Re: [Vo]:Rossi's interview with "Tom and Doug"

[Mary Yugo]

On Tue, Nov 22, 2011 at 11:24 PM, Aussie Guy E-Cat
 wrote:

> BTW I was personally emailed by Rossi that he has accepted by 10 x 10 kW
> home E-Cat order. I replied and thanked him for his acceptance and wished
> him well with his current business in the US.

That reminds me of a tired old joke.  Smith asked his Butcher, Jones,
the price for fresh salmon.  Jones answered "$12 a pound."  Smith
retorted "Brown, down the street, has it for $10 a pound."   "So why
don't you buy it from Brown?" said Jones, sounding hurt.  "Because
Brown is out of salmon", replied Smith.   Said Jones, "If I was out of
salmon, I'd sell it to you for $8 a pound."

Lots of luck getting an E-cat "soon".

Re: [Vo]:A U.S.P.O. policy regarding cold fusion

[Aussie Guy E-Cat]

You don't get it do you? That event took place in 2004. Not Nov 2011. It 
has no bearing on where we are today. End of discussion.


AG


On 11/23/2011 5:52 PM, Joshua Cude wrote:
There was no simple vote, so this is an interpretation of what they 
wrote, based on a question you don't mention.

Re: [Vo]:Rossi's interview with "Tom and Doug"

[Aussie Guy E-Cat]

The left or right hand / index finger thing was just a cheap shot from 
those that are rapidly loosing the spin war and are grabbing at any 
thing they can find to try to suggest Rossi is a scammer and fraud.


BTW I was personally emailed by Rossi that he has accepted by 10 x 10 kW 
home E-Cat order. I replied and thanked him for his acceptance and 
wished him well with his current business in the US.


AG


On 11/23/2011 5:41 PM, Marcello Vitale wrote:
I currently have a broken meniscus in one knee. It hurts. I still have 
to touch it and think about it before being able to say whether it's 
the left or the right knee. And that's without the obvious language 
change problem which is clearly impacting how Rossi expresses himself

Re: [Vo]:A U.S.P.O. policy regarding cold fusion

[Joshua Cude]

On Tue, Nov 22, 2011 at 7:24 PM, Daniel Rocha  wrote:

> WOW! That's a lot of yes! :O
>
>
Yes to compelling evidence for excess heat.

Only 1 Yes to conclusive evidence for cold fusion.

Re: [Vo]:A U.S.P.O. policy regarding cold fusion

[Joshua Cude]

On Tue, Nov 22, 2011 at 7:06 PM, Jed Rothwell  wrote:

>
> Score (member number, Y, N or U - undecided):
>


There was no simple vote, so this is an interpretation of what they wrote,
based on a question you don't mention.

The only simple question that all the members answered was: "Should a
special funding program be established for cold fusion?", and all 18 voted
"No" on that question.

The interpreted votes below could be regarded as consistent with the
question: "Is there compelling evidence for excess heat?"

However, if the question were: "Is the evidence for nuclear reactions
conclusive?", only one could be taken as "yes".


>
> 1 N
> 2 N
> 3 U
>
N

If evidence for nuclear reactions were considered conclusive, they would
not be undecided, so this is a "No" to the second question.


> 4 Y
>
N

"This set of articles make a significant case for phenomena in the
deuterium/palladium system that is (I) markedly different from that of the
hydrogen/palladium system, (ii) supportive of the claim that excess energy
is generated in the deuterium/palladium system, and (iii) without a
coherent theoretical explanation."

So, "Yes" on excess heat, but "No" on conclusive about nuclear origin.  He
goes on to express this unconvinced position:

"The significant increase in excess energy near the boiling temperature of
D2O compared to some 50 oC lower is hard to reconcile with a variation in
nuclear process rate or any phonon assisted process, a la P. Hagelstein. If
this temperature variation is important then experiments to go beyond the
boiling temperature of D2O would seem a logical step as mentioned (for
different reasons) but apparently not accomplished by M. Fleischmann. Some
repetition of the direct nuclear process measurements would seem to be in
order, combined with isotopic assessment of the cathode material before and
after an experiment that produced excess energy. "

5 N
> 6 N
> 7 N
> 8 Y
>
N

"If the bottom line is that experiments in which x > 0.95 in PdDx (at room
temperature) give anomalous effects reliably (even if achieving that high x
is very difficult and very dependent on the materials science of the Pd),
while heat balance is attained for x < 0.9 in PdDx (or when using PdHx at
all x), we've got the start of science. "

That's a conditional statement clearly indicating the absence of conclusive
evidence at this time. So "No"

The rest of the report is very vague and non-committal, exemplified by this
last paragraph:

"...but with all the above said... these experiments are frustrating and
difficult, and require expertise that cross-cuts physics, materials
science, electrochemistry, as well as analytical chemistry of breathtaking
difficulty. The two most difficult things any scientist can be asked to do
are trace analysis/mass balance and calorimetry. Most scientists simply
aren't good enough to do extremely demanding experiments in every aspect of
the research -- and highly deuterided palladium seems unwilling to cut us a
break at any stage. "

That can hardly be taken as admitting conclusive proof.


> 9 Y
>
N

This is probably the second most positive:

"Evidence for excess heat in LENR experiments is compelling and well
established One of the more compelling examples is a quantitative
correlation between excess heat and helium Some of these experiments
[on nuclear emissions] appear compelling and are worthy of thorough
review... The implications of this work, if correct, could be profound."

But if he found the evidence conclusive, he would not have written that
last conditional sentence.


> 10 Y
>
N
"At this stage, I think the evidence suggests the possibility of such
events [nuclear], b[ut] cannot be considered conclusive beyond a reasonable
doubt, for reasons alluded to above.  "

11 Y
>
N
"The body of evidence does not rise to the level of being conclusive at
this time. "

12 N
> 13 Y
>
This is the only reviewer who said the evidence for nuclear reactions was
conclusive. (My guess is they put a token advocate on the panel.)


> 14 N
> 15 N
> 16 U
>
N

If evidence for nuclear reactions were considered conclusive, they would
not be undecided, so this is a "No" to the second question.


> 17 N
> 18 N
>
>
I admit my interpretations of these reviews as "negative" may be considered
a little pessimistic, but keep in mind the following:

(1) They were unanimous in recommending *against* a special program to fund
cold fusion. If any of them thought there was a realistic chance that the
field had merit (let alone were convinced that it did), this would be
unconscionable, given the implications of it, if correct. It suggests that
they couched their negative votes on a funding program in polite, but vague
language. Even the one person who said conclusive evidence for a nuclear
effect was established voted agains special funding. How is that possible?

(2) They were unanimous in recommending that "funding agencies should
entertain individual, well-designed proposals for experiments that addre

Re: [Vo]:Rossi's interview with "Tom and Doug"

[Marcello Vitale]

I currently have a broken meniscus in one knee. It hurts. I still have to
touch it and think about it before being able to say whether it's the left
or the right knee. And that's without the obvious language change problem
which is clearly impacting how Rossi expresses himself

[Vo]:Overview of (Ahern) Vibronic Energy Technologies Approach

[pagnucco]

I don't think this has been posted to Vortex before.
I believe it describes Brian Ahern's approach to LENR.
Does this imply he believe Rossi's results?

Any comments?

Thanks,
Lou Pagnucco

From: http://www.scribd.com/doc/55221791/Clean-Enenergy-From-Nano-Materials

/**START**
New Clean Energy Opportunity
Vibronic Energy Technologies Corp

In 1961 newly appointed physicist Otto Reifenschweiller infused
15 nanometer titanium particles with tritium and found a 40% reduction
in radioactivity by cycling the material above 140 degreesC (1).
His mentor advised him that this result was heretical and advised
burying the result in order to have a viable career. Indeed, he buried
the result until after his retirement in 1998 as Director of the
Laboratory at Philips Eindhoven ND, perhaps the premiere research
laboratory in Europe.

In 1995 VETC personnel identified a new class of vibrational properties
in a narrow size regime between 3 - 15 nanometers (2).  All materials
processed in this very narrow size regime have unusually large vibrational
modes. The modes are so unusual that they catalyze a wide range of new
energy pathways.

In 2008 Yashiaki Arata, Japan's most decorated scientist, made a major
announcement about energy release from nanopowders infused with hydrogen
(3). Arata and Reifenschweiller both used metal nanopowders below 15
nanometers and both observed a surprise in output.  Reifenschweiler saw
a reduction in radiative output. Arata saw energy output without any of
the anticipated radiation. Clearly the chaotic movement of the dissolved
hydrogen isotopes was profoundly affected.

The Electric Power Research Institute (EPRI) (4) agreed to a replication
effort of the Arata experiment that began in July 2009. The Arata reports
of continuous thermal energy output with no electrical energy input were
achieved with full reproducibility. Arata used nanoscale nickel-palladium
islands encased in a matrix of zirconium oxide and infused with hydrogen
gas.

On January 15, 2011 Sergio Focardi and Andreas Rossi (5)demonstrated
commercial scale, 12 kilowatt power output from nanomaterials in fused
with hydrogen similar to the EPRI study.They used nickel nanopowders with
an undisclosed promoter element to enhance the loading of hydrogen to ever
higher concentrations. Romanowski (6) has suggested that copper is the
promoter element best suited for dense hydrogen loading.

These high loading conditions are believed to favor a new form of
hyper-dense hydrogen at theinterface between the metal islands and
the dielectric ZrO2 matrix (7). The hydrogen atoms undergoing energy
localized vibrations can interact with the host nickel lattice nuclei.
This is themost direct physical process for chemical conditions
to impact nuclear reaction rates.


References

(1) O.Reifenschweiler, Reduced Radioactivity of Tritium in Small
Titanium Particles,
Phys LettA. 184 (1994) p. 149-153

(2) Fermi, Pasta and Ulam’s famous 1953 simulation identified
anharmonic modes that are present in all materials processed
between 3-15 nm.
See Ulam, Memoirs of a mathematician

(3) Arata, Y., Y. Zhang, and X. Wang.
Production of Helium and Energy in the "Solid Fusion"
(PowerPoint slides)
in 15th International Conference on Condensed Matter Nuclear Science.
2009. Rome, Italy: ENEA.
This can be found at: http://www.lenr-canr.org/LibFrame1.html

(4) Electric Power Research Institute, Menlo Park CA,
Contract EP-P32769, monitor, Dan Rastler

(5) Focardi, S. and A. Rossi,
A new energy source from nuclear fusion.
www.journal-of-nuclear- physics.com, 2010 on line.
Also See world patent disclosure WO 2009/125444 A1

(6) S. Romanowski et al,
Density Functional Calculations of the Hydrogen Absorption on
Transition Metals  and their Alloys, Langmuir 1999, 15, 6773-6780

(7) S. Yamaura et al,
Hydrogen Absorption on Nanoscale Pd Particles in ZrO2
Matrix Prepared  from Zr-Pd amorphous Alloy
J. Mater, Res., vol. 17, no. 6, June 2002 P. 1329  **STOP**/


Also see the Business Model at:
http://cnse.albany.edu/download/Vibronic_Energy_Technologies_Corp.pdf

Re: [Vo]: ECAT 1 MW Test Discrepancy

[Berke Durak]

On Mon, Nov 21, 2011 at 3:26 PM, David Roberson  wrote:
> This humid warm air would enter the steam piping and the water would
> immediately begin to condense upon every surface.

Right, especially given that the pipes are connected to the air cooler, and that
the external temperature was around 15 degrees.

> This would lead to
> elevated readings of the thermocouple at the steam pipe and also would
> result in liquid water pooling within the dissipaters and plumbing.

Yes.

> There would be far too low of a pressure at this time to expel the water to
> the exterior bins so it would pool.

> Now, when one of the ECATs finally generates enough energy to start to boil,
> this initial fresh supply of hot vapor would have to vaporize the water
> standing within the output system.

And that will also cause temperature and pressure to rise and then
possibly push water that obstructs smaller pipes, clearing the way and
creating a pressure/temperature drop.

> If the process that I have proposed is true, then the water levels
> within the various ECAT devices would not have to be at full.  The
> problem with the measurement of liquid water trapped would also
> become much less of an issue.  Furthermore, now the output of the 1
> MW system could consist of mainly vapor and the HVAC guy most likely
> performed his task correctly.

If 60 kW was expended during 1.5 hour (from 11:00 to 12:30) to bring
water from 30 to 100 degrees, that's 324 MJ; the corresponding amount
of water is 1102 kg.  Since there are 321 sub-modules, that's 3.43 l
of water per sub-module.  Each module is about 30 x 40 x 50 cm3 or 60
l.  So each sub-module is less than 20 l.  Having 3.43 l of water in a
20 l sub-module sounds perfectly reasonable without them being full.

That also gives a good safety margin, since the power per module when
running at 470 kW is 1.46 kW.  That will evaporate 2.23 kg of water in
one hour, enough time to find or fix a problem or shut the thing down.

So Dave's theory is that condensed water in the pipes causes clogs
and thus pressure and thus temperature fluctuations.  I like that idea, but
maybe someone knows better.
-- 
Berke Durak

Re: [Vo]: ECAT 1 MW Test Discrepancy

[Berke Durak]

On Tue, Nov 22, 2011 at 11:46 AM, Joshua Cude  wrote:
> Heat flow depends on temperature differentials, so the gradient in
> temperature between the surface and the core would have to be 7
> times steeper.

and also wrote:

> You would need to cover 7 times the area in a matter of minutes, also not
> plausible, and it would still require 7 times the heat transport rate from
> the core, which doesn't depend as simply on the area of contact.

As the diagram shows, heat flow into water depends extremely
non-linearly on the temperature differential.  It also depends
more or less linearly on area of contact.  We don't know what the
inner geometry of the devices, and we don't know how the water level
changes.

So you cannot say that an increase in power transfer of x times
requires an increase in core temperature of x times, because that can
be achieved by a small increase in temperature, or a proportional
increase in area of contact.

Also, do you know what the thermal mass of the reactor is?  I don't.

Thus, in principle, the area of contact can be increased easily by
changing the water level as demonstrated in the following example.

Consider a vertical heating element, partially in contact with water
fed from a pump.  Let there be a thermocouple sensing the temperature
T of the heating element, and a water level sensor.

Control the heating element using feedback from the thermocouple to
keep T constant above the boiling point of water.  By matching the
flow rate to the evaporation rate using the water level sensor, you
keep the water level l constant.

To the first approximation, the power transfer should be proportional
to the area of contact which is proportional to the water level.  An
electric heating element can have quite a small thermal mass.  The
current can be ramped up very quickly.

So if you start pumping more, the water level rises, and so does the
evaporation rate and the power transfer.  In principle, you just have
to control the pumps and provide enough power to have a dQ/dt as high
as you wish (within limits, of course).
-- 
Berke Durak

Re: [Vo]:Message sent to Kenneth Cage

[Jed Rothwell]

Mary Yugo  wrote:


> I disagree. Nobody can protect their jobs by suppressing the
> greatest discoveries of the last century.


Lots of people made tons of money suppressing the greatest discoveries of
the last century! The dairy industry suppressed pasteurization from 1860 to
1917; the tobacco industry stopped cancer research; everyone ganged up to
prevent H. pylori and the MRI. Okay, they failed in the end, but none of
those people suffered. Some of them are still in charge of major
institutions, and still making a killing.

Heck, Microsoft squashed a large fraction of the reliable PC software in
the 1980s, replacing it with dreck. Bill Gates became the richest man in
the world mainly by suppressing good ideas and good products such as
WordPerfect. He still has the money, although he is presently at a trial
testifying about WordPerfect.


For one thing they'll always triumph if they're real.


That is incorrect. In most cases, when a discovery such as the transistor
is revealed, a careful search of the literature shows that it has been
discovered and forgotten many times in the past.

See:

http://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/RothwellJcomparison.pdf

That is also impossible to test or falsify. How can you be sure that
nothing has been lost? If something was lost, you wouldn't know about it,
would you? "Everyone who is not here please raise your hand." For all you
know, 99% of good ideas are "strangled in the crib," as Townes put it, when
opponents tried to prevent him from developing the maser.

Learn some history. Learn some logic.

- Jed

Re: [Vo]:New Warnings of Hydrovolcanic Explosion at Fukushima

[Aussie Guy E-Cat]

Apparently it has burned through the containment vessels and the 
concrete floor in the 3 damaged reactors. Radioactive steam is coming up 
from cracks in the ground around the 3 damaged reactors. Watch the 
youtube video. It was made several months ago. The interview with Uehara 
Haruo happened 17 Nov 2011.


AG


On 11/23/2011 1:21 PM, Jed Rothwell wrote:
Good grief. I though the fuel was solidified and cooling. It did get 
out of the containment vessel.

Re: [Vo]:New Warnings of Hydrovolcanic Explosion at Fukushima

[Aussie Guy E-Cat]

The interview with Uehara Haruo was done 17 Nov, 2011 
http://theextinctionprotocol.wordpress.com/2011/11/21/architect-of-fukushimas-reactor-3-warns-of-massive-hydrovolcanic-explosion/ 
Apologize for the quality of the link. Trying to find a link to the 
original interview.


AG


On 11/23/2011 1:28 PM, Terry Blanton wrote:

On Tue, Nov 22, 2011 at 9:39 PM, Aussie Guy E-Cat
  wrote:

New Warnings of Hydrovolcanic Explosion at Fukushima
http://1723news.wordpress.com/2011/11/23/new-warnings-of-hydrovolcanic-explosion-at-fukushima/
Just remember this is 3 reactors going China Syndrome and not just one as in
3 mile or the Russian reactor.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=hFLipZWlpOs So much
for Hot Fission saving the planet.

I agree this is a concern, but this report is almost 3 mo.s old.

T

Re: [Vo]:Re: Randi Video

[Mary Yugo]

On Tue, Nov 22, 2011 at 6:30 PM, Jed Rothwell  wrote:
> Mary Yugo  wrote:

>
> People opposed to cold fusion have successfully used misdirection, ignorance
> and outright lies for 22 years and counting. They managed to suppress the
> discovery of Helicobacter pylori well into the internet era. That discovery
> was worth a Nobel, but that did not stop people from trying to suppress it,
> because of money -- the usual reason.

The true story of h. pylori as per Wiki which provides references:

"Although there was some skepticism initially, within several years
numerous research groups verified the association of H. pylori with
gastritis and, to a lesser extent, ulcers.[79] To demonstrate H.
pylori caused gastritis and was not merely a bystander, Marshall drank
a beaker of H. pylori culture. He became ill with nausea and vomiting
several days later. An endoscopy ten days after inoculation revealed
signs of gastritis and the presence of H. pylori. These results
suggested H. pylori was the causative agent of gastritis. Marshall and
Warren went on to demonstrate that antibiotics are effective in the
treatment of many cases of gastritis. "

There was resistance initially not for financial reasons so much as
technological ones because at that point it was just a guess and a
pretty radical one at that.  Subsequently, the proponents conducted
the best possible tests to prove their hypothesis, they results were
what they said, the methods were reliable, and they went on to a Nobel
Prize.

Instead of choosing the best methods to prove his device his real,
Rossi chooses the worst ones -- exactly the ones a scammer would
select.  And he won't allow independent tests or replication, the very
things that Marshall and Warren *insisted* upon and which proved their
case.   So much for that example.  Many of the others are equally glib
and inapplicable.  It would take too long to go through them all.

Re: [Vo]:New Warnings of Hydrovolcanic Explosion at Fukushima

[Terry Blanton]

On Tue, Nov 22, 2011 at 9:39 PM, Aussie Guy E-Cat
 wrote:
> New Warnings of Hydrovolcanic Explosion at Fukushima
> http://1723news.wordpress.com/2011/11/23/new-warnings-of-hydrovolcanic-explosion-at-fukushima/
> Just remember this is 3 reactors going China Syndrome and not just one as in
> 3 mile or the Russian reactor.
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=hFLipZWlpOs So much
> for Hot Fission saving the planet.

I agree this is a concern, but this report is almost 3 mo.s old.

T

Re: [Vo]:New Warnings of Hydrovolcanic Explosion at Fukushima

[Jed Rothwell]

Good grief. I though the fuel was solidified and cooling. It did get out of
the containment vessel.

I wonder if this report is accurate. Kyoto U. has great credibility.

This article says: "Fukushima is no longer news worthy." That's a dumb
thing to say. It still makes headlines in Japan, and often leads the 7
o'clock news.

- Jed

Re: [Vo]:A U.S.P.O. policy regarding cold fusion

[Jed Rothwell]

Mary Yugo  wrote:


> I would add that I know very well I assisted in the design, testing,
> field use, and evaluation of calorimeters (I never said I made one,
> you made that up). . . .


Designing and testing a calorimeter is the same as making one. That's what
I mean. I did not mean you dig up iron ore and make one from scratch.

If you have all this wonderful knowledge, why are you so afraid to read the
literature on cold fusion?



> I have made technical assertions about Rossi's calorimetry.  I have
> pointed how how ridiculously deficient it is, how he chooses the exact
> methods that are likely to have faults and errors . . .


You, me and everyone else here has done that. Any fool can do that. I
described the problems at LENR-CANR.org and in messages to Rossi.

The tests are irrefutable despite these problems.

- Jed

[Vo]:New Warnings of Hydrovolcanic Explosion at Fukushima

[Aussie Guy E-Cat]

New Warnings of Hydrovolcanic Explosion at Fukushima 
http://1723news.wordpress.com/2011/11/23/new-warnings-of-hydrovolcanic-explosion-at-fukushima/ 
Just remember this is 3 reactors going China Syndrome and not just one 
as in 3 mile or the Russian reactor. 
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=hFLipZWlpOs So 
much for Hot Fission saving the planet.

Re: [Vo]:Re: Randi Video

[Jed Rothwell]

Here is a self-referential example of opposition to new ideas in the
Internet era:

http://www.scientificjournals.org/misinformation_campaigns.htm

There is opposition to the use of Internet itself for peer-reviewed open
source scientific journals. For the usual reason: money.

QUOTES:

Some traditional publishers and a few of their misguided allies in the
academia as well as a few spin-doctors in the media are engaged in
misinformation campaigns against open access journals. . . .

"Recently, I came to know about the lies and smear campaigns against
various open access journals. Such misinformation campaigns are  baseless,
unethical and disgraceful. I wish SJI all the best and encourage all open
access journals to fight hard against such baseless smear campaigns." --
Dr. Sunil Kumar Joshi, Asst. Professor of Community Medicine, Kathmandu
Medical College, Nepal.

(Lots more quotes.)

- Jed

Re: [Vo]:Re: Randi Video

[Jed Rothwell]

Mary Yugo  wrote:

I'm also curious if you know another earth shaking revolutionary invention
> that has been brought out with such discretion and misdirection recently.


Transistor zone refining, the cause of rickets, the maser, MRI, some HTSC
research, and symptoms of AIDS unique to women. Research was done in
secret mainly for the usual political reasons. That is to say, if the
opposition had found out what was happening in the lab, the researchers
would have been fired. (The AIDS researchers were caught, and fired.) We
would not have transistors if Shockley had had his way.

There are hundreds of other well documented examples.

In corporations and universities I have seen many products developed off
budget in stealth mode for those reasons. See "Soul of a New Machine" for
example.


I know the discussion about the Wright brothers but that was a very long
> time ago when the scientific environment was very different and the public
> did not adapt to new discoveries.


You must be joking. My grandmother and my parents grew up in the era when
airplanes were first invented, and cars and electricity were becoming
common. They were *far* more open to new ideas and discoveries than people
are today! Everyone was back then. The pace of change from 1860 to 1950 was
much faster than it is today, and people more open minded.

People were also more appreciative of science and technology. Scientists
were considered heroes, and role models. That began to change with that
atomic bomb.


Anyway the misdirection did not last long.  And this is
> the age of the iPad, webcams, instant news and the internet.
>

People opposed to cold fusion have successfully used misdirection,
ignorance and outright lies for 22 years and counting. They managed to
suppress the discovery of Helicobacter pylori well into the internet era.
That discovery was worth a Nobel, but that did not stop people from trying
to suppress it, because of money -- the usual reason. The internet is chock
ignorant nonsense about global warming and evolution. GOP candidates have
to swear allegiance to this nonsense to be nominated.

This is not to suggest the people nowadays are more ignorant than they used
to be. Books and newspaper from the past show that people have always been
this way. It is human nature I suppose. As far as I can tell, they are as
ignorant in Japan as in the U.S. despite their more rigorous education
system.

- Jed

Re: [Vo]:Rossi to come to the Massachusetts State House tomorrow

[Terry Blanton]

On Tue, Nov 22, 2011 at 9:26 PM, Terry Blanton  wrote:
> On Tue, Nov 22, 2011 at 9:24 PM, Terry Blanton  wrote:
>
>> A republican in Massachusetts?  What a strange state!
>
> Well, he isn't shy about inviting AR:
>
> http://www.tarrtalk.com/

Well, he doesn't exactly say *he* invited Rossi.

He does seem excited, however.

T

Re: [Vo]:Rossi to come to the Massachusetts State House tomorrow

[Terry Blanton]

On Tue, Nov 22, 2011 at 9:24 PM, Terry Blanton  wrote:

> A republican in Massachusetts?  What a strange state!

Well, he isn't shy about inviting AR:

http://www.tarrtalk.com/

T

Re: [Vo]:Rossi to come to the Massachusetts State House tomorrow

[Terry Blanton]

On Tue, Nov 22, 2011 at 2:18 PM, Akira Shirakawa
 wrote:
> Hello group,
>
> This is again via 22passi:
>
> http://22passi.blogspot.com/2011/11/domani-rossi-alla-state-house-del.html
>
>> According to Sen. Bruce Tarr,

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bruce_Tarr

A republican in Massachusetts?  What a strange state!

T

Re: [Vo]:A Pyrolysis E-Cat fake

[Horace Heffner]

I wrote: "Most of Florida is within a day's drive of Patterson's  
former lab location at West Palm Beach."


My memory is not good.   That should say Sarasota.

To top off that mistake, I sent this message to myself yesterday,  
instead of vortex.  I just found it.


Best regards,

Horace Heffner
http://www.mtaonline.net/~hheffner/

Re: [Vo]:Rossi's interview with "Tom and Doug"

[Mary Yugo]

On Tue, Nov 22, 2011 at 6:00 PM, Jed Rothwell  wrote:
> Alan J Fletcher  wrote:

> Maybe he is dyslexic and has difficulty telling his right from his left.
> Like me, and my grandmother

Isn't a more straighforward explanation (by far) of this interesting
find (thanks Alan) that he's lying?

Re: [Vo]:A U.S.P.O. policy regarding cold fusion

[Mary Yugo]

On Tue, Nov 22, 2011 at 3:01 PM, Jed Rothwell  wrote:
> It is not possible that Yugo has made calorimeters
> yet she cannot follow this paper. I have no idea whether she actually knows
> anything about calorimeters since she has not made any technical assertions
> about calorimetry. I have no way of judging whether she has actually tried
> to read this paper and failed to understand it, since she has made no
> comments about it. But I am sure that no genuine expert in calorimetery will
> have difficulty with this paper. I am equally sure that no expert in
> calorimetry who reads the paper will find an error in it. There are no
> errors in this, or in any other major cold fusion paper. If there were
> errors, some opponent would have found them years ago.
> McKubre's papers has been downloaded and by tens of thousands of people. It
> isn't as if no one has checked them.
> - Jed
>

Sometimes it's inconvenient not to be able to use one's own identity.
I have written peer reviewed and published papers (coauthored) in heat
transfer measurement using heat flux transducers as well as in
calorimetry methods.  Unfortunately, I can't cite them.  I don't rely
on what I claim as a background to achieve credibility.  I expect my
assertions to stand on their own.

I would add that I know very well I assisted in the design, testing,
field use, and evaluation of calorimeters (I never said I made one,
you made that up).  Therefore it's obvious to me that Rothwell can
take known facts and come up with absurd conclusions.

I have made technical assertions about Rossi's calorimetry.  I have
pointed how how ridiculously deficient it is, how he chooses the exact
methods that are likely to have faults and errors, and that he avoids
two methods (sparging steam in a container and using a liquid coolant
only) that would be vastly better.  I also pointed out that he avoid
proper blanks and calibrations which you tried to refute by alluding
to irrelevant and inappropriate boiler and HVAC field work.  I am
starting to doubt how much you know about calorimetry and I have grave
doubts about what you know regarding not getting flummoxed.

Re: [Vo]:Rossi to come to the Massachusetts State House tomorrow

[Mary Yugo]

On Tue, Nov 22, 2011 at 2:59 PM, Akira Shirakawa
 wrote:
> On 2011-11-22 20:18, Akira Shirakawa wrote:
>
>>> According to Sen. Bruce Tarr [...]
>
> This is Sen. Bruce Tarr's blog where probably the story originated:
> http://www.tarrtalk.com/2011/11/cold-fusion-inventor-comes-to-boston.html
>
> According to him, Rossi's already arrived in Boston this morning.
> It might be worth keeping an eye on this site for a couple of days in case
> new information on this matter arises.

Thanks, Akira.  It certainly looks as if (finally!) Rossi is about to
be asked some pertinent and difficult questions.  I hope that really
happens and that we find out about it.

Re: [Vo]:Rossi's interview with "Tom and Doug"

[Jed Rothwell]

Alan J Fletcher  wrote:

Oh-oh :   just started to listen, and at 5:10 he says he burned the INDEX
> finger of the RIGHT hand.
>

Maybe he is dyslexic and has difficulty telling his right from his left.
Like me, and my grandmother. No kidding. It isn't just in present
perceptions. The problem extends to memory. It also interferes with
cardinal direction finding. We would be hopeless in one of Australian or
Mexican languages such as Guugu Yimithir in which all directions are
geographic; i.e., in a crowded jeep, "why don't you move west and give me
some room" (meaning "scoot over"), or "look out for that big ant just north
of your foot" (where in English we would say "left of your foot" and I
might say "right of your foot.") (Those examples from Guy Deutscher)

Someone I know (I don't recall who) said while giving directions: "Your
left! No, I mean your other left!")

It could also be a problem with a foreign language.

- Jed

Re: [Vo]:Re: Randi Video

[Mary Yugo]

On Tue, Nov 22, 2011 at 1:26 PM, Jed Rothwell  wrote:

> Since he is not a fool, I am sure he knows that. He has known it for years.
> He has never said to me outright, "I do not want people to believe this,
> since I have no patent" but I suppose that must be his business strategy.
> Patterson did have a patent yet he said that. Many inventors & researchers
> in cold fusion and other fields have said that. They want negative press and
> opposition, because they have the development money they need and they have
> enough customers. They want to keep competing scientists from getting funded
> by ensuring the press will be full of attacks. They want to keep big
> corporations from getting interested.

That sounds implausible.  It seems backwards.  First, Rossi has not
been a shy wallflower.  He's given going on 12 demonstrations, many
for the public including scientists and reporters.  He says he is
about to give E-cats to two universities-- of course he hasn't but he
says he will "soon".   Rossi also apparently gave private
demonstrations (or tried to or failed to deliberately) to NASA and
Quantum.  Quantum would have been a huge client so why did he fail
with them if he could succeed?  Why not instead not agree to have them
visit at all, if he's so reticent?

I understand you think cold fusion acts the way you suggest
deliberately but I think maybe they have no other choice because
perhaps they can't show clearly the robust prolonged excess heat
production they claim to have. That would explain it more easily.

I'm also curious if you know another earth shaking revolutionary
invention that has been brought out with such discretion and
misdirection recently.  I know the discussion about the Wright
brothers but that was a very long time ago when the scientific
environment was very different and the public did not adapt to new
discoveries. Anyway the misdirection did not last long.  And this is
the age of the iPad, webcams, instant news and the internet.

Re: [Vo]: ECAT 1 MW Test Discrepancy

[Terry Blanton]

On Tue, Nov 22, 2011 at 8:44 PM, Mary Yugo  wrote:

> My predictions are similar in all forums.  In Moletrap, they're just a
> bit spicier.

Can you say "Bhut Jolokia (ghost) pepper"?

:-)

T

Re: [Vo]:Message sent to Kenneth Cage

[Mary Yugo]

On Tue, Nov 22, 2011 at 1:18 PM, Jones Beene  wrote:

> Needless to say, protecting cushy family jobs was not disclosed, in the 
> interest of fairness. However, this seems to be a typical motivation for Ivy 
> League techno-hegemonists with connections to hot fusion ...

I disagree. Nobody can protect their jobs by suppressing the greatest
discoveries of the last century.  For one thing they'll always triumph
if they're real.  For another, falsely suppressing a valid technology
will destroy a career far faster and more definitively than promoting
a scammy one.  We seem to live in very different realities.  Can you
imagine being the person who tried to stop something extravagantly
wonderful for the society or your country when all the facts were
there for you to embrace it?  I suppose there could be a very rare
exception but in general, the idea that people will suppression
wonderful new discoveries, in the presence of excellent evidence, to
protect jobs sounds to me like paranoid nonsense.

Re: [Vo]: ECAT 1 MW Test Discrepancy

[Mary Yugo]

On Tue, Nov 22, 2011 at 1:13 PM, Jed Rothwell  wrote:

>
> In that case there are no true believers here, since we all agree he [Rossi- 
> M. Y.] acts
> like a scammer. I have said that countless times.

To make that complete, you have to add that he acts like a scammer yet
you believe he really has cold fusion and his E-cat works more or less
as advertised, probably fairly closely to what Rossi claims for it. In
fact you've said you're absolutely convinced of it.  First principles
prove it (whatever that means).Right?

>
> However, your recollection is wrong. She has predicted time after time that
> he will be caught Any Day Now. Perhaps she has predicted this in other
> forums and not so often here. I do not keep track.

My predictions are similar in all forums.  In Moletrap, they're just a
bit spicier.  I think the overwhelming probability is that Rossi is a
scammer and a conscienceless sociopath.  I think he is most likely
bamboozling a lot of well intentioned people who should be more
cautious.

I hold out a tiny hope that he may be legitimate and that the E-cat is
real in which case I will be delighted.   However, in that event, I
have no attention to apologize to Rossi or anyone else.  The stupidity
and thoughtlessness and lack of consideration for others with which he
would have brought forth the invention, if he's honest, will have been
totally astounding and inappropriate.  Why he would act exactly like a
free energy scammer and follow their scripts if the invention is real
would be very hard to explain.  I don't buy the theories that he can't
properly protect the invention and benefit from it.  Thousands of
inventors before him, some with equally startling claims have done so.

Re: [Vo]:Ex-Chancellor backs Philip over attack on wind farms which Duke described as 'absolutely useless'

[Daniel Rocha]

That comes from a guy who lives in a hard working style from a hard working
family.

2011/11/22 Harry Veeder 

> Ex-Chancellor backs Philip over attack on wind farms which Duke
> described as 'absolutely useless'
>
> By Tamara Cohen
>
> Last updated at 12:17 PM on 21st November 2011
>
> Former Chancellor Lord Lawson yesterday led the backing for Prince
> Philip after he branded wind farms ‘absolutely useless’.
> In a scathing attack, the Duke of Edinburgh said the turbines were
> ‘completely reliant on subsidies’ and ‘would never work’...
>
>
> http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2064054/Prince-Philip-blasts-useless-wind-farms-Lord-Lawson-backs-attack-wind-power.html
>
> Harry
>
>


-- 
Daniel Rocha - RJ
danieldi...@gmail.com

[Vo]:Ex-Chancellor backs Philip over attack on wind farms which Duke described as 'absolutely useless'

[Harry Veeder]

Ex-Chancellor backs Philip over attack on wind farms which Duke
described as 'absolutely useless'

By Tamara Cohen

Last updated at 12:17 PM on 21st November 2011

Former Chancellor Lord Lawson yesterday led the backing for Prince
Philip after he branded wind farms ‘absolutely useless’.
In a scathing attack, the Duke of Edinburgh said the turbines were
‘completely reliant on subsidies’ and ‘would never work’...

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2064054/Prince-Philip-blasts-useless-wind-farms-Lord-Lawson-backs-attack-wind-power.html

Harry

Re: [Vo]:A U.S.P.O. policy regarding cold fusion

[Jed Rothwell]

By the way, that was for "charge 2" Most went along #3. Charges are:

"(2) To determine whether the evidence is sufficiently conclusive to
demonstrate that such nuclear reactions occur. (3) To determine whether
there is a scientific case for continued efforts in these studies and, if
so, to identify the most promising areas to be pursued . . ."

In other words, most of the ones who do not think cold fusion is nuclear
still voted to fund it. Unfortunately the DoE ignored their recommendation.

Aussie Guy E-Cat  wrote:

6 Yes, 10 No and 2 undecided. Wonder how they would vote today?
>


Most of the Ns would still be N, as you see from their opinions:

http://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/DOEusdepartme.pdf

Some examples of unchanging Ns from Melich and Rothwell (unpublished):
Reviewer 6

Much of this review is devoted to refuting existing cold fusion theory. See
Appendix A, and  *Theoretical objections to experimentally proven facts are
a violation of the scientific method*

*
*

Reviewer 15

This review is a travesty. It has no place in a serious scientific
discussion, and it should be stricken from the record.

Claim 15.1. “The August 2004 Popular Mechanics gives an overview of the
present DOE review and the cover states that one can build an H bomb in the
basement. Also, the article claims that this is a cheap way to make
tritium. Clearly this article sets the tone for this field of research, one
of paranoia with the added impetus that someone will get there first. It is
this aspect of the field that the DOE must somehow deal with.”

This remark is deplorable, and Popular Mechanics is not a scientific
journal. The article in it was not written by a cold fusion researcher and
it does not represent the views of any cold fusion researcher. The DoE and
the cold fusion researchers are not obligated to “deal with” lurid claims
in popular press that are far removed from actual science.

. . .

Reviewer 16

Much of this review is devoted to refuting existing cold fusion theory. See
Appendix A, *Cold fusion is an experimental finding, so you cannot disprove
it by showing errors in theories that attempt to explain it* and *Theoretical
objections to experimentally proven facts are a violation of the scientific
method*

One other typical example:

Claim 18.8. “The alterations in the decay ratios of the d+d fusion reaction
that would be required to explain the electrochemical data in terms of LENR
cannot be understood in any sensible model.”

See Appendix A, *A result need not be explained theoretically before it can
be believed* and *A reviewer’s inability to imagine or understand a result
is not a valid reason to reject it*


The "Ns" here are are not good at the scientific method. They make 68
elementary logical and methodological errors like the ones underlined
above. Most opponents do.

They probably made more than 68 errors. I stopped counting in some cases.
If they were in high schools their reviews would be covered in red ink and
given failing grades. I do not exaggerate. Read the reviews and see for
yourself.

- Jed

Re: [Vo]:Rossi's interview with "Tom and Doug"

[Alan J Fletcher]

At about 17:00 he talks about 3 kinds of skepticism ... some of us at 
Vortex are "honest skeptics", which is positive.

The other two are "Envy" and "Competitors".  He politely left off #4 -- snakes.
At 20:26 he says he isn't associated with ecat.com ... but this 
interview predates that : 11/11/11
32:30 : just made a breakthrough on electric production. (I'll bet 
it's cold-cycle!)
32:35 about 50 people working with him (engineers,workers--just 
electricians,specialists)

Re: [Vo]:A U.S.P.O. policy regarding cold fusion

[Daniel Rocha]

WOW! That's a lot of yes! :O

2011/11/22 Aussie Guy E-Cat 

> 6 Yes, 10 No and 2 undecided. Wonder how they would vote today?
>
> AG
>
>
> On 11/23/2011 11:36 AM, Jed Rothwell wrote:
>
>  de Bivort Lawrence mailto:ldebiv...@gmail.com>>
>> wrote:
>>
>>Joshua, when did the DOE panel you refer to take place?
>>
>>
>> See:
>>
>> http://lenr-canr.org/**Collections/DoeReview.htm
>>
>> Panel opinions:
>>
>> http://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/**DOEusdepartme.pdf
>>
>> Score (member number, Y, N or U - undecided):
>>
>> 1 N
>> 2 N
>> 3 U
>> 4 Y
>> 5 N
>> 6 N
>> 7 N
>> 8 Y
>> 9 Y
>> 10 Y
>> 11 Y
>> 12 N
>> 13 Y
>> 14 N
>> 15 N
>> 16 U
>> 17 N
>> 18 N
>>
>> - Jed
>>
>>
>


-- 
Daniel Rocha - RJ
danieldi...@gmail.com

Re: [Vo]:A U.S.P.O. policy regarding cold fusion

[Aussie Guy E-Cat]

6 Yes, 10 No and 2 undecided. Wonder how they would vote today?

AG


On 11/23/2011 11:36 AM, Jed Rothwell wrote:
de Bivort Lawrence mailto:ldebiv...@gmail.com>> 
wrote:


Joshua, when did the DOE panel you refer to take place?


See:

http://lenr-canr.org/Collections/DoeReview.htm

Panel opinions:

http://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/DOEusdepartme.pdf

Score (member number, Y, N or U - undecided):

1 N
2 N
3 U
4 Y
5 N
6 N
7 N
8 Y
9 Y
10 Y
11 Y
12 N
13 Y
14 N
15 N
16 U
17 N
18 N

- Jed

Re: [Vo]:A U.S.P.O. policy regarding cold fusion

[Jed Rothwell]

de Bivort Lawrence  wrote:

Joshua, when did the DOE panel you refer to take place?
>

See:

http://lenr-canr.org/Collections/DoeReview.htm

Panel opinions:

http://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/DOEusdepartme.pdf

Score (member number, Y, N or U - undecided):

1 N
2 N
3 U
4 Y
5 N
6 N
7 N
8 Y
9 Y
10 Y
11 Y
12 N
13 Y
14 N
15 N
16 U
17 N
18 N

- Jed

Re: [Vo]:Rossi's interview with "Tom and Doug"

[Alan J Fletcher]

Oh-oh :   just started to listen, and at 5:10 he says he burned the 
INDEX finger of the RIGHT hand.


On the Krivit interview he said :

At a certain point, the, the temperature raised very suddenly, and, 
uh, and I had in my, the, the, uh, left finger of, uh, of, uh, the, 
the, the, the finger of, umm, uh, the index of my left hand, umm, ... 

Re: [Vo]:A U.S.P.O. policy regarding cold fusion

[James Bowery]

On Tue, Nov 22, 2011 at 5:01 PM, Jed Rothwell  wrote:

> Someone was kind enough to dig up this document:
>
> http://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/pac/mpep/documents/2100_2107_01.htm
>
>
>


-- Forwarded message --
From: James Bowery 
Date: Mon, Nov 21, 2011 at 9:12 PM
Subject: Re: [Vo]:USPTO Lawlessness?
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com


Here is a search of uspto.gov for "cold fusion":

http://goo.gl/groRG

I think this hit indicates that the formal stance is that despite it being
"incredible" technology, "cold fusion" should be evaluated on the basis of
"utility":

Examples of such cases include: ... a "cold fusion" process for producing
energy (In re Swartz, 232 F.3d 862, 56 USPQ2d 1703, (Fed. Cir. 2000))
These examples are fact specific and should not be applied as a per se
rule. Thus, in view of the rare nature of such cases, Office personnel
should not label an asserted utility "incredible," "speculative" or
otherwise unless it is clear that a rejection based on "lack of utility" is
proper.

http://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/pac/mpep/documents/2100_2107_01.htm

However, there clearly _is_ a perception among intellectual property
counsel that the USPTO does treat inventions labeled "cold fusion" with a
"jaundiced eye".  This, alone, is sufficient to justify an executive to
treat the lawfulness of the USPTO with caution and, in cases where what is
at stake simply cannot be adequately insured against even the small risk of
lawlessness by a government organ in a critical jurisdiction such as the
United States, the prudent course of action would be to build a case
outside of that jurisdiction with minimum risk exposure given that a patent
is not a safe option.  Remember, a CEO is answerable to stockholders, not
to Mary Yugo.

See, for example:
"Under the current approach to defining practical utility and operability,
the USPTO appears to have approached the majority of biotechnology cases
with the same jaundiced eye that it casts on perpetual motion machines or
cold fusion inventions."

http://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/com/hearings/biotech/bioind.html

And this:


COMMISSIONER LEHMAN:  Thank you very much.

Next I'd like to call Micheal Farber of Merchant and Gould. //

MICHEAL FARBER, MERCHANT and GOULD

MR. FARBER:  Thank you, Commission Lehman and panelists.

My name is Micheal B. Farber and I'm a patent attorney with Merchant and
Gould, in Los Angeles.  We are a full-service intellectual property firm,
and our biotechnology clients include small start-ups, large Fortune 500
multinational corporations, non-profit research institutions and
universities in a broad range of biotechnology areas.  I would like to
address several issues, particularly with respect to enablement and
nonobviousness and the level of ordinary skill in the art.

I think with respect to enablement, which also ties in to some extent
with utility, there has been a perceived lack of credibility for
biotechnology which has almost put it into the same weird science
standard as perpetual motion or cold fusion, and I don't think this is
appropriate.

Re: [Vo]:A U.S.P.O. policy regarding cold fusion

[Joshua Cude]

On Tue, Nov 22, 2011 at 5:55 PM, de Bivort Lawrence wrote:

> Joshua, when did the DOE panel you refer to take place?
>
>
>
2004. I think the McKubre papers Rothwell is referring to predate that.
There has not been much (if anything) published under peer-review about
excess heat from electrolysis since then. Less than a dozen experimental
claims of positive results in cold fusion by my count. Mostly some papers
on CR-39 from Mosier-Boss et al, and some sub-watt papers on gas-loading.

Re: [Vo]:A U.S.P.O. policy regarding cold fusion

[de Bivort Lawrence]

Joshua, when did the DOE panel you refer to take place?

Lawrence


On Nov 22, 2011, at 6:24 PM, Joshua Cude wrote:

> 
> 
> On Tue, Nov 22, 2011 at 5:01 PM, Jed Rothwell  wrote:
> 
> 
> Anyway, it is clear from this document and others that the management at the 
> Patent Office, the DoE and at some other leading institutions in the United 
> States do not believe that cold fusion exists. 
> 
> That's called over-interpretation, something cold fusion advocates are 
> experts in. That document says nothing about the DOE and other leading 
> institutions, and it does not give the patent office's general opinion of 
> cold fusion. It gives one example of a cf patent deemed inoperative. 
> 
> Secretary Chu is a good example. I have encountered countless others. They 
> are determined to prevent any cold fusion research from being funded, because 
> they think it is fraud, or impossible, or they think it was never replicated. 
> That is what they say.
> 
> Show us where they say it. I think you're making it up.
> 
>  I am equally sure that no expert in calorimetry who reads the paper will 
> find an error in it. There are no errors in this, or in any other major cold 
> fusion paper.
> 
> All that cold fusion literature was available to the DOE panel of 18 experts, 
> and they judged that the occurrence of low energy nuclear reactions is not 
> conclusively demonstrated by the evidence presented.
> 
> 

Re: [Vo]:A U.S.P.O. policy regarding cold fusion

[Aussie Guy E-Cat]

It has been said it is difficult for a man to believe what his paycheck 
demands he not believe.


AG


On 11/23/2011 9:54 AM, Joshua Cude wrote:
All that cold fusion literature was available to the DOE panel of 18 
experts, and they judged that the occurrence of low energy nuclear 
reactions is not conclusively demonstrated by the evidence presented.

RE: [Vo]:Published today in the UK

[Roarty, Francis X]

OOPS - got that backwards...  Frank's Speed of sound in nucleus is many times 
times SLOWER than C!


[snip] Light or electromagnetic radiation in vacuum has a much higher velocity, 
c = 299,792,458 metres per second, nearly 300 times as large as the velocity of 
sound in the nucleus of atoms identified by Znidarsic. In order for light in 
the electronic structure to match the velocity sound in the nucleus, it must be 
slowed down nearly 300-fold. Light does indeed propagate at reduced velocity 
through dense media; the refraction of light in water is an everyday example. 
In the laboratory, scientists have managed to slow light down even to a 
standstill in a BSC of atoms [21, 22] (see [23] Trapping 
Light, SiS 22).


From: Roarty, Francis X
Sent: Tuesday, November 22, 2011 5:04 PM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Subject: EXTERNAL: RE: [Vo]:Published today in the UK

Frank,
I am starting to see things from your perspective, if you are 
correct about propagation speed inside a nucleus being faster than C and if 
this holds true for super atoms of condensed matter then you have a potential 
force converter where energy supplied by normal propagation limit of C now has 
an alternate path through a BEC that is several times faster than C. I think 
you are implying  this superluminal propagation leads to what the British 
author was describing as a translation between magnetic and gravatic energy - 
he actually used the analogy of a tsunami below. The theory doesn& #8217;t by 
itself explain excess heat or gravity anomalies but I think you may have 
defined the key metrics that make this possible. Supplying the other leg of an 
oscillator tank and energy of some sort to operate the tank could take many 
forms but the superluminal portion of the tank would provide the anomalous 
conversions required to exploit the energy source whether you think it is ZPE, 
LENR or whatever. [snip]Znidaric suggests that the BEC in the superconducting 
disc somehow locally amplifies the magnetic components of the forces. An 
increased magnetic field is required to carry the same amount of energy at a 
lower velocity.  The process is similar to that of a tsunami, as the tidal wave 
slows, its height piles up in an amount necessary to carry its energy.

This increased gravitomagnteic field gives apparent antigravity effects. In 
other words, the weak and strong forces and gravity balance out via their 
amplified magnetic components. Znidarsic emphasizes that this does not violate 
any law of conservation, as it is known that magnetic, as well as electric 
permittivity can be modified locally. The BEC therefore, acts like a soft iron 
core, only much more so, as the magnetic component of mass (gravitomagnetic 
force) is only 10-39 that of the ordinary electromagnetic field

When asked how that amplification could be achieved, Znidarsic says he does not 
exactly know, but suspects it involves an increase in the magnetic component of 
the fields  that compensates for the reduced velocity of the fields; "just as 
water flows in a river bed through a valley electrons transit between states 
through channels of matching impedance."   Could this be the "zero-point 
energy" that has been the holy grail of Haisch and Puthoff and their followers, 
including Podkletnov and Znidaric [/snip]


From: fznidar...@aol.com [mailto:fznidar...@aol.com]
Sent: Monday, November 21, 2011 3:31 PM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com; acgrav...@gmail.com; jbarro...@hotmail.com; 
ajo...@tribdem.com; andy_buc...@cfc.com; leola2...@gmail.com; 
bob.isenb...@power.alstom.com; bobp...@umd.edu; coo...@ctc.com; 
mldais...@yahoo.com; dzu...@crownamerican.com; edit...@kurzweilai.net; 
edit...@sciam.com; ew...@heathkit.com; earfu...@verizon.net; 
cefo...@windstream.net; frederick.e.la...@power.alstom.com; g...@ias-spes.org; 
debroger...@roadrunner.com; h heff...@mtaonline.net; threes...@aol.com; 
iass...@ias-spes.org; i...@erols.com; isenb...@aol.com; 
jack.d.wal...@power.alstom.com; jedrothw...@gmail.com; jmar...@aol.com; 
jmar...@aol.de; ajo...@tribdem.com; khug...@ameriservfinancial.com; 
larryleeg...@hotmail.com; lars.o.blomb...@power.alstom.com; 
frederick.e.la...@power.alstom.com; mcgyver28...@yahoo.com; mk...@aol.com; 
mm...@joy.com; mrkn...@hotmail.com; nickgjur...@atlanticbb.net; 
pam.b...@navy.mil; paul.fos...@power.alstom.com; puth...@aol.com; 
mike1...@atlanticbb.net; rvargo1...@yahoo.com; sbarro...@hotmail.com; 
s...@scalettacpa.com; spectrumradionetw...@gmail.com; 
st...@infinite-energy.com; ste...@newenergytimes.com; tcvfr...@aol.com; 
diaterl...@yahoo.com; klthoma...@gmail.com; howard...@gmail.com; 
ntho...@usa.redcross.org; tkep...@yahoo.com; tocbutter...@yahoo.com; 
william.ba...@meppi.com; williamla...@bellsouth.net; wkep...@genion.com; 
wkep...@rrienergy.com; "john..dudeck"@genon.com; joseph.zambo...@gmail.com
Subject: EXTERNAL: [Vo]: Published today in the UK

http://www.i-sis.org.uk/The_Z_theory_of_everythin

Re: [Vo]:A U.S.P.O. policy regarding cold fusion

[Joshua Cude]

On Tue, Nov 22, 2011 at 5:01 PM, Jed Rothwell  wrote:

>
>
> Anyway, it is clear from this document and others that the management at
> the Patent Office, the DoE and at some other leading institutions in the
> United States do not believe that cold fusion exists.
>

That's called over-interpretation, something cold fusion advocates are
experts in. That document says nothing about the DOE and other leading
institutions, and it does not give the patent office's general opinion of
cold fusion. It gives one example of a cf patent deemed inoperative.

Secretary Chu is a good example. I have encountered countless others. They
> are determined to prevent any cold fusion research from being funded,
> because they think it is fraud, or impossible, or they think it was never
> replicated. That is what they say.
>

Show us where they say it. I think you're making it up.

 I am equally sure that no expert in calorimetry who reads the paper will
> find an error in it. There are no errors in this, or in any other major
> cold fusion paper.
>

All that cold fusion literature was available to the DOE panel of 18
experts, and they judged that the occurrence of low energy nuclear
reactions is not conclusively demonstrated by the evidence presented.

[Vo]:A U.S.P.O. policy regarding cold fusion

[Jed Rothwell]

Someone was kind enough to dig up this document:

http://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/pac/mpep/documents/2100_2107_01.htm

QUOTE:

Situations where an invention is found to be "inoperative" and therefore
lacking in utility are rare, and rejections maintained solely on this
ground by a Federal court even rarer. In many of these cases, the utility
asserted by the applicant was thought to be "incredible in the light of the
knowledge of the art, or factually misleading" when initially considered by
the Office. In re Citron, 325 F.2d 248, 253, 139 USPQ 516, 520 (CCPA 1963).
Other cases suggest that on initial evaluation, the Office considered the
asserted utility to be inconsistent with known scientific principles or
"speculative at best" as to whether attributes of the invention necessary
to impart the asserted utility were actually present in the invention. In
re Sichert, 566 F.2d 1154, 196 USPQ 209 (CCPA 1977). However cast, the
underlying finding by the court in these cases was that, *based on the
factual record of the case*, it was clear that the invention could not and
did not work as the inventor claimed it did. Indeed, the use of many labels
to describe a single problem (e.g., a false assertion regarding utility)
has led to some of the confusion that exists today with regard to a
rejection based on the "utility" requirement. Examples of such cases
include: an invention asserted to change the taste of food using a magnetic
field (Fregeau v.Mossinghoff, 776 F.2d 1034, 227 USPQ 848 (Fed. Cir.
1985)), a perpetual motion machine (Newmanv. Quigg, 877 F.2d 1575, 11
USPQ2d 1340 (Fed. Cir. 1989)), a flying machine operating on "flapping or
flutter function" (In re Houghton, 433 F.2d 820, 167 USPQ 687 (CCPA 1970)),
a "cold fusion" process for producing energy (In re Swartz, 232 F.3d 862,
56 USPQ2d 1703, (Fed. Cir. 2000)) . . .

END QUOTE


I know nothing about Swartz's machine, and I have no idea what the "factual
record of the case" includes. I suppose it does work, but it is conceivable
that the Patent Office is right and this particular device does not work. I
have seen some cold fusion claims that struck me as unproven.

However, many other cold fusion devices do work. There is more proof of
that than you will find for many other nascent technologies. Before Rossi
there were no practical, commercially useful cold fusion reactors. But the
P.O. rules do not disqualify a device on the grounds that it is not
practical.

The problem may be that the people trying to get patents for the other
devices -- the ones which definitely do work -- ran out of money, time or
gumption, or they died.

Anyway, it is clear from this document and others that the management at
the Patent Office, the DoE and at some other leading institutions in the
United States do not believe that cold fusion exists. Secretary Chu is a
good example. I have encountered countless others. They are determined to
prevent any cold fusion research from being funded, because they think it
is fraud, or impossible, or they think it was never replicated. That is
what they say. I have every reason to believe they mean what they say. They
do not hide this opinion. They do not consider it controversial. Moreover,
they do not know anything about cold fusion, and they *absolutely
refuse*to learn anything or glance at LENR-CANR.org. They say "I will
not waste my
time looking at such garbage." I have heard that a million times. I tell
them the papers are published by EPRI, the Navy, the NSF and BARC. They do
not believe me, and they never bother to check. Again, that is what they
tell me, and I have no reason to doubt them.

A few of these opponents claim to be experts in some related field, yet
they say they cannot understand the papers. Mary Yugo is a prime example.
She claim to be an expert in calorimetry yet she says she cannot make head
or tail of McKubre's paper. Those two statements cannot be reconciled; if
you are an expert in calorimetry, McKubre's paper is baby food for you. It
is what you do every day. It is not possible that Yugo has made
calorimeters yet she cannot follow this paper. I have no idea whether she
actually knows anything about calorimeters since she has not made any
technical assertions about calorimetry. I have no way of judging whether
she has actually tried to read this paper and failed to understand it,
since she has made no comments about it. But I am sure that no genuine
expert in calorimetery will have difficulty with this paper. I am equally
sure that no expert in calorimetry who reads the paper will find an error
in it. There are no errors in this, or in any other major cold fusion
paper. If there were errors, some opponent would have found them years ago.

McKubre's papers has been downloaded and by tens of thousands of people. It
isn't as if no one has checked them.

- Jed

Re: [Vo]:Rossi to come to the Massachusetts State House tomorrow

[Akira Shirakawa]

On 2011-11-22 20:18, Akira Shirakawa wrote:


According to Sen. Bruce Tarr [...]


This is Sen. Bruce Tarr's blog where probably the story originated:
http://www.tarrtalk.com/2011/11/cold-fusion-inventor-comes-to-boston.html

According to him, Rossi's already arrived in Boston this morning.
It might be worth keeping an eye on this site for a couple of days in 
case new information on this matter arises.


Cheers,
S.A.

[Vo]:Sven Kullader's cold fusion talk is upon us.

[Daniel Rocha]

Will anyone go there? It's today (11/23).

-- 
Daniel Rocha - RJ
danieldi...@gmail.com

Re: [Vo]:Published today in the UK

[Axil Axil]

I am starting to see things from your perspective, if you are correct about
propagation speed inside a nucleus being faster than C and if this holds
true for super atoms of condensed matter then you have a potential force
converter where energy supplied by normal propagation limit of C now has an
alternate path through a BEC that is several times faster than C.



The teleportation of entangled quantum mechanical properties has been seen
to exceed 10,000 times the speed of light at a minimum.



See:



Quantum weirdness wins again: Entanglement clocks in at 10,000+ times
faster than light



http://www.scientificamerican.com/blog/post.cfm?id=quantum-weirdnes-wins-again-entangl-2008-08-13




On Tue, Nov 22, 2011 at 5:04 PM, Roarty, Francis X <
francis.x.roa...@lmco.com> wrote:

>  Frank,
>
> I am starting to see things from your perspective, if you
> are correct about propagation speed inside a nucleus being faster than C
> and if this holds true for super atoms of condensed matter then you have a
> potential force converter where energy supplied by normal propagation limit
> of C now has an alternate path through a BEC that is several times faster
> than C. I think you are implying  this superluminal propagation leads to
> what the British author was describing as a translation between magnetic
> and gravatic energy – he actually used the analogy of a tsunami below. The
> theory doesn& #8217;t by itself explain excess heat or gravity anomalies
> but I think you may have defined the key metrics that make this possible.
> Supplying the other leg of an oscillator tank and energy of some sort to
> operate the tank could take many forms but the superluminal portion of the
> tank would provide the anomalous conversions required to exploit the energy
> source whether you think it is ZPE, LENR or whatever. [snip]Znidaric
> suggests that the BEC in the superconducting disc somehow locally amplifies
> the magnetic components of the forces. An increased magnetic field is
> required to carry the same amount of energy at a lower velocity.  The
> process is similar to that of a tsunami, as the tidal wave slows, its
> height piles up in an amount necessary to carry its energy.
>
> This increased gravitomagnteic field gives apparent antigravity effects.
> In other words, the weak and strong forces and gravity balance out via
> their amplified magnetic components. Znidarsic emphasizes that this does
> not violate any law of conservation, as it is known that magnetic, as well
> as electric permittivity can be modified locally. The BEC therefore, acts
> like a soft iron core, only much more so, as the magnetic component of mass
> (gravitomagnetic force) is only 10-39 that of the ordinary
> electromagnetic field
>
> When asked how that amplification could be achieved, Znidarsic says he
> does not exactly know, but suspects it involves an increase in the magnetic
> component of the fields  that compensates for the reduced velocity of the
> fields; “just as water flows in a river bed through a valley electrons
> transit between states through channels of matching impedance.”   Could
> this be the “zero-point energy” that has been the holy grail of Haisch and
> Puthoff and their followers, including Podkletnov and Znidaric [/snip] ***
> *
>
> ** **
>
> ** **
>
> *From:* fznidar...@aol.com [mailto:fznidar...@aol.com]
> *Sent:* Monday, November 21, 2011 3:31 PM
> *To:* vortex-l@eskimo.com; acgrav...@gmail.com; jbarro...@hotmail.com;
> ajo...@tribdem.com; andy_buc...@cfc.com; leola2...@gmail.com;
> bob.isenb...@power.alstom.com; bobp...@umd.edu; coo...@ctc.com;
> mldais...@yahoo.com; dzu...@crownamerican.com; edit...@kurzweilai.net;
> edit...@sciam.com; ew...@heathkit.com; earfu...@verizon.net;
> cefo...@windstream.net; frederick.e.la...@power.alstom.com;
> g...@ias-spes.org; debroger...@roadrunner.com; h heff...@mtaonline.net;
> threes...@aol.com; iass...@ias-spes.org; i...@erols.com; isenb...@aol.com;
> jack.d.wal...@power.alstom.com; jedrothw...@gmail.com; jmar...@aol.com;
> jmar...@aol.de; ajo...@tribdem.com; khug...@ameriservfinancial.com;
> larryleeg...@hotmail.com; lars.o.blomb...@power.alstom.com;
> frederick.e.la...@power.alstom.com; mcgyver28...@yahoo.com; mk...@aol.com;
> mm...@joy.com; mrkn...@hotmail.com; nickgjur...@atlanticbb.net;
> pam.b...@navy.mil; paul.fos...@power.alstom.com; puth...@aol.com;
> mike1...@atlanticbb.net; rvargo1...@yahoo.com; sbarro...@hotmail.com;
> s...@scalettacpa.com; spectrumradionetw...@gmail.com;
> st...@infinite-energy.com; ste...@newenergytimes.com; tcvfr...@aol.com;
> diaterl...@yahoo.com; klthoma...@gmail.com; howard...@gmail.com;
> ntho...@usa.redcross.org; tkep...@yahoo.com; tocbutter...@yahoo.com;
> william.ba...@meppi.com; williamla...@bellsouth.net; wkep...@genion.com;
> wkep...@rrienergy.com; "john..dudeck"@genon.com; joseph.zambo...@gmail.com
> *Subject:* EXTERNAL: [Vo]: Published today in the UK
>
> ** **
>
> http://www.i-sis.org.uk/The_Z_th

Re: [Vo]:Rossi to come to the Massachusetts State House tomorrow

[Joshua Cude]

On Tue, Nov 22, 2011 at 4:18 PM, Aussie Guy E-Cat
wrote:

> Maybe because it works as claimed and MIT wants to gain the academic high
> ground by verifying Rossi and then asking the US gov for LOTS of research
> money to study and improve the reaction?


But that doesn't fit with the excuse usually put forward. MIT opposed CF
because it endangered their precious research grants, not because it didn't
work. In fact, it would be *because* it worked that it needed to be
suppressed. Now, you're saying that they think it works, so they're jumping
on board. It kind of suggests that before they thought it didn't work,
which would be a good reason for them to argue it doesn't work.

[Vo]:Tachyonic Neutrinos and the eCat

[Alan J Fletcher]

 From another forum : 
"I want to corral some faster-than-light neutrinos to do my
stock picks
for me."
My reply :
The financial quants are already laying a dedicated transatlantic
fiber cable so they get the news quicker.

I'll bet they're talking to folks about how to send messages with
neutrinos.

Hmmm  in the Widom-Larsen theory of cold fusion, one of the
outputs is neutrinos! (Positron+Electron=Neutron+Neutrino)

Maybe the domestic eCat can be your tachyonic stock ticker, too.

(lenr.qumbu.com -- analyzing the Rossi/Focardi eCat  -- Hi,
google!)

Re: [Vo]:Rossi to come to the Massachusetts State House tomorrow

[Aussie Guy E-Cat]

What do you think the 1 MW test was? It was independent testing and 
verification. You think the same US military research contractor that 
bought the first reactor ordered 13 more 1 MW reactors because they were 
not satisfied with the results of their tests? We have NO idea of what 
is really happening behind the scene, who has visited Rossi and done 
verifications that have never been published. This technology is world 
changing. You expect the powers that be to openly tell everyone their 
plans to change the way the world generates power and to use that to 
alter who is in control of this technology? Mary you are so involved in 
looking for spin / scam / fraud that you can't see the forest for the 
trees. It is real. It works. The world has changed and the US is in the 
drivers seat.


AG


On 11/23/2011 6:32 AM, Mary Yugo wrote:

I can't help but recall that the president of Ireland, Mary McAleese,
actually visited Steorn's offices and looked at the stuff as a part of
some technology outreach sort of thing.  That was after most of the
scientific community realized and had said they were most likely to be
a fraud.  Of course, in Ireland, president is a largely ceremonial
position but still ...

If that meeting takes place, it could be very interesting -- but only
if anyone is able to talk about it and if they manage to ask Rossi the
right questions and make the right requests instead of just soft
balling him.   People tend to be way too polite when addressing Rossi
at interviews and public meetings.  He needs his nose rubbed *hard* in
the necessity of independent testing and verification.

Re: [Vo]:Rossi to come to the Massachusetts State House tomorrow

[Aussie Guy E-Cat]

Maybe because it works as claimed and MIT wants to gain the academic 
high ground by verifying Rossi and then asking the US gov for LOTS of 
research money to study and improve the reaction? Think about thousands 
of container ships full of US made E-Cats sailing to all points of the 
compass. With MIT backing the US will attempt to control the LENR world.


AG


On 11/23/2011 6:14 AM, Joshua Cude wrote:



On Tue, Nov 22, 2011 at 1:18 PM, Akira Shirakawa 
mailto:shirakawa.ak...@gmail.com>> wrote:


Rossi plans to visit Tuesday morning for two days of meeting
with government officials and representatives of the
Massachusetts Institute of Technology,


MIT? How is that possible. MIT is the epicenter of the anti-cold 
fusion conspiracy...

Re: [Vo]:Tovima: Defkalion says the catalyst formula is not Rossi's

[Axil Axil]

At 02:31 PM 11/21/2011, Mary Yugo wrote:



Just out of curiosity, is there anything written about "nuclear catalysts"
other than related to LENR/cold fusion energy generation?  I never heard of
a nuclear catalyst before Rossi.  I've always thought of a catalyst as a
substance which changes the rate of a chemical reaction without being
consumed and without changing the equilibrium constant of the underlying
reaction.



I will also give this one a shot.





A number of prominent commenters on the subject of cold fusion: Dr. Miley
and Kim, think that quantum entanglement is central to the reaction that
transmutes elements. I also hold to this speculation to be true.



In explanation as background, the alkali metals are a series of chemical
elements in the periodic table. In the modern IUPAC nomenclature, the
alkali metals comprise the group 1 elements, along with hydrogen. The
alkali metals are lithium (Li), sodium (Na), potassium (K), rubidium (Rb),
cesium (Cs), and francium (Fr), Hydrogen (H), although nominally also a
member of Group 1. The Rossi catalyst could be a compound of one of these
elements.



It has been observed that in certain processes involving cold dusty plasmas
including thermal-electric processes, that alkali metals will form quantum
mechanical(QM) entangled ensembles of atoms that will tend to produce
coherent entanglements of exotic hydrogen species of dust or crystals which
hold promise to drive unanticipated nuclear processes like cold fusion.



(QM) entanglement was rejected by Albert Einstein as totally unbelievable
and contrary to his theory of relativity but after many years of
experimentation (QM) entanglement was observed to defy the rules of the
Einsteinian Universe thereby defying its rules for both space and time.



The question becomes what happens when an entangled sub-atomic particle
enters a nuclear reaction when it finds its way into an atomic nucleus and
participates in that nuclear reaction.



How do the strong force and/or the weak force affect a proton and/or an
electron that is entangled with some 100 other protons and electrons
outside and far away from that nucleus?  Is the entanglement of the
tunneling particle broken or does it still remain uncertain (stays
entangled)?



It has been shown that QM blockade caused by a nuclear catalyst will affect
material over very long distances (centimeters) by inducing that exposed
material (hydrogen and/or nickel) into an entangled state.



This is a possible QM mechanism that underlies how the Rossi catalyst might
work.




On Tue, Nov 22, 2011 at 2:34 PM, Mary Yugo  wrote:

>
>
>  On Tue, Nov 22, 2011 at 11:32 AM, Alan J Fletcher  wrote:
>
>>
>> Look up Muon-Catalyzed Fusion.  (Recently discussed with Joshua Crude).
>> http://www.mail-archive.com/**vortex-l@eskimo.com/msg56320.**html
>>
>
> Thanks.  Will do.
>
>

RE: [Vo]:Published today in the UK

[Roarty, Francis X]

Frank,
I am starting to see things from your perspective, if you are 
correct about propagation speed inside a nucleus being faster than C and if 
this holds true for super atoms of condensed matter then you have a potential 
force converter where energy supplied by normal propagation limit of C now has 
an alternate path through a BEC that is several times faster than C. I think 
you are implying  this superluminal propagation leads to what the British 
author was describing as a translation between magnetic and gravatic energy - 
he actually used the analogy of a tsunami below. The theory doesn't by itself 
explain excess heat or gravity anomalies but I think you may have defined the 
key metrics that make this possible. Supplying the other leg of an oscillator 
tank and energy of some sort to operate the tank could take many forms but the 
superluminal portion of the tank would provide the anomalous conversions 
required to exploit the energy source whether you think it is ZPE, LENR or 
whatever. [snip]Znidaric suggests that the BEC in the superconducting disc 
somehow locally amplifies the magnetic components of the forces. An increased 
magnetic field is required to carry the same amount of energy at a lower 
velocity.  The process is similar to that of a tsunami, as the tidal wave 
slows, its height piles up in an amount necessary to carry its energy.

This increased gravitomagnteic field gives apparent antigravity effects. In 
other words, the weak and strong forces and gravity balance out via their 
amplified magnetic components. Znidarsic emphasizes that this does not violate 
any law of conservation, as it is known that magnetic, as well as electric 
permittivity can be modified locally. The BEC therefore, acts like a soft iron 
core, only much more so, as the magnetic component of mass (gravitomagnetic 
force) is only 10-39 that of the ordinary electromagnetic field

When asked how that amplification could be achieved, Znidarsic says he does not 
exactly know, but suspects it involves an increase in the magnetic component of 
the fields  that compensates for the reduced velocity of the fields; "just as 
water flows in a river bed through a valley electrons transit between states 
through channels of matching impedance."   Could this be the "zero-point 
energy" that has been the holy grail of Haisch and Puthoff and their followers, 
including Podkletnov and Znidaric [/snip]


From: fznidar...@aol.com [mailto:fznidar...@aol.com]
Sent: Monday, November 21, 2011 3:31 PM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com; acgrav...@gmail.com; jbarro...@hotmail.com; 
ajo...@tribdem.com; andy_buc...@cfc.com; leola2...@gmail.com; 
bob.isenb...@power.alstom.com; bobp...@umd.edu; coo...@ctc.com; 
mldais...@yahoo.com; dzu...@crownamerican.com; edit...@kurzweilai.net; 
edit...@sciam.com; ew...@heathkit.com; earfu...@verizon.net; 
cefo...@windstream.net; frederick.e.la...@power.alstom.com; g...@ias-spes.org; 
debroger...@roadrunner.com; hheff...@mtaonline.net; threes...@aol.com; 
iass...@ias-spes.org; i...@erols.com; isenb...@aol.com; 
jack.d.wal...@power.alstom.com; jedrothw...@gmail.com; jmar...@aol.com; 
jmar...@aol.de; ajo...@tribdem.com; khug...@ameriservfinancial.com; 
larryleeg...@hotmail.com; lars.o.blomb...@power.alstom.com; 
frederick.e.la...@power.alstom.com; mcgyver28...@yahoo.com; mk...@aol.com; 
mm...@joy.com; mrkn...@hotmail.com; nickgjur...@atlanticbb.net; 
pam.b...@navy.mil; paul.fos...@power.alstom.com; puth...@aol.com; 
mike1...@atlanticbb.net; rvargo1...@yahoo.com; sbarro...@hotmail.com; 
s...@scalettacpa.com; spectrumradionetw...@gmail.com; 
st...@infinite-energy.com; ste...@newenergytimes.com; tcvfr...@aol.com; 
diaterl...@yahoo.com; klthoma...@gmail.com; howard...@gmail.com; 
ntho...@usa.redcross.org; tkep...@yahoo.com; tocbutter...@yahoo.com; 
william.ba...@meppi.com; williamla...@bellsouth.net; wkep...@genion.com; 
wkep...@rrienergy.com; "john..dudeck"@genon.com; joseph.zambo...@gmail.com
Subject: EXTERNAL: [Vo]:Published today in the UK

http://www.i-sis.org.uk/The_Z_theory_of_everything.php

it a nice article

Frank Znidarsic

Re: [Vo]:Rossi opens 10 KW expression of interest list and sets 10 kW price

[Aussie Guy E-Cat]

My intent to order has been acknowledged. No number in the queue was 
given. I have more doubts about Defkalion than Rossi.


AG


On 11/23/2011 1:38 AM, Terry Blanton wrote:

On Tue, Nov 22, 2011 at 4:14 AM, Aussie Guy E-Cat
  wrote:

Just placed my order for 10 x 10 kW plants.

Have you received any acknowledgement of your order?  Or in what order
your order is in?  What number in line you have?

I would highly recommend you await Defkalion's announcement before
sending any money to Andrea Rossi.

T

[Vo]:Cold Fusion and the USPTO

[Terry Blanton]

Some interesting articles:

http://www.bibliotecapleyades.net/ciencia/secret_projects/project143.htm

http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/chatterbox/2000/08/more_on_cold_fusion_and_the_patent_office.html

http://haroldaspden.com/essays/09.htm

http://coldfusionnow.wordpress.com/2011/08/27/review-of-cold-fusion-patents-widom-and-larsen/

T

Re: [Vo]:Rossi opens 10 KW expression of interest list and sets 10 kW price

[Aussie Guy E-Cat]

We have started a process to build trust and prove reliability. I 
suggest that by the time Rossi is asking for money, there will be more 
than ample proof.


AG


On 11/23/2011 1:07 AM, James Bowery wrote:

How are you going to deal with this risk, Aussie Guy?

Re: [Vo]:Rossi to come to the Massachusetts State House tomorrow

[Jed Rothwell]

Joshua Cude, whose messages I deep-six, apparently wrote:

But the claim is that those beneficiaries of government largess at the MIT
>> have been able to squelch cold fusion research on the entire planet.
>>
>
They would if they could. They did their best to squelch it. Working on
their own they could not have accomplished this. They had help from many
colleagues throughout the world, and ignorant nitwits such as James Randi.

As James Bowery explained: "No conspiracy is required. . . . Just a
self-organizing system of incentives spiced with incompetence."

Well put. As I've often said, it is not a conspiracy because a conspiracy
is organized and surreptitious whereas these people are unorganized and
bold.

Eugene Mallove documented their shenanigans here:

http://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/MalloveEmitspecial.pdf

- Jed

Re: [Vo]:Rossi's interview with "Tom and Doug"

[Jed Rothwell]

Robert Lynn wrote:

This was a patent maneuver.  They needed to have the fact that they 
had a flight published in order to head off anyone else who tried to 
patent on the basis of prior art if it came to a legal wrangle (which 
it did).


I do not think so. Amos Root showed up out of the blue one day, driving 
an automobile, which marked him as a wealthy lover of high technology. 
The Wrights treated him cordially, as they treated all visitors. They 
went ahead with their flight tests. That was the first day they ever 
flew in a circle. Root described it in his magazine.


I do not think they needed to have a publication because they had 
affidavits from leading citizens such as the bank president, and copious 
other documentation, plus Wilbur had given a lecture and published two 
scientific papers in one of the top U.S. engineering journals, "Some 
aeronautical experiments," J. Western Soc. of Engineers 6, (1901) 
489-510, and "Experiments and observations in soaring flight," J. 
Western Soc. of Engineers, (1903). They also published in "The 
Aeronautical Journal" in 1901, and various letters elsewhere. They had 
clear priority. The patent was issued in 1906.


As I recall, their patent lawyer was telling them to shut up, stop being 
so cordial with visitors and agents from the French and British 
governments, and stop flying next to a trolley line. Patent lawyers take 
the fun out of inventing.


Here is a good bibliography:

http://history.nasa.gov/monograph27.pdf

Here is the patent. Notice it has no engine. They were patenting flight 
controls, not the engine:


http://invention.psychology.msstate.edu/i/Wrights/WrightUSPatent/WrightPatent.html

- Jed

Re: [Vo]:Rossi to come to the Massachusetts State House tomorrow

[James Bowery]

On Tue, Nov 22, 2011 at 2:43 PM, Joshua Cude  wrote:

> On Tue, Nov 22, 2011 at 2:27 PM, Jed Rothwell wrote:
>
>> James Bowery wrote:
>>
>>> With one hand MIT was trashing Fleischmann and Pons and with the other
>>> hand they were simultaneously bolting out of the gate running a
>>> scatter-shot patent mill for Hagelstein.
>>>
>>  Well, seriously, MIT is a large organization with many different people
>> who have different points of view. A university is nothing like a
>> corporation or the White House, with one person in charge and one set of
>> policies.
>>
> But the claim is that those beneficiaries of government largess at the MIT
> have been able to squelch cold fusion research on the entire planet. They
> are the reason it hasn't borne fruit. Now you're saying they can't control
> their own institution. That kind of takes the wind of the cold fusion's
> favorite excuse.
>

What is being protected is the establishment.  If an establishment
institution overcomes the horrible crime against humanity committed by P&F
when they conducted science by press conference, and despite the horrible
incompetence of P&F in measuring neutrons, etc.,  blah-de woof woof -- then
the damage is largely contained.

No conspiracy is required.

Just a self-organizing system of incentives spiced with incompetence.

Re: [Vo]:Re: Randi Video

[Jed Rothwell]

Akira Shirakawa wrote:

Would the photos you mention by any chance be those that can be seen 
in this video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eGmgTo2Kw1U


At minute 2:11, 3:16, 4:03 ?


Nope, not the same one. That's a gorblimey gadget isn't it?

- Jed

Re: [Vo]:Re: Randi Video

[Jed Rothwell]

Mary Yugo wrote:


Yup.  He could stop the whole negative press mess in a heartbeat with
one simple, cheap, comparatively quick and easy to perform test that
would not involve his equipment and methods.


Since he is not a fool, I am sure he knows that. He has known it for 
years. He has never said to me outright, "I do not want people to 
believe this, since I have no patent" but I suppose that must be his 
business strategy. Patterson _did_ have a patent yet he said that. Many 
inventors & researchers in cold fusion and other fields have said that. 
They want negative press and opposition, because they have the 
development money they need and they have enough customers. They want to 
keep competing scientists from getting funded by ensuring the press will 
be full of attacks. They want to keep big corporations from getting 
interested.


It is a shame, but there is nothing anyone can do to sway him. He is a 
stubborn guy. That's why he succeeded. You have to take the good with 
the bad in people.


- Jed

Re: [Vo]:Rossi's interview with "Tom and Doug"

[Robert Lynn]

This was a patent maneuver.  They needed to have the fact that they had a
flight published in order to head off anyone else who tried to patent on
the basis of prior art if it came to a legal wrangle (which it did). This
is down to the concept of the 'diligent researcher' who could find things
out everything that had ever happened or been made public if only they were
diligent enough - even if (in this case) it was deliberately put in the
most obscure publication that could be found. Basically designed so that
the Wrights knew about it and nobody else (in the avieation field) ever
would.

On 22 November 2011 18:36, James Bowery  wrote:

>
>
> On Mon, Nov 21, 2011 at 9:43 PM, Jed Rothwell wrote:
>
>> Oh well . . . the first reliable historical report of airplane flight was
>> published in "Gleanings in Bee Culture" by Amos Root, in 1905. Still
>> published:
>>
>> http://www.beeculture.com/
>>
>
> Now only in archive.com:
>
>
> http://web.archive.org/web/20110715203128/http://www.rootcandles.com/index.cfm/Wright-brothers-story
>
>

RE: [Vo]:Message sent to Kenneth Cage

[Jones Beene]

Craig,

I think it was earlier than that, and you could be referring to Dr. Peter 
Zimmerman, not Park. Robin may remember this incident, as it was reported on 
HSG forum some years ago.

If memory serves, at the time this person (either Park of PZ or someone else) 
protested vehemently - not only to the patent office --- but also to a number 
of political connections, including Maddy (cojones) Albright - since he may 
have had some appointed position with State - but ... AT THE SAME TIME, the 
complainer in question had a young relative (possibly a son ??) recently hired 
to a generous position in one of the hot fusion-related programs. (no 
indication that it was a political hire, and maybe it wasn't).

Needless to say, protecting cushy family jobs was not disclosed, in the 
interest of fairness. However, this seems to be a typical motivation for Ivy 
League techno-hegemonists with connections to hot fusion ...

Excuse me if I have identified the wrong whiner ... there are a large number of 
candidates besides these two ... 


-Original Message-
From: Craig Haynie 

Does anyone remember this? In 2002, (or thereabouts), Randell Mills
applied for a patent for his method of creating heat with a device in a
similar fashion to the method that Rossi is using, and his patent was
accepted to the point that they were going to issue it, until Robert
Park pointed out that it was a type of cold fusion device. At that
point, Mills, who had been out happily showing others how to replicate
his work, canceled all demonstrations and assistance, and stopped
revealing trade secrets. 

Craig

Re: [Vo]: ECAT 1 MW Test Discrepancy

[Jed Rothwell]

vorl bek wrote:


My recollection is that she has always said that he *acts* like a
scammer.

Which is what anyone who is not a True Believer would say, in my
humble opinion, given the way he acts.


In that case there are no true believers here, since we all agree he 
acts like a scammer. I have said that countless times.


However, your recollection is wrong. She has predicted time after time 
that he will be caught Any Day Now. Perhaps she has predicted this in 
other forums and not so often here. I do not keep track.


- Jed

Re: [Vo]:Re: Randi Video

[Akira Shirakawa]

On 2011-11-22 21:49, Jed Rothwell wrote:

[...] because he and
others refuse to let me upload photos of his heater that ran for years,


Would the photos you mention by any chance be those that can be seen in 
this video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eGmgTo2Kw1U


At minute 2:11, 3:16, 4:03 ?

If yes, as they are already public, it wouldn't harm asking their owners 
to release higher quality versions of them.


Cheers,
S.A.

Re: [Vo]:Re: Randi Video

[Mary Yugo]

On Tue, Nov 22, 2011 at 12:49 PM, Jed Rothwell  wrote:
>
> This is what we have to expect. If Rossi hits the mass media there will
> dozens and then hundreds of people as ignorant as he is saying these same
> things.
>
> Rossi knows that as well as I do. It is a shame he will not do a proper
> test.

Yup.  He could stop the whole negative press mess in a heartbeat with
one simple, cheap, comparatively quick and easy to perform test that
would not involve his equipment and methods.

Re: [Vo]: ECAT 1 MW Test Discrepancy

[Mary Yugo]

On Tue, Nov 22, 2011 at 12:23 PM, Jed Rothwell  wrote:
>
> Oh come now. You have incessantly predicted what would happen! Again, and
> again you have predicted that Rossi is a scammer who will be caught.

If you quote me, please do it accurately.

I have said Rossi *behaves* in manner indistiguishable from that of a
scammer and if he is, he will *likely* be caught.  The words between
asterisks are essential qualifiers which you left out.  I also said I
strongly think he's a scammer based entirely on his past history and
his current behavior. My thoughts about Rossi have absolutely nothing
to do with cold fusion.

I have never given an opinion about the likelihood that cold fusion is
real because I don't have one.  I simply don't know and I admit it.
That's not based on not looking for evidence.  It's based on not
finding any which I think is simple and clear enough.  That view is
shared by far more than Park, haters of cold fusion and
"pseusoskeptics" (whatever those are).

I've also said I am not certain and I have no proof about Rossi
scamming and I won't say I am certain until I do.  Next time you cite
what I said, please include the qualifiers because not to do so
changes the meaning.

You're welcome to block anyone you want.  I try to be polite and
follow the rules and I've cut down on frequency of posting.  I respond
to issues that are addressed me directly or are of interest.  If you
find my posts disturbing, it may be that they shake your confidence.

Re: [Vo]:Re: Randi Video

[Jed Rothwell]

This is unadulterated ignorance. Randi has not learned a thing since I 
last heard from him. His description of cold fusion and this machine are 
wrong in every detail.


This is what we have to expect. If Rossi hits the mass media there will 
dozens and then hundreds of people as ignorant as he is saying these 
same things.


Rossi knows that as well as I do. It is a shame he will not do a proper 
test. I expect he prefers things as they are, with people attacking him 
and no serious competition from major corporations. As long as people 
such as Randi and Park dominate the mass media there is no chance this 
technology will be developed by people with billions of dollars and top 
notch laboratories. I am pretty sure that is the case, because he and 
others refuse to let me upload photos of his heater that ran for years, 
or the independent tests conducted on the machines in that lab. They do 
not _want_ people to believe them. Rossi does not want that because he 
has no patent. The scientists involved do not want it because they want 
exclusive access to the discovery for as long as possible. Academics 
often do this. The ones who had access to the Dead Sea Scrolls managed 
to keep the rest of academia and the public away from the original 
sources for decades. The top people running the Hubble telescope made 
certain the data would not get out to junior astronomers who might 
discover something before they did. See the book, "Hubble Wars."


- Jed

Re: [Vo]: ECAT 1 MW Test Discrepancy

[vorl bek]

> Mary Yugo wrote:
> 
> > But I don't like to try to predict what may happen.
> 
> Oh come now. You have incessantly predicted what would happen!
> Again, and again you have predicted that Rossi is a scammer who
> will be caught. 

My recollection is that she has always said that he *acts* like a
scammer.

Which is what anyone who is not a True Believer would say, in my
humble opinion, given the way he acts.

Re: [Vo]:Rossi to come to the Massachusetts State House tomorrow

[Joshua Cude]

On Tue, Nov 22, 2011 at 2:27 PM, Jed Rothwell  wrote:

> James Bowery wrote:
>
>  With one hand MIT was trashing Fleischmann and Pons and with the other
>> hand they were simultaneously bolting out of the gate running a
>> scatter-shot patent mill for Hagelstein.
>>
>
> Well, seriously, MIT is a large organization with many different people
> who have different points of view. A university is nothing like a
> corporation or the White House, with one person in charge and one set of
> policies.
>
>
But the claim is that those beneficiaries of government largess at the MIT
have been able to squelch cold fusion research on the entire planet. They
are the reason it hasn't borne fruit. Now you're saying they can't control
their own institution. That kind of takes the wind of the cold fusion's
favorite excuse.

Re: [Vo]:Message sent to Kenneth Cage

[Mary Yugo]

On Tue, Nov 22, 2011 at 12:22 PM, Craig Haynie  wrote:
>

> Does anyone remember this? In 2002, (or thereabouts), Randell Mills
> applied for a patent for his method of creating heat with a device in a
> similar fashion to the method that Rossi is using, and his patent was
> accepted to the point that they were going to issue it, until Robert
> Park pointed out that it was a type of cold fusion device. At that
> point, Mills, who had been out happily showing others how to replicate
> his work, canceled all demonstrations and assistance, and stopped
> revealing trade secrets.

It's worth noting that Mills has not shown any working device since
and there has been no independent replication of his work.  Mills
asked Rowan U to measure the energy output of his magic sauce which
turned out to be considerable, if one believes them.  However, I know
of no experiment to restore that sauce.  For all that can be
confirmed, even if Rowan U's information is correct, all that has been
shown is a method of maybe storing energy-- not producing it from
hydrinos.  It's the same story as with free energy claims:  want
respect?  CLOSE THE LOOP.

Eventually, that applies to Rossi's claims as well.  He could feed
output heat back to the input through a flow controller and run
without any electrical heat input energy indefinitely after the
initial startup.  He has never explained why he doesn't do that.

[Vo]:Re: Randi Video

[Alan J Fletcher]

At 12:25 PM 11/22/2011, Alan J Fletcher wrote:


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3BemTGkjl6U 
What a surprise !
Gee .. they even made the "University of Baloney" joke.

Re: [Vo]: ECAT 1 MW Test Discrepancy

[Joshua Cude]

On Tue, Nov 22, 2011 at 2:23 PM, Jed Rothwell  wrote:

>  I prefer opponents such as Robert Park who are proud of the fact that
> they have helped suppress this field, and who brag about the lives they
> have disrupted and destroyed.
>

Are you making stuff up again, or do you have some examples of Park
bragging about destroying lives?

Re: [Vo]:Rossi to come to the Massachusetts State House tomorrow

[Jed Rothwell]

James Bowery wrote:

With one hand MIT was trashing Fleischmann and Pons and with the other 
hand they were simultaneously bolting out of the gate running a 
scatter-shot patent mill for Hagelstein.


Well, seriously, MIT is a large organization with many different people 
who have different points of view. A university is nothing like a 
corporation or the White House, with one person in charge and one set of 
policies.


- Jed

[Vo]:Randi Video

[Alan J Fletcher]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3BemTGkjl6U 
What a surprise !

(lenr.qumbu.com -- analyzing the Rossi/Focardi eCat  -- Hi,
google!)

Re: [Vo]: ECAT 1 MW Test Discrepancy

[Jed Rothwell]

Mary Yugo wrote:


But I don't like to try to predict what may happen.


Oh come now. You have incessantly predicted what would happen! Again, 
and again you have predicted that Rossi is a scammer who will be caught. 
You have reached the point where I and others are on the verge of 
blocking you.


You do like to play both sides. You wrote: "It is not in the interest of 
the US Patent Office or the US government to suppress cold fusion 
devices -- to the contrary, discovery of a robust energy generator that 
worked with cold fusion . . ." What is that supposed to mean? The Patent 
Office agrees with you. They say that cold fusion does not exist. They 
say it is a scam and a delusion. They are upholding the views and 
policies that you yourself advocate. Now all of a sudden you say they 
should not do what _you and other skeptics have urged them to do_ since 
March 1989. Ditto the DoE; they uphold your point of view:


http://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/LENRCANRthedoelies.pdf

The Patent Office also resembles you and Robert Park in as much as they 
know nothing about cold fusion and they refuse to read anything.


Your hypocrisy is unbecoming. I prefer opponents such as Robert Park who 
are proud of the fact that they have helped suppress this field, and who 
brag about the lives they have disrupted and destroyed. That is 
"despotism . . . taken pure, and without the base alloy of hypocrisy" as 
Lincoln put it. You go around attacking people and spreading toxic 
falsehoods that honest scientists are engaged in fraud, and then you 
pretend to be shocked when people believe you and act on your beliefs. 
It is sickening.


- Jed

Re: [Vo]:Rossi to come to the Massachusetts State House tomorrow

[James Bowery]

On Tue, Nov 22, 2011 at 1:44 PM, Joshua Cude  wrote:

>
> MIT? How is that possible. MIT is the epicenter of the anti-cold fusion
> conspiracy...
>
>

Now THAT's hilarious!

With one hand MIT was trashing Fleischmann and Pons and with the other hand
they were simultaneously bolting out of the gate running a scatter-shot
patent mill for Hagelstein.

Now, far be it from me to accuse MIT of a
CONSPIRACYto
pack the patent files with bogus broad claims defensible only with a
mid-Atlantic elite law department, while everyone else was being suppressed
-- but it DOES look rather uh "hypocritical".

Re: [Vo]:Message sent to Kenneth Cage

[Craig Haynie]

> It is not in the interest of the US Patent Office or the US government
> to suppress cold fusion devices -- to the contrary, discovery of a
> robust energy generator that worked with cold fusion would be
> spectacular for the economy of the US and would reduce or eliminate
> dependence on foreign oil, one of the Obama administration's most
> pressing issues.  
> 
> I'd like to see that form letter they send out.  Anyone have a copy or
> a link?

Does anyone remember this? In 2002, (or thereabouts), Randell Mills
applied for a patent for his method of creating heat with a device in a
similar fashion to the method that Rossi is using, and his patent was
accepted to the point that they were going to issue it, until Robert
Park pointed out that it was a type of cold fusion device. At that
point, Mills, who had been out happily showing others how to replicate
his work, canceled all demonstrations and assistance, and stopped
revealing trade secrets. 

Craig

Re: [Vo]: ECAT 1 MW Test Discrepancy

[Joshua Cude]

On Tue, Nov 22, 2011 at 2:05 PM, Harry Veeder  wrote:

> This is like saying that because a theatre gradually filled with
> people over two hours it is implausible to believe the same theatre
> emptied of people in minutes after a fire alarm.
> However it is only implausible based on the assumption there is only
> one entrance/exit or the entrance/exit is small.
>
>
It's not really like that at all. In the Rossi scenario, the rate of input
powers are known. The input power is 160 kW or so during pre-heat. And it
heats up to the level required to transfer 70 kW to the water in 2 hours.

 During the self-sustain, Rossi claims the input power (from the ecat core)
is 470 kW, and it heats up to the level required to transfer the full 470
kW to the water in a few minutes.

So, it's more analogous to the theatre filling up gradually over 2 hours
with people coming in on average at 10 persons per minute. Then it empties
out in 2 minutes with people leaving at 30 persons per minute. It doesn't
compute.

(If you take account of heat leaving as during the heating process, it
becomes even more implausible.)

Re: [Vo]:Martin Ford requests claque support

[Mary Yugo]

On Tue, Nov 22, 2011 at 11:45 AM, Jed Rothwell  wrote:

> myself. People who have not read the book should probably refrain from
> uploading a review. I'm talkin' to you, Mary Yugo.

Why talk to me?  I don't often write Amazon book reviews.  And the guy
has a 4 star out of 5 rating so I have no idea what he's moaning
about.

Re: [Vo]: ECAT 1 MW Test Discrepancy

[Mary Yugo]

> Rossi uses the latent heat of deception to make a 30-year thermodynamics
> veteran look bad, and to get an audience with archenemies of cold fusion at
> MIT.

Heh!  Love that "latent heat of deception".  But I don't quite get how
a meeting with some really smart people from MIT would help Rossi (if
that's what happens).  Unless he won't give them any information, they
reject him, and he claims it was because of their prejudice.

But I don't like to try to predict what may happen.  It's more fun to
watch it unfold.  What I like about this whole story is the twists and
turns.  This should be a fund next few weeks if Rossi actually meets
with MIT people and if Defkalion actually issues some real
information!

Re: [Vo]: ECAT 1 MW Test Discrepancy

[Harry Veeder]

This is like saying that because a theatre gradually filled with
people over two hours it is implausible to believe the same theatre
emptied of people in minutes after a fire alarm.
However it is only implausible based on the assumption there is only
one entrance/exit or the entrance/exit is small.

Harry

On Tue, Nov 22, 2011 at 11:46 AM, Joshua Cude  wrote:
>
>
> On Tue, Nov 22, 2011 at 7:33 AM, Berke Durak  wrote:
>>
>> > The behaviour of the fluid during boiling is highly dependent upon >
>> > the excess temperature, delta T = T_s - T_sat, measured from the
>> > boiling point of the fluid.  Figure 9-1 indicates six different
>> > regimes for typical pool boiling; the heat flux curve is commonly
>> > called the boiling curve.
>>
>> It seems that a couple of degrees of increase for T_s translates to
>> a couple of orders of magnitude increase in power transfer.
>
> This is true, but the surface temperature depends on the rate that heat is
> removed by the vaporization, and the rate that it can be restored from the
> hotter thermal mass behind it. That's why I mentioned an effective heat
> differential.
> When water changes phase, it absorbs a lot of heat, and that heat comes from
> the surface. The temperature of the surface would then decrease if heat
> didn't flow from the core heater to replace it. The rate of that heat flow
> is proportional to the temperature gradient in the ecat. At the onset of
> boiling, the heat is moving into the water at the total rate of 70 kW, and
> that's how fast the heat at the surface needs to be replenished from the
> core. If the rate of vaporization is 675 kg/h (the input flow rate), then
> the heat is moving into the water at a rate 7 times higher (470 kW), and it
> has to be replenished from the core at a rate 7 times higher. Heat flow
> depends on temperature differentials, so the gradient in temperature between
> the surface and the core would have to be 7 times steeper. To produce that
> change requires a lot of energy and time for the energy to flow into the
> thermal mass. Rossi claims the transition from 70 kW (boiling onset) to 470
> kW (full vaporization) occurs over the period of a few minutes (or
> instantaneously), but that is not plausible, given that the transition from
> 0 kW to 70 kW took 2 hours.
> The fact that the temperature is constant throughout the second transition
> is deceiving. Rossi makes use of the latent heat of deception to claim much
> higher output than the data supports.
> If he monitored some variable that actually depended on the power transfer,
> like the output volume flow rate (or steam velocity), or the enthalpy (in a
> heat exchanger), we would have some idea of the power out as a function of
> time. But he doesn't, and that allows him to claim that the power out
> changes discontinuously by a factor of 7, right when boiling begins.
> Note, that if you look at the heat exchanger data from the Oct 6 demo, there
> is no discontinuous change in the power output  that occurs at the onset of
> boiling. Those temperatures are not reliable for determining absolute power,
> but they should give some indication of the time dependence of the output
> power; certainly a 7-fold change in power out in 3 minutes would give an
> obvious step in the power output. It's not clear where the onset of boiling
> occurs in that test, but the apparent power out increases gradually over a
> period of 3 hours.
>>
>> That, plus the fact that power transfer is proportional to the
>> area of contact.  If you pump in water, you may cover more of the
>> heating element if it has vertical surfaces, and thus arbitrarily
>> increase the power transfer.
>
> You would need to cover 7 times the area in a matter of minutes, also not
> plausible, and it would still require 7 times the heat transport rate from
> the core, which doesn't depend as simply on the area of contact.

Re: [Vo]:Rossi to come to the Massachusetts State House tomorrow

[Mary Yugo]

I can't help but recall that the president of Ireland, Mary McAleese,
actually visited Steorn's offices and looked at the stuff as a part of
some technology outreach sort of thing.  That was after most of the
scientific community realized and had said they were most likely to be
a fraud.  Of course, in Ireland, president is a largely ceremonial
position but still ...

If that meeting takes place, it could be very interesting -- but only
if anyone is able to talk about it and if they manage to ask Rossi the
right questions and make the right requests instead of just soft
balling him.   People tend to be way too polite when addressing Rossi
at interviews and public meetings.  He needs his nose rubbed *hard* in
the necessity of independent testing and verification.

Re: [Vo]: ECAT 1 MW Test Discrepancy

[Joshua Cude]

On Tue, Nov 22, 2011 at 1:36 PM, Mary Yugo  wrote:


> Quoting Rossi:
>


> 1- In the test of October 28th the water flow has been measured by the two
> flowmeters that the Consultant of the Customer has put just minutes before
> the test. He always checked the water flow, and the water trap that
> collected the non condensed water exiting form the output pipe
>

It's a shame he didn't check to make sure the valve was open, and to test
whether the trap captured mist entrained in the steam.

>
> 2- The Consultant is a 60 years person, who has 30 years of experience as
> engineer of military organizations; he is specialized in thermodynamics
>
Presumably steam was not part of his experience.


>
> 3- As you can see from the reports, the temperature in the output pipe has
> always been more than 110 Celsius degrees during the self sustaining mode
> at room pressure.
> A.R."
>

There is no record of a pressure measurement inside the pipe. The
temperature was almost always below 110 C, more like 105 on average. He
appears to be claiming dry steam based on the temperature above atmospheric
boiling point. This would mean that the heating elements must be partly
exposed, and therefore the sort of regulation by steam production rate
wouldn't work, and therefore the relative temperature stability represents
unrealistic power stability (to within +/- .5%). Also, this claim requires
a magical, discontinuous 7-fold increase in the output power, and a
magical, simultaneous ignition of 107 ecats, all within a few minutes of
the onset of boiling.

Rossi uses the latent heat of deception to make a 30-year thermodynamics
veteran look bad, and to get an audience with archenemies of cold fusion at
MIT.

[Vo]:Martin Ford requests claque support

[Jed Rothwell]

This is somewhat off topic, but we have discussed it here. Martin Ford, the
author of "The Lights in the Tunnel" sent me this message. I am drafting a
thoughtful, amusing yet hard-hitting review for Amazon. If I do say so
myself. People who have not read the book should probably refrain from
uploading a review. I'm talkin' to you, Mary Yugo.

- Jed

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Hello,

I'm sending this out to those of you who have written to me with
positive/supportive comments about my book "The Lights in the Tunnel."

Recently, the book has received a number of of very negative (one- or
two-star) reviews on Amazon. This is dragging down the overall rating. Most
of these seem to be from people who are ideologically opposed to the type
of solutions proposed in the book.

If you have a moment to write a positive review, I would greatly appreciate
it. A very brief review with just a couple of sentences would be fine; the
main point is to add some positive reviews (hopefully 5-stars!) to raise
the overall rating average.

This is important because in the near future I hope to approach some
publishers about writing a second book on this issue. I published "The
Lights in the Tunnel" independently and used mostly "guerrilla" marketing
techniques, but I would like to try to do something with a mainstream
publisher, since that might get a lot more attention from the media and
hopefully get the issue of automation and its impact on the job market and
economy in front of many more readers. So it's important that my first book
look as positive as possible.

The Amazon listing is here; you can see the more recent, negative reviews
in the right-hand column:

http://www.amazon.com/Lights-Tunnel-Automation-Accelerating-Technology/dp/1448659817

Any help would be greatly appreciated!!

Thank you,


Martin

Re: [Vo]:Rossi to come to the Massachusetts State House tomorrow

[Joshua Cude]

On Tue, Nov 22, 2011 at 1:18 PM, Akira Shirakawa
wrote:

> Rossi plans to visit Tuesday morning for two days of meeting with
>> government officials and representatives of the Massachusetts Institute of
>> Technology,
>
>
MIT? How is that possible. MIT is the epicenter of the anti-cold fusion
conspiracy...

Re: [Vo]:Rossi to come to the Massachusetts State House tomorrow

[Alan J Fletcher]

At 11:30 AM 11/22/2011, Daniel Rocha wrote:

This cannot be a scam! Even MY must be convinced now!


Of course it's a scam. It's just a bigger scam.

Or not ...  I pre-ordered mine. 

Re: [Vo]: ECAT 1 MW Test Discrepancy

[Mary Yugo]

If this appeared here before, my apology but I don't think I saw it.  Rossi
had this to say in his blog:

"Andrea Rossi

November 21st, 2011 at 2:39 PM

Dear “XY”:


I did not approve your comment, because contains very big stupidities, and
I want not to expose you and your name to a bad portrait. But I want to
answer to the acceptable questions you have posed, because I think the
answers can be interesting for our Readers:


1- In the test of October 28th the water flow has been measured by the two
flowmeters that the Consultant of the Customer has put just minutes before
the test. He always checked the water flow, and the water trap that
collected the non condensed water exiting form the output pipe


2- The Consultant is a 60 years person, who has 30 years of experience as
engineer of military organizations; he is specialized in thermodynamics


3- As you can see from the reports, the temperature in the output pipe has
always been more than 110 Celsius degrees during the self sustaining mode
at room pressure.
A.R."

Re: [Vo]:Tovima: Defkalion says the catalyst formula is not Rossi's

[Mary Yugo]

On Tue, Nov 22, 2011 at 11:32 AM, Alan J Fletcher  wrote:

>
> Look up Muon-Catalyzed Fusion.  (Recently discussed with Joshua Crude).
> http://www.mail-archive.com/**vortex-l@eskimo.com/msg56320.**html
>

Thanks.  Will do.

Re: [Vo]:Rossi to come to the Massachusetts State House tomorrow

[Mary Yugo]

On Tue, Nov 22, 2011 at 11:30 AM, Daniel Rocha wrote:

> This cannot be a scam! Even MY must be convinced now!
>

Of course it can be a scam.  And the announcement can be wrong.  Let's wait
and see if it happens, what Rossi says, and what evidence he presents.

Re: [Vo]:Rossi to come to the Massachusetts State House tomorrow

[Jed Rothwell]

Wow! First Rossi is on the "Tom and Doug" show. Now he is at
the Massachusetts State House. Where will he turn up next? He makes the
Energizer Bunny look lackadaisical.

Seriously, I admire his tenacity. Before the Oct. 28 demo, he wrote to me
something like: "if it does not work, we will try again, and if it still
does not work, we will try again. We will never give up." I have tremendous
respect for that attitude. People like that move mountains and change
history.

- Jed

Re: [Vo]:Tovima: Defkalion says the catalyst formula is not Rossi's

[Alan J Fletcher]

At 02:31 PM 11/21/2011, Mary Yugo wrote:
Just out of curiosity, is there anything written about "nuclear 
catalysts" other than related to LENR/cold fusion energy 
generation?  I never heard of a nuclear catalyst before Rossi.  I've 
always thought of a catalyst as a substance which changes the rate 
of a chemical reaction without being consumed and without changing 
the equilibrium constant of the underlying reaction.



Look up Muon-Catalyzed Fusion.  (Recently discussed with Joshua Crude).
http://www.mail-archive.com/vortex-l@eskimo.com/msg56320.html

Re: [Vo]:Rossi to come to the Massachusetts State House tomorrow

[Daniel Rocha]

This cannot be a scam! Even MY must be convinced now!

2011/11/22 Akira Shirakawa 

> Hello group,
>
> This is again via 22passi:
>
> http://22passi.blogspot.com/**2011/11/domani-rossi-alla-**
> state-house-del.html
>
>  According to Sen. Bruce Tarr, Andrea Rossi, "the Italian scientist who
>> claims to have developed the world's first nuclear cold fusion reactor is
>> coming to the State House tomorrow to explore the prospects of developing
>> the device and producing it in Massachusetts." Tarr's office says Rossi
>> plans to visit Tuesday morning for two days of meeting with government
>> officials and representatives of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology,
>> the University of Massachusetts and Northeastern University. "Mr. Rossi's
>> reactor, if successfully proven and developed, has the potential to change
>> the way the world deals with energy," Tarr said in a statement.
>>
>
> Source: 
> http://www.statehousenews.com/**skedtuesday.htm
>
> Cheers,
> S.A.
>
>


-- 
Daniel Rocha - RJ
danieldi...@gmail.com

[Vo]:Rossi to come to the Massachusetts State House tomorrow

[Akira Shirakawa]

Hello group,

This is again via 22passi:

http://22passi.blogspot.com/2011/11/domani-rossi-alla-state-house-del.html


According to Sen. Bruce Tarr, Andrea Rossi, "the Italian scientist who claims to have 
developed the world's first nuclear cold fusion reactor is coming to the State House tomorrow to 
explore the prospects of developing the device and producing it in Massachusetts." Tarr's 
office says Rossi plans to visit Tuesday morning for two days of meeting with government officials 
and representatives of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, the University of Massachusetts 
and Northeastern University. "Mr. Rossi's reactor, if successfully proven and developed, has 
the potential to change the way the world deals with energy," Tarr said in a statement.


Source: http://www.statehousenews.com/skedtuesday.htm

Cheers,
S.A.

Re: [Vo]:Rossi opens 10 KW expression of interest list and sets 10 kW price

[Alan J Fletcher]

At 12:50 AM 11/22/2011, Aussie Guy E-Cat wrote:


http://www.journal-of-nuclear-physics.com/?p=510&cpage=34#comment-126867

   Dear Felipe From Chile:
   You are right, we are organizing this.
   BY THE WAY: WE COLLECT FROM NOW THE NAMES OF ALL THE
PERSONS     ANDREA ROSSI, LEONARDO CORP.
(PRESIDENT)
I pre-ordered one unit :
I hereby place a pre-order for Quantity 1 (ONE)  10kW Ecat, for
delivery in California, USA.
The installation will be in a residence in Lucerne, Lake County, CA
95458, USA
... copy of Rossi statement 

Conditions : 
Price :  Not to Exceed  400 EURO/THERMAL KW
Total Price including shipping and installation not to exceed
$6,000, plus taxes.
Total (thermal) power of at least 10 kW, with a COP of at least 6.
Unit to conform to all USA, State and Local regulations
Unit to conform to USA domestic insurance regulations (Tower
Insurance)
/s/ Alan J. Fletcher
Fletcher Automation Research
80 Gilman Ave, Suite 2,
Campbell, CA 95008,
USA
Phone : 408 871 7296
Fax : 506 692 1768

Re: [Vo]:Message sent to Kenneth Cage

[Mary Yugo]

On Tue, Nov 22, 2011 at 10:44 AM, Jed Rothwell wrote:

> Mary Yugo  wrote:
>
> The Patent Office did, in fact, suppress cold fusion applications in 1989.
> They still do. This is not debatable. All applications are summarily
> rejected with a form letter that cites mass media reports from 1989 as
> proof the effect does not exist. Whether this is done by a nefarious plot
> or whether this open policy within the Patent Office I cannot say. I don't
> see why it matters.
>

It is not in the interest of the US Patent Office or the US government to
suppress cold fusion devices -- to the contrary, discovery of a robust
energy generator that worked with cold fusion would be spectacular for the
economy of the US and would reduce or eliminate dependence on foreign oil,
one of the Obama administration's most pressing issues.

I'd like to see that form letter they send out.  Anyone have a copy or a
link?

Re: [Vo]:Message sent to Kenneth Cage

[Jed Rothwell]

Mary Yugo  wrote:

>
> They would have had to organize a method of segregating them out and
> assigning them to specialists who had familiarized themselves with patent
> issues in the field.  I suspect that's what the memo was about rather than
> some nefarious plot by some unknown entity to suppress cold fusion patents.
>

The Patent Office did, in fact, suppress cold fusion applications in 1989.
They still do. This is not debatable. All applications are summarily
rejected with a form letter that cites mass media reports from 1989 as
proof the effect does not exist. Whether this is done by a nefarious plot
or whether this open policy within the Patent Office I cannot say. I don't
see why it matters.

If it is an open policy I cannot find it on their website.

I wrote a Cage to see whether he can shed any light on the subject, not to
have him confirm or deny the policy. The *de facto* policy is there for
everyone to see. It would be ridiculous to deny it exists.

- Jed

Re: [Vo]:Rossi's interview with "Tom and Doug"

[James Bowery]

On Mon, Nov 21, 2011 at 9:43 PM, Jed Rothwell  wrote:

> Oh well . . . the first reliable historical report of airplane flight was
> published in "Gleanings in Bee Culture" by Amos Root, in 1905. Still
> published:
>
> http://www.beeculture.com/
>

Now only in archive.com:

http://web.archive.org/web/20110715203128/http://www.rootcandles.com/index.cfm/Wright-brothers-story