Re: [Vo]:Will tests surface mounted thermocouples on pipe
I think it is not necessary to test something that is known and expected from theory and experience. If there is no thermal flow, then there are no temperature differences, this is known from physics. So especially when the measurment location is wrapped with thermal isolation a thermoelement fitted on a tube or on a hose will measure the water temperature. The only necessary condition for this is: the thermal coupling to the water must be stronger than the thermal coupling to environment. It is necessary to think about unexpected effects: It is clear, in Rossis setup there was a thermal flow and an unwanted temperature difference close to the thermoelement. If the steam inlet was 100 degree and the water outlet was 20 degree then inbetween in the middle symmetry point the temperature MUST be (100+20)/2 = 60 degrees. This is simple to see from the symmetry. This 60 degree location was definitely too close to the thermoelement. It is a waste of time to discuss this, because a skilled engineer would easily recognize and would avoid such a unclear situation. It is also clear, a thermoelement must not have /multiple/ undefined and unknown electrical contact to the environment in a multichannel measurement system. Its a waste of time to discuss this, because it can be easily avoided. Best regards, Peter - Original Nachricht Von: Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com An: vortex-l@eskimo.com Datum: 08.12.2011 00:04 Betreff: [Vo]:Will tests surface mounted thermocouples on pipe I wrote: Try placing at thermocouple on a hot pipe, in various spots, under various covers. You will find the differences are insignificant. I did this years ago, working at Hydrodynamics. I happen to have a nice dual input thermocouple, with a T1 - T2 mode, so I will try it again with a copper hot water pipe, with and without insulation and so on. I will do this under the kitchen sink. Varying water temperatures do not matter because I am looking for a difference between T1 and T1 (when they are mounted differently), and the response is quick. I have insulated all of the hot water pipes in my house foam pipe insulation. Look it up at Lowe's. It works remarkably well. Anyway, I'll try it with and without that, in air, under bubble wrap and a few other ways. I have different kinds of probes too. I use a shielded probe for cooking turkey. I'll just use the regular ones for this test. I can compare the actual fluid temp to the pipe temp if you like. I'll bet it is the same to within 0.3 deg C. You people should do stuff like this, instead of blabbing for weeks at a time about magic pots full of water that do not cool down. - Jed
[Vo]:takahashi's electron capture
Krivit has put up the abstract for Takahashi's paper at the JCF-12 meeting. In it he proposes a WL-like electron capture by a proton. He claims the energy threshold for this reaction is 272 keV, and that it is exceeded by 600 keV electrons in his magic lattice. Could someone explain how they get a threshold for electron capture by a proton to be 272 keV. The Q-value is clearly ((p + e) - n)) = -782 keV. The difference is the mass of the electron (511 keV), so it seems as if they're counting the mass of the electron twice (1022 keV), but I don't see justification for that. Check any chart of the nuclides or decay scheme to see the Q-value for the spontaneous reverse reaction (n -- p + e) is 782 keV. And even Widom and Larsen give the required mass of the electron as 2.53 times the rest mass, meaning it needs an additional kinetic energy of 1.53*.511 keV = 782 keV. Secondly, why, if it is possible to give electrons 600 keV in ordinary matter near room temperature, shouldn't it be much easier to give deuterons 100 keV to enable ordinary fusion?
RE: [Vo]:Attenuation of decay rate in E-Cat
Axil: Let me take a stab at your question: Why should coherent protons be any better at thermalizing gamma radiation than ordinary protons? (Especially if that coherence is limited to pairs). The coherent photons are acting as a resonant antenna. I'm sure many have played around with resonant circuits, and antennas. Coupling of energy from the radiowave into an antenna requires a harmonic match. At the end of my comments is an excerpt from research into how quantum coherence in plant biology operates to achieve very high efficiencies in the energy transfer in photosynthetic proteins. My recent readings only enhance my suspicions that resonances (i.e., coherence) are fundamental to LENR and why the channeling of the nuclear energies goes into much lower energy (thermal) 'sinks' instead of coming out as high energy particles. In normal condensed matter, there is little to no real coherence which is harmonically related to the energy packets coming out of a nuclear process, thus, that packet of energy exits the condensed matter before being absorbed (coupled) into other energetic elements of the condensed matter. no resonant antennas to receive the energy. The normal picture of coherence in bulk matter, is basically, none. Non-coherence. There is some, but what does exist is very fleeting in time and not spatially localized; it's just randomly happening in small areas, all throughout the bulk matter, and only for very short times. Thus, there is a extremely small chance that a particular fleeting instance of quantum coherence will be in the same location as a burst of a quantum of nuclear energy passes by on its way out of the bulk matter. Thus, extremely low probability of any interaction; of any transfer of energy. Note this statement from the excerpt below, These coherences therefore dephase before even the fastest energy transfer timescales Coherence also influences 'interferences', both destructive and constructive. Note specifically this statement from the excerpt below, destructive interference in a coherent system might disallow transfer to a trap state or constructive interference might enhance transport to the target state. So quantum coherence can indeed affect energy coupling/transfer from one energy level to another. Any method to create long-lasting (i.e., stable) areas of quantum coherence (i.e., resonant antennas) within condensed matter that hang around long enough to get hit by quanta ejected from nuclear processes, will act to channel/couple the expelled nuclear energies into the lattice instead of that energy exiting the bulk matter as gammas or neutrons or the typical particles expected from hot fusion. Summary: Just think of quantum coherences as resonant antennas, but blinking in and out of existence throughout the bulk matter. Very low probability for any energy transfer from nuclear ejecta, thus ejecta exit bulk matter intact. Find a way to create coherences that are harmonically related to the nuclear ejecta, and which hang around long enough to get hit by those ejecta often, and you will have drastically altered the branching ratios one would expect from 'normal' hot fusion. -mark Coherence, therefore is a relatively fleeting quantity. In photosynthetic complexes, the coherence between ground and excited states that is excited by the optical field persists for only 70fs at 77K (liquid nitrogen) and about 20fs at room temperature [18]. These coherences therefore dephase before even the fastest energy transfer timescales (about 150-300 fs) become relevant. However, coherences between excited states apparently persist much longer based on experimental observations. Such coherences are created by any fast excitation process, which by definition will not commute with the Hamiltonian and will generally couple the ground state to multiple excited states. Ultrafast laser pulses have this property, but so will other forms of excitations such as spatially localized hopping processes. Before the coherence among excited states dephases, the excitation maintains a superposition character and does not yet behave like a simple mixture of excited states. While not a formal definition of coherence, this notion of superposition character provides a simple interpretation for the observable effects resulting from quantum coherence. In particular, quantum beating in observables that do not commute with the Hamiltonian is a direct consequence of this superposition character. Perhaps less obvious, yet equally enlightening is the effect of quantum interference. Whenever the ensemble maintains some average phase, interference - either constructive or destructive - must be considered. For example, destructive interference in a coherent system might disallow transfer to a trap state or constructive interference might enhance transport to the target state. This effect arises because
[Vo]:Nasa Patents Method to Create Heavy Electrons
I just became aware of this. Zawodny, working for Nasa, has recently patented a method to create heavy electrons used to produce the cold fusion effect from the Widom-Larsen theory. http://tinyurl.com/7sffvkc http://tinyurl.com/7nznmhz Heavy electrons exhibit properties such as unconventional superconductivity, weak antiferromagnetism, and pseudo metamagnetism. More recently, the energy associated with low energy nuclear reactions (LENR) has been linked to the production of heavy electrons. Briefly, this theory put forth by Widom and Larsen states that the initiation of LENR activity is due to the coupling of surface plasmon polaritons (SPPs) to a proton or deuteron resonance in the lattice of a metal hydride. The theory goes on to describe the production of heavy electron that undergo electron capture by a proton. This activity produces a neutron that is subsequently captured by a nearby atom transmuting it into a new element and releasing positive net energy in the process Here's a repost of the Lewis Larsen interview from July. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OVRLcC21F14 Craig Haynie Manchester, NH
Re: [Vo]:Brian Ahern presentation with comments
On 2011-12-08 05:53, Aussie Guy E-Cat wrote: http://citi5.org/launch/wp-content/uploads/2011/12/Energy-Localization-No8-11.ppt It appears you can see the notes only if you DON'T view the slides in presentation mode. This might not be possible on all programs that can read this file. For clarity, I'm copy/pasting them here from each slide: 01) Nature has evolved in a narrow size regime below 12 nanometers to take maximal advantage of an energy exchange mechanism that is not available at larger dimensions. 02) The 2nd Law of Thermodynamics invariably leads to an increase in entropy and order moves towards disorder. That is not true for biological systems. Why not? 03) The mass of the nuclei are thousands of times more massive than the electrons, so their motions can be treated separately in most cases. As heat is added the vibrational amplitude increases slightly. The amplitude of vibration increases only a little. 04) As you can see these potential wells are very broad and shallow. They are no longer simple parabolas . As a result the nuclei move over much larger distances. These kinds of potential wells define all superconductors including PdD, PdH, NiH etc. The hydrogen nuclei undergo massive nonlinear oscillations while the metal lattice undergoes small amplitude, high frequency oscillations. 05) The white puck at the bottom is a high temperature superconductor. This photo was taken in 1987. The nuclei in superconductors do not vibrate like most solids They undergo very large amplitude oscillations. Levitating a magnet above the materials is simply the easiest method for verifying the superconducting state. These materials were highly touted in 1987, but I do not know of a single commercial product that uses them. 06) In 1953 Enrico Fermi was simply testing out the operation of one of the country’s first computers called MAINIC I. They gave it a simple mathematical-Physics problem of finding the average energy of a one-dimensional array of harmonic oscillators. With their simple linear assumptions each of the masses acquired roughly the same amount of vibrational energy. This was the anticipated result and it verified one of Thermodynamics basic tenets, The Equipartition of Energy. 07) Fermi’s colleague, Stanislau Ulam, decided to change the problem from simple harmonic motion by adding another term to the force equation. This made the problem nonlinear and the outcome was quite different. After thousands of periods of oscillation, they found that the vibrational energy was not equally shared. On the contrary, it was localized and focused to a small number of elements. The red arrow denotes locatios where the masses are ‘vibrationally cold’. These regions extract heat from the environment and ‘up-pump it’ to feed the large amplitude regions. This is a local reversal of the 2cd Law, not a global reversal. 08) hese two conditions are both necessary and sufficient. The elements can be atoms, BBs or hockey pucks The number of elements cannot be too large or too small. This is an ‘Intermediate Size Effect’. It is actually just a feedback effect that is not obvious beforehand. 09) Here is the cover story for Nature in August 1996. A Petrie dish full of BBs was electrostatically charged and the vibrational modes amplified in specific and repeatable locations. There was a countable number of BBs and the electrostatic charge provided some weak nonlinear coupling. There was no localization without the electrostatic charging. These large vibrational modes act like very hot spots and catalyze chemical reactions when the BBs are atoms. 10) All nanoparticles in this size regime will display energy localized vibrational modes. They will be able to catalyze energy transfers as if they were very hot, localized energy reservoirs. All enzymes have at least one of their dimensions in this size regime so they can efficiently carry out the building of ordered structures out of random chemical environments. 11) Enzymes for example are known as Nature’s catalysts. They accomplish their tasks with high efficiency and high specificity through this little known mechanism, Energy Llocalization. 12) Fireflies are an excellent example of highly efficient energy transfer at the nanoscale. The Luciferase enzyme converts ATP into visible light with nearly 100% efficiency. Similarly, Nature’s solar cell is Photosynthesis where visible light is converted into ordered structures and stored chemical energy. All the important processes happen at the magic size regime. 13) In conclusion, perhaps the most important use for Energy Localization will be in the field of Lattice Assisted Nuclear Energy. We have already noted that superconductors have enormous anharmonic vibrational modes. Palladium hydride is a superconducting system that already has enormous vibrational modes for the hydrogen isotopes. By processing palladium powders in the 4-10 nm size
Re: [Vo]:Brian Ahern Will Not Be Presenting on December 7, 2011
On 2011-12-08 04:49, Joshua Cude wrote: Looking at the slides, it's not surprising he bailed. The talk doesn't look finished. Like he never got past the introduction. If you check out presenter slide notes with PowerPoint (not PowerPoint reader) or OpenOffice/LibreOffice, you can get access to more detailed and complete descriptions for each slide. Read my reply to Aussie Guy here: http://www.mail-archive.com/vortex-l%40eskimo.com/msg58435.html Cheers, S.A.
[Vo]:Resonance
Some interesting items on the subject PLUS and ad for Rossi's Clic glasses: http://forgetomori.com/2011/science/colored-vibrating-sand-buddhist-singing-bowls-and-levitating-megaliths/ T
[Vo]:SETI Back on Track
Gnorts, Mr. Alien! Thanks to funding from none other than the US Space Command: http://www.redorbit.com/news/space/1112435819/seti-back-on-track-after-us-military-funding and now they will direct their observations to Goldilocks planets discovered by the Kepler space telescope. Note the interesting (intentional?) typo for the Allen (Alien) Telescope Array. T
[Vo]:Article - Quantum Entanglement Allows Diamonds to Communicate
http://www.laboratoryequipment.com/news-Quantum-Entanglement-Allows-Diamonds-to-Communicate-120511.aspx?xmlmenuid=51 Researchers have managed to get one small diamond to communicate with another small diamond utilizing quantum entanglement, one of the more mind-blowing features of quantum physics.
RE: [Vo]:Resonance
I'd never seen the website before; thanks for the introduction. Date: Thu, 8 Dec 2011 07:26:33 -0500 From: hohlr...@gmail.com To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: [Vo]:Resonance Some interesting items on the subject PLUS and ad for Rossi's Clic glasses: http://forgetomori.com/2011/science/colored-vibrating-sand-buddhist-singing-bowls-and-levitating-megaliths/ T
RE: [Vo]:Article - Quantum Entanglement Allows Diamonds to Communicate
Next time we send out some Mars Rovers, we swap the communications antennae with a Quantum Entangled Crystal (QEX) array, and, voila! Real-time communications and driving will make the missions much more productive. Date: Thu, 8 Dec 2011 14:29:12 +0100 From: michele.comit...@gmail.com To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: [Vo]:Article - Quantum Entanglement Allows Diamonds to Communicate http://www.laboratoryequipment.com/news-Quantum-Entanglement-Allows-Diamonds-to-Communicate-120511.aspx?xmlmenuid=51 Researchers have managed to get one small diamond to communicate with another small diamond utilizing quantum entanglement, one of the more mind-blowing features of quantum physics.
Re: [Vo]:Article - Quantum Entanglement Allows Diamonds to Communicate
From Robert Michele http://www.laboratoryequipment.com/news-Quantum-Entanglement-Allows-Diamonds-to-Communicate-120511.aspx?xmlmenuid=51 Next time we send out some Mars Rovers, we swap the communications antennae with a Quantum Entangled Crystal (QEX) array, and, voila! Real-time communications and driving will make the missions much more productive. Indeed, an intriguing idea. My only concern is that they make sure to tune both the the crystals to the right quantum channel, and that they keep a pad and lock key on who has possession. The last thing we need is Howard Wolowitz (from The Big Bang Theory) getting his hands on the crystals frequency - in another one of his attempts to impress his fiancee. The aliens would then most likely end up having to speak to Howard's mother. Be afraid http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Big_Bang_Theory Regards Steven Vincent Johnson www.OrionWorks.com www.zazzle.com/orionworks
Re: [Vo]:a long paper about and mainly against the E-cat
Mary Yugo maryyu...@gmail.com wrote: So there was an uninspected volume of about 30 cube centimeters cube. Right. That's what I said. There is no way equipment in such a small cube can explain the heat. I said: They have not seen inside the cell (which is inside the reactor) but the volume of the cell is too small for any tricks. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:Will tests surface mounted thermocouples on pipe
peter.heck...@arcor.de wrote: It is necessary to think about unexpected effects: It is clear, in Rossis setup there was a thermal flow and an unwanted temperature difference close to the thermoelement. If the steam inlet was 100 degree and the water outlet was 20 degree then inbetween in the middle symmetry point the temperature MUST be (100+20)/2 = 60 degrees. This is simple to see from the symmetry. That is incorrect. See: http://lenr-canr.org/RossiData/Houkes%20Oct%206%20Calculation%20of%20influence%20of%20Tin%20on%20Tout.xlsx I did some tests last night with a flexible hot water pipe tied to a cold water pipe, under insulation, with the sensor on the outside of the hot water pipe. Tying the two together and putting them under the insulation had no measurable effect on the surface temperature. The only thing that affects the temperature is the hot water flowing through the pipe. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:a long paper about and mainly against the E-cat
On Thu, Dec 8, 2011 at 8:54 AM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com wrote: Mary Yugo maryyu...@gmail.com wrote: So there was an uninspected volume of about 30 cube centimeters cube. Right. That's what I said. There is no way equipment in such a small cube can explain the heat. I said: They have not seen inside the cell (which is inside the reactor) but the volume of the cell is too small for any tricks. How is that too small. It's big enough for the most innocuous of methods. A 3rd of the volume filled with fire brick at 1000C would do it. Far less is needed for molten metals, and still less for fuels like alcohol (with an oxygen candle) or even Ni-H. Now, can you name a single nuclear reaction that fits the data?
Re: [Vo]:a long paper about and mainly against the E-cat
Isn't the hidden volume 24x24x5= 2880cm^3 large? 2011/12/8 Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com Mary Yugo maryyu...@gmail.com wrote: So there was an uninspected volume of about 30 cube centimeters cube. Right. That's what I said. There is no way equipment in such a small cube can explain the heat. I said: They have not seen inside the cell (which is inside the reactor) but the volume of the cell is too small for any tricks. - Jed -- Daniel Rocha - RJ danieldi...@gmail.com
Re: [Vo]:Will tests surface mounted thermocouples on pipe
- Original Nachricht Von: Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com An: vortex-l@eskimo.com Datum: 08.12.2011 15:59 Betreff: Re: [Vo]:Will tests surface mounted thermocouples on pipe peter.heck...@arcor.de wrote: It is necessary to think about unexpected effects: It is clear, in Rossis setup there was a thermal flow and an unwanted temperature difference close to the thermoelement. If the steam inlet was 100 degree and the water outlet was 20 degree then inbetween in the middle symmetry point the temperature MUST be (100+20)/2 = 60 degrees. This is simple to see from the symmetry. That is incorrect. See: http://lenr-canr.org/RossiData/Houkes%20Oct%206%20Calculation%20of%20influen ce%20of%20Tin%20on%20Tout.xlsx I did some tests last night with a flexible hot water pipe tied to a cold water pipe, under insulation, with the sensor on the outside of the hot water pipe. Tying the two together and putting them under the insulation had no measurable effect on the surface temperature. The only thing that affects the temperature is the hot water flowing through the pipe. This depends from the thickness of the pipe wall. If the wall is thin, the coupling to the water is very strong and other factors can be neglected. If the wall is thick, then the crosscoupling increases. If the geometry is unknown, then the crosscoupling is unknown. The easiest way to avoid this problem, is: make the distance much longer than the pipe diameter. Then everybody sees there is no relevant crosscoupling. Peter
Aw: [Vo]:Article - Quantum Entanglement Allows Diamonds to Communicate
- Original Nachricht Von: Michele Comitini michele.comit...@gmail.com An: vortex-l@eskimo.com vortex-l@eskimo.com Datum: 08.12.2011 14:29 Betreff: [Vo]:Article - Quantum Entanglement Allows Diamonds to Communicate http://www.laboratoryequipment.com/news-Quantum-Entanglement-Allows-Diamonds -to-Communicate-120511.aspx?xmlmenuid=51 Researchers have managed to get one small diamond to communicate with another small diamond utilizing quantum entanglement, one of the more mind-blowing features of quantum physics. The problem is: Entanglement means the diamonds are in connection, but the entanglement is destroyed as soon as an external influence kicks in. Therefore this cannot been used for communication. If one diamond is on mars and another is on earth then two observers one at earth and one at mars make the same observations without time delay, but they cannot interchange messages. The two diamonds behave like synchronized clocks. The mechanism could possibly been used for a precise one-way measurement of lightspeed.
Re: [Vo]:Will tests surface mounted thermocouples on pipe
- Original Nachricht Von: Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com An: vortex-l@eskimo.com Datum: 08.12.2011 15:59 Betreff: Re: [Vo]:Will tests surface mounted thermocouples on pipe peter.heck...@arcor.de wrote: It is necessary to think about unexpected effects: It is clear, in Rossis setup there was a thermal flow and an unwanted temperature difference close to the thermoelement. If the steam inlet was 100 degree and the water outlet was 20 degree then inbetween in the middle symmetry point the temperature MUST be (100+20)/2 = 60 degrees. This is simple to see from the symmetry. That is incorrect. See: http://lenr-canr.org/RossiData/Houkes%20Oct%206%20Calculation%20of%20influen ce%20of%20Tin%20on%20Tout.xlsx How can you say this is incorrect? Do you know everything, great master? There is symmetry, and so the temperature distribution must be symmetrical. This is EASY to see. If the calculation comes to another result then the calculation is wrong or uses unusual assumptions about geometry and temperature flow.
Re: [Vo]:Will tests surface mounted thermocouples on pipe
[I sent this message with 2 itty-bitty photos attached. It probably bounced.] Okay. I did some rudimentary tests with thermocouples taped to the outside of flexible braided 1/2 inch pipes under my bathroom sink. I can supply the gory details if anyone is interested. Summary: I measured in the evening from 8:42 to 10:19 p.m., and again in the morning from 8:00 to 8:31 a.m. I used an Omega HH12B dual probe thermocouple and two red liquid thermometers. See: http://www.omega.com/pptst/HH11B.html I taped two probes to the outside of the hot water pipe, with plastic Band-Aids, then covered them with foam pipe insulation. This is a crude method. Rossi's insulated tape is better. I measured the water temperature as it flowed into the sink using a red liquid thermometer. These pipes are well insulated. Much better than copper or steel pipes. The difference between the water temperature and the pipe surface temperature was typically around 7°C. There is a surprisingly large difference in temperature from one location on the pipe to the other. It ranges from ~2.4 to ~3.0°C. Where the T2 probe was taped, I tied the hot water pipe and cold water pipe together with string, wrapped them in shipping tape, and then wrapped the whole thing in foam pipe insulation. [DO NOT SEE the two photos NOT attached.] T1 is higher up on the pipe, T2 is below, where the pipes are tied together. T1 heated up faster and remained persistently warmer. The T2 probe is on the side opposite the cold water pipe. Tying the pipes together and insulating them together made no measurable difference to the temperature registered at the T2 location. I think I can measure a difference here of ~0.2°C. There was no measurable difference between these three situations: With hot water running -- 1. T2 location by itself (not tied to the cold water pipe) 2. T2 tied to the cold water pipe, no cold water flowing 3. T2 tied to cold water pipe with cold water flowing With hot water off, cold water running, after a night of cooling-- 4. T2 tied to cold water pipe. A slight change of ~0.1°C may have registered after 5 min. The cold water was 16°C, ambient 18°C. With no water flowing T1-T2 was initially ~0.0°C ~0.1°C (a bias) and after 5 min. of cold water it occasionally registered 0.2°C. This arrangement was rather noisy because of changes in the hot water temperature. These were more rapid than I expected they would be. I ended up using the MIN/MAX feature for 5-minute segments. In most cases I compared T1 to T2, which eliminates the effect of hot water temperature changes. I also compared T2 to itself over 5 minute segments. I did this with and without cold water flowing. In some cases I zeroed out the difference with the REL key before starting 5 minute measurements. - Jed
[Vo]:Brian Ahern presentation with comments
I'd say he missed the whole thing. The vibrations in the dissolved hydrogen are not like that of a gas in air where the interaction takes place with only its neighbors. It's a proton conductor and more like a electrical conductor. The charge movement affects other protons across a considerable domain. Its very fact, in fact, in cold fusion the velocity is 1,094,000 million meters per second. Perhaps if he finds out Rossi's secret he could patent it too. Frank Z
Re: [Vo]:Will tests surface mounted thermocouples on pipe
peter.heck...@arcor.de wrote: How can you say this is incorrect? Do you know everything, great master? I can say that because Houkes knows what he is doing, other experts agree with him, and it has been my experience that the water temperature in a pipe dominates the surface temperature even when there is another pipe or hot body nearby. As for example, in a calorimeter where the inlet and outlet sensors are close, and both under insulation. Or in the tests I did last night. Air temperature and heat conducted by the pipe do not play much of a role. There is symmetry, and so the temperature distribution must be symmetrical. This is EASY to see. Evidently not. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:Will tests surface mounted thermocouples on pipe
- Original Nachricht Von: Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com An: vortex-l@eskimo.com Datum: 08.12.2011 17:00 Betreff: Re: [Vo]:Will tests surface mounted thermocouples on pipe peter.heck...@arcor.de wrote: How can you say this is incorrect? Do you know everything, great master? I can say that because Houkes knows what he is doing, other experts agree with him, and it has been my experience that the water temperature in a pipe dominates the surface temperature even when there is another pipe or hot body nearby. As for example, in a calorimeter where the inlet and outlet sensors are close, and both under insulation. Or in the tests I did last night. Air temperature and heat conducted by the pipe do not play much of a role. There is symmetry, and so the temperature distribution must be symmetrical. This is EASY to see. Evidently not. If your experts dont see this simple fact, then they are not experts but buggy calculation machines. I have calculated many linear networks, by hand, 35 years ago, when computers could not do this. I know how to simplify a linear network. best, Peter
Re: [Vo]:a long paper about and mainly against the E-cat
On Thu, Dec 8, 2011 at 6:54 AM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com wrote: Mary Yugo maryyu...@gmail.com wrote: So there was an uninspected volume of about 30 cube centimeters cube. In other words 27,000 cc. Not 30 cc. You can't hide a lot of stuff in some 30,000 cc of space?
RE: [Vo]:a long paper about and mainly against the E-cat
Mats referenced a box inside, bolted to the bottom with a heat sink on top, measuring 30cmx30cmx30cm. He couldn't see inside of it, just a box with some port connections for hydrogen, heater, and, presumably, RF. So, assuming, say 4cm for the heat exchanger, this could be 30x30x26, or 23,400 cm^3. According to Rossi, that box is sealed tight and waterproof. Rossi further explains what is inside of that container, but nobody is ever allowed to look inside. So, despite his decriptions (in the October test, he indicates that there is only one 20x20x4 wafer) we have to treat the 30x30x26 block as a complete unknown. No assumptions made to rule out chemical reactions should preclude the entire 23,400cm^3 from being used. Date: Thu, 8 Dec 2011 13:06:47 -0200 Subject: Re: [Vo]:a long paper about and mainly against the E-cat From: danieldi...@gmail.com To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Isn't the hidden volume 24x24x5= 2880cm^3 large? 2011/12/8 Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com Mary Yugo maryyu...@gmail.com wrote: So there was an uninspected volume of about 30 cube centimeters cube. Right. That's what I said. There is no way equipment in such a small cube can explain the heat. I said: They have not seen inside the cell (which is inside the reactor) but the volume of the cell is too small for any tricks. - Jed -- Daniel Rocha - RJ danieldi...@gmail.com
RE: [Vo]:Will tests surface mounted thermocouples on pipe
Unfortunately, it's not quite that simple for two reasons: 1) the secondary flow rate was much higher than the primary, moving the equilibrium point closer to the hot side 2) the primary flow rate is unknown, and quite possible variable, moving the equilibrium point back and forth 3) the primary flow is sometimes steam, sometimes water, sometimes both. If the steam were to immediately condense in the brass fitting, it would impart the same energy as water at hundreds of degrees celsius, driving the equilibrium closer to the cold side. Date: Thu, 8 Dec 2011 17:09:53 +0100 From: peter.heck...@arcor.de To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: [Vo]:Will tests surface mounted thermocouples on pipe - Original Nachricht Von: Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com An: vortex-l@eskimo.com Datum: 08.12.2011 17:00 Betreff: Re: [Vo]:Will tests surface mounted thermocouples on pipe peter.heck...@arcor.de wrote: How can you say this is incorrect? Do you know everything, great master? I can say that because Houkes knows what he is doing, other experts agree with him, and it has been my experience that the water temperature in a pipe dominates the surface temperature even when there is another pipe or hot body nearby. As for example, in a calorimeter where the inlet and outlet sensors are close, and both under insulation. Or in the tests I did last night. Air temperature and heat conducted by the pipe do not play much of a role. There is symmetry, and so the temperature distribution must be symmetrical. This is EASY to see. Evidently not. If your experts dont see this simple fact, then they are not experts but buggy calculation machines. I have calculated many linear networks, by hand, 35 years ago, when computers could not do this. I know how to simplify a linear network. best, Peter
RE: [Vo]:Will tests surface mounted thermocouples on pipe
for two reasons:... errr... the third reason was a backup reason Should either of the first two reasons be disqualified before competition, the third reason knows whole routine. From: robert.leguil...@hotmail.com To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: RE: [Vo]:Will tests surface mounted thermocouples on pipe Date: Thu, 8 Dec 2011 10:20:07 -0600 Unfortunately, it's not quite that simple for two reasons: 1) the secondary flow rate was much higher than the primary, moving the equilibrium point closer to the hot side 2) the primary flow rate is unknown, and quite possible variable, moving the equilibrium point back and forth 3) the primary flow is sometimes steam, sometimes water, sometimes both. If the steam were to immediately condense in the brass fitting, it would impart the same energy as water at hundreds of degrees celsius, driving the equilibrium closer to the cold side. Date: Thu, 8 Dec 2011 17:09:53 +0100 From: peter.heck...@arcor.de To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: [Vo]:Will tests surface mounted thermocouples on pipe - Original Nachricht Von: Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com An: vortex-l@eskimo.com Datum: 08.12.2011 17:00 Betreff: Re: [Vo]:Will tests surface mounted thermocouples on pipe peter.heck...@arcor.de wrote: How can you say this is incorrect? Do you know everything, great master? I can say that because Houkes knows what he is doing, other experts agree with him, and it has been my experience that the water temperature in a pipe dominates the surface temperature even when there is another pipe or hot body nearby. As for example, in a calorimeter where the inlet and outlet sensors are close, and both under insulation. Or in the tests I did last night. Air temperature and heat conducted by the pipe do not play much of a role. There is symmetry, and so the temperature distribution must be symmetrical. This is EASY to see. Evidently not. If your experts dont see this simple fact, then they are not experts but buggy calculation machines. I have calculated many linear networks, by hand, 35 years ago, when computers could not do this. I know how to simplify a linear network. best, Peter
Re: [Vo]:Resonance
This looks like a macroscopic demo of the pilot wave theory of quantum mechanics as demonstrated by John Bush at MIT. SEE: Can fluid dynamics offer insights into quantum mechanics? http://www.physorg.com/news/2010-10-fluid-dynamics-insights-quantum-mechanics.html On Thu, Dec 8, 2011 at 8:58 AM, Robert Leguillon robert.leguil...@hotmail.com wrote: I'd never seen the website before; thanks for the introduction. Date: Thu, 8 Dec 2011 07:26:33 -0500 From: hohlr...@gmail.com To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: [Vo]:Resonance Some interesting items on the subject PLUS and ad for Rossi's Clic glasses: http://forgetomori.com/2011/science/colored-vibrating-sand-buddhist-singing-bowls-and-levitating-megaliths/ T
Re: [Vo]:Will tests surface mounted thermocouples on pipe
All this discussion would be moot if Rossi had bothered to make a run using the electrical heater to calibrate the measurement system. It wouldn't rule out cheating but it would rule out cheating by deliberate or accidental measurement errors.
Re: [Vo]:LENR-CANR Theory Papers
On 2011-12-06 20:15, Alan J Fletcher wrote: I've just finished a marathon multi-day session of skimming through the excellent http://lenr-canr.org http://lenr-canr.org/ library. Another link for you. It contains documents not included in http://lenr-canr.org : http://jcfrs.org/pubs.html Cheers, S.A.
Re: [Vo]:Article - Quantum Entanglement Allows Diamonds to Communicate
Peter, You simply need lots of coupled diamonds. And remember: diamonds are a girl's best friends! http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PluRW3_FEt0 mic 2011/12/8 peter.heck...@arcor.de: - Original Nachricht Von: Michele Comitini michele.comit...@gmail.com An: vortex-l@eskimo.com vortex-l@eskimo.com Datum: 08.12.2011 14:29 Betreff: [Vo]:Article - Quantum Entanglement Allows Diamonds to Communicate http://www.laboratoryequipment.com/news-Quantum-Entanglement-Allows-Diamonds -to-Communicate-120511.aspx?xmlmenuid=51 Researchers have managed to get one small diamond to communicate with another small diamond utilizing quantum entanglement, one of the more mind-blowing features of quantum physics. The problem is: Entanglement means the diamonds are in connection, but the entanglement is destroyed as soon as an external influence kicks in. Therefore this cannot been used for communication. If one diamond is on mars and another is on earth then two observers one at earth and one at mars make the same observations without time delay, but they cannot interchange messages. The two diamonds behave like synchronized clocks. The mechanism could possibly been used for a precise one-way measurement of lightspeed.
Re: [Vo]:Will tests surface mounted thermocouples on pipe
2011/12/8 Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com: [I sent this message with 2 itty-bitty photos attached. It probably bounced.] Use something like http://imgur.com/ then share the link. mic
Re: [Vo]:Resonance
I have suggested a few times that is might prove useful to model cold fusion processes using liquid drops. Liquid drop models of nuclear fission were helpful in the the early years of fission research. Although in the case of cold fusion I think the drops should be treated as non-newtonian fluids. Harry On Thu, Dec 8, 2011 at 11:23 AM, Axil Axil janap...@gmail.com wrote: This looks like a macroscopic demo of the pilot wave theory of quantum mechanics as demonstrated by John Bush at MIT. SEE: Can fluid dynamics offer insights into quantum mechanics? http://www.physorg.com/news/2010-10-fluid-dynamics-insights-quantum-mechanics.html On Thu, Dec 8, 2011 at 8:58 AM, Robert Leguillon robert.leguil...@hotmail.com wrote: I'd never seen the website before; thanks for the introduction. Date: Thu, 8 Dec 2011 07:26:33 -0500 From: hohlr...@gmail.com To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: [Vo]:Resonance Some interesting items on the subject PLUS and ad for Rossi's Clic glasses: http://forgetomori.com/2011/science/colored-vibrating-sand-buddhist-singing-bowls-and-levitating-megaliths/ T
RE: [Vo]:Will tests surface mounted thermocouples on pipe
Mary yet again proves that there are now 101 ways to say the same thing. we all agree the tests could have been done much better with little effort. I think that's enough repetition that most readers know your opinion on the issue. Stop wasting bandwidth and our time unless it's a point you HAVEN'T made before. =m From: Mary Yugo [mailto:maryyu...@gmail.com] Sent: Thursday, December 08, 2011 8:25 AM To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: [Vo]:Will tests surface mounted thermocouples on pipe All this discussion would be moot if Rossi had bothered to make a run using the electrical heater to calibrate the measurement system. It wouldn't rule out cheating but it would rule out cheating by deliberate or accidental measurement errors.
Re: [Vo]:Will tests surface mounted thermocouples on pipe
Am 08.12.2011 17:20, schrieb Robert Leguillon: Unfortunately, it's not quite that simple for two reasons: 1) the secondary flow rate was much higher than the primary, moving the equilibrium point closer to the hot side 2) the primary flow rate is unknown, and quite possible variable, moving the equilibrium point back and forth 3) the primary flow is sometimes steam, sometimes water, sometimes both. If the steam were to immediately condense in the brass fitting, it would impart the same energy as water at hundreds of degrees celsius, driving the equilibrium closer to the cold side. Yes this is true. If the thermal resistance against the massflow is not symmetric, then there is no precise symmetry. But we have seen hot water outflow before. Also air bubbles can make problems. if the heat exchanger is partially filled with air, the thermal coupling increases. So we have other unknown parameters discovered. This arrangement is not good enough to do an industrial test for a gas boiler. Its therefore a waste of time to calculate this precisely, too much unknown factors. These problems can be easily avoided. Fit 30 cm of copper pipe to the heat exchanger or insert a piece of copper pipe into the hose at a reasonable distance and measure the temperature there. Thermal insulation can be used to avoid heat loss, but because the absolute temperature was not much above ambient, not much loss is expected. Anyway, thermal isolation is cheap and would eliminate the influence of ambient air. Peter Date: Thu, 8 Dec 2011 17:09:53 +0100 From: peter.heck...@arcor.de To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: [Vo]:Will tests surface mounted thermocouples on pipe - Original Nachricht Von: Jed Rothwelljedrothw...@gmail.com An: vortex-l@eskimo.com Datum: 08.12.2011 17:00 Betreff: Re: [Vo]:Will tests surface mounted thermocouples on pipe peter.heck...@arcor.de wrote: How can you say this is incorrect? Do you know everything, great master? I can say that because Houkes knows what he is doing, other experts agree with him, and it has been my experience that the water temperature in a pipe dominates the surface temperature even when there is another pipe or hot body nearby. As for example, in a calorimeter where the inlet and outlet sensors are close, and both under insulation. Or in the tests I did last night. Air temperature and heat conducted by the pipe do not play much of a role. There is symmetry, and so the temperature distribution must be symmetrical. This is EASY to see. Evidently not. If your experts dont see this simple fact, then they are not experts but buggy calculation machines. I have calculated many linear networks, by hand, 35 years ago, when computers could not do this. I know how to simplify a linear network. best, Peter
Re: [Vo]:Article - Quantum Entanglement Allows Diamonds to Communicate
Is the entanglement robust enough to survive a long shaky trip? I recall reading that it is not easy to keep the effect for a long time. Dave -Original Message- From: peter.heckert peter.heck...@arcor.de To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Thu, Dec 8, 2011 10:37 am Subject: Aw: [Vo]:Article - Quantum Entanglement Allows Diamonds to Communicate Original Nachricht on: Michele Comitini michele.comit...@gmail.com n: vortex-l@eskimo.com vortex-l@eskimo.com atum: 08.12.2011 14:29 etreff: [Vo]:Article - Quantum Entanglement Allows Diamonds to Communicate http://www.laboratoryequipment.com/news-Quantum-Entanglement-Allows-Diamonds -to-Communicate-120511.aspx?xmlmenuid=51 Researchers have managed to get one small diamond to communicate with another small diamond utilizing quantum entanglement, one of the more mind-blowing features of quantum physics. he problem is: Entanglement means the diamonds are in connection, but the ntanglement is destroyed as soon as an external influence kicks in. herefore this cannot been used for communication. f one diamond is on mars and another is on earth then two observers one at arth and one at mars make the same observations without time delay, but they annot interchange messages. The two diamonds behave like synchronized clocks. he mechanism could possibly been used for a precise one-way measurement of ightspeed.
Re: [Vo]:Article - Quantum Entanglement Allows Diamonds to Communicate
Am 08.12.2011 19:49, schrieb David Roberson: Is the entanglement robust enough to survive a long shaky trip? I recall reading that it is not easy to keep the effect for a long time. The entanglement of macroscopic objects is probably not stable enough. It is possible to slow down entangled photons and store them in a glassfiber loop. This should be stable. Peter Dave -Original Message- From: peter.heckertpeter.heck...@arcor.de To: vortex-lvortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Thu, Dec 8, 2011 10:37 am Subject: Aw: [Vo]:Article - Quantum Entanglement Allows Diamonds to Communicate Original Nachricht on: Michele Comitinimichele.comit...@gmail.com n: vortex-l@eskimo.comvortex-l@eskimo.com atum: 08.12.2011 14:29 etreff: [Vo]:Article - Quantum Entanglement Allows Diamonds to Communicate http://www.laboratoryequipment.com/news-Quantum-Entanglement-Allows-Diamonds -to-Communicate-120511.aspx?xmlmenuid=51 Researchers have managed to get one small diamond to communicate with another small diamond utilizing quantum entanglement, one of the more mind-blowing features of quantum physics. he problem is: Entanglement means the diamonds are in connection, but the ntanglement is destroyed as soon as an external influence kicks in. herefore this cannot been used for communication. f one diamond is on mars and another is on earth then two observers one at arth and one at mars make the same observations without time delay, but they annot interchange messages. The two diamonds behave like synchronized clocks. he mechanism could possibly been used for a precise one-way measurement of ightspeed.
Re: [Vo]:a long paper about and mainly against the E-cat
Robert Leguillon wrote: Mats referenced a box inside, bolted to the bottom with a heat sink on top, measuring 30cmx30cmx30cm. He couldn't see inside of it, just a box with some port connections for hydrogen, heater, and, presumably, RF. So, assuming, say 4cm for the heat exchanger, this could be 30x30x26, or 23,400 cm^3. You can see from the photos the inner core it is a lot smaller than that. Most of it is reportedly shielding. In previous Rossi devices the cell was unshielded and much smaller, a liter or two. Those devices produced as much heat as this one did, so obviously the active portion of the cell is small. I suppose one could hypothesize that the previous ones were real and this one is fake but that seems ridiculous to me. I will assume all cells are real and this one also has a couple of liters of material. I am not interested in wild and crazy conspiracy theory style thinking, and the hypothesis that Rossi has real devices and fake ones and he is playing some strange mind game for no reason with no conceivable benefit to himself. Such ideas are a sterile waste of time. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:Will tests surface mounted thermocouples on pipe
On Thu, Dec 8, 2011 at 10:07 AM, Mark Iverson-ZeroPoint zeropo...@charter.net wrote: Mary yet again proves that there are now 101 ways to say the same thing… * *** we all agree the tests could have been done much better with little effort. I think that’s enough repetition that most readers know your opinion on the issue… Stop wasting bandwidth and our time unless it’s a point you HAVEN’T made before. Rossi's failure to provide adequate data when it is easy to do so really annoys you, does it? I can understand why you dislike being reminded about it. The real waste of bandwidth is the endless repetitious guessing about what Rossi really did and really showed. You are very unlikely to determine it by rehashing the inadequate data from a bad experimental design and from the insufficient and unreliable information Rossi and the observers provided. It's simply GIGO. And Mark, you don't seem to object about bandwidth when people endlessly project what they will do with an E-cat when they get it. Or when they theorize at length *how* it works when nobody can be sure *that* it works. In fact, most people who do this have never seen an E-cat, have no reliable means to project what if anything it will do, and from what we have seen so far, may never have one to do anything with. After all, who has one to play with at the moment except a single anonymous and very possibly mythical customer? And we're to believe he is getting 1300 E-cat modules? After the inadequate demonstration of leaky plumbing running at half power connected to a generator that Rossi put on October 28? The customer is to do what with it exactly? The practical application is? That sale story is credible? Jed's well intentioned experiments won't help either unless he gets himself a heat exchanger or properly simulates it with a nice heavy steam-heated copper block on which to move his thermocouples around. That's what Rossi used.
Re: [Vo]:a long paper about and mainly against the E-cat
I suppose one could hypothesize that the previous ones were real and this one is fake Straw man hypothesis. Nobody claims that.
[Vo]:Nano-waveguides and Widom-Larsen Theory
Widom-Larsen theory asserts that heavy electrons form in regions with a field strength of 10^11 V/meter. I believe that nano-metallic waveguides, e.g. tapered (triangular, pyramidal, conical) crystals can focus electromagnetic fields (with wavelenghts much larger than the nano-waveguide) to extremely high levels at apex points (--- the nickel powders in successful LENR experiments are in the expected effective size range). Larsen's presentation (slide 1) at - http://newenergytimes.com/v2/sr/WL/slides/2010July16LatticeEnergySlides.pdf - surmises this happens. My impression is that this amplification is quite sensitive to nano-waveguide geometry and the EM-frequency. Nano-waveguides can be engineered for a specific range of EM-frequencies, including infrared. My questions are - - Can nano-waveguides focus infrared-EM to 10^11 V/m ? - Could Rossi/Piantelli/Ahern powders contain surface nano-waveguides and work by Widom-Larsen theory? - Do surfaces of foils in successful LENR experiments contain nano-waveguides? - Would coating optimally structured nano-particles with metal provide more consistent results? A reference on nano-waveguide EM-amplification is at: Field enhancement at metallic interfaces due to quantum confinement http://arxiv.org/abs/1012.0714 Pardon if this has already been discussed on Vortex. Comments appreciated, Lou Pagnucco
Re: [Vo]:Will tests surface mounted thermocouples on pipe
Peter Heckert peter.heck...@arcor.de wrote: Thermal insulation can be used to avoid heat loss, but because the absolute temperature was not much above ambient, not much loss is expected. Anyway, thermal isolation is cheap and would eliminate the influence of ambient air. 1. Rossi's thermocouple was well insulated. 2. Ambient air has little influence even when you use only a Band Aid to insulate the thermocouple. The water temperature dominates. Perhaps if you had a fan blowing on the thing that would have a measurable effect. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:Will tests surface mounted thermocouples on pipe
Mary Yugo maryyu...@gmail.com wrote: Jed's well intentioned experiments won't help either unless he gets himself a heat exchanger or properly simulates it with a nice heavy steam-heated copper . . . My tests were rudimentary. But in my opinion, they helped a hell a lot more than weeks and weeks of blabbing, handwaving, and empty speculation. For example, people here imagine that trapped air under the insulation might have a measurable effect on a thermocouple. That is nonsense. I knew it was nonsense. I have now demonstrated it is nonsense. There was a heck of a lot more trapped air with the foam pipe insulation I used than there would be with Rossi's black tape, but it still did not make any measurable difference. Frankly, I have no doubt Houkes is right and the rest of you do not know what you are talking about. - Jed
[Vo]:krivit and the WL theory
Krivit has written another smug, self-satisfied, sneery, sarcastic piece about the Widom Larsen theory. I posted a reply in the comments, but of course it won't pass moderation, so I'll post it here as well: Although I think you are sincere, and your motives are true, as is quite clear in your handling of the Rossi case, I believe you are completely deluded about cold fusion, lenr, and the WL theory. I don't believe advocates of LENR reject WL (to the extent that they even do) because it is not fusion. I am quite sure they would all rejoice and dance in the streets if solid evidence for lenr were to emerge (by which I mean solid enough to convince the mainstream and the DOE), whether or not it fit better with WL or any theory of fusion. Because either way, they get their clean energy, and they get to wave the results in the faces of the likes of Bob Park, Nathan Lewis, and Steven Koonin. They reject WL (to the extent that they do) because it has serious problems. I'm sure you've seen my objections before. It is simply far less plausible that an electron can get 780 keV in a room temperature lattice (miracle 1) than for a deuteron to get 100 keV (also implausible). And all those reactions proposed by WL would produce gamma rays, which are not detected. Sure, they claim heavy electrons would absorb *all* the gamma rays (miracle 2), but that would be the very simplest claim to test, and in 5 years, there is no evidence of such a thing. Then in the chain of events proposed by WL there is the absorption of a cold neutron by He-4, which also requires some 700+ keV (miracle 3). There are just too many miracles required. A unicorn really is more likely. Krivit For unknown reasons, many of the people who have been fighting the “War Against Cold Fusion” appear to be locked into a siege mentality and have been unable to shift their thinking as better facts and understanding of the field have emerged. This is a smug comment coming from someone without scientific background. From the outside, it appears the facts and understanding have not improved at all. They are, as they have always been, vague, uncertain, irreproducible, and marginal. Krivit But much like Columbus when he headed east from Spain and then thought he found a new way to India, Pons, Fleischmann and their followers were mistaken, but only partially. It's really too early to talk as if you are in possession of some sort of received wisdom. Most scientists are skeptical of nuclear reactions at all. Why exactly you think your view should be taken above theirs is puzzling. Krivit But there was a subtle but significant difference with the underlying physical mechanism: It was based primarily on weak interactions and neutron-capture processes, not fusion. Despite the growing body of experimental evidence that revealed this distinction, and despite all the attempts that Pons and Fleischmann’s followers made to try to make LENR look like fusion, no amount of varnish could change the fact: “Cold fusion” too, was a myth. But LENR, which does not presume or assert a fusion mechanism, is real. Even among those who accept nuclear processes, this kind of smug certainty should be considered repugnant. The evidence is simply not strong for WL. It's not even suggestive. Legitimate scientists who accept that there is evidence for heat from nuclear reactions could not claim any level of certainty about the WL theory without at least some direct evidence for it. In truth, I don't think Widom and Larsen believe the WL theory. I think they're scamming just like Rossi, and looking for investors for Lattice Energy. And you and Bushnell are their stooges, being blown away by the sophisticated math, and not having enough background to see the obvious holes in it. If the theory were valid, it would be ground-breaking, nobel prize worthy, but other scientists don't even cite the work.
Re: [Vo]:Will tests surface mounted thermocouples on pipe
On Thu, Dec 8, 2011 at 11:13 AM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com wrote: The water temperature dominates. Perhaps if you had a fan blowing on the thing that would have a measurable effect. Perhaps if the thermocouple were in contact with or very close to a very hot steam duct at the input end of the primary loop of the heat exchanger it would have measurable effect?
Re: [Vo]:Will tests surface mounted thermocouples on pipe
Am 08.12.2011 20:13, schrieb Jed Rothwell: Peter Heckertpeter.heck...@arcor.de wrote: Thermal insulation can be used to avoid heat loss, but because the absolute temperature was not much above ambient, not much loss is expected. Anyway, thermal isolation is cheap and would eliminate the influence of ambient air. 1. Rossi's thermocouple was well insulated. Yes, of course. 2. Ambient air has little influence even when you use only a Band Aid to insulate the thermocouple. The water temperature dominates. Perhaps if you had a fan blowing on the thing that would have a measurable effect. Yes, as I wrote it is cheap and easy and therefore it should be done. When it is cheap and easy to do then I am a perfectionist ;-) It avoids mismeasurements when there are airbubbles at the measuring position. This is another problem with Rossis arrangement. The measuring point was close to the highest point in the water flow and it can happen that air bubbles accumulate at this point. This increases the thermal resistance against the water and increases the effect of thermal crosstalk. Peter
Re: [Vo]:Will tests surface mounted thermocouples on pipe
Here are a few photos: http://lenr-canr.org/RossiData/T2%20before%20insulating.jpg http://lenr-canr.org/RossiData/T1%20and%20T2%20insulated.jpg http://lenr-canr.org/RossiData/Measuring%20water%20temp%20in%20sink.jpg By the way the hot water temperature varied from around 55°C up to 65°C. Sample data 9:09 PM Hot water 65°C Start 5 min. MIN/MAX measuring Delta T (T1-T2) 9:15 PM Max 2.5, Min 1.6, T1-T2 1.0 Instantaneous reading T1 57.5°C, and T2 56.1°C, Delta T 1.4°C Ambient 22°C The point is: This T1-T2 MIN/MAX range over 5 min. sample did not change significantly when the T2 was by itself, or tied to the cold water pipe, or tied with cold water running through the cold water pipe. It did not change when the hot water temperature rose or fell. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:Will tests surface mounted thermocouples on pipe
Am 08.12.2011 20:19, schrieb Jed Rothwell: Mary Yugomaryyu...@gmail.com wrote: Jed's well intentioned experiments won't help either unless he gets himself a heat exchanger or properly simulates it with a nice heavy steam-heated copper . . . My tests were rudimentary. But in my opinion, they helped a hell a lot more than weeks and weeks of blabbing, handwaving, and empty speculation. For example, people here imagine that trapped air under the insulation might have a measurable effect on a thermocouple. That is nonsense. I knew it was nonsense. I have now demonstrated it is nonsense. Yes this is nonsense, if the thermoelement is in close thermal contact to the metal. If there is an air gap of 0.1mm between metal and thermoelement, then it is not nonsense. If the thermoelement is electrically isolated, then it is also not nonsense. Dont you see that Rossis arrangement was horrible and disqualifies him and Levi and Focardi to do such measurements? Everybody who defends this is in danger to disqualify himself. There was a heck of a lot more trapped air with the foam pipe insulation I used than there would be with Rossi's black tape, but it still did not make any measurable difference. Frankly, I have no doubt Houkes is right and the rest of you do not know what you are talking about. He is right only if his wellmeaning assumptions are all true. Peter
Re: [Vo]:Will tests surface mounted thermocouples on pipe
Mary Yugo maryyu...@gmail.com wrote: Perhaps if the thermocouple were in contact with or very close to a very hot steam duct at the input end of the primary loop of the heat exchanger it would have measurable effect? Perhaps it would if it were very close, but it was not close. You can see in the photos it was a good distance away. The temperature was only 35°C after all. The inlet pipe full of steam was way hotter than that. Houkes is right. Live with it. I have measured the surface temperatures of steel pipes close to a boiler. The boiler was MUCH hotter than the water. The pipe surface was within a degree of the water temperature as shown on a dial thermometer nearby. Those braided pipes under the sink are remarkably well insulated. The pipes were about 7 to 10°C cooler than the water. However the steel nut holding the two pipes together (shown in photo) was a lot hotter than the pipes. I should have measured it. I could not touch it, whereas I could easily hold the braided pipe (56 or 57°C). Copper pipes under a sink are the least well insulated thing you can have. You should get some foam insulation. That saves a lot of money and the time it takes waiting around for the hot water. There is remarkable variation in temperature from one spot to another on that braided pipe. I do not know why. It is not an artifact of the thermocouple because both thermocouples agree when held at the same location. I thought it was because I did not have the thermocouples firmly pressed against the pipe but that does not appear to be the case. You do not find such variation in steel or copper pipes. By the way, an air bubble under the insulation will have no measurable effect. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:Will tests surface mounted thermocouples on pipe
On Thu, Dec 8, 2011 at 1:44 PM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com wrote: Houkes is right. Live with it. When you no longer have to insist repeatedly that something is right, there might be a chance that it in fact is.
Re: [Vo]:Will tests surface mounted thermocouples on pipe
Peter Heckert peter.heck...@arcor.de wrote: If there is an air gap of 0.1mm between metal and thermoelement, then it is not nonsense. I doubt that. I would like to see you prove it. I do not think this would cause even a 0.1°C difference. Can you suggest a way to deliberately introduce such a small gap? Perhaps with a thin piece of paper instead of an air gap? Dont you see that Rossis arrangement was horrible and disqualifies him and Levi and Focardi to do such measurements? No, I do not. I have measured temperatures on pipes several times. As far as I know, this method works fine. Actually Rossi did a better job than most people do. Your other assertions about bubbles of air in the pipe are untrue. The metal of a steel or copper pipe averages out the temperature quite nicely. Miles and others showed this with a copper sheathed calorimeter with an air space at the top and thermal gradients inside. Probably braided pipe does not work as well. If you are so sure this was horrible I suggest you do a test and prove it. Even a rudimentary test such as the one I did shows it is not horrible. Rossi's methods were much better than mine. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:Will tests surface mounted thermocouples on pipe
On Thu, Dec 8, 2011 at 11:30 AM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com wrote: Here are a few photos: How does this simulate a copper heat exchanger with steam at the input end where as it happens, the T out thermocouple is also located nearby? As Peter Heckert and others observed, simply locating the T out thermocouple downstream and out of the heat exchanger area by at least a few inches, or inside a T fitting downstream so it would be in the water would have solved that particular measurement issue. Rossi didn't do it and I don't recall complaints from any of the observers you are relying on for credibility.
Re: [Vo]:Will tests surface mounted thermocouples on pipe
Am 08.12.2011 20:53, schrieb Jed Rothwell: Peter Heckertpeter.heck...@arcor.de wrote: If there is an air gap of 0.1mm between metal and thermoelement, then it is not nonsense. I doubt that. I would like to see you prove it. I do not think this would cause even a 0.1°C difference. Can you suggest a way to deliberately introduce such a small gap? Perhaps with a thin piece of paper instead of an air gap? A thin piece of plastics. This is also good for electrical isolation. Of course this will have no effect, if there is not another heatsource nearby and if the thermoelement is covered with thermosisolation. Dont you see that Rossis arrangement was horrible and disqualifies him and Levi and Focardi to do such measurements? No, I do not. I have measured temperatures on pipes several times. As far as I know, this method works fine. Actually Rossi did a better job than most people do. Your other assertions about bubbles of air in the pipe are untrue. The metal of a steel or copper pipe averages out the temperature quite nicely. Yes, this is true. And if there is another heat source nearby, the pipe will average this also ;-) Miles and others showed this with a copper sheathed calorimeter with an air space at the top and thermal gradients inside. Probably braided pipe does not work as well. I expect that Miles and others had installed the thermoelement in an equilibrium place without heatgradient as required. This is correct. Dont forget, there was another heat source (the steam input) nearby. Thermoelements must be installed in an area where a thermal equilibrium can be expected. If you are so sure this was horrible I suggest you do a test and prove it. Even a rudimentary test such as the one I did shows it is not horrible. Rossi's methods were much better than mine. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:Will tests surface mounted thermocouples on pipe
Mary Yugo maryyu...@gmail.com wrote: How does this simulate a copper heat exchanger with steam at the input end where as it happens, the T out thermocouple is also located nearby? Actually, I was more trying to simulate air trapped under the insulation with the hot and cold pipes right next to one another. I cannot easily bring copper pipes together, so I used these flexible braided ones. I just tied 'em together. They are much closer than the hot and cold ends of the heat exchanger. To simulate a heat source close to a copper pipe, I suppose I could put a heat source around the pipe a few inches away from the measuring point. I'll let you do that. Why should I have all the fun? If it is your hypothesis that this does not work, you should prove it. Putting a heat source ~4 away on a copper pipe would bring it much closer than Rossi's arrangement, because the heat exchanger design would not be good if the heat conducted to the cold end on the outside of the pipes. The fact that heat exchangers work well -- they exchange heat efficiently -- means there is not much heat conducted by the metal surfaces of the pipes from the hot end to the cold end. If there was significant amount of heat conducted by that path, it would not be exchanged (that is, it would not heat up the cold fluid). It would be lost to the surroundings. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:Will tests surface mounted thermocouples on pipe
Peter Heckert peter.heck...@arcor.de wrote: Can you suggest a way to deliberately introduce such a small gap? Perhaps with a thin piece of paper instead of an air gap? A thin piece of plastics. This is also good for electrical isolation. Like Saran wrap? (What you wrap sandwiches with.) I will try it on a copper pipe. Your other assertions about bubbles of air in the pipe are untrue. The metal of a steel or copper pipe averages out the temperature quite nicely. Yes, this is true. And if there is another heat source nearby, the pipe will average this also ;-) Nope. Not upstream or downstream very far. The air trapped in the pipe has only a tiny thermal mass and it is the same temperature as the water so it cannot affect things. In an axial area whole pipe is the same temperature, even if there is air in part of it. That is what you see with Miles' calorimeter, which is essentially a copper pipe open at the top. Fig. 4, p. 55: http://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/MilesManomalousea.pdf If you measure the temperature of a pipe with a great deal of water flowing through it a short distance from a hot boiler, the water temperature predominates. I expect that Miles and others had installed the thermoelement in an equilibrium place without heatgradient as required. He installed several thermocouples at various locations in the copper sheath. They all registered the same temperature to better than 0.01°C as I recall. The copper acts as an integrator as Miles puts it. In this system the heat all originates at the cathode. That is true whether there is excess heat or only electrochemical heat. There is no active stirring (no magnetic stirrer). - Jed
Re: [Vo]:a long paper about and mainly against the E-cat
Mary Yugo maryyu...@gmail.com wrote: I suppose one could hypothesize that the previous ones were real and this one is fake Straw man hypothesis. Nobody claims that. Actually, several people have claimed that. Perhaps you are not. The point is, we know the cell is a small object. If you do not know that, you are not paying much attention. As I pointed out before, we know the volume of the cell with the cooling fins is small because they fulled the reactor vessel with water, dumped it out, and measured the volume. And because it took 2 hours to fill at 15 L per hour. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:Will tests surface mounted thermocouples on pipe
On 11-12-08 03:16 PM, Jed Rothwell wrote: Putting a heat source ~4 away on a copper pipe would bring it much closer than Rossi's arrangement, because the heat exchanger design would not be good if the heat conducted to the cold end on the outside of the pipes. The fact that heat exchangers work well -- they exchange heat efficiently -- means there is not much heat conducted by the metal surfaces of the pipes from the hot end to the cold end. If there was significant amount of heat conducted by that path, it would not be exchanged (that is, it would not heat up the cold fluid). It would be lost to the surroundings. You may have missed the point. It's a counter flow heat exchanger (as they typically are) which means the EFFLUENT from the secondary circuit in the heat exchanger (which is the secondary hot side) is immediately adjacent to the INLET for the primary circuit (which is the primary hot side). In fact, the *goal* of the heat exchanger is to conduct heat from the primary to the secondary pipes, as rapidly and completely as possible. Consequently, the primary inlet and the secondary outlet are placed in extremely intimate contact as soon as they enter the heat exchanger. (When most normal people imagine a heat exchanger they think of a device where the two flows are going in the same direction, but that's actually a far less effective design than the counterflow scheme which is used in practice.) The issue is that, assuming the exchange of heat isn't perfect, the secondary outlet may actually have been substantially cooler than the primary inlet, in which case heat traveling through the surfaces of the pipes (and, possibly, other parasitic paths) may have caused the thermocouple to read some temperature between the value for the secondary effluent and the primary inlet, which would give an inflated value for the secondary effluent reading. This can happen, once again, because the two flows are necessarily adjacent at that point, due to the design of the heat exchanger. In fact, heat leaking to the *cold* side, as you suggested, would tend to produce a lower overall power measurement, because the temperature increase across the exchanger would be reduced. It's also far less likely, because the cold and hot sides are typically separated by the full length of the exchanger. (These comments relate to any use of a counter-flow heat exchanger with thermocouples used to determine the heat gain across the secondary circuit. How the power output of the E-cat was actually calculated is something else again; from first principles, it seems like it should be possible to do that more accurately by looking at the heat gain across the E-cat itself and ignoring the heat exchanger.)
Re: [Vo]:Will tests surface mounted thermocouples on pipe
Am 08.12.2011 21:31, schrieb Jed Rothwell: Peter Heckertpeter.heck...@arcor.de wrote: Can you suggest a way to deliberately introduce such a small gap? Perhaps with a thin piece of paper instead of an air gap? A thin piece of plastics. This is also good for electrical isolation. Like Saran wrap? (What you wrap sandwiches with.) IDont know. The thermoelement must not make a hole into it. When I measure electronic PCB's then I have sometimes to avoid, that the thermoelement makes a shortage. I cover it with a thin piece of silicon hose and apply a thermal isolation. This works. Because the wires of the element also conduct heat to the ambient, the isolation must cover some cm of the wire. Of course, I dont do precision measurements. An error of 5 degrees would not hurt much if the semiconductor has 100°. We have a thermal security headroom of 25-50% under worst case conditions. I know, what happens when the thermoelement has good or has bad contact, and I know if I need additional isolation or not. So you need not to do this experiment for me. I do not measure waterpipes, but semiconductors, but the problem is the same. I will try it on a copper pipe. Your other assertions about bubbles of air in the pipe are untrue. The metal of a steel or copper pipe averages out the temperature quite nicely.Dont know Yes, this is true. And if there is another heat source nearby, the pipe will average this also ;-) Nope. Not upstream or downstream very far. The air trapped in the pipe has only a tiny thermal mass and it is the same temperature as the water so it cannot affect things. In an axial area whole pipe is the same temperature, even if there is air in part of it. That is what you see with Miles' calorimeter, which is essentially a copper pipe open at the top. Fig. 4, p. 55: http://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/MilesManomalousea.pdf If you measure the temperature of a pipe with a great deal of water flowing through it a short distance from a hot boiler, the water temperature predominates. I expect that Miles and others had installed the thermoelement in an equilibrium place without heatgradient as required. He installed several thermocouples at various locations in the copper sheath. They all registered the same temperature to better than 0.01°C as I recall. Then there was no gradient. This is fine. If you heat one end of the pipe and cool the other end, then you get a gradient and another temperature at each location. A water flow would partially smear this gradient, but if you have air in the pipe, the gradient will increase.
Re: [Vo]:Will tests surface mounted thermocouples on pipe
Stephen A. Lawrence sa...@pobox.com wrote: In fact, the *goal* of the heat exchanger is to conduct heat from the primary to the secondary pipes, as rapidly and completely as possible. Sure, I get that. Consequently, the primary inlet and the secondary outlet are placed in extremely intimate contact as soon as they enter the heat exchanger. (When most normal people imagine a heat exchanger they think of a device where the two flows are going in the same direction, but that's actually a far less effective design than the counterflow scheme which is used in practice.) I saw that! Isn't that nifty? Counter-intuitive at first but it makes sense. The issue is that, assuming the exchange of heat isn't perfect . . . Well of course it isn't. Nothing is. but as I recall, the specs for this one showed much higher efficiency than some online guide heat exchangers I found, which was probably way out of date. This is remarkably efficient. , the secondary outlet may actually have been substantially cooler than the primary inlet, in which case heat traveling through the surfaces of the pipes (and, possibly, other parasitic paths) may have caused the thermocouple to read some temperature between the value for the secondary effluent and the primary inlet, Sure, that may be a problem. But parasitic paths are reduced to a minimum in a good design. That's my point. Any parasitic path reduces efficiency. I think you should take a close look at Houkes, if you have not done so already. If you find a problem, tell us what is wrong with it. - Jed
RE: [Vo]:Will tests surface mounted thermocouples on pipe
This is exhausting. You're going to blindly believe any evidence supporting your conclusion, and if I were to give you 10 distinct reasons that the thermocouple placement is crap, you'll try to dismiss one, and assume it negates the rest. Rossi is using a herringbone liquid counterflow heat exchanger. It is meant for recovery of heat between two liquids. Even without phase change, it is difficult to produce point-specific analysis. It is worth mentioning that there are companies that produce proprietary software to analyze the liquid heat transfer in these units, and it's not something that Google calculator can do for free. So, I'm going to oversimplify this by design. Let's give you some numbers to show you how futile this is, and how Houke's method is insufficient to model the dynamic environment in which the thermocouples reside: 1) We don't know the flow rate of the primary, but Rossi says it's 15 l/h, and you've never known him to lie, so let's assume 15 l/h, or 4.17 g/s 2) We don't know the pressure is, while the steam is trying to force itself out of the E-Cat, through the criss-crossing walls of the exchanger, while there collects condensed water in front of it, being forced out of the exchanger, down the table, across the floor, under the doormat, pushing any slugs of water in the way, out into the parking lot, and down the drain, but you've said it's about 1 ATM, so let's go with that. If the E-Cat is outputting 100% dry steam at 121.7C that condenses immediately, cooling to the output temperature at the secondary of 32.4C, it transmits: [((121.7C - 100C) x (.48cal/gram specific heat of steam)) + 540cal/gram latent heat from phase conversion + ((100C - 32.4C) x 1cal/gram specific heat of water) = 618 cal/gram x 4.17 g/sec = 2,577 kcal/sec Now, what if, I know this is a stretch, not all heat transfer occurs immediately? If steam is still present after the beginning of the manifold, the steam rushing by may only impart the energy it takes to cool to 100C: (121.7C - 100C) x .48cal/gram = 10.416 cal/gram x 4.17 g/sec = 43.43472 cal/sec That's a pretty big difference of heat energy imparted to the brass manifold. The manifold is one continuous metal block that BOTH hot and cold water flow through, albeit in their own dedicated channels. The two circumstances do not require any power output change in the E-Cat to occur. If any of the power available at the steam input is not immediately whisked away, it will necessarily heat up its environment (the manifold). Notice that it would take 650C water to impart the same amount of energy as 121.7C steam condensing to 32.4C. Date: Thu, 8 Dec 2011 14:53:18 -0500 Subject: Re: [Vo]:Will tests surface mounted thermocouples on pipe From: jedrothw...@gmail.com To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Peter Heckert peter.heck...@arcor.de wrote: If there is an air gap of 0.1mm between metal and thermoelement, then it is not nonsense. I doubt that. I would like to see you prove it. I do not think this would cause even a 0.1°C difference. Can you suggest a way to deliberately introduce such a small gap? Perhaps with a thin piece of paper instead of an air gap? Dont you see that Rossis arrangement was horrible and disqualifies him and Levi and Focardi to do such measurements? No, I do not. I have measured temperatures on pipes several times. As far as I know, this method works fine. Actually Rossi did a better job than most people do. Your other assertions about bubbles of air in the pipe are untrue. The metal of a steel or copper pipe averages out the temperature quite nicely. Miles and others showed this with a copper sheathed calorimeter with an air space at the top and thermal gradients inside. Probably braided pipe does not work as well. If you are so sure this was horrible I suggest you do a test and prove it. Even a rudimentary test such as the one I did shows it is not horrible. Rossi's methods were much better than mine. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:Will tests surface mounted thermocouples on pipe
Peter Heckert peter.heck...@arcor.de wrote: Like Saran wrap? (What you wrap sandwiches with.) IDont know. Polyethylene nowadays. See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saran_(plastic) I probably do not have Saran wrap, but I have something similar. The thermoelement must not make a hole into it. I will use a couple of layers wrapped around the pipe, with the sensor on top of that. The stuff is strong. It will make no hole. I will place the other sensor nearby directly exposed to the pipe. I will use the hot water copper pipe. [Miles] installed several thermocouples at various locations in the copper sheath. They all registered the same temperature to better than 0.01°C as I recall. Then there was no gradient. This is fine. You are wrong; there are strong gradients in the liquid. Far greater than 0.01°C. The electrolyte is not mixed, except by electrolysis. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:Will tests surface mounted thermocouples on pipe
Jed, seriously: If you say, Rossis thermomeasurements are fine, does this mean that you dont see the possibility for easy and cheap improvements? All points that are discussed here can be eliminated by better thermoelement placement almost without efforts and costs. If somebody does not admit this, then he must be a blind mouse. Rossi has chossen an arrangement that is complicated to verify and to analyse. A little bit more worse, and it would not deliver any reasonable results. So he has choosen the most worse and doubtful placement that was possible. Your experiments will not change anything about this fact. Peter
Re: [Vo]:Will tests surface mounted thermocouples on pipe
Robert Leguillon robert.leguil...@hotmail.com wrote: This is exhausting. You're going to blindly believe any evidence supporting your conclusion . . . Well, two different methods give approximately the same answer is better than zero methods that you can cite. Rossi is using a herringbone liquid counterflow heat exchanger. It is meant for recovery of heat between two liquids. Yup. Most of the heat transfers to the liquids. Not the metal shell around it. Something above 90% as I recall. That leaves only 10% for parasitic paths. Even without phase change, it is difficult to produce point-specific analysis. Probably true, but the thermocouple is a good distance from the herringbone heat exchanger channels, so I don't see why you are concerned about them. If any of the power available at the steam input is not immediately whisked away, it will necessarily heat up its environment (the manifold). Yes, of course. Wasn't it 95% efficient? So 5% escapes. Most of it radiates from the insulation. No doubt some of it conducts along the pipe and reaches the thermocouple. Not much though. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:Will tests surface mounted thermocouples on pipe
Peter Heckert peter.heck...@arcor.de wrote: If you say, Rossis thermomeasurements are fine, does this mean that you dont see the possibility for easy and cheap improvements? Did you read what I wrote about this? What I wrote SEVERAL DOZEN TIMES?!? Here: http://lenr-canr.org/News.htm QUOTE: Although some experts question these results, most believe that the reactor must have produced large amounts of anomalous heat, for the following reasons: . . . When a poorly insulated metal vessel is filled with 30 L of boiling water, it begins to cool immediately. It can only grow cooler; it cannot remain hot or grow hotter; that would violate the Second Law of Thermodynamics. . . . Unfortunately, this test was marred by problems that made it impossible to accurately determine how much energy was produced. Peak power was nominally 8 kW but the instruments were so imprecise it might have been lower or much higher, perhaps 10 kW. Problems included: poorly placed instruments; the arrangement of the outlet hose that prevented accurate independent verification of temperature and flow rates; critical parameters such as flow rates not instrumented or recorded . . . These problems could have been fixed at in a few hours, at minimal expense. The test could easily have been arranged to answer most skeptical objections . . . All points that are discussed here can be eliminated by better thermoelement placement almost without efforts and costs. I was probably the first to point that out, before the test, to Rossi himself. I have said that dozens of times. If somebody does not admit this, then he must be a blind mouse. I not only admitted it, I emphasized it in my report. However, these problems -- bad as they are -- do not negate the findings. If you think they do, I suppose you do not know much about measuring temperatures. I invite you to demonstrate your assertions with actual tests, rather than words. I will check your claim about plastic wrap. I do not think it will cause a measurable difference. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:Attenuation of decay rate in E-Cat
In reply to Mark Iverson-ZeroPoint's message of Thu, 8 Dec 2011 02:44:29 -0800: Hi, [snip] Axil: Let me take a stab at your question: It wasn't Axil's question, it was mine. Why should coherent protons be any better at thermalizing gamma radiation than ordinary protons? (Especially if that coherence is limited to pairs). The coherent photons are acting as a resonant antenna. I'm sure many have played around with resonant circuits, and antennas. Coupling of energy from the radiowave into an antenna requires a harmonic match. At the end of my comments is an excerpt from research into how quantum coherence in plant biology operates to achieve very high efficiencies in the energy transfer in photosynthetic proteins. My recent readings only enhance my suspicions that resonances (i.e., coherence) are fundamental to LENR and why the channeling of the nuclear energies goes into much lower energy (thermal) 'sinks' instead of coming out as high energy particles. In normal condensed matter, there is little to no real coherence which is harmonically related to the energy packets coming out of a nuclear process, thus, that packet of energy exits the condensed matter before being absorbed (coupled) into other energetic elements of the condensed matter. no resonant antennas to receive the energy. The normal picture of coherence in bulk matter, is basically, none. Non-coherence. There is some, but what does exist is very fleeting in time and not spatially localized; it's just randomly happening in small areas, all throughout the bulk matter, and only for very short times. Thus, there is a extremely small chance that a particular fleeting instance of quantum coherence will be in the same location as a burst of a quantum of nuclear energy passes by on its way out of the bulk matter. Thus, extremely low probability of any interaction; of any transfer of energy. Note this statement from the excerpt below, These coherences therefore dephase before even the fastest energy transfer timescales Coherence also influences 'interferences', both destructive and constructive. Note specifically this statement from the excerpt below, destructive interference in a coherent system might disallow transfer to a trap state or constructive interference might enhance transport to the target state. So quantum coherence can indeed affect energy coupling/transfer from one energy level to another. Any method to create long-lasting (i.e., stable) areas of quantum coherence (i.e., resonant antennas) within condensed matter that hang around long enough to get hit by quanta ejected from nuclear processes, will act to channel/couple the expelled nuclear energies into the lattice instead of that energy exiting the bulk matter as gammas or neutrons or the typical particles expected from hot fusion. Summary: Just think of quantum coherences as resonant antennas, but blinking in and out of existence throughout the bulk matter. Very low probability for any energy transfer from nuclear ejecta, thus ejecta exit bulk matter intact. Find a way to create coherences that are harmonically related to the nuclear ejecta, and which hang around long enough to get hit by those ejecta often, and you will have drastically altered the branching ratios one would expect from 'normal' hot fusion. Two new questions: 1) What part of such an ensemble is resonant with gamma rays (of what energies?), and why? 2) If such ensembles are fleeting, then one might expect at least some gamma rays to escape, yet few to none are detected? There should also be a difference in magnetic coupling between RH atoms and IRH atoms (though I'm not sure whether it should be stronger or weaker). Note that in IRH it is claimed the proton orbits around the electron, and since the proton is much heavier than an electron it goes a lot slower than an electron would, yet it carries the same charge, so the effective proton current would be much smaller than the equivalent effective electron current. This implies a considerably weaker magnetic field, which is however to some extent compensated for by the much reduced separation distance. Care to work out the field strengths, and the resonant frequencies? (My guess is energies on the order of keV, as opposed to gamma energies on the order of MeV, which implies essentially no resonance.) Regards, Robin van Spaandonk http://rvanspaa.freehostia.com/project.html
Re: [Vo]:Will tests surface mounted thermocouples on pipe
Am 08.12.2011 22:17, schrieb Jed Rothwell: If somebody does not admit this, then he must be a blind mouse. I not only admitted it, I emphasized it in my report. However, these problems -- bad as they are -- do not negate the findings. They do negate the findings. To prove a billion dollar invention, a little bit more care is required. This is not acceptable and triggers unnecessary doubts. I pay not ten dollars for this. I use more care and brain when I measure a semiconductor with 5° accuracy. If you think they do, I suppose you do not know much about measuring temperatures. I know enough. This is a simple measurement. Not much accuracy is required to prove a COP of 6. But he did not manage to solve this simple problem. I invite you to demonstrate your assertions with actual tests, rather than words. No. Rossis methods are so crappy, he must proof the correctness. I will check your claim about plastic wrap. I do not think it will cause a measurable difference. I also dont think. It does not matter, because the precise construction of Rossis arrangement and the temperature gradient is unknown. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:Will tests surface mounted thermocouples on pipe
On Thu, Dec 8, 2011 at 12:54 PM, Robert Leguillon robert.leguil...@hotmail.com wrote: This is exhausting. You're going to blindly believe any evidence supporting your conclusion, and if I were to give you 10 distinct reasons that the thermocouple placement is crap, you'll try to dismiss one, and assume it negates the rest. Rossi is using a herringbone liquid counterflow heat exchanger. It is meant for recovery of heat between two liquids. Even without phase change, it is difficult to produce point-specific analysis. It is worth mentioning that there are companies that produce proprietary software to analyze the liquid heat transfer in these units, and it's not something that Google calculator can do for free. So, I'm going to oversimplify this by design.SNIP etc. etc. Thanks for that, Robert. I hope Jed reads it with care several times. I am a bit surprised he didn't know about counterflow. I've mentioned it here before and assumed he knew how it was laid out. I even linked the Wikipedia entry about it. If you want to measure an accurate T out of the secondary circuit with such a device, it has to be done preferably inside the liquid and the thermocouple *must* be placed some distance downstream of the secondary outlet and away from the hot parts of the heat exchanger and also away from the steam pipe leading to the primary fluid loop input. Rossi, some would say by intent, did not do that.
[Vo]:Yo: Peter Heckert! Is a 0.1 mm gap a problem or not?
Peter Heckert peter.heck...@arcor.de wrote: If there is an air gap of 0.1mm between metal and thermoelement, then it is not nonsense. [Meaning there is a problem] I offered to check for this. Heckert suggested a piece of plastic to create the gap. Now he writes: I will check your claim about plastic wrap. I do not think it will cause a measurable difference. I also dont think. It does not matter, because the precise construction of Rossis arrangement and the temperature gradient is unknown. So what are you saying? Is there a problem with a 0.1 mm gap, or is there not? Are you asking me to waste my time doing a test that will not prove anything? If you have a good reason to believe there is a problem with measuring temperature by putting a thermocouple on a pipe, please tell us what it is. Do not make up reasons in the morning and then in the afternoon -- after I offer to test your hypothesis -- suddenly withdraw your ideas. I spent an hour and a half on this actually testing skeptical ideas. Okay, that isn't much time, and the test was rudimentary, but that is still 1.5 hours more than all of the skeptics combined have spent. I showed that trapped air is not a problem, and that cold metal next to hot metal cannot produce a measurable effect, where the metal temperature difference is ~40 deg C. If you want me to try something else that is fine, but please do not waste my time with tests that you know will prove nothing. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:New Larsen paper on Large Hadron Collider UFO Dust
In reply to Terry Blanton's message of Wed, 7 Dec 2011 18:58:50 -0500: Hi, [snip] I think the most obvious explanation is that the beam isn't perfect, and the occasional fast particle hits the wall and knocks a fleck of material off it. The impact of such a fast particle in solid matter constitutes a microscopic explosion. This explains why it tends to happen more at the start (before the beam is properly collimated), and just after the magnets which have a disrupting influence of sorts. On Wed, Dec 7, 2011 at 6:15 PM, pagnu...@htdconnect.com wrote: Lewis Larsen (Widom-Larsen) just posted a paper entitled: Are LENRs causing some of the 'UFO' dust observed in the Large Hadron Collider? Maybe somebody should look. http://dev2.slideshare.com/lewisglarsen/lattice-energy-llccould-lenrs-be-producing-ufos-in-large-hadron-colliderdec-7-2011 An interesting hypothesis. Which has been addressed earlier: http://www.mail-archive.com/vortex-l@eskimo.com/msg57887.html and Horace makes some great points. T Regards, Robin van Spaandonk http://rvanspaa.freehostia.com/project.html
Re: [Vo]:Will tests surface mounted thermocouples on pipe
Mary Yugo maryyu...@gmail.com wrote: Thanks for that, Robert. I hope Jed reads it with care several times. I am a bit surprised he didn't know about counterflow. Since I discussed the counterflow here previously, you are bit mistaken. I suggest you explain how a heat exchanger that is ~95% efficient could conduct a great deal of heat on the outside to a themocouple beyond the outlet. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:Will tests surface mounted thermocouples on pipe
On Thu, Dec 8, 2011 at 3:17 PM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com wrote: Did you read what I wrote about this? What I wrote SEVERAL DOZEN TIMES?!? Unfortunately repetition does not make it true. Although some experts question these results, most believe that the reactor must have produced large amounts of anomalous heat, for the following reasons: I don't like your sampling methods, but it's a shame we have to rely on beliefs. . . . When a poorly insulated metal vessel is filled with 30 L of boiling water, it begins to cool immediately. What kind of description is poorly insulated metal vessel? How poorly. What's its mass? Its thermal mass? It can only grow cooler; it cannot remain hot or grow hotter; that would violate the Second Law of Thermodynamics. . . . On average yes. But if the inside starts hotter, the outside can certainly become warmer. You can prove this with a space heater. Pull the plug while the surface is still warming up, and it will continue to warm up for a while. It's especially possible if you have a vapor - liquid equilibrium, where the temperature will be determined by the pressure. For example, if a closed container, the bulk of which is at a few hundred degrees, contains boiling water, and you close the exit so the pressure increases. The temperature of the water goes up. And the 2nd law remains intact. Unfortunately, this test was marred by problems that made it impossible to accurately determine how much energy was produced. Peak power was nominally 8 kW but the instruments were so imprecise it might have been lower or much higher, perhaps 10 kW. 1 kW is consistent with the data. However, these problems -- bad as they are -- do not negate the findings. They introduce enough uncertainty so the evidence does not prove Rossi's claims.
Re: [Vo]:Yo: Peter Heckert! Is a 0.1 mm gap a problem or not?
I was planning to do this test anyway, to find the temperature difference between a copper pipe and the water temperature. Just curious. This will be on the hot water pipe. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:Yo: Peter Heckert! Is a 0.1 mm gap a problem or not?
On Thu, Dec 8, 2011 at 1:49 PM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com wrote: If you have a good reason to believe there is a problem with measuring temperature by putting a thermocouple on a pipe, please tell us what it is. There is no problem in measuring temperature on a pipe in general especially if the thermocouple is properly bonded to the pipe and somewhat insulated from the surroundings. There is a big problem if the way the thermocouple is attached and its proximity to the pipe are questionable **and** the thermocouple is in close proximity to the hottest part of the device -- in this case the heat exchanger and the input pipe to it which presumably contains steam.
RE: [Vo]:Will tests surface mounted thermocouples on pipe
At 12:54 PM 12/8/2011, Robert Leguillon wrote: Coming in late on this. General comments : your plastic-pipe situation is a poor model of Rossi's copper heat-exchanger manifold. Let's give you some numbers to show you how futile this is, and how Houke's method is insufficient to model the dynamic environment in which the thermocouples reside: 1) We don't know the flow rate of the primary, but Rossi says it's 15 l/h, and you've never known him to lie, so let's assume 15 l/h, or 4.17 g/s 2) We don't know the pressure is, while the steam is trying to force itself out of the E-Cat, through the criss-crossing walls of the exchanger, while there collects condensed water in front of it, being forced out of the exchanger, down the table, across the floor, under the doormat, pushing any slugs of water in the way, out into the parking lot, and down the drain, but you've said it's about 1 ATM, so let's go with that. If the E-Cat is outputting 100% dry steam at 121.7C that condenses immediately, cooling to the output temperature at the secondary of 32.4C, it transmits: [((121.7C - 100C) x (.48cal/gram specific heat of steam)) + 540cal/gram latent heat from phase conversion + ((100C - 32.4C) x 1cal/gram specific heat of water) = 618 cal/gram x 4.17 g/sec = 2,577 kcal/sec The following comments are based on my uncallibrated Spice simulations -- I don't have the NUMBERS but I did get a good feel of the situation. The 40:1 difference in flow rate did NOT make a huge difference in the temperature profile. I only simulated the case of water-to-water. But I don't think it will be significantly different if there's steam on one side, because the MASS FLOW will be the same, even if the volume is hugely different. At the molecular level both flows are practically standing still. Super-heated steam (was it really 120C for Oct 6?) will simply cool down according to it's specific heat. Saturated steam will NOT condense in that short distance and high flow rate. It will become SUPER-COOLED. See the Russian book for details. Existing drops will grow or shrink depending on their Kelvin radius. But most of them will not be in contact with the walls of the manifold -- until they get large enough to fall out of the stream. If they do fall out then we simply have fluid water at the bottom of the tube and steam (wet or dry) at the top. Now, what if, I know this is a stretch, not all heat transfer occurs immediately? If steam is still present after the beginning of the manifold, the steam rushing by may only impart the energy it takes to cool to 100C: (121.7C - 100C) x .48cal/gram = 10.416 cal/gram x 4.17 g/sec = 43.43472 cal/sec That's a pretty big difference of heat energy imparted to the brass manifold. The manifold is one continuous metal block that BOTH hot and cold water flow through, albeit in their own dedicated channels. The two circumstances do not require any power output change in the E-Cat to occur. If any of the power available at the steam input is not immediately whisked away, it will necessarily heat up its environment (the manifold). Notice that it would take 650C water to impart the same amount of energy as 121.7C steam condensing to 32.4C.
Re: [Vo]:Will tests surface mounted thermocouples on pipe
On Thu, Dec 8, 2011 at 1:52 PM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com wrote: I suggest you explain how a heat exchanger that is ~95% efficient could conduct a great deal of heat on the outside to a themocouple beyond the outlet I think we have some difference of opinion about where exactly and near what and how near this thermocouple was located. That's what happens with sloppy, poorly done, uncontrolled and largely uncalibrated tests. You end up with questionable results. In a lot less time than we have already spend in futile and unconvincing arguments about this, it could have been settled with proper design and procedure to start with. All we really have left at the end of this exercise is still GIGO.
Re: [Vo]:Will tests surface mounted thermocouples on pipe
On Thu, Dec 8, 2011 at 2:54 PM, Robert Leguillon robert.leguil...@hotmail.com wrote: 1) We don't know the flow rate of the primary, but Rossi says it's 15 l/h, and you've never known him to lie, so let's assume 15 l/h, or 4.17 g/s I don't think this can be right, because this is already beyond the design flow rate for that pump (12 L/h), and at the end of the run, they *increased* the flow from the pump, according to Lewan's notes. Since the increase in input resulted in an immediate increase in output, it seems reasonable that the ecat was full, and therefore the exit flow rates reported by Lewan should be right. (1 g/s and 2 g/s). (The flow rate can be changed without changing the pump frequency.)
Re: [Vo]:Will tests surface mounted thermocouples on pipe
Alan J Fletcher a...@well.com wrote: At 12:54 PM 12/8/2011, Robert Leguillon wrote: Coming in late on this. General comments : your plastic-pipe situation is a poor model of Rossi's copper heat-exchanger manifold. Very poor. I was testing only one aspect of the claim: the effect of trapped air under plastic tape (strapping tape) and foam insulation. People here have claimed that trapped air and metal at a different temperature nearby will significantly affect a temperature measured at the surface of a pipe. I realize I used the wrong kind of pipe. The main thing is, the thermal mass of water going through the pipe is huge compared to everything else. It dominates. In Rossi's system a lot more water is flowing through than I can manage with the bathroom sink. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:Yo: Peter Heckert! Is a 0.1 mm gap a problem or not?
Am 08.12.2011 22:49, schrieb Jed Rothwell: Peter Heckertpeter.heck...@arcor.de wrote: So what are you saying? Is there a problem with a 0.1 mm gap, or is there not? Are you asking me to waste my time doing a test that will not prove anything? I have never asked you to do this. It was your wish. It is a simple problem for me. Tere are two heatt resisteances in series and the heat resistance of a 0.1 mm air gap is much larger than the resistance of a metal-metal connection. I know what happens when a transistor is not firmly connected to the heatsink. This all depends on the thermal flow. If there is no thermal flow, then it has of course no effect. If you have a good reason to believe there is a problem with measuring temperature by putting a thermocouple on a pipe, please tell us what it is. I have always said this is perfectly fine, if it is correctly done. Do not make up reasons in the morning and then in the afternoon -- after I offer to test your hypothesis -- suddenly withdraw your ideas. I spent an hour and a half on this actually testing skeptical ideas. Okay, that isn't much time, and the test was rudimentary, but that is still 1.5 hours more than all of the skeptics combined have spent. I showed that trapped air is not a problem, and that cold metal next to hot metal cannot produce a measurable effect, where the metal temperature difference is ~40 deg C. If you want me to try something else that is fine, but please do not waste my time with tests that you know will prove nothing. You waste your time. You try to support Rossis crappy measurements. Nobody asked you to do this. If anybody needs a proof, then you need it, to support your businesses. I have never asked you. Can you show a posting where I asked? I know how to calculate multiple heat sources and multiple heat resistances in combination. Please see it: Rossi is unable to proof a COP of 6. But he says he has a billion dollar invention. Isnt this ridiculous? - Jed
Re: [Vo]:Yo: Peter Heckert! Is a 0.1 mm gap a problem or not?
Mary Yugo maryyu...@gmail.com wrote: There is no problem in measuring temperature on a pipe in general especially if the thermocouple is properly bonded to the pipe and somewhat insulated from the surroundings. I have shown there is no problem even if the thermocopule is improperly bonded. With a Band Aid! That was deliberate. It was the worst method of bonding I could come up. I improved it with better tape and insulation. It made no measurable difference. Today I shall try to measure the difference in temperature between the outside of the pipe and the fluid on the inside. I predict that no matter how badly I bond the thermocouple, it will be reasonably accurate. We'll see. There is a big problem if the way the thermocouple is attached No, there isn't. and its proximity to the pipe are questionable . . . Prove it. Do a test and prove it. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:Yo: Peter Heckert! Is a 0.1 mm gap a problem or not?
Peter Heckert peter.heck...@arcor.de wrote: I know what happens when a transistor is not firmly connected to the heatsink. How does that relate to a thermocouple connected to a pipe? What kind of surface are you attaching to, of what composition? What are the temperature differences you measure with the transistor? If you have a good reason to believe there is a problem with measuring temperature by putting a thermocouple on a pipe, please tell us what it is. I have always said this is perfectly fine, if it is correctly done. Okay, so tell me how to do it INCORRECTLY. I shall try it using the worst method you can think of, and we will see if your incorrect method makes a significant difference. You are saying Rossi did this wrong. Tell us exactly what he did wrong, and if I can I try the same method and see if you are correct, and this causes an error of 5° to 10°C. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:Yo: Peter Heckert! Is a 0.1 mm gap a problem or not?
On Thu, Dec 8, 2011 at 2:17 PM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com wrote: Prove it. Do a test and prove it. Sorry Jed, that's a fair amount of work and it would be for very little reassurance because the experiment was so loose, there were many other known and unknown ways, already alluded to, that Rossi could cheat. I'll be happy to test an E-cat properly and cleanly. Just get me one.
Re: [Vo]:Yo: Peter Heckert! Is a 0.1 mm gap a problem or not?
On Thu, Dec 8, 2011 at 2:23 PM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com wrote: Okay, so tell me how to do it INCORRECTLY. I shall try it using the worst method you can think of, and we will see if your incorrect method makes a significant difference. I'll tell you but you won't do it. Get a countercurrent heat exchanger and hook up the primary input to a good healthy flow of dry steam. Run some cool water through the secondary circuit. Take the T out thermocouple and bond it to the copper block of the heat exchanger as near as you can get to the steam input. That's what I suspect Rossi actually did or close to it. But I wasn't there. I can't tell enough from the pictures. Rossi, of course, limited the picture taking and performed the take down of the device. I suspect he didn't want anyone to know precisely where the thermocouple was during the run. Obviously I can't prove that.
Re: [Vo]:Yo: Peter Heckert! Is a 0.1 mm gap a problem or not?
Mary Yugo maryyu...@gmail.com wrote: I'll tell you but you won't do it. Get a countercurrent heat exchanger and hook up the primary input to a good healthy flow of dry steam. If you purchase one and ship it to me, I will try it. My address is at LENR-CANR.org. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:Yo: Peter Heckert! Is a 0.1 mm gap a problem or not?
On Thu, Dec 8, 2011 at 2:30 PM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com wrote: Mary Yugo maryyu...@gmail.com wrote: I'll tell you but you won't do it. Get a countercurrent heat exchanger and hook up the primary input to a good healthy flow of dry steam. If you purchase one and ship it to me, I will try it. My address is at LENR-CANR.org. I'm a bit lazy about such efforts but if it doesn't cost a bundle, I might do it. . Know a good source for the model Rossi used or something very similar?
Re: [Vo]:Yo: Peter Heckert! Is a 0.1 mm gap a problem or not?
Jed, if I find the time tomorrow during work, I do the test myself. This is better. I fear your test will not be correct. I will use a resistor in an aluminium housing as a heat source and two thermoelements and two instruments. One thermocouple will be in close metallic contact to the resistor and the other will be isolated by a piece of duct tape. I will provide a macrophotography. I will also provide an overall photography that shows both thermometers and the measuring instrument in comparison. I upload this to my home page, when ready. best regards. Am 08.12.2011 23:17, schrieb Jed Rothwell: Mary Yugomaryyu...@gmail.com wrote: There is no problem in measuring temperature on a pipe in general especially if the thermocouple is properly bonded to the pipe and somewhat insulated from the surroundings. I have shown there is no problem even if the thermocopule is improperly bonded. With a Band Aid! That was deliberate. It was the worst method of bonding I could come up. I improved it with better tape and insulation. It made no measurable difference. Today I shall try to measure the difference in temperature between the outside of the pipe and the fluid on the inside. I predict that no matter how badly I bond the thermocouple, it will be reasonably accurate. We'll see. There is a big problem if the way the thermocouple is attached No, there isn't. and its proximity to the pipe are questionable . . . Prove it. Do a test and prove it. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:Yo: Peter Heckert! Is a 0.1 mm gap a problem or not?
From Peter, Jed, if I find the time tomorrow during work, I do the test myself. This is better. I fear your test will not be correct. It is good that you are performing the experiment yourself and that you will post the results. We all would love to see the results. OTOH, what is behind this fear you express - that Mr. Rothwell will not do it correctly? It seems to me that while you do not say it outright, as if you are trying to be polite in mixed company, you are inferring that Jed will end up botching the job, or worse, cheat. You are strongly implying that you do not have a very strong opinion of Mr. Rothwell's capacity to perform simple heat measurements. If so, what do you base this personal opinion of yours on? Regards Steven Vincent Johnson www.OrionWorks.com www.zazzle.com/orionworks
Re: [Vo]:Yo: Peter Heckert! Is a 0.1 mm gap a problem or not?
Peter Heckert peter.heck...@arcor.de wrote: I will use a resistor in an aluminium housing as a heat source and two thermoelements and two instruments. One thermocouple will be in close metallic contact to the resistor and the other will be isolated by a piece of duct tape. Duct tape is thick and a good insulator. This will definitely have a large effect. You do not have to bother with that test. If Rossi's video showed duct tape between the thermocouple and the metal surface, that was a big problem. I did not see that in the video. Did you? Duct tape is supposed to be a decent insulator. It is for binding ducts together. What I had in mind is for you to propose a test that would simulate an actual problem that Rossi might have made. He may have left an air gap. That is an easy mistake to make. You said that could be serious. So test that, or some other plausible problem. I did not seat the thermocopules well yesterday. At first I just plastered them on with a Band Aid, deliberately. Band Aids are designed to admit air to the skin, through the cotton. I figured that using a Band Aid would cause the most exposure to ambient air. I tried sticking them on by taping only the wire, with the end the TC bent over just touching the pipe, but that did not work. I put two TCs together at first to see if they registered the same temperature. They did. In most of the test I had them stuck on fairly tight, and insulated, as shown in the photo. I wanted to see if the presence of the cold pipe 1/2 away, and the cold air trapped under the strapping tape would affect the measurement. By the way, insulating did not appear to make a measurable change, but it is very hard to tell. The first measurements with Band Aids only were chaotic. That's not recommended! That was my idea of the worst method imaginable. Way too rudimentary. I was not being serious, although I am curious about the effect of exposure ambient air. I have never heard of anyone leaving a TC exposed on a pipe surface. Rossi did a much better job mounting the TC that I did, as you see in the video. Yugo claims she cannot see where it is mounted. The location seems clear to me. Someone uploaded a still photo from the video showing the location. I don't know what she is talking about. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:Yo: Peter Heckert! Is a 0.1 mm gap a problem or not?
On Thu, Dec 8, 2011 at 3:02 PM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com wrote: Rossi did a much better job mounting the TC that I did, as you see in the video. Yugo claims she cannot see where it is mounted. The location seems clear to me. Someone uploaded a still photo from the video showing the location. I don't know what she is talking about. I have to admit there is so much information scattered about on the internet that I sometimes lose track of some. All I remember about the thermocouple picture was that it was taken after the device was opened and it was not possible to tell where it was with respect to the hot end of the heat exchanger during the run. I could be wrong so if someone knows where that image is, a link would be appreciated.
[Vo]:Saintly comments on my JNP article
I had a good chuckle upon revisiting my Journal of Nuclear Physics article at: http://www.journal-of-nuclear-physics.com/?p=179 The comment is by Emma Russel, the famous cold fusion nuclear physicist whose work was documented in the movie The Saint. 8^) Best regards, Horace Heffner http://www.mtaonline.net/~hheffner/
Re: [Vo]:Yo: Peter Heckert! Is a 0.1 mm gap a problem or not?
OrionWorks - Steven V Johnson svj.orionwo...@gmail.com wrote: It seems to me that while you do not say it outright, as if you are trying to be polite in mixed company, you are inferring that Jed will end up botching the job, or worse, cheat. It is very likely I would botch the job. That is to say, I would end up doing something quite different from what Peter has in mind. Everyone does this sort of thing a different way. He proposes to put a layer of duct tape between the thermocouple and the hot surface. It would never occur to me to do that! I predict that will have a huge effect. That is not a plausible error that Rossi may have made so I do not see much point to it. This stuff is harder than you think, even when you do only rudimentary tests. These handhold temperature sensors have only a few buttons and features, such as min/max and REL (relative? zero-me-out). You can do a lot with them, but you have to feel your way around and try a variety of methods before you get something useful. With hot water temperature fluctuating around it was challenging to come up with a way to test the hypothesis that the cold pipe and trapped air might be affecting the reading. Very noisy. The fluctuations in water temperature were larger than the putative changes from trapped air, I think. I think I took them out of the equation by comparing T1 and T2 rather than an absolute measurement. I assume the temperature fluctuations affected both of them equally. Laboratory calorimeters are far better of course. But they are not useful on the kilowatt scale that Rossi is working with. Even these rudimentary tests are educational in that respect. Bear in mind that by using the bathroom sink flow of hot water I am working with kilowatt scale power. Roughly 12 kW. I can hear the gas heater kicking on and off and I can see the effects of it. - Jed
[Vo]:RFC: Localised Electrodynamic Lattice reaction hypothesis
Hi All, I'd just like to put this hypothesis out there to get some feedback and see where the major flaws are: - Small spheres with dielectric-metal interfaces only support surface plasmon polaritons with the spherical harmonic waves of the l=1 mode (the lowest), implying that normal component of field enhancement effect occurs purely at the two poles (North and South). So only two reaction sites per sphere but very intense field enhancements happen there, with the whole energy of the wave being concentrated temporarily at only these two sites. Some estimates put the field strengths at such sites at around 10^11 V/m - The free electron density wave normal field component penetrates ~10 nm into the metal but ~100nm into the dielectric, i.e. v. high normal accelerations at reaction sites - Potential dynamic voltages normal to the metal surface generated could then be of the order 10 kV - Free protons that occur near the surface at reaction sites will also be accelerated by the enhanced surface plasmon polariton normal components, i.e. on the rebound the protons will be accelerated and have large velocity components perpendicular into the metal at the local reaction sites - The surface plasmons have frequencies of order 10^14-10^15 Hz so the normal acceleration of protons away from and into the metal is taking place a high number of times per second, i.e. even low probability fusion events become likely in short (human) time scales. - The number of these reaction sites are directly proportional to the number of spheres (or pointed pyramids, etc) in a reactor - The driving mechanisms that excite the surface plasmon resonances could be electrons from currents (having drift velocity) in electrolytic cells or infrared radiation in thermally driven cells (this is a weak area since surface plasmon polaritons will require specific frequencies of radiation for excitation) It is like a Inertial Electrostatic Confinement fusion model in some respects, but it is electrodynamic/lattice in essence since it uses the field of the free electron coherent surface plasmon waves to accelerate normally the protons, and the lattice to confine the nucleons of the metal targets. So call it Localised Electrodynamic Lattice fusion. Worth pursuing? kiwigjb
Re: [Vo]:a long paper about and mainly against the E-cat
Jed, All what is required is that in the first experiments the trick used was different. In the first experiments calorimetry was based on how much vaporization was achieved. When people demanded a different way of calculating heat production the trick changed and now the access to the inner core was denied. Conspiracy theories are such when a simple explanation is the best way to explain a relatively simple event and instead a much more complicated explanation is given. From wiki: A *conspiracy theory* explains an event as being the result of an alleged plot by a covert group or organization or, more broadly, the idea that important political, social or economic events are the products of secret plots that are largely unknown http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cover-up to the general public. Conspiracy theories are based on the notion that complex plots are put into motion by powerful hidden forces. Usually one can sniff such theories because they require the involvement of several people, sometime apparently disconnected from each other, to work in cooperation, a lot of orchestrated, just in time behavior, the silence and secretive actions of unlikely individuals and so on. In the case of Rossi, a conspiracy is not really necessary. It is mainly one individual acting in a strange way. There are few side characters (the greek friends of Rossi, the military engineer of the end of October test and so on). But these are so few and not at all beyond any possibility of corruption that is not inconceivable at all that they are working under the direction of Rossi. You maybe can call it a conspiracy, fine. But strangely enough this conspiracy theory is actually, in this case, the best explanation of what is going on and this tells volumes about the scientific quality of this story. Giovanni On Thu, Dec 8, 2011 at 2:35 PM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com wrote: Mary Yugo maryyu...@gmail.com wrote: I suppose one could hypothesize that the previous ones were real and this one is fake Straw man hypothesis. Nobody claims that. Actually, several people have claimed that. Perhaps you are not. The point is, we know the cell is a small object. If you do not know that, you are not paying much attention. As I pointed out before, we know the volume of the cell with the cooling fins is small because they fulled the reactor vessel with water, dumped it out, and measured the volume. And because it took 2 hours to fill at 15 L per hour. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:Yo: Peter Heckert! Is a 0.1 mm gap a problem or not?
Mary Yugo maryyu...@gmail.com wrote: I have to admit there is so much information scattered about on the internet that I sometimes lose track of some. Too true. I should gather more in the RossiData folder. All I remember about the thermocouple picture was that it was taken after the device was opened and it was not possible to tell where it was with respect to the hot end of the heat exchanger during the run. Nope. The video was taken as he unwrapped the tape and revealed the location of the TC. When the TC was revealed, Rossi stopped and pointed at it, and held the picture for a moment. Someone uploaded that frame, showing his finger pointing to the TC. The location is quite clear. Rossi is actually damn good at what he does. People are so in the habit of criticizing him and trashing him and making all these outrageous claims they fail to notice that he is a first-rate plumber. That is more important that this faults, such as his lackadaisical attitude toward instruments. Plumbing is what these experiments are about. I have seen a lot of first-rate instrumentation on useless experiments, especially in Japan. I prefer third-rate instruments on definitive experiments, which is what Rossi gives us. Gene Mallove's father was a plumber. Gene was very good at plumbing and other practical aspects of experiments. His calorimeters did not leak. He fixed the coolers when they broke. Doing an experiment is a constant battle with recalcitrant equipment. This is what my mother called the innate perversity of inanimate objects. people think Ross is experiments are somehow amateur because you can see the plumbing, and there is rusting stuff and stuff cobble together. Most experiments look like that in my experience. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:Yo: Peter Heckert! Is a 0.1 mm gap a problem or not?
On Thu, Dec 8, 2011 at 3:25 PM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com wrote: Nope. The video was taken as he unwrapped the tape and revealed the location of the TC. When the TC was revealed, Rossi stopped and pointed at it, and held the picture for a moment. Someone uploaded that frame, showing his finger pointing to the TC. The location is quite clear. Do you have a link to that particular video? (thanks) people think Ross is experiments are somehow amateur because you can see the plumbing, and there is rusting stuff and stuff cobble together. Most experiments look like that in my experience. I've rarely seen anything as lame as the original E-cats look. Rusting stuff tends to break. It's unreliable and can be dangerous. Most experiments I've seen in reputable labs involved some effort at esthetics, even if just for fun. And the tubing was clean and fresh, at least when the experiment started. Stuff was aligned, leaks were fixed, curved tubes had the right radii and straight tubes were lined up properly. High quality and high grade fittings were used throughout. It was nothing like a Rossi kludge. Even visiting students put stuff together better than he seems to. And of course this is a flippin' NUCLEAR REACTOR if you believe him. It should not look like a fugitive piece of toilet piping.
RE: [Vo]:Saintly comments on my JNP article
From the script: Emma Russell: Who are you? Simon Templar(Horace Heffner): Nobody has a clue. Least of all me. ... knowing where Emma hid the secret formula, I will surmise that many of us would like to get their hands on it g -Original Message- From: Horace Heffner I had a good chuckle upon revisiting my Journal of Nuclear Physics article at: http://www.journal-of-nuclear-physics.com/?p=179 The comment is by Emma Russell, the famous cold fusion nuclear physicist whose work was documented in the movie The Saint. 8^) Best regards, Horace Heffner http://www.mtaonline.net/~hheffner/
RE: [Vo]:Will tests surface mounted thermocouples on pipe
No, Mary, the endless repetition from the same person of the same old thing is what annoys me. In one of your posts, where you interspersed your comments with the other person's, I counted 4 or 5 instances where you repeated the same basic point, but 5 different ways. Yeah, we get it, ok? RE: The real waste of bandwidth is the endless repetitious guessing about what Rossi really did and really showed. I wouldn't call it 'guessing'. The majority of the discussions of the data that IS available, is backed up by spreadsheets, FEM modeling, and other sincere quantitative efforts to establish a better estimate as to how likely Rossi's claims are. How many calculations have you done in all of your numerous posts? I strongly suggest you read the founding principles of this discussion group here: Vortex-L email discussion group, unconventional physics amasci.com/weird/wvort.html Did you happen to notice the title (from my web search for vortex-l) has the phrase, 'unconventional physics' in it? Did you happen to notice that the second folder's name in that URL is '/weird/' ? Those two clues alone should make it clear that this is a discussion group that prides itself on discussing the technical aspects of unusual claims. for the most part, we try not to focus on the personalities behind the unconventional claims, nor speculate on personal motives, unless CLEAR FACTUAL evidence exists to question the person's character. We enjoy taking what data we DO HAVE, and discussing it, and EACH OF US, ON OUR OWN, WILL DECIDE HOW MUCH CREDIBILITY WE ASSIGN TO THE DATA/CLAIMS. You seem to think that just because I one day bring up an issue which is supportive of one of the Rossi demos, means that I believe everything he says or has shown. No. In fact, I think I was the one who started the whole question of the close proximity of the secondary thermocouple to the steam inlet. A true seeker of truth is able to bring forth facts which both support or detract from what he/she thinks is going on in any situation. I think most Vorts are very capable of that kind of objective thinking. unfortunately, some are not. Due to your limited experience with this forum, and contrary to what you have suggested, in many instances this forum HAS HELPED to bring to light the problems or errors made by people making extraordinary claims; it is anything but a mutual admiration, or 'true believers' society. Most of the regulars have an extensive amount of time invested in technology careers, and then have spent a lot of their spare time researching and even experimenting with unconventional things. The fact that many Vorts feel there is enough evidence to warrant govt funding of LENR research is NOT because they 'believe' it; it's because they have read the papers and discussed the possibilities, talked to the scientists, attended conferences, and MADE UP THEIR OWN MIND that there is a reasonable chance that SOMETHING unusual is happening which needs further, dedicated effort. Others prefer to let the journal editors, or the majority', do their thinking for them. How many LENR papers have you read? How many conferences have you attended? How many scientists have you emailed? Now, if you want to label those of us with that opinion as 'true believers', be my guest, but we have done more to educate ourselves about the material than you or Cude combined. I'm in the process of responding to other points of your post; I'll post that shortly. For some reason you think that it's a major catastrophe if some newbie on this forum happens to see a supportive post, and goes away with a, god-forbid, positive impression of LENR/Rossi/DGT! Its bordering on a pathological sense that it's your duty to make sure that doesn't happen. that's fine too, and it is your right to try to save people from their own ignorance or stupidity, if that's the way you enjoy spending your free time, but I for one would graciously request that you do it on some other forum! If you come across some NEW material on Rossi/DGT or other unconventional physics that you think is interesting, then by all means post it! Then that NEW information can be added to the Collective along with its analysis. -Mark From: Mary Yugo [mailto:maryyu...@gmail.com] Sent: Thursday, December 08, 2011 11:04 AM To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: [Vo]:Will tests surface mounted thermocouples on pipe On Thu, Dec 8, 2011 at 10:07 AM, Mark Iverson-ZeroPoint zeropo...@charter.net wrote: Mary yet again proves that there are now 101 ways to say the same thing. we all agree the tests could have been done much better with little effort. I think that's enough repetition that most readers know your opinion on the issue. Stop wasting bandwidth and our time unless it's a point you HAVEN'T made before. Rossi's failure to provide adequate data when it is easy to do so really annoys you, does it? I can understand why
[Vo]:NET and Mitre
Just up on the NET site: ... Michelson explained that MITRE Corp. is a federally funded research and development center that is sanctioned by Congress to work in the public interest exclusively with government. It helps government with some of its hardest systems engineering problems and with its work with the private sector. Hello Is Steve going for a little tongue-in-cheek comedy these days?? attachment: winmail.dat
Re: [Vo]:NET and Mitre
On Thu, Dec 8, 2011 at 7:22 PM, Jones Beene jone...@pacbell.net wrote: Just up on the NET site: ... Michelson explained that MITRE Corp. is a federally funded research and development center that is sanctioned by Congress to work in the public interest exclusively with government. It helps government with some of its hardest systems engineering problems and with its work with the private sector. Hello Is Steve going for a little tongue-in-cheek comedy these days?? I've worked with MITRE. Not unlike SAIC. Lots of spooks. T
[Vo]:Rossi has selected the primary circuit fluid
Another step closer to producing Ac kWhs: http://www.journal-of-nuclear-physics.com/?p=563cpage=4#comment-142311
Re: [Vo]:Rossi has selected the primary circuit fluid
On Thu, Dec 8, 2011 at 4:53 PM, Aussie Guy E-Cat aussieguy.e...@gmail.com wrote: Rossi has selected the primary circuit fluid Oh good! What is it?
