Re: [Vo]:About isotopic ratio on spent fuel (E-Cat)
On Apr 15, 2011, at 6:52 PM, Axil Axil wrote: The scam status of the Rossi reactor has nothing to do with natural abundance in Lenr reactions. It has been shown that all Lenr reactions produce waste conformant to natural abundance. Like all Lenr reactions, the Rossi reactor show natural abundance in it’s ash product. This should lend credence to the claim that the Rossi reaction is real and that it is a valid Lenr Reaction. Please provide references showing the above. The above looks to be complete nonsense. Best regards, Horace Heffner http://www.mtaonline.net/~hheffner/
[Vo]:unsubscribe
RE: [Vo]:Is it nuclear, or is it Memorex?
From Harry, Alchemy was more than just a collection of blind rituals. It was based on a natural philosophy which may contain some precious insights that were buried with the rise of the mechanical philosophy. Well said. Steam Punk lives! ;-) Regards Steven Vincent Johnson www.OrionWorks.com www.zazzle.com/orionworks
RE: [Vo]:The mechanism behind the fail safe nature of the Rossi process.
Axil, Apparently you failed to read or understand Peters comment. ONCE AGAIN, IRON OXIDE IS REDUCED IN HOT HYDROGEN. It is that simple. There is no Fe2O3 at least not in pressurized hydrogen at this temperature. There can be metallic iron present, and yes, Fe was seen in the Swedish report. There are other oxides which can be stable to varying degrees in this reactor, but not iron. Zirconium oxide is stable in hot hydrogen - and Zr is seen in the spectrographs of the patent application. It is possible that metallic iron, deposited on zirconia would function in the way you are imagining, and will be catalytic, but this calls for experimental proof or at least some indication from the literature that it can work this way. You may or may not be aware that two oxygen atoms can function together as a Mills catalyst, and that iron also is a Mills catalyst - and that would make this finding of iron very relevant to our understanding. That is why I have mentioned above that metallic iron, deposited on zirconia could function in an active way, by temporarily borrowing oxygen from zirconia (very short time frame) - and thus will be catalytic in a transitory way that would be highly temperature dependent. Surface effects and interfaces are extremely important in catalysis. Why would magnetism be important? It could be, but if so, then why doesnt Rossi add an external solenoid? Long before iron reaches its Curie point, the field is strongly attenuated. Please build a prima facie case for this kind of thing before jumping to irrelevant conclusions. The bogosity level of some of these comments is reaching an extreme We simply cannot ignore 200 years of physics in order to convert this inventor into some kind of messiah figure. Sure physics is incomplete, and understanding this device will involve new physics, but please try to keep the probability levels for that manageable by ditching the nonsense about natural isotopes deriving from a LENR process. That is beyond bogus. Jones From: Axil Axil [ Subject: [Vo]:The mechanism behind the fail safe nature of the Rossi process. The mechanism behind the fail safe nature of the Rossi process. I believe that the magnetic property of Fe2O3 in a key part of the Rossi process and is the way that the Rossi process achieves failsafe operation. . When the temperature of the catalyst get to about 577C (the Néel http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/N%C3%A9el_temperature point) the Fe2O3 nano-particle loses its magnetic organization and the nuclear heat production slows. The Rossi will tend to reach a temperature equilibrium at about 600C more or less and avoid a run away meltdown .
[Vo]:Latest radio talk and lectures
I have been on the radio recently in Canada. Another show on serious satellite radio has followed and featured my work. A link to the most recent radio show is posted below. More are to follow. I have also lectured at the University of Maryland in March 2011. Industry leaders and Chief Scientists from the DOE and NASA were there. It was good to meet with them especially Dr. Dave Goodwin, he has some good ideas. Glen Robertson of NASA Marshall and I have coauthored a paper. I am very proud to have accomplished this. More things are happening. An unofficial video of this lecture at the Space and Propulsion forum is posted below. The official high quality version will appear shortly. I believe that we will see the official version in some surprising places. Jones don't waist your time looking at this stuff. http://www.angelfire.com/scifi2/zpt/chaptere.html Frank Znidarsic PE
Re: [Vo]:Notes on Rossi device
On 2011-04-15 23:46, Jed Rothwell wrote: [...] You could also add this important piece of information: * * * http://www.journal-of-nuclear-physics.com/?p=360cpage=16#comment-0 Is it in general possible to regulate the power output of the E-cat in a continous way and if yes in what limits about? Is it done by regulating the H2 – pressure or can it be achieved by adjusting the preheating input? April 16th, 2011 at 10:36 AM 1- Yes, from 0 through 100% 2- Adjusting the preheating input Warm Regards, A.R. * * * Cheers, S.A.
Re: [Vo]:About isotopic ratio on spent fuel (E-Cat)
ON Fri, 15 Apr 2011 19:10: Harry Veeder wrote [snip]Has anyone described the necessary chain of stellar events that would produce the present isotopic abundance of copper and is there proof that all those events actually happened? My point is perhaps some elements/isotopes are formed naturally by a LENR process rather than by a succession of stellar events. Therefore the reason why the isotopic abundance produced by the rossi reactor is natural is because the rossi reactor emulates how nature does it.[/snip] Harry, I think it is more a matter of proving how the Casimir environment is equivalent to the stellar environment. The hydrogen never reaches stellar temperatures and even appears to condense into forms that in some cases are even refered to as ice But I think this is a misnomer. If temp is based on motion/unit time then the number of reactions performed by reactants in a skeletal catalyst would qualify as very hot not cold but if Naudts is correct about a relativistic hydrino then this paradox is understandable. The Motion of the hydrino has very little spatial displacement because Casimir confinement approaches 2d from our perspective -The full spectrum of vacuum flux appears suppressed from our perspective but IMHO based on Naudt's paper the vacuum flux remain full spectrum inside the cavity by shifting the inertial frame dramatically - the Time dimension is always enlarged such that a local observer experiences the full spectrum of vacuum wavelengths - the present Casimir formula that describes longer wavelengths as being displaced has to be wrong for SR to apply to the hydrino. My point is the hydrino only appears flat and small from our perspective while between the plates the walls appear to shrink away and these gas atoms truly see time as a spatial direction - better explaining their ability to load and unload gases without pressure as they Seem to become smaller and smaller from our perspective. The point is the number of reactions these atoms accomplish while displaced on the time axis is only limited by how close to a perfect 90 degrees their time axis remains WRT our time axis outside the cavity. Even though They never reach a stellar environment from their own perspective there has to be some amount of energy balance involved in the translation When these gas populations return from the cavity having spent untold years from their perspectives bonding and disassociating back to our environment outside the cavity where only moments have elapsed. We cant observe the age of a hydrogen atom but the claims about radioactive half lives being accelerated seems to support the idea of a relativistic hydrino and therefore a relativistic interpretation of Casimir effect. I think LENR may be a relativistic energy balancing when a very large number of reactions that are occurring in a very negatively accelerated inertial frame translates back and forth between the small spatial volume of the cavity mouth in our inertial frame. I think the change in 1/d^3 from the Casimir formula relates to change in velocity v^2/C^2 from the gamma formula to resolve into equivalent acceleration - gravity inside the cavity - a very turbulent AC gravity or jerk that establishes a kind of QM blender to make what Jones refers to as a Quark soup - particularly in the zones where the 1/d^3 reaches it maximum the conflicting forces could tear apart the atom into it's sub atomic components. Fran
Re: [Vo]:Notes on Rossi device
SHIRAKAWA Akira shirakawa.ak...@gmail.com wrote: Is it in general possible to regulate the power output of the E-cat in a continous way and if yes in what limits about? Is it done by regulating the H2 – pressure or can it be achieved by adjusting the preheating input? April 16th, 2011 at 10:36 AM 1- Yes, from 0 through 100% 2- Adjusting the preheating input Will add. What do you think preheating input means? The resistance heating needed to bring the sample up to the working temperature, I suppose. I will make moves and changes and upload a new version on Monday. The original of that document is in the latest Word format. If anyone would like a copy, let me know. If anyone would like to make a bunch of moves changes on your own, you should start with the Word document. I have to go through the ascii files Shirakawa uploaded. I will also upload the ACS PowerPoint slides from Takahashi, the Jones Beene discussed here. - Jed
[Vo]:Rossis has had more than enough validation requests
• Frank • April 15th, 2011 at 8:47 PM Dear Mr. Rossi, I wonder if you are aware that Professor Peter Hagelstein of MIT remarked today that he would love the opportunity to test the E-cat. I found his comments in this article that was posted on April 15th. I thought you might be interested in this if you were not already aware. http://www.lifeslittlemysteries.com/newest-cold-fusion-machine-does-impossible-1584/ Best regards, Frank • Andrea Rossi April 15th, 2011 at 9:31 PM Dear Mr Frank: I receive every day requests from all the world of Universities, Associations, Laboratories from any Country, of any kind which want to make an “indipendent” test to offer us the only possible real validation of the technology. Should I accept, 24 hours per day, 365days per year would not be enough to be so much validated. I respect all the wannavalidate of the Planet, but I want to remember that: 1- In October we will start deliver to our Customers our plants, so that the validation will be made by the Customers: they will use our plants 24 hours per day, 365 days per year. That is the sole real validation that counts for us, also because if the plants work, Customers will pay us, if not, they will not pay us. The plants have to respect precise guarantees we gave about their efficiency and their safety. We are not searching any validation. We never did. We just wanted to make a good product.We have already made our public presentations, no more of them will be made. With the University of Bologna we will continue the RD program, but not to “validate”: the validation must arrive from the market. The aim of the RD program with the University of Bologna, financed by us, and therefore made with our money, is to develope our future, not to “validate”. Not to mention the fact that the real target of the wannabe validators, in 99 cases out of 100, is to get information and make industrial espionage, as already occurred to me with another “validator” with whom we severed any collaboration after getting evidence of the fact that data obtained from us have been utilized for a competition. 2- I thank anyway Prof. Peter Hagelstein for his attention. If the MIT is interested to our product, they can buy a plant, and make all the validations they want, for themselves, and get from it good heating too, during the hard Bostonian winters ( I lived there for some year, mamma mia, che freddo!) Warm regards, A.R.
Re: [Vo]:Latest radio talk and lectures
On Sat, Apr 16, 2011 at 11:07 AM, fznidar...@aol.com wrote: http://www.angelfire.com/scifi2/zpt/chaptere.html Ad hominem circumstantial. T
Re: [Vo]:Latest radio talk and lectures
On Sat, Apr 16, 2011 at 11:07 AM, fznidar...@aol.com wrote: oversnip Jones don't waist your time looking at this stuff. http://www.angelfire.com/scifi2/zpt/chaptere.html Ad hominem circumstantial. T
[Vo]:Why is calorimetry avoided in Rossi's experiments?
This is the third attempt to transmit this. The isotopic analyses and contradictory claims about isotopic abundances thus far make Rossi's claims look absurd. The theories proposed do not match results. For example: http://www.nyteknik.se/incoming/article3080659.ece/BINARY/Rossi- Focardi_paper.pdf ignores the highly radioactive nature of the outputs. Rossi's main claim of utility is excess heat. Yet no one has made any effort at even very basic calorimetry measurements on the output. Estimating heat output is really very simple to achieve, as I have noted here before. Simply direct the output into an insulated barrel and keep track of the temperature. If the output is in the form of steam, pre-load the barrel with cold water and run the steam trough a copper coil in the barrel and sparge any steam output of the copper coil by releasing it at the bottom of the barrel. Stir the water in the barrel. Measure the temperature change of the water in the barrel through time. Direct the water output from the top of the barrel to a sink, as is done now. This is chidren's science fair difficult. All that is required is a barrel with a water drain hole and fitting installed at the top, and maybe some insulation, though even that is not required if a no-flow temperature decline curve is obtained after the experiment. The thermocouple presently used can be moved to the barrel. A stirring device driven by a low wattage motor could be used, but the water could even be stirred by hand periodically. Measure the volume of water in the barrel. It is incredible that it could be expected that anyone would invest a dime in this technology without the most basic and inexpensive science being applied. Best regards, Horace Heffner http://www.mtaonline.net/~hheffner/
Re: [Vo]:Notes on Rossi device
Hi, Don't know if you all have handy tools for conversion at hand, but I personally like this one a lot (use it since several years). http://joshmadison.com/convert-for-windows/ Kind regards, MoB On 16-4-2011 2:47, Jed Rothwell wrote: Terry Blanton hohlr...@gmail.com mailto:hohlr...@gmail.com wrote: What is the pressure, by the way? I think he said 25 bar which would be about 360 psi. Ah. 24 atm. I thought it was low, like 4 atm. I guess it would make quite a bang if they exhausted it into the room and it ignited. (Why are there so many ways to measure pressure?) - Jed
RE: [Vo]:Latest radio talk and lectures
Dear Frank Z, I wish you all the luck that you have coming from you tireless efforts to promote MHz-M, and you will need it. More than that, is there a way to waste my waist, or is that another issue? BTW, in what precise way does megahertz-meter predict the Rossi effect? J. -Original Message- From: Terry Blanton Frank Znidarsic wrote: oversnip Jones don't waist your time looking at this stuff. http://www.angelfire.com/scifi2/zpt/chaptere.html Ad hominem circumstantial. T
RE: [Vo]:Why is calorimetry avoided in Rossi's experiments?
Horace, I'm glad that the post got through, because it is exactly on target. If the steam was wet, then the result might yet still be OU, or not, but why not wait to pass judgment until it is done correctly? -Original Message- From: Horace Heffner This is the third attempt to transmit this. The isotopic analyses and contradictory claims about isotopic abundances thus far make Rossi's claims look absurd. The theories proposed do not match results. For example: http://www.nyteknik.se/incoming/article3080659.ece/BINARY/Rossi-Focardi_pape r.pdf ignores the highly radioactive nature of the outputs
RE: [Vo]:About isotopic ratio on spent fuel (E-Cat)
Fran, * Harry, I think it is more a matter of proving how the Casimir environment is equivalent to the stellar environment. Which stellar environment? There are literally trillions of different stellar environments, all of them unique because the mass of the predecessor star is unique, but there is only one Casimir force. Are you suggesting that the Casimir force is different on every single planet? I think not. Or that on earth, this force somehow knows what the stellar environment was billions of years ago when the isotope balance was frozen into place, and can now match it? I find that preposterous. Each of these stars can have drastically different isotope balance, following a Nova. We know this as fact - because we occasionally find meteorites that come from different systems, or even from different time frames in the Nova that preceded earth. The isotope balances are vastly different. For instance, this was what Luis Alvarez used to pinpoint the cause of the last mass extinction. He found evidence of lots of iridium - and element that is extremely rare on earth, but it is found at massively increased levels (1000 times more) in the so-called K-T boundary layer. To imagine that LENR can operate to transmute elements in a way that matches exactly one of trillions of stellar events, and that it also is the exact match for the planet where the LENR occurs . LOL . think about the odds. Jones
Re: [Vo]:Why is calorimetry avoided in Rossi's experiments?
Horace Heffner hheff...@mtaonline.net wrote: Estimating heat output is really very simple to achieve, as I have noted here before. Simply direct the output into an insulated barrel and keep track of the temperature. If the output is in the form of steam, pre-load the barrel with cold water and run the steam trough a copper coil in the barrel and sparge any steam output of the copper coil by releasing it at the bottom of the barrel. I have mentioned this technique several times. This is what they do at Hydrodynamics, Inc. However, as I said recently, given the power levels Rossi demonstrated on Jan. 14, it would not be easy to do this test. There are practical problems. You need a very large barrel, or a smaller one that you allow to become very hot in about 10 minutes. You have to stop the test after that. It does not work once the water reaches boiling temperature. For example, suppose you use a barrel with 40 L capacity. You start with 33 L of tap water in the barrel. You run the machine for 10 minutes (600 s). This adds another 3 L of condensed effluent into the tank, filling it close to the top. During this time power is 16,000 W = 3,800 calories/s. The temperature of the water in the barrel rises from 20°C to 90°C. That is not a long test, so people will say it is not convincing. Gene Mallove and others have used hot water heater tanks for tests like this. You circulate water continuously from the device through the tank, the way we all wish they could do at the Fukushima nuclear plant. The Fukushima plant is presently being operated like a one-shot sparge-into-a-barrel test. Only instead of dumping the water into the parking lot, the way they do at Hydrodynamics, they are forced to dump the water and nuclear waste into the Pacific Ocean and the food chain. My hot water heater has 50 gallons (189 L) and it heats at 12 kW. It is the biggest one for home use sold at Lowe's. It is large and unwieldy. It takes less than 30 minutes for tap water to reach scalding hot levels. It would be challenging and expensive to set up something like this for the Jan. 14 test. The skeptics would come up with a hundred reasons why this test is invalid. Alan Fletcher would dismiss the whole thing because you can easily fit enough chemical fuel and equipment in a 50-gallon tank to run a fake test like this for hours. (For once I would be completely in agreement with him.) The steam test was convincing, because it was followed a few weeks later with the hot water test which showed that the machine does produce the level of heat indicated by the steam test. The assertions about wet steam must be wrong. Either that, or the thing magically went from producing a few kilowatts to 16 kW and 130 kW. We should also bear in mind that the flowing hot water method used on Feb. 10 is the standard way to evaluate boiler performance. This test -- this * exact* test -- is done hundreds of thousands of times a day in buildings and factories all around the world, by HVAC engineers, safety inspectors and others. Their results are right to within ~10%, according to handbooks and regulations guiding these tests. The error is not ~2%; it is ~10%. Here is an example of the paperwork used in one of these tests: STANDARD FUNCTIONAL TEST PROCEDURE FOR HEATING WATER SYSTEMS http://www.peci.org/ftguide/ftg/SystemModules/AirHandlers/AHU_ReferenceGuide/CxTestProtocolLib/Documents/hw10ml.doc From: http://www.peci.org/ftguide/ftg/SystemModules/Boilers/Functional_Testing_for_Boilers.htm#Test_Documents The flowing water calorimetry test is on p. 3. You can see that the boiler inspectors do many other, more complicated steps as well. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:Why is calorimetry avoided in Rossi's experiments?
On Apr 16, 2011, at 10:01 AM, Jones Beene wrote: Horace, I'm glad that the post got through, because it is exactly on target. If the steam was wet, then the result might yet still be OU, or not, but why not wait to pass judgment until it is done correctly? The situation is way beyond just the need for passing judgement. This is a case of a lot of hoopla and maybe money changing hands, when the basic science applied to the main claim, excess heat, is laughable. The science applied to that issue is less than amateur. Personally, I don't see any sense in wasting much time even discussing further, because the evidence is so shabby. The whole thing looks like a big joke at this point. It looks like a Barnum and Bailey act, the greatest show on earth! Rossi's main claim of utility is excess heat. Yet no one has made any effort at even very basic calorimetry measurements on the output. Estimating heat output is really very simple to achieve, as I have noted here before. Simply direct the output into an insulated barrel and keep track of the temperature. If the output is in the form of steam, pre-load the barrel with cold water and run the steam trough a copper coil in the barrel and sparge any steam output of the copper coil by releasing it at the bottom of the barrel. Stir the water in the barrel. Measure the temperature change of the water in the barrel through time. Direct the water output from the top of the barrel to a sink, as is done now. This is chidren's science fair difficult. All that is required is a barrel with a water drain hole and fitting installed at the top, and maybe some insulation, though even that is not required if a no-flow temperature decline curve is obtained after the experiment. The thermocouple presently used can be moved to the barrel. A stirring device driven by a low wattage motor could be used, but the water could even be stirred by hand periodically. Measure the volume of water in the barrel. I discussed the wet steam issue here back in January, and also another simple cheap enthalpy measuring method, ice calorimetry: http://www.mail-archive.com/vortex-l@eskimo.com/msg41703.html http://www.mail-archive.com/vortex-l@eskimo.com/msg41849.html It is incredible that it could be expected that anyone would invest a dime in this technology without even the most basic and inexpensive science being applied to the most important aspect. Best regards, Horace Heffner http://www.mtaonline.net/~hheffner/
Re: [Vo]:Notes on Rossi device
snipLook carefully at what Rossi says. In one response to a question, he uses the word 'catalysts'. Plural! Nickel, rust and copper?snip Let us get into the details on this point as follows: Under the assumption that the nuclear active area in the Rossi process is within large numbers of nanoscopic crystal defects in condensed matter, where exactly would that defect be found? Bothe nickel and NiO oxide have near perfect crystal structures that contain very few atomic defects. So the location of the nuclear active site is not in these compounds. The patent says that Copper can replace nickel in the Rossi reaction. Copper and CuO also have near perfect crystal structures that contain very few atomic defects. So the location of the nuclear active site is not in these compounds. Then the place where all the nuclear reactions take place is in the Rust (Fe2O3) where a large number of crystal defects exist. Loading hydrogen into Rust does not produce nuclear derived heat. An XO compound like NiO of CuO is also required. From the article “Deuterium and Palladium Not Required” By Steven B. Krivit “Why nickel? According to Piantelli, it has something to do with the electronic structure. He said it's different for nickel. Palladium works, but it's not as good.” IMHO, the Mott insulators: NiO and CuO produce intense electrostatic fields when these nanoparticles come in surface contact with the Fe2O3 nanoparticles. It is this electrostatic field that catalyzes the nuclear process in the crystal defects within the Fe2O2 crystal structure of the nanoparticle. On Fri, Apr 15, 2011 at 8:20 PM, Terry Blanton hohlr...@gmail.com wrote: On Fri, Apr 15, 2011 at 8:09 PM, Terry Blanton hohlr...@gmail.com wrote: If the system is in a runaway condition, I'm sure there is enough H2 in the reactor to take it to meltdown. Look at the configuration, the H2 is injected into the reactor at 300 psi and likely shut off. Simply depressurizing the reactor by opening the valve to release the H2 pressure might not work. By all our estimates, H2 has saturated the Ni and will not leave the metal quickly before a meltdown. No, I really think you have to pollute the reaction with N2; which, by the way, lends credence to Peter Gluck's theory that it is polluting gases which prevent these experiments from showing the same results that Rossi has seen. Clean and bake your metal in a vacuum and seal it in the reactor. Then inject the H2. I think that will give you heat. It might be the Fe2O3 which makes it take off like an ECat. It might be the Cu. It might be both. Look carefully at what Rossi says. In one response to a question, he uses the word 'catalysts'. Plural! Nickel, rust and copper? T
Re: [Vo]:Why is calorimetry avoided in Rossi's experiments?
Horace Heffner hheff...@mtaonline.net wrote: If the steam was wet, then the result might yet still be OU, or not, but why not wait to pass judgment until it is done correctly? The situation is way beyond just the need for passing judgement. This is a case of a lot of hoopla and maybe money changing hands, when the basic science applied to the main claim, excess heat, is laughable. The science applied to that issue is less than amateur. 1. The only money that has changed hands has gone from Rossi to U. Bologna. I do not see how you can object to that! If it were going the other direction you might have a point. 2. These techniques are professional, not amateur. Review the document I just linked, and you will see that professional engineers use these techniques. If these techniques were unreliable or far less accurate than 10% (as claimed), in any major city hundreds of boilers would explode or fail drastically every day. Before these procedures were put in place in the mid-19th century, hundreds of boilers did explode. The scientists performing these tests, such as the chairman of the Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences' Energy Committee, know a great deal about energy and how to measure it. Your assertion that their techniques are shabby or amateur is incorrect. Note also that when Hydrodynamics hired the best expert in the state of Georgia (the Dean of Mechanical Engineering at Georgia Tech.) to design an industrial scale calorimeter for them, he came up with a system very similar to the one used by Levi et al. Regarding the steam, I repeat: wet or dry, the enthalpy must have been close to what they calculated or the Feb. 10 test would have shown a major discrepancy from the Jan. 14 test. That did not happen. I do not see how anyone can argue with that fact. Rossi also pointed this out, in his blog. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:Why is calorimetry avoided in Rossi's experiments?
On Apr 16, 2011, at 10:49 AM, Jed Rothwell wrote: Horace Heffner hheff...@mtaonline.net wrote: Estimating heat output is really very simple to achieve, as I have noted here before. Simply direct the output into an insulated barrel and keep track of the temperature. If the output is in the form of steam, pre-load the barrel with cold water and run the steam trough a copper coil in the barrel and sparge any steam output of the copper coil by releasing it at the bottom of the barrel. I have mentioned this technique several times. This is what they do at Hydrodynamics, Inc. However, as I said recently, given the power levels Rossi demonstrated on Jan. 14, it would not be easy to do this test. There are practical problems. You need a very large barrel, or a smaller one that you allow to become very hot in about 10 minutes. You have to stop the test after that. It does not work once the water reaches boiling temperature. [snip more expensive test type information] Jed, you *assume* here the power outputs claimed were actually achieved. You have already bought into the hype. Think critically, scientifically. What if the total energy out is actually equal to the total energy in? Maybe some minor amount of heat is added by a radioactive element. You don't need a very big barrel to see *that* now do you? If you input over a kW and then 400 watts you can get some steam out - continuously. Big deal. What does that prove? Nothing. The methods I provided work especially well long term. They can be restarted at any time in the experiment, and are especially useful for very long runs wherein any stored chemical energy is clearly used up. There is an obvious attempt here to avoid any sensible or even cheap amateurish first principle measurement of the *output* heat. N... don't look at what is going down that sink drain in that little hose! It is too difficult! It is many kW of heat! It can burn your hand! What a joke. I'd be laughing if it weren't so sad and so important. This could be a fiasco that sets LENR research back 50 years. The oil will be gone but hot fusion might even be competitive by then. No worries, we probably won't be alive to see the disasters awaiting society in the meantime. Rossi's demonstrations could be for real, but there is no convincing evidence this is true. So far there is far more evidence for experimental incompetence than there is for unexplainable excess enthalpy. If the demonstrations should turn out to be a fraud, and not just incompetence, you can bet money has or will change hands. Who knows, it is even possible that Rossi himself is being bilked. He is supposedly putting half a million dollars into the effort. Best regards, Horace Heffner http://www.mtaonline.net/~hheffner/
Re: [Vo]:Why is calorimetry avoided in Rossi's experiments?
Let me emphasize that the techniques used by Levi, Essen et al. are industry standard. They are written into regulations world-wide. They were developed by the ASME and other professional organizations. They are mandatory: you have to test any large boiler with these techniques on a regular basis, or the local government inspector will shut down your apartment or factory. Horace Heffner believes these techniques are amateur shabby a Barnum and Bailey act and -- in short -- not reliable for some reason. He has described the test he would do instead, sparging steam into a barrel. Any HVAC engineer knows how to do that. It has some practical limitations, as I described. After the Jan. 14 test was published, I myself recommended a sparge test to Rossi, Levi et al., but only in addition to the main test, not as a replacement, because it is so limited in time and capacity. (No matter how big you make the barrel, it is limited in time unless you use a highly insulated tank, because it cools down.) I think it is unlikely that Heffner knows more about how to test boiler performance than the committees at the ASME and elsewhere who have written the regulations and designed the tests that have been standard for the last 150 years. Hundreds of thousands of engineers perform these procedures. They probably know what they are doing. It isn't likely they are bumbling amateurs making huge mistakes, and Heffner the only person in the world who knows how to do this right. That's my guess. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:Why is calorimetry avoided in Rossi's experiments?
Jed, we seem to be interleaving remarks. Also my ISP seems to be having problems. This should resolve itself as I will be unable to continue this today as I am leaving town. On Apr 16, 2011, at 11:08 AM, Jed Rothwell wrote: Horace Heffner hheff...@mtaonline.net wrote: If the steam was wet, then the result might yet still be OU, or not, but why not wait to pass judgment until it is done correctly? The situation is way beyond just the need for passing judgement. This is a case of a lot of hoopla and maybe money changing hands, when the basic science applied to the main claim, excess heat, is laughable. The science applied to that issue is less than amateur. 1. The only money that has changed hands has gone from Rossi to U. Bologna. I do not see how you can object to that! If it were going the other direction you might have a point. 2. These techniques are professional, not amateur. Perhaps I have missed something. I have had to skip many posts made here. Review the document I just linked, and you will see that professional engineers use these techniques. If these techniques were unreliable or far less accurate than 10% (as claimed), in any major city hundreds of boilers would explode or fail drastically every day. Before these procedures were put in place in the mid-19th century, hundreds of boilers did explode. I can't easily read the document, but the fact professional techniques exist is irrelevant. When and where were these techniques applied to Rossi's experiments? The scientists performing these tests, What tests? such as the chairman of the Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences' Energy Committee, know a great deal about energy and how to measure it. Your assertion that their techniques are shabby or amateur is incorrect. Note also that when Hydrodynamics hired the best expert in the state of Georgia (the Dean of Mechanical Engineering at Georgia Tech.) to design an industrial scale calorimeter for them, he came up with a system very similar to the one used by Levi et al. What calorimeter used by Levi? Regarding the steam, I repeat: wet or dry, the enthalpy must have been close to what they calculated or the Feb. 10 test would have shown a major discrepancy from the Jan. 14 test. Where is the documentation of that test? That did not happen. I do not see how anyone can argue with that fact. Rossi also pointed this out, in his blog. - Jed Best regards, Horace Heffner http://www.mtaonline.net/~hheffner/
Re: [Vo]:Why is calorimetry avoided in Rossi's experiments?
Again, we seem to be interleaving posts. On Apr 16, 2011, at 11:26 AM, Jed Rothwell wrote: Let me emphasize that the techniques used by Levi, Essen et al. are industry standard. They are written into regulations world-wide. They were developed by the ASME and other professional organizations. They are mandatory: you have to test any large boiler with these techniques on a regular basis, or the local government inspector will shut down your apartment or factory. Horace Heffner believes these techniques are amateur shabby a Barnum and Bailey act and -- in short -- not reliable for some reason. He has described the test he would do instead, sparging steam into a barrel. Any HVAC engineer knows how to do that. It has some practical limitations, as I described. After the Jan. 14 test was published, I myself recommended a sparge test to Rossi, Levi et al., but only in addition to the main test, not as a replacement, because it is so limited in time and capacity. (No matter how big you make the barrel, it is limited in time unless you use a highly insulated tank, because it cools down.) I think it is unlikely that Heffner knows more about how to test boiler performance than the committees at the ASME and elsewhere who have written the regulations and designed the tests that have been standard for the last 150 years. Hundreds of thousands of engineers perform these procedures. They probably know what they are doing. It isn't likely they are bumbling amateurs making huge mistakes, and Heffner the only person in the world who knows how to do this right. That's my guess. - Jed Well, aren't you snide today? Forget to take your metamucil? 8^) Best regards, Horace Heffner http://www.mtaonline.net/~hheffner/
Re: [Vo]:Why is calorimetry avoided in Rossi's experiments?
Horace Heffner hheff...@mtaonline.net wrote: Jed, you *assume* here the power outputs claimed were actually achieved. You have already bought into the hype. Think critically, scientifically. What if the total energy out is actually equal to the total energy in? In that case, in the Feb. 10 test, when input power was 80 W, the water temperature would have risen only 0.02°C. It did not do that. It rose 5°C during most of the test, which proves the machine was producing 16 kW, and 31°C during an 18-minute segment, proving the machine was producing 130 kW. I do not *assume* here the power outputs claimed were actually achieved. I assume that industry standard methods of calorimetry work, and that the specific heat of water shown in the textbooks is correct. Why do you doubt these things? I believe it is up to you show these methods do not work. Maybe some minor amount of heat is added by a radioactive element. You don't need a very big barrel to see *that* now do you? A very minor amount of heat will cause only a small rise in temperature. If you input over a kW and then 400 watts you can get some steam out - continuously. Big deal. What does that prove? Nothing. Since you know the flow rate and the heat of vaporization of water, it proves how much heat is coming out. Concerns about wet steam were invalid -- as I mentioned. The methods I provided work especially well long term. They can be restarted at any time in the experiment . . . This would be more difficult and problematic than you imagine. I have spent many weeks working with large volumes of dangerously hot water in barrels. You probably have not, so I suggest you take my word for this. As I said, it could be done once during the run, but only in parallel with a standard steam test. When they standard water flow calorimetry it would not work and would not be needed. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:Notes on Rossi device
Let us get into the details on this point as follows: Under the assumption that the nuclear active area in the Rossi process is within large numbers of nanoscopic crystal defects in Rust and NiO is somehow the controlling mechanism, what can that mechanism be? The nuclear heat comes from Fe2O3. To transfer that nuclear heat to the stainless steel reaction vessel, the Fe2O3 must be in surface contact with the wall of this vessel. The Adjusting the preheating input adjusts the power output of the reactor. How can this be. The NiO must be in surface contact with the preheating input. The NiO must not be in surface contact with the Fe2O3 since the nuclear heat produced by Fe2O3 does not effect the NiO. The must be a space between the Fe2O3 and the NiO and that space is filled with hydrogen an isolating material. When preheating input is applied to the NiO, its production of electrostatic force increases. This force travels across the isolating gap to the Fe2O3 and increases the nuclear reaction. A decrease in the preheating input reduces the electrostatic force impinging on the nuclear active areas in the Fe2O3. This reduces the nuclear reaction. Preheating input changes electrostatic force from 0 to 100%. This is the adjusting mechanism. If the two catalysts were physically mixed the reaction would be self sustaining. Reducing the pressure of the hydrogen increases the insulation value between the Fe2O3 and the NiO thereby reducing nuclear activity, since some heat travels across the insulation gap from the Fe2O3 to the NiO thereby supplementing the preheating input. This is all very ingenious! On Sat, Apr 16, 2011 at 11:41 AM, SHIRAKAWA Akira shirakawa.ak...@gmail.com wrote: On 2011-04-15 23:46, Jed Rothwell wrote: [...] You could also add this important piece of information: * * * http://www.journal-of-nuclear-physics.com/?p=360cpage=16#comment-0 Is it in general possible to regulate the power output of the E-cat in a continous way and if yes in what limits about? Is it done by regulating the H2 – pressure or can it be achieved by adjusting the preheating input? April 16th, 2011 at 10:36 AM 1- Yes, from 0 through 100% 2- Adjusting the preheating input Warm Regards, A.R. * * * Cheers, S.A.
Re: [Vo]:Why is calorimetry avoided in Rossi's experiments?
Horace Heffner hheff...@mtaonline.net wrote: I can't easily read the document, but the fact professional techniques exist is irrelevant. When and where were these techniques applied to Rossi's experiments? On Feb. 10, during the 18-hour test. See: http://lenr-canr.org/News.htm I cannot imagine what you have in mind when you say that Levi's use of industry standard professional techniques is irrelevant. What is that suppose to mean?!? A standard technique that described by regulations is obviously best. It is most convincing. There is no need to come up with a novel technique when we have one that all professionals already use. Well, aren't you snide today? Chalk it up to the Randi in Boise effect: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Randy_in_Boise You will get a similar response if you go around telling HVAC engineers that their techniques are amateur shabby and a Barnum and Bailey act. They will tell you what I told you, only with stronger language and less patience. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:Why is calorimetry avoided in Rossi's experiments?
On Apr 16, 2011, at 11:38 AM, Jed Rothwell wrote: Horace Heffner hheff...@mtaonline.net wrote: Jed, you *assume* here the power outputs claimed were actually achieved. You have already bought into the hype. Think critically, scientifically. What if the total energy out is actually equal to the total energy in? In that case, in the Feb. 10 test, when input power was 80 W, the water temperature would have risen only 0.02°C. It did not do that. It rose 5°C during most of the test, which proves the machine was producing 16 kW, and 31°C during an 18-minute segment, proving the machine was producing 130 kW. I apparently haven't seen the documentation of the calorimetry for that test. Eighteen minutes of excess heat is meaningless. What matters is energy balance long term. I do not *assume* here the power outputs claimed were actually achieved. I assume that industry standard methods of calorimetry work, and that the specific heat of water shown in the textbooks is correct. Why do you doubt these things? I believe it is up to you show these methods do not work. Baloney. It is up to the researchers to show the useful methods were actually applied. Why to they shy away from the one thing that can be done without looking inside the device, namely measuring the total energy flow out of the device, which can be done without looking inside the device? Maybe I missed the documentation of calorimetry done in some test. Maybe some minor amount of heat is added by a radioactive element. You don't need a very big barrel to see *that* now do you? A very minor amount of heat will cause only a small rise in temperature. And that is precisely *my* point. A small amount of heat plus 400 watts equals not much thermal power to measure. If you input over a kW and then 400 watts you can get some steam out - continuously. Big deal. What does that prove? Nothing. Since you know the flow rate and the heat of vaporization of water, it proves how much heat is coming out. Concerns about wet steam were invalid -- as I mentioned. This is total baloney. The methods I provided work especially well long term. They can be restarted at any time in the experiment . . . This would be more difficult and problematic than you imagine. I have spent many weeks working with large volumes of dangerously hot water in barrels. You probably have not, so I suggest you take my word for this. Ha! Funny! I suppose the ice calorimetry is too dangerous too! Might get frostbite I suppose. Whatever heat comes out of the device, it is coming out of a small hose. It is not difficult to put a Y valve in the hose and diver the flow if things get too hot too fast. If that happened that would be a good thing. It is nonsense, however, to *assume* it will happen. As I said, it could be done once during the run, It can be done multiple times, and continuously. but only in parallel with a standard steam test. When they standard water flow calorimetry it would not work and would not be needed. - Jed Dual method calorimetry is always superior to single method calorimetry. Rossi undoubtedly could have had professional dual method calorimetry supplied for free. Best regards, Horace Heffner http://www.mtaonline.net/~hheffner/
Re: [Vo]:Why is calorimetry avoided in Rossi's experiments?
Calorimetry was a curse and a burden for Pd- D CF/LENR because much more money, creativity, patience, discusions was consumed for measuring small quantities of released heat instead of focussing on the intensification of the process. The results are known. In the industry the real term is heat measurement- for an oven, boiler or an E-cat and this was done in the three cases of Bologna experiments. An Ecat heating a room for 6 months is beyond calorimetry. Peter On Sat, Apr 16, 2011 at 10:38 PM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.comwrote: Horace Heffner hheff...@mtaonline.net wrote: Jed, you *assume* here the power outputs claimed were actually achieved. You have already bought into the hype. Think critically, scientifically. What if the total energy out is actually equal to the total energy in? In that case, in the Feb. 10 test, when input power was 80 W, the water temperature would have risen only 0.02°C. It did not do that. It rose 5°C during most of the test, which proves the machine was producing 16 kW, and 31°C during an 18-minute segment, proving the machine was producing 130 kW. I do not *assume* here the power outputs claimed were actually achieved. I assume that industry standard methods of calorimetry work, and that the specific heat of water shown in the textbooks is correct. Why do you doubt these things? I believe it is up to you show these methods do not work. Maybe some minor amount of heat is added by a radioactive element. You don't need a very big barrel to see *that* now do you? A very minor amount of heat will cause only a small rise in temperature. If you input over a kW and then 400 watts you can get some steam out - continuously. Big deal. What does that prove? Nothing. Since you know the flow rate and the heat of vaporization of water, it proves how much heat is coming out. Concerns about wet steam were invalid -- as I mentioned. The methods I provided work especially well long term. They can be restarted at any time in the experiment . . . This would be more difficult and problematic than you imagine. I have spent many weeks working with large volumes of dangerously hot water in barrels. You probably have not, so I suggest you take my word for this. As I said, it could be done once during the run, but only in parallel with a standard steam test. When they standard water flow calorimetry it would not work and would not be needed. - Jed -- Dr. Peter Gluck Cluj, Romania http://egooutpeters.blogspot.com
Re: [Vo]:Why is calorimetry avoided in Rossi's experiments?
On Apr 16, 2011, at 11:53 AM, Jed Rothwell wrote: Horace Heffner hheff...@mtaonline.net wrote: I can't easily read the document, but the fact professional techniques exist is irrelevant. When and where were these techniques applied to Rossi's experiments? On Feb. 10, during the 18-hour test. See: http://lenr-canr.org/News.htm I don't see where the calorimetry is documented there. I don't see where an overall energy balance was taken. Also, it was only a 6 hour test - pretty useless for due diligence. I cannot imagine what you have in mind when you say that Levi's use of industry standard professional techniques is irrelevant. What is that suppose to mean?!? If you look again at what I said, you should be able to see that I did not at all refer to Levi's use of *anything*. What I said is your providing links to standard techniques is irrelevant. What is important is the actual technique applied. I see no evidence any standard technique was applied to the output water/steam. A standard technique that described by regulations is obviously best. It is most convincing. There is no need to come up with a novel technique when we have one that all professionals already use. The issue is not what technique is best, but the credibility of the whatever technique was supplied. What was supplied in the demos I read about were a joke. Well, aren't you snide today? Chalk it up to the Randi in Boise effect: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Randy_in_Boise You will get a similar response if you go around telling HVAC engineers that their techniques are amateur shabby and a Barnum and Bailey act. They will tell you what I told you, only with stronger language and less patience. - Jed That might be true if I actually said any such thing about any HVAC engineer, which I did not. You are applying logical fallacies left and right. You must have a very weak case. I still see no documentation of calorimetry techniques applied. Did I miss something? Best regards, Horace Heffner http://www.mtaonline.net/~hheffner/
RE: [Vo]:About isotopic ratio on spent fuel (E-Cat)
On Sat, 16 Apr 2011 11:04 Jones Beene wrote [snip]We know this as fact - because we occasionally find meteorites that come from different systems, or even from different time frames in the Nova that preceded earth. The isotope balances are vastly different.[/snip] Jones, Yes you are correct, your point about the meteorite turned me around. I am not even sure if I can even salvage a small point regarding the distribution from fusion vs LENR when limiting both reactions to only Hydrogen. Regards Fran
Re: [Vo]:Why is calorimetry avoided in Rossi's experiments?
On Apr 16, 2011, at 11:57 AM, Peter Gluck wrote: Calorimetry was a curse and a burden for Pd- D CF/LENR because much more money, creativity, patience, discusions was consumed for measuring small quantities of released heat instead of focussing on the intensification of the process. The results are known. In the industry the real term is heat measurement- for an oven, boiler or an E-cat and this was done in the three cases of Bologna experiments. An Ecat heating a room for 6 months is beyond calorimetry. Peter H I have an imaginary cat, an I-cat, that has been heating my home for a couple years. You want to buy the right to use it for a billion dollars? Due diligence is of course not permitted because the source of the heat is a trade secret. Non-disclosure agreements are not sufficient to protect this valuable secret. Best regards, Horace Heffner http://www.mtaonline.net/~hheffner/
[Vo]:Jan and Feb experiment data revisited
I'm still having trouble reconciling the reported numbers for the Feb test http://lenr-canr.org/News.htm and http://www.nyteknik.se/nyheter/energi_miljo/energi/article3108242.ece From: Jed Rothwell (in the calorimetry thread) In that case, in the Feb. 10 test, when input power was 80 W, the water temperature would have risen only 0.02 °C. It did not do that. It rose 5 °C during most of the test, which proves the machine was producing 16 kW, and 31 °C during an 18-minute segment, proving the machine was producing 130 kW. an 18-minute segment Where did you get that number? It's not in your original news report, and the nyteknik report just says: Initially, the temperature of the inflowing water was seven degrees Celsius and for a while the outlet temperature was 40 degrees Celsius. A flow rate of about one liter per second, equates to a peak power of 130 kilowatts. The power output was later stabilized at 15 to 20 kilowatts. That's 40 - 7 = 33 °C In News the temperature is reported as: Cooling water input temperature: 15°C Cooling water output temperature: ~20°C There's also a discrepancy in Levi's January report : http://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/LeviGreportonhe.pdf Fig 3 shows the input temperature T1 as 17.20 -- but he uses 15 in the calculation (in the eCAT's favor): The water inlet temperature was 15°C so the ΔT was 85°C.
Re: [Vo]:Why is calorimetry avoided in Rossi's experiments?
Horace Heffner hheff...@mtaonline.net wrote: http://lenr-canr.org/News.htm I don't see where the calorimetry is documented there. I don't see where an overall energy balance was taken. Also, it was only a 6 hour test - pretty useless for due diligence. You are looking in the wrong place. Scroll down to Rossi 18-hour demonstration. The calorimetry is documented in as much detail as you find in any HVAC inspection sheet: Duration of test: 18 hours Flow rate: 3,000 L/h = ~833 ml/s. Cooling water input temperature: 15°C Cooling water output temperature: ~20°C Input power from control electronics: variable, average 80 W, closer to 20 W for 6 hours . . . The issue is not what technique is best, but the credibility of the whatever technique was supplied. What was supplied in the demos I read about . . . Keep reading. . . .were a joke. Then you will find boiler maintenance regulations a laff riot. I do not think you understand this subject well enough to judge what is a joke. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:Why is calorimetry avoided in Rossi's experiments?
Peter Gluck peter.gl...@gmail.com wrote: Calorimetry was a curse and a burden for Pd- D CF/LENR because much more money, creativity, patience, discusions was consumed for measuring small quantities of released heat instead of focussing on the intensification of the process. The results are known. I think Storms or McKubre would take exception to that. Not to speak for them, they have often said: 1. Scaling up Pd-D electrochemistry tends to scale up and amplify the noise as much as the signal. 2. You cannot intensify a process if you cannot even detect it. The main purpose of making sensitive calorimeters was to capture and then optimize tiny effects. The other purpose was to satisfy the skeptics, which was futile. 3. They did the best they could to intensify it, and succeeded to some extent. Techniques such as Energetics Technology produced much higher heat and a higher input to output ratio than older techniques; i.e. ~1 W input, ~20 W output. Bear in mind also that one of Rossi's key advantage's is the use of gas-loaded nanoparticles. This originated with Pd-D studies, by Arata. I do not know if Rossi was aware of Arata when he began working on this approach. Perhaps he only found out when he wrote the patent. Anyway, this was a major contribution from the Pd-D school of cold fusion. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:About isotopic ratio on spent fuel (E-Cat)
Another factor might be the lapse of time from when the sample is active to when it was analysed.Perhaps the difference from the natural isotopic abundance only persists for a limited period of time once the reactor is switched off. Subsequent decay processes eventually give the sample a natural isotopic abundance. I have no idea if this is possible, but it would account for the difference between the Italian and Swedish measurements of isotopic abundance. Harry
[Vo]:Rai News 24 the inquiry on LENR
Only for Italian speaking... http://www.rainews24.rai.it/it/canale-tv.php?id=22918 guests: - Yogendra Srivastava - Francesco Celani - Alberto Carpiteri - Emilio Del Giudice - Roberto Germano mic
Re: [Vo]:About isotopic ratio on spent fuel (E-Cat)
Here is the theory that you are rejecting laid out in detail from Miley http://www.phys.unsw.edu.au/STAFF/VISITING_FELLOWSPROFESSORS/pdf/MagicQuarkTucson1.pdf *Boltzmann Equilibrium of Endothermic Heavy Nuclear Synthesis in the Universe and a Quark Relation to the Magic Numbers *** It is not Axil's theory, but one produced by Mille that I think most fits the facts. On Sat, Apr 16, 2011 at 2:03 PM, Jones Beene jone...@pacbell.net wrote: Fran, Ø Harry, I think it is more a matter of proving how the Casimir environment is equivalent to the stellar environment. Which stellar environment? There are literally trillions of different stellar environments, all of them unique because the mass of the predecessor star is unique, but there is only one Casimir force. Are you suggesting that the Casimir force is different on every single planet? I think not. Or that on earth, this force somehow “knows” what the stellar environment was billions of years ago when the isotope balance was frozen into place, and can now match it? I find that preposterous. Each of these stars can have drastically different isotope balance, following a Nova. We know this as fact - because we occasionally find meteorites that come from different systems, or even from different time frames in the Nova that preceded earth. The isotope balances are vastly different. For instance, this was what Luis Alvarez used to pinpoint the cause of the last mass extinction. He found evidence of lots of iridium – and element that is extremely rare on earth, but it is found at massively increased levels (1000 times more) in the so-called K-T boundary layer. To imagine that LENR can operate to transmute elements in a way that matches exactly one of trillions of stellar events, and that it also is the exact match for the planet where the LENR occurs … LOL … think about the odds. Jones
Re: [Vo]:Why is calorimetry avoided in Rossi's experiments?
On Apr 16, 2011, at 12:21 PM, Jed Rothwell wrote: Horace Heffner hheff...@mtaonline.net wrote: http://lenr-canr.org/News.htm I don't see where the calorimetry is documented there. I don't see where an overall energy balance was taken. Also, it was only a 6 hour test - pretty useless for due diligence. You are looking in the wrong place. Scroll down to Rossi 18-hour demonstration. The calorimetry is documented in as much detail as you find in any HVAC inspection sheet: Duration of test: 18 hours Flow rate: 3,000 L/h = ~833 ml/s. Cooling water input temperature: 15°C Cooling water output temperature: ~20°C Input power from control electronics: variable, average 80 W, closer to 20 W for 6 hours . . . You have to be kidding. This is supposed to represent a due diligence test??? Wow, there must be a huge market for a device that can heat water from 15°C to 20°C for 18 hours. Attaching the inlet flow directly to a faucet - very scientific! Not being able to adjust the flow rate so a good delta t can be obtained - very professional! Still using a thermometer stuck down into the foil wrapping I suppose - how very transparent. Very sophisticated water mixing to be sure the input and output temperature measurements are correct - not! Your argument against using a barrel of ice or cold water being too dangerous falls apart here too - the output temp s only 20°C. The issue is not what technique is best, but the credibility of the whatever technique was supplied. What was supplied in the demos I read about . . . Keep reading. . . .were a joke. Then you will find boiler maintenance regulations a laff riot. Boiler maintenance regulations are irrelevant. What *is* relevant is what was actually done in the experiments. What exactly do you consider the link to be between boiler regulations and what was *actually* achieved. Until you establish that this argument is a red herring. I do not think you understand this subject well enough to judge what is a joke. - Jed Ha! Laughable criticism, coming from a guy who can't keep track of the difference between mass and volume of water in steam: http://www.mail-archive.com/vortex-l@eskimo.com/msg41901.html It is unscientific to make the assumptions you are making. It is insane to invest huge sums of money without due diligence. Your referenced URL states: A company has been formed in Athens, Greece, Defkalion Green Technologies S. A., for the purpose of manufacturing and selling Andrea Rossi Energy Catalyzer cold fusion reactors. According to the Greek newspaper Investor's World and other sources, the company is capitalized at €200 million, which includes €100 million to be paid in as royalties, presumably to Rossi. The Greek press says the company plans to manufacture 300,000 machines a year for the Greek and Balkan market. The company website says it has exclusive rights to sell the machines everywhere except the Americas. Where is there any evidence of such due diligence? Best regards, Horace Heffner http://www.mtaonline.net/~hheffner/
Re: [Vo]:Jan and Feb experiment data revisited
Alan Fletcher a...@well.com wrote: I'm still having trouble reconciling the reported numbers for the Feb test http://lenr-canr.org/News.htm and http://www.nyteknik.se/nyheter/energi_miljo/energi/article3108242.ece The numbers are somewhat different. I do not know which is correct. I thought it would be best for me to stick to the numbers sent to me by a participant. The differences are minor and have no significant impact on the conclusions. I did not describe the 130 kW heat excursion because I did not know about it when I wrote that description. I have not added anything about it because the details are sketchy, and it is not good form to change the content of a report after you publish. Mats Lewan's account says: Initially, the temperature of the inflowing water was seven degrees Celsius and for a while the outlet temperature was 40 degrees Celsius. A flow rate of about one liter per second, equates to a peak power of 130 kilowatts. The power output was later stabilized at 15 to 20 kilowatts. I was told the inlet water temperature was 15°C. They told Lewan it was 7°C. I do not know which is right, but it does not matter. The Delta T temperature is what counts, and that was too large to be an error. I have no problem with that report. I prefer to describe things a little more quantitatively. Lewan said about one liter per second and I said: Flow rate: 3,000 L/h = ~833 ml/s because that's how they measured it. They measured it for an hour and then divided by 3,600 seconds. However, whether it is actually 833 ml, 933 ml or 1,088 ml is immaterial. There is something that readers here may not appreciate. Especially, people born after 1970 may not get this. Levi, Kullander and I are old-school. I am an amateur and they are professionals, but anyway I learned physics back in the 1960s and 70s at Cornell before there were any computers or digital instruments. As Mizuno says, we are analog people in a digital world. We do not see any benefit to extra digits of precision. We prefer first-principal proof, and simple techniques. There is a huge difference in what I consider definitive proof compared to what some younger people do. Imagine you say to young Hotshot scientist at a national lab: prove to me that Rossi's gadget is not heated by electricity. Dr. Hotshot will bring in a $16,000 power meter like the one Mizuno uses, and top it off with an oscilloscope. She will demonstrate beyond question that input is 79.04682 W average. That is a perfectly valid way to do it! I have no problem with high tech, high precision instruments. If you ask me to prove that, I will show you the Handbook of Electronic Tables and Formulas and I will say: You can't conduct that many amps with such a small wire. Plus the PCLs would fry. That's all the proof I need. I don't really care if the electric power input is 80 W or ~3 kW (the limit for this kind of wire). I have no use for all those wonderful digits of precision that Dr. Hotshot gathers. When Fleischmann wanted to prove his cells produce a massive burst of excess heat, he forced them to boil off and made a video recording. He did this hundreds of times. The time stamp on the bottom lets you estimate the enthalpy over time. You can estimate it more or less, to the nearest 10 seconds and maybe 5 ml. You cannot see exactly when the boil-off concludes because there is steam blocking the view. But you don't need to see exactly. That's the beauty of it. This is crude method, but Martin considers it indisputable, because it is first-principle. I could not agree more. I cannot imagine more persuasive proof. But younger people (and some older scientists too) prefer something like precision, high tech, high-temperature calorimetry that measures power to the nearest 10 mW, a thousand times a second. I have been working with hundreds of people such as Levi, Rossi and Fleischmann. I know how they think, and what they like to see in an experiment. What they like -- and I like -- seems amateur and excessively imprecise to other people. - Jed
[Vo]:Rust is not possible
Axil, * * Loading hydrogen into Rust does not produce nuclear derived heat. Correct - it produce iron and water. I do not see Fe2O3 specifically as being involved at all in Rossi. FeO - however, when fully supported (shared oxygen) does make sense - but not Fe2O3. After all, the Swedes said iron in some form was there at a fair percentage, and they did sophisticated testing. Hydrogen reduction is one way that low carbon iron is processed from iron ore by the way. Iron ore is essentially rust. How to you propose to attenuate the reduction of rust inside the Rossi cell ? It could not last an hour. Having said that - your speculation about nickel oxide and copper oxide as Mott insulators does have merit, BUT ONLY when they are positioned to share their oxygen atom with the zirconia support. Otherwise they would be rapidly reduced also. In the same way, FeO is possible to be used as a catalyst - if and when supported on a dielectric, plus FeO is probably a Mott insulator. I don't think rust qualifies at all, since it is fairly conductive. BTW - iron oxides of various levels have been used in tonnage as a bulk catalysts with hydrogen for a long time - that much is true. When used in the Haber process, the oxides are partially reduced ahead of time, and there is a competing oxidant present (nitrogen) which lowers the rate of full reduction to iron, but even so - catalyst must be replaced periodically and often, which is inconsistent with running a Rossi reactor continuously. Rust or magnetite was ideal in the original Haber process since it is more valuable when reduced, than as a refined ore. If there was to be any heat anomaly involving rust - we would have known about it long ago, as the ammonia industry is old, competitive and was a national priority 100 years ago. Every detail of Haber and its offshoots has been thoroughly analyzed. Jones
RE: [Vo]:About isotopic ratio on spent fuel (E-Cat)
Wow. I can see that science is a completely new field for you. Your take on this paper is bizarre and so removed from reality that I have to ask - what is your real profession? This report is about magic numbers, which are tendencies. There is absolutely nothing in this that supports this brain-dead idea of uniformity in isotopes in cosmology. Sure, there are tendencies but they as so weak that order-of-magnitude differences are the norm - not the exception. Geeze . we used to be able to have intelligent discussions here. Jones From: Axil Here is the theory that you are rejecting laid out in detail from Miley http://www.phys.unsw.edu.au/STAFF/VISITING_FELLOWS http://www.phys.unsw.edu.au/STAFF/VISITING_FELLOWSPROFESSORS/pdf/MagicQuar kTucson1.pdf PROFESSORS/pdf/MagicQuarkTucson1.pdf Boltzmann Equilibrium of Endothermic Heavy Nuclear Synthesis in the Universe and a Quark Relation to the Magic Numbers It is not Axil's theory, but one produced by Mille that I think most fits the facts. On Sat, Apr 16, 2011 at 2:03 PM, Jones Beene jone...@pacbell.net wrote: Fran, * Harry, I think it is more a matter of proving how the Casimir environment is equivalent to the stellar environment. Which stellar environment?
Re: [Vo]:Why is calorimetry avoided in Rossi's experiments?
Horace Heffner hheff...@mtaonline.net wrote: You have to be kidding. This is supposed to represent a due diligence test??? Wow, there must be a huge market for a device that can heat water from 15°C to 20°C for 18 hours. Slow down the flow and you can make it as hot as you like. When a boiler engineer tests a boiler, they open the tap (or turn the pump up) as high as it goes and they measure the flow and temperature for 30 minutes or an hour, until the temperature stabilizes. They do this to test the circulation as well as the COP (efficiency). They need to be sure the tap or pump are not clogged. There are rated numbers written on the machine, showing how high the Delta-T temperature and flow rate at full power should be. It has to meet the standards. These tests are very reliable. They are exactly the same as the one Levi et al. did. Attaching the inlet flow directly to a faucet - very scientific! Not being able to adjust the flow rate so a good delta t can be obtained - very professional! How the hell do you think they do it in any apartment building or factory?!? Yes, this is very professional. It is exactly what professionals do all day long. Still using a thermometer stuck down into the foil wrapping I suppose - how very transparent. They use thermocouples, which are more accurate and precise than the bimetallic dial thermometers used in most industrial boilers. They used the same kind of flowmeter any building or large boiler is equipped with. These are industry standard instruments techniques used the way they are intended, smack dab in within the normal range of power they are intended for. Very sophisticated water mixing to be sure the input and output temperature measurements are correct - not! No one ever mixes the water in a boiler test. The temperature probe for the thermocouple or dial thermometer is a long metal rod, fully immersed in the flow for most of the cross section of the pipe. It has to average the value. Metal conducts heat. You do not want sophisticated methods for something like this. You want proven, industry-standard methods. Do you seriously believe that several billion dial thermometers and thermocouples on boilers worldwide cannot reliably measure a 5°C temperature difference?!? Your argument against using a barrel of ice or cold water being too dangerous falls apart here too - the output temp s only 20°C. The barrel of ice will melt in no time -- same problem as the sparge test. Besides, if you use any method other than the industry-standard, ASME recommended one, the skeptics will say you are an amateur using unproven techniques. And why the heck should they re-invent the wheel anyway? A technique that has been used reliably hundreds of thousands of times a day for 150 years is RIGHT. It WORKS. It is insane to question such methods. You don't believe that. You suppose there are water mixing problems. But you are wrong. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:Why is calorimetry avoided in Rossi's experiments?
I wrote: Attaching the inlet flow directly to a faucet - very scientific! Not being able to adjust the flow rate so a good delta t can be obtained - very professional! How the hell do you think they do it in any apartment building or factory?!? Yes, this is very professional. It is exactly what professionals do all day long. And what on earth makes you think they cannot adjust the flow rate?!? What a weird thing to say! Have you never used a faucet before? Do you think it has only one setting? If they want to slow down the flow rate, they turn it counter-clockwise. It closes; the flow rate falls. The Delta-T ranged from 5°C to 31°C. Why is that not good? That's huge. You can measure 5°C with absolute confidence using the cheapest thermometer in Wall Mart. Put it in Fahrenheit -- which is what U.S. boiler dial thermometers are marked in. Do you honestly believe that ordinary instruments cannot measure the difference between the inlet tap water of 59°F, 68°F and 104°F? Do you have any idea what chaos would ensue if ordinary industrial instruments were so unreliable they could not detect such large differences reliably?!? Boilers would explode. Bakery ovens would burn loaves of bread. Airplanes would fall from the skies. Our civilization would collapse. I am NOT exaggerating. These comments make no sense. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:Rust is not possible
Let us generalize the discussion about the two catalysts involved in the Rossi reaction in terms of there function requirements to see if a reaction control mechanism can be derived. Let us get into the details on this point as follows: Under the assumption that the nuclear active area in the Rossi process is within large numbers of nanoscopic crystal defects in catalyst N (for nuclear) and catalyst C (for control) is somehow the controlling mechanism, what can that mechanism be? The nuclear heat comes from catalyst N. To transfer that nuclear heat to the stainless steel reaction vessel, the catalyst N must be in surface contact with the wall of this stainless steel vessel. Adjusting the preheating input adjusts the power output of the reactor. How can this be. The catalyst C must be in surface contact with the preheating input. The catalyst C must not be in surface contact with the catalyst N since the nuclear heat produced by catalyst N does not affect the catalyst C. There must be a space between the catalyst N and catalyst C and that space is filled with hydrogen an insolating material. Catalyst C is a Mott insulator that produces electrostatic charge. This charge increases as the temperature of catalyst C increases since the atomic all distances in catalyst C increase with temperature. Catalyst C must also be mounted on a material that can conduct input heat to catalyst C. When preheating input is applied to the catalyst C, its production of electrostatic force increases. This force travels across the insolating gap to the Catalyst N and increases the nuclear reaction. A decrease in the preheating input reduces the electrostatic force impinging on the nuclear active areas in the catalyst N. This reduces the nuclear reaction. Preheating input changes electrostatic force from 0 to 100%. This is the adjusting mechanism. If the catalyst C and catalyst N were physically mixed the reaction would be self sustaining. Reducing the pressure of the hydrogen increases the insulation value between the catalyst N and the catalyst C thereby reducing nuclear activity, since some small part of the nuclear heat travels across the insulation gap from the catalyst N to the catalyst C thereby supplementing the preheating input. What chemical compounds can catalyst C and catalyst N be. What catalyst is associated with nickel and what element is associated with catalyst N (a Mott insulator). Catalyst N must be highly porous with many nuclear defects in its crystal structure and beside nickel only two other elements are involved. One must be oxygen to form a Mott insulator. Catalyst N must be a element that can form a oxide with high levels of defects in it crystal structure. All compounds must survive for years in a hot hydrogen environment. I assumed that Iron was involved as a catalyst because of the reference to US patent 20010024789 = Methods for generating catalytic proteins. On its face, this is a strange subject of interest for a nuclear reactor. But this is a standard method of producing Iron oxide catalysts of the form Fe2O3. http://appft1.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PTO1Sect2=HITOFFd=PG01p=1u=/netahtml/PTO/srchnum.htmlr=1f=Gl=50s1=20010024789.PGNR.OS=DN/20010024789RS=DN/20010024789 On Sat, Apr 16, 2011 at 5:17 PM, Jones Beene jone...@pacbell.net wrote: Axil, Ø Ø Loading hydrogen into Rust does not produce nuclear derived heat. Correct – it produce iron and water. I do not see Fe2O3 specifically as being involved at all in Rossi. FeO – however, when fully supported (shared oxygen) does make sense - but not Fe2O3. After all, the Swedes said iron in some form was there at a fair percentage, and they did sophisticated testing. Hydrogen reduction is one way that low carbon iron is processed from iron ore by the way. Iron ore is essentially rust. How to you propose to attenuate the reduction of rust inside the Rossi cell ? It could not last an hour. Having said that – your speculation about nickel oxide and copper oxide as Mott insulators does have merit, BUT ONLY when they are positioned to share their oxygen atom with the zirconia support. Otherwise they would be rapidly reduced also. In the same way, FeO is possible to be used as a catalyst - if and when supported on a dielectric, plus FeO is probably a Mott insulator. I don’t think rust qualifies at all, since it is fairly conductive. BTW – iron oxides of various levels have been used in tonnage as a bulk catalysts with hydrogen for a long time – that much is true. When used in the Haber process, the oxides are partially reduced ahead of time, and there is a competing oxidant present (nitrogen) which lowers the rate of full reduction to iron, but even so - catalyst must be replaced periodically and often, which is inconsistent with running a Rossi reactor continuously. Rust or magnetite was ideal in the original Haber process since it is more valuable
Re: [Vo]:About isotopic ratio on spent fuel (E-Cat)
I am a systems engineer who has spent his career reverse engineering legacy systems where no documentation or human expertise exists. I have development an interest in cold fusion and am learning its ground rules. I have come to this site to learn from the experts... the best around. If I pursue wrong paths, I do not mean to offend, however, if my learning process offends too grievously, I will leave this site. So let me know is I am too much for you to bear in your response. On Sat, Apr 16, 2011 at 5:31 PM, Jones Beene jone...@pacbell.net wrote: Wow. I can see that science is a completely new field for you. Your take on this paper is bizarre and so removed from reality that I have to ask – what is your real profession? This report is about magic numbers, which are tendencies. There is absolutely nothing in this that supports this brain-dead idea of uniformity in isotopes in cosmology. Sure, there are tendencies but they as so weak that order-of-magnitude differences are the norm – not the exception. Geeze … we used to be able to have intelligent discussions here. Jones *From:* Axil Here is the theory that you are rejecting laid out in detail from Miley http://www.phys.unsw.edu.au/STAFF/VISITING_FELLOWSPROFESSORS/pdf/MagicQuarkTucson1.pdf *Boltzmann Equilibrium of Endothermic Heavy Nuclear Synthesis in the Universe and a Quark Relation to the Magic Numbers * It is not Axil's theory, but one produced by Mille that I think most fits the facts. On Sat, Apr 16, 2011 at 2:03 PM, Jones Beene jone...@pacbell.net wrote: Fran, Ø Harry, I think it is more a matter of proving how the Casimir environment is equivalent to the stellar environment. Which stellar environment?
[Vo]:Rossi To Provide E-Cat for University of Uppsala and Stockholm
From andrea Rossi's blog Dear “HRG”: You are perfectly right, I agree totally with your comment, as for concerns the incompatibility and the unacceptability of entities which work and get financing from Oil Companies, Nuclear Companies, Hot Fusion Research centers as “indipendent third parties”,as well as of competitors, who since years try to make useful LENR apparatuses and are not able to: they cannot present themselves or their consultants as “indipendent third parties”. This is why, after the tests we made with the University of Bologna and with Prof. Kullander and Prof Hanno from Sweden ( they are considered worldwide as scientists of the maximum level in the field) we will not make further tests. We will, of course, continue our RD with the University of Bologna. We will give to the University of Uppsala and to the University of Stockolm our devices to allow them to use the same devices 24 hours per day, to get data regarding the energy production. We trust them, and we know they are really neutral, without binds with competitors of any kind. I personally knew them and I have in them total trust. The same is not for “indipendent parties” that have been proposed to me, regarding which I discovered they have got a bunch of millions to make research for the hot fusion (producing nothing so far), or “indipendent parties” made by consultants which are paid money by the shovels to sustain nuclear power plants, fossil fuels and the forth, or consultants of our competitors in the LENR field. This is why we continue to repeat that the market, only the market will be the final judge: if our E-CATS WILL RESPECT THE GUARANTEES OF ENERGY PERFORMANCE AND SAFETY, WE WILL BE PAID. This is the sole validation that counts really, at the end. Warm Regards, A.R. By the way: in our factories there are reactors in operation 24 hours per day, just to test their safety reliability. Warm regards, A.R.
RE: [Vo]:Why is calorimetry avoided in Rossi's experiments?
From Horace: ... From Mr. Rothwell You are looking in the wrong place. Scroll down to Rossi 18-hour demonstration. The calorimetry is documented in as much detail as you find in any HVAC inspection sheet: Duration of test: 18 hours Flow rate: 3,000 L/h = ~833 ml/s. Cooling water input temperature: 15°C Cooling water output temperature: ~20°C Input power from control electronics: variable, average 80 W, closer to 20 W for 6 hours . . . You have to be kidding. This is supposed to represent a due diligence test??? Wow, there must be a huge market for a device that can heat water from 15 C to 20 C for 18 hours. I'm curious, Horace. Is it your conjecture that the flow rate of 3,000 L/h simply can't be true... ...or is it your conjecture that no scientific value can be gleaned from the fact that the water temperature was only raised 5 C as it flowed past the Rossi reactor during the 18 hour test. You do realize that the 18 hour experiment was set up with the water flow rate significantly increased (from the previous experiment) in order to deliberately prevent the generation of steam. This was deliberately done in order to generate more accurate thermal measurements between the input and output. There had been legitimate issued raised when in the previous experiment the output temperature was measured close to 101 C - when actual dry steam had allegedly been produced. Increasing the flow rate in the subsequent longer duration experiment so that there would only be a five degree temperature differential between input to output removed those concerns. While I can't personally vouch for this claim (because I've never had the need to use the actual algebra to work out the heat values) it is my understanding that everyone who DOES understand calometry immediately understood how much thermal energy must have been present in order to raise the water temperature a mere five degrees as it flowed passed Rossi's reactor. Apparently, a lot. Everyone except apparently you. Regards, Steven Vincent Johnson www.OrionWorks.com www.zazzle.com/orionworks
RE: [Vo]:About isotopic ratio on spent fuel (E-Cat)
Axil - My apologies. I was a bit frustrated at what seems to be beating a dead horse with this particular point . You have already demonstrated a creative mind, and the Mott insulator thing could be a strong insight. Again, sorry to go overboard there . Jones My double apology to any who has to deal with legacy systems :-) From: Axil Axil I am a systems engineer who has spent his career reverse engineering legacy systems where no documentation or human expertise exists. I have development an interest in cold fusion and am learning its ground rules. I have come to this site to learn from the experts... the best around. If I pursue wrong paths, I do not mean to offend, however, if my learning process offends too grievously, I will leave this site. So let me know is I am too much for you to bear in your response. On Sat, Apr 16, 2011 at 5:31 PM, Jones Beene jone...@pacbell.net wrote: Wow. I can see that science is a completely new field for you. Your take on this paper is bizarre and so removed from reality that I have to ask - what is your real profession? This report is about magic numbers, which are tendencies. There is absolutely nothing in this that supports this brain-dead idea of uniformity in isotopes in cosmology. Sure, there are tendencies but they as so weak that order-of-magnitude differences are the norm - not the exception. Geeze . we used to be able to have intelligent discussions here. Jones From: Axil Here is the theory that you are rejecting laid out in detail from Miley http://www.phys.unsw.edu.au/STAFF/VISITING_FELLOWS http://www.phys.unsw.edu.au/STAFF/VISITING_FELLOWSPROFESSORS/pdf/MagicQuar kTucson1.pdf PROFESSORS/pdf/MagicQuarkTucson1.pdf Boltzmann Equilibrium of Endothermic Heavy Nuclear Synthesis in the Universe and a Quark Relation to the Magic Numbers It is not Axil's theory, but one produced by Mille that I think most fits the facts. On Sat, Apr 16, 2011 at 2:03 PM, Jones Beene jone...@pacbell.net wrote: Fran, * Harry, I think it is more a matter of proving how the Casimir environment is equivalent to the stellar environment. Which stellar environment?
Re: [Vo]:About isotopic ratio on spent fuel (E-Cat)
Axil Axil janap...@gmail.com wrote: Like all Lenr reactions, the Rossi reactor show natural abundance in it’s ash product. This should lend credence to the claim that the Rossi reaction is real and that it is a valid Lenr Reaction. Others have already pointed this out, but in every case so far, LENR transmuted elements have unnatural abundance. The abundance ratios are the same as those of the starting element. See Iwamura. That has been the rule for Pd-D and other deuterium systems. It is at least conceivable that H systems work differently, functioning as a microscopic supernova, producing elements with natural isotopic ratios. Jones Beene said that different supernova produce elements with different ratios. That is not my understanding. I believe the ratio at creation is the same throughout the universe. Different isotope ratios exist within the solar system, especially for light elements, such as the ratio of D to H on Mars, but that is not because the material that makes up Mars came from a different supernova than earth. I note there are studies of things like Interstellar isotope ratios from mm-wave molecular absorption spectra where the ratios are for heavy elements such C, N and S. If the ratios varied considerably at creation, more or less at random, I do not see how studies could reach a conclusion. This study found ratios the same as in the solar system, except C-13. The authors propose a reason for the discrepancy: fractionation. It wasn't that way at creation. If creation varied by supernova, the numbers would be all over the place I suppose. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:About isotopic ratio on spent fuel (E-Cat)
Axil, please continue posting, your comments are appreciated. As I understand, this forum exists only for sharing information and ideas; personal comments should not be posted nor ever considered. Jay Caplan - Original Message - From: Axil Axil To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Saturday, April 16, 2011 5:28 PM Subject: Re: [Vo]:About isotopic ratio on spent fuel (E-Cat) I am a systems engineer who has spent his career reverse engineering legacy systems where no documentation or human expertise exists. I have development an interest in cold fusion and am learning its ground rules. I have come to this site to learn from the experts... the best around. If I pursue wrong paths, I do not mean to offend, however, if my learning process offends too grievously, I will leave this site. So let me know is I am too much for you to bear in your response. On Sat, Apr 16, 2011 at 5:31 PM, Jones Beene jone...@pacbell.net wrote: Wow. I can see that science is a completely new field for you. Your take on this paper is bizarre and so removed from reality that I have to ask – what is your real profession? This report is about magic numbers, which are tendencies. There is absolutely nothing in this that supports this brain-dead idea of uniformity in isotopes in cosmology. Sure, there are tendencies but they as so weak that order-of-magnitude differences are the norm – not the exception. Geeze … we used to be able to have intelligent discussions here. Jones From: Axil Here is the theory that you are rejecting laid out in detail from Miley http://www.phys.unsw.edu.au/STAFF/VISITING_FELLOWSPROFESSORS/pdf/MagicQuarkTucson1.pdf Boltzmann Equilibrium of Endothermic Heavy Nuclear Synthesis in the Universe and a Quark Relation to the Magic Numbers It is not Axil's theory, but one produced by Mille that I think most fits the facts. On Sat, Apr 16, 2011 at 2:03 PM, Jones Beene jone...@pacbell.net wrote: Fran, Ø Harry, I think it is more a matter of proving how the Casimir environment is equivalent to the stellar environment. Which stellar environment?
[Vo]:In world in which thermometers do not work . . .
A hospital: Doctor, this patient seems to have a high fever. It is registering 40°C. Then again, you can't depend on these thermometers! He might be stone-cold dead, at 15°C. Your local TV weather report: Today's highs reached a scorching 104°F! We think. We're not sure. It might have been a cool 59°F. Who knows, it might have been 68°F. Restaurant: Here's your coffee sir, just the way you like it, piping hot! Great . . . sip Uh . . . why is it lukewarm? Carrier Air Conditioner company secret RD lab: We have this idea for a gadget the keeps the house at one temperature, so people don't have to keep turning on and off the furnace or the airconditioner. We're calling it a 'thermostat.' The concept is great. The problem is, the temperature sensor bounce around between 15°C and 40°C. One day the house is freezing and then next it is tropical. If only we had a reliable way to measure temperature! Boiler inspector to apartment super: She's right on the line, all down the checklist. Good as new. See you in two years. Drives away KABOOM!!! Local TV news later that day: Apparently, a recently inspected boiler began producing 200 times more heat than indicated. Experts are baffled at how this might have happened, but they say their inspection techniques can't distinguish between 80 W and 16 kW so it isn't surprising. So far this week, 50 boilers have exploded and one froze solid. A.P. April 1, 2011. Scientists Oak Ridge National Laboratory turned on what they call a faucet to a fill large pool with water. They found, however, that the water flowed at a low rate, roughly 100 ml per minute, this despite the fact that the faucet is supposed to produce as much as 1 liter per second. Experts from NASA and Los Alamos have been called in to discuss the situation and try to find solutions. Some suggested the researchers continue turning the faucet clockwise, the same direction they did to start the flow of water. However, they decided to turn it the other way instead. This produced disappointing results; the flow has actually declined to 43 ml/min. Outside expert Horace Heffner says that unfortunately with a faucet you are not able to adjust the flow rate. (Ordinary laboratory-grade thermocouples are as good as medical thermometers, and better than household thermostat sensors. I believe medical thermometers are usually thermistors.) - Jed
[Vo]:Thixotropic fields?
When all you have is a hammer everything looks like a nail. Electric repulsion at the atomic scale might have the characteristics of a thixotropic liquid. Slam like charges together and they resist intensely. Bring the charges together slowly and the resistance diminishes. (e.g cornstarch and water -- oblek ). http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Yp1wUodQgqQ http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UU7iuJ98fRQfeature=related Harry
[Vo]:Thixotropic fields?
Harry Veeder on Sat, 16 Apr 2011 19:33:45 wrote When all you have is a hammer everything looks like a nail. Electric repulsion at the atomic scale might have the characteristics of a thixotropic liquid. Harry, And gravity at the Planck scale may vie with black holes but so quickly cancel and average at higher scales as to appear isotropic. Gravity barely hints at this dynamic variability beyond the mesoscopic scale except for those quantum effects associated with dispersion forces such as Casimir and Hall effect. Fran
RE: [Vo]:Tarallo Water Diversion Fake
Hey Alan, All this talk about ways to fake the Rossi experiment got me to thinking about a clever way which may not have been mentioned - or maybe I overlooked it if it was covered already. Was hydrogen peroxide mentioned? And/or did anyone actually *taste the water* in the first test ? BTW I do not think this demo was a scam, but this scheme could be worth mentioning. It was not generally known at the time in January, but has been mentioned since then - that the demonstration took place at a factory owned by Leonardo. If he wanted to scam, Rossi could have altered the plumbing to one faucet in that room only - to deliver a combustible clear liquid to fill the containers. He may have filled the containers in the presence of the assembled Professors, before the video started - so nobody would have given a second thought it could be anything but eau de municipal. As I recall no one in Italy willing drinks tap water, but in the interest of science - it could have happened. Hopefully we will hear that some brave soul had the foresight (courage) to try to drink a bit of it - so that we can eliminated this possibility too. If not, this opens up a way to get quite a bit of combustible volume into play - more than the one liter. As you may know, there has been a major effort in China to convert coal to liquid fuel - it is called CTL. Usually it is mixed alcohols. One company which has done this remarkably well is known as the Shenzhen Group. I have seen a video of a product that is colorless, odorless and water-based that burns completely as if was alcohol, but does not have the volatile odor like alcohol. In fact it was developed to be used indoors for heating and cooking in open kerosene type heaters which are common all over Asia. The biggest selling point is no smell and near zero monoxide - and this could be due to peroxide content. Of course, anything over 30% peroxide would be the perfect scam since it converts directly to steam. However, peroxide itself has a slightly different appearance, so it would need to be a new kind of blend. Rossi would know of this, as EON his other company - is in the alternative fuel business. Ever hear of the Swiss Rocket Man ? Sorry to bother you, if this has been covered. Jones
Re: [Vo]:Notes on Rossi device
I do not understand this one. Can anybody help? Thomas Blakeslee http://www.clrlight.org/ April 14th, 2011 at 7:03 PMhttp://www.journal-of-nuclear-physics.com/?p=473cpage=3#comment-33059 I’m confused about the caption on the closeup picture on the NyTeknik article on the 4.5 KW demo. It says “Close view of the main resistor surrounding the copper tube, which in turn surrounds the steel reactor.” How can the resistor heat the nickel up to 500C through the water? --- Andrea Rossi April 14th, 2011 at 8:09 PMhttp://www.journal-of-nuclear-physics.com/?p=473cpage=3#comment-33068 Dear Mr Thomas Blakeslee: To answer to your question I should give you information regarding the design of the reactor. I can’t. Warm regards, A.R. On Sat, Apr 16, 2011 at 3:45 PM, Axil Axil janap...@gmail.com wrote: Let us get into the details on this point as follows: Under the assumption that the nuclear active area in the Rossi process is within large numbers of nanoscopic crystal defects in Rust and NiO is somehow the controlling mechanism, what can that mechanism be? The nuclear heat comes from Fe2O3. To transfer that nuclear heat to the stainless steel reaction vessel, the Fe2O3 must be in surface contact with the wall of this vessel. The Adjusting the preheating input adjusts the power output of the reactor. How can this be. The NiO must be in surface contact with the preheating input. The NiO must not be in surface contact with the Fe2O3 since the nuclear heat produced by Fe2O3 does not effect the NiO. The must be a space between the Fe2O3 and the NiO and that space is filled with hydrogen an isolating material. When preheating input is applied to the NiO, its production of electrostatic force increases. This force travels across the isolating gap to the Fe2O3 and increases the nuclear reaction. A decrease in the preheating input reduces the electrostatic force impinging on the nuclear active areas in the Fe2O3. This reduces the nuclear reaction. Preheating input changes electrostatic force from 0 to 100%. This is the adjusting mechanism. If the two catalysts were physically mixed the reaction would be self sustaining. Reducing the pressure of the hydrogen increases the insulation value between the Fe2O3 and the NiO thereby reducing nuclear activity, since some heat travels across the insulation gap from the Fe2O3 to the NiO thereby supplementing the preheating input. This is all very ingenious! On Sat, Apr 16, 2011 at 11:41 AM, SHIRAKAWA Akira shirakawa.ak...@gmail.com wrote: On 2011-04-15 23:46, Jed Rothwell wrote: [...] You could also add this important piece of information: * * * http://www.journal-of-nuclear-physics.com/?p=360cpage=16#comment-0 Is it in general possible to regulate the power output of the E-cat in a continous way and if yes in what limits about? Is it done by regulating the H2 – pressure or can it be achieved by adjusting the preheating input? April 16th, 2011 at 10:36 AM 1- Yes, from 0 through 100% 2- Adjusting the preheating input Warm Regards, A.R. * * * Cheers, S.A.
[Vo]:Make a cup of tea
Rossi should build a special purpose Ecat so that Richard Garwin can heat his cup of tea. ;-) I require that you be able to make one of these things, replicate it, put it here. It heats up the cup of tea. I'll drink the tea. Then you make me another cup of tea. And I'll drink that too. http://www.wanttoknow.info/energy/cold_fusion_reactor Harry
Re: [Vo]:Re: [Vo]:Re: [Vo]:Sergio Focardi, the father of Ni-H Cold-Fusion [English translation]
In reply to Jed Rothwell's message of Fri, 15 Apr 2011 15:07:12 -0400: Hi, [snip] I suppose the press will hear of this, and will be asking questions. One can only hope! :) - Jed Regards, Robin van Spaandonk http://rvanspaa.freehostia.com/Project.html
Re: [Vo]:Rai News 24 the inquiry on LENR
Grazie. a Vi prego- la seconda parte? It was very well organized and had logical fluency... Peter 2011/4/17 Michele Comitini michele.comit...@gmail.com Only for Italian speaking... http://www.rainews24.rai.it/it/canale-tv.php?id=22918 guests: - Yogendra Srivastava - Francesco Celani - Alberto Carpiteri - Emilio Del Giudice - Roberto Germano mic -- Dr. Peter Gluck Cluj, Romania http://egooutpeters.blogspot.com
Re: [Vo]:Why is calorimetry avoided in Rossi's experiments?
Dear Horace, thank you for the generous offer- my house (2 rooms flat in a block building well insulated) is heated with natural gas efficiency 91%, yearly cost 400 US $. approx) temp 22 C. No calorimetry. Not even a first billion dollars available. Peter On Sat, Apr 16, 2011 at 11:16 PM, Horace Heffner hheff...@mtaonline.netwrote: On Apr 16, 2011, at 11:57 AM, Peter Gluck wrote: Calorimetry was a curse and a burden for Pd- D CF/LENR because much more money, creativity, patience, discusions was consumed for measuring small quantities of released heat instead of focussing on the intensification of the process. The results are known. In the industry the real term is heat measurement- for an oven, boiler or an E-cat and this was done in the three cases of Bologna experiments. An Ecat heating a room for 6 months is beyond calorimetry. Peter H I have an imaginary cat, an I-cat, that has been heating my home for a couple years. You want to buy the right to use it for a billion dollars? Due diligence is of course not permitted because the source of the heat is a trade secret. Non-disclosure agreements are not sufficient to protect this valuable secret. Best regards, Horace Heffner http://www.mtaonline.net/~hheffner/ -- Dr. Peter Gluck Cluj, Romania http://egooutpeters.blogspot.com
