Re: [Vo]:What does hopfion mean ?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2wuTyPEpJ0g Harry On Tue, Jun 18, 2013 at 8:50 PM, Jones Beene jone...@pacbell.net wrote: The macro version appears to be a Rodin coil http://peswiki.com/images/5/5a/Rodin_coil_torus_jp70.jpg -Original Message- From: Terry Blanton? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gordian_Knot Axil Axil wrote: http://hopfion.com/
Re: [Vo]:swellings protons and fusion
On Mon, Jun 17, 2013 at 6:48 PM, mix...@bigpond.com wrote: I calculate them. If you have access to a windows machine, you can download the program from http://rvanspaa.freehostia.com/Isotopes.zip (if it doesn't work, please let me know ;) (Elements beyond Uranium are excluded). Sorry, It didn't work. First there is an Unhandled exception error, then I choose continue and it doesn't work. harry
Re: [Vo]:swellings protons and fusion
Ni62 + H -- Cu63 63Cu is a stable copper isotope Pd106 + H -- Ag107 Pd108 + H -- Ag109 107Ag and 109Ag are stable silver isotopes. Standard binding theory says these should be endothermic reactions but if the charge radius of the proton is not fixed then binding theory may need to be revised too. Harry On Mon, Jun 17, 2013 at 1:42 AM, Axil Axil janap...@gmail.com wrote: This is a global causation theory that applies to all types of nuclei equally. This idea does not address LENR reactions in only nuclei with an even number of nucleons: Ni58, Ni60, Ni62, Ni64. It also does not explain how no radioactive isotopes are produced. On Mon, Jun 17, 2013 at 1:31 AM, Harry Veeder hveeder...@gmail.comwrote: Recent evidence indicates the charge radius of proton is smaller in the presence of a muon than in the presence of an electron. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proton#Charge_radius Since a muon is a massive cousin of the electron, a muon's orbit is much smaller than an electron and therefore its orbital speed is much greater. This could mean that the charge radius of proton might depend inversely on the speed of negatively charged particles in the proton's neighborhood. If so, then protons (hydrogen ions) will tend to swell even more inside a lattice because they are bathed by even slower moving electrons. If the swelling also extends the reach of the strong force, this might enable protons to fuse with the lattice nuclei. Harry
Re: [Vo]:swellings protons and fusion
On Mon, Jun 17, 2013 at 3:16 AM, mix...@bigpond.com wrote: In reply to Harry Veeder's message of Mon, 17 Jun 2013 02:12:21 -0400: Hi, [snip] Ni62 + H -- Cu63 63Cu is a stable copper isotope Pd106 + H -- Ag107 1H+106Pd = 107Ag + 5.788 MeV (exothermic) Pd108 + H -- Ag109 1H+108Pd = 109Ag + 6.488 MeV (exothermic) 107Ag and 109Ag are stable silver isotopes. Standard binding theory says these should be endothermic reactions but if the charge radius of the proton is not fixed then binding theory may need to be revised too. Harry [snip] Regards, Robin van Spaandonk Robin, Do you look these values up in a table or do you calculate them? I thought the addition of protons to any element above Ni62 will not release heat, or does it depend on the isotopes involved? On this Italian video about Rossi http://www.classmeteo.it/web/portale/video/prometeo-fusione-fredda-e-cat-e-lenergia-del-futuro/ @5:27 it says: 62Ni + H -- 63Cu + 6.12 MeV I thought this was incorrect according to theory but is it correct? Harry
Re: [Vo]:swellings protons and fusion
Axil, I don't know. Perhaps it affects a neutron's susceptibility to decay. Harry On Mon, Jun 17, 2013 at 2:25 AM, Axil Axil janap...@gmail.com wrote: I am interested in what goes on inside those nuclei. How do those expanding protons effect the weak force? On Mon, Jun 17, 2013 at 2:12 AM, Harry Veeder hveeder...@gmail.comwrote: Ni62 + H -- Cu63 63Cu is a stable copper isotope Pd106 + H -- Ag107 Pd108 + H -- Ag109 107Ag and 109Ag are stable silver isotopes. Standard binding theory says these should be endothermic reactions but if the charge radius of the proton is not fixed then binding theory may need to be revised too. Harry On Mon, Jun 17, 2013 at 1:42 AM, Axil Axil janap...@gmail.com wrote: This is a global causation theory that applies to all types of nuclei equally. This idea does not address LENR reactions in only nuclei with an even number of nucleons: Ni58, Ni60, Ni62, Ni64. It also does not explain how no radioactive isotopes are produced. On Mon, Jun 17, 2013 at 1:31 AM, Harry Veeder hveeder...@gmail.comwrote: Recent evidence indicates the charge radius of proton is smaller in the presence of a muon than in the presence of an electron. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proton#Charge_radius Since a muon is a massive cousin of the electron, a muon's orbit is much smaller than an electron and therefore its orbital speed is much greater. This could mean that the charge radius of proton might depend inversely on the speed of negatively charged particles in the proton's neighborhood. If so, then protons (hydrogen ions) will tend to swell even more inside a lattice because they are bathed by even slower moving electrons. If the swelling also extends the reach of the strong force, this might enable protons to fuse with the lattice nuclei. Harry
[Vo]:Washington Post Poll
Washington Post Poll Vote on this question: What energy sources offer the most promise for the U.S. economically and environmentally? Registration is required to vote, but currently LENR has the most number of votes. http://www.washingtonpost.com/business/economy/what-energy-sources-offer-the-most-promise-for-the-us/64c17cf4-c96f-11e2-8da7-d274bc611a47_topic.html Harry
Re: [Vo]:Washington Post Poll
The way this works is that readers submit a comment describing their preference and each comment receive votes. The comments with the most votes appears at the top and it is for LENR. In addition, I browsed all the comments and it appears the _vast_ majority of the votes are for LENR. Harry On Fri, Jun 14, 2013 at 1:07 PM, Harry Veeder hveeder...@gmail.com wrote: Washington Post Poll Vote on this question: What energy sources offer the most promise for the U.S. economically and environmentally? Registration is required to vote, but currently LENR has the most number of votes. http://www.washingtonpost.com/business/economy/what-energy-sources-offer-the-most-promise-for-the-us/64c17cf4-c96f-11e2-8da7-d274bc611a47_topic.html Harry
Re: [Vo]:Washington Post Poll
Good. Maybe this poll will prompt the Washington Post to review current CF research and technology and write something about it. Harry On Fri, Jun 14, 2013 at 5:21 PM, Ruby r...@hush.com wrote: Thanks Harry, I posted up here: http://coldfusionnow.org/vote-for-lenr-at-washington-post-web-poll/ On 6/14/13 11:49 AM, Harry Veeder wrote: The way this works is that readers submit a comment describing their preference and each comment receive votes. The comments with the most votes appears at the top and it is for LENR. In addition, I browsed all the comments and it appears the _vast_ majority of the votes are for LENR. http://www.washingtonpost.com/business/economy/what-energy-sources-offer-the-most-promise-for-the-us/64c17cf4-c96f-11e2-8da7-d274bc611a47_topic.html Harry -- Ruby Carat r...@coldfusionnow.org Skype ruby-carat www.coldfusionnow.org
Re: [Vo]:ENTANGLEMENT THRESHOLDS FOR RANDOM INDUCED STATES
Data - Drop the shields https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RHoXUP804vg Harry
Re: [Vo]:Al Gore is aware of recent LENR developments
On Tue, Jun 11, 2013 at 3:07 PM, Robert Ellefson vortex-h...@e2ke.comwrote: Good News! In a google hangout that just occured, Vice President Al Gore said that there have been VERY interesting developments in cold fusion recently, and he used significant tonal inflection to emphasize his point. He also explained that the term LENR was preferred now, indicating he is following matters, but overall categorized the new developments as still speculative. He did refer in implicitly disparaging terms to plasma fusion's ever-receding 15-year targets, and called for new technology investments. Not a direct call for LENR research, but pretty close! Best wishes, Robert He made these comments while answering a question about (hot) fusion technology about 19:00 minutes into this video. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9_eI0I-YK4sfeature=player_embedded Harry
Re: [Vo]:ENTANGLEMENT THRESHOLDS FOR RANDOM INDUCED STATES
Much of the episode was about the boy working through his trauma, with Data assuming the role of a spirit guide / counselor. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pUAyKOYMhOo Harry On Tue, Jun 11, 2013 at 3:56 PM, Roger Bird bachc...@gmail.com wrote: And does the sweet little boy get any credit? Heck no! They just turn their backs to him and continue with their selfish hard heartedness. On Tue, Jun 11, 2013 at 1:06 PM, Harry Veeder hveeder...@gmail.comwrote: Data - Drop the shields https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RHoXUP804vg Harry
[Vo]:Wanted: Pilot Customer for ECAT 1 MW plant
Wanted: Pilot Customer for ECAT 1 MW plant Hydro Fusion is looking for a Pilot Customer for the first ECAT 1 MW Plant to operate in Sweden. The customer will only pay for the energy produced by the ECAT, i.e. Hydro Fusion and Leonardo Corporation will take responsibility for all associated costs including: the plant itself, installation and any transportation costs. http://hydrofusion.com/news/wanted-pilot-customer-for-ecat-1-mw-plant ECAT 1 MW Plant produces energy through a so-called cold fusion process. No combustion takes place; instead Nickel and Hydrogen merge to produce Copper. Per unit of weight, this process is at least 100,000 more efficient than any known combustion process. http://hydrofusion.com/ecat-products/ecat-1-mw-plant hmmm...I guess the copper will belong to Rossi. ;-) Harry
[Vo]:OT: water gong
water gong http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SisUWArnlGg Harry
Re: [Vo]:A 1989er CF scientist committed to paradigm change
If Kim et al have now explained CF then there is nothing left for me to say on this subject. Harry On Sun, Jun 9, 2013 at 8:26 AM, Alain Sepeda alain.sep...@gmail.com wrote: What I have understood is that momentum conservation is a shortcut, uncounscious to free space physicists. It mean gamma as one particle to compensate momentum. In lattice, momentum can be dissipated in many way, moreover particles are so bound to other particle that the allowed change/excitation, involving many real particle, make some pseudo-particle emerge as excitation of the system... like phonons, polaritons, hole, virtual mass electrons. what I've understood, is such: in fact particles don't exist as object, but are allowed excitation of the fields... In a lattice the field are so much coupled, glued, tightened, that the pseudo-particle are the only allowed excitation of the field, but this excitation involve many fields, and many what are usually independent excitation (particle)... imagine that you see people in a train station exchange hall... each passenger have his trajectory, and move interacting with others. For pani prediction in public place IBM have modeled them as lone particles reacting at 2m by collision avoidance. imagine now a couple with kids? a virtual particle appear... you cannot break it, or it will create new uncommon interaction, like separating quarks. In a crowded metro, you can see very funny pseudo particle, like holes, compression, some virtual mass, viscosity and rigidity... add a familly, luggage, and you will see many pseudo-particles, bigger than individual. Applying free-space physics, and momentum conservation to LENr is like applying ballistic and IBM model of travelers, to a crowded metro cart in fire. I imagine physicist can find a better way to explain it... this way to explain is how I understand it. What I take from that explanation is mostly modesty about lattice QM, like one should have in closed place crowd prediction. 2013/6/9 Harry Veeder hveeder...@gmail.com Another thing I find puzzling is why Kim appends the phrase in free space to momentum conservation. I thought conservation of momentum was a universal law, which means it suppose to apply everywhere under any circumstances. For example James Clerk Maxwell made sure his theory of electromagnetism did not violate the conservation of momentum. Harry On Fri, Jun 7, 2013 at 2:02 PM, Alain Sepeda alain.sep...@gmail.comwrote: are'nt gamma the way to compensate momentum ? and neutron the expected nuclear products? by the way I appreciate the way yeong kim explain why lattice is not free space : even though I clearly recognized that the conventional nuclear scattering theory at positive energies cannot directly be applied to nuclear reactions involving deuterons bound in a metal, which is a negative-energy bound-state problem. Quantum scattering theory describing the Coulomb barrier problem is applicable to scattering experiments with nuclear beams. a much more sexy explanation than my microelectronic experience that QM in solid is ... strange... ( ;-) ) 2013/6/7 Harry Veeder hveeder...@gmail.com Peter, Kim says Huizenga's three miracles are: (1) suppression of the DD Coulomb repulsion (Gamow factor) * * (2) no production of nuclear products (D+D → n+ 3He, etc.) (3) the violation of the momentum conservation in free space In other places I have seen Huizenga three miracles written like this : (1) the mystery of how the Coulomb barrier is penetrated (2) the lack of strong neutron emissions (3) the lack of strong emission of gamma or x-rays see for example http://www.infinite-energy.com/images/pdfs/Chubb93Editorial.pdf http://newenergytimes.com/v2/sr/Theories/LiTheory.shtml#miracles The second set does not mention of violation of momentum conservation in free space. Which set is correct? Harry On Thu, Jun 6, 2013 at 11:14 PM, Peter Gluck peter.gl...@gmail.comwrote: *Prof. Yeong Kim interviewed*: a veteran finally gets optimistic following a technological breakthrough. Please see: http://egooutpeters.blogspot.ro/2013/06/a-veterans-voice.html -- Dr. Peter Gluck Cluj, Romania http://egooutpeters.blogspot.com
Re: [Vo]:Netherlands food exports
On Sun, Jun 9, 2013 at 3:33 PM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com wrote: This may be a little off topic but anyway . . . On NHK the other day I saw a documentary about food exports and high-tech agriculture in the Netherlands. Here is a web page about it: http://www.hollandtrade.com/sector-information/agriculture-and-food/ This is mind-boggling. The Netherlands is an itty bitty country with very high population density, and yet they are the second largest food exporter in the world, after the U.S! They grow massive amounts of food in highly sophisticated sealed greenhouses. These are more like futuristic food factories than what you might think of as greenhouses. They monitor ~100 growth parameters. They increase CO2 concentration. People have to cover up their shoes and wear plastic haz mat style clothing to avoid contaminating the crops. That is hard to believe. Perhaps they mean second largest food exporter per capita? harry harry
Re: [Vo]:A 1989er CF scientist committed to paradigm change
On Fri, Jun 7, 2013 at 11:35 PM, Eric Walker eric.wal...@gmail.com wrote: On Fri, Jun 7, 2013 at 8:23 PM, Harry Veeder hveeder...@gmail.com wrote: Thanks. Take your time, but it would be nice to read the source. The headings that set out the three miracles in his book are (pp. 111-13): 1. Fusion-rate miracle 2. Branching-ratio miracle 3. Concealed-nuclear-products miracle He goes into further detail on each of these, and I do not see a succinct summary anywhere. For (1), he is referring to the problem of overcoming Coulomb repulsion. For (2), he's talking about how you'd have to significantly decrease the rate of the d+d→3He+p and d+d→t+n branches, which are normally ~50 percent each, and increase the d+d→4He+ɣ reaction, which is normally minuscule (on this point I think he's mistaken). For (3), he's concerned about missing gamma rays, among other things. Eric Does he classify them as miracles because he considers them impossible or extremely improbable? It seems to me if he was certain they were impossible he would have explicitly mentioned violation of conservation of momentum/energy since modern physics considers that impossible in no uncertain terms. BTW, if a possible but extremely improbable event is miraculous, is an impossible event monstrous? Harry
Re: [Vo]:A 1989er CF scientist committed to paradigm change
On Sat, Jun 8, 2013 at 2:27 PM, Eric Walker eric.wal...@gmail.com wrote: On Sat, Jun 8, 2013 at 10:14 AM, Harry Veeder hveeder...@gmail.comwrote: It seems to me if he was certain they were impossible he would have explicitly mentioned violation of conservation of momentum/energy since modern physics considers that impossible in no uncertain terms. The three sections go into a bit of detail. The third section, on the missing nuclear products, is quite long, and I would not be surprised at all if he mentions conservation of momentum, which would be broken for the rare d+d→4He+ɣ branch if there was no gamma. Eric The third section is titled Concealed nuclear products. Notice he says concealed rather than non-existent which suggests to me he is considering the possibility, however improbable, that the products are present but have been disguised, altered or hidden somehow. However, if ,as you say, he is certain that CF is impossible because it violates the conservation of momentum why does he go through this exercise? Since certain key pieces of evidence are missing which would make the phenomena obey conservation of momentum, he is duty bound by his faith in the conservation of momentum to dismiss or explain away all the evidence as error or delusion. Harry
Re: [Vo]:Of NAEs and nothingness...
On Fri, Jun 7, 2013 at 8:40 AM, francis froarty...@comcast.net wrote: On Thursday June 6th Harry said Ok, I realise why we diverge in our approaches to your model. I don't start with the assumption that the lattice is in a state of thermal equilibrium. I assume the presence of thermal fluxes and perhaps other energy fluxes*** * as well which can do small amounts of work on the hydrotons. If these local fluxes are sporadic excess heat production will be sporadic as well. ** ** Harry, I share your position and think this is also due to the quantum effect of the geometry. I think the suppression concentrated in the NAE must be balanced by a “diluted” region outside the cavity walls that responsible for this “segregation” of vacuum pressure… although vacuum wavelengths appear much shorter inside a cavity they must, IMHO, appear slightly longer spread over the atoms behind the cavity to avoid a COE violation..you aren’t getting something for nothing..the geometry is simply segregating pressure like Chicago city scape separates wind. This by itself won’t give us any source of energy since it is just a hill to run up and roll down but there has always been an energy source associated with gas motion.. you have temperature which will fall when harnessed and then you also have HUP which keeps helium from freezing solid even at 0 kelvin that can never be exhausted. We are told HUP which is responsible for the random motion of gas is unusable energy that can’t be considered under conservation of energy –They say a Maxwellian demon to separate hot from cold is impossible to implement at OU. I disagree, I think the NAE pits different forces of nature against each other to create heat and cold via a back door method. You have physical confinement and axial alignment of H2, you have supplied ambient heat forcing motion to initiate the process, You have Ed’s energy sink due to opposing charges on either side of the cavity where resonance causes the nucleus to emit energy as photons, or, my model of near disassociation f/h molecules getting the threshold discounted by the force trying to change the fractional value which only gives of a single photon upon reassociatio at the new f/h level.. Granted both forces go back to the same initial source..virtual particle pairs but they are on vastly different scales where one is very fast comparable to ac current moving gas atoms while the other is a locally accumulated pressure – a small gravity hill with a concentrated peak in the cavity and a wide valley extending out from the cavity walls that segregates the pressure we consider isotropic out here in the macro world. Anomalous cooling and retarded radioactive decay of gases are harder to detect but have both been reported..just not as concentrated or as frequently as anomalous heat and accelerated decay. My posit is that beyond diffusion the random motion of gas is harnessed to keep Ed’s hydrotron resonanting or pushing my near disassociation f/h over the threshold so it can form another molecule. *** * Fran Would you agree that a violation of the 2nd law of thermodynamics is equivalent to violating conservation of momentum while still obeying conservation of energy? Harry Harry
Re: [Vo]:A 1989er CF scientist committed to paradigm change
Peter, Kim says Huizenga's three miracles are: (1) suppression of the DD Coulomb repulsion (Gamow factor) * * (2) no production of nuclear products (D+D → n+ 3He, etc.) (3) the violation of the momentum conservation in free space In other places I have seen Huizenga three miracles written like this : (1) the mystery of how the Coulomb barrier is penetrated (2) the lack of strong neutron emissions (3) the lack of strong emission of gamma or x-rays see for example http://www.infinite-energy.com/images/pdfs/Chubb93Editorial.pdf http://newenergytimes.com/v2/sr/Theories/LiTheory.shtml#miracles The second set does not mention of violation of momentum conservation in free space. Which set is correct? Harry On Thu, Jun 6, 2013 at 11:14 PM, Peter Gluck peter.gl...@gmail.com wrote: *Prof. Yeong Kim interviewed*: a veteran finally gets optimistic following a technological breakthrough. Please see: http://egooutpeters.blogspot.ro/2013/06/a-veterans-voice.html -- Dr. Peter Gluck Cluj, Romania http://egooutpeters.blogspot.com
Re: [Vo]:A 1989er CF scientist committed to paradigm change
Either Kim incorrectly quotes Huizenga's book or the second ( and more popular?) version misrepresents Huizenga's three miracles. Somebody with a copy of Huizenga's book could this settle this issue quickly. Harry On Fri, Jun 7, 2013 at 2:03 PM, Peter Gluck peter.gl...@gmail.com wrote: Probbably Huizenga himself has used different variants, this is like folklore. I confees I have not read the Huizenga and Taubes books, have seen them when visting at Gene Mallove's office in 1998 but I was not too interested- they were discussed over and over. Peter On Fri, Jun 7, 2013 at 8:15 PM, Harry Veeder hveeder...@gmail.com wrote: Peter, Kim says Huizenga's three miracles are: (1) suppression of the DD Coulomb repulsion (Gamow factor) * * (2) no production of nuclear products (D+D → n+ 3He, etc.) (3) the violation of the momentum conservation in free space In other places I have seen Huizenga three miracles written like this : (1) the mystery of how the Coulomb barrier is penetrated (2) the lack of strong neutron emissions (3) the lack of strong emission of gamma or x-rays see for example http://www.infinite-energy.com/images/pdfs/Chubb93Editorial.pdf http://newenergytimes.com/v2/sr/Theories/LiTheory.shtml#miracles The second set does not mention of violation of momentum conservation in free space. Which set is correct? Harry On Thu, Jun 6, 2013 at 11:14 PM, Peter Gluck peter.gl...@gmail.comwrote: *Prof. Yeong Kim interviewed*: a veteran finally gets optimistic following a technological breakthrough. Please see: http://egooutpeters.blogspot.ro/2013/06/a-veterans-voice.html -- Dr. Peter Gluck Cluj, Romania http://egooutpeters.blogspot.com -- Dr. Peter Gluck Cluj, Romania http://egooutpeters.blogspot.com
Re: [Vo]:A 1989er CF scientist committed to paradigm change
If He took off by itself, how fast would it be moving? Detecting and measuring the speed of He particles would be a way checking for a conservation of momentum violation. harry On Fri, Jun 7, 2013 at 5:11 PM, mix...@bigpond.com wrote: In reply to Harry Veeder's message of Fri, 7 Jun 2013 13:15:46 -0400: Hi, If particle emission doesn't relieve the excited nucleus of its energy (#2), then some other means is required. If that is not gamma emission (and the gammas are clearly absent), then the assumption appears to be that the 4He would need to take off by itself. This clearly violates conservation of momentum. (Hence both numbers 3 are in fact the same thing.) However this requirement is clearly nonsense. The obvious truth is that no 3rd miracle is required if an alternative method of satisfying both conservation of energy and momentum can be found. There are several possibilites:- 1) Takahashi. 2) Ron Maimon. 3) Hydrino fusion (fast electron /or other partner from the shrunken molecule). 4) Prior loss of energy such that by the time the two nuclei merge, there is neither energy nor momentum left to lose. (This would appear to require a new retarding force that does external work however). 5) Loss of energy by some means other than gamma rays after the fusion has taken place (see e.g. Horace's theory). 6) Some form of the Mössbauer effect. Peter, Kim says Huizenga's three miracles are: (1) suppression of the DD Coulomb repulsion (Gamow factor) * * (2) no production of nuclear products (D+D ? n+ 3He, etc.) (3) the violation of the momentum conservation in free space In other places I have seen Huizenga three miracles written like this : (1) the mystery of how the Coulomb barrier is penetrated (2) the lack of strong neutron emissions (3) the lack of strong emission of gamma or x-rays see for example http://www.infinite-energy.com/images/pdfs/Chubb93Editorial.pdf http://newenergytimes.com/v2/sr/Theories/LiTheory.shtml#miracles The second set does not mention of violation of momentum conservation in free space. Which set is correct? Harry Regards, Robin van Spaandonk http://rvanspaa.freehostia.com/project.html
[Vo]:QBism
Wanted, dead or alive (not dead and alive) http://www.wm.edu/news/stories/2013/scientific-american-article-explains-a- way-to-resolve-quantum-state-paradoxes-123.php The weird part is this: As long as the box is sealed, you have to consider the cat to be both dead and alive. That’s what life is like in the quantum state—at least according to classical interpretation of quantum mechanics. As long as a particle has an even chance of being in one state or another, you have to consider it to be in both states at once. QBism does away with such head-shaking weirdness, von Baeyer writes, by dealing with the “wave function,” a mathematical expression of objects in the quantum state. Traditional explanations treat the wave function as a real property of the object. By contrast, QBism, he explains, treats the wave function as a mathematical tool and nothing more. Under QBism, the wave function has no bearing on the reality of the object being studied, just as the long-division problem to calculate your car’s fuel consumption has no effect on the gas mileage. Remove the wave function, and the paradoxes and absurdities vanish, he says. --- Can Quantum Bayesianism Fix the Paradoxes of Quantum Mechanics? A new version of quantum theory sweeps away the bizarre paradoxes of the microscopic world. The cost? Quantum information exists only in your imagination preview http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=can-quantum-beyesnism-fix- paradoxes-quantum-mechanics
Re: [Vo]:QBism
No, sorry. I first saw it on the newsstand and just flipped through it. Harry On Fri, Jun 7, 2013 at 10:17 PM, Terry Blanton hohlr...@gmail.com wrote: Teaser. Do you have a subscription?
Re: [Vo]:A 1989er CF scientist committed to paradigm change
On Fri, Jun 7, 2013 at 3:38 PM, Alan Fletcher a...@well.com wrote: From: Harry Veeder hveeder...@gmail.com Sent: Friday, June 7, 2013 12:29:30 PM Somebody with a copy of Huizenga's book could this settle this issue quickly. I have an early edition (he revised it later) but it's in my office and I won't be there until early next week. Thanks. Take your time, but it would be nice to read the source. Harry
Re: [Vo]:Of NAEs and nothingness...
Ed, On Wed, Jun 5, 2013 at 9:29 AM, Edmund Storms stor...@ix.netcom.com wrote: On Jun 4, 2013, at 11:11 PM, Harry Veeder wrote: Ed, On Sun, Jun 2, 2013 at 10:45 AM, Edmund Storms stor...@ix.netcom.comwrote: On Jun 2, 2013, at 12:15 AM, Harry Veeder wrote: On Fri, May 31, 2013 at 9:11 AM, Edmund Storms stor...@ix.netcom.comwrote: On May 30, 2013, at 11:39 PM, Harry Veeder wrote: On Thu, May 30, 2013 at 11:00 AM, Edmund Storms stor...@ix.netcom.comwrote: Harry, imagine balls held in line by springs. If the end ball is pull away with a force and let go, a resonance wave will pass down the line. Each ball will alternately move away and then toward its neighbor. If outside energy is supplied, this resonance will continue. If not, it will damp out. At this stage, this is a purely mechanical action that is well understood. In the case of the Hydroton, the outside energy is temperature. The temperature creates random vibration of atoms, which is focused along the length of the molecule. Again, this is normal and well understood behavior. The strange behavior starts once the nuclei can get within a critical distance of each other as a result of the resonance. This distance is less than is possible in any other material because of the high concentration of negative charge that can exist in this structure and environment. The barrier is not eliminated. It is only reduced enough to allow the distance to become small enough so that the two nuclei can see and respond. The response is to emit a photon from each nuclei because this process lowers the energy of the system. Ed, With each cycle energy of the system is only lowered if the energy of the emitted photon is greater than the work done by the random vibration of atoms on the system. NO Harry! Ed, I am trying to help you understand your model. I am not trying to tear it down. I know and I appreciate the effort. However, I want you to accurately understand what I'm proposing. Only then can you add a new insight. You are not accurately describing what I proposing. There is no work done by the random vibrations. These are the result of normal temperature. The photon is emitted from the nucleus and carries with it the excess mass-energy of the nucleus. Let us return to your ball and spring model of the hydroton and assume an ideal spring which doesn't dissipate energy by getting warm during compressions. If heat energy is the vibration of atoms in the lattice, then the spring is compressed by atoms from the lattice pushing on the spring. As the spring is compressed work is done on the spring, however, the spring will eventually bounce back to its original length so no net work is done on the spring in the course of one oscillation. The oscillations will repeat indefinitely with the same amplitude as long as the temperature remains constant. However, in your model the spring does not return to its original length. Now for sake argument assume no photon is emitted. This means some work has been performed on the spring, which means the spring has effectively turned a little thermal energy into potential energy and thereby slightly cooled the lattice. Now assume a photon is emitted. The subsequent temperature of the lattice will depend on the energy of this emitted photon. If the energy of the photon is less than the work done (W) then the temperature of the lattice will not return to the initial the temperature. The cycle can repeat until the protons fuse but the temperature will gradually decline and the end result can aptly be described as cold fusion! On the other hand if the energy of the photon is greater than W then the temperature of the lattice will be greater after fusion. No analogy is perfect and you are extending my effort to get one idea understood and applying it to a different idea, which is not correct. The vibration is like a periodic switch acting on the nucleus. The vibration itself does not release energy. It has no friction. Energy is totally conserved during the vibration. However, the vibration causes the nuclei to emit a proton because the vibration periodically causes them to get within a critical distance of each other. Getting closer _and_ staying closer means work has been done on the system since there is a mutual force of repulsion keeping them apart. The kinetic energy of the lattice is transformed into potential energy of repulsion according to the principle of CoE. Whether the temperature of the environment cools, stays constant or warms depends on whether the energy of the emitted photon is less than / equal to / greater than the work done. Your model at the present time is silent on these possibilities. Harry, you don't seem to understand the concept of work. Consider that atoms in a lattice are held together by a force. They vibrate and this vibration contains energy as the heat capacity. Is a piece of salt doing
Re: [Vo]:Of NAEs and nothingness...
On Wed, Jun 5, 2013 at 9:29 AM, Edmund Storms stor...@ix.netcom.com wrote: Harry, you don't seem to understand the concept of work. Consider that atoms in a lattice are held together by a force. They vibrate and this vibration contains energy as the heat capacity. Is a piece of salt doing work as it sits in the salt shaker? No, the material is doing no work even though a force is present and atoms are vibrating. Steady-state conditions, of which this is an example, do not involve work. Work is based on a net change in position as result of applied force. The salt sits still. It does not move. There is no net change in position of the atoms. If they move in one direction, they immediately move just as much in the opposite direction. If you want to imagine work being done during the first motion, it is immediately undone by the second motion. No net change has resulted. The system is fixed in space and it is not doing work. Ok, I realise why we diverge in our approaches to your model. I don't start with the assumption that the lattice is in a state of thermal equilibrium. I assume the presence of thermal fluxes and perhaps other energy fluxes as well which can do small amounts of work on the hydrotons. If these local fluxes are sporadic excess heat production will be sporadic as well. Harry
Re: [Vo]:Of NAEs and nothingness...
On Thu, Jun 6, 2013 at 8:22 PM, Edmund Storms stor...@ix.netcom.com wrote: On Jun 6, 2013, at 1:30 PM, Harry Veeder wrote: Ed, On Wed, Jun 5, 2013 at 9:29 AM, Edmund Storms stor...@ix.netcom.comwrote: Harry, you don't seem to understand the concept of work. Consider that atoms in a lattice are held together by a force. They vibrate and this vibration contains energy as the heat capacity. Is a piece of salt doing work as it sits in the salt shaker? No, the material is doing no work even though a force is present and atoms are vibrating. Steady-state conditions, of which this is an example, do not involve work. Work is based on a net change in position as result of applied force. The salt sits still. It does not move. There is no net change in position of the atoms. If they move in one direction, they immediately move just as much in the opposite direction. If you want to imagine work being done during the first motion, it is immediately undone by the second motion. No net change has resulted. The system is fixed in space and it is not doing work. I agree this the case when the average separation distance between the protons is steady. Consequently, the NiH or PdD are doing no work by simply existing. On the other hand, if the NAE forms, then energy can be released from the nucleus as an emitted photon. This energy was trapped before the photon was released. Once photons are released, they are gradually absorbed by the surrounding material as they pass through, thereby causing local heating. This heating can be made to do work. No work was done before this heating occurred. Hypothetically speaking, do you agree that if the protons were to gradually get closer without photon emission that the lattice would tend to cool ? Protons can not get closer for no reason. You have to ask what is causing the reduction in distance. The distance can be reduced by applying pressure, which causes the temperature to increase because work is being done on the system. The distance can be reduced by cooling, but in this case, the cooling is a cause rather than a result. A phase change can be caused, which will release energy. Events only occur spontaneously in a system because energy is released. Any event that would actually happen to bring the protons closer MUST release energy. Otherwise, it will not happen. Ed, Logically speaking, if spontaneous emission is a sufficient cause and work is not a necessary cause, then the hydroton could be chilled to absolute zero and gradually shrink by spontaneously emitting photons. On the other hand if spontaneous emission is essential but not sufficient then some work is necessary. Spontaneous emission in this regard would serve to maintain the distance reduced through work. It would be like climbing an icy slope without the need to expend energy to maintain traction. If the latter is true then hot fusion and cold fusion do not differ in absolute terms. It is not that cold fusion depends on spontaneity and hot fusion doesn't. In the case of hot fusion, although a great deal of work is performed, work is not a sufficient cause since one big spontaneous emission is required to achieve fusion. The difference between hot and cold fusion is in the mix of time, work and spontaneity. Harry Harry
[Vo]:update from the MFMP project
http://www.quantumheat.org/index.php/en/follow/follow-4/271-s-g-cells-preliminary-test-findings-for-run-2 The first test run of the Steel and Glass cell suggested that it took approximately 6% more power to maintain the same volume of water at the same temperature in the control cell when compared to the active cell. harry
Re: [Vo]:FYI: New experiments challenge fundamental understanding of electromagnetism
I wonder what Randall Mills would predict. Harry On Wed, Jun 5, 2013 at 1:35 PM, Mark Iverson markiver...@charter.netwrote: FYI: http://phys.org/news/2012-11-fundamental-electromagnetism.html ** ** Possible connection to Mills’ f/H or inverse rydberg states??? ** ** If 20 of titanium's 22 electrons are removed, it becomes a highly charged ion that looks in many ways like a helium atom that has been shrunk to a tenth its original size, ** ** Observations made with NIST's Electron Beam Ion Trap indicate that in ions with a strongly positive charge, electrons can behave in ways inconsistent with quantum electrodynamics (QED) theory, which describes electromagnetism. While more experiments are needed, the data could imply that some aspects of QED theory require revision. Credit: NIST ** ** What the NIST experiment found is interesting enough that it merits attention, says Jonathan Sapirstein, a professor of physics at the University of Notre Dame. Independent calculations should be done to confirm the theory, and other experiments should also confirm the findings. However, if no errors are found in the theory and the NIST experiment is correct, some physics outside of QED must be present. ** ** -Mark Iverson ** **
Re: [Vo]:A Couple Hundred Bucks Maybe...
A visual demonstration would impress the masses. Use a real ecat and a dummy ecat with the same input power to inflate a balloon The real ecat will inflate the balloon faster. Harry On Mon, Jun 3, 2013 at 4:46 PM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com wrote: DJ Cravens djcrav...@hotmail.com wrote: Notice I did not say flow calorimetry was needed. Just heating a container of water - pool, spa, teapot I have thought about that. During the initial warm up phase you would get an interesting result. After that, when it reaches a steady state, you would maintain the entire body of water at a certain temperature for weeks. The body (the bath and its container) would be losing heat into the surroundings. It amounts to more or less the same thing they are doing now, with a bigger body and more thermal mass, plus evaporation and other complicated stuff. I do not see an advantage. A spa or a pond is not a simple thing to model. You do not need to measure flow rates if the effect is significant. You don't need to measure it now. You have to depend on Drs. Stefan and Boltzmann being right. As for convection, you just gotta look up the numbers in an HVAC textbook. It avoids all the % steam questions, the emissivity numbers, the air flow, the cameras.. It does not avoid the steam question! On the contrary, with a body water you are right back to that problem, with evaporation. There are no serious questions about emissivity, air flow, or cameras. The emissivity can be set to 1 (worst case). The air flow comes out of an engineering textbook. We know the camera and emissivity are right because the thermocouple confirms them. All questions are addressed and all are closed. It is about the simplest measure of heat. The present method is the simplest. Using a body of hot water heated to terminal temperature would be more complicated. The present method is not the most accurate but I doubt that a large body of water would be more accurate. - Jed
[Vo]:A New Direction for Thermoelectric Cooling
Materials in which heat flows perpendicular to an electric current could lead to better devices for cooling electronics. http://physics.aps.org/articles/v6/63 Harry
Re: [Vo]:Ethics of the E-Cat investigation put into question
On Tue, Jun 4, 2013 at 7:52 AM, Joshua Cude joshua.c...@gmail.com wrote: On Sat, Jun 1, 2013 at 12:27 AM, Harry Veeder hveeder...@gmail.comwrote: On Fri, May 31, 2013 at 2:58 AM, Joshua Cude joshua.c...@gmail.comwrote: But I think you misunderstood. I was not referring to new science theories there. I was saying that it's common sense that if Rossi's claims were being accepted by the majority, there would be huge excitement. Not necessarily. Sometimes people act in accordance with the rule Once bitten, twice shy. But I'm referring to the time where they have overcome shyness on the second round; that is, where the claims are accepted by the majority. Once that happens there will be huge excitement. So I am arguing precisely that they have *not* accepted it, probably because they are twice shy. Others were arguing I could not know that it was not widely accepted. I still think it's common sense. I meant they are shy to express their acceptance. Harry
Re: [Vo]:Ekstrom critique of Levi et al.
On Tue, Jun 4, 2013 at 8:12 AM, Joshua Cude joshua.c...@gmail.com wrote: On Sat, Jun 1, 2013 at 9:50 PM, Axil Axil janap...@gmail.com wrote: The tactic of the obstructionist is to avoid dealing with the case The avoidance here is from the true believers who insist that any alternative explanation must described in detail, whereas they refuse to explain the thermodynamics of a power density 100 times that of uranium in a fission reactor without melting, or how nuclear reactions can produce that much heat and no radiation, etc. It is not clear to me that CF works best in a completely solid environment. Melting may accelerate the effect, but if the melting occurs just beneath the surface like magma, pressure will build and volcanic like explosions will occur producing the pits and craters observed on pd cathodes. Harry
Re: [Vo]:Of NAEs and nothingness...
Ed, On Sun, Jun 2, 2013 at 10:45 AM, Edmund Storms stor...@ix.netcom.comwrote: On Jun 2, 2013, at 12:15 AM, Harry Veeder wrote: On Fri, May 31, 2013 at 9:11 AM, Edmund Storms stor...@ix.netcom.comwrote: On May 30, 2013, at 11:39 PM, Harry Veeder wrote: On Thu, May 30, 2013 at 11:00 AM, Edmund Storms stor...@ix.netcom.comwrote: Harry, imagine balls held in line by springs. If the end ball is pull away with a force and let go, a resonance wave will pass down the line. Each ball will alternately move away and then toward its neighbor. If outside energy is supplied, this resonance will continue. If not, it will damp out. At this stage, this is a purely mechanical action that is well understood. In the case of the Hydroton, the outside energy is temperature. The temperature creates random vibration of atoms, which is focused along the length of the molecule. Again, this is normal and well understood behavior. The strange behavior starts once the nuclei can get within a critical distance of each other as a result of the resonance. This distance is less than is possible in any other material because of the high concentration of negative charge that can exist in this structure and environment. The barrier is not eliminated. It is only reduced enough to allow the distance to become small enough so that the two nuclei can see and respond. The response is to emit a photon from each nuclei because this process lowers the energy of the system. Ed, With each cycle energy of the system is only lowered if the energy of the emitted photon is greater than the work done by the random vibration of atoms on the system. NO Harry! Ed, I am trying to help you understand your model. I am not trying to tear it down. I know and I appreciate the effort. However, I want you to accurately understand what I'm proposing. Only then can you add a new insight. You are not accurately describing what I proposing. There is no work done by the random vibrations. These are the result of normal temperature. The photon is emitted from the nucleus and carries with it the excess mass-energy of the nucleus. Let us return to your ball and spring model of the hydroton and assume an ideal spring which doesn't dissipate energy by getting warm during compressions. If heat energy is the vibration of atoms in the lattice, then the spring is compressed by atoms from the lattice pushing on the spring. As the spring is compressed work is done on the spring, however, the spring will eventually bounce back to its original length so no net work is done on the spring in the course of one oscillation. The oscillations will repeat indefinitely with the same amplitude as long as the temperature remains constant. However, in your model the spring does not return to its original length. Now for sake argument assume no photon is emitted. This means some work has been performed on the spring, which means the spring has effectively turned a little thermal energy into potential energy and thereby slightly cooled the lattice. Now assume a photon is emitted. The subsequent temperature of the lattice will depend on the energy of this emitted photon. If the energy of the photon is less than the work done (W) then the temperature of the lattice will not return to the initial the temperature. The cycle can repeat until the protons fuse but the temperature will gradually decline and the end result can aptly be described as cold fusion! On the other hand if the energy of the photon is greater than W then the temperature of the lattice will be greater after fusion. No analogy is perfect and you are extending my effort to get one idea understood and applying it to a different idea, which is not correct. The vibration is like a periodic switch acting on the nucleus. The vibration itself does not release energy. It has no friction. Energy is totally conserved during the vibration. However, the vibration causes the nuclei to emit a proton because the vibration periodically causes them to get within a critical distance of each other. Getting closer _and_ staying closer means work has been done on the system since there is a mutual force of repulsion keeping them apart. The kinetic energy of the lattice is transformed into potential energy of repulsion according to the principle of CoE. Whether the temperature of the environment cools, stays constant or warms depends on whether the energy of the emitted photon is less than / equal to / greater than the work done. Your model at the present time is silent on these possibilities. All atoms vibrate, but normally in random ways. The Hydroton forces this vibration into a particular direction. In fact all chemical bonds do this. For example, in the water molecule, the H-O-H bond vibrates and causes the molecule to periodically gets slightly longer and shorter, and cause the angle to change. This process does not cause a nuclear reaction
Re: [Vo]:OT: scrabble challenge
A sign of something to come or a sign of something that was missed !? ;-) Harry On Mon, Jun 3, 2013 at 1:22 AM, Craig Brown cr...@overunity.co wrote: FRENCH Original Message Subject: [Vo]:OT: scrabble challenge From: Harry Veeder hveeder...@gmail.com Date: Mon, June 03, 2013 3:14 pm To: vortex-l@eskimo.com With the seven letters LENR CF H make a word. Harry
Re: [Vo]:A Language Upgrade Needed for LENR?
frigorific! Harry On Mon, Jun 3, 2013 at 6:18 AM, Jack Cole jcol...@gmail.com wrote: Good points Alain. I suppose it may all become a mute point as more positive results roll in, and if there is a running reactor that the public can visit. On Mon, Jun 3, 2013 at 3:03 AM, Alain Sepeda alain.sep...@gmail.comwrote: Last year the same question was raisedhttp://www.lenr-forum.com/showthread.php?454-Choosing-the-name-Cold-Fusion-LENR. My first longitudinal hair cutter opinion was to use LENR (beside being precise and popular, that term is easy to search in google). however after discussing with businessmen, they convince me that for my mum cold fusion was the best. I presented my position as such: Here is my position on the naming. Some people, like me initially wanted a precise, scientific, less connoted term like LENR. Today here is my position. Some corporate serial innovator said me that *Cold Fusion* is the best name. Today it is satanic because of mainstream denial, but soon people won’t care… but unlike LENR, CANR, LANR, HENI… it is not NUCLEAR … it is COLD, thus safe, not dangerous it is FUSION, so it is sexy, inclusive the only good name might be the Quantum Reactor… it is a bit geek … not for my mum. :mrgreen: For me like for many geek, quantum is sexy :shock: , and reactor is macho :shock: … but for mum, it is doubtful and dangerous black magic :twisted: … so really COLD FUSION is the best name… the brand is established, the 2 words have good connotation (safe, sexy, inclusive 8-) ), and bad reputation will disappear with a feeling of revenge on the men in power :twisted: … like raising the finger in front of the government. a safe sexy rebel reactor 8-) :twisted: … COOL! :mrgreen: 2013/6/3 Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com Until everyone agrees on what cold fusion is, there is no point to inventing a new name for it. It does not matter in any case, because the name is not the thing. Many words are technically inaccurate, obsolete or misleading. A solid-state disk (SSD) is not disk-shaped, and a round shape tells you nothing about the function of an SSD. A computer folder does not fold. Words such as folder and folder icons on the computer screen are skeuomorphs. When my daughter was around 10 she came to my office and saw a real manilla folder for the first time, and said, so *that's* what it shows on the computer screen. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:OT: scrabble challenge
A Whack on the Side of the Head: How to Unlock Your Mind for Innovation by Roger van Oech book review http://www.creating.bz/our-reading-circle/whack.html Oech identifies ten mental blocks which limit creativity: The Right Answer That's Not Logical Follow the Rules Be Practical Play Is Frivolous That's Not My Area Avoid Ambiguity Don't Be Foolish To Err Is Wrong I'm Not Creative On Mon, Jun 3, 2013 at 12:47 PM, Brad Lowe ecatbuil...@gmail.com wrote: French and Flench http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/flench are the longest valid scrabble words. But I missed the point... - Brad On Sun, Jun 2, 2013 at 10:14 PM, Harry Veeder hveeder...@gmail.comwrote: With the seven letters LENR CF H make a word. Harry
Re: [Vo]:LENR a gateway into the theory of everything.
Metrologically speaking, it doesn't matter if an entity creates excess heat by violating the laws of thermodynamics. What matters is that our instruments work according to the laws of thermodynamics. As long as they do, we can determine with confidence how much excess heat the entity creates. harry On Mon, Jun 3, 2013 at 3:22 PM, Kevin O'Malley kevmol...@gmail.com wrote: On Mon, Jun 3, 2013 at 11:37 AM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.comwrote: Cold fusion does not challenge the laws of thermodynamics; ***Yup. A lot of people have the IMPRESsion that it challenges the 2nd law, but that isn't the case at all. In fact here, this accusation that BECs absorb energy and violate the 2nd law of Thermodynamics, is a misguided impression as well. it challenges some of the laws of plasma fusion. However, the effect is the same. That is what makes it difficult to persuade people to replicate, and difficult to persuade them it is real. ***Difficult but not impossible. That is, unless one gets their paycheck from the 'hot fusion establishment'. It is orders of magnitude more difficult to convince someone who is paid not to be convinced. If you replicate an effect that challenges the laws of thermodynamics enough times, those laws are wrong. ***True of any scientific law. Most people don't realize that a scientific law is simply a mathematically rigorous observation. We have a law of gravity but no accepted theory of gravity. How many replications does it take for a rational scientist to accept the finding? It used to be just 2 or 3, but in this field it seems to be hundreds or thousands. Kevin: Most people still assume it's wrong. Jed: Those people are irrational. You should discount their views. ***Unfortunately, that includes the great majority of people. I would guess that 95% of the population (who had an opinion) thought the Wright brothers were frauds until they finally had some money on the table IP protection and demo'd their device to the army. Even then, Glenn Curtiss and others tried to steal their IP, with the willing complicity of the Smithsonian Institution. I would guess that at this point (Rossi being who he is) that 98% of the population think he's a fraud. Perhaps 90% of people who have an opinion on LENR think it's a pathological science, on the same level as flat earthers, unicorn admirers, and perpetual motion devices.
Re: [Vo]:Of NAEs and nothingness...
On Fri, May 31, 2013 at 9:11 AM, Edmund Storms stor...@ix.netcom.comwrote: On May 30, 2013, at 11:39 PM, Harry Veeder wrote: On Thu, May 30, 2013 at 11:00 AM, Edmund Storms stor...@ix.netcom.comwrote: Harry, imagine balls held in line by springs. If the end ball is pull away with a force and let go, a resonance wave will pass down the line. Each ball will alternately move away and then toward its neighbor. If outside energy is supplied, this resonance will continue. If not, it will damp out. At this stage, this is a purely mechanical action that is well understood. In the case of the Hydroton, the outside energy is temperature. The temperature creates random vibration of atoms, which is focused along the length of the molecule. Again, this is normal and well understood behavior. The strange behavior starts once the nuclei can get within a critical distance of each other as a result of the resonance. This distance is less than is possible in any other material because of the high concentration of negative charge that can exist in this structure and environment. The barrier is not eliminated. It is only reduced enough to allow the distance to become small enough so that the two nuclei can see and respond. The response is to emit a photon from each nuclei because this process lowers the energy of the system. Ed, With each cycle energy of the system is only lowered if the energy of the emitted photon is greater than the work done by the random vibration of atoms on the system. NO Harry! Ed, I am trying to help you understand your model. I am not trying to tear it down. There is no work done by the random vibrations. These are the result of normal temperature. The photon is emitted from the nucleus and carries with it the excess mass-energy of the nucleus. Let us return to your ball and spring model of the hydroton and assume an ideal spring which doesn't dissipate energy by getting warm during compressions. If heat energy is the vibration of atoms in the lattice, then the spring is compressed by atoms from the lattice pushing on the spring. As the spring is compressed work is done on the spring, however, the spring will eventually bounce back to its original length so no net work is done on the spring in the course of one oscillation. The oscillations will repeat indefinitely with the same amplitude as long as the temperature remains constant. However, in your model the spring does not return to its original length. Now for sake argument assume no photon is emitted. This means some work has been performed on the spring, which means the spring has effectively turned a little thermal energy into potential energy and thereby slightly cooled the lattice. Now assume a photon is emitted. The subsequent temperature of the lattice will depend on the energy of this emitted photon. If the energy of the photon is less than the work done (W) then the temperature of the lattice will not return to the initial the temperature. The cycle can repeat until the protons fuse but the temperature will gradually decline and the end result can aptly be described as cold fusion! On the other hand if the energy of the photon is greater than W then the temperature of the lattice will be greater after fusion. The change is analogous to an exothermic chemical reaction which requires some activation energy to initiate but the reaction products are in a lower energy state. Because of the shape of the coulomb hill the hill can only be climbed if the energy emitted increases with each cycle. No! The hill height is reduced by an intervening negative charge. As a result, the hill height is reduced so that it can be surmounted by the vibrations occuring in the Hydroton. Normally, the hill is too high for such small vibrations to have any effect. The hill is reduced in height as a result of the Hydroton forming. As a result, it is the unique condition required to make CF work. All the theories use something similar, but without a clear description. The barrier is reduced by the electron but I think the net effect only reduces the force of repulsion by 1/2. However, this is not a problem since you have theoretically enlarged the total energy of a p-e-p association (or molecule as you call it) to include all the excess mass-energy as well as the electrostatic energy of the association. Therefore the p-e-p association can shrink in size by entering a lower energy through the conversion of mass into a photon. This is like a ball rolling between two hills. It rolls down the side of one hill, through the valley and up the other side. In the process, it picks up a little energy from the surroundings (temperature in this case) to reach the top, where it throws a switch and turns on a light for a brief time. Immediately, it starts to roll back down and returns to the first hill where it again reaches the top and turns on a light for a brief time. This back and forth continues
Re: [Vo]:Adding Energy to get Energy
Jones, Did he make the background measure and the active run measure with the detector in the same place and same orientation? If he did, then the dip recorded during the active run would mean an _active_ ecat can reduce background radiation. Harry On Sun, Jun 2, 2013 at 12:08 AM, mix...@bigpond.com wrote: In reply to Jones Beene's message of Sat, 1 Jun 2013 19:59:52 -0700: Hi, [snip] Let me add that in the appendix to the Penon report, David Bianchini finds not only no significant radiation over background, but actually the peak radiation counts are slightly less during the experiment than background, indicating the apparatus shields the detector from cosmic rays slightly. That wouldn't surprise me if contained a couple of cm of lead shielding. Regards, Robin van Spaandonk http://rvanspaa.freehostia.com/project.html
Re: [Vo]:Ethics of the E-Cat investigation put into question
On Sun, Jun 2, 2013 at 2:39 PM, Eric Walker eric.wal...@gmail.com wrote: Giving Rossi the benefit of the doubt, the fact that an external stimulus is required in the form of resistance heating (also heat, as has been pointed out), this seems to indicate that one of two phenomena, or both, would need to be occurring: - The general area of the reaction is somewhat localized, and the normal thermal gradient that would lead heat to dissipate from that location must be countered from outside of it by the resistance heaters, so that sufficient heat is retained in that area. - The reaction depends upon a flux of heat, and not simply elevated an temperature on its own. My knowledge of thermodynamics is limited, so I might be missing something important. Good ideas Harry
Re: [Vo]:Sonoluminescence
have gamma rays been detected coming from these bubbles? If not then the phenomena is probably another example of LENR-CF-f/h- Harry On Sun, Jun 2, 2013 at 9:51 PM, Joe Hughes jhughe...@comcast.net wrote: Interesting video clip featuring Dr. Seth Putterman describing his thoughts on A star in a jar. Sorry if this had been posted and i missed it. Been hard to keep up with the list lately. :) This is a clip from a longer BBC video i believe. http://youtu.be/LWO93G-zLZ0
[Vo]:OT: scrabble challenge
With the seven letters LENR CF H make a word. Harry
Re: [Vo]:On deception
On Fri, May 31, 2013 at 9:54 AM, Alain Sepeda alain.sep...@gmail.comwrote: you have a point. a good idea for latter as someone said in a forum is: - to invite students who will play the skeptics, with stupid ideas, most stupid, some not so stupid... with naive, not far from the one of incompetent or voluntarily stupid skeptics. - to invite few stage magicians, that will look at evident place to put smoke and mirror, and rule residual claims of fraud. this is not science, nor industry, it is psychiatry. Robert W. Wood played such games to debunk N-Rays: https://docs.google.com/file/d/0BxxczzEYA5C5c3gxZmZpRlRRTTg/edit?usp=sharing Harry 2013/5/31 Berke Durak berke.du...@gmail.com To deceive an electronics guy, one may use a chemistry trick. To deceive a chemist, one may use software tricks. To deceive a computer scientist, one may use a physics trick. But using an electricity trick to deceive a group of experts sent by a power industry association is stupid. -- Berke Durak
Re: [Vo]:new hypothesis to confute regarding input energy in Ecat test
A single wire does have a magnetic field. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Manoderecha.svg Harry On Fri, May 31, 2013 at 10:51 PM, David Roberson dlrober...@aol.com wrote: I guess I fell for the word trap without looking at the drawing. What was discussed about the magnetic fields of solenoids is correct, but in this case the resistors appear not to be wound in that form. It is good that you brought that to our attention. Dave -Original Message- From: Alan Fletcher a...@well.com To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Fri, May 31, 2013 10:01 pm Subject: Re: [Vo]:new hypothesis to confute regarding input energy in Ecat test From: Berke Durak berke.du...@gmail.com Sent: Friday, May 31, 2013 3:52:07 AM Good grief. The resistors are coils, presumably helical solenoids with the axis parallel to the reactor cylinder. The magnetic field is near zero outside a solenoid, except at the ends. The magnetic field outside a solenoid is smaller than inside but not zero. The flux lines have to be closed, and thus there is flux outside, and there is no meaningful lower limit for macroscopic magnetic fields. Levi didn't provide pictures of the resistors, but it's reasonable to assume that they had the same structure as showed by Penon. http://coldfusionnow.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/09/105322688-Penon4-1.pdf The resistors are laid inside a cog-like pattern of troughs in the outer layer of a ceramic pipe (ie a cylinder with a cylindrical hole). This pattern is what shows as bands in the overheated November eCat (positive or negative, depending on your bias). The resister wire itself is clearly straight (not helical) strung down one trough (left to right), across to the next trough and back again in the opposite direction. I don't think this configuration will generate any magnetic field at all.
Re: [Vo]:Jeane Manning about Defkalion, second sending
Peter, If it will be a real demo why didn't she write that? I listened to Sterling Allan's audio interview from two months ago and the representative from Defkalion stated quite clearly that they intended to set up working device at National Instruments Week this august. Perhaps Defkalion is no longer sure they can do it. Harry On Sat, Jun 1, 2013 at 11:27 AM, Peter Gluck peter.gl...@gmail.com wrote: it will be a demo, do not worry Peter On Sat, Jun 1, 2013 at 6:22 PM, Alain Sepeda alain.sep...@gmail.comwrote: the only new point I notice is that - they rent a lab in University of BC - they think about audio visual material for NIWeek2013... - I was enthusiastic about the demo, and if it is only video it is less an event it confirm the paper for iccf18 2013/6/1 Peter Gluck peter.gl...@gmail.com My dear friends, I have just published: http://egooutpeters.blogspot.ro/2013/05/jeane-manning-writes-about-defkalion.html The Canadian New Energy writer Jeane Manning discovers and describes the new paradigm of LENR+ - and I am also trying to describe LENR+ for you, inviting you to contribute to its development Peter -- Dr. Peter Gluck Cluj, Romania http://egooutpeters.blogspot.com -- Dr. Peter Gluck Cluj, Romania http://egooutpeters.blogspot.com
Re: [Vo]:On deception
On Sat, Jun 1, 2013 at 6:02 AM, Joshua Cude joshua.c...@gmail.com wrote: The simple fact is that the measurements made and reported are woefully inadequate to exclude deception. Unless Rossi tells people how to build an ecat or starts selling them, no test will ever exclude deception. It always possible that whoever is chosen to perform the test will manipulate the instruments and circumstances to produce a trick because they are part of a conspiracy to commit fraud. If you accept the word of the chosen testers that it is real, then it is because you believe testers to be trustworthy. Likewise if the testers concluded that the ecat did not work, the true believers will reject the assessment because they consider the testers untrustworthy. Unless evidence of fraud surfaces, I think it wise to tentatively accept the results. Of course, you can always change your mind, because you aren't expected to display unwavering faith in Rossi. This is not a cult. Harry
Re: [Vo]:On deception
On Sat, Jun 1, 2013 at 6:36 AM, Joshua Cude joshua.c...@gmail.com wrote: Skeptics would change their minds in a heart beat with good evidence, just as they did in 1908. But there is nothing that will convince true believers in cold fusion that they are wrong. You should persuade the youtube poster to disclose his cheese power trick. Vortex members could then determine if Rossi could have concealed such a trick within his given set up. Otherwise there is no compelling to reason to be impressed by the trick. However, I suspect you won't be told because the youtube poster just enjoys staging magic tricks and used the occasion of the ecat report to post another trick. Harry
Re: [Vo]:On deception
On Sat, Jun 1, 2013 at 5:40 PM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com wrote: Harry Veeder hveeder...@gmail.com wrote: Likewise if the testers concluded that the ecat did not work, the true believers will reject the assessment because they consider the testers untrustworthy. There have been several failed tests, such as the one NASA did. I do not know anyone who claims these tests actually worked and NASA was lying. So I guess that means I do not know any true believers. I think that label is unhelpful. Of course the label is unhelpful. So are labels and phrases like pathological science, too good to be true and extraordinary claims... BTW is it ok to use the phrase too evil to be true as justification to not investigate horrendous crimes? Harry
Re: [Vo]:Adding Energy to get Energy
On Sat, Jun 1, 2013 at 5:10 PM, Eric Walker eric.wal...@gmail.com wrote: On Sat, Jun 1, 2013 at 2:02 PM, Jones Beene jone...@pacbell.net wrote: The ultimate source of energy cannot be determined as of now but Rossi’s hundreds of hours of operation at kilowatt levels with no gammas clearly indicates NO fusion. I don't exclude the possibility that there's something Millsean going on here, but I will take pleasure in quoting this post at a future point in time if research were to come out and show that d+p fusion is happening. Eric hydrinos could be hydrotons that didn't get close enough to fuse. Harry
Re: [Vo]:Defkalion Apply heat?
Extra heat in the form of thermal pulse might disrupt a resonance that was enabling the production excess heat. Harry On Sat, Jun 1, 2013 at 5:56 PM, David L Babcock ol...@rochester.rr.comwrote: Apparently there's two threads of thought here: a: Apply heat to make the process start, and more heat to take it to a higher cop. Stop the heat (or increase cooling) to bring the process back from cascade and ruin. This one seems to describe what Rossi has, and what Dave Roberson is modeling, and makes a lot of sense to me. b: Apply heat to make it stop. May involve recalescence. Confusing. Would seem to be inherently stable, no? (If it gets too hot, it slows itself down.) Interesting, but doesn't seem to apply to Rossi's rig. Anybody wish to clarify? Ol' Bab On 6/1/2013 10:39 AM, Vorl Bek wrote: On Sat, 1 Jun 2013 10:28:03 -0400 Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com jedrothw...@gmail.com wrote: Vorl Bek vorl@antichef.com vorl@antichef.com wrote: No crazy apply more heat to make it stop nonsense. Why is this nonsense? I don't have the eloquence to explain, but if you ask over atmoletrap.co.uk, or wavewatching.net/fringe, they can clear it up for you.
Re: [Vo]:Ethics of the E-Cat investigation put into question
On Fri, May 31, 2013 at 2:37 AM, Joshua Cude joshua.c...@gmail.com wrote: On Thu, May 30, 2013 at 2:52 PM, Harry Veeder hveeder...@gmail.comwrote: On Thu, May 30, 2013 at 1:26 PM, Joshua Cude joshua.c...@gmail.comwrote: I'm not talking about initiating. I'm talking about sustaining. I have no problem using electricity to initiate the ecat. But if it's a source of energy, it should behave like one and be able to at least power itself. A match is needed to ignite a firecracker, but once ignited, the explosion sustains itself. A match is needed to start a campfire, but not to sustain it. In addition to the wood fuel, oxygen must be supplied. A battery is used to start a car engine, but not to sustain it. In addition to the gasoline fuel, oxygen must be supplied. If the ecat must be self-sustaining to be considered a credible source of power, then a campfire or a car engine should not be accepted as credible sources of power because they don't make their own oxygen. I would consider the firewood + oxygen or the car engine + oxygen as the devices that are self-sustaining. One can certainly enclose oxygen with an engine or with chemical fuel to make a self-contained thing that self-sustains, if you have trouble with the abstract notion of a device that includes gases present in the atmosphere as part of its definition. Oxygen is not an energy source, so it does not represent energy input. We tend to identify gasoline, firewood and hydrogen as energy sources because we take oxygen for granted since it surrounds us. However, they are only fuels. The energy source is the combustion of oxygen and the fuel. The Saturn V rocket's energy source is liquid hydrogen and liquid oxygen. The astronauts did not get to the moon on hydrogen alone. http://content.answcdn.com/main/content/img/getty/6/5/3224965.jpg Including the ac mains as part of the ecat is different though because that is an energy source by itself, and the goal of the ecat is to replace the power source that provides the mains. If the ecat is like a rocket then its power is derived from two inputs. The first input is a metal hydride and the second input is electricity. Perhaps in time the ecat can made self-powering as more is learned about it, but expecting that now is like expecting the first inventors of friction created fire to know the science of combustion. Harry
Re: [Vo]:Ethics of the E-Cat investigation put into question
On Fri, May 31, 2013 at 2:52 AM, Joshua Cude joshua.c...@gmail.com wrote: On Thu, May 30, 2013 at 3:36 PM, Harry Veeder hveeder...@gmail.comwrote: As dave explains it makes sense if the energy input provides cooling power. Exactly. The whole thing is nuts. If it really needed to be regulated, it would make sense to regulate with temperature controlled cooling. During the tests convective air flow was helping to cool the reactor. The speed of the air flow would be influenced by the surface temperature of the reactor.
Re: [Vo]:Ethics of the E-Cat investigation put into question
On Fri, May 31, 2013 at 2:58 AM, Joshua Cude joshua.c...@gmail.com wrote: On Thu, May 30, 2013 at 3:52 PM, David Roberson dlrober...@aol.comwrote: Josh, what is common sense now becomes ancient history when the newest theories come out. Yes, I know that happens sometimes. And sometimes things that are common sense remain common sense. But I think you misunderstood. I was not referring to new science theories there. I was saying that it's common sense that if Rossi's claims were being accepted by the majority, there would be huge excitement. Not necessarily. Sometimes people act in accordance with the rule Once bitten, twice shy. Ian Hunter - Once Bitten Twice Shy https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KzuIPCjsy9I Harry
Re: [Vo]:Ethics of the E-Cat investigation put into question
On Thu, May 30, 2013 at 1:26 PM, Joshua Cude joshua.c...@gmail.com wrote: I'm not talking about initiating. I'm talking about sustaining. I have no problem using electricity to initiate the ecat. But if it's a source of energy, it should behave like one and be able to at least power itself. A match is needed to ignite a firecracker, but once ignited, the explosion sustains itself. A match is needed to start a campfire, but not to sustain it. In addition to the wood fuel, oxygen must be supplied. A battery is used to start a car engine, but not to sustain it. In addition to the gasoline fuel, oxygen must be supplied. If the ecat must be self-sustaining to be considered a credible source of power, then a campfire or a car engine should not be accepted as credible sources of power because they don't make their own oxygen. harry
Re: [Vo]:Ethics of the E-Cat investigation put into question
As dave explains it makes sense if the energy input provides cooling power. Harry On Thu, May 30, 2013 at 4:26 PM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com wrote: I wrote: . . . If you unplug a Rossi cell and try to make it self-sustain without input, it will melt. An analogy to fire may be useful to understanding, but you cannot engineer a reactor based on analogies. If we are going to do analogies, a more useful one would be to compare the Rossi reactor to an internal combustion engine ICE. With an ICE you have to apply the spark periodically to small portions of the fuel to trigger the reaction. Cude is demanding we find a way to ignite the entire tank of fuel with the spark plug once, and then have the car run normally after that. This does not work. The car goes up in flames, similar to the way Rossi's reactor melts. Actually, the Rossi reactor is sort of an anti-ICE, or a reverse-ICE. It would seem the spark does not trigger the reaction, but rather, it suppresses the reaction. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:Ethics of the E-Cat investigation put into question
The COP will be higher outside on a wintery windy night. Harry On Thu, May 30, 2013 at 4:48 PM, Edmund Storms stor...@ix.netcom.comwrote: I agree Dave, I have been providing this explanation for several years without any effect. I'm glad you are adding your voice. The critical point at which the temperature must be reduced depends on the degree of thermal contact between the source of energy (the Ni powder) and the sink (The outside world). The better the thermal contact between these two, the higher the stable temperature and the greater the COP. Rossi has not achieved a COP even close to what is possible. Ed Storms On May 30, 2013, at 2:23 PM, David Roberson wrote: There seems to be a serious hangup over why a heat generating device needs some form of heating input to sustain itself. The skeptics can not seem to get their arms around this issue so I will make another short attempt to explain why this is important. To achieve a high value of COP the ECAT operates within a region that is unstable. This translates into a situation where the device if given the chance will attempt to increase its internal energy until it melts or ceases to operate due to other damage. Control of the device is obtained by adding external heat via the power resistors allowing the core to heat up toward a critical point of no return. Just prior to that critical temperature the extra heating is rapidly halted. The effect of this heating collapse is to force the device core heating to change direction and begin cooling off. Positive feedback can work in either direction; that is, the temperature can be either increasing or decreasing and the trick is to make it go in the desired direction. The closer to the critical point that Rossi is able to switch directions, the longer the temperature waveform will linger near that point before heading downward. This is a delicate balance and most likely the reason Rossi has such a difficult fight on his hands to keep control. High COP, such as 6, is about all that can be safely maintained. The explanation above is based upon a spice model that I have developed and run many times. Statements by Rossi on his blog have been consistent with the performance that I observe with the model. It is important to realize that a device such as this does not operate in a simple manner such as that anticipated by the skeptics. I suppose that is why they fail to understand Rossi's machine. Dave -Original Message- From: Joshua Cude joshua.c...@gmail.com To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Thu, May 30, 2013 1:26 pm Subject: Re: [Vo]:Ethics of the E-Cat investigation put into question On Wed, May 29, 2013 at 3:20 PM, Jones Beene jone...@pacbell.net wrote: ** ** *From:* Joshua Cude ** ** First, the fact that this *source* of energy thousands of times more dense than chemical has to be plugged in (to a high power line, no less) will turn most observers away. ** ** Not necessarily “most” - only those observers whose ability to deduce and extrapolate from experience is severely challenged. ** ** For instance, an atomic bomb is initiated by a chemical explosion, and it is thousands of time more energy dense. I'm not talking about initiating. I'm talking about sustaining. I have no problem using electricity to initiate the ecat. But if it's a source of energy, it should behave like one and be able to at least power itself. A match is needed to ignite a firecracker, but once ignited, the explosion sustains itself. A match is needed to start a campfire, but not to sustain it. A battery is used to start a car engine, but not to sustain it. And a chemical explosion is used to initiate a fission bomb. But once initiated, it sustains itself using the chain reaction until the fuel is dispersed below critical mass. This is abundantly clear in a nuclear power plant, where the reaction requires no input energy to sustain itself. (And the energy density of the biggest fission bomb deployed (counting it's total weight) was 100,000 times that of chemical, and the energy density of the uranium fuel itself was in the millions.) A hydrogen bomb is initiated by and atomic bomb explosion, and it is a thousand times more energy dense. ** The fission bomb initiates fusion, and the fusion and fission then sustain each other, but again, once it's initiated, it's self-sustaining. (And the energy density is only 10 to 100 times that of the best fission bombs.) Moreover, fusion power will not be considered a success until ignition is achieved (and not even then), which represents the point where the reaction sustains itself, even if only on a tiny scale in the case of inertial fusion. ** Most observers do not have much difficulty extrapolating from that kind of known phenomenon - into another kind of mass-to-energy conversion, requiring a substantial
Re: [Vo]:Gibbs: Rossi's A Fraud! No, He's Not! Yes, He Is! No, He Isn't!
On Thu, May 30, 2013 at 11:31 PM, Eric Walker eric.wal...@gmail.com wrote: On Thu, May 30, 2013 at 7:08 AM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.comwrote: If we abandon this rule, or if we call it hand waving as Gibbs does here, progress in science will come to a halt. I think there's been a simple misunderstanding of terms. As an amateur anthropologist of scientists, I gather that hand waving is a very useful term that has two senses -- in one sense it seems to mean quickly glossing over the outlines of a mechanism, but not really knowing how to connect the different pieces. This kind of hand waving can refer to a legitimate explanation but be lacking in some important details. In another, more common sense, hand waving seems to refer to disconnected ideas that are thrown together in such a way as to betray a basic lack of understanding of the details. Hand waving in this sense is to construct a meaningless string of syllables. Word salad seems to be a synonym for this latter sense. My hunch is that Mark had in mind something different than either of these two senses. I suspect hand waving began as a derisive reference to occult activities since these might involve the waving of hands and/or a wand. . Harry
Re: [Vo]:Of NAEs and nothingness...
On Thu, May 30, 2013 at 11:00 AM, Edmund Storms stor...@ix.netcom.comwrote: Harry, imagine balls held in line by springs. If the end ball is pull away with a force and let go, a resonance wave will pass down the line. Each ball will alternately move away and then toward its neighbor. If outside energy is supplied, this resonance will continue. If not, it will damp out. At this stage, this is a purely mechanical action that is well understood. In the case of the Hydroton, the outside energy is temperature. The temperature creates random vibration of atoms, which is focused along the length of the molecule. Again, this is normal and well understood behavior. The strange behavior starts once the nuclei can get within a critical distance of each other as a result of the resonance. This distance is less than is possible in any other material because of the high concentration of negative charge that can exist in this structure and environment. The barrier is not eliminated. It is only reduced enough to allow the distance to become small enough so that the two nuclei can see and respond. The response is to emit a photon from each nuclei because this process lowers the energy of the system. Ed, With each cycle energy of the system is only lowered if the energy of the emitted photon is greater than the work done by the random vibration of atoms on the system. The change is analogous to an exothermic chemical reaction which requires some activation energy to initiate but the reaction products are in a lower energy state. Because of the shape of the coulomb hill the hill can only be climbed if the energy emitted increases with each cycle. The Hydroton allows the Coulomb barrier to be reduced enough for the nuclei to respond and emit excess energy. Because the resonance immediately increases the distance, the ability or need to lose energy is lost before all the extra energy can be emitted. If the distance did not increased, hot fusion would result. The distance is again reduced, and another small burst of energy is emitted. This process continues until ALL energy is emitted and the intervening electron is sucked into the final product. In your model, the coulomb barrier appears to be like a hill in a uniform gravitational field. It is possible to climb such a barrier in steps by emitting the same amount of energy with each cycle, but this barrier does not correspond with the actual barrier that exists between protons. Climbing a genuine coulomb barrier requires more energy with each cycle, so that requires more energy be emitted with each cycle. The extra energy emitted heats the lattice even more and produces more powerful vibrations of the lattice which can push the protons even closer together. I might add, all theories require a similar process. All theories require a group of hydron be assembled, which requires emission of Gibbs energy. Once assembled, the fusion process must take place in stages to avoid the hot fusion result, as happens when the nuclei get close using a muon and without the ability to limit the process. Unfortunately, the other theories ignore these requirements. The proton has nothing to do with the work done at each step. This work comes from the temperature. The photon results because the assembly has too much mass-energy for the distance between the nuclei. If the nuclei touched, the assembly would have 24 MeV of excess mass-energy if they were deuterons. If they are close but not touching, the stable mass-energy would be less. At a critical distance short of actually touching, the nuclei can know that they have too much mass energy. How they know this is the magic that CF has revealed. Here is the magic: they share an electron and it is through this common ground that they know. If they don't share an electron they won't give up any excess mass-energy until they are touching at which point they give it up all at once which is what happens in hot fusion. Harry
Re: [Vo]:Gibbs: Rossi's A Fraud! No, He's Not! Yes, He Is! No, He Isn't!
On Fri, May 31, 2013 at 12:48 AM, Mark Gibbs mgi...@gibbs.com wrote: On Thu, May 30, 2013 at 9:02 PM, Harry Veeder hveeder...@gmail.comwrote: I suspect hand waving began as a derisive reference to occult activities since these might involve the waving of hands and/or a wand. . You would be completely wrong. In fact, that is perhaps the most ridiculous conclusion anyone has come to so far. Mark, I wasn't referring to your use of the phrase. I was speculating on the cultural origins of the phrase. *poof* Harry Harry
[Vo]:Re: [Vo]:Re: [Vo]:Re: [Vo]:Torbjörn Hartman describes power measurments
Among cheeses, I believe Stilton has one of the highest energy densities. Harry On Mon, May 27, 2013 at 7:36 PM, David Roberson dlrober...@aol.com wrote: The report included a couple of graphs on page 27. One was power out per their measurement, the other power in. The mere fact that the power out versus time is clearly modulated proves that the input is not constant. The duty cycle can also be determined from that chart. I am not sure that there is any evidence that could support their claim better. It does no good to assume that Rossi is scamming and you guys should concentrate on proving that there is a problem with the measurements. I assume that you understand my explanation why the DC is not important to the input power measurement. That is basic electronics. Dave -Original Message- From: Joshua Cude joshua.c...@gmail.com To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Mon, May 27, 2013 6:21 pm Subject: [Vo]:Re: [Vo]:Re: [Vo]:Torbjörn Hartman describes power measurments Check out these 2 videos. It's a clear demonstration of how full power can be transferred to a resistive load without registering current on either clamp-on or in-line ammeters. I don't know how it's done but I suspect high frequency, but the point is that just because I can't explain it, doesn't mean I must conclude that cheese can supply the power. This switch could emulate Rossi's on/off cycling, and judging from input measurements one would conclude a duty cycle of 1/3, but looking at the resistive load, it would be 1:1. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ovGXDDvc3ck http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Frp03muquAo
Re: [Vo]:Ethics of the E-Cat investigation put into question
On Wed, May 29, 2013 at 10:24 AM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.comwrote: I wrote: But anyone in his right mind who looks at all of the experimental evidence for LENR will be convinced. I mean the totality of the evidence, as Mallove called it. People such as Cude deny that there is such a thing as a totality of evidence. They do not believe in the concept of supporting evidence. They say the tritium has nothing to do with excess heat and neither of them has any connection to the helium. They selectively deny one piece of evidence at a time, slicing the problem into many bite-sized portions so they can raise imaginary objections to one fact a time. This is an unscientific approach. Cheese-power is the enemy. Wikipedia: *Defeat in detail* is a military phrase referring to the tactic of bringing a large portion of one's own force to bear on small enemy units in sequence, rather than engaging the bulk of the enemy force all at once. This exposes one's own units to a small risk, yet allows for the eventual destruction of an entire enemy force. Harry
Re: [Vo]:MODERATOR: andrewppp removed
On Wed, May 29, 2013 at 4:04 PM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com wrote: William Beaty bi...@eskimo.com wrote: multiple violations of rule 2. (I suspect that he didn't read the rules before subscribing.) Whoa! That seems precipitous. He did not seem so bad to me. Rule 2. NO SNEERING. Ridicule, derision, scoffing, and ad-hominem is banned. Debunking or Pathological Skepticism is banned (see the link.) The tone here should be one of legitimate disagreement and respectful debate. . . . http://www.amasci.com/weird/wvort.html#rules Perhaps you can invite him back after a bit? Also maybe Abd? I miss him. They might not swallow their pride and return. Maybe you should say I acted too hastily, I apologize. Say this whether you mean it or not. That's how they do things in Japan. - Jed I agree with Jed. Please ask him back. He was only barking at his own shadow. Harry
Re: EXTERNAL: Re: [Vo]:Speculation about hotCat
no, no, no...cheese power requires a cheese sauce! ;-) Harry On Wed, May 29, 2013 at 4:33 PM, Edmund Storms stor...@ix.netcom.comwrote: On May 29, 2013, at 2:27 PM, Axil Axil wrote: You did not use the potassium based secret sauce that Rossi uses. How do you know his sauce is potassium based? Without the ability to create potassium clusters, the reaction is weak. Using only hydrogen clusters will not support a vigorous reaction. Again you say this with great certainty. Have you actually tried this idea and does it work? If so, please publish the results. Ed Storms
Re: [Vo]:Speculation about hotCat
Hmmm when the nickel starts to melt would bubbles of H2 form within the nickel? Harry On Wed, May 29, 2013 at 4:53 PM, Roarty, Francis X francis.x.roa...@lmco.com wrote: So, are we are suggesting instead a much thinner layer [.3g] spread over the entire inner surface of the reactor only? Or a foaming fixation that makes the nickel powder expand to fill the cavity ? ** ** *From:* MarkI-ZeroPoint [mailto:zeropo...@charter.net] *Sent:* Wednesday, May 29, 2013 4:33 PM *To:* vortex-l@eskimo.com *Subject:* RE: EXTERNAL: Re: [Vo]:Speculation about hotCat ** ** Jed asked: Question: assuming it really is 0.3 g, what is the likely volume? Nowhere near enough to fill the cylinder. **Why such a large cylinder?** ** ** - most likely would be to get the necessary surface area to adequately transfer the heat from interior to exterior. ** ** -mark ** ** *From:* Jed Rothwell [mailto:jedrothw...@gmail.com jedrothw...@gmail.com] *Sent:* Wednesday, May 29, 2013 1:11 PM *To:* vortex-l@eskimo.com *Subject:* Re: EXTERNAL: Re: [Vo]:Speculation about hotCat ** ** If the powder sinters, I suppose: ** ** That's good because it is what makes the powder stick to the wall. ** ** That's bad because it reduces surface area. This is what caused Arata's pure Pd black cells to stop working after a while. ** ** Takahashi said it was not the high temperature but rather the chemical action of hydrogen on the metal that caused the particles to stick together. ** ** I guess when they open the cell they have to scrape out the powder. Question: assuming it really is 0.3 g, what is the likely volume? Nowhere near enough to fill the cylinder. Why such a large cylinder? Maybe because that's what he has in stock. - Jed ** **
Re: EXTERNAL: Re: [Vo]:Speculation about hotCat
On Wed, May 29, 2013 at 5:13 PM, MarkI-ZeroPoint zeropo...@charter.netwrote: We know that Ni powder sinters at the temperature being produce What about adding some small amount of some other element to raise the sintering/melting temp; commonly done in alloying. OOTB suggestion... Anyone ever tried an alloy of Ni and Pd??? Ni and Ti??? LENR works with both, NAE possible with BOTH. -Mark Iverson I know that adding copper to nickel raises the melting point a little. Harry
Re: EXTERNAL: Re: [Vo]:Speculation about hotCat
Really? I did consult the literature a few weeks ago. My memory is playing tricks on me. harry On Wed, May 29, 2013 at 6:27 PM, Edmund Storms stor...@ix.netcom.comwrote: Harry, I suggest you consult the literature. Addition of Cu LOWERS the mp of Ni. Ni and Cu form a continuous soild solution. The melting point is close to being linear between 1083° and 1453°, the mp of Ni. Ed Storms On May 29, 2013, at 4:18 PM, Harry Veeder wrote: On Wed, May 29, 2013 at 5:13 PM, MarkI-ZeroPoint zeropo...@charter.netwrote: We know that Ni powder sinters at the temperature being produce What about adding some small amount of some other element to raise the sintering/melting temp; commonly done in alloying. OOTB suggestion... Anyone ever tried an alloy of Ni and Pd??? Ni and Ti??? LENR works with both, NAE possible with BOTH. -Mark Iverson I know that adding copper to nickel raises the melting point a little. Harry
Re: [Vo]:Of NAEs and nothingness...
Ed, the chemistry is way beyond me so I can't judge if the configuration is plausible. I bow to your expertise in this area. What really interests me is the resonance model you proposed to explain the missing gamma. If the protons are progressively forced together in steps, the work required with each step rises geometrically. However, it seems to me that fusion is unlikely to result from this model unless the energy of the emitted photon exceeds the work done at each step. I haven't seen this point expressed in your posts but perhaps I just don't understand your model. Anyway, I think the coulomb barrier problem is fundamentally more important then the missing gamma issue, in the sense that a cogent solution to the first problem will yield a cogent solution to the second problem. harry On Wed, May 29, 2013 at 11:14 AM, Edmund Storms stor...@ix.netcom.comwrote: Harry, you need to examine the situation as a chemical problem. The protons are normally in the metal lattice as H+ ions. These would go into the gap ONLY if Gibbs energy were created. In other words, the protons MUST be in a lower energy state in the gap compared to the lattice for them to move into the gap. Once in the gap, the protons are held there by this bonding energy. The bonding energy is created by electrons forming a 2p electron state with the protons to form a covalent structure. This bonding state is only stable because of the large negative charge in the gap. The electrons are part of this structure and are also trapped. Nevertheless, the electrons can move freely within each Hydroton, thereby acting as if the Hydroton were superconducting. Ed Storms On May 28, 2013, at 10:23 PM, Harry Veeder wrote: Ed, do you agree that what primarily keeps the protons in the gap is their repulsion with the lattice nuclei and what primarily keeps electrons in the gap is their repulsion with the electron shells around the lattice nuclei? harry On Tue, May 28, 2013 at 8:40 PM, Edmund Storms stor...@ix.netcom.comwrote: Dave, you are adding ideas that have no relationship to what I'm describing. Conductivity has no relationship to the the gap, its role, or its lifetime. The gap width is the ONLY variable that determines whether it will be a NAE. Once the gap has grown too big, it no longer allows formation of the Hydroton and, instead, normal H2 forms. It can grow too big if the stress that made the gap in the first place continues to increase. I suggest this is why most successful production of excess energy eventually stops. The Hydroton acts like a superconductor because the electron is free to move within the structure because it is not bound to a single nucleus. The gap itself is not superconducting. The effect of nano-structures on concentrating energy (aka Axil) is an entirely different phenomenon that has no relationship to LENR according to my model. Axil obviously has a different model. Ed Storms On May 28, 2013, at 6:22 PM, David Roberson wrote: I believe that I see what you are describing Ed. This effect must go away at some size when the metal begins to have conductivity on the inside surfaces of the cavities. Could this be the mechanism that limits how large the NAE can become? Does anyone know how large a metallic structure has to be before it looks like a resistor? Perhaps I am stretching it to assume that a structure which only has a small number of associated atoms behaves like a superconductor. If not, what mechanism determines the resistive parameter? If a small collection of atoms behaves like a superconductor then that would explain why the field generated by tiny Axil antennas can become of great magnitude. Dave -Original Message- From: Edmund Storms stor...@ix.netcom.com To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Cc: Edmund Storms stor...@ix.netcom.com Sent: Tue, May 28, 2013 6:16 pm Subject: Re: [Vo]:Of NAEs and nothingness... Mark, you are describing a large container. The gap is not a large container. It consists of two surfaces with a gap that is on the atomic scale. Start by imagining what a lattice consist of. It is created by a regular arrangement of electron shells, each surrounding a nucleus. These atoms are at a distance determined by a symmetrical electron interaction between each neighbor . Now move the atoms apart along a line. Immediately, the electron cloud surrounding each atom in the wall is unbalanced. The electron cloud of each atom pushed into the gap. This same effect happens on a clean surface and accounts for the surface energy that attracts absorbed atoms. Is this clearer? Ed Storms On May 28, 2013, at 3:53 PM, David Roberson wrote: Ed, I recall the Van de Graaff generators which had a vacuum or just air inside and a conductive outside. One of the demonstrations that I saw was that there is no electric field within the shielding outer surface. Why does this not happen within the NAE? It looks
Re: [Vo]:Isotope separation technology can be improved
On Mon, May 27, 2013 at 10:11 AM, Edmund Storms stor...@ix.netcom.comwrote: On May 27, 2013, at 12:17 AM, Harry Veeder wrote: On Sat, May 25, 2013 at 10:30 AM, Edmund Storms stor...@ix.netcom.comwrote: On May 24, 2013, at 10:38 PM, Harry Veeder wrote: The process you have described has the characteristics of a ratchet. Curiously, Jones used the ratchet metaphor in another post where he characterised the effect of modulating the input on the cell. Yes Harry, this can be called a ratchet. All kinds of ratchets exist in Nature. The challenge is to find the cause. In this case, the nuclei have to communicate before they have fused into a single nuclei. The form of htat communication is unknown, but very important. Once discovered, this will get someone the Nobel prize. Imagine the following sequence. The nuclei are held apart by an electron bond, which is normally the case. Once formed, this structure starts to resonate so that the two nuclei get periodically closer together. As they approach each other, information is exchanged between the nuclei that tells them they have too much mass -energy for being this close. After all, if they were in contact, the excess mass-energy would be 24 MeV if the nuclei were deuterons. But they are not in contact yet, so that the excess mass-energy is less than the maximum. Nevertheless, this excess must be dissipated, which each nuclei does by emitting a photon having 1/2 of the excess energy for the distance achieved. After the photons are emitted, the resonance moves the two nuclei apart, but this time not as far as previously the case. The next resonance cycle again brings the nuclei close, but this time they come closer than before, again with emission of two photons. This cycle repeats until all energy has been dissipated and the two nuclei are in contact. The intervening electron, that was necessary to the process, is sucked into the final nucleus. Because very little energy is released by entry of the electron, the neutrino, if it is emitted at all, has very little energy available to carry away. This process, I suggest, is the unique and previously unknown phenomenon that CF has revealed. Ed, Typically we associate quantization with attractive forces as is the case with an electron and a proton in a hydrogen atom, but your system involves quantization with repulsive forces. Like charges repel and unlike charges attract. Quantization is always a balance between attraction and repulsion. Consequently, I do not understand your point. In a hydrogen atom quantisation is present but there is only the attraction between unlike charges, i.e. a electron and a proton. So as a general rule quantisation does not require a balance between attraction and repulsion. Resonance occurs when an object can alternate between between attraction and repulsion. This combination results in forces that can move an object between these two extremes as long as energy is supplied. Yes, but the attractive forces are the bonds between the Pd or Ni atoms and the repulsive forces between the hydrogen nuclei and the Pd or Ni nuclei. The bonds between the atoms allow the big nuclei to coral hydrogen nuclei by mutual repulsion. The presence of an electron inside the coral acts a site of least repulsion where hydrogen nuclei are most likely to converge as they are gradually brought together through emission of a photon and resonance with the surrounding web of big nuclei. If pushing an electron and proton apart can happen in steps through the absorption of photons, I guess it follows that pushing together of protons can happen in steps through the emission of photons. Your description is not correct. Photon emission only occurs when the electron RETURNS to its original energy level. I said If pushing an electron and proton apart can happen in steps through the *absorption* of photons, I guess it follows that pushing together of protons can happen in steps through the emission of photons. I'm not suggesting the electron has an role in emitting a photon. I'm proposing that a photon is emitted FROM THE NUCLEUS when two nuclei get too close to each other. Nuclei can not normally get this close. Consequently, the process is not normally possible. The conditions in the NAE make this possible. I think the electron does play a role. It serves to discharge a build of a quantum of electrostatic energy that exists between the nuclei. Since the state of repulsion is quantized the nuclei stay at that distance until the next vibration from the matrix pushes them closer together. However, in the former situation the pushing apart is the effect but the absorption of the photons is the cause, whereas in the latter situation the pushing together is the cause, and the emission of photons is effector is it? ;-) The protons try to get close, but this is not possible because of the Coulomb barrier. Nevertheless
Re: [Vo]:Ethics of the E-Cat investigation put into question
Rossi confuses and annoys many people by being both open and secretive at the same time. Harry On Tue, May 28, 2013 at 9:57 AM, Andrew andrew...@att.net wrote: ** Nope. Had you been paying attention to the interviews with the testers, you would have read that quote as #7 in a list of 7. As for the Rossi quote, this has also been widespread. You couldn't make this stuff up. And I didn't; I simply repeated written quotes. As for motives, you seem to miss the obvious one, but I won't speculate about it publicly. Lord knows, that might be libellous. Andrew - Original Message - *From:* Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com *To:* vortex-l@eskimo.com *Sent:* Tuesday, May 28, 2013 6:28 AM *Subject:* Re: [Vo]:Ethics of the E-Cat investigation put into question Andrew andrew...@att.net wrote: Rossi: The experimenters were free to use any test equipment of their choosing. Testers: That depends on Prof. Levi, who specifies the instrumentation. Yup, ethical as all get out. This seems to be a straight out assertion that Levi is lying, and that he is in cahoots with Rossi. If that is your opinion you should say so. I think that borders on libel. I suggest you refrain from saying things like that in this forum, unless you have some evidence. Rossi has done so many odd things he makes anyone uncomfortable. It is hardly libelous to point out that he is controversial and has been in trouble with the law. But Levi has not done anything or said anything suspicious. You are saying, in effect, that a professor is deliberately destroying his own reputation, in a way that will certainly be discovered, with no possible benefit or profit. This seems unlikely to me. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:Ethics of the E-Cat investigation put into question
From Rossi's perspective there is a danger that and unscrupulous competitor might place evidence of fraud if he is not careful about who tests his equipment. Harry On Tue, May 28, 2013 at 12:04 PM, Alain Sepeda alain.sep...@gmail.comwrote: 2013/5/28 Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com Andrew andrew...@att.net wrote: ** Would you have us believe that the use of an oscilloscope and/or a spectrum analyzer was *not* forbidden for these tests? There were absolutely not forbidden. I have that from the horse's mouth. That is enough for me to trust all the paper not being a fraud. From some comments (it is getting messy, and pathoskeptics abuse of lies published as facts) I though that measuring socket voltage was forbidden. Even with wood instruments they would have proved that Rossi was no afraid of people measuring DC or HF... That is enough to rule out fraud. end of the story, else is chatting.
Re: [Vo]:Ethics of the E-Cat investigation put into question
On Tue, May 28, 2013 at 1:25 PM, Joshua Cude joshua.c...@gmail.com wrote: Furthermore, the fact that it was predicted means it's not an extraordinary claim at all. Everyone expected it. It fit a consistent picture based on a century of robust experimental science. The 50 years was spent developing tools to study it, not quarreling about whether someone has already found it. The science behind the higgs boson is conventional, but the higgs boson is an extraordinary entity because by today's standards it required an extraordinary feat of engineering to detect it. The Ecat is based on unconventional science, but by today's standards the Ecat is an ordinary feat of engineering. harry
Re: [Vo]:Ethics of the E-Cat investigation put into question
so the secret cable is a high voltage cable? Harry On Tue, May 28, 2013 at 7:46 PM, Andrew andrew...@att.net wrote: ** Thank you for being straightforward on both points. *And now we definitively know that the cable itself is secret.* ** Of course, that will not bother the majority of people here. Move along, nothing to see here. Oh, OK, so there is one loose end which I've mentioned and which you didn't address - Rossi's assertion that the team brought their own cables. It seems he makes shit up as he goes along. Of course, that will not bother the majority of people here. Move along, nothing to see here. Andrew
Re: [Vo]:Of NAEs and nothingness...
Ed, do you agree that what primarily keeps the protons in the gap is their repulsion with the lattice nuclei and what primarily keeps electrons in the gap is their repulsion with the electron shells around the lattice nuclei? harry On Tue, May 28, 2013 at 8:40 PM, Edmund Storms stor...@ix.netcom.comwrote: Dave, you are adding ideas that have no relationship to what I'm describing. Conductivity has no relationship to the the gap, its role, or its lifetime. The gap width is the ONLY variable that determines whether it will be a NAE. Once the gap has grown too big, it no longer allows formation of the Hydroton and, instead, normal H2 forms. It can grow too big if the stress that made the gap in the first place continues to increase. I suggest this is why most successful production of excess energy eventually stops. The Hydroton acts like a superconductor because the electron is free to move within the structure because it is not bound to a single nucleus. The gap itself is not superconducting. The effect of nano-structures on concentrating energy (aka Axil) is an entirely different phenomenon that has no relationship to LENR according to my model. Axil obviously has a different model. Ed Storms On May 28, 2013, at 6:22 PM, David Roberson wrote: I believe that I see what you are describing Ed. This effect must go away at some size when the metal begins to have conductivity on the inside surfaces of the cavities. Could this be the mechanism that limits how large the NAE can become? Does anyone know how large a metallic structure has to be before it looks like a resistor? Perhaps I am stretching it to assume that a structure which only has a small number of associated atoms behaves like a superconductor. If not, what mechanism determines the resistive parameter? If a small collection of atoms behaves like a superconductor then that would explain why the field generated by tiny Axil antennas can become of great magnitude. Dave -Original Message- From: Edmund Storms stor...@ix.netcom.com To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Cc: Edmund Storms stor...@ix.netcom.com Sent: Tue, May 28, 2013 6:16 pm Subject: Re: [Vo]:Of NAEs and nothingness... Mark, you are describing a large container. The gap is not a large container. It consists of two surfaces with a gap that is on the atomic scale. Start by imagining what a lattice consist of. It is created by a regular arrangement of electron shells, each surrounding a nucleus. These atoms are at a distance determined by a symmetrical electron interaction between each neighbor . Now move the atoms apart along a line. Immediately, the electron cloud surrounding each atom in the wall is unbalanced. The electron cloud of each atom pushed into the gap. This same effect happens on a clean surface and accounts for the surface energy that attracts absorbed atoms. Is this clearer? Ed Storms On May 28, 2013, at 3:53 PM, David Roberson wrote: Ed, I recall the Van de Graaff generators which had a vacuum or just air inside and a conductive outside. One of the demonstrations that I saw was that there is no electric field within the shielding outer surface. Why does this not happen within the NAE? It looks a lot like one of those devices since a metallic conductor surrounds the cavity. Am I missing something about the shape? Dave -Original Message- From: Edmund Storms stor...@ix.netcom.com To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Cc: Edmund Storms stor...@ix.netcom.com Sent: Tue, May 28, 2013 5:38 pm Subject: Re: [Vo]:Of NAEs and nothingness... Mark, when the gap initially forms, nothing is present. It is a void, a space without substance, a vacuum if you wish. However, it contains strong negative fields and it contains electrons. Does a vacuum contain electrons? The gap is too small for a gas molecule to enter. It can accommodate only hydron ions, which when they enter, react with each other. At this point in the discussion, I'm describing pure chemical conditions that can be calculated using conventional theory. Does this answer your question? Ed Storms On May 28, 2013, at 3:07 PM, MarkI-ZeroPoint wrote: Ed: Thanks for the additional explanation, but it wasn’t necessary… Obviously, there’s a disconnect as to what my point was in this thread, and how you interpreted it. I do not take issue with your hypothesis; I follow the reasoning and steps of how you think LENR occurs. It sounds very straightforward, and I trust your vast knowledge of the field to have taken all the empirical data to heart when formulating the hypothesis. I sincerely hope that you are able to convince some LENR researchers to test your hypothesis and get some empirical support… The point of my posting the thread is to understand the precise environment of these dislocations in the lattice… if they are the site where LENR processes occur, and I think that is the likely scenario, then
Re: [Vo]:Spice model explains eCat non-exponential waveform, supports David Roberson's linear-response theory
The diagram reminds me of constructions consisting of springs and dashpots in series and parallel which are used to model viscoelastic materials. see e.g. http://gertrude-old.case.edu/276/materials/5.fig/05.htm6.gif http://ars.els-cdn.com/content/image/1-s2.0-S0023643808000790-gr1.jpg His circuit diagram could be considered an electric model of force interaction at the atomic scale within the Ecat's fuel. harry On Tue, May 28, 2013 at 9:09 PM, Andrew andrew...@att.net wrote: ** Let's make sure I understand these 4 plots. I understand your diagram thus: The blue square wave goes through your toy model and emerges as the green double exponential. The blue triangular wave goes through your toy model and emerges as the green curve that looks very like the power curve in the report. The toy model describes a thermal simulation which translates electrical input to the device to radiant power output. OK so far? Assuming yes, here's what I think you've shown. The control box consumes power as a square wave (which is what the report measures on the input side), and outputs a triangular wave to the device. The device's output power profile (radiant heat) comes out as per the report. Bazinga. The only problem is that the cable between the control box and the device contains secrets. That's your next reverse-engineering mission :) Andrew - Original Message - From: Alan Fletcher a...@well.com To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Tuesday, May 28, 2013 5:37 PM Subject: Re: [Vo]:Spice model explains eCat non-exponential waveform, supports David Roberson's linear-response theory From: Andrew andrew...@att.net Sent: Tuesday, May 28, 2013 4:53:45 PM That's a nice piece of reverse engineering - Kudos. My only issue with it is the plot in the report, which definitely shows square waves. Mind you, these were measured on the input side of the control box. So it's possible you've uncovered a secret about the actual drive waveform. The square waves are the INPUT stimulus. The wavy line (eg plot 8) is the OUTPUT power. But the general shape will be similar. (I displayed voltage ... equivalent to temperature. I still have lots to do.
Re: [Vo]:Spice model explains eCat non-exponential waveform, supports David Roberson's linear-response theory
I think you are bluffing. harry On Wed, May 29, 2013 at 12:59 AM, Andrew andrew...@att.net wrote: ** It's a capacitor in parallel with a resistor. I am underwhelmed. Andrew - Original Message - *From:* Harry Veeder hveeder...@gmail.com *To:* vortex-l@eskimo.com *Sent:* Tuesday, May 28, 2013 9:55 PM *Subject:* Re: [Vo]:Spice model explains eCat non-exponential waveform, supports David Roberson's linear-response theory The diagram reminds me of constructions consisting of springs and dashpots in series and parallel which are used to model viscoelastic materials. see e.g. http://gertrude-old.case.edu/276/materials/5.fig/05.htm6.gif http://ars.els-cdn.com/content/image/1-s2.0-S0023643808000790-gr1.jpg His circuit diagram could be considered an electric model of force interaction at the atomic scale within the Ecat's fuel. harry On Tue, May 28, 2013 at 9:09 PM, Andrew andrew...@att.net wrote: ** Let's make sure I understand these 4 plots. I understand your diagram thus: The blue square wave goes through your toy model and emerges as the green double exponential. The blue triangular wave goes through your toy model and emerges as the green curve that looks very like the power curve in the report. The toy model describes a thermal simulation which translates electrical input to the device to radiant power output. OK so far? Assuming yes, here's what I think you've shown. The control box consumes power as a square wave (which is what the report measures on the input side), and outputs a triangular wave to the device. The device's output power profile (radiant heat) comes out as per the report. Bazinga. The only problem is that the cable between the control box and the device contains secrets. That's your next reverse-engineering mission :) Andrew - Original Message - From: Alan Fletcher a...@well.com To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Tuesday, May 28, 2013 5:37 PM Subject: Re: [Vo]:Spice model explains eCat non-exponential waveform, supports David Roberson's linear-response theory From: Andrew andrew...@att.net Sent: Tuesday, May 28, 2013 4:53:45 PM That's a nice piece of reverse engineering - Kudos. My only issue with it is the plot in the report, which definitely shows square waves. Mind you, these were measured on the input side of the control box. So it's possible you've uncovered a secret about the actual drive waveform. The square waves are the INPUT stimulus. The wavy line (eg plot 8) is the OUTPUT power. But the general shape will be similar. (I displayed voltage ... equivalent to temperature. I still have lots to do.
Re: [Vo]:Spice model explains eCat non-exponential waveform, supports David Roberson's linear-response theory
Please read what I write. I drew an analogy between the two types of circuits diagrams. Harry On Wed, May 29, 2013 at 1:13 AM, Andrew andrew...@att.net wrote: ** I think you are ridiculously irrational. *Look at the circuit diagram*. What precisely is wrong with you? That you are not an EE and cannot interpret the funny symbols? Good grief. There sure are some ripe steamers on this list. Roberson was bad enough. Then there's ...ah fergeddit. Andrew - Original Message - *From:* Harry Veeder hveeder...@gmail.com *To:* vortex-l@eskimo.com *Sent:* Tuesday, May 28, 2013 10:08 PM *Subject:* Re: [Vo]:Spice model explains eCat non-exponential waveform, supports David Roberson's linear-response theory I think you are bluffing. harry On Wed, May 29, 2013 at 12:59 AM, Andrew andrew...@att.net wrote: ** It's a capacitor in parallel with a resistor. I am underwhelmed. Andrew - Original Message - *From:* Harry Veeder hveeder...@gmail.com *To:* vortex-l@eskimo.com *Sent:* Tuesday, May 28, 2013 9:55 PM *Subject:* Re: [Vo]:Spice model explains eCat non-exponential waveform, supports David Roberson's linear-response theory The diagram reminds me of constructions consisting of springs and dashpots in series and parallel which are used to model viscoelastic materials. see e.g. http://gertrude-old.case.edu/276/materials/5.fig/05.htm6.gif http://ars.els-cdn.com/content/image/1-s2.0-S0023643808000790-gr1.jpg His circuit diagram could be considered an electric model of force interaction at the atomic scale within the Ecat's fuel. harry On Tue, May 28, 2013 at 9:09 PM, Andrew andrew...@att.net wrote: ** Let's make sure I understand these 4 plots. I understand your diagram thus: The blue square wave goes through your toy model and emerges as the green double exponential. The blue triangular wave goes through your toy model and emerges as the green curve that looks very like the power curve in the report. The toy model describes a thermal simulation which translates electrical input to the device to radiant power output. OK so far? Assuming yes, here's what I think you've shown. The control box consumes power as a square wave (which is what the report measures on the input side), and outputs a triangular wave to the device. The device's output power profile (radiant heat) comes out as per the report. Bazinga. The only problem is that the cable between the control box and the device contains secrets. That's your next reverse-engineering mission :) Andrew - Original Message - From: Alan Fletcher a...@well.com To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Tuesday, May 28, 2013 5:37 PM Subject: Re: [Vo]:Spice model explains eCat non-exponential waveform, supports David Roberson's linear-response theory From: Andrew andrew...@att.net Sent: Tuesday, May 28, 2013 4:53:45 PM That's a nice piece of reverse engineering - Kudos. My only issue with it is the plot in the report, which definitely shows square waves. Mind you, these were measured on the input side of the control box. So it's possible you've uncovered a secret about the actual drive waveform. The square waves are the INPUT stimulus. The wavy line (eg plot 8) is the OUTPUT power. But the general shape will be similar. (I displayed voltage ... equivalent to temperature. I still have lots to do.
Re: [Vo]:Spice model explains eCat non-exponential waveform, supports David Roberson's linear-response theory
dave, I am not offended. I find his reaction kinda funny. On this list we are allowed to think outside our respective disciplines... or self-disciplines ;-) harry On Wed, May 29, 2013 at 1:29 AM, David Roberson dlrober...@aol.com wrote: Harry, please do not be offended by that guy. Remember, I was not able to teach him elementary electronic theory. Dave -Original Message- From: Harry Veeder hveeder...@gmail.com To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Wed, May 29, 2013 1:19 am Subject: Re: [Vo]:Spice model explains eCat non-exponential waveform, supports David Roberson's linear-response theory Please read what I write. I drew an analogy between the two types of circuits diagrams. Harry On Wed, May 29, 2013 at 1:13 AM, Andrew andrew...@att.net wrote: ** I think you are ridiculously irrational. *Look at the circuit diagram*. What precisely is wrong with you? That you are not an EE and cannot interpret the funny symbols? Good grief. There sure are some ripe steamers on this list. Roberson was bad enough. Then there's ...ah fergeddit. Andrew - Original Message - *From:* Harry Veeder hveeder...@gmail.com *To:* vortex-l@eskimo.com *Sent:* Tuesday, May 28, 2013 10:08 PM *Subject:* Re: [Vo]:Spice model explains eCat non-exponential waveform, supports David Roberson's linear-response theory I think you are bluffing. harry On Wed, May 29, 2013 at 12:59 AM, Andrew andrew...@att.net wrote: ** It's a capacitor in parallel with a resistor. I am underwhelmed. Andrew - Original Message - *From:* Harry Veeder hveeder...@gmail.com *To:* vortex-l@eskimo.com *Sent:* Tuesday, May 28, 2013 9:55 PM *Subject:* Re: [Vo]:Spice model explains eCat non-exponential waveform, supports David Roberson's linear-response theory The diagram reminds me of constructions consisting of springs and dashpots in series and parallel which are used to model viscoelastic materials. see e.g. http://gertrude-old.case.edu/276/materials/5.fig/05.htm6.gif http://ars.els-cdn.com/content/image/1-s2.0-S0023643808000790-gr1.jpg His circuit diagram could be considered an electric model of force interaction at the atomic scale within the Ecat's fuel. harry On Tue, May 28, 2013 at 9:09 PM, Andrew andrew...@att.net wrote: ** Let's make sure I understand these 4 plots. I understand your diagram thus: The blue square wave goes through your toy model and emerges as the green double exponential. The blue triangular wave goes through your toy model and emerges as the green curve that looks very like the power curve in the report. The toy model describes a thermal simulation which translates electrical input to the device to radiant power output. OK so far? Assuming yes, here's what I think you've shown. The control box consumes power as a square wave (which is what the report measures on the input side), and outputs a triangular wave to the device. The device's output power profile (radiant heat) comes out as per the report. Bazinga. The only problem is that the cable between the control box and the device contains secrets. That's your next reverse-engineering mission :) Andrew - Original Message - From: Alan Fletcher a...@well.com To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Tuesday, May 28, 2013 5:37 PM Subject: Re: [Vo]:Spice model explains eCat non-exponential waveform, supports David Roberson's linear-response theory From: Andrew andrew...@att.net Sent: Tuesday, May 28, 2013 4:53:45 PM That's a nice piece of reverse engineering - Kudos. My only issue with it is the plot in the report, which definitely shows square waves. Mind you, these were measured on the input side of the control box. So it's possible you've uncovered a secret about the actual drive waveform. The square waves are the INPUT stimulus. The wavy line (eg plot 8) is the OUTPUT power. But the general shape will be similar. (I displayed voltage ... equivalent to temperature. I still have lots to do.
Re: [Vo]:Isotope separation technology can be improved
On Sat, May 25, 2013 at 10:30 AM, Edmund Storms stor...@ix.netcom.comwrote: On May 24, 2013, at 10:38 PM, Harry Veeder wrote: The process you have described has the characteristics of a ratchet. Curiously, Jones used the ratchet metaphor in another post where he characterised the effect of modulating the input on the cell. Yes Harry, this can be called a ratchet. All kinds of ratchets exist in Nature. The challenge is to find the cause. In this case, the nuclei have to communicate before they have fused into a single nuclei. The form of htat communication is unknown, but very important. Once discovered, this will get someone the Nobel prize. Imagine the following sequence. The nuclei are held apart by an electron bond, which is normally the case. Once formed, this structure starts to resonate so that the two nuclei get periodically closer together. As they approach each other, information is exchanged between the nuclei that tells them they have too much mass -energy for being this close. After all, if they were in contact, the excess mass-energy would be 24 MeV if the nuclei were deuterons. But they are not in contact yet, so that the excess mass-energy is less than the maximum. Nevertheless, this excess must be dissipated, which each nuclei does by emitting a photon having 1/2 of the excess energy for the distance achieved. After the photons are emitted, the resonance moves the two nuclei apart, but this time not as far as previously the case. The next resonance cycle again brings the nuclei close, but this time they come closer than before, again with emission of two photons. This cycle repeats until all energy has been dissipated and the two nuclei are in contact. The intervening electron, that was necessary to the process, is sucked into the final nucleus. Because very little energy is released by entry of the electron, the neutrino, if it is emitted at all, has very little energy available to carry away. This process, I suggest, is the unique and previously unknown phenomenon that CF has revealed. Ed, Typically we associate quantization with attractive forces as is the case with an electron and a proton in a hydrogen atom, but your system involves quantization with repulsive forces. If pushing an electron and proton apart can happen in steps through the absorption of photons, I guess it follows that pushing together of protons can happen in steps through the emission of photons. However, in the former situation the pushing apart is the effect but the absorption of the photons is the cause, whereas in the latter situation the pushing together is the cause, and the emission of photons is effector is it? ;-) If it is the cause, then the emission of photons serves to pull the protons together. Harry PS. Wikipedia says the fractional quantum hall effect also involves quantized states of repulsion although they are between electrons rather than protons and deuterons.
Re: [Vo]:Isotope separation technology can be improved
I experience momentum exchange as a push, but also don't think the cause of everything must be explained in terms that are consistent with momentum exchange. However, I am well aware that this has been a dogma of physics for hundreds of years. Harry On Mon, May 27, 2013 at 2:24 AM, Andrew andrew...@att.net wrote: ** Quantum mechanics governs both attraction and repulsion between charges. Ax far as the maths is concerned, it's just a sign change. If you come at this as an interaction characterised by exchange of quanta, then (via a momentum model) only repulsion makes intuitive sense. But that's OK - QM is nothing if not unintuitive. Andrew - Original Message - *From:* Harry Veeder hveeder...@gmail.com *To:* vortex-l@eskimo.com *Sent:* Sunday, May 26, 2013 11:17 PM *Subject:* Re: [Vo]:Isotope separation technology can be improved On Sat, May 25, 2013 at 10:30 AM, Edmund Storms stor...@ix.netcom.comwrote: On May 24, 2013, at 10:38 PM, Harry Veeder wrote: The process you have described has the characteristics of a ratchet. Curiously, Jones used the ratchet metaphor in another post where he characterised the effect of modulating the input on the cell. Yes Harry, this can be called a ratchet. All kinds of ratchets exist in Nature. The challenge is to find the cause. In this case, the nuclei have to communicate before they have fused into a single nuclei. The form of htat communication is unknown, but very important. Once discovered, this will get someone the Nobel prize. Imagine the following sequence. The nuclei are held apart by an electron bond, which is normally the case. Once formed, this structure starts to resonate so that the two nuclei get periodically closer together. As they approach each other, information is exchanged between the nuclei that tells them they have too much mass -energy for being this close. After all, if they were in contact, the excess mass-energy would be 24 MeV if the nuclei were deuterons. But they are not in contact yet, so that the excess mass-energy is less than the maximum. Nevertheless, this excess must be dissipated, which each nuclei does by emitting a photon having 1/2 of the excess energy for the distance achieved. After the photons are emitted, the resonance moves the two nuclei apart, but this time not as far as previously the case. The next resonance cycle again brings the nuclei close, but this time they come closer than before, again with emission of two photons. This cycle repeats until all energy has been dissipated and the two nuclei are in contact. The intervening electron, that was necessary to the process, is sucked into the final nucleus. Because very little energy is released by entry of the electron, the neutrino, if it is emitted at all, has very little energy available to carry away. This process, I suggest, is the unique and previously unknown phenomenon that CF has revealed. Ed, Typically we associate quantization with attractive forces as is the case with an electron and a proton in a hydrogen atom, but your system involves quantization with repulsive forces. If pushing an electron and proton apart can happen in steps through the absorption of photons, I guess it follows that pushing together of protons can happen in steps through the emission of photons. However, in the former situation the pushing apart is the effect but the absorption of the photons is the cause, whereas in the latter situation the pushing together is the cause, and the emission of photons is effector is it? ;-) If it is the cause, then the emission of photons serves to pull the protons together. Harry PS. Wikipedia says the fractional quantum hall effect also involves quantized states of repulsion although they are between electrons rather than protons and deuterons.
Re: [Vo]:Synchronization
The tiny but regular oscillations of the platform enables the synchronisation. However I bet if you constantly nudge the platform the synchronisation will vanish. Harry On Mon, May 27, 2013 at 2:03 PM, David Roberson dlrober...@aol.com wrote: Best to keep these soldiers off of that long bridge. Very nice effect Terry. This appears to be a consequence of very high Q(low loss) and coupling between many resonators tuned to the same frequency. It has some interesting implications if a process like this actually occurs within a material. I have always given up on trying to figure how a zillion resonators in the form of atoms would interact, perhaps this offers guidance. Dave -Original Message- From: Terry Blanton hohlr...@gmail.com To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Mon, May 27, 2013 1:39 pm Subject: Re: [Vo]:Synchronization And in more complex systems: http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embeddedv=JWToUATLGzs Does this apply to items of current interest? On Mon, May 27, 2013 at 1:36 PM, Terry Blanton hohlr...@gmail.com wrote: How the world becomes lockstep: http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embeddedv=W1TMZASCR-I
Re: [Vo]:Ekstrom critique of Levi et al.
Andrew, remember the cop is a conservative estimate so it is just a coincidence that the numbers happen to have those ratios. Harry On Mon, May 27, 2013 at 3:15 PM, Andrew andrew...@att.net wrote: ** Ekstrom makes the same point as I have failed to make with Dave (and upon which nobody else here has raised concern). Here it is Plot 9 shows COP and the ON/OFF status of the resistor coils. Is it a coincidence that zero feeding for two thirds of the time results in COP=3, but constant feeding would yield COP=1?
Re: [Vo]:Ekstrom critique of Levi et al.
On Mon, May 27, 2013 at 5:44 PM, Joshua Cude joshua.c...@gmail.com wrote: But we have no idea what the emissivity of the paint used in the December test was, nor whether it was wavelength dependent. There may be a paint for which an assumption of emissivity of 1 greatly overestimates the power. A few measurements could have excluded this possibility. This book _Absorption and Scattering of Light by Small Particles_ says for a body to have an emissivity 1 it can't be much bigger than the wavelength it radiates. Futhermore, if the surface is covered with such bodies the surface emissivity will not be greater than one. Here is specific page where this is stated: http://tinyurl.com/o6gdvt9 Harry
Re: [Vo]:Ekstrom critique of Levi et al.
On Mon, May 27, 2013 at 7:04 PM, Joshua Cude joshua.c...@gmail.com wrote: On Mon, May 27, 2013 at 5:22 PM, Harry Veeder hveeder...@gmail.comwrote: On Mon, May 27, 2013 at 5:44 PM, Joshua Cude joshua.c...@gmail.comwrote: But we have no idea what the emissivity of the paint used in the December test was, nor whether it was wavelength dependent. There may be a paint for which an assumption of emissivity of 1 greatly overestimates the power. A few measurements could have excluded this possibility. This book _Absorption and Scattering of Light by Small Particles_ says for a body to have an emissivity 1 it can't be much bigger than the wavelength it radiates. I'm not suggesting emissivity greater than 1. I'm suggesting we don't know how the correction for a limited wavelength range goes for low emissivity (this could be answered with a bit of effort, or by an expert in the area), and more importantly, we don't know if the surface has a wavelength dependent emissivity, in which case, an assumption of unity could err on either side of the true value of the power depending on the particular dependence. If they take emissivity = 1 then they are assuming the worst value for emissivity at all wavelengths. How will a lower emissivity in any range lead to an over estimation of power? Harry
Re: [Vo]:Ekstrom critique of Levi et al.
On Mon, May 27, 2013 at 8:25 PM, Harry Veeder hveeder...@gmail.com wrote: On Mon, May 27, 2013 at 7:04 PM, Joshua Cude joshua.c...@gmail.comwrote: On Mon, May 27, 2013 at 5:22 PM, Harry Veeder hveeder...@gmail.comwrote: On Mon, May 27, 2013 at 5:44 PM, Joshua Cude joshua.c...@gmail.comwrote: But we have no idea what the emissivity of the paint used in the December test was, nor whether it was wavelength dependent. There may be a paint for which an assumption of emissivity of 1 greatly overestimates the power. A few measurements could have excluded this possibility. This book _Absorption and Scattering of Light by Small Particles_ says for a body to have an emissivity 1 it can't be much bigger than the wavelength it radiates. I'm not suggesting emissivity greater than 1. I'm suggesting we don't know how the correction for a limited wavelength range goes for low emissivity (this could be answered with a bit of effort, or by an expert in the area), and more importantly, we don't know if the surface has a wavelength dependent emissivity, in which case, an assumption of unity could err on either side of the true value of the power depending on the particular dependence. If they take emissivity = 1 then they are assuming the worst value for emissivity at all wavelengths. How will a lower emissivity in any range lead to an over estimation of power? Harry Never mind. I see what you mean The power measurements are just as sloppy as the earlier ECat tests. I though it would be when I heard in April that they were measuring radiant power. Harry
[Vo]:Pekka Janhunen analysis supports the reported underestimation of radiated power
From a comment thread on e-catworld: http://www.e-catworld.com/2013/05/rossi-no-longer-controls-e-cat-business/ Pekka Janhunen on May 27, 2013 at 8:01 pm Off-topic for the thread: the question whether assuming emissivity equal to one indeed yields to underestimation of the radiated power. Now I think yes, but to deduce it one has to know something about the Optris PI-160 thermal camera. The specs of the camera say that its wavelength range is 7.5-13 microns. For relevant HotCat temperatures, this is on the long wavelength side of the Planck emission function (i.e. to the right from the peak in wavelength space). If the true emissivity is below unity, say 0.8, and one inputs 1.0 for the camera (as the testers did), the camera basically integrates the emission in its wavelength band and then finds a source temperature which, when multiplied by the assumed emissivity 1.0, yields the same integral. Because the real emissivity is smaller, this yields an underestimation of the temperature, as the testers said. The total radiative emission (integral of Planck function over all wavelengths) is emissivity*sigma*T^4. The real emissivity is less than unity which tends to make the true emitted power smaller than the estimated one. But the real temperature is higher which causes a reverse effect. Which effect wins is not immediately clear. I tested it numerically for temperatures 300-400 C used in the test (i.e. I numerically integrated the Planck function in the range 7.5-13 um and then adjusted the source temperature until it matches the real one; the full story is a bit more complicated but this is the general idea). It is indeed so that with these numbers, the net effect is underestimation of the emitted power. The result is understandable, I think, in the following way. If the camera measures an integral of the emission function above the peak, underestimation of temperature moves the real Planck function towards shorter wavelengths i.e. further away from the camera’s wavelength range. Thus the camera sees a smaller fraction of the radiated infrared energy than it thinks based on its own idea of the source temperature which is based on assuming epsilon=1 instead of the correct value. The numerical integration also shows that if the camera’s wavelength range would be below the peak, overestimation of the emitted power would result. But that regime is never entered in this case because it would correspond to only room temperature or such. If the true epsilon is 0.8 and true temperature 400 C, I got an underestimation factor of 0.889 for the emitted power. I.e., the underestimation is not likely to be large, but it is anyway of the correct sign as the testers asserted.
Re: [Vo]:Ekstrom critique of Levi et al.
On Tue, May 28, 2013 at 12:04 AM, Joshua Cude joshua.c...@gmail.com wrote: On Mon, May 27, 2013 at 7:18 PM, MarkI-ZeroPoint zeropo...@charter.netwrote: Josh questions: “I'm talking about the December test, when a different paint was used. I don't think we know anything about the emissivity of that paint, nor its dependence on wavelength.” ** ** You could just as easily do a 30 second search and FIND THE ANSWER! ** ** Since we don't know what the paint was, I don't think we can find the answer. I found a black coating with an emissivity of .08 to .25. I agree, most black paints are much higher, but Rossi may have spent more than 30 seconds to find something that suited his purpose. is the black coating you found durable at the measured temperatures? harry
Re: [Vo]:Ekstrom critique of Levi et al.
David, As Joshua has suggested, the authors of the report should consult with an expert in spectral analysis and include his remarks in their report. harry On Tue, May 28, 2013 at 12:22 AM, David Roberson dlrober...@aol.com wrote: The question of the emissivity seems to keep rearing its head. One thing is certain and that is that the device looks very black within the visible spectrum at low temperatures. I assume that this suggests that it approaches a black body within that range, but I suppose that this may not be the case in the IR region. Is there evidence that the emissivity changes with temperature? I have not heard of this behavior before, but some paints might have a problem. Has anyone found a reference to the actual paint used by Rossi for this test to determine how it functions as a emitter? Is it possible to scan the surface of the ECAT with some instrument to actually measure the emissivity just prior to the next test if is is to be tested in the same manner? What can the future testers do to enhance their ability to get accurate results? Joshua, if you were going to be a member of the test gang, what would you do to keep the skeptics at bay? Put yourself in the tester's shoes for a moment instead of casting stones. How much confidence should be placed in the white emission dots? Apparently they correlate well with a thermal probe place upon the test unit. What is the chance that Rossi would allow the test scientists an opportunity to spray some of their own paint upon a portion of the device for comparisons? This might only require paint over a small area. Does anyone offer additional suggestions to improve the acceptance of the future test data? Dave -Original Message- From: Joshua Cude joshua.c...@gmail.com To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Tue, May 28, 2013 12:00 am Subject: Re: [Vo]:Ekstrom critique of Levi et al. On Mon, May 27, 2013 at 7:41 PM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.comwrote: Eric Walker eric.wal...@gmail.com wrote: Joshua's position is that in the present measurements, the emissivity is implicitly taken into account twice when using an IR camera, and that in assuming that a high epsilon is conservative (in the first calculation), people are neglecting to see what effect it has on the calculated power in the second calculation. For the fifth time, the authors addressed this! It is shown right there in Fig. 7. The camera software computes higher temperatures. The higher the temperature, the higher the power (all else being equal, which of course it is, since we are only changing one parameter). It's not all else equal. You're simply not paying attention. The emissivity is lower. So the higher temperature contributes to higher power, but the lower emissivity to lower power. The two effects work in opposite directions. Which one is bigger depends on the particular wavelength and temperature. It could not be shown more clearly! With this camera, when you lower the emissivity parameter, the computed temperature goes up. Right. No one disagrees with that. Cude asserts that if they lowered it all the way to 0.2 the temperature might be computed lower. No. You simply don't understand what I assert. You're not thinking about it carefully enough. Get Fletcher to help. I'm saying that while the temperature goes up, the effect on the power *including the lower emissivity* may be computed lower, depending on the effective exponent used to compute the temperature. Here's a simplified version of the math, ignoring ambient temperature and the temperature of the camera, since the point at issue is independent of those: The power measured by the camera is assumed to be given by P = C*e*T^n, where C is a constant, P is measured power within a range of wavelengths and n is the effective exponent determined by this range of wavelengths (which presumably depends on temperature). If the frequency range is the entire spectrum n = 4, as in the S-B equation. Solving for T gives T = (P/Ce)^(1/n) Now when you calculate power, you use Pcalc = C*e*T^4. You can see that if n = 4, Pcalc = P for any value of e. But if n is not equal to 4 as is the case in reality, to correct for the finite wavelength range, then Pcalc can differ from P, as it does in the 2 examples used in the paper. So it depends on what value of n gets used, and it may be very different when e=0.2. It should be possible to figure this out from the Planck law, but there is no mention of this in the paper, and no test to see what temperature gets computed for a lower emissivity. In any case, the correction only applies to grey bodies, where the emissivity is constant and there is no telling what the temperature means if its not. I don't know (and frankly doubt) that this is the problem, but all I'm saying is that it's not as simple as you or the authors have argued, and in the case of the
Re: [Vo]:The inanity of the hidden input power hypothesis
No knowledge of the waveform would be required if a circuit breaker were used which trips if more power is getting in than Rossi claims. Harry On Sun, May 26, 2013 at 3:28 AM, Andrew andrew...@att.net wrote: ** Probably; in any case, it would be an improvement. The majority of the paper is taken up by detailed calculations on the thermal emissions from the device - i.e. on the output side. On re-reading the paper, I'm struck by a detail from the March 116 hour test. When the input is on, the power supplied *exactly matches* (up to error bars) the output power, namely about 820 W. I for one find this a curious data point. It's stated that there's a 35% duty cycle on the input, and for that reason alone we get an over-unity COP result. The TRIAC-based control box appears to have two modes - auto and manual (the paper makes no attempt to help us understand this). In auto mode, there's a switchover to pulsed mode but it's unclear what triggers this. I can only assume it's due to sensing the resistor temperature indirectly via a resistance estimate. In manual mode, the authors describe setting the power level, so presumably this is also an externally available control on the box. But who knows, really? And what is really happening during the OFF state of the waveform? If power is being snuck into the device here, then the COP = 1, and there is no magic. Note that, if this be the case, then it doesn't matter if you run the device for a day or a year; you will always measure over-unity COP even though the real COP is unity. When they describe the dummy measurements, they mention placing the meter in single phase mode directly across the resistor feed wires (it's single phase for the March test). They therefore have access to that place electronically. So in principle, they could have attached a spectrum analyser and a scope. But they didn't, because it wasn't allowed in pulsed mode; they were only allowed to do it in manual mode. Andrew - Original Message - *From:* Eric Walker eric.wal...@gmail.com *To:* vortex-l@eskimo.com *Sent:* Sunday, May 26, 2013 12:02 AM *Subject:* Re: [Vo]:The inanity of the hidden input power hypothesis On Sat, May 25, 2013 at 11:54 PM, Andrew andrew...@att.net wrote: ** The *only* way to convince the scientific community is via evidence. They will be carrying out a much longer experiment in the future. If they were to have an electrical engineer take a close look at the input power across the entire range of interest and rule out input fake, after which they were to report results similar to the ones that were reported this time around, would this be considered adequate evidence for a prima facie conclusion that Rossi's device is producing excess heat? Eric
Re: [Vo]:The inanity of the hidden input power hypothesis
I am not an EE...i'm not even a electrician...but I thought a fuse blows when a certain level of power passes through it. harry On Sun, May 26, 2013 at 6:11 AM, Andrew andrew...@att.net wrote: ** What about a giraffe wearing a beret? Did you mean for that to make sense? - Original Message - *From:* Harry Veeder hveeder...@gmail.com *To:* vortex-l@eskimo.com *Sent:* Sunday, May 26, 2013 3:08 AM *Subject:* Re: [Vo]:The inanity of the hidden input power hypothesis what about a fuse? or a light bulb(s)? harry On Sun, May 26, 2013 at 4:20 AM, Andrew andrew...@att.net wrote: ** Nice idea in principle, but if the power actually supplied lies outside the frequency range of the measuring equipment, then this won't work. Come to think of it, are there any EE's on this list except for Duncan and myself? Andrew - Original Message - *From:* Harry Veeder hveeder...@gmail.com *To:* vortex-l@eskimo.com *Sent:* Sunday, May 26, 2013 1:10 AM *Subject:* Re: [Vo]:The inanity of the hidden input power hypothesis No knowledge of the waveform would be required if a circuit breaker were used which trips if more power is getting in than Rossi claims. Harry On Sun, May 26, 2013 at 3:28 AM, Andrew andrew...@att.net wrote: ** Probably; in any case, it would be an improvement. The majority of the paper is taken up by detailed calculations on the thermal emissions from the device - i.e. on the output side. On re-reading the paper, I'm struck by a detail from the March 116 hour test. When the input is on, the power supplied *exactly matches* (up to error bars) the output power, namely about 820 W. I for one find this a curious data point. It's stated that there's a 35% duty cycle on the input, and for that reason alone we get an over-unity COP result. The TRIAC-based control box appears to have two modes - auto and manual (the paper makes no attempt to help us understand this). In auto mode, there's a switchover to pulsed mode but it's unclear what triggers this. I can only assume it's due to sensing the resistor temperature indirectly via a resistance estimate. In manual mode, the authors describe setting the power level, so presumably this is also an externally available control on the box. But who knows, really? And what is really happening during the OFF state of the waveform? If power is being snuck into the device here, then the COP = 1, and there is no magic. Note that, if this be the case, then it doesn't matter if you run the device for a day or a year; you will always measure over-unity COP even though the real COP is unity. When they describe the dummy measurements, they mention placing the meter in single phase mode directly across the resistor feed wires (it's single phase for the March test). They therefore have access to that place electronically. So in principle, they could have attached a spectrum analyser and a scope. But they didn't, because it wasn't allowed in pulsed mode; they were only allowed to do it in manual mode.
[Vo]:Racing Towards Very Different Hydrogen Futures
Racing Towards Very Different Hydrogen Futures Yet, while Aston Martin and the Rapide S were preparing to make history in Germany, south of the Alps in Ferrara, Italy, just below a bend in the River Po, in a nondescript industrial park, a potentially far more historic test of hydrogen technology took place in March of this year. http://www.evworld.com/focus.cfm?cid=147 Harry
Re: [Vo]:The inanity of the hidden input power hypothesis
Maybe a series of fuses with different ratings would work? Your way of reasoning is based on the assumption that Rossi is acting in bad faith. Instead you should reason from the good faith assumption that Rossi has a legitimate reason for keeping the waveform secret. On the other hand, you have legitimate concerns that more power might be getting in. With your knowledge you should be able to devise a solution that would allay your concerns and respect Rossi wishes at the same time. Harry On Sun, May 26, 2013 at 6:28 AM, Andrew andrew...@att.net wrote: ** A fuse blows when a certain *current* passes through it. P = V I cos (theta); *power is voltage x current x power factor*. Thus you can supply high power at low current if you use high voltage, which is how a thin wire can be used to sneak in high power. Jed made the same mistake as you, thinking that you need high current to get high power; it's not necessarily the case. Incidentally, I've known all this kind of stuff since age 9, when I began building radios. The other aspect of the power meter measurements by these physicists is the shape factor, which has been mentioned here. It was apparently out of range of this instrument. It makes perfect sense that, since the majority of folks here seem not to be EE's, then all the possibilities for fraud on the input side simply don't appear within the scope of their understanding. That's just the way it is. And I suspect that the testers were similarly cognitively constrained. Andrew - Original Message - *From:* Harry Veeder hveeder...@gmail.com *To:* vortex-l@eskimo.com *Sent:* Sunday, May 26, 2013 3:15 AM *Subject:* Re: [Vo]:The inanity of the hidden input power hypothesis I am not an EE...i'm not even a electrician...but I thought a fuse blows when a certain level of power passes through it. harry On Sun, May 26, 2013 at 6:11 AM, Andrew andrew...@att.net wrote: ** What about a giraffe wearing a beret? Did you mean for that to make sense? - Original Message - *From:* Harry Veeder hveeder...@gmail.com *To:* vortex-l@eskimo.com *Sent:* Sunday, May 26, 2013 3:08 AM *Subject:* Re: [Vo]:The inanity of the hidden input power hypothesis what about a fuse? or a light bulb(s)? harry On Sun, May 26, 2013 at 4:20 AM, Andrew andrew...@att.net wrote: ** Nice idea in principle, but if the power actually supplied lies outside the frequency range of the measuring equipment, then this won't work. Come to think of it, are there any EE's on this list except for Duncan and myself? Andrew - Original Message - *From:* Harry Veeder hveeder...@gmail.com *To:* vortex-l@eskimo.com *Sent:* Sunday, May 26, 2013 1:10 AM *Subject:* Re: [Vo]:The inanity of the hidden input power hypothesis No knowledge of the waveform would be required if a circuit breaker were used which trips if more power is getting in than Rossi claims. Harry On Sun, May 26, 2013 at 3:28 AM, Andrew andrew...@att.net wrote: ** Probably; in any case, it would be an improvement. The majority of the paper is taken up by detailed calculations on the thermal emissions from the device - i.e. on the output side. On re-reading the paper, I'm struck by a detail from the March 116 hour test. When the input is on, the power supplied *exactly matches* (up to error bars) the output power, namely about 820 W. I for one find this a curious data point. It's stated that there's a 35% duty cycle on the input, and for that reason alone we get an over-unity COP result. The TRIAC-based control box appears to have two modes - auto and manual (the paper makes no attempt to help us understand this). In auto mode, there's a switchover to pulsed mode but it's unclear what triggers this. I can only assume it's due to sensing the resistor temperature indirectly via a resistance estimate. In manual mode, the authors describe setting the power level, so presumably this is also an externally available control on the box. But who knows, really? And what is really happening during the OFF state of the waveform? If power is being snuck into the device here, then the COP = 1, and there is no magic. Note that, if this be the case, then it doesn't matter if you run the device for a day or a year; you will always measure over-unity COP even though the real COP is unity. When they describe the dummy measurements, they mention placing the meter in single phase mode directly across the resistor feed wires (it's single phase for the March test). They therefore have access to that place electronically. So in principle, they could have attached a spectrum analyser and a scope. But they didn't, because it wasn't allowed in pulsed mode; they were only allowed to do it in manual mode.
Re: [Vo]:Re: Constant temperature Operation of ECAT?
You are neglecting the I-can't-see-inside sceptics. Harry On Sun, May 26, 2013 at 7:52 PM, Andrew andrew...@att.net wrote: ** Seems to me that if active cooling control is used as the only control input, thus satisfying the unplug it! sceptics (and I'm one of them), then it only has a chance of working if there is good thermal contact and good thermal conductivity and substantial enough heat capacity in the active cooling implementation. I don't know why this is supposed to be hard. Gaming PC's of the high-end variety use this all the time. Prompt temperature feedback to the cooling pump is all that's needed, plus a simple PID controller. This is very well-known technology.
Re: [Vo]:QA with Hanno Essen on recent E-Cat test
commercial free?! ;-) harry On Sun, May 26, 2013 at 10:37 PM, Daniel Rocha danieldi...@gmail.comwrote: 6 months of live streaming! 2013/5/26 pagnu...@htdconnect.com Courtesy of Pure Energy Systems News - QA With Hanno Essen Regarding Recent E-Cat Test http://www.pureenergyblog.com/2013/05/26/1232/8502322_qa-with-hanno-essena-regarding-recent-e-cat-test/ -- Daniel Rocha - RJ danieldi...@gmail.com
Re: [Vo]:How to use a clamp on ammeter
I didn't know. One of the suggested tricks involved two clamp on ammeters and three wires and a hidden circuit, but as you say three clamp on ammeters were used - one for each wire - so that particular trick would not work. harry On Sat, May 25, 2013 at 8:42 PM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com wrote: I realize that most people here know how to use a clamp on ammeter, but there does seem to be some confusion. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:Why did Rossi prevent detailed measurement of the power input?
Axil, This addresses an earlier post you made. The boiling point of nickel is about 2700 C and the melting is about 1400 C. Ecat fuel never reaches temperatures close to the boiling point so you don't need to suppose bubble formation is suppressed because the fuel behaving a like a superfluid. harry On Fri, May 24, 2013 at 6:34 PM, Axil Axil janap...@gmail.com wrote: The heat distribution inside the cat is superfluidic. On Fri, May 24, 2013 at 6:04 PM, MarkI-ZeroPoint zeropo...@charter.netwrote: If we’re talking about ON/OFF mag-fields making it inside the reactor, and the presence of very small ferromagnetic particles, I could easily see the particles becoming aligned with the field, and **equally spaced** and perhaps even suspended(?)… we all know that geometry has something to do with it! ** ** Man, all sorts of images are flooding in now… like, do NAEs within the aligned/equally-spaced/suspended particles undergo the reaction, but then one has to let them all fall to the floor to distribute the heat to reactor walls? ** ** -Mark Iverson ** ** *From:* Jones Beene [mailto:jone...@pacbell.net] *Sent:* Friday, May 24, 2013 2:54 PM *To:* vortex-l@eskimo.com *Subject:* RE: [Vo]:Why did Rossi prevent detailed measurement of the power input? ** ** I think we are getting somewhere in this investigation by looking at the subtle and not so subtle effects of low frequency waves. ** ** A search of the Dardik superwave information shows that many of the carrier waves are low frequency. Some are very low. ** ** The classic example is the “rogue wave” in the Ocean which is not just subhertz but a few per year. ** ** And yes the trouble with “deconstructing Andre” is that he is fond of mixing truth, half-truth, and intentional decoy information… sometimes in the same sentence. ** ** ** ** *From:* David Roberson ** ** A steady state magnetic field will penetrate the stainless steel. A time changing one will be attenuated as eddy currents induced within the metal generate a reverse field that counters the source field to an extent that depends upon the rate of change of that field. The metal thickness is also crucial to the ultimate level of shielding.** ** Mark, as you say the changes in the PWM waveform that occur at a slow rate will find their way inside. I am not confident that this is a mechanism that Rossi uses, but it might have some effect. It appears strange that Rossi does not wish to reveal the resistor drive waveforms. Perhaps he is using a moderate frequency drive signal for some reason that we are unaware of, only he knows. One thing is obvious, he likes to keep us guessing. Dave -Original Message- From: MarkI-ZeroPoint zeropo...@charter.net To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Fri, May 24, 2013 5:18 pm Subject: RE: [Vo]:Why did Rossi prevent detailed measurement of the power input? Mr. Lynn, You’re a bit too quick on the trigger… Let me repeat myself, a **magnetic** field WILL penetrate most austenitic stainless steels. However, I know that a static mag-field is not the same as the magnetic component of an oscillating EM field, so I called a colleague who worked for Varian for 40 years, and who has a lot of magnetics expertise. He said that static, and possibly VLF, magnetic fields will penetrate nonmagnetic stainless steels, but that the magnetic component of EM waves of any significant frequency will probably not. Another consideration, and I think this was mentioned in the Collective two (or was it three) years ago right after Rossi’s first January demonstration, is that when the electrical resistance heaters are energized (with DC), they will generate a mag-fld around them. This can probably be considered a static mag-field, and will likely penetrate the non-magnetic 310 stainless cylinder, so the internal core of the reactor may very well feel this PWM-modulated field. -Mark Iverson *From:* Robert Lynn [mailto:robert.gulliver.l...@gmail.comrobert.gulliver.l...@gmail.com?] *Sent:* Friday, May 24, 2013 10:57 AM *To:* vortex-l@eskimo.com *Subject:* Re: [Vo]:Why did Rossi prevent detailed measurement of the power input? To repeat myself, there will be no significant em field penetrating the reactor. So don't try to fool yourself that there is some special secret about using em fields to instigate or promote the reaction, also Rossi has claimed in past to have it running using gas heating. Rossi's setup only allows for heat to get in. The skin depth of the 3mm thick SS vessel will exclude all fields above probably about 100-200Hz entirely, and will greatly attenuate lower frequencies as well (DC would get through) but the surrounding magnetic fields in the resistors themselves are
Re: [Vo]:Why did Rossi prevent detailed measurement of the power input?
On Fri, May 24, 2013 at 7:23 PM, Axil Axil janap...@gmail.com wrote: The boiling point of nickel is not related to superfluidity. The polaritron condensate is where superfluidity come from. Any condensate will be superfluidic in the volume that it covers. I know, but in the other post you said a superfluid can't boil (i.e. produce bubbles) when heated. My point is ordinary fluids don't bubble either until they reach their boiling point, so an absence of bubbles doesn't prove a fluid is a superfluid. Harry On Fri, May 24, 2013 at 7:01 PM, Harry Veeder hveeder...@gmail.comwrote: Axil, This addresses an earlier post you made. The boiling point of nickel is about 2700 C and the melting is about 1400 C. Ecat fuel never reaches temperatures close to the boiling point so you don't need to suppose bubble formation is suppressed because the fuel behaving a like a superfluid. harry On Fri, May 24, 2013 at 6:34 PM, Axil Axil janap...@gmail.com wrote: The heat distribution inside the cat is superfluidic. On Fri, May 24, 2013 at 6:04 PM, MarkI-ZeroPoint zeropo...@charter.netwrote: If we’re talking about ON/OFF mag-fields making it inside the reactor, and the presence of very small ferromagnetic particles, I could easily see the particles becoming aligned with the field, and **equally spaced** and perhaps even suspended(?)… we all know that geometry has something to do with it! ** ** Man, all sorts of images are flooding in now… like, do NAEs within the aligned/equally-spaced/suspended particles undergo the reaction, but then one has to let them all fall to the floor to distribute the heat to reactor walls? ** ** -Mark Iverson ** ** *From:* Jones Beene [mailto:jone...@pacbell.net] *Sent:* Friday, May 24, 2013 2:54 PM *To:* vortex-l@eskimo.com *Subject:* RE: [Vo]:Why did Rossi prevent detailed measurement of the power input? ** ** I think we are getting somewhere in this investigation by looking at the subtle and not so subtle effects of low frequency waves. ** ** A search of the Dardik superwave information shows that many of the carrier waves are low frequency. Some are very low. ** ** The classic example is the “rogue wave” in the Ocean which is not just subhertz but a few per year. ** ** And yes the trouble with “deconstructing Andre” is that he is fond of mixing truth, half-truth, and intentional decoy information… sometimes in the same sentence. ** ** ** ** *From:* David Roberson ** ** A steady state magnetic field will penetrate the stainless steel. A time changing one will be attenuated as eddy currents induced within the metal generate a reverse field that counters the source field to an extent that depends upon the rate of change of that field. The metal thickness is also crucial to the ultimate level of shielding. Mark, as you say the changes in the PWM waveform that occur at a slow rate will find their way inside. I am not confident that this is a mechanism that Rossi uses, but it might have some effect. It appears strange that Rossi does not wish to reveal the resistor drive waveforms. Perhaps he is using a moderate frequency drive signal for some reason that we are unaware of, only he knows. One thing is obvious, he likes to keep us guessing. Dave -Original Message- From: MarkI-ZeroPoint zeropo...@charter.net To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Fri, May 24, 2013 5:18 pm Subject: RE: [Vo]:Why did Rossi prevent detailed measurement of the power input? Mr. Lynn, You’re a bit too quick on the trigger… Let me repeat myself, a **magnetic** field WILL penetrate most austenitic stainless steels. However, I know that a static mag-field is not the same as the magnetic component of an oscillating EM field, so I called a colleague who worked for Varian for 40 years, and who has a lot of magnetics expertise. He said that static, and possibly VLF, magnetic fields will penetrate nonmagnetic stainless steels, but that the magnetic component of EM waves of any significant frequency will probably not. Another consideration, and I think this was mentioned in the Collective two (or was it three) years ago right after Rossi’s first January demonstration, is that when the electrical resistance heaters are energized (with DC), they will generate a mag-fld around them. This can probably be considered a static mag-field, and will likely penetrate the non-magnetic 310 stainless cylinder, so the internal core of the reactor may very well feel this PWM-modulated field. -Mark Iverson *From:* Robert Lynn [mailto:robert.gulliver.l...@gmail.comrobert.gulliver.l...@gmail.com?] *Sent:* Friday, May 24, 2013 10:57 AM *To:* vortex-l@eskimo.com *Subject:* Re: [Vo]:Why did Rossi prevent detailed measurement
Re: [Vo]:Isotope separation technology can be improved
On Thu, May 23, 2013 at 10:16 AM, Edmund Storms stor...@ix.netcom.comwrote: On May 22, 2013, at 11:21 PM, Harry Veeder wrote: Ed, I think the structure of the coulomb barrier is open to intrinsic modification, but the variables governing this possibility cannot be uncovered by the tools and concepts of high energy physics. I agree. In fact, the insistence that high energy physics be used is the flaw in the skeptical arguments. In most situations the coulomb barrier behaves in a textbook fashion, but when bathed in the right vibrations the barrier can be tuned to soften. I think a different description is more useful. The two nuclei have first to get critically close together by intervention of an electron. This process is conventional. Once this happens and the bond can resonate, the periodic reduction in distance causes the nuclei to emit a photon (gamma). Each emitted photon allows hte distance to be reduced because the energy of the system has now been reduced, which reduces the Coulomb barrier. After enough photons have been emitted, the two nuclei collapse into one, which is the nuclear product. Of course, the intervening electron that is required to reduce the barrier is sucked into the final nucleus. The process you have described has the characteristics of a ratchet. Curiously, Jones used the ratchet metaphor in another post where he characterised the effect of modulating the input on the cell. This model requires the nuclei to know that they must emit energy when they get close and that magnitude of the Coulomb barrier is sensitive to the excess mass-energy of the two nuclei. Ed Storms Is this another way of saying it is related to the nuclear force? If so then the ratchet is the nuclear force. harry
[Vo]:Phys.org article on test of Ecat
Tests find Rossi's E-Cat has an energy density at least 10 times higher than any conventional energy source http://phys.org/news/2013-05-rossi-e-cat-energy-density-higher.html Essén said that there are plans to submit the paper to a peer-reviewed journal, although they understand that it may be difficult. Even though the subject is controversial, he explained that he thinks the cost of involvement is worth it. Harry
Re: [Vo]:Secret wiring hypothesis
If you want the Ecat tested in what you consider a trustworthy site, Rossi will have to trust that his ecat will be returned. Trust an integral part of life, and since science is done by the living rather than the deceased, trust is also an integral part of science. Harry On Thu, May 23, 2013 at 8:36 PM, Joshua Cude joshua.c...@gmail.com wrote: On Thu, May 23, 2013 at 1:32 PM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.comwrote: The same socket in the wall, or the very same plug in that socket? I suppose one plug could be secretly wired and the all the others in the building not. Rossi would have to worry that they might come in to the lab, unplug it from where it is and plug it in somewhere else. I doubt they would do that. The requirement for 3-phase input solves that problem. There was probably only one available 3-phase line in the room. Simple. People can go on playing these games of what if, maybe, suppose until the cows come home. Only because Rossi's protocol's allow them. It would be easy to exclude this kind of game by making ecats available to skeptics for testing on their own premises. The bottom line is not whether or not we can think of ways they may have cheated (they could have just made the whole thing up), but the fact that cheating is even possible. A properly claimed scientific claim should not require trust -- at least not for long. It has to be possible for anyone skilled in the art to check the claims. And these can't be checked. For example, you might ask why did it worked normally after the second run, during the six hour calibration? Perhaps Rossi was present when the test ended, and secretly went and turned off the extra electricity. Well, they conveniently used different power configurations for the calibration and the live runs, with continuous instead of cycled power. The switch between those modes could have involved some deception involving dc bias or double wires or something. The input power was calculated based on the peak power and the duty cycle. This sort of thing is a fantasy like one of these cheesy paperback thrillers for sale in the drugstore. To believe you have to up a scenario that becomes more and more improbable. Again, this only happens because the experiment can't be independently checked by anyone else. No one wants such a significant claim to depend on trust. And as improbable as these scenarios are, to skeptics, they are still orders of magnitude more plausible than an explanation involving nuclear reactions.
