danieldi...@gmail.com
Re: [Vo]:Rossi's Best Chance
I'm not so surprised. LENR is not rocket science once you read the serious but rejected papers on the subject... Maybe more simple than usual metallurgy. LENR should be called solid state fusion, like transistors were name at the beginning. then you have engineering. their job take some time, but normal time. about stability there is known methods, classic engineering, some known usual tricks, or at lease tracks to follow. they are good yes, but just good innovative engineer. Good professionals, and in my mouth it is a great compliment. (like hero who says : no matter, it's my job) their no comment, wait for press release is simply basic business way to communicate. no comment on RD, new products, 2nd generation, before finalized. (except if you want to make people wait for vaporware, like in IT). short press release without much details, asking for (serious) third party to get tech data by mail/meeting, is normal business. The most funny comment was something nor far from yes they are building their factory, but they just don't realize it is not yet another shoe factory I just notices a probable innovation : - it seems their bare reactor does not runaway quickly, otherwise their test without coolant would lead to melting. I guess that their reactor is nearly intrinsically stable at high temperature... how ? Maybe their catalyst stop working at High temp? Maybe they have a thermo-mechanical feedback on H pressure, Maybe feedback through hydride phase change. or just their control electronic is fast enough to stop heating before the melt down, and the reactor is more stable than I imagine from rossi's problems... I just hope it is not a scam, otherwise I will stop believing in round earth, and will become like MY. I talk about DGT engineering team. beside, about the boss/investor maybe he is simply more tricky. seeing that it works but seeing also Rossi's problems, bad method, weak team, maybe they decide to break the contract according to the conditions, then start a race with a gang of professionals knowing that their team will go much faster and further than Rossi alone, winning the race. 2012/1/24 Energy Liberator energylibera...@gmail.com What is surprising, assuming DGT have what they say they have, is how quick DGT managed to come up with their own reactor technology. If no information transfer occurred between Rossi and DGT as Rossi states (which I don't believe) then DGT really pulled one out of the hat. I'm surprised no one else has managed to replicate yet if DGT managed it without any IP transfer from Rossi. In a way I feel sorry for Rossi as he has possibly found the answer to clean cheap energy but his personality may prevent him from actually being the first to market it commercially. Rossi is his own worse enemy. It may be as Jed said that he could be doing this deliberately to keep people off his back and to keep competitors from homing in.
[Vo]:Rossi's Appropriate Decision -- One Million E-Cats For The Win
Hello Everyone, The obvious anti-Rossi agenda on this list is getting absolutely disgusting. To address one issue, there is a very simple explanation of why Rossi did not pay the University of Bologna. Simply put, he is devoting all of his time, energy, and most likely FINANCIAL RESOURCES on the factory that will produce the one million home units. The fact is the University of Bologna testing has never been a huge priority of Rossi's. It has been a side issue. His number one goal is getting this technology into the market place. To do that, he needs to focus all of his effort and resources towards that. If Rossi had to decide between testing at the University of Bologna and having more money to devote to the factory for the home E-Cat units, I think he made the best decision. He really does not need the University of Bologna. What he needs he already has the customer (US military) and National Instruments to help with his control systems. The fact he did not pay the University of Bologna does not mean he is broke or is a fraud. It means that he is re-directing his resources towards what matters most. PUTTING ONE MILLION E-CATS ON THE MARKET
Re: [Vo]:University of Bologna Terminates Relationship With Rossi
Peter Gluck peter.gl...@gmail.com wrote: It would be relevant to know what says Giuseppe Levi (directly or via Passerini) and even Focardi. The most negative interpretation is that Rossi ruthlessly and routinely uses people and institutions for his interest and then abandones them I do not think it is ruthless to abandon a research contract with a university. This was going to cost him 500,000 euros, as I recall. That is a lot of money. I am not impressed by most university research. I suppose the money could be better spent elsewhere. This is a business decision. By the way, Krivit cited at message from Bill Beaty as proof that: Rossi captured the hearts and goodwill of fans and believers worldwide who had thought only the best of Rossi. Linked here: http://www.newenergytimes.com/v2/images/20110123Bill-Beaty-Vortex-Bans-Rossi-Skeptics.jpg If we think only the best of Rossi I would hate to see what his critics say! People here have often accused me of toadying up to Rossi, or being too lenient with him, often just after I post a message saying I would not buy a nail clipper from him. It seems you are only allowed to say nasty things about Rossi, or at best damn him with faint praise. If you point out that he has made an important contribution, you have to compensate by saying but of course he is also a terrible liar and he has been in prison for fraud etc. Or you are accused of being a true believer. Frankly, I am sick of that standard. Let those who have not sinned throw the first stone. Rossi has lived a long time. He was a businessman in Italy where things are tough and corruption is widespread. He has made enormous contributions. He works quickly and effectively. Okay, so he is not a nice person in many ways. Many people who make important contributions to society are only able to do that because they are not nice. A prickly personality is both a strength and a weakness. Such people don't get along with others, or go along, or conform. They often have enormous self-confidence, verging on megalomania. Rossi is planning to make million reactors a year! I doubt he can do that, but he would not succeed in the first place if he were not so bold. You have to take the good with the bad in a person. - Jed
RE: [Vo]:Rossi's Best Chance
Thank you, Robert. This is essentially what I have been saying for many weeks: Rossi has the ability to achieve a short run of nearly infinite COP- 6-8 hours, after which there is inevitable quiescence. That is both his problem and his ace-in-the-hole. He has not shown an ability to move beyond that stalemate. Problem is - thousands of man-hours of high quality engineering are now needed, and he cannot come close to doing it alone, BUT the biggest monetary value for him would only be possible if he could do it alone. However, if he could have done it months ago, then DGT would never have split, and Rossi would have adequate capital, even if not the entire 100 million. Now he is essentially penniless and cannot even give the University a pittance for desperately needed help. His time for monetizing even this slight developmental advantage is running out. Once DGT puts on a convincing show-and-tell, Rossi is nearly toast. That could happen this week. They may succeed with what is an inferior ratio of gain. Since they have never claimed self-running - this is indicative of having success through another route that does not involve a few of Rossi's secrets. Rossi's wife is smart enough to see this. Rossi's ego is too big. However, his wife will win this argument and Rossi will act like it was his idea. It is said this particular family dynamic is common in Italy. Look for a Rossi independent demo before the end of February, where - among other things - he just admits the E-Cat will go quiescent at some time, but in this demo he does show the significantly long unpowered mode (except for the RF) which removes the possibility of a chemical reaction. Jones From: Robert Lynn * It wouldn't even matter if it only ran for 6 hours before falling into quiescence, clear incontrovertible independent validation of powerful LENR would still have the world beating a path to his door to give him millions. * Realistically Rossi is in the game of selling a developmental advantage for a massive new field that will advance far ahead of his understanding within months or years. It is naive for him to try to sell a commercial product - he doesn't have the skills or resources to match what bigger players will do in a year or two (see how far ahead Defkalion appear to be now if their latest claims are true). If he doesn't realize that soon then he will ultimately be left poorer and probably embittered by his bad decisions.
Re: [Vo]:REMOVING RULE2 VIOLATORS, 'subscribe' blocked. SUGGESTIONS
At 04:48 AM 1/23/2012, William Beaty wrote: Vtx thoughtcriminals. Scoffing and anti-fringe behavior, but didn't leave in disgust as suggested. Ungood! Time for Periodic Cleansing. removed: Mary Yugo effwivakeef Dusty Bradshaw Shaun Taylor Vortex traffic temporarily suspended. Getting everyone's attention. I'll leave subscribe turned off for weeks/months, unsubscribe remains active. Email me directly for problems, suggestions. I'd not have handled this the same way, but, to be sure, Mr. Beaty owns this list. I'd have put questionable participants, if it's at all marginal, on moderation. That could create a burden for the owner, so I'd have multiple moderators. And there is another path which means that, in effect, the list isn't exactly censored. Any user may send any other subscriber to the list -- and if you have been receiving the list, you have direct email addresses for active subscribers -- a post, and the subscriber may forward that post *on their own responsibility.* I'd consider this on request, but do be aware that I can get very busy and might not get to it quickly. I was one who had noted that posts had gone beyond the pale. I would not forward such posts. However, some posts by some of those removed were of interest and valuable. I do recommend, for the future, that a list moderator warn users before excluding them. Putting a user on moderation is a form of warning. In my opinion, when a list is actually serving a community rather than the owner as an individual, such things should be done openly. (As Mr. Beaty's action was open.) Complaints by those involved in disputes with a user are not effective as warnings, they are readily discounted. Rules should be clear, and when rules are ignored for a long time -- as they were -- enforcement should begin with care so that people have a chance and some time to alter their behavior, if that's what they choose. The archive should not be redacted, except for illegal posts. If we want a cleaned archive, that should be done through a mirror of the list. (Or the position can be reversed, there is a mirror which has a full archive, and the main list has a redacted archive.)
Re: [Vo]:Rossi's Best Chance
I think you're right Jones. Once DGT have their verified test results published Rossi will be under a lot of pressure as all attention will then be diverted to DGT and there success. Rossi may just realise this (with a little help from his wife) and try do another test before DGT have a chance to announce any results. It's his only chance. On 24/01/12 15:03, Jones Beene wrote: Thank you, Robert. This is essentially what I have been saying for many weeks: Rossi has the ability to achieve a short run of nearly infinite COP 6-8 hours, after which there is inevitable quiescence. That is both his problem and his ace-in-the-hole. He has not shown an ability to move beyond that stalemate. Problem is thousands of man-hours of high quality engineering are now needed, and he cannot come close to doing it alone, BUT the biggest monetary value for him would only be possible if he could do it alone. However, if he could have done it months ago, then DGT would never have split, and Rossi would have adequate capital, even if not the entire 100 million. Now he is essentially penniless and cannot even give the University a pittance for desperately needed help. His time for monetizing even this slight developmental advantage is running out. Once DGT puts on a convincing show-and-tell, Rossi is nearly toast. That could happen this week. They may succeed with what is an inferior ratio of gain. Since they have never claimed self-running - this is indicative of having success through another route that does not involve a few of Rossis secrets. Rossis wife is smart enough to see this. Rossis ego is too big. However, his wife will win this argument and Rossi will act like it was his idea. It is said this particular family dynamic is common in Italy. Look for a Rossi independent demo before the end of February, where among other things - he just admits the E-Cat will go quiescent at some time, but in this demo he does show the significantly long unpowered mode (except for the RF) which removes the possibility of a chemical reaction. Jones From:Robert Lynn It wouldn't even matter if it only ran for 6 hours before falling into quiescence, clearincontrovertibleindependent validation of powerful LENR would still have the world beating a path to his door to give him millions. Realistically Rossi is in the game of selling a developmental advantage for a massive new field that will advance far ahead of his understanding within months or years. It is naive for him to try to sell a commercial product - he doesn't have the skills or resources to match what bigger players will do in a year or two (see how far ahead Defkalion appear to be now if their latest claims are true). If he doesn't realize that soon then he will ultimately be left poorer and probably embittered by his bad decisions.
Re: [Vo]:The Garbage Collection of a Fool's Imagination
Rick, Thanks for your commentary. BTW, you recently stated: ... I have been repeatedly denigrated as a pathological skeptic -- despite a proven track record of submitting detailed, evidence and reason based, critiques of CF claims since December, 1996, when I evolved from being a naive enthusiast to pragmatic skeptic -- I notice you often describe yourself as: pragmatic. Hardly! IMHO, you're still a hard core idealist. That's OK! ;-) Regards Steven Vincent Johnson www.OrionWorks.com www.zazzle.com/orionworks
Re: [Vo]:Rossi's Best Chance
Jones, I also agree. However one question: Why does DGTs reactor provide an inferior ratio? As far as I remember, DGT claims a COP larger than 20 for a single reactor, whereas Rossi speaks of 6. Wolf Thank you, Robert. This is essentially what I have been saying for many weeks: Rossi has the ability to achieve a short run of nearly infinite COP-- 6-8 hours, after which there is inevitable quiescence. That is both his problem and his ace-in-the-hole. He has not shown an ability to move beyond that stalemate. Problem is -- thousands of man-hours of high quality engineering are now needed, and he cannot come close to doing it alone, BUT the biggest monetary value for him would only be possible if he could do it alone. However, if he could have done it months ago, then DGT would never have split, and Rossi would have adequate capital, even if not the entire 100 million. Now he is essentially penniless and cannot even give the University a pittance for desperately needed help. His time for monetizing even this slight developmental advantage is running out. Once DGT puts on a convincing show-and-tell, Rossi is nearly toast. That could happen this week. They may succeed with what is an inferior ratio of gain. Since they have never claimed self-running - this is indicative of having success through another route that does not involve a few of Rossi's secrets. Rossi's wife is smart enough to see this. Rossi's ego is too big. However, his wife will win this argument and Rossi will act like it was his idea. It is said this particular family dynamic is common in Italy. Look for a Rossi independent demo before the end of February, where -- among other things - he just admits the E-Cat will go quiescent at some time, but in this demo he does show the significantly long unpowered mode (except for the RF) which removes the possibility of a chemical reaction. Jones ** *From:*Robert Lynn ØIt wouldn't even matter if it only ran for 6 hours before falling into quiescence, clear incontrovertible independent validation of powerful LENR would still have the world beating a path to his door to give him millions. ØRealistically Rossi is in the game of selling a developmental advantage for a massive new field that will advance far ahead of his understanding within months or years. It is naive for him to try to sell a commercial product - he doesn't have the skills or resources to match what bigger players will do in a year or two (see how far ahead Defkalion appear to be now if their latest claims are true). If he doesn't realize that soon then he will ultimately be left poorer and probably embittered by his bad decisions.
RE: [Vo]:Rossi's Best Chance
Wolf, This comes under the category of 'puffery' and it probably relates to net gain, if there is any truth to it. Obviously if one can achieve lots of heat without input - COP is infinite. However, when you factor in the quiescent period and the startup delay then the average over an extended period could be COP-6. In the case of DGT, they could be saying that COP=20 is the best gain ever seen, and they may want to downplay the fact that the average over time, is far less. We await real data, in either case. Jones From: Wolf Fischer Jones, I also agree. However one question: Why does DGTs reactor provide an inferior ratio? As far as I remember, DGT claims a COP larger than 20 for a single reactor, whereas Rossi speaks of 6. Wolf Thank you, Robert. This is essentially what I have been saying for many weeks: Rossi has the ability to achieve a short run of nearly infinite COP- 6-8 hours, after which there is inevitable quiescence. That is both his problem and his ace-in-the-hole. He has not shown an ability to move beyond that stalemate. Problem is - thousands of man-hours of high quality engineering are now needed, and he cannot come close to doing it alone, BUT the biggest monetary value for him would only be possible if he could do it alone. However, if he could have done it months ago, then DGT would never have split, and Rossi would have adequate capital, even if not the entire 100 million. Now he is essentially penniless and cannot even give the University a pittance for desperately needed help. His time for monetizing even this slight developmental advantage is running out. Once DGT puts on a convincing show-and-tell, Rossi is nearly toast. That could happen this week. They may succeed with what is an inferior ratio of gain. Since they have never claimed self-running - this is indicative of having success through another route that does not involve a few of Rossi's secrets. Rossi's wife is smart enough to see this. Rossi's ego is too big. However, his wife will win this argument and Rossi will act like it was his idea. It is said this particular family dynamic is common in Italy. Look for a Rossi independent demo before the end of February, where - among other things - he just admits the E-Cat will go quiescent at some time, but in this demo he does show the significantly long unpowered mode (except for the RF) which removes the possibility of a chemical reaction. Jones From: Robert Lynn * It wouldn't even matter if it only ran for 6 hours before falling into quiescence, clear incontrovertible independent validation of powerful LENR would still have the world beating a path to his door to give him millions. * Realistically Rossi is in the game of selling a developmental advantage for a massive new field that will advance far ahead of his understanding within months or years. It is naive for him to try to sell a commercial product - he doesn't have the skills or resources to match what bigger players will do in a year or two (see how far ahead Defkalion appear to be now if their latest claims are true). If he doesn't realize that soon then he will ultimately be left poorer and probably embittered by his bad decisions.
Re: [Vo]:Rossi's Best Chance
The issue I have with with Rossi's device is the high electricity demand required to start off the E-Cat and the length of time required to get it going and then the periodic electric demand to keep it going. In comparison DGT's system seems draw much lower power to start up and starts much faster. Do you think that's because DGT have a better / more efficient heater or their reactor fuel has some catalyst that kick starts the reaction faster. What sort of temperatures are required to start the reaction? On 24/01/12 15:27, Jones Beene wrote: Wolf, This comes under the category of puffery and it probably relates to net gain, if there is any truth to it. Obviously if one can achieve lots of heat without input COP is infinite. However, when you factor in the quiescent period and the startup delay then the average over an extended period could be COP-6. In the case of DGT, they could be saying that COP=20 is the best gain ever seen, and they may want to downplay the fact that the average over time, is far less. We await real data, in either case. Jones
Re: [Vo]:What would it take?
JoJo, I own a small ($2M annual revenue) industrial engineering company in Atlanta. Give me access to a few good minds like on this board and access to some lab equipment (maybe rent time/resources at Ga Tech nano group across the highway - Electron Microscope Mass Spec, etc). and we could probably get some results within 6 months (assuming we nail down the reactants (Ni, H, C, K2HCO3, etc) - our PE Engineers could come up with a few reactor/heat transfer designs and get them fabbed in a local shop It looks like Rossi ordered most of his parts from a Grainger catalog... Defkalion just drilled into a steel block some kernals and channels for thermal liquid heat transfer. Just swagging some numbers which might be a little more realistic assuming the reactants could be nailed down within months instead of years.: Prototype Cost: Research: $150K - GA Tech Equip, access to nano/materials group to help with Ni surface, co-deposition, etc. PhD help from guys like Axil Engineering: (reactor drawings, specs) $100K Prototyping Cost: $50K (ea. Reactor only probably $5K) make a few prototypes Instrument and Controls: $50K $350K gets a reactor prototype functioning like Defkalion... I have many industrial customers that would die for something like this either generating heat or between 50-1000 PSIG steam in their plant. I could not make them fast enough. Most of my customers would most likely finance a project once a prototype is proven. I could replace every industrial boiler/heater in everyone of my customers plants with these things! On Mon, Jan 23, 2012 at 10:44 PM, Jojo Jaro jth...@hotmail.com wrote: ** Hey gang!! I'd like to throw this question around for discussion. I have been lurking here for a while and decided to subsribe recently. The question I would like the collective to discuss is? What would it take to bring Rossi-like reactors to the market? How much mullah needs to be invested to replicate the E-Cat. I am specifically referring to E-Cat technology only, not thermacore, FP or Mills, which I think appears to be dead-end technologies. I would be interested in reactor designs and lab equipment necessary. If somebody were to invest the needed mullah, would someone in this collective be able to replicate Rossi, as DGT seems to have done. I would specifically want Axil to chime in on what he think needs to be done based on his Rydberg Atoms theory of LENR? Jones Beene also on what he thinks it will take to implement the Copper Pair/Langmuir Torch theory. And others also. Jojo
Re: [Vo]:Rossi's Best Chance
Robert Lynn robert.gulliver.l...@gmail.com wrote: Rossi would have all the money he could ever want from any one of several thousand large multinationals or governments by next week if he did a single proper black box test similar to Jan-Jun 2011 demos . . . Maybe. Maybe not. Many cold fusion researchers have done proper black box tests that produced irrefutable results, albeit on a much smaller scale. They should have gotten unlimited support from multinationals and governments. Unfortunately, they got the frozen boot. They were ridiculed, harassed, demoted to menial jobs, and so on. Rossi is well aware of this history. He has had a difficult life himself. He does not think the world is rational or that that justice, fair play, and equal opportunity often prevail. I don't either. I am not a conspiracy theorist, but I know history. I read the newspapers. I know that in real life people who invent things which challenge gigantic ruthless industries -- such as the oil companies and coal companies -- often come to bad ends. They may not be shot. They may not be fired, or driven out of the country the way Pons was. But they are seldom welcomed by governments and multinationals. I urged Rossi to do a test like the one you described. I told him it could bring about support. However it is naïve to imagine it would instantly solve these problems or make him a multimillionaire. I believe that Rossi fears it would trigger a backlash from vested interests. He may be right about that. It is a real risk. If I were him I would take that risk, but it is his decision and I agree he has good reasons to be afraid. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:University of Bologna Terminates Relationship With Rossi
On 2012-01-24 14:20, Peter Gluck wrote: It would be relevant to know what says Giuseppe Levi (directly or via Passerini) and even Focardi. I'm sure that after an *official statement* by UniBo declaring that the university has nothing to do anymore with EFA/Rossi will be released, we will know what happened exactly and what led to this situation, via Passerini. Some people are speculating that Braga was strictly referring to the now terminated contract between EFA and the university, and that there might be a new one, but I think that's reading too much into his words. This was posted today by a blog user in a comment on 22passi: I can confirm that to the best of my knowledge the contract between the dept of physics and the EFA company has been cancelled because unfulfilled at the agreed deadline and that there is no further relationship between the company and the university based on that contract. Regards Dario Braga Keywords: to the best of my knowledge ... based on that contract Cheers, S.A.
Re: [Vo]:Rossi's Appropriate Decision -- One Million E-Cats For The Win
At 09:23 AM 1/24/2012, noone noone wrote: Hello Everyone, The obvious anti-Rossi agenda on this list is getting absolutely disgusting. This is useless in the other direction. There are strong reasons to remain skeptical of Rossi's claims, and a desire and actions to openly examine these reasons is not an anti-Rossi agenda. What was beyond the pale was a claim that Rossi is a fraud, that he's lying, etc., without proof. On the other hand, fraud, con artist, are among the possible explanations of what we've seen over the last year. noone noone with the interesting user name thesteorn party might as well be trolling for negative comments about Rossi, by presenting, as if it were obviously true, an explanation for Rossi's behavior that relies upon a series of assumptions that are pro-Rossi. To address one issue, there is a very simple explanation of why Rossi did not pay the University of Bologna. The explanation isn't as simple as claimed. It merely looks simple if you don't have in mind the full history. Simply put, he is devoting all of his time, energy, and most likely FINANCIAL RESOURCES on the factory that will produce the one million home units. If we assume that Rossi is not a total con, if we assume that he did, in fact, discover a way to get far higher energy release in NiH than anyone else had shown, what he then did is only justifiable on a theory that he's crazy, or at least, seriously self-deluded as to his personal capacities. The goal, of one million units was invented by Rossi, it was not imposed by the natural realities of the situation. If Rossi, for example, had focused on preparing *ten* units for sale, and had he delivered on that promise, and the units worked reliably, he'd have been successful, it would all be over. Instead, Rossi claimed he could do what he obviously could not do. He claimed that it would all be over by October, 2011, and that's how he answered critics and questioners: wait till October, you'll see. He announced and used such things as the contract with Defkalion and the contract with the University of Bologna to support his claim of legitimacy. And they were a form of support for that. So when these props are pulled out from under his claims, when he fails to deliver, we now see an attempt to rationalize this as deliberate. We are seeing a repetition of the past with Rossi: inflated claims that he can't deliver on. The fact is the University of Bologna testing has never been a huge priority of Rossi's. It has been a side issue. His number one goal is getting this technology into the market place. To do that, he needs to focus all of his effort and resources towards that. Sure. But getting into the marketplace if you don't have a product is cart before the horse. He didn't have a product. He had something that he believed (if we assume that this is, again, not a fraud) could, just with some tweaks, be made into a product. But the little detail of self-powered operation, of reliability, is not little with LENR. Rossi, if we trust certain appearances, did find a way to get higher output power than had been realized before -- but much LENR had deliberately been scaled down, to avoid the risk of uncontrolled reaction, such as what led to the meltdown in the lab of Pons and Fleischman some years before their public announcement. The problem, all along, had been two-fold: finding ways to reliably demonstrate the effect, *and dealing with the apparent loss of reactive capacity that takes place with time with prior approaches.* The general physics community doesn't believe in LENR at all, in spite of ample experimental evidence, but one of the elements of this disbelief has been the lack of reliable and clear demonstrations. In many fields, reliability isn't necessary, because statistical analysis can show that an effect is real (or real within a high degree of certainty). For energy production, however, reliability is essential. It's possible to imagine reactors that rely upon many small reactors that might only work so often and for so long, but it vastly complicates matters. In any case, one of the arguments of the skeptical community has been a catch-22 argument: It isn't real, and, besides, it isn't practical. Somehow the contradiction in those two positions is overlooked. The 1989 and 2004 U.S. DoE reviews did *not* conclude that LENR was not real, but they did conclude (rightly or wrongly) that reality had not been *conclusively* demonstrated, and especially that practicality had not been demonstrated as likely, which was their charge: should a massive program of research be undertaken? Instead, they *did* recommend research (at modest levels), which they would not have done with pathological science. What's been obvious for quite some time is that those who actually investigate LENR consider that there is a real anomaly being demonstrated, without being united on what that
RE: [Vo]:Rossi's Best Chance
From: Energy Liberator: The issue I have with Rossi's device is the high electricity demand required to start off the E-Cat . You may recall that DGT uses a heat transfer fluid, not water. One can employ a reservoir of hot fluid for faster startup, and this bulk reservoir can serve many units. Thus the need for electric input is mollified. On vortex, a year ago we were suggesting that Rossi should do this (use a dedicated heat transfer fluid), since one can store heat like this with a low vapor pressure at high temperature, possible near or higher than the threshold for startup. With water you cannot do this - YET Rossi still does not get it. This is why he needs the strong engineering help that he is NOT getting. DGT almost immediately picked up on this, which indicates that they are either monitoring this forum or had come to the conclusion independently. Typically with other positive results in Ni-H, which have been openly reported in the USA (Ahern) - the gain is in the form of a temperature inversion in which there is (X) input and the output is a multiple - let's say it is 6*(X). Note that Ahern was getting only about 1.2(X) - that is: until recently when we found a commercial nanopowder may have pushed the multiple way up (Sorry the report of that advance is not ready for publication yet and subject to many more runs). And thank Zeus that MY is not here to pounce on this bit of delay in publication. Anyway, early on, the skeptics hit on this need for constant input very hard - as being non-reconcilable with the claimed large gain, since after startup, any large gain should eliminate the need for further input. They are both right and wrong. They would be correct if there was steady gain over time in the reactor - but this does not happen with a few grams of reactant ! The lack of steady gain is part of the larger problem of quiescence. The active material goes in and out gain-mode sequentially. (we have a possible QM explanation for that oddity). Get it? I hope we do not have to re-convince the new-comers to Vo of the fact that this need for some kind of forced continuity (or stable input power) is indeed reconcilable with strong gain. It is part of the process and it is new physics. You will not find much on this in current literature but I am prepared to defend it once again if there are continuing doubts. Jones From: Energy Liberator The issue I have with Rossi's device is the high electricity demand required to start off the E-Cat and the length of time required to get it going and then the periodic electric demand to keep it going. In comparison DGT's system seems draw much lower power to start up and starts much faster. Do you think that's because DGT have a better / more efficient heater or their reactor fuel has some catalyst that kick starts the reaction faster. What sort of temperatures are required to start the reaction? On 24/01/12 15:27, Jones Beene wrote: Wolf, This comes under the category of 'puffery' and it probably relates to net gain, if there is any truth to it. Obviously if one can achieve lots of heat without input - COP is infinite. However, when you factor in the quiescent period and the startup delay then the average over an extended period could be COP-6. In the case of DGT, they could be saying that COP=20 is the best gain ever seen, and they may want to downplay the fact that the average over time, is far less. We await real data, in either case. Jones
Re: [Vo]:Rossi's Best Chance
The design of the DGT device allows them to lower if not stop the coolant flow into the heated core unit. The heating of the core can then be much faster and also require less net energy than Rossi's configuration. I would expect that both designs would need approximately the same temperature for efficient output. This is just my opinion, but I think the DGT design is more ideal. Dave -Original Message- From: Energy Liberator energylibera...@gmail.com To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Tue, Jan 24, 2012 10:39 am Subject: Re: [Vo]:Rossi's Best Chance The issue I have with with Rossi's device is the high electricity demand required to start off the E-Cat and the length of time required to get it going and then the periodic electric demand to keep it going. In comparison DGT's system seems draw much lower power to start up and starts much faster. Do you think that's because DGT have a better / more efficient heater or their reactor fuel has some catalyst that kick starts the reaction faster. What sort of temperatures are required to start the reaction? On 24/01/12 15:27, Jones Beene wrote: Wolf, This comes under the category of ‘puffery’ and it probably relates to net gain, if there is any truth to it. Obviously if one can achieve lots of heat without input – COP is infinite. However, when you factor in the quiescent period and the startup delay then the average over an extended period could be COP-6. In the case of DGT, they could be saying that COP=20 is the best gain ever seen, and they may want to downplay the fact that the average over time, is far less. We await real data, in either case. Jones
Re: [Vo]:What would it take?
Initially may be able to speed the rate of experimentation using an array of samples all subjected to the same heating and pressurisation cycles. Set out multiple test powders in an array within a reaction chamber and use an IR (or maybe visible spectrum at more useful elevated temps) camera to assess which samples get hotter than the others. This would let you quickly and cheaply work through 1000's of material or processing variants rapidly with a single instrumented reactor set-up, though you might have some issues with volatile compounds migrating around the reaction chamber. This is sort of what is done for initial stage drug screening studies. You could also offer it as a cheap test facility to external researchers - eg $50-100 a test on their material to be put through a standard vacuum, heating and H2 pressurisation test cycle over a few days, or offer a variety of test plans that will be executed each month. On 24 January 2012 15:46, Chemical Engineer cheme...@gmail.com wrote: JoJo, I own a small ($2M annual revenue) industrial engineering company in Atlanta. Give me access to a few good minds like on this board and access to some lab equipment (maybe rent time/resources at Ga Tech nano group across the highway - Electron Microscope Mass Spec, etc). and we could probably get some results within 6 months (assuming we nail down the reactants (Ni, H, C, K2HCO3, etc) - our PE Engineers could come up with a few reactor/heat transfer designs and get them fabbed in a local shop It looks like Rossi ordered most of his parts from a Grainger catalog... Defkalion just drilled into a steel block some kernals and channels for thermal liquid heat transfer. Just swagging some numbers which might be a little more realistic assuming the reactants could be nailed down within months instead of years.: Prototype Cost: Research: $150K - GA Tech Equip, access to nano/materials group to help with Ni surface, co-deposition, etc. PhD help from guys like Axil Engineering: (reactor drawings, specs) $100K Prototyping Cost: $50K (ea. Reactor only probably $5K) make a few prototypes Instrument and Controls: $50K $350K gets a reactor prototype functioning like Defkalion... I have many industrial customers that would die for something like this either generating heat or between 50-1000 PSIG steam in their plant. I could not make them fast enough. Most of my customers would most likely finance a project once a prototype is proven. I could replace every industrial boiler/heater in everyone of my customers plants with these things! On Mon, Jan 23, 2012 at 10:44 PM, Jojo Jaro jth...@hotmail.com wrote: ** Hey gang!! I'd like to throw this question around for discussion. I have been lurking here for a while and decided to subsribe recently. The question I would like the collective to discuss is? What would it take to bring Rossi-like reactors to the market? How much mullah needs to be invested to replicate the E-Cat. I am specifically referring to E-Cat technology only, not thermacore, FP or Mills, which I think appears to be dead-end technologies. I would be interested in reactor designs and lab equipment necessary. If somebody were to invest the needed mullah, would someone in this collective be able to replicate Rossi, as DGT seems to have done. I would specifically want Axil to chime in on what he think needs to be done based on his Rydberg Atoms theory of LENR? Jones Beene also on what he thinks it will take to implement the Copper Pair/Langmuir Torch theory. And others also. Jojo
Re: [Vo]:REMOVING RULE2 VIOLATORS, 'subscribe' blocked. SUGGESTIONS
I'd not have handled this the same way, but, to be sure, Mr. Beaty owns this list. Vortex operates by an automated remailer. Moderation is not a feature of this type of list. T
Re: [Vo]:The Garbage Collection of a Fool's Imagination
Analysis of the design using established physics predicts that it will not exhibit pertual motion when it is built. It also goes without saying that you can't expect to design a perpertuum mobile using established physics. If the built device did exhibit perpertual motion, then it would be by luck rather than by design. In order to build a perpetuum mobile by design new principles of physics are required. Harry On Tue, Jan 24, 2012 at 12:45 AM, Giovanni Santostasi gsantost...@gmail.com wrote: The Hydro machine has masses moving in a closed path in a gravitational field so the total energy balance is zero. When you consider the motion of the gas in and out of the chambers, that unavoidably will have some friction and losses, then the system is going to have a negative energy balance. This is similar to the last type of perpetual motion machines discussed in the link in my previous post, but unfortunately they don't work. Interesting to think about them though, one can learn nice physics in doing that. Giovanni On Mon, Jan 23, 2012 at 11:36 PM, Peter Gluck peter.gl...@gmail.com wrote: Steven, what's the difference between those 'viruses' and the MEMES postulated by Richard Dawkins- see Memetics? Peter On Tue, Jan 24, 2012 at 7:18 AM, Giovanni Santostasi gsantost...@gmail.com wrote: Orion, Hopefully my comment is not understood as trolling but as polite criticism. It is nice to have imagination and to think about things that are considered by main stream science as impossible. I wish more professional scientists could do that (some do and they wait until they come close to retirement or at least get tenure). What is also nice, though, is to try to see what could go wrong in a particular imagined idea or scheme as a way of understanding better and making more concrete what one imagines. It happened many times to me to think about ideas that I believed were great to find out almost always that two things were true: 1) the idea had some fundamental problem with it and I could not see it (at least at first) 2) the idea was actually good but somebody already thought about it It is simply difficult to come up with something completely amazing, right and original at the same time. But one can learn a lot from this thinking and it is a good way to learn and think about science and nature that are amazing anyway. Well, about the buoyancy perpetual motion we have the case that it is something unfortunately neither original (in the sense that somebody already thought about it) or really working (even if due to relatively subtle reasons). Somewhere non conservative forces are going to make your device stop. This why there is not a working model of such devices but often simulations can be found on the net. Here one example of a pretty complete discussion about different kinds of buoyancy perpetual machines and why they don't work: http://www.hp-gramatke.net/pmm_physics/english/page0550.htm Giovanni On Mon, Jan 23, 2012 at 9:01 PM, OrionWorks - Steven Vincent Johnson orionwo...@charter.net wrote: Speaking of Regularly Scheduled Programming, here's one from Ski-Fi channel! To my surprise, the troll, Eff Wivakeef, before he was banned, posted something that I personally found fascinating and transformational. Well… let me try to explain what I mean by transformational. * * * Warning! * * * This has to do with another one of those strange synchronistic woo-woo events that occasionally pass through my life. If you don't believe in synchronicity or the existence of strange Unidentified Flying Woo-Woos (UFW2s) you might as well skip the rest of this post. ;-) /* * * Warning! * * * I'm referring to the Troll's attempt to both taunt and ridicule the Vort Collective by posting a You-Tube link to a bogus free energy device allegedly based on the manipulation of gravity, gradient water pressure, and buoyancy. See: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-89SiqG3pI0 We see an individual, James Kwok, owner of a company called Hidro, explaining how his technology works with the aid of a fish tank filled with water and a flexible tube attached at both ends with inflatable bags. One bag has a weight attached to it. Kwok proceeds to give a warm fuzzy spiel with birds chirping away in the background on how gravity affects water pressure, and how this pressure buildup in-turn affects the buoyancy of the two inflatable bags depending on how deep these bags are positioned within a reservoir of water. Ok, so far, so good. I have a pretty decent understanding of the underlying physics involved pertaining to water pressure and the effects buoyancy. Kwok then proceeds to show how he found a way, through some clever engineering tricks, of manipulating the effects of buoyancy by filling ballast tanks with gas. This causes the ballast tanks to become lighter than the surrounding water where they will subsequently rise
Re: [Vo]:The Garbage Collection of a Fool's Imagination
Well, sure any celestial body in the solar system has one side that is hit by sun light and the other that is not. But usually people talk about the 'dark side of the moon' as the side that is not visible of the moon and my point was that is a misnomer. But yes there are regions of the moon that are at any given moment in darkness but this side is always changing as the moon moves around the earth and moon and earth move around the sun. This region is cold but so any shaded area, even one created by a rock formation lighted by the sun. About mirror matter, I have a PhD in Physics and never heard of it, sorry. I know of course about supersymmetric particles and not sure if they are the same concept or just related. I read the wiki article and I understand now the basic concept, not sure we need mirror matter because even if Parity is violated as it is in the weak force we know in the end CPT (charge, parity and time reversal) is conserved. But I will look into it further, it is an interesting topic. Giovanni On Tue, Jan 24, 2012 at 3:09 AM, Rich Murray rmfor...@gmail.com wrote: Thanks for clarification re Moon -- has a two-week night, while one of its poles is always dark -- so surface temperatures get low anyplace it's dark for over a day -- that's how it can hold plenty of H2O as ice within the highly insulating dusk on the surface. I saw a reference to a paper by an expert that proposed energy flow from 300 degree Kelvin to much colder solar system mirror matter could run a practical heat engine -- apparently there is enough heat transfer for it to work -- if the cold mirror matter was at 20 degrees Kelvin, even if it was mirror CO2 or mirror H2O, it could have a strong fractal microstructure, like a ceramic, with a bit of C impurity, and be placed as a thin layer on a thin metal surface of ordinary matter, so then it is possible that there will be useful thermal transfer from the ordinary metal to the much colder mirror matter layer, which would radiate its mirror IR into the very cold mirror dust and gas, still bound by gravity to orbit around the Sun, but not heated by the Sun's IR and light output. The very interesting mirror matter web sites will lead you to it: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mirror_matter I'm now imagining creatures that evolved as floaters in the organic clouds of gas giants, gradually evolving to absorb and use mirror matter with their normal matter nanostructures, using the mirror matter as heat sinks to allow their metabolism to be driven by light from the distant Sun, and even the galactic background IR, as their balloons become larger and very thin, filled with normal H2 at just a little over the pressure of the supporting gas layers, until they are actually able to sail on the solar wind and light pressure to slowly build up speed, becoming living spacecraft -- not so unlikely, when we watch a bird that can fly, float on water, dive, walk on land, and sleep in nests on trees, changing its shape radically when flying.
Re: [Vo]:The Garbage Collection of a Fool's Imagination
Harry, I agree with you. In the end one has to rely on experimentation. If one builds a machine that works at over unity and this is verified all over the world, on a regular basis, by many independent experimenter than no matter what the theory says, this phenomenon should be accepted. What I cannot accept is that the scientific community purposefully would suppress evidence for such a phenomenon. Scientists are very eager to find anomalous events that could change our understanding of the world. Discovering or contributing to the understanding of such anomalies could mean a guaranteed Nobel Prize. It is that the standards are high to show that this is a reliable anomaly and something that everybody (at least in that particular field specialized scientific community) verify. Few examples come to mind just in relatively recent times : 1) because it was just mentioned, parity violation 2) the acceleration of the expansion of the universe 3) neutrino oscillations and so on. So I'm not sure I would insist in some conspiracy from the scientific community in suppressing LENR. I bet most scientists would be ecstatic if one day somebody can produce reliable LENR supporting results (or any other anomalous over unity energy experiment). Giovanni On Tue, Jan 24, 2012 at 10:59 AM, Harry Veeder hveeder...@gmail.com wrote: Analysis of the design using established physics predicts that it will not exhibit pertual motion when it is built. It also goes without saying that you can't expect to design a perpertuum mobile using established physics. If the built device did exhibit perpertual motion, then it would be by luck rather than by design. In order to build a perpetuum mobile by design new principles of physics are required. Harry On Tue, Jan 24, 2012 at 12:45 AM, Giovanni Santostasi gsantost...@gmail.com wrote: The Hydro machine has masses moving in a closed path in a gravitational field so the total energy balance is zero. When you consider the motion of the gas in and out of the chambers, that unavoidably will have some friction and losses, then the system is going to have a negative energy balance. This is similar to the last type of perpetual motion machines discussed in the link in my previous post, but unfortunately they don't work. Interesting to think about them though, one can learn nice physics in doing that. Giovanni On Mon, Jan 23, 2012 at 11:36 PM, Peter Gluck peter.gl...@gmail.com wrote: Steven, what's the difference between those 'viruses' and the MEMES postulated by Richard Dawkins- see Memetics? Peter On Tue, Jan 24, 2012 at 7:18 AM, Giovanni Santostasi gsantost...@gmail.com wrote: Orion, Hopefully my comment is not understood as trolling but as polite criticism. It is nice to have imagination and to think about things that are considered by main stream science as impossible. I wish more professional scientists could do that (some do and they wait until they come close to retirement or at least get tenure). What is also nice, though, is to try to see what could go wrong in a particular imagined idea or scheme as a way of understanding better and making more concrete what one imagines. It happened many times to me to think about ideas that I believed were great to find out almost always that two things were true: 1) the idea had some fundamental problem with it and I could not see it (at least at first) 2) the idea was actually good but somebody already thought about it It is simply difficult to come up with something completely amazing, right and original at the same time. But one can learn a lot from this thinking and it is a good way to learn and think about science and nature that are amazing anyway. Well, about the buoyancy perpetual motion we have the case that it is something unfortunately neither original (in the sense that somebody already thought about it) or really working (even if due to relatively subtle reasons). Somewhere non conservative forces are going to make your device stop. This why there is not a working model of such devices but often simulations can be found on the net. Here one example of a pretty complete discussion about different kinds of buoyancy perpetual machines and why they don't work: http://www.hp-gramatke.net/pmm_physics/english/page0550.htm Giovanni On Mon, Jan 23, 2012 at 9:01 PM, OrionWorks - Steven Vincent Johnson orionwo...@charter.net wrote: Speaking of Regularly Scheduled Programming, here's one from Ski-Fi channel! To my surprise, the troll, Eff Wivakeef, before he was banned, posted something that I personally found fascinating and transformational. Well… let me try to explain what I mean by transformational. * * * Warning! * * * This has to do with another one of those strange synchronistic woo-woo events that occasionally pass through my life. If
Re: [Vo]:Rossi's Best Chance
Thanks for the explanation. I knew DGT were using a heat transfer fluid but didn't realise they were preheating it to assist with the start up. "...The lack of steady gain is part of the larger problem of quiescence. The active material goes in and out gain-mode sequentially. (we have a possible QM explanation for that oddity)..." Is this problem of "quiescence" verified or something you been informed of? I've not seen it mentioned anywhere. One would think Rossi would monitor what DGT are up to and see if he can learn anything but he seems completely convinced they have nothing or at least publicly that is the impression he is giving. He could learn a few engineering tips just by looking at the Hyperion spec sheet. I think Rossi may be hurting from the whole DGT affair and through blind spite is dismissing everything relating to DGT. Just to be clear, I'm not a sceptic. I actually believe Rossi and DGT have something but I'm keeping my feet firmly planted and will question things that don't seem to add up. On 24/01/12 16:22, Jones Beene wrote: From:Energy Liberator: The issue I have with Rossi's device is the high electricity demand required to start off the E-Cat You may recall that DGT uses a heat transfer fluid, not water. One can employ a reservoir of hot fluid for faster startup, and this bulk reservoir can serve many units. Thus the need for electric input is mollified. On vortex, a year ago we were suggesting that Rossi should do this (use a dedicated heat transfer fluid), since one can store heat like this with a low vapor pressure at high temperature, possible near or higher than the threshold for startup. With water you cannot do this - YET Rossi still does not get it. This is why he needs the strong engineering help that he is NOT getting. DGT almost immediately picked up on this, which indicates that they are either monitoring this forum or had come to the conclusion independently. Typically with other positive results in Ni-H, which have been openly reported in the USA (Ahern) - the gain is in the form of a temperature inversion in which there is (X) input and the output is a multiple lets say it is 6*(X). Note that Ahern was getting only about 1.2(X) that is: until recently when we found a commercial nanopowder may have pushed the multiple way up (Sorry the report of that advance is not ready for publication yet and subject to many more runs). And thank Zeus that MY is not here to pounce on this bit of delay in publication. Anyway, early on, the skeptics hit on this need for constant input very hard - as being non-reconcilable with the claimed large gain, since after startup, any large gain should eliminate the need for further input. They are both right and wrong. They would be correct if there was steady gain over time in the reactor - but this does not happen with a few grams of reactant ! The lack of steady gain is part of the larger problem of quiescence. The active material goes in and out gain-mode sequentially. (we have a possible QM explanation for that oddity). Get it? I hope we do not have to re-convince the new-comers to Vo of the fact that this need for some kind of forced continuity (or stable input power) is indeed reconcilable with strong gain. It is part of the process and it is new physics. You will not find much on this in current literature but I am prepared to defend it once again if there are continuing doubts. Jones
Re: [Vo]:The Garbage Collection of a Fool's Imagination
On Tue, Jan 24, 2012 at 12:20 PM, Giovanni Santostasi gsantost...@gmail.com wrote: I bet most scientists would be ecstatic if one day somebody can produce reliable LENR supporting results (or any other anomalous over unity energy experiment). Excluding those whose livelihood depends on fusion of the hot variety. T
Re: [Vo]:Defkalion is open for testing as from now
At 11:09 PM 1/23/2012, Alain Sepeda wrote: since defkalion feel that the COP is above 20, no need to have a scientist. Static would be fine IF you monitor the entire surface of the hyperion. But I'm not at all happy with the two-thermometer COP calculation. I've got some other stuff to do, but I'll write up an initial fake later on today.
Re: [Vo]:Defkalion is open for testing as from now
I find it a little disappointing, that Defkalion are not going to use flow calorimetry for their demos. Their choice of course. It is a bit hard to understand their test procedure, they specify a Bare hyperion reactor but what that means is unclear, it also sounds like they are not using a coolant - just passive ambient air cooling with an air blower if it starts to overheat (am I misunderstanding them?). The Public Relations problem with differential thermal calorimetry is that skeptics can still point to the possibility of fraud via variable thermal conductivity between inside and outside of the enclosing box (things as simple as vacuum insulation having gas let into it via remote controlled valve) or other tricks. To me it would seem like flow calorimetry is the easier option given that they have a reactor designed to flow a coolant through it and that could easily heat water in a secondary heat exchanger to allow easily verifiable water heating by any one of the many methods discussed in wake of Rossi's demos last year (so long as we avoid steam!). Pretty hard to fake (or deny) buckets of hot water coming out. It also seems to me that the reaction rate control issues and prevention of thermal run-away would be much trickier without a directly controllable rate of cooling. They must be pretty confident in their understanding and control of the reaction process. On 24 January 2012 08:55, Patrick Ellul ellulpatr...@gmail.com wrote: What is really good is that they want to test it for 96 hours (48+48) minimum. I think that will give so much more credibility to the invention. On Tue, Jan 24, 2012 at 6:09 PM, Alain Sepeda alain.sep...@gmail.comwrote: since defkalion feel that the COP is above 20, no need to have a scientist. moreover scientist are easy to manipulate (see the books of William Broad, *Nicholas Wade)*, so good old tricky engineer would be better. if you are really paranoid, a good magician/prestidigitator could be a consultant. but with COP20, assuming good electric measures (UPS is a good idea because it has hard limits in power, if they are of well known model) 2012/1/24 Peter Gluck peter.gl...@gmail.com I think the best would be an engineer- salesman like the one who had installed my home heater BOSCH 3000W plus a technician specialized in radioactivity measurements for an environment protection State authorithy. A good generator needs NO geniuses to confirm that it works well, I think. -- Patrick www.tRacePerfect.com The daily puzzle everyone can finish but not everyone can perfect! The quickest puzzle ever!
Re: [Vo]:Rossi's Best Chance
Being fast to start and avoiding meltdown mean that they have a very good, nearly optimal control. Maybe part of the secret is classic control theory, helping to design the optimal retro-action, once you know the core thermal parameters... but being also able to work without cooling, with nudist reactors under the sky, mean they don't need the coolant to survive... something is stabilizing the core, or at least helping/damping the core to be stabilized from far by a very good temp-power loop (maybe a good PID predictor). One idea would be that they use very fast induction heating, but they say NO RFG... maybe induction is not RFG for them (true in a way). this might explain why they use (as someone explain here) a magnetically transparent steel. the stability of the core might be about the powder behavior at high temperature, relative to induction... (why not curie point? 627 C?) but in their spec they talk about resistors, not induction coils... they talk about a chemically assisted preheating... undisclosed. pre-heat 6 seconds... max op temp 1050C... however coolant oil is limited to 350C, and 430 for molten salts... not the 600C we see as limit for the tests... whatever they did, it is smart job... either a tricky intrinsic feedback (like lead-bismuth nuke do), or optimal control, after good modelization. 2012/1/24 David Roberson dlrober...@aol.com The design of the DGT device allows them to lower if not stop the coolant flow into the heated core unit. The heating of the core can then be much faster and also require less net energy than Rossi's configuration. I would expect that both designs would need approximately the same temperature for efficient output. This is just my opinion, but I think the DGT design is more ideal. Dave
Re: [Vo]:The Garbage Collection of a Fool's Imagination
you are right scientist would love to search on LENR. Some did it officially and got black listed by their administration and the community afraid of the press reactions, thus of politicians and citizen (furious of fund waste) Some did is officiously and keep the results in drawaer Some did it in a big organisation, quite tolerant and not supervizing too much (Nasa, spawar) provided it is not mediatic... when it get mediatic they had to stop. big corp would love to make LENR work. some even tried really, but failed and were de-funded after the problem in my opinion is the media blocus on LENR... all other actors (scientists, gov, corp) did what they could in the real mediatic world... most people don't know more about LENR that the official it is a fraud. seeing how people will accepte the blocus of the past will be fun/sad to see... probably the media will put the blame on innocents, as usual. after all they control the official truth. 2012/1/24 Giovanni Santostasi gsantost...@gmail.com Harry, I agree with you. In the end one has to rely on experimentation. If one builds a machine that works at over unity and this is verified all over the world, on a regular basis, by many independent experimenter than no matter what the theory says, this phenomenon should be accepted. What I cannot accept is that the scientific community purposefully would suppress evidence for such a phenomenon. Scientists are very eager to find anomalous events that could change our understanding of the world. Discovering or contributing to the understanding of such anomalies could mean a guaranteed Nobel Prize. It is that the standards are high to show that this is a reliable anomaly and something that everybody (at least in that particular field specialized scientific community) verify. Few examples come to mind just in relatively recent times : 1) because it was just mentioned, parity violation 2) the acceleration of the expansion of the universe 3) neutrino oscillations and so on. So I'm not sure I would insist in some conspiracy from the scientific community in suppressing LENR. I bet most scientists would be ecstatic if one day somebody can produce reliable LENR supporting results (or any other anomalous over unity energy experiment). Giovanni On Tue, Jan 24, 2012 at 10:59 AM, Harry Veeder hveeder...@gmail.comwrote: Analysis of the design using established physics predicts that it will not exhibit pertual motion when it is built. It also goes without saying that you can't expect to design a perpertuum mobile using established physics. If the built device did exhibit perpertual motion, then it would be by luck rather than by design. In order to build a perpetuum mobile by design new principles of physics are required. Harry On Tue, Jan 24, 2012 at 12:45 AM, Giovanni Santostasi gsantost...@gmail.com wrote: The Hydro machine has masses moving in a closed path in a gravitational field so the total energy balance is zero. When you consider the motion of the gas in and out of the chambers, that unavoidably will have some friction and losses, then the system is going to have a negative energy balance. This is similar to the last type of perpetual motion machines discussed in the link in my previous post, but unfortunately they don't work. Interesting to think about them though, one can learn nice physics in doing that. Giovanni On Mon, Jan 23, 2012 at 11:36 PM, Peter Gluck peter.gl...@gmail.com wrote: Steven, what's the difference between those 'viruses' and the MEMES postulated by Richard Dawkins- see Memetics? Peter On Tue, Jan 24, 2012 at 7:18 AM, Giovanni Santostasi gsantost...@gmail.com wrote: Orion, Hopefully my comment is not understood as trolling but as polite criticism. It is nice to have imagination and to think about things that are considered by main stream science as impossible. I wish more professional scientists could do that (some do and they wait until they come close to retirement or at least get tenure). What is also nice, though, is to try to see what could go wrong in a particular imagined idea or scheme as a way of understanding better and making more concrete what one imagines. It happened many times to me to think about ideas that I believed were great to find out almost always that two things were true: 1) the idea had some fundamental problem with it and I could not see it (at least at first) 2) the idea was actually good but somebody already thought about it It is simply difficult to come up with something completely amazing, right and original at the same time. But one can learn a lot from this thinking and it is a good way to learn and think about science and nature that are amazing anyway. Well, about the buoyancy perpetual motion we have the case that it is something unfortunately neither original (in the sense that somebody already
Re: [Vo]:Defkalion is open for testing as from now
static calorimetry is ok, if they open their core, and it seems to be in the plan. smaller reactor mean also less room to hide rabits... I think that thei perfectly know how the demo will be, and they have done it many time. they probably have a very precise model of their reactor. it is why they are not afraid to let other play with their toys. 2012/1/24 Robert Lynn robert.gulliver.l...@gmail.com I find it a little disappointing, that Defkalion are not going to use flow calorimetry for their demos ... They must be pretty confident in their understanding and control of the reaction process.
Re: [Vo]:Rossi's Best Chance
No such thing as a magnetically transparent steel (or any conductor for that matter) RF will not pass through a conductive material. And for the same reason high frequency magnetic fields will not penetrate any metal by more than a fraction of a mm. For a bit of a guide as to what sort of distances we are talking about check out the skin effect http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Skin_effect (not exactly the same, but similar behaviour). If you are referring to a non-ferromagnetic steel and what significance it might have then keep in mind that Austenitic Stainless steels like AISI 301, 304, 316, 321 etc are the cheapest, most commonly available materials with good high temperature strength, creep resistance, ductility, excellent machinability, excellent weldability, resistance to hydrogen embrittlement and resistance to many other forms of chemical attack and oxidation. They are used in many high temp applications for all of those reasons, and are in many ways the chemical (and particularly food processing) industry's work horse materials. I am sure that there is nothing more to the use of non-ferromagnetic stainless steel than convenience. You can also get Ferritic stainless steel (4xx series) that are ferromagnetic (ie attracted to magnetic fields), but generally not as good for high temps or corrosion. On 24 January 2012 17:42, Alain Sepeda alain.sep...@gmail.com wrote: Being fast to start and avoiding meltdown mean that they have a very good, nearly optimal control. Maybe part of the secret is classic control theory, helping to design the optimal retro-action, once you know the core thermal parameters... but being also able to work without cooling, with nudist reactors under the sky, mean they don't need the coolant to survive... something is stabilizing the core, or at least helping/damping the core to be stabilized from far by a very good temp-power loop (maybe a good PID predictor). One idea would be that they use very fast induction heating, but they say NO RFG... maybe induction is not RFG for them (true in a way). this might explain why they use (as someone explain here) a magnetically transparent steel. the stability of the core might be about the powder behavior at high temperature, relative to induction... (why not curie point? 627 C?) but in their spec they talk about resistors, not induction coils... they talk about a chemically assisted preheating... undisclosed. pre-heat 6 seconds... max op temp 1050C... however coolant oil is limited to 350C, and 430 for molten salts... not the 600C we see as limit for the tests... whatever they did, it is smart job... either a tricky intrinsic feedback (like lead-bismuth nuke do), or optimal control, after good modelization. 2012/1/24 David Roberson dlrober...@aol.com The design of the DGT device allows them to lower if not stop the coolant flow into the heated core unit. The heating of the core can then be much faster and also require less net energy than Rossi's configuration. I would expect that both designs would need approximately the same temperature for efficient output. This is just my opinion, but I think the DGT design is more ideal. Dave
Re: [Vo]:Defkalion is open for testing as from now
Robert Lynn robert.gulliver.l...@gmail.com wrote: I find it a little disappointing, that Defkalion are not going to use flow calorimetry for their demos. Their choice of course. I believe they intend to do that at a later date. Static (Isoperobolic) calorimetry is a little easier to set up, especially on this scale. It is fine, as long as you calibrate. This is a good start. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:Defkalion is open for testing as from now
Has anyone stepped up yet, and is preparing to perform independent testing? I assume there HAS to be interest in this subject. Regards Steven Vincent Johnson www.OrionWorks.com www.zazzle.com/orionworks
[Vo]:Problem with flow calorimetry in Defkalion system
The problem with flow calorimetry with this system is that the working fluid is not water but high temperature glycol or something similar. You could measure the temperature of the fluid, but you can't just run it through the machine and dump it down the drain. So the starting temperature will rise. That is, the glycol reservoir temperature will rise. The commercial unit has a primary glycol cooling loop, a heat exchanger, and a secondary water cooling loop. That's complicated! You can do calorimetry on it, of course. But that's a lot of equipment. It is a large mass of material, with many things happening in it, pumps pumping and whatnot. The skeptics would have a field day. Alan Fletcher could think of dozens of ways to fake that. For a scientific test, especially in the first round, I prefer the naked reactor approach with isoperibolic calorimetry. Keep it simple. - Jed
RE: [Vo]:Rossi's Best Chance
Lots of good, and *rational*, skepticism going on today. Rossi's failure to deliver is likely due to the lack of competent experts in the required technologies (physics, engineering), and that is probably due to his ego and/or paranoia of someone stealing his 'secret sauce'. DGT differs in that they have an appreciation for the complexity and sophistication of the effort, and apparently hired the expertise needed. If Jones' statements about quiescence are in fact what is happening, and Rossi was aware of it, then the business decision to attempt a commercial unit was a major error. he should have focused on solving that problem prior to any commercial announcement. perhaps he was attempting a 'hail mary', and betting that he could solve the problem before delivery, but that decision has come back and bit him in the a$$... Also, I doubt that the quiescence problem can be solved by engineering. it is likely due to the physics of the reaction and will require strong scientific understanding to solve. Fortunately, Rossi has stoked the fires of interest in LENR, and there are plenty of very competent scientists now working on it. -m From: Jones Beene [mailto:jone...@pacbell.net] Sent: Tuesday, January 24, 2012 8:22 AM To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: RE: [Vo]:Rossi's Best Chance From: Energy Liberator: The issue I have with Rossi's device is the high electricity demand required to start off the E-Cat . You may recall that DGT uses a heat transfer fluid, not water. One can employ a reservoir of hot fluid for faster startup, and this bulk reservoir can serve many units. Thus the need for electric input is mollified. On vortex, a year ago we were suggesting that Rossi should do this (use a dedicated heat transfer fluid), since one can store heat like this with a low vapor pressure at high temperature, possible near or higher than the threshold for startup. With water you cannot do this - YET Rossi still does not get it. This is why he needs the strong engineering help that he is NOT getting. DGT almost immediately picked up on this, which indicates that they are either monitoring this forum or had come to the conclusion independently. Typically with other positive results in Ni-H, which have been openly reported in the USA (Ahern) - the gain is in the form of a temperature inversion in which there is (X) input and the output is a multiple - let's say it is 6*(X). Note that Ahern was getting only about 1.2(X) - that is: until recently when we found a commercial nanopowder may have pushed the multiple way up (Sorry the report of that advance is not ready for publication yet and subject to many more runs). And thank Zeus that MY is not here to pounce on this bit of delay in publication. Anyway, early on, the skeptics hit on this need for constant input very hard - as being non-reconcilable with the claimed large gain, since after startup, any large gain should eliminate the need for further input. They are both right and wrong. They would be correct if there was steady gain over time in the reactor - but this does not happen with a few grams of reactant ! The lack of steady gain is part of the larger problem of quiescence. The active material goes in and out gain-mode sequentially. (we have a possible QM explanation for that oddity). Get it? I hope we do not have to re-convince the new-comers to Vo of the fact that this need for some kind of forced continuity (or stable input power) is indeed reconcilable with strong gain. It is part of the process and it is new physics. You will not find much on this in current literature but I am prepared to defend it once again if there are continuing doubts. Jones From: Energy Liberator The issue I have with Rossi's device is the high electricity demand required to start off the E-Cat and the length of time required to get it going and then the periodic electric demand to keep it going. In comparison DGT's system seems draw much lower power to start up and starts much faster. Do you think that's because DGT have a better / more efficient heater or their reactor fuel has some catalyst that kick starts the reaction faster. What sort of temperatures are required to start the reaction? On 24/01/12 15:27, Jones Beene wrote: Wolf, This comes under the category of 'puffery' and it probably relates to net gain, if there is any truth to it. Obviously if one can achieve lots of heat without input - COP is infinite. However, when you factor in the quiescent period and the startup delay then the average over an extended period could be COP-6. In the case of DGT, they could be saying that COP=20 is the best gain ever seen, and they may want to downplay the fact that the average over time, is far less. We await real data, in either case. Jones
Re: [Vo]:Defkalion is open for testing as from now
At 09:31 AM 1/24/2012, Alan J Fletcher wrote: At 11:09 PM 1/23/2012, Alain Sepeda wrote: since defkalion feel that the COP is above 20, no need to have a scientist. Static would be fine IF you monitor the entire surface of the hyperion. But I'm not at all happy with the two-thermometer COP calculation. I've got some other stuff to do, but I'll write up an initial fake later on today. There are two heater elements : TB (Blank) far from the thermometers, and TA (Active) close to the thermometers The heater element is selected by the presence (Active) or absence (Blank) of the control signal. T1 and T2 will give very different values depending on which heater element is selected. // non-proportional font // *---* | insulation | | | | T2 | external temperature | *--* | | | kernel wall | | | | | | | *--* | | : T1 : | internal temperature | : -^v^v^v^v^v^v-o o-v^v^v^v^v^- : | | : RB \ / RA : | RB : Blank RA: Active resistor | : v - - - - - - - - - - - - - control : select RA or RB | : | : | | : *-- heater power | : : |
Re: [Vo]:Rossi's Best Chance
Do you guys know about Iron Sky? It does have themes interesting to this group as alternative energy sources, anti-gravity and so on. It is a movie rendition of the well known meme that Nazi escaped to the moon at the end of the second world war. It is should be a pretty entertaining movie I think: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DeAfoiN5SDw I plan to write a book on it called: The physics of Iron Sky. http://www.facebook.com/groups/physicsironsky/ Giovanni On Tue, Jan 24, 2012 at 12:59 PM, Mark Iverson-ZeroPoint zeropo...@charter.net wrote: Lots of good, and **rational**, skepticism going on today… ** ** Rossi’s failure to deliver is likely due to the lack of competent experts in the required technologies (physics, engineering), and that is probably due to his ego and/or paranoia of someone stealing his ‘secret sauce’. DGT differs in that they have an appreciation for the complexity and sophistication of the effort, and apparently hired the expertise needed.** ** ** ** If Jones’ statements about “quiescence” are in fact what is happening, and Rossi was aware of it, then the business decision to attempt a commercial unit was a major error… he should have focused on solving that problem prior to any commercial announcement… perhaps he was attempting a ‘hail mary’, and betting that he could solve the problem before delivery, but that decision has come back and bit him in the a$$... ** ** Also, I doubt that the quiescence problem can be solved by engineering… it is likely due to the physics of the reaction and will require strong scientific understanding to solve. Fortunately, Rossi has stoked the fires of interest in LENR, and there are plenty of very competent scientists now working on it. ** ** -m ** ** *From:* Jones Beene [mailto:jone...@pacbell.net] *Sent:* Tuesday, January 24, 2012 8:22 AM *To:* vortex-l@eskimo.com *Subject:* RE: [Vo]:Rossi's Best Chance ** ** *From:* Energy Liberator: The issue I have with Rossi's device is the high electricity demand required to start off the E-Cat … ** ** ** ** You may recall that DGT uses a heat transfer fluid, not water. ** ** One can employ a reservoir of hot fluid for faster startup, and this bulk reservoir can serve many units. Thus the need for electric input is mollified. ** ** On vortex, a year ago we were suggesting that Rossi should do this (use a dedicated heat transfer fluid), since one can store heat like this with a low vapor pressure at high temperature, possible near or higher than the threshold for startup. ** ** With water you cannot do this - YET Rossi still does not get it. This is why he needs the strong engineering help that he is NOT getting. DGT almost immediately picked up on this, which indicates that they are either monitoring this forum or had come to the conclusion independently. ** ** Typically with other positive results in Ni-H, which have been openly reported in the USA (Ahern) - the gain is in the form of a “temperature inversion” in which there is (X) input and the output is a multiple – let’s say it is 6*(X). ** ** Note that Ahern was getting only about 1.2(X) – that is: until recently when we found a commercial nanopowder may have pushed the multiple way up (Sorry the report of that advance is not ready for publication yet and subject to many more runs). And thank Zeus that MY is not here to pounce on this bit of delay in publication. ** ** Anyway, early on, the skeptics hit on this need for constant input very hard - as being non-reconcilable with the claimed large gain, since after startup, any large gain should eliminate the need for further input. They are both right and wrong. ** ** They would be correct if there was steady gain over time in the reactor - but this does not happen with a few grams of reactant ! The lack of steady gain is part of the larger problem of “quiescence”. The active material goes in and out gain-mode sequentially. (we have a possible QM explanation for that oddity). ** ** Get it? ** ** I hope we do not have to re-convince the new-comers to Vo of the fact that this need for some kind of “forced continuity” (or stable input power) is indeed reconcilable with strong gain. ** ** It is part of the process and it is *new physics*. You will not find much on this in current literature but I am prepared to defend it once again if there are continuing doubts. ** ** Jones ** ** *From:* Energy Liberator ** ** The issue I have with Rossi's device is the high electricity demand required to start off the E-Cat and the length of time required to get it going and then the periodic electric demand to keep it going. In comparison DGT's system seems draw much lower power to start up and starts much faster. Do you think that's because DGT have a better / more efficient heater or their
Re: [Vo]:Rossi's Best Chance
It is not clear at all how DGT is initializing the reaction. Maybe the hot chemical that assists the startup is only used to back up the main electrical heating element. This may be a way to heat the chemical over a relatively long time period without too much power and then having it release its heat quickly into the inner cube at the same time the electrical heating is available. It would seem possible to effectively multiply the peak heating requirement by a factor of 3 or so in this manner. I agree that they must have a well designed and functioning control unit to prevent meltdown. How nice it would be to have data to review as we give consideration to these ideas! Guess we might have to wait before we get our probes onto a final device. Do you think that DGT would have determined a safe temperature to preheat the core to before having to worry about thermal runaway? Their testing should have allowed them to see that there is no danger of runaway when the core is at, as example, 300 C. So any preheating liquid at or below that temperature could flood the device with no danger. Only after that temperature has been achieved would the control system and electrical heater have to kick in and work well. I have long suspected that the RFG is mainly to confuse others and misdirect their efforts. DGT does not suggest that they have one in their design. The magnetically transparent steel might allow static fields to enter freely, but if it is a conductor of reasonable performance, RF fields would not enter. Their working with nudist reactors is confusing. I wonder if the reactor for this test is only being loaded with a small Hydrogen charge. How would they possibly get the heat out of a normally functioning device with no coolant flow? I suspect that they are interested in just proving that LENR is real but not operating at the required levels. I would expect that the P(T) curve would be modified greatly by the charge level. As we know, no hydrogen means no power so a small amount must result in a modest power gain. I would rather see a fully functioning unit in operation and being measured. We speak of the maximum operating temperature of the coolant as being below the specified output temperature. I suspect that we just are not aware of the type of coolant that they are using. Now, since they claim that they operate at 600 C or more under normal conditions, then why could they not use some of the coolant as the initial chemically assisted heating material? This would be in line with my suspicion that the pumps are stopped while the device is brought up to the desired range. One thing that I have wondered about for a while is the effects of low frequency magnetic fields. I assume that the nickel powder is attracted to a magnet at room temperature. Would a slowly changing field cause the material to be continually mixed up and agitated? Perhaps this motion would keep the material alive. A low frequency magnetic field could penetrate a modest conductor. Dave -Original Message- From: Alain Sepeda alain.sep...@gmail.com To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Tue, Jan 24, 2012 12:43 pm Subject: Re: [Vo]:Rossi's Best Chance Being fast to start and avoiding meltdown mean that they have a very good, nearly optimal control. Maybe part of the secret is classic control theory, helping to design the optimal retro-action, once you know the core thermal parameters... but being also able to work without cooling, with nudist reactors under the sky, mean they don't need the coolant to survive... something is stabilizing the core, or at least helping/damping the core to be stabilized from far by a very good temp-power loop (maybe a good PID predictor). One idea would be that they use very fast induction heating, but they say NO RFG... maybe induction is not RFG for them (true in a way). this might explain why they use (as someone explain here) a magnetically transparent steel. the stability of the core might be about the powder behavior at high temperature, relative to induction... (why not curie point? 627 C?) but in their spec they talk about resistors, not induction coils... they talk about a chemically assisted preheating... undisclosed. pre-heat 6 seconds... max op temp 1050C... however coolant oil is limited to 350C, and 430 for molten salts... not the 600C we see as limit for the tests... whatever they did, it is smart job... either a tricky intrinsic feedback (like lead-bismuth nuke do), or optimal control, after good modelization. 2012/1/24 David Roberson dlrober...@aol.com The design of the DGT device allows them to lower if not stop the coolant flow into the heated core unit. The heating of the core can then be much faster and also require less net energy than Rossi's configuration. I would expect that both designs would need approximately the same temperature for efficient output. This is just my
Re: [Vo]:Rossi's Best Chance
thanks for the data. of course RFG could not get through a big piece of metal, but low frequency magnetic field could pass through, if the metal is not too ferromagnetic, and cause induction current in a resistive ferromagnetic nickel powder (but also in the metal around...)... but your explanation is very good... they choose the usual basic solution for this kind of problem of hot metal... and as I say nothing seems to evocate something else resistive and chemical heating... all seems simple, except - the catalyst - the startup chemical heating - maybe a tricky control method... 2012/1/24 Robert Lynn robert.gulliver.l...@gmail.com No such thing as a magnetically transparent steel (or any conductor for that matter) RF will not pass through a conductive material. And for the same reason high frequency magnetic fields will not penetrate any metal by more than a fraction of a mm. For a bit of a guide as to what sort of distances we are talking about check out the skin effect http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Skin_effect (not exactly the same, but similar behaviour). If you are referring to a non-ferromagnetic steel and what significance it might have then keep in mind that Austenitic Stainless steels like AISI 301, 304, 316, 321 etc are the cheapest, most commonly available materials with good high temperature strength, creep resistance, ductility, excellent machinability, excellent weldability, resistance to hydrogen embrittlement and resistance to many other forms of chemical attack and oxidation. They are used in many high temp applications for all of those reasons, and are in many ways the chemical (and particularly food processing) industry's work horse materials. I am sure that there is nothing more to the use of non-ferromagnetic stainless steel than convenience. You can also get Ferritic stainless steel (4xx series) that are ferromagnetic (ie attracted to magnetic fields), but generally not as good for high temps or corrosion. On 24 January 2012 17:42, Alain Sepeda alain.sep...@gmail.com wrote: Being fast to start and avoiding meltdown mean that they have a very good, nearly optimal control. Maybe part of the secret is classic control theory, helping to design the optimal retro-action, once you know the core thermal parameters... but being also able to work without cooling, with nudist reactors under the sky, mean they don't need the coolant to survive... something is stabilizing the core, or at least helping/damping the core to be stabilized from far by a very good temp-power loop (maybe a good PID predictor). One idea would be that they use very fast induction heating, but they say NO RFG... maybe induction is not RFG for them (true in a way). this might explain why they use (as someone explain here) a magnetically transparent steel. the stability of the core might be about the powder behavior at high temperature, relative to induction... (why not curie point? 627 C?) but in their spec they talk about resistors, not induction coils... they talk about a chemically assisted preheating... undisclosed. pre-heat 6 seconds... max op temp 1050C... however coolant oil is limited to 350C, and 430 for molten salts... not the 600C we see as limit for the tests... whatever they did, it is smart job... either a tricky intrinsic feedback (like lead-bismuth nuke do), or optimal control, after good modelization. 2012/1/24 David Roberson dlrober...@aol.com The design of the DGT device allows them to lower if not stop the coolant flow into the heated core unit. The heating of the core can then be much faster and also require less net energy than Rossi's configuration. I would expect that both designs would need approximately the same temperature for efficient output. This is just my opinion, but I think the DGT design is more ideal. Dave
Re: [Vo]:Rossi's Best Chance
A low frequency magnetic field (basically DC turned on and off) could help agitate the powder and dissipate hot spots, but at temperatures above 360°C curie temp of Nickel (that appears to be where the reactors operate according to DGT) static magnetic fields will have no effect on pure nickel. We really haven't seen any indication that an applied magnetic field is necessary or useful to the reaction, The reaction appears to continue even after the resistive heating element (with it's associated magnetic field) is turned off. I calculate that for nickel particles of 4µm and the reasonable high density of high pressure hydrogen even in such a small reaction chamber the convective gas motion is capable of blowing nickel particles around - basically a slow and gentle geyser in the hotter centre of the chamber lifting particles up to then fall down the cooler walls, thus slowly mixing and agitating the powder. On 24 January 2012 19:40, David Roberson dlrober...@aol.com wrote: It is not clear at all how DGT is initializing the reaction. Maybe the hot chemical that assists the startup is only used to back up the main electrical heating element. This may be a way to heat the chemical over a relatively long time period without too much power and then having it release its heat quickly into the inner cube at the same time the electrical heating is available. It would seem possible to effectively multiply the peak heating requirement by a factor of 3 or so in this manner. I agree that they must have a well designed and functioning control unit to prevent meltdown. How nice it would be to have data to review as we give consideration to these ideas! Guess we might have to wait before we get our probes onto a final device. Do you think that DGT would have determined a safe temperature to preheat the core to before having to worry about thermal runaway? Their testing should have allowed them to see that there is no danger of runaway when the core is at, as example, 300 C. So any preheating liquid at or below that temperature could flood the device with no danger. Only after that temperature has been achieved would the control system and electrical heater have to kick in and work well. I have long suspected that the RFG is mainly to confuse others and misdirect their efforts. DGT does not suggest that they have one in their design. The magnetically transparent steel might allow static fields to enter freely, but if it is a conductor of reasonable performance, RF fields would not enter. Their working with nudist reactors is confusing. I wonder if the reactor for this test is only being loaded with a small Hydrogen charge. How would they possibly get the heat out of a normally functioning device with no coolant flow? I suspect that they are interested in just proving that LENR is real but not operating at the required levels. I would expect that the P(T) curve would be modified greatly by the charge level. As we know, no hydrogen means no power so a small amount must result in a modest power gain. I would rather see a fully functioning unit in operation and being measured. We speak of the maximum operating temperature of the coolant as being below the specified output temperature. I suspect that we just are not aware of the type of coolant that they are using. Now, since they claim that they operate at 600 C or more under normal conditions, then why could they not use some of the coolant as the initial chemically assisted heating material? This would be in line with my suspicion that the pumps are stopped while the device is brought up to the desired range. One thing that I have wondered about for a while is the effects of low frequency magnetic fields. I assume that the nickel powder is attracted to a magnet at room temperature. Would a slowly changing field cause the material to be continually mixed up and agitated? Perhaps this motion would keep the material alive. A low frequency magnetic field could penetrate a modest conductor. Dave -Original Message- From: Alain Sepeda alain.sep...@gmail.com To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Tue, Jan 24, 2012 12:43 pm Subject: Re: [Vo]:Rossi's Best Chance Being fast to start and avoiding meltdown mean that they have a very good, nearly optimal control. Maybe part of the secret is classic control theory, helping to design the optimal retro-action, once you know the core thermal parameters... but being also able to work without cooling, with nudist reactors under the sky, mean they don't need the coolant to survive... something is stabilizing the core, or at least helping/damping the core to be stabilized from far by a very good temp-power loop (maybe a good PID predictor). One idea would be that they use very fast induction heating, but they say NO RFG... maybe induction is not RFG for them (true in a way). this might explain why they use (as someone explain here) a
Re: [Vo]:Problem with flow calorimetry in Defkalion system
Convection and radiation will tend to equalise temperature inside the reactor cavity pretty quickly regardless of where the heat source is within the cavity. Page 4,5 of Dekaflion's Hyperion product details pdf from november shows a cross-section with a horizontal cylindrical geometry and lists 40mm diameter by 100mm long. On 24 January 2012 20:00, Alan J Fletcher a...@well.com wrote: As far as I can tell, isoperibolic (I haven't found a formal definition of the term yet -- what the heck IS a peribole?) calorimetry assumes that the entire system being tested is fully enclosed in the calorimeter. How do you ensure that the SINGLE internal/external thermometers (on the walls of the kernel) are representative of the temperatures as a whole? (See my two-heating-resistor fake) Particularly, since the heating resistor and thermalization zone are presumably in different locations? We haven't even seen a diagram of the single-kernel hyperion. Is it tube-like, with radial symmetry?
RE: [Vo]:Rossi's Best Chance
On 24 January 2012 19:40, David Roberson dlrober...@aol.com wrote: I agree that they must have a well designed and functioning control unit to prevent meltdown. If quiescence is a reality, and *if* it will require a scientific/QM understanding, the I don't think any amount of 'control engineering' is going to be much help. one will need to find out the cause of the quiescence, which is a physics problem. If the quiescence is of a reasonable periodic nature (i.e., repeatable), or if it gives you adequate 'warning' that it has started, then one could have 2 or 3 reactor cores inside, only one of which is 'running'. When it begins to go into quiescence, one then starts up one of the 'idle' cores. while shutting down the quiescent one. This is a brainless kind of solution, and wouldn't work if the quiescent core needs to be unassembled in order to make it 'ignite' again. If reactive capability can be reinstated by shocking it with a hi-V pulse or cycling H2 pressure, things like that, then it could be automated and done while in-situ. These are engineering problems, not scientific ones. -m
Re: [Vo]:Rossi's Best Chance
Sounds like a fluidized bed reactor to me. It has to be a bottleneck transferring all that heat flux to the kernel walls though. I would think some type of co-deposited Ni/Catalyst onto the kernel walls would do a much better job of heat transfer but maybe that would not provide as much surface area for the Ni - hydrogen reaction. On Tue, Jan 24, 2012 at 3:18 PM, Robert Lynn robert.gulliver.l...@gmail.com wrote: A low frequency magnetic field (basically DC turned on and off) could help agitate the powder and dissipate hot spots, but at temperatures above 360°C curie temp of Nickel (that appears to be where the reactors operate according to DGT) static magnetic fields will have no effect on pure nickel. We really haven't seen any indication that an applied magnetic field is necessary or useful to the reaction, The reaction appears to continue even after the resistive heating element (with it's associated magnetic field) is turned off. I calculate that for nickel particles of 4µm and the reasonable high density of high pressure hydrogen even in such a small reaction chamber the convective gas motion is capable of blowing nickel particles around - basically a slow and gentle geyser in the hotter centre of the chamber lifting particles up to then fall down the cooler walls, thus slowly mixing and agitating the powder. On 24 January 2012 19:40, David Roberson dlrober...@aol.com wrote: It is not clear at all how DGT is initializing the reaction. Maybe the hot chemical that assists the startup is only used to back up the main electrical heating element. This may be a way to heat the chemical over a relatively long time period without too much power and then having it release its heat quickly into the inner cube at the same time the electrical heating is available. It would seem possible to effectively multiply the peak heating requirement by a factor of 3 or so in this manner. I agree that they must have a well designed and functioning control unit to prevent meltdown. How nice it would be to have data to review as we give consideration to these ideas! Guess we might have to wait before we get our probes onto a final device. Do you think that DGT would have determined a safe temperature to preheat the core to before having to worry about thermal runaway? Their testing should have allowed them to see that there is no danger of runaway when the core is at, as example, 300 C. So any preheating liquid at or below that temperature could flood the device with no danger. Only after that temperature has been achieved would the control system and electrical heater have to kick in and work well. I have long suspected that the RFG is mainly to confuse others and misdirect their efforts. DGT does not suggest that they have one in their design. The magnetically transparent steel might allow static fields to enter freely, but if it is a conductor of reasonable performance, RF fields would not enter. Their working with nudist reactors is confusing. I wonder if the reactor for this test is only being loaded with a small Hydrogen charge. How would they possibly get the heat out of a normally functioning device with no coolant flow? I suspect that they are interested in just proving that LENR is real but not operating at the required levels. I would expect that the P(T) curve would be modified greatly by the charge level. As we know, no hydrogen means no power so a small amount must result in a modest power gain. I would rather see a fully functioning unit in operation and being measured. We speak of the maximum operating temperature of the coolant as being below the specified output temperature. I suspect that we just are not aware of the type of coolant that they are using. Now, since they claim that they operate at 600 C or more under normal conditions, then why could they not use some of the coolant as the initial chemically assisted heating material? This would be in line with my suspicion that the pumps are stopped while the device is brought up to the desired range. One thing that I have wondered about for a while is the effects of low frequency magnetic fields. I assume that the nickel powder is attracted to a magnet at room temperature. Would a slowly changing field cause the material to be continually mixed up and agitated? Perhaps this motion would keep the material alive. A low frequency magnetic field could penetrate a modest conductor. Dave -Original Message- From: Alain Sepeda alain.sep...@gmail.com To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Tue, Jan 24, 2012 12:43 pm Subject: Re: [Vo]:Rossi's Best Chance Being fast to start and avoiding meltdown mean that they have a very good, nearly optimal control. Maybe part of the secret is classic control theory, helping to design the optimal retro-action, once you know the core thermal parameters... but being also able to work without cooling, with
Re: [Vo]:Problem with flow calorimetry in Defkalion system
Alan J Fletcher a...@well.com wrote: As far as I can tell, isoperibolic (I haven't found a formal definition of the term yet -- what the heck IS a peribole?) calorimetry assumes that the entire system being tested is fully enclosed in the calorimeter. It is often called isoperobol calorimetry. Quoting Hemminger and Hohne, p. 82 and 83: 5.1. Isothermal operation In isothermal operation, the surroundings and the measuring system have the same constant temperature . . . 5.2 Isoperibol Operation The term isoperibol operation refers to the use of a calorimeter at constant temperature surroundings with a possibly different temperature of the measuring system. The thermal resistance Rth between the measuring system and the surroundings is infinitesimally small in isothermal calorimeters, a finite magnitude in isoperibolic calorimeters and infinitely large in adiabatic ones . . . FOOTNOTE The term isoperibol (uniform surroundings) was introduced by Kubaschweski and Hultgren (1962) In this case, the constant temperature bath is the room air. The air surrounding the reactor vessel is what fully encloses it. This only works when the air temperature is regulated with precision thermostats. You have to watch out for things like moving currents of air and fans. Mizuno puts his cells into an air incubator which is a large box with many fans driving air around inside it at a constant temperature regulated with a precision thermostat. It is like a constant temperature water bath with a stirrer. How do you ensure that the SINGLE internal/external thermometers (on the walls of the kernel) are representative of the temperatures as a whole? (See my two-heating-resistor fake) I strongly recommend multiple thermocouples, both inside and outside. I also recommend an IR camera in this case to be sure the outer wall temperature is reasonably uniform without hotspots. The configuration with side-by-side reactors, with one active and one as a control, is good. There is a lot to be said for it. But you have to be sure the two reactors have similar heat transfer coefficients. You establish this by calibrating them. Calibration is the key to this method. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:Problem with flow calorimetry in Defkalion system
At 12:26 PM 1/24/2012, Robert Lynn wrote: Convection and radiation will tend to equalise temperature inside the reactor cavity pretty quickly regardless of where the heat source is within the cavity. Page 4,5 of Dekaflion's Hyperion product details pdf from november shows a cross-section with a horizontal cylindrical geometry and lists 40mm diameter by 100mm long. I've been looking at the photos of the single-unit Series A? in the spec http://www.defkalion-energy.com/files/HyperionSpecsSheetNovember2011.pdf which seems to be tube-like. The pre-heater is : Electric power preheating Heating resistor fixture Nut: M12, Thread: M10 x 1.25, Pre-heat: 6 seconds, Volts: 24, Amps: 6, Max operating temperature 1050oC 24x6 = 144W : are they going to run this continually? The maximum temperatures everywhere seem to be rated at around 1000-1100 C The Series A pre-industrial is rated at 5kW (max 10kW) -- can that be dissipated without cooling flow? Could 5kW be reverse-engineered from the temperature profile to give a kW/cc power production rating for the thermalization zone [ I'm probably doing too much thinking aloud here ... ] Another semi-random thought : in looking up Differential Thermal Analysis there was a suggestion to modulate the heater power sinusoidallly, and then use Fourier anaylsis on the output to separate out the base and differential components.
RE: [Vo]:Rossi's Best Chance
Jones: If you are filling a bucket with water at 1 liter/min., and draining it at 0.99 l/min, it will take awhile, but will fill up and eventually overflow. Question: Could the quiescence be something as simple as heat not being extracted fast enough from the Ni-core material and it eventually builds up to begin melting the Ni tubercles, slowly quenching the 'active area'? If so, then my initial thoughts don't apply and it is an engineering problem. -Mark From: Mark Iverson-ZeroPoint [mailto:zeropo...@charter.net] Sent: Tuesday, January 24, 2012 12:40 PM To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: RE: [Vo]:Rossi's Best Chance On 24 January 2012 19:40, David Roberson dlrober...@aol.com wrote: I agree that they must have a well designed and functioning control unit to prevent meltdown. If quiescence is a reality, and *if* it will require a scientific/QM understanding, the I don't think any amount of 'control engineering' is going to be much help. one will need to find out the cause of the quiescence, which is a physics problem. If the quiescence is of a reasonable periodic nature (i.e., repeatable), or if it gives you adequate 'warning' that it has started, then one could have 2 or 3 reactor cores inside, only one of which is 'running'. When it begins to go into quiescence, one then starts up one of the 'idle' cores. while shutting down the quiescent one. This is a brainless kind of solution, and wouldn't work if the quiescent core needs to be unassembled in order to make it 'ignite' again. If reactive capability can be reinstated by shocking it with a hi-V pulse or cycling H2 pressure, things like that, then it could be automated and done while in-situ. These are engineering problems, not scientific ones. -m
Re: [Vo]:Rossi's Best Chance
DGT could use a magnetic stirrer with small magnet rods in the powder. Or their solution could simply be the geometry of the kernel itself. Possibly they inject a puff of new hydrogen to stir the powder. T
Re: [Vo]:Rossi's Best Chance
That would be my guess. A lump of powder might quickly get hotspots and meltdown. If you can keep a fluidized bed going the heating would be uniform. Maybe that is why defkalion showed that test reactor with a window in it to see when the powder was fluidizing... On Tue, Jan 24, 2012 at 3:57 PM, Mark Iverson-ZeroPoint zeropo...@charter.net wrote: Jones: ** ** If you are filling a bucket with water at 1 liter/min., and draining it at 0.99 l/min, it will take awhile, but will fill up and eventually overflow… ** ** Question: Could the quiescence be something as simple as heat not being extracted fast enough from the Ni-core material and it eventually builds up to begin melting the Ni tubercles, slowly quenching the ‘active area’? If so, then my initial thoughts don’t apply and it is an engineering problem. ** ** -Mark ** ** *From:* Mark Iverson-ZeroPoint [mailto:zeropo...@charter.net] *Sent:* Tuesday, January 24, 2012 12:40 PM *To:* vortex-l@eskimo.com *Subject:* RE: [Vo]:Rossi's Best Chance ** ** On 24 January 2012 19:40, David Roberson dlrober...@aol.com wrote: I agree that they must have a well designed and functioning control unit to prevent meltdown. ** ** If quiescence is a reality, and **if** it will require a scientific/QM understanding, the I don’t think any amount of ‘control engineering’ is going to be much help… one will need to find out the cause of the quiescence, which is a physics problem… ** ** If the quiescence is of a reasonable periodic nature (i.e., repeatable), or if it gives you adequate ‘warning’ that it has started, then one could have 2 or 3 reactor cores inside, only one of which is ‘running’. When it begins to go into quiescence, one then starts up one of the ‘idle’ cores… while shutting down the quiescent one. This is a brainless kind of solution, and wouldn’t work if the quiescent core needs to be unassembled in order to make it ‘ignite’ again. If reactive capability can be reinstated by shocking it with a hi-V pulse or cycling H2 pressure, things like that, then it could be automated and done while in-situ. These are engineering problems, not scientific ones… ** ** -m
Re: [Vo]:Problem with flow calorimetry in Defkalion system
At 12:51 PM 1/24/2012, Jed Rothwell wrote: Thanks for the education !! Alan J Fletcher a...@well.com wrote: I strongly recommend multiple thermocouples, both inside and outside. I also recommend an IR camera in this case to be sure the outer wall temperature is reasonably uniform without hotspots. Is the internal temperature even needed? IR is a good idea. Weren't there some IR movies of FP cathodes? How many cameras would one need (I'm not sure I'd trust a mirror). The field-of-view could include a few reference temperatures : ice, boiling, calibrated heater element. Would Defkalion consider a Vortex proposal? (I'd sure be happy to put in a $100 or so).
Re: [Vo]:Rossi's Best Chance
I don't have the answer, but it was my assumption, about control. Quiescence does not seems to be a problem with DGT according to their talk and (more important) to their test protocol (which does talk about continuous heat). 2012/1/24 Mark Iverson-ZeroPoint zeropo...@charter.net Question: Could the quiescence be something as simple as heat not being extracted fast enough from the Ni-core material and it eventually builds up to begin melting the Ni tubercles, slowly quenching the ‘active area’? If so, then my initial thoughts don’t apply and it is an engineering problem.
Re: [Vo]:Problem with flow calorimetry in Defkalion system
On Tue, Jan 24, 2012 at 3:00 PM, Alan J Fletcher a...@well.com wrote: As far as I can tell, isoperibolic (I haven't found a formal definition of the term yet -- what the heck IS a peribole?) calorimetry assumes that the entire system being tested is fully enclosed in the calorimeter. Storms' description: http://pages.csam.montclair.edu/~kowalski/cf/155calorimetry.html T
[Vo]:New here-- some general statements
hello guys, --first post here-- after watching the scene for a couple of months now -with increasing intensity- I would dare to say that Rossi is a tragic figure. His personal idiosyncrasies just don't match the size of the problem. Just three examples: a) Spending 500k€ for an evaluation at U Bologna. A black box-test would cost less than a 10th. b) having an unreasonable cost/timescale: 1mio units this year in a fully automated factory. ( Compare this eg to Nanosolar. They had hundreds of million $ and missed their time-target 3years up to now. This is a sort of lie: --time-cost-performance- which presumably keeps Rossi alive. He needs it. Newton or Galileo –ahem- did not have such pressure. Time was flowing slower then. Now we are in a time of instant gratification.) c) seemingly constantly changing his design. See his recent cost-estimates for 10kW units. Ridiculous. Improvements should be split into product-generations. Messing these up with small resources-he definitely has-, is a recipe for disaster. Look at the tables for his setups. The cheapest of the cheap.Not that is decisive, but simultaneously telling something about fully automated factories this year, generates cognitive dissonance. This probably can be explained by intense financial pressure. This can bring down even a strong man, and make him do/say strange things, especially if his central resource is creativity-intuition-rationality under time-constraint. Add to this commercial success. A nearly impossible task. So Rossi is most probably a tragic figure like Pons/Fleischmann at their time. They definitely had it better. I do not consider Rossi a fraud. He is tragic. In some aspects Rossi is presumably a genius with a superb intuition, which has been operationalized by Defkalion, as it seems. So the hope for an imminent (2012) breakthrough definitely shifted to Defkalion. My contributions here will be mainly focused on the global/societal consequences, if one takes e-cats as a given within a couple of years. As Jed already started with his book. Best regards. Guenter
Re: [Vo]:Problem with flow calorimetry in Defkalion system
At 01:03 PM 1/24/2012, Alan J Fletcher wrote: IR is a good idea. Weren't there some IR movies of FP cathodes? How many cameras would one need (I'm not sure I'd trust a mirror). The field-of-view could include a few reference temperatures : ice, boiling, calibrated heater element. If you put two cyclindrical Hyperions side by side, separated by a couple of feet, I think you could get full surface coverage with 6 IR cameras (Viewed end-on Top,Bottom,Left,Right radially plus one axially at each end: Front,Back).
Re: [Vo]:Problem with flow calorimetry in Defkalion system
Alan J Fletcher a...@well.com wrote: Thanks for the education !! My pleasure. Once a teacher . . . The atmosphere here certainly here improved thanks to Prof. Beaty's Extended Time Out. Is the internal temperature even needed? I say get as many temperatures as you can get. The more the merrier. IR is a good idea. Weren't there some IR movies of FP cathodes? How many cameras would one need (I'm not sure I'd trust a mirror). I had in mind a periodic check of the surfaces, front, back, and on top. Not continuous recording. You can record a surface temperature reliably by taping on a thermocouple and covering it with insulation. This will be accurate to within a degree or two, which is fine for this method. Would Defkalion consider a Vortex proposal? (I'd sure be happy to put in a $100 or so). I believe they want professional organizations. - Jed
RE: [Vo]:Rossi's Best Chance
Mark, The first question that must be answered is: it the Ni-H phenomena Quantum Mechanical in nature, or is it Thermonuclear, on a reduced scale? There are some that still believe Ni-H is thermonuclear and in fact, Pd-D could be. In fact W-L theory tries hard not to be forced into making that decision, and has QM features - but if the defining detail of that theory involves neutrons, neutron capture - and subsequent weak-force reactions, just as are seen in traditional physics - then it is a thermonuclear theory. Theories that involve tunneling of protons in one form or another are QM based - if no neutron is involved. QM is normally too low in probability to account for much heat. But one aftermath of the development of the modern CPU by Intel and others is that QM tunneling (of electrons) can be engineer and optimized to occur at very high rates. A CPU operating a 2 GHz will have electrons tunneling in predictable fashion the high terahertz range. The CPU is a QM electron tunneling device operating at high probability. The CPU is a good model to use for proton tunneling - where instead of a small chip needing to shed 30 watts of heat (and not gainful) you have much more heat, and importantly it is anomalous due to the tunneling. If there is gain, then it must be defined. Without going into great detail on defining the gain for now, except to say that it comes from the mass of the proton, and it comes without much radiation or transmutation (some of each, but way too little to account for the gain), then it is easier to account for the quiescence phenomenon. Stated simply, quiescence involves too much depletion in the mass of the hydrogen so that the high level of probability of tunneling is reduced. This is where anything that relates to QM probability come in, and you have already found papers suggestive of a few of these factors. Rossi has designed a reactor where hydrogen is not circulated and it is likely that he could eliminate the problem with periodic dumping of H2 and reloading (every few hours) on a set schedule. There is evidence that DGT may be doing this already. Jones From: Mark Iverson-ZeroPoint If quiescence is a reality, and *if* it will require a scientific/QM understanding, the I don't think any amount of 'control engineering' is going to be much help. one will need to find out the cause of the quiescence, which is a physics problem. If the quiescence is of a reasonable periodic nature (i.e., repeatable), or if it gives you adequate 'warning' that it has started, then one could have 2 or 3 reactor cores inside, only one of which is 'running'. When it begins to go into quiescence, one then starts up one of the 'idle' cores. while shutting down the quiescent one. This is a brainless kind of solution, and wouldn't work if the quiescent core needs to be unassembled in order to make it 'ignite' again. If reactive capability can be reinstated by shocking it with a hi-V pulse or cycling H2 pressure, things like that, then it could be automated and done while in-situ. These are engineering problems, not scientific ones. -m
Re: [Vo]:Problem with flow calorimetry in Defkalion system
At 01:19 PM 1/24/2012, Jed Rothwell wrote: I believe they want professional organizations. I'm a professional! All we need to do is organize!
RE: [Vo]:Rossi's Best Chance
ChemEng: Just looked at, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fluidized_bed and it certainly looks like a reasonable solution. Is the 'high heat transfer' property of fluidized beds larger than if you simply did film-deposition (as in semiconductor industry) directly onto a substrate? The applications that I saw on Wikipedia for FB reactors are for chemical processes/reactions. Realize that with LENR we are dealing with several orders of magnitude more intense energy release, so will FB heat xfer be fast enough to get the heat away from the reaction sites. Rossi's early 'reactor cores' were cylindrical, but then 'evolved' to more plate-like (low height rectangular), which DGT claims was their idea. this was most likely due to better heat xfer capability. -mark From: Chemical Engineer [mailto:cheme...@gmail.com] Sent: Tuesday, January 24, 2012 1:03 PM To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: [Vo]:Rossi's Best Chance That would be my guess. A lump of powder might quickly get hotspots and meltdown. If you can keep a fluidized bed going the heating would be uniform. Maybe that is why defkalion showed that test reactor with a window in it to see when the powder was fluidizing... On Tue, Jan 24, 2012 at 3:57 PM, Mark Iverson-ZeroPoint zeropo...@charter.net wrote: Jones: If you are filling a bucket with water at 1 liter/min., and draining it at 0.99 l/min, it will take awhile, but will fill up and eventually overflow. Question: Could the quiescence be something as simple as heat not being extracted fast enough from the Ni-core material and it eventually builds up to begin melting the Ni tubercles, slowly quenching the 'active area'? If so, then my initial thoughts don't apply and it is an engineering problem. -Mark From: Mark Iverson-ZeroPoint [mailto:zeropo...@charter.net] Sent: Tuesday, January 24, 2012 12:40 PM To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: RE: [Vo]:Rossi's Best Chance On 24 January 2012 19:40, David Roberson dlrober...@aol.com wrote: I agree that they must have a well designed and functioning control unit to prevent meltdown. If quiescence is a reality, and *if* it will require a scientific/QM understanding, the I don't think any amount of 'control engineering' is going to be much help. one will need to find out the cause of the quiescence, which is a physics problem. If the quiescence is of a reasonable periodic nature (i.e., repeatable), or if it gives you adequate 'warning' that it has started, then one could have 2 or 3 reactor cores inside, only one of which is 'running'. When it begins to go into quiescence, one then starts up one of the 'idle' cores. while shutting down the quiescent one. This is a brainless kind of solution, and wouldn't work if the quiescent core needs to be unassembled in order to make it 'ignite' again. If reactive capability can be reinstated by shocking it with a hi-V pulse or cycling H2 pressure, things like that, then it could be automated and done while in-situ. These are engineering problems, not scientific ones. -m
Re: [Vo]:Rossi's Best Chance
From Jones: There are some that still believe Ni-H is thermonuclear and in fact, Pd-D could be. In fact W-L theory tries hard not to be forced into making that decision, and has QM features - but if the defining detail of that theory involves neutrons, neutron capture - and subsequent weak-force reactions, just as are seen in traditional physics – then it is a thermonuclear theory. But at least nobody is using the F word. ;-) Regards Steven Vincent Johnson www.OrionWorks.com www.zazzle.com/orionworks
Re: [Vo]:New here-- some general statements
(Guenter: Your e-mail is set so that responses here go to you.) Guenter Wildgruber gwildgru...@ymail.com mailto:gwildgru...@ymail.com wrote: I would dare to say that Rossi is a tragic figure. I sometimes feel that way . . . But it remains to be seen, doesn't it? He has not failed yet. He may yet end up being history's first trillionaire. He and Defkalion may reconcile and be friends again. Many good things may happen to him. He deserves them all. His personal idiosyncrasies just don't match the size of the problem. Just three examples: a) Spending 500k€ for an evaluation at U Bologna. A black box-test would cost less than a 10th. Ah, but he cancelled that. I did not think the U. Bologna test was tragic, but it did strike me as a waste of money. b) having an unreasonable cost/timescale: 1mio units this year in a fully automated factory. Rossi starts with unreasonable timescales. He sometimes achieves them. He astounds me! I thought he would never get a 1 MW reactor working by October, but apparently he did. c) seemingly constantly changing his design. See his recent cost-estimates for 10kW units. Ridiculous. I regard these constant changes as a mark of genius. This is essential part of inventing. Inventing -- as opposed to scientific research. Look at the different designs for incandescent light bulbs in Edison's notebooks in 1879. The variations are mind-boggling. His team went through dozens of different ideas and variations as extreme as Rossi's. They did not stumble upon the right design. They tried an incredible range of things, but they kept zeroing or coming back to the more practical ones. Improvements should be split into product-generations. Messing these up with small resources-he definitely has-, is a recipe for disaster. It was a recipe for success in Edison's case. Rossi seems to be succeeding. He has made more progress than most other cold fusion researchers combined. Rossi's methods are not orderly. Look at the tables for his setups. The cheapest of the cheap. Cheap is good. The cheaper the better. The cheaper and easier it is to make a product, the quicker sales ramp up, and the more money you make. Not that is decisive, but simultaneously telling something about fully automated factories this year, generates cognitive dissonance. I see no contradiction. Here is the ideal that every capitalist yearns for: A fully automated factory churning out ultra cheap products that people everywhere want and need. That is the key to making as much money as anyone can make. That's what Edison had in the incandescent light, and Gates had in factories producing CD-ROMs of Windows software. Few people in history have been so fortunate as to come up with something like this. Rossi may yet join their ranks. - Jed
[Vo]:Neutrino Telescope to be Built . . .
. . . in depths of Mediterranean sea: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/science/space/8985931/Telescope-to-be-built-in-depths-of-Mediterranean-sea.html The £210 million deep sea observatory will detect elusive particles known as neutrinos as they bombard the Earth from outer space. Usually these high-energy particles pass straight through our planet unnoticed, but scientists hope that the new telescope will allow them to pick up traces the particles leave and use them to view the universe in an entirely new way. The EU funded project, which has just been selected as a key priority in a review of European astrophysics infrastructure, promises to reveal new details about some of the most powerful events in our universe, including supernova and even the Big Bang. The telescope, known as the Multi-Cubic Kilometre Neutrino Telescope or KM3NeT, is also expected to reveal entirely new phenomena that still remain undiscovered as they are undetectable using conventional methods for viewing the sky. “It is really going to open a new window on our universe,” said Dr Lee Thompson, a reader in neutrino physics at the University of Sheffield who is working on the KM3NeT project. more
Re: [Vo]:Rossi's Best Chance
Cold Fusion term SHOULD be used as a way to ridiculized the past critics. it is clear for me that what happens is solid-state nuclear reaction (hot or cold is not the problem, like for semiconductors, solid state is the needed environment, even it is solid surface that is important). however the LENR, SSNR, CANR, LANR, are in fact THE INFAMOUS COLD FUSION THAT CLOSED MIND HAVE FRAUDULENTLY RIDICULIZED... changing the name to look PC, and be more precise, is only a way to protect the fraudsters that killed FP carrer. it is like visualy impaired, colored people, vertically challenged... terms used to hide the past problems of discrimination, not to be more precise. 2012/1/24 OrionWorks - Steven V Johnson svj.orionwo...@gmail.com From Jones: There are some that still believe Ni-H is thermonuclear and in fact, Pd-D could be. In fact W-L theory tries hard not to be forced into making that decision, and has QM features - but if the defining detail of that theory involves neutrons, neutron capture - and subsequent weak-force reactions, just as are seen in traditional physics – then it is a thermonuclear theory. But at least nobody is using the F word. ;-) Regards Steven Vincent Johnson www.OrionWorks.com www.zazzle.com/orionworks
Re: [Vo]:New here-- some general statements
I wrote: c) seemingly constantly changing his design. See his recent cost-estimates for 10kW units. Ridiculous. I regard these constant changes as a mark of genius. This is essential part of inventing. Inventing -- as opposed to scientific research. Come to think of it, Martin Fleischmann said that the NHE project and his own work in France failed to make progress because they wouldn't let us explore the problem. (I think that's how he put it.) They committed to a design and a modern product-engineering approach too soon. You need to try all kinds of stuff. Rossi does that better than anyone I know. He is astounding in that respect. He also takes whatever good ideas he finds, from Arata and others. As Steve Jobs said: Good artists copy, great artists steal. . . . We have always been shameless about stealing great ideas. He really said that! He meant it, and I agree he was right: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CW0DUg63lqU He attributed that quote to Picasso. It is apt. In my opinion Picasso had tremendous talent and skill, not much originality, and no taste. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:Problem with flow calorimetry in Defkalion system
On Tue, Jan 24, 2012 at 4:27 PM, Alan J Fletcher a...@well.com wrote: At 01:19 PM 1/24/2012, Jed Rothwell wrote: I believe they want professional organizations. I'm a professional! All we need to do is organize! I have emailed our office in Greece to see if there is any interest in attending such a remarkable demonstration. T
RE: [Vo]:Problem with flow calorimetry in Defkalion system
On Tue, Jan 24, 2012 at 4:27 PM, Alan J Fletcher a...@well.com wrote: At 01:19 PM 1/24/2012, Jed Rothwell wrote: I believe they want professional organizations. I'm a professional! All we need to do is organize! Oh well, so much for that idea! Getting the Collective organized would be more difficult that herding cats... :-) -m
RE: [Vo]:Rossi's Best Chance
Jones wrote: Stated simply, quiescence involves too much depletion in the mass of the hydrogen so that the high level of probability of tunneling is reduced. This is where anything that relates to QM probability come in, and you have already found papers suggestive of a few of these factors. Re: the statement, .and *you* have already found papers suggestive. I started LOL. that *I* found? This post touches on the element of 'meta-physics' that SVJ has mentioned recently. One of the things that I enjoy doing it 'serendipitous surfin'. which is hard to explain, but I just start with perhaps a link supplied here on vortex, or a link on PhysOrg.com, and start reading and following links and reading and following links, grabbing a phrase from some article and googling it, going thru the search results, and I will usually come across something that just says to me, this is important. Don't know why, since many of the papers I find and post here require esoteric/advanced physics understanding that I don't have. I can usually narrow it down to specific phrases, but bring in the meta-physical side, I think it's the subconscious mind which has seen how that paper (piece of the puzzle) fits into the bigger picture, and somehow alerts my conscious mind that it's important. The conscious mind is too distracted by the realities of living, work, paying the bills, etc., to make the 'connections'; to see how a given paper or discovery is important. That's where Vortex-l, 'The Collective', comes into play. it's as if the Collective is a kind of global, artificial subconscious made up of people! Some people are bringing in pieces of the puzzle but not sure where they go, and some can see where those pieces 'fit' in. Does that make sense??? It is what makes this forum different from most, and is a concept that trolls don't understand, nor respect. -Mark From: Jones Beene [mailto:jone...@pacbell.net] Sent: Tuesday, January 24, 2012 1:27 PM To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: RE: [Vo]:Rossi's Best Chance Mark, The first question that must be answered is: it the Ni-H phenomena Quantum Mechanical in nature, or is it Thermonuclear, on a reduced scale? There are some that still believe Ni-H is thermonuclear and in fact, Pd-D could be. In fact W-L theory tries hard not to be forced into making that decision, and has QM features - but if the defining detail of that theory involves neutrons, neutron capture - and subsequent weak-force reactions, just as are seen in traditional physics - then it is a thermonuclear theory. Theories that involve tunneling of protons in one form or another are QM based - if no neutron is involved. QM is normally too low in probability to account for much heat. But one aftermath of the development of the modern CPU by Intel and others is that QM tunneling (of electrons) can be engineer and optimized to occur at very high rates. A CPU operating a 2 GHz will have electrons tunneling in predictable fashion the high terahertz range. The CPU is a QM electron tunneling device operating at high probability. The CPU is a good model to use for proton tunneling - where instead of a small chip needing to shed 30 watts of heat (and not gainful) you have much more heat, and importantly it is anomalous due to the tunneling. If there is gain, then it must be defined. Without going into great detail on defining the gain for now, except to say that it comes from the mass of the proton, and it comes without much radiation or transmutation (some of each, but way too little to account for the gain), then it is easier to account for the quiescence phenomenon. Stated simply, quiescence involves too much depletion in the mass of the hydrogen so that the high level of probability of tunneling is reduced. This is where anything that relates to QM probability come in, and you have already found papers suggestive of a few of these factors. Rossi has designed a reactor where hydrogen is not circulated and it is likely that he could eliminate the problem with periodic dumping of H2 and reloading (every few hours) on a set schedule. There is evidence that DGT may be doing this already. Jones From: Mark Iverson-ZeroPoint If quiescence is a reality, and *if* it will require a scientific/QM understanding, the I don't think any amount of 'control engineering' is going to be much help. one will need to find out the cause of the quiescence, which is a physics problem. If the quiescence is of a reasonable periodic nature (i.e., repeatable), or if it gives you adequate 'warning' that it has started, then one could have 2 or 3 reactor cores inside, only one of which is 'running'. When it begins to go into quiescence, one then starts up one of the 'idle' cores. while shutting down the quiescent one. This is a brainless kind of solution, and wouldn't work if the quiescent core needs to be unassembled in order to make it 'ignite' again. If reactive capability
Re: [Vo]:Problem with flow calorimetry in Defkalion system
On Tue, Jan 24, 2012 at 5:18 PM, Mark Iverson-ZeroPoint zeropo...@charter.net wrote: Oh well, so much for that idea! Getting the Collective organized would be more difficult that herding cats... :-) I am a catherder. I manage a group of 18 engineers of various disciplines. You are absolutely correct. T
RE: [Vo]:Problem with flow calorimetry in Defkalion system
At 02:18 PM 1/24/2012, Mark Iverson-ZeroPoint wrote: Getting the Collective organized would be more difficult that herding cats... But this is a HYPERION, test not an eCAT test.
[Vo]:MgH2 as hydrogen source
I'd like to solicit comments from the list re the Chan/Phen/Ortiz postings using MgH2 as H source http://www.ecatplanet.net/showthread.php?100-Chan-Method-of-Ni-H-fusion as it would pertain to QM theory, to thermonuclear processes, and to the noted 'quiescence.' - Original Message - From: Jones Beene To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Tuesday, January 24, 2012 3:26 PM Subject: RE: [Vo]:Rossi's Best Chance Mark, The first question that must be answered is: it the Ni-H phenomena Quantum Mechanical in nature, or is it Thermonuclear, on a reduced scale? There are some that still believe Ni-H is thermonuclear and in fact, Pd-D could be. In fact W-L theory tries hard not to be forced into making that decision, and has QM features - but if the defining detail of that theory involves neutrons, neutron capture - and subsequent weak-force reactions, just as are seen in traditional physics - then it is a thermonuclear theory. Theories that involve tunneling of protons in one form or another are QM based - if no neutron is involved. QM is normally too low in probability to account for much heat. But one aftermath of the development of the modern CPU by Intel and others is that QM tunneling (of electrons) can be engineer and optimized to occur at very high rates. A CPU operating a 2 GHz will have electrons tunneling in predictable fashion the high terahertz range. The CPU is a QM electron tunneling device operating at high probability. The CPU is a good model to use for proton tunneling - where instead of a small chip needing to shed 30 watts of heat (and not gainful) you have much more heat, and importantly it is anomalous due to the tunneling. If there is gain, then it must be defined. Without going into great detail on defining the gain for now, except to say that it comes from the mass of the proton, and it comes without much radiation or transmutation (some of each, but way too little to account for the gain), then it is easier to account for the quiescence phenomenon. Stated simply, quiescence involves too much depletion in the mass of the hydrogen so that the high level of probability of tunneling is reduced. This is where anything that relates to QM probability come in, and you have already found papers suggestive of a few of these factors. Rossi has designed a reactor where hydrogen is not circulated and it is likely that he could eliminate the problem with periodic dumping of H2 and reloading (every few hours) on a set schedule. There is evidence that DGT may be doing this already. Jones From: Mark Iverson-ZeroPoint If quiescence is a reality, and *if* it will require a scientific/QM understanding, the I don't think any amount of 'control engineering' is going to be much help. one will need to find out the cause of the quiescence, which is a physics problem. If the quiescence is of a reasonable periodic nature (i.e., repeatable), or if it gives you adequate 'warning' that it has started, then one could have 2 or 3 reactor cores inside, only one of which is 'running'. When it begins to go into quiescence, one then starts up one of the 'idle' cores. while shutting down the quiescent one. This is a brainless kind of solution, and wouldn't work if the quiescent core needs to be unassembled in order to make it 'ignite' again. If reactive capability can be reinstated by shocking it with a hi-V pulse or cycling H2 pressure, things like that, then it could be automated and done while in-situ. These are engineering problems, not scientific ones. -m
Re: [Vo]:New here-- some general statements
Very few of us are destined to make a colossal financial killing in the world, particularly on the order of raking in billions of Dollars/Euros. It remains to be seen whether Rossi's name will be added to that rarified list. If Rossi does eventually succeed I would speculate that the history books will say his triumph was due to an innate sense of intuition which he exploited at every opportunity while building a global industrial empire. By focusing on mass producing his energy catalyzers (I agree with Jed, that mass-production is a major key to financial success) Rossi ends up marginalizing pretty much all of his competition. However, as we all know, glowing historical reviews of this nature is definitely dividing the bear before it has been killed. ;-) Regards Steven Vincent Johnson www.OrionWorks.com www.zazzle.com/orionworks
Re: [Vo]:New here-- some general statements
Von:Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com Rossi does that better than anyone I know. He is astounding in that respect. He also takes whatever good ideas he finds, from Arata and others. As Steve Jobs said: Good artists copy, great artists steal. We have always been shameless about stealing great ideas. I do not feel competent to judge on all that in a decisive manner. it is all probabilistic, and a projection of personal beliefs. LENR itself seems to be for me highly probable (99%). The question to me -and certainly for us all here- is the quantity and stability of the effect. Is the out-in efficiency 1.x, 6 (Rossi1), 20 (Rossi2), 100 (Rossi3). This is quite similar to the EROI-problem, with the additional problem of energy-quality (electrical in, thermal out). I think this is a problem of the evolution of a technology, which is in its infancy, which can be overcome, if it is investigated by a broad community. As such, it would be truly disruptive. I do not have to tell You . You wrote about that earlier than I was thinking about it. Myself being more of a Doomer am having a hard time readjusting my worldview. With or without Rossi. The 'universe' being more benign than I ever thought. ;) But our capability to mess this all up seems to be nearer to infinity than the energy LENR-devices eventually can deliver. Ha.
RE: [Vo]:Rossi's Best Chance
Mark - I thought you found the entanglement paper. Or . did you not make the possible inter-connection between 'entanglement' and 'tunneling'? Anyway, thanks goes out to whoever brought up the issue of quantum entanglement. As now - it is sounding more and more relevant even if the application to tunneling probability is way off the beaten path. After all this is QM so prepare to be confused. This is a good time to suggest that anyone interested in how to avoid quiescence - take another look at the DGT pics. I see three solenoid valve controls for hydrogen in/out and the control circuitry which indicates clearly to me that hydrogen is being periodically dumped and refilled by computer control. I suspect that this cycle is on a timer or a timer plus other inputs in a simple Pic or Arduino micro-controller. The dumps are probably in the range of 6-8 hours between cycles (based on Rossi's prior results of the applicable period of highest activity). The dump-and-refill overcomes the quiescence cycle, at least in the short term - at the expense of using perhaps 4-8 extra grams of H2 per day. Otherwise - why have solenoid control, if the thing is designed for a 6 month run? I hate to imagine that Rossi could be too cheap to realize that the extra hydrogen dumped is not all that important. Or maybe he is just too proud to carefully study the Hyperion pictures (more likely). And besides, with the few grams/day of hydrogen dump, this is not a pure loss - it can be ported to a fuel cell, where the slight loss of mass form the prior Hyperion run will not be noticed, since the depleted H2 can still be oxidized in a chemical reaction. Jones From: Mark Iverson-ZeroPoint Jones wrote: Stated simply, quiescence involves too much depletion in the mass of the hydrogen so that the high level of probability of tunneling is reduced. This is where anything that relates to QM probability come in, and you have already found papers suggestive of a few of these factors. Re: the statement, .and *you* have already found papers suggestive. I started LOL. that *I* found? This post touches on the element of 'meta-physics' that SVJ has mentioned recently. One of the things that I enjoy doing it 'serendipitous surfin'. which is hard to explain, but I just start with perhaps a link supplied here on vortex, or a link on PhysOrg.com, and start reading and following links and reading and following links, grabbing a phrase from some article and googling it, going thru the search results, and I will usually come across something that just says to me, this is important. Don't know why, since many of the papers I find and post here require esoteric/advanced physics understanding that I don't have. I can usually narrow it down to specific phrases, but bring in the meta-physical side, I think it's the subconscious mind which has seen how that paper (piece of the puzzle) fits into the bigger picture, and somehow alerts my conscious mind that it's important. The conscious mind is too distracted by the realities of living, work, paying the bills, etc., to make the 'connections'; to see how a given paper or discovery is important. That's where Vortex-l, 'The Collective', comes into play. it's as if the Collective is a kind of global, artificial subconscious made up of people! Some people are bringing in pieces of the puzzle but not sure where they go, and some can see where those pieces 'fit' in. Does that make sense??? It is what makes this forum different from most, and is a concept that trolls don't understand, nor respect. -Mark From: Jones Beene [mailto:jone...@pacbell.net] Sent: Tuesday, January 24, 2012 1:27 PM To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: RE: [Vo]:Rossi's Best Chance Mark, The first question that must be answered is: it the Ni-H phenomena Quantum Mechanical in nature, or is it Thermonuclear, on a reduced scale? There are some that still believe Ni-H is thermonuclear and in fact, Pd-D could be. In fact W-L theory tries hard not to be forced into making that decision, and has QM features - but if the defining detail of that theory involves neutrons, neutron capture - and subsequent weak-force reactions, just as are seen in traditional physics - then it is a thermonuclear theory. Theories that involve tunneling of protons in one form or another are QM based - if no neutron is involved. QM is normally too low in probability to account for much heat. But one aftermath of the development of the modern CPU by Intel and others is that QM tunneling (of electrons) can be engineer and optimized to occur at very high rates. A CPU operating a 2 GHz will have electrons tunneling in predictable fashion the high terahertz range. The CPU is a QM electron tunneling device operating at high probability. The CPU is a good model to use for proton tunneling - where instead of a small chip needing to shed 30 watts of heat (and not gainful) you have much more heat,
RE: [Vo]:MgH2 as hydrogen source
Jay, Interesting idea, but Chan raises many red flags. Are there pictures? Video? Website? Can you explain how MgH2 would relate to QM in particular? From: Jay Caplan I'd like to solicit comments from the list re the Chan/Phen/Ortiz postings using MgH2 as H source http://www.ecatplanet.net/showthread.php?100-Chan-Method-of-Ni-H-fusion as it would pertain to QM theory, to thermonuclear processes, and to the noted 'quiescence.'
Re: [Vo]:The Eight Hour Rule
Von: OrionWorks - Steven V Johnson svj.orionwo...@gmail.com --- To make a long story short: EROI 20 Duration 6 months with energy-decay 1 to 0.5 Price 'reasonable' are the the lower-boundary conditions for a -ahem- disruptive technology.
RE: [Vo]:Rossi's Best Chance
Can't remember, but it was either me or Axil. what's important is that someone (you) were able to see a place in the puzzle where that piece fit in! The 64 trillion $ question is: Do we (Jones, Fran, Axil, some of you PhD newcomers) have enough of the pieces put together to 'see' what the picture is all about??? -Mark From: Jones Beene [mailto:jone...@pacbell.net] Sent: Tuesday, January 24, 2012 3:16 PM To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: RE: [Vo]:Rossi's Best Chance Mark - I thought you found the entanglement paper. Or . did you not make the possible inter-connection between 'entanglement' and 'tunneling'? Anyway, thanks goes out to whoever brought up the issue of quantum entanglement. As now - it is sounding more and more relevant even if the application to tunneling probability is way off the beaten path. After all this is QM so prepare to be confused. This is a good time to suggest that anyone interested in how to avoid quiescence - take another look at the DGT pics. I see three solenoid valve controls for hydrogen in/out and the control circuitry which indicates clearly to me that hydrogen is being periodically dumped and refilled by computer control. I suspect that this cycle is on a timer or a timer plus other inputs in a simple Pic or Arduino micro-controller. The dumps are probably in the range of 6-8 hours between cycles (based on Rossi's prior results of the applicable period of highest activity). The dump-and-refill overcomes the quiescence cycle, at least in the short term - at the expense of using perhaps 4-8 extra grams of H2 per day. Otherwise - why have solenoid control, if the thing is designed for a 6 month run? I hate to imagine that Rossi could be too cheap to realize that the extra hydrogen dumped is not all that important. Or maybe he is just too proud to carefully study the Hyperion pictures (more likely). And besides, with the few grams/day of hydrogen dump, this is not a pure loss - it can be ported to a fuel cell, where the slight loss of mass form the prior Hyperion run will not be noticed, since the depleted H2 can still be oxidized in a chemical reaction. Jones From: Mark Iverson-ZeroPoint Jones wrote: Stated simply, quiescence involves too much depletion in the mass of the hydrogen so that the high level of probability of tunneling is reduced. This is where anything that relates to QM probability come in, and you have already found papers suggestive of a few of these factors. Re: the statement, .and *you* have already found papers suggestive. I started LOL. that *I* found? This post touches on the element of 'meta-physics' that SVJ has mentioned recently. One of the things that I enjoy doing it 'serendipitous surfin'. which is hard to explain, but I just start with perhaps a link supplied here on vortex, or a link on PhysOrg.com, and start reading and following links and reading and following links, grabbing a phrase from some article and googling it, going thru the search results, and I will usually come across something that just says to me, this is important. Don't know why, since many of the papers I find and post here require esoteric/advanced physics understanding that I don't have. I can usually narrow it down to specific phrases, but bring in the meta-physical side, I think it's the subconscious mind which has seen how that paper (piece of the puzzle) fits into the bigger picture, and somehow alerts my conscious mind that it's important. The conscious mind is too distracted by the realities of living, work, paying the bills, etc., to make the 'connections'; to see how a given paper or discovery is important. That's where Vortex-l, 'The Collective', comes into play. it's as if the Collective is a kind of global, artificial subconscious made up of people! Some people are bringing in pieces of the puzzle but not sure where they go, and some can see where those pieces 'fit' in. Does that make sense??? It is what makes this forum different from most, and is a concept that trolls don't understand, nor respect. -Mark From: Jones Beene [mailto:jone...@pacbell.net] Sent: Tuesday, January 24, 2012 1:27 PM To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: RE: [Vo]:Rossi's Best Chance Mark, The first question that must be answered is: it the Ni-H phenomena Quantum Mechanical in nature, or is it Thermonuclear, on a reduced scale? There are some that still believe Ni-H is thermonuclear and in fact, Pd-D could be. In fact W-L theory tries hard not to be forced into making that decision, and has QM features - but if the defining detail of that theory involves neutrons, neutron capture - and subsequent weak-force reactions, just as are seen in traditional physics - then it is a thermonuclear theory. Theories that involve tunneling of protons in one form or another are QM based - if no neutron is involved. QM is normally too low in probability to account for much heat. But one aftermath of
RE: [Vo]:MgH2 as hydrogen source
Chan has put up a website, but there's nothing there yet. claims he's too busy to engage in conversations. http://chanfusionpower.chan.host-ed.me/ -m From: Jones Beene [mailto:jone...@pacbell.net] Sent: Tuesday, January 24, 2012 3:18 PM To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: RE: [Vo]:MgH2 as hydrogen source Jay, Interesting idea, but Chan raises many red flags. Are there pictures? Video? Website? Can you explain how MgH2 would relate to QM in particular? From: Jay Caplan I'd like to solicit comments from the list re the Chan/Phen/Ortiz postings using MgH2 as H source http://www.ecatplanet.net/showthread.php?100-Chan-Method-of-Ni-H-fusion as it would pertain to QM theory, to thermonuclear processes, and to the noted 'quiescence.'
Re: [Vo]:The Eight Hour Rule
OrionWorks - Steven V Johnson svj.orionwo...@gmail.com wrote: Jed, as I'm sure you are aware, Jones has been quite vocal with his prediction that Rossi's e-cats (at least the e-cats we've seen so far) will eventually be discovered to go quiescent in approximately 8 hours after being turned on. I do not know where Jones got this from. I have not heard it from Rossi or anyone else working with Ni-H. Rossi said it goes bananas after some period of time. It goes out of control. Whatever that means. He did not say it turns off and he cannot restart it. Neither did Forcard or Levi or any of the others who have observed his reactors for days or weeks. There is no doubt it can run indefinitely with input power. Levi observed an 18-hour run. Others have seen much longer ones. I don't see what the problem is here. As long as you can make this thing run *with* power, who cares if there is some limitation that makes it stop after 8-hours in self-sustaining mode? If it explodes after 8 hours that's a problem! But so what if it turns off? Just run it with power input. It seems Defkalion is doing that. Input power is only a fraction of output, so it does not matter. Defkalion's ratio is presently 20, they say. I'm sure with some more engineering they can make any ratio they want. I do not understand why Rossi and his customer (?) wanted to run the big reactor in self-sustaining mode in October. I guess they had their reasons. Meanwhile, we know that Rossi has claimed (boasted?) that he has had his e-cats warming a factory for a solid year... or something to that effect. However, as we all know, it would be unwise to take Rossi's word considering how creative he can be with his use of words. Yeah. It's an itty-bitty space heater at the EON Factory. The address is in the patent. I had some difficulty believing that. Then Forcardi talked about going to the factory and seeing the gadget, in one of his interviews. I heard that and thought, maybe it's true after all. Then a Reliable Source sent me a photo of the gadget, with some technical details, such as the fact that it ran continuously during the winter of 2008-2009, producing between 5 and 8 kW. I asked permission to upload this document, but so far, no dice. I have no reason to doubt this is real, and the heater did run continuously for months. I realize the noisy skeptics would say I have many reasons to doubt it. For me . . . I imagine myself a well-informed aviation enthusiast in 1905. Some friends come by and show me photos from their recent visit to Dayton, such as this one: http://www-personal.umich.edu/~bobwolfe/genbob/1905WrightFlight41.jpg They say, yeah we saw it fly a good 50 feet in the air for 20 minutes. I know these people to be experts in aviation. I have no doubt that the Wrights and others have flown. I have seen other people make uncontrolled glider flights, such as this guy: http://www.flyingmachines.org/lilthl.html I think under those circumstances back in 1905 I would be crazy to doubt what my friends tell me. There is simply no rational reason to think my friends are crazy, deluded or fooled, or that they are conspiring to fool me. I do not see any significant difference between that situation and this one. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:MgH2 as hydrogen source
No, I can't explain if there is any significance to the MgH2 as to QM; I'm probably hunkered down in the thermonuclear camp, sorry. As to the Chan/Phen/Ortiz postings, they are totally unsupported, but my experience of working with backyard 'engineers' and the language they used suggests to me that they are reporting actual results - I would not disregard the postings out of hand. The rate constants of H from MgH2 may be their key. H2 gas may form hot spots that melt the nano tubercules, whereas slow H from dispersed MgH2 may not. Also, not handling gaseous H2 simplifies the entire perspective. - Original Message - From: Jones Beene To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Tuesday, January 24, 2012 5:17 PM Subject: RE: [Vo]:MgH2 as hydrogen source Jay, Interesting idea, but Chan raises many red flags. Are there pictures? Video? Website? Can you explain how MgH2 would relate to QM in particular? From: Jay Caplan I'd like to solicit comments from the list re the Chan/Phen/Ortiz postings using MgH2 as H source http://www.ecatplanet.net/showthread.php?100-Chan-Method-of-Ni-H-fusion as it would pertain to QM theory, to thermonuclear processes, and to the noted 'quiescence.'
Re: [Vo]:Problem with flow calorimetry in Defkalion system
At 01:14 PM 1/24/2012, Alan J Fletcher wrote: If you put two cyclindrical Hyperions side by side, separated by a couple of feet, I think you could get full surface coverage with 6 IR cameras (Viewed end-on Top,Bottom,Left,Right radially plus one axially at each end: Front,Back). Industrial-strength IR thermal imagers run at about $5K (topping out at $30K) ... rentals are maybe $100/day. That's 320x240 to 640x480 bolometer arrays, not silicon CCD's Wide-angle lenses are available : eg at 10 feet the field-of-view is 4 x 3 feet
Re: [Vo]:The Eight Hour Rule
Maybe that month long duration is like Piantelli's long runs. They cannot be reliably repeated. So, while that heater may be true, Rossi cannot reproduce that so easily. 2012/1/24 Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com OrionWorks - Steven V Johnson svj.orionwo...@gmail.com wrote: Jed, as I'm sure you are aware, Jones has been quite vocal with his prediction that Rossi's e-cats (at least the e-cats we've seen so far) will eventually be discovered to go quiescent in approximately 8 hours after being turned on. I do not know where Jones got this from. I have not heard it from Rossi or anyone else working with Ni-H. Rossi said it goes bananas after some period of time. It goes out of control. Whatever that means. He did not say it turns off and he cannot restart it. Neither did Forcard or Levi or any of the others who have observed his reactors for days or weeks. There is no doubt it can run indefinitely with input power. Levi observed an 18-hour run. Others have seen much longer ones. I don't see what the problem is here. As long as you can make this thing run *with* power, who cares if there is some limitation that makes it stop after 8-hours in self-sustaining mode? If it explodes after 8 hours that's a problem! But so what if it turns off? Just run it with power input. It seems Defkalion is doing that. Input power is only a fraction of output, so it does not matter. Defkalion's ratio is presently 20, they say. I'm sure with some more engineering they can make any ratio they want. I do not understand why Rossi and his customer (?) wanted to run the big reactor in self-sustaining mode in October. I guess they had their reasons. Meanwhile, we know that Rossi has claimed (boasted?) that he has had his e-cats warming a factory for a solid year... or something to that effect. However, as we all know, it would be unwise to take Rossi's word considering how creative he can be with his use of words. Yeah. It's an itty-bitty space heater at the EON Factory. The address is in the patent. I had some difficulty believing that. Then Forcardi talked about going to the factory and seeing the gadget, in one of his interviews. I heard that and thought, maybe it's true after all. Then a Reliable Source sent me a photo of the gadget, with some technical details, such as the fact that it ran continuously during the winter of 2008-2009, producing between 5 and 8 kW. I asked permission to upload this document, but so far, no dice. I have no reason to doubt this is real, and the heater did run continuously for months. I realize the noisy skeptics would say I have many reasons to doubt it. For me . . . I imagine myself a well-informed aviation enthusiast in 1905. Some friends come by and show me photos from their recent visit to Dayton, such as this one: http://www-personal.umich.edu/~bobwolfe/genbob/1905WrightFlight41.jpg They say, yeah we saw it fly a good 50 feet in the air for 20 minutes. I know these people to be experts in aviation. I have no doubt that the Wrights and others have flown. I have seen other people make uncontrolled glider flights, such as this guy: http://www.flyingmachines.org/lilthl.html I think under those circumstances back in 1905 I would be crazy to doubt what my friends tell me. There is simply no rational reason to think my friends are crazy, deluded or fooled, or that they are conspiring to fool me. I do not see any significant difference between that situation and this one. - Jed -- Daniel Rocha - RJ danieldi...@gmail.com
Re: [Vo]:The Eight Hour Rule
On Tue, Jan 24, 2012 at 6:55 PM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com wrote: Yeah. It's an itty-bitty space heater at the EON Factory. The address is in the patent. I had some difficulty believing that. Then Forcardi talked about going to the factory and seeing the gadget, in one of his interviews. I heard that and thought, maybe it's true after all. Then a Reliable Source sent me a photo of the gadget, with some technical details, such as the fact that it ran continuously during the winter of 2008-2009, producing between 5 and 8 kW. I asked permission to upload this document, but so far, no dice. I have no reason to doubt this is real, and the heater did run continuously for months. I realize the noisy skeptics would say I have many reasons to doubt it. For me . . . I imagine myself a well-informed aviation enthusiast in 1905. Some friends come by and show me photos from their recent visit to Dayton, such as this one: http://www-personal.umich.edu/~bobwolfe/genbob/1905WrightFlight41.jpg They say, yeah we saw it fly a good 50 feet in the air for 20 minutes. I know these people to be experts in aviation. I have no doubt that the Wrights and others have flown. I have seen other people make uncontrolled glider flights, such as this guy: http://www.flyingmachines.org/lilthl.html I think under those circumstances back in 1905 I would be crazy to doubt what my friends tell me. There is simply no rational reason to think my friends are crazy, deluded or fooled, or that they are conspiring to fool me. I do not see any significant difference between that situation and this one. Were the Wright brother keeping everything secret, so that your hypothetical friends of 1905 would have told you not to publish the details? harry Harry
Re: [Vo]:Rossi's Best Chance
Regarding the fluidized bed reactor, I was primarily thinking of the following advantages since we are dealing with solid, albeit small particles: The increase in fluidized bed reactor use in today’s industrial world is largely due to the inherent advantages of the technology.[7]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fluidized_bed_reactor#cite_note-two-6 - *Uniform Particle Mixing:* Due to the intrinsic fluid-like behavior of the solid material, fluidized beds do not experience poor mixing as in packed beds. This complete mixing allows for a uniform product that can often be hard to achieve in other reactor designs. The elimination of radial and axial concentration gradientshttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gradients also allows for better fluid-solid contact, which is essential for reaction efficiency and quality. - *Uniform Temperature Gradients:* Many chemical reactions require the addition or removal of heat. Local hot or cold spots within the reaction bed, often a problem in packed beds, are avoided in a fluidized situation such as an FBR. In other reactor types, these local temperature differences, especially hotspots, can result in product degradation. Thus FBRs are well suited to exothermichttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exothermicreactions. Researchers have also learned that the bed-to-surface heat transferhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heat_transfer coefficients for FBRs are high. I also had a wild thought that maybe they also kept a very small continuous constant delta P of H2 across the kernal/reactants to keep the hydrogen and particles moving/fluidized. I remember reading that previous tests gave off excess heat while loading and unloading the H2 into the lattice so why not keep the hydrogen always loading/unloading thru a constant recirculating flow. On Tue, Jan 24, 2012 at 6:44 PM, Mark Iverson-ZeroPoint zeropo...@charter.net wrote: Can’t remember, but it was either me or Axil… what’s important is that someone (you) were able to see a place in the puzzle where that piece fit in! ** ** The 64 trillion $ question is: Do we (Jones, Fran, Axil, some of you PhD newcomers) have enough of the pieces put together to ‘see’ what the picture is all about??? ** ** -Mark ** ** *From:* Jones Beene [mailto:jone...@pacbell.net] *Sent:* Tuesday, January 24, 2012 3:16 PM *To:* vortex-l@eskimo.com *Subject:* RE: [Vo]:Rossi's Best Chance ** ** Mark - I thought you found the “entanglement” paper. Or … did you not make the possible inter-connection between ‘entanglement’ and ‘tunneling’? ** ** Anyway, thanks goes out to whoever brought up the issue of quantum entanglement. As now - it is sounding more and more relevant even if the application to tunneling probability is way off the beaten path. After all this is QM so prepare to be confused. ** ** This is a good time to suggest that anyone interested in how to avoid quiescence - take another look at the DGT pics. ** ** I see three solenoid valve controls for hydrogen in/out and the control circuitry which indicates clearly to me that hydrogen is being periodically dumped and refilled by computer control. ** ** I suspect that this cycle is on a timer or a timer plus other inputs in a simple Pic or Arduino micro-controller. The dumps are probably in the range of 6-8 hours between cycles (based on Rossi’s prior results of the applicable period of highest activity). The dump-and-refill overcomes the quiescence cycle, at least in the short term – at the expense of using perhaps 4-8 extra grams of H2 per day. ** ** Otherwise – why have solenoid control, if the thing is designed for a 6 month run? ** ** I hate to imagine that Rossi could be too cheap to realize that the extra hydrogen dumped is not all that important. Or maybe he is just too proud to carefully study the Hyperion pictures (more likely). ** ** And besides, with the few grams/day of hydrogen dump, this is not a pure loss – it can be ported to a fuel cell, where the slight loss of mass form the prior Hyperion run will not be noticed, since the “depleted H2” can still be oxidized in a chemical reaction. ** ** Jones ** ** ** ** *From:* Mark Iverson-ZeroPoint ** ** Jones wrote: “Stated simply, quiescence involves “too much depletion” in the mass of the hydrogen so that the high level of probability of tunneling is reduced. This is where anything that relates to QM probability come in, and you have already found papers suggestive of a few of these factors.” ** ** Re: the statement, “…and **you** have already found papers suggestive…”*** * ** ** I started LOL… that **I** found? This post touches on the element of ‘meta-physics’ that SVJ has mentioned recently. ** ** One of the things that I enjoy doing it ‘serendipitous surfin’… which is hard to explain, but I just start with perhaps a link
Re: [Vo]:The Eight Hour Rule
Harry Veeder hveeder...@gmail.com wrote: Were the Wright brother keeping everything secret . . . Yes, they were. About as secret as Rossi is, and for the same reason: intellectual property. They did not get a patent until 1906, and in 1905 they had already made improvements which they hoped to include in a new patent application. They asked people not to take close-up photos. The patent laws were somewhat different back then, and premature disclosure was more of a problem for the inventor. . . . so that your hypothetical friends of 1905 would have told you not to publish the details? That is what happened. The fact that Wrights were flying was not secret to people who followed aviation, but the technical details were skimpy. The mass media did not believe a word of it. Similar circumstances have reoccurred often in modern history, but this is example is particularly close. So close it is uncanny. It often happens that people try to withhold information on scientific or technological breakthroughs. That part is not unusual. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:Problem with flow calorimetry in Defkalion system
On Tue, Jan 24, 2012 at 1:03 PM, Alan J Fletcher a...@well.com wrote: IR is a good idea. Weren't there some IR movies of FP cathodes? Here is a video from SPAWAR: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Pb9V_qFKf2M
