date:20110115

Dear Rich.

It is here- http://www.faqs.org/patents/app/20110005506 I am now an expert
websearcher  if you have such problems, do not hesitate to write me. As
regarding the press conference of today I am worried for the unadequate
questions- see please my blog at
http://egooutpeters.blogspotcom
The system works output/input is 14, but it is absolutely clear taht even
the inventors don't know how and why it works.
At least I know why Cold Fusion - other systems don't work. They are
poisoned.

Best wishes,
Peter


On Sat, Jan 15, 2011 at 10:18 AM, Rich Murray rmfor...@gmail.com wrote:

 Thanks! Can you send me a link for the full text of the patent?
 I'm online at home at 1:15 AM MST in Santa Fe, New Mexico, waiting for
 their online demo in 45 minutes -- looks like the real thing, for
 sure...   Rich  rmfor...@gmail.com

 On Sat, Jan 15, 2011 at 12:10 AM, Peter Gluck peter.gl...@gmail.com
 wrote:
  Dear Rich.
  Have you seen the brand new patent -published just in time (January 13)
  WO 20110005506  Method and apparstus for carrying out nickel and
 hydrogen
  exotermal reaction inventor Andrea Rossi?
  Peter
 
  On Sat, Jan 15, 2011 at 7:15 AM, Rich Murray rmfor...@gmail.com wrote:
 
  A new energy source from nuclear fusion, S Focardi, A Rossi, 9p text
  2010.03.22: Rich Murray 2011.01.14
 
  http://www.journal-of-nuclear-physics.com/files/Rossi-Focardi_paper.pdf
  9 pages
 
  A new energy source from nuclear fusion
  S. Focardi (1)
  and A. Rossi (2)
  (1) Physics Department Bologna University and INFN Bologna Section
  (2) Leonardo Corp. (USA) - Inventor of the Patent
  March 22, 2010
 
  Abstract
 
  A process (international patent publication N. WO 2009/125444 A1)
  capable of producing large amounts of energy by a nuclear fusion process
  between nickel and hydrogen, occurring below 1000 K, is described.
  Experimental values of the ratios between output and input energies
  obtained in a certain number of experiments are reported.
  The occurrence of the effect is justified on the basis of existing
  experimental and theoretical results.
  Measurements performed during the experiments allow to exclude
  neutron and gamma rays emissions.
 
  The patented apparatus is able of producing a constant and reliable
  amount of energy for a period of months.
 
  Two different samples of material used in the experiments labelled in
  table
  1 as method A (288 kWh produced) and method B (4774 kWh produced)
  were analysed at Padua University SIMS.
  In the long period sample, the mass analysis showed the presence of
  three peaks in the mass region 63-65 a.m.u.
  which correspond respectively to Cu 63, elements (Ni 64 and Zn 64)
  deriving from Cu 64 decay and Cu 65.
  These allowed us the determination of the ratio Cu 63/Cu 65=1,6
  different from the value (2,24) relative to the copper isotopic natural
  composition.
  The peak in the mass spectrum at a.m.u.=64, due to Ni 64
  and Zn 64 (both caming from Cu 64 decay)
  requires the existence of Ni 63 which,
  absent in natural Ni composition, must have been in precedence
  produced starting by more light nickel isotopes.
  More details on this analysis will be given in a successive paper [8].
 
  6. email address
  sergio.foca...@bo.infn.it
  andrearo...@journal-of-nuclear-physics.com

Re: [Vo]:A new energy source from nuclear fusion, S Focardi, A Rossi, 9p text 2010.03.22: Rich Murray 2011.01.14

On Sat, Jan 15, 2011 at 3:45 AM, Peter Gluck peter.gl...@gmail.com wrote:
 Dear Rich.
 It is here- http://www.faqs.org/patents/app/20110005506 I am now an expert
 websearcher  if you have such problems, do not hesitate to write me. As
 regarding the press conference of today I am worried for the unadequate
 questions- see please my blog at
 http://egooutpeters.blogspotcom
 The system works output/input is 14, but it is absolutely clear taht even
 the inventors don't know how and why it works.
 At least I know why Cold Fusion - other systems don't work. They are
 poisoned.

Poisoned by what?  Something in the atmosphere?  Oxygen?

Terry

[Vo]:F/R Demo

How very frustrating.  We need an online voice translator for Italian.

It does look like the process initialized in less than 45 minutes and
a temperature rise of around 75 degrees Celcius occurred somewhere.  A
temperature of approximately 100 degrees was achieved SOMEWHERE!

That's enough to boil water.

And my Italian friend is not answering his phone!  Doh!

Terry

Re: [Vo]:A new energy source from nuclear fusion, S Focardi, A Rossi, 9p text 2010.03.22: Rich Murray 2011.01.14

Not oxygen, there are ppm and ppb impurities containing S, C and N
including light hydrocarbures that are adsorbed on the nuclear active sites
and destroy them- inactivate them almost irreversibly. For example laser
irradiation of Cravens and Letts is able to partially and temporary remove
these poison molecules and to start the LENR process.
I am speaking about omnipresent traces  of CO, SO2, SH2, CO, Sh2, metahne,
ethylene...

To understand this well it is necessary:
- to have a correct imagine of how polluted is the air;
- to have practical experience and feeling in high vacuum technology
to know how strong is the adherence of this killer polar molecules to the
metallic surfaces.

It happens that this morning I have received a nice message from Prof
Francesco Piantelli- the initiator and main developer of this winner,
uniquely reproducible LENR process- see please the Google translation re his
opinion about cleanliness of the surfaces in this process.

 Cleanliness is certainly very important and if it is not made
satisfactory makes it very difficult to trigger the process of abnormal
energy production. This was the main cause of the initial
incomplete reproducibility of the phenomenon.

Removing those poisons is a sine qua non condition for CF, a necessary
condition but it is not sufficient.

I have told this for years but nobody is listening. I feel like those guys
from Australia who have discovered the cause of ulcers.
Happy to see that the creators of this Ni-H process know it. Unfortunately
other researchers ignore these poison molecules and will have reproducible
CF five minutes after the Hell freezes.

Peter


On Sat, Jan 15, 2011 at 4:53 PM, Terry Blanton hohlr...@gmail.com wrote:

 On Sat, Jan 15, 2011 at 3:45 AM, Peter Gluck peter.gl...@gmail.com
 wrote:
  Dear Rich.
  It is here- http://www.faqs.org/patents/app/20110005506 I am now an
 expert
  websearcher  if you have such problems, do not hesitate to write me. As
  regarding the press conference of today I am worried for the unadequate
  questions- see please my blog at
  http://egooutpeters.blogspotcom
  The system works output/input is 14, but it is absolutely clear taht
 even
  the inventors don't know how and why it works.
  At least I know why Cold Fusion - other systems don't work. They are
  poisoned.

 Poisoned by what?  Something in the atmosphere?  Oxygen?

 Terry

Re: [Vo]:F/R Demo

They have promissed to publish all the data and calculations soon.

On Sat, Jan 15, 2011 at 5:06 PM, Terry Blanton hohlr...@gmail.com wrote:

 How very frustrating.  We need an online voice translator for Italian.

 It does look like the process initialized in less than 45 minutes and
 a temperature rise of around 75 degrees Celcius occurred somewhere.  A
 temperature of approximately 100 degrees was achieved SOMEWHERE!

 That's enough to boil water.

 And my Italian friend is not answering his phone!  Doh!

 Terry

[Vo]:Input power must be far lower than ~10 kW

The Rossi device appears to have ordinary power supplies plugged into an
ordinary wall socket. It could not be drawing ~10 kW. That would trip a
circuit breaker. It must be over unity.

I will ask Celani to confirm this, but I think it is proof that the effect
is real. We can put aside all complicated debates about input waveforms and
the like. It resembles Patterson's demonstration in California that I
observed years ago. That machine, designed by Dennis Cravens, was powered by
a Radio Shack DC power supply rated at about 5 W max. I could tell from the
temperature of the water and the flow rate that far more heat was coming out
of it than 5 W. It varied from 500 to over 1000 W. My measurements were
crude but I am certain it could not have been anything like 5 W, and there
were no other inputs to the system, which was (literally) transparent.

I do not think there is any doubt about the output. There may be minor
losses to droplets of water but there are no significant problems with this
method.

- Jed

Re: [Vo]:Input power must be far lower than ~10 kW

Rossi says the input is 600-700 W. Output at least 14 x input.

On Sat, Jan 15, 2011 at 5:48 PM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com wrote:

 The Rossi device appears to have ordinary power supplies plugged into an
 ordinary wall socket. It could not be drawing ~10 kW. That would trip a
 circuit breaker. It must be over unity.

 I will ask Celani to confirm this, but I think it is proof that the effect
 is real. We can put aside all complicated debates about input waveforms and
 the like. It resembles Patterson's demonstration in California that I
 observed years ago. That machine, designed by Dennis Cravens, was powered by
 a Radio Shack DC power supply rated at about 5 W max. I could tell from the
 temperature of the water and the flow rate that far more heat was coming out
 of it than 5 W. It varied from 500 to over 1000 W. My measurements were
 crude but I am certain it could not have been anything like 5 W, and there
 were no other inputs to the system, which was (literally) transparent.

 I do not think there is any doubt about the output. There may be minor
 losses to droplets of water but there are no significant problems with this
 method.

 - Jed

Re: [Vo]:A new energy source from nuclear fusion, S Focardi, A Rossi, 9p text 2010.03.22: Rich Murray 2011.01.14

On Sat, Jan 15, 2011 at 10:35 AM, Peter Gluck peter.gl...@gmail.com wrote:

 Removing those poisons is a sine qua non condition for CF, a necessary
 condition but it is not sufficient.

I must admit, it certainly explains many issues including
reproducibility of experiments.  Does Dennis Cravens concur that it
was laser ablation of impurities which enhanced initiation?

Congratulations, by the way, to you and all LENR researchers.

Terry

Re: [Vo]:A new energy source from nuclear fusion, S Focardi, A Rossi, 9p text 2010.03.22: Rich Murray 2011.01.14

As far I know, absolutely nobody agrees with me. It seems my thinking is
special as explained at my blog's first page.

On Sat, Jan 15, 2011 at 5:56 PM, Terry Blanton hohlr...@gmail.com wrote:

 On Sat, Jan 15, 2011 at 10:35 AM, Peter Gluck peter.gl...@gmail.com
 wrote:

  Removing those poisons is a sine qua non condition for CF, a necessary
  condition but it is not sufficient.

 I must admit, it certainly explains many issues including
 reproducibility of experiments.  Does Dennis Cravens concur that it
 was laser ablation of impurities which enhanced initiation?

 Congratulations, by the way, to you and all LENR researchers.

 Terry

[Vo]:A word of caution on Rossi

A word of caution, thanks to Steve Krivit

http://blog.newenergytimes.com/2011/01/15/rossi-discovery-what-to-say/

Since Krivit has come forward with this today, I guess it is OK for others
to publish the same information that has been floating around Italy for a
couple of days regarding Rossi's two prior criminal fraud convictions. This
needs to be addressed by Rossi, even if it is tangential to the claimed
work. It actually shows up on the Italian version of Wiki. 

IOW the two (or more) prior criminal problems, should be completely ignored
if they were unrelated to this new work, which they are not, or if the
experimental results are absolutely shown to be valid, which is less than
certain.

Ask yourself this, could the results which have been shown have been faked
by a convicted con-man, who BTW - has no record of having gotten a PhD from
anywhere in Italy, other than the Mail-order variety, and is in serious
difficulty in the USA because of prior allegations for funding received from
DARPA, inappropriately, for thermoelectric work which was never completed ?

I think the enthusiasm shown today this work so far is fine, and I am still
part of the cheering section - but this word of caution should be taken into
account, and put forward for answers from Rossi himself. Maybe there is
another man with the same name who is responsible. As a community, the
honest people in LENR do not want to be seen by skeptics, in a couple of
months, as having been completely gullible and taken-in by a convicted
con-artist, should he be shown to be faking this.

Jones

Re: [Vo]:A word of caution on Rossi

All beginnings are messy, why should be the LENR era  be an exception?

I know that the merits belong, first of all to Prof Piantelli. However it
had been a very long period when the process had not been reproducible and
upscalable- till the critical know how elements have been discovered.
It is fine that Steve warns us about Rossi's past, however I think we are
more interested in the present and future of the device we have seen
yesterday working.

Suppose Rossi is the Al Capone of science and the Ostap Bender of
technology, how many non working damned generators will he sell? I think his
past, character, are not relevant.

Let's be intelligent, the Romanian thinker Mihail Ralea has given a negative
definition of intelligence:

*To be intelligent means to NOT mix (confuse) the points of view*
*
*
And the same thinker has defined seriousity as being focussed on the core of
the things, on the essence, not on the halo of the trivia floating around
them.



On Sat, Jan 15, 2011 at 6:09 PM, Jones Beene jone...@pacbell.net wrote:

 A word of caution, thanks to Steve Krivit

 http://blog.newenergytimes.com/2011/01/15/rossi-discovery-what-to-say/

 Since Krivit has come forward with this today, I guess it is OK for others
 to publish the same information that has been floating around Italy for a
 couple of days regarding Rossi's two prior criminal fraud convictions. This
 needs to be addressed by Rossi, even if it is tangential to the claimed
 work. It actually shows up on the Italian version of Wiki.

 IOW the two (or more) prior criminal problems, should be completely ignored
 if they were unrelated to this new work, which they are not, or if the
 experimental results are absolutely shown to be valid, which is less than
 certain.

 Ask yourself this, could the results which have been shown have been faked
 by a convicted con-man, who BTW - has no record of having gotten a PhD from
 anywhere in Italy, other than the Mail-order variety, and is in serious
 difficulty in the USA because of prior allegations for funding received
 from
 DARPA, inappropriately, for thermoelectric work which was never completed ?

 I think the enthusiasm shown today this work so far is fine, and I am still
 part of the cheering section - but this word of caution should be taken
 into
 account, and put forward for answers from Rossi himself. Maybe there is
 another man with the same name who is responsible. As a community, the
 honest people in LENR do not want to be seen by skeptics, in a couple of
 months, as having been completely gullible and taken-in by a convicted
 con-artist, should he be shown to be faking this.

 Jones

Re: [Vo]:A word of caution on Rossi

The allegations about Rossi reported by Krivit have been circulating for
some time. I described Rossi as eccentric and I mentioned the havoc he has
reportedly caused. This is what I had in mind.

When evaluating a claim of this nature you should try to ignore the
personality and history of person making the claim. A good example is Robert
Stroud, the Birdman of Alcatraz. who was a psychopathic murder. He was a
leading expert and his book on caring for birds is still in print. Still, it
is difficult to ignore the allegations about Rossi, and perhaps it would be
unwise. I have hesitated to endorse his claims because I have heard all of
these rumors about his past.
Having said that, I am confident that you cannot fake boiling water, and
there is no way a power supply can draw 10 kW, so Rossi's credibility
is irrelevant.

Some of Krivit's other assertions in this article are ridiculous, or
asinine. He seems to be taking credit for introducing Piantelli to the
world. That would be like me taking credit for introducing Arata or
Patterson. Everyone in this field knew about Piantelli long before Krivit
came alone. I uploaded Piantelli and other Ni-CF papers soon after starting
LENR-CANR.org. Every major book and review of the field, including my book,
discusses Ni-CF. Most of them discuss Mills. (I did not, because I thought
it was too much technical detail for a book about potential future
technology.)

Krivit wrote:

. . .  of a nickel-hydrogen low-energy nuclear reaction device that
purportedly produced excess heat.

A minor gripe: that should be reportedly or appear to not purportedly.
Purport implies specious or second-hand information.


Many American LENR researchers were skeptical, I suspect because successful
Ni-H LENR technology would make their palladium-deuterium research projects
irrelevant. Ni-H also, of course, disproves the hypothesis of 'cold fusion,'
which is bad news for some LENR researchers.

That is ridiculous. LENR researchers worldwide -- not just Americans -- are
skeptical of the Ni results because these results have not been widely
replicated, despite tremendous efforts by people such as Srinivsan during
his time at SRI. If you are not skeptical of these results you are not a
scientist. Furthermore, this does not in any way, shape, or form disprove
the hypothesis of cold fusion. Deuterium may not be involved but hydrogen
can also fuse. Other reactions may also be occurring but other reactions and
transmutations occur with D-Pd cold fusion as well. No one ever claimed that
D = He is the only reaction that occurs with palladium.
The fact that it is much harder to fuse H and D with plasma fusion has no
relevance. According to plasma fusion theory, any kind of fusion at room
temperature is impossible. A few extra orders of magnitude of difficulty for
hydrogen does not make it significantly more impossible.

- Jed

Re: [Vo]:A word of caution on Rossi

Jones Beene wrote:


 I strongly suggest that nothing … absolutely NOTHING … seen so far, proves
 that he does have it. I think he does, but that is only based on things not
 in the record.


Well, I do not speak Italian, but based on the blogger's comments and the
caliber of the people who worked on this project, I disagree. I would say
there are plenty of technical indications this claim is real. The blogger
comments, photos and other materials are here, by the way:

http://nextbigfuture.com/2011/01/focardi-and-rossi-lenr-cold-fusion-demo.html

Some quotes that lend credibility to the claim (re-arranged in chronological
order):

Focardi, said colleagues in the Physics Department are taking action in the
calibration of measuring instruments. . . .

Rossi took the floor, anticipates that the reactor will be switched soon.
Pass the word to Professor Giuseppe Levi, Department of Physics of Bologna.
[I think this means gave the floor to . . . IOW, Levi spoke] Explain the
types of measures that will be made: 1) estimate the energy produced on the
basis of the measure of how much water is vaporized in the second, and 2) to
understand the source of the process of energy production seek to ensure
that hydrogen is not burned (by measuring the mass at the beginning and end
of the experiment).

Prof. Levi has finished speaking at the reactor and returned. . . .

Levi Professor of the Physics Department has confirmed - in response to a
question - he does not know how the reactor is built, it was limited to
measuring what it produces.

This tells us that various professors at the university have been involved
for some time, and they designed and implemented the calorimetry. I do not
think there is any way Rossi could fool these people. I think that would
be physically impossible. Rossi may be a crook but he could not persuade
Levi to destroy his career.

The fact that Levi and other established professors took part in the
experiment is about 4 orders of magnitude more significant than what Rossi
may have done, or the unexplained fires, or his criminal record (if he has
one). Krivit should have said that. I dislike the way he focuses on
personalities and allegations, and ignores the technical content of the
demonstration.

- Jed

Re: [Vo]:A word of caution on Rossi

Dear Jones,

I don't understand what you say exactly.
What I know for sure is that Piantelli has a perfect reproducible Ni-H
process and this one developed by Piantelli's former collaborator and an
inventor is very similar to that. Why do you believe that I am speaking
about
Ni-H technology in general, that by the way is an abstraction?

The device works, don't know how it works- no problem but nobody, including
its developers don't know either, reaction X responsible for a% of the
released heat and so on...Heat cannot be correlated with known nuclear
reaction, no theory.
Therefore- thank you for mentioning my friend Randy my guess is that
hydrinos are at the play and I intend to ask him how can this be proven- or
on the contrary.

Randy's CIHT technology will be demonstated this year, most probably late
summer. I am a chemical engineer have worked mainly for process
developments- so I am able to appreciate the difficulties.

Jones vs Leonardo- ia nie znaiu- have no idea.

Peter

On Sat, Jan 15, 2011 at 7:23 PM, Jones Beene jone...@pacbell.net wrote:

   *From:* Peter Gluck



 Ø  Suppose Rossi is the Al Capone of science and the Ostap Bender of
 technology, how many non working damned generators will he sell? I think his
 past, character, are not relevant.



 You miss the point almost completely, Peter. This is not about the nickel
 hydride technology in general, which is solid – going back twenty years. No
 one doubts that this level of gain can be accomplished, in principle. But
 has it been accomplished in fact?



 Do not forget Randell Mills’ (Blacklight Power) prior art position, either.
 Except for the slight radioactivity seen by Rossi, Mills is arguable better
 positioned in this niche. Mills’ experiments are rock-solid in my book,
 unlike what has been shown today. Mills also claims a much larger COP.



 Yes, Rossi’s past history is only relevant if it is part of his present. We
 agree on that.



 In bringing up the fiasco in New Hampshire, I am indicating that he appears
 to be afoul of the Law there, and that was very recent - so we cannot be
 certain that this latest episode is not more of the same. That remains to be
 determined. Notice specifically that he NEVER mentions Leonardo
 Technologies, which owns the rights to this new work.



 The specific question for us now is this: does Rossi have a **bona fide
 advancement** in the nickel hydride niche, or not?



 I strongly suggest that nothing … absolutely NOTHING … seen so far, proves
 that he does have it. I think he does, but that is only based on things not
 in the record. Certainly his (already rejected) patent application proves
 nothing. Yes, there are indications that he has found the “secret
 ingredient”, but this depends on his credibility.



 If so inclined, almost any good con-artist could fake a better presentation
 than what has been shown. Is Rossi still that kind of con artist? He was
 four years ago in the DARPA fiasco.



 Maybe he has reformed now, who knows? …  all that we do know at present,
 until he addresses the charges of prior conduct, including the Leonardo
 contract - is that he “once” was in that category.



 Jones

RE: [Vo]:A word of caution on Rossi

We are talking past each other. 

 

The operative word is proof. Since even Focardi himself admits that he is
not permitted to see inside the reactor, and since chemical reactions could
provide this level of excess for a few hours, or since an fairly safe alpha
emitter could provide it for longer - and since no one can be sure that the
reactants have not been replenished periodically - there is no firm proof
yet.

 

Don't get me wrong, I do think he has something. But why not let's all get
on the same page and clear the record before the skeptics do it for us?

 

BTW - I also think that Randell Mills has something valid and similar. Are
they different? If nothing else, maybe Rossi will force Mills' hand.

 

Jones

 

 

From: Jed Rothwell 

 

Jones Beene wrote: 

I strongly suggest that nothing . absolutely NOTHING . seen so far, proves
that he does have it. I think he does, but that is only based on things not
in the record.

 

Well, I do not speak Italian, but based on the blogger's comments and the
caliber of the people who worked on this project, I disagree. I would say
there are plenty of technical indications this claim is real.

[Vo]:real heat wrong theory?

2011-01-15 Thread francis

From Goat Guy on Next Big Future:

·   



Well... I smell a rat, unfortunately.

FIRST, the rapidly technology turned off when the hydrogen supply was cut. 
Anyone else catch the slip? If the reaction is hydrogen-atomic consolidation 
with nickel nuclei, and it is presupposed that upon entering the 
metallic-valence sea of electrons, the 1H protons are both shielded and able to 
tunnel past the pretty substantial coulomb barrier of the 58Ni nuclei then ... 
turning off the hydrogen should not quench the reaction for minutes, or 
hours. Either the hydrogen is being consumed (burned, chemical heat, making the 
steam'), or the nickel reactant is at such an elevated temperature (1000ºK ?) 
that hydrogen's surface absorption is only measured in half-life seconds 
(instead of the usual hours at 373ºK / 100ºC). So, there could be an 
explanation for the rapid turn off. 

SECOND, I'm having serious doubts regarding the gamma-ray measurement. Rising 
50% above background levels is completely inconsistent with the 6,000 watt 
(proposed) output. Back-calculating the earlier work I did, there should be 
roughly 2e14 to 3e16 gamma rays per second for the power level achieved. 50% is 
nothing. The meter should have been pegged. 

THIRD (but not mentioned, so this is a surmise), elevated gamma output should 
have remained for many minutes (essentially 3-4 hours, in a classic half-life 
decaying curve, with an initial short half-life spike). But there was no 
mention of this.

FOURTH were they condensing the water-vapor into a vessel for weighing? The 
heat-of-vaporization of water is very well known, and a very useful proxy for 
figuring out thermal-energy production rates. It isn't (unfortunately) a very 
quick responder to thermal-generator fluctuations, but at least when a final 
quantity has been condensed and measured, the conversion to joules, calories, 
kilowatt-hours is straight forward. 

FIFTH the picograms per kilowatt is (by my calcs) way off. WAY off - by a lot! 
I estimated that 10,000 watts for 1 hour (36 MJ) would consume some 17 
milligrams of nickel. (hey, it would be a good result - I'm not complaining). 
Assuming that the researcher is talking about grams per second, then its easy 
to convert:

17,000 µg × (6,000 / 10,000) watts × (1 / 3600) hour =2.8 µg per second

Not picograms, in any way, shape or form. More like 2,800,000 pg/sec ... 

SO THEREFORE I AM LEAD TO BELIEVE that the researcher is deluded, that his 
collaborative senior professor is also deluded, and that they're somehow on a 
far limb that is not nuclear. 

Sorry goats. I'm expecting more from all this. 

PS: (and this is almost amusing) - if the nuclear reaction was really kicking 
out kilowatts of nuclear energy, the gamma ray flux would be essentially lethal 
at table-top distances. 1 Sievert (100 REM) is 1.0 J/kg. In an isotropic gamma 
radiation field (dominated by 511 keV and 720 keV positron annihilation and 
k-shell electron capture or nuclear rearrangement photons), at a rate of over 
(pessimistically) 2,000 joules/second of emission to achieve their claimed 
6,000± watt output (and allowing for their fantasy of significantly lowered 
gamma output due to some atomic nuclei rebounding effect!) ... at tabletop 
distances (2 meters) the gamma flux would be over (... hmmm 4πr², r=2, surface 
area of sphere of radius 2 m is about 50 m², 2000 joules / 50 = 40 joules per 
square meter. Human frontal area is about 1 m², 511 keV absorption is about 80% 
in body... so, if the espresso quaffers weigh in at 165 pounds (75 kg), then 
their whole-body absorption would be 0.4 Sv/sec. To put that in perspective, 1 
Sv rapid exposure leads to nausea. 3 Sv is the LD50 (50% of people die) level, 
and no one has survived over 10 Sv. )

So ... unless they have a LOT of lead in that tin-foil masked reaction 
container (which of course, physically they simply cannot have), if it were 
nuclear and generating all these kilowatts, then this would be one hell of a 
dangerous desktop demo. Kind of like the sieverts that were absorbed by the 
poor researcher who dropped a tungsten block onto a sub-critical-mass sphere of 
plutonium in the 1950s, only to have it go critical and irradiate everyone in a 
matter of seconds with a lethal dose of neutrons and gamma radiation. 

If it was nuclear and not particularly well shielded - I'd not want to be in 
the same BUILDING as the thing. 

Put that in your pipe and smoke it.

G O A T G U Y 

 

   Froarty in reply to goat guy:

·I would agree they don't have the correct theory and that the energy 
SOURCE is not nuclear - But - I believe they are unknowingly extracting energy 
from an interaction of a synthetic skeletal catalyst with different bond states 
of hydrogen along the lines of Moller's MAHG, Lyne's Furnace or Mill's BLP 
reactor. No one has totally nailed the theory yet (Jan Naudts may be real close 
with relativistic hydrogen) but it doesn't matter, if they

Re: [Vo]:A word of caution on Rossi

No dear Jones, Focardi has looked inside the reactors starting 1994. It is
an other professor who made the black box measurements.

I like your mode of thinking re methods of crookery, but do not think they
are realistic- in this case.

Randy is a different subject.

Peter

On Sat, Jan 15, 2011 at 7:56 PM, Jones Beene jone...@pacbell.net wrote:

  We are talking past each other.



 The operative word is “proof”. Since even Focardi himself admits that he is
 not permitted to see inside the reactor, and since chemical reactions could
 provide this level of excess for a few hours, or since an fairly safe alpha
 emitter could provide it for longer - and since no one can be sure that the
 reactants have not been replenished periodically – there is no firm proof
 yet.



 Don’t get me wrong, I do think he has something. But why not let’s all get
 on the same page and clear the record before the skeptics do it for us?



 BTW - I also think that Randell Mills has something valid and similar. Are
 they different? If nothing else, maybe Rossi will force Mills’ hand.



 Jones





 *From:* Jed Rothwell



 Jones Beene wrote:

   I strongly suggest that nothing … absolutely NOTHING … seen so far,
 proves that he does have it. I think he does, but that is only based on
 things not in the record.



 Well, I do not speak Italian, but based on the blogger's comments and the
 caliber of the people who worked on this project, I disagree. I would say
 there are plenty of technical indications this claim is real.

Re: [Vo]:real heat wrong theory?

As I said, using logical fallacies (and pseudo-scientific linguage) you can
demonstrate anything.
Peter

On Sat, Jan 15, 2011 at 7:58 PM, francis froarty...@comcast.net wrote:

 From Goat Guy on Next Big Future:

 ·

 Well... I smell a rat, *unfortunately*.

 FIRST, the rapidly technology turned off when the hydrogen supply was
 cut. Anyone else catch the slip? If the reaction is hydrogen-atomic
 consolidation with nickel nuclei, *and it is presupposed that upon
 entering the metallic-valence sea of electrons, the 1H protons are both
 shielded and able to tunnel past the pretty substantial coulomb barrier of
 the 58Ni nuclei* then ... turning off the hydrogen should not quench the
 reaction for minutes, or hours. Either the hydrogen is being consumed
 (burned, chemical heat, making the steam'), or the nickel reactant is at
 such an elevated temperature (1000ºK ?) that hydrogen's surface absorption
 is only measured in half-life seconds (instead of the usual hours at 373ºK /
 100ºC). So, there could be an explanation for the rapid turn off.

 SECOND, I'm having serious doubts regarding the gamma-ray measurement.
 Rising 50% above background levels is completely inconsistent with the 6,000
 watt (proposed) output. Back-calculating the earlier work I did, there
 should be roughly 2e14 to 3e16 gamma rays per second for the power level
 achieved. 50% is nothing. The meter should have been pegged.

 THIRD (but not mentioned, so this is a surmise), elevated gamma output
 should have remained for many minutes (essentially 3-4 hours, in a classic
 half-life decaying curve, with an initial short half-life spike). But there
 was no mention of this.

 FOURTH were they condensing the water-vapor into a vessel for weighing? The
 heat-of-vaporization of water is very well known, and a very useful proxy
 for figuring out thermal-energy production rates. It isn't (unfortunately) a
 very quick responder to thermal-generator fluctuations, but at least when a
 final quantity has been condensed and measured, the conversion to joules,
 calories, kilowatt-hours is straight forward.

 FIFTH the *picograms per kilowatt* is (by my calcs) way off. WAY off - by
 a lot! I estimated that 10,000 watts for 1 hour (36 MJ) would consume some
 17 milligrams of nickel. (hey, it would be a good result - I'm not
 complaining). Assuming that the researcher is talking about grams per
 second, then its easy to convert:

 17,000 µg × (6,000 / 10,000) watts × (1 / 3600) hour =2.8 µg per second

 Not picograms, in any way, shape or form. More like 2,800,000 pg/sec ...

 *SO THEREFORE I AM LEAD TO BELIEVE* that the researcher is deluded, that
 his collaborative senior professor is also deluded, and that they're somehow
 on a far limb that is not nuclear.

 Sorry goats. I'm expecting more from all this.

 PS: (and this is almost amusing) - if the nuclear reaction was really
 kicking out kilowatts of nuclear energy, the gamma ray flux would be
 essentially lethal at table-top distances. 1 Sievert (100 REM) is 1.0
 J/kg. In an isotropic gamma radiation field (dominated by 511 keV and 720
 keV positron annihilation and k-shell electron capture or nuclear
 rearrangement photons), at a rate of over (pessimistically) 2,000
 joules/second of emission to achieve their claimed 6,000± watt output (and
 allowing for their fantasy of significantly lowered gamma output due to some
 atomic nuclei rebounding effect!) ... at tabletop distances (2 meters) the
 gamma flux would be over (... hmmm 4πr², r=2, surface area of sphere of
 radius 2 m is about 50 m², 2000 joules / 50 = 40 joules per square meter.
 Human frontal area is about 1 m², 511 keV absorption is about 80% in body...
 so, if the espresso quaffers weigh in at 165 pounds (75 kg), then their
 whole-body absorption would be 0.4 Sv/sec. To put that in perspective, 1 Sv
 rapid exposure leads to nausea. 3 Sv is the LD50 (50% of people die) level,
 and no one has survived over 10 Sv. )

 So ... unless they have a LOT of lead in that tin-foil masked reaction
 container (which of course, physically they simply cannot have), if it were
 nuclear and generating all these kilowatts, then this would be one hell of a
 dangerous desktop demo. Kind of like the sieverts that were absorbed by the
 poor researcher who dropped a tungsten block onto a sub-critical-mass sphere
 of plutonium in the 1950s, only to have it go critical and irradiate
 everyone in a matter of seconds with a lethal dose of neutrons and gamma
 radiation.

 If it was nuclear and not particularly well shielded - I'd not want to be
 in the same BUILDING as the thing.

 Put that in your pipe and smoke it.

 *G O A T G U Y*



Froarty in reply to goat guy:

 ·I would agree they don't have the correct theory and that the
 energy SOURCE is not nuclear - But - I believe they are unknowingly
 extracting energy from an interaction of a synthetic skeletal catalyst with
 different bond states of hydrogen along the lines of Moller's MAHG,

Re: [Vo]:real heat wrong theory?

2011-01-15 Thread Harry Veeder

Goat repeats the same old dismissive argument, that if it doesn't show the signatures of hot fusion then the experimenters are deluded. harryFrom: francis froarty...@comcast.netTo: vortex-l@eskimo.comSent: Sat, January 15, 2011 12:58:15 PMSubject: [Vo]:real heat wrong
theory?From Goat Guy on Next Big Future:· Well... I smell a rat, unfortunately.FIRST, the rapidly technology "turned off" when the hydrogen supply was cut. Anyone else catch the slip? If the reaction is hydrogen-atomic consolidation with nickel nuclei, and it is presupposed that upon entering the metallic-valence sea of electrons, the 1H protons are both shielded and able to tunnel past the pretty substantial coulomb barrier of the 58Ni nuclei then ... turning "off the hydrogen" should not quench the reaction for minutes, or hours. Either the
hydrogen is being consumed (burned, chemical heat, making the "steam'), or the nickel reactant is at such an elevated temperature (1000ºK ?) that hydrogen's surface absorption is only measured in half-life seconds (instead of the usual hours at 373ºK / 100ºC). So, there could be an explanation for the rapid turn off. SECOND, I'm having serious doubts regarding the gamma-ray measurement. Rising 50% above background levels is completely inconsistent with the 6,000 watt (proposed) output. Back-calculating the earlier work I did, there should be roughly 2e14 to 3e16 gamma rays per second for the power level achieved. 50% is nothing. The meter should have been pegged. THIRD (but not mentioned, so this is a surmise), elevated gamma output should have remained for many minutes (essentially 3-4 hours, in a classic half-life decaying curve, with an initial short half-life spike). But there was no mention of this.FOURTH were they
condensing the water-vapor into a vessel for weighing? The heat-of-vaporization of water is very well known, and a very useful proxy for figuring out thermal-energy production rates. It isn't (unfortunately) a very quick responder to thermal-generator fluctuations, but at least when a final quantity has been condensed and measured, the conversion to joules, calories, kilowatt-hours is straight forward. FIFTH the picograms per kilowatt is (by my calcs) way off. WAY off - by a lot! I estimated that 10,000 watts for 1 hour (36 MJ) would consume some 17 milligrams of nickel. (hey, it would be a good result - I'm not complaining). Assuming that the researcher is talking about "grams per second", then its easy to convert:17,000 µg × (6,000 / 10,000) watts × (1 / 3600) hour =2.8 µg per secondNot picograms, in any way, shape or form. More like 2,800,000 pg/sec ... SO THEREFORE I AM LEAD TO BELIEVE that the researcher is deluded, that his collaborative senior professor is also deluded, and that they're somehow on a far limb that is not nuclear. Sorry goats. I'm expecting more from all this. PS: (and this is almost amusing) - if the nuclear reaction was really kicking out kilowatts of nuclear energy, the gamma ray flux would be essentially lethal at table-top distances. 1 Sievert (100 REM) is 1.0 J/kg. In an isotropic gamma radiation field (dominated by 511 keV and 720 keV positron annihilation and k-shell electron capture or nuclear rearrangement photons), at a rate of over
(pessimistically) 2,000 joules/second of emission to achieve their claimed 6,000± watt output (and allowing for their fantasy of significantly lowered gamma output due to some atomic nuclei rebounding effect!) ... at tabletop distances (2 meters) the gamma flux would be over (... hmmm 4πr², r=2, surface area of sphere of radius 2 m is about 50 m², 2000 joules / 50 = 40 joules per square meter. Human frontal area is about 1 m², 511 keV absorption is about 80% in body... so, if the espresso quaffers weigh in at 165 pounds (75 kg), then their whole-body absorption would be 0.4 Sv/sec. To put that in perspective, 1 Sv rapid exposure leads to nausea. 3 Sv is the LD50 (50% of people die) level, and no one has survived over 10 Sv. )So ... unless they have a LOT of lead in that tin-foil masked reaction container (which of course, physically they simply cannot have), if it were nuclear and generating all these kilowatts, then this would be one hell
of a dangerous desktop demo. Kind of like the sieverts that were absorbed by the poor researcher who dropped a tungsten block onto a sub-critical-mass sphere of plutonium in the 1950s, only to have it go critical and irradiate everyone in a matter of seconds with a lethal dose of neutrons and gamma radiation. If it was nuclear and not particularly well shielded - I'd not want to be in the same BUILDING as the thing. Put that in your pipe and smoke it.G O A T G U Y Froarty in reply to goat guy:· I would agree they don't have the correct theory and that the energy SOURCE is not nuclear - But - I believe they are unknowingly extracting energy from an interaction of a synthetic skeletal catalyst with different bond states of hydrogen along the lines of Moller's MAHG, Lyne's Furnace or

Re: [Vo]:A word of caution on Rossi

Jones Beene jone...@pacbell.net wrote:


 The operative word is “proof”. Since even Focardi himself admits that he is
 not permitted to see inside the reactor, and since chemical reactions could
 provide this level of excess for a few hours . . .


I have heard from reliable sources that the thing has been run for much
longer, well past the limits of chemistry.

Obviously this particular press conference test proves nothing!

I find it very disturbing that Focardi, Levi and the others have not been
permitted to see inside the reactor, but not because I think it calls the
results into question. I could see right into Patterson's experiment, but he
hid the most essential aspect of it, which was how to make the beads. He and
Reding told me their goal was to prevent others from replicating even though
they had a patent. They succeeded all too well: they took the secret of the
experiment and any hope of replicating it with them to the grave. I fear
that Rossi will do the same thing. He is no spring chicken.

Let us not underestimate Focardi, Levi, Celani and the others. They are not
fools. If this thing could be explained as a chemical reaction -- that is,
if it had only been run for a short time -- they would know that as well as
you or I. In another message here, someone suggested it is odd that the
reaction stopped as soon as the hydrogen was shut off. Not necessarily.
Clearly the hydrogen could not all have been consumed, but perhaps the
pressure is a control factor. It is in other experiments. Actually, that is
very good news, since it means they can control the reaction. That is
another important point that could not have escaped the attention of Focardi
et al.

- Jed

Re: [Vo]:A word of caution on Rossi

2011-01-15 Thread Harry Veeder

hey...This is Italian science ...not WASP science. ;-)

Harry

[Vo]:Rossi website bandwidth exceeded

This site not available:

http://www.journal-of-nuclear-physics.com

It generates an error:

Bandwidth Limit Exceeded

The server is temporarily unable to service your request due to the site
owner reaching his/her bandwidth limit. Please try again later.


Apparently the news generated a lot of interest.

I cannot tell if there has been an upsurge at LENR-CANR.org.

- Jed

[Vo]:New section in LENR-CANR.org

A handy guide to the ICCF conference proceedings:

http://lenr-canr.org/Collections/BooksProceedings.htm

- Jed

Re: [Vo]:Rossi website bandwidth exceeded

The videos are available on youtube:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z-0WvK2b7dU

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u-Ru1eAymvE

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dmHZrhTQhUc

T

On Sat, Jan 15, 2011 at 1:40 PM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com wrote:
 This site not available:

 http://www.journal-of-nuclear-physics.com

 It generates an error:

 Bandwidth Limit Exceeded

 The server is temporarily unable to service your request due to the site
 owner reaching his/her bandwidth limit. Please try again later.


 Apparently the news generated a lot of interest.

 I cannot tell if there has been an upsurge at LENR-CANR.org.

 - Jed

RE: [Vo]:A word of caution on Rossi

At the risk of appearing to 'beat a dead horse' let me make a couple of
other comments relevant to the 'big picture' of nano-nickel technology.

 

1)Mills and BLP may try to distance themselves from Rossi due to one
critical detail: *radioactivity*. Mills' entire patent protection is
vulnerable if it is discovered that the Ni-H system goes radioactive in a
short time. I am certain that this cannot be avoided. The implications are
disastrous for BLP.

 

2)Focardi and Rossi are 'not exactly' partners in this, since Leonardo
Technologies, founded by Rossi but owned by shareholders, is the real owner
of the technology and they may be trying to keep him on a short leash.

 

3)This has led some to believe that originally, Rossi was trying to
'play both ends against the middle' and to quietly, even secretly - obtain
Euro-funding in Italy for a parallel project with Focardi, from which he
would be paid a large fee, and avoid Leonardo's claim on it.

 

4)As I understand the personal situation, Piantelli is a bitter enemy of
Focardi, going back to the early nineties - and that is probably the way in
which Steve was alerted to Rossi's sordid past.

 

Who says that rational science is immune from the soap opera effect of
petty jealousy and multiple layers of intrigue and 'white lie' dishonesty? 

 

Jones

[Vo]:Focardi Rossi Piantelli

2011-01-15 Thread Nick Palmer

Are there any big media interested yet?


Nick Palmer

On the side of the Planet - and the people - because they're worth it

Blogspot - Sustainability and stuff according to Nick Palmer
http://nickpalmer.blogspot.com

Re: [Vo]:Input power must be far lower than ~10 kW



At 02:03 PM 1/15/2011, Rothwell, of the censored LENR/CANR site,
wrote:
Peter Gluck
peter.gl...@gmail.com
wrote:

Rossi says the input is 600-700 W. Output at least 14 x input.
My comment was directed at people who do not believe Rossi, or who
suspect there may be a complicated waveform at work, which makes it hard
to measure input power. Such arguments always arise when people make
claims about cold fusion when electric power input is needed. Even the
simplest DC power is questioned. What I am saying is that we can
short-circuit these objections by pointing out that the power supplies
themselves could not draw 10 kW, so the waveform and methods of measuring
input power are irrelevant.
I pointed out this same fact about the Patterson experiment. To no avail.
People raised that objection again and again, and they probably still do.
Heck, for that matter, they claimed the water was not mixed and the
temperature may not have been uniform, even after I stated that I mixed
it myself, in a 1-liter graduated cylinder, using the mercury thermometer
to stir it. The water coming out was many degrees hotter than the
reservoir temperature going in. Anyone who thinks you can have a thermal
gradient of several degrees when you stir liquid in a cylinder is very
stupid, has no grasp of physical reality, and has zero credibility.
As it happens, Taubes raised that objection in his book, and here at
Vortex, Mitchel Swartz raised it repeatedly. As far as I am concerned,
that erased their credibility.
- Jed

 Actually, it is the credibility of Jed Rothwell which 
is, and has always been near, zero.
 Rothwell has used his nonsense claiming he got a
kilowatt
when analysis showed it was mostly in his mind.
 First, the fact is that flow calorimetry depends upon the
direction of the flow measurement because of Bernard
instability. My friend, Dennis Cravens, who did that very
experiment confirmed it, despite the Rothwell nonsense.
 For those seriously interested, two papers explain WHY and
HOW
Jed fRothwell erroneously measured his kilowatt levels of

pseudoexcess heat with Ni-beads using an improper vertical flow 
calorimetric system without adequate joule controls - 
and how to possibly correct for it:
Swartz, M, 1996, Improved Calculations Involving Energy
Release 
Using a Buoyancy Transport Correction, Journal of New Energy, 1, 3,
219-221. 
Swartz, M, 1996, Potential for Positional Variation in Flow 
Calorimetric Systems, Journal of New Energy, 1, 126-130. 
 Second, Rothwell has always avoided control
measurements.
But they ARE needed. Real scientists know that.
 The following is from the web page, and one of the two
papers which
were developed over several years in response to Rothwell's
unscientific
nonsense. No wonder he runs his censored site.
===
POTENTIAL FOR POSITIONAL VARIATION IN FLOW CALORIMETRIC SYSTEMS 
Mitchell Swartz
http://world.std.com/~mica/posvar.html

ABSTRACT 
Although many aspects of calorimeters have been discussed, 
including issues of potential problems with the thermometry 
[i.e. thermocouples, thermistors and thermometers, 
including electrical grounding and crosstalk, 
thermal mixing and sensor positioning problems], 
the potential impact of positional effects of the 
flow calorimetry has not been 
mentioned. The positional orientation refers to the 
direction of the flow, and not to the orientation of 
any temperature probes therein. Despite the reported 
advantages for flow calorimetry in detecting enthalpy 
from putative fusion reactions, these studies theoretically 
suggest that there may be effects from positional variation 
in the calorimetry of such flow 
systems. Rather than 'ease of calibration' usually touted 
for such systems, it is suggested that calibration may be 
more complicated for vertical flow calorimetric systems. 
In the absence of additional calibration, it may be critical to 
keep semiquantitative calorimeters horizontal under some 
conditions. 
We now define hB as the ratio of heat transported 
by the buoyant forces to the heat transported by 
solution convection. 
 heat transported by buoyant forces 
 hB = -- 
 heat transferred by solution convection 

This Q1D model of heat and mass transfer has indicated 
that what is generally correct for horizontal calorimetric 
systems, may not be correct for vertical systems, when the 
non-dimensional number (=hB) is significantly greater than 
zero. Any apparent amplification of the 'excess heat' (if 
any, and there does appear to be some) would be greatest 
at the low flow levels. Increased flow makes the positional 
error less important. As a corollary, any false excess heat, 
or excess heat magnification, should also reduce with increased 
flow. 
SUMMARY 
In summary, thermometry may not be the only rate limiting 
factor for obtaining high-quality information from flow 
calorimeters if the non-dimensional number, hB {defined 
as the ratio of heat transfer by

Re: [Vo]:A word of caution on Rossi

Jones Beene jone...@pacbell.net wrote:


 4)As I understand the personal situation, Piantelli is a bitter enemy
 of Focardi, going back to the early nineties


They co-authored a paper in 1994, so I doubt they were bitter enemies then.
See:

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

- Jed

Re: [Vo]:Input power must be far lower than ~10 kW

Mitchell Swartz m...@theworld.com wrote:


   For those seriously interested, two papers explain WHY and HOW
 Jed Rothwell erroneously measured his kilowatt levels of
 pseudoexcess heat with Ni-beads using an improper vertical flow
 calorimetric  system . . .


The water was not flowing vertically or in any other direction. It was in a
cup. I diverted the flow into the cup, stirred it with the thermometer and
measured the temperature. While I diverted it, I measured the flow rate with
a stopwatch. Then I measured the temperature in the reservoir. There is
ABSOLUTELY, POSITIVELY no way the Swartz theory regarding vertical flows can
apply to this method. I repeat: the water was IN A CUP. NOT FLOWING.

I realize that Swarz will repeat this ad nauseum. I am sorry to trigger
this, but I wanted to set the record straight. I do this because it has been
some time since this topic came up, and I am sure that people will raise
equally idiotic objections to Rossi's calorimetry.

- Jed

Re: [Vo]:Focardi Rossi Piantelli

Nick Palmer ni...@wynterwood.co.uk wrote:

 Are there any big media interested yet?


The Huffington Post. I hope it is a while before mass media notices, to give
us time to write a decent report in English.

Actually, I hope the big mass media does not notice. They will only screw up
the report.

- Jed

RE: [Vo]:A word of caution on Rossi

Might I provide some different points of view from real-world (i.e., personal) 
experiences...
 
Sometimes decisions are not so clear-cut... I've come to a conclusion in my 
life that those who live
by absolutes probably live in a box, or have not been involved in a sufficient 
number of situations
to realize that what one thought was a clear, black or white, right or wrong 
decision, all of a
sudden isn't. 
 
I was helping out a very bright (PhD at age 15), but unconventional inventor in 
~2003.  We had made
good progress and things were looking up for investment opportunities.  
Unfortunately, one of the
persons involved was a real slime-ball.  When the inventor went oversees, on 
his return trip he was
refused admittance back into the US because his VISA expired -- he was a 
Canadian citizen, and
wasn't too diligent about keeping watch on annoying details, like the VISA 
renewal period being
shortened!  So the slime-ball took this 'opportunity' to change the locks on 
the lab to secure the
prototype, create a new business entity and transfer all assets, and then filed 
suit... we tried to
fight the legal battle, and won the first few rounds, but the inventor's health 
suffered and he
couldn't get the $ to continue the fight, and the slime-ball ended up getting a 
summary judgement,
thus, succeeding in stealing the technology/business.  You will to this day 
find a legal judgement
against the inventor, but if you don't know the details, you will come to the 
wrong conclusion as to
who was right, and who had integrity.  
 
The legal system is just a tool in business, and if you don't have the money to 
use that tool,
regardless of whether you're right or not, you will lose...  I personally am 
friends with a very
competent businessman who has been fighting a major oil company over gasoline 
leaking into the
ground from one of their service stations. Even though he has overwhelming 
evidence that 5
gallons leaked instead of the 50 gals they claim, he has spent years and 
millions fighting this in
the courts, both state and fed'l.  You'd think it should be cut-n-dry, but the 
legal system has a
very complex set of rules and if your attorney slips up just once, it could 
cause you to lose the
battle... NOT because you weren't right; NOT because you didn't have the 
evidence to prove your
point, but simply because you didn't follow procedure; didn't follow the rules. 
 The inexperienced
think that truth will prevail; justice will be served!  Unfortunately, that is 
not guaranteed.  Its
not surprising that he has a VERY jaded view of the legal system these days...
 
As far as Rossi's 'fraud' charges...
What if Rossi had done enough experiments to know that he was onto something, 
but, as many
transformative technology inventors find, it is very difficult to get the $ 
required to continue the
work. So you begin to stretch the truth, and if things get real desperate, lie, 
in order to get the
$ you need...  I would look to how the money was spent to determine if it was 
that grey area.  If
the person was buying fancy cars and using the money for 'lifestyle 
enhancement', then I'd say they
deserve the scoundrel label and time in jail.  However, if they spent the money 
on the research and
lived a very modest life, then I'd cut them a little slack.  Doesn't make it 
right, but in the real
world, things are not always black or white.  Perhaps for a well established 
business, there's not
much 'grey' area but in my experiences with 'fringe' or 'out there' 
startups, there's alot of
grey...
 
Ask yourself this question:  If you had done experiments and knew that given a 
reasonable amount of
$ you could prove that this wonderful discovery works, how far would you go to 
get the resources you
needed?  We're not talking a new kind of toaster.. we're talking about how the 
world produces
energy.  The very wheelwork of civilization is energy -- all manufacturing, 
transportation,
communication is energy-hungry... Reduce the cost of energy to 1/100th of what 
it is now, and it
will transform the planet... overall, for the better.  And if that new energy 
is clean, then its all
the more important... and greys the situation/decisions even more.
 
Both Jones and Jed make valid points on this topic... and Steve reminds us of 
the history.  Its good
to have all that collective knowledge to work off of.  My position is, knowing 
Rossi's past means be
a bit more cautious, but the importance of the discovery warrants giving him a 
chance and some time
to answer all the questions that will come... BEFORE one starts with the 
judgements!
 
As I've argued before on this site, be careful about rushing to judgements when 
you do not have
intimate details of the situation.  For the bright inventor I mention above, 
unless you are one of
10 people who were directly involved, you could not possibly know what really 
went down and who was
the real scoundrel... in today's world, perception and reality are seldom the 
same.

RE: [Vo]:A word of caution on Rossi

Jones wrote:
Who says that rational science is immune from the soap opera effect of petty 
jealousy and
multiple layers of intrigue and 'white lie' dishonesty?
 
It most definitely is NOT, especially when big $ are at stake...

-Mark


  _  

From: Jones Beene [mailto:jone...@pacbell.net] 
Sent: Saturday, January 15, 2011 10:52 AM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Subject: RE: [Vo]:A word of caution on Rossi



At the risk of appearing to 'beat a dead horse' let me make a couple of other 
comments relevant to
the 'big picture' of nano-nickel technology.

 

1)Mills and BLP may try to distance themselves from Rossi due to one 
critical detail:
*radioactivity*. Mills' entire patent protection is vulnerable if it is 
discovered that the Ni-H
system goes radioactive in a short time. I am certain that this cannot be 
avoided. The implications
are disastrous for BLP.

 

2)Focardi and Rossi are 'not exactly' partners in this, since Leonardo 
Technologies, founded by
Rossi but owned by shareholders, is the real owner of the technology and they 
may be trying to keep
him on a short leash.

 

3)This has led some to believe that originally, Rossi was trying to 'play 
both ends against the
middle' and to quietly, even secretly - obtain Euro-funding in Italy for a 
parallel project with
Focardi, from which he would be paid a large fee, and avoid Leonardo's claim on 
it.

 

4)As I understand the personal situation, Piantelli is a bitter enemy of 
Focardi, going back to
the early nineties - and that is probably the way in which Steve was alerted to 
Rossi's sordid past.

 

Who says that rational science is immune from the soap opera effect of petty 
jealousy and multiple
layers of intrigue and 'white lie' dishonesty? 

 

Jones

RE: [Vo]:A word of caution on Rossi

You could be right, and my-bad for passing on rumor . unless, that is, this
is one of the papers which caused a falling-out, which continues to the
present. Was Piantelli present?

 

For instance, it appears the Italians were in the habit of listing
co-authors alphabetically, to wit:

 

S. FOCARDI(1), V. GABBANI(2), V. MONTALBANO(2), F. PIANTELLI(2)

and S. VERONESI(2)

 

 

Whereas, one of the five - might have - at some later date - considered
himself to have been the lead investigator, but realizing that he is not
getting the credit he deserves. Who knows?

 

BTW a close look at this paper and the ones cited prior to it shows that
energetic nickel-hydride has been around a long time - and that the major
advance which pushed it over the top in recent years - is probably the
emergence of nano .

 

Randell Mills, in contrast - chose a commonly available form of nickel early
on - Raney nickel - which since the 1920s was made in such a way (leaching
out aluminum from an alloy) that it was already nano in an inverse sense .
and therefore Mills had a form of nanopowder a decade ahead of the others.

 

. what a tangled web this may turn out to be .

 

From: Jed Rothwell 

 

4)As I understand the personal situation, Piantelli is a bitter enemy of
Focardi, going back to the early nineties 

 

*  They co-authored a paper in 1994, so I doubt they were bitter enemies
then. See:

 

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

 

- Jed

[Vo]:RE: real heat wrong theory?

2011-01-15 Thread francis

Goat guy’s first sentence was interesting “the rapidly technology turned off 
when the hydrogen supply was cut. Anyone else catch the slip?” –  Again it 
reinforces his closed minded position of nuclear or nothing but if the 
observation  is correct it does lend support to a need for circulation of 
hydrogen relative to the catalyst- it would also suggest any radiation stops 
without the environment of trigger temperature and circulation.

Re: [Vo]:RE: real heat wrong theory?

The really interesting thing is that very small quantities of hydrogen are
consumed and of Ni are transmuted. (picograms during such an experiment.
Goat guys' perception and logic are both absolutely flawed.
The worst individuals of this category are in the anti-vaccine camp, very
nasty and aggressive. I have studied the Forums's Beasts for more than 10
years.

On Sat, Jan 15, 2011 at 10:56 PM, francis froarty...@comcast.net wrote:

 Goat guy’s first sentence was interesting “the rapidly technology turned
 off when the hydrogen supply was cut. Anyone else catch the slip?” –  Again
 it reinforces his closed minded position of nuclear or nothing but if the
 observation  is correct it does lend support to a need for circulation of
 hydrogen relative to the catalyst- it would also suggest any radiation stops
 without the environment of trigger temperature and circulation.

Re: [Vo]:Input power must be far lower than ~10 kW



At 03:08 PM 1/15/2011, Rothwell wrote:
Mitchell Swartz
m...@theworld.com
wrote:
 

 For those seriously interested, two papers explain WHY and HOW 
Jed Rothwell erroneously measured his kilowatt levels of 
pseudoexcess heat with Ni-beads using an improper vertical flow 
calorimetric system . . .
The water was not flowing vertically or in any other direction. It
was in a cup. I diverted the flow into the cup, stirred it with the
thermometer and measured the temperature. While I diverted it, I measured
the flow rate with a stopwatch. Then I measured the temperature in the
reservoir. There is ABSOLUTELY, POSITIVELY no way the Swartz theory
regarding vertical flows can apply to this method. I repeat: the water
was IN A CUP. NOT FLOWING.
I realize that Swarz will repeat this ad nauseum. I am sorry to trigger
this, but I wanted to set the record straight. I do this because it has
been some time since this topic came up, and I am sure that people will
raise equally idiotic objections to Rossi's calorimetry.
- Jed
So many untruths. 
However, the actual record will set the proverbial record
straight.
 Rothwell: (The water) was in a cup  NOT
FLOWING.
 Rothwell is mistaken.
First, the setup WAS a flow calorimetric system. 
And the direction was vertical through the bead.
All of the nonsense of Rothwell will not change those
facts.
 Rothwell previously agreed with this:
= Vortex mail from 1998 
At 11:41 PM 11/18/98 -0500, Jed Rothwell wrote:
The entire stream running through the cell is diverted into the cup.
The
outlet hose from the cell is diverted into the cup instead of going
back
into the reservoir. This is also done to measure the flow rate
(Galileo's
method).
 So the removal was done to measure flow rate by
decoupling flow from
the circuit which would have otherwise demonstrated some resistance
to
the flow. The flow was powered by a 85 watt impellor pump, is that
correct?
 If yes, was it a vertical flow calorimetric system?
Yes.
 Making it subject to Bernard
instability
= End of Vortex mail from 1998


 Second, as usual Rothwell's latest description is at
variance
with all his previous descriptions.
 Here are two groups of differences
I. First Rothwell took samples from the return path only:
At 10:25 AM 11/19/98 -0500, Jed Rothwell wrote: 
Mitchell Swartz asks: 
How many times did you remove 250cc from the electrolytic cell to
test 
the temperature? 
 
Rothwell: I never remove fluid from the cell. 
I remove it from the return hose after 
it exits the cell, before it goes back into the reservoir. I would
have to 
turn off the flow and drain the cell to remove fluid from the cell.
Why 
would I do that? 
II. Then Rothwell, when convenient, stated he took the sample
from the cell: 
 Rothwell: This cannot be a problem. I repeat, with
emphasis, 
 THIS CANNOT BE A PROBLEM, because I took 250 ml of
the water out 
 of the cell, mixed it in a cup, and measured it
externally with a 
 thermistor, a thermocouple, and a
thermometer.
 [Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@infinite-energy.com 
 Subject: Re: JET Energy Technology's CF electric
generator 
 Resent-Message-Id:
xtaGp3.0.4K2.LgtKs@mx2] 
III. Finally, Rothwell when convenient stated he took the sample
from the cell 
AND the return path.
 MS: Out of the electrolytic cell? 
 Rothwell: I am not sure what this means,

 but I think the question is: Did I test a 
 sample of water from out of the electrolytic cell.

 Answer: yes, and I tested another sample taken 
 from the reservoir too, for comparison. 
 [18 Nov 1998 20:45:36 jedrothw...@pop.mindspring.com

 Jed Rothwell
jedrothw...@infinite-energy.com 
 Resent-Message-Id:
adNN92.0.rV5.l9wKs@mx1] 

 Also, when Rothwell first published he stated the sample was
removed to measure 'flow'. 
 Later, Rothwell claimed it was to measure 'temperature', proof of
output power, and 
to dismiss Bernard instability. 
 Rick Monteverde wrote: 
 There remains this sticking point between you and
Jed regarding 
 measurement errors presumably due to Barnard instability. I
take this to 
 mean that small quantities of locally heated fluids rise up
or get 
 entrained into output plumbing and trick thermo probes into
reporting 
 that the overall mass of fluid is at a certain temperature
when it 
 really isn't. 
 Rothwell: 
 This cannot be a problem. I repeat, with emphasis,

 THIS CANNOT BE A PROBLEM, because I took 250 ml of the
water out 
 of the cell, mixed it in a cup, and measured it
externally with a 
 thermistor, a thermocouple, and a thermometer. 
 Therefore the thermo probes in the output plumbing

 HAVE NOTHING TO DO WITH IT. I compared the temperature
of the 
 outlet fluid sample in the cup to the fluid 
 in the reservoir.
 [Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@infinite-energy.com 
 Subject: Re: JET Energy Technology's CF electric
generator 
 Resent-Message-Id:
xtaGp3.0.4K2.LgtKs@mx2] 

=
Third, in summary, scientific error

Re: [Vo]:A word of caution on Rossi

You can find a coauthored paper in 1998 too.
FYI Piantelli is 77 years old and ill- asthma, he cannot travel. And is a
very bright scientist.

The other authors as Vera Montalbano have done the analytical chemistry,
microscopy etc part.

Peter

On Sat, Jan 15, 2011 at 10:50 PM, Jones Beene jone...@pacbell.net wrote:

  You could be right, and my-bad for passing on rumor … unless, that is,
 this is one of the papers which caused a falling-out, which continues to the
 present. Was Piantelli present?



 For instance, it appears the Italians were in the habit of listing
 co-authors alphabetically, to wit:



 S. FOCARDI(1), V. GABBANI(2), V. MONTALBANO(2), F. PIANTELLI(2)

 and S. VERONESI(2)





 Whereas, one of the five - might have – at some later date - considered
 himself to have been the lead investigator, but realizing that he is not
 getting the credit he deserves. Who knows?



 BTW a close look at this paper and the ones cited prior to it shows that
 energetic nickel-hydride has been around a long time - and that the major
 advance which pushed it over the top in recent years - is probably the
 emergence of “nano” …



 Randell Mills, in contrast - chose a commonly available form of nickel
 early on – Raney nickel - which since the 1920s was made in such a way
 (leaching out aluminum from an alloy) that it was already “nano” in an
 inverse sense … and therefore Mills had a form of “nanopowder” a decade
 ahead of the others.



 … what a tangled web this may turn out to be …



 *From:* Jed Rothwell



 4)As I understand the personal situation, Piantelli is a bitter enemy
 of Focardi, going back to the early nineties



 Ø  They co-authored a paper in 1994, so I doubt they were bitter enemies
 then. See:



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



 - Jed

RE: [Vo]:A word of caution on Rossi

2011-01-15 Thread francis

WELL SAID!

Jones Beene said [snip] 

Randell Mills, in contrast - chose a commonly available form of nickel early

on - Raney nickel - which since the 1920s was made in such a way (leaching

out aluminum from an alloy) that it was already nano in an inverse sense .

and therefore Mills had a form of nanopowder a decade ahead of the others
[/snip]

Re: [Vo]:Input power must be far lower than ~10 kW

Mitchell Swartz m...@theworld.com wrote:


  First, the setup WAS a flow calorimetric system.


Not the way I used it. I changed the configuration for my tests. I diverted
the flow into a cup.

It was being used as a flow calorimeter by Patterson et al., in the data
reported by them. But my data came from another, non-flow configuration. My
readings agreed with theirs.

I was careful to hold the cut at the same height as the reservoir, to keep
the flow rate from changing. I removed the hose from the reservoir, moved it
to the cup until I collected 1 liter, and then put the hose back. Then I
stirred the water and measured the temperature in the cup, and then in the
reservoir. Anyone who thinks that method does not work has no grasp of basic
physics, and no common sense.

- Jed

Re: [Vo]:Input power must be far lower than ~10 kW

I wrote:


 I was careful to hold the cut at the same height as the reservoir . . .


Meant cup. Actually, I think I just moved the cup under the hose, which
was pouring the water back into the reservoir. The reservoir was a fishtank,
as I recall. They needed a fairly large volume of water because they had no
cooler, and they did not want the reservoir temperature to increase quickly.
It did increase, gradually. It would not have changed if only 5 W of heat
had been going into it, and -- as I said -- the power supply could not have
produced more than 5 W.

My method was first principle. There is not the slightest chance it was
wrong. Any theory proposed by Swartz or anyone else that claims it was wrong
is sophistry and nonsense. I used a thermometer and two thermistors to
confirm the temperature. In any case, the cup temperature as palpably warmer
than the reservoir, and given the flow rate and 5 W input that would be
impossible without massive excess heat.

The Rossi demonstration is the most irrefutable one since that day with
Patterson, and since Mizuno's cell went into massive heat after death.
Skeptics and jealous rivals such as Swartz have invented countless reasons
to discount these results. Skeptics once claimed that the water in bucket in
Mizuno's lab might have been drunk by rats, rather than evaporate. I pointed
that given the average water intake of a rat it would take thousands to
drink that much, and I pointed out that cell was not only palpably warm, it
was too hot to touch. What I said had absolutely no effect on the assertions
made by the skeptics, just as what I write now will have no effect on
Swartz. I expect he will soon attack Rossi with some nonsensical theory
along the lines he attacks Patterson and me. Such people will deny, and
deny, and deny . . . with a senseless, mindless avalanche of nonsense. It
will soon begin with Rossi. Beware of that.

Beware also of the personal attacks. I have been reading ad hominem attacks
against Fleischmann, Pons, McKubre and the others for 22 years. On Wikipedia
they even attack me! These attacks are often made by jealous rivals such as
Arata and Swartz. Don't fall for them.

- Jed

Re: [Vo]:real heat wrong theory?

2011-01-15 Thread mixent

In reply to  francis 's message of Sat, 15 Jan 2011 12:58:15 -0500:
Hi,
[snip]
SECOND, I'm having serious doubts regarding the gamma-ray measurement. Rising 
50% above background levels is completely inconsistent with the 6,000 watt 
(proposed) output. Back-calculating the earlier work I did, there should be 
roughly 2e14 to 3e16 gamma rays per second for the power level achieved. 50% 
is nothing. The meter should have been pegged. 

A fission reaction such as I proposed in previous posts might preferentially
produce stable isotopes (since stable isotopes are by definition the lowest
energy nuclei and hence the most tightly bound).
Taking into account that a cluster of 4 atoms should be able to get closer to a
target nucleus before being destroyed by dipole forces than smaller clusters,
then 4 atom cluster fusion should be much more likely than for smaller clusters.
IOW clean fission reactions may dominate (and possibly by a very large margin).
This would easily explain the lack of gammas, though wouldn't explain a
preponderance of Cu as an end product. 
[snip]
FIFTH the picograms per kilowatt is (by my calcs) way off. WAY off - by a lot! 

Correct.
[snip]
Regards,

Robin van Spaandonk

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

RE: [Vo]:real heat wrong theory?

In one of the translations yesterday - it was said that there was lead
shielding in place already - so the small signal seen. 50% over background
would not be unusual, and is entirely consistent with such shielding were
under the insulation.

Also I see a Gamma Scout device on the table. These are not sensitive
instruments for lower energy gammas.

Jones




-Original Message-
From: mix...@bigpond.com 

In reply to  francis 's message of Sat, 15 Jan 2011 

Hi,


SECOND, I'm having serious doubts regarding the gamma-ray measurement.
Rising 50% above background levels is completely inconsistent with the 6,000
watt (proposed) output. Back-calculating the earlier work I did, there
should be roughly 2e14 to 3e16 gamma rays per second for the power level
achieved. 50% is nothing. The meter should have been pegged. 

A fission reaction such as I proposed in previous posts might preferentially
produce stable isotopes (since stable isotopes are by definition the lowest
energy nuclei and hence the most tightly bound).
Taking into account that a cluster of 4 atoms should be able to get closer
to a
target nucleus before being destroyed by dipole forces than smaller
clusters,
then 4 atom cluster fusion should be much more likely than for smaller
clusters.
IOW clean fission reactions may dominate (and possibly by a very large
margin).
This would easily explain the lack of gammas, though wouldn't explain a
preponderance of Cu as an end product. 
[snip]
FIFTH the picograms per kilowatt is (by my calcs) way off. WAY off - by a
lot! 

Correct.
[snip]
Regards,

Robin van Spaandonk

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

Re: [Vo]:Input power must be far lower than ~10 kW



At 05:23 PM 1/15/2011, you wrote:
Mitchell Swartz
m...@theworld.com
wrote:



First, the setup WAS a flow calorimetric system.


Not the way I used it. I changed the configuration for my tests. I
diverted the flow into a cup.
It was being used as a flow calorimeter by Patterson et al., in the data
reported by them. But my data came from another, non-flow configuration.
My readings agreed with theirs.
I was careful to hold the cut at the same height as the reservoir, to
keep the flow rate from changing. I removed the hose from the reservoir,
moved it to the cup until I collected 1 liter, and then put the hose
back. Then I stirred the water and measured the temperature in the cup,
and then in the reservoir. Anyone who thinks that method does not work
has no grasp of basic physics, and no common sense.
- Jed
1. It is not about physics and common sense,
it is about truth.
 The record, even on vortex, shows Rothwell is
disingenuous, substituting ad hominem for truth.
Rothwell's non-flow configuration appears to be
confabulated
ad hoc - since this WAS previously reported as 
a flow calorimetric system.
 Rothwell previous agreed, over and over.
At 10:25 AM 11/19/98 -0500, Jed Rothwell wrote:
Swartz: If yes, was it a vertical flow calorimetric
system?

Rothwell: Me: Yes.
 Corroborating this, only a desperate sophomore 
would honestly think they could claim to have sampled
the cell, applied the FLOW EQUATION (which itself
is an approximation) and have it as a non-flow
configuration.
 In this case, Rothwell knew it was a flow system.
===
2A. The Pressure Head Fell
When Rothwell diverted the flow into a cup
two more errors appeared. First, the pressure head
was decreased, as Mitchell Jones correctly previously pointed
out, when the line was disconnected to get the sample.
Rothwell's flow measurement cannot be trusted unless
the connection remained or a flow meter was used.
There was previously reported to be NO flowmeter at that time
in THAT experiment. The equations used were thus 
probably inaccurate, demonstrating again the need for a 
control.
===
2B. Second, the volume of the system was decreased.
 Both effects may have also contributed to falsely
increase of the derived signal.
 But then anyone who professes that ignoring joule controls
is a virtue like Rothwell, probably would not care.
===
3. What Kind of Sampling Rate is This?
One of the little secrets kept here quiet is that
Rothwell reported a sampling rate of only 2 to 4 times per
day!!!
At 10:25 AM 11/19/98 -0500, Jed Rothwell wrote:
How many
times did you remove 250cc from the flow circuit to test the
temperature?

Rothwell: With the large CETI cell, about a dozen times over three
days. With our
cells, twice a day
Real experimentalists use at least a Hertz 
for reasons of Nyquist and commonsense.
 And use joule controls.
===
 Summary:
 Rothwell's alleged kilowatt is similar
to 
the Drs. Pons and Fleischmann's inference that CF is easy.

 In the first case, sole reliance on uncorrected 
vertical flow calorimetry can lead to the amplification of the
small CF/LANR effect. This amplification effect, 
like driving below the noise level, produces inaccuracy, 
which can also give rise to large expectations from an
otherwise real CF/LANR effect which might be smaller 
in magnitude, and is generally quite difficult to achieve.
 Mitchell Swartz

Re: [Vo]:A new energy source from nuclear fusion, S Focardi, A Rossi, 9p text 2010.03.22: Rich Murray 2011.01.14

2011-01-15 Thread David VanDerryt

Peter, I like what you have to say. I have been dealing with transformations 
and 
cold fusion for a little while now and I understand there are some simple 
ground 
rules and basic understandings that have to be adhered to. People just don't go 
onto the public platform with bogus claims anymore. 
Your understanding is on track and I for one appreciate your input.
DVD 




From: Peter Gluck peter.gl...@gmail.com
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Sent: Sat, January 15, 2011 10:01:53 AM
Subject: Re: [Vo]:A new energy source from nuclear fusion, S Focardi, A Rossi, 
9p text 2010.03.22: Rich Murray 2011.01.14

As far I know, absolutely nobody agrees with me. It seems my thinking is 
special 
as explained at my blog's first page.


On Sat, Jan 15, 2011 at 5:56 PM, Terry Blanton hohlr...@gmail.com wrote:

On Sat, Jan 15, 2011 at 10:35 AM, Peter Gluck peter.gl...@gmail.com wrote:

 Removing those poisons is a sine qua non condition for CF, a necessary
 condition but it is not sufficient.

I must admit, it certainly explains many issues including
reproducibility of experiments.  Does Dennis Cravens concur that it
was laser ablation of impurities which enhanced initiation?

Congratulations, by the way, to you and all LENR researchers.

Terry

Re: [Vo]:Input power must be far lower than ~10 kW


At 05:39 PM 1/15/2011, Jed Rothwell, of the censored LENR/CANR site, wrote:

Rothwell:   I pointed that given the average water intake of a rat ... 

  Even a broken (non digital) clock appears accurate twice a day
with some local truth.

===

Rothwell:  Beware also of the personal attacks. I have been reading ad 
hominem attacks against Fleischmann, Pons, McKubre and the others for 22 
years.


  How ironic and self-serving.
  Many of these attacks against these great individuals
were begun and continued by Jed Rothwell, himself,
and were covered in the COLD FUSION TIMES, and posted
by Rothwell on vortex and spf.

===

Rothwell:  On Wikipedia they even attack me! These attacks are often made 
by jealous rivals such as Arata and Swartz. Don't fall for them.


 I have absolutely never published to Wikipedia on anything;
and would not waste a femtosecond on the egomaniac Rothwell.

  I certainly doubt Dr. Arata has either.

  Jed Rothwell projects, hallucinates, confabulates
and once again heralds his certifiable handicap.

   Dr. Mitchell Swartz

[Vo]: Corp world is watching closely...


I've just been reading thru the comments on the Rossi/Focardi website...
Seems this is being watched by the corporate world...


Dr.Kathrine Martinez-Martignoni 
January 14th, 2011 at 11:24 AM 

GOOD LUCK !!!
I WILL OBSERVE YOU DIRECTLY FROM ZÜRICH (SWITZERLAND).
SINCERELY,
DR.KATHRINE M.
(IBM RESEARCH LABORATORIES). 
-

I wonder if she could convince her boss to let her try to reproduce it...
Hopefully she is the boss!

-Mark

RE: [Vo]: Corp world is watching closely...

Mark,

He is not likely to hook up with IBM if they closely read his bio. I suspect
that we will probably see an official retraction of some kind from U.
Bologna soon, due to these problems.

Even on this sympathetic site, there a few troubling details ...

http://ingandrearossi.com/cat/biografia/

For instance, his claimed alma mater, Kensington University in California
is a defunct and non-accredited diploma mill:

http://hawaii.gov/dcca/ocp/udgi/lawsuits/kensington/

... little problems like that make one wonder how this guy got associated
with a decent University in the first place, not to mention one large
contract to Leonardo Technology (LTI) which he helped to found, from DARPA
($50 million).



-Original Message-
From: Mark Iverson 

I've just been reading thru the comments on the Rossi/Focardi website...
Seems this is being watched by the corporate world...


Dr.Kathrine Martinez-Martignoni 
January 14th, 2011 at 11:24 AM 

GOOD LUCK !!!
I WILL OBSERVE YOU DIRECTLY FROM ZÜRICH (SWITZERLAND).
SINCERELY,
DR.KATHRINE M.
(IBM RESEARCH LABORATORIES). 
-

I wonder if she could convince her boss to let her try to reproduce it...
Hopefully she is the boss!

-Mark

Re: [Vo]:real heat wrong theory?

2011-01-15 Thread mixent

In reply to  Jones Beene's message of Sat, 15 Jan 2011 15:02:36 -0800:
Hi,
[snip]
In one of the translations yesterday - it was said that there was lead
shielding in place already - so the small signal seen. 50% over background
would not be unusual, and is entirely consistent with such shielding were
under the insulation.

Also I see a Gamma Scout device on the table. These are not sensitive
instruments for lower energy gammas.

Jones
The reaction 

Ni-58 + H - Cu-59.

The Cu-59 would accumulate until there was enough for the decay rate to equal
the production rate, at which point the quantity would stabilize. If we assume
that the reactor is in this stable state, and producing an output of 4 kW (2/3
of 6kW from this isotope), then there are 3E15 Cu59 atoms being created every
second, and an equal number decaying to Ni-59.
Almost all of the decays produce positrons which annihilate with electrons
producing a pair of gamma rays. Hence about 6E15 gammas are being produced every
second. Of these about 2.8E11 / sec. would make it through 2 cm of lead. That's
the equivalent of an unshielded source of 7.7 Ci of gamma radiation. Over 1 hour
that would lead to a received dose of about 308 mr at a distance of 5 yards (at
1 yard it would be 7700 mr). 
(average background radiation in the US is about 300 mr / yr, so while observing
the experiment at a distance of 5 yards one would get about a years worth in 1
hour).

(These are 511 keV gammas. Dental X-rays are about 65 keV or less).

Regards,

Robin van Spaandonk

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

RE: [Vo]:real heat wrong theory?

Robin,

We cannot assume that this is directly comparable to a known hot fusion
reaction, assuming it is real. Why should we? There is every reason to
suspect that LENR is based on previously unknown pathways. 

The best way to validate the claim is to test a sample of spent fuel for
copper isotope ratio. We can probably expect the heavier 65Cu to be
completely absent. That would constitute almost indisputable proof.

Why wasn't this done?

Jones


In one of the translations yesterday - it was said that there was lead
shielding in place already - so the small signal seen. 50% over background
would not be unusual, and is entirely consistent with such shielding were
under the insulation.

Also I see a Gamma Scout device on the table. These are not sensitive
instruments for lower energy gammas.

Jones

The reaction 

Ni-58 + H - Cu-59.

The Cu-59 would accumulate until there was enough for the decay rate to
equal the production rate, at which point the quantity would stabilize. If
we assume that the reactor is in this stable state, and producing an output
of 4 kW (2/3 of 6kW from this isotope), then there are 3E15 Cu59 atoms being
created every second, and an equal number decaying to Ni-59.
Almost all of the decays produce positrons which annihilate with electrons
producing a pair of gamma rays. Hence about 6E15 gammas are being produced
every second. Of these about 2.8E11 / sec. would make it through 2 cm of
lead. That's the equivalent of an unshielded source of 7.7 Ci of gamma
radiation. Over 1 hour that would lead to a received dose of about 308 mr at
a distance of 5 yards (at 1 yard it would be 7700 mr). (average background
radiation in the US is about 300 mr / yr, so while observing the experiment
at a distance of 5 yards one would get about a years worth in 1 hour).

(These are 511 keV gammas. Dental X-rays are about 65 keV or less).

Regards,

Robin van Spaandonk

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

Re: [Vo]: Corp world is watching closely...

2011-01-15 Thread Harry Veeder





- Original Message 
 From: Jones Beene 

 He is not likely to hook up with IBM if they closely read his bio.  I suspect
 that we will probably see an official retraction of some kind from  U.
 Bologna soon, due to these problems.
 
 Even on this sympathetic site,  there a few troubling details ...
 
 http://ingandrearossi.com/cat/biografia/
 
 For instance, his claimed  alma mater, Kensington University in California
 is a defunct and  non-accredited diploma mill:
 
 http://hawaii.gov/dcca/ocp/udgi/lawsuits/kensington/
 
 ... little  problems like that make one wonder how this guy got associated
 with a decent  University in the first place, not to mention one large
 contract to Leonardo  Technology (LTI) which he helped to found, from DARPA
 ($50  million).


Seems many employees of the US government have questionable credentials too:

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/05/10/eveningnews/main616664.shtml

Harry

[Vo]:Will report on Rossi soon

Okay, I spoke with one of the people in the project about the calorimetry.
Then I typed up the notes from our conversation as a brief report (400
words). I e-mailed the report to the researchers so they can confirm I got
the numbers and other details correct, and also add the name and model
numbers of some of the instruments.

They are exhausted so I do not expect to hear back before tomorrow. I will
post the information as soon as they clear it. I do not want to circulate
dumb mistakes that I made writing down a phone conversation. Most of what I
learned you already know. I confirm the blogger's description, that the
calorimetry is mainly based on the heat of vaporization of water. Here are a
few other details:

* They measured the relative humidity of the steam to confirm it is dry.

* The person who designed and implemented the calorimetry is a distinguished
expert on that subject, and former president of the Italian Chem. Soc.
Several other professors took part in the test.

* They are writing a detailed report covering the calorimetry and
nuclear measurements.

My guess is that these people know what they are doing. I suggest that
people here should stop harping on the details of Rossi's personal life.
That subject strikes me as increasingly irrelevant.


To change the subject --

Rossi told me months ago that he intended to do a public demonstration. I
hinted at this here, but he told me no specifics so I could not say more in
any case. I confess I began to doubt that he would follow through. I am
delighted to be proved wrong. He did follow through, and for that he and his
co-workers deserve a big round of applause. I cannot understand Italian but
I got the impression that press conference was a serious exposition with
detailed questions and answers. I hope they continue to reveal technical
details and they follow through on their plans to build a 1 MWh reactor.
Assuming the measurements in the January 14 test were accurate, I think they
will be able to do this quickly, perhaps within months.

Again, assuming there is no mistake, and that the thing can be replicated, I
agree wholeheartedly with Cousin Peter that this is what we have been
waiting for all these years.

Although it is best to reserve judgement, and you cannot be sure of a claim
until it is independently replicated . . . this reaction is so large that I
think a mistake is highly unlikely. I think the likelihood of fraud is
vanishingly small. There is no way you could fool the professors involved in
this, and I am sure they are not all engaged in a conspiracy to fool the
rest of us. Sometimes, a single test in isolation is so convincing it
reduces or eliminates the need for independent replication. The most
dramatic example in history was the Trinity atomic bomb test. This test is
not quite as convincing as that, but in my opinion it is far more compelling
than any other cold fusion test in history.

- Jed

Re: [Vo]:real heat wrong theory?

Jones Beene jone...@pacbell.net wrote:

The best way to validate the claim is to test a sample of spent fuel for
 copper isotope ratio. We can probably expect the heavier 65Cu to be
 completely absent. That would constitute almost indisputable proof.

 Why wasn't this done?


I do not know if this was or was not done. But I do know that much more has
been done than has been revealed. So please do not jump to conclusions.

I think one of the best ways to validate the claim would be to build a large
power reactor and let it run for months. That is what they say they plan to
do. It is not what I would do if I were in charge, but it is close enough
that I have no objection.

- Jed

[Vo]:method and apparatus for carrying out nickel and hydrogen exothermal reaction, Andrea Rossi USA patent application 2011.01.13: role of impurities: future developments: Rich Murray 2011.01.15

2011-01-15 Thread Rich Murray

method and apparatus for carrying out nickel and hydrogen exothermal
reaction, Andrea Rossi USA patent application 2011.01.13: role of
impurities: future developments: Rich Murray 2011.01.15

[ minor typos corrected, and spacing added to increase clarity and
highlight special points: some possibilities discussed after the
patent... ]
Rich Murray 505-819-7388  rmfor...@gmail.com Santa Fe, New Mexico, USA ]

sergio.foca...@bo.infn.it,
andrearo...@journal-of-nuclear-physics.com,

http://www.faqs.org/patents/app/20110005506

Patent application title: METHOD AND APPARATUS FOR CARRYING OUT NICKEL
AND HYDROGEN EXOTHERMAL REACTION

Inventors:  Andrea Rossi
Agents:  HEDMAN  COSTIGAN, P.C.
Assignees:
Origin: NEW YORK, NY US
IPC8 Class: AF24J100FI
USPC Class:
Publication date: 01/13/2011
Patent application number: 20110005506

Abstract:

A method and apparatus for carrying out highly efficient exothermal
reaction between nickel and hydrogen atoms in a tube, preferably,
though not necessary, a metal tube filled by a nickel powder and
heated to a high temperature, preferably, though not necessary, from
150 to 5000 C are herein disclosed.
In the inventive apparatus, hydrogen is injected into the metal tube
containing a highly pressurized nickel powder having a pressure,
preferably though not necessarily, from 2 to 20 bars.

Claims:

1.  A method for carrying out an hexothermal reaction of nickel and
hydrogen, characterized in that said method comprises the steps of
providing a metal tube, introducing into said metal tube a nanometric
particle nickel powder and injecting into said metal tube a hydrogen
gas having a temperature much greater than 150 .degree. C. and a
pressure much greater than 2 bars.

2.  A method according to claim 1, characterized in that said hydrogen
temperature varies in a range from 150 to 500 .degree. C.

3.  A method according to claim 1, characterized in that said nickel
powder is a nickel isotope powder.

4.  A method according to claim 1, characterized in that said hydrogen
is injected into said tube under a pulsating pressure.

5.  A method according to claims 1 and 2, characterized in that said
hydrogen temperature is a variable temperature which varies in said
range from 150 to 500 .degree. C.

6.  A method according to claim 1, characterized in that said metal
tube is a copper metal tube.

7.  A modular apparatus for providing a  hexothermal  reaction by
carrying out the method according to claim 1, characterized in that
said apparatus comprises a metal tube (2) including a nanometric
particle nickel powder (3) and a high temperature and pressure
hydrogen gas.

8.  A method according to claim 1, characterized in that in said
method  catalyze materials are used.

9.  An apparatus method according to claim 7, characterized in that
said nickel powder filled metal tube (2) is a copper tube, said copper
tube further including at least a heating electrical resistance, said
tube being encompassed by a jacket (7) including either water and
boron or only boron, said jacket (7) being encompassed by a further
lead jacket (8) in turn optionally encompassed by a steel layer (9),
said jackets (7, 8) being adapted to prevent radiations emitted from
said copper tube (2) from exiting said copper tube (2), thereby also
transforming said radiations into thermal energy.

10.  An apparatus according to claim 1, characterized in that said
apparatus comprises, encompassing said nickel powder, hydrogen and
electric resistance (101) containing copper tube (100) a first
steel-boron armored construction (102) encompassed by a second lead
armored construction (103) for protecting said copper tube (100), a
hydrogen bottle connection assembly (106) and a hydrogen bottle (107),
said apparatus further comprising, outside of said lead armored
construction (103), a cooling water steel outer pipe assembly (105).

Description:

BACKGROUND OF THE INVENTION

[0001] The present invention relates to a method and apparatus for
carrying out nickel and hydrogen exothermal reactions, and has been
stimulated by the well known requirement of finding energy sources
alternative to fossil sources, to prevent atmospheric carbon dioxide
contents from being unnecessarily increased.

[0002] For meeting the above need non polluting energy sources should
be found which do not involve health risks, are economically
competitive with respect to oil sources susceptible to be easily
discovered and exploited and naturally abundant.

[0003] Many of the above alternative energy sources have already been
explored and operatively tested even on an industrial scale, and
comprise biomasses, solar energy used both for heating and
photovoltaic electric generation purposes, aeolian energy, fuel
materials of vegetable or agricultural nature, geothermal and sea wave
energy and so on.

[0004] A possible alternative to natural oil, is the uranium-fission
nuclear energy. However, yet unresolved problems affect nuclear energy
such as great safety and waste

RE: [Vo]:Will report on Rossi soon