Re: [Vo]:RE: Stiffler and Rossi
In reply to Jones Beene's message of Tue, 19 Apr 2011 12:18:04 -0700: Hi, [snip] The best way for me to rationalize the situation is to imagine that the Mills' redundancy process occurs first - and that BLP limits this reaction to this first step on purpose - whereas in Rossi, the redundancy or shrinkage process is a necessary but latent or hidden pathway, since it culminates in a nuclear reaction . IOW it is easy to miss the predecessor step. I don't think Mills would, or even could, limit his process to just the first step. However there may be a natural hurdle at level 24, making it more difficult (read less likely) to go further than that, and depending on the mechanism involved in Hydrino creation in each specific setup (i.e. if Hydrinohydride is involved). Level 24 is not going to achieve metal fusion in our lifetime, so Mills is probably correct when he says it's like calling continental drift a means of transportation. However level 24 would explain the energy produced, and might under the right circumstances give rise to a different Hydrino production mechanism that could result in shrinkage to much deeper levels, which in turn could result in fusion with a reasonable half life. Regards, Robin van Spaandonk http://rvanspaa.freehostia.com/Project.html
Re: [Vo]:RE: Rothwell goes into brain freeze
Re: the Jones/Jed spat Part of it might be explained by the confusion between factor of 2 or 3 and factor of 1000. If one was meaning orders of magnitude and the other wasn't, the flame war might become more resolvable. Nick Palmer On the side of the Planet - and the people - because they're worth it Blogspot - Sustainability and stuff according to Nick Palmer http://nickpalmer.blogspot.com
Re: [Vo]:Notes on Rossi Device new version 4/19/2011 -- H gas pressure
I would love a copy of that doc... please do send one my way. i also made a calculation based on that line from the KE report - surprisingly i got zero comments - although i consider it a very relevant issue... 25 atm at startup is much more at 500C... i would love it if someone could double check these calculations and perhaps include them in the details documents. using the estimate of 0.09 grams of hydrogen pressurized into a 50cc chamber with 5cc occupied by 50g of nickel (at 8.8g/cc) and 45cc unoccupied (for the hydrogen to fill) with a starting pressure of ~24atm at 20C the pressure will grow to ~64atm at 500C atm deg K deg C 24.22 293 20 25.87 313 40 27.53 333 60 29.18 353 80 30.83 373 100 34.97 423 150 39.10 473 200 43.23 523 250 47.36 573 300 55.63 673 400 63.90 773 500 72.16 873 600 80.43 973 700 105.23 1273 1000 (are my calculations correct ? - https://spreadsheets.google.com/pub?hl=en_GBhl=en_GBkey=0Aj441n89_v_VdHhXMHZ6MmlRWlh0RVJKYVBwd3B4amcoutput=html ) (note: KE say 0.11g hydrogen but they are ignoring the space that the nickel occupies - and the 50cc is an estimate anyway) On Wed, Apr 20, 2011 at 00:43, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com wrote: Alan J Fletcher a...@well.com wrote: That's from the KE report : Thanks. - Jed
Re: [Vo]: shrinking felines
It might talk a bit longer. They don't actually *have* and ECat yet. I would be surprised if they get one any time soon. I concur. Erik Furberg April 17th, 2011 at 7:19 AMhttp://www.journal-of-nuclear-physics.com/?p=473cpage=3#comment-33439 Dear Mr. Rossi, Its nice to hear that you will deliver your devices to University of Uppsala and to the University of Stockolm. When will you deliver to them and do you know if it is possible to go there and see the device in action? Andrea Rossi April 17th, 2011 at 8:39 AMhttp://www.journal-of-nuclear-physics.com/?p=473cpage=3#comment-33458 Dear Mr Erik Furberg: We are organizing. I suppose it will be at the same time when we will deliver the 1 MW plant in Greece. Warm regards, A.R.
Re: [Vo]: shrinking felines
Its really entertaining and all, but do you two really have to pollute every single thread with this stuff? are you twin brothers from a former life who just bicker constantly as a way of showing love? On Wed, Apr 20, 2011 at 02:25, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com wrote: Jones Beene jone...@pacbell.net wrote: Still great but at a level which is consistent of my predicted COP in the Swedish testing of COP of 10. Get your story straight! Your prediction was at least 1000:1 not 10. Right here: http://www.mail-archive.com/vortex-l@eskimo.com/msg45088.html Again – before the flood of denials, character assassination and finger pointing . . . You are assassinating your own character! First you say 1000:1, then you angrily say that your own assertion is insane slander with no basis in fact. That is correct: it is insane slander. But you yourself said it. It is a little unusual to see someone viciously attack himself. You could retract, I suppose. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:RE: Stiffler and Rossi
On Wed, Apr 20, 2011 at 3:43 AM, mix...@bigpond.com wrote: Level 24 is not going to achieve metal fusion in our lifetime, so Mills is probably correct when he says it's like calling continental drift a means of transportation. drawn into the stream of undefined illusion those diamond dreams they can't disguise the truth Oops! That's Level 42. -Liz Dexlia
Re: [Vo]: shrinking felines
On Wed, Apr 20, 2011 at 5:49 AM, .:.gotjosh ene...@begreen.nu wrote: Its really entertaining and all, but do you two really have to pollute every single thread with this stuff? are you twin brothers from a former life who just bicker constantly as a way of showing love? Being a newcomer, you probably do not realize that Jed and Jones are alter egos of Robert Park who frequently argues with himself on this list. Warm regards, Terry
RE: [Vo]:RE: Stiffler and Rossi
-Original Message- From: mix...@bigpond.com The best way for me to rationalize the situation is to imagine that the Mills' redundancy process occurs first - and that BLP limits this reaction to this first step on purpose - whereas in Rossi, the redundancy or shrinkage process is a necessary but latent or hidden pathway, since it culminates in a nuclear reaction . IOW it is easy to miss the predecessor step. RvS: I don't think Mills would, or even could, limit his process to just the first step. However there may be a natural hurdle at level 24, making it more difficult (read less likely) to go further than that, and depending on the mechanism involved in Hydrino creation in each specific setup (i.e. if Hydrinohydride is involved). Robin - This could mean two things: One is that the batch process itself is engineered in such a way that the shrinkage is stopped on demand, perhaps at a hurdle level, as you suggest, in order to harvest the reactants for use in another more valuable way. The second is that this was initially done as a legacy issue to avoid the taint of cold fusion, which was seen as the biggest threat to Mills' IP early on. I think it could be both and that the hydride is extremely valuable. Unfortunately, the biggest value of it - could reside in its military significance. Think of it as having a value greater than tritium, and perhaps a similar use. However, the hydride does seem to have a mundane use in ultra efficient batteries, but Uncle Sam would want in on that action also. We have discussed before that one 'unknown' factor in why Mills' has not got to market yet has something to do with the military significance and a secret sweetheart deal. He has such a high burn rate of funding that he must have another deep pockets backer, and this could be it. A few of his Board of Directors have these kinds of connections. Jones
Re: [Vo]:RE: Stiffler and Rossi
On Tue, Apr 19, 2011 at 6:58 PM, Jones Beene jone...@pacbell.net wrote: BTW – Stiffler was NOT hiding the ground looping problem, and continues to try to push it to the limits. I have not talked to him in years but he posts his results to YouTube. Recently it appears he has been able to get a surprising amount of voltage and LED light emission from only a ground connection: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TXYY7TqS380 Can you do anything close to that? If nothing else, the electricity grid suppliers of the world should take note of whatever is going on here. Needless to say they will be taking note of Rossi even if the COP in Sweden turns out to be 10 (my guess) instead of Rothwell’s 1000+. Nice to see Stiffler is still at work with his SEC LEDs. It's interesting that CLaNZeR was able to sort out a HD video cam and good productions for his videos, yet Stiffler is still waving webcams around and all sound is distorted. Weird stuffs.
RE: [Vo]:RE: Rothwell goes into brain freeze
Nick, No, all of this nonsense is explained by Rothwell picking out an irrelevant detail in a long thread, and ignoring everything else - in order to cover his trail in case the Swedish testing does conform to my prediction. There is no factor of 1000 relevant to anything but the high thermal excursion in the second secret data of mid-Feb. In fact, Rothwell hates to admit he was wrong on this minor point - so he drags out a label, as it were, pretending that it has relevance to the January demo - which it has none. He got cornered on the bet proposal, feels slighted that he has blindly trusted bad data - and is now trying vainly to save face. BTW - I'm basing the COP of ~10 estimate on both an alternative theory and on real NiH data not from Rossi. Jones -Original Message- From: Nick Palmer Re: the Jones/Jed spat Part of it might be explained by the confusion between factor of 2 or 3 and factor of 1000. If one was meaning orders of magnitude and the other wasn't, the flame war might become more resolvable. Nick Palmer
RE: [Vo]:RE: Rothwell goes into brain freeze
I should add one thing relevant to the Swedish testing. We presume (hope) that the Swedes will not use a hose connected to plumbing where you get free water pressure, and will use a pump. The pump's power must be included in P-in. A liter/sec pump seems to require one horsepower or about .75 kW. -Original Message- From: Jones Beene Nick, No, all of this nonsense is explained by Rothwell picking out an irrelevant detail in a long thread, and ignoring everything else - in order to cover his trail in case the Swedish testing does conform to my prediction. There is no factor of 1000 relevant to anything but the high thermal excursion in the second secret data of mid-Feb. In fact, Rothwell hates to admit he was wrong on this minor point - so he drags out a label, as it were, pretending that it has relevance to the January demo - which it has none. He got cornered on the bet proposal, feels slighted that he has blindly trusted bad data - and is now trying vainly to save face. BTW - I'm basing the COP of ~10 estimate on both an alternative theory and on real NiH data not from Rossi. Jones -Original Message- From: Nick Palmer Re: the Jones/Jed spat Part of it might be explained by the confusion between factor of 2 or 3 and factor of 1000. If one was meaning orders of magnitude and the other wasn't, the flame war might become more resolvable. Nick Palmer
Re: [Vo]:RE: Rothwell goes into brain freeze - Thermal power.pdf
Charles Hope wrote: Expert opinion, indeed. Not bad enough that the box is black but we're reacting to a secret report shown only to Levi, the contents of which can only be guessed at? It is not a secret report shown to Levi, it is a public report made by Levi, here: http://www.nyteknik.se/nyheter/energi_miljo/energi/article3108242.ece - Jed
Re: [Vo]:Notes on Rossi Device new version 4/19/2011 -- H gas pressure
I question the amount of nickel used. The one liter (1000 cc) Cat-E used 100 grams of catalyst. By proportion, a 50 cc volume should use only 5 grams of catalyst. The density of the catalyst is too high. It should be about 3g/cc since it is porous. On Wed, Apr 20, 2011 at 5:33 AM, .:.gotjosh ene...@begreen.nu wrote: I would love a copy of that doc... please do send one my way. i also made a calculation based on that line from the KE report - surprisingly i got zero comments - although i consider it a very relevant issue... 25 atm at startup is much more at 500C... i would love it if someone could double check these calculations and perhaps include them in the details documents. using the estimate of 0.09 grams of hydrogen pressurized into a 50cc chamber with 5cc occupied by 50g of nickel (at 8.8g/cc) and 45cc unoccupied (for the hydrogen to fill) with a starting pressure of ~24atm at 20C the pressure will grow to ~64atm at 500C atm deg K deg C 24.22 293 20 25.87 313 40 27.53 333 60 29.18 353 80 30.83 373 100 34.97 423 150 39.10 473 200 43.23 523 250 47.36 573 300 55.63 673 400 63.90 773 500 72.16 873 600 80.43 973 700 105.23 1273 1000 (are my calculations correct ? - https://spreadsheets.google.com/pub?hl=en_GBhl=en_GBkey=0Aj441n89_v_VdHhXMHZ6MmlRWlh0RVJKYVBwd3B4amcoutput=html ) (note: KE say 0.11g hydrogen but they are ignoring the space that the nickel occupies - and the 50cc is an estimate anyway) On Wed, Apr 20, 2011 at 00:43, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com wrote: Alan J Fletcher a...@well.com wrote: That's from the KE report : Thanks. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:RE: Rothwell goes into brain freeze
Dear Jones, just from curiosity, in what kind of P-in has to be included the pump's power and why? Peter On Wed, Apr 20, 2011 at 4:57 PM, Jones Beene jone...@pacbell.net wrote: I should add one thing relevant to the Swedish testing. We presume (hope) that the Swedes will not use a hose connected to plumbing where you get free water pressure, and will use a pump. The pump's power must be included in P-in. A liter/sec pump seems to require one horsepower or about .75 kW. -Original Message- From: Jones Beene Nick, No, all of this nonsense is explained by Rothwell picking out an irrelevant detail in a long thread, and ignoring everything else - in order to cover his trail in case the Swedish testing does conform to my prediction. There is no factor of 1000 relevant to anything but the high thermal excursion in the second secret data of mid-Feb. In fact, Rothwell hates to admit he was wrong on this minor point - so he drags out a label, as it were, pretending that it has relevance to the January demo - which it has none. He got cornered on the bet proposal, feels slighted that he has blindly trusted bad data - and is now trying vainly to save face. BTW - I'm basing the COP of ~10 estimate on both an alternative theory and on real NiH data not from Rossi. Jones -Original Message- From: Nick Palmer Re: the Jones/Jed spat Part of it might be explained by the confusion between factor of 2 or 3 and factor of 1000. If one was meaning orders of magnitude and the other wasn't, the flame war might become more resolvable. Nick Palmer -- Dr. Peter Gluck Cluj, Romania http://egooutpeters.blogspot.com
Re: [Vo]: shrinking felines
From gotjosh: Its really entertaining and all, but do you two really have to pollute every single thread with this stuff? are you twin brothers from a former life who just bicker constantly as a way of showing love? Adding to Terry's Kommentary Jones and Rothwell have been known to spar with each other on occasion. (This is nothing new! I suspect they simply rub each other the wrong way, and there's nothing much we can do about that other than not get between them! ;-) ) I personally perceive this particular incident as having gotten, perhaps, a little more heated than usual, but not unduly so. Heated or not, I tend to learn interesting stuff digesting the POVs expressed from both sides of the fence. Keep in mind the fact there really was no character assassination going on here, the hallmark of a flame war. The only items being assassinated here were the other person's opinions and personal perceptions concerning the accumulation of scientific evidence (or more precisely the alleged lack of it). As one can see, opinions on such matters can occasionally get passionate within the Vort Collective. Personally, I didn't perceive this latest exchange as pollution. More like an unstable but interesting warm front. ;-) Speaking of warm fronts, we could use one in the Midwest. There's snow on the ground in Madison, Wisconsin. I thought we were done with this white stuff! Regards Steven Vincent Johnson www.OrionWorks.com www.zazzle.com/orionworks
Re: [Vo]:RE: Rothwell goes into brain freeze - Thermal power.pdf
mix...@bigpond.com wrote: It is operating at a fraction of maximum. Even 130 kW is a fraction of 204 kW. However I have only guessed at the length of the E-cat cylinder (20 cm seemed reasonable to me, however increasing it to 60 cm while keeping the volume equal, would increase the power to 354 kW). It could be longer or shorter. It is probably longer, judging by the shape of the reactor. Furthermore, the estimate of 1 liter volume was made by Levi by looking at the cell. It could easily be more, maybe 2 or 3 L. I suggest you try it again for 2 L, smaller diameter, and 4 mm thick steel. Based on the cells the Mizuno and others have made for high temperature studies, I suspect that is how it looks. I have never seen one that was not not tall and thin like a fission fuel rod or fire tube. Rossi knows a great deal about conventional heat engines so I cannot imagine he would make it that wrong shape. The thing is, the high temperature calorimetry may be somewhat wrong, but it cannot be hugely wrong. It might be 100 kW or perhaps even 90 kW, but there is no question the cell was producing massive power long enough for the temperature to settle. It might be an over estimate but it cannot possibly be wrong by a factor of 10 . . . or 1000, or whatever it is that Beene now claims. Calorimetry does not fail on that scale. It is not possible that the flow rate is only 100 ml/s and they think it is 1 L. It might be an overestimate because -- for example -- the outlet thermocouple is close to the heat source. That would make no difference at 5°C but it might be a problem at higher temperatures. Furthermore, let me reiterate that it is not a misuse of authority (fallacious appeal to authority) to point out that people such as Kullander and Levi are well acquainted with the physics of thermal conductivity, specific heat and so on. If these results conflicted with conventional theory or calorimetry, they would realize that. As I mentioned, before I uploaded the message on Monday, I ran a draft of it by the people at the NRL who discussed 10 and 20 kW calorimetry at ICCF-16, and various other experts. They pointed out some mistakes I made, which I corrected. I later sent them the thread from this discussion group. Not one of them agrees with Beene that a 130 kW reaction is ruled out by theory. I do not know who his invisible expert is or what this person is saying, but I suppose that if a report from this person shows up, these experts will find an error in it. It is unlikely this expert knows something they do not know. This is long-settled science. Furthermore there are millions of ordinary machines in widespread use such as water heaters which prove that Beene and his expert are wrong. - Jed
[Vo]:Pump power must be included
Peter, The Rossi effect is controlled in a narrow range by balancing heat removal and heat addition. It will not work reliably without constant heat removal. Therefore, power input related to the proper operation must be included as P-in. Jones From: Peter Gluck Dear Jones, just from curiosity, in what kind of P-in has to be included the pump's power and why? Peter We presume (hope) that the Swedes will not use a hose connected to plumbing where you get free water pressure, and will use a pump. The pump's power must be included in P-in. A liter/sec pump seems to require one horsepower or about .75 kW.
Re: [Vo]:RE: Rothwell goes into brain freeze
This is the type of heater Rossi is using: http://www.heaters.in/mica-band-heaters.html It is affixed to the outside of the exterior copper pipe. In order to get the heat from the heater onto the surface of the stainless steel reaction vessel, there needs to be copper vanes between the reaction vessel and the outside copper tube. These vans will increase the thermal transfer to the water flow that is produced by the surface of the SS reaction vessel. On Tue, Apr 19, 2011 at 3:26 PM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com wrote: OrionWorks - Steven V Johnson svj.orionwo...@gmail.com wrote: If it IS 400 C, it would seem to me that the reaction then increasing to 600 C... a mere +200 C more, (before it conks out) does not strike me as being terribly efficient. I think it is optimum at 600°C and then it starts to go downhill after that. I am just guessing the decline is gradual based on how Mizuno's high temperature experiments work. I should not have said conk out. That sounds abrupt. Although there will be a temperature at which the remaining reaction stops abruptly as the lattice degasses or is destroyed. Not only will it fail, but the material will be destroyed and will not work again. However, Rossi says it is fail-safe. That is, self-limiting. It cannot reach destructive temperatures and it cannot over-react because as the temperature rises the Ni powder degasses, and the reaction fades away and then stops. I have no idea what that self-limit or the lattice destruction temperatures would be. There are conventional chemical and nuclear reactions that are similarly self-limiting. I assume the purpose of the resistance heaters is to heat local areas in the powder above the max, drive out the gas, and lower the reaction rate. I just assume that -- no one said it as far as I know. Those things cannot be compensation heaters. 80 W cannot compensate 16 kW! - Jed
[Vo]:Flow calorimetry cannot detect the power of the cooling water circulation pump
Jones Beene wrote: I should add one thing relevant to the Swedish testing. We presume (hope) that the Swedes will not use a hose connected to plumbing where you get free water pressure, and will use a pump. The pump's power must be included in P-in. In flow calorimetry it is not possible to measure the power of the circulation pump, because the pump adds heat to the water before the water passes the inlet temperature sensor. You can only detect heat generated between the inlet and the outlet. Furthermore, the power from the pump, mechanical, electrical and from pressure, are far too small to be measured by this equipment. It would be on the milliwatt level. In the tests conducted by Levi, they begin the calorimetry before turning on the cell. It shows no measurable temperature difference. There are no unaccounted-for sources of heat in the system. At least, none that can be detected with this equipment, at these flow rates. The water pressure in the plumbing is not free. It is produced by a pump, or a gravity feed tank fed by a pump. The pump is not in the laboratory; it is at the local reservoir, but pressure is pressure, no matter where is is generated. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:Flow calorimetry cannot detect the power of the cooling water circulation pump
Clarification. I wrote: In flow calorimetry it is not possible to measure the power of the circulation pump, because the pump adds heat to the water before the water passes the inlet temperature sensor. I meant the electrical and mechanical heat from the pump. That would be at the milliwatt level. There is also heat added between the inlet and outlet caused by the friction of the water going through the tubes. However, this would be at the microwatt level. No water-based flow calorimeter could measure it, under any circumstances. Also, this heat from friction would be the same no matter where the water pressure is generated, by a pump or gravity feed tank at the reservoir, or by a pump in the laboratory. Jones made another statement about this which I cannot understand: It [the Rossi cell] will not work reliably without constant heat removal. Therefore, power input related to the proper operation must be included as P-in. 1. No cell can work without constant heat removal. Any cell will overheat and explode, even a blank cell being run for comparison. All calorimeter types except bomb calorimeters depend on constant heat removal to measure energy. 2. The power input related to the proper operation cannot be measured with flow calorimetry, and even if it could, it would be many orders of magnitude too small to be detected by these methods. - Jed
[Vo]:Mills takes the fifth
http://www.blacklightpower.com/theory/theorypapers/F%5E2%20102307web3.pdf
Re: [Vo]:RE: Rothwell goes into brain freeze - Thermal power.pdf
I was referring to the report Jones Beene refers to, unseen, by an unnamed author, which uses thermodynamics to raise questions. Sent from my iPhone. On Apr 20, 2011, at 9:58, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com wrote: Charles Hope wrote: Expert opinion, indeed. Not bad enough that the box is black but we're reacting to a secret report shown only to Levi, the contents of which can only be guessed at? It is not a secret report shown to Levi, it is a public report made by Levi, here: http://www.nyteknik.se/nyheter/energi_miljo/energi/article3108242.ece - Jed
Re: [Vo]:RE: Rothwell goes into brain freeze
Jones sez ... ...all of this nonsense is explained by Rothwell picking out an irrelevant detail in a long thread, and ignoring everything else - in order to cover his trail in case the Swedish testing does conform to my prediction. Defense Team: Your honor, I object! The prosecution is describing the speculated motivations of the defendant. Judge: Sustained. Prosecution is advised to swear in the defendant, where you can then ask him in the chair if this was his intention. Otherwise, stop speculating. We are not anywhere near making closing statements. Regards Steven Vincent Johnson www.OrionWorks.com www.zazzle.com/orionworks
Re: [Vo]:RE: Rothwell goes into brain freeze
Jones Beene wrote: We presume (hope) that the Swedes will not use a hose connected to plumbing where you get free water pressure, and will use a pump. The pump's power must be included in P-in. A liter/sec pump seems to require one horsepower or about .75 kW. As I pointed out in another thread, this cannot be measured because the energy is added to the flowing water before the water passes the inlet temperature sensor. Only a tiny fraction of the power going into a pump shows up the cooling water loop. Most of it is lost in waste heat from the pump housing. A small fraction goes into the water emerging from the pump. As I said, this cannot be detected because it is already in the water when it passes the inlet sensor. The rest is generated as the water splashes out of the hose down the drain, or back into a reservoir tank, when it stops moving. If you recycle the water back into a tank, it has to be a laboratory grade cooler or the temperature in it will rise as heat from the cell and pump are added to it. If you do not have a laboratory grade cooler, it is better to use a large reservoir of tap water which is dumped down the drain, or a continuous flow of tap water. This is what Levi et al. did. Anyone who has dealt with laboratory-grade cools knows why. Those things are more temperamental than computer printers. Tap water temperature in a city is remarkably stable over hours or days. Measuring the flow rate is no easier or harder with a pump or with tap water. It is exactly the same. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:Pump power must be included
Dear Jones, If the power has to be included, it has to be measured. But only a part of the energy consumed by the motor of the pump is used to make the water to moveand this produces a small heating of water due to friction, So the reverse is true- the power of the motor has to be subtracted from Pin. Fortunately the inlet temperature of water is measured and this includes or, if you wish excludes the effect of the pump/motor. But he effect is negligible- and not on the side of Pin- it is at Pout. Peter On Wed, Apr 20, 2011 at 5:34 PM, Jones Beene jone...@pacbell.net wrote: Peter, The “Rossi effect” is controlled in a narrow range by balancing heat removal and heat addition. It will not work reliably without constant heat removal. Therefore, power input related to the proper operation must be included as P-in. Jones *From:* Peter Gluck Dear Jones, just from curiosity, in what kind of P-in has to be included the pump's power and why? Peter We presume (hope) that the Swedes will not use a hose connected to plumbing where you get free water pressure, and will use a pump. The pump's power must be included in P-in. A liter/sec pump seems to require one horsepower or about .75 kW. -- Dr. Peter Gluck Cluj, Romania http://egooutpeters.blogspot.com
Re: [Vo]:RE: Rothwell goes into brain freeze - Thermal power.pdf
Charles Hope wrote: I was referring to the report Jones Beene refers to, unseen, by an unnamed author, which uses thermodynamics to raise questions. Oops. Of course. I see. I wasn't aware this report has been (will be?) shown to Levi. He will have good laugh from it. The author should also show it to any HVAC engineer. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:Pump power must be included
Peter Gluck wrote: Fortunately the inlet temperature of water is measured and this includes or, if you wish excludes the effect of the pump/motor. But he effect is negligible- and not on the side of Pin- it is at Pout. No, not Pout. The heat from the pump shows up past Pout, at the place where the water stops moving. That would be either in your drain pipe, or -- if you recycle the water -- in the reservoir tank. As long as the water is moving at the same speed as it did when it left the pump, the energy has not yet converted to heat. - Jed
[Vo]:Business opportunities re: Rossi; ORBO; Blacklight etc.
Let's assume that on the order of a year, one of the many free energy technologies, whether Ecat, ORBO, Blacklightpower's devices, and a few of the many other possibilities comes to fruition as very practical devices, I'd like to hear your opinions on business strategies these developments will engender. Perhaps we should sell all petroleum, battery company, wind and solar power company and energy utility stocks short. Perhaps we should buy up all the land under high tension line rights of way. Perhaps we should buy the device(s) and sell power back to the power utilities ( here in Arizona, a 1 Megawatt generator would yield US$200,000 per year, and the utilities have to buy the energy ). The energy efficiency initiatives would go out the window. Massive sea water desalination plants would green the deserts and disrupt numerous other economic decisions. Cars that use no fuel will zero out road taxes. Maybe one should get into the power plant decommissioning business :-) . What are your thoughts -- what strategies would you embrace? Hoyt Stearns Scottsdale, Arizona US
Re: [Vo]:Pump power must be included
Want I wanted to say- the pump is part of the cooling circuit to which the heat produced is transfered. Has nothing to do with the heat produced. peter On Wed, Apr 20, 2011 at 6:15 PM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com wrote: Peter Gluck wrote: Fortunately the inlet temperature of water is measured and this includes or, if you wish excludes the effect of the pump/motor. But he effect is negligible- and not on the side of Pin- it is at Pout. No, not Pout. The heat from the pump shows up past Pout, at the place where the water stops moving. That would be either in your drain pipe, or -- if you recycle the water -- in the reservoir tank. As long as the water is moving at the same speed as it did when it left the pump, the energy has not yet converted to heat. - Jed -- Dr. Peter Gluck Cluj, Romania http://egooutpeters.blogspot.com
RE: [Vo]:Flow calorimetry cannot detect the power of the cooling water circulation pump
From: Jed Rothwell Jones made another statement about this which I cannot understand: It [the Rossi cell] will not work reliably without constant heat removal. Therefore, power input related to the proper operation must be included as P-in. JR: No cell can work without constant heat removal. Any cell will overheat and explode, even a blank cell being run for comparison. All calorimeter types except bomb calorimeters depend on constant heat removal to measure energy. JR: The power input related to the proper operation cannot be measured with flow calorimetry, and even if it could, it would be many orders of magnitude too small to be detected by these methods. Jed, No one is suggesting that you measure this input by via flow calorimetry. Aren't you conflating two issues? You put a kill-a-watt meter on the pump, but you MUST include its power as P-in, just as you must include the electrical power to the resistive heaters as P-in. You add the two along with any other power input which is necessary. The calorimetry is a different issue which determines P-out. The is no question but that ALL required input power MUST be included as P-in Jones
RE: [Vo]:Pump power must be included
Dear Peter, I do not understand the problem. There are two systems involved: heat and electricity At the system level P-out is thermal and refers to net heat. The calorimetry determines P-out for heat. P-in for the system, not for the calorimetry, is determined by the sum of all the electrical inputs. The pump must be included as it is necessary. There is nothing in the calorimetry loop which is used to determine *system P-in*. Yes the heat loop itself may have it own designation for P-in and P-out, but that is not for the system; that is why I believe you could be conflating the two issues. Jones From: Peter Gluck Want I wanted to say- the pump is part of the cooling circuit to which the heat produced is transferred. Has nothing to do with the heat produced. peter On Wed, Apr 20, 2011 at 6:15 PM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com wrote: Peter Gluck wrote: Fortunately the inlet temperature of water is measured and this includes or, if you wish excludes the effect of the pump/motor. But he effect is negligible- and not on the side of Pin- it is at Pout. No, not Pout. The heat from the pump shows up past Pout, at the place where the water stops moving. That would be either in your drain pipe, or -- if you recycle the water -- in the reservoir tank. As long as the water is moving at the same speed as it did when it left the pump, the energy has not yet converted to heat. - Jed -- Dr. Peter Gluck Cluj, Romania http://egooutpeters.blogspot.com
Re: [Vo]:Pump power must be included
OK, old friend I understand what you sya, the energy of the pump is consumed, is money spent for making the generator to work. No connection with heat balance of the system- but goes to expenses. Right? Peter On Wed, Apr 20, 2011 at 6:42 PM, Jones Beene jone...@pacbell.net wrote: Dear Peter, I do not understand the problem. There are two systems involved: heat and electricity At the system level P-out is thermal and refers to net heat. The calorimetry determines P-out for heat. P-in for the system, not for the calorimetry, is determined by the sum of all the electrical inputs. The pump must be included as it is necessary. There is nothing in the calorimetry loop which is used to determine **system P-in**. Yes the heat loop itself may have it own designation for P-in and P-out, but that is not for the system; that is why I believe you could be conflating the two issues. Jones *From:* Peter Gluck Want I wanted to say- the pump is part of the cooling circuit to which the heat produced is transferred. Has nothing to do with the heat produced. peter On Wed, Apr 20, 2011 at 6:15 PM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com wrote: Peter Gluck wrote: Fortunately the inlet temperature of water is measured and this includes or, if you wish excludes the effect of the pump/motor. But he effect is negligible- and not on the side of Pin- it is at Pout. No, not Pout. The heat from the pump shows up past Pout, at the place where the water stops moving. That would be either in your drain pipe, or -- if you recycle the water -- in the reservoir tank. As long as the water is moving at the same speed as it did when it left the pump, the energy has not yet converted to heat. - Jed -- Dr. Peter Gluck Cluj, Romania http://egooutpeters.blogspot.com -- Dr. Peter Gluck Cluj, Romania http://egooutpeters.blogspot.com
[Vo]:Randy Mills' opinion
Dr. Randell Mills has a message to those who try to connect in anyway his work with that of Rossi: To me any intentional inference to hydrinos is a scam to copycat the legitimate systems of BLP’s work. Please make it clear to anyone that you are in contact with that I believe that any implied association with hydrinos is a scam. I have no responsibility to anyone in this matter. Quite clear, isn't it? Just to remind you that Rossi has said that his system has nothing to do with hydrinos. Peter -- Dr. Peter Gluck Cluj, Romania http://egooutpeters.blogspot.com
RE: [Vo]:Pump power must be included
From: Peter Gluck OK, old friend I understand what you say, the energy of the pump is consumed, is money spent for making the generator to work. No connection with heat balance of the system- but goes to expenses. Right? Dear Peter, Yes, but we can take it further. As a student of ontology you are fully familiar with all of the logical arguments. Allow me to apply reductio ad absurdum to this situation. Let's say Rossi shows up with a reactor that puts out one megawatt of heat. It requires a large flow of water, which is coming from a local dam and goes into a sewer. This new reactor requires no electrical input at all !! The heat is measured by a thermal circuit that removes heat from the stainless steel reactor, and the new owners of this magical device use it to heat the factory. It remains warm all year without any electricity ! Let's say the device is opened up and found to contain nothing but flow constrictors - which convert water pressure into heat via friction - nothing else. Is Rossi entitled to claim that the megawatt of heat is overunity and therefore free energy ? He would be, if we followed this argument that power to a required pump is not input power. Jones wrote: Dear Peter I do not understand the problem. There are two systems involved: heat and electricity At the system level P-out is thermal and refers to net heat. The calorimetry determines P-out for heat. P-in for the system, not for the calorimetry, is determined by the sum of all the electrical inputs. The pump must be included as it is necessary. There is nothing in the calorimetry loop which is used to determine *system P-in*. Yes the heat loop itself may have it own designation for P-in and P-out, but that is not for the system; that is why I believe you could be conflating the two issues. Jones From: Peter Gluck Want I wanted to say- the pump is part of the cooling circuit to which the heat produced is transferred. Has nothing to do with the heat produced. peter On Wed, Apr 20, 2011 at 6:15 PM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com wrote: Peter Gluck wrote: Fortunately the inlet temperature of water is measured and this includes or, if you wish excludes the effect of the pump/motor. But he effect is negligible- and not on the side of Pin- it is at Pout. No, not Pout. The heat from the pump shows up past Pout, at the place where the water stops moving. That would be either in your drain pipe, or -- if you recycle the water -- in the reservoir tank. As long as the water is moving at the same speed as it did when it left the pump, the energy has not yet converted to heat. - Jed -- Dr. Peter Gluck Cluj, Romania http://egooutpeters.blogspot.com -- Dr. Peter Gluck Cluj, Romania http://egooutpeters.blogspot.com
Re: [Vo]:Pump power must be included
Dear Jones, make some calculations please. for this case. OK? The word constrictors is terrific (Boa) Peter On Wed, Apr 20, 2011 at 7:18 PM, Jones Beene jone...@pacbell.net wrote: *From:* Peter Gluck OK, old friend I understand what you say, the energy of the pump is consumed, is money spent for making the generator to work. No connection with heat balance of the system- but goes to expenses. Right? Dear Peter, Yes, but we can take it further. As a student of ontology you are fully familiar with all of the logical arguments. Allow me to apply *reductio ad absurdum* to this situation. Let’s say Rossi shows up with a reactor that puts out one megawatt of heat. It requires a large flow of water, which is coming from a local dam and goes into a sewer. This new reactor requires no electrical input at all !! The heat is measured by a thermal circuit that removes heat from the stainless steel reactor, and the new owners of this magical device use it to heat the factory. It remains warm all year without any electricity ! Let’s say the device is opened up and found to contain nothing but flow constrictors - which convert water pressure into heat via friction – nothing else. Is Rossi entitled to claim that the megawatt of heat is “overunity” and therefore free energy ? He would be, if we followed this argument that power to a required pump is not input power. Jones wrote: Dear Peter I do not understand the problem. There are two systems involved: heat and electricity At the system level P-out is thermal and refers to net heat. The calorimetry determines P-out for heat. P-in for the system, not for the calorimetry, is determined by the sum of all the electrical inputs. The pump must be included as it is necessary. There is nothing in the calorimetry loop which is used to determine **system P-in**. Yes the heat loop itself may have it own designation for P-in and P-out, but that is not for the system; that is why I believe you could be conflating the two issues. Jones *From:* Peter Gluck Want I wanted to say- the pump is part of the cooling circuit to which the heat produced is transferred. Has nothing to do with the heat produced. peter On Wed, Apr 20, 2011 at 6:15 PM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com wrote: Peter Gluck wrote: Fortunately the inlet temperature of water is measured and this includes or, if you wish excludes the effect of the pump/motor. But he effect is negligible- and not on the side of Pin- it is at Pout. No, not Pout. The heat from the pump shows up past Pout, at the place where the water stops moving. That would be either in your drain pipe, or -- if you recycle the water -- in the reservoir tank. As long as the water is moving at the same speed as it did when it left the pump, the energy has not yet converted to heat. - Jed -- Dr. Peter Gluck Cluj, Romania http://egooutpeters.blogspot.com -- Dr. Peter Gluck Cluj, Romania http://egooutpeters.blogspot.com -- Dr. Peter Gluck Cluj, Romania http://egooutpeters.blogspot.com
RE: [Vo]:Pump power must be included
a) The pump does add a tiny amount of heat to the water passing through it : the input temperature should be measured AFTER the pump. b) There is FRICTIONAL loss in a pipe http://www.efunda.com/formulae/fluids/calc_pipe_friction.cfm (Though in that calculation it's expressed as pressure drop). These aren't going to be anywhere near the measured power level. Hey! Another fake-let !!! c) The water could drive an internal turbine, generating heat directly (friction) or indirectly (generator connected to a resistor).
RE: [Vo]:Randy Mills' opinion
Very clear! And exactly what anyone would expect at this stage of the game from both Mills and Rossi, no ? 'Never show your hand too soon' if it is a poker game. When the issue gets to the World court in a few years, Mills vs. Defkalion - I hope that someone will remember this. BTW, this is one more reason why kibitzers who are trying to sort out the details should be using the term f/H (fractional hydrogen) for the species, since Mills has trademarked the hydrino name. Alternatively pycno or hydrogen clusters or inverted Rydberg hydrogen (IRH) all express the differing shadows of the same object on the wall of Plato's cave. From: Peter Gluck Dr. Randell Mills has a message to those who try to connect in anyway his work with that of Rossi: To me any intentional inference to hydrinos is a scam to copycat the legitimate systems of BLP's work. Please make it clear to anyone that you are in contact with that I believe that any implied association with hydrinos is a scam. I have no responsibility to anyone in this matter. Quite clear, isn't it? Just to remind you that Rossi has said that his system has nothing to do with hydrinos. Peter -- Dr. Peter Gluck Cluj, Romania http://egooutpeters.blogspot.com
RE: [Vo]:Pump power /// Friction must be included
At 09:37 AM 4/20/2011, Alan J Fletcher wrote: a) The pump does add a tiny amount of heat to the water passing through it : the input temperature should be measured AFTER the pump. b) There is FRICTIONAL loss in a pipe http://www.efunda.com/formulae/fluids/calc_pipe_friction.cfm (Though in that calculation it's expressed as pressure drop). 223.00-3 Fluid Mechanics - Course 223 FRICTION IN FLUID FLOW http://canteach.candu.org/library/20040303.pdf Example 3 calculates the energy loss. 124 J / kg for a honking big oil pipe. I haven't plugged in the ecat numbers. These aren't going to be anywhere near the measured power level. Hey! Another fake-let !!! c) The water could drive an internal turbine, generating heat directly (friction) or indirectly (generator connected to a resistor).
Re: [Vo]:Randy Mills' opinion
If you will ask my opinion about the issue - I will say that the two processes are different and independent. Amd there will be no World court case. But please be nice and don't ask, I belong to a non-prophet association. Peter On Wed, Apr 20, 2011 at 7:37 PM, Jones Beene jone...@pacbell.net wrote: Very clear! And exactly what anyone would expect at this stage of the game from both Mills and Rossi, no ? ‘Never show your hand too soon’ if it is a poker game. When the issue gets to the World court in a few years, *Mills vs. Defkalion* - I hope that someone will remember this. BTW, this is one more reason why kibitzers who are trying to sort out the details should be using the term “f/H” (fractional hydrogen) for the species, since Mills has trademarked the hydrino name. Alternatively “pycno” or “hydrogen clusters” or “inverted Rydberg hydrogen” (IRH) all express the differing shadows of the same object on the wall of Plato’s cave. *From:* Peter Gluck Dr. Randell Mills has a message to those who try to connect in anyway his work with that of Rossi: To me any intentional inference to hydrinos is a scam to copycat the legitimate systems of BLP’s work. Please make it clear to anyone that you are in contact with that I believe that any implied association with hydrinos is a scam. I have no responsibility to anyone in this matter. Quite clear, isn't it? Just to remind you that Rossi has said that his system has nothing to do with hydrinos. Peter -- Dr. Peter Gluck Cluj, Romania http://egooutpeters.blogspot.com -- Dr. Peter Gluck Cluj, Romania http://egooutpeters.blogspot.com
Re: [Vo]:Pump power /// Friction must be included
another fake: Rossi diverts the water into a secret room where it is warmed by the hot air generated by a group of pathological skeptics. Harry From: Alan J Fletcher a...@well.com To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Wed, April 20, 2011 12:43:30 PM Subject: RE: [Vo]:Pump power /// Friction must be included At 09:37 AM 4/20/2011, Alan J Fletcher wrote: a) The pump does add a tiny amount of heat to the water passing through it : the input temperature should be measured AFTER the pump. b) There is FRICTIONAL loss in a pipe http://www.efunda.com/formulae/fluids/calc_pipe_friction.cfm (Though in that calculation it's expressed as pressure drop). 223.00-3 Fluid Mechanics - Course 223 FRICTION IN FLUID FLOW http://canteach.candu.org/library/20040303.pdf Example 3 calculates the energy loss. 124 J / kg for a honking big oil pipe. I haven't plugged in the ecat numbers. These aren't going to be anywhere near the measured power level. Hey! Another fake-let !!! c) The water could drive an internal turbine, generating heat directly (friction) or indirectly (generator connected to a resistor).
Re: [Vo]:Pump power must be included
yes, good point Jones, the system input power includes the power to operate the pump and the resistive heaters. Harry
Re: [Vo]:Flow calorimetry cannot detect the power of the cooling water circulation pump
Jones Beene wrote: JR:The power input related to the proper operation cannot be measured with flow calorimetry, and even if it could, it would be many orders of magnitude too small to be detected by these methods. That is supposed to say the PUMPING operation cannot be measured . . . No one is suggesting that you measure this input by via flow calorimetry. Aren't you conflating two issues? No. The only calorimetry performed in this experiment is for the cell, between the inlet and outlet sensors. No other energy needs to be measured or considered. What happens outside the cell does not count. There is a microscopic contribution by the pump between the inlet and outlet sensors, but it could not be detected with any sort of macroscopic calorimetry. It would require micro-calorimetry, being many orders of magnitude smaller than the heat from the control resistance heaters or the reaction. You put a kill-a-watt meter on the pump, but you MUST include its power as P-in, just as you must include the electrical power to the resistive heaters as P-in. You add the two along with any other power input which is necessary. No, the Kill-a-watt goes between the control electronics and the wall socket. There is no need to measure the pump input because it cannot transfer to the system between the inlet and outlet temperature sensors. The water does not slow down or stop between those points, so none of the pump energy converts to heat. The heat added to the water by the pump mechanical action is added before the inlet sensor, so it does not register. The is no question but that ALL required input power MUST be included as P-in No, that is incorrect. Only energy which enters the system after the cooling water passes P-in can be measured, and that is the only energy that need to be measured. The pump is outside that, so it is irrelevant. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:Pump power must be included
Alan J Fletcher wrote: a) The pump does add a tiny amount of heat to the water passing through it : the input temperature should be measured AFTER the pump. It is always measured after the pump. It would be rather difficult to measure it before the pump. Offhand, I can't imagine how you would arrange that. Perhaps in reservoir? Anyway, no one does it that way. However, when you do measure reservoir temperature, you find it is the same as the inlet to within 0.1°C. The pump does not add any measurable heat between the pump body and the inlet sensor. All of the heat it adds shows up with the water splashes to a halt. b) There is FRICTIONAL loss in a pipe Yes, that is the tiny amount of heat I referred to. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:Pump power must be included
hmm if water flow is required then could it be powered by the e-cat through convective heating. Harry From: Jones Beene jone...@pacbell.net To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Wed, April 20, 2011 10:34:59 AM Subject: [Vo]:Pump power must be included Peter, The “Rossi effect” is controlled in a narrow range by balancing heat removal and heat addition. It will not work reliably without constant heat removal. Therefore, power input related to the proper operation must be included as P-in. Jones
Re: [Vo]:Pump power must be included
Harry Veeder wrote: yes, good point Jones, the system input power includes the power to operate the pump and the resistive heaters. That is incorrect. Please review the messages I have posted. The input power does not include the pump any more than it includes the overhead lights or an oscilloscope. Heat generated before the inlet sensor or after the outlet sensor is not measured. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:Flow calorimetry cannot detect the power of the cooling water circulation pump
OK, Jed, this is a nit, and I'm stating that up front. But with that said... On 04/20/2011 02:08 PM, Jed Rothwell wrote: There is no need to measure the pump input because it cannot transfer to the system between the inlet and outlet temperature sensors. The water does not slow down or stop between those points, so none of the pump energy converts to heat. The heat added to the water by the pump mechanical action is added before the inlet sensor, so it does not register. Say WHAT? You just proved that all pipes inside the ecat are *frictionless* !! Because the water flow doesn't slow, you assert that no energy from the flowing water can have been lost to heat -- that's absurd! It cannot be true for any physical pipe carrying physical water (if this were liquid helium the story might be different). In fact, what you would find if you could take *extremely* precise pressure measurements all along the pipe, is that the pressure of the water DROPS, very gradually, as you move along the pipe away from the pump. It is this (very slight) pressure gradient which drives the water through the pipe against the force of friction. Flow rate, on the other hand, is (obviously) constant along the pipe (unless there's a leak). This is very similar to the situation in electronics, where there's a voltage drop along wires carrying current. In practice the friction between the water and the pipe is so small that heating effects from it can be ignored, and most of the time the attendant pressure drop is also ignorable. If the passages inside the eCat were truly labyrinthine, and anyone cared to measure the pressure before and after the eCAT, you'd most likely find that there was, indeed, a macroscopic pressure drop. But if it's a simple flow-through configuration you'd have a very hard time detecting the drop.
RE: [Vo]:FAKES NOT ALL ELIMINATED : Swedish physicists on the E-cat: It's a nuclear reaction
Alan Fletcher wrote: H ... since they don't believe it. maybe I could act as Rossi's agent to collect $1M . Alan - I think someone should actually try this (arrange to be an Agent for Rossi - to collect Randi's prize) . really. On a more sodden note, here is the best Fake alert dreamt-up yet, in terms of the ease of pulling it off - for situation where the E-cat is cooled by a direct connection to the building's water supply, as in Feb. http://my.firedoglake.com/ruthcalvo/2010/12/09/big-downside-to-fracking-flam mable-water/ IOW - all it would take for a dedicated scammer in the Feb testing, in Rossi's factory building, would be to have a remote control switch to a valve connected to the water line from a gas line (it could be far removed from the experiment) such that once Levi gets the device started, and water flowing - the culprit hits the 'remote' allowing a combustible gas into the water. This could be triggered with a cell phone too. The best choice of gas is not methane as seen in the above image but the typical HHO gas from an electrolysis cell which can be hidden a long distance away. It turns to steam but that is where the chimney comes in handy. In your chimney you need to condense all the steam from the HHO with a colder water reflux raising the water temperature to what is seen. About 20 kW electric into one of the Epoch commercial HHO welders would make enough HHO to produce 16 kW thermal heating. Here is where you can order one. http://www.oxy-hydrogen.com/manufacturer/12460/12460.html
Re: [Vo]:Flow calorimetry cannot detect the power of the cooling water circulation pump
I wrote: No, the Kill-a-watt goes between the control electronics and the wall socket. Technically, the power should be measured between the PLCs in the control box and the resistance heaters in the cell. When you measure at the wall, you overestimate power input because some of it is expended as heat from the PLCs, which are outside of the inlet-to-outlet area. However, the energy expended by the PCLs is negligible so this does not matter. It is easier to measure power at the wall socket. There are, of course, very tiny inputs such as the heat from overhead lights and people's bodies. There are also gigantic outputs not captured by this calorimetry, such as heat radiated from the Rossi device body. My guess is that this calorimetry recovers ~95% of the heat when the temperature difference is ~5°C, which is ideal for flow calorimetry. Stephen A. Lawrence sa...@pobox.com wrote: Say WHAT? You just proved that all pipes inside the ecat are *frictionless* !! Actually, if you read what I wrote previously, and repeatedly, I said that a tiny amount of heat transfers, in the milliwatt range, from friction. However that is many orders of magnitude smaller than you can measure with a calorimeter designed for kilowatt-scale reactions. You would need a microcalorimeter to detect the friction of water in these pipes, even at 1/L second. In fact, what you would find if you could take *extremely* precise pressure measurements all along the pipe, is that the pressure of the water DROPS, very gradually, as you move along the pipe away from the pump. That's what I said. - Jed
RE: [Vo]:Flow calorimetry cannot detect the power of the cooling water circulation pump
Calling Ed Storms! Please set Jed straight on this issue. He does not think that a large source of electrical power added to the system needs to be accounted for. There are two P-in points, one for the whole system and one for the calorimetry. He is going into brain freeze again and we have wasted too much band-width with these arguments to start another one. From: Jed Rothwell The is no question but that ALL required input power MUST be included as P-in No, that is incorrect. Only energy which enters the system after the cooling water passes P-in can be measured, and that is the only energy that need to be measured. The pump is outside that, so it is irrelevant. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:FAKES NOT ALL ELIMINATED : Swedish physicists on the E-cat: It's a nuclear reaction
Jones Beene wrote: On a more sodden note, here is the best Fake alert dreamt-up yet, in terms of the ease of pulling it off - for situation where the E-cat is cooled by a direct connection to the building's water supply, as in Feb. Explain how this would work in the systems being sent to Uppsala and Stockholm Universities, and the 1 MW unit he will send to Defkalion. Do you think Rossi will send in a crew to secretly install the equipment needed to add gas to the cell the night before the e-Cats arrive? If he does not do this, his trick will be discovered. So what is the point? The best choice of gas is not methane as seen in the above image but the typical HHO gas from an electrolysis cell which can be hidden a long distance away. It turns to steam but that is where the chimney comes in handy. You do realize that the people testing the system looked into the chimney. The burners and valves required to generate 16 kW would be quite visible. We won't discuss the likelihood of generating 130 kW, since it may cause you to accuse yourself of horrible misbehavior again. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:Flow calorimetry cannot detect the power of the cooling water circulation pump
Jones Beene wrote: Calling Ed Storms! Please set Jed straight on this issue. You do not need Ed. Ask anyone who has done flow calorimetry about this. Better yet, build a flow calorimeter. I have built several and seen dozens. He does not think that a large source of electrical power added to the system needs to be accounted for. It is NOT added to the system, for crying out loud. That is physically impossible! There is no mechanism to add it, since the water is still moving when it emerges from the machine, as fast as it was when it went in. This is fundamental Newtonian physics. You cannot convert mechanical action to heat unless you slow down or stop the body in motion. There are two P-in points, one for the whole system and one for the calorimetry. What on earth is that suppose to mean?!? The whole system is the cell. There is only 1 P-in point, right smack there where the inlet thermocouple is located. Where do you suppose the other one is?!? Why would you need another one? Heat added to the water before P-in cannot be measured with this system. There is no system for the calorimetry separate from the cell. When they turn on the flow of water before they turn on the cell, the heat balance remains at zero. No heat is detected. That is true whether the pump pushing the water is in the room or whether it is in the municipal reservoir 20 km away. - Jed
FW: [Vo]:Neg Energy and ZPE
This 'Casimir' flow from higher to lower densities is what I've been referring to as 'Plasma-Breach' function. If we postulate 'Casimir' as incident to being the 'shell' of micro-worm-hole flow from Hyper-Density/Hi-density-surrounding Hyper-Dark Space, AND then the low-pressure-zone function being that of our Ambient-relatively-low-density Universe and the 'flow' being between them; then the picture is more complete. . . ZERO-POINT is simply the phenomenon where the incipient-micro-singularity is at quasi-zero-point-critical Plasma-Breach stage which when toroidally-eye-centred/flow-gate-opened allows this Hi-to-Low/Low-to-Hi flow to commense. Methinks that the ingress-torsion hi-denity wave-lengths host (AC/alternating-flow) inverse-low-density-wave length simultaneously at a reverse/inverse flow ratio. . . determining that 'ratio' is part parcel to harnessing the phenomenon. This would be somewhat of a 'Tesla' outlook/explanation. Trans-temporal distortion via this casimir-process would therefore be naturally addendum to the transdimensional/torsion-wave 'inter-flow' since 'Torsion-Waves' emminate/evolve directly from Hyper-Hi-density AexoDark/Hyperspace which is at a SuperPlasmonicGravionic state of Virtual-No-Time @ concommitant Hyper-speeds of Virtual-No-Distance which is indeed the very definition of 'Spooky Action @ Distance.' Spinning Micro-Atomic Atomic particles by their spin-twist nature are worm-tailed into Hyper-Space via this 'interflow' phenomenon which Fran has articulated far better than me. And here he defined and solved for the explanation of 'Spooky Action @ Distance.' Apologies for riding on the coat-tails of your lucid findings here but what the heck/any port in the storm/ and 'Whatever Works!' And from micro-atomic proton-voticee objects such as protons-atoms/sub-atomic particles etc.--(all exhibiting Spooky Action @ Distance)---on to explaining the MACRO-QUANTUM/TRANSCOSMIC causality of 'Big-Bang/Big-Breach' Fran's picture would seem to be fairly accurate fully operant. . . And he 'wind-speed/through the small hole' analogy is perfectly apt relative to the fairly infinite power-tapping potential with harnessing these processes. AND 'neg/pos' would tend to merely indicate the antigonic-agonic yin/yang normal couterflow alternate-direction and relative hi-density/low density which is either CAUSAL OF SPIN or SYMTOMATIC of SPIN and the Vector analysis of relative 'Spin' PRIMARY a la Planck-Direc etc. aka ?Which comes first; the chicken or the egg? But the egg it seems was first to 'light-up.'~;-) Cheers mates: Jack Harbach/O'Sullivan From: froarty...@comcast.net To: scott...@hotmail.com CC: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: [Vo]:Neg Energy and ZPE Date: Mon, 18 Apr 2011 22:12:53 -0400 Scott, The thread title Neg Energy and ZPE represents a stumbling box for some. We know that energy density is the sum of all vacuum fluctuation wavelengths and that even in deep open space without mass there still remains an energy density background. One would assume that suppression could further reduce this background level but with little chance of ever really reaching a perfect zero. As it turns out this is untrue. These flux (aka virtual particles)aren’t hanging around but rather are streaming through our spatial axis at a rate represented by this density (what Puthoff calls pressure) and when they meet a conductive boundary in Casimir geometry it reduces their ability to stream. Now it doesn’t matter if you accept my relativistic interpretation of Casimir theory where longer wavelengths only appear shorter inside an accelerated inertial frame due to the suppression or the standard fare that the longer wavelengths are displaced lowering the density, The point is that if the cavity opening is small enough you end up with a permanent negative energy stream between the higher density exterior and lower density interior. It isn’t the reduced density inside the cavity that is negative but rather the fast moving stream between the different densities that represent a negative density lower than the background levels that fed the mechanism, like the wind speed through a small hole in a sail it can be many times faster than the ambient. Regards Fran Wm. Scott Smith Mon, 18 Apr 2011 16:39:53 -0700 Francis and I have discussed modeling virtual photons as oscillating on their time axis so that we only observe their forward-time motion. Date: Mon, 18 Apr 2011 18:23:25 -0400 Subject: Re: [Vo]:Ontologies of heat From: hohlr...@gmail.com To: vortex-l@eskimo.com In the Bizarro world of negative energy beyond the zero point, negative energy is the same as positive energy in our three space. T
Re: [Vo]:Pump power must be included
Whether or not the water flow is powered by the pump or a waterfall, the kinetic energy of the flow may be a factor. A lack of water movement may explain why some PF type cells failed to perform in the past. They depended on the fickle nature of convection to spring to life. Harry yes, good point Jones, the system input power includes the power to operate the pump and the resistive heaters. That is incorrect. Please review the messages I have posted. The input power does not include the pump any more than it includes the overhead lights or an oscilloscope. Heat generated before the inlet sensor or after the outlet sensor is not measured. - Jed
RE: [Vo]:Flow calorimetry cannot detect the power of the cooling water circulation pump
From: Jed Rothwell He does not think that a large source of electrical power added to the system needs to be accounted for. * * JR:It is NOT added to the system, for crying out loud. That is physically impossible! Of course it can be! It is potential energy! and potential energy can always be added. * There is no mechanism to add it, since the water is still moving when it emerges from the machine, as fast as it was when it went in. Ever hear of friction. No wonder your so-called calorimeter didn't work This is fundamental Newtonian physics. You cannot convert mechanical action to heat unless you slow down or stop the body in motion. Finally you got something partially right. You can slow it down and convert potential energy into thermal energy. They did NOT measure the velocity of the exit stream and they probably converted some potential energy into thermal energy. CASE CLOSED Jones
Re: [Vo]:Flow calorimetry cannot detect the power of the cooling water circulation pump
Ah, wait. The light dawns. As Peter Gluck said, this only makes sense if you are talking about the electric bill. I see. Jones Beene wrote: There are two P-in points, one for the whole system and one for the calorimetry. If by system you mean the cost of running the experiment, including the pump, the overhead lights, the building HVAC, the power meters and computers, the coffee pot, and so on, then yes, we must take this into account. Arguably, it does take all of the electricity in the room to do the experiment. You might also toss in the gas it takes to drive to work, and the energy from the food that the researchers eat. However, in a typical physics experiment, they do not count this other energy. It makes no difference to the conclusion, because it is expended outside the cell. The pump energy is also unpredictable. Some pumps are noisy and inefficient. Others are highly efficient and run cool. (I know a lot about pumps in this range because I go through many of them with my outdoor pond.) If you spend more and get a good one, the pump will consume less power. No one would say the Rossi device is more impressive because someone paid $500 for a good pump, instead of $75 for an el-cheapo model, saving a little money on the lab power bill. In any case this pump power will not show up in the calorimetry. No one would include the amount of power the pump consumes in a performance report on this device. For that matter an HVAC guy testing an ordinary boiler will not include pump power in his tests either; he only measures the gas or electric heating power. If you happen to have 50 Italian people watching the experiment, you are likely to expend a great deal of electricity in the espresso machine there in the corner of the lab. With 50 reporters, you will have to turn on more overhead lights. These are random variations and they have no connection to the experiment itself. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:Pump power must be included
Harry Veeder wrote: Whether or not the water flow is powered by the pump or a waterfall, the kinetic energy of the flow may be a factor. No, it may not. That's out of the question. I have operated many flow calorimeters of all sizes and types, and there is absolutely no way you can detect the kinetic energy with this type of calorimeter. Furthermore, if you could, they would see it when they turn on the flow and prepare to do calorimetry, before they turn on the machine. The balance would be positive. It isn't. A lack of water movement may explain why some PF type cells failed to perform in the past. They depended on the fickle nature of convection to spring to life. Not a chance. - Jed
RE: [Vo]:FAKES NOT ALL ELIMINATED : Swedish physicists on the E-cat: It's a nuclear reaction
From: Jed Rothwell On a more sodden note, here is the best Fake alert dreamt-up yet, in terms of the ease of pulling it off - for situation where the E-cat is cooled by a direct connection to the building's water supply, as in Feb. JR: Explain how this would work in the systems being sent to Uppsala and Stockholm Universities, Who said it would? At best, it only indicates the Feb test is a non-test. JR: Do you think Rossi will send in a crew to secretly install the equipment needed to add gas to the cell the night before the e-Cats arrive? No, I think they will find a COP of about 10 instead of triple that - AS I HAVE STATED FOR THE NTH TIME Jones attachment: winmail.dat
Re: [Vo]:Flow calorimetry cannot detect the power of the cooling water circulation pump
Jones Beene wrote: ØJR:It is NOT added to the system, for crying out loud. That is physically impossible! Of course it can be! It is potential energy! and potential energy can always be added. No it cannot be added. You can't cause that much friction with these pipes. Not enough to measure. It you could, they would measure it, before they turn on the Rossi machine. It would not magically begin causing friction after they turn on the machine. ØThere is no mechanism to add it, since the water is still moving when it emerges from the machine, as fast as it was when it went in. Ever hear of friction. No wonder your so-called calorimeter didn't work Have you ever tried measuring the friction of water with a calorimeter? Would you care to estimate how much heat is caused by this friction? If there were measurable friction from the water, it would show up in the calorimetry after they turn on the flow and before they turn on the Rossi machine. That DOES NOT HAPPEN. Therefore, the friction is too small to measure. - Jed
RE: EXTERNAL: Re: [Vo]:Pump power must be included
Harry, I agree the energy utilized should be subtracted from the output but how much of the pressure or flow rate is actually removed from the system? - the differential measurements are only for temp but you should also quantify the pressure/flow rate into the reactor and the pressure/flow rate out of the reactor if you want to determine if any energy was added or subtracted - otherwise the same pressure and flow are still potential - available for use downstream. I am sure the portion of pressure/flow removed from the system is only a small fraction. Maybe put the exiting water after measurement into same diameter pipe as the source and measure with an identical flow rate meter? Fran From: Harry Veeder [mailto:hlvee...@yahoo.com] Sent: Wednesday, April 20, 2011 3:11 PM To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: EXTERNAL: Re: [Vo]:Pump power must be included Whether or not the water flow is powered by the pump or a waterfall, the kinetic energy of the flow may be a factor. A lack of water movement may explain why some PF type cells failed to perform in the past. They depended on the fickle nature of convection to spring to life. Harry yes, good point Jones, the system input power includes the power to operate the pump and the resistive heaters. That is incorrect. Please review the messages I have posted. The input power does not include the pump any more than it includes the overhead lights or an oscilloscope. Heat generated before the inlet sensor or after the outlet sensor is not measured. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:Notes on Rossi Device new version 4/19/2011 -- H gas pressure
Axil, I agree about 5g in proportion, but the KE report says: The central container seen in figure 3 has an estimated volume of 50 cm3 and it contains 50 grams of nickel. I also thought about the powder density/porosity and chose a number close to the full density of nickel metal, as i imagined those pores would/could be filled with the hydrogen gas. If I use your suggestion of 3g/cc then the amount of hydrogen at 25atm will be 0.07g and the pressure will increase in a similar way: 25.05 293 20 26.75 313 40 28.46 333 60 30.17 353 80 31.88 373 100 36.16 423 150 40.43 473 200 44.71 523 250 48.98 573 300 57.53 673 400 66.08 773 500 74.62 873 600 83.17 973 700 108.81 1273 1000 On Wed, Apr 20, 2011 at 16:15, Axil Axil janap...@gmail.com wrote: I question the amount of nickel used. The one liter (1000 cc) Cat-E used 100 grams of catalyst. By proportion, a 50 cc volume should use only 5 grams of catalyst. The density of the catalyst is too high. It should be about 3g/cc since it is porous. On Wed, Apr 20, 2011 at 5:33 AM, .:.gotjosh ene...@begreen.nu wrote: I would love a copy of that doc... please do send one my way. i also made a calculation based on that line from the KE report - surprisingly i got zero comments - although i consider it a very relevant issue... 25 atm at startup is much more at 500C... i would love it if someone could double check these calculations and perhaps include them in the details documents. using the estimate of 0.09 grams of hydrogen pressurized into a 50cc chamber with 5cc occupied by 50g of nickel (at 8.8g/cc) and 45cc unoccupied (for the hydrogen to fill) with a starting pressure of ~24atm at 20C the pressure will grow to ~64atm at 500C atm deg K deg C 24.22 293 20 25.87 313 40 27.53 333 60 29.18 353 80 30.83 373 100 34.97 423 150 39.10 473 200 43.23 523 250 47.36 573 300 55.63 673 400 63.90 773 500 72.16 873 600 80.43 973 700 105.23 1273 1000 (are my calculations correct ? - https://spreadsheets.google.com/pub?hl=en_GBhl=en_GBkey=0Aj441n89_v_VdHhXMHZ6MmlRWlh0RVJKYVBwd3B4amcoutput=html ) (note: KE say 0.11g hydrogen but they are ignoring the space that the nickel occupies - and the 50cc is an estimate anyway) On Wed, Apr 20, 2011 at 00:43, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.comwrote: Alan J Fletcher a...@well.com wrote: That's from the KE report : Thanks. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:FAKES NOT ALL ELIMINATED : Swedish physicists on the E-cat: It's a nuclear reaction
Before going to sleep- I want to ask you, Jones what's non-test? I have made many tests, few successful many great failures- but not a single non-test Please define- and tell what has happened? My scenario is that they had a great initial heat peak (not expected( and they had to quench the system with plenty of water. And a small temperature difference. These peaks are a problem. it's an industrial test not a scientific test- such things happen. Surprise! A tube leaked and we were in room with some 500 grams of liquid phosgene, free.. Good stuff for nightmares. Peter On Wed, Apr 20, 2011 at 10:25 PM, Jones Beene jone...@pacbell.net wrote: From: Jed Rothwell On a more sodden note, here is the best Fake alert dreamt-up yet, in terms of the ease of pulling it off - for situation where the E-cat is cooled by a direct connection to the building's water supply, as in Feb. JR: Explain how this would work in the systems being sent to Uppsala and Stockholm Universities, Who said it would? At best, it only indicates the Feb test is a non-test. JR: Do you think Rossi will send in a crew to secretly install the equipment needed to add gas to the cell the night before the e-Cats arrive? No, I think they will find a COP of about 10 instead of triple that - AS I HAVE STATED FOR THE NTH TIME Jones -- Dr. Peter Gluck Cluj, Romania http://egooutpeters.blogspot.com
RE: [Vo]:Flow calorimetry cannot detect the power of the cooling water circulation pump
From: Jed Rothwell * JR:It is NOT added to the system, for crying out loud. That is physically impossible! Of course it can be! It is potential energy! and potential energy can always be added. * * No it cannot be added. You can't cause that much friction with these pipes. Not enough to measure. Are you serious !?! The gullibility quotient here defies the imagination ! In fact, it is quite easy to add friction if that is your intent. We cannot assume honesty from a man like Rossi who is seldom honest. Not to mention - this demo was Rossi's tribute event to Focardi - maybe a kind of pre-eulogy. Rossi had every incentive to fudge the results, to make it look better than it was, or in case something went wrong. Again it was no more than COP ~10. Jones
RE: [Vo]:FAKES NOT ALL ELIMINATED : Swedish physicists on the E-cat: It's a nuclear reaction
From: Peter Before going to sleep- I want to ask you, Jones what's non-test? Simply - it is not reliable. This is because it was closed to all but a few chosen viewers and there is a credible way to fake it. Even if you believe it was not faked, it supplies no credible evidence to a physicist (skeptic), therefore it is a non-test
Re: EXTERNAL: Re: [Vo]:Pump power must be included
Roarty, Francis X wrote: I agree the energy utilized should be subtracted from the output but how much of the pressure or flow rate is actually removed from the system? No measurable amount is removed. I guarantee that. -- the differential measurements are only for temp but you should also quantify the pressure/flow rate into the reactor and the pressure/flow rate out of the reactor if you want to determine if any energy was added or subtracted -- otherwise the same pressure and flow are still potential -- available for use downstream. I am sure the portion of pressure/flow removed from the system is only a small fraction. Maybe put the exiting wat er after measurement into same diameter pipe as the source and measure with an identical flow rate meter? Most flowmeters slow down the water and distort the numbers far more than the flow water through the pipes would. Especially rotary flowmeters take more energy out of the system than friction would. That is to say, they take out the energy to turn the rotor. Displacement ones also take energy. The ones that add a pulse of heat to detect it downstream add a tiny amount of energy. (But it is OUTSIDE THE SYSTEM!!! Doesn't count!) Anyway, there is no such thing as an identical flowmeter. Get two of the same make and model and you will find they each have a personality and a mind of their own. The variations between the flowmeters will be far greater than the energy losses from water friction. A couple of grains of sand in rotors or bearings will make a difference big enough to detect. I have put two or three flowmeters in line at about 100 ml/min. These were expensive ones. They produced different answers, for reasons beyond the scope of the discussion. The differences are too small to affect these conclusions but they are always present. Anyway, at 1 L/s you can put a dozen flowmeters in line above and below the inlet and it will not cause or detect any measurable change to the temperature or flow. Every one of them will register a different flow -- of that you can be sure -- but the variations will be caused by the instruments themselves and they will far exceed water friction. Ditto thermocouples, by the way. Install a dozen of them and you will get a dozen answers, with variations far larger than water friction can cause. They will have a different bias, speed, range, accuracy and precision. Gene and I installed multiple pairs of these as well, backed up with mercury thermometers. Although they misbehave and drift less than flowmeters do. Once you calibrate them, they are highly reliable in this range of temperatures. And contrary to assertions made here, any one of them can measure 5°C with confidence. Actually, they can measure 0.1°C, but real fluctuations in the water temperature are as large as that, for various reasons. Rest assured, Levi, Kullander and people like that know how flow meters and thermocouples work. Way more than I do. If were trying to measure the effect of friction from water flow in pipes, equipment such as the best $2000 flow meter and a top-notch RTD thermocouple would be ridiculously crude. That would be like trying to see a virus with a plastic magnifying glass. Someone like Rob Duncan has micro-calorimeters that could measure this friction easily, but they cannot measure a power level higher than a few milliwatts. Here is one with 0.002 micro-watt resolution. It does not say what the max power is, but it can't be much: http://www.stats-reports.com/webstat/dlcount.php?id=41061url=http://www.setaram.com/traitement/export_doc.php?doc=../files/documents/MICRODSC3-EVO.pdf - Jed
Re: [Vo]:Flow calorimetry cannot detect the power of the cooling water circulation pump
On 04/20/2011 02:36 PM, Jed Rothwell wrote: Stephen A. Lawrence sa...@pobox.com mailto:sa...@pobox.com wrote: Say WHAT? You just proved that all pipes inside the ecat are *frictionless* !! Actually, if you read what I wrote previously, and repeatedly, I said that a tiny amount of heat transfers, in the milliwatt range, from friction. However that is many orders of magnitude smaller than you can measure with a calorimeter designed for kilowatt-scale reactions. Yes, that's true. But I was taking issue, specifically, with this sentence (emphasis added): _The water does not /slow down or stop/ between those points, so *none* of the pump energy converts to heat._ My point was the /speed/ doesn't change but the /pressure/ does, and that equates to a drop in the energy carried by the fluid, and that energy drop shows up as heat. (Tiny, /tiny/ amounts of heat.) You would need a microcalorimeter to detect the friction of water in these pipes, even at 1/L second. In fact, what you would find if you could take *extremely* precise pressure measurements all along the pipe, is that the pressure of the water DROPS, very gradually, as you move along the pipe away from the pump. That's what I said. Oh, well, sorry -- then I didn't understand. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:Uppsala experiment April 21 ? -- Seems NOT
Jed Rothwell April 19th, 2011 at 7:40 PM I have heard that the tests at Uppsala and Stockolm Universities will begin this week. Is that so? Thats great! Andrea Rossi April 20th, 2011 at 3:14 PM Dear Jed Rothwell: Not true, before the start up of my 1 MW plant I will have time for nothing. Warm Regards, A.R.
Re: [Vo]:Flow calorimetry cannot detect the power of the cooling water circulation pump
Jones Beene wrote ØNo it cannot be added. You can't cause that much friction with these pipes. Not enough to measure. Are you serious !?! The gullibility quotient here defies the imagination ! In fact, it is quite easy to add friction if that is your intent. Okay, let's think about this. Let me rephrase: 1. It is impossible to add measurable friction with this equipment (these pipes and pumps), and if you could somehow add it, they _would_ measure it. It would be present before you turn the cell on, and after you turn it off. It would not suddenly magically appear when you turn on the power to the resistors. 2. You could modulate the friction by changing the pressure and flow rate. But these did not change. The flow rate was measured, and it did not change. There can only be steady, unchanging heat from friction. That does not resemble the curves they published or the eyewitness reports. 3. You cannot change the shape of the inside of the machine on the fly. Certainly not without anyone noticing. Bear in mind that Levi et al. looked carefully inside the machine. If there were shape-shifting devices they would notice. If there were convolutions or constrictions, they would notice. They recognize ordinary pipes and tubes when they see them. The only place to hide constrictions would be in the cell itself. I am pretty sure 1 L is not enough to produce this much friction from constriction. 4. If you have constrictions enough to cause 4 kW of friction, the pump shown in the first test would not have been able to force one drop of water through. It is much too small. Yet it did push the water through. Furthermore, even if every joule of the energy going into this pump was added by friction into the water, right at the cell, this would have no measurable effect on these results. 5. Ordinary tap water pressure could not possibly produce this much friction. Again, not one drop would pass through. 6. Suppose we imagine there is a hidden 20 kW pump forcing water through the pipes. (It would take more than a 16 kW one -- and we'll put aside the 130 kW for now.) The inlet tube is ordinary rubber, and it would burst. The pipes inside the machine -- most of them, anyway -- are ordinary. They would burst. Perhaps there are some hidden constrictions inside the cell, but the rest of the hardware cannot take such pressure. 7. If, by some miracle, you could selectively extract this energy from the flowing water, turning the effect on and off, then the water would cease flowing. People would notice. We cannot assume honesty from a man like Rossi who is seldom honest. We can, however, assume that he is incapable of breaking elementary laws of physics. Also, it is fair to assume that if he was using high pressure hoses and the like, Levi et al. would notice. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:Uppsala experiment April 21 ? -- Seems NOT
At 01:41 PM 4/20/2011, Alan J Fletcher wrote: I have heard that the tests at Uppsala and Stockolm Universities will begin this week. Is that so? Thats great! Not true, before the start up of my 1 MW plant I will have time for nothing. It might just mean that KE are going to Bologna to do the very soon test. Anyway: you will have very soon a report about the same test repeated, with the flow controlled in an idiot-proof system youll see, stay in touch.
Re: [Vo]:Uppsala experiment April 21 ? -- Seems NOT
Oh, what a shame. You can't depend on the randi forum. That's a given. There is no group of people more gullible, and ready to believe baseless rumors. I talked to Randi himself about cold fusion once. He is an ignoramus. He has read nothing and understands nothing. When people such as Robert Park fed him nonsense about cold fusion, he believed it unquestionably. He never bothered to look at original sources. He told me he wouldn't understand them in any case, which is probably true. - Jed
[Vo]:The Tribute to Focardi Angle
An important point: This demo was first and foremost Rossi's tribute event to Focardi - maybe a kind of pre-eulogy. Almost everyone agrees with that characterization now - but it was not mentioned very often in the USA at the time. Rossi had every incentive to stage or enhance the results, not to make it look better than it usually was, but just in case something went wrong. It is probably wrong to think of this as *either* faked or honest. It could simply have been staged for effect - and it was staged in a town that is almost synonymous with opera. The following scenario is for Alan. And let me add that is NOT what I actually believe today, but it could have happened this way. If the independent results in Sweden or elsewhere come in at significantly less than the very high COP seen earlier, then the probability of this scenario being accurate goes from slim to large. We should know that soon. Rossi may have known that there was a small chance that he could not get the unit working after inviting quite a large collection of former friends and associates of Focardi out to his factory. Even if it worked fine the day before, and Celani was saying that he seemed to having trouble getting it started . he decides not to take the risk. So without doing anything dishonest or illegal - since he knew the machine was producing lots of energy normally and that was the main point (and he could not afford the occasional 'bad day') he takes out insurance so to speak, in the form an enhancement. He arranged to somehow pad the result, possibly with a clear combustible liquid that looked like water - and to turn what could be an iffy demo, one time in ten - but which could embarrass Focardi if it did not work - into a foolproof demo that Barnum and Bailey would envy. All of this was to guarantee at fitting tribute to his old mentor. He is that kind of friend. But lo and behold - he not only got his normal OU gain but much more. He could have been in an embarrassment of riches situation. A few weeks later, for whatever reason, he did even better with an even better trick. Time will tell. Jones
Re: [Vo]:Uppsala experiment April 21 ? -- Seems NOT
Alan J Fletcher wrote: It might just mean that KE are going to Bologna to do the very soon test. Anyway: you will have very soon a report about the same test repeated, with the flow controlled in an “idiot-proof” system…you’ll see, stay in touch. I sure hope so. I do not understand why he is making that 1 MW reactor, but I wish the thought had never crossed his mind. He could convince the whole world and get a billion dollars in investment capital with what he has now, if he would only give a few of these things to universities and corporations under NDA. - Jed
RE: [Vo]:RE: Rothwell goes into brain freeze
At 01:56 PM 4/19/2011, Jones Beene wrote: Now you can parse all of this information and look at the images of the size of the reactor which are small - and estimate how much weight of material for 'many channels' is possible. The report which I was made aware of did this, and as you can see - I am far from being an expert in thermodynamics, so it is not my conclusion, but nevertheless - it should be a part of the record anyway, it was claiming that there was neither room nor extra mass for fins or channels. I listed that as the caveat. Rossi also says the water flow is straight thru. Straight through what? I'm not sure what that means. The air flow is straight through an automobile radiator, but it has many channels. Does the water come into contact with the nickel? If it does, this might be very simple. If not, there must be channels, but they could be very thin. If the heat generation rate would be 30+ kcal/sec as you state and a flow rate of a liter per second and a delta T of ?? then it should be possible to guesstimate the surface area necessary, for those variables - given the known conductivity of stainless. Would you agree so far ? Yes, it should be possible to estimate a minimum. The material for the channels is unknown. The thickness of the tubing (internal) is unknown, is it? What is are the channels or tubing made of? You seem to be assuming stainless steel why? Copper? How is the heat transfer to the coolant arranged?
Re: [Vo]:Pump power must be included
In reply to Alan J Fletcher's message of Wed, 20 Apr 2011 09:37:23 -0700: Hi, [snip] If we assume 100 psi for the mains pressure, then a flow rate of 1 L /s equates to a total power of 724 W, assuming all the power in the water gets used. This would raise the temperature of that water by 0.173 ºC, so it would at most make a 4% difference, even if it were all included. Regards, Robin van Spaandonk http://rvanspaa.freehostia.com/Project.html
Re: [Vo]:Flow calorimetry cannot detect the power of the cooling water circulation pump
From Jones: ... We cannot assume honesty from a man like Rossi who is seldom honest. Not to mention – this demo was Rossi’s tribute event to Focardi – maybe a kind of pre-eulogy. Rossi had every incentive to fudge the results, to make it look better than it was, or in case something went wrong. Jones, correct me if I have misunderstood your position on this matter but it seems to me that much of your analysis hinges on a personal belief that Rossi is, at heart, motivated to behave in a dishonest way. You have been implying that Rossi is a dishonest person. Obviously, we can all capiche the fact that Rossi's is hiding crucial details. His deliberate withholding of crucial (proprietary) information obviously frustrates many, especially those who are trying to discern how his elusive e-kitties work. Few here dispute the fact that some of Rossi's commentary is contradictory. Many would even go far as saying that certain actions on Rossi's part seem to lack credibility, such as an apparent bogus engineering degree issued from what I gather has been discovered to have been a diploma mill. Mr. Rothwell certainly has eluded to such faults plenty of times over the months. I gather such faults contradictions have driven him nuts. However, and IMHO, to openly speculate that Rossi is being deliberately dishonest, and in the manner that you seem to be doing strikes me as almost prosecutorial in nature. It lacks a certain level analytical objectivity. It seems to me that you have been going after Rossi character as if you were the District Attorney for some county board, or government consumer protection agency. It's as if you have received complaints from sources who have been grumbling over the fact that the constant string of ramblings from Rossi's blog don't always add up... therefore, Rossi must be hiding something. And if Rossi's hiding something, that must mean he's Rossi is a dishonest person. Therefore if we assume Rossi is dishonest what's motivating Rossi's dishonesty. Suddenly, the mind starts conjuring up a plethora of justifications, many based on fragmentary bits and pieces of information previously gleaned from Rossi's ramblings. You are now speculating OUT LOUD that Rossi is motivated to behave dishonestly as a tribute to his partner, Focardi, who is in ill health. How far do you want to take such personal speculation? Personally, I would suggest that you might want to start backing up subjective speculations of this nature with actual objective PROOF. Otherwise, you are in danger of eroding your own credibility when it comes to convincing others as to your scientific analysis of the disputed heat measurements. Expressing these kinds of subjective speculation only opens the door allowing many to wonder if your scientific analysis is just as subjective. Judge Johnson is now leaving the bench. Here come de judge! Regards Steven Vincent Johnson www.OrionWorks.com www.zazzle.com/orionworks
Re: [Vo]:Business opportunities re: Rossi; ORBO; Blacklight etc.
In reply to Hoyt A. Stearns Jr.'s message of Wed, 20 Apr 2011 08:17:33 -0700: Hi, [snip] Before we all get too wrapped up in this technology, I would point out that if only the Ni62 Ni64 are used, then the world's known nickel reserves (about 140 million tonnes) would only last 100 years at the current rate of energy use, assuming this were the sole source of power, and that it proves uneconomical to extract Nickel from extremely low grade ores. However I have hope that during that 100 years we will learn to use other metals (e.g. Titanium which is about 50 times more prevalent in the Earth's crust), or even, with luck, Iron. Let's assume that on the order of a year, one of the many free energy technologies, whether Ecat, ORBO, Blacklightpower's devices, and a few of the many other possibilities comes to fruition as very practical devices, I'd like to hear your opinions on business strategies these developments will engender. Perhaps we should sell all petroleum, battery company, wind and solar power company and energy utility stocks short. Perhaps we should buy up all the land under high tension line rights of way. Perhaps we should buy the device(s) and sell power back to the power utilities ( here in Arizona, a 1 Megawatt generator would yield US$200,000 per year, and the utilities have to buy the energy ). The energy efficiency initiatives would go out the window. Massive sea water desalination plants would green the deserts and disrupt numerous other economic decisions. Cars that use no fuel will zero out road taxes. Maybe one should get into the power plant decommissioning business :-) . What are your thoughts -- what strategies would you embrace? Hoyt Stearns Scottsdale, Arizona US Regards, Robin van Spaandonk http://rvanspaa.freehostia.com/Project.html
Re: [Vo]:Randy Mills' opinion
In reply to Peter Gluck's message of Wed, 20 Apr 2011 19:16:04 +0300: Hi, [snip] That doesn't necessarily mean that either of them are correct. ;) Dr. Randell Mills has a message to those who try to connect in anyway his work with that of Rossi: To me any intentional inference to hydrinos is a scam to copycat the legitimate systems of BLPs work. Please make it clear to anyone that you are in contact with that I believe that any implied association with hydrinos is a scam. I have no responsibility to anyone in this matter. Quite clear, isn't it? Just to remind you that Rossi has said that his system has nothing to do with hydrinos. Peter Regards, Robin van Spaandonk http://rvanspaa.freehostia.com/Project.html
[Vo]:Rossi’s tribute event to Focardi
Steven, aka da' judge ... This is simply a follow on to the Fakes thread. I should have changed the Subject bar, which I did now. Before one can eliminate fakes, one must identify how they could happen and an ulterior motive. This was not on the record before, so I added it. I admitted up front that I do not give it much credence presently, but it should be part of the record... just in case. In Rossi's mind this kind of thing would not be deceptive - he has strong OU and he owes a debt to Focardi - so this is a tribute and he does not want for it to go sour. Yes I know that two prior convictions does not mean he has not reformed - and in fact he probably has. That seems to be what you are suggesting, but he is no saint. Jones From Jones: We cannot assume honesty from a man like Rossi who is seldom honest. Not to mention – this demo was Rossi’s tribute event to Focardi – maybe a kind of pre-eulogy. Rossi had every incentive to fudge the results, to make it look better than it was, or in case something went wrong. Jones, correct me if I have misunderstood your position on this matter but it seems to me that much of your analysis hinges on a personal belief that Rossi is, at heart, motivated to behave in a dishonest way. You have been implying that Rossi is a dishonest person. Obviously, we can all capiche the fact that Rossi's is hiding crucial details. His deliberate withholding of crucial (proprietary) information obviously frustrates many, especially those who are trying to discern how his elusive e-kitties work. Few here dispute the fact that some of Rossi's commentary is contradictory. Many would even go far as saying that certain actions on Rossi's part seem to lack credibility, such as an apparent bogus engineering degree issued from what I gather has been discovered to have been a diploma mill. Mr. Rothwell certainly has eluded to such faults plenty of times over the months. I gather such faults contradictions have driven him nuts. However, and IMHO, to openly speculate that Rossi is being deliberately dishonest, and in the manner that you seem to be doing strikes me as almost prosecutorial in nature. It lacks a certain level analytical objectivity. It seems to me that you have been going after Rossi character as if you were the District Attorney for some county board, or government consumer protection agency. It's as if you have received complaints from sources who have been grumbling over the fact that the constant string of ramblings from Rossi's blog don't always add up... therefore, Rossi must be hiding something. And if Rossi's hiding something, that must mean he's Rossi is a dishonest person. Therefore if we assume Rossi is dishonest what's motivating Rossi's dishonesty. Suddenly, the mind starts conjuring up a plethora of justifications, many based on fragmentary bits and pieces of information previously gleaned from Rossi's ramblings. You are now speculating OUT LOUD that Rossi is motivated to behave dishonestly as a tribute to his partner, Focardi, who is in ill health. How far do you want to take such personal speculation? Personally, I would suggest that you might want to start backing up subjective speculations of this nature with actual objective PROOF. Otherwise, you are in danger of eroding your own credibility when it comes to convincing others as to your scientific analysis of the disputed heat measurements. Expressing these kinds of subjective speculation only opens the door allowing many to wonder if your scientific analysis is just as subjective. Judge Johnson is now leaving the bench. Here come de judge! Regards Steven Vincent Johnson www.OrionWorks.com www.zazzle.com/orionworks
[Vo]:Negative hydrogen (H-) ions make all the difference.
*Negative hydrogen (H-) ions make all the difference.* From the 2010 Piantelli patent an important section is excerpted for your convenience as follows: [start quote] The H- ions can be obtained by treating, under particular operative conditions, hydrogen H2 molecules that have been previously adsorbed on said transition metal surface, where the semi-free valence electrons form a plasma. In particular, a heating is needed to cause lattice vibrations, i.e. phonons, whose energy is higher than a first activation energy threshold, through non-linear and an harmonic phenomena. In such conditions, the following events can occur: a dissociation of the hydrogen molecules that is adsorbed on the surface; an interaction with valence electrons of the metal, and formation of H- ions; - an adsorption of the H- ions into the clusters, in particular the clusters that form the two or three crystal layers that are most close to the surface. The H- ions can just physically interact with the metal, or can chemically bond with it, in which case hydrides can be formed. The H- ions can also be adsorbed into the lattice interstices, but adsorption at the grain edges, by trapping the ions into the lattice defects; replacement of an atom of the metal of clusters may also occur. After such adsorption step, the H- ions interact with the atoms of the clusters, provided that a second activation threshold is exceeded, which is higher than the first threshold. By exceeding this second threshold, in accordance with the Pauli exclusion principle and with the Heisenberg uncertainty principle, the conditions are created for replacing electrons of metal atoms with H- ions, and, accordingly, for forming metal-hydrogen complex atoms. This event can take place due to the fermion nature of H- ion; however, since H- ions have a mass 1838 times larger than an electron mass, they tend towards deeper layers, and cause an emission of Auger electrons and of X rays. Subsequently, since the H- ion Bohr radius is comparable with the metal core radius, the H- ions can be captured by the metal core, causing a structural reorganization and freeing energy by mass defect; the H- ions can now be expelled as protons, and can generate nuclear reactions with the neighbouring cores. More in detail, the complex atom that has formed by the metal atom capturing the H- ion, in the full respect of the energy conservation principle, of the Pauli exclusion principle, and of the Heisenberg uncertainty principle, is forced towards an excited status, therefore it reorganizes itself by the migration of the H- ion towards deeper orbitals or levels, i.e. towards a minimum energy state, thus emitting Auger electrons and X rays during the level changes. The H- ion falls into a potential hole and concentrates the energy which was previously distributed upon a volume whose radius is about 10e-12 m into a smaller volume whose radius is about 5x10e-15 m. At the end of the process, the H- ion is at a distance from the core that is comparable with the nuclear radius; in fact in the fundamental status of the complex atom that is formed by adding the H- ion, due to its mass that is far greater than the mass of the electron, the H- ion is forced to stay at such deep level at a distance from the core that is comparable with the nuclear radius, in accordance with Bohr radius calculation. As above stated, owing to the short distance from the core, a process is triggered in which the H- ion is captured by the core, with a structural reorganization and energy release by mass defect, similarly to what happens in the case of electron capture with structural reorganization and energy release by mass defect or in case of loss of two electrons, due to their intrinsic instability, during the fall process towards the lowest layers, and eventually an expulsion of the the H- ion takes place as a proton, as experimentally detected in the cloud chamber, and nuclear reactions can occur with other neighboring cores, said reactions detected as transmutations on the active core after the production of energy. According to the above, the actual process cannot be considered as a fusion process of hydrogen atoms, in particular of particular hydrogen isotopes atoms; instead, the process has to be understood as an interaction of a transition metal and hydrogen in general, in its particular form of H- ion.[end quote] The H- ion is the active agent in both the Piantelli and Rossi process which itself is just a variation of the Piantelli process. Upon reading this section, I remembered that the THYRATRON. The hydrogen thyratron is a high peak power electrical switch which uses hydrogen gas as the switching medium. The switching action is achieved by a transfer from the insulating properties of neutral gas to the conducting properties of ionized gas. The process of switching in a hydrogen thyratron can be broken down into four phases. These are voltage hold-off, commutation, conduction
Re: [Vo]:Business opportunities re: Rossi; ORBO; Blacklight etc.
Then we will have to use a Rossi engine to fetch a meteor: http://meteorites.wustl.edu/id/metal.htm T
Re: [Vo]:Notes on Rossi Device new version 4/19/2011 -- H gas pressure
In reply to .:.gotjosh's message of Wed, 20 Apr 2011 11:33:49 +0200: Hi, [snip] I suspect that Hydrogen wouldn't be absorbed by the Ni fast enough for it to become saturated when the Hydrogen is initially connected, so one might expect the Hydrogen pressure in the container to actually drop after the Hydrogen is disconnected. It may even drop back considerably. (The atomic volume of H in the nickel will be about 75 times less than that of a gas compressed to 22 Bar.) I would love a copy of that doc... please do send one my way. i also made a calculation based on that line from the KE report - surprisingly i got zero comments - although i consider it a very relevant issue... 25 atm at startup is much more at 500C... i would love it if someone could double check these calculations and perhaps include them in the details documents. using the estimate of 0.09 grams of hydrogen pressurized into a 50cc chamber with 5cc occupied by 50g of nickel (at 8.8g/cc) and 45cc unoccupied (for the hydrogen to fill) with a starting pressure of ~24atm at 20C the pressure will grow to ~64atm at 500C atm deg K deg C 24.22 293 20 25.87 313 40 27.53 333 60 29.18 353 80 30.83 373 100 34.97 423 150 39.10 473 200 43.23 523 250 47.36 573 300 55.63 673 400 63.90 773 500 72.16 873 600 80.43 973 700 105.23 1273 1000 (are my calculations correct ? - https://spreadsheets.google.com/pub?hl=en_GBhl=en_GBkey=0Aj441n89_v_VdHhXMHZ6MmlRWlh0RVJKYVBwd3B4amcoutput=html ) (note: KE say 0.11g hydrogen but they are ignoring the space that the nickel occupies - and the 50cc is an estimate anyway) On Wed, Apr 20, 2011 at 00:43, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com wrote: Alan J Fletcher a...@well.com wrote: That's from the KE report : Thanks. - Jed Regards, Robin van Spaandonk http://rvanspaa.freehostia.com/Project.html
Re: [Vo]:Notes on Rossi Device new version 4/19/2011 -- H gas pressure
Re: estimated volume Catalyst volume is important stuff. How true is it? Who made the estimate? Any idea? On Wed, Apr 20, 2011 at 3:35 PM, .:.gotjosh ene...@begreen.nu wrote: Axil, I agree about 5g in proportion, but the KE report says: The central container seen in figure 3 has an estimated volume of 50 cm3 and it contains 50 grams of nickel. I also thought about the powder density/porosity and chose a number close to the full density of nickel metal, as i imagined those pores would/could be filled with the hydrogen gas. If I use your suggestion of 3g/cc then the amount of hydrogen at 25atm will be 0.07g and the pressure will increase in a similar way: 25.05 293 20 26.75 313 40 28.46 333 60 30.17 353 80 31.88 373 100 36.16 423 150 40.43 473 200 44.71 523 250 48.98 573 300 57.53 673 400 66.08 773 500 74.62 873 600 83.17 973 700 108.81 1273 1000 On Wed, Apr 20, 2011 at 16:15, Axil Axil janap...@gmail.com wrote: I question the amount of nickel used. The one liter (1000 cc) Cat-E used 100 grams of catalyst. By proportion, a 50 cc volume should use only 5 grams of catalyst. The density of the catalyst is too high. It should be about 3g/cc since it is porous. On Wed, Apr 20, 2011 at 5:33 AM, .:.gotjosh ene...@begreen.nu wrote: I would love a copy of that doc... please do send one my way. i also made a calculation based on that line from the KE report - surprisingly i got zero comments - although i consider it a very relevant issue... 25 atm at startup is much more at 500C... i would love it if someone could double check these calculations and perhaps include them in the details documents. using the estimate of 0.09 grams of hydrogen pressurized into a 50cc chamber with 5cc occupied by 50g of nickel (at 8.8g/cc) and 45cc unoccupied (for the hydrogen to fill) with a starting pressure of ~24atm at 20C the pressure will grow to ~64atm at 500C atm deg K deg C 24.22 293 20 25.87 313 40 27.53 333 60 29.18 353 80 30.83 373 100 34.97 423 150 39.10 473 200 43.23 523 250 47.36 573 300 55.63 673 400 63.90 773 500 72.16 873 600 80.43 973 700 105.23 1273 1000 (are my calculations correct ? - https://spreadsheets.google.com/pub?hl=en_GBhl=en_GBkey=0Aj441n89_v_VdHhXMHZ6MmlRWlh0RVJKYVBwd3B4amcoutput=html ) (note: KE say 0.11g hydrogen but they are ignoring the space that the nickel occupies - and the 50cc is an estimate anyway) On Wed, Apr 20, 2011 at 00:43, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.comwrote: Alan J Fletcher a...@well.com wrote: That's from the KE report : Thanks. - Jed
[Vo]:Magic vs Supermagic
It's Supermagic! No, it's merely Magic. Everybody saw it. It's really Supermagic! I'll admit it's Magic; but, sometimes people are so engrossed with Magic that they want to believe it's Supermagic. Well, we need Supermagic to save the world. I think Magic will save the world. I like Supermagic. I believe it's only Magic. You're prejudiced. You're enchanted. sigh
Re: [Vo]:Uppsala experiment April 21 ? -- Seems NOT
Disagree. Without patent protection, disclosure will only help potential competitors and no one would invest anything. He won't supply any of these devices to anyone until there is a Notice of Allowance at patent office. Also, if it is determined to be a nuclear process, government regulators would make themselves involved, and it could well take the entire length of any patent protection before NRC (or international equivalent) licenses to use the technology are granted. Especially after the recent events in Japan. His only option to make money is to sell as many large water heaters as he can as quickly as he can, and keep them serviced with sealed replacement reactors. To make electricity will involve pressurized boiling water or high temp heat transfer fluids, and I doubt that is on his agenda, even if the COP were high enough. I predict this is real but will be delayed for many years by regulators before it makes any electricity. Jay Caplan - Original Message - From: Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Wednesday, April 20, 2011 4:25 PM Subject: Re: [Vo]:Uppsala experiment April 21 ? -- Seems NOT Alan J Fletcher wrote: It might just mean that KE are going to Bologna to do the very soon test. Anyway: you will have very soon a report about the same test repeated, with the flow controlled in an “idiot-proof” system…you’ll see, stay in touch. I sure hope so. I do not understand why he is making that 1 MW reactor, but I wish the thought had never crossed his mind. He could convince the whole world and get a billion dollars in investment capital with what he has now, if he would only give a few of these things to universities and corporations under NDA. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:Uppsala experiment April 21 ? -- Seems NOT
Jay Caplan wrote: His only option to make money is to sell as many large water heaters as he can as quickly as he can, and keep them serviced with sealed replacement reactors. He is planning to sell them in Greece. He has Friends in High Places there and I gather he has permission. I do not know about Greece or Europe, but in the U.S. or Japan you are never allowed to sell equipment without revealing every detail of the inner workings, patent or no patent. In the U.S., the Underwriter's Laboratory (UL) will not put their seal of approval on the machine, and without that you are effectively barred from selling. No major dealer will touch it, and no insurance company will cover the equipment at the customer location. That is the whole point of UL -- to give the insurance companies a clear idea of the liability of the equipment. I have seen the paperwork and procedures you need to go through to get UL approval. One of the cold fusion researchers was thinking about applying, and he showed me the paperwork. You have to submit several working production models. You have to submit complete blueprints, and a complete list of every single item in the machine, down to the faceplate screws (as engineers say). They take apart the machines and examine them in detail to be sure they are correctly described, then they run them through many tests to be sure they are safe. Access to the information about the equipment may be limited -- not sure about that -- but any insurance company or District Attorney has access to it. I am sure that with something like the Rossi device, information would leak out. This is invasive and it costs a lot money, but you would not want to live in a world in which people could install untested equipment. In any case, Rossi could never hold his customers to an agreement that they will not open a sealed unit. That's like trying to stop programmers from poking around in Microsoft Windows. If Rossi sells 10 units, agreement or no agreement, you can be sure that within days 1 or 2 will end up in China being reverse engineered, and six months after that the market will be flooded with Chinese copies. He knows that as well as I do. What is he going to do, sue the user? What can he recover? The information is worth trillions of dollars. Everyone knows that. - Jed
RE: [Vo]:Magic vs Supermagic
Terry sez: ... You're prejudiced. You're enchanted. So... who do'ya have in mind to play these juicy parts? ;-) Regards, Steven Vincent Johnson www.OrionWorks.com www.zazzle.com/orionworks
Re: [Vo]:Magic vs Supermagic
On Wed, Apr 20, 2011 at 8:50 PM, OrionWorks - Steven Vincent Johnson orionwo...@charter.net wrote: So... who do'ya have in mind to play these juicy parts? ;-) Paul Newman and Robert Redford? T
[Vo]:The cooling water cannot touch the nickel catalyst
Abd ul-Rahman Lomax a...@lomaxdesign.com wrote: Straight through what? I'm not sure what that means. The air flow is straight through an automobile radiator, but it has many channels. Does the water come into contact with the nickel? The nickel catalyst? How could it! The cell is sealed and pressurized. The H2 tank would drain if there were holes in the cell to let the water through. Besides, it would wash out the powder. This is the second or third time I have heard someone suggest the water may reach the nickel. We know the water goes straight through with little resistance because in the first test it was driven with an itty-bitty pump. I suppose that pump consumed 20 W at most. Beene seems to think that a 20 W pump can magically add 16 kW (or 12 kW -- or something) to the reaction, but I suspect it cannot. Rossi says there is no copper or anything else, just stainless steel in the cell, and that is what the water comes in contact with. But what does he know? - Jed
Re: [Vo]:Uppsala experiment April 21 ? -- Seems NOT
At 05:35 PM 4/20/2011, Jed Rothwell wrote: ... A bit earlier than the reply to you he has: Andrea Rossi April 20th, 2011 at 3:09 PM Dear Mr Ivan Aquino: 1- we know the theory on the base of which our E-Cat work. We will release it as soon as out patent will be granted. Safety issues have been addressed and certificated after thousands of tests 2- No more public tests will be made, since from November our products will be in the market. The RD activity will not be public 3- For the next 2 years my work will be focused on USA and Greece Warm Regards, A.R. So I guess we'll just have to wait and see what happens tomorrow. I presume nyteknik will report on it
Re: [Vo]:Uppsala experiment April 21 ? -- Seems NOT
Alan J Fletcher a...@well.com wrote: So I guess we'll just have to wait and see what happens tomorrow. I presume nyteknik will report on it You are expecting something to happen tomorrow? I don't get it. Rossi just said there will be no more public tests. Then again he said something about better calorimetry soon, didn't he. He certainly says a lot contradictory stuff. I hope there is something tomorrow. He also said this, which I find exasperating: - Andrea Rossi April 20th, 2011 at 4:50 PMhttp://www.journal-of-nuclear-physics.com/?p=473cpage=4#comment-34113 Dear James Bowery: Time spent with that kind of Universities is gold. The more, the better: there is really to learn. Warm Regards, A.R. - James Bowery http://jimbowery.blogspost.com/ April 20th, 2011 at 4:45 PMhttp://www.journal-of-nuclear-physics.com/?p=473cpage=4#comment-34112 Mr. Rossi, What sort of investment of your time is required for the Universities of Uppsala and Stockholm to test the existing E-CAT prototypes in their facilities? Sincerely, James Bowery ME: Okay, Andrea, if the universities are so great, why are you concentrating on the damned 1 MW reactor? Forget it! Give small ones to the universities instead. I suppose he made some sort of contractual agreement to supply this 1 MW reactor, but any contract can be modified. Modifying this would surely benefit both parties. I cannot understand the high priority of the 1 MW reactor. Maybe I should send him that message, verbatim. Sigh . . . Not much point. I have told him that many times in the past, to no avail. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:How the water pump can add lots of energy
Reality check time: One HP is about 700 watts. If Rossi has found a way to get multiple kilowatts of energy out of a 1 HP pump motor, while still drawing off enough energy to keep the water moving, I say more power to him. That would be every bit as remarkable -- and valuable -- as getting multiple kilowatts of energy out of a nickel/hydrogen reaction. On 04/20/2011 06:12 PM, Jones Beene wrote: * * One final point on how potential energy, in the form of a high flow of water (l/sec) which comes from a one horsepower motor can be converted into a significant amount of energy in any device that can involve magnetostriction and/or cavitation. This is why you absolutely must include the pump motor as input. Rothwell states (incorrectly) that it is impossible to add measurable *friction* with this equipment (these pipes and pumps), and if you could somehow add it, they _would_ measure it I really don't think Jed said that. I really don't think he ever discussed adding _friction_ to the system, whatever that might mean. (He may have talked about adding _heat_, but that's something else again.) (Cut and paste is valuable when quoting retyping is not always so good. That's sure not a direct quote of Jed, despite the quotation marks.) It would be present before you turn the cell on, and after you turn it off. It would not suddenly magically appear when you turn on the power to the resistors. What he misses of course is the one place where he personally has seen small gain -- the Griggs pump, and the cavitation effect. How ironic in a way -- this is not friction per se, but it could be gainful. And as we have been taking recently, there is every reason to suspect a magnetostriction effect on the nickel. It would be hard NOT TO HAVE IT. This magnetostriction could easily operate like ultrasonics to convert pressurized high flow water into cavitation bubbles - and guess what sports fans - they _would not_ measure it at the start. It would be not be present before you turn the cell, on and after you turn it off. It does not show up till the heater fires up ! It would in fact suddenly magically appear when you turn on the power to the resistors. Not only that, the cavitation itself could be slightly OU (if Griggs is slightly OU). In effect the 1 hp of pressurized water flow - combined with a magnetostriction effect could serve to convert the flow into kW levels of heat. This could be as much as 20% of the heat seen. I doubt it is that high, but we cannot rule out that it is even higher! Well, we could rule it out, just possibly, if we were willing to admit that conservation of energy might play some role here. It is too much of a coincidence that the reactor loses it effect at a temperature which coincides with the Curie point of nickel; not to mention that the resistors have a magnetic field. Jones
Re: [Vo]:Pump power must be included
Jed Rothwell wrote: Harry Veeder wrote: Whether or not the water flow is powered by the pump or a waterfall, the kinetic energy of the flow may be a factor. No, it may not. That's out of the question. I have operated many flow calorimeters of all sizes and types, and there is absolutely no way you can detect the kinetic energy with this type of calorimeter. Furthermore, if you could, they would see it when they turn on the flow and prepare to do calorimetry, before they turn on the machine. The balance would be positive. It isn't. I agree that the flow of water adds an insignificant of heat to the water. I am speculating that a flow of water is part of the cold fusion recipe for making excess heat. A lack of water movement may explain why some PF type cells failed to perform in the past.They depended on the fickle nature of convection to spring to life. Not a chance. why do you say that? Harry
RE: [Vo]:How the water pump can add lots of energy
From: Stephen A. Lawrence If Rossi has found a way to get multiple kilowatts of energy out of a 1 HP pump motor, while still drawing off enough energy to keep the water moving, I say more power to him. That would be every bit as remarkable -- and valuable -- as getting multiple kilowatts of energy out of a nickel/hydrogen reaction. He wouldn't be the first - you are familiar with the Griggs pump, no? http://www.rexresearch.com/griggs/griggs.htm
Re: [Vo]:Magic vs Supermagic
Terry Blanton wrote: It's Supermagic! No, it's merely Magic. Everybody saw it. It's really Supermagic! I'll admit it's Magic; but, sometimes people are so engrossed with Magic that they want to believe it's Supermagic. Well, we need Supermagic to save the world. I think Magic will save the world. I like Supermagic. I believe it's only Magic. You're prejudiced. You're enchanted. sigh It is a kind of magic http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0p_1QSUsbsM or if your prefer a miracle http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XrADb7CHDsc Harry
Re: [Vo]:Magic vs Supermagic
Terry Blanton wrote: It's Supermagic! No, it's merely Magic. Everybody saw it. It's really Supermagic! I'll admit it's Magic; but, sometimes people are so engrossed with Magic that they want to believe it's Supermagic. Well, we need Supermagic to save the world. I think Magic will save the world. I like Supermagic. I believe it's only Magic. You're prejudiced. You're enchanted. sigh It is a kind of magic http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0p_1QSUsbsM or if your prefer a miracle http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XrADb7CHDsc Harry or a breakthru http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q22oGInO-uo Harry
RE: [Vo]:How the water pump can add lots of energy
The Hydro Dynamics pump used cavitation and shock waves from a dimpled rotor spinning inside a housing to increase the temperature of water flowing through the device. It was tested on a number of occasions to be OU, but not reliably. Rothwell has reported on it. It is in production now and has been for years but they do not claim OU - only high efficiency. In contrast, cavitation in the Rossi device could be a function of magnetostriction on the nickel powder combined with water flow. The outer surface of the reactor would be the functional equivalent of a transducer to cavitate the water flowing over it. IOW the nanopowder would function like a humming transformer core and it could also operate internally in the same way on hydrogen in the reactor - double duty, in effect. Like the Griggs pump, cavitation generates shock waves which convert mechanical energy into heat energy in a way that seems to be gainful at times. I'm not sure if it is magic or supermagic. From: Stephen A. Lawrence If Rossi has found a way to get multiple kilowatts of energy out of a 1 HP pump motor, while still drawing off enough energy to keep the water moving, I say more power to him. That would be every bit as remarkable -- and valuable -- as getting multiple kilowatts of energy out of a nickel/hydrogen reaction. He wouldn't be the first - you are familiar with the Griggs pump, no? http://www.rexresearch.com/griggs/griggs.htm
Re: [Vo]:The cooling water cannot touch the nickel catalyst
At 09:05 PM 4/20/2011, Jed Rothwell wrote: Abd ul-Rahman Lomax mailto:a...@lomaxdesign.coma...@lomaxdesign.com wrote: Straight through what? I'm not sure what that means. The air flow is straight through an automobile radiator, but it has many channels. Does the water come into contact with the nickel? The nickel catalyst? How could it! The cell is sealed and pressurized. The H2 tank would drain if there were holes in the cell to let the water through. Besides, it would wash out the powder. Ah. Thanks. Obvious. This is the second or third time I have heard someone suggest the water may reach the nickel. Great minds stink alike. We know the water goes straight through with little resistance because in the first test it was driven with an itty-bitty pump. I suppose that pump consumed 20 W at most. Beene seems to think that a 20 W pump can magically add 16 kW (or 12 kW -- or something) to the reaction, but I suspect it cannot. Rossi says there is no copper or anything else, just stainless steel in the cell, and that is what the water comes in contact with. But what does he know? It was just a question, Jed. Not an assertion. Stainless steel, fine! I've got no problem with it.
Re: [Vo]:How the water pump can add lots of energy
Stephen A. Lawrence sa...@pobox.com wrote: I really don't think Jed said that. I really don't think he ever discussed adding _friction_ to the system, whatever that might mean. (He may have talked about adding _heat_, but that's something else again.) Yes, that is what I meant. Loosely defined. Since the water was driven through the machine with a ~20 W pump, and the thermocouples show no temperature difference when the machine is turned off, I rule out any measurable heat. I was thinking only of a conventional method of transferring energy from the pump to the cell. Then Beene then introduced this novel idea: What [Jed] misses of course is the one place where he personally has seen small gain – the Griggs pump, and the cavitation effect. How ironic in a way – this is not friction per se, but it could be gainful. I did miss that! However, I have seen ultrasound generating equipment of various types, both electronic (Stringham) and mechanical (the Hydrosonic pump). I note that this equipment is not invisible. It is not small. If there is anything like this in the Rossi gadget, that would be readily apparent. So I think we can rule that out. Well, we could rule it out, just possibly, if we were willing to admit that conservation of energy might play some role here. I think the hypothesis is that the heat comes from ultrasound fusion, similar to what Stringham, Taleyarkhan or Hydrodynamics report. I am not 100% sure that phenomenal exists, but I am 100% sure that it requires equipment to produce the ultrasound, and there is no such equipment in the Rossi gadget. - Jed
Re: EXTERNAL: Re: [Vo]:Pump power must be included
Sorry, I didn't mean to imply that the flow of water generates a significant amount of heat by friction. I was speculating that a flow of water is part of the recipe for making excess heat. If it is a part of recipe you have to include the power required to bring about that flow. Harry From: Roarty, Francis X francis.x.roa...@lmco.com To: vortex-l@eskimo.com vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Wed, April 20, 2011 3:34:37 PM Subject: RE: EXTERNAL: Re: [Vo]:Pump power must be included Harry, I agree the energy utilized should be subtracted from the output but how much of the pressure or flow rate is actually removed from the system? – the differential measurements are only for temp but you should also quantify the pressure/flow rate into the reactor and the pressure/flow rate out of the reactor if you want to determine if any energy was added or subtracted – otherwise the same pressure and flow are still potential – available for use downstream. I am sure the portion of pressure/flow removed from the system is only a small fraction. Maybe put the exiting wat er after measurement into same diameter pipe as the source and measure with an identical flow rate meter? Fran From:Harry Veeder [mailto:hlvee...@yahoo.com] Sent: Wednesday, April 20, 2011 3:11 PM To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: EXTERNAL: Re: [Vo]:Pump power must be included Whether or not the water flow is powered by the pump or a waterfall, the kinetic energy of the flow may be a factor. A lack of water movement may explain why some PF type cells failed to perform in the past. They depended on the fickle nature of convection to spring to life. Harry yes, good point Jones, the system input power includes the power to operate the pump and the resistive heaters. That is incorrect. Please review the messages I have posted. The input power does not include the pump any more than it includes the overhead lights or an oscilloscope. Heat generated before the inlet sensor or after the outlet sensor is not measured. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:Negative hydrogen (H-) ions make all the difference.
In reply to Axil Axil's message of Wed, 20 Apr 2011 18:43:00 -0400: Hi, [snip] This event can take place due to the fermion nature of H- ion; however, since H- ions have a mass 1838 times larger than an electron mass, they tend towards deeper layers, and cause an emission of Auger electrons and of X rays. Subsequently, since the H- ion Bohr radius is comparable with the metal core radius, the H- ions can be captured by the metal core, causing a structural reorganization and freeing energy by mass defect; the H- ions can now be expelled as protons, and can generate nuclear reactions with the neighbouring cores. This appears to be self contradictory. First they say the H- ions can be captured by the metal core, causing a structural reorganization and freeing energy by mass defect; (implying a fusion reaction?), then they say the H- ions can now be expelled as protons. but if they have already undergone a fusion reaction, then they can't be expelled as protons? Perhaps they mean that the energy from one proton capture expels protons from other H- ions (i.e. not the one that was captured)? Regards, Robin van Spaandonk http://rvanspaa.freehostia.com/Project.html
Re: [Vo]:How the water pump can add lots of energy
whether or not caviation is occuring if the reactor were vibrating that would also help to transfer energy to the water. Harry From: Jones Beene jone...@pacbell.net To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Wed, April 20, 2011 11:04:49 PM Subject: RE: [Vo]:How the water pump can add lots of energy The Hydro Dynamics pump used cavitation and shock waves from a dimpled rotor spinning inside a housing to increase the temperature of water flowing through the device. It was tested on a number of occasions to be OU, but not reliably. Rothwell has reported on it. It is in production now and has been for years but they do not claim OU – only high efficiency. In contrast, cavitation in the Rossi device could be a function of magnetostriction on the nickel powder combined with water flow. The outer surface of the reactor would be the functional equivalent of a transducer to cavitate the water flowing over it. IOW the nanopowder would function like a humming transformer core and it could also operate internally in the same way on hydrogen in the reactor – double duty, in effect. Like the Griggs pump, cavitation generates shock waves which convert mechanical energy into heat energy in a way that seems to be gainful at times. I’m not sure if it is magic or supermagic… From:Stephen A. Lawrence If Rossi has found a way to get multiple kilowatts of energy out of a 1 HP pump motor, while still drawing off enough energy to keep the water moving, I say more power to him. That would be every bit as remarkable -- and valuable -- as getting multiple kilowatts of energy out of a nickel/hydrogen reaction. He wouldn’t be the first – you are familiar with the Griggs pump, no? http://www.rexresearch.com/griggs/griggs.htm
