Re: [Vo]:Overview of (Ahern) Vibronic Energy Technologies Approach
What I am curious about is whether the reduced radioactivity that Reifenschweiler observed for tritium and heavier nuclei meant that the radioactive decays were actually suppressed, or that the energetic decay products were thermalized in the small monocrystalline particles via some hypothetical collective quantum enhancement of absorption. I speculate that the energetic decay products were thermalized. In an experimental series performed by Piantelli, he observed the production of either heat or gamma radiation but not both at the same time, if memory serves. From the demo of the first one liter Rossi reactor during the time at startup when the lattice was cold, a massive radiation burst appeared for a second or two. From this, I deduce that the energy production mechanism will generate large amounts of radiation if the lattice is cold and the phonons present in the lattice are not energetic enough. One problem of that early design was the generation of bursts of radiation during startup and shutdown. I assume that the lattice was cold at those times. Rossi was greatly concerned by these radiation bursts, and changed his design so that an external heater warmed the nickel lattice before the reaction begins. This tells me that there is a second quantum mechanical reaction that converts the radiation generated in the metal atom’s nucleus to thermal energy within the lattice. The lack of radioactive decay products after the Rossi reactor is shut down also speaks to a radiation thermalization mechanism rather than a radiation suppression mechanism. From Otto Reifenschweiler: This assumption is confirmed by the observation, that a decrease of tritium radioactivity is never observed with Ti-preparations which are generally used for storage of tritium. Such preparations don.t have the above stated properties. They consist of single and big non monocrystalline Ti-particles, in my experience. The radiation thermalization mechanism is a surface phenomenon that is maximized by the large surface area of nano-powder. The a variant of the quantum Zeno effect in which an unstable particle, if observed continuously or in the case of quantum activity in a metal lattice cycles rapidly through repeating cycles of entanglement in a continuing process of quantum decoherence, that particle will thermalize its nuclear power output as thermal energy in the metal lattice. The originating mechanism of the nuclear energy is not caused by vibrations (phonons) in the lattice. However, the thermalization of that nuclear energy is caused by the rapid cycling decoherence of the entangled metal atoms caused by quantum phonons vibrating in that lattice. Phonons in the metal lattice will cause the energy of the unstable particle to be transferred away from its originating nucleus and enter the metal lattice non-locally some large distance away. This may be why Rossi went with a micron sized particle rather than a nano-sized particle. The question now is what particle produces the LENR energy. Speculating, that unstable particle is probably the transition metal atom; in Rossi’s case, it is the nickel atom. This nuclear reaction is very weird in the Rossi reactor where it does not rip that lattice apart but contrary to all good sense, thermalizes the lattice into a gentle low grade heat. I can only speculate that the entanglement mechanism provides an otherworldly energy pipeline that gently moves energy/heat away from the nuclear production zone. On Wed, Nov 23, 2011 at 11:09 PM, pagnu...@htdconnect.com wrote: Francis, Axil, What I am curious about is whether the reduced radioactivity that Reifenschweiler observed for tritium and heavier nuclei meant that the radioactive decays were actually suppressed, or that the energetic decay products were thermalized in the small monocrystalline particles via some hypothetical collective quantum enhancement of absorption. Reifenschweiler is also puzzled by the temperature dependence of this effect. Crystal size and proximity of the crystals appear critical also. No wonder these phenomena are so elusive. Maybe, also some new physics appears in the mesoscale at the boundary separating classical from quantum dynamics? One theory for similar phenomena has been proposed in: Quantum Zeno Effect, Nuclear Conversion and Photoionization in Solids http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0003491696900639 BTW, some of Reifenschweiler's refences are: Reduced radioactivity of tritium in small titanium particles http://www.lenr-canr.org/acrobat/Reifenschwreducedrad.pdf Cold Fusion and Decrease of Tritium Radioactivity http://www.lenr-canr.org/acrobat/Reifenschwcoldfusion.pdf About the possibility of decreased radioactivity of heavy nuclei http://www.osti.gov/energycitations/product.biblio.jsp?osti_id=512913 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
Re: [Vo]:hydrogen refill
so two article of the same FAQ are not coherent. http://faq.ecat.com/112273/how-much-ni-is-in-the-cell/ http://faq.ecat.com/112449/how-much-nickel-and-hydrogen-will-it-take-to-generate-one-megawatt-of-heat-continuously-for-six-months/ is'nt there a known issue with an error of unit that rossi admit. I remember some comment about that mistake. 10g instead of 10kg... ??? note that the cost estimated of the powder is about 1 euro/MW.6month http://faq.ecat.com/112602/if-selling-price-is-planned-for-500-euros-per-1-kw-of-output-capability-this-is-5000-euros-for-10-kw/ and that 1kG of raw nickel is 13Eur/kg on the market... incoherences... To clear the doubt, I put the question on the FAQ. http://faq.ecat.com/113004/in-faq-how-much-nickel-and-hydrogen-will-it-take-to-generate-one-megawatt-of-heat-continuously-for-six/ maybe the different base numbers we have explain the disagreement. 2011/11/24 Robert Lynn robert.gulliver.l...@gmail.com Repeat from earlier in this thread: http://faq.ecat.com/112449/how-much-nickel-and-hydrogen-will-it-take-to-generate-one-megawatt-of-heat-continuously-for-six-months/ 1MW needs 10kg Nickel powder, so about 100g per ecat (will run for 6 months) + 1g of hydrogen per ecat per day (in reality far less than this is used, but there will be leakage etc). On 23 November 2011 20:33, Alain dit le Cycliste alain.sep...@gmail.comwrote: that is not what rossi says on the FAQ. he talks about 10mg/kW of H, and 100mg/kW of Ni however, in my previeux computation I'me made a mistake... 1MW should need 10g of H and 100g of Ni if the number for Ni is Ok, but H is a bit exagerated, for 100g of Ni you need 100g/59=1.7g hydrogen... strange it fall on that number... but maybe it is that rossi exagerate the need of H. maybe also he count not only the loading of H (1.7g), but also the leaks on 6 month (8h it seems) anyway without knowing the machine and it's behavioor it is like guessing the gas consumption behavior of a car, not having driven any, not used the engine. 2011/11/23 Jouni Valkonen jounivalko...@gmail.com 2011/11/23 Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com: Here however the measured value was 1000 fold too little, because used amount of hydrogen should have been something in order of 1.7 kg that was initially reported. Not 1.7 grams.
Re: [Vo]:Report on Rossi's visit to Boston
I wish Peter Hagelstein replied: That's OK, Mr Rossi, fine! No more public test! Let me put it this way: would you let me test before buy as you advertise?!. That would have put AR in the corner, no escape. Is MIT afraid of being fouled ending up paying $2M for a scam? If it works those $2M would have been a great investment. Business 101... All of this seems a drama where actors keep forgetting the script! mic 2011/11/24 Terry Blanton hohlr...@gmail.com: It might not be so confusing if one realizes, assuming all is as AR says, he has a very narrow window to make money off his eCat. Rossi realizes it and is pumping (intended) out as many as he can hoping to make his nest egg. If all is real, Rossi will not get a patent here, but he could likely make a few million before the pipeline gets clogged with competitors. I understand what he is doing and recommend he continues. If all this is really real, the window for AR will close in a few months. T
Re: [Vo]:Report on Rossi's visit to Boston
As a potential purchaser, I have had no problems with Rossi agreeing for us to test our E-Cat. $2m is pocket change for MIT. I suggest there a lot more that went on than what has been revealed. Many US based LENR firms will be doing everything they can, calling up all their IOUs to slow Rossi down. It is just business after all. AG On 11/24/2011 7:35 PM, Michele Comitini wrote: I wish Peter Hagelstein replied: That's OK, Mr Rossi, fine! No more public test! Let me put it this way: would you let me test before buy as you advertise?!. That would have put AR in the corner, no escape. Is MIT afraid of being fouled ending up paying $2M for a scam? If it works those $2M would have been a great investment. Business 101... All of this seems a drama where actors keep forgetting the script! mic 2011/11/24 Terry Blantonhohlr...@gmail.com: It might not be so confusing if one realizes, assuming all is as AR says, he has a very narrow window to make money off his eCat. Rossi realizes it and is pumping (intended) out as many as he can hoping to make his nest egg. If all is real, Rossi will not get a patent here, but he could likely make a few million before the pipeline gets clogged with competitors. I understand what he is doing and recommend he continues. If all this is really real, the window for AR will close in a few months. T
Re: [Vo]:E-Cat 1MW Demo Water Clog Theory
On Thu, Nov 24, 2011 at 12:30 AM, Berke Durak berke.du...@gmail.com wrote: David Roberson proposed a theory where a water clog forms because of condensation. Because of this clog, pressure and temperature rises until the clog is cleared I'm pretty sure your depicted scenario is not what Roberson was proposing, and it doesn't make sense. The heat exchanger is *supposed* to condense the output, and return cooled water (at ambient temperature) back to the input reservoir. The heat is removed from the steam/water output and dispersed to the sky behind some barriers, maybe so no one can see how little heat there actually is. So, the output of the exchanger is surely always liquid. That's not a clog if the temperature is reduced, so steam is not possible. The water flows more slowly, but it's more dense, so the mass flow rates balance. If you are suggesting that when the clog clears, steam flows into the reservoir, then there is far more heat entering the reservoir than if it were water.
[Vo]:Focardi reveal Iron is also involved
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embeddedv=2cOEHQmnG-I#t=106s
Re: [Vo]:Short report on Kullander's cold fusion lecture
I went back and looked at the Levi interview (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0vYJIG3ymOk starting at 3:00). Levi says: 3:00 feb 2011 test w/o steam 4:00 system started in an almost explosive way 6:00 15 kw for 18 hours 6:20 we connected the system directly to the water pipe with flux [flow] measuring 1 liter/second 6:50 almost 40 degree delta t -- if you make calculations this is about 120kw 7:11 krivit: what was the power input? levi: less than 1 kw 7:18 rossi was very worried about that and damped (dumped?) the system and restarted the system and obtained about 40kw 7:50 i will not write up that test 15:00 still arguing with krivit about whether to write up the feb 2011 test My sense is that the core was in thermal runaway, and that even at 1 liter/sec they could not cool it enough to get it stable. Rossi then 'dumps' the system (unspecified as to how), quenching the reaction. My guess is that this configuration was not possible to recreate on demand -- it was apparently an unusual event. Anyway -- there are possibly many reasons why a second test of this sort was not performed, not least of which may have been Rossi's disinterest. But my sense is that running the system with liquid water at 1 atm. is not easy, hence Rossi's use of a steam-to-water heat-exchanger in October. Mary -- I see that you are helpfully skeptical of much of what Rossi is putting out. But what I'm missing is a coherent narrative of what you think is happening. You know, people put out theories about how 9/11 was an inside job by pointing out all the inconsistencies. But can they put together an alternate narrative that fits the discrepancies and makes sense? I'm not saying that if you can't do this Rossi is not faking it, but it would be nice to hear a coherent story that you feel explains what is going on. Eric Mary Yugo writes: Eric Woudenberg writes: My guess is that running it with liquid water ends up leaving the core too cold to produce much excess heat. Somehow 100c or thereabouts appears to be the reactor's sweet spot (by accident or design). Well, didn't you just say Levi's experiment alarmed Rossi by running too hot? With liquid coolant, you can control temperature by varying the flow rate of the coolant which is easily done with a manual or automatic valve or even by varying the pressure head of the fluid by simply raising and lowering the container! It's a snap. I used to do something similar when calibrating calorimeters with liquid coolant jackets. And Rossi has claimed that regulating the hydrogen pressure also controls the reaction. Getting a decent coolant flow and delta T should be very doable with a bit of experimenting.
Re: [Vo]:Focardi reveal Iron is also involved
No, Ag, Focardi just said that the Earth nucleaus is composed of Ni and Fe, therefore Ni is one of the most abundant elements and will be available forever. On Thu, Nov 24, 2011 at 10:56 AM, Aussie Guy E-Cat aussieguy.e...@gmail.com wrote: http://www.youtube.com/watch?**feature=player_embeddedv=** 2cOEHQmnG-I#t=106shttp://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embeddedv=2cOEHQmnG-I#t=106s
Re: [Vo]:Hyperion product range?
On Wed, Nov 23, 2011 at 9:03 PM, Aussie Guy E-Cat aussieguy.e...@gmail.comwrote: Note temps were recorded every 2 seconds and the quality of the produced steam was measured to contain 1.2 to 1.4% water. Present were: Rossi, Levi, Kullander, Essen, Leonardi, Focardi and Bianchini so I accept the data as real. They used a relative humidity probe to measure steam quality. It is neither designed for that purpose, nor capable of performing that function. Those numbers are meaningless, and we have no better idea of the steam quality in that experiment than in any of the others. If steam quality were that easy to measure, why do turbine engineers perform calorimetry on steam to determine its quality? The fact that those present were satisfied with a measurement of relative humidity disqualifies them as expert observers. The claim of dry steam a few minutes after boiling is reached has exactly the same problem as in the megacat demo. It means the power transfer must magically increase 7-fold in about 3 minutes, even though it took 17 minutes to increase the power one-fold, or about 35 times the rate of transfer increase. In this case, the power after ignition is claimed to be about 10 times higher than the electrical heat, but they also claim ignition happened at 60C, which means we can see how fast the power is increasing *with* the ecat running, and it's not nearly fast enough to reach full vaporization 3 minutes after boiling. It's true that the reported electrical power is not enough to even reach boiling in this demo, so that suggests some heat production in the ecat. On the other hand, the input power is somehow not monitored in this experiment. It is only measured at the beginning. It would have been rather easy to increase it by a factor of 2, which would have been enough to take the system to the boiling point. In this demo as in others, they monitor the temperature every few seconds, even though the temperature is not expected to change during a 7-fold increase in power. But they don't measure the steam flow rate (speed), which *would* be expected to change during this claimed power increase, and would provide some support for the claim of dry steam. The incompetence is just amazing. Of course, sparging the steam would have been even better. For me this is better proof that Rossi does have a working and stable LENR reactor than the 6 Oct or 28 Oct tests. It is probably the best one that was done, but can be explained by a small misrepresentation in the power input. But even if you accept the data, and if the ecat is producing its own heat, it only needs about 300 W to explain all the observations, not 4.4 kW as they claimed. That means that the amount of energy (about 6 MJ) is perfectly consistent with some kind of chemical energy produced by the ecat.
Re: [Vo]:Hyperion product range?
On Thu, Nov 24, 2011 at 1:13 AM, Mary Yugo maryyu...@gmail.com wrote: That trend has been uniform except maybe for the October 28 test, in which, of course, data collection and details were not witnessed by anyone credible. Maybe the trend is not uniform, but even in the megacat, the *claimed* power is only about 4.5 kW for a 100 kg device, and a COP using Lewan's input data of about 8. The January demo claimed 12 kW for a 30 kg device with a COP of about 30.
Re: [Vo]:Focardi reveal Iron is also involved
Got it. There was 11% Fe found in the Ni powder analysis the Swedish guys did. AG On 11/24/2011 8:42 PM, Marcello Vitale wrote: No, Ag, Focardi just said that the Earth nucleaus is composed of Ni and Fe, therefore Ni is one of the most abundant elements and will be available forever. On Thu, Nov 24, 2011 at 10:56 AM, Aussie Guy E-Cat aussieguy.e...@gmail.com mailto:aussieguy.e...@gmail.com wrote: http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embeddedv=2cOEHQmnG-I#t=106s http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embeddedv=2cOEHQmnG-I#t=106s
Re: EXTERNAL: [Vo]:Overview of (Ahern) Vibronic Energy Technologies Approach
On Thu, Nov 24, 2011 at 1:31 AM, Alain dit le Cycliste alain.sep...@gmail.com wrote: for those that repeat that CF is impossible , Not impossible, just unlikely, in the absence of good evidence. I can answer simply : - it breaks no basic rule of todays most validated models : Quantum Physic Reference Frame, and generel Relativity (unlike Opera neutrinos, perpetual movement, usable antigravity). it only breaks usual approach to compute. Right. The usual rules, using QM, predict a reaction rate 10^30 times too low to explain claimed heat. - it is no more, no less explained by todays physics than is High temperature superconductivity , and that was classic superconductivity and super-fluidity before BCS. I don't agree. SC was not understood, but the idea that quantum transitions could be inhibited at low temperature was not contrary to any calculations of reaction rates or anything, and was certainly not implausible given the understanding of the time. And of course the evidence that it happened was unequivocal. The mechanism was just not conceived of. Exothermic nuclear reactions in non-radioactive material require a lot of concentrated energy, and that is highly unlikely. It is of course possible that some method not conceived of can make it happen, but concentrating thousands of times ordinary chemical bond strengths in single atomic sites is far less plausible (yes, in hind-sight) than some kind of pairing phenomenon to make electrons look like bosons. But most importantly, the evidence for it does not justify a need to reject current predictions of reaction rates. anyway, that is not a proof, just on reason to say those that critics CF on it's impossibility, are Right. No one claims that cold fusion has been proven impossible. The claim is that its existence has not been proven. on the explanation, it seems that no theory is convincing, maybe because the best physicians, and the mass of world physicians, did not work on it. Proponents claim hundreds of professional scientists have been working on it for 22 years. Maybe they are not the best, but then one should ask why the best consider the pursuit not worth their time. anyway, how many years between superconductivity is observed, quantum physics is established, and BCS paper? Many decades, no doubt. How many years between fire and an explanation for it? Many more. The question to ask is how many years between the discovery of SC and the acceptance of the reality of the phenomenon? That happened fast. How many years between the discovery of high-temp SC and the nobel prize? About 1 or 2. Cold fusion's problem is not just the absence of a consistent theory. It's the absence of strong evidence. however it seems to works, Not in the opinion of mainstream science, or the DOE panel enlisted to study the best evidence in 2004.
Re: [Vo]:Short report on Kullander's cold fusion lecture
On 11/24/2011 03:13 AM, Axil Axil wrote: I wonder if Rossi will change his tune on testing if Defkalion starts conducting public tests. A little competition is worth a million MYs And a new measurement unit is born. Let this be my modest attempt at a definition: One MY is defined as the skepticism emitted by one trained anonymous scientist with a lot of spare time, during one day(24 hours) of active internet posting. In more informal terms, it can be defined as the cyber flow of skepticism, that is, online skepticism / time. A million or mega MY (mMY) is therefore a relatively big amount of skepticism, equivalent to almost 2738 years of continuous, unabated emission by one determined source. For practical reasons, it's convenient to also define another, related unit. We define therefore the JC, as the amount of online skepticism by unit hour. 1 JC equals then 1/24 MY. A much more manageable, and useful, unit.
Re: EXTERNAL: [Vo]:Overview of (Ahern) Vibronic Energy Technologies Approach
Jed would say to this that there was no money involved in denying any of the phenomena brought as example. And he would be right, of course. It must also be pointed out that superconductivity, and the color of Au, and the color of silver nanoparticles depend on quantum mechanical effects whose application to the electron-nucleus interaction has been understood much after the observation of the phenomena. No such understanding appears to exist for similar effects inside the nucleus. Therefore, to refuse to consider CF evidence (and it appears that some people are doing that, even while denying it) because it does not match not even theory from first principles, but rather empirical rules derived from the results of experiments testing completely different situations, is just non-scientific. Physics and chemistry are experimental sciences. The theory must explain the observations, not the other way around. If one runs a test 1000 times and gets one result 999 times and another 1 tiime, that one time also must be explained, especially if the parameters of the exepriment cannot all be perfectly controlled. On Thu, Nov 24, 2011 at 12:06 PM, Joshua Cude joshua.c...@gmail.com wrote: On Thu, Nov 24, 2011 at 1:31 AM, Alain dit le Cycliste alain.sep...@gmail.com wrote: for those that repeat that CF is impossible , Not impossible, just unlikely, in the absence of good evidence. I can answer simply : - it breaks no basic rule of todays most validated models : Quantum Physic Reference Frame, and generel Relativity (unlike Opera neutrinos, perpetual movement, usable antigravity). it only breaks usual approach to compute. Right. The usual rules, using QM, predict a reaction rate 10^30 times too low to explain claimed heat. - it is no more, no less explained by todays physics than is High temperature superconductivity , and that was classic superconductivity and super-fluidity before BCS. I don't agree. SC was not understood, but the idea that quantum transitions could be inhibited at low temperature was not contrary to any calculations of reaction rates or anything, and was certainly not implausible given the understanding of the time. And of course the evidence that it happened was unequivocal. The mechanism was just not conceived of. Exothermic nuclear reactions in non-radioactive material require a lot of concentrated energy, and that is highly unlikely. It is of course possible that some method not conceived of can make it happen, but concentrating thousands of times ordinary chemical bond strengths in single atomic sites is far less plausible (yes, in hind-sight) than some kind of pairing phenomenon to make electrons look like bosons. But most importantly, the evidence for it does not justify a need to reject current predictions of reaction rates. anyway, that is not a proof, just on reason to say those that critics CF on it's impossibility, are Right. No one claims that cold fusion has been proven impossible. The claim is that its existence has not been proven. on the explanation, it seems that no theory is convincing, maybe because the best physicians, and the mass of world physicians, did not work on it. Proponents claim hundreds of professional scientists have been working on it for 22 years. Maybe they are not the best, but then one should ask why the best consider the pursuit not worth their time. anyway, how many years between superconductivity is observed, quantum physics is established, and BCS paper? Many decades, no doubt. How many years between fire and an explanation for it? Many more. The question to ask is how many years between the discovery of SC and the acceptance of the reality of the phenomenon? That happened fast. How many years between the discovery of high-temp SC and the nobel prize? About 1 or 2. Cold fusion's problem is not just the absence of a consistent theory. It's the absence of strong evidence. however it seems to works, Not in the opinion of mainstream science, or the DOE panel enlisted to study the best evidence in 2004.
[Vo]:Kullander Nov. 23 lecture slides (mostly in Swedish)
See: http://www.nyteknik.se/incoming/article3352744.ece/BINARY/Kullander_lecture_23nov.pdf
Re: [Vo]:Kullander Nov. 23 lecture slides (mostly in Swedish)
It was boring, that Kullander used sodium cooled fast reactor as an example of 4th gen nuclear power, because it is probably inherently failed concept. LFTR is way better concept, because there is required much less manufacturing and reprocessing nuclear fuel. Also he seem to be still out of understanding what is the difference between hot water and steam. It is almost ludicrous how difficult subject this is for common people. –Jouni 2011/11/24 Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com: See: http://www.nyteknik.se/incoming/article3352744.ece/BINARY/Kullander_lecture_23nov.pdf
Re: [Vo]:E-Cat 1MW Demo Water Clog Theory
On Thu, Nov 24, 2011 at 4:51 AM, Joshua Cude joshua.c...@gmail.com wrote: On Thu, Nov 24, 2011 at 12:30 AM, Berke Durak berke.du...@gmail.com wrote: David Roberson proposed a theory where a water clog forms because of condensation. Because of this clog, pressure and temperature rises until the clog is cleared I'm pretty sure your depicted scenario is not what Roberson was proposing No it's not exactly that, but I want to give him credit for the clog theory. and it doesn't make sense. Let's see. First of all, let me reiterate the assumption that no significant amount of liquid flows in the output steam pipes. This is based on the report. Note how this implies that the pumps were not on at their peak capacity all the time. The heat exchanger is *supposed* to condense the output, Yes, it is. and return cooled water (at ambient temperature) back to the input reservoir. No, it's not. I didn't see any pump after the heat exchanger. The output of the exchanger is at ground level. Then it goes into a hose which goes up and into the reservoir, which is 60 cm of water. So the heat exchanger doesn't return anything by itself, but must rely on upstream pressure to push the condensed, cold water back and up. Agree? The heat is removed from the steam/water output and dispersed to the sky behind some barriers Right. maybe so no one can see how little heat there actually is. Or maybe it was to protect visitors from a megawatt of thermal output? Also visitors took a peek and we have footage and pictures of what is behind. So, the output of the exchanger is surely always liquid. It almost certainly is. That's not a clog if the temperature is reduced, so steam is not possible. This sentence doesn't make sense to me. Could you explain? What does steam is not possible mean? The water flows more slowly, but it's more dense, so the mass flow rates balance. Mass flow rates balance in the stable regime, but not at the beginning. This is because there is no post-condenser pump and there is a height difference. Therefore condensed water doesn't get out of the way until there is sufficient pressure for a sufficiently long time. That pressure must be on the order of a hundred kPa (relative) or so. If you are suggesting that when the clog clears, steam flows into the reservoir, then there is far more heat entering the reservoir than if it were water. No I'm not. I'm suggesting it is warmish water. -- Berke Durak
Re: [Vo]:Report on Rossi's visit to Boston
Terry Blanton hohlr...@gmail.com wrote: It might not be so confusing if one realizes, assuming all is as AR says, he has a very narrow window to make money off his eCat. I get that. I really do. But he was meeting with an elected official from the state of Massachusetts. A couple of miles away from the most prestigious university of technology in the world, run by the state. What did he expect the official to say? It was obvious they would ask him to have the reactors tested at MIT. Does Rossi or anyone else imagine that officials in Massachusetts will do business with him, or allow him to sell reactors, without first having MIT vet his claims? That's delusional! If Rossi does not want MIT to test his reactors, he should never have met with state officials. It was an embarrassing waste of everyone's time. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:Report on Rossi's visit to Boston
but good way to generate PR that will attract more credulous investors -- strike a bold pose of independence, thumbing nose at the establishment... just helping Mary Yugo... On Thu, Nov 24, 2011 at 5:51 AM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com wrote: Terry Blanton hohlr...@gmail.com wrote: It might not be so confusing if one realizes, assuming all is as AR says, he has a very narrow window to make money off his eCat. I get that. I really do. But he was meeting with an elected official from the state of Massachusetts. A couple of miles away from the most prestigious university of technology in the world, run by the state. What did he expect the official to say? It was obvious they would ask him to have the reactors tested at MIT. Does Rossi or anyone else imagine that officials in Massachusetts will do business with him, or allow him to sell reactors, without first having MIT vet his claims? That's delusional! If Rossi does not want MIT to test his reactors, he should never have met with state officials. It was an embarrassing waste of everyone's time. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:Kullander Nov. 23 lecture slides (mostly in Swedish)
OH! I think there is a little bit of new information! Take a look at page 50! Data on 6 old experiments. But, I didn't understand something. Eric Lerner never talked anything about LENR, as far as I know, see page 58. In fact, Eric aims to work with fusion 7000x hotter than what is found in Tokamaks... 2011/11/24 Jouni Valkonen jounivalko...@gmail.com It was boring, that Kullander used sodium cooled fast reactor as an example of 4th gen nuclear power, because it is probably inherently failed concept. LFTR is way better concept, because there is required much less manufacturing and reprocessing nuclear fuel. Also he seem to be still out of understanding what is the difference between hot water and steam. It is almost ludicrous how difficult subject this is for common people. –Jouni 2011/11/24 Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com: See: http://www.nyteknik.se/incoming/article3352744.ece/BINARY/Kullander_lecture_23nov.pdf -- Daniel Rocha - RJ danieldi...@gmail.com
Re: [Vo]:Report on Rossi's visit to Boston
That is really a stain in his reputation, at least for a few months. I was going to put my name in the 10K e-cat market research... Not anymore. It doesn't matter if he really has something real if he cannot prove that he can provide a reliable, functional and safe product. 2011/11/24 Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com If Rossi does not want MIT to test his reactors, he should never have met with state officials. It was an embarrassing waste of everyone's time. - Jed -- Daniel Rocha - RJ danieldi...@gmail.com
Re: [Vo]:Report on Rossi's visit to Boston
My question: Did Sen. Bruce Tarr ask Rossi any questions to which Rossi provided surprising (to B. Tarr) answers? When an attorney calls a witness, he knows the answers before he asks the questions. The same applies to public hearings where an elected official invests his political capital in calling a witness. It is understandable, perhaps, why Hagelstein didn't act as an attorney or politician, and Rossi was open to give him a surprising answer (even though it was consistent with his other recent statements). On Wed, Nov 23, 2011 at 3:31 PM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com wrote: Someone from Boston just called me to say that Rossi met with Peter Hagelstein at the state capital, and Rossi said exactly what he's been saying all along: No more tests. Let the customers decide. Etc. Peter offered to do a pure black box tests but Rossi turned him down. In other words it was a waste of time and an embarrassment. The state representative probably regrets he ever heard of the man. Why did Rossi even go? What was he thinking? He does at least make it clear that he cannot reveal anything about this because he has no patent. He does not actually say I do not want widespread publicity because I have no patent -- I want to cash in while I can but I am pretty sure that is what he is thinking. What else? He is between a rock and a hard place. On a different subject . . . Assuming Rossi actually did sell that one megawatt react to someone in the US, it is likely to be the US military. No other entity would think of operating a nuclear reactor of unknown etiology without a permit and without any UL certification. Rossi's statement that there will be no more testing is ridiculous. Before he sells to ordinary customers there will have to be a ton of testing by UL and many safety agencies, as I have often pointed out. Defkalion understands this. They have often cited the need for thorough testing and approval before they can begin selling. - Jed
Re: [Vo]: ECAT 1 MW Test Discrepancy
I am sorry if my statement annoys you Mary. You suggest that you might be willing to accept the slim possibility that Rossi is honest. I will give you the benefit of the doubt if you promise that your statement reflects your real opinion. On the other hand, Mr. Cude has made it quite clear that he does not believe that Rossi or anyone else has achieved a LENR reaction. He fabricates evidence that suggests either the customer engineer is lying or incompetent. He claims that the system approved and set up by the same engineer is useless in recovering water that escapes from the ECATs. He accuses people who are convinced that the ECAT might be successful of being ignorant of his truths. I do not recall him ever saying that LENR is possible, and I would like for you to correct me if I am misunderstanding his position. There is little reason for me to keep repeating the same position over and over to answer his negative statements and I refuse to continue. Vortex should not be used as a board where the loudest screamers seem true. This is not productive. You have been subjected to a significant amount of ridicule for repeating the same ideas in a similar manner and should understand this concept well. New ideas as well as building upon existing ones is the way to move forward and I and most others appreciate that type of conversation. I will answer any questions that arise concerning my hypothesis, provided they are not combative and repetitive. I as much as anyone else wants to determine models of the ECAT and related devices that are rigorous and true. You should know that by now. That is my only goal and if the ECAT demonstrates performance that is lacking I will reveal my findings as I have in the past. Dave -Original Message- From: Mary Yugo maryyu...@gmail.com To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Thu, Nov 24, 2011 1:57 am Subject: Re: [Vo]: ECAT 1 MW Test Discrepancy On Wed, Nov 23, 2011 at 1:11 PM, Joshua Cude joshua.c...@gmail.com wrote: The poster is convinced that Rossi is scamming and there is no level of proof that will be accepted otherwise. I find that assertion annoying. Several others including, IIRC, Cude, nd I have said under what criteria Rossi's claims would be credible nd those criteria are both entirely reasonable and easy to fulfill. or, as some assert, would proper testing in any way risk revealing ossi's secret. On the other hand, selling E-cats in batches of 50 or ore as a plant certainly does risk his secrets. Rossi has now categorically refused *public* pleas from four strong upporters of LENR/cold fusion -- Josephson, Celani, McKubre and othwell to get independent testing and I am sure many others have sked him as well by personal communications. I don't recall anyone here saying categorically that Rossi is camming. Can you quote such a statement from a regular participant n this email list? I think Rossi's critics say he's *acting* like a cammer and he most certainly is for reasons I have carefully outlined ere before. M.Y.
Re: [Vo]:Hyperion product range?
You are correct in your observation Mary. The device has grown in size remarkably and some of its characteristics are likely improved. The cute little unit that first showed up could not retain much hot water to deliver on demand. Rossi has made a point of the fact that the device takes a significant amount of time to turn on or off. The newer models seem to take advantage of that time factor to store energy instead of having to vent it at turn off. Please understand that I am just guessing about the reasons hidden within Rossi's mind. Maybe you should suggest to him reasons to make the device tiny as I know there would be many applications that this would enhance. I have hope that the heavy lead shield is not always going to be the anchor that holds us down, but until we get the scientific testing that you so much desire, we must realize that he holds most of the cards. Dave -Original Message- From: Mary Yugo maryyu...@gmail.com To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Thu, Nov 24, 2011 2:13 am Subject: Re: [Vo]:Hyperion product range? On Wed, Nov 23, 2011 at 9:44 PM, David Roberson dlrober...@aol.com wrote: Isn't it amazing how much the device has changed over the months? Yes it is. Over the past 9 months, the E-cat's power per unit volume nd per unit mass has shrunk markedly from the small 50 cc reaction hambers described for the early copper clad models to the 80 kg Ottoman E-cat which made essentially no more power than the small ne. That trend has been uniform except maybe for the October 28 est, in which, of course, data collection and details were not itnessed by anyone credible.
RE: [Vo]: ECAT 1 MW Test Discrepancy
Rick sez: I am captivated by [Cude's] exceptional lucidity of mind -- soon, he will give the Defkalion delusion an equally exquisite shave Your personal objectivity on these matters is something to behold, as what appears to be your undying faith in the infallibility of your heroes. Rich, have you considered the possibility of simply sticking to and expressing your own personal observations opinions (warts and all) instead of constantly bolstering your current opinions/ideology with incessant product endorsements of the perceived unapproachable qualities of your favorite heroes? Personally, I would be much more interested in listening to why YOU PERSONALLY feel skeptical of Rossi and the whole CF shebang. If you want people to listen and seriously ponder what you have to say, I would suggest expressing WHY you personally feel skeptical on such matters. To put it bluntly, I could give a rat's ass about being subjected to yet another product endorsement of the perceived qualities of someone else's favorite hero. Shoot! You've seemed to have even endorsed me on several occasions when I go off on another one of my eccentric rants... and while I ought to feel a sense of gratitude for your occasional expressed admiration, the truth of the matter is: the last thing I need in my life is hero worship. It's been my experience that anyone perceived as the quintessential hero for today can just as easily be demoted to the role of a villain for tomorrow. All this hero worship... You seem to set yourself up to be disappointed, over and over. But then... perhaps that's one of the major lessons you have set yourself up to experience in this life-time. It's a doozey of a lesson too! Have a happy Turkey day. Regards, Steven Vincent Johnson www.OrionWorks.com www.zazzle.com/orionworks
Re: [Vo]:Overview of (Ahern) Vibronic Energy Technologies Approach
Lou, Axil, I think Jones Beene has previously cited thermal anomalies of both heating and cooling, the cooling anomaly is less pronounced than the heating anomaly. Likewise reports of accelerated half lives of radioactive gases are more pronounced than reports of “suppressed” half lives. Note that the modified decay rates are restored to normal after the radioactive gas is unloaded from the metal powder. Although these reports of thermal anomalies may not have involved radioactive gases, they are still, IMHO, a clear indication that reactions of any type are indeed thermalized. In short I take this as support of Naudt’s proposal that fractional hydrogen is relativistic and my extension that Casimir effect is the underlying relativistic process, bestowing equivalent relativistic negative acceleration to any ambient gases in the vacuum suppressed region between Casimir boundaries. Note this is not in conflict with Axil’s reply regarding a second QM reaction that thermalizes the reaction in the thermal lattice but rather just another piece of the puzzle that may include several exotic mechanisms to explain these anomalous reactions. Casimir geometry is already a quantum effect that concentrates large surface areas of metal atoms onto a tiny region trapped between the plates, It appears to assist the formation of condensed forms of gases that can also act as a single atom which supports Axils contention that thermal energy is gently transferred over great “spooky” distances instead of a concentrated nuclear release. I think many of the other perspectives like Frank Z’s speed of sound and the oscillion theory may also contribute or be related ways to describe the same underlying effects.. hope they will also chime in on this thread. I am not surprised Ti needs to be heated for the Reifenschweiler effect. Since the days of Langmuir the odd effects of hydrogen are only observed after disassociation. If the Ti particles are larger you get less catalytic assist in disassociation. I agree with Axil’s statement [snip] The radiation thermalization mechanism is a surface phenomenon that is maximized by the large surface area of nano-powder.[/snip] but remain uncertain if this effect can occur with only atomic hydrogen or if it needs the condensed form of hydrogen to occur. Regards Fran · Re: [Vo]:Overview of (Ahern) Vibronic Energy Technologies Approach Axil Axil Thu, 24 Nov 2011 00:00:11 -0800 What I am curious about is whether the reduced radioactivity that Reifenschweiler observed for tritium and heavier nuclei meant that the radioactive decays were actually suppressed, or that the energetic decay products were thermalized in the small monocrystalline particles via some hypothetical collective quantum enhancement of absorption. I speculate that the energetic decay products were thermalized. In an experimental series performed by Piantelli, he observed the production of either heat or gamma radiation but not both at the same time, if memory serves. From the demo of the first one liter Rossi reactor during the time at startup when the lattice was cold, a massive radiation burst appeared for a second or two. From this, I deduce that the energy production mechanism will generate large amounts of radiation if the lattice is cold and the phonons present in the lattice are not energetic enough. One problem of that early design was the generation of bursts of radiation during startup and shutdown. I assume that the lattice was cold at those times. Rossi was greatly concerned by these radiation bursts, and changed his design so that an external heater warmed the nickel lattice before the reaction begins. This tells me that there is a second quantum mechanical reaction that converts the radiation generated in the metal atom’s nucleus to thermal energy within the lattice. The lack of radioactive decay products after the Rossi reactor is shut down also speaks to a radiation thermalization mechanism rather than a radiation suppression mechanism. From Otto Reifenschweiler: This assumption is confirmed by the observation, that a decrease of tritium radioactivity is never observed with Ti-preparations which are generally used for storage of tritium. Such preparations don.t have the above stated properties. They consist of single and big non monocrystalline Ti-particles, in my experience. The radiation thermalization mechanism is a surface phenomenon that is maximized by the large surface area of nano-powder. The a variant of the quantum Zeno effect in which an unstable particle, if observed continuously or in the case of quantum activity in a metal lattice cycles rapidly through repeating cycles of entanglement in a continuing process of quantum decoherence, that particle will
Re: EXTERNAL: [Vo]:Overview of (Ahern) Vibronic Energy Technologies Approach
2011/11/24 Joshua Cude joshua.c...@gmail.com Not impossible, just unlikely, in the absence of good evidence. I don't agree. SC was not understood, but the idea that quantum transitions could be inhibited at low temperature was not contrary to any calculations of reaction rates or anything, and was certainly not implausible given the understanding of the time. And of course the evidence that it happened was unequivocal. The mechanism was just not conceived of. Exothermic nuclear reactions in non-radioactive material require a lot of concentrated energy, not absolutely, because tunnel effect exists, like virtuel bosonic agragate, and SC is an example of such. HiTemp SC is still not explainable. We just accept it, because nobody told the press it is a fake by frauding labs. If skepticism was so deep with HTSC, sure it would be ignored, because there can be a fraud justification of anything, especially if the researcher that succeed in reproducting the experimenst are accused immediately of fraud. and that is highly unlikely. It is of course possible that some method not conceived of can make it happen, but concentrating thousands of times ordinary chemical bond strengths in single atomic sites is far less plausible (yes, in hind-sight) than some kind of pairing phenomenon to make electrons look like bosons. But most importantly, the evidence for it does not justify a need to reject current predictions of reaction rates. Right. No one claims that cold fusion has been proven impossible. The claim is that its existence has not been proven. on the explanation, it seems that no theory is convincing, maybe because the best physicians, and the mass of world physicians, did not work on it. Proponents claim hundreds of professional scientists have been working on it for 22 years. Maybe they are not the best, but then one should ask why the best consider the pursuit not worth their time. many more on HTSC, no results yet. I agree my argument is weak... maybe is it simply no luck. Many decades, no doubt. How many years between fire and an explanation for it? Many more. The question to ask is how many years between the discovery of SC and the acceptance of the reality of the phenomenon? That happened fast. How many years between the discovery of high-temp SC and the nobel prize? About 1 or 2. Cold fusion's problem is not just the absence of a consistent theory. It's the absence of strong evidence. you hit the hard point. for me it could be normal science, with normal skepticism, except that here, the press decided that it was a fraud. I say the press, not the hot physics lobby, because after believing all from FP, the press heard the good arguments from the physicists, and some bad, to decide definitely that it was a fake. then the politicians follow, the establishment in science follow cowardly... unable to go back. then it became as evident as geocentric system. many experiments were done, with better tools, un questionable heat results... but impossible to pass the consensus barrier... today, i don't say that it might be true, I say that I cannot imagine a physical/psychological/sociological theory, based on experience of the past and knowledge of (human) nature, to explain what is happening, except that CF exists. Rossi migh event make a scam, defkalion too, with a probability lower than you and me are financed by Exxon, but many other facts stays in the back... And I'd rather think antennas cause cancer and alien are raping humans, than imagine it can be a complete fraud from the beginning... anyway, there is a mystery for me ... why is it not evident to everybody having informations ? Maybe I'm missing something, but the solution is not in the (tech) details, but in the (sociological) system. there can be complete self-feed scam, on large scale, but it follow some rule, and one is real (despite not evident) consensus. another is a complex ecosystem of parasites (finance, industry, workers, researcher of various domains, NGO, politics). clearly CF does not have such ecosystem, rather the opposite (maybe the opposition to CF follow the honest scam scheme... hum, an idea).
RE: [Vo]:Overview of (Ahern) Vibronic Energy Technologies Approach
Fran, Last month the Barker patents were dredged up again in this context. This experiment is like the Reifenschweiler effect on steroids, and has been replicated often, but of course – it is a great stretch to think it could be applicable to Nickel-64 – which is an isotope that is “not quite” unstable. http://www.mail-archive.com/vortex-l@eskimo.com/msg52619.html However, nothing on the theoretical end really provides a better approach to this formative hypothesis, given that ‘near fields’ in the context of Casimir containment are extreme; and all of this is not incompatible with Nanomagnetism. Too bad it isn’t called NanoEM (nano-electromagnetism) to broaden it out a bit … From: froarty...@comcast.net Lou, Axil, I think Jones Beene has previously cited thermal anomalies of both heating and cooling, the cooling anomaly is less pronounced than the heating anomaly. Likewise reports of accelerated half lives of radioactive gases are more pronounced than reports of “suppressed” half lives. Note that the modified decay rates are restored to normal after the radioactive gas is unloaded from the metal powder. Although these reports of thermal anomalies may not have involved radioactive gases, they are still, IMHO, a clear indication that reactions of any type are indeed thermalized. In short I take this as support of Naudt’s proposal that fractional hydrogen is relativistic and my extension that Casimir effect is the underlying relativistic process, bestowing equivalent relativistic negative acceleration to any ambient gases in the vacuum suppressed region between Casimir boundaries. Note this is not in conflict with Axil’s reply regarding a second QM reaction that thermalizes the reaction in the thermal lattice but rather just another piece of the puzzle that may include several exotic mechanisms to explain these anomalous reactions. Casimir geometry is already a quantum effect that concentrates large surface areas of metal atoms onto a tiny region trapped between the plates, It appears to assist the formation of condensed forms of gases that can also act as a single atom which supports Axils contention that thermal energy is gently transferred over great “spooky” distances instead of a concentrated nuclear release. I think many of the other perspectives like Frank Z’s speed of sound and the oscillion theory may also contribute or be related ways to describe the same underlying effects.. hope they will also chime in on this thread. I am not surprised Ti needs to be heated for the Reifenschweiler effect. Since the days of Langmuir the odd effects of hydrogen are only observed after disassociation. If the Ti particles are larger you get less catalytic assist in disassociation. I agree with Axil’s statement [snip] The radiation thermalization mechanism is a surface phenomenon that is maximized by the large surface area of nano-powder.[/snip] but remain uncertain if this effect can occur with only atomic hydrogen or if it needs the condensed form of hydrogen to occur. Regards Fran * Re: [Vo]:Overview of (Ahern) Vibronic Energy Technologies Approach Axil Axil Thu, 24 Nov 2011 00:00:11 -0800 What I am curious about is whether the reduced radioactivity that Reifenschweiler observed for tritium and heavier nuclei meant that the radioactive decays were actually suppressed, or that the energetic decay products were thermalized in the small monocrystalline particles via some hypothetical collective quantum enhancement of absorption. I speculate that the energetic decay products were thermalized. In an experimental series performed by Piantelli, he observed the production of either heat or gamma radiation but not both at the same time, if memory serves. From the demo of the first one liter Rossi reactor during the time at startup when the lattice was cold, a massive radiation burst appeared for a second or two. From this, I deduce that the energy production mechanism will generate large amounts of radiation if the lattice is cold and the phonons present in the lattice are not energetic enough. One problem of that early design was the generation of bursts of radiation during startup and shutdown. I assume that the lattice was cold at those times. Rossi was greatly concerned by these radiation bursts, and changed his design so that an external heater warmed the nickel lattice before the reaction begins. This tells me that there is a second quantum mechanical reaction that converts the radiation generated in the metal atom’s nucleus to thermal energy within the lattice. The lack of radioactive decay products after the Rossi reactor is shut down also speaks to a radiation thermalization mechanism rather than a radiation suppression mechanism. From Otto Reifenschweiler: This assumption is confirmed by the observation, that a decrease of tritium radioactivity is never
Re: [Vo]:Report on Rossi's visit to Boston
On Thu, Nov 24, 2011 at 8:51 AM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com wrote: If Rossi does not want MIT to test his reactors, he should never have met with state officials. It was an embarrassing waste of everyone's time. I dunno. Assuming they paid for the ticket, it was a cheap way for him to meet with his business buddies in NH. :-) T
Re: [Vo]: ECAT 1 MW Test Discrepancy
On Tue, Nov 22, 2011 at 3:19 PM, Joshua Cude joshua.c...@gmail.com wrote: On Tue, Nov 22, 2011 at 2:05 PM, Harry Veeder hveeder...@gmail.com 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.) The point is that the length of the warm-up interval by itself does not render the output implausible. If you think it is implausible then presumably you think the ECAT could not be heated electrically to self sustaining temperatures in minutes without failure (melting/exploding). The plausible explanation for the long warm up interval is that the self-sustain mode must be approached slowly. If the ECAT is heated too quickly, the self sustain mode may not last very long or it may never be reached. Harry
Re: [Vo]:Report on Rossi's visit to Boston
Jed said .But he was meeting with an elected official from the state of Massachusetts. A couple of miles away from the most prestigious university of technology in the world, run by the state. Uh, Jed, MIT is private. Or maybe you meant UMass? On Thu, Nov 24, 2011 at 2:51 PM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com wrote: Terry Blanton hohlr...@gmail.com wrote: It might not be so confusing if one realizes, assuming all is as AR says, he has a very narrow window to make money off his eCat. I get that. I really do. But he was meeting with an elected official from the state of Massachusetts. A couple of miles away from the most prestigious university of technology in the world, run by the state. What did he expect the official to say? It was obvious they would ask him to have the reactors tested at MIT. Does Rossi or anyone else imagine that officials in Massachusetts will do business with him, or allow him to sell reactors, without first having MIT vet his claims? That's delusional! If Rossi does not want MIT to test his reactors, he should never have met with state officials. It was an embarrassing waste of everyone's time. - Jed
RE: [Vo]:Report on Rossi's visit to Boston
Jed sez: If Rossi does not want MIT to test his reactors, he should never have met with state officials. It was an embarrassing waste of everyone's time. I suspect Rossi would beg to differ. Seems to me that Rossi has always been operating on Rossi time. From Terry, I dunno. Assuming they paid for the ticket, it was a cheap way for him to meet with his business buddies in NH. :-) His ticket wuz paid for??? Wow! Sign me up! ;-) But more seriously, it seems more sensible for me to speculate that Rossi was on another one of his business fishing trips - feeling out the waters so to speak. Meanwhile, we all have a pretty good idea of what Rossi thinks of the so-called importance of achieving academic/scientific credibility. A great irony in all of this is the fact that achieving scientific credibility, for now, could actually end up hindering his current business plans, at least in the short term. That seems to be a potential modus operandi that might explain his eccentric behavior, a behavior that seems to drive certain Vort members (and the scientific community) to distraction. ;-) Meanwhile, we all wait with baited breath to see what kind of a dog and pony show Defkalion plans on unveiling soon... to a theatre near you. Will they impress us, or disappoint us? We have been disappointed so many times before. I'm sure we probably are in store for more disappointment before the fat lady finally gets on stage to sing. In the meantime I recommend that at least for today we all sit at the table and pass the meat and gravy amongst each other, secure in the knowledge that the adventure continues. Regards, Steven Vincent Johnson www.OrionWorks.com www.zazzle.com/orionworks
Re: [Vo]:Report on Rossi's visit to Boston
Happy T-day to the US folk. Don't overdo it :-))) On Thu, Nov 24, 2011 at 5:54 PM, OrionWorks - Steven Vincent Johnson orionwo...@charter.net wrote: Jed sez: If Rossi does not want MIT to test his reactors, he should never have met with state officials. It was an embarrassing waste of everyone's time. I suspect Rossi would beg to differ. Seems to me that Rossi has always been operating on Rossi time. From Terry, I dunno. Assuming they paid for the ticket, it was a cheap way for him to meet with his business buddies in NH. :-) His ticket wuz paid for??? Wow! Sign me up! ;-) But more seriously, it seems more sensible for me to speculate that Rossi was on another one of his business fishing trips - feeling out the waters so to speak. Meanwhile, we all have a pretty good idea of what Rossi thinks of the so-called importance of achieving academic/scientific credibility. A great irony in all of this is the fact that achieving scientific credibility, for now, could actually end up hindering his current business plans, at least in the short term. That seems to be a potential modus operandi that might explain his eccentric behavior, a behavior that seems to drive certain Vort members (and the scientific community) to distraction. ;-) Meanwhile, we all wait with baited breath to see what kind of a dog and pony show Defkalion plans on unveiling soon... to a theatre near you. Will they impress us, or disappoint us? We have been disappointed so many times before. I'm sure we probably are in store for more disappointment before the fat lady finally gets on stage to sing. In the meantime I recommend that at least for today we all sit at the table and pass the meat and gravy amongst each other, secure in the knowledge that the adventure continues. Regards, Steven Vincent Johnson www.OrionWorks.com www.zazzle.com/orionworks
Re: [Vo]:Short report on Kullander's cold fusion lecture
Once again, the forum rules seem to apply only to believers. How would they react if I launched a vociferous, irrelevant and pejorative tirade against them here? On Thu, Nov 24, 2011 at 3:13 AM, Mauro Lacy ma...@lacy.com.ar wrote: On 11/24/2011 03:13 AM, Axil Axil wrote: I wonder if Rossi will change his tune on testing if Defkalion starts conducting public tests. A little competition is worth a million MYs And a new measurement unit is born. Let this be my modest attempt at a definition: One MY is defined as the skepticism emitted by one trained anonymous scientist with a lot of spare time, during one day(24 hours) of active internet posting. In more informal terms, it can be defined as the cyber flow of skepticism, that is, online skepticism / time. A million or mega MY (mMY) is therefore a relatively big amount of skepticism, equivalent to almost 2738 years of continuous, unabated emission by one determined source. For practical reasons, it's convenient to also define another, related unit. We define therefore the JC, as the amount of online skepticism by unit hour. 1 JC equals then 1/24 MY. A much more manageable, and useful, unit.
Re: [Vo]:Short report on Kullander's cold fusion lecture
Eric, I agree with your assessment of what is wrong with 911 conspiracy theories. The problems with these theories is how to coordinate so many people involved in the conspiracy without any of them revealing what happened. In the case of the Rossi story we have mostly him behaving in a completely nonsensical way. It is mostly one person (or few of his associates) that are pulling this off. They don't even have to have a coherent plan in particular if Rossi is paying off few actors and some will participants in this charade. As a scam goes it doesn't make much sense either. But let me remind you that Rossi is not new to scams or/and strange actions involving energy breakthroughs. The last one didn't turn good for him as a scam either. Maybe he is not as good as a scam artist after all. Giovanni On Thu, Nov 24, 2011 at 4:11 AM, Eric Woudenberg e...@woudy.org wrote: I went back and looked at the Levi interview ( http://www.youtube.com/watch?**v=0vYJIG3ymOkhttp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0vYJIG3ymOkstarting at 3:00). Levi says: 3:00 feb 2011 test w/o steam 4:00 system started in an almost explosive way 6:00 15 kw for 18 hours 6:20 we connected the system directly to the water pipe with flux [flow] measuring 1 liter/second 6:50 almost 40 degree delta t -- if you make calculations this is about 120kw 7:11 krivit: what was the power input? levi: less than 1 kw 7:18 rossi was very worried about that and damped (dumped?) the system and restarted the system and obtained about 40kw 7:50 i will not write up that test 15:00 still arguing with krivit about whether to write up the feb 2011 test My sense is that the core was in thermal runaway, and that even at 1 liter/sec they could not cool it enough to get it stable. Rossi then 'dumps' the system (unspecified as to how), quenching the reaction. My guess is that this configuration was not possible to recreate on demand -- it was apparently an unusual event. Anyway -- there are possibly many reasons why a second test of this sort was not performed, not least of which may have been Rossi's disinterest. But my sense is that running the system with liquid water at 1 atm. is not easy, hence Rossi's use of a steam-to-water heat-exchanger in October. Mary -- I see that you are helpfully skeptical of much of what Rossi is putting out. But what I'm missing is a coherent narrative of what you think is happening. You know, people put out theories about how 9/11 was an inside job by pointing out all the inconsistencies. But can they put together an alternate narrative that fits the discrepancies and makes sense? I'm not saying that if you can't do this Rossi is not faking it, but it would be nice to hear a coherent story that you feel explains what is going on. Eric Mary Yugo writes: Eric Woudenberg writes: My guess is that running it with liquid water ends up leaving the core too cold to produce much excess heat. Somehow 100c or thereabouts appears to be the reactor's sweet spot (by accident or design). Well, didn't you just say Levi's experiment alarmed Rossi by running too hot? With liquid coolant, you can control temperature by varying the flow rate of the coolant which is easily done with a manual or automatic valve or even by varying the pressure head of the fluid by simply raising and lowering the container! It's a snap. I used to do something similar when calibrating calorimeters with liquid coolant jackets. And Rossi has claimed that regulating the hydrogen pressure also controls the reaction. Getting a decent coolant flow and delta T should be very doable with a bit of experimenting.
Re: [Vo]:Kullander Nov. 23 lecture slides (mostly in Swedish)
Maybe there will be an English translation. In the meantime, can anyone tell me if Kullander addresses the superb concerns and excellent measurement methods proposed by Grabowski et al (US Naval Research Laboratory) here? http://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/GrabowskiKrobustperf.pdf I think everyone who considers evaluating cold fusion claims should be intimately familiar with all the suggestions and issues discussed in that really good paper. In particular, the difficulties involved in using heat of evaporation of water to measure enthalpy and the high possibility of errors with that method are discussed in detail. It seems as if Rossi has completely ignored this very clear and readable, well illustrated and well written document. Maybe Kullander has also. I can't tell from the Kullander paper. I can't get past the language barrier yet -- it would take some work to copy and paste enough to Google translate and that might or might not be understandable.
Re: [Vo]:Kullander Nov. 23 lecture slides (mostly in Swedish)
That Melich, in the paper, is Rossi's friend, tested the ecats, in 2009, I think, and it is an enemy of Krivit. Krivit hates that guy. Krivit, 1 day after the first test in January, noticed that he was associated with Rossi, and since that very moment, he showed a negative attitude towards Rossi. 2011/11/24 Mary Yugo maryyu...@gmail.com Maybe there will be an English translation. In the meantime, can anyone tell me if Kullander addresses the superb concerns and excellent measurement methods proposed by Grabowski et al (US Naval Research Laboratory) here? http://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/GrabowskiKrobustperf.pdf I think everyone who considers evaluating cold fusion claims should be intimately familiar with all the suggestions and issues discussed in that really good paper. In particular, the difficulties involved in using heat of evaporation of water to measure enthalpy and the high possibility of errors with that method are discussed in detail. It seems as if Rossi has completely ignored this very clear and readable, well illustrated and well written document. Maybe Kullander has also. I can't tell from the Kullander paper. I can't get past the language barrier yet -- it would take some work to copy and paste enough to Google translate and that might or might not be understandable. -- Daniel Rocha - RJ danieldi...@gmail.com
Re: [Vo]:Kullander Nov. 23 lecture slides (mostly in Swedish)
On Thu, Nov 24, 2011 at 10:13 AM, Daniel Rocha danieldi...@gmail.comwrote: That Melich, in the paper, is Rossi's friend, tested the ecats, in 2009, I think, and it is an enemy of Krivit. Krivit hates that guy. Krivit, 1 day after the first test in January, noticed that he was associated with Rossi, and since that very moment, he showed a negative attitude towards Rossi. OK. If so, how does that bear on Rossi's veracity? I'm not sure why attitudes matter. I dislike Rossi's approach to things intensely but if independent testing showed that he really had cold fusion, I'd be happy to acknowledge that he is a great inventor. It should be about facts and evidence rather than attitudes, don't you think? Krivit thinks Rossi actively tried to deceive him. That's reason enough not to like the guy. Do you know if there are any reports by Melich about Rossi's E-cat? That might be interesting to read. I tried translating from the Swedish PDF to English with Google. It's not entirely satisfactory but it does suggest that Kullander did consider Grabowski's paper or the same concerns from theory. If I understood him, Kullander concluded that Rossi experiments showed dry steam within 99% using the Testo meter. That's unlikely to be reliable because as has been said many times, the device was never designed to measure steam quality and is an HVAC instrument made for typical room temperatures in habitats. The translation suggests that Kullander also wants Rossi to do long term (perhaps independent) tests and that until those are done, doubt about his veracity is reasonable. At least that's what I got out of it. YMMV.
Re: [Vo]:Kullander Nov. 23 lecture slides (mostly in Swedish)
I think Jed can answer better than I do. But the reason is Krivit doesn't like that guy it is that he thinks Melich a cover agent of the US government to suppress cold fusion. But they are very probably associated, as you can see in the list of Rossi's list of advisors in his blog as well as some news, of him testing the e cat in the Naval institute, where Melich works. This is from memory. It would take some time for me to find. I think others can help me here find the references. 2011/11/24 Mary Yugo maryyu...@gmail.com On Thu, Nov 24, 2011 at 10:13 AM, Daniel Rocha danieldi...@gmail.comwrote: That Melich, in the paper, is Rossi's friend, tested the ecats, in 2009, I think, and it is an enemy of Krivit. Krivit hates that guy. Krivit, 1 day after the first test in January, noticed that he was associated with Rossi, and since that very moment, he showed a negative attitude towards Rossi. OK. If so, how does that bear on Rossi's veracity? I'm not sure why attitudes matter. I dislike Rossi's approach to things intensely but if independent testing showed that he really had cold fusion, I'd be happy to acknowledge that he is a great inventor. It should be about facts and evidence rather than attitudes, don't you think? Krivit thinks Rossi actively tried to deceive him. That's reason enough not to like the guy. Do you know if there are any reports by Melich about Rossi's E-cat? That might be interesting to read. I tried translating from the Swedish PDF to English with Google. It's not entirely satisfactory but it does suggest that Kullander did consider Grabowski's paper or the same concerns from theory. If I understood him, Kullander concluded that Rossi experiments showed dry steam within 99% using the Testo meter. That's unlikely to be reliable because as has been said many times, the device was never designed to measure steam quality and is an HVAC instrument made for typical room temperatures in habitats. The translation suggests that Kullander also wants Rossi to do long term (perhaps independent) tests and that until those are done, doubt about his veracity is reasonable. At least that's what I got out of it. YMMV. -- Daniel Rocha - RJ danieldi...@gmail.com
RE: [Vo]:Overview of (Ahern) Vibronic Energy Technologies Approach
Thanks Axil, Fran, Jones, - for lots of intriguing information. You have put lot of effort into this. On the quantum entanglement/nonlocality issue - possibly relevant is: Undetectable quantum transfer through a continuum http://arxiv.org/abs/1106.2901 - but interesting even if not. The Ni-64 paradox is one I have to educate myself on. Maybe it's subject to some subtle environmental stable/unstable phase transition? BTW (off topic), nickel might have more secrets - perhaps it explains the paradoxical imbalance of L/R-chirality of amino acids. See - The role of nickel(II) on the homochirality of amino acids in living systems http://elearning.hebron.edu/EPortfolio/artefact/file/download.php?file=5200view=245 Could there be some still undiscovered nuclear quantum numbers?
Re: [Vo]:Kullander Nov. 23 lecture slides (mostly in Swedish)
Am 24.11.2011 19:22, schrieb Mary Yugo: I tried translating from the Swedish PDF to English with Google. It's not entirely satisfactory but it does suggest that Kullander did consider Grabowski's paper or the same concerns from theory. If I understood him, Kullander concluded that Rossi experiments showed dry steam within 99% using the Testo meter. That's unlikely to be reliable because as has been said many times, the device was never designed to measure steam quality and is an HVAC instrument made for typical room temperatures in habitats. Did he not discuss the fact, that the electrical energy was not enough for boiling? It was barely enough for 60°, at this water flow rate. I think this is evident and therefore much more important than all this steam discussion. Peter
Re: [Vo]:Kullander Nov. 23 lecture slides (mostly in Swedish)
On Thu, Nov 24, 2011 at 10:41 AM, Peter Heckert peter.heck...@arcor.dewrote: Am 24.11.2011 19:22, schrieb Mary Yugo: Did he not discuss the fact, that the electrical energy was not enough for boiling? It was barely enough for 60°, at this water flow rate. I think this is evident and therefore much more important than all this steam discussion. I must have missed that discussion and the calculations though I vaguely remember that claim. Can you provide a link? Was there a mass flow meter or some other reliable flow measurement in the experiment that refers to? The pump Rossi used can not be relied upon alone as a measure of flow rate.
[Vo]:Rossi denies Defkalion has any technology-- again
Rossi, writing on his blog (which I copied from ecatnews.com). As I once theorized, and Jed Rothwell strongly disagreed with, it seems as if Defkalion may have made mockups based on the promise of getting an active core from Rossi -- something Rossi may have reneged on resulting in the failure of Defkalion to pay him and their rupture of relations. If Rossi is right, Defkalion has nothing. I suppose it is possible they for technology from someone else but there is no evidence for that at the moment that I know of. The comment on the blog says: Hampus November 24th, 2011 at 5:53 AM Hi Rossi When will the experiment in Bologna and Uppsala university start? *--- Andrea Rossi November 24th, 2011 at 9:27 AM Dear Hampus: Soon, but remember that such RD will be closed doors made and not public. I repeat: no more public tests will be made. We will make only closed doors RD and tests for our Customers made along the test protocols agreed upon the purchasing contracts. No more information will be released until proper patent protection will be granted. Too many vultures fly around, ready to steal critic info. Look to what is going on around the Balcans: there are clowns saying they have a technology copied from us, actually they have just a moke up, waiting for the piece of info they need to make a real copy. They believed we would have been selling in October the small E-Cats, so announced they would have made a demo in october ( buying a model, disguising it as a copy made by them). But it was just a trap we made. Conclusion: from now on we will be more sealed than ever, and we will be open exclusively with our Customers. To put for sale the small unts we need: 1- safety certification 2- granted patents We are working on both the issues and I think they will be addressed within 1 to 2 years from now. Warm Regards, A.R. A convenient place to read all of Rossi's comments and the other comments on his blog is here: http://www.rossilivecat.com/
Re: [Vo]:Kullander Nov. 23 lecture slides (mostly in Swedish)
Am 24.11.2011 19:48, schrieb Mary Yugo: On Thu, Nov 24, 2011 at 10:41 AM, Peter Heckert peter.heck...@arcor.de mailto:peter.heck...@arcor.de wrote: Am 24.11.2011 19:22, schrieb Mary Yugo: Did he not discuss the fact, that the electrical energy was not enough for boiling? It was barely enough for 60°, at this water flow rate. I think this is evident and therefore much more important than all this steam discussion. I must have missed that discussion and the calculations though I vaguely remember that claim. Can you provide a link? Was there a mass flow meter or some other reliable flow measurement in the experiment that refers to? The pump Rossi used can not be relied upon alone as a measure of flow rate. The Report of Essen and Kullander in english is here: http://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/EssenHexperiment.pdf They used a carafe to measure the water flow. I citate what they write on page 2. The bold enhancement is added by me. It is not in the original document. They write this like a side note, but in my opinion this is the most important part in the document. begin citation: *Initial running to reach vaporization.* The temperatures of the inlet water and the outlet water were monitored and recorded every 2 seconds. The heater was connected at 10:25 and the boiling point was reached at 10:42. The detailed temperature-time relation is shown in figure 6. The inlet water temperature was 17.3 °C and increased slightly to 17.6 °C during this initial running. The outlet water temperature increased from 20 °C at 10:27 to 60 °C at 10:36. This means a temperature increase by 40 °C in 9 minutes which is essentially due to the electric heater. *It is worth noting that at this point in time and temperature, 10:36 and 60°C, the 300 W from the heater is barely sufficient to raise the temperature of the flowing water from the inlet temperature of 17.6 °C to the 60 °C recorded at this time. *If no additional heat had been generated internally, the temperature would not exceed the 60 °C recorded at 10:36. Instead the temperature increases faster after 10:36, as can be seen as a kink occurring at 60 °C in the temperature-time relation. (Figure 6). A temperature of 97.5 °C is reached at 10:40. The time taken to bring the water from 60 to 97.5 °C is 4 minutes. The 100 °C temperature is reached at 10:42 and at about 10:45 all the water is completely vaporized found by visual checks of the outlet tube and the valve letting out steam from the chimney. This means that from this point in time, 10:45, 4.69 kW power is delivered to the heating and vaporization, and 4.69 -- 0.30 = 4.39 kW would have to come from the energy produced in the internal nickel-hydrogen container. end citation. So there are only two conclusions possibe: 1) There was real excess energy. 2) There where serious errors or fraudulent tricks made with the input energy or/and the waterflow. A possibility would be to suck out the water with a vacuum in the wall where the steam hose was inserted. Another possibility would be that a wireless switch was used to activate the heater in unwatched experiments. Note, I dont say Rossi made these tricks. I say these possibilities must be excluded for a scientific proof, because, if somebody 100 years later reads the document then he has no opinion about the people, he will believe it was a cheap trick. Scientific experiments must be documented for eternity, not for a single day. This is something that Rossi seemingly not understands. Peter
Re: [Vo]:Kullander Nov. 23 lecture slides (mostly in Swedish)
Am 24.11.2011 20:10, schrieb Peter Heckert: Btw, it is interesting to see in figure 6 that the differential steepness at 10:36 abruptly and exactly doubles. It looks as if a second 300W heater was activated. This is enough for some boiling. If there was water overflow this would be sufficient to explain all effects. They will have pretty dry steam in the remaining volume of the tower, but most of the water is not evaporated.
Re: [Vo]:Rossi denies Defkalion has any technology-- again
Dear Mary, It is a bit difficult to discuss with you things from the past or from the present, therefore I bet with you that *till 31 august next year there will be at least 6 teams who know Rossi's secret *or have found an equifunctional and equivalent additive to his and are able to obtain similar performances. My offer is 1 liter 54% Romanian plum brandy (tzuika) 25 years old and if you have a quite contrary opinion I would prefer 1 liter genuine tequila. (if you wish I am just joking) Rossi has viciously offended his former partner.- it is interesting thatclown' has a so much more negative conotation in the US than in Europe. Peter On Thu, Nov 24, 2011 at 8:55 PM, Mary Yugo maryyu...@gmail.com wrote: Rossi, writing on his blog (which I copied from ecatnews.com). As I once theorized, and Jed Rothwell strongly disagreed with, it seems as if Defkalion may have made mockups based on the promise of getting an active core from Rossi -- something Rossi may have reneged on resulting in the failure of Defkalion to pay him and their rupture of relations. If Rossi is right, Defkalion has nothing. I suppose it is possible they for technology from someone else but there is no evidence for that at the moment that I know of. The comment on the blog says: Hampus November 24th, 2011 at 5:53 AM Hi Rossi When will the experiment in Bologna and Uppsala university start? *--- Andrea Rossi November 24th, 2011 at 9:27 AM Dear Hampus: Soon, but remember that such RD will be closed doors made and not public. I repeat: no more public tests will be made. We will make only closed doors RD and tests for our Customers made along the test protocols agreed upon the purchasing contracts. No more information will be released until proper patent protection will be granted. Too many vultures fly around, ready to steal critic info. Look to what is going on around the Balcans: there are clowns saying they have a technology copied from us, actually they have just a moke up, waiting for the piece of info they need to make a real copy. They believed we would have been selling in October the small E-Cats, so announced they would have made a demo in october ( buying a model, disguising it as a copy made by them). But it was just a trap we made. Conclusion: from now on we will be more sealed than ever, and we will be open exclusively with our Customers. To put for sale the small unts we need: 1- safety certification 2- granted patents We are working on both the issues and I think they will be addressed within 1 to 2 years from now. Warm Regards, A.R. A convenient place to read all of Rossi's comments and the other comments on his blog is here: http://www.rossilivecat.com/ -- Dr. Peter Gluck Cluj, Romania http://egooutpeters.blogspot.com
Re: [Vo]:Kullander Nov. 23 lecture slides (mostly in Swedish)
Am 24.11.2011 20:36, schrieb Peter Heckert: Am 24.11.2011 20:10, schrieb Peter Heckert: Btw, it is interesting to see in figure 6 that the differential steepness at 10:36 abruptly and exactly doubles. It looks as if a second 300W heater was activated. This is enough for some boiling. If there was water overflow this would be sufficient to explain all effects. They will have pretty dry steam in the remaining volume of the tower, but most of the water is not evaporated. Another possibility would be a termostat-valve in the ecat, that closes at 60° and partially blocks the water flow. If the waterflow is reduced by 50%, this would give the same effect. The pump noise would increase more or less, because the maximum pressure rating is exceeded, but the frequency would probably not decrease. Unfortunately they did not weigh the water reservoir, otherwise they would have noted it. Did the lecture possibly reveal more details than their old travel report?
Re: [Vo]:Rossi denies Defkalion has any technology-- again
Peter, To ensure equivalent value, you should specify the brand. I would suggest Sauza Tres Generaciones Plata. T
Re: [Vo]:Rossi denies Defkalion has any technology-- again
Thanks, I am very ignorant in matter of tequila, but will ask the help of the Web. BTW one of the most idiotic laws of the EU says no alcoholic beverage with more than 40% alcohol. On Thu, Nov 24, 2011 at 10:06 PM, Terry Blanton hohlr...@gmail.com wrote: Peter, To ensure equivalent value, you should specify the brand. I would suggest Sauza Tres Generaciones Plata. T -- Dr. Peter Gluck Cluj, Romania http://egooutpeters.blogspot.com
RE: [Vo]:Kullander Nov. 23 lecture slides (mostly in Swedish)
Peter wrote: Scientific experiments must be documented for eternity, not for a single day. This is something that Rossi seemingly not understands. I can't believe these kinds of statements are still made! What Peter doesn't understand, and has been mentioned by numerous people, numerous times on this forum, is that Rossi is NOT INTERESTED in doing a scientific experiment. What part of NOT INTERESTED don't you understand? So much wasted bandwidth. unfortunately, the signal to noise ratio has plummeted on Vortex, with people pointing out the obvious, or same thing, over and over. For all the NEWCOMERS (meaning those who only started posting to Vortex-l in the last 9 months). Vortex has been around a long time, with many of the same contributors. Try asking yourself Why?. In fact, this year has seen the passing of at least two of the ol'Timers... they will be missed. If you don't know about the 'dime box saloon', then you have no idea why this forum has lasted so long and what the 'regulars' like about it. What is MOST VALUED here is rational discussion (NOT REPETITION), and especially if it includes references and calculations. or keeping the rest of us informed about the latest technical/scientific developments that might interest the group. Let's try to keep the speculative and repetitive postings to a minimum, ok? Happy Thanksgiving to those living in the USA. To the rest of the world, Happy 'In-The-Moment'! -Mark From: Peter Heckert [mailto:peter.heck...@arcor.de] Sent: Thursday, November 24, 2011 11:11 AM To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: [Vo]:Kullander Nov. 23 lecture slides (mostly in Swedish) snip Scientific experiments must be documented for eternity, not for a single day. This is something that Rossi seemingly not understands. Peter
Re: [Vo]:Rossi denies Defkalion has any technology-- again
Am 24.11.2011 21:20, schrieb Peter Gluck: Thanks, I am very ignorant in matter of tequila, but will ask the help of the Web. BTW one of the most idiotic laws of the EU says no alcoholic beverage with more than 40% alcohol. False. There is so-called Stroh RUM (straw rum) with 50% and with 80% available. On Thu, Nov 24, 2011 at 10:06 PM, Terry Blanton hohlr...@gmail.com mailto:hohlr...@gmail.com wrote: Peter, To ensure equivalent value, you should specify the brand. I would suggest Sauza Tres Generaciones Plata. T -- Dr. Peter Gluck Cluj, Romania http://egooutpeters.blogspot.com
Re: [Vo]:Kullander Nov. 23 lecture slides (mostly in Swedish)
Another possible problem with the paper at http://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/EssenHexperiment.pdf is that they don't say where and how they measured input power with their ammeter. Maybe they say it elsewhere. Rossi has two heaters in the device -- a startup heater in the middle and a safety (?!?!) heater around the coolant jacket. I'd like to be able to exclude that maybe Kullander, Essen et al did not measure both heaters and instead only looked at one while Rossi was actually putting plenty of power into the other one. Did they measure from the line cord supplying the entire device? Or just from the wire going to one of the heaters? I took a quick look but didn't see in their report how they measured input power. Maybe I missed it. I also looked at the figures but they don't show it either. NyTeknik's Lewan showed images of his power measurement during the demo he received and it was a clamp on ammeter on the power line to the entire equipment. I do recall that. But there were other infelicities with that show. My suspicion is that KE did it correctly with the line cord but that either Rossi had a hidden way to provide more power to the device or that he spiked the reaction mixture somehow. Obviously I have no way to know. This continuing discussion emphasizes yet once more why independent tests are required and why they need to run a longer time.
[Vo]:EV World: Rossi's e-Cat goes commercial (12 sold - worth 24 million)
http://evworld.com/article.cfm?storyid=2035 Excerpt: Andrea Rossi may have his doubters, detractors and skeptics, but the client for whom he demonstrated his 1MW e-Cat energy system apparently isn't one of them. Not only did the mysterious client take delivery of Rossi's first 1MW heat energy production system, but ordered a dozen more for use in cold, remote locations. That's an order worth $24 million. Regards, Steven Vincent Johnson www.OrionWorks.com www.zazzle.com/orionworks
Re: [Vo]:Kullander Nov. 23 lecture slides (mostly in Swedish)
Am 24.11.2011 21:30, schrieb Mark Iverson-ZeroPoint: Peter wrote: Scientific experiments must be documented for eternity, not for a single day. This is something that Rossi seemingly not understands. I can't believe these kinds of statements are still made! What Peter doesn't understand, and has been mentioned by numerous people, numerous times on this forum, is that Rossi is NOT INTERESTED in doing a scientific experiment... What part of NOT INTERESTED don't you understand? Then, why does he invite scientists? Kullander and Essen are rather high level scientists. For what does he need Levi? Why do most believers think and say, it is evidently and scientific proven? Isnt vortex about alternative sciences? Fire all scientists and market this like magnetmotors and water cars and I am happy and ignore it and wish him best success in this business ;-) Peter
Re: [Vo]:Rossi denies Defkalion has any technology-- again
If Rossi's kludge turns out to be really cold fusion, I'm going to become partial to absinthe.
Re: [Vo]:Rossi denies Defkalion has any technology-- again
That a huge surprise never heard of it!! Thanks, I still have to learn. On Thu, Nov 24, 2011 at 10:31 PM, Peter Heckert peter.heck...@arcor.dewrote: Am 24.11.2011 21:20, schrieb Peter Gluck: Thanks, I am very ignorant in matter of tequila, but will ask the help of the Web. BTW one of the most idiotic laws of the EU says no alcoholic beverage with more than 40% alcohol. False. There is so-called Stroh RUM (straw rum) with 50% and with 80% available. On Thu, Nov 24, 2011 at 10:06 PM, Terry Blanton hohlr...@gmail.comwrote: Peter, To ensure equivalent value, you should specify the brand. I would suggest Sauza Tres Generaciones Plata. T -- Dr. Peter Gluck Cluj, Romania http://egooutpeters.blogspot.com -- Dr. Peter Gluck Cluj, Romania http://egooutpeters.blogspot.com
Re: [Vo]:Kullander Nov. 23 lecture slides (mostly in Swedish)
On Thu, Nov 24, 2011 at 12:38 PM, Peter Heckert peter.heck...@arcor.dewrote: ** Then, why does he invite scientists? Kullander and Essen are rather high level scientists. For what does he need Levi? Exactly. Not to mention his invitation a while back to Josephson. Fire all scientists and market this like magnetmotors and water cars and I am happy and ignore it and wish him best success in this business ;-) I can't agree with ignoring other bad science and technology fraud. The average person in the street won't know that water cars (adding on board generation of hydrogen to the air-fuel mix) don't work and they are sending scammers tons of money-- the exact amount isn't clear. Several prosecutions for fraud have happened due to water car claims but news ones keep sprouting up all the time. There are not enough investigators and the crimes are comparatively not severe enough so many are never prosecuted. This may not be a suitable place to discuss those frauds but they certainly need to be discussed somewhere!
Re: [Vo]:Kullander Nov. 23 lecture slides (mostly in Swedish)
Am 24.11.2011 21:34, schrieb Mary Yugo: Another possible problem with the paper at http://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/EssenHexperiment.pdf is that they don't say where and how they measured input power with their ammeter. Maybe they say it [snip] My suspicion is that KE did it correctly with the line cord but that either Rossi had a hidden way to provide more power to the device or that he spiked the reaction mixture somehow. Obviously I have no way to know. This continuing discussion emphasizes yet once more why independent tests are required and why they need to run a longer time. If Rossi wanted he could make a perfect setup in his own rooms where the ecat is in a blackbox and only input and output energy is measured with approved standard methods. This, made in a convincing and visible way, with some competent and trustable witnesses who can also make redundant heat and electricity values, would convince me and all sceptics, the patholotical sceptics excluded. Any customer can do this, so why does he say, he cannot do it, because he has no patent? If he does such a proof he can get a patent without theoretic foundation. This is very suspicious. Peter
Re: [Vo]:Rossi denies Defkalion has any technology-- again
Too dangerous, have seen chromatograms of it myriads of toxic compounds. On Thu, Nov 24, 2011 at 10:38 PM, Mary Yugo maryyu...@gmail.com wrote: If Rossi's kludge turns out to be really cold fusion, I'm going to become partial to absinthe. -- Dr. Peter Gluck Cluj, Romania http://egooutpeters.blogspot.com
Re: [Vo]:Rossi denies Defkalion has any technology-- again
I see it is an Austrian product, will ask my blog partner georgina who writes much better than me and in Bankdirektorin in Vienna. Subject closed and I apologize for wasting your time, colleagues. On Thu, Nov 24, 2011 at 10:31 PM, Peter Heckert peter.heck...@arcor.dewrote: Am 24.11.2011 21:20, schrieb Peter Gluck: Thanks, I am very ignorant in matter of tequila, but will ask the help of the Web. BTW one of the most idiotic laws of the EU says no alcoholic beverage with more than 40% alcohol. False. There is so-called Stroh RUM (straw rum) with 50% and with 80% available. On Thu, Nov 24, 2011 at 10:06 PM, Terry Blanton hohlr...@gmail.comwrote: Peter, To ensure equivalent value, you should specify the brand. I would suggest Sauza Tres Generaciones Plata. T -- Dr. Peter Gluck Cluj, Romania http://egooutpeters.blogspot.com -- Dr. Peter Gluck Cluj, Romania http://egooutpeters.blogspot.com
Re: [Vo]:Kullander Nov. 23 lecture slides (mostly in Swedish)
I did say I was not going to reply to you but your last statement is just 100% BS. The reactor and the Blue Box sat on a table. There was ONE power cord that was plugged into the wall. It went to the Blue Box (then the RFG was inside the Blue Box) and then to the reactor. There were no other power connections. They measured the TOTAL power being drawn by the WHOLE system by measuring the current at the mains plug. So STOP with the extra power statement. They are BS and you know it. AG On 11/25/2011 7:04 AM, Mary Yugo wrote: Another possible problem with the paper at http://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/EssenHexperiment.pdf is that they don't say where and how they measured input power with their ammeter. Maybe they say it elsewhere. Rossi has two heaters in the device -- a startup heater in the middle and a safety (?!?!) heater around the coolant jacket. I'd like to be able to exclude that maybe Kullander, Essen et al did not measure both heaters and instead only looked at one while Rossi was actually putting plenty of power into the other one. Did they measure from the line cord supplying the entire device? Or just from the wire going to one of the heaters? I took a quick look but didn't see in their report how they measured input power. Maybe I missed it. I also looked at the figures but they don't show it either. NyTeknik's Lewan showed images of his power measurement during the demo he received and it was a clamp on ammeter on the power line to the entire equipment. I do recall that. But there were other infelicities with that show. My suspicion is that KE did it correctly with the line cord but that either Rossi had a hidden way to provide more power to the device or that he spiked the reaction mixture somehow. Obviously I have no way to know. This continuing discussion emphasizes yet once more why independent tests are required and why they need to run a longer time.
Re: [Vo]:Report on Rossi's visit to Boston
Jed we don't know what happened at those meetings. All you have revealed it what one person said. There is a LOT more going on here that has been revealed. Rossi is old school Southern European and keeps his cards VERY close to his chest. Yanks blast everything all over the web. Very different styles of doing business. BTW Rossi has no problems with me doing Black Box testing of a E-Cat and he knows I'm on Vortex. It's real, so you doubters get over it. You are wrong. AG On 11/25/2011 12:21 AM, Jed Rothwell wrote: Terry Blanton hohlr...@gmail.com mailto:hohlr...@gmail.com wrote: It might not be so confusing if one realizes, assuming all is as AR says, he has a very narrow window to make money off his eCat. I get that. I really do. But he was meeting with an elected official from the state of Massachusetts. A couple of miles away from the most prestigious university of technology in the world, run by the state. What did he expect the official to say? It was obvious they would ask him to have the reactors tested at MIT. Does Rossi or anyone else imagine that officials in Massachusetts will do business with him, or allow him to sell reactors, without first having MIT vet his claims? That's delusional! If Rossi does not want MIT to test his reactors, he should never have met with state officials. It was an embarrassing waste of everyone's time. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:Rossi denies Defkalion has any technology-- again
On Thu, Nov 24, 2011 at 3:38 PM, Mary Yugo maryyu...@gmail.com wrote: If Rossi's kludge turns out to be really cold fusion, I'm going to become partial to absinthe. Absinthe makes the heart grow fonder. T
RE: [Vo]:Kullander Nov. 23 lecture slides (mostly in Swedish)
No one is suggesting we ignore it! And who's to say that one of those magnet motors or water cars doesn't do what is claimed? This forum is primarily interested in discussing the facts and evidence, preferably with supporting references and calculations, in order to establish the level of credibility of the claims. It is SELDOM a black or white situation. just because past claims of magnet motors and water cars have been shown to be mistaken or fraudulent, doesn't mean that ALL such claims can be concluded to be the same. IF you think that, then you have no idea how science operates. This forum prefers to discuss the salient points rationally and everyone can come their OWN conclusions. we don't need you or JC or anyone else to point out the obvious in an attempt to save us from a scammer. -Mark From: Mary Yugo [mailto:maryyu...@gmail.com] Sent: Thursday, November 24, 2011 12:43 PM To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: [Vo]:Kullander Nov. 23 lecture slides (mostly in Swedish) snip I can't agree with ignoring other bad science and technology fraud. The average person in the street won't know that water cars (adding on board generation of hydrogen to the air-fuel mix) don't work and they are sending scammers tons of money-- the exact amount isn't clear. Several prosecutions for fraud have happened due to water car claims but news ones keep sprouting up all the time. There are not enough investigators and the crimes are comparatively not severe enough so many are never prosecuted. This may not be a suitable place to discuss those frauds but they certainly need to be discussed somewhere!
Re: [Vo]:Rossi denies Defkalion has any technology-- again
On Thu, Nov 24, 2011 at 3:48 PM, Peter Gluck peter.gl...@gmail.com wrote: Too dangerous, have seen chromatograms of it myriads of toxic compounds. I recommend a more healthy hallucinogenic, Jagermeister! T
Re: [Vo]:Report on Rossi's visit to Boston
On Thu, Nov 24, 2011 at 1:05 PM, Aussie Guy E-Cat aussieguy.e...@gmail.comwrote: BTW Rossi has no problems with me doing Black Box testing of a E-Cat and he knows I'm on Vortex. It's real, so you doubters get over it. You are wrong. We doubters will only be wrong if you actually get an E-cat to test-- black box or otherwise. Do you have a schedule yet?
RE: [Vo]:Kullander Nov. 23 lecture slides (mostly in Swedish)
Agreed AG! In fact, on several of the earlier tests, the reactor was lifted up off of the table so one could see that there were no hidden wires or pipes attached. SO, there are only two possibilities here: 1) Mary is aware of this and purposely is spreading mis-information, 2) Mary isn't aware of it, and is, thus, ignorant of at least SOME critical FACTS, and therefore, shouldn't be making such sweeping, all inclusive statements which imply being fully aware of all those facts. -mark -Original Message- From: Aussie Guy E-Cat [mailto:aussieguy.e...@gmail.com] Sent: Thursday, November 24, 2011 12:55 PM To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: [Vo]:Kullander Nov. 23 lecture slides (mostly in Swedish) I did say I was not going to reply to you but your last statement is just 100% BS. The reactor and the Blue Box sat on a table. There was ONE power cord that was plugged into the wall. It went to the Blue Box (then the RFG was inside the Blue Box) and then to the reactor. There were no other power connections. They measured the TOTAL power being drawn by the WHOLE system by measuring the current at the mains plug. So STOP with the extra power statement. They are BS and you know it. AG On 11/25/2011 7:04 AM, Mary Yugo wrote: Another possible problem with the paper at http://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/EssenHexperiment.pdf is that they don't say where and how they measured input power with their ammeter. Maybe they say it elsewhere. Rossi has two heaters in the device -- a startup heater in the middle and a safety (?!?!) heater around the coolant jacket. I'd like to be able to exclude that maybe Kullander, Essen et al did not measure both heaters and instead only looked at one while Rossi was actually putting plenty of power into the other one. Did they measure from the line cord supplying the entire device? Or just from the wire going to one of the heaters? I took a quick look but didn't see in their report how they measured input power. Maybe I missed it. I also looked at the figures but they don't show it either. NyTeknik's Lewan showed images of his power measurement during the demo he received and it was a clamp on ammeter on the power line to the entire equipment. I do recall that. But there were other infelicities with that show. My suspicion is that KE did it correctly with the line cord but that either Rossi had a hidden way to provide more power to the device or that he spiked the reaction mixture somehow. Obviously I have no way to know. This continuing discussion emphasizes yet once more why independent tests are required and why they need to run a longer time.
Re: [Vo]:Report on Rossi's visit to Boston
You are way beyond being an open minded doubter. AG On 11/25/2011 7:40 AM, Mary Yugo wrote: On Thu, Nov 24, 2011 at 1:05 PM, Aussie Guy E-Cat aussieguy.e...@gmail.com mailto:aussieguy.e...@gmail.com wrote: BTW Rossi has no problems with me doing Black Box testing of a E-Cat and he knows I'm on Vortex. It's real, so you doubters get over it. You are wrong. We doubters will only be wrong if you actually get an E-cat to test-- black box or otherwise. Do you have a schedule yet?
RE: [Vo]:Rossi denies Defkalion has any technology-- again
Good one Terry! -m -Original Message- From: Terry Blanton [mailto:hohlr...@gmail.com] Sent: Thursday, November 24, 2011 1:07 PM To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: [Vo]:Rossi denies Defkalion has any technology-- again On Thu, Nov 24, 2011 at 3:38 PM, Mary Yugo maryyu...@gmail.com wrote: If Rossi's kludge turns out to be really cold fusion, I'm going to become partial to absinthe. Absinthe makes the heart grow fonder. T
Re: [Vo]:Rossi denies Defkalion has any technology-- again
Nothing like a really good Barossa Shiraz. AG On 11/25/2011 7:37 AM, Terry Blanton wrote: On Thu, Nov 24, 2011 at 3:38 PM, Mary Yugomaryyu...@gmail.com wrote: If Rossi's kludge turns out to be really cold fusion, I'm going to become partial to absinthe. Absinthe makes the heart grow fonder. T
Re: [Vo]:Kullander Nov. 23 lecture slides (mostly in Swedish)
On Thu, Nov 24, 2011 at 1:08 PM, Mark Iverson-ZeroPoint zeropo...@charter.net wrote: It is SELDOM a black or white situation… just because past claims of magnet motors and water cars have been shown to be mistaken or fraudulent, doesn’t mean that ALL such claims can be concluded to be the same. IF you think that, then you have no idea how science operates. Magnet motors that claim overunity (Goldes, Steorn, Aviso, Dennis Lee, Bedini and who knows how many more?) and running a car purely on ordinary water (HHO scams and the like) would break well established and proven natural laws. In addition to that fact, most such claims in the past have turned out to be mistakes, self deceptions and/or rank criminal deception for profit (scams). A few have not yet been resolved as to their nature. And ALL are unproven, as far as I can determine. If you know of any exceptions, I'd love to see those supporting references and calculations you advocated. If you don't know of exceptions, you should regard such claims as highly suspicious and rather than accepting them at face value when someone makes the claims, you should insist that they be particularly cautiously and thoroughly evaluated. That is what Sagan meant when he said extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.
Re: [Vo]:Kullander Nov. 23 lecture slides (mostly in Swedish)
On Thu, Nov 24, 2011 at 1:12 PM, Mark Iverson-ZeroPoint zeropo...@charter.net wrote: Agreed AG! In fact, on several of the earlier tests, the reactor was lifted up off of the table so one could see that there were no hidden wires or pipes attached. SO, there are only two possibilities here: 1) Mary is aware of this and purposely is spreading mis-information, 2) Mary isn't aware of it, and is, thus, ignorant of at least SOME critical FACTS, and therefore, shouldn't be making such sweeping, all inclusive statements which imply being fully aware of all those facts. Before you get carried away, my question was purely about Kullander's report in the PDF document I *specifically* took the trouble to cite. In that document, I see no mention of where the input power was measured, no mention of checking for hidden wires, and no photo of where the ammeter was placed or what sort of ammeter it was. Did I miss that?
Re: [Vo]:Report on Rossi's visit to Boston
On Thu, Nov 24, 2011 at 1:14 PM, Aussie Guy E-Cat aussieguy.e...@gmail.comwrote: You are way beyond being an open minded doubter. Why? You have never seen an actual E-cat in person have you? You have never touched one much less tested one? What makes you so sure you will ever get one to test? Nobody else has done an independent test *ever* and has reported on it. Why are you special?
Re: [Vo]:Report on Rossi's visit to Boston
A friend wrote to me: Only Andrea could meet with a senator to ask for financial incentives to build a factory and refuse to allow them to test, huh? - Jed
Re: [Vo]:Kullander Nov. 23 lecture slides (mostly in Swedish)
Am 24.11.2011 22:08, schrieb Mark Iverson-ZeroPoint: No one is suggesting we ignore it! And who's to say that one of those magnet motors or water cars doesn't do what is claimed? I must admit, I have never seen a magnet motor or water car. Because I dont see these devices that where announced years ago, I am sure these will only disappoint me. I dont want to discuss them for these reasons. I have made experiments with professor Turturs electrostatic motor and made some calculations and measurements that Professor Turtur has not made. Then I gave up, because I understood. And what are your experiences? I still think cold fusion could work, because there is an energy source. Peter
Re: [Vo]:Report on Rossi's visit to Boston
I have read almost all the papers, looked very carefully at all the videos and photographs, observed how the mains power was applied and saw the Blue Box and E-Cat sat on tables that would eliminate any hidden external power source. There was a single mains connection to the Blue Box and the power being consumed via that power point was measured. If you take the time to look, you can see what I saw. Additionally had there not been ONE single Ni-H LENR research paper showing significant excess heat then I would be very skeptical. But that is NOT the case. There are more than ample papers that easily convince me that Ni-H LENR reactions are real. Going from the fact that Ni-H LENR reactions are real, it is not a big leap in faith that Rossi has worked since 2007 on enhancing the Ni-H reaction to the level he has produced today. It is so easy for you, who has probably never gotten your hands dirty in doing product development, to invent hypothetical BS to try to discredit the hard won yards of work Rossi and Focardi have done. AG On 11/25/2011 7:52 AM, Mary Yugo wrote: On Thu, Nov 24, 2011 at 1:14 PM, Aussie Guy E-Cat aussieguy.e...@gmail.com mailto:aussieguy.e...@gmail.com wrote: You are way beyond being an open minded doubter. Why? You have never seen an actual E-cat in person have you? You have never touched one much less tested one? What makes you so sure you will ever get one to test? Nobody else has done an independent test *ever* and has reported on it. Why are you special?
Re: [Vo]:Report on Rossi's visit to Boston
Heh! When I was a Technical Manager at ITT our lab reported directly to Park Ave headquarters. Our new (we had 5 in as many years) technical director went to a critical meeting in Brussels, and came back gloating about how he had thrashed them. A week later we were reporting to Brussels. - Original Message - Rossi is old school Southern European and keeps his cards VERY close to his chest. Yanks blast everything all over the web. Very different styles of doing business.
Re: [Vo]:Report on Rossi's visit to Boston
Marcello Vitale mvit...@ucsbalum.net wrote: Uh, Jed, MIT is private. Or maybe you meant UMass? You are right. It is a 19th century land grant college, like Cornell. Technically private but a lot of it is tied in with the state. (Cornell has schools entirely funded by New York, and annual funding, and it offers reduced tuition for New York state residents -- or it used to,anyway.) So much of MIT is funded by the government I forgot that it is officially private. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:Report on Rossi's visit to Boston
We don't know that was what went down. AG On 11/25/2011 8:03 AM, Jed Rothwell wrote: A friend wrote to me: Only Andrea could meet with a senator to ask for financial incentives to build a factory and refuse to allow them to test, huh? - Jed
Re: [Vo]:Kullander Nov. 23 lecture slides (mostly in Swedish)
Slide 45 is the one I adapted from New Energy Times it's in my steam quality document! - Original Message - See: http://www.nyteknik.se/incoming/article3352744.ece/BINARY/Kullander_lecture_23nov.pdf
[Vo]:AGILE RESOLVES THE MYSTERY OF THE ORIGIN OF COSMIC RAYS
A break from the e-cat vortex... this is a very important discovery. Downloadable pdf of press release: http://goo.gl/HgFdf html version: http://goo.gl/RRUwW mic
Re: [Vo]:Kullander Nov. 23 lecture slides (mostly in Swedish)
You think Levi, Kullander, Essen, Leonardi, Focardi and Bianchini are lying about the results or these people are idiots? What hidden wires? The mains cord went to the Blue Box and then to the reactor. Everything was visible. Look at the photos. What not checking for hidden wires? You can see everything. Did you miss anything? Yes you did. AG On 11/25/2011 7:51 AM, Mary Yugo wrote: Before you get carried away, my question was purely about Kullander's report in the PDF document I *specifically* took the trouble to cite. In that document, I see no mention of where the input power was measured, no mention of checking for hidden wires, and no photo of where the ammeter was placed or what sort of ammeter it was. Did I miss that?
Re: [Vo]:Kullander Nov. 23 lecture slides (mostly in Swedish)
Exactly. AG On 11/25/2011 7:42 AM, Mark Iverson-ZeroPoint wrote: Agreed AG! In fact, on several of the earlier tests, the reactor was lifted up off of the table so one could see that there were no hidden wires or pipes attached. SO, there are only two possibilities here: 1) Mary is aware of this and purposely is spreading mis-information, 2) Mary isn't aware of it, and is, thus, ignorant of at least SOME critical FACTS, and therefore, shouldn't be making such sweeping, all inclusive statements which imply being fully aware of all those facts. -mark
Re: [Vo]:Report on Rossi's visit to Boston
So far, nobody seems to be able to predict Rossi's actions as well as Mary can. The rest of us are stumped, but her hypothesis explains the behavior. On Nov 24, 2011, at 17:07, Aussie Guy E-Cat aussieguy.e...@gmail.com wrote: We don't know that was what went down. AG On 11/25/2011 8:03 AM, Jed Rothwell wrote: A friend wrote to me: Only Andrea could meet with a senator to ask for financial incentives to build a factory and refuse to allow them to test, huh? - Jed
[Vo]:Metallic Hydrogen
Hi, two researchers from the Max Planck institute say, they have made metallic hydrogen at a pressure of 220GPa. http://www.physorg.com/news/2011-11-pair-hydrogen-metal.html This was tried before, but never had success. Metallic hydrogen is believed to be superconducting at room temperature. This is mainstream science, but I think there could be a link to cold fusion. It was shown by computersimulation, that under high pressures metalhydrides can exist that dont exist under normal conditions. For example NaH9. This material is expected to be superconductive at room temperature or some 100 degrees above room temperature. The pressure needed is about 50 GPa. In such a superconductor the hydrogen electrons and also protons should behave very differently. They behave like a superfluid and are entangled. Possibly under these conditions proton tunneleling through the columb wall is possible? It was my thougt, cold fusion could come from superconductive metalhydrides inside the lattice under exceptional conditions when a high hydrogen concentration and pressure can be reached in microscopic cavities. These metalhydrides can be very different from those hydrides that are known to chemists, because under high pressures the rules of chemistry changes. It might be possible to create superconducting spots in a metal lattice and this might be a precondition for cold fusion. This would also explain bad reproducibility, because those spots are probably unstable. There are reports about superconductive spots in nickelhydride thinfilms. These where also made by mainstream scientists that never had cold fusion in mind. Peter
[Vo]:Report on Rossi's visit to Boston
Rossi's behaviour with regards to blocking independent testing is explained by the fact that he's sitting on potentially the world's most valuable IP and doesn't have a US or European patent yet. There is no need for the pseudosceptics to look for conspiracy theories.
Re: [Vo]:AGILE RESOLVES THE MYSTERY OF THE ORIGIN OF COSMIC RAYS
Seems Google lost the html version of the document... you can find it going to the agile site: http://agile.rm.iasf.cnr.it/ mic 2011/11/24 Michele Comitini michele.comit...@gmail.com: A break from the e-cat vortex... this is a very important discovery. Downloadable pdf of press release: http://goo.gl/HgFdf html version: http://goo.gl/RRUwW mic
[Vo]:New Youtube videos from SRI features a lecture by McKubre
Link below is to the first video. These are from Nov 15 and I have not seem them mentioned here before -- sorry if this turns out to be redundant. No time to view it all or to list all the videos. I think there are 8, each from around 6 to 10 or so minutes long. Why not all at once? I don't know. If someone has time, I'd like to know where the Rossi coverage is. I watched the first video and he promises to give some time to that issue: www.youtube.com/watch?v=EtweR_qGHEc
Re: [Vo]:AGILE RESOLVES THE MYSTERY OF THE ORIGIN OF COSMIC RAYS
You send us an ITALIAN paper of data from an ITALIAN satellite? I think it's FAKE! I won't believe it until they give me the satellite so I can do some independent tests in my own orbit. (Happy thanksgiving , by the way . )
Re: [Vo]:New Youtube videos from SRI features a lecture by McKubre
On 2011-11-24 23:47, Mary Yugo wrote: don't know. If someone has time, I'd like to know where the Rossi coverage is. I watched the first video and he promises to give some time to that issue: I've seen these videos a few days ago. They're quite interesting as a whole. I've also found out that McKubre has attempted successfully gas-loaded Ni-H experiments. This is the segment where he speaks about Rossi: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N3N3dWlIPUQ Cheers, S.A.
Re: [Vo]:Report on Rossi's visit to Boston
On Thu, Nov 24, 2011 at 2:42 PM, Craig Brown cr...@overunity.co wrote: Rossi's behaviour with regards to blocking independent testing is explained by the fact that he's sitting on potentially the world's most valuable IP and doesn't have a US or European patent yet. There is no need for the pseudosceptics to look for conspiracy theories. Complete nonsense. That issue is easily solved by black box testing using a reliable and trusted friend of cold fusion or a university laboratory with secret clearance. And while Rossi would have to keep his hands and instruments out of such tests, there is no reason why he or his people could not be there to protect his IP during the testing. I am sure he doesn't sleep with a gun in front of his laboratory every night. He also doesn't build megawatt plants by himself. So Rossi has to trust some people. Why not trust a university to do a quick test with proper safeguards for the IP? It happens all the time. The explanation also does not explain why Rossi did not take the advice of sympathetic people like Jed Rothwell to improve his test methods. Equally relevant, there is no protection of IP whatever if Rossi really sold a system as he claims. In that instance, the customer can easily take apart the devices and submit them to analysis and reverse engineering. If there are written agreements, it's low risk to break them, especially if it's done in a foreign country and far away. There is a lot of money to be made by that sort of activity and without a doubt, someone will do it if the E-cat is real and Rossi actually sells them. Again, Rossi can't stand guard in front of a customer's E-cat. And agreements will not protect him, especially absent a patent. The idea that secrecy motivates Rossi because of a need to protect IP is way less likely than that the motivation is simply that he's committing fraud.
Re: [Vo]:New Youtube videos from SRI features a lecture by McKubre
On Thu, Nov 24, 2011 at 2:56 PM, Akira Shirakawa shirakawa.ak...@gmail.comwrote: This is the segment where he speaks about Rossi: http://www.youtube.com/watch?**v=N3N3dWlIPUQhttp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N3N3dWlIPUQ Thanks Akira. You're on top of things as usual.
Re: [Vo]:Kullander Nov. 23 lecture slides (mostly in Swedish)
On Thu, Nov 24, 2011 at 2:14 PM, Aussie Guy E-Cat aussieguy.e...@gmail.comwrote: You think Levi, Kullander, Essen, Leonardi, Focardi and Bianchini are lying about the results or these people are idiots? They don't have to be idiots to be fooled. Scientists are more easily fooled than most people because they look for errors, not for deliberate deception. There's a long colorful history of such bamboozling for example Uri Geller. What hidden wires? The mains cord went to the Blue Box and then to the reactor. Everything was visible. Look at the photos. What not checking for hidden wires? You can see everything. Did you miss anything? Yes you did Once again and hopefully it won't be necessary to say it any more: I am speaking of the pictures in the paper by Kullander and Essen which I cited specifically. Where in that document do you see a picture of the meter that measured the input power? And where is a description of how it was used and connected and what was it clamped to if it's a clamp on?
Re: [Vo]:AGILE RESOLVES THE MYSTERY OF THE ORIGIN OF COSMIC RAYS
2011/11/24 Alan Fletcher a...@well.com: You send us an ITALIAN paper of data from an ITALIAN satellite? I think it's FAKE! This one is a FAKED FAKE so it's REAL! :-) (Happy thanksgiving , by the way . ) Of course! Thanks you! And happy thanks giving to all! mic
Re: [Vo]:Report on Rossi's visit to Boston
some peopl here imagin that rossi can be a scammer... It does not seems credible, according tou his strange behavior itself. if you try to profile him from his behavior, you find more a weak-paranoid style persister in process com. He does not behave like the usual weak-sociopath style promoter in process com... one can undestand his paranoid tendencies if you accept that he have fighet for his uncommon (crasy) idias, and have been screwed by the systems and some good citizens (mafia?) in his first business... his visible oack of sociopathic skils, lack of seduction, commercial behavior, theatrical show, make him probably bad in manipulation, politic, and sale. probably he have also a weak passive-agressive style rebel, that make hime choose against everybody opinion projects... also making him break relationships in a lunatic way... his behavior with defkalion, breaking, talking, telling how he tried to manipulate DGT... is a bit pathetic, between paranoia and teanager rebelion... anyway to do that job, so long, so crazy, despite critics , persister and rebel competences are needed... for a scam you need more sociopath carpet-saler. his lack of rigor in communication and measures, mean a bad competence in obsessionnal style thinker in proces com... asuming my profiling is right, the behavior of rossi is quite logic. I'm not suprised that he is bad in sale, in business relation, in measures... however he is anoug stubborn and crazy to keep working on a suicidal project and succeed... after that his weak paranoia (a bit a kind of realism, knowing his situation) will make him secret, unstable partner... other competences will make hime not a good engineer... don't ask to someone who fight againt the systems for 20 years, and get to jail because of that, to be an easy man. 2011/11/24 Craig Brown cr...@overunity.co Rossi's behaviour with regards to blocking independent testing is explained by the fact that he's sitting on potentially the world's most valuable IP and doesn't have a US or European patent yet. There is no need for the pseudosceptics to look for conspiracy theories.
Re: [Vo]:Report on Rossi's visit to Boston
I have not found any strange behavior in my commercial dealings with Rossi. I totally understand and accept what he asks of his customers and he accepts my requirements on him. I know he works 16 hours a day as I do (if needed) as there are about 8 hours a day when there is no almost immediate email response. The commercial offerings and terms he has made to me, TOTALLY eliminate any chance of fraud. I agree that he is wasting his time engaging type kickers and those in sheep's clothing asking for tests when all they really seek is to steal his IP. AG On 11/25/2011 9:47 AM, Alain dit le Cycliste wrote: some peopl here imagin that rossi can be a scammer... It does not seems credible, according tou his strange behavior itself. if you try to profile him from his behavior, you find more a weak-paranoid style persister in process com. He does not behave like the usual weak-sociopath style promoter in process com... one can undestand his paranoid tendencies if you accept that he have fighet for his uncommon (crasy) idias, and have been screwed by the systems and some good citizens (mafia?) in his first business... his visible oack of sociopathic skils, lack of seduction, commercial behavior, theatrical show, make him probably bad in manipulation, politic, and sale. probably he have also a weak passive-agressive style rebel, that make hime choose against everybody opinion projects... also making him break relationships in a lunatic way... his behavior with defkalion, breaking, talking, telling how he tried to manipulate DGT... is a bit pathetic, between paranoia and teanager rebelion... anyway to do that job, so long, so crazy, despite critics , persister and rebel competences are needed... for a scam you need more sociopath carpet-saler. his lack of rigor in communication and measures, mean a bad competence in obsessionnal style thinker in proces com... asuming my profiling is right, the behavior of rossi is quite logic. I'm not suprised that he is bad in sale, in business relation, in measures... however he is anoug stubborn and crazy to keep working on a suicidal project and succeed... after that his weak paranoia (a bit a kind of realism, knowing his situation) will make him secret, unstable partner... other competences will make hime not a good engineer... don't ask to someone who fight againt the systems for 20 years, and get to jail because of that, to be an easy man. 2011/11/24 Craig Brown cr...@overunity.co mailto:cr...@overunity.co Rossi's behaviour with regards to blocking independent testing is explained by the fact that he's sitting on potentially the world's most valuable IP and doesn't have a US or European patent yet. There is no need for the pseudosceptics to look for conspiracy theories.
Re: [Vo]:Report on Rossi's visit to Boston
2011/11/25 Craig Brown cr...@overunity.co: Rossi's behaviour with regards to blocking independent testing is explained by the fact that he's sitting on potentially the world's most valuable IP and doesn't have a US or European patent yet. This is unfortunate but true point. The economical benefit for Rossi to keep everything in secret is gargantuan. Because if he can keep everything in secret he could come up with decisive technological advantage and get long term dominant share in the markets with or without patent protection. This way he could gather several hundred gigadollar revenues, depending on how fast he can scale up mass-production. With this kind of Slim-like potential property, Rossi could do whatever he wants to the world. If I were a Rossi, I would end all the absolute poverty from the Earth, using ecat sales revenues to finance global basic income. World is curious place, that sometimes single ambitious person can do alone more than the rest of the world population put together. –Jouni
[Vo]:bit.ly/cold-fusion
Hi group, As a physicist I feel obliged to spread the word on cold fusion and explain what it is to the general public. In that attempt I wrote the linked paper, please have a look and give me your blunt feedback. Also please use the paper however you see fit. http://bit.ly/cold-fusion Thanks, Bastiaan.
Re: [Vo]:New Youtube videos from SRI features a lecture by McKubre
In this segment: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N3N3dWlIPUQ He discusses some of Piantelli's nuclear evidence around minute 3. Then he goes on to discuss Rossi. At 5:40 he calls Rossi a dodgy character but later he says he is brilliant. He lists of the experiments that has not been made public as far as I know, at 10:44. This is: AmpEnerco Run II Sept. 25, 2009 New Hampshire 64 L H2O [coolant, I think] T-in 23°C, T-out 46°C Duration 4 hours Average P-in 40 W, P-out ~400 W Additional comments about Rossi at the beginning of the QA segment: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LWkVyg_iul4 He discusses Rossi's business plans and his frequency generator. He says Rossi is the master of misdirection. He is brilliant and his business strategy is brilliant. He is keeping his results ambiguous to avoid competition and the evil eye of the DoE. I like his remark about the conservation of miracles. The underlying physics of the Pd-D and Ni-H must be something in common. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:bit.ly/cold-fusion
One word to describe your paper. EXCELLENT. AG On 11/25/2011 10:32 AM, Bastiaan Bergman wrote: Hi group, As a physicist I feel obliged to spread the word on cold fusion and explain what it is to the general public. In that attempt I wrote the linked paper, please have a look and give me your blunt feedback. Also please use the paper however you see fit. http://bit.ly/cold-fusion Thanks, Bastiaan.
