[Vo]:Krivit names some Rossi customer names
- Original Nachricht Von: Horace Heffner hheff...@mtaonline.net An: Vortex-L vortex-l@eskimo.com Datum: 09.11.2011 08:18 Betreff: [Vo]:Krivit names some Rossi customer names http://blog.newenergytimes.com/2011/11/09/poor-journalism-by-wired-u- k-on-rossi-story/ It should be noted, a customer who requires high confidentiality would probably not reveal his idendity to a person like Rossi. He would send a trusted proxy or strawmen to make the deal ;-) Possibly Rossis businessmodel is to attract criminals who whant to steal his technology and get their money ;-) It looks like this.
Re: [Vo]:Minor progress
On Nov 8, 2011, at 10:35 PM, Aussie Guy E-Cat wrote: 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. Not true. It is not I who is making the claims. I merely intend to show some of the arguments put forth here that the data provided indicate Rossi's clamis have to be real are false. If the data can be reproduced with a device which produces no nuclear energy, whether that device actually exists or not, then it should be pretty obvious the data does not support Rossi's claims. I am advocating for better testing procedures. The actual existence or not of my simulated device is irrelevant. The important point is the quality of the data. I made suggestions in my report for specific ways to improve the quality of the data. I am not alone in this. Many other people have suggested numerous similar things over recent months. Rossi's behavior is potentially seriously damaging the future of LENR research and the future of billions of people. I think it is important to speak out about this. 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. I have the right. In fact exercised it. 8^) Your statement made no sense at all. You wrote: ... water steam occur in the outer box as the Higgins drawing suggests and not inside the reactor core as you suggest. The observation that ... water steam occur in the outer box... does not preclude in any way that water and steam can occur in the inner box under limited control. You made an erroneous inference, a logic error. It makes no sense. You also grossly underestimate my understanding of the structure of the E-cat in question. As a point of interest do you accept the significant and long term reports of excess heat generation in Ni-H LENR cells? If you knew anything of my history, or looked at my web site, you would know I am an LENR advocate and experimenter, and that I accept that some experimental reports of light water excess heat are likely correct. I have done some experimenting myself and put forth some amateur theories: http://www.mtaonline.net/~hheffner/CFnuclearReactions.pdf http://www.mtaonline.net/~hheffner/dfRpt http://www.mtaonline.net/~hheffner/DeflationFusion.pdf The question in my mind is not whether LENR exists, but rather whether any evidence exits at all that supports Rossi's claims of commercially viable nuclear energy production. These are two very different things. If not why? If yes then why do you doubt Rossi? I see Rossi as potentially the biggest threat to the field that has ever come along. I also think I made fairly clear in my data review my position with regard to the 6 October 2011 test I have been addressing of late: http://www.mtaonline.net/~hheffner/Rossi6Oct2011Review.pdf I think it was the best of the tests so far, but still obviously inconclusive. 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
[Vo]:Back to lurk mode
I'm going back to lurk mode to try to get something done ... or maybe just go on vacation. 8^) Best regards, Horace Heffner http://www.mtaonline.net/~hheffner/
Re: [Vo]:Minor progress
I will read your information. I do apologize for assuming you were a LENR denier. But mate, values in the inside box to do a fraud? Maybe a bit much. AG On 11/9/2011 7:21 PM, Horace Heffner wrote: On Nov 8, 2011, at 10:35 PM, Aussie Guy E-Cat wrote: 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. Not true. It is not I who is making the claims. I merely intend to show some of the arguments put forth here that the data provided indicate Rossi's clamis have to be real are false. If the data can be reproduced with a device which produces no nuclear energy, whether that device actually exists or not, then it should be pretty obvious the data does not support Rossi's claims. I am advocating for better testing procedures. The actual existence or not of my simulated device is irrelevant. The important point is the quality of the data. I made suggestions in my report for specific ways to improve the quality of the data. I am not alone in this. Many other people have suggested numerous similar things over recent months. Rossi's behavior is potentially seriously damaging the future of LENR research and the future of billions of people. I think it is important to speak out about this. 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. I have the right. In fact exercised it. 8^) Your statement made no sense at all. You wrote: ... water steam occur in the outer box as the Higgins drawing suggests and not inside the reactor core as you suggest. The observation that ... water steam occur in the outer box... does not preclude in any way that water and steam can occur in the inner box under limited control. You made an erroneous inference, a logic error. It makes no sense. You also grossly underestimate my understanding of the structure of the E-cat in question. As a point of interest do you accept the significant and long term reports of excess heat generation in Ni-H LENR cells? If you knew anything of my history, or looked at my web site, you would know I am an LENR advocate and experimenter, and that I accept that some experimental reports of light water excess heat are likely correct. I have done some experimenting myself and put forth some amateur theories: http://www.mtaonline.net/~hheffner/CFnuclearReactions.pdf http://www.mtaonline.net/~hheffner/dfRpt http://www.mtaonline.net/~hheffner/DeflationFusion.pdf The question in my mind is not whether LENR exists, but rather whether any evidence exits at all that supports Rossi's claims of commercially viable nuclear energy production. These are two very different things. If not why? If yes then why do you doubt Rossi? I see Rossi as potentially the biggest threat to the field that has ever come along. I also think I made fairly clear in my data review my position with regard to the 6 October 2011 test I have been addressing of late: http://www.mtaonline.net/~hheffner/Rossi6Oct2011Review.pdf I think it was the best of the tests so far, but still obviously inconclusive. 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
Re: [Vo]:Krivit names some Rossi customer names
On Wed, Nov 9, 2011 at 2:57 AM, Susan Gipp susan.g...@gmail.com wrote: In Italy too Is that a bamboo bong on Lisa's shoulder? Not that I would know what a bong is, mind you. T
Re: [Vo]:Minor progress
On Wed, Nov 9, 2011 at 5:09 AM, Aussie Guy E-Cat aussieguy.e...@gmail.com wrote: I will read your information. I do apologize for assuming you were a LENR denier. But mate, values in the inside box to do a fraud? Maybe a bit much. Personally, I keep an open mind regarding possible hoaxing; but, one has to ask oneself, To what end? Rossi is not going to make millions off this fraud before he is found out. And even if he did, what would be his exit strategy? There's not many places to hide in the world today. Certainly not with that mug. Reminds me of Mr. Burns. T attachment: Burns.jpg
Re: [Vo]:Krivit names some Rossi customer names
On Nov 9, 2011, at 7:42 AM, Terry Blanton wrote: On Wed, Nov 9, 2011 at 2:57 AM, Susan Gipp susan.g...@gmail.com wrote: In Italy too Is that a bamboo bong on Lisa's shoulder? Not that I would know what a bong is, mind you. T
[Vo]:Report On A Conversation With George Miley
Report On A Conversation With George Miley http://e-catsite.com/2011/11/08/report-on-a-conversation-with-george-miley/
RE: [Vo]:Krivit names some Rossi customer names
Obviously, Krivit has a very strong personal opinion on the matter. It is his blog, however, so he has every right to blog away to his heart's content. I wouldn't call this journalism however, especially objective journalism. I wouldn't call it journalism because Krivit has made it very clear to his readers that he has convinced himself of a personal belief that Rossi must be a scam artist. I don't know why this seems to have become such an absolute truth in Krivit's mind. I certainly have speculated on reasons, some that might be based on my prior interactions with Krivit. Whatever... The point being, when a journalist has convinced himself that he knows the absolute truth on any particular subject, said journalist ceases to be an objective source of information to his readers. Krivit made the following comments in his November 9 blog: ... And what does the SPAWAR scientist have to say? Nothing. And what does Peter Svensson, the AP reporter who went to check out Rossi's claims for himself say? Nothing. And remember what NASA spokesmen had to say about its relationship with Rossi on Sept. 29 and Oct. 4. Nothing. I am astonished that Krivit seems to be oblivious to a major reason why these individuals would be strongly inclined to say nothing publicly. Rossi's demos have consistently not followed proper scientific protocol. Therefore, what could any of these individuals say publicly on the matter - ESPECIALLY from a scientific POV. If I were in their shoes I couldn't say anything publicly either because I wouldn't have a scientific leg to stand on pertaining and what I could write about. Finally Krivit concludes with the following statement: Obviously NASA, the Navy and AP are conspiring to suppress the reality of Rossi's extraordinary device. This certainly isn't journalism either. It is mockery. IMHO, what Krivit has actually done here, and without Krivit's conscious realization, is both mock and challenge anyone who has not come to the same conclusion that he has arrived at. Not a terribly intelligent thing to do. It's a cover up. A cover up of what, you might ask? I've noticed that Krivit occasionally has a propensity to challenge the perceptions and intelligences of others. Often making these kinds of challenges (vendettas) is nothing more than a cover-up for one's own insecurities. Again, this shows, IMHO, Krivit's inability to accurately understand the motivations of others. But something deep down, something that remains out of conscious awareness. It's like something disturbing is gnawing at you. your conclusions, but you can't admit that doubt consciously, especially to yourself. Therefore, you end up externalizing the disturbances and projecting the problems and inabilities onto the faces of others. I suspect this is probably due to the fact that Krivit has lost track of his own motivations. Carrying a torch often blinds us to the motivations of others. particularly when our own unrealized motivations end up calling all the shots. Regards, Steven Vincent Johnson www.OrionWorks.com www.zazzle.com/orionworks
Re: [Vo]:Report On A Conversation With George Miley
David ledin mathematic.analy...@gmail.com wrote: Report On A Conversation With George Miley http://e-catsite.com/2011/11/08/report-on-a-conversation-with-george-miley/ That looks impressive with the slides added. Oops. There is a typo: Although deloading is chemically endothermic, in some cases they have seen the heat increased during the loading. That is supposed to be: . . . .during deloading. The point is, you expect it cool down during deloading, but it sometimes heats up instead. I think Rossi's cell did this on Oct. 6. By the way, I sent this text to George Miley and he did not point out any errors. So I guess it is okay. He said he would get back to me later in the week with more details. I will revise it if he does. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:Krivit names some Rossi customer names
OrionWorks - Steven Vincent Johnson orionwo...@charter.net wrote: Rossi's demos have consistently not followed proper scientific protocol. Therefore, what could any of these individuals say publicly on the matter – ESPECIALLY from a scientific POV. If I were in their shoes I couldn't say anything publicly either because I wouldn't have a scientific leg to stand on pertaining and what I could write about. Sure, that is one problem. But I think for a reporter, not knowing who the customer is, or whether Fioravanti is who he claims to be is a much bigger problem. If I were a reporter I would not print one word about this until I confirm these things. I myself have no serious doubts that Fioravanti is a genuine HVAC engineer working for real customer. But that is just my gut feeling based on the sort of person he is. I suppose it would be difficult to find a middle-aged person who looks and acts like HVAC engineer but is not, or a real engineer who would risk going to jail to help Rossi pull off a scam. That is my feeling, but I would never publish a newspaper article on the strength of a feeling. By the same token, even if I were a skeptic with a gut feeling that Rossi is probably cheating, I would not boldly reach that conclusion based on these tests, or the Oct. 28 test in which Rossi and Fioravanti revealed nothing to the audience. I sure as heck would not publish that conclusion in a newspaper or even New Energy Times! That is reckless. There is not a shred of evidence that Rossi has scammed anyone with the eCat. Not one police report; not a single customer or investor complaint. There is no technical reason to doubt his tests. Of course there is no reason to believe the October 28 test at all, since no details about it were released and no observer was allowed to see the instruments, but the other tests were all positive, beyond a reasonable doubt. They were sloppy, but definitely positive. I do not think that any skeptic here or elsewhere has come up with a viable reason to doubt these tests. Hefner's assertions that the cell might contain within it enough material to produce the four-hour heat after death event is wrong. That is physically impossible by a wide margin. His assertion that the output power is much lower than it appears to be based on the cooling water loop temperatures is also mistaken. That is my opinion, and the opinion of several other scientists and engineers I have discussed this matter with. None of them thinks that this hypothesis has any merit. By the way, putting on a test and not allowing the observers to look at the instruments is an extraordinarily stupid thing to do. It is bad from a public relations point of view, and it is an insult to your observers. It is bound to produce bad publicity. The worst publicity imaginable! I do not know why Rossi did that. I suppose it is because he does not care about public relations, or he does not understand public relations. I do not think this is some sort of clever reverse psychology. A person running a business should understand the importance of presenting a good image to the public, and maintaining a good reputation. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:Krivit names some Rossi customer names
I think Krivit's New Energy Times web site name should be renamed to something like Krivit Investigates, or something to that effect. A title like Krivit Investigates would be a much more accurate description of what it actually is that Mr. Krivit performs. It would also be a more honorable presentation of himself to his readers. The title New Energy Times tends to give an impression to innocent/uninformed readers that NET is an organization that employs numerous investigators and journalist - like a real news room. Granted, IMO, Krivit will occasionally tap into the investigative/editorial skills of individuals he trusts, or at least thinks he can keep a handle on. Others have contributed to NET. I have contributed. However, it is clear to me, based on my own experience, as a former NET BoD, that NET is a one-man band. There is absolutely nothing wrong with writing from one's own personal POV concerning investigations into various subjects, especially controversial issues. Look at the Best Sellers list. People LOVE to read about the personal view points of others. Readers love to read about what it specifically was that they personally experienced that ultimately caused the writer to arrive at the conclusions they profess in their writings. IMO, Krivit should do something like that. I don't think it would be a breach of privacy for me to say that Krivit told me on more than one occasion that he could write a book about his personal experiences concerning the interactions he experienced with various individuals within the CF community, and the CF community itself. I think Krivit should do just that. I think Krivit would be far more in his own element if he simply revealed how various interactions he had with various individuals had personally affected his on-going evolving perceptions of them. Regards Steven Vincent Johnson www.OrionWorks.com www.zazzle.com/orionworks
[Vo]:Control Mechanism
Hello. I have been following Rossi and the posts since the beginning and am very fascinated. Rather than a fraud, I believe Rossi is on to something incrementally better than those that came before. He has more success starting the reaction, however I think he has little control over it once started To that supposition, can others comment on how they believe control exists? (For discussion purpose, please suspend any thoughts that it is a scam.) 1. Rossi, with all his comments, seems to suggest that it takes time to heat up the ecat to get things started, however from the demonstrations, they do not seem to have started in any scheduled way. He does, however, seem to get the ecat started within a few hours give or take so that is fantastic. 2. He has shown it in self-sustaining mode but always shuts it down after a few hours with some excuse. Why does he do that when the blockbuster note would be the ecat just keeps on going. I suggest this must mean that the ecat cannot just keep on running for 6 months has he notes; at least in self-sustaining mode. and if not in self-sustain mode, then what does he do to reset the reactor? Use his heating element? that makes no sense. Add Hydrogen? Again that makes no sense as he could put a regulator on this and do such automatically. What resets the operation? 3. He noted in the 2nd to last demo that he had a frequency generator and it had been hidden all along, but in the last demo he notes there isn't one. Does this suggest that he was trying something new to help in start up or make it run longer? Or was this mis-direction? Where was this device or wires for it in previous tests? 4. How does he control the reaction? His only control seems to be the heating element and the flow of water over the reactor. But in all experiments, until quenching, the water flow seemed to be constant. And one generating substantial heat, clearly controlling the reaction with a heating element very unlikely. Is contol simply due to the pre-start conditions (the amount of hydrogen, nickel, geometry) and it runs out of control for a few hours? Any advice on how the control works would be most interesting. In any event, forget all the nonsense with his lousy engineering design and terrible business skills; few are good at all things. If Rossi has found a way to get the reaction going and produce significant excess energy, he has changed the world and should be recognized for this.
Re: [Vo]:Minor progress
AG, I think that Horace is giving it a good effort to come up with a scheme to prove it is possible to simulate Rossi's results. That is OK as Rossi has done everything within his ability to confuse the data and leave himself open to serious doubt. I suspect that it is not a coincidence where the output power thermocouple was located. If Rossi had allowed us to have accurate output data, I could have reverse engineered his ECAT quite well. There are others who would wish to duplicate his device and produce them, but that is not my intent. As an example, I am confident that there exists a well defined function of vapor output power versus ECAT temperature reading T2. With this information, it would be simple to calculate the exact power output at every point in time and thus the true COP. Rossi must have this relationship in order to conduct his testing of individual modules. Even the power up sequence he uses is part of his testing. I have conducted a number of reviews of the data supplied during the October 6 test and can see his intent. I suggest that you look over a the detailed, smooth graph of T2 versus Time using all of the data points. If you do, you will see a treasure trove of data to mine. Dave -Original Message- From: Aussie Guy E-Cat aussieguy.e...@gmail.com To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Wed, Nov 9, 2011 5:14 am Subject: Re: [Vo]:Minor progress I will read your information. I do apologize for assuming you were a ENR denier. But mate, values in the inside box to do a fraud? Maybe a it much. AG n 11/9/2011 7:21 PM, Horace Heffner wrote: On Nov 8, 2011, at 10:35 PM, Aussie Guy E-Cat wrote: 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. Not true. It is not I who is making the claims. I merely intend to show some of the arguments put forth here that the data provided indicate Rossi's clamis have to be real are false. If the data can be reproduced with a device which produces no nuclear energy, whether that device actually exists or not, then it should be pretty obvious the data does not support Rossi's claims. I am advocating for better testing procedures. The actual existence or not of my simulated device is irrelevant. The important point is the quality of the data. I made suggestions in my report for specific ways to improve the quality of the data. I am not alone in this. Many other people have suggested numerous similar things over recent months. Rossi's behavior is potentially seriously damaging the future of LENR research and the future of billions of people. I think it is important to speak out about this. 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. I have the right. In fact exercised it. 8^) Your statement made no sense at all. You wrote: ... water steam occur in the outer box as the Higgins drawing suggests and not inside the reactor core as you suggest. The observation that ... water steam occur in the outer box... does not preclude in any way that water and steam can occur in the inner box under limited control. You made an erroneous inference, a logic error. It makes no sense. You also grossly underestimate my understanding of the structure of the E-cat in question. As a point of interest do you accept the significant and long term reports of excess heat generation in Ni-H LENR cells? If you knew anything of my history, or looked at my web site, you would know I am an LENR advocate and experimenter, and that I accept that some experimental reports of light water excess heat are likely correct. I have done some experimenting myself and put forth some amateur theories: http://www.mtaonline.net/~hheffner/CFnuclearReactions.pdf http://www.mtaonline.net/~hheffner/dfRpt http://www.mtaonline.net/~hheffner/DeflationFusion.pdf The question in my mind is not whether LENR exists, but rather whether any evidence exits at all that supports Rossi's claims of commercially viable nuclear energy production. These are two very different things. If not why? If yes then why do you doubt Rossi? I see Rossi as potentially the biggest threat to the field that has ever come along. I also think I made fairly clear in my data review my position with regard to the 6 October 2011 test I have been addressing of late: http://www.mtaonline.net/~hheffner/Rossi6Oct2011Review.pdf I think it was the best of the tests so far, but still obviously inconclusive. 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
Re: [Vo]:Control Mechanism
From: Jeff Sutton jsutton.sudb...@gmail.com Hello. I have been following Rossi and the posts since the beginning and am very fascinated. Rather than a fraud, I believe Rossi is on to something incrementally better than those that came before. He has more success starting the reaction, however I think he has little control over it once started To that supposition, can others comment on how they believe control exists? (For discussion purpose, please suspend any thoughts that it is a scam.) Rossi, with all his comments, seems to suggest that it takes time to heat up the ecat to get things started, however from the demonstrations, they do not seem to have started in any scheduled way. He does, however, seem to get the ecat started within a few hours give or take so that is fantastic. Actually, I think Rossi has a pre defined power up sequence. Review the data from the October 6 test and you will see method to his madness. A guess is that his procedure is to test individual units. He has shown it in self-sustaining mode but always shuts it down after a few hours with some excuse. Why does he do that when the blockbuster note would be the ecat just keeps on going. I suggest this must mean that the ecat cannot just keep on running for 6 months has he notes; at least in self-sustaining mode. and if not in self-sustain mode, then what does he do to reset the reactor? Use his heating element? that makes no sense. Add Hydrogen? Again that makes no sense as he could put a regulator on this and do such automatically. What resets the operation? IMHO, Rossi does not want to reveal his trade secrets so easily. I agree with you that a long term driven test would prove to all skeptics that a large amount of excess power is generated. The self sustaining mode with just one core active is not the type of operation that is going to be in any final product without redesign of the device. It is optimized for 3 cores presently, but could be modified. The self sustaining mode as demonstrated basically is just a quasi exponentially damped energy source that cools down at its internally determined rate. It must be reheated to operational temperature. He once talked of using a duty cycle of power input followed by zero power input to keep it alive for extended times. He noted in the 2nd to last demo that he had a frequency generator and it had been hidden all along, but in the last demo he notes there isn't one. Does this suggest that he was trying something new to help in start up or make it run longer? Or was this mis-direction? Where was this device or wires for it in previous tests? I think this was a form of mis-direction. How does he control the reaction? His only control seems to be the heating element and the flow of water over the reactor. But in all experiments, until quenching, the water flow seemed to be constant. And one generating substantial heat, clearly controlling the reaction with a heating element very unlikely. Is control simply due to the pre-start conditions (the amount of hydrogen, nickel, geometry) and it runs out of control for a few hours? I think that Rossi actually could control the output power by modulating the heating element and water flow. He seems to go to great effort to prevent the device from being destroyed by thermal run away. One would think that a judicious choice of thermal resistance from the core to the heat sink would optimize his control. I would also expect the function of energy output versus temperature within the core is some non linear relationship that can be used for control as long as the energy output does not become too large and go into thermal run away and self destruction. Any advice on how the control works would be most interesting. Good luck with your endeavor. In any event, forget all the nonsense with his lousy engineering design and terrible business skills; few are good at all things. If Rossi has found a way to get the reaction going and produce significant excess energy, he has changed the world and should be recognized for this. You will be fortunate if you can keep everyone focused on the science instead of the politics. Dave
Re: [Vo]:Control Mechanism
The self sustaining mode as demonstrated basically is just a quasi exponentially damped energy source that cools down at its internally determined rate. It must be reheated to operational temperature. He once talked of using a duty cycle of power input followed by zero power input to keep it alive for extended times. Thanks Dave. I agree that the self sustaining mode follows some sort of damped curve and eventually goes below self-sustain threshold. However, I doubt this is due to a temperature tall and then reaheating can reset the reaction. If this was the case than simply varying water flow should keep the temperature high and the reaction continuous.It is hard to understand how if the ecat produces a high density of heat energy while running, letting it fall below some heat threshold and then reheating makes sense. That suggests that one heat is different in some way from the other heat. On Wed, Nov 9, 2011 at 12:19 PM, David Roberson dlrober...@aol.com wrote: From: Jeff Sutton jsutton.sudb...@gmail.com Hello. I have been following Rossi and the posts since the beginning and am very fascinated. Rather than a fraud, I believe Rossi is on to something incrementally better than those that came before. He has more success starting the reaction, however I think he has little control over it once started To that supposition, can others comment on how they believe control exists? (For discussion purpose, please suspend any thoughts that it is a scam.) 1. Rossi, with all his comments, seems to suggest that it takes time to heat up the ecat to get things started, however from the demonstrations, they do not seem to have started in any scheduled way. He does, however, seem to get the ecat started within a few hours give or take so that is fantastic. Actually, I think Rossi has a pre defined power up sequence. Review the data from the October 6 test and you will see method to his madness. A guess is that his procedure is to test individual units. 1. He has shown it in self-sustaining mode but always shuts it down after a few hours with some excuse. Why does he do that when the blockbuster note would be the ecat just keeps on going. I suggest this must mean that the ecat cannot just keep on running for 6 months has he notes; at least in self-sustaining mode. and if not in self-sustain mode, then what does he do to reset the reactor? Use his heating element? that makes no sense. Add Hydrogen? Again that makes no sense as he could put a regulator on this and do such automatically. What resets the operation? IMHO, Rossi does not want to reveal his trade secrets so easily. I agree with you that a long term driven test would prove to all skeptics that a large amount of excess power is generated. The self sustaining mode with just one core active is not the type of operation that is going to be in any final product without redesign of the device. It is optimized for 3 cores presently, but could be modified. The self sustaining mode as demonstrated basically is just a quasi exponentially damped energy source that cools down at its internally determined rate. It must be reheated to operational temperature. He once talked of using a duty cycle of power input followed by zero power input to keep it alive for extended times. 1. He noted in the 2nd to last demo that he had a frequency generator and it had been hidden all along, but in the last demo he notes there isn't one. Does this suggest that he was trying something new to help in start up or make it run longer? Or was this mis-direction? Where was this device or wires for it in previous tests? I think this was a form of mis-direction. 1. How does he control the reaction? His only control seems to be the heating element and the flow of water over the reactor. But in all experiments, until quenching, the water flow seemed to be constant. And one generating substantial heat, clearly controlling the reaction with a heating element very unlikely. Is control simply due to the pre-start conditions (the amount of hydrogen, nickel, geometry) and it runs out of control for a few hours? I think that Rossi actually could control the output power by modulating the heating element and water flow. He seems to go to great effort to prevent the device from being destroyed by thermal run away. One would think that a judicious choice of thermal resistance from the core to the heat sink would optimize his control. I would also expect the function of energy output versus temperature within the core is some non linear relationship that can be used for control as long as the energy output does not become too large and go into thermal run away and self destruction. Any advice on how the control works would be most interesting. Good luck with your endeavor. In any event, forget all the nonsense with
Re: [Vo]:Report On A Conversation With George Miley
On Wed, Nov 9, 2011 at 9:29 AM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com wrote: David ledin mathematic.analy...@gmail.com wrote: Report On A Conversation With George Miley http://e-catsite.com/2011/11/08/report-on-a-conversation-with-george-miley/ That looks impressive with the slides added. Oops. There is a typo: Although deloading is chemically endothermic, in some cases they have seen the heat increased during the loading. That is supposed to be: . . . .during deloading. The point is, you expect it cool down during deloading, but it sometimes heats up instead. I think Rossi's cell did this on Oct. 6. Has anyone ever noted an anomalous lack of warming or even a temporary cooling during loading? Harry
Re: [Vo]:Control Mechanism
On 11-11-09 11:21 AM, Jeff Sutton wrote: Hello. I have been following Rossi and the posts since the beginning and am very fascinated. Rather than a fraud, I believe Rossi is on to something incrementally better than those that came before. He has more success starting the reaction, however I think he has little control over it once started I'm not sure I can accept the statement that he has little control over it once it starts. If he has so little control, how does he hold the power generated to within better than 1% of the power needed to exactly vaporize all the input water? Note that the pump rate is fixed; it's not being adjusted to match the power level. This was demonstrated last spring, with output temps held to between 100 and 102C, and was demonstrated again on 28 October, with somewhat less exact but still very precise control of the output temperature. That speaks of extremely good control of the reaction rate, and, in fact, frequent adjustments of the rate in order to keep the water level within the reactor at an appropriate level, as Jed has pointed out a number of times.
Re: [Vo]:Minor progress
On 11-11-09 11:37 AM, David Roberson wrote: AG, I think that Horace is giving it a good effort to come up with a scheme to prove it is possible to simulate Rossi's results. That is OK as Rossi has done everything within his ability to confuse the data and leave himself open to serious doubt. I suspect that it is not a coincidence where the output power thermocouple was located. If Rossi had allowed us to have accurate output data, I could have reverse engineered his ECAT quite well. How would you determine what his secret catalyst is? Without that you'll likely be down by an order of magnitude or more from his power levels, and your reverse engineering effort would be a bust. Here's an analogy: If I gave you a catalytic converter from a car to test, and let you measure the temperatures going in and coming out and the gas composition going in and coming out, but you didn't know what was inside, would you be able to determine that it contained platinum and palladium from the thermal signature? I don't think so. Similarly, I don't see how you could figure out what Rossi's catalyst is, just from accurate thermal data.
Re: [Vo]:Control Mechanism
*The Rossi reactor has evolved over time and these changes inform how Rossi controls his reactor.* * * *Initially, Rossi had an internal heater whose function it was to produce exotic forms of hydrogen.* * * *It is these little known hydrogen assemblages that make the Rossi reactor work.* * * *In detail, the area around and very close to the internal heater produces hydrogen plasma.* * * *With the help of carbon doped with one of the alkaline elements (let us say potassium) also heated by the internal heater, a material call Rydberg matter is formed. This strange stuff is composed of potassium atoms (picked for the sake of explanation) and is formed when these excited alkaline atoms enter the colder regions of the hydrogen envelop just outside of the plasma region generated by the internal heater. This output from this secret catalyst quantum mechanically catalyzes another type of Rydberg matter made from hydrogen atoms through a quantum mechanical blockade process.* *Another type of hydrogen is also produced called a heavy Rydberg system. This consists of weakly bound positive and negative ions orbiting their common center of mass. Such systems share many properties with the conventional Rydberg atom and consequently are sometimes referred to as heavy Rydberg atoms. * * * *This stuff is what makes the Piantelli Reactor go.* * * *More specifically in the Piantelli system, a quasiparticle: a negative hydrogen ion 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.* * * *In the Rossi system, the negative hydrogen ions do damage by producing heat and radiation from nuclear reactions with nickel just as they do in the Piantelli system.* * * *In the Rossi reactor, when the temperature of the nickel powder is below the Curie point, these negative ions damage the coating of the micro powder and produce intense gamma radiation. * * * *When the temperature of the nickel powder is above the Curie point, the Rydberg matter mechanism takes over and dominates the negative ion mechanism which is essentially depressed.* * * *Later, Rossi added an external heater into his reactor design to get the nickel powder above the Curie point of nickel before the negative ion reaction takes place to any substantial intensity. * * * *This improvement has eliminated gamma bursts and powder damage during startup.* * * *To sum up, there are many different reactions involved in the class of phenomena commonly called cold fusion and some of them do not involve fusion at all.* * * *Next in the Rossi reaction, there is a very good chance that both the non-inverted Rydberg matter abbreviated as H(1) and the inverted Rydberg matter abbreviated as H(-1) are both coherent assemblages of around 100 atoms more or less and that the entanglement an coherence of these assemblages are determinative in the way both the H(1) and the H(-1) species behaves in the Rossi process.* * * *H(-1) is the excited state of H(1) where protons and electrons change places when sufficient kinetic energy is added to the H(1) species to form H(-1).* * * *The structure of these assemblages is like a stack of pancakes of 20 or so of hexagonal flattened atomic structures where the quantum mechanical states of all electrons in H(1) and protons in H(-1) are identical, synchronized and entangled.* * * *In effect, the Rydberg matter of all 100 or so atoms behave as if the entire assemblage was a single large atom defined by a single QM wave form. * * * *In a separate class of reactions studied by Miley and Arata where a deuterium isotope of hydrogen is used, it may be that IRM designated as D(-1) will produce nuclear fusion reactions as seen in the experiments with pynco deuterium by Yoshiaki ARATA Yue C. ZHANG. * * * *In these experiments, the grains of pynco-deuterium powder show complete melting in micrographs by the extreme heat of a nuclear reaction even though the powder is made of a mixture of palladium and zirconium oxide each with a very high melting point.* * * *Neutrons in the nucleus of the deuterium change the quantum mechanical nature of the IHR reaction. Fusion results and lends itself to a QM incompatibility between H and D reactions. * * * *Furthermore, this reaction uses palladium as a spill over catalyst to get deuterium into the lattice defects of the zirconium oxide powder or foil.* * * *On
Re: [Vo]:Control Mechanism
Good points. But then what is the control mechanism that does this? Surely not the water flow rate as that is typically constant, nor the heating element (especially with self-sustaining mode). Were there any other control boxes or wires that were never specified? Some mysterious frequency generator? On Wed, Nov 9, 2011 at 1:25 PM, Stephen A. Lawrence sa...@pobox.com wrote: On 11-11-09 11:21 AM, Jeff Sutton wrote: Hello. I have been following Rossi and the posts since the beginning and am very fascinated. Rather than a fraud, I believe Rossi is on to something incrementally better than those that came before. He has more success starting the reaction, however I think he has little control over it once started I'm not sure I can accept the statement that he has little control over it once it starts. If he has so little control, how does he hold the power generated to within better than 1% of the power needed to exactly vaporize all the input water? Note that the pump rate is fixed; it's not being adjusted to match the power level. This was demonstrated last spring, with output temps held to between 100 and 102C, and was demonstrated again on 28 October, with somewhat less exact but still very precise control of the output temperature. That speaks of extremely good control of the reaction rate, and, in fact, frequent adjustments of the rate in order to keep the water level within the reactor at an appropriate level, as Jed has pointed out a number of times.
Re: [Vo]:Minor progress
Stephen A. Lawrence sa...@pobox.com wrote: How would you determine what his secret catalyst is? Without that you'll likely be down by an order of magnitude or more from his power levels . . . That is correct. Probably you would get no heat at all. Similarly, I don't see how you could figure out what Rossi's catalyst is, just from accurate thermal data. I don't either. The nuclear signatures, on the other hand, might tell you everything you need to know. Assuming there are any. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:Control Mechanism
Jeff Sutton jsutton.sudb...@gmail.com wrote: He has shown it in self-sustaining mode but always shuts it down after a few hours with some excuse. Why does he do that when the blockbuster note would be the ecat just keeps on going. I suggest this must mean that the ecat cannot just keep on running for 6 months has he notes; at least in self-sustaining mode. . . . Did he say it can go 6 months in self-sustaining mode? I don't recall hearing that. He said that one of them ran for a year or so in Italy -- the address was listed in a patent. But I do not think it was self-sustaining the whole time. I don't know if it was self-sustaining at all. The data from that patent always shows some input power. Technologically, there is no point to a self-sustaining reaction. A reaction with a low level of input power to control it is better. Rossi has said lately that 6 hours is about the limit of a self sustaining reaction. The reasons are unclear. Maybe it peters out. Or does it go out of control? Who knows. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:Control Mechanism
You make some good points and we know that there are neat and as yet unknown processes at play. wrt *In detail, the area around and very close to the internal heater produces hydrogen plasma. * Great but why doesn't the heat produced by the reaction itself form more plasma? You are treating one heat different from the other, unless there is some geometry involved? 2011/11/9 Axil Axil janap...@gmail.com *The Rossi reactor has evolved over time and these changes inform how Rossi controls his reactor.* * * *Initially, Rossi had an internal heater whose function it was to produce exotic forms of hydrogen.* * * *It is these little known hydrogen assemblages that make the Rossi reactor work.* * * *In detail, the area around and very close to the internal heater produces hydrogen plasma.* * * *With the help of carbon doped with one of the alkaline elements (let us say potassium) also heated by the internal heater, a material call Rydberg matter is formed. This strange stuff is composed of potassium atoms (picked for the sake of explanation) and is formed when these excited alkaline atoms enter the colder regions of the hydrogen envelop just outside of the plasma region generated by the internal heater. This output from this secret catalyst quantum mechanically catalyzes another type of Rydberg matter made from hydrogen atoms through a quantum mechanical blockade process.* *Another type of hydrogen is also produced called a heavy Rydberg system. This consists of weakly bound positive and negative ions orbiting their common center of mass. Such systems share many properties with the conventional Rydberg atom and consequently are sometimes referred to as heavy Rydberg atoms. * * * *This stuff is what makes the Piantelli Reactor go.* * * *More specifically in the Piantelli system, a quasiparticle: a negative hydrogen ion 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 (ěCF). * * * *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.* * * *In the Rossi system, the negative hydrogen ions do damage by producing heat and radiation from nuclear reactions with nickel just as they do in the Piantelli system.* * * *In the Rossi reactor, when the temperature of the nickel powder is below the Curie point, these negative ions damage the coating of the micro powder and produce intense gamma radiation. * * * *When the temperature of the nickel powder is above the Curie point, the Rydberg matter mechanism takes over and dominates the negative ion mechanism which is essentially depressed.* * * *Later, Rossi added an external heater into his reactor design to get the nickel powder above the Curie point of nickel before the negative ion reaction takes place to any substantial intensity. * * * *This improvement has eliminated gamma bursts and powder damage during startup.* * * *To sum up, there are many different reactions involved in the class of phenomena commonly called cold fusion and some of them do not involve fusion at all.* * * *Next in the Rossi reaction, there is a very good chance that both the non-inverted Rydberg matter abbreviated as H(1) and the inverted Rydberg matter abbreviated as H(-1) are both coherent assemblages of around 100 atoms more or less and that the entanglement an coherence of these assemblages are determinative in the way both the H(1) and the H(-1) species behaves in the Rossi process.* * * *H(-1) is the excited state of H(1) where protons and electrons change places when sufficient kinetic energy is added to the H(1) species to form H(-1).* * * *The structure of these assemblages is like a stack of pancakes of 20 or so of hexagonal flattened atomic structures where the quantum mechanical states of all electrons in H(1) and protons in H(-1) are identical, synchronized and entangled.* * * *In effect, the Rydberg matter of all 100 or so atoms behave as if the entire assemblage was a single large atom defined by a single QM wave form. * * * *In a separate class of reactions studied by Miley and Arata where a deuterium isotope of hydrogen is used, it may be that IRM designated as D(-1) will produce nuclear fusion reactions as seen in the experiments with pynco deuterium by Yoshiaki ARATA Yue C. ZHANG. * * * *In these experiments, the grains of pynco-deuterium powder show complete melting in micrographs by the
Re: [Vo]:Control Mechanism
Agreed regarding self-sustaining time and there is something in the reactor that needs to be reset. I suggest however, that simply adding heat again cannot be it as that is saying one type of heat is different from the other. Is the heater a DC device or AC with some important frequency? On Wed, Nov 9, 2011 at 1:43 PM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com wrote: Jeff Sutton jsutton.sudb...@gmail.com wrote: He has shown it in self-sustaining mode but always shuts it down after a few hours with some excuse. Why does he do that when the blockbuster note would be the ecat just keeps on going. I suggest this must mean that the ecat cannot just keep on running for 6 months has he notes; at least in self-sustaining mode. . . . Did he say it can go 6 months in self-sustaining mode? I don't recall hearing that. He said that one of them ran for a year or so in Italy -- the address was listed in a patent. But I do not think it was self-sustaining the whole time. I don't know if it was self-sustaining at all. The data from that patent always shows some input power. Technologically, there is no point to a self-sustaining reaction. A reaction with a low level of input power to control it is better. Rossi has said lately that 6 hours is about the limit of a self sustaining reaction. The reasons are unclear. Maybe it peters out. Or does it go out of control? Who knows. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:Control Mechanism
*Great but why doesn't the heat produced by the reaction itself form more plasma? You are treating one heat different from the other, unless there is some geometry involved?* * * *Geometry is involved.* * * *I have always assumed that there is a space between the powder and the heater where there is only hydrogen. If there was no such insolation, the high heat of the internal heater would melt the powder.* * * *With this geometry, when the powder gets too hot, it makes its own exotic hydrogen species and a runaway reaction begins. * * * *The powder must be kept in an operational temperature range (goldilocks range) to function. To cold and the powder will be destroyed or to hot and the powder will burn up.* * * * * 2011/11/9 Jeff Sutton jsutton.sudb...@gmail.com You make some good points and we know that there are neat and as yet unknown processes at play. wrt *In detail, the area around and very close to the internal heater produces hydrogen plasma. * Great but why doesn't the heat produced by the reaction itself form more plasma? You are treating one heat different from the other, unless there is some geometry involved? 2011/11/9 Axil Axil janap...@gmail.com *The Rossi reactor has evolved over time and these changes inform how Rossi controls his reactor.* * * *Initially, Rossi had an internal heater whose function it was to produce exotic forms of hydrogen.* * * *It is these little known hydrogen assemblages that make the Rossi reactor work.* * * *In detail, the area around and very close to the internal heater produces hydrogen plasma.* * * *With the help of carbon doped with one of the alkaline elements (let us say potassium) also heated by the internal heater, a material call Rydberg matter is formed. This strange stuff is composed of potassium atoms (picked for the sake of explanation) and is formed when these excited alkaline atoms enter the colder regions of the hydrogen envelop just outside of the plasma region generated by the internal heater. This output from this secret catalyst quantum mechanically catalyzes another type of Rydberg matter made from hydrogen atoms through a quantum mechanical blockade process.* *Another type of hydrogen is also produced called a heavy Rydberg system. This consists of weakly bound positive and negative ions orbiting their common center of mass. Such systems share many properties with the conventional Rydberg atom and consequently are sometimes referred to as heavy Rydberg atoms. * * * *This stuff is what makes the Piantelli Reactor go.* * * *More specifically in the Piantelli system, a quasiparticle: a negative hydrogen ion 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 (ěCF). * * * *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.* * * *In the Rossi system, the negative hydrogen ions do damage by producing heat and radiation from nuclear reactions with nickel just as they do in the Piantelli system.* * * *In the Rossi reactor, when the temperature of the nickel powder is below the Curie point, these negative ions damage the coating of the micro powder and produce intense gamma radiation. * * * *When the temperature of the nickel powder is above the Curie point, the Rydberg matter mechanism takes over and dominates the negative ion mechanism which is essentially depressed.* * * *Later, Rossi added an external heater into his reactor design to get the nickel powder above the Curie point of nickel before the negative ion reaction takes place to any substantial intensity. * * * *This improvement has eliminated gamma bursts and powder damage during startup.* * * *To sum up, there are many different reactions involved in the class of phenomena commonly called cold fusion and some of them do not involve fusion at all.* * * *Next in the Rossi reaction, there is a very good chance that both the non-inverted Rydberg matter abbreviated as H(1) and the inverted Rydberg matter abbreviated as H(-1) are both coherent assemblages of around 100 atoms more or less and that the entanglement an coherence of these assemblages are determinative in the way both the H(1) and the H(-1) species behaves in the Rossi process.* * * *H(-1) is the excited state of H(1) where protons and electrons change places when sufficient kinetic energy is added to the H(1) species to form H(-1).* * * *The
Re: [Vo]:Control Mechanism
*If memory serves, someone on vortex saw that the internal heater was pulsed from looking at a movie of a scope either in the first or a very early demo.* * * *I would think that an alternating plasma would increase the production of Rydberg matter since RM condenses out of the plasma as the ions cool.* * * On Wed, Nov 9, 2011 at 1:54 PM, Jeff Sutton jsutton.sudb...@gmail.comwrote: Agreed regarding self-sustaining time and there is something in the reactor that needs to be reset. I suggest however, that simply adding heat again cannot be it as that is saying one type of heat is different from the other. Is the heater a DC device or AC with some important frequency? On Wed, Nov 9, 2011 at 1:43 PM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.comwrote: Jeff Sutton jsutton.sudb...@gmail.com wrote: He has shown it in self-sustaining mode but always shuts it down after a few hours with some excuse. Why does he do that when the blockbuster note would be the ecat just keeps on going. I suggest this must mean that the ecat cannot just keep on running for 6 months has he notes; at least in self-sustaining mode. . . . Did he say it can go 6 months in self-sustaining mode? I don't recall hearing that. He said that one of them ran for a year or so in Italy -- the address was listed in a patent. But I do not think it was self-sustaining the whole time. I don't know if it was self-sustaining at all. The data from that patent always shows some input power. Technologically, there is no point to a self-sustaining reaction. A reaction with a low level of input power to control it is better. Rossi has said lately that 6 hours is about the limit of a self sustaining reaction. The reasons are unclear. Maybe it peters out. Or does it go out of control? Who knows. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:Minor progress
2011/11/9 Horace Heffner hheff...@mtaonline.net: 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. If you think that there is a 30×30×30 cm³ black box (it was not mine impression, but my impression is based on indirect conclusion made that I do not remember anyone saying seen such a large black box inside), and you think that Rossi is an evil criminal and fraudster, then why do you cannot understand, that it is also trivial to fit internal chemical power source to 30×30×30 cm³ black box? Therefore your analysis is not only ridiculous it is mere wasting of time, because it is based solely on nonsensical speculations. It would be more productive for you to think how to fit 4-10 liters e.g. thermite inside 30×30×30 cm³ black box. –Jouni Ps. besides, your method does not explain observed gamma-radiation near E-Cat, that was reported someone how had their own Geiger counter in the Oct 6th demonstration.
[Vo]:Nifty futuristic-looking EV
In Japanese, but you can Google translate it: http://www.yomiuri.co.jp/atcars/news/2009-OYT8T00182.htm Photo: http://www.yomiuri.co.jp/zoom/2009-OYT9I00181.htm It features the ability to park itself after the passenger alights. You can call it from the parking lot with your cell phone. What will they think up next? Also shown here: http://evworld.com/news.cfm?newsid=26818 - Jed
[Vo]:OFF TOPIC Share of global GDP graph
U.S. down, China way up. See: http://www.slate.com/blogs/the_reckoning/2011/11/07/welcome_to_the_reckoning_a_blog_about_american_power_.html - Jed
RE: EXTERNAL: Re: [Vo]:Control Mechanism
I think this is all a matter of self sustain mode needing much finer control about a threshold point while powered mode can use a duty factor approach where the material is constantly being reset much further below threshold then pushed back into runaway every cycle. When he removes the high current heating pulse to enter self sustain mode he uses a low current pulse generator to keep the reaction under gentle control Rossi has already heated the powder to start the reaction and then established a very careful balance with heat extraction such that he only needs a little energy to start running away - extend the on time so the runaway supplies additional heat then let water flow extract the additional heat and bring the reaction out of runaway during the off period - obviously he must have a control loop that rapidly modifies the duty factor to fit the cooling flow rate since cooling rate can not be varied quickly enough. I previously assumed this system would require absolute uniformity in powder geometry to prevent hot spots but these systems are prone to self destruction and his procedure might just degrade these hotspots into the needed uniformity. IMHO the enabling geometry may occur frequently between nano materials but immediately self destructs as fast as it forms except when heat energy is being extracted to preserve it. Without heat extraction the Rossi material would give one rapid heat spike like some of the Rowan confirmations of the Black Light powders and be done. Fran From: Jeff Sutton [mailto:jsutton.sudb...@gmail.com] Sent: Wednesday, November 09, 2011 1:54 PM To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: EXTERNAL: Re: [Vo]:Control Mechanism Agreed regarding self-sustaining time and there is something in the reactor that needs to be reset. I suggest however, that simply adding heat again cannot be it as that is saying one type of heat is different from the other. Is the heater a DC device or AC with some important frequency? On Wed, Nov 9, 2011 at 1:43 PM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.commailto:jedrothw...@gmail.com wrote: Jeff Sutton jsutton.sudb...@gmail.commailto:jsutton.sudb...@gmail.com wrote: He has shown it in self-sustaining mode but always shuts it down after a few hours with some excuse. Why does he do that when the blockbuster note would be the ecat just keeps on going. I suggest this must mean that the ecat cannot just keep on running for 6 months has he notes; at least in self-sustaining mode. . . . Did he say it can go 6 months in self-sustaining mode? I don't recall hearing that. He said that one of them ran for a year or so in Italy -- the address was listed in a patent. But I do not think it was self-sustaining the whole time. I don't know if it was self-sustaining at all. The data from that patent always shows some input power. Technologically, there is no point to a self-sustaining reaction. A reaction with a low level of input power to control it is better. Rossi has said lately that 6 hours is about the limit of a self sustaining reaction. The reasons are unclear. Maybe it peters out. Or does it go out of control? Who knows. - Jed
RE: [Vo]:Control Mechanism
Heat a secondary effect ? Could the heater be a coil fed with sawtooth pulses to create collapsing magnetic fields that somehow promote the reactions ? QM wonderland ;) Non physicist speculation here... JG Moreau Date: Wed, 9 Nov 2011 14:29:56 -0500 Subject: Re: [Vo]:Control Mechanism From: janap...@gmail.com To: vortex-l@eskimo.com If memory serves, someone on vortex saw that the internal heater was pulsed from looking at a movie of a scope either in the first or a very early demo. I would think that an alternating plasma would increase the production of Rydberg matter since RM condenses out of the plasma as the ions cool. On Wed, Nov 9, 2011 at 1:54 PM, Jeff Sutton jsutton.sudb...@gmail.com wrote: Agreed regarding self-sustaining time and there is something in the reactor that needs to be reset. I suggest however, that simply adding heat again cannot be it as that is saying one type of heat is different from the other. Is the heater a DC device or AC with some important frequency? On Wed, Nov 9, 2011 at 1:43 PM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com wrote: Jeff Sutton jsutton.sudb...@gmail.com wrote: He has shown it in self-sustaining mode but always shuts it down after a few hours with some excuse. Why does he do that when the blockbuster note would be the ecat just keeps on going. I suggest this must mean that the ecat cannot just keep on running for 6 months has he notes; at least in self-sustaining mode. . . . Did he say it can go 6 months in self-sustaining mode? I don't recall hearing that. He said that one of them ran for a year or so in Italy -- the address was listed in a patent. But I do not think it was self-sustaining the whole time. I don't know if it was self-sustaining at all. The data from that patent always shows some input power. Technologically, there is no point to a self-sustaining reaction. A reaction with a low level of input power to control it is better. Rossi has said lately that 6 hours is about the limit of a self sustaining reaction. The reasons are unclear. Maybe it peters out. Or does it go out of control? Who knows. - Jed
[Vo]:Wright Brothers- First in Controlled Flight and Rossi , First in controlled Cold Fusion Reaction
Greetings Vortex, Rossi will go down in history in the control of cold fusion reaction, and perhaps this his patent forte. Respectfully, Ron Kita
[Vo]:How to download all files from a web site
Someone asked me how to download all files from LENR-CANR.org including the HTML screens. I recommend: http://www.webreaper.net/ Do not open more than three or four channels at a time or you may prevent others from accessing the site. This works well with any website that allows direct access to folders. You can also access folders directly such as: http://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/ http://lenr-canr.org/RossiData/ - Jed
Re: [Vo]:How to download all files from a web site
Jed Rothwell, First say that I have always appreciated Your postings here on vortex that often include interesting historical information on different related subjects. I have been following vortex-L since 1997 at the time when I worked together with a Norwegian inventor on a ³Low Temperature Accelerator² Were the energy source was gravitational fields² and that achieved exceptional results (between 130% and 200% efficiency) in the form of excess heat. Question: What Papers on Cold Fusion / LENR do you see as being the best we have in the field. The Papers that best stand up against any traditional critic, especially those that now are very critical to Rossi's work results on excess heat generation? Thank You. - Jorn-Erik On 09/11/2011 21:15, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com wrote: Someone asked me how to download all files from LENR-CANR.org including the HTML screens. I recommend: http://www.webreaper.net/ Do not open more than three or four channels at a time or you may prevent others from accessing the site. This works well with any website that allows direct access to folders. You can also access folders directly such as: http://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/ http://lenr-canr.org/RossiData/ - Jed
Re: [Vo]:Control Mechanism
Rossi has said that each of the 107 E-Cat reactor boxes in the 1 MW demo had a individual control system. Running in self sustain mode, with the heater not being activated, the only other wires going into the reactor box are those called RF as per the attachment. One would then assume these wires have something to do with controlling the reactor in self sustain mode. I also note that Fe was found in the analysed fuel sample. Was the Fe a ferrite powder and does Rossi use the RF wires to apply low frequency EM induction to the Fe / ferrite powder to somehow assist control of the speed / gain / of the reactor when running in self sustain mode? I see the E-Cat as a sort of a amplified on the verge of breaking into oscillation where in self sustain mode, with a output heat energy feedback into the input, gain must somehow be closely controlled less you get oscillation, while in heater applied mode, control is much easier as you can control the input heat via the heater energy. Maybe the Fe and the RF assist the self sustained mode control? Ferrites when moving up and down their BH curves do undergo slight physical dimensional changes. Can these ferrite shape changes cause the Ni nano powder, which I assume packs very densely, to alter the number of Ni atoms that are available to the H- ions? Assuming the Fe is a ferrite and it has a high permeability, this could create a lot of localized micro magnetic fields inside the packed Ni nano powder. I also note that Rossi said the genset was running because of safety. Did he mean that if one of the E-Cats, running in high gain self sustain mode got out of control, he would then drop the reactor gain, dropping them out of self sustain mode and switch back to heater mode to regain control of all the E-Cats? Somehow Rossi seems to be able to control the gain of the reaction and in heater mode run at a lower reactor gain with external heat applied (more safety as he seems to imply) and when self sustain mode is required, which he does not seem to like, (maybe he has seen 1 too many reactor melt downs) boost the gain so as to use the generated heat as input to the reaction but at the risk of a run away reactor. Rossi did say that the reason he limited the 1 MW visitors to 2 was because of the time it would take to evacuate the reactor room if something went wrong. I do suggest Rossi has seen these reactors go very wrong and was generally worried about visitor safety. Just some thoughts from down under. AG On 11/10/2011 2:51 AM, Jeff Sutton wrote: Hello. I have been following Rossi and the posts since the beginning and am very fascinated. Rather than a fraud, I believe Rossi is on to something incrementally better than those that came before. He has more success starting the reaction, however I think he has little control over it once started To that supposition, can others comment on how they believe control exists? (For discussion purpose, please suspend any thoughts that it is a scam.) 1. Rossi, with all his comments, seems to suggest that it takes time to heat up the ecat to get things started, however from the demonstrations, they do not seem to have started in any scheduled way. He does, however, seem to get the ecat started within a few hours give or take so that is fantastic. 2. He has shown it in self-sustaining mode but always shuts it down after a few hours with some excuse. Why does he do that when the blockbuster note would be the ecat just keeps on going. I suggest this must mean that the ecat cannot just keep on running for 6 months has he notes; at least in self-sustaining mode. and if not in self-sustain mode, then what does he do to reset the reactor? Use his heating element? that makes no sense. Add Hydrogen? Again that makes no sense as he could put a regulator on this and do such automatically. What resets the operation? 3. He noted in the 2nd to last demo that he had a frequency generator and it had been hidden all along, but in the last demo he notes there isn't one. Does this suggest that he was trying something new to help in start up or make it run longer? Or was this mis-direction? Where was this device or wires for it in previous tests? 4. How does he control the reaction? His only control seems to be the heating element and the flow of water over the reactor. But in all experiments, until quenching, the water flow seemed to be constant. And one generating substantial heat, clearly controlling the reaction with a heating element very unlikely. Is contol simply due to the pre-start conditions (the amount of hydrogen, nickel, geometry) and it runs out of control for a few hours? Any advice on how the control works would be most interesting. In any event, forget all the nonsense with his lousy engineering design and terrible business skills; few are good at all things.
Re: [Vo]:Minor progress
Dave you have made some good points and I will do as you suggest. AG On 11/10/2011 3:07 AM, David Roberson wrote: AG, I think that Horace is giving it a good effort to come up with a scheme to prove it is possible to simulate Rossi's results. That is OK as Rossi has done everything within his ability to confuse the data and leave himself open to serious doubt. I suspect that it is not a coincidence where the output power thermocouple was located. If Rossi had allowed us to have accurate output data, I could have reverse engineered his ECAT quite well. There are others who would wish to duplicate his device and produce them, but that is not my intent. As an example, I am confident that there exists a well defined function of vapor output power versus ECAT temperature reading T2. With this information, it would be simple to calculate the exact power output at every point in time and thus the true COP. Rossi must have this relationship in order to conduct his testing of individual modules. Even the power up sequence he uses is part of his testing. I have conducted a number of reviews of the data supplied during the October 6 test and can see his intent. I suggest that you look over a the detailed, smooth graph of T2 versus Time using all of the data points. If you do, you will see a treasure trove of data to mine. Dave -Original Message- From: Aussie Guy E-Cat aussieguy.e...@gmail.com To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Wed, Nov 9, 2011 5:14 am Subject: Re: [Vo]:Minor progress I will read your information. I do apologize for assuming you were a LENR denier. But mate, values in the inside box to do a fraud? Maybe a bit much. AG On 11/9/2011 7:21 PM, Horace Heffner wrote: On Nov 8, 2011, at 10:35 PM, Aussie Guy E-Cat wrote: 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. Not true. It is not I who is making the claims. I merely intend to show some of the arguments put forth here that the data provided indicate Rossi's clamis have to be real are false. If the data can be reproduced with a device which produces no nuclear energy, whether that device actually exists or not, then it should be pretty obvious the data does not support Rossi's claims. I am advocating for better testing procedures. The actual existence or not of my simulated device is irrelevant. The important point is the quality of the data. I made suggestions in my report for specific ways to improve the quality of the data. I am not alone in this. Many other people have suggested numerous similar things over recent months. Rossi's behavior is potentially seriously damaging the future of LENR research and the future of billions of people. I think it is important to speak out about this. 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. I have the right. In fact exercised it. 8^) Your statement made no sense at all. You wrote: ... water steam occur in the outer box as the Higgins drawing suggests and not inside the reactor core as you suggest. The observation that ... water steam occur in the outer box... does not preclude in any way that water and steam can occur in the inner box under limited control. You made an erroneous inference, a logic error. It makes no sense. You also grossly underestimate my understanding of the structure of the E-cat in question. As a point of interest do you accept the significant and long term reports of excess heat generation in Ni-H LENR cells? If you knew anything of my history, or looked at my web site, you would know I am an LENR advocate and experimenter, and that I accept that some experimental reports of light water excess heat are likely correct. I have done some experimenting myself and put forth some amateur theories: http://www.mtaonline.net/~hheffner/CFnuclearReactions.pdf http://www.mtaonline.net/%7Ehheffner/CFnuclearReactions.pdf http://www.mtaonline.net/~hheffner/dfRpt http://www.mtaonline.net/%7Ehheffner/dfRpt http://www.mtaonline.net/~hheffner/DeflationFusion.pdf http://www.mtaonline.net/%7Ehheffner/DeflationFusion.pdf The question in my mind is not whether LENR exists, but rather whether any evidence exits at all that supports Rossi's claims of commercially viable nuclear energy production. These are two very different things. If not why? If yes then why do you doubt Rossi? I see Rossi as potentially the biggest threat to the field that has ever come along. I also think I made fairly clear in my data review my position with regard to the 6 October 2011 test I have been addressing of late: http://www.mtaonline.net/~hheffner/Rossi6Oct2011Review.pdf
[Vo]:Two recent Lattice Energy (Widom-Larsen) LENR presentations
A couple of recent Widom-Larsen LENR presentations are at: Lattice Energy LLC- Mystery of the Missing Nickel and Vanadium-Nov 6 2011 http://www.slideshare.net/lewisglarsen/lattice-energy-lcc-mystery-of-the-missing-nickel-and-vanadiumnov-6-2011 Lattice Energy LLC Company Vision-September 11 2011 http://www.slideshare.net/lewisglarsen/lattice-energy-llc-company-visionseptember-11-2011
Re: [Vo]:Two recent Lattice Energy (Widom-Larsen) LENR presentations
I omitted this recent Widom-Larsen LENR presentation: Lattice Energy LLC-'Facts' about W-L Theory and LENRS-Oct 20 2011 http://www.slideshare.net/lewisglarsen/lattice-energy-llc-facts-about-wl-theory-and-len-rsoct-20-2011
Re: [Vo]:Re: Rossi: NO MORE TESTS and other stuff (revisited)
Andrea Rossi November 9th, 2011 at 2:47 PM Dear UClaimExcessEnergy: Again lecturing about tests !!! We receive 5 to 10 proposals per day to make tests around the world, most of them from competitors, of course. Please, read carefully: 1- we made all the tests we had to make 2- no more public tests will be made, the phase of public tests is over for us 3- we now are no more making test-prototypes, but industrial products 4- the tests of our E-Cats from now on will be made exclusively by our Customers 5- all our next work with Universities (Bologna, Uppsala) will not be public, but restricted and confidential Research and Development activity. Warm Regards, Andrea Rossi
Re: [Vo]:How to download all files from a web site
Jorn Erik Ommang j...@enerley.com wrote: Question: What Papers on Cold Fusion / LENR do you see as being the best we have in the field. Ahem . . . I would like to evade that question, if I might. I think these papers express the views of most mainstream researchers in this field: http://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/NagelDJscientific.pdf http://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/StormsEwhatisbeli.pdf http://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/Hagelsteinnewphysica.pdf The papers referenced in this paper are listed here. Many can be downloaded: http://lenr-canr.org/Collections/DoeReview.htm http://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/NagelDJproceeding.pdf (introduction) - Jed
[Vo]:Physorg comments
See: http://www.physorg.com/news/2011-11-rossi-e-cat-customers.html
Re: [Vo]:Physorg comments
Am 09.11.2011 23:16, schrieb Jed Rothwell: See: http://www.physorg.com/news/2011-11-rossi-e-cat-customers.html New unknown customers shouldnt be a major problem. Sterling D. Allan should be able to aquire them, as he was able for Mike Bradys magnet motors.
Re: [Vo]:Minor progress
First let me correct an earlier statement in this thread. In regards to the pipe conduits to the interior box from the front of the outer box I said: There are actually four: 1 water, 1 gas, 2 for frequency generator input. That was meant to say: There are actually four: 1 gas, 1 main power, and 2 for frequency generator input. I think it is especially odd that the two frequency generator conduits, one above the interior box flanges, one below, are 1 1/4 inch pipe, while the conduit for the main power is only 1 pipe. It seems reasonable to speculate as to what might require, and be located inside, the large pipes. On Nov 9, 2011, at 10:35 AM, Jouni Valkonen wrote: 2011/11/9 Horace Heffner hheff...@mtaonline.net: 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. I am responding to this post only because words I did not issue have been put in my mouth. If you think that there is a 30×30×30 cm³ black box Black is your wording, not mine, in relation to color. Those dimensions came from Mats Lewan's report which I reference in my paper: http://www.mtaonline.net/~hheffner/Rossi6Oct2011Review.pdf I also determined from the photos that the actual dimension is closer to 30.3 cm. Any reference to a black box I might have made in my writing was not literal, but I don't recall referring to the interior box as black. The color might be called rusty dirty scale deposited on aluminum. (it was not mine impression, but my impression is based on indirect conclusion made that I do not remember anyone saying seen such a large black box inside), If you had read my paper you would have seen a photograph appended of the 30x30x30 cm interior box, with sealed pipe fittings going into it from the front of the larger box. and you think that Rossi is an evil criminal and fraudster, I did not at any time say that. Those are your words, not mine. It is you who repeatedly jumps to the fraud conclusion, not me. Fraud or self delusion are of course possibilities I recognize, as do many others, especially given Rossi's inability numerous times to provide anything other than highly flawed calorimetry data, or refusal to admit the importance of such mundane scientific concepts as controls, etc. The lives of billions of people are affected by Rossi's actions now, regardless the outcome. Why will he never make the tiny incremental effort required to properly demonstrate he produces nuclear heat? If he does not give a damn about the rest of the world, only his marketing strategy, then that indeed does not speak highly of his morality, does it? His bizarre behavior raises logical questions. Has he no faith in himself to produce his claimed results? Has his discovery gone the way of Patterson's beads? Are his results now merely amplified artifacts, or insufficient to be commercially viable? Is he unable to run for multiple days, much less multiple months as claimed? Only Rossi himself is responsible for creating these doubts. What I *would* be happy to do is show the possibility that a logical construction can produce the observed results. Given the 37% extra output heat that I mistakenly built into my spread sheet by biasing the temperature, it does not take an unfeasible error in the Tout reading to accommodate a good match of result by simulation. Given it is not even known for sure the Tout thermocouple was in direct contact with metal, this is not a far reach. However, if I could show even a possible fraud based mechanism exists which simulates the results with the given inputs, that would be sufficient to demonstrate the calorimetry requires improving. It should be sufficient to quell at least some of the ridiculous non-quantitative arm waving true believer arguments made here, but probably won't. You do see the difference between calling Rossi an evil criminal fraudster and showing a logical mechanism exists which reproduces the experiment outputs given only the experiment inputs, don't you? The purpose for the latter is to provide some motivation or justification for a customer demand for appropriate due diligence. The former would serve no purpose. Many people in the blogosphere have said or implied the E-cat is a fraud, so the former would be useless, in addition to being unsubstantiated arm waving. then why do you cannot understand, that it is also trivial to fit internal chemical power source to 30×30×30 cm³ black box? If you had read my paper, especially the section CHARACTERISTICS OF THE CENTRAL MASS you would have understood. There is a logical explanation for using slabs of material to retain and stabilize heat. Thin layers of insulation can be placed between the iron and the catalyst, and the catalyst and the water,
Re: [Vo]:Re: Rossi: NO MORE TESTS and other stuff (revisited)
Rossi wrote: Again lecturing about tests !!! We receive 5 to 10 proposals per day to make tests around the world, most of them from competitors, of course. Please, read carefully: 1- we made all the tests we had to make 2- no more public tests will be made, the phase of public tests is over for us This is what he has been saying all along. No change in his policy. It is a shame. People such as Mary Yugo see this as proof that he is a scammer. I see this as proof that he is a businessman. A small businessman, with a private corporation, who has no grasp of how to deal with a potentially gigantic worldwide market worth ~$1 trillion a year. As someone here remarked, he is treating this like some guy who has come up with an improved formula for automobile window washing fluid, and he's manufacturing cases of the stuff and stockpiling them in a warehouse, hoping to ratchet up to a few million dollars in sales. The notion that you can succeed with a revolutionary industrial technology using small-town shoe-store business strategies seems ridiculous to me. If Rossi succeeds it will be thanks to the overwhelming benefits of his product, and despite his business strategy. Yugo and others seem to think that Rossi is suspicious because his main goal is making money. This is an ivory tower view. I see nothing wrong with making money. If he becomes the first trillionaire I will say he deserves every dollar. My problem with Rossi's strategy is that I do not think it will work. I fear he will soon be reverse-engineered by various corporations, especially in China where they have little regard for intellectual property, and he will end up with nothing. This is not only my opinion. Every businessman I have discussed this with agrees with me. I will grant that he is in a tough position. I do not think he can get a patent outside of Italy. It is difficult to map out a successful strategy without a patent. I wouldn't know how to do it. But I do not see how his present strategy can help. I advised him to concentrate on getting a patent, rather than building a 1 MW reactor or trying to bootstrap a business. Perhaps he did take steps to file a new patent; I wouldn't know. 5- all our next work with Universities (Bologna, Uppsala) will not be public, but restricted and confidential Research and Development activity. No public university should accept such a contract, in my opinion. It violates academic ethics. It does not violate business ethics. If he wants secret RD he should go to the private sector. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:Minor progress
2011/11/10 Horace Heffner hheff...@mtaonline.net: (it was not mine impression, but my impression is based on indirect conclusion made that I do not remember anyone saying seen such a large black box inside), If you had read my paper you would have seen a photograph appended of the 30x30x30 cm interior box, with sealed pipe fittings going into it from the front of the larger box. This cannot be right, because Rossi explicitly forbid to take any pictures or video footage from interior that was examined using flashlights. Therefore you cannot rely on pictures, but you must interview those who examined the interiors of E-Cat. –Jouni
Re: [Vo]:Minor progress
Horace Heffner hheff...@mtaonline.net wrote: Fraud or self delusion are of course possibilities I recognize, as do many others, especially given Rossi's inability numerous times to provide anything other than highly flawed calorimetry data, or refusal to admit the importance of such mundane scientific concepts as controls, etc. The lives of billions of people are affected by Rossi's actions now, regardless the outcome. Why will he never make the tiny incremental effort required to properly demonstrate he produces nuclear heat? That's a little unfair. Assume for a moment that Rossi really does have a customer and that Fioravanti is a real HVAC engineer hired by the customer. In that case he has done everything right. You cannot ask for better test than an industrial scale professional boiler test. I think it comes down to a few simple questions: Is Fioravanti who he claims to be? Is that sheet of paper he signed what it appears to be -- a sales contract test acceptance report? If so, then Rossi has done exactly what he claimed he would to all long. No one can fault his business-first approach. The fact that he does not do academic science-style tests with proper controls and so on is irrelevant. A professional boiler test is *far more convincing* and more relevant. As I have often pointed out, HVAC engineers have completely different standards from physicists in academic laboratories. Engineers do not do blank experiments. They do not do controls. That is not part of their protocol. Asking them to do such things is ridiculous. Do not impose the standards of academic science on industrial engineering, or vice versa. The two are very different, for good reasons. What works well in a science lab may not work in a factory. Rossi is an industrial engineer. He makes large machines. Fioravanti tests large machines (assuming he is for real). It makes no sense to demand they use methods appropriate to the lab bench top. As I said, I do not fault his business first-approach. I wish he would pursue business and money more aggressively on a larger scale. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:Control Mechanism
Thank you and nice thoughts regarding control/gain. I had missed the RF wires. On Wed, Nov 9, 2011 at 4:33 PM, Aussie Guy E-Cat aussieguy.e...@gmail.comwrote: Rossi has said that each of the 107 E-Cat reactor boxes in the 1 MW demo had a individual control system. Running in self sustain mode, with the heater not being activated, the only other wires going into the reactor box are those called RF as per the attachment. One would then assume these wires have something to do with controlling the reactor in self sustain mode. I also note that Fe was found in the analysed fuel sample. Was the Fe a ferrite powder and does Rossi use the RF wires to apply low frequency EM induction to the Fe / ferrite powder to somehow assist control of the speed / gain / of the reactor when running in self sustain mode? I see the E-Cat as a sort of a amplified on the verge of breaking into oscillation where in self sustain mode, with a output heat energy feedback into the input, gain must somehow be closely controlled less you get oscillation, while in heater applied mode, control is much easier as you can control the input heat via the heater energy. Maybe the Fe and the RF assist the self sustained mode control? Ferrites when moving up and down their BH curves do undergo slight physical dimensional changes. Can these ferrite shape changes cause the Ni nano powder, which I assume packs very densely, to alter the number of Ni atoms that are available to the H- ions? Assuming the Fe is a ferrite and it has a high permeability, this could create a lot of localized micro magnetic fields inside the packed Ni nano powder. I also note that Rossi said the genset was running because of safety. Did he mean that if one of the E-Cats, running in high gain self sustain mode got out of control, he would then drop the reactor gain, dropping them out of self sustain mode and switch back to heater mode to regain control of all the E-Cats? Somehow Rossi seems to be able to control the gain of the reaction and in heater mode run at a lower reactor gain with external heat applied (more safety as he seems to imply) and when self sustain mode is required, which he does not seem to like, (maybe he has seen 1 too many reactor melt downs) boost the gain so as to use the generated heat as input to the reaction but at the risk of a run away reactor. Rossi did say that the reason he limited the 1 MW visitors to 2 was because of the time it would take to evacuate the reactor room if something went wrong. I do suggest Rossi has seen these reactors go very wrong and was generally worried about visitor safety. Just some thoughts from down under. AG On 11/10/2011 2:51 AM, Jeff Sutton wrote: Hello. I have been following Rossi and the posts since the beginning and am very fascinated. Rather than a fraud, I believe Rossi is on to something incrementally better than those that came before. He has more success starting the reaction, however I think he has little control over it once started To that supposition, can others comment on how they believe control exists? (For discussion purpose, please suspend any thoughts that it is a scam.) 1. Rossi, with all his comments, seems to suggest that it takes time to heat up the ecat to get things started, however from the demonstrations, they do not seem to have started in any scheduled way. He does, however, seem to get the ecat started within a few hours give or take so that is fantastic. 2. He has shown it in self-sustaining mode but always shuts it down after a few hours with some excuse. Why does he do that when the blockbuster note would be the ecat just keeps on going. I suggest this must mean that the ecat cannot just keep on running for 6 months has he notes; at least in self-sustaining mode. and if not in self-sustain mode, then what does he do to reset the reactor? Use his heating element? that makes no sense. Add Hydrogen? Again that makes no sense as he could put a regulator on this and do such automatically. What resets the operation? 3. He noted in the 2nd to last demo that he had a frequency generator and it had been hidden all along, but in the last demo he notes there isn't one. Does this suggest that he was trying something new to help in start up or make it run longer? Or was this mis-direction? Where was this device or wires for it in previous tests? 4. How does he control the reaction? His only control seems to be the heating element and the flow of water over the reactor. But in all experiments, until quenching, the water flow seemed to be constant. And one generating substantial heat, clearly controlling the reaction with a heating element very unlikely. Is contol simply due to the pre-start conditions (the amount of hydrogen, nickel, geometry) and it runs out of control for a few hours? Any advice on how
Re: [Vo]:Minor progress
I might suggest that the 2 RF wires maybe multicore shielded cable. If it was just 2 wires, why would Rossi need 2 penetration in the outer and inner box? Way too many holes to seal against leaks. One cable may be input and the other output, which are separated into 2 cables to reduce cross talk in the reactor's control circuits? Rossi does refer to his reactor as an Amplifier and every amplifier I know or have designed needs gain control and uses feedback. He has said each E-Cat module has it's own control and that the control panel was mounted on the outside of the container as it got too hot inside. Was there a control panel mounted on the off camera side of the container? If so does anyone have photos of the control panel? AG On 11/10/2011 9:18 AM, Horace Heffner wrote: First let me correct an earlier statement in this thread. In regards to the pipe conduits to the interior box from the front of the outer box I said: There are actually four: 1 water, 1 gas, 2 for frequency generator input. That was meant to say: There are actually four: 1 gas, 1 main power, and 2 for frequency generator input. I think it is especially odd that the two frequency generator conduits, one above the interior box flanges, one below, are 1 1/4 inch pipe, while the conduit for the main power is only 1 pipe. It seems reasonable to speculate as to what might require, and be located inside, the large pipes. On Nov 9, 2011, at 10:35 AM, Jouni Valkonen wrote: 2011/11/9 Horace Heffner hheff...@mtaonline.net: 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. I am responding to this post only because words I did not issue have been put in my mouth. If you think that there is a 30×30×30 cm³ black box Black is your wording, not mine, in relation to color. Those dimensions came from Mats Lewan's report which I reference in my paper: http://www.mtaonline.net/~hheffner/Rossi6Oct2011Review.pdf I also determined from the photos that the actual dimension is closer to 30.3 cm. Any reference to a black box I might have made in my writing was not literal, but I don't recall referring to the interior box as black. The color might be called rusty dirty scale deposited on aluminum. (it was not mine impression, but my impression is based on indirect conclusion made that I do not remember anyone saying seen such a large black box inside), If you had read my paper you would have seen a photograph appended of the 30x30x30 cm interior box, with sealed pipe fittings going into it from the front of the larger box. and you think that Rossi is an evil criminal and fraudster, I did not at any time say that. Those are your words, not mine. It is you who repeatedly jumps to the fraud conclusion, not me. Fraud or self delusion are of course possibilities I recognize, as do many others, especially given Rossi's inability numerous times to provide anything other than highly flawed calorimetry data, or refusal to admit the importance of such mundane scientific concepts as controls, etc. The lives of billions of people are affected by Rossi's actions now, regardless the outcome. Why will he never make the tiny incremental effort required to properly demonstrate he produces nuclear heat? If he does not give a damn about the rest of the world, only his marketing strategy, then that indeed does not speak highly of his morality, does it? His bizarre behavior raises logical questions. Has he no faith in himself to produce his claimed results? Has his discovery gone the way of Patterson's beads? Are his results now merely amplified artifacts, or insufficient to be commercially viable? Is he unable to run for multiple days, much less multiple months as claimed? Only Rossi himself is responsible for creating these doubts. What I *would* be happy to do is show the possibility that a logical construction can produce the observed results. Given the 37% extra output heat that I mistakenly built into my spread sheet by biasing the temperature, it does not take an unfeasible error in the Tout reading to accommodate a good match of result by simulation. Given it is not even known for sure the Tout thermocouple was in direct contact with metal, this is not a far reach. However, if I could show even a possible fraud based mechanism exists which simulates the results with the given inputs, that would be sufficient to demonstrate the calorimetry requires improving. It should be sufficient to quell at least some of the ridiculous non-quantitative arm waving true believer arguments made here, but probably won't. You do see the difference between calling Rossi an evil criminal fraudster and showing a logical mechanism exists which reproduces the experiment outputs given only the experiment inputs, don't you? The purpose for the
Re: [Vo]:Minor progress
Seems someone did manage to click a few photos anyway. AG On 11/10/2011 9:38 AM, Jouni Valkonen wrote: 2011/11/10 Horace Heffnerhheff...@mtaonline.net: (it was not mine impression, but my impression is based on indirect conclusion made that I do not remember anyone saying seen such a large black box inside), If you had read my paper you would have seen a photograph appended of the 30x30x30 cm interior box, with sealed pipe fittings going into it from the front of the larger box. This cannot be right, because Rossi explicitly forbid to take any pictures or video footage from interior that was examined using flashlights. Therefore you cannot rely on pictures, but you must interview those who examined the interiors of E-Cat. –Jouni
Re: [Vo]:Minor progress
I don't doubt that Rossi has something new and fantastic, and I don't doubt that he is eccentric in some way as are most of us and this explains some of the nonsensical things. I also believe he is quite intelligent. But the only way to think that his process makes any business-first approach is that he has still something to hide. It could be he is missing something to do with control of the reaction, or he has no new art for his patent; someone else has beaten him to it. Think if everything was normal. Ross could arrange an independent demo(s) in front of reputable persons. From that he could explain what he does in a patent application and it would be granted. He would win the Nobel price and untold fortune. His current approach seems silly and I dont think he is a silly man. On Wed, Nov 9, 2011 at 6:18 PM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com wrote: Horace Heffner hheff...@mtaonline.net wrote: Fraud or self delusion are of course possibilities I recognize, as do many others, especially given Rossi's inability numerous times to provide anything other than highly flawed calorimetry data, or refusal to admit the importance of such mundane scientific concepts as controls, etc. The lives of billions of people are affected by Rossi's actions now, regardless the outcome. Why will he never make the tiny incremental effort required to properly demonstrate he produces nuclear heat? That's a little unfair. Assume for a moment that Rossi really does have a customer and that Fioravanti is a real HVAC engineer hired by the customer. In that case he has done everything right. You cannot ask for better test than an industrial scale professional boiler test. I think it comes down to a few simple questions: Is Fioravanti who he claims to be? Is that sheet of paper he signed what it appears to be -- a sales contract test acceptance report? If so, then Rossi has done exactly what he claimed he would to all long. No one can fault his business-first approach. The fact that he does not do academic science-style tests with proper controls and so on is irrelevant. A professional boiler test is *far more convincing* and more relevant. As I have often pointed out, HVAC engineers have completely different standards from physicists in academic laboratories. Engineers do not do blank experiments. They do not do controls. That is not part of their protocol. Asking them to do such things is ridiculous. Do not impose the standards of academic science on industrial engineering, or vice versa. The two are very different, for good reasons. What works well in a science lab may not work in a factory. Rossi is an industrial engineer. He makes large machines. Fioravanti tests large machines (assuming he is for real). It makes no sense to demand they use methods appropriate to the lab bench top. As I said, I do not fault his business first-approach. I wish he would pursue business and money more aggressively on a larger scale. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:Minor progress
What if the patent theory is wrong and Piantelli or W-L is right? Would he then be left with no protection other than trade secrets? I do note he is seeking non disclosed uni research help as he tries to get them to help him understand how his reactor really works. I don't envy Rossi, knowing he may have no IP protection, not really understand how the reaction works but wanting to make money from his multi year efforts. Also the latest, NO MORE TESTS, says bugger off all you who seek to understand what is going on, you will get NO more information to help you figure this out. Rossi is between a rock and a hard place. AG On 11/10/2011 9:59 AM, Jeff Sutton wrote: I don't doubt that Rossi has something new and fantastic, and I don't doubt that he is eccentric in some way as are most of us and this explains some of the nonsensical things. I also believe he is quite intelligent. But the only way to think that his process makes any business-first approach is that he has still something to hide. It could be he is missing something to do with control of the reaction, or he has no new art for his patent; someone else has beaten him to it. Think if everything was normal. Ross could arrange an independent demo(s) in front of reputable persons. From that he could explain what he does in a patent application and it would be granted. He would win the Nobel price and untold fortune. His current approach seems silly and I dont think he is a silly man. On Wed, Nov 9, 2011 at 6:18 PM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com mailto:jedrothw...@gmail.com wrote: Horace Heffner hheff...@mtaonline.net mailto:hheff...@mtaonline.net wrote: Fraud or self delusion are of course possibilities I recognize, as do many others, especially given Rossi's inability numerous times to provide anything other than highly flawed calorimetry data, or refusal to admit the importance of such mundane scientific concepts as controls, etc. The lives of billions of people are affected by Rossi's actions now, regardless the outcome. Why will he never make the tiny incremental effort required to properly demonstrate he produces nuclear heat? That's a little unfair. Assume for a moment that Rossi really does have a customer and that Fioravanti is a real HVAC engineer hired by the customer. In that case he has done everything right. You cannot ask for better test than an industrial scale professional boiler test. I think it comes down to a few simple questions: Is Fioravanti who he claims to be? Is that sheet of paper he signed what it appears to be -- a sales contract test acceptance report? If so, then Rossi has done exactly what he claimed he would to all long. No one can fault his business-first approach. The fact that he does not do academic science-style tests with proper controls and so on is irrelevant. A professional boiler test is _far more convincing_ and more relevant. As I have often pointed out, HVAC engineers have completely different standards from physicists in academic laboratories. Engineers do not do blank experiments. They do not do controls. That is not part of their protocol. Asking them to do such things is ridiculous. Do not impose the standards of academic science on industrial engineering, or vice versa. The two are very different, for good reasons. What works well in a science lab may not work in a factory. Rossi is an industrial engineer. He makes large machines. Fioravanti tests large machines (assuming he is for real). It makes no sense to demand they use methods appropriate to the lab bench top. As I said, I do not fault his business first-approach. I wish he would pursue business and money more aggressively on a larger scale. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:Minor progress
requency generator inout? Is there any more info on that? I can tell you one thing- the power company is not going to be too happy with Rossi or whoever runs one of these things when they find out they are meter cheaters! - Original Message - From: Horace Heffner hheff...@mtaonline.net To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Wednesday, November 09, 2011 5:48 PM Subject: Re: [Vo]:Minor progress First let me correct an earlier statement in this thread. In regards to the pipe conduits to the interior box from the front of the outer box I said: There are actually four: 1 water, 1 gas, 2 for frequency generator input. That was meant to say: There are actually four: 1 gas, 1 main power, and 2 for frequency generator input. I think it is especially odd that the two frequency generator conduits, one above the interior box flanges, one below, are 1 1/4 inch pipe, while the conduit for the main power is only 1 pipe. It seems reasonable to speculate as to what might require, and be located inside, the large pipes. On Nov 9, 2011, at 10:35 AM, Jouni Valkonen wrote: 2011/11/9 Horace Heffner hheff...@mtaonline.net: 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. I am responding to this post only because words I did not issue have been put in my mouth. If you think that there is a 30×30×30 cm³ black box Black is your wording, not mine, in relation to color. Those dimensions came from Mats Lewan's report which I reference in my paper: http://www.mtaonline.net/~hheffner/Rossi6Oct2011Review.pdf I also determined from the photos that the actual dimension is closer to 30.3 cm. Any reference to a black box I might have made in my writing was not literal, but I don't recall referring to the interior box as black. The color might be called rusty dirty scale deposited on aluminum. (it was not mine impression, but my impression is based on indirect conclusion made that I do not remember anyone saying seen such a large black box inside), If you had read my paper you would have seen a photograph appended of the 30x30x30 cm interior box, with sealed pipe fittings going into it from the front of the larger box. and you think that Rossi is an evil criminal and fraudster, I did not at any time say that. Those are your words, not mine. It is you who repeatedly jumps to the fraud conclusion, not me. Fraud or self delusion are of course possibilities I recognize, as do many others, especially given Rossi's inability numerous times to provide anything other than highly flawed calorimetry data, or refusal to admit the importance of such mundane scientific concepts as controls, etc. The lives of billions of people are affected by Rossi's actions now, regardless the outcome. Why will he never make the tiny incremental effort required to properly demonstrate he produces nuclear heat? If he does not give a damn about the rest of the world, only his marketing strategy, then that indeed does not speak highly of his morality, does it? His bizarre behavior raises logical questions. Has he no faith in himself to produce his claimed results? Has his discovery gone the way of Patterson's beads? Are his results now merely amplified artifacts, or insufficient to be commercially viable? Is he unable to run for multiple days, much less multiple months as claimed? Only Rossi himself is responsible for creating these doubts. What I *would* be happy to do is show the possibility that a logical construction can produce the observed results. Given the 37% extra output heat that I mistakenly built into my spread sheet by biasing the temperature, it does not take an unfeasible error in the Tout reading to accommodate a good match of result by simulation. Given it is not even known for sure the Tout thermocouple was in direct contact with metal, this is not a far reach. However, if I could show even a possible fraud based mechanism exists which simulates the results with the given inputs, that would be sufficient to demonstrate the calorimetry requires improving. It should be sufficient to quell at least some of the ridiculous non-quantitative arm waving true believer arguments made here, but probably won't. You do see the difference between calling Rossi an evil criminal fraudster and showing a logical mechanism exists which reproduces the experiment outputs given only the experiment inputs, don't you? The purpose for the latter is to provide some motivation or justification for a customer demand for appropriate due diligence. The former would serve no purpose. Many people in the blogosphere have said or implied the E-cat is a fraud, so the former would be useless, in addition to being unsubstantiated arm waving. then why do you cannot understand, that it is also trivial to fit internal chemical power source to 30×30×30 cm³ black box? If you had read my paper,
Re: [Vo]:Minor progress
2011/11/10 Joe Catania zrosumg...@aol.com: requency generator inout? Is there any more info on that? I can tell you one thing- the power company is not going to be too happy with Rossi or whoever runs one of these things when they find out they are meter cheaters! I think too that the falsification of input energy measurements is most plausible way to do the cheat. However this cheat has a hole, because anyone of the guests could just plug a power meter to their iPad and then make a quick check of the calibration of ammeters. These kind of fakes that are based on input electricity, I think, are too easy to expose. –Jouni Ps. it was possible to check for guest also every else variable that was measurable. Including gamma radiation.
Re: [Vo]:About that Frequency Generator
I've spoken to Lewan about the device producing frequencies. I believe it to be a meter cheater in that it produces high frequency energy that cannot be tracked accurately by the clamp-on ammeter. Notice energy in= energy out in Oct test before dpf is used. After switching on this device all hell beaks loose and the E-cat appears to be producinbg anonmalous energy but this is easily explained by the fact that the device produces more power than the ~100W logged by the meter. - Original Message - From: Robert Leguillon robert.leguil...@hotmail.com To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Thursday, October 27, 2011 5:54 PM Subject: [Vo]:About that Frequency Generator Has anyone seen a photo? Does anyone know what make/model? Does anyone know the specific purpose it was serving? Does anyone know how it was hooked into the circuit? Was it electrically connected to the heater? Was it electrically connected to the E-Cat at all? Had anyone heard any reference to it before October 6? Was it needed for self-sustaining operation in September? David Roberson dlrober...@aol.com wrote: Here is an analysis that I just completed. It shows that Rossi has achieved what he has been suggesting. LENR is real and will only get better with time. Dave I have been reviewing the data obtained during the September and October tests and can now confirm that there is proof that the ECAT generates a large amount of excess energy. I would assume that the skeptic ones among our group will read this report and realize that the proof has been before us for a long time but is not easy to discern. Start with a graph of the temperature readings at the ECAT output thermocouple referred to as T2 during the October test. You must have a graph that includes all of the temperature-time pairs supplied by Mats Lewan in his Excel file. My analysis is as follows: Mr. Rossi performed a carefully controlled ECAT heating procedure. The pattern of setting the input power to “5”, then “6”, all the way to “9” is intended to slowly allow the internal components to reach ideal operation temperature. The reactor reaches equilibrium somewhere around 13000 seconds into the test. Once this has been achieved, a series of on and off power pulses (“9”) is applied to the core. This series of power applications occur at a frequency that is high enough to be well filtered by the low pass nature of the internal ECAT heat flow mechanism. This is evident by the smooth curve of T2 versus time that shows up from 13000 seconds through about 15500 seconds. It is important to note that the T2 curve is slowly falling throughout this time duration. The average T2 reading is 120.5 C and has a slight negative slope. I realized that the implication was that the ECAT output power would slowly begin to fall along with this curve since that temperature drives the check valve, etc. What can we make of this curve of T2 versus time? It turns out that a lot of information is revealed. I did an analysis of the input power pulse waveform starting at 11400 seconds until 14881 seconds to get the average filtered component of the drive signal and obtained a net power input of 1252 watts. Then I realized that all of this power must be causing the ECAT core module to reach some operational temperature. It then responds to the elevated temperature and the LENR effect within starts to generate extra energy. Next, the energy associated with the input power (1252 joules/second * time) adds to the newly released energy of the core. The two of these energy sources end up as heat which proceeds to add energy to the water contained within the ECAT. The water will now either increases or decrease in temperature, depending upon the heat that is lost from the system. We know of at least three loss paths. The main output leading to the heat exchanger, leakage water or vapor from the case, and heat leaving the case due to radiation or other means. All that we need to prove is that the sum of these loss factors is greater than 1252 watts in order to prove beyond doubt that LENR is functioning within the Rossi device. There is one subtle point to explain. There is a very slight negative slope in T2 versus time during this region. I performed a quick calculation and found that the power lost within the water tank as a result of this slope is ((122-120.7) C x 4.188 joules/(C-grams) x 3 grams)/1860 seconds = 87 joules/seconds or 87 watts. This calculation reveals that a very small increase in the drive power will allow the temperature of the water bath and hence output power to remain constant. This is a very important point to make. The ECAT will continue to put out the same power for as long as this input power (1252 watts) is applied. This may not be the ideal self-sustain mode that we all love, but it is significant. Of course I was not content to leave out the additional knowledge revealed by this region of the T2 temperature
Re: [Vo]:Minor progress
Ignoring the issue that the range of weak force is ~10-18m, around 1000x smaller than a proton's radius, so it is kind of hard to make a lattice of W bosons (one of the carriers of this force), that theory doesn't explain where so many random radioactive are not formed. So, it is very difficult for me to accept this theory. -- Forwarded message -- From: Aussie Guy E-Cat aussieguy.e...@gmail.com Date: 2011/11/9 Subject: Re: [Vo]:Minor progress To: vortex-l@eskimo.com What if the patent theory is wrong and Piantelli or W-L is right? Would he then be left with no protection other than trade secrets? I do note he is seeking non disclosed uni research help as he tries to get them to help him understand how his reactor really works. I don't envy Rossi, knowing he may have no IP protection, not really understand how the reaction works but wanting to make money from his multi year efforts. Also the latest, NO MORE TESTS, says bugger off all you who seek to understand what is going on, you will get NO more information to help you figure this out. Rossi is between a rock and a hard place. AG On 11/10/2011 9:59 AM, Jeff Sutton wrote: I don't doubt that Rossi has something new and fantastic, and I don't doubt that he is eccentric in some way as are most of us and this explains some of the nonsensical things. I also believe he is quite intelligent. But the only way to think that his process makes any business-first approach is that he has still something to hide. It could be he is missing something to do with control of the reaction, or he has no new art for his patent; someone else has beaten him to it. Think if everything was normal. Ross could arrange an independent demo(s) in front of reputable persons. From that he could explain what he does in a patent application and it would be granted. He would win the Nobel price and untold fortune. His current approach seems silly and I dont think he is a silly man. On Wed, Nov 9, 2011 at 6:18 PM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.commailto: jedrothw...@gmail.com** wrote: Horace Heffner hheff...@mtaonline.net mailto:hheff...@mtaonline.net** wrote: Fraud or self delusion are of course possibilities I recognize, as do many others, especially given Rossi's inability numerous times to provide anything other than highly flawed calorimetry data, or refusal to admit the importance of such mundane scientific concepts as controls, etc. The lives of billions of people are affected by Rossi's actions now, regardless the outcome. Why will he never make the tiny incremental effort required to properly demonstrate he produces nuclear heat? That's a little unfair. Assume for a moment that Rossi really does have a customer and that Fioravanti is a real HVAC engineer hired by the customer. In that case he has done everything right. You cannot ask for better test than an industrial scale professional boiler test. I think it comes down to a few simple questions: Is Fioravanti who he claims to be? Is that sheet of paper he signed what it appears to be -- a sales contract test acceptance report? If so, then Rossi has done exactly what he claimed he would to all long. No one can fault his business-first approach. The fact that he does not do academic science-style tests with proper controls and so on is irrelevant. A professional boiler test is _far more convincing_ and more relevant. As I have often pointed out, HVAC engineers have completely different standards from physicists in academic laboratories. Engineers do not do blank experiments. They do not do controls. That is not part of their protocol. Asking them to do such things is ridiculous. Do not impose the standards of academic science on industrial engineering, or vice versa. The two are very different, for good reasons. What works well in a science lab may not work in a factory. Rossi is an industrial engineer. He makes large machines. Fioravanti tests large machines (assuming he is for real). It makes no sense to demand they use methods appropriate to the lab bench top. As I said, I do not fault his business first-approach. I wish he would pursue business and money more aggressively on a larger scale. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:Re: Rossi: NO MORE TESTS and other stuff (revisited)
2011/11/9 Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com: A small businessman, with a private corporation, who has no grasp of how to deal with a potentially gigantic worldwide market worth ~$1 trillion a year. As someone here remarked, he is treating this like some guy who has come up with an improved formula for automobile window washing fluid, and he's manufacturing cases of the stuff and stockpiling them in a warehouse, hoping to ratchet up to a few million dollars in sales. There would be 2 major drivers: 1) Added value i.e. earnings for e-cat producers. 2) Energy savings for customers. (for a market to exist both roles, buyer and seller, shall see an advantage in trading) Point 2) is certain as long as the e-cat keeps the promises. It gives to a business selling CF devices a powerful lever to attack the market, but to take advantage the business must be the only one. And most interesting such saving *lowers* the global GDP i.e. less money changing hands, the energy market, in monetary terms, will become smaller indeed, much smaller than today. About the other point. Suppose no patent will ever be granted. Once the secret would have been known or similar results can obtained with a know process 1) would be true only if producing equipment that exploits CF were very difficult to design and build. Requiring the highest degree of specialization and unparalleled engineering capabilities. Imagine that that is not the case: anyone can create a factory where millions of reactors are assembled. That would imply really low profitability on each sold piece. Those things last more years than a car so there is little gain in replacement. Why would any one buy Rossi's and not Mr Chen's? What is the conclusion? Rossi is not aggressive to the market because the device will reproduced easily and will be cheap to make. He is trying to build a slowly, but solid growing, business. It also means that he expects that his company would have a technological monopoly only for a few years and that he does care more about profitability than market share, i.e. same or slowly growing sales numbers in an expanding market with lots of competitors. Of course if patent were to be granted Rossi's strategy could be far more aggressive. mic
Re: [Vo]:Physorg comments : new Krivit Crusade
Poor Journalism by Fox News on Rossi Story http://blog.newenergytimes.com/2011/11/09/poor-journalism-by-fox-news-on-rossi-story/ Poor Journalism by Physorg on Rossi Story http://blog.newenergytimes.com/2011/11/09/poor-journalism-by-physorg-on-rossi-story/ Poor Journalism by Wired U.K. on Rossi Story http://blog.newenergytimes.com/2011/11/09/poor-journalism-by-wired-u-k-on-rossi-story/ Gee ... was the MSNBC article OK ?
RE: [Vo]:Physorg comments : new Krivit Crusade
I see Krivit (like everyone else who screams scam) is rather short on detail on how the supposed scam is ACTUALLY supposed to work. A scam where you spend all your own money, sell your house, conduct 5 public demos where no-one notices anything, produce graphs of genius, get professors to agree to be in on the scam, bribe NATO engineers and overnight become the world's best actor, not to mention becoming a master of hiding one's own body language. That's quite a scam he's got going there.It's also ironic how Krivit has disabled comments on his blog thereby denying readers the ability to challenge him. Thats bad journalism in it's own right, the VERY THING he's so eager to point out as a fault with everyone else!Can't Krivit just admit that he's bitter about Rossi calling him a snake and be done with it? Original Message Subject: Re: [Vo]:Physorg comments : new Krivit Crusade From: Alan J Fletcher a...@well.com Date: Thu, November 10, 2011 11:01 am To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Poor Journalism by Fox News on Rossi Story http://blog.newenergytimes.com/2011/11/09/poor-journalism-by-fox-news-on-rossi-story/; Poor Journalism by Physorg on Rossi Story http://blog.newenergytimes.com/2011/11/09/poor-journalism-by-physorg-on-rossi-story/; Poor Journalism by Wired U.K. on Rossi Story http://blog.newenergytimes.com/2011/11/09/poor-journalism-by-wired-u-k-on-rossi-story/; Gee ... was the MSNBC article OK ?
RE: [Vo]:Physorg comments : new Krivit Crusade
Krivit seems to have an awful lot of time on his hands to follow other peoples coverage of Rossi. Either this translates to traffic for his blog and advertising revenue from it, he is mounting a personal vendetta of impressive proportions, or he has another source of revenue to support him as he neglects his own work and pursues a negative PR campaign against someone who is not even a competitor. Some of you know him, or have met him. Any other motivations seem plausible? -- Sean
Re: [Vo]:About that Frequency Generator
On Wed, Nov 9, 2011 at 7:34 PM, Joe Catania zrosumg...@aol.com wrote: I've spoken to Lewan about the device producing frequencies. I believe it to be a meter cheater in that it produces high frequency energy that cannot be tracked accurately by the clamp-on ammeter. Notice energy in= energy out in Oct test before dpf is used. After switching on this device all hell beaks loose and the E-cat appears to be producinbg anonmalous energy but this is easily explained by the fact that the device produces more power than the ~100W logged by the meter. ROFLMAO! You are funnier than Mr. Burns! T
[Vo]:200 ft long engineered electrical arcs
High-voltage engineers create nearly 200-foot-long electrical arcs using less energy than before. http://www.physorg.com/news/2011-11-extra-long-electrical-arcs-energy.html I wonder if they looked for neutrons from the exploding wires. Harry
Re: [Vo]:Minor progress
You are correct about the catalyst and the actual core of the ECAT. I was actually referring to the thermal environment and the behavior of the core under operating conditions. This information would prove that the ECAT is generating excess heat for all to see as opposed to now where many question the data. I suspect that the catalyst will be determined by any company that desires to copy it by opening a unit that they obtain by unsavory means. It will be impossible for anyone to keep this from happening. Dave -Original Message- From: Stephen A. Lawrence sa...@pobox.com To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Wed, Nov 9, 2011 1:33 pm Subject: Re: [Vo]:Minor progress On 11-11-09 11:37 AM, David Roberson wrote: AG, I think that Horace is giving it a good effort to come up with a scheme to prove it is possible to simulate Rossi's results. That is OK as Rossi has done everything within his ability to confuse the data and leave himself open to serious doubt. I suspect that it is not a coincidence where the output power thermocouple was located. If Rossi had allowed us to have accurate output data, I could have reverse engineered his ECAT quite well. How would you determine what his secret catalyst is? Without that ou'll likely be down by an order of magnitude or more from his power evels, and your reverse engineering effort would be a bust. Here's an analogy: If I gave you a catalytic converter from a car to est, and let you measure the temperatures going in and coming out and he gas composition going in and coming out, but you didn't know what as inside, would you be able to determine that it contained platinum nd palladium from the thermal signature? I don't think so. Similarly, don't see how you could figure out what Rossi's catalyst is, just from ccurate thermal data.
[Vo]:Inside the inner box
I have been thinking about what should be inside the inner box as the heat transfer from the reactor core to the fluid is no longer done inside the door knob like reactor. Rossi says there are 3 cores inside each module and that is all he says. I would suggest he may have encased all the cores inside a solid lead slab like structure with a thermal interface compound applied to the top and bottom surfaces so as to thermally transfer the heat into the upper and assumed lower fin assemblies. What we see with the bolts is the upper surface of the heat exchanger assembly and likely an identical assembly (why make it different) on the bottom. The lead slab with the embedded cores is then sandwiched inside and between the heat exchanger fin assemblies. I also suggest as he said the 1 MW demo was only running on 1 core per module, he has a was to activate and deactivate the internal cores as desired. This adds additional weight to my belief that the RF Wires are actually multi core shielded cable or if not he maybe running a power line comms system that delivers both power and 2 way data to the 3 cores. Easy to do today, especially if he has a micro inside to assist the core control and do data logging that can be later accessed for analysis. Having a solid lead slab structure would aid modular maintenance and module fuel replacement as all the the maintenance guys would need do is replace the lead slab with the 3 embedded reactor cores, which would then be returned to Rossi for replacement of the fuel. From the weight of the E-Cat module, there is more inside the boxes than just 3 door knob reactors, a bit of piping, fins, walls and a few nuts and bolts.
[Vo]:Robert Goddard
‘It is difficult to say what is impossible, for the dream of yesterday is the hope of today and the reality of tomorrow.’ — Robert Goddard Harry
Re: [Vo]:Inside the inner box
The three cores are now in a rectangular shape instead of cylindrical. I would suggest that there is a thermal resistance(insulator of some sort) desired between the cores and the heat sink. This would act as a thermal matching system so that the cores can operate at nearly 600 C while the heat sink is at a far lower temperature. Time response data demonstrates that two time constants are at work. One long one related to heat release and a shorter one associated with the conduction of heat away from the heat sink and heating device. He could easily disable a core by putting in material that does not exhibit LENR. The 1 MW unit must have operated with 3 cores present. One core only produces 3.4 kW of output power in the driven mode, less in self sustaining. The core operates at a temperature that would destroy a microcontroller. 600 C I suspect that the two extra wires are actually for sensor reading. A controlled driven unit would need to measure liquid level and temperature to function well. I really suspect that the frequency generating device is to mislead. The test conducted on October 6 was using one core. The thermal environment in this case would not be the same as using 3 cores. Additional positive feedback of heat would occur due to the two additional cores if they were active. I suspect that Rossi has performed a delicate balance of thermal impedance when 3 cores are present. This would suggest that the 1 core test should loose output power at a faster rate. That would explain why the self sustaining mode for the 1 MW test ran for such a long time. It has been apparent that Rossi has made a serious effort to disguise the real data by his actions. I suspect he wants to keep doubt alive so that the 'war' does not start until the last moment. Dave -Original Message- From: Aussie Guy E-Cat aussieguy.e...@gmail.com To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Wed, Nov 9, 2011 11:41 pm Subject: [Vo]:Inside the inner box I have been thinking about what should be inside the inner box as the eat transfer from the reactor core to the fluid is no longer done nside the door knob like reactor. Rossi says there are 3 cores inside each module and that is all he says. would suggest he may have encased all the cores inside a solid lead lab like structure with a thermal interface compound applied to the top nd bottom surfaces so as to thermally transfer the heat into the upper nd assumed lower fin assemblies. What we see with the bolts is the pper surface of the heat exchanger assembly and likely an identical ssembly (why make it different) on the bottom. The lead slab with the mbedded cores is then sandwiched inside and between the heat exchanger in assemblies. I also suggest as he said the 1 MW demo was only running n 1 core per module, he has a was to activate and deactivate the nternal cores as desired. This adds additional weight to my belief that he RF Wires are actually multi core shielded cable or if not he maybe unning a power line comms system that delivers both power and 2 way ata to the 3 cores. Easy to do today, especially if he has a micro nside to assist the core control and do data logging that can be later ccessed for analysis. Having a solid lead slab structure would aid modular maintenance and odule fuel replacement as all the the maintenance guys would need do is eplace the lead slab with the 3 embedded reactor cores, which would hen be returned to Rossi for replacement of the fuel. From the weight of the E-Cat module, there is more inside the boxes han just 3 door knob reactors, a bit of piping, fins, walls and a few uts and bolts.
Re: [Vo]:Inside the inner box
Sure no CPU will survive inside or next to the core but next to the heat sinks, easy to do. 140 deg C chips are available. Please share the data on the rectangular cores. Never read that before. Swedish reporter did say RF leads measured 300ma. Doesn't sound like a sensor. Easy to do PLC (Power Line Comms) to a CPU inside or he is using a 300ma current loop for his internal sensors due to too much interference from the cores. If the core is running at 600 deg C, so too must have the door knob earlier unit. It is hard to see now Rossi could keep that core at 600 deg C while the water was only a mm or so away. Where did you get the 600 deg C data from? I have never read that but then I have just started reading, reading...reading. AG On 11/10/2011 4:01 PM, David Roberson wrote: The three cores are now in a rectangular shape instead of cylindrical. I would suggest that there is a thermal resistance(insulator of some sort) desired between the cores and the heat sink. This would act as a thermal matching system so that the cores can operate at nearly 600 C while the heat sink is at a far lower temperature. Time response data demonstrates that two time constants are at work. One long one related to heat release and a shorter one associated with the conduction of heat away from the heat sink and heating device. He could easily disable a core by putting in material that does not exhibit LENR. The 1 MW unit must have operated with 3 cores present. One core only produces 3.4 kW of output power in the driven mode, less in self sustaining. The core operates at a temperature that would destroy a microcontroller. 600 C I suspect that the two extra wires are actually for sensor reading. A controlled driven unit would need to measure liquid level and temperature to function well. I really suspect that the frequency generating device is to mislead. The test conducted on October 6 was using one core. The thermal environment in this case would not be the same as using 3 cores. Additional positive feedback of heat would occur due to the two additional cores if they were active. I suspect that Rossi has performed a delicate balance of thermal impedance when 3 cores are present. This would suggest that the 1 core test should loose output power at a faster rate. That would explain why the self sustaining mode for the 1 MW test ran for such a long time. It has been apparent that Rossi has made a serious effort to disguise the real data by his actions. I suspect he wants to keep doubt alive so that the 'war' does not start until the last moment. Dave -Original Message- From: Aussie Guy E-Cat aussieguy.e...@gmail.com To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Wed, Nov 9, 2011 11:41 pm Subject: [Vo]:Inside the inner box I have been thinking about what should be inside the inner box as the heat transfer from the reactor core to the fluid is no longer done inside the door knob like reactor. Rossi says there are 3 cores inside each module and that is all he says. I would suggest he may have encased all the cores inside a solid lead slab like structure with a thermal interface compound applied to the top and bottom surfaces so as to thermally transfer the heat into the upper and assumed lower fin assemblies. What we see with the bolts is the upper surface of the heat exchanger assembly and likely an identical assembly (why make it different) on the bottom. The lead slab with the embedded cores is then sandwiched inside and between the heat exchanger fin assemblies. I also suggest as he said the 1 MW demo was only running on 1 core per module, he has a was to activate and deactivate the internal cores as desired. This adds additional weight to my belief that the RF Wires are actually multi core shielded cable or if not he maybe running a power line comms system that delivers both power and 2 way data to the 3 cores. Easy to do today, especially if he has a micro inside to assist the core control and do data logging that can be later accessed for analysis. Having a solid lead slab structure would aid modular maintenance and module fuel replacement as all the the maintenance guys would need do is replace the lead slab with the 3 embedded reactor cores, which would then be returned to Rossi for replacement of the fuel. From the weight of the E-Cat module, there is more inside the boxes than just 3 door knob reactors, a bit of piping, fins, walls and a few nuts and bolts.
Re: [Vo]:Inside the inner box
For the per core driven output I get, 1,000 kWs / (52 modules X 3 cores) = 6.41 kWs per core or 19.23 kWs per module of 3 cores. Based on 107 modules with 1 operational core (as demonstrated) and 479 kWs of output that is 4.47 kW per core in self sustain mode. AG On 11/10/2011 4:01 PM, David Roberson wrote: The three cores are now in a rectangular shape instead of cylindrical. I would suggest that there is a thermal resistance(insulator of some sort) desired between the cores and the heat sink. This would act as a thermal matching system so that the cores can operate at nearly 600 C while the heat sink is at a far lower temperature. Time response data demonstrates that two time constants are at work. One long one related to heat release and a shorter one associated with the conduction of heat away from the heat sink and heating device. He could easily disable a core by putting in material that does not exhibit LENR. The 1 MW unit must have operated with 3 cores present. One core only produces 3.4 kW of output power in the driven mode, less in self sustaining. The core operates at a temperature that would destroy a microcontroller. 600 C I suspect that the two extra wires are actually for sensor reading. A controlled driven unit would need to measure liquid level and temperature to function well. I really suspect that the frequency generating device is to mislead. The test conducted on October 6 was using one core. The thermal environment in this case would not be the same as using 3 cores. Additional positive feedback of heat would occur due to the two additional cores if they were active. I suspect that Rossi has performed a delicate balance of thermal impedance when 3 cores are present. This would suggest that the 1 core test should loose output power at a faster rate. That would explain why the self sustaining mode for the 1 MW test ran for such a long time. It has been apparent that Rossi has made a serious effort to disguise the real data by his actions. I suspect he wants to keep doubt alive so that the 'war' does not start until the last moment. Dave -Original Message- From: Aussie Guy E-Cat aussieguy.e...@gmail.com To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Wed, Nov 9, 2011 11:41 pm Subject: [Vo]:Inside the inner box I have been thinking about what should be inside the inner box as the heat transfer from the reactor core to the fluid is no longer done inside the door knob like reactor. Rossi says there are 3 cores inside each module and that is all he says. I would suggest he may have encased all the cores inside a solid lead slab like structure with a thermal interface compound applied to the top and bottom surfaces so as to thermally transfer the heat into the upper and assumed lower fin assemblies. What we see with the bolts is the upper surface of the heat exchanger assembly and likely an identical assembly (why make it different) on the bottom. The lead slab with the embedded cores is then sandwiched inside and between the heat exchanger fin assemblies. I also suggest as he said the 1 MW demo was only running on 1 core per module, he has a was to activate and deactivate the internal cores as desired. This adds additional weight to my belief that the RF Wires are actually multi core shielded cable or if not he maybe running a power line comms system that delivers both power and 2 way data to the 3 cores. Easy to do today, especially if he has a micro inside to assist the core control and do data logging that can be later accessed for analysis. Having a solid lead slab structure would aid modular maintenance and module fuel replacement as all the the maintenance guys would need do is replace the lead slab with the 3 embedded reactor cores, which would then be returned to Rossi for replacement of the fuel. From the weight of the E-Cat module, there is more inside the boxes than just 3 door knob reactors, a bit of piping, fins, walls and a few nuts and bolts.
[Vo]:JNP site down
http://www.journal-of-nuclear-physics.com Comes up account suspended. WTF?
Re: [Vo]:JNP site down
It is not for the first time, it happens...for a few hours. Let's see... What's strange- the blog reader rossilivecat.com is also non-functional. Peter On Thu, Nov 10, 2011 at 8:30 AM, Aussie Guy E-Cat aussieguy.e...@gmail.comwrote: http://www.journal-of-nuclear-**physics.comhttp://www.journal-of-nuclear-physics.com Comes up account suspended. WTF? -- Dr. Peter Gluck Cluj, Romania http://egooutpeters.blogspot.com
Re: [Vo]:JNP site down
I expect his traffic volume has gone up and he's gone foul of limits imposed by his web hosting service. On Thu, Nov 10, 2011 at 2:38 PM, Peter Gluck peter.gl...@gmail.com wrote: It is not for the first time, it happens...for a few hours. Let's see... What's strange- the blog reader rossilivecat.com is also non-functional. Peter On Thu, Nov 10, 2011 at 8:30 AM, Aussie Guy E-Cat aussieguy.e...@gmail.com wrote: http://www.journal-of-nuclear-**physics.comhttp://www.journal-of-nuclear-physics.com Comes up account suspended. WTF? -- Dr. Peter Gluck Cluj, Romania http://egooutpeters.blogspot.com
Re: [Vo]:JNP site down
The Blog reader may have been responsible for that. But then his traffic volume data rate rate should not be that big and instead of suspending, it should have charged him for any excess data traffic. AG On 11/10/2011 5:13 PM, Colin Hercus wrote: I expect his traffic volume has gone up and he's gone foul of limits imposed by his web hosting service. On Thu, Nov 10, 2011 at 2:38 PM, Peter Gluck peter.gl...@gmail.com mailto:peter.gl...@gmail.com wrote: It is not for the first time, it happens...for a few hours. Let's see... What's strange- the blog reader rossilivecat.com http://rossilivecat.com is also non-functional. Peter On Thu, Nov 10, 2011 at 8:30 AM, Aussie Guy E-Cat aussieguy.e...@gmail.com mailto:aussieguy.e...@gmail.com wrote: http://www.journal-of-nuclear-physics.com Comes up account suspended. WTF? -- Dr. Peter Gluck Cluj, Romania http://egooutpeters.blogspot.com
Re: [Vo]:JNP site down
- Original Nachricht Von: Aussie Guy E-Cat aussieguy.e...@gmail.com An: vortex-l@eskimo.com Datum: 10.11.2011 07:30 Betreff: [Vo]:JNP site down http://www.journal-of-nuclear-physics.com Comes up account suspended. WTF? They do maintenance. Its time to put up the November theory. Its like a calendar. Each month a new peer reviewed theory, I like this conception. Keeps us busy. Peter
