Re: [Vo]:the essence of the 1MW, 1year test

[Craig Haynie]

"

*Please try to be logically consistent and if you contradict the story of
above, give proofs, not suppositions. OK?"The burden of proof is on Rossi.
He's the one making a bold assertion, and must therefore prove it. To date,
we have seen nothing that would prove this effect; though I think the
Lugano test provides quite a bit of evidence. *

*Craig*

On Thu, Sep 22, 2016 at 2:48 PM, Peter Gluck  wrote:

> http://egooutpeters.blogspot.ro/2016/09/sep-22-2016-lenr-
> finding-essence-of-1mw.html
>
> quite good info..
>
> peter
>
> --
> Dr. Peter Gluck
> Cluj, Romania
> http://egooutpeters.blogspot.com
>

Re: [Vo]:Interesting Steam Calculation

[Craig Haynie]

On 08/26/2016 05:39 PM, Jed Rothwell wrote:


Actually, that is central to the legal questions. People on Planet 
Rossi have the peculiar notion that contracts are enforced based 
strictly on the words in them. If you can write a clever enough 
contract, you can force someone to pay you no matter what happens in 
the real world...


It all depends on the court and the jury; but certainly, if you can 
prove fraud, the case goes out the window. Otherwise, some courts 
respect strict interpretation, and don't draw assumptions about the 
intent of the contract. Many contracts are written for strict 
interpretation, and outside of fraud, there are good reasons to believe 
that this test was never intended by Rossi to 'prove' the thing worked. 
It looks to me like he intended it to be a performance test, and nothing 
more. Of course, if the apparent incompetence of Penon is legitimate, 
then I wouldn't rule for Rossi on this issue. But otherwise, don't put 
me on a jury and expect unwritten assumptions to be honored.


Craig

Re: [Vo]:Interesting Steam Calculation

[Craig Haynie]

Eric Walker  writes:

> ... It's now time
> for you to pay up. Suppose for the sake of argument that the thing did
> in fact flibbertygibbet. If you're being realistic, would you hand
> over the money, given that you've had good reason in other contexts to
> think that the thing doesn't work as advertised? I sincerely hope not.
>
> Eric

This is why Darden is an idiot, because he signed a contract which says
just this! He accepted a Rossi appointee to perform this 'test', and
signed a contract which forbids him from making any type of independent
evaluation or opting out if he disagrees with the final report. 

His saving grace may be that Rossi is looking like a fraud with the
information we've currently seen; and that may not go unnoticed by the
court.

Craig

Re: [Vo]:The "customer" warehouse

[Craig Haynie]

That the client is no longer in business at the end of the 350 day test, 
is telling...


Craig

On 08/14/2016 09:11 PM, Giovanni Santostasi wrote:
Here a picture and information about the "customer" warehouse. It is 
only 6000 square feet and the height is 20 feet.


Let's do a Fermi problem to see what is needed to get read of 1 MW 
dump in this space. By the way 1 MW can power easily 1000 houses. In 
fact, if you do the exact calculation using average US consumption per 
household you get about 9000 households.


Giovanni

http://warehousespaces.com/warehouse-for-rent/United-States/FL/Doral/2082 

Re: [Vo]:angry and sad LENR comment but info too!

[Craig Haynie]

On 08/11/2016 06:21 PM, Che wrote:



But this is the point: You can't prove that we live in an
Objective Universe. You can't prove that you're not in some
computer simulation, and that the people around you are real. You
can't prove your axioms. That's why they're axioms. We take it on
faith that what appears to be an objective Universe, with rules
which are the same for everyone, is true.

Craig


Extraordinary claims demand extraordinary proofs. Your metaphysical 
claims demand more than intellectual wankerism.


I'm not making an extraordinary claim. You are! You're claiming we live 
in an objective Universe; a claim you can't prove.


Axioms can't be proven either way. This is why they are axioms. 
Otherwise, they would be deductions from other axioms.


Craig

Re: [Vo]:angry and sad LENR comment but info too!

[Craig Haynie]

On 08/11/2016 05:47 PM, Che wrote:



On Thu, Aug 11, 2016 at 2:22 PM, Craig Haynie 
<cchayniepub...@gmail.com <mailto:cchayniepub...@gmail.com>> wrote:




Actually, you have to have faith in an objective Universe.

Craig


Having faith in things which can be proven to be true or not true -- 
i.e. Science --  is not at all the same thing as having blind faith.


That is religious.


But this is the point: You can't prove that we live in an Objective 
Universe. You can't prove that you're not in some computer simulation, 
and that the people around you are real. You can't prove your axioms. 
That's why they're axioms. We take it on faith that what appears to be 
an objective Universe, with rules which are the same for everyone, is true.


Craig

Re: [Vo]:angry and sad LENR comment but info too!

[Craig Haynie]

>>>The word "faithful" has no place in science or engineering.


- Jed



Actually, you have to have faith in an objective Universe.

Craig

Re: [Vo]:Another motion filed in Rossi suit

[Craig Haynie]

On 07/03/2016 08:25 PM, Jed Rothwell wrote:

a.ashfield > wrote:

But I have reason whatsoever to believe that somebody's idea of
how Rossi could cheat was actually implemented.


Yes, you do have a clear idea. The person who told you how Rossi 
cheats is Rossi himself. He said refused to allow anyone into his 
pretend customer site. The only plausible reason for doing that is to 
hide the fact that there is only a 15 kW radiator in there. Other 
reasons that have been suggested are absurd. If there was an actual 
machine in there, Rossi would be paid $89 million for showing it to 
the I.H. experts. There is no way he would fail to do that.


It is obvious he is covering up fraud by doing that. Add to that the 
fact that there is no heat or noise coming from the pretend customer 
site, and it is case closed.




This may be the case, but there's also another valid reason why Rossi 
wouldn't allow anyone to come into this customer site. First of all, let 
me say that I think there's probably only a 30% chance that Rossi has a 
working device. So if I was a betting man, I would give odds. Also, if I 
was IH, there is no way in hell that I would give Rossi 89 million 
dollars unless I was convinced, absolutely, that the thing worked. So I 
don't doubt that the device may not work, and that IH may not believe in 
it, either.


But having said all this, if I was Rossi, I would not want anyone in the 
customer site during the year long trial, either before or after, and I 
would write the agreement accordingly -- and Rossi did this. He wrote an 
agreement which prevented IH from doing any evaluations of their own on 
the device, during this one year test. The reason to prevent them from 
interfering or doing any type of evaluation on their own, is simply 
because the test is going to take a year. If I were Rossi, what I would 
want is an independent evaluation of the device, from which, neither 
side could dispute the results. It is just way too much time to waste on 
another demonstration test for IH. Two years had already passed. The IP 
had already been used by IH to build the Lugano reactor. So much time 
has already gone by, that if IH did not believe the device worked at 
this time, then they should be out the door -- before any type of one 
year test was performed.


From Rossi's point of view, the purpose of the one year test was not to 
prove to IH that the device worked -- but to finalize the deal; to 
demonstrate to both Rossi and IH how it performed over the course of a 
year. This was a test to objectify the results; nothing more. This is 
how the agreement was written, and why I believe that Rossi could very 
well win this lawsuit -- without the court ever trying to ascertain if 
the device works, because the agreement does not depend on whether the 
device works.


So Rossi may be a fraud, but if he's legitimate, then his behavior 
during the test is totally expected.


Craig

Re: [Vo]:Another motion filed in Rossi suit

[Craig Haynie]

No way Rossi's actions are fraud, from reselling the licensing, (unless 
he has a known faulty product). The best IH can hope for is a null 
contract; not the rights to the IP.


On 07/01/2016 03:59 PM, Bob Higgins wrote:
It is interesting and self-destructive that Rossi appears to have 
unilaterally declared that the license sold to IH is null and void.  
Having accepted money for that license, he is in a legally binding 
contract.  Yet Rossi seems intent to market that license to others as 
though he had no other contract.  This is clearly fraud, and a fraud 
that will quickly put Rossi back in jail for a good long contemplative 
period.  He should be collecting his reading material on antigravity.


I couldn't help myself.

Re: [Vo]:Back to the drawing board

[Craig Haynie]

>>> Now over time, huge amounts of power are being produced that are 
beyond chemical means, so the cause must be nuclear. Mills must have 
been doing LENR experiments for the last 25 years but with the huge 
increase in SunCell power levels only LENR can explain what is happening 
inside the SunCell.


This doesn't make sense because Mills has a theory which explains 
precisely how much energy and power he expects to generate in each 
experiment. He couldn't have made a mistake like this. Surely he has 
compared his experimental results with his theoretical results.


Craig

Re: [Vo]:Back to the drawing board

[Craig Haynie]

I have to come back to this. This isn't looking good for Mills, and it 
couldn't have come at a worse time, too. For the past year or so, Mills 
has been approaching the end of his work, and hence, the end of his 
funding. These people, whoever they are, aren't keeping him funded for 
nothing. They expect him to deliver something tangible at some point, 
and that point was fast approaching, since there was nothing left for 
him to do with the SunCell. However, now if he's discovered an even 
GREATER source of energy, by orders of magnitude, then he can lobby for 
funding for another 20 years.


To me, this really makes him look bad. If he's legitimate, he needs to 
push this new discovery aside, and get something out as soon as possible 
to maintain any kind of credibility.


Craig

On 06/17/2016 04:06 PM, Craig Haynie wrote:

This is discouraging. What makes Mills special is that he:

1) Discovered something unusual.

2) Developed a theory to explain the phenomenon.

3) Spent 25 years working from his theory to develop his understanding 
of this phenomenon.


It's because he was working from theory which made his progress 
credible. He either really had discovered something, and was able to 
exploit it, or he was a complete fraud, since if his theory is 
worthless, then he could never have developed all of his work.


Now, if his theory can no longer explain the phenomenon, then this 
means that he has either a) discovered ANOTHER amazing phenomenon, or 
b) has a discredited theory which seriously makes me question anything 
he's done.


His theory has always had problems, and always had a lot of criticism. 
I don't doubt there may be holes in it which need to be filled -- 
perhaps a lot of holes -- but I am at a loss as to how he could have 
discovered another amazing energy source without using theory.


Craig

On 06/17/2016 03:57 PM, Axil Axil wrote:

From the quote, that is a conclusion that is now coming out of BLP.

On Fri, Jun 17, 2016 at 3:50 PM, Craig Haynie 
<cchayniepub...@gmail.com <mailto:cchayniepub...@gmail.com>> wrote:


Axil, are you saying that Mills' theory, which he has used to
develop this process, has now failed him and can no longer
explain it?

Craig


On 06/17/2016 03:38 PM, Axil Axil wrote:

R, Mills has alway asserted that the energy that he sees in
his experiments were based on CHEMICAL processes which are
driven by the particular characteristics of the hydrino
theory. There always has been a correspondence between the
small amount of energy produced by LENR experiments and the
small amounts of energy produced by hydrinos.

In this latest SunCell experiment, R. Mills is seeing huge
quantities of excess power produced in these reactor
meltdowns, in the megawatt range. There is no way that such
huge amounts of power can be produced by chemical means. This
implies that the hydrino is no longer the cause of the excess
energy seen in these meltdowns. Something else is going on.
Mills must now explain where all this energy is coming from
if it cannot be produced by chemical reactions. X-rays are
being generated with energies far in excess of any electrical
input voltages. What produces these X-rays?

BLP states:

Proof of a new energy source is provided by two otherwise
inexplicable observations: (i) The formation of a high-energy
hydrogen plasma in the absence of any input electrical power,
the nonexistence of any energy releasing chemistry with this
fuel, and the further impossibility of known chemistry of
this high energy. (ii) The emission of soft X-ray radiation
at a voltage far less than that of the light energy produced
and the inability of any known chemistry to release such high
energy.

Re: [Vo]:Back to the drawing board

[Craig Haynie]

This is discouraging. What makes Mills special is that he:

1) Discovered something unusual.

2) Developed a theory to explain the phenomenon.

3) Spent 25 years working from his theory to develop his understanding 
of this phenomenon.


It's because he was working from theory which made his progress 
credible. He either really had discovered something, and was able to 
exploit it, or he was a complete fraud, since if his theory is 
worthless, then he could never have developed all of his work.


Now, if his theory can no longer explain the phenomenon, then this means 
that he has either a) discovered ANOTHER amazing phenomenon, or b) has a 
discredited theory which seriously makes me question anything he's done.


His theory has always had problems, and always had a lot of criticism. I 
don't doubt there may be holes in it which need to be filled -- perhaps 
a lot of holes -- but I am at a loss as to how he could have discovered 
another amazing energy source without using theory.


Craig

On 06/17/2016 03:57 PM, Axil Axil wrote:

From the quote, that is a conclusion that is now coming out of BLP.

On Fri, Jun 17, 2016 at 3:50 PM, Craig Haynie 
<cchayniepub...@gmail.com <mailto:cchayniepub...@gmail.com>> wrote:


Axil, are you saying that Mills' theory, which he has used to
develop this process, has now failed him and can no longer explain it?

Craig


On 06/17/2016 03:38 PM, Axil Axil wrote:

R, Mills has alway asserted that the energy that he sees in
his experiments were based on CHEMICAL processes which are
driven by the particular characteristics of the hydrino
theory. There always has been a correspondence between the
small amount of energy produced by LENR experiments and the
small amounts of energy produced by hydrinos.

In this latest SunCell experiment, R. Mills is seeing huge
quantities of excess power produced in these reactor
meltdowns, in the megawatt range. There is no way that such
huge amounts of power can be produced by chemical means. This
implies that the hydrino is no longer the cause of the excess
energy seen in these meltdowns. Something else is going on.
Mills must now explain where all this energy is coming from if
it cannot be produced by chemical reactions. X-rays are being
generated with energies far in excess of any electrical input
voltages. What produces these X-rays?

BLP states:

Proof of a new energy source is provided by two otherwise
inexplicable observations: (i) The formation of a high-energy
hydrogen plasma in the absence of any input electrical power,
the nonexistence of any energy releasing chemistry with this
fuel, and the further impossibility of known chemistry of this
high energy. (ii) The emission of soft X-ray radiation at a
voltage far less than that of the light energy produced and
the inability of any known chemistry to release such high energy.

Re: [Vo]:Back to the drawing board

[Craig Haynie]

Axil, are you saying that Mills' theory, which he has used to develop 
this process, has now failed him and can no longer explain it?


Craig

On 06/17/2016 03:38 PM, Axil Axil wrote:
R, Mills has alway asserted that the energy that he sees in his 
experiments were based on CHEMICAL processes which are driven by the 
particular characteristics of the hydrino theory. There always has 
been a correspondence between the small amount of energy produced by 
LENR experiments and the small amounts of energy produced by hydrinos.


In this latest SunCell experiment, R. Mills is seeing huge quantities 
of excess power produced in these reactor meltdowns, in the megawatt 
range. There is no way that such huge amounts of power can be produced 
by chemical means. This implies that the hydrino is no longer the 
cause of the excess energy seen in these meltdowns. Something else is 
going on. Mills must now explain where all this energy is coming from 
if it cannot be produced by chemical reactions. X-rays are being 
generated with energies far in excess of any electrical input 
voltages. What produces these X-rays?


BLP states:

Proof of a new energy source is provided by two otherwise inexplicable 
observations: (i) The formation of a high-energy hydrogen plasma in 
the absence of any input electrical power, the nonexistence of any 
energy releasing chemistry with this fuel, and the further 
impossibility of known chemistry of this high energy. (ii) The 
emission of soft X-ray radiation at a voltage far less than that of 
the light energy produced and the inability of any known chemistry to 
release such high energy.

Re: [Vo]:The Rossi Saga Part 1

[Craig Haynie]

On 06/06/2016 09:50 PM, Jed Rothwell wrote:



In their motion to dismiss, I.H. mentioned multiple "reactors" that 
apparently all failed. I did not know there were multiple reactors. I 
know nothing about the others, but if you take their word for it, 
there were multiple failures, and no recent success.




I read this to refer to the individual small reactors that were part of 
the larger 1MW reactor.


Craig

Re: [Vo]:The Rossi Saga Part 1

[Craig Haynie]

On 06/06/2016 10:26 AM, Jed Rothwell wrote:



The test proved beyond doubt that the device does not work. I repeat: 
IT DOES NOT WORK. There is no excess heat. At no time in this test did 
the device show excess heat. You could watch it for a half hour, or 
you could collect 6 months of data and you would reach the same 
conclusion. _It was not working_.


Jed, I believe you have information that indicates this is true. 
However, it just doesn't explain the unusual behavior from IH. What 
about all the previous tests, going back to 2012? Why raise money at 
all, if they weren't certain? Isn't that a type of fraud? Why sign the 
patent applications? Why sign the agreement with Rossi which gives 
Rossi's guy complete control over the final test? Why hire Rossi's other 
guy to observe this test? What was their role in the Lugano test? Didn't 
they build the reactor for that?


For a solution to be correct, all the pieces have to fit into place, and 
if money wasn't a factor in this, then things just don't all fit 
together for me. I know we'll have more information as time goes on. I'm 
happy waiting for it.


Craig

Re: [Vo]:The Rossi Saga Part 1

[Craig Haynie]

On 06/06/2016 10:01 AM, a.ashfield wrote:


Seeing that Cherokee have been having some problems, I wonder if the 
failure to pay Rossi $89 million is partly because they are short of 
ready money.





This makes the most sense to me. I don't believe there's any way they 
would have continued a relationship with Rossi for the past 3 years, 
unless they were certain of the technology. It doesn't take a 350 day 
test to prove that something works. That test was to prove the 
reliability of the device. That's also the only reason that Darden would 
have agreed to a test using an ERV of Rossi's choosing.


The most logical explanation for the way that IH acted, is that they 
simply didn't raise as much money as they had expected to raise in the 
past year; and if Rossi is correct, they only raised around $60 million. 
They probably just didn't raise the money they were expecting.


Craig

Re: [Vo]:The Rossi Saga Part 1

[Craig Haynie]

There's nothing in the dispute which hinges on whether the device works, 
or not. That point may never be brought up.


Craig

On 06/03/2016 10:04 AM, a.ashfield wrote:


IH has apparently sent Krivit a copy of their legal response to the 
court case.


From a quick scan it doesn’t look like they have stated the E-Cat 
doesn’t work, but complain about the delay in starting the 1 MWtest, 
the instrumentation used and complain about the old E-Cats on stand-by 
not being used.Much apparently hinges on the modified agreement for 
the test that IH are now saying they didn’t sign.


There are other gems like:

“There is no provision in the Licensing Agreement, however, that 
requires Defendants to keep the E-Cat IP confidential or to protect 
its purported secrecy.”


http://newenergytimes.com/v2/sr/RossiECat/Rossi-vs-Darden/20160602-Darden-et-al-Motion-to-Dismiss.pdf

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

[Craig Haynie]

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

Why would you want to?

Craig

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

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

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

[Craig Haynie]

Learned something new today.  What are "grays"?



https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/736x/92/65/96/926596fc73fadc74a03a639b60968884.jpg

Craig

Re: [Vo]:Validity of E-Cat 1 MW plant test

[Craig Haynie]

On 05/17/2016 10:30 PM, Jed Rothwell wrote:



Now that you know Rossi explicitly refused to allow an inspection of 
the customer's equipment, you should realize he has zero credibility, 
and you should not believe a word he says.




I've got to object to this statement; not that I believe, or disbelieve 
Rossi. If you've seen data, that's a world different than anything I've 
seen.


However, if Rossi believed he had something real, then there were valid 
reasons not to allow IH to analyze their own data, or get too involved 
with the validation of the device, at the stage which occurred last year 
in the process, when the agreement was signed. The primary reason before 
the test, to prevent IH from doing their own evaluation, was that it was 
going to take a year to go through the validation process, and  Rossi 
may have wanted something more than an opt-out clause for anyone he was 
doing business with. So they set-up the method by which this device 
would be determined to be valid, or not. They both chose a third party 
to make this determination. This eliminated second guessing, and 
counter-claims by IH by which they could try to opt-out -- and now that 
IH is in violation of the agreement, there is no way I would let anyone 
near the equipment if I were Rossi. The courts will decide this case, 
and if the courts work as I think they do, then the case won't revolve 
around whether the device works. If Rossi were to let someone see the 
equipment, or do anything else at this point, to allow them to draw any 
of their own conclusions, then this could only hurt Rossi's case in court.


Why Darden signed that document, is beyond me. It makes him look like a 
fool.


Craig

Re: [Vo]:Validity of E-Cat 1 MW plant test

[Craig Haynie]

WHAT? Sorry, but this isn't what I quoted. Something is playing tricks.

Nevermind...

Craig



On 05/16/2016 07:03 PM, Craig Haynie wrote:


On 05/16/2016 06:46 PM, Jed Rothwell wrote:



This building is 10,800 sq. ft.


Not that it changes much, but according to Mats, the building was 
1,000 sq meters, which converts to 10763.9 sq feet.


https://animpossibleinvention.com/2016/05/16/rossi-makes-offer-on-swedish-factory-building-plus-more-updates/ 



Craig

Re: [Vo]:Validity of E-Cat 1 MW plant test

[Craig Haynie]

On 05/16/2016 06:46 PM, Jed Rothwell wrote:



This building is 10,800 sq. ft.


Not that it changes much, but according to Mats, the building was 1,000 
sq meters, which converts to 10763.9 sq feet.


https://animpossibleinvention.com/2016/05/16/rossi-makes-offer-on-swedish-factory-building-plus-more-updates/

Craig

Re: [Vo]:LENR and the feline nature of the E-Cat

[Craig Haynie]

On 05/13/2016 04:20 PM, Axil Axil wrote:
What confuses the  analysis of the motives of IH is that IH patented 
the Lugano device, as Rossi's IP. This indicated that IH knew that 
Rossi's IP worked and gave Rossi credit for it in a patent 
application, I cannot figure out their motive here??? It could b that 
their was a management disconnect where the "plan" was not understood 
by all of the employees of IH.


The other thing that confuses me, is that in the contract they signed 
with Rossi, they didn't have a clause which allowed them to 
independently evaluate the device; nor did it allow them to certify, or 
reject, the evaluation of the EVR; and they agreed to Rossi's guy, 
Penon. Why?


It doesn't make sense to me. It's not something that their lawyers 
should have allowed; nor something I would have agreed to, if I was 
Darden, unless I was certain of the outcome.


Craig

Re: [Vo]:EM Drive Rises Above Pathoskeptic Dirge

[Craig Haynie]

Russ George wrote in his article @ 
http://atom-ecology.russgeorge.net/2016/04/27/em-drive-rises-despite-pathoskeptic-dirge/


"The labs and Shawyer though have not been able to offer a ‘theory’ to 
explain the observed experimental evidence"


As I understand it, this is not correct.  Shawyer is working with 
accepted theory. Shawyer developed the drive from accepted theory. He 
produces equations which determine the amount of thrust that the drive 
will develop, and has designed more powerful drives which can take a 
spacecraft to Alpha Centauri in 10 years, from theory.


Which leads me to believe that no one even bothers to seriously talk to 
him. Has Eagleworks even flown him down to their lab  to discuss this?


Craig

On 04/27/2016 06:32 PM, Russ George wrote:

New Physics and the EM Drive is rising and illustrates the crisis in physics 
being experienced by the dogmatic science communities in this and many other 
fields where real revolutionary results are rejected by puppy mill pups and 
professors. 
http://atom-ecology.russgeorge.net/2016/04/27/em-drive-rises-despite-pathoskeptic-dirge/

Re: [Vo]:LIVE ON YOUTUBE: Martin Fleischmann Memorial Project: *GlowStick* 5.3 - Ready to power climb

[Craig Haynie]

Here is a video, queued to the time shortly after the green (active) 
thermocouple became hotter than the purple (control) thermocouple. The 
control had been running a couple of degrees hotter, previously. The 
change-over occurred shortly after raising the power to the point where 
the temperature went above 1020c. The timing couldn't really have been 
much better. This occurred at 2016-04-16 02:00 UTC.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xUyWnN--u7M=youtu.be=13188

Craig

On 04/16/2016 11:27 AM, Jones Beene wrote:


This temperature differential is more meaningful than it seems since 
some of the excess heat on the active side goes to heat the null side.


The basic concept of comparative calorimetry is good, and this ceramic 
is not a great conductor of heat, but there is a conductive pathway 
between the two sides, which could possibly have been made less in an 
improved design. Actually the heater wire itself could be part of the 
heat transfer problem.


*From:*Craig Haynie

The optical imager is typically reading between an 18c and 20c difference.

Craig

Eric Walker wrote:

Interesting.  I hope a post-run calibration shows that when the
fuel is removed, the active and null outside temperatures return
to one another to within experimental uncertainty.  This will be
critical to show before concluding anything.

Eric

On Sat, Apr 16, 2016 at 9:58 AM, Craig Haynie
<cchayniepub...@gmail.com <mailto:cchayniepub...@gmail.com>> wrote:

60c on the latest...

https://youtu.be/VLK19pllG9g?t=6278


On 04/16/2016 10:53 AM, Eric Walker wrote:

On Sat, Apr 16, 2016 at 2:01 AM, CB Sites <cbsit...@gmail.com
<mailto:cbsit...@gmail.com>> wrote:

I have to say. This one is pretty fascinating.  At 1000+C
they had a delta T of 30C between a fueled and unfueled
cell that lasted for hours, until I gave up.

At what time in the video did you see this?  When I skipped
through the video, I always saw the "Outside heater active"
(the green line) slightly lower than the "Outside heater null"
(purple line). Perhaps you're referring to a delta between
different numbers than these?

Eric

Re: [Vo]:LIVE ON YOUTUBE: Martin Fleischmann Memorial Project: *GlowStick* 5.3 - Ready to power climb

[Craig Haynie]

The optical imager is typically reading between an 18c and 20c difference.

Craig

On 04/16/2016 11:03 AM, Eric Walker wrote:
Interesting.  I hope a post-run calibration shows that when the fuel 
is removed, the active and null outside temperatures return to one 
another to within experimental uncertainty.  This will be critical to 
show before concluding anything.


Eric


On Sat, Apr 16, 2016 at 9:58 AM, Craig Haynie 
<cchayniepub...@gmail.com <mailto:cchayniepub...@gmail.com>> wrote:


60c on the latest...

https://youtu.be/VLK19pllG9g?t=6278


On 04/16/2016 10:53 AM, Eric Walker wrote:

On Sat, Apr 16, 2016 at 2:01 AM, CB Sites <cbsit...@gmail.com
<mailto:cbsit...@gmail.com>> wrote:

I have to say.  This one is pretty fascinating.  At 1000+C
they had a delta T of 30C between a fueled and unfueled cell
that lasted for hours, until I gave up.


At what time in the video did you see this?  When I skipped
through the video, I always saw the "Outside heater active" (the
green line) slightly lower than the "Outside heater null" (purple
line).  Perhaps you're referring to a delta between different
numbers than these?

Eric

Re: [Vo]:LIVE ON YOUTUBE: Martin Fleischmann Memorial Project: *GlowStick* 5.3 - Ready to power climb

[Craig Haynie]

60c on the latest...

https://youtu.be/VLK19pllG9g?t=6278


On 04/16/2016 10:53 AM, Eric Walker wrote:
On Sat, Apr 16, 2016 at 2:01 AM, CB Sites > wrote:


I have to say.  This one is pretty fascinating.  At 1000+C they
had a delta T of 30C between a fueled and unfueled cell that
lasted for hours, until I gave up.


At what time in the video did you see this?  When I skipped through 
the video, I always saw the "Outside heater active" (the green line) 
slightly lower than the "Outside heater null" (purple line).  Perhaps 
you're referring to a delta between different numbers than these?


Eric

Re: [Vo]:LIVE ON YOUTUBE: Martin Fleischmann Memorial Project: *GlowStick* 5.3 - Ready to power climb

[Craig Haynie]

How does one calculate the margin of error  for the temperature?

When I look at the calibration data, I can calculate the standard 
deviation between the temperatures for the entire calibration run at 
1.5%. If I compare the difference in the thermocouples during the actual 
run, then 50c difference is between 3 and 4 standard deviations from the 
calibration, and 60c, (which occured for a few minutes), is over 4 
standard deviations from the calibration.


Is this the correct way to calculate error?

Craig

On 04/16/2016 09:15 AM, Craig Haynie wrote:

Now 60c

On 04/16/2016 07:19 AM, Craig Haynie wrote:

Now 50c.



On 04/16/2016 03:01 AM, CB Sites wrote:
I have to say.  This one is pretty fascinating.  At 1000+C they had 
a delta T of 30C between a fueled and unfueled cell that lasted for 
hours, until I gave up.




On Fri, Apr 15, 2016 at 2:35 PM, Che <comandantegri...@gmail.com 
<mailto:comandantegri...@gmail.com>> wrote:





https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GfAJv-jhCY8=em-lbcastemail-np

Re: [Vo]:LIVE ON YOUTUBE: Martin Fleischmann Memorial Project: *GlowStick* 5.3 - Ready to power climb

[Craig Haynie]

Now 60c

On 04/16/2016 07:19 AM, Craig Haynie wrote:

Now 50c.



On 04/16/2016 03:01 AM, CB Sites wrote:
I have to say.  This one is pretty fascinating. At 1000+C they had a 
delta T of 30C between a fueled and unfueled cell that lasted for 
hours, until I gave up.




On Fri, Apr 15, 2016 at 2:35 PM, Che <comandantegri...@gmail.com 
<mailto:comandantegri...@gmail.com>> wrote:





https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GfAJv-jhCY8=em-lbcastemail-np

Re: [Vo]:LIVE ON YOUTUBE: Martin Fleischmann Memorial Project: *GlowStick* 5.3 - Ready to power climb

[Craig Haynie]

Now 50c.



On 04/16/2016 03:01 AM, CB Sites wrote:
I have to say.  This one is pretty fascinating.  At 1000+C they had a 
delta T of 30C between a fueled and unfueled cell that lasted for 
hours, until I gave up.




On Fri, Apr 15, 2016 at 2:35 PM, Che > wrote:





https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GfAJv-jhCY8=em-lbcastemail-np

Re: EXTERNAL: [Vo]: Rossi: 1MW Plant Customer Bought Three More Plants

[Craig Haynie]

This is just rhetorical, but who on the IH team made the evaluation that 
the device did not perform? They didn't do any type of testing on their 
own; and unless Rossi is mis-reporting Penon's report, then it wasn't 
him. I doubt if it was Fulvio Fabiana. The only other person who may be 
qualified to make that determination is Barry West, and I don't know who 
he is.


The other thing that confuses me, is why did IH send out that rather 
pessimistic release on Mar 10, before they had any report to view?


It's not that clear cut to me.

Craig

On 04/15/2016 03:51 PM, Jed Rothwell wrote:

a.ashfield > wrote:

You are certain Rossi is a fraud, the ERV report is rubbish and
the E-Cat doesn't work.


Let us put aside fraud for a moment. The press releases make it clear 
that Rossi says there is fifty times input, whereas I.H. says it did 
not work. They were not able to "substantiate" the claims. That means 
they do not think there was significant excess heat.


If I.H. is right then yes, the ERV report must be rubbish and the 
E-cat doesn't work.


If Rossi is right, I.H.'s conclusions are rubbish.

One of them must be drastically wrong. Based on their previous work, I 
would say Rossi is wrong.


(I hope no one quibbles about the word "substantiate." Whatever it 
means, it rules out 50 times input.)


- Jed

Re: [Vo]:Next Big Future - goes out on a limb

[Craig Haynie]

On Thu, Apr 14, 2016 at 10:14 AM, Jed Rothwell <jedrothw...@gmail.com>
wrote:

> Craig Haynie <cchayniepub...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>> It is for the courts to decide whether the omission of a clause like this
>>> prevents the application of common sense...
>>>
>>
>> But I think we agree that 'common sense' does not necessarily mean that
>> either side would have the option to opt-out if they didn't like the report.
>>
>
> You misunderstand. The issue is not "they didn't like the report." Likes,
> dislikes and preferences play no part in this. The issue is whether the
> report is technically correct. In a court case over a technical dispute of
> this nature, expert witnesses are brought in to render an opinion on the
> analyses from Rossi and I.H. If the expert witnesses convincingly show that
> one side or the other is correct, that is how the judge will rule.
>

But again, my point is not for the present, but how the agreement was
arranged. It's not common sense to assume that one side would have been
given the option to 'opt-out'. If you're saying that there's an inference
here, that the report must meet some technical standard, even though that
wasn't specified in the agreement, then I'll defer to your legal expertise.

Re: [Vo]:Next Big Future - goes out on a limb

[Craig Haynie]

On Thu, Apr 14, 2016 at 9:59 AM, Jed Rothwell <jedrothw...@gmail.com> wrote:

> Craig Haynie <cchayniepub...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>> IH had already paid Rossi $11.5 million, and Rossi had already given IH
>> his IP.
>>
>
> I.H. says the device does not work. Therefore the IP is worthless.
>

My point is that there were reasons, before the contract was signed, to
compel the other party to complete the agreement if the report came back
positive. Money and IP would have already been transferred.

Re: [Vo]:Next Big Future - goes out on a limb

[Craig Haynie]

On Thu, Apr 14, 2016 at 9:14 AM, Eric Walker  wrote:

>
> It is for the courts to decide whether the omission of a clause like this
> prevents the application of common sense...
>

But I think we agree that 'common sense' does not necessarily mean that
either side would have the option to opt-out if they didn't like the
report. IH had already paid Rossi $11.5 million, and Rossi had already
given IH his IP. Both sides had reasons to compel the other to the
completion of the contract.

Craig

Re: [Vo]:Next Big Future - goes out on a limb

[Craig Haynie]

On Wed, Apr 13, 2016 at 3:36 PM, Jed Rothwell  wrote:

>
>
> Some people have said that Penon is the sole ERV author listed in the
> contract and therefore whatever he says must be accepted by both sides.
> Last year I.H. said they would abide by whatever he said, so now they must
> pay up. It does not work that way. If that were the case, Penon could
> submit a two-sentence report:
>
> "I hereby certify that this reactor produces anomalous heat with a COP
> exceeding 6. Please remit $89 million."
>
>
> No one would pay on that basis...
>

It would have been easy to write that into the contract. The contract could
have said, "Both IH and Rossi have the option to do an independent 350
test, and the final reports with be shared. If both sides agree to the sale
after these reports are delivered, then IH will pay $89 million."

But they didn't.

Re: [Vo]:Rossi states his reason for not publishing Penon report

[Craig Haynie]

This is a good point. IH can just as easily release the report. It's not 
just Rossi's reluctance.


Craig

On 04/13/2016 06:08 PM, a.ashfield wrote:

Jed,

If the ERV report supports IH, why have they not released it?

Re: [Vo]:Next Big Future - goes out on a limb

[Craig Haynie]

On 04/12/2016 10:00 PM, Jed Rothwell wrote:

[...] and according to I.H. the 1-year test did not work.


How would they know? Did Rossi let them do another independent test 
after they signed the agreement? The 'independent ERV test' was the 
definitive test. IH released their pessimistic statement on March 10, 19 
days before Rossi received the results of the ERV test.


This is why I think that IH simply didn't raise enough money to justify 
the commitment. The money they have isn't theirs to  spend, if it's 
investor money from investors who weren't taking this risk.


Craig

Re: [Vo]:Next Big Future - goes out on a limb

[Craig Haynie]

There is one thing I want to  bring  up, and why I give Rossi any chance 
at having something interesting...


Mats Lewan mentioned this in his latest blog, and I had thought I lost 
track of this test from 2011. After the test, the e-cat went into 
heat-after-death for almost four hours. I remember seeing someone touch 
it after six hours, and pull back his hand immediately.  To me, this was 
the 'smoking gun' for Rossi, and I find it hard to understand how this 
could have been faked.


Mats wrote:

"The E-cat was then put in self sustained mode for almost four hours, 
showing no measurable signs of weakening. After three hours and a half, 
output temperature inside the E-cat was stable about 114 degrees 
centigrade, and water could be felt boiling putting a hand on top of it. 
The external temperature was between 60 and 85 degrees centigrade."


https://animpossibleinvention.files.wordpress.com/2016/04/test-of-e-cat-october-6.pdf

Craig

Re: [Vo]:Next Big Future - goes out on a limb

[Craig Haynie]

On 04/12/2016 07:59 PM, Jed Rothwell wrote:
Craig Haynie <cchayniepub...@gmail.com 
<mailto:cchayniepub...@gmail.com>> wrote:


The legal case does not hinge on whether the device works. As the
agreement is worded, IH pays IF and WHEN the ERV signs a document
that the device performed to certain specifications. IH does not
have an option to bail if they don't agree with the report.


Two things:

1. There is more than one ERV.



Who are the others? IH has the right, in the agreement, to have advisors 
who question and observe the ERV, but they don't sign the final document.


2. It would be insane to pay $89 million based on a report written by 
Penon. I would not pay 89 cents. It would be insane to agree he is an 
expert. I am sure I.H. did not do that.




Absolutely! Which is why the agreement is strange; or at the very least, 
wouldn't have been made unless Darden was confident in the device 
beforehand. As I read the agreement, IH doesn't have an opt-out clause, 
and this makes sense from Rossi's point of view. Rossi will do the 
one-year test if an outside ERV, whom both groups agree upon, make the 
final decision. I doubt he would have signed it if, at the end, IH could 
just opt-out.


Craig

Re: [Vo]:Next Big Future - goes out on a limb

[Craig Haynie]

On 04/12/2016 03:21 PM, Axil Axil wrote:
How dos a legal case handle an issue whereby everybody believes that 
LENR is impossible and a pseudoscience square with the main contention 
that Rossi has not revealed how LENR can be made to work? The 
predicate of such  a case seems crazy to me.




The legal case does not hinge on whether the device works. As the 
agreement is worded, IH pays IF and WHEN the ERV signs a document that 
the device performed to certain specifications. IH does not have an 
option to bail if they don't agree with the report. (Which is strange on 
Darden's part, since he signed the agreement). There is no need to 
determine if the device actually works, for Rossi to win his lawsuit.


Craig

Re: [Vo]:Next Big Future - goes out on a limb

[Craig Haynie]

>>>He says he has not read the Penon report yet, so he cannot judge. 
The people at I.H. have read it. At this point, we can only compare 
Rossi's evaluation with I.H.'s. In my informed opinion, they are better 
at calorimetry, so it is likely they are right.


Does the license agreement look like IH can interpret it? It reads as 
though the ERV certifies that the device complied with a set of 
specifications. If it did, then the ERV certifies it.


Section 5. Guaranteed Performance.

"The ERV (or another party acceptable to the Company and Leonardo) will 
be engaged to confirm in writing the Guaranteed Performance."


I don't see where IH has the authority under the agreement to make any 
kind of judgment on the report.


Craig


On 04/10/2016 10:37 PM, Jed Rothwell wrote:
a.ashfield > 
wrote:


You write.  "I know how the people at I.H. do it,"
How do you know that?


As I said, I have met with them and discussed this with them.

I doubt anyone who writes about this story knows the players
better than Mats Lewan.   I judge him technically competent.


He says he has not read the Penon report yet, so he cannot judge. The 
people at I.H. have read it. At this point, we can only compare 
Rossi's evaluation with I.H.'s. In my informed opinion, they are 
better at calorimetry, so it is likely they are right.


I am not talking about personality, motivation, or anything else. I 
have narrowed this down to one question. Who is better at evaluating 
calorimetry? In my opinion, I.H. is, but I could be wrong.


I take the two press releases at face value. I am assuming that Rossi 
means what he says, and I.H. means what they say. If I.H. actually 
thought the machine works, they would be crazy not to pay him the $89 
million.


I get the feeling Rossi simply doesn't care about making a
foolproof demo.


He must do this if he wants the $89 million. That is what is 
stipulated in the contract.


- Jed

Re: [Vo]:Next Big Future - goes out on a limb

[Craig Haynie]

Rossi also wants his intellectual property back. Last year, IH filed a 
patent on Rossi's technology.


Craig

On 04/10/2016 09:47 PM, Jed Rothwell wrote:

Axil Axil > wrote:

IH is now being discarded,


If he is discarding I.H. why is he suing them for $89 million?

They do not want to pay him. They say the machine does not work, and 
therefore they will not pay. They are discarding him. He wants them to 
pay up.


What you say makes no sense. They are asking to be discarded. They 
want to end the relationship by not paying, because they do not accept 
Penon's test results. Rossi is the one who wants to continue.


- Jed

Re: [Vo]:Next Big Future - goes out on a limb

[Craig Haynie]

>>>And if I were 'there', I'd too be calling for different testing.

You'd be calling for a lot more than that if you discovered that someone 
was cheating you!


But asking for new testing is not part of the agreement which was signed.

There  are several reasons why IH would want to default on the contract. 
Maybe they didn't raise as much money as they had hoped. Maybe they did 
find some reason to believe that they were being cheated. Maybe they've 
come to distrust the ERV. But without the lawsuit, would they have 
returned Rossi's intellectual property? Would they have signed the 
patent back over to him?


If Rossi is a cheat, they should counter-sue and try to file criminal 
charges. Otherwise, they should try to undo the damage they've done, by 
taking Rossi's IP, and learning the skills to use this technique, which 
they took from Rossi; and pay something for going through this one-year 
test, which took time and effort.


Craig

On 04/10/2016 03:17 PM, Brad Lowe wrote:

And if I were 'there', I'd too be calling for different testing.

Re: [Vo]:Selective memories IH selected and agreed to the team to test the E-Cat

[Craig Haynie]

>>>First, there isnoproofthatIHagreedtoanyERV…


I find this to be an odd thing to believe. The license agreement 
requires that both Rossi and IH agree to an ERV, and that the ERV will 
evaluate the device according to  criteria which are laid out. If IH 
never agreed to the ERV, then why wait an entire year to mention it -- 
and where did they mention this? Everything I've read indicates that 
they agreed to the test, agreed to the ERV, and decided afterwards, by 
some other means, that it couldn't be shown to work.


Craig

Re: [Vo]:I.H. press release responding to Rossi

[Craig Haynie]

Reading the license agreement, it looks to me like IH doesn't get the 
option to bail if they don't agree with the result of the 350 day test. 
As I read it, it looks like their only say in completing this deal, 
occurred when they agreed with Rossi who would do the independent 
evaluation. Once that party was chosen, then it looks like they have to 
pay up if the report is positive, and meets the required specifications. 
There doesn't appear to be an option to decline, at this point.


Craig


On 04/10/2016 10:30 AM, Eric Walker wrote:
On Sun, Apr 10, 2016 at 3:31 AM, Teslaalset 
> wrote:


Rossi points out that the 'old' conditions in the agreement are
still met (implemented with hotcat methods) and that IH therefore
should fulfil the agreed payment. For IH this hotcat knowledge
transfer is not profitable anymore now Rossi has his x-cat
technology in his pocket. 



An idea that occurred to me, perhaps related to this, is that (a) 
Rossi has been approached by new investors but is currently bound by 
agreements with IH, and (b) IH are stalling on making good on their 
side of the deal, because they don't think the testing has been 
rigorous.  How this scenario plays out is that Rossi sees himself as 
in a position of strength, so as soon as IH failed to pay, he 
terminated the agreement and launched the suit in order to recover 
damages, so that he could proceed unhindered with the new venture.


Eric

[Vo]:Industrial Heat Patent?

[Craig Haynie]

If Industrial Heat says that the reactor doesn't work, then why did they 
apply for a patent with Rossi's technology?


https://patentscope.wipo.int/search/en/detail.jsf?docId=WO2015127263=1==PCT+Biblio

https://www.google.com/patents/WO2015127263A3?cl=en

Rossi is now saying that they have just applied for another one:

"Today I have been informed that IH has again made another patent using 
my name as the inventor and my invention, to make a patent assigned to 
Industrial Heat, without my authorization."


If they are patenting Rossi's intellectual property, which he sold to 
them in this deal which IH did not finalize, then this would explain why 
Rossi is suing, instead of just letting it go.


Craig

Re: [Vo]:Press Release - Cold Fusion (LENR) Verified - Inventor SuesIndustrial Heat, LLC.

[Craig Haynie]

Rossi:

" I have to comment the press release of IH, being a press release and 
not a forensic act.
They made the Lugano reactor ( they also signed it ) they made many 
replications of which we have due record and witnesses, they made 
multiple patent applications ( without my authotization ) with their 
chief engineer as the co-inventor ( he invented nothing ) , with 
detailed description of the replications , they made replications with 
the attendance of Woodford, after which they got 50 or 60 millions of 
dollars from Woodfords’ investors, they made replications with the 
attendance of Chinese top level officers, after which they started 
thanks to the E-Cat they made an R activity in China in a 200 millions 
concern, they made replications with an E-Cat completely made by them 
under my direction the very day in which the 1 MW plant has been 
delivered in Raleigh, they made replications that we have recorded. 
After the replication they made with the attendance of Woodford in 2013 
Mr Tom Darden said publicly: ” this replication has been stellar” ( 
witnesses available). But this is not the place to discuss this. We have 
prepared 18 volumes to explain exactly and in detail the activity of our 
“Licensee” and his acquaintances from 2013 to now. Until they had to 
collect money thanks to the E-Cat, they made replications and have been 
happy with the E-Cat; when it turned to have to pay, they discovered 
that they never made replications, that the ERV that they had chosen in 
agreement with us was not good, that the test on the 1 MW plant, thanks 
to which they collected enormous amounts of money from the investors and 
where I put at risk my health working 16-18 hours per day was not a good 
test ( but for all the year of the test they NEVER said a single word of 
complaint, even if they had constantly their men in the plant), etc etc. 
But the worse has still to come out. The worse is in the 18 volumes we 
will present in due time, in due place. A blog is not the right place to 
discuss a litigation. This is only a quick answer to the press release 
made by IH."


http://www.journal-of-nuclear-physics.com/?p=892

Craig

On 04/07/2016 09:56 PM, Jed Rothwell wrote:

Robert Dorr > wrote:

I keep seeing that supposedly  I.H. was the one that built the
e-cat used in the Lugano test. As far as I can see that is
completely untrue.


I.H. is mentioned in the Lugano paper three times:


In the course of the year following the previous tests, the E-Cat’s 
technology was transferred to Industrial Heat LLC, United States, 
where it was replicated and improved. . . .


The authors gratefully acknowledge Andrea Rossi and Industrial Heat 
LLC for providing us with the E-cat reactor to perform an independent 
test measurement. . . .


Lastly, our thanks to Industrial Heat LLC (USA) for providing 
financial support for the measurements performed for radiation 
protection purposes.

Re: [Vo]:I.H. press release responding to Rossi

[Craig Haynie]

On 04/07/2016 09:50 PM, Daniel Rocha wrote:
I am actually trying to defend Rossi, because this time is a big deal. 
According to the terms of the contract and IH, Rossi only got 
1.5million, and nothing from the escrow account. So, for any decent 
research, well, decent in terms of using massive parallel reactors, he 
must be on shoe strings.




Rossi: " Yes, Leonardo Corporation has the financial resources necessary 
to make the massive production we need."


http://www.journal-of-nuclear-physics.com/?p=892=88#comments

Craig

Re: [Vo]:Press Release - Cold Fusion (LENR) Verified - Inventor SuesIndustrial Heat, LLC.

[Craig Haynie]

On 04/07/2016 09:36 PM, Jones Beene wrote:


*From:*Craig Haynie

ØThey also paid Rossi $10 million dollars, after validating that the 
device was working…


Not exactly. The logical error is cause and effect. Yes, they paid the 
installment, but elsewhere they clearly state that "Industrial Heat 
has worked for over three years to substantiate the results claimed by 
Mr. Rossi from the E-Cat technology – all without success". Clearly IH 
never said or implied that the device worked, nor did they deny making 
the installment.





Just to clarify, I am only reading the agreement to make this 
determination. I don't have any knowledge as to what actually occurred 
when IH paid Rossi the $10 million. Considering they now claim to be 
unable to substantiate the results, then this is certainly the prudent 
thing to do after a lawsuit has been filed against them. They also are 
reported to have had two observers during the past year, watching, and 
consulting with the ERV. If there had been a serious problem, one would 
think that they would have made some mention of it earlier. Isn't it 
also true that one of their observers has been making positive remarks 
during the past year, as well?


The agreement says:

"The Validation will be made in the factory of Leonardo within 120 
Business Days following the date of this Agreement on a date mutually 
agreed to by the Company and Leonardo. "Validation" will be deemed 
successful and achieved when the expert responsible for such validation 
(ERV) certifies in writing that during a 24 hour test period the Plant 
consistently produces energy that is at least six times greater than the 
energy consumed by the Plant... and the temperature of the steam 
produced by the Plant is consistently 100 degrees Celsius or greater... 
At their respective elections, the Company and the Leonardo may have 
representatives present to observe the Validation process and discuss 
the testing and its results with the ERV."


Craig

Re: [Vo]:Press Release - Cold Fusion (LENR) Verified - Inventor SuesIndustrial Heat, LLC.

[Craig Haynie]

On 04/07/2016 08:19 PM, Daniel Rocha wrote:
But now that IH said they could not get Rossi to prove anything, Rossi 
shouldn't have got anything. And note that the claim that the 
experiment prove anything came from Rossi's side. So, we are 
concluding that he got 10 million based on what "Rossi said".




This is IH's best legal position at this time, isn't it? It seems 
obvious to me that since Rossi's claim is extraordinary, and violates 
known physical laws, that this route is the best route to winning the 
lawsuit against them.


I don't know why they didn't close the deal and pay the $89 million, but 
I think it's quite likely that they didn't raise as much money as they 
thought they would during this past year, and had to bail on the agreement.


Craig

Re: [Vo]:Press Release - Cold Fusion (LENR) Verified - Inventor SuesIndustrial Heat, LLC.

[Craig Haynie]

On 04/07/2016 08:00 PM, Daniel Rocha wrote:
Isnt the 10 million on an escrow account? As far as I understood, IH 
even bought a unit before completing the reactor.


The $10 million was on escrow at the beginning, until IH validated that 
the machine was working, and producing at least 6 COP. Then I 
understand, from the license agreement, that the money was released to 
Rossi.


Craig

Re: [Vo]:Press Release - Cold Fusion (LENR) Verified - Inventor SuesIndustrial Heat, LLC.

[Craig Haynie]

You're right. I have made two mistakes in two days. Something's wrong. 
I'm just not concentrating on what I'm writing. :)


Craig

On 04/07/2016 07:54 PM, Robert Dorr wrote:


It wasn't a month long test, it was a 24 hour test performed in 
Ferrara  Italy. I keep seeing that supposedly  I.H. was the one that 
built the e-cat used in the Lugano test. As far as I can see that is 
completely untrue.


Robert Dorr
WA7ZQR


At 03:55 PM 4/7/2016, you wrote:
They also paid Rossi $10 million dollars after validating that the 
device was working for a month.


Craig

On 04/07/2016 06:54 PM, Daniel Rocha wrote:
"Industrial Heat has worked for over three years to substantiate the 
results claimed by Mr. Rossi from the E-Cat technology – all without 
success".


It seems imply that Rossi did not generate any extra heat. I don't 
think they they'd say "without success" if any COP>1 was found, 
since the claim also include cold fusion and(with) COP>=6 

Re: [Vo]:Press Release - Cold Fusion (LENR) Verified - Inventor SuesIndustrial Heat, LLC.

[Craig Haynie]

They also paid Rossi $10 million dollars after validating that the 
device was working for a month.


Craig

On 04/07/2016 06:54 PM, Daniel Rocha wrote:
"Industrial Heat has worked for over three years to substantiate the 
results claimed by Mr. Rossi from the E-Cat technology – all without 
success".


It seems imply that Rossi did not generate any extra heat. I don't 
think they they'd say "without success" if any COP>1 was found, since 
the claim also include cold fusion and(with) COP>=6

Re: [Vo]:Press Release - Cold Fusion (LENR) Verified - Inventor Sues Industrial Heat, LLC.

[Craig Haynie]

I agree; the $10 million was paid. Sorry for the confusion.

On Thu, Apr 7, 2016 at 11:39 AM, Blaze Spinnaker <blazespinna...@gmail.com>
wrote:

>
>
> On Thu, Apr 7, 2016 at 8:21 AM, Craig Haynie <cchayniepub...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>> See section 3.2(b). The $10,000,000 is held in escrow.
>>
>>
>> http://www.sifferkoll.se/sifferkoll/wp-content/uploads/2016/04/Rossi_et_al_v_Darden_et_al__flsdce-16-21199__0001.2.pdf
>>
>>
>>
> That's just saying it went into escrow first as part of the agreement.
> That's standard for sure.  The complaint says it got paid.  Look at #58 of
> the complaint
> https://drive.google.com/file/d/0Bz7lTfqkED9WZ2JPbkQtWEd4dVk/view
>

Re: [Vo]:Press Release - Cold Fusion (LENR) Verified - Inventor Sues Industrial Heat, LLC.

[Craig Haynie]

See section 3.2(b). The $10,000,000 is held in escrow.

http://www.sifferkoll.se/sifferkoll/wp-content/uploads/2016/04/Rossi_et_al_v_Darden_et_al__flsdce-16-21199__0001.2.pdf


On Thu, Apr 7, 2016 at 8:22 AM, Blaze Spinnaker 
wrote:

> "I think the fight is over the $10 million in escrow, which looks like it
> may go back to IH if the deal falls through."
>
> I saw nothing saying the money is in escrow.   Pretty sure it's been paid
> to leonardo.  See line 58
>

Re: [Vo]:Press Release - Cold Fusion (LENR) Verified - Inventor Sues Industrial Heat, LLC.

[Craig Haynie]

"...then Rossi would be smart to simply cancel IH's license and go for 
his own $500 billion IPO next month. Let IH sue him if they don't like 
the cancellation."


I think the fight is over the $10 million in escrow, which looks like it 
may go back to IH if the deal falls through.


Craig

On 04/06/2016 11:57 PM, Jones Beene wrote:

-Original Message-----
From: Craig Haynie


Actually, this whole mystery could be the result of a failure by IH to raise 
the expected $89 million to finalize the deal.

Maybe, but if Rossi really has the goods ... given that useless concepts like 
"Twitter" are valued at $24 billion IPO with almost no sustainable income, then 
Rossi would be smart to simply cancel IH's license and go for his own $500 billion IPO 
next month. Let IH sue him if they don't like the cancellation.

The fact he is even pursuing the lawsuit is insane if the technology is solid, 
since his Lawyer will cost him more than an IPO, out of pocket (the Banks get 
their cut at the end). This little bit of financial realism is indicative that 
Rossi does not believe his own COP=50 nonsense.

Re: [Vo]:Rossi's customer

[Craig Haynie]

"‘The attached photo has been made in our factory in Miami, Florida, and 
is related to the plant “E-Cat the New Fire” manufactured by Leonardo 
Corporation to supply thermal energy’"


From 2015:

http://www.e-catworld.com/2015/05/05/new-image-of-the-e-cat-plant-on-trademark-application/

Craig

On 04/06/2016 11:07 PM, Robert Dorr wrote:


They do have an office at 7900 Glades Rd., Boca Raton, FL. The 
building is definitely large enough to use a 1MW plant.


Robert Dorr
WA7ZQR


At 07:48 PM 4/6/2016, you wrote:

Robert Dorr > wrote:
Â

It could be their business office and they have another
building/warehouse at a different location.


Good point. However, I looked them up in various places and this is 
the only address listed. They are categorized as chemical 
distributors. I expect if they had a production facility somewhere 
large enough to need 1 MW of steam, it would have be listed in in 
Florida government business directories.


- Jed

Re: [Vo]:Press Release - Cold Fusion (LENR) Verified - Inventor Sues Industrial Heat, LLC.

[Craig Haynie]

Actually, this whole mystery could be the result of a failure by IH to 
raise the expected $89 million to finalize the deal. This might explain 
why they took this to the end of the trial.


Craig

Re: [Vo]:Open Letter from Brian Ahern

[Craig Haynie]

Here's something I found interesting in the lawsuit. During the test, IH 
had hired two people to monitor the test, and they were kept well 
informed of its progress. I wonder if they signed the document, as well?


"67.
During the Guaranteed Performance Test period, IH and/or IPH engaged and 
paid
two of their representatives, Mr. Barry West and Mr. Fulvio Fabiani, to 
monitor, maintain, take

part in, and report on the operation of the E-Cat Unit being tested.
68.
Throughout the Guaranteed Performance testing period, the results of the 
test,
including measurements and operational status, were routinely reported 
to DARDEN, VAUGHN,

IH and IPH by ROSSI, the ERV and IH/IPH's agents Mr. Fabiani and Mr. V/est."

Craig

Re: [Vo]:Open Letter from Brian Ahern

[Craig Haynie]

And the winner is Jone Beene!!

"I have recently re-read the Pinon report, which is an absolute mockery 
of the scientific system, and if Pinon turns out to be the ERV, then we 
are in the early stages of a gigantic lawsuit. "


Craig

On 03/31/2016 08:54 PM, Jones Beene wrote:


I have recently re-read the Pinon report, which is an absolute mockery 
of the scientific system, and if Pinon turns out to be the ERV, then 
we are in the early stages of a gigantic lawsuit.

Re: [Vo]:E-Cat THrust....EmDrive

[Craig Haynie]

This doesn't make any sense. If there was some kind of thrust being 
developed in the ecat, along the lines of the emdrive, then no one would 
ever know. If no one tries to measure it, they'll never see it, or 
suspect it.


Craig

On 04/04/2016 10:00 AM, Ron Kita wrote:

Greetings Vortex-L,

I wonder if the term Ecat-Q is a mistake or something that I misssed:
http://www.e-catworld.com/2016/04/04/now-thrust-from-the-e-cat/

Per aspera...Ad astra,
Ron Kita, Chiralex, Doylestown PA

Re: [Vo]:Open Letter from Brian Ahern

[Craig Haynie]

I just don't see how it's possible for Rossi to provide 'proof'. No one 
is going to believe this report. They're not going to trust the 
examiner. They're not going to trust the process by which he was chosen. 
They'll question his conflict of interest. They're probably not going to 
know exactly what he did to come up with whatever he says; and if he 
provides a detailed explanation, there will always be questions over 
issues that were overlooked.


If Rossi or Mills has something real, then we'll either have to have 
numerous, high signal, replications, from different sources; or we'll 
have people who've purchased these machines, come out in unison that 
they're all amazed at how much money they're saving. Neither Rossi, nor 
Mills, seem to be interested in the former.


Craig

On 03/31/2016 07:35 PM, Jed Rothwell wrote:
Craig Haynie <cchayniepub...@gmail.com 
<mailto:cchayniepub...@gmail.com>> wrote:


To be a little more clear, I don't think Rossi is going to provide
any proof for anyone, other than his investors . . .


He said he would! Mats Lewan is counting on him to provide proof. 
Otherwise he will have to cancel his symposium.


Anyway, I sure won't go to the symposium without solid proof. Mats 
told me that's the deal: rock solid proof or we call it off. It is 
getting close to a deadline.


Granted, Rossi only said that. He is not contractually obligated. But 
since he himself is slated to attend the symposium, I suppose he means 
it. But, you never can tell with him. As Churchill said of the Soviet 
Union, he is "a riddle wrapped in a mystery inside an enigma."


I hope he does. But I think I.H. has more credibility. Since they have 
repudiated the report (I think!) and since they talk about "embracing 
failure" I have a feeling the report will be a bust. It makes me nervous.


- Jed

Re: [Vo]:Open Letter from Brian Ahern

[Craig Haynie]

To be a little more clear, I don't think Rossi is going to provide any 
proof for anyone, other than his investors -- assuming he does indeed 
have something. This report is probably an engineering report. What he 
needs to know before selling these expensive machines, is the knowledge 
that they are going to perform as promised, and that they are not going 
to break down, or diminish in performance over the course of their 
operational lives; because even if they work as advertised, it would be 
devastating to a new company if they broke down after six months and had 
to have major repairs, or worse, a complete replacement of all of the 
operational modules. THIS is what he needs to avoid.


I don't think there's anything in this report that is going to prove 
anything to anyone, except Rossi; and what it will prove to Rossi, are 
the things he needs to produce a product with a two year warranty.


Craig

On 03/31/2016 06:53 PM, Jones Beene wrote:

Craig,

Mills has been planning to "get to market sometime next year" for the last 20 
years. Yawn. I hope he does, but there is not proof that he can do it.

Sure, if Rossi gets to market first - fine ... no one can argue with that ... but as of 
now, there is nothing but hollow promises and the big "If". In the mean-time, 
Rossi has not proved even a watt of real gain, much less a useful product.

Don't forget that Rossi already promised a robotics plant, in the final stages 
of completion for the Solyndra disaster zone when he visited Boston three years 
ago, but he was lying of course. He continues the delusion of a robotic plant 
to make ecats, to this day. What a clown.

-Original Message-
From: Craig

Rossi has released a lot more than Mills, and they both seem to be on similar 
paths. Like Rossi, Mills is planning to start selling next year. If Rossi 
starts selling, that will be all the proof he needs.

Craig

Re: [Vo]:Open Letter from Brian Ahern

[Craig Haynie]

Rossi has released a lot more than Mills, and they both seem to be on 
similar paths. Like Rossi, Mills is planning to start selling next year. 
If Rossi starts selling, that will be all the proof he needs.


Craig

Re: [Vo]:Rossi and IH have received the ERV Report

[Craig Haynie]

This won't be resolved completely until Rossi sells a few of these things.

Craig


On Wed, Mar 30, 2016 at 10:48 AM, Stephen Cooke 
wrote:

> Thanks for the thought provoking post… I agree.
>
> Group think and consensus can be more powerful, more widespread and more
> damaging than any planned or determined conspiracy. People identify with
> and feel part of a social/political group or organisation and go along with
> what they think their peers think. Sometimes even when they sense it is
> wrong they will even go along with it if they feel it is the easy course or
> if they benefit in some way, financially, or through peer group acceptance.
> To some extent they can avoid feelings of responsibility or guilt too by
> feeling they go along with the consensus and do not disrupt established
> ways of thinking.
>
> When I see group think I want to look deeper, and find what is hidden
> behind the assumptions. Almost always i find the group thinking is based on
> wrong assumptions and incomplete or incorrect information.
>
> But perhaps I'm also guilty of my own kind of group think. I tend to seek
> out places and other people who I feel ask questions and look deeper too.
>
> hmmm i need to think about that.
>
>
>
> --
> From: alain.sep...@gmail.com
> Date: Wed, 30 Mar 2016 08:28:51 +0200
> Subject: Re: [Vo]:Rossi and IH have received the ERV Report
> To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
>
>
> On the opposite for a conspiracy theorist, in general, there is no 3rd
> party, except himself.
> Anyone who disagree with the conclusion is considered part of the giant
> conspiracy.
>
> There is no absolute third party as interest and incentive connect, in
> both positive and negative direction, all players.
> NB: people forget often the non-third party player who have incentive not
> to accept reality (eg: an academic of an UL who would prefer to pretend
> uncertainty while there is none, just to save his reputation, or avoid he
> have been wrong before - see Tajmar and EmDrive )
>
> however if nobody is totally third party, the fact to participate to a
> fraud, ask for a really high level in commitment with the fraudster, and
> increase the chance of leak for each new member in the conspiracy.
>
> My conclusion is that there is no conspiracy except when public,
> authorities, powerful actors, reference actors, ask for it and punish the
> traitors.
> The only conspiracy is a consensus. there is public whistleblowers who are
> ignored, and mindguards who punish them to challenge the public consensus.
> This is not a conspiracy but a groupthink, mutual assured delusion as
> Benabou name it.
>
> now apply my theory to LENR domain, or to other subject, and things get
> clearer...
>
> 2016-03-30 3:27 GMT+02:00 Daniel Rocha :
>
>
> Rossi's definition of 3rd party is somewhat exotic.
>
>
>

Re: [Vo]:The Orbo Works as Claimed?

[Craig Haynie]

This is an interesting video. He takes a load off of the Orbo, and 
watches the voltage increase.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_UbKcgyCVzI#t=14.024172

Craig

On 03/28/2016 10:33 PM, Craig Haynie wrote:
http://www.e-catworld.com/2016/03/29/ecw-orbo-testing-week-8-orbo-cell-now-behaving-according-to-steorns-claims/ 



Craig

[Vo]:The Orbo Works as Claimed?

[Craig Haynie]

http://www.e-catworld.com/2016/03/29/ecw-orbo-testing-week-8-orbo-cell-now-behaving-according-to-steorns-claims/

Craig

Re: [Vo]:Rossi Ecat Commercialization ..a Nice Website

[Craig Haynie]

Rossi is the man in the lead?

Unless Mills is lying, he is miles ahead of Rossi. If this is the case, 
then all Mills has to do is walk up and claim his Nobel prize.


Craig

On 03/25/2016 09:40 AM, Ron Kita wrote:

Nice presentation..I almost missed it:
http://newenergytreasure.com/2016/03/18/race-to-commercialize-cold-fusion-is-afoot/

Ron Kita, Chiralex

Re: [Vo]:Re: EM Drive(s)

[Craig Haynie]

"Acceleration produces a force. Force times distance = energy. "

I am aware that this is a well-vetted, common equation; but if used in 
this case, then an object accelerating at 1 m/s^2 for 10 seconds, and 
travelling at 200 m/s, with respect to a common point, would require 
approximately twice as much energy as an object accelerating at 1 m/s^2 
for 10 seconds, and travelling at 100 m/s.


As Einstein asked, which one is travelling at which speed? From the 
point of view of the first object, it doesn't know that it's travelling 
at 200 m/s. It sees the common point moving by at 200 m/s. When 
calculating the acceleration of a rocket, one doesn't use distance 
travelled. The calculation uses force multiplied by time. The 
acceleration doesn't drop off as the rocket increases in speed.


Craig

On 03/14/2016 12:17 AM, mix...@bigpond.com wrote:

In reply to  Craig Haynie's message of Sun, 13 Mar 2016 21:08:43 -0400:
Hi,
[snip]

Note the use of the word "acceleration".

Acceleration produces a force. Force times distance = energy.



This doesn't make any sense:

"For a given acceleration period, the higher the mean velocity, the
longer the distance travelled, hence the higher the energy lost by the
engine."

Since we're not talking about relativistic speeds, then the idea that a
device will consume more energy, over a given period of time, simply
because it's moving, would violate Einstein's Special Relativity which
says there's no preferred frame of reference. The moving object cannot
be said to be moving at all.

Craig

Regards,

Robin van Spaandonk

http://rvanspaa.freehostia.com/project.html

Re: [Vo]:Re: EM Drive(s)

[Craig Haynie]

This doesn't make any sense:

"For a given acceleration period, the higher the mean velocity, the 
longer the distance travelled, hence the higher the energy lost by the 
engine."


Since we're not talking about relativistic speeds, then the idea that a 
device will consume more energy, over a given period of time, simply 
because it's moving, would violate Einstein's Special Relativity which 
says there's no preferred frame of reference. The moving object cannot 
be said to be moving at all.


Craig

On 03/13/2016 02:27 PM, Alain Sepeda wrote:
Shawyer's theory explicitly repect CoE, and it explains that 
acceleration consume energy, through dopler effect and decalibration 
of the cavity...

http://emdrive.com/faq.html
"*6.*

*Q.* /Is the EmDrive a form of perpetual motion machine?/
*A. *The EmDrive obeys the law of conservation of energy and is 
therefore not a perpetual motion machine. Energy must be expended to 
accelerate the EmDrive (see Equation 16 of the theory paper). Once the 
EmDrive is switched off, Newton’s laws ensure that motion is constant 
unless it is acted upon by another force.


*7.*
*Q.* /Why does the thrust decrease as the spacecraft velocity along 
the thrust vector increases?/
*A. *As the spacecraft accelerates along the thrust vector, energy is 
lost by the engine and gained as additional kinetic energy by the 
spacecraft. This energy can be defined as the thrust multiplied by the 
distance through which the thrust acts. For a given acceleration 
period, the higher the mean velocity, the longer the distance 
travelled, hence the higher the energy lost by the engine.
This loss of stored energy from the resonant cavity leads to a 
reduction in Q and hence a reduction of thrust."



I'm not very convinced by Shawyer except that his equations seems to 
work... seems, with the scarce data available...



You can also consider MiHsC theory by McCulloch


this theoreticians is pushing the idea that inside the event horizon 
energy+information+mass is conserved.


http://physicsfromtheedge.blogspot.co.uk/2015/03/one-wave-approximation-of-mihsc.html




2016-03-13 18:28 GMT+01:00 Russ George >:


“And it is this direct implication that Shayer et al have not yet
answered to, so far as I'm aware.  The conversion of input energy
to acceleration would remain constant, at any velocity.  If 1
m/s/kg costs a whopping kJ, it'll ALWAYS cost 1kJ, whether from 0
- 1 m/s or from 999 m/s to 1 km/s, and hence passing a threshold
beyond which energy is being created as observed from an external
frame.”

I thought that was the essence of why Shawyer’s EM Drive has been
described as a ‘warp drive’ not because of the simple notion that
it ‘might’ reach ‘faster than light’ but that if the energy
required for acceleration remains constant it ‘MUST’ be capable of
reaching ftl speeds.

The super conducting version of Shawyer’s drive that he says is
the real goal/gold is surely very near to hand. That sort of tech
is widely in use in a variety of fields and simple adaptations of
on the shelf hardware could be immediately diverted to build such
a drive. It seems likely this is already underway by Shawyer and
his ilk as they are very ‘coy’ on this topic.

Of course using EM Drives to spin an electrical generator shaft is
a logical useful earth bound tech. There seem to be a whole flock
of black swans starting to be heard honking in the distance and
getting louder by the day.

*From:*Vibrator ! [mailto:mrvibrat...@gmail.com
]
*Sent:* Sunday, March 13, 2016 10:14 AM
*To:* vortex-l@eskimo.com 
*Subject:* Re: [Vo]:Re: EM Drive(s)

@Jones - i have no doubt the efficacy of the principle can be
tested in the lab - i'm not talking about an ability to detect thrust.

I use the qualifier "effective" N3 violation in reference to a
system in which mechanical (classical) momentum is not conserved -
quantum or relativistic effects notwithstanding.

An EM drive would be such a system.

And as regards conservation of energy, an effective N3 break, like
a real one, creates free energy from the classical perspective.

KE squares with veloicty, so a 1 m/s/kg acceleration from
stationary only costs 1/2 J.   But the cost of that same 1 m/s/kg
is then subject to compound interest as velocity rises - it costs
9.5 J to get from 9 m/s up to 10 m/s, and 95 J to get from 99 m/s
up to 100 m/s.  In short, acceleration costs more per unit the
faster we go.

And if you consider WHY this cost escalates, it boils down to
Newton's 3rd law, and the need for reaction mass.

If however our reaction mass can be quantum or relativistic, ie.
non-classical, then we circumvent this limitation of diminishing
returns - the cost per unit of acceleration remains 

Re: [Vo]:EM Drive(s)

[Craig Haynie]

One advantage the EMDrive has over LENR, is that it's fairly replicable. 
The amateurs can do it.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Rbf7735o3hQ

Craig

Re: [Vo]:Statement from Industrial Heat

[Craig Haynie]

Reading between the lines... Does it sound like they're preparing us for
a negative report on Rossi's one year test?

Craig

On Thu, 2016-03-10 at 11:32 -0500, Jed Rothwell wrote:
> [Marianne Macy asked me to post this]
> 
> 
> The following statement has been released from Industrial Heat for
> Infinite Energy Magazine today, March 10, 2016.   —Marianne Macy
> 
> 
> Statement of Industrial Heat Regarding LENR Industry Developments
> 
> 
> March 10, 2016
> 
> 
> Industrial Heat’s objective is to make clean, safe and affordable
> energy available everywhere, and in doing this we want to build a
> company that demonstrates respect for all. LENR is a key focus of
> Industrial Heat and we believe multiple technologies in this sector
> warrant further investigation and development.
> 
> 
> Industrial Heat has licensed, acquired or invested in several LENR
> technologies from around the world. We have developed a group of LENR
> thought leaders, and we have built a world-class engineering team. We
> are pleased with the technologies we have assembled and with the group
> of scientists and engineers working on them. Presently, the Industrial
> Heat team is in the midst of assessing and prioritizing the
> technologies in our portfolio.
> 
> 
> Our operating philosophy is to foster scientific and engineering rigor
> in the development of LENR. We will thoroughly assess data derived
> from sound experiments which we design, control and monitor. 
> 
> 
> Embracing failure as well as success is important, because we learn
> from both. Unfortunately, there is a long and continuing pattern of
> premature proclamations in the LENR sector. 
> 
> 
> Because of this, we encourage open-minded skepticism. We believe
> society suffers when technological advances and innovative
> experimentation are stifled; likewise, society and the industry suffer
> when results are promoted and claims are made without rigorous
> verification and precise measurement.
> 
> 
> We value credibility through sound LENR research. That’s why any
> claims made about technologies in our portfolio should only be relied
> upon if affirmed by Industrial Heat and backed by reputable third
> parties who have verified our results in repeated experiments.
> 
> 
> Our portfolio of work has never been stronger and we remain excited
> about the potential we see. This optimism is grounded in more than
> just hope, yet a great deal of work remains. The energy challenges of
> today must be met with viable, clean, safe and affordable solutions.
> 
> 

Re: [Vo]:a number (value) worth a million words for LENR

[Craig Haynie]

The number is a little too perfect, don't you think?

8,400,000 kwh / 350 days / 24 hours/day = exactly 1.000 mw of power
output.

Craig


On Fri, 2016-03-04 at 19:57 +0200, Peter Gluck wrote:
> 
> 
> do not take this literally
> 
> 
> I bet we will have more info tomorrow or even later today
> 
> http://egooutpeters.blogspot.ro/2016/03/mar-04-2016-number-worth-million-words.html
> 
> -- 
> Dr. Peter Gluck
> Cluj, Romania
> http://egooutpeters.blogspot.com

Re: [Vo]:Big surprise or big dud ?

[Craig Haynie]

On Wed, 2016-02-24 at 06:43 -0800, Jones Beene wrote:

> What am I missing?
> 

Gamma Rays!

Craig

Re: [Vo]:Something big is happening

[Craig Haynie]

From: Martin Fleischmann Memorial Project QuantumHeat.org
[mailto:m.fleischmann.memor...@gmail.com] 
Sent: Tuesday, February 23, 2016 7:13 PM
To: Martin Fleischmann Memorial Project QuantumHeat.org

Subject: We. did. it... together.
 
Dear Donor,
During ICCF-17 in South Korea, shortly following the sad death of Dr.
Martin Fleischmann, it became abundantly clear to a group of fresh
attendees that the old approach to science, combined with the
ostracisation of the great minds that had worked in the face of
ridicule, was not delivering on the promise of of what we immediately
called, “The New Fire”.
It also was clear that there was something to investigate and we were
morally bound to do it.
We said that people would not believe, until they could experience it as
if they were doing themselves and so the idea of Live Open Science was
born. That was not enough, it had to be an effort that was free from
commercial or government interests and that result and so it had to be
conducted by the people, for the people. Our journey was made possible
by the courage of Francesco Celani and we thank him profusely.
Your donations played a critical role in realising this vision, but you
know that, what we know you will want to hear is what we have to share
tomorrow.
We have been running and analysing an experiment live over the past
Month. First for us in this experiment were:
- Parkhomov Baking of Ni(correctly done)
- Pre Hydrogenation of Ni
- Proper baking out of cell under vacuum
- Parkhomov pressure
- Piantelli de-oxygenation
- Piantelli 'loading' + proper dwell times
- Piantelli capture analogue
- Use of free Lithium
- Use of calibrated NaI
- Cycles attempting to create nano Ni distillates (inspired by “Bang!”
discovery of dissolved Ni)
- Long Run
You can see that there are steps in there that came about only because
of activities that were made possible by donations. The critical visits
to Piantelli and Parkhomov.
Around the beginning of the month we saw what appeared to be up to a COP
of 1.2, not earth shattering, but sustained and robust and in line with
both observations by others and the Lugano report when adjusted for
correct emissivity. Over the next weeks we tried various bookend
calibrations which supported this finding.
We have said that only two paths would satisfy us:
Statistically significant Isotopic or elemental shifts from Fuel to Ash
Statistically significant emissions commensurate, correlating, or anti
correlating to excess heat
We are happy to tell you that we believe we have satisfied our condition
2, yet of course we’d like to replicate ourselves.  Actually, though, it
goes much further than that. What we will share is that the way in which
we discovered it and the journey of analysis that makes it virtually
impossible to say that Rossi does not have what he claims. It also shows
that, whilst he may have been optimistic in how fast this would play
out, he has been telling the truth, quite openly for years. Not only
that, nature itself has been telling the same story and it told us too.
By the 16/02/2016 we had given up trying to destroy the *GlowStick* 5.2,
part of a long lineage of []=Project Dog Bone=[] experiments. After the
reactor was turned off, Alan shared the remainder of the data files from
the NaI scintillator kindly donated by a project follower called Stephen
(Thankyou Stephen, really).
Project follower and open science legend, Ecco, first took a look at the
data and found some anomalies - one SO striking that we thought there
had been an equipment failure. We did not know the time that the
anomalies occurred and had to wait until Alan woke to explain the time
stamps so we could correlate it with the thermal and power data
published live to HUGNet (Thankyou Ryan and Paul Hunt). 
To our extreme surprise, the onset of excess heat followed the massive
anomaly in emissions and the minor anomalies were during and only during
excess heat. 
This led us on a path of discovery, the sequence of which explains:
The massive count signal discovered by Francesco Celani during Rossi’s
first public demo
How Rossi knew his reactor had started
How the E-Cat generates excess heat
How it self sustains
How it can scale easily
That it is safe
It also showed us how replicators can know they have succeeded in
triggering the New Fire and how to enhance the excess heat.
Subsequent to this, we found out Rossi had travelled the same design
journey and had publicly shared it in the past.
The irony is - this was all being conducted live in the open, including
discussions and graphing, whilst people were distracted with news of the
end of the 1MW 1 year test. Same day…
In the past week we have been checking, cross checking to verify and
this morning we cleared our last serious doubt, again live, with shared
data. Because this is already in the open we want people to know so that
they can start replicating based on what works, moreover, the insight
will allow people to immediately 

Re: [Vo]:Intelligent robots threaten millions of jobs

[Craig Haynie]

On Sun, 2016-02-14 at 20:33 -0500, Jed Rothwell wrote:
> I am glad to see people paying attention to this issue. I hope it is
> not politicized. Many people feel that that work is a moral issue;
> that able-bodied people who do not work should not be given
> sustenance. This was a reasonable view in the past, but now that
> robots are making rapid progress it is gradually becoming
> unreasonable. We need to adjust morality to fit the technology of our
> time. What is moral in one era may not be in the next.
> 
> 
> - Jed
> 
It will definitely be politicized. This goes to the heart of capitalism.

Craig

> 

Re: [Vo]:Blacklight Power/ Brilliant Light...Demo today

[Craig Haynie]

On Thu, 2016-01-28 at 09:30 -0800, Jones Beene wrote:

> Mills does not want to address the problem of having no verifiable
> data to share. 
> 
As we've seen from previous attempts, there is no such thing as
verifiable data at a public demonstration. Everything will be
questioned, and nothing can be verified.

> This appears to be a staged production of no scientific value. It is
> simply another PR event to raise funding.

Yes, but it would still be fun to watch. I'm wondering if Mills is
presenting a self-sustaining generator? Anything less would be
disappointing at this stage.

Craig
Manchester, NH

Re: [Vo]:Re: [Vo]:NEW LIVE Steorn Webinars Announced - Product Demonstrations

[Craig Haynie]

"Energy is roughly 10Wh"

They're saying it will self-recharge indefinitely.

Craig


On Thu, Oct 29, 2015 at 1:54 AM, Teslaalset 
wrote:

> Price is 1200 Euro
> Power generation is 0.4W
> Energy is roughly 10Wh
> Weight is 300 grams, most of it is due to the aluminum casing.
> Even in a Feraday cage the device works.
> It’s not sensitive to geographic orientation.
> They have a granted patent on this.
>
> On Wed, Oct 28, 2015 at 10:09 PM, Esa Ruoho  wrote:
>
>> Well, I'm watching the replay of the webinar, at
>>  https://www.facebook.com/217496297671/videos/10153326632242672/
>>
>> when I tuned in to the actual broadcast, they said, 2.1amps, two full
>> recharges of a smartphone, then 24 hours to recharge in case the battery
>> ran out.
>>
>> Did I get it right, Craig? I stand corrected if I got it wrong.
>>
>> Oh, and the price? 1200€.
>>
>>
>

Re: [Vo]:Re: [Vo]:NEW LIVE Steorn Webinars Announced - Product Demonstrations

[Craig Haynie]

"Perhaps the Steorn device also has a lithium battery to account for its
higher cost."

Yes, they said it has a lithium battery in their presentation. Supposedly,
the battery recharges continuously.

Craig


On Thu, Oct 29, 2015 at 10:44 AM, Teslaalset 
wrote:

> Bob, this is not targeted at end-consumers, but potential licensees, to
> allow evaluation of their granted patent and potential trade secrets
> included in the license deal. These prototypes also will allow those who
> want to understand the physics, e.g. universities. What they currently show
> is far from matured applications and integration. The first home VCR also
> weighted 15Kg. I'd like my mobile phone having this technology embedded.
>
>
>
>
> On Thu, Oct 29, 2015 at 2:53 PM, Bob Higgins 
> wrote:
>
>> That may be true, but they are only guaranteeing that it will work for 1
>> year.  And, it is not clear that they are guaranteeing that it will still
>> produce 10WH / day at the end of one year.  The internal lithium battery
>> will probably only last about 2 years.  That is a total of about 3.6kWH of
>> electricity, or about $3.60 worth for $1300 for the device.  It may be
>> worth the price as an experiment demonstrating the novel physics involved,
>> but for nothing else.  If it really does involve new physics, the cost
>> would have to decline by a factor of >100 before it would have an impact on
>> society.  Keep in mind that you could provide the same daily energy from a
>> couple of solar cells and a voltage boosting inverter for less than $10 in
>> parts if you are looking or an emergency phone charger.  And the solar
>> charger would weigh less and last longer.
>>
>>
>
>

Re: [Vo]: Translation of Russian paper on Ni-H experiment

[Craig Haynie]

On Mon, 2015-10-19 at 17:26 -0400, Jed Rothwell wrote:
> Note that this work was done in the 1990s, so it was not affected by
> Rossi.

The paper references work in the 90s, but the paper and the latest work,
is current.

Craig

> 
> 

Re: [Vo]:Re: Swedish scientists claim LENR explanation break-through

[Craig Haynie]

What am I missing here? Is hydrogen not really necessary for this reaction?
Then why was it considered so important?

Craig


On Fri, Oct 16, 2015 at 8:21 PM, Hoyt A. Stearns Jr. 
wrote:

> Add some BORAX to the water,  I hear that's even better.
>
> -Original Message-
> From: mix...@bigpond.com [mailto:mix...@bigpond.com]
> Sent: Friday, October 16, 2015 5:11 PM
> To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
> Subject: Re: [Vo]:Re: Swedish scientists claim LENR explanation
> break-through
>
> In reply to  Teslaalset's message of Fri, 16 Oct 2015 09:50:19 +0200:
> Hi,
> [snip]
>
> >*The scientists are now preparing for a well-planned experiment with
> >all necessary safety measures, ideally with a transparent reactor body
> >since the effect according to the scientists releases a lot of light.*
>
> In that case I would suggest they use water as a shield. It is cheap, a
> good
> neutron shield, and sufficiently transparent.
>
> Regards,
>
> Robin van Spaandonk
>
> http://rvanspaa.freehostia.com/project.html
>
>
> ---
> This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
> https://www.avast.com/antivirus
>
>

Re: [Vo]:A 21st Century Case for Gold: A New Information Theory of Money.

[Craig Haynie]

On Thu, 2015-08-13 at 17:57 +0100, Ian Walker wrote:
 Hi all
 
 In all honesty we need to consider a post capitalism world.
 http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/video/2015/aug/12/paul-mason-capitalism-failing-time-to-panic-video?CMP=fb_us
 
 
There are only two types of economies that have been demonstrated in the
world: An economy which allows people to trade freely; and an economy
which commands all production and distribution. To date, no one has
demonstrated how the latter can replace the former. The narrator in the
video, above, equates capitalism with violence, but there is no causal
link between the two. Free trade does not lead to mass surveillance,
wars, and riot squads. He is, rather, equating a philosophy based on
violence with a philosophy based on free trade, where no such
relationship can be shown to exist.

Craig

Re: [Vo]:A 21st Century Case for Gold: A New Information Theory of Money.

[Craig Haynie]

On Thu, 2015-08-13 at 06:11 -0800, Lennart Thornros wrote:
 deflation in 1929 was because people stopped buying goods, buying
 work, to look less indepbted.

No. Deflation in 1929 - 1933 was due to the Federal Reserve's response
to a gold run. At the time, the US dollar was still considered to be
gold, and the Federal Reserve was charged to ensure that all federal
notes could be honored. They raised interest rates in 1929 to such an
extent that the money supply which had been expanding for the previous
decade, would decline to the point where they could ensure adequate gold
reserves. They continued this policy for 3 years until Roosevelt made it
illegal to own gold under a WWI emergency wartime act, at which point
the gold run was over. However, even after all gold was confiscated, and
three years of a contracting money supply, the US dollar still had to be
devalued with respect its gold reserves from $20 / ounce to $35 / ounce.
The Federal Reserve created a lot of money in the 1920s and much of it
went into the stock market, driving prices to extraordinary levels,
which had not been seen before that period in time.

Craig

Re: [Vo]:A 21st Century Case for Gold: A New Information Theory of Money.

[Craig Haynie]

On Thu, 2015-08-13 at 09:48 -0500, Orionworks - Steven Vincent Johnson
wrote:
 The appeal for gold is based on an illusion that gold has some kind of
 mystical value of its own, as if the it was ordained by God.

Opinions and desires can't be universalized, but I believe that most of
the people who want to see gold as money do so because they believe in a
decentralized, universal, stable, currency, something no central bank
can achieve.

Craig

Re: [Vo]:Coal mining industry in steep decline

[Craig Haynie]

Electric cars in the 90s were only built as a result of the California
mandate. There was no demand for them back then.

Now, with improved technology, and much higher gas prices, a lot of
people are starting to like the idea and the market is becoming viable.

Craig

Re: [Vo]:Re: CIHT POWER SYSTEM (US20150171455A1, Publication Date: 06/18/2015, File Date: 05/21/2013, Mills)

[Craig Haynie]

On Thu, 2015-06-18 at 12:15 -0700, Bob Cook wrote:

 My bet is on Industrial Heat.  I think they have a more urgent
 attachment of their objective of producing something useful for
 society—more philanthropic IMHO.

Unless Mills is committing fraud, then he's miles ahead of everyone
else. He has an advanced working theory and built everything from it. It
seems that the only thing Rossi has is a strong determination to get
something into production with only empirical experimentation to guide
him. 

One thing that surprises me is that Mills has said that Rossi's e-cat
could not conceivably work. I don't know how he can say this without
knowing what the reactive material is, inside the reactor. After all,
Mills started out with nickel-hydrogen based experiments, twenty years
ago.

The patent application may work out well for Mills, either way. If he
can demonstrate a working product, and his patent application is
rejected, then I think he would have a strong legal case if someone
tried to replicate it and distribute it.

Craig
 

Re: [Vo]:a turning point in the history of Parkhomov replications

[Craig Haynie]

The MFMP data is really compelling. As the temperature rises; as the
internal pressure drops, the difference between the fueled cell and the
control gets wider.

https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/u/1/d/15ODbN9Oq6Pjyp9A61hdX0-fBJIXBBKMk7Ei06PzTc-Q/htmlview?sle=true#gid=1291075296

Craig

On Sat, May 30, 2015 at 12:46 PM, Alain Sepeda alain.sep...@gmail.com
wrote:

 I was starting to understand what is the moon when they pulled the
 ladder...

 2015-05-30 18:07 GMT+02:00 Peter Gluck peter.gl...@gmail.com:

 Dear Alain,

 I have already noticed your creative metaphor.
 I was already here downstairs  at the Sputnik Event.
 Peter

 On Sat, May 30, 2015 at 6:43 PM, Alain Sepeda alain.sep...@gmail.com
 wrote:

 Chinese Sputnik says bip bip bip

 2015-05-30 16:17 GMT+02:00 Peter Gluck peter.gl...@gmail.com:

 Or two turning points, both in the good direction? See:


 http://egooutpeters.blogspot.ro/2015/05/good-news-from-china-and-very-hopefully.html

 I know positive events/changes must come.

 Peter

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





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

Re: [Vo]:OT fountain of youth?

[Craig Haynie]

On Thu, 2015-05-14 at 13:01 -0500, David L. Babcock wrote:
 The way to the stars better be an under-$1000 Portal in every village.  
 Spaceships are too frigin expensive to move any but a tiny fraction of 
 our billions.

Expensive? That thinking is so... 20th century. :)

Cheap energy makes everything cheap.

Craig

Re: [Vo]:Nextgen EM Drive's Potential seems way above the Theoretical Limit

[Craig Haynie]

Why concentrate upon a very special case instead of the more general
applications for these drives?   Hovering is useful, but it is not going to
enable one to travel among the stars.

Hovering gives us flying cars.


On Tue, May 12, 2015 at 1:50 AM, John Berry berry.joh...@gmail.com wrote:

 Yes, the reaction mass is the earth.

 On Tue, May 12, 2015 at 1:44 PM, mix...@bigpond.com wrote:

 In reply to  Frank Znidarsic's message of Mon, 11 May 2015 18:58:16 -0400:
 Hi Frank,
 [snip]
 The video states that m drive obeys Newtow's laws.  It has no reaction
 mass.  It does not obey Newton's laws.  That comment was an understatement
 bordering on misinformation.
 
 
 Frank Z

 Which of Newton's laws does it violate?

 Does a car going down the road doesn't have reaction mass? Does it violate
 Newton's laws?
 Regards,

 Robin van Spaandonk

 http://rvanspaa.freehostia.com/project.html

Re: [Vo]:Nextgen EM Drive's Potential seems way above the Theoretical Limit

[Craig Haynie]

 IOW he creates a force, but as long as that force doesn't act over a
distance, then it need do no work.

I'm the one who suggests that the thrust created by the EM Drive could be
used to levitate an object. Shawyer is saying that the EM Drive could
create 1 tonne of thrust for 1 kilowatt of power, implying that this thrust
would be used to accelerate a spacecraft. He's not siting these numbers as
an example of levitation. So he's implying that the thrust will be used to
do work, and therefore should not be able to violate a theoretical amount
of power needed to do that work.

On Sun, May 10, 2015 at 11:35 PM, mix...@bigpond.com wrote:

 In reply to  Craig Haynie's message of Sun, 10 May 2015 23:19:42 -0400:
 Hi,

 I'm suggesting that in theory no energy is required as long as there is no
 movement. IOW he creates a force, but as long as that force doesn't act
 over a
 distance, then it need do no work.

 E = F x d; F = m x a. E = m x a x d. You have calculated the mass times
 acceleration part of it.

 OTOH a rocket would most definitely expend energy just to hover, as do
 helicopters etc. but they also accelerate mass downward to produce the
 thrust
 (air in the case of helicopters).

 So I think it just depends on exactly how the thrust is generated, i.e.
 how the
 drive interacts with the space-time continuum.

 His claim is 1 tonne of thrust per kilowatt. One tonne of thrust will
 accelerate an object. An object under the acceleration of gravity will be
 countered by the thrust, costing 48 kilowatts of power in the process.
 This
 is not the same as suspending an object by a rope or something. Are you
 suggesting that there is no theoretical limit as to how much power,
 applied
 as thrust,  is needed to suspend an object weighing a tonne? Or are you
 suggesting that my math is wrong and that there is a lower number? If the
 number is lower, then how do you arrive at it?
 
 Craig
 
 
 
 
 On Sun, May 10, 2015 at 10:48 PM, mix...@bigpond.com wrote:
 
  In reply to  Craig Haynie's message of Sun, 10 May 2015 18:07:28 -0400:
  Hi,
  [snip]
 
  It doesn't cost any energy at all to support a car. The ground does this
  just
  fine with no energy expenditure. E = F . d. If d = 0, then E = 0.
  I'm not sure how this applies to an EM drive (if at all), but perhaps it
  needs
  to be taken into consideration?
 
  Hello!
  
  I was hoping the Vorts could help me with this. Roger Shawyer, at
 minute
  2:56 in this video, claims that the next generation EM Drive could
  generation 1 tonne of thrust per kilowatt of power. This means that a 1
  tonne car should be able to hover above the ground for the price of one
  kilowatt. However, my calculation shows that to be about 48 times a
  theoretical maximum.
  
  Here is the video where he makes the claim at 2:56.
  
  http://tinyurl.com/ko5v6h7
  
  But here is my calculation for a theoretical maximum, calculated two
  different ways:
  
 -
  
 A joule is a watt-second
 -
  
 A watt is a joule / second
 -
  
 The power required to hover an object is the same power required to
 increase the speed of the object from rest, in a weightless
  environment, to
 9.8 m/s in one second. We know this because the pull of gravity is
 9.8
 meters/second2.
 -
  
 The kinetic energy in an object travelling at 9.8 m/s = 1/2 * m *
 v2.
  So
 for a car of 1000 kg, the energy = 1000 / 2 * 9.82 = 48,020 joules
 = 48
 kilowatts to do this in one second.
 -
  
 This power should be 1/2 the power to raise an object of the same
 mass,
 to a height of 9.8 meters in one second, since it would require
 twice
  as
 much energy to do this.
 -
  
 The formula to determining how much energy it takes to raise
 something
 to height = E = m * g (gravitational constant) * h = 1000 * 9.8 *
 9.8 =
 96,040 watts-seconds = 96 kilowatts to do this in one second. So it
  agrees
 with the previous result.
  
  So, I don't understand how any device could hover an object with the
 mass
  of a tonne for less than a theoretical 48 kilowatts. Any thoughts on
 this
  would be appreciated.
  
  Craig Haynie ( Manchester, NH)
  Regards,
 
  Robin van Spaandonk
 
  http://rvanspaa.freehostia.com/project.html
 
 
 Regards,

 Robin van Spaandonk

 http://rvanspaa.freehostia.com/project.html

Re: [Vo]:Nextgen EM Drive's Potential seems way above the Theoretical Limit

[Craig Haynie]

Thanks Robin. You're right. He does say that this force of 1 tonne per
kilowatt is for 'static thrust'.

I found an answer from the website. He is referring specifically to a
'static thrust', not used to do work.

The static thrust/power ratio is calculated assuming a superconducting
EmDrive with a Q of 5 x 109. This Q value is routinely achieved in
superconducting cavities. Note however, because the EmDrive obeys the law
of conservation of energy, this thrust/power ratio rapidly decreases if the
EmDrive is used to accelerate the vehicle along the thrust vector. (See
Equation 16 of the theory paper). Whilst the EmDrive can provide lift to
counter gravity, (and is therefore not losing kinetic energy), auxiliary
propulsion is required to provide the kinetic energy to accelerate the
vehicle.

Craig

On Mon, May 11, 2015 at 12:19 AM, mix...@bigpond.com wrote:

 In reply to  Craig Haynie's message of Sun, 10 May 2015 23:43:04 -0400:
 Hi,
  IOW he creates a force, but as long as that force doesn't act over a
 distance, then it need do no work.
 
 I'm the one who suggests that the thrust created by the EM Drive could be
 used to levitate an object. Shawyer is saying that the EM Drive could
 create 1 tonne of thrust for 1 kilowatt of power, implying that this
 thrust
 would be used to accelerate a spacecraft. He's not siting these numbers as
 an example of levitation. So he's implying that the thrust will be used to
 do work, and therefore should not be able to violate a theoretical amount
 of power needed to do that work.

 ...but he isn't stating how much work is done, and hence how much power
 would be
 required. He is just saying that his device even at it's most efficient
 still
 requires that some power be expended to create a force, even though in
 theory no
 power expenditure is required to create a force, see e.g. gravity , or
 even a
 simple spring, which will happily create a constant force, without
 expending any
 energy. IOW the (in)efficiency of the device is what causes the power
 requirement.

 What I am trying to say is that the power requirement that he gives, is
 for a
 device doing no work. If it has to do work as well, then the power
 requirement
 will increase accordingly.

 Consider for a moment the ultimate form of the drive, which is constructed
 from
 a perfect superconductor with a consequent infinite Q. As the Q increases
 so
 does the force. Or looked at from a different perspective, the power
 requirement
 to obtain a given force decreases as the Q increases. IOW in a perfect
 device,
 the power requirement would approach zero (as long as no additional work
 need be
 done). Which is exactly what a spring does. (And also a current in a
 superconducting loop BTW.)


 BTW, IIRC (it was some time ago that I read this) he does say somewhere
 that the
 power consumption changes as work is done, and that consequently the
 limits on
 the input power also limit the amount of work that can be done.

 Note also that the tests to date, have been done on stationary devices,
 i.e.
 anchored to the work bench, so that they could not move (as I understand
 it),
 and hence did no work.

 [snip]
 Regards,

 Robin van Spaandonk

 http://rvanspaa.freehostia.com/project.html

[Vo]:Nextgen EM Drive's Potential seems way above the Theoretical Limit

[Craig Haynie]

Hello!

I was hoping the Vorts could help me with this. Roger Shawyer, at minute
2:56 in this video, claims that the next generation EM Drive could
generation 1 tonne of thrust per kilowatt of power. This means that a 1
tonne car should be able to hover above the ground for the price of one
kilowatt. However, my calculation shows that to be about 48 times a
theoretical maximum.

Here is the video where he makes the claim at 2:56.

http://tinyurl.com/ko5v6h7

But here is my calculation for a theoretical maximum, calculated two
different ways:

   -

   A joule is a watt-second
   -

   A watt is a joule / second
   -

   The power required to hover an object is the same power required to
   increase the speed of the object from rest, in a weightless environment, to
   9.8 m/s in one second. We know this because the pull of gravity is 9.8
   meters/second2.
   -

   The kinetic energy in an object travelling at 9.8 m/s = 1/2 * m * v2. So
   for a car of 1000 kg, the energy = 1000 / 2 * 9.82 = 48,020 joules = 48
   kilowatts to do this in one second.
   -

   This power should be 1/2 the power to raise an object of the same mass,
   to a height of 9.8 meters in one second, since it would require twice as
   much energy to do this.
   -

   The formula to determining how much energy it takes to raise something
   to height = E = m * g (gravitational constant) * h = 1000 * 9.8 * 9.8 =
   96,040 watts-seconds = 96 kilowatts to do this in one second. So it agrees
   with the previous result.

So, I don't understand how any device could hover an object with the mass
of a tonne for less than a theoretical 48 kilowatts. Any thoughts on this
would be appreciated.

Craig Haynie ( Manchester, NH)

Re: [Vo]:Nextgen EM Drive's Potential seems way above the Theoretical Limit

[Craig Haynie]

His claim is 1 tonne of thrust per kilowatt. One tonne of thrust will
accelerate an object. An object under the acceleration of gravity will be
countered by the thrust, costing 48 kilowatts of power in the process. This
is not the same as suspending an object by a rope or something. Are you
suggesting that there is no theoretical limit as to how much power, applied
as thrust,  is needed to suspend an object weighing a tonne? Or are you
suggesting that my math is wrong and that there is a lower number? If the
number is lower, then how do you arrive at it?

Craig




On Sun, May 10, 2015 at 10:48 PM, mix...@bigpond.com wrote:

 In reply to  Craig Haynie's message of Sun, 10 May 2015 18:07:28 -0400:
 Hi,
 [snip]

 It doesn't cost any energy at all to support a car. The ground does this
 just
 fine with no energy expenditure. E = F . d. If d = 0, then E = 0.
 I'm not sure how this applies to an EM drive (if at all), but perhaps it
 needs
 to be taken into consideration?

 Hello!
 
 I was hoping the Vorts could help me with this. Roger Shawyer, at minute
 2:56 in this video, claims that the next generation EM Drive could
 generation 1 tonne of thrust per kilowatt of power. This means that a 1
 tonne car should be able to hover above the ground for the price of one
 kilowatt. However, my calculation shows that to be about 48 times a
 theoretical maximum.
 
 Here is the video where he makes the claim at 2:56.
 
 http://tinyurl.com/ko5v6h7
 
 But here is my calculation for a theoretical maximum, calculated two
 different ways:
 
-
 
A joule is a watt-second
-
 
A watt is a joule / second
-
 
The power required to hover an object is the same power required to
increase the speed of the object from rest, in a weightless
 environment, to
9.8 m/s in one second. We know this because the pull of gravity is 9.8
meters/second2.
-
 
The kinetic energy in an object travelling at 9.8 m/s = 1/2 * m * v2.
 So
for a car of 1000 kg, the energy = 1000 / 2 * 9.82 = 48,020 joules = 48
kilowatts to do this in one second.
-
 
This power should be 1/2 the power to raise an object of the same mass,
to a height of 9.8 meters in one second, since it would require twice
 as
much energy to do this.
-
 
The formula to determining how much energy it takes to raise something
to height = E = m * g (gravitational constant) * h = 1000 * 9.8 * 9.8 =
96,040 watts-seconds = 96 kilowatts to do this in one second. So it
 agrees
with the previous result.
 
 So, I don't understand how any device could hover an object with the mass
 of a tonne for less than a theoretical 48 kilowatts. Any thoughts on this
 would be appreciated.
 
 Craig Haynie ( Manchester, NH)
 Regards,

 Robin van Spaandonk

 http://rvanspaa.freehostia.com/project.html

Re: [Vo]:Re: CMNS: replication results coming later

[Craig Haynie]

 
 My opinion is that this was the best documented, reported, and
 instrumented Parkhomov replication experiment to date.  There are sure
 to be better experiments to come, but lets give Alan his due for
 putting together a good experiment.
 
Hear, Hear!

My comments sounded more negative that I meant them. The thrust of my
comment is that replication is a difficult process and quick positive
results should not be expected. 

Craig

Re: [Vo]:Re: CMNS: replication results coming later

[Craig Haynie]

 
 MFMP didn't show COP1, with the dog bone test,  last night


It was a bit more disappointing than that. They didn't seem to have a
clear understanding of the protocol. They leveled the temperature at 855
C, initially; then decided it should be leveled at 875 C. Then they
decided to raise it more, to an unspecified number. Meanwhile, the
peanut gallery was saying that the reaction didn't even start until the
outside core temperature was near 1200 C, and that the only constraint
was that nickel melted around 1455 C. 

They were also using a nickel powder for fuel which was not to spec, but
this was understood before the run.

Learning how to replicate a known phenomenon is a learning process all
by itself. I can only imagine that several more tests will need to be
done, and that Parkhomov will need to be consulted, before this team has
a chance of success.

Craig

Re: [Vo]:Parkhomov's device restarts and WORKS NOW!

[Craig Haynie]

I just want to read over it; and after my last post, I was sent a copy.

Thanks.


On Sun, Mar 22, 2015 at 7:19 AM, Peter Gluck peter.gl...@gmail.com wrote:

 Dear Craig,

 For this new experimental setup, it will be a presentation Thursday, March
 26 and I will translate it as soon as possible.
 I think you have the papers published by Alexander till now, isn't it?
 What is especially interesting you?

 Greetings,
 Peter

 On Sun, Mar 22, 2015 at 1:52 PM, Craig Haynie cchayniepub...@gmail.com
 wrote:

 Did Parkhomov publish his experimental protocol? If so, how can I get a
 hold of it?

 Craig


 On Sun, Mar 22, 2015 at 2:56 AM, Peter Gluck peter.gl...@gmail.com
 wrote:

 Dear Friends,

 The good news have arrived when I was sleeping, however they are really
 good and bring the promise of even better news.
 I publish this morning edition now:


 http://egooutpeters.blogspot.ro/2015/03/sweet-sunday-morning-lenr-news.html

 See you again later,

 Peter

 PS. Have you prepared champagne for tomorrow?

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





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

Re: [Vo]:Parkhomov's device restarts and WORKS NOW!

[Craig Haynie]

Did Parkhomov publish his experimental protocol? If so, how can I get a
hold of it?

Craig


On Sun, Mar 22, 2015 at 2:56 AM, Peter Gluck peter.gl...@gmail.com wrote:

 Dear Friends,

 The good news have arrived when I was sleeping, however they are really
 good and bring the promise of even better news.
 I publish this morning edition now:

 http://egooutpeters.blogspot.ro/2015/03/sweet-sunday-morning-lenr-news.html

 See you again later,

 Peter

 PS. Have you prepared champagne for tomorrow?

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

Re: [Vo]:Re: Dog Bone Project

[Craig Haynie]

Pressure inside the dog bone is calculated to have been near 19,861 psi 
at the time of failure.


https://docs.google.com/document/d/1BWYbi6tBHcjZ4PyQ0BaWn-G1NkdQdkirb-_Qx2HypKs/edit

Craig

Re: [Vo]:Dog Bone Project

[Craig Haynie]

Short segment showing the explosion.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dDfRaDY2R_Afeature=youtu.be

Craig

Re: [Vo]:Dog Bone Project

[Craig Haynie]

They just ran a test with a live rossi core, and the reactor exploded 
and broke just as it entered the range where they were expecting the 
LENR effect to begin. Temp was around 1010C or thereabouts, around 3:45 
on the clock.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?annotation_id=channel%3A54c999f4--21a4-96a5-001a1142f4ecfeature=ivsrc_vid=bK6d3t4lSjMv=eP9l356ymg8

So, the test is over. No good result.

Craig