RE: [Vo]:LENR Presentation by Joseph Zawodny, NASA Langley Research Center Edit
JC wrote: Say what? That's just gibberish. I seriously doubt that Zawodny has any idea what that sentence means, if it means anything at all. A physical effect is allowed by a breakdown in a mathematical approximation? What that sentence does is make people's eyes glaze over, and think it sounds sophisticated enough that it must be true. That certainly is one possibility. but it's just as plausible that your and MY's eyes glaze over because you don't have enough in-depth knowledge of the relevant physics to fully understand what's being proposed. And he also smugly states: Honestly, if a talk so devoid of hard results or plausible mechanisms were presented in any other field, it would be laughed off stage. One can only hope this is not representative of much of the research that goes on at NASA. Cude, you're such an A$$ sometimes. this was only an internal workshop. It was most likely background for others who might be interested in helping. It most certainly was NOT a full description of all the LENR work that they have done. How the hell do you know what data they have or don't have? What experiments they've done or not done? Have you talked to Bushnell or Zawodny in order to verify your speculations BEFORE making such condescending remarks behind their back? We all know the answer to that question, don't we! -mark
RE: [Vo]:Speaking of MAHG
- Original Nachricht Von: Jones Beene jone...@pacbell.net An: vortex-l@eskimo.com Datum: 05.12.2011 02:39 Betreff: RE: [Vo]:Speaking of MAHG The 15 kHz frequency is in the low ultrasonic range, and has been seen in a number of claimed gainful (or very efficient) devices: most recently the Joule Thief or the Stiffler or Kugushov circuits, but before that- Stanley Meyer, and importantly - a number of cavitation LENR devices and Bearden's MEG. Not sure about Griggs. Probably others are in this low ultrasound range. Coincidence? The coincidence could be this: Higher frequencies are difficult to handle. There are dozens of videos on YouTube of CFL lamps operating to produce significant light at 100 times less input power than specs (milliwatt range). In most of them the video cam will pick up the ultrasonic hum (very annoying) which is not evident to the builder, until he sees the video. It is just above audible. I have seen these demos. The problem is this: The sensitivity of human eye is the logarithm of photon count. For example, if you have a LED and you reduce the current by 50%, then, without direct comparison, you would not see a difference in brightness. Also, in videos, the camera will change the exposure, if brightness changes, and this has the same effect. It is not possible to estimate the power from the visual experience of brightness. Without power measurements these lamp and LED demonstrations are meaningless and misleading. Added to this, we have resonance transformation effects, and this makes precise electrical power measurements difficult if not impossible without very expensive equipment. Peter
[Vo]:negative endothermic?
Once Mill's or Rossi's materials are up to temp they NEED energy subtracted because the atomic hydrogen must cool to reform h2 then changes in suppression values experienced by the moving gas relative to the Ni geometry lower the disassociation threshold such that the newly formed molecule disassociates again, each time releasing more energy than contributed by the heater in an endless cycle that quickly repays the initial cost of bringing the temp up near to the discounted threshold. I am positing that runaway scenarios may be common in nature and simply destroy their own geometry immediately or slow down to the point of being undetectable because they can not cycle fast enough to keep the ambient in the narrow window where the discounted threshold is lower than the energy release of h2 formation. can I call this endless reversible reaction first described by William Lyne as negative endothermic? Fran
Re: [Vo]:Re: can we use such a program?
On Sun, 2011-12-04 at 18:44 -0800, Mary Yugo wrote: Rossi lied when he said he was self-funded when in fact he had received funds from Ampenergo. Either that or Casserino lied. Rossi had a reason to lie, Casserino did not. There is no Ampenergo; it's just a paper company, like Leonardo corp. If so, where is it physically located? Because here in New Hampshire, it's just a name associated with Karl Norwood. Craig
Re: [Vo]:LHC plagued by UFOs
A restatement and some new thoughts on black hole UFOs at CERN. This is in response to the article about difficulties at the CERN LHC: http://www.livescience.com/17207-ufos-disrupting-search-god- particle.html ...UFOs — unidentified falling objects, that is — keep getting in their way. More than 10,000 possible UFO events — occasions when there were proton-beam losses thought to result from UFOs blocking the protons — were observed between April and August Even more UFO events, and resulting beam dumps, happened at a point in the beam just past objects called injector kicker magnets (MKIs), suggesting that these magnets are a major source of the mystery objects. The UFOs could be black holes. One of the most profound predictions of my gravimagnetic theory is that virtual photons carry no gravitational charge. They have zero gravitational mass. Therefore, black holes will accumulate magnetic fields corresponding to the sum of the magnetic moments they consume. This could be useful for using black holes as power supplies, in that they can be contained by an actively controlled magnetic containment field. It would be natural for black holes to accumulate in the vicinity of magnets, especially at the ends of electromagnets where the field strength and gradients are maximal. If they are accumulating at such large distances, then the number of black holes being generated would have to be huge. Further, their evaporation rate would have to be slow to non-existent for such an accumulation to take place at a large distance. The biggest problem with this explanation of the UFOs is the distance of the of the MKI's and beam origin from the target area. The long range from the target area is probably actually necessary to slow them down enough to be trapped by magnets. The bad news is they necessarily accumulate a lot of matter along the way, reducing the probability of a fast evaporation. One of the most intimidating deductions from my gravimagnetic theory was the prediction, mandated by symmetry, that black holes continually increase in mass by separating mass charge pairs from vacuum fluctuations. This process conflicts with the Hawking Radiation theory, because the Hawking radiation theory does not take into account the existence of negative gravitational mass charge. Further, there is no Swartzchild radius for negative gravitational charge matter. A matter pair of with opposed gravitational charge can be separated anywhere within the black hole, with the negative gravitational charge half being accelerated out of the black hole at enormous energies. The interior of a black holes is likely a very energetic place, having a large particle and photon flux, even if no matter is accreting. This is due to mass manufacturing from the vacuum. Charged pairs which are fully separated in the mix, and thus have gravitational charge, are likely to recombine before the negative mass particle can escape. However, due to their real mass they will generate real photons upon annihilation. If either or both of the annihilation photons has a negative mass charge, then it will have a high probability of being quickly expelled from the black hole due to a low probability to react with other identical escaping photons. If the photon interacts with charged particles on the way then it can split off into 3 photons, two of which have negative gravitational mass, or create additional negative gravitational mass real particle pairs from their extreme energies. A black hole with even near Planck mass might not evaporate as predicted by Hawking, but might actually continue to grow, while emitting massive amounts of negative gravitational mass matter which is possibly mirror matter, and which I called cosmic matter in my paper: http://www.mtaonline.net/~hheffner/CosmicSearch.pdf The nature of the matter so created depends on symmetry issues discussed here: http://www.mtaonline.net/~hheffner/GravityPairs.pdf By the gravimagnetic theory, cosmic matter is possibly, or even just largely, mirror matter. Therefore the negative gravitational mass issuing forth from ordinary mass black holes would have a very low coupling factor with ordinary matter, and essentially would be invisible. This goes for both the real matter and real photons produced from the black hole. The black holes themselves would have a high degree of interaction with ordinary matter in the vicinity though, via their incredibly strong and continually growing B fields. An x-ray response to a very powerful AC de-gaussing coil can be used to detect black holes at CERN if they are indeed the UFOs. If these things are true, then the tiny black holes that escape the local magnets at CERN, especially when they are powered down, will eventually head for the center of the earth. It will soon be all over here on earth if the
Re: [Vo]:Re: Krivit article on NASA Forum
On Sun, Dec 4, 2011 at 11:32 PM, Stephen A. Lawrence sa...@pobox.com wrote: This is, of course, one of the classic hallmarks of the scammer. Many say this; but, to what end? He is not asking for money. Is it just the attention? Was he improperly weaned as a child? T
[Vo]:Re: Krivit article on NASA Forum
He is not asking for money Again? Why someone keeps saying He is not asking for money when it's not true? -Messaggio originale- From: Terry Blanton Sent: Monday, December 05, 2011 1:36 PM To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: [Vo]:Re: Krivit article on NASA Forum On Sun, Dec 4, 2011 at 11:32 PM, Stephen A. Lawrence sa...@pobox.com wrote: This is, of course, one of the classic hallmarks of the scammer. Many say this; but, to what end? He is not asking for money. Is it just the attention? Was he improperly weaned as a child? T
Re: [Vo]:LHC plagued by UFOs
On Mon, Dec 5, 2011 at 6:49 AM, Horace Heffner hheff...@mtaonline.net wrote:. The bad news is that a failure to realize the danger of black holes created at one or more beam resonance peaks may have set on course the soon end to earth's existence. Horace, maybe you should dress this up a bit and send it here: http://www.risk-evaluation-forum.org/ T
Re: [Vo]:Re: Krivit article on NASA Forum
On Mon, Dec 5, 2011 at 7:39 AM, Mattia Rizzi mattia.ri...@gmail.com wrote: He is not asking for money Again? Why someone keeps saying He is not asking for money when it's not true? Are you speaking of the people who buy his product? T
Re: [Vo]:LHC plagued by UFOs
About the risk of big black hole, the CERN have accepted to start the LHC, not only because current theory say that small black hole will evaporate quickly (they don't take risk based on, even consensual, theory), but because Auger observatory have shown that we receive daily huge cosmic particle that are many billions times more heavy (above exaelectronvolt, up to10^20eV), and that the planet have survived since a few trillions years back. http://www.auger.org/cosmic_rays/faq.html#energy about magnetic fields, the one at LHC are big, but there are many place on earth, where such field are created, or just a little weaker, including in MNR machines. There is also some stars having huge magnetic fields that have been detected. they could tell us about the existence or nonexistence of some feared/expected effects. I heard nothing about exceptional unexpected effect observed. 2011/12/5 Horace Heffner hheff...@mtaonline.net ...
[Vo]:Re: Krivit article on NASA Forum
-.- Rossi is asking for money. He asked money to Defkalion in February/March (A LOT OF MONEY) for his technology (deadline of payment around June) Stop saying that he is not asking for money, because is false. -Messaggio originale- From: Terry Blanton Sent: Monday, December 05, 2011 1:59 PM To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: [Vo]:Re: Krivit article on NASA Forum On Mon, Dec 5, 2011 at 7:39 AM, Mattia Rizzi mattia.ri...@gmail.com wrote: He is not asking for money Again? Why someone keeps saying He is not asking for money when it's not true? Are you speaking of the people who buy his product? T
Re: [Vo]:LHC plagued by UFOs
On Mon, Dec 5, 2011 at 8:04 AM, Alain dit le Cycliste alain.sep...@gmail.com wrote: About the risk of big black hole, the CERN have accepted to start the LHC, not only because current theory say that small black hole will evaporate quickly (they don't take risk based on, even consensual, theory), but because Auger observatory have shown that we receive daily huge cosmic particle that are many billions times more heavy (above exaelectronvolt, up to10^20eV), and that the planet have survived since a few trillions years back. True, however: Experiments using the technique of colliding high-energy particles with opposing speeds create conditions on Earth different from natural collisions due to cosmic rays. Heavy particles created by cosmic ray collisions with the Earth, if they are not strongly reactive, will retain significant speed and will pass through the Earth to be lost in space. Conversely heavy particles generated by colliders (like RHIC or LHC) using the technique of colliding high-energy particles with opposite speed, have a very slow speed in relation to the Earth and these heavy particles could then be captured by Earth’s gravity. http://www.risk-evaluation-forum.org/anon10.htm T
Re: [Vo]:Re: Krivit article on NASA Forum
On Mon, Dec 5, 2011 at 8:05 AM, Mattia Rizzi mattia.ri...@gmail.com wrote: -.- Rossi is asking for money. He asked money to Defkalion in February/March (A LOT OF MONEY) for his technology (deadline of payment around June) Stop saying that he is not asking for money, because is false. Okay, Rossi is not asking the uneducated and unwashed masses for money like a true scammer would. T
[Vo]:Nichenergy-sponsored workshop on LENR?
Hello group, It has come to my attention that the 10th International Workshop on Anomalies in Hydrogen Loaded Metals on April 2012 will be organized by Piantelli and sponsored by Nichenergy srl, a newly founded company representing his investors and which will supposedly manufacture Ni-H devices based on the work of his research group: http://www.iscmns.org/work10/ Since this is as far as I know the first time that Nichenergy srl is officially mentioned as a sponsor, I guess this means we will have soon news on their part and more details on who they are and their mission (plans, future projects, etc). I hope for concrete news as soon as possible, before the Rossi/Defkalion GT bubble (which overall has been in my opinion beneficial to the LENR field so far) bursts. Cheers, S.A.
[Vo]:Re: Krivit article on NASA Forum
So Stanley Meter, a scammer (Ohio court sentence), was not a true scammer? Mmmh. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stanley_Meyer%27s_water_fuel_cell -Messaggio originale- From: Terry Blanton Sent: Monday, December 05, 2011 2:15 PM To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: [Vo]:Re: Krivit article on NASA Forum On Mon, Dec 5, 2011 at 8:05 AM, Mattia Rizzi mattia.ri...@gmail.com wrote: -.- Rossi is asking for money. He asked money to Defkalion in February/March (A LOT OF MONEY) for his technology (deadline of payment around June) Stop saying that he is not asking for money, because is false. Okay, Rossi is not asking the uneducated and unwashed masses for money like a true scammer would. T
Re: [Vo]:Padua University not Siena made the analysis
On Fri, Dec 2, 2011 at 3:24 AM, Joshua Cude joshua.c...@gmail.com wrote: But Villa measured no gammas above background with *no* lead. ... Villa would have detected gammas in that range. All right, probably no or negligible gammas above 200 keV. (c) We don't know if the gammas are emitted isotropically. The nickel is a power. It's pretty hard to imagine a preferred emission direction with randomly oriented reactants. True, but again, this is unknown physics, and the randomly oriented powder is possibly bathing in these EM fields that Rossi possibly uses to control the reaction - this breaks the spherical symmetry. So they say. It would be more credible if someone could imagine a reaction that produces heat and no radiation. According to Nelson's slides, the gammas are in the 50 - 200 keV range and are thermalized. Easy to do with very little shielding. And photons in that range wouldn't have been detected by Villa - this is clearly stated in the abstract. -- Berke Durak
Re: [Vo]:Re: Krivit article on NASA Forum
On 11-12-05 07:36 AM, Terry Blanton wrote: On Sun, Dec 4, 2011 at 11:32 PM, Stephen A. Lawrencesa...@pobox.com wrote: This is, of course, one of the classic hallmarks of the scammer. Many say this; Because it's true, of course. but, to what end? To point out the annoying and unavoidable truth. I continue to fear that Rossi may turn out to be the torpedo in the engine room of cold fusion. He is not asking for money. Is it just the attention? Was he improperly weaned as a child? Y'got me. It walks like a duck, it quacks like a duck, but I'm not totally sure it can swim like a duck. Actually I find the interlocking companies with funding from ... someplace ..., along with the early claims that Rossi (or was it Defkalion?) had received a great deal of investment money from a substantial number of ex-pat Greeks (Have we forgotten about that, or did we decide it was a lie? Or do we think it all went to DGT for some nefarious purpose, and Rossi never saw any of it?) sufficiently murky that I'm not sure the assertion He's not asking for money can be taken as particularly solid. I'd certainly have to say the situation with DGT doesn't seem to have worked out as Rossi intended, which throws a monkey wrench into any attempt at determining what his goals *were* six months ago. His goals *now* may very well be limited to damage control.
Re: [Vo]:Nasa LENR slides
I just wanted to inject a thought into Vortex. There is much talk of the large energy required to cause the LENR reaction to take place. We all know that cosmic rays are penetrating the environment which carry far more energy than needed to overcome the barriers, so maybe a few triggers are needed to get things started. I have noticed the craters photographed after some experiments that look like the location of small nuclear explosions. Maybe these suggest a highly localized event. This suggestion may have been given before but I did not notice. Dave
Re: [Vo]:Re: Krivit article on NASA Forum
On Mon, Dec 5, 2011 at 8:25 AM, Mattia Rizzi mattia.ri...@gmail.com wrote: So Stanley Meter, a scammer (Ohio court sentence), was not a true scammer? Mmmh. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stanley_Meyer%27s_water_fuel_cell Actually, the book is not yet closed Meyer. Some believe that he did not fully disclose all the information in his patent #4798661. He did have some remarkable demonstrations AND he died the same way as knowledgeable people in: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Invaders But one should never use wikipedia as a source. One should use it as a source of sources. Here is a good primer: http://amasci.com/freenrg/fnrg.html and, yes, Stan is listed; but, I don't think the book is closed on him yet. Oh, I already said that. :-) T
Re: [Vo]:Padua University not Siena made the analysis
just about the shielding, what about the chamber itself as shielding (what material/thickness?) for some kind of emissions. at least it should stop alpha and beta, protons, weak X, and reduce X, and maybe soft gamma. 2011/12/5 Berke Durak berke.du...@gmail.com According to Nelson's slides, the gammas are in the 50 - 200 keV range and are thermalized. Easy to do with very little shielding. And photons in that range wouldn't have been detected by Villa - this is clearly stated in the abstract.
Re: [Vo]:Nichenergy-sponsored workshop on LENR?
On Mon, Dec 5, 2011 at 8:15 AM, Akira Shirakawa shirakawa.ak...@gmail.com wrote: Hello group, It has come to my attention that the 10th International Workshop on Anomalies in Hydrogen Loaded Metals on April 2012 will be organized by Piantelli and sponsored by Nichenergy srl, a newly founded company representing his investors and which will supposedly manufacture Ni-H devices based on the work of his research group: http://www.iscmns.org/work10/ Yes, I keep checking their web page nichenergy.com and it remains sito in costruzione. T
[Vo]:Re: Krivit article on NASA Forum
He did have some remarkable demonstrations AND he died the same way as knowledgeable people Another free energy conspiracy? So boring... The only fact was that he was sentenced as a scammer and his work was bullshit. -Messaggio originale- From: Terry Blanton Sent: Monday, December 05, 2011 3:50 PM To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: [Vo]:Re: Krivit article on NASA Forum On Mon, Dec 5, 2011 at 8:25 AM, Mattia Rizzi mattia.ri...@gmail.com wrote: So Stanley Meter, a scammer (Ohio court sentence), was not a true scammer? Mmmh. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stanley_Meyer%27s_water_fuel_cell Actually, the book is not yet closed Meyer. Some believe that he did not fully disclose all the information in his patent #4798661. He did have some remarkable demonstrations AND he died the same way as knowledgeable people in: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Invaders But one should never use wikipedia as a source. One should use it as a source of sources. Here is a good primer: http://amasci.com/freenrg/fnrg.html and, yes, Stan is listed; but, I don't think the book is closed on him yet. Oh, I already said that. :-) T
Re: [Vo]:Re: Krivit article on NASA Forum
On Mon, Dec 5, 2011 at 9:36 AM, Stephen A. Lawrence sa...@pobox.com wrote: Actually I find the interlocking companies with funding from ... someplace ..., along with the early claims that Rossi (or was it Defkalion?) had received a great deal of investment money from a substantial number of ex-pat Greeks (Have we forgotten about that, or did we decide it was a lie? Or do we think it all went to DGT for some nefarious purpose, and Rossi never saw any of it?) sufficiently murky that I'm not sure the assertion He's not asking for money can be taken as particularly solid. DGT is a Cyprian company doing business in Greece. Rumor was it was funded by expats in Canada; but, that was never confirmed. They report that AR failed to deliver a working reactor that remained stable for 48 hours, I assume without intervention. I think that they are relieved that AR failed to deliver by their deadline and had already in their possession the secret of how the reactor worked, assuming this is all true. Could they have come up with the cash had AR delivered per the contract? We might not live long enough to know. T
Re: [Vo]:Re: Krivit article on NASA Forum
On Mon, Dec 5, 2011 at 10:40 AM, Mattia Rizzi mattia.ri...@gmail.com wrote: Another free energy conspiracy? So boring... The only fact was that he was sentenced as a scammer and his work was bullshit. Actually, I find all this exciting and interesting. It's people who killed Tinker Bell that I find boring. Speaking of, who was your favorite Tinker Bell? I liked Julia Roberts; but, my favorite was Ludivine Sagnier. I think it was the movie Swimming Pool which swayed my opinion on Sagnier. Did you know Marilyn Monroe was also Tinker Bell? Well, some say it's an urban legend that the 1953 animated version was modeled after Ms. Monroe. T
Re: [Vo]:LENR Presentation by Joseph Zawodny, NASA Langley Research Center Edit
On Mon, Dec 5, 2011 at 2:17 AM, Mark Iverson-ZeroPoint zeropo...@charter.net wrote: JC wrote: “Say what? That's just gibberish. I seriously doubt that Zawodny has any idea what that sentence means, if it means anything at all. A physical effect is allowed by a breakdown in a mathematical approximation? What that sentence does is make people's eyes glaze over, and think it sounds sophisticated enough that it must be true.” ** ** That certainly is one possibility… but it’s just as plausible that your and MY’s eyes glaze over because you don’t have enough in-depth knowledge of the relevant physics to fully understand what’s being proposed. But my failure to understand something does not make it any more plausible to me. Someone could come along and claim to have a theory that explains perpetual motion machines, but I wouldn't believe it just because he could string a bunch of sophisticated buzz-words together into an incomprehensible sentence. You need 780 keV at a single atomic site to induce electron capture by a proton. This is allegedly induced by heating the lattice. So, random atomic motion representing a fraction of an eV per atom is somehow supposed to be concentrated by a factor of much more than a million by some resonant phenomenon. No amount of jargon makes that plausible. WL present all sorts of equations to justify the idea, but they don't actually calculate a reaction rate for a given hydrogen loading in Pd or Ni. People are skeptical of cold fusion because of the Coulomb barrier. The big selling point about the WLT is that it is supposed to be more plausible because it avoids the Coulomb barrier. The problem is it introduces a much bigger energy barrier. So then, the same skeptics should be more skeptical of WLT, not less skeptical. Why should telling people they are not sophisticated enough to understand the mechanism be any more effective for the WLT than for breaching the Coulomb barrier? It's another matter to pitch it at theoretical physicists, but people like Bushnell and Krivit pitch it at their lay audiences. And the last time I checked, no theoretical physicists of any stripe were citing WL, even though it would be breakthrough physics if it were right. Even among LENR advocates, the theoretical physicists like Hagelstein don't give it much respect. this was only an internal workshop. It was most likely background for others who might be interested in helping. It most certainly was NOT a full description of all the LENR work that they have done. How the hell do you know what data they have or don’t have? What experiments they’ve done or not done? It's true. It's possible they have evidence that he did not present. They might have done an experiment where gamma rays that otherwise go right through a nickel powder, are blocked when it's heated in an atmosphere of hydrogen under pressure. Or other experiments that make WL more believable. But if he's trying to attract helpers, wouldn't it make more sense to present evidence like that? The presentation looks pretty similar to the one he gave in 2009. No indication of progress at all. But again, maybe he's got a reason for hiding it. Maybe, but I doubt it. Anyway, based on what's available, I remain skeptical.
Re: [Vo]:Re: Krivit article on NASA Forum
On 11-12-05 10:40 AM, Mattia Rizzi wrote: He did have some remarkable demonstrations AND he died the same way as knowledgeable people Another free energy conspiracy? So boring... The only fact was that he was sentenced as a scammer and his work was bullshit. Boy, THAT's a conclusive argument, all right! ..his work was bullshit. Open and shut, rock solid logic; doesn't leave *any* room for doubt, does it? Oh, and the conspiracy theory is boring; that certainly leads inescapably to the conclusion that it's wrong, too. For sure, solid reasoning all through here.
Re: [Vo]:Padua University not Siena made the analysis
On Mon, Dec 5, 2011 at 7:43 AM, Berke Durak berke.du...@gmail.com wrote: The nickel is a power. It's pretty hard to imagine a preferred emission direction with randomly oriented reactants. True, but again, this is unknown physics, Right. Anything can be explained that way... and the randomly oriented powder is possibly bathing in these EM fields that Rossi possibly uses to control the reaction - this breaks the spherical symmetry. Maybe with new physics, but with old physics, the EM fields Rossi used do not control nuclear reactions. And if true, it wouldn't be hard to get evidence for it. Evidence that might help to vindicate Rossi. But then, he's trying to avoid vindication; too much competition. According to Nelson's slides, the gammas are in the 50 - 200 keV range and are thermalized. Nelson didn't show data to support that. It was just wild speculation, and the range was probably chosen because Villa's cutoff was 200 keV. Easy to do with very little shielding. And photons in that range wouldn't have been detected by Villa - this is clearly stated in the abstract. Right. But there are ways to detect photons between 50 and 200 keV. And NASA could probably avail themselves of the necessary technology. But they didn't show evidence of 50 - 200 keV gammas. Neither has Rossi. And neither did he suggest any reactions that might produce such low energy gammas. And the sort of reactions that WL predict would produce much higher energy gammas. And the one slide he showed with a gamma spectrum from Piantelli showed a 750 keV gamma.
[Vo]:Re: Padua University not Siena made the analysis
Bianchini instrument has a range between 20keV – some MeV, and he didi’t measure anything in all tests. Shielding was partially cut off in january for Villa’s detector. Bianchini measured nothing. From: Joshua Cude Sent: Monday, December 05, 2011 5:10 PM To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: [Vo]:Padua University not Siena made the analysis On Mon, Dec 5, 2011 at 7:43 AM, Berke Durak berke.du...@gmail.com wrote: The nickel is a power. It's pretty hard to imagine a preferred emission direction with randomly oriented reactants. True, but again, this is unknown physics, Right. Anything can be explained that way... and the randomly oriented powder is possibly bathing in these EM fields that Rossi possibly uses to control the reaction - this breaks the spherical symmetry. Maybe with new physics, but with old physics, the EM fields Rossi used do not control nuclear reactions. And if true, it wouldn't be hard to get evidence for it. Evidence that might help to vindicate Rossi. But then, he's trying to avoid vindication; too much competition. According to Nelson's slides, the gammas are in the 50 - 200 keV range and are thermalized. Nelson didn't show data to support that. It was just wild speculation, and the range was probably chosen because Villa's cutoff was 200 keV. Easy to do with very little shielding. And photons in that range wouldn't have been detected by Villa - this is clearly stated in the abstract. Right. But there are ways to detect photons between 50 and 200 keV. And NASA could probably avail themselves of the necessary technology. But they didn't show evidence of 50 - 200 keV gammas. Neither has Rossi. And neither did he suggest any reactions that might produce such low energy gammas. And the sort of reactions that WL predict would produce much higher energy gammas. And the one slide he showed with a gamma spectrum from Piantelli showed a 750 keV gamma.
Re: [Vo]:Re: Krivit article on NASA Forum
On Mon, Dec 5, 2011 at 5:15 AM, Terry Blanton hohlr...@gmail.com wrote: On Mon, Dec 5, 2011 at 8:05 AM, Mattia Rizzi mattia.ri...@gmail.com wrote: -.- Rossi is asking for money. He asked money to Defkalion in February/March (A LOT OF MONEY) for his technology (deadline of payment around June) Stop saying that he is not asking for money, because is false. Okay, Rossi is not asking the uneducated and unwashed masses for money like a true scammer would. So Steorn were not true scammers? I suppose the SKDB cult club was asking the public to join something... but their apparent efforts to sell kits were not real because although they got plenty of orders, far as anyone knows, they never accepted an order or shipped a kit. Sort of like Rossi so far. Steorn, like Rossi, claimed secret potential clients who inspected and tested their goods but no evidence was ever presented that they had done so -- like Rossi's anonymous customer. I will tell you again: you have absolutely no way of knowing how much money Rossi has taken and from whom. And Casserino was quite clear that Rossi got money from Ampenergo and that it was a substantial portion the equation in the agreement between them.
Re: [Vo]:Re: Krivit article on NASA Forum
On Mon, Dec 5, 2011 at 7:40 AM, Terry Blanton hohlr...@gmail.com wrote: I think that they are relieved that AR failed to deliver by their deadline and had already in their possession the secret of how the reactor worked, assuming this is all true. Yes, and that would be a huge assumption. There is not one shred of evidence that anything Defkalion says now or has ever said about their Hyperions and their tests has been true. The only objective evidence about them that I know of is from the local (Xanthi) Parliament member who inquired of his government agencies about whether or not they had ongoing tests of Defkalion's Hyperion and they said they never heard of it. That's in a news report. I'll try to dig up the reference AGAIN if you can't recall it. Other than that, everything about Hyperions is claims. There are no independent tests nor any important facts. Believers seem to have the fundamental problem that they don't differentiate between claims and facts or evidence and they don't require independent testing before they accept things they like to hear.
Re: [Vo]:Nichenergy-sponsored workshop on LENR?
If you look at their schedule, it appears that their secret source of energy is... COFFEE!
RE: [Vo]:LENR Presentation by Joseph Zawodny, NASA Langley Research Center Edit
Joshua wrote: So, random atomic motion representing a fraction of an eV per atom is somehow supposed to be concentrated by a factor of much more than a million by some resonant phenomenon. ABSOLUTELY POSSIBLE. You are reasoning from the physics of brute force, which is all that nuclear physicists know. The physics of resonance can achieve the extreme energy levels required with very small, but properly timed/oriented, inputs. Tesla generated electrical discharges over 130 feet long when in Colorado Springs in 1899. That represents many 10s of millions of volts when his primary coil was operating at some very small fraction of that. He had VERY crude materials to work with and very limited electrical equipment (much of which he had to build). Despite the primitive resources, he was able to generate the EXTREME voltages and currents BECAUSE OF RESONANCE. Ever hear of the Tacoma Narrows Bridge? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j-zczJXSxnw For most, theory is a transparent box. those inside don't know they're inside, or that there's even an outside! -Mark
Re: [Vo]:LENR Presentation by Joseph Zawodny, NASA Langley Research Center Edit
On Mon, Dec 5, 2011 at 10:57 AM, Mark Iverson-ZeroPoint zeropo...@charter.net wrote: Joshua wrote: “So, random atomic motion representing a fraction of an eV per atom is somehow supposed to be concentrated by a factor of much more than a million by some resonant phenomenon.” ** ** ABSOLUTELY POSSIBLE. ** ** You are reasoning from the physics of brute force, which is all that nuclear physicists know. The physics of resonance can achieve the extreme energy levels required with very small, but properly timed/oriented, inputs. Resonance is very much a part of brute force physics. It's well-understood, and not magical at all. Your argument is that resonance has some amazing macroscopic effects, and so WL is absolutely possible. Sorry, it doesn't do anything for me. ** ** Tesla generated electrical discharges over 130 feet long when in Colorado Springs in 1899. That represents many 10s of millions of volts when his primary coil was operating at some very small fraction of that. Big deal. Tesla coils are not magic. A resonant transformer is well understood. Producing a million volts in a macroscopic device is pretty easy. But even those fields are 10,000 smaller than WL need localized to produce electron capture. And how does a resonant transformer relate to concentrating thermal energy into an electric field fluctuation at a single atomic site. I'm not saying it's impossible. I'm saying your arguments and Zawodny's (or WL) jargon don't make it any more plausible. And it still leaves the question of why WL is any more plausible than ordinary fusion. The latter should be a 10 times easier resonant phenomenon, so why does anyone (NASA) pay attention to WL? I can read minds using resonance. Don't believe me? Look up Tesla coils and the Tacoma bridge.
Re: [Vo]:LENR Presentation by Joseph Zawodny, NASA Langley Research Center Edit
Mark Iverson-ZeroPoint posted a study on Rydberg matter a few weeks ago which stated that this special form of exotic hydrogen (alkali matter) can amplify quantum mechanical properties of atoms by some 11 orders of magnitude; that is 10 to the 11th power. The Coulomb barrier cannot protect the nucleus of the atom from proton intrusion when exposed to such a huge and powerful masking force. On Mon, Dec 5, 2011 at 10:52 AM, Joshua Cude joshua.c...@gmail.com wrote: On Mon, Dec 5, 2011 at 2:17 AM, Mark Iverson-ZeroPoint zeropo...@charter.net wrote: JC wrote: “Say what? That's just gibberish. I seriously doubt that Zawodny has any idea what that sentence means, if it means anything at all. A physical effect is allowed by a breakdown in a mathematical approximation? What that sentence does is make people's eyes glaze over, and think it sounds sophisticated enough that it must be true.” ** ** That certainly is one possibility… but it’s just as plausible that your and MY’s eyes glaze over because you don’t have enough in-depth knowledge of the relevant physics to fully understand what’s being proposed. But my failure to understand something does not make it any more plausible to me. Someone could come along and claim to have a theory that explains perpetual motion machines, but I wouldn't believe it just because he could string a bunch of sophisticated buzz-words together into an incomprehensible sentence. You need 780 keV at a single atomic site to induce electron capture by a proton. This is allegedly induced by heating the lattice. So, random atomic motion representing a fraction of an eV per atom is somehow supposed to be concentrated by a factor of much more than a million by some resonant phenomenon. No amount of jargon makes that plausible. WL present all sorts of equations to justify the idea, but they don't actually calculate a reaction rate for a given hydrogen loading in Pd or Ni. People are skeptical of cold fusion because of the Coulomb barrier. The big selling point about the WLT is that it is supposed to be more plausible because it avoids the Coulomb barrier. The problem is it introduces a much bigger energy barrier. So then, the same skeptics should be more skeptical of WLT, not less skeptical. Why should telling people they are not sophisticated enough to understand the mechanism be any more effective for the WLT than for breaching the Coulomb barrier? It's another matter to pitch it at theoretical physicists, but people like Bushnell and Krivit pitch it at their lay audiences. And the last time I checked, no theoretical physicists of any stripe were citing WL, even though it would be breakthrough physics if it were right. Even among LENR advocates, the theoretical physicists like Hagelstein don't give it much respect. this was only an internal workshop. It was most likely background for others who might be interested in helping. It most certainly was NOT a full description of all the LENR work that they have done. How the hell do you know what data they have or don’t have? What experiments they’ve done or not done? It's true. It's possible they have evidence that he did not present. They might have done an experiment where gamma rays that otherwise go right through a nickel powder, are blocked when it's heated in an atmosphere of hydrogen under pressure. Or other experiments that make WL more believable. But if he's trying to attract helpers, wouldn't it make more sense to present evidence like that? The presentation looks pretty similar to the one he gave in 2009. No indication of progress at all. But again, maybe he's got a reason for hiding it. Maybe, but I doubt it. Anyway, based on what's available, I remain skeptical.
Re: [Vo]:Re: Krivit article on NASA Forum
On Mon, Dec 5, 2011 at 11:18 AM, Mary Yugo maryyu...@gmail.com wrote: So Steorn were not true scammers? No, just stupid. And usually drunk. T
Re: [Vo]:Re: Krivit article on NASA Forum
On Mon, Dec 5, 2011 at 9:50 AM, Terry Blanton hohlr...@gmail.com wrote: On Mon, Dec 5, 2011 at 11:29 AM, Mary Yugo maryyu...@gmail.com wrote: Believers seem to have the fundamental problem that they don't differentiate between claims and facts or evidence and they don't require independent testing before they accept things they like to hear. Are you calling me a believer? Dem's fightin' words madam and I don't care if you *are* a lady, I'll call you out of the Dimebox Saloon at high noon! But first, let's have a drink! So Steorn were not true scammers? No, just stupid. And usually drunk. Steorn scammed 21 million Euros from investors, some of whom were Irish farmers. It's not a joke. Not to them, I'm sure. Sean has been living off of that for six years now. So have accomplices. Sean (Steorn's CEO) isn't stupid. In my opinion, he's an accomplished crook and a sociopath. I suspect in the US he'd be in prison or at least heavily sanctioned somehow but in Ireland, security law is more lax. That's just a guess-- I don't know it for a fact. What I know for a fact is that after all the years and all the forum interchanges and all the scientists who attended the demonstration failure at Kinetica and the aftersession of it, it's impossible that Sean did not know he was scamming. How long does it take to verify that a Minato wheel doesn't work?
Re: [Vo]:Re: Krivit article on NASA Forum
On Mon, Dec 5, 2011 at 11:18 AM, Mary Yugo maryyu...@gmail.com wrote: So Steorn were not true scammers? No, just stupid. And usually drunk. What is it so far ~16 million? Not bad for a bunch of stupid drunks.
Re: [Vo]:Re: Krivit article on NASA Forum
On Mon, Dec 5, 2011 at 9:58 AM, Vorl Bek vorl@antichef.com wrote: On Mon, Dec 5, 2011 at 11:18 AM, Mary Yugo maryyu...@gmail.com wrote: So Steorn were not true scammers? No, just stupid. And usually drunk. What is it so far ~16 million? Not bad for a bunch of stupid drunks. It's more than 21 million Euros and what's truly astounding is that fairly recently, someone made an *additional* investment of appx 500,000 Euros in return for a very tiny share of the company. At the time, Sean was relieved as CEO (if I remember right) but remained in all his other company functions including, I think, chairman of the board. Someone with the pseudonym of ping follows the corporate filings and reports back on the Moletrap forum about these things. My report may not be quite accurate but does reflect the trend of happenings with them-- I don't follow it as carefully as does ping. His full sign on name is ping1400 if you care to search for his stuff on Moletrap. Steorn shares spreadsheet per ping: https://spreadsheets.google.com/pub?key=pwtWM-p3XIKyaGg6no6xkbg
Re: [Vo]:Re: Krivit article on NASA Forum
On 11-12-05 12:50 PM, Terry Blanton wrote: On Mon, Dec 5, 2011 at 11:29 AM, Mary Yugomaryyu...@gmail.com wrote: Believers seem to have the fundamental problem that they don't differentiate between claims and facts or evidence and they don't require independent testing before they accept things they like to hear. Are you calling me a believer? Dem's fightin' words madam and I don't care if you *are* a lady, She walks like a woman and talks like a man... I'll call you out of the Dimebox Saloon at high noon! But first, let's have a drink! Some club in Soho might be more appropriate than the Dimebox. Dunno how they feel about girls like that in the 'Box. BTW as to Steorn, the guy in the Perpetual Motion Machine Winder tee shirt kind of puts the lie to any claim that Steorn didn't et al didn't know exactly what they were doing. IMO, at any rate. But I've always been *'way* more skeptical (and cynical) than you, Terry...
RE: [Vo]:LENR Presentation by Joseph Zawodny, NASA Langley Research Center Edit
Hi Axil, Gee, I don't even remember whether I posted that one or not, but what's important is that there is plenty of evidence that extraordinary CONDITIONS frequently produce results that don't make sense. Nice to know that someone has seen my FYI postings to be potentially useful. Why did I post that particular article??? When I read thru the latest science headlines, I just get a feeling that certain ones have some importance beyond the obvious. Is it 'intuition'? Not sure about intuition. some ascribe to it some kind of 'magical' qualities. I'm think more along the lines that the subconscious mind is much more aware of things and 'sees' the connections which the conscious mind does not. thus, the light bulb going on seems magical to the conscious mind, but is perfectly clear why to the unconscious mind. -m From: Axil Axil [mailto:janap...@gmail.com] Sent: Monday, December 05, 2011 9:31 AM To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: [Vo]:LENR Presentation by Joseph Zawodny, NASA Langley Research Center Edit Mark Iverson-ZeroPoint posted a study on Rydberg matter a few weeks ago which stated that this special form of exotic hydrogen (alkali matter) can amplify quantum mechanical properties of atoms by some 11 orders of magnitude; that is 10 to the 11th power. The Coulomb barrier cannot protect the nucleus of the atom from proton intrusion when exposed to such a huge and powerful masking force. On Mon, Dec 5, 2011 at 10:52 AM, Joshua Cude joshua.c...@gmail.com wrote: On Mon, Dec 5, 2011 at 2:17 AM, Mark Iverson-ZeroPoint zeropo...@charter.net wrote: JC wrote: Say what? That's just gibberish. I seriously doubt that Zawodny has any idea what that sentence means, if it means anything at all. A physical effect is allowed by a breakdown in a mathematical approximation? What that sentence does is make people's eyes glaze over, and think it sounds sophisticated enough that it must be true. That certainly is one possibility. but it's just as plausible that your and MY's eyes glaze over because you don't have enough in-depth knowledge of the relevant physics to fully understand what's being proposed. But my failure to understand something does not make it any more plausible to me. Someone could come along and claim to have a theory that explains perpetual motion machines, but I wouldn't believe it just because he could string a bunch of sophisticated buzz-words together into an incomprehensible sentence. You need 780 keV at a single atomic site to induce electron capture by a proton. This is allegedly induced by heating the lattice. So, random atomic motion representing a fraction of an eV per atom is somehow supposed to be concentrated by a factor of much more than a million by some resonant phenomenon. No amount of jargon makes that plausible. WL present all sorts of equations to justify the idea, but they don't actually calculate a reaction rate for a given hydrogen loading in Pd or Ni. People are skeptical of cold fusion because of the Coulomb barrier. The big selling point about the WLT is that it is supposed to be more plausible because it avoids the Coulomb barrier. The problem is it introduces a much bigger energy barrier. So then, the same skeptics should be more skeptical of WLT, not less skeptical. Why should telling people they are not sophisticated enough to understand the mechanism be any more effective for the WLT than for breaching the Coulomb barrier? It's another matter to pitch it at theoretical physicists, but people like Bushnell and Krivit pitch it at their lay audiences. And the last time I checked, no theoretical physicists of any stripe were citing WL, even though it would be breakthrough physics if it were right. Even among LENR advocates, the theoretical physicists like Hagelstein don't give it much respect. this was only an internal workshop. It was most likely background for others who might be interested in helping. It most certainly was NOT a full description of all the LENR work that they have done. How the hell do you know what data they have or don't have? What experiments they've done or not done? It's true. It's possible they have evidence that he did not present. They might have done an experiment where gamma rays that otherwise go right through a nickel powder, are blocked when it's heated in an atmosphere of hydrogen under pressure. Or other experiments that make WL more believable. But if he's trying to attract helpers, wouldn't it make more sense to present evidence like that? The presentation looks pretty similar to the one he gave in 2009. No indication of progress at all. But again, maybe he's got a reason for hiding it. Maybe, but I doubt it. Anyway, based on what's available, I remain skeptical.
Re: [Vo]:Re: Krivit article on NASA Forum
On Mon, Dec 5, 2011 at 10:14 AM, Stephen A. Lawrence sa...@pobox.comwrote: On 11-12-05 12:50 PM, Terry Blanton wrote: On Mon, Dec 5, 2011 at 11:29 AM, Mary Yugomaryyu...@gmail.com wrote: Believers seem to have the fundamental problem that they don't differentiate between claims and facts or evidence and they don't require independent testing before they accept things they like to hear. Are you calling me a believer? Dem's fightin' words madam and I don't care if you *are* a lady, She walks like a woman and talks like a man... Perhaps you have never met the diminutive feminine US Air Force officer I encountered recently at an Air Show. She was captain in command of a C-17 and was conducting the tours of the aircraft. She doesn't talk like a man unless maybe to ATC. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boeing_C-17_Globemaster_III
Re: [Vo]:Re: Krivit article on NASA Forum
On Mon, Dec 5, 2011 at 10:14 AM, Stephen A. Lawrence sa...@pobox.comwrote: On 11-12-05 12:50 PM, Terry Blanton wrote: On Mon, Dec 5, 2011 at 11:29 AM, Mary Yugomaryyu...@gmail.com wrote: Believers seem to have the fundamental problem that they don't differentiate between claims and facts or evidence and they don't require independent testing before they accept things they like to hear. Are you calling me a believer? Dem's fightin' words madam and I don't care if you *are* a lady, She walks like a woman and talks like a man... Here are some females who walk and talk like women but accomplished a great deal in what may be mostly a man's world. http://www.patricksaviation.com/forums/thread.php?t=1283p=46 And I'm pretty sure this is the woman I mentioned previously meeting and who is a C17 pilot. http://www.northwestmilitary.com/news/articles/2010/05/northwest-military-ranger-newspaper-mcchord-airlifter-cassandra-fortin-female-c-17-pilot-4th-airlift/
Re: [Vo]:LENR Presentation by Joseph Zawodny, NASA Langley Research Center Edit
So sorry, I should have included a reference to that paper for the convenience of Mr. Cude. http://physics.aps.org/pdf/10.1103/PhysRevA.84.031402.pdf Best regards, Axil On Mon, Dec 5, 2011 at 1:16 PM, Mark Iverson-ZeroPoint zeropo...@charter.net wrote: Hi Axil, ** ** Gee, I don’t even remember whether I posted that one or not, but what’s important is that there is plenty of evidence that extraordinary CONDITIONS frequently produce results that don’t make sense. Nice to know that someone has seen my FYI postings to be potentially useful… Why did I post that particular article??? When I read thru the latest science headlines, I just get a feeling that certain ones have some importance beyond the obvious. Is it ‘intuition’? Not sure about intuition… some ascribe to it some kind of ‘magical’ qualities… I’m think more along the lines that the subconscious mind is much more aware of things and ‘sees’ the connections which the conscious mind does not… thus, the light bulb going on seems magical to the conscious mind, but is perfectly clear why to the unconscious mind. ** ** -m ** ** *From:* Axil Axil [mailto:janap...@gmail.com] *Sent:* Monday, December 05, 2011 9:31 AM *To:* vortex-l@eskimo.com *Subject:* Re: [Vo]:LENR Presentation by Joseph Zawodny, NASA Langley Research Center Edit ** ** ** ** Mark Iverson-ZeroPoint posted a study on Rydberg matter a few weeks ago which stated that this special form of exotic hydrogen (alkali matter) can amplify quantum mechanical properties of atoms by some 11 orders of magnitude; that is 10 to the 11th power. The Coulomb barrier cannot protect the nucleus of the atom from proton intrusion when exposed to such a huge and powerful masking force. ** ** On Mon, Dec 5, 2011 at 10:52 AM, Joshua Cude joshua.c...@gmail.com wrote: ** ** On Mon, Dec 5, 2011 at 2:17 AM, Mark Iverson-ZeroPoint zeropo...@charter.net wrote: JC wrote: “Say what? That's just gibberish. I seriously doubt that Zawodny has any idea what that sentence means, if it means anything at all. A physical effect is allowed by a breakdown in a mathematical approximation? What that sentence does is make people's eyes glaze over, and think it sounds sophisticated enough that it must be true.” That certainly is one possibility… but it’s just as plausible that your and MY’s eyes glaze over because you don’t have enough in-depth knowledge of the relevant physics to fully understand what’s being proposed. ** ** ** ** But my failure to understand something does not make it any more plausible to me. Someone could come along and claim to have a theory that explains perpetual motion machines, but I wouldn't believe it just because he could string a bunch of sophisticated buzz-words together into an incomprehensible sentence. ** ** You need 780 keV at a single atomic site to induce electron capture by a proton. This is allegedly induced by heating the lattice. So, random atomic motion representing a fraction of an eV per atom is somehow supposed to be concentrated by a factor of much more than a million by some resonant phenomenon. No amount of jargon makes that plausible. WL present all sorts of equations to justify the idea, but they don't actually calculate a reaction rate for a given hydrogen loading in Pd or Ni. ** ** People are skeptical of cold fusion because of the Coulomb barrier. The big selling point about the WLT is that it is supposed to be more plausible because it avoids the Coulomb barrier. The problem is it introduces a much bigger energy barrier. So then, the same skeptics should be more skeptical of WLT, not less skeptical. Why should telling people they are not sophisticated enough to understand the mechanism be any more effective for the WLT than for breaching the Coulomb barrier? ** ** It's another matter to pitch it at theoretical physicists, but people like Bushnell and Krivit pitch it at their lay audiences. And the last time I checked, no theoretical physicists of any stripe were citing WL, even though it would be breakthrough physics if it were right. Even among LENR advocates, the theoretical physicists like Hagelstein don't give it much respect. ** ** this was only an internal workshop. It was most likely background for others who might be interested in helping. It most certainly was NOT a full description of all the LENR work that they have done. How the hell do you know what data they have or don’t have? What experiments they’ve done or not done? ** ** It's true. It's possible they have evidence that he did not present. They might have done an experiment where gamma rays that otherwise go right through a nickel powder, are blocked when it's heated in an atmosphere of hydrogen under pressure. Or other experiments that make WL more believable. But if he's trying to attract helpers, wouldn't
Re: [Vo]:Padua University not Siena made the analysis
On Mon, Dec 5, 2011 at 11:10 AM, Joshua Cude joshua.c...@gmail.com wrote: Right. Anything can be explained that way... Thank God you weren't there when they came up with quantum theory. Maybe with new physics, but with old physics, the EM fields Rossi used do not control nuclear reactions. What do you know about the EM fields Rossi used? Are these described somewhere? An X-ray tube produces directional photons using EM fields. You cannot a priori assume spherical symmetry about an unknown system that is known to be non spherically symmetrical. As usual, you are making lots of implicit assumptions to debunk something we don't have much information about. It's OK to complain about lack of information, but it's not enough to debunk. But let us know if you find actual contradictions in the reported data. And if true, it wouldn't be hard to get evidence for it. Evidence that might help to vindicate Rossi. But then, he's trying to avoid vindication; too much competition. That's another debate. According to Nelson's slides, the gammas are in the 50 - 200 keV range and are thermalized. Nelson didn't show data to support that. It was just wild speculation, and the range was probably chosen because Villa's cutoff was 200 keV. How do you know it's just wild speculation? The slide doesn't say My guess: 50 - 200 keV. Maybe you were at the LENR Workshop and asked him? Or is this your resonant mind-reading ability at work? And if he's randomly speculating, why do you think he put a lower threshold of 50 keV? Right. But there are ways to detect photons between 50 and 200 keV. And NASA could probably avail themselves of the necessary technology. But they didn't show evidence of 50 - 200 keV gammas. Neither has Rossi. And neither did he suggest any reactions that might produce such low energy gammas. Rossi is not a physicist and has no business suggesting reactions. That's why he's contracting to University of Bologna for the theoretical research. And the sort of reactions that WL predict would produce much higher energy gammas. Therefore, if Rossi's device works, then WL is wrong or doesn't apply to it. And the one slide he showed with a gamma spectrum from Piantelli showed a 750 keV gamma. (1) This is Piantelli. Rossi developed his own thing with Focardi. It's something different, so at this level of knowledge, spectra don't need to match a priori. Also, aren't they using a different catalyst? Maybe the high-energy photons come from the catalyst. (That's my random speculation.) (2) If you read the chronology of Piantelli's work in the same document, you'll see that Piantelli didn't always get radiation when he got excess heat. (3) You cannot exclude a small amount of energetic gammas being produced. So you could get most of the heat from 200 keV photons, plus the occasional 750 keV photon. Remember that guy who measured a gamma spike while Rossi was adjusting a reactor in the other room? -- Berke Durak
[Vo]:Scientist [aka: Rossi] Makes Pitch for Massachusetts Cold Fusion Plant
From Live Science: TITLE Scientist Makes Pitch for Massachusetts Cold Fusion Plant http://www.livescience.com/17310-scientist-pitch-massachusetts-cold-fusion-plant.html Mostly harmless The energizer bunny seems to keep on going and going. Regards Steven Vincent Johnson www.OrionWorks.com www.zazzle.com/orionworks
Re: [Vo]:LENR Presentation by Joseph Zawodny, NASA Langley Research Center Edit
It is clearly demonstrable that there exist mechanisms (of unknown type) in room temperature condensed matter to create at least 10's of keV, check out the rather fascinating following video: http://www.disclose.tv/action/viewvideo/10588/X_Rays_from_Sellotape/ On 5 December 2011 15:52, Joshua Cude joshua.c...@gmail.com wrote: On Mon, Dec 5, 2011 at 2:17 AM, Mark Iverson-ZeroPoint zeropo...@charter.net wrote: JC wrote: “Say what? That's just gibberish. I seriously doubt that Zawodny has any idea what that sentence means, if it means anything at all. A physical effect is allowed by a breakdown in a mathematical approximation? What that sentence does is make people's eyes glaze over, and think it sounds sophisticated enough that it must be true.” ** ** That certainly is one possibility… but it’s just as plausible that your and MY’s eyes glaze over because you don’t have enough in-depth knowledge of the relevant physics to fully understand what’s being proposed. But my failure to understand something does not make it any more plausible to me. Someone could come along and claim to have a theory that explains perpetual motion machines, but I wouldn't believe it just because he could string a bunch of sophisticated buzz-words together into an incomprehensible sentence. You need 780 keV at a single atomic site to induce electron capture by a proton. This is allegedly induced by heating the lattice. So, random atomic motion representing a fraction of an eV per atom is somehow supposed to be concentrated by a factor of much more than a million by some resonant phenomenon. No amount of jargon makes that plausible. WL present all sorts of equations to justify the idea, but they don't actually calculate a reaction rate for a given hydrogen loading in Pd or Ni. People are skeptical of cold fusion because of the Coulomb barrier. The big selling point about the WLT is that it is supposed to be more plausible because it avoids the Coulomb barrier. The problem is it introduces a much bigger energy barrier. So then, the same skeptics should be more skeptical of WLT, not less skeptical. Why should telling people they are not sophisticated enough to understand the mechanism be any more effective for the WLT than for breaching the Coulomb barrier? It's another matter to pitch it at theoretical physicists, but people like Bushnell and Krivit pitch it at their lay audiences. And the last time I checked, no theoretical physicists of any stripe were citing WL, even though it would be breakthrough physics if it were right. Even among LENR advocates, the theoretical physicists like Hagelstein don't give it much respect. this was only an internal workshop. It was most likely background for others who might be interested in helping. It most certainly was NOT a full description of all the LENR work that they have done. How the hell do you know what data they have or don’t have? What experiments they’ve done or not done? It's true. It's possible they have evidence that he did not present. They might have done an experiment where gamma rays that otherwise go right through a nickel powder, are blocked when it's heated in an atmosphere of hydrogen under pressure. Or other experiments that make WL more believable. But if he's trying to attract helpers, wouldn't it make more sense to present evidence like that? The presentation looks pretty similar to the one he gave in 2009. No indication of progress at all. But again, maybe he's got a reason for hiding it. Maybe, but I doubt it. Anyway, based on what's available, I remain skeptical.
Re: [Vo]:Padua University not Siena made the analysis
On Mon, Dec 5, 2011 at 10:46 AM, Berke Durak berke.du...@gmail.com wrote: On Mon, Dec 5, 2011 at 11:10 AM, Joshua Cude joshua.c...@gmail.com wrote: Right. Anything can be explained that way... Thank God you weren't there when they came up with quantum theory. Cude could not have impeded much less stopped quantum theory. Unlike Rossi's story, decent experiments were independently performed and reported. Maybe with new physics, but with old physics, the EM fields Rossi used do not control nuclear reactions. What do you know about the EM fields Rossi used? Are these described somewhere? An X-ray tube produces directional photons using EM fields. You cannot a priori assume spherical symmetry about an unknown system that is known to be non spherically symmetrical. As usual, you are making lots of implicit assumptions to debunk something we don't have much information about. It's OK to complain about lack of information, but it's not enough to debunk. But let us know if you find actual contradictions in the reported data. Debunking is important -- unless you like bunk. And debunkers rarely if ever will meddle about experiments which are properly performed and replicated independently. They are interested mostly in extravagant claims without proper proof. Fortunately, there are always plenty enough of those to stop even the most ardent debunker from getting bored. Just see Sterling Allan's free energy cell phone recently for an example. And his web site is a fertile source of bunk all the time. So is Craig Brown's Free Energy Truth blog. Remember that guy who measured a gamma spike while Rossi was adjusting a reactor in the other room? I don't. Is there a link or citation? (thanks)
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
Re: [Vo]:LENR Presentation by Joseph Zawodny, NASA Langley Research Center Edit
Am 05.12.2011 19:50, schrieb Robert Lynn: It is clearly demonstrable that there exist mechanisms (of unknown type) in room temperature condensed matter to create at least 10's of keV, check out the rather fascinating following video: http://www.disclose.tv/action/viewvideo/10588/X_Rays_from_Sellotape/ They should use glue made out of deuteriumcarbon, instead of hydrogencarbon and see if they get neutrons ;-)
[Vo]: ECAT Triggered by Cosmic Rays?
It is apparent that a lot of energy is required to initiate the nuclear reaction in ECAT type devices. This problem is always a sticking point for the skeptical point of view and certainly makes the process seem less likely to most of us in the other camp. I proposed the possibility of cosmic rays acting as the trigger for the reactions since they are known to be very energetic and always present. If you think about explosives in general, it is evident that they could in theory self explode under the right circumstances. Nitroglycerin comes immediately to mind when I think of a really nasty substance to play with. A drop of this material hitting a surface from a short fall will explode violently. This is an example of a triggered explosion which must have interesting characteristics in order to occur. Plain old fashioned black gunpowder is another example of a triggered explosive material that is quite stable under normal circumstances. You can place a match onto a small pile of the powder and it will just lay there and burn for a while until the entire mass of material erupts rapidly with a bright flash. The initiation process for these two materials must depend upon the geometry and energy release characteristics. I am not an expert on explosives but have given consideration to the process that I assume leads to a mass explosive event. In the case of the gunpowder, I consider the reaction to be started by the application of heat energy to a small region of the material. The heat energy is sufficient to cause a tiny portion of the powder to ignite and release additional heat. This relatively large heat energy must escape the small volume through the surface area surrounding it. If the burn is to continue, then the heat escaping the initial volume must be sufficient to ignite more material at the surface to continue the process. If there is insufficient heat to ignite the new material then the burn would die out and there would be no explosion. This model that I have envisioned would tend to suggest that there would be a minimum volume of initial burning material required in order to achieve an explosive event. Heat is generated throughout the volume while it escapes through the surface area. This is where the story might get interesting. Chemical energy released by burning of a material such as black powder is many thousands if not millions of times less than that released by a fusion reaction and I would expect the differences to show up clearly. One of the main differences I would expect is for the initiated volume to be many times smaller in the case of fusion than that seen with chemical reactions. Also, the energy required to initiate a fusion reaction could be concentrated into the region occupied by the nickel atom and the adjacent hydrogen nuclei and might be available in the form of cosmic ray interactions. I suspect that we all would agree that there is sufficient energy contained within a cosmic ray to overcome the coulomb repulsion barrier. If the fusion of a nickel atom and a hydrogen nucleus is possible as a result of the interaction of a cosmic ray, then it seems that we have achieved a trigger that might result in additional reactions if sufficient energy is released. The time domain release nature of the induced energy as well as the form it takes could be the reason for continued reactions. Most of the information available suggests that heat is the major form of energy outputted during the LENR events and that this is released after a short delay period instead of instantaneously after the proton is acquired. This delay is fortunate; otherwise an explosion of the entire structure might occur. The pictures of damage to electrodes by pitting suggest that the fusion reaction once initiated prorogates fairly rapidly throughout a significant amount of material before being quenched. There is no need for an instantaneous energy release, but instead it needs to be fast enough to result in metal melting or vaporization that is sufficient to expel material. The hydrogen loading could come into play by being subject to a threshold amount that does not allow adequate heat generation and propagation unless satisfied. I suggest that a trigger mechanism in the form of cosmic rays is available which can initiate a limited number of fusion reactions. The question is whether or not these reactions can propagate within the material to generate a substantial effect. Do we observe hot spots of activity occurring within the nickel that can pinpoint any such behavior? Dave
Re: [Vo]:Nichenergy-sponsored workshop on LENR?
On Mon, Dec 5, 2011 at 10:57 AM, Peter Gluck peter.gl...@gmail.com wrote: 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 Please. It was just a silly joke about the Italian meeting schedule. They get coffee when they get up, I presume, and then again in mid morning and mid afternoon and they have a late lunch inbetween. It's very Italian, I would guess.
RE: EXTERNAL: RE: [Vo]:LENR Presentation by Joseph Zawodny, NASA Langley Research Center Edit
JC, IMHO the resonance as mentioned by Mark, and the Rydberg matter as mentioned by Axil, are both involved in supplying this million fold energy gain you require but are not the source. I do like that you referred to the random atomic motion because it is actually just that chaotic motion of hydrogen gas when confined inside the Ni powder that accumulates your energy in what may be our first glimpse of a Heisenberg Uncertainty trap. Both Mill's skeletal catalyst and Rossi's nano powder form geometries that displace larger virtual particles which lowers the total energy density of space time in these suppression regions. Catalytic action only occurs where there are openings or changes in these geometries which is why these geometries are so critical and easily degraded. An ideal Casimir cavity has a rather steady energy density except near the slab edges and therefore very little catalytic action, but, if you were to corrugate the boundaries so the energy density between them varies you would have a synthetic catalyst [like the Haisch - Moddel prototype]. This means much care must be taken to maintain rough grainy boundaries as the working environment but still need to provide rapid relative motion of the hydrogen to the boundaries, This is why Mark focused on resonance which instead of a direct current stream of hydrogen circulation through the bulk powder equates to an alternating stream of the hydrogen sloshing back and forth through the powder. [a static fill as Jones Beene refers to it as opposed to a messy external path and pump assembly. H2 recombination has a high energy release and my posit remains that existing heat and vigorous catalytic action can discount the energy needed to disassociate the newly formed molecule at over unity. This requires a careful balance of temp near disassociation, an agitator like Rossi's RF to move the hydrogen and heat extraction to protect the geometry and cool the hydrogen back into recombination in an endless cycle. Axil's Rydberg hydrogen and my own inverse Rydberg hydrogen are born from the environment. Jan Naudts said the hydrino was relativistic but didn't say how which led me to interpret Casimir effect as relativistic. The environment makes the hydrogen appear relativistic without the need for speed - more of a segregation where regions of reduced density form inverse Rydberg matter while balancing regions of increased density form Rydberg matter. See http://www.mail-archive.com/vortex-l@eskimo.com/msg58001.html IOW a kind of maxwellian demon based on change in vacuum energy density that discounts the disassociation threshold of dihydrinos but allows hydrino motion unopposed. Fran From: Mark Iverson-ZeroPoint [mailto:zeropo...@charter.net] Sent: Monday, December 05, 2011 11:58 AM To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: EXTERNAL: RE: [Vo]:LENR Presentation by Joseph Zawodny, NASA Langley Research Center Edit Joshua wrote: So, random atomic motion representing a fraction of an eV per atom is somehow supposed to be concentrated by a factor of much more than a million by some resonant phenomenon. ABSOLUTELY POSSIBLE. You are reasoning from the physics of brute force, which is all that nuclear physicists know. The physics of resonance can achieve the extreme energy levels required with very small, but properly timed/oriented, inputs. Tesla generated electrical discharges over 130 feet long when in Colorado Springs in 1899. That represents many 10s of millions of volts when his primary coil was operating at some very small fraction of that. He had VERY crude materials to work with and very limited electrical equipment (much of which he had to build). Despite the primitive resources, he was able to generate the EXTREME voltages and currents BECAUSE OF RESONANCE. Ever hear of the Tacoma Narrows Bridge? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j-zczJXSxnw For most, theory is a transparent box... those inside don't know they're inside, or that there's even an outside! -Mark
RE: [Vo]:LENR Presentation by Joseph Zawodny, NASA Langley Research Center Edit
I wholeheartedly disagree with your statement, Resonance is very much a part of brute force physics. I think I need to explain resonance to you. Resonance is an interesting phenomenon where SMALL INputs of force or energy into a system results in VERY LARGE OUTputs. There is nothing resonant about using EXTREMELY powerful magnets cooled with liquid helium to accelerate atomic particles to EXTREMELY hi velocities and smashing them head-on into each other. The amount of energy INTO the system is EXTREME and the energy out is paltry. The situation there is opposite the definition of resonance. It's more akin to breaking a wine glass with a 12,000 lb wrecking ball, which is not resonance. This is an odd instance of how my 'intuition' leads me to what I seek/need. After reading your reply, I did some paying work, and then began doing some web browsing and reading other Vortex postings, and after ~30 mins, I ended up at the CMNS website; have no idea why I ended up there. In the first document I opened up, which was the latest online issue of their journal, I came across the following article by Hagelstein, which I think is most relevant to the issue of resonant atomic/nuclear processes. Note his comment, When we augment the spin-boson model with loss, we see that the coherent energy exchange process improves dramatically [10]. In perturbation theory we see that this comes about through the removal of destructive interference, Coherent Energy Exchange in the Strong Coupling Limit of the Lossy Spin-Boson Model http://www.iscmns.org/CMNS/publications.htm The following lengthy excerpt is from Vol. 5, --- Hence, experiment suggests that the energy is probably nuclear in origin, and that perhaps deuterons are somehow reacting to make 4He. The big problem with such a statement is that there are no previous examples in nuclear physics of nuclear reactions making energy without commensurate energetic particles [7]. So, whatever process that is responsible for the effect is one that hasn't been seen before. There are no previous relevant models in the nuclear physics or condensed matter physics literature, and most scientists believe the literature that does exist rules out any possibility of such an effect. This situation would change radically if there were a known mechanism which could take a large nuclear scale MeV quantum and convert it efficiently into a large number of optical phonons. Such a scenario would be consistent with recent two-laser experiments [8,9], where two weak lasers incident on the cathode surface initiate an excess heat event when the beat frequency is matched to zero-group velocity point of the optical phonons, and the excess heat persists after the lasers are turned off. The excess heat effect initiated with a single laser does not persist. The picture which has been proposed to account for this is one in which the two lasers provide an initial excitation of the optical phonon modes which the new process requires; then, when the lasers are turned off, the new process channels energy into the same modes which sustains the effect. To make progress given such a picture, we need to understand the conditions under which a large nuclear energy quantum can be converted into a large number of optical phonons. Once again, there is no precedent for this; however, it does seem to be what is going on in these experiments, and this motivates us to explore theoretical models which exhibit such an effect. Coherent energy exchange as a physical effect under conditions where a large quantum is divided into many smaller quantum is known in NMR and in atomic physics; it is predicted in the spin-boson model. However, the effect in the spin-boson model is weak, and we need a much stronger version of it to make progress with the excess heat effect in the Fleischmann-Pons effect. When we augment the spin-boson model with loss, we see that the coherent energy exchange process improves dramatically [10]. In perturbation theory we see that this comes about through the removal of destructive interference, which drastically hinders the effect in the basic spin-boson model. In a set of recent papers [10-13], we have been discussing the model, and building up tools and results to try to understand coherent energy exchange when the coupling is stronger and when more quanta are exchanged. In the preceding paper [13], we introduced the local approximation for the lossy spin-boson model, which provides us with a powerful tool with which to address the strong coupling regime. In this work, we continue the analysis by first introducing a numerical algorithm which allows us to obtain eigen- functions, self-energies, and indirect coupling matrix elements in the strong coupling regime. As will be discussed, once we began assembling the results from systematic calculations we noticed that the system appeared to obey scaling laws in the
RE: [Vo]:LENR Presentation by Joseph Zawodny, NASA Langley Research Center Edit
Thx for taking time to post that reference Axil. I'm visually oriented, so some of the charts do look familiar. -m From: Axil Axil [mailto:janap...@gmail.com] Sent: Monday, December 05, 2011 10:32 AM To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: [Vo]:LENR Presentation by Joseph Zawodny, NASA Langley Research Center Edit So sorry, I should have included a reference to that paper for the convenience of Mr. Cude. http://physics.aps.org/pdf/10.1103/PhysRevA.84.031402.pdf Best regards, Axil snip
Re: [Vo]:Re: Krivit article on NASA Forum
(sorry this was my first post here, should've sent it to vortex address) Charly: What I fail to understand is how Defkalion fits in the scam theory ? Rossi definitely has the profile, but assuming it's a scam is Defkalion part of it as well ? As accomplice or rival scammers ? It seems a little bit far fetched to me, but maybe you have a good explanation ? Mary Yugo: My suggestion is that Defkalion believed Rossi, was originally legitimate, secured investments, and prepared to make machines. I suspect that they took Rossi specifications and designed and perhaps built some devices (Hyperions) using electrical heaters to simulate the active core. I further think they never got an active core because Rossi defrauded them. That would explain why they refused to pay him back last June. I am further speculating that they are now continuing as a possible scam, maybe hoping that someone else, maybe Piantelli, will provide them with the technology they so desperately need. Of course the above is just a wild guess. Maybe Defkalion was just a part of some Rossi deceptive maneuver from the start. And I suppose there is the vanishingly minimal possibility that they are what they say they are. I don't really see how that's possible.
Re: [Vo]: ECAT Triggered by Cosmic Rays?
Could this theory explain why e-cat works only at exactly 44.50N, 11.40E ( Via dell'Elettricista, 6http://maps.google.it/maps/place?ftid=0x477e2c9d8f052653:0xbb01c2caaede9d3bq=44.503798,11.402594ved=0CA4Q-gswAAsa=Xei=XyHdTs3zLubRmAWdv_DoBwsig2=MSCvhxqFZtuv5lrCZrt8zw40138 Bologna Italy) and A.R. refuses to run tests in different location ? 2011/12/5 David Roberson dlrober...@aol.com It is apparent that a lot of energy is required to initiate the nuclear reaction in ECAT type devices. This problem is always a sticking point for the skeptical point of view and certainly makes the process seem less likely to most of us in the other camp. I proposed the possibility of cosmic rays acting as the trigger for the reactions since they are known to be very energetic and always present. If you think about explosives in general, it is evident that they could in theory self explode under the right circumstances. Nitroglycerin comes immediately to mind when I think of a really nasty substance to play with. A drop of this material hitting a surface from a short fall will explode violently. This is an example of a triggered explosion which must have interesting characteristics in order to occur. Plain old fashioned black gunpowder is another example of a triggered explosive material that is quite stable under normal circumstances. You can place a match onto a small pile of the powder and it will just lay there and burn for a while until the entire mass of material erupts rapidly with a bright flash. The initiation process for these two materials must depend upon the geometry and energy release characteristics. I am not an expert on explosives but have given consideration to the process that I assume leads to a mass explosive event. In the case of the gunpowder, I consider the reaction to be started by the application of heat energy to a small region of the material. The heat energy is sufficient to cause a tiny portion of the powder to ignite and release additional heat. This relatively large heat energy must escape the small volume through the surface area surrounding it. If the burn is to continue, then the heat escaping the initial volume must be sufficient to ignite more material at the surface to continue the process. If there is insufficient heat to ignite the new material then the burn would die out and there would be no explosion. This model that I have envisioned would tend to suggest that there would be a minimum volume of initial burning material required in order to achieve an explosive event. Heat is generated throughout the volume while it escapes through the surface area. This is where the story might get interesting. Chemical energy released by burning of a material such as black powder is many thousands if not millions of times less than that released by a fusion reaction and I would expect the differences to show up clearly. One of the main differences I would expect is for the initiated volume to be many times smaller in the case of fusion than that seen with chemical reactions. Also, the energy required to initiate a fusion reaction could be concentrated into the region occupied by the nickel atom and the adjacent hydrogen nuclei and might be available in the form of cosmic ray interactions. I suspect that we all would agree that there is sufficient energy contained within a cosmic ray to overcome the coulomb repulsion barrier. If the fusion of a nickel atom and a hydrogen nucleus is possible as a result of the interaction of a cosmic ray, then it seems that we have achieved a trigger that might result in additional reactions if sufficient energy is released. The time domain release nature of the induced energy as well as the form it takes could be the reason for continued reactions. Most of the information available suggests that heat is the major form of energy outputted during the LENR events and that this is released after a short delay period instead of instantaneously after the proton is acquired. This delay is fortunate; otherwise an explosion of the entire structure might occur. The pictures of damage to electrodes by pitting suggest that the fusion reaction once initiated prorogates fairly rapidly throughout a significant amount of material before being quenched. There is no need for an instantaneous energy release, but instead it needs to be fast enough to result in metal melting or vaporization that is sufficient to expel material. The hydrogen loading could come into play by being subject to a threshold amount that does not allow adequate heat generation and propagation unless satisfied. I suggest that a trigger mechanism in the form of cosmic rays is available which can initiate a limited number of fusion reactions. The question is whether or not these reactions can propagate within the material to generate a substantial effect. Do we observe hot spots of activity occurring within the nickel that
Re: [Vo]: ECAT Triggered by Cosmic Rays?
Andrea Selva andreagiuseppe.se...@gmail.com wrote: Could this theory explain why e-cat works only at exactly 44.50N, 11.40E ( Via dell'Elettricista, 6http://maps.google.it/maps/place?ftid=0x477e2c9d8f052653:0xbb01c2caaede9d3bq=44.503798,11.402594ved=0CA4Q-gswAAsa=Xei=XyHdTs3zLubRmAWdv_DoBwsig2=MSCvhxqFZtuv5lrCZrt8zw40138 Bologna Italy) and A.R. refuses to run tests in different location ? I realize this is a joke, but to give a serious answer, the Ampenergo test shown by McKubre was in the U.S., and there have been various successful tests elsewhere, as well as failed tests in Bologna, such as the NASA one. Jokes like this are a little tiresome. Several people have looked for co-incidence between cosmic rays and cold fusion cell performance. Dave Nagel gave a paper about that, using data from Mizuno and others. There does seem to be some slight correlation. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:Re: Krivit article on NASA Forum
Horace Heffner hheff...@mtaonline.net wrote: I keep giving Rossi the benefit of the doubt. Things keep going down hill. I have to ask myself, would I buy a used car from this man? Have you just noticed that he is hard to deal with? Is this a revelation to you? I could have told you this any time in the last 18 months. I believe I have mentioned it from time to time. His behavior toward NASA was what prompted me to remark that I would not buy a toenail clipper from this man. This incident also confirms my belief that he is the world's worst con-man. He could not con candy from a baby. He could not sell water to someone dying of thirst. In a perverse way, this gives me confidence in his claims. As long as a positive test is based purely on physics rather than his personal credibility, or it is performed by others (as some tests have been) I consider it totally believable because he is no good at setting up fake demonstration or at fooling anyone. - Jed
Re: [Vo]: ECAT Triggered by Cosmic Rays?
Sorry Jed. I apologize for the quite rude joke. Couldn't resist. By the way I missed this McKubre test in US. Can you tell me more and provide some pointers ? Thanks Andrea -- Forwarded message -- From: Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com Date: 2011/12/5 Subject: Re: [Vo]: ECAT Triggered by Cosmic Rays? To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Andrea Selva andreagiuseppe.se...@gmail.com wrote: Could this theory explain why e-cat works only at exactly 44.50N, 11.40E ( Via dell'Elettricista, 6http://maps.google.it/maps/place?ftid=0x477e2c9d8f052653:0xbb01c2caaede9d3bq=44.503798,11.402594ved=0CA4Q-gswAAsa=Xei=XyHdTs3zLubRmAWdv_DoBwsig2=MSCvhxqFZtuv5lrCZrt8zw40138 Bologna Italy) and A.R. refuses to run tests in different location ? I realize this is a joke, but to give a serious answer, the Ampenergo test shown by McKubre was in the U.S., and there have been various successful tests elsewhere, as well as failed tests in Bologna, such as the NASA one. Jokes like this are a little tiresome. Several people have looked for co-incidence between cosmic rays and cold fusion cell performance. Dave Nagel gave a paper about that, using data from Mizuno and others. There does seem to be some slight correlation. - Jed
RE: [Vo]:Re: Krivit article on NASA Forum
/snip/ As long as a positive test is based purely on physics rather than his personal credibility, or it is performed by others (as some tests have been)... /snip/ What tests have been performed by others? Date: Mon, 5 Dec 2011 15:21:13 -0500 Subject: Re: [Vo]:Re: Krivit article on NASA Forum From: jedrothw...@gmail.com To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Horace Heffner hheff...@mtaonline.net wrote: I keep giving Rossi the benefit of the doubt. Things keep going down hill. I have to ask myself, would I buy a used car from this man? Have you just noticed that he is hard to deal with? Is this a revelation to you? I could have told you this any time in the last 18 months. I believe I have mentioned it from time to time. His behavior toward NASA was what prompted me to remark that I would not buy a toenail clipper from this man. This incident also confirms my belief that he is the world's worst con-man. He could not con candy from a baby. He could not sell water to someone dying of thirst. In a perverse way, this gives me confidence in his claims. As long as a positive test is based purely on physics rather than his personal credibility, or it is performed by others (as some tests have been) I consider it totally believable because he is no good at setting up fake demonstration or at fooling anyone. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:Re: Krivit article on NASA Forum
On Mon, Dec 5, 2011 at 12:21 PM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com wrote: This incident also confirms my belief that he is the world's worst con-man. He could not con candy from a baby. He could not sell water to someone dying of thirst. In a perverse way, this gives me confidence in his claims. As long as a positive test is based purely on physics rather than his personal credibility, or it is performed by others (as some tests have been) I consider it totally believable because he is no good at setting up fake demonstration or at fooling anyone. Yet people on forums and blogs keep offering to contribute or invest money despite the lack of independent verification that he has something worthwhile. He must be doing something correctly.
Re: [Vo]: ECAT Triggered by Cosmic Rays?
At 12:24 PM 12/5/2011, Andrea Selva wrote: Sorry Jed. I apologize for the quite rude joke. Couldn't resist. I still think that the eCat's neutrinos are interfering with the LHC's tachyonic neutrino experiment. Or vice-versa. Did you notice that Rossi always lines up the eCats in the same direction?
Re: [Vo]:Re: Krivit article on NASA Forum
Mary Yugo maryyu...@gmail.com wrote: Yet people on forums and blogs keep offering to contribute or invest money despite the lack of independent verification that he has something worthwhile. He must be doing something correctly. Yes indeed. He showed irrefutable proof of a nuclear reaction on several occasions. That is why people believe him, and why some organization bought his gigantic reactor. For example, he demonstrated 30 L of water that remained at boiling temperatures for four hours with no input. Despite his personality and despite all of the flaws in these test, he did this correctly. Neither you nor any other skeptic has ever given us a single viable, scientific reason to doubt these results. You have had months, and you have given us NOTHING other than blather and handwaving. You do not realize it, but you lost this debate. Conventional physics and thermodynamics are still valid. You are still wrong. - Jed
[Vo]:Re: ECAT Triggered by Cosmic Rays?
By the way I missed this McKubre test in US. Can you tell me more and provide some pointers ? I missed it too. I think that Jed’s memory is wrong. From: Andrea Selva Sent: Monday, December 05, 2011 9:24 PM To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: [Vo]: ECAT Triggered by Cosmic Rays? Sorry Jed. I apologize for the quite rude joke. Couldn't resist. By the way I missed this McKubre test in US. Can you tell me more and provide some pointers ? Thanks Andrea -- Forwarded message -- From: Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com Date: 2011/12/5 Subject: Re: [Vo]: ECAT Triggered by Cosmic Rays? To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Andrea Selva andreagiuseppe.se...@gmail.com wrote: Could this theory explain why e-cat works only at exactly 44.50N, 11.40E ( Via dell'Elettricista, 6 40138 Bologna Italy) and A.R. refuses to run tests in different location ? I realize this is a joke, but to give a serious answer, the Ampenergo test shown by McKubre was in the U.S., and there have been various successful tests elsewhere, as well as failed tests in Bologna, such as the NASA one. Jokes like this are a little tiresome. Several people have looked for co-incidence between cosmic rays and cold fusion cell performance. Dave Nagel gave a paper about that, using data from Mizuno and others. There does seem to be some slight correlation. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:How to make a 100 kV Lenard valve for deuterium fusion - idea
In reply to peter.heck...@arcor.de's message of Mon, 5 Dec 2011 08:16:53 +0100 (CET): Hi, [snip] My thought is to improve the efficiency of this process. Generate 100 keV electrons or protons in a vacuum and shoot them directly in a lossless way into a /pressurized/ deuterium /stream/. I dont aim to discover something new, I just try to improve the efficiency of this known process. Both electrons or protons could be tried by reversing the polarity or by using AC high voltage. Peter Shooting fast protons into a gas (or any other matter) doesn't produce a positive energy balance. This is because the protons lose 99.99% of their energy stripping electrons from atoms, and most of the few that do get close to a nucleus get repelled by the electrostatic force. Only a very small number of actual fusion reactions occur. In fact this is how fusion was first discovered. Regards, Robin van Spaandonk http://rvanspaa.freehostia.com/project.html
Re: [Vo]:Re: Krivit article on NASA Forum
Robert Leguillon robert.leguil...@hotmail.com wrote: /snip/ As long as a positive test is based purely on physics rather than his personal credibility, or it is performed by others (as some tests have been)... /snip/ What tests have been performed by others? Ampenergo, before they signed a contract. Mike McKubre discussed them in a recent lecture. See the lecture and slides here: http://lenr-canr.org/News.htm http://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/McKubreMCHwhathappen.pdf See p. 32. As you see this is Run II. There were several others. McKubre remarked that he knows a highly qualified person who was present. I know several, and I know of other independent tests. Some of them failed, like the NASA test. Others succeeded. As I have pointed out here before, if this machine was fake he would make it appear to work every time, on demand, especially when he has important visitors such as NASA. If he wanted to give it versimillitude perhaps he would have it fail when unimportant people come, or he would have it fail at first and then the next day start to work. That is not what has happened. In some cases it has gone for days without saying boo. That is characteristic of genuine cutting-edge prototype new technology, such as the early incandescent lights, internal combustion engines, transistors, and rockets. - Jed
Re: [Vo]: ECAT Triggered by Cosmic Rays?
It seems to me that a universal theme in “cold fusion” is a triggering mechanism that releases stored potential energy. In all cases, a “cold fusion” system is a system that is heavily coherent in a quantum mechanical(QM) sense. Potential energy builds up and is stored by these coherent atoms. When one of these coherent atoms becomes QM decoherent and leaves the QM assemblage through the action of a trigger, it releases this potential energy over the entire QM assemblage. This averaging tends to transform and lower the intensity of the energy spike over the entire assemblage to thermal levels. Such triggers can be in the form of a laser pulse, an electric spark, a high energy particle, a phonon in a metal lattice, a mechanical shock… This trigger can precipitate a cascade of potential energy conversion to kinetic energy release such as has been seen in a Mills or an Arata powder, or it could be a continuing phonon based thermalization process as has been seen in a Piantelli or Rossi system. On Mon, Dec 5, 2011 at 2:14 PM, David Roberson dlrober...@aol.com wrote: It is apparent that a lot of energy is required to initiate the nuclear reaction in ECAT type devices. This problem is always a sticking point for the skeptical point of view and certainly makes the process seem less likely to most of us in the other camp. I proposed the possibility of cosmic rays acting as the trigger for the reactions since they are known to be very energetic and always present. If you think about explosives in general, it is evident that they could in theory self explode under the right circumstances. Nitroglycerin comes immediately to mind when I think of a really nasty substance to play with. A drop of this material hitting a surface from a short fall will explode violently. This is an example of a triggered explosion which must have interesting characteristics in order to occur. Plain old fashioned black gunpowder is another example of a triggered explosive material that is quite stable under normal circumstances. You can place a match onto a small pile of the powder and it will just lay there and burn for a while until the entire mass of material erupts rapidly with a bright flash. The initiation process for these two materials must depend upon the geometry and energy release characteristics. I am not an expert on explosives but have given consideration to the process that I assume leads to a mass explosive event. In the case of the gunpowder, I consider the reaction to be started by the application of heat energy to a small region of the material. The heat energy is sufficient to cause a tiny portion of the powder to ignite and release additional heat. This relatively large heat energy must escape the small volume through the surface area surrounding it. If the burn is to continue, then the heat escaping the initial volume must be sufficient to ignite more material at the surface to continue the process. If there is insufficient heat to ignite the new material then the burn would die out and there would be no explosion. This model that I have envisioned would tend to suggest that there would be a minimum volume of initial burning material required in order to achieve an explosive event. Heat is generated throughout the volume while it escapes through the surface area. This is where the story might get interesting. Chemical energy released by burning of a material such as black powder is many thousands if not millions of times less than that released by a fusion reaction and I would expect the differences to show up clearly. One of the main differences I would expect is for the initiated volume to be many times smaller in the case of fusion than that seen with chemical reactions. Also, the energy required to initiate a fusion reaction could be concentrated into the region occupied by the nickel atom and the adjacent hydrogen nuclei and might be available in the form of cosmic ray interactions. I suspect that we all would agree that there is sufficient energy contained within a cosmic ray to overcome the coulomb repulsion barrier. If the fusion of a nickel atom and a hydrogen nucleus is possible as a result of the interaction of a cosmic ray, then it seems that we have achieved a trigger that might result in additional reactions if sufficient energy is released. The time domain release nature of the induced energy as well as the form it takes could be the reason for continued reactions. Most of the information available suggests that heat is the major form of energy outputted during the LENR events and that this is released after a short delay period instead of instantaneously after the proton is acquired. This delay is fortunate; otherwise an explosion of the entire structure might occur. The pictures of damage to electrodes by pitting suggest that the fusion reaction once initiated prorogates fairly rapidly throughout a significant amount
Re: [Vo]:Ni producer
Am 05.12.2011 21:44, schrieb mix...@bigpond.com: Hi, The (private?) Swiss company Glencore has acquired all the shares of the largest Australian Nickel producer Minara. This is not a problem. The e-cat does not use much nickel. We can extract it from Euro coins or from others. They contain 25% Nickel. SCNR, Peter
Re: [Vo]: ECAT Triggered by Cosmic Rays?
In reply to Axil Axil's message of Mon, 5 Dec 2011 15:46:07 -0500: Hi, [snip] When one of these coherent atoms becomes QM decoherent and leaves the QM assemblage through the action of a trigger, it releases this potential energy over the entire QM assemblage. Surely the energy of any one atom would be small, and if released over the entire assemblage would result in a truly minute amount being deposited with each member? Regards, Robin van Spaandonk http://rvanspaa.freehostia.com/project.html
Re: [Vo]: ECAT Triggered by Cosmic Rays?
Andrea Selva andreagiuseppe.se...@gmail.com wrote: By the way I missed this McKubre test in US. Can you tell me more and provide some pointers ? See: http://www.mail-archive.com/vortex-l%40eskimo.com/msg58130.html - Jed
RE: [Vo]:Ni producer
Whoa, ALL the shares? That is a most unusual transaction... Swiss company, eh... wanna bet they've been talking to Essen and Kulander? Looks like the LENR-energy-generation equivalent of OPEC will be in Switzerland! This is getting more and more interesting by the day... -m -Original Message- From: mix...@bigpond.com [mailto:mix...@bigpond.com] Sent: Monday, December 05, 2011 12:44 PM To: VORTEX Subject: [Vo]:Ni producer Hi, The (private?) Swiss company Glencore has acquired all the shares of the largest Australian Nickel producer Minara. Regards, Robin van Spaandonk http://rvanspaa.freehostia.com/project.html
Re: [Vo]:Ni producer
not so false. according to Rossi's E-cat figures, it would consume 25% of annual Ni production to produce the annual energy. in my opinion, according to defkalion info, the powder seems simple. the reactor and the H bottle seems the most expensive nb: assuming it works, as told. 2011/12/5 Peter Heckert peter.heck...@arcor.de This is not a problem. The e-cat does not use much nickel. We can extract it from Euro coins or from others. They contain 25% Nickel. SCNR, Peter
Re: [Vo]: ECAT Triggered by Cosmic Rays?
I personally think that the evidence points toward small regions of heat generation such as hot spots. The fantastic pictures of electrode pitting looks so much like the craters left after an explosion with their typical conical shape scream out to me that this is a localized effect. The use of small micron sized particles of nickel by Rossi also tends to point toward smaller active points. What evidence is there that the entire metallic structure is behaving in a QM assemblage other than the theories that attempt to allow the large energy requirement for reaction to accumulate in a small local? Perhaps we need to find a method that does not require that amount of cooperation. Dave -Original Message- From: Axil Axil janap...@gmail.com To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Mon, Dec 5, 2011 3:46 pm Subject: Re: [Vo]: ECAT Triggered by Cosmic Rays? It seems to me that a universal theme in “cold fusion” is a triggering mechanism that releases stored potential energy. In all cases, a “cold fusion” system is a system that is heavily coherent in a quantum mechanical(QM) sense. Potential energy builds up and is stored by these coherent atoms. When one of these coherent atoms becomes QM decoherent and leaves the QM assemblage through the action of a trigger, it releases this potential energy over the entire QM assemblage. This averaging tends to transform and lower the intensity of the energy spike over the entire assemblage to thermal levels. Such triggers can be in the form of a laser pulse, an electric spark, a high energy particle, a phonon in a metal lattice, a mechanical shock… This trigger can precipitate a cascade of potential energy conversion to kinetic energy release such as has been seen in a Mills or an Arata powder, or it could be a continuing phonon based thermalization process as has been seen in a Piantelli or Rossi system. On Mon, Dec 5, 2011 at 2:14 PM, David Roberson dlrober...@aol.com wrote: It is apparent that a lot of energy is required to initiate the nuclear reaction in ECAT type devices. This problem is always a sticking point for the skeptical point of view and certainly makes the process seem less likely to most of us in the other camp. I proposed the possibility of cosmic rays acting as the trigger for the reactions since they are known to be very energetic and always present. If you think about explosives in general, it is evident that they could in theory self explode under the right circumstances. Nitroglycerin comes immediately to mind when I think of a really nasty substance to play with. A drop of this material hitting a surface from a short fall will explode violently. This is an example of a triggered explosion which must have interesting characteristics in order to occur. Plain old fashioned black gunpowder is another example of a triggered explosive material that is quite stable under normal circumstances. You can place a match onto a small pile of the powder and it will just lay there and burn for a while until the entire mass of material erupts rapidly with a bright flash. The initiation process for these two materials must depend upon the geometry and energy release characteristics. I am not an expert on explosives but have given consideration to the process that I assume leads to a mass explosive event. In the case of the gunpowder, I consider the reaction to be started by the application of heat energy to a small region of the material. The heat energy is sufficient to cause a tiny portion of the powder to ignite and release additional heat. This relatively large heat energy must escape the small volume through the surface area surrounding it. If the burn is to continue, then the heat escaping the initial volume must be sufficient to ignite more material at the surface to continue the process. If there is insufficient heat to ignite the new material then the burn would die out and there would be no explosion. This model that I have envisioned would tend to suggest that there would be a minimum volume of initial burning material required in order to achieve an explosive event. Heat is generated throughout the volume while it escapes through the surface area. This is where the story might get interesting. Chemical energy released by burning of a material such as black powder is many thousands if not millions of times less than that released by a fusion reaction and I would expect the differences to show up clearly. One of the main differences I would expect is for the initiated volume to be many times smaller in the case of fusion than that seen with chemical reactions. Also, the energy required to initiate a fusion reaction could be concentrated into the region occupied by the nickel atom and the adjacent hydrogen nuclei and might be available in the form of cosmic ray interactions. I suspect that we all would agree that there is sufficient energy contained within a cosmic
Re: [Vo]:Ni producer
Am 05.12.2011 22:03, schrieb Alain dit le Cycliste: not so false. according to Rossi's E-cat figures, it would consume 25% of annual Ni production to produce the annual energy. in my opinion, according to defkalion info, the powder seems simple. the reactor and the H bottle seems the most expensive So far I understood, the Nickel is contaminated and the powder degrades, but most is not consumed and can be recycled. Anyway, it is possibly cheaper to get the nickel out of recycled NiMH batteries. |nb: assuming it works, as told. Yes. We have seen in another thread here, the x-ray generation of duct tape. Why cannot Rossi or other LENR researchers do such an impressive demonstration? ;-)
Re: [Vo]:Ni producer
At 01:03 PM 12/5/2011, Alain dit le Cycliste wrote: not so false. according to Rossi's E-cat figures, it would consume 25% of annual Ni production to produce the annual energy. in my opinion, according to defkalion info, the powder seems simple. the reactor and the H bottle seems the most expensive I think that with current Ni demand, only the highest grade ores are currently being mined. There are plenty of reserves at lower grades. eg http://www.orielresources.com/nickelreserves.asp
Re: [Vo]:Ni producer
not so false. according to Rossi's E-cat figures, it would consume 25% of annual Ni production to produce the annual energy. According to one of the big conspiracy sites the e-cat's core is literally a roll of US nickels (plus the catalyst).
Re: [Vo]: ECAT Triggered by Cosmic Rays?
I speculate that when a coherent proton who is a member of a large coherent ensemble of protons penetrates the nucleus of a nickel atom, this nickel atom will retain the energy of the nuclear reaction as potential energy. When a thermal phonon that propagates in the nickel lattice perturbs this atom into decoherence, the potential energy of this nuclear reaction will be released over the entire proton assemblage thereby transforming a erstwhile megavolt energy release into many kilovolt releases over the entire coherent assemblage. In heavily coherent QM systems as per Piantelli or Rossi, coherence will be immediately reestablished and other nuclear based energy producing reactions will occur and stored as potential energy. Increasing heat in the system will further increase QM decoherence and result in more potential energy transformation to kinetic energy. As in the Mills and Arata systems, with no lattice heating, no potential energy transformations to kinetic energy will occur until a trigger sets off a QM chain reaction. Regards, Axil On Mon, Dec 5, 2011 at 3:54 PM, mix...@bigpond.com wrote: In reply to Axil Axil's message of Mon, 5 Dec 2011 15:46:07 -0500: Hi, [snip] When one of these coherent atoms becomes QM decoherent and leaves the QM assemblage through the action of a trigger, it releases this potential energy over the entire QM assemblage. Surely the energy of any one atom would be small, and if released over the entire assemblage would result in a truly minute amount being deposited with each member? Regards, Robin van Spaandonk http://rvanspaa.freehostia.com/project.html
Re: [Vo]:LHC plagued by UFOs
On Dec 5, 2011, at 4:04 AM, Alain dit le Cycliste wrote: About the risk of big black hole, the CERN have accepted to start the LHC, not only because current theory say that small black hole will evaporate quickly (they don't take risk based on, even consensual, theory), but because Auger observatory have shown that we receive daily huge cosmic particle that are many billions times more heavy (above exaelectronvolt, up to10^20eV), and that the planet have survived since a few trillions years back. I think you mean millions, not trillions of years back. The difference between external cosmic rays and the LHC is that the velocity of the center of mass of the colliding objects in the LHC is near zero. Black holes with anywhere near the momentum of cosmic rays could go right through the earth and never be trapped by its gravitational field. http://www.auger.org/cosmic_rays/faq.html#energy about magnetic fields, the one at LHC are big, but there are many place on earth, where such field are created, or just a little weaker, including in MNR machines. Cosmic rays approach NMR machines at huge velocities, very near the speed of light. The center of mass of colliding particles in the LHC is zero, so the black holes from the LHC should have orders of magnitude less kinetic energy and momentum than cosmic rays. There is also some stars having huge magnetic fields that have been detected. they could tell us about the existence or nonexistence of some feared/expected effects. I heard nothing about exceptional unexpected effect observed. True, but again, the velocity of the center of mass of the colliding materials is moving in the case of magnetars etc. Also, magnetars present orders of magnitude less cross section due to their extremely small diameters (about 20 km), and by the protection their 1000 T magnetic fields provide against direct impact via cosmic ray deflection. Best regards, Horace Heffner http://www.mtaonline.net/~hheffner/
Re: [Vo]: ECAT Triggered by Cosmic Rays?
This morning, I ran across a truly classy cold fusion joke appearing in Charles Beaudette's book Excess Heat in that book's appendix: The Internet Noise Level written as a letter to Dr. I. M. Noteworthy. I was delighted to see Beaudette's association of the word noise with internet regarding cold fusion, as I had just recently been able to silence a particular noise box here to achieve a remarkable rise in the S/N ratio. Its too bad there aren't more I refuse to look through your telescope, Mr. Galileo jokes. It does not bode well for the future of classy jokes such as Beaudette's. On Mon, Dec 5, 2011 at 2:24 PM, Andrea Selva andreagiuseppe.se...@gmail.com wrote: Sorry Jed. I apologize for the quite rude joke. Couldn't resist. By the way I missed this McKubre test in US. Can you tell me more and provide some pointers ? Thanks Andrea -- Forwarded message -- From: Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com Date: 2011/12/5 Subject: Re: [Vo]: ECAT Triggered by Cosmic Rays? To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Andrea Selva andreagiuseppe.se...@gmail.com wrote: Could this theory explain why e-cat works only at exactly 44.50N, 11.40E ( Via dell'Elettricista, 6http://maps.google.it/maps/place?ftid=0x477e2c9d8f052653:0xbb01c2caaede9d3bq=44.503798,11.402594ved=0CA4Q-gswAAsa=Xei=XyHdTs3zLubRmAWdv_DoBwsig2=MSCvhxqFZtuv5lrCZrt8zw40138 Bologna Italy) and A.R. refuses to run tests in different location ? I realize this is a joke, but to give a serious answer, the Ampenergo test shown by McKubre was in the U.S., and there have been various successful tests elsewhere, as well as failed tests in Bologna, such as the NASA one. Jokes like this are a little tiresome. Several people have looked for co-incidence between cosmic rays and cold fusion cell performance. Dave Nagel gave a paper about that, using data from Mizuno and others. There does seem to be some slight correlation. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:Re: Krivit article on NASA Forum
On 11-12-05 01:23 PM, Mary Yugo wrote: On Mon, Dec 5, 2011 at 10:14 AM, Stephen A. Lawrence sa...@pobox.com mailto:sa...@pobox.com wrote: On 11-12-05 12:50 PM, Terry Blanton wrote: On Mon, Dec 5, 2011 at 11:29 AM, Mary Yugomaryyu...@gmail.com mailto:maryyu...@gmail.com wrote: Believers seem to have the fundamental problem that they don't differentiate between claims and facts or evidence and they don't require independent testing before they accept things they like to hear. Are you calling me a believer? Dem's fightin' words madam and I don't care if you *are* a lady, She walks like a woman and talks like a man... Here are some females who walk and talk like women but accomplished a great deal in what may be mostly a man's world. Eh?? Did you completely miss the reference, or what?? Sure sounds like it. Did the mention of Soho mean also mean nothing to you? I guess you really completely missed the reference. Tant pis. If you didn't insist on going under a pseudonym things like this wouldn't come up. Tant pis, encore une fois. (FWIW I'd be surprised if Terry didn't get it...)
[Vo]:Kullander Essen -have they analyzed the unused nickel powder?
According to the report of Kullander Essen Rossi has given to them a sample of unused Nickel powder and a sample of used powder. It was often said, they found only natural isotope distribution in the used powder. I could not find reports about the new powder. Rossi has multiply claimed that he has a proprietary confidential cheap method to enrich the powder with a nickel isotope and this enriched material is used as e-cat fuel. Was the unused powder analyzed and the results published? Peter
Re: [Vo]:Re: Krivit article on NASA Forum
On 11-12-05 03:45 PM, Jed Rothwell wrote: Robert Leguillon robert.leguil...@hotmail.com mailto:robert.leguil...@hotmail.com wrote: /snip/ As long as a positive test is based purely on physics rather than his personal credibility, or it is performed by others (as some tests have been)... /snip/ What tests have been performed by others? Ampenergo, before they signed a contract. Mike McKubre discussed them in a recent lecture. See the lecture and slides here: http://lenr-canr.org/News.htm http://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/McKubreMCHwhathappen.pdf See p. 32. As you see this is Run II. There were several others. McKubre remarked that he knows a highly qualified person who was present. I know several, and I know of other independent tests. Some of them failed, like the NASA test. Others succeeded. As I have pointed out here before, if this machine was fake he would make it appear to work every time, on demand, especially when he has important visitors such as NASA. Did you miss Mary's comments on this? (Of course you did; you've blocked her.) Have you read nothing of how psychics operate? Not all that Randi has written was of no value, you know. Having the equipment just happen to not work when there happens to be someone on hand who's equipped to perform what might really be a rigorous test, rather than a friendly oh-sure-that-seems-good-enough sort of test, is *not* a sign of honesty. Oh, well, it doesn't seem to have been working today, too bad, perhaps it'll work next week when you (and your nasty looking instruments) are far away... If he wanted to give it versimillitude perhaps he would have it fail when unimportant people come, The unimportant ones are most often the ones who are easy to fool. Fool enough people, even unimportant ones, and the occasions when the equipment didn't work will be viewed as the exceptions, obviously caused by some fluke condition. Then the Nasa failure becomes just bad luck rather than something conclusive. or he would have it fail at first and then the next day start to work. That is not what has happened. In some cases it has gone for days without saying boo. That is characteristic of genuine cutting-edge prototype new technology, such as the early incandescent lights, internal combustion engines, transistors, and rockets. And also characteristic of bogus claims, when someone was watching a little too closely.
Re: [Vo]:Re: Krivit article on NASA Forum
OOPS -- Sorry, Jed, you obviously have *NOT* blocked Mary, and the rest of what I said is therefore of little consequence, because you've read the arguments already. On 11-12-05 04:46 PM, Stephen A. Lawrence wrote: On 11-12-05 03:45 PM, Jed Rothwell wrote: Robert Leguillon robert.leguil...@hotmail.com mailto:robert.leguil...@hotmail.com wrote: /snip/ As long as a positive test is based purely on physics rather than his personal credibility, or it is performed by others (as some tests have been)... /snip/ What tests have been performed by others? Ampenergo, before they signed a contract. Mike McKubre discussed them in a recent lecture. See the lecture and slides here: http://lenr-canr.org/News.htm http://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/McKubreMCHwhathappen.pdf See p. 32. As you see this is Run II. There were several others. McKubre remarked that he knows a highly qualified person who was present. I know several, and I know of other independent tests. Some of them failed, like the NASA test. Others succeeded. As I have pointed out here before, if this machine was fake he would make it appear to work every time, on demand, especially when he has important visitors such as NASA. Did you miss Mary's comments on this? (Of course you did; you've blocked her.) Have you read nothing of how psychics operate? Not all that Randi has written was of no value, you know. Having the equipment just happen to not work when there happens to be someone on hand who's equipped to perform what might really be a rigorous test, rather than a friendly oh-sure-that-seems-good-enough sort of test, is *not* a sign of honesty. Oh, well, it doesn't seem to have been working today, too bad, perhaps it'll work next week when you (and your nasty looking instruments) are far away... If he wanted to give it versimillitude perhaps he would have it fail when unimportant people come, The unimportant ones are most often the ones who are easy to fool. Fool enough people, even unimportant ones, and the occasions when the equipment didn't work will be viewed as the exceptions, obviously caused by some fluke condition. Then the Nasa failure becomes just bad luck rather than something conclusive. or he would have it fail at first and then the next day start to work. That is not what has happened. In some cases it has gone for days without saying boo. That is characteristic of genuine cutting-edge prototype new technology, such as the early incandescent lights, internal combustion engines, transistors, and rockets. And also characteristic of bogus claims, when someone was watching a little too closely.
Re: [Vo]:Ni producer
This is not really news. Glencore had already owned 70% of Minara in August, 2011 and had offered to buy the whole of Minara; this is how Glencore makes money - taking over smaller mining companies and sells off the commodity. Glencore is not a private company, it had gone IPO in May and is down about 25% since it has gone public. http://quotes.wsj.com/HK/0805 On Mon, Dec 5, 2011 at 3:44 PM, mix...@bigpond.com wrote: The (private?) Swiss company Glencore has acquired all the shares of the largest Australian Nickel producer Minara.
Re: [Vo]: ECAT Triggered by Cosmic Rays?
The crystal structure of transition metal hydrides especially when oxides are involved, leads to imposition of coherent confinement of protons in the hydride crystal structure on the macro level. In some compound, absolutely all the protons are entangled temperature notwithstanding. This macro entanglement has been experimentally verified in potassium bicarbonate. I suspected that this macro proton entanglement occurs in potassium carbonate, the favorite “cold fusion” electrolyte compound. Water has also been found to be heavily entangled. For more theory see: *The Macroscopic Quantum Behavior of Protons **in the KHCO*3 *Crystal: Theory and Experiments* http://hal.archives-ouvertes.fr/docs/00/36/96/87/PDF/Fillaux3.pdf On Mon, Dec 5, 2011 at 4:04 PM, David Roberson dlrober...@aol.com wrote: I personally think that the evidence points toward small regions of heat generation such as hot spots. The fantastic pictures of electrode pitting looks so much like the craters left after an explosion with their typical conical shape scream out to me that this is a localized effect. The use of small micron sized particles of nickel by Rossi also tends to point toward smaller active points. What evidence is there that the entire metallic structure is behaving in a QM assemblage other than the theories that attempt to allow the large energy requirement for reaction to accumulate in a small local? Perhaps we need to find a method that does not require that amount of cooperation. Dave -Original Message- From: Axil Axil janap...@gmail.com To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Mon, Dec 5, 2011 3:46 pm Subject: Re: [Vo]: ECAT Triggered by Cosmic Rays? It seems to me that a universal theme in “cold fusion” is a triggering mechanism that releases stored potential energy. In all cases, a “cold fusion” system is a system that is heavily coherent in a quantum mechanical(QM) sense. Potential energy builds up and is stored by these coherent atoms. When one of these coherent atoms becomes QM decoherent and leaves the QM assemblage through the action of a trigger, it releases this potential energy over the entire QM assemblage. This averaging tends to transform and lower the intensity of the energy spike over the entire assemblage to thermal levels. Such triggers can be in the form of a laser pulse, an electric spark, a high energy particle, a phonon in a metal lattice, a mechanical shock… This trigger can precipitate a cascade of potential energy conversion to kinetic energy release such as has been seen in a Mills or an Arata powder, or it could be a continuing phonon based thermalization process as has been seen in a Piantelli or Rossi system. On Mon, Dec 5, 2011 at 2:14 PM, David Roberson dlrober...@aol.com wrote: It is apparent that a lot of energy is required to initiate the nuclear reaction in ECAT type devices. This problem is always a sticking point for the skeptical point of view and certainly makes the process seem less likely to most of us in the other camp. I proposed the possibility of cosmic rays acting as the trigger for the reactions since they are known to be very energetic and always present. If you think about explosives in general, it is evident that they could in theory self explode under the right circumstances. Nitroglycerin comes immediately to mind when I think of a really nasty substance to play with. A drop of this material hitting a surface from a short fall will explode violently. This is an example of a triggered explosion which must have interesting characteristics in order to occur. Plain old fashioned black gunpowder is another example of a triggered explosive material that is quite stable under normal circumstances. You can place a match onto a small pile of the powder and it will just lay there and burn for a while until the entire mass of material erupts rapidly with a bright flash. The initiation process for these two materials must depend upon the geometry and energy release characteristics. I am not an expert on explosives but have given consideration to the process that I assume leads to a mass explosive event. In the case of the gunpowder, I consider the reaction to be started by the application of heat energy to a small region of the material. The heat energy is sufficient to cause a tiny portion of the powder to ignite and release additional heat. This relatively large heat energy must escape the small volume through the surface area surrounding it. If the burn is to continue, then the heat escaping the initial volume must be sufficient to ignite more material at the surface to continue the process. If there is insufficient heat to ignite the new material then the burn would die out and there would be no explosion. This model that I have envisioned would tend to suggest that there would be a minimum volume of initial burning material required in order to achieve an explosive
Re: [Vo]:Re: Krivit article on NASA Forum
Stephen A. Lawrence sa...@pobox.com wrote: Have you read nothing of how psychics operate? Actually, I have read a lot about that, possibly more than Yugo has. I have also read about stage magicians. In both cases their methods could not begin to fool anyone looking inside a fake cold fusion device. Any engineer or scientist would see the method at a glance. It is not possible to hide a source of energy on this scale. The components are macroscopic and instantly identifiable. Not all that Randi has written was of no value, you know. I have corresponded with Randi directly, and I saw his recent video. Nothing he says about cold fusion has any merit. He knows nothing about this subject. Having the equipment just happen to not work when there happens to be someone on hand who's equipped to perform what might really be a rigorous test, rather than a friendly oh-sure-that-seems-good-enough sort of test, is *not* a sign of honesty. Ampenergo supplied and operated all of the equipment in these tests, as did other people in other tests that have not been made public. They decided the method. Rossi only operated the machine. The mystery customer on October 28 also supplied and operated all of the test equipment. - Jed
Re: [Vo]: ECAT Triggered by Cosmic Rays?
The biggest source of contemporary cosmic rays has been just identified: http://agile.rm.iasf.cnr.it/doc/AGILE_cosmic-rays_W44_press-release__07b_English.pdf This means that cosmic ray flux is very likely to subject to fluctuations on the long period (comparable to star life), and could come close to zero. Earth has been subject to cosmic rains of different kind during its existence. This kind of trigger would make Ni reactions even more aleatory. But the most important objection is that it could not be used in deep sea (submarines) or little inside Earth crust (mining). mic 2011/12/5 James Bowery jabow...@gmail.com: This morning, I ran across a truly classy cold fusion joke appearing in Charles Beaudette's book Excess Heat in that book's appendix: The Internet Noise Level written as a letter to Dr. I. M. Noteworthy. I was delighted to see Beaudette's association of the word noise with internet regarding cold fusion, as I had just recently been able to silence a particular noise box here to achieve a remarkable rise in the S/N ratio. Its too bad there aren't more I refuse to look through your telescope, Mr. Galileo jokes. It does not bode well for the future of classy jokes such as Beaudette's. On Mon, Dec 5, 2011 at 2:24 PM, Andrea Selva andreagiuseppe.se...@gmail.com wrote: Sorry Jed. I apologize for the quite rude joke. Couldn't resist. By the way I missed this McKubre test in US. Can you tell me more and provide some pointers ? Thanks Andrea -- Forwarded message -- From: Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com Date: 2011/12/5 Subject: Re: [Vo]: ECAT Triggered by Cosmic Rays? To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Andrea Selva andreagiuseppe.se...@gmail.com wrote: Could this theory explain why e-cat works only at exactly 44.50N, 11.40E ( Via dell'Elettricista, 6 40138 Bologna Italy) and A.R. refuses to run tests in different location ? I realize this is a joke, but to give a serious answer, the Ampenergo test shown by McKubre was in the U.S., and there have been various successful tests elsewhere, as well as failed tests in Bologna, such as the NASA one. Jokes like this are a little tiresome. Several people have looked for co-incidence between cosmic rays and cold fusion cell performance. Dave Nagel gave a paper about that, using data from Mizuno and others. There does seem to be some slight correlation. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:LENR Presentation by Joseph Zawodny, NASA Langley Research Center Edit
On Mon, Dec 5, 2011 at 1:34 PM, Mark Iverson-ZeroPoint zeropo...@charter.net wrote: ** ** I wholeheartedly disagree with your statement, “Resonance is very much a part of brute force physics.” ** ** I think I need to explain resonance to you… Resonance is an interesting phenomenon where SMALL INputs of force or energy into a system results in VERY LARGE OUTputs. There is nothing resonant about using EXTREMELY powerful magnets cooled with liquid helium to accelerate atomic particles to EXTREMELY hi velocities and smashing them head-on into each other. I guess it depends what you mean by brute force physics. To me, when I push a child on a swing, I'm using brute force physics. And I know intuitively that if I push at the natural frequency of the pendulum, the amplitude of the oscillation is much higher. That's resonance. If I push at a random frequency, energy will be dissipated, and the child will cry. Resonance allows the efficient storing of energy, so it can be built up after multiple cycles. The output energy does not exceed the input energy. Resonance is so intrinsic a part of so many branches of physics that I regard it as brute force. It is certainly not exotic by any measure. ** ** I came across the following article by Hagelstein, which I think is most relevant to the issue of resonant atomic/nuclear processes. Note his comment, ** ** “When we augment the spin-boson model with loss, we see that the coherent energy exchange process improves dramatically [10]. In perturbation theory we see that this comes about through the removal of destructive interference,” ** So, no proposed mechanism. The rest of the lengthy quotation just emphasizes that he doesn't have a mechanism, and in any case talks more about how the nuclear energy might be thermalized: perhaps deuterons are somehow reacting to make 4He. […] there are no previous examples in nuclear […] So, whatever process […] hasn’t been seen before. There are no previous relevant models[…] if there were a known mechanism […] there is no precedent for this; etc. Why not use your brain to help Hagelstein and others, who are at least open-minded enough to try thinking out of the box, to come up with a plausible hypothesis to explain the ‘current-theory-says-its-impossible’ evidence. ** Because, the evidence to date does not merit it.
Re: [Vo]:LENR Presentation by Joseph Zawodny, NASA Langley Research Center Edit
On Mon, Dec 5, 2011 at 12:50 PM, Robert Lynn robert.gulliver.l...@gmail.com wrote: It is clearly demonstrable that there exist mechanisms (of unknown type) in room temperature condensed matter to create at least 10's of keV, check out the rather fascinating following video: I wouldn't say that's a mechanism *in* condensed matter. And although the details of the fascinating interactions are not known, the essential concept is well understood, and nothing particularly new. Friction produces separation of charge, and that can produce large potential differences. That's it. Combing your hair can produce thousands of volts, and clouds millions of volts. And such effects can produce high energy electrons. However, to get 10s of keV electrons, as you saw, required a vacuum. Because you need to separate the charge by macroscopic distances to get the necessary voltage, and electrons have a pretty short mean-free path in air. So it's not clear how this could apply to nickel powder under pressure. I agree, there are ways to get a lot of energy into atomic sites. Simply accelerating ions with an electric field (fusors), or using pyroelectricity (pyroelectric fusion), or even using pneumatic rams (General Fusion). The problem is that none of these are (so far) efficient enough to get more energy out than in, and none of them are comparable to a hot nickel lattice with hydrogen in it. Again, that's not saying it's impossible; it's just that saying it's a resonance phenomenon doesn't make it plausible. Especially without experimental data to support it.
Re: [Vo]:Re: Krivit article on NASA Forum
On Mon, Dec 5, 2011 at 4:33 PM, Stephen A. Lawrence sa...@pobox.com wrote: (FWIW I'd be surprised if Terry didn't get it...) Cherry-cola champagne? Kinky! :-) T
Re: [Vo]:Re: Krivit article on NASA Forum
Am 05.12.2011 22:56, schrieb Jed Rothwell: Stephen A. Lawrencesa...@pobox.com wrote: Have you read nothing of how psychics operate? Actually, I have read a lot about that, possibly more than Yugo has. I have also read about stage magicians. In both cases their methods could not begin to fool anyone looking inside a fake cold fusion device. Any engineer or scientist would see the method at a glance. It is not possible to hide a source of energy on this scale. The components are macroscopic and instantly identifiable. Watch this magician: http://youtu.be/VsYDRRGmpXU At 6:00 he makes steam and he allows more access than Rossi ;-)
Re: [Vo]:Padua University not Siena made the analysis
On Mon, Dec 5, 2011 at 12:46 PM, Berke Durak berke.du...@gmail.com wrote: On Mon, Dec 5, 2011 at 11:10 AM, Joshua Cude joshua.c...@gmail.com wrote: Right. Anything can be explained that way... Thank God you weren't there when they came up with quantum theory. Except that when Planck tried to understand the ultraviolet catastrophe, he didn't just say: Well it's new physics. He suggested E=hf, and showed that with that equation, blackbody radiation fit his predictions perfectly. Einstein didn't just say that the photoelectric effect disagrees with classical physics because it's new physics. He used Planck's E=hf in a new theory that fit experimental results perfectly. Bohr didn't just say only selected orbits are allowed because it's new physics (he did say that, but not *just* that). He showed that if he quantized angular momentum he could reproduce the Rydberg formula. Schrodinger and Heisenberg didn't just say the particle-wave duality is because of new physics. They developed formal theories which included the duality, and which represent two manifestations of the most predictive physical theory in history. Do you see a pattern there? It's all about suggesting specific new physics that fits the data, and can be tested. WL is not that. Again, that doesn't make it wrong. But at the moment, it has no experimental legs to stand on, and remains energetically highly implausible. Maybe with new physics, but with old physics, the EM fields Rossi used do not control nuclear reactions. What do you know about the EM fields Rossi used? Are these described somewhere? Only that they switched on a frequency producing device at low power. It's hard to imagine it as anything other than a coil of some sort, and not a high enough frequency to influence nuclear reactions. But, you're right. I don't know. Just wild speculation. An X-ray tube produces directional photons using EM fields. True, with a vacuum, and dc high voltage. No sign of any of that in the ecat. And x-rays are produced by atomic, not nuclear, reactions. You cannot a priori assume spherical symmetry about an unknown system that is known to be non spherically symmetrical. No. But again, nuclear reactions in a powder triggered by heat are unlikely to be directional. As usual, you are making lots of implicit assumptions to debunk something we don't have much information about. It's OK to complain about lack of information, but it's not enough to debunk. To me it's not about debunking so much as denying evidence exists for bunking. According to Nelson's slides, the gammas are in the 50 - 200 keV range and are thermalized. Nelson didn't show data to support that. It was just wild speculation, and the range was probably chosen because Villa's cutoff was 200 keV. How do you know it's just wild speculation? The slide doesn't say My guess: 50 - 200 keV. Maybe you were at the LENR Workshop and asked him? If it's not supported by data, it's speculation. Right. But there are ways to detect photons between 50 and 200 keV. And NASA could probably avail themselves of the necessary technology. But they didn't show evidence of 50 - 200 keV gammas. Neither has Rossi. And neither did he suggest any reactions that might produce such low energy gammas. Rossi is not a physicist and has no business suggesting reactions. He's been working with Focardi for a few years already. (2) If you read the chronology of Piantelli's work in the same document, you'll see that Piantelli didn't always get radiation when he got excess heat. The one thing that's consistent in cf research is inconsistency. Remember that guy who measured a gamma spike while Rossi was adjusting a reactor in the other room? Right. The best evidence for cold fusion is some guy who saw something sometime. Rothwell loves to talk about the buckets of water that boiled away when no one was looking. Depending on anecdote just makes cold fusion seem needy.
Re: [Vo]:Re: Krivit article on NASA Forum
Peter Heckert wrote: Watch this magician: http://youtu.be/VsYDRRGmpXU At 6:00 he makes steam and he allows more access than Rossi ;-) His Japanese is pretty good. Do you seriously think that a chemist examining that cup would not find the source of heat? Get real. Once you look inside the magic trick stage prop, the trick is always instantly obvious. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:Re: Krivit article on NASA Forum
On Mon, Dec 5, 2011 at 2:36 PM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com wrote: For example, he demonstrated 30 L of water that remained at boiling temperatures for four hours with no input. [...] Neither you nor any other skeptic has ever given us a single viable, scientific reason to doubt these results. You have had months, and you have given us NOTHING other than blather and handwaving. Irony, anyone.
Re: [Vo]:Re: Krivit article on NASA Forum
On Mon, Dec 5, 2011 at 1:56 PM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com wrote: Stephen A. Lawrence sa...@pobox.com wrote: I have corresponded with Randi directly, and I saw his recent video. Nothing he says about cold fusion has any merit. He knows nothing about this subject. Have you corresponded specifically with Randi about Rossi? I wonder what he had to say. One does not need to know a single solitary thing about cold fusion to evaluate what Rossi is doing. One only needs reliable and credible input and output data in an experiment that does not involve Rossi's venue, his input power source, his pump and flow circuit, his hands on the controls and especially not his generation of steam and evaluation of enthalpy. Having the equipment just happen to not work when there happens to be someone on hand who's equipped to perform what might really be a rigorous test, rather than a friendly oh-sure-that-seems-good-enough sort of test, is *not* a sign of honesty. Ampenergo supplied and operated all of the equipment in these tests, as did other people in other tests that have not been made public. They decided the method. Rossi only operated the machine. The mystery customer on October 28 also supplied and operated all of the test equipment. We don't know what tests Ampenergo did -- perhaps it was more of the uncalibrated and error prone heat of vaporization of steam type experiments that Rossi is so fond of doing even though liquid coolant as used by Levi is much easier and better. If you know what they did and what results they got, I'd love to read about it. What reason could there be to keep such a result secret if it's positive? Same reasoning for the other non-public tests. Why have secret tests anyway if they give positive results? No trade secrets are revealed by giving the results of black box testing. As for the mystery customer, I still would like to know how you can be sure it isn't Rossi or someone employed by Rossi. And I'd like to know why none of the scientists and reporters were allowed to see any of the data being taken from the run on October 28.
Re: [Vo]:Re: Krivit article on NASA Forum
On Mon, Dec 5, 2011 at 2:25 PM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com wrote: Peter Heckert wrote: Watch this magician: http://youtu.be/VsYDRRGmpXU At 6:00 he makes steam and he allows more access than Rossi ;-) His Japanese is pretty good. Do you seriously think that a chemist examining that cup would not find the source of heat? Get real. Once you look inside the magic trick stage prop, the trick is always instantly obvious. That's the point though, isn't it? Nobody was ever allowed to see the inside of Rossi's ecats -- not the little ones and not the Ottoman sized one either. I know you claimed people looked inside but they saw nothing except a large finned box. Nobody knows what's in the sizable volume of that finned box. Given no further inspection than allowed, the Youtube video could be a chemical trick or real psychic power. There's no way to tell because the magician, like Rossi, carefully avoids any test that would tell. That's the point you refuse to acknowledge. One of my favorite illusions is this one by Angela Funovits: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HNcgi4dndmk It takes a bit of patience -- see it through to the end. No language issues if you do.
Re: [Vo]:Re: Krivit article on NASA Forum
Am 05.12.2011 23:25, schrieb Jed Rothwell: Peter Heckert wrote: Watch this magician: http://youtu.be/VsYDRRGmpXU At 6:00 he makes steam and he allows more access than Rossi ;-) His Japanese is pretty good. Do you seriously think that a chemist examining that cup would not find the source of heat? Get real. Once you look inside the magic trick stage prop, the trick is always instantly obvious. I think he uses a secret catalyst and will not disclose it. At least he lets us look inside ;-)
Re: [Vo]:Re: Krivit article on NASA Forum
Mary Yugo maryyu...@gmail.com wrote: Have you corresponded specifically with Randi about Rossi? No, this was years ago. However, he has not changed is views. He says that Rossi and all other researchers are scammers, frauds, lunatics and criminals. That is also what Robert Park and many other prominent opponents say. I wonder what he had to say. You can see what he has to say about Rossi in his recent video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3BemTGkjl6Ufeature=emailemail=comment_reply_received One does not need to know a single solitary thing about cold fusion to evaluate what Rossi is doing. That is true. you need only understand fundamental physics, thermodynamics and some rudimentary calorimetry. One only needs reliable and credible input and output data in an experiment that does not involve Rossi's venue . . . You are wrong about that. His venue and his tests are perfectly okay. You can ignore his instruments and whatever they read. He has no magical ability to change the Stefan-Boltzmann law. We don't know what tests Ampenergo did . . . You do not, but I do. If you wish to ignore that test, go ahead. You need only look at the tests that have been made public. You have never given any valid reason to doubt those conclusions. You think you have, but you have not. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:Re: Krivit article on NASA Forum
Mary Yugo maryyu...@gmail.com wrote: Do you seriously think that a chemist examining that cup would not find the source of heat? Get real. Once you look inside the magic trick stage prop, the trick is always instantly obvious. That's the point though, isn't it? Nobody was ever allowed to see the inside of Rossi's ecats -- not the little ones and not the Ottoman sized one either. That is incorrect. Many people have looked inside these devices. The photographs of the Ottoman size device instantly rule out any possibility of a chemical or other conventional source of heat. The size of the inner-cell alone rule this out. You do not have to know what it is made of. You can estimate the necessary volume of a chemical or electrical source of heat sufficient to produce approximately this much energy. It would be much bigger than this. I have pointed this out many times. Evidently you do not understand it. This point is fundamental to cold fusion, so I suggest you make an effort to grasp it. We do not know what is going on inside a cathode or piece of metal. No one can look inside it at the subatomic level where the reaction occurs, except by indirect means. Nevertheless, we know from the volume and mass of the cathode alone that the reaction has to be nuclear. Mme. Curie new the same thing about her radium samples, for exactly the same reasons. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:Re: Krivit article on NASA Forum
On Mon, Dec 5, 2011 at 4:44 PM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com wrote: He has no magical ability to change the Stefan-Boltzmann law. The Stefan-Boltzmann law does you no good if the foil has an emissivity of 10% or less. That would give less than 50W emission for 60C surface temperature in a 30C room. Try again. You have never given any valid reason to doubt those conclusions. You think you have, but you have not. This is called playing to your fans. You can't possibly think it is a persuasive argument for anyone else.
