from:"Finlay MacNab"

Re: [Vo]:Something big is happening

2016-02-23 Thread Finlay MacNab


I think that other members of the MFMP were also designing Parkhomov style 
experiments. Perhaps one of their designs is the golden goose.

Re: [Vo]:Re: Louis DeChiaro of US Naval Sea Systems Command (NAVSEA) on Replicating P+F

2015-10-08 Thread Finlay MacNab



It's annoying to read this communication to MFMP :
https://www.facebook.com/MartinFleischmannMemorialProject/posts/1051219568242075
Statement from NRL source on their... - Martin Fleischmann Memorial Project | 
Facebook
Statement from NRL source on their position, re their data, cited in the recent 
Louis F. DeChiaro, Ph.D (NAVSEA) report "We (NRL) have stated publicly a...
Read 
more...

What is with the keystone cops routine?

My only hope is that they are trying to avoid disclosing the information before 
filing a patent claim.

To late NRL it's prior art now.

RE: [Vo]:the Parkhomov paper translated

2014-12-30 Thread Finlay MacNab

Good point! 

From: arnaud.kod...@lakoco.be
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Subject: RE: [Vo]:the Parkhomov paper translated
Date: Tue, 30 Dec 2014 09:35:31 +0100

We don’t know when
the picture has been taken. It could be that the picture is taken just after the
electrical power switch off. (After ~21:05 see figure 6)

From:
Finlay MacNab [mailto:finlaymac...@hotmail.com] 

Sent: lundi 29 décembre 2014 23:01

To: vortex-l@eskimo.com

Subject: RE: [Vo]:the Parkhomov
paper translated

It is interesting that in figure 4
of the report the heating coils wrapped around the Al2O3 cylinder appear dark.

This suggests that the inside of
the cylinder is hotter than the coils.  

http://www.e-catworld.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/12/Lugano-Confirmed.pdf

RE: [Vo]:the Parkhomov paper translated

2014-12-29 Thread Finlay MacNab



It is interesting that in figure 4 of the report the heating coils wrapped 
around the Al2O3 cylinder appear dark.  
This suggests that the inside of the cylinder is hotter than the coils.  
http://www.e-catworld.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/12/Lugano-Confirmed.pdf

RE: [Vo]:Thermal cameras better than thermocouples for averaging temperature

2014-12-10 Thread Finlay MacNab




Hard to look at with the naked eye?   I don't recall anything in the lugano 
report about the ecat being hard to look at.
I am not sure this is correct.
An examination of black body radiative power versus temperature shows that 
below 3000 degrees kelvin the emission from a hot body is diffuse and the bulk 
of the energy is at longer wavelengths. 
https://www.e-education.psu.edu/astro801/content/l3_p5.html
A 1700K radiator (1400 Celsius) has a peak emission intensity of around 
1.7microns in the infrared.  
The wikipedia page on infra-red heaters has a picture of quartz heating 
elements that operate at 1500C. The text accompanying the picture implies that 
the lamp is radiating 100W/inch or 780 W over 20cm (the length of the Rossi 
reactor). http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Infrared_heater
Based on this information, I don't think the reactor would have to appear very 
bright to the naked eye.
Finlay

RE: [Vo]:Thermal cameras better than thermocouples for averaging temperature

2014-12-10 Thread Finlay MacNab




I dunno, have you ever been around glass blowing?  It gets pretty bright


I think this is a question of surface area.
Based on this calculator 
http://www.spectralcalc.com/blackbody_calculator/blackbody.php , and my limited 
understanding of radiance, a 1400C (~1700K) black body radiator will emit 
around 4700W/m^2 from 400nm to 800nm, approximately the visible range.  In a 
glass blowing furnace filled with hot material transparent in to these colors 
of light, I can imagine the surface area of the emitter could be quite high.  
So you open an imaginary glass blowing furnace with a surface area of 1m^2  you 
see a 4700 W lightbulb. Very bright!
However the same furnace is radiating much more light in the invisible 
infra-red wavelengths.  Again based on the calculator in the link, the 1700K 
material is emitting 742 000 W/m^2 in-between 800nm and 12micons in the 
infra-red.
The fraction of light in the visible is given by:   VISIBLE/VISIBLE + INFRA-RED 
= 4700/4700+742000 = 0.6% of the light
So for the Rossi experiment.  If the total power radiated is 2400W  then the 
intensity in the visible will be 2400W*0.6% = 14W radiated in all directions.
A 20cm by 2cm cylinder emitting 14W of visible light is not very bright at all.
All these calculations are approximate and I literally just looked up band 
radiance from a blackbody emitter for the first time 20 minutes ago so I could 
be wrong.  But as a photonic materials chemist it makes sense to me. 
Of course, there are Nobel laureates loitering in these threads, so maybe they 
can critique the above.
I also think the transparency of glass may make it appear brighter, because 
light emitted within the bulk of the material may not be reabsorbed.
For instance, lava is a similar temperature to glass but is not nearly as 
bright as a glass blowing furnace, because only light emitted at the surface of 
the lava can escape to hit your eye.

RE: [Vo]:Thermal cameras better than thermocouples for averaging temperature

2014-12-10 Thread Finlay MacNab



And I forgot,  much of the brightness of glass is from the sodium emission 
line.  Glassblowing glasses filter the sodium emission line (brilliant yellow 
light).  Much of the brightness of molten glass comes from light from sodium if 
i recall correctly.  In fact, when you put on sodium line filter glasses while 
glass blowing the glass is not bright at all.
(chemists love to blow glass... I made a bowl once... it was ugly)

RE: [Vo]:Mainstream scientific research is looking into LENR and doesn’t know it yet.

2013-01-24 Thread Finlay MacNab

I was thinking the same thing while looking at this research.

Date: Fri, 25 Jan 2013 00:29:26 -0500
From: janap...@gmail.com
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Subject: [Vo]:Mainstream scientific research is looking into LENR and doesn’t 
know it yet.

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2013/01/130124140704.htm
Proton Size Puzzle: Surprisingly Small Proton Radius Confirmed With Laser 
Spectroscopy of Exotic Hydrogen
Accepted scientific research is looking into LENR and doesn’t know it yet.Muons 
behave a lot like electrons, except for their mass: muons are 200 times heavier 
than electrons. The atomic orbit of the muon is therefore much closer to the 
proton than the electron's orbit in a regular hydrogen atom.
Because the Muon obits closer to the proton, the proton feels more negative 
charge.The proton “charge radius” is reduced as a result indicating a reduction 
in the intensity of the positive charge of the proton (hydrogen nucleus).
This may show that the strength of the negative charge felt by the proton 
diminishes the intensity of its positive charge; a kind of electrical charge 
screening.This experiment is similar to an experiment that Mills might run.
Electron screening produced in Mills chemical concoctions may also reduce the 
power of the positive charge of the nucleus resulting in lowered orbits for 
electrons (aka hydrinos).  
 Cheers:   Axil

RE: [Vo]:LENR Heat Vs. Coal Heat

2012-08-06 Thread Finlay MacNab


The 6000:1 figure is close to correct.
The cross sectional area of the earth is 127.8 million km^2.  Each km^2 
receives a approximately a gigawatt of solar radiation.  In one hour the earth 
receives 127 thousand terawatt hours of energy.  Which is approximately the 
global consumption of energy in a year.  This is a ratio of around 9000:1.  Or 
an extra 10 seconds of extra sunlight a day.
If one were to multiply this energy by the weight of the atmosphere + the 
weight of the top meter of the earths surface, multiplied by the average heat 
capacity of the total mass, it would be obvious that the heat contribution of 
human activity to global warming attributable to direct heat release is 
insignificant in comparison to the greenhouse effect.


To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Subject: Re: [Vo]:LENR Heat Vs. Coal Heat
From: dlrober...@aol.com
Date: Sun, 5 Aug 2012 17:19:21 -0400


You have made an interesting WAG Bab.  I intend to give it a lot of 
consideration as I try to understand your derivation better.  I had hoped that 
the Sun was far ahead of mankind in this regard, but maybe that was wishful 
thinking.  Perhaps I can still find one of those tickets to Mars before they 
all get sold out!

 

Could you recheck your source defining the 6000 to 1 ratio to see if that is 
the accepted value?  I hope that you made an error of a few decimal places.

 

I suspect that the 60 to 1 ratio is a little on the high side when I look at 
the problem from another perspective.  Our test block of coal at 1 kilogram 
turns into mainly carbon dioxide that enters the atmosphere.  Since this gas 
only remains there for between 30 and 90 years (half life) then it seems a 
little bit of a stretch to consider that it allows for heat to be trapped 
equalling the original amount of carbon in a single year.  Off the cuff I would 
guess 10% or so.  If my WAG is better than your WAG, the X factor would be 
about 6.  Who knows, but I think we can obtain a modestly close number by 
further investigation.

 

Anyone else out there have a guess or fact that might help us?

 

Dave





-Original Message-

From: David L Babcock ol...@rochester.rr.com

To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com

Sent: Sun, Aug 5, 2012 3:14 pm

Subject: Re: [Vo]:LENR Heat Vs. Coal Heat













  

  
  

On
  8/5/2012 11:21 AM, David Roberson wrote:


  It seems apparent that the
  final global consideration is that extra heat is released into
  the atmosphere, land, and water of the earth as a result of us
  burning fossil fuels.  





  

In other terms, one kilogram of coal results in
the net earth heating of X times the initial heat outlay.





I found part of the picture in Wikipedia: The
ratio of all the energy incident from the Sun, to all
the energy mankind used globally (in 2009?) was roughly
6,000 to 1.  (I assume this was only the energy that
involved payment, ie, almost all fossil sourced energy).





Unknown to me is the added heat energy from new CO2
and methane.  If our present rate of warming is caused
by (really wild guess) 1% more retention of
solar energy than before, then that 1% is 60 times
more than our total energy consumption, for x = 60.  If
you diddle in the all the renewable and nuclear parts it
won't be much different. 





Hey, a wild guess is better than none.





So if, if, if, all
co2 sources get replaced by LENR, no problem. But bloody
unlikely.  Also, there WILL BE a huge increase in total
energy usage, exponential, year after year after year. 
Might take us all of 200 years to get back in trouble.





Ol' Bab.








  


 


I would greatly appreciate it if some of our esteemed
  members join into this discussion.  Do you consider my thought
  experiment completely off base or is there a way to get a
  handle upon the true X factor I am suggesting?


 


Dave

RE: [Vo]:Obituary: Fleischmann, 85

2012-08-04 Thread Finlay MacNab


I remember the Pons and Fleischmann announcement, when I was a young boy of 13, 
vividly.  I started jumping around the room as Tom Brokaw was describing it on 
the television in my father's den.  It was at that moment that I realized that 
it is possible for one person to make a difference in the world.
Now, thinking back, that moment may have been the catalyst that ignited my 
lifelong pursuit of the study of materials chemistry.
Thank you Dr. Fleischmann.  I promise your dreams and spirit will live on.

Date: Sat, 4 Aug 2012 17:02:31 -0400
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Obituary: Fleischmann, 85
From: jedrothw...@gmail.com
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com

I confirm that Martin died yesterday.

Marianne and Mike saw him this spring. He was still responsive and enjoying 
life. So that is a blessing.
- Jed

RE: [Vo]:Koch founded climate skeptic changes sides

2012-08-01 Thread Finlay MacNab

Except that temperatures are rising faster at night than during the day
There may have been many reasons for temperature changes in the past.  It is 
clear that the current rise in temperature is due to a reduced flux of infra 
red light re-radiating into space at a constant temperature, not a change in 
the flux of visible light irradiating the earth. 

To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Koch founded climate skeptic changes sides
From: dlrober...@aol.com
Date: Wed, 1 Aug 2012 17:38:22 -0400

I suspect that global warming is a real process that has been around for 
essentially ever.  Before we arrived on the scene it was at work on occasions 
and when we leave for the stars it will be as well.

An interesting discussion can be found in this link:

http://calderup.wordpress.com/2011/08/24/cern-experiment-confirms-cosmic-ray-action/

The discussions by this blogger support global warming as a consequence of 
nearby super nova explosions.  It is interesting reading that might become the 
accepted explanation in the future.

Dave

-Original Message-

From: Axil Axil janap...@gmail.com

To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com

Sent: Wed, Aug 1, 2012 4:32 pm

Subject: Re: [Vo]:Koch founded climate skeptic changes sides

The failure of the Indian electric grid basically stems from the inability of 
government to adapt to a unexpected situation. In this era of global warming 
large excursions from the norm will become business as usual. In the recent 
case, the Indian Government, failed to provide for sufficient reserve capacity 
to handle all possible contingencies.

If the decision is to pump unlimited amounts of CO2 into the air through the 
use of coal fired electrical production, all the results of that design must be 
anticipated, prepared for, funded, and expected.

 As a case study, the power deficit in India was worsened this year by a weak 
monsoon that lowered hydroelectric generation, spurred farmers to use pumps to 
irrigate their fields long after the rains would normally have come, and kept 
temperatures higher, keeping air conditioners and fans running longer.

The cost of this event was in the hundreds of millions of dollars range. This 
price is an unfunded consequence of global warming.

Cheers:  Axil

On Wed, Aug 1, 2012 at 10:11 AM, David Roberson dlrober...@aol.com wrote:

Of course there will be many predictions of these programs that at least 
temporally come true.  I recall the time after Katrina when it was stated that 
they indicated that there would be many more dangerous hurricanes to hit the 
USA, but that turned out to be wrong.  I guess that if we wait long enough this 
will happen some day.

If you want to be considered a profit, make a million predictions and then 
forget about the 990,000 that do not happen while you concentrate upon the few 
that do.  This is what I see as happening with regard to these programs.  And, 
in any case, a curve fit projection has a modest amount of future accuracy.   I 
predict that the world is on a warming path and that there will a major 
earthquake within the next 20 years.  A volcano will erupt that caused air 
traffic problems in the next 10 years.  I could go on, but I think you can see 
my point.

For many years the guys running the programs did not even consider ocean 
currents as important.  How many additional major processes of nature are left 
out due to lack of knowledge?

I suspect that a lot of the damage done by Climategate was due to the rest of 
us being able to see the dirty laundry of the climatologists.  They are human 
but pretend to be among the Gods which is beyond their abilities.

The statements of Gore and others that the science is settled truly angers me.  
They have an economic or political agenda and do not want the real facts to 
emerge.  As a science minded person, I find such a statement appalling.

I could go on for a long time exposing pseudoscience of this nature, but enough 
for now.  It ceases to be real science as soon as it refuses to be challenged.

Dave 

-Original Message-

From: Axil Axil janap...@gmail.com

To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com

Sent: Wed, Aug 1, 2012 2:29 am

Subject: Re: [Vo]:Koch founded climate skeptic changes sides

http://www.dnaindia.com/india/report_monsoon-2012-is-it-the-worst-in-six-decades_1722413

Monsoon 2012: Is it the worst in six decades?

This is a predicted result of global
warming.

Then this is a secondary consequence of global warming…

10% of the world’s populations lose power, water, and transportation for
days.

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/08/01/world/asia/power-outages-hit-600-million-in-india.html?_r=1hp

2nd
Day of Power Failures Cripples Wide Swath of India

Cheers:  Axil

On Tue, Jul 31, 2012 at 2:18 PM, David Roberson

RE: [Vo]:ICCF-17: Brillouin is no more?

2012-07-27 Thread Finlay MacNab

As a research scientist working for a solar start-up in Vancouver, I agree with 
Jed.  
It would be wonderful if Defkalion moved here.  I would love to nanostructure 
some nickel for them!

Date: Fri, 27 Jul 2012 16:48:11 -0400
Subject: Re: [Vo]:ICCF-17: Brillouin is no more?
From: jedrothw...@gmail.com
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com

Guenter Wildgruber gwildgru...@ymail.com wrote: 
I am very aware of possible positive effects of this move.
My main argument is probabilistic.

I am not sure what probabilistic means in this context. But in any case, your 
statement about how the Canadian government might refuse to allow an 
incorporation is nonsense. The law does not permit that.

- Jed

RE: [Vo]:SPAWAR has yet to respond re simple error in claims of effects of external high voltage dc fields inside a conducting electrolyte: Rich Murray 2012.03.01 2012.07.02

2012-07-05 Thread Finlay MacNab

Wait!
Suddenly you admit that the authors don't believe the field is 3000V/cm within 
the electrolyte?  Maybe you should read the paper again in order to fully 
understand it.

 Date: Thu, 5 Jul 2012 01:25:36 -0500
 To: vortex-l@eskimo.com; vortex-l@eskimo.com
 From: a...@lomaxdesign.com
 Subject: RE: [Vo]:SPAWAR has yet to respond re simple error in claims  of 
 effects of  external high voltage dc fields inside a conducting  electrolyte: 
 Rich Murray  2012.03.01 2012.07.02

 At 12:00 PM 7/4/2012, Finlay MacNab wrote:
 Your argument assumes that the there is no air 
 gap between the dielectric and the charged 
 plates.  It also assumes that the electrolyte 
 behaves like a regular 100ohm resistor.

 The plates are against the cell walls. Sure, you 
 can make up an air gap. It would be small and 
 have almost no effect on the analysis.

 Yes. The electrolyte, within bounds, behaves 
 somewhat like a resistor. In fact, the resistance 
 changes under real conditions, it's noisy, as I 
 mentioned. Noisy resistor, and there is 
 capacitance in parallel and in series with the 
 resistor, if you want a more complete model. The 
 details are completely swamped by the magnitude 
 of the problem. The effect on the electrolyte and 
 all that is immersed in it is minute.

 And I seriously doubt the competence of anyone 
 who asserts otherwise, after seeing the problem. 
 I very much doubt that anyone from SPAWAR will 
 defend that paper, and I do think it likely that we will see some comment.

 It was just an error, and it does not impeach the vast bulk of their work.

 In this case, where the movement of ions in 
 electrolyte is dominated by diffusion and mixing 
 from the gas bubbles generated by redox 
 reactions at the two, in solution, electrodes 
 the electrolyte does not behave like a 100ohm 
 resistor.  Your treatment of the system as two 
 dielectrics sandwiched between three metal 
 plates is not sufficient to describe the system.

 That isn't my description of the system. It is 
 two dielectrics between two metal plates, not 
 three, and between the two dielecrics (acrylic) 
 is an electrolyte, that is, water with a 
 substance dissolved so that it will conduct a 
 substantial current with a modest voltage.

 Absolutely, modeling the electrolyte with a 
 resistor is primitive. But the difference in the 
 behavior of the electrolyte, due to error in this 
 model, with respect to the division of the high 
 voltage across the three regions, will be insignificant.

 You don't know if mixing and diffusion within 
 the electrolyte and the extremely low mobility 
 of solvated ions would allow an external 
 electric field to exist within the electrolyte 
 and allow electrophoretic and other field 
 induced effects to influence the near surface of the Pd film.

 I know that an equipotential surface exists 
 inside the cell that will totally screen any 
 effects on this cell from what is beyond that. 
 The current from the high voltage supply, through 
 the electrolyte, will be in the picoamp range, 
 that is completely necessary, because the only 
 conduction path is through two plates with very 
 high resistance. This current is totally swamped 
 by noise from many sources. Likewise the voltage 
 experienced by the electrolyte stemming from the high voltage supply.

 Finlay, don't immolate yourself on trying to be 
 right. You know enough to get into trouble, to 
 make up complex explanations that ignore the 
 obvious. The electrolyte is a decent conductor, 
 the LiCl salt has been added for that purpose, 
 and that purpose alone. Ohms law still applies 
 with current, voltage, and resistance through an 
 electrolyte. Power dissipation is still current 
 times voltage. Kirchoff's Law still applies with electrolytes.

 Finally,  the only mention of the strength of 
 the electric field in the paper: the cell 
 placement in an electric field (2500–3000 V 
 cm-1) refers to the entire cell, it does not 
 refer to the field within the electrolyte.  The 
 authors never assert that the field strength is 
 3000 V/cm within the electrolyte.

 The cell is placed in an electric field with that 
 strength before the cell is placed in it. In 
 fact, with the cell in place, loaded with 
 electrolyte, the field strength becomes much 
 quite a bit higher, within the acrylic, and far, 
 far lower within the electrolyte. They imply that 
 the field within the cell would be substantial 
 enough to affect cell chemistry, when the field 
 within the cell is actually truly miniscule, 
 swamped by noise in the other sources of voltage, 
 specifically the electrolytic power supply, as 
 well as the electrochemical phenomena taking place.

 Basically, there is a region about an inch wide. 
 It is between two plates. The plates have 6 KV 
 between them. The cell is placed in that space. 
 The electric field is no longer uniform, as it 
 was before the cell was placed. Specifying the 
 electric field strength, instead

RE: [Vo]:SPAWAR has yet to respond re simple error in claims of effects of external high voltage dc fields inside a conducting electrolyte: Rich Murray 2012.03.01 2012.07.02

2012-07-04 Thread Finlay MacNab


Your argument assumes that the there is no air gap between the dielectric and 
the charged plates.  It also assumes that the electrolyte behaves like a 
regular 100ohm resistor.
In this case, where the movement of ions in electrolyte is dominated by 
diffusion and mixing from the gas bubbles generated by redox reactions at the 
two, in solution, electrodes the electrolyte does not behave like a 100ohm 
resistor.  Your treatment of the system as two dielectrics sandwiched between 
three metal plates is not sufficient to describe the system.
You don't know if mixing and diffusion within the electrolyte and the extremely 
low mobility of solvated ions would allow an external electric field to exist 
within the electrolyte and allow electrophoretic and other field induced 
effects to influence the near surface of the Pd film.
Finally,  the only mention of the strength of the electric field in the paper: 
the cell placement in an electric field (2500–3000 V cm-1) refers to the 
entire cell, it does not refer to the field within the electrolyte.  The 
authors never assert that the field strength is 3000 V/cm within the 
electrolyte.
Your assertion that the authors claim that the effects result from high fields 
is not born out by their treatment of the electrolyte, interphase region, and 
bulk Pd regions of the cell.
Thus your assertion that the authors' manuscript contains a shocking 
analytical error is not accurate.  Your comment that a retraction of the paper 
would be useful and that the paper is an example of subjective judgements is 
highly inflammatory and unjustified.  These comments, being insufficiently 
supported, are incredibly insulting to the authors of the paper and to the 
entire SPAWAR group.






 Date: Wed, 4 Jul 2012 11:12:02 -0500
 To: vortex-l@eskimo.com; vortex-l@eskimo.com
 From: a...@lomaxdesign.com
 Subject: RE: [Vo]:SPAWAR has yet to respond re simple error in claims of 
 effects of  external high voltage dc fields inside a conducting  electrolyte: 
 Rich Murray  2012.03.01 2012.07.02
 
 At 11:46 PM 7/3/2012, Finlay MacNab wrote:
 Sorry, I fail to see why the voltage drop is 3kv across the acrylic 
 layer.  Why is that exactly?
 
 There are three regions involved, between the plates that are 
 connected to a high voltage supply, 6 KV.
 
 There is the first cell wall, 1/16 inch (1.6 mm) thick, made of 
 acrylic plastic. Call this R1.
 There is about an inch (25 mm) of electrolyte, which is not pure 
 water, but which has an electrolyte dissolved in it, lithium 
 chloride. Call this R2.
 There is the opposite cell wall, the same as the first. Call this R3.
 
 The resistances of R1 and R3 are roughly 1.6 x 10^14 ohms each. 
 That's a roughly calculated value from the properties of acrylic.
 The resistance of the electrolyte, R2, is on the order of 100 ohms. 
 Easy to measure, routinely measured, voltages and currents are known.
 
 Consider these three resistances in series, with 6 KV across the 
 assembly. Use Ohm's law to calculate the voltage across each resistance.
 
 You will find that the voltage is equally divided between the two 
 plates, at about 3 KV per plate. The voltage across the electrolyte is low.
 
 The current would be 6000/(3.2 x 10^14) or about 2 x 10^-11 amps, 
 that's 20 picoamps. The voltage across R2 would be 2 nanovolts. To 
 measure this if there were no other activity in the system would be 
 quite difficult. Microvolts are bad enough. But maybe you could do it.
 
 However, there is electrolytic current added to the electrolyte by 
 the experiment. It might be a current at initial plating on the order 
 of a milliamp, the voltage would be under two volts at first. The 
 noise in the power supply would be well above the level of voltage 
 from the HV source.
 
 Current flow through an electrolyte is complex, as you know. But we 
 don't need to go into that complexity. At steady state, DC, the 
 electrolyte will behave as a somewhat noisy resistor. (And at this 
 stage of electrolysis, the noise would be low, it gets noisier, 
 later, when deuterium gas is being evolved.) There is a parallel 
 capacitance, but it has practically no effect.
 
 Bottom line: in his basic thesis, Rich is correct. The external 
 plates with a high voltage on them can be expected to have no effect 
 on the electrolytic activity. It looks like the SPAWAR team simply 
 overlooked this consideration, we could do a whole study on the 
 psychology of cold fusion; suffice it to say that this was a human 
 error, and an understandable one. What is surprising is that this 
 made it past peer review.
 
 If the claimed experimental result were verified, we'd have to start 
 to look for some flaw in this argument. However, reading the paper, I 
 don't see that the result is clearly established even in the paper. 
 It's asserted without showing the basis of the analysis. It appears 
 to be subjective.
 
 Now, these researchers had looked at a lot of cathodes. Variation in 
 cathode

RE: [Vo]:SPAWAR has yet to respond re simple error in claims of effects of external high voltage dc fields inside a conducting electrolyte: Rich Murray 2012.03.01 2012.07.02

2012-07-03 Thread Finlay MacNab

It should be noted that in an electrolyte the current results from a chemical
reaction at the anode and cathode (in this case the generation of hydrogen and
oxygen) there are no free charge carriers in the solution itself. The cations
and anions are bound together by electrostatic attraction and exist inside
cloud quasi organized solvent molecules. Electrolyte ions do organize on the
surface of electrodes to screen the electric field at low potentials (most of
the voltage drop in an electrochemistry experiment happens within the first
nanometer of the electrode surface). At the high fields quoted in the linked
paper, I cannot imagine how the electrolyte could screen the applied field. It
seems reasonable to me that an electric field could exist inside the cell,
since electrolytes do not have free charges that can migrate to the surface of
the dielectric.
Electrolytes do not conduct electrons, they accept electrons and donate
electrons. There are no charges flowing through the solution, just reactions
at the electrode surface.
Now I must get back to my electrodeposition experiment.

Date: Tue, 3 Jul 2012 16:15:05 -0500
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com; dunca...@missouri.edu; rmfor...@gmail.com
From: a...@lomaxdesign.com
Subject: Re: [Vo]:SPAWAR has yet to respond re simple error in claims of
effects of external high voltage dc fields inside a conducting electrolyte:
Rich Murray 2012.03.01 2012.07.02

At 11:47 PM 7/2/2012, Rich Murray wrote:
SPAWAR has yet to respond re simple error in claims of effects of
external high voltage dc fields inside a conducting electrolyte: Rich
Murray 2012.03.01 2012.07.02

Coldfusionnow.org posted the following video today: 68 minutes April, 2012

Robert Duncan discusses experiments at Sidney Kimmel Institute for
Nuclear Renaissance

http://coldfusionnow.org/robert-duncan-discusses-experiments-at-sidney-kimmel-institute-for-nuclear-renaissance/

I've been unable to view this video,
unfortunately. I view most videos on my iPhone
and the presentation seems to be incompatible with my iPhone version

Robert V. Duncan shows a slide from SPAWAR Navy lab (Pamela
Mosier-Boss) that claims a 6 kv DC electric field from plates external
to a wet conducting electrolyte has effects within the electrolyte --
but the reality in simple electrostatics is the electric field exists
in the two plastic walls of the cell, between the liquid and the two
external plates, i.e., a simple double capacitor setup, with no field
in the conductor (electrolyte) that connects the two charged
capacitors.

Yes. I have the paper by Mosier-Boss, Szpak,
Gordon, and Forsley, that was published in the
2008 ACS LENR Sourcebook, which refers to the
effect of electric and magnetic fields on heat
generation and the production of nuclear ash, as
explored by earlier researchers. In those
earlier reports, the experiment was gas phase,
and it seems most work was with magnetic fields,
plus the gas phase electric field work described
involved, presumably, a low voltage field, since
it was applied across the length of a Pd sheet.

This paper refers to prior work examining the
effect of external electric and magnetic fields
on the Pd/D codeposition process. They mix up
electric and magnetic field results. Technically,
there is no error, at least not in the paper,
since they do not state a value for the electric
field, they refer only to an external electric
field. However, Rich is correct. The external
electric field is almost certainly not visible
to the location of the alleged effect, the cell
cathode. This problem is not true for external
magnetic fields, which do penetrate the materials and are present.

The error is in the interpretation of the effects. The primary paper is
http://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/SzpakStheeffecto.pdf

The paper title is The effect of an external
electric field on surface morphology of
co-deposited Pd/D films

This is a very useful piece of work. It shows
that an effect may appear, when subjective
judgments are involved, that does not exist,
i.e., that is based on something other than the
particular hand-waving involved.

Can we be sure that there is no actual effect of
the electric field? Well, no. However, if there
is an effect, it is almost certainly not through
what is discussed in the article, which seems to
assume the presence of the electric field inside
the cell, which is assumed to be 2500–
3000 V cm-1.

From other reports, the total voltage is about 6000 V.

The field strength (v/cm) seems to be a value
calculated from the total voltage divided by the
distance between the external plates used to set
up the field. However, the region of interest
(the cell contents) is filled with electrolyte.
Electrolytic current is flowing in the
electrolyte, and the resistance of the
electrolyte would be known to the experimenters,
from the current and

RE: [Vo]:SPAWAR has yet to respond re simple error in claims of effects of external high voltage dc fields inside a conducting electrolyte: Rich Murray 2012.03.01 2012.07.02

2012-07-03 Thread Finlay MacNab


To clarify:
An electrolyte does not conduct.  Chemical reactions occur at the electrodes 
that accept and give up electrons.  Current flows through the metal conductors 
between the anode and cathode.
When I say that the voltage drop occurs withing around 1nm of the electrode 
(the debye length), that is only the case for low voltage experiments on the 
order of the red-ox potentials for a given electrochemical reaction.  At 6kV 
this would not necessarily be true.  Because the ions in the electrolyte of 
much much lower mobility than electrons in a metal conductor they may not be 
able to effectively screen the high applied fields, especially if the solution 
is being mixed (a quick search of the literature did not yield a relevant 
example at high field) .  If the fields were oscillating, the E field would 
definitely be felt within the electrolyte (this is what I would have done).
When you say:
The  situation has nothing to do with free charges that can migrate to  the 
surface of anything. The mode of conduction is irrelevant.
I fail to understand what you mean.  The only reason that the field inside the 
electrolyte can be zero is if charge carriers migrate to the surface of the 
cell to screen the bulk of the electrolyte from the externally applied field.
I don't believe your example of probing the electrolyte with two probes and a 
bridge is relevant to this experiment, since the external electrodes are not in 
contact with the electrolyte, no chemical reaction can take place, and so no 
current can flow, the field can only be screened by the build up of charged 
ions at the cell walls.
Maybe you can explain it in a way i can understand.
What would happen if you had two metal plates separated by an air gap, then you 
applied a 6kv bias between them, and then put your two probes into the air gap?









 Date: Tue, 3 Jul 2012 19:13:40 -0500
 To: vortex-l@eskimo.com; vortex-l@eskimo.com
 From: a...@lomaxdesign.com
 Subject: RE: [Vo]:SPAWAR has yet to respond re simple error in claims   of 
 effects of  external high voltage dc fields inside a conducting  electrolyte: 
 Rich Murray  2012.03.01 2012.07.02
 
 At 03:44 PM 7/3/2012, Finlay MacNab wrote:
 It should be noted that in an electrolyte the current results from a 
 chemical reaction at the anode and cathode (in this case the 
 generation of hydrogen and oxygen) there are no free charge carriers 
 in the solution itself.  The cations and anions are bound together 
 by electrostatic attraction and exist inside cloud quasi organized 
 solvent molecules.  Electrolyte ions do organize on the surface of 
 electrodes to screen the electric field at low potentials (most of 
 the voltage drop in an electrochemistry experiment happens within 
 the first nanometer of the electrode surface).  At the high fields 
 quoted in the linked paper, I cannot imagine how the electrolyte 
 could screen the applied field.  It seems reasonable to me that an 
 electric field could exist inside the cell, since electrolytes do 
 not have free charges that can migrate to the surface of the dielectric.
 
 Electrolytes do not conduct electrons, they accept electrons and 
 donate electrons.  There are no charges flowing through the 
 solution, just reactions at the electrode surface.
 
 Now I must get back to my electrodeposition experiment.
 
 An ounce of experiment is worth a pound of theory. Or even a ton.
 
 Now, I'd love to be wrong here. However, I remain unconvinced, and 
 obviously so does Rich. The objection is an obvious one, so one might 
 think there would be a definitive answer somewhere. I see, however, 
 that Mr. MacNab may have confused himself with his own knowledge. The 
 situation has nothing to do with free charges that can migrate to 
 the surface of anything. The mode of conduction is irrelevant.
 
 An electric field *does* exist in the cell. It is complex, and varies 
 from location to location. If the statement about the first 
 nanometer is true, we could be looking at a field strength there of 
 more than 10^7 V/cm. Much higher than the field from the high 
 voltage supply. But just for a nanometer.
 
 Here is the problem. Electric fields are measured relative to some 
 potential. There is only one electric field at any given location.
 
 How do we know what the electric field is at a location? Well, we can 
 use a voltage probe. That won't tell us the field, we will need to 
 use two probes for that, which will give us the potential difference 
 between the two locations.
 
 We can use a bridge to measure potential difference without any need 
 for current to flow through the probe, complicating things.
 
 So if we stick two probes into the electrolyte, on either side of the 
 cell, when we have this 6 KV sitting across the cell, what voltage 
 will we need to place across the probes, so that the current through 
 them is zero?
 
 In the electrochemical cell, I'll predict this. The voltage will be 
 very low, probably less even than the voltage

RE: [Vo]:SPAWAR has yet to respond re simple error in claims of effects of external high voltage dc fields inside a conducting electrolyte: Rich Murray 2012.03.01 2012.07.02

2012-07-03 Thread Finlay MacNab

Hey Mark,
Very interesting links (although I dont have full access to the second one).   
From: zeropo...@charter.net
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Subject: RE: [Vo]:SPAWAR has yet to respond re simple error in claims   of 
effects of  external high voltage dc fields inside a conducting  electrolyte: 
Rich Murray  2012.03.01 2012.07.02
Date: Tue, 3 Jul 2012 17:26:13 -0700

A quick web-search verifies that E-fields most assuredly CAN exist in 
conductive electrolytes… for both DC and AC conditions. Electric fields in an 
electrolyte solution near a strip of fixed potential
http://jcp.aip.org/resource/1/jcpsa6/v123/i13/p134705_s1 Excerpt from 
Abstract:“Electrostatic fields produced by flat electrodes are often used to 
manipulate particles in solution. To study the field produced by such an 
electrode, we consider the problem of an infinite strip of width 2a with 
imposed constant potential immersed in an electrolyte solution.” Influence of 
electrolyte composition on the effective electric field strength in capillary 
zone electrophoresis.   http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/8529611 and this 
one:http://eprints.soton.ac.uk/259274/1/PhysRevE_III.pdf I was going to 
include some piccys, but even though black-n-white, they were too large. There 
was one figure which shows the visual manifestations photographed from the 
experiments, with the theoretical model of the E-flds (on the right).  It was 
very clear that fields were present in the electrolyte, as one could see the 
manifestations of the field-lines in the photographs taken of the area above 
the electrodes.  Electrolyte concentrations varied from 0.02 to 0.08M KCl.  I 
believe LENR typically uses 0.1M, so just slightly more conductive than this 
reference.  Now, this experiment was done using AC, 100Hz to 1 Hz.  -Mark

RE: [Vo]:SPAWAR has yet to respond re simple error in claims of effects of external high voltage dc fields inside a conducting electrolyte: Rich Murray 2012.03.01 2012.07.02

2012-07-03 Thread Finlay MacNab

I think your assessment is spot on Jeff.
The only question in my mind is whether or not the mixing of the electrolyte 
caused by the evolution of gas at the working electrode might generate a 
varying electric field by redistributing the ions in solution.  

 Date: Tue, 3 Jul 2012 23:17:01 -0400
 Subject: Re: [Vo]:SPAWAR has yet to respond re simple error in claims of 
 effects of external high voltage dc fields inside a conducting electrolyte: 
 Rich Murray 2012.03.01 2012.07.02
 From: hcarb...@gmail.com
 To: vortex-l@eskimo.com

 Here are my two cents from reading up on dielectrics:

 With the 6000 V capacitor isolated from the electrolyte by the
 plastic, the electrolyte acts as a dielectric which reduces the E
 field in the electrolyte almost to zero in the middle  but increases
 the the capacitance of the capacitor.

 If there is zero ionic current then I assume there has to be zero E
 field in the center of the electrolyte.  As soon as the 6000 V is
 applied, there is a momentary current in the electrolyte and a
 polarization of the dielectric electrolyte.  After that there is zero
 current assuming the plastic is an infinite insulator.

 So the positive ends of the water molecules are facing the negative
 plate of the capacitor and the negative ends of the water molecules
 are facing the positive plate of the capacitor.   Initially, positive
 ions travel towards the negative plate and vice versa.  But as the
 positive ions build up near the negative plate, they start to repel
 any newly arriving positive ions and therefore there must be an
 increasing positive ion concentration with decreasing distance from
 the negative plate at steady state.

 I'm not an electrochemist so feel free to correct me if I'm wrong or
 not quite correct.

 you can see some details on dielectrics here:

 http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/electric/dielec.html

 http://www.physics.sjsu.edu/becker/physics51/capacitors.htm

 I assume the water molecules nearest the electrodes feel the strongest
 orientating E field compared to the center of the electrolyte.

 I'm in the process of trying to replicate Randell Mills electricity
 generating CIHT device which has a Lithium Bromide, Lithium Hydride
 electrolyte.  Somehow Mills is creating electricity during the
 production of hydrinos.  Should have it up and running in 2 months.
 Details here:
 http://zhydrogen.com/?page_id=620

 Jeff

 On Tue, Jul 3, 2012 at 10:23 PM, Abd ul-Rahman Lomax
 a...@lomaxdesign.com wrote:
  At 07:26 PM 7/3/2012, MarkI-ZeroPoint wrote:

  There was one figure which shows the visual manifestations photographed
  from the experiments, with the theoretical model of the E-flds (on the
  right).  It was very clear that fields were present in the electrolyte, as
  one could see the manifestations of the field-lines in the photographs 
  taken
  of the area above the electrodes.  Electrolyte concentrations varied from
  0.02 to 0.08M KCl.  I believe LENR typically uses 0.1M, so just slightly
  more conductive than this reference.  Now, this experiment was done using
  AC, 100Hz to 1 Hz.

  First of all, the work being criticized uses a DC field. AC is considerably
  more complicated. AC will, for example, effectively pass right through the
  acrylic wall. If this was 6000 V AC, at 10,000 Hz, and if it actually had
  some available current, the thing would blow up!

  Secondly, there is no question that electric fields exist in the
  electrolyte. But not fields of a few thousand volts per cm, produced by the
  external field. The external DC field has, essentially, no effect on the
  fields in the electrolyte, which are, in this experiment, produced entirely
  by the electrolytic voltage.

RE: [Vo]:SPAWAR has yet to respond re simple error in claims of effects of external high voltage dc fields inside a conducting electrolyte: Rich Murray 2012.03.01 2012.07.02

2012-07-03 Thread Finlay MacNab

Sorry, I fail to see why the voltage drop is 3kv across the acrylic layer.  Why 
is that exactly?

 Date: Tue, 3 Jul 2012 21:49:25 -0500
 To: vortex-l@eskimo.com; vortex-l@eskimo.com
 From: a...@lomaxdesign.com
 Subject: RE: [Vo]:SPAWAR has yet to respond re simple error in claimsof 
 effects of  external high voltage dc fields inside a conducting  electrolyte: 
 Rich Murray  2012.03.01 2012.07.02

 At 08:02 PM 7/3/2012, Finlay MacNab wrote:
 To clarify:

 An electrolyte does not conduct.  Chemical reactions occur at the 
 electrodes that accept and give up electrons.  Current flows through 
 the metal conductors between the anode and cathode.

 An electrolyte does conduct. That is, there is movement of charge. 
 That is all that conduction means. Finlay, you are not being careful. 
 I suggest you try it.

 When I say that the voltage drop occurs withing around 1nm of the 
 electrode (the debye length), that is only the case for low voltage 
 experiments on the order of the red-ox potentials for a given 
 electrochemical reaction.

 Sure. The experiment is a low voltage experiment, by the way. The 
 palladium deposition in this work is often done below the potential 
 at which heavy water will evolve deuterium at the cathode.

At 6kV this would not necessarily be true.

 You aren't kidding. The thing would explode if somehow you maintained 
 6 KV across the cell.

Because the ions in the electrolyte of much much lower mobility 
  than electrons in a metal conductor they may not be able to 
  effectively screen the high applied fields, especially if the 
  solution is being mixed (a quick search of the literature did not 
  yield a relevant example at high field) .  If the fields were 
  oscillating, the E field would definitely be felt within the 
  electrolyte (this is what I would have done).

 Well, there is work with oscillating fields, but they are oscillating 
 the electrolytic current.

 You seem to have a concept of an electric field that is different 
 from how such fields are understood by electronic engineers and 
 physicists. You ask a question below that is actually quite easy to answer.

 When you say:

 The  situation has nothing to do with free charges that can migrate 
 to  the surface of anything. The mode of conduction is irrelevant.

 There is no surface here, not that is defined. There is a conductive 
 medium, it has a certain resistance. Current flows through it when 
 there is a potential across it (actually such electrolytes can also 
 generate potentials, I won't go there.). Ohms law is obeyed.

 I fail to understand what you mean.  The only reason that the field 
 inside the electrolyte can be zero is if charge carriers migrate to 
 the surface of the cell to screen the bulk of the electrolyte from 
 the externally applied field.

 No, any region of low potential screens the field. You are making 
 it much more complicated than it is. Imagine a line between the two 
 high-voltage plates. Imagine an equipotential region inside the 
 electrolyte, parallel to the plate, the line crosses that region. 
 Let's assume, to keep this simple, that the equipotential region is 
 larger than the high voltage plate. How can the high voltage on the 
 other side of this equipoential region affect *any* region beyond the 
 equipotential region?

 This is DC, remember. There is a very high voltage drop across the 
 acrylic, about 3 KV. That's a done deal! The voltage doesn't then rise up!

 I don't believe your example of probing the electrolyte with two 
 probes and a bridge is relevant to this experiment, since the 
 external electrodes are not in contact with the electrolyte, no 
 chemical reaction can take place, and so no current can flow, the 
 field can only be screened by the build up of charged ions at the cell walls.

 This is how to measure voltage! Because no charge movement is 
 involved, the whole issue about charge carriers is irrelevant. That's 
 why a bridge is used, in fact. In practice, what is needed is a very 
 sensitive current meter, which is zeroed out by applying the 
 reference voltage and adjusting it until the current is zero.

 A bridge here just means that current is measured, and the 
 experimental voltage is measured by opposing it with a known voltage, 
 such that no current flows in the circuit.

 Maybe you can explain it in a way i can understand.

 Sure, I hope.

 What would happen if you had two metal plates separated by an air 
 gap, then you applied a 6kv bias between them, and then put your two 
 probes into the air gap?

 Air conducts electricity. If the air conducts uniformly, the 
 resistance of the air will be even and the voltage will uniformly 
 decline, linearly, between the plates. The bridge will measure the 
 voltage accordingly.

 In the subject example, there are three regions between the plates. 
 Two regions are filled with acrylic, which has very high resistance, 
 higher than air, if I'm correct

RE: [Vo]:Zawodny on LENR in a recently uploaded NASA LaRC YouTube video

2012-05-24 Thread Finlay MacNab


The device shown in the video is depicted in slides 20,21,22 of Zawodny's pdf 
presentation that NET obtained through the FOI request.
The experiment is significant because it elegantly allows the direct 
observation of cold fusion without complicated calorimetry or controls.  The 
Zawodny slides imply that direct measurements by IR camera have been made of 
terahertz radiation induced cold fusion with insitu control tiles directly 
adjacent to active tiles.  If that is indeed what Zawodny has achieved it is 
a slam-dunk experiment that is extremely difficult to refute.
I wish more details of his observations were available.

 Date: Thu, 24 May 2012 12:57:56 +0200
 From: shirakawa.ak...@gmail.com
 To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
 Subject: [Vo]:Zawodny on LENR in a recently uploaded NASA LaRC YouTube video
 
 Hello group,
 
 This is via ecatnews [1] / NASA Langley RC YouTube Channel [2]
 
 Joe Zawodny informally speaks again about his group's recent 
 developments on LENR and future applications/implications. Widom-Larsen 
 theory cited, new very small scale test device shown.
 
 This video appears to have been uploaded yesterday. Enjoy:
 
 NASA LaRC | Abundant Clean/Green Energy
 http://youtu.be/42hrCRx1JJY
 
 Cheers,
 S.A.
 
 
 [1] http://ecatnews.com/?p=2212
 [2] http://www.youtube.com/user/NASAinnovation?feature=watch

RE: [Vo]: Proton Fusion Ni58 to Cu59 Endothermic?

2012-05-22 Thread Finlay MacNab



Your calculation does not take into account the fact that the activation energy 
barrier releases the energy added to overcome it during the reaction.  In this 
case once coulomb repulsion is overcome, the energy is added back to the system 
by attractive nuclear force.  The 3.41MeV is the change in mass energy balance 
after the reaction, what happens in between is not important to the calculation.
Analogously, If a person descends from the 3rd to second floor of a building, 
they are just as close to the ground as if they climb from the 3rd to the 53rd 
floor before climbing back down the the second floor to end their journey.  
This is the nature of all activation energy barriers.

To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Subject: [Vo]: Proton Fusion Ni58 to Cu59 Endothermic?
From: dlrober...@aol.com
Date: Tue, 22 May 2012 13:35:41 -0400


I have been researching the cold fusion reaction that is suggested by Rossi and 
Focardi in their recent paper  
http://www.journal-of-nuclear-physics.com/files/Rossi-Focardi_paper.pdf and 
have a couple of questions.  The authors suggest that 3.41 MeV of energy is 
released by the fusion of a proton with a nickel 58 nucleus into copper 59.  I 
can obtain this value if I calculate the mass difference between a copper 59 
atom and a nickel 58 atom plus the mass of the proton and the mass of the extra 
electron.


So far their calculations are in line with mine.  The problem arises when I 
consider the amount of energy required to overcome the coulomb barrier in order 
to activate the fusion.  The two authors seem to overlook this entirely when 
they calculate the energy available from their proposed reaction.  The chart on 
page 5 of their paper shows that 3.41 MeV is released at the conclusion to the 
reaction but no allowance is given to the energy needed to initiate it.


They do mention the activation energy in their theoretical interpretation on 
page 7.  In this section they calculate that it takes 5.6 MeV to overcome the 
barrier.  The authors use assumed values for the closeness required and thus 
energy barrier in their example.


With these two numbers available I make the assumption that there is a net 
energy requirement of 5.6 MeV – 3.41 MeV or 2.19 MeV for the fusion.  Is there 
a reason that my calculation is in error?  Does the 3.41 MeV have hidden within 
it the activation energy?  I can see no good reason to suspect that this is the 
case since it would be possible for a device to send high speed protons into a 
target made of copper.


The copper would then shed the 3.41 MeV by some means and that would obviously 
not repay the debt.  Of course I understand that the following beta plus decay 
would release an additional significant amount of energy as the copper 
transforms into nickel 59.  I calculate this energy as 5.8 MeV when the 
released positron is annihilated.  This value matches that of the two authors 
which I assume is correct.


A recap of the question is: Is the fusion of nickel 58 with a proton and 
electron into copper 59 an endothermic reaction?


Dave

RE: [Vo]: Proton Fusion Ni58 to Cu59 Endothermic?

2012-05-22 Thread Finlay MacNab



The easiest way to visualize the effect is to imagine the case of a roller 
coaster.  Initially a roller coaster must overcome a gravitational energy 
barrier by a mechanical mechanism that pulls the cars to the top of the track.  
That energy is not lost but is regained on the down slope.  In the case of a 
nuclear fusion reaction the kinetic energy of the proton overcomes the 
repulsion of the positively charged nucleus through its high kinetic energy.  
Once the proton comes close enough to the target nucleus, the strong nuclear 
force begins to attract the proton with a strength that dwarfs the 
electrostatic repusion (the down slope).  In this way the kinetic energy of the 
proton is not lost.
Practically speaking a proton does not need to overcome the total energy 
barrier imposed by electrostatic repulsion, because as it gets close to the 
nucleus the probability that the proton will tunnel through the barrier becomes 
large.  This quantum effect is similar to what is observed in transistors and 
MIM diodes, where electrons elastically tunnel through thin dielectrics and 
semiconductors without losing energy.  

To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Subject: Re: [Vo]: Proton Fusion Ni58 to Cu59 Endothermic?
From: dlrober...@aol.com
Date: Tue, 22 May 2012 14:23:39 -0400


Thanks for the rapid response!  I think that I have a mental block regarding 
this issue.  Perhaps I am looking at the fusion process from the wrong angle.


 


Help me understand where my error is as I do not follow your example below.  
Let's try a mental experiment.  I can see that it would be possible to build a 
machine that accelerates protons until they reach the required threshold level 
of 5.6 MeV.  It would take at least this much energy to generate the projectile 
proton.  Now, when the bullet proton comes close to the nucleus the fusion 
takes place.  At this point in time it has lost all of its kinetic energy and 
is absorbed into the nucleus.  I assume that very soon thereafter the 3.41 MeV 
is released as a gamma or some other form of radiation.  The tables of nuclides 
informs me that the copper 59 has a half life of 81.5 seconds before the beta 
plus decay so the energy associated with that process must be in place but does 
not exit until later.


 


Could you help me understand how the 5.6 MeV is recovered or released?   Is 
there extra energy released into the copper crystal structure that equals this 
magnitude?   I am having a difficult time trying to get back the 5.6 MeV to 
make the next proton energetic enough for the next reaction.  Forgive me for 
being ignorant about this mechanism, but it truly is difficult to visualize.


 


Dave 








-Original Message-

From: Finlay MacNab finlaymac...@hotmail.com

To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com

Sent: Tue, May 22, 2012 1:50 pm

Subject: RE: [Vo]: Proton Fusion Ni58 to Cu59 Endothermic?











Your calculation does not take into account the fact that the activation energy 
barrier releases the energy added to overcome it during the reaction.  In this 
case once coulomb repulsion is overcome, the energy is added back to the system 
by attractive nuclear force.  The 3.41MeV is the change in mass energy balance 
after the reaction, what happens in between is not important to the calculation.






Analogously, If a person descends from the 3rd to second floor of a building, 
they are just as close to the ground as if they climb from the 3rd to the 53rd 
floor before climbing back down the the second floor to end their journey.  







This is the nature of all activation energy barriers.
















To: vortex-l@eskimo.com

Subject: [Vo]: Proton Fusion Ni58 to Cu59 Endothermic?

From: dlrober...@aol.com

Date: Tue, 22 May 2012 13:35:41 -0400





I have been researching the cold fusion reaction that is suggested by Rossi and 
Focardi in their recent paper  
http://www.journal-of-nuclear-physics.com/files/Rossi-Focardi_paper.pdf and 
have a couple of questions.  The authors suggest that 3.41 MeV of energy is 
released by the fusion of a proton with a nickel 58 nucleus into copper 59.  I 
can obtain this value if I calculate the mass difference between a copper 59 
atom and a nickel 58 atom plus the mass of the proton and the mass of the extra 
electron.


So far their calculations are in line with mine.  The problem arises when I 
consider the amount of energy required to overcome the coulomb barrier in order 
to activate the fusion.  The two authors seem to overlook this entirely when 
they calculate the energy available from their proposed reaction.  The chart on 
page 5 of their paper shows that 3.41 MeV is released at the conclusion to the 
reaction but no allowance is given to the energy needed to initiate it.


They do mention the activation energy in their theoretical interpretation on 
page 7.  In this section they calculate that it takes 5.6 MeV to overcome the 
barrier.  The authors use assumed values for the closeness required and thus 
energy

RE: [Vo]: Proton Fusion Ni58 to Cu59 Endothermic?

2012-05-22 Thread Finlay MacNab


In the case of regular fusion the kinetic energy of the proton would be 
conserved in the reaction products (i.e. the total energy of the system would 
be 5.6 MeV + 3.41MeV) these reaction products might be a Cu59 nucleus with 
9.01MeV of kinetic energy or more likely some combination of gamma rays, 
neutrinos, nuclear excitation, and other nuclear reaction products.  I am not 
familiar with the specifics of this reaction.
The fusion of Iron inside a star is a different matter.  Iron can fuse with 
hydrogen in an exothermic reaction because hydrogen has zero binding energy due 
to the fact that it has a single proton nucleus.  Iron cannot fuse with itself 
inside a star because the resultant reaction would be endothermic, this is why 
stars burn out, not because of H + Fe fusion.

To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Subject: Re: [Vo]: Proton Fusion Ni58 to Cu59 Endothermic?
From: dlrober...@aol.com
Date: Tue, 22 May 2012 17:53:30 -0400


That idea crossed my mind but I still do not know where the 5.6 MeV of energy 
imparted upon the proton wound up.  If the path were exothermic I would expect 
to be able to recover(or at least locate) all of the 5.6 MeV as well as some 
extra energy.


 


I recall reading an article years ago that suggested that fusion energy was 
possible within stars until the final product was iron.  The star would then 
collapse under the influence of gravity due to the lack of extra heat.  Could 
this be the effect that I am calculating?  It does seem to add up in the 
numbers.


 


Dave   






-Original Message-

From: Jones Beene jone...@pacbell.net

To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com

Sent: Tue, May 22, 2012 5:22 pm

Subject: RE: [Vo]: Proton Fusion Ni58 to Cu59 Endothermic?











Are you discounting QM and quantum tunneling?


 


One could say that the in tunneling - threshold energy is briefly borrowed 
and then a short time later, the debt is repaid – before the net gain is 
obvious.


 


 




From: David Roberson 


 





Could you help me understand how the 5.6 MeV is recovered or released?   Is 
there extra energy released into the copper crystal structure that equals this 
magnitude?   I am having a difficult time trying to get back the 5.6 MeV to 
make the next proton energetic enough for the next reaction.  Forgive me for 
being ignorant about this mechanism, but it truly is difficult to visualize.

RE: [Vo]:New Lattice Energy presentation

2012-04-11 Thread Finlay MacNab

There are many problems with this paper.
The most glaring error is that they heated their sample to 1000C for 10 minutes
before measuring. They do this to remove sulphur, which should not be present
under tightly controlled conditions (incidentally they claim to explain the
presence of sulphur in reference 11, which is not included in the references
section)! It is very probable that massive material changes would occur under
high temperature treatment, like the diffusion of CaO into the upper Pd film.
The observation of natural Mo isotopic ratios BEFORE D2 gas permeation and the
presence of sulphur also indicates that their fabrication process was poorly
controlled.
The cited Iwamura paper tracks the growth of the Mo peak by XPS AND SIMS
through repeated cycles of D2 permeation and reports a zero Mo peak before D2
Permeation by XPS. The paper in question shows a huge CaO peak before D2 gas
permeation which is not present in the Iwamura samples before gas permeation.
Date: Wed, 11 Apr 2012 20:58:47 -0400
Subject: Re: [Vo]:New Lattice Energy presentation
From: hveeder...@gmail.com
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com

On Wed, Apr 11, 2012 at 8:30 PM, Abd ul-Rahman Lomax
a...@lomaxdesign.com wrote:
At 01:34 AM 4/11/2012, Eric Walker wrote:

On Tue, Apr 10, 2012 at 8:47 AM, Abd ul-Rahman Lomax
mailto:a...@lomaxdesign.coma...@lomaxdesign.com wrote:

Iwamura's results are certainly interesting and worthy of replication, and
there have been replication attempts, some of which appear to have failed
(or, in a recent case, just published in the CMNS journal, there was an
apparent transmutation product that was identified as being, instead, a
molecular ion with similar weight). It's a complicated story that I'm not
going to research and write about here.

Ah, yes. Â This reminds me of these slides by Apicella and others:
http://www.lenr-canr.org/acrobat/ApicellaMmassspectr.pdfhttp://www.lenr-canr.org/acrobat/ApicellaMmassspectr.pdf.
Â A cautionary tale, indeed. Â Thanks for bringing this up. Â Do you have
any additional references on this topic, even if you're not following it
closely?

Well, this is the recent paper:

http://iscmns.org/CMNS/JCMNS-Vol6.pdf

TOF-SIMS Investigation on Nuclear Transmutation from Sr to Mo with Deuterium
Permeation
through Multi-layered Pd/CaO

A. Murase, N. Takahashi, S. Hibi, T. Hioki, T. Motohiro and J. Kasagi

Page 34. (PDF page 43.)

Disappointing result, eh?

While the book is not absolutely closed, and if Murase et al have correctly
analyzed their data, this is a true replication. It confirmed Iwamura's
actual results (the peak at X-96), but demonstrated artifact with more
careful measurement and analysis.

It is not an exact replication since they used a different implantation
method.

Harry

Iwamura might come back with a response, but will need to address the
specific possible artifact.

We are seeing here one of the dangers of single-result experimentation. The
most solid cold fusion work has been work that measured both excess heat and
helium, and that showed correlation over many cells. So each experiment
produces two results: anomalous heat and anomalous helium. There is little
reason why an artifact with one would produce a matching artifact with the
other!

(yes, you can imagine that a hot cell might leak more, which ignores the
fact that, first of all, one of the research groups (McKubre) was using
isothermal calorimetry, so the cell was maintained at a constant
temperature, whether there was anomalous power or not. And then another
(Italian, ah, this memory is a bit spotty, Krivit tried to impeach this work
and didn't have a clue about what they had actually done) did not exclude
ambient helium, so they were only measuring elevation above ambient). And
isn't it amazing that somehow the leakage would allow *just the right amount
of helium*, out of a wide range of possibilities? No, heat/helium, once
demonstrated and replicated, should have damn near ended the controversy.
Miles was 1993. Just to show how long the silly charade went on. Miles did
not demonstrate the mechanism, though Preparata got a few points for
predicting the helium. But, from Miles, confirmed by more accurate
measurements later, it's fusion. Get over it.)

(If W-L theory were more plausible, I'd consider allowing that neutron
induced transmutation, even if it takes deuterium and makes neutrons from
it, and leaves behind helium, is not *exactly* a fusion mechanism. But it's
not plausible, given the utter lack of experimental confirmation and the
multiple miracles it requires.)

RE: [Vo]:suggestion for speakers

2012-03-30 Thread Finlay MacNab

Iwamura's transmutation experiments are very convincing.  They confirm their 
results by three advanced instrumental techniques, secondary ion mass 
spectrometry(SIMS), x-ray photoelectron spectroscopy(XPS), and x-ray 
fluorescence spectroscopy (XRF).  These three measurements confirming each 
other are very difficult to refute.  Each one is astounding in it's own right, 
together they are extraordinary.

 Date: Thu, 29 Mar 2012 20:57:59 -0400
 Subject: Re: [Vo]:suggestion for speakers
 From: hveeder...@gmail.com
 To: vortex-l@eskimo.com

 Jed, I already sent him these links as a place to start.

 * Arata replication by Kitamura et al. and Kidwell et al.
 http://lenr-canr.org/wordpress/?p=679

 * PHYSICS LETTERS A . doi:10.1016/j.physleta.2009.09.026
 Piezonuclear neutrons from fracturing of inert solids
 A slide show presentation:
 http://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/Carpinteripiezonucle.pdf

 My impression is he has been tasked with preparing a survey of the field
 so he is looking for help gathering the best experimental research.

 Harry

 On Thu, Mar 29, 2012 at 4:20 PM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com wrote:
  Harry Veeder hveeder...@gmail.com wrote:

  I was recently informed by a canadian physicist that he has been asked
  to gather  new FACTUAL information ... on Low Energy Nuclear
  Reactions and he welcomed information from me that I believed to be
  factual.

  Tell him I have uploaded several thousand pages of FACTUAL information here:

  http://lenr-canr.org/

  Plus some highly imaginative stuff in the theory section and some
  experiments I do not find credible. The problem is, you can't tell which is
  which. There is no magic touchstone for truth.

  On behalf of the researchers and myself, I kind of resent it when people say
  they are looking for FACTUAL information and they cannot find it. I would
  ask: Have you tried looking in a university library? Have you tried Google?
  CERN or the ENEA? Where would you expect to find FACTUAL information?

  This is the 21st century. The biggest difference between now and the 20th
  century is the ease with which we can find information.

  And misinformation. If your friend is looking for misinformation on cold
  fusion, try the Scientific American or Wikipedia. They do resemble a magic
  touchstone. Take whatever they say, and assume the opposite is true.

RE: [Vo]:suggestion for speakers

2012-03-29 Thread Finlay MacNab

I would invite NASA researcher Joe Zawodny and or Prof. Miley.  
The NASA slides appear to me to develop and test a well modeled structure and 
yield predictable results. 
PS I'll be there if you invite them to speak in Vancouver!

 Date: Thu, 29 Mar 2012 12:32:11 -0400
 From: hveeder...@gmail.com
 To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
 Subject: [Vo]:suggestion for speakers

 The scientific community in Canada appears to show a renewed  interest in 
 LENR.
  I think in the near future a speaker or speakers will be invited to
 give a talk on LENR for a prominent Canadian scientific association.
 Who would be the best speakers to invite and who would be willing to come?

 Harry

RE: [Vo]:suggestion for speakers

2012-03-29 Thread Finlay MacNab

Dr. Storms,
I would relish the opportunity to hear you speak on the topic in an academic 
environment.  

CC: stor...@ix.netcom.com
From: stor...@ix.netcom.com
To: finlaymac...@hotmail.com
Subject: Re: [Vo]:suggestion for speakers
Date: Thu, 29 Mar 2012 11:40:04 -0600

Finlay, I don't like to make comments about people, but the theory Zawodny 
advocates is an embarrassment to anyone who has scientific training and have 
you ever heard Miley talk?  These people are not the best source of information 
about the field. 
Ed
On Mar 29, 2012, at 11:28 AM, Finlay MacNab wrote:I would invite NASA 
researcher Joe Zawodny and or Prof. Miley.  
The NASA slides appear to me to develop and test a well modeled structure and 
yield predictable results. 
PS I'll be there if you invite them to speak in Vancouver!

 Date: Thu, 29 Mar 2012 12:32:11 -0400
 From: hveeder...@gmail.com
 To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
 Subject: [Vo]:suggestion for speakers

 The scientific community in Canada appears to show a renewed interest in LENR.
 I think in the near future a speaker or speakers will be invited to
 give a talk on LENR for a prominent Canadian scientific association.
 Who would be the best speakers to invite and who would be willing to come?

 Harry

RE: [Vo]:CERN Live WebCast - Experimental Progress in LENR

2012-03-22 Thread Finlay MacNab


Hello,  Long time lurker here.
The question was absurd.  I am disappointed that a professional scientist would 
ask such a question.  
Almost every new technology that is not well understood suffers from poor 
reproducibility, it took decades to achieve reproducible results with field 
effect transistors and fiber optics.  The hidden variables associated with 
these technologies are now well known.  
Incidentally, what published experiments that failed was the questioner 
referring to?

 Date: Thu, 22 Mar 2012 13:17:09 -0400
 Subject: Re: [Vo]:CERN Live WebCast - Experimental Progress in LENR
 From: hohlr...@gmail.com
 To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
 
 It sounded like one audience member got a bit, er, heated during the
 QA session.  He insisted that the presentation was favoring the
 positive results and that the negative results should be presented.
 
 Maybe he was a hot fusioner and feared for his job at the ITER?
 
 T

RE: [Vo]:hydrogen refill

2011-11-23 Thread Finlay MacNab

The early Ny Tecknik video of the inside of the 1MW reactor reveals that the 
hydrogen inlets for the individual inlets are not connected.  If each 
individual module must be filled separately then the measurement is valid.

From: robert.leguil...@hotmail.com
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Subject: RE: [Vo]:hydrogen refill
Date: Wed, 23 Nov 2011 12:29:12 -0600

Where on Earth did you guys get the information that it was running and 
hydrogen was purged?

Early in the day with a glitch showing up, Rossi said that they had to make a 
decision about whether to go for 1 MW output, not in self-sustain mode, or with 
self-sustain mode at a lower power level.  The customer opted to go for the 
self-sustain mode.

There was never additional information provided as to how this power cut was 
achieved.  I would love to hear any ideas as to why it would be 1MW driven or 
half-that in self sustaining.

Still, look at the numbers.  If it were filled before hand, the tank would have 
dropped between September and Oct 28th:

September 7th:
before filling: 13613.4 grams - 
after filling: 13610.7 grams 
Total loaded: 2.7 grams 
October 6th:
before filling: 13606.4 grams - 
after filling: 13604.9 grams 
Total loaded: 1.5 grams 
October 28th:
Before filling: 13604.5 grams
After filling: 13602.8 grams
Total loaded: 1.7 grams

Or are you assuming that the E-Cat was filled from a different bottle, then 
mostly purged, then the same bottle from all of the other tests was used for 
the demo?

Again, this is a non-issue. It looks like some numbers were fudged, but that 
shouldn't surprise anyone.
_

 Date: Wed, 23 Nov 2011 09:43:54 -0800
 To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
 From: a...@well.com
 Subject: Re: [Vo]:hydrogen refill

 At 04:38 AM 11/23/2011, Gigi DiMarco wrote:
 I don't know if it was already reported but I found some oddies in 
 the hydrogen consumption
 October 28th test, from Fioravanti/Rossi's report

 For Oct 28, don't forget the restart -- they started the eCat, it 
 was unstable, so they lowered the hydrogen pressure.

 Did they completely discharge it? Maybe they just let some out, and 
 then reconnected the hydrogen bottle to measure the 55 Bar, (or whatever).

 The actual hydrogen consumption is so small that it's trivial 
  the 1MW would run for 25 (wild guess for intentional hyperbole) 
 milliseconds on a gram of hydrogen.

 This isn't just a picayune problem ... it's a pico-picayune problem.

RE: [Vo]:How to simulate the four-hour heat after death event in your kitchen

2011-10-18 Thread Finlay MacNab


Bob,
Excellent observation.  And one that makes perfect sense.
Daniel,
Isn't the measured dimension of the reactor wafer 20cm x 20cm x 6cm including 
the shielding (2.4 litres)?
How do you account for the fact that the density of lithium perchlorate is 
2.4times the density of water.
How is the flow of oxygen and fuel regulated?  It would be a great feat of 
engineering to put a store of volatile hydrocarbon next to a 600C metal fire 
and not have it lead to an explosion in short order.  Wouldn't the exhaust for 
the combustion gasses be clearly evident?
Your scenario requires some clarification.

 Subject: RE: [Vo]:How to simulate the four-hour heat after death event in 
 your kitchen
 Date: Tue, 18 Oct 2011 17:32:35 -0400
 From: bob.higg...@motorolasolutions.com
 To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
 
 Since the E-cat was leaking, it is likely that the insulation was
 saturated with water by the end of the experiment.  Could that account
 for the gain in weight?
 
 Bob Higgins
 
 -Original Message-
 From: itsat...@gmail.com [mailto:itsat...@gmail.com] On Behalf Of
 Alexander Hollins
 Sent: Tuesday, October 18, 2011 5:30 PM
 To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
 Subject: Re: [Vo]:How to simulate the four-hour heat after death event
 in your kitchen
 
 it would also explain the false starts. the solidox might have started
 burning, then gone out on its own from cooling too much.
 
 On Tue, Oct 18, 2011 at 2:23 PM, Daniel Rocha danieldi...@gmail.com
 wrote:
  Jed, how about this:
 
  Enrico Billi tells us that they weighed the E-Cat before and after,
 but not
  why it mysteriously gained a kilogram of weight. I can offer a
 plausible
  explanation.
 
  On the bottom of the E-Cat housing sits a relatively large volume
 enclosure,
  the reactor module, which we are told houses a small reactor core and
 large
  amounts of lead shielding. This volume was not opened so its contents
 were
  not revealed. In fact, neither were its dimensions given and must be
  inferred from a photograph and a few other measurements. It is safe to
 say
  that it is at least 10 liters and could be as much as 20 liters.
 
  Enrico says that there were no smells of anything burning, but one of
 the
  best candidates for a hidden fuel would be and alcohol like methanol
 or
  ethanol. These are very pure chemicals that burn to produce mostly
 steam and
  a small amount of carbon dioxide. Their combustion is odorless. Their
  combustion products could easily have been emitted through the reactor
  output hose and never be detected. CO2 is odorless.
 
  Of course the obvious question is how would it receive oxygen. The not
 so
  obvious answer is a relatively unknown, but actually ubiquitous
 technology
  called a chemical oxygen generator. Referred to in the industry as an
 oxygen
  candle, it consists of a mixture of a strong oxidizer and a powdered
 metal.
  When ignited at about 600C, it smolders slowly, giving off heat and
 copious
  amounts of excess oxygen. This is the same process that provides the
  emergency oxygen in commercial aircraft. Its used in mining, emergency
  operations, any place a very compact and stable form of oxygen is
 required.
  Its storage density, in the case of a Lithium Perchlorate formulation,
  equals that of liquid oxygen!
 
  About 2 liters of propanol, and 2 liters of a Li Perchlorate
 formulation
  could provide more enthalpy than was measured in the Oct. 6
 demonstration.
  The propanol, which boils at 98C would have started to emit vapor just
  before the water came to a boil during its warm up phase. A resistance
  heater would ignite the oxy candle and the two gasses would meet at
 the top
  of the housing, which is the underside of the heat exchange fins. That
  surface would be plated with nickel or platinum to catalytically help
  combust the two gasses, just as occurs in an inexpensive camping
 heater.
 
  This would burn for several hours, at which time a covert signal would
 tell
  Rossi its time to shut down the reactor, hence his need to be present.
  During the time the reactor is allowed to cool, small openings would
 allow
  water to seep into the reactor module case and make up the weight of
 the
  lost fuel and oxidizer, possibly the same openings which vented the
  combustion products. This would not be an exact process, hence the
  requirement of weighing with inaccurate scales, and the need to
 overlook a 1
  kilogram weight gain.
 
  This example accounts for all of the observations that were reported,
 as
  well as the electrical and plumbing connections that were seen. It
 explains
  the mysterious weight gain, the need for such a prolonged warm up
 phase, and
  the need to stop the demonstration after just 4 hours.

RE: [Vo]:E-cat news at Nyteknik

2011-09-15 Thread Finlay MacNab

 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 proof or equations. For instance in both cases cold water is imput 
at the same rate and temperature so why should there be a 
difference?

  - Original Message - 
  From: 
  Finlay MacNab 
  To: vortex-l@eskimo.com 
  Sent: Wednesday, September 14, 2011 8:49 
  PM
  Subject: RE: [Vo]:E-cat news at 
  Nyteknik
  

  
Excellent observation!  If this was a closed system with 
  no FLOWING WATER EXITING THE SYSTEM you would have a point.  As it is you 
  have only discredited your argument about thermal inertia. 
   Congratulations!
  

  I find your hand waving arguments completely unconvincing.  Please 
  describe in detail the geometry of the system you propose could account for 
  the observed changes in temperature taking into account the well known rate 
of 
  heat exchange between water and metals/other materials and the heat 
capacities 
  of the various materials.  Also, please account for the energy inputs and 
  outputs to the device during its operation.
  

  5 minutes with a text book will convince anyone with half a brain that 
  what you describe is more improbable than cold fusion itself!  Please do 
  everyone here a favor and give a rigorous explanation of how thermal 
inertia 
  can explain the rossi device.  Please use equations and data to back up 
  your claims.  
  

  If you don't want to do this please stop spamming this message board and 
  distracting from more interesting discussion.

  
  
  

  
  

  Well, at a setting of 9 you have the same temp 
  rise in 35 minutes as temperature fall in 35 minutes after 
  power-off.
  
- Original Message - 
From: 
Mark 
Iverson-ZeroPoint 
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com 
Sent: Wednesday, September 14, 2011 
4:55 PM
Subject: RE: [Vo]:E-cat news at 
Nyteknik



JC 
stated:
“(and note that 
this takes considerable time in the ramp up)”
Where 
he is referring to the long time it takes to ramp up the E-Cat’s internal 
temperature on startup…
 
Mr. 
Catania, do you realize that the electrical power into the E-Cat’s 
resistance heater was NOT started at 100%, it was started at a setting of 
‘5’ and RAMPED UP slowly over 40 minutes!  Here is the time progression 
for resistance heater power…
 
Timestamp  
PLC Setting   DeltaTime (minutes)
-  
---   --
18:59 
5 
0
19:10 
6 
   11
19:20 
7 
   10
19:30 
8 
   10
19:40 
9 
   10
 
We 
know that the ‘Setting’ is referring to the duty cycle, but we do not know 
exactly what the relationship is… since 9 is the MAXimum setting, and Lewan 
states ‘power was at this point 
constantly switched on’, 
then a setting of ‘9’ is presumably a 100% duty cycle. (?)  
 
Since 
the PLC’s are programmable, we cannot assume that a setting of ‘5’ is 50% 
or 
60%; it could even be programmed to be 10% duty cycle. So no useful 
calculations OR conclusions can be made during this ramp-up 
phase.
 
-Mark 

 


From: Joe Catania 
[mailto:zrosumg...@aol.com] 
Sent: Wednesday, September 14, 2011 
11:58 AM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Subject: Re: [Vo]:E-cat 
news at Nyteknik
 

I think it caused 
a rise. There is no rise. Its your imagination. The temperature at power 
off 
is too low and must be discarded. If I bring a piece of metal the size of 
an 
E-Cat to some temperature (and note that this takes considerable time in 
the 
ramp up) and then I cut the power, the temperature will not instantaneously 
drop. It will stay at the same temperature and decline slowly. There is 
much 
too much mass for what your talking about to happen. I have to laugh at the 
fact that if you saw the temp drop even a hundredth of a degree at power 
down you would have declared the thermal inertia regime over and the CF 
regime to have begun.

RE: [Vo]:E-cat news at Nyteknik

2011-09-15 Thread Finlay MacNab

Interesting observations.  I agree you should publish your findings.
I too am disappointed with the demonstration.  All they really need to do is 
vent the hydrogen during operation to convince me.  If they had vented the 
hydrogen at 15mins after power off and observed a change in the cooling rate I 
would be convinced.

From: colinher...@gmail.com
Date: Fri, 16 Sep 2011 11:00:25 +0800
Subject: Re: [Vo]:E-cat news at Nyteknik
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com

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.com wrote:

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. 

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.

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

RE: [Vo]:E-cat news at Nyteknik

2011-09-14 Thread Finlay MacNab



Excellent observation!  If this was a closed system with no FLOWING WATER 
EXITING THE SYSTEM you would have a point.  As it is you have only discredited 
your argument about thermal inertia.  Congratulations!
I find your hand waving arguments completely unconvincing.  Please describe in 
detail the geometry of the system you propose could account for the observed 
changes in temperature taking into account the well known rate of heat exchange 
between water and metals/other materials and the heat capacities of the various 
materials.  Also, please account for the energy inputs and outputs to the 
device during its operation.
5 minutes with a text book will convince anyone with half a brain that what you 
describe is more improbable than cold fusion itself!  Please do everyone here a 
favor and give a rigorous explanation of how thermal inertia can explain the 
rossi device.  Please use equations and data to back up your claims.  
If you don't want to do this please stop spamming this message board and 
distracting from more interesting discussion.










Well, at a setting of 9 you have the same temp rise 
in 35 minutes as temperature fall in 35 minutes after power-off.

  - Original Message - 
  From: 
  Mark 
  Iverson-ZeroPoint 
  To: vortex-l@eskimo.com 
  Sent: Wednesday, September 14, 2011 4:55 
  PM
  Subject: RE: [Vo]:E-cat news at 
  Nyteknik
  

  
  JC 
  stated:
  “(and note that this 
  takes considerable time in the ramp up)”
  Where 
  he is referring to the long time it takes to ramp up the E-Cat’s internal 
  temperature on startup…
   
  Mr. 
  Catania, do you realize that the electrical power into the E-Cat’s resistance 
  heater was NOT started at 100%, it was started at a setting of ‘5’ and RAMPED 
  UP slowly over 40 minutes!  Here is the time progression for resistance 
  heater power…
   
  Timestamp  
  PLC Setting   DeltaTime (minutes)
  -  
  ---   --
  18:59 
  5 
  0
  19:10 
  6 
 11
  19:20 
  7 
 10
  19:30 
  8 
 10
  19:40 
  9 
 10
   
  We 
  know that the ‘Setting’ is referring to the duty cycle, but we do not know 
  exactly what the relationship is… since 9 is the MAXimum setting, and Lewan 
  states ‘power was at this point 
  constantly switched on’, 
  then a setting of ‘9’ is presumably a 100% duty cycle. (?)  
  
   
  Since 
  the PLC’s are programmable, we cannot assume that a setting of ‘5’ is 50% or 
  60%; it could even be programmed to be 10% duty cycle. So no useful 
  calculations OR conclusions can be made during this ramp-up 
  phase.
   
  -Mark 
  
   
  
  
  From: Joe Catania 
  [mailto:zrosumg...@aol.com] 
Sent: Wednesday, September 14, 2011 
  11:58 AM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Subject: Re: [Vo]:E-cat 
  news at Nyteknik
   
  
  I think it caused a 
  rise. There is no rise. Its your imagination. The temperature at power off is 
  too low and must be discarded. If I bring a piece of metal the size of an 
  E-Cat to some temperature (and note that this takes considerable time in the 
  ramp up) and then I cut the power, the temperature will not instantaneously 
  drop. It will stay at the same temperature and decline slowly. There is much 
  too much mass for what your talking about to happen. I have to laugh at the 
  fact that if you saw the temp drop even a hundredth of a degree at power down 
  you would have declared the thermal inertia regime over and the CF regime to 
  have begun.

RE: [Vo]:Re: People such as Edison, Jobs, Whitman and Rossi are not always lying when they say things that are obviously false

2011-08-25 Thread Finlay MacNab


Dear Jed,
As a professional scientist I would like to take this opportunity to thank 
you for you continued efforts to present a balanced perspective on cold fusion. 
 Since the January announcement at the University of Bologna sparked my 
interest in the topic, your library of CF literature has been an extremely 
useful resource for me.  I value your point of view and in my estimation you 
have the mind of a true scientist regardless of your formal training.
I am almost positive that there are thousands of interested professionals 
following this issue who would echo my opinion if not for the stigma associated 
with the subject under discussion.
Thanks again for your efforts.  



  



  
  
Mattia Rizzi wrote:




  

  Jed, what is your academic background?

  



Japanese language and literature.



- Jed

RE: [Vo]:E-Cat vs. Water Heater for coffee/tea...

2011-06-23 Thread Finlay MacNab


From this document http://www.macinstruments.com/pdf/handbook.pdf, from a 
website trying to sell absolute humidity gauges, it would appear that a 
relative humidity sensor can give accurate reading up to the boiling point of 
water and that the measurement of humidity decreases in dry steam as the 
temperature of the super heated vapor increases.
The delta ohm probe in question is rated to 150C with an accuracy of +/- 3.5% 
above 95% RH from this spec sheet  
http://www.deltaohm.com/ver2010/uk/st_airQ.php?str=HD37AB1347.
If the temperature of the vapor is above 100C and the pressure is 1 atm, then 
an an examination of the phase diagram of water suggests that no liquid water 
can be entrained in the vapor.  Under these conditions the steam would be dry 
and the humidity sensor would read = 100 +/- 3.5% according to the above 
information.  The fact that the steam exiting the hose in the video is 
invisible is very strong qualitative evidence that the steam is relatively dry. 
 Since the steam can only become wetter after it's exit from the chimney, it 
must be more dry when it is produced than when it exits the hose.  If the 
temperature and pressure were measured accurately then the steam is likely to 
be significantly dry.
In summary, it would appear that if the water is superheated then the steam is 
dry. 

Date: Wed, 22 Jun 2011 23:52:51 -0500
Subject: Re: [Vo]:E-Cat vs. Water Heater for coffee/tea...
From: joshua.c...@gmail.com
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com

On Wed, Jun 22, 2011 at 10:34 PM, Finlay MacNab finlaymac...@hotmail.com 
wrote:






If the relative humidity sensor measures capacitance then the dielectric 
constant of steam and the dielectric constant of steam plus water would be very 
different and yield very different readings. 


From what I found, it is not the dielectric constant of the fluid that 
determines the capacitance, but the dielectric constant of a polymer which 
absorbs more or less water depending on the humidity. I found variations of 
this paragraph at several different sites:

Most humidity sensors use capacitive measurement to determine the amount of 
moisture in the air. This type of measurement relies on the ability of two 
electrical conductors to create an electrical field between them with a 
non-conductive polymer film laying between them. Moisture from the air collects 
on the film and will cause changes in the voltage levels between the two 
plates.  (www.tech-faq.com/humidity-sensors.html)

In this case wet steam is likely to give a higher reading than dry steam, which 
would give exactly the wrong information.

In any case, if the device does actually give different measures for different 
wetness of steam, it would have to be calibrated for the purpose. The 
manufacturer does not do this. They calibrate it to represent the humidity in 
air.

RE: [Vo]:E-Cat vs. Water Heater for coffee/tea...

2011-06-23 Thread Finlay MacNab


There are several different part numbers listed in the sensor chart in the pdf.

A number of them are rated to 150C.

also.

It would appear that the measurement would benefit from a measurement of 
pressure inside the reactor in order to confirm the steam is super heated.

Date: Thu, 23 Jun 2011 03:46:29 -0500
Subject: Re: [Vo]:E-Cat vs. Water Heater for coffee/tea...
From: joshua.c...@gmail.com
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com



On Thu, Jun 23, 2011 at 1:50 AM, Finlay MacNab finlaymac...@hotmail.com wrote:






The delta ohm probe in question is rated to 150C with an accuracy of +/- 3.5% 
above 95% RH from this spec sheet  
http://www.deltaohm.com/ver2010/uk/st_airQ.php?str=HD37AB1347.



I think you're reading that spec sheet wrong. The 150C refers to the range of 
temperature measurement. But the RH sensor operating temperature is given as 
-20 to 80C in the section on common characteristics of RH sensors below the 
table.

So, there appears to be no claim that it can measure even RH at 100C.

RE: [Vo]:E-Cat vs. Water Heater for coffee/tea...

2011-06-23 Thread Finlay MacNab


I disagree with your assumption about he common characteristic table.  The 
chart for the high temperature sensors lists a different accuracy for the %RH 
than is listed in the common characteristics table. 

There is another explanation for the stable output temperature besides wet 
steam that should be ruled out:

If the reactor piping has a significant volume and the reactor is charged with 
water prior to being energized then the temperature of the output steam would 
be as observed even if the rate of steam production was not equal to the input 
flow rate.  For the short demonstrations so far this explanation would be 
sufficient to explain the observed results if the assumptions are correct.

The only way that you would see a significant change in the temperature of the 
output steam is if the heating took place after evaporation or under pressure.  
It seems logical to assume that most of the heat is transferred to the water at 
a liquid/reactor core interface.

The 18 hour test did show fluctuations in output power however.



Date: Thu, 23 Jun 2011 11:14:17 -0500
Subject: Re: [Vo]:E-Cat vs. Water Heater for coffee/tea...
From: joshua.c...@gmail.com
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com



On Thu, Jun 23, 2011 at 10:36 AM, Finlay MacNab finlaymac...@hotmail.com 
wrote:







There are several different part numbers listed in the sensor chart in the pdf.

A number of them are rated to 150C.

Again, I think you're reading that wrong. There is a table that gives the 
application range for RH and temperature measurement in two columns. The 
application range for temperature measurement is -40 to 150C. I don't think 
that means the RH can be measured over that range.


Below the table, there is a section called common characteristics (meaning it 
applies to all of the probes in the table) and for the RH sensors, it gives the 
sensor operating temperature as -20 to 80C.


also.

It would appear that the measurement would benefit from a measurement of 
pressure inside the reactor in order to confirm the steam is super heated.



Assuming it could be measured accurately enough, and the water is pure enough.
I think the flat temperature curve is better evidence that the steam is not 
superheated. Look at any of the temperature graphs. As the temperature 
increases, the curve is not perfectly smooth. There are small fluctuations. But 
when the bp is reached, it is completely flat, as if there is some fundamental 
physical reason for it. That reason is the presence of liquid water.

It would be much easier and much more convincing if a small reduction in the 
flow rate caused the steam to go substantially above boiling by 10 or more 
degrees. But in all the experiments, the steam temperature is always flat, and 
within a degree or so of 100C.

RE: [Vo]:E-Cat vs. Water Heater for coffee/tea...

2011-06-22 Thread Finlay MacNab

If the relative humidity sensor measures capacitance then the dielectric
constant of steam and the dielectric constant of steam plus water would be very
different and yield very different readings.
A quick google search for capacitance measurement of steam quality yields
several papers and a multitude of patents on the subject so it would seem that
a measurement of steam quality from capacitance values is possible. A quick
literature search for the dielectric constant of steam results in an avalanche
of data about the dielectric constant of steam at various temperatures and
pressures. There is even data at 100.1C and 1 atm.
Then again I am just a lowly chemist so what do I know?

Date: Wed, 22 Jun 2011 23:02:51 -0400
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com; vortex-l@eskimo.com
From: a...@lomaxdesign.com
Subject: Re: [Vo]:E-Cat vs. Water Heater for coffee/tea...

At 06:45 PM 6/22/2011, Jed Rothwell wrote:
Joshua Cude wrote:

If the meter is giving mass per unit volume of the output, you need
to know the *volume* of the output to get the mass of the steam.

Ah. Here is what you overlooked. It also says that it gives mass of
water per unit of mass. That is degree of humidity (g/kg), partial
pressure in water vapour in mbar/hPa.

and: Ethalpy kcal/kg (Interesting that they use kcal.)

See:

http://www.testo.com/online/embedded/Sites/INT/SharedDocuments/ProductBrochures/0563_6501_en_01.pdf

It also measures Absolute humidity g/m^3 which is what you had in mind.

- Jed

You do understand, Jed, that this is the Testo meter used by Essen
and Kullander, not the other meter used by Galantini, right?

The absolute humidity is calculated from relative humidity and
temperature and pressure. These are displayed values, not measured
values. Basically, the device does some math for you, based on
certain assumptions. Unfortunately, the assumptions are the very issue here!

Among other things you must notice are the specifications of the instrument:

Notice that calibration certificates are not available for over 95%
RH, nor at any temperature over about 80 C.

One page 6, the list of humidity probes begins. The robust probe,
part number 0628 0021, is rated to 180 C. The measurement range
extends from 0 to 100% RH. However, the accuracy is not rated above
98%. Basically, the accuracy is 2%, from 2 to 98% RH.

Technically, wet steam would have a relative humidity above 100%,
that is, the water content of the mixture would exceed that of pure
water vapor, defined, as I'm correct, as 100% humidity at the boiling
point. If I've got this right!

But the meter has no capacity to measure that excess water, it would
simply peg at 100%, it seems.

I see no sign, anywhere, of any expert opinion that RH meters have
any application to the measurement of steam quality. Instead, as Cude
and others have pointed out, there are complex methods described to
measure steam quality. If you could do it with an RH meter -- and the
devices described are merely fancy RH meters that will do some math
for you based on temperature and pressure and RH data -- all these
other methods would be unnecessary, and I'd expect the meter
manufacturers to advertise the function, and even provide a direct
calculation mode.

RE: [Vo]:RE: Stiffler and Rossi

2011-04-19 Thread Finlay MacNab


I think you should reexamine your calculations.
The problem is that you are confusing watts and watt*hours.  
130kW is = to 130KJ/sec
130kW for 1 hour is equal to 130KW*h
15minutes of 130kW is equal to 130kW*0.25 hours or 32.5kW*H (the energy 
delivered in 15 mins)
If the 130kW had continued for 60 minutes the total power delivered would have 
been 130KW*h by definition.
Please reexamine your calculation, it appears to be incorrect.  A Watt is a 
unit of power a W*h is a unit of energy.
From: jone...@pacbell.net
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Date: Tue, 19 Apr 2011 08:58:34 -0700
Subject: [Vo]:RE: Stiffler and Rossi




















From: Stephen
A. Lawrence 

 

Ø  Jones, who put such an angry bee in your bonnet over Rossi?

 

There is no anger –
just disappointment that so many are jumping to hyperbolic conclusions which
are not justified by the record. And disappointment that technology so
potentially valuable [to society] goes misunderstood by those chosen by Rossi,
and that it could succumb to greed [OPEC for instance] if it is not fully 
understood,
before long.

 

How many times do I have
to say it - the NiH reaction is gainful ! 

 

The is no doubt it is
gainful – I have seen this recently first hand but that does not mean
that it is even close to what Rothwell wants to believe it is. In my opinion
Rossi does not have a clue and sadly, neither does Focardi. Aren’t we all
entitled to express that?



 You swallowed all the nonsense spewed out by *Doctor*
Stiffler, quite some time back

 

Not really. I reported
Stiffler’s results as they were presented – and he was not hiding
anything in a “black box,” to his credit. I also reported the
problems when they were found, which is where Jed has a blind eye – with Rossi.



Jed's being a whole lot more reasonable about this than you
were about the Stiffler miracle, as far as I can see.

 

You really believe that
130,000 watt in 15 minutes to a reactor will not raise copious steam ?  That
‘miracle’ puts Stiffler’s few watts from ground to shame. 

 

The point of this being
that many creative inventors (artists writers poets etc) are often cranky and 
weird.
That should not be news to anyone. If they are not honest, that adds to the
problem when the technology can essentially serve to “save our way of
life” and when this happens, and when Rossi has hidden the facts about
the $2 million+ he has received from DoE since 2000 to get to where he is now,
he should be exposed for that. US taxpayers OWN a stake in this and it will
shortly come out as FIA papers have been filed.

 

BTW – Stiffler was NOT
hiding the ground looping problem, and continues to try to push it to the
limits. I have not talked to him in years but he posts his results to YouTube. 
Recently
it appears he has been able to get a surprising amount of voltage and LED light
emission from only a ground connection:

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TXYY7TqS380

 

Can you do anything close
to that? If nothing else, the electricity grid suppliers of the world should
take note of whatever is going on here. Needless to say they will be taking
note of Rossi even if the COP in Sweden turns out to be 10 (my guess) instead
of Rothwell’s 1000+.

 

Jones

RE: [Vo]:RE: Stiffler and Rossi

2011-04-19 Thread Finlay MacNab


Ack I am very sorry to have included the body of the email in the post.
Please excuse my error...

Re: [Vo]:Swedish physicists on the E-cat: “It’s a nuclear reaction” / The used powder contains ten percent copper

2011-04-06 Thread Finlay MacNab


The copper isotope ratios reported here contradict those from Rossi's blog 
published data.

In his blog post titled Experimental Results he states the Cu63/Cu65 ratio is 
1.6 after transmutation.

The isotope results reported by the swedish observers seems very suspicious to 
me.

41 matches

Mail list logo