Re: [Vo]:A new energy source from nuclear fusion, S Focardi, A Rossi, 9p text 2010.03.22: Rich Murray 2011.01.14
As far I know, absolutely nobody agrees with me. It seems my thinking is special as explained at my blog's first page. On Sat, Jan 15, 2011 at 5:56 PM, Terry Blanton hohlr...@gmail.com wrote: On Sat, Jan 15, 2011 at 10:35 AM, Peter Gluck peter.gl...@gmail.com wrote: Removing those poisons is a sine qua non condition for CF, a necessary condition but it is not sufficient. I must admit, it certainly explains many issues including reproducibility of experiments. Does Dennis Cravens concur that it was laser ablation of impurities which enhanced initiation? Congratulations, by the way, to you and all LENR researchers. Terry
Re: [Vo]:A word of caution on Rossi
All beginnings are messy, why should be the LENR era be an exception? I know that the merits belong, first of all to Prof Piantelli. However it had been a very long period when the process had not been reproducible and upscalable- till the critical know how elements have been discovered. It is fine that Steve warns us about Rossi's past, however I think we are more interested in the present and future of the device we have seen yesterday working. Suppose Rossi is the Al Capone of science and the Ostap Bender of technology, how many non working damned generators will he sell? I think his past, character, are not relevant. Let's be intelligent, the Romanian thinker Mihail Ralea has given a negative definition of intelligence: *To be intelligent means to NOT mix (confuse) the points of view* * * And the same thinker has defined seriousity as being focussed on the core of the things, on the essence, not on the halo of the trivia floating around them. On Sat, Jan 15, 2011 at 6:09 PM, Jones Beene jone...@pacbell.net wrote: A word of caution, thanks to Steve Krivit http://blog.newenergytimes.com/2011/01/15/rossi-discovery-what-to-say/ Since Krivit has come forward with this today, I guess it is OK for others to publish the same information that has been floating around Italy for a couple of days regarding Rossi's two prior criminal fraud convictions. This needs to be addressed by Rossi, even if it is tangential to the claimed work. It actually shows up on the Italian version of Wiki. IOW the two (or more) prior criminal problems, should be completely ignored if they were unrelated to this new work, which they are not, or if the experimental results are absolutely shown to be valid, which is less than certain. Ask yourself this, could the results which have been shown have been faked by a convicted con-man, who BTW - has no record of having gotten a PhD from anywhere in Italy, other than the Mail-order variety, and is in serious difficulty in the USA because of prior allegations for funding received from DARPA, inappropriately, for thermoelectric work which was never completed ? I think the enthusiasm shown today this work so far is fine, and I am still part of the cheering section - but this word of caution should be taken into account, and put forward for answers from Rossi himself. Maybe there is another man with the same name who is responsible. As a community, the honest people in LENR do not want to be seen by skeptics, in a couple of months, as having been completely gullible and taken-in by a convicted con-artist, should he be shown to be faking this. Jones
Re: [Vo]:A word of caution on Rossi
Dear Jones, I don't understand what you say exactly. What I know for sure is that Piantelli has a perfect reproducible Ni-H process and this one developed by Piantelli's former collaborator and an inventor is very similar to that. Why do you believe that I am speaking about Ni-H technology in general, that by the way is an abstraction? The device works, don't know how it works- no problem but nobody, including its developers don't know either, reaction X responsible for a% of the released heat and so on...Heat cannot be correlated with known nuclear reaction, no theory. Therefore- thank you for mentioning my friend Randy my guess is that hydrinos are at the play and I intend to ask him how can this be proven- or on the contrary. Randy's CIHT technology will be demonstated this year, most probably late summer. I am a chemical engineer have worked mainly for process developments- so I am able to appreciate the difficulties. Jones vs Leonardo- ia nie znaiu- have no idea. Peter On Sat, Jan 15, 2011 at 7:23 PM, Jones Beene jone...@pacbell.net wrote: *From:* Peter Gluck Ø Suppose Rossi is the Al Capone of science and the Ostap Bender of technology, how many non working damned generators will he sell? I think his past, character, are not relevant. You miss the point almost completely, Peter. This is not about the nickel hydride technology in general, which is solid – going back twenty years. No one doubts that this level of gain can be accomplished, in principle. But has it been accomplished in fact? Do not forget Randell Mills’ (Blacklight Power) prior art position, either. Except for the slight radioactivity seen by Rossi, Mills is arguable better positioned in this niche. Mills’ experiments are rock-solid in my book, unlike what has been shown today. Mills also claims a much larger COP. Yes, Rossi’s past history is only relevant if it is part of his present. We agree on that. In bringing up the fiasco in New Hampshire, I am indicating that he appears to be afoul of the Law there, and that was very recent - so we cannot be certain that this latest episode is not more of the same. That remains to be determined. Notice specifically that he NEVER mentions Leonardo Technologies, which owns the rights to this new work. The specific question for us now is this: does Rossi have a **bona fide advancement** in the nickel hydride niche, or not? I strongly suggest that nothing … absolutely NOTHING … seen so far, proves that he does have it. I think he does, but that is only based on things not in the record. Certainly his (already rejected) patent application proves nothing. Yes, there are indications that he has found the “secret ingredient”, but this depends on his credibility. If so inclined, almost any good con-artist could fake a better presentation than what has been shown. Is Rossi still that kind of con artist? He was four years ago in the DARPA fiasco. Maybe he has reformed now, who knows? … all that we do know at present, until he addresses the charges of prior conduct, including the Leonardo contract - is that he “once” was in that category. Jones
Re: [Vo]:A word of caution on Rossi
No dear Jones, Focardi has looked inside the reactors starting 1994. It is an other professor who made the black box measurements. I like your mode of thinking re methods of crookery, but do not think they are realistic- in this case. Randy is a different subject. Peter On Sat, Jan 15, 2011 at 7:56 PM, Jones Beene jone...@pacbell.net wrote: We are talking past each other. The operative word is “proof”. Since even Focardi himself admits that he is not permitted to see inside the reactor, and since chemical reactions could provide this level of excess for a few hours, or since an fairly safe alpha emitter could provide it for longer - and since no one can be sure that the reactants have not been replenished periodically – there is no firm proof yet. Don’t get me wrong, I do think he has something. But why not let’s all get on the same page and clear the record before the skeptics do it for us? BTW - I also think that Randell Mills has something valid and similar. Are they different? If nothing else, maybe Rossi will force Mills’ hand. Jones *From:* Jed Rothwell Jones Beene wrote: I strongly suggest that nothing … absolutely NOTHING … seen so far, proves that he does have it. I think he does, but that is only based on things not in the record. Well, I do not speak Italian, but based on the blogger's comments and the caliber of the people who worked on this project, I disagree. I would say there are plenty of technical indications this claim is real.
Re: [Vo]:real heat wrong theory?
As I said, using logical fallacies (and pseudo-scientific linguage) you can demonstrate anything. Peter On Sat, Jan 15, 2011 at 7:58 PM, francis froarty...@comcast.net wrote: From Goat Guy on Next Big Future: · Well... I smell a rat, *unfortunately*. FIRST, the rapidly technology turned off when the hydrogen supply was cut. Anyone else catch the slip? If the reaction is hydrogen-atomic consolidation with nickel nuclei, *and it is presupposed that upon entering the metallic-valence sea of electrons, the 1H protons are both shielded and able to tunnel past the pretty substantial coulomb barrier of the 58Ni nuclei* then ... turning off the hydrogen should not quench the reaction for minutes, or hours. Either the hydrogen is being consumed (burned, chemical heat, making the steam'), or the nickel reactant is at such an elevated temperature (1000ºK ?) that hydrogen's surface absorption is only measured in half-life seconds (instead of the usual hours at 373ºK / 100ºC). So, there could be an explanation for the rapid turn off. SECOND, I'm having serious doubts regarding the gamma-ray measurement. Rising 50% above background levels is completely inconsistent with the 6,000 watt (proposed) output. Back-calculating the earlier work I did, there should be roughly 2e14 to 3e16 gamma rays per second for the power level achieved. 50% is nothing. The meter should have been pegged. THIRD (but not mentioned, so this is a surmise), elevated gamma output should have remained for many minutes (essentially 3-4 hours, in a classic half-life decaying curve, with an initial short half-life spike). But there was no mention of this. FOURTH were they condensing the water-vapor into a vessel for weighing? The heat-of-vaporization of water is very well known, and a very useful proxy for figuring out thermal-energy production rates. It isn't (unfortunately) a very quick responder to thermal-generator fluctuations, but at least when a final quantity has been condensed and measured, the conversion to joules, calories, kilowatt-hours is straight forward. FIFTH the *picograms per kilowatt* is (by my calcs) way off. WAY off - by a lot! I estimated that 10,000 watts for 1 hour (36 MJ) would consume some 17 milligrams of nickel. (hey, it would be a good result - I'm not complaining). Assuming that the researcher is talking about grams per second, then its easy to convert: 17,000 µg × (6,000 / 10,000) watts × (1 / 3600) hour =2.8 µg per second Not picograms, in any way, shape or form. More like 2,800,000 pg/sec ... *SO THEREFORE I AM LEAD TO BELIEVE* that the researcher is deluded, that his collaborative senior professor is also deluded, and that they're somehow on a far limb that is not nuclear. Sorry goats. I'm expecting more from all this. PS: (and this is almost amusing) - if the nuclear reaction was really kicking out kilowatts of nuclear energy, the gamma ray flux would be essentially lethal at table-top distances. 1 Sievert (100 REM) is 1.0 J/kg. In an isotropic gamma radiation field (dominated by 511 keV and 720 keV positron annihilation and k-shell electron capture or nuclear rearrangement photons), at a rate of over (pessimistically) 2,000 joules/second of emission to achieve their claimed 6,000± watt output (and allowing for their fantasy of significantly lowered gamma output due to some atomic nuclei rebounding effect!) ... at tabletop distances (2 meters) the gamma flux would be over (... hmmm 4πr², r=2, surface area of sphere of radius 2 m is about 50 m², 2000 joules / 50 = 40 joules per square meter. Human frontal area is about 1 m², 511 keV absorption is about 80% in body... so, if the espresso quaffers weigh in at 165 pounds (75 kg), then their whole-body absorption would be 0.4 Sv/sec. To put that in perspective, 1 Sv rapid exposure leads to nausea. 3 Sv is the LD50 (50% of people die) level, and no one has survived over 10 Sv. ) So ... unless they have a LOT of lead in that tin-foil masked reaction container (which of course, physically they simply cannot have), if it were nuclear and generating all these kilowatts, then this would be one hell of a dangerous desktop demo. Kind of like the sieverts that were absorbed by the poor researcher who dropped a tungsten block onto a sub-critical-mass sphere of plutonium in the 1950s, only to have it go critical and irradiate everyone in a matter of seconds with a lethal dose of neutrons and gamma radiation. If it was nuclear and not particularly well shielded - I'd not want to be in the same BUILDING as the thing. Put that in your pipe and smoke it. *G O A T G U Y* Froarty in reply to goat guy: ·I would agree they don't have the correct theory and that the energy SOURCE is not nuclear - But - I believe they are unknowingly extracting energy from an interaction of a synthetic skeletal catalyst with different bond states of hydrogen along the lines of Moller's MAHG,
Re: [Vo]:RE: real heat wrong theory?
The really interesting thing is that very small quantities of hydrogen are consumed and of Ni are transmuted. (picograms during such an experiment. Goat guys' perception and logic are both absolutely flawed. The worst individuals of this category are in the anti-vaccine camp, very nasty and aggressive. I have studied the Forums's Beasts for more than 10 years. On Sat, Jan 15, 2011 at 10:56 PM, francis froarty...@comcast.net wrote: Goat guy’s first sentence was interesting “the rapidly technology turned off when the hydrogen supply was cut. Anyone else catch the slip?” – Again it reinforces his closed minded position of nuclear or nothing but if the observation is correct it does lend support to a need for circulation of hydrogen relative to the catalyst- it would also suggest any radiation stops without the environment of trigger temperature and circulation.
Re: [Vo]:A word of caution on Rossi
You can find a coauthored paper in 1998 too. FYI Piantelli is 77 years old and ill- asthma, he cannot travel. And is a very bright scientist. The other authors as Vera Montalbano have done the analytical chemistry, microscopy etc part. Peter On Sat, Jan 15, 2011 at 10:50 PM, Jones Beene jone...@pacbell.net wrote: You could be right, and my-bad for passing on rumor … unless, that is, this is one of the papers which caused a falling-out, which continues to the present. Was Piantelli present? For instance, it appears the Italians were in the habit of listing co-authors alphabetically, to wit: S. FOCARDI(1), V. GABBANI(2), V. MONTALBANO(2), F. PIANTELLI(2) and S. VERONESI(2) Whereas, one of the five - might have – at some later date - considered himself to have been the lead investigator, but realizing that he is not getting the credit he deserves. Who knows? BTW a close look at this paper and the ones cited prior to it shows that energetic nickel-hydride has been around a long time - and that the major advance which pushed it over the top in recent years - is probably the emergence of “nano” … Randell Mills, in contrast - chose a commonly available form of nickel early on – Raney nickel - which since the 1920s was made in such a way (leaching out aluminum from an alloy) that it was already “nano” in an inverse sense … and therefore Mills had a form of “nanopowder” a decade ahead of the others. … what a tangled web this may turn out to be … *From:* Jed Rothwell 4)As I understand the personal situation, Piantelli is a bitter enemy of Focardi, going back to the early nineties Ø They co-authored a paper in 1994, so I doubt they were bitter enemies then. See: http://www.lenr-canr.org/acrobat/FocardiSlargeexces.pdf - Jed
Re: [Vo]:The Wicked Problem
Thank you Jones! However may I have a few simple questions to you: 0) have you really read about *wicked problems* in the Wikipedia? (they are not what we say in the usual language- see Rittel et al) a) who is focusing now on replication? How can you replicate without reverse engineering and copying? b) have you read all the patents and papers, and have you an idea what means to replicate the results of 15 years of hard work, with soo many critical parameters? c) have you accepted my idea that a *process patent* is missing the critical facts and know how, has a lot of false data, and is in no way sufficient to replication? Or not and do you believe that story with those skilled enough...? d) not question- the last thing Rossi or an other inventor wants is that somebody should replicate the generator- they don't want confirmation- they want to sell and make money, they sell 10 units- thse work well OK, then 100 and so on. if they don't work- finita la commedia! e) are you absolutely sure that your friend has spoken to Focardi and not to Levi? f) and he spoke to Focardi, why should Focardi tell him a trade secret? g) In my understanding naive is an euphemism for stupid- OK, I have to admit that I am not infailible- but where exactly is my naivete manifest? h) in case we have both forgotten, I repeat my questions -who wants to replicate, and why should Rossi at co be happy for the replication of their precious process? I have worked 40 years in the industrial practice, many times we have bought a process have read the patents - and then after we havae payed- have learned the know-how, have discovered some things, got experience, made errors, corrected them and have used the process trying constantly to improve it. Best wishes, Peter On Sun, Jan 16, 2011 at 6:14 PM, Jones Beene jone...@pacbell.net wrote: Everyone now seems to be looking ahead and focusing on replication. Good. If anyone thinks that replication of this device is a “wicked problem” now, or in an abstract way, then they will learn soon that it becomes diabolical … why? The device only works with a secret catalyst, together with the nickel. Rossi say this himself. My colleague asked Focardi directly “do you know what the catalyst is?” He said without hesitation that he did not know, and that no one except Rossi knows. How can the device be replicated successfully without that detail, and do you really want to see a lot of null results ? The patent rejection notice from the WIPO for the original filing states that he must disclose the catalyst or drop the reference to it, yet in his revised filing he did not disclose. This indicates that it will remain a “trade secret” and that the patent is essentially worthless except as an threat of litigation. I think Peter’s wishful solution to the wicked problem is therefore naïve. Who will attempt a meaningful replication without disclosure of relevant details? Rossi (LTI) cannot have it both ways; and he is free to keep the catalyst a “trade secret” or to patent it, but replication could be impossible without that detail. More likely, the risk to Rossi is that someone in an attempted replication will discover it, or find a better one, and they will patent it. Jones *From:* Peter Gluck Dear Jed, You are right. I am working out- in the frame of my blog a system for real life problem solving. The painful puzzle of CF's bad reproducibility seemed to be a *wicked problem (*see Wikipedia etc- it is an fundamental concept) Now it has one solution.
Re: [Vo]:The Wicked Problem
Dear Jed, Let's see first if if was Focardi. So much is lost in translations! This is the reason for which- working in research I have learned the important European languages- German, Russian, French, Italian- a bit of Spanish. This was very useful for my work. I have envied you for reading, speaking Japanese- I couldn't however my former secretary, a very intelligent lady has learned it at a high level. And says it has a wonderful logic. Peter On Sun, Jan 16, 2011 at 7:14 PM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com wrote: Peter Gluck peter.gl...@gmail.com wrote: e) are you absolutely sure that your friend has spoken to Focardi and not to Levi? f) and he spoke to Focardi, why should Focardi tell him a trade secret? I do not think Focardi would lie, or dissemble. He would just say I can't tell you; it is a trade secret. Or he would say I don't want to tell you. These people have no compunction about keeping secrets. They feel no obligation to reveal anything. I confirm that their primary, immediate goal is to make commercial products. I do not know if that is because they want to make money, or they feel that is the best way to convince the world they are right. I think there are better ways to accomplish both goals without going to the trouble of making a working power reactor. If they would heed my advice, I think they could make billions of dollars, whereas they may only make hundreds of millions. But it is not my decision, and what they are doing is fine with me. I will be thrilled if they demonstrate a 1 MWh reactor. (MWh = megawatt-heat. I do not know the projected electric power output.) Their plans are much better than the development plans of many other researchers, such as Patterson. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:The Wicked Problem
Dear Jones, I like your scenario -if I understand correctly- Rossi is a real inventor who succeeded to transform a non-, or badly working device in this fine, functional generator? OK, do you have real information about that? However I would ask you to explain or to retract what you have said re *general argument with extraneous disinformation about Focardi and the Italians* This sound very offending and I do not see any justification for it. Better let's discuss about patents, if... Peter On Sun, Jan 16, 2011 at 8:08 PM, Jones Beene jone...@pacbell.net wrote: *From:* Peter Gluck have you read all the patents and papers, and have you an idea what means to replicate the results of 15 years of hard work, with so many critical parameters? I have certainly read everything in the public record, and much that is not public. And with all due respect, let me suggest that your comments lead to a conclusion that you are misinformed on the precise history of this present effort, Peter. This is NOT about Focardi in any relevant way. Of course, he would like to take as much credit as others will give him, why not? The effort that led to the presentation is barely three years old. I have nothing against anyone being a cheerleader for the LENR field – and you are quite good at that – keep up the good work, but please do not cloud the general argument with extraneous disinformation about Focardi and the Italians. The motivation for including them now is not what you think. Certainly Focardi and the others have been at similar work for a long time, over 15 years in fact, and with limited success and terrible reproducibility. That failure to reproduce is what has drawn them to Rossi, who is a complete newcomer, but did stumble on two key things and they are probably the same two of Arata – nickel nanopowder and a spillover catalyst. Arata used palladium since deuterium only works with palladium. Rossi has found something that works equally well with hydrogen. It is that simple. Rossi has only recently got involved - and understanding how he got involved – with LTI and DARPA and as an outgrowth of the TEG project is absolutely critical to understanding the present situation. Surely, you have noticed that this is not an equal effort, and that Focardi is not, and never was, a full partner in Rossi’s project. His contribution is merely lending the credibility of his name to the real inventor. Jones
Re: [Vo]:The Wicked Problem
I just came upon Rossi at the blog of my friend Steve Krivit and his variant is like yours. The situation is interesting, how would you define it in a septoe? I would say: It was a triumph, real not ideal Real has many meanings, not all very positive. Peter On Sun, Jan 16, 2011 at 9:26 PM, Jones Beene jone...@pacbell.net wrote: Dear Peter, There must be a language problem – no offense was intended. The point is that the genesis of Rossi’s work did not have any remote connection to Focardi, nor even to LENR. LENR was NOT Rossi’s field of interest, until recently. This began with a DARPA grant for an improved thermoelectric generator. Rossi, along with LTI, and researchers at the University of New Hampshire built a model that seemed to be a 400% improvement over anything else ever made. It used nano-nickel as the main component. The material turned out to be extremely energetic, and two lab fires resulted. The program was abandoned. But not the material! There was zero connection to the Italian LENR program until this point in time, about 4 years ago - and all of the advances came later with one further huge coincidence – it was all at about the same time as the Arata/Zhang experiments were making a major impact in the science News. Rossi is no fool. He can add 2+2 and get four. He immediately saw the connection, and then soon after found out about the Italian efforts, going back to the early 1990s. This is when it all came together with Focardi. The 800 pound gorilla in the closet is LTI. Essentially they will claim to own all rights to the invention, and since it was done through DARPA, who knows where it will end up? Jones *From:* Peter Gluck Dear Jones, I like your scenario -if I understand correctly- Rossi is a real inventor who succeeded to transform a non-, or badly working device in this fine, functional generator? OK, do you have real information about that? However I would ask you to explain or to retract what you have said re *general argument with extraneous disinformation about Focardi and the Italians* This sound very offending and I do not see any justification for it. Better let's discuss about patents, if... Peter On Sun, Jan 16, 2011 at 8:08 PM, Jones Beene jone...@pacbell.net wrote: *From:* Peter Gluck have you read all the patents and papers, and have you an idea what means to replicate the results of 15 years of hard work, with so many critical parameters? I have certainly read everything in the public record, and much that is not public. And with all due respect, let me suggest that your comments lead to a conclusion that you are misinformed on the precise history of this present effort, Peter. This is NOT about Focardi in any relevant way. Of course, he would like to take as much credit as others will give him, why not? The effort that led to the presentation is barely three years old. I have nothing against anyone being a cheerleader for the LENR field – and you are quite good at that – keep up the good work, but please do not cloud the general argument with extraneous disinformation about Focardi and the Italians. The motivation for including them now is not what you think. Certainly Focardi and the others have been at similar work for a long time, over 15 years in fact, and with limited success and terrible reproducibility. That failure to reproduce is what has drawn them to Rossi, who is a complete newcomer, but did stumble on two key things and they are probably the same two of Arata – nickel nanopowder and a spillover catalyst. Arata used palladium since deuterium only works with palladium. Rossi has found something that works equally well with hydrogen. It is that simple. Rossi has only recently got involved - and understanding how he got involved – with LTI and DARPA and as an outgrowth of the TEG project is absolutely critical to understanding the present situation. Surely, you have noticed that this is not an equal effort, and that Focardi is not, and never was, a full partner in Rossi’s project. His contribution is merely lending the credibility of his name to the real inventor. Jones
Re: [Vo]:Rossi Responds
This heat was removed by condensing the steam- by the cooling water. Peter the Older On Mon, Jan 17, 2011 at 1:45 PM, P.J van Noorden pjvan...@xs4all.nl wrote: Hello, What I don`t understand is that with this system producing 15 kW of power the temperature in the room isn`t higher then 23 degrees Celcius. This amount of power corresponds to a group of 150 people or an intense perpendicular solar flux through a large window of 15 m2. It seems that everybody in the room during the Rossi experiments was feeling very comfortable. Normally when such an amount of heat is dumped into a room the aircon will fail. Peter - Original Message - From: Terry Blanton hohlr...@gmail.com To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Monday, January 17, 2011 1:50 AM Subject: [Vo]:Rossi Responds Three pages of questions and answers at his weblog: http://www.journal-of-nuclear-physics.com/?p=360cpage=3#comments including: Daniel G. Zavela January 15th, 2011 at 4:28 AM Greetings from California and congratulations on your successful work! Can you simply state what the Watts IN are versus Watts OUT? Can you turn off the input current? Does the reaction become self-sustaining? Andrea Rossi January 15th, 2011 at 5:05 AM Dear Mr Daniel Zavela: Watts in: 400 wh/h Watts out: 15,000 wh/h Yes, we can turn off the input current, but we prefer to maintain a drive and the reasons are very difficult to explain without violating my confidentiality restraints. The reaction becomes self sustaining. Warm Regards, A.R. end COP = 37.5 T
Re: [Vo]:Rossi Responds
Very probably..I cannot find other explanation, your observation re heat in the room was very wise. It seem we will receive the quantitative data only toward the end of the week- I think 1/2 hour would be sufficient for a thermotechnician- vederemo! (Let's see. I have just published my thoughts feelings re that event. at http://egooutpeters.blogspot.com Are you still following Blacklightpower? This year will be VERY interesting due to them. Peter de oudere On Mon, Jan 17, 2011 at 2:10 PM, P.J van Noorden pjvan...@xs4all.nl wrote: Hello Peter, On the photo http://translate.google.com/translate?js=nprev=_thl=enie=UTF-8layout=2eotf=1sl=ittl=enu=http://22passi.blogspot.com/2011/01/bolognia-14111-cronaca-test-fusione_14.html I see a black flexible pipe, which must be the cold water input. The other transparent pipe is ending in a plastic vessel. Is this heated water removed out of the room through a drainpipe? The somewhat younger Peter This heat was removed by condensing the steam- by the cooling water. Peter the Older On Mon, Jan 17, 2011 at 1:45 PM, P.J van Noorden pjvan...@xs4all.nlwrote: Hello, What I don`t understand is that with this system producing 15 kW of power the temperature in the room isn`t higher then 23 degrees Celcius. This amount of power corresponds to a group of 150 people or an intense perpendicular solar flux through a large window of 15 m2. It seems that everybody in the room during the Rossi experiments was feeling very comfortable. Normally when such an amount of heat is dumped into a room the aircon will fail. Peter - Original Message - From: Terry Blanton hohlr...@gmail.com To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Monday, January 17, 2011 1:50 AM Subject: [Vo]:Rossi Responds Three pages of questions and answers at his weblog: http://www.journal-of-nuclear-physics.com/?p=360cpage=3#comments including: Daniel G. Zavela January 15th, 2011 at 4:28 AM Greetings from California and congratulations on your successful work! Can you simply state what the Watts IN are versus Watts OUT? Can you turn off the input current? Does the reaction become self-sustaining? Andrea Rossi January 15th, 2011 at 5:05 AM Dear Mr Daniel Zavela: Watts in: 400 wh/h Watts out: 15,000 wh/h Yes, we can turn off the input current, but we prefer to maintain a drive and the reasons are very difficult to explain without violating my confidentiality restraints. The reaction becomes self sustaining. Warm Regards, A.R. end COP = 37.5 T - Original Message - *From:* Peter Gluck peter.gl...@gmail.com *To:* vortex-l@eskimo.com *Sent:* Monday, January 17, 2011 12:53 PM *Subject:* Re: [Vo]:Rossi Responds This heat was removed by condensing the steam- by the cooling water. Peter the Older On Mon, Jan 17, 2011 at 1:45 PM, P.J van Noorden pjvan...@xs4all.nlwrote: Hello, What I don`t understand is that with this system producing 15 kW of power the temperature in the room isn`t higher then 23 degrees Celcius. This amount of power corresponds to a group of 150 people or an intense perpendicular solar flux through a large window of 15 m2. It seems that everybody in the room during the Rossi experiments was feeling very comfortable. Normally when such an amount of heat is dumped into a room the aircon will fail. Peter - Original Message - From: Terry Blanton hohlr...@gmail.com To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Monday, January 17, 2011 1:50 AM Subject: [Vo]:Rossi Responds Three pages of questions and answers at his weblog: http://www.journal-of-nuclear-physics.com/?p=360cpage=3#comments including: Daniel G. Zavela January 15th, 2011 at 4:28 AM Greetings from California and congratulations on your successful work! Can you simply state what the Watts IN are versus Watts OUT? Can you turn off the input current? Does the reaction become self-sustaining? Andrea Rossi January 15th, 2011 at 5:05 AM Dear Mr Daniel Zavela: Watts in: 400 wh/h Watts out: 15,000 wh/h Yes, we can turn off the input current, but we prefer to maintain a drive and the reasons are very difficult to explain without violating my confidentiality restraints. The reaction becomes self sustaining. Warm Regards, A.R. end COP = 37.5 T
Re: [Vo]:The dawn of a new era?
Ok, if the black box will be openedm what can we see except some black or not- powder? Can we expect that Rossi gives detailed description, recipe, protocol. a 101NiH course and a long FAQ so that anybody skilled enough (a pervese formulation BTW!) can reproduce his gizmo and use it to generate energy? Peter On Mon, Jan 17, 2011 at 3:31 PM, peatbog peat...@teksavvy.com wrote: FWIW. I found this at: http://www.moletrap.co.uk/forum/comments.php?DiscussionID=1951page=7 I asked a contact from Italy check the videos and documentation last night (the contact knows the Bologna university very well). Summary: Rossi just has a black box where the university scientists are not allowed to look into (hey, patent pending, you know). Only measurements from outside are allowed. For example: to check the gamma-radiation Rossi has provided a special hole on one spot of his machine, and only there the radiation may be measured. The university scientists are 'used' by Rossi to provide acceptance for his in invention. Maybe one scientist is involved in the scam. During the first of the three videos the camera also turns to the invited professors and university board, naming them specifically. My contact was laughing, telling me that in Bologna the higher level management has only their positions because of family or politics, and that those 'professors' have no clue about the physics involved. But they really like publicity. Conclusion: this looks very much like the demonstration of the magnetic machine in Delft University (Netherlands) last year, where scam artists are using the naive openness of scientific University staff to create credibility. While they are not willing to show what's inside the black box (patent issues), not even to the people doing the experiments.
Re: [Vo]:Dawn of a new era: NOT SO FAST
What about China, India, Japan and Russia - for the first stage? Peter On Mon, Jan 17, 2011 at 4:55 PM, Jones Beene jone...@pacbell.net wrote: Here is the website of the company founded by Andrea Rossi and others a few years ago. This company funded and owns the technology in question. http://www.lti-global.com/index.php However, apparently there has been some kind of falling-out with Rossi, and as you can see there is no mention of any of this on the website. It seems he is being marginalized. The company has changed focus to so-called “clean-coal”. Sad. They have no comment about Rossi, who was operating out of a different branch (New Hampshire). They have large DARPA grants, unrelated to the LENR cell, and do not want to compromise those. You may or may not agree, but it is clear to me that this drama in Bologna was hastily staged, not ready for prime-time, and will end up being a disaster for Rossi and LENR in general – when all of the details emerge. First off, he will sell not a single unit in the USA without an NRC license, which is complicated, costly and takes years. As for Europe, where the need for inexpensive energy is greater, who knows? The best thing that could happen, IMHO, is that the Italian military, their Pentagon equivalent, will take over the program and work something out with LTI as to the IP. Jones
Re: [Vo]:Nagel: Check List for LENR Validation Experiments
Dear Jed, Just re peristaltic pumps- I have worked with them in the lab from the 70 years of the last century and Nature uses then for a very long time, including in our digestive systems. Peter On Tue, Jan 18, 2011 at 6:24 AM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com wrote: mix...@bigpond.com wrote: Jed, in your report you quote: 30 second period (see #2). Was that the duration of the test?? (I had (perhaps mistakenly) gained the impression that it ran for at least an hour). That's confusing, isn't it? The Jan. 14 test was about an hour. Not sure how long it took to reach the terminal temperature and dry steam, but after that they ran for 30 minutes exactly. I have a graph showing that. It shows the reaction quenching remarkably quickly. That's almost as good as starting up quickly. It would be nice to have a cold fusion reaction we can turn off. 30 seconds is how they quote the flow rate. It seems the pump setting is for 30 second intervals; i.e. 146 ml/30 s. In the video the pump makes a loud noise and sends a pulse of water every few seconds. I can understand just enough Italian that I think someone is saying that's the pump. A constant displacement pump grabs a precisely calibrated amount of water and sends it in a pulse, so you vary the flow by timing the pulses. Peristaltic pumps have a more even flow. Peristaltic pumps are an example of technology that by rights should not work, but they managed to pull it off. They overcame what seemed to be insurmountable problems with plastics. You have a wheel pressing down and squeezing the plastic tube thousands of times an hour for weeks or months. Early plastics quickly became brittle and broke. I don't recall who did this, but I read about it and I got the impression that person really, really, REALLY wanted to make peristaltic pumps work, driven by some inscrutable inner desire. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:Nagel: Check List for LENR Validation Experiments
You are right, Stephen- see e.g. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peristaltic_pump (and many leaflets) Have used such pumps mainly for agressive liquids as HCl that corrodes almost all metals. But also for liquid cyanhydric acid (no problems) and for liquefied phosgene - great trouble had to neutralize a lot of this stuff- with gaseous ammonia- very unpleasant. A good choice for the Italian setup, I think. On Tue, Jan 18, 2011 at 4:50 PM, Stephen A. Lawrence sa...@pobox.comwrote: On 01/17/2011 11:24 PM, Jed Rothwell wrote: Peristaltic pumps are an example of technology that by rights should not work, but they managed to pull it off. They overcame what seemed to be insurmountable problems with plastics. You have a wheel pressing down and squeezing the plastic tube thousands of times an hour for weeks or months. Early plastics quickly became brittle and broke. I don't recall who did this, but I read about it and I got the impression that person really, really, REALLY wanted to make peristaltic pumps work, driven by some inscrutable inner desire. I have the impression that pumps like that are really good for pumping whole blood. Anything with an identifiable impeller also has edges inside, and tends to cause clots. If you can get away with nothing but a smooth tube, you can -- maybe! -- avoid ripping platelets and forming clots inside the pump. But I have no idea where I might have run across that information... - Jed
Re: [Vo]:a longer duration black box test would prove issue without disclosure
When used for heating in homes, the device delivers very probably hot water. In the case of the experiment, the flow of the water was seemingly limited by the pump (we don't know its performance characteristics), the connection tube, the cooling space. Cooling water moves in pipe with maximum 2-3 meters/second Please do not forget- the temperature inside the generator is tipically 400 C so it is easy to deliver steam- and that's in some way more convincing than hot water Peter On Tue, Jan 18, 2011 at 11:52 PM, Stephen A. Lawrence sa...@pobox.comwrote: On 01/18/2011 02:52 PM, Jed Rothwell wrote: Stephen A. Lawrence wrote: CLOSE THE LOOP. He [Rossi] says he can run without any electrical input. Ergo he *can* close the loop, without the expense of a Stirling motor and generator. Actually, that is heat input, from an AC resistance heater. Presumably it would work as well with combustion heating. He said he can run without heat input, but it is dangerous. I do not think he elaborated on that. I gather it means he uses heat to modulate the reaction. The Piantelli Ni experiments required high temperature and external heating. I believe the control factors are heat and pressure. The H2 is at 2 atm, according to Celani. When you depressurize the cell, the reaction soon stops. That's good news. Cold fusion reactions are sometimes nearly as difficult to stop as they are to start. I assume the Rossi device has some internal self-regulation, or what Stan Pons called a memory that keeps electrochemical cells going back to the same power level after you refill the cell, tap on it, or disturb it some other way. I also assume there is something about the Rossi device that acts analogously to a self-quenching CANDU nuclear reactor. I am only speculating; I have no knowledge of this. The mechanism would be something like the metal degassing at very high temperature, cooling down, and then absorbing the gas and reacting again. That would explain why it quickly stops when you degas manually. I suspect the electric heater is in the core, and the cold fusion reaction occurs in the Ni powder surrounding that. I recall some of the Piantelli devices had heaters attached directly to the Ni bar. I think Rossi claimed the internal temperature of this thing is 1500°C. Ed Storms pointed out that cannot be right, because the melting point of Ni is 1,453°C. Perhaps that is a misunderstanding, or a mistranslation. Still, it must be pretty hot in there because the device is small and well insulated. Even with 400 W or 1000 W from the AC heater it must be quite hot internally. I assume (but I do not know) that the heater is the hottest part. That's how I imagine it works. Actually, I'd expect the joule heater to be rather cool relative to the reactive elements once the thing gets rolling. The reaction is contributing 10 kW or more at that point; the joule heater is just plugging along at 400 watts. That, also, makes it seem a little surprising that the joule heater continues to be used *after* ignition. It's contributing just 4% of the total heat; you'd think they could just shut it off after the thing starts up. Of course, the reacting surface area may be large enough that it stays cooler than the heater, and perhaps the intense heat near the heater wire has something to do with the reason they continue to use it after ignition. Incidentally, a 1500 degree internal temperature also makes the use of unpressurized water for a coolant seem to me to be a little iffy. Perhaps that has something to do with the reason they boil it all to steam, rather than running the pump harder and getting out hot water (which, it has been suggested, might have provided a more rock-solid output heat measure). - Jed
Re: [Vo]:a challenge for skeptics -- hidden H2 source would have to supply 36--216 kg H2 to make Rossi heat: Rich Murray 2011.01.18
The result is not plausible, actually if you burn 1kg hydrogen, the heat of combustion will suffice to evaporate ~20kg water. But this is an easily measurable quantity. Peter On Wed, Jan 19, 2011 at 7:37 AM, Rich Murray rmfor...@gmail.com wrote: Correctio -- I should say, 36 -- 216 kg/hour H2... On Tue, Jan 18, 2011 at 10:21 PM, Rich Murray rmfor...@gmail.com wrote: a challenge for skeptics -- hidden H2 source would have to supply 36--216 kg H2 to make Rossi heat: Rich Murray 2011.01.18 [ Rich Murray: 100 to 600 more than the sensitivity of the scale, which may be 0.1 gm, gives 10 -- 60 gm/second ranges of H2 used -- 36,000 -- 216,000 gm = 36 -- 216 kg H2 -- that would be a lot to deliver from a hidden source... ] The first measurements Levi described were energy measurements to determine the input of energy inside the reactor and the output of energy of the reactor. “I don't have conclusive data on radiation but absolutely we have measured ~12 kW (at steady state) of energy produced with an input of about just 400 watts. I would say this is the main result. We have seen also this energy was not of chemical origin, by checking the consumption of hydrogen. There was no measurable hydrogen consumption, at least with our mass 2 measurement.” By measuring with a very sensitive scale, within a precision of a 10 th of a gram, Levi measured the weight of the hydrogen bottle before and after the experiment “If the energy was of chemical origin you would have expected to consume about 100 to 600 more than the sensitivity of the scale. You measure the bottle before and after and then you see in your measurements there was almost no hydrogen consumed.” http://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/MacyMspecificso.pdf Macy, M., Specifics of Andrea Rossi's Energy Catalyzer Test, University of Bologna, January 14, 2011. 2011, LENR-CANR.org. Specifics of Andrea Rossi’s “Energy Catalyzer” Test, University of Bologna, 1/14/2001 Marianne Macy On January 14, 2011, Andrea Rossi submitted his “Energy Catalyzer” reactor, which burns hydrogen in a nickel catalyst, for examination by scientists at the University of Bologna and The INFN (Italian National Institute of Nuclear Physics). The test was organized by Dr. Giuseppe Levi of INFN and the University of Bologna and was assisted by other members of the physics and chemistry faculties. This result was achieved without the production of any measurable nuclear radiation. The magnitude of this result suggests that there is a viable energy technology that uses commonly available materials, that does not produce carbon dioxide, and that does not produce radioactive waste and will be economical to build. The reactor used less than 1 gram of hydrogen, less than 1,000 W of electricity to convert 292 grams of water per minute at ~20°C into dry steam at ~101°C. The unit was turned ON and began producing some steam in a few minutes, and once it reached steady state continued producing steam until it was turned OFF. The amount of power required to heat water 80°C and convert it to steam is approximately 12,000 watts. Dr. Levi and his team will be producing a technical report detailing the design and execution of their evaluation. A representative of the investment group stated that they were looking to produce a 20 kW unit and that within two months they would make a public announcement. He declared that their completed studies revealed a “huge, favorable difference in numbers” between the cost to produce the Rossi Catalyzer and other green technologies. “We had a similar demonstration six months ago with the same success we’ve had today. We are almost ready with the industrialized product, which we think is going to be a revolution. It is a totally green energy.” The representative offered that the company was called Defkalion Energy, named for the father of the Greco Roman empire, and was based in Athens. Giuseppe Levi, PhD in nuclear physics at the University of Bologna and who works at INFN, offers exclusive comments on the test, which he deemed “an open experiment for physicists. The idea was like a conference: to tell everybody what was going on and eventually to start new research programs on that topic.” The first measurements Levi described were energy measurements to determine the input of energy inside the reactor and the output of energy of the reactor. “I don't have conclusive data on radiation but absolutely we have measured ~12 kW (at steady state) of energy produced with an input of about just 400 watts. I would say this is the main result. We have seen also this energy was not of chemical origin, by checking the consumption of hydrogen. There was no measurable hydrogen consumption, at least with our mass 2 measurement.” By measuring with a very sensitive
Re: [Vo]: OT: Can a proud uncle crow about his nephew's first peer-reviewed paper!
Congrats, Google says he is *somebody!* * * A very interesting subject. He collaborstes witha Romanian lady; where? Peter On Wed, Jan 19, 2011 at 9:37 AM, Mark Iverson zeropo...@charter.net wrote: Molecular Investigations into the Mechanics of Actin in Different Nucleotide States Ji Y. Lee, Tyler M. Iverson, and Ruxandra I. Dima* J. Phys. Chem. B 2011, 115, 186-195 Wish he didn't live so far away... Sniff! -Mark Iverson
Re: [Vo]: OT: Can a proud uncle crow about his nephew's first peer-reviewed paper!
Fine profession but highly risky (both for the patient and the anesthesiologist)- my mother's cousin, Dr Paul Radnay was a great one worked at the Montefiore Hospital in New York, if I remember well Peter On Wed, Jan 19, 2011 at 11:18 AM, Mark Iverson zeropo...@charter.netwrote: Hi Peter... He's at the Univ of Cincinatti, Ohio, USA. Want's to be an Anesthesiologist... -Mark -- *From:* Peter Gluck [mailto:peter.gl...@gmail.com] *Sent:* Wednesday, January 19, 2011 1:13 AM *To:* vortex-l@eskimo.com *Subject:* Re: [Vo]: OT: Can a proud uncle crow about his nephew's first peer-reviewed paper! Congrats, Google says he is *somebody!* * * A very interesting subject. He collaborstes witha Romanian lady; where? Peter On Wed, Jan 19, 2011 at 9:37 AM, Mark Iverson zeropo...@charter.netwrote: Molecular Investigations into the Mechanics of Actin in Different Nucleotide States Ji Y. Lee, Tyler M. Iverson, and Ruxandra I. Dima* J. Phys. Chem. B 2011, 115, 186-195 Wish he didn't live so far away... Sniff! -Mark Iverson
Re: [Vo]:Krivit relents
Dear Jones, Have you read my answer to Ed Storms's message you have cited here? I do not agree with him regarding the main points. The things are always much more complicated than they seem to be. Re your point 1) what do you know about this nano-Ni work- what when was accomplished? Do you know from sure sources- the chronology of the events- who has contacted whom and when? This is anyway a secondary discussion as long as the device works and theory will be found sooner or later. I will ask Randy Mills what he thinks about this. Peter On Wed, Jan 19, 2011 at 5:40 PM, Jones Beene jone...@pacbell.net wrote: * http://blog.newenergytimes.com/2011/01/19/rossi-and-focardi-lenr-device-probably-real-with-credit-to-piantelli/ *http://blog.newenergytimes.com/2011/01/19/rossi-and-focardi-lenr-device-probably-real-with-credit-to-piantelli/ But he is still giving the most credit to Piantelli, when probably that is completely wrong, and the three things which led to this breakthrough were(in order of importance): 1) The previous Rossi/Leonardo TEG work with nano-nickel 2) The published work of Randell Mills 3) The published work of Arata/Zhang, Kitamura, etc Obviously when you are a smart guy like Rossi, you find an anomaly in one field (thermoelectrics) with the same Raney nickel you had discovered as being so energetic that it caused two fires in you Lab … and then, as any good experimenter will do - you go to the internet to look for help or understanding in unrelated fields, then 2) and 3) above are the most authoritative help out there. Next, you apply what you have learned to a field that became bifurcated in the mid 1990s, due to ego problems, and WOW, suddenly you become the hero of that unrelated field. IOW – Rossi had his “Goodyear moment” at the expense of all of those in LENR, including Piantelli, who refused to acknowledge the gigantic advance of Mills, who himself was too egotistical to want to believe that he got a major part of CQM wrong – and that in the end the secret was nothing more or less than a subset of the “cold fusion” field that he dreaded so much… A short and fractured (fractal?) history of LENR in a brief reappraisal… Jones
Re: [Vo]:Krivit relents
Dear Jones, I have no problems with the masculinity of the name Andrea, I am very fond of opera music and Andrea Chenier by U. Giordano is one opera I like much. To be sincere I absolutely do not care if somebody is a PhD or not. Do you know Cipolla's Laws of Stupidity? One of these laws says stupidity is not depending an ANY other characteristics of a person I have met tragically stupid PhD's and very smart people inventors or in other creative professions. By the way I have a PhD in chemical engineering (1983) so it is basoultely certain that I am stupid or not, tertium non datur. (not true by the way) As regarding Rossi, it is obvious from his answers that he is intelligent. Have to hear his questions to know if he is wise. Peter On Wed, Jan 19, 2011 at 6:55 PM, Jones Beene jone...@pacbell.net wrote: Peter, As a humorous note, in an ethnocentric kind of way, you can probably appreciate this comment. The name Dr Andrea Rossi, has been around for some time in thermoelectrics, but prior to recently I had been under the impression that this person was a woman, since that name in the USA is generally feminine. The work was done here in the USA (New Hampshire), with no mention of Italy, and no picture of the person ever appeared in the literature. I am told now that some transplanted Italians use the name “Andrew” instead of Andrea, for this reason. As it turns out, the inventor is neither a real PhD nor feminine, but a definite creative genius, let me go on record with that comment before adding: like most creative genius, he is possibly bordering on the edges of what normal folks consider sanity. The same may be true to a lesser extent of Randell Mills himself. Jones
Re: [Vo]:Deuterium kills the reaction?
Dear Jones, Randy Mills would not agree with your assertion. He is waiting for the scientific analysis (that of Bologna professors) to make an opinion of the demonstration and the generator. If hydrinos have played a role, they can be found with the method described e..g. in this paper: RL Mills et many: Commercializable Power Source from Forming New States of Hydrogen Int J. Hydrogen Energy vol 34 (2009) 573-614 One of the greaest advantages of Mills upon us is that he understand what happens in his systems. He has a first class theory- that predicts. Second class theory prohibits, third class describes, explans what has happened What kind of theory do we have? A good point is that we have many! On Thu, Jan 20, 2011 at 4:57 PM, Jones Beene jone...@pacbell.net wrote: *From:* noone noone Ø I don't think there is any RF generator. The purpose of the Rossi “black box” is said to be a secret, but if it were merely a DC power supply for a resistive heater, then you would be implying a planned intent to deceive the audience, which is not impossible, but unlikely. Ø I do not see any need for an RF generator. I think the system can self sustain if the temperature is hot enough, but the problem is that there could be a runaway explosion if that happens. Again, the need for RF is NOT as a heater, but as a means of spin flipping hydrogen to attain negative temperature in this (highly speculative) hypothesis. Rossi cannot mention RF as an input in the patent, since RF has been previously patented as a way to heat a hydrogen nuclear reactor. And since Rossi is probably unaware of the quasi-BEC modality (assuming that it could be accurate to some extent) then he probably thinks the advantage of RF over other input is the great unknown mystery, and which he admits to not comprehending. If it turns out to indeed be RF input, then we can say that he found out that it is advantageous through trial and error, yet apparently thinks that it works for the same reason that it is used in prior-art, in tokomaks, etc. So he could be right for the wrong reason. Although my underlying hypothesis of operation - with the quasi-BEC - is admittedly “way out there” on the fringe of the fringe, it is pretty clear that Rossi has done what Randell Mills could not do. In effect, you seem to be saying that Rossi has invented nothing more than a better version of the Mills’ reactor. That is most unlikely, since Mills has not gotten his to run in a continuous mode for long enough to begin placement in the grid plants of his licensees, and he is far better funded. Rossi claims a year of operation already. OK maybe that is an exaggeration, but it is clear to me that he has made a major breakthrough advance over Mills, even though he may have borrowed the basic starting ingredients - and so far that alone implies a fundamental difference in the MO. It may not be RF as the input, but it is probably going to be new physics; and the hypothesis of dense hydrogen (pycno) leading to a quasi-BEC has not been shot down yet. Of course, that could happen later today J Jones
Re: [Vo]:Deuterium kills the reaction?
Yes, but it is about a kind of trap. What does it mean in the context of our discussions- re Randy? I e-knew one of the attorneys of Randy- it was some dispute with an Englishman re a patent. Peter On Thu, Jan 20, 2011 at 6:26 PM, Jones Beene jone...@pacbell.net wrote: Dear Peter, Do you know the phrase “specchietto per le allodole”? It is often what happens publicly, after a furious inventor has had a heart-to-heart talk with his attorney: “Stay cool and maintain dignity, let me handle the dirty work” Jones *From:* Peter Gluck Dear Jones, Randy Mills would not agree with your assertion. He is waiting for the scientific analysis (that of Bologna professors) to make an opinion of the demonstration and the generator. If hydrinos have played a role, they can be found with the method described e..g. in this paper: RL Mills et many: Commercializable Power Source from Forming New States of Hydrogen Int J. Hydrogen Energy vol 34 (2009) 573-614 One of the greaest advantages of Mills upon us is that he understand what happens in his systems. He has a first class theory- that predicts. Second class theory prohibits, third class describes, explans what has happened What kind of theory do we have? A good point is that we have many!
Re: [Vo]:Deuterium kills the reaction?
They have a complex technology, needs a lot of development, can be replicated but no easily. Take please a look to the papers at the BlackLightPower website. They will demonstrate later this year their CIHT technology- it generates electricity. I have worked 40 years in the chemical industry nad I have an understanding of the problems they have to solve before becoming a very important source of energy. My best friend Mike Carrell who has also worked for long years -electrotechnics, advent of elctronics also sees Randy's technology as The Solution Peter On Thu, Jan 20, 2011 at 7:27 PM, noone noone thesteornpa...@yahoo.comwrote: Then why does BLP not produce a product? They seem to have had a rock solid easily to replicate technology for a decade. -- *From:* Peter Gluck peter.gl...@gmail.com *To:* vortex-l@eskimo.com *Sent:* Thu, January 20, 2011 10:30:34 AM *Subject:* Re: [Vo]:Deuterium kills the reaction? Dear Jones, Randy Mills would not agree with your assertion. He is waiting for the scientific analysis (that of Bologna professors) to make an opinion of the demonstration and the generator. If hydrinos have played a role, they can be found with the method described e..g. in this paper: RL Mills et many: Commercializable Power Source from Forming New States of Hydrogen Int J. Hydrogen Energy vol 34 (2009) 573-614 One of the greaest advantages of Mills upon us is that he understand what happens in his systems. He has a first class theory- that predicts. Second class theory prohibits, third class describes, explans what has happened What kind of theory do we have? A good point is that we have many! On Thu, Jan 20, 2011 at 4:57 PM, Jones Beene jone...@pacbell.net wrote: *From:* noone noone Ø I don't think there is any RF generator. The purpose of the Rossi “black box” is said to be a secret, but if it were merely a DC power supply for a resistive heater, then you would be implying a planned intent to deceive the audience, which is not impossible, but unlikely. Ø I do not see any need for an RF generator. I think the system can self sustain if the temperature is hot enough, but the problem is that there could be a runaway explosion if that happens. Again, the need for RF is NOT as a heater, but as a means of spin flipping hydrogen to attain negative temperature in this (highly speculative) hypothesis. Rossi cannot mention RF as an input in the patent, since RF has been previously patented as a way to heat a hydrogen nuclear reactor. And since Rossi is probably unaware of the quasi-BEC modality (assuming that it could be accurate to some extent) then he probably thinks the advantage of RF over other input is the great unknown mystery, and which he admits to not comprehending. If it turns out to indeed be RF input, then we can say that he found out that it is advantageous through trial and error, yet apparently thinks that it works for the same reason that it is used in prior-art, in tokomaks, etc. So he could be right for the wrong reason. Although my underlying hypothesis of operation - with the quasi-BEC - is admittedly “way out there” on the fringe of the fringe, it is pretty clear that Rossi has done what Randell Mills could not do. In effect, you seem to be saying that Rossi has invented nothing more than a better version of the Mills’ reactor. That is most unlikely, since Mills has not gotten his to run in a continuous mode for long enough to begin placement in the grid plants of his licensees, and he is far better funded. Rossi claims a year of operation already. OK maybe that is an exaggeration, but it is clear to me that he has made a major breakthrough advance over Mills, even though he may have borrowed the basic starting ingredients - and so far that alone implies a fundamental difference in the MO. It may not be RF as the input, but it is probably going to be new physics; and the hypothesis of dense hydrogen (pycno) leading to a quasi-BEC has not been shot down yet. Of course, that could happen later today J Jones
Re: [Vo]:Deuterium kills the reaction?
No, I am rather deaf- not completely anyway- I enjoy good music. You can write me at peter.gl...@gmail.com and I will answer immediately, with pleasure. Peter On Thu, Jan 20, 2011 at 7:41 PM, noone noone thesteornpa...@yahoo.comwrote: Do you have Skype? Could we talk on there? -- *From:* Peter Gluck peter.gl...@gmail.com *To:* vortex-l@eskimo.com *Sent:* Thu, January 20, 2011 12:39:13 PM *Subject:* Re: [Vo]:Deuterium kills the reaction? They have a complex technology, needs a lot of development, can be replicated but no easily. Take please a look to the papers at the BlackLightPower website. They will demonstrate later this year their CIHT technology- it generates electricity. I have worked 40 years in the chemical industry nad I have an understanding of the problems they have to solve before becoming a very important source of energy. My best friend Mike Carrell who has also worked for long years -electrotechnics, advent of elctronics also sees Randy's technology as The Solution Peter On Thu, Jan 20, 2011 at 7:27 PM, noone noone thesteornpa...@yahoo.comwrote: Then why does BLP not produce a product? They seem to have had a rock solid easily to replicate technology for a decade. -- *From:* Peter Gluck peter.gl...@gmail.com *To:* vortex-l@eskimo.com *Sent:* Thu, January 20, 2011 10:30:34 AM *Subject:* Re: [Vo]:Deuterium kills the reaction? Dear Jones, Randy Mills would not agree with your assertion. He is waiting for the scientific analysis (that of Bologna professors) to make an opinion of the demonstration and the generator. If hydrinos have played a role, they can be found with the method described e..g. in this paper: RL Mills et many: Commercializable Power Source from Forming New States of Hydrogen Int J. Hydrogen Energy vol 34 (2009) 573-614 One of the greaest advantages of Mills upon us is that he understand what happens in his systems. He has a first class theory- that predicts. Second class theory prohibits, third class describes, explans what has happened What kind of theory do we have? A good point is that we have many! On Thu, Jan 20, 2011 at 4:57 PM, Jones Beene jone...@pacbell.net wrote: *From:* noone noone Ø I don't think there is any RF generator. The purpose of the Rossi “black box” is said to be a secret, but if it were merely a DC power supply for a resistive heater, then you would be implying a planned intent to deceive the audience, which is not impossible, but unlikely. Ø I do not see any need for an RF generator. I think the system can self sustain if the temperature is hot enough, but the problem is that there could be a runaway explosion if that happens. Again, the need for RF is NOT as a heater, but as a means of spin flipping hydrogen to attain negative temperature in this (highly speculative) hypothesis. Rossi cannot mention RF as an input in the patent, since RF has been previously patented as a way to heat a hydrogen nuclear reactor. And since Rossi is probably unaware of the quasi-BEC modality (assuming that it could be accurate to some extent) then he probably thinks the advantage of RF over other input is the great unknown mystery, and which he admits to not comprehending. If it turns out to indeed be RF input, then we can say that he found out that it is advantageous through trial and error, yet apparently thinks that it works for the same reason that it is used in prior-art, in tokomaks, etc. So he could be right for the wrong reason. Although my underlying hypothesis of operation - with the quasi-BEC - is admittedly “way out there” on the fringe of the fringe, it is pretty clear that Rossi has done what Randell Mills could not do. In effect, you seem to be saying that Rossi has invented nothing more than a better version of the Mills’ reactor. That is most unlikely, since Mills has not gotten his to run in a continuous mode for long enough to begin placement in the grid plants of his licensees, and he is far better funded. Rossi claims a year of operation already. OK maybe that is an exaggeration, but it is clear to me that he has made a major breakthrough advance over Mills, even though he may have borrowed the basic starting ingredients - and so far that alone implies a fundamental difference in the MO. It may not be RF as the input, but it is probably going to be new physics; and the hypothesis of dense hydrogen (pycno) leading to a quasi-BEC has not been shot down yet. Of course, that could happen later today J Jones
Re: [Vo]:How is the BlackLightPower effect different from Rossi's effect?
Too many unknown unknowns mainly on Rossi's side to answer now. The role of transmutation not known, how much % of the heat released during those 6 months can it explain. Are hydrinos formed in the Rossi cell? Peter On Thu, Jan 20, 2011 at 8:26 PM, noone noone thesteornpa...@yahoo.comwrote: Hello Everyone, I am not a scientist. But I have been following alternative energy for a while. For the past week I have been digging for hours trying to find additional information about Rossi's technology and comparing it to BLP's effect. I have came to the conclusion from what we know right now the two effects are very similar. How would you say these two effects are different? They both seem to be able to utilize nickel and hydrogen. They both seem to emit radiation. What type of radiation does Black Light Power's cells produce by the way? I have only heard of ultraviolent light and x rays. They both seem to produce excess energy. The only difference I can come across is that BLP does not claim to produce fusion. Rossi claims to have produced a lot of fusion. He claims that in a cell that has ran for six months 30% of the remaining nickel has turned into copper. I wonder if BLP might also be producing fusion and ash in some of their configurations. Rossi seems to be willing to admit that it is possible some sort of shrunken hydrogen is getting close enough to the nickel nucleus to produce a fusion reaction. What do you think that the catalysts are in Rossi's technology? I have heard the rumor that sodium hydride might be used.
Re: [Vo]:Removing All Doubt
That device working for 6 months has produced approx. 50,000 kWhours heat. Can this be explained by the reaction of transmutation of Ni to Cu? Considering first 300 grams of nichel...? Rossi can tell how much Ni is uesd - if he will. Am important rough energy balance anyway. Peter On Fri, Jan 21, 2011 at 6:23 PM, Jones Beene jone...@pacbell.net wrote: To all concerned, or to anyone harboring lingering doubts about the Bologna demo . There is a surprising simple and extremely convincing way to *remove all doubt* that this device is real. It is so simple that the simple fact that it has not been published yet, is suspicious in itself. (there has been one claim that a test was performed, but not data). Rossi has stated that another long-running device, which was in operation for 6 months continuous, was analyzed and a large percentage of nickel was transmuted to copper. Even if it was less than 30%, it was a lot. This is the key. Based on other disclosures - the amount of transmuted copper recovered from this sample should be in excess of 30 grams and could be as much as a 300 grams. Even without the copper, the nickel from this reactor will have had an isotope shift, so this spent fuel is another key to instant credibility. It can be tested as mixed and there is no need to separate the two metals. In other words, there is no shortage of evidence - either the copper - the ash of the reaction, or the nickel . but the copper is preferable, even in a mixed sample. If he claims the entire sample has been lost, he will lose all credibility in my book. ALL. No one loses such a sample. He is essentially dead in the water, in the eyes of 99% of Physics, if this sample is unaccounted for now. Copper has two isotopes: 63Cu is almost ~69% of the natural ratio. 65Cu is ~31%. That never varies - no matter where the copper came from - Arizona or Chile or Asia. A one gram sample is more than adequate to test - therefore 10 samples sent to 10 labs for isotope analysis should put all doubts to rest, if the ratio varies significantly. With the nickel, the sample should be depleted in 64Ni. There is no rational argument that can account for a ratio which comes from a long standing nuclear reaction being identical to the natural ratio - and if it is identical, then all the copper came from migration from other parts of the device, which is to be expected. Rossi never mentions migration but surely is aware of it. My plea to Ing. Andrea Rossi is to sent samples out soon for testing by University or National Labs. A list can be provided. It is time to put these skeptics of LENR down hard, and you can do that dramatically and very easily, in short order and with minimal effort. They have it coming. You d'man, Andre. show'm your stuff. Jones
Re: [Vo]:Removing All Doubt
It is nuclear, completely nuclear, and only nuclear? Or nuclear- is only a secondary phenomenon?. A Heat balance is a must. The same in classical cold fusion, it is good to believe the helium story but not easy to prove Peter On Fri, Jan 21, 2011 at 7:48 PM, Jones Beene jone...@pacbell.net wrote: Peter, The amount of copper found is of low comparative importance. The **isotope shift** from the natural ratio after 6 months is extremely important. This can only be determined by specialized equipment. It is so important to establishing proof of a nuclear reaction, or to changing the (presumed negative) opinion of experts like Director Chu, that nothing else comes remotely close. I cannot express it strongly enough in words than that this is probably the one factor which will “make or break” the opinions of experts - and without an demonstrable isotope shift, this good work may languish. Jones *From:* Peter Gluck That device working for 6 months has produced approx. 50,000 kWhours heat. Can this be explained by the reaction of transmutation of Ni to Cu? Considering first 300 grams of nichel...? Rossi can tell how much Ni is uesd - if he will. Am important rough energy balance anyway.
Re: [Vo]:Removing All Doubt
I discuss with pleasure but chat is incompatible with my multitasking life style. In meantime I am writing my blog (Search No 2/439) But I answer any e-mail asa soon as I can. I have a bad experience with chat. Excuse me. Peter On Fri, Jan 21, 2011 at 8:59 PM, noone noone thesteornpa...@yahoo.comwrote: Do you have Skype, MSN, Yahoo, etc? Would you like to chat? -- *From:* Stephen A. Lawrence sa...@pobox.com *To:* vortex-l@eskimo.com *Sent:* Fri, January 21, 2011 1:51:36 PM *Subject:* Re: [Vo]:Removing All Doubt On 01/21/2011 01:43 PM, noone noone wrote: It is in the same forum. http://www.journal-of-nuclear-physics.com/?p=62 Thank you!
Re: [Vo]:Removing All Doubt
Read the documentation if you believe it.. It is kind of forced explanation. OK, what is the energy realeased by this reaction? On Fri, Jan 21, 2011 at 9:35 PM, Stephen A. Lawrence sa...@pobox.comwrote: Regardless of the exact amount transmuted, there is an explanation of all this given on Rossi's website. (*When all else fails, read the documentation!*) http://www.journal-of-nuclear-physics.com/?p=62 He says that Ni^x + p - Cu^(x+1) does, indeed, typically produce an unstable result, but it decays back to Ni^(x+1), after which it can pick up another proton, and repeat the process until it ends up as Cu^63, which is stable. He also asserts that the relative proton capture rates of all isotopes of Ni must be identical, as they're determined by electrostatic issues: The capture rate of protons by Nickel nuclei cannot depend on the mass values of different isotopes Finally, he says that they've been testing the ash and it's *not radioactive*: No radioactivity has been found also in the Nickel residual from the process. I don't understand that. If a tiny fraction of the nickel is transmuted each second, and if nearly all the transmutation events produce unstable copper which eventually decays back to (higher weight) nickel, and if it takes multiple steps to get to stable copper, then by the time we've got a lot of stable copper running around, nearly all the nickel must have been transmuted at least once, and the whole lot should be radioactive. In particular, there should probably be a really large fraction of Ni^59 present (31 neutrons), with a 75 ky half-life, and I'd think that would make the sample pretty hot. Or so it seems; I haven't done the calculations to back up the intuition. In any case the text on that page is interesting and certainly worth reading. On 01/21/2011 02:15 PM, Jed Rothwell wrote: Stephen A. Lawrence wrote: 4) I read a comment on another forum claiming that in one of your cells after six months of operation the remaining nickel powder was 30% copper. Can you confirm this? Andrea Rossi January 20th, 2011 at 10:14 AMhttp://www.journal-of-nuclear-physics.com/?p=360cpage=5#comment-19868 Mr William: ... 4- No ... Further message from William, apparently in response to this denial . . . I saw no further response from Rossi on this, and I don't know what the other forum in which his original comment appeared might have been. Google didn't turn it up for me. Make if this what you will; it's certainly not unambiguous -- looks kind of like an assertion followed by a retraction, but other interpretations are possible. I take that to mean No, I cannot confirm that. Meaning I cannot confirm or deny; that's a secret. As I said, he makes no bones about the fact that he keeps secrets. It could also be confusion because of language problems. Or maybe he is contradicting himself . . . - Jed
Re: [Vo]:Discovery News Article
The DN paper is an exercise in logical fallacies. And it shows how facts can be ignored. Only the press says that what happened is cold fusion i.e. fusion at cold, due to its (the press') inherent sensationalism. The world is infinitely interesting, the press wants to describe it as even more interesting. But Rossi has told that what takes place in his device is NOT cold fusion. Peter On Sat, Jan 22, 2011 at 4:40 AM, OrionWorks - Steven V Johnson svj.orionwo...@gmail.com wrote: From Harry, Article uses Robert Park as an authority on the subject. http://news.discovery.com/tech/cold-fusion-claims-resurface.html As predicted by Mr. Rothwell, it would appear that the majority of popular news organizations willing to stick their necks out and file a brief report on the Italian event will do little more than screw up the data. Seems nobody wants to stray far from the safety of the herd. Incidentally, I noticed that Dr. Park has yet to publish his next What's New issue, presumably to be dated January 21. It's 8:30 PM Friday night, Central Standard Time, and Park's latest issue is still set at January 14. When does Park typically publish his installments? Regards Steven Vincent Johnson www.OrionWorks.com www.zazzle.com/orionworks
Re: [Vo]:Announcements from Rossi about paper, next demo, ICCF16
no more demos before the start up... That's elementary wonder management - miracles are not repeatable and the next miracle must be much greater (1MeV!) than the former. There are exceptions as San Gennaro's blood- fine application of non-newtonian viscosity. To remain at miracles. I think that the secret ingredient, the catalyst is just a differentiator that says our generator is NOT the same as Piantelli's but it is nothing sure. Peter On Fri, Jan 21, 2011 at 11:24 PM, OrionWorks - Steven V Johnson svj.orionwo...@gmail.com wrote: From Jed: WARNING TO ALL OUR READERS: THE REPORT OF THE UNIVERSITY OF BOLOGNA WILL BE DELIVERED MONDAY , JAN 24, ANYTIME. YOU WILL FIND IT ON THE JOURNAL OF NUCLEAR PHYSICS AND WE ALREADY GIVE TO EVERYBODY TO REPRODUCE IT EVERYWHERE, FOR ANY PURPOSE, FREE. WARM REGARDS, THE BOARD OF ADVISERS OF THE JOURNAL OF NUCLEAR PHYSICS Dear Luigi, Yes there will be a Scientist talking about us [at ICCF16], no demo anyway: no more demos before the start up of the 1 MW plant. Warm Regards, ...and so most of use who reside in the honorable peanut gallery section will wait with baited breath for January 24 to roll around, ANYTIME soon. I certainly hope UoB's highly anticipated report will put to rest many concerns. I'm a patient man. I can wait a little longer. ;-) OTOH, I suspect the statement, no more demos before the start up... is likely to frustrate many - perhaps rightly so. It strikes me primarily as being a strategic corporate maneuver. Expressing an opinion similar to the lines of Jed's commentary, I too suspect corporate maneuvering of this nature will eventually turn out to be a futile attempt to establish complete and total dominance of the CF field from the ground floor. More glory to the Roman Empire, or not. Assuming they eventually do let the cat out of the bag, I suspect good old fashion corporate espionage and reverse engineering are likely to end up spreading-the-wealth in no time flat. Seems to me that it will be inevitable that espionage and reverse engineering will feverishly occur, ESPECIALLY in many developing countries where the desperate need for such devices will make a huge impact on living conditions of the local population. Shoot! Actually, it doesn't have to be illegal at all. All a smart-ass engineer has to do is tweak a copy of the original reactor just enuf to make it different and a new patent can be filed. Patent permutations are likely to start happening at blinding speeds. As Jed has already eloquently expressed, even if it might seem insulting at first glance the truth of the matter is that collecting 1% of a trillion dollar business is nothing to sneeze at! Granted, and in respectful deference to Mr. Lawrence's continued concerns about recent proceedings, they do not strike me personally as the actions of a scam operation in progress. It strikes me more as corporate maneuvering to position themselves at the top of the pecking order. (We are, after all, a very competitive species.) Yes, I realize I could still turn out to be amazingly wrong on most if not all points, but I'm not inclined to think so based on what I've gleaned between the lines so far. Regards Steven Vincent Johnson www.OrionWorks.com www.zazzle.com/orionworks
Re: [Vo]:Discovery News Article
True, Robin, but Cold Fusion was D + D fusion, this one cannot be Peter On Sat, Jan 22, 2011 at 9:05 AM, mix...@bigpond.com wrote: In reply to Peter Gluck's message of Sat, 22 Jan 2011 06:40:13 +0200: Hi, [snip] The DN paper is an exercise in logical fallacies. And it shows how facts can be ignored. Only the press says that what happened is cold fusion i.e. fusion at cold, due to its (the press') inherent sensationalism. The world is infinitely interesting, the press wants to describe it as even more interesting. But Rossi has told that what takes place in his device is NOT cold fusion. Any reaction that joins atomic nuclei together is fusion. Regards, Robin van Spaandonk http://rvanspaa.freehostia.com/Project.html
Re: [Vo]:Discovery News Article
OK, let's see what this Ni-H process really is, how many Cu is actually found and so on. i simply do not believe everything what Rossi says. The ash has to be analyzed. Do you know reports about such work? Peter On Sat, Jan 22, 2011 at 1:28 PM, Horace Heffner hheff...@mtaonline.netwrote: On Jan 21, 2011, at 10:41 PM, Peter Gluck wrote: True, Robin, but Cold Fusion was D + D fusion, this one cannot be Peter Nonsense! This is like saying analyzing microfossils is not part of paleontology because it doesn't involve digging big bones out of the ground and making museum exhibits out of them. Fields expand horizons. Fleischmann and Pons used D in PD, but that was just the beginning of the field. When you put hydrogen in atomic lattices you sometimes get anomalous nuclear events. The Ni-H system was considered part of cold fusion was it not? That is not D+D fusion. Heavy element low energy transmutation is not D+D fusion, true? The discovery of heavy transmutations was a direct outcome of cold fusion studies, true? Remember Bockris and TAMU? These things were all lumped under the same cold fusion umbrella until terms like LENR, CANR, LANR, CMNS were invented. Even after invention of these new terms, each of which has distinct and useful meaning, all the same physical things continued to be discussed on sci.physics.fusion under the fusion umbrella, and reported on at ICCF - The International Conference on *Cold Fusion.* Yes, *Cold Fusion, *then and now. The new terms each have distinct meanings, but still fall under the umbrella of the general field of cold fusion. Cold fusion is the fusion of atomic nuclei without the kinetic energy to overcome the Coulomb barrier, and without the high energy signatures or branching ratios of similar reactions in high kinetic energy environments. The fathers of the field are Fleischmann and Pons. Everything in the field of cold fusion followed from their seminal experimental work. I say this with the clear knowledge that muon catalyzed fusion was also called cold fusion, at least at one time. This I think is outside the definition of cold fusion because the branching ratios are conventional and the signatures are not suppressed - but it is debatable since both the Pd-D and Jones' muon catalyzed fusion announcements then or shortly after had the term universally applied to both of them. Certainly most cold fusion antagonists are happy to exclude muon catalyzed fusion from the cold fusion umbrella, and stigma! This recent tendency to divorce special nooks of the field seems utterly nonsensical - unless perhaps it is an attempt to steal credit, or establish property rights or bragging rights in some way by creating false boundaries. There is also the attempt by some to escape the stigma associated with the term cold fusion. Again, nonsense! The journalists instantly lumped Rossi's experiments and patent applications under that umbrella, despite his statements that it was not cold fusion. You put hydrogen in metals and get nuclear changes - bingo! It's cold fusion. To say otherwise is merely confusion. Otherwise, all papers not about D-D fusion should be banned from ICCF - now *that's* nonsensical isn't it! I think an end should be put to the con-fusion, and everyone should own up to the origins of the field and not be changing definitions for political or financial gain. Fusion is fusion. Cold fusion is nuclear fusion - cold. This is true regardless the events which might precede or follow the creation of any intermediate fused nucleus within a lattice, be they weak reactions, fissions, or other reactions. Besides, when the field comes to fruition, the vindication will be even more sweet, for those cold fusion scientists still alive to see it. That's my two cents worth! Best regards, Horace Heffner http://www.mtaonline.net/~hheffner/
Re: [Vo]:Removing All Doubt
Thank you, now everything depend on-Cu is real, or not! Peter On Sat, Jan 22, 2011 at 12:25 AM, mix...@bigpond.com wrote: In reply to Peter Gluck's message of Fri, 21 Jan 2011 19:31:09 +0200: Hi, [snip] That device working for 6 months has produced approx. 50,000 kWhours heat. Can this be explained by the reaction of transmutation of Ni to Cu? Considering first 300 grams of nichel...? Rossi can tell how much Ni is uesd - if he will. Am important rough energy balance anyway. Peter [snip] If all Ni isotopes react equally, and 2/3 of Ni is Ni-58, and we assume single proton fusion, then the primary reaction would be: Ni-58 + H - Cu-59 + 3.42 MeV which then decays rapidly via positron decay according to Cu-59 - Ni-59 + e+ + neutrino + 4.8 MeV (however a considerable portion of this will be lost via neutrinos; say 1/2?). so the total reaction energy is 3.42 + 2.4 = 5.82 MeV / Ni-58. 2/3 *5 kWh / 6 MeV = 1.2E23 Ni-58 reactions, which is 12 gm Ni-58, or about 18 gm Ni altogether (assuming the other isotopes all yield about the same amount of energy / atom). So quite within the realm of possibility. OTOH, if he had 300 gm of Ni, and 1/3 was converted to Cu, then that represents considerably more energy, and one has to wonder where it all went? Regards, Robin van Spaandonk http://rvanspaa.freehostia.com/Project.html
Re: [Vo]:Discovery News Article
It's a problem of definition. Let's it be Cold Fusion, the essential fact is that it works reproducibly, in a controlled way and it can be scaled up snd used commercially. Peter On Sat, Jan 22, 2011 at 5:10 PM, Stephen A. Lawrence sa...@pobox.comwrote: On 01/22/2011 02:41 AM, Peter Gluck wrote: True, Robin, but Cold Fusion was D + D fusion, this one cannot be Peter Stuff and nonsense. That's like saying 'thermonuclear fusion is D + T so when Li fuses, later in the chain, it's not thermonuclear fusion. On Sat, Jan 22, 2011 at 9:05 AM, mix...@bigpond.com wrote: In reply to Peter Gluck's message of Sat, 22 Jan 2011 06:40:13 +0200: Hi, [snip] The DN paper is an exercise in logical fallacies. And it shows how facts can be ignored. Only the press says that what happened is cold fusion i.e. fusion at cold, due to its (the press') inherent sensationalism. The world is infinitely interesting, the press wants to describe it as even more interesting. But Rossi has told that what takes place in his device is NOT cold fusion. Any reaction that joins atomic nuclei together is fusion. Regards, Robin van Spaandonk http://rvanspaa.freehostia.com/Project.html
[Vo]:Re: [Vo]:Re: [Vo]:Re: [Vo]:Re: [Vo]:Report on heat production during preliminary tests on the Rossi “Ni-H” reactor. Dr. Giuseppe Levi
it's here in Italian http://www.unibo.it/SitoWebDocente/default.htm?upn=giuseppe.levi%40unibo.itTabControl1=TabCV http://www.unibo.it/SitoWebDocente/default.htm?upn=giuseppe.levi%40unibo.itTabControl1=TabCV Peter On Sun, Jan 23, 2011 at 6:43 PM, Terry Blanton hohlr...@gmail.com wrote: Does anyone have Dr. Levi's CV? You can't just google his name. Well, you can; but, there's many of him. :) T
[Vo]:Re: [Vo]:Re: [Vo]:Re: [Vo]:Re: [Vo]:Re: [Vo]:Re: [Vo]:Report on heat production during preliminary tests on the Rossi “Ni-H” reactor. Dr. Giuseppe Levi
Thanks for the compliment - I am an expert websearcher, see Informavore's Sunday No 439 at my blog Ego Out http://egooutpeters.blogspot.com, I have won more contests- e.g. who wants to be a millionaire with time control (you get points not money) Always happy and ready to help, if you have such search problems Peter 2011/1/23 Terry Blanton hohlr...@gmail.com On Sun, Jan 23, 2011 at 12:26 PM, Peter Gluck peter.gl...@gmail.com wrote: it's here in Italian http://www.unibo.it/SitoWebDocente/default.htm?upn=giuseppe.levi%40unibo.itTabControl1=TabCV Many thanks, Peter. You are a gentleman and a scholar! Dr. Levi certainly looks qualified to participate in this demonstration. But, best of all, his CV would imply that he is a fairly young man compared to the typical LENR researcher. This is a good thing in my opinion! T
Re: [Vo]:Where is Dr. Park?
too small a subject for such a Great, Omniscient, Man Peter On Fri, Jan 28, 2011 at 6:08 PM, OrionWorks - Steven V Johnson svj.orionwo...@gmail.com wrote: Another Friday has come around. I wunder if the honorable Dr. Park will continue his distinctive silence on the Rossi-Focardi matter in his What's New column. Dr. Park has GOT to be aware of it. Inquiring minds what to know. Regards Steven Vincent Johnson www.OrionWorks.com www.zazzle.com/orionworks
Re: [Vo]:Three interesting messages from Rossi blog
There are many Grek companies with this name, difficult search but I will try to find out. The first guy with this name was an important personality of the Greek mythology, vaguelly reminding a Biblical figure: When people became very bad, Zeus decided to exterminate them with a cataclysm. Titan Prometheus advised his son Defkalion to build an arc in order to save himself. When the rain started Defkalion locked himself in the arc with his wife Pyrra. Everyone was killed and the arc, after nine days, landed on top of mount Parnassos. Defkalion offered sacrifices to Zeus who was very pleased. Zeus told Defkalion he would grant him one favour and duly, Defkalion asked for … people. Zeus obliged and ordered the two survivors to cover their face and start moving while taking stones from the ground and throwing them behind them. Where the stones thrown by Defkalion landed the earth gave men and where the stones of Pyrra landed the earth gave women. Thus, a new people were born, with no connection with the past. Later, Defkalion and Pyrra had their own children, Hellene, Amfiktion, Protogeneia, Melantho, Thia and Pandora. Hellene, their first born became the father of the Greeks. (N.T. not *that *Pandora) I have published info re the demonstration from Bologna on my Ego-Out blog and was surprised to find many pageviews from Greece. Perhaps these guys are watching. Will try to find out more. Peter On Fri, Jan 28, 2011 at 5:58 PM, OrionWorks - Steven V Johnson svj.orionwo...@gmail.com wrote: I think it would behoove us to acquire some familiarity with this Greek based company called: DEFKALION Energy Group. My initial Google searches haven't brought up anything of significance, though my searches are still preliminary. The email address for making inquiries is, stsalikog...@gmail.com, which is a gMail account. No web site. Can anyone shed additional light on DEFKALION? What do we really know about them? Regards Steven Vincent Johnson www.OrionWorks.com www.zazzle.com/orionworks
Re: [Vo]:Where is Dr. Park?
His What's New column is due for tomorrow. Let's see. Peter On Fri, Jan 28, 2011 at 7:23 PM, OrionWorks - Steven V Johnson svj.orionwo...@gmail.com wrote: From Peter: too small a subject for such a Great, Omniscient, Man Not likely. ;-) In all seriousness, Dr. Park's silence strikes me as unusual. The following is pure speculation on my part, so take it FWIW. With that disclaimer in place - lemme say this about that... As Dirty Harry once said, A good man's gotta know his limitations. I'd add the fact that any bully who desires to remain in power as a bully had better take stock of their own limitations. Perhaps we may soon find out how much of a good man Dr. Park really is. Anyone game? Anyone wanna place bets, either pro or con, on such speculation? Regards Steven Vincent Johnson www.OrionWorks.com www.zazzle.com/orionworks
Re: [Vo]:The Big Picture
Good analysis, Jones however I would add this: - the cell shows that 2 problems are solved- i*ntensity* and * reproducibility*however what remains is *scale up*. A la prima vista it seems that the 1 MW demo will be an assembly of say, 125 cells working together. I hope not...I am an engineer and I don't like the idea If you look carefully to Mills's papers he was more focused on scale-up Let's wait the two macro demonstrations - Rossi's and BLP's they will be in the same time, almost. Interesting times.. Peter On Sat, Jan 29, 2011 at 6:28 PM, Jones Beene jone...@pacbell.net wrote: Most of us here on the forum agree that if the Rossi device is not faked, it is the most important energy invention since the Manhattan project. This is what Mills had claimed for his work about 6 months ago, but all of a sudden BLP is ‘eating dust’ and stalled at the gate in the metaphorical race… and it could be a race for the ages, with nothing less than totally world energy dominance as the grand prize. There are still doubts of course, and an elaborate delusion is not completely ruled out. For the sake of argument, let’s agree that the device has not been faked, that Rossi does not understand its operation, that it is “New Physics” and that it might not be nuclear at all (in the sense that the energy gain derives from the zero point field for the most part). Problem is – big-fizzix in the USA still has their collective noses in the air, and that stance is not likely to change until they see the megawatt plant in operation, which could be a year down the road. The same is generally true in Europe about the mainstream physics establishment - but as a whole, we must ask: are the top thinkers there more cognizant of the international possibilities than are we, and are they able to take the bold and drastic step to guarantee the lead? The have far more to gain than us, and fewer basic freedoms – and since they have so little fossil fuel resources, the bold and drastic move is not ruled out. If there is one hope for everyone in all of this, for a quicker understanding of what is going on - it is the proximity to CERN to Bologna, which if I am not mistaken could be a one day drive for a truck carrying the device. Rossi is not interested, now, but he is probably a reasonable man who could be convinced otherwise, with the proper inducements. Think about this in terms of the World economic scenario – and especially the Euro, and the competition for energy dominance in the 21st Century. If you are convinced that the device must be well-understood before it can be really exploited on a grand scale, and you want to see Europe and Italy prosper to the maximum extent, then you do what you have to do. If you must pay him one billion Euros up front, or even 100 billion, it is still a bargain. There are, of course, other less costly ways, if he resists. A few of the deep thinkers and planners in Europe will possibly come to this same conclusion soon, if they have not already – and agree that this is a unique opportunity to leap-frog the USA and China and the rest of Asia -into world dominance.It is possibly a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity, even once-in-a-millennium. Think about it. It would not surprise me to see this project sequestered, and with perhaps with Rossi’s full cooperation. He would be a fool to not to go along with such a plan. Jones
Re: [Vo]:Is Rossi a 'black swan'?
Interesting idea, but the Rossi cell was predictible. Globally we ( a rather small group) knew that LENR is possible in principle but very difficult to achieve in practice- at a technologically valuable level. Based on a long saga of trial-and-error, in which seemingly the number of errors was much greater than the number of trials (in my personal opinion because only very clean surfaces can work) More specifically Piantelli's work has solved the problems of a working Ni-H cell, Piantelli has working cells. Before Rossi.If the Rossi cell is a real progress toward these- it is not known for sure. As regarding Taleb's book, I have reviewed it for my readers in the issue No 340 of my weekly newsletter Info Kappa- now continued at my blog Ego Out.(I will publish Informavore's Sunday 440 today) A great book, some parts as Extremistan vs Mediocristan are absolutely bright but the author insists too much demonstrating us that the experts- mainly in economics are stupid. When anti-intellectualism is extended to experts- bad things can happen. Peter On Sun, Jan 30, 2011 at 4:51 AM, Jones Beene jone...@pacbell.net wrote: The ‘Black Swan Theory’ of human development was developed by Nassim Nicholas Taleb to better explain the role of “freaky” randomness in history and science. Not just ‘improbability’ but utter unpredictabilityon one level, yet with the kind of hidden influences that makes it stochastic instead of pure randomness. Taleb, rephrasing David Hume sez: the observation of even a million white swans does not justify the statement that all swans are white. And if you are from ‘down-under’, for example, you might have thought most were black. The main points of ‘Black Swan Theory’ (Wiki): 1. The disproportionate role of high-impact, hard to predict, and rare events that are beyond the realm of normal expectations in history, science, finance and technology 2. The non-computability of the probability of the consequential rare events using scientific methods (owing to the very nature of small probabilities) 3. The psychological biases that make people individually and collectively blind to uncertainty and unaware of the massive role of the rare event in historical affairs Randomness, of a special kind, plays a big part in these paradigm shifts,in the course of history.Physicist s, especially at the PhD level, are exceedingly prone to the falling into the ‘black swan’ logical error in their thinking process, since they wantto believe in the power of predictability, based on known facts and slight natural divergence. They simply cannot grasp that major and unpredictable divergence exists from what is known and that it is often the most important factor of all. Unfortunately, in analyzing most ‘astounding’ claims - they are often correct, and Bob Park can be up to 99% correct in spurts, since they only attack the weakest claims. They absolutely dread what is happening now in Bologna – to be exposed as completely wrong on the most important new development of their lifetime. This is why the Parks and Garwins of the world can be so dangerous to society in the final analysis – and yes, Park may have been a ‘net negative’ voice to the general public for all of these years for failing to take notice of the original ‘black swan’ back in 1989, despite being right most of the time otherwise. When the err, they can set back real progress by decades. Shame on you! …and you know who you are, so it is not necessary to name more names . Redemption is still possible. Progress, according to Taleb, absolutely depends on the occasional black swan – which is what we can call the “Goodyear moment” since it recognizes that accidental moments in science can be far more productive than the b est-laid plans of mice and men. But they are not truly accidental either, yet I will save my ‘what is stochastic?’ rant for another time and place. Jones
Re: [Vo]:Is Rossi a 'black swan'?
It doesn't matter if a swan is black or white, so long as it catches mice. (Deng Xiaoping http://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/authors/d/deng_xiaoping.html) I am not absolutely sure that the above quotation is exact; my memory is not more what it was, but what counts is that Rossi tries to sell an Energy Source and this is not unexpected. He says it is LENR- all we can say now is: vederemo. Peter On Sun, Jan 30, 2011 at 4:46 PM, Jones Beene jone...@pacbell.net wrote: Well – not so fast. How can you assume LENR? Most of us here “want to believe” it is LENR, but where is the evidence of anything nuclear? Are you saying that excess heat over and above chemical makes it LENR by default? Maybe - It is clearly “new physics” but the lack of radioactivity at the demo (Levi paper) makes it less likely to be nuclear. This leaves three or four basic categories of non-nuclear or crossover reactions, as options: 1)QM based “near nuclear tunneling” but w/o nuclear alteration 2)Mills, or fractional ground states 3)Langmuir/Moller atomic hydrogen (active Casimir heating) 4)ZPE (other variations of the above) including Heffner’s “nuclear ZPE” 5)MIMS – or “metastable inner-shell molecular states”. This is really another name for “ballotechnics” aka “supra-chemistry” since it deals with inner orbitals. 6)Any combination or permutation, including ZPE reactions which eventually accelerate nuclear decay to stable isotopes … there is plenty of overlap in this list – and most of these have been considered to be in the fold of LENR in the past, by default, but clearly the inventor has said over and over that this is not related to “cold fusion” … but also that he doesn’t understand it. …and in any event, there is too little real data is available to contradict Rossi’s own appraisal that it is not cold fusion. IOW it could be a completely new reaction, the ‘black swan’ or ‘Goodyear moment’ which was not a predictable outcome from the PF experiment. Jones *From:* Peter Gluck Interesting idea, but the Rossi cell was predictable. Globally we ( a rather small group) knew that LENR is possible in principle but very difficult to achieve in practice- at a technologically valuable level. Peter Jones Beene wrote: The ‘Black Swan Theory’ of human development was developed by Nassim Nicholas Taleb to better explain the role of “freaky” randomness in history and science. Not just ‘improbability’ but utter unpredictability on one level, yet with the kind of hidden influences that makes it stochastic instead of pure randomness.
Re: [Vo]:http://leonardocorp.com/ does not exist
I fully agree with Mark. As Chairman Mao would say- today- we (Vort, CMNS) are only *electronic tigers* for Rossi we can speak and demonstrate that his generator does not work, that he is is working with imaginary companies and so on, but we cannot bite. Peter On Fri, Feb 4, 2011 at 9:42 AM, Mark Iverson zeropo...@charter.net wrote: Jed wrote: If you want people to believe your claims you should provide the kind of information any normal business would provide, such as the address. When you give out only an info@ address it gives people the impression you are fake. All these kinds of comments are useless and irrelevent... If you guys haven't noticed by now, ROSSI DOESN'T CARE IF YOU BELIEVE HIS CLAIMS OR NOT! And no amount of coercing will make him change his mind. This web site should show the street address and telephone number, so that reporters and others can verify the information with state business records. Just assume for one second that the demo was real, and that you are Rossi and have been pouring in your financial livelihood into making those first 100 reactors... Would you publish the location for all the world to see... Hell NO!!! That would be the most idiotic thing to do... If so, you'd be setting yourself up for major problems, and financial ruin. A savvy individual would not do anything to jeopardize the success of that first operating plant... He doesn't need anything from anyone to make it successful other than for people to leave him alone so he can complete the work. You are all thinking from YOUR perspective, not Rossi's. Sure, we all want to know if this is real, and we want to know NOW.. From OUR perspective, there are things that could easily be done to prove to us that its real, so why doesn't he do it? Two reasons: 1) He doesn't need anything from us, so he doesn't care what we think or want. Frankly, he's wasting his time answering all the questions about instances of discrepancies or misinformation. 2) Because he's an engineer, the best way to prove it works is to build something practical. If I were him, I wouldn't let anyone know where the units are being manufactured either! -Mark
[Vo]:
My dear friends, I have just published : http://egooutpeters.blogspot.com/2011/11/informavores-sunday-no-481.html You will not find here a definitive answer for the E-cat Enigma just some vague suggestions how to proceed in such cases of informational chaos. You will be able to see much more clearly the darkness at the end of the tunnel. Yours, as always, Peter -- Dr. Peter Gluck Cluj, Romania http://egooutpeters.blogspot.com
Re: [Vo]:Let Rossi Be Rossi?
I perfectly agree with you and consider that what Mary Yugo says is a necessary and useful part of the broad spectrum of opinions re Rossi. Being a convinced feminist, I think ladies can be rational and very smart and good scientists technologists so I will abstain from asking her unpolitely if she is not actually my old friend Guy Moray from Aberdeen. Peter On Sun, Nov 13, 2011 at 8:15 PM, Vorl Bek vorl@antichef.com wrote: I have had it with Mary Yugo. I think Mary Yugo is a good addition to this list. Mary Yugo's skepticism is better than excusing Rossi's odd behaviour on the grounds that he must be an eccentric genius. Rossi seems like a scammer to me. Of course, I hope he really has come up with a wonder-working machine, but until there are some independent replications, I do not see why I should believe that he has. -- Dr. Peter Gluck Cluj, Romania http://egooutpeters.blogspot.com
[Vo]:The E-cat in the Catholic Press
see please: http://www.ncregister.com/blog/the-machine-that-changes-everything/ -- Dr. Peter Gluck Cluj, Romania http://egooutpeters.blogspot.com
Re: [Vo]:a modest proposal
On Mon, Nov 14, 2011 at 6:00 PM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com wrote: jmp jmp crossection...@yahoo.com wrote: First, the part about forget Rossi: I think Rossi has been an enormous time/talent sink with no benefit to the LENR field. Arguably, he's set the field back quite a lot. That is preposterous. He has made more progress toward practical, commercial technology that all of the other researchers combined. At present, there is nothing else to talk about in cold fusion, and no other approach worth pursuing. it would be a waste of time to continue working on bulk palladium and other approaches. Perhaps we should return to them in the future to learn more about the physics of cold fusion, but there is no question that the only practical way to make technology is with nickel nanoparticle powder. Rossi is an annoying person who can be difficult to work with, but he has undeniably made a tremendous contribution to this field. The fact that he is annoying has no bearing at all on his contribution. Look back at the posts here at Vortex and consider how much time and effort has been spent by a bunch of smart people in trying to figure out what Rossi has or doesn't have. Wet steam, dry steam. What about that thermocouple/pump/contract with U of B/whatever? This is all skeptical bullshit. None of these issues are real. The steam could be completely wet and the results would be irrefutable. In any case, as far as I know, all real experts in the real world say it is dry. I believe it's been wasted effort. Rossi provides very little information that can be independently confirmed. All of his claims had been independently confirmed. Everything he has done has already been done by others, albeit at lower power levels with less spectacular success. I don't know what Rossi has. Given the dearth of confirmable information he's provided, I *can't* know what he has. Yes, you can. If you understand basic physics and thermodynamics you can be certain that his results are real. I do not know a professional single scientist who doubts this. All of the doubts are from the peanut gallery on the Internet, especially people such as Mary Yugo. She says she knows nothing about cold fusion, so obviously she cannot judge. Asking her to evaluate this would be like asking me to review a performance of the Metropolitan Opera. I do not know the first thing about music and I have never listened to the Metropolitan Opera. So I am not qualified to critique them. I doubt anyone would argue with that. I cannot imagine why anyone takes Yugo or Park seriously, when they brag they have not even bothered to read the fundamentals, and they make many silly factual mistakes. - Jed Jed, Re opera you can consult me anytime, is my hobby. Italian, French, German, Russian, Hungarian, Czech etc. operas. if you wish to listen to a good selection of opera arias, you can find them there: http://egooutpeters.blogspot.com/2011/03/explaining-opera-music-of-all-noises.html Metopera has a wonderfully well organized website and database. Re Mary Yugo, I am reading only what she tells about Rossi and the E-cat, not LENR or CF. Peter -- Dr. Peter Gluck Cluj, Romania http://egooutpeters.blogspot.com
[Vo]:
My Dear Friends. It is Sunday again and, being still functional, I am sending you the issue No. 482 of the INFORMAVORE's SUNDAY. http://egooutpeters.blogspot.com/2011/11/informavores-sunday-no-482.html I would be enchanted if you could use this hopefully good information to alleviate a bit the stress due to the increasingly circular and more and more polarized discussions re Rossi's generators- known as E-cat by friends and enemies.(I am a critic of it, i.e. an economical friend (with *such* friends you don't need enemies). Enjoy, and please, please, popularize this publication! Thank you, Peter -- Dr. Peter Gluck Cluj, Romania http://egooutpeters.blogspot.com
Re: [Vo]:A new article mostly about Defkalion in Greek
They are technologically skilled, good engineers and have refused to pay for an immature and unsafe product. Excess heat is only a necessary, but not a sufficient condition for an Energy Source. Rossi's E-cat has worked (was functional) but did not worked well. Defkalion, it seems, has defined the problem and has worked out their own solution. If other customers accept to buy immature products- it is their decision and has some logic in it. And risks too. Peter On Sun, Nov 20, 2011 at 7:15 PM, Aussie Guy E-Cat aussieguy.e...@gmail.comwrote: It says they had $15 million ready but Rossi did not complete the contract. That means they never paid Rossi the money and now they seem to be claiming the technology is all theirs. - *So the rift between you was not due only to non-payment of first installment repayment, said Mr. Rossi?* /Not sure./ /We had finished the 15 million dollars of first dose, but Mr. Rossi did not sign the protocol of receipt, asking him to meet parameters such as the stable operation of the device for at least 48 hours./ /This was the real cause of the interruption of cooperation, but not celebrated in the media because they want to continue a deleterious confrontation./ /Us us interested in real progress, and this success./ /The technology will present a few days the world will be entirely Greek and appreciate its contribution to the overthrow of what exists in the energy market. / AG On 11/21/2011 3:22 AM, Mary Yugo wrote: Original URL: http://www.tovima.gr/science/**article/?aid=430840http://www.tovima.gr/science/article/?aid=430840 Somewhat garbled Google translate: *http://tinyurl.com/6mszlt4* So they claim they paid Rossi $15 million if I understand it right. If it's true, he should have been able to fund U of B research for some time and he did not need to sell his house. It's a big if, of course. -- Dr. Peter Gluck Cluj, Romania http://egooutpeters.blogspot.com
Re: [Vo]:A new article mostly about Defkalion in Greek
The test chamber is indeed very similar to Piantelli's high vacuum installation of Molecular Beam Epitaxy (see my 3rd paper abou Piantelli in my Blog). The Greek installation is: The engine configuration of the grains of Nickel in vacuum i.e. has the same function- manufacture of Ni nanoclusters. Translation a bit surrrealistic but it is clearly the installation for manufacture of the fuel. Or one of them. Peter On Sun, Nov 20, 2011 at 7:30 PM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com wrote: Terry Blanton hohlr...@gmail.com wrote: Did you see the test chamber at the end of the article? That looks like one of Piantelli's experiments. Not sure, but I think that's what it is. - Jed -- Dr. Peter Gluck Cluj, Romania http://egooutpeters.blogspot.com
Re: [Vo]:A new article mostly about Defkalion in Greek
On Sun, Nov 20, 2011 at 7:36 PM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com wrote: Peter Gluck peter.gl...@gmail.com wrote: They are technologically skilled, good engineers and have refused to pay for an immature and unsafe product. Who are they? Who refused to pay, for what? I don't see that in the article. This translation is remarkably good, for a machine. A little hard to follow in places. - Jed Jed, it seems there was a point in the contract, that the E-cat should work continuously for at least 48 hours- and it didn't. The heating of n office with an E-cat for 2 years is fairy tales for adults. -- Dr. Peter Gluck Cluj, Romania http://egooutpeters.blogspot.com
Re: [Vo]:A new article mostly about Defkalion in Greek
November 14, take a look to the Defkalion Forum. http://www.defkalion-energy.com/files/DGT_PRESS%20RELEASE_2011-11-14.pdf On Sun, Nov 20, 2011 at 8:26 PM, Mary Yugo maryyu...@gmail.com wrote: On Sun, Nov 20, 2011 at 10:24 AM, Akira Shirakawa shirakawa.ak...@gmail.com wrote: We might know if it's really the case in about two weeks of time (Defkalion GT announcement). Anyone know when the countdown to this event started? Just curious when to look for it. -- Dr. Peter Gluck Cluj, Romania http://egooutpeters.blogspot.com
Re: [Vo]:A new article mostly about Defkalion in Greek
Defkalion's CEO says about the 48 hours work condition in this paper. If the E-cat has heated the office for two years, then it seems later it made serious regress. You can show any photography, how could we know that the thing heats indeed? As regarding Prof Focardi who; a) tacitly accepts the role of Father of Cold Fusion; b) has told his old friend Piantelli- I cannot communicate more with you; c) says that he does know what the wonder additive called catalyst is- that translates toRossi does not trust me - I will not believe what he says about this mythical heater I have never accused Rossi of fraud, I think yes he can obtain excess heat but has not sufficient controil. But he lied a lot starting with the catalyst, nad with saying that his process has nothing to do with the fprmer Ni-H processes. The results of the experiments were improved, the methods of measurement were optimized On Sun, Nov 20, 2011 at 8:31 PM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com wrote: Peter Gluck peter.gl...@gmail.com wrote: Jed, it seems there was a point in the contract, that the E-cat should work continuously for at least 48 hours- and it didn't. Ah. You refer to the Sept. 6 test done by Quantum engineers and NASA, but which fails due to leakage. Yes, Rossi's prototype equipment often fails because of leakage or some unknown problem. Defkalion says their reactors are more reliable. The heating of n office with an E-cat for 2 years is fairy tales for adults. Except that someone recently mailed me photos of the damn thing, with people I know standing around it, and test data. Plus Focardi and others say they saw it running several times. So it is not a fairly tale. Every indication is that it is true. As I said, I have never caught Rossi telling a lie about any engineering technical claim. No skeptic has caught him, either, as far as I know. All of their examples of lies are their own misunderstandings. He says things about theory and transmutation that may not be true, but I would not call those statements lies. I think he does not know much about theory. Since I know nothing, I cannot judge. As I mentioned, I am trying to get permission to upload those photos. It might help smooth the way for me to do that if people here would tone down these rabid accusations of fraud, made without a shred of evidence. It poisons the atmosphere. Expressing doubts is fine, but out-and-out accusations and calls by certain unnamed people to have Rossi arrested and deported are . . . unhelpful. - Jed -- Dr. Peter Gluck Cluj, Romania http://egooutpeters.blogspot.com
Re: [Vo]:Defkalion did not deny to use Piantelli technology!
Audiatur et altera pars- Defkalion, in this case: What I understand is: a) the Rossi Defkalion divorce took place because Rossi was not able to show generators working more than 48 hours constantly; b) the Greeks, having a very school of engineering have started very early to develop the generators and have sytematically improved them. It seems the secret of the core is much simpler than we imagine- a functional additive that can be known based on the nechanism of the reaction, as described by Piantelli; c) The Tovima paper written by a reputed Greek journalist Tasos Kafantaris has the aim to present the message of DGT;s CEo's statement- we will continue! *in the context of LENR.* Piantelli being the creator of Transition Metals-H LENR, his device for manufacturing nano-nickel was also presented here. The photo is taken in Piantelli's lab in Summer 2010 by Roy Virgilio and is on the Web. It is an impressive high vacuum installation, cannot be taken as proof for Defkalion using Piantelli's technology. The paper is well written and balanced. d) as far I know Rossi has tried to get Piantelli's help even earlier prior to his depolymerisation gaffe (Petroldragon), but Piantelli works only with scientists. If Rossi have achieved something it was by empirical methods- trial and error, not by science, And he needs now science to make to work well. On Mon, Nov 21, 2011 at 2:44 PM, Akira Shirakawa shirakawa.ak...@gmail.comwrote: On 2011-11-21 12:41, peter.heck...@arcor.de wrote: Ok, its time to spread some new rumours, to avoid boredness: http://www.tovima.gr/files/1/**2011/11/18/Piantelli-engine%**5B1%5D.jpghttp://www.tovima.gr/files/1/2011/11/18/Piantelli-engine%5B1%5D.jpg http://www.defkalion-energy.**com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=4t=**508http://www.defkalion-energy.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=4t=508 By the way, it appears that Christos Stremmenos wrote a comment in the Tovima article linked, which he translated in Italian on JONP: http://www.journal-of-nuclear-**physics.com/?p=516cpage=14#** comment-125963http://www.journal-of-nuclear-physics.com/?p=516cpage=14#comment-125963 I'll attempt a translation of his convoluted Italian to English below: I feel responsible for the transfer and the fate of Rossi's invention (Cold Fusion) in Greece, and also guardian of the moral values it contains. With scientific and idealistic motives, involving my friends, colleagues and long-term partners eng. A.Rossi and prof. S.Focardi, protagonists of this epoch-making invention, we attempted together to transmit to Greece the science and technological possibilities for a promising future in this country, birthplace of Democritus and Leucippus, and with this symbolism, to promote the new energetic era for the sake of the entire humanity. As for what matters the Greek company Defkalion Green Technologies SA, unfortunately and much to my regret, I find myself with mixed feelings for the frivolous and incoherent, to say the least, general behavior and documented financial breach of contract with A.Rossi that lasted almost a year. I'll conclude with a wise popular saying from my birthplace Ervytania: The poor's lamb can't become a ram. Prof.Ch. Stremmenos Cheers, S.A. -- Dr. Peter Gluck Cluj, Romania http://egooutpeters.blogspot.com
Re: [Vo]:A Pyrolysis E-Cat fake
Horace, Just for your information, I was present at the foundation of the very first Aquafuel Company in Largo (Tampa). Santilli (a mathematician of genius) and Leon Toups a businessman (who after his death was declared a saint- his son was working at the Vatican) have bought the patent of Richardson- a welder. I have received a lesson about the American corporate spirit. Santilli has discovered that Aquafuel contains magnecules. Long story not beautiful, it ended when Santilli has sued Infinite Energy for not publishing a n-th paper in the frame of his endless theoretical dispute with an other Italian guy, Corso (?). Being an adviser I had to pay 12,000 US$. The trial didn't took place, fortunately. However nothing to learn from this story that I just sketched here this has happend in an other part of Florida not Miami where Rossi works. I have stopped at Sarasota, visiting Patterson. On Mon, Nov 21, 2011 at 3:13 PM, Horace Heffner hheff...@mtaonline.netwrote: More on the old AguaFuel concepts, Santilli's paper: http://arxiv.org/pdf/physics/**9805031v1http://arxiv.org/pdf/physics/9805031v1 and Nauden's old stuff: http://jlnlabs.online.fr/**bingofuel/html/aquagen.htmhttp://jlnlabs.online.fr/bingofuel/html/aquagen.htm As coincidence would have it, some AquaFuel cousin companies are or were located in Florida. Isn't that the state from which the E-Cat parts were shipped to Rossi? In any case I think Rossi has Florida connections. The Aquafuel name was purchased from Richardson: http://aquafuelinc.com/ http://www.rexresearch.com/**aquafuel/aquafuel.htmhttp://www.rexresearch.com/aquafuel/aquafuel.htm but applied to a different process. It might be interesting to examine the possibility of pyrolysis being a feasible explanation for the E-Cat experiment excess energy. The density of graphite is about 0.6 g/cm^3. Coal density is about 1 gm/cm^3, about the same as water. If coal were being pyrolyzed inside the E-Cat its volume could be replaced with water to achieve no mass change. Coal has an energy density of about 35,000 kJ per kg, or 35 MJ/kg, or 9.72 kWh/kg. The pyrolysis of carbon coincidentally might help explain some of the stains inside the E-Cat. The 6 October 2011 Rossi test provided a net of 17.7 kWh, or 63.7 MJ of energy, according to Lewan's data: http://www.mtaonline.net/~**hheffner/Rossi6Oct2011noBias.**pdfhttp://www.mtaonline.net/~hheffner/Rossi6Oct2011noBias.pdf This amounts to the pyrolysis of 63.7/35 kg = 1.82 kg of carbon, followed by catalytic recombination to produce CO2, over a period of about 6 hours requires about 300 g/hr, or 1/12 gram per second of carbon. Using 12.01 as the atomic weight of C, and 43.99 for CO2, that is (1/12 g)*43.99/12.01 = 0.305 gm of CO2 per second. At 2 g/liter that is 0.305 g/(2 g/liter) = 0.153 liters of gas per second. CO2 is not very soluble in boiling water, so this will come out in the steam/water in gas form, unless sequestered in some way. Lye could be used to sequester CO2 in a nearly closed system releasing little or no gas. The reaction is: 2 NaOH + CO2 - Na2CO3 + H2O NaOH has a molecular weight of 40, so it takes 80 grams of NaOH to sequester 44 grams of CO2. That amounts to 80/44 * 1.82 kg = 3.3 kg of NaOH that has to be contained within the 30x30x30 cm, or 27 liter, inner box. With a density of 2.13 g/cm^3 the NaOH requires 3300 g/(2.13 g/cm^3) = 1.55 liters. The carbon requires 1.82 liters for a total of 3.37 liters for fuel, leaving over 23 liters, about 87% of the box, for other items. Unless I made a calculation error, which is not unlikely, pyrolysis of carbon appears to qualify as a mechanism for faking E-Cat tests of the duration actually run, even without hydrino formation, closed ou processes, calorimetry errors, etc. Such pyrolysis can even be run in a closed system, provided some current is provided to sustain an arc, which should be very feasible at the high temperatures expected inside the 30x30x30 cm box if it contains heating elements and ceramic thermal storage. It is notable that the original AquaFuel experiments produced an apparent COP of around 7. If pyrolysis is an ou process, as claimed by various people the last decade, then a closed recycling process could of course explain Rossi's results in a sustainable way. Best regards, Horace Heffner http://www.mtaonline.net/~**hheffner/http://www.mtaonline.net/~hheffner/ -- Dr. Peter Gluck Cluj, Romania http://egooutpeters.blogspot.com
Re: [Vo]:Rossi replies to my email
He also says a 1 MW model cannot be reverse-engineered, but a individual E-cat can. Can this be true? Peter On Mon, Nov 21, 2011 at 4:56 PM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com wrote: Terry Blanton hohlr...@gmail.com wrote: Defkalion will sell you a 45 kW(th) plant. We expect to see their announcement this week. It might be a good idea for AR to approach Defkalion rather than Rossi. They claim to have better reactors. I think their pricing is more reasonable. I cannot see much use for a 100 kW reactor that will be obsolete in a matter of months. A 1 MW model is even worse. I have no inside knowledge but I suppose Rossi wants to sell only a few large reactors so that he can earn a lot of money per unit, and so he can keep an eye on the customer. From his point of view it is better to sell a single 1 MW reactor than a hundred 10 kW reactors. If he had a patent, things would be different. - Jed -- Dr. Peter Gluck Cluj, Romania http://egooutpeters.blogspot.com
Re: [Vo]:Tovima: Defkalion says the catalyst formula is not Rossi's
Piantelli has worked with Ni powder, it is written in his 1995 patent and this is the main reason Rossi's patent is not approved. His process and work strategy is even better described in his 2010 patent. The most probable scenario is this: Rossi has found an additive that enhances the Ni-H reaction used by Piantelli. Working empirically, Rossi has problems with the control and the continuity of the generators. He was unable to make the E-cat to work continuously for 48 hours and DGT has not paid him, this was probably something stipulated in the contract. DivorceDGT recognizes the merits of Rossi, however has prefered to develop alone the generators using good enegineers and systematic work, not tinkering. My guess is that the additive pompously called catalyst is not so special and not so secret. It's probable function was already discussed at this Forum, many months ago. With some effort you can find good candidates for the stuff. Not a secret of Polichinelle but not deep mystery. The frequency generator is an extra indication for the solution. And the Greek company has first class professionals. On Mon, Nov 21, 2011 at 9:56 PM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com wrote: We discussed the Tovima article already. I do not think we have noted this: And the catalyst? We asked. It's not supposed to be secret Rossi? [Xanthoulis responded] All the technology used in devices at the Hyperion KW and systems 1 to 5MW are our own design – different from those of Rossi That comment was emphasized in this report on the Tovima article: We Have Our Own eCat Says Defkalion http://ecatnews.com/?p=1368 The ecatnews author says: That sounds to me like a legal defence in preparation. It sounds that way to me, too! There has been some indirect discussion of this. People here have speculated that the formula comes from Piantelli. I have no idea. As far as I know Piantelli has not worked with powder, and I think powder is the best approach. I predict a monumental knock-down drag-out court battle. Original article: http://www.tovima.gr/science/article/?aid=430840 - Jed -- Dr. Peter Gluck Cluj, Romania http://egooutpeters.blogspot.com
Re: [Vo]:A Pyrolysis E-Cat fake
I will send you the story privately if you wish. I have met very interesting people. Have you read My cold fusion history I and II on my blog.? I intend to continue this. peter On Mon, Nov 21, 2011 at 10:24 PM, Horace Heffner hheff...@mtaonline.netwrote: On Nov 21, 2011, at 5:02 AM, Peter Gluck wrote: Horace, Just for your information, I was present at the foundation of the very first Aquafuel Company in Largo (Tampa). Santilli (a mathematician of genius) and Leon Toups a businessman (who after his death was declared a saint- his son was working at the Vatican) have bought the patent of Richardson- a welder. I have received a lesson about the American corporate spirit. Santilli has discovered that Aquafuel contains magnecules. Long story not beautiful, it ended when Santilli has sued Infinite Energy for not publishing a n-th paper in the frame of his endless theoretical dispute with an other Italian guy, Corso (?). Being an adviser I had to pay 12,000 US$. The trial didn't took place, fortunately. However nothing to learn from this story that I just sketched here this has happend in an other part of Florida not Miami where Rossi works. I have stopped at Sarasota, visiting Patterson. That is a very interesting anecdote Peter! An interesting chapter in a checkered past for the field. Thank you for posting it. I would ask to hear more, but, given the litigious history, I can see that would be inappropriate. Perhaps you would enjoy publishing it in detail posthumously? 8^) Hopefully it will be in your memoirs. I recall at the time it seemed to me that pyrolysis, even if it turned out to not be ou, held great promise for converting pulverized garbage into energy. This is an interesting coincidence, given Rossi's prior involvement in garbage incineration for energy and eventually in converting garbage into oil via the Petroldragon process. Perhaps it would be well justified if the present scheme were designed to wreak revenge on the corrupt bureaucrats and others who gave him so much legal grief regarding his green technology. I don't see how it could be focused on them, however. The old story is documented, with links, here: http://blog.hasslberger.com/2011/02/italian_engineer_announces_com.html What a great movie Rossi's story would make. His story might be worth millions. That might be the best revenge of all. Rossi has sold his house and business, so perhaps he is prepared to move to some nice water front location for retirement ... or perhaps to continue work. Best regards, Horace Heffner http://www.mtaonline.net/~hheffner/ -- Dr. Peter Gluck Cluj, Romania http://egooutpeters.blogspot.com
Re: [Vo]:Tovima: Defkalion says the catalyst formula is not Rossi's
I think the function of the secret additive is to bring hydrogen in the form adequate for the nuclear reaction, and the frequency generator further enhances this process. I bet that in a year the nature of this compound will be well known and there will be elaborated more alternative solutions. I am not so much for historical analogies but I think if Edison could consult a specialist in material science he could find out a good filament after 5-10 trials. However there was no materials science then. But now it is. On Tue, Nov 22, 2011 at 12:16 AM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.comwrote: Peter Gluck peter.gl...@gmail.com wrote: My guess is that the additive pompously called catalyst is not so special and not so secret. Of course it is secret. If it were not secret hundreds people would be doing this experiment. Dozens are trying to do it. They have had some success but they are still 1 or 2 orders of magnitude away from Rossi as far as I know. Why do you say pompously? It is a catalyst. Maybe a nuclear catalyst, but a catalyst is a catalyst. It promotes the reaction without taking part in it, and without being used up. Presumably. Unless the Ni transmutes, which would make it an ingredient I suppose. With Pd reactions, my guess is that the metal acts as a nuclear catalyst most of the time but occasionally the metal itself is transmuted. - Jed -- Dr. Peter Gluck Cluj, Romania http://egooutpeters.blogspot.com
Re: [Vo]:A Pyrolysis E-Cat fake
Dear Horace, I would be honored if you will read the papers labelled NEW ENERGY on the blog. The first history writing is at: http://egooutpeters.blogspot.com/2011/03/my-cold-fusion-history-i.html I still have to write about my travel with Yuri Potapov in the US, my visit and friendship with Gene Mallove, with Akira Kawasaki, my travel to Bangkok for INTERENERGORESURS, my collaboration with Hal Fox etc.. And now my great friendship with Franco Piantelli whom I admire as scientist. And my sympathy for Defkalion. Peter On Tue, Nov 22, 2011 at 12:15 AM, Horace Heffner hheff...@mtaonline.netwrote: On Nov 21, 2011, at 12:03 PM, Peter Gluck wrote: I will send you the story privately if you wish. I have met very interesting people. Have you read My cold fusion history I and II on my blog.? I intend to continue this. peter I would very much appreciate that. I haven't read those entries I and II. I don't see them at: http://egooutpeters.blogspot.com Do you have URLs for those? I am going to Anchorage for the day, so will not respond for a while. BTW, I have been to Florida many times. It has a great highway system. Most of Florida is within a day's drive of Patterson's former lab location at West Palm Beach, just north of Miami. It is a great place to be in the winter, but a bit too hot for me in the summer now, though I loved swimming in the ocean in the summer there when I was a kid. On one visit to Daytona Beach in the 1950's I had the privilege of having the eye of a hurricane pass directly over my location. I went outside. It was calm and you could see blue sky directly above. It was a most memorable experience. Best regards, Horace Heffner http://www.mtaonline.net/~hheffner/ -- Dr. Peter Gluck Cluj, Romania http://egooutpeters.blogspot.com
Re: [Vo]:Rossi Defkalion 4 possibilities
The Energy market being insatiable, the lack of a patent can be compensted in part and temporary by speed, a commercial Blitzkrieg can help - for a while. Defkalion seems to be well prepared for that and acting more professionally. Later the number of competitors will increase. This is the best and most probable scenario. On Tue, Nov 22, 2011 at 9:27 AM, Peter Heckert peter.heck...@arcor.dewrote: I used all my abilities of clairvoyance to look into the future: There are 4 possibilities. 1) Rossi=false, Defkalion=false 2) Rossi=false, Defkalion=true 3) Rossi=true, Defkalion=false 4) Rossi=true, Defkalion=true 1) Rossi cannot know if Defkalions claims are true, but he has nothing to offer. - Rossi will continue to sell fake 1MW plants as fast as possible. Because Defkalion never makes a successful public demonstration this game can go on forever. Possibly his sales will rise, if Defkalion shows disappointing demonstrations. 2) Rossi cannot know if Defkalions claims are true, but he has nothing to offer. - The game will end as soon as Defkalion has shown definitive success. 3)Rossi cannot know if Defkalions claims are true. - Rossi will try to sell as many 1MW plants as possible. Because Defkalion never has real success this will go on forever. Rossis sales will rise. 4)Rossi cannot know if Defkalions claims are true. -Rossi will try to sell as many 1MW plants as possible. The game will end as soon as Defkalion makes a superior demonstration and starts selling. Conclusion about Rossis future behaviour: Rossi will try to sell as much as possible. Because he must fear Defkalion makes a much more impressive demonstration, he must try to get his money as fast as possible out of the escrow account. He has no time to loose and will not do any new demonstrations. This will happen in any case. Let future be my witness! Peter -- Dr. Peter Gluck Cluj, Romania http://egooutpeters.blogspot.com
Re: [Vo]:A person claim successful replication of e-cat
My opinion is that this has to be taken quite seriously, the guy has bought ready made nanoNickel and perhaps has found an additive similar to that used by Rossi. Let's see what will Chan say in the following weeks. Peter On Tue, Nov 22, 2011 at 9:55 AM, Marcello Vitale mvit...@ucsbalum.netwrote: The word scam implies that somebody got cheated: it requires a perpetrator and at least one victim. Money or some other good must be exchanged fraudulently. If Chan is knowingly making something look like something else, as with various feats of bravery videos on youtube, it would be called an hoax. That requires the absence of profit motives, except for the gain of personal satisfaction one would gain from fooling somebody else If, instead, he is doing something that he thinks is meaningful but, because of a factor such as what pointed out by Horace he is actually doing something altogether different and much less interesting, it would be a simple mistake, which would become a self delusion if one keeps insisting in the face of evidence. The parallels with the lives and deeds of Andrea Rossi, but even of MY, really, if one thinks about it, are left to anybody to ponder as they see fit. On Tue, Nov 22, 2011 at 12:52 AM, Daniel Rocha danieldi...@gmail.comwrote: He is not asking for money. He is even asked for reproduction. You could do it. 2011/11/21 Mattia Rizzi mattia.ri...@gmail.com A scam inside a scam. Marvellous. -Messaggio originale- From: David ledin Sent: Monday, November 21, 2011 10:07 PM To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: [Vo]:A person claim successful replication of e-cat A person named Chan has posted a descriptive method of replicating a version of the ecat on www.buildecat.com and claim reached self sustained fusion at 200 C for days. http://www.buildecat.com/blog_**detail/the-chan-formula-4.htmlhttp://www.buildecat.com/blog_detail/the-chan-formula-4.html -- Daniel Rocha - RJ danieldi...@gmail.com -- Dr. Peter Gluck Cluj, Romania http://egooutpeters.blogspot.com
Re: [Vo]:Defkalion GT announcement
I think that they speak the truth and actually it is not very difficult to find additives with the same functionality as Rossi's so-called catalyst. Chan's Method is an other proof and indication of what this additive can be. Defkalion has good engineers and managers and will be one of the most powerful competitors of Rossi, I bet. but there will be lots of competitors. Peter On Wed, Nov 23, 2011 at 6:07 PM, OrionWorks - Steven V Johnson svj.orionwo...@gmail.com wrote: From Ledin: Defkalion GT ... You all are kindly ask not to confuse our Hyperion technology with others’ (eg.ecat). We are not willing to answer any questions pertaining to third party initiatives in LENR. We have made our own progress, both on technical and business matters. So we will not accept any comments or questions for other parties business or technologies. Please note that according to our 14th of November 2011 press release, we will release a more detailed announcement in the beginning of next week. Marketing speak for: Accept no imitations! Regards Steven Vincent Johnson www.OrionWorks.com www.zazzle.com/orionworks -- Dr. Peter Gluck Cluj, Romania http://egooutpeters.blogspot.com
Re: [Vo]:Defkalion GT announcement
This needs time, building the setup, acquiring the sort of nanoNi. The idea to use a metal hydride as hydrogen source is bright. See the literature re MgH2. Peter On Wed, Nov 23, 2011 at 6:54 PM, Daniel Rocha danieldi...@gmail.com wrote: Did anyone try to reproduce Chan's method? Did he post a video or something? He could post a fast forward video just as a motivation for other to reproduce the experiment. 2011/11/23 Peter Gluck peter.gl...@gmail.com I think that they speak the truth and actually it is not very difficult to find additives with the same functionality as Rossi's so-called catalyst. Chan's Method is an other proof and indication of what this additive can be. Defkalion has good engineers and managers and will be one of the most powerful competitors of Rossi, I bet. but there will be lots of competitors. Peter On Wed, Nov 23, 2011 at 6:07 PM, OrionWorks - Steven V Johnson svj.orionwo...@gmail.com wrote: From Ledin: Defkalion GT ... You all are kindly ask not to confuse our Hyperion technology with others’ (eg.ecat). We are not willing to answer any questions pertaining to third party initiatives in LENR. We have made our own progress, both on technical and business matters. So we will not accept any comments or questions for other parties business or technologies. Please note that according to our 14th of November 2011 press release, we will release a more detailed announcement in the beginning of next week. Marketing speak for: Accept no imitations! Regards Steven Vincent Johnson www.OrionWorks.com www.zazzle.com/orionworks -- Dr. Peter Gluck Cluj, Romania http://egooutpeters.blogspot.com -- Daniel Rocha - RJ danieldi...@gmail.com -- Dr. Peter Gluck Cluj, Romania http://egooutpeters.blogspot.com
Re: [Vo]:Defkalion GT announcement
You can see at the site that the method was communicated by somebody else. It is possible he does not make videos. On Wed, Nov 23, 2011 at 7:06 PM, Daniel Rocha danieldi...@gmail.com wrote: Well, but he already built the thing... He could post a video at least. 2011/11/23 Peter Gluck peter.gl...@gmail.com This needs time, building the setup, acquiring the sort of nanoNi. The idea to use a metal hydride as hydrogen source is bright. See the literature re MgH2. Peter On Wed, Nov 23, 2011 at 6:54 PM, Daniel Rocha danieldi...@gmail.comwrote: Did anyone try to reproduce Chan's method? Did he post a video or something? He could post a fast forward video just as a motivation for other to reproduce the experiment. 2011/11/23 Peter Gluck peter.gl...@gmail.com I think that they speak the truth and actually it is not very difficult to find additives with the same functionality as Rossi's so-called catalyst. Chan's Method is an other proof and indication of what this additive can be. Defkalion has good engineers and managers and will be one of the most powerful competitors of Rossi, I bet. but there will be lots of competitors. Peter On Wed, Nov 23, 2011 at 6:07 PM, OrionWorks - Steven V Johnson svj.orionwo...@gmail.com wrote: From Ledin: Defkalion GT ... You all are kindly ask not to confuse our Hyperion technology with others’ (eg.ecat). We are not willing to answer any questions pertaining to third party initiatives in LENR. We have made our own progress, both on technical and business matters. So we will not accept any comments or questions for other parties business or technologies. Please note that according to our 14th of November 2011 press release, we will release a more detailed announcement in the beginning of next week. Marketing speak for: Accept no imitations! Regards Steven Vincent Johnson www.OrionWorks.com www.zazzle.com/orionworks -- Dr. Peter Gluck Cluj, Romania http://egooutpeters.blogspot.com -- Daniel Rocha - RJ danieldi...@gmail.com -- Dr. Peter Gluck Cluj, Romania http://egooutpeters.blogspot.com -- Daniel Rocha - RJ danieldi...@gmail.com -- Dr. Peter Gluck Cluj, Romania http://egooutpeters.blogspot.com
Re: [Vo]:Rossi denies Defkalion has any technology-- again
Dear Mary, It is a bit difficult to discuss with you things from the past or from the present, therefore I bet with you that *till 31 august next year there will be at least 6 teams who know Rossi's secret *or have found an equifunctional and equivalent additive to his and are able to obtain similar performances. My offer is 1 liter 54% Romanian plum brandy (tzuika) 25 years old and if you have a quite contrary opinion I would prefer 1 liter genuine tequila. (if you wish I am just joking) Rossi has viciously offended his former partner.- it is interesting thatclown' has a so much more negative conotation in the US than in Europe. Peter On Thu, Nov 24, 2011 at 8:55 PM, Mary Yugo maryyu...@gmail.com wrote: Rossi, writing on his blog (which I copied from ecatnews.com). As I once theorized, and Jed Rothwell strongly disagreed with, it seems as if Defkalion may have made mockups based on the promise of getting an active core from Rossi -- something Rossi may have reneged on resulting in the failure of Defkalion to pay him and their rupture of relations. If Rossi is right, Defkalion has nothing. I suppose it is possible they for technology from someone else but there is no evidence for that at the moment that I know of. The comment on the blog says: Hampus November 24th, 2011 at 5:53 AM Hi Rossi When will the experiment in Bologna and Uppsala university start? *--- Andrea Rossi November 24th, 2011 at 9:27 AM Dear Hampus: Soon, but remember that such RD will be closed doors made and not public. I repeat: no more public tests will be made. We will make only closed doors RD and tests for our Customers made along the test protocols agreed upon the purchasing contracts. No more information will be released until proper patent protection will be granted. Too many vultures fly around, ready to steal critic info. Look to what is going on around the Balcans: there are clowns saying they have a technology copied from us, actually they have just a moke up, waiting for the piece of info they need to make a real copy. They believed we would have been selling in October the small E-Cats, so announced they would have made a demo in october ( buying a model, disguising it as a copy made by them). But it was just a trap we made. Conclusion: from now on we will be more sealed than ever, and we will be open exclusively with our Customers. To put for sale the small unts we need: 1- safety certification 2- granted patents We are working on both the issues and I think they will be addressed within 1 to 2 years from now. Warm Regards, A.R. A convenient place to read all of Rossi's comments and the other comments on his blog is here: http://www.rossilivecat.com/ -- Dr. Peter Gluck Cluj, Romania http://egooutpeters.blogspot.com
Re: [Vo]:Rossi denies Defkalion has any technology-- again
Thanks, I am very ignorant in matter of tequila, but will ask the help of the Web. BTW one of the most idiotic laws of the EU says no alcoholic beverage with more than 40% alcohol. On Thu, Nov 24, 2011 at 10:06 PM, Terry Blanton hohlr...@gmail.com wrote: Peter, To ensure equivalent value, you should specify the brand. I would suggest Sauza Tres Generaciones Plata. T -- Dr. Peter Gluck Cluj, Romania http://egooutpeters.blogspot.com
Re: [Vo]:Rossi denies Defkalion has any technology-- again
That a huge surprise never heard of it!! Thanks, I still have to learn. On Thu, Nov 24, 2011 at 10:31 PM, Peter Heckert peter.heck...@arcor.dewrote: Am 24.11.2011 21:20, schrieb Peter Gluck: Thanks, I am very ignorant in matter of tequila, but will ask the help of the Web. BTW one of the most idiotic laws of the EU says no alcoholic beverage with more than 40% alcohol. False. There is so-called Stroh RUM (straw rum) with 50% and with 80% available. On Thu, Nov 24, 2011 at 10:06 PM, Terry Blanton hohlr...@gmail.comwrote: Peter, To ensure equivalent value, you should specify the brand. I would suggest Sauza Tres Generaciones Plata. T -- Dr. Peter Gluck Cluj, Romania http://egooutpeters.blogspot.com -- Dr. Peter Gluck Cluj, Romania http://egooutpeters.blogspot.com
Re: [Vo]:Rossi denies Defkalion has any technology-- again
Too dangerous, have seen chromatograms of it myriads of toxic compounds. On Thu, Nov 24, 2011 at 10:38 PM, Mary Yugo maryyu...@gmail.com wrote: If Rossi's kludge turns out to be really cold fusion, I'm going to become partial to absinthe. -- Dr. Peter Gluck Cluj, Romania http://egooutpeters.blogspot.com
Re: [Vo]:Rossi denies Defkalion has any technology-- again
I see it is an Austrian product, will ask my blog partner georgina who writes much better than me and in Bankdirektorin in Vienna. Subject closed and I apologize for wasting your time, colleagues. On Thu, Nov 24, 2011 at 10:31 PM, Peter Heckert peter.heck...@arcor.dewrote: Am 24.11.2011 21:20, schrieb Peter Gluck: Thanks, I am very ignorant in matter of tequila, but will ask the help of the Web. BTW one of the most idiotic laws of the EU says no alcoholic beverage with more than 40% alcohol. False. There is so-called Stroh RUM (straw rum) with 50% and with 80% available. On Thu, Nov 24, 2011 at 10:06 PM, Terry Blanton hohlr...@gmail.comwrote: Peter, To ensure equivalent value, you should specify the brand. I would suggest Sauza Tres Generaciones Plata. T -- Dr. Peter Gluck Cluj, Romania http://egooutpeters.blogspot.com -- Dr. Peter Gluck Cluj, Romania http://egooutpeters.blogspot.com
Re: [Vo]:bit.ly/cold-fusion
On Fri, Nov 25, 2011 at 2:02 AM, Bastiaan Bergman bastiaan.berg...@gmail.com wrote: Hi group, As a physicist I feel obliged to spread the word on cold fusion and explain what it is to the general public. In that attempt I wrote the linked paper, please have a look and give me your blunt feedback. Also please use the paper however you see fit. http://bit.ly/cold-fusion Thanks, Bastiaan. Dear Bastiaan, I like the logical structure of your paper- and it is very well written. However if you speak about the Ni-H fusion, the historical truth is that this does not resulted from a technical revelation of Andrea Rossi but was discovered by Prof. Francesco Piantelli at Aug.16 1989 and developed by Piantelli's group from Siena Univ. in collaboration with Focardi's group from Bologna Univ. - the later doing mainly the analytical part. Their reseach has attested the nuclear nature of the anomalous phenomenon and has put the basics of the scale up of the heat effect. See please: http://egooutpeters.blogspot.com/2011/08/piantelli-taxonomy_15.html http://egooutpeters.blogspot.com/2011/08/how-does-apply-prof-piantelli-rules-of.html In New Energy Times No. 29 you will find two important papers about Piantelli. who is a great, real scientist. Rossi tries to convince the world that his system is quite different from Piantelli's but Piantelli was the first to discover the nanotechnological nature of the phenomenon, has worked with Ni powder much before Rossi. This is one of the reasons Rossi cannot obtain a patent. Please compare Piantelli's patents (see the taxonomy) with Rossi's and you will get an explanation. Possi has made an Edisonian search and has found an additive that enhances the process, but his system still remains a Piantelli Plus process. In the frame of his very peculiar prestige management, Rossi denies this connection. He does this from personal reasons, Piantelli did not accepted him as collaborator. I think that it would be fair to tell about Piantelli in your paper. And the story is not over, Rossi Secret is very vulnerable (see Defkalion, Chan's Formula) and very soon a lot of Piantelli daughter technologies will compete with that Regan or Goneril that is Rossi's method. Peter with Ross -- Dr. Peter Gluck Cluj, Romania http://egooutpeters.blogspot.com
Re: Re: [Vo]:bit.ly/cold-fusion
What can be patented was patented by Piantelli, 2 patents out the 3rd coming next October. To notice that the phenomenon is not specific for Ni, many other transition metals are also usable. I have read many patents and in the moment I see a blunder like 5000 deg Celsius - this is a warning for bad quality. Compare please the Rossi patent proposal with WO?2010/058288 I will try to get information re the work with metalhydrides at the Plank Institute I liked very much the idea from the Chan's Formula to use metalhydrides as sources of hydrogen in a Ni-H system PeterG On Fri, Nov 25, 2011 at 10:50 AM, peter.heck...@arcor.de wrote: - Original Nachricht Von: Peter Gluck peter.gl...@gmail.com An: vortex-l@eskimo.com Datum: 25.11.2011 09:07 Betreff: Re: [Vo]:bit.ly/cold-fusion Rossi tries to convince the world that his system is quite different from Piantelli's but Piantelli was the first to discover the nanotechnological nature of the phenomenon, has worked with Ni powder much before Rossi. This is one of the reasons Rossi cannot obtain a patent. Please compare Piantelli's patents (see the taxonomy) with Rossi's and you will get an explanation. Possi has made an Edisonian search and has found an additive that enhances the process, but his system still remains a Piantelli Plus process. In the frame of his very peculiar prestige management, Rossi denies this connection. He does this from personal reasons, Piantelli did not accepted him as collaborator. I think that it would be fair to tell about Piantelli in your paper. And the story is not over, Rossi Secret is very vulnerable (see Defkalion, Chan's Formula) and very soon a lot of Piantelli daughter technologies will compete with that Regan or Goneril that is Rossi's method. I think H-Ni fusion cannot been patented. The discovery and scientific proof could be awarded a nobel price, but as a principle of nature it cannot been patented. Marconi could not get a patent for wireless communication, Otto and Diesel could not get a generic patent for combustion engines. They got patents for their devices. Tesla said about Marconi: he has used 18 of my patents, but I dont care. Only specific methods and devices can be patented. Rossis catalyst would be such a specific method. Natural laws cannot been patented. Usage of micro- and Nanoparticles cannot been patented. This is already standard in industry and research. It is researched as a method to use the phase changes in Metalhydrides as a very efficient heat storage method by Max Plank Institute and as a method for solid state Hydrogen storage it is already used in many real products day by day. Peter. -- Dr. Peter Gluck Cluj, Romania http://egooutpeters.blogspot.com
Re: [Vo]:E-Cat / philosophical remarks
Lack of a patent is one side of the vulnerability. The other, even more important the stealability, guessability of his solution (catalyst). Is it something so awfully difficult as that shown in the nice old (1966( movie- How to steal a million with Audrey Hepburn and poeter OToole or is it relatively easy, with a bit of Sherlock Holmes style thinking and with some smart tests? We have no many certainties in this problem but if Defkalion was able to do it and if Chan'Formula works than Rossi' secret is weak. On Fri, Nov 25, 2011 at 8:46 PM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com wrote: Alan J Fletcher a...@well.com wrote: For example, one of the charges they sent him to jail for was defrauding the stockholders. He himself was the only stockholder, so this was Kafkaesque. Someone in the Italian justice system had it in for him. Does anyone have a link for that? No, sorry, I do not. That is what I have heard in conversations with various people. It could be an exaggeration. - Jed -- Dr. Peter Gluck Cluj, Romania http://egooutpeters.blogspot.com
Re: [Vo]:Brain Cloud
And Piantelli et al's experimental results show the same things as the theory or vice versa. Quite unusual... Peter On Fri, Nov 25, 2011 at 7:06 PM, Terry Blanton hohlr...@gmail.com wrote: Gnorts, Piantelli's theory of NiH reactions involves the nuclear capture of a H- ion by Ni and the resulting emission of alphas, protons and Auger electrons. This video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Efgy1bV2aQo has an excellent demonstration of alpha emission by radium gas within a cloud chamber. The beginning shows natural background radiation. Enjoy! http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Efgy1bV2aQo T -- Dr. Peter Gluck Cluj, Romania http://egooutpeters.blogspot.com
Re: [Vo]:E-Cat / philosophical remarks
The degree of correlation of Rossi's problems with the law and the efficiency of the E-cats is an open question. The definition from this writing can be applied here: http://egooutpeters.blogspot.com/2011/01/first-seed.html However this idea of intelligence can be used but also abused. I have a certainty- Piantelli's system works, therefore Rossi's CAN work too. Rossi, despite what he says, has borrowed Piantelli's know what and in part know how elements.Not know why and no know why not elements. Has made many empirical tests with additives and, it is possible he has found some method of enhancement. Believe an old engineer, it is not possible to do the show of Rossi without a drop of real excess heat. On Fri, Nov 25, 2011 at 9:38 PM, Mary Yugo maryyu...@gmail.com wrote: On Fri, Nov 25, 2011 at 10:46 AM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.comwrote: Alan J Fletcher a...@well.com wrote: For example, one of the charges they sent him to jail for was defrauding the stockholders. He himself was the only stockholder, so this was Kafkaesque. Someone in the Italian justice system had it in for him. Does anyone have a link for that? No, sorry, I do not. That is what I have heard in conversations with various people. It could be an exaggeration. Indeed. And I am sure you saw the large catalog of charges and convictions Rossi has amassed -- I forget where the cite is for that at the moment but it was quite impressive. -- Dr. Peter Gluck Cluj, Romania http://egooutpeters.blogspot.com
Re: [Vo]:E-Cat / philosophical remarks
I have the certainty because I and some other friends have seen the cells working and giving excess heat. I have certainty because what Piantelli says and does has a logical consistency and I have followed the development for long years and it was development, was progress. This does not mean that the system is simple, there are lots of parameters that have to be fine-tuned. One example is the elimination of the initial heat peaks (Rossi had one in the Feb experiment). Re. replication I have seen here many examples of failed replication due to a I know better syndrome The case of the Zichichi reproduction is explained in New Energy Times No 29. Now many people try to reproduce Piantellli's system, me too. Piantelli is a great scientist (see my blog) but he is not inerrant. It was only one Italian who never erred; I remember well Mussolini ha sempre ragione and this habit did not lead to a happy end. On Fri, Nov 25, 2011 at 10:10 PM, Peter Heckert peter.heck...@arcor.dewrote: Am 25.11.2011 21:01, schrieb Peter Gluck: The degree of correlation of Rossi's problems with the law and the efficiency of the E-cats is an open question. The definition from this writing can be applied here:http://egooutpeters. **blogspot.com/2011/01/first-**seed.htmlhttp://egooutpeters.blogspot.com/2011/01/first-seed.html However this idea of intelligence can be used but also abused. I have a certainty- Piantelli's system works, therefore Rossi's CAN work too. There are others that replicated the experiments and got no certainty. Piantellis experiments, so far I know them, are so complicated, it is not possible to get certainty from simply looking at them. So, what is the reason for this certainty? Even if he is your friend, this doesnt exclude, that he has made errors. Rossi, despite what he says, has borrowed Piantelli's know what and in part know how elements.Not know why and no know why not elements. Has made many empirical tests with additives and, it is possible he has found some method of enhancement. Believe an old engineer, it is not possible to do the show of Rossi without a drop of real excess heat. Of course this can be done. I know how, but I have not enough shameles coolness to do it. Remember Keely. He did it very very long time and when he died they found hidden pressured air pipes and vacuum pipes in his devices. Peter -- Dr. Peter Gluck Cluj, Romania http://egooutpeters.blogspot.com
Re: [Vo]:E-Cat / philosophical remarks
Have you read Piantelli's publications see my Taxonomy on the blog Ego Out and on lenr-canr, there are many.papers. What do you think about the Pontignano Poster I have sent today? If you read these you will not ask why the hydrides do not give this effect. The poker play analogy has absolute no sense, Piantelli has never collaborated with Rossi who is no scientist and (this is my opinion not Piantelli's) is not somebody I will want as a friend unreliable and unpredictable. Type of anti-Galahad or reverse Lohengrin. I prefer serious and honest science and engineering to shows. On my blog I wrote exactly what I think. Going tto sleep, schone Traume! PeterG On Fri, Nov 25, 2011 at 11:06 PM, Peter Heckert peter.heck...@arcor.dewrote: Am 25.11.2011 21:37, schrieb Peter Gluck: I have the certainty because I and some other friends have seen the cells working and giving excess heat. I have certainty because what Piantelli says and does has a logical consistency and I have followed the development for long years and it was development, was progress. This does not mean that the system is simple, there are lots of parameters that have to be fine-tuned. One example is the elimination of the initial heat peaks (Rossi had one in the Feb experiment). Ok, I accept this as your personal experience. But you must still see, Piantelli and you and your other friends are the only ones who think they have clearly seen it. If it is not published and not documented in public, then I have no reason to share your experience. You and Piantelli and your other friends might have seen a Fata Morgana. The rest of the world has seen other experiences. What I see, is the hydride research that is done worldwide and I wonder why do these devices work so reliably and there is not a single documented case of radiation or energy anomalies. These devices even work in space and hydride storages are used for gaschromatography and other chemical analysis where high purity is needed. But anyway, even if Piantellis devices work, this is no reason to assume that Rossis devices work. Rossi is a poker player and he works together with Focardi and Stremmenos whose names both appear repeatedly in Piantellis publications. If they contribute to Rossis pokerplay, they might for example have played Poker with Piantelli and gave him false analysis results. So far I have read the transmutation elements that where found where all analyzed by Focardi. Possibly Piantelli and you where fooled by them? So, excuse me, without an evident and understandable proof I believe nothing. best, Peter -- Dr. Peter Gluck Cluj, Romania http://egooutpeters.blogspot.com
[Vo]:Cold Fusion on the Science Blogs Channel
See please: http://scienceblogs.com/startswithabang/2011/11/cold_fusion_is_it_possible_is.php?utm_source=feedburnerutm_medium=emailutm_campaign=Feed%3A+ScienceblogsChannelEnvironment+%28ScienceBlogs+Channel+%3A+Environment%29 -- Dr. Peter Gluck Cluj, Romania http://egooutpeters.blogspot.com
Re: [Vo]:E-Cats and 450 deg C steam
Difficult to guess what's the PRIMARY FLUID. It cannot be organic, perhaps molten salts or molten metal. On Sun, Nov 27, 2011 at 5:46 AM, Aussie Guy E-Cat aussieguy.e...@gmail.comwrote: Very interesting news: http://www.journal-of-nuclear-** physics.com/?p=510cpage=35#**comment-130799http://www.journal-of-nuclear-physics.com/?p=510cpage=35#comment-130799 Andrea Rossi: Actually, we have found a breakthrough with a primary fluid with which the reactors remain stable when we make steam at 450 Celsius. Italo A. Albanese: Did you get 450 Celsius from just one e-cat or from many of them connected in series? Andrea Rossi: 4 in series I feel this implies Rossi is: 1) using a primary fluid to achieve over 450 deg C by connection 4 E-Cats in series and then feeding the heated primary fluid (diathermic oil?) into a steam generator similar but smaller to those used in Nuclear reactors. 2) saying the 4 series connected E-Cats themselves created steam at 450 deg C and the primary fluid statement applies to a fluid that surrounds the 3 internal reactors (which in the past was assumed to be molten lead). AG -- Dr. Peter Gluck Cluj, Romania http://egooutpeters.blogspot.com
Re: [Vo]:bit.ly/cold-fusion
. Bastiaan. bit.ly/cold-fusion On Sat, Nov 26, 2011 at 6:12 AM, Marcello Vitale mvit...@ucsbalum.net wrote: Thanks, Peter, fantastic citation [begin citation] Coherence of particles by radio waves is an obscure phenomenon that is not well understood even today. Recent experiments with particle coherers seem to have confirmed the hypothesis that the particles cohere by a micro-weld phenomenon caused by radio frequency electricity flowing across the small contact area between particles.[1] The underlying principle of so-called imperfect contact coherers is also not well understood, but may involve a kind of tunneling of charge carriers across an imperfect junction between conductors. [end citation] In a previoous job, I carried out the synthesis of silver nanocrystals of different sizes and with specific surface plasmon light absorption spectra, following some surprising literature. Starting with spherical seeds of less than 5 nm diameter, readily formed chemically, one could obtain thin (5-10 nm thick) platelets of triangular shape and different size simply by exposing for some time (1-7 days) the suspension in water to light of different wavelength. The literature had used both led's of specific wavelength and colored filters, we made our own filters and obtained the same results. Thermal tests never led to any platelet formation, although they could be formed thermally with different starting materials. But the photochemical route was very attractive. We followed through pushing the process (by changing the irradiation light spectrum) until the silver nanoplatelets were actually about one micron long and absorbed in the NIR. Got a couple of application patents using those. Anyway, my point is that there was no theory in the literature as to why the platelets formed that way (and we were not paid to explore theory). The electromagnetic effect you are mentioning might be it, finally pushing everything in the shape that provides the resonant plasmon. On Fri, Nov 25, 2011 at 5:54 PM, Peter Heckert peter.heck...@arcor.de wrote: Am 25.11.2011 13:54, schrieb Marcello Vitale: Very interesting, indeed. Thank you, Peter. Four observations a) MgH2 is more stable than NiHn: Mg might simply suck up the hydrogen b) nonetheless, it is on the surface of Ni powder particles that H2 breaks up more easily, hence the rationale to use Ni as catalyst for MgH formation and decomposition c) there do not seem to be the cycling and pulsations, electrochemical, mechanical or electromagnetic, which appear to be needed in order to start the anomalous heat generation itself. d) even if some anomalous heat had been generated, how to sort it out from just a faster/more complete hydride formation, anotehr exothermic process? If cold fusion had happened, in small quantity, it would have been taken as a funky quirk. I dont think so. In laboratory experiments they will probably measure it accurately. Thermal hysteris is an important parameter for a solidstate hydrogen storage device. The larger the hysteresis, the larger the energetic loss and of course they try to minimize it. If they get negative hysteresis, they have probably found cold fusion ;-). Also I believe they examines the crystal structures with advanced methods like x-rays, and when there are transmutation elements, they should discover them. Here is a link to the munich airport hydrogen project: http://ieahia.org/pdfs/munich_airport.pdf They use a gigantic metalpowder-in pipes arrangement to store 2000 m^3 hydrogen at 250 bar pressure. To unload the hydrogen, heat must be applied. It is clear, they dont build something like this without previous research. This is working for years and succesfully. Again, put Rossis catalyzer inside. ;-) So, if a catalyzer exists it must be something extraordinary, that nobody tried before. For example high frequency. RF can make the joints of metal particles melt or pull them together until electrons tunnel through the barriers. This effect was used in ealy days of wireless telegraphy. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coherer [begin citation] Coherence of particles by radio waves is an obscure phenomenon that is not well understood even today. Recent experiments with particle coherers seem to have confirmed the hypothesis that the particles cohere by a micro-weld phenomenon caused by radio frequency electricity flowing across the small contact area between particles.[1] The underlying principle of so-called imperfect contact coherers is also not well understood, but may involve a kind of tunneling of charge carriers across an imperfect junction between conductors. [end citation] On Fri, Nov 25, 2011 at 12:14 PM, peter.heck...@arcor.de wrote: - Original Nachricht Von: Peter Gluck peter.gl...@gmail.com
[Vo]:INFORMAVORE's SUNDAY No 483
Dear Colleagues, I am very busy to solve the puzzle of Ni-H LENR, however it is is Sunday my best working day so I am offering you the newest issue of INFORMAVORE's SUNDAY: http://egooutpeters.blogspot.com/2011/11/informavores-sunday-no-483.html I would be very happy if you will discover interesting things there. Peter -- Dr. Peter Gluck Cluj, Romania http://egooutpeters.blogspot.com
Re: [Vo]:bit.ly/cold-fusion
Please do not be surprised, Randy considers that his process has nothing to do with Rossi's or Paintelli's. And the BLP technology (I still hope to see it working more or less publicly this year) is hyperchemistry while Ni-H LENR is nuclear. other leagues no competition. In case you are interested in details please write me privately. Peter On Sun, Nov 27, 2011 at 6:09 PM, Jones Beene jone...@pacbell.net wrote: From: Peter Gluck * Dear Bastiaan, * It is better, however facts are facts and truth is truth, and priority is... you can guess it...priority! * FYI- BRIEF HISTORY CHRONOLOGY OF Ni-H LENR Peter, I am surprised that you overlooked Randell Mill's earlier priority dates and publications for Ni-H, since you have followed this story closely from the beginning. Officially his WIPO application is still pending AFAIK ... (# WO 92/10838) and the priority date is December 1990. He had already published the first addition of his CQM Theory by this time. He beat Piantelli and Focardi both to the patent office and to the publisher. Can you really say that they preceded him? Jones -- Dr. Peter Gluck Cluj, Romania http://egooutpeters.blogspot.com
Re: [Vo]:bit.ly/cold-fusion
Dear Robin. I told mainly what Randy thinks- he has nothing to do with what Rossi (or Piantelli) has As regarding Transition Metals-H LENR (not only Ni works) I think that Piantellis' theory is the most realistic, logically consistent, and confirmed by experiment from the many theories I have seen in the realm of CF. It is predictive. On Sun, Nov 27, 2011 at 10:37 PM, mix...@bigpond.com wrote: In reply to Peter Gluck's message of Sun, 27 Nov 2011 18:21:47 +0200: Hi Peter, Please do not be surprised, Randy considers that his process has nothing to do with Rossi's or Paintelli's. And the BLP technology (I still hope to see it working more or less publicly this year) is hyperchemistry while Ni-H LENR is nuclear. LENR may be both. Hyperchemistry providing much of the energy, with some of the shrunken Hydrogen occasionally undergoing a fusion reaction responsible for the low level ionizing radiation. Note that when Deuterium is used, the amount of actual fusion taking place may be much higher due to the fact that no weak force reactions are required, hence the fusion cross section is much higher. other leagues no competition. In case you are interested in details please write me privately. Peter [snip] Regards, Robin van Spaandonk http://rvanspaa.freehostia.com/project.html -- Dr. Peter Gluck Cluj, Romania http://egooutpeters.blogspot.com
Re: [Vo]:Elevated-temperature excess heat production in a Pd D system in 1991
I spoke with Liaw at ICCF-2 Como 1991. The system had very great problems of corrosion. Rule No. 6 of problem solving says: NOT the main desired positive effect, but those secondary negative and/or undesired effects decide in most cases if a solution is implemented. It seems corrosion was so severe that this way was abandoned.. Peter *(* http://egooutpeters.blogspot.com/2011/06/super-rule-included-complete-list-of.html * * * * On Mon, Nov 28, 2011 at 3:01 AM, Alan Fletcher a...@well.com wrote: It was in the 1990 paper : - Original Message - Liebert's still around : http://newenergytimes.com/v2/archives/fic/F/F199010.PDF 1990 : EXCESS HEAT USING MOLTEN-SALT ELECTROCHEMICAL CELL By Professors Liaw, Tao, Turner, Liebert As an example shown in the last entry in TABLE I, the power to the heating tape was maintained at about 69.25 W, the cell potential was typically in the range of 2.45 V, and the electrochemical input power was about 1.68 W at 692 mA/cm2 for a total input power of about 70.9W. We would expect 1.68 Wof joule heating to result in a 5.1 °C increase in temperature; however, the temperature increased by 82.4° C, which corresponds to a gain of about 27.1 W, according to the calibration curve. Therefore, a net gain of 25.4Wwas in excess, which results in an excess power gain of 1512 percent, in the range of 627 W/cm3 Pd. -- Dr. Peter Gluck Cluj, Romania http://egooutpeters.blogspot.com
Re: [Vo]:Elevated-temperature excess heat production in a Pd D system in 1991
PeterH, as far I remember the Liaw et al paper is published in the Proceedings of ICCF-2. I have donated my CF library to my friend the journalist Haiko Lietz who lives in Germany, I hope you know him personally. I think the above Proceedings are at him and he can send you a copy. As regarding your assertion that technical problems can be solved- the problem is cost and price- at what price with which efforts. Liaw system was interesting- Pd is anode. PeterG On Mon, Nov 28, 2011 at 9:44 AM, peter.heck...@arcor.de wrote: - Original Nachricht Von: Peter Gluck peter.gl...@gmail.com An: vortex-l@eskimo.com Datum: 28.11.2011 06:19 Betreff: Re: [Vo]:Elevated-temperature excess heat production in a Pd D system in 1991 I spoke with Liaw at ICCF-2 Como 1991. The system had very great problems of corrosion. Rule No. 6 of problem solving says: NOT the main desired positive effect, but those secondary negative and/or undesired effects decide in most cases if a solution is implemented. It seems corrosion was so severe that this way was abandoned.. Technical problems are not important, these are almost ever solvable if the reward is high. History has shown this. We are on moon now, and everybody has a mobile phone and we have GPS and Laser. Impossible? So, why dont they publish their findings? Possibly others find a solution. It would be important to have a key experiment that is repeatable and that works. There is an unfortunate mechanism: First they publish success. This is is euphorical accepted by the LENR community and makes the way into their collection of papers. Then they continue their research and find unexpected problems or find errors. They give up. Of course this is not published. This is why there are so many positive results. This is also the mechanism why there are so many positive results about UFO's and unicorns. ;-) It seems most documented LENR successes are of this type: Unfinished stories about an anticipated success that never was tested and confirmed beyond all doubts. Peter Peter *(* http://egooutpeters.blogspot.com/2011/06/super-rule-included-complete-list-o f.html * * * * On Mon, Nov 28, 2011 at 3:01 AM, Alan Fletcher a...@well.com wrote: It was in the 1990 paper : - Original Message - Liebert's still around : http://newenergytimes.com/v2/archives/fic/F/F199010.PDF 1990 : EXCESS HEAT USING MOLTEN-SALT ELECTROCHEMICAL CELL By Professors Liaw, Tao, Turner, Liebert As an example shown in the last entry in TABLE I, the power to the heating tape was maintained at about 69.25 W, the cell potential was typically in the range of 2.45 V, and the electrochemical input power was about 1.68 W at 692 mA/cm2 for a total input power of about 70.9W. We would expect 1.68 Wof joule heating to result in a 5.1 °C increase in temperature; however, the temperature increased by 82.4° C, which corresponds to a gain of about 27.1 W, according to the calibration curve. Therefore, a net gain of 25.4Wwas in excess, which results in an excess power gain of 1512 percent, in the range of 627 W/cm3 Pd. -- Dr. Peter Gluck Cluj, Romania http://egooutpeters.blogspot.com -- Dr. Peter Gluck Cluj, Romania http://egooutpeters.blogspot.com
Re: [Vo]:Elevated-temperature excess heat production in a Pd D system in 1991
Alternatively you could ask the main author- he is still active/young: http://www.hnei.hawaii.edu/template2.asp?userID=bliaw He has continued the work, after Pd with Ni but this was also abandoned. PeterG On Mon, Nov 28, 2011 at 10:34 AM, peter.heck...@arcor.de wrote: - Original Nachricht Von: Peter Gluck peter.gl...@gmail.com An: vortex-l@eskimo.com Datum: 28.11.2011 09:15 Betreff: Re: [Vo]:Elevated-temperature excess heat production in a Pd D system in 1991 PeterH, as far I remember the Liaw et al paper is published in the Proceedings of ICCF-2. I have donated my CF library to my friend the journalist Haiko Lietz who lives in Germany, I hope you know him personally. I think the I am not an insider. If I had any possibility to repeat such an experiment I would do it. Unfortunately I have not. Also I have not too much hope for success. Detecting radiation or transmutation is totally beyond my possibilities. Temperature differences are not an irrrefutable proof. Hydrogen adsorption is exothermic and in an hydrogen saturated material there are heatpipe effects. Also thermal conductivity changes with current flow. Also gases leak out or recombine. If there is a lot of corrosion this means there are additional exothermic chemical processes. So, without a long time calorimetric proof, there is nothing proven. above Proceedings are at him and he can send you a copy. As regarding your assertion that technical problems can be solved- the problem is cost and price- at what price with which efforts. Liaw system was interesting- Pd is anode. PeterG On Mon, Nov 28, 2011 at 9:44 AM, peter.heck...@arcor.de wrote: - Original Nachricht Von: Peter Gluck peter.gl...@gmail.com An: vortex-l@eskimo.com Datum: 28.11.2011 06:19 Betreff: Re: [Vo]:Elevated-temperature excess heat production in a Pd D system in 1991 I spoke with Liaw at ICCF-2 Como 1991. The system had very great problems of corrosion. Rule No. 6 of problem solving says: NOT the main desired positive effect, but those secondary negative and/or undesired effects decide in most cases if a solution is implemented. It seems corrosion was so severe that this way was abandoned.. Technical problems are not important, these are almost ever solvable if the reward is high. History has shown this. We are on moon now, and everybody has a mobile phone and we have GPS and Laser. Impossible? So, why dont they publish their findings? Possibly others find a solution. It would be important to have a key experiment that is repeatable and that works. There is an unfortunate mechanism: First they publish success. This is is euphorical accepted by the LENR community and makes the way into their collection of papers. Then they continue their research and find unexpected problems or find errors. They give up. Of course this is not published. This is why there are so many positive results. This is also the mechanism why there are so many positive results about UFO's and unicorns. ;-) It seems most documented LENR successes are of this type: Unfinished stories about an anticipated success that never was tested and confirmed beyond all doubts. Peter Peter *(* http://egooutpeters.blogspot.com/2011/06/super-rule-included-complete-list-o f.html * * * * On Mon, Nov 28, 2011 at 3:01 AM, Alan Fletcher a...@well.com wrote: It was in the 1990 paper : - Original Message - Liebert's still around : http://newenergytimes.com/v2/archives/fic/F/F199010.PDF 1990 : EXCESS HEAT USING MOLTEN-SALT ELECTROCHEMICAL CELL By Professors Liaw, Tao, Turner, Liebert As an example shown in the last entry in TABLE I, the power to the heating tape was maintained at about 69.25 W, the cell potential was typically in the range of 2.45 V, and the electrochemical input power was about 1.68 W at 692 mA/cm2 for a total input power of about 70.9W. We would expect 1.68 Wof joule heating to result in a 5.1 °C increase in temperature; however, the temperature increased by 82.4° C, which corresponds to a gain of about 27.1 W, according to the calibration curve. Therefore, a net gain of 25.4Wwas in excess, which results in an excess power gain of 1512 percent, in the range of 627 W/cm3 Pd. -- Dr. Peter Gluck Cluj, Romania http://egooutpeters.blogspot.com -- Dr. Peter Gluck Cluj, Romania http://egooutpeters.blogspot.com -- Dr. Peter Gluck Cluj, Romania http://egooutpeters.blogspot.com
Re: [Vo]:Put your money where your mouth is - for charity
My bet is: at 30 nov 2013 at least 5 companies other than Rossi's will manufacture commercial energy generators based on Transition Metals-H LENR. Peter On Tue, Nov 29, 2011 at 10:53 AM, Patrick Ellul ellulpatr...@gmail.comwrote: Fair enough Mary Yugo. But surely someone else in this forum is willing to bet $200 that will go to charity, on the E-Cat not working. Anyone?? Or has the E-Cat already been accepted by the wide majority already? :) Regards, Patrick On Tue, Nov 29, 2011 at 6:14 PM, Mary Yugo maryyu...@gmail.com wrote: On Mon, Nov 28, 2011 at 8:11 PM, Mark Iverson-ZeroPoint zeropo...@charter.net wrote: To hide behind the veil of anonymity on a discussion group such as this is cowardly. I have followed vortex-l since the 90s, and can’t remember any dispute between contributors which might have caused one to be fearful of ‘retaliation’ This has nothing to do with Vortex of cold fusion issues. I have been involved in issues in which a lot of money was involved and the unscrupulous sociopaths responsible for the scams would never think twice before using violence if it could be done without their being detected and prosecuted. -- Patrick www.tRacePerfect.com The daily puzzle everyone can finish but not everyone can perfect! The quickest puzzle ever! -- Dr. Peter Gluck Cluj, Romania http://egooutpeters.blogspot.com
Re: [Vo]:Defkalion Prepares
In this case you have to ask them, not us, Vortexians because we have just received this document. If the performances presented are real/true, it is excellent. Anyway, compare DGT's engineering with Rossi's. Peter On Wed, Nov 30, 2011 at 6:03 PM, Mary Yugo maryyu...@gmail.com wrote: Two terminally blurry images and a bunch of computer assisted drawings? It's hardly what Defkalion was claiming for months they had -- many devices under extensive testing at high power levels and long runs. What ever happened to the much advertised program to have the Greek authorities validate the effectiveness and safety of Defkalion's machines? Who can anyone talk to to confirm such tests are taking place? I am still thinking vaporware here is very likely. Third party tests are mentioned but no names or schedules are given. Maybe it will be Rossi's anonymous customer? Why is everyone concerned with these two cold fusion projects so shy? -- Dr. Peter Gluck Cluj, Romania http://egooutpeters.blogspot.com
Re: [Vo]:Defkalion's changing stance on whether this is cold fusion
And the description is more similar to Piantelli's understanding of the ptocess as described in the Pontignano Poster and/or WO 2010/068288. *Chemically asssisted* LENR seems to show that the added chemical (both Rossi's and their) is enhancing in some way the Ni-H reactions. Peter On Thu, Dec 1, 2011 at 9:15 PM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com wrote: This is a minor issue compared to the rest of the brouhaha, but I note that Defkalion appears to be changing their tune regarding whether this is cold fusion or something else. In their white paper released in June, they said: The field of energy research known as 'cold fusion' has positive and negative connotations. It is also called LENR. Hundreds of man-years of research have been committed to cold fusion, hoping to achieve the ultimate energy dream: limitless energy. However, overall, a stigma has created ambiguous feelings that the researchers aim to reach the end of the rainbow. The science behind the products of Defkalion is not related to cold fusion, even though it is identified as such in current media coverage. When I read that I thought: Who are they trying to kid? Of course it is cold fusion. I base that on what McKubre calls the conservation of miracles. I assume they were trying to avoid the negative connotations of cold fusion. Their statement is understandable . . . but lame. I regard this as doubletalk. I agree with Jones Beene that it is annoying. Now they say: Defkalion’s scientific RD team have successfully managed to trigger and monitor Chemically Assisted Low Energy Nuclear Reactions caused by Nickel and Hydrogen nuclei. Following extensive experimentation on the preparation, cleaning and degassing of Nickel clusters and atomic Hydrogen systems, valuable knowledge has been gained. The data was obtained from conventional, non-specifically designed for LENR instrumentation, such as mass-spectrometer, gas-chromatographer, Wilson camera, SEM spectra and others. That's more like it. - Jed -- Dr. Peter Gluck Cluj, Romania http://egooutpeters.blogspot.com
[Vo]:INFORMAVORE's SUNDAY No 484
My dear Friends, It is my privilege to send you a young issue of my old newsletter: http://egooutpeters.blogspot.com/2011/12/informavores-sunday-no-484.html It seems our LENR adventure will continue: - Idea of the week: LENR technology is much too important to remain a monopol of anybody: - Question of the week: will Defkalion do demo-tests with their hyperions? And when? It is not a Greek saying but Latin *Bis dat qui cito dat* but I hope they will apply it. Dr. Peter Gluck Cluj, Romania http://egooutpeters.blogspot.com
[Vo]:can we use such a program?
Software That Listens for Lies: http://www.nytimes.com/2011/12/04/business/lie-detection-software-parses-the-human-voice.html?_r=1nl=todaysheadlinesemc=tha26 The first link for the next issue of my newsletter. Peter -- Dr. Peter Gluck Cluj, Romania http://egooutpeters.blogspot.com
[Vo]:translation
See please: *Dear Italo:** I cannot open a camera on our test room, because we make also confidential operations. Only a plant in regular operation in our Customers’ concerns is possible. Warm Regards, A.R.* * * Translated in English this is: you will not see soon working E-cats Reason- they cannot stop the ... webcam when making confidential operations as mixing pixie dust and aqua Tofana to nickel. Should we believe this? -- Dr. Peter Gluck Cluj, Romania http://egooutpeters.blogspot.com
Re: [Vo]:can we use such a program?
We have the great luck that we don't know liers. Thank you for signalling the book. peter On Sun, Dec 4, 2011 at 8:40 PM, ecat builder ecatbuil...@gmail.com wrote: We're not there yet.. but a 100% accurate lie detector would change everything. This book is a fun read on the subject: The Truth Machine by James Halperin http://www.amazon.com/Truth-Machine-Speculative-Novel/dp/0345410564 - Brad Software That Listens for Lies: -- Dr. Peter Gluck Cluj, Romania http://egooutpeters.blogspot.com
Re: [Vo]:Re: can we use such a program?
Not in LENR I want to tell. Peter On Sun, Dec 4, 2011 at 9:03 PM, Mattia Rizzi mattia.ri...@gmail.com wrote: We have the great luck that we don't know liers. LOL *From:* Peter Gluck peter.gl...@gmail.com *Sent:* Sunday, December 04, 2011 7:43 PM *To:* vortex-l@eskimo.com *Subject:* Re: [Vo]:can we use such a program? We have the great luck that we don't know liers. Thank you for signalling the book. peter On Sun, Dec 4, 2011 at 8:40 PM, ecat builder ecatbuil...@gmail.comwrote: We're not there yet.. but a 100% accurate lie detector would change everything. This book is a fun read on the subject: The Truth Machine by James Halperin http://www.amazon.com/Truth-Machine-Speculative-Novel/dp/0345410564 - Brad Software That Listens for Lies: -- Dr. Peter Gluck Cluj, Romania http://egooutpeters.blogspot.com -- Dr. Peter Gluck Cluj, Romania http://egooutpeters.blogspot.com
Re: [Vo]:Re: can we use such a program?
Yes he is, but I have read many messages here saying he is NOT lying and I thought I have prejudices against him for the following story: He claims to be the discoverer of an absolutely new and original Ni-H LENR method and denies any connection with the achievements of the past. Newton has used a rather clumsy metaphor *“If I have seen further it is only by standing on the shoulders of giants”* (don’t try this it is risky even for acrobats- but metaphors have not much to do with practice and common sense they are poetical and symbolistic. Andrea Rossi on the contrary, answered to my question on Krivit’s blog saying: *“My process has nothing to do with the process of Piantelli, The proof is that I am making operating reactors; he is not.”* I was shocked, did not believed this statement and disliked strongly the logic and the ethics on which it is based. But it is probably my fault and bias. Peter On Sun, Dec 4, 2011 at 9:14 PM, Mattia Rizzi mattia.ri...@gmail.com wrote: Not in LENR I want to tell. So Rossi is not in LENR? *From:* Peter Gluck peter.gl...@gmail.com *Sent:* Sunday, December 04, 2011 8:11 PM *To:* vortex-l@eskimo.com *Subject:* Re: [Vo]:Re: can we use such a program? Not in LENR I want to tell. Peter On Sun, Dec 4, 2011 at 9:03 PM, Mattia Rizzi mattia.ri...@gmail.comwrote: We have the great luck that we don't know liers. LOL *From:* Peter Gluck peter.gl...@gmail.com *Sent:* Sunday, December 04, 2011 7:43 PM *To:* vortex-l@eskimo.com *Subject:* Re: [Vo]:can we use such a program? We have the great luck that we don't know liers. Thank you for signalling the book. peter On Sun, Dec 4, 2011 at 8:40 PM, ecat builder ecatbuil...@gmail.comwrote: We're not there yet.. but a 100% accurate lie detector would change everything. This book is a fun read on the subject: The Truth Machine by James Halperin http://www.amazon.com/Truth-Machine-Speculative-Novel/dp/0345410564 - Brad Software That Listens for Lies: -- Dr. Peter Gluck Cluj, Romania http://egooutpeters.blogspot.com -- Dr. Peter Gluck Cluj, Romania http://egooutpeters.blogspot.com -- Dr. Peter Gluck Cluj, Romania http://egooutpeters.blogspot.com
Re: [Vo]:Nichenergy-sponsored workshop on LENR?
Whose source of energy, dear Mary? You are speaking about ISCMNS? I like humor but there are limits. It is very possible that my Alzheimer is progressing faster but I don't get this joke As regarding NICHENERGY they are Piantelli's sponsors and my friends. Piantelli is the founder of the field and a great scientist- see what I have written about him on my blog. It is essential that Piantelli should continue his work. The website is still in construction because Nichenergy has other problems including collaboration with important organizations and some very good people- and modest ones- myself included. Peter On Mon, Dec 5, 2011 at 6:35 PM, Mary Yugo maryyu...@gmail.com wrote: If you look at their schedule, it appears that their secret source of energy is... COFFEE! -- Dr. Peter Gluck Cluj, Romania http://egooutpeters.blogspot.com
