the hypothesis that ther is a huge artifact in the measurement is more
rational than fraud.
Since rossi and IH are baffled by the result, this is a big option...
anyway that it is real and Rossi don't underatdn all the reactio is not at
all to exclude.
never forget we have no theory.
You should
ChemE Stewart cheme...@gmail.com wrote:
P.S.,
I almost burned down a research lab in Portland, ME as a co-op engineer in
1984 when the polymer shell we were spinning onto a roll cover caught fire
and evacuated the building from thick black smoke.
So that qualifies me as an expert.
An
Yes, sorry -- I was referring back to the 2013 test.
For that we had a picture of the ceramic frame holding the resistor wires,
which was cast in two (I recall, without looking it up) sections.
For a small area, we have a solid plate (complicated by fins), and then a
cog-like structure with
So the heater coils in the 2013 test were embedded in ceramic sheath which
covered a steel vessel. I was recalling the 2013 test as if the coils were
inside the steel vessel.
It all makes sense now.
Harry
On Tue, Oct 14, 2014 at 11:24 AM, Alan Fletcher a...@well.com wrote:
Yes, sorry -- I was
Brian Ahern just called me to say that he spoke with expert in thermal
imaging. The expert went over the paper and said this was exactly the right
kind of camera for these materials and this range of temperatures. The guy
said surface roughness and various other factors come into play. He knows
Thanks for posting Jed -- I too appreciated Brian's efforts to add to our
collective understanding on this matter. We need to get as many expert eyes
on this as possible, and each of us drawing on our own network of experts
is actually a big deal and necessary I think.
John
On Mon, Oct 13, 2014
I talked to Brian also, and I know the reputation of the person he refers to
and that he can be trusted. Both are good eggs.
Thus, the excess heat is likely to be real, but that says nothing about the
isotope analysis. But it does narrow the controversy down to the single issue.
Brian’s
Jones Beene jone...@pacbell.net wrote:
I talked to Brian also, and I know the reputation of the person he refers
to and that he can be trusted. Both are good eggs.
So, are you going to retract your previous assertions about how Rossi
cheated on the calorimetry, magically affecting it from
From: Jed Rothwell .
* So, are you going to retract your previous assertions about how Rossi
cheated on the calorimetry, magically affecting it from thousands of kilometers
away?
I made it clear that the cheating was in the isotope analysis, and that is even
more clear now than before.
Brian did not add much detail. He did not mention the guy's name. Maybe we
can persuade Jones Beene to enlighten us on that, perhaps by playing him
like a harp.
Brian said that he asked the guy whether it was correct to use a pyrometer
centered on 7-13 microns. The guy said that is exactly the
If you look at the paper I have published on my blog yesterday, the isotope
results not more so improbable.
Li-Ni nuclear interactions can explain some isitopes. The bad side is that
the analysis is not complete
waht happens to Fe and Ak for example and what light elements are
nucleosynthesized?
There is a boatload of bad assumptions made by you, the testers and Rossi
involving the mechanisms of the reaction. I believe that the DGT theory of
the reaction is the correct one and the Rossi theory of the reaction is
wrong.
In the DGT theory, the nickel powder sets up a high temperature boson
From: Jed Rothwell
Brian did not add much detail. He did not mention the guy's name. Maybe we can
persuade Jones Beene to enlighten us on that, perhaps by playing him like a
harp.
He is a researcher at a top Aerospace company who for peer-related reasons does
not want to be identified
IThe is no way in nuclear science to convert the reactants seen in the
way seen. T
This is probably true, there might be a dog buried, we need to look in that
direction. But also, it is our current view of nuclear science, all
reaction chains depends heavily on some extra constraints that you
Vorts.
While Rothwell is trying to squirm out of this latest twist on the thermal
gain, but probably will not report his dilemma - another highly qualified
expert has turned up on CMNS. I will quote his main point:
“This is a serious error if in fact the authors did not take into account
the
Jones Beene jone...@pacbell.net wrote:
He believes the data is accurate and was conducted in a manner consistent
with his experience. The measurements rely on accurate emissivity data and
he says they were indeed accurate.
Not exactly.
Yes, exactly. This is what Brian wrote: He [the
Jones Beene jone...@pacbell.net wrote:
Vorts.
While Rothwell is trying to squirm out of this latest twist on the thermal
gain . . .
This has nothing to do with me! We are discussing claims made by Ahern, an
unnamed expert, and now this guy on CMNS. (I hope you got permission from
him --
From: Jed Rothwell
There is no potential financial motive here as far as I know.
That is the major problem here, stated simply: you do not know.
This is a good point. If all that transmutation occurred in such a
homogeneous fashion it would be good evidence that BECs were forming. Once
there's a BEC working around such a large soup of constituents, some very
conventional physics get thrown out the window. Strangely enough, the weak
Part of the problem is that the authors have not made themselves
available to discuss the report and the questions that have come up.
What are they doing? Are they answering questions? If not, why not?
All authors (except one?) are on linkedin.com and I could email
them--but I don't feel I should
Jones Beene jone...@pacbell.net wrote:
There is no potential financial motive here as far as I know.
That is the major problem here, stated simply: you do not know.
Do you know? Do you want to tell us? Because if you do not know or you are
not at liberty to discuss this, I suggest you
Brad Lowe ecatbuil...@gmail.com wrote:
Part of the problem is that the authors have not made themselves
available to discuss the report and the questions that have come up.
What are they doing? Are they answering questions?
Supposedly they will answer 10 of the questions here:
Jed,
I don't think this is correct (about it needing to be white hot). When I
examine the colors, they almost border on being too hot.
White hot puts you up in the 6000+C range according to Wikipedia. Or am I
misunderstanding something?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Color_temperature
Jed
From: Jed Rothwell
There is no potential financial motive here as far as I know.
* That is the major problem here, stated simply: you do not know.
And it really does not matter what I know, when it is clear that you have no
clue, and are basing an entire scientific argument on having “no
http://www.mail-archive.com/search?l=vortex-l@eskimo.comq=date:20141013
Jack Cole wrote:
Jed,
I don't think this is correct (about it needing to be white hot). When I
examine the colors, they almost border on being too hot.
White hot puts you up in the 6000+C range according to Wikipedia. Or
My hypothesis about the dummy run is the following:
Out of a now-proven-irrational desire to avoid even the appearance of
cordiality between the scientists and the inventor, they neglected to share
information about the experimental protocol and reactor operating
characteristics (that the reactor
a.ashfield a.ashfi...@verizon.net wrote:
http://www.mail-archive.com/search?l=vortex-l@eskimo.comq=date:20141013
Jack Cole wrote:
Jed,
I don't think this is correct (about it needing to be white hot). When I
examine the colors, they almost border on being too hot.
White hot puts you up
Jack Cole jcol...@gmail.com wrote:
My hypothesis about the dummy run is the following:
Out of a now-proven-irrational desire to avoid even the appearance of
cordiality between the scientists and the inventor, they neglected to share
information about the experimental protocol . . .
My
From: Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com
Sent: Monday, October 13, 2014 3:23:26 PM
I confess I am going by the Wikipedia color bar here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Incandescence#mediaviewer/File:Incandescence_Color.jpg
I am just eyeballing it. As I just mentioned you have to bring
Alan Fletcher a...@well.com wrote:
I wouldn't put too much faith in a jpg photo from an unknown camera, shot
with unknown settings, an unknown color space and unknown post-processing.
Sure. It is a rough approximation at best. I am guessing 900°C but who
knows. It isn't white, anyway.
- Jed
Jones Beene jone...@pacbell.net wrote:
Ø The previous message I quoted from you was definitely an accusation of
fraud in the calorimetry: No one would ever use an IR camera in this
situation unless they have the intent to deceive.
Of course I meant it - in the context that they received
Anyway - I have always opined that excess heat was there, but doubted
the high COP level only – not the excess.
Now - we move can start to move into next phase. Rothwell says that
Rossi – who had every opportunity to tamper with the sample, did not
because he “has no motive”.
I
It seems clear that the thermography is way off - because the built in
inconel heater wires would fail at 1350°C. (The peak temp from
thermography is 1412°C). And the wires would necessarily be much hotter
than the external surface of the reactor - if they are wound tightly around
an inner core
Jones,
I'd like to add...
I can respect your doubt, your suspicions. I understand the credibility factor
that Rossi does not inspire in many. I also get it what the text books are
saying, that the alleged isotope shift is impossible, not without a hell of a
lot of nasty radiation for
Robert,
I am not convinced the wires are wound tightly around an inner core. I
think they may be imbedded within the alumina shell and work primarily thru
induction and not conduction. Alumina is a good insulator and may protect
them (somewhat) from the hi temp core.
The alumina shell may
P.S.,
I almost burned down a research lab in Portland, ME as a co-op engineer in
1984 when the polymer shell we were spinning onto a roll cover caught fire
and evacuated the building from thick black smoke.
So that qualifies me as an expert.
On Monday, October 13, 2014, ChemE Stewart
The testers has no access to anything inside the reactor or any access to
its IP. The opinion of the testers that these wires are Inconel could be
wrong. The wires could well be tungsten or one of its alloys.
There is a boatload of assumption being made about this test that is
detrimental to
It would induce currents/heat something like this
http://www.acrossinternational.com/90mm-ID-with-8mm-Copper-Tubing-Insulated-Vertical-Induction-Coil-IHVC908.htm
On Monday, October 13, 2014, Axil Axil janap...@gmail.com wrote:
The testers has no access to anything inside the reactor or any
On Mon, Oct 13, 2014 at 6:51 PM, Alan Fletcher a...@well.com wrote:
Figure 6 : this is complicated by transmission, which may be happening in
the visible range. (IF the helical shadows are indeed images or shadows of
the coiuls. But I still think they represent different conduction zones of
The coil stays cooler than the core when it is heating thru induction due
to less resistance in the coil so that is why I think the coil is
darker/cooler
http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Induction_cooking
In an induction cooker, a coil of copper wire is placed underneath the
cooking pot . An
Mix some Fe, etc in your secret sauce to get the resistance/heating
properties and sautéing you desire.
Rossi is an Italien Chef...
On Monday, October 13, 2014, ChemE Stewart cheme...@gmail.com wrote:
The coil stays cooler than the core when it is heating thru induction due
to less resistance
The banded regions should absorb heat and in the long run reach the same
temperature as their surroundings. The fact that they persist is a sign of
something significant...and I don't mean fraud or incompetence.
Harry
On Mon, Oct 13, 2014 at 10:54 PM, ChemE Stewart cheme...@gmail.com wrote:
Alumina is a top notch insulator and the coil is imbedded in it. More heat
must be leaving other routes. Where r the fins? I have not studied the
photos.
On Monday, October 13, 2014, H Veeder hveeder...@gmail.com wrote:
The banded regions should absorb heat and in the long run reach the same
Maybe I misunderstood but when he said the march test, I thought he meant
the march test of 2013.
Harry
On Mon, Oct 13, 2014 at 11:17 PM, ChemE Stewart cheme...@gmail.com wrote:
Alumina is a top notch insulator and the coil is imbedded in it. More
heat must be leaving other routes. Where r
On Mon, Oct 13, 2014 at 1:12 PM, Stefan Israelsson Tampe
stefan.ita...@gmail.com wrote:
IThe is no way in nuclear science to convert the reactants seen in the
way seen. T
This is probably true, there might be a dog buried, we need to look in
that direction.
It's not really true. There
Jones
I have had the same thoughts that Steven just wrote.
Regards,
Bob
Sent from my Verizon Wireless 4G LTE SmartphonOrionworks - Steven Vincent
Johnson orionwo...@charter.net wrote:
Jones,
I'd like to add...
I can respect your doubt, your suspicions. I understand the credibility
On Mon, Oct 13, 2014 at 7:29 PM, Axil Axil janap...@gmail.com wrote:
There is a boatload of assumption being made about this test that is
detrimental to analysis.
Yup.
Eric
47 matches
Mail list logo
