Re: [Vo]:Crescent Dunes Solar Energy Project

[ChemE Stewart]

Fatal flaw:  Lock mirrors in the morning for maintenance or lose power to
mirror motors but the sun keeps rising, thus the focal focal point of up
to 300 MW's of thermal flux moves down the tower, torching it.  Enough heat
to collapse a tower under the right conditions.

http://solarindustrymag.com/update-nrg-confirms-cause-of-fire-at-ivanpah-solar-plant


On Friday, May 27, 2016, Blaze Spinnaker  wrote:

> Oh noes, solar power incident results in . burnt tower. This is
> why solar power is the solution to everything.
>
> On Wed, May 25, 2016 at 6:31 AM, ChemE Stewart  > wrote:
>
>> Oops, Default
>>
>> Oops, Fire
>>
>>
>> http://www.investors.com/politics/commentary/ivanpah-solar-plant-catches-fire-but-taxpayers-get-burned/
>>
>> Oops
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> On Wed, Dec 30, 2015 at 7:36 PM, Jed Rothwell > > wrote:
>>
>>> I wrote:
>>>
>>>
 The taxpayers will get their money back eventually. The power companies
 are not going to stop buying electricity from this installation. They may
 renegotiate the price . . .

>>>
>>> Source:
>>>
>>> I think I read this at Renewable Energy World, but I cannot find the
>>> article. Anyway, that is the usual arrangement. Since the machine is up and
>>> running, and making a profit on current operations, the taxpayers should be
>>> reimbursed. The owners may face bankruptcy.
>>>
>>> http://www.renewableenergyworld.com/index.html
>>>
>>> The article went on to say this is quite different from the situation at
>>> Solyndra. There was no revenue stream when Solyndra went bankrupt. They did
>>> not have anything up and running.
>>>
>>> When a company goes bankrupt, if there are parts of the company which
>>> are making a current profit, the courts are careful to keep those parts in
>>> business. They try not to sell off assets or do anything else which will
>>> disrupt those parts and stop the flow of income. They try not to cause more
>>> unemployment than necessary. On the other hand, they direct the current
>>> profit flow to the creditors, and away from stockholders. When Uncle Sam is
>>> among the creditors or unpaid vendors, he always goes to the front of the
>>> line. That's how it works.
>>>
>>> The Solyndra bankruptcy has been called a scandal. It is not a scandal.
>>> Any investment can go south. Many governments supported ventures have
>>> failed. In this case, the Solyndra portion of the fund failed but overall
>>> the fund did exceptionally well and made a ton of money for the taxpayers.
>>> You might argue that the Federal government should not be investing in
>>> technology. That might appeal to purists who think the government should
>>> play no role in the economy, but as I have often pointed out, the
>>> government has played a leading role since the construction of the Erie
>>> Canal, and in ever major technology since then. If it had not, I expect the
>>> U.S. would have lost the Civil War, WWI and WWII.
>>>
>>> Since most Federal money goes to conventional technology such as coal
>>> and oil, I do not think the industry should complain.
>>>
>>> - Jed
>>>
>>>
>>
>

Re: [Vo]:Crescent Dunes Solar Energy Project

[Blaze Spinnaker]

Oh noes, solar power incident results in . burnt tower. This is why
solar power is the solution to everything.

On Wed, May 25, 2016 at 6:31 AM, ChemE Stewart  wrote:

> Oops, Default
>
> Oops, Fire
>
>
> http://www.investors.com/politics/commentary/ivanpah-solar-plant-catches-fire-but-taxpayers-get-burned/
>
> Oops
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> On Wed, Dec 30, 2015 at 7:36 PM, Jed Rothwell 
> wrote:
>
>> I wrote:
>>
>>
>>> The taxpayers will get their money back eventually. The power companies
>>> are not going to stop buying electricity from this installation. They may
>>> renegotiate the price . . .
>>>
>>
>> Source:
>>
>> I think I read this at Renewable Energy World, but I cannot find the
>> article. Anyway, that is the usual arrangement. Since the machine is up and
>> running, and making a profit on current operations, the taxpayers should be
>> reimbursed. The owners may face bankruptcy.
>>
>> http://www.renewableenergyworld.com/index.html
>>
>> The article went on to say this is quite different from the situation at
>> Solyndra. There was no revenue stream when Solyndra went bankrupt. They did
>> not have anything up and running.
>>
>> When a company goes bankrupt, if there are parts of the company which are
>> making a current profit, the courts are careful to keep those parts in
>> business. They try not to sell off assets or do anything else which will
>> disrupt those parts and stop the flow of income. They try not to cause more
>> unemployment than necessary. On the other hand, they direct the current
>> profit flow to the creditors, and away from stockholders. When Uncle Sam is
>> among the creditors or unpaid vendors, he always goes to the front of the
>> line. That's how it works.
>>
>> The Solyndra bankruptcy has been called a scandal. It is not a scandal.
>> Any investment can go south. Many governments supported ventures have
>> failed. In this case, the Solyndra portion of the fund failed but overall
>> the fund did exceptionally well and made a ton of money for the taxpayers.
>> You might argue that the Federal government should not be investing in
>> technology. That might appeal to purists who think the government should
>> play no role in the economy, but as I have often pointed out, the
>> government has played a leading role since the construction of the Erie
>> Canal, and in ever major technology since then. If it had not, I expect the
>> U.S. would have lost the Civil War, WWI and WWII.
>>
>> Since most Federal money goes to conventional technology such as coal and
>> oil, I do not think the industry should complain.
>>
>> - Jed
>>
>>
>

RE: [Vo]:COP < 1 should not be negative evidence for cold fusion (thinking in general, not about Rossi)

[Russ George]

Asymmetrical loading of deuterium into metals does indeed produce ‘cold fusion’ 
as evidenced by prodigious heat and commensurate 4He. It is most certainly NOT 
loading into cracks it is rather a super loading method for bulk material. 
Cracks do form but they are a defect not a desired condition. 

 

To understand how this works imagine the deuterium is compressed into an 
ultra-dense deuterium (UDD) state during bubble collapse. The conditions in a 
collapsing bubble wall are surely hot enough to ionize hydrogen electrons, 
density is surely super-metallic perhaps stellar. The UDD from many collapsing 
bubbles is injected into the target metal lattice in a very short time frame 
The lattice sees UDD upon entry as if it is ‘super high loading’ and that UDD 
slowly diffuses outward into surrounding lattice such that loading begins at 
the highest possible and goes downhill from there. That the target metal is 
bulk loaded is instantly observable as one can see (video) it swell and expand 
and to effervesce deuterium much the same as electrochemically loaded Pd does.  
X-ray diffraction studies by DOD labs have proven that the UDD was in the 
lattice and likely some remains.

 

The cold sono fusion reactions occur with perfect reproducibility in many 
different metals. Heat sufficient to cause bulk melting of refractory metals, 
Pd, Ti, Zr, Nb, Hf, Rh and clear evidence of nuclear processes since at no 
point is more than a half a watt per cm2 of sono-energy applied to the metals 
which are immersed in rapidly flowing deuterated liquids. Helium is released 
into the cooling reactant liquid (and gas traps) and is also found trapped in 
the metal. While mostly 4He is formed some modalities of the process produce 
prodigious 3He shifting the 3He:4He ratio by 4-5 orders of magnitude! No 
significant neutrons are observed nor gamma within the limits of very sensitive 
neutron and gamma spectrometers. 4He production at rates of e11-e13 ‘alphas’ 
per second is readily produced.  

 

Isotope studies of before and after metals show, in some cases, dramatic shifts 
of some peculiar isotope ratios tens of percent out of the normal ranges.

 

Under higher pressure systems the required ultrasound controlled cavitation 
loading can allow for working temperatures at very high temperatures. Even some 
deuterated liquid metals will perform admirably.  The hotter the working 
temperature the higher the reaction rate. The key engineering problem is that 
the system becomes so fusion reactive that removing the cold fusion heat 
becomes problematic, failing to do so results in systems reaching the boiling 
temperatures of refractory metals aka ~3000 C! NOT controllable!

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

From: Daniel Rocha [mailto:danieldi...@gmail.com] 
Sent: Friday, May 27, 2016 6:12 PM
To: John Milstone
Subject: Re: [Vo]:COP < 1 should not be negative evidence for cold fusion 
(thinking in general, not about Rossi)

 

I think sonofusion and cold fusion are the same. The bubble effect on H/D is 
essentially like cracks, like what Ed says. And even the same case bellow. 

(Cold fusion and even heat after death, for me, is caused after submitting H/D 
to pressures of 10^11Pa and  submitted to thermal energy than ~0.1eV.) 


I hope to get my printer to work as soon as possible, since I concentrate more 
on write something about why this is the case.

But, the emission of cold fusion is typically between 10~ >:

. My sonofusion reaction was and is easily scalable to generate hundreds of 
kilowatts steady state output running with duty cycled input of a fraction of 
1% of the output. Such sonofusion development to large scale energy production 
would cost a few million to refine into devices that would cost mere thousands 
to mass produce.

 

Re: [Vo]:COP < 1 should not be negative evidence for cold fusion (thinking in general, not about Rossi)

[Daniel Rocha]

I think sonofusion and cold fusion are the same. The bubble effect on H/D
is essentially like cracks, like what Ed says. And even the same case
bellow.

(Cold fusion and even heat after death, for me, is caused after submitting
H/D to pressures of 10^11Pa and  submitted to thermal energy than ~0.1eV.)

I hope to get my printer to work as soon as possible, since I concentrate
more on write something about why this is the case.

But, the emission of cold fusion is typically between 10~:

> . My sonofusion reaction was and is easily scalable to generate hundreds
> of kilowatts steady state output running with duty cycled input of a
> fraction of 1% of the output. Such sonofusion development to large scale
> energy production would cost a few million to refine into devices that
> would cost mere thousands to mass produce.
>
>
>

Re: [Vo]:Rossi vs I.H.

[a.ashfield]

Jed.

   "But there obviously was sufficient ventilation.  Nobody died.  It
   was a straw man.


No one died because there was only ~20 kW of heat.

But again, that is not the point I am trying to make. One last time:"


Jed I am an engineer who took aeronautics as a subject.  I am quite 
capable of calculating the air flows and ventilation required.  I just 
don't think what you write has been proven.

Re: [Vo]:Rossi vs I.H.

[Jed Rothwell]

a.ashfield  wrote:


> No one died because there was only ~20 kW of heat.
>
> But again, that is not the point I am trying to make. One last time:"
>
>
> Jed I am an engineer who took aeronautics as a subject.  I am quite
> capable of calculating the air flows and ventilation required.  I just
> don't think what you write has been proven.
>

What hasn't been proven? What the hell is your point?!? What are you trying
to say? Look, this is really easy:

IF there is a 22" vent with a large fan, and if the air temperature in the
vent is high, THEN yes, there is 1 MW of heat. We all agree on that.

HOWEVER if there is a smaller vent, or the air temperature is low, then
there is only ~20 kW of heat.

SO the I.H. expert has to investigate the ventilation. Because the flow
calorimetry from Rossi shows no heat.

Do you understand? Why does this have any connection to your expertise in
ventilation? I suppose you would be well qualified to make this
measurement, but the point is, Rossi did not allow anyone to make this
measurement. So we have no evidence for the 1 MW claim. The only evidence
Rossi provided shows conclusively that it did not work.


If you are saying it has not been proven that Rossi's calorimetry shows
nothing, you happen to be flat-out wrong. I have seen the proof. You have
not, so you have no business contradicting me. You should say "I suppose"
or "my gut feeling is" . . . Not "I don't think." You have no basis to
think anything about anything, yet.

You do know for a fact that Rossi refused to let the I.H. expert in. He
told you that himself. Why would he block the door if the ventilation
proves his 1 MW claim is real? He knew that I.H. disagreed with his 1 MW
claim. Anyone with an ounce of sense would disagree! It is ludicrous.You
need only glance at the equipment and the data to see it can't possibly be
true. The only plausible reason he blocked the door is that it proves he is
wrong.

- Jed

Re: [Vo]:Rossi vs I.H.

[Lennart Thornros]

Jed,
Get of your high horses.
You claim btter information than anyone else.
You do not share data.
You do not share source.
You admit bias in favor o ih.
Then you get upset when you don't have support for your conclusions.
Your message is just a copy of ih. They might be right then you also.
Let us hear from both parties and THEN me conclusion.
On May 27, 2016 06:16, "Jed Rothwell"  wrote:

a.ashfield  wrote:


> No one died because there was only ~20 kW of heat.
>
> But again, that is not the point I am trying to make. One last time:"
>
>
> Jed I am an engineer who took aeronautics as a subject.  I am quite
> capable of calculating the air flows and ventilation required.  I just
> don't think what you write has been proven.
>

What hasn't been proven? What the hell is your point?!? What are you trying
to say? Look, this is really easy:

IF there is a 22" vent with a large fan, and if the air temperature in the
vent is high, THEN yes, there is 1 MW of heat. We all agree on that.

HOWEVER if there is a smaller vent, or the air temperature is low, then
there is only ~20 kW of heat.

SO the I.H. expert has to investigate the ventilation. Because the flow
calorimetry from Rossi shows no heat.

Do you understand? Why does this have any connection to your expertise in
ventilation? I suppose you would be well qualified to make this
measurement, but the point is, Rossi did not allow anyone to make this
measurement. So we have no evidence for the 1 MW claim. The only evidence
Rossi provided shows conclusively that it did not work.


If you are saying it has not been proven that Rossi's calorimetry shows
nothing, you happen to be flat-out wrong. I have seen the proof. You have
not, so you have no business contradicting me. You should say "I suppose"
or "my gut feeling is" . . . Not "I don't think." You have no basis to
think anything about anything, yet.

You do know for a fact that Rossi refused to let the I.H. expert in. He
told you that himself. Why would he block the door if the ventilation
proves his 1 MW claim is real? He knew that I.H. disagreed with his 1 MW
claim. Anyone with an ounce of sense would disagree! It is ludicrous.You
need only glance at the equipment and the data to see it can't possibly be
true. The only plausible reason he blocked the door is that it proves he is
wrong.

- Jed

Re: [Vo]:Rossi vs I.H.

[Stephen A. Lawrence]

I'm probably misremembering all this.  I didn't look back at my old 
email before mouthing off and it was a long time ago.


The other thing I (think I) recall about the brouhaha is that 
disagreement over the Correas had a lot to do with it.  Replication is 
all, and they didn't have it.


Anyhow that was then, this is now, and I shouldn't be dredging up the past.

On 05/27/2016 08:24 AM, Jed Rothwell wrote:

Stephen A. Lawrence > wrote:

Orgone energy OTOH was a contentious issue on and around Vortex in
years past.  As I recall Jed was on the sign of "it's bogus", and
some others, including Gene Malov, were on the side of "it's
revolutionary".


I did not look closely. Gene and I talked about this, and I saw his 
data. Based on that I have the impression it is not real. But that is 
an impression, not a careful analysis.


- Jed

Re: [Vo]:Rossi vs I.H.

[Jed Rothwell]

a.ashfield  wrote:

S V Johnson.
> IH have obviously attempted to make E-Cats.


Who told you that? Where did you get that information? I have not heard
anything about that from I.H. Granted, they don't tell me much, but I am a
little surprised you have better information than I do.



>   How else would they check the IP they have received from Rossi?


There was no need to check the IP. Rossi's own machine did not produce any
excess heat. Ever. So they never needed to go to the next phase or check
anything. They never did, as far as I know. Why would they?



>   It is recorded that they made the Hot Cats used in the Lugano tests.
>

The Hot Cats at Lugano did not work either.



> Cherokee may not have a spotless record as you think.  I gave the link of
> them being charged over the "Medowlands"(?) project earlier . . .


That has no bearing on calorimetry. The Lugano report showed no heat, and
Rossi's own numbers show that his 1 MW machine produced no heat. I.H. could
be run the Mafia, but that would not prove or disprove the calorimetry by
Levi et al. and by Rossi.

- Jed

Re: [Vo]:Rossi vs I.H.

[Jed Rothwell]

Stephen A. Lawrence  wrote:


> Orgone energy OTOH was a contentious issue on and around Vortex in years
> past.  As I recall Jed was on the sign of "it's bogus", and some others,
> including Gene Malov, were on the side of "it's revolutionary".
>

I did not look closely. Gene and I talked about this, and I saw his data.
Based on that I have the impression it is not real. But that is an
impression, not a careful analysis.

- Jed

Re: [Vo]:Rossi vs I.H.

[Jed Rothwell]

a.ashfield  wrote:


> But there obviously was sufficient ventilation.  Nobody died.  It was a
> straw man.
>

No one died because there was only ~20 kW of heat.

But again, that is not the point I am trying to make. One last time:

Rossi's calorimetry shows no excess heat. That's the conclusion reached by
I.H. and independently by me.

However, suppose the calorimetry is drastically wrong and there actually is
1 MW of heat. The only way to prove that would be to measure the heat flow
from ventilation in the customer site.

Unfortunately, Rossi did not allow access to the customer site. He did not
give the I.H. expert access to the customer site. So there is no indication
of excess heat at all.

(Note that it is easy to measure the heat flow from a fan in a vent. HVAC
engineers do this routinely.)

- Jed

Re: [Vo]:Rossi vs I.H.

[Craig Haynie]

>>>It seems that there would be a way to test the hypothesis that grays are
living under the White House and get some hard data.

Why would you want to?

Craig

On Fri, May 27, 2016 at 11:19 AM, Eric Walker  wrote:

> On Thu, May 26, 2016 at 10:34 PM, Stephen A. Lawrence 
> wrote:
>
> The assumption that there are aliens running the government also involves
>> a whole pile of (very improbable) secondary assumptions, and there's no
>> evidence beyond some old rather dubious photographs sourced by one person
>> with nothing to show they weren't a hoax, and a handful of unsupported
>> assertions by various people.  So, the probability that the assumption is
>> true appears to be very very small.
>>
>
> It seems that there would be a way to test the hypothesis that grays are
> living under the White House and get some hard data.
>
> Eric
>
>

[Vo]:LENR confronting prosophobia-fear of progress

[Peter Gluck]

 I think I have to dedicate this issue to a plant called
Sinapis alba
It is about a great enemy of LENR  and of Science. Of technology
too however technology becomes more and more tsunami-like and cannot be
stopped.

http://egooutpeters.blogspot.ro/2016/05/may-27-2016-lenr-confronting.html

peter
-- 
Dr. Peter Gluck
Cluj, Romania
http://egooutpeters.blogspot.com

Re: [Vo]:Rossi vs I.H.

[a.ashfield]

Jed,
I don't think our debate is going anywhere.  Next month, with luck, more 
data will surface that will show if you are correct about the 1 MW plant 
having a COP = 1

Re: [Vo]:Rossi vs I.H.

[Eric Walker]

On Thu, May 26, 2016 at 10:34 PM, Stephen A. Lawrence 
wrote:

The assumption that there are aliens running the government also involves a
> whole pile of (very improbable) secondary assumptions, and there's no
> evidence beyond some old rather dubious photographs sourced by one person
> with nothing to show they weren't a hoax, and a handful of unsupported
> assertions by various people.  So, the probability that the assumption is
> true appears to be very very small.
>

It seems that there would be a way to test the hypothesis that grays are
living under the White House and get some hard data.

Eric

RE: [Vo]:COP < 1 should not be negative evidence for cold fusion (thinking in general, not about Rossi)

[Russ George]

Decades ago I was invited to give a seminar on my evidence of making heat and 
helium via sonofusion at the General Atomics Tokamak project in San Diego. The 
tokamak had run a few days before my arrival and it had been a very good test, 
everyone was happy with the results. My ‘fee’ for giving my presentation on 
‘cold fusion’ was a photo taken of me holding my ‘cold fusion’ reactor in my 
hand while standing upon the Tokamak (Big T). You can see that photo  on by 
blog via this link.  
http://atom-ecology.russgeorge.net/2015/02/01/sonofusion-returns-mainstream-science/

 

The means to measure the Tokamak performance was a number of neutron detectors 
about the size of water coolers that were placed around the large room that 
contained Big T. The neutrons detected were the sole evidence of HOT fusion. I 
recall working with the GA guys on the ‘back of the envelope’ to determine the 
total number of fusion reactions in Big T in the ‘shot’ days earlier, the 
number of fusion reactions was something like e17 based on calculating the 
neutrons caught in the few tiny detectors multiplied by the full 3d 
cross-section. My reactor typically made about e16 4He atoms in a test run. My 
isoperibolic calorimetry showed heat and helium were roughly commensurate. No 
question Big T was more potent but then again it drew more electric power than 
the entire city of San Diego to run while my assymettric sonofusion reactor ran 
on a few watts of input. 

 

No matter how many major labs I trotted my gear to and ran experiments 
demonstrating cold fusion heat and helium reality the forces of evil, aka the 
institutional physics community, never did anything but disparage and 
discourage the work… albeit studying it carefully. My sonofusion reaction was 
and is easily scalable to generate hundreds of kilowatts steady state output 
running with duty cycled input of a fraction of 1% of the output. Such 
sonofusion development to large scale energy production would cost a few 
million to refine into devices that would cost mere thousands to mass produce. 

 

Don’t think for a moment that the Big T money folks will ever allow their pork 
barrels, aka retirement funds, to be run dry by competition. 

 

From: Daniel Rocha [mailto:danieldi...@gmail.com] 
Sent: Friday, May 27, 2016 3:15 PM
To: John Milstone
Subject: [Vo]:COP < 1 should not be negative evidence for cold fusion (thinking 
in general, not about Rossi)

 

Any process has waste. So, for example, if the input is 1W and the output is 
0.9W it doesn't mean there wasn't CF. The yield could be like 1mW and the 
remaining 0.099 wasted in other means.
 1mW is a big deal. For example, if it were hot fusion, it would give a lethal 
dose, being close to the source, in minutes. It's just that hot fusion sources 
are much more easily detected.
 If hot fusion research relied on COP, there would be no proof of it, save for 
H-Bomb explosions. There must be other ways to measure the yield cold fusion.


 

-- 

Daniel Rocha - RJ

danieldi...@gmail.com  

[Vo]:COP < 1 should not be negative evidence for cold fusion (thinking in general, not about Rossi)

[Daniel Rocha]

Any process has waste. So, for example, if the input is 1W and the output
is 0.9W it doesn't mean there wasn't CF. The yield could be like 1mW and
the remaining 0.099 wasted in other means.
 1mW is a big deal. For example, if it were hot fusion, it would give a
lethal dose, being close to the source, in minutes. It's just that hot
fusion sources are much more easily detected.
 If hot fusion research relied on COP, there would be no proof of it, save
for H-Bomb explosions. There must be other ways to measure the yield cold
fusion.

-- 
Daniel Rocha - RJ
danieldi...@gmail.com