[Vo]:a fine Cold Fusion paper:
Dear Readers, Yiannis Hadjichristos has just called my attention to the following paper, a real double rara avis: - it is published in a peer reviewed journal; - it clearly opts for a multi-stage theory, interdisciplinar approach. It is Potential Exploration of Cold Fusion and Its Quantitative Theory of Physical-Chemical-Nuclear Multistage Chain Reaction Mechanism Yi-Fang Chang, Department of Physics, Yunnan University, Kunming, 650091, China International Journal of Modern Chemistry, 2013, 5(1): 29-43 Link: http://modernscientificpress.com/Journals/ViewArticle.aspx?H86Z5Noa2iKDNvH/0wRKWsOkhiUQ7RBfa/R/b49cNQN2PlFJKdv27fx5aFa7XQKO ** Abstract: Abstract: Cold fusion is very important and complex. One of main difficulties of cold fusion is the explanation on appearance of nuclear reaction. Based on the standard quantum mechanics, we propose the physical-chemical-nuclear multistage chain reaction theory,which may explain cold fusion. Since cold fusion is an open system, synergetics and laser theory can be applied, and the Fokker-Planck equation is obtained. Using the corresponding Schrödinger equation and the nonlinear Dirac equation, and combining the multistage chain reaction theory, the quantitative results agree completely with some experiments on cold fusion. Finally, we discuss some new researches, for example, the nonlinear quantum theory, catalyzer and nanomaterial, etc., and propose the three laws of cold fusion: (1) The time accumulate law, (2) The area direct ratio law, and (3) The multistage chain reaction law. -- There are some striking similarities with the DGT-AXIL approach to understand LENR+/HENI as: 1. Open system definition of the NAE 2. Complexity of multistage fusion fission process 3. The 3 laws, indicating a path to plasmonics Eppur si muove - it is progress in Cold Fusion- marching away from its Cradle! Peter -- Dr. Peter Gluck Cluj, Romania http://egooutpeters.blogspot.com
Re: [Vo]:My ICCF18 presentation
I added a photo of Gerischer from the university site: http://www.fhi-berlin.mpg.de/pc/PChistory.html You can see the resemblance to the caricature by my anonymous illustrator. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:My ICCF18 presentation
Eric Walker eric.wal...@gmail.com wrote: History does repeat itself, over and over. Mark Twain supposedly said: History does not repeat itself, but it does rhyme. I agree. Things are never quite the same. The quote from Watson is hysterical. His book, *The Double Helix*, is hysterical. My edition from Norton has the journal reviews in the back, published when the book first came out. The reviews were by scientists who were outraged -- outraged! -- because Watson told the truth about how science is done. As I said, he also described himself as a lazy young man more into goofing off and chasing women than working. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:My ICCF18 presentation
Excellent paper Jed. Well done!
Re: [Vo]:the future of PdD LENR is not technological
Peter Gluck peter.gl...@gmail.com wrote: I have just published: http://egooutpeters.blogspot.ro/2013/08/why-pd-d-lenr-will-never-work.html I think you are making distinctions that do not exist in nature. Cold fusion is cold fusion. The smallest Pd-D effect is probably the same as what Rossi observes. Research into milliwatt-level effects is just as likely to answer important questions and reveal the mechanism as Rossi's kilowatt-level reactions are. The history of science bears this out. The only reason kilowatt-level reactions are better is because they encourage people to think the reaction might become a practical source of energy, so they attract funding. Here is an example of materials science done with the small reactions. This could eventually be as fruitful as anything Rossi is doing: https://mospace.umsystem.edu/xmlui/bitstream/handle/10355/36833/ExcessPowerDuringElectrochemical.pdf - Jed
RE: [Vo]:the future of PdD LENR is not technological
VERY good work from Violante. I hope they look at the Ag and Y alloy with Pd. Yes, you don't have to be in the kW to have very important work. In fact, levels past about 250W start to get complicated and hard to use. I have never seen anything over 250W where I felt comfortable about the all measurements. There was always a lot of question marks. 50-200 mW is Ok. 1 to 100 W is great to work with - easy to control dumping heat, controlling input temps, having multiple checks on measurements,... And if you ever try to play the convert heat to electricity game- you just about have to be either in the 10 to 250 W range or the 4kW thermal range for existing off the shelf conversion. D2 Date: Fri, 16 Aug 2013 10:09:21 -0400 Subject: Re: [Vo]:the future of PdD LENR is not technological From: jedrothw...@gmail.com To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Peter Gluck peter.gl...@gmail.com wrote: I have just published:http://egooutpeters.blogspot.ro/2013/08/why-pd-d-lenr-will-never-work.html I think you are making distinctions that do not exist in nature. Cold fusion is cold fusion. The smallest Pd-D effect is probably the same as what Rossi observes. Research into milliwatt-level effects is just as likely to answer important questions and reveal the mechanism as Rossi's kilowatt-level reactions are. The history of science bears this out. The only reason kilowatt-level reactions are better is because they encourage people to think the reaction might become a practical source of energy, so they attract funding. Here is an example of materials science done with the small reactions. This could eventually be as fruitful as anything Rossi is doing: https://mospace.umsystem.edu/xmlui/bitstream/handle/10355/36833/ExcessPowerDuringElectrochemical.pdf - Jed
Re: [Vo]:the future of PdD LENR is not technological
What the Ni/H reactor does is to convert heat into concentrated electric and magnetic fields. Pure hydrogen is required to perform this function. The first step in this conversion process is to convert heat into dipole oscillations. Hydrogen helps to do this by trapping infrared photons that fall on the surface of the nickel micro-particles from being reflected back from their shiny metal surfaces. Hydrogen turns these tiny metal particles into tiny greenhouses which retains the heat so well that few photons escape. If other gases happen to mix with hydrogen at the surface of these nickel particles, heat will rapidly escape from the surface of the metal particles robbing them of the energy that they need to move their surface dipoles into excited agitation. Even a small amount of hydrogen gas contamination wills greatly weaken the insolation properties of the hydrogen. The contaminating gases act as a short circuiting pathway for the heat to get through the hydrogen insolation. The interaction of metals with electromagnetic radiation is largely dictated by the free conduction electrons in the metal. According to the simple Drude model, the free electrons oscillate 180± out of phase relative to the driving electric field. As a consequence, most metals possess a negative dielectric constant at optical frequencies which causes e.g. a very high reflectivity. Furthermore, at optical frequencies the metal’s free electron gas can sustain surface and volume charge density oscillations, called plasmon polaritons or plasmons with distinct resonance frequencies. The existence of plasmons is characteristic for the interaction of metal nanostructures with light. In simple words, metal will reflect heat especially well if that heat is in the deep infrared. The surface charge density oscillations associated with surface plasmons at the interface between a metal and a dielectric can give rise to strongly enhanced optical near-fields which are spatially confined to the interface at the surface of the particles. Similarly, if the electron gas is confined in three dimensions, as in the case of a small subwavelength particle, the overall displacement of the electrons with respect to the positively charged lattice leads to a restoring force which in turn gives rise to specific particle plasmon resonances depending on the geometry of the particle. In particles of suitable (usually pointed) shape, extreme local charge accumulations can occur that are accompanied by strongly enhanced optical fields. This behavior of heat and light at the surface of tiny particles is what nanopasmonics is all about. What drives this special behavior is the evanescent wave. This trapping wave keeps the EMF energy levels strong at the surface of the micro-particles. More on this wave type in the next post. On Fri, Aug 16, 2013 at 1:50 AM, Peter Gluck peter.gl...@gmail.com wrote: Dear Friends I have just published: http://egooutpeters.blogspot.ro/2013/08/why-pd-d-lenr-will-never-work.html Time can and will show if I was right. Anyway, the mission of truth is to help problem solving and progress even it makes some people unhappy and even angry. Peter -- Dr. Peter Gluck Cluj, Romania http://egooutpeters.blogspot.com
Re: [Vo]:My ICCF18 presentation
Nice and simple paper, very informative. The general delusion is so hard to accept when you get the data. If you read French I can proudly say you that you should not read La Recherche (a more academic local competitor to SciAm) on Scientific controversies ( http://www.larecherche.fr/savoirs/dossier/500-ans-controverses-scientifiques ). They have written an article on Cold fusion, and shortly repeat the wikipedia fairy tale... If they were literate they could at least moan that there is a gang of crazy scientist and crook entrepreneur who work on the subject, that even national instruments bosses get infected, that University of Missouri is infected, that Toyota, Mitsubishi, US navy, NASA, Elforsk, ENEA waste public money on that chimera... but no... they are not even aware of what is happening, which should have pushed them, *either to shut up like serious journalist who don't talk of Cold fusion not to be fired, nor look stupid in few quarters. * or to moan on crazy pseudo-science fan * or to support LENR as a new frontier of science... citing Galileo and Cold fusion official history in the same paper is a shame. At least they should have stayed silent on LENR. Coward but not stupid. It remind me the last days of wealth and freedom Enron boss, who was so convinced he was right that he did not even try to sell his shares, while he was stealing money to save his company. http://www.princeton.edu/~rbenabou/papers/Groupthink%20IOM%202012_07_02%20BW.pdf#page=69 What shock me more than dogmatism in opposition to LENR, is general illiteracy. by the way I feel they tell even more stupidities on other subject I follows, once again repeating wikipedia position, not the scientific one. As taleb says, History being written by the losers. 2013/8/16 Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com Eric Walker eric.wal...@gmail.com wrote: History does repeat itself, over and over. Mark Twain supposedly said: History does not repeat itself, but it does rhyme. I agree. Things are never quite the same. The quote from Watson is hysterical. His book, *The Double Helix*, is hysterical. My edition from Norton has the journal reviews in the back, published when the book first came out. The reviews were by scientists who were outraged -- outraged! -- because Watson told the truth about how science is done. As I said, he also described himself as a lazy young man more into goofing off and chasing women than working. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:My ICCF18 presentation
On Fri, Aug 16, 2013 at 10:03 AM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com wrote: The reviews were by scientists who were outraged -- outraged! -- because Watson told the truth about how science is done. As I said, he also described himself as a lazy young man more into goofing off and chasing women than working. Kary Mullis, nobel laureate who improved the polymerase chain reaction to amplify DNA samples consumed mass quantites of drugs and alcohol. From his wikipedia article: Use of LSD Mullis details his experiences synthesizing and testing various psychedelic amphetamines and a difficult trip on DET in his autobiography. In a QA interview published in the September, 1994, issue of California Monthly, Mullis said, Back in the 1960s and early '70s I took plenty of LSD. A lot of people were doing that in Berkeley back then. And I found it to be a mind-opening experience. It was certainly much more important than any courses I ever took. During a symposium held for centenarian Albert Hofmann, Hofmann revealed that he was told by Nobel-prize-winning chemist Kary Mullis that LSD had helped him develop the polymerase chain reaction that helps amplify specific DNA sequences. Replying to his own postulate during an interview for BBC's Psychedelic Science documentary, What if I had not taken LSD ever; would I have still invented PCR? He replied, I don't know. I doubt it. I seriously doubt it. Extraterrestrial life Mullis writes of having once spoken to a glowing green raccoon. Mullis arrived at his cabin in the woods of northern California around midnight one night in 1985, and, having turned on the lights and left sacks of groceries on the floor, set off for the outhouse with a flashlight. On the way, he saw something glowing under a fir tree. Shining the flashlight on this glow, it seemed to be a raccoon with little black eyes. The raccoon spoke, saying, Good evening, doctor, and he replied with a hello. Mullis later speculated that the raccoon was some sort of holographic projection and… that multidimensional physics on a macroscopic scale may be responsible. Mullis denies LSD having anything at all to do with this.
Re: [Vo]:the future of PdD LENR is not technological
Dear Jed, I'm always trying to make sharp distinctions, and the best. Megawatts are better than kilowatts and kilowatts are better than milliwatts. Perhaps each have their specific market however I have serious doubts for milliwatts- energy sources for the pacemakers of cardiopathic artists in the flea circus are not so necessary. But more important than the size of a source is that we can trust it and it gives at demand any time the desired number of mega-, kilo- or milli-watts. If not, then it cannot be called and energy source. The Violante et al paper is really good, it is about fine tuning of metallurgy and morphology- but reproducibility is under 20%. The last sentence of the paper: *By applying the scientific method future work should be oriented* *towards the definition of the effect rather than its demonstration.* Very enigmatic. Violante is a great scientist, inter alia he has created the wonderful cathode 64 of Energetics. However this had to be re-created and he has to find out how to create it any time. It has something to do with the air poisoning effect- the cathode was covered with a very thin layer of silicon oil by some accident. Old story, we need new stories. Peter On Fri, Aug 16, 2013 at 5:09 PM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com wrote: Peter Gluck peter.gl...@gmail.com wrote: I have just published: http://egooutpeters.blogspot.ro/2013/08/why-pd-d-lenr-will-never-work.html I think you are making distinctions that do not exist in nature. Cold fusion is cold fusion. The smallest Pd-D effect is probably the same as what Rossi observes. Research into milliwatt-level effects is just as likely to answer important questions and reveal the mechanism as Rossi's kilowatt-level reactions are. The history of science bears this out. The only reason kilowatt-level reactions are better is because they encourage people to think the reaction might become a practical source of energy, so they attract funding. Here is an example of materials science done with the small reactions. This could eventually be as fruitful as anything Rossi is doing: https://mospace.umsystem.edu/xmlui/bitstream/handle/10355/36833/ExcessPowerDuringElectrochemical.pdf - Jed -- Dr. Peter Gluck Cluj, Romania http://egooutpeters.blogspot.com
Re: [Vo]:the future of PdD LENR is not technological
Peter Gluck peter.gl...@gmail.com wrote: Megawatts are better than kilowatts and kilowatts are better than milliwatts. Probably not in the long term. Most devices use ~100 W. In the future I expect all power supplies to be self-contained, with no central generation or even household generators. I mean that every light fixture, computer and cell phone will have a thermoelectric generator. The most useful size will be 1 to 100 W. Even early into a cold fusion era there will be few uses for a megawatt generator. Perhaps each have their specific market however I have serious doubts for milliwatts- energy sources for the pacemakers of cardiopathic artists in the flea circus are not so necessary. Pacemaker power supplies produce microwatts, I believe. Pacemakers may soon be powered by piezoelectrics or by blood. That will eliminate the need to change out the battery, and the need for cold fusion powered pacemakers. The Violante et al paper is really good, it is about fine tuning of metallurgy and morphology- but reproducibility is under 20%. p. 9 says: I lot: Reproducibility 60%, Excess Power 100% - Jed
Re: [Vo]:the future of PdD LENR is not technological
I doubt 100W will heat your grand-grandson's house or drive4 the aircon but if you know it better... The Cold Fusion promise was for unlimited energy. Please teach me how to interpret he last sentence of the paper. Peter On Fri, Aug 16, 2013 at 8:55 PM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com wrote: Peter Gluck peter.gl...@gmail.com wrote: Megawatts are better than kilowatts and kilowatts are better than milliwatts. Probably not in the long term. Most devices use ~100 W. In the future I expect all power supplies to be self-contained, with no central generation or even household generators. I mean that every light fixture, computer and cell phone will have a thermoelectric generator. The most useful size will be 1 to 100 W. Even early into a cold fusion era there will be few uses for a megawatt generator. Perhaps each have their specific market however I have serious doubts for milliwatts- energy sources for the pacemakers of cardiopathic artists in the flea circus are not so necessary. Pacemaker power supplies produce microwatts, I believe. Pacemakers may soon be powered by piezoelectrics or by blood. That will eliminate the need to change out the battery, and the need for cold fusion powered pacemakers. The Violante et al paper is really good, it is about fine tuning of metallurgy and morphology- but reproducibility is under 20%. p. 9 says: I lot: Reproducibility 60%, Excess Power 100% - Jed -- Dr. Peter Gluck Cluj, Romania http://egooutpeters.blogspot.com
Re: [Vo]:the future of PdD LENR is not technological
On Fri, Aug 16, 2013 at 12:55 PM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.comwrote: Peter Gluck peter.gl...@gmail.com wrote: Megawatts are better than kilowatts and kilowatts are better than milliwatts. Probably not in the long term. Most devices use ~100 W. In the future I expect all power supplies to be self-contained, with no central generation or even household generators. I mean that every light fixture, computer and cell phone will have a thermoelectric generator. The most useful size will be 1 to 100 W. Even early into a cold fusion era there will be few uses for a megawatt generator. Drop-in replacements for coal-burners in electrical power plants looks like a quick win if the ECat-HT can be made self-sustaining via acting cooling control.
Re: [Vo]:Phonons
Seems a paper was written about stadium waves in 2002 http://angel.elte.hu/wave/download/article/MexWave.pdf Harry On Mon, Aug 12, 2013 at 6:21 PM, mix...@bigpond.com wrote: In reply to H Veeder's message of Fri, 9 Aug 2013 11:32:37 -0400: Hi, [snip] what determines the speed of this wave? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GfX0j7-fLmk Human reaction time. People react to what those around them are doing. Herd mentality. Harry Regards, Robin van Spaandonk http://rvanspaa.freehostia.com/project.html
Re: [Vo]:the future of PdD LENR is not technological
So users of big process power from high grade heat are steel mills, cement plants, glass plants, petrochemical refiners, cargo ship, train engines, earth movers, aircraft, trucks, autos, water desalination, buses, pumps, mines... On Fri, Aug 16, 2013 at 2:58 PM, James Bowery jabow...@gmail.com wrote: On Fri, Aug 16, 2013 at 12:55 PM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.comwrote: Peter Gluck peter.gl...@gmail.com wrote: Megawatts are better than kilowatts and kilowatts are better than milliwatts. Probably not in the long term. Most devices use ~100 W. In the future I expect all power supplies to be self-contained, with no central generation or even household generators. I mean that every light fixture, computer and cell phone will have a thermoelectric generator. The most useful size will be 1 to 100 W. Even early into a cold fusion era there will be few uses for a megawatt generator. Drop-in replacements for coal-burners in electrical power plants looks like a quick win if the ECat-HT can be made self-sustaining via acting cooling control.
Re: [Vo]:the future of PdD LENR is not technological
James Bowery jabow...@gmail.com wrote: Drop-in replacements for coal-burners in electrical power plants looks like a quick win if the ECat-HT can be made self-sustaining via acting cooling control. For a few decades perhaps, but after that the power companies will be going out of business. They will not buy new equipment. They will use up the old equipment and when it stops working, they will declare bankruptcy. This is what happened with other businesses that were obsoleted, such as sailing ships and passenger railroads in the U.S. A discussion of how cold fusion might help the power companies resembles a discussion in 1910 about how the new vehicle body manufacturing techniques developed by Ford might help the horse buggy industry. Those techniques did, in fact, help buggy industry. They lowered cost and improved quality, with better bearings, tires, chassis and so on. If you look at a buggy made in the 1920s you will see that it resembles and automobile, rather than a 19th century buggy. However, that industry was in rapid decline. No amount of new technology could help it. By the late 1930s, 20 years after the Model T was introduced, the horse and buggy industry had vanished. NOTE: Yes, there are a few buggies still being manufactured even today. And yes, the initial vehicle body manufacturing techniques were developed by buggy manufacturers such as Fisher: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fisher_BodyNo doubt much of the starting technology for cold fusion will come from the electric power industry. But in the long term cold fusion will not augment or help this industry, or the coal or oil industries. It will crush them. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:the future of PdD LENR is not technological
Axil Axil janap...@gmail.com wrote: So users of big process power from high grade heat are steel mills, cement plants, glass plants, petrochemical refiners, cargo ship, train engines, earth movers, aircraft, trucks, autos, water desalination, buses, pumps, mines... Most process heat will come directly from cold fusion. I do not know if high grade heat for steel mills is possible, but heat for most industrial processes as well as heat for space heating and thermal air conditioning will come from cold fusion directly, not from electricity. Buses, autos and pumps, cargo ships and whatnot will self powered. These are not megawatt applications. Cargo ships and train engines are megawatt applications but the number of units sold each year is small. There will be a few thousand reactors on that scale, whereas there will be hundreds of millions of reactors at 100 W or less. The small end will be a bigger industry, and it will supply a larger fraction of total energy. Petrochemical refiners will not exist. Petrochemical plastic feedstocks will be made from garbage, or from air and water, and other local sources. Not oil pumped from the ground and transported long distances. Aircraft and spacecraft engines are megawatt applications. They will be among the last to be developed, because they are complex and they have to be foolproof and extremely reliable. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:the future of PdD LENR is not technological
A megawatt is not a lot of Horse Power. I would suspect that laboratory levels of LENR power could be as much as several thousand watts without too much difficulty in handling the excess heat. The recent DGT demonstration seemed to be within a reasonable output range. Locating the nuclear ash will be facilitated by the generation of more power since that should increase the signal to noise for that particular type of measurement. Of course, the ash is one of the main puzzle pieces will be required to finally establish what process is active. I hope that DGT, Rossi and perhaps others experimenting in the field will continue to reveal the clues they uncover such as the large magnetic anomaly recently seen. If all the researchers and companies seeking huge profits keep this information private, then they are the only ones that can cross reference the many clues that will eventually solve the question of how LENR actually functions. As with past discoveries, more applied minds are better when the goal is to advance technology. The secret manner of the past has not worked for many years and it is time for change. Introduction of LENR power is far too important to the world and any additional major delays must be avoided. Dave -Original Message- From: Axil Axil janap...@gmail.com To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Fri, Aug 16, 2013 3:08 pm Subject: Re: [Vo]:the future of PdD LENR is not technological So users of big process power from high grade heat are steel mills, cement plants, glass plants, petrochemical refiners, cargo ship, train engines, earth movers, aircraft, trucks, autos, water desalination, buses, pumps, mines... On Fri, Aug 16, 2013 at 2:58 PM, James Bowery jabow...@gmail.com wrote: On Fri, Aug 16, 2013 at 12:55 PM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com wrote: Peter Gluck peter.gl...@gmail.com wrote: Megawatts are better than kilowatts and kilowatts are better than milliwatts. Probably not in the long term. Most devices use ~100 W. In the future I expect all power supplies to be self-contained, with no central generation or even household generators. I mean that every light fixture, computer and cell phone will have a thermoelectric generator. The most useful size will be 1 to 100 W. Even early into a cold fusion era there will be few uses for a megawatt generator. Drop-in replacements for coal-burners in electrical power plants looks like a quick win if the ECat-HT can be made self-sustaining via acting cooling control.
Re: [Vo]:the future of PdD LENR is not technological
I suspect that you are correct in asserting that LENR will eventually result in the smashing of coal and oil, etc. The main question is a matter of time. Decades might pass before the task is completed. The near future may be educational as we observe the manner in which those industries fight back to preserve their positions. The fight might well include entire regions of the globe that presently depend upon those resources for most of their standards of living. It is going to be one big brawl as the world adjusts to the major disruptions ahead. Dave -Original Message- From: Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Fri, Aug 16, 2013 3:15 pm Subject: Re: [Vo]:the future of PdD LENR is not technological James Bowery jabow...@gmail.com wrote: Drop-in replacements for coal-burners in electrical power plants looks like a quick win if the ECat-HT can be made self-sustaining via acting cooling control. For a few decades perhaps, but after that the power companies will be going out of business. They will not buy new equipment. They will use up the old equipment and when it stops working, they will declare bankruptcy. This is what happened with other businesses that were obsoleted, such as sailing ships and passenger railroads in the U.S. A discussion of how cold fusion might help the power companies resembles a discussion in 1910 about how the new vehicle body manufacturing techniques developed by Ford might help the horse buggy industry. Those techniques did, in fact, help buggy industry. They lowered cost and improved quality, with better bearings, tires, chassis and so on. If you look at a buggy made in the 1920s you will see that it resembles and automobile, rather than a 19th century buggy. However, that industry was in rapid decline. No amount of new technology could help it. By the late 1930s, 20 years after the Model T was introduced, the horse and buggy industry had vanished. NOTE: Yes, there are a few buggies still being manufactured even today. And yes, the initial vehicle body manufacturing techniques were developed by buggy manufacturers such as Fisher: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fisher_Body No doubt much of the starting technology for cold fusion will come from the electric power industry. But in the long term cold fusion will not augment or help this industry, or the coal or oil industries. It will crush them. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:the future of PdD LENR is not technological
I suspect that the lower power products that are mentioned, such as a laptop computer will still need connection to a power generation source that is external. The electrical power they need requires the release of far too much low quality heat for its local generation. My laptop burns a hole in my lap as it is and I can not imagine increasing it's heat release by several times to rely upon internal generation. And, the battery will have to be recharged by some device. It seems logical for each home to contain its own generation system which should be LENR based. This type of system would also allow for the usage of existing appliances. In the far future, all bets are off as to how power is obtained at an individuals home. I am more concerned about how things play out during my lifetime and not for generations 100 years into the future. The future folks will find better processes than we can imagine with our limited knowledge. Dave -Original Message- From: Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Fri, Aug 16, 2013 3:23 pm Subject: Re: [Vo]:the future of PdD LENR is not technological Axil Axil janap...@gmail.com wrote: So users of big process power from high grade heat are steel mills, cement plants, glass plants, petrochemical refiners, cargo ship, train engines, earth movers, aircraft, trucks, autos, water desalination, buses, pumps, mines... Most process heat will come directly from cold fusion. I do not know if high grade heat for steel mills is possible, but heat for most industrial processes as well as heat for space heating and thermal air conditioning will come from cold fusion directly, not from electricity. Buses, autos and pumps, cargo ships and whatnot will self powered. These are not megawatt applications. Cargo ships and train engines are megawatt applications but the number of units sold each year is small. There will be a few thousand reactors on that scale, whereas there will be hundreds of millions of reactors at 100 W or less. The small end will be a bigger industry, and it will supply a larger fraction of total energy. Petrochemical refiners will not exist. Petrochemical plastic feedstocks will be made from garbage, or from air and water, and other local sources. Not oil pumped from the ground and transported long distances. Aircraft and spacecraft engines are megawatt applications. They will be among the last to be developed, because they are complex and they have to be foolproof and extremely reliable. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:the future of PdD LENR is not technological
Of course, but I was responding to your, technically correct but, misleading statement Even early into a cold fusion era there will be few uses for a megawatt generator. Its true that the there will be few such uses even early on, but one of those few will be very big early into the cold fusion era. How rapidly even these cleaned up plants will be put out of business is mildly interesting to speculate on but not very important in the scheme of things, which is going to be fairly rapid disintermediation of of mass energy intensive processes. On Fri, Aug 16, 2013 at 2:15 PM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com wrote: James Bowery jabow...@gmail.com wrote: Drop-in replacements for coal-burners in electrical power plants looks like a quick win if the ECat-HT can be made self-sustaining via acting cooling control. For a few decades perhaps, but after that the power companies will be going out of business. They will not buy new equipment. They will use up the old equipment and when it stops working, they will declare bankruptcy. This is what happened with other businesses that were obsoleted, such as sailing ships and passenger railroads in the U.S. A discussion of how cold fusion might help the power companies resembles a discussion in 1910 about how the new vehicle body manufacturing techniques developed by Ford might help the horse buggy industry. Those techniques did, in fact, help buggy industry. They lowered cost and improved quality, with better bearings, tires, chassis and so on. If you look at a buggy made in the 1920s you will see that it resembles and automobile, rather than a 19th century buggy. However, that industry was in rapid decline. No amount of new technology could help it. By the late 1930s, 20 years after the Model T was introduced, the horse and buggy industry had vanished. NOTE: Yes, there are a few buggies still being manufactured even today. And yes, the initial vehicle body manufacturing techniques were developed by buggy manufacturers such as Fisher: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fisher_Body No doubt much of the starting technology for cold fusion will come from the electric power industry. But in the long term cold fusion will not augment or help this industry, or the coal or oil industries. It will crush them. - Jed
[Vo]:DGT Test Questions
I have seen various tubing sizes tossed around in regard to the recent video demonstration. Does anyone have direct knowledge of the inside diameter of the copper cooling tubing? Since .5 liters per minute of cooling water flow was demonstrated in the Argon test, let's assume that this flow rate was accurate for the flow rate when the hydrogen was used. It was apparent that the tubing could handle the assumed .5 liters per minute with no problem so the question becomes; what effect does the conversion to vapor have upon that behavior? I noted that the temperature languished at 100 C for a long period of time as the system was coming up to power. This would be consistent with the condition of water passing through that is being vaporized at atmospheric pressure. Initially it would be expected to remain at that temperature and flow rate as long as the vapor is not restricted significantly by the pipe friction losses. This is where we need some knowledge of what should happen at elevated vaporization rates. It should be noted that the net flow rate of cooling water through the device is the same whether or not the water is vaporized by conduction of heat from the device if we assume that the meter at the input reads correctly when reverse pressure is applied. I would like to find a method of estimating the reverse pressure that is expected due to the vapor flow as heat is applied. Does anyone among this group have a good understanding of the pressure drop generated by flowing vapor in a condition such as we are observing? Is there reason to believe that several bars of reverse pressure is present at the output thermocouple at the maximum power point? My main issue is the apparent lack of noise being generated by the vapor exiting the tubing into the sink. This may just be an error in expectation on my part, but perhaps others share that concern. The purpose of this post is to attempt to apply logic to the observations from the demonstration. It would be interesting to squeeze as much information as possible from what was shown. Please offer any evidence or knowledge that you might harbor as we pursue these ideas. Thanks, Dave
Re: [Vo]:DGT Test Questions
From: David Roberson dlrober...@aol.com Sent: Friday, August 16, 2013 2:39:12 PM This is a quick response .. I don't have time right now to dig up my old posts. See my document on steam at lenr.qumbu.com for steam quality. I have seen various tubing sizes tossed around in regard to the recent video demonstration. Does anyone have direct knowledge of the inside diameter of the copper cooling tubing? The OD looked to me to be about 20mm ... I guess the ID to be in the range of 15mm to 20mm. I think the length on each side (inlet,outlet) is about 10m Since .5 liters per minute of cooling water flow was demonstrated in the Argon test, let's assume that this flow rate was accurate for the flow rate when the hydrogen was used. It was apparent that the tubing could handle the assumed .5 liters per minute with no problem Assuming 20mm ID the flow could be as much as 12 l/min -- allowing a 25C delta T with non-scalding 50C output, if you want to go to 99C sub-boiling, 75C delta, only 4 l/min would be needed. Various pressure-drop / water velocity tables showed that 12 l/min in 20mm ID is a high but feasible flow rate. Hadjichristos said the limit was mains pressure (after two and maybe three filters). Pure mains (typically 50-80 psi) might be able to do it .. but I'd go for a metered high-pressure pump. so the question becomes; what effect does the conversion to vapor have upon that behavior? I noted that the temperature languished at 100 C for a long period of time as the system was coming up to power. This would be consistent with the condition of water passing through that is being vaporized at atmospheric pressure. Initially it would be expected to remain at that temperature and flow rate as long as the vapor is not restricted significantly by the pipe friction losses. This is where we need some knowledge of what should happen at elevated vaporization rates. The heating goes in three stages : a) Water heated to boiling : temperature rises from 25C to 99C ... this is pure water flow. b) After boiling (say 100C) is reached, the temperature stays the same, but the quality of the steam increases from 0 (totally wet) to 1 (saturated). As far as flow is concerned, this is tricky, as you have intermediate stages : b1 -- Mostly water, with bubbles. Will act mostly like water, ie smooth flow, the water will look a bit cloudy b2 -- Water with voids -- the volume will increase, pressure may go well above ambient because the water restricts the flow -- the output flow will become irregular .. mostly water with intermittent bursts of steam b3 -- Steam with plugs -- steam is now dominant, the plugs will be ejected forcibly, sputtering at the output b4 -- Steam with droplets (what I call dry-out) -- the steam will flow quickly, with the droplets just carried along -- you will see visible misnamed steam at the output Between b1 and b3 you could collect liquid water at the outlet. The volume of the mix, and therefore the flow rate, increases linearly from pure water to pure steam. c) Saturated steam -- temperature rises from 100C to (observed) 165 C : you will NOT see steam at the outlet ... it will condense into a visible plume a few cm out. Pressure tables (20mm ID, 10m length) indicate about a 0.5 bar drop along the tube. Sparging will work at any of these stages. It should be noted that the net flow rate of cooling water through the device is the same whether or not the water is vaporized by conduction of heat from the device if we assume that the meter at the input reads correctly when reverse pressure is applied. I would like to find a method of estimating the reverse pressure that is expected due to the vapor flow as heat is applied. Does anyone among this group have a good understanding of the pressure drop generated by flowing vapor in a condition such as we are observing? Is there reason to believe that several bars of reverse pressure is present at the output thermocouple at the maximum power point? I don't think that reverse pressure to the flow meter is going to have ANY effect. My main issue is the apparent lack of noise being generated by the vapor exiting the tubing into the sink. This may just be an error in expectation on my part, but perhaps others share that concern. See above .. the sound and appearance at the outlet goes through several stages, and merits close observation (Jed's dark screen etc) The purpose of this post is to attempt to apply logic to the observations from the demonstration. It would be interesting to squeeze as much information as possible from what was shown. Please offer any evidence or knowledge that you might harbor as we pursue these ideas. Thanks, Dave
Re: [Vo]:a fine Cold Fusion paper:
From: Peter Gluck peter.gl...@gmail.com Sent: Friday, August 16, 2013 12:08:01 AM Dear Readers, Yiannis Hadjichristos has just called my attention to the following paper, a real double rara avis: - it is published in a peer reviewed journal; - it clearly opts for a multi-stage theory, interdisciplinar approach. It is Potential Exploration of Cold Fusion and Its Quantitative Theory of Physical-Chemical-Nuclear Multistage Chain Reaction Mechanism Yi-Fang Chang, Department of Physics, Yunnan University, Kunming, 650091, China International Journal of Modern Chemistry, 2013, 5(1): 29-43 Link: http://modernscientificpress.com/Journals/ViewArticle.aspx?H86Z5Noa2iKDNvH/0wRKWsOkhiUQ7RBfa/R/b49cNQN2PlFJKdv27fx5aFa7XQKO Lomax isn't so sure : http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/newvortex/message/598 I had a bad feeling when I read this. Peer-reviewed journal. The journal is an on-line publication. Authors pay to have their papers published. See http://modernscientificpress.com/About.aspx For the article in context in the journal, see http://modernscientificpress.com/Journals/IJMChem.aspx -- this currently displays Current Issue: Vol. 5 No. 1. Just before this article, in the current issue of The International Journal of Modern Chemistry, is an article titled Analysis of the Chemical Constituents of Dried Faeces of Goats for Their Potential Use as Manure. So the article being published in this journal means that it's classified with goat feces. Not promising. Here is the editorial board for IJMC: http://modernscientificpress.com/Journals/IJMChem.aspx I don't have specific information on the standards and practice of IJMC. However, that this paper has been published in such a peer-reviewed journal is essentially meaningless. The publisher is Modern Scientific Press. Weston, Florida. I found this discussion of Modern Scientific Press: http://ask.metafilter.com/220971/Is-Modern-Scientific-Press-legit There is a general article on the open access problem at http://www.nature.com/news/predatory-publishers-are-corrupting-open-access-1.11385 We saw, earlier, that Dr. Takahashi had a paper published by an open access publisher in Canada, that appeared more legitimate than this journal, though not much more! Essentially published by a fake institution. This Canadian journal apparently does publish print copies, which makes it useful for getting a paper into certain libraries. Maybe. I wouldn't count on it. (The Canadian journal did have an office in Canada, but operations seemed to be based elsewhere.) More: http://scholarlyoa.com/publishers/ This page lists Potential, possible, or probable predatory scholarly open-access publishers. It does list Modern Scientific Press. Now, looking at the paper. One of the signs of a legitimately published paper would be good grammar and spelling, it shows that there was careful proofreading. This is especially important for articles published in English with authors who aren't fluent in English (and ordinary verbal fluency isn't enough for professional-quality English.) So the first problem is the title itself: Potential Exploration of Cold Fusion and Its Quantitative Theory of Physical-Chemical-Nuclear Multistage Chain Reaction Mechanism Very poor title. Any theory article will be an exploration of theory, and a potential explanation. So that's totally redundant. Physical-Chemical-Nuclear says *nothing. This is an article about Multistage Chain Reaction Mechanism for Cold Fusion. But why use only seven words when seventeen will do? My comments here have *nothing to do*, so far, with the substance of Chang's theory. I'll get to that later. This is *just* about the claim of significance for this paper from having been published under peer review. What is being shown, here, is that there wasn't even normal proofreading done by the publication. Legitimate publishers have high concern about the appearance of their publications. So they will pay for editing. This publisher probably doesn't seriously care, and much of the customer base may not be in a position to carefully judge such things as grammar and common usage, the linguistic customs that make language colloquial. If you don't care about the English-speaking audience, why pay good money to satisfy its standards? Abstract: Cold fusion is very important and complex. That belongs in an abstract? One of main difficulties of cold fusion is the explanation on appearance of nuclear reaction. Atrocious grammar. What is being said is utterly obvious: Cold fusion was difficult to explain. Based on the standard quantum mechanics, The the here is non-colloquial, telegraphing a non-English writer or editor. To explain this, there is no specific entity, the standard quantum mechanics. There is a general consensus, not specific, and what is intened here would simply be written as based on standard quantum mechanics, i.e., it is
Re: [Vo]:DGT Test Questions
note that if I understood well, the end of the output pipe was plunged into a flow of water to cool the steam . the result is a great aspiration which cancel the pressure of vaporisation. if it is so, the result would be steam produced and aspired quickly into the sinkhole how much volume is .5l/min of water vaporized. some says 1700 times more volume than water.. it is 15 liter of steam per second, swallowed by the sink hole. hopefully not in the room, or it would be hot and wet soon. 2013/8/16 David Roberson dlrober...@aol.com I have seen various tubing sizes tossed around in regard to the recent video demonstration. Does anyone have direct knowledge of the inside diameter of the copper cooling tubing? Since .5 liters per minute of cooling water flow was demonstrated in the Argon test, let's assume that this flow rate was accurate for the flow rate when the hydrogen was used. It was apparent that the tubing could handle the assumed .5 liters per minute with no problem so the question becomes; what effect does the conversion to vapor have upon that behavior? I noted that the temperature languished at 100 C for a long period of time as the system was coming up to power. This would be consistent with the condition of water passing through that is being vaporized at atmospheric pressure. Initially it would be expected to remain at that temperature and flow rate as long as the vapor is not restricted significantly by the pipe friction losses. This is where we need some knowledge of what should happen at elevated vaporization rates. It should be noted that the net flow rate of cooling water through the device is the same whether or not the water is vaporized by conduction of heat from the device if we assume that the meter at the input reads correctly when reverse pressure is applied. I would like to find a method of estimating the reverse pressure that is expected due to the vapor flow as heat is applied. Does anyone among this group have a good understanding of the pressure drop generated by flowing vapor in a condition such as we are observing? Is there reason to believe that several bars of reverse pressure is present at the output thermocouple at the maximum power point? My main issue is the apparent lack of noise being generated by the vapor exiting the tubing into the sink. This may just be an error in expectation on my part, but perhaps others share that concern. The purpose of this post is to attempt to apply logic to the observations from the demonstration. It would be interesting to squeeze as much information as possible from what was shown. Please offer any evidence or knowledge that you might harbor as we pursue these ideas. Thanks, Dave
RE: [Vo]:a fine Cold Fusion paper:
-Original Message- From: Alan Fletcher PG: International Journal of Modern Chemistry, 2013, 5(1): 29-43 AF: I had a bad feeling when I read this; Peer-reviewed journal. The journal is an on-line publication. Authors pay to have their papers published So true. This is as far (or further) from Peer-reviewed science as is Rossi's JONP ... or as is Hustler from a Photographic Art Journal. It is basically a step-up from cyber-trash ... porno-sci shall we say? ... or maybe it is a step back - in that the ruse seems to have fooled a number of commentators. As least with Hustler (is it still in publication?) one may logically suspect that that what one sees is what one gets (plus a few STDs... making it an apt analogy) Jones
Re: [Vo]:DGT Test Questions
Thanks for the good information. When the drop was calculated as .5 bars, was that assuming dry steam at 165 C? Also, if the temperature measures 165 C at the output test point, does that automatically result in dry superheated steam? I ask this question because there most likely will exist an initial boiling point somewhere within the device enclosure that should be a bit higher than 100 C. The initial boiling vapor would transport some water drops along the pipe as it moves toward the output. Extra heat would be gained as the wet vapor travels outward which would vaporize additional water. At some point in space all of the liquid is vaporized so that from that point forward we have dry steam. I find it difficult to believe that the temperature measurement at the output test meter would be able to read 165 C if water drops could exist at that point. Of course, this assumption would only be true if the pressure at the output test point were near atmospheric. The .5 bar estimate is small enough for this to be true. How high is your confidence level that the pressure remains this low? Could you direct us to a source that calculates the pressure drop in copper pipes expected with steam flow? Dave -Original Message- From: Alan Fletcher a...@well.com To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Fri, Aug 16, 2013 6:39 pm Subject: Re: [Vo]:DGT Test Questions From: David Roberson dlrober...@aol.com Sent: Friday, August 16, 2013 2:39:12 PM This is a quick response .. I don't have time right now to dig up my old posts. See my document on steam at lenr.qumbu.com for steam quality. I have seen various tubing sizes tossed around in regard to the recent video demonstration. Does anyone have direct knowledge of the inside diameter of the copper cooling tubing? The OD looked to me to be about 20mm ... I guess the ID to be in the range of 15mm to 20mm. I think the length on each side (inlet,outlet) is about 10m Since .5 liters per minute of cooling water flow was demonstrated in the Argon test, let's assume that this flow rate was accurate for the flow rate when the hydrogen was used. It was apparent that the tubing could handle the assumed .5 liters per minute with no problem Assuming 20mm ID the flow could be as much as 12 l/min -- allowing a 25C delta T with non-scalding 50C output, if you want to go to 99C sub-boiling, 75C delta, only 4 l/min would be needed. Various pressure-drop / water velocity tables showed that 12 l/min in 20mm ID is a high but feasible flow rate. Hadjichristos said the limit was mains pressure (after two and maybe three filters). Pure mains (typically 50-80 psi) might be able to do it .. but I'd go for a metered high-pressure pump. so the question becomes; what effect does the conversion to vapor have upon that behavior? I noted that the temperature languished at 100 C for a long period of time as the system was coming up to power. This would be consistent with the condition of water passing through that is being vaporized at atmospheric pressure. Initially it would be expected to remain at that temperature and flow rate as long as the vapor is not restricted significantly by the pipe friction losses. This is where we need some knowledge of what should happen at elevated vaporization rates. The heating goes in three stages : a) Water heated to boiling : temperature rises from 25C to 99C ... this is pure water flow. b) After boiling (say 100C) is reached, the temperature stays the same, but the quality of the steam increases from 0 (totally wet) to 1 (saturated). As far as flow is concerned, this is tricky, as you have intermediate stages : b1 -- Mostly water, with bubbles. Will act mostly like water, ie smooth flow, the water will look a bit cloudy b2 -- Water with voids -- the volume will increase, pressure may go well above ambient because the water restricts the flow -- the output flow will become irregular .. mostly water with intermittent bursts of steam b3 -- Steam with plugs -- steam is now dominant, the plugs will be ejected forcibly, sputtering at the output b4 -- Steam with droplets (what I call dry-out) -- the steam will flow quickly, with the droplets just carried along -- you will see visible misnamed steam at the output Between b1 and b3 you could collect liquid water at the outlet. The volume of the mix, and therefore the flow rate, increases linearly from pure water to pure steam. c) Saturated steam -- temperature rises from 100C to (observed) 165 C : you will NOT see steam at the outlet ... it will condense into a visible plume a few cm out. Pressure tables (20mm ID, 10m length) indicate about a 0.5 bar drop along the tube. Sparging will work at any of these stages. It should be noted that the net flow rate of cooling water through the device is the same whether or not the water is vaporized by conduction of heat from the device if we assume that
Re: [Vo]:a fine Cold Fusion paper:
*but we don't accept Yiannis as expert on cold fusion theory,* Mark Twain defined an expert as an ordinary fellow from another town Will Rogers described an expert as A man fifty miles from home with a briefcase. Danish scientist and Nobel laureate Niels Bohr defined an expert as A person that has made every possible mistake within his or her field. On Fri, Aug 16, 2013 at 7:01 PM, Alan Fletcher a...@well.com wrote: From: Peter Gluck peter.gl...@gmail.com Sent: Friday, August 16, 2013 12:08:01 AM Dear Readers, Yiannis Hadjichristos has just called my attention to the following paper, a real double rara avis: - it is published in a peer reviewed journal; - it clearly opts for a multi-stage theory, interdisciplinar approach. It is Potential Exploration of Cold Fusion and Its Quantitative Theory of Physical-Chemical-Nuclear Multistage Chain Reaction Mechanism Yi-Fang Chang, Department of Physics, Yunnan University, Kunming, 650091, China International Journal of Modern Chemistry, 2013, 5(1): 29-43 Link: http://modernscientificpress.com/Journals/ViewArticle.aspx?H86Z5Noa2iKDNvH/0wRKWsOkhiUQ7RBfa/R/b49cNQN2PlFJKdv27fx5aFa7XQKO Lomax isn't so sure : http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/newvortex/message/598 I had a bad feeling when I read this. Peer-reviewed journal. The journal is an on-line publication. Authors pay to have their papers published. See http://modernscientificpress.com/About.aspx For the article in context in the journal, see http://modernscientificpress.com/Journals/IJMChem.aspx -- this currently displays Current Issue: Vol. 5 No. 1. Just before this article, in the current issue of The International Journal of Modern Chemistry, is an article titled Analysis of the Chemical Constituents of Dried Faeces of Goats for Their Potential Use as Manure. So the article being published in this journal means that it's classified with goat feces. Not promising. Here is the editorial board for IJMC: http://modernscientificpress.com/Journals/IJMChem.aspx I don't have specific information on the standards and practice of IJMC. However, that this paper has been published in such a peer-reviewed journal is essentially meaningless. The publisher is Modern Scientific Press. Weston, Florida. I found this discussion of Modern Scientific Press: http://ask.metafilter.com/220971/Is-Modern-Scientific-Press-legit There is a general article on the open access problem at http://www.nature.com/news/predatory-publishers-are-corrupting-open-access-1.11385 We saw, earlier, that Dr. Takahashi had a paper published by an open access publisher in Canada, that appeared more legitimate than this journal, though not much more! Essentially published by a fake institution. This Canadian journal apparently does publish print copies, which makes it useful for getting a paper into certain libraries. Maybe. I wouldn't count on it. (The Canadian journal did have an office in Canada, but operations seemed to be based elsewhere.) More: http://scholarlyoa.com/publishers/ This page lists Potential, possible, or probable predatory scholarly open-access publishers. It does list Modern Scientific Press. Now, looking at the paper. One of the signs of a legitimately published paper would be good grammar and spelling, it shows that there was careful proofreading. This is especially important for articles published in English with authors who aren't fluent in English (and ordinary verbal fluency isn't enough for professional-quality English.) So the first problem is the title itself: Potential Exploration of Cold Fusion and Its Quantitative Theory of Physical-Chemical-Nuclear Multistage Chain Reaction Mechanism Very poor title. Any theory article will be an exploration of theory, and a potential explanation. So that's totally redundant. Physical-Chemical-Nuclear says *nothing. This is an article about Multistage Chain Reaction Mechanism for Cold Fusion. But why use only seven words when seventeen will do? My comments here have *nothing to do*, so far, with the substance of Chang's theory. I'll get to that later. This is *just* about the claim of significance for this paper from having been published under peer review. What is being shown, here, is that there wasn't even normal proofreading done by the publication. Legitimate publishers have high concern about the appearance of their publications. So they will pay for editing. This publisher probably doesn't seriously care, and much of the customer base may not be in a position to carefully judge such things as grammar and common usage, the linguistic customs that make language colloquial. If you don't care about the English-speaking audience, why pay good money to satisfy its standards? Abstract: Cold fusion is very important and complex. That belongs in an abstract? One of main difficulties of cold fusion is the explanation on appearance
Re: [Vo]:DGT Test Questions
From: David Roberson dlrober...@aol.com Sent: Friday, August 16, 2013 4:33:03 PM Thanks for the good information. When the drop was calculated as .5 bars, was that assuming dry steam at 165 C? I think the peak was 165C -- I may have used 14C in some of my calculations Also, if the temperature measures 165 C at the output test point, does that automatically result in dry superheated steam? Depends on the pressure. Assuming 22kW, will be dry, superheated if it's below about 3.5 bar I ask this question because there most likely will exist an initial boiling point somewhere within the device enclosure that should be a bit higher than 100 C. The initial boiling vapor would transport some water drops along the pipe as it moves toward the output. Extra heat would be gained as the wet vapor travels outward which would vaporize additional water. At some point in space all of the liquid is vaporized so that from that point forward we have dry steam. Yes, you will have the various modes water, bubbles, voids, drops, dry steam at various points in the heater coil. The progression I described is what you see as the whole system heats up. Once it's stable, then you'll have these affects in the heater coil, but you wont see them at the outlet. Gravity will tend to hold the water at the bottom of the coils, so you might even hear it percolating in the earlier, inner coils. I find it difficult to believe that the temperature measurement at the output test meter would be able to read 165 C if water drops could exist at that point. Of course, this assumption would only be true if the pressure at the output test point were near atmospheric. The .5 bar estimate is small enough for this to be true. How high is your confidence level that the pressure remains this low? Not 100% -- I used a table similar to the metric one here : http://www.engineeringtoolbox.com/steam-pipe-pressure-drop-d_1129.html The flow rate was 0.5 l/min, total power 22kW (assuming no cheating and saturated steam) The pressure drop in a 20mm ID tube at 30 kg/hour in a 30m tube is about 0.2 But there's a scaling factor -- MUL * 5 for 0.5 bar, DIV 1/3 for a 10m tube Hmmm .. is the steam pressure standard (1 atm = 1bar) or gauge (1 atm = 0 bar ) 0.2 * 5 / 3 = 0.3 bar pressure drop It's sort of recursive ... but I'd guess in the range of 0.5 to 1.0 drop -- since the end of the tube is atmospheric, the temperature in the coil would be 0.5 gauge, 1.5 standard. Could you direct us to a source that calculates the pressure drop in copper pipes expected with steam flow? See above. The corrections for steam in a rough pipe isn't as great as the correction for water. Plugging those into my calculator gives : a href=http://lenr.qumbu.com/ecatcalc.php?plot=Plotever=cefzx0=0efzy0=0efzx9=9efzy9=9esl=1epbr=1enm=Defkalion+steam+0.5l%2Fmin+22kw+1.5+barsedh=0edm=1eds=0eif=0.5eip=2ecp=0eop=22eoxr=1et0=25.62ep0=1et1=25.62ep2=1.5er2=2; target=_blankDefkalion steam 0.5l/min 22kw 1.5 bars/a BUT : if the outlet pipe isn't insulated all the way then there'll be a temperature drop too, resulting in a different pressure gradient. You really need a skilled steam engineer here !
Re: [Vo]:DGT Test Questions
There's a full calculator here : http://www.engineeringtoolbox.com/steam-pressure-drop-calculator-d_1093.html I don't have the steam density at hand (and have to go do some errands).
Re: [Vo]:the future of PdD LENR is not technological
David Roberson dlrober...@aol.com wrote: I suspect that the lower power products that are mentioned, such as a laptop computer will still need connection to a power generation source that is external. The electrical power they need requires the release of far too much low quality heat for its local generation. Yes, for a while. Maybe 20 to 30 years? During that time there will be small generators for houses, and larger ones for apartments, schools, shopping malls and so on. Since the wiring is already in place this will be easy and it will cost little. In the long term, I predict that thermoelectric devices will improve to ~50% or better efficiency. A laptop nowadays draws 50 to 100 W. I assume future ones will draw ~25 W. Imagine a small but intense 50 W heat source powering a thermoelectric chip, with a large radiator behind that to spread out the heat. That would be doable I think. My laptop burns a hole in my lap as it is and I can not imagine increasing it's heat release by several times to rely upon internal generation. That is partly because all of the heat comes out of one place in your laptop, where the battery is. I have noticed that. They need a better radiator. As I said, assuming the demand fall by about half and 50% effective thermoelectric chips are developed, future laptops will be no hotter than today's machines. Bright electric lights will be roughly as hot as old-fashioned incandescent ones. Refrigerators will mainly use heat directly, like today's gas fired ones. There may be some large household appliances that run too hot with cold fusion thermoelectric chips. Perhaps washing machines? They may need to be vented. Clothes dryers will use cold fusion heat directly, so they will be no hotter than they are now. It seems logical for each home to contain its own generation system which should be LENR based. This type of system would also allow for the usage of existing appliances. Appliances last 10 to 15 years, rarely 20. Once the fleet of refrigerators and air conditioners is replaced with cold fusion thermal ones, and clothes dryer are replaced, household demand for electricity drops a great deal. See Table 15.1 in my book. The changeover will accelerate in the last stages, taking less than the 15 years appliances usually last. I explained the reasons here: http://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/RothwellJthefuturem.pdf This pattern was seen with other obsolete technology, such as mainframe and minicomputers. In the far future, all bets are off as to how power is obtained at an individuals home. I am more concerned about how things play out during my lifetime and not for generations 100 years into the future. This will take no longer than 50 years, and probably less, starting the day cold fusion goes on sale. I base that on the time it took automobiles to clobber the horse-and-buggy and the short distance passenger rail business, and the time it took VoIP and cell phones to make landlines obsolete. In New York after the damage from the recent hurricane, the phone company is not even going to bother replacing the landlines in some rural areas. They are pushing all customers to cell phone technology. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:DGT Test Questions
Thanks again. It appears like DGT actually had 20 plus kilowatts of power being delivered according to the information thus far. Does anyone recall seeing evidence of a magic trick of some type regarding the output vapor? One observation I recall from the video was that they tended to keep the camera focused upon the multiple temperature readings most of the time and spent little time on the output temperature and flow rate indication. This may have been due to them having to closely monitor the temperatures, but it seemed excessive. At the time, I had the feeling that they did not want those indications followed closely by the audience. According to the data presented by Alan, it appears that the input flow rate should not have been materially modified by the reverse steam pressure since that would not have been significant when compared to the grid input pressure. Has anyone seen the published data collected during the demonstration? Dave -Original Message- From: Alan Fletcher a...@well.com To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Fri, Aug 16, 2013 8:29 pm Subject: Re: [Vo]:DGT Test Questions From: David Roberson dlrober...@aol.com Sent: Friday, August 16, 2013 4:33:03 PM Thanks for the good information. When the drop was calculated as .5 bars, was that assuming dry steam at 165 C? I think the peak was 165C -- I may have used 14C in some of my calculations Also, if the temperature measures 165 C at the output test point, does that automatically result in dry superheated steam? Depends on the pressure. Assuming 22kW, will be dry, superheated if it's below about 3.5 bar I ask this question because there most likely will exist an initial boiling point somewhere within the device enclosure that should be a bit higher than 100 C. The initial boiling vapor would transport some water drops along the pipe as it moves toward the output. Extra heat would be gained as the wet vapor travels outward which would vaporize additional water. At some point in space all of the liquid is vaporized so that from that point forward we have dry steam. Yes, you will have the various modes water, bubbles, voids, drops, dry steam at various points in the heater coil. The progression I described is what you see as the whole system heats up. Once it's stable, then you'll have these affects in the heater coil, but you wont see them at the outlet. Gravity will tend to hold the water at the bottom of the coils, so you might even hear it percolating in the earlier, inner coils. I find it difficult to believe that the temperature measurement at the output test meter would be able to read 165 C if water drops could exist at that point. Of course, this assumption would only be true if the pressure at the output test point were near atmospheric. The .5 bar estimate is small enough for this to be true. How high is your confidence level that the pressure remains this low? Not 100% -- I used a table similar to the metric one here : http://www.engineeringtoolbox.com/steam-pipe-pressure-drop-d_1129.html The flow rate was 0.5 l/min, total power 22kW (assuming no cheating and saturated steam) The pressure drop in a 20mm ID tube at 30 kg/hour in a 30m tube is about 0.2 But there's a scaling factor -- MUL * 5 for 0.5 bar, DIV 1/3 for a 10m tube Hmmm .. is the steam pressure standard (1 atm = 1bar) or gauge (1 atm = 0 bar ) 0.2 * 5 / 3 = 0.3 bar pressure drop It's sort of recursive ... but I'd guess in the range of 0.5 to 1.0 drop -- since the end of the tube is atmospheric, the temperature in the coil would be 0.5 gauge, 1.5 standard. Could you direct us to a source that calculates the pressure drop in copper pipes expected with steam flow? See above. The corrections for steam in a rough pipe isn't as great as the correction for water. Plugging those into my calculator gives : a href=http://lenr.qumbu.com/ecatcalc.php?plot=Plotever=cefzx0=0efzy0=0efzx9=9efzy9=9esl=1epbr=1enm=Defkalion+steam+0.5l%2Fmin+22kw+1.5+barsedh=0edm=1eds=0eif=0.5eip=2ecp=0eop=22eoxr=1et0=25.62ep0=1et1=25.62ep2=1.5er2=2; target=_blankDefkalion steam 0.5l/min 22kw 1.5 bars/a BUT : if the outlet pipe isn't insulated all the way then there'll be a temperature drop too, resulting in a different pressure gradient. You really need a skilled steam engineer here !
Re: [Vo]:the future of PdD LENR is not technological
*The evanescent wave* There is an EMF power amplification factor of up to 10 to the 15 power experimentally demonstrated by nanolenzes formed by nanowires and nanoparticles. This is before the chemical probes that measure this power level are destroyed by the EMF originating from the “hot spot. The question is “how does such a concentration of power occur?” An evanescent wave exits in the near-field of a reflecting surface with an intensity that exhibits exponential decay with distance from the boundary at which the wave was formed. Evanescent waves are a general property of wave-equations, and can in principle occur in any context to which a wave-equation applies. They are formed at the boundary between two media with different wave motion properties, and are most intense within one third of a wavelength from the surface of formation. This is the reason why electric arking and dielectric boundaries are important in LENR. EMF amplification involves solutions of Maxwell’s equations and boundary conditions where imaginary solutions are manifest. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evanescent_wave Total internal reflection of light In the context of Ni/H LENR+, the boundary between nickel and pressurized hydrogen forms a boundary trap where the capacitive EMF(electrons) accumulate because there is a Total internal reflection of this EMF at the boundary of the metal hydrogen interface. These electron waves accumulate and superimpose constructively. This EMF wave function has no solution that transmits energy away from the boundary. Mathematically, evanescent waves can be characterized by a wave vector where one or more of the vector's components have an imaginary value. This coupling between the hydrogen dielectric that cover the nano-particle and/or the nickel micro-particle is directly analogous to the coupling between the primary and secondary coils of a transformer, or between the two plates of a capacitor. Mathematically, the process is the same as that of quantum tunneling, except with electromagnetic waves instead of quantum-mechanical wave function. This near surface interface boundary is the zone were electrons accumulate by a power concentration factor of trillions or more. It is this charge concentration that produces coulomb barrier lowering in the boundary layer where the evanescent wave forms. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fano_resonance Fano resonance is the mechanism that mixes the electron and light waveforms together. The infrared radiation and dielectric oscillations of the excitons are the two waveforms involved. An exciton is a bound state of an electron and an electron hole which are attracted to each other by the electrostatic Coulomb force. The Fano resonance line-shape is due to interference between two scattering amplitudes, one due to scattering within a continuum of states (the background process) and the second due to an excitation of a discrete state (the resonant process). The energy of the resonant state must lie in the energy range of the continuum (background) states for the effect to occur. Near the resonant energy, the background scattering amplitude typically varies slowly with energy while the resonant scattering amplitude changes both in magnitude and phase quickly. It is this variation that creates the asymmetric profile. The Fano resonance is how increased infrared stimulation of the micro powder increases LENR activity. When DGT removes the hydrogen from their reactor, the Fano resonance is destroyed. Fano resonance is like a charger of a capacitor that will continue to load the capacitor until the capacitor is fully loaded. This loading condition occurs when the energy lost from the capacitor equals the input loading energy level of the charger. More of Black EVs from Ken Shoulders http://www.svn.net/krscfs/Permittivity%20Transitions.pdf Figure 5 and 6 on page 4 show how a white EV transforms into a black EV. Ken Shoulders states as follows: “In order to develop some reality about the appearance of white and black EVs, refer to Fig. 5 and Fig. 6 with each showing a single run of an EV toward a target at the top of the photo. These photos were taken from (1) as Fig. 4:40 and Fig. 4:42 where there is other photos showing similar affects. What can be seen is the white EV coming in from the lower side of the photo and then disappearing from camera view just before striking the target and disintegrating it. The white glob at the top is a plume of ions coming from the explosion. This can be validated by applying an analyzing field in the camera that produces a deflection to the left for ions and to the right for electrons. This analysis field has been applied in Fig. 6 and it can be seen that the white EV has moved to the right, signifying its emission products are electrons, while the ion plume moves to the left. The fact is, there is an omission of both electronic and optical traces during the black phase of the EV run This is not an artifact of the
Re: [Vo]:DGT Test Questions
From: David Roberson dlrober...@aol.com Sent: Friday, August 16, 2013 6:07:50 PM One observation I recall from the video was that they tended to keep the camera focused upon the multiple temperature readings most of the time and spent little time on the output temperature and flow rate indication. This may have been due to them having to closely monitor the temperatures, but it seemed excessive. At the time, I had the feeling that they did not want those indications followed closely by the audience. They showed the details often enough not to worry me. Sometimes the cameraman zoomed in too tight and didn't show all fields. I don't think they were trying to hide anything. Since they were running the system in manual the engineer was probably keeping an eye on the slope of the reactor temperature, which they use as the control parameter. According to the data presented by Alan, it appears that the input flow rate should not have been materially modified by the reverse steam pressure since that would not have been significant when compared to the grid input pressure. I believe that typical (US) domestic water pressure is in the 50-80 psi = 3.5 - 5.5 bar range -- presumably gauge : add one, so it's 4.5 to 6.5 absolute, with maybe a back pressure of 1.5 to 2.0 max (absolute, not gauge). Of course, ancient Italian pipes might have a couple of millennia of Roman crud in them. Has anyone seen the published data collected during the demonstration? Nope : give us the dang data !!!
Re: [Vo]:the future of PdD LENR is not technological
On Fri, Aug 16, 2013 at 5:38 PM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com wrote: A laptop nowadays draws 50 to 100 W. I assume future ones will draw ~25 W. Imagine a small but intense 50 W heat source powering a thermoelectric chip, with a large radiator behind that to spread out the heat. That would be doable I think. While I'm sympathetic with the direction of these predictions, they assume that high power densities can be obtained without the need for thick radiation shielding. Eric
Re: [Vo]:a fine Cold Fusion paper:
Yiannis has considered seriously LENR (not more genuine Cold Fusion) for the first time in 2009 and has rejected many of our most valuable memes. Young expert is an oxymoron. He also has shown lack of respect for our tradition to build delicate, weak, unmanageable evanescent, almost non-cognoscible processes. He uses deep degassing - clearly non-scientific. He uses inquisitorial sadistic methods when asking Mother Nature! Unable to see simplicity in LENR. Not an expert indeed. We have our experts united by a common scientific cultural experience and this will be obvious when you will answer to the following question: *WHO ARE THE GREATEST 5 ACCEPTED* *COLD FUSION THEORY EXPERTS TODAY? and* *WHAT IS COMMON IN THE THINKING RE C.F. OF THESE 5 GREAT PERSONALITIES?* * * *Viribus unitis!* Peter * * On Sat, Aug 17, 2013 at 3:11 AM, Axil Axil janap...@gmail.com wrote: *but we don't accept Yiannis as expert on cold fusion theory,* Mark Twain defined an expert as an ordinary fellow from another town Will Rogers described an expert as A man fifty miles from home with a briefcase. Danish scientist and Nobel laureate Niels Bohr defined an expert as A person that has made every possible mistake within his or her field. On Fri, Aug 16, 2013 at 7:01 PM, Alan Fletcher a...@well.com wrote: From: Peter Gluck peter.gl...@gmail.com Sent: Friday, August 16, 2013 12:08:01 AM Dear Readers, Yiannis Hadjichristos has just called my attention to the following paper, a real double rara avis: - it is published in a peer reviewed journal; - it clearly opts for a multi-stage theory, interdisciplinar approach. It is Potential Exploration of Cold Fusion and Its Quantitative Theory of Physical-Chemical-Nuclear Multistage Chain Reaction Mechanism Yi-Fang Chang, Department of Physics, Yunnan University, Kunming, 650091, China International Journal of Modern Chemistry, 2013, 5(1): 29-43 Link: http://modernscientificpress.com/Journals/ViewArticle.aspx?H86Z5Noa2iKDNvH/0wRKWsOkhiUQ7RBfa/R/b49cNQN2PlFJKdv27fx5aFa7XQKO Lomax isn't so sure : http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/newvortex/message/598 I had a bad feeling when I read this. Peer-reviewed journal. The journal is an on-line publication. Authors pay to have their papers published. See http://modernscientificpress.com/About.aspx For the article in context in the journal, see http://modernscientificpress.com/Journals/IJMChem.aspx -- this currently displays Current Issue: Vol. 5 No. 1. Just before this article, in the current issue of The International Journal of Modern Chemistry, is an article titled Analysis of the Chemical Constituents of Dried Faeces of Goats for Their Potential Use as Manure. So the article being published in this journal means that it's classified with goat feces. Not promising. Here is the editorial board for IJMC: http://modernscientificpress.com/Journals/IJMChem.aspx I don't have specific information on the standards and practice of IJMC. However, that this paper has been published in such a peer-reviewed journal is essentially meaningless. The publisher is Modern Scientific Press. Weston, Florida. I found this discussion of Modern Scientific Press: http://ask.metafilter.com/220971/Is-Modern-Scientific-Press-legit There is a general article on the open access problem at http://www.nature.com/news/predatory-publishers-are-corrupting-open-access-1.11385 We saw, earlier, that Dr. Takahashi had a paper published by an open access publisher in Canada, that appeared more legitimate than this journal, though not much more! Essentially published by a fake institution. This Canadian journal apparently does publish print copies, which makes it useful for getting a paper into certain libraries. Maybe. I wouldn't count on it. (The Canadian journal did have an office in Canada, but operations seemed to be based elsewhere.) More: http://scholarlyoa.com/publishers/ This page lists Potential, possible, or probable predatory scholarly open-access publishers. It does list Modern Scientific Press. Now, looking at the paper. One of the signs of a legitimately published paper would be good grammar and spelling, it shows that there was careful proofreading. This is especially important for articles published in English with authors who aren't fluent in English (and ordinary verbal fluency isn't enough for professional-quality English.) So the first problem is the title itself: Potential Exploration of Cold Fusion and Its Quantitative Theory of Physical-Chemical-Nuclear Multistage Chain Reaction Mechanism Very poor title. Any theory article will be an exploration of theory, and a potential explanation. So that's totally redundant. Physical-Chemical-Nuclear says *nothing. This is an article about Multistage Chain Reaction Mechanism for Cold Fusion. But why use only seven words when seventeen will do? My comments here have *nothing to
