[Vo]:10,000+ home E-Cats have been ordered
1. Neil Taylor http://www.cce-mt.org December 8th, 2011 at 5:14 PM http://www.journal-of-nuclear-physics.com/?p=563cpage=4#comment-142341 Dear Mr. Rossi, As one who has signed up to receive a home plant when they become available I am curious to know if you have attained the 10,000 unit potential orders you are shooting for? Can you tell us the number of requests received to date, or if you have achieved your stated goals, yes or no? Also, I would be happy to hear of your progress with the heat to electrical conversion for the household e-cat… God speed with your endeavors for all mankind, Neil Taylor 2. Andrea Rossi December 9th, 2011 at 4:17 AM http://www.journal-of-nuclear-physics.com/?p=563cpage=4#comment-142696 Dear Neil Taylor: 1- yes 2- working strongly Warm Regards, A.R.
Re: [Vo]:10,000+ home E-Cats have been ordered
100 MWs of home 10 kW E-Cats on pre-order, worth EUR40 million or USD60 million in sales to Rossi and his licensees. Time to build a BIG factory and employ skilled production staff. Wonder where the factory will be located? Maybe where a shipment of British Tea was once thrown into the water? On 12/9/2011 9:58 PM, Aussie Guy E-Cat wrote: 1. Neil Taylor http://www.cce-mt.org December 8th, 2011 at 5:14 PM http://www.journal-of-nuclear-physics.com/?p=563cpage=4#comment-142341 Dear Mr. Rossi, As one who has signed up to receive a home plant when they become available I am curious to know if you have attained the 10,000 unit potential orders you are shooting for? Can you tell us the number of requests received to date, or if you have achieved your stated goals, yes or no? Also, I would be happy to hear of your progress with the heat to electrical conversion for the household e-cat… God speed with your endeavors for all mankind, Neil Taylor 2. Andrea Rossi December 9th, 2011 at 4:17 AM http://www.journal-of-nuclear-physics.com/?p=563cpage=4#comment-142696 Dear Neil Taylor: 1- yes 2- working strongly Warm Regards, A.R.
[Vo]:Defkalion addresses ashes
Author: fyodor Hi, In the Hyperion specifications you state that you believe a fusion reaction is occurring based on the mass spectrometer results. Can you tell us anything about these results? What materials did you detect. Can you tell us anything more specific about the materials that are present after the reaction? Thank you for taking the time to answer my question. Author: Defkalion GT Dear fyodor, We didn't name the observered measurements a result of a fusion reaction. On the contrary, we clearly stated stong evidence of a dynamic system of multi-stage set of reactions. We will release our measurements, based on what we declared on p.21 of our specs Thank you Author: vocesolitare Ok, but could you at least confirm if you have found any copper in the reaction products? Thanks. Author: Defkalion GT Yes, in difference with the input Cu in Ni powder, in terms of isotops and Wt%. No Cu or Cu-alloy is used in any part of the reactor or Kernel or any other part of the test systems. Full analysis of all measurements and all findings will be presented properly, as stated in p21 of Spec Sheet. Thank you
Re: [Vo]:Video of Rossi unwrapping pipe was in NyTeknik . . . wasn't it?
Horace Heffner hheff...@mtaonline.net wrote: This is from page 4 from my review: This photo by Mats Lewan of NyTeknik of the 6 Oct Rossi Tout thermocouple . . . Thank you! I knew I saw that somewhere. Since Lewan took that photo I think I will copy it to RossiData. It was thus subject to the air temperature in the volume underneath the insulation and between the brass manifold and steel nut. My tests indicate that air temperature of trapped air is not a problem. That is to say: When your goal is to measure temperature to the nearest 0.1°C, trapped air will not affect the result. If you are trying to measure smaller temperature differences the way McKubre or Storms does this might be a problem. Exposure to ambient air will cause a problem. It is especially notable that the frayed insulation, cut from around the probe tip, was not trimmed. This is very unusual. No, it isn't. The thermocouples I have purchased from Omega all came looking like this. I can upload a photo if you would like. The frayed electrical insulation may have prevented good thermal contact of the thermocouple with the steel nut . . . Not a problem. It is well clear of the nut, and even when the end of the thermocouple is kind of messy with cotton from a Band-Aid it still works perfectly okay. I discovered. *Again let me emphasize*, I'm talking about when you are trying to measure to the nearest 0.1°C. Not a precision measurement. The kinds of issues you cite would be a problem with a precision laboratory grade calorimeter, but for the measurement of this type these issues will not have a measurable effect. If you doubt that, I suggest you try using a thermocouple in a variety of situations, with liquid, metal, roast turkey, etc. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:Video of Rossi unwrapping pipe was in NyTeknik . . . wasn't it?
Here is a thermocouple as received from Omega, except I think I did trim back the outer insulation a little. This images is made with a scanner. This TC is presently gummed up thanks to my using Band-Aids at high temperatures, but it still agrees with the other instruments. The use of Band-Aids in calorimetry is highly unusual (as you said) and not recommended. But these little things are robust. You can get away with all kinds of mischief and still get the right answer. As I said, try one! I think it is a mistake for you to make assertions about what is usual or unusual, or about the role of trapped air, or what-have-you, unless you have tried using TCs in various ways. As I said, I have used them with everything from roast turkey, to fish pond water, to taking my own temperature as a fever thermometer. They take a beating and keep on ticking. (Granted, I use the shielded one for turkey and fudge.) These things go up to incredibly high temperatures. Never had a use for that. - Jed attachment: Thermocouple as received.jpg
Re: [Vo]:Defkalion addresses ashes
Interesting. I wonder if DGT will also propose what kind of nuclear/LENR steps are most likely being taken to produce the copper. Regards Steven Vincent Johnson www.OrionWorks.com www.zazzle.com/orionworks
Re: [Vo]:Will tests surface mounted thermocouples on pipe
On Thu, Dec 8, 2011 at 5:28 PM, Mark Iverson-ZeroPoint zeropo...@charter.net wrote: Most of those postings are providing some models, some calculations… something of substance which, although however speculative, at least that speculation is backed by some numbers. There's nothing magical about numbers. With data of unknown or bad quality as the input, calculations are not necessarily helpful. I can't follow the nuclear physics discussions and calculations but I am conversant enough with heat transfer and fluid flow to follow those. If I'd had something to add to them, I would have. Now, just sorting by number of posts, Jed comes in way at the TOP!! (He needs to get laid more often) J MaryYugo comes is second with 531. Your attention to my posting frequency is touching. Many if not most posts were in direct response to someone responding to me. Should I ignore responses to keep posting frequency lower? There are VERY few of those, and if you are specifically referring to our ‘poster from down under’, AussieGuy, with about half the posting rate as you, HE IS THE ONLY ONE ON THE ENTIRE LIST THAT HAS ACTUALLY MADE ARRANGEMENTS TO BUY ONE, AND HAS AGREED TO PROPERLY TEST AND REPORT HIS FINDINGS! Even with all your redundant postings, I would not be singling you out if you were putting together a group to buy and test an E-Cat; or taking time and money to have traveled to Italy to see first-hand. I would be applauding you…. First of all, nobody has ever reported succeeding in buying an E-cat so I have reason to doubt that AussieGuy's arrangements are even worth the cost of the phone calls he's made. Everything he reports is unsubstantiated claims and projections Rossi provides. That's not much more of a contribution than one can get simply reading Rossi's bizarre blog. Second, how do you know what I did or didn't do? As it happens, I did discuss with several people the possibility of putting together an effort to visit Rossi and get a proper test. I also had what I hope were helpful private email discussions with Jed Rothwell regarding possible instrumentation and methods for such a test with respect to a group he was trying to form. That was before I joined the Vortex email list. Reading mainly what Jed had to say privately and in public, it became clear to me that Rossi had no intention of allowing a proper independent test of his device and the people I was talking to about a trip to Italy lost interest. There's little point in getting a repeat of Krivit's dismal experience with Rossi, or NASA or Quantum's. I believe the group Jed was assisting came to somewhat similar conclusions because they apparently declined to visit Rossi and/or Defkalion as well. My first response to this point was handled in a previous posting about an hour ago, but let me summarize: 1) Vortex-l was founded TO DISCUSS UNCONVENTIONAL PHYSICS; LENR, and more specifically the e-Cat, falls into that category. If you want to discuss conventional physics, then what the hell are you doing here? I think that discuss includes valid criticism and disapproval as well as adulation. 3) Tell me Mary, what useful technical knowledge have we gained from ANY of your 531 posts in the last month??? Nothing that comes to mind; nothing I didn’t already know way back in January after the first Rossi demo. Perhaps you don't find my discussions relevant or helpful. You're free to ignore them. Others may find the parallel between Steorn and other scammers and their actions useful. Yet others may benefit from my past experience with calorimetry and my suggestions for doing it correctly, something which Rossi appears to avoid with studious precision. “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.” At least he got off his ass and took time to learn something, and share that knowledge… YOU HAVE DONE NOTHING BUT BITCH, WHINE AND MOAN about the same few things. That's your interpretation. Other may vary. A bad simulation is no more useful or interesting than no simulation. Inasmuch as it may mislead, it's worse.
Re: [Vo]:Video of Rossi unwrapping pipe was in NyTeknik . . . wasn't it?
On Fri, Dec 9, 2011 at 9:45 AM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com wrote: These things go up to incredibly high temperatures. Never had a use for that. Indeed they do. And the frayed electrical insulation that Horace mentioned used to be asbestos. Don't know what they use now. T
Re: [Vo]:Will tests surface mounted thermocouples on pipe
On Thu, Dec 8, 2011 at 4:12 PM, Mark Iverson-ZeroPoint zeropo...@charter.net wrote: 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? Fine. But apparently a lot of people don't get it because they keep assuming Rossi is necessarily or most likely telling the truth. My point was that you have no problems with their repetition. 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 I don't recall making any criticism of the forum as a whole. 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. I have no problem with funding LENR research using normal and equitable criteria for deciding what gets funded from proposals. How many LENR papers have you read? How many conferences have you attended? How many scientists have you emailed? If the question isn't simply rhetorical, the answer is some and it was not encouraging. Well, I'd better correct that to reflect that I have not attended any LENR conferences. LENR papers seem to be written mainly for other LENR researchers and as such are hard and tedious, for the most part, for others to read. I read a few recommended by Jed Rothwell and others and found some promising but the work seemed not to have been replicated even though it took place some years back. I found other work to be reported in an extremely opaque manner with hard to interpret charts, tables and even conclusions and sometimes inadequate reporting of materials and methods. It would be nice if the various LENR researchers would work together instead of competing for some presumed billions of dollars at the end of the rainbow. It would be nice if they produced clear and informative reports. That's just a casual view. I have not made a study of the field and do not plan to. I know very little about nuclear physics and never claimed to know much about it. My interest in Rossi is due to his robust and extravagant claims as well as his unusual methods of testing and demonstrating and his strangeness. I am not criticizing Rossi's claims because they are LENR or cold fusion. I know how to perform the type of calorimetry needed to evaluate Rossi's device and what Rossi has done is bad calorimetry. I know scams and Rossi acts in every way like a classical investor scammer. 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. Perhaps so but in some cases, it doesn't seem to have helped much. 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! No worries. I am getting bored with Rossi. Unless and until he does another dog and pony show, I will be paying him less attention.
[Vo]:Tests with thermoelements and tape.
Hi, Where I work: http://hphsite.de/Vortex/AtWork.jpg Measuring Arrangement: http://hphsite.de/Vortex/Overview.jpg Macro detail - tape: http://hphsite.de/Vortex/Tape.jpg (It is worth to note, that a small air gap or spurious glassfiber isolation material had the same effect as the tape.) The thermoelement on the tape has a bad contact to the metal and measures preferrably the air temperature. I used warm air here, so it displays more than the other element, which is in direct touch with the metal) Control measurement: http://hphsite.de/Vortex/Touch.jpg Calibration labels on instruments:http://hphsite.de/Vortex/Labels.jpg Measurement: http://hphsite.de/Vortex/Measure.jpg I post this without comment as is. Some explanations are embedded into the images. Everyone can have his own opinion if this is relevant for calorimetric measurements and if it can be applied to Rossis heat exchanger. The experiment itself cannot been doubted. It is real. Best regards, Peter
Re: [Vo]:Tests with thermoelements and tape.
Peter Heckert peter.heck...@arcor.de wrote: The thermoelement on the tape has a bad contact to the metal and measures preferrably the air temperature. This is not a valid test. You have to cover up the thermocouples. Rossi did not leave them open to the air. Of course leaving them open will pick up the air temperature. That is obvious. Yesterday when I removed the foam pipe insulation, the temperature dropped 1.4 to 3°C, even though the TC was still covered with adhesive tape. It began fluctuating, no doubt due to air currents. Putting a layer of tape under the TC in open air might well increase this problem. You have put everything under insulation. I see no point to testing for problems that Rossi cannot possibly have. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:LENR-CANR Theory Papers
At 08:28 AM 12/8/2011, Akira Shirakawa wrote: 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 Takahashi Now Includes Weak Interactions in LENR Theory http://blog.newenergytimes.com/2011/12/07/takahashi-now-includes-weak-interactions-in-lenr-theory-2/ Akito Takahashi, a retired professor of nuclear engineering from Osaka University, and now affiliated with Technova Inc., is shifting his thinking about low-energy nuclear reactions. For two decades, Takahashi, a LENR experimentalist and theorist, has been exclusively proposing strong force reactions in which deuterons theoretically overcome the Coulomb barrier at room temperature. In the abstracts for the forthcoming Japan CF Research Society conference, Takahashi discusses the weak interaction p +e n + v and the neutron capture process 3p + n 3He + p.
Re: [Vo]:Tests with thermoelements and tape.
Am 09.12.2011 18:59, schrieb Jed Rothwell: Peter Heckertpeter.heck...@arcor.de wrote: The thermoelement on the tape has a bad contact to the metal and measures preferrably the air temperature. This is not a valid test. You have to cover up the thermocouples. Rossi did not leave them open to the air. I assume that under the surface of the insulation warm air can distribute. Probably the air has the average temp of input and output. The thermoelement would be exposed to this air even if it might be separately glued on with adhesive tape, but not tightly, or if glassfiber was between thermoelement and metal. Remember, for this measurement in Rossis setup there was a typical delta_t measured of 5 degrees. This means, 0.5 degrees is 10% error. The problem would be avoided, if a reasonable delta_t of 30° would be chosen. This is typical for domestic heat radiators and so this would also give a nice customer-oriented demo. rossi has missed this chance. Of course leaving them open will pick up the air temperature. That is obvious. Yesterday when I removed the foam pipe insulation, the temperature dropped 1.4 to 3°C, even though the TC was still covered with adhesive tape. It began fluctuating, no doubt due to air currents. Putting a layer of tape under the TC in open air might well increase this problem. You have put everything under insulation. I see no point to testing for problems that Rossi cannot possibly have. - Jed
[Vo]:Romney: Hot For Cold Fusion?
Look like Romney is a big fan of cold fusion. http://blog.thephoenix.com/BLOGS/talkingpolitics/archive/2011/12/08/romney-hot-for-cold-fusion.aspx
Re: [Vo]:Tests with thermoelements and tape.
Peter Heckert peter.heck...@arcor.de wrote: I assume that under the surface of the insulation warm air can distribute. Then you should please put some insulation over it, leaving some warm air. No more than 1 mm of air. Not ~1 cm. I believe you are wrong about that. I tested for it, and found no such thing. Exposure to ambient air had an immediate, large effect. But making at tent with string, leaving about 1 mm all around, did not affect the measurement. When I say it did not affect it, I mean to within 0.1 deg C. It did not even affect it when I ran cold water through the pipe under the tent. Also there is not probably no trapped air in Rossi's system. Rossi wrapped the insulation tightly, as you see in the video. I doubt there is a 0.1 mm gap between the TC and the metal. Again, because it was tightly wrapped. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:Tests with thermoelements and tape.
I wrote: On Fri, Dec 9, 2011 at 12:59 PM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com wrote: Peter Heckert peter.heck...@arcor.de wrote: The thermoelement on the tape has a bad contact to the metal and measures preferrably the air temperature. This is not a valid test. You have to cover up the thermocouples. Rossi did not leave them open to the air. Of course leaving them open will pick up the air temperature. That is obvious. Yesterday when I removed the foam pipe insulation, the temperature dropped 1.4 to 3°C, even though the TC was still covered with adhesive tape. It began fluctuating, no doubt due to air currents. Putting a layer of tape under the TC in open air might well increase this problem. You have put everything under insulation. I see no point to testing for problems that Rossi cannot possibly have. In other words, there might be a 0.1 mm gap, even though the TC are under tightly wrapped insulation. It is possible that some of the threads from insulation are between the TC and the metal, and maybe that causes a problem. I would be happy to do a test for this. I can clip some insulation, put it under adhesive tape on the metal surface, and put the TC on top of that. That should test both hypotheses at the same time. I would use a metal cup for this, filled with hot water, with the TCs on the outside. I do not have a nifty metal heater. As I said, you have to put insulation over the whole thing or the test is meaningless. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:Tests with thermoelements and tape.
On Dec 9, 2011, at 9:16 AM, Jed Rothwell wrote: Peter Heckert peter.heck...@arcor.de wrote: I assume that under the surface of the insulation warm air can distribute. Then you should please put some insulation over it, leaving some warm air. No more than 1 mm of air. Not ~1 cm. I believe you are wrong about that. I tested for it, and found no such thing. Exposure to ambient air had an immediate, large effect. But making at tent with string, leaving about 1 mm all around, did not affect the measurement. When I say it did not affect it, I mean to within 0.1 deg C. It did not even affect it when I ran cold water through the pipe under the tent. Also there is not probably no trapped air in Rossi's system. Rossi wrapped the insulation tightly, as you see in the video. I doubt there is a 0.1 mm gap between the TC and the metal. Again, because it was tightly wrapped. - Jed The air gap the thermocouple extends out into is large. It is a gap that is longitudinally between the nut and the manifold, and radially between the nut outer surface and the the pipe that extends between the nut and manifold. It can not be expected the insulation goes down into this gap - it is thus full of air, and exposed to an air temperature that is between the manifold surface temperature and the temperature of the nut surface. Best regards, Horace Heffner http://www.mtaonline.net/~hheffner/
Re: [Vo]:Tests with thermoelements and tape.
I wrote: But making at tent with string, leaving about 1 mm all around, did not affect the measurement. When I say it did not affect it, I mean to within 0.1 deg C. I refer to this photo, which now has a caption: http://lenr-canr.org/RossiData/T2%20before%20insulating.jpg I put packing tape around the string to ensure that the foam tape would leave a large gap, or tent. - 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 found some heat exchangers -- anyone know if one of these is identical or equivalent to Rossi's? If so, I will consider sending one to Jed. What may hold me back is that however the T out thermocouple placement issue resolves, it doesn't help that much with verifying that Rossi's October 6 test was legitimate. Anyway, here is the link to the heat exchangers: http://www.amazon.com/s/?ie=UTF8keywords=plate+heat+exchangertag=googhydr-20index=apshvadid=7905675585ref=pd_sl_5bhlqv6vgj_b
Re: [Vo]:Tests with thermoelements and tape.
Horace Heffner hheff...@mtaonline.net wrote: The air gap the thermocouple extends out into is large. It is a gap that is longitudinally between the nut and the manifold, and radially between the nut outer surface . . . I do not think so. The insulating material is flexible and fits tightly. Also, the TC is against the flat surface of the nut, and probably it is snugly covered on all sides. HOWEVER, if you think this is a concern, we can test for it. We can make a tent as large as you like, and see if it makes a measurable difference. The string tent I made is probably bigger than anything in your description of Rossi's setup. Also my string tent had a cold water pipe running through it with lots of 16°C water flowing through, 1 cm away from the TC. That seems more extreme than what you are proposing. Heckert can also test for this with some insulation. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:Romney: Hot For Cold Fusion?
David ledin wrote: Look like Romney is a big fan of cold fusion. http://blog.thephoenix.com/BLOGS/talkingpolitics/archive/2011/12/08/romney-hot-for-cold-fusion.aspx That is astounding! Amazing that he has even heard about it. He has the details wrong, but good for him. If he wants to be elected he will shut up about this. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:Romney: Hot For Cold Fusion?
At 10:52 AM 12/9/2011, Jed Rothwell wrote: David ledin wrote: Look like Romney is a big fan of cold fusion. http://blog.thephoenix.com/BLOGS/talkingpolitics/archive/2011/12/08/romney-hot-for-cold-fusion.aspx That is astounding! Amazing that he has even heard about it. He has the details wrong, but good for him. If he wants to be elected he will shut up about this. And the article's full of cheap shots : long discredited etc etc ... Mitt Stone-Cold Fusion Romney! Tempted to post a comment , but probably best to let things lie (pun intended) for now.
Re: [Vo]:Tests with thermoelements and tape.
On Dec 9, 2011, at 9:40 AM, Jed Rothwell wrote: Horace Heffner hheff...@mtaonline.net wrote: The air gap the thermocouple extends out into is large. It is a gap that is longitudinally between the nut and the manifold, and radially between the nut outer surface . . . I do not think so. The insulating material is flexible and fits tightly. Also, the TC is against the flat surface of the nut, I don't think so. The wire is against the nut, but it is not clear the thermocouple tip is. and probably it is snugly covered on all sides. HOWEVER, if you think this is a concern, we can test for it. We can make a tent as large as you like, and see if it makes a measurable difference. The string tent I made is probably bigger than anything in your description of Rossi's setup. Also my string tent had a cold water pipe running through it with lots of 16°C water flowing through, 1 cm away from the TC. That seems more extreme than what you are proposing. Heckert can also test for this with some insulation. - Jed Best regards, Horace Heffner http://www.mtaonline.net/~hheffner/
Re: [Vo]:Romney: Hot For Cold Fusion?
On Fri, Dec 9, 2011 at 1:13 PM, David ledin mathematic.analy...@gmail.com wrote: Look like Romney is a big fan of cold fusion. http://blog.thephoenix.com/BLOGS/talkingpolitics/archive/2011/12/08/romney-hot-for-cold-fusion.aspx I believe in laboratories, looking at ways to conduct electricity with -- with cold fusion, if we can come up with it. It was the University of Utah that solved that. We somehow can’t figure out how to duplicate it. I think he meant superconductors. He needs to borrow Obama's teleprompters. :-) T
Re: [Vo]:Yo: Peter Heckert! Is a 0.1 mm gap a problem or not?
Mary Yugo maryyu...@gmail.com wrote: I found some heat exchangers -- anyone know if one of these is identical or equivalent to Rossi's? If so, I will consider sending one to Jed. What may hold me back is that however the T out thermocouple placement issue resolves, it doesn't help that much with verifying that Rossi's October 6 test was legitimate. I think you could test for this more easily and more directly by putting a large resistance heater around a copper pipe, and measuring the pipe temperature ~20 cm downstream. I do not know if that is far enough, but someone more skilled in physics than I can model it. I think the effect of the water convection should be far greater than heat conducted by the pipe from the hot spot. Of course that depends on where you put the TC, and how hot you make it. A blowtorch would probably reach the TC a good distance away. You have to put the TC downstream. The flowing water will be heated. The TC should agree with the temperature of the fluid coming out of the pipe. The heat exchanger itself is not the issue. It is whether conduction by metal or convection by water dominates. Most of the other questions that have been raised about the placement performance of the TC can be tested with the kind of simple tests I have done over the last few days. If anyone would like me to do something else, such as clipping some wire insulating material from the TC wire and putting it between the TC and the hot surface I would be happy to do that. It is a piece of cake to do stuff like this, especially with a dual input meter. I think all of these problems are imaginary. I think that rather than fretting about them or waving your hands, you should get a TC and try it. Bear in mind that they make these things to be used in the real world by busy engineers, workmen, mechanics, cooks who are roasting turkeys, and others who do not have time to conduct careful tests. If a piece of adhesive tape could throw the reading off by several degrees, people would have huge problems repairing equipment and installing HVAC ducts. The thing is, when people measure the temperature of the fluid in a pipe they know damn well they are supposed to cover up the TC with insulation. That is how it is shown in every manual. They sell kits with surface mounted TCs and insulating material. Nobody who does this for a living does it the wrong way. Rossi does this for a living. To take another example, when you measure the temperature of a roasting turkey you are not supposed to let the TC touch the bone. Every cook knows this, so they never make that mistake. Heck even I know it. Although I tried touching the bone and did not find much difference in temperature. I have always been in favor of trying things, doing things and finding out directly. Don't fret, wonder, or raise questions -- do it! Make an air pocket and see if it affects the TC. Be careful not to do some unrelated test, such such as exposing the TC to ambient air. Rossi did not do that, so it is pointless to test for it. Perhaps I am prone to testing these things rather than simply looking up the conductivity of copper, or speculating, because I do not understand theory beyond what they taught undergraduates at Cornell in 1974 in mid-level physics. I have discovered to my dismay that is what they teach high school kids nowadays. Also I am no good at math. I am not capable of the kinds of modelling Higgins and Houkes have kindly uploaded. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:Tests with thermoelements and tape.
On Dec 9, 2011, at 9:40 AM, Jed Rothwell wrote: Horace Heffner hheff...@mtaonline.net wrote: The air gap the thermocouple extends out into is large. It is a gap that is longitudinally between the nut and the manifold, and radially between the nut outer surface . . . I do not think so. The insulating material is flexible and fits tightly. Also, the TC is against the flat surface of the nut, I don't think so. The wire is against the nut, but it is not clear the thermocouple tip is. Here is another view of the thermocouple tip after the insulation was removed. You can see it extends out beyond the nut, even though the wire is bent upwards at the time of the photo. http://lenr.qumbu.com/lenr_spicepics/111010_1C_crop.png Here is photo of manifold with thermocouple removed. Air space is probably about 5 mm deep, 2 cm wide? Also threads prevent firm wide area contact. This is from Alan Fletcher's site: http://lenr.qumbu.com/rossi_ecat_oct11_spice.php and probably it is snugly covered on all sides. HOWEVER, if you think this is a concern, we can test for it. We can make a tent as large as you like, and see if it makes a measurable difference. The problem is simulating the nature of the manifold, with its very high thermal conductivity and large contact area between hot and cold sides. Taping together two hoses does not do this. The string tent I made is probably bigger than anything in your description of Rossi's setup. Also my string tent had a cold water pipe running through it with lots of 16°C water flowing through, 1 cm away from the TC. That seems more extreme than what you are proposing. Heckert can also test for this with some insulation. - Jed Best regards, Horace Heffner http://www.mtaonline.net/~hheffner/
Re: [Vo]:Tests with thermoelements and tape.
Horace Heffner hheff...@mtaonline.net wrote: I don't think so. The wire is against the nut, but it is not clear the thermocouple tip is. Why would he not ensure the tip is up against the flat surface? Wouldn't you do that? I sure would. But okay, let's assume it is protruding out. As you see in the video, the insulating material is flexible tape. It will bend and cover over things. So even if the TC is protruding out, the air pocket around it will be small. Furthermore, even when you make a huge air pocket with a pipe and you run water 34 deg C cooler than your target through it, that makes no measurable difference. So I suggest: 1. You stop fretting about this. OR 2. You propose some test that I or someone else can do to prove or disprove your hypothesis. If you don't like my tent, what do you propose? OR 3. Get a TC and try it yourself. It should not be necessary to get an entire heat exchanger to test this one hypothesis. The experiment should be simplified to include only the specific details being tested such as whether an air pocket can affect TC performance. By the way, if the TC is protruding off the edge of that nut, I expect that would bend the TC into an L shape. These are flexible wires not rods. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:Tests with thermoelements and tape.
On Dec 9, 2011, at 9:40 AM, Jed Rothwell wrote: Horace Heffner hheff...@mtaonline.net wrote: The air gap the thermocouple extends out into is large. It is a gap that is longitudinally between the nut and the manifold, and radially between the nut outer surface . . . I do not think so. The insulating material is flexible and fits tightly. Also, the TC is against the flat surface of the nut, I don't think so. The wire is against the nut, but it is not clear the thermocouple tip is. Here is another view of the thermocouple tip after the insulation was removed. You can see it extends out beyond the nut, even though the wire is bent upwards at the time of the photo. http://lenr.qumbu.com/lenr_spicepics/111010_1C_crop.png Here is photo of manifold with thermocouple removed. Air space is probably about 5 mm deep, 2 cm wide? Also threads prevent firm wide area contact. http://lenr.qumbu.com/lenr_spicepics/111010_2_crop.jpg Photos are from Alan Fletcher's site, the page with the nifty FEA simulations: http://lenr.qumbu.com/rossi_ecat_oct11_spice.php and probably it is snugly covered on all sides. HOWEVER, if you think this is a concern, we can test for it. We can make a tent as large as you like, and see if it makes a measurable difference. The problem is simulating the nature of the manifold, with its very high thermal conductivity and large contact area between hot and cold sides. Taping together two hoses does not do this. The string tent I made is probably bigger than anything in your description of Rossi's setup. Also my string tent had a cold water pipe running through it with lots of 16°C water flowing through, 1 cm away from the TC. That seems more extreme than what you are proposing. Heckert can also test for this with some insulation. - Jed Best regards, Horace Heffner http://www.mtaonline.net/~hheffner/
Re: [Vo]:Yo: Peter Heckert! Is a 0.1 mm gap a problem or not?
Mary Yugo maryyu...@gmail.com wrote: I found some heat exchangers -- anyone know if one of these is identical or equivalent to Rossi's? If so, I will consider sending one to Jed. What may hold me back is that however the T out thermocouple placement issue resolves, it doesn't help that much with verifying that Rossi's October 6 test was legitimate. The heat exchanger, though involved somewhat, is not nearly as important as the manifold: http://lenr.qumbu.com/lenr_spicepics/111010_2_crop.jpg Best regards, Horace Heffner http://www.mtaonline.net/~hheffner/
Re: [Vo]:Romney: Hot For Cold Fusion?
Terry Blanton wrote: I believe in laboratories, looking at ways to conduct electricity with -- with cold fusion, if we can come up with it. It was the University of Utah that solved that. We somehow can’t figure out how to duplicate it. I think he meant superconductors. Ha! I'll bet that's what he had in mind. Still, he mentioned U. Utah. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:LENR-CANR Theory Papers
On Fri, Dec 9, 2011 at 12:09 PM, Alan J Fletcher a...@well.com wrote: Akito Takahashi, a retired professor of nuclear engineering from Osaka University, and now affiliated with Technova Inc., is shifting his thinking about low-energy nuclear reactions. For two decades, Takahashi, a LENR experimentalist and theorist, has been exclusively proposing strong force reactions in which deuterons theoretically overcome the Coulomb barrier at room temperature. In the abstracts for the forthcoming Japan CF Research Society conference, Takahashi discusses the weak interaction p +e – n + v and the neutron capture process 3p + n – 3He + p. Right, but as I pointed out elsewhere, he appears to have the threshold energy for p+e-n wrong. The difference between a neutron and a proton mass is 1.293 MeV/c^2. Take away one electron mass (511 keV) and you're left with the q-value of 782 keV. He seems to have taken the electron mass away twice to get 272 keV. Maybe I'm reading something wrong, but as I see it, he's mistaken or WL (and Zawodny) are. Anyone can make mistakes of course, but this is kind of critical, and he claims the electrons can get 600 keV energy in his magical TSC state, which falls between 272 keV and 782 keV. My guess is that if he is in error, his theory will get tweaked to give the electrons another 200 keV. What's a few hundred keV for electrons that ordinarily have only a few eV in condensed matter? So, instead of imagining conditions in which deuterons theoretically overcome the Coulomb barrier at room temperature, now he's imagining conditions in which electrons theoretically overcome a much larger energy barrier.
Re: [Vo]:Tests with thermoelements and tape.
On Fri, Dec 9, 2011 at 11:48 AM, Horace Heffner hheff...@mtaonline.netwrote: The problem is simulating the nature of the manifold, with its very high thermal conductivity and large contact area between hot and cold sides. Taping together two hoses does not do this. Very well put. I think that's the main issue here. If the whole matter is sufficiently important and it's economically feasible to get a heat exchanger similar to Rossi's, that'd be the way to go.
Re: [Vo]:Yo: Peter Heckert! Is a 0.1 mm gap a problem or not?
On Fri, Dec 9, 2011 at 11:49 AM, Horace Heffner hheff...@mtaonline.netwrote: Mary Yugo maryyu...@gmail.com wrote: I found some heat exchangers -- anyone know if one of these is identical or equivalent to Rossi's? If so, I will consider sending one to Jed. What may hold me back is that however the T out thermocouple placement issue resolves, it doesn't help that much with verifying that Rossi's October 6 test was legitimate. The heat exchanger, though involved somewhat, is not nearly as important as the manifold: http://lenr.qumbu.com/lenr_spicepics/111010_2_crop.jpg Thank you. That's the first time I've seen that image. Can that item be bought? Is it worth the trouble?
Re: [Vo]:Tests with thermoelements and tape.
Am 09.12.2011 19:40, schrieb Jed Rothwell: Heckert can also test for this with some insulation. - Jed Sorry, its only possible when the boss is not around ;-) We are rather busy now, at end of year many customers must use up their budget, if they dont do this they get less next year... Peter
Re: [Vo]:Romney: Hot For Cold Fusion?
On 11-12-09 02:27 PM, Terry Blanton wrote: On Fri, Dec 9, 2011 at 1:13 PM, David ledin mathematic.analy...@gmail.com wrote: Look like Romney is a big fan of cold fusion. http://blog.thephoenix.com/BLOGS/talkingpolitics/archive/2011/12/08/romney-hot-for-cold-fusion.aspx I believe in laboratories, looking at ways to conduct electricity with -- with cold fusion, if we can come up with it. It was the University of Utah that solved that. We somehow can’t figure out how to duplicate it. I think he meant superconductors. He needs to borrow Obama's teleprompters. :-) Or brain. Actually, Romney's a pretty bright guy, or at any rate that's my impression of him. But he sure didn't sound like it in that quote. I agree with Jed: If Romney wants to get elected he'd better stay far away from this issue.
[Vo]:Two separate issues: air pocket; and conduction vrs convection
It seems to me that Horace Heffner is talking about two separate issues here. They may both be happening. Or perhaps only one, or neither. It is better to test them separately. I do not see how a heat exchanger is needed to test either one. Horace wrote: The problem is simulating the nature of the manifold, with its very high thermal conductivity and large contact area between hot and cold sides. Taping together two hoses does not do this. To test the air pocket hypothesis, you need to add a body into the pocket which is much hotter or colder than your target. I had a body 34°C colder which I think is sufficient. The temperature gap is not as large as with Rossi's system, but it would have registered something, I believe. You do not need to conduct the heat from the cold hose to the TC via metal. The point is to find out if the cold air trapped in the pocket will do this by convection. In other words, I was not simulating the problem of conduction from one hose to the other, but only the air in the pocket convecting from one body to the other. Granted, a little heat would conduct from one pipe to the other, since they were touching. Can the cold air caught in the pocket coming from the cold pipe a short distance away affect TC performance? Answer: Nope. Not enough to measure. One could almost as easily test the conduction problem without involving air pockets, and without a manifold or what-have-you. Just use a copper pipe, water flowing through it, and a blowtorch. Or maybe just an electric heater or a gas grill. - Jed
RE: [Vo]:Yo: Peter Heckert! Is a 0.1 mm gap a problem or not?
Mary: If you have a PayPal acct, I will gladly donate $20 to the cause. Just so the people funding the effort and the person performing the tests all agree beforehand, Can someone put together a brief document with: -tests to perform -rough diagram of the test setup -test procedures I don't think we need anything too sophisticated as far as the boiler. a tea kettle boiling on the stove would be sufficient, with a hose connecting the pour spout to the primary side of the heat exchanger. -Mark From: Mary Yugo [mailto:maryyu...@gmail.com] Sent: Friday, December 09, 2011 10:31 AM To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: 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 found some heat exchangers -- anyone know if one of these is identical or equivalent to Rossi's? If so, I will consider sending one to Jed. What may hold me back is that however the T out thermocouple placement issue resolves, it doesn't help that much with verifying that Rossi's October 6 test was legitimate. Anyway, here is the link to the heat exchangers: http://www.amazon.com/s/?ie=UTF8 http://www.amazon.com/s/?ie=UTF8keywords=plate+heat+exchangertag=googhydr -20index=apshvadid=7905675585ref=pd_sl_5bhlqv6vgj_b keywords=plate+heat+exchangertag=googhydr-20index=apshvadid=7905675585r ef=pd_sl_5bhlqv6vgj_b
Re: [Vo]:Tests with thermoelements and tape.
On Fri, Dec 9, 2011 at 3:08 PM, Peter Heckert peter.heck...@arcor.de wrote: Sorry, its only possible when the boss is not around ;-) We are rather busy now, at end of year many customers must use up their budget, if they dont do this they get less next year... sigh That's why there are no curbs at the local military base. Oh, the roads were built with curbs; but, whenever they end the year with leftover budget for base maintenance, they spend it quickly by paving the roads or lose the budget. Now there are no curbs left as they are filled with asphalt. T
Re: [Vo]:Romney: Hot For Cold Fusion?
Ha! I'll bet that's what he had in mind. Still, he mentioned U. Utah. Yeah, he mixed his metaphors! T
Re: [Vo]:Tests with thermoelements and tape.
Mary Yugo wrote: The problem is simulating the nature of the manifold, with its very high thermal conductivity and large contact area between hot and cold sides. Taping together two hoses does not do this. Very well put. I think that's the main issue here. You missed the main issue. I was testing for air convection in a pocket. I knew that the two pipes touching would not conduct a significant amount of heat. I believe I said that before, and again today. Granted, there was no significant air convection with that string tent, although I did give the TC some space. My air pocket was larger by far than Rossi's would be, if he has one (which I doubt). Really, this is a non-issue. If someone would like to make a larger tent with a clear path between the hot body and a cold body, please do so. I'm sure you will still find no measurable effect. I could do that if someone would like to recommend a specific method. Not dry ice touching the hot water pipe 1 cm away from the TC. Some reasonable simulation of Rossi's system. The other way to do this is by modeling. Use a computer instead of a real test. Everyone who has done that for the conduction problem has determined it is a non-issue. Actually . . . for the conduction test, an ice pack around a copper pipe of hot water would be easy to arrange . . . That's a stable source of cold, until the ice all melts. One of those blue refrigerator pack things. I wonder how far upstream it should be? Easier than a blowtorch. If the whole matter is sufficiently important and it's economically feasible to get a heat exchanger similar to Rossi's, that'd be the way to go. After some consideration, I do not see what the heat exchanger has to do with these hypotheses. Perhaps it has to do with some other hypothesis. One at a time. Simply the experiment to explore the question. Do not use an entire heat exchanger if all you want to know is whether conduction is a significant fraction of convection in this system. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:Romney: Hot For Cold Fusion?
If Romney wants to get elected he should NOT shy away from this. Harry On Fri, Dec 9, 2011 at 3:11 PM, Stephen A. Lawrence sa...@pobox.com wrote: On 11-12-09 02:27 PM, Terry Blanton wrote: On Fri, Dec 9, 2011 at 1:13 PM, David ledin mathematic.analy...@gmail.com wrote: Look like Romney is a big fan of cold fusion. http://blog.thephoenix.com/BLOGS/talkingpolitics/archive/2011/12/08/romney-hot-for-cold-fusion.aspx I believe in laboratories, looking at ways to conduct electricity with -- with cold fusion, if we can come up with it. It was the University of Utah that solved that. We somehow can’t figure out how to duplicate it. I think he meant superconductors. He needs to borrow Obama's teleprompters. :-) Or brain. Actually, Romney's a pretty bright guy, or at any rate that's my impression of him. But he sure didn't sound like it in that quote. I agree with Jed: If Romney wants to get elected he'd better stay far away from this issue.
Re: [Vo]:Two separate issues: air pocket; and conduction vrs convection
I suspect that it is not easy to simulate the actual heat exchanger and environment of the Rossi test. A true test would require an exact copy of the one he used, but that is not going to be possible. The idea of using a cold water copper pipe and blow torch with two TCs is about as good as we will get. I would place one of the TCs near the torch and the other a couple of inches further down the water flow. An ideal test would be to measure the temperature at several different distances along the copper pipe as you head away from the torch. Start close enough to the torch to see a noticeable delta. Of course, water must be flowing within the pipe. If you perform a test such as this and do not see any temperature difference when an inch or so from the torch, it will go a long way toward convincing people that the effect is not very important. May I suggest that you have the torch flame hitting the opposite side of the pipe from the TCs to keep the direct flame from screwing up the test and also allowing closer position of the first test TC. Try to obtain a copper pipe with the largest OD/ID ratio as possible since the manifold appears to be composed of very thick metal. Dave -Original Message- From: Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Fri, Dec 9, 2011 3:22 pm Subject: [Vo]:Two separate issues: air pocket; and conduction vrs convection It seems to me that Horace Heffner is talking about two separate issues here. They may both be happening. Or perhaps only one, or neither. It is better to test them separately. I do not see how a heat exchanger is needed to test either one. Horace wrote: The problem is simulating the nature of the manifold, with its very high thermal conductivity and large contact area between hot and cold sides. Taping together two hoses does not do this. To test the air pocket hypothesis, you need to add a body into the pocket which is much hotter or colder than your target. I had a body 34°C colder which I think is sufficient. The temperature gap is not as large as with Rossi's system, but it would have registered something, I believe. You do not need to conduct the heat from the cold hose to the TC via metal. The point is to find out if the cold air trapped in the pocket will do this by convection. In other words, I was not simulating the problem of conduction from one hose to the other, but only the air in the pocket convecting from one body to the other. Granted, a little heat would conduct from one pipe to the other, since they were touching. Can the cold air caught in the pocket coming from the cold pipe a short distance away affect TC performance? Answer: Nope. Not enough to measure. One could almost as easily test the conduction problem without involving air pockets, and without a manifold or what-have-you. Just use a copper pipe, water flowing through it, and a blowtorch. Or maybe just an electric heater or a gas grill. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:Two separate issues: air pocket; and conduction vrs convection
I wrote: One could almost as easily test the conduction problem without involving air pockets, and without a manifold or what-have-you. Just use a copper pipe, water flowing through it, and a blowtorch. Or maybe just an electric heater or a gas grill. As I mentioned in the other thread, perhaps it would be easier and more controlled to take the opposite approach. That is, to make the pipe colder rather than hotter. You surround a hot water pipe with an ice pack. You put the TC mounted on the pipe ~20 cm downstream from the ice pack. You compare this TC to the water temperature. Is this a reasonable simulation? How far should the TC be from the ice pack, given the conductivity of copper? In my kitchen, you would look for a temperature difference between the pipe and fluid significantly greater than 1°C. Naturally, you would look for the 1°C difference again, before applying the ice pack. The ice pack is ~60°C colder than the pipe and water. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:Romney: Hot For Cold Fusion?
On Fri, Dec 9, 2011 at 2:56 PM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com wrote: Terry Blanton wrote: I believe in laboratories, looking at ways to conduct electricity with -- with cold fusion, if we can come up with it. It was the University of Utah that solved that. We somehow can’t figure out how to duplicate it. I think he meant superconductors. Ha! I'll bet that's what he had in mind. Still, he mentioned U. Utah. - Jed I disagree! Romney meant generate electricity. Harry
Re: [Vo]:Romney: Hot For Cold Fusion?
On Fri, Dec 9, 2011 at 3:31 PM, Terry Blanton hohlr...@gmail.com wrote: Ha! I'll bet that's what he had in mind. Still, he mentioned U. Utah. Yeah, he mixed his metaphors! T Oh sure, and the T is short for TINKERBELL. harry
Re: [Vo]:Tests with thermoelements and tape.
On Dec 9, 2011, at 9:40 AM, Jed Rothwell wrote: Horace Heffner hheff...@mtaonline.net wrote: The air gap the thermocouple extends out into is large. It is a gap that is longitudinally between the nut and the manifold, and radially between the nut outer surface . . . I do not think so. The insulating material is flexible and fits tightly. Also, the TC is against the flat surface of the nut, I don't think so. The wire is against the nut, but it is not clear the thermocouple tip is. Here is another view of the thermocouple tip after the insulation was removed. You can see it extends out beyond the nut, even though the wire is bent upwards at the time of the photo. http://lenr.qumbu.com/lenr_spicepics/111010_1C_crop.png A cropping with the thermocouple tip circled in red is attached. Here is photo of manifold with thermocouple removed. Air space is probably about 5 mm deep, 2 cm wide? Also threads prevent firm wide area contact. http://lenr.qumbu.com/lenr_spicepics/111010_2_crop.jpg Photos are from Alan Fletcher's site, the page with the nifty FEA simulations: http://lenr.qumbu.com/rossi_ecat_oct11_spice.php Best regards, Horace Heffner http://www.mtaonline.net/~hheffner/ inline: ToutClose.jpg
Re: [Vo]:Two separate issues: air pocket; and conduction vrs convection
David Roberson dlrober...@aol.com wrote: I suspect that it is not easy to simulate the actual heat exchanger and environment of the Rossi test. A true test would require an exact copy of the one he used, but that is not going to be possible. I think a true test is one that addresses the specific physical question without extraneous stuff such as air pockets or the efficiency of the heat exchanger. I think a simplified test is better. It is better to test the air pocket hypothesis separately. The idea of using a cold water copper pipe and blow torch with two TCs is about as good as we will get. I was kidding about that. A blow torch is too hot. The temperature difference is too extreme. It is around 2000°C. I think a heater around 100°C would be better. Maybe a copper pipe running through boiling water. Not as hot as Rossi's steam, but pretty hot. Maybe a gas grill flame some distance from the pipe would be a good approach. A compromise. That is with cold water running through a pipe being heated. How about hot water running through a pipe being cooled down with ice? That's a lot easier to arrange. Try to obtain a copper pipe with the largest OD/ID ratio as possible since the manifold appears to be composed of very thick metal. I think that would confuse the issue somewhat. Actually, you need a steel pipe, from the looks of it. That has less conductivity. A copper pipe can be thinner and have the same conductivity, or better. Anyway, you can simulate one or the other by moving the TC. You can test at multiple points to make a profile. Rossi's flow rate is 10.6 L/min. which I cannot achieve with a small copper pipe. Remember, we are not trying to determine the efficiency of this measurement technique. In my kitchen there is only a 1°C difference between the pipe surface and the fluid temperature. Suppose in isolation we tested a thick pipe and a large nut, and we found there is a 5°C difference with Rossi's pipe. It is much cooler on the surface. That would mean he is losing much of the heat. His actual results are much better than he thinks. That would be a mistake that *reduces* the estimate of the heat. We don't care about such mistakes. Even if his estimate is only half of the actual that does not matter. (I suspect it is roughly half, especially given all heat that radiates from the reactor vessel.) The only thing we are concerned about here are potential mistakes that incorrectly *increase* the estimate of anomalous heat. So the only thing we want here is some measure of the heat conducted directly by the pipe, to see if it can be a significant fraction of the heat convected by the water in the pipe. If it is 5%, that is not worth bothering about. If I can measure it at all with an ordinary TC meter I will be surprised. With laboratory grade calorimetry such as McKubre does, a 5% difference would stand out like a Broadway Marquee. With the kind of calorimetry they use in factories, you would never notice it, and nobody would care if they did. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:Tests with thermoelements and tape.
A question that seems to need answering is: Why is the black electrical tape wound around the manifold at the location where the thermocouple would possibly hit if pushed downward by the insulation? Is there some purpose for tape in this particular location?http://lenr.qumbu.com/lenr_spicepics/111010_1C_crop.png It sure looks like an attempt to keep the TC from contacting the metal of the manifold. Dave -Original Message- From: Horace Heffner hheff...@mtaonline.net To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Fri, Dec 9, 2011 4:11 pm Subject: Re: [Vo]:Tests with thermoelements and tape. n Dec 9, 2011, at 9:40 AM, Jed Rothwell wrote: Horace Heffner hheff...@mtaonline.net wrote: The air gap the thermocouple extends out into is large. It is a gap that is longitudinally between the nut and the manifold, and radially between the nut outer surface . . . I do not think so. The insulating material is flexible and fits tightly. Also, the TC is against the flat surface of the nut, I don't think so. The wire is against the nut, but it is not clear he thermocouple tip is. Here is another view of the thermocouple tip after the insulation was emoved. You can see it extends out beyond the nut, even though the ire is bent upwards at the time of the photo. http://lenr.qumbu.com/lenr_spicepics/111010_1C_crop.png A cropping with the thermocouple tip circled in red is attached. Here is photo of manifold with thermocouple removed. Air space is robably about 5 mm deep, 2 cm wide? Also threads prevent firm wide rea contact. http://lenr.qumbu.com/lenr_spicepics/111010_2_crop.jpg Photos are from Alan Fletcher's site, the page with the nifty FEA imulations: http://lenr.qumbu.com/rossi_ecat_oct11_spice.php est regards, Horace Heffner ttp://www.mtaonline.net/~hheffner/
[Vo]:Nickel salts for sale?
Where can I get small quantities of soluble nickel salts? Nickel chloride would be fine. Reagent grade would be nice but not absolutely necessary. Hopefully I won't have a SWAT team of wannabe secret police attack dogs bashing down my door if I get my mitts on such an obvious threat to Homeland Security.
Re: [Vo]:Two separate issues: air pocket; and conduction vrs convection
I guess I did not know that you were kidding about the torch. It did seem a little extreme, but if the test TC is moved along the pipe and a reasonable quantity of water is flowing within, then the pipe itself would not get too hot at a decent distance. The moving water would take most of the heat and the rest would heat the pipe. This really would allow you to see a delta in temperature that was high enough to see the difference in conduction along the metal of the pipe and the water path. This is not a test that I do every day, so I can not be sure how well it would work unless tried! Any of your ideas might work, it just needs to increase or decrease the internal water temperature from the ambient so that the test stands out above the noise. It really would be nice for us to be able to settle this issue once and for all. My money is on Rossi being deceptive in this case. He could have made it solid so easily and he is not an idiot as has been pointed out many times. Dave -Original Message- From: Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Fri, Dec 9, 2011 4:25 pm Subject: Re: [Vo]:Two separate issues: air pocket; and conduction vrs convection David Roberson dlrober...@aol.com wrote: I suspect that it is not easy to simulate the actual heat exchanger and environment of the Rossi test. A true test would require an exact copy of the one he used, but that is not going to be possible. I think a true test is one that addresses the specific physical question without extraneous stuff such as air pockets or the efficiency of the heat exchanger. I think a simplified test is better. It is better to test the air pocket hypothesis separately. The idea of using a cold water copper pipe and blow torch with two TCs is about as good as we will get. I was kidding about that. A blow torch is too hot. The temperature difference is too extreme. It is around 2000°C. I think a heater around 100°C would be better. Maybe a copper pipe running through boiling water. Not as hot as Rossi's steam, but pretty hot. Maybe a gas grill flame some distance from the pipe would be a good approach. A compromise. That is with cold water running through a pipe being heated. How about hot water running through a pipe being cooled down with ice? That's a lot easier to arrange. Try to obtain a copper pipe with the largest OD/ID ratio as possible since the manifold appears to be composed of very thick metal. I think that would confuse the issue somewhat. Actually, you need a steel pipe, from the looks of it. That has less conductivity. A copper pipe can be thinner and have the same conductivity, or better. Anyway, you can simulate one or the other by moving the TC. You can test at multiple points to make a profile. Rossi's flow rate is 10.6 L/min. which I cannot achieve with a small copper pipe. Remember, we are not trying to determine the efficiency of this measurement technique. In my kitchen there is only a 1°C difference between the pipe surface and the fluid temperature. Suppose in isolation we tested a thick pipe and a large nut, and we found there is a 5°C difference with Rossi's pipe. It is much cooler on the surface. That would mean he is losing much of the heat. His actual results are much better than he thinks. That would be a mistake that reduces the estimate of the heat. We don't care about such mistakes. Even if his estimate is only half of the actual that does not matter. (I suspect it is roughly half, especially given all heat that radiates from the reactor vessel.) The only thing we are concerned about here are potential mistakes that incorrectly increase the estimate of anomalous heat. So the only thing we want here is some measure of the heat conducted directly by the pipe, to see if it can be a significant fraction of the heat convected by the water in the pipe. If it is 5%, that is not worth bothering about. If I can measure it at all with an ordinary TC meter I will be surprised. With laboratory grade calorimetry such as McKubre does, a 5% difference would stand out like a Broadway Marquee. With the kind of calorimetry they use in factories, you would never notice it, and nobody would care if they did. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:Nickel salts for sale?
From James, Where can I get small quantities of soluble nickel salts? Nickel chloride would be fine. Reagent grade would be nice but not absolutely necessary. Hopefully I won't have a SWAT team of wannabe secret police attack dogs bashing down my door if I get my mitts on such an obvious threat to Homeland Security. I wonder if these folks might be able to point you in the right direction: http://chemicalland21.com/industrialchem/inorganic/nickel%20chloride.htm In regards to the other matter, I'd recommend having a couple of raw T-Bone steaks close at hand, just in case you need to beat a hasty retreat. Regards Steven Vincent Johnson www.OrionWorks.com www.zazzle.com/orionworks
Re: [Vo]:Tests with thermoelements and tape.
I had assumed at first glance that the to of the thermocouple was held in contact with the manifold by that tape (that it was taking it down). But, then Rossi indicated a position closer to the nut with his finger, and this photo seems to indicate it was floating in the free air: http://www.mtaonline.net/~hheffner/LewanTcoupleClose.jpg Does anyone have a photo of the thermocouple while it was attached? David Roberson dlrober...@aol.com wrote: A question that seems to need answering is: Why is the black electrical tape wound around the manifold at the location where the thermocouple would possibly hit if pushed downward by the insulation? Is there some purpose for tape in this particular location?http://lenr.qumbu.com/lenr_spicepics/111010_1C_crop.png It sure looks like an attempt to keep the TC from contacting the metal of the manifold. Dave -Original Message- From: Horace Heffner hheff...@mtaonline.net To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Fri, Dec 9, 2011 4:11 pm Subject: Re: [Vo]:Tests with thermoelements and tape. n Dec 9, 2011, at 9:40 AM, Jed Rothwell wrote: Horace Heffner hheff...@mtaonline.net wrote: The air gap the thermocouple extends out into is large. It is a gap that is longitudinally between the nut and the manifold, and radially between the nut outer surface . . . I do not think so. The insulating material is flexible and fits tightly. Also, the TC is against the flat surface of the nut, I don't think so. The wire is against the nut, but it is not clear he thermocouple tip is. Here is another view of the thermocouple tip after the insulation was emoved. You can see it extends out beyond the nut, even though the ire is bent upwards at the time of the photo. http://lenr.qumbu.com/lenr_spicepics/111010_1C_crop.png A cropping with the thermocouple tip circled in red is attached. Here is photo of manifold with thermocouple removed. Air space is robably about 5 mm deep, 2 cm wide? Also threads prevent firm wide rea contact. http://lenr.qumbu.com/lenr_spicepics/111010_2_crop.jpg Photos are from Alan Fletcher's site, the page with the nifty FEA imulations: http://lenr.qumbu.com/rossi_ecat_oct11_spice.php est regards, Horace Heffner ttp://www.mtaonline.net/~hheffner/
Re: [Vo]:Tests with thermoelements and tape.
David Roberson dlrober...@aol.com wrote: A question that seems to need answering is: Why is the black electrical tape wound around the manifold at the location where the thermocouple would possibly hit if pushed downward by the insulation? Is there some purpose for tape in this particular location?http://lenr.qumbu.com/lenr_spicepics /111010_1C_crop.png It sure looks like an attempt to keep the TC from contacting the metal of the manifold. Ah. You mean the purpose is to keep the TC in contact with the nut only, and not to conduct too much heat from the manifold. I expect you are right. Black electrical tape is pretty good thermal insulation. So is duct tape, which is similar. Generally speaking, a good electrical insulator is also good at thermal insulation. By the way, Heckert referred to duct tape yesterday. I think he referred to what Americans would call adhesive tape or Scotch tape. Duct tape in the U.S. is heavy gray ultra sticky stuff: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Duct_tape It is used for all-purpose everything repairs. It was used in Apollo 13 to avoid catastrophe and make an air filter. I have a 20-year-old car in Japan which is held together with the stuff. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:Tests with thermoelements and tape.
Yep, that duct tape is pretty good stuff. I always carry some with me to keep things together and it has come in handy on several occasions. It certainly is possible that the black tape keeps direct contact from occurring between the copper manifold and the TC. Do you think that Rossi was using the insulation to hold the TC to the nut? That would seem to be a little unreliable. Dave -Original Message- From: Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Fri, Dec 9, 2011 4:45 pm Subject: Re: [Vo]:Tests with thermoelements and tape. David Roberson dlrober...@aol.com wrote: A question that seems to need answering is: Why is the black electrical tape wound around the manifold at the location where the thermocouple would possibly hit if pushed downward by the insulation? Is there some purpose for tape in this particular location?http://lenr.qumbu.com/lenr_spicepics/111010_1C_crop.png It sure looks like an attempt to keep the TC from contacting the metal of the manifold. Ah. You mean the purpose is to keep the TC in contact with the nut only, and not to conduct too much heat from the manifold. I expect you are right. Black electrical tape is pretty good thermal insulation. So is duct tape, which is similar. Generally speaking, a good electrical insulator is also good at thermal insulation. By the way, Heckert referred to duct tape yesterday. I think he referred to what Americans would call adhesive tape or Scotch tape. Duct tape in the U.S. is heavy gray ultra sticky stuff: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Duct_tape It is used for all-purpose everything repairs. It was used in Apollo 13 to avoid catastrophe and make an air filter. I have a 20-year-old car in Japan which is held together with the stuff. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:Tests with thermoelements and tape.
Robert Leguillon robert.leguil...@hotmail.com wrote: But, then Rossi indicated a position closer to the nut with his finger, and this photo seems to indicate it was floating in the free air: http://www.mtaonline.net/~hheffner/LewanTcoupleClose.jpg Yup. It was held down by other tape and insulation, which has been removed in this photo. You couldn't see it otherwise. Does anyone have a photo of the thermocouple while it was attached? I believe I saw a video or still photos of them unwrapping it . . . You can see in the video it was all bundled up during the run. This video shows only the position after the run, not the unwrapping in progress: http://www.nyteknik.se/nyheter/energi_miljo/energi/article3284823.ece See the end of the video. Looking at that video, I see nothing wrong with the placement. That's where I would have put it. There was only rubber hose after that. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:Tests with thermoelements and tape.
David Roberson dlrober...@aol.com wrote: It certainly is possible that the black tape keeps direct contact from occurring between the copper manifold and the TC. Do you think that Rossi was using the insulation to hold the TC to the nut? That would seem to be a little unreliable. Yeah, I am pretty sure I saw a video or still photos of the unwrapping, and there was a bunch of electrical tape holding it in position. It was all bundled up. Seriously, who wouldn't use tape? Why would anyone just use insulation and hope it stayed in place? Let's give Russi the benefit of the doubt here, and assume he has common sense. The video shows electrical tape plastered all over the machine and the heat exchanger (starting at minute 2). Clearly, they buy the stuff in bulk at Cosco. They have a lot of it sitting around. So why would he use only insulation? As I said, the guy knows what he is doing. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:Two separate issues: air pocket; and conduction vrs convection
David Roberson dlrober...@aol.com wrote: I guess I did not know that you were kidding about the torch. It did seem a little extreme . . . I could maybe use a gas grill. I'll think about it. Maybe Terry can come over and help. Hint, hint. , but if the test TC is moved along the pipe and a reasonable quantity of water is flowing within, then the pipe itself would not get too hot at a decent distance. Well, we want the temperature to go up about 5 or 10 deg C. Right? Maybe that takes a flame, or maybe just hot boiling water. Not sure how to run a copper pipe though that conveniently . . . It really would be nice for us to be able to settle this issue once and for all. Not while Mary Yugo and Cude live, and the Jasons reign from their hidden lair. My money is on Rossi being deceptive in this case. That makes ZERO sense. How can he be deceptive when he showed everyone exactly where the thermocouple was attached?!? Maybe he was being stupid, but there is nothing deceptive about putting the thermocouple in the wrong place and then showing everyone in the world where it is in a mass media video. If you are being deceptive you put the TC somewhere else and then point to a good location. There is no doubt this is where it was. Mind you, there was no place better to put it. This was the last metal. Just rubber after that. He should have put another in the fluid, like I told him to do before the test. Evidently he so used to measuring temperature at the pipe he figured my method was not necessary. He is probably right, but it is annoying. He could have made it solid so easily and he is not an idiot as has been pointed out many times. It was a lot more solid than you realize, listening to the peanut gallery. I do not think you will find any experienced HVAC person who would quarrel with this. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:Romney: Hot For Cold Fusion?
On Fri, Dec 9, 2011 at 4:02 PM, Harry Veeder hveeder...@gmail.com wrote: Oh sure, and the T is short for TINKERBELL. LOL! It's Tinker Bell. She's from the Bell family. Have you seen Swimming Pool? Trust me, you'll become a Tinker Bell fan, too when you see Ludavine Sagnier! http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0324133/
Re: [Vo]:Tests with thermoelements and tape.
On Fri, Dec 9, 2011 at 4:59 PM, David Roberson dlrober...@aol.com wrote: Yep, that duct tape is pretty good stuff. I always carry some with me to keep things together and it has come in handy on several occasions. You have no idea how handy it is: http://www.usmra.com/photos/Duct_Plane/ T
Re: [Vo]:Two separate issues: air pocket; and conduction vrs convection
On Fri, Dec 9, 2011 at 5:27 PM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com wrote: David Roberson dlrober...@aol.com wrote: I guess I did not know that you were kidding about the torch. It did seem a little extreme . . . I could maybe use a gas grill. I'll think about it. Maybe Terry can come over and help. Hint, hint. A candle or a Bunsen burner? Sure, I just need some notice. T
Re: [Vo]:Nickel salts for sale?
On Fri, Dec 9, 2011 at 4:37 PM, James Bowery jabow...@gmail.com wrote: Where can I get small quantities of soluble nickel salts? Nickel chloride would be fine. Reagent grade would be nice but not absolutely necessary. Hopefully I won't have a SWAT team of wannabe secret police attack dogs bashing down my door if I get my mitts on such an obvious threat to Homeland Security. Contact my buddy, Bob Lazar, at: http://www.unitednuclear.com/ Bob can get you anything you want. T
[Vo]:Satellite Video Captures Cloaked Klingon Ship
Seriously: http://gizmodo.com/5865808/has-nasas-satellite-captured-an-unidentified-object-near-mercury confirmed by a second sattelite video at the bottom of the article. Siriusly. T
Re: [Vo]:Nickel salts for sale?
On Fri, Dec 9, 2011 at 6:17 PM, Terry Blanton hohlr...@gmail.com wrote: Bob can get you anything you want. 'Ceptin' Alice: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-yLg_bzwvxg T
Re: [Vo]:Satellite Video Captures Cloaked Klingon Ship
Hi, I really like the following comment: http://gizmodo.com/people/lilstevie/lilstevie http://gizmodo.com/people/lilstevie/ @Raul Gonzalez http://gizmodo.com/5865808/has-nasas-satellite-captured-an-unidentified-object-near-mercury# It is really an earth ship, powered by a ZPM protecting us from the CME, like they did on atlantis Well, that's it for all those believers and sceptics, clear evidence that CF exists ;-) Kind regards, MoB
Re: [Vo]:Two separate issues: air pocket; and conduction vrs convection
Terry Blanton hohlr...@gmail.com wrote: I could maybe use a gas grill. I'll think about it. Maybe Terry can come over and help. Hint, hint. A candle or a Bunsen burner? Sure, I just need some notice. I was thinking more along the lines of plumbing and common sense, which I lack. I just fired up the grill to make some steaks. The grill is 18 x 11. With the top closed it reached 283 deg C. That's respectable. More reasonable that a blowtorch. I guess a steel or copper pipe laid on top of it would get about that hot too, with the top partially open and no water flowing through through. What happens when you run water through it? How far from the edge of the grill would the outside of the pipe be the same temperature as the water? I do not know, and I do not know how to model this or relate it to the heat exchanger, but it seems to me this does address the issue. In a sense it is a cleaner test. Before I consider doing this, I would appreciate it if people here who know a lot more about this than I do would give some thought to it, and make recommendations. I can measure the pipe surface temperature at several points, at various distances from the grill, and right on the grill with the shielded probe, but I do not know how much of the air temperature that picks up. Ideally you would use an IR camera for this. I guess the inlet would be from a garden hose, and the outlet has to be another hose or something similar, constricted, to keep the pipe full. - Jed
RE: [Vo]:Two separate issues: air pocket; and conduction vrs convection
If you, or maybe Aussie Guy, can get Rossi to reveal the make and model of the exact heat-exchanger manifold used in the October 6th demo, I'd be happy to chip in on any parts costs. I'm just afraid that a copper pipe is going to be insufficient to model the larger mass of the thick brass manifold. With cold water flowing through one side, the steam heat could be simulated with alternate heat sources on the other side. This would be the best option to avoid insufficient modeling of an ad-hoc experiment (unless you have a couple of thick brass elbows that can be welded back-to-back, or some reasonable equivalent. Date: Fri, 9 Dec 2011 19:43:08 -0500 Subject: Re: [Vo]:Two separate issues: air pocket; and conduction vrs convection From: jedrothw...@gmail.com To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Terry Blanton hohlr...@gmail.com wrote: I could maybe use a gas grill. I'll think about it. Maybe Terry can come over and help. Hint, hint. A candle or a Bunsen burner? Sure, I just need some notice. I was thinking more along the lines of plumbing and common sense, which I lack. I just fired up the grill to make some steaks. The grill is 18 x 11. With the top closed it reached 283 deg C. That's respectable. More reasonable that a blowtorch. I guess a steel or copper pipe laid on top of it would get about that hot too, with the top partially open and no water flowing through through. What happens when you run water through it? How far from the edge of the grill would the outside of the pipe be the same temperature as the water? I do not know, and I do not know how to model this or relate it to the heat exchanger, but it seems to me this does address the issue. In a sense it is a cleaner test. Before I consider doing this, I would appreciate it if people here who know a lot more about this than I do would give some thought to it, and make recommendations. I can measure the pipe surface temperature at several points, at various distances from the grill, and right on the grill with the shielded probe, but I do not know how much of the air temperature that picks up. Ideally you would use an IR camera for this. I guess the inlet would be from a garden hose, and the outlet has to be another hose or something similar, constricted, to keep the pipe full. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:Two separate issues: air pocket; and conduction vrs convection
On Fri, Dec 9, 2011 at 7:43 PM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com wrote How far from the edge of the grill would the outside of the pipe be the same temperature as the water? This is what we refer to as an asymptotic relationship. The real question is how far from the source does the temperature difference become negligible? I have a great engineer working for me who would be willing to tackle this if you wish to pose the question with specifics. He loves a challenge. T
Re: [Vo]:Two separate issues: air pocket; and conduction vrs convection
The model and manufacturer of the 6 Oct heat exchanger has been revealed: SWEP E8T-SC-S http://www.swep.net/index.php?tpl=productsheetslang=enid=361Type=ESize=8TMaterial=SCPressure=S in Mats Lewan's report: http://www.nyteknik.se/incoming/article3284962.ece/BINARY/Test+of+E-cat+October+6+%28pdf%29 On 12/10/2011 11:32 AM, Robert Leguillon wrote: If you, or maybe Aussie Guy, can get Rossi to reveal the make and model of the exact heat-exchanger manifold used in the October 6th demo, I'd be happy to chip in on any parts costs. I'm just afraid that a copper pipe is going to be insufficient to model the larger mass of the thick brass manifold. With cold water flowing through one side, the steam heat could be simulated with alternate heat sources on the other side. This would be the best option to avoid insufficient modeling of an ad-hoc experiment (unless you have a couple of thick brass elbows that can be welded back-to-back, or some reasonable equivalent.
Re: [Vo]:Two separate issues: air pocket; and conduction vrs convection
On Fri, Dec 9, 2011 at 8:13 PM, Terry Blanton hohlr...@gmail.com wrote: On Fri, Dec 9, 2011 at 7:43 PM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com wrote How far from the edge of the grill would the outside of the pipe be the same temperature as the water? This is what we refer to as an asymptotic relationship. The real question is how far from the source does the temperature difference become negligible? I have a great engineer working for me who would be willing to tackle this if you wish to pose the question with specifics. He loves a challenge. All pro bono, of course. T
Re: [Vo]:Two separate issues: air pocket; and conduction vrs convection
On Fri, Dec 9, 2011 at 8:15 PM, Terry Blanton hohlr...@gmail.com wrote: All pro bono, of course. Bloody hell, there's even a freakin' wiki on it: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Asymptotic_analysis T
Re: [Vo]:Two separate issues: air pocket; and conduction vrs convection
Bloody hell, there's even a freakin' wiki on it: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Asymptotic_analysis Of course, you can do all this graphically. Start with a source, say a candle, whose heat is fairly constant, and heat a piece of copper tubing with a known flow rate of water. Measure the water input temperature and measure the output temperature at various distances from the source after heating. You can plot the curve on graph paper and, using curve fitting, determine when the temperature falls by, say, 95%. All quite silly, really, tho. T
Re: [Vo]:Two separate issues: air pocket; and conduction vrs convection
On Fri, Dec 9, 2011 at 8:28 PM, Terry Blanton hohlr...@gmail.com wrote: You can plot the curve on graph paper and, using curve fitting, determine when the temperature falls by, say, 95%. Lookie, there's even a wiki on curve fitting! Note that three data points give you quite good accuracy: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Curve_fitting T
[Vo]:The assumption that Rossi is right is made for the sake of argument
Mary Yugo maryyu...@gmail.com wrote: 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? Fine. But apparently a lot of people don't get it because they keep assuming Rossi is necessarily or most likely telling the truth. You are missing the point. Those people, including me, assume this for the sake of argument. That concept seems to elude many skeptics. It does not mean the same as we believe X. It means we acknowledge the possibility of error or fraud, and *then we move on* to the rest of the discussion. I suggest you do the same. The argument that Rossi might be lying and doing stage magic begins and ends there. It is sterile. Unless you have some new evidence for it, beyond Rossi's flamboyant behavior, there is nothing more to be said about that subject. In groundbreaking science there is always the possibility of error. People spent years working on polywater before concluding it was an experimental error. That was not wasted time. On the contrary, some researchers later said it was the high point of their career. Even if Rossi is a fraud -- which is functionally similar to being in error -- close attention to his results will not be a waste of time. I have learned a lot studying him. My point was that you have no problems with their repetition. We are *not* repeating that assertion. We do not need to repeat it because that is the agreed-upon basis of the discussion. You contribute nothing by repeating this. You are not telling us anything we do not know. Many aspects of cold fusion are proved beyond any rational doubt. Among people who have read the literature, only a handful of crackpots still dispute the heat and tritium. Many other claims are not so well established. We accept them for the sake of argument because it would be tiresome and pointless to start every statement with while it may be wrong, there is some evidence for . . . [neutrons / some theory or other / Mills superchemistry / Ni = Cu transmutations / fill in the blank]. Everyone here knows that some people are convinced by Mills, others are not, and some including me have no clue whether Mills is a hit or miss. When people make bold, positive assertions about Mills, there is no call for others to interrupt and say: Hey, wait a minute, we don't all agree there is any basis for that! We don't have to agree. This is not a jury, an army headquarters, or a cult. There is no coercion. This is not holdup. It's a science experiment! as Doc said in *Back to the Future III.* You are even allowed to argue two sides of an issue, argue against yourself, or change your mind. Before his message disappeared into the void, I believe Cude threatened to expose the fact that years ago I expressed doubts about Piantelli, whereas I am now more persuaded by his claims. Cude thinks it is shameful for me to reconsider the evidence, and two-faced for me to change my mind. I do not think so. - Jed
[Vo]:Blow the Man Down
High winds in Scotland destroy windmill. Dramatic photo: http://www.newscientist.com/blogs/onepercent/2011/12/why-did-a-wind-turbine-self-co.html T
RE: [Vo]:The assumption that Rossi is right is made for the sake of argument
From Jed: ... I believe Cude threatened to expose the fact that years ago I expressed doubts about Piantelli, whereas I am now more persuaded by his claims. Cude thinks it is shameful for me to reconsider the evidence, and two-faced for me to change my mind. I do not think so. If that really is Mr. Cude's attitude, heaven help us. New discoveries would never see the light of day because we would be spending all of our psychic energy saving face. Regards, Steven Vincent Johnson www.OrionWorks.com www.zazzle.com/orionworks
RE: [Vo]:Two separate issues: air pocket; and conduction vrs convection
I'm nowhere near a computer (on the cellphone), but thanks for the links. The exchanger Rossi picked is for liquid-liquid heat exchange. See E-Type in their product range, listed under single phase: http://www.swep.net/index.php?tpl=products-rangeslang=enid=352 The link you provided: http://www.swep.net/index.php? tpl=productsheetslang=enid=361Type=ESize=8TMaterial=SCPressure=S Confirms that its only rated to 100C. Also, the 40 plate construction would logically contradict a 1ATM environment. It is quite a neat mental exercise to imagine interplay the steam expansion, and condensation in the series environment. Those are just armchair observations and are not meant to create any new arguments to be rebutted; it's just interesting. I'm having trouble accessing the .pdf files from that website via Android. Has anyone been able to find the manifold that Rossi had used? Date: Sat, 10 Dec 2011 11:44:25 +1030 From: aussieguy.e...@gmail.com To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: [Vo]:Two separate issues: air pocket; and conduction vrs convection The model and manufacturer of the 6 Oct heat exchanger has been revealed: SWEP E8T-SC-S http://www.swep.net/index.php?tpl=productsheetslang=enid=361Type=ESize=8TMaterial=SCPressure=S in Mats Lewan's report: http://www.nyteknik.se/incoming/article3284962.ece/BINARY/Test+of+E-cat+October+6+%28pdf%29 On 12/10/2011 11:32 AM, Robert Leguillon wrote: If you, or maybe Aussie Guy, can get Rossi to reveal the make and model of the exact heat-exchanger manifold used in the October 6th demo, I'd be happy to chip in on any parts costs. I'm just afraid that a copper pipe is going to be insufficient to model the larger mass of the thick brass manifold. With cold water flowing through one side, the steam heat could be simulated with alternate heat sources on the other side. This would be the best option to avoid insufficient modeling of an ad-hoc experiment (unless you have a couple of thick brass elbows that can be welded back-to-back, or some reasonable equivalent.
Re: [Vo]:Defkalion addresses ashes
Some stainless steels contain a few percent copper... On Fri, Dec 9, 2011 at 6:56 AM, OrionWorks - Steven V Johnson svj.orionwo...@gmail.com wrote: Interesting. I wonder if DGT will also propose what kind of nuclear/LENR steps are most likely being taken to produce the copper. Regards Steven Vincent Johnson www.OrionWorks.com www.zazzle.com/orionworks
[Vo]:Modern research methods will move cold fusion ahead.
If you want to develop powerful hydrogen catalysts, designing surface properties of the nano-powder are all important. http://www.greencarcongress.com/2011/12/anl-20111209.html *In the hydrogen evolution reaction (HER) we report the design and performance of composite materials to facilitate different parts of the overall multistep HER process in alkaline environments:* *This involved growth of conductive ultra-thin Ni(OH)2 clusters (height 0.7 nm, width 8 to 10 nm) on both pristine Pt single-crystal surfaces and Pt surfaces modified by two-dimensional (2D) Pt ad-islands [Pt-islands/Pt(111)]. We found that, relative to the corresponding Pt single-crystal surfaces, the most active Ni(OH)2/Pt-islands/Pt(111) electrodes in KOH solutions are more active for the HER by a factor of ~8 at an overpotential of –0.1 V. Further enhancement of water dissociation is achieved by the introduction of solvated Li+ ions into the compact portion of the double layer, resulting in a factor of 10 total increase in activity. Finally, we demonstrate that the knowledge attained by studying single-crystal surfaces can be used for the design of prospective commercial nanocatalysts for alkaline electrolyzers.* * * The electrocatalytic trends established for extended surfaces explain the activity pattern of nanocatalysts and provide a fundamental basis for the enhancement of cathode catalysts. By combining experiments with simulations in the quest for surfaces with desired activity, the researchers developed an advanced concept in nanoscale catalyst engineering. *We have not only increased catalytic activity by a factor of 10, but also now understand how each part of the system works. By scaling up from the single crystal to a real-world catalyst, this work illustrates how fundamental understanding leads quickly to innovative new technologies.* —George Crabtree If you want to do such nano-powder research, here is the type of equipment that will be productive: Their lab includes a custom built three-chamber UHV system equipped with the state-of-the-art surface sensitive tools, including Low Energy Ion Scattering Spectroscopy (LEISS), Auger Electron Spectroscopy (AES), angle resolved X-ray photoemission spectroscopy (XPS with monochromator), ultraviolet photoelectron spectroscopy (UPS), Low Energy Electron Diffraction (LEED) optics, sputtering guns, thermal evaporators, dual hemispherical analyzers, and chamber with scanning tunneling microscopy (STM) and atomic force microscopy AFM. All three chambers are connected to each other but they can also work as independent chambers, making it possible to transfer samples from one to the other unit in order to get detailed surface characterization or to make desirable surface modification. The equipment that Rossi used was shear stubbornness. But he does not know how his system works.
Re: [Vo]:Satellite Video Captures Cloaked Klingon Ship
When you look at the images from 2 satellites, 90 deg apart, in orbits around the sun, it makes it difficult to understand how this is a imaging failure. On 12/10/2011 11:07 AM, Man on Bridges wrote: Hi, I really like the following comment: http://gizmodo.com/people/lilstevie/lilstevie http://gizmodo.com/people/lilstevie/ @Raul Gonzalez http://gizmodo.com/5865808/has-nasas-satellite-captured-an-unidentified-object-near-mercury# It is really an earth ship, powered by a ZPM protecting us from the CME, like they did on atlantis Well, that's it for all those believers and sceptics, clear evidence that CF exists ;-) Kind regards, MoB
[Vo]:The 6 Oct Rossi test heat exchanger model
The heat exchanger is Swedish, make and model: SWEP E8T-SC-S http://www.swep.net/index.php? tpl=productsheetslang=enid=361Type=ESize=8TMaterial=SCPressure=S The installation manual is here: http://www.swep.net/fileview.php?file=1300709490 The brass manifold is also from SWEP. Best regards, Horace Heffner http://www.mtaonline.net/~hheffner/
