On Sun, Oct 12, 2014 at 5:55 PM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com wrote:
From David French:
http://coldfusionnow.org/status-report-rossi-pending-us-patent-application/
David French's analyses are great. The clear lesson in this instance: if
you're going to try to patent something, enlist
I went with Oriani's paper with the nauseating context of Nature's
rejection on the basis that it violates theory, and then followed up with
Storms's Status of Cold Fusion (2010)
http://coldfusionnow.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/05/StormsEstatusofcoa.pdf
On Sun, Oct 12, 2014 at 10:57 PM, James
On Sun, Oct 12, 2014 at 8:43 PM, Robert Lynn robert.gulliver.l...@gmail.com
wrote:
... eg if Ø20mm outer wall is at 1200°C (approx max given revised COP of
around 2 from temp reading that is obviously in error due to non-melting of
inconel, though could be significantly lower)
I've taken a
well i can differentiate between the heat coming from a 700W or 2100 W hot
airheater (with a blower) by sensing the temperature difference .
I think it can be measured much more accurately with temperature sensors and
exact flow measurements.
When there is a difference of a factor 3 between
Another way to approach analysis is to take the report results as a given
and envision how the reactor would need to be configured and junction to
provide those results.
On Sun, Oct 12, 2014 at 11:43 PM, Robert Lynn
robert.gulliver.l...@gmail.com wrote:
1% lithium in 1g fuel, so 0.01g, boils
as usual proposing a test like isotopic analysis befire having gathere all
the conspiracy theories from a previous test, is the best way to be mudied
by crazy theories...
note how they no more attack the power
the only critics that I'(ve sen are :
- the isotopic analysis, rossi presence, no
Hello Robert!
Why dont u go over to http://www.lenr-forum.com/forum/index.php/Thread/722-Ask-questions-to-the-Working-Group-ECAT-long-term-test/?postID=1386#post1386
and tell the professors doing the test about ur concerns regarding the temperature measurement?
But maybe it would be helpful to do
The trouble is, we don't know when that picture was taken and to what
extent the camera affected the color.
I suspect one of the engineers here could take the temperature data from
the caps vs. the core area and compare the dummy vs. the active run. Since
the caps are not incandescent, perhaps
done, not much point in doing more exhaustive calculations without better
knowledge of construction and dimensions, but the big guess with regard to
wire area doesn't make much if any difference considering nature of black
body cavity receiving surface that is inner wall of finned tube. I think
Additionally, I think we may be able to examine the issue more
experimentally by using similar materials.
For example, here is a spiral grooved alumina tube.
http://dengfengjinyu.en.made-in-china.com/product/KqaEYeWMfSVC/China-Alumina-Tube-Spiral-Groove-.html
On Mon, Oct 13, 2014 at 6:12 AM,
I've just realised that if my no-LENR output power conclusion is sound,
then Rossi is in serious trouble trying to explain the Ni62 ash. Could be
the end of him.
On 13 October 2014 20:11, Robert Lynn robert.gulliver.l...@gmail.com
wrote:
done, not much point in doing more exhaustive
I have one idea, linked to my pet theory (don't laugh guys, I have stolen
most of it to competent people; the stupid part is my adding).
as Godes says, most of external Li must have gone.
and if there was some in the powder maybe it was inside the active part,
why not produced by the reaction...
you have to add to the losses of the turbine, the losses of the battery
required, (the rest , electronics can be efficient) that may be 50% from in
to out later
maybe supercapacitor/nonsupercapacitor can help, or freewheel?
2014-10-13 2:08 GMT+02:00 Robert Lynn robert.gulliver.l...@gmail.com:
Exploring the colors some more.
If you zoom in on the hottest area and use a color picker to get the color,
you can compare that specific color with a color temperature chart.
Looking at the hottest spot, the temperature could be between 1570C and
2426C. I used the color picker in Gimp to get
did not rossi already answer that question, by saying that the conductor
inside were not so trivial...
doped conductor he says...
we should be careful not to take unfounded assumption, then deduce false
things from that...
maybe is it more simple to start from the instruments and guess how it is
A corespondent sent me this link:
http://www.eurotherm2008.tue.nl/Proceedings_Eurotherm2008/papers/Radiation/RAD_6.pdf
He commented: My interpretation of figure 6 is that the tranmissivity of
alumina goes down to zero. Hence, this shows the arguments about alumina
translucency are moot.
- Jed
From: Robert Lynn
These numbers are only approximate (this is a crude
calculation only), but I think that quantitatively at least it appears that
there is a strong possibility that this demo was producing little if any
power, based on pretty simple physical
From: Alain
… even if very few Li6 was produced, if most natural Li6/7 is gone, it can
looks like a huge enrichment while it is tiny local production.
Yes, I thought of that too. Unfortunately, in scouring the literature, Li6 does
not show up as the product of any known nuclear
https://www.google.se/trends/explore?hl=en-GB#q=%22E-Cat%22date=11%2F2010%2050mcmpt=q
Sweden and Italy are the top two. Spike is similar to may report for 2013
The Czech Republic jumps in at #2.
What is that about?
From: Blaze Spinnaker
https://www.google.se/trends/explore?hl=en-GB#q=%22E-Cat%22
https://www.google.se/trends/explore?hl=en-GB#q=%22E-Cat%22date=11%2F2010%2050mcmpt=q
date=11%2F2010%2050mcmpt=q
Sweden and Italy are
Never mind. A quick google turns up this
Martin Fleischmann was born in what is now the Czech Republic in 1927.
Apparently - it doesn’t take too many Fleischmann family members to skew the
results
The Czech Republic jumps in at #2.
What is that about?
From: Blaze
The good news : In fig 6 the transmittance of alumina drops off by 5um,, and
drops off quicker at higher temperatures.
The bad news : In fig 7 the emittance varies greatly by wavelength (1.0 to
0.15), and also varies by temperature.
Levi et al do not mention the variation by wavelength, only
There are several problems
1)They had every opportunity to coat the reactor with black refractory
paint. In fact Rossi did this on numerous other tests.
2)They did not calibrate above 450 C and this was not done ON ORDERS FROM
ROSSI
3)There is every reason to believe that the same
The system is way too complex for thermography to be able to deal with. I
note that most black-body radiation for 1400°C:
http://www.nature.com/ncomms/2013/131016/ncomms3630/images_article/ncomms3630-f4.jpg
has majority of emission at 4um where the alumina transmittance appears
relatively high in
Jones Beene jone...@pacbell.net wrote:
2)They did not calibrate above 450 C and this was not done ON ORDERS
FROM ROSSI
It does not say that anywhere.
3)There is every reason to believe that the same gain would have
been seen in the dummy had they calibrated it high enough.
A
Let me remove a few typos
There are several problems with the testing which cannot be remedied with the
dubious isotope analysis, which is an independent problem.
1)They had every opportunity to coat the reactor with black refractory
paint. In fact Rossi did this on numerous other
From: Jed Rothwell
2)They did not calibrate above 450 C and this was not done ON ORDERS FROM
ROSSI
JR: It does not say that anywhere.
Please read the report carefully before making silly rationalizations.
Care to share where you saw this?
The dummy reactor was switched on at 12:20 PM of 24 February 2014 by Andrea
Rossi who gradually
brought it to the power level requested by us. Rossi later intervened to
switch off the dummy, and in the
following subsequent operations on the E-Cat: charge
You seem to be saying that it is not found in the “revised” or edited
version? There is an edited version of the report, in which details like
this are removed. Rothwell, no doubt, would chose to only read the edited
version.
From: Blaze Spinnaker
Care to share
Of course, Rothwell may be trying to distinguish between Rossi actually
doing it himself of giving the order to do it.
Hmm… flashback a few years …. It depends on what the meaning of the word
'is' is.” I would hope that we are above that kind of double-talk on
vortex, but of course we are not.
It lakes good question to ask, because we speculate on unknown data.
It is hard to imagine they have made student mistakes...
the transparency question look less student stupid than others, but
someone handling an IR cam can easily understand the the measurement suffer
artifact...
as asked Jed,
you forgot the clear logic...
it is a product of fusion,
2014-10-13 16:13 GMT+02:00 Jones Beene jone...@pacbell.net:
*From:* Alain
… even if very few Li6 was produced, if most natural Li6/7 is gone, it
can looks like a huge enrichment while it is tiny local production.
Yes, I
And we still have the problem of a system calibrated at 450C being used at
1400C
the main question is why this F**G reactor is at 1400C while it have
less power in...
OK, I'm not an expert, but this challenge my understanding.
2014-10-13 16:35 GMT+02:00 Alan Fletcher a...@well.com:
The
It now becomes apparent why we suffered through such a long delay in seeing
this paper published. I would love to the original version.
Obviously, they went through several months trying to edit out all of the
“problem” areas. Apparently they missed a few – one of which was the
admission that
On 10/13/2014 11:19 AM, Jones Beene wrote:
*From:*Jed Rothwell
2)They did not calibrate above 450 C and this was not done ON ORDERS
FROM ROSSI
JR: It does not say that anywhere.
Please read the report carefully before making silly rationalizations.
Is this what you're referring to?
In
From: Alain Sepeda
you forgot the clear logic... it is a product of fusion,
Fusion of what? Please state clearly the reaction you have in mind.
All we are asking for is some semblance of science here.
Jones:
In fairness to this process it also says of the dummy reactor test that
“Rossi gradually brought it to the power level THEY requested” (emphasis
added). It doesn’t say that the test power level was determined or demanded
by Rossi. The fact he turned it off after they had what they wanted
Rephrase : And we still have the problem of a system calibrated at 450C being
used TO CALCULATE a temperature of 1400C
I'm wondering if the curve where they increased the input power may be useful.
If we regard the previous stable temperature of 1250C as a calibration, then
the DELTA power
Loosely related questionable power generation experiment...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZCx89BRbVeU
On Mon, Oct 13, 2014 at 12:37 PM, Jones Beene jone...@pacbell.net wrote:
Randy,
No scientist would calibrate for 500 if they knew that the reaction is
going
to 1400. And they should have
Jones:
I understand that concept. But just a quick glance at the data seems to
question your conclusion. Why didn’t the 30w input decrease between File1
and File 5 cause a much bigger decrease in temperature being estimated by
the TI camera if your assumption is correct? I would have expected
We need to be careful when we say the technique for reading the temperature
only measures photons. When I read the documents from the camera vendor site I
came away with the understanding that the detectors that they use in their
instruments actually respond to heat directly. The heat is in
Dear Friends
I hope that my paper:
http://egooutpeters.blogspot.ro/2014/10/learning-from-confrontationalist.html
will show that we can learn from very unexpected attacks.
The enemy is enemy is enemy.
Peter
--
Dr. Peter Gluck
Cluj, Romania
http://egooutpeters.blogspot.com
At 10:46 AM 10/13/2014, you wrote:
We
need to be careful when we say the technique for reading the temperature
only measures photons. When I read the documents from the camera
vendor site I came away with the understanding that the detectors that
they use in their instruments actually respond to
Randy,
Let me clear. I think that there was thermal gain here. I have said all
along that there is gain but it could be less than claimed, because many
things do not add up, and the extent of gain is not proved by the
thermography… yet.
And a level of real gain does not mean that the
The cameras were already calibrated by their respective manufacturers as
stated on page 4 of the report, All the instruments used during the
test are property of the authors of the present paper, and were
calibrated in their respective manufacturers’ laboratories. Moreover,
once in Lugano, a
Brian Ahern just called me to say that he spoke with expert in thermal
imaging. The expert went over the paper and said this was exactly the right
kind of camera for these materials and this range of temperatures. The guy
said surface roughness and various other factors come into play. He knows
Thanks for posting Jed -- I too appreciated Brian's efforts to add to our
collective understanding on this matter. We need to get as many expert eyes
on this as possible, and each of us drawing on our own network of experts
is actually a big deal and necessary I think.
John
On Mon, Oct 13, 2014
Looking closely at figures 5-8 of appendix 3 of the Lugano report, I believe
we can see evidence for the evolution of a mass 69 species during
sputter-cleaning of the samples while undergoing ToF-SIMS analysis in a
scanning electron microscope.
Figure 5 provides what amounts to a control run
From prior postings...
The Li6 and the Ni62 were added by Rossi - not created. That is my main
message in this long saga to find the truth - and it is factual no matter
how much excess heat was created. (of course that is my opinion only)
This scenario still falls under the category of deceit,
I wanted to add that in the dummy run there was a 10% deviation between
measured and output, assume that the
heat is proportional to the Temperature (which it's not, its T^4) you will
get a 10% error in temperature measurement.
(3.5% if you think in T^4). Now state that at the higher temperatures
See:
http://pesn.com/2014/10/13/9602545_Leaked-Second-Paper_With_High-Magnification_of_Rossis-Nickel-Particles_Brings_Replication_Closer/
I talked to Brian also, and I know the reputation of the person he refers to
and that he can be trusted. Both are good eggs.
Thus, the excess heat is likely to be real, but that says nothing about the
isotope analysis. But it does narrow the controversy down to the single issue.
Brian’s
Jones Beene jone...@pacbell.net wrote:
I talked to Brian also, and I know the reputation of the person he refers
to and that he can be trusted. Both are good eggs.
So, are you going to retract your previous assertions about how Rossi
cheated on the calorimetry, magically affecting it from
From: Jed Rothwell .
* So, are you going to retract your previous assertions about how Rossi
cheated on the calorimetry, magically affecting it from thousands of kilometers
away?
I made it clear that the cheating was in the isotope analysis, and that is even
more clear now than before.
Brian did not add much detail. He did not mention the guy's name. Maybe we
can persuade Jones Beene to enlighten us on that, perhaps by playing him
like a harp.
Brian said that he asked the guy whether it was correct to use a pyrometer
centered on 7-13 microns. The guy said that is exactly the
If you look at the paper I have published on my blog yesterday, the isotope
results not more so improbable.
Li-Ni nuclear interactions can explain some isitopes. The bad side is that
the analysis is not complete
waht happens to Fe and Ak for example and what light elements are
nucleosynthesized?
There is a boatload of bad assumptions made by you, the testers and Rossi
involving the mechanisms of the reaction. I believe that the DGT theory of
the reaction is the correct one and the Rossi theory of the reaction is
wrong.
In the DGT theory, the nickel powder sets up a high temperature boson
Hello Jones.
Do u have any proof for the allegations you r posting here?
Greetings Marcus
Gesendet:Montag, 13. Oktober 2014 um 20:39 Uhr
Von:Jones Beene jone...@pacbell.net
An:vortex-l@eskimo.com
Betreff:[Vo]:Has the secret sauce been revealed by duplicity?
From prior postings...
The
From: Jed Rothwell
Brian did not add much detail. He did not mention the guy's name. Maybe we can
persuade Jones Beene to enlighten us on that, perhaps by playing him like a
harp.
He is a researcher at a top Aerospace company who for peer-related reasons does
not want to be identified
From: Marcus Haber
Hello Jones.
Do u have any proof for the allegations your posting here?
Greetings Marcus
Every textbook in Nuclear physics, that’s all
Jones:
With all due respect, I don’t think the text books would support any nuclear
change under the circumstances. What makes NI62 which is found in nature and
was in both the before and after sample disturbing?
As to the LI6, why is that product any more unlikely than the nuclear
IThe is no way in nuclear science to convert the reactants seen in the
way seen. T
This is probably true, there might be a dog buried, we need to look in that
direction. But also, it is our current view of nuclear science, all
reaction chains depends heavily on some extra constraints that you
Vorts.
While Rothwell is trying to squirm out of this latest twist on the thermal
gain, but probably will not report his dilemma - another highly qualified
expert has turned up on CMNS. I will quote his main point:
“This is a serious error if in fact the authors did not take into account
the
Jones Beene jone...@pacbell.net wrote:
He believes the data is accurate and was conducted in a manner consistent
with his experience. The measurements rely on accurate emissivity data and
he says they were indeed accurate.
Not exactly.
Yes, exactly. This is what Brian wrote: He [the
Jones Beene jone...@pacbell.net wrote:
Vorts.
While Rothwell is trying to squirm out of this latest twist on the thermal
gain . . .
This has nothing to do with me! We are discussing claims made by Ahern, an
unnamed expert, and now this guy on CMNS. (I hope you got permission from
him --
From: Randy Wuller
With all due respect, I don’t think the text books would support any nuclear
change under the circumstances. What makes NI62 which is found in nature and
was in both the before and after sample disturbing?
The energy release from 58Ni to Ni62 is massive. Gamma
From: Jed Rothwell
There is no potential financial motive here as far as I know.
That is the major problem here, stated simply: you do not know.
Im staring at p 45, fig 4b / ash and is comparing with p 44, fig 3b, So is
it that much difference?
I don't understand that we can argue about data, we really shouled have
pictures from at least 20 randomly selected particles to say anything, it
is suggested that Rossi have bought the isotope 62
why on earth did they stopped using that method as Jones seam to indicate
with his
correspondence. I don't get it.
Stefan,
Go to page 42 Appendix 1 Table one
It would not matter is this sample is the one and only particle in the entire
sample which looked like this, the probability of this happening even once is
astronomical.
There are only two possibilities within the realm of reason
1)A
This is a good point. If all that transmutation occurred in such a
homogeneous fashion it would be good evidence that BECs were forming. Once
there's a BEC working around such a large soup of constituents, some very
conventional physics get thrown out the window. Strangely enough, the weak
The table is for a few particles, how many and is a view of a thin surface
of these particles no?. The pictures I was mentioning was from another
anlysis (X rays) that I think
looks deeper inside the particles no? and they seam to indicate another
picture to my mind, it is really messy and I would
Part of the problem is that the authors have not made themselves
available to discuss the report and the questions that have come up.
What are they doing? Are they answering questions? If not, why not?
All authors (except one?) are on linkedin.com and I could email
them--but I don't feel I should
I forgot to add in my original message that I believe figure 11 of appendix
3 further demonstrates that the magnitude of the species 69 signal seen in
the spectra in figures 7 and 8 is not the direct byproduct of the
sputter-cleaning process, because it does not show a similar post-sputtering
69
I decided to review my ECAT simulation model to see if it were reasonable to
achieve a COP of around 3.5 while operating within a non thermal runaway region
under steady state conditions. The earlier runs and model tended to indicate
that it is quite precarious to operate the ECAT at a COP of
The Wikipedians must hoard /. moderation points for just such an occasion
as this when they can vote the following comment down to a -1 rating:
The Real Criminals: The APS
http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=5818081cid=48126433 (Score:-1
http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=5818081cid=48126433#)
Jones Beene jone...@pacbell.net wrote:
There is no potential financial motive here as far as I know.
That is the major problem here, stated simply: you do not know.
Do you know? Do you want to tell us? Because if you do not know or you are
not at liberty to discuss this, I suggest you
Brad Lowe ecatbuil...@gmail.com wrote:
Part of the problem is that the authors have not made themselves
available to discuss the report and the questions that have come up.
What are they doing? Are they answering questions?
Supposedly they will answer 10 of the questions here:
Jed,
I don't think this is correct (about it needing to be white hot). When I
examine the colors, they almost border on being too hot.
White hot puts you up in the 6000+C range according to Wikipedia. Or am I
misunderstanding something?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Color_temperature
Jed
See:
http://www.infinite-energy.com/iemagazine/issue118/analysis.html
Jed's opinion:
I completely agree with everything McKubre says here about the calorimetry.
I share his reservations. I agree with the rest of this report except the
nuclear theory is partly over my head. No opinion about
From: Jed Rothwell
There is no potential financial motive here as far as I know.
* That is the major problem here, stated simply: you do not know.
And it really does not matter what I know, when it is clear that you have no
clue, and are basing an entire scientific argument on having “no
http://www.mail-archive.com/search?l=vortex-l@eskimo.comq=date:20141013
Jack Cole wrote:
Jed,
I don't think this is correct (about it needing to be white hot). When I
examine the colors, they almost border on being too hot.
White hot puts you up in the 6000+C range according to Wikipedia
I wrote:
The photograph in Fig. 12 shows it around 700°C, judging by the dull red
color. See:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Incandescence#mediaviewer/File:Incandescence_Color.jpg
Oops. I take that back. I was comparing the screen to a printed version of
the photograph on paper. Here's how
My hypothesis about the dummy run is the following:
Out of a now-proven-irrational desire to avoid even the appearance of
cordiality between the scientists and the inventor, they neglected to share
information about the experimental protocol and reactor operating
characteristics (that the reactor
a.ashfield a.ashfi...@verizon.net wrote:
http://www.mail-archive.com/search?l=vortex-l@eskimo.comq=date:20141013
Jack Cole wrote:
Jed,
I don't think this is correct (about it needing to be white hot). When I
examine the colors, they almost border on being too hot.
White hot puts you up
Jack Cole jcol...@gmail.com wrote:
My hypothesis about the dummy run is the following:
Out of a now-proven-irrational desire to avoid even the appearance of
cordiality between the scientists and the inventor, they neglected to share
information about the experimental protocol . . .
My
From: Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com
Sent: Monday, October 13, 2014 3:23:26 PM
I confess I am going by the Wikipedia color bar here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Incandescence#mediaviewer/File:Incandescence_Color.jpg
I am just eyeballing it. As I just mentioned you have to bring
From: Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com
Sent: Monday, October 13, 2014 3:05:02 PM
See:
http://www.infinite-energy.com/iemagazine/issue118/analysis.html
I agree with pretty much everything he says (and I think I've already said many
of them here).
Jed's opinion:
I like this
McKubre is a very careful in his wording. He has to be in his position – almost
a diplomat.
When he says: “If one were to reshuffle the neutrons of the five stable Ni
isotopes in the directions of the revealed changes, we would have a great deal
of energy—possibly far too much”...
Yup.
From: Jones Beene jone...@pacbell.net
Sent: Monday, October 13, 2014 4:17:17 PM
This is a physical impossibility.
You no longer believe ANY Cold Fusion results? No miracles?
The sample was compromised.
Insufficient evidence to make that claim, either. See the paper, and
From: Alan
This is a physical impossibility.
You no longer believe ANY Cold Fusion results? No miracles?
Alan, I keep having to clarify that I am not a skeptic of LENR. It does happen
with Ni-H. Time and again, I bring up Thermacore etc. as a convincing example
of gain in the range
Alan Fletcher a...@well.com wrote:
I wouldn't put too much faith in a jpg photo from an unknown camera, shot
with unknown settings, an unknown color space and unknown post-processing.
Sure. It is a rough approximation at best. I am guessing 900°C but who
knows. It isn't white, anyway.
- Jed
I should add – a secondary tragedy in all of this is that this group -
vortex - is a great accumulation of diverse talent from many fields. It may
be overly weighted towards computer nerds/programmers/software engineers and
so on, but all are way above average, compared to other forums. We tend
Jones Beene jone...@pacbell.net wrote:
Ø The previous message I quoted from you was definitely an accusation of
fraud in the calorimetry: No one would ever use an IR camera in this
situation unless they have the intent to deceive.
Of course I meant it - in the context that they received
Anyway - I have always opined that excess heat was there, but doubted
the high COP level only – not the excess.
Now - we move can start to move into next phase. Rothwell says that
Rossi – who had every opportunity to tamper with the sample, did not
because he “has no motive”.
I
It seems clear that the thermography is way off - because the built in
inconel heater wires would fail at 1350°C. (The peak temp from
thermography is 1412°C). And the wires would necessarily be much hotter
than the external surface of the reactor - if they are wound tightly around
an inner core
Jones,
I'd like to add...
I can respect your doubt, your suspicions. I understand the credibility factor
that Rossi does not inspire in many. I also get it what the text books are
saying, that the alleged isotope shift is impossible, not without a hell of a
lot of nasty radiation for
Robert,
I am not convinced the wires are wound tightly around an inner core. I
think they may be imbedded within the alumina shell and work primarily thru
induction and not conduction. Alumina is a good insulator and may protect
them (somewhat) from the hi temp core.
The alumina shell may
P.S.,
I almost burned down a research lab in Portland, ME as a co-op engineer in
1984 when the polymer shell we were spinning onto a roll cover caught fire
and evacuated the building from thick black smoke.
So that qualifies me as an expert.
On Monday, October 13, 2014, ChemE Stewart
The testers has no access to anything inside the reactor or any access to
its IP. The opinion of the testers that these wires are Inconel could be
wrong. The wires could well be tungsten or one of its alloys.
There is a boatload of assumption being made about this test that is
detrimental to
1 - 100 of 114 matches
Mail list logo
