Re: [Vo]:RE: Supersizing the BJT
In reply to Jones Beene's message of Sun, 8 May 2011 05:52:04 -0700: Hi, [snip] More like 6 minutes than 6 months - for nanopowder degradation from current flow This may be relevant. http://mpac.engr.ucdavis.edu/publications/FAS1.PDF -Original Message- From: mix...@bigpond.com As I understand the dynamics of this situation, one cannot pass a current through a nanopowder without promoting instant agglomeration - which over time proceeds progressively back into a bulk conductor. ...perhaps that's why it needs to be replaced after 6 months? Regards, Robin van Spaandonk Regards, Robin van Spaandonk http://rvanspaa.freehostia.com/project.html
Re: [Vo]:Self Running Free Energy
In reply to John Berry's message of Mon, 9 May 2011 12:13:28 +1200: Hi, [snip] A Muller inspired Motor/Generator powering it's self suspended in air... http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8iNrjKFSLu4 Notice that there is a part of the front that you never get to see? Regards, Robin van Spaandonk http://rvanspaa.freehostia.com/project.html
Re: [Vo]:Self Running Free Energy
In other videos you get to see all of it. Nothing can be done to disprove the possibility of fraud to someone committed to being skeptical. (short of wide spread common use) On Mon, May 9, 2011 at 6:21 PM, mix...@bigpond.com wrote: In reply to John Berry's message of Mon, 9 May 2011 12:13:28 +1200: Hi, [snip] A Muller inspired Motor/Generator powering it's self suspended in air... http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8iNrjKFSLu4 Notice that there is a part of the front that you never get to see? Regards, Robin van Spaandonk http://rvanspaa.freehostia.com/project.html
Re: [Vo]:Self Running Free Energy
Which PDF is it on EVGRAYTOO/files, please? On Mon, May 9, 2011 at 6:52 AM, John Berry aethe...@gmail.com wrote: Details: http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/EVGRAYTOO/files/ (join up to access pdf) http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/EVGRAYTOO/files/ http://www.overunity.com/index.php?topic=3842.0 http://www.overunity.com/index.php?topic=10705.msg285087#new http://www.overunity.com/index.php?topic=3842.0 On Mon, May 9, 2011 at 1:05 PM, OrionWorks - Steven Vincent Johnson orionwo...@charter.net wrote: A Muller inspired Motor/Generator powering it's self suspended in air... http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8iNrjKFSLu4 What are the details? ...it's history. How much energy does it allegedly generate?
Re: [Vo]:Self Running Free Energy
ROMEROUK.pdf On Mon, May 9, 2011 at 6:40 PM, Esa Ruoho esaru...@gmail.com wrote: Which PDF is it on EVGRAYTOO/files, please? On Mon, May 9, 2011 at 6:52 AM, John Berry aethe...@gmail.com wrote: Details: http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/EVGRAYTOO/files/ (join up to access pdf) http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/EVGRAYTOO/files/ http://www.overunity.com/index.php?topic=3842.0 http://www.overunity.com/index.php?topic=10705.msg285087#new http://www.overunity.com/index.php?topic=3842.0 On Mon, May 9, 2011 at 1:05 PM, OrionWorks - Steven Vincent Johnson orionwo...@charter.net wrote: A Muller inspired Motor/Generator powering it's self suspended in air... http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8iNrjKFSLu4 What are the details? ...it's history. How much energy does it allegedly generate?
[Vo]:OT: (Humor) Photoshop trickery
See: http://www.rense.com/ Incidentally, anybody notice the fact that this famous photo has always shown that one of the documents laying around on the table was redacted? (In this deliberately cropped image, see lower right hand corner.) Regards Steven Vincent Johnson www.OrionWorks.com www.zazzle.com/orionworks
Re: [Vo]:Fraud Warning msg posted at Defkalion, May 7
Mr. Trout, With a one-line ungrammatical email from a pseudonym which just advertises your site, with no further information, I'd actually tend to conclude that your site sure is a scam site. Legitimate websites are generally associated with legitimate people, and legitimate people don't use pseudonyms to drop one-line spam messages into Vortex. I *sure* wouldn't visit your site from a Windows box, and probably wouldn't visit it at all. And I'd suggest to the everyone else on Vortex that you give that site a wide berth, unless you happen to know for a fact that it's not going to be toxic to your computer. On 11-05-09 12:49 AM, Drowning Trout wrote: What a waste of valuable domain names. Please don't confuse my site e-cat dot us/ http://e-cat.us/ as a scam or phishing site.
Re: [Vo]:Fraud Warning msg posted at Defkalion, May 7
On 11-05-09 12:49 AM, Drowning Trout wrote: What a waste of valuable domain names. Please don't confuse my site e-cat dot us/ http://e-cat.us/ as a scam or phishing site. Looks like a harmless forum about the e-cat. Nobody but Trout has posted so far.
[Vo]:NyTeknik reports on Rossi patent
The situation is as clear as mud. See: http://www.nyteknik.se/nyheter/energi_miljo/energi/article3173090.ece - Jed
Re: [Vo]:Fraud Warning msg posted at Defkalion, May 7
Ah -- another short message from another brand-new pseudonym, also advertising the site. Something smells. Vortex has attracted a spammer, it seems. On 11-05-09 08:56 AM, vorl bek wrote: On 11-05-09 12:49 AM, Drowning Trout wrote: What a waste of valuable domain names. Please don't confuse my site e-cat dot us as a scam or phishing site. Looks like a harmless forum about the e-cat. Nobody but Trout has posted so far.
Re: [Vo]:NyTeknik reports on Rossi patent
On Mon, May 9, 2011 at 4:06 PM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com wrote: The situation is as clear as mud. See: http://www.nyteknik.se/nyheter/energi_miljo/energi/article3173090.ece - Jed I like the formulation nanometric nickel particles No word of catalysis-yet. Peter -- Dr. Peter Gluck Cluj, Romania http://egooutpeters.blogspot.com
[Vo]:This may be the entire patent
Here is a link from the NyTeknik article: http://worldwide.espacenet.com/publicationDetails/originalDocument?FT=Ddate=20110113DB=EPODOClocale=en_EPCC=USNR=2011005506A1KC=A1 This is the U.S. application. My guess is that this is the whole thing. I suppose that if it has been revised, the revised version should be here, but I wouldn't know about that. I think this is the same as: http://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/RossiAmethodanda.pdf It if isn't, I will replace the latter. I believe this is the patent Jones Beene refers to when he says the inner cell is copper. That's what this shows. The text refers to item 100, a copper tube: 10. An apparatus according to claim 1, characterized in that said apparatus comprises, encompassing said nickel powder, hydrogen and electric resistance (101) containing copper tube (100) a first steel-boron armored construction (102) encompassed by a second lead armored construction (103) for protecting said copper tube (100), a hydrogen bottle connection assembly (106) and a hydrogen bottle (107), said apparatus further comprising, outside of said lead armored construction (103), a cooling water steel outer pipe assembly (105). The schematic for this can be found in the page selection box on the top left, 2/9 Drawings.
RE: [Vo]:NyTeknik reports on Rossi patent
In a quick count of metals employed in this patent, copper is mentioned seven times and nickel six times. The testing of active powder in Sweden has shown a natural isotope balance of copper, and no radioactivity. Given that nickel has the second most stable nucleus in the periodic table, how can any objective observer believe that the heat from this reactor depends on the conversion of nickel to copper for the heating effect? .other than that Rossi says so ? Clearly, Rossi has no clue .. I will add, in deference to WL theory and the ULM, that the stated presence of boron does provide a more acceptable pathway for gain. Jones From: Jed Rothwell http://www.nyteknik.se/nyheter/energi_miljo/energi/article3173090.ece - Jed
RE: [Vo]:NyTeknik reports on Rossi patent
* I will add, in deference to WL theory and the ULM, that the stated presence of boron does provide a more acceptable pathway for the high gain. This would be due to the very high cross-section of boron for neutrons (thermal neutrons). I do not know that boron retains the high cross-section for cold neutrons, but if you look at the tables, which do not address this AFAIK - there is reason to believe that it would be higher - not lower. Thermal neutrons undergo a strong reaction with the boron-10, with the result being an alpha particle and lithium 7. Those two would be the ash, so the hypothesis is easily falsifiable. The downside of the hypothesis is that the boron is not located in the reactor, so how do cold neutrons migrate? This is a very energetic reaction and bremsstrahlung would not have been missed by VB, so in summary, this route is just as doubtful as any nuclear route - unless the there is a new physics version of some kind to hide high energy photons. Jones
Re: [Vo]:NASA Working on LENR Replication and Theory Confirmation
On Sun, 2011-05-08 at 16:16 -0400, Terry Blanton wrote: I finally got a chance to listen to the podcast: http://evworld.com/general.cfm?page=audiolist The Future of Energy: Part 1 23-Apr-2011 -- Part one of two part dialogue with the chief scientist at NASA's Langley research center on the most promising new energy sources, as well as the obstacles they face. dennis_bushnell_part1.mp3 This is truly fascinating stuff, beginning at minute 7:20. Dr. Bushnell says that they became interested in testing the Widom-Larsen theory in 2006 and began work in cold fusion. http://www.newenergytimes.com/v2/news/2010/35/SR35913widomlarsen.shtml The theory allows for the conversion to work with either deuterium, hydrogen, or trititum, and certain metals, including palladium and nickel, (maybe because they are in the same column in the periodic table? -- has anyone tried platium?) The theory claims that it's not fusion, but rather a type of fission whereby the target metal captures a weak neutron which degenerates into a proton, causing the transmutation, followed by a release of a beta particle which releases heat. This theory has been around for a few years now, and relies on no new physics. Dr. Bushnell believes in this reaction and thinks that Rossi could change the world with his discovery. Craig Haynie Manchester, NH
RE: [Vo]:NyTeknik reports on Rossi patent
This is a boron day for me . g not boring but boronic. Every day provides new or previously overlooked details, and perhaps an element of Rossi's good fortune will be that someone, probably not from U of B, but from somewhere else is going to provide answers that could help him. The role of boron may be one of them. I am still thinking about the commitment of NASA to this technology. The interest from Langley - from all reports - is much stronger than the interviews indicate, and they seem to be hell-bent on it, with a large staff, and are operating on the premise of it being at least partly related to the WL theory. When I say 'partly related' - in truth the active particle seems much more likely to be a version of the virtual neutron than the ULM since in the Rossi configuration, it must travel in a range of 1-2 cm to activate the boron. The ULM cannot do that. To give credit where it is due, there are many names associated with the idea that hydrogen, and especially spillover hydrogen (monatomic) can interact as a neutron - due to electron orbital shrinkage, or deflation, passivation, or whatnot - and the party that came up with the idea first should be credited. Why that person, twenty years ago - did not actually employ boron is a mystery. (that is if it is the active ingredient in E-Cat, which is today's floater. The names of Vigier, Dufour, Mills and Swartz from the early nineties are associated in my mind with this virtual neutron concept - but I do not know who should be credited as the originator - but for sure it is not Larsen (unless he published something outside of the usual cannels and around 1991. From: Jones Beene * I will add, in deference to WL theory and the ULM, that the stated presence of boron does provide a more acceptable pathway for the high gain. This would be due to the very high cross-section of boron for neutrons (thermal neutrons). I do not know that boron retains the high cross-section for cold neutrons, but if you look at the tables, which do not address this AFAIK - there is reason to believe that it would be higher - not lower. Thermal neutrons undergo a strong reaction with the boron-10, with the result being an alpha particle and lithium 7. Those two would be the ash, so the hypothesis is easily falsifiable. The downside of the hypothesis is that the boron is not located in the reactor, so how do cold neutrons migrate? This is a very energetic reaction and bremsstrahlung would not have been missed by VB, so in summary, this route is just as doubtful as any nuclear route - unless the there is a new physics version of some kind to hide high energy photons. Jones
Re: [Vo]:Fraud Warning msg posted at Defkalion, May 7
On a lighter note, Eric Kreig, whose name appears beside the word 'skeptic' in the dictionary, has posted the following on his free_energy yahoo group: [free_energy] Fwd: Free Energy On The RightSunday, May 8, 2011 3:42 PM From: erickr...@verizon.net erickr...@verizon.net To: free_ene...@yahoogroups.com People, I am interested to hear of what sounds like fairly well done experiments to investigate the near FE claims of Rossi (they call the energy source LENR - Low Energy Nuclear Reactions) - it purports to be on the level of what Blacklight Power has been claiming for over 10 years. There may well be a skeptical analysis showing it all to be a scam or delusion - I just haven't seen one yet. Looks to me the most promising claim in years. snip end message Lizabeth, it's the big one. I'm coming to see you! T
Re: [Vo]:NyTeknik reports on Rossi patent
In matter of neutrons, Hideo Kozima has a lot of publications. His TNCF (trapped neutron catalyzed fusion) is described the best ib his book: The Science of the Cold Fusion Phenomenon, Elsevier Ed. 2006 Peter On Mon, May 9, 2011 at 5:22 PM, Jones Beene jone...@pacbell.net wrote: This is a “boron day” for me … g not boring but boronic. Every day provides new or previously overlooked details, and perhaps an element of Rossi’s good fortune will be that someone, probably not from U of B, but from somewhere else is going to provide answers that could help him. The role of boron may be one of them. I am still thinking about the commitment of NASA to this technology. The interest from Langley - from all reports - is much stronger than the interviews indicate, and they seem to be hell-bent on it, with a large staff, and are operating on the premise of it being at least partly related to the WL theory. When I say ‘partly related’ – in truth the active particle seems much more likely to be a version of the “virtual neutron” than the ULM since in the Rossi configuration, it must travel in a range of 1-2 cm to activate the boron. The ULM cannot do that. To give credit where it is due, there are many names associated with the idea that hydrogen, and especially spillover hydrogen (monatomic) can “interact as a neutron” - due to electron orbital shrinkage, or deflation, passivation, or whatnot – and the party that came up with the idea first should be credited. Why that person, twenty years ago - did not actually employ boron is a mystery. (that is if it is the active ingredient in E-Cat, which is today’s “floater”. The names of Vigier, Dufour, Mills and Swartz from the early nineties are associated in my mind with this virtual neutron concept - but I do not know who should be credited as the originator – but for sure it is not Larsen (unless he published something outside of the usual cannels and around 1991. *From:* Jones Beene Ø I will add, in deference to WL theory and the ULM, that the stated presence of boron does provide a more acceptable pathway for the high gain… This would be due to the very high cross-section of boron for neutrons (thermal neutrons). I do not know that boron retains the high cross-section for cold neutrons, but if you look at the tables, which do not address this AFAIK - there is reason to believe that it would be higher – not lower. Thermal neutrons undergo a strong reaction with the boron-10, with the result being an alpha particle and lithium 7. Those two would be the ash, so the hypothesis is easily falsifiable. The downside of the hypothesis is that the boron is not located in the reactor, so how do cold neutrons migrate? This is a very energetic reaction and bremsstrahlung would not have been missed by VB, so in summary, this route is just as doubtful as any nuclear route – unless the there is a “new physics” version of some kind to hide high energy photons. Jones -- Dr. Peter Gluck Cluj, Romania http://egooutpeters.blogspot.com
Re: [Vo]:Fraud Warning msg posted at Defkalion, May 7
Ah -- another short message from another brand-new pseudonym, also advertising the site. Something smells. Vortex has attracted a spammer, it seems. Don't go off the rails with paranoia. I have no connection to the site, and was simply pointing out that it seems harmless. On 11-05-09 08:56 AM, vorl bek wrote: On 11-05-09 12:49 AM, Drowning Trout wrote: What a waste of valuable domain names. Please don't confuse my site e-cat dot us as a scam or phishing site. Looks like a harmless forum about the e-cat. Nobody but Trout has posted so far.
Re: [Vo]:This may be the entire patent
I OCR'ed and uploaded the U.S. patent application. It might be a little different. It is hard to compare. It is dated January 2011: http://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/RossiAmethodandaa.pdf If this is what the Italian P.O. approved, it isn't very helpful. - Jed
RE: [Vo]:NyTeknik reports on Rossi patent
From: Peter Gluck In matter of neutrons, Hideo Kozima has a lot of publications. His TNCF (trapped neutron catalyzed fusion) is described the best in his book: The Science of the Cold Fusion Phenomenon, Elsevier Ed. 2006 Peter Found this scanned paper from ICCF7: http://web.pdx.edu/~pdx00210/Papers/papera/ICCF7.pdf for a shortened version.
RE: [Vo]:NyTeknik reports on Rossi patent
Jones, I think you nailed it on the copper migration since it appears the copper tube is buried in the powder but when they say said copper tube further including at least a heating electrical resistance are they Implying the internal resistor is INSIDE the copper pipe? Fran 9. An apparatus method according to claim 7, characterized in that in said nickel powder filled metal tube (2) is a copper tube, said copper tube further including at least a heating electrical resistance, said tube being encompassed by a jacket (7) including either water or boron or only boron, said jacket (7) being encompassed by further lead jacket (8) in turn optionally encompassed by a steel layer (9), said jackets (7, 8) being adapted to prevent radiations emitted from said copper tube (2) from exiting said copper tube (2), thereby also transforming said radiations into thermal energy.
Re: [Vo]:This may be the entire patent
I ocr'ed and uploaded the 2010 Piantelli patent as well: http://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/PiantelliSmethodforp.pdf I do not know why these things are not ocr'ed at the WIPO website. - Jed
RE: [Vo]:NyTeknik reports on Rossi patent
OMG - Lazar and Jarod do their boron shtick ... http://www.ufomind.com/area51/desert_rat/1995/dr24/#boron To quote from this unassailable source of info: The vast majority of the world's Boron comes from the United States, and most of that is extracted from a big hole in the ground at--you guessed it--Boron, California, which happens to be adjacent to the most secret part of Edwards Air Force Base. The second largest producer is Searles Dry Lake at Trona, California, which happens to be adjacent to the highly restricted China Lake Naval Weapons Center. The other Boron mines in the U.S. are in those military/UFO hotbeds, Nevada and New Mexico. Are we beginning to detect a BORON CONSPIRACY??? In any case, our recommendation to investors is BUY. End of quote... Hey, can one actually buy boron futures? -Original Message- From: Terry Blanton This is a boron day for me . g not boring but boronic. There are several anecdotes in Ufology about aliens' boron usage. T
Re: [Vo]:NyTeknik reports on Rossi patent
Thanks, if it is about priority, we have to take Hideo in consideration. Peter On Mon, May 9, 2011 at 6:01 PM, Jones Beene jone...@pacbell.net wrote: *From:* Peter Gluck ** * * In matter of neutrons, Hideo Kozima has a lot of publications. His TNCF (trapped neutron catalyzed fusion) is described the best in his book: “The Science of the Cold Fusion Phenomenon,” Elsevier Ed. 2006 Peter Found this scanned paper from ICCF7: http://web.pdx.edu/~pdx00210/Papers/papera/ICCF7.pdf for a shortened version… -- Dr. Peter Gluck Cluj, Romania http://egooutpeters.blogspot.com
[Vo]:Boron fission
In the case of boron-10 reacting with a virtual neutron, this would be closer to fission than fusion, if we wanted to be precise - and also is lower in energy than the reaction of boron with a real neutron (which is over 1 MeV heavier than a proton). If the virtual neutron is a form of spillover with a deflated electron, or a maxed-out hydino, then the reactive particle could be lower in mass yet. This is getting somewhere ... but ... Can such a reaction be hidden from sophisticated gamma detection, that is the question? ... i.e. for whether or not this could be applicable to the Rossi effect. On the plus side - the ash might be helium and lithium-6 (instead of lithium-7) and the gain is more evenly split between the two. The crux of the situation is that if the boron layer (of an E-Cat reactor) is ever tested for isotopes (NOT the nickel itself) and helium is indeed found in the boron, then boron fission becomes a prime candidate for gain instead of nickel transmutation. There would be no residual radioactivity expected in boron fission. BTW the appearance of the E-Cats is distinguished by black gunk - which could be a result of the flux used to braze the tubes ... OR ... possibly related to leakage of boron during fabrication, which is black in coloration and often comes mixed with carbon anyway. One final note (even further afield) is that The Boron-10 isotope is excellent for capturing thermal neutrons but only about 20% of the natural element. 80% is 11-B. The worldwide nuclear industry routinely enriches natural boron to nearly pure 10-B, and the less-valuable by-product, depleted boron, is almost a giveaway item ... but a hack inventor might not appreciate this, if he were not trained in nuclear physics. And ... if he were the luckiest man on earth :-) which would be the case if the virtual neutron were discovered to work especially well with 11-B, instead of 10-B; then the yield could be 3 alphas. Three alphas, when forming at low net enthalpy - could be in the range where secondary bremsstrahlung would be completely hidden from view (way under 200 keV) but that is far from clear ... worth mentioning, however, since it will give Robin a nice segue to expound on how a hydrino + 11-B could be the ideal kind of nuclear reaction - which would escape gamma detection for the most part, and yet have a good yield with no residual radioactivity and no other indicia either. Geeze, it is almost a designer reaction ... but that does not improve the long odds ... Jones attachment: winmail.dat
Re: [Vo]:NyTeknik reports on Rossi patent
How does the Rossi device drive the electromigration of copper? Harry From: Jones Beene jone...@pacbell.net To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Mon, May 9, 2011 9:43:33 AM Subject: RE: [Vo]:NyTeknik reports on Rossi patent In a quick count of metals employed in this patent, copper is mentioned seven times and nickel six times. The testing of active powder in Sweden has shown a natural isotope balance of copper, and no radioactivity. Given that nickel has the second most stable nucleus in the periodic table, how can any objective observer believe that the heat from this reactor depends on the conversion of nickel to copper for the heating effect? …other than that Rossi says so ? Clearly, Rossi has no clue …. I will add, in deference to WL theory and the ULM, that the stated presence of boron does provide a more acceptable pathway for gain… Jones From:Jed Rothwell http://www.nyteknik.se/nyheter/energi_miljo/energi/article3173090.ece - Jed
RE: [Vo]:NyTeknik reports on Rossi patent
http://www.journal-of-nuclear-physics.com/?p=473cpage=8#comment-37766 Luis Vaccaro May 9th, 2011 at 3:05 AM Dear Mr Rossi, Just some curiosities: 1) do you explain all about the secret catalyst in you patent? 2) if this is the case, the nature of the catalyst will be revealed after the release of the patent or after the 20 years of live of the patent? 3) do you know, approximately, how much will cost the recharge of the module after the 6 month of working ? thanks very much for your answers! L.V. Andrea Rossi May 9th, 2011 at 8:36 AM Dear Mr Luis Vaccaro: 1- no 2- no 3- 100 $ Warm regards, A.R.
Re: [Vo]:unsubscribe
Please unsubscribe me.
[Vo]:Phys. Rev. C paper -- probably conventional fusion
Phys. Rev. C 83, 054602 (2011) [10 pages] Nucleus-nucleus cold fusion reactions analyzed with the l-dependent “fusion by diffusion” model http://prc.aps.org/abstract/PRC/v83/i5/e054602
[Vo]:Passi 22 -- Internal eCAT diagrams
http://22passi.blogspot.com/2011/05/ipotesi-e-cat.html
[Vo]:Re: Passi 22 -- Internal eCAT diagrams -- HYPOTHESIS
At 10:45 AM 5/9/2011, Alan J Fletcher wrote: http://22passi.blogspot.com/2011/05/ipotesi-e-cat.html Relax .. it's a HYPOTHESIS At a time when half the world tries to replicate the reactor Ni-H weaned by Focardi and Rossi, after a brilliant discussion on patents receive from our great engineer Jack - that surprises me more - two of his plausible hypothesis could be constructed as the core of the E-Cat, with plenty of drawings and cutaways.There are also speculations about possible catalysts even secrets.
Re: [Vo]:NyTeknik reports on Rossi patent
From: Jones Beene jone...@pacbell.net To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Mon, May 9, 2011 1:23:07 PM Subject: RE: [Vo]:NyTeknik reports on Rossi patent From:Harry Veeder How does the Rossi device drive the electromigration of copper? Galvanic corrosion …. Well known between nickel and copper Doesn't that require some moisture between the copper and nickel? Anyway, why should we now believe Rossi is correctly describing his patent claims? Right now we have only his word that the claims described in the Ny Teknik article are the claims present in his Italian patent. Harry
RE: [Vo]:NyTeknik reports on Rossi patent
-Original Message- From: Harry Veeder How does the Rossi device drive the electromigration of copper? Galvanic corrosion …. Well known between nickel and copper HV: Doesn't that require some moisture between the copper and nickel? Not necessarily 'moisture' so much as a solvent or other 'vehicle,' and hot hydrogen should do the trick ... it is very corrosive. HV: Anyway, why should we now believe Rossi is correctly describing his patent claims? Good point and I agree that this one is probably still a more of a decoy than anything else. There are many reports of another WIPO filing which will be published soon, which will probably identify the catalyst, since essentially that is probably his main breakthrough. How the Italians can differentiate this one from Piantelli is not clear, so what has he protected really? Hmm ... Well actually, the boron could be the critical difference, and until today it has been under the radar - have you seen anyone even consider the possibility that boron could be the active heat source? Boron could easily be the real secret - hiding in plain view, as it were... somewhat like OBL ... Surely we are not the first to pick up on this ??? Jones
Re: [Vo]:Passi 22 -- Internal eCAT diagrams
Hi, On 9-5-2011 19:45, Alan J Fletcher wrote: http://22passi.blogspot.com/2011/05/ipotesi-e-cat.html Is the PEM in the ECAt_Versione_PEM.bmp picture a Proton Exchange Membrane like the ones used in Fuel Cells? Kind regards, MoB
Re: [Vo]:Passi 22 -- Internal eCAT diagrams
On Mon, May 9, 2011 at 2:20 PM, Man on Bridges manonbrid...@aim.com wrote: Is the PEM in the ECAt_Versione_PEM.bmp picture a Proton Exchange Membrane like the ones used in Fuel Cells? That is what the text speculates. T
[Vo]:
*The clump theory of plasmoid hydrogen ion emissions.* The place where hydrogen ions are first gathered together could be on the heater filament of the Rossi reactor and not inside the nickel powder. A clump of negative hydrogen ions may form on the filament of the internal heater inside the Rossi reactor vessel at the point of dielectric breakdown of hydrogen. This clump will behave very mush like an Electrum Validum (EV) plasmoid of electrons and will be compressed and packed by electrostatic and magnetic fields to high density like a collapsing cavitation bubble in the final stage of breakdown. This sub nanometer sized (H-) ion cluster exhibits a large negative electric charge concentration; therefore a well organized and intense magnetic and electrostatic field must be present inside it. A simple model will assume the EV to be a sphere, while a more developed model will consider it to be a toroid, perpendicular to the direction the velocity of movement and stable for certain range of configuration values. Like ball lightning, these negatively charged plasmoids will be attracted to the sharp points of the positively charged nickel powder and find their way into small atomic lattice faults where they are made coherent by tight confinement in these quantum cavities where they undergo further compression until a fusion of these hydrogen plasmoid is catalyzed.
RE: [Vo]:Boron fission (fusion)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aneutronic_fusion This wiki site has some info on ‘wishful’ and desirable, but well-known fusion reactions, including the one which is (by far) the most interesting to everyone who has looked into this - and the most studied: p + 11B → 3 4He + 8.7 MeV This reaction is cleaner than clean, in nuclear terms. No residual radioactivity and no neutrons. Alphas do not go very far. Now imagine that the proton is not really a proton at all, until it enters the nucleus, but is essentially neutral. In fact it is monatomic hydrogen (spillover) in which the electron has become trapped in a low orbital (or else the Mills’ hydrino or a proton with a deflated electron) and thus appears charge-neutral when approaching a boron nucleus at low energy. Nickel can do that kind of electron magic, according to Randell Mills and many others. The term “virtual neutron” has been used for this particular species. It can easily go through solid metal walls, just like a neutron, and it moves from the nickel side of a wall to the boron side, with ease, like a neutron. But boron has a high affinity and it can go no further. However, it still needs energy to tunnel into the boron nucleus - which, in QM terms, is “borrowed in advance” from the large amount available in the end. This makes it true LENR, not hot fusion. It is the best of both worlds. Falsifiability. Two details (findings) would seal-the-deal for this reaction being the Rossi effect 1) Finding helium with the boron, but not with the nickel 2) Proving that the reaction can happen without a gamma signature above 200 keV The last one is the hardest, of course. Jones In the case of boron-10 reacting with a virtual neutron, this would be closer to fission than fusion, if we wanted to be precise - and also is lower in energy than the reaction of boron with a real neutron (which is over 1 MeV heavier than a proton). If the “virtual neutron” is a form of spillover with a deflated electron, or a maxed-out hydino, then the reactive particle could be lower in mass yet. This is getting somewhere … but … Can such a reaction be hidden from sophisticated gamma detection, that is the question? … i.e. for whether or not this could be applicable to the Rossi effect. On the plus side - the ash might be helium and lithium-6 (instead of lithium-7) and the gain is more evenly split between the two. The crux of the situation is that if the boron layer (of an E-Cat reactor) is ever tested for isotopes (NOT the nickel itself) and helium is indeed found in the boron, then “boron fission” becomes a prime candidate for gain instead of nickel transmutation. There would be no residual radioactivity expected in boron fission. BTW the appearance of the E-Cats is distinguished by black gunk - which could be a result of the flux used to braze the tubes … OR … possibly related to leakage of boron during fabrication, which is black in coloration and often comes mixed with carbon anyway. One final note (even further afield) is that The Boron-10 isotope is excellent for capturing thermal neutrons but only about 20% of the natural element. 80% is 11-B. The worldwide nuclear industry routinely enriches natural boron to nearly pure 10-B, and the less-valuable by-product, depleted boron, is almost a giveaway item … but a hack inventor might not appreciate this, if he were not trained in nuclear physics. And … if he were the luckiest man on earth :-) which would be the case if the “virtual neutron” were discovered to work especially well with 11-B, instead of 10-B; then the yield could be 3 alphas. Three alphas, when forming at low net enthalpy - could be in the range where secondary bremsstrahlung would be completely hidden from view (way under 200 keV) but that is far from clear…. … worth mentioning, however, since it will give Robin a nice segue to expound on how a hydrino + 11-B could be the ideal kind of nuclear reaction - which would escape gamma detection for the most part, and yet have a good yield with no residual radioactivity and no other indicia either. Geeze, it is almost a “designer reaction” … but that does not improve the long odds … Jones attachment: winmail.dat
Re: [Vo]:Passi 22 -- Internal eCAT diagrams
No membrane is present. Rossi said that he does not use precious metals in his reactor. On Mon, May 9, 2011 at 2:28 PM, Terry Blanton hohlr...@gmail.com wrote: On Mon, May 9, 2011 at 2:20 PM, Man on Bridges manonbrid...@aim.com wrote: Is the PEM in the ECAt_Versione_PEM.bmp picture a Proton Exchange Membrane like the ones used in Fuel Cells? That is what the text speculates. T
Re: [Vo]:Passi 22 -- Internal eCAT diagrams
Hi, On 9-5-2011 21:03, Axil Axil wrote: No membrane is present. Rossi said that he does not use precious metals in his reactor. On Mon, May 9, 2011 at 2:28 PM, Terry Blanton hohlr...@gmail.com mailto:hohlr...@gmail.com wrote: On Mon, May 9, 2011 at 2:20 PM, Man on Bridges manonbrid...@aim.com mailto:manonbrid...@aim.com wrote: Is the PEM in the ECAt_Versione_PEM.bmp picture a Proton Exchange Membrane like the ones used in Fuel Cells? That is what the text speculates. T Could well be, but to my knowledge PEMs (a.k.a. polymer electrolyte membrane) are usually made of Nafion, which is similar like Teflon and not a (precious) metal. Kind regards, MoB
Re: [Vo]:Passi 22 -- Internal eCAT diagrams
High temperatures up to 1600C are present in the reaction vessel. Any organic will fail at about 400C. On Mon, May 9, 2011 at 3:16 PM, Man on Bridges manonbrid...@aim.com wrote: Hi, On 9-5-2011 21:03, Axil Axil wrote: No membrane is present. Rossi said that he does not use precious metals in his reactor. On Mon, May 9, 2011 at 2:28 PM, Terry Blanton hohlr...@gmail.com wrote: On Mon, May 9, 2011 at 2:20 PM, Man on Bridges manonbrid...@aim.com wrote: Is the PEM in the ECAt_Versione_PEM.bmp picture a Proton Exchange Membrane like the ones used in Fuel Cells? That is what the text speculates. T Could well be, but to my knowledge PEMs (a.k.a. polymer electrolyte membrane) are usually made of Nafion, which is similar like Teflon and not a (precious) metal. Kind regards, MoB
Re: [Vo]:This may be the entire patent
The Rossi US patent application is quite a piece of work. He claims both fusion and fission reactions occur in the cell: [0069] In particular, said graphs clearly show that zinc is formed, whereas zinc was not present in the nickel powder originally loaded into the apparatus said zinc being actually generated by a fusion of a nickel atom and two hydrogen atoms. [0070] This demonstrates that, in addition to fusion, the inventive reaction also provides a nickel nucleus fission phenomenon generating lighter stable atoms. [0071] Moreover, it has been found that, after having generated energy the used powders contained both copper and lighter than nickel atoms (such as sulphur, chlorine, potassium, calcium). [0072] This demonstrate that, in addition to fusion, also a nickel nucleus fission phenomenon generating lighter stable atoms occurs. He then claims that 58 g of Ni provides the equivalent energy of 30,000 tons of oil with the strangest calculation that begins with 10 MeV of energy per reaction. This is converted to mass equivalent, multiplied by Avogadro's number and, using Einstein's equation, converted back to energy! Bizarre. T
Re: [Vo]:
If the clump theory of plasmoid hydrogen ion emissions is correct, an alternative way to form a long lived plasmoid based reaction is to construct a reactor as follows. Fill the stainless steel reaction vessel with lithium hydride. Cover the walls of the Reaction chamber with nickel oxide. Apply a high voltage nano-second burst DC voltage to the lithium hydride via a negative electrode. Complete the circuit using a positively charged connection terminated at the stainless steel reaction vessel. EV’s will form at the boundary between the NiO and the LiH when the dielectric of these two materials breaks down. This negative hydrogen ion plasmoids will be driven into the lattice faults created by the erosion of NiO by hydrogen from the LiH. The LiH can be used in a coolant loop to extract heat (1000C) at high efficiency from the reaction vessel via a heat exchanger. Hydrogen can be replaced in the LiH via a bubbler as it is consumed. Oxygen from NiO decomposition can be easily out-gassed. There will be no filament erosion to deal with making for a long lived reactor. The reactor will be explosion resistant since no free gaseous hydrogen is used and have a negative void reaction termination behavior above 1000C. On Mon, May 9, 2011 at 2:45 PM, Axil Axil janap...@gmail.com wrote: *The clump theory of plasmoid hydrogen ion emissions.* The place where hydrogen ions are first gathered together could be on the heater filament of the Rossi reactor and not inside the nickel powder. A clump of negative hydrogen ions may form on the filament of the internal heater inside the Rossi reactor vessel at the point of dielectric breakdown of hydrogen. This clump will behave very mush like an Electrum Validum (EV) plasmoid of electrons and will be compressed and packed by electrostatic and magnetic fields to high density like a collapsing cavitation bubble in the final stage of breakdown. This sub nanometer sized (H-) ion cluster exhibits a large negative electric charge concentration; therefore a well organized and intense magnetic and electrostatic field must be present inside it. A simple model will assume the EV to be a sphere, while a more developed model will consider it to be a toroid, perpendicular to the direction the velocity of movement and stable for certain range of configuration values. Like ball lightning, these negatively charged plasmoids will be attracted to the sharp points of the positively charged nickel powder and find their way into small atomic lattice faults where they are made coherent by tight confinement in these quantum cavities where they undergo further compression until a fusion of these hydrogen plasmoid is catalyzed.
[Vo]:Can Rossi generate steam hotter than 110 °C ?
Dear all, I'm puzzled that Rossi has not answered me yet when I posted the message below on his journal last week ( http://www.journal-of-nuclear-physics.com/?p=360). If he cannot generate steam hotter than 110°C, then generating electricity will not be efficient due to Carnot's Theorem. On the other hand, if he can generate hot steam, why doesn't he demonstrate it ? It would eliminate any issues regarding wet vs dry steam in a very simple way. Just a reminder : steam can be heated at any temperature at atmospheric pressure, provided you give it enough room to expand (because V = nRT/P). Steam can expand as it wants in Rossi's device, thanks to the open hose. --- Dear Mr. Rossi, Did you ever obtain an output steam temperature well above the boiling temperature of water, e.g. an output steam temperature of 110 °C ? Presumably, such a temperature could be obtained by reducing the flow of water, and would eliminate any doubts about wet vs dry steam in a simple way. Is there any principle of operations that would make it impossible to obtain such a higher temperature ? Thanks, Pierre C.
[Vo]:Re: [Vo]:Can Rossi generate steam hotter than 110 °C ?
Copper pipes don't like high pressure. On Mon, May 9, 2011 at 4:01 PM, Pierre Carbonnelle pierre.carbonne...@gmail.com wrote: Dear all, I'm puzzled that Rossi has not answered me yet when I posted the message below on his journal last week ( http://www.journal-of-nuclear-physics.com/?p=360). If he cannot generate steam hotter than 110°C, then generating electricity will not be efficient due to Carnot's Theorem. On the other hand, if he can generate hot steam, why doesn't he demonstrate it ? It would eliminate any issues regarding wet vs dry steam in a very simple way. Just a reminder : steam can be heated at any temperature at atmospheric pressure, provided you give it enough room to expand (because V = nRT/P). Steam can expand as it wants in Rossi's device, thanks to the open hose. --- Dear Mr. Rossi, Did you ever obtain an output steam temperature well above the boiling temperature of water, e.g. an output steam temperature of 110 °C ? Presumably, such a temperature could be obtained by reducing the flow of water, and would eliminate any doubts about wet vs dry steam in a simple way. Is there any principle of operations that would make it impossible to obtain such a higher temperature ? Thanks, Pierre C.
Re: [Vo]:Passi 22 -- Internal eCAT diagrams
On Mon, 09 May 2011 12:04:30 -0700 Axil wrote No membrane is present. Rossi said that he does not use precious metals in his reactor. Axil, Nickel may not qualify as a good membrane but that may change when nickel is in the form of nano powders. I am convinced that the process behind catalytic disassociation is the h2 covalent bond opposes change in Casimir geometry/vacuum energy density such that with little or no heat the h2 molecules can be disassociated. The resulting h1 then has an easier time absorbing into the lattice as a naked proton and free electron. Fran
[Vo]:Re: [Vo]:Can Rossi generate steam hotter than 110 °C ?
Rossi claims they can produce temperatures as high as 500 to 550 C From: Pierre Carbonnelle pierre.carbonne...@gmail.com To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Mon, May 9, 2011 1:01:42 PM Subject: [Vo]:Can Rossi generate steam hotter than 110 °C ? Dear all, I'm puzzled that Rossi has not answered me yet when I posted the message below on his journal last week (http://www.journal-of-nuclear-physics.com/?p=360). If he cannot generate steam hotter than 110°C, then generating electricity will not be efficient due to Carnot's Theorem. On the other hand, if he can generate hot steam, why doesn't he demonstrate it ? It would eliminate any issues regarding wet vs dry steam in a very simple way. Just a reminder : steam can be heated at any temperature at atmospheric pressure, provided you give it enough room to expand (because V = nRT/P). Steam can expand as it wants in Rossi's device, thanks to the open hose. --- Dear Mr. Rossi, Did you ever obtain an output steam temperature well above the boiling temperature of water, e.g. an output steam temperature of 110 °C ? Presumably, such a temperature could be obtained by reducing the flow of water, and would eliminate any doubts about wet vs dry steam in a simple way. Is there any principle of operations that would make it impossible to obtain such a higher temperature ? Thanks, Pierre C.
Re: [Vo]:NyTeknik reports on Rossi patent
I am eager for that patent to be published! I want to learn what the catalyst is! From: Jones Beene jone...@pacbell.net To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Mon, May 9, 2011 11:12:34 AM Subject: RE: [Vo]:NyTeknik reports on Rossi patent -Original Message- From: Harry Veeder How does the Rossi device drive the electromigration of copper? Galvanic corrosion …. Well known between nickel and copper HV: Doesn't that require some moisture between the copper and nickel? Not necessarily 'moisture' so much as a solvent or other 'vehicle,' and hot hydrogen should do the trick ... it is very corrosive. HV: Anyway, why should we now believe Rossi is correctly describing his patent claims? Good point and I agree that this one is probably still a more of a decoy than anything else. There are many reports of another WIPO filing which will be published soon, which will probably identify the catalyst, since essentially that is probably his main breakthrough. How the Italians can differentiate this one from Piantelli is not clear, so what has he protected really? Hmm ... Well actually, the boron could be the critical difference, and until today it has been under the radar - have you seen anyone even consider the possibility that boron could be the active heat source? Boron could easily be the real secret - hiding in plain view, as it were... somewhat like OBL ... Surely we are not the first to pick up on this ??? Jones
[Vo]:Re: [Vo]:Re: [Vo]:Can Rossi generate steam hotter than 110 °C ?
That 550C temperature may only be occurring inside the reaction vessel. The fast flow of water would cool the containing copper pipe to something under 110C based on the pressure maintained in the cooling loop. On Mon, May 9, 2011 at 4:50 PM, noone noone thesteornpa...@yahoo.comwrote: Rossi claims they can produce temperatures as high as 500 to 550 C -- *From:* Pierre Carbonnelle pierre.carbonne...@gmail.com *To:* vortex-l@eskimo.com *Sent:* Mon, May 9, 2011 1:01:42 PM *Subject:* [Vo]:Can Rossi generate steam hotter than 110 °C ? Dear all, I'm puzzled that Rossi has not answered me yet when I posted the message below on his journal last week ( http://www.journal-of-nuclear-physics.com/?p=360). If he cannot generate steam hotter than 110°C, then generating electricity will not be efficient due to Carnot's Theorem. On the other hand, if he can generate hot steam, why doesn't he demonstrate it ? It would eliminate any issues regarding wet vs dry steam in a very simple way. Just a reminder : steam can be heated at any temperature at atmospheric pressure, provided you give it enough room to expand (because V = nRT/P). Steam can expand as it wants in Rossi's device, thanks to the open hose. --- Dear Mr. Rossi, Did you ever obtain an output steam temperature well above the boiling temperature of water, e.g. an output steam temperature of 110 °C ? Presumably, such a temperature could be obtained by reducing the flow of water, and would eliminate any doubts about wet vs dry steam in a simple way. Is there any principle of operations that would make it impossible to obtain such a higher temperature ? Thanks, Pierre C.
Re: [Vo]:NyTeknik reports on Rossi patent
Perhaps at one time Rossi used a setup in which the nickel was in a copper tube, but now it is in a stainless steel reactor vessel. No electromigration can take place. From: francis froarty...@comcast.net To: jone...@pacbell.net Cc: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Mon, May 9, 2011 8:02:08 AM Subject: RE: [Vo]:NyTeknik reports on Rossi patent Jones, I think you nailed it on the copper migration since it appears the copper tube is buried in the powder but when they say “said copper tube further including at least a heating electrical resistance” are they Implying the internal resistor is INSIDE the copper pipe? Fran 9. An apparatus method according to claim 7, characterized in that in said nickel powder filled metal tube (2) is a copper tube, said copper tube further including at least a heating electrical resistance, said tube being encompassed by a jacket (7) including either water or boron or only boron, said jacket (7) being encompassed by further lead jacket (8) in turn optionally encompassed by a steel layer (9), said jackets (7, 8) being adapted to prevent radiations emitted from said copper tube (2) from exiting said copper tube (2), thereby also transforming said radiations into thermal energy.
Re: [Vo]:NyTeknik reports on Rossi patent
1) The reactor vessel is composed of stainless steel that does not contain copper. 2) Copper appears in the nickel powder. It's pretty obvious that nickel is transmuting to copper. From: Jones Beene jone...@pacbell.net To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Mon, May 9, 2011 6:43:33 AM Subject: RE: [Vo]:NyTeknik reports on Rossi patent In a quick count of metals employed in this patent, copper is mentioned seven times and nickel six times. The testing of active powder in Sweden has shown a natural isotope balance of copper, and no radioactivity. Given that nickel has the second most stable nucleus in the periodic table, how can any objective observer believe that the heat from this reactor depends on the conversion of nickel to copper for the heating effect? …other than that Rossi says so ? Clearly, Rossi has no clue …. I will add, in deference to WL theory and the ULM, that the stated presence of boron does provide a more acceptable pathway for gain… Jones From:Jed Rothwell http://www.nyteknik.se/nyheter/energi_miljo/energi/article3173090.ece - Jed
[Vo]:Re: [Vo]:Re: [Vo]:Can Rossi generate steam hotter than 110 °C ?
Let me add my two cents: If Rossi's e-Cat reactor core can regularly sustain temperatures of 500c or higher, water that is in contact with the reactor core's surface FOR LONG ENOUGH PERIODS will most certainly exceed temperatures 100.1 C, and by quite a large margin. However, the tick would be to keep the water that has just been transformed into steam contained long enough AT the e-cat reactor core's surface so that it has the chance to absorb the additional heat. Currently this doesn't happen. It's my understanding that the current Rossi prototypes (perhaps for demonstration purposes) do not appear to be built in such a way as to physically contain the transformed steam. It's not designed to behave like a pressure cooker! The water immediately after it has been transformed into steam quickly expands. The steam quickly shoots out the exhaust pipe - i.e. the infamous black hose. IOW, the steam doesn't have a chance to hang around long enough to absorb additional heat and subsequently increase in temperature much above 100.1 C. Some on this list may still recall several months ago the fact that there was a protracted argument precisely based on this specific steam temperature issue. Some argued: WHY was the steam only measured to be 100.1 C when it exited out of the black hose, especially if the e-Cat reactor was claimed to be hundreds of degrees higher. Because the exiting steam temperature seemed to be rigidly fixed at 100.1 C some on this list became absolutely convinced Rossi was involved in a scam operation. However further experiments have proven that such concerns appear to be groundless, particularly (and ironically) when experimenters increased the water flow to show a simple 5 degree temperature increase. (More accurate calometric measurements resulted.) Hopefully, we won't have to revisit that protracted argument again. IOW, I doubt Rossi's e-cats, if engineered properly, would have a problem raising steam to significantly higher temperatures than 100.1 C. Regards Steven Vincent Johnson www.OrionWorks.com www.zazzle.com/orionworks
RE: [Vo]:NyTeknik reports on Rossi patent
From: noone noone 1) The reactor vessel is composed of stainless steel that does not contain copper. Not according to the patent. 2) Copper appears in the nickel powder. Yes, and it gets there by a scientifically valid process. It's pretty obvious that nickel is transmuting to copper. Nonsense. Nickel is a very stable nucleus and does not transmute into copper easily. Copper only gets into the powder by the known route of Galvanic migration. Please spare us this anti-science Fan-boy bogosity. Jones
[Vo]:Steam hotter than 110 °C / Internal heater
A pressurized water reactor or similar is needed for electricity production. The reaction would proceed a lot faster at the higher temps and would need better controls compared to just the water heater setup now running at around 100C. Hot water production for factories and large building heating is the low hanging fruit - safer and easier compared to home hot water heating, or electricity production, which is why it is the first application proposed. I think the reaction happens primarily in close proximity to the internal heater, with slowing rates of reaction as distance increases from the heater towards the periphery. Temps should fall off proportionately from the heating element to the outer volume. Perhaps the next advances will involve different types and shapes of internal heaters that would be more efficient as far as promoting more reaction per given reactor volume for a pressurized steam temp reactor.. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Molybdenum_disilicide but this material may not last at all in hot H2. The outer jacket heater seems to be there to help during startup to warm the surrounding water and copper jackets until the reaction kicks and the water flow is initiated. I doubt if a commercial model would need the external heater at all, just trigger reaction with the internal heater till it has made enough heat to warm the water and jackets, then initiate the water flow.. Since the reaction vessel is surrounded with water, the reactor wall is less than 105C or so. Which is why I suggested earlier that a lead reaction vessel would simplify matters, offering shielding as well as containment and the ability to easily cast the reactors to desired shape from molten lead. For pressurized steam production, lead might be too close to the melting point for reactor wall. As I speculated, Rossi would have no reason to take this all the way to pressurized steam, or to home size reactors (non-electric generating) since there is a huge market to heat water for larger buildings and factories. By the time anyone gets to making electricity or home heating units, it will be so deep in NRC regulation that it may take decades to see the light of day. Jay Caplan - Original Message - From: OrionWorks - Steven V Johnson svj.orionwo...@gmail.com To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Monday, May 09, 2011 4:43 PM Subject: [Vo]:Re: [Vo]:Re: [Vo]:Can Rossi generate steam hotter than 110 °C ? Let me add my two cents: If Rossi's e-Cat reactor core can regularly sustain temperatures of 500c or higher, water that is in contact with the reactor core's surface FOR LONG ENOUGH PERIODS will most certainly exceed temperatures 100.1 C, and by quite a large margin. However, the tick would be to keep the water that has just been transformed into steam contained long enough AT the e-cat reactor core's surface so that it has the chance to absorb the additional heat. Currently this doesn't happen. It's my understanding that the current Rossi prototypes (perhaps for demonstration purposes) do not appear to be built in such a way as to physically contain the transformed steam. It's not designed to behave like a pressure cooker! The water immediately after it has been transformed into steam quickly expands. The steam quickly shoots out the exhaust pipe - i.e. the infamous black hose. IOW, the steam doesn't have a chance to hang around long enough to absorb additional heat and subsequently increase in temperature much above 100.1 C. Some on this list may still recall several months ago the fact that there was a protracted argument precisely based on this specific steam temperature issue. Some argued: WHY was the steam only measured to be 100.1 C when it exited out of the black hose, especially if the e-Cat reactor was claimed to be hundreds of degrees higher. Because the exiting steam temperature seemed to be rigidly fixed at 100.1 C some on this list became absolutely convinced Rossi was involved in a scam operation. However further experiments have proven that such concerns appear to be groundless, particularly (and ironically) when experimenters increased the water flow to show a simple 5 degree temperature increase. (More accurate calometric measurements resulted.) Hopefully, we won't have to revisit that protracted argument again. IOW, I doubt Rossi's e-cats, if engineered properly, would have a problem raising steam to significantly higher temperatures than 100.1 C. Regards Steven Vincent Johnson www.OrionWorks.com www.zazzle.com/orionworks
[Vo]:Re: [Vo]:Steam hotter than 110 °C / Internal heater
These are important points, and I agree with everything here, except -- as I said -- the last line: By the time anyone gets to making electricity or home heating units, it will be so deep in NRC regulation that it may take decades to see the light of day. Oh come now. Every company in every country will rush to make these things. The Pentagon will understand that without this technology, the U.S. can be defeated by Lichtenstein. There is no chance the NRC can hold back this technology. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:Fraud Warning msg posted at Defkalion, May 7
Then I guess this is a perfect example of how quickly you jump to rash conclusions based on little or no evidence. Legitimate people do use usernames and as a matter of fact so do you WestTexasLawrence, I thought you said you sure wouldn't visit my site? Let alone register an account. I merely wanted to contribute by providing a forum for open discussions about this new and exciting technology, if noone has a use for it that's fine too. On Mon, May 9, 2011 at 7:51 AM, Stephen A. Lawrence sa...@pobox.com wrote: Mr. Trout, With a one-line ungrammatical email from a pseudonym which just advertises your site, with no further information, I'd actually tend to conclude that your site sure is a scam site. Legitimate websites are generally associated with legitimate people, and to drop one-line spam messages into Vortex. I *sure* wouldn't visit your site from a Windows box, and probably wouldn't visit it at all. And I'd suggest to the everyone else on Vortex that you give that site a wide berth, unless you happen to know for a fact that it's not going to be toxic to your computer. On 11-05-09 12:49 AM, Drowning Trout wrote: What a waste of valuable domain names. Please don't confuse my site e-cat dot us/ http://e-cat.us/ as a scam or phishing site.
Re: [Vo]:This may be the entire patent
--- On Mon, 5/9/11, Terry Blanton hohlr...@gmail.com wrote: He then claims that 58 g of Ni provides the equivalent energy of 30,000 tons of oil with the strangest calculation that begins with 10 MeV of energy per reaction. This is converted to mass equivalent, multiplied by Avogadro's number and, using Einstein's equation, converted back to energy! What the...? That's not fission level energy, or even fusion level energy. That's talking within the order of magnitude of converting rest mass directly into energy. Assuming by ton of oil he means 'tonne of oil equivalent'... 30,000 tons of oil would yield 1.26x10^15J (42x10^9J/tonne of oil equivalent) Entire rest mass of 58g converted to energy yields 5.22x10^15J... So Rossi is claiming to be able to convert 24.14% of the ENTIRE REST MASS OF THE NICKEL CATALYST to energy??? Someone, tell me I did this math wrong, please. This has to be some theory of his, and not what really happens. The grocery list of stuff he claims in the ash reads like the near-collapse core of a massive star at the end of its life. Put another way, from that 58g of nickel can come the energy of a 300kT W87 nuclear warhead? And this produces no radiation, he didn't see the cheerful gin-and-tonic-under-a-blacklight blue glow and promptly die? God almighty, this thing was looking interesting, but its getting to where you can only twist one's arm so far before it gets ridiculous. If he can make a heat source that makes 100C steam, fine. It's grand, you can use it in any radiator in place of a oil-fired or gas-fired boiler. Even if you can't make high grade electricity due to thermodynamics, just a heater is damned important. But he's claiming to have something equivalent to a mass to energy converter in that little pipe, and no one has been char broiled? Is his hidden catalyst antimatter? I suppose the lead shielding (which ain't that fantastic from the look of things) keeps them from being cooked. Alright. Anyone know of radiation hazards produced by past tests of nickel and hydrogen under similar circumstances? Any unexplained deaths? Burns? Radiation sickness or sterility? Somebody should have pulled a Madame Curie by now, or at least saw something scintillating or fluorescing. So where is it? Confusing. --Kyle
[Vo]:Rossi bets the farm on Ni62?
WOW! Am I reading this patent right? Rossi’s patent seems to bet everything on Ni62 to cu as THE important reaction. Fron Rossi patent US 2011/0005506 Al The positron forms the electron antiparticle, and hence, as positrons impact against the nickel electrons, the electron-positron pairs are annihilated, thereby generating a huge amount of energy. [0036] In fact, few grams of Ni and H would produce an energy amount equivalent to that of thousands oil tons, as it will become more apparent hereinafter, without pollutions, greenhouse effects, or carbon dioxide increases, nuclear and other waste materials, since the radioactive copper isotopes produced in the process will decay to stable nickel isotopes by beta+processes, in a very short time. [0037] For clearly understanding the following detailed discussion of the apparatus, it is necessary to at first consider that for allowing nickel to be transformed into stable copper, it is necessary to respect the quantic laws. Accordingly, it is indispensable to use, for the above mentioned exothermal reactions, a nickel isotope having a mass number of 62, to allow it to transform into a stable copper isotope 62. All the other Ni isotopes, on the other hand, will generate unstable Cu, and, accordingly, a beta decay. From: Jones Beene [mailto:jone...@pacbell.net] Sent: Monday, May 09, 2011 6:08 PM To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: EXTERNAL: RE: [Vo]:NyTeknik reports on Rossi patent From: noone noone 1) The reactor vessel is composed of stainless steel that does not contain copper. Not according to the patent. 2) Copper appears in the nickel powder. Yes, and it gets there by a scientifically valid process. It's pretty obvious that nickel is transmuting to copper. Nonsense. Nickel is a very stable nucleus and does not transmute into copper easily. Copper only gets into the powder by the known route of Galvanic migration. Please spare us this anti-science Fan-boy bogosity. Jones
RE: [Vo]:Rossi bets the farm on Ni62?
Rossi has clearly lost that bet. There is NO SUCH THING as stable copper-62 !! This patent is a joke. Either there is another “real patent” or he is without IP protection Jones From: Roarty, Francis X [mailto:francis.x.roa...@lmco.com] Sent: Monday, May 09, 2011 4:11 PM To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: [Vo]:Rossi bets the farm on Ni62? WOW! Am I reading this patent right? Rossi’s patent seems to bet everything on Ni62 to cu as THE important reaction. From Rossi patent US 2011/0005506 Al The positron forms the electron antiparticle, and hence, as positrons impact against the nickel electrons, the electron-positron pairs are annihilated, thereby generating a huge amount of energy. [0036] In fact, few grams of Ni and H would produce an energy amount equivalent to that of thousands oil tons, as it will become more apparent hereinafter, without pollutions, greenhouse effects, or carbon dioxide increases, nuclear and other waste materials, since the radioactive copper isotopes produced in the process will decay to stable nickel isotopes by beta+processes, in a very short time. [0037] For clearly understanding the following detailed discussion of the apparatus, it is necessary to at first consider that for allowing nickel to be transformed into stable copper, it is necessary to respect the quantic laws. Accordingly, it is indispensable to use, for the above mentioned exothermal reactions, a nickel isotope having a mass number of 62, to allow it to transform into a stable copper isotope 62. All the other Ni isotopes, on the other hand, will generate unstable Cu, and, accordingly, a beta decay. From: Jones Beene [mailto:jone...@pacbell.net] Sent: Monday, May 09, 2011 6:08 PM To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: EXTERNAL: RE: [Vo]:NyTeknik reports on Rossi patent From: noone noone 1) The reactor vessel is composed of stainless steel that does not contain copper. Not according to the patent. 2) Copper appears in the nickel powder. Yes, and it gets there by a scientifically valid process. It's pretty obvious that nickel is transmuting to copper. Nonsense. Nickel is a very stable nucleus and does not transmute into copper easily. Copper only gets into the powder by the known route of Galvanic migration. Please spare us this anti-science Fan-boy bogosity. Jones
[Vo]:Outlet thermocouple cannot be picking up much heat outside the water path
Regarding the Feb. 10 test, I pooh-poohed the notion that the cell was actually producing 4 kW, raising the water temperature 1 deg C, and the other 3 dec C came from some path other than the water, for example by conduction through the body of the machine to the outlet thermocouple. To be sure, McKubre and others have pointed out that the outlet thermocouple position is not ideal, and it might be picking up some heat from another path. This may be happening to some extent. It might even be measurable. But it can be shown that other paths are minor compared to the flow of water. It is certain that the inside of the cell is considerably hotter than 100 deg C. You could not heat water or make steam if the inside were barely above boiling temperature. If there is a significant heat path, it will conduct temperatures well above 100 deg C. Take a boiling pot of water. The sides of the pot above the water level will be much hotter than 100 deg C. So, if there was a lot of heat being conducted to the outlet thermocouple, that thermocouple would not have settled at boiling temperature just above 100 deg C. It would have gone measurably well above that. Steam does not conduct heat as well as water does. Furthermore, 0.3 L of water per minute does not conduct anywhere near as much heat as 60 L per minute. That is a large flow of water. Even supposing the steam was quite wet, the mixture of steam and water would still have been close to 100 deg C. Water goes right up to the phase transition temperature before there is any steam at all. It would not have been, let us say, 80 deg C, with the extra 20 deg C sneaking in from conduction or radiation directly from the cell to that thermocouple location. At 80 deg C there would have been no indication of steam -- no sound, no bubbles at the end of the pipe -- nothing. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:Rossi bets the farm on Ni62?
Roarty, Francis X francis.x.roa...@lmco.com wrote: WOW! Am I reading this patent right? Rossi’s patent seems to bet everything on Ni62 to cu as THE important reaction. I believe he can be totally wrong about his theory of operation and yet still get a patent if it can be shown that this was the best implementation he knew of. HOWEVER, that does not appear to be the case. I do not know how the detailed rules work, but this application was made in January 2011. Let me assume (perhaps mistakenly) that he had to show the best implementation as of that date, not the date the patent was originally written. Right there in the Abstract it says: . . . a metal tube filled by a nickel powder and heated to a high temperature. preferably, though not necessary, from 150 to 5000 C . . . It seems to me that 150 to 5000 C effectively means any temperature you like; temperature does not matter. Yet before Jan. 2011 in his blog Rossi was saying that the best temperature is 600 deg C. I believe this would fail the best mode requirement: http://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/pac/mpep/documents/2100_2165.htm Someone who knows about patents told me that inventors and corporations do their best to fulfill the letter of the law while subverting the intent, by making patents as vague as they can, and as difficult to replicate from as they can. They also try to make the patent broad so that, for example in this case, if the best temperature turns out to be 400 deg C or 900 deg C, the patent will still cover it. In this case, Rossi's patent attorney may have been too cute, playing it too close to the line. I cannot judge. - Jed
[Vo]:cu pipe is sealed inner reactor not Stainless steele
So Rossi let us go ahead and think the cu was outside the SS reactor while it was actually the sealed inner reactor filled with Ni powder and a resistive heater. Water flows around the copper reactor inside a SS jacket. The SS is a jacket not a reactor! See patent drawing Jed just uploaded : http://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/RossiAmethodandaa.pdf http://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/RossiAmethodandaa.pdf
Re: [Vo]:cu pipe is sealed inner reactor not Stainless steele
here is where the nickel powder coat is discribed: *[0056] *Nickel is coated in a copper tube 100, including a heating electric resistance *101, *adjusted and controlled by a controlling thermostat (not shown) adapted to switch off said resistance *101 *as nickel is activated by hydrogen contained in a bottle *107.* On Mon, May 9, 2011 at 7:42 PM, Roarty, Francis X francis.x.roa...@lmco.com wrote: So Rossi let us go ahead and think the cu was outside the SS reactor while it was actually the sealed inner reactor filled with Ni powder and a resistive heater. Water flows around the copper reactor inside a SS jacket. The SS is a jacket not a reactor! See patent drawing Jed just uploaded : http://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/RossiAmethodandaa.pdf http://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/RossiAmethodandaa.pdf
RE: [Vo]:cu pipe is sealed inner reactor not Stainless steel
Two messages are coming through loud and clear wrt the big picture. First - Rossi is getting horrendous legal advice, and the beneficiary of that is the rest of us. This is no doubt the worst patent application in memory and it follows a very good one that Rossi got when LTI paid the bill (extremely competent, actually, which is why I am calling this one nothing more than a joke). IOW - with an unenforceable patent as his only protection -junk really, then Rossi will go down as a great inventor with big bucks in the bank from the Greeks - and at the same time US consumers will be able to buy these things from China for a very low cost, as space heaters, since they are non-nuclear. Hot water and winter heating consume vast amounts of coal, the dirtiest fuel - so even if this baby does not work on a steam cycle - we have effectively lowered fossil fuel consumption by up to 30%. That will get back to lower oil costs, in the end. It is the best of all scenarios. And the E-Cat might work on an organic vapor cycle (i.e. ammonia) instead of steam, anyway. What's not to like about that? Jones From: Roarty, Francis X So Rossi let us go ahead and think the cu was outside the SS reactor while it was actually the sealed inner reactor filled with Ni powder and a resistive heater. Water flows around the copper reactor inside a SS jacket. The SS is a jacket not a reactor! See patent drawing Jed just uploaded : http://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/RossiAmethodandaa.pdf http://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/RossiAmethodandaa.pdf
Re: [Vo]:cu pipe is sealed inner reactor not Stainless steel
Could a copper reactor tube even be able to handle the heat (1100F?) and pressure (25 bar?) of H2? On Mon, May 9, 2011 at 7:07 PM, Jones Beene jone...@pacbell.net wrote: Two messages are coming through loud and clear wrt the “big picture”… First - Rossi is getting horrendous legal advice, and the beneficiary of that is the “rest of us”. This is no doubt the worst patent application in memory and it follows a very good one that Rossi got when LTI paid the bill (extremely competent, actually, which is why I am calling this one nothing more than a joke). IOW – with an unenforceable patent as his only protection –junk really, then Rossi will go down as a “great inventor” with big bucks in the bank from the Greeks - and at the same time US consumers will be able to buy these things from China for a very low cost, as space heaters, since they are non-nuclear. Hot water and winter heating consume vast amounts of coal, the dirtiest fuel - so even if this baby does not work on a steam cycle – we have effectively lowered fossil fuel consumption by up to 30%. That will get back to lower oil costs, in the end. It is the best of all scenarios. And the E-Cat might work on an organic vapor cycle (i.e. ammonia) instead of steam, anyway. What’s not to like about that? Jones *From:* Roarty, Francis X So Rossi let us go ahead and think the cu was outside the SS reactor while it was actually the sealed inner reactor filled with Ni powder and a resistive heater. Water flows around the copper reactor inside a SS jacket. The SS is a jacket not a reactor! See patent drawing Jed just uploaded : http://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/RossiAmethodandaa.pdf http://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/RossiAmethodandaa.pdf
Re: [Vo]:cu pipe is sealed inner reactor not Stainless steele
Hi, On 10-5-2011 1:42, Roarty, Francis X wrote: So Rossi let us go ahead and think the cu was outside the SS reactor while it was actually the sealed inner reactor filled with Ni powder and a resistive heater. Water flows around the copper reactor inside a SS jacket. The SS is a jacket not a reactor! I think you are wrong. First there is the inner SS chamber with one opening at the top where H2 and Ni can be added. Second there is the copper vessel around it were the cold water flows in and steam flows out through the chimney. Third there is the SS clamp to hold the external heater very close against the copper vessel. Looking once again at the photos one can only say these are very cheap parts which are usually used for plumbing and for Central Heating, with probably the only exception of the inner SS chamber, which is possibly milled by a computer-driven workbench. This is what I see in the drawings from the 22passi blog AND the photos taken during the tests with KE. Kind regards, MoB
[Vo]:Re: [Vo]:Re: [Vo]:Steam hotter than 110 °C / Internal heater
Adding in pre-application time with licensing certification period for the NRC review of a new reactor certification is 7-20+ years ... http://nextbigfuture.com/2011/02/nrc-has-four-certified-nuclear-reactor.html Heck, it will take a first decade to get the science down and the NRC to even start taking apps. Especially after Japan, no regulator will want to sign on the dotted line. So, that is why he wants to get these big water heaters out quickly, once regulators latch on, the gig is up. - Original Message - From: Jed Rothwell To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Monday, May 09, 2011 6:03 PM Subject: [Vo]:Re: [Vo]:Steam hotter than 110 °C / Internal heater These are important points, and I agree with everything here, except -- as I said -- the last line: By the time anyone gets to making electricity or home heating units, it will be so deep in NRC regulation that it may take decades to see the light of day. Oh come now. Every company in every country will rush to make these things. The Pentagon will understand that without this technology, the U.S. can be defeated by Lichtenstein. There is no chance the NRC can hold back this technology. - Jed
RE: [Vo]:cu pipe is sealed inner reactor not Stainless steel
I don't think this idea could have been overlooked but just for the sake of being thorough ... Is it possible the secret ingredient is the cooling loop? My point being the cases of life after death could be attributed to absorbed hydrogen leaching out, What if this process is self choking itself such that heat can only be generated slowly unless you actively cool the absorbed hydrogen in the ni coating of the reactor inner wall? I think you need a majority population of h2 for the catalyst to disassociate at a discount but if heat and confinement are preserved you quickly run out of H2 and have to wait for it to slowly cool or leach out. Fran BTW this coating is awful similar to Moller's sputtered vacuum tube [MAHG] and IMHO depends on the same oscillation between h1 and h2. From: Jones Beene [mailto:jone...@pacbell.net] Sent: Monday, May 09, 2011 8:08 PM To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: EXTERNAL: RE: [Vo]:cu pipe is sealed inner reactor not Stainless steel Two messages are coming through loud and clear wrt the big picture... First - Rossi is getting horrendous legal advice, and the beneficiary of that is the rest of us. This is no doubt the worst patent application in memory and it follows a very good one that Rossi got when LTI paid the bill (extremely competent, actually, which is why I am calling this one nothing more than a joke). IOW - with an unenforceable patent as his only protection -junk really, then Rossi will go down as a great inventor with big bucks in the bank from the Greeks - and at the same time US consumers will be able to buy these things from China for a very low cost, as space heaters, since they are non-nuclear. Hot water and winter heating consume vast amounts of coal, the dirtiest fuel - so even if this baby does not work on a steam cycle - we have effectively lowered fossil fuel consumption by up to 30%. That will get back to lower oil costs, in the end. It is the best of all scenarios. And the E-Cat might work on an organic vapor cycle (i.e. ammonia) instead of steam, anyway. What's not to like about that? Jones From: Roarty, Francis X So Rossi let us go ahead and think the cu was outside the SS reactor while it was actually the sealed inner reactor filled with Ni powder and a resistive heater. Water flows around the copper reactor inside a SS jacket. The SS is a jacket not a reactor! See patent drawing Jed just uploaded : http://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/RossiAmethodandaa.pdf http://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/RossiAmethodandaa.pdf
Re: [Vo]:cu pipe is sealed inner reactor not Stainless steele
On 2011-05-10 01:42, Roarty, Francis X wrote: So Rossi let us go ahead and think the cu was outside the SS reactor while it was actually the sealed inner reactor filled with Ni powder and a resistive heater. Water flows around the copper reactor inside a SS jacket. The SS is a jacket not a reactor! See patent drawing Jed just uploaded : http://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/RossiAmethodandaa.pdf I've made this annotated image for clarity: http://i.imgur.com/QOLXZ.png What is 6 ? Cheers, S.A.
RE: EXTERNAL: Re: [Vo]:cu pipe is sealed inner reactor not Stainless steele
Thanks Akira, I was going back and forth between the patent and the drawing - Nice job. Best Regards Fran -Original Message- From: Akira Shirakawa [mailto:shirakawa.ak...@gmail.com] Sent: Monday, May 09, 2011 8:30 PM To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: EXTERNAL: Re: [Vo]:cu pipe is sealed inner reactor not Stainless steele On 2011-05-10 01:42, Roarty, Francis X wrote: So Rossi let us go ahead and think the cu was outside the SS reactor while it was actually the sealed inner reactor filled with Ni powder and a resistive heater. Water flows around the copper reactor inside a SS jacket. The SS is a jacket not a reactor! See patent drawing Jed just uploaded : http://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/RossiAmethodandaa.pdf I've made this annotated image for clarity: http://i.imgur.com/QOLXZ.png What is 6 ? Cheers, S.A.
Re: [Vo]:cu pipe is sealed inner reactor not Stainless steel
Jones Beene jone...@pacbell.net wrote: Hot water and winter heating consume vast amounts of coal, the dirtiest fuel - so even if this baby does not work on a steam cycle . . . Previous results with Ni-H and Pd - gas loading D show that high temperatures can be reached. That will not be a problem. Even if it were a problem, there are many other promising high temperature cold fusion techniques, such proton conductors. If the Rossi device is sold, surely everyone will realize that cold fusion exists, and people will do intense research on proton conductors. Rapid progress will be made on this and all other forms of cold fusion. In the end, Ni-H may predominate, but all other types will be developed for a while. This is what happened with semiconductors, in which different materials such as Ga, and various configurations were tested, and even sold for a while, before we settled on Si. - Jed
[Vo]:Another hidden power source for the sake of book keeping
The H2 gas is stored under pressure. This means the H2 tank contains a significant amount of mechanical energy separate from the energy of combustion. However, this contributes negligible amounts of power given that only a gram to a few grams of gas were used during the tests. Harry
RE: EXTERNAL: Re: [Vo]:cu pipe is sealed inner reactor not Stainless steele
MoB, I also though the reactor was stainless Steele until I saw the new patents from Italy and US. Regards Fran From: Man on Bridges [mailto:manonbrid...@aim.com] Sent: Monday, May 09, 2011 8:22 PM To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: EXTERNAL: Re: [Vo]:cu pipe is sealed inner reactor not Stainless steele Hi, On 10-5-2011 1:42, Roarty, Francis X wrote: So Rossi let us go ahead and think the cu was outside the SS reactor while it was actually the sealed inner reactor filled with Ni powder and a resistive heater. Water flows around the copper reactor inside a SS jacket. The SS is a jacket not a reactor! I think you are wrong. First there is the inner SS chamber with one opening at the top where H2 and Ni can be added. Second there is the copper vessel around it were the cold water flows in and steam flows out through the chimney. Third there is the SS clamp to hold the external heater very close against the copper vessel. Looking once again at the photos one can only say these are very cheap parts which are usually used for plumbing and for Central Heating, with probably the only exception of the inner SS chamber, which is possibly milled by a computer-driven workbench. This is what I see in the drawings from the 22passi blog AND the photos taken during the tests with KE. Kind regards, MoB
Re: [Vo]:cu pipe is sealed inner reactor not Stainless steele
Hi, On 10-5-2011 2:30, Akira Shirakawa wrote: On 2011-05-10 01:42, Roarty, Francis X wrote: So Rossi let us go ahead and think the cu was outside the SS reactor while it was actually the sealed inner reactor filled with Ni powder and a resistive heater. Water flows around the copper reactor inside a SS jacket. The SS is a jacket not a reactor! See patent drawing Jed just uploaded : http://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/RossiAmethodandaa.pdf I've made this annotated image for clarity: http://i.imgur.com/QOLXZ.png Nice explanatory drawing, which seems to be in sync with the US patent-request, but is NOT in sync with the photos taken during the KE test. The SS clamp is NOT leaktight so no water is flowing at the inside of it. Besides it is a dedicated clamp for adding a heater to a pipe, according one of the photos in the KE report it reads 230 V 50Hz. Kind regards, MoB
Re: EXTERNAL: Re: [Vo]:cu pipe is sealed inner reactor not Stainless steele
The large amount of iron(10%) found in Rossi ash is proof that the nickel powder is in contract with stainless steel. On Mon, May 9, 2011 at 8:56 PM, Roarty, Francis X francis.x.roa...@lmco.com wrote: MoB, I also though the reactor was stainless Steele until I saw the new patents from Italy and US. Regards Fran *From:* Man on Bridges [mailto:manonbrid...@aim.com] *Sent:* Monday, May 09, 2011 8:22 PM *To:* vortex-l@eskimo.com *Subject:* EXTERNAL: Re: [Vo]:cu pipe is sealed inner reactor not Stainless steele Hi, On 10-5-2011 1:42, Roarty, Francis X wrote: So Rossi let us go ahead and think the cu was outside the SS reactor while it was actually the sealed inner reactor filled with Ni powder and a resistive heater. Water flows around the copper reactor inside a SS jacket. The SS is a jacket not a reactor! I think you are wrong. First there is the inner SS chamber with one opening at the top where H2 and Ni can be added. Second there is the copper vessel around it were the cold water flows in and steam flows out through the chimney. Third there is the SS clamp to hold the external heater very close against the copper vessel. Looking once again at the photos one can only say these are very cheap parts which are usually used for plumbing and for Central Heating, with probably the only exception of the inner SS chamber, which is possibly milled by a computer-driven workbench. This is what I see in the drawings from the 22passi blog AND the photos taken during the tests with KE. Kind regards, MoB
[Vo]:You do NOT need dry steam to get electricity
Here is a (loud) video of a heat conversion scheme for low temperature input, which clearly the E-Cat can handle. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=atu00VDDXAI Message: In the future of off-grid high-tech, the steam cycle is probably archaic anyway (for small devices)... You can get decent efficiency without it... It is possible that Rossi could self-power already if he had the skill-set and free time to go that route (he does not). For the grid operator - the comparative cost of lots of water (free) makes steam the obvious choice over a refrigerant - but not elsewhere. Jones attachment: winmail.dat
Re: EXTERNAL: Re: [Vo]:cu pipe is sealed inner reactor not Stainless steele
Fran, The new US patent is really an old patent. The contents of the Italian patent that was just granted have not been seen by anyone. Harry From: Roarty, Francis X francis.x.roa...@lmco.com To: vortex-l@eskimo.com vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Mon, May 9, 2011 8:56:21 PM Subject: RE: EXTERNAL: Re: [Vo]:cu pipe is sealed inner reactor not Stainless steele MoB, I also though the reactor was stainless Steele until I saw the new patents from Italy and US. Regards Fran From:Man on Bridges [mailto:manonbrid...@aim.com] Sent: Monday, May 09, 2011 8:22 PM To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: EXTERNAL: Re: [Vo]:cu pipe is sealed inner reactor not Stainless steele Hi, On 10-5-2011 1:42, Roarty, Francis X wrote: So Rossi let us go ahead and think the cu was outside the SS reactor while it was actually the sealed inner reactor filled with Ni powder and a resistive heater. Water flows around the copper reactor inside a SS jacket. The SS is a jacket not a reactor! I think you are wrong. First there is the inner SS chamber with one opening at the top where H2 and Ni can be added. Second there is the copper vessel around it were the cold water flows in and steam flows out through the chimney. Third there is the SS clamp to hold the external heater very close against the copper vessel. Looking once again at the photos one can only say these are very cheap parts which are usually used for plumbing and for Central Heating, with probably the only exception of the inner SS chamber, which is possibly milled by a computer-driven workbench. This is what I see in the drawings from the 22passi blog AND the photos taken during the tests with KE. Kind regards, MoB
Re: [Vo]:You do NOT need dry steam to get electricity
Years ago a lot of money was put into OTEC generation, which has very small temperature differences. Those techniques could be revived. However, as I said, based on previous Ni-H experiments there is no reason to think high temperatures will be a problem. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:This may be the entire patent
V, Double checked my math after thinking about it. Unless I am missing something, that is the way it is. No one has anything to say on this? You can't even get this kind of energy by fusing up the chain all the way from hydrogen to nickel-56 as happens in massive stars, as far as I know, though I admit I have not gotten out all the reaction chains and added the energies. --Kyle
Re: [Vo]:cu pipe is sealed inner reactor not Stainless steele
On Mon, May 9, 2011 at 8:30 PM, Akira Shirakawa shirakawa.ak...@gmail.com wrote: What is 6 ? I think that is Ni plating on the reactor surface. T
Re: [Vo]:This may be the entire patent
'Tony' posted this analysis on April 22 on Rossi's blog http://www.journal-of-nuclear-physics.com/?p=473cpage=5#comments I think somewhere there is a follow up post but I can't find it right now. Harry - Original Message From: Kyle Mcallister kyle_mcallis...@yahoo.com To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Mon, May 9, 2011 9:31:57 PM Subject: Re: [Vo]:This may be the entire patent V, Double checked my math after thinking about it. Unless I am missing something, that is the way it is. No one has anything to say on this? You can't even get this kind of energy by fusing up the chain all the way from hydrogen to nickel-56 as happens in massive stars, as far as I know, though I admit I have not gotten out all the reaction chains and added the energies. --Kyle
[Vo]:Re: [Vo]:Re: [Vo]:Steam hotter than 110 °C / Internal heater
I think the NRC can try, but it will not last long. I am a bit more concerned about the powers that be trying to tax the energy produced to high heaven. From: Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Mon, May 9, 2011 4:03:38 PM Subject: [Vo]:Re: [Vo]:Steam hotter than 110 °C / Internal heater These are important points, and I agree with everything here, except -- as I said -- the last line: By the time anyone gets to making electricity or home heating units, it will be so deep in NRC regulation that it may take decades to see the light of day. Oh come now. Every company in every country will rush to make these things. The Pentagon will understand that without this technology, the U.S. can be defeated by Lichtenstein. There is no chance the NRC can hold back this technology. - Jed
[Vo]:Lead Boron
Hi, Reading Rossi's patent it seems Boron Lead are used not just for shielding but to absorb the energy from the radiation. What I was wondering if there is any specific radiation that would need lead vs a cheaper metal (and thicker) or even concrete to absorb the energy. So is lead essential? And though we have enough Nickel for many years of E-cat energy, do we have enough Boron Lead? Colin
Re: [Vo]:cu pipe is sealed inner reactor not Stainless steel
Rossi claims that he can produce steam up to 550C by connecting units together. There is no reason to think he cannot produce hot enough steam to produce electricity. Also, regardless as to the quality of this patent, what really matters is the patent that covers the catalyst. Anyone could buy nano-nickel powder and build what Rossi has described to us. Without the catalyst they could not produce a significant output. Being nuclear devices (transmutations and low level gamma rays being produced) the NRC may try to step in, but I think their efforts will be futile. Hopefully, the fact cold fusion exists will make some scientists take another look at other technologies such as those produced by Black Light Power. The world needs those hydrino hydride compounds! From: Jones Beene jone...@pacbell.net To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Mon, May 9, 2011 5:07:53 PM Subject: RE: [Vo]:cu pipe is sealed inner reactor not Stainless steel Two messages are coming through loud and clear wrt the “big picture”… First - Rossi is getting horrendous legal advice, and the beneficiary of that is the “rest of us”. This is no doubt the worst patent application in memory and it follows a very good one that Rossi got when LTI paid the bill (extremely competent, actually, which is why I am calling this one nothing more than a joke). IOW – with an unenforceable patent as his only protection –junk really, then Rossi will go down as a “great inventor” with big bucks in the bank from the Greeks - and at the same time US consumers will be able to buy these things from China for a very low cost, as space heaters, since they are non-nuclear. Hot water and winter heating consume vast amounts of coal, the dirtiest fuel - so even if this baby does not work on a steam cycle – we have effectively lowered fossil fuel consumption by up to 30%. That will get back to lower oil costs, in the end. It is the best of all scenarios. And the E-Cat might work on an organic vapor cycle (i.e. ammonia) instead of steam, anyway. What’s not to like about that? Jones From:Roarty, Francis X So Rossi let us go ahead and think the cu was outside the SS reactor while it was actually the sealed inner reactor filled with Ni powder and a resistive heater. Water flows around the copper reactor inside a SS jacket. The SS is a jacket not a reactor! See patent drawing Jed just uploaded : http://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/RossiAmethodandaa.pdf http://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/RossiAmethodandaa.pdf
Re: [Vo]:cu pipe is sealed inner reactor not Stainless steel
In order to get the temperature of the steam up to 550C, a very expensive high pressure steam loop is required. Such loops are found in nuclear and coal plants. The reaction vessels must also be reinforced to handle the high steam pressure. A ambient pressure liquid metal coolant (lithium hydride) alterative that can operate up to 1000C is a more cost effective solution. Such a solution can use super critical CO2 turbines which are far cheaper than steam turbines. On Mon, May 9, 2011 at 10:37 PM, noone noone thesteornpa...@yahoo.comwrote: Rossi claims that he can produce steam up to 550C by connecting units together. There is no reason to think he cannot produce hot enough steam to produce electricity. Also, regardless as to the quality of this patent, what really matters is the patent that covers the catalyst. Anyone could buy nano-nickel powder and build what Rossi has described to us. Without the catalyst they could not produce a significant output. Being nuclear devices (transmutations and low level gamma rays being produced) the NRC may try to step in, but I think their efforts will be futile. Hopefully, the fact cold fusion exists will make some scientists take another look at other technologies such as those produced by Black Light Power. The world needs those hydrino hydride compounds! -- *From:* Jones Beene jone...@pacbell.net *To:* vortex-l@eskimo.com *Sent:* Mon, May 9, 2011 5:07:53 PM *Subject:* RE: [Vo]:cu pipe is sealed inner reactor not Stainless steel Two messages are coming through loud and clear wrt the “big picture”… First - Rossi is getting horrendous legal advice, and the beneficiary of that is the “rest of us”. This is no doubt the worst patent application in memory and it follows a very good one that Rossi got when LTI paid the bill (extremely competent, actually, which is why I am calling this one nothing more than a joke). IOW – with an unenforceable patent as his only protection –junk really, then Rossi will go down as a “great inventor” with big bucks in the bank from the Greeks - and at the same time US consumers will be able to buy these things from China for a very low cost, as space heaters, since they are non-nuclear. Hot water and winter heating consume vast amounts of coal, the dirtiest fuel - so even if this baby does not work on a steam cycle – we have effectively lowered fossil fuel consumption by up to 30%. That will get back to lower oil costs, in the end. It is the best of all scenarios. And the E-Cat might work on an organic vapor cycle (i.e. ammonia) instead of steam, anyway. What’s not to like about that? Jones *From:* Roarty, Francis X So Rossi let us go ahead and think the cu was outside the SS reactor while it was actually the sealed inner reactor filled with Ni powder and a resistive heater. Water flows around the copper reactor inside a SS jacket. The SS is a jacket not a reactor! See patent drawing Jed just uploaded : http://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/RossiAmethodandaa.pdf http://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/RossiAmethodandaa.pdf
[Vo]:Re: [Vo]:Re: [Vo]:Re: [Vo]:Can Rossi generate steam hotter than 110 °C ?
On Mon, May 9, 2011 at 4:43 PM, OrionWorks - Steven V Johnson svj.orionwo...@gmail.com wrote: Let me add my two cents: Sorry, it's not worth even that. (I've stayed away from this list because its terms of reference clearly exclude people of my mindset, but this discussion of higher temperatures of steam originated (several months back) from a post of mine that was cross-posted here, and I feel compelled to defend it, and to correct the sort of elementary, mistaken ideas people here seem to have. I will refrain this time from entering any discussion not directly related to this topic.) If Rossi's e-Cat reactor core can regularly sustain temperatures of 500c or higher, water that is in contact with the reactor core's surface FOR LONG ENOUGH PERIODS will most certainly exceed temperatures 100.1 C, and by quite a large margin. This is quite true. But the question is simply what are long enough periods? It turns out that the distance is more relevant than the time, because heat transfer coefficients are given as power transferred per unit area per unit temperature difference. And the coefficient for steam/copper is slightly *higher* than it is for water/copper. However, the tick would be to keep the water that has just been transformed into steam contained long enough AT the e-cat reactor core's surface so that it has the chance to absorb the additional heat. Currently this doesn't happen. All you know is that the steam is not heated above the boiling point. But that is what would happen if there were still liquid present. What would happen if the water were all converted to steam before the end of the reactor, say because the flow rate were reduced, as suggested at the beginning of this thread. Say the water is all converted to steam within the first 90% of the reactor. Then amount of heat transferred to the steam will about 10% of what was transferred to the water. Let's see: 10% of 540 cal/g (to produce steam) is 54 cal/g. Since the specific heat of steam is about 0.5, that gives about 100C increase in the temperature of the steam. So you see, if all the water were converted to steam, keeping it at 100C would be extremely difficult indeed. There is no doubt at all that the temperature indicates the presence of some liquid water. This can be argued another way as well, which doesn't require any knowledge of heat transfer coefficients. If the flow rate were reduced, and there weren't enough time to heat the steam, then the additional power would cause the reactor to get hotter. And that would cause the water to boil earlier, giving the steam more time to get hotter. A new equilibrium would be reached, but at a lower flow rate, the only ways to remove the same amount of thermal power would be for the steam to get hotter, or for more heat to leak through the insulation, and the insulation would have to get extremely hot to dissipate power in the range of kW. It's my understanding that the current Rossi prototypes (perhaps for demonstration purposes) do not appear to be built in such a way as to physically contain the transformed steam. It's not designed to behave like a pressure cooker! For heaven's sake. Please get this notion that higher pressure is needed to heat steam above the boiling point out of your heads. Your furnace has no trouble heating air to about 220C above its boiling point at atmospheric pressure. Have you never looked at a phase diagram? The reason a pressure cooker needs pressure is because _there is still water present_ in a pressure cooker, and it is only the water that is heated directly; not the steam. In an ecat, after the water has boiled, the steam would be heated directly, and just as efficiently per unit area as water. It does not have to contain the steam any more than your furnace has to contain air as it circulates it past the hot surfaces. The water immediately after it has been transformed into steam quickly expands. The steam quickly shoots out the exhaust pipe - i.e. the infamous black hose. IOW, the steam doesn't have a chance to hang around long enough to absorb additional heat and subsequently increase in temperature much above 100.1 C. Again, this is completely wrong. Steam is much less dense, but the molecules move much faster and therefore collide more often with the walls, the net effect being that it is *more*, not less effective at absorbing heat per unit area than liquid water. (Of course as the steam gets hotter, its effectiveness gets lower.) Some on this list may still recall several months ago the fact that there was a protracted argument precisely based on this specific steam temperature issue. Some argued: WHY was the steam only measured to be 100.1 C when it exited out of the black hose, especially if the e-Cat reactor was claimed to be hundreds of degrees higher. Because the exiting steam temperature seemed to be rigidly fixed at 100.1 C some on this list became absolutely convinced Rossi
