In reply to Steven Krivit's message of Sat, 13 Mar 2010 17:05:04 -0800:
Hi,
[snip]
Journal or Nuclear Physics? Really??? Can someone please tell me
something about this?
http://whois.domaintools.com/journal-of-nuclear-physics.com
[snip]
I note that there is another paper on the site
On Mar 19, 2010, at 12:44 PM, mix...@bigpond.com wrote:
In reply to Steven Krivit's message of Sat, 13 Mar 2010 17:05:04
-0800:
Hi,
[snip]
Journal or Nuclear Physics? Really??? Can someone please tell me
something about this?
http://whois.domaintools.com/journal-of-nuclear-physics.com
2010/3/14 Steven Krivit stev...@newenergytimes.com:
At 02:35 AM 3/14/2010, you wrote:
Interesting, but why would Focardi discredit his own work?
I don't think he would want to.
Then it can't be a Ni-H research discrediting operation can it? Or one
would have to imagine that Focardi himself
Michel Jullian wrote:
Then it can't be a Ni-H research discrediting operation can it?
No. The authors are aware of this paper. It is really their work.
Or one would have to imagine that Focardi himself has been conned. Note
that multi-kW excess heat must be quite easy to fake in this
If they have equal shares in this work, why isn't Focardi on the patent?
Michel
2010/3/15, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com:
Michel Jullian wrote:
Then it can't be a Ni-H research discrediting operation can it?
No. The authors are aware of this paper. It is really their work.
Or one
Michel Jullian wrote:
If they have equal shares in this work, why isn't Focardi on the patent?
I did not say they have equal shares. I have no idea how much each
contributed. I said I am sure Focardi knows about this paper.
Anyway, that patent seems worthless, for the reasons already discussed
Michel Jullian meant that the built-in built-in resistance heater
might go up to 3 kW. There is no other input power. The heater is
only needed to bring the temperature up to the temperature at which
the Ni reacts. I guess that would be the temperature at which it
readily absorbs hydrogen.
I
I wrote:
The Patterson light water cell demonstration . . . was made of
ridiculously low-budget, unreliable parts, and it failed drastically
in the middle of the demo, as I described in the report.
Cravens briefed me before I went to California, so I had some idea
what the demo was like. I
Notice the programmer's bias in this statement:
(With the siphon, the weight scale is tied into the computer which
records of the increase in weight of water, and you ignore the
periods when it suddenly decreases, and the siphon dumps out.)
Yes, the numbers on my screen are going down.
I wrote:
Anyway, this 80 W strikes me as odd, but that may only be a function
of my ignorance of this technique, and the lack of detail in the
paper. But what does this 80 W mean?
Maybe this means it takes only about 80 W to bring it up to the
operating temperature. That would mean the cell
At 01:46 AM 3/15/2010, you wrote:
2010/3/14 Steven Krivit stev...@newenergytimes.com:
At 02:35 AM 3/14/2010, you wrote:
Interesting, but why would Focardi discredit his own work?
I don't think he would want to.
Then it can't be a Ni-H research discrediting operation can it? Or one
would
Steven Krivit wrote:
My next question is how the whole buzz on this started...obviously
there was the Journal of Nuclear Physics Web site. But who
propagated that around? Anybody know?
The usual suspects. Me and many others. Anyone interested in cold
fusion will have heard about this by
Hold everything. I am wrong again. On p. 3 it says:
Some examples of the results obtained with this system (method A) in
brief periods (1-1,5 hours) are reported in lines 1-3 of the Table 1.
So, for the first experiment, 0.2 kWh over 1 to 1.5 hours is
somewhere between 133 to 200 W. So what
Okay, I got a gracious response from Focardi and Rossi. I have permission to
upload the paper. A low level of input power is needed, but they would
prefer not to discuss the details yet. It will be described in a new
publication soon.
Let's give them time to get their act together and not put
Interesting, but why would Focardi discredit his own work?
2010/3/14, Steven Krivit stev...@newenergytimes.com:
Ladies and gentlemen,
The truth is, I plead, to a large degree, ignorance of this FocardiRossi
matter.
It had been originally brought to my attention as a patent, and then I
At 02:35 AM 3/14/2010, you wrote:
Interesting, but why would Focardi discredit his own work?
I don't think he would want to.
Have you been following the thread more closely than I?
Is there any support on this research such as a published paper or a
conference presentation or is it just
Rouge, red, rosso/rossi, thought it was a multilingual pun ;)
2010/3/13, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com:
I wrote -- and I mean typed, not dictated:
These rouge researchers don't make it any easier to trust them, do they?
Also the rogue ones.
A rouge researcher would be one who wears
Ladies and gentlemen,
The truth is, I plead, to a large degree, ignorance of this FocardiRossi
matter.
It had been originally brought to my attention as a patent, and then I
pointed out to the person it was merely a patent application and I said,
So what, don't bother me.
Even granted
Hi Jones,
Thanks for the interesting story. According to Google the document you
quoted from is this DOD report:
http://dodfuelcell.cecer.army.mil/library_items/Thermo(2004).pdf
The link doesn't seem to be working right now, but the text remains
available via Google's cache:
Michel,
The conclusion of the report is in fact quite positive about Rossi's TE
...
Yes, but was that ten-year old experiment at UNH ever replicated? Not that I
can see, so ask yourself - why not? In the current milieu, the TEG is way
more valuable than the LENR work, in terms of getting it to
Jones Beene wrote:
Plus, wrt the LENR results. I don't think competent scientists will actively
try to hide or avoid the significant (if not overwhelming) contribution of
prior art. In this case that comes from Arata and Mills for sure.
Well . . . some folks do this kind of thing. The best
Jed,
Thanks for the background on Arata. It is easy to miss that kind of
information when only looking at the published papers.
Steamed indeed . Ha! What an egotist.
It is tempting to slide into a little politically incorrectness, and opine
that his temperament may be more typically
Really poorly reported. The patent implies that it's just nickel and
hydrogen, under pressure and heat. However, it also specifies Nickel
62, which is under 3% natural abundance. But that's for reasons of
avoiding radiation. The paper says The system on which we operate
consists of Ni, in H
On Mar 12, 2010, at 1:51 PM, Abd ul-Rahman Lomax wrote:
Really poorly reported. The patent implies that it's just nickel
and hydrogen, under pressure and heat. However, it also specifies
Nickel 62, which is under 3% natural abundance. But that's for
reasons of avoiding radiation. The
I wrote -- and I mean typed, not dictated:
These rouge researchers don't make it any easier to trust them, do they?
Also the rogue ones.
A rouge researcher would be one who wears lipstick I suppose, like Sara
Palin, who imagines herself going rogue.
There is not much benefit to the complex
I got that exactly backwards! I meant:
Output ENERGY is 1006.5 kWh, which is average POWER of 3.0 kW.
For crying out loud.
I wrote:
I have had some doubts about previous reports
from Focardi, because they have not been
independently replicated as far as I know.
This paper says these
There are a number of reasons to be extremely skeptical of this but I have
not followed the CMNS discussion, so there could be more to it than meets
the eye.
The patent is among the poorest written and drafted that I have ever seen.
It is essentially worthless in the USA but as for Europe, who
Jones Beene wrote:
There are a number of reasons to be extremely skeptical of this but
I have not followed the CMNS discussion, so there could be more to
it than meets the eye.
I have not followed CMNS either. But what I meant was that despite
the fact that the patent is poorly written and
-Original Message-
From: Jed Rothwell [
Quoting the immortal Fats Waller: One never knows, do one?
... as long as they Ain't Misbehavin'
Apparently there is an online blog to which Andrea Rossi, or someone from
Leonardo Technologies, or else it is from a PR firm, responds:
http://www.journal-of-nuclear-physics.com/?p=58
BTW - I have been told that 'Andrea' is a name for both male and female in
Italy so it is not clear the gender
I wrote:
However, it is difficult to imagine that such large ratios could be
an error in calorimetry.
Let me amend that. It is impossible to imagine that such large ratios
and such high absolute power can be an error. As Chris Tinsley said
regarding the Fleischmann Pons boil-off results,
Jones Beene quoted Daniele Princiotto:
We are making a very hard work in Leonardo Corporation about this issue. We
are manufacturing a 1 MW reactor in the USA . . .
I do not conclude that these people are crackpot inventors, BUT . . .
it is typical of such people that they try to make a 1 MW
FWIW:
One more comment on Leonardo Technologies, Inc. and the past history of Dr
Andrea Rossi. This is important only in that it may affect the credibility
of the fusion report. Obviously, if the fusion RD were true in the apparent
COP, it would be an earth-shaking discovery. It is far better
On Mar 11, 2010, at 6:19 AM, Jed Rothwell wrote:
Several people have called this to my attention in the last week:
http://www.journal-of-nuclear-physics.com/files/Rossi-
Focardi_paper.pdf
Jones Beene pointed out the patent for this here:
http://www.wipo.int/pctdb/en/wo.jsp?
One breakthrough like this will alter the world economy and render so
many fears moot. G-d bless them all.
T
35 matches
Mail list logo
