Re: [Vo]:Thane Heins continues with his bold claims
David Roberson dlrober...@aol.com wrote: I guess I hit a touchy subject with this one. Rossi's device came up because his heat gain(6) is so low relative to, as example, DGT(20). Rossi has demonstrated a self-sustaining reaction lasting 4 hours. The ratio is infinite. Why do you say the ratio is 6? In any case, the ratio is easy to improve with any cold fusion device. It is just a matter of engineering. With any electrochemical FP device improving the ratio is trivial, but it is not done because that ends obscuring the results and making the experiment more difficult. This is Rossi's claim on every question that has been posed to him. If you read his blog, you will see that he only guarantees an output to input ratio of 6 to 1 and never more. Please check this out, I am not making it up. He has never suggested that self sustaining is a reliable mode of operation for very extended periods. I tend to agree with you that it should be an engineering problem to reach higher ratios but his own claims must trump our speculation. Why does he stick so strongly to the lower performance figure? I would like to know his reasons. The heat pump issue arouse just because of the relatively low gain performance . . . The word gain implies that the reaction is some form of amplification, or that output is coupled to input. There is no evidence for that. If that were the case, self-sustained heat would be impossible. Input power is needed to trigger the reaction or to keep the cell at operating temperature. You can do the latter with insulation. Rossi does not claim self sustaining operation for extended periods of time. That is something we are assuming. The gain term does not necessarily apply. All that he states is that the output is 6 times the input power by specification and most likely that is only true at full power output. We must consider that Rossi appears to be in a battle with thermal runaway at this point in his engineering development, hence the lower gain. The 1 hour time frame suggested as adequate to prove self sustaining of the reaction is absurd. If super accurate instrumentation were available to measure temperatures at many internal points and power input could be extremely well determined then that might be correct. No instrumentation is needed. Human senses alone suffice. The observers felt the heat coming from the device hours after the power was turned off. Simple first-principle physics and observations of everyday objects such as a pot of boiling water left to cool in the kitchen prove beyond doubt it was producing kilowatts of heat. There is no way it could be doing that from stored heat or chemical heat with such a small cell. No heat was stored prior to the self-sustaining phase. On the contrary, it produced a great deal of excess before that. Unfortunately, I have seen some well designed simulations on the web that have included internally stored energy being released for a long period of time that can not be totally dismissed. My best efforts suggest that the models are not capable of matching Rossi's performance, but they come much too close for total comfort. All of the closeness would go away if the test period were extended by a modest number of hours. Why should I trust my gut feelings about temperature- time relationships when they can be augmented by good test equipment and proven? I am not the only one who would like a modest amount of scientific proof instead of words. You are demanding instrumentation to prove something that any cook in the last 100,000 years would have known with absolute certainty. This is a distortion of the scientific method. Instruments are important to science, but even more important are observations and common sense knowledge of how things work. The human senses are reliable and just as good as any instrument for this particular test. Natural science observations of things like rocks, animal behavior, smell, appearance, heat and cold are just good -- and just as scientific -- as a reading from a multi-million dollar laboratory instrument. In modern science we have elevated the instrument and the computer too far above old fashioned, hands-on human interaction with objects, and the human senses. The primary school test in which an egg is sucked into a bottle is proof that there is a vacuum in the bottle. It is definitive, irrefutable proof. If you brought in a million-dollar vacuum gauge and measured the vacuum in the bottle to 8 significant decimal places, that would not prove the existence of the vacuum any better than the simple, direct, visual observation of the egg does. - Jed I disagree that the test results thus far are so very simple and obvious to everyone. Science with good instrumentation is required when the test is of short duration. If Rossi had run this test for several more hours then just about everyone out there would be convinced.
Re: [Vo]:Thane Heins continues with his bold claims
David Roberson dlrober...@aol.com wrote: Why do you say the ratio is 6? This is Rossi's claim on every question that has been posed to him. If you read his blog, you will see that he only guarantees an output to input ratio of 6 to 1 and never more. I meant that other people have achieved higher ratios, including Defkalion and several others working with Pd-D. Rossi may not have. I am sure that higher ratios are possible. He has never suggested that self sustaining is a reliable mode of operation for very extended periods. On the contrary, he says it is unstable. Even if that is true, if you let it self sustain for hours at a time with occasional use of control current, the overall ratio should be much higher than 1:6. I tend to agree with you that it should be an engineering problem to reach higher ratios but his own claims must trump our speculation. His claims only apply to his cells. Other people have done much better than 1:6. Rossi does not claim self sustaining operation for extended periods of time. That is something we are assuming. I believe he said it can self sustain for about 6 hours. It went 4 hours in the demo. We must consider that Rossi appears to be in a battle with thermal runaway at this point in his engineering development, hence the lower gain. I believe he said something like that. Unfortunately, I have seen some well designed simulations on the web that have included internally stored energy being released for a long period of time that can not be totally dismissed. They can be totally dismissed. It is not possible to store energy and release it with a passive device and not have the temperature fall monotonically. That would violate the second law. You can see from the data that it did not fall. It rose at times. You can see from the photos of the inside of the device that it is passive; there are no mechanical baffles, pumps or any other physical mechanism that would allow the heat release to be controlled or increased. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:Thane Heins continues with his bold claims
I am not sure what your observations are Not Me. Do you know of a heat pump that has a COP of 4.5/2 when having a source of input at 30 C while putting out heat at 120 C? According to wikipedia I calculate COP(heating)=T(hot)/(T(hot)-T(cool))=4.4 as the Carnot limit. This is using their equation just ahead of the table of various performances. Wikipedia discusses an example of a geothermal application using buried coils where the source is at 10 C in the UK for a home system that usually displays a COP of 4 to 5. Please review that article and let me know if you still think the COP would be 4.5/2 under those standard home conditions. Not Me, your assumption of 50% efficiency for the heat pump relative to Carnot appears low. How did you acquire your estimate? The article in Wikipedia discusses the fact that current heat pumps are in the range you suggest but that future developments will improve them significantly as the cost of input energy rises. They imply that the best designs will approach the Carnot limit. Maybe we need to understand why the present devices are so poorly performing before we assume that the best we can achieve is 50% efficiency. I am hoping for inputs from experts in the chemical industry that use equipment which transfers excess heat from exhaust processes to areas that need preheating. It should be common practice to save expensive heating costs by using waste heat in this manner. Perhaps petroleum engineers are aware of high temperature heat pump systems and it would be enlightening for them to bring these into the discussion. I am very curious about the active fluids and systems required. Would it be possible for us to limit this discussion to high temperature heat pumps and not refer to LENR devices? Perhaps the name should be modified to pertain more to the subject at hand? Dave -Original Message- From: Not Me energya...@gmail.com To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Sat, Mar 24, 2012 11:15 am Subject: Re: [Vo]:Thane Heins continues with his bold claims I'd like more information on this alleged heat pump which could heat water to 90 deg. C with a COP 6 in conditions that exist in a usual residential setting, such as an ambient air temperature of 10 deg. C. The Carnot limit in these conditions is 4.5. Any practical heat pump in these conditions will have a COP of no more than half that. To heat water to 90 deg. C with a COP of 6 requires a cool sink that is no less than 60 deg. C.
Re: [Vo]:Thane Heins continues with his bold claims
Perhaps instead of practical I should have said economical. You were the one who started comparing the overall energy efficiency of the E-Cat to heat pumps anyone could buy today. As the E-Cat is targeted to the residential market, it should only be compared to residential market heat pumps. If you look at what's actually available on the market, for example, http://www.lennox.com/products/heat-pumps/ you see the best HSPF rating is 9.5. This is a measure of the average efficiency over a heating season. An HSPF of 9.5 means if the heat pump produces 100,000,000 BTUs of heat, it will consume 10,500 kWh of electricity. 100,000,000 BTUs is equal to 28,500 kWh. Consuming 10,500 kWh while producing 28,500 kWh gives a COP of 2.7. Keep in mind, this is for the best, most efficient, most expensive heat pump available from this company for the residential market. For a heat pump at the minimum HSPF rating of 7.7 that can be sold, which is closer to what constitutes the majority of the market, the COP is 2.2. Gee, that's about half of 4.5. Sure, geothermal systems can achieve higher COPs in limited circumstances, but have you ever looked at the prices. Compared to a possibly theoretical E-Cat at $1,000 which heats water to over 80 deg. C, you're more likely to spend $40,000 for something that can't produce heat over 50 deg. C. The output of the heat pump will not be hot enough for radiators or hot water coils in an air handler, or to heat domestic hot water. A better argument against the E-Cat as an efficient produces of heat for the home would be to compare it to natural gas. Our standard electric rate is $.13 per kWh. We get natural gas at $.84 per therm (100,000 BTU). A therm is equivalent to 29.3 kWh, so a kWh of heat from natural gas costs $.029 (4.5 times better than electricity), while a kWh of heat from an E-Cat at a COP of 6 would cost $.022, which is just barely better. No ones going to be ripping out a functioning boiler and replacing it with a couple E-Cats if they can do simple math. In our case, the only way the E-Cat would make sense economically would be to switch to time of day electric rates, at $.05 off peak and $.25 on peak, and use the E-Cat to produce heat during off peak hours at an effective cost of $.008 per kWh, and use gas for heat during on peak hours. On Sun, Mar 25, 2012 at 2:50 PM, David Roberson dlrober...@aol.com wrote: I am not sure what your observations are Not Me. Do you know of a heat pump that has a COP of 4.5/2 when having a source of input at 30 C while putting out heat at 120 C? According to wikipedia I calculate COP(heating)=T(hot)/(T(hot)-T(cool))=4.4 as the Carnot limit. This is using their equation just ahead of the table of various performances. Wikipedia discusses an example of a geothermal application using buried coils where the source is at 10 C in the UK for a home system that usually displays a COP of 4 to 5. Please review that article and let me know if you still think the COP would be 4.5/2 under those standard home conditions. Not Me, your assumption of 50% efficiency for the heat pump relative to Carnot appears low. How did you acquire your estimate? The article in Wikipedia discusses the fact that current heat pumps are in the range you suggest but that future developments will improve them significantly as the cost of input energy rises. They imply that the best designs will approach the Carnot limit. Maybe we need to understand why the present devices are so poorly performing before we assume that the best we can achieve is 50% efficiency. I am hoping for inputs from experts in the chemical industry that use equipment which transfers excess heat from exhaust processes to areas that need preheating. It should be common practice to save expensive heating costs by using waste heat in this manner. Perhaps petroleum engineers are aware of high temperature heat pump systems and it would be enlightening for them to bring these into the discussion. I am very curious about the active fluids and systems required. Would it be possible for us to limit this discussion to high temperature heat pumps and not refer to LENR devices? Perhaps the name should be modified to pertain more to the subject at hand? Dave -Original Message- From: Not Me energya...@gmail.com To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Sat, Mar 24, 2012 11:15 am Subject: Re: [Vo]:Thane Heins continues with his bold claims I'd like more information on this alleged heat pump which could heat water to 90 deg. C with a COP 6 in conditions that exist in a usual residential setting, such as an ambient air temperature of 10 deg. C. The Carnot limit in these conditions is 4.5. Any practical heat pump in these conditions will have a COP of no more than half that. To heat water to 90 deg. C with a COP of 6 requires a cool sink that is no less than 60 deg. C.
Re: [Vo]:Thane Heins continues with his bold claims
It is not my intent to prevent use of ECATs in the world. I would love to see them and their kin everywhere, saving the environment and hopefully money at the same time. On many occasions I have pleaded with Rossi to work hard in an effort to increase the COP that he specifies so that cost comparison to heat pumps or natural gas or any other heating system becomes moot. Thus far he has stuck to his guns, but I think it is only a matter of time and engineering before that obstacle is overcome. The reference to heat pumps was brought up just as a numerical comparison which seems to be a relatively simple way to estimate the COP that should be exhibited by a new LENR system that is capable of generating electrical power that exceeds its own input requirements. I was thinking of the heat pumping process as a Carnot cycle engine in reverse. Take the numbers I calculated in the below listing as my example. A perfect heat pump that takes an input of 30 C and outputs its heat product at 120 C has a Carnot limit of 4.4. Maybe I have oversimplified the estimating by assuming that the best that can be achieved by the reverse device would be 1/4.4 or .227 times the heat pumped for generated electrical power when the input source is at the 120 C temperature and its sink at 30 C as before. If we add a little inefficiency to the generation process, we might expect the net output to be less. Unless this technique is woefully incorrect in prediction, which it might be, then a LENR device with an equivalent COP of 6 would be on shaky ground if it is expected to generate its own electrical input. This is where an expert in power generation would come in handy to clarify my misunderstanding. I have heard loud and clear that an LENR device that runs in the self sustaining mode need not generate electrical power for its input as it produces heat energy indefinitely. I am thinking of one that actually needs electrical input power and then is capable of self generating that same input plus excess electrical power for other uses. This type of system will no doubt become the real winner in the future. One way to consider the near self sustaining operation is to realize that the COP in that condition can be made to approach infinity as the thermal feedback is enhanced. Increase the thermal coupling to the core and get a higher overall COP as long as you maintain safe control. Now use the Carnot rule of thumb above and you see that a far less effecient heat engine is required for the generation of input drive power. Problem solved. Your calculations of the natural gas system as compared to the present ECAT would definitely suggest that gas would be best for today. We should give Rossi some time to improve his COP since this is version 1.0 and I believe that the improvements will come quickly until the input electrical requirement is of little concern. The marketplace should drive LENR systems in the desired direction, but it may take a little time. It is apparent that the current lowest cost heat pumps are not very good with an efficiency of only 50% as you point out. But engineers start at that level of performance and ask themselves why this is the case. Very few would accept a loss of 50% without a little fight. Perhaps the current management of their companies beat them into submission at that level since it is marketable at the moment. All we need is for the government agencies to dictate better devices and they appear. Maybe they cost a bit more, but the environment is important as well. For this reason, the 50% rule of thumb will most likely become history very shortly. If there is not a law of physics or thermodynamics that prevents us from reaching say 90% efficiency, then we should be thinking more of the Carnot limit. Dave -Original Message- From: Not Me energya...@gmail.com To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Sun, Mar 25, 2012 8:02 pm Subject: Re: [Vo]:Thane Heins continues with his bold claims Perhaps instead of practical I should have said economical. You were the one who started comparing the overall energy efficiency of the E-Cat to heat pumps anyone could buy today. As the E-Cat is targeted to the residential market, it should only be compared to residential market heat pumps. If you look at what's actually available on the market, for example, http://www.lennox.com/products/heat-pumps/ you see the best HSPF rating is 9.5. This is a measure of the average efficiency over a heating season. An HSPF of 9.5 means if the heat pump produces 100,000,000 BTUs of heat, it will consume 10,500 kWh of electricity. 100,000,000 BTUs is equal to 28,500 kWh. Consuming 10,500 kWh while producing 28,500 kWh gives a COP of 2.7. Keep in mind, this is for the best, most efficient, most expensive heat pump available from this company for the residential market. For a heat pump at the minimum HSPF rating of 7.7 that can be sold
Re: [Vo]:Thane Heins continues with his bold claims
David Roberson dlrober...@aol.com wrote: It does concern me that the ECAT performance is dangerously close to that of a high efficiency heat pump. No, it is not. It is light years away from the performance of a heat pump. There is not the slightest chance it is a heat pump. The reasons are simple: 1. A heat pump transfers heat from one place to another. One location gets warm, and another close by gets cold to the exact same extent. There is no doubt the Rossi device is producing kilowatt levels of heat. So, if it is a heat pump, it has to be cooling down air, water or metal to the same extent it heats up other water. It has to extract that heat from the surroundings. If that were happening you would see water freeze. The metal would be covered with a thick layer of frozen condensation. The surroundings would be very cold to the touch. The intense cold would be as obvious as the intense heat is. Nothing like that has been observed. The device is small and the entire thing is hot. There is no flow of water that goes in at room temperature and comes out icy cold. That scenario is physically impossible. No heat pump that small could work that well in any case. If Rossi has invented such a thing, it is as revolutionary as cold fusion. 2. No heat pump can produce such high temperature difference. Some of the best ones move ~6 times more heat than it takes to operate them, but only when the temperature difference is slight; a few degrees at most. Above 10 degrees efficiency falls off drastically. None can produce temperatures in the hundreds of degrees. Again, if Rossi has devised a heat pump that can do this, it is gigantic revolution in physics. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:Thane Heins continues with his bold claims
I forgot to mention Reason #3 this cannot be a heat pump: 3. It works without input power (self sustaining, or heat after death). You can forget about the heat pump hypothesis. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:Thane Heins continues with his bold claims
Von: Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com An: vortex-l@eskimo.com Gesendet: 13:26 Samstag, 24.März 2012 Betreff: Re: [Vo]:Thane Heins continues with his bold claims I forgot to mention Reason #3 this cannot be a heat pump: 3. It works without input power (self sustaining, or heat after death). You can forget about the heat pump hypothesis. - Jed ### The question is not whether this is equivalent to a heat pump -which a LENR device is definitely not. It is a question of feedback of excess energy into the process. In the case of thermal feedback, this is trivial. the system goes into a self-sustained mode, simply by consuming a certain amount of thermal energy to sustain itself. But this is an unwanted condition, because of feedforward thermal runaway. The sensible thing to do, is to control the process via a decoupling mechanism: heat-electricity-RF etc. This leads to a slight loss of COP, but the big advantage is a controllable process. I do not see this in any designs right now. It is more implicit than explicit. High-power devices need a control well below shut-down by self-destruction, ie Nickel melting etc. The COP-issue basically is a non-issue, maybe as low as down to COP 2 to 3, or even lower. This is an engineering issue but not one of principle. My two cents.
Re: [Vo]:Thane Heins continues with his bold claims
I stand corrected in this case. Of course I do not think that the ECAT is some form of heat pump, but the total demonstrated effeciency is close to that of a heat pump. Why buy a new technology that merely replaces a reliable one currently on the market? By comparison, DGT suggests that they demonstrate a device that far exceeds the performance of any form of heat pump. I was mainly expressing the concern that it becomes increasingly possible to muddy the water regarding performance as the level of gain drops. At some level it becomes impossible to regenerate the electricity required to make the device operate. I have not calculated that value, but I suspect it would be between 3 and 6 at the output temperature of the ECAT(120 C) that has been demonstrated. Perhaps some of the collective members have performed that calculation and might show their figures. There is no heat pump theory requirement that prevents them from working at the hundreds of degree temperature levels as far as I know. This is an operating fluid characteristic. We use the standard fluids today in home systems based upon our comfort levels and the atmosphere, not limited by theory. I suspect that there are industrial applications that operate at far higher temperature levels. It would be interesting for vort members to make a list of the ones that they are aware of and their modes of operation. Dave -Original Message- From: Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Sat, Mar 24, 2012 8:21 am Subject: Re: [Vo]:Thane Heins continues with his bold claims David Roberson dlrober...@aol.com wrote: It does concern me that the ECAT performance is dangerously close to that of a high efficiency heat pump. No, it is not. It is light years away from the performance of a heat pump. There is not the slightest chance it is a heat pump. The reasons are simple: 1. A heat pump transfers heat from one place to another. One location gets warm, and another close by gets cold to the exact same extent. There is no doubt the Rossi device is producing kilowatt levels of heat. So, if it is a heat pump, it has to be cooling down air, water or metal to the same extent it heats up other water. It has to extract that heat from the surroundings. If that were happening you would see water freeze. The metal would be covered with a thick layer of frozen condensation. The surroundings would be very cold to the touch. The intense cold would be as obvious as the intense heat is. Nothing like that has been observed. The device is small and the entire thing is hot. There is no flow of water that goes in at room temperature and comes out icy cold. That scenario is physically impossible. No heat pump that small could work that well in any case. If Rossi has invented such a thing, it is as revolutionary as cold fusion. 2. No heat pump can produce such high temperature difference. Some of the best ones move ~6 times more heat than it takes to operate them, but only when the temperature difference is slight; a few degrees at most. Above 10 degrees efficiency falls off drastically. None can produce temperatures in the hundreds of degrees. Again, if Rossi has devised a heat pump that can do this, it is gigantic revolution in physics. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:Thane Heins continues with his bold claims
Jed, I know it is not a heat pump. The operation of the ECAT after death needs to be extended indefinitely (or at least for days) in order to prove beyond doubt that it is possible. Other scientists have done this and I think Rossi could as well if he gets his device under safe control. Please note that this topic is mainly concerning Thane Heins and his device and the Rossi discussion is a minor point of consideration. No one has ever believed that Rossi is a heat pump designer! Dave -Original Message- From: Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Sat, Mar 24, 2012 8:26 am Subject: Re: [Vo]:Thane Heins continues with his bold claims I forgot to mention Reason #3 this cannot be a heat pump: 3. It works without input power (self sustaining, or heat after death). You can forget about the heat pump hypothesis. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:Thane Heins continues with his bold claims
I'd like more information on this alleged heat pump which could heat water to 90 deg. C with a COP 6 in conditions that exist in a usual residential setting, such as an ambient air temperature of 10 deg. C. The Carnot limit in these conditions is 4.5. Any practical heat pump in these conditions will have a COP of no more than half that. To heat water to 90 deg. C with a COP of 6 requires a cool sink that is no less than 60 deg. C. On Sat, Mar 24, 2012 at 9:51 AM, David Roberson dlrober...@aol.com wrote: I stand corrected in this case. Of course I do not think that the ECAT is some form of heat pump, but the total demonstrated effeciency is close to that of a heat pump. Why buy a new technology that merely replaces a reliable one currently on the market? By comparison, DGT suggests that they demonstrate a device that far exceeds the performance of any form of heat pump. I was mainly expressing the concern that it becomes increasingly possible to muddy the water regarding performance as the level of gain drops. At some level it becomes impossible to regenerate the electricity required to make the device operate. I have not calculated that value, but I suspect it would be between 3 and 6 at the output temperature of the ECAT(120 C) that has been demonstrated. Perhaps some of the collective members have performed that calculation and might show their figures. There is no heat pump theory requirement that prevents them from working at the hundreds of degree temperature levels as far as I know. This is an operating fluid characteristic. We use the standard fluids today in home systems based upon our comfort levels and the atmosphere, not limited by theory. I suspect that there are industrial applications that operate at far higher temperature levels. It would be interesting for vort members to make a list of the ones that they are aware of and their modes of operation. Dave -Original Message- From: Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Sat, Mar 24, 2012 8:21 am Subject: Re: [Vo]:Thane Heins continues with his bold claims David Roberson dlrober...@aol.com wrote: It does concern me that the ECAT performance is dangerously close to that of a high efficiency heat pump. No, it is not. It is light years away from the performance of a heat pump. There is not the slightest chance it is a heat pump. The reasons are simple: 1. A heat pump transfers heat from one place to another. One location gets warm, and another close by gets cold to the exact same extent. There is no doubt the Rossi device is producing kilowatt levels of heat. So, if it is a heat pump, it has to be cooling down air, water or metal to the same extent it heats up other water. It has to extract that heat from the surroundings. If that were happening you would see water freeze. The metal would be covered with a thick layer of frozen condensation. The surroundings would be very cold to the touch. The intense cold would be as obvious as the intense heat is. Nothing like that has been observed. The device is small and the entire thing is hot. There is no flow of water that goes in at room temperature and comes out icy cold. That scenario is physically impossible. No heat pump that small could work that well in any case. If Rossi has invented such a thing, it is as revolutionary as cold fusion. 2. No heat pump can produce such high temperature difference. Some of the best ones move ~6 times more heat than it takes to operate them, but only when the temperature difference is slight; a few degrees at most. Above 10 degrees efficiency falls off drastically. None can produce temperatures in the hundreds of degrees. Again, if Rossi has devised a heat pump that can do this, it is gigantic revolution in physics. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:Thane Heins continues with his bold claims
David Roberson dlrober...@aol.com wrote: Jed, I know it is not a heat pump. Then why did you bring up that subject? Do you not understand that a heat pump moves heat, and must cool down a body as much as it heats up another body? I do not understand why you mentioned heat pumps and their highest COP if you know that is not relevant. People often do say that cold fusion devices might be heat pumps. These people are always wrong, for the reasons I gave. If you understand these reasons why did you confuse the issue by saying this? The operation of the ECAT after death needs to be extended indefinitely (or at least for days) in order to prove beyond doubt that it is possible. No, it does not. Given these materials, the weight and surface area of the device, the surface temperature and the cooling curves, maintaining a stable high temperature for 1 hour proves the issue beyond any rational doubt. An object with that surface area at that temperature is producing kilowatts of heat. After an hour the gadget would be lukewarm and after 4 hours it would be stone cold with any conventional source of stored heat or chemical heat. You do not need any instruments to be sure of this. Direct sensation of the heat and first principle physics are all the proof anyone can ask for. Running for several days or several years would not prove anything that 1 hour does not already prove. People who demand several days of operation move the goal posts down the field, out of the stadium, and into the next county. It is like demanding that researchers sell commercial products before you believe the effect is real. As we all know, some skeptics have made that demand. With that we move from rational, science-based discussion to never-never land. Please note that this topic is mainly concerning Thane Heins and his device and the Rossi discussion is a minor point of consideration. No one has ever believed that Rossi is a heat pump designer! Again I ask: why did you talk about heat pumps if you know this? What was your point? I am asking seriously. Frankly, I consider it disruptive and kind of strange that someone who understands Carnot's law would mention heat pumps in this discussion. Why?!? Do you suspect the Thane Heins device is a heat pump? You mentioned Rossi specifically. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:Thane Heins continues with his bold claims
I guess I hit a touchy subject with this one. Rossi's device came up because his heat gain(6) is so low relative to, as example, DGT(20). It has always been my desire to have that number upped significantly and I would assume that most of us feel the same way. The heat pump issue arouse just because of the relatively low gain performance demonstrated thus far and there was no attempt on my part to claim that Rossi was using anything resembling heat pump technology. I was totally unaware that anyone really has made any assumptions otherwise with a straight face. If someone actually believes that LENR is some strange form of heat pump then let them bring it up for debate. Open discussion of any issue would be good for us all. By the way, I do know how heat pumps operate so the lecture is not necessary. Remember, comparing numbers is not making assumptions about processes. The 1 hour time frame suggested as adequate to prove self sustaining of the reaction is absurd. If super accurate instrumentation were available to measure temperatures at many internal points and power input could be extremely well determined then that might be correct. The modest changes in device state during that time frame might be projected accurately and the issue would be settled. But we all know that this is not what happened. Sloppy measurement techniques were used and too much uncertainty still exists which allows the skeptics plenty of leeway. Why is it so difficult to extend the self sustaining period to a few days? Virtually all of the skeptics would dissipate after that demonstration and the world would know the LENR is proven just as we realize. Does anyone honestly believe that a self sustaining test of 1 week duration is not more definitive than one of an hour? Why not just make a 1 minute test instead? Also, I can understand why some skeptics, perhaps including NASA, would like to extend the self sustaining period. A little insurance is not a bad thing. The device demonstrated by Thane Heins is clearly not a heat pump. It, like a heat pump as compared, will never be able to self power. Both may appear as if excess energy appears at the output or into some form of load, but it is merely an illusion. The reference to Rossi and DGT was coincidental and the only reason was to compare numbers and not processes. I am sorry if anyone considers open discussion disruptive. My understanding is that this mailing list is concerned with unusual processes and subjects. It is likely that vort members will find reasons to disagree on occasions and we should make every attempt to understand the other members point of view instead of launching negative personal attacks. Dave -Original Message- From: Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Sat, Mar 24, 2012 11:45 am Subject: Re: [Vo]:Thane Heins continues with his bold claims David Roberson dlrober...@aol.com wrote: Jed, I know it is not a heat pump. Then why did you bring up that subject? Do you not understand that a heat pump moves heat, and must cool down a body as much as it heats up another body? I do not understand why you mentioned heat pumps and their highest COP if you know that is not relevant. People often do say that cold fusion devices might be heat pumps. These people are always wrong, for the reasons I gave. If you understand these reasons why did you confuse the issue by saying this? The operation of the ECAT after death needs to be extended indefinitely (or at least for days) in order to prove beyond doubt that it is possible. No, it does not. Given these materials, the weight and surface area of the device, the surface temperature and the cooling curves, maintaining a stable high temperature for 1 hour proves the issue beyond any rational doubt. An object with that surface area at that temperature is producing kilowatts of heat. After an hour the gadget would be lukewarm and after 4 hours it would be stone cold with any conventional source of stored heat or chemical heat. You do not need any instruments to be sure of this. Direct sensation of the heat and first principle physics are all the proof anyone can ask for. Running for several days or several years would not prove anything that 1 hour does not already prove. People who demand several days of operation move the goal posts down the field, out of the stadium, and into the next county. It is like demanding that researchers sell commercial products before you believe the effect is real. As we all know, some skeptics have made that demand. With that we move from rational, science-based discussion to never-never land. Please note that this topic is mainly concerning Thane Heins and his device and the Rossi discussion is a minor point of consideration. No one has ever believed that Rossi is a heat pump designer! Again I ask: why did you talk about heat
Re: [Vo]:Thane Heins continues with his bold claims
David Roberson dlrober...@aol.com wrote: I guess I hit a touchy subject with this one. Rossi's device came up because his heat gain(6) is so low relative to, as example, DGT(20). Rossi has demonstrated a self-sustaining reaction lasting 4 hours. The ratio is infinite. Why do you say the ratio is 6? In any case, the ratio is easy to improve with any cold fusion device. It is just a matter of engineering. With any electrochemical FP device improving the ratio is trivial, but it is not done because that ends obscuring the results and making the experiment more difficult. The heat pump issue arouse just because of the relatively low gain performance . . . The word gain implies that the reaction is some form of amplification, or that output is coupled to input. There is no evidence for that. If that were the case, self-sustained heat would be impossible. Input power is needed to trigger the reaction or to keep the cell at operating temperature. You can do the latter with insulation. The 1 hour time frame suggested as adequate to prove self sustaining of the reaction is absurd. If super accurate instrumentation were available to measure temperatures at many internal points and power input could be extremely well determined then that might be correct. No instrumentation is needed. Human senses alone suffice. The observers felt the heat coming from the device hours after the power was turned off. Simple first-principle physics and observations of everyday objects such as a pot of boiling water left to cool in the kitchen prove beyond doubt it was producing kilowatts of heat. There is no way it could be doing that from stored heat or chemical heat with such a small cell. No heat was stored prior to the self-sustaining phase. On the contrary, it produced a great deal of excess before that. You are demanding instrumentation to prove something that any cook in the last 100,000 years would have known with absolute certainty. This is a distortion of the scientific method. Instruments are important to science, but even more important are observations and common sense knowledge of how things work. The human senses are reliable and just as good as any instrument for this particular test. Natural science observations of things like rocks, animal behavior, smell, appearance, heat and cold are just good -- and just as scientific -- as a reading from a multi-million dollar laboratory instrument. In modern science we have elevated the instrument and the computer too far above old fashioned, hands-on human interaction with objects, and the human senses. The primary school test in which an egg is sucked into a bottle is proof that there is a vacuum in the bottle. It is definitive, irrefutable proof. If you brought in a million-dollar vacuum gauge and measured the vacuum in the bottle to 8 significant decimal places, that would not prove the existence of the vacuum any better than the simple, direct, visual observation of the egg does. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:Thane Heins continues with his bold claims
I wrote: Instruments are important to science, but even more important are observations and common sense knowledge of how things work. The human senses are reliable and just as good as any instrument . . . As Francis Bacon put it: . . . But, as I said at the beginning and am ever urging, the human senses and understanding, weak as they are, are not to be deprived of their authority, but to be supplied with helps. http://www.constitution.org/bacon/nov_org.htm (By helps he means both the scientific method and instruments.) When you assert that educated observers are incapable of confirming that the cell was producing massive amounts of heat for hours with no input, you *deprive the human senses and understanding of their authority*. That hits the nail on the head. This unfortunate tendency is widespread in modern science, and medicine. Bacon well understood that the human senses can deceive, and that rigorous analysis and instruments are essential. He invented that idea. He is the father of modern science, even more than Newton was, in my opinion. Much of the book is devoted to the ways the mind and senses cause errors. Bacon also described bad experimental technique, narrow experimental agendas, Rossi's over-hasty methods, and many other common problems with experimental science: But the best demonstration by far is experience, if it go not beyond the actual experiment. For if it be transferred to other cases which are deemed similar, unless such transfer be made by a just and orderly process, it is a fallacious thing. But the manner of making experiments which men now use is blind and stupid. And therefore, wandering and straying as they do with no settled course, and taking counsel only from things as they fall out, they fetch a wide circuit and meet with many matters, but make little progress; and sometimes are full of hope, sometimes are distracted; and always find that there is something beyond to be sought. For it generally happens that men make their trials carelessly, and as it were in play; slightly varying experiments already known, and, if the thing does not answer, growing weary and abandoning the attempt. And even if they apply themselves to experiments more seriously and earnestly and laboriously, still they spend their labor in working out some one experiment, as Gilbert with the magnet, and the chemists with gold; a course of proceeding not less unskillful in the design than small in the attempt. For no one successfully investigates the nature of a thing in the thing itself; the inquiry must be enlarged so as to become more general. And even when they seek to educe some science or theory from their experiments, they nevertheless almost always turn aside with overhasty and unseasonable eagerness to practice; not only for the sake of the uses and fruits of the practice, but from impatience to obtain in the shape of some new work an assurance for themselves that it is worth their while to go on; and also to show themselves off to the world, and so raise the credit of the business in which they are engaged. . . . It is astounding that he wrote this when experimental science hardly existed, in 1620. His ability see into the future was as powerful as Doctor Mirabilis Roger Bacon's. (Arthur Clarke, who loved coincidences, noted that the two greatest prognosticators of science happened to be named Bacon.) - Jed
Re: [Vo]:Thane Heins continues with his bold claims
The Dr. appreciates the prejudices and preconceptions regarding the nature of energy! :-) Harry On Thu, Mar 22, 2012 at 2:58 AM, Dr Josef Karthauser j...@tao.org.uk wrote: Yes, that's true isn't it. The whole closing the loop discussion is predicated on all types of energy being convertible, which is another statement of the conservation of energy. The whole over unity issue is that either conservation is broken in some circumstances, or that there are other energy sources that we have not previously taken into consideration. If it's the later, then really it's not over unity, and closing the loop is ok. But if it's the former, then we can't really prove anything by insisting that the energy present can be converted into other types of energy, especially if those forms are known to be conservative. Joe On 22 Mar 2012, at 06:40, Harry Veeder wrote: The conversion of one form of energy into another form may involve a loss (destruction) of energy or a gain (creation) of energy depending on the type and direction of energy conversion. Even if a system is creating energy, the created energy would be destroyed as it is converted into another type of energy. By that, I do not mean the energy is simply lost to the environment because it is converted inefficiently. I mean the process of conversion literal destroys energy. In Thane Heinz's system an input of kinetic energy maybe required to keep the system creating more kinetic energy, because the conversion of the created kinetic energy into electrical energy destroys the kinetic energy that was created. Harry On Wed, Mar 21, 2012 at 9:53 PM, Harry Veeder hveeder...@gmail.com wrote: There is another possibility which probably seems absurd from a logical perspective. What counts above all is the INTUITION that a perpetuum mobil is impossible. All the formal concepts and laws of physics merely serve to affirm the intuition. However, the laws and concepts do not prove or replace the intuition. perhaps it is possible to violate CoE in such a way that the intuition remains true, although I admit it is a struggle to imagine how it can be logically possible because it would involve NEW concepts of motion. Harry On Wed, Mar 21, 2012 at 8:53 PM, Jones Beene jone...@pacbell.net wrote: I agree in principle with your skepticism, David - with the proviso that Thanes could be just plain stubborn and completely incapacitated by inventor's disease - by not pursuing the obvious pathway to proof and publishing the results. This is a transformer at heart, like Bearden's MEG - and most transformers are already very efficient or should be (in contrast to heat engines), where Carnot efficiency enters the picture. There are electric motors available NOW which are 98+% efficient (CSIRO), and electric generators available which are 95% efficient and they can be paired at optimal RPM with minimal loss. That much should be a no-brainer. Most transformers are 98% - so that it does not take a high level mentality to realize that any intermediary device, like a transformer, which has minimal gain should allow Thanes to close the loop by the simple expedient of placing his device between the two (paired high-efficiency motor and generator) and thus to achieve a self-powering mode, which is undeniable proof! I must add a DOH [slaps forehead] to my objection here - given the circumstances. Since, over the many years in which some version of this objection has been raised, Thanes steadfastly refuses to acknowledge that this simple route to absolute proof even exits, with the expected conclusion that skeptics believe he is hiding something with every new PR release - which is the same-old, same-old BS. However, I am not a total skeptic and think he may have some glimmer of an anomaly, but if it is a new variation of the Bedini battery anomaly then that puts it in a different category (electrochemical). Bottom line, until he performs the obvious kind of real test and attempts to close the loop with a self-runner, and publishes the data - then there is no reason to give him any credit at all. I can only suspect extreme self-delusion is the problem here. The guy is obviously talented but in complete denial of how easy it would be to prove that there is gain, if it is really there. It only takes COP 1.2 or less - to absolutely prove real gain with a self powering transformer-type of setup beyond all doubt ... Of course, it should be added that Bearden's MEG failed under the same scrutiny. I would not call that failure of TB to prove anything valid, as being any kind of good company for the failure of TH, however... we expect more and it is lacking. Jones From: David Roberson I fall into the category of engineers that do not believe in this device. Someone will need to demonstrate where the energy comes from that recharges the batteries instead of
Re: [Vo]:Thane Heins continues with his bold claims
On Thu, Mar 22, 2012 at 12:11 PM, David Roberson dlrober...@aol.com wrote: I have not seen any system that actually creates or destroys energy during its operation. Unless I have missed something extremely important, every current product including the ECAT type of device takes an existing form of energy that has been stored by nature or man and converts it into another form of energy. Mass is a type of frozen energy that is converted into heat by LENR. The magnitude of the energy so converted is precisely defined and no new net energy is generated in these reactions. That is what established theory says. The Motor-Generator type of system suggested by the group mentioned will not be able to create extra energy. The input power integrated over time to yield energy will always be greater than any integrated output power since some of the input will appear as heat due to friction or similar losses. The motor as well as the generator can store rotational energy derived from the input. This motional energy can behave as a long time constant battery that can be withdrawn quickly if needed to impress observers at demonstrations. That is not how it operates. Go and see it for yourself if you don't believe me. I am confident that a very careful analysis of the system would reveal exactly what is occurring and that no new physics is involved. This is not to suggest that it would be easy to prove since a system such as this can easily mask the underlying principles due to nasty phase shifts and complex shapes of the important waveforms. Yes, there is always a rationale for discounting an anomaly. The real proof of the viability of a new physics type device is for the input power to be discontinued entirely (removed and unplugged) and for it to continue operation with the same internal motional energy indefinitely. Of course, if the device is to be useful, the internal energy must increase under these conditions. Let me know when the device is self sustaining and I might change my mind. I have come to wonder why this self sustaining requirement is a necessary before it is taken seriously. It is similiar to demanding neutrons before CF experiments are taken seriously. People generally prefer to dismiss physical anomalies as error or fraud unless it satisfies their preconcieved notion of what a radical discovery should involve. It is not enough to present people with physical anomolies. Nothing short of amiracle will suffice which is also a form of dogmatism -- nature is either this way or that way. I could speculate on the cause of these onerous expectations, but I don't have time right now. The DGT or Rossi devices do not have a problem explaining where the energy that appears as heat is derived. There is some question as to exactly which nuclear reactions are involved, but there is no question that E=M*C*C defines the precise amount of energy released. All that is required is for DGT or Rossi to simply (pun intended) overcome the activation threshold leading to the energy release. The only thing known is that the amount of heat produced is consistent with nuclear reactions. Harry -Original Message- From: Harry Veeder hveeder...@gmail.com To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Thu, Mar 22, 2012 2:40 am Subject: Re: [Vo]:Thane Heins continues with his bold claims The conversion of one form of energy into another form may involve a loss (destruction) of energy or a gain (creation) of energy depending on the type and direction of energy conversion. Even if a system is creating energy, the created energy would be destroyed as it is converted into another type of energy. By that, I do not mean the energy is simply lost to the environment because it is converted inefficiently. I mean the process of conversion literal destroys energy. In Thane Heinz's system an input of kinetic energy maybe required to keep the system creating more kinetic energy, because the conversion of the created kinetic energy into electrical energy destroys the kinetic energy that was created. Harry On Wed, Mar 21, 2012 at 9:53 PM, Harry Veeder hveeder...@gmail.com wrote: There is another possibility which probably seems absurd from a logical perspective. What counts above all is the INTUITION that a perpetuum mobil is impossible. All the formal concepts and laws of physics merely serve to affirm the intuition. However, the laws and concepts do not prove or replace the intuition. perhaps it is possible to violate CoE in such a way that the intuition remains true, although I admit it is a struggle to imagine how it can be logically possible because it would involve NEW concepts of motion. Harry On Wed, Mar 21, 2012 at 8:53 PM, Jones Beene jone...@pacbell.net wrote: I agree in principle with your skepticism, David - with the proviso that Thanes could be just plain stubborn and completely incapacitated by inventor's disease - by not pursuing
Re: [Vo]:Thane Heins continues with his bold claims
I apologize -- I missed some of the early context for this thread. I just want address a general point or two. On Fri, Mar 23, 2012 at 6:46 PM, David Roberson dlrober...@aol.com wrote: The reason for the self sustaining requirement is to ensure that there are no false measurements taking place. Agreed -- being able to show that an isolated system can run on its own is good. This is a nice way to dispel any questions about where the energy comes from. Any useful source of energy should be capable of supplying the power required to make it function. This seems too strong a statement. So far neither Rossi nor DGT have demonstrated this goal and until that is proven, their devices are suspect. Their devices are suspect. But this is not because DGT and Rossi failed to demonstrate that they can operate in a self-sustaining mode. It's 2012. We should be able to measure the inputs and outputs for a system that has been running a long time, even one that is connected to power, and demonstrate beyond a reasonable doubt that more energy is coming out of it than is going into it. To my view, self-sustaining operation is a nice-to-have and not a must-have for showing that a device produces more energy than can be accounted for by known chemical reactions. There may be subtle reasons that it's necessary to keep early prototypes connected to a power supply to keep a reaction going. Eric
Re: [Vo]:Thane Heins continues with his bold claims
There are several reasons why Rossi's and DGT's devices are suspect in my opinion, but all of them would become moot if a self sustaining mode were demonstrated in which they ran without the power connected and for a very long period of time. I am always concerned about a heat pump simulator type of device. In these systems the output heat energy is several times the input electrical energy but they can not produce excess energy if operated in a loop where one acting as a heat engine generator combination powers the other. The excess heat appearing at the output is obtained from the environment and does not represent any new energy. I agree that there may be subtle reasons why an early prototype might not be able to power itself, but a high power system such as the ECAT followed by a generator should not exhibit this problem. The relatively low COP of the ECAT does complicate the issue, but the specified value of 6 should be adequate as long as the output temperature and pressure can drive a generator efficiently. It does concern me that the ECAT performance is dangerously close to that of a high efficiency heat pump. DGT indicates that their Hyperion device has far more gain and the heat pump equivalent would not apply. You are correct that my suggestion that an useful energy source should supply its activation power is too broad. Many devices depend upon external energy sources such as solar or wind and would not operate on their own. I suggest that a device of the mechanical nature discussed which is an electrical generator should fall into the category of self powering and thus self sustaining. Dave -Original Message- From: Eric Walker eric.wal...@gmail.com To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Fri, Mar 23, 2012 11:20 pm Subject: Re: [Vo]:Thane Heins continues with his bold claims I apologize -- I missed some of the early context for this thread. I just want address a general point or two. On Fri, Mar 23, 2012 at 6:46 PM, David Roberson dlrober...@aol.com wrote: The reason for the self sustaining requirement is to ensure that there are no false measurements taking place. Agreed -- being able to show that an isolated system can run on its own is good. This is a nice way to dispel any questions about where the energy comes from. ny useful source of energy should be capable of supplying the power required to make it function. This seems too strong a statement. So far neither Rossi nor DGT have demonstrated this goal and until that is proven, their devices are suspect. Their devices are suspect. But this is not because DGT and Rossi failed to demonstrate that they can operate in a self-sustaining mode. It's 2012. We should be able to measure the inputs and outputs for a system that has been running a long time, even one that is connected to power, and demonstrate beyond a reasonable doubt that more energy is coming out of it than is going into it. To my view, self-sustaining operation is a nice-to-have and not a must-have for showing that a device produces more energy than can be accounted for by known chemical reactions. There may be subtle reasons that it's necessary to keep early prototypes connected to a power supply to keep a reaction going. Eric
Re: [Vo]:Thane Heins continues with his bold claims
The conversion of one form of energy into another form may involve a loss (destruction) of energy or a gain (creation) of energy depending on the type and direction of energy conversion. Even if a system is creating energy, the created energy would be destroyed as it is converted into another type of energy. By that, I do not mean the energy is simply lost to the environment because it is converted inefficiently. I mean the process of conversion literal destroys energy. In Thane Heinz's system an input of kinetic energy maybe required to keep the system creating more kinetic energy, because the conversion of the created kinetic energy into electrical energy destroys the kinetic energy that was created. Harry On Wed, Mar 21, 2012 at 9:53 PM, Harry Veeder hveeder...@gmail.com wrote: There is another possibility which probably seems absurd from a logical perspective. What counts above all is the INTUITION that a perpetuum mobil is impossible. All the formal concepts and laws of physics merely serve to affirm the intuition. However, the laws and concepts do not prove or replace the intuition. perhaps it is possible to violate CoE in such a way that the intuition remains true, although I admit it is a struggle to imagine how it can be logically possible because it would involve NEW concepts of motion. Harry On Wed, Mar 21, 2012 at 8:53 PM, Jones Beene jone...@pacbell.net wrote: I agree in principle with your skepticism, David - with the proviso that Thanes could be just plain stubborn and completely incapacitated by inventor's disease - by not pursuing the obvious pathway to proof and publishing the results. This is a transformer at heart, like Bearden's MEG - and most transformers are already very efficient or should be (in contrast to heat engines), where Carnot efficiency enters the picture. There are electric motors available NOW which are 98+% efficient (CSIRO), and electric generators available which are 95% efficient and they can be paired at optimal RPM with minimal loss. That much should be a no-brainer. Most transformers are 98% - so that it does not take a high level mentality to realize that any intermediary device, like a transformer, which has minimal gain should allow Thanes to close the loop by the simple expedient of placing his device between the two (paired high-efficiency motor and generator) and thus to achieve a self-powering mode, which is undeniable proof! I must add a DOH [slaps forehead] to my objection here - given the circumstances. Since, over the many years in which some version of this objection has been raised, Thanes steadfastly refuses to acknowledge that this simple route to absolute proof even exits, with the expected conclusion that skeptics believe he is hiding something with every new PR release - which is the same-old, same-old BS. However, I am not a total skeptic and think he may have some glimmer of an anomaly, but if it is a new variation of the Bedini battery anomaly then that puts it in a different category (electrochemical). Bottom line, until he performs the obvious kind of real test and attempts to close the loop with a self-runner, and publishes the data - then there is no reason to give him any credit at all. I can only suspect extreme self-delusion is the problem here. The guy is obviously talented but in complete denial of how easy it would be to prove that there is gain, if it is really there. It only takes COP 1.2 or less - to absolutely prove real gain with a self powering transformer-type of setup beyond all doubt ... Of course, it should be added that Bearden's MEG failed under the same scrutiny. I would not call that failure of TB to prove anything valid, as being any kind of good company for the failure of TH, however... we expect more and it is lacking. Jones From: David Roberson I fall into the category of engineers that do not believe in this device. Someone will need to demonstrate where the energy comes from that recharges the batteries instead of just stating that it works and that the laws of physics need to be rewritten. I viewed one video on the site that described why a different time constant for the generator inductor was so important. It was elementary inductor theory and explained nothing at all. They will have a difficult time trying to get knowledgeable engineers to believe in this one. Dave -Original Message- From: Harry Veeder hveeder...@gmail.com To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Wed, Mar 21, 2012 6:52 pm Subject: [Vo]:Thane Heins continues with his bold claims Thane Heins continues with his bold claims. This is the second video of four videos with a total length of 3 hours. ReGenX generator demonstration, Part 2
Re: [Vo]:Thane Heins continues with his bold claims
Yes, that's true isn't it. The whole closing the loop discussion is predicated on all types of energy being convertible, which is another statement of the conservation of energy. The whole over unity issue is that either conservation is broken in some circumstances, or that there are other energy sources that we have not previously taken into consideration. If it's the later, then really it's not over unity, and closing the loop is ok. But if it's the former, then we can't really prove anything by insisting that the energy present can be converted into other types of energy, especially if those forms are known to be conservative. Joe On 22 Mar 2012, at 06:40, Harry Veeder wrote: The conversion of one form of energy into another form may involve a loss (destruction) of energy or a gain (creation) of energy depending on the type and direction of energy conversion. Even if a system is creating energy, the created energy would be destroyed as it is converted into another type of energy. By that, I do not mean the energy is simply lost to the environment because it is converted inefficiently. I mean the process of conversion literal destroys energy. In Thane Heinz's system an input of kinetic energy maybe required to keep the system creating more kinetic energy, because the conversion of the created kinetic energy into electrical energy destroys the kinetic energy that was created. Harry On Wed, Mar 21, 2012 at 9:53 PM, Harry Veeder hveeder...@gmail.com wrote: There is another possibility which probably seems absurd from a logical perspective. What counts above all is the INTUITION that a perpetuum mobil is impossible. All the formal concepts and laws of physics merely serve to affirm the intuition. However, the laws and concepts do not prove or replace the intuition. perhaps it is possible to violate CoE in such a way that the intuition remains true, although I admit it is a struggle to imagine how it can be logically possible because it would involve NEW concepts of motion. Harry On Wed, Mar 21, 2012 at 8:53 PM, Jones Beene jone...@pacbell.net wrote: I agree in principle with your skepticism, David - with the proviso that Thanes could be just plain stubborn and completely incapacitated by inventor's disease - by not pursuing the obvious pathway to proof and publishing the results. This is a transformer at heart, like Bearden's MEG - and most transformers are already very efficient or should be (in contrast to heat engines), where Carnot efficiency enters the picture. There are electric motors available NOW which are 98+% efficient (CSIRO), and electric generators available which are 95% efficient and they can be paired at optimal RPM with minimal loss. That much should be a no-brainer. Most transformers are 98% - so that it does not take a high level mentality to realize that any intermediary device, like a transformer, which has minimal gain should allow Thanes to close the loop by the simple expedient of placing his device between the two (paired high-efficiency motor and generator) and thus to achieve a self-powering mode, which is undeniable proof! I must add a DOH [slaps forehead] to my objection here - given the circumstances. Since, over the many years in which some version of this objection has been raised, Thanes steadfastly refuses to acknowledge that this simple route to absolute proof even exits, with the expected conclusion that skeptics believe he is hiding something with every new PR release - which is the same-old, same-old BS. However, I am not a total skeptic and think he may have some glimmer of an anomaly, but if it is a new variation of the Bedini battery anomaly then that puts it in a different category (electrochemical). Bottom line, until he performs the obvious kind of real test and attempts to close the loop with a self-runner, and publishes the data - then there is no reason to give him any credit at all. I can only suspect extreme self-delusion is the problem here. The guy is obviously talented but in complete denial of how easy it would be to prove that there is gain, if it is really there. It only takes COP 1.2 or less - to absolutely prove real gain with a self powering transformer-type of setup beyond all doubt ... Of course, it should be added that Bearden's MEG failed under the same scrutiny. I would not call that failure of TB to prove anything valid, as being any kind of good company for the failure of TH, however... we expect more and it is lacking. Jones From: David Roberson I fall into the category of engineers that do not believe in this device. Someone will need to demonstrate where the energy comes from that recharges the batteries instead of just stating that it works and that the laws of physics need to be rewritten. I viewed one video on the site that described why a different time constant for the
RE: [Vo]:Thane Heins continues with his bold claims
-Original Message- From: Harry Veeder In Thane Heins' system an input of kinetic energy maybe required to keep the system creating more kinetic energy, because the conversion of the created kinetic energy into electrical energy destroys the kinetic energy that was created. Yes, that rings of Aspden's theory, but doesn't it forcefully argue for the type of demonstration where the claimed OU device is interposed between a very efficient motor and a very efficient generator? Both are kinetic devices. This route is the simplest yet most important way that any inventor can prove his claims: to close the loop. For instance, I am fond of the CSIRO open source motor which always wins the solar races in Oz: http://www.csiro.au/Outcomes/Climate/Reducing-GHG/Solar-cars-use-CSIRO-motor .aspx It is 98% efficient as a motor and can be rewired to be 95% efficient as a generator. That includes windage, friction and copper losses. Thus the combination will self-power in a rather dramatic way so long as the electrical system connecting the two has a COP of at least 1.1 ... but to be on the safe side, 1.2 may be needed. In either event the gain required can be so low in percentage terms that it would be questioned by skeptics as measurement error - if only meters are involved. Bottom line: there is no excuse for not employing this expedient, since a self-runner is rock solid proof of the claim. Not to mention - very dramatic proof. To fail to do so, after all these years, is essentially a tacit admission that the device in question is not gainful. Jones attachment: winmail.dat
RE: EXTERNAL: RE: [Vo]:Thane Heins continues with his bold claims
I've often wondered if these magnetic systems have some unforeseen zero point asymmetry built into the construction materials... but then I also allow for trapped ambient gases in the calcium pores of pyramid block.:_) Fran _ From: Jones Beene [mailto:jone...@pacbell.net] Sent: Thursday, March 22, 2012 9:30 AM To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: EXTERNAL: RE: [Vo]:Thane Heins continues with his bold claims -Original Message- From: Harry Veeder In Thane Heins' system an input of kinetic energy maybe required to keep the system creating more kinetic energy, because the conversion of the created kinetic energy into electrical energy destroys the kinetic energy that was created. Yes, that rings of Aspden's theory, but doesn't it forcefully argue for the type of demonstration where the claimed OU device is interposed between a very efficient motor and a very efficient generator? Both are kinetic devices. This route is the simplest yet most important way that any inventor can prove his claims: to close the loop. For instance, I am fond of the CSIRO open source motor which always wins the solar races in Oz: http://www.csiro.au/Outcomes/Climate/Reducing-GHG/Solar-cars-use-CSIRO-motor.aspx It is 98% efficient as a motor and can be rewired to be 95% efficient as a generator. That includes windage, friction and copper losses. Thus the combination will self-power in a rather dramatic way so long as the electrical system connecting the two has a COP of at least 1.1 ... but to be on the safe side, 1.2 may be needed. In either event the gain required can be so low in percentage terms that it would be questioned by skeptics as measurement error - if only meters are involved. Bottom line: there is no excuse for not employing this expedient, since a self-runner is rock solid proof of the claim. Not to mention - very dramatic proof. To fail to do so, after all these years, is essentially a tacit admission that the device in question is not gainful. Jones
Re: [Vo]:Thane Heins continues with his bold claims
I have not seen any system that actually creates or destroys energy during its operation. Unless I have missed something extremely important, every current product including the ECAT type of device takes an existing form of energy that has been stored by nature or man and converts it into another form of energy. Mass is a type of frozen energy that is converted into heat by LENR. The magnitude of the energy so converted is precisely defined and no new net energy is generated in these reactions. The Motor-Generator type of system suggested by the group mentioned will not be able to create extra energy. The input power integrated over time to yield energy will always be greater than any integrated output power since some of the input will appear as heat due to friction or similar losses. The motor as well as the generator can store rotational energy derived from the input. This motional energy can behave as a long time constant battery that can be withdrawn quickly if needed to impress observers at demonstrations. I am confident that a very careful analysis of the system would reveal exactly what is occurring and that no new physics is involved. This is not to suggest that it would be easy to prove since a system such as this can easily mask the underlying principles due to nasty phase shifts and complex shapes of the important waveforms. The real proof of the viability of a new physics type device is for the input power to be discontinued entirely (removed and unplugged) and for it to continue operation with the same internal motional energy indefinitely. Of course, if the device is to be useful, the internal energy must increase under these conditions. Let me know when the device is self sustaining and I might change my mind. The DGT or Rossi devices do not have a problem explaining where the energy that appears as heat is derived. There is some question as to exactly which nuclear reactions are involved, but there is no question that E=M*C*C defines the precise amount of energy released. All that is required is for DGT or Rossi to simply (pun intended) overcome the activation threshold leading to the energy release. Dave -Original Message- From: Harry Veeder hveeder...@gmail.com To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Thu, Mar 22, 2012 2:40 am Subject: Re: [Vo]:Thane Heins continues with his bold claims The conversion of one form of energy into another form may involve a oss (destruction) of energy or a gain (creation) of energy depending n the type and direction of energy conversion. ven if a system is creating energy, the created energy would be estroyed as it is converted into another type of energy. By that, I o not mean the energy is simply lost to the environment because it is onverted inefficiently. I mean the process of conversion literal estroys energy. In Thane Heinz's system an input of kinetic energy aybe required to keep the system creating more kinetic energy, ecause the conversion of the created kinetic energy into electrical nergy destroys the kinetic energy that was created. Harry n Wed, Mar 21, 2012 at 9:53 PM, Harry Veeder hveeder...@gmail.com wrote: There is another possibility which probably seems absurd from a logical perspective. What counts above all is the INTUITION that a perpetuum mobil is impossible. All the formal concepts and laws of physics merely serve to affirm the intuition. However, the laws and concepts do not prove or replace the intuition. perhaps it is possible to violate CoE in such a way that the intuition remains true, although I admit it is a struggle to imagine how it can be logically possible because it would involve NEW concepts of motion. Harry On Wed, Mar 21, 2012 at 8:53 PM, Jones Beene jone...@pacbell.net wrote: I agree in principle with your skepticism, David - with the proviso that Thanes could be just plain stubborn and completely incapacitated by inventor's disease - by not pursuing the obvious pathway to proof and publishing the results. This is a transformer at heart, like Bearden's MEG - and most transformers are already very efficient or should be (in contrast to heat engines), where Carnot efficiency enters the picture. There are electric motors available NOW which are 98+% efficient (CSIRO), and electric generators available which are 95% efficient and they can be paired at optimal RPM with minimal loss. That much should be a no-brainer. Most transformers are 98% - so that it does not take a high level mentality to realize that any intermediary device, like a transformer, which has minimal gain should allow Thanes to close the loop by the simple expedient of placing his device between the two (paired high-efficiency motor and generator) and thus to achieve a self-powering mode, which is undeniable proof! I must add a DOH [slaps forehead] to my objection here - given the circumstances. Since, over the many years in which some version
Re: [Vo]:Thane Heins continues with his bold claims
On Thu, Mar 22, 2012 at 9:29 AM, Jones Beene jone...@pacbell.net wrote: -Original Message- From: Harry Veeder In Thane Heins' system an input of kinetic energy maybe required to keep the system creating more kinetic energy, because the conversion of the created kinetic energy into electrical energy destroys the kinetic energy that was created. Yes, that rings of Aspden's theory, but doesn't it forcefully argue for the type of demonstration where the claimed OU device is interposed between a very efficient motor and a very efficient generator? Both are kinetic devices. This route is the simplest yet most important way that any inventor can prove his claims: to close the loop. For instance, I am fond of the CSIRO open source motor which always wins the solar races in Oz:The http://www.csiro.au/Outcomes/Climate/Reducing-GHG/Solar-cars-use-CSIRO-motor .aspx It is 98% efficient as a motor and can be rewired to be 95% efficient as a generator. That includes windage, friction and copper losses. Thus the combination will self-power in a rather dramatic way so long as the electrical system connecting the two has a COP of at least 1.1 ... but to be on the safe side, 1.2 may be needed. In either event the gain required can be so low in percentage terms that it would be questioned by skeptics as measurement error - if only meters are involved. Bottom line: there is no excuse for not employing this expedient, since a self-runner is rock solid proof of the claim. Not to mention - very dramatic proof. To fail to do so, after all these years, is essentially a tacit admission that the device in question is not gainful. Jones I prepared a more technical response, but I decided it wouldn't actually get my point across. There is philosophy of life that I think many people share -- No man is an island -- and by being connected we get back more than we give. It is not a wishwashy/illogical middle ground to say conservation of energy can be violated and still insist that buidling a perpetual motion machine is impossible. Closing the loop is equivalent to becoming disconnected, and this state will kill the device's creative power. Harry
Re: [Vo]:Thane Heins continues with his bold claims
I fall into the category of engineers that do not believe in this device. Someone will need to demonstrate where the energy comes from that recharges the batteries instead of just stating that it works and that the laws of physics need to be rewritten. I viewed one video on the site that described why a different time constant for the generator inductor was so important. It was elementary inductor theory and explained nothing at all. They will have a difficult time trying to get knowledgeable engineers to believe in this one. Dave -Original Message- From: Harry Veeder hveeder...@gmail.com To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Wed, Mar 21, 2012 6:52 pm Subject: [Vo]:Thane Heins continues with his bold claims Thane Heins continues with his bold claims. This is the second video of four videos with a total length of 3 hours. ReGenX generator demonstration, Part 2 ttp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Yrk_7MSSQMwfeature=related At 11 minutes into this video he says his device has been tested by he NRC (National Research Council of Canada) and will be tested again y the NRC in the first week of April. The third video includes interviews with five observers, including the ditor of EV World, a wind power consultant and some interested nvestors. Harry
RE: [Vo]:Thane Heins continues with his bold claims
I agree in principle with your skepticism, David - with the proviso that Thanes could be just plain stubborn and completely incapacitated by inventor's disease - by not pursuing the obvious pathway to proof and publishing the results. This is a transformer at heart, like Bearden's MEG - and most transformers are already very efficient or should be (in contrast to heat engines), where Carnot efficiency enters the picture. There are electric motors available NOW which are 98+% efficient (CSIRO), and electric generators available which are 95% efficient and they can be paired at optimal RPM with minimal loss. That much should be a no-brainer. Most transformers are 98% - so that it does not take a high level mentality to realize that any intermediary device, like a transformer, which has minimal gain should allow Thanes to close the loop by the simple expedient of placing his device between the two (paired high-efficiency motor and generator) and thus to achieve a self-powering mode, which is undeniable proof! I must add a DOH [slaps forehead] to my objection here - given the circumstances. Since, over the many years in which some version of this objection has been raised, Thanes steadfastly refuses to acknowledge that this simple route to absolute proof even exits, with the expected conclusion that skeptics believe he is hiding something with every new PR release - which is the same-old, same-old BS. However, I am not a total skeptic and think he may have some glimmer of an anomaly, but if it is a new variation of the Bedini battery anomaly then that puts it in a different category (electrochemical). Bottom line, until he performs the obvious kind of real test and attempts to close the loop with a self-runner, and publishes the data - then there is no reason to give him any credit at all. I can only suspect extreme self-delusion is the problem here. The guy is obviously talented but in complete denial of how easy it would be to prove that there is gain, if it is really there. It only takes COP 1.2 or less - to absolutely prove real gain with a self powering transformer-type of setup beyond all doubt ... Of course, it should be added that Bearden's MEG failed under the same scrutiny. I would not call that failure of TB to prove anything valid, as being any kind of good company for the failure of TH, however... we expect more and it is lacking. Jones From: David Roberson I fall into the category of engineers that do not believe in this device. Someone will need to demonstrate where the energy comes from that recharges the batteries instead of just stating that it works and that the laws of physics need to be rewritten. I viewed one video on the site that described why a different time constant for the generator inductor was so important. It was elementary inductor theory and explained nothing at all. They will have a difficult time trying to get knowledgeable engineers to believe in this one. Dave -Original Message- From: Harry Veeder hveeder...@gmail.com To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Wed, Mar 21, 2012 6:52 pm Subject: [Vo]:Thane Heins continues with his bold claims Thane Heins continues with his bold claims. This is the second video of four videos with a total length of 3 hours. ReGenX generator demonstration, Part 2 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Yrk_7MSSQMwfeature=related At 11 minutes into this video he says his device has been tested by the NRC (National Research Council of Canada) and will be tested again by the NRC in the first week of April. The third video includes interviews with five observers, including the editor of EV World, a wind power consultant and some interested investors. Harry attachment: winmail.dat
Re: [Vo]:Thane Heins continues with his bold claims
There is another possibility which probably seems absurd from a logical perspective. What counts above all is the INTUITION that a perpetuum mobil is impossible. All the formal concepts and laws of physics merely serve to affirm the intuition. However, the laws and concepts do not prove or replace the intuition. perhaps it is possible to violate CoE in such a way that the intuition remains true, although I admit it is a struggle to imagine how it can be logically possible because it would involve NEW concepts of motion. Harry On Wed, Mar 21, 2012 at 8:53 PM, Jones Beene jone...@pacbell.net wrote: I agree in principle with your skepticism, David - with the proviso that Thanes could be just plain stubborn and completely incapacitated by inventor's disease - by not pursuing the obvious pathway to proof and publishing the results. This is a transformer at heart, like Bearden's MEG - and most transformers are already very efficient or should be (in contrast to heat engines), where Carnot efficiency enters the picture. There are electric motors available NOW which are 98+% efficient (CSIRO), and electric generators available which are 95% efficient and they can be paired at optimal RPM with minimal loss. That much should be a no-brainer. Most transformers are 98% - so that it does not take a high level mentality to realize that any intermediary device, like a transformer, which has minimal gain should allow Thanes to close the loop by the simple expedient of placing his device between the two (paired high-efficiency motor and generator) and thus to achieve a self-powering mode, which is undeniable proof! I must add a DOH [slaps forehead] to my objection here - given the circumstances. Since, over the many years in which some version of this objection has been raised, Thanes steadfastly refuses to acknowledge that this simple route to absolute proof even exits, with the expected conclusion that skeptics believe he is hiding something with every new PR release - which is the same-old, same-old BS. However, I am not a total skeptic and think he may have some glimmer of an anomaly, but if it is a new variation of the Bedini battery anomaly then that puts it in a different category (electrochemical). Bottom line, until he performs the obvious kind of real test and attempts to close the loop with a self-runner, and publishes the data - then there is no reason to give him any credit at all. I can only suspect extreme self-delusion is the problem here. The guy is obviously talented but in complete denial of how easy it would be to prove that there is gain, if it is really there. It only takes COP 1.2 or less - to absolutely prove real gain with a self powering transformer-type of setup beyond all doubt ... Of course, it should be added that Bearden's MEG failed under the same scrutiny. I would not call that failure of TB to prove anything valid, as being any kind of good company for the failure of TH, however... we expect more and it is lacking. Jones From: David Roberson I fall into the category of engineers that do not believe in this device. Someone will need to demonstrate where the energy comes from that recharges the batteries instead of just stating that it works and that the laws of physics need to be rewritten. I viewed one video on the site that described why a different time constant for the generator inductor was so important. It was elementary inductor theory and explained nothing at all. They will have a difficult time trying to get knowledgeable engineers to believe in this one. Dave -Original Message- From: Harry Veeder hveeder...@gmail.com To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Wed, Mar 21, 2012 6:52 pm Subject: [Vo]:Thane Heins continues with his bold claims Thane Heins continues with his bold claims. This is the second video of four videos with a total length of 3 hours. ReGenX generator demonstration, Part 2 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Yrk_7MSSQMwfeature=related At 11 minutes into this video he says his device has been tested by the NRC (National Research Council of Canada) and will be tested again by the NRC in the first week of April. The third video includes interviews with five observers, including the editor of EV World, a wind power consultant and some interested investors. Harry
