Re: [Vo]:The real chemical energy of nascent hydrogen
While it is an interesting hypothesis that the real nascent energy of pre-split monatomic H is greater than previously ascribed by a factor of 2-3, this has nothing to do with the eCat's COP of 2.5. The eCat input is not burning H2, it is primarily electric. When the eCat is run for a long time and an overall COP of 2.5 (to pick an example) is achieved, that COP is from the (heat energy out)/(electrical energy in). For a COP of 2.5, there is 1.5x the input ELECTRICAL energy as excess heat out. If this goes on for a long time, the excess heat out can be hundreds or thousands of times the energy available from any chemical source which could be hypothetically contained inside the reactor. It is from this that the Ragone plot is taken. These experiments are generally run with a small fixed charge of H2, which puts strict limits on the available energy from H2 burning or chemical energy in general. Conclusion: a long term test with COP = 2.5 produced by chemical means would require a chemical output that is hundreds or thousands of times greater than what could produced according to today's chemical enthalpy of H. So, arguing that the COP of 2.4 could be explained with a mistake in H enthalpy of a factor of 2.4 is off the mark by a huge factor (100's to 10's of thousands) and the statement is wholly specious. Bob Higgins On Sun, Apr 13, 2014 at 2:52 PM, Jones Beene jone...@pacbell.net wrote: Just to be clear, one can state with certainty that burning hydrogen only returns ~one third more energy than is expended to split the gases - so if the gases are made monatomic, then the net gain for the reaction is in the range of COP 2.4 over combustion - and that is chemical gain. This can be illustrated schematically but if the image does not appear, the URL is: http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/molecule/imgmol/beng2.gif
RE: [Vo]:The real chemical energy of nascent hydrogen
From: Bob Higgins These experiments are generally run with a small fixed charge of H2, which puts strict limits on the available energy from H2 burning or chemical energy in general. Hi Bob, Actually no. The fixed charge of H2 puts a limit only on available nuclear energy, but not on a contribution from positronium (vacuum energy which is essentially vast, according to Dirac). You can complain that “semantics” should not allow this type of gain to be called chemical energy – but clearly it is not nuclear energy, therefore “chemical” is closer than nuclear - if those are the only two choices, since the kinetics are chemical and nowhere close to nuclear. Conclusion: a long term test with COP = 2.5 produced by chemical means would require a chemical output that is hundreds or thousands of times greater than what could produced according to today's chemical enthalpy of H. Not exactly true. A sequential “chemical” gain (from Ps) would require only slight net gain (3.4 eV) which does not result in a permanent change of the hydrogen, to insure reuse… IOW a gain which keeps protons in play for the next iteration. So, arguing that the COP of 2.4 could be explained with a mistake in H enthalpy of a factor of 2.4 is off the mark by a huge factor (100's to 10's of thousands) and the statement is wholly specious. Not at all. In fact you have clarified your error in the underlying assumption- to one which assumes that anything not chemical is nuclear, which is wrong – since in fact this excess energy is in the range of chemical (10 eV) but it is sequential, iterative and continuing over time. There is no mistake in H enthalpy, only a mistake in the assumption that there is but a single iteration per active atom. Jones Beene wrote: Just to be clear, one can state with certainty that burning hydrogen only returns ~one third more energy than is expended to split the gases - so if the gases are made monatomic, then the net gain for the reaction is in the range of COP 2.4 over combustion - and that is chemical gain. This can be illustrated schematically but if the image does not appear, the URL is: http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/molecule/imgmol/beng2.gif
RE: [Vo]:The real chemical energy of nascent hydrogen
I agree carbon or oxygen both will reduce excess gain reactions. IMHO chemical reactions are always the path of least resistance ahead of Dirac mechanisms and also result in compounds more difficult to reverse back to monatomic and often fixed to and modifying the surrounding geometry in a manner that reduces the suppression level..ie growing whiskers perpendicular to parallel surfaces to relieve the Casimir force. as the field of super catalysts flourishes we will likely discover creation and activation is best accomplished and maintained in a vacuum or inert cover gas that inhibits chemical reactions and allow these excess gain reactions to persist – the heat sink may likewise need to be a permanent companion because once these reactions are given more robust geometry and environment they will still destroy themselves unless the energy is already being transported away..and this may again shed some light on the difficulty Rossi and other researches encounter initiating this “system” where the entire environment including the heat sink has to creep up to the reaction point via resistive heating before the system can self sustain –enough heat to start without damage while slowly increasing the reaction and heat sinking rate to make it overunity a while also backing out the resistive heating contribution[keeping just enough to control the reaction via duty factor pulses]. Fran From: Jones Beene [mailto:jone...@pacbell.net] Sent: Sunday, April 13, 2014 9:13 PM To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: EXTERNAL: RE: [Vo]:The real chemical energy of nascent hydrogen From: David Roberson My reason for asking about the hydrocarbon was that it is contains a great deal of hydrogen that must be stripped away from the carbon when burned. Once free, I would expect it to behave much like a broken apart hydrogen molecule. Do you understand why free hydrogen taken from a hydrocarbon would be different than the free hydrogen derived from an H2 molecule? Dave, Please do not confuse me with an expert on Dirac vis-à-vis LENR. Much of this information and speculation has been floating around on Vortex and other parts of the web for years, and my role in this thread has been simply to try to regurgitate it into a framework that attempts to explain what is actually seen and what is not seen, in the Rossi effect. This is in anticipation of upcoming results showing very few indicia of nuclear reactions. However, these results could instead show evidence that indicates Rossi’s original idea of nickel transmuting to copper. As for why hydrocarbons would seem to be less likely to participate in excess gain reactions following combustion – such as an induced epo interaction, my guess is that carbon is loaded with valence electrons to begin with - which then become free and will flood the local environment, making it less likely that a bare proton will be able to attract negative energy in its short lifetime. In contrast, carbon which is in the form of CNT would have all the valence electrons strongly bound, and therefore would be more conducive to promoting the epo reaction. Just a guess…
[Vo]:Thermal inertia
This may be of interest to Dave - in modeling Rossi's thermodynamics https://www.thermalfluidscentral.org/journals/index.php/Heat_Mass_Transfer/a rticle/view/69/145 There is a conceptual roadblock with understanding the E-Cat related to the subject of thermal gain - contrasted with the need for continuing thermal input. In simple terms, the argument is this: if there is real thermal gain in the reaction (P-out P-in) then why is continuing input of energy required? Why not simple recycle some of the gain, especially if the gain is strong such as if it was at COP=6 ? There are several partial answers to this question. One of them involves keeping positive feedback to a far lower level than optimum (for net gain) to avoid the possibility of runaway. Another is based on models of thermal inertial. Another is based on the fact that the real COP of Ni-H in general may be limited to a lower number than most of us hope is possible. A third answer, or really a clarification of thermal inertial would be seen in Fig 2 on page 4 of the above cited article, where two models are seen side by side. If we also add a requirement for a threshold thermal plateau for the Rossi reaction to happen, which includes a narrow plateau (more like a ridge) where negative feedback turns to positive, then we can see that the second model makes it important to maintain an outside input, since there is no inherent smoothness in the curve, and once a peak has been reached the downslope can be abrupt . Which is another way of saying that thermal inertia is not a smooth curve at an important scale, and thus natural conductivity and heat transfer characteristics may not be adequate to maintain a positive feedback plateau, at least not without an outside source of heat. This may not be a clear verbalization of the thermodynamics, and perhaps someone can word it more clearly - but it explains the need for the goldilocks or 3-bear mode of reaction control for E-Cat. (not too hot and not too cold) attachment: winmail.dat
Re: [Vo]:The real chemical energy of nascent hydrogen
Well, yes, it is semantics. What you are describing is not chemical energy at all. Chemical energy specifically deals with the shared electron binding energy in formation of compounds with other atoms. What you are describing is the possible ability of monatomic H, D, or T to access and tap the zero point energy. This would not be chemical, but would fall into the category of ZPE. Such possibilities may exist (only postulated to exist), but they should not be classified as chemical. If Mills is correct in his hydrino postulate, then that may be yet another energy category - call it atomic instead of nuclear or chemical. It does involve the electron, but not in formation of compounds with other atoms, so it is not chemical. Since the hydrino formation does not involve the nucleus, it is not nuclear. I don't think I ever mentioned nuclear in my previous post. Bob On Tue, Apr 15, 2014 at 9:26 AM, Jones Beene jone...@pacbell.net wrote: *From:* Bob Higgins These experiments are generally run with a small fixed charge of H2, which puts strict limits on the available energy from H2 burning or chemical energy in general. Hi Bob, Actually no. The fixed charge of H2 puts a limit only on available nuclear energy, but not on a contribution from positronium (vacuum energy which is essentially vast, according to Dirac). You can complain that “semantics” should not allow this type of gain to be called chemical energy – but clearly it is not nuclear energy, therefore “chemical” is closer than nuclear - if those are the only two choices, since the kinetics are chemical and nowhere close to nuclear. Conclusion: a long term test with COP = 2.5 produced by chemical means would require a chemical output that is hundreds or thousands of times greater than what could produced according to today's chemical enthalpy of H. Not exactly true. A sequential “chemical” gain (from Ps) would require only slight net gain (3.4 eV) which does not result in a permanent change of the hydrogen, to insure reuse… IOW a gain which keeps protons in play for the next iteration. So, arguing that the COP of 2.4 could be explained with a mistake in H enthalpy of a factor of 2.4 is off the mark by a huge factor (100's to 10's of thousands) and the statement is wholly specious. Not at all. In fact you have clarified your error in the underlying assumption- to one which assumes that anything not chemical is nuclear, which is wrong – since in fact this excess energy is in the range of chemical (10 eV) but it is sequential, iterative and continuing over time. There is no mistake in H enthalpy, only a mistake in the assumption that there is but a single iteration per active atom. Jones Beene wrote: Just to be clear, one can state with certainty that burning hydrogen only returns ~one third more energy than is expended to split the gases - so if the gases are made monatomic, then the net gain for the reaction is in the range of COP 2.4 over combustion - and that is chemical gain. This can be illustrated schematically but if the image does not appear, the URL is: http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/molecule/imgmol/beng2.gif
Re: [Vo]:Thermal inertia
I think it is much more likely that Rossi's reaction is positive feedback when operating, is chaotic in nature (discontinuous), and requires a temperature threshold for the reaction to work. First, positive feedback - when the temperature is higher the reaction rate is higher, causing the temperature to go higher. The gain is infinite. Second, chaotic: the reaction may go to completion in an NAE and then stop altogether. This causes reduced heat and the temperature drops. At an uncertain random time another NAE or set of NAE may begin operation producing heat. Third, temperature threshold: Below a certain temperature threshold, the reaction rate falls rapidly to none. Due to the chaotic nature of the rate, the temperature can briefly fall below this threshold and if energy is not input from the control, then the reaction stops altogether. Rossi maintains his reactor at the threshold of thermal runaway. At this threshold, the reaction is stopping at random, gets a heat input from his control to cross the temperature threshold, and the reaction starts at other NAE. If it ever gets too hot (too little heat was taken out), the reaction runs away and melts down. I think if Rossi had a large thermal mass kept slightly above the threshold, he would be able to control the system solely by throttling the heat being withdrawn from the large thermal mass. Doing this he would be able to reach large COPs since the throttling control of the heat exchanger requires much less power than directly heating his eCat (which for the HotCat has a fairly constant thermal heat withdrawal rate near the operating temperature). In effect, the large heat sink would average over the chaotic drops and rises in temperature. Bob On Tue, Apr 15, 2014 at 10:31 AM, Jones Beene jone...@pacbell.net wrote: This may be of interest to Dave - in modeling Rossi's thermodynamics https://www.thermalfluidscentral.org/journals/index.php/Heat_Mass_Transfer/a rticle/view/69/145 There is a conceptual roadblock with understanding the E-Cat related to the subject of thermal gain - contrasted with the need for continuing thermal input. In simple terms, the argument is this: if there is real thermal gain in the reaction (P-out P-in) then why is continuing input of energy required? Why not simple recycle some of the gain, especially if the gain is strong such as if it was at COP=6 ? There are several partial answers to this question. One of them involves keeping positive feedback to a far lower level than optimum (for net gain) to avoid the possibility of runaway. Another is based on models of thermal inertial. Another is based on the fact that the real COP of Ni-H in general may be limited to a lower number than most of us hope is possible. A third answer, or really a clarification of thermal inertial would be seen in Fig 2 on page 4 of the above cited article, where two models are seen side by side. If we also add a requirement for a threshold thermal plateau for the Rossi reaction to happen, which includes a narrow plateau (more like a ridge) where negative feedback turns to positive, then we can see that the second model makes it important to maintain an outside input, since there is no inherent smoothness in the curve, and once a peak has been reached the downslope can be abrupt . Which is another way of saying that thermal inertia is not a smooth curve at an important scale, and thus natural conductivity and heat transfer characteristics may not be adequate to maintain a positive feedback plateau, at least not without an outside source of heat. This may not be a clear verbalization of the thermodynamics, and perhaps someone can word it more clearly - but it explains the need for the goldilocks or 3-bear mode of reaction control for E-Cat. (not too hot and not too cold)
RE: [Vo]:Thermal inertia
Bob, we seem to be saying the same thing in different ways. However, the thermal mass suggestion was made to Rossi in 2011 – over and over again - down to a recommendation for a low-volatility heat transfer fluid and storage unit, using one of the new replacements for PCBs like diphenyl ether - the new Therminol or an equivalent, which are the current choices for solar trough units. Of course, Rossi may not have tried this suggestion for unknown reasons – but since it is obvious, not expensive, and suggested by almost everyone to him (including Ampenergo) - yet it never showed up in a demo – the lack of the obvious solution may indicate that thermal mass recycling (alone) is not sufficient to maintain the goldilocks mode. From: Bob Higgins I think it is much more likely that Rossi's reaction is positive feedback when operating, is chaotic in nature (discontinuous), and requires a temperature threshold for the reaction to work. First, positive feedback - when the temperature is higher the reaction rate is higher, causing the temperature to go higher. The gain is infinite. Second, chaotic: the reaction may go to completion in an NAE and then stop altogether. This causes reduced heat and the temperature drops. At an uncertain random time another NAE or set of NAE may begin operation producing heat. Third, temperature threshold: Below a certain temperature threshold, the reaction rate falls rapidly to none. Due to the chaotic nature of the rate, the temperature can briefly fall below this threshold and if energy is not input from the control, then the reaction stops altogether. Rossi maintains his reactor at the threshold of thermal runaway. At this threshold, the reaction is stopping at random, gets a heat input from his control to cross the temperature threshold, and the reaction starts at other NAE. If it ever gets too hot (too little heat was taken out), the reaction runs away and melts down. I think if Rossi had a large thermal mass kept slightly above the threshold, he would be able to control the system solely by throttling the heat being withdrawn from the large thermal mass. Doing this he would be able to reach large COPs since the throttling control of the heat exchanger requires much less power than directly heating his eCat (which for the HotCat has a fairly constant thermal heat withdrawal rate near the operating temperature). In effect, the large heat sink would average over the chaotic drops and rises in temperature. Bob This may be of interest to Dave - in modeling Rossi's thermodynamics https://www.thermalfluidscentral.org/journals/index.php/Heat_Mass_Transfer/a rticle/view/69/145 There is a conceptual roadblock with understanding the E-Cat related to the subject of thermal gain - contrasted with the need for continuing thermal input. In simple terms, the argument is this: if there is real thermal gain in the reaction (P-out P-in) then why is continuing input of energy required? Why not simple recycle some of the gain, especially if the gain is strong such as if it was at COP=6 ? There are several partial answers to this question. One of them involves keeping positive feedback to a far lower level than optimum (for net gain) to avoid the possibility of runaway. Another is based on models of thermal inertial. Another is based on the fact that the real COP of Ni-H in general may be limited to a lower number than most of us hope is possible. A third answer, or really a clarification of thermal inertial would be seen in Fig 2 on page 4 of the above cited article, where two models are seen side by side. If we also add a requirement for a threshold thermal plateau for the Rossi reaction to happen, which includes a narrow plateau (more like a ridge) where negative feedback turns to positive, then we can see that the second model makes it important to maintain an outside input, since there is no inherent smoothness in the curve, and once a peak has been reached the downslope can be abrupt . Which is another way of saying that thermal inertia is not a smooth curve at an important scale, and thus natural conductivity and heat transfer characteristics may not be adequate to maintain a positive feedback plateau, at least not without an
Re: [Vo]:Thermal inertia
I agree that most people run into a mental roadblock when they try to understand how thermal input that is of much smaller magnitude than that which is generated by the ECAT is capable of controlling the reaction. It seems obvious that a small portion of the output could simply find its way back to replace that initial input and keep the device moving toward thermal run away. I admit that I had the same concerns when I first began modeling the process a couple of years ago. My expectations were that I would witness thermal run away as expected, but Rossi spoon fed us with tiny hints suggesting that a COP of 6 was the best he could achieve and I asked myself why this limit and not a lower one. So, I generated a model to achieve a better understanding of the process. Rossi also spoke of a duty cycled power input waveform and even described it in details. We have always suspected that he tends to feed misinformation to confuse competitors so I took this information with a great deal of skepticism. So, I constructed a simple toy spice model and let it run while I varied the major parameters. To my initial amazement, I was able to achieve control of the positive feedback process while calculating a COP that was in the vicinity of 6! The COP can be modified over quite a range of values while stable operation was possible, but the greater the total COP, the closer to thermal destruction he has to operate. To have his device run with the desired COP of 6 required a high degree of accuracy in maintaining the core temperature peak value and a small error would result in loss of control with simple thermal feedback from a heat source. An active controller using strong cooling would be much more stable when using a good algorithm. The key process parameter I discovered when playing with my models is that positive feedback can allow the core temperature to move in both directions. That is, the temperature can be increasing ever faster or can be decreasing ever faster as the feedback gains ground. This behavior suggests that operation at this fine balance point might be possible and it only requires a tiny amount of drive heat energy if tightly controlled. The balance point occurs when the thermal energy being generated by the core at its operating temperature is exactly equal to the energy being extracted by the external system. The thermal mass of the core and other components smooth out and delay the temperature movement and allow the controller sufficient time to act. Furthermore, as long as the internally generated heat energy of the core is slightly less than the demand from the load, the core will begin to cool off when the drive heat power is turned off. I hope this short description of how I model the ECAT operation helps to clarify the process. If you have additional questions please feel free to ask. Dave -Original Message- From: Jones Beene jone...@pacbell.net To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Tue, Apr 15, 2014 10:32 am Subject: [Vo]:Thermal inertia This may be of interest to Dave - in modeling Rossi's thermodynamics https://www.thermalfluidscentral.org/journals/index.php/Heat_Mass_Transfer/a rticle/view/69/145 There is a conceptual roadblock with understanding the E-Cat related to the subject of thermal gain - contrasted with the need for continuing thermal input. In simple terms, the argument is this: if there is real thermal gain in the reaction (P-out P-in) then why is continuing input of energy required? Why not simple recycle some of the gain, especially if the gain is strong such as if it was at COP=6 ? There are several partial answers to this question. One of them involves keeping positive feedback to a far lower level than optimum (for net gain) to avoid the possibility of runaway. Another is based on models of thermal inertial. Another is based on the fact that the real COP of Ni-H in general may be limited to a lower number than most of us hope is possible. A third answer, or really a clarification of thermal inertial would be seen in Fig 2 on page 4 of the above cited article, where two models are seen side by side. If we also add a requirement for a threshold thermal plateau for the Rossi reaction to happen, which includes a narrow plateau (more like a ridge) where negative feedback turns to positive, then we can see that the second model makes it important to maintain an outside input, since there is no inherent smoothness in the curve, and once a peak has been reached the downslope can be abrupt . Which is another way of saying that thermal inertia is not a smooth curve at an important scale, and thus natural conductivity and heat transfer characteristics may not be adequate to maintain a positive feedback plateau, at least not without an outside source of heat. This may not be a clear verbalization of the thermodynamics, and perhaps someone can word it more clearly - but it explains the need for the
Re: [Vo]:Thermal inertia
Yes, we have attempted to get Rossi to try active cooling of some type for it seems like ever! I have a suspicion that some time in the future it will appear and he will be seeing a COP that is significantly higher than he now entertains. Of course, it is far easier to supply just one mode and heating is the easiest and must be present to reach operating temperature in the first stages. Perhaps Rossi has experimented with other means and finds that the coupling available between his core and heater is better controlled and acts faster than using the cooling processes. It is difficult to know what techniques he may have tried since he keeps that type of information close and for good reasons. My main hope is that Rossi delivers a working system that is practical in the least amount of time possible. I am perfectly happy to accept the COP of 6 at this time while expecting further improvements in the next generations. Dave -Original Message- From: Jones Beene jone...@pacbell.net To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Tue, Apr 15, 2014 11:36 am Subject: RE: [Vo]:Thermal inertia Bob, we seem to be saying the same thing in different ways. However, the thermal mass suggestion was made to Rossi in 2011 – over and over again - down to a recommendation for a low-volatility heat transfer fluid and storage unit, using one of the new replacements for PCBs like diphenyl ether - the new Therminol or an equivalent, which are the current choices for solar trough units. Of course, Rossi may not have tried this suggestion for unknown reasons – but since it is obvious, not expensive, and suggested by almost everyone to him (including Ampenergo) - yet it never showed up in a demo – the lack of the obvious solution may indicate that thermal mass recycling (alone) is not sufficient to maintain the goldilocks mode. From: Bob Higgins I think it is much more likely that Rossi's reaction is positive feedback when operating, is chaotic in nature (discontinuous), and requires a temperature threshold for the reaction to work. First, positive feedback - when the temperature is higher the reaction rate is higher, causing the temperature to go higher. The gain is infinite. Second, chaotic: the reaction may go to completion in an NAE and then stop altogether. This causes reduced heat and the temperature drops. At an uncertain random time another NAE or set of NAE may begin operation producing heat. Third, temperature threshold: Below a certain temperature threshold, the reaction rate falls rapidly to none. Due to the chaotic nature of the rate, the temperature can briefly fall below this threshold and if energy is not input from the control, then the reaction stops altogether. Rossi maintains his reactor at the threshold of thermal runaway. At this threshold, the reaction is stopping at random, gets a heat input from his control to cross the temperature threshold, and the reaction starts at other NAE. If it ever gets too hot (too little heat was taken out), the reaction runs away and melts down. I think if Rossi had a large thermal mass kept slightly above the threshold, he would be able to control the system solely by throttling the heat being withdrawn from the large thermal mass. Doing this he would be able to reach large COPs since the throttling control of the heat exchanger requires much less power than directly heating his eCat (which for the HotCat has a fairly constant thermal heat withdrawal rate near the operating temperature). In effect, the large heat sink would average over the chaotic drops and rises in temperature. Bob This may be of interest to Dave - in modeling Rossi's thermodynamics https://www.thermalfluidscentral.org/journals/index.php/Heat_Mass_Transfer/a rticle/view/69/145 There is a conceptual roadblock with understanding the E-Cat related to the subject of thermal gain - contrasted with the need for continuing thermal input. In simple terms, the argument is this: if there is real thermal gain in the reaction (P-out P-in) then why is continuing input of energy required? Why not simple recycle some of the gain, especially if the gain is strong such as if it was at COP=6 ? There are several partial answers to this question. One of them involves keeping positive feedback to a far lower level than optimum (for net gain) to avoid the possibility of runaway. Another is based on models of thermal inertial. Another is based on the fact that the real COP of Ni-H
Re: [Vo]:Thermal inertia
I think heat is important and is supplemented with an over riding magnetic field at higher temperatures. In other words there are 2 parameters that affect the reaction rate--heat with its slow reaction time and magnetic field which acts with a smaller time constant. The heat is supplied in the form of phonons and not infrared radiation and therefore depends upon heat conduction with whatever rate the composite material of Rossi's reactor has considering both the metal shell and the internal composite material which Rossi says is Ni and H. I think the heat is required to get the spectrum of lattice vibrations into a range where resonance coupling with the Ni-H reaction can be achieved. The size of the Ni particles would be important in this regard. I consider the magnetic field is what is the primary controller of the energy producing reaction between the Ni and H, however. The recent report by Mizuno may have been nano Ni particles dispersed within a ZrO2 matrix which would have some other thermal properties than Rossi's reactor. Mizuno's reaction seemed to produce hydrogen from D and in this regard may be a different reaction than Rossi's effect. Bob - Original Message - From: Bob Higgins To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Tuesday, April 15, 2014 8:02 AM Subject: Re: [Vo]:Thermal inertia I think it is much more likely that Rossi's reaction is positive feedback when operating, is chaotic in nature (discontinuous), and requires a temperature threshold for the reaction to work. First, positive feedback - when the temperature is higher the reaction rate is higher, causing the temperature to go higher. The gain is infinite. Second, chaotic: the reaction may go to completion in an NAE and then stop altogether. This causes reduced heat and the temperature drops. At an uncertain random time another NAE or set of NAE may begin operation producing heat. Third, temperature threshold: Below a certain temperature threshold, the reaction rate falls rapidly to none. Due to the chaotic nature of the rate, the temperature can briefly fall below this threshold and if energy is not input from the control, then the reaction stops altogether. Rossi maintains his reactor at the threshold of thermal runaway. At this threshold, the reaction is stopping at random, gets a heat input from his control to cross the temperature threshold, and the reaction starts at other NAE. If it ever gets too hot (too little heat was taken out), the reaction runs away and melts down. I think if Rossi had a large thermal mass kept slightly above the threshold, he would be able to control the system solely by throttling the heat being withdrawn from the large thermal mass. Doing this he would be able to reach large COPs since the throttling control of the heat exchanger requires much less power than directly heating his eCat (which for the HotCat has a fairly constant thermal heat withdrawal rate near the operating temperature). In effect, the large heat sink would average over the chaotic drops and rises in temperature. Bob On Tue, Apr 15, 2014 at 10:31 AM, Jones Beene jone...@pacbell.net wrote: This may be of interest to Dave - in modeling Rossi's thermodynamics https://www.thermalfluidscentral.org/journals/index.php/Heat_Mass_Transfer/a rticle/view/69/145 There is a conceptual roadblock with understanding the E-Cat related to the subject of thermal gain - contrasted with the need for continuing thermal input. In simple terms, the argument is this: if there is real thermal gain in the reaction (P-out P-in) then why is continuing input of energy required? Why not simple recycle some of the gain, especially if the gain is strong such as if it was at COP=6 ? There are several partial answers to this question. One of them involves keeping positive feedback to a far lower level than optimum (for net gain) to avoid the possibility of runaway. Another is based on models of thermal inertial. Another is based on the fact that the real COP of Ni-H in general may be limited to a lower number than most of us hope is possible. A third answer, or really a clarification of thermal inertial would be seen in Fig 2 on page 4 of the above cited article, where two models are seen side by side. If we also add a requirement for a threshold thermal plateau for the Rossi reaction to happen, which includes a narrow plateau (more like a ridge) where negative feedback turns to positive, then we can see that the second model makes it important to maintain an outside input, since there is no inherent smoothness in the curve, and once a peak has been reached the downslope can be abrupt . Which is another way of saying that thermal inertia is not a smooth curve at an important scale, and thus natural conductivity and heat transfer characteristics may not be
Re: [Vo]:The real chemical energy of nascent hydrogen
Or maybe we should give credit where it is due and call it Positronic Energy, a la Asimov.
Re: [Vo]:The real chemical energy of nascent hydrogen
I agree. That pins it as not nuclear and not chemical. A different kind of energy. Do you think the fission guys and fusion guys would agree with its reality any more than, if it were fission or fusion as they want to consider those terms? That's probably why they do not mention Dirac's sea very often, even though he was instrumental in developing quantum mechanics? Bob Bob - Original Message - From: Terry Blanton hohlr...@gmail.com To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Tuesday, April 15, 2014 9:22 AM Subject: Re: [Vo]:The real chemical energy of nascent hydrogen Or maybe we should give credit where it is due and call it Positronic Energy, a la Asimov.
RE: [Vo]:The real chemical energy of nascent hydrogen
The only problem is that Asimov was not looking at positrons (or the Dirac sea) as an energy source - AFAIK. In fact it was a MacGuffin. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Positronic_brain Does anyone remember who first proposed this for LENR? -Original Message- From: Bob Cook I agree. That pins it as not nuclear and not chemical. A different kind of energy. Do you think the fission guys and fusion guys would agree with its reality any more than, if it were fission or fusion as they want to consider those terms? That's probably why they do not mention Dirac's sea very often, even though he was instrumental in developing quantum mechanics? Bob Bob - Original Message - From: Terry Blanton Or maybe we should give credit where it is due and call it Positronic Energy, a la Asimov.
RE: [Vo]:The real chemical energy of nascent hydrogen
Does anyone remember who first proposed this for LENR? Hmmm... could it be Julian Schwinger ??? Not a bad pedigree.
RE: [Vo]:The real chemical energy of nascent hydrogen
Does anyone remember who first proposed this for LENR? Hmmm... could it be Julian Schwinger ??? Not a bad pedigree for the field. Sorry to pun-ish you, but wouldn't this make Jules the original free swinger ? “If you can’t join them, beat them.” - Julian Schwinger, Nobel prize winner in Physics, 1965
Re: [Vo]:The real chemical energy of nascent hydrogen
It may have been Martin Deutsch--Nobel Prize 1956--He worked on the Manhattan Project and was at MIT. Bob - Original Message - From: Jones Beene jone...@pacbell.net To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Tuesday, April 15, 2014 10:25 AM Subject: RE: [Vo]:The real chemical energy of nascent hydrogen Does anyone remember who first proposed this for LENR? Hmmm... could it be Julian Schwinger ??? Not a bad pedigree for the field. Sorry to pun-ish you, but wouldn't this make Jules the original free swinger ? “If you can’t join them, beat them.” - Julian Schwinger, Nobel prize winner in Physics, 1965
RE: [Vo]:The real chemical energy of nascent hydrogen
He discovered Ps but I doubt if he was supportive of LENR. He was considered for the Nobel but lost out, if this obit is correct http://newsoffice.mit.edu/2002/deutsch Deutsch was negative on LENR IIRC and went out of his way to criticize PF. -Original Message- From: Bob Cook It may have been Martin Deutsch--Nobel Prize 1956--He worked on the Manhattan Project and was at MIT. Bob - Original Message - From: Jones Beene Does anyone remember who first proposed this for LENR? Hmmm... could it be Julian Schwinger ??? Not a bad pedigree for the field. Sorry to pun-ish you, but wouldn't this make Jules the original free swinger ? “If you can’t join them, beat them.” - Julian Schwinger, Nobel prize winner in Physics, 1965
Re: [Vo]:The real chemical energy of nascent hydrogen
On Tue, Apr 15, 2014 at 1:07 PM, Jones Beene jone...@pacbell.net wrote: The only problem is that Asimov was not looking at positrons (or the Dirac sea) as an energy source - AFAIK. True; but, his robot series was this engineer's first encounter with positrons.
Re: [Vo]:The real chemical energy of nascent hydrogen
conciously... On Tue, Apr 15, 2014 at 3:42 PM, Terry Blanton hohlr...@gmail.com wrote: On Tue, Apr 15, 2014 at 1:07 PM, Jones Beene jone...@pacbell.net wrote: The only problem is that Asimov was not looking at positrons (or the Dirac sea) as an energy source - AFAIK. True; but, his robot series was this engineer's first encounter with positrons.
[Vo]:Mass media distortion: story of woman burned by coffee at McDonald's
People in this field know how much damage the mass media can inflict by repeating distortions and lies. A chilling example is the story of Stella Liebeck. She was severely burned by McDonald's coffee, which was held at higher temperatures than industry standards and safety standards call for. She nearly died. She was hospitalized for months and treated for two years. In this video, starting around minute 5, you can see gruesome photos of the extensive skin grafts she was given: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pCkL9UlmCOE The photos were shown to the jury. The jury deliberated for 4 hours and awarded her $2.7 million. I would have gone along with that. This was later reduced to approximately $400,000. (The exact amount is secret.) A lot of that went to cover medical bills, which were extensive even though she was 71 years old and on medicare. Wikipedia covers the events pretty well, for them: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liebeck_v._McDonald's_Restaurants I recommend the video. It has attracted 2.5 million viewers. It shows some clips of George Will and others making outrageous claims and outright lies about the case. It seems to me the message of this story is: be careful. Do not assume you know the facts, or you understand what really happened, who is the good guy and who is the bad guy. The mass media may be totally off base. Or Internet web sites and Wikipedia may be the ones who are wrong. You don't know. The consensus may be baloney. Even people in this field need to be reminded of this from time to time. - Jed
RE: [Vo]:The real chemical energy of nascent hydrogen
This discussion about the 'real' energy of nascent hydrogen is symptomatic of a continuing refusal to red Mills' papers carefully. Is emphasis on *nascent* applies to molecules of 'H2O created by chemical reactions apart from the liquid state or vapor state. The essential feature the potential energy of the nascent [newly created] molecule which fits the 3 times criterion for resnant energy transfer in the blacklight reaction. Itg applies to the molecule, not to atoms themselves. Mike Carrell -Original Message- From: Jones Beene [mailto:jone...@pacbell.net] Sent: Tuesday, April 15, 2014 1:26 PM To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: RE: [Vo]:The real chemical energy of nascent hydrogen Does anyone remember who first proposed this for LENR? Hmmm... could it be Julian Schwinger ??? Not a bad pedigree for the field. Sorry to pun-ish you, but wouldn't this make Jules the original free swinger ? “If you can’t join them, beat them.” - Julian Schwinger, Nobel prize winner in Physics, 1965 This Email has been scanned for all viruses by Medford Leas I.T. Department.
RE: [Vo]:The real chemical energy of nascent hydrogen
Mike said [snip] Itg applies to the molecule, not to atoms themselves.[/snip] Agreed! Call it hydrino , fractional or inverted Rydberg no matter but think we all agree if the atoms are unbound they will transform between fractional states without opposition. To produce excess energy reactions require these states to be bound by molecular or other means in order to force these translations to expend energy. In the case of a molecular bond between hydrinos the bond will oppose the normally free translation of the atoms back to ground state and it will discount the disassociation threshold.. Fran -Original Message- From: Mike Carrell [mailto:mi...@medleas.com] Sent: Tuesday, April 15, 2014 3:54 PM To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: EXTERNAL: RE: [Vo]:The real chemical energy of nascent hydrogen This discussion about the 'real' energy of nascent hydrogen is symptomatic of a continuing refusal to red Mills' papers carefully. Is emphasis on *nascent* applies to molecules of 'H2O created by chemical reactions apart from the liquid state or vapor state. The essential feature the potential energy of the nascent [newly created] molecule which fits the 3 times criterion for resnant energy transfer in the blacklight reaction. Itg applies to the molecule, not to atoms themselves. Mike Carrell -Original Message- From: Jones Beene [mailto:jone...@pacbell.net] Sent: Tuesday, April 15, 2014 1:26 PM To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: RE: [Vo]:The real chemical energy of nascent hydrogen Does anyone remember who first proposed this for LENR? Hmmm... could it be Julian Schwinger ??? Not a bad pedigree for the field. Sorry to pun-ish you, but wouldn't this make Jules the original free swinger ? “If you can’t join them, beat them.” - Julian Schwinger, Nobel prize winner in Physics, 1965 This Email has been scanned for all viruses by Medford Leas I.T. Department.
Re: [Vo]:Blood Moon rising
On Mon, Apr 14, 2014 at 7:29 AM, Jones Beene jone...@pacbell.net wrote: ... this bone-headed RD that Dutch virologists have been doing (also reported recently): http://www.vox.com/2014/4/12/5605950/why-did-scientists-just-make-bird-flu-m ore-contagious One concern I have is about what bath salts do to the brains of the users [1]. The users exhibit zombie-like behavior, and when they are less delirious, they can become violent and extremely difficult to restrain. If some naive researchers developed a contagious biological agent that had a similar effect on the brain as bath salts, we would have a genuine zombie problem. Eric [1] http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2354744/Teen-high-bath-salts-crashes-car-exhibits-Zombie-like-behavior-psychotic-episode.html
Re: [Vo]:Thermal inertia
On Tue, Apr 15, 2014 at 9:43 AM, David Roberson dlrober...@aol.com wrote: I hope this short description of how I model the ECAT operation helps to clarify the process. If you have additional questions please feel free to ask. When you were modeling the thermodynamics of the reaction, did you use a stochastic model for the reaction itself? If so, did you look at the effect of different variances in the temperature excursions? Eric
Re: [Vo]:Blood Moon rising OFF TOPIC
On Tue, Apr 15, 2014 at 8:07 PM, Eric Walker eric.wal...@gmail.com wrote: On Mon, Apr 14, 2014 at 7:29 AM, Jones Beene jone...@pacbell.net wrote: ... this bone-headed RD that Dutch virologists have been doing (also reported recently): http://www.vox.com/2014/4/12/5605950/why-did-scientists-just-make-bird-flu-m ore-contagioushttp://www.vox.com/2014/4/12/5605950/why-did-scientists-just-make-bird-flu-more-contagious One concern I have is about what bath salts do to the brains of the users [1]. The users exhibit zombie-like behavior, and when they are less delirious, they can become violent and extremely difficult to restrain. If some naive researchers developed a contagious biological agent that had a similar effect on the brain as bath salts, we would have a genuine zombie problem. Eric [1] http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2354744/Teen-high-bath-salts-crashes-car-exhibits-Zombie-like-behavior-psychotic-episode.html Far worse than such gross symptoms are more subtle symptoms such as diverting glucose from the brain to fat deposits causing an epidemic of stupid obese people. And far more likely is that such a pathogen would already exist in various human ecologies around the world -- some of which have coevolved immunity. It would then be taboo to even suspect the vectors or natural history that might allow science to objectively investigate, discover and provide said immunity with populations not so co-evolved. Group selection is war and war is Hell.
Re: [Vo]:Lewan describes Rossi's many failed tests
On Mon, Apr 14, 2014 at 3:15 PM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com wrote: This is why I do not trust Rossi's evaluations of his own work. I only trust independent verification. Fortunately, there have been some good independent verification test, by Ampenergo, Elforsk, and others. According to Mats Lewan, Ampenergo was a company formed by Craig Cassarino and others around the time that testing was being done on the E-Cat. Ampenergo was later to become Rossi's US partner, with rights to the sale of E-Cats in north and south America (p. 119). Cassarino had had previously done business with Rossi. The connection was deep -- somewhere during 1995 or 1996, Rossi had been hired on as technical developer for Bio Development Corporation, where Cassarino was vice president (p. 52). Rossi, Cassarino and Charles Norwood later formed Leonardo Technologies, Inc. (LTI), to explore the commercialization of Rossi's thermoelectric generators with the Department of Energy (p. 53). LTI, of course, is a major player in connection with the E-Cat. In my mind, this makes any Ampenergo test essentially an internal test, and not an independent one. Ampenergo gives the appearance of being another one of the many corporations that Rossi has started up for reasons known only to him. Eric
Re: [Vo]:Lewan describes Rossi's many failed tests
Eric Walker eric.wal...@gmail.com wrote: In my mind, this makes any Ampenergo test essentially an internal test, and not an independent one. Ampenergo gives the appearance of being another one of the many corporations that Rossi has started up for reasons known only to him. Rossi did not start up Ampenergo. Cassarino and the others did. Rossi does not own the company. I have seen the Ampenergo test methods results. They are better than Rossi's own. I believe them. I do not buy this notion that a test performed by people you know and like is internal, meaning it is somehow not independent. In 1989, every electrochemist knew Fleischmann and Pons. They all respected them. Many had worked with them, or studied with them. People such as McKubre took the claim seriously because he knew Fleischmann so well. It would be absurd to say that McKubre's work is not independent for that reason. Most fields of science are small worlds in the top people know one another well. They may be friends, or enemies, but they know one another. There are seldom replications or peer-reviews done by complete strangers. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:Thermal inertia
I modeled the behavior of core heat generation as a smooth function of temperature. Various functions and power series relationships have been modeled, but noisy generation was not attempted. If too much variation in heat power output is encountered then the process would become more difficult to stabilize. In that case my main concern would be that a burst in heat power output would kick the device over the threshold that leads to thermal run away. Rossi has never given a clue as to whether or not this type of issue effects operation of his devices. The recent published tests that displayed the surface temperature of the Hotcat versus time appeared to be very consistent from cycle to cycle. That suggests that variation is not too severe. Dave -Original Message- From: Eric Walker eric.wal...@gmail.com To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Tue, Apr 15, 2014 10:00 pm Subject: Re: [Vo]:Thermal inertia On Tue, Apr 15, 2014 at 9:43 AM, David Roberson dlrober...@aol.com wrote: I hope this short description of how I model the ECAT operation helps to clarify the process. If you have additional questions please feel free to ask. When you were modeling the thermodynamics of the reaction, did you use a stochastic model for the reaction itself? If so, did you look at the effect of different variances in the temperature excursions? Eric
Re: [Vo]:The real chemical energy of nascent hydrogen
Jones-- Your are right. Deutsch had 2 students win Nobel Prizes. He did not win it for his discovery of Ps which was in 1951. Bob - Original Message - From: Jones Beene jone...@pacbell.net To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Tuesday, April 15, 2014 11:39 AM Subject: RE: [Vo]:The real chemical energy of nascent hydrogen He discovered Ps but I doubt if he was supportive of LENR. He was considered for the Nobel but lost out, if this obit is correct http://newsoffice.mit.edu/2002/deutsch Deutsch was negative on LENR IIRC and went out of his way to criticize PF. -Original Message- From: Bob Cook It may have been Martin Deutsch--Nobel Prize 1956--He worked on the Manhattan Project and was at MIT. Bob - Original Message - From: Jones Beene Does anyone remember who first proposed this for LENR? Hmmm... could it be Julian Schwinger ??? Not a bad pedigree for the field. Sorry to pun-ish you, but wouldn't this make Jules the original free swinger ? “If you can’t join them, beat them.” - Julian Schwinger, Nobel prize winner in Physics, 1965
