Re: [Vo]:DGT Really Has Something Big
There is a discrepancy on the HV power indeed. At some moment in the video Mats remarked that he measured 1100 Watt input power of the HV unit. There was no instant response to that remark. The wall dispay indicated around 200-250 Watt HV input power to the reactor. Despite the fact that it was mentioned that HV is modulated, the 1100 W remains a high value. HV units should have a higher efficiency than observed. Op maandag 29 juli 2013 schreef Craig (cchayniepub...@gmail.com) het volgende: On 07/28/2013 05:08 PM, Alan Fletcher wrote: There may well be a pressure (and temperature) drop down the output tube to outlet --- but from steam tables and a guess at the tube size and length I'd be surprised if it is more than about 0.5 bar -- so the COP is most likely at the 10+ level. (Presuming that Mats' calculation of the spark power is wrong). I read that Defkalion answered Mats Lewan's objection to the HV power. There is apparently a 20% duty cycle; so Mats calculated input power should have been divided by 5. I can't remember where I read this, however. Craig
Re: [Vo]:coupling processes of pseudo hydrogen atom (Rydberg state) inside a supercavity.
In reply to Jones Beene's message of Sun, 28 Jul 2013 07:25:39 -0700: Hi, [snip] Proton capture is net endothermic with nickel and leads to significant radioactivity. 1H+58Ni = 59Cu + 3.419 MeV 1H+60Ni = 61Cu + 4.801 MeV 1H+61Ni = 62Cu + 5.866 MeV 1H+61Ni = 58Co + 4He + 0.489 MeV 1H+62Ni = 63Cu + 6.122 MeV 1H+62Ni = 59Co + 4He + 0.346 MeV 1H+64Ni = 65Cu + 7.453 MeV 1H+64Ni = 61Co + 4He + 0.663 MeV All these reactions are exothermic. Regards, Robin van Spaandonk http://rvanspaa.freehostia.com/project.html
Re: [Vo]:coupling processes of pseudo hydrogen atom (Rydberg state) inside a supercavity.
In reply to Jones Beene's message of Sun, 28 Jul 2013 07:25:39 -0700: Hi, [snip] BTW - It is seldom emphasized enough that proton fusion of all elements of higher atomic mass than iron are net endothermic. How do you calculate this? Regards, Robin van Spaandonk http://rvanspaa.freehostia.com/project.html
Re: [Vo]:Info for Luca Gamberale (CTO Defkalion Europe)
thanks, I've completed with details I have found before http://www.lenr-forum.com/showthread.php?2229-Info-on-Luca-gamberale-(Defkalion-Europe-ex-Mose-SRL)p=5601#post5601 an interview in italian of Luca Gamberalehttp://affaritaliani.libero.it/green/fisico-energia-Defkalion-Europe1012013.html?refresh_ce is translatedhttp://translate.google.com/translate?hl=nlsl=ittl=enu=http%3A%2F%2Faffaritaliani.libero.it%2Fgreen%2Ffisico-energia-Defkalion-Europe1012013.html%3Frefresh_ce Defkalion Europe (Defkalion / Mose SRL joint-venture) : interview of Luca gamberalehttp://www.lenr-forum.com/showthread.php?950-Defkalion-and-Mose-SRL-in-Italyp=3586viewfull=1#post3586 Luca Gamberale is an ex-student of Preparata. Note the reference to a cold fusion labs LEDA in Pirelli labs, closed few . The critic on mainstream academic fight against LENR is short and bloody if you read between the lines. About the reactor he claims that it is ready and can go up to 600C at the exchanger. No news except confirmation. Luca was cited in a paper during ICCF16http://www.lenr-forum.com/showthread.php?950-Defkalion-and-Mose-SRL-in-Italyp=3505viewfull=1#post3505 : Flow Calorimetric Measurements of Interaction of H2, D2, He with Nano-coated Wires of Ni and Pd-Alloy at Temperatures up to 850°C beside the solar concentrator, he is inventor in a patent to accumulate antimatter for energy storage http://www.lenr-forum.com/showthread...ull=1#post3508http://www.lenr-forum.com/showthread.php?950-Defkalion-and-Mose-SRL-in-Italyp=3508viewfull=1#post3508 the patent cited is publishe under WIPO as WO2010010434http://patentscope.wipo.int/search/en/detail.jsf?docId=WO2010010434recNum=1maxRec=office=prevFilter=sortOption=queryString=tab=PCT+Biblio : *(EN)* HIGHLY EFFICIENT DEVICE FOR TRANSFORMING ENERGY AND RELATIVE METHOD* Abstract:* http://patentscope.wipo.int/search/docservice_fpimage/WOIB2009006069@@@false@@@en *(EN)*A device for transforming energy (10) comprising, with respect to a system of fixed orthogonal Cartesian axes XYZ, having their origin in the point O, two solids (11, 12) having a circular section and at least partly consisting of heavy metals consisting of fermions forming a mixture of isotopes with nucleuses having a half-integer spin and positioned on the axis Y on opposite sides with respect to 0, wherein a first solid (11) rotates around an axis parallel to the axis X and symmetrical for the first solid (11) and a second solid (12) rotates around an axis parallel to the axis Z and symmetrical for the second solid (12), in which the solids (11, 12) are equal and positioned on said axis Y symmetrically with respect to said point 0, the solids (11, 12) being suitable for blocking the recombination of the virtual particle-antiparticle pairs which are generated in the vacuum by quantum energy fluctuations according to the Heisenberg uncertainty principle, such a device (10) also comprising means (20, 30, 50, 60, 90) for the generation of electric, magnetic and electromagnetic fields suitable for setting in motion the antiparticles and conveying them against ordinary matter outside of the device (10). This patent seems unrelated to LENR, however seems to be a producer of antimatter (from electricity, not an energy source)... 2013/7/29 blaze spinnaker blazespinna...@gmail.com In my opinion, Luca Gamberale is the most credible member of the DGT team (so far). The more I hear from him the better: Anyone with english transcripts to the live stream from their DGT lab in Milan the day before the English one? It was pretty disappointing that he didn't show up for the english demo. He has a PhD of Physics from the University of Milano (if my sources are correct). Here's what I was told what he studied: Experimental experience in cryogenics, NMR of solids, low-level optical measurements, calorimetry, Tokamak plasma instabilities, HR optical spectroscopy. Monte Carlo QCD Lattice Simulations, hadronic transitions, plasma physics, physics of highly-loaded hydrides, quantum field theory He was a fellow at the university until 1999. Patent App: (Surprisingly so few, maybe pirelli wasn't big on patents?) https://www.google.com/patents/WO2011079856A1 New Scientist Article: http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg18224436.000-from-tyres-to-neutrinos.html Google Scholar (Tricky, a lot of it is University Milano though. Seems likely that it's him) http://scholar.google.ca/scholar?hl=enq=Luca+GamberalebtnG=as_sdt=1%2C5as_sdtp= He basically left the University of Milano in 1999, worked at Pirelli (the big tire company) until 2010 but then was off for three years. Not sure why he left Pirelli or what he did during those 3 years.
Re: [Vo]:MFMP on a possible independent report of DGT's Hyperion
I agree with precisely what you say. No vote, nor market, nor consensus decide what is true of false... however the problem is not what IS, but what IS ACCEPTED, and what you DO. Taleb moto about flesh in the game is that if you have buck or flesh in the game, you invest more energy to control risk and expectation. What Roland Benabou said is that it is not enough... that you can be visibly sure, yet have all the data proving the contrary. I refuse to bet on LENR, and I'm afraid to invest, not because it might be false (I'm more afraid of asteroid rain ;- ), but because I know there is quite no limit to delusion, and I may lose while being right. North Korea show how far it can go. LENR show it lesser way. No structural difference : irrational beliefs, terror, local interest, mass who follow a frightened elite, and no real boss, not even the dictator himself who is a slave of the system like the queen of bees. My daughter love to look at the film Coraline http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coraline_(film) at the end Coraline have to bet with the witch that she can find the eyes of the kids and her parents to be freed, or stay imprisoned have her eyes buttoned... The cats and the kids smartly explain her that the witch will accept the bet but will never respect it if she lose. The nay-believers of official science behave that way. Don't play poker with a witch, a russian mafioso, or a physics apparatchik. Vote and Market are not scientific instruments, but sociological instruments. in fact market is both an instruments, and a way to modify the system. LENR+ by allowing companies, scientists, engineers, economist, to make big bucks have allowed them to work for the hope of a reward, instead of pushing them to flee to avoid the terror of the scientific inquisition. Like the cat of Coraline, capitalist have no fear of witch, or physicists opinion. note that about improbable bets, taleb not only say that you should bet on improbable events, provided you know you will lose (but less than anticipated), but he also says that you should not use a fixed reward type of bet, but a real life unlimited reward, limited loss, option like investing is research, in startups... theatricalized bets are not so much realist , and the blackswan theory does not hold so well... 2013/7/29 Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com I wrote: No, it is not at all useful. In 1989, there were two people in the world who knew about cold fusion: Fleischmann and Pons. What would be the predictive value of asking others whether it is existed? To give another dramatic example, suppose at 1:00 pm on the afternoon of December 17, 1903, you were take a poll about whether man can fly. Suppose you asked people to place bets as to whether airplanes exist. Out of the 1.6 billion people in the world alive on that day, at that moment, the only ones who had ANY KNOWLEDGE of that question were Wilbur and Orville Wright and the members of the Kitty Hawk coast guard who had helped them fly that morning. In all the world, there was not another soul who knew the facts or was qualified to address the question. The opinions of other people were worthless. Meaningless. All the money in the world placed in a bet would mean nothing. There was an undeveloped glass plate photograph showing the first flight: http://www.uscg.mil/history/gifs/Kitty_Hawk.jpg That photograph was proof. It overruled all opinions, all money, all textbooks, and the previous 200,000 years of human technology. A thermocouple reading from a cold fusion experiment in 1989 overrules every member of the human race, including every scientist. Once experiments are replicated at high signal to noise ratios, all bets are off. The issue is settled forever. There is no appeal, and it makes no difference how many people disagree, or how many fail to understand calorimetry or the laws of thermodynamics. The rules of science in such clear-cut cases are objective and the proof is as indisputable as that photograph. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:Info for Luca Gamberale (CTO Defkalion Europe)
Nice, you have some very good stuff on lenr-forum. Some other observations: - The web there in milan looks pretty deep with connections between defkalion / mose / celani / pirreli - It looks like Luca was working for Mose SRL during the intervening years. Wonder why he hides that. Hmm. - Not sure if you got this lenr-forum, but It looks like (again, if resources are correct) that Franco Cappiello is CEO of Defkalion Europe, which is co-owned by Defkalion and Mose. - The CEO title for Cappiello is also backed up by this link: http://www.wfs.org/blogs/len-rosen/my-post-yesterday-cold-fusion-produces-plethora-opinions - Cappiello is also responsible for the energy patent on your website, btw, not Luca. - What's weird about Cappiello though, is that he has zero credentials as far as I can see. Note even clear if he got a degree at University of Pavi where he studied (which is a pretty low ranked university). Personally, the only credentialed person with any kind of track record we can point to is Luca Gamberale (notable lack of patents though, none granted). But - again, he vanished for the english demo. Does anyone know if he gave a full throated defense of the reactor in the italian demo? I know there was this weird slip up where he said imagine there is heat or something like that. I have to say, I'm not entirely encouraged by this information. A third party report by highly reputable scientists (with notable track records) who don't have much in the way of past dealings with Defkalion would be ideal (so, not Dr Kim, etc) and have a certain amount of Black Box unfettered access would be ideal. On Mon, Jul 29, 2013 at 1:31 AM, Alain Sepeda alain.sep...@gmail.comwrote: thanks, I've completed with details I have found before http://www.lenr-forum.com/showthread.php?2229-Info-on-Luca-gamberale-(Defkalion-Europe-ex-Mose-SRL)p=5601#post5601 an interview in italian of Luca Gamberalehttp://affaritaliani.libero.it/green/fisico-energia-Defkalion-Europe1012013.html?refresh_ce is translatedhttp://translate.google.com/translate?hl=nlsl=ittl=enu=http%3A%2F%2Faffaritaliani.libero.it%2Fgreen%2Ffisico-energia-Defkalion-Europe1012013.html%3Frefresh_ce Defkalion Europe (Defkalion / Mose SRL joint-venture) : interview of Luca gamberalehttp://www.lenr-forum.com/showthread.php?950-Defkalion-and-Mose-SRL-in-Italyp=3586viewfull=1#post3586 Luca Gamberale is an ex-student of Preparata. Note the reference to a cold fusion labs LEDA in Pirelli labs, closed few . The critic on mainstream academic fight against LENR is short and bloody if you read between the lines. About the reactor he claims that it is ready and can go up to 600C at the exchanger. No news except confirmation. Luca was cited in a paper during ICCF16http://www.lenr-forum.com/showthread.php?950-Defkalion-and-Mose-SRL-in-Italyp=3505viewfull=1#post3505 : Flow Calorimetric Measurements of Interaction of H2, D2, He with Nano-coated Wires of Ni and Pd-Alloy at Temperatures up to 850°C beside the solar concentrator, he is inventor in a patent to accumulate antimatter for energy storage http://www.lenr-forum.com/showthread...ull=1#post3508http://www.lenr-forum.com/showthread.php?950-Defkalion-and-Mose-SRL-in-Italyp=3508viewfull=1#post3508 the patent cited is publishe under WIPO as WO2010010434http://patentscope.wipo.int/search/en/detail.jsf?docId=WO2010010434recNum=1maxRec=office=prevFilter=sortOption=queryString=tab=PCT+Biblio : *(EN)* HIGHLY EFFICIENT DEVICE FOR TRANSFORMING ENERGY AND RELATIVE METHOD*Abstract:* http://patentscope.wipo.int/search/docservice_fpimage/WOIB2009006069@@@false@@@en *(EN)*A device for transforming energy (10) comprising, with respect to a system of fixed orthogonal Cartesian axes XYZ, having their origin in the point O, two solids (11, 12) having a circular section and at least partly consisting of heavy metals consisting of fermions forming a mixture of isotopes with nucleuses having a half-integer spin and positioned on the axis Y on opposite sides with respect to 0, wherein a first solid (11) rotates around an axis parallel to the axis X and symmetrical for the first solid (11) and a second solid (12) rotates around an axis parallel to the axis Z and symmetrical for the second solid (12), in which the solids (11, 12) are equal and positioned on said axis Y symmetrically with respect to said point 0, the solids (11, 12) being suitable for blocking the recombination of the virtual particle-antiparticle pairs which are generated in the vacuum by quantum energy fluctuations according to the Heisenberg uncertainty principle, such a device (10) also comprising means (20, 30, 50, 60, 90) for the generation of electric, magnetic and electromagnetic fields suitable for setting in motion the antiparticles and conveying them against ordinary matter outside of the device (10). This patent seems unrelated to LENR, however seems to be a
Re: [Vo]:DGT Really Has Something Big
Beside that question, one participant ajb on lenr-forum make a quick optimistic computation, based on the safe assumption that Defkalion is fooling nobody... (I hear the moderate and hard skeptics moan already). http://www.lenr-forum.com/showthread.php?2136-Defkalion-Demo-During-ICCF-18-(Milano-)p=5594viewfull=1#post5594 so : Let us assume that LENR+ works, is not rocket science, and that Defkalion have simply said the truth. I hear the moderate and hard skeptics moan already - since it is an erroneous assumption I propose the skeptics don't comment; So I invoke the vortex-rule , ah ah. ;-) The goal is not to check if it is true, but what are the potential performance of Hyperion from the best data we have. AJB use the data from the Italian test (I did not check/see the data, please correct him ), because the US test was compromised by argon. from the data point he find COP of 20.9 and 18. then he make an assumption : that only the plasma excitation is required . It is rational since warming heat could be provided by the reaction itself. With that assumption, the COP could go to 167. I anticipate some technical problems to remove warming during cruise , since the reactor need some specific thermal gradient, which the reaction many not create naturally. anyway, some engineers may design the cooling and the reaction chamber, to enforce that gradient. If not easy to do just by design, maybe some controlled tap of coolant may dynamically control the gradient... I did not check the computation myself, and I imagine that you will do better than me. note that the assumption are the optimistic/realistic one : - no fraud - dry steam at 150C 1athm - good engineering to use reactor heat top heat itself in that optimistic context, tell me if AJB got it right, or not. Maybe there are errors in the measurements or computations, but the method seems a good start. 2013/7/29 Teslaalset robbiehobbiesh...@gmail.com There is a discrepancy on the HV power indeed. At some moment in the video Mats remarked that he measured 1100 Watt input power of the HV unit. There was no instant response to that remark. The wall dispay indicated around 200-250 Watt HV input power to the reactor. Despite the fact that it was mentioned that HV is modulated, the 1100 W remains a high value. HV units should have a higher efficiency than observed. Op maandag 29 juli 2013 schreef Craig (cchayniepub...@gmail.com) het volgende: On 07/28/2013 05:08 PM, Alan Fletcher wrote: There may well be a pressure (and temperature) drop down the output tube to outlet --- but from steam tables and a guess at the tube size and length I'd be surprised if it is more than about 0.5 bar -- so the COP is most likely at the 10+ level. (Presuming that Mats' calculation of the spark power is wrong). I read that Defkalion answered Mats Lewan's objection to the HV power. There is apparently a 20% duty cycle; so Mats calculated input power should have been divided by 5. I can't remember where I read this, however. Craig
[Vo]:Ride a Shuttle Booster Rocket
People on this list should enjoy this 400-second video http://tinyurl.com/m7b6wvr
Re: [Vo]:DGT Really Has Something Big
On Mon, Jul 29, 2013 at 3:11 AM, Teslaalset robbiehobbiesh...@gmail.comwrote: HV units should have a higher efficiency than observed. The ones I have researched are 50% efficient at best.
RE: [Vo]:Ride a Shuttle Booster Rocket
Wow! Thanks Vorl! I'll pass this on! Regards, Steven Vincent Johnson svjart.OrionWorks.com www.zazzle.com/orionworks tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/newvortex/ -Original Message- From: Vorl Bek [mailto:vorl@antichef.com] Sent: Monday, July 29, 2013 5:41 AM To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: [Vo]:Ride a Shuttle Booster Rocket People on this list should enjoy this 400-second video http://tinyurl.com/m7b6wvr
RE: [Vo]:MFMP on a possible independent report of DGT's Hyperion
From Blaze: Our entire economic system is based on this thing called money. It's how we value opportunities. I'm not a materialist, but I do appreciate having this objective measurement. As to I, to a certain extent. Is it perfect? Obviously not. But it'll have to do until something better comes along. I agree. FYI, there have been some interesting Vort threads that have discussed the ramifications of our current economic engine (including Jed Rothwell) and how it is likely to be drastically affected as computerization, automation, and artificial intelligence continue their relentless drive to take over traditional jobs. The Vort Collective has debated on numerous occasions how in the near future we might go about distributing the wealth, aka currency, throughout the population in what is hopefully a fair and equitable way. What many futurists have been asking is: how will we go about earning our daily bread when most of the traditional jobs are being performed more efficiently and cheaply by robots and other forms of automation? The automation issue is, of course, an old issue, one that has been with us since the first machines were developed and introduced to replace mass labor well over a hundred years ago. Fortunately, what has always happened in the past is that new kinds of jobs... new kinds of services and product development were created that ended up replacing most of the traditional jobs that had been taken over by the scourge of automation. However, the transformation often seems to have been a bumpy process, one fraught with pesky political overtones. On this matter, I suspect we haven't seen nuth'n yet! Stay tuned. On a more positive note, many assume (as do I) that new kinds of jobs will continue to manifest through the mysterious laws known as emergent behavior. I believe all sorts of new kinds of jobs are likely come into being in order to fill new needs that don't yet exist. But are such assumptions right? I hope so, but I really don't know. Many futurists worry about this issue. A major concern many have voiced is the obvious fact that these days the pace of automation is increasing exponentially. Will our society and the mysterious and unpredictable behavioral laws of emergent behavior be capable of handling the changes and develop enough new jobs to absorb all who have been displaced? In the end some Vort members have speculated that the world's economic engine may end up having to simply give everyone an allowance of spendable currency to ensure that wealth can be evenly distributed throughout the population. Of course, how does one determine how much allowance everyone should get is likely to be a raunchy debate. For example, should there be a cap on how much any individual's allowance can be? And what about a minimum amount for the disadvantaged who are not capable of doing anything useful. In the meantime, I suspect there is a bright future for gambling. I suspect your chosen profession will not in danger of becoming obsolete. ;-) For more info read Lights in the Tunnel, as Mr. Rothwell has often suggested here. http://www.thelightsinthetunnel.com/ Regards, Steven Vincent Johnson svjart.OrionWorks.com www.zazzle.com/orionworks tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/newvortex/
RE: [Vo]:MFMP on a possible independent report of DGT's Hyperion
I would add that, this radical economic change is rushing in upon us. BusinessInsider reports that 80% of Americans are unemployed, dependent on welfare or living near the poverty line. Areas such as Spain may be far worse.
RE: [Vo]:coupling processes of pseudo hydrogen atom (Rydberg state) inside a supercavity.
Hi Robin, None of those reactions are net exothermic. You failed to include the energy necessary to overcome the Coulomb barrier, which was the gist of the original message. In all cases that high level of threshold energy, which must be expended, is greater than the yield. Tunneling does not change that situation because tunneling itself is conservative. This should be obvious - depending on how a google search is worded you will get about 10 million hits for something like Fusion of elements with mass numbers (the number of protons and neutrons) greater than 26 uses up more energy than is produced by the reaction. Thus, elements heavier than iron cannot be fuel sources in stars. -Original Message- From: mix...@bigpond.com In reply to Jones Beene's message of Hi, Proton capture is net endothermic with nickel and leads to significant radioactivity. 1H+58Ni = 59Cu + 3.419 MeV 1H+60Ni = 61Cu + 4.801 MeV 1H+61Ni = 62Cu + 5.866 MeV 1H+61Ni = 58Co + 4He + 0.489 MeV 1H+62Ni = 63Cu + 6.122 MeV 1H+62Ni = 59Co + 4He + 0.346 MeV 1H+64Ni = 65Cu + 7.453 MeV 1H+64Ni = 61Co + 4He + 0.663 MeV All these reactions are exothermic. Regards, Robin van Spaandonk http://rvanspaa.freehostia.com/project.html
[Vo]:The Propagating Crack
http://www.fourmilab.ch/documents/sftriple/nanofuse.html Written by John Walker, the founder of AutoDesk and co-author of AutoCAD, is amazingly prescient. While not totally compliant with the theories we discuss on CF it is astounding that it was written in 1989!
Re: [Vo]:DGT Really Has Something Big
The amount of heat that is generated by the DGT device should be adequate to keep the reaction going without the additional heat from the resistors. This is somewhat different than Rossi's case because of the relative magnitude of the difference between the internal heat generated and that externally supplied. Also, it appears that the heating elements are driven all of the time. Perhaps Mats can verify the drive waveform that he saw being applied to the resistors to ensure this statement is correct. If you assume that the resistors are driven continuously, then thermal control would not work effectively according to my model of a Rossi like device. All indications are that the HV discharge in the DGT case supplies the fuel or perhaps tiny localize extreme heating regions where the reaction occurs. The fuel supply could very well be modulated somewhat like fuel injection of a ICE if fresh ions are needed at the active sites. The plasma would perform this function. The localized heating might be seen as a result of the impact of the electrical discharge upon the nickel targets. This should cause local high temperatures that are far greater than the average temperature at which the device operates. One or both of these two processes might be taking place and controlling the reaction for DGT. I suggest that consideration be given to the fact that DGT did continue to supply power to the resistive elements throughout the demonstration. The level of this excitation was adjusted downward, but not entirely eliminated. Could it be that the device needs the magnetic field being released by these devices? Of course, it might be that some fine tuning of the input heating is required, but this seems strange considering the enormous heat being released by the core. Dave -Original Message- From: Alain Sepeda alain.sep...@gmail.com To: Vortex List vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Mon, Jul 29, 2013 5:50 am Subject: Re: [Vo]:DGT Really Has Something Big Beside that question, one participant ajb on lenr-forum make a quick optimistic computation, based on the safe assumption that Defkalion is fooling nobody... (I hear the moderate and hard skeptics moan already). http://www.lenr-forum.com/showthread.php?2136-Defkalion-Demo-During-ICCF-18-(Milano-)p=5594viewfull=1#post5594 so : Let us assume that LENR+ works, is not rocket science, and that Defkalion have simply said the truth. I hear the moderate and hard skeptics moan already - since it is an erroneous assumption I propose the skeptics don't comment; So I invoke the vortex-rule , ah ah. ;-) The goal is not to check if it is true, but what are the potential performance of Hyperion from the best data we have. AJB use the data from the Italian test (I did not check/see the data, please correct him ), because the US test was compromised by argon. from the data point he find COP of 20.9 and 18. then he make an assumption : that only the plasma excitation is required . It is rational since warming heat could be provided by the reaction itself. With that assumption, the COP could go to 167. I anticipate some technical problems to remove warming during cruise , since the reactor need some specific thermal gradient, which the reaction many not create naturally. anyway, some engineers may design the cooling and the reaction chamber, to enforce that gradient. If not easy to do just by design, maybe some controlled tap of coolant may dynamically control the gradient... I did not check the computation myself, and I imagine that you will do better than me. note that the assumption are the optimistic/realistic one : - no fraud - dry steam at 150C 1athm - good engineering to use reactor heat top heat itself in that optimistic context, tell me if AJB got it right, or not. Maybe there are errors in the measurements or computations, but the method seems a good start. 2013/7/29 Teslaalset robbiehobbiesh...@gmail.com There is a discrepancy on the HV power indeed. At some moment in the video Mats remarked that he measured 1100 Watt input power of the HV unit. There was no instant response to that remark. The wall dispay indicated around 200-250 Watt HV input power to the reactor. Despite the fact that it was mentioned that HV is modulated, the 1100 W remains a high value. HV units should have a higher efficiency than observed. Op maandag 29 juli 2013 schreef Craig (cchayniepub...@gmail.com) het volgende: On 07/28/2013 05:08 PM, Alan Fletcher wrote: There may well be a pressure (and temperature) drop down the output tube to outlet --- but from steam tables and a guess at the tube size and length I'd be surprised if it is more than about 0.5 bar -- so the COP is most likely at the 10+ level. (Presuming that Mats' calculation of the spark power is wrong). I read that Defkalion answered Mats Lewan's objection to the HV power. There is apparently a 20% duty cycle; so Mats calculated input power
Re: [Vo]:MFMP on a possible independent report of DGT's Hyperion
On Mon, Jul 29, 2013 at 9:20 AM, Chris Zell chrisz...@wetmtv.com wrote: ** I would add that, this radical economic change is rushing in upon us. BusinessInsider reports that 80% of Americans are unemployed, dependent on welfare or living near the poverty line. Areas such as Spain may be far worse. 80% might be *under* employed. Citation, please.
Re: [Vo]:coupling processes of pseudo hydrogen atom (Rydberg state) inside a supercavity.
On Mon, Jul 29, 2013 at 9:21 AM, Jones Beene jone...@pacbell.net wrote: Fusion of elements with mass numbers (the number of protons and neutrons) greater than 26 uses up more energy than is produced by the reaction. Thus, elements heavier than iron cannot be fuel sources in stars. Harrumph! Iron is where fusion meets fission, the end of both.
Re: [Vo]:Ride a Shuttle Booster Rocket
I agree! What a great ride. Dave -Original Message- From: OrionWorks - Steven Vincent Johnson orionwo...@charter.net To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Mon, Jul 29, 2013 8:18 am Subject: RE: [Vo]:Ride a Shuttle Booster Rocket Wow! Thanks Vorl! I'll pass this on! Regards, Steven Vincent Johnson svjart.OrionWorks.com www.zazzle.com/orionworks tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/newvortex/ -Original Message- From: Vorl Bek [mailto:vorl@antichef.com] Sent: Monday, July 29, 2013 5:41 AM To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: [Vo]:Ride a Shuttle Booster Rocket People on this list should enjoy this 400-second video http://tinyurl.com/m7b6wvr
Re: [Vo]:DGT Really Has Something Big
The demonstration we just witnessed by DGT should modify the minds of many sitting upon the fence. But, I recall the story about being able to lead a horse to water, but not being able to make it drink. This might be the situation regarding LENR. Many of the skeptics are just not capable of accepting that LENR is real, and here today. When you think of a closed mind, these guys appear to be sitting on the front row, and the lack of major news surrounding DGT's demo leaves me wondering just what it would take to get their attention. Of course it is going to take several additional systems to make the DGT hyperion a complete product. The demonstration was super, but much needs to be done before anything besides raw heat is delivered. The pressure and temperature generated by the device should be increased significantly if efficient electrical power is to be achieved. Room pressure is not good for many applications except for room heating for example since no work can be done without a reasonable pressure differential. I did not see any reason to believe that this will not be possible in future developments or demonstrations. And, if the output pressure is increased significantly, then a pump of that same pressure level will need to be installed to get the input coolant to that level. The DGT demo merely used the grid water pressure for that purpose and actually had to reduce the incoming pressure in order to limit the flow into atmospheric loading. The design of pumps is not new engineering and will pose little problem for DGT. Raising the temperature of the output coolant might pose a better challenge for DGT, but there is no reason to think that this will not be overcome. I noted that they kept the internal temperature relatively constant during the demo. And, we know that a temperature differential is required in order to allow heat to flow to the coolant, so it is not entirely clear how large this needs to be for a practical application. This internal adjustment will come with time and then the ultimate demo of having their device drive a turbine generator and electrical load of some sort might be observed. Of course, it will be proven at that time that their device can drive itself simultaneously, this should make most of the skeptics flee the scene. I can hardly wait! Dave
Re: [Vo]:MFMP on a possible independent report of DGT's Hyperion
Terry Blanton hohlr...@gmail.com wrote: BusinessInsider reports that 80% of Americans are unemployed, dependent on welfare or living near the poverty line. Areas such as Spain may be far worse. 80% might be *under* employed. Citation, please. The wording is a little confusing. This means the total of unemployed *plus*underemployed, welfare, and employed but at the poverty level. 80% sounds a little high to me. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:Info for Luca Gamberale (CTO Defkalion Europe)
Thanks for the updates Interesting, but we should be careful about credentials in industry. I don't know if the Wright brothers have great credential, neither Lumière brothers, Edison, ... Luca gamberale have a great CV, but could be interpreted as very fringe... I know there was link between mose and defkalion europe, but now it is clearer. it is a joint venture between 2 companies, not an absorption. I don't know if there are relation between Luca Gamberalle, Pirelli, and IIS Pirelli where Dr Ugo Abundo develop the Hydrobetatron/athanor. 2013/7/29 blaze spinnaker blazespinna...@gmail.com Nice, you have some very good stuff on lenr-forum. Some other observations: - The web there in milan looks pretty deep with connections between defkalion / mose / celani / pirreli - It looks like Luca was working for Mose SRL during the intervening years. Wonder why he hides that. Hmm. - Not sure if you got this lenr-forum, but It looks like (again, if resources are correct) that Franco Cappiello is CEO of Defkalion Europe, which is co-owned by Defkalion and Mose. - The CEO title for Cappiello is also backed up by this link: http://www.wfs.org/blogs/len-rosen/my-post-yesterday-cold-fusion-produces-plethora-opinions - Cappiello is also responsible for the energy patent on your website, btw, not Luca. - What's weird about Cappiello though, is that he has zero credentials as far as I can see. Note even clear if he got a degree at University of Pavi where he studied (which is a pretty low ranked university). Personally, the only credentialed person with any kind of track record we can point to is Luca Gamberale (notable lack of patents though, none granted). But - again, he vanished for the english demo. Does anyone know if he gave a full throated defense of the reactor in the italian demo? I know there was this weird slip up where he said imagine there is heat or something like that. I have to say, I'm not entirely encouraged by this information. A third party report by highly reputable scientists (with notable track records) who don't have much in the way of past dealings with Defkalion would be ideal (so, not Dr Kim, etc) and have a certain amount of Black Box unfettered access would be ideal. On Mon, Jul 29, 2013 at 1:31 AM, Alain Sepeda alain.sep...@gmail.comwrote: thanks, I've completed with details I have found before http://www.lenr-forum.com/showthread.php?2229-Info-on-Luca-gamberale-(Defkalion-Europe-ex-Mose-SRL)p=5601#post5601 an interview in italian of Luca Gamberalehttp://affaritaliani.libero.it/green/fisico-energia-Defkalion-Europe1012013.html?refresh_ce is translatedhttp://translate.google.com/translate?hl=nlsl=ittl=enu=http%3A%2F%2Faffaritaliani.libero.it%2Fgreen%2Ffisico-energia-Defkalion-Europe1012013.html%3Frefresh_ce Defkalion Europe (Defkalion / Mose SRL joint-venture) : interview of Luca gamberalehttp://www.lenr-forum.com/showthread.php?950-Defkalion-and-Mose-SRL-in-Italyp=3586viewfull=1#post3586 Luca Gamberale is an ex-student of Preparata. Note the reference to a cold fusion labs LEDA in Pirelli labs, closed few . The critic on mainstream academic fight against LENR is short and bloody if you read between the lines. About the reactor he claims that it is ready and can go up to 600C at the exchanger. No news except confirmation. Luca was cited in a paper during ICCF16http://www.lenr-forum.com/showthread.php?950-Defkalion-and-Mose-SRL-in-Italyp=3505viewfull=1#post3505 : Flow Calorimetric Measurements of Interaction of H2, D2, He with Nano-coated Wires of Ni and Pd-Alloy at Temperatures up to 850°C beside the solar concentrator, he is inventor in a patent to accumulate antimatter for energy storage http://www.lenr-forum.com/showthread...ull=1#post3508http://www.lenr-forum.com/showthread.php?950-Defkalion-and-Mose-SRL-in-Italyp=3508viewfull=1#post3508 the patent cited is publishe under WIPO as WO2010010434http://patentscope.wipo.int/search/en/detail.jsf?docId=WO2010010434recNum=1maxRec=office=prevFilter=sortOption=queryString=tab=PCT+Biblio : *(EN)* HIGHLY EFFICIENT DEVICE FOR TRANSFORMING ENERGY AND RELATIVE METHOD*Abstract:* http://patentscope.wipo.int/search/docservice_fpimage/WOIB2009006069@@@false@@@en *(EN)*A device for transforming energy (10) comprising, with respect to a system of fixed orthogonal Cartesian axes XYZ, having their origin in the point O, two solids (11, 12) having a circular section and at least partly consisting of heavy metals consisting of fermions forming a mixture of isotopes with nucleuses having a half-integer spin and positioned on the axis Y on opposite sides with respect to 0, wherein a first solid (11) rotates around an axis parallel to the axis X and symmetrical for the first solid (11) and a second solid (12) rotates around an axis parallel to the axis Z and symmetrical for the second solid (12), in which the solids
Re: [Vo]:IRH
The geometry forms as a result of a dynamic process. The geometry forms the interface. * * *The *dynamic process involves mutual attraction of nanoparticles which drives the nanoparticles to clump together to form cavities, holes, voids, cracks… (Interfaces between nanoparticles). The IRM take the form of dipoles where the electrons form in the cavities and the protons adhere to the walls of the cavities(surfaces of the nanoparticles).** On Sun, Jul 28, 2013 at 11:57 AM, Frank Roarty froarty...@comcast.netwrote: Jones. Axial cited a paper last week that seemed to imply RM comes first and then gets inverted .. rather nice since I always made the argument that Axial was referencing RM instead of IRM but apparently both are involved or maybe it is specific to location and suppression or lack there of.. Axial kept focusing on the interface instead of the cavity as the energy source..and with recent posts re plasmons I am open to his interpretation but still think it is the translation due to geometry that allows for anomalous energy. Fran
Re: [Vo]:MFMP on a possible independent report of DGT's Hyperion
We have seen such a change in our society with the industrial revolution, when less people were needed to feed the others... what happen ? they moved to factory... it was hard at the beginning, huge poverty, social struggle, marxism, paternalism, social security, and in the 60s it was working well and providing wealth and vacations, leisure and retirements... then productivity in western world stop growing, and worst of all, education is not matching needs... my vision of work is that the factory work will die. On one side you will have huge creative, scientific, strategic position with a minority of not only educated but exceptionally smart workers... There will be also physically exceptional workers, like artist, craftsmen, sportsmen, emergency operators. The robots , the computers, will do all that need moderate dexterity, moderate intelligence, moderate understanding... They will replace the administrative capacities of office workers, the factory workers, most of the builders... even the cleaning of houses, the security checking, the cops, the guardians, the nurses, will be replaced for their less human part of the job. a class of job that I see being developed, but with huge problem of competence, if the one where humanity is the key competence. Where kindness, politeness, empathy, hearing and understanding, daily imagination is the only competence required. I see in France that it is the huge problem, and if you compare to developing countries you see a huge lack of competence. there is a problem in education here about human factors, empathic education. We learn critic, manipulation, analysis, to deven our right or attack others, to order, manage but not to be kind, to accept critics, insults, to submit to others. When you have to help citizen to fill a form (on a computer), when you help a client to choose his drink, when you help an elderly nasty woman to eat and wash, human competences are more important than technical knowledge. a last mass of job will be new jobs, and maybe it is the one who are missing , it is probably linked to leisure, tourism, and other pleasant and useless activities. they are developing, but the economic crisis, linked to energy price and unemployment, does not allow those job to exist. The problem is not that there is no job, because it would mean vacation (not unemployment), it is that some people have needs that some others cannot fulfill. We often focus on the top genius workers, and it is not false. Xavier Niel and many others remind us that very few people are enough to inspire the permanence revolution of innovations, but that our mass education is cutting the heads that are above average... We are producing standardized high-executive, but not the crazy Steve Jobs, the Edison, the Tesla, the Columbus... This idea is pushed also by Taleb. I add to that that for the rest of the population, we still propose them competence for a middle level work which is taken by computers and robots. And worst of all we give them dream and rigidity which make them unable to adapt to the real new jobs, who are hard, to manage other humans in distress. For the leisure/tourism works it may put oil in the system, with people happy to replace robots and work hard for what they love... like it happens today for many high-level works. but there will be need of courageous people to interact with humans in distress. Normally this kind of jobs should be well paid in the future, like the job of football players or engineers. The problem is that our sociological rigidity prevent to pay those hard work at their real price (because they are linked to lower education, and to people having no other choice). finally I repeat it, increase of productivity does not mean unemployment. What cause unemployment is mismatched competence. the problem of unemployment is not work, it is wages, thus buying capacity, and buying capacity is the result of work multiplied by productivity. Their can be a distribution (not of money, but of goods and services, forget wealth, look at life style), but normally some social violence can force changes. Problem is when there is few to share, because many people cannot participate (enough) to produce. 2013/7/29 OrionWorks - Steven Vincent Johnson orionwo...@charter.net From Blaze: ** ** Our entire economic system is based on this thing called money. It's how we value opportunities. I'm not a materialist, but I do appreciate having this objective measurement. ** ** As to I, to a certain extent. ** ** Is it perfect? Obviously not. But it'll have to do until something better comes along. ** ** I agree. ** ** FYI, there have been some interesting Vort threads that have discussed the ramifications of our current economic engine (including Jed Rothwell) and how it is likely to be drastically affected as computerization, automation, and artificial intelligence continue their relentless
Re: [Vo]:The Propagating Crack
Is there really a coherent theory that has been bandied about that even approximate's Walker's 1989 speculations? If so, is there an experimental test of said theory? If so, was the result positive? If so, Walker may be prevailed upon to replicate it. Walker's net worth was in the hundreds of millions as of the 1990s -- the last data point I have on him -- and he lives in Switzerland -- not far from Rossi. One wonders whether he has already invested in Rossi. I would guess not. On Mon, Jul 29, 2013 at 8:27 AM, Terry Blanton hohlr...@gmail.com wrote: http://www.fourmilab.ch/documents/sftriple/nanofuse.html Written by John Walker, the founder of AutoDesk and co-author of AutoCAD, is amazingly prescient. While not totally compliant with the theories we discuss on CF it is astounding that it was written in 1989!
Re: [Vo]:The Propagating Crack
There has been an entire field of electrochemistry that has developed experimental procedures which quantify this area. I estimate about 1800 people in the world work in this area. On Mon, Jul 29, 2013 at 11:47 AM, James Bowery jabow...@gmail.com wrote: Is there really a coherent theory that has been bandied about that even approximate's Walker's 1989 speculations? If so, is there an experimental test of said theory? If so, was the result positive? If so, Walker may be prevailed upon to replicate it. Walker's net worth was in the hundreds of millions as of the 1990s -- the last data point I have on him -- and he lives in Switzerland -- not far from Rossi. One wonders whether he has already invested in Rossi. I would guess not. On Mon, Jul 29, 2013 at 8:27 AM, Terry Blanton hohlr...@gmail.com wrote: http://www.fourmilab.ch/documents/sftriple/nanofuse.html Written by John Walker, the founder of AutoDesk and co-author of AutoCAD, is amazingly prescient. While not totally compliant with the theories we discuss on CF it is astounding that it was written in 1989!
Re: [Vo]:Ride a Shuttle Booster Rocket
Hey! That technosocialist POS that set back progress in space by 3 decades was good for something after all! On Mon, Jul 29, 2013 at 8:43 AM, David Roberson dlrober...@aol.com wrote: I agree! What a great ride. Dave -Original Message- From: OrionWorks - Steven Vincent Johnson orionwo...@charter.net To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Mon, Jul 29, 2013 8:18 am Subject: RE: [Vo]:Ride a Shuttle Booster Rocket Wow! Thanks Vorl! I'll pass this on! Regards, Steven Vincent Johnsonsvjart.OrionWorks.comwww.zazzle.com/orionworkstech.groups.yahoo.com/group/newvortex/ -Original Message- From: Vorl Bek [mailto:vorl@antichef.com vorl@antichef.com?] Sent: Monday, July 29, 2013 5:41 AM To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: [Vo]:Ride a Shuttle Booster Rocket People on this list should enjoy this 400-second video http://tinyurl.com/m7b6wvr
Re: [Vo]:The Propagating Crack
Hardly specific enough to meet the criterion I set forth. On Mon, Jul 29, 2013 at 10:57 AM, Axil Axil janap...@gmail.com wrote: There has been an entire field of electrochemistry that has developed experimental procedures which quantify this area. I estimate about 1800 people in the world work in this area. On Mon, Jul 29, 2013 at 11:47 AM, James Bowery jabow...@gmail.com wrote: Is there really a coherent theory that has been bandied about that even approximate's Walker's 1989 speculations? If so, is there an experimental test of said theory? If so, was the result positive? If so, Walker may be prevailed upon to replicate it. Walker's net worth was in the hundreds of millions as of the 1990s -- the last data point I have on him -- and he lives in Switzerland -- not far from Rossi. One wonders whether he has already invested in Rossi. I would guess not. On Mon, Jul 29, 2013 at 8:27 AM, Terry Blanton hohlr...@gmail.comwrote: http://www.fourmilab.ch/documents/sftriple/nanofuse.html Written by John Walker, the founder of AutoDesk and co-author of AutoCAD, is amazingly prescient. While not totally compliant with the theories we discuss on CF it is astounding that it was written in 1989!
Re: [Vo]:Ride a Shuttle Booster Rocket
Why the space shuttle was technosocialist? Confused. Giovanni On Mon, Jul 29, 2013 at 11:05 AM, James Bowery jabow...@gmail.com wrote: Hey! That technosocialist POS that set back progress in space by 3 decades was good for something after all! On Mon, Jul 29, 2013 at 8:43 AM, David Roberson dlrober...@aol.comwrote: I agree! What a great ride. Dave -Original Message- From: OrionWorks - Steven Vincent Johnson orionwo...@charter.net To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Mon, Jul 29, 2013 8:18 am Subject: RE: [Vo]:Ride a Shuttle Booster Rocket Wow! Thanks Vorl! I'll pass this on! Regards, Steven Vincent Johnsonsvjart.OrionWorks.comwww.zazzle.com/orionworkstech.groups.yahoo.com/group/newvortex/ -Original Message- From: Vorl Bek [mailto:vorl@antichef.com vorl@antichef.com?] Sent: Monday, July 29, 2013 5:41 AM To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: [Vo]:Ride a Shuttle Booster Rocket People on this list should enjoy this 400-second video http://tinyurl.com/m7b6wvr
Re: [Vo]:Ride a Shuttle Booster Rocket
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/sci.space/N9ISaLUUyOw/tEiseAK-oh0J Newsgroups: sci.space Path: gmd.de!xlink.net!sol.ctr.columbia.edu!spool.mu.edu!uunet!magnesium.club.cc.cmu.edu!cantaloupe.srv.cs.cmu.edu!crabapple.srv.cs.cmu.edu!j...@pnet01.cts.com From: j...@pnet01.cts.com (Jim Bowery) Subject: Who I am and why I support Big Science Message-ID: c9dgae.1b...@cs.cmu.edu X-Added: Forwarded by Space Digest Sender: ne...@cs.cmu.edu Organization: [via International Space University] Original-Sender: i...@vacation.venari.cs.cmu.edu Distribution: sci Date: Tue, 29 Jun 1993 07:16:54 GMT Approved: bboard-news_gateway Lines: 138 There have been some questions about who I am and what my positions are. Here are the relevant details for sci.space readers: As chairman of the Coalition for Science and Commerce, I have, over the last 5 or so years, been the principle activist promoting the Launch Services Purchase Act of 1990 and the launch voucher provision of the 1992 NASA authorization. To preempt some noise: Allen Sherzer has yet to apologize to me for his repeated slanders in this forum 2 years ago, declaring that my contributions to the passage of the LSPA were insignificant compared to those of Glenn Reynolds, then chairman of the legislative committee of the National Space Society. However, during congressional hearings on space commercialization, the LSPA's sponsor, Congressman Packard, gave me a personal introduction (the only panelist out of over 10 to receive such an introduction) and my organization credit for passage of the LSPA. Congressman Packard did so with Glenn Reynolds sitting next to me on the same panel -- and he did not mention Glenn Reynolds or the NSS. This is in the Congressional Record and on video tape. Allen Sherzer's words are in the sci.space archives of late spring to early summer 1991. I encourage those with access to the sci.space archives to retrieve them and see exactly what Allen Sherzer said and the manner in which he said it. I've been involved in several other, as yet unsuccessful, legislative efforts to reform NASA, DoE (primarily fusion), NSF and DARPA. In so doing I've come across gross inefficiencies in technology development -- inefficiencies that some small high technology startups were ready to fill with technical advances of great economic and social import. The government agencies I just mentioned see these high technology startups, not as vital partners, but as deadly political threats to the credibility of those, within the agencies, that picked incorrect technical directions. These government-funded individuals drive funding away from those who would bring us critically needed technical advances -- rather than working with and help them. The dollars we spend on NASA, DoE, DARPA and NSF to promote technology are actually used to suppress this country's technology in a frighteningly effective manner. But when one looks at the political incentives of these institutions, one wonders how anyone could believe it to be otherwise. My first and most tragic experience in this area was George Koopman's statement to me, made in person just before his untimely death, that NASA had been relentlessly driving his suppliers and investors away from doing business with his company, AMROC. NASA appeared to reverse its behavior in a tokenistic manner just prior to Koopman's death. The first test of an AMROC booster, shortly thereafter, failed and AMROC was forced into capitulation with established aerospace firms. This pattern of hostile behavior from NASA, combined with the means, motive and opportunity, leave room for reasonable suspicions of murder against individuals within or funded by NASA. This is only one story and I wasn't even involved in trying to garner support for AMROC at that time. Other high technology companies I have had the privilege of working with have experienced similar hostilities from NASA, DoE, DARPA and NSF, and they experience these hostilities in proportion to the significance (political visibility) and viability of the technology they are pursuing. Congressional oversight committees which are supposed to put a stop to this sort of activity have no incentive to do so and efforts to get them to investigate are futile. Their only real incentive is to increase the bugets of those who they oversee and require political payback via hegemoney. This is why technology development programs become the worst possible way to invest the taxpayer's money -- worse even than monstrously expensive and unproductive production systems like space shuttles and space stations. In general, technology is not an objective product. I does not usually succeed or fail with respect to a well defined objective. Even if a test device explodes, it can be portrayed as an expected outcome of a test. A technology development program can always be declared a success -- and its obvious shortcomings attributed to limited funding. The more important a potential
[Vo]:Defkalion apparently ignored heat of vaporization
I am looking at the Josephson version of the Defkalion video, here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HHEtnTO3h6s It is a little more blurry than the original. At time 39:03 the numbers on the screen can be read. Total input is 1918 W. Output is 4295 W. T_in is 25.29°C, T_out 132.13°C, and the flow rate is 0.569 liters/min. 132.13°C - 25.29°C = 106.9°C 0.569 liters/min = 9.5 ml/s 106.9°C * 9.5 ml = 1014 calories 1014 cal * 4.2 = 4258 W That is approximately what is shown in the Output Power section of the screen. I have heard that the device produced steam. This is shown at various times in the whole video. From the numbers here, I conclude that the people at Defkalion treated the output as hot water, ignoring the heat of vaporization. The heat of vaporization of water is 2260 kJ/kg, or 2260 J/g, so for 9.5 ml that would be an extra 21,470 J/s (watts). I gather there have been some disputes over whether this water was fully vaporized. It might have been somewhat wet. It might have included unboiled water. I don't see how it could have, at 132°C, but in any case that is irrelevant since they ignored the heat of vaporization. This is very conservative estimate of the heat output. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:Defkalion apparently ignored heat of vaporization
On 07/29/2013 04:01 PM, Jed Rothwell wrote: This is very conservative estimate of the heat output. - Jed Yes, here's Mats' comment: The output was led down into a sink. Initially water was pouring down, but at high temperatures there was no water dropping at all. http://matslew.wordpress.com/ Defkalion, at the beginning of the demonstration, made a comment that this was a gift they were giving to the skeptics. Craig
Re: [Vo]:Defkalion apparently ignored heat of vaporization
Craig cchayniepub...@gmail.com wrote: Yes, here's Mats' comment: The output was led down into a sink. Initially water was pouring down, but at high temperatures there was no water dropping at all. http://matslew.wordpress.com/ Defkalion, at the beginning of the demonstration, made a comment that this was a gift they were giving to the skeptics. Well said! That's hilarious. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:Defkalion apparently ignored heat of vaporization
At this level, it should be possible to power a steam electric generator to provide the inputs. On Mon, Jul 29, 2013 at 3:48 PM, David Roberson dlrober...@aol.com wrote: They(DGT) intentionally left out the vaporization as a gift to the skeptics according to what was stated. There is evidence that the water was vaporized into steam which was then superheated to dry vapor. I calculated over 20 kilowatts was being delivered. Dave -Original Message- From: Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Mon, Jul 29, 2013 4:01 pm Subject: [Vo]:Defkalion apparently ignored heat of vaporization I am looking at the Josephson version of the Defkalion video, here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HHEtnTO3h6s It is a little more blurry than the original. At time 39:03 the numbers on the screen can be read. Total input is 1918 W. Output is 4295 W. T_in is 25.29°C, T_out 132.13°C, and the flow rate is 0.569 liters/min. 132.13°C - 25.29°C = 106.9°C 0.569 liters/min = 9.5 ml/s 106.9°C * 9.5 ml = 1014 calories 1014 cal * 4.2 = 4258 W That is approximately what is shown in the Output Power section of the screen. I have heard that the device produced steam. This is shown at various times in the whole video. From the numbers here, I conclude that the people at Defkalion treated the output as hot water, ignoring the heat of vaporization. The heat of vaporization of water is 2260 kJ/kg, or 2260 J/g, so for 9.5 ml that would be an extra 21,470 J/s (watts). I gather there have been some disputes over whether this water was fully vaporized. It might have been somewhat wet. It might have included unboiled water. I don't see how it could have, at 132°C, but in any case that is irrelevant since they ignored the heat of vaporization. This is very conservative estimate of the heat output. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:Defkalion apparently ignored heat of vaporization
They(DGT) intentionally left out the vaporization as a gift to the skeptics according to what was stated. There is evidence that the water was vaporized into steam which was then superheated to dry vapor. I calculated over 20 kilowatts was being delivered. Dave -Original Message- From: Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Mon, Jul 29, 2013 4:01 pm Subject: [Vo]:Defkalion apparently ignored heat of vaporization I am looking at the Josephson version of the Defkalion video, here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HHEtnTO3h6s It is a little more blurry than the original. At time 39:03 the numbers on the screen can be read. Total input is 1918 W. Output is 4295 W. T_in is 25.29°C, T_out 132.13°C, and the flow rate is 0.569 liters/min. 132.13°C - 25.29°C = 106.9°C 0.569 liters/min = 9.5 ml/s 106.9°C * 9.5 ml = 1014 calories 1014 cal * 4.2 = 4258 W That is approximately what is shown in the Output Power section of the screen. I have heard that the device produced steam. This is shown at various times in the whole video. From the numbers here, I conclude that the people at Defkalion treated the output as hot water, ignoring the heat of vaporization. The heat of vaporization of water is 2260 kJ/kg, or 2260 J/g, so for 9.5 ml that would be an extra 21,470 J/s (watts). I gather there have been some disputes over whether this water was fully vaporized. It might have been somewhat wet. It might have included unboiled water. I don't see how it could have, at 132°C, but in any case that is irrelevant since they ignored the heat of vaporization. This is very conservative estimate of the heat output. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:Defkalion apparently ignored heat of vaporization
David Roberson dlrober...@aol.com wrote: They(DGT) intentionally left out the vaporization as a gift to the skeptics according to what was stated. There is evidence that the water was vaporized into steam which was then superheated to dry vapor. I calculated over 20 kilowatts was being delivered. That is what I thought you said, but I wanted to reiterate this, to be sure I understood. There was some confusion about this issue at the conference, among people who were discussing this. Some said Defkalion did take into account of the vaporization, some said they didn't. At the conference, the video worked well in the morning. The problem was that many people, including me, could not see it because we had sessions and we were scheduled for tours of the SKINR lab and the nanoparticle lab. (They had to break the crowd into groups because we could not all fit into the lab rooms.) In the afternoon, something went wrong with the Livestream recording. It played the same 5-minute segment over and over again. This was *not* caused by a problem at Missouri U. So we were unable to establish the facts. I am just catching up now. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:Defkalion apparently ignored heat of vaporization
Jones Beene jone...@pacbell.net wrote: This is what 1.6 liters per hour of dry steam looks like: ** ** http://www.ajmadison.com/ajmadison/images/large/MR100_Steam_Floor_Head.jpg I cannot tell the scale of that picture. How big is the plume? Are you sure it is 1.6 L/hour? That seems a little low. I borrowed a steam cleaner for my car a few years ago that put out 1.5 kW, which is the limit for U.S. equipment in ordinary 120 VAC plugs. It put out a small steam plum. Unimpressive. It did not help remove the stains in the car or the bathroom grout. I guess this is an MR-100 Primo Steam Cleaning System. I think it plugs into an ordinary socket meaning it is 1.5 kW. Other photos of the output from this make the steam plume look small. We should be seeing a massive blast of steam… Where in the full video does it show the steam? I am still reviewing it. I have heard it is shown, but most of the time it was sparged in cold water. I have seen ~100 kW of steam sparged in a drum of cold water, at Hydrodynamics. It is noisy but not that impressive. Held in open air the steam plume is very impressive and noisy! - Jed
Re: [Vo]:Defkalion apparently ignored heat of vaporization
From: Jones Beene jone...@pacbell.net Sent: Monday, July 29, 2013 2:19:58 PM Before getting too worked up over the implications, there is a bit of a credibility gap. This is what 1.6 liters per hour of dry steam looks like: http://www.ajmadison.com/ajmadison/images/large/MR100_Steam_Floor_Head.jpg Doesn't look at all dry to me. If it was, you'd see a large gap of invisible steam before you saw any droplets -- visible steam.
Re: [Vo]:Defkalion apparently ignored heat of vaporization
James Bowery jabow...@gmail.com wrote: There is no video of the steam output. Are you sure? Someone told me there is. Have your reviewed the full 8 hours? The credibility gap is better demonstrated -- as I implied -- by the failure to drive a steam turbine to provide the input electricity. From what I have heard, it is difficult and expensive to engineer something like that. You can't simply go out, buy a turbine, and attach it in a few days. You certainly cannot generated electricity with it, and there would not be much point to having a whirling turbine by itself. You can spin a turbine with water pressure alone, so unless you are measuring the torque, it would prove nothing. I think that is an unreasonable demand. Calorimetry should suffice at this stage. This was a demo, not a full test. You can't expect as much assurance from this as we got from Levi and 6 others going to visit Rossi for a week or so total, on three different occasions. This was a good start. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:Defkalion apparently ignored heat of vaporization
Alan Fletcher a...@well.com wrote: Doesn't look at all dry to me. If it was, you'd see a large gap of invisible steam before you saw any droplets -- visible steam. Good point, although maybe the head is blocking the view. The Hydrodynamics ~100 kW steam plume was invisible for a couple of feet. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:Defkalion apparently ignored heat of vaporization
From what I recall from watching the stream life, is that they had water running down the waste entry in parallel to cool off the output of the reactor (being dry steam in optimum running state). On Mon, Jul 29, 2013 at 11:19 PM, Jones Beene jone...@pacbell.net wrote: Before getting too worked up over the implications, there is a bit of a credibility gap. ** ** This is what 1.6 liters per hour of dry steam looks like: ** ** http://www.ajmadison.com/ajmadison/images/large/MR100_Steam_Floor_Head.jpg ** ** The DGT is supposedly putting out over 34 liters per hour which is twenty times more than in this image. ** ** We should be seeing a massive blast of steam… Is there visual evidence of 34 liters per hour of steam anywhere in that demo ? ** ** ** **
[Vo]:Nicely Played, John Hadjichristos
John Hadjichristos July 29, 2013 at 11:23 AM Dear Maryyugo Why don't you come in one of our labs to conduct a test? It should be independent, right? Under one condition: declare in public (say here, in this blog) your name and qualifications to check that you can conduct a really independent test. Following that, then please be so kind to send us a email at i...@defkalion-energy.com with your real name to get in contact to arrange it. John Hadjichristos http://egooutpeters.blogspot.com/2013/07/defkalion-has-kept-its-promise.html?showComment=1375122219336#c6122067852304473153 For me, that statement alone wiped out the damage your demo did.
Re: [Vo]:Defkalion apparently ignored heat of vaporization
On 07/29/2013 05:52 PM, Jed Rothwell wrote: James Bowery jabow...@gmail.com mailto:jabow...@gmail.com wrote: There is no video of the steam output. Are you sure? Someone told me there is. Have your reviewed the full 8 hours? I watched it all, and though I may have missed a moment or two, they did not show the steam output. Mats Lewan did observe that there was NO water in the steam during the hot part of the run. Craig
[Vo]:Re: Nicely Played, John Hadjichristos
Presuming (of course) that's actually John Hadjichristos. If it isn't, still, well done anonymous troll. On Mon, Jul 29, 2013 at 3:04 PM, blaze spinnaker blazespinna...@gmail.com wrote: John Hadjichristos July 29, 2013 at 11:23 AM Dear Maryyugo Why don't you come in one of our labs to conduct a test? It should be independent, right? Under one condition: declare in public (say here, in this blog) your name and qualifications to check that you can conduct a really independent test. Following that, then please be so kind to send us a email at i...@defkalion-energy.com with your real name to get in contact to arrange it. John Hadjichristos http://egooutpeters.blogspot.com/2013/07/defkalion-has-kept-its-promise.html?showComment=1375122219336#c6122067852304473153 For me, that statement alone wiped out the damage your demo did.
Re: [Vo]:Defkalion apparently ignored heat of vaporization
On 07/29/2013 06:07 PM, Craig wrote: Mats Lewan did observe that there was NO water in the steam during the hot part of the run. Craig At the beginning of the demonstration, they also manually checked the flow against the meter, by measuring the weight of the water after two minutes of flow -- twice. Craig
Re: [Vo]:Re: Nicely Played, John Hadjichristos
John Hadjichristos would never allow a troll to misrepresent him. John H reads ego out religiously so such a scam would certainly be detected. On Mon, Jul 29, 2013 at 6:10 PM, blaze spinnaker blazespinna...@gmail.comwrote: Presuming (of course) that's actually John Hadjichristos. If it isn't, still, well done anonymous troll. On Mon, Jul 29, 2013 at 3:04 PM, blaze spinnaker blazespinna...@gmail.com wrote: John Hadjichristos July 29, 2013 at 11:23 AM Dear Maryyugo Why don't you come in one of our labs to conduct a test? It should be independent, right? Under one condition: declare in public (say here, in this blog) your name and qualifications to check that you can conduct a really independent test. Following that, then please be so kind to send us a email at i...@defkalion-energy.com with your real name to get in contact to arrange it. John Hadjichristos http://egooutpeters.blogspot.com/2013/07/defkalion-has-kept-its-promise.html?showComment=1375122219336#c6122067852304473153 For me, that statement alone wiped out the damage your demo did.
Re: [Vo]:Re: Nicely Played, John Hadjichristos
Yeah, it looks relatively authentic to me. MY annoys me to no end, but I admit - nice comeback: maryyugoJuly 29, 2013 at 12:29 PM I have a better idea, John. Why don't you get Jed Rothwell to provide some independent testing and experts for you? I have contact with him and I will help him make it fool proof. If I play your game, you will just say my qualifications are not adequate. Sorry. No dice. Talk to Jed, though. I know he was willing to go on site to do a proper test of Rossi with appropriate experts and instruments. Maybe he'll do the same for you. Let me know when you have contacted Mr. Rothwell and that you have authorized him to talk to me about the planned tests, schedule and any other particulars. On Mon, Jul 29, 2013 at 3:14 PM, Axil Axil janap...@gmail.com wrote: John Hadjichristos would never allow a troll to misrepresent him. John H reads ego out religiously so such a scam would certainly be detected. On Mon, Jul 29, 2013 at 6:10 PM, blaze spinnaker blazespinna...@gmail.com wrote: Presuming (of course) that's actually John Hadjichristos. If it isn't, still, well done anonymous troll. On Mon, Jul 29, 2013 at 3:04 PM, blaze spinnaker blazespinna...@gmail.com wrote: John Hadjichristos July 29, 2013 at 11:23 AM Dear Maryyugo Why don't you come in one of our labs to conduct a test? It should be independent, right? Under one condition: declare in public (say here, in this blog) your name and qualifications to check that you can conduct a really independent test. Following that, then please be so kind to send us a email at i...@defkalion-energy.com with your real name to get in contact to arrange it. John Hadjichristos http://egooutpeters.blogspot.com/2013/07/defkalion-has-kept-its-promise.html?showComment=1375122219336#c6122067852304473153 For me, that statement alone wiped out the damage your demo did.
Re: [Vo]:Re: Nicely Played, John Hadjichristos
On Mon, 29 Jul 2013 15:10:26 -0700 blaze spinnaker blazespinna...@gmail.com wrote: Presuming (of course) that's actually John Hadjichristos. If it isn't, still, well done anonymous troll. Just to make sure it is seen by readers of this list, here are MY's two replies. I doubt Hadjichristos, if it was really his post, will reply in turn. http://tinyurl.com/lmpej4v maryyugo July 29, 2013 at 12:29 PM I have a better idea, John. Why don't you get Jed Rothwell to provide some independent testing and experts for you? I have contact with him and I will help him make it fool proof. If I play your game, you will just say my qualifications are not adequate. Sorry. No dice. Talk to Jed, though. I know he was willing to go on site to do a proper test of Rossi with appropriate experts and instruments. Maybe he'll do the same for you. Let me know when you have contacted Mr. Rothwell and that you have authorized him to talk to me about the planned tests, schedule and any other particulars. maryyugo July 29, 2013 at 12:41 PM Oh... I meant to mention: the test is not independent unless the people doing the test are allowed to specify how the output power is to be measured and with exactly what method and instruments. If they choose to sparge the output stream, you must allow it. It is also not independent unless your input power source (the mains wiring) is interrupted by the experimenter using their own extension cord and that cord is instrumented with a broad band power meter. And it is not independent unless the origin of ALL wires and tubes connected to the device are fully characterized and understood by the experimenters and enough time is allowed to make sure this characterization is properly performed and recorded. None of this, of course was the case for your demo. Before I even discussed it with Jed, you'd have to agree to all of those conditions. While you're here, maybe you'd care to tell all of us why you did not simply use one your existing reactors which your company claimed to have in dozen quantities since at least mid 2011. That would be the ones with built in high temperature oil, all liquid, flow calorimetry. I'd also like to know how you can feel comfortable in testing a nuclear fusion device, with limited experience, with guests present, without any radiation monitoring and without any meltdown or explosion protection for the observers. Finally, maybe you can clear up the issue of the supposed 1.6 Tesla magnetic field allegedly present at 20 cm from the device. If this is accurate, how do you stop anything in the room which is ferromagnetic and not solidly held down, from rushing to it? Thanks in advance for your time and answers to all these questions.
Re: [Vo]:Defkalion apparently ignored heat of vaporization
The problem with dry steam is that it is invisible and Mats merely observed on the basis on what he thought was the sound of hissing gas through the tubes to determine presence and flow rate. Hardly scientific.
Re: [Vo]:Re: Nicely Played, John Hadjichristos
MY's suggestion of having Jed run it would immediately be rejected by the skeptics as yet another test by a believer
Re: [Vo]:Re: Nicely Played, John Hadjichristos
Yeah, I think that sort of the point. If John was serious he can't really complain about Jed who's shown himself to be rather fanatical about this. Jed, are you up for this? Hopefully you'll chime in on the blog and say you'll do it. Why not? We should all go there and say We Want Jed!
Re: [Vo]:Re: Nicely Played, John Hadjichristos
Jed has a cool beard, so I want him. 2013/7/29 blaze spinnaker blazespinna...@gmail.com Yeah, I think that sort of the point. If John was serious he can't really complain about Jed who's shown himself to be rather fanatical about this. Jed, are you up for this? Hopefully you'll chime in on the blog and say you'll do it. Why not? We should all go there and say We Want Jed! -- Daniel Rocha - RJ danieldi...@gmail.com
RE: EXTERNAL: Re: [Vo]:Re: Nicely Played, John Hadjichristos
It would be a great excuse to re-run the English demo with a full 8 hr vacuum on the argon so they get to full output and then let Jed take a look at that steam output.. just venting the steam outside the room so we can see it on video to see if any portion is dry would be a big boost... In fact John could easily release a video of that now to be verified later.. it would put the output question to bed if there were any length of invisible steam preceding the plume. Fran From: Daniel Rocha [mailto:danieldi...@gmail.com] Sent: Monday, July 29, 2013 6:41 PM To: John Milstone Subject: EXTERNAL: Re: [Vo]:Re: Nicely Played, John Hadjichristos Jed has a cool beard, so I want him. 2013/7/29 blaze spinnaker blazespinna...@gmail.commailto:blazespinna...@gmail.com Yeah, I think that sort of the point. If John was serious he can't really complain about Jed who's shown himself to be rather fanatical about this. Jed, are you up for this? Hopefully you'll chime in on the blog and say you'll do it. Why not? We should all go there and say We Want Jed! -- Daniel Rocha - RJ danieldi...@gmail.commailto:danieldi...@gmail.com
Re: [Vo]:Defkalion apparently ignored heat of vaporization
This seems a little unfair to Mats. He calibrated the flow rate at the start of the demonstration and found that the real rate was actually greater than the indication by a few percent. This was performed at several different flow rates. Unless you assume that DGT faked the flow rate indications during the demonstration, then what went into the device was what comes out. The dry vapor leaving the device might not cause as much commotion as some suggest. Check super heated steam at 150 C or so to get some idea of what to expect. Also, the initial run with argon did not come close to the performance with hydrogen. In both cases, the input powers were similar as well as the flow rate. It was an impressive show, unless of course you assume a trick. Dave -Original Message- From: blaze spinnaker blazespinna...@gmail.com To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Mon, Jul 29, 2013 6:26 pm Subject: Re: [Vo]:Defkalion apparently ignored heat of vaporization The problem with dry steam is that it is invisible and Mats merely observed on the basis on what he thought was the sound of hissing gas through the tubes to determine presence and flow rate. Hardly scientific.
Re: [Vo]:Defkalion apparently ignored heat of vaporization
In this video there is a quick look at the steam tube inserted into the drain. http://new.livestream.com/triwu2/Defkalion-US I saw it, but now I can't find it. It is around the 1 hour mark, I think. I wrote down 1:09 but now I can't find it. It was not very revealing. It did not show the steam plume. - Jed
Re: EXTERNAL: Re: [Vo]:Re: Nicely Played, John Hadjichristos
I find it difficult to assume anything but dry steam at 150 C and atmospheric after such a long travel inside the pipe. Any water vapor would be heated by the high temperature steam traveling through it. This process should result in lower temperature but dry steam after several feet within the mixing pipe. It is too bad no one measured the temperature of the vapor leaving that other device that has an obvious vapor plus steam mix. My bet is that you would read 100 C if the pressure remains at atmospheric unless the total is dry. Note that this is exactly what was seen during the demonstration until the heat was adequate to overcome that phase. Once exceeded, it was relatively easy for the temperature to rise quickly. Every indication is that dry steam was being generated when full power was achieved. Dave -Original Message- From: Roarty, Francis X francis.x.roa...@lmco.com To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Mon, Jul 29, 2013 6:46 pm Subject: RE: EXTERNAL: Re: [Vo]:Re: Nicely Played, John Hadjichristos It would be a great excuse to re-run the English demo with a full 8 hr vacuum on the argon so they get to full output and then let Jed take a look at that steam output.. just venting the steam outside the room so we can see it on video to see if any portion is dry would be a big boost… In fact John could easily release a video of that now to be verified later.. it would put the output question to bed if there were any length of invisible steam preceding the plume. Fran From: Daniel Rocha [mailto:danieldi...@gmail.com] Sent: Monday, July 29, 2013 6:41 PM To: John Milstone Subject: EXTERNAL: Re: [Vo]:Re: Nicely Played, John Hadjichristos Jed has a cool beard, so I want him. 2013/7/29 blaze spinnaker blazespinna...@gmail.com Yeah, I think that sort of the point. If John was serious he can't really complain about Jed who's shown himself to be rather fanatical about this. Jed, are you up for this? Hopefully you'll chime in on the blog and say you'll do it. Why not? We should all go there and say We Want Jed! -- Daniel Rocha - RJ danieldi...@gmail.com
Re: EXTERNAL: Re: [Vo]:Re: Nicely Played, John Hadjichristos
Sorry to keep throwing Mats report at you, but this is an easy observation. Either the output contained water, or it didn't. If you believe in forgery, then anything is possible, of course; but otherwise, there's no doubt that it was steam. - no consideration was taken to vaporization enthalpy. Yet the temperature at the output reached over 160 degrees Celsius with and open ended output tube, thus basically at atmospheric pressure. The output was led down into a sink. Initially water was pouring down, but at high temperatures there was no water dropping at all. If all the water was vaporized, the output thermal power would have been above 27 kW. http://matslew.wordpress.com/ Craig
Re: EXTERNAL: Re: [Vo]:Re: Nicely Played, John Hadjichristos
Defkalion will likely not measure the steam enthalpy. Don't insist on it. That's an obligatory gift. -- Daniel Rocha - RJ danieldi...@gmail.com
Re: [Vo]:Re: Nicely Played, John Hadjichristos
Daniel Rocha danieldi...@gmail.com wrote: Jed has a cool beard, so I want him. People seemed to enjoy my luncheon talk at ICCF18. Many people complemented me, including two people I roundly insulted in the talk: Steve Jones and Graham Hubler. Someone said, we didn't know you knew so much. I can't tell if that is a complement or an insult. Maybe I should publish the talk as is on LENR-CANR.org. I will convert it to academese for the Proceedings. It has cute illustrations which I shall have to leave out from the academic version. They are unbecoming of a serious, oh so serious, presentation. - Jed
[Vo]:Re: [Vo]:Defkalion apparently ignored heat of vaporization
If I recall correctly they showed steam in the blank run. - Reply message - From: Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: [Vo]:Defkalion apparently ignored heat of vaporization Date: Mon, Jul 29, 2013 6:52 PM In this video there is a quick look at the steam tube inserted into the drain. http://new.livestream.com/triwu2/Defkalion-US I saw it, but now I can't find it. It is around the 1 hour mark, I think. I wrote down 1:09 but now I can't find it. It was not very revealing. It did not show the steam plume. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:Re: Nicely Played, John Hadjichristos
Have you seen Steve Krivit? 2013/7/29 Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com Daniel Rocha danieldi...@gmail.com wrote: Jed has a cool beard, so I want him. People seemed to enjoy my luncheon talk at ICCF18. Many people complemented me, including two people I roundly insulted in the talk: Steve Jones and Graham Hubler. Someone said, we didn't know you knew so much. I can't tell if that is a complement or an insult. Maybe I should publish the talk as is on LENR-CANR.org. I will convert it to academese for the Proceedings. It has cute illustrations which I shall have to leave out from the academic version. They are unbecoming of a serious, oh so serious, presentation. - Jed -- Daniel Rocha - RJ danieldi...@gmail.com
Re: [Vo]:Re: [Vo]:Defkalion apparently ignored heat of vaporization
No steam was generated during the argon run. The temperature was too low. Dave -Original Message- From: hohlraum hohlr...@gmail.com To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Mon, Jul 29, 2013 7:13 pm Subject: [Vo]:Re: [Vo]:Defkalion apparently ignored heat of vaporization If I recall correctly they showed steam in the blank run. - Reply message - From: Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: [Vo]:Defkalion apparently ignored heat of vaporization Date: Mon, Jul 29, 2013 6:52 PM In this video there is a quick look at the steam tube inserted into the drain. http://new.livestream.com/triwu2/Defkalion-US I saw it, but now I can't find it. It is around the 1 hour mark, I think. I wrote down 1:09 but now I can't find it. It was not very revealing. It did not show the steam plume. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:Re: Nicely Played, John Hadjichristos
Daniel Rocha danieldi...@gmail.com wrote: Have you seen Steve Krivit? He did not attend. I saw his badge was prepared, but he did not come. Abd was there! - Jed
Re: [Vo]:Defkalion apparently ignored heat of vaporization
Interesting the reason they didn't increase the flow rate was because [23/07/2013 22:11:08] Mats Lewan: I asked -- the answer is that the flow from the water pipe is not enough http://www.quantumheat.org/index.php/en/follow/general-updates/309-iccf-fun On Mon, Jul 29, 2013 at 1:01 PM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com wrote: I am looking at the Josephson version of the Defkalion video, here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HHEtnTO3h6s It is a little more blurry than the original. At time 39:03 the numbers on the screen can be read. Total input is 1918 W. Output is 4295 W. T_in is 25.29°C, T_out 132.13°C, and the flow rate is 0.569 liters/min. 132.13°C - 25.29°C = 106.9°C 0.569 liters/min = 9.5 ml/s 106.9°C * 9.5 ml = 1014 calories 1014 cal * 4.2 = 4258 W That is approximately what is shown in the Output Power section of the screen. I have heard that the device produced steam. This is shown at various times in the whole video. From the numbers here, I conclude that the people at Defkalion treated the output as hot water, ignoring the heat of vaporization. The heat of vaporization of water is 2260 kJ/kg, or 2260 J/g, so for 9.5 ml that would be an extra 21,470 J/s (watts). I gather there have been some disputes over whether this water was fully vaporized. It might have been somewhat wet. It might have included unboiled water. I don't see how it could have, at 132°C, but in any case that is irrelevant since they ignored the heat of vaporization. This is very conservative estimate of the heat output. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:Defkalion apparently ignored heat of vaporization
On Mon, Jul 29, 2013 at 1:48 PM, David Roberson dlrober...@aol.com wrote: I calculated over 20 kilowatts was being delivered. That seems like a lot. Here is 10 kilowatts: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eN5-nhcjH_Alist=PLF5DF775E5D70960F Eric
Re: [Vo]:Defkalion apparently ignored heat of vaporization
On Mon, Jul 29, 2013 at 5:17 PM, David Roberson dlrober...@aol.com wrote: Simple is good! They achieved that with this test My favorite simple test -- boil a large barrel of water for an extended period of time, feeding it with a measured input flow to keep the water topped off, and measuring of the power coming in from the mains. Eric
Re: [Vo]:Re: Nicely Played, John Hadjichristos
On Mon, Jul 29, 2013 at 3:24 PM, Vorl Bek vorl@antichef.com wrote: I'd also like to know how you can feel comfortable in testing a nuclear fusion device, with limited experience, with guests present, without any radiation monitoring and without any meltdown or explosion protection for the observers. Finally, maybe you can clear up the issue of the supposed 1.6 Tesla magnetic field allegedly present at 20 cm from the device. If this is accurate, how do you stop anything in the room which is ferromagnetic and not solidly held down, from rushing to it? I always liked Mary's observations. It is too bad she got herself kicked off Vortex. Eric
Re: EXTERNAL: Re: [Vo]:Re: Nicely Played, John Hadjichristos
On Mon, Jul 29, 2013 at 3:46 PM, Roarty, Francis X francis.x.roa...@lmco.com wrote: just venting the steam outside the room so we can see it on video to see if any portion is dry would be a big boost… In fact John could easily release a video of that now to be verified later.. Unfortunately, one wrong move with the critics and you end up having more to explain than where you began. That is likely to happen if a video is released without sufficient verification built in to the recording of it. Eric
RE: [Vo]:Re: Nicely Played, John Hadjichristos
ROFLMAO - MaryYugo chickening out of a chance to prove everyone wrong. Classic. Original Message Subject: Re: [Vo]:Re: Nicely Played, John Hadjichristos From: Vorl Bek vorl@antichef.com Date: Tue, July 30, 2013 8:24 am To: vortex-l@eskimo.com On Mon, 29 Jul 2013 15:10:26 -0700 blaze spinnaker blazespinna...@gmail.com wrote: Presuming (of course) that's actually John Hadjichristos. If it isn't, still, well done anonymous troll. Just to make sure it is seen by readers of this list, here are MY's two replies. I doubt Hadjichristos, if it was really his post, will reply in turn. http://tinyurl.com/lmpej4v maryyugo July 29, 2013 at 12:29 PM I have a better idea, John. Why don't you get Jed Rothwell to provide some independent testing and experts for you? I have contact with him and I will help him make it fool proof. If I play your game, you will just say my qualifications are not adequate. Sorry. No dice. Talk to Jed, though. I know he was willing to go on site to do a proper test of Rossi with appropriate experts and instruments. Maybe he'll do the same for you. Let me know when you have contacted Mr. Rothwell and that you have authorized him to talk to me about the planned tests, schedule and any other particulars. maryyugo July 29, 2013 at 12:41 PM Oh... I meant to mention: the test is not independent unless the people doing the test are allowed to specify how the output power is to be measured and with exactly what method and instruments. If they choose to sparge the output stream, you must allow it. It is also not independent unless your input power source (the mains wiring) is interrupted by the experimenter using their own extension cord and that cord is instrumented with a broad band power meter. And it is not independent unless the origin of ALL wires and tubes connected to the device are fully characterized and understood by the experimenters and enough time is allowed to make sure this characterization is properly performed and recorded. None of this, of course was the case for your demo. Before I even discussed it with Jed, you'd have to agree to all of those conditions. While you're here, maybe you'd care to tell all of us why you did not simply use one your existing reactors which your company claimed to have in dozen quantities since at least mid 2011. That would be the ones with built in high temperature oil, all liquid, flow calorimetry. I'd also like to know how you can feel comfortable in testing a nuclear fusion device, with limited experience, with guests present, without any radiation monitoring and without any meltdown or explosion protection for the observers. Finally, maybe you can clear up the issue of the supposed 1.6 Tesla magnetic field allegedly present at 20 cm from the device. If this is accurate, how do you stop anything in the room which is ferromagnetic and not solidly held down, from rushing to it? Thanks in advance for your time and answers to all these questions.
RE: [Vo]:Re: Nicely Played, John Hadjichristos
Jed sed: [Krivit] did not attend. I saw his badge was prepared, but he did not come. Abd was there! I saw the photographs of Mr. Lomax! Boy, he's a lot furrier than I had imagined! Nice smile. Regards, Steven Vincent Johnson svjart.OrionWorks.com www.zazzle.com/orionworks tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/newvortex/
[Vo]:Re: [Vo]:Re: Nicely Played, John Hadjichristos
Yes. I can criticize but not verify.
Re: [Vo]:Info for Luca Gamberale (CTO Defkalion Europe)
Interesting, but we should be careful about credentials in industry. I don't know if the Wright brothers have great credential, neither Lumière brothers, Edison, ... Luca has been working labs all his life. I'm sure he understands measurement error. He also has a track record of publishing and making it past peer review. Even if credentials aren't required to figure out if something is possible, they're definitely required to figure if something has been done. Luca also has a lifetime of good work which he puts at risk if he gets caught up in a scam. What does Franco Cappelio (Or Alex or John Hadjichristo, etc) have to lose?
Re: [Vo]:Ride a Shuttle Booster Rocket
On Mon, Jul 29, 2013 at 3:41 AM, Vorl Bek vorl@antichef.com wrote: People on this list should enjoy this 400-second video http://tinyurl.com/m7b6wvr Thank you Vorl. That was really neat. Also a cautionary tale -- this is what will happen to a person if you're cut loose and your jet pack malfunctions. Eric
Re: [Vo]:Info for Luca Gamberale (CTO Defkalion Europe)
blaze spinnaker blazespinna...@gmail.com wrote: In my opinion, Luca Gamberale is the most credible member of the DGT team (so far). The more I hear from him the better: Anyone with english transcripts to the live stream from their DGT lab in Milan the day before the English one? It was pretty disappointing that he didn't show up for the english demo. Maybe his English is not so good? Presenting in a foreign language can be intimidating. As long as he is there working on the team I don't see why you care whether he was part of this demo. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:Info for Luca Gamberale (CTO Defkalion Europe)
As long as he is there working on the team I don't see why you care whether he was part of this demo. Come on... of everyone, Luca is the one who understands this the best. I want to read something (that I can at least auto translate) where he says DGT is above board, I know exactly what's inside the confidential area, and understand every part of how it works and I 100% claim this not a fraud but the real thing. That he has personally tested the device many times. Perhaps he said that in the first livestream video. I don't know. I don't speak italian :)
Re: [Vo]:Info for Luca Gamberale (CTO Defkalion Europe)
blaze spinnaker blazespinna...@gmail.com wrote: Come on... of everyone, Luca is the one who understands this the best. I want to read something (that I can at least auto translate) where he says DGT is above board . . . The fact that he is there, and he stays there, seems like pretty good evidence to me. I trust that as much as I would trust a statement from him saying this is legitimate research. If he did not think it was legit, surely he would not stay, would he? I am still not 100% convinced by Defkalion. Mary Yugo made some valid points over in Peter's blog. They have done some strange things, and made what appear to be exaggerated claims. I have urged them to publish an independent test, but they do not want to, last I heard. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:Info for Luca Gamberale (CTO Defkalion Europe)
The fact that he is there, and he stays there, seems like pretty good evidence to me. I trust that as much as I would trust a statement from him saying this is legitimate research. If he did not think it was legit, surely he would not stay, would he? If the money is OK and he needs it, he might. He's not liable for fraud until he starts lying to people.
Re: [Vo]:Info for Luca Gamberale (CTO Defkalion Europe)
blaze spinnaker blazespinna...@gmail.com wrote: If he did not think it was legit, surely he would not stay, would he? If the money is OK and he needs it, he might. He's not liable for fraud until he starts lying to people. I think it is unlikely that someone with his professional resume would stay there if he thought there was fraud or funny business. I do no think he would do that for an OK level of money. Because if there is fraud, his reputation will be ruined and he will never again be allowed to work in his chosen field. He has a PdD in physics. He was a Fellow at the university. He worked with Preparata. And if they find out there is fraud, he will spend the rest of his working life driving a taxi. People do not throw away 20 years of career building for OK money. He could not get away with saying I did not realize there is fraud. A person with PhD in physics and experience in experimental science enough to invent something and get a patent would see that it is a fraud. He would see that after five minutes. Or if he fails to see it, he is grossly incompetent. No one would hire him after a scandal like that. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:coupling processes of pseudo hydrogen atom (Rydberg state) inside a supercavity.
In reply to Jones Beene's message of Mon, 29 Jul 2013 06:21:43 -0700: Hi Jones, Where they talk about endothermic reactions, they are talking about fusion of an element with itself, not with Hydrogen. This is because in stars, by the time the mid-level elements are formed, the Hydrogen *in the core* has long been consumed so there is none left to fuse with the other elements. Because the binding energy is at a peak around Fe/Ni, any further fusion (e.g. Ni + Ni) would be endothermic. However fusion of *Hydrogen* with any of them would still be exothermic (as already shown here below). While the height of the Coulomb barrier plays a role in the likelihood that a fusion reaction between e.g. Ni H will occur, such reactions are not energetically forbidden, i.e. they are exothermic, not endothermic. Hi Robin, None of those reactions are net exothermic. You failed to include the energy necessary to overcome the Coulomb barrier, which was the gist of the original message. In all cases that high level of threshold energy, which must be expended, is greater than the yield. Tunneling does not change that situation because tunneling itself is conservative. This should be obvious - depending on how a google search is worded you will get about 10 million hits for something like Fusion of elements with mass numbers (the number of protons and neutrons) greater than 26 uses up more energy than is produced by the reaction. Thus, elements heavier than iron cannot be fuel sources in stars. -Original Message- From: mix...@bigpond.com In reply to Jones Beene's message of Hi, Proton capture is net endothermic with nickel and leads to significant radioactivity. 1H+58Ni = 59Cu + 3.419 MeV 1H+60Ni = 61Cu + 4.801 MeV 1H+61Ni = 62Cu + 5.866 MeV 1H+61Ni = 58Co + 4He + 0.489 MeV 1H+62Ni = 63Cu + 6.122 MeV 1H+62Ni = 59Co + 4He + 0.346 MeV 1H+64Ni = 65Cu + 7.453 MeV 1H+64Ni = 61Co + 4He + 0.663 MeV All these reactions are exothermic. Regards, Robin van Spaandonk http://rvanspaa.freehostia.com/project.html Regards, Robin van Spaandonk http://rvanspaa.freehostia.com/project.html
Re: [Vo]:Info for Luca Gamberale (CTO Defkalion Europe)
I wrote: I think it is unlikely that someone with his professional resume would stay there if he thought there was fraud or funny business. I do no think he would do that for an OK level of money. Because if there is fraud, his reputation will be ruined and he will never again be allowed to work in his chosen field. Needless to say, this is mere speculation on my part. It is not proof of anything. People sometimes do inexplicable things. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:Info for Luca Gamberale (CTO Defkalion Europe)
Needless to say, this is mere speculation on my part. It is not proof of anything. People sometimes do inexplicable things. I more or less agree with your assessment, however, I think it's even much more unlikely that he'd go on publicly available video and start committing fraud. My point is, they finally have someone who has a track record. I want to hear everything from him.
Re: [Vo]:Info for Luca Gamberale (CTO Defkalion Europe)
From: blaze spinnaker blazespinna...@gmail.com Sent: Monday, July 29, 2013 7:55:38 PM My point is, they finally have someone who has a track record. I want to hear everything from him. I'm sure that if you put up the $40M/whatever for a license -- you'd get all the face-time you wanted.
Re: [Vo]:Info for Luca Gamberale (CTO Defkalion Europe)
They won't do an independent *public* test. It is much less likely that they'd do for a big research facility if not for a commercial interest. That is silly right now and they don't remotely need it. 2013/7/29 Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com I am still not 100% convinced by Defkalion. Mary Yugo made some valid points over in Peter's blog -- Daniel Rocha - RJ danieldi...@gmail.com
Re: [Vo]:Info for Luca Gamberale (CTO Defkalion Europe)
DGT might want to impress patent evaluators, peers, and customers. They may want to stay under the radar as long as possible. I don't blame them for this. On Mon, Jul 29, 2013 at 11:10 PM, Daniel Rocha danieldi...@gmail.comwrote: They won't do an independent *public* test. It is much less likely that they'd do for a big research facility if not for a commercial interest. That is silly right now and they don't remotely need it. 2013/7/29 Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com I am still not 100% convinced by Defkalion. Mary Yugo made some valid points over in Peter's blog -- Daniel Rocha - RJ danieldi...@gmail.com
Re: [Vo]:Info for Luca Gamberale (CTO Defkalion Europe)
They don't need any of that. The public appearance is just a call for scientific collaboration. 2013/7/30 Axil Axil janap...@gmail.com DGT might want to impress patent evaluators, peers, and customers. They may want to stay under the radar as long as possible. I don't blame them for this. -- Daniel Rocha - RJ danieldi...@gmail.com
Re: [Vo]:Info for Luca Gamberale (CTO Defkalion Europe)
On Mon, Jul 29, 2013 at 8:10 PM, Daniel Rocha danieldi...@gmail.com wrote: They won't do an independent *public* test. It is much less likely that they'd do for a big research facility if not for a commercial interest. That is silly right now and they don't remotely need it. Really? They just offered to Mary Yugo to do exactly just that. Are you saying the offer was a lie?
Re: [Vo]:Info for Luca Gamberale (CTO Defkalion Europe)
No, it is just an invitation to see they are not cheating. 2013/7/30 blaze spinnaker blazespinna...@gmail.com On Mon, Jul 29, 2013 at 8:10 PM, Daniel Rocha danieldi...@gmail.com wrote: They won't do an independent *public* test. It is much less likely that they'd do for a big research facility if not for a commercial interest. That is silly right now and they don't remotely need it. Really? They just offered to Mary Yugo to do exactly just that. Are you saying the offer was a lie? -- Daniel Rocha - RJ danieldi...@gmail.com
Re: [Vo]:Info for Luca Gamberale (CTO Defkalion Europe)
I don't want to hear about MY since she/he is a disruptive force in LENR politics. Is blaze spinnaker a reincarnation of MY? I am beginning to wonder. On Mon, Jul 29, 2013 at 11:35 PM, blaze spinnaker blazespinna...@gmail.comwrote: On Mon, Jul 29, 2013 at 8:10 PM, Daniel Rocha danieldi...@gmail.com wrote: They won't do an independent *public* test. It is much less likely that they'd do for a big research facility if not for a commercial interest. That is silly right now and they don't remotely need it. Really? They just offered to Mary Yugo to do exactly just that. Are you saying the offer was a lie?
Re: [Vo]:Re: Nicely Played, John Hadjichristos
Mary is all bark and no bite. Dave -Original Message- From: Craig Brown cr...@overunity.co To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Mon, Jul 29, 2013 9:49 pm Subject: RE: [Vo]:Re: Nicely Played, John Hadjichristos ROFLMAO - MaryYugo chickening out of a chance to prove everyone wrong. Classic. Original Message Subject: Re: [Vo]:Re: Nicely Played, John Hadjichristos From: Vorl Bek vorl@antichef.com Date: Tue, July 30, 2013 8:24 am To: vortex-l@eskimo.com On Mon, 29 Jul 2013 15:10:26 -0700 blaze spinnaker blazespinna...@gmail.com wrote: Presuming (of course) that's actually John Hadjichristos. If it isn't, still, well done anonymous troll. Just to make sure it is seen by readers of this list, here are MY's two replies. I doubt Hadjichristos, if it was really his post, will reply in turn. http://tinyurl.com/lmpej4v maryyugo July 29, 2013 at 12:29 PM I have a better idea, John. Why don't you get Jed Rothwell to provide some independent testing and experts for you? I have contact with him and I will help him make it fool proof. If I play your game, you will just say my qualifications are not adequate. Sorry. No dice. Talk to Jed, though. I know he was willing to go on site to do a proper test of Rossi with appropriate experts and instruments. Maybe he'll do the same for you. Let me know when you have contacted Mr. Rothwell and that you have authorized him to talk to me about the planned tests, schedule and any other particulars. maryyugo July 29, 2013 at 12:41 PM Oh... I meant to mention: the test is not independent unless the people doing the test are allowed to specify how the output power is to be measured and with exactly what method and instruments. If they choose to sparge the output stream, you must allow it. It is also not independent unless your input power source (the mains wiring) is interrupted by the experimenter using their own extension cord and that cord is instrumented with a broad band power meter. And it is not independent unless the origin of ALL wires and tubes connected to the device are fully characterized and understood by the experimenters and enough time is allowed to make sure this characterization is properly performed and recorded. None of this, of course was the case for your demo. Before I even discussed it with Jed, you'd have to agree to all of those conditions. While you're here, maybe you'd care to tell all of us why you did not simply use one your existing reactors which your company claimed to have in dozen quantities since at least mid 2011. That would be the ones with built in high temperature oil, all liquid, flow calorimetry. I'd also like to know how you can feel comfortable in testing a nuclear fusion device, with limited experience, with guests present, without any radiation monitoring and without any meltdown or explosion protection for the observers. Finally, maybe you can clear up the issue of the supposed 1.6 Tesla magnetic field allegedly present at 20 cm from the device. If this is accurate, how do you stop anything in the room which is ferromagnetic and not solidly held down, from rushing to it? Thanks in advance for your time and answers to all these questions.
Re: [Vo]:Info for Luca Gamberale (CTO Defkalion Europe)
On Mon, Jul 29, 2013 at 8:40 PM, Axil Axil janap...@gmail.com wrote: I don't want to hear about MY since she/he is a disruptive force in LENR politics. I'm hardly the only one that brings up that name here. I think Terry has, and Jed just did. I agree, Yugo is annoying though. If you'd rather ban the name from Vortex, I am OK with that.
Re: [Vo]:Info for Luca Gamberale (CTO Defkalion Europe)
I would like to hear more theory discussed. LENR needs good scientifically credible theory presented to lend it credibility. How are you in that area? When MY was here, mailboxes became full with tons of nonsense and important subjects were bypassed as a result. On Mon, Jul 29, 2013 at 11:48 PM, blaze spinnaker blazespinna...@gmail.comwrote: On Mon, Jul 29, 2013 at 8:40 PM, Axil Axil janap...@gmail.com wrote: I don't want to hear about MY since she/he is a disruptive force in LENR politics. I'm hardly the only one that brings up that name here. I think Terry has, and Jed just did. I agree, Yugo is annoying though. If you'd rather ban the name from Vortex, I am OK with that.
Re: [Vo]:Info for Luca Gamberale (CTO Defkalion Europe)
Lousy :) Well, the subject is very important and certainly not nonsense, but if Vortex is meant to be technical discussion only, I can certainly take this elsewhere. On Mon, Jul 29, 2013 at 8:56 PM, Axil Axil janap...@gmail.com wrote: I would like to hear more theory discussed. LENR needs good scientifically credible theory presented to lend it credibility. How are you in that area? When MY was here, mailboxes became full with tons of nonsense and important subjects were bypassed as a result. On Mon, Jul 29, 2013 at 11:48 PM, blaze spinnaker blazespinna...@gmail.com wrote: On Mon, Jul 29, 2013 at 8:40 PM, Axil Axil janap...@gmail.com wrote: I don't want to hear about MY since she/he is a disruptive force in LENR politics. I'm hardly the only one that brings up that name here. I think Terry has, and Jed just did. I agree, Yugo is annoying though. If you'd rather ban the name from Vortex, I am OK with that.
Re: [Vo]:Info for Luca Gamberale (CTO Defkalion Europe)
Well, the subject is very important and certainly not nonsense, Which subject: Luca Gamberale or Mary Yugo? On Tue, Jul 30, 2013 at 12:07 AM, blaze spinnaker blazespinna...@gmail.comwrote: Lousy :) Well, the subject is very important and certainly not nonsense, but if Vortex is meant to be technical discussion only, I can certainly take this elsewhere. On Mon, Jul 29, 2013 at 8:56 PM, Axil Axil janap...@gmail.com wrote: I would like to hear more theory discussed. LENR needs good scientifically credible theory presented to lend it credibility. How are you in that area? When MY was here, mailboxes became full with tons of nonsense and important subjects were bypassed as a result. On Mon, Jul 29, 2013 at 11:48 PM, blaze spinnaker blazespinna...@gmail.com wrote: On Mon, Jul 29, 2013 at 8:40 PM, Axil Axil janap...@gmail.com wrote: I don't want to hear about MY since she/he is a disruptive force in LENR politics. I'm hardly the only one that brings up that name here. I think Terry has, and Jed just did. I agree, Yugo is annoying though. If you'd rather ban the name from Vortex, I am OK with that.
Re: [Vo]:Info for Luca Gamberale (CTO Defkalion Europe)
On Mon, Jul 29, 2013 at 8:56 PM, Axil Axil janap...@gmail.com wrote: I would like to hear more theory discussed. LENR needs good scientifically credible theory presented to lend it credibility. How are you in that area? When MY was here, mailboxes became full with tons of nonsense and important subjects were bypassed as a result. Axil and Blaze -- both probable pseudonyms. Only one day was required to assess that Blaze is no doubt sincere in his contributions to this list, despite the pseudonym. Nearly two years and one still wonders whether Axil is for real. Just saying. Eric
RE: [Vo]:coupling processes of pseudo hydrogen atom (Rydberg state) inside a supercavity.
-Original Message- From: mix...@bigpond.com Where they talk about endothermic reactions, they are talking about fusion of an element with itself, not with Hydrogen. Not true. Cosmologists are talking about ALL possible nuclear reactions. There are many types of nucleosynthesis progressions in stars of different sizes. Some proceed in stages as you suggest but many others do not. Lots of hydrogen can be recaptured after an initial blow-off or when two paired stars are colliding over time. This is because in stars, by the time the mid-level elements are formed, the Hydrogen *in the core* has long been consumed so there is none left to fuse with the other elements. That is one type of nucleosynthesis, but there are many other types that do not proceed that way. All nuclear fusion reactions that produce heavier elements than iron cause the star to lose energy and are said to be net endothermic reactions whether or not hydrogen is involved. Because the binding energy is at a peak around Fe/Ni, any further fusion (e.g. Ni + Ni) would be endothermic. Yes, that much is true but only because all nuclear fusion reactions that produce heavier elements than iron cause the star to lose energy and are net endothermic reactions. However fusion of *Hydrogen* with any of them would still be exothermic (as already shown here below). Not true unless you ignore the Coulomb barrier and the energy required to overcome it. The net energy of the reaction is based on much more than the final mass difference only. When the energy required to overcome the Coulomb barrier (even in the lower Gamow window) is factored into a final accounting, you will find a net loss of energy for fusion of elements heavier than iron in stars. While the height of the Coulomb barrier plays a role in the likelihood that a fusion reaction between e.g. Ni H will occur, such reactions are not energetically forbidden, i.e. they are exothermic, not endothermic. An endothermic reaction is never forbidden at all - and large levels of fusion can still operate at a net loss in stars as they cool rapidly. The individual reactants as *isolated entities* can have a mass difference on paper that appears exothermic, since no accounting exists for the other required factors that bring the reactants together, but hydrogen + nickel is not net exothermic on stars and there is no valid reason for Ni-H reactions to be net exothermic in condensed matter either, at least not as the fusion of charged particles. As we have opined before - the hydrogen atom (in deep electron orbital redundancy) being neutral, can possibly act as a virtual neutron in LENR. This is not proved, and is unlikely since no radioactive copper has been found, but without neutralizing Coulomb charge there is not net exotherm in Ni-H. Jones attachment: winmail.dat
[Vo]:The recent ICCF18 (Defkcalion Demo)
Hi All, Wow! I've been watching and thinking about the Delkcalion (cold fusion?) experiment, and wondered what you guys thought was actually happening there. It was a great demonstration. That small device certainly seemed to get wildly hot. If H gas + some nano-NI powder generated that much heat, I wonder how you design the heat exchange system to maximize the transfer of heat to a constantly flowing fluid, that boils away to dry steam? i think Defkcalion did a fantastic demonstration, but it leaves me asking more questions than it answers. What are the by-products, where are the by-products and why can't we see the by-products? I mean, where is the radiation, transmutations and changes in materials that would indicate a nuclear phenomena? A power source this big should have some tell-tail signal left over if it is nuclear in origin. A before/after EDAX would be icing on the cake for such a breakout demonstration. As it is, it still seems like an amateur experiment.
Re: [Vo]:The recent ICCF18 (Defkcalion Demo)
did you read? http://www.slideshare.net/ssusereeef70/2012-0813-iccf17-paperdgtgx On Tue, Jul 30, 2013 at 12:54 AM, Chuck Sites cbsit...@gmail.com wrote: Hi All, Wow! I've been watching and thinking about the Delkcalion (cold fusion?) experiment, and wondered what you guys thought was actually happening there. It was a great demonstration. That small device certainly seemed to get wildly hot. If H gas + some nano-NI powder generated that much heat, I wonder how you design the heat exchange system to maximize the transfer of heat to a constantly flowing fluid, that boils away to dry steam? i think Defkcalion did a fantastic demonstration, but it leaves me asking more questions than it answers. What are the by-products, where are the by-products and why can't we see the by-products? I mean, where is the radiation, transmutations and changes in materials that would indicate a nuclear phenomena? A power source this big should have some tell-tail signal left over if it is nuclear in origin. A before/after EDAX would be icing on the cake for such a breakout demonstration. As it is, it still seems like an amateur experiment.
Re: [Vo]:The recent ICCF18 (Defkcalion Demo)
On Mon, Jul 29, 2013 at 9:54 PM, Chuck Sites cbsit...@gmail.com wrote: Hi All, Wow! I've been watching and thinking about the Delkcalion (cold fusion?) experiment, and wondered what you guys thought was actually happening there. It was a great demonstration. That small device certainly seemed to get wildly hot. If H gas + some nano-NI powder generated that much heat, I wonder how you design the heat exchange system to maximize the transfer of heat to a constantly flowing fluid, that boils away to dry steam? i think Defkcalion did a fantastic demonstration, but it leaves me asking more questions than it answers. http://new.livestream.com/triwu2/Defkalion-US Watch the video at the bottom, he goes into some detail about the mechanism which deals with heat exchange. Some more detail here: http://iccf18.research.missouri.edu/files/day2/Protocol_and_test_results.pdf What are the by-products, where are the by-products and why can't we see the by-products? I mean, where is the radiation, transmutations and changes in materials that would indicate a nuclear phenomena? A power source this big should have some tell-tail signal left over if it is nuclear in origin. A before/after EDAX would be icing on the cake for such a breakout demonstration. As it is, it still seems like an amateur experiment. I will agree that Mats (and Defkalion folks) are very brave to work with this so casually. Isn't anyone ever worried about these things blowing up?
