[Vo]:defkalion post
Latest defkalion post: Tests with the presence of high level Government officials have been concluded. Opinions and results were very positive. Announcements will be made upon mutual agreements, at a time yet to be defined. Tests continue with international Authorities in the coming weeks. DGT Andre
Re: [Vo]:defkalion post
I must admit that the forecasts from Path/Pseudo Skeptics are becoming more and more accurate... heh... That makes me really, really sad. 2012/2/28 Andre Blum andre_vor...@blums.nl Latest defkalion post: Tests with the presence of high level Government officials have been concluded. Opinions and results were very positive. Announcements will be made upon mutual agreements, at a time yet to be defined. Tests continue with international Authorities in the coming weeks. DGT Andre -- Daniel Rocha - RJ danieldi...@gmail.com
Re: [Vo]:defkalion post
WOW ! That sounds very impressive! 2012/2/28 Andre Blum andre_vor...@blums.nl Latest defkalion post: Tests with the presence of high level Government officials have been concluded. Opinions and results were very positive. Announcements will be made upon mutual agreements, at a time yet to be defined. Tests continue with international Authorities in the coming weeks. DGT Andre
Re: [Vo]:defkalion post
Is Rossi working for DGT now? :-) Em 28 de fevereiro de 2012 09:51, Andrea Selva andreagiuseppe.se...@gmail.com escreveu: WOW ! That sounds very impressive! 2012/2/28 Andre Blum andre_vor...@blums.nl Latest defkalion post: Tests with the presence of high level Government officials have been concluded. Opinions and results were very positive. Announcements will be made upon mutual agreements, at a time yet to be defined. Tests continue with international Authorities in the coming weeks. DGT Andre
RE: [Vo]:WIRED: Race for cold fusion: Nasa, MIT, Darpa and Cern peer through the keyhole
our dream becoming reality? can it really be? I'd like to see detailed accounts of independent replications of anomalies, which then would have to granted the status of paradigm shifting data... Me too, Richard. Me too. We shall see... Regards, Steven Vincent Johnson www.OrionWorks.com www.zazzle.com/orionworks
RE: [Vo]:defkalion post
From Andre, WOW! That sounds very impressive! Tests with the presence of high level Government officials have been concluded. Opinions and results were very positive. Announcements will be made upon mutual agreements, at a time yet to be defined. Tests continue with international Authorities in the coming weeks. DGT Sounds encouraging to me too. ...on the surface. However, as Prez Reagan was fond of saying: Trust, but verify. Regards, Steven Vincent Johnson www.OrionWorks.com www.zazzle.com/orionworks
Re: [Vo]:defkalion post
Personally, I don't have a big problem with them taking some more time. Their silence over the past days just confirms that they have been busy hosting. And I can imagine that it takes a while to put the results in writing in a way that pleases both DGT and the government officials. That is: if they decide to publish. Nowhere did they say or promise they will. The only thing DGT said is that after the tests these institutions are free to publish wherever they want. What worries me more is the fact that where they used to say 7 well-known research centers and organizations from Greece and abroad, they are now talking about Authorities and high level officials. Somehow they make it sound like they have just suits visiting./ /On 02/28/2012 08:44 AM, Andre Blum wrote: Latest defkalion post: Tests with the presence of high level Government officials have been concluded. Opinions and results were very positive. Announcements will be made upon mutual agreements, at a time yet to be defined. Tests continue with international Authorities in the coming weeks. DGT Andre
Re: [Vo]:defkalion post
I think they have a first things first politics. Authorities are influential people who take decisions. We at Vortex are just curious people, kibitzes, electronic paper tigers, with low impact. In the best case- kind of consultants. Can we come and say: Guys, we have perfectly solved the problems of the Pd-D system, now please let us to help you to solve all those of the Ni-H systems, OK? I had and have empathy for the DGT team. They have to go on theor own way. Our curiosity will be a temporary collateral victim. Peter On Tue, Feb 28, 2012 at 3:53 PM, Andre Blum andre_vor...@blums.nl wrote: Personally, I don't have a big problem with them taking some more time. Their silence over the past days just confirms that they have been busy hosting. And I can imagine that it takes a while to put the results in writing in a way that pleases both DGT and the government officials. That is: if they decide to publish. Nowhere did they say or promise they will. The only thing DGT said is that after the tests these institutions are free to publish wherever they want. What worries me more is the fact that where they used to say 7 well-known research centers and organizations from Greece and abroad, they are now talking about Authorities and high level officials. Somehow they make it sound like they have just suits visiting.* * On 02/28/2012 08:44 AM, Andre Blum wrote: Latest defkalion post: Tests with the presence of high level Government officials have been concluded. Opinions and results were very positive. Announcements will be made upon mutual agreements, at a time yet to be defined. Tests continue with international Authorities in the coming weeks. DGT Andre -- Dr. Peter Gluck Cluj, Romania http://egooutpeters.blogspot.com
Re: [Vo]:defkalion post
what did you expect from a corp... a video of the tests ? preliminary results on rough paper with units errors ? it is annoying for us, but that is the rule of regular corp communication ... no comment before all is checked. their short message is already at the limit of what is allowed 2012/2/28 Daniel Rocha danieldi...@gmail.com I must admit that the forecasts from Path/Pseudo Skeptics are becoming more and more accurate... heh... That makes me really, really sad. 2012/2/28 Andre Blum andre_vor...@blums.nl Latest defkalion post: Tests with the presence of high level Government officials have been concluded. Opinions and results were very positive. Announcements will be made upon mutual agreements, at a time yet to be defined. Tests continue with international Authorities in the coming weeks. DGT Andre -- Daniel Rocha - RJ danieldi...@gmail.com
Re: [Vo]:defkalion post
what did you expect from a corp... Let us know at least who attended the tests ? Too hard ?
Re: [Vo]:defkalion post
I think the results - in essence- are much more important than the testers- at least this time. Say it were the Greek Ministers for Industry, Energy and Environment - each with three consultants plus the Vice-President for Technology of the Greek Academy. What can we do with this information? Peter On Tue, Feb 28, 2012 at 4:37 PM, Andrea Selva andreagiuseppe.se...@gmail.com wrote: what did you expect from a corp... Let us know at least who attended the tests ? Too hard ? -- Dr. Peter Gluck Cluj, Romania http://egooutpeters.blogspot.com
Re: [Vo]:defkalion post
What can we do with this information? Maybe just ask them if they really attended the tests. 2012/2/28 Peter Gluck peter.gl...@gmail.com I think the results - in essence- are much more important than the testers- at least this time. Say it were the Greek Ministers for Industry, Energy and Environment - each with three consultants plus the Vice-President for Technology of the Greek Academy. What can we do with this information? Peter On Tue, Feb 28, 2012 at 4:37 PM, Andrea Selva andreagiuseppe.se...@gmail.com wrote: what did you expect from a corp... Let us know at least who attended the tests ? Too hard ? -- Dr. Peter Gluck Cluj, Romania http://egooutpeters.blogspot.com
[Vo]:Over unity at MIT
Did you ever think you would hear MIT bragging about overunity? Thermoelectrically Pumped Light-Emitting Diodes Operating above Unity Efficiency http://link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/PhysRevLett.108.097403 Parthiban Santhanam, Dodd Joseph Gray, Jr., and Rajeev J. Ram Phys. Rev. Lett. 108, 097403 (2012) http://link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/PhysRevLett.108.097403 Published February 27, 2012 Physicists have known for decades that, in principle, a semiconductor device can emit more light power than it consumes electrically. Experiments published in Physical Review Letters finally demonstrate this in practice, though at a small scale. It is clear that the Joule thief and Joule ringer experiments that pepper the internet can produce more light from LEDs than should be available from the electrical input. The best I have seen is 50 uwatts going in to light an LED (that's micro- not milli-). This is 1000 times lower than the DC rating. If you have been around Vortex for a while you may remember 5-6 years ago there was a vocal proponent of using Silicon chip-making equipment (microlithography) to fabricate a dedicated ambient-to-electric converter - the so-called giga-diode TEG array. A interesting fellow named Charles M. Brown, from Hawaii, was the major proponent of this. He seems to have faded from view around 2007 but he claimed to have a fab lined up to produce such an array. His patent goes pack 37 years. In his last postings, he said this was to be GaAs or GaSb and have several billion diodes. He was going to enter this device in the Virgin alternative energy competition and according to this message - he did arrange to have a few produced. This is an interesting thread but the output is low. Apparently this is Paul Lowrance's site (former vortician) http://www.globalfreeenergy.info/2009/06/18/new-diode-setup-plans/ There is old info up on Sterling Allan's site (with Brown's patent reference), but it seems to have not been updated in a while: http://peswiki.com/index.php/Directory:Charles_M._Brown%27s_Thermal_Electric _Chip Jones BTW- Lowrance adds, Low leakage *undisturbed* diodes typically produce 0.2 to 0.5 volts DC. Piezos typically produce 1 to 7 volts DC. The key is in not disturbing the diode. The effect is extremely sensitive. Once disturbed, the passive component can take weeks to months to recover. [why should undisturbed matter? Does making a connection to ZPE require some kind of local stability?] The effect has baffled some of the best academic scientists. The unknown effect appears to be based on E-fields, and nothing to do with diode rectification. Within the diode is an intense E-field at the junction. Passive piezo elements have an intense internal E-field. Tests replicated by numerous academic scientists clearly show that highly shielded (both electrical and thermal) and undisturbed piezos produce DC voltage, and current when loaded. This effect is seen in various types of diodes and piezo elements. Low leakage components are recommended for best results. Experiments were conducted in rural areas, under-ground, up to three layers of metal shielding, in oil baths, up to 2 feet of thermal insulation. Dozens of different types of meters were used, including 100% passive tests void of all power active components. attachment: winmail.dat
Re: [Vo]:Over unity at MIT
Pay attention at this: Experiments directly confirm for the first time that this behavior continues beyond the conventional limit of unity electrical-to-optical power conversion efficiency. It is above the conventional, not that it produces energy out of nothing. This is just a way of saying that it exceeded expectation of light emission for a LED. 2012/2/28 Jones Beene jone...@pacbell.net Did you ever think you would hear MIT bragging about overunity? Thermoelectrically Pumped Light-Emitting Diodes Operating above Unity Efficiency http://link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/PhysRevLett.108.097403 Parthiban Santhanam, Dodd Joseph Gray, Jr., and Rajeev J. Ram Phys. Rev. Lett. 108, 097403 (2012) http://link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/PhysRevLett.108.097403 Published February 27, 2012 Physicists have known for decades that, in principle, a semiconductor device can emit more light power than it consumes electrically. Experiments published in Physical Review Letters finally demonstrate this in practice, though at a small scale. It is clear that the Joule thief and Joule ringer experiments that pepper the internet can produce more light from LEDs than should be available from the electrical input. The best I have seen is 50 uwatts going in to light an LED (that's micro- not milli-). This is 1000 times lower than the DC rating. If you have been around Vortex for a while you may remember 5-6 years ago there was a vocal proponent of using Silicon chip-making equipment (microlithography) to fabricate a dedicated ambient-to-electric converter - the so-called giga-diode TEG array. A interesting fellow named Charles M. Brown, from Hawaii, was the major proponent of this. He seems to have faded from view around 2007 but he claimed to have a fab lined up to produce such an array. His patent goes pack 37 years. In his last postings, he said this was to be GaAs or GaSb and have several billion diodes. He was going to enter this device in the Virgin alternative energy competition and according to this message - he did arrange to have a few produced. This is an interesting thread but the output is low. Apparently this is Paul Lowrance's site (former vortician) http://www.globalfreeenergy.info/2009/06/18/new-diode-setup-plans/ There is old info up on Sterling Allan's site (with Brown's patent reference), but it seems to have not been updated in a while: http://peswiki.com/index.php/Directory:Charles_M._Brown%27s_Thermal_Electric _Chip Jones BTW- Lowrance adds, Low leakage *undisturbed* diodes typically produce 0.2 to 0.5 volts DC. Piezos typically produce 1 to 7 volts DC. The key is in not disturbing the diode. The effect is extremely sensitive. Once disturbed, the passive component can take weeks to months to recover. [why should undisturbed matter? Does making a connection to ZPE require some kind of local stability?] The effect has baffled some of the best academic scientists. The unknown effect appears to be based on E-fields, and nothing to do with diode rectification. Within the diode is an intense E-field at the junction. Passive piezo elements have an intense internal E-field. Tests replicated by numerous academic scientists clearly show that highly shielded (both electrical and thermal) and undisturbed piezos produce DC voltage, and current when loaded. This effect is seen in various types of diodes and piezo elements. Low leakage components are recommended for best results. Experiments were conducted in rural areas, under-ground, up to three layers of metal shielding, in oil baths, up to 2 feet of thermal insulation. Dozens of different types of meters were used, including 100% passive tests void of all power active components. -- Daniel Rocha - RJ danieldi...@gmail.com
RE: [Vo]:Over unity at MIT
From: Daniel Rocha Pay attention at this: Experiments directly confirm for the first time that this behavior continues beyond the conventional limit of unity electrical-to-optical power conversion efficiency. It is above the conventional, not that it produces energy out of nothing. This is just a way of saying that it exceeded expectation of light emission for a LED. Yes of course - these guys have to protect tenured positions at MIT, so they would never mention ZPE nor any of the other possibilities that we like to toss around here ... ... as Mel Brooks would say we must protect our phony baloney jobs attachment: winmail.dat
Re: [Vo]:Over unity at MIT
On Tue, Feb 28, 2012 at 11:57 AM, Daniel Rocha danieldi...@gmail.com wrote: Pay attention at this: Experiments directly confirm for the first time that this behavior continues beyond the conventional limit of unity electrical-to-optical power conversion efficiency. It is above the conventional, not that it produces energy out of nothing. This is just a way of saying that it exceeded expectation of light emission for a LED. Yes. It uses electricity to change heat into light. The abstract: A heated semiconductor light-emitting diode at low forward bias voltage VkBT/q is shown to use electrical work to pump heat from the lattice to the photon field. Here the rates of both radiative and nonradiative recombination have contributions at linear order in V. As a result the device’s wall-plug (i.e., power conversion) efficiency is inversely proportional to its output power and diverges as V approaches zero. Experiments directly confirm for the first time that this behavior continues beyond the conventional limit of unity electrical-to-optical power conversion efficiency. however, wouldn't this require a violation of the second law of thermodynamics? Harry
Re: [Vo]:Over unity at MIT
I don't think it is a matter of protecting position because of crazy claims. What they did was not unusual in the sense that there is no surplus of energy, but more efficiency then expected. 2012/2/28 Jones Beene jone...@pacbell.net From: Daniel Rocha Pay attention at this: Experiments directly confirm for the first time that this behavior continues beyond the conventional limit of unity electrical-to-optical power conversion efficiency. It is above the conventional, not that it produces energy out of nothing. This is just a way of saying that it exceeded expectation of light emission for a LED. Yes of course - these guys have to protect tenured positions at MIT, so they would never mention ZPE nor any of the other possibilities that we like to toss around here ... ... as Mel Brooks would say we must protect our phony baloney jobs -- Daniel Rocha - RJ danieldi...@gmail.com
Re: [Vo]:Over unity at MIT
Why do you think it would violate the 2nd law? I don't understand. 2012/2/28 Harry Veeder hveeder...@gmail.com On Tue, Feb 28, 2012 at 11:57 AM, Daniel Rocha danieldi...@gmail.com wrote: Pay attention at this: Experiments directly confirm for the first time that this behavior continues beyond the conventional limit of unity electrical-to-optical power conversion efficiency. It is above the conventional, not that it produces energy out of nothing. This is just a way of saying that it exceeded expectation of light emission for a LED. Yes. It uses electricity to change heat into light. The abstract: A heated semiconductor light-emitting diode at low forward bias voltage VkBT/q is shown to use electrical work to pump heat from the lattice to the photon field. Here the rates of both radiative and nonradiative recombination have contributions at linear order in V. As a result the device’s wall-plug (i.e., power conversion) efficiency is inversely proportional to its output power and diverges as V approaches zero. Experiments directly confirm for the first time that this behavior continues beyond the conventional limit of unity electrical-to-optical power conversion efficiency. however, wouldn't this require a violation of the second law of thermodynamics? Harry -- Daniel Rocha - RJ danieldi...@gmail.com
RE: [Vo]:Over unity - Joseph Yater
Joseph Yater did substantial work in the diode conversion arena. See: http://www.rexresearch.com/yater/yater.htm See also what I believe was his last Patent: US 5,889,287 Unfortunately, he was unable to raise sufficient funds to commercialize his work and has passed on. I believe his daughters tried to continue the effort but it seems to have been to no avail. Mark Mark Goldes Co-founder, Chava Energy CEO, Aesop Institute 301A North Main Street Sebastopol, CA 95472 www.chavaenergy.com www.aesopinstitute.org 707 861-9070 707 497-3551 fax From: Jones Beene [jone...@pacbell.net] Sent: Tuesday, February 28, 2012 8:47 AM To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: [Vo]:Over unity at MIT Did you ever think you would hear MIT bragging about overunity? Thermoelectrically Pumped Light-Emitting Diodes Operating above Unity Efficiencyhttp://link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/PhysRevLett.108.097403 Parthiban Santhanam, Dodd Joseph Gray, Jr., and Rajeev J. Ram Phys. Rev. Lett. 108, 097403 (2012)http://link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/PhysRevLett.108.097403 Published February 27, 2012 Physicists have known for decades that, in principle, a semiconductor device can emit more light power than it consumes electrically. Experiments published in Physical Review Letters finally demonstrate this in practice, though at a small scale. It is clear that the “Joule thief” and “Joule ringer” experiments that pepper the internet can produce more light from LEDs than should be available from the electrical input. The best I have seen is 50 uwatts going in to light an LED (that’s micro- not milli-). This is 1000 times lower than the DC rating. If you have been around Vortex for a while you may remember 5-6 years ago there was a vocal proponent of using Silicon chip-making equipment (microlithography) to fabricate a dedicated ambient-to-electric converter – the so-called giga-diode TEG array. A interesting fellow named Charles M. Brown, from Hawaii, was the major proponent of this. He seems to have faded from view around 2007 but he claimed to have a “fab” lined up to produce such an array. His patent goes pack 37 years. In his last postings, he said this was to be GaAs or GaSb and have several billion diodes. He was going to enter this device in the Virgin alternative energy competition and according to this message – he did arrange to have a few produced. This is an interesting thread but the output is low. Apparently this is Paul Lowrance’s site (former vortician) http://www.globalfreeenergy.info/2009/06/18/new-diode-setup-plans/ There is old info up on Sterling Allan’s site (with Brown’s patent reference), but it seems to have not been updated in a while: http://peswiki.com/index.php/Directory:Charles_M._Brown%27s_Thermal_Electric_Chip Jones BTW- Lowrance adds, “Low leakage *undisturbed* diodes typically produce 0.2 to 0.5 volts DC. Piezos typically produce 1 to 7 volts DC. The key is in not disturbing the diode. The effect is extremely sensitive. Once disturbed, the passive component can take weeks to months to recover. [why should “undisturbed” matter? Does making a connection to ZPE require some kind of local stability?] The effect has baffled some of the best academic scientists. The unknown effect appears to be based on E-fields, and nothing to do with diode rectification. Within the diode is an intense E-field at the junction. Passive piezo elements have an intense internal E-field. Tests replicated by numerous academic scientists clearly show that highly shielded (both electrical and thermal) and undisturbed piezos produce DC voltage, and current when loaded. This effect is seen in various types of diodes and piezo elements. Low leakage components are recommended for best results. Experiments were conducted in rural areas, under-ground, up to three layers of metal shielding, in oil baths, up to 2 feet of thermal insulation. Dozens of different types of meters were used, including 100% passive tests void of all power active components.
Re: [Vo]:Over unity at MIT
According to the second law you can only get a system to do work if parts of the system are at different temperatures. In this situation the system is a diode and it does work by converting heat into light. It is hard to tell from the description, but I am guessing the entire diode is at an elevated temperature. harry On Tue, Feb 28, 2012 at 12:20 PM, Daniel Rocha danieldi...@gmail.com wrote: Why do you think it would violate the 2nd law? I don't understand. 2012/2/28 Harry Veeder hveeder...@gmail.com On Tue, Feb 28, 2012 at 11:57 AM, Daniel Rocha danieldi...@gmail.com wrote: Pay attention at this: Experiments directly confirm for the first time that this behavior continues beyond the conventional limit of unity electrical-to-optical power conversion efficiency. It is above the conventional, not that it produces energy out of nothing. This is just a way of saying that it exceeded expectation of light emission for a LED. Yes. It uses electricity to change heat into light. The abstract: A heated semiconductor light-emitting diode at low forward bias voltage VkBT/q is shown to use electrical work to pump heat from the lattice to the photon field. Here the rates of both radiative and nonradiative recombination have contributions at linear order in V. As a result the device’s wall-plug (i.e., power conversion) efficiency is inversely proportional to its output power and diverges as V approaches zero. Experiments directly confirm for the first time that this behavior continues beyond the conventional limit of unity electrical-to-optical power conversion efficiency. however, wouldn't this require a violation of the second law of thermodynamics? Harry -- Daniel Rocha - RJ danieldi...@gmail.com
RE: [Vo]:Over unity at MIT
The key wording is here: A heated semiconductor light-emitting diode at low forward bias voltage VkBT/q is shown to use electrical work *to pump heat from the lattice to the photon field.* It is converting *heat* energy to light. not electricity-to-light!!! Thus, as they *lower* the forward bias V, *electrical* efficiency INCREASES because it is not using electrical current for operation; as Jones said, it's the E-field which ALLOWS the HEAT-to-LIGHT conversion. If the material is not very conductive, one can have a large E-field with miniscule current flow. thus, very little ELECTRICAL power use. -Mark From: Daniel Rocha [mailto:danieldi...@gmail.com] Sent: Tuesday, February 28, 2012 9:21 AM To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: [Vo]:Over unity at MIT Why do you think it would violate the 2nd law? I don't understand. 2012/2/28 Harry Veeder hveeder...@gmail.com On Tue, Feb 28, 2012 at 11:57 AM, Daniel Rocha danieldi...@gmail.com wrote: Pay attention at this: Experiments directly confirm for the first time that this behavior continues beyond the conventional limit of unity electrical-to-optical power conversion efficiency. It is above the conventional, not that it produces energy out of nothing. This is just a way of saying that it exceeded expectation of light emission for a LED. Yes. It uses electricity to change heat into light. The abstract: A heated semiconductor light-emitting diode at low forward bias voltage VkBT/q is shown to use electrical work to pump heat from the lattice to the photon field. Here the rates of both radiative and nonradiative recombination have contributions at linear order in V. As a result the device's wall-plug (i.e., power conversion) efficiency is inversely proportional to its output power and diverges as V approaches zero. Experiments directly confirm for the first time that this behavior continues beyond the conventional limit of unity electrical-to-optical power conversion efficiency. however, wouldn't this require a violation of the second law of thermodynamics? Harry -- Daniel Rocha - RJ danieldi...@gmail.com
Re: [Vo]:The Smith LENR Prize
Does anyone know of anyone, Org, Co, etc, who is either interested-in and/or willing to fund a working prototype of the 'one' 'only' propulsion system that is enabling extremely Advanced Civilizations to not only travel interstellar space w/o trouble or fail, but live among the stars (and our world) in a whole complete different way... No, I suppose not! Right now, as it stands, no-one down here among us humanosaurs 'thinks' that there could possibly be 'other' civilizations operating in the very space above us, but never-the-less, I am beyond convinced that 'they' have been up there for countless millions, if not billions of years, and/or before this star system existed. To be sure, there is a means of technology and/or propulsion system that took many thousands of years to perfect, because without it, you simply cannot go the distance What we're talking about is an altogether powerfully efficient means of generating a significant amount of sustained centrifugal-force (to overpower the entire weight of a like vehicle/craft), controlled with electromagnetic force. This would be a relatively simple thing to do, and quite simply is what has defied us (mankind), ever since our ancestors fell out of the trees. Sadly, this system is non-human compatable (to say the least), because biological dependencies were undoubtedly obsoleted countlessmillions if not billions of years ago, and/or eon. The biggest challenge we face, is first, dealing with the fact that an altogether highly sophisticated mode of being and/or intelligent process has long since completely replaced this very limited human mode of being or functionality why? because its downright immoral. To me however, it's a downright shame really that 'we' (humanosaurs) of this time place in other space, will never likely know what true immortality is surely all about... All I can recommend is that you go ahead and take a step into the future like you never thought you could and, you'll soon 'know' the difference, as opposed to only believing or wondering about it. Its' simply a matter of, Eons Ago!. Eons To Go! So, I say why put off tomorrow (when you're not here) what you can do today!. The 'real' future will simply require a whole complete new approach in producing and controlling energy, to travel the stars (or the heavens,as they once said), forever more. The way I see it is, if we don't persue this one only whole complete 'other' system, then why bother at all with what we're doing, right now,,, if only to enable our future relatives to someday enjoy an exquisite immaculate immortal heavenly existence. The trouble is that 'We' of this time, tend to let the obvious confusion of our relatively limited vision to capture our immediate attention, and gets the better of us. Now, until you realize that 'nature' essentially defeats our purpose, and/or is used against us, then IT will continue to get over us, as opposed to US getting over it,,, and/or, the terms of our survival are no-longer dictated by it. The imperceivable IS indeed perceivable, but not, if you do only what you are capable of, or expected to. While it's quite diffiicult for our very down to earth human nature to reason that this natural world has been left FAR behind (so to speak), it is never-the-less possible for us to consider starting-out in an all new direction. Someday, preferably much-sooner than later, 'we' will be enabled with new-found mobilty that will allow to enjoy true freedom independence,,, the likes of which we all strive for, one way or another. /HTML
Re: [Vo]:Over unity at MIT
The diode is working as a cooler. 2012/2/28 Harry Veeder hveeder...@gmail.com According to the second law you can only get a system to do work if parts of the system are at different temperatures. In this situation the system is a diode and it does work by converting heat into light. It is hard to tell from the description, but I am guessing the entire diode is at an elevated temperature. harry On Tue, Feb 28, 2012 at 12:20 PM, Daniel Rocha danieldi...@gmail.com wrote: Why do you think it would violate the 2nd law? I don't understand. 2012/2/28 Harry Veeder hveeder...@gmail.com On Tue, Feb 28, 2012 at 11:57 AM, Daniel Rocha danieldi...@gmail.com wrote: Pay attention at this: Experiments directly confirm for the first time that this behavior continues beyond the conventional limit of unity electrical-to-optical power conversion efficiency. It is above the conventional, not that it produces energy out of nothing. This is just a way of saying that it exceeded expectation of light emission for a LED. Yes. It uses electricity to change heat into light. The abstract: A heated semiconductor light-emitting diode at low forward bias voltage VkBT/q is shown to use electrical work to pump heat from the lattice to the photon field. Here the rates of both radiative and nonradiative recombination have contributions at linear order in V. As a result the device’s wall-plug (i.e., power conversion) efficiency is inversely proportional to its output power and diverges as V approaches zero. Experiments directly confirm for the first time that this behavior continues beyond the conventional limit of unity electrical-to-optical power conversion efficiency. however, wouldn't this require a violation of the second law of thermodynamics? Harry -- Daniel Rocha - RJ danieldi...@gmail.com -- Daniel Rocha - RJ danieldi...@gmail.com
Re: [Vo]:Over unity at MIT
Some months ago I speculated that LENR might one day be used as a heat source to generate light directly using a thermophotovoltaic effect. This work suggests it might be feasible. I even mentioned it to Rossi, on his blog but he just saw it as a means to generate electricty from the light produced. Harry On Tue, Feb 28, 2012 at 12:45 PM, Mark Iverson-ZeroPoint zeropo...@charter.net wrote: The key wording is here: A heated semiconductor light-emitting diode at low forward bias voltage VkBT/q is shown to use electrical work *to pump heat from the lattice to the photon field.*” It is converting *heat* energy to light… not electricity-to-light!!! Thus, as they *lower* the forward bias V, *electrical* efficiency INCREASES because it is not using electrical current for operation; as Jones said, it’s the E-field which ALLOWS the HEAT-to-LIGHT conversion. If the material is not very conductive, one can have a large E-field with miniscule current flow… thus, very little ELECTRICAL power use. -Mark From: Daniel Rocha [mailto:danieldi...@gmail.com] Sent: Tuesday, February 28, 2012 9:21 AM To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: [Vo]:Over unity at MIT Why do you think it would violate the 2nd law? I don't understand. 2012/2/28 Harry Veeder hveeder...@gmail.com On Tue, Feb 28, 2012 at 11:57 AM, Daniel Rocha danieldi...@gmail.com wrote: Pay attention at this: Experiments directly confirm for the first time that this behavior continues beyond the conventional limit of unity electrical-to-optical power conversion efficiency. It is above the conventional, not that it produces energy out of nothing. This is just a way of saying that it exceeded expectation of light emission for a LED. Yes. It uses electricity to change heat into light. The abstract: A heated semiconductor light-emitting diode at low forward bias voltage VkBT/q is shown to use electrical work to pump heat from the lattice to the photon field. Here the rates of both radiative and nonradiative recombination have contributions at linear order in V. As a result the device’s wall-plug (i.e., power conversion) efficiency is inversely proportional to its output power and diverges as V approaches zero. Experiments directly confirm for the first time that this behavior continues beyond the conventional limit of unity electrical-to-optical power conversion efficiency. however, wouldn't this require a violation of the second law of thermodynamics? Harry -- Daniel Rocha - RJ danieldi...@gmail.com
Re: [Vo]:Over unity at MIT
What about heat -electricity - light? 2012/2/28 Mark Iverson-ZeroPoint zeropo...@charter.net The key wording is here: ** ** A heated semiconductor light-emitting diode at low forward bias voltage VkBT/q is shown to use electrical work **to pump heat from the lattice to the photon field.**” ** ** It is converting **heat** energy to light… not electricity-to-light!!! ** ** Thus, as they **lower** the forward bias V, **electrical** efficiency INCREASES because it is not using electrical current for operation; as Jones said, it’s the E-field which ALLOWS the HEAT-to-LIGHT conversion. If the material is not very conductive, one can have a large E-field with miniscule current flow… thus, very little ELECTRICAL power use. ** ** -Mark ** ** *From:* Daniel Rocha [mailto:danieldi...@gmail.com] *Sent:* Tuesday, February 28, 2012 9:21 AM *To:* vortex-l@eskimo.com *Subject:* Re: [Vo]:Over unity at MIT ** ** Why do you think it would violate the 2nd law? I don't understand. 2012/2/28 Harry Veeder hveeder...@gmail.com On Tue, Feb 28, 2012 at 11:57 AM, Daniel Rocha danieldi...@gmail.com wrote: Pay attention at this: Experiments directly confirm for the first time that this behavior continues beyond the conventional limit of unity electrical-to-optical power conversion efficiency. It is above the conventional, not that it produces energy out of nothing. This is just a way of saying that it exceeded expectation of light emission for a LED. Yes. It uses electricity to change heat into light. The abstract: A heated semiconductor light-emitting diode at low forward bias voltage VkBT/q is shown to use electrical work to pump heat from the lattice to the photon field. Here the rates of both radiative and nonradiative recombination have contributions at linear order in V. As a result the device’s wall-plug (i.e., power conversion) efficiency is inversely proportional to its output power and diverges as V approaches zero. Experiments directly confirm for the first time that this behavior continues beyond the conventional limit of unity electrical-to-optical power conversion efficiency. however, wouldn't this require a violation of the second law of thermodynamics? Harry ** ** -- Daniel Rocha - RJ danieldi...@gmail.com ** ** -- Daniel Rocha - RJ danieldi...@gmail.com
RE: [Vo]:Over unity at MIT
On the CoE balance sheet - we have light emission, which can be converted into watts equivalent. If the electrical input were to be 60% of that value, and the rest is assumed (correctly) to come from ambient heat, then there is no CoE violation. This would be ultra high efficiency in the same way that a heat pump is not OU, but is highly efficient since it removes heat from the environment. (there are two distinct meanings for COP) But until precise calorimetry proves that there is not a third input (in addition to electrical and ambient heat) then the door is slightly ajar. No one is suggesting (yet) that there is an anomaly or a violation. But if you do not look for it carefully, instead of making assumptions - then it cannot be found. From: Daniel Rocha Why do you think it would violate the 2nd law? I don't understand.
Re: [Vo]:Over unity at MIT
If it is a cooler, it appears to violate the first law. If it is an energy converter, it appears to violate the second law. I guess the question is: what is it? Harry On Tue, Feb 28, 2012 at 12:58 PM, Daniel Rocha danieldi...@gmail.com wrote: The diode is working as a cooler. 2012/2/28 Harry Veeder hveeder...@gmail.com According to the second law you can only get a system to do work if parts of the system are at different temperatures. In this situation the system is a diode and it does work by converting heat into light. It is hard to tell from the description, but I am guessing the entire diode is at an elevated temperature. harry On Tue, Feb 28, 2012 at 12:20 PM, Daniel Rocha danieldi...@gmail.com wrote: Why do you think it would violate the 2nd law? I don't understand. 2012/2/28 Harry Veeder hveeder...@gmail.com On Tue, Feb 28, 2012 at 11:57 AM, Daniel Rocha danieldi...@gmail.com wrote: Pay attention at this: Experiments directly confirm for the first time that this behavior continues beyond the conventional limit of unity electrical-to-optical power conversion efficiency. It is above the conventional, not that it produces energy out of nothing. This is just a way of saying that it exceeded expectation of light emission for a LED. Yes. It uses electricity to change heat into light. The abstract: A heated semiconductor light-emitting diode at low forward bias voltage VkBT/q is shown to use electrical work to pump heat from the lattice to the photon field. Here the rates of both radiative and nonradiative recombination have contributions at linear order in V. As a result the device’s wall-plug (i.e., power conversion) efficiency is inversely proportional to its output power and diverges as V approaches zero. Experiments directly confirm for the first time that this behavior continues beyond the conventional limit of unity electrical-to-optical power conversion efficiency. however, wouldn't this require a violation of the second law of thermodynamics? Harry -- Daniel Rocha - RJ danieldi...@gmail.com -- Daniel Rocha - RJ danieldi...@gmail.com
Re: [Vo]:Over unity at MIT
The paper says that it is working at a temperature of 135 C, which is relatively elevated. I agree that this does violate the second law, in that it is doing work but there is not a heat source and sink. However, as my son, who knows more about physics than I do says, the second law is not so much a law, merely a guideline. There are a number of situations where it does not hold, so we can add this to the list. One Achilles heal of the second law would appear to be pumped Bose condensates such as lasers, so it is no great surprise to find an example here. However, we only get over unity at less than 10E-10 watts, so its practical application at this point is somewhat limited.But maybe with a little more research Nigel On 28/02/2012 17:38, Harry Veeder wrote: According to the second law you can only get a system to do work if parts of the system are at different temperatures. In this situation the system is a diode and it does work by converting heat into light. It is hard to tell from the description, but I am guessing the entire diode is at an elevated temperature. harry On Tue, Feb 28, 2012 at 12:20 PM, Daniel Rochadanieldi...@gmail.com wrote: Why do you think it would violate the 2nd law? I don't understand. 2012/2/28 Harry Veederhveeder...@gmail.com however, wouldn't this require a violation of the second law of thermodynamics? Harry -- Daniel Rocha - RJ danieldi...@gmail.com
Re: [Vo]:Over unity at MIT
That's right. The 2nd law is not valid for very simple systems or open systems, which is the case above. 2012/2/28 Nigel Dyer l...@thedyers.org.uk The paper says that it is working at a temperature of 135 C, which is relatively elevated. I agree that this does violate the second law, in that it is doing work but there is not a heat source and sink. However, as my son, who knows more about physics than I do says, the second law is not so much a law, merely a guideline. There are a number of situations where it does not hold, so we can add this to the list. One Achilles heal of the second law would appear to be pumped Bose condensates such as lasers, so it is no great surprise to find an example here. However, we only get over unity at less than 10E-10 watts, so its practical application at this point is somewhat limited.But maybe with a little more research Nigel On 28/02/2012 17:38, Harry Veeder wrote: According to the second law you can only get a system to do work if parts of the system are at different temperatures. In this situation the system is a diode and it does work by converting heat into light. It is hard to tell from the description, but I am guessing the entire diode is at an elevated temperature. harry On Tue, Feb 28, 2012 at 12:20 PM, Daniel Rochadanieldi...@gmail.com wrote: Why do you think it would violate the 2nd law? I don't understand. 2012/2/28 Harry Veederhveeder...@gmail.com however, wouldn't this require a violation of the second law of thermodynamics? Harry -- Daniel Rocha - RJ danieldi...@gmail.com -- Daniel Rocha - RJ danieldi...@gmail.com
RE: [Vo]:Over unity - Joseph Yater
-Original Message- From: Mark Goldes Joseph Yater did substantial work in the diode conversion arena. See: http://www.rexresearch.com/yater/yater.htm See also what I believe was his last Patent: US 5,889,287 Unfortunately, he was unable to raise sufficient funds to commercialize his work and has passed on. I believe his daughters tried to continue the effort but it seems to have been to no avail. Mark, Interesting in several ways. The contrast between Yater and Brown would make a good case study for a patent lawyer. Brown had the earliest filing date of the two, but he bases the active elements in his array on diodes while Yater carefully avoids that designation. Yater in his recent work is labeling this active element as a quantum well - but it is a functional diode. In both cases the concept is to find a small effect and then to etch billions (later over a trillion) of identical devices onto a chip. Yates is also successful at getting a brand new patent in 1999 which is almost identical to the old patent in 1965, except for the addition of then QM lingo and particularly the so-called quantum well. It is no wonder that a deep pockets company, which performed thorough due diligence on this string of patents would reject Yater's IP coverage as inadequate. If the concept worked at all, then there is probably little protection to be had, given the long string of prior art. More likely is that Yater's device may not have worked as planned for the same reason that Brown's (apparently) did not work - which gets us back to the issue of disturbance. I find it very troubling from a theoretical perspective that a device can be robust when completely isolated, but almost dead when disturbed. Anyway, both of these devices seem to be so brilliant on first viewing, and given that we know that samples were made - and yet a PoC was never proved, we are left with the worry: does conservation of energy always win out in the end in thermoelectric devices, and for such an unsatisfying rationale? Jones
RE: [Vo]:Over unity - Joseph Yater
Jones, Yater produced Proof of Concept devices. As far as I am aware, he felt that practical systems were only limited by the lack of finance for such controversial work. Mark Mark Goldes Co-founder, Chava Energy CEO, Aesop Institute 301A North Main Street Sebastopol, CA 95472 www.chavaenergy.com www.aesopinstitute.org 707 861-9070 707 497-3551 fax From: Jones Beene [jone...@pacbell.net] Sent: Tuesday, February 28, 2012 10:26 AM To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: RE: [Vo]:Over unity - Joseph Yater -Original Message- From: Mark Goldes Joseph Yater did substantial work in the diode conversion arena. See: http://www.rexresearch.com/yater/yater.htm See also what I believe was his last Patent: US 5,889,287 Unfortunately, he was unable to raise sufficient funds to commercialize his work and has passed on. I believe his daughters tried to continue the effort but it seems to have been to no avail. Mark, Interesting in several ways. The contrast between Yater and Brown would make a good case study for a patent lawyer. Brown had the earliest filing date of the two, but he bases the active elements in his array on diodes while Yater carefully avoids that designation. Yater in his recent work is labeling this active element as a quantum well - but it is a functional diode. In both cases the concept is to find a small effect and then to etch billions (later over a trillion) of identical devices onto a chip. Yates is also successful at getting a brand new patent in 1999 which is almost identical to the old patent in 1965, except for the addition of then QM lingo and particularly the so-called quantum well. It is no wonder that a deep pockets company, which performed thorough due diligence on this string of patents would reject Yater's IP coverage as inadequate. If the concept worked at all, then there is probably little protection to be had, given the long string of prior art. More likely is that Yater's device may not have worked as planned for the same reason that Brown's (apparently) did not work - which gets us back to the issue of disturbance. I find it very troubling from a theoretical perspective that a device can be robust when completely isolated, but almost dead when disturbed. Anyway, both of these devices seem to be so brilliant on first viewing, and given that we know that samples were made - and yet a PoC was never proved, we are left with the worry: does conservation of energy always win out in the end in thermoelectric devices, and for such an unsatisfying rationale? Jones
Re: [Vo]:Over unity at MIT
I think that systems have always radiated heat energy by the blackbody method. That is one way for a diode to act as a cooler, but this only works if the radiated energy is directed toward a cooler region of space. In one way of looking at it: All of the electrical energy dissipated by an insulated, lone diode in space would be emitted in one form of radiation or the other. Light or infrared, etc. would be emitted in an amount equal to the power input. Perhaps they have found a way to enhance the light part of the spectrum at the expense of the heat portion. Dave -Original Message- From: Daniel Rocha danieldi...@gmail.com To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Tue, Feb 28, 2012 12:58 pm Subject: Re: [Vo]:Over unity at MIT The diode is working as a cooler. 2012/2/28 Harry Veeder hveeder...@gmail.com According to the second law you can only get a system to do work if parts of the system are at different temperatures. In this situation the system is a diode and it does work by converting heat into light. It is hard to tell from the description, but I am guessing the entire diode is at an elevated temperature. harry On Tue, Feb 28, 2012 at 12:20 PM, Daniel Rocha danieldi...@gmail.com wrote: Why do you think it would violate the 2nd law? I don't understand. 2012/2/28 Harry Veeder hveeder...@gmail.com On Tue, Feb 28, 2012 at 11:57 AM, Daniel Rocha danieldi...@gmail.com wrote: Pay attention at this: Experiments directly confirm for the first time that this behavior continues beyond the conventional limit of unity electrical-to-optical power conversion efficiency. It is above the conventional, not that it produces energy out of nothing. This is just a way of saying that it exceeded expectation of light emission for a LED. Yes. It uses electricity to change heat into light. The abstract: A heated semiconductor light-emitting diode at low forward bias voltage VkBT/q is shown to use electrical work to pump heat from the lattice to the photon field. Here the rates of both radiative and nonradiative recombination have contributions at linear order in V. As a result the device’s wall-plug (i.e., power conversion) efficiency is inversely proportional to its output power and diverges as V approaches zero. Experiments directly confirm for the first time that this behavior continues beyond the conventional limit of unity electrical-to-optical power conversion efficiency. however, wouldn't this require a violation of the second law of thermodynamics? Harry -- Daniel Rocha - RJ danieldi...@gmail.com -- Daniel Rocha - RJ danieldi...@gmail.com
Re: [Vo]:Over unity at MIT
On Tue, Feb 28, 2012 at 11:47 AM, Jones Beene jone...@pacbell.net wrote: [why should undisturbed matter? Does making a connection to ZPE require some kind of local stability?] Jones, Maybe this is somehow related to the Aspden Effect? http://www.haroldaspden.com/ T
[Vo]:The Aspden Effect
This is worth repeating from years ago: http://www.haroldaspden.com/lectures/30.htm T
RE: [Vo]:Over unity at MIT
Terry - Not sure I follow. Are you saying that virtual inertia comes from being undisturbed for a time? Please elaborate. -Original Message- From: Terry Blanton [why should undisturbed matter? Does making a connection to ZPE require some kind of local stability?] Jones, Maybe this is somehow related to the Aspden Effect? http://www.haroldaspden.com/ T
[Vo]:Tungsten?
I've copied this from ecat news. A very interesting Comment on the e-catworld.com Blog from a user called “Fluffy”. It’s about the secret element used in rossi’s e-cat (and maybe in defkalions hyperion). He thought it’s Tungsten (Wolfram) - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tungsten “Rossi’s Possible Tungsten Line at 8.31 keV In Andrea Rossi’s original patent application http://www.wipo.int/patentscope/search/en/detailPdf.jsf?ia=IT2008000532docIdPdf=id0009056757name=%28WO2009125444%29METHOD%20AND%20APPARATUS%20FOR%20CARRYING%20OUT%20NICKEL%20AND%20HYDROGEN%20EXOTHERMAL%20REACTIONSwoNum=WO2009125444prevRecNum=1nextRecNum=2recNum=1queryString=office=sortOption=prevFilter=maxRec= there are two charts that show the results of an XRF (X-ray fluorescence)spectrum analysis on a sample of used powder from an E-Cat unit that had been in operation for an undisclosed period of time. Although many of the elements found in the analysis are labeled on the chart, one significant “spike” or “line” is not. This anomalous line could possibly be the element tungsten. XRF fluorescence works by subjecting the material to be tested to x-rays, that can knock electrons out of their orbit in the atoms of the sample material. When another electron moves in to fill the gap produced by the missing electron, a photon is emitted. By measuring the energy of these photons (in keV or kilo-electron volts) and how many are produced, you can determine the composition of a sample of material. A chart produced using the data from an XRF spectrum analysis will show a spike or line for each element present. When there is very little of an element in a sample of material these spikes will be small, and perhaps hard to distinguish from “noise” or other elements. However, when there is a lot of a specific element in a sample, the spike or line will have a significant amplitude. The two charts in Rossi’s patent show many lines, some of which indicate a very significant amount of certain elements. All of the lines that seem to be significant are labeled, except one. If you look at the following chart from his patent you will see that there is one line that is not labeled. This line is between the lines of Nickel and Zinc, and it sits at about 8.3 electron volts. There have been a few comments on the web about this graph. The following is from the comments section in a story posted on ecatnews.com. http://ecatnews.com/?p=829 “I went back and counted pixels with MS Paint to do a more thorough job of identifying this component. It’s not Copper at all. It’s Tungsten. The material is a Ni-W-Zn alloy metal foam.” There are also comments on various websites about how Tungsten can behave like a catalyst, and is used in atomic hydrogen torches to separate molecular hydrogen into atomic hydrogen. I remember Rossi stating on his blog that Tungsten is not used in the E-Cat, when asked a question about it. However, after searching his blog at the Journal of Nuclear Physics, I cannot find that comment. To try and figure out if the anomalous line in this chart could be Tungsten, I did some digging on the internet. As a non-scientist I did not understand everything. However, I did find out that Tungsten has a keV signature that is close to the 8.3. According to a chart on this website http://www.xrfresearch.com/technology/xrf-spectra/182-xrf-spectrum-tungsten.html, one of Tungsten’s possible signatures is 8.39 keV. This is close to 8.31, which is what I calculated by studying the chart from Rossi’s patent. Also, I found a few references to Tungsten having a signature of 8.3 keV. It seems like the line between nickel and zinc in the chart could be Tungsten. There are other possibilities, including copper and nickel. However, if that line was copper or nickel, I wonder why it was not labeled? It does not make sense to me that they would not label the line as copper or nickel, if that was the identity of the element. What would make sense to me, is if the element was Tungsten, and they did not label it as such to try and hide the fact Tungsten is used in the powder. So if this line is Tungsten, how does it fit into what we know about what we have been told about Rossi’s catalyst? 1) Tungsten is not a precious metal. This fits what we have been told, that no precious metals are used in the E-Cat. 2) It has a very high melting point at 3422C which is much higher than the melting point of nickel which is around 1400C. Since we have been told the temperature inside the E-Cat reactor core routinely reaches 1600C, perhaps the addition of Tungsten increases the melting point of the powder inside the E-Cat. Something needs to increase the melting point, because when the nickel melts inside of an E-Cat the reaction sites are destroyed, and the nuclear reactions end. A blend of nickel and Tungsten could be what allows for the E-Cat to operate at higher temperature than the melting point of nickel. 3) We
Re: [Vo]:The Aspden Effect
I did not realize Harold died. He was a great man. I do not know if he was right about the far-out stuff, but he had wonderful ideas and he expressed them well. He had many conventional accomplishments and a distinguished career. I never met him but I have heard he was a nice fellow. I am glad someone preserved his papers online. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:Over unity at MIT
On Tue, Feb 28, 2012 at 7:28 PM, Jones Beene jone...@pacbell.net wrote: Terry - Not sure I follow. Are you saying that virtual inertia comes from being undisturbed for a time? Please elaborate. I was thinking of an inverse of the Aspden Effect, ie if the aether is left undisturbed for some amount of time a sort of energy precipitant might occur. After all, if you're not a part of the solution, you're a part of the precipitant. groan Solly. T
Re: [Vo]:Tungsten?
Interesting thought but checkout the spectrum for Ni - http://www.xrfresearch.com/component/content/article/71-periodic-table/160-xrf-spectrum-nickel.html Colin On Wed, Feb 29, 2012 at 8:51 AM, Mark Goldes mgol...@chavaenergy.comwrote: I've copied this from ecat news. A very interesting Comment on the e-catworld.com Blog from a user called “Fluffy”. It’s about the secret element used in rossi’s e-cat (and maybe in defkalions hyperion). He thought it’s Tungsten (Wolfram) - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tungsten “Rossi’s Possible Tungsten Line at 8.31 keV In Andrea Rossi’s original patent application http://www.wipo.int/patentscope/search/en/detailPdf.jsf?ia=IT2008000532docIdPdf=id0009056757name=%28WO2009125444%29METHOD%20AND%20APPARATUS%20FOR%20CARRYING%20OUT%20NICKEL%20AND%20HYDROGEN%20EXOTHERMAL%20REACTIONSwoNum=WO2009125444prevRecNum=1nextRecNum=2recNum=1queryString=office=sortOption=prevFilter=maxRec= there are two charts that show the results of an XRF (X-ray fluorescence)spectrum analysis on a sample of used powder from an E-Cat unit that had been in operation for an undisclosed period of time. Although many of the elements found in the analysis are labeled on the chart, one significant “spike” or “line” is not. This anomalous line could possibly be the element tungsten. XRF fluorescence works by subjecting the material to be tested to x-rays, that can knock electrons out of their orbit in the atoms of the sample material. When another electron moves in to fill the gap produced by the missing electron, a photon is emitted. By measuring the energy of these photons (in keV or kilo-electron volts) and how many are produced, you can determine the composition of a sample of material. A chart produced using the data from an XRF spectrum analysis will show a spike or line for each element present. When there is very little of an element in a sample of material these spikes will be small, and perhaps hard to distinguish from “noise” or other elements. However, when there is a lot of a specific element in a sample, the spike or line will have a significant amplitude. The two charts in Rossi’s patent show many lines, some of which indicate a very significant amount of certain elements. All of the lines that seem to be significant are labeled, except one. If you look at the following chart from his patent you will see that there is one line that is not labeled. This line is between the lines of Nickel and Zinc, and it sits at about 8.3 electron volts. There have been a few comments on the web about this graph. The following is from the comments section in a story posted on ecatnews.com. http://ecatnews.com/?p=829 “I went back and counted pixels with MS Paint to do a more thorough job of identifying this component. It’s not Copper at all. It’s Tungsten. The material is a Ni-W-Zn alloy metal foam.” There are also comments on various websites about how Tungsten can behave like a catalyst, and is used in atomic hydrogen torches to separate molecular hydrogen into atomic hydrogen. I remember Rossi stating on his blog that Tungsten is not used in the E-Cat, when asked a question about it. However, after searching his blog at the Journal of Nuclear Physics, I cannot find that comment. To try and figure out if the anomalous line in this chart could be Tungsten, I did some digging on the internet. As a non-scientist I did not understand everything. However, I did find out that Tungsten has a keV signature that is close to the 8.3. According to a chart on this website http://www.xrfresearch.com/technology/xrf-spectra/182-xrf-spectrum-tungsten.html, one of Tungsten’s possible signatures is 8.39 keV. This is close to 8.31, which is what I calculated by studying the chart from Rossi’s patent. Also, I found a few references to Tungsten having a signature of 8.3 keV. It seems like the line between nickel and zinc in the chart could be Tungsten. There are other possibilities, including copper and nickel. However, if that line was copper or nickel, I wonder why it was not labeled? It does not make sense to me that they would not label the line as copper or nickel, if that was the identity of the element. What would make sense to me, is if the element was Tungsten, and they did not label it as such to try and hide the fact Tungsten is used in the powder. So if this line is Tungsten, how does it fit into what we know about what we have been told about Rossi’s catalyst? 1) Tungsten is not a precious metal. This fits what we have been told, that no precious metals are used in the E-Cat. 2) It has a very high melting point at 3422C which is much higher than the melting point of nickel which is around 1400C. Since we have been told the temperature inside the E-Cat reactor core routinely reaches 1600C, perhaps the addition of Tungsten increases the melting point of the powder inside the E-Cat. Something needs to increase the melting
[Vo]:DGT's 1st test did not test power, just safety (NyTeknik)
The test was supposed to start on Friday 24 February, but according to sources of Ny Teknik it was initiated only after the weekend. The sources also said that the test was not focused on power or energy measurements but rather on safety. http://www.nyteknik.se/nyheter/energi_miljo/energi/article3419346.ece -- Daniel Rocha - RJ danieldi...@gmail.com
[Vo]:2/20/2012 e-cat test.
*The E-cat was apparently* operated without refilling from a hydrogen canister. Instead the hydrogen was supposedly stored in a piece of solid material – possibly in a metal hydride. The material contained a few grams of hydrogen gas which would last for six months of operation, according to Rossi http://www.nyteknik.se/nyheter/energi_miljo/energi/article3419346.ece -- Daniel Rocha - RJ danieldi...@gmail.com
Re: [Vo]:DGT's 1st test did not test power, just safety (NyTeknik)
What I found most amazing, was all of the Rossi info: On February 20, 2012 Rossi performed a demonstration to show the actual level of development. Among the participants was chemist Roland Pettersson, retired Associate Professor from the University of Uppsala, who also attended a test of Rossi's E-cat on 6 October 2011. Roland Pettersson told Ny Teknik that the system was now much more stable. A new set of control electronics was used and the system was started just pushing a button. However, no energy measurement was performed. The E-cat was apparently operated without refilling from a hydrogen canister. Instead the hydrogen was supposedly stored in a piece of solid material –possibly in a metal hydride. The material contained a few grams of hydrogen gas which would last for six months of operation, according to Rossi. If hydrogen is stored in this manner, certification of a consumer product based on the technology should be much easier than if a canister is included in the system. Roland Pettersson and other participants were also shown a prototype of the consumer version of the E-cat that Rossi says he is planning to manufacture in a robotized factory. As previously stated by Rossi it was slightly larger than an ordinary laptop, and had simple connections for input and output of water. Production is according to Rossi planned to start next winter or at least within 18 months, and a million units should be manufactured per year. The price is expected to be between 600 and 900 dollars, and the device should be easily connected to existing systems for water heating. Users should be able to change a cartridge of fuel after six months of operation. Rossi estimates the price of the cartridge to be a few tens of dollars. Rossi has also announced that his company in the U.S., Leonardo Corporation, is now owned by a group of investors and that he is the CEO. Independent testing of his technology has not yet been performed. Daniel Rocha danieldi...@gmail.com wrote: The test was supposed to start on Friday 24 February, but according to sources of Ny Teknik it was initiated only after the weekend. The sources also said that the test was not focused on power or energy measurements but rather on safety. http://www.nyteknik.se/nyheter/energi_miljo/energi/article3419346.ece -- Daniel Rocha - RJ danieldi...@gmail.com
Re: [Vo]:Over unity at MIT
My first statement is only correct if the putative cooler is an active cooling system. By that I mean it is behaving like the diode equivalent of a heat pump. A heat pump requires an external input of energy that is equal to or greater than the heat transferred out of the system. In this system the input energy is electrical and is less than the heat energy transferred out of the system so it qualifies as OU. OTOH, if it is a passive cooling system, which simply cools by emitting radiation, it wouldn't qualify as OU. However, as David Roberson pointed out this cooling process differs from how an ideal black body is suppose to cool. Harry On Tue, Feb 28, 2012 at 1:09 PM, Harry Veeder hveeder...@gmail.com wrote: If it is a cooler, it appears to violate the first law. If it is an energy converter, it appears to violate the second law. I guess the question is: what is it? Harry
Re: [Vo]:DGT's 1st test did not test power, just safety (NyTeknik)
Defkalion failed to make it clear on their forum that the government representatives have so far only evaluated the Hyperion's safety. Surely, they realize that most people interpreted their vague annoncement of positive results as positive measures of energy gain. Why do we have to learn through Mats Lewan what they really meant? Harry On Tue, Feb 28, 2012 at 8:30 PM, Daniel Rocha danieldi...@gmail.com wrote: The test was supposed to start on Friday 24 February, but according to sources of Ny Teknik it was initiated only after the weekend. The sources also said that the test was not focused on power or energy measurements but rather on safety. http://www.nyteknik.se/nyheter/energi_miljo/energi/article3419346.ece -- Daniel Rocha - RJ danieldi...@gmail.com
RE: [Vo]:Over unity at MIT
PDF was too large, so go get U.S. Patent No. 0119825, McFarland. -Original Message- From: Jones Beene [mailto:jone...@pacbell.net] Sent: Tuesday, February 28, 2012 4:29 PM To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: RE: [Vo]:Over unity at MIT Terry - Not sure I follow. Are you saying that virtual inertia comes from being undisturbed for a time? Please elaborate. -Original Message- From: Terry Blanton [why should undisturbed matter? Does making a connection to ZPE require some kind of local stability?] Jones, Maybe this is somehow related to the Aspden Effect? http://www.haroldaspden.com/ T
