[Vo]:bloomberg video report about rossi
bloomberg video report about rossi http://www.buildecat.com/view/74/Bloombergs-EnergyNow-Names-ECat-as-Weeks-HotZone.html
Re: [Vo]:Some thoughts about preparation of nickel powder
I didn't try it so far, but I will do for sure. On Tue, Nov 8, 2011 at 11:54 AM, Aussie Guy E-Cat aussieguy.e...@gmail.com wrote: This is very interesting. Thanks for sharing. Will soon be able to share our data as well. I also note mention of better results with electropolished Ni. Any comments on that? On 11/8/2011 6:11 PM, kulintsov wrote: Sorry, industrial secret, ZOG's pursuit, no comments. By the way during my experimentation with electrolysis of the nickel salts I have seen small and short gamma bursts with my dosimeter several times. For a minute or two there was double, triple or even quadruple increase in background radiation after turning on and off the apparatus or after rapid change of concentration of the solution. But these measurements was too rough to be sure about it. I think such thing aren't surprising for cold fusion experts. Pasha
Re: [Vo]:Focardi 1998 cell replication
Nice list you put together Peter. We will try to get all the papers and have them translated. It should not take too long for a patent attorney to obtain those papers or do have a source of them translated? If so care to share? You see, I don't like re-inventing the wheel and those papers should be well worth the read. To me it would seem that Rossi and Focardi built the E-cat on the shoulders / backs of the authors of the published research papers below. Calling Rossi and in effect Focardi frauds is like calling every one of these researchers frauds. I'm with Jed. It is real. Get over it and spend your time figuring out how it works or at least try to replicate it. I'm sure, from what I have read, there are more than enough brains in Vortex to figure it out. I make this promise. If I do get a LENR reaction to happen, I will make my workshop open to anyone (well with-in reason) who wants to come and have a play. No secrets. All open. Anything you do, measure or suggest to try is in the public domain. PROF. FRANCESCO PIANTELLI- PUBLICATIONS AND PRESENTATIONs re Ni-H syatems. In chronological order [1]. F. Piantelli, Atti Accad. Fis., Serie XV, Tomo XII, pag. 89-96 (1993) [2] S. Focardi, R. Habel and F. Piantelli, “Anomalous Heat Production in Ni-H Systems”, Nuovo Cim. Vol. 107 A, pp163-167, 1994 [3] Focardi S., Gabbani V., Habel R., Montalbano V., Piantelli F. and Veronesi S., Status of Cold Fusion in Italy, Siena Workshop, Siena, 24-25 (March 1995 [4] S. Focardi, R.Habel and F.Piantelli: “Evidenza di reazioni nucleari in sistemi nichel-idrogeno a 400 gradi Celsius”, Congresso Nazionale della Società Italiana di fisica, Perugia. 2-7 ottobre 1995. [5] S. Focardi, V.Gabbani. R. Habel. V. Montalbano, . F. Piantelli, G. Solvetti, A. Tombari, S. Veronese:: “Evidence of Heat Production and Nuclear reactions in Hydrogen Loaded Nickel Rods in Siena Experiments”. Convegno “Stato della fusione fredda in Italia” – Siena (1995) [6[ Focardi S., Gabbani, V., Montalbano, V., Piantelli, F., and Veronesi, S., : Analisi Superficiale Con Mocrosonda X Delle Barrette Metalliche Utilizzate Per La Produzione Anomala Di Energia Negli Esperimenti Di Siena ”Atti Acc. Fisiocritici Siena, Serie 15, Tomo 15, p. 109-115, (1996) [7] S. Focardi, V. Gabbani, V. Montalbano, F/Piantelli, C. Stanghini, S. Veronesi: ”New Esperimental Evidance of Nuclear Reactions in Ni-H Systems” – LXXXI Congresso nazionale S.I.F. – Verona (1996) [8] S. Focardi, V. Gabbani, V. Montalbano, F. Piantelli and S. Veronesi, “On the Ni-H System”, Asti Workshop in Hydrogen/Deuterium loaded Metals, pp 35-47, 1997. [9] E. Campari, S. Focardi, V. Gabbani, R. Habel, V. Montalbano, F.Piantelli,, S. Veronesi, E.I. Usai – “Studio di sistemi Ni-H nella regione 600- 800 K,” Congresso Nazionale della Società Italiana di fisica, Como 27-31 ottobre 1997 [10] Focardi, S., Gabbani, V., Montalbano, V., Piantelli, F. and Veronesi, S.,:Large Excess Heat Production in Ni-H Systems,Nuovo Cimento, Vol. 111A, p. 1233-1242, (1998 http://www.newenergytimes.com/v2/library/1998/1998FocardiS-LargeExcessHeatProductionNiH.pdf [11] E.Campari, S.Focardi, V. Gabbani, V/ Momtalbano, F. Piantelli,E. S. Veronesi: “ Emissione di raggi gamma da sistemi Ni-H”,Congresso Nazionale della Società Italiana di fisica, Salerno 28 settembre-2 ottobre 1998 [12] E.Campari, S.Focardi, V. Gabbani, V/ Momtalbano, F. Piantelli,E. S. Veronesi: “-Comportamento dei sistemi Ni-H” Congresso Nazionale della Società Italiana di fisica,Pavia 20-24 settembre 1999 [13] A. Battaglia, L. Daddi, S. Focardi, V. Gabbani, V.Montalbano, F. Piantelli, P. G. Sona and S. Veronesi, “Neutron emission in Ni.H systems”, Nuovo Cim. Vol. 112A, pp 921-9311, 1999 http://www.newenergytimes.com/v2/library/1999/1999BattagliaA-NeutronEmissionNiH.pdf [14] S. Focardi, V. Gabbani, V. Montalbano, F. Piantelli, S. Veronesi, “On the Ni-H System”. Conference Proceedings vol 64, “Asti Workshop on Anomalies in Hydrogen/Deuterium loaded metals”, 1999, W.J.M.F.Collis Editor [15] S. Focardi, V. Gabbani,V. Montalbano, F. Piantelli, S. Veronesi:“ Gamma emission from Ni-H Systems at 420-750 K”Atti Accad. Fisiocritici, Serie XV, Tomo XVIII, (1999) pags 109-118 [16] E. G. Campari, S. Focardi, V. Gabbiani, V. Montalbano. F. Piantelli, E. Porcu, E. Tosti, S. Veronesi: “Ni--H systems”, Proceedings of the 8th International Conference on Cold Fusion, Lerici (La Spezia), Italy 21-26 May 2000, pp 69-74 [17] Focardi, S. and Piantelli, F.Produzione Di Energia E Reazioni Nucleari In Sistemi Ni-H A 400 C XIX Congresso Nazionale UIT, 2000+? [18] E. Campari, S.Focardi, V. Gabbani, V. Montalbano, F. Piantelli, E. Sali, C. Stanghini, E.S. Veronesi: “Alcuni aspetti delle interazioni Ni-H”,Congresso Nazionale della Società Italiana di fisica,Palermo 6-11 ottobre 2000. [19] E. G. Campari, S. Focardi, V. Gabbani, V. Montalbano, F. Piantelli, S. Veronesi,”Thermal Surface effects in Hydrogen
Re: [Vo]:Focardi 1998 cell replication
Be aware that it is a Piantelli cell and that many blokes worldwide are trying replications- and this actions would lead to many variants of practical energy sources. I wish you sucess! Peter On Tue, Nov 8, 2011 at 9:26 AM, Aussie Guy E-Cat aussieguy.e...@gmail.comwrote: Thanks for the link and references. I can see I have a lot of reading to do. I it seems my replication efforts are for a Piantelli cell (according to his patent application) and not a Focardi cell? I should be able to borrow the high vacuum and other pumps needed. My patent attorney, who is also interested in the replication, has considerable contacts around town. Neither of us are in it for money. We just want to make a working LENR reactor, so we can shove it up the back sides of a few people we know. On 11/8/2011 5:11 PM, Peter Gluck wrote: Dear Aussie Guy, Have you studied thoroughly the two Piantelli patents- from 1995 and 2010? Have you read what I wrote about Piantelli on my blog? (adress in signature) He has built the cells. You will need vacuum of 10 exp minus 5-6 Torrs, i.e a tandem of a diffusion and a turbomolecular vacuum pumps. Peter -- Dr. Peter Gluck Cluj, Romania http://egooutpeters.blogspot.com
Re: [Vo]:Focardi 1998 cell replication
Yes, thanks to you Peter, I do now understand the Ni-H cell design is Piantelli. Before I start changing anything, I will attempt to replicate his design as described in the Focardi and Piantelli paper in 1998 and in the Piantelli patent. I'm an old and cautious engineer, who has learned not to jump to quick conclusions and does not like re-inventing the wheel unless absolutely necessary. I may end up blowing my budget and I suspect a bit more but this excites me and I'm really good at picking out the grains of gold from a lot of information from many sources. I also have an almost pictorial memory and I'm really good at mental visualization and manipulation of complex systems. I'm excited to do this even if what I end up with is light years behind Rossi and others. If I can make a low cost, low power, safe, reliable and simple to build Ni-H LENR device, I'll be a very happy man. On 11/8/2011 7:33 PM, Peter Gluck wrote: Be aware that it is a Piantelli cell and that many blokes worldwide are trying replications- and this actions would lead to many variants of practical energy sources. I wish you sucess! Peter
[Vo]:Focardi on TED and photos of very early Rossi reactors
Dr. Focardi talking in Italian on TED. http://tedxtalks.ted.com/video/TEDxBologna-Sergio-Focardi-LE-c There is a nice shot of a early prototype E-Cat reactor sitting in a red plastic bucket, during his presentation plus a few more, which gives me a lot of hope to replicate a Piantelli LENR cell sitting in a fish tank. AG
Re: [Vo]:Focardi 1998 cell replication
A nice idea could also be: Use a nickel tube and apply heat as well as hydrogen /inside/ of the tube. If there are any gamma rays or particles that trigger other reactions, the efficiency should be better. Also parasitic heat losses are minimized, because the hottest surface is inside. Also preparation (glowing in vacuum) should be easier. I dont understand the idea behind the Piantelli-Focardi design of apparatus. It seems to be inefficient to me and difficult to measure. It must also been said, many have tried to replicate it, so far I know Fiat and some universities are among them. One group reported, they have observed all effects that Focardi Piantelli have reported, but could not measure excess heat. Dont know, if they reported gamma rays. If you do a precise replication, expect it to be difficult and possibly without result because many have already tried. Peter - Original Nachricht Von: Aussie Guy E-Cat aussieguy.e...@gmail.com An: vortex-l@eskimo.com Datum: 08.11.2011 08:36 Betreff: Re: [Vo]:Focardi 1998 cell replication Overall I do agree with you, especially as cell A was a Ni plated stainless rod and it produces more power than did the Ni plated Ni rod. However I do plan to replicate the original Piantelly / Focardi cell design as closely as I can and how they produced, processed and H loaded the Ni rods. Once I have that data set, I will start trying other Ni samples, like your Ni pipe suggestion with internal heater (which I like) and the Ni powder. On 11/8/2011 5:39 PM, peter.heck...@arcor.de wrote: - Original Nachricht Von: Aussie Guy E-Cataussieguy.e...@gmail.com An: vortex-l@eskimo.com Datum: 08.11.2011 07:28 Betreff: Re: [Vo]:Focardi 1998 cell replication I have read Focardi did heat treat the Ni rod, which I also intend to do. I also understand there can be problems with the Ni rod becoming H loaded and producing heat when there is no external heating applied. I do note Focardi does show a vacuum supply that can be applied to the cell and with his 300 watts of thermal heat, the rod would get quite hot as in a vacuum, it's ability to radiate heat away would be reduced. Here is a question I'm sure Vortex can answer a lot quicker and easier than I can. Assuming a 10mm dia Ni rod 50 mm long, inserted inside a high temp ceramic coil form, which is wrapped with high temp wire and in a vacuum. How much power would need to be applied to get the Ni rod to 500 deg C? Is this possible or would I need to use a more exotic heat source? IE how to get a Ni rod to 500 deg C in a vacuum without breaking my several thousand dollar budget? The reaction is probably a surface effect, it is unlikely that the hydrogen diffused deep into the nickel rod. You could use a nickel pipe and place the heater inside. Very low power should be needed to heat it to 500° in a vacuum. 500° is equivalent to red hot glowing iron, nothing special,commercial heaters are available. Placing the heater inside should avoid parasitic thermal energy losses and improve the COP much (if there is any) and should make the proof much easier. Dont understand why Focardi Piantelly had not this thought, I think, this is rather obvious. They always choose the most distant confusing and difficult way this makes me doubt about their seriousness. Such an arrangement, but much smaller, is found in electronic vacuuum valves as cathode. They use a small nickel pipe (barium oxide coated) with the heater inside as a cathode.
[Vo]:keelynet weighs in on rossi
* 11/08/11 - Cold Fusion – Boondoggle and Bonanza? At his public demonstration in October, Mr. Rossi built a larger version of the E-cat, by combining many smaller cold fusion modules. At this demonstration, an initial energy input of 400 watts was put into each module. Each module, then produced a continuous and sustained output of 10 kW for a total of 47 kW for three to four hours. Mr. Rossi does not yet have a patent, and so the inner workings of the E-cat are unknown to the public. Mr. Rossi has incorporated, under the name Leonardo Corp., which will produce and sell his E-cat machines. If Mr. Rossi's E-cat machine does work, then it will be a bonanza for him and for the world. And if Mr. Rossi's E-cat machine does in fact (NOT) work, then it will be a boondoggle (Work or activity that is wasteful or pointless but gives the appearance of having value) for all the other energy producers in the world. - Full Article Sourcehttp://technorati.com/technology/article/cold-fusion-boondoggle-and-bonanza/ ( http://keelynet.com ) *
Re: [Vo]:Focardi 1998 cell replication
I do like the idea of the Ni tube and putting the heater element inside for all the reasons you listed. This could result in a very simple to make cell as thermal heat, H2 and vacuum only needs to be applied to the inside of the tube. Using a stainless tube with Ni electroplated and electropolished on the inside could result in a nice compact design with little external corrosion potential. Maybe fit a collar type finned heat around the outside of the tube (http://www.aavidthermalloy.com/products/standard/320105b0g sort of like this but longer) to make thermal transfer to passing fluid very efficient. Also make the heat sink streamlined and optimised for fluid. I like it. Maybe call it the Vortex cell? Why did they design the Piantelli cell the way they did? Maybe because they are not experienced engineers with grease under their fingernails and a lot of time at the Coal Face where necessity is the mother of invention?? As for the other replicators, may I suggest they did not have Vortex to call upon? AG On 11/8/2011 10:04 PM, peter.heck...@arcor.de wrote: A nice idea could also be: Use a nickel tube and apply heat as well as hydrogen /inside/ of the tube. If there are any gamma rays or particles that trigger other reactions, the efficiency should be better. Also parasitic heat losses are minimized, because the hottest surface is inside. Also preparation (glowing in vacuum) should be easier. I dont understand the idea behind the Piantelli-Focardi design of apparatus. It seems to be inefficient to me and difficult to measure. It must also been said, many have tried to replicate it, so far I know Fiat and some universities are among them. One group reported, they have observed all effects that Focardi Piantelli have reported, but could not measure excess heat. Dont know, if they reported gamma rays. If you do a precise replication, expect it to be difficult and possibly without result because many have already tried. Peter
Re: [Vo]:Minor progress
On Mon, Nov 7, 2011 at 8:53 PM, Robert Leguillon robert.leguil...@hotmail.com wrote: The issue of complete vaporization has plagued the E-Cat from the beginning. In the early E-Cats, water was able to run straight out of the E-Cat and down a drain, without ever being collected or sparged. In the 1MW demo, the steam is condensed and fed back in, there is no way of knowing how much water was actually vaporized. How did they get the 3716 liters of vaporized water figure then? -- Berke Durak
[Vo]:E-Cat / philosophical remarks
The important thing with the e-Cat is that there don't seem to be any good faith classical models left around to explain the effect. In other words, all the various demonstrations disprove the notion that this is just misunderstood classical physics. It is either an elaborate hoax, or this is the real stuff. Elaborating models with hot bricks in the reactor core etc. is mostly an intellectual distraction, because a hot brick model is obviously not a good faith model. People can simulate all the hot brick/cement/iron slug/wet vapor models they want, but unless someone discovers something that can be there only if this is a hoax, such models won't speak for the hoax hypothesis. -- Berke Durak
Re: [Vo]:Focardi 1998 cell replication
- Original Nachricht Von: Aussie Guy E-Cat aussieguy.e...@gmail.com An: vortex-l@eskimo.com Datum: 08.11.2011 13:21 Betreff: Re: [Vo]:Focardi 1998 cell replication I do like the idea of the Ni tube and putting the heater element inside for all the reasons you listed. This could result in a very simple to make cell as thermal heat, H2 and vacuum only needs to be applied to the inside of the tube. Using a stainless tube with Ni electroplated and electropolished on the inside could result in a nice compact design with little external corrosion potential. Maybe fit a collar type finned heat around the outside of the tube (http://www.aavidthermalloy.com/products/standard/320105b0g sort of like this but longer) to make thermal transfer to passing fluid very efficient. Also make the heat sink streamlined and optimised for fluid. I like it. Maybe call it the Vortex cell? If you do it, name it as you want, it is your cell. If you overtrump Rossi and enable some 100 other persons to replicate it your success is sure ;-). This cake is too big for one ;-) I would like to try stuff like this, but I dont have the equipment and working space needed. Why did they design the Piantelli cell the way they did? Maybe because they are not experienced engineers with grease under their fingernails and a lot of time at the Coal Face where necessity is the mother of invention?? The reason might be this: Piantelli is a biophysicist and he did other research, when excess heat was observed. So the cell was not originally designed for this. So far I read Piantelli later favored his cancer research and stopped the energy research. Possibly he was never too much interested in energy and wanted to develop a gamma source originally. As for the other replicators, may I suggest they did not have Vortex to call upon? Hehe. Peter AG On 11/8/2011 10:04 PM, peter.heck...@arcor.de wrote: A nice idea could also be: Use a nickel tube and apply heat as well as hydrogen /inside/ of the tube. If there are any gamma rays or particles that trigger other reactions, the efficiency should be better. Also parasitic heat losses are minimized, because the hottest surface is inside. Also preparation (glowing in vacuum) should be easier. I dont understand the idea behind the Piantelli-Focardi design of apparatus. It seems to be inefficient to me and difficult to measure. It must also been said, many have tried to replicate it, so far I know Fiat and some universities are among them. One group reported, they have observed all effects that Focardi Piantelli have reported, but could not measure excess heat. Dont know, if they reported gamma rays. If you do a precise replication, expect it to be difficult and possibly without result because many have already tried. Peter
Re: [Vo]:E-Cat / philosophical remarks
The problem is that it is easy to come up with fraudulent methods that could have delivered the observed demo results. Add to which Rossi has had no end of opportunities to remove all doubt, at no extra cost in effort or materials, and without danger of loss of IP, but has chosen not to for reasons that I (and others) are unable to guess. This leads to the two hotly contested options: 1/ It's real, but Rossi is not able to see how bad the decisions he is making are, and is incapable of taking sensible advice. 2/ It's a very elaborate scam. I'm in camp 1, but would not be surprised if outputs are much less than initially announced due to steam/water issues. But my belief is based mostly on multiple reports of similar results (though smaller output) by others. If it were just Rossi I would still be in camp 2. Rossi's failure in commercialisation of the biggest thing since the transistor is not totally unprecedented - the Wright brothers were almost as bad. But the fact that he is selling his house to finance a white elephant 1MW demo, when he would have had investors (with the expert help he so obviously needs) beating a path to his door to make him a billionaire if he simply did one good multi-day 10kW scale demo (with proper setup, record keeping and inspection), just leaves me amazed. It is so bad that at this point I am actually starting to feel he doesn't deserve success, I am glad that other groups seem to be closing in on similar results. On 8 November 2011 13:30, Berke Durak berke.du...@gmail.com wrote: The important thing with the e-Cat is that there don't seem to be any good faith classical models left around to explain the effect. In other words, all the various demonstrations disprove the notion that this is just misunderstood classical physics. It is either an elaborate hoax, or this is the real stuff. Elaborating models with hot bricks in the reactor core etc. is mostly an intellectual distraction, because a hot brick model is obviously not a good faith model. People can simulate all the hot brick/cement/iron slug/wet vapor models they want, but unless someone discovers something that can be there only if this is a hoax, such models won't speak for the hoax hypothesis. -- Berke Durak
Re: [Vo]:Minor progress
Horace Heffner hheff...@mtaonline.net wrote: Again, I don't know of anyone being allowed to see the insides of the 30x30x30 interior box. 1. Levi and the people at Defkalion say they saw inside. Lewan says you can see more than the photograph shows. There is no sign of concrete. 2. In previous tests observers dumped out the water from the vessel after the run and measured the volume. There is no space unaccounted for in the vessel. There is no place to put concrete. 3. The previous cylindrical reactors were easy to see inside of. There was no concrete in them. It makes no sense to claim that the previous reactors were real and this one is fake. Furthermore, you claim that output power is not measured accurately but this is incorrect. This analysis shows that the temperature of the cooling loop thermocouples was correct to within 0.1°C: http://lenr-canr.org/RossiData/Houkes%20Oct%206%20Calculation%20of%20influence%20of%20Tin%20on%20Tout.xlsx No one has challenged this analysis. Besides, even if this is incorrect and half of the input power is being stored while the electric power is turned on, the overall output profile is still correct, and output greatly exceeds input. In other words, in the storage scenario, you lower the output curve to half of the input, while power is on, and then measure the area of stored energy, and compare it output energy during the time power is on, and afterwards. The area of the latter greatly exceeds the former. Storage cannot explain these results. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:Focardi 1998 cell replication
I'm on my 2nd read of the Piantelli patent application WO 2010/058288 Al. I'm starting to understand the nuclear process he is describing. Is this for real? To me it seems logical and simple to understand but then I'm not a physicists. Has this nuclear fusion like exchange of Piantelli's been peer reviewed? If so can you please provide a link to the paper or the paper itself? My learning curve is really starting to accelerate but I fear I'm still very much like a novice vulcanologist without an asbestos suit to shield me from the flames! AG On 11/9/2011 12:21 AM, peter.heck...@arcor.de wrote: - Original Nachricht Von: Aussie Guy E-Cataussieguy.e...@gmail.com An: vortex-l@eskimo.com Datum: 08.11.2011 13:21 Betreff: Re: [Vo]:Focardi 1998 cell replication I do like the idea of the Ni tube and putting the heater element inside for all the reasons you listed. This could result in a very simple to make cell as thermal heat, H2 and vacuum only needs to be applied to the inside of the tube. Using a stainless tube with Ni electroplated and electropolished on the inside could result in a nice compact design with little external corrosion potential. Maybe fit a collar type finned heat around the outside of the tube (http://www.aavidthermalloy.com/products/standard/320105b0g sort of like this but longer) to make thermal transfer to passing fluid very efficient. Also make the heat sink streamlined and optimised for fluid. I like it. Maybe call it the Vortex cell? If you do it, name it as you want, it is your cell. If you overtrump Rossi and enable some 100 other persons to replicate it your success is sure ;-). This cake is too big for one ;-) I would like to try stuff like this, but I dont have the equipment and working space needed. Why did they design the Piantelli cell the way they did? Maybe because they are not experienced engineers with grease under their fingernails and a lot of time at the Coal Face where necessity is the mother of invention?? The reason might be this: Piantelli is a biophysicist and he did other research, when excess heat was observed. So the cell was not originally designed for this. So far I read Piantelli later favored his cancer research and stopped the energy research. Possibly he was never too much interested in energy and wanted to develop a gamma source originally. As for the other replicators, may I suggest they did not have Vortex to call upon? Hehe. Peter AG On 11/8/2011 10:04 PM, peter.heck...@arcor.de wrote: A nice idea could also be: Use a nickel tube and apply heat as well as hydrogen /inside/ of the tube. If there are any gamma rays or particles that trigger other reactions, the efficiency should be better. Also parasitic heat losses are minimized, because the hottest surface is inside. Also preparation (glowing in vacuum) should be easier. I dont understand the idea behind the Piantelli-Focardi design of apparatus. It seems to be inefficient to me and difficult to measure. It must also been said, many have tried to replicate it, so far I know Fiat and some universities are among them. One group reported, they have observed all effects that Focardi Piantelli have reported, but could not measure excess heat. Dont know, if they reported gamma rays. If you do a precise replication, expect it to be difficult and possibly without result because many have already tried. Peter
Re: [Vo]:Minor progress
By assuming that all of the water pumped in was evaporated. Unfortunately, it was fed into the steam condensers and back into the E-Cat in a closed loop. This us why the October 6th test was so important. It stood the chance to produce viable calorimetry. Unfortunately, the placement of the secondary thermocouples bring the results into question Berke Durak berke.du...@gmail.com wrote: On Mon, Nov 7, 2011 at 8:53 PM, Robert Leguillon robert.leguil...@hotmail.com wrote: The issue of complete vaporization has plagued the E-Cat from the beginning. In the early E-Cats, water was able to run straight out of the E-Cat and down a drain, without ever being collected or sparged. In the 1MW demo, the steam is condensed and fed back in, there is no way of knowing how much water was actually vaporized. How did they get the 3716 liters of vaporized water figure then? -- Berke Durak
Re: [Vo]:Minor progress
As I soon (4 to 8 weeks) will hopefully be doing my own calorimeter measurements, Robert will you please assist my learning curve by pointing how the 6 Oct E-Cat thermocouple input and output heat exchanger measuring points were incorrect and how they should have been done properly so I don't make a similar mistake. AG On 11/9/2011 12:50 AM, Robert Leguillon wrote: By assuming that all of the water pumped in was evaporated. Unfortunately, it was fed into the steam condensers and back into the E-Cat in a closed loop. This us why the October 6th test was so important. It stood the chance to produce viable calorimetry. Unfortunately, the placement of the secondary thermocouples bring the results into question
Re: [Vo]:E-Cat / philosophical remarks
On Tue, Nov 8, 2011 at 9:08 AM, Robert Lynn robert.gulliver.l...@gmail.com wrote: The problem is that it is easy to come up with fraudulent methods that could have delivered the observed demo results. This is true and that's one of the points. Add to which Rossi has had no end of opportunities to remove all doubt, at no extra cost in effort or materials, and without danger of loss of IP, but has chosen not to for reasons that I (and others) are unable to guess. I disagree. Designing and setting up an iron-clad demonstration for public consumption is a major task, and is never good enough if there is disinformation by the mainstream media. Getting the product to the market is the best demonstration one can do. So we can assume that he just opted for the latter at the expense of the former. 1/ It's real, but Rossi is not able to see how bad the decisions he is making are, and is incapable of taking sensible advice. Rossi is Rossi, not god. If his decisions were that bad, we wouldn't be having this discussion in the first place. 2/ It's a very elaborate scam. That option seems less and less likely. Rossi's failure in commercialisation of the biggest thing since the transistor is not totally unprecedented - the Wright brothers were almost as bad. I have checked the media coverage of the Wright brothers flights the other day. The silence was astounding. But the fact that he is selling his house to finance a white elephant 1MW demo, when he would have had investors (with the expert help he so obviously needs) beating a path to his door to make him a billionaire if he simply did one good multi-day 10kW scale demo (with proper setup, record keeping and inspection), just leaves me amazed. It is so bad that at this point I am actually starting to feel he doesn't deserve success, I am glad that other groups seem to be closing in on similar results. The problem is not with Rossi. The problem is with the human race. We are a bunch of fuck-ups too stupid to get rid of our own human parasites and invest in useful technology and adopt them before we poison what little drinkable water is left by fracking or nuclear disasters. Maybe we deserve to die. -- Berke Durak
Re: [Vo]:Focardi 1998 cell replication
- Original Nachricht Von: Aussie Guy E-Cat aussieguy.e...@gmail.com An: vortex-l@eskimo.com Datum: 08.11.2011 15:17 Betreff: Re: [Vo]:Focardi 1998 cell replication I'm on my 2nd read of the Piantelli patent application WO 2010/058288 Al. I'm starting to understand the nuclear process he is describing. Is this for real? To me it seems logical and simple to understand but then I'm not a physicists. Has this nuclear fusion like exchange of Piantelli's been peer reviewed? If so can you please provide a link to the paper or the paper itself? I must say, I am absolutely not involved in nuclear physics. Know only the very basics. So I am no one who could give advice. NASA has investigated the Piantelli research and they favorize the so called Widom Larsen theory. Easy to find, but others could give you direct pointers. I must search myself. Rossi does strictly deny the Widom Larsen theory. Possibly his reason is, because this was made by a competitor. He is not a scientist and does not think like a scientist. I think there is currently no LENR theory that is fully acknowledged by mainsteam physicists. The Piantelli group has announced to release a theory that is not in conflict with existing physics. So far I know, they want to do this in 1st quarter 2012, but who knows, if it will happen. Best, Peter
Re: [Vo]:Some thoughts about preparation of nickel powder
On Tue, Nov 8, 2011 at 3:17 AM, kulintsov kulint...@gmail.com wrote: I didn't try it so far, but I will do for sure. I see the catalyst has many uses. If you find you are unsuccessful at replicating the Rossi Reaction, you can likely make a large profit using this process: http://www.erowid.org/archive/rhodium/chemistry/amph.urushibara.html ;-) T
Re: [Vo]:E-Cat / philosophical remarks
From Robert Lynn The problem is that it is easy to come up with fraudulent methods that could have delivered the observed demo results. Add to which Rossi has had no end of opportunities to remove all doubt, at no extra cost in effort or materials, and without danger of loss of IP, but has chosen not to for reasons that I (and others) are unable to guess. This leads to the two hotly contested options: That's not necessarily true at all. There may be a very practical reason as to why Rossi has behaved in such an unscientifically verifiable way that naturally leads many to seriously doubt his results: http://www.mail-archive.com/vortex-l@eskimo.com/msg54430.html Regards Steven Vincent Johnson www.OrionWorks.com www.zazzle.com/orionworks
Re: [Vo]:Some thoughts about preparation of nickel powder
I doubt this process is profitable. I'm pretty sure that any aspect of that business is unbearable for 99%, and only government agents can deal with it. On 11/08/2011 06:39 PM, Terry Blanton wrote: On Tue, Nov 8, 2011 at 3:17 AM, kulintsovkulint...@gmail.com wrote: I didn't try it so far, but I will do for sure. I see the catalyst has many uses. If you find you are unsuccessful at replicating the Rossi Reaction, you can likely make a large profit using this process: http://www.erowid.org/archive/rhodium/chemistry/amph.urushibara.html ;-) T
Re: [Vo]:Focardi 1998 cell replication
These is a very descriptive write of of the Piantelli process in the patent application I referenced. Link here: http://www.wipo.int/patentscope/search/en/detail.jsf?docId=WO2010058288recNum=1docAn=IB2009007549queryString=ALLNAMES:%28piantelli%29maxRec=1 Is this the latest? AG On 11/9/2011 1:05 AM, peter.heck...@arcor.de wrote: - Original Nachricht Von: Aussie Guy E-Cataussieguy.e...@gmail.com An: vortex-l@eskimo.com Datum: 08.11.2011 15:17 Betreff: Re: [Vo]:Focardi 1998 cell replication I'm on my 2nd read of the Piantelli patent application WO 2010/058288 Al. I'm starting to understand the nuclear process he is describing. Is this for real? To me it seems logical and simple to understand but then I'm not a physicists. Has this nuclear fusion like exchange of Piantelli's been peer reviewed? If so can you please provide a link to the paper or the paper itself? I must say, I am absolutely not involved in nuclear physics. Know only the very basics. So I am no one who could give advice. NASA has investigated the Piantelli research and they favorize the so called Widom Larsen theory. Easy to find, but others could give you direct pointers. I must search myself. Rossi does strictly deny the Widom Larsen theory. Possibly his reason is, because this was made by a competitor. He is not a scientist and does not think like a scientist. I think there is currently no LENR theory that is fully acknowledged by mainsteam physicists. The Piantelli group has announced to release a theory that is not in conflict with existing physics. So far I know, they want to do this in 1st quarter 2012, but who knows, if it will happen. Best, Peter
Re: [Vo]:E-Cat / philosophical remarks
Suggesting that it is due to his inability to get a patent points again to why he should have done a proper black box demo in January - then he could have quickly signed up a large expert technology development partner that could have quickly resolved all of his IP ownership problems. The system is not lacking in patentablity, just knowledge of how to do it effectively, resources to do it comprehensively, and money/political connections to make it stick. On 8 November 2011 14:45, OrionWorks - Steven V Johnson svj.orionwo...@gmail.com wrote: From Robert Lynn The problem is that it is easy to come up with fraudulent methods that could have delivered the observed demo results. Add to which Rossi has had no end of opportunities to remove all doubt, at no extra cost in effort or materials, and without danger of loss of IP, but has chosen not to for reasons that I (and others) are unable to guess. This leads to the two hotly contested options: That's not necessarily true at all. There may be a very practical reason as to why Rossi has behaved in such an unscientifically verifiable way that naturally leads many to seriously doubt his results: http://www.mail-archive.com/vortex-l@eskimo.com/msg54430.html Regards Steven Vincent Johnson www.OrionWorks.com www.zazzle.com/orionworks
[Vo]:Report on a conversation with George Miley
I spoke with George Miley of the University of Illinois about his most recent tests with palladium zirconium alloys with gas loading. Here are some notes from the conversation and some related information about some of Mizuno's experiments. A set of PowerPoint slides here shows his results up until recently: http://ecatsite.wordpress.com/2011/10/22/dr-george-miley-replicates-patterson-names-rossi/ Download the slides here: https://netfiles.uiuc.edu/mragheb/www/NPRE%20498ES%20Energy%20Storage%20Systems/Nuclear%20Battery%20using%20Clusters%20in%20Nanomaterials.pptx See the slides starting at # 46. This does not show the most recent results, which are more dramatic. Slide 48 shows the overall pattern of the reaction. Note that for ordinary chemical reactions, loading is exothermic and deloading is endothermic. That is not what you see here. In some cases the initial chemical exothermic reaction is followed by a second reaction raising the temperature still higher. This is the anomalous cold fusion reaction. These slides do not show it lasting for long. This is similar to Kitamura's results. The slides show early runs. Recently they made a batch of material that works dramatically better. However, they only made one batch so far and they have run samples from it four times. They will need to make more batches to confirm that they can reproduce this improved performance. Miley is optimistic but cautious that the next batch will work as well as this one did. In the four runs they have achieved fairly stable output ranging from ~75 to ~200 W. The runs last around six hours. As shown in slide 48, the sample first self-heats from the chemical reaction. Because the sample is well insulated this heat is enough to trigger the anomalous reaction -- when the anomalous reaction occurs. You do not usually need external heating although the cell is equipped with a heater (slide 47). The samples are ZrO2 with 35% Pd loaded with deuterium at 60 psi. They range from 15 to 30 g. The starting material is of high purity and comes from Ames National Laboratory. Additional processing is done at the University of Illinois. Miley thinks that recent success is due to their increased attention to material purity and improved manufacturing methods, and a better vacuum pump. Quote slide 49: Most effort has been to develop improved nanoparticles by comparing and down selecting a series of triple alloys. They are also making ZrO2Ni, to be loaded with hydrogen. I do not think they have done this yet. We did not talk about that much. Although deloading is chemically endothermic, in some cases they have seen the heat increased during the loading. This is presumably anomalous heat. Rossi showed a similar effect during the October 6 demonstration. Miles says this is probably caused by flux, that is, deuterons moving through the lattice. It does not matter which direction they are moving. McKubre listed flux as one of the key factors in his “ad hoc” equation. Calorimetry A schematic of the calorimeter is shown in slide number 47. This is a gas calorimeter, similar to the one Mizuno used in his studies with proton conductors. I have a lot of data from that and I am pretty familiar with the characteristics so I will discuss it below. The temperature is measured at the sample I believe, or anyway, in the sample chamber. When there is heat (chemical or anomalous) you see a temperature difference between the sample chamber and the outer chamber. In Miley's case, the temperature difference ranges from 100°C to 200°C. Miley described this calorimeter as very complicated and nonlinear. It is difficult to model. The problem is that the ratio of output power to the temperature at the core of the sample chamber will vary depending upon the type of gas you fill the sample chamber with, and the gas pressure. Based on Mizuno's data, I agree this is very complicated but on the other hand it is also probably reliable, stable and repeatable. Mizuno tested hydrogen, deuterium, helium, air, and a vacuum. He tested the gases over a range of pressures. He found that when you use the same kind of gas at the same pressure, a given power level always produces the same temperature difference between the inside and the outside. So, when anomalous power produces a certain temperature you can find that point on the output curve and you can say with confidence that it is producing that much power. Because of this complexity, Miley et al. do not know with accuracy how much power the sample is producing. On the other hand they can be sure it is producing heat because the sample chamber is much hotter than the outer chamber. We know the energy is anomalous, because it produces a much larger temperature difference than the chemical effect, and it lasts much longer: 21600 s compared to 150 s. The anomalous power continues when the heating coil is turned off, so there is no possibility that they are mistaking conventional electric heating with anomalous
Re: [Vo]:E-Cat / philosophical remarks
Robert Lynn robert.gulliver.l...@gmail.com wrote: Suggesting that it is due to his inability to get a patent points again to why he should have done a proper black box demo in January - then he could have quickly signed up a large expert technology development partner that could have quickly resolved all of his IP ownership problems. That is what I told Rossi . . . about a hundred times. As the Japanese would say, he heard that from me so many times, his ears are calloused (mimi ni tako ga dekita). That is why I say I disagree with his business strategy. Believe me I'm sick of telling him that. It is like talking to a wall. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:E-Cat / philosophical remarks
My sympathys. Also thanks for your Miley report, heartening to see the reverse engineering is progressing so fast. I'm sure others won't be far behind, and once Chinese govt et al awakens there'll be several hundred thousand (ex-petroleum?) engineers and scientists working on understanding, enhancing and perfecting the processes within 6 months. Improvements will be ridiculously fast and so at this point lacking a powerful partner Rossi is almost inevitably going to be left behind. Given how important it all is the IP could well be specially legislated around by countries anxious to use it. Experimentally the first step should be to set up a pressurised heated test chamber with a large array of different blends/compositions/procession techniques and a thermal camera to look at them all to identify the most promising candidates - could potentially screen 1000's of variants over extended periods through a standard sequence of conditions quite quickly. Similar techniques are used for other early stage materials development and drug identification programs. On 8 November 2011 15:14, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com wrote: Robert Lynn robert.gulliver.l...@gmail.com wrote: Suggesting that it is due to his inability to get a patent points again to why he should have done a proper black box demo in January - then he could have quickly signed up a large expert technology development partner that could have quickly resolved all of his IP ownership problems. That is what I told Rossi . . . about a hundred times. As the Japanese would say, he heard that from me so many times, his ears are calloused (mimi ni tako ga dekita). That is why I say I disagree with his business strategy. Believe me I'm sick of telling him that. It is like talking to a wall. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:E-Cat / philosophical remarks
I wrote earlier that Rossi is in a bind because he has no viable patent. Then just now I wrote that I have urged him to do a proper test, get funding, and then hire experts, the way, Robert Lynn recommends. The problem is, Rossi does not trust outsiders. He cannot even bring himself to give a reactor to the University of Bologna where he has many friends. This is a problem largely of his own making. I understand why he does not trust people. He has had a painful life and he has often been betrayed and unjustly persecuted. For example, one of the charges they sent him to jail for was defrauding the stockholders. He himself was the only stockholder, so this was Kafkaesque. Someone in the Italian justice system had it in for him. I do no see any way for him to escape this conundrum. Rossi says that a public demonstration, controlled by independent engineers, for the benefit of the international media can be beneficial for the dissemination of E-Cat . . . would be completely useless. I expect he sincerely believes this, but it is nonsense. Without question, such a test with be beneficial for the dissemination of the E-cat. But it would destroy his business strategy. He would not think of doing it. Plan B would be to adopt a conventional business strategy like the Lynn and I advocate. I am sure he has never seriously considered doing that. When I and others have suggested this he has brushed us off. As things stand he will never allow a proper test. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:E-Cat / philosophical remarks
Berke Durak berke.du...@gmail.com wrote: Designing and setting up an iron-clad demonstration for public consumption is a major task, and is never good enough if there is disinformation by the mainstream media. Designing and setting up a demonstration would take a week or two. However, Rossi himself would not have to do anything. He could not do anything. It is essential that independent experts to all the work. They have to select the instruments and place the thermocouples. It would not be appropriate for Rossi to assist or kibbutz so he would have nothing to do. During the week it takes to set up the test and calibrate he would have to keep busy in another room. Many qualified experts have offered to do all the work for him. He would only have to operate the reactor for a few hours, and then leave the laboratory for a day or two while the experts operate the experiment in his absence. This would not cost him any money. There is not the slightest chance Rossi would allow this, or anything like it. It is completely out of the question. His personality and his business strategy preclude this. He will never allow others to select the instruments, or place them, or even touch them. He will not lift a finger to insert an SD card into the meter, because he thinks it is not necessary, and he will not listen to any suggestion from anyone that he should do that. He will never allow anyone to view the test in his absence. When people view the test when he leaves the room, or touch it, he reportedly reacts with hysteria and violence, and throws them out of the building. If such a test could be done, I do not think that all of the mainstream media would publish disinformation about this. I know a number of reporters and powerful people in the media who would be happy to report this accurately. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:E-Cat / philosophical remarks
I wrote: It would not be appropriate for Rossi to assist or kibbutz I meant kibitz. Voice input does not handle Yiddish well. This means, To look on and offer unwanted, usually meddlesome advice to others. I expect that people in a Kibbutz often kibitz. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:E-Cat / philosophical remarks
On Nov 8, 2011, at 6:41 AM, Jed Rothwell wrote: I wrote earlier that Rossi is in a bind because he has no viable patent. Then just now I wrote that I have urged him to do a proper test, get funding, and then hire experts, the way, Robert Lynn recommends. The problem is, Rossi does not trust outsiders. He cannot even bring himself to give a reactor to the University of Bologna where he has many friends. This is a problem largely of his own making. I understand why he does not trust people. He has had a painful life and he has often been betrayed and unjustly persecuted. For example, one of the charges they sent him to jail for was defrauding the stockholders. He himself was the only stockholder, so this was Kafkaesque. Someone in the Italian justice system had it in for him. I do no see any way for him to escape this conundrum. Rossi says that a public demonstration, controlled by independent engineers, for the benefit of the international media can be beneficial for the dissemination of E-Cat . . . would be completely useless. I expect he sincerely believes this, but it is nonsense. Without question, such a test with be beneficial for the dissemination of the E-cat. But it would destroy his business strategy. He would not think of doing it. Plan B would be to adopt a conventional business strategy like the Lynn and I advocate. I am sure he has never seriously considered doing that. When I and others have suggested this he has brushed us off. As things stand he will never allow a proper test. - Jed Rossi's behavior is absurd, unless he doesn't believe in the technology himself. Then it makes complete sense. If Rossi actually has something useful, and it is not patentable, then he could still make a fortune producing energy and selling it directly to a grid. He could relocate to Mexico and sell power to the west coast of the USA through the existing grid. He could make billions. He could make a fortune with just steam heat by using it to extract oil from Canadian oil sands, though he might have even more trouble with nuclear authorities in Canada than even the USA. In any case, bulk power production would be much easier to beat the red tape on than any kind of small commercial sales. If he produced a just a MW of commercial grid electric power for a few months he would probably have investors flocking to him with money. I would think if he could actually do this he would have done it. If he actually heated a commercial building for more than a year with nickel and hydrogen I would think he would want to show that. If he can produce a COP of 6 or even 3 then it should be easy to drive a sterling generator and turn that COP 6 into COP infinity. I don't see anything happening that is fully consistent with a useful technology being present. There is much happening that is consistent with no useful technology being present. What sane person would invest in E-cats if things are in this status? Best regards, Horace Heffner http://www.mtaonline.net/~hheffner/
Re: [Vo]:Focardi 1998 cell replication
Am 08.11.2011 15:56, schrieb Aussie Guy E-Cat: These is a very descriptive write of of the Piantelli process in the patent application I referenced. Link here: http://www.wipo.int/patentscope/search/en/detail.jsf?docId=WO2010058288recNum=1docAn=IB2009007549queryString=ALLNAMES:%28piantelli%29maxRec=1 There is nothing specific written about the nuclear mechanism. He writes:causing the atoms of the metal to capture the hydrogen ions, with liberation of heat, preferably in the presence of a gradient of temperature on the active core. Hydrogen Ions are protons and are positively charged. The nickel nucleus is also positively charged and so both repel. Mainstream physics therefore says it is impossible to fuse the nuclei. Look up Coloumb wall in wikipedia for this. It is the big problem how to overcome the coloumb wall and there are several non mainstream theories how this could been achieved but most are not accepted by mainstream science. It is believed by mainstream physics, something like this can happen in stars white dwarfs under very high pressure but on earth it is impossible. LENR researchers believe this can happen, when the protons are inside a metal lattice. There is a mechanism tunneling that can make it possible. Other ways would be high pressures in microscopical clusters inside the metal or resonance effects or whatever. Other ways would be if a hydrogen atom could be converted into a neutron. The patent does not say, how fusion is achieved, there is no specific mechanism explained. Therefore this would not pass a peer review by mainstream scientists. There is no theory presented in the document, only some unclear assumptions that are not proven to be true. Is this the latest? The newer patents of Piantelli are not published now. I cannot say, if this is the latest patent. I read everything I find, but I have no systematic list of documents. Best, Peter AG On 11/9/2011 1:05 AM, peter.heck...@arcor.de wrote: - Original Nachricht Von: Aussie Guy E-Cataussieguy.e...@gmail.com An: vortex-l@eskimo.com Datum: 08.11.2011 15:17 Betreff: Re: [Vo]:Focardi 1998 cell replication I'm on my 2nd read of the Piantelli patent application WO 2010/058288 Al. I'm starting to understand the nuclear process he is describing. Is this for real? To me it seems logical and simple to understand but then I'm not a physicists. Has this nuclear fusion like exchange of Piantelli's been peer reviewed? If so can you please provide a link to the paper or the paper itself? I must say, I am absolutely not involved in nuclear physics. Know only the very basics. So I am no one who could give advice. NASA has investigated the Piantelli research and they favorize the so called Widom Larsen theory. Easy to find, but others could give you direct pointers. I must search myself. Rossi does strictly deny the Widom Larsen theory. Possibly his reason is, because this was made by a competitor. He is not a scientist and does not think like a scientist. I think there is currently no LENR theory that is fully acknowledged by mainsteam physicists. The Piantelli group has announced to release a theory that is not in conflict with existing physics. So far I know, they want to do this in 1st quarter 2012, but who knows, if it will happen. Best, Peter
Re: [Vo]:Focardi 1998 cell replication
* * *Hydrogen Ions are protons and are positively charged.* * * * * *The Piantelli theory is based on a quasiparticle: a negative hydrogen ion that acts as an electron in the nucleus of a nickel atom. * * * *In a nutshell according to the the Piantelli theory, the negative hydrogen ion enters the orbit of the nickel atom as an electron would and because it is so heavy being composed of two electrons and a proton. This heavy multi sub atomic particle quasiparticle will approach the nucleus of the nickel atom very closely in the same way that a negatively charged muon would in Muon-catalyzed fusion (μCF). * * * *The cross section of fusion between the negative hydrogen ion and the nucleus of the nickel atom is large because the very heavy negative hydrogen ion orbits so closely to the nucleus of the nickel atom.* ** *best regards,* ** *Axil* * * * * On Tue, Nov 8, 2011 at 11:42 AM, Peter Heckert peter.heck...@arcor.dewrote: Am 08.11.2011 15:56, schrieb Aussie Guy E-Cat: These is a very descriptive write of of the Piantelli process in the patent application I referenced. Link here: http://www.wipo.int/** patentscope/search/en/detail.**jsf?docId=WO2010058288recNum=** 1docAn=IB2009007549**queryString=ALLNAMES:%**28piantelli%29maxRec=1http://www.wipo.int/patentscope/search/en/detail.jsf?docId=WO2010058288recNum=1docAn=IB2009007549queryString=ALLNAMES:%28piantelli%29maxRec=1 There is nothing specific written about the nuclear mechanism. He writes:causing the atoms of the metal to capture the hydrogen ions, with liberation of heat, preferably in the presence of a gradient of temperature on the active core. Hydrogen Ions are protons and are positively charged. The nickel nucleus is also positively charged and so both repel. Mainstream physics therefore says it is impossible to fuse the nuclei. Look up Coloumb wall in wikipedia for this. It is the big problem how to overcome the coloumb wall and there are several non mainstream theories how this could been achieved but most are not accepted by mainstream science. It is believed by mainstream physics, something like this can happen in stars white dwarfs under very high pressure but on earth it is impossible. LENR researchers believe this can happen, when the protons are inside a metal lattice. There is a mechanism tunneling that can make it possible. Other ways would be high pressures in microscopical clusters inside the metal or resonance effects or whatever. Other ways would be if a hydrogen atom could be converted into a neutron. The patent does not say, how fusion is achieved, there is no specific mechanism explained. Therefore this would not pass a peer review by mainstream scientists. There is no theory presented in the document, only some unclear assumptions that are not proven to be true. Is this the latest? The newer patents of Piantelli are not published now. I cannot say, if this is the latest patent. I read everything I find, but I have no systematic list of documents. Best, Peter AG On 11/9/2011 1:05 AM, peter.heck...@arcor.de wrote: - Original Nachricht Von: Aussie Guy E-Cataussieguy.e...@gmail.com** An: vortex-l@eskimo.com Datum: 08.11.2011 15:17 Betreff: Re: [Vo]:Focardi 1998 cell replication I'm on my 2nd read of the Piantelli patent application WO 2010/058288 Al. I'm starting to understand the nuclear process he is describing. Is this for real? To me it seems logical and simple to understand but then I'm not a physicists. Has this nuclear fusion like exchange of Piantelli's been peer reviewed? If so can you please provide a link to the paper or the paper itself? I must say, I am absolutely not involved in nuclear physics. Know only the very basics. So I am no one who could give advice. NASA has investigated the Piantelli research and they favorize the so called Widom Larsen theory. Easy to find, but others could give you direct pointers. I must search myself. Rossi does strictly deny the Widom Larsen theory. Possibly his reason is, because this was made by a competitor. He is not a scientist and does not think like a scientist. I think there is currently no LENR theory that is fully acknowledged by mainsteam physicists. The Piantelli group has announced to release a theory that is not in conflict with existing physics. So far I know, they want to do this in 1st quarter 2012, but who knows, if it will happen. Best, Peter
Re: [Vo]:keelynet weighs in on rossi
On Tue, Nov 8, 2011 at 6:46 AM, Esa Ruoho esaru...@gmail.com wrote: 11/08/11 - Cold Fusion – Boondoggle and Bonanza? At his public demonstration in October, Mr. Rossi built a larger version of the E-cat, by combining many smaller cold fusion modules. At this demonstration, an initial energy input of 400 watts was put into each module. Each module, then produced a continuous and sustained output of 10 kW for a total of 47 kW for three to four hours. Mr. Rossi does not yet have a patent, and so the inner workings of the E-cat are unknown to the public. Mr. Rossi has incorporated, under the name Leonardo Corp., which will produce and sell his E-cat machines. If Mr. Rossi's E-cat machine does work, then it will be a bonanza for him and for the world. And if Mr. Rossi's E-cat machine does in fact (NOT) work, then it will be a boondoggle (Work or activity that is wasteful or pointless but gives the appearance of having value) for all the other energy producers in the world. - Full Article Source Pity they got the output wrong. It was 470 kW not 47 kW. T
Re: [Vo]:Minor progress
Jed, I have reason to believe that the output thermocouples are reading incorrectly. Rossi has stated on several occasions that he has only one core working within the ECAT used for the October 6 test. One core can only generate approximately 3.4 kW of power since three are needed to generate the rated 10 kW. The high power output calculated during the self sustaining mode does not add up. Also, Other calculations support the indication that the power output is due to one core. I will explain the backup data and calculations for my position if it is required. I am not inferring that there is any concrete hidden within the ECAT enclosure. Also, I am firmly convinced that the output power will prove that LENR is responsible for the excess energy provided that sufficient time is allowed and accurate data obtained. The driven mode is a far better mode to demonstrate the LENR character of the device. That is what I would do if I were Rossi and wanted to convince people of the device capacity. He would just have to run it for long enough to eliminate any other possibilities. You have made an excellent point regarding the original cylindrical device. Dave -Original Message- From: Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Tue, Nov 8, 2011 9:13 am Subject: Re: [Vo]:Minor progress Horace Heffner hheff...@mtaonline.net wrote: Again, I don't know of anyone being allowed to see the insides of the 30x30x30 interior box. 1. Levi and the people at Defkalion say they saw inside. Lewan says you can see more than the photograph shows. There is no sign of concrete. 2. In previous tests observers dumped out the water from the vessel after the run and measured the volume. There is no space unaccounted for in the vessel. There is no place to put concrete. 3. The previous cylindrical reactors were easy to see inside of. There was no concrete in them. It makes no sense to claim that the previous reactors were real and this one is fake. Furthermore, you claim that output power is not measured accurately but this is incorrect. This analysis shows that the temperature of the cooling loop thermocouples was correct to within 0.1°C: http://lenr-canr.org/RossiData/Houkes%20Oct%206%20Calculation%20of%20influence%20of%20Tin%20on%20Tout.xlsx No one has challenged this analysis. Besides, even if this is incorrect and half of the input power is being stored while the electric power is turned on, the overall output profile is still correct, and output greatly exceeds input. In other words, in the storage scenario, you lower the output curve to half of the input, while power is on, and then measure the area of stored energy, and compare it output energy during the time power is on, and afterwards. The area of the latter greatly exceeds the former. Storage cannot explain these results. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:Focardi 1998 cell replication
Am 08.11.2011 18:22, schrieb Axil Axil: ** *Hydrogen Ions are protons and are positively charged.* ** ** *The Piantelli theory is based on a quasiparticle: a _/negative/_hydrogen ion that acts as an electron in the nucleus of a nickel atom. * ** attachment: harris-01.jpg
Re: [Vo]:Minor progress
David Roberson dlrober...@aol.com wrote: Jed, I have reason to believe that the output thermocouples are reading incorrectly. Then I suggest you address the paper uploaded by Houkes, and show where it is in error. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:E-Cat / philosophical remarks
Horace Heffner hheff...@mtaonline.net wrote: Rossi's behavior is absurd, unless he doesn't believe in the technology himself. Then it makes complete sense. His behavior is irrational and absurd. However, such behavior is common among inventors and discoverers, and it has been throughout history. There are many famous examples such as John Harrison. There are many in the present day and among cold fusion researchers, such as Patterson. I do not think it makes complete sense that Rossi does not believe in the technology himself. If he did not believe in it, he would gleefully promote it and he would put on more impressive demonstrations. Fake but impressive. He would gladly accept money from investors since the only point of doing this would be to fleece people. That is not what he is doing. He is, in fact, beating off investors with a stick. He is turning down money. I know several people who offered him large sums. He refused them all. He did not even answer some of them. This is not characteristic of a fraud who does not believe in his own work. It is characteristic of a lone inventor who does not want to give up control. Patterson was the same way. I know people who offered him funding, which he turned down. As I said, he was determined to have 100% market share. If Rossi actually has something useful, and it is not patentable, then he could still make a fortune producing energy and selling it directly to a grid. He could relocate to Mexico and sell power to the west coast of the USA through the existing grid. He could make billions. I do not think the power companies would allow this. Also, by the time he set up and was able to do this, the secret of this technology would be out and he would be reverse engineered by every major industrial manufacturing company on earth. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:Minor progress
On Nov 8, 2011, at 5:10 AM, Jed Rothwell wrote: Horace Heffner hheff...@mtaonline.net wrote: Again, I don't know of anyone being allowed to see the insides of the 30x30x30 interior box. 1. Levi and the people at Defkalion say they saw inside. Levi and Defkalion people saw inside the 6 Oct E-cat? I thought Defklion and Rossi had outs. If they saw inside some other device at some other time then that is irrelevant. Levi has been an inside guy from the beginning has he not? I see no difference between him and Rossi in regards to this issue. For that matter Defkalion is or will be selling similar devices, true? What is important, obviously, is access by independent observers. Lewan says you can see more than the photograph shows. There is no sign of concrete. There was undoubtedly no sign of eagles or of diamond rings or elves or many other things either, or for that matter Ni or lead. The phrase see more than the photograph shows can mean anything. BTW, the final large heat pulse before power cut-off could very well be due to water flowing into the 30x30x30 box through a hole. There could be two major slabs, one large and long (and to the left of the wiring input port) with lower thermal conductivity, and one short one with higher thermal conductivity material (to the right of the wiring input port). The water access port would provide access of the water to the larger left slab. Access of water to the smaller higher thermal conductivity slab would be the result of removal of the signal generator signal. Just to be clear, not that it is very important or relevant, I did not use the term concrete to mean ordinary concrete made with sand and rocks. Ordinary concrete has poor thermodynamic properties compared to Portland cement. If you see me use the term concrete please assume it is one of my many typos. I actually mean cement. Cement delays the heat pulse too long.Ceramics or fire brick delay the post power cut off heat pulse to a time closer to the observed data. 2. In previous tests observers dumped out the water from the vessel after the run and measured the volume. There is no space unaccounted for in the vessel. There is no place to put concrete. These are meaningless words. I specified *inside* the 30x30x30 cm inner box. What happens outside that box is obviously immaterial. Why would you bring such a red herring into the discussion? 3. The previous cylindrical reactors were easy to see inside of. There was no concrete in them. It makes no sense to claim that the previous reactors were real and this one is fake. This is nonsense, and yet another red herring. You are digging pretty deep to respond! 8^) The calorimetry for those devices was entirely different. They were not designed by Rossi to demonstrate heat after death. The obvious flaw in the demonstration of those devices is the output was never observed - it was simply sent down a drain. Furthermore, you claim that output power is not measured accurately but this is incorrect. This analysis shows that the temperature of the cooling loop thermocouples was correct to within 0.1°C: http://lenr-canr.org/RossiData/Houkes%20Oct%206%20Calculation%20of% 20influence%20of%20Tin%20on%20Tout.xlsx Take a look at this photo again: http://www.mtaonline.net/~hheffner/LewanTcoupleClose.jpg There is a good possibility the thermocouple did not even touch the metal of the steel nut. Why would anyone with any experience at all leave the mess of ragged insulation around the thermocouple? It looks to me the thermocouple was probably exposed primarily to the air temperature under the insulation. At any rate, any one with nominal experience should know to place the thermocouple down the rubber hose a bit to avoid thermal wicking in the metal. No one has challenged this analysis. Besides, even if this is incorrect and half of the input power is being stored while the electric power is turned on, What do you mean half the input power is being stored? It is all being stored (except for leakage through the insulation) until heat shows up at the heat exchanger. the overall output profile is still correct, and output greatly exceeds input. In other words, in the storage scenario, you lower the output curve to half of the input, while power is on, and then measure the area of stored energy, and compare it output energy during the time power is on, and afterwards. The area of the latter greatly exceeds the former. All you are saying here is the output energy is larger than the input energy. We can not know that without good thermocouple readings. This is not inferable from a measurement. This is a rehash of old well trodden material. Storage cannot explain these results. Sure it can, if the thermocouple readings are not reliable. Most importantly, simple
Re: [Vo]:Minor progress
It is apparent that the model is not accurate. For one issue, the thermal insulation surrounding the entire heat exchanger is not modeled. Also, if the results do not match the real world, then which should we believe? It is the burden of the modeler to demonstrate that his model represents the actual process and not the other way around. I have mentioned several reasons why the results do not match expectations. How do you explain the excess power being delivered according to the thermocouple readings when just one core is installed? This is not probable and we should not be confused by assuming that one core is capable of generating 10 kW. This is more of Rossi's game as usual. Dave -Original Message- From: Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Tue, Nov 8, 2011 2:04 pm Subject: Re: [Vo]:Minor progress David Roberson dlrober...@aol.com wrote: Jed, I have reason to believe that the output thermocouples are reading incorrectly. Then I suggest you address the paper uploaded by Houkes, and show where it is in error. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:Minor progress
On Nov 8, 2011, at 10:02 AM, Jed Rothwell wrote: David Roberson dlrober...@aol.com wrote: Jed, I have reason to believe that the output thermocouples are reading incorrectly. Then I suggest you address the paper uploaded by Houkes, and show where it is in error. - Jed Why is this material not in pdf format like other material on LENR- CANR.org? Best regards, Horace Heffner http://www.mtaonline.net/~hheffner/
Re: [Vo]:E-Cat / philosophical remarks
On Nov 8, 2011, at 10:10 AM, Jed Rothwell wrote: Horace Heffner hheff...@mtaonline.net wrote: Rossi's behavior is absurd, unless he doesn't believe in the technology himself. Then it makes complete sense. His behavior is irrational and absurd. However, such behavior is common among inventors and discoverers, and it has been throughout history. There are many famous examples such as John Harrison. There are many in the present day and among cold fusion researchers, such as Patterson. I do not think it makes complete sense that Rossi does not believe in the technology himself. This is a different statement from the one I made. I implied Rossi's behavior makes complete sense if he does not believe in the technology himself. I did not say it makes complete sense that Rossi does not believe in the technology. There is a difference. The question though should be which premise is more consistent with Ross not believing in the technology? If he did not believe in it, he would gleefully promote it and he would put on more impressive demonstrations. Fake but impressive. He would gladly accept money from investors since the only point of doing this would be to fleece people. That is not what he is doing. He is, in fact, beating off investors with a stick. He is turning down money. I know several people who offered him large sums. He refused them all. He did not even answer some of them. This is not characteristic of a fraud who does not believe in his own work. Well, that depends on what the terms of the offers was doesn't it? Whether performance clauses were discussed, for example. Also, from whom the offers were made. It is characteristic of a lone inventor who does not want to give up control. Patterson was the same way. I know people who offered him funding, which he turned down. As I said, he was determined to have 100% market share. And yet he is considering a stock offering? If Rossi actually has something useful, and it is not patentable, then he could still make a fortune producing energy and selling it directly to a grid. He could relocate to Mexico and sell power to the west coast of the USA through the existing grid. He could make billions. I do not think the power companies would allow this. You think Mexico would not cooperate with this on a shared profit basis? A chance to make billions? I think someone at some level and above would support it. Mexico is moving into the solar business now I believe. Also, by the time he set up and was able to do this, the secret of this technology would be out and he would be reverse engineered by every major industrial manufacturing company on earth. - Jed How long could it take to have a bunch of E-cats, say 6 M-cats, made and shipped to Mexico? After that it is just a matter of driving an appropriate generator. The ones used for solar thermal should do nicely. Best regards, Horace Heffner http://www.mtaonline.net/~hheffner/
Re: [Vo]:E-Cat / philosophical remarks
I wrote: This is a different statement from the one I made. I implied Rossi's behavior makes complete sense if he does not believe in the technology himself. I did not say it makes complete sense that Rossi does not believe in the technology. There is a difference. The question though should be which premise is more consistent with Ross not believing in the technology? I guess I need more sleep. This should read: This is a different statement from the one I made. I implied Rossi's behavior makes complete sense if he does not believe in the technology himself. I did not say it makes complete sense that Rossi does not believe in the technology. There is a difference. The question though should be which premise is more consistent with Rossi's behavior, he believes his own claims, or not? Best regards, Horace Heffner http://www.mtaonline.net/~hheffner/
Re: [Vo]:Focardi 1998 cell replication
lame LENR H-Ni run report by Sergio Focardi and Francesco Piantelli, 9 pages, Il Nuovo Cimento, November 1998 -- recent news: Rich Murray 2011.08.20 http://rmforall.blogspot.com/2011/08/lame-lenr-h-ni-run-report-by-sergio.html http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/astrodeep/message/94http://groups.yahoo.com/group/astrodeep/message/94 __ [ summary of critique: science that purports to establish a notable percentage increase in excess heat as a reproducible anomaly, as reported herein, is very lacking re many critical details and shows lack of common sense consideration of reasonable complications -- as usual in LENR research, an enthusiastic team created a black witch's cauldron, full of impurities, sealed and invisible to detailed observation during months of cooking in H2 gas at high temperatures. Probably, corrosion opened up additional conducting paths, reducing the total electrical resistance fed by the constant voltage power supply, increasing the total input electric power via increased current flow, which increased ordinary electric heat effects in complex ways within the black box. So far, the surge of enticing, but vague, thin, and variable information follows the pattern of the Rossi debacle in 2010-2011... ] [ search http://www.lenr-canr.org/ Piantelli to get 5 pages of items that include many full text papers ] http://www.lenr-canr.org/acrobat/FocardiSlargeexces.pdf 10 pages IL NUOVO CIMENTO VO L. 111 A, N. 11 Novembre 1998 1233-1242 Large excess heat production in Ni-H systems S. FOCARDI (1), V. GABBANI (2), V. MONTALBANO (2), F. PIANTELLI (2) and S. VERONESI (2) (1) Dipartimento di Fisica, Universit`a di Bologna e INFN Sezione di Bologna - Bologna, Italy (2) Dipartimento di Fisica, Universit`a di Siena e Centro IMO - Siena, Italy (ricevuto il 9 Marzo 1996; revisionato il 16 Settembre 1996; approvato il 30 Giugno 1998) In a previous paper [1] some of us reported on the existence of an anomalous heat production observed in hydrogen-loaded nickel rods. The phenomenon occurs when a cell containing a nickel rod is maintained at temperatures above a critical value and is filled with gaseous H2 at subatmospheric pressures. A constant input power was used to raise and keep the cell temperature constant at its working value (corresponding to about 700 K for the Ni rod). It was possible to induce an increase of the sample temperature from its working value to about 820 K. This anomalous equilibrium condition will be referred in the following as excited state. The system was able to remain in the excited state for several months. The experimental cell described in ref. [1] was successively modified and also a new cell was built with an improvement which allows the measurement and the monitoring of the external surface temperature. With this new set-up, the external temperature increase, together with the internal one, have been utilized to characterize the excited state of the Ni sample. The existence of an exothermic effect, whose heat yield is well above that of any known chemical reaction, has been unambiguously confirmed by evaluating the thermal flux coming from the cells. An important feature of our systems is that they can remain in the excited state for a long time. This characteristic allowed us to search for ionizing radiation coming from the cells. Very clear evidence of neutrons and -rays has been reported by us [2-4]. Systematic studies of such processes and their correlation with heat production are in progress. . much more...
Re: [Vo]:E-Cat / philosophical remarks
Horace Heffner hheff...@mtaonline.net wrote: The question though should be which premise is more consistent with Rossi's behavior, he believes his own claims, or not? The premise that best fits his behavior is the same one that fits Harrison, Patterson, William Shockley, and many other people with a personality similar to Rossi's. They are intensely possessive. They want to micromanage every aspect of the technology. They consider it their baby, and they cannot bring themselves to allow others to develop it. they think they know best and they refuse to listen to anyone else's ideas or advice. This kind of behavior is widespread. You can find countless examples in biographies or the history of technology, or science, or for that matter commerce or war. This is how generals lose campaigns even when they have a large advantage going in. I have seen many programmers like this as well. Most of them work for corporations and they are not allowed to act on their desires. If Shockley had had his way, the transistor might never have emerged from the laboratory. He failed at every subsequent venture because he thought he knew best and he insisted on micromanaging. See: http://www.lenr-canr.org/acrobat/RothwellJtransistor.pdf Rossi also wants to micromanage people, including me. - Jed
[Vo]: ECAT Possible Proceedure for 1 MW Test
I wonder if the vortex would consider the following scenario: It has been reported that the ECATs were completely filled with water before the power was applied to the control systems and associated heating elements so I would expect the following to take place. 1). Water starts to overflow all of the ECAT devices after the required number of hours to complete the fill. 2). The water before heating is initiated is cold water from the tank and this also fills the water capture test port attached to the system output steam pipe. 3). This captured water is removed on occasion to allow room for any new water requiring measure. 4). After a fairly long delay following power application to the ECATs, the water begins to get warmer and finally hot at the capture port. 5). The water in the capture device is removed when needed. 6). Finally the ECAT system begins to produce steam. 7). The steam becomes of higher Q as the ECAT system generates more power. 8). Eventually there is very little water appearing within the capture device as the steam quality becomes approximately 100 %. 9). The customer's engineer now makes the reasonable conclusion that the ECAT system is vaporizing all of the water inputted to it and calculates the power as such. 10). This process continues throughout the test period which allows the engineer to compute the energy released by Rossi's device. 11). It appears that the engineer with Rossi's consent was adjusting the input pump flow rate up and down during the test to maintain the best temperature profile possible. Note the saw tooth like temperature changes during the test. 12). If water began to become captured by the indicator tank, then the flow rate would be reduced to compensate. This is a manual control that should be automated in any final product. 13). If the steam output temperature exceeded a desired set point established by Rossi, then the water input flow rate would be increased to absorb the excess energy. 14). The various water input rates is recorded by the customer and the net calculated power is determined to be the approximately 470 kW average value. 15). The hydrogen is then vented and the water input flow rate increased to cease the energy generation and allow the system to cool. The above procedure seems reasonable. If this is in fact the test conducted, then the customer engineer would be convinced that the Rossi device met its requirements. The vapor output would have been proven to be steam. Dave
Re: [Vo]:Minor progress
Horace Heffner hheff...@mtaonline.net wrote: Then I suggest you address the paper uploaded by Houkes, and show where it is in error. Why is this material not in pdf format like other material on LENR-CANR.org? Because: 1. I have not got around to it. 2. I figure the authors may want to change it. 3. It was not published elsewhere so it sorta breaks the rules at LENR-CANR.org. I do not usually upload original papers. Unlike Wikipedia with their no original research rule, I am flexible. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:Minor progress
Horace Heffner hheff...@mtaonline.net wrote: Levi and Defkalion people saw inside the 6 Oct E-cat? So they say. If they saw inside some other device at some other time then that is irrelevant. That one, as far as I know. It was tested before. It shows signs of having been run many times, such as scale inside it. Levi has been an inside guy from the beginning has he not? No, only since December 2010. He only became an insider because he saw proof that the reaction is real. If you're going to criticize anyone who believes Rossi and accuse him of being an insider there will be an ever widening circle of people you consider persona non grata. It will be like a giant game of sardines, where you lose. I see no difference between him and Rossi in regards to this issue. For that matter Defkalion is or will be selling similar devices, true? So they say. What is important, obviously, is access by independent observers. Defkalion is independent of Rossi. Quite independent -- he has broken off relations with them. As I said, you are setting up a gigantic game of sardines here. First Rossi is suspect because Rossi makes the claims. Then Defkalion the suspect because they make the same claims. Now I suppose George Miley is suspect because he saw the same thing. How long are you I keep this up? When 100 different labs replicate this are you going to say everyone of them is part of the conspiracy and there are no independent observers? Anyone who agrees it is real is automatically guilty of conspiracy and fraud. 2. In previous tests observers dumped out the water from the vessel after the run and measured the volume. There is no space unaccounted for in the vessel. There is no place to put concrete. These are meaningless words. I specified *inside* the 30x30x30 cm inner box. What happens outside that box is obviously immaterial. Why would you bring such a red herring into the discussion? See: displacement; Archimedes. 3. The previous cylindrical reactors were easy to see inside of. There was no concrete in them. It makes no sense to claim that the previous reactors were real and this one is fake. This is nonsense, and yet another red herring. You are digging pretty deep to respond! 8^) The calorimetry for those devices was entirely different. They were not designed by Rossi to demonstrate heat after death. The previous reactors *did* demonstrate heat after death, on several occasions. I do not know what you are talking about. No one has challenged this analysis. Besides, even if this is incorrect and half of the input power is being stored while the electric power is turned on, What do you mean half the input power is being stored? It is all being stored (except for leakage through the insulation) until heat shows up at the heat exchanger. Yes, of course. How could it? After it does reach the exchanger, output soon catches up with input. By the time heat after death began the balance was about even. There was no stored heat, except the heat in the remaining hot water of course. You can see from the decay curves that this would all emerge in about 45 min. with no input power, and it would cool very rapidly during this time. There is no way the temperature could have remained at boiling for four hours. All you are saying here is the output energy is larger than the input energy. We can not know that without good thermocouple readings. You can move the output line down to any plausible spot you like, or even halfway down, which is preposterous and not a bit plausible. Output still greatly exceeds input. This is not inferable from a measurement. This is a rehash of old well trodden material. However, it is still correct. You have not refuted it. You have not even addressed most aspects of it, such as the fact that there is no concrete in the previous cylindrical reactors and they also demonstrated heat after death. For that matter input was so small compared to output, all of the heat might as well be considered heat after death. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:E-Cat / philosophical remarks
It helps to put the discovery and development of new technologies into the proper perspective. Thank you for posting the link below as I found it quite informative. Complex systems always progress in starts and stops as the underlying problems are resolved with hard work and a great deal of luck. It is amazing how closely related modern LENR research is to the early days of the transistor. Dave -Original Message- From: Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Tue, Nov 8, 2011 2:57 pm Subject: Re: [Vo]:E-Cat / philosophical remarks If Shockley had had his way, the transistor might never have emerged from the laboratory. He failed at every subsequent venture because he thought he knew best and he insisted on micromanaging. See: http://www.lenr-canr.org/acrobat/RothwellJtransistor.pdf Rossi also wants to micromanage people, including me. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:E-Cat / philosophical remarks
On Nov 8, 2011, at 10:54 AM, Jed Rothwell wrote: Horace Heffner hheff...@mtaonline.net wrote: The question though should be which premise is more consistent with Rossi's behavior, he believes his own claims, or not? The premise that best fits his behavior is the same one that fits Harrison, Patterson, William Shockley, and many other people with a personality similar to Rossi's. They are intensely possessive. It is difficult to believe that Harrison, Patterson, or Shockley would put on about a dozen demonstrations of their technology, repeatedly botch the scientific aspects of the demonstrations, and refuse to acknowledge or fix the problems. When Patterson could no longer reproduce his results he freely admitted it. These were scientifically trustworthy people. How about Rossi's self contradiction record with regard to the E-cat? Does that put him in the same camp with Harrison, Patterson, and Shockley, or in a different class? At what point does the balance of probability tip? How many failed failed demonstrations and absurd refusals to correct does it take to seriously question whether there is anything at all to the technology. So far Rossi has left a critical degree of freedom without observations in each experiment. His behavior is completely consistent in this regard. Can this be considered random? At what point does a Baysian model provide a sufficient confidence level the behavior is not random? Which premise is most consistent with Rossi's actions? He believes in the technology and has nothing to hide from a black box evaluation of energy out? He doesn't believe a rigorous test will confirm his claims? The answer seems fairly obvious to me which premise is most consistent. However, others can look at the same set of facts and draw opposite conclusions. This makes for an interesting world I guess. Best regards, Horace Heffner http://www.mtaonline.net/~hheffner/
Re: [Vo]:Minor progress
On Nov 8, 2011, at 11:15 AM, Jed Rothwell wrote: Horace Heffner hheff...@mtaonline.net wrote: Levi and Defkalion people saw inside the 6 Oct E-cat? So they say. Just to be clear, they say they saw inside the 30x30x30 cm inside box in the 6 Oct E-cat demo? Do you have a reference on this? Best regards, Horace Heffner http://www.mtaonline.net/~hheffner/
[Vo]:October SSE Edge Science mag, free issue
The SSE has another issue online of their EdgeScience magazine: http://www.scientificexploration.org/edgescience/ http://www.scientificexploration.org/edgescience/edgescience_09.pdf - Anecdotal Evidence - Letters: Tunguska and UFOs - The plasma universe of Hannes Alfven - Coincidence Studies - In Memory of William Corliss (( ( ( ( ((O)) ) ) ) ))) William J. BeatySCIENCE HOBBYIST website billb at amasci com http://amasci.com EE/programmer/sci-exhibits amateur science, hobby projects, sci fair Seattle, WA 206-762-3818unusual phenomena, tesla coils, weird sci
Re: [Vo]:Minor progress
Horace Heffner hheff...@mtaonline.net wrote: Just to be clear, they say they saw inside the 30x30x30 cm inside box in the 6 Oct E-cat demo? Do you have a reference on this? No, just what they say. Take it or leave it. If you don't believe me, or them, believe Archimedes. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:iReport
In reply to Terry Blanton's message of Sun, 30 Oct 2011 14:15:15 -0400: Hi, [snip] So, he just wrote AR a check and hooked the container up to his F250 and drove away? So, there wasn't a single investigative reporter who hopped on their Vespa and followed him? Are we to believe that it now resides in that vast warehouse next to the Lost Ark of the Covenant? This is artistic! T Yes, Warehouse 13! ;) Regards, Robin van Spaandonk http://rvanspaa.freehostia.com/project.html
Re: [Vo]:E-Cat / philosophical remarks
Horace Heffner hheff...@mtaonline.net wrote: It is difficult to believe that Harrison, Patterson, or Shockley would put on about a dozen demonstrations of their technology, repeatedly botch the scientific aspects of the demonstrations, and refuse to acknowledge or fix the problems. How hard? I suggest you read the history of the Shockley Transistor Corporation. The products were too unpredictable as one polite contemporary account put it. This was from a company staffed by 8 people who went on to illustrious careers, including Noyce and Moore. Shockley blamed them for his problems. The entire staff finally jumped ship and formed the Fairchild Semiconductor Corporation. They said he refused to acknowledge or fix problems. Actually, they said it less diplomatically than that. Or read an honest account of Edison's development of incandescent lights, such as A Streak of Luck. If you spoke Japanese I would refer you to the video of Arata's demonstration in March 2008, at Arata Hall, Osaka National University. These people made Rossi look like smooth, polished professional in comparison. In point of fact, Rossi did not totally botch the scientific aspects of his demonstrations. Many scientists and engineers find these demonstrations convincing despite the fact that they are somewhat sloppy. You do not find them convincing but your reasons do not hold water, in my opinion. Your hypotheses suffer from many more scientific problems than Rossi's demonstrations do. When Patterson could no longer reproduce his results he freely admitted it. No he did not. The last thing he told me is, I can make more beads anytime I like. That was wishful thinking. Does that put him in the same camp with Harrison, Patterson, and Shockley, or in a different class? As I said, those people make him look reasonable in comparison. And very successful. He has done irrefutable demonstrations of large-scale reactors which no other cold fusion researcher has ever been able to do. - Jed
[Vo]:PESN - Oct 8: Steorn Announces HephaHeat Oveurnity Technology
http://pesn.com/2011/11/08/9601951_Steorn_Announces_HephaHeat_Oveurnity_Technology/ Excerpt: Steorn, the Dublin, Ireland based free energy company, has announced their latest overunity technology that they have named HephaHeat. The technology produces excess energy in the form of heat, by utilizing a low frequency induction heating effect. A few pretty charts and graphics as well. Regards Steven Vincent Johnson www.OrionWorks.com www.zazzle.com/orionworks
[Vo]:Wired UK / Nov 6 - Mills,Crude,Maryugo,Krivit chime in ...
http://www.wired.co.uk/news/archive/2011-11/06/cold-fusion-heating-up?page=all Follow-up on their earlier two articles. (They say Rossi has 13 orders? Challenged). Hank Mills v Crude,Maryugo,Krivit in the comments (lenr.qumbu.com -- analyzing the Rossi/Focardi eCat -- Hi, google!)
Re: [Vo]:Wired UK / Nov 6 - Mills,Crude,Maryugo,Krivit chime in ...
On 2011-11-08 23:10, Alan J Fletcher wrote: Hank Mills v Crude,Maryugo,Krivit in the comments Krivit also posted a comment in today's Physorg.com article on Rossi here: http://www.physorg.com/news/2011-11-rossi-e-cat-customers.html Cheers, S.A.
Re: [Vo]:Minor progress
On Tue, Nov 8, 2011 at 3:39 PM, Horace Heffner hheff...@mtaonline.net wrote: Just to be clear, they say they saw inside the 30x30x30 cm inside box in the 6 Oct E-cat demo? Do you have a reference on this? http://www.radio24.ilsole24ore.com/Foto/articoli/ecat071011-3.jpg Source: http://www.radio24.ilsole24ore.com/main.php?articolo=ecat-fusione-fedda-bologna-andrea-rossi T
Re: [Vo]:Focardi 1998 cell replication
Thank you Axil, that is my understanding as well and explained much better than I could. I have been told that Piantelli has confirmed each step is correct. AG On 11/9/2011 3:52 AM, Axil Axil wrote: ** *Hydrogen Ions are protons and are positively charged.* ** ** *The Piantelli theory is based on a quasiparticle: a _/negative/_hydrogen ion that acts as an electron in the nucleus of a nickel atom. * ** *In a nutshell according to the the Piantelli theory, the negative hydrogen ion enters the orbit of the nickel atom as an electron would and because it is so heavy being composed of two electrons and a proton. This heavy multi sub atomic particle _/quasiparticle/_will approach the nucleus of the nickel atom very closely in the same way that a negatively charged muon would in Muon-catalyzed fusion (μCF). * ** *The cross section of fusion between the negative hydrogen ion and the nucleus of the nickel atom is large because the very heavy negative hydrogen ion orbits so closely to the nucleus of the nickel atom.* ** *best regards,* ** *Axil*
Re: [Vo]:Minor progress
Terry Blanton hohlr...@gmail.com wrote: http://www.radio24.ilsole24ore.com/Foto/articoli/ecat071011-3.jpg Thanks, Terry. The corrugated thing at the top which looks like a radiator is the cell. It is a little hard to see from the photo, but I gather you can actually see inside the box below the cell somewhat more than you can from this photo. When I talk about displacement I mean that they poured out all of the water remaining in the cell after one of the runs, and it was roughly as much as you would expect from a box of that size minus the displacement of the cell. There is no room left over for a hidden block of concrete, or an 8 kW heater, butane fuel, or what have you. What you can see accounts for all of the space, as measured by the volume of water. You can also see that there is no room in the walls to hide material with much thermal mass, or much butane fuel, or anything else. If there was pre-heated material in the walls, no matter how good the installation is, the walls would be warm to the touch and people would have noticed that when they picked the reactor up to put on the weight scale. You can see from the rust and wear that this has been tested several times. - Jed
[Vo]:What Happened with DGT
From Jeane Manning: http://changingpower.net/articles/physicists-insights-on-greece-and-rossi%E2%80%99s-e-cat/#more-716 Her source says: It is known that the type of asserted reaction, namely Ni -Cu transition, must release gamma photons in the 511 Kev range but this was never actually measured. 0.511 MeV . . . now where have I seen that before? ;-) T
Re: [Vo]:Wired UK / Nov 6 - Mills,Crude,Maryugo,Krivit chime in ...
Joshua Cude, MaryYugo, Steven B. Krivit, and Engineer offer very cogent critical posts in the 3 pages of comments in three days. On Tue, Nov 8, 2011 at 2:10 PM, Alan J Fletcher a...@well.com wrote: http://www.wired.co.uk/news/**archive/2011-11/06/cold-** fusion-heating-up?page=allhttp://www.wired.co.uk/news/archive/2011-11/06/cold-fusion-heating-up?page=all Follow-up on their earlier two articles. (They say Rossi has 13 orders? Challenged). Hank Mills v Crude,Maryugo,Krivit in the comments (lenr.qumbu.com -- analyzing the Rossi/Focardi eCat -- Hi, google!)
Re: [Vo]:Minor progress
On Tue, Nov 8, 2011 at 5:54 PM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com wrote: The corrugated thing at the top which looks like a radiator is the cell. Those heat fins reside on both the top and bottom. Three reactors are sandwiched within. There were a lot of witnesses who described it. Concrete proof? ;-) T
Re: [Vo]:Minor progress
On Tue, Nov 8, 2011 at 6:00 PM, Terry Blanton hohlr...@gmail.com wrote: On Tue, Nov 8, 2011 at 5:54 PM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com wrote: The corrugated thing at the top which looks like a radiator is the cell. Those heat fins reside on both the top and bottom. Look at Bob Higgins' diagram: http://lenr.qumbu.com/rossi_ecat_oct11_a.php My guess is it's pretty accurate. Hey, he cites you, Horace! T
Re: [Vo]:Minor progress
Some more inside shots http://www.nyteknik.se/incoming/article3295952.ece/BINARY/w468/kall_fusion_rossi_sprattad_lada_1_468_320.jpg http://www.nyteknik.se/incoming/article3295953.ece/BINARY/w468/kall_fusion_rossi_sprattad_lada_468_320.jpghttp://www.nyteknik.se/incoming/article3295953.ece/BINARY/w468/kall_fusion_rossi_sprattad_lada_468_320.jpg AG On 11/9/2011 9:06 AM, Terry Blanton wrote: On Tue, Nov 8, 2011 at 3:39 PM, Horace Heffnerhheff...@mtaonline.net wrote: Just to be clear, they say they saw inside the 30x30x30 cm inside box in the 6 Oct E-cat demo? Do you have a reference on this? http://www.radio24.ilsole24ore.com/Foto/articoli/ecat071011-3.jpg Source: http://www.radio24.ilsole24ore.com/main.php?articolo=ecat-fusione-fedda-bologna-andrea-rossi T
Re: [Vo]:Wired UK / Nov 6 - Mills,Crude,Maryugo,Krivit chime in ...
At 02:58 PM 11/8/2011, Rich Murray wrote: Joshua Cude, MaryYugo, Steven B. Krivit, and Engineer offer very cogent critical posts in the 3 pages of comments in three days. Engineer doesn't seem to be.
Re: [Vo]:Wired UK / Nov 6 - Mills,Crude,Maryugo,Krivit chime in ...
Feudian slip ... Cude, not Crude. MaryYugo
Re: [Vo]:What Happened with DGT
That's the rest mass of the electron... So, any idea? 2011/11/8 Terry Blanton hohlr...@gmail.com From Jeane Manning: http://changingpower.net/articles/physicists-insights-on-greece-and-rossi%E2%80%99s-e-cat/#more-716 Her source says: It is known that the type of asserted reaction, namely Ni -Cu transition, must release gamma photons in the 511 Kev range but this was never actually measured. 0.511 MeV . . . now where have I seen that before? ;-) T
[Vo]:brief puzzled Rossi eCat summary in PhysOrg.com: Rich Murray 2011.11.08
brief puzzled Rossi eCat summary in PhysOrg.com: Rich Murray 2011.11.08 http://www.physorg.com/news/2011-11-rossi-e-cat-customers.html
Re: [Vo]:Minor progress
Aussie Guy E-Cat aussieguy.e...@gmail.com wrote: Some more inside shots http://www.nyteknik.se/**incoming/article3295952.ece/** BINARY/w468/kall_fusion_rossi_**sprattad_lada_1_468_320.jpghttp://www.nyteknik.se/incoming/article3295952.ece/BINARY/w468/kall_fusion_rossi_sprattad_lada_1_468_320.jpg That's a good photo. Boy, what a mess! It looks like an old automobile radiator. It must have been run for a hundred hours. People say that when you are there in the room, looking into it, you can see there is nothing much below the cell or above it except the cooling fins. You can see approximately how big the cell-sandwich inside it is. Anyway, as I said, you can tell there is nothing big hidden below it by displacement. Eureka! -- as the bald guy said, bounding out of the bath buck naked. One person looking at it seemed disappointed, and said, what, is that all there is to it? It is an unprepossessing object. Mary Yugo finds it hard to believe that Rossi and Fioravanti would treat this test and this reactor with such a casual attitude. Almost with disdain. They express no gravitas. They sign off on a report that mainly cites continued leaks with gaskets. This is just another work-a-day event for them, not an historic occasion. I told her that is typical of people doing research. The thing is, this *was* just another in a series of tests. Rossi has been doing this for years. You can see from the rust that he has been testing this module for months. Ed Storms says that seeing a cold fusion reaction is about as interesting as watching paint dry. Experienced cold fusion researchers do not get excited when they see cold fusion. It is no big deal to them. The other thing about many of these researchers is their safety standards are nonexistent. People such as Ohmori thought nothing of having an open, cracked quartz glass test tube full of boiling lithium heavy water, spewing drops around. That's highly toxic. Mizuno would stand at door to Ohmori's lab, which was hidden in an abandoned building, filled with ancient instruments and equipment from a junked high energy physics experiment -- a classic bootleg experiment that the university wanted to deep-six -- and Mizuno would say to me: You go in if you like. That place scares the hell out of me. This, from a guy who scavenged old stainless steel vessels and ran them at higher pressure and temperatures than the manufacturer ever intended. Believe me, I had good reasons for worrying that Rossi might blow himself up. I know these people! - Jed
Re: [Vo]:What Happened with DGT
In reply to Daniel Rocha's message of Tue, 8 Nov 2011 22:19:28 -0200: Hi, [snip] That's the rest mass of the electron... So, any idea? This has already been extensively covered on Vortex since January. See the archives (hint:positron). 2011/11/8 Terry Blanton hohlr...@gmail.com From Jeane Manning: http://changingpower.net/articles/physicists-insights-on-greece-and-rossi%E2%80%99s-e-cat/#more-716 Her source says: It is known that the type of asserted reaction, namely Ni -Cu transition, must release gamma photons in the 511 Kev range but this was never actually measured. 0.511 MeV . . . now where have I seen that before? ;-) T Regards, Robin van Spaandonk http://rvanspaa.freehostia.com/project.html
Re: [Vo]:Minor progress
Yes it looks a mess but just created a lot more energy than was inputted, so fair go. As for the fin design, I could do better 40 years ago. I mean the water enters in the lower left corner at the bottom and the steam exits at the upper right on the top. I assume the rate of water flow through that box is slow and if so the fin orientation is not that important. Still it would not be hard to do a better job, he says inside a fire proof suit having yet to build and then to get working a LENR device ;) This E-Cat is like a very early model T prototype. It works but boy is there a lot that can be done to reduce cost and improve performance, which is exactly what a engineering in a hurry would have built. AG On 11/9/2011 12:18 PM, Jed Rothwell wrote: Aussie Guy E-Cat aussieguy.e...@gmail.com mailto:aussieguy.e...@gmail.com wrote: Some more inside shots http://www.nyteknik.se/incoming/article3295952.ece/BINARY/w468/kall_fusion_rossi_sprattad_lada_1_468_320.jpg That's a good photo. Boy, what a mess! It looks like an old automobile radiator. It must have been run for a hundred hours.
[Vo]:Robo-suit suitable for nuclear disasters
Aussie Guy E-Cat aussieguy.e...@gmail.com wrote: Still it would not be hard to do a better job, he says inside a fire proof suit having yet to build and then to get working a LENR device ;) Speaking for fire-proof suits, here is a Japanese news article and photo of a robo-suit, or mechanical exoskeleton, suitable for people fighting an out-of-control nuclear disaster: http://www.asahi.com/national/update/1107/TKY20070526.html A little late . . . But you never know when another nuke will blow up. It contains 60 kg of tungsten shielding. They have been making these exoskeleton things for disabled people lately. I saw a video of patients walking around with them. People who had not been able to walk for years. They give you more mobility in a variety of places than a wheelchair does. - Jed
[Vo]:Very cool PVC life-like autonomous machines!
http://www.youtube.com/watch_popup?v=HSKyHmjyrkAfeature=
Re: [Vo]:Minor progress
Well I got some sleep and am catching up on this thread. I am very disappointed. The confusion here is incredible. It also appears no one has read my paper at all: http://www.mtaonline.net/~hheffner/Rossi6Oct2011Review.pdf especially the sections T2 THERMOCOUPLE LOCATION and VOLUME CALCULATIONS, wherein I analyze the photos, Photo 1 and Photo 2 in my paper, which for some reason everyone confuses as showing the inside of the 30x30x30 cm inside box that supposedly houses one to three 1 cm thick reactors (or 3 cm thick reactors if you please, Rossi made both statements), and to which I referred when I said no one saw inside it at the demo. I was *not* referring to the roughly 50x60x35 cm *exterior* box. The posters on this for some reason seem to confuse the two boxes. Jed calls the 30x30x30 cm inside box the reactor, though it clearly is much more than the reactor. It is a reactor housing that supposedly keeps the reactor dry and protected, and to which 1 /4 inch and 1 inch water sealed conduit pipes connect which carry water, main power, and the frequency generator power from the outside to the stuff inside the box. The material I have analyzed fits inside the 30x30x30 cm box. The 50x60x35 cm exterior box to which others refer is irrelevant, except when water levels and temperatures are simulated. It is disappointing that people would think I have not even seen the photos I so carefully analyzed and described in my paper. This reinforces the feeling I have had that this is all a waste of time. Here are the important facts: 1. No one at the 6 Oct demo saw inside the 30x30x30 cm box. It was not opened. 2. Mats Lewan did not see any features of the box aside from what was shown in the various photos. He did not see any exterior structures that might be important, such as holes, vents, fins underneath, etc. The only features visible were the bolted flanges and the pipe feed throughs. 3. The small interior 30x30x30 box was bolted to the bottom of the exterior box. It is thus unlikely a set of fins like those on top are present on the bottom of the 30x30x30 cm box. 4. No one would have been able to observe cement, ceramic tiles, fire brick, iron slabs, lead slabs, Ni containers, valves, wiring, hidden water access ports, etc., because the inside box was not opened. 5. The inside and outside boxes, and the contents of the inside box, together weigh 98 kg. Clearly the inside and outside boxes, pipes and bolts that are visible do not weigh anything like 98 kg. The boxes are made of sheet metal. Therefore the density of the 30x30x30 cm box and its interior contents is very high. I am attempting to construct my simulation within these constraints. I think Bob Higgen's diagram at: http://lenr.qumbu.com/rossi_ecat_oct11_a.php is inaccurate. The reactor is enclosed inside the 30x30x30 cm interior box. The fins are not as big as shown. There is only one set of fins, on top. The thermocouple is much longer than shown and likely rests against the edge of the inside box, and probably on the flanges of the inside box, which are not shown. The gaps between the inside box and the edges of the outside box are too large in proportion. The 50x60x35 cm exterior box dimensions include the flanges to which the top panel is bolted. This only leaves a few centimeters gap (5 cm on the ends, 3 cm on the sides, excluding the flanges) between the inside box and the outside box. See the sections of my paper referenced above. I should note here that I am working on an update of those sections based on an improved photo analysis. Here are my best numbers so far: Width of E-cat inside box: 30.3 cm Interior width of E-cat outside box, flange to flange: 49.6 cm Interior width of E-cat outside box, side to side : 40.6 cm Interior length of E-cat outside box: = 46.3 cm Best regards, Horace Heffner http://www.mtaonline.net/~hheffner/
Re: [Vo]:Minor progress
I wrote: It is a reactor housing that supposedly keeps the reactor dry and protected, and to which 1 /4 inch and 1 inch water sealed conduit pipes connect which carry water, main power, and the frequency generator power from the outside to the stuff inside the box. That should read: It is a reactor housing that supposedly keeps the reactor dry and protected, and to which 1 1/4 inch and 1 inch water sealed conduit pipes connect which carry water, main power, and the frequency generator power from the outside to the stuff inside the box. I wrote: 1. No one at the 6 Oct demo saw inside the 30x30x30 cm box. It was not opened. That should read: 1. None of the observes at the 6 Oct demo saw inside the 30x30x30 cm box. It was not opened. Best regards, Horace Heffner http://www.mtaonline.net/~hheffner/
Re: [Vo]:Minor progress
I have spent some time on working out what is what in the Exposed E-Cat photos. What can be seen is boiler scale on the reactor heat radiation fins, external conduits and assembly bolts which seems to indicate water and steam occur in the outer box as the Higgins drawing suggests and not inside the reactor core as you suggest. The steam outlet from the outer box is via a fitting on the top and not from the reactor core as you suggest. This would suggest the water input is to the outer box (inlet fitting on the bottom lower front left and not from the side as the Higgins drawings suggests) and there is no water inside the smaller finned reactor core. See attached photo. From what I can see there are 3 conduits connections into the reactor core to supply H, heater power and RF energy. Based on my measurements of the photos and assuming a symmetrical reactor core design, there is room for the fins on the bottom of the reactor core as Higgins suggests. AG On 11/9/2011 4:53 PM, Horace Heffner wrote: Well I got some sleep and am catching up on this thread. I am very disappointed. The confusion here is incredible. It also appears no one has read my paper at all: http://www.mtaonline.net/~hheffner/Rossi6Oct2011Review.pdf especially the sections T2 THERMOCOUPLE LOCATION and VOLUME CALCULATIONS, wherein I analyze the photos, Photo 1 and Photo 2 in my paper, which for some reason everyone confuses as showing the inside of the 30x30x30 cm inside box that supposedly houses one to three 1 cm thick reactors (or 3 cm thick reactors if you please, Rossi made both statements), and to which I referred when I said no one saw inside it at the demo. I was *not* referring to the roughly 50x60x35 cm *exterior* box. The posters on this for some reason seem to confuse the two boxes. Jed calls the 30x30x30 cm inside box the reactor, though it clearly is much more than the reactor. It is a reactor housing that supposedly keeps the reactor dry and protected, and to which 1 /4 inch and 1 inch water sealed conduit pipes connect which carry water, main power, and the frequency generator power from the outside to the stuff inside the box. The material I have analyzed fits inside the 30x30x30 cm box. The 50x60x35 cm exterior box to which others refer is irrelevant, except when water levels and temperatures are simulated. It is disappointing that people would think I have not even seen the photos I so carefully analyzed and described in my paper. This reinforces the feeling I have had that this is all a waste of time. Here are the important facts: 1. No one at the 6 Oct demo saw inside the 30x30x30 cm box. It was not opened. 2. Mats Lewan did not see any features of the box aside from what was shown in the various photos. He did not see any exterior structures that might be important, such as holes, vents, fins underneath, etc. The only features visible were the bolted flanges and the pipe feed throughs. 3. The small interior 30x30x30 box was bolted to the bottom of the exterior box. It is thus unlikely a set of fins like those on top are present on the bottom of the 30x30x30 cm box. 4. No one would have been able to observe cement, ceramic tiles, fire brick, iron slabs, lead slabs, Ni containers, valves, wiring, hidden water access ports, etc., because the inside box was not opened. 5. The inside and outside boxes, and the contents of the inside box, together weigh 98 kg. Clearly the inside and outside boxes, pipes and bolts that are visible do not weigh anything like 98 kg. The boxes are made of sheet metal. Therefore the density of the 30x30x30 cm box and its interior contents is very high. I am attempting to construct my simulation within these constraints. I think Bob Higgen's diagram at: http://lenr.qumbu.com/rossi_ecat_oct11_a.php is inaccurate. The reactor is enclosed inside the 30x30x30 cm interior box. The fins are not as big as shown. There is only one set of fins, on top. The thermocouple is much longer than shown and likely rests against the edge of the inside box, and probably on the flanges of the inside box, which are not shown. The gaps between the inside box and the edges of the outside box are too large in proportion. The 50x60x35 cm exterior box dimensions include the flanges to which the top panel is bolted. This only leaves a few centimeters gap (5 cm on the ends, 3 cm on the sides, excluding the flanges) between the inside box and the outside box. See the sections of my paper referenced above. I should note here that I am working on an update of those sections based on an improved photo analysis. Here are my best numbers so far: Width of E-cat inside box: 30.3 cm Interior width of E-cat outside box, flange to flange: 49.6 cm Interior width of E-cat outside box, side to side : 40.6 cm Interior length of E-cat outside box: = 46.3 cm Best regards, Horace Heffner http://www.mtaonline.net/~hheffner/
Re: [Vo]:What Happened with DGT
On Nov 8, 2011, at 3:19 PM, Daniel Rocha wrote: That's the rest mass of the electron... So, any idea? 2011/11/8 Terry Blanton hohlr...@gmail.com From Jeane Manning: http://changingpower.net/articles/physicists-insights-on-greece-and- rossi%E2%80%99s-e-cat/#more-716 Her source says: It is known that the type of asserted reaction, namely Ni -Cu transition, must release gamma photons in the 511 Kev range but this was never actually measured. 0.511 MeV . . . now where have I seen that before? ;-) T This is baloney. One of the early tests involved use a coincidence counter, a pair of gamma counters with coincidence circuitry, which picks up the gamma pairs from positron annihilations. None were observed above background. It was used up close to the reactor. Here is a photo in which the pair of opposed coincidence counters can be seen: http://www.ccemt.org/Energy%20Alternatives/cold_fusion/files/ rossi_cold_fusion_aparatus_scintillator_300.jpg posted on this blog: http://www.cce-mt.org/Energy%20Alternatives/cold_fusion/cold_fusion.html regarding a February 2011 test. Part of the second counter can be seen protruding below the surface on which the E-cat rests. Celani has observed some single (not positron annihilation) counts : I brought my own gamma detector, a battery-operated 1.25″ NaI(Tl) with an energy range=25keV-2000keV. I measured some increase of counts near the reactor (about 50-100%) during operation, in an erratic (unstable) way, with respect to background. See: http://blog.newenergytimes.com/2011/01/18/rossi-and-focardi-lenr- device-celani-report/ http://tinyurl.com/4djya8 Best regards, Horace Heffner http://www.mtaonline.net/~hheffner/
Re: [Vo]:Minor progress
On Nov 8, 2011, at 9:52 PM, Aussie Guy E-Cat wrote: I have spent some time on working out what is what in the Exposed E- Cat photos. What can be seen is boiler scale on the reactor heat radiation fins, external conduits and assembly bolts which seems to indicate water and steam occur in the outer box as the Higgins drawing suggests and not inside the reactor core as you suggest. Nonsense! That water and steam are present in the outside box has never been in doubt by anyone that I know of. What I suggested is the possibility ports can be opened to the inside box to permit timed and limited water exposure to selected slabs of material, and the resulting steam emissions. The source and destination of the water/steam is of course the outside box, and then the top vent. You assertion that you can determine whether or not this occurs from the photos is the nonsense. The steam outlet from the outer box is via a fitting on the top and not from the reactor core as you suggest. You must think I am and idiot to say such a thing about me. Did you not read my estimates of the location of the port in my photo analysis? http://www.mtaonline.net/~hheffner/Rossi6Oct2011Review.pdf Do you think I am unaware of the T fitting in the top of the outer box through which the thermocouple also is fitted, the location of which I determined by photo analysis? This would suggest the water input is to the outer box (inlet fitting on the bottom lower front left and not from the side as the Higgins drawings suggests) Well of course there is a water inlet on the outside box, on the left front. and there is no water inside the smaller finned reactor core. This you have no way of knowing. See attached photo. From what I can see there are 3 conduits connections into the reactor core to supply H, heater power and RF energy. There are actually four: 1 water, 1 gas, 2 for frequency generator input. Based on my measurements of the photos and assuming a symmetrical reactor core design, there is room for the fins on the bottom of the reactor core as Higgins suggests. Of course there is room. The problem is the fins were not observed there by Mats Lewan who had extensive access at the demo being discussed. AG On 11/9/2011 4:53 PM, Horace Heffner wrote: Well I got some sleep and am catching up on this thread. I am very disappointed. The confusion here is incredible. It also appears no one has read my paper at all: http://www.mtaonline.net/~hheffner/Rossi6Oct2011Review.pdf especially the sections T2 THERMOCOUPLE LOCATION and VOLUME CALCULATIONS, wherein I analyze the photos, Photo 1 and Photo 2 in my paper, which for some reason everyone confuses as showing the inside of the 30x30x30 cm inside box that supposedly houses one to three 1 cm thick reactors (or 3 cm thick reactors if you please, Rossi made both statements), and to which I referred when I said no one saw inside it at the demo. I was *not* referring to the roughly 50x60x35 cm *exterior* box. The posters on this for some reason seem to confuse the two boxes. Jed calls the 30x30x30 cm inside box the reactor, though it clearly is much more than the reactor. It is a reactor housing that supposedly keeps the reactor dry and protected, and to which 1 /4 inch and 1 inch water sealed conduit pipes connect which carry water, main power, and the frequency generator power from the outside to the stuff inside the box. The material I have analyzed fits inside the 30x30x30 cm box. The 50x60x35 cm exterior box to which others refer is irrelevant, except when water levels and temperatures are simulated. It is disappointing that people would think I have not even seen the photos I so carefully analyzed and described in my paper. This reinforces the feeling I have had that this is all a waste of time. Here are the important facts: 1. No one at the 6 Oct demo saw inside the 30x30x30 cm box. It was not opened. 2. Mats Lewan did not see any features of the box aside from what was shown in the various photos. He did not see any exterior structures that might be important, such as holes, vents, fins underneath, etc. The only features visible were the bolted flanges and the pipe feed throughs. 3. The small interior 30x30x30 box was bolted to the bottom of the exterior box. It is thus unlikely a set of fins like those on top are present on the bottom of the 30x30x30 cm box. 4. No one would have been able to observe cement, ceramic tiles, fire brick, iron slabs, lead slabs, Ni containers, valves, wiring, hidden water access ports, etc., because the inside box was not opened. 5. The inside and outside boxes, and the contents of the inside box, together weigh 98 kg. Clearly the inside and outside boxes, pipes and bolts that are visible do not weigh anything like 98 kg. The boxes are made of sheet metal. Therefore the density of
[Vo]:Krivit names some Rossi customer names
http://blog.newenergytimes.com/2011/11/09/poor-journalism-by-wired-u- k-on-rossi-story/ Best regards, Horace Heffner http://www.mtaonline.net/~hheffner/
Re: [Vo]:Minor progress
Mate I'm not a physicists or an antagonists. Just a very practical old power systems engineer. You have come up with a exotic theory of scam that requires you to prove it. If I say I doubt your theory, that is my right and you have no right to say Nonsense cause you have absolutely no proof of what you suggest is even remotely true. As a point of interest do you accept the significant and long term reports of excess heat generation in Ni-H LENR cells? If not why? If yes then why do you doubt Rossi? AG On 11/9/2011 5:39 PM, Horace Heffner wrote: On Nov 8, 2011, at 9:52 PM, Aussie Guy E-Cat wrote: I have spent some time on working out what is what in the Exposed E-Cat photos. What can be seen is boiler scale on the reactor heat radiation fins, external conduits and assembly bolts which seems to indicate water and steam occur in the outer box as the Higgins drawing suggests and not inside the reactor core as you suggest. Nonsense! That water and steam are present in the outside box has never been in doubt by anyone that I know of. What I suggested is the possibility ports can be opened to the inside box to permit timed and limited water exposure to selected slabs of material, and the resulting steam emissions. The source and destination of the water/steam is of course the outside box, and then the top vent. You assertion that you can determine whether or not this occurs from the photos is the nonsense. The steam outlet from the outer box is via a fitting on the top and not from the reactor core as you suggest. You must think I am and idiot to say such a thing about me. Did you not read my estimates of the location of the port in my photo analysis? http://www.mtaonline.net/~hheffner/Rossi6Oct2011Review.pdf Do you think I am unaware of the T fitting in the top of the outer box through which the thermocouple also is fitted, the location of which I determined by photo analysis? This would suggest the water input is to the outer box (inlet fitting on the bottom lower front left and not from the side as the Higgins drawings suggests) Well of course there is a water inlet on the outside box, on the left front. and there is no water inside the smaller finned reactor core. This you have no way of knowing. See attached photo. From what I can see there are 3 conduits connections into the reactor core to supply H, heater power and RF energy. There are actually four: 1 water, 1 gas, 2 for frequency generator input. Based on my measurements of the photos and assuming a symmetrical reactor core design, there is room for the fins on the bottom of the reactor core as Higgins suggests. Of course there is room. The problem is the fins were not observed there by Mats Lewan who had extensive access at the demo being discussed. AG On 11/9/2011 4:53 PM, Horace Heffner wrote: Well I got some sleep and am catching up on this thread. I am very disappointed. The confusion here is incredible. It also appears no one has read my paper at all: http://www.mtaonline.net/~hheffner/Rossi6Oct2011Review.pdf especially the sections T2 THERMOCOUPLE LOCATION and VOLUME CALCULATIONS, wherein I analyze the photos, Photo 1 and Photo 2 in my paper, which for some reason everyone confuses as showing the inside of the 30x30x30 cm inside box that supposedly houses one to three 1 cm thick reactors (or 3 cm thick reactors if you please, Rossi made both statements), and to which I referred when I said no one saw inside it at the demo. I was *not* referring to the roughly 50x60x35 cm *exterior* box. The posters on this for some reason seem to confuse the two boxes. Jed calls the 30x30x30 cm inside box the reactor, though it clearly is much more than the reactor. It is a reactor housing that supposedly keeps the reactor dry and protected, and to which 1 /4 inch and 1 inch water sealed conduit pipes connect which carry water, main power, and the frequency generator power from the outside to the stuff inside the box. The material I have analyzed fits inside the 30x30x30 cm box. The 50x60x35 cm exterior box to which others refer is irrelevant, except when water levels and temperatures are simulated. It is disappointing that people would think I have not even seen the photos I so carefully analyzed and described in my paper. This reinforces the feeling I have had that this is all a waste of time. Here are the important facts: 1. No one at the 6 Oct demo saw inside the 30x30x30 cm box. It was not opened. 2. Mats Lewan did not see any features of the box aside from what was shown in the various photos. He did not see any exterior structures that might be important, such as holes, vents, fins underneath, etc. The only features visible were the bolted flanges and the pipe feed throughs. 3. The small interior 30x30x30 box was bolted to the bottom of the exterior box. It is thus unlikely a set of fins like those on top are present on the
Re: [Vo]:Krivit names some Rossi customer names
Krivit produced no references for his statements. And you would believe him why? Especially which his very public anti Rossi stance, which I believe is not justified by anything Krivit had or has not published. Just by 2 pence worth. Maybe time to pass the buttered popcorn? I'm pro Rossi's E-Cat does work, just to go on record. Why? Because it looks like something I would build if I was in a big hurry (well I would have done a better job on the heat exchanger) and all the Italian Ni-H research papers, especially that of Piantelli and a few private discussions. AG On 11/9/2011 5:48 PM, Horace Heffner wrote: http://blog.newenergytimes.com/2011/11/09/poor-journalism-by-wired-u-k-on-rossi-story/
Re: [Vo]:Krivit names some Rossi customer names
2011/11/9 Aussie Guy E-Cat aussieguy.e...@gmail.com Because it looks like something I would build if I was in a big hurry (well I would have done a better job on the heat exchanger) and all the Italian Ni-H research papers, especially that of Piantelli and a few private discussions. In Italy too attachment: 0116.JPG
