date:20111212

On Fri, Dec 9, 2011 at 7:34 PM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com wrote:

  It means we acknowledge the possibility of error or fraud, and *then we
 move on* to the rest of the discussion.


Lawrence already showed how silly this claim is. You repeatedly say there
is no chance of fraud; that the claims are proven or thermodynamics is
wrong, etc.



 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.


It's not about direct evidence of fraud. It is about the absence of direct
evidence for his claims.



 Many aspects of cold fusion are proved beyond any rational doubt.


That is manifestly untrue. If it were true, then a panel of experts
enlisted to study it would not conclude 17:1 that the evidence for it is
not conclusive.


 Among people who have read the literature, only a handful of crackpots
 still dispute the heat and tritium.


I assume the DOE panel did not consist of crackpots.

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.


No. That's not what I think. It is perfectly fine to reconsider evidence
and change your mind. The objection is not that you changed your mind about
Piantelli in light of Rossi's results, but that you now use Piantelli's
results to validate Rossi's. (And by the way, it was only a few years ago
(2009), and you did more than express doubts; you were pretty skeptical
when you said: As far as I can tell, they disproved the Focardi claims.)


This is like being quite certain that the Loch Ness monster does not exist,
and that the many blurry photographs are all interpreted incorrectly. But
then, when a clear photograph finally comes along, like the surgeon's
photograph (see the wikipedia article on the loch ness monster), you argue
that it must be real, not just because of this photograph, but because it
is supported by all the old photographs.


The problem is that a lot of marginal results and a devoted following make
for fertile ground for a hoax, and decades later, the surgeon's photograph
was finally revealed as such, and the surgeon confessed to it.


And it's not just deliberate hoaxes, but also cognitive bias and delusion
thrive in this environment. This is especially so if the results point to
profound benefit to all mankind. It doesn't matter how many people try and
get negative results; those are rarely reported. But if a few stumble on
the same systematic errors or artifacts that others have made, or fall prey
to, as you put it, calorimetric errors and artifacts, which are more
common than researchers realize, those will be added in with the hundreds
of previous marginal results, and will appear to many as if evidence is
building. But the absence of one solid result that can be reproduced
quantitatively by other labs after so many years and so many attempts
suggests to skeptics that the evidence is getting weaker.


This idea that many marginal results is somehow stronger evidence than a
few marginal results is typical of pathological science, and is expressed
frequently by you, and recently by Krivit in his interview with IARPA. It
just doesn't seem likely to you that so many scientists could be wrong. But
when the results are as weak as cold fusion results, in fact it *is*
likely. What is not likely is that so many photographs, from so many
angles, with so many different cameras, could *all* be blurry. The only
reasonable explanation is that when the pictures are clear, the image turns
out to be something other than a monster. Of course the clear photos don't
dissuade the believers; they just mean the monster ducked under water at
the right moment.

Re: [Vo]:Why not duplicate Rossi's setups and see how they work without LENR?

I'm coming to this discussion a little late, I know, and I'll probably
repeat points others have covered, but as I read through the nonsense
Rothwell writes, I can't carry on to the next nonsensical paragraph until
I've dealt with the previous, so I'll post my thoughts as I work through
it. If you feel he's been adequately refuted by others already, feel free
to ignore.


On Sat, Dec 10, 2011 at 11:58 AM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.comwrote:


 In this case you should do what I described earlier:

 Bring ~30 L of water to boil in a large pot

 Insulate the pot, but not much, so that the outer layer is still too hot
 to touch (60 to 80 deg C).

 Check the temperature periodically for 4 hours and see whether it remains
 at boiling temperature, or cools down.

 That may sound silly, but I am 100% serious. Any skeptic who sincerely
 believes the claim may be mistaken should be willing to do this test.


That you would even write this shows that you pay no attention to the
experiment, or what other people try to tell you about it. It is not simply
a large pot. It is a large 100-kg device, with plenty of volume unaccounted
for. You can store energy in 100 kg of material heated to a high
temperature. You cannot store much energy in a simple pot. You can also put
fuel into large unaccounted for volume. You can't do that in a pot.

 Frankly, if anyone is being silly it is the skeptics who are unwilling to
 try this, or to deal with the fact that this is a direct simulation of eCat
 behavior.


It's not a direct simulation because a 1-kg pot is not like a 100-kg
container. And there is no need for skeptics to do anything when it is
perfectly obvious that a 100-kg device can easily keep water boiling for 4
hours, or 40 hours for that matter.


 However, you can ignore that, not replace the water, and simply look at
 the heat lost from 30 L container.


OK. For a container that size at 60C  in a room at 30C, covered with foil
with an emissivity less than 10%, the heat loss is about 50 W. Over 3.5
hours, that's less than a MJ (less then 3/4 MJ). You don't think you can
store 3/4 MJ in 100 kg of material, at any temperature?



 This is a much easier test than making a copy of the reactor. This is as
 definitive and irrefutable as a test with a copy would be. This test gets
 to the point, without confusing the issue, and without getting into debates
 about trivial and irrelevant matters such as the placement of the cooling
 loop outlet thermocouple.


Or such as the heat or chemical fuel that you can store in a 100 kg device.



 The only way this may not model the reactor in all important respects
 would be if there is a hidden source of chemical or electric energy. There
 is absolute no evidence for that.


Well, now, if there were evidence for it, it wouldn't be hidden, would it?
There is absolutely no evidence for a nuclear source either.


And you left out a hidden source of thermal energy storage.



 To put it another way, if there is a hidden source, it is hidden so well
 no expert has seen any trace of it, and there no suggestions anywhere as to
 how you might simulate it; i.e. how you might hide wires large enough to
 keep a 30 L pot boiling for 4 hours.


You're just not listening. There are suggestions all over the internet for
how you might simulate it with thermal storage, thermite, alcohol and
oxygen candles, and so on. For your reduced experiment, it would be simple
in fact.




 (There are a few crackpot ideas about putting bricks heated to 3000 deg C
 into the reactor beforehand. There is no way that could work, and it would
 be dangerous, so do not try it.)


A sure sign that you do not have a rebuttal for the actual argument is that
you replace it with an absurd one. No one suggested heating bricks to
3000C, nor is it necessary to do it beforehand. For your simplified
experiment of supplying the heat lost through the insulation, less than a
MJ is needed. Even if you double that to keep the water boiling it's only 2
MJ. That's a small fraction of the 34 MJ of heat that went in during the
pre-heat phase. And 10 kg of fire brick (only 1/10 of the total mass) only
has to change temperature by about 200C to provide that heat. Heating fire
brick to 1000C should not be a problem to provide much more. Or use a salt
like sodium nitrate with an even higher heat capacity, and a large heat of
fusion (190 J/g) at the melting point of 308C, for even more storage with a
relatively small temperature change.

Re: [Vo]:Why not duplicate Rossi's setups and see how they work without LENR?

On Sat, Dec 10, 2011 at 12:46 PM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.comwrote:


 I was assuming that nearly all of the heat is stored in water, and that
 heat stored in the core is insignificant because it is metal, and most
 metals have about 10 times lower specific heat than water. I was leaving
 out the core altogether.


Water cannot store heat to keep itself boiling even for a moment. Unless
the pressure is slowly decreased. Where do you get your ideas?

I assume that adding any kind of simulated core will only make the thing
 cool down faster.


Adding heat will make it cool off faster? How does that work?



 HOWEVER, if you want to do this test, and you feel the core is important,
 you should simulate it. That may mean you heat it up a core separately and
 then immerse it in the liquid. Or you put electric heaters into the core,
 similar to the ones Rossi uses, and then heat the whole thing for a few
 hours until the water boils. I am not sure what material would be a good
 choice. Metal, rather than a brick.


Why? Metal has a higher volume heat capacity, but a lower mass heat
capacity, and lower resistance to heat, unless you can contain the molten
metal. Probably either would work, depending on the actual amount of heat
lost in the 3.25 hours.




 Conversely, an internal heater would necessarily be more than 100C. If
 there were a slow thermal transfer between the core and the water, as is
 demonstrated by the input power prior to the onset of boiling, the core
 could elevate to much higher temperatures, and continue releasing that
 stored heat, slowly decreasing temperature after power is removed. A 500C
 core and 300C core both produce ~100C water and some amount of steam.


 I knew that, but as I said, I figured a 500 deg C metal core would have
 less thermal mass than an equivalent mass of water at 100 deg C. Even by
 volume, nothing holds more heat than water, as far as I know.



Now, you're just not thinking, or feigning ignorance to cling to your
point. A 500C metal core may have less thermal energy (relative to ambient)
than an equivalent mass of water at 100C, but that's not the point.


First, heat flows from hotter to colder objects. That's one of your
favorite laws. So, regardless of heat capacities, a hotter metal core will
contribute heat to the water.


Second, the core might be more massive. After all the device weighs 100 kg,
and the water only 30 kg.


More importantly, the thermal energy in the water is quite useless as far
as keeping the water boiling is concerned. It doesn't contribute at all.
What matters is simply the amount of thermal mass stored in the core, and
the rate at which it is drawn down. The comparison to water is irrelevant.


And for your simplified scenario, where you only consider the heat lost
through the insulation, a few kg of either would supply the necessary heat
with a 500 hundred degree temperature change, and 10 kg of brick would
require only a change in the temperature of 200 degrees. That's still only
10% of the mass of the device.


 It would be unrealistic to make the simulated core more than 500 deg C. I
 do not think Rossi's electric heaters can make it hotter than that.


Well, 500C would be enough for 5 - 10 kg of fire brick, or maybe 10 - 20 kg
of copper or iron, or only a few kg of sodium nitrate. (Again in your
simplified scenario; more is needed to account for the flow of water
through the ecat.)


And why is more than 500C unrealistic? The elements on a stove are much
hotter than 500C, and they're heated by electricity where cooling is
efficient. Inside the ecat, with  2.5 kW power input for 3.5 hours, and
very little power out, something has to get pretty hot.


Finally, how is I do not think… supposed to represent an argument when
you say it about the feasibility of heating unknown materials in an ecat,
but It's almost certainly impossible means nothing when most nuclear
physicists say it about cold fusion?

Re: [Vo]:Why not duplicate Rossi's setups and see how they work without LENR?

On Sat, Dec 10, 2011 at 1:20 PM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com wrote:


 If you trust there was water flowing thorough at the rate reported by
 Rossi, then replace 4 L every 15 minutes as I originally suggested:


This seems wrong. The pump is rated at 12L/h, and at the end of the run the
rate is doubled, according to Lewan. So it was at most 6 L/h, not 16 as you
claim. But Lewan actually measured the output rate to be about 3.5 L/h, and
we have no evidence that the input rate was any higher than that.



 This will make it cool to room temperature in ~40 min., the way the
 original did.


I don't understand where you get this. At 19:08, the hydrogen pressure was
eliminated, and the input flow increased, and then it cooled from 117C to
105C by 19:52 (44 minutes later). That's 12 degrees in 44 minutes. Not 100C
in 40 minutes. You seem to be making stuff up.


 Obviously there was *some* water going out, because otherwise the heat
 exchanger would not have gotten hot. Nothing would have reached it. But if
 you sincerely believe this flow was only a few liters per hour then don't
 bother simulating it.


Lewan reported measuring the outflow to be 0.91 g/s or about 3.3 L/hr. Why
would he lie?

Re: [Vo]:Why not duplicate Rossi's setups and see how they work without LENR?

On Sat, Dec 10, 2011 at 5:04 PM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com wrote:

  If you wish to disprove these claims, you must demonstrate by
 conventional means that you can keep a reactor of this size at boiling
 temperatures for 4 hours, while it remains too hot to touch.


There is no need to demonstrate this. It is patently obvious that a 100-kg
device of that size can stay at boiling temperature for 40 hours without
any need of nuclear reactions.


The heat losses by radiation may be 50 W or so, and power required to bring
water to boiling at the rate of Lewan's reported 0.91 g/s is about 400W. So
to be generous, one kW power for 3.5 hours could produce what was observed
in that experiment. That makes a total of about 13 MJ.


The input power was about 3 times that. And storing 13 MJ is child's play,
when you have 100 kg to work with. Fire brick could do it with less than a
third of that mass. Using liquid sodium nitrate, you could do it with less
than 20 kg, and you wouldn't have to heat it above 500C.


And fuel. Energy density of alcohol is 30 MJ/kg. So, 400 mL of alcohol and
a chemical source of oxygen and you're in business. Four liters of alcohol,
and you could go all day. You can buy 3 kW propane heaters that are one
tenth the mass of that thing and it can put out 3 kW for hours. And finding
a source of oxygen and hiding the output gas is really a trivial problem
compared to inventing a nuclear reaction that produces heat but no
radiation at ordinary temperatures in non-radioactive material.


He's producing 13 MJ with a 100 kg device for a .13MJ/kg energy density.
Chemical fuel is in the range of 50 MJ/kg density, and commercial devices
run for a couple of hours can give around 4 MJ/kg. (Of course, they
approach the density of the fuel, the longer they run.) So, Rossi's device
isn't even 1/10 as good as off-the-shelf commercial devices. And we're
supposed to be impressed?


This demonstration is so far from proof of nuclear reactions, it's not even
funny.



 Skeptics should confront the facts head on, instead of raising
 petty objections to unimportant aspects of the test. If you seriously
 believe these results are in error, or that this can done with conventional
 stored energy or some sort of hidden chemical device, prove it. You claim
 violates so many established laws of physics, you will win the Nobel prize.


 You seem to have a double standard when evaluating cold fusion claims:


You seriously believe these results come from nuclear reactions, and yet
you don't demand that Rossi prove that he is using only Ni and a few grams
of hydrogen by showing us the contents of the cell (not the composition
necessarily). You don't demand that he explain the details of the nuclear
reaction and why it doesn't produce gamma rays or neutrons.


Yet, you don't believe that it could be a chemical reaction or thermal
storage unless the exact reaction or method of storage is demonstrated and
explained in detail.


The whole claim is based on energy density, but the fact is that the energy
density is completely consistent with either nuclear or chemical energy
sources.  Beyond that the evidence for nuclear is no better than for
chemical. On which planet does that constitute proof of a nuclear source?

Re: [Vo]:What is so special abbout Rossi?

On Sun, Dec 11, 2011 at 12:58 PM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.comwrote:


 This theory has no bearing on the results. The theory may be wrong, but
 the technique has been independently tested, and it works.


So they claim. But the demonstrations are not impressive. I'm not aware of
any peer-reviewed papers on it, and in their presentations, the numbers
bounce all over the place. They claim they have hours of output without
input, but they can't demonstrate it by actually placing the ignited
electrode in an isolated thermos to show the temperature increase. Instead,
when 60 minutes did a show on Dardik's company, the best they could come up
with for a visual was someone doing calculations in a notebook.


 Dardik seem no worse that many mainstream medical researchers.


Well, he's no worse than Andrew Wakefield, whose license to practice was
revoked for dishonest falsification of results. He's no worse than other
researchers who have been sanctioned for quackery. But he is demonstrably
worse than researchers who have not.


Isn't it interesting that by far the two most publicized experiments in
cold fusion in the last decade are those by persons with backgrounds in
fraud instead of physics.

[Vo]:Companies around E-cat and Hyperion, patents... some data

2011-12-12 Thread Alain Sepeda

FYI, and comments (especially precisions are welcome for newcommers).
probably some have already the data, but reading the comments, some don't
know.

found registrar for Defkalion holding in Cyprus
http://www.cyprus-data.com/product/352351/praxen-defkalion-green-technologies-global-ltd.html
seems an active subject
http://www.cyprus-data.com/page/14/views.html

Cyprus-Data.com  MOST VIEWED CYPRUS REGISTERED COMPANIES OF THE MONTH
...12th:
PRAXEN DEFKALION GREEN TECHNOLOGIES (GLOBAL) LTD

**
- does anyone here have read the registration data of PDGT?

found the europen pattent of rossi (In think that once a pattent is
accepted in one country, like italy, it became European patent... not sure,
but that is the story politicians sell us)
http://worldwide.espacenet.com/publicationDetails/originalDocument?FT=Ddate=20110113DB=EPODOClocale=en_EPCC=USNR=2011005506A1KC=A1
however the italian patent exist too
http://www.uibm.gov.it/uibm/dati/Avanzata.aspx?load=info_list_unoid=1610895table=Invention#ancoraSearch%20Patent%20Issued%20by%20Italian%20Patent%20Office

about the companies around e-cat/hyperion
this is a summary
http://www.nyteknik.se/nyheter/energi_miljo/energi/article3208908.ece?service=mobile

note that rossi is not alone, and his wife is owning the selling company
for E-cat, name EFA...

talking about a scam, there are a dozen of physical people that should be
in the team...

for what I understand, the total mistake is not an option about e-cat and
hyperion.
either it is one big (or two independent) scam, or it is real.

being real does not mean that Rossi or Defkalion does not manipulate us,
hiding problems, manipulating competitors with false data,
being overly optimistic, hiding success, maintaining doubt, or making
interpretation/measure mistakes,
like what you can expect from real businessmen in the real world.

[Vo]:Re: Companies around E-cat and Hyperion, patents... some data

2011-12-12 Thread Alain Sepeda

a little more data here
http://www.nyteknik.se/nyheter/energi_miljo/energi/article3208908.ece
including Defkalion greek registration
http://www.nyteknik.se/incoming/article3194246.ece/BINARY/Defkalion+in+Greek+Gov+Gazette+April%2C+2011+%28pdf%29
is someone can reed greek language and tell us the key facts
(seems to be the usual creation legal advertizing)


2011/12/12 Alain Sepeda alain.sep...@gmail.com

 found registrar for Defkalion holding in Cyprus...

[Vo]:Talbot's last message about the Rossi device

Here is part of the last message Talbot sent me about the Rossi device. We
talked about this on the phone. I told him I disagreed. We dropped the
subject. After this we only talked about other papers he was working on.

I have deleted some unrelated stuff, and extraneous details.

I feel uneasy about publishing this because Talbot is not here to defend
his position, and  because I do not think he had time to think this through
and examine the facts carefully. Not because he kept these views secret. I
believe he was preparing a paper along these lines. However it may be that
in the months following this he changed his views. He never sent me a
finished paper making these claims. Anyway, this was his take soon after
the first demonstrations. This is of historic interest for that reason.
Please do not assume he felt this way recently.

- Jed

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


28 Jan 2011
Jed,

   Thanks for making me look into the Rossi-Focardi (F-R) process again. I
have  modified my thinking based on what you said yesterday. Here is what I
sent yesterday, with a minor word change.

“The Rossi-Focardi process is purely chemical. It depends on sequential
reactions.

Reaction 1: H2 + ½ O2 - H2O(steam)Heat of Formation = 57.83 kcal/mol

Reaction 2: Ni + H2O(steam) -  NiO + H2Heat of Formation = 0.00
kcal/mol

Raney Ni catalyst has a more positive Gibbs Free Energy than Ni(metal)
i.e., it is less stable. Therefore the reaction producing crystalline NiO
takes place.”

   I accept your statement that the F-R reactor ingredients are completely
isolated  from room air. I now envision the reactor as consisting of a
leak-proof stainless  steel container within which is an open container
filled with a mix of solid  chemicals. The contents filling the open
container are called the reactor bed. The  reactor bed and the interfacing
gases, which include steam, are responsible for the heat production. The
nature of the interfaces between the solid components and the embedding gas
are determined by the pre-run protocol used.

  In the recent demonstration, the fact that there was immediate heat
production when H2 was added to the embedding gas shows that O2 gas was
present at the start of the heat producing run. Once the initial O2 was
depleted, a new source of O2 was required. My guess is that copper oxide
was the new source of O2, based on the fact that the post-reaction
composition contained Cu. . . .



Talbot

[Vo]:The Thermodynamics of Making Coffee

2011-12-12 Thread Alan J Fletcher


http://www.wired.com/wiredscience/2011/12/coffee-pot-physics/

See ... our efforts on the Ecat weren't wasted!

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

[Vo]:Could I Get a Lower-Power Ni-H System? I'm Tired of Changing Watch Batteries...

World's smallest steam engine comes to life
Posted on December 12, 2011 - 05:11 by Kate Taylor on TG Daily

German physicists say they've built a heat engine measuring only a few
micrometers across which works as well as a normal-sized version - although it
sputters, they admit.
Researchers at the University of Stuttgart and the Max Planck Institute for
Intelligent Systems say that the engine does basically work, meaning there's
nothing, in principle, to prevent the construction of highly efficient, small
heat engines.
We've developed the world's smallest steam engine, or to be more precise the
smallest Stirling engine, and found that the machine really does perform work,
says Clemens Bechinger of the University of Stuttgart.
This was not necessarily to be expected, because the machine is so small that
its motion is hindered by microscopic processes which are of no consequence in
the macroworld. The disturbances cause the micromachine to run rough and
sputter.
The researchers couldn't construct the tiny engine in the same way as a
normal-sized one. In the heat engine invented almost 200 years ago by Robert
Stirling, a gas-filled cylinder is periodically heated and cooled so that the
gas expands and contracts. This makes a piston execute a motion with which it
can drive a wheel, for example.
However, the working gas in the new engine consists of just one individual
plastic bead measuring three micrometers, which floats in water. Since the
colloid particle is around 10,000 times larger than an atom, researchers can
observe its motion directly in a microscope.

http://www.tgdaily.com/general-sciences-features/60148-worlds-smallest-steam-engine-comes-to-life

[Vo]:Kullander: detailed isotope analysis by Christmas?

2011-12-12 Thread Harry Veeder

The Sven Kullander eCat Talk.
 http://ecatnews.com/?p=1416
 “He (Kullander) was puzzled by the presence of natural copper in the
ash, but a detailed isotopic analysis is expected to be ready for
Christmas”.


harry

Re: [Vo]:Could I Get a Lower-Power Ni-H System? I'm Tired of Changing Watch Batteries...

That's amazing. But for a watch battery I suppose a thermoelectric chip is
better.

This would be for mechanical action on a very small scale. I do not know
what that could be used for, but when something like this comes along,
people often find a use for it. Something like itty-bitty robots maybe.
Like a robot in the bloodstream that propels itself toward cancerous cells
and destroys them.

- Jed

Re: [Vo]:Kullander: detailed isotope analysis by Christmas?

On Mon, Dec 12, 2011 at 11:34 AM, Harry Veeder hveeder...@gmail.com wrote:

 The Sven Kullander eCat Talk.
  http://ecatnews.com/?p=1416
  “He (Kullander) was puzzled by the presence of natural copper in the
 ash, but a detailed isotopic analysis is expected to be ready for
 Christmas”.



The link didn't work for me.  Maybe this one will:
http://ecatnews.com/?p=1416or maybe email programs just butcher it.

There's quite a bit more in that article.  I found it interesting that
Kullander said he would test Rossi's device only if he could release the
results and, apparently, no device had yet been offered for him to test.

Re: [Vo]:Kullander: detailed isotope analysis by Christmas?

Mary Yugo maryyu...@gmail.com wrote:


 I found it interesting that Kullander said he would test Rossi's device
 only if he could release the results and, apparently, no device had yet
 been offered for him to test.


Yup, that's what he said. Google-translation:

Kullander preclude an agreement whereby secrecy around that they have an
ECAT in place or that the results may not be shown publicly.

That's good. It is fine for Rossi to have secret tests done by corporations
or private organizations. But I do not think it is appropriate for a
national university to conduct secret tests even if they are fully funded
by Rossi or someone else.

Secret tests -- or partially secret tests -- in publicly funded
institutions should only be done when there are national security issues,
or privacy issues.

- Jed

[Vo]:Reviewing Lewan's test of April 2011

Ransom Wuller, an attorney who hangs out on Ecatnews.com, asked me to ...
well here's what he said:

Oh and Maryyugo, you can do Lewan's second test really easy, take a hose,
run 11 liters of water through it into a 6 liter bucket and let me know if
your floor gets wet, if so you just proved Rossi had O/I of greater then
3/1. Or do you have the audacity to disagree.

I didn't recall which test that was and Wuller provided this link:

http://www.nyteknik.se/incoming/article3166569.ece/BINARY/Report+test+of+E-cat+28+April+2011.pdf

I guess Wuller's theory is that if 5 liters of water disappear, they must
end up as steam. And if they do, the energy from the heat of vaporization
of that water (plus the heat required to heat the whole volume to boiling)
is 3X more than the input energy measured by Lewan. Apparently this
experiment was discussed in the English version of NyTeknik here:

http://www.nyteknik.se/nyheter/energi_miljo/energi/article3166552.ece

I have to admit, I can't follow the PDF report enough to figure out what
reservoir 1 and 2 are and what volumes Lewan is measuring.And even if
Lewan lost some water along the way, was it necessarily converted to
steam?

I also notice that Lewan was shown two naked E-cats and that the one used
for the experiment was completely wrapped in what is presumed to be thick
insulation. Far as I know, however, that E-cat was never unwrapped to show
it was the same as the others. I'm not sure if that matters but it does
leave another unknown. Maybe that E-cat was quite different as in larger
than the bare ones and as in had some chemical or stored energy source in
it.

So let's see if I understand the claim: 11 liters of water were supplied
and 6 were recovered. 5 are unaccounted for and presumed to be steam.
But I see that Lewan claimed more than twice that, 11160 grams, as the mass
of water evaporated. If I read him right. So where does Wuller's 5 liters
come from? Is there another experiment? I'll ask him even though he's
sort of abrasive in emails. I guess he's convinced Rossi's machine is real
and he doesn't like to be questioned. I wish he'd just participate in the
discussion but the question is interesting so I reposted it here.

Lewan's calculation of total energy required to vaporize the water seems
fine if one assumes it was all vaporized. I don't know how he knew it
was. I tried to backtrack through the PDF paper and I get confused about
what was done.

Anyone know what really happened there or shall I inquire directly of
Lewan? I believe he doesn't always follow this list but he does respond to
emails. Or can someone point to what I'm missing?

I didn't slog through the video but I guess I will when I have time. Maybe
he explains it better there.

Re: [Vo]:Reviewing Lewan's test of April 2011

OK.  Looked at the video at
http://www.nyteknik.se/nyheter/energi_miljo/energi/article3166552.ece .
I'm not sure if that's the right video for Wuller's question but if so,
it's the infamous stable, stable video in which Lewan is walking all over
the room with his camera, nobody is watching the power meter, and Rossi
does something with the power controller right when the steam intensity
pipes up in the notorious blue bucket!   Well, I did ask Wuller for some
clarification.  If I get it, I'll post it also.

Re: [Vo]:Reviewing Lewan's test of April 2011

Mary Yugo maryyu...@gmail.com wrote:


 I have to admit, I can't follow the PDF report enough to figure out what
 reservoir 1 and 2 are and what volumes Lewan is measuring.And even if
 Lewan lost some water along the way, was it necessarily converted to steam?


If it was still liquid, it would flow into the bucket. I believe that is
what he had in mind. Also, if the water was in the mythical state discussed
here in which it is 90% liquid and 10% vapor, the liquid portion would
definitely fall into the bucket. The only way it could not have reached the
bucket would be if it was vapor, as far as I know.

Notice it was not sparging when the camera first looked at the steam pipe
in the bucket. The steam was escaping and the condensate flowing down into
the bucket. After that Lewan put the hose under the water but a lot of
steam still escaped. That was not deep enough to sparge it and condense it
all.

- Jed

Re: [Vo]:The dark side of cold fusion

Axil Axil janap...@gmail.com wrote:


 No matter what Jed Rothwell says, poisoned by the deepest failings of
 uncaring and debased human nature, Cold fusion could usher in a new dark
 age of human exploitation and misery for all mankind.


I said that too. See chapter 19, Making things worse . . .

- Jed

Re: [Vo]:The dark side of cold fusion

2011-12-12 Thread OrionWorks - Steven V Johnson

From Axil Axil:

 No matter what Jed Rothwell says, poisoned by the deepest failings of
 uncaring and debased human nature, Cold fusion could usher in a new dark age
 of human exploitation and misery for all mankind.

 From Jed:
 I said that too. See chapter 19, Making things worse . . .

I would hope that another spring uprising (from the disenfranchised)
would attempt to re-balance the score card.

Regards
Steven Vincent Johnson
www.OrionWorks.com
www.zazzle.com/orionworks

Re: [Vo]:The dark side of cold fusion

2011-12-12 Thread Peter Heckert


Allan Sterling has an interesting article about it:
http://www.naturalnews.com/026116_energy_free_population.html

The article is very long and I citate only the end.

citation:
Handing this over to human beings now would be like giving a child a set 
of big red buttons for launching nuclear missiles.


What could be a possible solution for all this? *An energy device that 
only works in conjunction with high-vibration intention from 
open-hearted individuals*. If a device could amplify positive human 
intention into cheap energy -- while not working at all for those with 
dark hearts -- it could change everything for the positive. Love, after 
all, is the highest vibratory energy in the universe. It's not beyond 
imagination that love might someday be tapped as a conduit for clean, 
renewable electromagnetic energy. Need to recharge your laptop computer? 
Just send it some love!

end citation.

So he wants a machine that only works with the right high vibration 
energy from true believers.
I do of course respect his religious mormon belief, but he seems to 
think he has powers like Jesus.
If, then I must say, such powers cannot been monetarized. Everybody who 
thinks this it is paranoid and mad


Possibly he thinks the secret catalyst is strong believe and it stops 
working as soon as persons with negative vibrations (Krivit) are around.

I dont know Rossis believes.

Possibly they are fanatic believers and this is a sect and they want to 
build a theocratic. They think this is possible and they are mad.
I respect believers, but true believe cannot been sold, patented and 
drive machines.

Also true believers dont give false promises and lie the whole day long.

Peter



Am 12.12.2011 22:43, schrieb Axil Axil:

In economics, competitive advantage is defined as the strategic advantage
one business entity or country has over its rival entities within its
competitive industry.

Achieving competitive advantage strengthens and positions a business or
country better within the business environment and achieving this business
advantage is currently the major preoccupation of countries worldwide as
well as just about every international conglomerate.

It is currently thought by some informed analysts of the international
business environment that in the coming age of expensive power brought on
by peak oil and coal, the increased expense of local labor would be less
than the greatly increased expense of energy used to import fossil fuels as
well as transporting foreign made products to local markets.

In more specifics, as the price of energy increases as a fraction of a cost
of a product, the increased cost of local labor is washed out as a
competitive advantage.

However in this age of rampant globalization, when cold fusion can produce
energy at essentially zero cost, cheap labor remains and in point of fact
proportionately increases as the only factor able to provide a country with
a Competitive advantage.

Multi-national companies will look increasingly to the countries whose
populations will work for subsistence wages and below and the continuing
race to the bottom associated with labor costs will be redoubled.  No
matter what Jed Rothwell says, poisoned by the deepest failings of uncaring
and debased human nature, Cold fusion could usher in a new dark age of
human exploitation and misery for all mankind.

Cold fusion will result in a world where slavery is brutally reinstated as
the business strategy of choice for the international corporate oligarchy.

Regards:

Axil

Re: [Vo]:The dark side of cold fusion

2011-12-12 Thread Horace Heffner



On Dec 12, 2011, at 12:43 PM, Axil Axil wrote:

[snip]

Cold fusion will result in a world where slavery is brutally  
reinstated as the business strategy of choice for the international  
corporate oligarchy.



Regards:

Axil



I appreciate your great optimism that cold fusion will impact the  
world dramatically.


Now the world has gone to bed
Darkness won't engulf my head
I can see by infra-red
How I hate the night
Now I lay me down to sleep
Try to count electric sheep
Sweet dream wishes you can keep
How I hate the night

Best regards,

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

RE: [Vo]:Reviewing Lewan's test of April 2011

These tests would require direct fraudulent action by Rossi. Bad calorimetry
(ignoring water overflow) is insufficient to explain the power.

http://www.nyteknik.se/incoming/article3166567.ece/BINARY/Report+test+of+E-cat+19+April+2011.pdf

Energy calculation:
Conservative value of inlet water temperature, T2: 22.5°C
Boiling temperature: 99,5°C
ΔT= 77K
Heat capacity of water is 4.18 kJ/(kg x K)
Energy required for heating water, Wheat = 321.86 kJ/kg = 89.41 Wh/kg
4.12 kg/h water flow

If the data is correct, only 368 watts are required to bring the water to its
boiling temperature.
They measured 36 watts from the controller, and 354 watts with the heater on.
That leaves 318 watts for the heater(s). That most likely corresponds to a blue
box power level of 1.

When Mats measured this test, it was merely 1.35A through the load. In the
October 6th test with the same blue box, a power level of 5 corresponded to
7.2Amps through the load, and a power level of 9 corresponded to 11.9A
through the load.
If the input is not constantly monitored, Rossi could easily raise the power
level from 1 to 10 and provide enough power to vaporize the water flow.

http://www.nyteknik.se/incoming/article3166569.ece/BINARY/Report+test+of+E-cat+28+April+2011.pdf

Energy calculation:
Inlet water temperature, T3: 20°C
Boiling temperature: 99.5°C
ΔT= 79.5 K
Heat capacity of water is 4.18 kJ/(kg x K)
Energy required for heating water, Wheat = 332 kJ/kg = 92 Wh/kg
4.12 kg/h water flow

If the data is correct, only 379 watts are required to bring the water to its
boiling temperature. They measured 65 watts from the controller (I wonder why
this is so much higher than the controls took 9 days earlier?), and 378 watts
with the heater on. That leaves 313 watts for the heater(s). That most likely
corresponds to a blue box power level of 1.

If the input is not constantly monitored, Rossi could easily raise the power
level from 1 to 10 and provide enough power to vaporize the water flow.

Re: [Vo]:The dark side of cold fusion

2011-12-12 Thread Peter Heckert


Am 12.12.2011 23:16, schrieb Peter Heckert:

Allan Sterling has an interesting article about it:
http://www.naturalnews.com/026116_energy_free_population.html
Sorry, I was in error, this article is not by Sterlin Allan. I found it 
linked, when searching for his religious articles.


But I think, it reflects his strange believes. He thinks, believing 
against all natural evidence and against the truth caqn create energy.
This might be true, but believe cannot been sold as a secret catalyzer 
or as fuel.


Peter

Re: [Vo]:Reviewing Lewan's test of April 2011

Ransompw is desperate to justify his faith in Rossi, but this experiment is
hardly the one to do it, for several reasons:

1) If half the liquid is escaping the hose as steam as ransom claims, then
there should be a flow of gas at the output close to 1 L/s. There is no way
the gas coming out of that hose represents 1 L/s. This has been discussed
at some length, and there are youtube videos showing what it might look
like. As I argue in the comments, anyone with a 1 kW electric kettle can
verify for themselves what 1 L/s steam formation underwater looks like.
Lewan's video is not even close.

2) One possibility to account for the extra liquid is simply in the form of
very wet steam; i.e. entrained droplets. The water is clearly boiling at
the bottom of some sort of chimney, and the steam that forms will dominate
the volume, and move through the hose much faster than the water, and
entrain a good deal of it as a mist. Rossi could easily design his chimney
to promote this sort of mist formation using a nozzle, or even some kind of
ultrasonic mister. It is certainly in his interest to do so.

3) Lewan was careful to monitor the fluid input, but the power input was
not monitored, and this is the run that Rossi was famously caught adjusting
the power input. So we really don't know what the power input was. At least
not all the time.

4) Even if half the water was converted to steam, that amounts to 4000 Wh
of energy, less the 1100 Wh input for 2900 Wh net, or about 10 MJ. That's
impressive for the size of the device, but it was not inspected, and
represents only a fraction of a liter of chemical fuel. A longer run would
have made the need for nuclear more obvious.

I recognize that not all of these factors are self-consistent. That is, (1)
claims the evidence for the power output is not there, and so the
possibilities of the power being present in (3) and (4) are not consistent
with (1), so there may be only partial contributions from each of these
points.

However, it is clear that the experiment is a long distance from
unequivocal evidence for heat from nuclear reactions. And importantly, if
Rossi was making heat from nuclear reactions, it would be easy to be
unequivocal in demonstrating it.

Re: [Vo]:Reviewing Lewan's test of April 2011

On Mon, Dec 12, 2011 at 3:41 PM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com wrote:

 Also, if the water was in the mythical state discussed here in which it is
 90% liquid and 10% vapor, the liquid portion would definitely fall into the
 bucket. The only way it could not have reached the bucket would be if it
 was vapor, as far as I know.


An ultrasonic mister puts liquid water into the air without producing
vapor. (The droplets evaporate later, and this will happen more quickly if
they are already at 100C.)



 Notice it was not sparging when the camera first looked at the steam pipe
 in the bucket. The steam was escaping and the condensate flowing down into
 the bucket. After that Lewan put the hose under the water but a lot of
 steam still escaped.


The problem was that it was not enough to account for 1 L/s of escaping dry
steam.

[Vo]:Cold Fusion Economic Effects

2011-12-12 Thread Zell, Chris

If Cold Fusion or other forms of nearly free energy emerge, obviously there 
will be radical change in the world.  'Free' energy will have a profoundly 
deflationary effect on the world economy.  Oil will move towards a price 
consistent with being a chemical feedstock, eventually, as automobiles are 
converted.

'Free' energy will stimulate economies temporarily as new products are eagerly 
bought - however, in the longer term, it will deflate general economic demand 
in a manner similar to what the internet did for recorded music, movies and 
pornography (!).

Governments will be voted out or overthrown in violence especially in the 
Middle East (and Iran, which will become anti-clerical). Islamic terrorism will 
decline. Decentralized goverance will advance and tax revenue will be ever more 
difficult to collect.  It's even possible that separatist movements could 
emerge, even in the US, as insular groups find practical independence.  If 
you're a member of the Aryan Nation, things might look pretty good in rural 
Idaho.

Once the emergence is established, there will be evidence of public grief by 
various enviromentalists and climate change activists.  Only a few will observe 
what this teaches about their real motives were.

All in all, warts and all, if there is a trigger to be pulled on 'free' energy, 
Godspeed to those that give it to the human race. It may be the world's best 
hope to escape the tyranny of a corrupt and sociopathic elite, who would 
sacrifice anyone in their way to rule over the scarcity that would otherwise 
exist.

Re: [Vo]:Reviewing Lewan's test of April 2011

2011-12-12 Thread Terry Blanton

On Mon, Dec 12, 2011 at 4:14 PM, Mary Yugo maryyu...@gmail.com wrote:

 Anyone know what really happened there

No one, except AR, *knows* what is happening.  All is speculation.  I
would recommend the advice of Buffalo Springfield:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f5M_Ttstbgs

What a field day for the heat . . .

The truth will eventually out and everyone, for now, is spinning their
wheels in the sand.

T

Re: [Vo]:Cold Fusion Economic Effects

Zell, Chris chrisz...@wetmtv.com wrote:


 'Free' energy will stimulate economies temporarily as new products are
 eagerly bought - however, in the longer term, it will deflate
 general economic demand in a manner similar to what the internet did for
 recorded music, movies and pornography (!).


I agree it will have this deflationary effect on energy. Whether it will
affect other things that way I do not know.



 Once the emergence is established, there will be evidence of public grief
 by various enviromentalists and climate change activists.  Only a few will
 observe what this teaches about their real motives were.


No doubt there will be some environmentalists who oppose cold fusion. In
the book, I quoted some who were bemoaning the prospect in 1989. However,
there will be many other environmentalists who are thrilled by cold fusion,
including me.

I predict that environmentalists and climate change activists in favor of
cold fusion will greatly outnumber those who are opposed. Granted, I would
be more confident of this prediction if some of the major environmentalists
had helped cold fusion up until now. Alas they have not. For that matter
many of the industrial corporations which are bound to make huge sums of
money from cold fusion have done nothing to assist.

- Jed

Re: [Vo]:The Thermodynamics of Making Coffee

2011-12-12 Thread Michele Comitini

Aha interesting!  I confess I prefer  espresso machine and moka
physics... mostly for the outcome ;-)

mic


2011/12/12 Alan J Fletcher a...@well.com:
 http://www.wired.com/wiredscience/2011/12/coffee-pot-physics/

 See ... our efforts on the Ecat weren't wasted!

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

[Vo]:God Revealed Tomorrow?

2011-12-12 Thread Terry Blanton

Has the 'God Particle' Been Found? Major Announcement Expected Tuesday
Published December 12, 2011


CERN
A proton-proton collision at the Large Hadron Collider particle
accelerator at CERN laboratory in Geneva that produced more than 100
charged particles.
The world of physics is abuzz with speculation over an announcement
expected Tuesday, Dec. 13, from the CERN laboratory in Geneva -- home
of the world's largest particle accelerator, the Large Hadron Collider
(LHC).

The announcement, planned for 8 a.m. EST (2 p.m. CET), will address
the status of the search for the elusive Higgs boson particle,
sometimes called the God Particle because of its importance to
science.


Read more: 
http://www.foxnews.com/scitech/2011/12/12/has-god-particle-been-found-major-announcement-expected-tuesday/#ixzz1gMqOkd19

Re: [Vo]:Reviewing Lewan's test of April 2011

On Mon, Dec 12, 2011 at 2:37 PM, Joshua Cude joshua.c...@gmail.com wrote:


 Ransompw is desperate to justify his faith in Rossi, but this experiment
 is hardly the one to do it, for several reasons:SNIP


I understand and agree with all the reasons but the problem I see is
accounting for the water.  But how much water?  I can't really tell what
Lewan measured.  I guess I will look again for it.  An ultrasonic nebulizer
is certainly possibly but it's a bit far fetched.  However, Lewan did not
inspect under the insulation.   So if Ransompw read it right, where did 5
liters go if not steam?

I am still not sure what experiment Ransompw was referring to.  I asked him
and got a tangential answer.  He did express an interest in joining the
email list so I gave him the link to the instructions.  Maybe he'll clarify
the issue for himself.

Not incidentally, I find the amount of insulation used on the running older
E-cats somewhat strange.  If this is a 6X output/input device with robust
heat generation in the kilowatt range as Rossi claims, is a little loss by
radiation and convection to the surroundings that big a deal and if so,
why?  I'd would have liked to see a stripper E-cat perform...  nude.  Ah
well...  Rossi won't likely use those again.

Re: [Vo]:The Thermodynamics of Making Coffee

2011-12-12 Thread Giovanni Santostasi

This comes close to a reproduction of Rossi's experiments where assumption
that all the water is transformed into steam is used.
A coffee pot can seem to do the same with hilarious results.
Giovanni


On Mon, Dec 12, 2011 at 5:35 PM, Michele Comitini 
michele.comit...@gmail.com wrote:

 Aha interesting!  I confess I prefer  espresso machine and moka
 physics... mostly for the outcome ;-)

 mic


 2011/12/12 Alan J Fletcher a...@well.com:
  http://www.wired.com/wiredscience/2011/12/coffee-pot-physics/
 
  See ... our efforts on the Ecat weren't wasted!
 
  (lenr.qumbu.com -- analyzing the Rossi/Focardi eCat  -- Hi, google!)

Re: [Vo]:Cold Fusion Economic Effects

The Internet has improved efficiency in a wide range of industries, such as
grocery store inventory. Has it had a deflationary effect on these
industries? I do not know.

It has deflated goods and services directly produced by the Internet
itself, such as publishing books. Amazon Kindle books are much cheaper than
printed ones. But has it reduced the cost of carrots? Hard to say. Energy
has a direct impact on the cost of even more goods and services than the
Internet does, so I suppose cold fusion might be deflationary across the
board.

One way of describing a deflationary effect is to say it improves
productivity. I think those are two sides of the same coin.

- Jed

Re: [Vo]:Reviewing Lewan's test of April 2011

Mary Yugo maryyu...@gmail.com wrote:


 An ultrasonic nebulizer is certainly possibly but it's a bit far fetched.


A bit? How would the water from this reach the end of the hose without
forming drops and becoming an ordinary flow of water? I would say that is
impossible.

- Jed

Re: [Vo]:The Thermodynamics of Making Coffee

2011-12-12 Thread Horace Heffner



On Dec 12, 2011, at 8:09 AM, Alan J Fletcher wrote:


http://www.wired.com/wiredscience/2011/12/coffee-pot-physics/

See ... our efforts on the Ecat weren't wasted!

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


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tJvJI8vpLL8

... I'd rather be a percolator, it would be no trouble, just to  
bubble life away 


Marvin's lulaby:

http://members.tripod.com/martin_leese/Marvin/lullaby.mp3

Now the world has gone to bed
Darkness won't engulf my head
I can see by infra-red
How I hate the night

Now I lay me down to sleep
Try to count electric sheep
Sweet dream wishes you can keep
How I hate the night


Best regards,

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

Re: [Vo]:Acceleration Under Load

2011-12-12 Thread Harry Veeder

Hopefully it will become free energy device.

Dozens of amateur researchers ( Steorn included ) have established
that it is possible to circumvent Lenz's law. The hope is this will
eventually lead to a free energy device.

But even if you can't use a violation of lenz law to generate free
energy, this achievement alone deserves attention from mainstream
engineers and physicists, which it isn't getting. It is a strange
state of affairs.
Harry

On Sun, Dec 11, 2011 at 1:21 PM, David Roberson dlrober...@aol.com wrote:
 I am confused about the purpose of the experiment. Is this some kind of free
 energy device?  If it really works, you should be able to drive the input
 with the output and have it to accelerate in speed or at least keep freely
 moving.  If this can not be done, then most likely there is a difficulty in
 reading the true power output and input.

 Dave

 -Original Message-
 From: Harry Veeder hveeder...@gmail.com
 To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com
 Sent: Sun, Dec 11, 2011 12:53 pm
 Subject: [Vo]:Acceleration Under Load

 acceleration under load effect, by deepcut66

 http://youtu.be/vBDOOSOhbz0

 The previous setup had physical limitations although it was
 excellent for demonstrating the AUL [acceleration under load] effect.
 This setup lends itself better to harnessing the effect for
 power-generation.

 I've done away with the Bedini drive circuitry and replaced it with a
 12v/6w motor from an Audi message-pump system :

 http://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/12v-DC-electric-motor-UK-SELLER-/110739940158?pt=UK...

 This gives me twice the RPM for a third of the input power, coupled
 with the fact that the rotor has 24 poles, arranged N/S i can now get
 higher frequencies.

 This is running at around six or seven hudred Hz.

 According to the meters more power is coming out than going in, but we
 all know how deceptive things can be and i can't do proper
 measurements until i get my hands on a scope, which i will get in the
 new year.

Re: [Vo]:Acceleration Under Load

2011-12-12 Thread Harry Veeder

Hopefully it will become free energy device.

Dozens of amateur researchers ( Steorn included ) have established
that it is possible to circumvent Lenz's law. The hope is this will
eventually lead to a free energy device.

But even if you can't use a violation of lenz law to generate free
energy, this achievement alone deserves attention from mainstream
engineers and physicists, which it isn't getting. It is a strange
state of affairs.
Harry

On Sun, Dec 11, 2011 at 1:21 PM, David Roberson dlrober...@aol.com wrote:
 I am confused about the purpose of the experiment. Is this some kind of free
 energy device?  If it really works, you should be able to drive the input
 with the output and have it to accelerate in speed or at least keep freely
 moving.  If this can not be done, then most likely there is a difficulty in
 reading the true power output and input.

 Dave

 -Original Message-
 From: Harry Veeder hveeder...@gmail.com
 To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com
 Sent: Sun, Dec 11, 2011 12:53 pm
 Subject: [Vo]:Acceleration Under Load

 acceleration under load effect, by deepcut66

 http://youtu.be/vBDOOSOhbz0

 The previous setup had physical limitations although it was
 excellent for demonstrating the AUL [acceleration under load] effect.
 This setup lends itself better to harnessing the effect for
 power-generation.

 I've done away with the Bedini drive circuitry and replaced it with a
 12v/6w motor from an Audi message-pump system :

 http://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/12v-DC-electric-motor-UK-SELLER-/110739940158?pt=UK...

 This gives me twice the RPM for a third of the input power, coupled
 with the fact that the rotor has 24 poles, arranged N/S i can now get
 higher frequencies.

 This is running at around six or seven hudred Hz.

 According to the meters more power is coming out than going in, but we
 all know how deceptive things can be and i can't do proper
 measurements until i get my hands on a scope, which i will get in the
 new year.

Re: [Vo]:Acceleration Under Load

On Mon, Dec 12, 2011 at 6:15 PM, Harry Veeder hveeder...@gmail.com wrote:

 Dozens of amateur researchers ( Steorn included ) have established
 that it is possible to circumvent Lenz's law. The hope is this will
 eventually lead to a free energy device.


Steorn has never demonstrated any violation of any natural law whatsoever.
All they did was to make an inefficient pulse motor which converted most of
the power fed to it to heat.  It was powered with a large, 10 Amp hour
battery -- the largest D cell it is possible to buy and that was recharged
regularly by the guy who observers nicknamed derisively Tachoman.  They
called him that because he was usually seen checking for the deceleration
of the supposed overunity devices using a tachometer.  Sean McCarthy
hilariously tried and failed to convince anyone that this awkward
contraption was overunity.

Everything they have shown consisted of errors, inappropriate
instrumentation choices, mis-measurements, bad calculations, incomplete
data and data reduction, inappropriate conclusions and downright
deception.  Or perhaps you didn't see the video (since removed and censored
by Steorn) of the questions and answers after their so-called demo at the
Waterways Museum?   Or the aftersession they held at the upstairs rooms at
the Kinetica Museum?  Or maybe you missed the replication (only better
running and faster and it charges its own battery) of Steorn's device by
the critic who calls himself Alsetalokin and calls his device the Orbette?

Sorry, I didn't mean to get into a discussion of Steorn but hey, there was
the opportunity.

I know of no properly demonstrated violation of Lenz law.  Such a violation
would also violate COE and Newton 3.  That's rather unlikely, at least on
any macro scale for any appreciable time period -- or the universe would
not be the way we see it.

Re: [Vo]:Acceleration Under Load

2011-12-12 Thread David Roberson


To get the attention of physicists you will need to find a way to connect the 
output power back to the input and have the device increase its energy.  No 
other test would convince them that your device is effective.

Have you been able to achieve this benchmark?  This requirement reminds me of 
the skeptic's demand that Rossi's device needs to run a generator to supply the 
input power and it is valid.  One day I hope to see this test performed.

Dave



-Original Message-
From: Harry Veeder hveeder...@gmail.com
To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com
Sent: Mon, Dec 12, 2011 9:20 pm
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Acceleration Under Load


Hopefully it will become free energy device.
Dozens of amateur researchers ( Steorn included ) have established
hat it is possible to circumvent Lenz's law. The hope is this will
ventually lead to a free energy device.
But even if you can't use a violation of lenz law to generate free
nergy, this achievement alone deserves attention from mainstream
ngineers and physicists, which it isn't getting. It is a strange
tate of affairs.
arry
On Sun, Dec 11, 2011 at 1:21 PM, David Roberson dlrober...@aol.com wrote:
 I am confused about the purpose of the experiment. Is this some kind of free
 energy device?  If it really works, you should be able to drive the input
 with the output and have it to accelerate in speed or at least keep freely
 moving.  If this can not be done, then most likely there is a difficulty in
 reading the true power output and input.

 Dave

 -Original Message-
 From: Harry Veeder hveeder...@gmail.com
 To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com
 Sent: Sun, Dec 11, 2011 12:53 pm
 Subject: [Vo]:Acceleration Under Load

 acceleration under load effect, by deepcut66

 http://youtu.be/vBDOOSOhbz0

 The previous setup had physical limitations although it was
 excellent for demonstrating the AUL [acceleration under load] effect.
 This setup lends itself better to harnessing the effect for
 power-generation.

 I've done away with the Bedini drive circuitry and replaced it with a
 12v/6w motor from an Audi message-pump system :

 
http://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/12v-DC-electric-motor-UK-SELLER-/110739940158?pt=UK...

 This gives me twice the RPM for a third of the input power, coupled
 with the fact that the rotor has 24 poles, arranged N/S i can now get
 higher frequencies.

 This is running at around six or seven hudred Hz.

 According to the meters more power is coming out than going in, but we
 all know how deceptive things can be and i can't do proper
 measurements until i get my hands on a scope, which i will get in the
 new year.

RE: [Vo]:Acceleration Under Load

Reminds me of Thane Heins' Regenerative Acceleration.

http://ottawaskeptics.org/local-investigations/121-in-this-town-we-obey-the-laws-of-thermodynamics

To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Acceleration Under Load
From: dlrober...@aol.com
Date: Mon, 12 Dec 2011 23:23:24 -0500

To get the attention of physicists you will need to find a way to connect the 
output power back to the input and have the device increase its energy.  No 
other test would convince them that your device is effective.

Have you been able to achieve this benchmark?  This requirement reminds me of 
the skeptic's demand that Rossi's device needs to run a generator to supply the 
input power and it is valid.  One day I hope to see this test performed.

Dave

-Original Message-

From: Harry Veeder hveeder...@gmail.com

To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com

Sent: Mon, Dec 12, 2011 9:20 pm

Subject: Re: [Vo]:Acceleration Under Load

Hopefully it will become free energy device.

Dozens of amateur researchers ( Steorn included ) have established
that it is possible to circumvent Lenz's law. The hope is this will
eventually lead to a free energy device.

But even if you can't use a violation of lenz law to generate free
energy, this achievement alone deserves attention from mainstream
engineers and physicists, which it isn't getting. It is a strange
state of affairs.
Harry

On Sun, Dec 11, 2011 at 1:21 PM, David Roberson dlrober...@aol.com wrote:
 I am confused about the purpose of the experiment. Is this some kind of free
 energy device?  If it really works, you should be able to drive the input
 with the output and have it to accelerate in speed or at least keep freely
 moving.  If this can not be done, then most likely there is a difficulty in
 reading the true power output and input.

 Dave

 -Original Message-
 From: Harry Veeder hveeder...@gmail.com
 To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com
 Sent: Sun, Dec 11, 2011 12:53 pm
 Subject: [Vo]:Acceleration Under Load

 acceleration under load effect, by deepcut66

 http://youtu.be/vBDOOSOhbz0

 The previous setup had physical limitations although it was
 excellent for demonstrating the AUL [acceleration under load] effect.
 This setup lends itself better to harnessing the effect for
 power-generation.

 I've done away with the Bedini drive circuitry and replaced it with a
 12v/6w motor from an Audi message-pump system :

 http://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/12v-DC-electric-motor-UK-SELLER-/110739940158?pt=UK...

 This gives me twice the RPM for a third of the input power, coupled
 with the fact that the rotor has 24 poles, arranged N/S i can now get
 higher frequencies.

 This is running at around six or seven hudred Hz.

 According to the meters more power is coming out than going in, but we
 all know how deceptive things can be and i can't do proper
 measurements until i get my hands on a scope, which i will get in the
 new year.

Re: [Vo]:Acceleration Under Load

On Mon, Dec 12, 2011 at 8:23 PM, David Roberson dlrober...@aol.com wrote:

 This requirement reminds me of the skeptic's demand that Rossi's device
 needs to run a generator to supply the input power and it is valid.


Actually, with Rossi, it's simpler than that.  His claim is that his device
makes 6X the thermal power at the output that he supplies as Joule heating
at the input.  But the input current powers a simple resistance heater.  So
why not take some of the output heat, run it through a simple and reliable
control system, and then return the heat to the input end?

Then, Rossi could self sustain after a brief initial period of electrical
heating, for as long as he liked.  I've never understood why Rossi did not
do that simple maneuver and then run for a week or two under a webcam on a
glass table in an open field.  A lot more people would now believe him if
he had done something like that.

RE: [Vo]:Acceleration Under Load

The central issue is that Acceleration Under Load (AUL) is a misnomer. The 
acceleration is occurring when coils are being shorted. Two issues arise:
1) The initial power/rpm ratio is set while these same regenerative coils are 
presenting opposition to movement. In most experiments, just moving the coils 
out of the way would result in more rpm/watt.
2) Shorting the coil does create a collapsing magnetic field. The time constant 
of the collapsing field is proportional to the resistance to electrical 
current. If the shorted coil collapses at just the right speed w.r.t. the disk 
rotation, it would cause a push in the direction of rotation. There could be 
a higher rpm of rotation at a lower torque value, and only within the narrow 
band of rotation frequency.

In the video

 Date: Mon, 12 Dec 2011 21:19:52 -0500
 Subject: Re: [Vo]:Acceleration Under Load
 From: hveeder...@gmail.com
 To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
 
 Hopefully it will become free energy device.
 
 Dozens of amateur researchers ( Steorn included ) have established
 that it is possible to circumvent Lenz's law. The hope is this will
 eventually lead to a free energy device.
 
 But even if you can't use a violation of lenz law to generate free
 energy, this achievement alone deserves attention from mainstream
 engineers and physicists, which it isn't getting. It is a strange
 state of affairs.
 Harry
 
 On Sun, Dec 11, 2011 at 1:21 PM, David Roberson dlrober...@aol.com wrote:
  I am confused about the purpose of the experiment. Is this some kind of free
  energy device?  If it really works, you should be able to drive the input
  with the output and have it to accelerate in speed or at least keep freely
  moving.  If this can not be done, then most likely there is a difficulty in
  reading the true power output and input.
 
  Dave
 
  -Original Message-
  From: Harry Veeder hveeder...@gmail.com
  To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com
  Sent: Sun, Dec 11, 2011 12:53 pm
  Subject: [Vo]:Acceleration Under Load
 
  acceleration under load effect, by deepcut66
 
  http://youtu.be/vBDOOSOhbz0
 
  The previous setup had physical limitations although it was
  excellent for demonstrating the AUL [acceleration under load] effect.
  This setup lends itself better to harnessing the effect for
  power-generation.
 
  I've done away with the Bedini drive circuitry and replaced it with a
  12v/6w motor from an Audi message-pump system :
 
  http://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/12v-DC-electric-motor-UK-SELLER-/110739940158?pt=UK...
 
  This gives me twice the RPM for a third of the input power, coupled
  with the fact that the rotor has 24 poles, arranged N/S i can now get
  higher frequencies.
 
  This is running at around six or seven hudred Hz.
 
  According to the meters more power is coming out than going in, but we
  all know how deceptive things can be and i can't do proper
  measurements until i get my hands on a scope, which i will get in the
  new year.

RE: [Vo]:Acceleration Under Load