[Vo]:Hotcat melting miracle
Taking the report at face value, the hotcat displays several of the standard LENR miracles .. Some evidence of nuclear reactions (though incomplete and a tiny sample: Li, Ni -- but no H, He ... examined) No radiation outside an alumina cylinder (though there may be a steel tube inside) No radiation from the ash All happening well below hot fusion levels (coulomb barrier etc) With a surface temperature of 1420C the inside MUST be hotter. But let's stick with 1420. (Non) melting miracle : ALL of the components are likely to melt (or at last malfunction) at this temperature The nickel powder The heating wires The control thermocouple itself! A reader who didn't post it himself, and may wish to remain anonymous, commented in a direct email: Something that no one seems to have mentioned is that the control thermocouple in the reactor is type K (figures 2 and 4 of the Lugano report). This type has a calibrated upper temperature limit of ~1250 C (though wikipedia says probes are available to 1350 C). Chromel melts at around 1420 C. This seems to make type K a poor choice if you expect to operate at temperatures around 1400 C and particularly if the reactor may melt down if not properly controlled. So either the temperature measurement is wrong, or we have another miracle, that seems to take place within the entire interior of the hotcat.
Re: [Vo]:Hotcat melting miracle
Meltdown might not be such a major concern with the latest design. If Rossi and allies have optimized the geometry in such a manner as to extract heat energy from the device faster than the core can produce it then thermal run away should not occur. That suggests that some finite operating temperature will always exist even if the control system ceases to operate properly. It does seem possible to reach a temperature that causes permanent damage to the fuel due to melting of the fuel, but we do not know enough about the heat generation process to understand this type of problem. Perhaps the damaged fuel, which has cooled into a different form than ideal, will take much more external heating to bring it back up to operation after a restart of the reactor. There are several miracles that need to be properly researched. But, miracles do happen. Dave -Original Message- From: Alan Fletcher a...@well.com To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Sat, Oct 18, 2014 1:36 pm Subject: [Vo]:Hotcat melting miracle Taking the report at face value, the hotcat displays several of the standard LENR miracles .. Some evidence of nuclear reactions (though incomplete and a tiny sample: Li, Ni -- but no H, He ... examined) No radiation outside an alumina cylinder (though there may be a steel tube inside) No radiation from the ash All happening well below hot fusion levels (coulomb barrier etc) With a surface temperature of 1420C the inside MUST be hotter. But let's stick with 1420. (Non) melting miracle : ALL of the components are likely to melt (or at last malfunction) at this temperature The nickel powder The heating wires The control thermocouple itself! A reader who didn't post it himself, and may wish to remain anonymous, commented in a direct email: Something that no one seems to have mentioned is that the control thermocouple in the reactor is type K (figures 2 and 4 of the Lugano report). This type has a calibrated upper temperature limit of ~1250 C (though wikipedia says probes are available to 1350 C). Chromel melts at around 1420 C. This seems to make type K a poor choice if you expect to operate at temperatures around 1400 C and particularly if the reactor may melt down if not properly controlled. So either the temperature measurement is wrong, or we have another miracle, that seems to take place within the entire interior of the hotcat.
Re: [Vo]:Hotcat melting miracle
On Sat, Oct 18, 2014 at 10:35 AM, Alan Fletcher a...@well.com wrote: So either the temperature measurement is wrong, or we have another miracle, that seems to take place within the entire interior of the hotcat. I think part of our difficulty is that one hesitates to take the report at face value for several reasons. If we do not take the report at face value, the large number of degrees of freedom open the way for untethered speculation, possibly for years, given the proclivities of the people watching this field. That would be inconvenient for anyone trying to figure out what's going on, and convenient for anyone trying to keep it a secret. Among the reasons one doesn't want to take the report at face value are that there might be error in the heat calibration and power calculations. The isotopic analyses are a little amazing, and, as far as I can tell, do not give indications of a gradient effect in the 6Li and 62Ni species. And details pertaining to the Inconel cables and, as you now bring up, possibly the type K thermocouple, seem to be inconsistent with the reported temperature. I agree with what you said a few days ago, that the findings of the report are inconclusive. In one outcome, the authors could be spot-on, and this would imply some amazing things. In another outcome, there could be some critical inaccuracies as to the materials that were used that go back to a lack of fact-checking. In another outcome, there could be intentional misdirection on Rossi's and IH's part to conceal what is really going on, but LENR is still happening. And in another outcome, there might not be anything going on at all, as Pomp, Yugo and others would have it. Many of the details and objections that have been surfaced during the past few days were easy to spot and could have been resolved weeks prior to the first day of the testing if the authors had consulted a wide enough group. This leads me to one of two conclusions: - The authors did not do their homework and put together a test that would necessarily lead to inconclusive results and that could be questioned along a number of lines. - The authors did their homework but were hobbled by constraints placed by Rossi and IH that prevented them from conducting a more rigorous test. If the first is true, there might not be all that much that we can expect from this set of authors. If the second is true, I kind of wonder whether the report should have been released. I worry that the lack of clarity on many of the details could sidetrack discussion for a while as we pursue dead ends. Eric
Re: [Vo]:Hotcat melting miracle
The persistence of those tubercles which should have melted at 1000C is impossible to explain after days of 1400C reactor surface temperatures. Heat management including production and flow inside the Rossi reactor is not yet understandable, a mystery. On Sat, Oct 18, 2014 at 2:06 PM, David Roberson dlrober...@aol.com wrote: Meltdown might not be such a major concern with the latest design. If Rossi and allies have optimized the geometry in such a manner as to extract heat energy from the device faster than the core can produce it then thermal run away should not occur. That suggests that some finite operating temperature will always exist even if the control system ceases to operate properly. It does seem possible to reach a temperature that causes permanent damage to the fuel due to melting of the fuel, but we do not know enough about the heat generation process to understand this type of problem. Perhaps the damaged fuel, which has cooled into a different form than ideal, will take much more external heating to bring it back up to operation after a restart of the reactor. There are several miracles that need to be properly researched. But, miracles do happen. Dave -Original Message- From: Alan Fletcher a...@well.com To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Sat, Oct 18, 2014 1:36 pm Subject: [Vo]:Hotcat melting miracle Taking the report at face value, the hotcat displays several of the standard LENR miracles .. Some evidence of nuclear reactions (though incomplete and a tiny sample: Li, Ni -- but no H, He ... examined) No radiation outside an alumina cylinder (though there may be a steel tube inside) No radiation from the ash All happening well below hot fusion levels (coulomb barrier etc) With a surface temperature of 1420C the inside MUST be hotter. But let's stick with 1420. (Non) melting miracle : ALL of the components are likely to melt (or at last malfunction) at this temperature The nickel powder The heating wires The control thermocouple itself! A reader who didn't post it himself, and may wish to remain anonymous, commented in a direct email: Something that no one seems to have mentioned is that the control thermocouple in the reactor is type K (figures 2 and 4 of the Lugano report). This type has a calibrated upper temperature limit of ~1250 C (though wikipedia says probes are available to 1350 C). Chromel melts at around 1420 C. This seems to make type K a poor choice if you expect to operate at temperatures around 1400 C and particularly if the reactor may melt down if not properly controlled. So either the temperature measurement is wrong, or we have another miracle, that seems to take place within the entire interior of the hotcat.
Re: [Vo]:Hotcat melting miracle
There was a directly observable miracle that showed unmelted nano structure on the surface of those nickel micro particles that should have melted at 1000C and yet where photographed after days of 1400C reactor operating temperatures. Those temperature differences are TOO LARGE to be due to poor experimental measurement or technique. If you through a block of ice in a blast furnace, you would expect that ice to melt. When it does not melt, you are shocked to say the least. Just imagine what an engineer can do with this miracle: space ship heat shields, firemen walking in their underwear though a burning building, making blast furnishes out of wood, taking a cruise on the surface of the sun. On Sat, Oct 18, 2014 at 2:09 PM, Eric Walker eric.wal...@gmail.com wrote: On Sat, Oct 18, 2014 at 10:35 AM, Alan Fletcher a...@well.com wrote: So either the temperature measurement is wrong, or we have another miracle, that seems to take place within the entire interior of the hotcat. I think part of our difficulty is that one hesitates to take the report at face value for several reasons. If we do not take the report at face value, the large number of degrees of freedom open the way for untethered speculation, possibly for years, given the proclivities of the people watching this field. That would be inconvenient for anyone trying to figure out what's going on, and convenient for anyone trying to keep it a secret. Among the reasons one doesn't want to take the report at face value are that there might be error in the heat calibration and power calculations. The isotopic analyses are a little amazing, and, as far as I can tell, do not give indications of a gradient effect in the 6Li and 62Ni species. And details pertaining to the Inconel cables and, as you now bring up, possibly the type K thermocouple, seem to be inconsistent with the reported temperature. I agree with what you said a few days ago, that the findings of the report are inconclusive. In one outcome, the authors could be spot-on, and this would imply some amazing things. In another outcome, there could be some critical inaccuracies as to the materials that were used that go back to a lack of fact-checking. In another outcome, there could be intentional misdirection on Rossi's and IH's part to conceal what is really going on, but LENR is still happening. And in another outcome, there might not be anything going on at all, as Pomp, Yugo and others would have it. Many of the details and objections that have been surfaced during the past few days were easy to spot and could have been resolved weeks prior to the first day of the testing if the authors had consulted a wide enough group. This leads me to one of two conclusions: - The authors did not do their homework and put together a test that would necessarily lead to inconclusive results and that could be questioned along a number of lines. - The authors did their homework but were hobbled by constraints placed by Rossi and IH that prevented them from conducting a more rigorous test. If the first is true, there might not be all that much that we can expect from this set of authors. If the second is true, I kind of wonder whether the report should have been released. I worry that the lack of clarity on many of the details could sidetrack discussion for a while as we pursue dead ends. Eric
Re: [Vo]:Hotcat melting miracle
On Sat, Oct 18, 2014 at 11:30 AM, Axil Axil janap...@gmail.com wrote: There was a directly observable miracle that showed unmelted nano structure on the surface of those nickel micro particles that should have melted at 1000C and yet where photographed after days of 1400C reactor operating temperatures. Those temperature differences are TOO LARGE to be due to poor experimental measurement or technique. Your imagery is vivid, but you've assumed that the experiment actually ran at 1400C. This is one of the questions that is up for debate. Misdirection is not yet established given what we know. Eric
Re: [Vo]:Hotcat melting miracle
I can't believe that the independent science team could ever make a mistake that bad: measuring a reactor temperature that as actually at 700C as being 1400C. On Sat, Oct 18, 2014 at 3:28 PM, Eric Walker eric.wal...@gmail.com wrote: On Sat, Oct 18, 2014 at 11:30 AM, Axil Axil janap...@gmail.com wrote: There was a directly observable miracle that showed unmelted nano structure on the surface of those nickel micro particles that should have melted at 1000C and yet where photographed after days of 1400C reactor operating temperatures. Those temperature differences are TOO LARGE to be due to poor experimental measurement or technique. Your imagery is vivid, but you've assumed that the experiment actually ran at 1400C. This is one of the questions that is up for debate. Misdirection is not yet established given what we know. Eric
Re: [Vo]:Hotcat melting miracle
The melting miracle may put into question some irrefutable logic about reactor melt down. It is assumed by all what are not judged to be nuts that when the reactor get up to 2000C during meltdown, the nickel particles are long since melted and something else is causing increasing temperature rise beyond the melting point of nickel. But could the “melting miracle” preserve these micro sized nickel particles from any deterioration even if the reactor temperature gets up to 2000C? On Sat, Oct 18, 2014 at 3:58 PM, Axil Axil janap...@gmail.com wrote: I can't believe that the independent science team could ever make a mistake that bad: measuring a reactor temperature that as actually at 700C as being 1400C. On Sat, Oct 18, 2014 at 3:28 PM, Eric Walker eric.wal...@gmail.com wrote: On Sat, Oct 18, 2014 at 11:30 AM, Axil Axil janap...@gmail.com wrote: There was a directly observable miracle that showed unmelted nano structure on the surface of those nickel micro particles that should have melted at 1000C and yet where photographed after days of 1400C reactor operating temperatures. Those temperature differences are TOO LARGE to be due to poor experimental measurement or technique. Your imagery is vivid, but you've assumed that the experiment actually ran at 1400C. This is one of the questions that is up for debate. Misdirection is not yet established given what we know. Eric
Re: [Vo]:Hotcat melting miracle
Axil Axil janap...@gmail.com wrote: I can't believe that the independent science team could ever make a mistake that bad: measuring a reactor temperature that as actually at 700C as being 1400C. It is difficult to believe. And yet, people do make large mistakes at times. If the photos in Fig. 12 were taken when the instrument indicated a temperature of 1400 deg C then there is no doubt they made a giant mistake. The reactor surface could only be around 700 or 800 deg C with that color. If they think it was 1400 deg C they are incompetent. We need to see if they will address this and the other questions at lenr-forum.com: http://www.lenr-forum.com/forum/index.php/Thread/722-Ask-questions-to-the-Working-Group-ECAT-long-term-test Assuming this is a problem: such a large discrepancy seems more like an error than an attempt to deceive, but it is hard to judge. Another reason this seems unlikely to me is that a gram of material producing 2 kW should surely have melted or vaporized. It is not the reactor as whole that would produce that heat; it is the Ni powder. I doubt it. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:Hotcat melting miracle
I wrote: I can't believe that the independent science team could ever make a mistake that bad: measuring a reactor temperature that as actually at 700C as being 1400C. It is difficult to believe. And yet, people do make large mistakes at times. See p. 11 here for examples of large mistakes made by scientists in this field: http://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/RothwellJlessonsfro.pdf These were mistakes. Not efforts to deceive. People have made gigantic mistakes in other fields, such as the housing market in the run-up to the 2008 economic crisis, and World War I. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:Hotcat melting miracle
There is an assumption that the Ni is pure Ni. This may not be the case. There may be a substrate of a high temperature ceramic--Ti-N or Ti-C or something else with the Ni bonded to the surface of the substrate. The thermocouple reading at operation is unknown to me. It may have indicated a lower temperature than the camera temperature and been more accurate. Bob - Original Message - From: Axil Axil To: vortex-l Sent: Saturday, October 18, 2014 11:30 AM Subject: Re: [Vo]:Hotcat melting miracle There was a directly observable miracle that showed unmelted nano structure on the surface of those nickel micro particles that should have melted at 1000C and yet where photographed after days of 1400C reactor operating temperatures. Those temperature differences are TOO LARGE to be due to poor experimental measurement or technique. If you through a block of ice in a blast furnace, you would expect that ice to melt. When it does not melt, you are shocked to say the least. Just imagine what an engineer can do with this miracle: space ship heat shields, firemen walking in their underwear though a burning building, making blast furnishes out of wood, taking a cruise on the surface of the sun. On Sat, Oct 18, 2014 at 2:09 PM, Eric Walker eric.wal...@gmail.com wrote: On Sat, Oct 18, 2014 at 10:35 AM, Alan Fletcher a...@well.com wrote: So either the temperature measurement is wrong, or we have another miracle, that seems to take place within the entire interior of the hotcat. I think part of our difficulty is that one hesitates to take the report at face value for several reasons. If we do not take the report at face value, the large number of degrees of freedom open the way for untethered speculation, possibly for years, given the proclivities of the people watching this field. That would be inconvenient for anyone trying to figure out what's going on, and convenient for anyone trying to keep it a secret. Among the reasons one doesn't want to take the report at face value are that there might be error in the heat calibration and power calculations. The isotopic analyses are a little amazing, and, as far as I can tell, do not give indications of a gradient effect in the 6Li and 62Ni species. And details pertaining to the Inconel cables and, as you now bring up, possibly the type K thermocouple, seem to be inconsistent with the reported temperature. I agree with what you said a few days ago, that the findings of the report are inconclusive. In one outcome, the authors could be spot-on, and this would imply some amazing things. In another outcome, there could be some critical inaccuracies as to the materials that were used that go back to a lack of fact-checking. In another outcome, there could be intentional misdirection on Rossi's and IH's part to conceal what is really going on, but LENR is still happening. And in another outcome, there might not be anything going on at all, as Pomp, Yugo and others would have it. Many of the details and objections that have been surfaced during the past few days were easy to spot and could have been resolved weeks prior to the first day of the testing if the authors had consulted a wide enough group. This leads me to one of two conclusions: a.. The authors did not do their homework and put together a test that would necessarily lead to inconclusive results and that could be questioned along a number of lines. b.. The authors did their homework but were hobbled by constraints placed by Rossi and IH that prevented them from conducting a more rigorous test. If the first is true, there might not be all that much that we can expect from this set of authors. If the second is true, I kind of wonder whether the report should have been released. I worry that the lack of clarity on many of the details could sidetrack discussion for a while as we pursue dead ends. Eric
Re: [Vo]:Hotcat melting miracle
On Sat, Oct 18, 2014 at 2:09 PM, Eric Walker eric.wal...@gmail.com wrote: The isotopic analyses are a little amazing, and, as far as I can tell, do not give indications of a gradient effect in the 6Li and 62Ni species. appendix 3 measured abundance in ash sample 6Li - 92.1% 7Li - 7.9% 62Ni - 98.7% appendix 4 measured abundance in ash sample 6Li - 57.5% 7Li - 42.5% 62Ni - 99.3% For me the lingo is hard to parse but if Robert Ellefson is correct then the numbers in appendix 3 are surface measurements and the numbers in appendix 4 are bulk measurements. Can you fake such a distribution by simply purchasing enriched samples? Harry Harry
Re: [Vo]:Hotcat melting miracle
This line of reasoning leads me to wonder if the mini explosions that some think are occurring are able to sputter the fuel. In this scenario, the molten mass is continually torn apart into small blobs that then cool into odd shapes and sizes. Is anything of this nature even remotely possible? This is just an strange thought that came into my visualization. Dave -Original Message- From: Axil Axil janap...@gmail.com To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Sat, Oct 18, 2014 5:13 pm Subject: Re: [Vo]:Hotcat melting miracle The melting miracle may put into question some irrefutablelogic about reactor melt down. It is assumed by all what are not judged to be nuts thatwhen the reactor get up to 2000C during meltdown, the nickel particles are longsince melted and something else is causing increasing temperature rise beyondthe melting point of nickel. But could the “melting miracle” preserve thesemicro sized nickel particles from any deterioration even if the reactor temperaturegets up to 2000C? On Sat, Oct 18, 2014 at 3:58 PM, Axil Axil janap...@gmail.com wrote: I can't believe that the independent science team could ever make a mistake that bad: measuring a reactor temperature that as actually at 700C as being 1400C. On Sat, Oct 18, 2014 at 3:28 PM, Eric Walker eric.wal...@gmail.com wrote: On Sat, Oct 18, 2014 at 11:30 AM, Axil Axil janap...@gmail.com wrote: There was a directly observable miracle that showed unmelted nano structure on the surface of those nickel micro particles that should have melted at 1000C and yet where photographed after days of 1400C reactor operating temperatures. Those temperature differences are TOO LARGE to be due to poor experimental measurement or technique. Your imagery is vivid, but you've assumed that the experiment actually ran at 1400C. This is one of the questions that is up for debate. Misdirection is not yet established given what we know. Eric
Re: [Vo]:Hotcat melting miracle
The nickel particle cannot be rebuilt. But there is a good chance that he lithium can form nanoparticles aggregations that do the same SPP creation function as the nickel particles. I call this clumping dynamic NAE production because these clumps of nanoparticles are continuously made and destroyed by the LENR reaction. On Sat, Oct 18, 2014 at 8:43 PM, David Roberson dlrober...@aol.com wrote: This line of reasoning leads me to wonder if the mini explosions that some think are occurring are able to sputter the fuel. In this scenario, the molten mass is continually torn apart into small blobs that then cool into odd shapes and sizes. Is anything of this nature even remotely possible? This is just an strange thought that came into my visualization. Dave -Original Message- From: Axil Axil janap...@gmail.com To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Sat, Oct 18, 2014 5:13 pm Subject: Re: [Vo]:Hotcat melting miracle The melting miracle may put into question some irrefutable logic about reactor melt down. It is assumed by all what are not judged to be nuts that when the reactor get up to 2000C during meltdown, the nickel particles are long since melted and something else is causing increasing temperature rise beyond the melting point of nickel. But could the “melting miracle” preserve these micro sized nickel particles from any deterioration even if the reactor temperature gets up to 2000C? On Sat, Oct 18, 2014 at 3:58 PM, Axil Axil janap...@gmail.com wrote: I can't believe that the independent science team could ever make a mistake that bad: measuring a reactor temperature that as actually at 700C as being 1400C. On Sat, Oct 18, 2014 at 3:28 PM, Eric Walker eric.wal...@gmail.com wrote: On Sat, Oct 18, 2014 at 11:30 AM, Axil Axil janap...@gmail.com wrote: There was a directly observable miracle that showed unmelted nano structure on the surface of those nickel micro particles that should have melted at 1000C and yet where photographed after days of 1400C reactor operating temperatures. Those temperature differences are TOO LARGE to be due to poor experimental measurement or technique. Your imagery is vivid, but you've assumed that the experiment actually ran at 1400C. This is one of the questions that is up for debate. Misdirection is not yet established given what we know. Eric
Re: [Vo]:Hotcat melting miracle
Dave and Axil, On Sat, Oct 18, 2014 at 3:58 PM, Axil Axil janap...@gmail.com wrote: I can't believe that the independent science team could ever make a mistake that bad: measuring a reactor temperature that as actually at 700C as being 1400C. Ordinarily a surface at 1400C should glow visibly white but in this case the visible glow is red. If the power output is the same as that associated with a 1400C surface then the missing energy might be in the form of extra UV emissions. Harry On Sat, Oct 18, 2014 at 3:28 PM, Eric Walker eric.wal...@gmail.com wrote: On Sat, Oct 18, 2014 at 11:30 AM, Axil Axil janap...@gmail.com wrote: There was a directly observable miracle that showed unmelted nano structure on the surface of those nickel micro particles that should have melted at 1000C and yet where photographed after days of 1400C reactor operating temperatures. Those temperature differences are TOO LARGE to be due to poor experimental measurement or technique. Your imagery is vivid, but you've assumed that the experiment actually ran at 1400C. This is one of the questions that is up for debate. Misdirection is not yet established given what we know. Eric
Re: [Vo]:Hotcat melting miracle
Where are the neutrons? Must be a mistake. Where is the white glow? Must be another mistake. Harry
Re: [Vo]:Hotcat melting miracle
On Sat, Oct 18, 2014 at 5:36 PM, H Veeder hveeder...@gmail.com wrote: appendix 3 measured abundance in ash sample 6Li - 92.1% 7Li - 7.9% 62Ni - 98.7% This is TOF-SIMS, secondary ion mass spectroscopy. It is a surface analysis. Heavy ions are accelerated towards the target and cause atoms from the surface to spall away as ions, whose masses are then measured by looking at their displacement under a magnetic field of known strength. appendix 4 measured abundance in ash sample 6Li - 57.5% 7Li - 42.5% 62Ni - 99.3% These are the results of ICP-MS, a technique I'm not familiar with. Apparently they take the entire sample and dissolve it. In that case I take it that the technique would give a percentage that combines the bulk and surface amounts, and so is in a sense an approximation for the bulk amount. Can you fake such a distribution by simply purchasing enriched samples? You make an interesting point, here. In the two samples analyzed, it would seem there is indeed a gradient effect for 6Li and 6Li. There does not appear to be much of a gradient effect for 62Ni, which is high in both cases; if anything, there is a reverse gradient, but I suspect the error bars are rather large for this kind of analysis. One challenge with a line reasoning about gradients of isotopes in the present instance is that we're dealing with a sample size of n=2 or thereabouts. In this light I would like to know more about the isotope analysis before drawing conclusions from it, which makes it inconclusive for me. I would also like to think that the measurements of heat and the reporting of the materials that were used and the matter of nickel with tubercules on it and so on were the data from a normal run of the E-Cat and that we're just having a hard time using lateral thinking to make the pieces fit together. So I don't have a strong opinion yet on the matter of misdirection, but I do have a hard time taking all of the details of the report at face value at this point. Eric
Re: [Vo]:Hotcat melting miracle
Note that the Figure 12 of the Lugano report does not say when the photos were taken. It only says during the test. The pictures could have been taken while the device was in dummy test mode, while the device was heating up, while the device was cooling down. The report does not say what temperature was assessed when these pictures were taken. When they took the picture, they probably had no idea what people would try to infer from it. We'll just have to see if the authors address this. However, IMO this is not the most important question. Neutrons? None of the LENR experiments show neutrons in any way commensurate with heat output - and a good thing. The Lugano report did show a slight rise in neutron count. So, actually it would be real LENR surprise to find neutrons. No mistake there. On Sat, Oct 18, 2014 at 7:12 PM, H Veeder hveeder...@gmail.com wrote: Where are the neutrons? Must be a mistake. Where is the white glow? Must be another mistake. Harry
Re: [Vo]:Hotcat melting miracle
Maybe the intent of those pictures on page 12 was to show the heater wire shadows. The reactor may have gotten too hot to show what the testers wanted to show so they picked the pictures with the best wire shadow image regardless of the temperature. This might be a compromise made to tell the story they wanted to pass on. On Sat, Oct 18, 2014 at 9:27 PM, Bob Higgins rj.bob.higg...@gmail.com wrote: Note that the Figure 12 of the Lugano report does not say when the photos were taken. It only says during the test. The pictures could have been taken while the device was in dummy test mode, while the device was heating up, while the device was cooling down. The report does not say what temperature was assessed when these pictures were taken. When they took the picture, they probably had no idea what people would try to infer from it. We'll just have to see if the authors address this. However, IMO this is not the most important question. Neutrons? None of the LENR experiments show neutrons in any way commensurate with heat output - and a good thing. The Lugano report did show a slight rise in neutron count. So, actually it would be real LENR surprise to find neutrons. No mistake there. On Sat, Oct 18, 2014 at 7:12 PM, H Veeder hveeder...@gmail.com wrote: Where are the neutrons? Must be a mistake. Where is the white glow? Must be another mistake. Harry
Re: [Vo]:Hotcat melting miracle
page 12 should read page 25 On Sat, Oct 18, 2014 at 9:36 PM, Axil Axil janap...@gmail.com wrote: Maybe the intent of those pictures on page 12 was to show the heater wire shadows. The reactor may have gotten too hot to show what the testers wanted to show so they picked the pictures with the best wire shadow image regardless of the temperature. This might be a compromise made to tell the story they wanted to pass on. On Sat, Oct 18, 2014 at 9:27 PM, Bob Higgins rj.bob.higg...@gmail.com wrote: Note that the Figure 12 of the Lugano report does not say when the photos were taken. It only says during the test. The pictures could have been taken while the device was in dummy test mode, while the device was heating up, while the device was cooling down. The report does not say what temperature was assessed when these pictures were taken. When they took the picture, they probably had no idea what people would try to infer from it. We'll just have to see if the authors address this. However, IMO this is not the most important question. Neutrons? None of the LENR experiments show neutrons in any way commensurate with heat output - and a good thing. The Lugano report did show a slight rise in neutron count. So, actually it would be real LENR surprise to find neutrons. No mistake there. On Sat, Oct 18, 2014 at 7:12 PM, H Veeder hveeder...@gmail.com wrote: Where are the neutrons? Must be a mistake. Where is the white glow? Must be another mistake. Harry
Re: [Vo]:Hotcat melting miracle
Right Axil - I meant to say Figure 12. Thanks for the correction. On Sat, Oct 18, 2014 at 7:38 PM, Axil Axil janap...@gmail.com wrote: page 12 should read page 25 On Sat, Oct 18, 2014 at 9:36 PM, Axil Axil janap...@gmail.com wrote: Maybe the intent of those pictures on page 12 was to show the heater wire shadows. The reactor may have gotten too hot to show what the testers wanted to show so they picked the pictures with the best wire shadow image regardless of the temperature. This might be a compromise made to tell the story they wanted to pass on. On Sat, Oct 18, 2014 at 9:27 PM, Bob Higgins rj.bob.higg...@gmail.com wrote: Note that the Figure 12 of the Lugano report does not say when the photos were taken. It only says during the test. The pictures could have been taken while the device was in dummy test mode, while the device was heating up, while the device was cooling down. The report does not say what temperature was assessed when these pictures were taken. When they took the picture, they probably had no idea what people would try to infer from it. We'll just have to see if the authors address this. However, IMO this is not the most important question.
