Re: [Vo]:The Fallacis of Darwinian Evolution - Genetic Improbability
Hi Jojo, I'd hate to say I read it on Wikipedia, but there's also more scientific sources than that. I'm not about to go do the research for you, I suggest you check it out yourself. Abiogenesis is a problem and scientists are working on it. That's a lot of why we looking for life on other planets, other solar systems and in extreme environments on earth. Amino acids have been found in comet tails, they're really not that complicated. Colin On Tue, Aug 7, 2012 at 2:12 PM, Jojo Jaro jth...@hotmail.com wrote: ** You don't know that. But even if it was, that still does not solve your abiogenesis problem. - Original Message - *From:* Colin Hercus colinher...@gmail.com *To:* vortex-l@eskimo.com *Sent:* Tuesday, August 07, 2012 1:40 PM *Subject:* Re: [Vo]:The Fallacis of Darwinian Evolution - Genetic Improbability On Tue, Aug 7, 2012 at 6:51 AM, Jojo Jaro jth...@hotmail.com wrote: Abd, I appreciate your comments. After reading your post below and rereading it and rereading it several times, I am still at a lost on what you are contending. Please restate your contentions in simpler prose that dumb people like me can understand. Yes, While we know that amino acids can be created from non-life simple hydrocarbons, the conditions do not match known earth atmospheric conditions. I believe you are alluding to the Urey-Miller experiment where they successfully created amino acids from base molecular H20 and some simple hydrocarbons. But one thing you need to realize, it never created any self-replicating molecules, it never create any life The Urey-Miller experiment was successful but did not simulate the correct conditions. For one, it was performed on a Reducing Atmosphere of hydrocarbon gases, not the oxidative atmosphere with oxygen. When the experiment was redone with oxygen, the oxidizing action of oxygen destroyed the animo acids just as quickly as it was created. Hence, the experiment was designed on top of faulty assumptions. No, the earths atmosphere was reducing before we had photo synthesis
Re: [Vo]:The Fallacies of Darwinian Evolution - Genetic Improbability
Hi Jojo, You might also read http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genetic_programming and some of the related links. Colin On Tue, Aug 7, 2012 at 2:58 PM, Jojo Jaro jth...@hotmail.com wrote: ** Amino Acids are just the building blocks, the letters of the alphabet for building complex protein molecules. You have to chain them correctly in the proper sequence to get even the simplest protein of 50 animo acids. The chances of this occuring randomly is staggering in its own right, let alone come up with 300-500 of these proteins to come up with the simplest self-replicating life. Having amino acids is a far cry from the simplest protein and definitely a far far far cry to the simplest life form. It's like saying since we found the letters A - Z, the novel Romeo and Juliet can be easily found also. I have read your wikipedia articles, and I am suitably impressed by the level of its scholarship and integrity. Jojo - Original Message - *From:* Colin Hercus colinher...@gmail.com *To:* vortex-l@eskimo.com *Sent:* Tuesday, August 07, 2012 2:45 PM *Subject:* Re: [Vo]:The Fallacis of Darwinian Evolution - Genetic Improbability Hi Jojo, I'd hate to say I read it on Wikipedia, but there's also more scientific sources than that. I'm not about to go do the research for you, I suggest you check it out yourself. Abiogenesis is a problem and scientists are working on it. That's a lot of why we looking for life on other planets, other solar systems and in extreme environments on earth. Amino acids have been found in comet tails, they're really not that complicated. Colin On Tue, Aug 7, 2012 at 2:12 PM, Jojo Jaro jth...@hotmail.com wrote: ** You don't know that. But even if it was, that still does not solve your abiogenesis problem. - Original Message - *From:* Colin Hercus colinher...@gmail.com *To:* vortex-l@eskimo.com *Sent:* Tuesday, August 07, 2012 1:40 PM *Subject:* Re: [Vo]:The Fallacis of Darwinian Evolution - Genetic Improbability On Tue, Aug 7, 2012 at 6:51 AM, Jojo Jaro jth...@hotmail.com wrote: Abd, I appreciate your comments. After reading your post below and rereading it and rereading it several times, I am still at a lost on what you are contending. Please restate your contentions in simpler prose that dumb people like me can understand. Yes, While we know that amino acids can be created from non-life simple hydrocarbons, the conditions do not match known earth atmospheric conditions. I believe you are alluding to the Urey-Miller experiment where they successfully created amino acids from base molecular H20 and some simple hydrocarbons. But one thing you need to realize, it never created any self-replicating molecules, it never create any life The Urey-Miller experiment was successful but did not simulate the correct conditions. For one, it was performed on a Reducing Atmosphere of hydrocarbon gases, not the oxidative atmosphere with oxygen. When the experiment was redone with oxygen, the oxidizing action of oxygen destroyed the animo acids just as quickly as it was created. Hence, the experiment was designed on top of faulty assumptions. No, the earths atmosphere was reducing before we had photo synthesis
Re: [Vo]:The Fallacies of Darwinian Evolution - Genetic Improbability
Jojo, You say survival is not necessary the best of all possible outcomes and I totally agree, but survival which also includes success at breeding is what got us here and possibly also why we aren't perfect. Humans aren't perfectand certainly we're not the best possible outcome for evolution. I think a planet that failed to evolve an intelligent species may last longer than one that did. Colin On Tue, Aug 7, 2012 at 5:07 PM, Jojo Jaro jth...@hotmail.com wrote: ** I am familiar with genetic programming. Richard Dawkins like to use these to point out that an evolutionary approach works to reach certain results. While interesting, it has nothing much to do with the real Darwinian Evolution. If anything, genetic programming proves that Darwinian Evolution is faulty. Why? Because in the end, genetic programming requires intelligence to set the goal or criteria of the algorithm. Random processes can not decide what the final goal is. Darwinists always like to misrepresent what Natural Selection can do. It's as if Natural Selection is this all encompassing process that can decide a priori what the good results are. They always like to imply that Natural Selection can somehow foresee a future result and work toward it. No, natural selection does not work that way. Natural selection can not decide between any of the many future results. It takes intelligence and the foresight of Intelligence to do that. Natural Selection simply chooses those who survive, each generation along the way; and survival is not necessary the best of all possible outcomes. Genetic algorithms does not in any way have the foresight to determine what the best results are. In fact, many of the claimed successes of genetic programming can be solved more efficiently by more deterministic algorithms. Genetic algorithms are simulations, and simulation program are not the best way to solve problems. Simulation implies the random testing of results based on random inputs to the problem. Not the best way. And before you claim you know more about programming than I, let me just say I'm an Electrical Engineer and I have programmed many times before. Jojo - Original Message - *From:* Colin Hercus colinher...@gmail.com *To:* vortex-l@eskimo.com *Sent:* Tuesday, August 07, 2012 4:02 PM *Subject:* Re: [Vo]:The Fallacies of Darwinian Evolution - Genetic Improbability Hi Jojo, You might also read http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genetic_programming and some of the related links. Colin On Tue, Aug 7, 2012 at 2:58 PM, Jojo Jaro jth...@hotmail.com wrote: ** Amino Acids are just the building blocks, the letters of the alphabet for building complex protein molecules. You have to chain them correctly in the proper sequence to get even the simplest protein of 50 animo acids. The chances of this occuring randomly is staggering in its own right, let alone come up with 300-500 of these proteins to come up with the simplest self-replicating life. Having amino acids is a far cry from the simplest protein and definitely a far far far cry to the simplest life form. It's like saying since we found the letters A - Z, the novel Romeo and Juliet can be easily found also. I have read your wikipedia articles, and I am suitably impressed by the level of its scholarship and integrity. Jojo - Original Message - *From:* Colin Hercus colinher...@gmail.com *To:* vortex-l@eskimo.com *Sent:* Tuesday, August 07, 2012 2:45 PM *Subject:* Re: [Vo]:The Fallacis of Darwinian Evolution - Genetic Improbability Hi Jojo, I'd hate to say I read it on Wikipedia, but there's also more scientific sources than that. I'm not about to go do the research for you, I suggest you check it out yourself. Abiogenesis is a problem and scientists are working on it. That's a lot of why we looking for life on other planets, other solar systems and in extreme environments on earth. Amino acids have been found in comet tails, they're really not that complicated. Colin On Tue, Aug 7, 2012 at 2:12 PM, Jojo Jaro jth...@hotmail.com wrote: ** You don't know that. But even if it was, that still does not solve your abiogenesis problem. - Original Message - *From:* Colin Hercus colinher...@gmail.com *To:* vortex-l@eskimo.com *Sent:* Tuesday, August 07, 2012 1:40 PM *Subject:* Re: [Vo]:The Fallacis of Darwinian Evolution - Genetic Improbability On Tue, Aug 7, 2012 at 6:51 AM, Jojo Jaro jth...@hotmail.com wrote: Abd, I appreciate your comments. After reading your post below and rereading it and rereading it several times, I am still at a lost on what you are contending. Please restate your contentions in simpler prose that dumb people like me can understand. Yes, While we know that amino acids can be created from non-life simple hydrocarbons, the conditions do not match known earth atmospheric conditions. I believe you are alluding to the Urey-Miller
Re: [Vo]:The Fallacies of Darwinian Evolution - Genetic Improbability
Hi Jojo, For sake of forum, and also to avoid frustration that comes from debating with irrational people I am applying a filter to discard all messages from you. Colin On Tue, Aug 7, 2012 at 10:11 PM, Jojo Jaro jth...@hotmail.com wrote: ** Now you see the point. Natural Selection would chose the Individuals who outsurvice others; but that choice may not be optimal for the further propagation of the species. In fact, if a mutation causes one to outsurvive others but causes that individual to be infertile; natural selection would still chose that individual. Now you are beginning to see the fallacy of Natural Selection as a mechanism of life. Outsurvival and Reproductive Fecundity normally does not come hand in hand. For example, a person who have more male steriods/hormones would grow to be physically bigger and thus would outsurvive others; but with the increased steriod levels come the price of less reproductive fecundity. Natural Selection would fail in this case. Humans are not perfect and our DNA are full of errors because of our decline due to the curse of Sin. Humans have been declining in both physical attributes as well as mental ability ever since. The Bible speaks of people who can run continuously for hours and then fight continously for a day without getting tired and without eating. We do not have those abilities anymore. We will never see the likes of Isaac Newton, Micheal Faraday, Louis Pasteur and Albert Einstein anymore. We are just not as smart as our ancestors. Can you find an Individual who can speak and write 40 languages fluently today? Just as recently as 1611, you can find them. We are so arrogant to think that humans are at the peak of development today that we fail to see the declining status of our physical and mental capacities. Doesn't Darwinian Evolution say we should be improving? Jojo - Original Message - *From:* Colin Hercus colinher...@gmail.com *To:* vortex-l@eskimo.com *Sent:* Tuesday, August 07, 2012 9:23 PM *Subject:* Re: [Vo]:The Fallacies of Darwinian Evolution - Genetic Improbability Jojo, You say survival is not necessary the best of all possible outcomes and I totally agree, but survival which also includes success at breeding is what got us here and possibly also why we aren't perfect. Humans aren't perfect and certainly we're not the best possible outcome for evolution. I think a planet that failed to evolve an intelligent species may last longer than one that did. Colin On Tue, Aug 7, 2012 at 5:07 PM, Jojo Jaro jth...@hotmail.com wrote: ** I am familiar with genetic programming. Richard Dawkins like to use these to point out that an evolutionary approach works to reach certain results. While interesting, it has nothing much to do with the real Darwinian Evolution. If anything, genetic programming proves that Darwinian Evolution is faulty. Why? Because in the end, genetic programming requires intelligence to set the goal or criteria of the algorithm. Random processes can not decide what the final goal is. Darwinists always like to misrepresent what Natural Selection can do. It's as if Natural Selection is this all encompassing process that can decide a priori what the good results are. They always like to imply that Natural Selection can somehow foresee a future result and work toward it. No, natural selection does not work that way. Natural selection can not decide between any of the many future results. It takes intelligence and the foresight of Intelligence to do that. Natural Selection simply chooses those who survive, each generation along the way; and survival is not necessary the best of all possible outcomes. Genetic algorithms does not in any way have the foresight to determine what the best results are. In fact, many of the claimed successes of genetic programming can be solved more efficiently by more deterministic algorithms. Genetic algorithms are simulations, and simulation program are not the best way to solve problems. Simulation implies the random testing of results based on random inputs to the problem. Not the best way. And before you claim you know more about programming than I, let me just say I'm an Electrical Engineer and I have programmed many times before. Jojo - Original Message - *From:* Colin Hercus colinher...@gmail.com *To:* vortex-l@eskimo.com *Sent:* Tuesday, August 07, 2012 4:02 PM *Subject:* Re: [Vo]:The Fallacies of Darwinian Evolution - Genetic Improbability Hi Jojo, You might also read http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genetic_programming and some of the related links. Colin On Tue, Aug 7, 2012 at 2:58 PM, Jojo Jaro jth...@hotmail.com wrote: ** Amino Acids are just the building blocks, the letters of the alphabet for building complex protein molecules. You have to chain them correctly in the proper sequence to get even the simplest protein of 50 animo acids. The chances
Re: [Vo]:The Fallacis of Darwinian Evolution - Genetic Improbability
Hi Jojo, I think you need to rethink your maths, if the earth has been here 4billion years (according to science) then what is the chance there is life. First if we just have one self replicate molecule, simple DNA or RNa and that molecule spreads through the seas then we could have billions of billions of tehse self replicate molecules all evolving atthe same time. Many of these will be deleterious but you just need one in all the molecules in the sea to get a beneficial mutation for hat mutation to become permanent. It's this vast multitude of cell divisions and replication errors happening over the whole planet that makes it probable. Just think there's 6 Billion or so humans on Earth and each one gets about 35 mutations on each generation. That's a lot of mutation experiments running at one time. How many bacteria are there, how many viruses, no wonder we get new flus every year or so. That's evolution not a God. It's also not true that most mutations have a negative affect, there is redundancy in the DNA-RNA-Peptide process hat means many mutations have almost no affect. There's also redundancy in gene and promotor networks such that we operate more like fuzzy logic washing machines than digital computers. As a programmer, one mistyped variable name, semicolon in the wrong spot and my program won't compile. A somtaneous abortion. Life and DNA isn't like that, it couldn't be evolution wouldn't have worked if it wasn't robust to some level of chemical process errors. The whole thing is a miracle but it's a miracle of evolution not from design by some mythical being. I think you should try studying some papers written by scientists not by papers written by intelligent design advocates. At least so you see both sides and can make an intelligent choice. Colin On Mon, Aug 6, 2012 at 4:31 PM, Jojo Jaro jth...@hotmail.com wrote: ** This retrograde mailing system is screwing with my posts. The numbers are not appearing correctly in the Web Interface and would cause people to get confused.Whenever you see a probability number, it should be a number Raised to the other number. hence, 108 should be 10 raised to the 8 or 100,000,000 1017 should be 10 raised to the 17 or 100,000,000,000,000,000 1031 should be 10 raised to the 31 or 10,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 etc. Jojo - Original Message - *From:* Jojo Jaro jth...@hotmail.com *To:* Vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com *Sent:* Monday, August 06, 2012 4:18 PM *Subject:* [Vo]:The Fallacis of Darwinian Evolution - Genetic Improbability In my continuing seris of Posts, I will touch on the issue of Genetic Improbablity. The article below probably best describes this problem of genetic improbability. The Paper is a well-cited paper and should be worthy of sciencific acceptance from open minded folks here: From *The Myth of Natural Origins; How Science Points to Divine Creation* * *Ashby Camp, Ktisis Publishing, Tempe, Arizona, 1994, pp. 53-57, used by permission. Even on a theoretical level, it does not seem possible for mutations to account for the diversity of life on earth, at least not in the time available. According to Professor Ambrose, the minimum number of mutations necessary to produce the simplest new structure in an organism is five *(Davis, 67-68; Bird, 1:88), *but these five mutations must be the proper type and must affect five genes that are functionally related. *Davis, 67-68. *In other words, not just any five mutations will do. The odds against this occurring in a single organism are astronomical. Mutations of any kind are believed to occur once in every 100,000 gene replications (though some estimate they occur far less frequently). *Davis, 68; Wysong, 272*. Assuming that the first single-celled organism had 10,000 genes, the same number as *E. coli* (*Wysong, 113*), one mutation would exist for every ten cells. Since only one mutation per 1,000 is non-harmful (*Davis, 66*), there would be only one non-harmful mutation in a population of 10,000 such cells. The odds that this one non-harmful mutation would affect a particular gene, however, is 1 in 10,000 (since there are 10,000 genes). Therefore, one would need a population of 100,000,000 cells before one of them would be expected to possess a non-harmful mutation of a specific gene. The odds of a single cell possessing non-harmful mutations of five specific (functionally related) genes is the product of their separate probabilities. *Morris, 63*. In other words, the probability is 1 in 108X 10 8 X 108 X 108 X 108, or 1 in 1040. If one hundred trillion (1014) bacteria were produced every second for five billion years (1017seconds), the resulting population (10 31) would be only 1/1,000,000,000 of what was needed! But even this is not the whole story. These are the odds of getting just any kind of non-harmful mutations of five related genes. In order to create a new structure, however, the mutated
Re: [Vo]:The Fallacis of Darwinian Evolution - Genetic Improbability
On Tue, Aug 7, 2012 at 6:51 AM, Jojo Jaro jth...@hotmail.com wrote: Abd, I appreciate your comments. After reading your post below and rereading it and rereading it several times, I am still at a lost on what you are contending. Please restate your contentions in simpler prose that dumb people like me can understand. Yes, While we know that amino acids can be created from non-life simple hydrocarbons, the conditions do not match known earth atmospheric conditions. I believe you are alluding to the Urey-Miller experiment where they successfully created amino acids from base molecular H20 and some simple hydrocarbons. But one thing you need to realize, it never created any self-replicating molecules, it never create any life The Urey-Miller experiment was successful but did not simulate the correct conditions. For one, it was performed on a Reducing Atmosphere of hydrocarbon gases, not the oxidative atmosphere with oxygen. When the experiment was redone with oxygen, the oxidizing action of oxygen destroyed the animo acids just as quickly as it was created. Hence, the experiment was designed on top of faulty assumptions. No, the earths atmosphere was reducing before we had photo synthesis No one knows how life could have arised from non-life. Your speculations below, while apparently eloquent, is simply that, speculation. Abiogenesis is the biggest hole in Darwinian and Neo-Darwinian theory. Even Richard Dawkins has resorted to wild speculations about infinite Multiverses so that he can bring the probabilities down to manageable numbers to speculate on the first biogenesis. If you know what these self-replicating molecules and viruses are which arised out of non-life molecules, by all means, tell us and I assure you, you will win the Nobel Prize, and will become the new Darwin. And since you asked, I believe in the God of the Bible. The almighty creator of everything and the sustainer of everything. His name is Jesus Christ, my savior. Jojo - Original Message - From: Abd ul-Rahman Lomax a...@lomaxdesign.com To: vortex-l@eskimo.com; Vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Tuesday, August 07, 2012 6:59 AM Subject: Re: [Vo]:The Fallacis of Darwinian Evolution - Genetic Improbability At 03:18 AM 8/6/2012, Jojo Jaro wrote: From The Myth of Natural Origins; How Science Points to Divine Creation Ashby Camp, Ktisis Publishing, Tempe, Arizona, 1994, pp. 53-57, used by permission. Summarizing his and Hoyle's analysis of the mechanism of evolution, Wickramasinghe states: We found that there's just no way it could happen. If you start with a simple micro-organism, no matter how it arose on the earth, primordial soup or otherwise, then if you just have that single organizational, informational unit and you said that you copied this sequentially time and time again, the question is does that accumulate enough copying errors, enough mistakes in copying, and do these accumulations of copying errors lead to the diversity of living forms that one sees on the earth. That's the general, usual formulation of the theory of evolution We looked at this quite systematically, quite carefully, in numerical terms. Checking all the numbers, rates of mutation and so on, we decided that there is no way in which that could even marginally approach the truth. Varghese, 28. First of all, evolution would not start with a simple micro-organism, that's way too complex. We do know that the building blocks of life, amino acids, can be created without life, thus the primordial soup. An organism is already a complex structure that not only reproduces itself, but protects itself and metabolizes materials. Closer would be a virus, which is already, as well, too complex, as far as any viruses observed. So some molecule arises by chance in the soup that is capable of catalyzing the assembly of itself. It's an enzyme. DNA does this, but this enzyme is much simpler. It is not carrying any message other than its own structure. When it is created, the soup will rapidly reach an equilibrium with copies being made of the molecule and being destroyed by various chemical processes. Variations in the structure will arise, and some of these variations will favor survival of the variation, so the *soup composition* will evolve. It will probably never become uniform. This is quite predictable. Sometimes these molecules will, through normal chemistry, attach to each other, becoming longer sequences, and some of these will be viable, i.e, will also be capable of reproduction. Increasingly complex structures will arise, and the soup will become full of these, the ones more successful and faster in catalyzing their own copying, and of pieces of them (broken and perhaps not viable). The really big step is when an enzyme arises that can organize its environment in a more complex way than simply making a copy of itself. When it also
Re: [Vo]:The Fallacies of Darwinian Evolution - Microevolution vs. Macroevolution
Hi Axil, Our DNA and the processes in the cell are so complicated no one intelligent would ever design it the way it is. It really is just a molecule that can replicate itself with errors and when errors improve ability to produce more copies then you get more with that error. It's quite amazing and there's new discoveries every day. It's not just gene's that play a role but a whole host of non-gene parts of the DNA as well . There's more than I know and more than I'll ever understand. The fact that's it's so complicated makes it almost impossible to genetically engineer something like a human. At the moment the science is pretty much restricted to adding genes from one specie to another (usually bacteria but also cows so that the modified bacteria produces a useful chemical) There are labs rying to build new life forms and cataloguing parts (genes). I'm sure we'll see custom bacteria like life forms producing all sorts of useful chemicals relatively soon. It may take a century or so before we can make really complicated life forms from scratch. In our company, we are doing work on animal breeding programs where we animals are categorised by traits (haplotypes) and their DNA sequenced to identify mutations associated with the traits. Once this is done, males are selected that carry the desirable mutations (each one will sire 1000's of offspring) and then offspring will be tested at birth and only the ones that inherited the desirable mutations will be kept for breeding. The aim is to reduce breeding cycle from 6 years (gestation, grow to adult, produce, test traits, keep as breeder) to 1 yr (gestation, test DNA, keep as breeder). It's quite easy but very expensive when you plan to do 1000's of animals at $10-20K each just to develop the database. OK, that's enough. I'm here to watch and hopefully one day see some real proof that Rossi or Defkalion have a working reactor. If they do it will change the world. If they're just scammers like most free energy people we've all wasted a lot of time. Cheers, Colin On Sat, Aug 4, 2012 at 10:42 AM, Axil Axil janap...@gmail.com wrote: The post of Colin Hercus interests me greatly, and I am greatful that he took the time to explain how things work for a bioinformatician. When a library of DNA fragments are finally complied across all known species, and object oriented life builder can be authored as a software process to select desirable traits with robust error correction mechanisms to form new life forms. With the environment of a target planet as a adaptive template, an organism(s) can be fabricated through a compilation linking these desirable traits against those required to thrive in that alien environment. IMHO, Genetics is just a sub-field of chemistry and therefore a proper subject for vortex. On Fri, Aug 3, 2012 at 9:30 PM, Jojo Jaro jth...@hotmail.com wrote: ** Interesting facts but I fail to see how it would help bolster your argument. Saying that this model fits random mutation better is useless because you are simply expressing an opinion. You mention a lot of facts but have not tied it into your argument. How do these facts you enumerated support your contention? You say that the difference between a chimp and human is only 1%. Are you also going to say that this 1% difference is only on the parts of the DNA that encode into genes, (ie. the coding part of the DNA), or are you going to hide this fact also? That in fact, if you take the entirely of the Chimp DNA and compare it with Human DNA, the difference is a far cry from 1%. It is this level of disception that is prevalent in your darwinian-dogma world that serves to foist this big lie on the uninitiated. Before you ask me to take my blinders off, come clean and stop confusing people with facts only to hide your deception. Jojo PS. Absolutely, this is off-topic, but this is part of a bet. I am betting that a person who expresses a belief different from Darwinian dogma will be treated differently. I am not doing anything more than what Jed is doing is his amount of off-topic posts, but I will be treated differently and is now hanging on the verge of being banned. - Original Message - *From:* Colin Hercus colinher...@gmail.com *To:* vortex-l@eskimo.com *Sent:* Saturday, August 04, 2012 9:01 AM *Subject:* Re: [Vo]:The Fallacies of Darwinian Evolution - Microevolution vs. Macroevolution Hi Jojo, I work as a bioinformatician and study DNA and mutations in DNA every day. I develop software for this that is used in 100's of Universities and we have over 200 citations on Google scholar. Darwin had a view of evolution that we now know was rather simple. A few things about DNA that I think are of interest: 1. We have about 3billion nucleotides in our DNA 2. Typically from one human to next there are about 1 million differences, most are small single nucleotide difference but there are also large differences
Re: [Vo]:The Fallacies of Darwinian Evolution - Microevolution vs. Macroevolution
Hi Mark, I too was amazed rto learn I had more bacteria cells in my body than human. I now know why beef is more tender if it's been hung for a week or two before eating :) a lot of the bacteria in our body is really useful and it's one reason we shouldn't take antibiotics if we can avoid it. Bacteria in our gut help with digestion, ones on our skin keep it healthy. It's all too much for me to keep track of so I specialise in sequence analysis and try to keep track of anything DNA or RNA related. I'm not familiar with Trevor, I'm actually computer science trained and now programming for DNA sequence analysis, so not biology training at all but it's fascinating stuff to follow and read. Cheers, Colin On Sat, Aug 4, 2012 at 12:02 PM, MarkI-ZeroPoint zeropo...@charter.netwrote: Hi Colin, Thanks for the very interesting details! ** ** Here is one more interesting tidbit… Due to the efforts of the *Human* *Microbiome* *Project* (HMP), which sequenced the microbiota (bacteria, virus, fungi, etc.) living in or on the human body, they estimate a total of about 1,000,000 genes from all these different organisms. Compare that to the number of genes in the human genome (~23,000 protein-coding genes), and one can see that the average human is a universe of microbiology! The vast majority of genes found in a human are NOT human! As Colin pointed out, it’s not unusual to find harmful microorganisms living undetected inside us. ** ** Colin, are you familiar with Dr. Trevor Marshall? http://www.trevormarshall.com/papers.htm ** ** *“Microbes and Human Disease” **presentation in St. Petersburg June 2012** *** http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_rFmAMDdbjsfeature=plcp ** ** -Mark ** ** ** ** *From:* Colin Hercus [mailto:colinher...@gmail.com] *Sent:* Friday, August 03, 2012 6:01 PM *To:* vortex-l@eskimo.com *Subject:* Re: [Vo]:The Fallacies of Darwinian Evolution - Microevolution vs. Macroevolution ** ** Hi Jojo, I work as a bioinformatician and study DNA and mutations in DNA every day. I develop software for this that is used in 100's of Universities and we have over 200 citations on Google scholar. Darwin had a view of evolution that we now know was rather simple. A few things about DNA that I think are of interest: 1. We have about 3billion nucleotides in our DNA 2. Typically from one human to next there are about 1 million differences, most are small single nucleotide difference but there are also large differences where there will be bits missing (1000 nucleotides or so in one person relative to the other, around 600 occurrences) 3. Overall documented differences in DNA at single base level are about 3 million nucleotides though this keeps going up as we sequence more genomes 4. Each person born will have about 35 new single base changes (i.e. a very few but definitely some) 5. Some mutations result in eggs that fail to grow, some in miscarriages, some in early death, some have minimal or no effect. 6. The difference in DNA between a chimp and a human is about 1% or 30M nucleotides, only about 10 times what exists between all humans. 7. Sometimes there are large DNA changes, Viruses insert there DNA into ours, bits going missing during cell division, or bits get duplicated. Once a gene is duplicated one copy may evolve to take up a different function These changes can all be tracked between species and over time by studying the differences in DNA between different species. They sequenced DNA of Neanderthals (from fossils, DNA left in teeth and Bones.) Interestingly about 5% of DNA in Europeans is from Neanderthals rather than early descendant from Africa. National Geographic studied the Y chromosome from humans all around the world and has built extensive maps of migration from this by tracking changes. Interesting that the DNA changes of a few bp per generation fit the fossil maps and time frame of migration archaeologists have constructed. I could goon for hours. The science behind this is very sound, the evidence is there. I know DNA is incredibly complex, we are amazing chemical factories, but we are also full of mistakes and errors that limit our life, that lead to cancer, heart attacks and various inherited diseases, not counting our disposition to greed, selfishness, hate murder. This to me fits the model of random mutations with survival of the fittest much better than an intelligent design. I think before you take this subject very far you really should do a bit of study into genetics. Oh and take the blinkers off first. Colin ** **
Re: [Vo]:The Fallacies of Darwinian Evolution - Microevolution vs. Macroevolution
Hi Daniel, That's a great list, never seen it before. Thanks for sharing Colin On Sat, Aug 4, 2012 at 1:32 PM, Daniel Rocha danieldi...@gmail.com wrote: What is your criteria to rule out all other creation myths except for the biblical one? 2012/8/4 Jojo Jaro jth...@hotmail.com ** I noticed that you have not actually said anything to counter what I posted. No fact to rebut my post or the facts in my posts. Instead, your strategy is one of obfuscation. That is, supply a bunch of irrelevant facts to obfuscate the real debate. Jojo -- Daniel Rocha - RJ danieldi...@gmail.com
Re: [Vo]:The Fallacies of Darwinian Evolution - Microevolution vs. Macroevolution
Hi Jojo, I work as a bioinformatician and study DNA and mutations in DNA every day. I develop software for this that is used in 100's of Universities and we have over 200 citations on Google scholar. Darwin had a view of evolution that we now know was rather simple. A few things about DNA that I think are of interest: 1. We have about 3billion nucleotides in our DNA 2. Typically from one human to next there are about 1 million differences, most are small single nucleotide difference but there are also large differences where there will be bits missing (1000 nucleotides or so in one person relative to the other, around 600 occurrences) 3. Overall documented differences in DNA at single base level are about 3 million nucleotides though this keeps going up as we sequence more genomes 4. Each person born will have about 35 new single base changes (i.e. a very few but definitely some) 5. Some mutations result in eggs that fail to grow, some in miscarriages, some in early death, some have minimal or no effect. 6. The difference in DNA between a chimp and a human is about 1% or 30M nucleotides, only about 10 times what exists between all humans. 7. Sometimes there are large DNA changes, Viruses insert there DNA into ours, bits going missing during cell division, or bits get duplicated. Once a gene is duplicated one copy may evolve to take up a different function These changes can all be tracked between species and over time by studying the differences in DNA between different species. They sequenced DNA of Neanderthals (from fossils, DNA left in teeth and Bones.) Interestingly about 5% of DNA in Europeans is from Neanderthals rather than early descendant from Africa. National Geographic studied the Y chromosome from humans all around the world and has built extensive maps of migration from this by tracking changes. Interesting that the DNA changes of a few bp per generation fit the fossil maps and time frame of migration archaeologists have constructed. I could goon for hours. The science behind this is very sound, the evidence is there. I know DNA is incredibly complex, we are amazing chemical factories, but we are also full of mistakes and errors that limit our life, that lead to cancer, heart attacks and various inherited diseases, not counting our disposition to greed, selfishness, hate murder. This to me fits the model of random mutations with survival of the fittest much better than an intelligent design. I think before you take this subject very far you really should do a bit of study into genetics. Oh and take the blinkers off first. Colin PS I think this is totally off topic for Vortex On Sat, Aug 4, 2012 at 7:37 AM, Jojo Jaro jth...@hotmail.com wrote: ** Hello gang, In this post I will define the difference between Microevolution vs. Macroevolution. Yes, I believe evolution happens, I believe Microevolution happens, not Macroevolution. First, micro vs macro has nothing to do with the amount or number of changes. That is, numerous micro evolutions does not equate to a macro evolution. The main difference is the source of the changes. Microevolution or Adaptation is a process whereby an individual expresses certain traits that enable it to adapt more successfully to its new environment. The source of the changes is the information already encoded in its DNA. Upon the appearance of an environmental stress, certain genes could express itself resulting in a new macro trait that would enable it to adapt to its new environment. The information needed to create a new trait is already fully encoded in its DNA. Only the activation is done. This form of evolution is called Microevolution. The species evolve within its own DNA boundaries and changes occur within the species itself. Since microevolution is simply an activation of a dormat trait, the new trait created is not permanent. It is possible for the new trait to dissappear and lay dormant again once the stress is removed. And since changes are encoded in the DNA, microevolutionary changes are not additive. That is it does not persist within a species with new additions to it. It is all just an expression of what that species is inherently capable of based on the makeup of its DNA genes. Macroevolution or Darwinian Evolution on the other hand, is this idea that changes are the result of random mutation on one's DNA. Dormant traits are not expressed, rather new genes randomly come into being to create a new trait. And because huge changes to DNA are fatal, macroevolutionary change has to occur in small minute and small incremental changes occuring over generations. Otherwise, a major retructuring on one's DNA would cause massive genetic deformations causing less ability to compete and survive. Macroevolution is this idea that changes have to be mutated into place and that numerous successive changes would result in the creation of a new species. This is in essence what Darwinian Evolution
Re: [Vo]:Spark plugs... thoughts and how-to?
Hi Brad, I've been wondering if the spark plug was just being used as a high pressure plug for the Nickel/H chamber. I checked all the photos for ones where the spark plug was connected and couldn't find anything definite. Colin On Sat, May 19, 2012 at 4:07 AM, ecat builder ecatbuil...@gmail.com wrote: Hi Vortex, I'm thinking of dusting off my experiments. My LabJack is fixed (Thanks LabJack guys) and I have some nickel alloy powder I am anxious to try. And I can add a spark plug easily. DGT said they can trigger the reaction on demand. It sure seems like their trigger is a single spark or a burst of sparks. Thoughts? Can anyone recommend a way to create a single or continuous sparks with a spark plug using off-the-shelf parts? I have a simple frequency generator (sine/sqr/tri waves) that I can use, which I could hook to an SCR and send voltage to a coil. But I'd rather use off the shelf... but a circuit diagram might work too. Or, could I use something like a strobe light kit that uses a plug instead of a flashtube? Rossi's original big blue voltage box.. Could it be putting out high voltage to spark the Auxiliary device? I can't find a close-up of the blue box (inside or back) to see if anything looks like a coil. An early reactor picture here http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-dadS9almTsE/TaQl3jSqzcI/Ai0/KcVR26eDkt0/s1600/e-cats1.jpg has something off-the-shelf that might be a thermocouple or heater.. but does not look like a spark plug. However, requiring two heaters always seemed a little odd... My reactor has the nickel powders in a test tube within the reactor and external band heater. I can't imagine the sparks would need to come in contact with the nickel powder. Thoughts? Looking for volunteers.. :) - Brad
Re: [Vo]:Tungsten?
Interesting thought but checkout the spectrum for Ni - http://www.xrfresearch.com/component/content/article/71-periodic-table/160-xrf-spectrum-nickel.html Colin On Wed, Feb 29, 2012 at 8:51 AM, Mark Goldes mgol...@chavaenergy.comwrote: I've copied this from ecat news. A very interesting Comment on the e-catworld.com Blog from a user called “Fluffy”. It’s about the secret element used in rossi’s e-cat (and maybe in defkalions hyperion). He thought it’s Tungsten (Wolfram) - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tungsten “Rossi’s Possible Tungsten Line at 8.31 keV In Andrea Rossi’s original patent application http://www.wipo.int/patentscope/search/en/detailPdf.jsf?ia=IT2008000532docIdPdf=id0009056757name=%28WO2009125444%29METHOD%20AND%20APPARATUS%20FOR%20CARRYING%20OUT%20NICKEL%20AND%20HYDROGEN%20EXOTHERMAL%20REACTIONSwoNum=WO2009125444prevRecNum=1nextRecNum=2recNum=1queryString=office=sortOption=prevFilter=maxRec= there are two charts that show the results of an XRF (X-ray fluorescence)spectrum analysis on a sample of used powder from an E-Cat unit that had been in operation for an undisclosed period of time. Although many of the elements found in the analysis are labeled on the chart, one significant “spike” or “line” is not. This anomalous line could possibly be the element tungsten. XRF fluorescence works by subjecting the material to be tested to x-rays, that can knock electrons out of their orbit in the atoms of the sample material. When another electron moves in to fill the gap produced by the missing electron, a photon is emitted. By measuring the energy of these photons (in keV or kilo-electron volts) and how many are produced, you can determine the composition of a sample of material. A chart produced using the data from an XRF spectrum analysis will show a spike or line for each element present. When there is very little of an element in a sample of material these spikes will be small, and perhaps hard to distinguish from “noise” or other elements. However, when there is a lot of a specific element in a sample, the spike or line will have a significant amplitude. The two charts in Rossi’s patent show many lines, some of which indicate a very significant amount of certain elements. All of the lines that seem to be significant are labeled, except one. If you look at the following chart from his patent you will see that there is one line that is not labeled. This line is between the lines of Nickel and Zinc, and it sits at about 8.3 electron volts. There have been a few comments on the web about this graph. The following is from the comments section in a story posted on ecatnews.com. http://ecatnews.com/?p=829 “I went back and counted pixels with MS Paint to do a more thorough job of identifying this component. It’s not Copper at all. It’s Tungsten. The material is a Ni-W-Zn alloy metal foam.” There are also comments on various websites about how Tungsten can behave like a catalyst, and is used in atomic hydrogen torches to separate molecular hydrogen into atomic hydrogen. I remember Rossi stating on his blog that Tungsten is not used in the E-Cat, when asked a question about it. However, after searching his blog at the Journal of Nuclear Physics, I cannot find that comment. To try and figure out if the anomalous line in this chart could be Tungsten, I did some digging on the internet. As a non-scientist I did not understand everything. However, I did find out that Tungsten has a keV signature that is close to the 8.3. According to a chart on this website http://www.xrfresearch.com/technology/xrf-spectra/182-xrf-spectrum-tungsten.html, one of Tungsten’s possible signatures is 8.39 keV. This is close to 8.31, which is what I calculated by studying the chart from Rossi’s patent. Also, I found a few references to Tungsten having a signature of 8.3 keV. It seems like the line between nickel and zinc in the chart could be Tungsten. There are other possibilities, including copper and nickel. However, if that line was copper or nickel, I wonder why it was not labeled? It does not make sense to me that they would not label the line as copper or nickel, if that was the identity of the element. What would make sense to me, is if the element was Tungsten, and they did not label it as such to try and hide the fact Tungsten is used in the powder. So if this line is Tungsten, how does it fit into what we know about what we have been told about Rossi’s catalyst? 1) Tungsten is not a precious metal. This fits what we have been told, that no precious metals are used in the E-Cat. 2) It has a very high melting point at 3422C which is much higher than the melting point of nickel which is around 1400C. Since we have been told the temperature inside the E-Cat reactor core routinely reaches 1600C, perhaps the addition of Tungsten increases the melting point of the powder inside the E-Cat. Something needs to increase the melting
Re: [Vo]:Mathematical modeling versus a blacksmith
Hi Jed, Google have published some details of their algorithm and that's pretty much how it works. If they want to do say English/Italian translation they find a lot of text (books, menus etc.) that exist in both languages and then they analyse the text counting words by frequency. This gives first mapping between words. There's a lot more to it but frequency mapping is a key element. They must have trained their system using some books where Rossi had been translated to Smith. It's interesting that the computer learns to translate just by analysis of these dual language texts and with very little human input or language understanding. Colin On Fri, Dec 23, 2011 at 4:29 AM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com wrote: Giovanni Santostasi wrote: Rossi doesn't mean Smith. It is translated sometime by Google as Smith because Smith is such common name in the anglophone world and Rossi is an extremely common (if not the most common) Italian last names. Rossi means red one, probably the ancestors of this family were red headed. Wow! That gives us an interesting look at how Google translation works. The computer picks a word that is functionally similar. One that has similar uses, distribution or frequency. Or maybe it is a database error. The word roth also means red, in Middle English. Hence the placename and family name Rothwell means red well. That is, a well with reddish water from iron minerals in the water. See: http://www.rothwelltown.co.uk/**historyofrothwel.htmlhttp://www.rothwelltown.co.uk/historyofrothwel.html - Jed
Re: [Vo]:The 6 Oct Rossi test heat exchanger model
Did you see in the specs that the heat exchanger should be mounted vertically when used for phase change. Having it horizontal should reduce effectiveness and err in Rossi's favour On Sat, Dec 10, 2011 at 3:58 PM, Horace Heffner hheff...@mtaonline.netwrote: The heat exchanger is Swedish, make and model: SWEP E8T-SC-S http://www.swep.net/index.php?**tpl=productsheetslang=enid=** 361Type=ESize=8TMaterial=**SCPressure=Shttp://www.swep.net/index.php?tpl=productsheetslang=enid=361Type=ESize=8TMaterial=SCPressure=S The installation manual is here: http://www.swep.net/fileview.**php?file=1300709490http://www.swep.net/fileview.php?file=1300709490 The brass manifold is also from SWEP. Best regards, Horace Heffner http://www.mtaonline.net/~**hheffner/http://www.mtaonline.net/%7Ehheffner/
Re: [Vo]:Why not duplicate Rossi's setups and see how they work without LENR?
Hi Jed, I think the simple test would be to put a 25kg block of lead (for big ecat simulation) on the gas with a pan of water on top of the lead, all well insulated. Turn on the gas and heat until the water boils. Turn off the gas and with whole container well sealed and insulated see how long the water boils and stays at 100C. Just be careful not to melt the lead. Colin On Sun, Dec 11, 2011 at 1:58 AM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com wrote: I believe you should do a much simpler test. As I said, an experiment is best when reduced to minimum number of components. That is, when you test the claim to its essence. You keep it clean. Test one thing at a time, in isolation, rather than the entire range of behavior the eCat exhibits. There is a company on Airport Road near my office where they test scrapped airplane wings for stress-related failure. As you can imagine, they do not test an entire wing, and they do not fly an airplane with sensors attached. They cut out a sample of a wing and put it in a mechanical press to flex it repeatedly, to speed up the process. Along the same lines you should not undertake to simulate the entire eCat, but rather the one aspect of it that makes or breaks the claim. In this case you should do what I described earlier: Bring ~30 L of water to boil in a large pot Insulate the pot, but not much, so that the outer layer is still too hot to touch (60 to 80 deg C). Check the temperature periodically for 4 hours and see whether it remains at boiling temperature, or cools down. That may sound silly, but I am 100% serious. Any skeptic who sincerely believes the claim may be mistaken should be willing to do this test. Not just willing but *anxious* to do this test. Frankly, if anyone is being silly it is the skeptics who are unwilling to try this, or to deal with the fact that this is a direct simulation of eCat behavior. You can argue about some details of what the eCat does or does not do, but this is one thing it *unquestionably* does. No one has challenged that. It has nothing to do with instruments. The observers all agree the vessel surface remained too hot to touch. Lewan confirmed it with a thermocouple. They later dumped the water out and saw it was still steaming hot. It would be absurd to argue they are wrong, and the vessel actually cooled down to room temperature. That is the most important claim, in its essential form. The rest is either unimportant detail, or it only strengthens the claim. The latter includes, for example, the fact that during the 4 hours all of the water in the reactor vessel was replaced with cold water twice. Some people doubt that, although it is unquestionably true that some water was flowing into the vessel. Otherwise the vessel would have been empty at the end, and people observed that it was full. However, you can ignore that, not replace the water, and simply look at the heat lost from 30 L container. You can use a cylindrical pot even though that has less surface area than Rossi's square reactor. This is a much easier test than making a copy of the reactor. This is as definitive and irrefutable as a test with a copy would be. This test gets to the point, without confusing the issue, and without getting into debates about trivial and irrelevant matters such as the placement of the cooling loop outlet thermocouple. You can -- and you should -- ignore the cooling loop for the purposes of this test. The cooling loop is secondary evidence; the claim stands or fails based on this primary, first-principle observation. There is no benefit to adding in the complexity of Rossi's electric heaters and reactor geometry. This would only confuse the issue, and distract you. They have no effect on the Stefan-Boltzman law. Adding the heat initially with a gas fire produces the same results as adding it with an electric heater. The only way this may not model the reactor in all important respects would be if there is a hidden source of chemical or electric energy. There is absolute no evidence for that. To put it another way, if there is a hidden source, it is hidden so well no expert has seen any trace of it, and there no suggestions anywhere as to how you might simulate it; i.e. how you might hide wires large enough to keep a 30 L pot boiling for 4 hours. So you might as well not try to simulate a hidden source. (There are a few crackpot ideas about putting bricks heated to 3000 deg C into the reactor beforehand. There is no way that could work, and it would be dangerous, so do not try it.) - Jed
Re: [Vo]:Domestic LENR steam/electricity front end
Could you have a problem with the 30kWH of excess heat. It seems a bit much to get rid of for space heating and hot water especially in a suburban situation. I was also looking a FIT rate in Australia and it seems you can get money back from the power company. Could you do this for ecat power? On Tue, Dec 6, 2011 at 3:06 PM, Aussie Guy E-Cat aussieguy.e...@gmail.comwrote: Based on the lowest LENR / kW price so far quoted ($7,700 (this the quoted retail installed price) / 45 kW thermal), the LCOE / kWh thermal is then $0.004 / kWh thermal. Assuming a 25% conversion efficiency, the cost is then $0.016 / Ac kWh for 24/7/365 for 30 years of electricity plus you have 30 kWh of thermal heat to be use for space and water heating. What will that cost your for the petrol based generator running 24/7/365 for 30 years? Then add in the cost of space and water heating. BTW we can source a good quality 7.5 kW single / 3 phase alternator (with voltage control) from China for around $300 and a good quality 10 HP steam engine (with RPM control) for around $250. We expect to be able to offer a LENR driven off grid CHP system for less than $8,000 with more than enough electrical, hot water and space heat output to run a large domestic home with only connections to the water and storm water sewage grid. Of course there are off the shelf systems to do those functions off the grid as well. On 12/6/2011 5:02 PM, David Roberson wrote: I found a generator driven by a 4 cycle gasoline engine that puts out 5500 watts of AC for $648 US dollars(Lowes USA). This price includes everything you need except the gasoline. I understand that the LENR powered devices that we are looking at do not require refueling except for twice a year, but the cost of the bare unit gets my attention. A 4 cycle gas engine is pretty complicated and does the conversion of heat into rotary motion as a steam engine would. Why should we not expect the price of a comparable LENR device to be more in line with this? I understand that they deserve a portion of the fuel savings, but why try to take so much of the money? Maybe the ECAT type price will be more comparable to the generator I found when production numbers and competition kicks in. Dave -Original Message- From: Aussie Guy E-Cat aussieguy.e...@gmail.com To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Mon, Dec 5, 2011 11:30 pm Subject: Re: [Vo]:Domestic LENR steam/electricity front end I've emailed Robert Green and asked for more data and if what I get looks good, I will buy one of the 2 cylinder 10 Hp unit to have a play. From what I can find this is my front runner steam engine to use as the torque source for a domestic LENR CHP unit. With 24/7 LENR primary heat source and CHP with electricity generation at around 5 - 6 Ac kWs, who needs to worry about grid tie? On 12/6/2011 2:36 PM, ecat builder wrote: Hi Aussie, I posted that and a few other steam engines earlier that got a bunch of thoughtful replies. http://www.mail-archive.com/**vortex-l@eskimo.com/msg53254.**htmlhttp://www.mail-archive.com/vortex-l@eskimo.com/msg53254.html However, maybe a discussion of grid-tie in using existing solar/wind systems would be interesting. Some of the new tie-in controllers tell you how much carbon you're not using. (!?) - Brad p.s. Aussie, or any other Vortex person.. The Nelson slides mention someone from Quantum Energy Technologies being at the Rossi demo... Do you know if this company is one and the same? http://www.quantumenergy.com.**au/ http://www.quantumenergy.com.au/
Re: [Vo]:JNP site down
He's hosted here: http://stayhosted.com/, I expect they suspend if the site exceeds it's traffic volume. I've had my company site disappear from a hosting service because we exceed there CPU cap in a 2 minute interval. No warning, just wiped from their hosting service. It took a while to find a hosting service that would treat us like a customer they wanted to keep. On Thu, Nov 10, 2011 at 2:58 PM, Aussie Guy E-Cat aussieguy.e...@gmail.comwrote: The Blog reader may have been responsible for that. But then his traffic volume data rate rate should not be that big and instead of suspending, it should have charged him for any excess data traffic. AG On 11/10/2011 5:13 PM, Colin Hercus wrote: I expect his traffic volume has gone up and he's gone foul of limits imposed by his web hosting service. On Thu, Nov 10, 2011 at 2:38 PM, Peter Gluck peter.gl...@gmail.commailto: peter.gl...@gmail.com** wrote: It is not for the first time, it happens...for a few hours. Let's see... What's strange- the blog reader rossilivecat.com http://rossilivecat.com is also non-functional. Peter On Thu, Nov 10, 2011 at 8:30 AM, Aussie Guy E-Cat aussieguy.e...@gmail.com mailto:aussieguy.ecat@gmail.**comaussieguy.e...@gmail.com wrote: http://www.journal-of-nuclear-**physics.comhttp://www.journal-of-nuclear-physics.com Comes up account suspended. WTF? -- Dr. Peter Gluck Cluj, Romania http://egooutpeters.blogspot.**com http://egooutpeters.blogspot.com
Re: [Vo]:JNP site down
I expect his traffic volume has gone up and he's gone foul of limits imposed by his web hosting service. On Thu, Nov 10, 2011 at 2:38 PM, Peter Gluck peter.gl...@gmail.com wrote: It is not for the first time, it happens...for a few hours. Let's see... What's strange- the blog reader rossilivecat.com is also non-functional. Peter On Thu, Nov 10, 2011 at 8:30 AM, Aussie Guy E-Cat aussieguy.e...@gmail.com wrote: http://www.journal-of-nuclear-**physics.comhttp://www.journal-of-nuclear-physics.com Comes up account suspended. WTF? -- Dr. Peter Gluck Cluj, Romania http://egooutpeters.blogspot.com
Re: [Vo]:Minor progress
Hi Horace, I was wondering if it's possible to do this with lead rather than another material as long as you have sufficient insulation to reduce the heat flow from the lead to the water. I did a simple simulation and it looked like about 25kg of lead with about 12W/C heat flow would do the trick. I was also thinking that you might get some stratification of the water with cooler water at the bottom and hot near the top. In latter stages of life after death this could be really important to keep the outflow at 100C. For Oct 6th test it also requires water flow to match Mat Lewan's measured rate rather than Rossis 11kg/h, which also leaves the possibility of the flow rate being increased to shut down the reaction. Best Regards, Colin On Tue, Nov 8, 2011 at 4:54 AM, Horace Heffner hheff...@mtaonline.netwrote: On Nov 7, 2011, at 11:24 AM, Stephen A. Lawrence wrote: Ah -- Sorry, Horace, disregard my question. I overlooked the fact that you're ignoring the Oct 28 test, which was the (alleged) 470kW run. (In any case, you obviously are well aware of the heat-of-vaporization issues.) Yes. I am having problems keeping track of things, and have not been able to read much on vortex of late. Sorry I am a bit behind responding, and our messages crossed. Something of possible interest is that the (real) cement slab data is here: http://www.mtaonline.net/~**hheffner/Graph6Sb.pnghttp://www.mtaonline.net/%7Ehheffner/Graph6Sb.png This can be compared to the fire brick data here: http://www.mtaonline.net/~**hheffner/Graph6S.pnghttp://www.mtaonline.net/%7Ehheffner/Graph6S.png The cement data shows the peak energy output much delayed vs the fire brick, around T540 vs T330. However the peak power out delivered is less. A similar phenomenon should occur if controls are used to cut back the power out to make a 6 hour run vs 4 hour run. If the power out were actually from nuclear energy, not thermal energy stored using electric power, then such a large drop in output should not be necessary to accommodate the longer run time. Rossi actually stated on his blog, if I recall correctly, that the power was reduced from 1 MW because the (prospective) customer required 6 hours instead of 4. Obviously the shortcoming from the 1 MW output expectation (objective?) was the fault of the customer! 8^) Obviously, I claim, as I wave my arms wildly. 8^) Best regards, Horace Heffner http://www.mtaonline.net/~**hheffner/http://www.mtaonline.net/%7Ehheffner/
Re: [Vo]:Minor progress
Or 25kg per module if we just bring the water to 105C and make very little steam On Tue, Nov 8, 2011 at 9:06 AM, Berke Durak berke.du...@gmail.com wrote: Cement has more specific heat capacity per mass, but not per volume. One cubic meter of iron can hold something like 3.5 MJ per kelvin, while the same volume of cement can hold something like 2.33 MJ per kelvin. In addition I'm not sure cement can go above 800 degrees Celsius, while iron melts at 1500 degrees. So one cubic meter of cement at 800 degrees celsius above background can hold 800 x 2.33 MJ = 1.86 GJ. One cubic meter of iron at 1500 degrees can hold 5.25 GJ. Now take the 9.5 GJ that has been reported. With cement, you need 9.5e9/1.86e9 = 5.11 cubic meters. With iron, you need 9.5e9/5.25e9 = 1.81 cubic meters. Assume you have 50 modules of 70 cm x 30 cm x 45 cm. That makes 4.7 cubic meters. Not enough space for cement (unless you know of some special kind of cement.) Using iron, it would fit, but it would weight way too much, at 250 kg per module. -- Berke Durak
Re: [Vo]:Pipe diameter October 28 - new considerations
Hi Peter, In every test there's been something missing. Why? Colin On Thu, Nov 3, 2011 at 3:33 PM, peter.heck...@arcor.de wrote: Yes this is true. It was a quick idea that I had during work and posted during work without much consideration. Rossi should have released the steam into the air after the testing was finished. This would give 300 liter of dry steam per second but in air up in the sky it will condense and should look impressive. Even better: If he had used this 105 degree steam to heat water in a secondary vessel with a heatexchanger, and let the water evaporate into the sky, this would look impressive and it would be hard if not impossible to have any doubts about the steam quality and energy. Worldwide attention would have been guaranteed, especially if then police and fire brigades come and stop the experiment. ;-) Peter - Original Nachricht Von: Colin Hercus colinher...@gmail.com An: vortex-l@eskimo.com Datum: 03.11.2011 02:43 Betreff: Re: [Vo]:Pipe diameter October 28 - new considerations Hi Peter, It could only be a vacuum if they were pumping the water out of the heat dissipater and they'd need a pretty good pump to get a vacuum. Colin On Wed, Nov 2, 2011 at 8:17 PM, peter.heck...@arcor.de wrote: Hi, I recalculated the pipe diameter needed for the 1MW plant. There is an important consideration that might have been missed by many: If all steam is condensed in the heatdissipator then we cannot assume air pressure at the other end of the pipe. In this case we must assume almost vacuum at the other side. If this is considered, we cannot use a steam pipe calculation for 1 bar. We must assume 2 bar for the pressure difference. So Rossis statement, almost airpressure at this point, where the temperature was measured, could be true. Also a inner pipe diameter of about 8.5 cm (as I have measured) could work in this case. What do you think? Best, Peter
Re: [Vo]:Pipe diameter October 28 - new considerations
Hi Peter, It could only be a vacuum if they were pumping the water out of the heat dissipater and they'd need a pretty good pump to get a vacuum. Colin On Wed, Nov 2, 2011 at 8:17 PM, peter.heck...@arcor.de wrote: Hi, I recalculated the pipe diameter needed for the 1MW plant. There is an important consideration that might have been missed by many: If all steam is condensed in the heatdissipator then we cannot assume air pressure at the other end of the pipe. In this case we must assume almost vacuum at the other side. If this is considered, we cannot use a steam pipe calculation for 1 bar. We must assume 2 bar for the pressure difference. So Rossis statement, almost airpressure at this point, where the temperature was measured, could be true. Also a inner pipe diameter of about 8.5 cm (as I have measured) could work in this case. What do you think? Best, Peter
Re: [Vo]:Re: Rossi 1MW : Why is the energy hidden behind pressboard?
Hi Peter, I'm not familiar with these pumps but it has variable rate and stroke and I wonder if someone changed the stroke would the sound change, certainly the frequency wouldn't and it would be really easy to do without being noticed. Colin On Wed, Nov 2, 2011 at 6:11 AM, Peter Heckert peter.heck...@arcor.dewrote: Am 01.11.2011 22:59, schrieb Mattia Rizzi: According to the report, EK measured the water flow before the test, but not *during* the test. I asked to Essen and confirmed that they doesn't have measured the flow during the test. I had this thougt too, but: The pump is so loud, any significant change in flow rate would have been noticed by them. If these guys do a positive test in Upsalla then I am ready to believe it. Im not against this. I am against all this contradictions false promises and confusion that have been since this. Cannot understand why didnt they give some details about pipes and heatdissipator for the 1 MW plant and why didnt they measure the temperatures there. This is most disappointing to me, it is like demonstrating a car on a brake tester and not letting the rubber hit the real street. Best, Peter -Messaggio originale- From: Peter Heckert Sent: Tuesday, November 01, 2011 10:43 PM To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: [Vo]:Rossi 1MW : Why is the energy hidden behind pressboard? Am 01.11.2011 22:33, schrieb Jouni Valkonen: 2011/11/1 Jed Rothwelljedrothw...@gmail.com**: For that matter, why would anyone think the Krivit test was fake? For Krivit, Rossi /claimed/ the water flow and it was doubted by others and this was so early I did not understand everything and was confused by Krivits wetz steam argument. (I dont believe in wet steam today, but at this time I was unsure) Essen Kullander /measured/ the water flow, so this was secured believable data. When they then found, that the input energy is too low for boiling, I was impressed.
Re: [Vo]:Making Sense of ECAT Water Pump Flow Rate
The manufacturers data sheet indicates it has variable rate and *variable stroke* pump and doesn't indicate that a tube can be replaced or even that it's a peristaltic pump. On Fri, Oct 21, 2011 at 2:28 AM, Alan J Fletcher a...@well.com wrote: At 10:34 PM 10/19/2011, David Roberson wrote: I have been trying to understand the unusual behavior of the ECAT water input pump. It may be possible to replace the peristaltic tube and thus get a result which exceeds the maximum for a standard tube. http://www.coleparmer.com/techinfo/techinfo.asp?htmlfile=PPTube_match.htmID=576
Re: [Vo]:Possible mechanism-Excess Power Reading of ECAT
Hi Peter, I know Rossi said this but I also know Mats measured a lower rate (0.9g/m) for a period of 6 minutes and I also know they stated the flow rate was increased at 19:08 to cool the reaction but if the pump was already at maximum how could this be done? It's perplexing to have all this contradictory information. Best Regards, Colin On Tue, Oct 25, 2011 at 2:14 PM, peter.heck...@arcor.de wrote: - Original Nachricht Von: Colin Hercus colinher...@gmail.com An: vortex-l@eskimo.com Datum: 25.10.2011 03:54 Betreff: Re: [Vo]:Possible mechanism-Excess Power Reading of ECAT Hi Peter, The primary flow is interesting problem. Rossi states 4g/sec which is close to 15 kg/h. The specs of the pump give a maximum of 12kg/h at 1.5 bar so if we believe Rossi then the pump must have been running at maximum volume but then how can we explain the flow rate of the peristaltic pump being increased at 19:08 if it was already at maximum? I asked this in Rossis forum and he replied 15kg/h. Dont take this like gold, possibly he didnt remember or didnt know and then he gives the most advantegeous answer always. His answers are not reliable and he is a busy man who has not much time. What his answer probably means is: I dont remember exactly and we did not keep track, but the maximum that the pump can do is 15kg/h and we should have reached this at least temporary ;-)
Re: [Vo]:Possible mechanism-Excess Power Reading of ECAT
Hi Peter, The primary flow is interesting problem. Rossi states 4g/sec which is close to 15 kg/h. The specs of the pump give a maximum of 12kg/h at 1.5 bar so if we believe Rossi then the pump must have been running at maximum volume but then how can we explain the flow rate of the peristaltic pump being increased at 19:08 if it was already at maximum? Colin On Sun, Oct 23, 2011 at 12:21 AM, Peter Heckert peter.heck...@arcor.dewrote: Am 22.10.2011 16:32, schrieb Jed Rothwell: This discussion about close contact to the metal and chemogalvanic or electroosmotic voltages is blather. I am sorry to be harsh, but it is irrelevant, evasive, nitpicking blather. It is not. Put 2 identical copper electrodes in water. Heat one, and the other not. You get a voltage and a current between the electrodes. (Thermal electroosmose) When I was young I tried to make an chemothermical energy source from this effect. With Rossis setup there was unequally heated water, aluminim, brass, nickel and chromenickel in contact. If the thermolement has 1 Ohm inner resistance then you get an error of 1° C with a current of 40 µA. The problem is, a current can flow from 1 thermoelement into the other, because they where interconnectet. You could pull the thermocouples out and throw them in the trash and we would STILL be ABSOLUTELY CERTAIN THERE WAS ANOMALOUS HEAT. The thermocuples could be completely wrong in every respect -- the numbers might be painted on the meter screen! -- but the result would still be compelling. Forget about the thermocouples! Forget about using a steam mixer instead of heat exchanger. None of that matters. Focus instead on the fact that water flowed through the reactor replacing the entire volume of water twice (approximately), and the reactor was radiating a lot of heat for 4 hours. Yet it remained too hot to touch right to the end. Without heat generation it would have fallen to room temperature after 1 hour, never mind 4 hours. If you dispute that, you do not understand elementary facts about nature that people have known for thousands of years. The problem is, the primary water flow is unknown. Rossi says 4g/s and Lewan measured 0.9-2g. All these unclear points, temperature instabilities and contradictions say, there are unknown error sources in the measurement.
Re: [Vo]:Rossi 1 MW plant - is there a cooling system?
Hi Horace, I find your posts quite interesting and you seem to have a rational rather than emotional approach which makes for good reading. I just read your reply to Dave and as it seemed to make the ECat (and my kettle) impossible I thought I'd double check some of your calculations and I think you've made a mistake on the heat flow from the reactor: R = (0.002 m)/(16 W/(m K)*(1.8x10^-2 m^2) = 1.78 °C/W By my calculations: R = 0.002/(16 * 0.018) = 0.002/.288 = 0.007 °C/W From engineeringtoolbox.com *Fourier's Law* express conductive heat transfer as *q = k A dT / s (1)* *where* *A = heat transfer area (m2, ft2)* *k = thermal conductivity of the materialhttp://www.engineeringtoolbox.com/thermal-conductivity-d_429.html(W/m.K or W/m oC, Btu/(hr oF ft2/ft))* *dT = temperature difference across the material (K or oC, oF)* *s = material thickness (m, ft)* So A = 180 CM^2 = 0.018 M^2 K = 16 W/(m K) s = 0.002m Then q = 16*0.018*dT/0.002 = 144 * dT So for 2500W we'd have a temperature difference of 2500/144 = 17 C which is quite reasonable. This is all way out of my area of expertise so I could be messing up units somewhere. Best Regards, Colin On Wed, Oct 19, 2011 at 4:22 AM, Horace Heffner hheff...@mtaonline.netwrote: On Oct 18, 2011, at 10:36 AM, David Roberson wrote: Rossi has stated that the energy released by the LENR reaction is in the form of moderate energy gamma rays(X-Rays?) These rays are converted into heat within the lead shielding and coolant. If this is true, heat to activate the core could be made to exit into the coolant to slow down the reaction. The actual temperature within the core section is perhaps 600(?) C degrees or more. You can find his statement within his journal if it is important to you. The 60 degree figure probably refers to the temperature of the water bath when the core reaches its starting value. Dave Hi Dave, Welcome to vortex! I am happy to see your spreadsheet made it through the vortex filter. Historically nothing made it through above 40KB without special processing by Bill Beaty himself. Your post with spreadsheet was 55.4 KB. Either a new limmit has been established or Bill Beaty is closely watching (the latter seems to me unlikely.) The implications that gammas heat the lead and coolant do not make any sense. If they had the energy to make it out of the stainless steel fuel compartment used in prior tests, then they would have been readily detected by Celani's counter. This was discussed here in relation to my Review of Travel report by Hanno Essén and Sven Kullander, 3 April 2011. http://www.mail-archive.com/**vortex-l@eskimo.com/msg51632.**htmlhttp://www.mail-archive.com/vortex-l@eskimo.com/msg51632.html http://www.mail-archive.com/**vortex-l@eskimo.com/msg51644.**htmlhttp://www.mail-archive.com/vortex-l@eskimo.com/msg51644.html http://www.mail-archive.com/**vortex-l@eskimo.com/msg51648.**htmlhttp://www.mail-archive.com/vortex-l@eskimo.com/msg51648.html Excerpted below are the most relevant notes I made regarding the April 3, 2011 test: FIG. 3 NOTES It appears the heating chamber goes from the 34 cm to the 40 cm mark in length, not 35 cm to 40 cm as marked. Maybe the band heater extends beyond the end of the copper. It appears 5 cm is the length to be used for the heating chamber. Using the 50 mm diameter above, and 5 cm length we have heating chamber volume V: V = pi*(2.4 cm)^2*(5 cm) = 90 cm^3 If we use 46 mm for the internal diameter we obtain an internal volume of: V = pi*(2.4 cm)^2*(5 cm) = 83 cm^3 Judging from the scale of picture, determined by the ruler, the OD of the heating chamber appears to actually be 6.1 cm. The ID thus might be 5.7 cm. This gives: V = pi*(2.85 cm)^2*(5 cm) = 128 cm^3 The nickel container is stated to be about 50 cm^3, leaving 78 cm^3 volume in the heating chamber through which the water is heated. If the Ni containing chamber is 50 cm^3, and 4.5 cm long, then its radius r is: r = sqrt(V/(Pi L) = sqrt((50 cm^3)/(Pi*(4.5 cm)) = 3.5 cm total surface are S is: S = 2*Pi*r^2 + 2*Pi*r*L = 2*Pi*(r^2+r*L) = 2*Pi*((3.5 cm)^2 + (3.5 cm)*(4.5 cm)) S = 180 cm^2 The surface material is stainless steel. HEAT FLOW THROUGH THE NICKEL CONTAINING STAINLESS STEEL COMPARTMENT If the stainless steel compartment has a surface area of approximately S = 180 cm^2, as approximated above, and 4.39 kW heat flow through it occurred, as specified in the report, then the heat flow was (4390 W)/(180 cm^2) = 24.3 W/cm^2 = 2.4x10^5 W/m^2. The thermal conductivity of stainless steel is 16 W/(m K). The compartment area is 180 cm^2 or 1.8x10^-2 m^2. If the wall thickness is 2 mm = 0.002 m, then the thermal resistance R of the compartment is: R = (0.002 m)/(16 W/(m K)*(1.8x10^-2 m^2) = 1.78 °C/W Producing a heat flow of 4.39 kW, or 4390 W then requires a delta T given as: delta T = (1.78 °C/W) *
Re: [Vo]:Rossi heat exchanger fitting / SOME flow data
Hi Robert, If this excess energy over what is required to heat .9g/s of water to 124C is somehow stored in the eCAT (say, as thermal energy in a fairly well insulated block of steel) then it would be enough energy to possibly give the impression of a self sustaining reaction for at least 3 hours. So a scam is possible based on primary temperatures. The secondary heat exchanger showed temperature differences up to 8C which requires a power of ~8000W which is more than the 2436W that 0.9g/sec of steam at 124C has. I did note in the July test of the Big Cat they used a flow rate of 11kg/hr. I'd like to see some confirmation of the primary flow rate for the October test.. Colin On Tue, Oct 11, 2011 at 6:44 AM, Robert Leguillon robert.leguil...@hotmail.com wrote: Let's now take this to its logical conclusion. At a primary flow rate of .91 g/s, the evidence makes it look as though the average power (including the power applied by the band heater) over the entire span, could not have been over 2.5 kW. Anything higher would have resulted in higher E-Cat temps than its 124C peak. So, 2.436 kW is our ceiling - maybe a little higher if you assume some loss through the thermal blankets. It begs the question, What's the floor?: Only 380.75 watts are required to raise the incoming water at 24C to 124C. We know some water was boiling, due to the sound, feel and relative temperature stability. But, as with every demonstration, we cannot determine how much. This leaves us wondering whether the average power was closer to 380 watts or 2.5 kw. Robert Lynn robert.gulliver.l...@gmail.com wrote: During Mat's walk through video I make it about 40+/-1 Hz, with same LMI P18 pump with 2ml max stroke (and back pressure of at least 1.3bar if making 124°C steam, pump is limited to 1.5bar) http://www.lmi-pumps.com/datasheets/Pseries-08-01.pdf, that would suggest at maximum 1.3g/s and probably less given close to maximum pressure. http://www.nyteknik.se/nyheter/energi_miljo/energi/article3284823.ece If so then the heat developed during walkthrough is not more than 3.6kw (1.3g/s 24°C water to 124°C steam) but might be less than 2.45kW (0.91g/s 24°C water to 124°C steam), unless the water level in the reactor was dropping. At same point in the walk through Mat shows delta T on secondary of 6.5°C and says that it is flowing 600l/hr (167g/s), that would give a power output of 4.5kW. So the secondary is putting out more heat than the primary could be delivering. This shows that the calorimetry is almost certainly overestimating output by at least 20% (prime candidates are bad outlet thermocouple positon, poor calibration of thermocouples), though it could be a lot more. On 10 October 2011 22:24, Alan J Fletcher a...@well.com wrote: At 02:09 PM 10/10/2011, Jed Rothwell wrote: Alan J Fletcher a...@well.com wrote: It's buried in Lewan's data -- but as he pointed out in his responses to Krivit, he DID measure the eCat output flow twice (presumably at the usual drain). He read it at the drain and also, during the video, from the flowmeter. The flowmeter and volume measurements are on the SECONDARY. The flow results for the secondary are fine .. as is its input temperature. He made TWO measurements on the PRIMARY flow ... one at the end of sustaining, and one after the hydrogen was purged and the peristaltic pump was increased. We DO have the click-rate of the primary pump recorded during Lewan's walk-through. Not time-stamped, but he says about 1 hour ago we went into self-sustaining mode.
Re: [Vo]:Please stop making unsupported, physically impossible assertions about stored heat
Hi Jed, I can design a device where heat in the output goes up after power is turned off. A simple analogy would be a steel bar, if apply heat to one end with a torch and measure the temperature of the other end there will be a temperature difference along the bar. When I stop applying heat there will still be an increase in the temperature of the other end until the bar reaches equilibrium and starts to cool. You can build an equivalent circuit with 2 resistors and 2 capacitors. == The ECat behaves just like this as can be seen by the slow start to warming. You are right that once input power is stopped the system as a whole must cool but it's possible if one part is hot and another relatively cooler then the cool part can continue to increase in temperature. This is elementary physics. If the flow rate is 0.9 g/sec then it's also clear that the we can't be putting 8000W into the second heat exchanger so either the primary flow rate is wrong or the temperature measurements are wrong. Either way this is another test that has failed to prove the device works. Personally I'm still about 90% sure it does work and would just like to see a definitive test. Colin On Tue, Oct 11, 2011 at 11:09 PM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.comwrote: Robert Leguillon wrote: Don't miss the fundamental argument of heat storage. Great care was taken to insulate the E-Cat, and keep heat from escaping. If you think that this is impossible, I have an experiment for you. Make a scalding hot 1/2 cup of coffee. Put it into a Thermos. See how long it takes to cool. Yes, yes, yes, we all know that heat can be stored. Please look at what I wrote. I am saying that it cannot be released passively from a stable system except monotonically decreasing. Yes, the temperature can be very high. Yes, the decline can be slow when you use lots of insulation. (But in this case, the data proves it was very fast.) But the temperature CANNOT go anywhere but DOWN. It can only decrease, never increase. The rate of decrease must follow Newton's law. That is the point you must address to prove the stored heat hypothesis. How can it violate Newton's law? You need to demonstrate that it can by experiment. The only way it can go up is if there is heat generation. This is absolutely fundamental to physics. It is the whole basis of calorimetry. if this was not true calorimeters would not work. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:Thoughts on the eCat and 130C steam
Woops, sorry Alan. I should be more careful. On Sat, Sep 17, 2011 at 9:51 AM, Horace Heffner hheff...@mtaonline.netwrote: Hi Colin, Alan Fletcher gets the credit for that scenario. Best regards, Horace Heffner http://www.mtaonline.net/~hheffner/ On Sep 16, 2011, at 4:39 PM, Colin Hercus wrote: Hi Horace, Your 3rd scenario may be right. From mats Report According to Andrea Rossi the increased dimension is due to a larger volume inside where the water is heated, approximately 30 liters, and a larger heat-exchanger with a greater surface which should result in a more effective heat transfer from the reactor to the circulating water and *also in additional heating of the steam after vaporization. *Just strange how this works at the outlet and it also means the pressure may be 1bar as suggested by Mats. This will change a lot of the energy calculations. Colin On Sat, Sep 17, 2011 at 1:36 AM, Alan J Fletcher a...@well.com wrote: I'm still trying to figure out what's going on! The outlet port is very high on the unit ... if it was just the overflow from a kettle boiler then there wouldn't be any room for steam. I might have to go back to thinking of it as a Tube boiler, where the flow of the steam carries the water with it. But in the early stages of the process the overflow water clearly pulses, just a fraction of a second later than the sound of the pump. That implies it's directly connected to the incoming water. It's a kettle again. I've put up a few of my calculator results at http://lenr.qumbu.com/rossi_ecat_sep11_b.php It's clearly producing SOMETHING ... but how MUCH? How does it get the 130C at the instrument port and 50% fluid water at the outlet? I think there are three ways of reaching 130C. a) The internal pressure is 3 Bars, and the quality is 0.5. The water and the steam are in equilibrium at 130C. As the 130C steam leaves the system the pressure drops to 1 Bar and the temperature drops to 100C (adiabatic expansion -- a vertical line on the temperature-enthalpy diagram) -- and it might start condensing. But the 130C water would probably flash into steam, and in the process cool down to 100C. So do we end up with MORE or LESS water than we had inside the eCat? b) The internal pressure is 1 Bar (atmospheric, plus a little back-pressure), as a single chamber. In this case, the only way you can reach 130C is for ALL the water to evaporate, and for the steam to be super-heated. The 130C 100% Dry superheated steam leaves the eCat. But to get the observed 50% fluid water, this has to cool and condense in about 10cm. I don't think you can get rid of enough heat that quickly : it need nucleation sites, which will be available only on the wall of the tube. c) The eCat is structured as TWO chambers : the first is a kettle boiler at 100C (1 Bar). Any excess fluid overflows directly, at 100C. The steam component then goes into a second chamber, where it is superheated to 130C at 1 Bar. Because it is a separate chamber it does not have to be in equilibrium with the water. Note : this separation of boiler and superheater is very common in traditional boiler design. WARNING : needs a non-proportional font like courier !!! Port | | *--* ** | Superheated 1 Bar | || | Steam130C == || outlet hose 95% Dry | * 1 Bar 100C | ^ *=* Superheated steam = Steam | | | CORE |130C |~| |~~~ overflow fluid 100C | | | *-* ~ *- | *=* | | ~ | ~ | Water | | ~ | Inlet | Boil 100C |Water Trap 100C *--* This 130C steam also exits through the hose, and may (but need not) condense. It does not have time to reach equilibrium with the 100C overflow fluid over the 10cm distance. The main reason I DON'T like this is that the outlet is so high on the eCat. Missing measurements: a) Pressure at the instrument port (to confirm it is 1 Bar) b) Temperature of the overflow fluid water -- should be 100C c) Temperature of the steam exiting the eCat -- if it was superheated at 1 Bar then it should still be at 130C I can't figure out the dumping of the water at the end, either. Is it 100C water, or is it 130C water? 1 Bar or 3 Bars ? I've never seen 25L of boiling water dumped through a tap, so I don't know what it should look like. The general
Re: [Vo]:Thoughts on the eCat and 130C steam
Hi Horace, Your 3rd scenario may be right. From mats Report According to Andrea Rossi the increased dimension is due to a larger volume inside where the water is heated, approximately 30 liters, and a larger heat-exchanger with a greater surface which should result in a more effective heat transfer from the reactor to the circulating water and *also in additional heating of the steam after vaporization. *Just strange how this works at the outlet and it also means the pressure may be 1bar as suggested by Mats. This will change a lot of the energy calculations. Colin On Sat, Sep 17, 2011 at 1:36 AM, Alan J Fletcher a...@well.com wrote: I'm still trying to figure out what's going on! The outlet port is very high on the unit ... if it was just the overflow from a kettle boiler then there wouldn't be any room for steam. I might have to go back to thinking of it as a Tube boiler, where the flow of the steam carries the water with it. But in the early stages of the process the overflow water clearly pulses, just a fraction of a second later than the sound of the pump. That implies it's directly connected to the incoming water. It's a kettle again. I've put up a few of my calculator results at http://lenr.qumbu.com/rossi_ecat_sep11_b.php It's clearly producing SOMETHING ... but how MUCH? How does it get the 130C at the instrument port and 50% fluid water at the outlet? I think there are three ways of reaching 130C. a) The internal pressure is 3 Bars, and the quality is 0.5. The water and the steam are in equilibrium at 130C. As the 130C steam leaves the system the pressure drops to 1 Bar and the temperature drops to 100C (adiabatic expansion -- a vertical line on the temperature-enthalpy diagram) -- and it might start condensing. But the 130C water would probably flash into steam, and in the process cool down to 100C. So do we end up with MORE or LESS water than we had inside the eCat? b) The internal pressure is 1 Bar (atmospheric, plus a little back-pressure), as a single chamber. In this case, the only way you can reach 130C is for ALL the water to evaporate, and for the steam to be super-heated. The 130C 100% Dry superheated steam leaves the eCat. But to get the observed 50% fluid water, this has to cool and condense in about 10cm. I don't think you can get rid of enough heat that quickly : it need nucleation sites, which will be available only on the wall of the tube. c) The eCat is structured as TWO chambers : the first is a kettle boiler at 100C (1 Bar). Any excess fluid overflows directly, at 100C. The steam component then goes into a second chamber, where it is superheated to 130C at 1 Bar. Because it is a separate chamber it does not have to be in equilibrium with the water. Note : this separation of boiler and superheater is very common in traditional boiler design. WARNING : needs a non-proportional font like courier !!! Port | | *--* ** | Superheated 1 Bar | || | Steam130C == || outlet hose 95% Dry | * 1 Bar 100C | ^ *=* Superheated steam = Steam | | | CORE |130C |~| |~~~ overflow fluid 100C | | | *-* ~ *- | *=* | | ~ | ~ | Water | | ~ | Inlet | Boil 100C |Water Trap 100C *--* This 130C steam also exits through the hose, and may (but need not) condense. It does not have time to reach equilibrium with the 100C overflow fluid over the 10cm distance. The main reason I DON'T like this is that the outlet is so high on the eCat. Missing measurements: a) Pressure at the instrument port (to confirm it is 1 Bar) b) Temperature of the overflow fluid water -- should be 100C c) Temperature of the steam exiting the eCat -- if it was superheated at 1 Bar then it should still be at 130C I can't figure out the dumping of the water at the end, either. Is it 100C water, or is it 130C water? 1 Bar or 3 Bars ? I've never seen 25L of boiling water dumped through a tap, so I don't know what it should look like. The general argument is the same as for the hose outlet -- 130C water would flash VERY rapidly. ps -- This is a first/ second draft of what I'm thinking. I'll change my mind again tomorrow!
[Vo]:E-cat news at Nyteknik
Hi, I haven't posted here before, I've just been lurking. A few months ago I wrote a simple finite element simulation for the eCat, it's a simple model based on two chambers each with a thermal equivalent of water with cold water entering chamber 1, being heated by the heater and reactor and then the same water flowing into a second chamber and supplying heat to it. By adjusting the thermal masses I could get this model to pretty accurately predict the temperatures on the ECat during the warm up period and then I needed to add excess heat beyond the electrical supply to get the temperature charts from Rossi's experiments. This pretty well convinced me that Rossi was onto something. I'll paste a couple of charts from the simulation but I'm not sure if they'll come through. The simulation is not perfect but I think it's close enough. The major issue is that as the reactor chamber heats above boiling we have a mix of steam water in it and moving into chamber 2. Rather than simulate this I just model chamber 1 as water 100C with no steam. That's why the red line goes over 100C, you can think of it as the amount of heat going into the next chamber rather than temperature. Below is simulation from 16 Dec Test. It uses 900W input power with increase to 1800W at 17:47 and two chamber model of thermal mass 0.7kg and 1.3kg. The model also has power dropping to 0 at 18:00, Levi reported that the reaction self sustained for 15 minutes. An interesting point is fast cool down of the real reactor at 18:15 vs the slow cool down predicted by the model. This is 100 consistent with Levi report that water flow was increased to stop the reaction. [image: DEc16.png] And now the simulation from 14th Jan test. This first chart shows simulated temperature based on zero excess power. The simulation is overlaid over actual power and temperature charts from the report. The interesting point is that the simulation fits the initial temperature rise and the fall at the end of the experiment. The only explanation for the actual temperature graph is excess heat. [image: Jan14.png] These simulations, though not perfect, have convinced me there is excess energy. Now comes this new demo so I just entered all the data provided by Mats, adjusted the thermal mass (33kg) to get the initial rise in temperature to match the data, and ... The charts are pretty consistent with there being * no* excess energy, the drop in temperature after the power is off can be fully explained as thermal inertia (with thermal mass equivalent of 33kg of water in two chambers) BUT only if during this power off period there is not much power being used to make steam! Now the simulation didn't fit this eCat as well as earlier experiments which I think is because we don't know the geometry of the device or the exact placement of the thermometer. The only evidence for excess heat is the one measurement of overflowing water. Mat later calculates a Worst Case Scenario and I think he messed up a bit, my worst Case is: 1) Under Water Flow Inlet he reports flow as 11.08 kg/hr during boiling 2) At 21:50 he measures water overflow as 5.0 to 6.5 kg/hr 3) So worst estimate of steam is 11.08 -6.5 = 4.58 kg/hr 4) if this was 90% steam (distinctly possible for a boiler) then we get about 4.1 kg/hr of steam 5) Times heat of vapourisation (628wh/kg) = 2600Watts 6) And heating 11.08 kg/hr to boiling = 11.08 * 81.3 = 900W so as input power is close to 2600W we only have 900W excess energy. Not very convincing for a module of a 1MW plant! I'd also like to address the fact that temperature rose after power was turned off. This can be explained by thermal inertia if the point where heat being applied was not the same point where temperature was being measured. The point where heat was being applied could be quite a bit hotter than 130C and even after power was cut we could could continue to get output temperature rising. Just imagine a steel bar and we heat one end and measure the temperature at the other end, there is a lag as heat transfers along the bar, turning off the heat and the the cool end of the bar continues to increase in temperature for a while. Of all the demos reported this new one is the least convincing and is a major disappointment. Colin On Thu, Sep 15, 2011 at 9:22 AM, Joe Catania zrosumg...@aol.com wrote: ** You're trying to be too exacting. I'm pointing out facts. Because I'm not giving you a equation of everything dosen't mean thermal inertia has been ruled out. Thus you've made a grave philosophical error. It means its thermal inertia but I haven't given you the equation. Thermal inertia is a first principle. It is accepted without proof. If I add 1 megajoule to a hunk of metal at room temp and its temp goes up to 500C then it seems safe to assume that removing that 1MJ will take the temp back down to room temp. I'll admit that you're saying flow complicates this simple picture but its far from certain that you've established that through
Re: [Vo]:E-cat news at Nyteknik
Hi Finlay, I mean if you take temperature of two chambers to be 130C at time power is turned off, and allow cold water to flow in at 11l/h and hot water to flow out based on the simulated temp in the chimney then the rate of drop in temperature is virtually identical to that reported by Mats. This simulation used a two chamber model with 12kg water equivalent thermal mass in chamber 1 and 21kg in chamber 2. During start up, when the reported the power is added to chamber 1 the simulated temperature matches very well with what is seen until we reach 100C in the chimney, so it looks like the thermal mass estimate is fairly accurate. From the 100C point, if you allow 600W heat loss due to steam the temperature curve is also a very good fit without any added heat from CF. I need to do a little work on the simulation before I can publish it. But I'm convinced the whole temperature curve can be explained without any CF heat being added. However I can't explain why we have back pressure of 1 bar, there would have to be a pretty small opening for the steam. And i can't explain the volume of overflow water measured as this would indicate more steam than 600W. Funny that this module should produce 20Kw if it's part of a 1MW reactor and if it was then how much back pressure would that little steam orifice generate and how much energy would the system lose as steam squeezes out that orifice. There's so much unexplained and so many assumptions that can be made. I'm totally disappointed and disillusioned. Colin On Fri, Sep 16, 2011 at 1:12 AM, Finlay MacNab finlaymac...@hotmail.comwrote: Colin, Excellent analysis! Thank you very much for posting this information. Could you clarify what you mean when you say BUT only if during this power off period there is not much power being used to make steam? Are you saying that the result is consistent with the simulation only if all the outflow from the device is liquid water? Thank you again for your well reasoned and detailed post. -- Hi, I haven't posted here before, I've just been lurking. A few months ago I wrote a simple finite element simulation for the eCat, it's a simple model based on two chambers each with a thermal equivalent of water with cold water entering chamber 1, being heated by the heater and reactor and then the same water flowing into a second chamber and supplying heat to it. By adjusting the thermal masses I could get this model to pretty accurately predict the temperatures on the ECat during the warm up period and then I needed to add excess heat beyond the electrical supply to get the temperature charts from Rossi's experiments. This pretty well convinced me that Rossi was onto something. I'll paste a couple of charts from the simulation but I'm not sure if they'll come through. The simulation is not perfect but I think it's close enough. The major issue is that as the reactor chamber heats above boiling we have a mix of steam water in it and moving into chamber 2. Rather than simulate this I just model chamber 1 as water 100C with no steam. That's why the red line goes over 100C, you can think of it as the amount of heat going into the next chamber rather than temperature. Below is simulation from 16 Dec Test. It uses 900W input power with increase to 1800W at 17:47 and two chamber model of thermal mass 0.7kg and 1.3kg. The model also has power dropping to 0 at 18:00, Levi reported that the reaction self sustained for 15 minutes. An interesting point is fast cool down of the real reactor at 18:15 vs the slow cool down predicted by the model. This is 100 consistent with Levi report that water flow was increased to stop the reaction. [image: DEc16.png] And now the simulation from 14th Jan test. This first chart shows simulated temperature based on zero excess power. The simulation is overlaid over actual power and temperature charts from the report. The interesting point is that the simulation fits the initial temperature rise and the fall at the end of the experiment. The only explanation for the actual temperature graph is excess heat. [image: Jan14.png] These simulations, though not perfect, have convinced me there is excess energy. Now comes this new demo so I just entered all the data provided by Mats, adjusted the thermal mass (33kg) to get the initial rise in temperature to match the data, and ... The charts are pretty consistent with there being *no* excess energy, the drop in temperature after the power is off can be fully explained as thermal inertia (with thermal mass equivalent of 33kg of water in two chambers) BUT only if during this power off period there is not much power being used to make steam! Now the simulation didn't fit this eCat as well as earlier experiments which I think is because we don't know the geometry of the device or the exact placement of the thermometer. The only evidence for excess heat is the one measurement of
Re: [Vo]:E-cat news at Nyteknik
Hi Jed, But Mats did not measure steam during that 35 mins and if heat loss was just the cold water in and hot out then the temp would decrease quite slowly. Note we have at least 23kg of hot water and only 11kg/hr in. so 17% change of water in 30 minutes. Input temp is 29C and if we allow another 10kg of thermal mass plus 23kg of water then an approx temp drop of around 12% in 30 min 12%(130 -29) = 12C drop But then how could we have 130C water? Maybe a pressure relief valve? It's very hard to explain this demonstration, too many assumptions. Colin On Fri, Sep 16, 2011 at 2:32 AM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com wrote: Colin Hercus colinher...@gmail.com wrote: Of all the demos reported this new one is the least convincing and is a major disappointment. I tend to agree, because power input was high and they did not measure total enthalpy. However, the last 35 min. with no input power redeemed the test. I do not think there is anyway you can explain that except as massive anomalous energy. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:E-cat news at Nyteknik
Mmm.. So you think if they'd used a smaller orifice and changed nothing else the power would have jumped to 27KW? On Fri, Sep 16, 2011 at 11:20 AM, Jouni Valkonen jounivalko...@gmail.comwrote: Colin wrote: « Funny that this module should produce 20Kw if it's part of a 1MW reactor and if it was then how much back pressure would that little steam orifice generate and how much energy would the system lose as steam squeezes out that orifice. » Rossi has said that his megawatt plant will produce steam with 200°C and thus pressure is 1.6 megapascals. I think that modules are connected paraller, therefore one individual module will operate at 1.6 MPa pressure. This should be in line as demonstrated E-Cat was peak producing 7kW ± 1kW heat, then final product would boost up to 200°C with 27 kW output. i think that the small orifice was there only for demonstration purposes, in order to simulate e.g. steam turbine that is connected into MW-plant. Right now outlet hose was not connected into anything that would cause backpressure or demand work from steam. Therefore work had to be simulated with small orifice. —Jouni
Re: [Vo]:Ecatreport part 2
Just consider this sentence... After the initial meeting with NASA, Defkalion GT and Ampenergo will sit down and develop a joint program for the introduction of the E-Cat as a main energy source to the world. and break it down... After the initial meeting with NASA, Defkalion GT and Ampenergo will sit down and develop a joint program for the introduction of the E-Cat as a main energy source to the world. It doesn't say NASA will sit down with Defkalion GT and Ampenergo. Replace the with by a comma and then I might get excited :) After the initial meeting, NASA, Defkalion GT and Ampenergo will sit down and develop a joint program for the introduction of the E-Cat as a main energy source to the world. Colin
[Vo]:Lead Boron
Hi, Reading Rossi's patent it seems Boron Lead are used not just for shielding but to absorb the energy from the radiation. What I was wondering if there is any specific radiation that would need lead vs a cheaper metal (and thicker) or even concrete to absorb the energy. So is lead essential? And though we have enough Nickel for many years of E-cat energy, do we have enough Boron Lead? Colin
