RE: [Vo]:UFOs Over London

[Robert Leguillon]

http://www.allinlondon.co.uk/knowledge/posts.php?thread=13183

London artists Jamie King (feat. Sway) released an album in June called "This 
is the Life":

Release date - 12/06/11

Now, whether the video was just an advertising scheme is the question. The date 
format question is moot.

> Date: Mon, 11 Jul 2011 18:17:34 -0300
> Subject: Re: [Vo]:UFOs Over London
> From: danieldi...@gmail.com
> To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
> 
> The video dates June 24th, 2011... so it doesn't make sense... Perhaps
> it is another date, chinese/japanese numbering, June 11th 2012.
> 
  

Re: [Vo]:UFOs Over London

[Daniel Rocha]

The video dates June 24th, 2011... so it doesn't make sense... Perhaps
it is another date, chinese/japanese numbering, June 11th 2012.

Re: [Vo]:UFOs Over London

[mixent]

In reply to  Daniel Rocha's message of Sun, 10 Jul 2011 17:09:53 -0300:
Hi,
[snip]
>Not photoshoped, but a good visual effects video. Probably promotional
>viral video for some movie, in the style first person style of amateur
>filming like Blair Witch Project or Cloverfield ... I LOVE THESE KINDS
>OF MOVIES!!! :D
>
>There is a weird date at the corner, 12-06-11, where the filming was
>made, with a line "This is the life". I searched for this, and I am
>not the only one to think like this:
>
>http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/posts.php?discussion=13093231500A39040100&page=1
>
>YAY! :D

AFAIK they use the same dating system in the UK as they do here in Australia,
which means that 12/6/2011 is the 12 th of June, not the sixth of December.
Regards,

Robin van Spaandonk

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

Re: [Vo]:Rossi responds to "movie professor" and Peter Ekstrom's analysis

[mixent]

In reply to  Mark Iverson's message of Wed, 29 Jun 2011 17:14:40 -0700:
Hi,

I suspect that instead of "controlled" he meant "checked". The Dutch word
kontroleren means "to check". and a similar situation may exist with
Swedish/Norwegian (due to the Norse/Germanic origin of the Dutch language).

>Here's a statement from Kullander that is a bit confusing...
>"The temperature at the outlet was controlled continually to be above 100°C.  
>According to the
>electronic log-book, it remained always between 100.1 and 100.2 °C during the 
>operation from 10:45
>to 16:30 as can be seen in figure 7. 
>
>The "outlet was controlled" is obviously not right... there's nothing to 
>control at the outlet!
>This must be more an issue with english not being his native language.  What 
>he means is that the
>temperature of the steam exiting the outlet was always maintained between 
>100.1 and 100.2.
[snip]
Regards,

Robin van Spaandonk

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

Re: [Vo]:Rossi responds to "movie professor" and Peter Ekstrom's analysis

[Jed Rothwell]

This document, “the E-Cat does not produce excess Energy” has some some 
strange assertions.


http://www.fysik.org/WebSite/fragelada/resurser/cold_fusion_krivit.pdf

"Where does the power go? Out of the E-Cat or the tube? Not very likely 
since the
losses are small, 5 kW is a lot of power and it would heat the room 
perceptibly."


It would heat the area around the e-cat, and people who have observed 
the tests tell me that it does. However it would not heat the room if 
the thermostat is nearby the reactor. On the contrary, it would cool 
down the rest of the room, in winter with central heating or in summer 
with central air.


It is a big room and I doubt that 5 kW would make much difference. That 
would be the equivalent of 3 U.S. electric room heaters. There are large 
offices with more heaters than that under people's desks. I have one 
myself. That's probably a violation of fire laws but anyway, they do not 
make the offices warm. Also, the aggregate office equipment and lighting 
in a large office or grocery store consumes a lot more than 5 kW but 
those places are not noticeably hot.


Anyway, Ekstrom is wrong. Most of the heat is going down the drain, as 
steam or hot water.


- Jed

Re: [Vo]:Defkalion's Carbon Rings of Benzene

[Stephen A. Lawrence]

On 11-07-11 08:31 AM, Terry Blanton wrote:

On Mon, Jul 11, 2011 at 5:57 AM, noone noone  wrote:



Also, a previous cold fusion researcher used carbon as a catalyst, but did
not produce near as much heat as Rossi's system. Here is a link about his
work...

http://www.infinite-energy.com/iemagazi ... date2.html

Earthtech attempted a replication of Les Case's experiment without success:

http://earthtech.org/experiments/index.html  (see "Case Experiment)

The catalyst was G75-E catalyst from United Catalysts.  Les used G75-D
in his experiment at IE:

http://www.lenr-canr.org/acrobat/MalloveEreproducib.pdf

but, note, that the article says that Case had his own special mixture
of activated carbon.


And Scott Little used catalyst samples provided to him by Les Case.

Another one of these frustrating test series done with the cooperation 
of the original researcher, where Little seems, by the end of the 
series, to have addressed all the points where he could be going wrong, 
and yet ... no excess heat.





   Now, as I recall, he actually made his from
coconut shells.

T

[Vo]:A poll : is the eCat steam quality a problem?

[Alan J Fletcher]

I've set up a survey at
http://www.zoomerang.com/Survey/WEB22CPD9867MH/

Results can (I hope) be seen at:
http://www.zoomerang.com/Shared/SharedResultsPasswordPage.aspx?ID=L26QG6QVBZQL

Re: [Vo]:Rossi responds to "movie professor" and Peter Ekstrom's analysis

[Joshua Cude]

On Mon, Jul 11, 2011 at 10:23 AM, Craig Haynie wrote:

> >>> 5. The pressure in the ecat cannot be room pressure, or the fluid
> would not flow out of the ecat into the room.
>
> As I understand the operation, fluid does not flow out. Steam is venting
> from a hole in the device.


Steam is a fluid. I don't know about a hole in the device other than the one
the hose is connected to, but the reason steam vents to the room is because
the pressure in the device is higher than in the room. A ball rolls
downhill, and fluid flows down pressure. Of course gravity affects fluid
flow too, but the ecat has to push the fluid up first, meaning still higher
pressure is needed.



> Therefore, the pressure should be 'near' room
> pressure.


Near, maybe, but higher, definitely. It doesn't need to be very much higher
to increase the boiling point a little. It only takes 30 cm of water depth
to increase the bp by one degree C.


> So perhaps the disagreement on pressure is simply a
> communication issue.


If Rossi uses a slightly elevated bp as evidence of dry steam, then the
issue is more than communication. The fact that the temperature is perfectly
flat indicates the steam is at, not above, the boiling point.

Re: [Vo]:Defkalion's Carbon Rings of Benzene

[Jed Rothwell]

Terry Blanton wrote:


but, note, that the article says that Case had his own special mixture
of activated carbon.  Now, as I recall, he actually made his from
coconut shells.


I do not know if he made them. I doubt it. Many of the commercial 
catalysts are deposited on carbonized coconut shells or "husks" (see). 
It is naturally occurring fractalized material. "Fractalized" does not 
appear to be a word, but you know what I mean.


- Jed

Re: [Vo]:Rossi responds to "movie professor" and Peter Ekstrom's analysis

[Craig Haynie]

>>> 5. The pressure in the ecat cannot be room pressure, or the fluid
would not flow out of the ecat into the room.

As I understand the operation, fluid does not flow out. Steam is venting
from a hole in the device. Therefore, the pressure should be 'near' room
pressure. So perhaps the disagreement on pressure is simply a
communication issue. 

Craig Haynie
Manchester, NH

On Mon, 2011-07-11 at 10:31 -0400, Stephen A. Lawrence wrote:
> 
> 
> On 11-07-04 04:47 PM, Joshua Cude wrote: 
> > 
> > 
> > On Wed, Jun 29, 2011 at 1:06 AM, Harry Veeder 
> > wrote:
> > Peter Ekstrom's analysis:
> > “the E-Cat does not produce excess Energy”.
> > 
> > http://www.fysik.org/WebSite/fragelada/resurser/cold_fusion_krivit.pdf
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > Rossi  responds to Peter Ekstrom's analysis:
> > http://www.journal-of-nuclear-physics.com/?p=497#comments
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > Rossi has completely lost it.
> > 
> > [...]
> > 
> > 5. The pressure in the ecat cannot be room pressure, or the fluid
> > would not flow out of the ecat into the room.
> 
> Galantini has said that he measured the pressure in the device and it
> was the same as ambient.  Make of that what you will -- presumably it
> means it was the same as pressure in the room to within the precision
> of the measuring instrument used, but Galantini provided no numbers so
> it's anybody's guess.
> 

Re: [Vo]:Rossi responds to "movie professor" and Peter Ekstrom's analysis

[Stephen A. Lawrence]

On 11-07-04 04:47 PM, Joshua Cude wrote:



On Wed, Jun 29, 2011 at 1:06 AM, Harry Veeder > wrote:


Peter Ekstrom's analysis:
"the E-Cat does not produce excess Energy".
http://www.fysik.org/WebSite/fragelada/resurser/cold_fusion_krivit.pdf



Rossi  responds to Peter Ekstrom's analysis:
http://www.journal-of-nuclear-physics.com/?p=497#comments



Rossi has completely lost it.
[...]
5. The pressure in the ecat cannot be room pressure, or the fluid 
would not flow out of the ecat into the room.


Galantini has said that he measured the pressure in the device and it 
was the same as ambient.  Make of that what you will -- presumably it 
means it was the same as pressure in the room to within the precision of 
the measuring instrument used, but Galantini provided no numbers so it's 
anybody's guess.

Re: [Vo]:Defkalion's Carbon Rings of Benzene

[Terry Blanton]

Looks like United Catalysts are now owned by the Germans:

http://www.qsinano.com/new/qsi_nano_nickel_ni_5_oct_09.pdf

T

Re: [Vo]:Defkalion's Carbon Rings of Benzene

[Terry Blanton]

On Mon, Jul 11, 2011 at 8:31 AM, Terry Blanton  wrote:
> On Mon, Jul 11, 2011 at 5:57 AM, noone noone  wrote:
>
>
>> Also, a previous cold fusion researcher used carbon as a catalyst, but did
>> not produce near as much heat as Rossi's system. Here is a link about his
>> work...
>>
>> http://www.infinite-energy.com/iemagazi ... date2.html
>
> Earthtech attempted a replication of Les Case's experiment without success:
>
> http://earthtech.org/experiments/index.html  (see "Case Experiment)
>
> The catalyst was G75-E catalyst from United Catalysts.  Les used G75-D
> in his experiment at IE:
>
> http://www.lenr-canr.org/acrobat/MalloveEreproducib.pdf
>
> but, note, that the article says that Case had his own special mixture
> of activated carbon.  Now, as I recall, he actually made his from
> coconut shells.

I can't help but remember the images of Ginger and Mary Ann rapidly
stirring the mixture in a coconut shell to generate electricity for
the radio repaired by the Professor.  :-)

T

Re: [Vo]:Defkalion's Carbon Rings of Benzene

[Terry Blanton]

On Mon, Jul 11, 2011 at 5:57 AM, noone noone  wrote:


> Also, a previous cold fusion researcher used carbon as a catalyst, but did
> not produce near as much heat as Rossi's system. Here is a link about his
> work...
>
> http://www.infinite-energy.com/iemagazi ... date2.html

Earthtech attempted a replication of Les Case's experiment without success:

http://earthtech.org/experiments/index.html  (see "Case Experiment)

The catalyst was G75-E catalyst from United Catalysts.  Les used G75-D
in his experiment at IE:

http://www.lenr-canr.org/acrobat/MalloveEreproducib.pdf

but, note, that the article says that Case had his own special mixture
of activated carbon.  Now, as I recall, he actually made his from
coconut shells.

T

Re: [Vo]:INFORMAVOREs SUNDAY No 463

[Terry Blanton]

On Sun, Jul 10, 2011 at 10:54 PM, Mark Iverson  wrote:
> And that jogging went down Merlot Lane or Cabernet Circle?

Turning Leaf Merlot, my favorite table wine.

[Vo]:Defkalion's Carbon Rings of Benzene

[noone noone]

The following was posted on the Defkalion forum.

The forum was closed the next day.

---

Dear Defkalion,

In your recent video posted to Youtube (in which  you present the Hyperion 
technology to the world) the screen in the  background has a partial chemical 
formula. The part that I could make  sense of, was the empirical formula for 
"benzene." In the background,  were carbon rings of some benzene like molecule.

I  found this quite interesting, because "officially" carbon and benzene  has 
nothing to do with the E-Cat or Hyperion technology (unless you are  suggesting 
that the technology is preventing carbon from being  produced). Unofficially, 
there are a few theories floating around the  net that some form of carbon may 
be utilized as a catalyst in the  system. The carbon could potentially promote 
the creation of Rydburg  matter in the form of hydrogen ion clusters. This 
cluster of hydrogen  ions (Rossi has already stated that the ability to create 
atomic  hydrogen and utilize it appropriately is key to make the device work)  
can then penetrate inside of the defects in the nickle powder. These  clusters 
acting like one large atom could then interact with the nickle  to produce 
fusion reactions. Here is the link to the full theory.

http://www.mail-archive.com/vortex-l@es ... 47026.html

Also,  a previous cold fusion researcher used carbon as a catalyst, but did  
not 
produce near as much heat as Rossi's system. Here is a link about  his work...

http://www.infinite-energy.com/iemagazi ... date2.html

There  are a few differences between his system and Rossi's. He used deuterium  
instead of ordinary hydrogen (Rossi claims that deuterium does not  work), and 
used platinum instead of nickle enriched with N62 and N64.  The platinum metal 
he used was also not in nano-sizes (as far as I  know). The researcher actually 
speculated someone could use nickle or  other metals. 


Finally, there is another bit of info that might  indicate carbon is involved 
somehow with the processes in the E-Cat.  This is from Ed Storms who is a 
famous 
cold fusion researcher...

http://newenergyandfuel.com/http:/newen ... n-reactor/


Quote:
On  Rossi’s path to discovery: “Rossi hit upon this somewhat by accident.  He 
was using a nickel catalyst to explore ways of making a fuel by  combining 
hydrogen and carbon monoxide and apparently, observed quite by accident, that 
his  [apparatus] was making extra energy. So then he explored it from that  
point of view and, apparently, over a year or two, amplified the  effect.”

Oh, one more thing mainstream scientists have found a use for carbon as a 
catalyst in fuel cells. The following link explains the discovery.

http://www.lanl.gov/news/releases/cheap ... cells.html

-- 

So here are my questions...

1)  What is the significance of putting the empirical formula for benzene  (CH) 
and carbon-benzene rings on the first slide of your presentation?

2) Did you put the formula and carbon-benzene rings on the slide for no reason 
at all (randomly) or does it have some meaning?

3) Does carbon or benzene (in any form) have anything to do with the Hyperion 
or 
Energy Catalyzer? If so, what? 


4) Was the formula and benzene rings a clue of some sort about the catalyst?

If the posting of the (CH) and benzene rings were random or meant something 
different I apologize for this post. 


Please  realize that there are many people in the alternative energy community  
that feel our civilization is not going to exist as we know it that much  
longer, without some sort of exotic new energy technology. I personally  don't 
think the world has another twenty years left, without an extreme  energy 
breakthrough. Many of us are convinced your technology works and  have intense 
curiosity about the processes involved. To be blunt, it  could be the 
technology 
that buys humanity enough time to get it's act  together, so we do not destroy 
ourselves or the planet.

Thank you for any information you can provide.



Defkalion responded with the following.



We used this presentation template, that you can download from microsoft  
taplate site, because of the colors. The chemical formula in the  background 
has 
nothing to do with our technology. We use benzene  (βενζίνη)-gaz or gazoline 
(or 
what ever you call it) only to run our  company cars.

Thank you for your interest and remark.

[Vo]:Rossi Rejects Paper Due to Carbon Catalyst Theory?

[noone noone]

Hello Everyone,

On the following page a person details how Rossi stated he would publish their 
paper, but then did not do so. The person theorizes that the paper might have 
not been published due to the fact he mentions CARBON as a possible catalyst. 


http://www.chemicalforums.com/index.php?topic=49923.0

Could carbon be the catalyst?

What do all of you think?

Do any of you have an idea of what the catalyst might be?