Re: [Vo]:Suppose the DoE were testing a device instead of the Greek Min. of Energy

[Abd ul-Rahman Lomax]

At 03:58 PM 7/6/2011, Jed Rothwell wrote:

Abd ul-Rahman Lomax <a...@lomaxdesign.com> wrote:

Jed claims that there has been extensive testing, but we don't have 
confirmation on that, AFAIK, from the actual testing agencies. And 
what, exactly, was tested is not clear.


I did not claim that. Defkalion did, during their press conference.


I'm not going to go back and find the quotation. Maybe you stated 
that way, but you stated this as a kind of proof that this must be 
real, since it's been, allegedly, tested by government agencies.


 The Minister of Energy was sitting in the audience, and the top 
newspapers and TV stations were there. So if that were not true, I 
suppose the Minister would have told the reporters.


I have no confidence in that at all. The Minister of Energy would 
likely keep his mouth shut, it is so easy to open it and look really 
stupid later.


 He would have objected, strenuously. He did not; he smiled and 
confirmed the report.


And what he confirmed, exactly, is important. But even that isn't 
conclusive, I don't find government officials, in general, to be 
souls of precise speech; indeed, amibiguity can be their stock in trade.



The tests have been described in some detail in the Defkalion white 
paper and forum. I am gathering up this kind of thing for a new FAQ 
and new page.


Great.



Abd's imaginary conversation:

3 PM, March 27, 2011: We have operated ten devices supplied by 
Defkalion for three weeks, now, and they have not blown up, nor do 
they show any signs of impending failure. The devices did not exceed 
the rated external temperatures.


Memo from the Director of Safety Testing: Did you measure the generated heat?

Response from testing technician: No, of course not, that wasn't in 
the test specification. We did not see any explosions. . . .



Ha, ha. Very funny. I am getting sick of such comments, made here 
and elsewhere.


Aw, Jed, you've lost your sense of humor. I hope you can find it, 
maybe it fell in the cracks of your keyboard. I once repaired a 
typesetting computer keyboard that was repeating a code, erratically. 
I opened it up and found a dime.



Let us get some things straight here, folks:

First, European and Japanese regulatory engineers and scientists are 
every bit as good at their jobs as U.S. ones are. That is to say, top notch.


Uh, or not. I have no reason to think U.S. officials are "top notch," 
all the time. Sometimes they are. Sometimes not.


 I have read dozens -- hundreds -- of reports by DoE staff members 
and the Italian Nat. Nuclear labs, on cold fusion and other 
subjects. These people are professionals. They do not make the kind 
of idiotic mistakes Abd imagines (presumably as a joke).


No, that was a story about a safety lab, not an engineering lab. I've 
done testing, and you follow the specification. So what was the 
specification? That's the real question. Simply, Jed, we don't know. 
Not yet. Perhaps the information will come out any day.


Second, the mass media, and the people making these comments here 
and off-line to me are parochial, small minded and biased.


Gee, thanks. what's my bias, Jed?

 If Secretary Chu of the U.S. DoE had attended a press conference 
in which a U.S. corporation said something like: "The DoE has 
confirmed that our cold fusion reactors work, and government 
agencies are now in the process of licensing them for commercial 
production" -- and Chu then spoke with reporters and confirmed 
that, I expect that every single newspaper and every person here 
would take it as irrefutable proof that cold fusion is real and the 
U.S. government is on track to approve commercial reactors. You 
would not question this, or doubt it.


That would depend. Probably. However, I haven't heard that Greek 
press conference, and I have no idea of the culture and specifics 
behind it. I've seen some lousy science endorsed by government 
officials, with disastrous consequences for U.S. and world health, so 
I'm not inclined to believe something just because a government 
official says so. It's a piece of evidence, not proof.


I think you should have more respect for scientists and regulatory 
officials in other countries.


Where did I express doubt about that? Oh, the jokey scenario That 
could be here in the U.S., it is not about Greece as being somehow different. 

Re: [Vo]:The Dipole Blockaid error resend

[mixent]

In reply to  Axil Axil's message of Wed, 6 Jul 2011 00:47:08 -0400:
Hi,
[snip]
>I think that heavy Rydberg matter dipole shielding of the nickel nuclei
>allow protons to penetrate the nuclear coulomb barrier of nickel atoms.
>
>
>In Rydberg matter, this dipole shielding goes as the 7th power of the number
>of atoms in the Rydberg matter assemblages. This polarization of Rydberg
>matter is clearly huge and can easily overcome the coulomb potential in the
>nickel atoms.
>
>In Rydberg matter, all the dipole moments of all the constituent atoms are
>coordinated and identical.
>
>Furthermore, the coherent nature of Rydberg matter range from just a single
>atom to large numbers in excess of 100 based upon the temperature and
>pressure of the hydrogen envelope; the higher the pressure and temperature,
>the greater on the average is the number of member atoms in the Rydberg
>matter assemblages. In other words, the higher the temperature of this
>hydrogen envelope, the greater is the number of coherent atoms that join the
>Rydberg matter assemblages.
>
>You may have not considered how nuclear reactions affect atoms in a large
>assemblage of coherent and entangled atoms.
>
>In such a collection, what happens to one member of such a coherent
>collection happens to them all. It may well be that an averaging effect
>takes place where the nuclear energy output of one atom is averaged over a
>hundred or more atoms in the coherent collection.
>
>Nuclear reactions inside a quantum condensate have yet to be studied.
>
>Look at this reference:
>
>http://cold-atoms.physics.lsa.umich.edu/projects/dipoleblockade/blockade.html

This is about Rydberg atoms, not inverse Rydberg atoms. The size difference is
enormous, and furthermore in IRM protons are orbiting iso electrons. Since
protons are far more massive, they will be much slower than electrons would be
at the same radius. That means that their magnetic field will be much weaker
than it would have been for electrons. However because they are very small, I
think the magnetic field would be quite strong nevertheless. Perhaps you would
care to work it out?
[snip]
Regards,

Robin van Spaandonk

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

RE: EXTERNAL: [Vo]:Rossi in Uppsala

[Roarty, Francis X]

Harry,
I understood that Rossi would NOT bring the E-Cat to Uppsala for 
testing until after the 1MW reactor was complete but this confidential trip 
suggests he brought them some physical device or schematics for discussions 
from which he claims HE is learning a lot.
Kullander and Essen would obviously be the Swedish scientists but who would be 
the likely American and Japanese?
Fran

-Original Message-
From: Harry Veeder [mailto:hlvee...@yahoo.com] 
Sent: Wednesday, July 06, 2011 2:04 PM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Subject: EXTERNAL: [Vo]:Rossi in Uppsala

Andrea Rossi  
July 
6th, 2011 at 4:04 AM  
Dear Paul Esteban,
I cannot , because I have been told to maintain very 
confidential what happened this week in Uppsala.
Warm 
Regards,
A.R.

Paul Esteban  
July 
5th, 2011 at 1:50 PM  
Dear Mr Rossi, could you tell us who are the top scientists? 
Warm Regards
Paul Esteban
* 

Peter 
July 
5th, 2011 at 3:24 AM 
Dear Andrea Rossi,
I am following your endeavors with great interest and I think that the near 
future will be very exciting! 
Do you have any news to share about your recent visit to Sweden? (It’s very 
exiting that we may be one of the first countries to start using your new 
technology)
Best regards and lots of luck with your invention!

Andrea Rossi 
July 
5th, 2011 at 11:21 AM 
Dear Peter,
Thank you for your attention. In Sweden I am working with top 
scientists from Sweden, USA and Japan from whom I am learning. A lot.
Warm 
Regards,
A.R. 

Re: [Vo]:Suppose the DoE were testing a device instead of the Greek Min. of Energy

[Harry Veeder]

I guess for some people too-good-to-be-true trumps too-absurd-to-be-a-lie...

Harry

From: Jed Rothwell 
>To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
>Sent: Wednesday, July 6, 2011 5:24:37 PM
>Subject: Re: [Vo]:Suppose the DoE were testing a device instead of the Greek 
>Min. of Energy
>
>
>I wrote:
> 
>Memo from the Director of Safety Testing: Did you measure the generated heat?
>>>
>>>Response from testing technician: No, of course not, that wasn't in the test 
>>>specification. We did not see any explosions. . . . 
>
>
>
> 
>Let me point out another thing about this un-funny joke, and the many similar 
>comments coming in by private e-mail. 
>The Greek government, like all other EU counties, has to certify that a 
>product does what is claimed. A company is not allowed to sell a product which 
>does not meet the advertised claims. That would be consumer fraud. Products 
>are tested by agencies to prevent this. If the company says a hybrid car gets 
>50 mpg and goes 100 mph, it has to submit prototypes to a testing agency that 
>will assure that is true, and give the car a rating. This is how things work 
>in U.S., the EU and Japan. 
>
>
>Defkalion has a reactor they claim inputs 450 W and outputs 20 kW. If there is 
>no anomalous heat, and output is actually 450 W, the regulators will see that. 
>They will not allow Defkalion to go around claiming this is a kilowatt heater 
>if it isn't. 
>
>A correspondent wrote to me that she does not trust EU regulators. They might 
>not do this job adequately. My response:
>
>
>"To what extent do you not trust them? Do you think they are incapable of 
>measuring 450 W input and 20,000 W output, continuing for weeks or months? How 
>difficult do you think that is to confirm?
>
>
>Do you seriously doubt that an EU government agency is incapable of 
>determining that? Have you ever been to Europe? You will note that buildings 
>there do not often collapse, the trains do not run off the rails, and Airbus 
>aircraft do not routinely fall from the skies. Evidently, their industrial 
>standards and agencies are about as good as ours.
>
>
>It is one thing to have doubts about the ability of engineers to measure some 
>subtle effect, or to do a particularly difficult state-of-the art test. What 
>you are saying is that you don't trust these people can measure the difference 
>between 450 W and 20,000 W."
>
>
>That's preposterous.
>
>
>Abd is either joking, or he imagines it would not occur to these people to do 
>this measurement. That is also preposterous. It is also insulting and it 
>defies common sense and what all know about modern governments and commerce. 
>Corporations are not allowed to manufacture and sell fake 
>300,000 kilowatt scale reactors that actually only produce 450 W. That would 
>be like advertising and selling an ordinary 25 mpg car as a 2500 mpg magical 
>super-car. Regulators will notice you are doing that. They will shut you down 
>with a criminal injunction. Unless, of course, they have tested the car and 
>determined that it is true.
>
>
>Lots of people -- customers and regulators -- would notice if Defkalion did 
>that. There is no chance that Defkalion will make money doing that. No country 
>on earth would allow them to do it. So stop with the absurd fantasies and the 
>denial of common-sense reality.
>
>
>- Jed
>
> 
>
>

Re: [Vo]:Analysis of e-Cat test by E. Storms

[Joshua Cude]

On Wed, Jul 6, 2011 at 4:23 PM, OrionWorks - Steven V Johnson <
svj.orionwo...@gmail.com> wrote:

> Joshua,
>
> You may recall, I conjectured:
>
> > ... how can this newly formed H2O gas be
> > expected to be much above 100 C if it doesn't
> > have a chance to hang around long enough to
> > absorb additional heat energy.
>
> ...to which you replied:
>
> > How can it not?
>
> There lies the little pickle of a situation we find ourselves in.
>
> Who's right?
>
> I did my best to explain my perceptions on the matter. At present I
> don't think my thoughts were so terribly flawed that I will need to
> retract them - but we shall see.  Truth is, I'm not in a position to
> prove your perceptions on the matter are incorrect. But then, nor are
> you in a position to do likewise to me.
>

Well, your position violates conservation of energy and mine doesn't.


 As for trying to understand the mechanics of Defkalion and cohorts, I am
not qualified. I'm just looking at the demos, and don't see that they
demonstrate their claims. That's all. (And when you look at a company like
BLP, and see they have gotten at least 60 million in investments, mining the
same presumed H-Ni exotherms for 20 years, without a commercial product,
it's not that hard to understand the motivations of the Rossians, with or
without a product.)

Unlike many commenters, I don't think we'll "know" at the end of the year,
or for years after. I think (as you said), there will be delays, and the
definitive product will remain just out of reach for a long time, and then
may just fade away after a few people have made their fortune. I suspect
proving fraud will be difficult.

Or it'll all work, and I can stop pouring cash into gas tanks, and the
solution to global warming will be at hand.

I'd like to see the latter as much as the next guy, but realistically, I
don't expect it.

[Vo]:Rossi in the Navy?

[Terry Blanton]

http://translate.google.com/translate?hl=en&sl=it&u=http://22passi.blogspot.com/2011/01/bologna-14012010-la-fusione-fredda.html&ei=dlIvTaADi66wA9m62JYJ&sa=X&oi=translate&ct=result&resnum=2&ved=0CDcQ7gEwATgU&prev=/search%3Fq%3D%2522focardi%2522%26start%3D20%26hl%3Den%26lr%3D%26sa%3DN%26tbs%3Dqdr:w%26prmd%3Divns


Bologna, January 14, 2011:
cold fusion becomes a reality in Italy

Prof. S. Focardi (left) and Eng. A. Red (right)
to work around the prototype device (reactor Ni-H
module 10 kW) during a preliminary test.
15/12/2010 Photo courtesy of the G. Levi.


A sensational announcement on cold fusion.

It was May 2008 when the blog for the first time I spoke of cold
fusion or low energy nuclear reactions, if you prefer, for my highly
credible source was a longtime friend who kept me informed of the test
to which he was participating. I was so learned that a few years was
working in Emilia Romagna, a prototype reactor Nickel-Hydrogen, on the
intellect, the tenacity and foresight of Eng. Andrea Rossi and a team
of researchers led by University of Bologna Prof. Sergio Focardi, a
pioneer of studies on cold fusion in Italy.

To me the signal that it was not a hoax but of something momentous, is
assisting the gradual change of attitude of my friend: Party with the
decidedly skeptical scientific objective duty to rebut the
experimental results had been presented, after directly participated
in the tests and subjected to all sorts of monitoring and verifying
the data obtained, gradually recognized that the apparatus built by
Focardi and Rossi produced energy (and so well!) right through the
cold fusion that for many years Mainstream science has denied credit
and verifiability.

Since then various post I announced that would soon be given a public
presentation of the functioning of the Ni-H Focardi and Rossi in
question. The time has now arrived. The day after tomorrow will attend
in person to the event to be held in Bologna, for the freedom of
information guaranteed by bloggers on the net, along with journalists
from two major daily newspapers and national news agency, a small and
select audience of researchers and professors of the Department of
Physics, University of Bologna. We invited all of a venticinquina. Of
course many will bloom early in the network technical insights written
by people competent to deal with the issue, much more than me that the
engineering faculty 20 years ago, said only 8 tests before changing
very field of study and work. So will document the event so popular
deliberately, trying to imagine and speculate developments and
repercussions of this fantastic discovery, on the economy and energy,
environment, life of the rest of us.

>From what I understand, the equipment is tested and refined
successfully for some time (at least one industrial building would be
heated by a fraction of the cost through years of cold fusion), and
its engineering is almost complete, is ready for large scale
production and to be used primarily in industry and then in civilian
homes. Circulating at least a year "rumors" by which was also overseen
by the DOE (Departamento of Energy) and the DOD (Department of
Defense) U.S. and further proven to generate propulsion in one or more
military vessels of the U.S. Navy. I will try to gather more
information on these aspects.

Hoping that the system for producing energy from cold fusion developed
by Focardi and Rossi will not touch the fate of the telephone and that
Meucci, like many inventions from 100% Italian, does not become the
subject of business from other nations, that It is certain that
mankind has everything to gain from a new source of energy low cost
and low environmental impact. And who knows what our government does
not understand - at last - that it makes more sense to build a myriad
of new micro-reactor cold (and solar, wind, etc..) That few dangerous
costosisissime, eco-compatible, "old" atomic power stations . Another
question now imposes itself: how will the lobbies of oil and nuclear?

Re: [Vo]:Suppose the DoE were testing a device instead of the Greek Min. of Energy

[Jed Rothwell]

I wrote:


> Memo from the Director of Safety Testing: Did you measure the generated
>> heat?
>>
>> Response from testing technician: No, of course not, that wasn't in the
>> test specification. We did not see any explosions. . . .
>
>

Let me point out another thing about this un-funny joke, and the many
similar comments coming in by private e-mail.

The Greek government, like all other EU counties, has to certify that a
product does what is claimed. A company is not allowed to sell a product
which does not meet the advertised claims. That would be consumer fraud.
Products are tested by agencies to prevent this. If the company says a
hybrid car gets 50 mpg and goes 100 mph, it has to submit prototypes to a
testing agency that will assure that is true, and give the car a rating.
This is how things work in U.S., the EU and Japan.

Defkalion has a reactor they claim inputs 450 W and outputs 20 kW. If there
is no anomalous heat, and output is actually 450 W, the regulators will see
that. They will not allow Defkalion to go around claiming this is a kilowatt
heater if it isn't.

A correspondent wrote to me that she does not trust EU regulators. They
might not do this job adequately. My response:

"To what extent do you not trust them? Do you think they are incapable of
measuring 450 W input and 20,000 W output, continuing for weeks or months?
How difficult do you think that is to confirm?

Do you seriously doubt that an EU government agency is incapable of
determining that? Have you ever been to Europe? You will note that buildings
there do not often collapse, the trains do not run off the rails, and Airbus
aircraft do not routinely fall from the skies. Evidently, their industrial
standards and agencies are about as good as ours.

It is one thing to have doubts about the ability of engineers to measure
some subtle effect, or to do a particularly difficult state-of-the art test.
What you are saying is that you don't trust these people can measure the
difference between 450 W and 20,000 W."

That's preposterous.

Abd is either joking, or he imagines it would not occur to these people to
do this measurement. That is also preposterous. It is also insulting and it
defies common sense and what all know about modern governments and commerce.
Corporations are not allowed to manufacture and sell fake
300,000 kilowatt scale reactors that actually only produce 450 W. That would
be like advertising and selling an ordinary 25 mpg car as a 2500 mpg magical
super-car. Regulators will notice you are doing that. They will shut you
down with a criminal injunction. Unless, of course, they have tested the car
and determined that it is true.

Lots of people -- customers and regulators -- would notice if Defkalion did
that. There is no chance that Defkalion will make money doing that. No
country on earth would allow them to do it. So stop with the absurd
fantasies and the denial of common-sense reality.

- Jed

Re: [Vo]:Analysis of e-Cat test by E. Storms

[OrionWorks - Steven V Johnson]

Joshua,

You may recall, I conjectured:

> ... how can this newly formed H2O gas be
> expected to be much above 100 C if it doesn't
> have a chance to hang around long enough to
> absorb additional heat energy.

...to which you replied:

> How can it not?

There lies the little pickle of a situation we find ourselves in.

Who's right?

I did my best to explain my perceptions on the matter. At present I
don't think my thoughts were so terribly flawed that I will need to
retract them - but we shall see.  Truth is, I'm not in a position to
prove your perceptions on the matter are incorrect. But then, nor are
you in a position to do likewise to me.

Under the circumstances it seems to me that a more practical approach
would be to watch Defkalion very closely. I hope you are doing so as
well. The burning question we all want to know is whether the products
Defkalion's claims they are developing will generate heat (energy)
cheaply. At present, I can't answer that, and neither can you. Few
can. On the surface it appears that Defkalion is forging ahead with
plans to roll out the first generation of products based on Rossi's
contested e-cats, possibly by the end of this year. I don't know if
Defkalion will meet such an ambitious self-imposed end-of-the-year
deadline or not. Quite frankly, it would not surprise me if it takes
them a tad longer.

In my view it is unlikely that Defkalion as a corporate organization
is working in isolation. I suspect there is a considerable amount of
feedback and peer review going on within various departments,
particularly the R&D and engineering sections. It seems logical for me
to assume that by this stage of the game had Defkalion encountered
something fundamentally wrong with the principal attributes of Rossi's
e-cats, the entire organization would have folded up by now. That
hasn't happened. Against all odds, it seems as if the exact opposite
is happening.

It's an interesting quandary I'm left to ponder. I can ponder the
ramifications of your view on the matter, a view which seems to imply
that all Cold Fusion claims (to the best of your knowledge) are bogus,
or I can ponder the actions of Defkalion. Why is it that Defkalion
seems to be forging... "full steam ahead", no pun intended. Such
actions seem to contradict in the most fundamental way your premise
that Defkalion is betting its existence, it's entire future on a bogus
technology, and tragically so. That's not the impression I get.

In any case, I hope you can at least appreciate why might want to
avail myself to a second opinion, and a third...

Regards
Steven Vincent Johnson
www.OrionWorks.com
www.zazzle.com/orionworks

[Vo]:Suppose the DoE were testing a device instead of the Greek Min. of Energy

[Jed Rothwell]

Abd ul-Rahman Lomax  wrote:


> Jed claims that there has been extensive testing, but we don't have
> confirmation on that, AFAIK, from the actual testing agencies. And what,
> exactly, was tested is not clear.
>

I did not claim that. Defkalion did, during their press conference. The
Minister of Energy was sitting in the audience, and the top newspapers and
TV stations were there. So if that were not true, I suppose the Minister
would have told the reporters. He would have objected, strenuously. He did
not; he smiled and confirmed the report.

The tests have been described in some detail in the Defkalion white paper
and forum. I am gathering up this kind of thing for a new FAQ and new page.

Abd's imaginary conversation:


> 3 PM, March 27, 2011: We have operated ten devices supplied by Defkalion
> for three weeks, now, and they have not blown up, nor do they show any signs
> of impending failure. The devices did not exceed the rated external
> temperatures.
>
> Memo from the Director of Safety Testing: Did you measure the generated
> heat?
>
> Response from testing technician: No, of course not, that wasn't in the
> test specification. We did not see any explosions. . . .


Ha, ha. Very funny. I am getting sick of such comments, made here and
elsewhere.

Let us get some things straight here, folks:

First, European and Japanese regulatory engineers and scientists are every
bit as good at their jobs as U.S. ones are. That is to say, top notch. I
have read dozens -- hundreds -- of reports by DoE staff members and the
Italian Nat. Nuclear labs, on cold fusion and other subjects. These people
are professionals. They do not make the kind of idiotic mistakes Abd
imagines (presumably as a joke).

Second, the mass media, and the people making these comments here and
off-line to me are parochial, small minded and biased. If Secretary Chu of
the U.S. DoE had attended a press conference in which a U.S. corporation
said something like: "The DoE has confirmed that our cold fusion reactors
work, and government agencies are now in the process of licensing them for
commercial production" -- and Chu then spoke with reporters and confirmed
that, I expect that *every single newspaper* and *every person here* would
take it as irrefutable proof that cold fusion is real and the U.S.
government is on track to approve commercial reactors. You would not
question this, or doubt it.

I think you should have more respect for scientists and regulatory officials
in other countries.

- Jed

Re: [Vo]:Analysis of e-Cat test by E. Storms

[Damon Craig]

I have stumbled upon yet another peculiar engineering design choice. This
one I cannot explain as anthing other than a deliberate and
studied inplimentation with the sole intent to defraud.

Whereas the previous choices might be explained by oversight, or ignorance I
see no way to justify this one.

It would be easier in terms of cost and labor to route the outlet of the
E-car off the top of the chimney. The peculiar choice to route it out of the
side means customizing parts as best I can tell. Search among the suppliers
of copper pipe fittings. If anyone can find evidence that reducing "T" such
visible is the photographs of the Ecat is manufactured by anyone, let me
know.

Routing out of the top would require only a couple of pipe reducers and an
90 degree elbow. This choice would not allow water in liquid phase to weep
out the exit. Placing it on the top would mean the water would have to rise
into the elbow at the top before weeping over into the outlet hose, making
it far more difficult to explain to the critical eye.

[Vo]:Rossi in Uppsala

[Harry Veeder]

Andrea Rossi  
July 
6th, 2011 at 4:04 AM  
Dear Paul Esteban,
I cannot , because I have been told to maintain very 
confidential what happened this week in Uppsala.
Warm 
Regards,
A.R.

Paul Esteban  
July 
5th, 2011 at 1:50 PM  
Dear Mr Rossi, could you tell us who are the top scientists? 
Warm Regards
Paul Esteban
* 

Peter 
July 
5th, 2011 at 3:24 AM 
Dear Andrea Rossi,
I am following your endeavors with great interest and I think that the near 
future will be very exciting! 
Do you have any news to share about your recent visit to Sweden? (It’s very 
exiting that we may be one of the first countries to start using your new 
technology)
Best regards and lots of luck with your invention!

Andrea Rossi 
July 
5th, 2011 at 11:21 AM 
Dear Peter,
Thank you for your attention. In Sweden I am working with top 
scientists from Sweden, USA and Japan from whom I am learning. A lot.
Warm 
Regards,
A.R. 

Re: [Vo]:Hitler Panics Over Rossi's Energy Catalyzer

[Man on Bridges]

Hi,

Wow, this really s*cks.

I'd expect at least also a decent "nachsynchronization (voiceover)" 
i.s.o. of simply putting subtitles under it.

Now the subtitles are in no way a representation of what is being said.

Kind regards,

MoB

On 6-7-2011 6:34, noone noone wrote:

 Check out the video linked on the following page. It's awesome!

What do all of you think?

Hitler Panics Over Rossi's Energy Catalyzer

A parody compiled by Hank Mills has Hitler bemoaning: "If cold fusion 
technology hits the market place the oil industry will lose BILLIONS 
of dollars in profits! Hot fusion research will come to an end too! 
All the funding will be lost! How can we convince people to keep using 
fossil fuels if cheap, clean, and abundant energy from cold fusion is 
available?"


http://pesn.com/2011/07/05/9501863_Hitler_Panics_Over_Rossi_E-Cat/

Re: [Vo]:Analysis of e-Cat test by E. Storms

[Joshua Cude]

On Wed, Jul 6, 2011 at 9:53 AM, Abd ul-Rahman Lomax wrote:

>
> The "inconclusive" epithet is from roughly twenty years ago, and we can see
> this crumbling by the time of the 2004 U.S. DoE review, where "excess heat"
> evidence was considered "conclusive" by half the panel, and it's clear that
> the rest of the panel was rejecting the heat on the basis of lack of
> convincing *theory*.


No. It is precisely the DOE review I had in mind when I used the term
inconclusive. Only one of the 18 members considered evidence for nuclear
reactions conclusive. As for the heat, about half the panel found the
evidence compelling, not conclusive. There's a difference.

>
> However, Kullander and Essen go on to state:
>
>  If no additional heat had been generated internally, the temperature would
>> not exceed the 60 °C recorded at 10:36.
>>
>
> No basis for this statement is given. However, let's look at an apparent
> source. What is the temperature rise that 300 w heating power will produce
> in a 6.47 kg/hour water flow? I come up with 40 degrees. So the statement is
> based on an assumption that the flow rate and input power are correct.
>

So clearly a basis for the statement is given. You're contradicting
yourself. The discrepancy, which you go on to identify, is that one would
expect an asymptotic approach to the 60C temperature, but in fact it is
linear. That suggests that either the power is higher than they claim, or
the flow rate is lower. Since E and K measured the flow rate themselves, but
the power was not monitored, and since we have seen Rossi with his paws on
the power control in the Lewan video, I'd suspect the input power was higher
than claimed.


> The flow rate was determined by filling a carafe, perhaps by disconnecting
> the input hose from the E-Cat and directing it into the carafe. But the
> actual flow into the E-Cat could be less, if there is restriction, the exact
> flow in could depend on pump specifications regarding back pressure, if
> there is back pressure. If they instead measured flow out of the outlet
> hose, this would establish actual flow, for the period prior to boiling.
> It's not stated where the water sample was obtained.
>

The pump is designed to give constant flow rate, and no significant back
pressure is likely, because that would increase the boiling point (more than
by a degree or 2).

There is also no continuous monitoring of water flow. It's assumed to be
> constant, from a single measurement.
>

Again, the pump is designed to give constant flow rate. Of course, it's
possible that Rossi changed pump setting, but a change in flow rate during
the warm-up period would give a step change in the temperature, which is not
observed. So, if he changed it, it would have to have been at the very
beginning.

A change in power should give a change in slope, which is a little more
subtle, but admittedly also not obvious until the 60C mark. So the power
change, if it happened, also fits better with a change at the beginning. The
change in slope at the 60C may correspond to a second increase in the input
power.


> Roughly, if 300 watts produces a 40 degree rise in 9 minutes, and then a
> 37.5 degree rise in 4 minutes would indicate total power of 633 watts, or
> excess power of 333 w.



> There is little sign of any additional increase in power as the temperature
> approaches boilingYet later, as heating continues until all water is
> presumably being vaporized, a period of about three minutes, the apparent
> heating power must now be 4.38 kW. this must begin some time during the
> boiling phase, as, presumably, reactor temperature continues to increase. We
> are not shown reactor temperature, though it is almost certainly being
> monitored by Rossi's controller. That extra power would be shown in reactor
> temperature as a very rapid rate of temperature increase.
>
> How this high rate of temperature increase is controlled to be exactly that
> which will vaporize a fixed flow of water, neither allowing excess flow nor
> allowing reduction of water level in the E-Cat cooling chamber, is
> mysterious.


It's more than mysterious. It's not plausible. The time it takes to reach
dry steam depends on the power from the ecat, and the actual temperature of
the ecat when boiling is reached, but using some reasonable estimates
suggests that the only way to reach 4.4 kW transfer from 600 W in 3 minutes
would require the ecat to increase its power output at the moment boiling
begins to a level far above 4.4 kW, and then decrease back to 4.4 kW as the
equilibrium point is approached, to avoid going beyond dry steam. That would
be some feat of engineering indeed. And for no purpose.

Re: [Vo]:Analysis of e-Cat test by E. Storms

[Abd ul-Rahman Lomax]

At 09:45 PM 7/5/2011, Harry Veeder wrote:
The Kirvit video *might* be explained in terms of the Tarallo Water 
Diversion Fake:

http://lenr.qumbu.com/fake_rossi_ecat_details_v323.php


Tarallo suggests that there is a hose leading water out into the 
outlet pipe, allowing steam measurements.


The hose proposed is unnecessary, it would indeed be fakery, but 
Tarallo is attempting to explain something that isn't necessary to 
explain, i.e., the measurements through the instrument port. If the 
chimney simply fills with water to the level of the output hose, a 
thermocouple inserted into the instrument port will measure, if any 
water is being boiled, boiling temperature. An RH meter probe 
inserted there will show the same result as for steam, from the way 
these meters work.


As a fake, this could indeed be used to create an appearance of 
excess heat where there was only input power heat, in combination 
with a true bypass inside.


I don't see that this has been ruled out.

However, once "fraud" is on the table, there are no limits to 
possibilities, I started making this point in January or February. 
This is why we want to see, to be *certain*, independent testing 
where fakery as described becomes preposterously unlikely.


It would be trivial to take the Rossi setup, and add a few dollars 
worth of plumbing, and make it into a very clear measurement of 
power. But that has not been done, and I actively do not expect it to 
be done. Rossi clearly doesn't want a definitive demonstration, and 
from this I can make *no conclusion* other than ... he doesn't want a 
definitive demonstration. There are reasons for that which are 
possible all the way from fakery and fraud to genuine heat combined 
with economic motives or personal psychology.



Harry
From: Jeff Driscoll 
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Sent: Tuesday, July 5, 2011 2:23:01 PM
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Analysis of e-Cat test by E. Storms

it goes into colder water entering the ecat - but I contend that the
following possibilites exist for fakery

1.  large slugs of water are spit through the black hose and down the drain
2. the water stays in the Ecat and never leaves it
3. the input water is not measured correctly intentionally (fraudulently)


Or just a small continuous flow of water, though it could become 
slugs as water fills the hose blocking steam flow, the steam would 
then force the water out the hose periodically.


"The water stays in the E-Cat and never leaves it," I don't 
understand. This really requires possibility 3.


It's also possible that input flow is incorrectly measured without 
fraud, but this depends on details of the testing, and I haven't seen 
that input flow has been nailed down adequately. It may have been 
measured correctly, or not, and the difference depends on details of 
testing that were not disclosed.


I should be explicit about a possibility, that Rossi believes that 
all the water is being vaporized, when it is not. The setups he's 
created don't check for outflow water, and Rossi has no way of 
distinguishing outflow water from condensed water. He knows there is 
condensed water, and he assumes that it is condensed. Has he verified 
that it is all condensed?


The easiest way to assume that it is all condensed (aside from 
questions about steam quality, which could be a minor issue unless 
the heat is marginal) is gravity feed, so that feed rate equals 
boil-off rate, which would be trivial to set up. Has he done this? 
He'd also get faster turn-on, but not dangerously so. That Rossi uses 
constant feed rate is a mystery, it is a setup for error (or danger, 
if that rate is too low).

RE: EXTERNAL: [Vo]:Anyone heard from Dr. Park lately?

[Roarty, Francis X]

It has been almost that long since Black Light Power has made any announcements 
... 02/09/11 
I wonder if they both agreed to sit this one out?
Fran

-Original Message-
From: OrionWorks - Steven V Johnson [mailto:svj.orionwo...@gmail.com] 
Sent: Wednesday, July 06, 2011 9:19 AM
To: vortex-l
Subject: EXTERNAL: [Vo]:Anyone heard from Dr. Park lately?

Peter... Anyone...

It has now been six months since the January demonstration in Bologna, Italy.

Has anyone noticed if Dr. Park has chosen to say anything on the Rossi matter?

Regards
Steven Vincent Johnson
www.OrionWorks.com
www.zazzle.com/orionworks

Re: [Vo]:Analysis of e-Cat test by E. Storms

[Abd ul-Rahman Lomax]

At 08:50 PM 7/5/2011, Rich Murray wrote:

MISTer Joshua Cude, you are, as always, right...

No evidence at all for excess heat production...


From "defective evidence" to "no evidence" is a leap.

I just looked over the Kullander and Essen report, and what I see is 
that some assumptions were made. Those assumptions might be true, 
actually. What the actual data shows, however, is a heat anomaly that 
appears when the cooling water reaches 60 degrees C. The rate of 
increase shifts to an increased value that shows roughly doubled heat 
generation over input power.


They appear to be correct that the water would not boil if not for 
increased heat, though that is not a definitive showing, the heat 
curve looks like that, and the input power would not be enough to 
heat the apparent inplut flow more than 40 degrees, taking it to 60 degrees.


But that, again, depends on assumptions about input water flow, which 
wasn't nailed down.


Evidence is not proof, Rich.

What's confusing some people, such as Jed, and then others debating 
with Jed, is that Jed claims confidential information regarding 
Defkalion and other matters, that leads him to conclude that the 
Rossi results are real. That's evidence for him and not for us.


How much we want to believe his conclusions is a matter of personal judgment.

For myself, I look at Defkalion and I see what looks like management 
describing what their engineers have told them is possible. How much 
of this has been actually realized is unclear. Jed claims that there 
has been extensive testing, but we don't have confirmation on that, 
AFAIK, from the actual testing agencies. And what, exactly, was 
tested is not clear.


3 PM, March 27, 2011: We have operated ten devices supplied by 
Defkalion for three weeks, now, and they have not blown up, nor do 
they show any signs of impending failure. The devices did not exceed 
the rated external temperatures.


Memo from the Director of Safety Testing: Did you measure the generated heat?

Response from testing technician: No, of course not, that wasn't in 
the test specification. We did not see any explosions. We plugged 
them in to the power strip, added external temperature sensors, left 
the room, and then turned on the power. You want us to do something else?


Memo from Director. No. Never mind. I was just curious.

Report: Defkalion device passes safety tests, per specification 38026-D. 

Re: [Vo]:Analysis of e-Cat test by E. Storms

[Abd ul-Rahman Lomax]

At 04:47 AM 7/5/2011, Joshua Cude wrote:
BASIC CONCLUSION:  None of the plausible 
assumptions are consistent with the claim for excess energy being wrong.


These conclusions are an indication of what 
passes for evidence for cold fusion advocates. 
And are consistent (but much more obviously so) 
with the sort of definite conclusions drawn 
about other CF experiments, which are explicitly 
considered inconclusive (at best) by mainstream science.


Joshua Cude is using this as might be expected. 
He's right, "much more obviously so," i.e., there 
is some over-optimistic analysis being presented. 
However, I've seen no "explicit" analysis by 
"mainstream science" considering "inconclusive," 
say, Dr. Storms' paper "Status of cold fusion 
(2010)", in Naturwissenschaften, which, last time 
I looked, was a "mainstream" peer-reviewed 
publication, not given to wild claims.


The "inconclusive" epithet is from roughly twenty 
years ago, and we can see this crumbling by the 
time of the 2004 U.S. DoE review, where "excess 
heat" evidence was considered "conclusive" by 
half the panel, and it's clear that the rest of 
the panel was rejecting the heat on the basis of 
lack of convincing *theory*. Obviously, as to 
"convincing theory," we aren't there, neither 
with the E-Cat nor with other cold fusion claims.


But heat/helium is *damn convincing.* (and this 
has nothing to do with Rossi's Ni-H situation, we 
don't expect that helium is being produced, 
though, to my knowledge, nobody has checked.)


Cude has long believed that cold fusion is bogus, 
and that's a belief, not a fact.


I can agree with Cude on specifics about, say, 
relative humidity meters. He is, however, using this to push his own agenda.


Oddly, here, Jed Rothwell and many others 
consider the public demonstrations of the E-Cat 
are inconclusive, but for other reasons think 
that the heat is real. Sure. Maybe. But we can't 
tell from the public data, and this isn't how science is done.


Rossi is news, rumor, hype, and secrecy, and it 
looks like deliberate mystery is part of the show.


Given sketchy reports based on the incomplete 
examination allowed, some of us are trying to 
stretch these reports into what they are not. 
Kullander and Essen's report hasn't passed peer 
review, nor even editing, and it contains some obvious shortcomings.


At the end of the horizontal sectionthere is an 
auxiliary electric heater to initialize the 
burning and also to act as a safety if theheat 
evolution should get out of control.


It's obvious that if the "heat evolution should 
get out of control," the heater cannot "act as a 
safety." Rather, the device operates in a region 
where supplemental heat is required to maintain 
operating temperature. So the description of 
function is incorrect, and this misinterpretation 
has been repeated by skeptics, pointing out that 
reducing heat by adding heat is preposterous.


(But controlling heat by taking the reactor into 
a marginal region is not preposterous. Defkalion 
is apparently using a superior technique, per 
their claims, of control through hydrogen pressure in the reactor.


To heat up the adjusted water flow of 6.47 
kg/hour from 18 °C to vapor will require 
7256.47=4.69 kWh/hour. The power required for 
heating and vaporization is thus 4.69 kW.


It requires this power generation as an average 
over the hour. This is on the assumption of complete vaporization.


The inlet water temperature was 17.3 °C and 
increased slightly to 17.6 °C duringthis initial 
running. The outlet water temperature increased 
from 20 °C at 10:27 to 60 °C at 10:36. This 
means a temperature increase by 40 °C in 9 
minutes which is essentially due to the electric heater.


Thus we have an indication that the electric 
heater will raise the water temperature 40 
degrees C in 9 minutes. Is the cooling water 
being pumped in during this period? Yes.


The temperatures of the inlet water and the 
outlet water were monitored and recorded every 2 seconds.


So the condition is that water is flowing 
*through* the E-cat, and we have a 40 degree rise 
in 9 minutes, "essentially due to the electric heater."


However, Kullander and Essen go on to state:

If no additional heat had been generated 
internally, the temperature would not exceed the 60 °C recorded at 10:36.


No basis for this statement is given. However, 
let's look at an apparent source. What is the 
temperature rise that 300 w heating power will 
produce in a 6.47 kg/hour water flow? I come up 
with 40 degrees. So the statement is based on an 
assumption that the flow rate and input power are correct.


The flow rate was determined by filling a carafe, 
perhaps by disconnecting the input hose from the 
E-Cat and directing it into the carafe. But the 
actual flow into the E-Cat could be less, if 
there is restriction, the exact flow in could 
depend on pump specifications regarding back 
pressure, if there is back pressure. If they 
instead measured flow out of the ou

Re: [Vo]:Anyone heard from Dr. Park lately? (2nd copy)

[Peter Gluck]

messages coming back from vortex



On Wed, Jul 6, 2011 at 4:57 PM, OrionWorks - Steven V Johnson <
svj.orionwo...@gmail.com> wrote:

> Hi Peter.
>
> > I am subscribed to his "What's New" and have informed him repeatedly
> about
> > the developments. He has ignored the subject completely ad has not
> answered
> > the messsges.
> > Too small subject for such a great man.
>
> "Too small [a] subject..." for Dr. Park? ???!!!
>
> Surely you're joking! ;-)
>
> IMHO, a "great man" would not continuously avoid expressing comment on
> this subject, not after having firmly established a relentless track
> record of skewering prior CF claims.
>
> I find it exceedingly interesting that Dr. Park refuses to comment,
> and by doing so passively allows the younger (and possibly more
> foolish) wrestle about with this tiger. One learns to pick their
> battles carefully if one wishes to survive to a ripe old academic age,
> especially if there are younger less experienced warriors who are all
> fired up about slaying the dragon all on their own. ..."By all means,
> my young ambitious warrior, you have my blessing!"
>
> Know when to hold. Know when to fold.
>
> Regards
> Steven Vincent Johnson
> www.OrionWorks.com
> www.zazzle.com/orionworks
>
>


-- 
Dr. Peter Gluck
Cluj, Romania
http://egooutpeters.blogspot.com

Re: [Vo]:Anyone heard from Dr. Park lately? (2nd copy)

[OrionWorks - Steven V Johnson]

Hi Peter.

> I am subscribed to his "What's New" and have informed him repeatedly about
> the developments. He has ignored the subject completely ad has not answered
> the messsges.
> Too small subject for such a great man.

"Too small [a] subject..." for Dr. Park? ???!!!

Surely you're joking! ;-)

IMHO, a "great man" would not continuously avoid expressing comment on
this subject, not after having firmly established a relentless track
record of skewering prior CF claims.

I find it exceedingly interesting that Dr. Park refuses to comment,
and by doing so passively allows the younger (and possibly more
foolish) wrestle about with this tiger. One learns to pick their
battles carefully if one wishes to survive to a ripe old academic age,
especially if there are younger less experienced warriors who are all
fired up about slaying the dragon all on their own. ..."By all means,
my young ambitious warrior, you have my blessing!"

Know when to hold. Know when to fold.

Regards
Steven Vincent Johnson
www.OrionWorks.com
www.zazzle.com/orionworks

Re: [Vo]:Anyone heard from Dr. Park lately?

[Peter Gluck]

I am subscribed to his "What's New" and have informed him repeatedly about
the developments. He has ignored the subject completely ad has not answered
the messsges.
Too small subject for such a great man.
Peter

On Wed, Jul 6, 2011 at 4:18 PM, OrionWorks - Steven V Johnson <
svj.orionwo...@gmail.com> wrote:

> Peter... Anyone...
>
> It has now been six months since the January demonstration in Bologna,
> Italy.
>
> Has anyone noticed if Dr. Park has chosen to say anything on the Rossi
> matter?
>
> Regards
> Steven Vincent Johnson
> www.OrionWorks.com
> www.zazzle.com/orionworks
>
>


-- 
Dr. Peter Gluck
Cluj, Romania
http://egooutpeters.blogspot.com

[Vo]:Anyone heard from Dr. Park lately?

[OrionWorks - Steven V Johnson]

Peter... Anyone...

It has now been six months since the January demonstration in Bologna, Italy.

Has anyone noticed if Dr. Park has chosen to say anything on the Rossi matter?

Regards
Steven Vincent Johnson
www.OrionWorks.com
www.zazzle.com/orionworks

Re: [Vo]:Electric generator configuration described [Copy 2]

[Terry Blanton]

On Tue, Jul 5, 2011 at 10:27 PM, Jed Rothwell  wrote:

> They said it was a different liquid.

They did not actually identify the medium:

<><><><><><><><><>

Re: Cooling Hyperion with liquid salts
Defkalion GT
Posted: Tue Jul 05, 2011 2:46 pm


Joined: Fri Jun 24, 2011 6:56 am
Posts: 121  
Answering to a question on testing with coolants other than glycole,
we stated that we do lab tests with melting salts that boil in
temperatures at the range of 1000C. The maximum temperature we have
achieved in safe for Hyperions results to 414C output in the secondary
circuit.

We have to run such tests for two reasons:

1. To test Hyperion materials and devices performance in off limits conditions
2. To experiment with materials or coolants that seem interesting for
our developments on more demanding applications.

Sodium chloride was not our choice for the above purposes. There are
other interesting coolants in this rather big category which suite
better to our products specs. We will announce our results on such
coolants when all of our tests conclude to adapt certain of them in
our products alternative cooling methods.

Thank you for your comment

Re: [Vo]: Survey based on Steam Phase diagram...

[Joshua Cude]

On Tue, Jul 5, 2011 at 11:26 PM, Harry Veeder  wrote:

> Assuming the boiling is always happening at the same pressure, you can
> extend the horizontal line B-C to the temperature axis and treat that as the
> temperature of boiling. Wet steam is present only AT the temperature  of
> boiling. As long as the temperature of the vapour is just above the boiling
> temperature then you can be sure it is dry steam, even if it is only a tenth
> of degree above the boiling temperature.
>
>
Perhaps, but we don't know that it is a tenth of a degree above the boiling
temperature. If it were, then when it reaches point C, you should see an
increase in the temperature by 0.1C, but there is no indication of such an
increase. And then the ecat would be operating on the steep gradient between
points C and D. It would have to be stable to a fraction of a per cent for
the temperature to remain so perfectly constant. That seems impossible.

The perfectly regulated temperature is much better evidence that the steam
is at the boiling point than the absolute measurements of the temperature
and pressure are that the steam is 0.1C above the boiling.

Re: [Vo]:Analysis of e-Cat test by E. Storms

[Joshua Cude]

On Tue, Jul 5, 2011 at 10:59 PM, Mark Iverson  wrote:

> **
>
>  What if the E-Cat is operating with a 98% 'full charge' on the
> heat-capacitor?  It would still have considerable capacity left to absorb
> heat fluctuations without significantly changing steam temperature.
>

It would be able to absorb 2% fluctuations, yes. That's not considerable.
Even if it were at 90%, fluctuations of slightly more than 10% would
occasionally raise the temperature above the boiling point.


>
> Thus, ***IF*** the reactor's heat output is stable enough, it could achieve
> what they are saying...
>

It would not only have to be stable enough, but the flow rate and starting
temperature would have to be chosen accurately enough so that the ecat power
would always land just short of point C, and never exceed it. In 5
demonstrations, with different starting temperatures, and different flow
rates, it is unlikely that the ecat would always give just under the
necessary power for dry steam, and never over. And even if you believe that
Rossi is capable of choosing the flow rates that accurately, one wonders why
he would. Allowing it to go just beyond point C, even briefly, so the
temperature rises (even briefly) to 110 or 120 C, which would take only few
per cent or so of additional power (or of reduced flow rate) would be good
evidence that the steam is dry.

As for the stability, in the 18-hour run, they claim the power briefly
increased by an order of magnitude, and then it stabilized to between 15 kW
and 20 kW. That means that, *according to them*, the stability is at best
25%, but with order of magnitude spikes. And all of these powers are  enough
to give steam well above 100C in any of the other runs, including the
January demo.

But I'm glad that we at least agree now that the stable temperature means
that the ecat is somewhere between points B and C on that curve.

Rossi has not given evidence that it is near point C, and he could easily do
so, it it were. The appearance of the output fluid, and all the data he has
presented, is consistent with it being near point B. And the only deviation
from perfect regulation occurred in the January demonstration, where the
temperature dipped briefly *below* the boiling point in mid-plateau. That is
extremely compelling evidence that the ecat operates rather close to point B
on your graph.