Re: [Vo]:Elevated-temperature excess heat production in a Pd D system in 1991
PeterH, as far I remember the Liaw et al paper is published in the Proceedings of ICCF-2. I have donated my CF library to my friend the journalist Haiko Lietz who lives in Germany, I hope you know him personally. I think the above Proceedings are at him and he can send you a copy. As regarding your assertion that technical problems can be solved- the problem is cost and price- at what price with which efforts. Liaw system was interesting- Pd is anode. PeterG On Mon, Nov 28, 2011 at 9:44 AM, peter.heck...@arcor.de wrote: - Original Nachricht Von: Peter Gluck peter.gl...@gmail.com An: vortex-l@eskimo.com Datum: 28.11.2011 06:19 Betreff: Re: [Vo]:Elevated-temperature excess heat production in a Pd D system in 1991 I spoke with Liaw at ICCF-2 Como 1991. The system had very great problems of corrosion. Rule No. 6 of problem solving says: NOT the main desired positive effect, but those secondary negative and/or undesired effects decide in most cases if a solution is implemented. It seems corrosion was so severe that this way was abandoned.. Technical problems are not important, these are almost ever solvable if the reward is high. History has shown this. We are on moon now, and everybody has a mobile phone and we have GPS and Laser. Impossible? So, why dont they publish their findings? Possibly others find a solution. It would be important to have a key experiment that is repeatable and that works. There is an unfortunate mechanism: First they publish success. This is is euphorical accepted by the LENR community and makes the way into their collection of papers. Then they continue their research and find unexpected problems or find errors. They give up. Of course this is not published. This is why there are so many positive results. This is also the mechanism why there are so many positive results about UFO's and unicorns. ;-) It seems most documented LENR successes are of this type: Unfinished stories about an anticipated success that never was tested and confirmed beyond all doubts. Peter Peter *(* http://egooutpeters.blogspot.com/2011/06/super-rule-included-complete-list-o f.html * * * * On Mon, Nov 28, 2011 at 3:01 AM, Alan Fletcher a...@well.com wrote: It was in the 1990 paper : - Original Message - Liebert's still around : http://newenergytimes.com/v2/archives/fic/F/F199010.PDF 1990 : EXCESS HEAT USING MOLTEN-SALT ELECTROCHEMICAL CELL By Professors Liaw, Tao, Turner, Liebert As an example shown in the last entry in TABLE I, the power to the heating tape was maintained at about 69.25 W, the cell potential was typically in the range of 2.45 V, and the electrochemical input power was about 1.68 W at 692 mA/cm2 for a total input power of about 70.9W. We would expect 1.68 Wof joule heating to result in a 5.1 °C increase in temperature; however, the temperature increased by 82.4° C, which corresponds to a gain of about 27.1 W, according to the calibration curve. Therefore, a net gain of 25.4Wwas in excess, which results in an excess power gain of 1512 percent, in the range of 627 W/cm3 Pd. -- Dr. Peter Gluck Cluj, Romania http://egooutpeters.blogspot.com -- Dr. Peter Gluck Cluj, Romania http://egooutpeters.blogspot.com
Re: [Vo]:Elevated-temperature excess heat production in a Pd D system in 1991
- Original Nachricht Von: Peter Gluck peter.gl...@gmail.com An: vortex-l@eskimo.com Datum: 28.11.2011 09:15 Betreff: Re: [Vo]:Elevated-temperature excess heat production in a Pd D system in 1991 PeterH, as far I remember the Liaw et al paper is published in the Proceedings of ICCF-2. I have donated my CF library to my friend the journalist Haiko Lietz who lives in Germany, I hope you know him personally. I think the I am not an insider. If I had any possibility to repeat such an experiment I would do it. Unfortunately I have not. Also I have not too much hope for success. Detecting radiation or transmutation is totally beyond my possibilities. Temperature differences are not an irrrefutable proof. Hydrogen adsorption is exothermic and in an hydrogen saturated material there are heatpipe effects. Also thermal conductivity changes with current flow. Also gases leak out or recombine. If there is a lot of corrosion this means there are additional exothermic chemical processes. So, without a long time calorimetric proof, there is nothing proven. above Proceedings are at him and he can send you a copy. As regarding your assertion that technical problems can be solved- the problem is cost and price- at what price with which efforts. Liaw system was interesting- Pd is anode. PeterG On Mon, Nov 28, 2011 at 9:44 AM, peter.heck...@arcor.de wrote: - Original Nachricht Von: Peter Gluck peter.gl...@gmail.com An: vortex-l@eskimo.com Datum: 28.11.2011 06:19 Betreff: Re: [Vo]:Elevated-temperature excess heat production in a Pd D system in 1991 I spoke with Liaw at ICCF-2 Como 1991. The system had very great problems of corrosion. Rule No. 6 of problem solving says: NOT the main desired positive effect, but those secondary negative and/or undesired effects decide in most cases if a solution is implemented. It seems corrosion was so severe that this way was abandoned.. Technical problems are not important, these are almost ever solvable if the reward is high. History has shown this. We are on moon now, and everybody has a mobile phone and we have GPS and Laser. Impossible? So, why dont they publish their findings? Possibly others find a solution. It would be important to have a key experiment that is repeatable and that works. There is an unfortunate mechanism: First they publish success. This is is euphorical accepted by the LENR community and makes the way into their collection of papers. Then they continue their research and find unexpected problems or find errors. They give up. Of course this is not published. This is why there are so many positive results. This is also the mechanism why there are so many positive results about UFO's and unicorns. ;-) It seems most documented LENR successes are of this type: Unfinished stories about an anticipated success that never was tested and confirmed beyond all doubts. Peter Peter *(* http://egooutpeters.blogspot.com/2011/06/super-rule-included-complete-list-o f.html * * * * On Mon, Nov 28, 2011 at 3:01 AM, Alan Fletcher a...@well.com wrote: It was in the 1990 paper : - Original Message - Liebert's still around : http://newenergytimes.com/v2/archives/fic/F/F199010.PDF 1990 : EXCESS HEAT USING MOLTEN-SALT ELECTROCHEMICAL CELL By Professors Liaw, Tao, Turner, Liebert As an example shown in the last entry in TABLE I, the power to the heating tape was maintained at about 69.25 W, the cell potential was typically in the range of 2.45 V, and the electrochemical input power was about 1.68 W at 692 mA/cm2 for a total input power of about 70.9W. We would expect 1.68 Wof joule heating to result in a 5.1 °C increase in temperature; however, the temperature increased by 82.4° C, which corresponds to a gain of about 27.1 W, according to the calibration curve. Therefore, a net gain of 25.4Wwas in excess, which results in an excess power gain of 1512 percent, in the range of 627 W/cm3 Pd. -- Dr. Peter Gluck Cluj, Romania http://egooutpeters.blogspot.com -- Dr. Peter Gluck Cluj, Romania http://egooutpeters.blogspot.com
Re: [Vo]:Elevated-temperature excess heat production in a Pd D system in 1991
Alternatively you could ask the main author- he is still active/young: http://www.hnei.hawaii.edu/template2.asp?userID=bliaw He has continued the work, after Pd with Ni but this was also abandoned. PeterG On Mon, Nov 28, 2011 at 10:34 AM, peter.heck...@arcor.de wrote: - Original Nachricht Von: Peter Gluck peter.gl...@gmail.com An: vortex-l@eskimo.com Datum: 28.11.2011 09:15 Betreff: Re: [Vo]:Elevated-temperature excess heat production in a Pd D system in 1991 PeterH, as far I remember the Liaw et al paper is published in the Proceedings of ICCF-2. I have donated my CF library to my friend the journalist Haiko Lietz who lives in Germany, I hope you know him personally. I think the I am not an insider. If I had any possibility to repeat such an experiment I would do it. Unfortunately I have not. Also I have not too much hope for success. Detecting radiation or transmutation is totally beyond my possibilities. Temperature differences are not an irrrefutable proof. Hydrogen adsorption is exothermic and in an hydrogen saturated material there are heatpipe effects. Also thermal conductivity changes with current flow. Also gases leak out or recombine. If there is a lot of corrosion this means there are additional exothermic chemical processes. So, without a long time calorimetric proof, there is nothing proven. above Proceedings are at him and he can send you a copy. As regarding your assertion that technical problems can be solved- the problem is cost and price- at what price with which efforts. Liaw system was interesting- Pd is anode. PeterG On Mon, Nov 28, 2011 at 9:44 AM, peter.heck...@arcor.de wrote: - Original Nachricht Von: Peter Gluck peter.gl...@gmail.com An: vortex-l@eskimo.com Datum: 28.11.2011 06:19 Betreff: Re: [Vo]:Elevated-temperature excess heat production in a Pd D system in 1991 I spoke with Liaw at ICCF-2 Como 1991. The system had very great problems of corrosion. Rule No. 6 of problem solving says: NOT the main desired positive effect, but those secondary negative and/or undesired effects decide in most cases if a solution is implemented. It seems corrosion was so severe that this way was abandoned.. Technical problems are not important, these are almost ever solvable if the reward is high. History has shown this. We are on moon now, and everybody has a mobile phone and we have GPS and Laser. Impossible? So, why dont they publish their findings? Possibly others find a solution. It would be important to have a key experiment that is repeatable and that works. There is an unfortunate mechanism: First they publish success. This is is euphorical accepted by the LENR community and makes the way into their collection of papers. Then they continue their research and find unexpected problems or find errors. They give up. Of course this is not published. This is why there are so many positive results. This is also the mechanism why there are so many positive results about UFO's and unicorns. ;-) It seems most documented LENR successes are of this type: Unfinished stories about an anticipated success that never was tested and confirmed beyond all doubts. Peter Peter *(* http://egooutpeters.blogspot.com/2011/06/super-rule-included-complete-list-o f.html * * * * On Mon, Nov 28, 2011 at 3:01 AM, Alan Fletcher a...@well.com wrote: It was in the 1990 paper : - Original Message - Liebert's still around : http://newenergytimes.com/v2/archives/fic/F/F199010.PDF 1990 : EXCESS HEAT USING MOLTEN-SALT ELECTROCHEMICAL CELL By Professors Liaw, Tao, Turner, Liebert As an example shown in the last entry in TABLE I, the power to the heating tape was maintained at about 69.25 W, the cell potential was typically in the range of 2.45 V, and the electrochemical input power was about 1.68 W at 692 mA/cm2 for a total input power of about 70.9W. We would expect 1.68 Wof joule heating to result in a 5.1 °C increase in temperature; however, the temperature increased by 82.4° C, which corresponds to a gain of about 27.1 W, according to the calibration curve. Therefore, a net gain of 25.4Wwas in excess, which results in an excess power gain of 1512 percent, in the range of 627 W/cm3 Pd. -- Dr. Peter Gluck Cluj, Romania http://egooutpeters.blogspot.com -- Dr. Peter Gluck Cluj, Romania http://egooutpeters.blogspot.com -- Dr. Peter Gluck Cluj, Romania http://egooutpeters.blogspot.com
Re: [Vo]:Elevated-temperature excess heat production in a Pd D system in 1991
I think, this says all. This guy is a professional electrochemist and without doubt he has 1000fold more possibilities than I. If he gave up, he has doubts himself. If there is a serious chance for success others should try it, who have a laboratory. Patents dont hinder scientific research and experiments in any way. If somebody finds methods to handle the corrosion he could make additional patents. This guy found a lot of corrosion that whas not seen or reported before. This means, he found unexpected chemical sources of energy that possibly invalidate previous results and he has not published it. He is scientist and if he would see a chance for an irrefutable scientific proof he would (and should) do this himself. This is what I think about it. Peter - Original Nachricht Von: Peter Gluck peter.gl...@gmail.com An: vortex-l@eskimo.com Datum: 28.11.2011 09:42 Betreff: Re: [Vo]:Elevated-temperature excess heat production in a Pd D system in 1991 Alternatively you could ask the main author- he is still active/young: http://www.hnei.hawaii.edu/template2.asp?userID=bliaw He has continued the work, after Pd with Ni but this was also abandoned. PeterG On Mon, Nov 28, 2011 at 10:34 AM, peter.heck...@arcor.de wrote: It was in the 1990 paper : - Original Message - Liebert's still around : http://newenergytimes.com/v2/archives/fic/F/F199010.PDF 1990 : EXCESS HEAT USING MOLTEN-SALT ELECTROCHEMICAL CELL By Professors Liaw, Tao, Turner, Liebert As an example shown in the last entry in TABLE I, the power to the heating tape was maintained at about 69.25 W, the cell potential was typically in the range of 2.45 V, and the electrochemical input power was about 1.68 W at 692 mA/cm2 for a total input power of about 70.9W. We would expect 1.68 Wof joule heating to result in a 5.1 °C increase in temperature; however, the temperature increased by 82.4° C, which corresponds to a gain of about 27.1 W, according to the calibration curve. Therefore, a net gain of 25.4Wwas in excess, which results in an excess power gain of 1512 percent, in the range of 627 W/cm3 Pd. -- Dr. Peter Gluck Cluj, Romania http://egooutpeters.blogspot.com -- Dr. Peter Gluck Cluj, Romania http://egooutpeters.blogspot.com -- Dr. Peter Gluck Cluj, Romania http://egooutpeters.blogspot.com
Re: [Vo]:Elevated-temperature excess heat production in a Pd D system in 1991
Corrosion is something I always suspected that would lead Rossi to the use of a bit of copper with nickel Rossi, given that such alloys are more resilient to electrochemical processes. 2011/11/28 Peter Gluck peter.gl...@gmail.com I spoke with Liaw at ICCF-2 Como 1991. The system had very great problems of corrosion. Rule No. 6 of problem solving says: NOT the main desired positive effect, but those secondary negative and/or undesired effects decide in most cases if a solution is implemented. It seems corrosion was so severe that this way was abandoned.. Peter *(* http://egooutpeters.blogspot.com/2011/06/super-rule-included-complete-list-of.html * * * * On Mon, Nov 28, 2011 at 3:01 AM, Alan Fletcher a...@well.com wrote: It was in the 1990 paper : - Original Message - Liebert's still around : http://newenergytimes.com/v2/archives/fic/F/F199010.PDF 1990 : EXCESS HEAT USING MOLTEN-SALT ELECTROCHEMICAL CELL By Professors Liaw, Tao, Turner, Liebert As an example shown in the last entry in TABLE I, the power to the heating tape was maintained at about 69.25 W, the cell potential was typically in the range of 2.45 V, and the electrochemical input power was about 1.68 W at 692 mA/cm2 for a total input power of about 70.9W. We would expect 1.68 Wof joule heating to result in a 5.1 °C increase in temperature; however, the temperature increased by 82.4° C, which corresponds to a gain of about 27.1 W, according to the calibration curve. Therefore, a net gain of 25.4Wwas in excess, which results in an excess power gain of 1512 percent, in the range of 627 W/cm3 Pd. -- Dr. Peter Gluck Cluj, Romania http://egooutpeters.blogspot.com -- Daniel Rocha - RJ danieldi...@gmail.com
[Vo]:Larsen, LENR in Lithium batteries and burn out IPhone
Just after I read that Larsen thinks LENR reactions can occur inside Lithium Ion batteries I read this: http://www.rex.com.au/MediaRelease/Files/295_MR2025%20-%20Mobile%20Phone%20Self%20Combustion.pdf Battery was reported as glowing Red hot. AG
Re: [Vo]:Larsen, LENR in Lithium batteries and burn out IPhone
More photos of the phone: http://www.australianfrequentflyer.com.au/community/travel-news/iphone-self-combusts-regional-express-34736.html#post522180 Sure made a mess of the phone. Maybe send the phone to Larsen to look for transmutation products? AG On 11/28/2011 8:15 PM, Aussie Guy E-Cat wrote: Just after I read that Larsen thinks LENR reactions can occur inside Lithium Ion batteries I read this: http://www.rex.com.au/MediaRelease/Files/295_MR2025%20-%20Mobile%20Phone%20Self%20Combustion.pdf Battery was reported as glowing Red hot. AG
Re: [Vo]:Larsen, LENR in Lithium batteries and burn out IPhone
AG pictures are not visible to not registered members of this site 2011/11/28 Aussie Guy E-Cat aussieguy.e...@gmail.com More photos of the phone: http://www.**australianfrequentflyer.com.** au/community/travel-news/**iphone-self-combusts-regional-** express-34736.html#post522180http://www.australianfrequentflyer.com.au/community/travel-news/iphone-self-combusts-regional-express-34736.html#post522180Sure made a mess of the phone. Maybe send the phone to Larsen to look for transmutation products? AG On 11/28/2011 8:15 PM, Aussie Guy E-Cat wrote: Just after I read that Larsen thinks LENR reactions can occur inside Lithium Ion batteries I read this: http://www.rex.com.au/** MediaRelease/Files/295_**MR2025%20-%20Mobile%** 20Phone%20Self%20Combustion.**pdfhttp://www.rex.com.au/MediaRelease/Files/295_MR2025%20-%20Mobile%20Phone%20Self%20Combustion.pdfBattery was reported as glowing Red hot. AG
Re: [Vo]:Larsen, LENR in Lithium batteries and burn out IPhone
Try this: https://picasaweb.google.com/100758632386227249211/November282011?authuser=0feat=directlink AG On 11/28/2011 8:23 PM, Andrea Selva wrote: AG pictures are not visible to not registered members of this site 2011/11/28 Aussie Guy E-Cat aussieguy.e...@gmail.com mailto:aussieguy.e...@gmail.com More photos of the phone: http://www.australianfrequentflyer.com.au/community/travel-news/iphone-self-combusts-regional-express-34736.html#post522180 Sure made a mess of the phone. Maybe send the phone to Larsen to look for transmutation products? AG On 11/28/2011 8:15 PM, Aussie Guy E-Cat wrote: Just after I read that Larsen thinks LENR reactions can occur inside Lithium Ion batteries I read this: http://www.rex.com.au/MediaRelease/Files/295_MR2025%20-%20Mobile%20Phone%20Self%20Combustion.pdf Battery was reported as glowing Red hot. AG
Re: [Vo]:Larsen, LENR in Lithium batteries and burn out IPhone
not so sure. Lithium batteries, (except the LiFePO4, that are an interesting product) are known to burn or explose if badly build or badly treated (chargeed or discharger roughly). this is hy normally (except in some chinese fraudes copy) there are safety Mosfet that limit discharge deepness and charge/discharge speed. 2011/11/28 Aussie Guy E-Cat aussieguy.e...@gmail.com Just after I read that Larsen thinks LENR reactions can occur inside Lithium Ion batteries I read this: http://www.rex.com.au/** MediaRelease/Files/295_**MR2025%20-%20Mobile%** 20Phone%20Self%20Combustion.**pdfhttp://www.rex.com.au/MediaRelease/Files/295_MR2025%20-%20Mobile%20Phone%20Self%20Combustion.pdfBattery was reported as glowing Red hot. AG
Aw: [Vo]:Larsen, LENR in Lithium batteries and burn out IPhone
But nobody was hurt by radiation. So no nuclear reactions. Lets assume, the battery was charged and contained an energy of 7 Wh. Lets assume, this is released in 2 minutes. This means 210 Watt, and the peak power is probably higher. As soon as the batteri is no longer air tight, the lithium ignites and burns, this makes additional energy. Possibility of shortage and hydrogen exlosion during charging is the biggest problem with lithium batterys. These contain a lot of chemical and electrochemical energy. This is a non-anamalous accident, that -sadly- must be expected to happen from time to time. This is why I dont have my handy in my pocket ;-) What has this to do with LENR? - Original Nachricht Von: Aussie Guy E-Cat aussieguy.e...@gmail.com An: vortex-l@eskimo.com vortex-l@eskimo.com Datum: 28.11.2011 10:45 Betreff: [Vo]:Larsen, LENR in Lithium batteries and burn out IPhone Just after I read that Larsen thinks LENR reactions can occur inside Lithium Ion batteries I read this: http://www.rex.com.au/MediaRelease/Files/295_MR2025%20-%20Mobile%20Phone %20Self%20Combustion.pdf Battery was reported as glowing Red hot. AG
Re: Aw: [Vo]:Larsen, LENR in Lithium batteries and burn out IPhone
Try this: http://www.slideshare.net/lewisglarsen/cfakepathlattice-energy-llc-len-rs-in-liion-battery-firesjuly-16-2010 AG On 11/28/2011 9:16 PM, peter.heck...@arcor.de wrote: This is why I dont have my handy in my pocket ;-) What has this to do with LENR?
Re: [Vo]:Larsen, LENR in Lithium batteries and burn out IPhone
LENR are not well understood. it seems they happens, but the by product are not sure, and the theories are not proved. It is as presumptuous as to say that any kind of fusion produce neutron, gamma, and so-on, as presumptuous as to pretend that any current circulating produce heating , or any liquid have non null viscosity. the theory of Ni-H LENR does not seems confirmed... Rossi talk about Cu, but the isotopic ratio is not clear... He talk about gamma and alpha, but few. only thing clear is heat. HH fusion causing neutron then transmutation does not seems credible. H+Ni transmutation seems more credible, but intermediate are not clear. 3-particle events are also possible... open subject. 2011/11/28 peter.heck...@arcor.de But nobody was hurt by radiation. So no nuclear reactions.
Re: [Vo]:Larsen, LENR in Lithium batteries and burn out IPhone
- Original Nachricht Von: peter.heck...@arcor.de An: vortex-l@eskimo.com Datum: 28.11.2011 11:46 Betreff: Aw: [Vo]:Larsen, LENR in Lithium batteries and burn out IPhone But nobody was hurt by radiation. So no nuclear reactions. Lets assume, the battery was charged and contained an energy of 7 Wh. Lets assume, this is released in 2 minutes. This means 210 Watt, and the peak power is probably higher. BTW, if this energy is released in 4 ms then we have 105 kW and it explodes and kills his owner. Happily, this doesnt happen. This is why the energy release claims in Levi's 18 hour experiment are impossible. He claimed 120 kW for some seconds or more. Peter
Re: [Vo]:Larsen, LENR in Lithium batteries and burn out IPhone
- Original Nachricht Von: Aussie Guy E-Cat aussieguy.e...@gmail.com An: vortex-l@eskimo.com Datum: 28.11.2011 12:08 Betreff: Re: Aw: [Vo]:Larsen, LENR in Lithium batteries and burn out IPhone Try this: http://www.slideshare.net/lewisglarsen/cfakepathlattice-energy-llc-len-rs-in -liion-battery-firesjuly-16-2010 Did Larsen ever invent and develop something that is as important as Lithium batterys? I think that guys that did it and research it should know it better. This is /heavily/ researched. Of course a burned battery is heavily contaminated. It is impossible to make any conclusions about LENR effects from the results. If this is typical for their research, then I am amused. http://www.utahflyers.org/index.php?option=com_contenttask=viewid=21Itemid=28 Peter
Re: [Vo]:Larsen, LENR in Lithium batteries and burn out IPhone
That output was seen by everybody in the room when the reactor fired up. Rossi tried to damp it by increasing the water flow to max but when the outlet temp reached 40 deg C, he shut down the reactor and then restarted it. That is what happened if you believe Levi and the others that were there. AG On 11/28/2011 9:59 PM, peter.heck...@arcor.de wrote: This is why the energy release claims in Levi's 18 hour experiment are impossible. He claimed 120 kW for some seconds or more. Peter
RE: [Vo]:Article about trip of andrea rossi to massachusetts from boston globe
From David: Article about trip of andrea rossi to massachusetts from boston globe http://bostonglobe.com/business/2011/11/28/cold-fusion-project-looks-for-hom e-massachusetts/w7FgGyI9Zx432chxuD5BEL/story.html Looks like you have to sign up and pay money to view the article. Regards, Steven Vincent Johnson www.OrionWorks.com www.zazzle.com/orionworks
Re: [Vo]:Article about trip of andrea rossi to massachusetts from boston globe
On 28 November 2011 15:39, OrionWorks - Steven Vincent Johnson orionwo...@charter.net wrote: From David: Article about trip of andrea rossi to massachusetts from boston globe http://bostonglobe.com/business/2011/11/28/cold-fusion-project-looks-for-hom e-massachusetts/w7FgGyI9Zx432chxuD5BEL/story.html Looks like you have to sign up and pay money to view the article. Apparently there is some, perhaps localized protection. It worked in Finland, so I printed the article: http://dl.dropbox.com/u/28230378/Hope_skepticism_for_cold_fusion_-_TheBostonGlobe.pdf Note, that this does not justify to not pay for the article, if they have made a micropayment simple enough, such as Google Checkout. You can just decide later after reading it, do you want to purchase the article. –Jouni
Re: [Vo]:Larsen, LENR in Lithium batteries and burn out IPhone
- Original Nachricht Von: Aussie Guy E-Cat aussieguy.e...@gmail.com An: vortex-l@eskimo.com Datum: 28.11.2011 12:52 Betreff: Re: [Vo]:Larsen, LENR in Lithium batteries and burn out IPhone That output was seen by everybody in the room when the reactor fired up. Rossi tried to damp it by increasing the water flow to max but when the outlet temp reached 40 deg C, he shut down the reactor and then restarted it. That is what happened if you believe Levi and the others that were there. So Rossi did not ask himself, if this result is possible? 120 kW is impossible with a tube boiler of this size and instead restarting it he should have questioned the measurement and the method. Ask an engineer skilled in the art. If this is true, the he risked their health or life by restarting it. Again, look here, what an exploding LIPO with some 10 Wh of energy content can do: http://www.utahflyers.org/video-mainmenu-28/16-lipo-safety/21-lipo-fires-1 At the same time we see here that explosion and melting does not need much total energy and is not an indicator for anomalous energy. Peter AG On 11/28/2011 9:59 PM, peter.heck...@arcor.de wrote: This is why the energy release claims in Levi's 18 hour experiment are impossible. He claimed 120 kW for some seconds or more. Peter
Re: [Vo]:Article about trip of andrea rossi to massachusetts from boston globe
On Mon, Nov 28, 2011 at 12:51 AM, Giovanni Santostasi gsantost...@gmail.com wrote: Rossi has interesting glasses in this picture. Anybody knows what they are? They are Clic magnetic glasses: http://www.speert.com/discount-sunglasses-products.cfm?SubCategory=Clic%20Magnetic%20Sunglasses T
Re: [Vo]:Article about trip of andrea rossi to massachusetts from boston globe
Thanks Jouni, Excerpt: Rossi said he would also like to develop small household cold fusion power generators in Massachusetts. I'm already planning to come back soon, [Rossi] said, We are hoping to get something started in a matter of weeks, not months. * * * * Looks to me as if Rossi is definitely aware of the fact that he knows he has a limited time-frame win which to cash in on his work. It suggests Rossi knows his competitors will soon be out in full swing - so get as many customers to sign on the dotted line as possible - NOW. Meanwhile, one can only imagine what will happen when the NRC finally decides that maybe... just maybe they ought to investigate this Italian upstart and his absurd contraption. It just can't be for real, can it? After all, the Amazing Randi sed in that recent you-tube clip looking like the quintessential grandfather with his impressive long white flowing beard... looking like the personification of God Almighty himself (circa Old Testament) - it's all bogus. Inevitably, when the NRC finally gets around to investigating Rossi it will only add additional credence to the Italian's s claims. Lets throw some more water on that grease fire! I suspect attempts to regulate this little-understood technology will only cause the flood gates to open even more. Regards Steven Vincent Johnson www.OrionWorks.com www.zazzle.com/orionworks
Re: [Vo]:Atmospheric Vortex Engine Critical Questions
This waterspout video seems to support the laminar hypothesis. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hN7ug1zoWWE On Sun, Nov 27, 2011 at 10:02 AM, James Bowery jabow...@gmail.com wrote: Chapter 5 (page 107) of the 2011 doctoral thesis Numerical Simulation of Tornado-like Vorticeshttp://vortexengine.ca/cfd/Diwakar_Natarajan_Full_thesis.pdf by Diwakar Natarajan concludes that cross-winds do not affect the power generation capacity of the AVE, but it appears that this is only with respect to ambient temperature. He specifically calls for further research into the significance of temperature gradients with altitude. Is there any further work that discounts the possible cross-wind induced loss of vortex integrity at the altitudes required to achieve lower exhaust temperatures required for higher Carnot efficiency? The AVE CFD page http://vortexengine.ca/cfd.shtml presents a disagreement with Natarajan's use of turbulent mode simulation. This disagreement is based on behavior of physical models showing laminar flow, one of which was water-spouts and the other being a laboratory scale model. The implication is that the adjoining photograph of a laboratory scale model http://www.vortexengine.ca/Physical_Models_LM-3.shtml demonstrates a vortex that is in disagreement with Natarajan's application of turbulent mode simulation at high Rayleigh numbers. Is anyone aware of further resolution of this point of disagreement?
Re: [Vo]:Article about trip of andrea rossi to massachusetts from boston globe
Thank you Terry. G On Mon, Nov 28, 2011 at 8:34 AM, Terry Blanton hohlr...@gmail.com wrote: On Mon, Nov 28, 2011 at 12:51 AM, Giovanni Santostasi gsantost...@gmail.com wrote: Rossi has interesting glasses in this picture. Anybody knows what they are? They are Clic magnetic glasses: http://www.speert.com/discount-sunglasses-products.cfm?SubCategory=Clic%20Magnetic%20Sunglasses T
Re: [Vo]:Article about trip of andrea rossi to massachusetts from boston globe
orionworks sez: ... ... looking like the personification of God Almighty himself (circa Old Testament) Akshully, the more I think of it, I suspect Randi is trying to emulate the Darwin look. http://www.lucidcafe.com/library/96feb/darwin.html Regards Steven Vincent Johnson www.OrionWorks.com www.zazzle.com/orionworks
Re: [Vo]:Large Temperature Increase of Core Not Required for 6 to 1 Output Delta
On Sat, Nov 26, 2011 at 10:11 AM, David Roberson dlrober...@aol.com wrote: It has been suggested that it is not possible to obtain the rapid increase in output power measured for the Rossi ECATs. The reason stated is that the core would have to have its temperature multiplied by a factor of 6 or so to deliver the needed power. This belief is based upon a misunderstanding of the heat equation and its solutions. [... Consider this thought experiment. The cores of one ECAT are heated within 5 minutes to a high temperature by the electrical heating element leading to the generation of LENR heat. The cores are now at a temperature that allows the total output to be 9 kW where they continue to supply energy into the heat sink. The water initially knows nothing of this power since a significant delay exists as the heat makes it way toward the water. The gradient of temperature facing the water is zero until the leading edge of the heat wave reaches that position in space. Since the gradient is zero, no power is being delivered to the water. Next, time elapses and the heat begins to flow into the water and increase its temperature. A gradient is now established to allow the heat flow and this gradient rapidly increases as the power delivered to the water increases. The gradient began at zero and will increase as needed to allow the heat flow required. There is no reason why this gradient change is restricted to a value as low as 6 to 1, and I would expect it to be far larger until the system stabilizes. [...] Horace Heffner has been generating a finite element model of the heat flow within his assumed ECAT scam device and will be able to demonstrate this effect to anyone who does not understand the mechanisms involved. I recall a time domain chart he published to vortex that shows his expected gradient of temperatures along the heat sink. This graph should be used as reference. Horace, please take a small amount of your time to explain the effect that I refer to since you have the finite element model that reveals the solution to the partial differential equation. A demonstration is worth a million words in this case. It is not the size of the gradient change that is the problem, it is the time it takes to change. You are right that the notion that an increase in power transfer is proportional to the temperature difference between the core and the water interface is a comparison of steady state conditions, but the complications of transient conditions between steady states doesn't change the fact that a large thermal mass has to be heated to get from low power transfer to 7 times higher power transfer. Your suggestions that ignition might happen before the onset of boiling and that it might ignite at a higher power do not explain a 7-fold increase in power transfer in a matter of a few minutes. In the first place, although it clearly takes time after the power turns on before the power transfer begins to show up, we can get some sense of that from the pre-heat period. The temperature change begins about 30 minutes after power is turned allegedly on, and then it increases *very gradually*, and it takes another 90 minutes before the power transfer reaches half the input power. There is no indication of any step increase in power transfer at some fixed delay after the power is turned on. This is also consistent with Heffner's models in which a step increase in the input power results in a very gradual increase in the power transfer (gradient near the surface) to about half the input over 2.5 hours, delayed by about 30 minutes. Secondly, based on the time-course during pre-heating, and on Heffner's calculation, using power a factor of 2 higher (9 kW per module) than the steady state (4.5 kW) would not be anywhere close to enough to achieve the necessary increase in power transfer in a few minutes. In fact, it appears it would still take hours for the output to reach half the input power. Finally, even if a step increase at the input would transfer through the heat sink as a step-increase at the output, it is even more unrealistic to expect an early ignition to happen at just the right time so that the power transfer increase occurs exactly at the onset of boiling, than it is to expect ignition to happen at the onset of boiling, again in all 107 ecats. And without any kind of indication in the pre-boiling curve that a second heat source has ignited. Likewise, even if it were possible to tailor the input to give the necessary step increase at the onset of boiling, it would take a much higher initial power which would then have to fall nicely back to the 4.5 kW just in time so that the steam never exceeded the boiling point. Not only is this unrealistic, there is no reason Rossi would want to do it, except to make the results consistent with much less output power. Now, I gather you're prepared to accept a somewhat slower power transfer increase by assuming
Re: [Vo]:Atmospheric Vortex Engine Critical Questions
Indeed, there is a similar phenomenon over land known as landspouts that are known to be laminar. It looks like Natarajan screwed up. On Mon, Nov 28, 2011 at 9:07 AM, James Bowery jabow...@gmail.com wrote: This waterspout video seems to support the laminar hypothesis. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hN7ug1zoWWE On Sun, Nov 27, 2011 at 10:02 AM, James Bowery jabow...@gmail.com wrote: Chapter 5 (page 107) of the 2011 doctoral thesis Numerical Simulation of Tornado-like Vorticeshttp://vortexengine.ca/cfd/Diwakar_Natarajan_Full_thesis.pdf by Diwakar Natarajan concludes that cross-winds do not affect the power generation capacity of the AVE, but it appears that this is only with respect to ambient temperature. He specifically calls for further research into the significance of temperature gradients with altitude. Is there any further work that discounts the possible cross-wind induced loss of vortex integrity at the altitudes required to achieve lower exhaust temperatures required for higher Carnot efficiency? The AVE CFD page http://vortexengine.ca/cfd.shtml presents a disagreement with Natarajan's use of turbulent mode simulation. This disagreement is based on behavior of physical models showing laminar flow, one of which was water-spouts and the other being a laboratory scale model. The implication is that the adjoining photograph of a laboratory scale model http://www.vortexengine.ca/Physical_Models_LM-3.shtml demonstrates a vortex that is in disagreement with Natarajan's application of turbulent mode simulation at high Rayleigh numbers. Is anyone aware of further resolution of this point of disagreement?
Re: [Vo]:Large Temperature Increase of Core Not Required for 6 to 1 Output Delta
On Sat, Nov 26, 2011 at 10:39 PM, David Roberson dlrober...@aol.com wrote: OK Horace, You have supplied the information that is needed to answer the questions. By my reading of the graphs, they contradict your ideas. They show that a step increase in the power input results in a very gradual increase in the power output to half the input over a period of 3 hours. The only graphs that show rapid increases are related to some kind of active control, and in those cases the power increases are extremely brief spikes. Rossi's claims require a step increase in the power by a factor of 7 and then a new plateau at the higher power.
Re: [Vo]:Large Temperature Increase of Core Not Required for 6 to 1 Output Delta
You misread the graph. Ask Horace to help you understand what it shows as he has the program that answers your question. Direct any further inquires to him. I am confident he can straighten your problem out. A graph is worth many words Cude. It is clear that a large instantaneous fixed heat source generates a delay which is followed by a rapidly increasing gradient. Look at the graph more carefully. Dave -Original Message- From: Joshua Cude joshua.c...@gmail.com To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Mon, Nov 28, 2011 10:28 am Subject: Re: [Vo]:Large Temperature Increase of Core Not Required for 6 to 1 Output Delta On Sat, Nov 26, 2011 at 10:39 PM, David Roberson dlrober...@aol.com wrote: OK Horace, You have supplied the information that is needed to answer the questions. By my reading of the graphs, they contradict your ideas. They show that a step increase in the power input results in a very gradual increase in the power output to half the input over a period of 3 hours. The only graphs that show rapid increases are related to some kind of active control, and in those cases the power increases are extremely brief spikes. Rossi's claims require a step increase in the power by a factor of 7 and then a new plateau at the higher power.
Re: [Vo]:Larsen, LENR in Lithium batteries and burn out IPhone
On 11-11-28 04:45 AM, Aussie Guy E-Cat wrote: Just after I read that Larsen thinks LENR reactions can occur inside Lithium Ion batteries I read this: http://www.rex.com.au/MediaRelease/Files/295_MR2025%20-%20Mobile%20Phone%20Self%20Combustion.pdf Battery was reported as glowing Red hot. AG It's a common problem with Li batteries, and it doesn't require wild speculation about nuclear effects to explain it. In fact, it was *very* common before some production problems were solved. Don't you remember the exploding Macbooks? Problem is Li batteries have very low internal resistance, so if something shorts it out, while it kills the battery, it doesn't go gentle into that good night. The energy is released too fast for that. Rather, it burns, vigorously. One problem was steel splinters spalted off the rollers used in manufacturing the plates, which would end up inside the batteries. Everything was fine as long as the splinters were lying down. But sometimes, under the influence of the E field in the battery, the splinters would stand up, and if they shorted across the (*very* closely spaced) plates, poof! I think that was the Macbook problem. Physical damage to an Li battery can do the same thing. This issue delayed their widespread use in cars, if I recall correctly -- there's this problem that the car may get into an accident, and if your (now damaged) batteries choose to release all their stored energy just after the impact, it can make everybody much sadder than they were simply as a result of the impact. The ones commonly used these days are pretty resistant to this sort of problem but resistant doesn't equal immune.
Re: [Vo]:Large Temperature Increase of Core Not Required for 6 to 1 Output Delta
On Mon, Nov 28, 2011 at 9:59 AM, David Roberson dlrober...@aol.com wrote: You misread the graph. Ask Horace to help you understand what it shows as he has the program that answers your question. Direct any further inquires to him. I am confident he can straighten your problem out. A graph is worth many words Cude. It is clear that a large instantaneous fixed heat source generates a delay which is followed by a rapidly increasing gradient. Look at the graph more carefully. In other words, you don't have a clue what the graphs mean, and you're hoping I don't either. But I do. In the first graph, a step increase in the power input at x=0, results in a very *gradual* increase in the temperature gradient at the water interface over several hours. The next graph shows the power transfer (proportional to the temperature gradient) increases slowly to about half the power input over about 3 hours. The graph he put in at the end involves active controls, which I didn't look up, but although power spikes occur there, they are extremely narrow, and not at all consistent with the step increase needed to explain Rossi's claims.
Re: [Vo]:Large Temperature Increase of Core Not Required for 6 to 1 Output Delta
Joshua Cude has completed his proof that Rossi's own data from the 1 MW demo shows unavoidably that it is certain that no excess heat was produced. Q.E.D. https://mail.google.com/mail/u/0/?ui=2shva=1#inbox/133e0a55a24df9e5 Joshua Cude 7:20 AM (56 minutes ago) to vortex-l On Sat, Nov 26, 2011 at 10:11 AM, David Roberson dlrober...@aol.com wrote: [ not quoted here ] Joshua Cude: It is not the size of the gradient change that is the problem, it is the time it takes to change. You are right that the notion that an increase in power transfer is proportional to the temperature difference between the core and the water interface is a comparison of steady state conditions, but the complications of transient conditions between steady states doesn't change the fact that a large thermal mass has to be heated to get from low power transfer to 7 times higher power transfer. Your suggestions that ignition might happen before the onset of boiling and that it might ignite at a higher power do not explain a 7-fold increase in power transfer in a matter of a few minutes. In the first place, although it clearly takes time after the power turns on before the power transfer begins to show up, we can get some sense of that from the pre-heat period. The temperature change begins about 30 minutes after power is turned allegedly on, and then it increases *very gradually*, and it takes another 90 minutes before the power transfer reaches half the input power. There is no indication of any step increase in power transfer at some fixed delay after the power is turned on. This is also consistent with Heffner's models in which a step increase in the input power results in a very gradual increase in the power transfer (gradient near the surface) to about half the input over 2.5 hours, delayed by about 30 minutes. Secondly, based on the time-course during pre-heating, and on Heffner's calculation, using power a factor of 2 higher (9 kW per module) than the steady state (4.5 kW) would not be anywhere close to enough to achieve the necessary increase in power transfer in a few minutes. In fact, it appears it would still take hours for the output to reach half the input power. Finally, even if a step increase at the input would transfer through the heat sink as a step-increase at the output, it is even more unrealistic to expect an early ignition to happen at just the right time so that the power transfer increase occurs exactly at the onset of boiling, than it is to expect ignition to happen at the onset of boiling, again in all 107 ecats. And without any kind of indication in the pre-boiling curve that a second heat source has ignited. Likewise, even if it were possible to tailor the input to give the necessary step increase at the onset of boiling, it would take a much higher initial power which would then have to fall nicely back to the 4.5 kW just in time so that the steam never exceeded the boiling point. Not only is this unrealistic, there is no reason Rossi would want to do it, except to make the results consistent with much less output power. Now, I gather you're prepared to accept a somewhat slower power transfer increase by assuming that the ecats are not full at the onset of boiling. This of course requires you to accept that Rossi and his engineer do not have sufficient competence to know what the output flow rate is (by, say, observing liquid coming out before the onset of boiling), and that you can determine these things better from a distance. Nevertheless, it's hard to imagine it could be less than 80 or 90% full, because then the heating elements would be exposed, and the steam would likely by superheated. And if they're 80% full, it would only take an hour or so to fill, and as argued above 3 hours to reach half the input power. So, unless you're proposing much more than twice the input to begin, tailored to decrease to 4.5 kW (per unit) at just the right time to avoid superheating the steam, this will not avoid quite a lot of liquid being forced out with the steam. And once the possibility of wet steam is admitted, then the effectiveness of the trap is unproven, and output power as low as 70 kW (total) is consistent with the data. Joshua Cude 7:28 AM (52 minutes ago) to vortex-l On Sat, Nov 26, 2011 at 10:39 PM, David Roberson dlrober...@aol.com wrote: OK Horace, You have supplied the information that is needed to answer the questions. Joshua Cude: By my reading of the graphs, they contradict your ideas. They show that a step increase in the power input results in a very gradual increase in the power output to half the input over a period of 3 hours. The only graphs that show rapid increases are related to some kind of active control, and in those cases the power increases are extremely brief spikes. Rossi's claims require a step increase in the power by a factor of 7 and then a new plateau at the higher power.
Re: [Vo]:Large Temperature Increase of Core Not Required for 6 to 1 Output Delta
I find it strange that anyone would assume that a proof has been generated that the power output does not show excess heat. I think you should read Mr. Cudes' mailings as he suggests that the power output could be anywhere between 70kW and 470kW. I think I recall him suggesting that if it is in fact 470 kW, then that is due to LENR energy release. I would assume that he will come back and respond to your statement in that manner. I do not think that he is firmly convinced that there is no LENR activity, but is skeptical to that effect. All of us maintain doubt as long as Rossi does not allow complete and free access to his device. I have completed many calculations regarding the October 6 test and the preponderance of evidence points me to the conclusion that excess heat is generated, but I realize that I could be in error. I do wish you would refrain from hero worship as that has no place in science. Dave -Original Message- From: Rich Murray rmfor...@gmail.com To: vortex-L vortex-L@eskimo.com; Rich Murray rmfor...@gmail.com; Rich Murray rmfor...@comcast.net Sent: Mon, Nov 28, 2011 11:21 am Subject: Re: [Vo]:Large Temperature Increase of Core Not Required for 6 to 1 Output Delta Joshua Cude has completed his proof that Rossi's own data from the 1 W demo shows unavoidably that it is certain that no excess heat was roduced. Q.E.D. ttps://mail.google.com/mail/u/0/?ui=2shva=1#inbox/133e0a55a24df9e5 Joshua Cude :20 AM (56 minutes ago) to vortex-l n Sat, Nov 26, 2011 at 10:11 AM, David Roberson dlrober...@aol.com wrote: [ not quoted here ] Joshua Cude: It is not the size of the gradient change that is the problem, it is he time it takes to change. You are right that the notion that an increase in power transfer is roportional to the temperature difference between the core and the ater interface is a comparison of steady state conditions, but the omplications of transient conditions between steady states doesn't hange the fact that a large thermal mass has to be heated to get from ow power transfer to 7 times higher power transfer. Your suggestions that ignition might happen before the onset of oiling and that it might ignite at a higher power do not explain a -fold increase in power transfer in a matter of a few minutes. In the first place, although it clearly takes time after the power urns on before the power transfer begins to show up, we can get some ense of that from the pre-heat period. The temperature change begins bout 30 minutes after power is turned allegedly on, and then it ncreases *very gradually*, and it takes another 90 minutes before the ower transfer reaches half the input power. There is no indication of ny step increase in power transfer at some fixed delay after the ower is turned on. This is also consistent with Heffner's models in which a step increase n the input power results in a very gradual increase in the power ransfer (gradient near the surface) to about half the input over 2.5 ours, delayed by about 30 minutes. Secondly, based on the time-course during pre-heating, and on effner's calculation, using power a factor of 2 higher (9 kW per odule) than the steady state (4.5 kW) would not be anywhere close to nough to achieve the necessary increase in power transfer in a few inutes. In fact, it appears it would still take hours for the output o reach half the input power. Finally, even if a step increase at the input would transfer through he heat sink as a step-increase at the output, it is even more nrealistic to expect an early ignition to happen at just the right ime so that the power transfer increase occurs exactly at the onset f boiling, than it is to expect ignition to happen at the onset of oiling, again in all 107 ecats. And without any kind of indication in he pre-boiling curve that a second heat source has ignited. Likewise, even if it were possible to tailor the input to give the ecessary step increase at the onset of boiling, it would take a much igher initial power which would then have to fall nicely back to the .5 kW just in time so that the steam never exceeded the boiling oint. Not only is this unrealistic, there is no reason Rossi would ant to do it, except to make the results consistent with much less utput power. Now, I gather you're prepared to accept a somewhat slower power ransfer increase by assuming that the ecats are not full at the onset f boiling. This of course requires you to accept that Rossi and his ngineer do not have sufficient competence to know what the output low rate is (by, say, observing liquid coming out before the onset of oiling), and that you can determine these things better from a istance. Nevertheless, it's hard to imagine it could be less than 80 or 90% ull, because then the heating elements would be exposed, and the team would likely by superheated. And if they're 80% full, it would nly take an hour or so to fill, and as argued above 3 hours to reach alf the input power. So, unless you're proposing much
Re: [Vo]:Larsen, LENR in Lithium batteries and burn out IPhone
OT : the LiFePO4 battery don't have that problem. they can sustain hard charge or discharge, support fire or explosion, staying as flegmatic like an english man. they have a slightly lower massic capacity, but not so much after some real use. I don't understand why they are not so common... maybe IP problems... 2011/11/28 Stephen A. Lawrence sa...@pobox.com It's a common problem with Li batteries,
Re: [Vo]:Large Temperature Increase of Core Not Required for 6 to 1 Output Delta
On 11-11-28 11:21 AM, Rich Murray wrote: Joshua Cude has completed his proof that Rossi's own data from the 1 MW demo shows unavoidably that it is certain that no excess heat was produced. Q.E.D. Jeeze, Rich, if you're going to post things that boil down to We are the chorus, and we agree, we agree, we agree!, could you at least try to agree with what was said, rather than what you wish had been said? Joshua has done a very nice job of showing that the data are consistent with little excess heat having been produced, and with certain additional assumptions, they're consistent with scenarios in which no excess heat was produced. That is a very far cry from showing unavoidably that it is certain that no excess heat was produced, which is what you morphed his words into. You, Rich, sound like an anti-Aetherist, bellowing that Einstein proved there is no aether. He didn't; he merely presented a theory which was consistent with observation and which did not *require* an aether. Similarly, Joshua didn't prove there's no excess heat; he merely showed that the evidence for excess heat during the 470kW run is inconclusive. (And now I really must go back to ignoring this list for another little while)
Re: [Vo]:Large Temperature Increase of Core Not Required for 6 to 1 Output Delta
Maybe you do not understand my position in this question. I am not convinced that there is a large power increase that you speak of. Horace has produced a graph and a method that should be able to answer that question. If it is in fact there, his technique should reveal it. Do you argue with FEA? It is not my curve, I can only reference it to help people understand the solution to the partial differential equation which is far more complex than my or even your gut feelings. That is why I refer you to it, this is not my fight. Apparently you love to disagree with anything that I state, whether or not you agree with it. This is strange behavior. And you wonder why I choose not to have these discussions with you? I see you have a base of groupies that you like to keep happy, but that is a poor reason to conduct false scientific discussions. Dave -Original Message- From: Joshua Cude joshua.c...@gmail.com To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Mon, Nov 28, 2011 11:17 am Subject: Re: [Vo]:Large Temperature Increase of Core Not Required for 6 to 1 Output Delta On Mon, Nov 28, 2011 at 9:59 AM, David Roberson dlrober...@aol.com wrote: You misread the graph. Ask Horace to help you understand what it shows as he has the program that answers your question. Direct any further inquires to him. I am confident he can straighten your problem out. A graph is worth many words Cude. It is clear that a large instantaneous fixed heat source generates a delay which is followed by a rapidly increasing gradient. Look at the graph more carefully. In other words, you don't have a clue what the graphs mean, and you're hoping I don't either. But I do. In the first graph, a step increase in the power input at x=0, results in a very *gradual* increase in the temperature gradient at the water interface over several hours. The next graph shows the power transfer (proportional to the temperature gradient) increases slowly to about half the power input over about 3 hours. The graph he put in at the end involves active controls, which I didn't look up, but although power spikes occur there, they are extremely narrow, and not at all consistent with the step increase needed to explain Rossi's claims.
Re: [Vo]:Brian Ahern's 2011 USPTO patent application
On Sun, Nov 27, 2011 at 8:47 PM, fznidar...@aol.com wrote: Of all of this patent goings on, no one has applied for a patent to produce electrical power directly from a LENR reaction. The don't know enough. They are just making thermal energy to spin a turbine. Who is spinning a turbine with LENR?
Re: [Vo]:Article about trip of andrea rossi to massachusetts from boston globe
On Sun, Nov 27, 2011 at 11:33 PM, Marcello Vitale mvit...@ucsbalum.netwrote: “Rossi said he was not ready for a full academic investigation of his technology because he doesn’t yet have full patent protection,’’ Tamarin said. “That’s consistent with it not working, but it’s also consistent with it working very well.’’ That's a clumsy way to say he has not the slightest idea whether it works or not. IMO Rossi's behavior is more consistent with it not working.
Re: [Vo]:Krivit provides details of deal Celani offered Rossi and Rossi's rejection of it
So, if I understand you correctly, patent protection doesn't work. So why do we bother with an expensive patent office and all those millions (billions?) of patents?
Re: [Vo]:Large Temperature Increase of Core Not Required for 6 to 1 Output Delta
On Mon, Nov 28, 2011 at 10:46 AM, David Roberson dlrober...@aol.com wrote: Maybe you do not understand my position in this question. I am not convinced that there is a large power increase that you speak of. Neither am I. But according to Rossi's claims in his report, there has to be one. He is claiming 479 kW from the onset of boiling. Yet before boiling, the power is clearly less than 70 kW. So that requires a large and fast power transfer increase. Horace has produced a graph and a method that should be able to answer that question. The graph shows that a step increase in the inout power result in a very slow increase in the output power at the other end of a large thermal mass. They do not show that a step increase of the sort Rossi's claims require is possible. It might be possible, but using the sort of thermal mass in his simulations, it would take an input power spike probably an order of magnitude or more above the steady state value and then a perfectly tailored decrease to the steady state value. It's pretty difficult to imagine how to produce such an input profile, or why Rossi would want to produce it. So, it amounts to mental contortions for try to fit Rossi's claims to what is observed, when wet steam and lower power out fits just as well, and requires no such contortions. If it is in fact there, his technique should reveal it. Do you argue with FEA? It is not my curve, I can only reference it to help people understand the solution to the partial differential equation which is far more complex than my or even your gut feelings. FEA is fine if you know the boundary conditions, but the point is, it doesn't show what you are suggesting. The reference to those graphs helps to understand why a steep increase in power by a factor of 7 in a few minutes is *not* plausible. Apparently you love to disagree with anything that I state, whether or not you agree with it. No, I only disagree with things I don't agree with. But your frequently-expressed, absolute confidence in Rossi having a commercial LENR device, does make it harder to resist expressing disagreement.
Re: [Vo]:Krivit provides details of deal Celani offered Rossi and Rossi's rejection of it
BTW, Defkalion scheduled the announcement for Wednesday. 2011/11/28 Mary Yugo maryyu...@gmail.com So, if I understand you correctly, patent protection doesn't work. So why do we bother with an expensive patent office and all those millions (billions?) of patents? -- Daniel Rocha - RJ danieldi...@gmail.com
Re: [Vo]:Krivit provides details of deal Celani offered Rossi and Rossi's rejection of it
U.S. Constitution Article I, Section 8 Ripple~Effects New York 212~924~5996 .-. .-. .-. .-. .-. .-. .-. \ / \ / \ / \ / \ / \ / \ `-' `-' `-' `-' `-' `-' `-' From: Mary Yugo maryyu...@gmail.com To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Monday, November 28, 2011 12:02 PM Subject: Re: [Vo]:Krivit provides details of deal Celani offered Rossi and Rossi's rejection of it So, if I understand you correctly, patent protection doesn't work. So why do we bother with an expensive patent office and all those millions (billions?) of patents?
Re: [Vo]:Krivit provides details of deal Celani offered Rossi and Rossi's rejection of it
experience of small companies owning patents, or small inventors owning patents, is that big corps usually find a way to get around, especially when collaborating with the inventor before. (It is why the inventor of smartcard get out of France, feeling abused by his big partner) I'm sure that Rossi won't be able to block similar devices if it works. patents are also used to block small companies, by fear of legal battle (that they will win, but after being bankrupted). I'm sure that if a big corp own a patent, no small will dare to innovate (alone) in the domain. il also helps big companies to block good (or bad) patent infrigement accusation, but making bad counter accusations... (see Apple/MS/intel/samsung battles) the expensive patent office are mostly useful for big corp, to maintain dominance of the big corp. strategic for the nation! small inventors seldom succeed alone, but there are some lucky guys.few. 2011/11/28 Mary Yugo maryyu...@gmail.com So, if I understand you correctly, patent protection doesn't work. So why do we bother with an expensive patent office and all those millions (billions?) of patents?
Re: [Vo]:Rossi blog -- Hank Mills proposes a side-by-side blank test
Hank Mills November 28th, 2011 at 1:15 AM Hello Andrea, I apologize if Im not controlling my passion about this topic quite as well as I should. I think the lies of the cynics and competitors (which I read everyday), are making me a bit more angry than usual. Out of jealousy and envy, they are trying to mislead the world about the biggest breakthrough of this century, and it infuriates me. I completely realize all decisions are yours to make. Being on the outside looking in, I just wish there was more I could do to contribute towards making the world accept the reality of this technology. If additional tests are not appropriate, I will respect your decision completely and totally. If there is anything I can do to help you in anyway, please let me know. Sincerely, Hank Mills Andrea Rossi November 28th, 2011 at 1:15 AM Dear Hank Mills (regarding the answer to RH): I am very sorry, but I must say I do not agree on the fact that further public tests could have any importance, the puppett-snakes would increase the attacks ( they are paid for this from the puppetteers) and the Customers would be disturbed from the exposition. The real duty now is to make good working plants. Nevertheless I have deep respect for your intellectual honesty, I know you want to help us; I just do not agree. New public tests could only make me lose time just to replicate the usual clownery rising with the usual aggression, whatever we do; by the way: if they think that this technology does not work, I wonder: why are they so aggressive against it? If it doesnt work, it will die by itself; for example: there are around many wannabe competitors I know perfectly have nothing working really: did you ever see any comment of mine regarding their work? Did you ever read an attack from me to a competitor regarding the fiascos of their stuff? (and believe me: I know everything of everybody). Warm Regards, A.R. Hank Mills November 28th, 2011 at 1:23 AM Andrea, To answer your question, I have never read a statement from you belittling anyone in the cold fusion field, their testing, theories, or their work. The only individuals you have spoken up against, are the ones that have attacked you first with espionage attempts, lies, blackmail, etc. They deserved to be addressed, and put in their place. You are a very polite and respectful person. I admire how you can be so respectful despite a 16 hour a day work schedule, and so much stress. I think most of the anger and hostility out there is fairly easy to explain. I think it is pure envy and jealousy. Out of no where, you have suddenly came onto the alternative energy scene with the most promising technology imaginable. The fuel is cheap, there is no pollution, no radioactivity is emitted, and it is totally safe. In addition, the output capacity is phenomenal. They simply cant believe what is happening, and are lashing out. To be blunt, the introduction of your technology in 2011, is like dropping in a brand new, high end sports car back in time to the year 1920. The automakers of the time would have responded just like your competitors are responding today. They cant fathom the significance of your discovery, and they are letting their emotions control them. Sincerely, Hank Mills
Re: [Vo]:Rossi blog -- Hank Mills proposes a side-by-side blank test
On 11-11-28 12:28 PM, Alan J Fletcher wrote: [ ... ] Andrea Rossi November 28th, 2011 at 1:15 AM http://www.journal-of-nuclear-physics.com/?p=510cpage=35#comment-133038 Dear Hank Mills (regarding the answer to RH): I am very sorry, but I must say I do not agree on the fact that further public tests could have any importance, the puppett-snakes would increase the attacks ( they are paid for this from the puppetteers) HEY -- somebody's paying people to say bad stuff about Rossi? Who? Can I get some of it, if I get back onto Vortex and come out hard against Rossi? Or maybe if I start posting in his forum? I've got a website -- will somebody pay me to put up an anti-Rossi page? Wow, this sounds like an opportunity!
Re: [Vo]:Rossi blog -- Hank Mills proposes a side-by-side blank test
On Mon, Nov 28, 2011 at 9:28 AM, Alan J Fletcher a...@well.com wrote: Hank Mills November 28th, 2011 at 1:15 AMhttp://www.journal-of-nuclear-physics.com/?p=510cpage=35#comment-133037 Hello Andrea, I apologize if I’m not controlling my passion about this topic quite as well as I should. I think the lies of the cynics and competitors (which I read everyday), are making me a bit more angry than usual. Out of jealousy and envy, they are trying to mislead the world about the biggest breakthrough of this century, and it infuriates me. SNIP A couple of other things Hank (and Sterling) are passionate about: Freddy's Cell which allows a truck to run only on water: http://peswiki.com/index.php/Directory:_Hydrogen_Hog_by_Future_Energy_Concepts,_Inc. Papp's self running noble gas engine: http://peswiki.com/index.php/Directory:Plasma_Energy_Controls%27_Plasma_Expansion_Motor And that's before we get to all the scams and self-deceptions they have supported in the past and their current support for government mind control via HAARP! These guys are simply comical. If something they support works, it has to be by accident.
Re: [Vo]:Rossi blog -- Hank Mills proposes a side-by-side blank test
Yes, I will sign up too. Alan we miss the bandwagon. I guess Mary is taking all the money. G On Mon, Nov 28, 2011 at 11:37 AM, Stephen A. Lawrence sa...@pobox.comwrote: ** On 11-11-28 12:28 PM, Alan J Fletcher wrote: [ ... ] Andrea Rossi November 28th, 2011 at 1:15 AMhttp://www.journal-of-nuclear-physics.com/?p=510cpage=35#comment-133038 Dear Hank Mills (regarding the answer to RH): I am very sorry, but I must say I do not agree on the fact that further public tests could have any importance, the puppett-snakes would increase the attacks ( they are paid for this from the puppetteers) HEY -- somebody's paying people to say bad stuff about Rossi? Who? Can I get some of it, if I get back onto Vortex and come out hard against Rossi? Or maybe if I start posting in his forum? I've got a website -- will somebody pay me to put up an anti-Rossi page? Wow, this sounds like an opportunity!
Re: [Vo]:Large Temperature Increase of Core Not Required for 6 to 1 Output Delta
On Mon, Nov 28, 2011 at 10:36 AM, David Roberson dlrober...@aol.com wrote: I think I recall him suggesting that if it is in fact 470 kW, then that is due to LENR energy release. I would assume that he will come back and respond to your statement in that manner. You recall incorrectly. Here's what I said about that: Actually, even if the evidence supported 470 kW for 5.5 hours, I would not be convinced of nuclear reactions given the size of that thing, and the fact that no one inspected any of the modules, and the fact that it was connected to a big running generator. Cut the cables to the generator, prove 470 kW output by sparging the steam, or obviously superheating it, or using a properly configured heat exchanger, or converting the heat to obvious mechanical work or electricity, and then run it for a few weeks or even days without input, and then he'd have something. But with the data reported, it fits 70 kW out, and so there isn't even evidence of excess heat, let alone cold fusion.
Re: [Vo]:Rossi blog -- Hank Mills proposes a side-by-side blank test
On Mon, Nov 28, 2011 at 9:44 AM, Giovanni Santostasi gsantost...@gmail.comwrote: Yes, I will sign up too. Alan we miss the bandwagon. I guess Mary is taking all the money. G You can have the Rossi business. I'm concentrating on debunking Hugh Deasy's antigravity machine. Boeing is paying me -- they'd be out of business if Deasy's machine could power airplanes. Deasy was (maybe still is) a vocal Steorn supporter. Deasy, who has an extensive education and an excellent job and should know better, does stuff like this supposed antigravity device: http://www.youtube.com/user/steornhugh#p/u/6/IWSl7P1iitQ This is his blog! http://hdeasy.blogspot.com/2009/12/steorn-demo-in-few-days.html
Re: [Vo]:Brian Ahern's 2011 USPTO patent application
Frank, If LENR is mostly beta decay, I'm not sure why its not work like a betavoltaic. It would be the killer app of the century. Please get to work. :) Who is spinning a turbine with LENR? MY, You are comments are snide, cantankerous and counter-productive. Its no wonder you're hiding behind a pseudonym. He didn't say people are spinning a turbine, he said they are generating heat _to_ spin a turbine. (future tense.) - Brad
Re: [Vo]:Large Temperature Increase of Core Not Required for 6 to 1 Output Delta
But does it fit the possibility of 470 kW also? -Original Message- From: Joshua Cude joshua.c...@gmail.com To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Mon, Nov 28, 2011 12:50 pm Subject: Re: [Vo]:Large Temperature Increase of Core Not Required for 6 to 1 Output Delta On Mon, Nov 28, 2011 at 10:36 AM, David Roberson dlrober...@aol.com wrote: I think I recall him suggesting that if it is in fact 470 kW, then that is due to LENR energy release. I would assume that he will come back and respond to your statement in that manner. You recall incorrectly. Here's what I said about that: Actually, even if the evidence supported 470 kW for 5.5 hours, I would not be convinced of nuclear reactions given the size of that thing, and the fact that no one inspected any of the modules, and the fact that it was connected to a big running generator. Cut the cables to the generator, prove 470 kW output by sparging the steam, or obviously superheating it, or using a properly configured heat exchanger, or converting the heat to obvious mechanical work or electricity, and then run it for a few weeks or even days without input, and then he'd have something. But with the data reported, it fits 70 kW out, and so there isn't even evidence of excess heat, let alone cold fusion.
Re: [Vo]:Brian Ahern's 2011 USPTO patent application
On Mon, Nov 28, 2011 at 10:01 AM, ecat builder ecatbuil...@gmail.comwrote: MY, You are comments are snide, cantankerous and counter-productive. Its no wonder you're hiding behind a pseudonym. He didn't say people are spinning a turbine, he said they are generating heat _to_ spin a turbine. (future tense.) I wouldn't even mention this had you not called me snide and cantankerous, but last I looked, are is present tense.
Re: [Vo]:Rossi blog -- Hank Mills proposes a side-by-side blank test
They do not pay us enough :-) The hours are long and the pay is short. -Original Message- From: Stephen A. Lawrence sa...@pobox.com To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Mon, Nov 28, 2011 12:38 pm Subject: Re: [Vo]:Rossi blog -- Hank Mills proposes a side-by-side blank test On 11-11-28 12:28 PM, Alan J Fletcher wrote: [ ... ] Andrea Rossi November 28th, 2011 at 1:15 AM Dear Hank Mills (regarding the answer to RH): I am very sorry, but I must say I do not agree on the fact that further public tests could have any importance, the puppett-snakes would increase the attacks ( they are paid for this from the puppetteers) HEY -- somebody's paying people to say bad stuff about Rossi? Who? Can I get some of it, if I get back onto Vortex and come out hard against Rossi? Or maybe if I start posting in his forum? I've got a website -- will somebody pay me to put up an anti-Rossi page? Wow, this sounds like an opportunity!
[Vo]:Defkalion Announcement on Wednesday
From the Defkalion forum: Dear all, We will release the expected info pre-announced on November 14th 2011, on Wednesday, November 30th 2011. Thank you for your attention Defkalion GT to search for Defkalion statements in their forum, use: http://www.defkalion-energy.com/forum/search.php?keywords=terms=allauthor=Defkalion+GTsc=1sf=allsk=tsd=dsr=postsst=0ch=300t=0submit=Search
Re: [Vo]:Article about trip of andrea rossi to massachusetts from boston globe
Now it seems you can see it without signing up. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:Defkalion Announcement on Wednesday
This should be an interesting announcement. Dave -Original Message- From: Robert Leguillon robert.leguil...@hotmail.com To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Mon, Nov 28, 2011 1:30 pm Subject: [Vo]:Defkalion Announcement on Wednesday From the Defkalion forum: Dear all, We will release the expected info pre-announced on November 14th 2011, on Wednesday, November 30th 2011. Thank you for your attention Defkalion GT to search for Defkalion statements in their forum, use: http://www.defkalion-energy.com/forum/search.php?keywords=terms=allauthor=Defkalion+GTsc=1sf=allsk=tsd=dsr=postsst=0ch=300t=0submit=Search
Re: [Vo]:Article about trip of andrea rossi to massachusetts from boston globe
Hold on here . . . This link seems to work: http://bostonglobe.com/business/2011/11/28/hope-skepticism-for-cold-fusion/w7FgGyI9Zx432chxuD5BEL/story.html It looks the same but there must be some difference. I got this link from Google alerts. If the Googlebot can read it so can we. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:Rossi blog -- Hank Mills proposes a side-by-side blank test
On Nov 28, 2011, at 8:53 AM, Mary Yugo wrote: On Mon, Nov 28, 2011 at 9:44 AM, Giovanni Santostasi gsantost...@gmail.com wrote: Yes, I will sign up too. Alan we miss the bandwagon. I guess Mary is taking all the money. G You can have the Rossi business. I'm concentrating on debunking Hugh Deasy's antigravity machine. Boeing is paying me -- they'd be out of business if Deasy's machine could power airplanes. Deasy was (maybe still is) a vocal Steorn supporter. Deasy, who has an extensive education and an excellent job and should know better, does stuff like this supposed antigravity device: http://www.youtube.com/user/steornhugh#p/u/6/IWSl7P1iitQ This is his blog! http://hdeasy.blogspot.com/2009/12/steorn-demo- in-few-days.html That is so stupid I can't believe it. I have a commercially available toy robot bug that works using 6 vibrating legs, but moves 10 times as fast. Anybody ever heard of the difference between sliding and static friction? Best regards, Horace Heffner http://www.mtaonline.net/~hheffner/
Re: [Vo]:Elevated-temperature excess heat production in a Pd D system in 1991
peter.heck...@arcor.de wrote: I think, this says all. This guy is a professional electrochemist and without doubt he has 1000fold more possibilities than I. If he gave up, he has doubts himself. He gave up because he could not get funding. That is what he told me. This approach is expensive. He is certain the results were real. Most cold fusion research has been abandoned because the researchers could not get funding, or they retired or died. Not because they gave up. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:Article about trip of andrea rossi to massachusetts from boston globe
On Nov 28, 2011, at 9:44 AM, Jed Rothwell wrote: Hold on here . . . This link seems to work: http://bostonglobe.com/business/2011/11/28/hope-skepticism-for-cold- fusion/w7FgGyI9Zx432chxuD5BEL/story.html It looks the same but there must be some difference. I got this link from Google alerts. If the Googlebot can read it so can we. - Jed The photograph of Rossi is excellent! Cudos to the photographer. Wow. Note the American flag on Rossi's lapel. Perhaps he is looking for a new citizenship. Best regards, Horace Heffner http://www.mtaonline.net/~hheffner/
[Vo]:Concept car looks like a smart phone
Here is an extreme example of what I discussed in chapter 7 of my book: one technology imitating another. In this case Toyota is making cars that look like smart phones. See (in Japanese): http://www.yomiuri.co.jp/atmoney/news/2028-OYT1T01025.htm You can program your smart phone to display an image on the side panel of the car. It is sorta cute, but pointless. I cannot think of a reason why anyone would do that or what benefit it might have. Maybe for rolling advertisements? In this case we have one technology imitating an unrelated one. In most cases, new technology imitates the older version of the same thing. For example early word processors imitated typewriters. Designers do that because they think customers are used to the old version and that is what they want. The demand for an imitation of the old technology does not last long. People soon get used to the new version and they want it instead. The president of Toyota, Mr. Toyoda, says these cars will fun. Fun is not a high priority with me when it comes to transportation. this thing also has pop-up GPS with artificial intelligence enhancements such as a warning when you are about to whack into another car. You would probably need that if you are busy with your smartphone designing a new display for your side panel. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:Brian Ahern's 2011 USPTO patent application
There are two forces at work in the nucleus. The strong and the electromagnetic. In ordinary hot fusion only the static electrostatic repulsion and the static strong nuclear attraction are considered. There are other induced forces the electromagnetic and the dynamic strong nuclear spin orbit magnetic. These are never considered and may be mutable. An increase in the magnitude of the spin orbit would tend to flip nucleons and lead to beta decay. Magnetism is not conserved and is mutable. I am at work however nothing yet. Its not easy. I don't like Aherns patent application, he tries to patent everything from grain size to ultrasonic stimulation. What about the people who have pioneered and have been working with these techniques years ago? He needs to make an original contribution and patent that. Frank -Original Message- From: ecat builder ecatbuil...@gmail.com To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Mon, Nov 28, 2011 8:01 am Subject: Re: [Vo]:Brian Ahern's 2011 USPTO patent application Frank, If LENR is mostly beta decay, I'm not sure why its not work like a betavoltaic. It would be the killer app of the century. Please get to work. :) Who is spinning a turbine with LENR? MY, You are comments are snide, cantankerous and counter-productive. Its no wonder you're hiding behind a pseudonym. He didn't say people are spinning a turbine, he said they are generating heat _to_ spin a turbine. (future tense.) - Brad
Re: [Vo]:Brian Ahern's 2011 USPTO patent application
Bite me Brad! MY, You are comments are snide, cantankerous and counter-productive. -Original Message- From: ecat builder ecatbuil...@gmail.com To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Mon, Nov 28, 2011 8:01 am Subject: Re: [Vo]:Brian Ahern's 2011 USPTO patent application Frank, If LENR is mostly beta decay, I'm not sure why its not work like a betavoltaic. It would be the killer app of the century. Please get to work. :) Who is spinning a turbine with LENR? MY, You are comments are snide, cantankerous and counter-productive. Its no wonder you're hiding behind a pseudonym. He didn't say people are spinning a turbine, he said they are generating heat _to_ spin a turbine. (future tense.) - Brad
Re: [Vo]:Brian Ahern's 2011 USPTO patent application
fznidar...@aol.com wrote: Bite me Brad! MY, You are comments are snide, cantankerous and counter-productive. He meant Mary Yugo, not you. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:Brian Ahern's 2011 USPTO patent application
On Mon, Nov 28, 2011 at 11:43 AM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.comwrote: fznidar...@aol.com wrote: Bite me Brad! MY, You are comments are snide, cantankerous and counter-productive. He meant Mary Yugo, not you. Well, he can't bite me. He might have a disease.
Re: [Vo]:Brian Ahern's 2011 USPTO patent application
On Mon, Nov 28, 2011 at 3:00 PM, Mary Yugo maryyu...@gmail.com wrote: Well, he can't bite me. He might have a disease. You were going to let an alien bite you and you were going to BITE IT BACK! Talk about diseases . . . outta this world! T
Re: [Vo]:Rossi blog -- Hank Mills proposes a side-by-side blank test
I agree Horace. This is pathetic. Dave -Original Message- From: Horace Heffner hheff...@mtaonline.net To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Mon, Nov 28, 2011 1:45 pm Subject: Re: [Vo]:Rossi blog -- Hank Mills proposes a side-by-side blank test On Nov 28, 2011, at 8:53 AM, Mary Yugo wrote: On Mon, Nov 28, 2011 at 9:44 AM, Giovanni Santostasi gsantost...@gmail.com wrote: Yes, I will sign up too. Alan we miss the bandwagon. I guess Mary is taking all the money. G You can have the Rossi business. I'm concentrating on debunking Hugh Deasy's antigravity machine. Boeing is paying me -- they'd be out of business if Deasy's machine could power airplanes. Deasy was (maybe still is) a vocal Steorn supporter. Deasy, who has an extensive education and an excellent job and should know better, does stuff like this supposed antigravity device: http://www.youtube.com/user/steornhugh#p/u/6/IWSl7P1iitQ This is his blog! http://hdeasy.blogspot.com/2009/12/steorn-demo-in-few-days.html That is so stupid I can't believe it. I have a commercially available toy robot bug that works using 6 vibrating legs, but moves 10 times as fast. Anybody ever heard of the difference between sliding and static friction? Best regards, Horace Heffner http://www.mtaonline.net/~hheffner/
Re: [Vo]:Rossi blog -- Hank Mills proposes a side-by-side blank test
On Mon, Nov 28, 2011 at 12:54 PM, David Roberson dlrober...@aol.com wrote: I agree Horace. This is pathetic. Dave Deasy, IIRC, has a PhD in a physical science or engineering and is a flight dynamics specialist by profession. He supported Steorn and for all I know, still believes that have a free energy magnetic motor. He tried and failed to replicate it many times. I am not a supporter of guilt by association so I suppose it's a bit trivial that he also ardently supports Rossi: http://hdeasy.blogspot.com/
Re: [Vo]:Brian Ahern's 2011 USPTO patent application
Brad please accept my apology. I have worked hard and get slammed a lot. I have, through this, become a bit quick to react. Yes they want to make steam, however, with the positive thermal coefficient it is going to be difficult to control. Frank Znidarsic
Re: [Vo]:Rossi blog -- Hank Mills proposes a side-by-side blank test
Am 28.11.2011 22:01, schrieb Mary Yugo: On Mon, Nov 28, 2011 at 12:54 PM, David Roberson dlrober...@aol.com mailto:dlrober...@aol.com wrote: I agree Horace. This is pathetic. Dave Deasy, IIRC, has a PhD in a physical science or engineering and is a flight dynamics specialist by profession. He supported Steorn and for all I know, still believes that have a free energy magnetic motor. He tried and failed to replicate it many times. I am not a supporter of guilt by association so I suppose it's a bit trivial that he also ardently supports Rossi: http://hdeasy.blogspot.com/ Aah now I see, it this is this guy: http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_L50cxskxyQw/TKmSDtQ5iqI/BKw/4-Jfnncch1M/s1600/steorn_vid.JPG I think he supports it, because it work for him. Or would somebody do such a video without compensation? Believe pays off. If you are a high-priest of the cult.
[Vo]:NASA: Interesting LENR materials
Interesting NASA materials (I've posted a couple of these before): Contract Statement of Work for LENR Support: R12.1 Material investigations: The Contractor shall investigate properties of electromagnetic materials (EM) in support of the R4LENR (Low Energy Nuclear Reactions) project.R4 Modeling shall be performed using government owned COTS EM modeling packages R4to investigate resonant behavior of periodic structures at THz frequencies.R4 http://foia.larc.nasa.gov/CONTRACTS/NNL07AA00B/orders.pdf Advanced-to-Revolutionary Technology Options for Humans-Mars Other alternative high thrust in-space propulsion approaches include the afore-mentioned positrons, which, unlike anti-protons, are relatively inexpensive to manufacture, and produce only low energy gamma radiation which is easier to shield than neutrons. The major issue with positrons is long term storage, which is currently under active research by the USAF. There are also several even more exotic energetic possibilities including isomers, LENR’s [ low energy nuclear reactions] and even ZPE [zero point energy]. Isomers are potentially the order of 5 orders of magnitude greater than chemical in terms of energy density but viable triggering methods are not yet available. The LENR situation is in a major state of flux with recent apparently successful theoretical efforts and indications of much higher yields. There are currently several interesting approaches extant and under study to harvest ZPE [reference 4]. Success in such endeavors would literally change everything regarding power and energy in-the-large. Then there are tethers and the aneutronic fusion approaches, especially p-B11 and D-He3 Fusion, which again would have far lower shielding weights than fission nuclear or conventional D-T Fusion systems. The concept of utilizing anti-protons as ICF [inertial confined fusion] triggers/igniters is also interesting. There are NASA Institute of Advanced Concepts studies of harvesting anti-protons from the magnetic fields around the Earth where they are captured from the solar wind. http://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi.ntrs.nasa.gov/20080008384_2008004081.pdf ___ Sonoluminescence Sonoluminescence has risen in the last decade to be a source of interest to those outside of the ultrasonic community in an effort to either understand the effect or to utilize some of its more interesting properties. The phenomena is defined as being the generation of light energy from sound waves, first discovered in the 1930’s as a by-product of early work on sonar. Originally thought to be a form of static electricity, this glow recently was found to be generated in extremely short duration flashes of much less than a billionth of a second by collapsing microscopic bubbles of air. The temperature generated in the collapsing bubbles is at least four times that of the surface of the sun. http://www.grc.nasa.gov/WWW/sensors/PhySen/docs/AIAA5596_JPC07.pdf __ LENR Tests conducted at NASA Glenn Research Center in 1989 and elsewhere consistently showed evidence of anomalous heat during gaseous loading and unloading deuterium into bulk palladium. At one time called “cold fusion,” now called “low-energy nuclear reactions” (LENR), such effects are now published in peer-reviewed journals and are gaining attention and mainstream respectability. The instrumentation expertise of NASA GRC is applied to improve the diagnostics for investigating the anomalous heat in LENR. http://www.grc.nasa.gov/WWW/sensors/PhySen/research.htm Still awaiting an upload of the presentation given at a LENR Workshop at NASA GRC in 2011 [available soon].
Re: [Vo]:Rossi blog -- Hank Mills proposes a side-by-side blank test
On Mon, Nov 28, 2011 at 1:19 PM, Peter Heckert peter.heck...@arcor.dewrote: Am 28.11.2011 22:01, schrieb Mary Yugo: Aah now I see, it this is this guy: http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_L50cxskxyQw/TKmSDtQ5iqI/BKw/4-Jfnncch1M/s1600/steorn_vid.JPGhttp://3.bp.blogspot.com/_L50cxskxyQw/TKmSDtQ5iqI/BKw/4-Jfnncch1M/s1600/steorn_vid.JPG I think he supports it, because it work for him. Or would somebody do such a video without compensation? Believe pays off. If you are a high-priest of the cult. I don't recall if there was proof, but it seemed clear that the endorsement of Steorn by Deasy and three engineers was paid for. The three engineers were dubbed the three blind mice on Steorn's forum in acknowledgement of the fairy tale as well as the wonderful original Bond movie Dr. No.
Re: [Vo]:Larsen, LENR in Lithium batteries and burn out IPhone
I suggest Rossi is more skilled in the art of understanding and controlling his reactors than anyone on the planet. He was there so his health was also at risk. It is a cheap shot to suggest to suggest he intentionally risked the others health. You were not were, so how can you judge? I do remember after that incident, he always started the reactor with nobody in the room. Why? I would think to protect them from a run away reactor on start up? AG On 11/29/2011 12:47 AM, peter.heck...@arcor.de wrote: So Rossi did not ask himself, if this result is possible? 120 kW is impossible with a tube boiler of this size and instead restarting it he should have questioned the measurement and the method. Ask an engineer skilled in the art. If this is true, the he risked their health or life by restarting it.
Re: [Vo]:bit.ly/cold-fusion
@Peter As an aside, please let me know how do you interpret Focardi's declaration that he does not know what Rossi's catayst is. I think the obvious interpretation is that Rossi invented it, and didn't tell Focardi. I think that's the official story anyway and I don't see anthing wrong with that? I have no opinion about who did the most work, and who was the most intelligent. I would buy your version pretty easily, but then, really, it doesn't matter. What matters for the world is that we get it to the mainstream, finally. @Noone Piantelli is like a person who discovers heavy crude oil. Andrea Rossi is the person who was able to refine it into high grade jet fuel, and use it to power an aircraft. I think both guys did great work, and many more will need to follow before we have a world powerd by cold fusion. There isn't one big name in oil, and the most famous or well known names aren't necessarily the ones who contributed the most. @Aussie Yes I agree, very interesting. If LENR really works at low energy it *must* be happening in nature already, and maybe also in some man-made processes that we didn't realize. There are reports on bacteria living on nickel,.. On Sun, Nov 27, 2011 at 2:02 PM, Alan Fletcher a...@well.com wrote: Rossi claims to have experimented with many materials. ISTR he said he tried one formula which gave a higher output than his current catalyst ... but it was too difficult to control.
Re: [Vo]:Larsen, LENR in Lithium batteries and burn out IPhone
On Mon, Nov 28, 2011 at 2:23 PM, Aussie Guy E-Cat aussieguy.e...@gmail.comwrote: I suggest Rossi is more skilled in the art of understanding and controlling his reactors than anyone on the planet. He was there so his health was also at risk. It is a cheap shot to suggest to suggest he intentionally risked the others health. You were not were, so how can you judge? I do remember after that incident, he always started the reactor with nobody in the room. Why? I would think to protect them from a run away reactor on start up? Rossi has written on his blog about having had many explosions. I want to see one (somewhere isolated where nobody can get hurt). That would be interesting ... and fun.
Re: [Vo]:Larsen, LENR in Lithium batteries and burn out IPhone
On Mon, Nov 28, 2011 at 5:39 PM, Mary Yugo maryyu...@gmail.com wrote: Rossi has written on his blog about having had many explosions. I want to see one (somewhere isolated where nobody can get hurt). That would be interesting ... and fun. I searched his responses on JoNP and never found him to use the word explosions. He did say that he destroyed up to a thousand reactors in testing his product; but, I never found where he said there was an explosion. Do you have a citation? Thanks! T
Re: [Vo]:Krivit provides details of deal Celani offered Rossi and Rossi's rejection of it
Patents in themselves give the inventor no real commercial protection unless they have the funds and time to defend it in court. Investors like to see patents, so maybe they do have a use. AG On 11/29/2011 3:46 AM, Alain dit le Cycliste wrote: experience of small companies owning patents, or small inventors owning patents, is that big corps usually find a way to get around, especially when collaborating with the inventor before. (It is why the inventor of smartcard get out of France, feeling abused by his big partner) I'm sure that Rossi won't be able to block similar devices if it works. patents are also used to block small companies, by fear of legal battle (that they will win, but after being bankrupted). I'm sure that if a big corp own a patent, no small will dare to innovate (alone) in the domain. il also helps big companies to block good (or bad) patent infrigement accusation, but making bad counter accusations... (see Apple/MS/intel/samsung battles) the expensive patent office are mostly useful for big corp, to maintain dominance of the big corp. strategic for the nation! small inventors seldom succeed alone, but there are some lucky guys.few. 2011/11/28 Mary Yugo maryyu...@gmail.com mailto:maryyu...@gmail.com So, if I understand you correctly, patent protection doesn't work. So why do we bother with an expensive patent office and all those millions (billions?) of patents?
Re: [Vo]:Larsen, LENR in Lithium batteries and burn out IPhone
On Mon, Nov 28, 2011 at 2:51 PM, Terry Blanton hohlr...@gmail.com wrote: On Mon, Nov 28, 2011 at 5:39 PM, Mary Yugo maryyu...@gmail.com wrote: Rossi has written on his blog about having had many explosions. I want to see one (somewhere isolated where nobody can get hurt). That would be interesting ... and fun. I searched his responses on JoNP and never found him to use the word explosions. He did say that he destroyed up to a thousand reactors in testing his product; but, I never found where he said there was an explosion. Do you have a citation? This is fairly typical -- I remember seeing him mention it several times: - Andrea Rossi July 13th, 2010 at 2:50 PMhttp://www.journal-of-nuclear-physics.com/?p=211cpage=2#comment-2614 Dear Prof. Celani, I am really pleased from the fact that you looked at our work. I know who you are and I thank you really for your attention. Our standard module consumes 500 watts and yields constantly and with absolute reliability, with no risks that radiations exit the reactor and with no risks of explosion, 4 kW. We obtained much higher efficiencies, as you can read on the Focardi-Rossi paper published on the Journal Of Nuclear Physics, but now I had to find a compromise to manufacture power plants with absolute reliability under the point of view of safety. The excess of energy follows a K= 8 at the moment. We reached a K 400, *but we got explosions.* I can get risks when I amk alone, but to sell a reliable product I have to go down to 8, right now. We are manufacturing a 1 MW plant made with 125 modules. With 1 g of Ni I got 750 kW. Again thank you for your attention. http://www.journal-of-nuclear-physics.com/?p=211 In addition to the mention of explosion, Rossi was gratified in July that Celani looked at this work. Now Celani is a snake because he made it easy for Rossi to get an easy and cheap and quick test of his device.
Re: [Vo]:Krivit provides details of deal Celani offered Rossi and Rossi's rejection of it
On Mon, Nov 28, 2011 at 3:12 PM, Aussie Guy E-Cat aussieguy.e...@gmail.comwrote: Patents in themselves give the inventor no real commercial protection unless they have the funds and time to defend it in court. Investors like to see patents, so maybe they do have a use. Rossi could patent the secret sauce -- it's just the sort of thing one can patent effectively and he's not tried to.
[Vo]:Put your money where your mouth is - for charity
Hi all, I have set up a long bet on a well respected website where the money from both sides go to charity. If you have a strong opinion on either side of this debate, you can challenge this prediction and turn it into a bet. (Minimum $200). The prediction is: By November 30th 02013, Andrea Rossi's E-Cat technology will be widely accepted to produce a COP of 6 or above The money will go to your nominated charity. Read more at http://longbets.org/618/ Regards, Patrick
Re: [Vo]:Larsen, LENR in Lithium batteries and burn out IPhone
http://www.e-catworld.com/2011/04/rossi-says-that-over-the-years-has-blown-up-37-e-cats/ One of the questioner asked, “Another fun question: How many reactors have you blown up? (You have experimented to determine the safest size/pressures/temperatures. Stress testing is important!)” Rossi’s answer: “37 (all recorded, with the supposed reasons of the event)” http://www.journal-of-nuclear-physics.com/?p=473#comments He also said regarding safety: “The replication of the effect along the patent has to be made by professionals. It is dangerous, if made by amateurs, because there are explosion dangers and because the nickel powders are toxic. The manipulations must be made in professional laboratories, with professional protection devices (http://www.nyteknik.se/nyheter/energi_miljo/energi/article3124295.ece) Mary Yugo maryyu...@gmail.com wrote: On Mon, Nov 28, 2011 at 2:51 PM, Terry Blanton hohlr...@gmail.com wrote: On Mon, Nov 28, 2011 at 5:39 PM, Mary Yugo maryyu...@gmail.com wrote: Rossi has written on his blog about having had many explosions. I want to see one (somewhere isolated where nobody can get hurt). That would be interesting ... and fun. I searched his responses on JoNP and never found him to use the word explosions. He did say that he destroyed up to a thousand reactors in testing his product; but, I never found where he said there was an explosion. Do you have a citation? This is fairly typical -- I remember seeing him mention it several times: - Andrea Rossi July 13th, 2010 at 2:50 PMhttp://www.journal-of-nuclear-physics.com/?p=211cpage=2#comment-2614 Dear Prof. Celani, I am really pleased from the fact that you looked at our work. I know who you are and I thank you really for your attention. Our standard module consumes 500 watts and yields constantly and with absolute reliability, with no risks that radiations exit the reactor and with no risks of explosion, 4 kW. We obtained much higher efficiencies, as you can read on the Focardi-Rossi paper published on the Journal Of Nuclear Physics, but now I had to find a compromise to manufacture power plants with absolute reliability under the point of view of safety. The excess of energy follows a K= 8 at the moment. We reached a K 400, *but we got explosions.* I can get risks when I amk alone, but to sell a reliable product I have to go down to 8, right now. We are manufacturing a 1 MW plant made with 125 modules. With 1 g of Ni I got 750 kW. Again thank you for your attention. http://www.journal-of-nuclear-physics.com/?p=211 In addition to the mention of explosion, Rossi was gratified in July that Celani looked at this work. Now Celani is a snake because he made it easy for Rossi to get an easy and cheap and quick test of his device.
Re: [Vo]:Put your money where your mouth is - for charity
Good idea but you need tighter and way more specific criteria for how the bet can be won or lost. Widely accepted is sort of vague and loose. How about: - said to have been properly tested and said to work by fusion or LENR as advertised and with the net energy quotient quoted by Rossi (6:1 or better) for prolonged periods (weeks or months) by not less than two major US universities or government labs as an official pronouncement with appropriate news articles appearing in major newspapers and the AP wires. - or marketed by fortune 500 companies or their equivalent in size -- after more than 10,000 people have purchased the item and have had it for at least 3 months with no significant numbers of complaints have been lodged that it does not meet specifications. Or something like that. On Mon, Nov 28, 2011 at 3:30 PM, Patrick Ellul ellulpatr...@gmail.comwrote: Hi all, I have set up a long bet on a well respected website where the money from both sides go to charity. If you have a strong opinion on either side of this debate, you can challenge this prediction and turn it into a bet. (Minimum $200). The prediction is: By November 30th 02013, Andrea Rossi's E-Cat technology will be widely accepted to produce a COP of 6 or above The money will go to your nominated charity. Read more at http://longbets.org/618/ Regards, Patrick
Re: [Vo]:Krivit provides details of deal Celani offered Rossi and Rossi's rejection of it
And how do you know that is the case? I would suggest he has. Even better to do it as a provisional. Rossi then gets another 12 months to keep it secret yet establishes a worldwide priority date. AG On 11/29/2011 9:51 AM, Mary Yugo wrote: On Mon, Nov 28, 2011 at 3:12 PM, Aussie Guy E-Cat aussieguy.e...@gmail.com mailto:aussieguy.e...@gmail.com wrote: Patents in themselves give the inventor no real commercial protection unless they have the funds and time to defend it in court. Investors like to see patents, so maybe they do have a use. Rossi could patent the secret sauce -- it's just the sort of thing one can patent effectively and he's not tried to.
Re: [Vo]:Larsen, LENR in Lithium batteries and burn out IPhone
BTW, the most random two-digit number is 37. When groups of people are polled to pick a “random number between 1 and 100”, the most commonly chosen number is 37. I'm not saying that he just pulled the number out of thin air. I'm saying that, if he were to pull a number out of thin air, odds are, that number would be 37. Robert Leguillon robert.leguil...@hotmail.com wrote: http://www.e-catworld.com/2011/04/rossi-says-that-over-the-years-has-blown-up-37-e-cats/ One of the questioner asked, “Another fun question: How many reactors have you blown up? (You have experimented to determine the safest size/pressures/temperatures. Stress testing is important!)” Rossi’s answer: “37 (all recorded, with the supposed reasons of the event)” http://www.journal-of-nuclear-physics.com/?p=473#comments He also said regarding safety: “The replication of the effect along the patent has to be made by professionals. It is dangerous, if made by amateurs, because there are explosion dangers and because the nickel powders are toxic. The manipulations must be made in professional laboratories, with professional protection devices (http://www.nyteknik.se/nyheter/energi_miljo/energi/article3124295.ece) Mary Yugo maryyu...@gmail.com wrote: On Mon, Nov 28, 2011 at 2:51 PM, Terry Blanton hohlr...@gmail.com wrote: On Mon, Nov 28, 2011 at 5:39 PM, Mary Yugo maryyu...@gmail.com wrote: Rossi has written on his blog about having had many explosions. I want to see one (somewhere isolated where nobody can get hurt). That would be interesting ... and fun. I searched his responses on JoNP and never found him to use the word explosions. He did say that he destroyed up to a thousand reactors in testing his product; but, I never found where he said there was an explosion. Do you have a citation? This is fairly typical -- I remember seeing him mention it several times: - Andrea Rossi July 13th, 2010 at 2:50 PMhttp://www.journal-of-nuclear-physics.com/?p=211cpage=2#comment-2614 Dear Prof. Celani, I am really pleased from the fact that you looked at our work. I know who you are and I thank you really for your attention. Our standard module consumes 500 watts and yields constantly and with absolute reliability, with no risks that radiations exit the reactor and with no risks of explosion, 4 kW. We obtained much higher efficiencies, as you can read on the Focardi-Rossi paper published on the Journal Of Nuclear Physics, but now I had to find a compromise to manufacture power plants with absolute reliability under the point of view of safety. The excess of energy follows a K= 8 at the moment. We reached a K 400, *but we got explosions.* I can get risks when I amk alone, but to sell a reliable product I have to go down to 8, right now. We are manufacturing a 1 MW plant made with 125 modules. With 1 g of Ni I got 750 kW. Again thank you for your attention. http://www.journal-of-nuclear-physics.com/?p=211 In addition to the mention of explosion, Rossi was gratified in July that Celani looked at this work. Now Celani is a snake because he made it easy for Rossi to get an easy and cheap and quick test of his device.
Re: [Vo]:Put your money where your mouth is - for charity
Mary Yugo is correct. The term widely accepted to produce a COP of 6 could mean anything depending on the observer and testing methodology. By many accounts in this forum, many of whom are textually prolific, it is already widely accepted. On Mon, Nov 28, 2011 at 6:30 PM, Patrick Ellul ellulpatr...@gmail.comwrote: .. The prediction is: By November 30th 02013, Andrea Rossi's E-Cat technology will be widely accepted to produce a COP of 6 or above.
[Vo]:New Energy Times - A Conversation With Thomas Blakeslee
An interesting conversation: http://newenergytimes.com/v2/sr/RossiECat/A-Conversation-With-Thomas-Blakeslee.shtml Is Krivit backing down a bit? AG
Re: [Vo]:Krivit provides details of deal Celani offered Rossi and Rossi's rejection of it
On Mon, Nov 28, 2011 at 3:47 PM, Aussie Guy E-Cat aussieguy.e...@gmail.comwrote: And how do you know that is the case? I would suggest he has. Even better to do it as a provisional. Rossi then gets another 12 months to keep it secret yet establishes a worldwide priority date. How do I know what is the case? That he hasn't? If he had filed for a patent, someone would have found it and posted it. Also, he would not be worried about having the device properly tested.
Re: [Vo]:Larsen, LENR in Lithium batteries and burn out IPhone
On Mon, Nov 28, 2011 at 3:50 PM, Robert Leguillon robert.leguil...@hotmail.com wrote: BTW, the most random two-digit number is 37. Hilarious!
Re: [Vo]:New Energy Times - A Conversation With Thomas Blakeslee
AG, Krivit has staked his reputation upon Rossi being a scammer and I have seen nothing to suggest that he believes otherwise. It all began with that June demonstration where Rossi made an attempt to snow Krivit. Krivit detected the games that Rossi was playing and tried to trap him and his friends. The trap backfired but Krivit does not seem to realize that to this day. Dave -Original Message- From: Aussie Guy E-Cat aussieguy.e...@gmail.com To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Mon, Nov 28, 2011 7:01 pm Subject: [Vo]:New Energy Times - A Conversation With Thomas Blakeslee An interesting conversation: ttp://newenergytimes.com/v2/sr/RossiECat/A-Conversation-With-Thomas-Blakeslee.shtml Is Krivit backing down a bit? AG
Re: [Vo]:Put your money where your mouth is - for charity
Widely recognized could mean that Fleishman and Pons and/or Rossi will get the nobel prize in 2013. High temperature conductivity, which is a much lesse expressive discovery, got within 1 year. If a couple customers confirm that e-cat works, which, if not a scam, is certainly going to happen within 1 year from this post. 2011/11/28 Ahsoka Tano ashot...@gmail.com Mary Yugo is correct. The term widely accepted to produce a COP of 6 could mean anything depending on the observer and testing methodology. By many accounts in this forum, many of whom are textually prolific, it is already widely accepted. On Mon, Nov 28, 2011 at 6:30 PM, Patrick Ellul ellulpatr...@gmail.comwrote: .. The prediction is: By November 30th 02013, Andrea Rossi's E-Cat technology will be widely accepted to produce a COP of 6 or above. -- Daniel Rocha - RJ danieldi...@gmail.com
[Vo]:Next customer -- public, NE USA
Andrea Rossi November 28th, 2011 at 6:48 PM November 28th, 2011 at 6:48 PM Dear Herb Gills: Today we sold in the USA a 1 MW plant which will go to a normal Customer. This installation will be visitable by the qualified public. We wait to have completed the contractual procedure through the attorneys, then we will give communication. It will be in the North East of the USA, where I have been in these days. Warm Regards AR (lenr.qumbu.com -- analyzing the Rossi/Focardi eCat -- Hi, google!)
Re: [Vo]:Put your money where your mouth is - for charity
Mary Yugo, Would you take up the challenge if I state the terms to be: More than 5 companies with at least 50 employees each publicly acknowledge the satisfactory use of E-Cat for at least 3 months Let me know, Patrick On Tue, Nov 29, 2011 at 11:20 AM, Daniel Rocha danieldi...@gmail.comwrote: Widely recognized could mean that Fleishman and Pons and/or Rossi will get the nobel prize in 2013. High temperature conductivity, which is a much lesse expressive discovery, got within 1 year. If a couple customers confirm that e-cat works, which, if not a scam, is certainly going to happen within 1 year from this post. 2011/11/28 Ahsoka Tano ashot...@gmail.com Mary Yugo is correct. The term widely accepted to produce a COP of 6 could mean anything depending on the observer and testing methodology. By many accounts in this forum, many of whom are textually prolific, it is already widely accepted. On Mon, Nov 28, 2011 at 6:30 PM, Patrick Ellul ellulpatr...@gmail.comwrote: .. The prediction is: By November 30th 02013, Andrea Rossi's E-Cat technology will be widely accepted to produce a COP of 6 or above. -- Daniel Rocha - RJ danieldi...@gmail.com -- Patrick www.tRacePerfect.com The daily puzzle everyone can finish but not everyone can perfect! The quickest puzzle ever!
[Vo]:Energy-stress tensor of the sun
Hi Can anyone help me to find it? David David Jonsson, Sweden, phone callto:+46703000370
Re: [Vo]:Large Temperature Increase of Core Not Required for 6 to 1 Output Delta
It appears there is debate here similar to the historic philosophical debate about how many angels can sit on the head of pin, when it is not determined the size or nature of the pin and whether angels exist. I am responding to this only to bring some clarity to what it is I am doing though it is largely explained in my review here: http://www.mtaonline.net/~hheffner/Rossi6Oct2011Review.pdf My response may be limited in relevancy to the discussion, because I am including mechanisms in my analysis which might be part of a fake device. Responding to this kind of debate only detracts from my ability to make progress, so I do not wish to engage in any kind of discussion or the debate. I have been working with 2005 level hardware and software, and am now in the process of a major hardware and software upgrade. This is a huge learning effort for my old crystalized brain, and I am in my tax planning and preparation time. It will be some time before I post my findings. 1. One model of the basic structure of the E-cat consists of: (a) an outer insulated box, outer box, with water inlet at the bottom front left, and a steam/water outlet at the top rear, dimensions roughly 34.9 cm x 48.5 cm x 33.5 cm, (b) an inner 30x30x30 cm box (about 3.3 cm of the top taken up by cooling fins), inner box, connected to the outside through the front of the outer box via 4 pipe conduits to the the outside of the outer box, (c) one (or more) reactor (or at least hydrogen) containment box(es), reactor box, or just reactor, said to be roughly 20x20x1 cm, and connected to the outside through one of the pipe conduits, for loading hydrogen under pressure, (d) two water ingress ports, located below the large flanges which are used to blolt the top and bottom segments of the inner box together, such port water flow controlled by power tapped from either or both the heater power or the frequency generator power, (e) steam vent ports located just under the cap to which the finns are attached and which is positioned over the top of the inner box with some overhang on the left and right sides. As noted on page 8-9 of my review, the test data requires (1) a large thermal storage, possibly about 11 MJ, as evidenced by a large amount of energy going into the E-cat without corresponding amounts coming out, and (2) a large thermal resistance to enable the retainment of the electric energy supplied for the durations required. Given the outer box contains water which would be immediately converted to steam upon exposure to the large amount of electrical power input, it is apparent that a significant part of both the thermal insulation required, and the thermal mass required, are located inside the inner box. These facts are independent of whether a nuclear reactor exists inside the inner box or not. I have thus far assumed no phase change is involved in the inner box thermal storage, but that is likely a false assumption. This assumption was made in part because it seemed to me logical to use such a thermal mass, comprised of a mix of metal and ceramic slabs, to achieve thermal stability for a reactor. It is thus a neutral decision with regards to fake, no fake, etc. There is necessarily a thermal gradient between the resistance heaters and the water. A reactor can be located anywhere in this gradient, in order to achieve ideal mean operating temperature. This obviously can be achieved by including slabs of material between the electric heaters and the rector, and then between the reactor and the water. There are clearly also other means of sustaining an ideal temperature. As noted in my review, there is evidence in the data of a control influence of the power applied vs the heat out, regarding both the heater power applied, and the frequency generator power applied. In other words, the effective amount of insulation between the water and the large thermal mass appears to vary with the power applied to the device. This control influence has an inverse relationship, in inverse relationship between power applied and thermal flux, as I have noted. The lower the power applied, the higher the thermal output, i.e the lower the effective thermal resistance. This kind of relationship can be achieved using small, normally open, solenoid activated valves, to permit water access from the outside box into the inside box. There are other means, such as variation of slab separation gaps, to similarly control thermal flux. I also have noted the possibility of use of a thermal transfer fluid (other than water) to achieve control of the thermal flux from the thermal mass to the water. Based on these assumptions, the outer box can be viewed primarily as a water storage device which collects any (uncontrolled) leakage heat escaping from the inner box. The inner box then is where the primary
[Vo]:ZENN Trading Halted Pending News
http://tmx.quotemedia.com/article.php?newsid=4783244qm_symbol=ZNN:CA Market Regulation Services - Trading Halt - Feel Good Cars Corp. - ZNN VANCOUVER, Jan. 18 /CNW/ - The following issues have been halted by Market Regulation Services (RS): Issuer Name: Feel Good Cars Corp. TSX-V Ticker Symbol: ZNN Time of Halt: 9:58 EST Reason for Halt: Pending News end EEStor related? I wouldn't get my hopes up. T
Re: [Vo]:Put your money where your mouth is - for charity
Let me think about. They'd have to be verifiable as unrelated to Rossi and unconnected in any way other than as a client. Rossi probably has 5 companies and he can make any claims through them as he wants to -- for example Leonardo and Ampenergo so I don't think so. If this thing is real, it will be widely acclaimed so you should have no worries with my previous suggestion. On Mon, Nov 28, 2011 at 4:34 PM, Patrick Ellul ellulpatr...@gmail.comwrote: Mary Yugo, Would you take up the challenge if I state the terms to be: More than 5 companies with at least 50 employees each publicly acknowledge the satisfactory use of E-Cat for at least 3 months Let me know, Patrick
Re: [Vo]:Krivit provides details of deal Celani offered Rossi and Rossi's rejection of it
Provisionals do not have high visibility. I know. I use them. On 11/29/2011 10:46 AM, Mary Yugo wrote: On Mon, Nov 28, 2011 at 3:47 PM, Aussie Guy E-Cat aussieguy.e...@gmail.com mailto:aussieguy.e...@gmail.com wrote: And how do you know that is the case? I would suggest he has. Even better to do it as a provisional. Rossi then gets another 12 months to keep it secret yet establishes a worldwide priority date. How do I know what is the case? That he hasn't? If he had filed for a patent, someone would have found it and posted it. Also, he would not be worried about having the device properly tested.
Re: [Vo]:ZENN Trading Halted Pending News
At 04:51 PM 11/28/2011, Terry Blanton wrote: EEStor related? I wouldn't get my hopes up. http://finance.yahoo.com/q?s=ZNN.V Peaked at 25% up from 10am -- coulda made a killing! (If I had any stock). Volume: 148,044
Re: [Vo]:Next customer -- public, NE USA
Way to go Rossi. Congratulations. Bit sad they beat us but then we need Ac kWs. AG On 11/29/2011 11:03 AM, Alan J Fletcher wrote: Andrea Rossi November 28th, 2011 at 6:48 PM http://translate.googleusercontent.com/translate_c?hl=enrurl=translate.google.comsl=ittl=entwu=1u=http://www.journal-of-nuclear-physics.com/%3Fp%3D510%26cpage%3D35usg=ALkJrhiMJ78iKw-FeS86_xHNY13ShleGNA#comment-133743 November 28th, 2011 at 6:48 PM http://translate.googleusercontent.com/translate_c?hl=enrurl=translate.google.comsl=ittl=entwu=1u=http://www.journal-of-nuclear-physics.com/%3Fp%3D510%26cpage%3D35usg=ALkJrhiMJ78iKw-FeS86_xHNY13ShleGNA#comment-133743 Dear Herb Gills: Today we sold in the USA a 1 MW plant which will go to a normal Customer. This installation will be visitable by the qualified public. We wait to have completed the contractual procedure through the attorneys, then we will give communication. It will be in the North East of the USA, where I have been in these days. Warm Regards AR (lenr.qumbu.com -- analyzing the Rossi/Focardi eCat -- Hi, google!)
Re: [Vo]:NASA: Interesting LENR materials
Thanks, Robert And, here is some forgotten LENR evidence from 1951 -- Lattice Energy LLC-LENRs ca 1950s-Sternglass Expts-Einstein Bethe-Nov 25 2011 http://www.slideshare.net/lewisglarsen/lattice-energy-llclenrs-ca-1950ssternglass-exptseinstein-bethenov-25-2011 Maybe established theory has always trumped empirical results? Interesting NASA materials (I've posted a couple of these before): Contract Statement of Work for LENR Support: R12.1 Material investigations: The Contractor shall investigate properties of electromagnetic materials (EM) in support of the R4LENR (Low Energy Nuclear Reactions) project.R4 Modeling shall be performed using government owned COTS EM modeling packages R4to investigate resonant behavior of periodic structures at THz frequencies.R4 http://foia.larc.nasa.gov/CONTRACTS/NNL07AA00B/orders.pdf Advanced-to-Revolutionary Technology Options for Humans-Mars Other alternative high thrust in-space propulsion approaches include the afore-mentioned positrons, which, unlike anti-protons, are relatively inexpensive to manufacture, and produce only low energy gamma radiation which is easier to shield than neutrons. The major issue with positrons is long term storage, which is currently under active research by the USAF. There are also several even more exotic energetic possibilities including isomers, LENRs [ low energy nuclear reactions] and even ZPE [zero point energy]. Isomers are potentially the order of 5 orders of magnitude greater than chemical in terms of energy density but viable triggering methods are not yet available. The LENR situation is in a major state of flux with recent apparently successful theoretical efforts and indications of much higher yields. There are currently several interesting approaches extant and under study to harvest ZPE [reference 4]. Success in such endeavors would literally change everything regarding power and energy in-the-large. Then there are tethers and the aneutronic fusion approaches, especially p-B11 and D-He3 Fusion, which again would have far lower shielding weights than fission nuclear or conventional D-T Fusion systems. The concept of utilizing anti-protons as ICF [inertial confined fusion] triggers/igniters is also interesting. There are NASA Institute of Advanced Concepts studies of harvesting anti-protons from the magnetic fields around the Earth where they are captured from the solar wind. http://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi.ntrs.nasa.gov/20080008384_2008004081.pdf ___ Sonoluminescence Sonoluminescence has risen in the last decade to be a source of interest to those outside of the ultrasonic community in an effort to either understand the effect or to utilize some of its more interesting properties. The phenomena is defined as being the generation of light energy from sound waves, first discovered in the 1930s as a by-product of early work on sonar. Originally thought to be a form of static electricity, this glow recently was found to be generated in extremely short duration flashes of much less than a billionth of a second by collapsing microscopic bubbles of air. The temperature generated in the collapsing bubbles is at least four times that of the surface of the sun. http://www.grc.nasa.gov/WWW/sensors/PhySen/docs/AIAA5596_JPC07.pdf __ LENR Tests conducted at NASA Glenn Research Center in 1989 and elsewhere consistently showed evidence of anomalous heat during gaseous loading and unloading deuterium into bulk palladium. At one time called cold fusion, now called low-energy nuclear reactions (LENR), such effects are now published in peer-reviewed journals and are gaining attention and mainstream respectability. The instrumentation expertise of NASA GRC is applied to improve the diagnostics for investigating the anomalous heat in LENR. http://www.grc.nasa.gov/WWW/sensors/PhySen/research.htm Still awaiting an upload of the presentation given at a LENR Workshop at NASA GRC in 2011 [available soon].
Re: [Vo]:Put your money where your mouth is - for charity
Ok, so let's change it to: More than 10 companies with at least 50 employees and that Rossi has no ownership of, each publicly acknowledge the satisfactory use of E-Cat for at least 3 months So? On Tue, Nov 29, 2011 at 11:59 AM, Mary Yugo maryyu...@gmail.com wrote: Let me think about. They'd have to be verifiable as unrelated to Rossi and unconnected in any way other than as a client. Rossi probably has 5 companies and he can make any claims through them as he wants to -- for example Leonardo and Ampenergo so I don't think so. If this thing is real, it will be widely acclaimed so you should have no worries with my previous suggestion. On Mon, Nov 28, 2011 at 4:34 PM, Patrick Ellul ellulpatr...@gmail.comwrote: Mary Yugo, Would you take up the challenge if I state the terms to be: More than 5 companies with at least 50 employees each publicly acknowledge the satisfactory use of E-Cat for at least 3 months Let me know, Patrick -- Patrick www.tRacePerfect.com The daily puzzle everyone can finish but not everyone can perfect! The quickest puzzle ever!
