RE: [Vo]:Deconstructing Rossi
Robert Greenyer has a different take on Rossi's initial product: a dogbone heater element for furnaces. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xyp14fnE1jQ I think the Blue Box space heater for Asia makes more sense. -Original Message- From: mix...@bigpond.com in such a way that the net COP is infinite (which is simple to do, when they can be heat-triggered). This would be rather like an opamp with no feedback loop. In order for such a system to work you need to be able to provide negative feedback from the end to the beginning. Robin, You seem to be assuming a series of reactors on a single looping fluid line. There are several options which are more sophisticated. Jones
[Vo]: Temperature Testing of an IH-like Alumina Reactor
Since MFMP is building a replica of the IH reactor as shown in the Lugano test, one of the proposals I have made is to begin with a single-phase dummy reactor for primary purpose of gaining data on the temperature / convection behavior. I propose that the heater be capable of driving the alumina tube section between the insulating mounting ends to 1400C. The alumina apparatus could be outfitted with 8 thermocouples of type R, S, or B and the data from these gathered with an Omega DAQ. At the same time an Optris camera would be monitoring the setup in a manner similar to the Lugano report. This should provide supporting or refuting evidence in the thermometry of the Optris with an alumina tube. The thermocouples will have to be sealed from air in alumina and glued to the alumina reactor with a high alumina cement. Does anyone have experience with these thermocouple types at temperatures above 1000C? The single phase drive could be an 120VAC source with a 10A triac controller - it would be cheap because it is a resistive load. We would still need to assess input power. Probably could do that OK with a Kill-a-Watt meter (calibrated). If something better was available, it would certainly be used. The most important point is not the energy balance in this case, but the correlation between the thermocouple measurements and the Optris IR thermometry. Additionally, a coiled secondary heater could be placed on axis for excess heat simulation, controlled with a separate supply. I would be interested to hear if the Vortex community thinks this experiment would be valuable and if there are any other suggestions for a dummy test. On Mon, Oct 27, 2014 at 10:36 PM, David Roberson dlrober...@aol.com wrote: ... Now if we can only settle the temperature and radiated power questions from the latest testing! Dave
Re: [Vo]: Temperature Testing of an IH-like Alumina Reactor
Are you assuming that the single phase drive triac controller is connected to the three heating units in parallel? That should be OK for a dummy test but the interaction with the fuel might become an issue when a final test is performed. I wonder if the MFMP group has access to a large variable transformer? That would be a very simple way to adjust the power input to obtain a curve of temperature versus drive power. I am particularly interested in the shape of that set of parameters since the testers saw such a large apparent increase in power output with the relatively small drive change with their step up in power. That appears to be a strong indication of core gain that should not be present when in the dummy mode. Earlier I found an interesting correlation between the temperature readings at the centers of the large end caps of his device and the smaller center regions of the long section. My off the cuff assumption that the same power might be radiated from those equal length surfaces appeared to be within a reasonable agreement. My main interest in that calculation was that the much thicker caps would have far less direct radiation through them and therefore be a more accurate way to measure the true temperature and hence radiation. The results of that calculation were very interesting and I wish the vorts would review that posting. I followed up on my concept concerning the caps and found that the calculated temperatures seemed considerably lower than assumed at the highest power. The main thing noted is that the caps did not show any bright glowing due to transparency. I suggest that they make a perfect surface for the thermal calibration spots to be mounted and they suppress the transparent tube problems. Has anyone else had an opportunity to follow up on this concept? Dave -Original Message- From: Bob Higgins rj.bob.higg...@gmail.com To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Tue, Oct 28, 2014 10:04 am Subject: [Vo]: Temperature Testing of an IH-like Alumina Reactor Since MFMP is building a replica of the IH reactor as shown in the Lugano test, one of the proposals I have made is to begin with a single-phase dummy reactor for primary purpose of gaining data on the temperature / convection behavior. I propose that the heater be capable of driving the alumina tube section between the insulating mounting ends to 1400C. The alumina apparatus could be outfitted with 8 thermocouples of type R, S, or B and the data from these gathered with an Omega DAQ. At the same time an Optris camera would be monitoring the setup in a manner similar to the Lugano report. This should provide supporting or refuting evidence in the thermometry of the Optris with an alumina tube. The thermocouples will have to be sealed from air in alumina and glued to the alumina reactor with a high alumina cement. Does anyone have experience with these thermocouple types at temperatures above 1000C? The single phase drive could be an 120VAC source with a 10A triac controller - it would be cheap because it is a resistive load. We would still need to assess input power. Probably could do that OK with a Kill-a-Watt meter (calibrated). If something better was available, it would certainly be used. The most important point is not the energy balance in this case, but the correlation between the thermocouple measurements and the Optris IR thermometry. Additionally, a coiled secondary heater could be placed on axis for excess heat simulation, controlled with a separate supply. I would be interested to hear if the Vortex community thinks this experiment would be valuable and if there are any other suggestions for a dummy test. On Mon, Oct 27, 2014 at 10:36 PM, David Roberson dlrober...@aol.com wrote: ... Now if we can only settle the temperature and radiated power questions from the latest testing! Dave
Re: [Vo]:questions on McKubre cells and AC component
As a follow-up to this, and as part of my appropriate public recanting, here are the equations for power during a sample time. This shows that if the current is made a constant, then only the average voltage need be acquired. Between samples, a capacitance on the voltage measurement node will cause the voltage to be averaged and the resulting voltage sample will be an average voltage (RMS is explicitly NOT needed). Here are the equations. I hope I got them right this time and I hope the image gets through to Vortex (it is small). On Mon, Oct 27, 2014 at 8:58 PM, Bob Higgins rj.bob.higg...@gmail.com wrote: Well Dave, you have made a good and convincing argument. My hat is off to you and I need to eat it with a big public helping of crow. It seems like if we go back to basics, the average power is integral((I dot V)dt)/integral(dt). If I is a constant, then you can pull I outside the integral and you get the average power as I x integral(Vdt)/integral(dt), which means the average power is I times the average voltage. Thank you for taking the challenge, making me rethink, and putting me straight! Regards, Bob On Mon, Oct 27, 2014 at 5:53 PM, David Roberson dlrober...@aol.com wrote: Bob, I take that as a challenge. I am not offended my friend, but find this a great opportunity to prove what I am saying is correct. I predict that you will agree with me once you have an opportunity to dig deeper into the subject. It is not clear to me what you are showing in your example, perhaps due to a problem with my display. Let me choose an example for you to consider. Again, we can assume that the current being delivered into the load is exactly 1 amp. If we further assume that the load resistance is 1 ohm, then under DC conditions we will measure precisely 1 volt across the load resistor. I and I assume you would calculate the power as being 1 watt delivered to the load resistor under this static condition. Now, suppose that the resistance changes to .5 ohms. In that case the voltage becomes exactly .5 volts. This results in a power being delivered to the resistor of .5 watts. For the other half of the AC square waveform the resistor becomes 1.5 ohms. In that case the power delivered becomes 1.5 watts since 1 amp x 1.5 volts = 1.5 watts. Since we are assuming a symmetrical AC waveform, this is a pretty good example of that with numerous harmonics that also get into the act. The assumed waveform is therefore a 1 volt peak to peak square wave that is riding upon a 1 volt DC average. So the total power average becomes (.5 watts + 1.5 watts) / 2 = 1 watt. Each half of the waveform makes its contribution and they balance each other out about the normal DC average of 1.0 watt. This is true for all AC waveforms, regardless of the harmonic content provided that the current retains a constant DC value. I have stated this on numerous occasions and it is a general concept. Power can only be extracted from a source current that flows at the same frequency as the source voltage. In this case the current is at a DC frequency, so no power can be extracted from the source except into a DC(0 Hertz) voltage related load. Dr. McKubre essentially made the same statement with respect to his experimental setup. Another feature of a constant current environment is that the power delivered into the load varies directly with the load voltage and not proportional to the square of the voltage as is normally encountered. That is what allows the average to be used in this case instead of having to deal with the messy RMS waveform additions. If you have reservations about what I have stated I strongly suggest that you put together a Spice model. That will prove that what I am saying is right on target. Dave
Re: [Vo]: Temperature Testing of an IH-like Alumina Reactor
What I am assuming is that, 1) we similify the heater winding to be a single coil for the first reactor we build. Instead of having 3 interleaved 25T windings, there will be a single winding of 18 gauge Kanthal APM wire with 75T. I am proposing 2) that there be no reactor fuel at all for this experiment. Then, 3) add instead of reactor fuel, a coil of Kanthal wire in the center reactor tube to simulate the heat produced from the fuel. Drive the center heater with a separate supply. Then, with each input power to the main heater, you could add an excess power to get it to match the Lugano results. You could use the center heater to mimic the change in calculated output power when the input to the main heater was only changed 100W. I have a 5A, 500VA variable transformer, but I don't think it is enough and I think that using triacs and line AC would be just fine. All we need to know is the power going in. For the most important part of the proposed experiment, knowing the input power is not really necessary - I just want to see correlation between the thermocouple readings and the Optris readings. Bob On Tue, Oct 28, 2014 at 8:52 AM, David Roberson dlrober...@aol.com wrote: Are you assuming that the single phase drive triac controller is connected to the three heating units in parallel? That should be OK for a dummy test but the interaction with the fuel might become an issue when a final test is performed. I wonder if the MFMP group has access to a large variable transformer? That would be a very simple way to adjust the power input to obtain a curve of temperature versus drive power. I am particularly interested in the shape of that set of parameters since the testers saw such a large apparent increase in power output with the relatively small drive change with their step up in power. That appears to be a strong indication of core gain that should not be present when in the dummy mode. -Original Message- From: Bob Higgins rj.bob.higg...@gmail.com To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Tue, Oct 28, 2014 10:04 am Subject: [Vo]: Temperature Testing of an IH-like Alumina Reactor Since MFMP is building a replica of the IH reactor as shown in the Lugano test, one of the proposals I have made is to begin with a single-phase dummy reactor for primary purpose of gaining data on the temperature / convection behavior. I propose that the heater be capable of driving the alumina tube section between the insulating mounting ends to 1400C. The alumina apparatus could be outfitted with 8 thermocouples of type R, S, or B and the data from these gathered with an Omega DAQ. At the same time an Optris camera would be monitoring the setup in a manner similar to the Lugano report. This should provide supporting or refuting evidence in the thermometry of the Optris with an alumina tube. The thermocouples will have to be sealed from air in alumina and glued to the alumina reactor with a high alumina cement.
[Vo]:Re: Temperature Testing of an IH-like Alumina Reactor
Bob The most important item is the correlation between thermocouple reading and the Optris camera. This would allow calibration of the camera with internal temperature. A thermocouple on the outside of the reactor (maybe several on the outside) would allow a heat flux calculation through the alumina reactor vessel and hence at least a rough determination of excess power. Such a determination of heat flux would be important for the case when the electricity were turned off to determine stand alone power output. If any of LENR energy were produced by radiation or particles not stopped by the reactor vessel, such energy would escape detection by the Lugano instruments. Neutrinos and low frequency RF could be such radiation. However, with exception of potentially Axil Axil and myself, this community seems to believe that undetected radiation is not present. I consider it may be present but at a low percentage of the total radiation produced. Until the actual energy production methods are understood, it will be hard to confirm with good accuracy the actual excess energy production. Bob Cook - Original Message - From: Bob Higgins To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Tuesday, October 28, 2014 7:04 AM Subject: [Vo]: Temperature Testing of an IH-like Alumina Reactor Since MFMP is building a replica of the IH reactor as shown in the Lugano test, one of the proposals I have made is to begin with a single-phase dummy reactor for primary purpose of gaining data on the temperature / convection behavior. I propose that the heater be capable of driving the alumina tube section between the insulating mounting ends to 1400C. The alumina apparatus could be outfitted with 8 thermocouples of type R, S, or B and the data from these gathered with an Omega DAQ. At the same time an Optris camera would be monitoring the setup in a manner similar to the Lugano report. This should provide supporting or refuting evidence in the thermometry of the Optris with an alumina tube. The thermocouples will have to be sealed from air in alumina and glued to the alumina reactor with a high alumina cement. Does anyone have experience with these thermocouple types at temperatures above 1000C? The single phase drive could be an 120VAC source with a 10A triac controller - it would be cheap because it is a resistive load. We would still need to assess input power. Probably could do that OK with a Kill-a-Watt meter (calibrated). If something better was available, it would certainly be used. The most important point is not the energy balance in this case, but the correlation between the thermocouple measurements and the Optris IR thermometry. Additionally, a coiled secondary heater could be placed on axis for excess heat simulation, controlled with a separate supply. I would be interested to hear if the Vortex community thinks this experiment would be valuable and if there are any other suggestions for a dummy test. On Mon, Oct 27, 2014 at 10:36 PM, David Roberson dlrober...@aol.com wrote: ... Now if we can only settle the temperature and radiated power questions from the latest testing! Dave
Re: [Vo]: Temperature Testing of an IH-like Alumina Reactor
A type B platinum thermocouple is good for this temperature. As I suggested on an earlier thread, All one really needs is one thermocouple, and place a sample of the Alumina rfractorey in a small oven. Having set the IR camera up before closing the oven door, just open the door and take a quick reading when the sample is up to temerature. All we need is rough confirmation of the temperature measurement in the Lugano test.
Re: [Vo]: Temperature Testing of an IH-like Alumina Reactor
This seems like a good test simple test to me. Bob Cook From: a.ashfield To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Tuesday, October 28, 2014 11:11 AM Subject: Re: [Vo]: Temperature Testing of an IH-like Alumina Reactor A type B platinum thermocouple is good for this temperature. As I suggested on an earlier thread, All one really needs is one thermocouple, and place a sample of the Alumina rfractorey in a small oven. Having set the IR camera up before closing the oven door, just open the door and take a quick reading when the sample is up to temerature. All we need is rough confirmation of the temperature measurement in the Lugano test.
Re: [Vo]:MFMP interviews spokesman from WILLIAMSON
Sent: Monday, October 27, 2014 12:57:38 PM My analysis of IR calorimetry and Black Body radiation is here : http://lenr.qumbu.com/blackbody_141027A.php Slightly updated. I used my blackbody calculator to derive an emissivity/temperature curve similar to Lugano fig 2. I swept the temperature form 100 to 1400, with emissivity=1, and deduced the average emissivity as Planck/StefanBoltzman using Manara's fig 5 data. The result is at http://lenr.qumbu.com/web_hotcat_pics/141022_lugano_02_manara.png Basically what happens is that as the temperature changes the peak of the blackbody spectrum moves through different parts of the emissivity/wavelength curve. The overall shape of the Lugano emissivity/temperature curve, other than the peak at 300C, is very similar to the Manara curve, so it could also be the result of a wavelength dependency. (Manara also shows a temperature dependency, but I didn't attempt to model that -- I just used the 1050K/770C curve). This increases my confidence that the calibration at 400C could still be at least qualitatively valid at 1400C
Re: [Vo]:Deconstructing Rossi
On Tue, Oct 28, 2014 at 9:05 AM, Jones Beene jone...@pacbell.net wrote: I think the Blue Box space heater for Asia makes more sense. Why not do both. After all, if you're about to enter the market with a revolutionary product with no patent protection to speak of, why not stampede the market?
Re: [Vo]:Rossi Ni Self-Enrichment
In reply to Eric Walker's message of Sat, 25 Oct 2014 21:25:44 -0700: Hi, [snip] Don't forget that only a tiny sample of the ash was measured. It's entirely possible that the sample just happened to be one in which the process was complete. If the reaction wasn't uniform throughout the reactor then there may have been other regions where the reaction wasn't complete, and was still producing energy. On Sat, Oct 25, 2014 at 3:18 PM, Alan Fletcher a...@well.com wrote: So maybe the hotcat wasn't running OUT of fuel at 32 days : it had completed the Ni isotope conversion (to a greater degree than Rossi expected), and was then running at peak efficiency? This could explain the improvement in efficiency over the first half, when the input power could be reduced. This makes sense in part, as there is probably nothing particularly special about nickel-7Li neutron stripping reactions. In the case of deuterium, neutron stripping is exothermic for the large majority of known isotopes. I suspect something similar happens with 7Li, but for fewer isotopes. So when the nickel is exhausted through enrichment, other reactions would be favored. The part that I have less of a sense of is what would set of reactions would kick in at the point of using up the nickel and why they might have been hindered prior to that. Eric Regards, Robin van Spaandonk http://rvanspaa.freehostia.com/project.html
Re: [Vo]:A new type of laser is born?
In reply to Robert Ellefson's message of Sat, 25 Oct 2014 17:53:02 -0700: Hi, [snip] The reactions I already provided make a lot more sense than these, because they are two particle reactions, where these are three particle reactions, which are very rare. Furthermore these reactions require that two neutrons transfer simultaneously, which is also highly unlikely. In the reactions I provided only a single neutron need hop. Oops, I see at least one significant typo in the reaction table. The first line should read: Li-7 + Ni-58 + Li-7 + stimulus - 2Li-6 + Ni-60 + sr-gammas This is the first step of the enrichment cycle. -Bob -Original Message- From: Robert Sent: Saturday, October 25, 2014 5:29 PM To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: RE: [Vo]:A new type of laser is born? I believe that a continuous neutron-exchange reaction cycle is taking place between lithium and nickel, which includes the following reactions: Li-7 + Ni-58 + Li-7 + stimulus - 2Li-6 + Ni-58 + sr-gammas Li-7 + Ni-60 + Li-7 + stimulus - 2Li-6 + Ni-62 + sr-gammas Li-7 + Ni-61 + Li-6 + stimulus - 2Li-6 + Ni-62 + sr-gammas Li-7 + Ni-62 + Li-7 + stimulus - 2Li-7 + Ni-62 + enhanced sr-gammas (no neutrons exchanged) Li-6 + Ni-62 + Li-6 + enhanced stimulus - 2Li-7 + Ni-60 + sr-gammas Li-6 + Ni-64 + Li-6 + stimulus - 2Li-7 + Ni-62 + sr-gammas Li-6 + Ni-60 + Li-6 + stimulus - 2Li-7 + Ni-58 + sr-gammas Regards, Robin van Spaandonk http://rvanspaa.freehostia.com/project.html
RE: [Vo]:A new type of laser is born?
I agree that the reactions I am proposing are extremely unlikely to occur in an unconstrained system, such as a gas or plasma in three-space. However, you must consider that these reactions are occurring in the midst of *intense* interactions driven by EMF, SPP, and phonon energies that are presumed to be driven into resonant modes. Stare at that nickel ash morphology for a while and think about whether that this system is highly dynamic or not, from multiple physical aspects. How would you explain that particular ash morphology, considering the shape of the nickel fuel grain clusters? At the same time, how would you explain the evolving COP that appeared to be accelerating as the experiment ended? Consider a Pharnsworth Fusor, or any other accelerated-particle fusion system: they require confinement by interacting fields. The intersection of two fields will produce a minima surface, and when you add a third constraint such as the curving surface of a metal dipole resonator, then suddenly you find that the solution space for where these particles are to be found is vastly reduced. In addition, *because of the coherence* of the system, multiple particles are likely to experience in-phase acceleration forces, such as two lithium ions being individually accelerated by coherent modes located some distance apart, travelling under the constraints of interacting fields until they arrive at a boundary condition, such as a nickel particle sitting in the middle of a node of the interacting fields. In any case, I really do not wield the depth of knowledge in chemistry or physics to proclaim particular reactions as being correct or not, I am simply trying to apply match what may be possible with what has been observed. I think the unusual and dynamic nature of this system requires that we consider reaction pathways that lie outside of previously-characterized reaction domains. For me, a prime example of this is the recently-released work from YK Bae on MIMS. Thanks for your considered comments, -Bob Ellefson From: mixent Sent: Tuesday, October 28, 2014 2:02 PM In reply to Robert Ellefson's message of Sat, 25 Oct 2014 17:53:02 -0700: ...these are three particle reactions, which are very rare. Furthermore these reactions require that two neutrons transfer simultaneously, which is also highly unlikely. In the reactions I provided only a single neutron need hop. From: Robert Sent: Saturday, October 25, 2014 5:29 PM I believe that a continuous neutron-exchange reaction cycle is taking place
[Vo]:Orbital Science Rocket- Explodes...6:22 PM
Greetings Vortex-L, Rockets..a bad track recordand a bad technology: http://www.space.com/17933-nasa-television-webcasts-live-space-tv.html Ad Astra, Ron Kita, Chiralex Doylestown PA
Re: [Vo]:Orbital Science Rocket- Explodes...6:22 PM
oh god.. the live video of it burning on the pad is still streaming. On Tue, Oct 28, 2014 at 4:09 PM, Ron Kita chiralex.k...@gmail.com wrote: Greetings Vortex-L, Rockets..a bad track recordand a bad technology: http://www.space.com/17933-nasa-television-webcasts-live-space-tv.html Ad Astra, Ron Kita, Chiralex Doylestown PA
RE: [Vo]:A new type of laser is born?
This seems apropos, although I do not have access to the full article yet. http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2013/11/131113125839.htm Tossed on the waves: Charting the path of ejected particles Fusion energy requires confining high energy particles, both those produced from fusion reactions and others injected by megawatt beams used to heat the plasma to fusion temperatures. New experiments are shedding light on one of the major mechanisms by which fast ions can be ejected from plasma. -Bob From: Robert Ellefson Sent: Tuesday, October 28, 2014 2:25 PM Subject: RE: [Vo]:A new type of laser is born? ...snip...In addition, *because of the coherence* of the system, multiple particles are likely to experience in-phase acceleration forces, such as two lithium ions being individually accelerated by coherent modes located some distance apart, travelling under the constraints of interacting fields until they arrive at a boundary condition, such as a nickel particle sitting in the middle of a node of the interacting fields. From: mixent Sent: Tuesday, October 28, 2014 2:02 PM In reply to Robert Ellefson's message of Sat, 25 Oct 2014 17:53:02 -0700: ...these are three particle reactions, which are very rare. Furthermore these reactions require that two neutrons transfer simultaneously, which is also highly unlikely. In the reactions I provided only a single neutron need hop. From: Robert Sent: Saturday, October 25, 2014 5:29 PM I believe that a continuous neutron-exchange reaction cycle is taking place
[Vo]:One of Stephan Pomp's, three arch sceptic co authors, appears to have switched sides
Hi all According to forum posts that were discovered by Sifferkol, just now; one of Stephan Pomp's, three arch sceptic co authors, appears to have switched sides and is now saying Rossi and Carl-Oscar Gullström will win next years Nobel prize! Hmm... http://www.sifferkoll.se/sifferkoll/?p=454 Sarcasm or road to Damascus? Kind Regards walker
Re: [Vo]:One of Stephan Pomp's, three arch sceptic co authors, appears to have switched sides
Sorry I think it sounds like sarcasm. He is still a cat-strangler:) Best Regards , Lennart Thornros www.StrategicLeadershipSac.com lenn...@thornros.com +1 916 436 1899 202 Granite Park Court, Lincoln CA 95648 “Productivity is never an accident. It is always the result of a commitment to excellence, intelligent planning, and focused effort.” PJM On Tue, Oct 28, 2014 at 4:54 PM, Ian Walker walker...@gmail.com wrote: Hi all According to forum posts that were discovered by Sifferkol, just now; one of Stephan Pomp's, three arch sceptic co authors, appears to have switched sides and is now saying Rossi and Carl-Oscar Gullström will win next years Nobel prize! Hmm... http://www.sifferkoll.se/sifferkoll/?p=454 Sarcasm or road to Damascus? Kind Regards walker
Re: [Vo]:One of Stephan Pomp's, three arch sceptic co authors, appears to have switched sides
From: Lennart Thornros lenn...@thornros.com Sent: Tuesday, October 28, 2014 5:37:41 PM Sorry I think it sounds like sarcasm. He is still a cat-strangler:) Reading the whole thread (google-translated): sarcasm.
Re: [Vo]:One of Stephan Pomp's, three arch sceptic co authors, appears to have switched sides
More relevant : Re: Rossi wins and those involved in their bluffing? by Peter Ekstrom »Sun October 26, 2014, 13:33 NyfikneHästen wrote: ... Finally, I wonder why not Peter or HG eventually involve themselves practically with Rossi and puts the nail in the coffin. Or have you tried? You may not be with the club, has not followed all the details 100%. Of course, you may just not have the time, but you were supposed to do all the individuals out there who hope and think and think and wish a service. A service of humanity service. Keep in mind that good. Otherwise, we sit here in 2020 when Rossi came with E-cat version 8.0. Or E-dog, to supplement . I remember there was talk in 2012 about Rossi's scam would run out at year-end 2013 as the last, but here we are soon at the turn of 2015 and Rossi is still going strong. Therefore, there must be some economic interests that keep him alive. So where does the money end (from which they will now?)? Have a nice and fine autumn day everyone! Sincerely NyfikneHästen Hello and welcome NyfikneHästen! There have been critics of the cat (kattstrypare) invited to participate in the tests. The conditions, however, have been unacceptable in terms of scientific, freedom and transparency. My interpretation of this is that Rossi does not want a critical review because it would reveal that the cat is not working! Rossi could probably pull out of this for a while and they convinced cat hugs will never change their minds no matter what evidence is presented.
[Vo]:RE: New analysis
This guy makes an interesting point that is not clear to me. Terry, Dave, Bob et al - what do you EEs who have looked at the input power think about this approach? “The currents in the three C1 wires are all equal and they are measured by the true RMS instrument PCE-830. The three heating resistors are also equal and therefore they will all be heated by equal currents, I2. The authors of the report have assumed that I2 is half of the current in the C1 wires. That turns out to be not true. Instead the full current I1 is alternating between the two wires in the C2 wire pairs, so the voltage drop will be the same as for a single wire. For calculation of the resistance Re in the wire system, see paragraph E1in the spreadsheet and reference. From: Brad Lowe http://lenr.fysik.org/eCat/COP=1_or_3.pdf Sent from my iPhone
Re: [Vo]:Orbital Science Rocket- Explodes...6:22 PM
Well, I wish I had some SpaceX stock.
Re: [Vo]:RE: New analysis
It's bed time here; so, I'll have to check it out tomorrow. Meanwhile three phase power is calculated by: Watt's Law: W = V avg. x A avg x p.f. x 1.732 Where: W = wattage (watts) Vavg = average voltage of the three separate phases (volts) Aavg = average current of the three separate phases current (amps) p.f. = average power factor or the three separate phases 1.732 = a constant necessary with 3 phase. Meanwhile again, here's another revelation occurring late today: https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B8mt4mJOTGvBei1sbThCMzJybm8/view?usp=sharing Sorry, I have a lot going on at the moment. On Tue, Oct 28, 2014 at 9:41 PM, Jones Beene jone...@pacbell.net wrote: This guy makes an interesting point that is not clear to me. Terry, Dave, Bob et al - what do you EEs who have looked at the input power think about this approach? “The currents in the three C1 wires are all equal and they are measured by the true RMS instrument PCE-830. The three heating resistors are also equal and therefore they will all be heated by equal currents, I2. The authors of the report have assumed that I2 is half of the current in the C1 wires. That turns out to be not true. Instead the full current I1 is alternating between the two wires in the C2 wire pairs, so the voltage drop will be the same as for a single wire. For calculation of the resistance Re in the wire system, see paragraph E1in the spreadsheet and reference. From: Brad Lowe http://lenr.fysik.org/eCat/COP=1_or_3.pdf Sent from my iPhone
Re: [Vo]:RE: New analysis
I took a quick look at it. I think the author is confusing split phase with three phase. Split phase is how you get 240 V in your home with only a single phase being distributed by the power company. The single phase is fed into a transformer with a center tap. You then get two 120 volt circuits referenced to a neutral. These are circuits are 180 degrees out of phase. True three phase has no neutral. The three phases all carry power, each 120 degrees out of phase with the other two. Hence the constant 1.73 or the square root of three constant required. In three phase, the phase to phase voltage in US distribution is 208 V. I already suffer from narcolepsy. Gotta get some sleep. On Tue, Oct 28, 2014 at 11:08 PM, Terry Blanton hohlr...@gmail.com wrote: It's bed time here; so, I'll have to check it out tomorrow. Meanwhile three phase power is calculated by: Watt's Law: W = V avg. x A avg x p.f. x 1.732 Where: W = wattage (watts) Vavg = average voltage of the three separate phases (volts) Aavg = average current of the three separate phases current (amps) p.f. = average power factor or the three separate phases 1.732 = a constant necessary with 3 phase. Meanwhile again, here's another revelation occurring late today: https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B8mt4mJOTGvBei1sbThCMzJybm8/view?usp=sharing Sorry, I have a lot going on at the moment. On Tue, Oct 28, 2014 at 9:41 PM, Jones Beene jone...@pacbell.net wrote: This guy makes an interesting point that is not clear to me. Terry, Dave, Bob et al - what do you EEs who have looked at the input power think about this approach? “The currents in the three C1 wires are all equal and they are measured by the true RMS instrument PCE-830. The three heating resistors are also equal and therefore they will all be heated by equal currents, I2. The authors of the report have assumed that I2 is half of the current in the C1 wires. That turns out to be not true. Instead the full current I1 is alternating between the two wires in the C2 wire pairs, so the voltage drop will be the same as for a single wire. For calculation of the resistance Re in the wire system, see paragraph E1in the spreadsheet and reference. From: Brad Lowe http://lenr.fysik.org/eCat/COP=1_or_3.pdf Sent from my iPhone
Re: [Vo]:RE: New analysis
I said three phase has no neutral. Well neutral is earth. Each phase's voltage to earth is 120 V with phase to phase voltage at 208 V. Facilities with single phase loads combined with three phase loads have a neutral. But these single phase loads must be balanced. Search on delta vs wye. This is why Rossi's reactor uses a delta three phase input. I elaborated this on an earlier post that was ignored as are most of my posts. I don't blame people for ignoring my posts as it is difficult to tell when I am serious. Life is too short to be serious. Night night. On Tue, Oct 28, 2014 at 11:21 PM, Terry Blanton hohlr...@gmail.com wrote: I took a quick look at it. I think the author is confusing split phase with three phase. Split phase is how you get 240 V in your home with only a single phase being distributed by the power company. The single phase is fed into a transformer with a center tap. You then get two 120 volt circuits referenced to a neutral. These are circuits are 180 degrees out of phase. True three phase has no neutral. The three phases all carry power, each 120 degrees out of phase with the other two. Hence the constant 1.73 or the square root of three constant required. In three phase, the phase to phase voltage in US distribution is 208 V. I already suffer from narcolepsy. Gotta get some sleep. On Tue, Oct 28, 2014 at 11:08 PM, Terry Blanton hohlr...@gmail.com wrote: It's bed time here; so, I'll have to check it out tomorrow. Meanwhile three phase power is calculated by: Watt's Law: W = V avg. x A avg x p.f. x 1.732 Where: W = wattage (watts) Vavg = average voltage of the three separate phases (volts) Aavg = average current of the three separate phases current (amps) p.f. = average power factor or the three separate phases 1.732 = a constant necessary with 3 phase. Meanwhile again, here's another revelation occurring late today: https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B8mt4mJOTGvBei1sbThCMzJybm8/view?usp=sharing Sorry, I have a lot going on at the moment. On Tue, Oct 28, 2014 at 9:41 PM, Jones Beene jone...@pacbell.net wrote: This guy makes an interesting point that is not clear to me. Terry, Dave, Bob et al - what do you EEs who have looked at the input power think about this approach? “The currents in the three C1 wires are all equal and they are measured by the true RMS instrument PCE-830. The three heating resistors are also equal and therefore they will all be heated by equal currents, I2. The authors of the report have assumed that I2 is half of the current in the C1 wires. That turns out to be not true. Instead the full current I1 is alternating between the two wires in the C2 wire pairs, so the voltage drop will be the same as for a single wire. For calculation of the resistance Re in the wire system, see paragraph E1in the spreadsheet and reference. From: Brad Lowe http://lenr.fysik.org/eCat/COP=1_or_3.pdf Sent from my iPhone
Re: [Vo]:RE: New analysis
The fact that, in the US, three phase circuits are 120 degrees out of phase and the phase to ground voltage is 120 volts is an insane coincidence designed to make it all difficult to understand; but, the two numbers being the same is purely coincidence. (by design :-) On Tue, Oct 28, 2014 at 11:27 PM, Terry Blanton hohlr...@gmail.com wrote: I said three phase has no neutral. Well neutral is earth. Each phase's voltage to earth is 120 V with phase to phase voltage at 208 V. Facilities with single phase loads combined with three phase loads have a neutral. But these single phase loads must be balanced. Search on delta vs wye. This is why Rossi's reactor uses a delta three phase input. I elaborated this on an earlier post that was ignored as are most of my posts. I don't blame people for ignoring my posts as it is difficult to tell when I am serious. Life is too short to be serious. Night night. On Tue, Oct 28, 2014 at 11:21 PM, Terry Blanton hohlr...@gmail.com wrote: I took a quick look at it. I think the author is confusing split phase with three phase. Split phase is how you get 240 V in your home with only a single phase being distributed by the power company. The single phase is fed into a transformer with a center tap. You then get two 120 volt circuits referenced to a neutral. These are circuits are 180 degrees out of phase. True three phase has no neutral. The three phases all carry power, each 120 degrees out of phase with the other two. Hence the constant 1.73 or the square root of three constant required. In three phase, the phase to phase voltage in US distribution is 208 V. I already suffer from narcolepsy. Gotta get some sleep. On Tue, Oct 28, 2014 at 11:08 PM, Terry Blanton hohlr...@gmail.com wrote: It's bed time here; so, I'll have to check it out tomorrow. Meanwhile three phase power is calculated by: Watt's Law: W = V avg. x A avg x p.f. x 1.732 Where: W = wattage (watts) Vavg = average voltage of the three separate phases (volts) Aavg = average current of the three separate phases current (amps) p.f. = average power factor or the three separate phases 1.732 = a constant necessary with 3 phase. Meanwhile again, here's another revelation occurring late today: https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B8mt4mJOTGvBei1sbThCMzJybm8/view?usp=sharing Sorry, I have a lot going on at the moment. On Tue, Oct 28, 2014 at 9:41 PM, Jones Beene jone...@pacbell.net wrote: This guy makes an interesting point that is not clear to me. Terry, Dave, Bob et al - what do you EEs who have looked at the input power think about this approach? “The currents in the three C1 wires are all equal and they are measured by the true RMS instrument PCE-830. The three heating resistors are also equal and therefore they will all be heated by equal currents, I2. The authors of the report have assumed that I2 is half of the current in the C1 wires. That turns out to be not true. Instead the full current I1 is alternating between the two wires in the C2 wire pairs, so the voltage drop will be the same as for a single wire. For calculation of the resistance Re in the wire system, see paragraph E1in the spreadsheet and reference. From: Brad Lowe http://lenr.fysik.org/eCat/COP=1_or_3.pdf Sent from my iPhone
Re: [Vo]:Re: Temperature Testing of an IH-like Alumina Reactor
On Tue, Oct 28, 2014 at 9:22 AM, Bob Cook frobertc...@hotmail.com wrote: If any of LENR energy were produced by radiation or particles not stopped by the reactor vessel, such energy would escape detection by the Lugano instruments. Neutrinos and low frequency RF could be such radiation. However, with exception of potentially Axil Axil and myself, this community seems to believe that undetected radiation is not present. The E-Cat container material will be transparent on the high and low ends of the EMF spectrum. On the high end, there are energetic x-rays and gammas. On the low end, there are radio waves and possibly microwaves. Assuming David Bianchini is not horrible at measuring ionizing radiation in the higher range, we can rule out energetic x-rays and gammas more than a certain fraction above background. That leaves only the low end of the EMF spectrum as a possible channel out for energy. Energetic photons provide an obvious means by which lots of energy might be allowed to escape from the E-Cat, thereby leading to an understated COP if they were not accounted for (which they were, we are given to understand). Low-energy photons, such as radio waves, by contrast, do not provide an obvious channel through which to transmit lots of energy. If the energetic photons correspond to a high bandwidth connection, I assume the low energy photons are analogous to trying to push lots of water through a surface with very small holes in it -- my guess is that there's not much bandwidth in this channel. Eric
Re: [Vo]:A new type of laser is born?
On Tue, Oct 28, 2014 at 2:24 PM, Robert Ellefson vortex-h...@e2ke.com wrote: How would you explain that particular ash morphology, considering the shape of the nickel fuel grain clusters? I suspect that the further we get away from everyday physics, the harder it will be to understand LENR. That's one of the reasons I'm betting on simple, prosaic electric arcing at a microscopic level between electrically insulated metal grains (or perhaps metal vapor in higher temperature systems). The arcing would be responsible for accelerating partially ionized species such as 7Li into the substrate wall. If a large enough number of such species were drawn into a narrow area, not unlike in a dense plasma focus, I think a small but substantial portion of them could be knocked into the larger lattice sites enough to achieve occasional neutron stripping. Eric
Re: [Vo]:MFMP interviews spokesman from WILLIAMSON
On Tue, Oct 28, 2014 at 12:36 PM, Alan Fletcher a...@well.com wrote: Basically what happens is that as the temperature changes the peak of the blackbody spectrum moves through different parts of the emissivity/wavelength curve. Are you assuming a standard Boltzmann curve that just shifts its peak according to emittance? Is it possible that the frequency and heat-dependant combination of emittance, transmissivity and reflection make it so that there is a distribution other than a Boltzmann distribution for the alumina shell? Eric
[Vo]:Electrical Phasing Question for Halloween
I have three coils each reading 5 volts from 3 magnetic fields each out of phase. The first two in series read 9.5 volts, and if the coils were completely opposite in polarity, or 180 degrees out of phase, this would read the sum of the voltages or 10 volts. Applying the law of cos. we find the phase angle to be ~ 143.65 degrees. An identical situation exists when the next two coils are measured in series. What should all three coils in series read and should this reading exceed 10 volts? Electrical Phasing Question? - Yahoo Answers and also some corruptive evidence in favor of the assertion that an average of 6 volts/phase totalling 18 volts of individual voltage summations in separate time can be combined in a polyphase manner so that a secondary yields an AC signal of the combined 18 volts in combined time, and my further deductions as a comment as follows; I was mistaken concerning the thesis that time distortion was evident here, as the evidence was interpreted incorrectly. How it interpreted mystically is that a polyphase system is limited by the angle of delivery on those delivery lines, but a magnetic system is not. Near Unity of 3 Phases in Time via 666 machine inputed with 3 phase Series Addition of Stator Voltages Separated 1/3 in Time shows Unity of Timings via 666 Machine Near Unity of 3 Phases in Time via 666 machine inputed with 3 phase Near Unity of 3 Phases in Time via 666 machine inputed w... View on youtu.be Preview by Yahoo Electrical Phasing Question? - Yahoo Answers Electrical Phasing Question? View on answers.yahoo.com Preview by Yahoo Pioneering the Applications of Interphasal Resonances http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/teslafy/
Re: [Vo]:Re: Temperature Testing of an IH-like Alumina Reactor
I wrote: Energetic photons provide an obvious means by which lots of energy might be allowed to escape from the E-Cat, thereby leading to an understated COP ... I suppose there are neutrinos as well. But they're very lightweight and so do not carry away much momentum, and they bring with them a requirement for the weak force to deal with and explain. Eric
Re: [Vo]:A new type of laser is born?
*How would you explain that particular ash morphology, considering the shape of the nickel fuel grain clusters? At the same time, how would you explain the evolving COP that appeared to be accelerating as the experiment ended?* I would explain increasing COP over time as a result of Lithium transmutation. As the system operates over time, Lithium is produced as a reaction byproduct. But Lithium nanoparticles are also a source of the reaction. Therefore, as time goes on, more and more material that supports the reaction is produced by the reaction itself. This lithium (lithium 6) production through transmutation might be the root of a progressive positive feedback loop. On Wed, Oct 29, 2014 at 1:13 AM, Eric Walker eric.wal...@gmail.com wrote: On Tue, Oct 28, 2014 at 2:24 PM, Robert Ellefson vortex-h...@e2ke.com wrote: How would you explain that particular ash morphology, considering the shape of the nickel fuel grain clusters? I suspect that the further we get away from everyday physics, the harder it will be to understand LENR. That's one of the reasons I'm betting on simple, prosaic electric arcing at a microscopic level between electrically insulated metal grains (or perhaps metal vapor in higher temperature systems). The arcing would be responsible for accelerating partially ionized species such as 7Li into the substrate wall. If a large enough number of such species were drawn into a narrow area, not unlike in a dense plasma focus, I think a small but substantial portion of them could be knocked into the larger lattice sites enough to achieve occasional neutron stripping. Eric
