Re: [Vo]:interview re a sensitive subject
When normal is insane, what does extremism mean? On Fri, Jun 21, 2013 at 12:49 AM, Peter Gluck peter.gl...@gmail.com wrote: Dear Ken, special thanks for your nice answer. It is my duty to write an editorial regarding the feedback of my Scientism paper. Peter On Fri, Jun 21, 2013 at 8:31 AM, Eric Walker eric.wal...@gmail.comwrote: On Thu, Jun 20, 2013 at 3:27 PM, ken deboer barlaz...@gmail.com wrote: our near relatives ... clearly possess ... manifestations of high mental activity, ... even a primitive and undeveloped sense of mysticism or protoreligion. I'm curious in what species this has been discovered. Eric -- Dr. Peter Gluck Cluj, Romania http://egooutpeters.blogspot.com
Re: [Vo]:interview re a sensitive subject
It remind me the doctor who wahs taking care of Kim Jung Hill (or another...who died recently...). He said that that man was normal. It is a place where prisoners in reeducation camp are executed by bath in melted metal (heard in a TV document talking of Mengele replicators from WW2 to now). they execute people that have tried to escape and that Chinese police bring back to death (when local mafia do not enslave them). This man was normal, sensible to cinema... he live in a system of deep terror were not being monstrous mean you will be monstrously treated. You cannot judge why people may collaborate with horror, if you ignore the fear. Science, with less physical violence, is a similar network of communities. You are not bathed in melted steel, but covered with horse manure, and executed by public panel and scientific press. I'm a corp executive, and I know professionally, like many economists know for countries, that the problem is not the individuals (who have intelligence, risk analysis capacities, good will, empathy) but the organization, with intelligent individual who adapt to the psychiatric hospital they live in. What thomas Kuhn explain is that it is required for the normal science to explore the known land ... Without the blinders, scientist would lose much time in questioning all. You need scientific terrorists to explore beyond the frontier. Taleb says that it is the job of entrepreneur, garage inventors, practitioners, lab or field engineers, and other lower species that really do the job. the crisis today is not because of bad normal science, but because on a huge monolithic, rationalized, big science . we need small island of science, independent funding criteria, various independent journals with independent policies... not a cartel of opinion leaders, some planet-wide comon criteria to judge what is good or bad... globally taleb says that big animal, like western science, are fragile. LENR may put it at risk, like AGW... people will lose confidence in that big monopoly of truth. Big science think it is too big to fail, but I'm afraid it is too big to save. Science culture, like banks, or nuclear plant, tankers, have to be small so a catastrophe have a minor impact. There will always hapen catastrophe, good or bad, just have not to break the system. 2013/6/21 James Bowery jabow...@gmail.com When normal is insane, what does extremism mean? On Fri, Jun 21, 2013 at 12:49 AM, Peter Gluck peter.gl...@gmail.comwrote: Dear Ken, special thanks for your nice answer. It is my duty to write an editorial regarding the feedback of my Scientism paper. Peter On Fri, Jun 21, 2013 at 8:31 AM, Eric Walker eric.wal...@gmail.comwrote: On Thu, Jun 20, 2013 at 3:27 PM, ken deboer barlaz...@gmail.com wrote: our near relatives ... clearly possess ... manifestations of high mental activity, ... even a primitive and undeveloped sense of mysticism or protoreligion. I'm curious in what species this has been discovered. Eric -- Dr. Peter Gluck Cluj, Romania http://egooutpeters.blogspot.com
Re: [Vo]: About the March test
Alan, Have you tried your model with what I think is the most likely method of fraud: running full current through the supposedly dead 3rd phase wire? This would change the power input from an an average of 266 Watts (800 Watts * 0.33) to 666 Watts (800 Watts * 0.33 + 400 Watts * 1.0). This would produce an apparent COP of 2.5 (avg 666 Watts vs avg 266 Watts), which is just what the testers reported. John From: Alan Fletcher a...@well.com To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Thursday, June 20, 2013 7:28 PM Subject: Re: [Vo]: About the March test From: Andrew andrew...@att.net Sent: Sunday, May 26, 2013 3:45:27 PM 2. The report shows the device temperature varying synchronously, up to a small phase lag, with the pulses. This is expected behaviour. The general fluctuation is expected, but the SHAPE of the curve is consistent only with a TRIANGULAR 150-sec rise, 150-sec fall (or possibly sawtooth) wave. It is NOT consistent with a DC offset applied either through the heater or the central reactor cylinder. (I have to check what a triangle applied to the heater would look like. I guess I should also try a 1/450 hz sine wave).
[Vo]:Electric (LENR) airplane
With all the talk about NASA and an LENR powered airplane, it would seem that all that one needs now for the near-term reality - is to apply a HotCat with a direct conversion scheme - to this design for the E-plane. It is quite beautiful - and appeared recently at the Paris Air Show, but more of a powered glider. http://cleantechnica.com/2013/06/21/new-electric-airplane-shown-off-at-paris -air-show-video/?utm_source=feedburnerutm_medium=feedutm_campaign=Feed%3A+ IM-cleantechnica+%28CleanTechnica%29 We have thrown out ideas for direct conversion before. At the high temperature of the HotCat, they become far more feasible. The most obvious one - if there is IR resonance as part of the operational parameters, is a photocell designed exactly for the emission spectrum. These have actually been fabricated http://cearl.ee.psu.edu/Projects/Assets/Project2/Project2_3_1/DualbandIRfilt ersDrupp0904.pdf Notice the wavelength captured is very specific to the geometry of the fractal which is etched. This favors high efficiency at say 20 terahertz - with efficiency possibly above the range of broad-band solar photocells. An optimist could imagine 6 HotCats in a hexagonal array, surrounded by these fractal antenna powering the EADS glider, manned (or more likely unmanned as a drone) for a very long time. Around the World in two weeks by 2015? In your dreams, maybe. Jones attachment: winmail.dat
Re: [Vo]:My response at Forbes: all assertions must be testable and falsifiable
[This was sent directly to Milstone by accident, because of the way his e-mail response is set up. This happens at Vortex from time to time.] John Milstone john_sw_orla...@yahoo.com mailto:john_sw_orla...@yahoo.com wrote: From the report: The three-phase power cables were checked and connected directly to the electrical outlet. It was established and verified that no other cable was present and that all connections were normal. The ground cable was disconnected before measurements began. It’s clear that the authors of the report were using the term “cable” to refer to a single, insulated wire. They were looking for extra wires. Nothing in their description even suggests that they were looking for extra conductors in a single wire. This is incorrect. They mean wire here, not the whole insulated cable. We know this because: 1. The only way to measure voltage is to expose the bare wire and attach a probe to it, as shown in Fig. 1. It is NOT POSSIBLE to measure voltage any other way. 2. If there were two conductors separately insulated and hidden the researchers would surely notice this when they open the wire to attach the voltmeter. Or if they did not notice it, the two wires now exposed would short out after the researchers cut the insulation. 3. In an insulated electric 3-phase cable, all four wires are bundled together under the insulation. The ground wire is not individually broken out, so you cannot disconnect it, as they did here. The only way to disconnect it is to cut off the outer insulation and expose the individual wires. (You also have to check the voltage to make sure you have disconnected ground.) The device in the photos is a tube containing Rossi’s magic gadget AND conventional electrical resistance heaters. There is no way to prove that the heat being radiated from the surface came from the E-Cat and not the electric heaters. The heat from the e-Cat has to come from both. It is not possible to isolate a source of heat when two are present. Heat is heat, and it is indistinguishable whether it comes from an electric heater, friction, a flame, or a nuclear reaction. However, in this case we know exactly how much heat is added to the system by the electric input power: 300 W. This can be measured with high precision and absolute confidence. We know that 900 W is coming out. Therefore, 600 W must be anomalous heat. This is how all calorimeters work. No calorimeter can distinguish the source of heat. When there are two sources of heat in a reactor, the calorimeter can never tell you how much heat each one is contributing _unless_ you have a method of measuring input to one of the sources. In this case, we have that. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:My response at Forbes: all assertions must be testable and falsifiable
[Sent directly to Milstone by accident] I wrote: 3. In an insulated electric 3-phase cable, all four wires are bundled together under the insulation. Correction: all 5. As noted there is neutral and ground. The point is, you cannot disconnect individual ones without exposing them all. You cannot measure voltage on them without exposing them all. It is not possible that Levi et al. meant cable meaning the entire insulated bundle of wires. - Jed
Re: [Vo]: About the March test
[Sent directly by accident!] I wrote: When something like this happens normally, it is a mistake, not a deliberate effort at fraud. This would be a very dangerous mistake. I mean that when a wire which is supposed to be dead actually carries current, that is dangerous. That sort of thing happens all the time. That is why people use power meters: to be sure that hot wires are hot, and wires that are supposed to be off are fully off, and that wires overall do not supply too much power or not enough. The people at ELFORSK who endorsed this study know all there is to know about measuring power. People have been making stupid mistakes with electricity since 1878. Every conceivable combination and permutation of mistakes with electric power has to be detected by a power meter. Otherwise the meter will fail and someone will be electrocuted. Nowadays there would be lawsuits up the wazoo. It is not possible that Rossi has discovered something new that millions of electricians did not accidentally discover in the last 135 years. The notion that power meters cannot detect common mistakes such as a live wire which is supposed to be dead is similar to the latest claim made by Kirk Shanahan at Forbes. He says that IR cameras cannot measure temperature reliably and that no scientist would trust one. He says he does not believe the seven researchers actually compared the temperature shown on the IR camera to a thermocouple, and he will not believe that until they show the complete record of the thermocopule readings for the entire run. A statement by them that the thermocouple agreed to within 2°C is not good enough for him. Apparently, it has never occurred to him that millions of people use IR cameras to measure temperatures worldwide, and IR cameras are manufactured specifically for this purpose -- and for no other purpose -- so it is likely they work according to the manufacturers' specifications. It is not likely that Kirk Shanahan alone, in all the world, has discovered that this particular instrument does not work, and that millions of engineers and scientists worldwide failed to notice that fact. - Jed
Re: [Vo]: About the March test
[Sent directly by accident!] John Milstone john_sw_orla...@yahoo.com mailto:john_sw_orla...@yahoo.com wrote: Have you tried your model with what I think is the most likely method of fraud: running full current through the supposedly dead 3rd phase wire? The power meter would detect this. All of the wires are metered. When something like this happens normally, it is a mistake, not a deliberate effort at fraud. This would be a very dangerous mistake. Meters are designed to detect things like this, to prevent accidents and overvoltages. That is the whole purpose of a power meter. As I have said before, fraud is functionally equivalent to experimental error, except that errors are usually more subtle and harder to find. All experimental scientists spend their careers finding errors, which they make all the time, nearly every day. After you spend decades finding mistakes, finding deliberate fraud is a piece of cake. Arthur Clarke described his early training in radio and radar in the RAF. The instructors would take out a vacuum tube, bend one pin so that it did not connect, and put the tube back. The students would have to find the problem quickly. This is an example of an error deliberately induced, similar to fraud. People who spend decades dealing with equipment will spot any kind of fraud instantly. There is not the slightest chance something like the cheese method would escape their attention for more than a few seconds. - Jed
Re: [Vo]: About the March test
[Sent directly by accident! Sorry about this.] John Milstone john_sw_orla...@yahoo.com mailto:john_sw_orla...@yahoo.com wrote: It wouldn't have found the fraud in the cheese videos. But as I pointed out, anyone who strips the wire to measure voltage would spot this instantly, and there is no doubt they stripped the wires. What nonsense! Scientists are accustomed to dealing with nature, which might be subtle, but is not malicious. You are not familiar with what my late mother called the perverse nature of inanimate objects. Also, it would seem you have never measured voltage. They failed to notice that their AC-only meter doesn't measure DC at all, when they claimed in the Appendix that they used that meter to disprove a DC current. See if you can find an electrical engineer who agrees. We have a number of them here would would have called them out in this. - Jed
[Vo]:Rossi and DGT Similarity?
It has appeared that Rossi's ECAT and DGT's device are animals of a different species. I have modeled the ECAT and find that the COP of 6 seems to be a consequence of the fact that he uses heat to control the generation of additional heat in a positive feedback manner. Attempting to achieve a COP that is much higher would be difficult while maintaining control and avoiding thermal run away. I have previously spoken of some possible active cooling techniques that might enable better performance, but it is not obvious how well they would work under the influence of the positive feedback built into the device. DGT, on the other hand appears to be using some form of hydrogen ionization by means of a spark to effectively starve the fuel supplied to the active metal surface. I think of this as similar to a throttle in a gasoline engine that adjusts the amount of fuel fed into the cylinders. It seems logical to consider the control afforded by the DGT method as being superior unless other issues arise that complicate the behavior. There has been little data available from the DGT testing which can be analyzed in an attempt to answer these concerns. For instance, does the spark process lead to problems of operational lifetimes? Also, how much complexity is forced upon the users of such a system when compared to one of Rossi's design? Many additional questions can be asked since little has been revealed. One issue came into my thoughts today as I pondered an idea. The concept is based upon the way that energy is released during an LENR process. I visualize it as being either a parallel or a series release of the total energy for each net reaction. Ed's theory implies that the energy is being released in a series form where one photon after the next is radiated from the NAE and into the material. The other general type of operation suggests that an emission from a more or less entangled group of active components radiate the energy as a group in parallel. There has not be sufficient information available to determine exactly which process is the main one at this point, but they all share one common ingredient which is that energy is released in relatively large blocks. The common link is that each of the concepts end up generating a large number of moderate level energy blocks. My questions surround the interaction of these photons with the hydrogen gas that is always present and in contact with the metal surfaces. Would we expect the energy quanta being released to ionize the nearby gas in either of the systems? If it in fact does achieve this goal, then is this process not what DGT needs for their device to function properly? Why does the release of energy from the reaction not supplement that from their spark system and hence lead to additional reactions? Perhaps this does occur and could result in thermal run away of their unit. Then, with Rossi's ECAT it is obvious to ask whether or not a hydrogen ionization process might also be in effect leading to the thermal runaway danger as well as the basic operation of his positive feedback enhancement. Perhaps this is why the material gets into the act to such a large degree with the ECAT design. Rossi may be modifying the behavior of the ionization of the nearby hydrogen gas surrounding his active sites by some form of tuning of the particle sizes or other accidental features. Could his catalysis offer assistance in this manner? Do we detect a similarity between the ECAT and the DGT device that demonstrates the level of energy being emitted that can be used to improve our understanding of the processes? Do we expect hydrogen ionization to occur as a result of internal radiation? Would energy released in the form of heat of mechanical atom motion ionize the gas? What can be learned by comparing DGT to Rossi? Dave
Re: [Vo]: About the March test
I'll summarize the multiple emails, since I certainly don't want to flood the channel by responding to each email individually. Regarding the meter: Both the instruction manual and Mats Lewan (through an email from the manufacturer) verifies that the meter DOES NOT measure DC current. Therefore, the author's claim in the appendix that they discounted the possibility of a DC bias based on the measurements of that instrument is WRONG. Since they got that simple point wrong, I'm not willing to give them the benefit of the doubt about their other conclusions, especially regarding the electrical input to the E-Cat. Regarding the wiring trick: Rothwell keeps stating that there must be a bare conductor available to measure the voltage, and that's true. But there is nothing in the report that indicates that the testers were the ones who did the surgery to access those test points. We know that Rossi provided the power cabling for the test (which, by itself, should have raised a red flag for anyone who actually was looking for fraud). We know that the authors described each separate wire as a cable in their description, and that they describe looking for extra cables (NOT conductors INSIDE of a cable). That's all we know from the report and appendix. Everything else is unwarranted assumption. If the authors really did perform the surgery to expose bare conductors and verify that each cable contained only a single conductor, they should publicly state that. Until they do, we have no reason to believe it. (Also, I would point out that the creator of the cheese videos had no trouble testing his power cord both for continuity and voltage without exposing his trick wiring.) I see that as I was typing this, Rothwell has sent at least two more messages my way. He seems to think I am so ignorant as to not realize that one must measure voltage on a bare conductor. Actually, there are ways of doing so, but I'm not suggesting that they were used in this case. Of course, they had access to some point of contact with the conductor. The question is exactly where, and who set up the bare wire. The report is silent on that matter. Meanwhile, the second cheese video (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Frp03muquAo) at 10:30 clearly shows that it's entirely possible to measure voltage on a rigged power cord. I STILL haven't seen any credible argument that the wiring trick could not have been used in this case. All we have is argument by repeated assertion by Rothwell and others that it couldn't have possibly happened because their assumptions about things never stated Meanwhile, if this simple trick was used, the results would very closely match what the authors report. That should at least raise some eyebrows. Is anyone in this group critical enough to realize that if the two possibilities are: 1) Rossi has the most significant and world-shaking discovery of the last century, or 2) Rossi had extra conductor in a suspicious, dead wire, that we shouldn't even consider option 2? There are at least 9 or 10 problems with the report: It took place in Rossi's facilities. The power-in testing was performed on wiring provided by Rossi. The two lead testers (at least) have been on record since 2011 as Rossi believers which risks According to Essen, it was only Rossi and Levi who decided what tests would be allowed and what test equipment would be available. The only temperature measurements were of the OUTSIDE of the furnace which contained both the E-Cat and the conventional electric heaters, leaving no way to directly determine how much heat each was providing. The power-in wires contained an extra conductor (the 3rd phase) line that, if Rossi really was using 3-phase power should have shown current flow. The wire was, allegedly, just sitting there doing nothing. Nothing in the report excludes the possibility of the wiring trick in that 3rd dead wire. If the wiring trick was used in as simple a way as possible, it would produce an apparent COP of 2.5; just what the authors claim to have measured. The test was kept secret until long after it was concluded, making it impossible for any criticisms or suggestions to be included. Rossi made it impossible to falsify the report because we can't replicate it. (I know Rossi claims that he will have more tests. It will be very interesting to see if the testers really do work to eliminate these and other problems).
Re: [Vo]:Electric (LENR) airplane
On Fri, Jun 21, 2013 at 10:08 AM, Jones Beene jone...@pacbell.net wrote: It is quite beautiful - and appeared recently at the Paris Air Show, but more of a powered glider. Hey, they didn't even show it airborne! Me, I like big planes like this C-17: http://www.c141heaven.info/dotcom/globemaster.php Look carefully, there really is a plane in the piccy.
Re: [Vo]:Mark has blazed the path
Fran, Any coupling between the active resonators, such as Coulomb, would act as the platform. The higher the Q of the resonances, the lower the amount of coupling required for this to occur. Tuning differences of the resonances will also play an important part. One question that arises is how far away from an individual resonance does it effectively couple? Does each site only couple to the adjacent sites or does the effect penetrate far into the material? I wonder about the consequences associated with these different reaches. Dave -Original Message- From: Roarty, Francis X francis.x.roa...@lmco.com To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Fri, Jun 21, 2013 11:22 am Subject: Re: [Vo]:Mark has blazed the path Axil, Care to walk us through it? I am assuming the heating resistors are the emission source and the micro tubles on the inside of the reactor wall form the nano pattern that causes plasmon resonance stimulated by the emission causing magnetic oscillation? This article didn’t mention hydrogen loaded material but it did mention the need to detail the nano structures / grooves in one case .. we don’t have that with random orientations of tubules. What synchronizes the oscillations? Does the loaded hydrogen act like the metronome platform? The articles mentions the same nano geometries we have discussed previously for redundant ground states and Casimir effect.. do you see a linkage between these stimulated oscillation and Rydberg hydrogen? I am very interested because I suspect the Rydberg state may allow an alternate self organizing method in place of the “Nanoscale Detail” required in the article .. the Rydberg and inverse Rydberg can act as an energy spring between orbitals instead of spatial displacement along a common axis. Fran From: Axil Axil [mailto:janap...@gmail.com] Sent: Thursday, June 20, 2013 11:49 PM To: vortex-l Subject: EXTERNAL: Re: [Vo]:Mark has blazed the path Reference: [Vo]:Plasmons on a patterned surface can enhance the production of bright electron beams. Mon, Feb 11, 2013 at 7:34 PM http://physics.aps.org/articles/v6/17 This article about nano-antennas prompted me to regard these nanostructures as being utilized by Rossi and DGT in their tubule coatings of their micro-powder. On Thu, Jun 20, 2013 at 11:10 PM, MarkI-ZeroPoint zeropo...@charter.net wrote: Here’s the original posting: http://www.mail-archive.com/vortex-l@eskimo.com/msg60465.html -mark From: Axil Axil [mailto:janap...@gmail.com] Sent: Thursday, June 20, 2013 5:28 PM To: vortex-l Subject: [Vo]:Mark has blazed the path Vo]:Nickel nanoantennas... its all about resonances. date: Tue, Jan 3, 2012 at 4:26 PM I have done my best, but Mark, it has taken me some time to come around to your mode of thinking.
RE: [Vo]:Electric (LENR) airplane
It is not a great leap of the imagination to suggest that the present HotCat is not far away from what is needed for the first LENR airplane... can we call it the CatBird? Little doubt it will be a drone, even if the EADS design was made for a human pilot (assuming that the deep pockets funder will be, who we think it will be). Imagine six HotCats, each requiring 300 watts input to produce 1800 watts output (6:1 COP as claimed). If the fractal-etched converter cells (antennae is more precise than photocell) are only 30% efficient, which is a fair estimate based on actual testing - then this is workable, but not optimized) as there is only a net electrical overage of 240 watts each or around 1440 watts for each 6-Cat array. Again, these fractal cells have been prototyped at exactly the expected temperature profile which is expected. Fortunately - this calculation overlooks the more likely situation where 6 HotCats can be arranged as a hexagonal core, with the planar fractal converter chips enclosing the core - so that each HotCat supplies most of the thermal input for the others by direct thermal coupling - and with the fractal photocells arranged in panels - outside of the central core to supply electrical current. Thus, with this slight revision, you have at least 200 watts of the required 300 which is needed supplied directly by thermal irradiation from adjoining cells, lessening the electrical input - so only 100 watts of electrical power is needed (for more precise control). This arrangement changes everything, since the net output of each cell is reduced by the 200 thermal watts captured by neighbors and only 1600 goes to irradiate the fractal antenna. The electrical output drops to 1600 x .3 or 480 per cell, minus the 100 needed as electrical feedback for precision thermal control. This is a total of 6 x 380 or 2880 watts net output ... instead of the original 1440 - essentially doubling the power that can be used to drive the propellers. If a single 6-Cat module of 2.88 kW is not enough, and it will probably not be enough to also power the spying gadgets, then many more modules can be added. For the weight of a pilot, this glider could have easily have 10 or 11 modules or 30 kW continuous. If that power can pull the Cat-Bird to the jet stream, The Pentagon could deploy hundreds of these CatBirds as surveillance drones all over the world, just like low-level satellites and in the end save millions ... ...and you thought the spying on citizens was already bad enough. You haven't seen anything yet. Given the present state of technology, and assuming that Rossi is not a fraud, and that the funder puts a few thousand engineers on this immediately - it could happen much sooner than expected. All of the parts are in place. L-M or Boeing are ready to move. It is just a matter of time. _ We have thrown out ideas for direct conversion before. At the high temperature of the HotCat, they become far more feasible. The most obvious one - if there is IR resonance as part of the operational parameters, is a photocell designed exactly for the emission spectrum. These have actually been fabricated http://cearl.ee.psu.edu/Projects/Assets/Project2/Project2_3_1/DualbandIRfilt ersDrupp0904.pdf Notice the wavelength captured is very specific to the geometry of the fractal which is etched. This favors high efficiency at say 20 terahertz - with efficiency possibly above the range of broad-band solar photocells. An optimist could imagine 6 HotCats in a hexagonal array, surrounded by these fractal antenna powering the EADS glider, manned (or more likely unmanned as a drone) for a very long time. Around the World in two weeks by 2015? In your dreams, maybe. Jones attachment: winmail.dat
Re: [Vo]: About the March test
David Roberson said: The problem is that the bar can always be raised higher when one is seeking proof of a system. Maybe I am wrong, but I have a strong suspicion that there is virtually no test that Rossi could perform which would not afford those who seek misconduct an avenue of attack. This is not a problem that Rossi alone faces. For instance, why should we assume that the Higgs was recently discovered when I am confident that it would be easy to come up with a million reasons to doubt it. This is typical of any new advancement. For starters, CERN isn't selling franchises to the Higgs Boson. CERN doesn't rely on secret customers and secret experts to validate their work. Etc, etc. I find it difficult to understand what you refer to by suggesting that the Rossi device is hidden inside a furnace and not measurable. There seems to be a lot of that going on among the believers. Rossi's setup makes it impossible to distinguish the heat being generated by the heating elements from the heat (if any) being generated by the E-Cat. There is no particular reason for that to be intrinsic to the process. Rossi could have easily provided a larger furnace, and then put thermocouples directly on the actual E-Cat (the inner cylinder) AND the inside of the furnace, allowing direct measurements of both. If the E-Cat got hotter than the furnace, it would be clear evidence that the E-Cat was generating its own energy. If not, then it was just a passive component. But Rossi chose not to set it up that way, and the testers obligingly went along with him. One claim he makes is that the COP of his device remains around 6. But that's not true. When he was doing his steam demos, he kept getting a COP of about 6, which just happens to be the error rate if one isn't really converting the vast majority of water into steam. And now, he's getting a COP of 2.5, which just happens to be exactly the error one would see if one were secretly using that extra, dead wire to add an extra 400 Watts or so. Your only question should be whether or not the total heat is what is being measured by the camera system, not how it is generated. Nonsense! If the input was faked, then the output is meaningless. I have suggested a simple trick to add a constant ~400 Watts to the input power level, and that extra amount just happens to exactly explain the entire output power level. That doesn't prove that Rossi used this trick, but it certainly suggest that he could have done so.
Re: [Vo]:Mark has blazed the path
*“I am assuming the heating resistors are the emission source and the micro tubles on the inside of the reactor wall form the nano pattern that causes plasmon resonance stimulated by the emission causing magnetic oscillation?”* Yes, the heat synchronizes everything to an astounding level. The infrared photons acts as the metronome platform. http://phys.org/news/2013-06-entanglement-optical-atomic-coherence.html First entanglement between light and optical atomic coherence The heat drives everything including the dipole movements of the electrons and holes, the Rydberg clusters, the engagement of all the NAE, and it drives the associated vortex currents and magnetic fields in the nanowires. On Fri, Jun 21, 2013 at 11:21 AM, Roarty, Francis X francis.x.roa...@lmco.com wrote: Axil, Care to walk us through it? I am assuming the heating resistors are the emission source and the micro tubles on the inside of the reactor wall form the nano pattern that causes plasmon resonance stimulated by the emission causing magnetic oscillation? This article didn’t mention hydrogen loaded material but it did mention the need to detail the nano structures / grooves in one case .. we don’t have that with random orientations of tubules. What synchronizes the oscillations? Does the loaded hydrogen act like the metronome platform? The articles mentions the same nano geometries we have discussed previously for redundant ground states and Casimir effect.. do you see a linkage between these stimulated oscillation and Rydberg hydrogen? I am very interested because I suspect the Rydberg state may allow an alternate self organizing method in place of the “Nanoscale Detail” required in the article .. the Rydberg and inverse Rydberg can act as an energy spring between orbitals instead of spatial displacement along a common axis. Fran *From:* Axil Axil [mailto:janap...@gmail.com] *Sent:* Thursday, June 20, 2013 11:49 PM *To:* vortex-l *Subject:* EXTERNAL: Re: [Vo]:Mark has blazed the path ** ** Reference: [Vo]:Plasmons on a patterned surface can enhance the production of bright electron beams. Mon, Feb 11, 2013 at 7:34 PM http://physics.aps.org/articles/v6/17 This article about nano-antennas prompted me to regard these nanostructures as being utilized by Rossi and DGT in their tubule coatings of their micro-powder. ** ** On Thu, Jun 20, 2013 at 11:10 PM, MarkI-ZeroPoint zeropo...@charter.net wrote: Here’s the original posting: http://www.mail-archive.com/vortex-l@eskimo.com/msg60465.html -mark *From:* Axil Axil [mailto:janap...@gmail.com] *Sent:* Thursday, June 20, 2013 5:28 PM *To:* vortex-l *Subject:* [Vo]:Mark has blazed the path Vo]:Nickel nanoantennas... its all about resonances. date: Tue, Jan 3, 2012 at 4:26 PM I have done my best, but Mark, it has taken me some time to come around to your mode of thinking. ** **
RE: [Vo]:Mark has blazed the path
How did tesla generate tens of millions of volts potential in the secondary circuit at his lab in Colorado springs, when he was only feeding his primary with at most a few hundred volts? The 'power' was not amplified, but one electrical property (V) was, at the expense of the other (I); nothing revolutionary there, V-up, I-down. Now, if 'power' is needed to overcome the coulomb barrier, then perhaps this is not a possibility, but if an equivalent situation in the atoms or lattice could be set up similar to a resonant transformer, then one physical property (E-fld??) could be greatly amplified at the expense of another (???). -Mark From: Axil Axil [mailto:janap...@gmail.com] Sent: Thursday, June 20, 2013 5:28 PM To: vortex-l Subject: [Vo]:Mark has blazed the path Vo]:Nickel nanoantennas... its all about resonances. date: Tue, Jan 3, 2012 at 4:26 PM I have done my best, but Mark, it has taken me some time to come around to your mode of thinking.
Re: [Vo]:Rossi and DGT Similarity?
Remember this post? http://phys.org/news/2012-12-hot-electrons-impossible-catalytic-chemistry.html Hot electrons do the impossible... A spark produces hot electrons and therefore fuel for the reaction. On Fri, Jun 21, 2013 at 11:08 AM, David Roberson dlrober...@aol.com wrote: It has appeared that Rossi's ECAT and DGT's device are animals of a different species. I have modeled the ECAT and find that the COP of 6 seems to be a consequence of the fact that he uses heat to control the generation of additional heat in a positive feedback manner. Attempting to achieve a COP that is much higher would be difficult while maintaining control and avoiding thermal run away. I have previously spoken of some possible active cooling techniques that might enable better performance, but it is not obvious how well they would work under the influence of the positive feedback built into the device. DGT, on the other hand appears to be using some form of hydrogen ionization by means of a spark to effectively starve the fuel supplied to the active metal surface. I think of this as similar to a throttle in a gasoline engine that adjusts the amount of fuel fed into the cylinders. It seems logical to consider the control afforded by the DGT method as being superior unless other issues arise that complicate the behavior. There has been little data available from the DGT testing which can be analyzed in an attempt to answer these concerns. For instance, does the spark process lead to problems of operational lifetimes? Also, how much complexity is forced upon the users of such a system when compared to one of Rossi's design? Many additional questions can be asked since little has been revealed. One issue came into my thoughts today as I pondered an idea. The concept is based upon the way that energy is released during an LENR process. I visualize it as being either a parallel or a series release of the total energy for each net reaction. Ed's theory implies that the energy is being released in a series form where one photon after the next is radiated from the NAE and into the material. The other general type of operation suggests that an emission from a more or less entangled group of active components radiate the energy as a group in parallel. There has not be sufficient information available to determine exactly which process is the main one at this point, but they all share one common ingredient which is that energy is released in relatively large blocks. The common link is that each of the concepts end up generating a large number of moderate level energy blocks. My questions surround the interaction of these photons with the hydrogen gas that is always present and in contact with the metal surfaces. Would we expect the energy quanta being released to ionize the nearby gas in either of the systems? If it in fact does achieve this goal, then is this process not what DGT needs for their device to function properly? Why does the release of energy from the reaction not supplement that from their spark system and hence lead to additional reactions? Perhaps this does occur and could result in thermal run away of their unit. Then, with Rossi's ECAT it is obvious to ask whether or not a hydrogen ionization process might also be in effect leading to the thermal runaway danger as well as the basic operation of his positive feedback enhancement. Perhaps this is why the material gets into the act to such a large degree with the ECAT design. Rossi may be modifying the behavior of the ionization of the nearby hydrogen gas surrounding his active sites by some form of tuning of the particle sizes or other accidental features. Could his catalysis offer assistance in this manner? Do we detect a similarity between the ECAT and the DGT device that demonstrates the level of energy being emitted that can be used to improve our understanding of the processes? Do we expect hydrogen ionization to occur as a result of internal radiation? Would energy released in the form of heat of mechanical atom motion ionize the gas? What can be learned by comparing DGT to Rossi? Dave
RE: [Vo]: About the March test
From: John Milstone For starters, CERN isn't selling franchises to the Higgs Boson. CERN doesn't rely on secret customers and secret experts to validate their work. Etc, etc. This is complete bull crap ! Big Science is doing much worse than that. But more so with regard to ITER or NOVA or Hot Fusion or other Big Science projects that are threatened by LENR than with CERN. The physics establishment is essentially selling franchises to every overpaid PhD and yes-man techie on the large staffs - who would be fired, if this kind of no-bid work were to be made moot by LENR. CERN might survive, but ITER and other extremely generous projects with routine $250k salaries would bite the dust! That is billions of dollars of bribe money, being paid out to an elite group to tow the company line ... That is far more despicable than Rossi struggling for investment capital. attachment: winmail.dat
Re: [Vo]: About the March test
Your only question should be whether or not the total heat is what is being measured by the camera system, not how it is generated. 'Nonsense! If the input was faked, then the output is meaningless. I have suggested a simple trick to add a constant ~400 Watts to the input power level, and that extra amount just happens to exactly explain the entire output power level. That doesn't prove that Rossi used this trick, but it certainly suggest that he could have done so.' You missed the point. I was only discussing the output power in this section and not referring to the input at all. That is a different issue. 'For starters, CERN isn't selling franchises to the Higgs Boson. CERN doesn't rely on secret customers and secret experts to validate their work. Etc, etc.' In either case, the proof is not there for a high bar. Do you suggest that there is no doubt about the claim of the Higgs being discovered? This is true for just about every scientific discovery in the past. One can always cast doubt. 'There seems to be a lot of that going on among the believers. Rossi's setup makes it impossible to distinguish the heat being generated by the heating elements from the heat (if any) being generated by the E-Cat. There is no particular reason for that to be intrinsic to the process. Rossi could have easily provided a larger furnace, and then put thermocouples directly on the actual E-Cat (the inner cylinder) AND the inside of the furnace, allowing direct measurements of both. If the E-Cat got hotter than the furnace, it would be clear evidence that the E-Cat was generating its own energy. If not, then it was just a passive component. But Rossi chose not to set it up that way, and the testers obligingly went along with him.' Come on now. Rossi is not inclined to make a large number of individual systems just to satisfy skeptics. What he did is adequate if one accepts the camera system as being accurate. He would be foolish to continue to modify the device for your enjoyment. ''But that's not true. When he was doing his steam demos, he kept getting a COP of about 6, which just happens to be the error rate if one isn't really converting the vast majority of water into steam. And now, he's getting a COP of 2.5, which just happens to be exactly the error one would see if one were secretly using that extra, dead wire to add an extra 400 Watts or so.' 'But that's not true. When he was doing his steam demos, he kept getting a COP of about 6, which just happens to be the error rate if one isn't really converting the vast majority of water into steam. And now, he's getting a COP of 2.5, which just happens to be exactly the error one would see if one were secretly using that extra, dead wire to add an extra 400 Watts or so.' You missed the point here. A higher COP would have been in his favor. He has no reason to claim a low COP in all the public writings if he intended to commit fraud. I would have chosen a higher one just as you if if was not going to be proven. Dave
Re: [Vo]:Mark has blazed the path
Mark, I think you should refer to energy as the variable needed to allow fusion. Power can be manipulated into very large numbers by making the time extremely short for an energetic event. This is like the trade off you mention between voltage and current by Tesla. Dave -Original Message- From: MarkI-ZeroPoint zeropo...@charter.net To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Fri, Jun 21, 2013 12:16 pm Subject: RE: [Vo]:Mark has blazed the path How did tesla generate tens of millions of volts potential in the secondary circuit at his lab in Colorado springs, when he was only feeding his primary with at most a few hundred volts? The ‘power’ was not amplified, but one electrical property (V) was, at the expense of the other (I); nothing revolutionary there, V-up, I-down. Now, if ‘power’ is needed to overcome the coulomb barrier, then perhaps this is not a possibility, but if an equivalent situation in the atoms or lattice could be set up similar to a resonant transformer, then one physical property (E-fld??) could be greatly amplified at the expense of another (???)… -Mark From: Axil Axil [mailto:janap...@gmail.com] Sent: Thursday, June 20, 2013 5:28 PM To: vortex-l Subject: [Vo]:Mark has blazed the path Vo]:Nickel nanoantennas... its all about resonances. date: Tue, Jan 3, 2012 at 4:26 PM I have done my best, but Mark, it has taken me some time to come around to your mode of thinking.
Re: [Vo]:Mark has blazed the path
You are exactly right; EMF is concentrated just like Tesla did it. But it happens through the size differences between the clusters. Big clusters act like primaries and small ones like secondary. When large clusters touch small ones, large EMF amplification occurs in the nano-volumes between them. EMF can get through the barrier with no problem. It just needs to be the right type of EMF to shake up the nucleus: Monopole magnetic fields. Spinning currents are the key; current vortexes. On Fri, Jun 21, 2013 at 12:16 PM, MarkI-ZeroPoint zeropo...@charter.netwrote: How did tesla generate tens of millions of volts potential in the secondary circuit at his lab in Colorado springs, when he was only feeding his primary with at most a few hundred volts? The ‘power’ was not amplified, but one electrical property (V) was, at the expense of the other (I); nothing revolutionary there, V-up, I-down. ** ** Now, if ‘power’ is needed to overcome the coulomb barrier, then perhaps this is not a possibility, but if an equivalent situation in the atoms or lattice could be set up similar to a resonant transformer, then one physical property (E-fld??) could be greatly amplified at the expense of another (???)… ** ** -Mark ** ** *From:* Axil Axil [mailto:janap...@gmail.com] *Sent:* Thursday, June 20, 2013 5:28 PM *To:* vortex-l *Subject:* [Vo]:Mark has blazed the path ** ** Vo]:Nickel nanoantennas... its all about resonances. date: Tue, Jan 3, 2012 at 4:26 PM I have done my best, but Mark, it has taken me some time to come around to your mode of thinking. ** **
Re: [Vo]: About the March test
Well said, JONES!!! This is exactly the situation. Physics has sold the governments of the world on spending money for research that has practically no value. This use of money limits what else can be explored and greatly distorts what can be discovered. LENR has been rejected and held to a very high standard simply because it threatens this spending, as you so clearly state. When LENR is finally applied at a level that even an idiot will have to accept, the physics community will have to explain why this acceptance took so long when so much evidence was available and when the need for the energy was so great. Careful evaluation and rational skepticism is important but rational limits must be applied because EVERYTHING believed by science can be rejected by a determined skeptic. We would still be in the Dark Ages if rational limits to skepticism had not been agreed to and applied in science. Why is so hard to do now with LENR? Ed On Jun 21, 2013, at 10:42 AM, Jones Beene wrote: From: John Milstone For starters, CERN isn't selling franchises to the Higgs Boson. CERN doesn't rely on secret customers and secret experts to validate their work. Etc, etc. This is complete bull crap ! Big Science is doing much worse than that. But more so with regard to ITER or NOVA or Hot Fusion or other Big Science projects that are threatened by LENR than with CERN. The physics establishment is essentially selling franchises to every overpaid PhD and yes-man techie on the large staffs - who would be fired, if this kind of no-bid work were to be made moot by LENR. CERN might survive, but ITER and other extremely generous projects with routine $250k salaries would bite the dust! That is billions of dollars of bribe money, being paid out to an elite group to tow the company line ... That is far more despicable than Rossi struggling for investment capital. winmail.dat
RE: [Vo]:Electric (LENR) airplane
Actually, it doesn't take a lot of imaginations to visualize a direct gas turbine conversion. The core of the Hot Cat is a 33mm dia tube, so a finned bunch of these replacing the combustion chambers could make for an inefficient engine. Who cares about the efficiency in this case?
Re: [Vo]:Electric (LENR) airplane
Does it fly? --On Friday, June 21, 2013 7:08 AM -0700 Jones Beene jone...@pacbell.net wrote: With all the talk about NASA and an LENR powered airplane, it would seem that all that one needs now for the near-term reality - is to apply a HotCat with a direct conversion scheme - to this design for the E-plane. It is quite beautiful - and appeared recently at the Paris Air Show, but more of a powered glider. http://cleantechnica.com/2013/06/21/new-electric-airplane-shown-off-at-p aris -air-show-video/?utm_source=feedburnerutm_medium=feedutm_campaign=Feed %3A+ IM-cleantechnica+%28CleanTechnica%29 We have thrown out ideas for direct conversion before. At the high temperature of the HotCat, they become far more feasible. The most obvious one - if there is IR resonance as part of the operational parameters, is a photocell designed exactly for the emission spectrum. These have actually been fabricated http://cearl.ee.psu.edu/Projects/Assets/Project2/Project2_3_1/DualbandIR filt ersDrupp0904.pdf Notice the wavelength captured is very specific to the geometry of the fractal which is etched. This favors high efficiency at say 20 terahertz - with efficiency possibly above the range of broad-band solar photocells. An optimist could imagine 6 HotCats in a hexagonal array, surrounded by these fractal antenna powering the EADS glider, manned (or more likely unmanned as a drone) for a very long time. Around the World in two weeks by 2015? In your dreams, maybe. Jones
Re: [Vo]: About the March test
I agree Ed. Both you and Jones have stated the situation eloquently and I hope that John gives considerable thought to what has been said. I suppose that one reason that any current modern physics determination can be overturned by a knowledgeable skeptic is that they all are the current ideas which one day will be replaced by updated ones. This is scientific progress as it should be. For example, Newton's old laws were assumed perfect at the time, but Einstein came along and improved them with his breakthroughs. So, now Rossi has his device under scrutiny by the skeptics who can always find some reason to complain. Most if not all of the reasons thus far suggested are invalid, but the skeptics seem to keep themselves occupied. This is their job and they would not know how to behave otherwise so I guess we have to cut them some slack. I would be concerned if what they spread throughout the Internet were able to delay the solution to many of the needs of mankind. Dave -Original Message- From: Edmund Storms stor...@ix.netcom.com To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Cc: Edmund Storms stor...@ix.netcom.com Sent: Fri, Jun 21, 2013 12:56 pm Subject: Re: [Vo]: About the March test Well said, JONES!!! This is exactly the situation. Physics has sold the governments of the world on spending money for research that has practically no value. This use of money limits what else can be explored and greatly distorts what can be discovered. LENR has been rejected and held to a very high standard simply because it threatens this spending, as you so clearly state. When LENR is finally applied at a level that even an idiot will have to accept, the physics community will have to explain why this acceptance took so long when so much evidence was available and when the need for the energy was so great. Careful evaluation and rational skepticism is important but rational limits must be applied because EVERYTHING believed by science can be rejected by a determined skeptic. We would still be in the Dark Ages if rational limits to skepticism had not been agreed to and applied in science. Why is so hard to do now with LENR? Ed On Jun 21, 2013, at 10:42 AM, Jones Beene wrote: From: John Milstone For starters, CERN isn't selling franchises to the Higgs Boson. CERN doesn't rely on secret customers and secret experts to validate their work. Etc, etc. This is complete bull crap ! Big Science is doing much worse than that. But more so with regard to ITER or NOVA or Hot Fusion or other Big Science projects that are threatened by LENR than with CERN. The physics establishment is essentially selling franchises to every overpaid PhD and yes-man techie on the large staffs - who would be fired, if this kind of no-bid work were to be made moot by LENR. CERN might survive, but ITER and other extremely generous projects with routine $250k salaries would bite the dust! That is billions of dollars of bribe money, being paid out to an elite group to tow the company line ... That is far more despicable than Rossi struggling for investment capital. winmail.dat
Re: [Vo]:Mark has blazed the path
Dave, I had the same question, emission penetration seem to favor surface effects and one would expect such an effect to dissipate below the surface but you also mentioned the Q of these cavities which might allow deeper plasmons to synchronize and resonate as slaves to the surface layer.. Note, the anomalous effects only seem to occur when gas is loaded into metal lattice structures so Axil’s citation was relevant but not a case of OU. The OU is related to DCE and changes to Rydberg gas atoms caused by the DCE, Axil is, IMHO, introducing plasmons as part of the “tank” circuit to store energy out of phase with whatever storage method is occurring inside the cavity, I am positing this storage method is related to the bond state of fractional hydrogen but there are many theories you are free to choose from… ZPE, fusion, decay, hydroton, hydrino, I was hoping axil would expand on his perspective of the plasmon to Rydberg linkage. Fran From: David Roberson [mailto:dlrober...@aol.com] Sent: Friday, June 21, 2013 11:59 AM To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: EXTERNAL: Re: [Vo]:Mark has blazed the path Fran, Any coupling between the active resonators, such as Coulomb, would act as the platform. The higher the Q of the resonances, the lower the amount of coupling required for this to occur. Tuning differences of the resonances will also play an important part. One question that arises is how far away from an individual resonance does it effectively couple? Does each site only couple to the adjacent sites or does the effect penetrate far into the material? I wonder about the consequences associated with these different reaches. Dave -Original Message- From: Roarty, Francis X francis.x.roa...@lmco.commailto:francis.x.roa...@lmco.com To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.commailto:vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Fri, Jun 21, 2013 11:22 am Subject: Re: [Vo]:Mark has blazed the path Axil, Care to walk us through it? I am assuming the heating resistors are the emission source and the micro tubles on the inside of the reactor wall form the nano pattern that causes plasmon resonance stimulated by the emission causing magnetic oscillation? This article didn’t mention hydrogen loaded material but it did mention the need to detail the nano structures / grooves in one case .. we don’t have that with random orientations of tubules. What synchronizes the oscillations? Does the loaded hydrogen act like the metronome platform? The articles mentions the same nano geometries we have discussed previously for redundant ground states and Casimir effect.. do you see a linkage between these stimulated oscillation and Rydberg hydrogen? I am very interested because I suspect the Rydberg state may allow an alternate self organizing method in place of the “Nanoscale Detail” required in the article .. the Rydberg and inverse Rydberg can act as an energy spring between orbitals instead of spatial displacement along a common axis. Fran From: Axil Axil [mailto:janap...@gmail.commailto:janap...@gmail.com?] Sent: Thursday, June 20, 2013 11:49 PM To: vortex-l Subject: EXTERNAL: Re: [Vo]:Mark has blazed the path Reference: [Vo]:Plasmons on a patterned surface can enhance the production of bright electron beams. Mon, Feb 11, 2013 at 7:34 PM http://physics.aps.org/articles/v6/17 This article about nano-antennas prompted me to regard these nanostructures as being utilized by Rossi and DGT in their tubule coatings of their micro-powder. On Thu, Jun 20, 2013 at 11:10 PM, MarkI-ZeroPoint zeropo...@charter.netmailto:zeropo...@charter.net wrote: Here’s the original posting: http://www.mail-archive.com/vortex-l@eskimo.com/msg60465.html -mark From: Axil Axil [mailto:janap...@gmail.commailto:janap...@gmail.com] Sent: Thursday, June 20, 2013 5:28 PM To: vortex-l Subject: [Vo]:Mark has blazed the path Vo]:Nickel nanoantennas... its all about resonances. date: Tue, Jan 3, 2012 at 4:26 PM I have done my best, but Mark, it has taken me some time to come around to your mode of thinking.
RE: [Vo]:Electric (LENR) airplane
-Original Message- From: a.ashfield Actually, it doesn't take a lot of imaginations to visualize a direct gas turbine conversion. The core of the Hot Cat is a 33mm dia tube, so a finned bunch of these replacing the combustion chambers could make for an inefficient engine. Who cares about the efficiency in this case? OK - this gets back to the same argument which has come up several time previously. Efficiency does matter with the HotCat because: 1) Although LENR (in many forms) has demonstrated periods of infinite COP, everything we know about it indicates that the risk of thermal runaway rises disproportionately in those designs that do not have tight control. 2) Effective control must be maintained by a feedback loop design which does not permit a runaway condition under any circumstance. 3) IOW - The risk of runaway far outweighs the advantage of high COP. 4) Such a feedback design will by nature have a relatively low COP and moreover, this is amenable to accurate simulation. In the thermal simulations which have been run, and Dave may correct me on this- it appears that Rossi's COP of around six seems to fit within an ideal positive feedback design parameter - one which cannot easily lead to runaway. If that is the case, then the low COP which must be implemented may not eliminate a turbine as a viable option, but in the situation where one is needing power at the lowest possible weight, one would need to ask whether a turbine can provide a better power density than other alternatives. Jones
Re: [Vo]: About the March test
David Roberson said: You missed the point. I was only discussing the output power in this section and not referring to the input at all. That is a different issue. Do you suggest that there is no doubt about the claim of the Higgs being discovered? You missed the point here. A higher COP would have been in his favor. He has no reason to claim a low COP in all the public writings if he intended to commit fraud. I would have chosen a higher one just as you if if was not going to be proven. You can't treat the input and output as different issues. If the input measurements were in error, the output measurements are meaningless. I don't understand your point about the Higgs Boson. Just last year, CERN announced that they had confirmed faster-than-light neutrinos. They were wrong. It seems to me that you're the one refusing to consider that Levi et al might be wrong. Rossi's tricks can't violate the laws of physics, regardless of his claims. If his latest test had been run using nothing but a few flashlight batteries, it would have been impressive. But to do that he really would need a miraculous new invention. Instead, he only showed as much excess power as could have been easily drawn from the power source to which the E-Cat was attached. Just as his steam demos (the ones with more than a single guest at least) never showed more power than one could fake by pretending to vaporize all of the water, while in fact only vaporizing a tiny portion of it. (If you calculate the apparent COP of your coffeemaker, assuming that ALL of the water in it was being vaporized. You'll find that the apparent COP is right around 6. That's the difference in power required to heat water from room temperature to boiling vs. actually vaporizing it.) Even his Megawatt E-Cat (which didn't actually demonstrate anything at all) had a diesel generator, capable of generating the claimed excess power, sitting right next to the E-Cat, running the whole time. John From: David Roberson dlrober...@aol.com To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Friday, June 21, 2013 12:42 PM Subject: Re: [Vo]: About the March test Your only question should be whether or not the total heat is what is being measured by the camera system, not how it is generated. 'Nonsense! If the input was faked, then the output is meaningless. I have suggested a simple trick to add a constant ~400 Watts to the input power level, and that extra amount just happens to exactly explain the entire output power level. That doesn't prove that Rossi used this trick, but it certainly suggest that he could have done so.' You missed the point. I was only discussing the output power in this section and not referring to the input at all. That is a different issue. 'For starters, CERN isn't selling franchises to the Higgs Boson. CERN doesn't rely on secret customers and secret experts to validate their work. Etc, etc.' In either case, the proof is not there for a high bar. Do you suggest that there is no doubt about the claim of the Higgs being discovered? This is true for just about every scientific discovery in the past. One can always cast doubt. 'There seems to be a lot of that going on among the believers. Rossi's setup makes it impossible to distinguish the heat being generated by the heating elements from the heat (if any) being generated by the E-Cat. There is no particular reason for that to be intrinsic to the process. Rossi could have easily provided a larger furnace, and then put thermocouples directly on the actual E-Cat (the inner cylinder) AND the inside of the furnace, allowing direct measurements of both. If the E-Cat got hotter than the furnace, it would be clear evidence that the E-Cat was generating its own energy. If not, then it was just a passive component. But Rossi chose not to set it up that way, and the testers obligingly went along with him.' Come on now. Rossi is not inclined to make a large number of individual systems just to satisfy skeptics. What he did is adequate if one accepts the camera system as being accurate. He would be foolish to continue to modify the device for your enjoyment. ''But that's not true. When he was doing his steam demos, he kept getting a COP of about 6, which just happens to be the error rate if one isn't really converting the vast majority of water into steam. And now, he's getting a COP of 2.5, which just happens to be exactly the error one would see if one were secretly using that extra, dead wire to add an extra 400 Watts or so.' You missed the point here. A higher COP would have been in his favor. He has no reason to claim a low COP in all the public writings if he intended to commit fraud. I would have chosen a higher one just as you if if was not going to be proven. Dave
Re: [Vo]: About the March test
You miss (ok you avoid) a key point on all of your critics. Since Rossi wasn't allowed to forbid DC measurement with my home voltmeter, or removing insulator, or installing a connection box, on the fly, with classic wired ammeter/powermeter, since he was not allowed to forbid any reasonable test that would have found the fraud... there is no point. Rossi was sure that heat measurement, voltage/current measurement would prove a good COP. maybe there was an error on electric measurement, on, thermal measurement, but Rossi had no control on it, and was confident enough to allow the test. If there is a fraud it is not on the electric power, nor on the temperature of the reactor... nor in something that can be measured (microwave, IR laser) or can be observed (hidden wires). Once Rossi allowed a test with fair access to the electric plug and to the exterior of the reactor, the story was written. E-cat was working for Rossi. It could be certain even if Essen was using a wood dummy voltmeter and a IR gun toy. Maybe Rossi is wrong, but sure it is not a fraud. This lack of intelligence in game theory is surprising for someone adult. It is quite common however among conspiracy theorists. 2013/6/21 John Milstone john_sw_orla...@yahoo.com I'll summarize the multiple emails, since I certainly don't want to flood the channel by responding to each email individually. Regarding the meter: Both the instruction manual and Mats Lewan (through an email from the manufacturer) verifies that the meter DOES NOT measure DC current. Therefore, the author's claim in the appendix that they discounted the possibility of a DC bias based on the measurements of that instrument is WRONG. Since they got that simple point wrong, I'm not willing to give them the benefit of the doubt about their other conclusions, especially regarding the electrical input to the E-Cat. Regarding the wiring trick: Rothwell keeps stating that there must be a bare conductor available to measure the voltage, and that's true. But there is nothing in the report that indicates that the testers were the ones who did the surgery to access those test points. We know that Rossi provided the power cabling for the test (which, by itself, should have raised a red flag for anyone who actually was looking for fraud). We know that the authors described each separate wire as a cable in their description, and that they describe looking for extra cables (NOT conductors INSIDE of a cable). That's all we know from the report and appendix. Everything else is unwarranted assumption. If the authors really did perform the surgery to expose bare conductors and verify that each cable contained only a single conductor, they should publicly state that. Until they do, we have no reason to believe it. (Also, I would point out that the creator of the cheese videos had no trouble testing his power cord both for continuity and voltage without exposing his trick wiring.) I see that as I was typing this, Rothwell has sent at least two more messages my way. He seems to think I am so ignorant as to not realize that one must measure voltage on a bare conductor. Actually, there are ways of doing so, but I'm not suggesting that they were used in this case. Of course, they had access to some point of contact with the conductor. The question is exactly where, and who set up the bare wire. The report is silent on that matter. Meanwhile, the second cheese video ( https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Frp03muquAo) at 10:30 clearly shows that it's entirely possible to measure voltage on a rigged power cord. I STILL haven't seen any credible argument that the wiring trick could not have been used in this case. All we have is argument by repeated assertion by Rothwell and others that it couldn't have possibly happened because their assumptions about things never stated Meanwhile, if this simple trick was used, the results would very closely match what the authors report. That should at least raise some eyebrows. Is anyone in this group critical enough to realize that if the two possibilities are: 1) Rossi has the most significant and world-shaking discovery of the last century, or 2) Rossi had extra conductor in a suspicious, dead wire, that we shouldn't even consider option 2? There are at least 9 or 10 problems with the report: It took place in Rossi's facilities. The power-in testing was performed on wiring provided by Rossi. The two lead testers (at least) have been on record since 2011 as Rossi believers which risks According to Essen, it was only Rossi and Levi who decided what tests would be allowed and what test equipment would be available. The only temperature measurements were of the OUTSIDE of the furnace which contained both the E-Cat and the conventional electric heaters, leaving no way to directly determine how much heat each was providing. The power-in wires contained an extra conductor (the 3rd
RE: [Vo]:Electric (LENR) airplane
-Original Message- From: Ron Wormus Does it fly? Hi Ron - No indication of it flying yet. As with the Convair Pogo they could be awaiting a brave test pilot :) Care to volunteer?
Re: [Vo]: About the March test
From: John Milstone john_sw_orla...@yahoo.com Sent: Friday, June 21, 2013 9:07:40 AM Subject: Re: [Vo]: About the March test For starters, CERN isn't selling franchises to the Higgs Boson. CERN doesn't rely on secret customers and secret experts to validate their work. Etc, etc. Well, they need the franchise of Billions of gummint bucks to keep it running and to keep improving it. The US just lost the franchise. (Same goes for Hot Fusion -- the Franchise is moving from the UK to France). They want you to trust their data more than Rossi does. The entire detector is programmed to look ONLY for an expected response, and to ignore anything else. Try asking them if you can test their system (all the detectors, all the code) to see if they did it right. Try asking just to see the logged data.
RE: [Vo]:Electric (LENR) airplane
Sure. I'd fly it around in ground effect. Those wing gear look pretty spindly though. I think they would be better served by putting the ducted electric fan on an existing sailplane design that just needs to get off the ground enough to find some lift. Then the batteries wouldn't need to be too large. Ron --On Friday, June 21, 2013 10:39 AM -0700 Jones Beene jone...@pacbell.net wrote: -Original Message- From: Ron Wormus Does it fly? Hi Ron - No indication of it flying yet. As with the Convair Pogo they could be awaiting a brave test pilot :) Care to volunteer?
Re: [Vo]: About the March test
I've been answering mail in sequence -- I see Jones said much the same thing already.
Re: [Vo]: About the March test
Nice attempt by Benne, Storms (I'm surprised that he piled on), and Roberson to deflect the issue. There is still the issue that Rossi has a supposedly dead phase on his 3-phase power cabling, and that that additional wire, if it were actually live (as per the wiring gimmick in question), would have provided exactly the amount of power allegedly being generated by the E-Cat (conveniently hidden inside of a furnace out of sight of the IR camera). Regarding your specific rant, attempting to discredit hot fusion (or other branches of conventional physics) does nothing to enhance LENR. John From: David Roberson dlrober...@aol.com To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Friday, June 21, 2013 1:21 PM Subject: Re: [Vo]: About the March test I agree Ed. Both you and Jones have stated the situation eloquently and I hope that John gives considerable thought to what has been said. I suppose that one reason that any current modern physics determination can be overturned by a knowledgeable skeptic is that they all are the current ideas which one day will be replaced by updated ones. This is scientific progress as it should be. For example, Newton's old laws were assumed perfect at the time, but Einstein came along and improved them with his breakthroughs. So, now Rossi has his device under scrutiny by the skeptics who can always find some reason to complain. Most if not all of the reasons thus far suggested are invalid, but the skeptics seem to keep themselves occupied. This is their job and they would not know how to behave otherwise so I guess we have to cut them some slack. I would be concerned if what they spread throughout the Internet were able to delay the solution to many of the needs of mankind. Dave -Original Message- From: Edmund Storms stor...@ix.netcom.com To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Cc: Edmund Storms stor...@ix.netcom.com Sent: Fri, Jun 21, 2013 12:56 pm Subject: Re: [Vo]: About the March test Well said, JONES!!! This is exactly the situation. Physics has sold the governments of the world on spending money for research that has practically no value. This use of money limits what else can be explored and greatly distorts what can be discovered. LENR has been rejected and held to a very high standard simply because it threatens this spending, as you so clearly state. When LENR is finally applied at a level that even an idiot will have to accept, the physics community will have to explain why this acceptance took so long when so much evidence was available and when the need for the energy was so great. Careful evaluation and rational skepticism is important but rational limits must be applied because EVERYTHING believed by science can be rejected by a determined skeptic. We would still be in the Dark Ages if rational limits to skepticism had not been agreed to and applied in science. Why is so hard to do now with LENR? Ed On Jun 21, 2013, at 10:42 AM, Jones Beene wrote: From: John Milstone For starters, CERN isn't selling franchises to the Higgs Boson. CERN doesn't rely on secret customers and secret experts to validate their work. Etc, etc. This is complete bull crap ! Big Science is doing much worse than that. But more so with regard to ITER or NOVA or Hot Fusion or other Big Science projects that are threatened by LENR than with CERN. The physics establishment is essentially selling franchises to every overpaid PhD and yes-man techie on the large staffs - who would be fired, if this kind of no-bid work were to be made moot by LENR. CERN might survive, but ITER and other extremely generous projects with routine $250k salaries would bite the dust! That is billions of dollars of bribe money, being paid out to an elite group to tow the company line ... That is far more despicable than Rossi struggling for investment capital. winmail.dat
Re: [Vo]: About the March test
Thanks for the comment, Dave. With respect to your comment about how science advances, I find two mechanisms are at work. A person either looks at what Nature does and tries to find out how the behavior functions. Or a person IMAGINES how Nature might function and looks for justification for what is imagined. Modern physics seems determined to ignore the first method and concentrate on the second. Most of the discussion on Vortex ignores how Nature actually behaves and tries to imagine what might occur. This becomes a mental game rather than an effort to understand Nature. In addition, over the centuries, basic behaviors (LAWS) have been discovered that will not be changed in the future. Modern physics seems determined to ignore these laws because other behaviors and exceptions can be imagined. I suspect physicists are no longer even taught the laws of thermodynamics. Consequently, physics is determined to keep rediscovering the wheel by questioning everything, generally for no benefit other than to write a new paper. Meanwhile, technology (engineering) is moving so fast that even scientists cannot keep up. These are indeed strange times. Ed On Jun 21, 2013, at 11:21 AM, David Roberson wrote: I agree Ed. Both you and Jones have stated the situation eloquently and I hope that John gives considerable thought to what has been said. I suppose that one reason that any current modern physics determination can be overturned by a knowledgeable skeptic is that they all are the current ideas which one day will be replaced by updated ones. This is scientific progress as it should be. For example, Newton's old laws were assumed perfect at the time, but Einstein came along and improved them with his breakthroughs. So, now Rossi has his device under scrutiny by the skeptics who can always find some reason to complain. Most if not all of the reasons thus far suggested are invalid, but the skeptics seem to keep themselves occupied. This is their job and they would not know how to behave otherwise so I guess we have to cut them some slack. I would be concerned if what they spread throughout the Internet were able to delay the solution to many of the needs of mankind. Dave -Original Message- From: Edmund Storms stor...@ix.netcom.com To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Cc: Edmund Storms stor...@ix.netcom.com Sent: Fri, Jun 21, 2013 12:56 pm Subject: Re: [Vo]: About the March test Well said, JONES!!! This is exactly the situation. Physics has sold the governments of the world on spending money for research that has practically no value. This use of money limits what else can be explored and greatly distorts what can be discovered. LENR has been rejected and held to a very high standard simply because it threatens this spending, as you so clearly state. When LENR is finally applied at a level that even an idiot will have to accept, the physics community will have to explain why this acceptance took so long when so much evidence was available and when the need for the energy was so great. Careful evaluation and rational skepticism is important but rational limits must be applied because EVERYTHING believed by science can be rejected by a determined skeptic. We would still be in the Dark Ages if rational limits to skepticism had not been agreed to and applied in science. Why is so hard to do now with LENR? Ed On Jun 21, 2013, at 10:42 AM, Jones Beene wrote: From: John Milstone For starters, CERN isn't selling franchises to the Higgs Boson. CERN doesn't rely on secret customers and secret experts to validate their work. Etc, etc. This is complete bull crap ! Big Science is doing much worse than that. But more so with regard to ITER or NOVA or Hot Fusion or other Big Science projects that are threatened by LENR than with CERN. The physics establishment is essentially selling franchises to every overpaid PhD and yes-man techie on the large staffs - who would be fired, if this kind of no-bid work were to be made moot by LENR. CERN might survive, but ITER and other extremely generous projects with routine $250k salaries would bite the dust! That is billions of dollars of bribe money, being paid out to an elite group to tow the company line ... That is far more despicable than Rossi struggling for investment capital. winmail.dat
Re: [Vo]:Mark has blazed the path
Fran, I have toyed with negative resistance oscillators which behave like infinite Q tuned tanks. It is amazing how tiny an injection signal can be that locks the free running oscillator onto its center frequency. On occasions I have used incidental coupling for entertainment where a small antenna radiates micro watts of RF into the room. The negative resistance oscillator locks depending upon how close the two are tuned in frequency and the level of the coupling. I suspect that an atom resonance behaves as a very high Q tank at the frequencies where it can exchange photons. One would also expect these to be accurately tuned, although stress surrounding each individual atom might change that characteristic. Does anyone recall any evidence that the Q of an atoms internal resonances are not approaching infinity? It is not clear how a reduction in Q would reveal itself in this situation. What indications are there that the resonant frequencies might vary as stress is applied? It might be important how deeply the interactions are located within the material as you are suggesting. The common behavior of many resonances acting together could modulate the external surface electron movements. This entire group of interacting components could possibly act like one of the negative resistance oscillators that I am fond of. In this case, the underlying structure would actively participate in the resonant movement of the surface electrons. Dave -Original Message- From: Roarty, Francis X francis.x.roa...@lmco.com To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Fri, Jun 21, 2013 1:21 pm Subject: Re: [Vo]:Mark has blazed the path Dave, I had the same question, emission penetration seem to favor surface effects and one would expect such an effect to dissipate below the surface but you also mentioned the Q of these cavities which might allow deeper plasmons to synchronize and resonate as slaves to the surface layer.. Note, the anomalous effects only seem to occur when gas is loaded into metal lattice structures so Axil’s citation was relevant but not a case of OU. The OU is related to DCE and changes to Rydberg gas atoms caused by the DCE, Axil is, IMHO, introducing plasmons as part of the “tank” circuit to store energy out of phase with whatever storage method is occurring inside the cavity, I am positing this storage method is related to the bond state of fractional hydrogen but there are many theories you are free to choose from… ZPE, fusion, decay, hydroton, hydrino, I was hoping axil would expand on his perspective of the plasmon to Rydberg linkage. Fran From: David Roberson [mailto:dlrober...@aol.com] Sent: Friday, June 21, 2013 11:59 AM To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: EXTERNAL: Re: [Vo]:Mark has blazed the path Fran, Any coupling between the active resonators, such as Coulomb, would act as the platform. The higher the Q of the resonances, the lower the amount of coupling required for this to occur. Tuning differences of the resonances will also play an important part. One question that arises is how far away from an individual resonance does it effectively couple? Does each site only couple to the adjacent sites or does the effect penetrate far into the material? I wonder about the consequences associated with these different reaches. Dave -Original Message- From: Roarty, Francis X francis.x.roa...@lmco.com To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Fri, Jun 21, 2013 11:22 am Subject: Re: [Vo]:Mark has blazed the path Axil, Care to walk us through it? I am assuming the heating resistors are the emission source and the micro tubles on the inside of the reactor wall form the nano pattern that causes plasmon resonance stimulated by the emission causing magnetic oscillation? This article didn’t mention hydrogen loaded material but it did mention the need to detail the nano structures / grooves in one case .. we don’t have that with random orientations of tubules. What synchronizes the oscillations? Does the loaded hydrogen act like the metronome platform? The articles mentions the same nano geometries we have discussed previously for redundant ground states and Casimir effect.. do you see a linkage between these stimulated oscillation and Rydberg hydrogen? I am very interested because I suspect the Rydberg state may allow an alternate self organizing method in place of the “Nanoscale Detail” required in the article .. the Rydberg and inverse Rydberg can act as an energy spring between orbitals instead of spatial displacement along a common axis. Fran From: Axil Axil [mailto:janap...@gmail.com] Sent: Thursday, June 20, 2013 11:49 PM To: vortex-l Subject: EXTERNAL: Re: [Vo]:Mark has blazed the path Reference: [Vo]:Plasmons on a patterned surface can enhance the production of bright electron beams. Mon, Feb 11, 2013 at 7:34 PM http://physics.aps.org/articles/v6/17 This article about
Re: [Vo]:Mark has blazed the path
The character of the EMF stored in the hot spots is well known. http://www.phy-astr.gsu.edu/stockman/data/Stockman_Opt_Expres_2011_Nanoplasmonics_Review.pdf *Nanoplasmonics: past, present, and* *glimpse into future* * * *Mark I. Stockman**∗* The hot spots are the concentration regions of the optical energy: These eigenmodes possess very different topologies but very close eigenvalues and, consequently, have almost the same frequency *≈ *3*.*13 eV corresponding to the blue spectral range. On Fri, Jun 21, 2013 at 1:21 PM, Roarty, Francis X francis.x.roa...@lmco.com wrote: Dave, I had the same question, emission penetration seem to favor surface effects and one would expect such an effect to dissipate below the surface but you also mentioned the Q of these cavities which might allow deeper plasmons to synchronize and resonate as slaves to the surface layer.. Note, the anomalous effects only seem to occur when gas is loaded into metal lattice structures so Axil’s citation was relevant but not a case of OU. The OU is related to DCE and changes to Rydberg gas atoms caused by the DCE, Axil is, IMHO, introducing plasmons as part of the “tank” circuit to store energy out of phase with whatever storage method is occurring inside the cavity, I am positing this storage method is related to the bond state of fractional hydrogen but there are many theories you are free to choose from… ZPE, fusion, decay, hydroton, hydrino, I was hoping axil would expand on his perspective of the plasmon to Rydberg linkage. Fran ** ** *From:* David Roberson [mailto:dlrober...@aol.com] *Sent:* Friday, June 21, 2013 11:59 AM *To:* vortex-l@eskimo.com *Subject:* EXTERNAL: Re: [Vo]:Mark has blazed the path ** ** Fran, Any coupling between the active resonators, such as Coulomb, would act as the platform. The higher the Q of the resonances, the lower the amount of coupling required for this to occur. Tuning differences of the resonances will also play an important part. One question that arises is how far away from an individual resonance does it effectively couple? Does each site only couple to the adjacent sites or does the effect penetrate far into the material? I wonder about the consequences associated with these different reaches. Dave -Original Message- From: Roarty, Francis X francis.x.roa...@lmco.com To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Fri, Jun 21, 2013 11:22 am Subject: Re: [Vo]:Mark has blazed the path Axil, Care to walk us through it? I am assuming the heating resistors are the emission source and the micro tubles on the inside of the reactor wall form the nano pattern that causes plasmon resonance stimulated by the emission causing magnetic oscillation? This article didn’t mention hydrogen loaded material but it did mention the need to detail the nano structures / grooves in one case .. we don’t have that with random orientations of tubules. What synchronizes the oscillations? Does the loaded hydrogen act like the metronome platform? The articles mentions the same nano geometries we have discussed previously for redundant ground states and Casimir effect.. do you see a linkage between these stimulated oscillation and Rydberg hydrogen? I am very interested because I suspect the Rydberg state may allow an alternate self organizing method in place of the “Nanoscale Detail” required in the article .. the Rydberg and inverse Rydberg can act as an energy spring between orbitals instead of spatial displacement along a common axis. Fran *From:* Axil Axil [mailto:janap...@gmail.com janap...@gmail.com?] *Sent:* Thursday, June 20, 2013 11:49 PM *To:* vortex-l *Subject:* EXTERNAL: Re: [Vo]:Mark has blazed the path Reference: [Vo]:Plasmons on a patterned surface can enhance the production of bright electron beams. Mon, Feb 11, 2013 at 7:34 PM http://physics.aps.org/articles/v6/17 This article about nano-antennas prompted me to regard these nanostructures as being utilized by Rossi and DGT in their tubule coatings of their micro-powder. On Thu, Jun 20, 2013 at 11:10 PM, MarkI-ZeroPoint zeropo...@charter.net wrote: Here’s the original posting: http://www.mail-archive.com/vortex-l@eskimo.com/msg60465.html -mark *From:* Axil Axil [mailto:janap...@gmail.com] *Sent:* Thursday, June 20, 2013 5:28 PM *To:* vortex-l *Subject:* [Vo]:Mark has blazed the path Vo]:Nickel nanoantennas... its all about resonances. date: Tue, Jan 3, 2012 at 4:26 PM I have done my best, but Mark, it has taken me some time to come around to your mode of thinking.
Re: [Vo]: About the March test
And arguing with an idiot like you doesn't advance anything. Just an observation John. Ransom Sent from my iPhone On Jun 21, 2013, at 1:47 PM, John Milstone john_sw_orla...@yahoo.com wrote: Nice attempt by Benne, Storms (I'm surprised that he piled on), and Roberson to deflect the issue. There is still the issue that Rossi has a supposedly dead phase on his 3-phase power cabling, and that that additional wire, if it were actually live (as per the wiring gimmick in question), would have provided exactly the amount of power allegedly being generated by the E-Cat (conveniently hidden inside of a furnace out of sight of the IR camera). Regarding your specific rant, attempting to discredit hot fusion (or other branches of conventional physics) does nothing to enhance LENR. John From: David Roberson dlrober...@aol.com To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Friday, June 21, 2013 1:21 PM Subject: Re: [Vo]: About the March test I agree Ed. Both you and Jones have stated the situation eloquently and I hope that John gives considerable thought to what has been said. I suppose that one reason that any current modern physics determination can be overturned by a knowledgeable skeptic is that they all are the current ideas which one day will be replaced by updated ones. This is scientific progress as it should be. For example, Newton's old laws were assumed perfect at the time, but Einstein came along and improved them with his breakthroughs. So, now Rossi has his device under scrutiny by the skeptics who can always find some reason to complain. Most if not all of the reasons thus far suggested are invalid, but the skeptics seem to keep themselves occupied. This is their job and they would not know how to behave otherwise so I guess we have to cut them some slack. I would be concerned if what they spread throughout the Internet were able to delay the solution to many of the needs of mankind. Dave -Original Message- From: Edmund Storms stor...@ix.netcom.com To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Cc: Edmund Storms stor...@ix.netcom.com Sent: Fri, Jun 21, 2013 12:56 pm Subject: Re: [Vo]: About the March test Well said, JONES!!! This is exactly the situation. Physics has sold the governments of the world on spending money for research that has practically no value. This use of money limits what else can be explored and greatly distorts what can be discovered. LENR has been rejected and held to a very high standard simply because it threatens this spending, as you so clearly state. When LENR is finally applied at a level that even an idiot will have to accept, the physics community will have to explain why this acceptance took so long when so much evidence was available and when the need for the energy was so great. Careful evaluation and rational skepticism is important but rational limits must be applied because EVERYTHING believed by science can be rejected by a determined skeptic. We would still be in the Dark Ages if rational limits to skepticism had not been agreed to and applied in science. Why is so hard to do now with LENR? Ed On Jun 21, 2013, at 10:42 AM, Jones Beene wrote: From: John Milstone For starters, CERN isn't selling franchises to the Higgs Boson. CERN doesn't rely on secret customers and secret experts to validate their work. Etc, etc. This is complete bull crap ! Big Science is doing much worse than that. But more so with regard to ITER or NOVA or Hot Fusion or other Big Science projects that are threatened by LENR than with CERN. The physics establishment is essentially selling franchises to every overpaid PhD and yes-man techie on the large staffs - who would be fired, if this kind of no-bid work were to be made moot by LENR. CERN might survive, but ITER and other extremely generous projects with routine $250k salaries would bite the dust! That is billions of dollars of bribe money, being paid out to an elite group to tow the company line ... That is far more despicable than Rossi struggling for investment capital. winmail.dat
Re: [Vo]: About the March test
John, it is not a rant. Hot fusion is dead. It will never be a practical source of energy in its present form. I'm not the only person who has come to this conclusion. Nevertheless, as long as money is spent on this method, a large self interest is supported to reject CF and to continue funding HF. That is the reality of the world. As for questioning Rossi, this needs to be done. However, it can be done while accepting the reality of the LENR effect. The only unknown is whether Rossi is using LENR to make energy. I believe he is and with increasing success. I wish him well. Nevertheless, it does not make any difference to me and to anything I hold dear whether he is a fraud or not. He will succeed or fail based on his own efforts. I'm much more interested in the fraud the financial industry applies to the housing market. Ed On Jun 21, 2013, at 11:47 AM, John Milstone wrote: Nice attempt by Benne, Storms (I'm surprised that he piled on), and Roberson to deflect the issue. There is still the issue that Rossi has a supposedly dead phase on his 3-phase power cabling, and that that additional wire, if it were actually live (as per the wiring gimmick in question), would have provided exactly the amount of power allegedly being generated by the E-Cat (conveniently hidden inside of a furnace out of sight of the IR camera). Regarding your specific rant, attempting to discredit hot fusion (or other branches of conventional physics) does nothing to enhance LENR. John From: David Roberson dlrober...@aol.com To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Friday, June 21, 2013 1:21 PM Subject: Re: [Vo]: About the March test I agree Ed. Both you and Jones have stated the situation eloquently and I hope that John gives considerable thought to what has been said. I suppose that one reason that any current modern physics determination can be overturned by a knowledgeable skeptic is that they all are the current ideas which one day will be replaced by updated ones. This is scientific progress as it should be. For example, Newton's old laws were assumed perfect at the time, but Einstein came along and improved them with his breakthroughs. So, now Rossi has his device under scrutiny by the skeptics who can always find some reason to complain. Most if not all of the reasons thus far suggested are invalid, but the skeptics seem to keep themselves occupied. This is their job and they would not know how to behave otherwise so I guess we have to cut them some slack. I would be concerned if what they spread throughout the Internet were able to delay the solution to many of the needs of mankind. Dave -Original Message- From: Edmund Storms stor...@ix.netcom.com To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Cc: Edmund Storms stor...@ix.netcom.com Sent: Fri, Jun 21, 2013 12:56 pm Subject: Re: [Vo]: About the March test Well said, JONES!!! This is exactly the situation. Physics has sold the governments of the world on spending money for research that has practically no value. This use of money limits what else can be explored and greatly distorts what can be discovered. LENR has been rejected and held to a very high standard simply because it threatens this spending, as you so clearly state. When LENR is finally applied at a level that even an idiot will have to accept, the physics community will have to explain why this acceptance took so long when so much evidence was available and when the need for the energy was so great. Careful evaluation and rational skepticism is important but rational limits must be applied because EVERYTHING believed by science can be rejected by a determined skeptic. We would still be in the Dark Ages if rational limits to skepticism had not been agreed to and applied in science. Why is so hard to do now with LENR? Ed On Jun 21, 2013, at 10:42 AM, Jones Beene wrote: From: John Milstone For starters, CERN isn't selling franchises to the Higgs Boson. CERN doesn't rely on secret customers and secret experts to validate their work. Etc, etc. This is complete bull crap ! Big Science is doing much worse than that. But more so with regard to ITER or NOVA or Hot Fusion or other Big Science projects that are threatened by LENR than with CERN. The physics establishment is essentially selling franchises to every overpaid PhD and yes-man techie on the large staffs - who would be fired, if this kind of no-bid work were to be made moot by LENR. CERN might survive, but ITER and other extremely generous projects with routine $250k salaries would bite the dust! That is billions of dollars of bribe money, being paid out to an elite group to tow the company line ... That is far more despicable than Rossi struggling for investment capital. winmail.dat
Re: [Vo]: About the March test
John, Please explain how the dead wire you discuss is able to deliver a continuous power into the control box while still explaining the modulation of the output power and temperature as seen by the IR camera system. If, as you imply, power is continually sent to the power resistors you need to explain how the waveforms fail to show any indication of this. Also, the input power matches quite well with the output power determination in the time domain. Where the graphs show power going into the control box, temperature is rising on the exterior of the device. Why do you suppose this is so? Reference to continuous power input is not consistent with any of the data. Dave -Original Message- From: John Milstone john_sw_orla...@yahoo.com To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Fri, Jun 21, 2013 1:47 pm Subject: Re: [Vo]: About the March test Nice attempt by Benne, Storms (I'm surprised that he piled on), and Roberson to deflect the issue. There is still the issue that Rossi has a supposedly dead phase on his 3-phase power cabling, and that that additional wire, if it were actually live (as per the wiring gimmick in question), would have provided exactly the amount of power allegedly being generated by the E-Cat (conveniently hidden inside of a furnace out of sight of the IR camera). Regarding your specific rant, attempting to discredit hot fusion (or other branches of conventional physics) does nothing to enhance LENR. John From: David Roberson dlrober...@aol.com To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Friday, June 21, 2013 1:21 PM Subject: Re: [Vo]: About the March test I agree Ed. Both you and Jones have stated the situation eloquently and I hope that John gives considerable thought to what has been said. I suppose that one reason that any current modern physics determination can be overturned by a knowledgeable skeptic is that they all are the current ideas which one day will be replaced by updated ones. This is scientific progress as it should be. For example, Newton's old laws were assumed perfect at the time, but Einstein came along and improved them with his breakthroughs. So, now Rossi has his device under scrutiny by the skeptics who can always find some reason to complain. Most if not all of the reasons thus far suggested are invalid, but the skeptics seem to keep themselves occupied. This is their job and they would not know how to behave otherwise so I guess we have to cut them some slack. I would be concerned if what they spread throughout the Internet were able to delay the solution to many of the needs of mankind. Dave -Original Message- From: Edmund Storms stor...@ix.netcom.com To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Cc: Edmund Storms stor...@ix.netcom.com Sent: Fri, Jun 21, 2013 12:56 pm Subject: Re: [Vo]: About the March test Well said, JONES!!! This is exactly the situation. Physics has sold the governments of the world on spending money for research that has practically no value. This use of money limits what else can be explored and greatly distorts what can be discovered. LENR has been rejected and held to a very high standard simply because it threatens this spending, as you so clearly state. When LENR is finally applied at a level that even an idiot will have to accept, the physics community will have to explain why this acceptance took so long when so much evidence was available and when the need for the energy was so great. Careful evaluation and rational skepticism is important but rational limits must be applied because EVERYTHING believed by science can be rejected by a determined skeptic. We would still be in the Dark Ages if rational limits to skepticism had not been agreed to and applied in science. Why is so hard to do now with LENR? Ed On Jun 21, 2013, at 10:42 AM, Jones Beene wrote: From: John Milstone For starters, CERN isn't selling franchises to the Higgs Boson. CERN doesn't rely on secret customers and secret experts to validate their work. Etc, etc. This is complete bull crap ! Big Science is doing much worse than that. But more so with regard to ITER or NOVA or Hot Fusion or other Big Science projects that are threatened by LENR than with CERN. The physics establishment is essentially selling franchises to every overpaid PhD and yes-man techie on the large staffs - who would be fired, if this kind of no-bid work were to be made moot by LENR. CERN might survive, but ITER and other extremely generous projects with routine $250k salaries would bite the dust! That is billions of dollars of bribe money, being paid out to an elite group to tow the company line ... That is far more despicable than Rossi struggling for investment capital. winmail.dat
RE: [Vo]: About the March test
Hot fusion is on its way out. and long overdue. http://www.ca.allgov.com/news/controversies/feinstein-backs-off-support-for- lawrence-livermore-work-on-fusion-130517?news=850042 -Mark Iverson From: Edmund Storms [mailto:stor...@ix.netcom.com] Sent: Friday, June 21, 2013 10:59 AM To: John Milstone Cc: Edmund Storms Subject: Re: [Vo]: About the March test John, it is not a rant. Hot fusion is dead. It will never be a practical source of energy in its present form. I'm not the only person who has come to this conclusion. Nevertheless, as long as money is spent on this method, a large self interest is supported to reject CF and to continue funding HF. That is the reality of the world. As for questioning Rossi, this needs to be done. However, it can be done while accepting the reality of the LENR effect. The only unknown is whether Rossi is using LENR to make energy. I believe he is and with increasing success. I wish him well. Nevertheless, it does not make any difference to me and to anything I hold dear whether he is a fraud or not. He will succeed or fail based on his own efforts. I'm much more interested in the fraud the financial industry applies to the housing market. Ed On Jun 21, 2013, at 11:47 AM, John Milstone wrote: Nice attempt by Benne, Storms (I'm surprised that he piled on), and Roberson to deflect the issue. There is still the issue that Rossi has a supposedly dead phase on his 3-phase power cabling, and that that additional wire, if it were actually live (as per the wiring gimmick in question), would have provided exactly the amount of power allegedly being generated by the E-Cat (conveniently hidden inside of a furnace out of sight of the IR camera). Regarding your specific rant, attempting to discredit hot fusion (or other branches of conventional physics) does nothing to enhance LENR. John _ From: David Roberson dlrober...@aol.com To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Friday, June 21, 2013 1:21 PM Subject: Re: [Vo]: About the March test I agree Ed. Both you and Jones have stated the situation eloquently and I hope that John gives considerable thought to what has been said. I suppose that one reason that any current modern physics determination can be overturned by a knowledgeable skeptic is that they all are the current ideas which one day will be replaced by updated ones. This is scientific progress as it should be. For example, Newton's old laws were assumed perfect at the time, but Einstein came along and improved them with his breakthroughs. So, now Rossi has his device under scrutiny by the skeptics who can always find some reason to complain. Most if not all of the reasons thus far suggested are invalid, but the skeptics seem to keep themselves occupied. This is their job and they would not know how to behave otherwise so I guess we have to cut them some slack. I would be concerned if what they spread throughout the Internet were able to delay the solution to many of the needs of mankind. Dave -Original Message- From: Edmund Storms stor...@ix.netcom.com To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Cc: Edmund Storms stor...@ix.netcom.com Sent: Fri, Jun 21, 2013 12:56 pm Subject: Re: [Vo]: About the March test Well said, JONES!!! This is exactly the situation. Physics has sold the governments of the world on spending money for research that has practically no value. This use of money limits what else can be explored and greatly distorts what can be discovered. LENR has been rejected and held to a very high standard simply because it threatens this spending, as you so clearly state. When LENR is finally applied at a level that even an idiot will have to accept, the physics community will have to explain why this acceptance took so long when so much evidence was available and when the need for the energy was so great. Careful evaluation and rational skepticism is important but rational limits must be applied because EVERYTHING believed by science can be rejected by a determined skeptic. We would still be in the Dark Ages if rational limits to skepticism had not been agreed to and applied in science. Why is so hard to do now with LENR? Ed On Jun 21, 2013, at 10:42 AM, Jones Beene wrote: From: John Milstone For starters, CERN isn't selling franchises to the Higgs Boson. CERN doesn't rely on secret customers and secret experts to validate their work. Etc, etc. This is complete bull crap ! Big Science is doing much worse than that. But more so with regard to ITER or NOVA or Hot Fusion or other Big Science projects that are threatened by LENR than with CERN. The physics establishment is essentially selling franchises to every overpaid PhD and yes-man techie on the large staffs - who would be fired, if this kind of no-bid work were to be made moot by LENR. CERN might survive, but ITER and other extremely generous
Re: [Vo]: About the March test
Ed, Nothing I've said here makes any reference to the topic of LENR. It is entirely possible that LENR is real and Rossi is a fraud. John From: Edmund Storms stor...@ix.netcom.com To: John Milstone vortex-l@eskimo.com Cc: Edmund Storms stor...@ix.netcom.com Sent: Friday, June 21, 2013 1:58 PM Subject: Re: [Vo]: About the March test John, it is not a rant. Hot fusion is dead. It will never be a practical source of energy in its present form. I'm not the only person who has come to this conclusion. Nevertheless, as long as money is spent on this method, a large self interest is supported to reject CF and to continue funding HF. That is the reality of the world. As for questioning Rossi, this needs to be done. However, it can be done while accepting the reality of the LENR effect. The only unknown is whether Rossi is using LENR to make energy. I believe he is and with increasing success. I wish him well. Nevertheless, it does not make any difference to me and to anything I hold dear whether he is a fraud or not. He will succeed or fail based on his own efforts. I'm much more interested in the fraud the financial industry applies to the housing market. Ed On Jun 21, 2013, at 11:47 AM, John Milstone wrote: Nice attempt by Benne, Storms (I'm surprised that he piled on), and Roberson to deflect the issue. There is still the issue that Rossi has a supposedly dead phase on his 3-phase power cabling, and that that additional wire, if it were actually live (as per the wiring gimmick in question), would have provided exactly the amount of power allegedly being generated by the E-Cat (conveniently hidden inside of a furnace out of sight of the IR camera). Regarding your specific rant, attempting to discredit hot fusion (or other branches of conventional physics) does nothing to enhance LENR. John From: David Roberson dlrober...@aol.com To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Friday, June 21, 2013 1:21 PM Subject: Re: [Vo]: About the March test I agree Ed. Both you and Jones have stated the situation eloquently and I hope that John gives considerable thought to what has been said. I suppose that one reason that any current modern physics determination can be overturned by a knowledgeable skeptic is that they all are the current ideas which one day will be replaced by updated ones. This is scientific progress as it should be. For example, Newton's old laws were assumed perfect at the time, but Einstein came along and improved them with his breakthroughs. So, now Rossi has his device under scrutiny by the skeptics who can always find some reason to complain. Most if not all of the reasons thus far suggested are invalid, but the skeptics seem to keep themselves occupied. This is their job and they would not know how to behave otherwise so I guess we have to cut them some slack. I would be concerned if what they spread throughout the Internet were able to delay the solution to many of the needs of mankind. Dave -Original Message- From: Edmund Storms stor...@ix.netcom.com To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Cc: Edmund Storms stor...@ix.netcom.com Sent: Fri, Jun 21, 2013 12:56 pm Subject: Re: [Vo]: About the March test Well said, JONES!!! This is exactly the situation. Physics has sold the governments of the world on spending money for research that has practically no value. This use of money limits what else can be explored and greatly distorts what can be discovered. LENR has been rejected and held to a very high standard simply because it threatens this spending, as you so clearly state. When LENR is finally applied at a level that even an idiot will have to accept, the physics community will have to explain why this acceptance took so long when so much evidence was available and when the need for the energy was so great. Careful evaluation and rational skepticism is important but rational limits must be applied because EVERYTHING believed by science can be rejected by a determined skeptic. We would still be in the Dark Ages if rational limits to skepticism had not been agreed to and applied in science. Why is so hard to do now with LENR? Ed On Jun 21, 2013, at 10:42 AM, Jones Beene wrote: From: John Milstone For starters, CERN isn't selling franchises to the Higgs Boson. CERN doesn't rely on secret customers and secret experts to validate their work. Etc, etc. This is complete bull crap ! Big Science is doing much worse than that. But more so with regard to ITER or NOVA or Hot Fusion or other Big Science projects that are threatened by LENR than with CERN. The physics establishment is essentially selling franchises to every overpaid PhD and yes-man techie on the large staffs - who would be fired, if this kind of no-bid work were to be made moot by LENR. CERN might survive, but ITER and other extremely
[Vo]:John Milstone's email settings / Why do responses go directly to some authors at Vortex?
From time to time, people post messages here where the response goes to the author instead of the list. I think this has to do with a reply-to option in some e-mail programs. I don't recall, and I do not see anywhere to change it here in Gmail. John Milstone had this problem. He seems to have fixed it by temporarily setting his e-mail address tovortex-l@eskimo.com. I guess for the purposes of this conversation. It comes out: John Milstone vortex-l@eskimo.com That's fine. However, there is probably an easier way for him to accomplish this. His address is on Yahoo.com. Perhaps someone there at Yahoo could assist him. If someone could spell out why this happens maybe Bill can put a message about it in the guide to Vortex. - Jed
Re: [Vo]: About the March test
I guess you haven't bothered actually reading my earlier posts. sigh With the dead wire rigged to supply power continuously, we would see a modulation of the input power of 1200 Watts (400 from each of the 2 live phases plus 400 Watts from the dead phase) for 2 minutes, followed by 400 Watts (just from the dead phase) for 4 minutes, repeating. Instead of the claimed power input (400 Watts * 2 phases * 33% duty cycle = 266.6 Watts (average), the E-Cat (actually, the heating coils in the tube furnace) would have 400 Watts * 3 phases * 33% duty cycle + 400 Watts * 66% duty cycle = 666.6 Watts (average). This gives an observed COP of 2.5, just what the report describes. No laser beams. No magic paint. No tricky DC bias or high-frequency signals inserted into the normal A/C power supply. Just one hidden conductor in the supposedly dead wire. (If the wire wasn't doing anything, why was it left in the circuit?) John From: David Roberson dlrober...@aol.com To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Friday, June 21, 2013 2:08 PM Subject: Re: [Vo]: About the March test John, Please explain how the dead wire you discuss is able to deliver a continuous power into the control box while still explaining the modulation of the output power and temperature as seen by the IR camera system. If, as you imply, power is continually sent to the power resistors you need to explain how the waveforms fail to show any indication of this. Also, the input power matches quite well with the output power determination in the time domain. Where the graphs show power going into the control box, temperature is rising on the exterior of the device. Why do you suppose this is so? Reference to continuous power input is not consistent with any of the data. Dave -Original Message- From: John Milstone john_sw_orla...@yahoo.com To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Fri, Jun 21, 2013 1:47 pm Subject: Re: [Vo]: About the March test Nice attempt by Benne, Storms (I'm surprised that he piled on), and Roberson to deflect the issue. There is still the issue that Rossi has a supposedly dead phase on his 3-phase power cabling, and that that additional wire, if it were actually live (as per the wiring gimmick in question), would have provided exactly the amount of power allegedly being generated by the E-Cat (conveniently hidden inside of a furnace out of sight of the IR camera). Regarding your specific rant, attempting to discredit hot fusion (or other branches of conventional physics) does nothing to enhance LENR. John From: David Roberson dlrober...@aol.com To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Friday, June 21, 2013 1:21 PM Subject: Re: [Vo]: About the March test I agree Ed. Both you and Jones have stated the situation eloquently and I hope that John gives considerable thought to what has been said. I suppose that one reason that any current modern physics determination can be overturned by a knowledgeable skeptic is that they all are the current ideas which one day will be replaced by updated ones. This is scientific progress as it should be. For example, Newton's old laws were assumed perfect at the time, but Einstein came along and improved them with his breakthroughs. So, now Rossi has his device under scrutiny by the skeptics who can always find some reason to complain. Most if not all of the reasons thus far suggested are invalid, but the skeptics seem to keep themselves occupied. This is their job and they would not know how to behave otherwise so I guess we have to cut them some slack. I would be concerned if what they spread throughout the Internet were able to delay the solution to many of the needs of mankind. Dave -Original Message- From: Edmund Storms stor...@ix.netcom.com To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Cc: Edmund Storms stor...@ix.netcom.com Sent: Fri, Jun 21, 2013 12:56 pm Subject: Re: [Vo]: About the March test Well said, JONES!!! This is exactly the situation. Physics has sold the governments of the world on spending money for research that has practically no value. This use of money limits what else can be explored and greatly distorts what can be discovered. LENR has been rejected and held to a very high standard simply because it threatens this spending, as you so clearly state. When LENR is finally applied at a level that even an idiot will have to accept, the physics community will have to explain why this acceptance took so long when so much evidence was available and when the need for the energy was so great. Careful evaluation and rational skepticism is important but rational limits must be applied because EVERYTHING believed by science can be rejected by a determined skeptic. We would still be in the Dark Ages if rational limits to skepticism had not been agreed to and applied in science. Why is so hard to do now with LENR? Ed On Jun 21, 2013,
Re: [Vo]:Mark has blazed the path
What I don't understand is if these surface plasmonds in this hot spot are negatively charged. If they are, the light soliton will surly produce a anapole field; monopole. If this concentration of light is not charged, I don't yet know how light can produce a magnetic effect. On Fri, Jun 21, 2013 at 1:58 PM, Axil Axil janap...@gmail.com wrote: The character of the EMF stored in the hot spots is well known. http://www.phy-astr.gsu.edu/stockman/data/Stockman_Opt_Expres_2011_Nanoplasmonics_Review.pdf *Nanoplasmonics: past, present, and* *glimpse into future* * * *Mark I. Stockman**∗* The hot spots are the concentration regions of the optical energy: These eigenmodes possess very different topologies but very close eigenvalues and, consequently, have almost the same frequency *≈ *3*.*13 eV corresponding to the blue spectral range. On Fri, Jun 21, 2013 at 1:21 PM, Roarty, Francis X francis.x.roa...@lmco.com wrote: Dave, I had the same question, emission penetration seem to favor surface effects and one would expect such an effect to dissipate below the surface but you also mentioned the Q of these cavities which might allow deeper plasmons to synchronize and resonate as slaves to the surface layer.. Note, the anomalous effects only seem to occur when gas is loaded into metal lattice structures so Axil’s citation was relevant but not a case of OU. The OU is related to DCE and changes to Rydberg gas atoms caused by the DCE, Axil is, IMHO, introducing plasmons as part of the “tank” circuit to store energy out of phase with whatever storage method is occurring inside the cavity, I am positing this storage method is related to the bond state of fractional hydrogen but there are many theories you are free to choose from… ZPE, fusion, decay, hydroton, hydrino, I was hoping axil would expand on his perspective of the plasmon to Rydberg linkage. Fran ** ** *From:* David Roberson [mailto:dlrober...@aol.com] *Sent:* Friday, June 21, 2013 11:59 AM *To:* vortex-l@eskimo.com *Subject:* EXTERNAL: Re: [Vo]:Mark has blazed the path ** ** Fran, Any coupling between the active resonators, such as Coulomb, would act as the platform. The higher the Q of the resonances, the lower the amount of coupling required for this to occur. Tuning differences of the resonances will also play an important part. One question that arises is how far away from an individual resonance does it effectively couple? Does each site only couple to the adjacent sites or does the effect penetrate far into the material? I wonder about the consequences associated with these different reaches. Dave -Original Message- From: Roarty, Francis X francis.x.roa...@lmco.com To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Fri, Jun 21, 2013 11:22 am Subject: Re: [Vo]:Mark has blazed the path Axil, Care to walk us through it? I am assuming the heating resistors are the emission source and the micro tubles on the inside of the reactor wall form the nano pattern that causes plasmon resonance stimulated by the emission causing magnetic oscillation? This article didn’t mention hydrogen loaded material but it did mention the need to detail the nano structures / grooves in one case .. we don’t have that with random orientations of tubules. What synchronizes the oscillations? Does the loaded hydrogen act like the metronome platform? The articles mentions the same nano geometries we have discussed previously for redundant ground states and Casimir effect.. do you see a linkage between these stimulated oscillation and Rydberg hydrogen? I am very interested because I suspect the Rydberg state may allow an alternate self organizing method in place of the “Nanoscale Detail” required in the article .. the Rydberg and inverse Rydberg can act as an energy spring between orbitals instead of spatial displacement along a common axis. Fran *From:* Axil Axil [mailto:janap...@gmail.com janap...@gmail.com?] *Sent:* Thursday, June 20, 2013 11:49 PM *To:* vortex-l *Subject:* EXTERNAL: Re: [Vo]:Mark has blazed the path Reference: [Vo]:Plasmons on a patterned surface can enhance the production of bright electron beams. Mon, Feb 11, 2013 at 7:34 PM http://physics.aps.org/articles/v6/17 This article about nano-antennas prompted me to regard these nanostructures as being utilized by Rossi and DGT in their tubule coatings of their micro-powder. On Thu, Jun 20, 2013 at 11:10 PM, MarkI-ZeroPoint zeropo...@charter.net wrote: Here’s the original posting: http://www.mail-archive.com/vortex-l@eskimo.com/msg60465.html -mark *From:* Axil Axil [mailto:janap...@gmail.com] *Sent:* Thursday, June 20, 2013 5:28 PM *To:* vortex-l *Subject:* [Vo]:Mark has blazed the path
Re: [Vo]:interview re a sensitive subject
Re Eric's question, what species. The species I had in mind (armchair style) specifically are chimps, bonobos and elephants. I remember odd bits of information (yes, several on TV, in fact) relating how strange elephants, for example, act at times when a herd member dies, even a long time later. I recall seeing pictures of chimps, all alone, doing slow, dreamy dances, pointing to the sky, or tracing their fingers 'thoughtfully' along a rock wall. Just about everyone who has seen examples of animals doing disturbing things like this, get the eerie feeling, that these guys are thinking pretty deep stuff. For any biologist, it is no stretch, knowing the deepest biological similarities, (i.e. 98% DNA homology with the great apes) to imagine what a thin line there is. It shouldn't be construed that, notwithstanding that I am a (old) physiologist, that I have any especial expertise in ethology, ecology, neurobiology or similar animal psychology disciplines upon which to base my speculations on the mental development of species, nor have I read any substantial amount of this literature. It will be one of Man's most fascinating adventures, however, to see the biological (physical) bases of human and animal intelligence explicated by neurobiological measurements in the not far off future. One paper I did run into the other day that jibes with other, similar literature I encountered over the decades, may interest some is : Lynn, Franks, and Savage-Rumbaugh, 2008. Precursors of morality in the use of the symbols good and bad in two bonobos and a chimpanzeeLanguage Communication 28:213-224. best regards, ken On Fri, Jun 21, 2013 at 1:29 AM, Alain Sepeda alain.sep...@gmail.comwrote: It remind me the doctor who wahs taking care of Kim Jung Hill (or another...who died recently...). He said that that man was normal. It is a place where prisoners in reeducation camp are executed by bath in melted metal (heard in a TV document talking of Mengele replicators from WW2 to now). they execute people that have tried to escape and that Chinese police bring back to death (when local mafia do not enslave them). This man was normal, sensible to cinema... he live in a system of deep terror were not being monstrous mean you will be monstrously treated. You cannot judge why people may collaborate with horror, if you ignore the fear. Science, with less physical violence, is a similar network of communities. You are not bathed in melted steel, but covered with horse manure, and executed by public panel and scientific press. I'm a corp executive, and I know professionally, like many economists know for countries, that the problem is not the individuals (who have intelligence, risk analysis capacities, good will, empathy) but the organization, with intelligent individual who adapt to the psychiatric hospital they live in. What thomas Kuhn explain is that it is required for the normal science to explore the known land ... Without the blinders, scientist would lose much time in questioning all. You need scientific terrorists to explore beyond the frontier. Taleb says that it is the job of entrepreneur, garage inventors, practitioners, lab or field engineers, and other lower species that really do the job. the crisis today is not because of bad normal science, but because on a huge monolithic, rationalized, big science . we need small island of science, independent funding criteria, various independent journals with independent policies... not a cartel of opinion leaders, some planet-wide comon criteria to judge what is good or bad... globally taleb says that big animal, like western science, are fragile. LENR may put it at risk, like AGW... people will lose confidence in that big monopoly of truth. Big science think it is too big to fail, but I'm afraid it is too big to save. Science culture, like banks, or nuclear plant, tankers, have to be small so a catastrophe have a minor impact. There will always hapen catastrophe, good or bad, just have not to break the system. 2013/6/21 James Bowery jabow...@gmail.com When normal is insane, what does extremism mean? On Fri, Jun 21, 2013 at 12:49 AM, Peter Gluck peter.gl...@gmail.comwrote: Dear Ken, special thanks for your nice answer. It is my duty to write an editorial regarding the feedback of my Scientism paper. Peter On Fri, Jun 21, 2013 at 8:31 AM, Eric Walker eric.wal...@gmail.comwrote: On Thu, Jun 20, 2013 at 3:27 PM, ken deboer barlaz...@gmail.comwrote: our near relatives ... clearly possess ... manifestations of high mental activity, ... even a primitive and undeveloped sense of mysticism or protoreligion. I'm curious in what species this has been discovered. Eric -- Dr. Peter Gluck Cluj, Romania http://egooutpeters.blogspot.com
Re: [Vo]: About the March test
How does this theory of fraud fit in with Rossi's money back customer satisfaction guaranty? I do not understand how Rossi and this partners make money with this condition in place. Please explain. On Fri, Jun 21, 2013 at 2:27 PM, John Milstone john_sw_orla...@yahoo.comwrote: I guess you haven't bothered actually reading my earlier posts. sigh With the dead wire rigged to supply power continuously, we would see a modulation of the input power of 1200 Watts (400 from each of the 2 live phases plus 400 Watts from the dead phase) for 2 minutes, followed by 400 Watts (just from the dead phase) for 4 minutes, repeating. Instead of the claimed power input (400 Watts * 2 phases * 33% duty cycle = 266.6 Watts (average), the E-Cat (actually, the heating coils in the tube furnace) would have 400 Watts * 3 phases * 33% duty cycle + 400 Watts * 66% duty cycle = 666.6 Watts (average). This gives an observed COP of 2.5, just what the report describes. No laser beams. No magic paint. No tricky DC bias or high-frequency signals inserted into the normal A/C power supply. Just one hidden conductor in the supposedly dead wire. (If the wire wasn't doing anything, why was it left in the circuit?) John -- *From:* David Roberson dlrober...@aol.com *To:* vortex-l@eskimo.com *Sent:* Friday, June 21, 2013 2:08 PM *Subject:* Re: [Vo]: About the March test John, Please explain how the dead wire you discuss is able to deliver a continuous power into the control box while still explaining the modulation of the output power and temperature as seen by the IR camera system. If, as you imply, power is continually sent to the power resistors you need to explain how the waveforms fail to show any indication of this. Also, the input power matches quite well with the output power determination in the time domain. Where the graphs show power going into the control box, temperature is rising on the exterior of the device. Why do you suppose this is so? Reference to continuous power input is not consistent with any of the data. Dave -Original Message- From: John Milstone john_sw_orla...@yahoo.com To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Fri, Jun 21, 2013 1:47 pm Subject: Re: [Vo]: About the March test Nice attempt by Benne, Storms (I'm surprised that he piled on), and Roberson to deflect the issue. There is still the issue that Rossi has a supposedly dead phase on his 3-phase power cabling, and that that additional wire, if it were actually live (as per the wiring gimmick in question), would have provided exactly the amount of power allegedly being generated by the E-Cat (conveniently hidden inside of a furnace out of sight of the IR camera). Regarding your specific rant, attempting to discredit hot fusion (or other branches of conventional physics) does nothing to enhance LENR. John -- *From:* David Roberson dlrober...@aol.com *To:* vortex-l@eskimo.com *Sent:* Friday, June 21, 2013 1:21 PM *Subject:* Re: [Vo]: About the March test I agree Ed. Both you and Jones have stated the situation eloquently and I hope that John gives considerable thought to what has been said. I suppose that one reason that any current modern physics determination can be overturned by a knowledgeable skeptic is that they all are the current ideas which one day will be replaced by updated ones. This is scientific progress as it should be. For example, Newton's old laws were assumed perfect at the time, but Einstein came along and improved them with his breakthroughs. So, now Rossi has his device under scrutiny by the skeptics who can always find some reason to complain. Most if not all of the reasons thus far suggested are invalid, but the skeptics seem to keep themselves occupied. This is their job and they would not know how to behave otherwise so I guess we have to cut them some slack. I would be concerned if what they spread throughout the Internet were able to delay the solution to many of the needs of mankind. Dave -Original Message- From: Edmund Storms stor...@ix.netcom.com To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Cc: Edmund Storms stor...@ix.netcom.com Sent: Fri, Jun 21, 2013 12:56 pm Subject: Re: [Vo]: About the March test Well said, JONES!!! This is exactly the situation. Physics has sold the governments of the world on spending money for research that has practically no value. This use of money limits what else can be explored and greatly distorts what can be discovered. LENR has been rejected and held to a very high standard simply because it threatens this spending, as you so clearly state. When LENR is finally applied at a level that even an idiot will have to accept, the physics community will have to explain why this acceptance took so long when so much evidence was available and when the need for the energy was so great. Careful evaluation and rational
Re: [Vo]: About the March test
I admit I did not see your other posts. Sorry about that one. What you said does not add up yet. Current must go into a device and then return by some path. If, as you say, the dead wire is supplying AC current into the control for all time then where is the return current showing up? I recall a diagram that looked like it precluded that possibility. Every line had a current probe surrounding it. Are you back to DC power sneaking in? I hope you are not suggesting that the dead lead is a coaxial cable of some kind that went un noticed by the testers? This is a bit of a stretch. Dave -Original Message- From: John Milstone john_sw_orla...@yahoo.com To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Fri, Jun 21, 2013 2:28 pm Subject: Re: [Vo]: About the March test I guess you haven't bothered actually reading my earlier posts. sigh With the dead wire rigged to supply power continuously, we would see a modulation of the input power of 1200 Watts (400 from each of the 2 live phases plus 400 Watts from the dead phase) for 2 minutes, followed by 400 Watts (just from the dead phase) for 4 minutes, repeating. Instead of the claimed power input (400 Watts * 2 phases * 33% duty cycle = 266.6 Watts (average), the E-Cat (actually, the heating coils in the tube furnace) would have 400 Watts * 3 phases * 33% duty cycle + 400 Watts * 66% duty cycle = 666.6 Watts (average). This gives an observed COP of 2.5, just what the report describes. No laser beams. No magic paint. No tricky DC bias or high-frequency signals inserted into the normal A/C power supply. Just one hidden conductor in the supposedly dead wire. (If the wire wasn't doing anything, why was it left in the circuit?) John From: David Roberson dlrober...@aol.com To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Friday, June 21, 2013 2:08 PM Subject: Re: [Vo]: About the March test John, Please explain how the dead wire you discuss is able to deliver a continuous power into the control box while still explaining the modulation of the output power and temperature as seen by the IR camera system. If, as you imply, power is continually sent to the power resistors you need to explain how the waveforms fail to show any indication of this. Also, the input power matches quite well with the output power determination in the time domain. Where the graphs show power going into the control box, temperature is rising on the exterior of the device. Why do you suppose this is so? Reference to continuous power input is not consistent with any of the data. Dave -Original Message- From: John Milstone john_sw_orla...@yahoo.com To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Fri, Jun 21, 2013 1:47 pm Subject: Re: [Vo]: About the March test Nice attempt by Benne, Storms (I'm surprised that he piled on), and Roberson to deflect the issue. There is still the issue that Rossi has a supposedly dead phase on his 3-phase power cabling, and that that additional wire, if it were actually live (as per the wiring gimmick in question), would have provided exactly the amount of power allegedly being generated by the E-Cat (conveniently hidden inside of a furnace out of sight of the IR camera). Regarding your specific rant, attempting to discredit hot fusion (or other branches of conventional physics) does nothing to enhance LENR. John From: David Roberson dlrober...@aol.com To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Friday, June 21, 2013 1:21 PM Subject: Re: [Vo]: About the March test I agree Ed. Both you and Jones have stated the situation eloquently and I hope that John gives considerable thought to what has been said. I suppose that one reason that any current modern physics determination can be overturned by a knowledgeable skeptic is that they all are the current ideas which one day will be replaced by updated ones. This is scientific progress as it should be. For example, Newton's old laws were assumed perfect at the time, but Einstein came along and improved them with his breakthroughs. So, now Rossi has his device under scrutiny by the skeptics who can always find some reason to complain. Most if not all of the reasons thus far suggested are invalid, but the skeptics seem to keep themselves occupied. This is their job and they would not know how to behave otherwise so I guess we have to cut them some slack. I would be concerned if what they spread throughout the Internet were able to delay the solution to many of the needs of mankind. Dave -Original Message- From: Edmund Storms stor...@ix.netcom.com To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Cc: Edmund Storms stor...@ix.netcom.com Sent: Fri, Jun 21, 2013 12:56 pm Subject: Re: [Vo]: About the March test Well said, JONES!!! This is exactly the situation. Physics has sold the governments of the world on spending money for research that has practically no value. This use of money limits what else can be explored and
Re: [Vo]: About the March test
FWIW, I put together a new version of Plot 8 from the original report, showing the full Y axis and adding the power-in if the wire trick were being used. As you can see, the relationship between power in and power out is unchanged. The only difference is that the E-Cat now gives a very good approximation of an inert lump of metal. The chart is here: http://s10.postimg.org/btaoiv6eh/E_Cat_Power.png John From: David Roberson dlrober...@aol.com To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Friday, June 21, 2013 2:08 PM Subject: Re: [Vo]: About the March test Where the graphs show power going into the control box, temperature is rising on the exterior of the device. Why do you suppose this is so? Reference to continuous power input is not consistent with any of the data.
Re: [Vo]: About the March test
John Milstone john_sw_orla...@yahoo.com wrote: Regarding the wiring trick: Rothwell keeps stating that there must be a bare conductor available to measure the voltage, and that's true. But there is nothing in the report that indicates that the testers were the ones who did the surgery to access those test points. Anyone who glances at voltmeter probe connected to a wire will see there is one conductor only, and not a second, insulated one under it. What are you suggesting anyway? That they allowed Rossi to attach the probes and then cover up the connections with black duct tape so no one could see? Have you ever met a scientist, and engineer, or an electrician who is so stupid and so gullible he would allow that? Is that seriously what you are proposing. You are wrong. They said they brought all instruments and attached all instruments themselves. They said Rossi had no say in the mater and played no role. That is what they said in the report. They could not have said it more clearly: All cables were checked before measurements began. The ground cable, the presence of which was necessary for safety reasons, was disconnected. The container holding the electronic control circuitry was lying on a wooden plank and was lifted off the surface it was resting on, and checked on all sides to make sure that there were no other connections. We furthermore made sure that the frame supporting the E-CAT HT2 was not fastened to the pavement and that there were no cables connected to it. The three-phase power cables were checked and connected directly to the electrical outlet. It was established and verified that no other cable was present and that all connections were normal. . . . Either you believe them or you don't. If you don't believe them, fine. That's your prerogative. But stop asking where they said this. It is right there in the report. We know that Rossi provided the power cabling for the test (which, by itself, should have raised a red flag for anyone who actually was looking for fraud). We know they took apart the power cable, checked it, put voltage probes on the exposed wire, and disconnected a wire. Please explain how that leaves any possibility of a red flag. A wire is a wire. Anyone who has worked with wires all his professional life would see there is an extra insulated wire. We know that the authors described each separate wire as a cable in their description . . . They are not native speakers of English. Get over it. Of course, they had access to some point of contact with the conductor. The question is exactly where, and who set up the bare wire. THEY set up the bare wire. That is what THEY said, clearly, in the report and elsewhere. Exactly where is shown in the diagram: between the wall socket and the controller box. Where else? Is there a better place? I STILL haven't seen any credible argument that the wiring trick could not have been used in this case. You have not proposed a credible trick. No one has. - Jed
Re: [Vo]: About the March test
The wire trick puts both sides of the circuit in the same wire. It's nothing more than using a lamp cord masquerading as a single conductor wire (only using wires that don't make it obvious that there are actually two conductors in the same insulation. It doesn't require a coaxial cable, and it doesn't require DC power, or any other modifications to the AC power upstream of the power cable. It specifically fools clamp-on ammeters. Rossi claimed to be using 3-phase power, but the report disputes that. They show only 2 of three phases carrying any current. But the third phase hot wire shows (supposedly) zero current flow. If it really was not being used, why is it still in the circuit? If it was being used, and we assume it was carrying the same current as the other 2 phases, then the input power completely explains the output power, without the need for any LENR reaction. There is nothing in the report that describes the testers performing surgery on the power lines. It's obvious from the description that the wires were separated (so the clamp-on ammeter could be used) and that there were spots where the conductors could be accessed for checking voltage, but nothing in the report says that it was the testers who made these preparations. It's clear that Rossi set up the power lines, so there is no particular reason not to believe that Rossi also did the prep work. And, if Rossi did this prep work, then it would have been easy for him to hide the gimmicked wiring. As for the testers not noticing the wiring gimmick: Since they failed to notice that their test equipment does not measure DC current at all, I'm not convinced that they were competent or diligent enough to detect such fraud. John From: David Roberson dlrober...@aol.com To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Friday, June 21, 2013 2:58 PM Subject: Re: [Vo]: About the March test I admit I did not see your other posts. Sorry about that one. What you said does not add up yet. Current must go into a device and then return by some path. If, as you say, the dead wire is supplying AC current into the control for all time then where is the return current showing up? I recall a diagram that looked like it precluded that possibility. Every line had a current probe surrounding it. Are you back to DC power sneaking in? I hope you are not suggesting that the dead lead is a coaxial cable of some kind that went un noticed by the testers? This is a bit of a stretch. Dave
Re: [Vo]: About the March test
Jed Rothwell said: Anyone who glances at voltmeter probe connected to a wire will see there is one conductor only, and not a second, insulated one under it. The second cheese video shows that this isn't true. He measures the voltage of his rigged power cord at about 10:30 into the video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Frp03muquAo We know they took apart the power cable, checked it, put voltage probes on the exposed wire, and disconnected a wire. No, we don't know that. There is nothing in the report that even hints at this. You are ASSUMING that it was the testers who split out the various wires and stripped away the insulation. But nothing in the report says this. Since Rossi supplied the power cord, it's entirely possible that he also provided the split-out wires and the spots of bare wire for them to use to measure voltage. They said they brought all instruments and attached all instruments themselves. They said Rossi had no say in the mater and played no role. Then I guess it's just an amazing coincidence that they used the exact same model (perhaps the same unit) as Rossi has been using for the last several years. Essen made it clear in his comments after the release of the report that Levi was solely responsible for providing the test equipment, and it is obvious that he worked with Rossi on what testing would and would not be allowed. THEY set up the bare wire. That is what THEY said, clearly, in the report and elsewhere Not that I've seen. They certainly didn't say any such thing in the report. And I'm not aware that anyone has added any such statement afterwords. John
Re: [Vo]: About the March test
John Milstone john_sw_orla...@yahoo.com wrote: There is nothing in the report that describes the testers performing surgery on the power lines. Please rephrase this. The report clearly states that they checked. QUOTE: The three-phase power cables were checked and connected directly to the electrical outlet. It was established and verified that no other cable was present and that all connections were normal. . . . You should say I do not believe what the report says. Or: I do not believe these people can tell the difference between a bare wire and an insulated wire. That puts things in perspective. It is perfectly okay that you don't believe them. But please don't claim they never said they checked it. - Jed
Re: [Vo]: About the March test
From: John Milstone john_sw_orla...@yahoo.com Sent: Friday, June 21, 2013 12:01:07 PM FWIW, I put together a new version of Plot 8 from the original report, showing the full Y axis and adding the power-in if the wire trick were being used. The chart is here: http://s10.postimg.org/btaoiv6eh/E_Cat_Power.png You can't apply the fake DC during the start-up phase (which is in steps to full power) -- you have to apply about 800W when the PULSED heater starts, to get it to the operating temperature of 311 C (peak) and then turn it off at the end of the run. This is an uncallibrated draft: http://lenr.qumbu.com/web_hotcat_spice/130621_spice_01.png DC + Pulsed does NOT match the waveform http://lenr.qumbu.com/web_hotcat_pics/130601_levi_12A.png http://lenr.qumbu.com/web_hotcat_pics/130601_levi_15A.png
Re: [Vo]: About the March test
Just a reminder -- Read the LEFT scale V as Temperature (Green line Ladder ) Read the RIGHT scale A as Power (Red : Starter pattern, Green-gray : pulse, Blue : Fake DC) http://lenr.qumbu.com/web_hotcat_spice/130621_spice_01.png
Re: [Vo]: About the March test
John, Read what Jed says about your misrepresentation of the facts. Either he is correct, and his record is excellent, or you are and I choose to believe what he states with his backup documentation. You say that the testers did not have access to the wires, can you verify that? You state that the equipment was chosen and brought by Rossi and his agents. Can you prove that? This is your chance to prove that you are believable and not Jed. Please point me to the exact text(page and line number) that supports your assertions. If you can not show exact text then I suggest that you read the report again. Both sides in the same wirethat is funny. I guess both sides are connected to the same pin of the three phase socket as well. You need to patent that. Dave -Original Message- From: John Milstone john_sw_orla...@yahoo.com To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Fri, Jun 21, 2013 3:17 pm Subject: Re: [Vo]: About the March test The wire trick puts both sides of the circuit in the same wire. It's nothing more than using a lamp cord masquerading as a single conductor wire (only using wires that don't make it obvious that there are actually two conductors in the same insulation. It doesn't require a coaxial cable, and it doesn't require DC power, or any other modifications to the AC power upstream of the power cable. It specifically fools clamp-on ammeters. Rossi claimed to be using 3-phase power, but the report disputes that. They show only 2 of three phases carrying any current. But the third phase hot wire shows (supposedly) zero current flow. If it really was not being used, why is it still in the circuit? If it was being used, and we assume it was carrying the same current as the other 2 phases, then the input power completely explains the output power, without the need for any LENR reaction. There is nothing in the report that describes the testers performing surgery on the power lines. It's obvious from the description that the wires were separated (so the clamp-on ammeter could be used) and that there were spots where the conductors could be accessed for checking voltage, but nothing in the report says that it was the testers who made these preparations. It's clear that Rossi set up the power lines, so there is no particular reason not to believe that Rossi also did the prep work. And, if Rossi did this prep work, then it would have been easy for him to hide the gimmicked wiring. As for the testers not noticing the wiring gimmick: Since they failed to notice that their test equipment does not measure DC current at all, I'm not convinced that they were competent or diligent enough to detect such fraud. John From: David Roberson dlrober...@aol.com To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Friday, June 21, 2013 2:58 PM Subject: Re: [Vo]: About the March test I admit I did not see your other posts. Sorry about that one. What you said does not add up yet. Current must go into a device and then return by some path. If, as you say, the dead wire is supplying AC current into the control for all time then where is the return current showing up? I recall a diagram that looked like it precluded that possibility. Every line had a current probe surrounding it. Are you back to DC power sneaking in? I hope you are not suggesting that the dead lead is a coaxial cable of some kind that went un noticed by the testers? This is a bit of a stretch. Dave
Re: [Vo]: About the March test
Again, it's clear from the full description that they were looking for additional WIRES. There is nothing about checking what was IN the wires. And the statement The three-phase power cables were checked and connected directly to the electrical outlet. doesn't address who connected the wires directly to the electrical outlet, or when it happened. You want it to mean that the testers did this themselves at the time of the test, but there is nothing in that statement that suggests that particular assumption. John From: Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com To: John Milstone vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Friday, June 21, 2013 3:28 PM Subject: Re: [Vo]: About the March test John Milstone john_sw_orla...@yahoo.com wrote: There is nothing in the report that describes the testers performing surgery on the power lines. Please rephrase this. The report clearly states that they checked. QUOTE: The three-phase power cables were checked and connected directly to the electrical outlet. It was established and verified that no other cable was present and that all connections were normal. . . . You should say I do not believe what the report says. Or: I do not believe these people can tell the difference between a bare wire and an insulated wire. That puts things in perspective. It is perfectly okay that you don't believe them. But please don't claim they never said they checked it. - Jed
Re: [Vo]: About the March test
Sorry John to have misinterpreted your attitude. Most people who question Rossi are actually questioning the reality of LENR. So why do you care if Rossi is a fraud or not? Are you a potential investor? Ed On Jun 21, 2013, at 12:18 PM, John Milstone wrote: Ed, Nothing I've said here makes any reference to the topic of LENR. It is entirely possible that LENR is real and Rossi is a fraud. John From: Edmund Storms stor...@ix.netcom.com To: John Milstone vortex-l@eskimo.com Cc: Edmund Storms stor...@ix.netcom.com Sent: Friday, June 21, 2013 1:58 PM Subject: Re: [Vo]: About the March test John, it is not a rant. Hot fusion is dead. It will never be a practical source of energy in its present form. I'm not the only person who has come to this conclusion. Nevertheless, as long as money is spent on this method, a large self interest is supported to reject CF and to continue funding HF. That is the reality of the world. As for questioning Rossi, this needs to be done. However, it can be done while accepting the reality of the LENR effect. The only unknown is whether Rossi is using LENR to make energy. I believe he is and with increasing success. I wish him well. Nevertheless, it does not make any difference to me and to anything I hold dear whether he is a fraud or not. He will succeed or fail based on his own efforts. I'm much more interested in the fraud the financial industry applies to the housing market. Ed On Jun 21, 2013, at 11:47 AM, John Milstone wrote: Nice attempt by Benne, Storms (I'm surprised that he piled on), and Roberson to deflect the issue. There is still the issue that Rossi has a supposedly dead phase on his 3-phase power cabling, and that that additional wire, if it were actually live (as per the wiring gimmick in question), would have provided exactly the amount of power allegedly being generated by the E-Cat (conveniently hidden inside of a furnace out of sight of the IR camera). Regarding your specific rant, attempting to discredit hot fusion (or other branches of conventional physics) does nothing to enhance LENR. John From: David Roberson dlrober...@aol.com To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Friday, June 21, 2013 1:21 PM Subject: Re: [Vo]: About the March test I agree Ed. Both you and Jones have stated the situation eloquently and I hope that John gives considerable thought to what has been said. I suppose that one reason that any current modern physics determination can be overturned by a knowledgeable skeptic is that they all are the current ideas which one day will be replaced by updated ones. This is scientific progress as it should be. For example, Newton's old laws were assumed perfect at the time, but Einstein came along and improved them with his breakthroughs. So, now Rossi has his device under scrutiny by the skeptics who can always find some reason to complain. Most if not all of the reasons thus far suggested are invalid, but the skeptics seem to keep themselves occupied. This is their job and they would not know how to behave otherwise so I guess we have to cut them some slack. I would be concerned if what they spread throughout the Internet were able to delay the solution to many of the needs of mankind. Dave -Original Message- From: Edmund Storms stor...@ix.netcom.com To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Cc: Edmund Storms stor...@ix.netcom.com Sent: Fri, Jun 21, 2013 12:56 pm Subject: Re: [Vo]: About the March test Well said, JONES!!! This is exactly the situation. Physics has sold the governments of the world on spending money for research that has practically no value. This use of money limits what else can be explored and greatly distorts what can be discovered. LENR has been rejected and held to a very high standard simply because it threatens this spending, as you so clearly state. When LENR is finally applied at a level that even an idiot will have to accept, the physics community will have to explain why this acceptance took so long when so much evidence was available and when the need for the energy was so great. Careful evaluation and rational skepticism is important but rational limits must be applied because EVERYTHING believed by science can be rejected by a determined skeptic. We would still be in the Dark Ages if rational limits to skepticism had not been agreed to and applied in science. Why is so hard to do now with LENR? Ed On Jun 21, 2013, at 10:42 AM, Jones Beene wrote: From: John Milstone For starters, CERN isn't selling franchises to the Higgs Boson. CERN doesn't rely on secret customers and secret experts to validate their work. Etc, etc. This is complete bull crap ! Big Science is doing much worse than that. But more so with regard to ITER or NOVA or Hot Fusion or other Big Science projects that are threatened by LENR than with CERN. The physics establishment is essentially selling franchises
Re: [Vo]: About the March test
David Roberson dlrober...@aol.com wrote: Read what Jed says about your misrepresentation of the facts. He is not misrepresenting facts! He does not believe what the authors say. He thinks they looked for insulated wires and did not check under the insulation, and he thinks they let Rossi attach the voltage probes and they did not glance at the wires to be sure the probes were firmly attached to the right place, with no other wires (insulated or bare) leading into the control box. That is what Milstone is saying, as far as I can tell. He has a right to his opinion. I hope I have not misrepresented it here. I assume that when the authors refer to cables they mean bare wires. I assume when they say they attached the probes and they checked, they mean it. Either he is correct, and his record is excellent, or you are and I choose to believe what he states with his backup documentation. This is a matter of interpretation, not personal credibility. I read the authors one way; he reads them another. I assume that cable means wire because I am used to people who speak English as a second language. (VERY used to one in particular.) I should mention that I have communicated with them. Mainly as a copy editor. I sent them a number of trivial corrections to the English and the formatting in the paper, which they made in Ver. 3. (Such as correcting one number from the European style decimal to the British-American style, with a period.) During the course of this communication I learned a few things not published, such as the fact that they calibrated the thermocouple with ice slurry and boiling water. That's the standard technique. You say that the testers did not have access to the wires, can you verify that? You state that the equipment was chosen and brought by Rossi and his agents. Can you prove that? I don't think he said that, but anyway, if he believes it that's his business. The authors said repeatedly they supplied the instruments. Ah, but there is a catch! Many skeptics believe that Levi is Rossi's agent. Some of them say that I am. So that puts everyone in cahoots with Rossi. (On that subject, Andrea owes my my monthly $100,000 bribe. Here I am all set to go to the gaming tables at Monte Carlo and he not delivered the briefcase full of cash. I am thinking of blowing the lid off this whole business.) Both sides in the same wirethat is funny. I guess both sides are connected to the same pin of the three phase socket as well. You need to patent that. Another skeptical miracle, like a million IR cameras out there that do not work for reasons known only to Shanahan. - Jed
RE: [Vo]:Electric (LENR) airplane
Jones, I wasn't suggesting this is anywhere close, but then neither is the electric powered version. We don't know enough about it to start a design, but consider Defkalion claim a much higher COP and to be able to switch it on and off. If heat is required, some aviation fuel could be burnt to supply it. Possibly some hybrid design, burning fuel to get added thrust for take off and then having LENR provide the cruise power. This is pre Wright Bros days for development but if LENR is what we currently think it is, it would be surprising if the control problems were not solved. The point is, a full load of fuel for a 747 can be 126,000 lb. Probably limited more by space than weight.
[Vo]:In academic papers the passive voice is used
John Milstone john_sw_orla...@yahoo.com wrote: And the statement The three-phase power cables were checked and connected directly to the electrical outlet. doesn't address who connected the wires directly to the electrical outlet, or when it happened. Ah. You misunderstand. This is the academic use of passive voice. In a scientific paper, where it says: The three-phase power cables were checked and connected directly to the electrical outlet. In plain English we would say: We checked the three-phase power cables and we connected them directly to the electrical outlet. They would not say this if they themselves had not done it. If Rossi had done it, they would have said he did. You never report someone else's action as your own in a scientific paper. You want it to mean that the testers did this themselves at the time of the test. . . I don't want it to mean that; I know it means that. 'Cause I have read and edited hundreds of scientific papers and computer manuals and other boring technical documents for 40 years. You have to learn to read scientific papers. Also you have to get used to people from other countries who call wires cables. - Jed
RE: [Vo]: About the March test
Speaking of the next Rossi testing, there is a village in North Carolina, you probably know the one nearby - which may well be the new home of the big blue box - which was shipped out of Italy recently. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mayodan,_North_Carolina . and which is fairly close to Greensboro and also to Mayberry - aka Mt. Airy This is a wild guess, based on a reliable rumor that appeared in 2011 and an updated tip from Barney. If the rumor is not true then Nip it! Nip it in the bud! http://ecatplants.com/e-cat/mayodan-nc-%E2%80%93-the-destination-of-e-cat-pl ants Heck, if Terry makes the drive up from Hotlanta and AR is nowhere to be found, maybe Thelma Lou will know where he disappeared to.
Re: [Vo]: About the March test
David Roberson dlrober...@aol.com wrote: Every line had a current probe surrounding it. Are you back to DC power sneaking in? I believe that is Milstone's hypothesis. Let me explain to John Milstone that we discussed this DC power issue here previously. I think the electrical engineers here agree that is ruled out. I doubt that anyone will bother to respond to you about this now. Not because people here are rude, but because we have been over that ground already. You could look this up in older messages I guess, but it would be hard to locate. Alan Fletcher may be able to direct you to a Spice simulation he is working that addresses this and other electrical engineering issues. Fletcher is also working on Spice thermal simulation that will tell us how hot the thing gets, which is what I really want to know. Also, I think Mizuno wants to know. It turns out he is noodling around with this system, he just told me. I hope we can present some of his data at ICCF18. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:Electric (LENR) airplane
On Fri, Jun 21, 2013 at 12:03 PM, Jones Beene jone...@pacbell.net wrote: It is not a great leap of the imagination to suggest that the present HotCat is not far away from what is needed for the first LENR airplane... can we call it the CatBird? lol and the first LENR boat will be called the Catfish... http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sWjDbU4KT2M harry
[Vo]:Interesting comments by Shanahan at Forbes
I do not want to drag in dirty laundry from other forums, but here is an interesting summary of Shanahan's views, from Forbes. I do not think he wants to participate here, so I'll copy this message, and my response. In the following intro I am NOT denigrating Shanahan. It may sound like it, but I am not. This discussion illustrates a profound, fundamental difference between him and me. He believes in looking for errors by thinking or theorizing, whereas I believe in looking for them by hands-on tests. By calibrating, and comparing instrument readings. I distrust theory. Shanahan distrusts direct observations and hands-on techniques. He suspects that IR cameras do not function the way the manufacturers' claim. He wants to get back to first principles and prove to himself that the IR camera is or is not working, whereas once I see that it agrees with the thermocouple, I couldn't care less about the theory of operation. If the thing shows the right temperature it could be working by magic pixies for all I care. Both approaches have their strengths and weaknesses. This difference goes back centuries to the philosophies of France and England, specifically Descartes versus Francis Bacon, and later to the British empirical philosophies of Hume, Locke and Berkeley. Even today, you will see that French philosophy, engineering, social planning and so on tends toward idealism (in the technical sense) while British methods tend to empiricism and pragmatism. You can see expression of this in things like the design of the London Underground (subway) and the Paris subway. In the U.S. our subway systems resemble those of England because our intellectual traditions are British. - Jed - Kirk Shanahan http://blogs.forbes.com/people/kirkshanahan/4 hours ago For those who are following this debate, Jed, the King of Misdirection, is at it again. He says he wants to summarize my position, but actually summarizes his strawmen and mischaracterizations. What I have said, in summary is: - The temperature measurement device used is rarely used for absolute temperature determination such as is used in calorimetry (because…(see following)) - The likelihood that the Ecat is a perfect Planck radiator is small (we know this from the pictures) - The power computation used is based on Planck’s blackbody equation - Thus the power computation has some error implicit in it, which needs to be defined - You need the Ecat spectral radiance curve to do that - Because the Ecat is probably not a perfect Planck blackbody, the temperatures determined from the camera are probably not absolutely correct - Additionally, the geometry of the Ecat-camera setup does not fit a point-source radiator, which is what the Planck-derived power equation assumes, i.e. another implicit error - The paper reports some comparison to a thermocouple was done, but summarizes it down to a single number. This is not acceptable practice for a paper that supposedly will revolutionize physics as we know it Also - Levi used 723K in his power computation while reporting 709-711K depending on how he divvied up the viewed area, which produces a 100W error in radiated output power which needs to be explained - The convective power term depends on the temp too, so it will be wrong too if the T is off - Without having examined it in detail, I suspect the convective power calculation may have as many built in, unmet assumptions as the radiative computation Please look over what I said and compare to what Jed says I said, and then decide if you can trust Jed to give you the straight scoop… - [image: jedrothwell] http://blogs.forbes.com/people/jedrothwell/ jedrothwell http://blogs.forbes.com/people/jedrothwell/1 hour ago Shanahan wrote: “- Thus the power computation has some error implicit in it, which needs to be defined.” No, the error needs to be measured. It was measured, by comparing the temperature detected with a thermocouple to the temperature detected with the IR camera. They were the same to within 2 deg C. They remained the same throughout the test. There is no chance that both instruments were wrong and yet they both showed the same temperature. Therefore all of this verbiage from Shanahan is nonsense. You do not compute errors. You do not wave your hand and theorize that there might be errors. You check for them. You calibrate your instruments. By the way, they also calibrated the thermocouple with ice slurry and boiling water, which is the standard technique. Despite what Shanahan believes, IR cameras in the hands of experts do work according to the manufacturers’ specifications. These seven experts followed instructions, measuring emissivity and comparing the output to another instrument. They did everything by the book. There are no better methods or methods of calibrating or cross-checking
Re: [Vo]:Interesting comments by Shanahan at Forbes
Shanahan also has some rather prissy academic standards that I do not share, as shown here: The paper reports some comparison to a thermocouple was done, but summarizes it down to a single number. This is not acceptable practice for a paper that supposedly will revolutionize physics as we know it. That is telling. In this case a single number *does* represent the entire data set. It is not a summary; it is full resolution loss-free data compression. You add 2 deg C to the IR camera data points and Presto! you get the thermocouple readings. From Table 3, you could say: IR CAMERA, THERMOCOUPLE 641.6 K, ~644 K 670.7 K, ~673 K 644.5 K, ~647 K 546.0 K, ~548 K . . . That's tedious. It is more elegant to say: take the values from column A, round off, and add 2 to each one. That is what the authors said, and what they meant. I do not understand why Shanahan feels it would be more scientific in some sense to expand the tables and graphs to include all of the thermocouple data when we know the two data sets lie right on top of one another, with a 2 deg C offset. I don't see what this has to do with whether the paper will revolutionize physics. An important paper should have loads of extraneous data?! I am a programmer. If I can reduce data to single number with no loss of resolution, I *love* it! I am thrilled. We programmers live for things like that, especially those of us from the era of 4 kB RAM memory. - Jed
Re: [Vo]: About the March test
From: Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com Sent: Friday, June 21, 2013 2:19:11 PM Let me explain to John Milstone that we discussed this DC power issue here previously. I think the electrical engineers here agree that is ruled out. I doubt that anyone will bother to respond to you about this now. Not because people here are rude, but because we have been over that ground already. Alan Fletcher may be able to direct you to a Spice simulation he is working that addresses this and other electrical engineering issues. As a side-model to the thermal simulation I have an electrical model of the control box --- inputting a sine wave into a variac, and applying a dimmer and a duty-cycle waveform --- I then look at the power in the resistor, and use that to input heat into the thermal model. A 50hz ripple won't even show in the noise. I do NOT plan to add DC to the model. Also, remember that some (most?) Vorticians regard Rossi's experiments as incremental -- for instance, the Penon report which first used the radiative calorimetry. I in particular take many of Rossi's statements seriously. (Given that he's prone to some exaggeration and thinking ahead much further than he's actually reached. On that front, expect a steam turbine announcement pretty soon. ) Remember when the Swedish Lab Expert walked away in disgust because Rossi wasn't using a True RMS meter? Rossi said that he repeated the test with a Variac, not the usual Triac controller. You can't get DC through a Variac!! (Of course, you can say he's lying.) So now you (John) imply that he must have used the DC fake for Penon and the Swedes, and then had to switch to some OTHER fake for the Variac, then back to DC for Levi .. Fletcher is also working on Spice thermal simulation that will tell us how hot the thing gets, which is what I really want to know. Also, I think Mizuno wants to know. It turns out he is noodling around with this system, he just told me. I hope we can present some of his data at ICCF18. I'm getting near to a calibrated version (I currently have a bug which says 1+1=3). Of course, nothing is described completely in the reports. Penon gives outside diameter and mass, but no inner diameter. Levi gives inner and outer diameters, but no mass
Re: [Vo]: About the March test
I live fairly close to this area. Perhaps I can check it out when more information is available. It would be less than 100 miles from my home. Dave -Original Message- From: Jones Beene jone...@pacbell.net To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Fri, Jun 21, 2013 4:41 pm Subject: RE: [Vo]: About the March test Speaking of the next Rossitesting, there is a village in North Carolina, you probably know the one nearby- which may well be the new home of the big blue box – which was shippedout of Italy recently. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mayodan,_North_Carolina … and which isfairly close to Greensboro and also to “Mayberry” – aka Mt.Airy This is a wild guess,based on a reliable rumor that appeared in 2011 and an updated tip fromBarney. If the rumor is not true then Nip it! Nip it in thebud! http://ecatplants.com/e-cat/mayodan-nc-%E2%80%93-the-destination-of-e-cat-plants Heck, if Terry makes thedrive up from Hotlanta and AR is nowhere to be found, maybe Thelma Lou will knowwhere he disappeared to…
[Vo]:Science Book States No Cold Fusion Replication
I was visiting my daughter this afternoon. She is going to teach science this year in the local middle school and found an article about cold fusion near the beginning of the book. It was speaking about how science operates and used cold fusion as an example of how you must have replication in order to have a sound basis. They stated that cold fusion has not been replicated and was therefore not valid science. This is what they are teaching the young kids in school and it ** me off. This type of horse manure needs to be nipped in the bud. Dave
[Vo]:Passive High Temperature Convective Thermal Control
Systems like the LFTR have passive high temperature thermal control based on thermal expansion of a near-critical mass density. As the temperature increases, thermal expansion produces a rapid drop in power production thereby stabilizing the reactor core. Systems like the E-Cat HT are solid state and, in any event, are not dependent on critical mass density, but another approach to utilization of thermal expansion might work: Thermal Convection To make thermal convection work, passive (free) convective forces must be large enough to move enough thermal capacity past the power source and must be in a regime where the rate of cooling exceeds the power production at the target temperature. The 3 variables one has to play with to reach the target temperature are material thermal properties, power density of the E-Cat and g forces. Of these three, only g forces and power density are amenable to continuous alteration via centrifugation and reactor fabrication respectively. In my ultracentrifugal rocket engine patent, the g-forces are so enormous that enormous fluid flow, hence enormous thermal capacity flow enables relatively small heat exchange surfaces to cool the engine. A material that might be worthwhile analyzing in this regard is NaCl (sodium chloride) with a melting point near the high end of the E-Cat HT, and a heat capacity comparable to that of H2O. It is problematic to run molten NaCl in an ultracentrifuge due to material strength limits as they detemper at high temperature. On the other hand, power density might be reduced to the point that the heat capacity flow rate, even under only 1-g, might be sufficient. Clearly some arithmetic needs to be done here.
Re: [Vo]:Science Book States No Cold Fusion Replication
Sometimes Vorticians posts looks coming from a 12 step meeting. 2013/6/21 David Roberson dlrober...@aol.com I was visiting my daughter this afternoon. She is going to teach science this year in the local middle school and found an article about cold fusion near the beginning of the book. It was speaking about how science operates and used cold fusion as an example of how you must have replication in order to have a sound basis. They stated that cold fusion has not been replicated and was therefore not valid science. This is what they are teaching the young kids in school and it ** me off. This type of horse manure needs to be nipped in the bud. Dave -- Daniel Rocha - RJ danieldi...@gmail.com
Re: [Vo]:Science Book States No Cold Fusion Replication
Dave, Do you have the author or publisher of the textbook? Science teachers review science books for the classroom. This reflects a widespread deference to authority, without questioning the assumptions or thinking for oneself. It's too much work to edit your syllabus, not to mention change a set of exercises, so don't expect to buck the mythology of what one is required to know a true. Politicians now decide that. Ruby On 6/21/13 5:12 PM, David Roberson wrote: It was speaking about how science operates and used cold fusion as an example of how you must have replication in order to have a sound basis. They stated that cold fusion has not been replicated and was therefore not valid science. -- Ruby Carat r...@coldfusionnow.org mailto:r...@coldfusionnow.org Skype ruby-carat www.coldfusionnow.org http://www.coldfusionnow.org
Re: [Vo]:Passive High Temperature Convective Thermal Control
*A *lithium heat pipe provides enough thermal capacity and power transfer density than you could ever want or need. Gravity is not a factor. The heat transfer can be controlled by a temperature regulation of the liquid lithium return flow. More flow results in more cooling through heat transfer through phase change from liquid to vapor. This phase change mechanism is 1000 more powerful than convection cooling. ** * * * * On Fri, Jun 21, 2013 at 8:42 PM, James Bowery jabow...@gmail.com wrote: Systems like the LFTR have passive high temperature thermal control based on thermal expansion of a near-critical mass density. As the temperature increases, thermal expansion produces a rapid drop in power production thereby stabilizing the reactor core. Systems like the E-Cat HT are solid state and, in any event, are not dependent on critical mass density, but another approach to utilization of thermal expansion might work: Thermal Convection To make thermal convection work, passive (free) convective forces must be large enough to move enough thermal capacity past the power source and must be in a regime where the rate of cooling exceeds the power production at the target temperature. The 3 variables one has to play with to reach the target temperature are material thermal properties, power density of the E-Cat and g forces. Of these three, only g forces and power density are amenable to continuous alteration via centrifugation and reactor fabrication respectively. In my ultracentrifugal rocket engine patent, the g-forces are so enormous that enormous fluid flow, hence enormous thermal capacity flow enables relatively small heat exchange surfaces to cool the engine. A material that might be worthwhile analyzing in this regard is NaCl (sodium chloride) with a melting point near the high end of the E-Cat HT, and a heat capacity comparable to that of H2O. It is problematic to run molten NaCl in an ultracentrifuge due to material strength limits as they detemper at high temperature. On the other hand, power density might be reduced to the point that the heat capacity flow rate, even under only 1-g, might be sufficient. Clearly some arithmetic needs to be done here.
Re: [Vo]: About the March test
I've been following the endless arguments about how the tests could have been rigged and it seems like every theory has been repeated over and over again but no one who claims it's a fraud seems to be willing to admit they just don't know even though they have no actual evidence of fraud and can't prove anything. I'd be interested in seeing a breakdown of the criticisms and the arguments for and against as a sort of FAQ to add to the test results. [mg] On Fri, Jun 21, 2013 at 4:56 PM, David Roberson dlrober...@aol.com wrote: I live fairly close to this area. Perhaps I can check it out when more information is available. It would be less than 100 miles from my home. Dave -Original Message- From: Jones Beene jone...@pacbell.net To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Fri, Jun 21, 2013 4:41 pm Subject: RE: [Vo]: About the March test Speaking of the next Rossi testing, there is a village in North Carolina, you probably know the one nearby - which may well be the new home of the big blue box – which was shipped out of Italy recently. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mayodan,_North_Carolina … and which is fairly close to Greensboro and also to “Mayberry” – aka Mt. Airy This is a wild guess, based on a reliable rumor that appeared in 2011 and an updated tip from Barney. If the rumor is not true then Nip it! Nip it in the bud! http://ecatplants.com/e-cat/mayodan-nc-%E2%80%93-the-destination-of-e-cat-plants Heck, if Terry makes the drive up from Hotlanta and AR is nowhere to be found, maybe Thelma Lou will know where he disappeared to…
Re: [Vo]:Passive High Temperature Convective Thermal Control
That sounds like a good material for Rossi to experiment with for active cooling. He might be able to reverse the thermal run away process while operating much closer to the limit of his ECAT thermal capacity. Do you know the temperature at which that these devices typically operate? Dave -Original Message- From: Axil Axil janap...@gmail.com To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Fri, Jun 21, 2013 9:03 pm Subject: Re: [Vo]:Passive High Temperature Convective Thermal Control A lithiumheat pipe providesenough thermal capacity and power transfer density than you could ever want or need. Gravityis not a factor. The heat transfercan be controlled by a temperature regulation of the liquid lithium returnflow. More flow results in more cooling through heat transfer through phasechange from liquid to vapor. This phase change mechanism is 1000 more powerful than convection cooling. On Fri, Jun 21, 2013 at 8:42 PM, James Bowery jabow...@gmail.com wrote: Systems like the LFTR have passive high temperature thermal control based on thermal expansion of a near-critical mass density. As the temperature increases, thermal expansion produces a rapid drop in power production thereby stabilizing the reactor core. Systems like the E-Cat HT are solid state and, in any event, are not dependent on critical mass density, but another approach to utilization of thermal expansion might work: Thermal Convection To make thermal convection work, passive (free) convective forces must be large enough to move enough thermal capacity past the power source and must be in a regime where the rate of cooling exceeds the power production at the target temperature. The 3 variables one has to play with to reach the target temperature are material thermal properties, power density of the E-Cat and g forces. Of these three, only g forces and power density are amenable to continuous alteration via centrifugation and reactor fabrication respectively. In my ultracentrifugal rocket engine patent, the g-forces are so enormous that enormous fluid flow, hence enormous thermal capacity flow enables relatively small heat exchange surfaces to cool the engine. A material that might be worthwhile analyzing in this regard is NaCl (sodium chloride) with a melting point near the high end of the E-Cat HT, and a heat capacity comparable to that of H2O. It is problematic to run molten NaCl in an ultracentrifuge due to material strength limits as they detemper at high temperature. On the other hand, power density might be reduced to the point that the heat capacity flow rate, even under only 1-g, might be sufficient. Clearly some arithmetic needs to be done here.
Re: [Vo]: About the March test
Hi, On 21-6-2013 21:49, John Milstone wrote: Again, it's clear from the full description that they were looking for additional WIRES. There is nothing about checking what was IN the wires. Just to borrow a phrase from Jones: This is complete bull crap ! It seems you are completely clueless about how wires are manufactured. The manufacturing process does NOT allow for hidden wires to be included. For some enlighting information see this video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o6m1Uii5v2I Kind regards, Rob
Re: [Vo]:Science Book States No Cold Fusion Replication
Holt McDougal is listed below the title, Virginia Science Fusion is the name of book. These two names are on the front cover of the book. Houghton, Mifflin, Harcourt publishing company 2013 copyright. NEWS weekly special addition 1989 Fusion or fiction was this experiment flawed? This was on the front page of the News special along with: Why can't results be replicated? Below the picture of the NEWS weekly front page was a brief description of the report about the 1989 announcement. Baah! Dave -Original Message- From: Ruby r...@hush.com To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Fri, Jun 21, 2013 8:58 pm Subject: Re: [Vo]:Science Book States No Cold Fusion Replication Dave, Do you have the author or publisher of the textbook? Science teachers review science books for the classroom. This reflects a widespread deference to authority, without questioning the assumptions or thinking for oneself. It's too much work to edit your syllabus, not to mention change a set of exercises, so don't expect to buck the mythology of what one is required to know a true. Politicians now decide that. Ruby On 6/21/13 5:12 PM, David Roberson wrote: It was speaking about how science operates and used cold fusion as an example of how you must have replication in order to have a sound basis. They stated that cold fusion has not been replicated and was therefore not valid science. -- Ruby Carat r...@coldfusionnow.org Skype ruby-carat www.coldfusionnow.org
Re: [Vo]:Passive High Temperature Convective Thermal Control
http://www.lanl.gov/science/NSS/issue1_2011/story6full.shtml 500C On Fri, Jun 21, 2013 at 9:15 PM, David Roberson dlrober...@aol.com wrote: That sounds like a good material for Rossi to experiment with for active cooling. He might be able to reverse the thermal run away process while operating much closer to the limit of his ECAT thermal capacity. Do you know the temperature at which that these devices typically operate? Dave -Original Message- From: Axil Axil janap...@gmail.com To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Fri, Jun 21, 2013 9:03 pm Subject: Re: [Vo]:Passive High Temperature Convective Thermal Control *A *lithium heat pipe provides enough thermal capacity and power transfer density than you could ever want or need. Gravity is not a factor. The heat transfer can be controlled by a temperature regulation of the liquid lithium return flow. More flow results in more cooling through heat transfer through phase change from liquid to vapor. This phase change mechanism is 1000 more powerful than convection cooling. ** * * * * On Fri, Jun 21, 2013 at 8:42 PM, James Bowery jabow...@gmail.com wrote: Systems like the LFTR have passive high temperature thermal control based on thermal expansion of a near-critical mass density. As the temperature increases, thermal expansion produces a rapid drop in power production thereby stabilizing the reactor core. Systems like the E-Cat HT are solid state and, in any event, are not dependent on critical mass density, but another approach to utilization of thermal expansion might work: Thermal Convection To make thermal convection work, passive (free) convective forces must be large enough to move enough thermal capacity past the power source and must be in a regime where the rate of cooling exceeds the power production at the target temperature. The 3 variables one has to play with to reach the target temperature are material thermal properties, power density of the E-Cat and g forces. Of these three, only g forces and power density are amenable to continuous alteration via centrifugation and reactor fabrication respectively. In my ultracentrifugal rocket engine patent, the g-forces are so enormous that enormous fluid flow, hence enormous thermal capacity flow enables relatively small heat exchange surfaces to cool the engine. A material that might be worthwhile analyzing in this regard is NaCl (sodium chloride) with a melting point near the high end of the E-Cat HT, and a heat capacity comparable to that of H2O. It is problematic to run molten NaCl in an ultracentrifuge due to material strength limits as they detemper at high temperature. On the other hand, power density might be reduced to the point that the heat capacity flow rate, even under only 1-g, might be sufficient. Clearly some arithmetic needs to be done here.
Re: [Vo]: About the March test
Mark, you have it pretty well summed up. No one has any evidence of fraud and every piece of evidence that I have seen supports the conclusions of the testers. Dave -Original Message- From: Mark Gibbs mgi...@gibbs.com To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Fri, Jun 21, 2013 9:15 pm Subject: Re: [Vo]: About the March test I've been following the endless arguments about how the tests could have been rigged and it seems like every theory has been repeated over and over again but no one who claims it's a fraud seems to be willing to admit they just don't know even though they have no actual evidence of fraud and can't prove anything. I'd be interested in seeing a breakdown of the criticisms and the arguments for and against as a sort of FAQ to add to the test results. [mg] On Fri, Jun 21, 2013 at 4:56 PM, David Roberson dlrober...@aol.com wrote: I live fairly close to this area. Perhaps I can check it out when more information is available. It would be less than 100 miles from my home. Dave -Original Message- From: Jones Beene jone...@pacbell.net To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Fri, Jun 21, 2013 4:41 pm Subject: RE: [Vo]: About the March test Speaking of the next Rossitesting, there is a village in North Carolina, you probably know the one nearby- which may well be the new home of the big blue box – which was shippedout of Italy recently. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mayodan,_North_Carolina … and which isfairly close to Greensboro and also to “Mayberry” – aka Mt.Airy This is a wild guess,based on a reliable rumor that appeared in 2011 and an updated tip fromBarney. If the rumor is not true then Nip it! Nip it in thebud! http://ecatplants.com/e-cat/mayodan-nc-%E2%80%93-the-destination-of-e-cat-plants Heck, if Terry makes thedrive up from Hotlanta and AR is nowhere to be found, maybe Thelma Lou will knowwhere he disappeared to…
Re: [Vo]:Science Book States No Cold Fusion Replication
Well, Dave, it depends on whether you are willing to sacrifice her grades for the truth. Back in 1978, I took an epistemology class and chose to write my paper on Tesla. I read several books on him and wrote a paper which this forum would consider conservative. My prof considered NT to be a wacko and gave my great paper a C minus which counted as half the grade. I was incensed; but, today feel consoled in that I bought Tesla Motors at 17 and it is trading at 100. The truth outs! :)
[Vo]:OT: Way out there! Simon Parks government officieal UFO /Alien encounters
It's the weekend! Time for a brief break! For all those Vorts who might be interested in some OT far out stuff. Simon Parks, a British town counsel, who apparently went public back in 2010 about his on-going intimate alien encounters is getting some CNN.com coverage today. Not surprisingly the entire subject is being discussed at cnn.com as entertaining fodder. I decided to dig a little deeper, as Google is your friend! I found two YouTube files, and audio recording that seems informative. It's an actual interview with the individual - about 139 minutes in length. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bzB6Zth2wm0 And another video, about an hour long http://metro.co.uk/2012/03/26/town-councillor-simon-parkes-my-mum-was-a-9ft- green-alien-365412/ At present I make no judgment calls on the matter. I had never heard about the Simon Parks story till I saw the short clip on cnn.com. I'll only add that over the many years that I've gone to UFO meetings I've met many individuals who claim to have had CE4K encounters. In my experience such individual seem to fall into two categories. Category 1: Within 30 seconds it becomes obviously clear that they are certifiable. Fortunately, mostly harmless. Category 2: They seem just as normal, perceptive, and rational as you or me. Simon strikes me as belonging n category #2. Make up your own mind! ;-) Regards, Steven Vincent Johnson svjart.OrionWorks.com www.zazzle.com/orionworks tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/newvortex/
[Vo]:A partial list of skeptical objections to Levi et al. in Forbes
Mark Gibbs mgi...@gibbs.com wrote: I've been following the endless arguments about how the tests could have been rigged and it seems like every theory has been repeated over and over again . . . I have not gone through the arguments but as far as I can tell, only two have been proposed: 1. The so-called cheese idea. As I have pointed out, they would discover this when they go to measure voltage. 2. Shanahan's theory that IR cameras do not work, even when you confirm them with thermocouples. The other objections I have noted were not objections at all. They were meaningless. For example, Mary Yugo said that one of the tests was invalid because the reactor was already running when the researchers arrived. So what? That cannot affect the result. Think about the Pu-238 reactor on the Curiosity mars explorer. It was hot from the moment the isotope was separated. The half life is 88 year so it will be palpably hot for hundreds of years, and measurably hot for thousands of years. You cannot turn off this nuclear reaction. But that does not prevent you from measuring the power of the reactor. You start at time X and go to time Y. The fact that the reactor was running before X and continued to run after Y has no impact on your measurement. If anything, this bolsters the evidence that the reactor is not a battery and it has no stored chemical fuel. Another meaningless objection is to the use of 3-phase electricity. It is not harder to measure, and the 2 extra wires are not a rat's nest. A third example would be Milstone's demand that we separately measure the heat from electricity and the anomalous reaction. That is physically impossible. Heat all flows together throughout a reactor. As I tried to explain to him, the only way you can separate two heat sources is when you can measure exactly how big one of them is. Fortunately, in this case, we can. There are several experiments such as Arata's where heat comes from multiple sources including chemical reactions and cold fusion. There is no way to separate them, except by guesswork. That is a serious deficiency. There are also strange, unfounded notions, such as Mary Yugo's assertion that the temperature at the core of the reactor should be 2 times or 6 times higher than the heater envelope because the core produces 2 to 6 times the heat of the electric heater. It doesn't work that way. The vessels are made of metal which conducts heat easily, so the heat quickly flows from one to the other. Anyway the temperature does not start at zero so you would not see 6 times higher numbers. If you had two reactors side by side, insulated from one another, all else being equal the difference between ambient and the reactor core temperature would be proportional to the difference in power . . . but that is a whole different situation. There were a whole bunch of factually correct objections that are not problems at all but rather advantages that should bolster confidence. Levi et al. deliberately underestimated, going to conservative extremes. Several skeptics pointed these underestimations if they were problems, and as if Levi did not notice them. For example, they said the surface area of the reactor was underestimated because it was treated as a flat plain rather than a cylinder. Yes, we know. The authors pointed this out. No, this does not affect the conclusion. There were a few backward assertions. That is, statements that are factually 180 degrees wrong, such as Mary Yugo's complaint that this method is excessively complicated. On the contrary it is the simplest method known to science, with the fewest instruments and only one physical principle, the Stefan-Boltzmann law. Other methods are more accurate or precise, but this is the simplest. Also the most reliable once you do some reality checks and calibrations. Then there is the unclassifiable weirdness such as Shanahan's demand that they publish all of the thermocouple data. The authors said the thermocouple tracked the IR camera the whole time, staying just about 2 deg C above it, for an obvious and mundane reason. Okay, so if you want to see that data set, go to Plot 1, Emitted thermal power vs time. Print that out, and draw another line smack on top of the first line. You would not see the 2 deg C difference on this scale. Shanahan refuses to believe the authors because they did not print a graph with two lines right on top of one another. That's hilarious, but it isn't science. but no one who claims it's a fraud seems to be willing to admit they just don't know even though they have no actual evidence of fraud and can't prove anything. The evidence for fraud they point to is in Rossi's personality and behavior. That cannot be subject to an investigation or to a rigorous analysis by us, because we are not police officers. For Mary Yugo that boils down to the statement I don't trust Rossi. I, Jed, don't trust him either in many ways, but I do trust IR cameras and wattmeters, and I am sure that Rossi
Re: [Vo]: About the March test
From: Mark Gibbs mgi...@gibbs.com Sent: Friday, June 21, 2013 6:15:18 PM Subject: Re: [Vo]: About the March test I'd be interested in seeing a breakdown of the criticisms and the arguments for and against as a sort of FAQ to add to the test results. I don't know if you ever looked at my fakes document (the lost post which never DID show up ...) http://lenr.qumbu.com/ The main fakes document is Proving the Rossi eCat is Real -- Version 4.30 (with index) http://lenr.qumbu.com/rossi_ecat_proof_frames_v430.php I tabulated every fake I came across. The index of Rossi tests is also useful Experiment Table http://lenr.qumbu.com/rossi_ecat_eai_table_v4.php
Re: [Vo]:A partial list of skeptical objections to Levi et al. in Forbes
While you might prefer the skeptics (actually, they are arguably pseudo-skeptics) to compile such a list until someone does and does it right they can keep bringing up the same objections over and over again. I'd suggest it is your opportunity to take the high-ground on objectivity ... My $0.02 [mg] On Fri, Jun 21, 2013 at 7:50 PM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com wrote: Mark Gibbs mgi...@gibbs.com wrote: I've been following the endless arguments about how the tests could have been rigged and it seems like every theory has been repeated over and over again . . . I have not gone through the arguments but as far as I can tell, only two have been proposed: 1. The so-called cheese idea. As I have pointed out, they would discover this when they go to measure voltage. 2. Shanahan's theory that IR cameras do not work, even when you confirm them with thermocouples. The other objections I have noted were not objections at all. They were meaningless. For example, Mary Yugo said that one of the tests was invalid because the reactor was already running when the researchers arrived. So what? That cannot affect the result. Think about the Pu-238 reactor on the Curiosity mars explorer. It was hot from the moment the isotope was separated. The half life is 88 year so it will be palpably hot for hundreds of years, and measurably hot for thousands of years. You cannot turn off this nuclear reaction. But that does not prevent you from measuring the power of the reactor. You start at time X and go to time Y. The fact that the reactor was running before X and continued to run after Y has no impact on your measurement. If anything, this bolsters the evidence that the reactor is not a battery and it has no stored chemical fuel. Another meaningless objection is to the use of 3-phase electricity. It is not harder to measure, and the 2 extra wires are not a rat's nest. A third example would be Milstone's demand that we separately measure the heat from electricity and the anomalous reaction. That is physically impossible. Heat all flows together throughout a reactor. As I tried to explain to him, the only way you can separate two heat sources is when you can measure exactly how big one of them is. Fortunately, in this case, we can. There are several experiments such as Arata's where heat comes from multiple sources including chemical reactions and cold fusion. There is no way to separate them, except by guesswork. That is a serious deficiency. There are also strange, unfounded notions, such as Mary Yugo's assertion that the temperature at the core of the reactor should be 2 times or 6 times higher than the heater envelope because the core produces 2 to 6 times the heat of the electric heater. It doesn't work that way. The vessels are made of metal which conducts heat easily, so the heat quickly flows from one to the other. Anyway the temperature does not start at zero so you would not see 6 times higher numbers. If you had two reactors side by side, insulated from one another, all else being equal the difference between ambient and the reactor core temperature would be proportional to the difference in power . . . but that is a whole different situation. There were a whole bunch of factually correct objections that are not problems at all but rather advantages that should bolster confidence. Levi et al. deliberately underestimated, going to conservative extremes. Several skeptics pointed these underestimations if they were problems, and as if Levi did not notice them. For example, they said the surface area of the reactor was underestimated because it was treated as a flat plain rather than a cylinder. Yes, we know. The authors pointed this out. No, this does not affect the conclusion. There were a few backward assertions. That is, statements that are factually 180 degrees wrong, such as Mary Yugo's complaint that this method is excessively complicated. On the contrary it is the simplest method known to science, with the fewest instruments and only one physical principle, the Stefan-Boltzmann law. Other methods are more accurate or precise, but this is the simplest. Also the most reliable once you do some reality checks and calibrations. Then there is the unclassifiable weirdness such as Shanahan's demand that they publish all of the thermocouple data. The authors said the thermocouple tracked the IR camera the whole time, staying just about 2 deg C above it, for an obvious and mundane reason. Okay, so if you want to see that data set, go to Plot 1, Emitted thermal power vs time. Print that out, and draw another line smack on top of the first line. You would not see the 2 deg C difference on this scale. Shanahan refuses to believe the authors because they did not print a graph with two lines right on top of one another. That's hilarious, but it isn't science. but no one who claims it's a fraud seems to be willing to admit they just don't know
Re: [Vo]: About the March test
I don't know if you ever looked at my fakes document (the lost post which never DID show up ...) Did you post that on Technobabble? I never saw anything like that ... only the two posts we discussed. [m]
Re: [Vo]:Passive High Temperature Convective Thermal Control
You sacrificed passive control without acknowledging that was the goal of my proposal. On Fri, Jun 21, 2013 at 8:03 PM, Axil Axil janap...@gmail.com wrote: *A *lithium heat pipe provides enough thermal capacity and power transfer density than you could ever want or need. Gravity is not a factor. The heat transfer can be controlled by a temperature regulation of the liquid lithium return flow. More flow results in more cooling through heat transfer through phase change from liquid to vapor. This phase change mechanism is 1000 more powerful than convection cooling. ** * * * * On Fri, Jun 21, 2013 at 8:42 PM, James Bowery jabow...@gmail.com wrote: Systems like the LFTR have passive high temperature thermal control based on thermal expansion of a near-critical mass density. As the temperature increases, thermal expansion produces a rapid drop in power production thereby stabilizing the reactor core. Systems like the E-Cat HT are solid state and, in any event, are not dependent on critical mass density, but another approach to utilization of thermal expansion might work: Thermal Convection To make thermal convection work, passive (free) convective forces must be large enough to move enough thermal capacity past the power source and must be in a regime where the rate of cooling exceeds the power production at the target temperature. The 3 variables one has to play with to reach the target temperature are material thermal properties, power density of the E-Cat and g forces. Of these three, only g forces and power density are amenable to continuous alteration via centrifugation and reactor fabrication respectively. In my ultracentrifugal rocket engine patent, the g-forces are so enormous that enormous fluid flow, hence enormous thermal capacity flow enables relatively small heat exchange surfaces to cool the engine. A material that might be worthwhile analyzing in this regard is NaCl (sodium chloride) with a melting point near the high end of the E-Cat HT, and a heat capacity comparable to that of H2O. It is problematic to run molten NaCl in an ultracentrifuge due to material strength limits as they detemper at high temperature. On the other hand, power density might be reduced to the point that the heat capacity flow rate, even under only 1-g, might be sufficient. Clearly some arithmetic needs to be done here.
Re: [Vo]:OT: Way out there! Simon Parks government officieal UFO /Alien encounters
The mere appearance of being normal doesn't mean someone is normal. [mg] On Fri, Jun 21, 2013 at 7:27 PM, OrionWorks - Steven Vincent Johnson orionwo...@charter.net wrote: It’s the weekend! Time for a brief break! ** ** For all those Vorts who might be interested in some OT far out stuff… ** ** Simon Parks, a British town counsel, who apparently went public back in 2010 about his on-going intimate alien encounters is getting some CNN.com coverage today. Not surprisingly the entire subject is being discussed at cnn.com as entertaining fodder. ** ** I decided to dig a little deeper, as Google is your friend! I found two YouTube files, and audio recording that seems informative. It’s an actual interview with the individual – about 139 minutes in length. ** ** http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bzB6Zth2wm0 ** ** And another video, about an hour long http://metro.co.uk/2012/03/26/town-councillor-simon-parkes-my-mum-was-a-9ft-green-alien-365412/ ** ** At present I make no judgment calls on the matter. I had never heard about the Simon Parks story till I saw the short clip on cnn.com. I’ll only add that over the many years that I’ve gone to UFO meetings I’ve met many individuals who claim to have had CE4K encounters. In my experience such individual seem to fall into two categories. ** ** Category 1: Within 30 seconds it becomes obviously clear that they are certifiable. Fortunately, mostly harmless. ** ** Category 2: They seem just as normal, perceptive, and rational as you or me. ** ** Simon strikes me as belonging n category #2. ** ** Make up your own mind! ;-) ** ** Regards, Steven Vincent Johnson svjart.OrionWorks.com www.zazzle.com/orionworks tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/newvortex/
Re: [Vo]:Passive High Temperature Convective Thermal Control
You must not be much of an engineer if you are so willing to blow off explicit mention of passive control, Axil. Do you have any engineering background in critical systems -- by which I mean systems that, if they fail, they kill people? I do and they didn't. On Fri, Jun 21, 2013 at 10:21 PM, James Bowery jabow...@gmail.com wrote: You sacrificed passive control without acknowledging that was the goal of my proposal. On Fri, Jun 21, 2013 at 8:03 PM, Axil Axil janap...@gmail.com wrote: *A *lithium heat pipe provides enough thermal capacity and power transfer density than you could ever want or need. Gravity is not a factor. The heat transfer can be controlled by a temperature regulation of the liquid lithium return flow. More flow results in more cooling through heat transfer through phase change from liquid to vapor. This phase change mechanism is 1000 more powerful than convection cooling. ** * * * * On Fri, Jun 21, 2013 at 8:42 PM, James Bowery jabow...@gmail.com wrote: Systems like the LFTR have passive high temperature thermal control based on thermal expansion of a near-critical mass density. As the temperature increases, thermal expansion produces a rapid drop in power production thereby stabilizing the reactor core. Systems like the E-Cat HT are solid state and, in any event, are not dependent on critical mass density, but another approach to utilization of thermal expansion might work: Thermal Convection To make thermal convection work, passive (free) convective forces must be large enough to move enough thermal capacity past the power source and must be in a regime where the rate of cooling exceeds the power production at the target temperature. The 3 variables one has to play with to reach the target temperature are material thermal properties, power density of the E-Cat and g forces. Of these three, only g forces and power density are amenable to continuous alteration via centrifugation and reactor fabrication respectively. In my ultracentrifugal rocket engine patent, the g-forces are so enormous that enormous fluid flow, hence enormous thermal capacity flow enables relatively small heat exchange surfaces to cool the engine. A material that might be worthwhile analyzing in this regard is NaCl (sodium chloride) with a melting point near the high end of the E-Cat HT, and a heat capacity comparable to that of H2O. It is problematic to run molten NaCl in an ultracentrifuge due to material strength limits as they detemper at high temperature. On the other hand, power density might be reduced to the point that the heat capacity flow rate, even under only 1-g, might be sufficient. Clearly some arithmetic needs to be done here.
Re: [Vo]:A partial list of skeptical objections to Levi et al. in Forbes
Mark Gibbs mgi...@gibbs.com wrote: While you might prefer the skeptics (actually, they are arguably pseudo-skeptics) to compile such a list until someone does and does it right they can keep bringing up the same objections over and over again. They will do that anyway. It isn't as if they are going to consult the list, and not say X or Y because it is already listed. After all, where would this list be published? Where would they find it? They will repeat objections also because they think the objections are valid, and have not been addressed. For example, many skeptics insist that a test is only valid if there is no input energy. This comes up again and again. I suppose they think it is impossible to eliminate the possibility of fraud from electric power measurements. Mary Yugo and many others will insist that a test can only be valid if it is conducted in another lab where Rossi is not present. They have a point. That would enhance credibility. Mats Lewan and I have urged Rossi to allow this. But I doubt it will happen anytime soon. I'd suggest it is your opportunity to take the high-ground on objectivity ... Well, the skeptics themselves do not all agree on all points. I think most of them concede than an IR camera checked against a thermocouple is right, but Shanahan does not concede that. Whereas he might concede that the input power measurement is right (I wouldn't know) but the others will not. So it would be quite a heterogeneous list, with all kinds of cats and dogs. No one would agree with all points, and most skeptics would not agree to the rebuttals I list; i.e. they do not agree you have to examine the bare wire to measure voltage. It is not up to me to untangle their ideas. It is hard enough trying to sort out the truth. Sorting out confusion may be impossible. I think I covered the major categories. I do not think I could tally up all the individual hypotheses. There are too many, too scattered about, and frankly most of them make no sense and cannot be characterized. How would you describe Shanahan's weird demand that the authors draw a line on top of another identical line? That's what it boils down to. The only full data set representation from the IR camera is in that graph. Maybe he wants them to provide a spreadsheet with all values? Who knows what he has in mind. He would have to specify a sane method. Maybe the job could be done if we limit objections to one set of comments made in response to one of your articles, rather than searching far afield into the batty parts of the Internet such as Wikipedia. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:A partial list of skeptical objections to Levi et al. in Forbes
On Fri, Jun 21, 2013 at 8:12 PM, Mark Gibbs mgi...@gibbs.com wrote: While you might prefer the skeptics (actually, they are arguably pseudo-skeptics) Personally, I prefer the term skeptical fringe over pseudo-skeptic, as it has an air of neutrality and is likely to be more irritating. Eric
RE: [Vo]:OT: Way out there! Simon Parks government officieal UFO /Alien encounters
Things sometimes seem far out to those in our society with closed minds. There are many strange things in the world - a lot of which cannot be explained by measurement, in a lab, or depending on whether a peer review has been conducted or not. Too many people see authority as the truth and not truth as the authority. From: mark.gi...@gmail.com [mailto:mark.gi...@gmail.com] On Behalf Of Mark Gibbs Sent: Saturday, 22 June 2013 1:27 PM To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: [Vo]:OT: Way out there! Simon Parks government officieal UFO /Alien encounters The mere appearance of being normal doesn't mean someone is normal. [mg] On Fri, Jun 21, 2013 at 7:27 PM, OrionWorks - Steven Vincent Johnson orionwo...@charter.net wrote: It's the weekend! Time for a brief break! For all those Vorts who might be interested in some OT far out stuff. Simon Parks, a British town counsel, who apparently went public back in 2010 about his on-going intimate alien encounters is getting some CNN.com coverage today. Not surprisingly the entire subject is being discussed at cnn.com as entertaining fodder. I decided to dig a little deeper, as Google is your friend! I found two YouTube files, and audio recording that seems informative. It's an actual interview with the individual - about 139 minutes in length. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bzB6Zth2wm0 And another video, about an hour long http://metro.co.uk/2012/03/26/town-councillor-simon-parkes-my-mum-was-a-9ft- green-alien-365412/ At present I make no judgment calls on the matter. I had never heard about the Simon Parks story till I saw the short clip on cnn.com. I'll only add that over the many years that I've gone to UFO meetings I've met many individuals who claim to have had CE4K encounters. In my experience such individual seem to fall into two categories. Category 1: Within 30 seconds it becomes obviously clear that they are certifiable. Fortunately, mostly harmless. Category 2: They seem just as normal, perceptive, and rational as you or me. Simon strikes me as belonging n category #2. Make up your own mind! ;-) Regards, Steven Vincent Johnson svjart.OrionWorks.com www.zazzle.com/orionworks tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/newvortex/
Re: [Vo]:Rossi and DGT Similarity?
On Fri, Jun 21, 2013 at 8:08 AM, David Roberson dlrober...@aol.com wrote: Ed's theory implies that the energy is being released in a series form where one photon after the next is radiated from the NAE and into the material. The other general type of operation suggests that an emission from a more or less entangled group of active components radiate the energy as a group in parallel. There is a third suggestion being floated -- there's a bursty release of a large amount of energy in small little packets, here and there in the substrate, like popcorn popping. The release of any nuclear reaction in this type of operation would not be incremental at the microscopic level -- it would be all at once (e.g., 24 MeV), and possibly collimated, but the release would be as kinetic energy and, as a side effect, bremsstrahlung, rather than gammas. At a macroscopic level, it would be more homogenous. Eric
[Vo]:Speaking of Active Control System
Positive Controlhttp://globalguerrillas.typepad.com/globalguerrillas/2013/06/positive-control-means-the-end-of-freedom.html When something is very dangerous, like nuclear weapons, standard forms of protections and control methodologies aren't sufficient. [image: Hardtack_Umbrella_nuke]http://globalguerrillas.typepad.com/.a/6a00d83451576d69e201901dadf09c970b-pi Something that potentially dangerous needs something more aggressive. In the military, that's called *positive control*. Positive control is an active form of control where the dangerous item is under 24x7x365 monitoring, checking, patrolling, testing, etc. ... read more at the link above They can't help themselves because they're too stupid to realize passive control is the only form of control that is robustly stable. They probably can't realize this because they can't even conceive of passive control systems -- sort of like the idiots who gave us civilian nuclear reactors derived from those designed for nuclear submarines can't conceive of why they're responsible for the failure to achieve even a tiny fraction of of atomic energy's peaceful potential.
Re: [Vo]: About the March test
From: Mark Gibbs mgi...@gibbs.com Sent: Friday, June 21, 2013 8:16:21 PM Did you post that on Technobabble? I never saw anything like that ... only the two posts we discussed. It was one of the two posts. It remained disappeared (lost, or stolen or strayed .. it seems to have been mislaid) so much time and babble had passed on that I didn't want to bother you again.
Re: [Vo]: About the March test
On Fri, Jun 21, 2013 at 8:22 AM, John Milstone john_sw_orla...@yahoo.comwrote: There are at least 9 or 10 problems with the report: In order to appreciate the report as being potentially interesting, one must assume good faith on the part of Rossi. If one assumes fraud or the likelihood of fraud, we are led down the path of the issues you raise. That gets to the purpose of the test and of the testers -- one presumes the test was not intended to sway people who assume bad faith on the part of Rossi. If it was intended for that, it is clear that it would have been quite ineffective. Instead, the test conducted under conditions that would not be sufficient to sway skeptics by a team that were funded by ELFORSK, a Swedish power research consortium. The credentials of the team were sufficient for ELFORSK, and ELFORSK also did not see the need to assume bad faith on the part of Rossi. I think many people are willing to extent him a similar benefit of the doubt, until such generosity becomes untenable. The only temperature measurements were of the OUTSIDE of the furnace which contained both the E-Cat and the conventional electric heaters, leaving no way to directly determine how much heat each was providing. Sometimes you can't separate input coming into the system from generated heat, so you use calorimetry to measure the input and then subtract it from the power out. This particular point is only an issue for those who assume bad faith or the likelihood of bad faith on Rossi's part. Eric
Re: [Vo]: About the March test
On Fri, Jun 21, 2013 at 9:56 AM, Edmund Storms stor...@ix.netcom.comwrote: When LENR is finally applied at a level that even an idiot will have to accept, the physics community will have to explain why this acceptance took so long when so much evidence was available and when the need for the energy was so great. Although that would be a satisfying ending, I bet it will be more like Galileo and the acceptance of the heliocentric solar system -- no doubt exciting at the time, but now a little bit anticlimactic. Eventually the typical person will read in Wikipedia about how there was a tiny little fuss about cold fusion a long time ago, and then they will turn on the television and curse the makers of the cold fusion generator for making you have to pay to refuel it once a year. Eric
Re: [Vo]:Passive High Temperature Convective Thermal Control
A passive thermostat that reduces the flow of lithium liquid in a heat pipe is what you were after. It uses the same passive expansion mechanism that is used in the LFTR. What is the problem? On Fri, Jun 21, 2013 at 11:26 PM, James Bowery jabow...@gmail.com wrote: You must not be much of an engineer if you are so willing to blow off explicit mention of passive control, Axil. Do you have any engineering background in critical systems -- by which I mean systems that, if they fail, they kill people? I do and they didn't. On Fri, Jun 21, 2013 at 10:21 PM, James Bowery jabow...@gmail.com wrote: You sacrificed passive control without acknowledging that was the goal of my proposal. On Fri, Jun 21, 2013 at 8:03 PM, Axil Axil janap...@gmail.com wrote: *A *lithium heat pipe provides enough thermal capacity and power transfer density than you could ever want or need. Gravity is not a factor. The heat transfer can be controlled by a temperature regulation of the liquid lithium return flow. More flow results in more cooling through heat transfer through phase change from liquid to vapor. This phase change mechanism is 1000 more powerful than convection cooling. ** * * * * On Fri, Jun 21, 2013 at 8:42 PM, James Bowery jabow...@gmail.comwrote: Systems like the LFTR have passive high temperature thermal control based on thermal expansion of a near-critical mass density. As the temperature increases, thermal expansion produces a rapid drop in power production thereby stabilizing the reactor core. Systems like the E-Cat HT are solid state and, in any event, are not dependent on critical mass density, but another approach to utilization of thermal expansion might work: Thermal Convection To make thermal convection work, passive (free) convective forces must be large enough to move enough thermal capacity past the power source and must be in a regime where the rate of cooling exceeds the power production at the target temperature. The 3 variables one has to play with to reach the target temperature are material thermal properties, power density of the E-Cat and g forces. Of these three, only g forces and power density are amenable to continuous alteration via centrifugation and reactor fabrication respectively. In my ultracentrifugal rocket engine patent, the g-forces are so enormous that enormous fluid flow, hence enormous thermal capacity flow enables relatively small heat exchange surfaces to cool the engine. A material that might be worthwhile analyzing in this regard is NaCl (sodium chloride) with a melting point near the high end of the E-Cat HT, and a heat capacity comparable to that of H2O. It is problematic to run molten NaCl in an ultracentrifuge due to material strength limits as they detemper at high temperature. On the other hand, power density might be reduced to the point that the heat capacity flow rate, even under only 1-g, might be sufficient. Clearly some arithmetic needs to be done here.
Re: [Vo]:Rossi and DGT Similarity?
I don't see how a gram or two of nano-powder can produce 10 kilowatts of heat output. Without running any numbers, the power density is too high. Other atoms besides those in the powder must also be involved in the production of power. How does Ed's theory handle this? On Sat, Jun 22, 2013 at 12:10 AM, Eric Walker eric.wal...@gmail.com wrote: On Fri, Jun 21, 2013 at 8:08 AM, David Roberson dlrober...@aol.comwrote: Ed's theory implies that the energy is being released in a series form where one photon after the next is radiated from the NAE and into the material. The other general type of operation suggests that an emission from a more or less entangled group of active components radiate the energy as a group in parallel. There is a third suggestion being floated -- there's a bursty release of a large amount of energy in small little packets, here and there in the substrate, like popcorn popping. The release of any nuclear reaction in this type of operation would not be incremental at the microscopic level -- it would be all at once (e.g., 24 MeV), and possibly collimated, but the release would be as kinetic energy and, as a side effect, bremsstrahlung, rather than gammas. At a macroscopic level, it would be more homogenous. Eric
Re: [Vo]:Mark has blazed the path
In reply to David Roberson's message of Fri, 21 Jun 2013 13:52:29 -0400 (EDT): Hi, [snip] It is not clear how a reduction in Q would reveal itself in this situation. What indications are there that the resonant frequencies might vary as stress is applied? I would expect there to be a direct correlation between the Q and the line width of spectral lines. Regards, Robin van Spaandonk http://rvanspaa.freehostia.com/project.html
