Re: [Vo]:Bob Park is back!

[Rich Murray]

The jocular way in which the CF pros and cons joust reminds me of the
old story about the commedians' club that met monthly for a hearty
meal and joke sharing, until after a few years they had all their
jokes numbered, so they could just call out the number to reap some
laughter... a guest watched this going on, and noticed one guy called
out a number, but no one laughed -- so he asked his table neighbor
about this, and got this answer, "Oh, him? -- Some people just can't
tell a joke..."

On Thu, Dec 15, 2011 at 10:02 PM, Peter Gluck  wrote:
> I have kept Park informed about the Rossi story
> for, say the first 3 months see papers about Skeptics on my blog. He did not
> answer after a while. He is not living in an ivory tower so he must know-
> but perhaps cannot decide what to do with the story. It is difficult to
> dismiss or to accept Rossi completely- he is a highly unusual case. The
> netire story is strange and Bob is an over-eighty.
> Peter
>
>
> On Fri, Dec 16, 2011 at 2:16 AM, Joshua Cude  wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> On Thu, Dec 15, 2011 at 5:37 PM, Charles Hope
>>  wrote:
>>>
>>> It's not relevant, because his criticism is against innumeracy, which
>>> applies to such delusions as astrology and homeopathy, but not cold fusion,
>>> where the most serious advocates are scientists, who certainly know their
>>> differential equations.
>>
>>
>> It's about pseudoscience in general, and he cites cold fusion
>> specifically.
>>
>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Why would anyone mention cold fusion in 2011, and raise P & F as the
>>> example, while neglecting Rossi? That's really bizarre.
>>>
>>
>> My guess is that he knows it will irk the believers even more if he
>> ignores Rossi, than if he dumps on him. It seems to be working.
>>
>>
>
>
>
> --
> Dr. Peter Gluck
> Cluj, Romania
> http://egooutpeters.blogspot.com
>

Re: [Vo]:Acceleration Under Load

[Aussie Guy E-Cat]

Oops. Forgot about the big bang did we? It is amazing that based on a 
few 100 years of observations by one species, on one planet, on the 
outer rim of one galaxy of billions in the known universe that a semi 
salient entity would make that statement. Had you said that 1,000,000 
years in the future, when we have the combined knowledge of physics that 
100,000 species have gathered, it may be correct but then it only takes 
one observation to overturn it.



On 12/16/2011 5:21 PM, Mary Yugo wrote:


COE is fundamental to the way the universe looks and works and I don't 
think it will ever be "overthrown".  You may discover new sources of 
energy analogous to the discovery of radioactivity, and perhaps new 
possibilities for converting it but I don't think you will overthrow 
COE for the known universe.

Re: [Vo]:CF as a historical phenomenon

[Axil Axil]

Abraham H. Maslow (1962), *Toward a Psychology of Being*: *I suppose it is
tempting, if the only tool you have is a hammer, to treat everything as if
it were a nail.*

On Thu, Dec 15, 2011 at 11:46 PM, Mary Yugo  wrote:

>
>
>  On Thu, Dec 15, 2011 at 7:19 PM, Stephen A. Lawrence wrote:
>
>> **
>>
>> Were those experiments done *before* or *after* onset of rigor mortis?
>>
>
> Fresh cadavers-- and it was quite a while ago for the study I remember.
> As to MRI and CT studies of the same phenomenon, I'm pretty sure they've
> been done but I have not looked for them.  Chiropractors also abuse and
> misuse and misinterpret and take inferior X-rays.  I am not convinced
> chiropractic as practiced now should be legal.  I once encountered a woman
> who had delayed breast cancer treatment because she had bone pain from
> metastasis and a chiropractor had treated it as a back sprain.  A medical
> doctor would have been more likely to have done the right tests and made
> the right diagnosis because most will do a complete exam at least once with
> a new patient or a serious new complaint.
>

Re: [Vo]:Acceleration Under Load

[Mary Yugo]

On Thu, Dec 15, 2011 at 9:45 PM, Harry Veeder  wrote:

> MY wrote:
>
>
> >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.
>
> Are you trying to convince me or yourself that the set of axioms known
> as the laws of physics apply to everything that has happened or will
> ever happen?
>

I am trying to convince you that new discoveries rarely if ever change
current physical laws for the regimes of size, velocity, etc. in which they
have been developed.  For example, Newton's Laws of motion are just as good
as ever as long as you don't move very extremely fast in which case
Einstein's discoveries and deductions begin to apply.  Or if you get very
very small, quantum physics laws become more accurate than Newton's.
That's what I meant.

COE is fundamental to the way the universe looks and works and I don't
think it will ever be "overthrown".  You may discover new sources of energy
analogous to the discovery of radioactivity, and perhaps new possibilities
for converting it but I don't think you will overthrow COE for the known
universe.

Re: [Vo]:Bob Park is back!

[Peter Gluck]

I have kept Park informed about the Rossi story
for, say the first 3 months see papers about Skeptics on my blog. He did
not answer after a while. He is not living in an ivory tower so he must
know- but perhaps cannot decide what to do with the story. It is difficult
to dismiss or to accept Rossi completely- he is a highly unusual case. The
netire story is strange and Bob is an over-eighty.
Peter

On Fri, Dec 16, 2011 at 2:16 AM, Joshua Cude  wrote:

>
>
> On Thu, Dec 15, 2011 at 5:37 PM, Charles Hope <
> lookslikeiwasri...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> It's not relevant, because his criticism is against innumeracy, which
>> applies to such delusions as astrology and homeopathy, but not cold fusion,
>> where the most serious advocates are scientists, who certainly know their
>> differential equations.
>>
>
> It's about pseudoscience in general, and he cites cold fusion specifically.
>
>
>
>>
>> Why would anyone mention cold fusion in 2011, and raise P & F as the
>> example, while neglecting Rossi? That's really bizarre.
>>
>>
> My guess is that he knows it will irk the believers even more if he
> ignores Rossi, than if he dumps on him. It seems to be working.
>
>
>


-- 
Dr. Peter Gluck
Cluj, Romania
http://egooutpeters.blogspot.com

Re: [Vo]:Acceleration Under Load

[Harry Veeder]

MY wrote:


>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.

Are you trying to convince me or yourself that the set of axioms known
as the laws of physics apply to everything that has happened or will
ever happen?

Harry

Re: [Vo]:CF as a historical phenomenon

[Horace Heffner]

On Dec 15, 2011, at 4:27 PM, Jed Rothwell wrote:


The only metric that matters is moola.


A memorable phrase with catchy alliteration.

Many applications too.  8^)

Best regards,

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

Re: [Vo]:Was Technetium ever detected in LENR experiments?

[Horace Heffner]

On Dec 15, 2011, at 3:55 PM, Daniel Rocha wrote:


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Technetium

Technetium ( /tɛkˈniːʃiəm/ tek-nee-shee-əm) is the chemical  
element with atomic number 43 and symbol Tc. It is the lowest  
atomic number element without any stable isotopes; every form of it  
is radioactive. Nearly all technetium is produced synthetically and  
only minute amounts are found in nature. Naturally occurring  
technetium occurs as a spontaneous fission product in uranium ore  
or by neutron capturein molybdenum ores. The chemical properties of  
this silvery gray, crystalline transition metal are intermediate  
between rhenium andmanganese.


It would be at least an evidence for WL theory.
--
Daniel Rocha - RJ
danieldi...@gmail.com




As far as I know,  tritium is the only radioactive product of LENR.
Neutrons have been detected at a ratio of 10^-5 to 10^-8 neutrons per  
tritium.


If WL were true then numerous radioactive products would result from  
LENR.


Best regards,

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

Re: [Vo]:CF as a historical phenomenon

[Mary Yugo]

On Thu, Dec 15, 2011 at 7:19 PM, Stephen A. Lawrence wrote:

> **
>
> Were those experiments done *before* or *after* onset of rigor mortis?
>

Fresh cadavers-- and it was quite a while ago for the study I remember.  As
to MRI and CT studies of the same phenomenon, I'm pretty sure they've been
done but I have not looked for them.  Chiropractors also abuse and misuse
and misinterpret and take inferior X-rays.  I am not convinced chiropractic
as practiced now should be legal.  I once encountered a woman who had
delayed breast cancer treatment because she had bone pain from metastasis
and a chiropractor had treated it as a back sprain.  A medical doctor would
have been more likely to have done the right tests and made the right
diagnosis because most will do a complete exam at least once with a new
patient or a serious new complaint.

Re: [Vo]:CF as a historical phenomenon

[Stephen A. Lawrence]

On 11-12-15 08:33 PM, Mary Yugo wrote:



On Thu, Dec 15, 2011 at 5:19 PM, Jed Rothwell > wrote:


Charles Hope mailto:lookslikeiwasri...@gmail.com>> wrote:

Are there any examples of pathological science persisting 20
years without being properly debunked?


Not to my knowledge. Unless you count things like water memory,
which may be real after all


You'd better hope it's not, says the water in my toilet, the water in 
the sewers, the water exposed to toxic metals in mines, and the water 
used to clean slaughter houses, after accidents, in mortuaries and 
infectious disease labs... do I really need to continue?


and acupuncture


Acupuncture is a real intervention in which needles are stuck into 
people.  I'd expect it to have some effect yet after millenia of use, 
nobody is sure what it does much less why.


Probably because the endorphin system was unknown until relatively 
recently, and traditional practitioners of Chinese medicine are still 
largely ignorant of the theory which would let them understand what they 
do.  (I mean, they use acupuncture, which pretty clearly works for at 
least some stuff, and at the same time they prescribe reindeer antlers 
for fertility problems, 'cause they're long and pointy ... mixing 
plausible folk medicine with sympathetic magic, the ones I've 
encountered are not strong on theory.)


The meridian nonsense is no doubt just that, but for inflammation relief 
there appears to be little question that acupuncture does something 
quite useful -- just as onions and garlic on a sore back may relieve the 
ache.  It's not magic, it's just NSAIDs that don't happen to come from a 
drug company.



  And all the classical stuff about Yin and Yang and meridians which 
antedates modern medicine is nothing but nonsense.


Yeah.  For sure.


  Some people may get mild pain relief from it.  It's claims to 
provide surgical anesthesia are probably based on bad experiments or 
fraud.


and chiropractic, which seem to work.


Chiropractic manipulation done very cautiously and gently may make 
people feel a bit better from minor muscle spams, aches and pains.


My understanding is that it's been approved in the U.S. in large part 
because it works better than allopathic medicine when treating muscle 
and joint injuries.


(Of course, given what most conventional doctors know about treating 
muscle and joint injuries, it's quite possible that doing nothing at all 
would typically work better.)



  The theory of chiropractic, namely that disease is caused by 
misalignment of the spine, is absurd.


No argument there.


Nor can manipulation change the alignment of the spine which is held 
in place by steel-strong ligaments.  Experiments in cadavers verify 
that manipulation would have to tear off your head to reach the 
strength required to do what chiropractors claim.


Were those experiments done *before* or *after* onset of rigor mortis?

Just wondering...

Re: [Vo]:CF as a historical phenomenon

[Giovanni Santostasi]

I don't follow.
Sorry if the neutrinos results are true we need to admit the violation of
Lorentz-invariance is possible.
How your creation of strong artificial fields would do that? How neutrinos
accomplish the same?
Can you explain?
Giovanni


On Thu, Dec 15, 2011 at 8:48 PM, Jouni Valkonen wrote:

> On 16 December 2011 04:15, Giovanni Santostasi 
> wrote:
> > I don't see how switching to Lorentz theory would help to make a massive
> > body going faster than light.
>
> I am sorry if you have trouble with the eye sight. This why it is more
> important to ask, why we have such a cosmic speed limit. Special
> relativity does it all the wrong way, because it assumes a priori that
> we have cosmic speed limit, but it explicitly forbids anyone for
> seeking answer why we seem to have such an apparent speed limit.
>
> But I think that understanding such deep philosophical aspects of the
> theory is too hard for many.
>
> Lorentz's theory of relativity however explains that we have speed
> limit, because matter interacts with gravity field. And causes it to
> slow down, or in the case of muon, it's clock is slowing down, what is
> essentially the same thing. This is also the reason, why we must
> always think causal reasons behind laws. And we should never accept
> anything in a priori axiomatic level.
>
> –Jouni
>
> PS. Mathematics and reality has nothing to do with each other,
> therefore there are no such thing as infinities in real world.
>
>

Re: [Vo]:CF as a historical phenomenon

[Harry Veeder]

On Thu, Dec 15, 2011 at 8:33 PM, Mary Yugo  wrote:
>

>
> You'd better hope it's not, says the water in my toilet, the water in the
> sewers, the water exposed to toxic metals in mines, and the water used to
> clean slaughter houses, after accidents, in mortuaries and infectious
> disease labs... do I really need to continue?
>

Indeed, homeopathy implies that the detoxification of water invloves
more than simply removing the material contaminants. Conventional
water treatment might make the water "safe" to drink, but from the
standpoint of homeopathy the water might need to undergo further
reconditioning before it is "good" to drink.

>
>
> Chiropractic manipulation done very cautiously and gently may make people
> feel a bit better from minor muscle spams, aches and pains.  The theory of
> chiropractic, namely that disease is caused by misalignment of the spine, is
> absurd.  Nor can manipulation change the alignment of the spine which is
> held in place by steel-strong ligaments.  Experiments in cadavers verify
> that manipulation would have to tear off your head to reach the strength
> required to do what chiropractors claim.
>


The assumption here is that cadavers provide an accurate model of the living.

Wouldn't catscans or MRI's of the living be a better way to test the claims?

harry

Re: [Vo]:CF as a historical phenomenon

[Jouni Valkonen]

On 16 December 2011 04:15, Giovanni Santostasi  wrote:
> I don't see how switching to Lorentz theory would help to make a massive
> body going faster than light.

I am sorry if you have trouble with the eye sight. This why it is more
important to ask, why we have such a cosmic speed limit. Special
relativity does it all the wrong way, because it assumes a priori that
we have cosmic speed limit, but it explicitly forbids anyone for
seeking answer why we seem to have such an apparent speed limit.

But I think that understanding such deep philosophical aspects of the
theory is too hard for many.

Lorentz's theory of relativity however explains that we have speed
limit, because matter interacts with gravity field. And causes it to
slow down, or in the case of muon, it's clock is slowing down, what is
essentially the same thing. This is also the reason, why we must
always think causal reasons behind laws. And we should never accept
anything in a priori axiomatic level.

–Jouni

PS. Mathematics and reality has nothing to do with each other,
therefore there are no such thing as infinities in real world.

Re: [Vo]:E-cat article by Haiko Leitz

[Horace Heffner]

On Dec 15, 2011, at 10:08 AM, Alan J Fletcher wrote:


At 10:45 AM 12/15/2011, Horace Heffner wrote:
Just to be clear, no one is talking about heating the outside box  
metal envelope.   My focus is entirely the inside box, the 30 cm x  
30 cm x 30 cm inside box, the insides of which no one has seen.   
It is easy to place a thermal mass inside this volume that can  
store and release sufficient energy to meet the requirement of  
producing some boiling water for 4 hours, especially if phase  
changing salts are used.  Also, small ceramic kilns are commonly  
available that reach over 1200°C.  Graph 6S shows a maximum  
internal temperature of about 1000°C being reached at time 270  
minutes, 11 minutes before converting power to the "frequency  
generator".



 30 cm x 30 cm x 30 cm


That's much bigger than is shown in Lewan's photo.
http://lenr.qumbu.com/111010_pics/lewan_DSC_0089_600_a.jpg

I'd say that it's 30 cm x 30 cm x 15 cm at MOST, and more likely  
closer to Rossi's 30 cm x 30 cm x 10 cm.


Based on what data?

Note that the bolted flange is not at the bottom of the outer box, it  
is in the middle.   All but the upper right most conduit enter the  
inner box *below* the inner box flanges.  The inner box flanges are  
located at about the middle depth of the outer box, as can be seen by  
the front views of the box that show the entry point level for the  
conduits.


The Lewan report says: "The E-cat model used in this test was  
enclosed in a casing measuring about 50 x 60 x 35 centimeters."


My best estimate so far, based on pixel counts, for the width of the  
outer box, including flanges, is 49.2 mm.  This closely matches the  
estimate given by Lewan (taken from a Rossi staff member) of 50 cm  
width.  The left and right outer box flanges are about 4.3 cm, thus  
giving the interior width of the outer box as 40.6 cm.  In my paper I  
estimated 39.4 cm interior width. There is rough agreement. It thus  
looks like the 50 cm width is right.  I obtain 56.9 cm overall  
length, including the flanges, so there is some disagreement there,  
but this is a very rough estimate pending a better photo analysis.  I  
think the depth of 35 cm is likely very close to correct.


I estimated the distance between the top of the inner box and the  
outer box to be about 3.5 cm.  See "VOLUME CALCULATIONS" section, p.  
5&6, and Photos 1 and 2. I estimated the depth of the cooling fins to  
be 3.3 cm. This leaves a potential useful height of the inner box as  
35 - 3.5 - 3.3 = 28.2 cm.  My best current estimate for the useful  
inner box size is 30.1 cm x 30.1 cm x 27 cm, using 1 mm for its outer  
wall thickness, and assuming the bottom of the box is elevated from  
the bottom of the outer box by a cm for cooling or insulation  
purposes. That is 24.4 liters.


One of the reasons I ordered a new computer is so I can better model  
the device via photographic analysis, etc.  I yet have a long  
learning curve though. These estimates can be greatly improved.  If  
the inner flange is at the midpoint elevation of the inner box, it is  
at an elevation of 27 cm/2 + 1 cm = 14.5 cm from the bottom of the  
outer box, and thus 20.5 cm from the top of the outer box.  The inner  
box flanges should be located about 41% of the way up the side of the  
outer box.  This would be just below the right most port (with the  
black wire) shown in Photo. 1.  It looks like the inner box flanges  
might be located slightly below this, but this only indicates the  
inner box flanges are no located at the middle elevation of the inner  
box.





I need to add phase-change salts (and possibly even ceramic bricks)  
to my fakes paper. Can you give me / point me to a likely candidate?





A good model will undoubtedly include layers of materials. I am far  
from completing an analysis. I have also done nothing at all  
regarding phase change materials.  Phase change material have  
advantages primarily in low temperature regimes. Due to a volume  
restriction, a high temperature regime is likely required, or a  
chemical reaction of some kind in addition to thermal storage.



As for phase change salts, I discuss the properties of NaF, NaCL and  
NaNO3, potential residential thermal storage salts, here:


http://www.mtaonline.net/~hheffner/HotCold.pdf

Glauber salt is discussed here:

http://www.jatit.org/volumes/research-papers/Vol4No6/6Vol4No6.pdf

"Glauber salt (Na2SO4. H2O) which contains 44% Na2SO4 and 56%H2O has  
been studied in 1952 [6,2], and it has melting temperature of 32.4ºC,  
latent heat of 254Kj/Kg."  Its main advantage is its low melting point.


Note that if phase change storage is used then the heat flux will  
taper off quickly once the cooling phase change is complete.


Here are some values that may be of interest:

http://www.mtaonline.net/~hheffner/ThermalStorage.pdf


Best regards,

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

Re: [Vo]:CF as a historical phenomenon

[Giovanni Santostasi]

You have to assume something funny about the mass of the neutrino no matter
what even in Lorentz theory.
You would still need infinite amounts of energy for a massive object to
reach the speed of light.
I don't see how switching to Lorentz theory would help to make a massive
body going faster than light.
Giovanni


On Thu, Dec 15, 2011 at 8:06 PM, Jouni Valkonen wrote:

> On 16 December 2011 03:39, Giovanni Santostasi 
> wrote:
> > It is not that simple. Relativity would not be completely dismissed by
> these
> > superluminal results. We don't know yet what is going on exactly. SR and
> GR
> > have been proven right in many instances and for large parameter spaces.
>
> No, There is not even single empirical observation that would
> differentiate Lorentz theory of relativity from Einstein's special
> theory of relativity. Both of the are deeply verified, therefore
> either one of the is the right theory. There is no doubt about that.
> But this is the first empirical finding that can draw the line
> between, where Einstein fails and Lorentz prevails.
>
> General relativity is of course deeply verified in solar system scale
> that it works fine. Although it may be wrong in galactic scale due to
> quantum anomaly of space accumulated in long distances, thus Newton's
> inverse square law fails. General relativity has nothing to do with
> special relativity, but it is just a refined version of Newton's
> gravity theory.
>
> As general relativity is an Aether theory, it will welcome Lorentz's
> theory of relativity, because it is also an Aether theory.
>
> Also what is very important to understand, that when you do
> relativistic quantum mechanics, e.g. you are calculating muon's flight
> paths, you actually do not use Einstein special relativity for
> corrections, but you are actually using Lorentz's relativity. Usually
> just Einstein is credited for inventing relativity, although all the
> credit should go to Lorentz.
>
> –Jouni
>
> Ps. it is somewhat ironical, that we remember Lorentz from Lorentz
> contraction, but contraction is probably wrong idea. Theory does not
> necessarily require contraction, only that in different frame of
> references observers measures different value for speed of light due
> to time dilatation. This way interpreted, there is no need for
> contraction of spatial dimensions.
>
>

Re: [Vo]:CF as a historical phenomenon

[Jouni Valkonen]

On 16 December 2011 03:39, Giovanni Santostasi  wrote:
> It is not that simple. Relativity would not be completely dismissed by these
> superluminal results. We don't know yet what is going on exactly. SR and GR
> have been proven right in many instances and for large parameter spaces.

No, There is not even single empirical observation that would
differentiate Lorentz theory of relativity from Einstein's special
theory of relativity. Both of the are deeply verified, therefore
either one of the is the right theory. There is no doubt about that.
But this is the first empirical finding that can draw the line
between, where Einstein fails and Lorentz prevails.

General relativity is of course deeply verified in solar system scale
that it works fine. Although it may be wrong in galactic scale due to
quantum anomaly of space accumulated in long distances, thus Newton's
inverse square law fails. General relativity has nothing to do with
special relativity, but it is just a refined version of Newton's
gravity theory.

As general relativity is an Aether theory, it will welcome Lorentz's
theory of relativity, because it is also an Aether theory.

Also what is very important to understand, that when you do
relativistic quantum mechanics, e.g. you are calculating muon's flight
paths, you actually do not use Einstein special relativity for
corrections, but you are actually using Lorentz's relativity. Usually
just Einstein is credited for inventing relativity, although all the
credit should go to Lorentz.

–Jouni

Ps. it is somewhat ironical, that we remember Lorentz from Lorentz
contraction, but contraction is probably wrong idea. Theory does not
necessarily require contraction, only that in different frame of
references observers measures different value for speed of light due
to time dilatation. This way interpreted, there is no need for
contraction of spatial dimensions.

Re: [Vo]:E-cat article by Haiko Leitz

[Harry Veeder]

Archeologists concern themselves with the reconstruction of cracked pots.

Crackpots have fragments of insight.

Harry

Re: [Vo]:E-cat article by Haiko Leitz

[Horace Heffner]

On Dec 15, 2011, at 1:30 PM, Joshua Cude wrote:




On Thu, Dec 15, 2011 at 12:45 PM, Horace Heffner  
 wrote:


Rossi's tests and explanations are full of holes and self  
contradictions, impossibilities.  It is Rossi's tests and  
explanations that matter.  All the blather from the peanut gallery  
is irrelevant, except possibly to alert the few gullible investors  
that might listen, and to demonstrate that the LENR research  
community is not so crackpot as to easily accept scientifically  
unproven claims of commercial viability.




What it's demonstrated is that there are only a few not so  
crackpot. You and Krivit are in the minority if Rothwell is right  
that most of the CF community believes Rossi. If Rossi flames out,  
Krivit will become an unbearable sage in the field. That is, more  
unbearable than he already is.





Just to be clear, I am not convinced either way about Rossi's cats  
being genuine. Maybe it is genuine, against all odds, at least in  
part.   I do think his antics and history require an unusually  
skeptical viewpoint from a business perspective.  From a scientific  
point of view I think he has demonstrated nothing, and is not  
interested in demonstrating anything, or he would have. This adds up  
to zero scientific credibility.  This is not to say there is nothing  
in what he is doing that *may* be worthy of serious scientific interest.


I think there are few long time members of the LENR community who are  
adamant and vocal disbelievers, and few who are adamant and vocal  
believers.  There are certainly few crackpots.  The vast majority  
seem to me to be sitting on a fence waiting to see what develops, or  
at least consider the topic unworthy of serious effort to discuss. 
My point of view is there is a need to be vocal without taking either  
extreme position, that there is serious need to find out the facts as  
soon as possible.  There is a need to protect the public from fraud,  
to protect the LENR community from the potential downside of a  
boondoggle,  and to protect the public interest in meeting current  
and future clean energy needs, which  can be expected to reach crisis  
proportions in the lifetimes of the younger generation, if not much  
sooner.


If Rossi's device is genuine, and he comes up with a good patent,   
then I think there may be a good argument for an eminent domain  
action.  Rossi might like that, because he can get paid for doing  
nothing further, except maybe suing for amount adjustments.  An  
invention of that importance should not be trifled with.  A Manhattan  
style project is justified if the E-cats work as advertised, whether  
there is a patent or not.



Best regards,

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

Re: [Vo]:CF as a historical phenomenon

[Giovanni Santostasi]

It is not that simple. Relativity would not be completely dismissed by
these superluminal results. We don't know yet what is going on exactly. SR
and GR have been proven right in many instances and for large parameter
spaces.
Giovanni


On Thu, Dec 15, 2011 at 7:31 PM, Jouni Valkonen wrote:

> On 16 December 2011 03:22, Giovanni Santostasi 
> wrote:
> > Well, there is a reason why neutrinos travel faster than light and not
> other
> > particles. Starships are not made of neutrinos so even if the results
> would
> > be proven to be right for neutrinos it would not apply
> > to conventional matter.
>
> Of course it allows us starships. That is because neutrino finding
> falsifies the principle of relativity (»The laws by which the states
> of physical systems undergo change are not affected, whether these
> changes of state be referred to the one or the other of two systems in
> uniform translatory motion relative to each other.») and thus allows
> us superluminal starships.
>
> That is because neutrino finding verifies the Lorentz's theory of
> relativity where Earth's gravity field is the fixed frame of reference
> and thus causes the time dilation. This means that if we create strong
> artificial gravity field, we can shield starship from time dilatation.
> And thus we have easy theoretical principle for warp drive. And
> science fiction is now on easy!
>
> This is all because superluminal neutrinos makes theoretically possible!
>
> –Jouni
>
>

Re: [Vo]:CF as a historical phenomenon

[Mary Yugo]

On Thu, Dec 15, 2011 at 5:27 PM, Jed Rothwell  wrote:

> Joshua Cude wrote:
>
>
>> > Contrary to popular argument, science actually celebrates novelty and
>> > revolution, and scientists are not afraid of disruptive experiments;
>> they
>> > crave them.
>
>
> This is complete bullshit. Most scientists neither fear nor celebrate
> disruptive experiments. They do not give a damn how disruptive a result is,
> or how much it appears to violate theory. They care about one thing, and
> one thing only:
>
> FUNDING. Money. Status. Power.
>
> As Stan Szpak says, scientists believe whatever you pay them to believe.
>


Nice broad brush indictment which is mostly wrong.  Consider Jonas Salk as
an example -- he gave the world the Salk polio vaccine without royalties
and without a patent.  He went on to be immensely successful simply because
he was a great man, a superb scientist, an accomplished scholar, and a
humanitarian.  There are many like him.  Maybe not enough but many.



> If the plasma fusion people had not been around in 1989, we would have
> cold-fusion powered aircraft by now. The only reason there was resistance,
> and continues to be, is because those people are making 6-figures for
> screwing the taxpayers, and they do not want the gravy train to stop.
>

The main reason there are no cold fusion powered aircraft is because when
you ask for a robust demonstration that runs a long time, you get referred
to papers that are hard to read and understand, even with related
backgrounds, and don't really answer the key questions of measurement
reliability and data quality.   Instead of a gadget on a desktop that
anyone can test, you get complex coordinate graphs with unclear labels done
by poorly specified methods and not replicated by independent others.  At
least that's most of what I've seen before I stopped reading.

Re: [Vo]:CF as a historical phenomenon

[Mary Yugo]

On Thu, Dec 15, 2011 at 5:19 PM, Jed Rothwell  wrote:

> Charles Hope  wrote:
>
> Are there any examples of pathological science persisting 20 years without
>> being properly debunked?
>
>
> Not to my knowledge. Unless you count things like water memory, which may
> be real after all
>

You'd better hope it's not, says the water in my toilet, the water in the
sewers, the water exposed to toxic metals in mines, and the water used to
clean slaughter houses, after accidents, in mortuaries and infectious
disease labs... do I really need to continue?


> and acupuncture
>

Acupuncture is a real intervention in which needles are stuck into people.
I'd expect it to have some effect yet after millenia of use, nobody is sure
what it does much less why.  And all the classical stuff about Yin and Yang
and meridians which antedates modern medicine is nothing but nonsense.
Some people may get mild pain relief from it.  It's claims to provide
surgical anesthesia are probably based on bad experiments or fraud.


> and chiropractic, which seem to work.
>

Chiropractic manipulation done very cautiously and gently may make people
feel a bit better from minor muscle spams, aches and pains.  The theory of
chiropractic, namely that disease is caused by misalignment of the spine,
is absurd.  Nor can manipulation change the alignment of the spine which is
held in place by steel-strong ligaments.  Experiments in cadavers verify
that manipulation would have to tear off your head to reach the strength
required to do what chiropractors claim.

Re: [Vo]:CF as a historical phenomenon

[Harry Veeder]

Geocentrism took over 1000 years to "debunk".
The Law of CoE might take as long to debunk.



Harry

On Thu, Dec 15, 2011 at 8:19 PM, Jed Rothwell  wrote:
> Charles Hope  wrote:
>
>> Are there any examples of pathological science persisting 20 years without
>> being properly debunked?
>
>
> Not to my knowledge. Unless you count things like water memory, which may be
> real after all, and acupuncture and chiropractic, which seem to work.
>
>
>> Are there any examples of new science remaining on the fringe for 20 years
>> before being finally accepted into the mainstream?
>
>
> Genetics, photography and semiconductors. See:
>
> http://www.lenr-canr.org/acrobat/RothwellJcomparison.pdf
>
> Countless others, such as electric motors, incandescent lights and and
> calculators took decades to be developed. They were considered
> laboratory curiosities with no future and no practical value.
>
> - Jed
>

Re: [Vo]:CF as a historical phenomenon

[Jouni Valkonen]

On 16 December 2011 03:22, Giovanni Santostasi  wrote:
> Well, there is a reason why neutrinos travel faster than light and not other
> particles. Starships are not made of neutrinos so even if the results would
> be proven to be right for neutrinos it would not apply
> to conventional matter.

Of course it allows us starships. That is because neutrino finding
falsifies the principle of relativity (»The laws by which the states
of physical systems undergo change are not affected, whether these
changes of state be referred to the one or the other of two systems in
uniform translatory motion relative to each other.») and thus allows
us superluminal starships.

That is because neutrino finding verifies the Lorentz's theory of
relativity where Earth's gravity field is the fixed frame of reference
and thus causes the time dilation. This means that if we create strong
artificial gravity field, we can shield starship from time dilatation.
And thus we have easy theoretical principle for warp drive. And
science fiction is now on easy!

This is all because superluminal neutrinos makes theoretically possible!

 –Jouni

Re: [Vo]:CF as a historical phenomenon

[Jed Rothwell]

Joshua Cude wrote:


> > Contrary to popular argument, science actually celebrates novelty and
> > revolution, and scientists are not afraid of disruptive experiments; they
> > crave them.


This is complete bullshit. Most scientists neither fear nor celebrate
disruptive experiments. They do not give a damn how disruptive a result is,
or how much it appears to violate theory. They care about one thing, and
one thing only:

FUNDING. Money. Status. Power.

As Stan Szpak says, scientists believe whatever you pay them to believe.

You can set up a project with no hope of success, no scientific value, and
which is a fantastic waste of money, such as Star Wars or plasma fusion.
Scientist will flock to join. They will swear they believe in it. You can
present theories with no basis, no means of verification, and no possible
use, such as string theory. They will publish happily, and award prizes.

The scientific validity and the degree of novelty has nothing to do with
resistance to a new idea. The only metric that matters is moola.

The least practical ideas often meet no resistance because no one is
already being paid to do them.

If the plasma fusion people had not been around in 1989, we would have
cold-fusion powered aircraft by now. The only reason there was resistance,
and continues to be, is because those people are making 6-figures for
screwing the taxpayers, and they do not want the gravy train to stop.

- Jed

Re: [Vo]:CF as a historical phenomenon

[Giovanni Santostasi]

Well, there is a reason why neutrinos travel faster than light and not
other particles. Starships are not made of neutrinos so even if the results
would be proven to be right for neutrinos it would not apply
to conventional matter.
Giovanni


On Thu, Dec 15, 2011 at 7:09 PM, Jouni Valkonen wrote:

> On 16 December 2011 02:47, Joshua Cude  wrote:
> > Contrary to popular argument, science actually celebrates novelty and
> > revolution, and scientists are not afraid of disruptive experiments; they
> > crave them. Fame, glory, funding, and adoration come to those who make
> > breakthroughs, not those who add decimal places. The problem is, the
> > revolutionary science has to be right...
> >
>
> I think that the new superluminal neutrino finding was the best
> possible example, how fast revolutionary claims are accepted. And it
> was taken very joyfully by the scientific community, because they are
> eager to see new things. Of course there were some grey heads from the
> last century, even some Nobel laureates, who opposed the finding,
> because they believe that Einstein is the Truth, but they are very
> minority among scientist. (Although sometimes they are loud)
>
> I think that the nicest thing with this is, that we can rewrite many
> scifi books, because superluminal travelling is after all possible.
> And we do not need to invent silly fairy tales about Einstein-Rosen
> bridges (E.g. Carl Sagan in 'Contact').
>
>–Jouni
>
>

Re: [Vo]:CF as a historical phenomenon

[Daniel Rocha]

No, that was not accepted very well at all. Only a small quantity of open
minded theoretical physicists (most of them are considered fringe by the
mainstream) are publishing papers just in case the phenomena exists but it
will take a few more years to confirm it.

2011/12/15 Jouni Valkonen 

> On 16 December 2011 02:47, Joshua Cude  wrote:
> > Contrary to popular argument, science actually celebrates novelty and
> > revolution, and scientists are not afraid of disruptive experiments; they
> > crave them. Fame, glory, funding, and adoration come to those who make
> > breakthroughs, not those who add decimal places. The problem is, the
> > revolutionary science has to be right...
> >
>
> I think that the new superluminal neutrino finding was the best
> possible example, how fast revolutionary claims are accepted. And it
> was taken very joyfully by the scientific community, because they are
> eager to see new things. Of course there were some grey heads from the
> last century, even some Nobel laureates, who opposed the finding,
> because they believe that Einstein is the Truth, but they are very
> minority among scientist. (Although sometimes they are loud)
>
> I think that the nicest thing with this is, that we can rewrite many
> scifi books, because superluminal travelling is after all possible.
> And we do not need to invent silly fairy tales about Einstein-Rosen
> bridges (E.g. Carl Sagan in 'Contact').
>
>–Jouni
>
>


-- 
Daniel Rocha - RJ
danieldi...@gmail.com

Re: [Vo]:CF as a historical phenomenon

[Jed Rothwell]

Charles Hope  wrote:

Are there any examples of pathological science persisting 20 years without
> being properly debunked?


Not to my knowledge. Unless you count things like water memory, which may
be real after all, and acupuncture and chiropractic, which seem to work.


Are there any examples of new science remaining on the fringe for 20 years
> before being finally accepted into the mainstream?
>

Genetics, photography and semiconductors. See:

http://www.lenr-canr.org/acrobat/RothwellJcomparison.pdf

Countless others, such as electric motors, incandescent lights and and
calculators took decades to be developed. They were considered
laboratory curiosities with no future and no practical value.

- Jed

Re: [Vo]:CF as a historical phenomenon

[Jouni Valkonen]

On 16 December 2011 02:56, Giovanni Santostasi  wrote:
> There is an example that is interesting.
> Gravitational wave detection.

This is also sad thing. Because once we had to chance to disprove
Inflation theory once and for all by detecting gravitational wave
signature of big bang with Lisa, Lisa was cancelled by Nasa. I just
hate people, who are investing less than half of their wealth into big
science projects. James Webb telescope is also delayed by a decade,
and it is threatened to be cancelled.

I hope that cold fusion will come into rescue and save Earth's space
exploration projects from science-haters.

–Jouni

Re: [Vo]:CF as a historical phenomenon

[Jouni Valkonen]

On 16 December 2011 02:47, Joshua Cude  wrote:
> Contrary to popular argument, science actually celebrates novelty and
> revolution, and scientists are not afraid of disruptive experiments; they
> crave them. Fame, glory, funding, and adoration come to those who make
> breakthroughs, not those who add decimal places. The problem is, the
> revolutionary science has to be right...
>

I think that the new superluminal neutrino finding was the best
possible example, how fast revolutionary claims are accepted. And it
was taken very joyfully by the scientific community, because they are
eager to see new things. Of course there were some grey heads from the
last century, even some Nobel laureates, who opposed the finding,
because they believe that Einstein is the Truth, but they are very
minority among scientist. (Although sometimes they are loud)

I think that the nicest thing with this is, that we can rewrite many
scifi books, because superluminal travelling is after all possible.
And we do not need to invent silly fairy tales about Einstein-Rosen
bridges (E.g. Carl Sagan in 'Contact').

–Jouni

Re: [Vo]:CF as a historical phenomenon

[Giovanni Santostasi]

There is an example that is interesting.
Gravitational wave detection.
As a practical field was created more than 40 years ago and no detection
has been done yet.
The theoretical prediction of gravitational waves by Einstein happened
about 90 years ago. He claimed it was an interesting theoretical prediction
but humankind would not ever be able to detect gravitational waves.
A sociologist wrote a book on this field of science because it has been
around for so long without a positive detection.
Giovanni


On Thu, Dec 15, 2011 at 5:50 PM, Charles Hope
wrote:

> Are there any examples of pathological science persisting 20 years without
> being properly debunked? Are there any examples of new science remaining on
> the fringe for 20 years before being finally accepted into the mainstream?
>
>

[Vo]:Why big energy wants to kill the LRET

[Aussie Guy E-Cat]

Interesting read: 
http://www.climatespectator.com.au/commentary/why-big-energy-wants-kill-lret 
Now imagine what would happen with a LENR generator with a LCOE below coal.

[Vo]:Was Technetium ever detected in LENR experiments?

[Daniel Rocha]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Technetium
*

Technetium* ([image: play]
/
t 
ɛ
k 
ˈ
n 
iː
ʃ 
i
ə 
m
/ 
*tek-nee-shee-əm*)
is the chemical element 
 with atomic number  43 and
symbol *Tc*. It is the lowest atomic
number element
without any stable isotopes ;
every form of it is radioactive .
Nearly all technetium is produced synthetically and only minute amounts are
found in nature. Naturally occurring technetium occurs as a spontaneous fission
product  in uranium
ore or
by neutron capture in
molybdenum  ores. The chemical
properties of this silvery gray, crystalline transition
metal are
intermediate between rhenium  and
manganese .

It would be at least an evidence for WL theory.
-- 
Daniel Rocha - RJ
danieldi...@gmail.com

Re: [Vo]:CF as a historical phenomenon

[Joshua Cude]

On Thu, Dec 15, 2011 at 5:50 PM, Charles Hope
wrote:

> Are there any examples of pathological science persisting 20 years without
> being properly debunked? Are there any examples of new science remaining on
> the fringe for 20 years before being finally accepted into the mainstream?
>
>
Perpetual motion fits the first question. There are adherents to it that
will claim it has not been debunked, and that's been centuries.

There are a lot of medical claims that would also fit. Homeopathy,
(straight) chiropractic, acupuncture, the vaccine-autism connection,
psychic healing, or any paranormal phenomena. None of these are accepted by
mainstream science, but will probably never be debunked to the satisfaction
of their adherents.


I have posed the latter is a question frequently, albeit qualified, and
without a good response.

There are some examples of theories or phenomena that took decades to be
accepted, but not small-scale, bench-top type experiments. Examples include
Wegener's continental drift, maybe black holes, and Lawrence cited a
dinosaur theory. These are in fields that give up data greedily.

The closest example of a small-scale theory that I have seen is
Semmelweis's disinfection (hand-washing), which was ridiculed for a long
time. But you have to go back 150 years for that example.

I think most phenomena (especially in the physical sciences) that can be
tested on a bench top, and that turn out to be real, were accepted pretty
quickly. And revolutionary theories to explain a lot of well-established
experimental results, like relativity and quantum mechanics were accepted
almost as quickly as they were proposed. QM took time to be developed of
course, but who could doubt that Bohr was on to something when quantization
of the angular momentum reproduced the empirically determined Rydberg
formula for atomic spectra?

Rothwell likes to list various technologies that took time to develop, like
the transistor and the laser (which did see some skepticism), but none of
his favorite examples are anything close to case of cold fusion where the
concept is rejected out of hand by the mainstream for 20 years.

This year's nobel prize in chemistry represents another case of skepticism
proved wrong. Shechtman's proposed quasicrystals were ridiculed (most
vociferously by Linus Pauling who said there were no quasicrystals, only
quasi-scientists), and he was kicked out of his research group. But the
derision lasted only a couple of years, and he was published in PRL, at the
height of it, and began getting awards soon after, culminating, in less
than 20 years, in the nobel prize.

Contrary to popular argument, science actually celebrates novelty and
revolution, and scientists are not afraid of disruptive experiments; they
crave them. Fame, glory, funding, and adoration come to those who make
breakthroughs, not those who add decimal places. The problem is, the
revolutionary science has to be right...

Re: [Vo]:E-cat article by Haiko Leitz

[Robert Lynn]

On 15 December 2011 15:21, Jed Rothwell  wrote:

> 1. Stored energy can only cause the temperature to decline monotonically,
> very rapidly at first (Newton's law of cooling). Yet this heat increased
> during the event.
>

It is easy to create a system in which heat transfer is limited to a near
constant value - as formation of steam can create a gas barrier that limits
heat transfer (a problem in designing IC engine heads).

Also we know that the water level was increasing so it is simple to
envisage a system where heat transfer from stored heat increases as a
result of increasing contact area between water and heat source.

And to reiterate heat storage:
Graphite can store up to 1.5kWh/kg or nearly 3kWh/l in a vacuum enclosure.
1.5GJ from 50 modules would only require about 16kg or 8 liters per module.
There are also a lot of high heat of fusion materials:
LiH that requires about 1.6kWh/kg to heat from room temp to melt at 960K
(~1.3kWh/L)
Silicon metal that releases 0.8kWh/kg to heat up and melt at 1700K
(~1.9kWh/l)
LiF that releases 0.6Wh/kg heating to melt at 1120K (~1.5kWh/L).

Which is why Rossi needs to do a much higher standard of demo - he
certainly hasn't produced results good enough to remove all doubt about
fraud.  Not that I believe Rossi is a total fraud, but I am fairly
convinced that he is hiding some short-fall in performance (eg reaction
duration or exaggerating power level) or he wouldn't have any reason to be
so furtive in his demos.

Interesting chat tonight with a professional energy trader who worked for
one of the big international oil trading firms.  He said that they were
aware of Rossi, but after investigation regarded the likelihood of it being
real as 0% - and that their trading would have been massively affected by
even a 1% chance of it being real.

Re: [Vo]:eCat Electric COP : 2

[Stephen A. Lawrence]

On 11-12-15 06:19 PM, Mary Yugo wrote:
I don't understand any of that in the slightest.  The device as it is 
supposed to be would immediately and without any changes be an 
excellent heat source. ...


But this is very silly conjecture.  If the device worked, which is 
very doubtful at this point, it would be researched and rapidly 
improved...


Actually, if it worked, then Rossi would have a more than adequate 
market just selling the things to potential competitors who want to 
reverse engineer it.   Forget end users!   They require reliability, 
approvals, operating manuals, warranties -- all sorts of annoying stuff 
that competitors wouldn't care two shakes about.  End users also require 
competitive pricing; potential competitors, OTOH, could easily recognize 
the value of the thing and would gladly pay outrageous amounts for 
single units.

Re: [Vo]:eCat Electric COP : 2

[Aussie Guy E-Cat]

Apparently you don't understand LCOE (Levelized Cost Of Energy)? May I 
suggest you do some googling. ALL of the ways we generate energy have an 
infinite COP if you take away the energy content of the fuel that you 
need to supply to the generator. With some generators such as wind, 
solar, tidal, wave, geothermal, hydro, etc there is no fuel cost 
embodied into the input energy. Others such as coal, uranium, gas, oil, 
nickel, etc the fuel must be won from the earth and then processed. The 
fuel then has an embodied energy cost which is passed on to the energy 
generator owner as part of the cost of the fuel. LCOE sorts all this out 
and allows across the board comparisons of Gen A to Gen B to Gen C, etc 
on the basis of the LCOE of the delivered energy.



On 12/16/2011 9:49 AM, Mary Yugo wrote:



On Thu, Dec 15, 2011 at 3:07 PM, Jed Rothwell > wrote:


Aussie Guy E-Cat mailto:aussieguy.e...@gmail.com>> wrote:

For the E-Cat or any other LENR generator to make inroads into
the global energy generation market, the LCOE per kWh of
delivered energy must be lower than from any other comparable
energy sources or there is simply no market for it.


Yup. That's a key point.

You mean a market for the device as a practical source of energy.
A person could sell eCats as experimental devices. You could sell
thousands at a premium price to laboratories worldwide. Later you
might even sell them as a novelty item, similar to today's
high-end electric cars. Toys for rich people. Early automobiles
and microcomputers were novelty items.


The top of the LCOE scale probably starts as a drop it in a
remote site (could be in outer space) somewhere and generate
heat and electricity. For that market the acceptable LCOE of
the delivered energy is very high. 



Yup again. Other examples of critical power that people will pay a
premium for include: pacemaker batteries, heart assist pumps
(Ventricular Assist Device), hearing aid batteries, watch
batteries, remote telephone repeaters, cell phone
batteries, aviation, and highway sensors (now served by solar panels).

The technology has to be developed to a high state of reliability
before such applications can be served. The same goes for military
applications, as you pointed out.

For domestic situations the max acceptable LCOE drops quite a
bit and for on grid electricity generation the required LCOE
hits rock bottom.


Yup. Because of that, this is may be the last market you want to
approach.

See Christensen, "The Innovator's Dilemma" for ideas about good
markets to begin with. This book introduces the concepts of
disruptive versus sustaining technology. These terms have become
widely used clichés in modern business, but people often
misunderstand the original concept. I discussed this book in
chapter 7 of my book. I highly recommend reading the original.

Christensen came out with a follow-up book which was also
interesting. It needs editing.


I don't understand any of that in the slightest.  The device as it is 
supposed to be would immediately and without any changes be an 
excellent heat source.  That's what makes the famous photo of Rossi, 
Levi and Focardi (was it?) huddled around the E-cat in huge winter 
coats so comical!   Even as primitive a device as the early E-cats 
would be completely welcome as a space heater and hot water source in 
any cold environment.  Imagine an isolated ski cabin in the Alps with 
no electricity.  You wouldn't need to gather wood any more to keep 
warm all winter long.  Same for cooking.


But this is very silly conjecture.  If the device worked, which is 
very doubtful at this point, it would be researched and rapidly 
improved and developed into much higher temperature regimes.  That 
would make it suitable for propulsion and as a source of electricity.  
It would within a very few years have myriads of applications.  And 
simply routing a bit of the output back to the input through a 
regulator would make it self sustaining.  Of course all of that is 
just fanciful thinking and wishing.

Re: [Vo]:Bob Park is back!

[Joshua Cude]

On Thu, Dec 15, 2011 at 5:37 PM, Charles Hope
wrote:

> It's not relevant, because his criticism is against innumeracy, which
> applies to such delusions as astrology and homeopathy, but not cold fusion,
> where the most serious advocates are scientists, who certainly know their
> differential equations.
>

It's about pseudoscience in general, and he cites cold fusion specifically.



>
> Why would anyone mention cold fusion in 2011, and raise P & F as the
> example, while neglecting Rossi? That's really bizarre.
>
>
My guess is that he knows it will irk the believers even more if he ignores
Rossi, than if he dumps on him. It seems to be working.

Re: [Vo]:eCat Electric COP : 2

[Joshua Cude]

On Thu, Dec 15, 2011 at 5:35 PM, Jed Rothwell  wrote:

>
> Then I suggest you read Christensen and some other books about business.
> Some of these ideas are complicated. You have to do your homework.
>

An amazing new revolutionary technology promising to replace fossil
fuels... but it's useless if you don't do your homework. Once you're
finished with Plato, Descartes, and Popper, move on to Christensen. When
you can pass the exams, maybe you will be allowed to benefit from the
amazing new ecats. I think you're hedging your bets now.

  The device as it is supposed to be would immediately and without any
>> changes be an excellent heat source.
>>
>
> That it may be, but we already have excellent heat sources, such as
> gas-fired space heaters, heat pumps and solar water heaters.
>

None of those are excellent compared to an isolated ecat producing 12 kW
without fuel. They need in order: gas, electricity or gas, daylight,
plumbing, and and energy storage technology.

There are many dimensions in which something can be excellent yet still
> uncompetitive in some markets.
>

A ecat that does what Rossi claims now would be competitive in any market.


Cold fusion does not need any fuel. You might think that would make it an
> unbeatable competitor. But the same can be said for solar water heating,
> solar power and wind power, yet these are not competitive in all markets.
>


Cold fusion does not need fuel and is not intermittent. Check mate.


> No, not any cold environment. That depends on the initial cost of
> equipment, reliability and many other factors.
>

What other factors. It depends on capital cost and reliability, but Rossi
has already claimed costs that are certainly competitive. Reliability would
have to be proven. That's true.


Why are you arguing against ecats now? Because you think maybe they're not
so great after all, and you're gonna need rationalization. You might as
well line it up now.

Re: [Vo]:E-cat article by Haiko Leitz

[Stephen A. Lawrence]

On 11-12-15 06:11 PM, Joshua Cude wrote:
Falsifiability just means it should be possible to conceive of an 
experimental result that would contradict the assertion. It's intended 
to avoid religious claims in a scientific arena.


It actually has much broader applications than just that.  Hang around 
the crackpot forums long enough and you'll encounter any number of 
theories that are neither religious nor falsifiable.


In fact, in my experience, the assertion that X must be falsifiable is 
most often used where "X" is a full-blown *theory* rather than a 
particular "argument" or single assertion.  A theory which is not 
falsifiable is considered "invalid", or, perhaps more accurately if less 
flamboyantly, it can be termed "purely speculative".  Speculation can 
eventually lead to a valid (falsifiable) theory, of course.  However, 
when the speculator is running from arguments which would shoot down the 
speculation if it ever stood still long enough for someone to draw a 
bead on it, that's not likely to happen.


This is, of course, something which has come up in the context of string 
theory.  I have often heard it asked, "Has string theory made any 
testable predictions yet?".  (I am clueless regarding string theory, 
BTW, and have no idea what the answer to that question is.)   A "theory" 
which makes no testable predictions is, of course, not falsifiable, and 
hence should not really be dignified with the name of "theory".


A nice example of a non-falsifiable bit of atheistic speculation is this 
one:  You really live in the 33rd century, and the apparent "real world" 
is just a full-immersion video game which you happen to be playing.


A related notion:  You're dreaming right now, and the shreds of dream 
which you may remember from last night are actually distorted memories 
of your waking life.


One slightly more serious one:  There is, indeed, an aether, but Lorentz 
contraction due to motion through the aether happens to be exactly the 
same as the Fitzgerald contraction predicted by SR, and the time effects 
due to motion through the aether also match the time dilation predicted 
by SR.  Consequently no experiment will show a different result due to 
the presence of the aether, and despite the existence of a distinguished 
rest frame, there is no way to determine which frame that is.  (This has 
been called "Lorentz ether theory", or "LET" for short, and it 
supposedly embodies the final version of the Lorentz's theory.)


[ ... ]

Take for example a claim that a fission bomb (or hydrogen bomb) used 
sleight of hand to produce the claimed energy output.


Did you by any chance ever read The Jesus Factor?

[Vo]:CF as a historical phenomenon

[Charles Hope]

Are there any examples of pathological science persisting 20 years without 
being properly debunked? Are there any examples of new science remaining on the 
fringe for 20 years before being finally accepted into the mainstream?

Re: [Vo]:Bob Park is back!

[Charles Hope]

It's not relevant, because his criticism is against innumeracy, which applies 
to such delusions as astrology and homeopathy, but not cold fusion, where the 
most serious advocates are scientists, who certainly know their differential 
equations. 

Why would anyone mention cold fusion in 2011, and raise P & F as the example, 
while neglecting Rossi? That's really bizarre. 




On Dec 15, 2011, at 16:36, Joshua Cude  wrote:

> The whole thing is related to pseudoscience and ignorance, and it's all 
> relevant. Here it is:
> 
> 
> 1. HACKS: SHODDY PRESS COVERAGE OF SCIENCE.
> The Leveson Inquiry into the standards and ethics of the UK press, headed 
> by Lord Justice Brian Leveson, was prompted by the News of the World phone-
> hacking scandal (WN 22 Jul 2011). The seamy British tabloid was the top-
> selling English-language newspaper in the world when owner Rupert Murdoch 
> had to close it five months ago after its news-collection methods were 
> exposed. The intense public interest in the sex and drug culture of 
> celebrities is certainly troubling, but the same journalistic standards 
> applied to science news may be more dangerous.  In 1998, for example, 
> Andrew Wakefield, an obscure British gastroenterologist, set off a 
> worldwide vaccination panic when he falsely identified the common MMR 
> vaccination as a cause of autism.  Widely reported by the press, 
> Wakefield's irresponsible assertion led to a precipitous decline in 
> vaccination rate and a corresponding 14-year rise in measles cases.  An 
> editorial in the current issue of Nature (8 Dec 2011) urges scientists 
> to "fight back against agenda-driven reporting of science."  Who could 
> disagree? It is, after all, a fight against ignorance. 
> 
> 2. IGNORANCE: THERE'S PLENTY MORE WHERE THAT CAME FROM.
> A commitment to intellectual openness provides a mechanism for self-
> correction that sets science apart from the unchanging dictates of revealed 
> religion, raising the prospect of transforming Earth into something close 
> to biblical paradise, at least for Homo sapiens.  Directions to this 
> earthly paradise, however, are written in mathematics. In particular, the 
> dialect of scientific progress is differential equations. Unfortunately, 
> few people speak mathematics or have any interest in learning it. In the 
> modern world, the engine of scientific progress is driven by a subset of 
> the human race that speaks mathematics as a second language.  This is not 
> healthy.  Many people, unable to distinguish science from pseudoscience, 
> are duped by crackpots and swindlers who attempt to mimic scientists, and   
> often manage to fool themselves.  How do they do it?
> 
> 3. LET ME COUNT THE WAYS: PSEUDOSCIENCE IS AN ENORMOUS FIELD  
> There are, I think, many more of them than there are of us. Let me mention 
> just a few of the more notorious:  Stanley Pons and Martin Fleishman, who 
> gave us Cold Fusion in 1989, are the most famous in the Free Energy 
> Category. Even so, physicists had their number in a couple of weeks. More 
> recently (2006) in the same category, the Steorn Company in Dublin gave us 
> Orbo, a classic perpetual motion machine.  So classic it gets reinvented 
> every century or so. Unfortunately Orbo is shy and refuses to perform when 
> anyone’s watching. In the Chicken-Little Category, Devra Davis says the 5 
> billion cell-phone users are toast when we reach the latency period of 
> brain cancer.  Alas, I'm reaching my limit and there are hundreds more on 
> my list. Maybe I'll write a book, or did I already do that?
> 
> 

Re: [Vo]:eCat Electric COP : 2

[Jed Rothwell]

Mary Yugo  wrote:

I don't understand any of that in the slightest.
>

Then I suggest you read Christensen and some other books about business.
Some of these ideas are complicated. You have to do your homework.



>   The device as it is supposed to be would immediately and without any
> changes be an excellent heat source.
>

That it may be, but we already have excellent heat sources, such as
gas-fired space heaters, heat pumps and solar water heaters. There are many
dimensions in which something can be excellent yet still uncompetitive in
some markets.

Cold fusion does not need any fuel. You might think that would make it an
unbeatable competitor. But the same can be said for solar water heating,
solar power and wind power, yet these are not competitive in all markets.
See chapter 2 of my book.



> Even as primitive a device as the early E-cats would be completely welcome
> as a space heater and hot water source in any cold environment.
>

No, not any cold environment. That depends on the initial cost of
equipment, reliability and many other factors. After the technology matures
the situation will be quite different.



>   Imagine an isolated ski cabin in the Alps with no electricity.  You
> wouldn't need to gather wood any more to keep warm all winter long.  Same
> for cooking.
>

There are not many isolated ski cabins in the Alps. It would be difficult
to reach that market. They would demand high reliability which is not
likely in the early devices.

I am sure there are abundant niche markets in which an early version of
this device can be sold at a profit, with customer satisfaction. This is
what AG called "low hanging fruit." Finding these markets will take skilled
business people.

- Jed

Re: [Vo]:E-cat article by Haiko Leitz

[Joshua Cude]

On Thu, Dec 15, 2011 at 4:08 PM, Jed Rothwell  wrote:

>
> "If you can't think of a specific way this EXPERIMENTAL scientist's work
> could have jumped the tracks, then you have no basis to challenge the
> conclusions."
>


First of all, there are many specific ways suggested to explain the ecat,
that do not involve nuclear reactions.

Secondly, none are necessary. Unless the energy density exceeds what is
known to be possible, there is no reason to accept the claims.

And thirdly, the failure of scientists (for a time) to identify the flaws
in the N-ray and polywater experiments did not mean the conclusions were
right, or that they should not be challenged. And that goes for all the
perpetual motion claims that are repeatedly made. At some point, it is no
longer interesting or necessary to even try to understand the observations
made by people claiming yet again to have built a perpetual motion machine.


> All critiques of experiments must be based on specific discussions of
> instruments and techniques. No appealing to theory allowed.
>


It's a good thing you don't make the rules. If appeals to theory were not
used to guide understanding, we would lose the benefit of standing on the
shoulders of giants.

Robust experimental results must be accepted in contradiction to theory,
for sure, and are, of course. But that's not the same as ignoring theory in
the interpretation of experiments.Theory just represents an accepted
generalization based on previous experiments. If a result (or more
commonly, an interpretation of a result) contradicts theory, then it has to
be questioned. That's a critical part of making progress. And if another
interpretation of the same results fits existing theory, then it's more
likely to be correct.

In the case of the ecat, the experimental results consist of temperature
and flow rate measurements. Claiming it's nuclear is a *theory* to explain
the results. And since it is not consistent with expectations of existing
theory, it is important to question it. If the temperatures and flow rates
are consistent with an alternative theory that *is* consistent with
existing theory, it's more likely to be correct.


>
>  replication is always required. It does not matter how strong the
> evidence is; you cannot short-circuit that step. That's another rule of
> experimental science,
>

Replication is always desirable to improve and understand, but it's not
always necessary to accept a new phenomenon. The Wright's 1908 flight in
Paris was enough to convince all skeptics. An exploding nuclear bomb would
convince all skeptics. And it's not hard to imagine a single demo of the
ecat that would convince all skeptics. Rossi has not come close to that yet.


> That is in fact where we stand with the Fleischmann Pons effect. The
> statute of limitations ran out a long time ago.
>
>
I agree. If they claim heat from nuclear reactions and can't convince the
scientific mainstream, who would love nothing more, then it's time to cut
losses.

[Vo]:Possible Proof of Peter's theory of gravity and New Matter Accrual

[Wm. Scott Smith]

Peter, your thoughts about matter "sucking" ZPE and accruing mass may be 
extremely important. Your theory is a fascinatingly possible explanation for 
how the Earth has grown to its present size.
If I brought you a box of broken glass, then assembled it into a perfect 
sphere, with no leftover pieces, it would be impossible to convince you that: 
Really, it had to have been a glass bowl!
The following link demonstrates this very thin. First, Neal Adams, (Of Marvel 
Comics Fame as the main artist!) started with a virtual Earth. Then he pasted a 
map of the Ages of the Ocean floor. He then remove the newest sections of the 
ocean floor, leaving big gaps. Then, he moved all of the remaining segments 
together, and they only fit together on a slightly smaller Earth. He does this 
some seventeen times more: In the end, 
He ends up with all of the continents fitting together.  They fit together onto 
a sphere that is 60% of the present EarthAll continents and large islands are 
completely surrounded by other continents and large islands---fitting together 
very well!The continents and large Islands completely cover this smaller here 
are no more oceans.
This is backed up by abundant geological evidence. 
identical fossils in all areas where the pieces fit together, where fossils are 
available.Mountain ranges are better-explained by the wrinkling of the 
continents as they adapt to the ever-flattening re-curvature of the Earth's 
surface.
This Growing Earth Theory has been around for more than a century. Really the 
only reason this theory has been rejected is because no one believes that new 
matter could be accumulating, inside the Earth.
Study all of these videos very seriously, because they may be the best proof 
that your theory is really true, since it would explain the "impossible" 
accumulation of new matter inside the Earth! Perhaps we can calculate this 
effect, using your theory, and then see if it matches the observed rate of the 
Earth's Growth. 
If you write your theory in a good technical style, I could help you publish it 
in the NPA Journal---they are very open minded.
Please contact me and let me know what you think.
Must-See Videos:
http://nealadams.com/nmu.html

Wm. Scott Smith+509 290 4318+509 326 1307GMT - 8 hours
> Date: Thu, 15 Dec 2011 22:17:37 +0100
> From: peter.heck...@arcor.de
> To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
> Subject: [Vo]:Thoughts about Mass and Gravitation and zeropoint.
> 
> Hi,
> 
> my thesis is that matter sucks up energy and this is the reason for gravity.
> I dont know in which frequency range this happens, but I think matter 
> sucks up zeropoint energy and converts it to matter.
> 
> There was a similar theory that was discussed by Clerk Maxwell and 
> Boltzmann and others. They had the idea gravity is caused by radiation 
> pressure. Matter absorbs this radiation and so we get an attraction 
> force, which is a pressure force from outside.
> Maxwell calulated this and finally came to the conclusion, that under 
> this condition matter must infinitely heat up, and so this idea was 
> finally rejected.
> Now, he did not know "e=m*c^2". What happens if the energy is converted 
> into mass?
> 
> Lets use air as an example for energy. Speed of sound is independent 
> from pressure, but it is dependent from temperature.
> c ~ sqrt(T).  If c is speed of sound and T is temperature, then c is 
> proportional dependent from squareroot of temperature.
> c^2 ~ T.  c squared is proportional to temperature.
> T = p* c^2. p is the proportional factor.
> 
> Now, lets replace t by energy and p by mass, then we get e =m*c^2.
> 
> Because mass sucks up energy, the energy density near to a mass must be 
> lower than far away.
> With lower temperature in air we get lower speed of sound.
> With lower energy density in space we get slower speed of c.
> Therefore light is bent by gravitation.
> 
> But c is always measured constant! How this?
> This is, because we use c to measure space and time. Distance is 
> measured by an electromagnetic wavelength and time is measured from a 
> resonancy frequency of atoms. So c is constant by definition of the 
> measurement method.
> 
> So, instead measuring slower speed of c we must measure dilated time and 
> dilated space as Einsteins relativity theory predicts.
> 
> Peter
> 
> 
  

Re: [Vo]:E-cat article by Haiko Leitz

[Mary Yugo]

On Thu, Dec 15, 2011 at 2:08 PM, Jed Rothwell  wrote:

>
> "If you can't think of a specific way this EXPERIMENTAL scientist's work
> could have jumped the tracks, then you have no basis to challenge the
> conclusions."
>

I can't think of any way (much less a specific way) that famous magicians
could do their illusions but I am pretty sure they are still illusions.
Aren't you?

Similarly, I am pretty sure Rossi is running an illusion.  Exactly what
illusion and how it's done, I am not sure.  Several people have proposed
ways that seem plausible to me even though they don't to you.  I never said
I *know* Rossi is faking.  I am saying it is by far the most likely
possibility.  I suppose there is a small chance that he is for real in
which case the way he has gone about things should get him tarred,
feathered and run out of town on a rail (to use an auld American
expression).

Re: [Vo]:eCat Electric COP : 2

[Aussie Guy E-Cat]

That is why I'm not fussed about why it works as long as it works and 
the LCOE fits my target market. When either Leonardo or DGT announce 
their Ac kWh devices, with prices, then we can determine into which 
markets these devices can and can not be sold. For any new energy 
generation technology, it is all about LCOE, reliability, market 
acceptance and identifying the low hanging fruit before the other guy.



On 12/16/2011 9:37 AM, Jed Rothwell wrote:
Aussie Guy E-Cat > wrote:


For the E-Cat or any other LENR generator to make inroads into the
global energy generation market, the LCOE per kWh of delivered
energy must be lower than from any other comparable energy sources
or there is simply no market for it.


Yup. That's a key point.

You mean a market for the device as a practical source of energy. A 
person could sell eCats as experimental devices. You could sell 
thousands at a premium price to laboratories worldwide. Later you 
might even sell them as a novelty item, similar to today's high-end 
electric cars. Toys for rich people. Early automobiles and 
microcomputers were novelty items.



The top of the LCOE scale probably starts as a drop it in a remote
site (could be in outer space) somewhere and generate heat and
electricity. For that market the acceptable LCOE of the delivered
energy is very high. 



Yup again. Other examples of critical power that people will pay a 
premium for include: pacemaker batteries, heart assist pumps 
(Ventricular Assist Device), hearing aid batteries, watch batteries, 
remote telephone repeaters, cell phone batteries, aviation, and 
highway sensors (now served by solar panels).


The technology has to be developed to a high state of reliability 
before such applications can be served. The same goes for military 
applications, as you pointed out.


For domestic situations the max acceptable LCOE drops quite a bit
and for on grid electricity generation the required LCOE hits rock
bottom.


Yup. Because of that, this is may be the last market you want to approach.

See Christensen, "The Innovator's Dilemma" for ideas about good 
markets to begin with. This book introduces the concepts of disruptive 
versus sustaining technology. These terms have become widely used 
clichés in modern business, but people often misunderstand the 
original concept. I discussed this book in chapter 7 of my book. I 
highly recommend reading the original.


Christensen came out with a follow-up book which was also interesting. 
It needs editing.


- Jed

Re: [Vo]:Bob Park is back!

[OrionWorks - Steven V Johnson]

Jed,

Peter can correct me if I error on this point but I believe he has
repeatedly attempted to contact Dr. Park specifically in regard to the
Rossi saga. Numerous times. I believe Peter as posted the fact that
Park has never responded to any of his repeated inquiries.

I'm sure others have attempted to contact Park as well on Rossi.

IMO, I find it highly... HIGHLY unlikely that Park has not heard of
Rossi. Meanwhile, in Park's Dec 15 publication he couldn't help but
mention his disdain towards Steorn and their Orbo prototype. I don't
consider Steorn's operations as being no that much more visible that
Rossi's operations.

Going after individuals like Rossi strikes me as something Park would
love to do. After all, he's gone after Steorn. Therefore, under the
circumstance why wouldn't he go after Rossi, an individual who comes
across as a flagrant carnival barker, for Pete's sake!

Shoot! Even the Amazing Randy has already lifted his leg on this
hydrant, as seen in that ridiculous You-Tube installment. So, why
wouldn't Park...unless, IMHO, he has deliberately chosen to avoid
discussing the matter... for now.

Please understand, I think you are correct in the sense that I suspect
Park doesn't believe in Rossi or his eCats. However, my suspicion is
that what Park has seen so far has caused him to refrain from going
after Rossi publicly. I suspect he is looking for more definitive
proof that Rossi and his eCats are fraudulent, but that he has not yet
found sufficient evidence. Only circumstantial here-say.

To me, Park is acting like a smart bully who knows how to stay in
power. A good bully knows when to refrain from getting in the middle
of the lime light. He will let others less experienced than him do the
ground work, like MY or J. Cude. If these individuals can find
something definitive, I'm sure Park will come out swinging.

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

Re: [Vo]:eCat Electric COP : 2

[Mary Yugo]

On Thu, Dec 15, 2011 at 3:07 PM, Jed Rothwell  wrote:

> Aussie Guy E-Cat  wrote:
>
> For the E-Cat or any other LENR generator to make inroads into the global
>> energy generation market, the LCOE per kWh of delivered energy must be
>> lower than from any other comparable energy sources or there is simply no
>> market for it.
>
>
> Yup. That's a key point.
>
> You mean a market for the device as a practical source of energy. A person
> could sell eCats as experimental devices. You could sell thousands at a
> premium price to laboratories worldwide. Later you might even sell them as
> a novelty item, similar to today's high-end electric cars. Toys for rich
> people. Early automobiles and microcomputers were novelty items.
>
>
> The top of the LCOE scale probably starts as a drop it in a remote site
>> (could be in outer space) somewhere and generate heat and electricity. For
>> that market the acceptable LCOE of the delivered energy is very high.
>
>
> Yup again. Other examples of critical power that people will pay a premium
> for include: pacemaker batteries, heart assist pumps (Ventricular Assist
> Device), hearing aid batteries, watch batteries, remote telephone
> repeaters, cell phone batteries, aviation, and highway sensors (now served
> by solar panels).
>
> The technology has to be developed to a high state of reliability before
> such applications can be served. The same goes for military applications,
> as you pointed out.
>
>
>
>> For domestic situations the max acceptable LCOE drops quite a bit and for
>> on grid electricity generation the required LCOE hits rock bottom.
>>
>
> Yup. Because of that, this is may be the last market you want to approach.
>
> See Christensen, "The Innovator's Dilemma" for ideas about good markets to
> begin with. This book introduces the concepts of disruptive versus
> sustaining technology. These terms have become widely used clichés in
> modern business, but people often misunderstand the original concept. I
> discussed this book in chapter 7 of my book. I highly recommend reading the
> original.
>
> Christensen came out with a follow-up book which was also interesting. It
> needs editing.
>
>
I don't understand any of that in the slightest.  The device as it is
supposed to be would immediately and without any changes be an excellent
heat source.  That's what makes the famous photo of Rossi, Levi and Focardi
(was it?) huddled around the E-cat in huge winter coats so comical!   Even
as primitive a device as the early E-cats would be completely welcome as a
space heater and hot water source in any cold environment.  Imagine an
isolated ski cabin in the Alps with no electricity.  You wouldn't need to
gather wood any more to keep warm all winter long.  Same for cooking.

But this is very silly conjecture.  If the device worked, which is very
doubtful at this point, it would be researched and rapidly improved and
developed into much higher temperature regimes.  That would make it
suitable for propulsion and as a source of electricity.  It would within a
very few years have myriads of applications.  And simply routing a bit of
the output back to the input through a regulator would make it self
sustaining.  Of course all of that is just fanciful thinking and wishing.

Re: [Vo]:E-cat article by Haiko Leitz

[Joshua Cude]

On Thu, Dec 15, 2011 at 2:42 PM, Jed Rothwell  wrote:

>
> I am saying that as a rule of logic, all assertions much be falsifiable,
>

Resorting to misunderstood rules is the refuge of people who have no good
arguments left. Falsifiability just means it should be possible to conceive
of an experimental result that would contradict the assertion. It's
intended to avoid religious claims in a scientific arena. It's certainly
possible to conceive of experimental results that would contradict all the
claims that the ecat could be run on non-nuclear principles. They could all
be falsified by a suitable isolated and inspected device that produced heat
for a really really long time. So that the overall energy density
(unambiguously measured) exceed unequivocally the energy density of the
best chemical fuel.


> and you cannot test or falsify this one. You cannot prove that some person
> out in the world knows how to accomplish X, Y or Z. You would have have to
> ask every stage magician on earth before determining whether this is true.
>

That is neither necessary, nor would it be sufficient. There are some
tricks that haven't even been thought of yet. But James Randi would be out
of a life's commitment if it weren't possible to set up controls on a
demonstration that can exclude paranormal effects to discover the illusions
used. He's done it repeatedly.

Take for example a claim that a fission bomb (or hydrogen bomb) used
sleight of hand to produce the claimed energy output. That claim could be
pretty clearly falsified with a demonstration to the satisfaction of any
observer you can imagine.

Likewise, a small, completely isolated ecat (inspected by James Randi) that
boils an olympic pool dry would falsify claims of magic to just about
anyone's satisfaction. So would an ecat that powered a (small) vehicle to
drive around the world without refueling.

If you don't understand, then I suggest you read a book about logic.
>

When you have to suggest people read books about logic for them to accept a
claim of a new *nuclear energy source*, it's a pretty safe bet the claim is
bogus.

Do you need to study Plato to believe fission bombs are real?

Re: [Vo]:eCat Electric COP : 2

[Jed Rothwell]

Aussie Guy E-Cat  wrote:

For the E-Cat or any other LENR generator to make inroads into the global
> energy generation market, the LCOE per kWh of delivered energy must be
> lower than from any other comparable energy sources or there is simply no
> market for it.


Yup. That's a key point.

You mean a market for the device as a practical source of energy. A person
could sell eCats as experimental devices. You could sell thousands at a
premium price to laboratories worldwide. Later you might even sell them as
a novelty item, similar to today's high-end electric cars. Toys for rich
people. Early automobiles and microcomputers were novelty items.


The top of the LCOE scale probably starts as a drop it in a remote site
> (could be in outer space) somewhere and generate heat and electricity. For
> that market the acceptable LCOE of the delivered energy is very high.


Yup again. Other examples of critical power that people will pay a premium
for include: pacemaker batteries, heart assist pumps (Ventricular Assist
Device), hearing aid batteries, watch batteries, remote telephone
repeaters, cell phone batteries, aviation, and highway sensors (now served
by solar panels).

The technology has to be developed to a high state of reliability before
such applications can be served. The same goes for military applications,
as you pointed out.



> For domestic situations the max acceptable LCOE drops quite a bit and for
> on grid electricity generation the required LCOE hits rock bottom.
>

Yup. Because of that, this is may be the last market you want to approach.

See Christensen, "The Innovator's Dilemma" for ideas about good markets to
begin with. This book introduces the concepts of disruptive versus
sustaining technology. These terms have become widely used clichés in
modern business, but people often misunderstand the original concept. I
discussed this book in chapter 7 of my book. I highly recommend reading the
original.

Christensen came out with a follow-up book which was also interesting. It
needs editing.

- Jed

Re: [Vo]:eCat Electric COP : 2

[Aussie Guy E-Cat]

When you feed the output back into the input and there is additional 
power to supply energy to an external load, then the COP is infinite as 
also occurs in a Fossil or Nuclear plant which also have infinite COPs 
if you exclude the energy obtained from the fuel. So claiming a LENR 
generator has a infinite COP is not a good measure of the worth of the 
energy generation system. What then kicks into play is the cost per 
delivered kWh of either heat or electricity. In this way the LCOE 
(Levelized Cost Of Energy) is comparable between Fossil, Nuclear, Solar, 
Wind, GeoThermal, Tidal, Wave, LENR, etc. LCOE can also handle the cost 
of CO2 emissions from Fossil fuel plants.


For the E-Cat or any other LENR generator to make inroads into the 
global energy generation market, the LCOE per kWh of delivered energy 
must be lower than from any other comparable energy sources or there is 
simply no market for it. The top of the LCOE scale probably starts as a 
drop it in a remote site (could be in outer space) somewhere and 
generate heat and electricity. For that market the acceptable LCOE of 
the delivered energy is very high. For domestic situations the max 
acceptable LCOE drops quite a bit and for on grid electricity generation 
the required LCOE hits rock bottom.


I doubt any space agency would fly a LENR generator for some time, nor 
would any military group drop a LENR generator into a mission critical 
situation, so the best market is the industrial / commercial / domestic 
market and that is where both Leonardo and DGT seem to be aiming their 
product launches.



On 12/16/2011 8:56 AM, Alain Sepeda wrote:


by the way the COP=6 is first conservative, but the need is not of 
electricity but of heat...
of course today he use electricity because it is easy to control. in 
fact it seems that hyperion, and maybe soon e-cat will self sustain 
quite long.
also as said here, if you can produce electricity, juste recycle your 
own heat or electricity, and maybe even cherge an accumulator to be 
able to start from cold, like a car...


COP is a non-sense for a really producing device...
efficiency (usable energy/(energy produced+consumed)) is more rational 
to use...

Re: [Vo]:E-cat article by Haiko Leitz

[Joshua Cude]

On Thu, Dec 15, 2011 at 2:28 PM, Alan J Fletcher  wrote:

>  At 11:08 AM 12/15/2011, Alan J Fletcher wrote:
>
> I need to add phase-change salts (and possibly even ceramic bricks) to my
> fakes paper. Can you give me / point me to a likely candidate?
>
>
>  http://www.seas.upenn.edu/~meam502/project/reviewexample2.pdf(2007)
>
> Very few with a melting-point above 100C -- and most of those are
> categorized as Group II or III or "-"
> Group I, most promising; group II, promising; group III, Less promising;
> -- insufficient data.
>
>
It's odd that the paper says little or nothing about sodium nitrate and
potassium nitrate, a mixture of which (40/60) is actually used to store
energy in some concentrating solar plants. Sodium nitrate melts at 308C,
and the liquid has a heat capacity of 2 J/gK if I remember correctly. It
would be pretty effective for Rossi's purposes.

Re: [Vo]:E-cat article by Haiko Leitz

[Joshua Cude]

On Thu, Dec 15, 2011 at 2:12 PM, Jed Rothwell  wrote:

> It is a problem of logic, as I explained to Yugo. An assertion that cannot
> be tested or falsified cannot be debated. I cannot dispute it. Or agree
> with it, for that matter. It is meaningless.
>

This sounds like the tactic of a loser. The same can be said of Rossi's
claim that the heat comes from nuclear reactions.

Rossi's claim is based on energy density. If it does not exceed the energy
density possible by chemical or thermal storage, then he has nothing. And
any claim of magic (illusion) still has to satisfy the laws of nature. It
is perfectly feasible to conceive of ways Rossi could do his demo to
exclude illusion as an explanation. That makes it falsifiable.

But trying to obfuscate an argument with rules of logic that you don't
understand may allow you to keep jabbering, but I have no idea who could
possibly buy into it.

The levels of energy Rossi is demonstrating are small enough to be produced
by thermal storage, chemical reactions, or by misdirection and sleight of
hand. Much larger levels of energy would not be. That would be
falsification.


> No matter how you fake an eCat, the moment the reactor is opened up
> experts will see how it works.
>

Too bad, they just cracked the lid.

I'd like to see the actual amount of nickel powder used, and the absence of
any other thermal mass, before I'm prepared to believe nuclear reactions
are needed.


> There is no way to hide wires.
>

There is no need for wires in a 100 kg device.


> The cell is much too small to produce a chemical reaction of this
> magnitude, when you take into account the space needed for the equipment
> such as tanks and burners.
>

You should look up thermochemical energy storage.


> Arguments that cannot be tested, falsified or refuted are verboten in
> science,
>

All the arguments *against* the ecat can be. Rossi won't allow it for the
claims for it.

Re: [Vo]:E-cat article by Haiko Leitz

[Joshua Cude]

On Thu, Dec 15, 2011 at 1:49 PM, Jed Rothwell  wrote:
>
>
> Other than Talbot Chubb every researcher I have discussed this with
> believes most of the claims.
>

Not many on record though. It will be interesting if the ecat comes to
nothing, to see how they will rationalize their beliefs in the claims.
Because the absence of a real commercial product in a few years would all
but prove the claims wrong. Probably conspiracy theories will abound.




> See McKubre's recent talk:
>
> http://lenr-canr.org/News.htm
>
> As I said here, I agree with his characterization of Rossi and Rossi's
> business strategy. To reiterate, McKubre began by calling Rossi a
> "dodgy character" but technically brilliant. He discusses Rossi's business
> plans. He says "Rossi is the master of misdirection." His business strategy
> is also brilliant. He is keeping his results ambiguous to "avoid
> competition and the evil eye of the DoE."
>

Can results be ambiguous and irrefutable at the same time?

Re: [Vo]:Crowd-funded test? List of pro-LENR scientists

[Alain Sepeda]

paying for a demo could be proposed, but since if true it will be done next
year, that would just for impatient fan.

about cash, don't forget the escrowed cash...

but once you have the machine, the best would be to find a good usage.
who knows someone needing 1MW thermal ?
vegetable farmer, pool, building or collective heating

maybe we should just try to find a client... or be patient...
and careful about scam! a third party could abuse us, like some have abused
charity or fans...
it would be stupid to fall into a scam to check a potential scam...

2011/12/15 Jed Rothwell 

> Spending a million bucks for this is crazy. The machine will be obsolete
> in six months. Unless you have a need for 1 MW of heat, it will be useless.
>
> If you have $1 million burning a hole in your pocket, give it to me that I
> will have this thing replicated in no time. People such as Miley could
> replicate most of it in a short time if they had ~$50,000 in funding. Or
> $5,000.
>
> - Jed
>
>

Re: [Vo]:E-cat article by Haiko Leitz

[Joshua Cude]

On Thu, Dec 15, 2011 at 1:08 PM, Alan J Fletcher  wrote:

>
> I need to add phase-change salts (and possibly even ceramic bricks) to my
> fakes paper. Can you give me / point me to a likely candidate?
>
>
You might also consider reversible metal-hydride reactions.

Re: [Vo]:E-cat article by Haiko Leitz

[Joshua Cude]

On Thu, Dec 15, 2011 at 12:45 PM, Horace Heffner wrote:

>
> Rossi's tests and explanations are full of holes and self contradictions,
> impossibilities.  It is Rossi's tests and explanations that matter.  All
> the blather from the peanut gallery is irrelevant, except possibly to alert
> the few gullible investors that might listen, and to demonstrate that the
> LENR research community is not so crackpot as to easily accept
> scientifically unproven claims of commercial viability.
>
>
>
What it's demonstrated is that there are only a few not so crackpot. You
and Krivit are in the minority if Rothwell is right that most of the CF
community believes Rossi. If Rossi flames out, Krivit will become an
unbearable sage in the field. That is, more unbearable than he already is.

Re: [Vo]:eCat Electric COP : 2

[Alain Sepeda]

by the way the COP=6 is first conservative, but the need is not of
electricity but of heat...
of course today he use electricity because it is easy to control. in fact
it seems that hyperion, and maybe soon e-cat will self sustain quite long.
also as said here, if you can produce electricity, juste recycle your own
heat or electricity, and maybe even cherge an accumulator to be able to
start from cold, like a car...

COP is a non-sense for a really producing device...
efficiency (usable energy/(energy produced+consumed)) is more rational to
use...

Re: [Vo]:E-cat article by Haiko Leitz

[Joshua Cude]

On Thu, Dec 15, 2011 at 1:08 PM, Jed Rothwell  wrote:

> The power between 150 and 250 shown in the cooling loop is more or less
> stable, meaning the thing has reached the terminal temperature. It has
> achieved a balance between input and output.
>

It's stable because it's measuring the temperature of water and steam at
equilibrium. To the extent the pressure is stable, the temperature must
also be, regardless of the rate of flow of heat into the water.

And if the energy is stored in some kind of phase-change material then the
temperature of the thermal mass will be stable at the melting point, and
the heat flow to the water will be pretty constant until the material has
all solidified. That's the time to shut the show down, because then the
heat flow is likely to start slowing down, and soon enough the water will
stop boiling, and *then* the temperature will start to fall.

So, if he's using a phase-change material to store the heat, he's got two
layers of stabilization going for him.


> As for the rest of your comments . . . I am not the only one who disagrees
> with you. So do all of the knowledgeable people I asked to review your
> paper.
>

There are also a lot of people who agree with that analysis, at least its
broad strokes. But counting supporters won't move this forward. Challenging
and defending the claims will. Or should.

Re: [Vo]:Bob Park is back!

[Jed Rothwell]

Mary Yugo  wrote:

Mary Yugo also says she has read no papers.
>>
>
> No longer the case.  I slogged through a couple, was not impressed by
> their clarity and robustness and stopped reading them.
>

If you find McKubre, Miles or Storms difficult to read then you are not
very good at calorimetry, despite your claim to having some expertise in
it. This is like reading Niclaus Wirth and concluding he does not know how
to describe programming well, because his discussion of recursion is
 complicated.



> Parks is a straw man . . .


PARK, Park, Park, Park. Not plural Parks. Park.

- Jed

Re: [Vo]:E-cat article by Haiko Leitz

[Joshua Cude]

On Thu, Dec 15, 2011 at 11:49 AM, Jed Rothwell wrote:

>
> Oh come now. I have dealt with fraud by pointing that Yugo's claims of
> stage magic is not falsifiable.
>


I don't know who you think is convinced by that. Of course it's
falsifiable. Just run the experiment long enough without input to exclude
any possible source of energy except nuclear. "Stage magic" is not real
magic you know. It still depends on the laws of physics. And even if it
were paranormal, James Randi makes a living falsifying claims of
paranormal.

To be falsifiable, you only have to be able to *conceive* of an experiment
that would contradict it. It's intended to distinguish scientific theories
or assertions from religious ones. Not to discount speculation as you've
done. Otherwise we could "deal with" Rossi by saying his claims are not
falsifiable. It's ridiculous, and you need to find a new chorus to sing.


> I have dealt with chemical energy by pointing out that in my opinion it is
> impossible to make a chemical fuel system this small that puts out this
> much energy.
>

This is not a matter of opinion. Clean-burning fuel like alcohol stores the
amount of energy Rossi displayed in less than one liter. It would be easy
to burn that in a 100 kg device of that size.

>
> . . . which demonstrates an output of between 1500 W and and 750 W
>>  between time 150 minutes and time 476 minutes.
>>
>
> That estimate is far too low. The heat radiating from the reactor plus the
> heat captured in the cooling loop far exceeds that.
>
>
Hard evidence does not support more than a few hundred watts on average.
And the soft evidence, the losses through the insulation, not more than a
few hundred more, for a total of 1 kW or less. Remember there were 50 of
those fat cats inside a shipping container. If each was losing a kW or even
500 W, the inside of that container would have been unbearably hot. How's
that for soft evidence?

Re: [Vo]:E-cat article by Haiko Leitz

[Jed Rothwell]

Stephen A. Lawrence  wrote:


> The problem with Jed's point is that it's vulnerable to a reductio ad
> absurdum.  Specifically, it leads to a rather obvious logical conclusion,
> which goes something like this:  "If you can't think of a specific way this
> scientist's work could have jumped the tracks, then it's not reasonable to
> ask for REPLICATION, because he's already proved his claims."
>


Nope. As you say, that is reductio ad absurdum. I do not think my statement
is vulnerable to that. The only valid statement starting with these
premises would be:

"If you can't think of a specific way this EXPERIMENTAL scientist's work
could have jumped the tracks, then you have no basis to challenge the
conclusions."

You have to specify experimentalist, since the rules are slightly different
for theory or observational science, medical science, and so on.

All critiques of experiments must be based on specific discussions of
instruments and techniques. No appealing to theory allowed.

Your pretend conclusion, ". . . it's not reasonable to ask for REPLICATION,
because he's already proved his claims" is not valid because replication is
always required. It does not matter how strong the evidence is; you cannot
short-circuit that step. That's another rule of experimental science, but
not all the other branches.

Here is a valid variation similar to what you proposed:

"If no one can think of a specific way this EXPERIMENTALIST scientist's
work could have jumped the tracks, after some number of years and despite
many attempts, and after widespread replications, then it is no longer
reasonable to ask for additional REPLICATION, because he and the others who
replicated already proved the claims"

That is in fact where we stand with the Fleischmann Pons effect. The
statute of limitations ran out a long time ago.

- Jed

Re: [Vo]:Bob Park is back!

[Mary Yugo]

On Thu, Dec 15, 2011 at 1:47 PM, Jed Rothwell  wrote:

>
> If he attacks cold fusion I do not think he would hold back from attacking
> Rossi. Everyone I know thinks they are the same phenomenon.
>

Guess you don't know me!  I think there might possibly be something to cold
fusion.  I also think Rossi is most likely a crook and his E-cat is a
fraud.  I also think Defkalion has nothing and never did -- not even as
lame a bunch of evidence as Rossi has tried to put forth.

Mary Yugo also says she has read no papers.
>

No longer the case.  I slogged through a couple, was not impressed by their
clarity and robustness and stopped reading them.  When I read a paper
purporting to show a new source of energy, I want to see iron clad blank
runs and calibrations and then I want to see a robust, long lasting excess
heat shown on a proper heat output vs time plot.


> I believe her. Most confirmed skeptics refuse to read anything. If they
> read something, and understood it, they would not be skeptics, would they?
>

Sure they would be -- if they either didn't believe the results or thought
they were insufficient proof.


> The only people I know who have read many papers  and yet who do not
> believe the mainstream results such as McKubre's are Britz and Krivit. I
> find them both a little strange.
>

I'm sure they return the compliment.

Parks is a straw man and a red herring to combine two metaphors in one.
Everyone including him would be convinced if Rossi had bothered to get ONE
single properly done independent test or if any other researcher had
anything like Rossi's claimed robust output and got it properly verified.

With respect to Rossi, the single good test would have to be in addition to
or instead of his weird and likely misdirecting and deceptive
demonstrations.  And that's before you even get to his ridiculous,
laughable, comically awkward, anonymous client who is said to have bought
13 essentially useless leaky kloodges in huge containers.   Like he really
expected anyone to believe that unsupported assertion?  That's more than
1300 Ottoman E-cats to service and maintain!  How would you like that job?
   Strangely, a surprising number of people actually believe this
improbable fantasy!  I never cease to be amazed at that.

Re: [Vo]:Bob Park is back!

[Joshua Cude]

On Thu, Dec 15, 2011 at 3:47 PM, Jed Rothwell  wrote:

>  Most confirmed skeptics refuse to read anything.
>

It's not refusal. It's that they are not interested. Most skeptics are
satisfied that if the grandiose claims were real, simple and obvious
demonstrations would not only be possible, but would be ubiquitous, and
then, as in 1989, they would all leap in quicker than you can say lenr.

If they read something, and understood it, they would not be skeptics,
> would they?
>

Yes, they would. The DOE panel read it, understood it, and were still
skeptical.

Re: [Vo]:Bob Park is back!

[Jed Rothwell]

OrionWorks - Steven V Johnson  wrote:


> Does anyone seriously question the possibility that Park
> remains unaware of Rossi, Defkalion, and the rest of the eCat gang?
> Seriously?
>

It hasn't been in the mass media much. I don't anyone who has discussed
this with Park . . . I suppose it is possible he does not know. Or he heard
months ago and it slipped his mind.

I'm a little puzzled why you think he might refrain from attacking Rossi.
Why would he be indirect, or use deflection? He is not reticent about
expressing his opinions.

If he attacks cold fusion I do not think he would hold back from attacking
Rossi. Everyone I know thinks they are the same phenomenon. Rossi and
Defkalion deny this but I assume that is only for business purposes.

Rossi has no credibility in the wider world. Most news articles say he is
probably a fraud. Maybe Park thinks the news articles are enough. Perhaps
he thinks Rossi is far out and so disreputable he does not merit debunking.
Just another in a long line of frauds.

Park says all cold fusion results are fraud or delusion. That's what he
told me last time the subject came up. I do not think he bothers to make
any distinctions or to call out any particular worker. Perhaps he thinks
Rossi is no better or worse than anyone else. You have to realize that
people like Park are profoundly ignorant of this subject. He says he has
never read any papers and I think that is true. He does not know what the
claims are, or what supporting evidence there is, or how many people have
replicated.

Mary Yugo also says she has read no papers. I believe her. Most confirmed
skeptics refuse to read anything. If they read something, and understood
it, they would not be skeptics, would they? The only people I know who have
read many papers and yet who do not believe the mainstream results such as
McKubre's are Britz and Krivit. I find them both a little strange.

- Jed

Re: [Vo]:Bob Park is back!

[Joshua Cude]

The whole thing is related to pseudoscience and ignorance, and it's all
relevant. Here it is:


1. HACKS: SHODDY PRESS COVERAGE OF SCIENCE.
The Leveson Inquiry into the standards and ethics of the UK press, headed
by Lord Justice Brian Leveson, was prompted by the News of the World phone-
hacking scandal (WN 22 Jul 2011). The seamy British tabloid was the top-
selling English-language newspaper in the world when owner Rupert Murdoch
had to close it five months ago after its news-collection methods were
exposed. The intense public interest in the sex and drug culture of
celebrities is certainly troubling, but the same journalistic standards
applied to science news may be more dangerous.  In 1998, for example,
Andrew Wakefield, an obscure British gastroenterologist, set off a
worldwide vaccination panic when he falsely identified the common MMR
vaccination as a cause of autism.  Widely reported by the press,
Wakefield's irresponsible assertion led to a precipitous decline in
vaccination rate and a corresponding 14-year rise in measles cases.  An
editorial in the current issue of Nature (8 Dec 2011) urges scientists
to "fight back against agenda-driven reporting of science."  Who could
disagree? It is, after all, a fight against ignorance.

2. IGNORANCE: THERE'S PLENTY MORE WHERE THAT CAME FROM.
A commitment to intellectual openness provides a mechanism for self-
correction that sets science apart from the unchanging dictates of revealed
religion, raising the prospect of transforming Earth into something close
to biblical paradise, at least for Homo sapiens.  Directions to this
earthly paradise, however, are written in mathematics. In particular, the
dialect of scientific progress is differential equations. Unfortunately,
few people speak mathematics or have any interest in learning it. In the
modern world, the engine of scientific progress is driven by a subset of
the human race that speaks mathematics as a second language.  This is not
healthy.  Many people, unable to distinguish science from pseudoscience,
are duped by crackpots and swindlers who attempt to mimic scientists, and
often manage to fool themselves.  How do they do it?

3. LET ME COUNT THE WAYS: PSEUDOSCIENCE IS AN ENORMOUS FIELD
There are, I think, many more of them than there are of us. Let me mention
just a few of the more notorious:  Stanley Pons and Martin Fleishman, who
gave us Cold Fusion in 1989, are the most famous in the Free Energy
Category. Even so, physicists had their number in a couple of weeks. More
recently (2006) in the same category, the Steorn Company in Dublin gave us
Orbo, a classic perpetual motion machine.  So classic it gets reinvented
every century or so. Unfortunately Orbo is shy and refuses to perform when
anyone’s watching. In the Chicken-Little Category, Devra Davis says the 5
billion cell-phone users are toast when we reach the latency period of
brain cancer.  Alas, I'm reaching my limit and there are hundreds more on
my list. Maybe I'll write a book, or did I already do that?

Re: [Vo]:E-cat article by Haiko Leitz

[Stephen A. Lawrence]

On 11-12-15 03:52 PM, Mary Yugo wrote:



On Thu, Dec 15, 2011 at 12:42 PM, Jed Rothwell > wrote:



I am talking about YOUR STATEMENT, taken in isolation, strictly
from a logical point of view. I am NOT TALKING ABOUT what Rossi
can or cannot do.


Apart from everything else, why on earth would you want to do that?  
This is a practical situation-- not a debating society or a discussion 
about rules of logic.


I am not even talking about the content of your statement!


Well then, please do talk about it.  Seems to me, that's the issue!

I am saying that as a rule of logic, all assertions much be
falsifiable, and you cannot test or falsify this one. You cannot
prove that some person out in the world knows how to accomplish X,
Y or Z.


Maybe you didn't intend to phrase that this way?   Of course you can 
prove someone can accomplish X, Y and Z.  By finding someone who can 
and showing that they can.


You would have have to ask every stage magician on earth before
determining whether this is true. That is impractical.


I don't see what you're getting at.  Or why or what it has to do with 
this discussion?


If you don't understand, then I suggest you read a book about
logic. This is fundamental. It is about LOGIC and NOT THE
PARTICULARS OF THIS CASE. Nothing to do with Rossi.


OK, maybe someone else can explain it to me in sixth grade terms I can 
understand.  My last formal logic class was sometime ago.



LOL !  This has turned into an entertaining discussion.

I'll stick an oar in, and you can all ignore it.  (I'm sure you've 
already grasped this point, MY, but none the less here it is...)


Jed's argument, MY, is basically that, by (in effect) saying "Somebody 
somewhere would be able to come up with a trick that fooled all 
observers", you've made a statement which by its nature can not be 
proved false.  (It would require an exhaustive search of all possible 
methods for faking it, which is not practical.)


As simple as that.  Jed has, after all, a technical point, but it's not 
worth enough to win the match.


The problem with Jed's point is that it's vulnerable to a reductio ad 
absurdum.  Specifically, it leads to a rather obvious logical 
conclusion, which goes something like this:  "If you can't think of a 
specific way this scientist's work could have jumped the tracks, then 
it's not reasonable to ask for REPLICATION, because he's already proved 
his claims."


The latter, though it follows logically from Jed's position, isn't an 
argument most folks would buy into, I think


(FWIW I still favor sleight of hand and misdirection, with a minimum of 
special equipment, but whatever...  If Rossi's really any good and 
handles his exit gracefully enough, we'll never know how he did it, and 
five years from now we'll still be arguing over the one that got away.)

[Vo]:Thoughts about Mass and Gravitation and zeropoint.

[Peter Heckert]

Hi,

my thesis is that matter sucks up energy and this is the reason for gravity.
I dont know in which frequency range this happens, but I think matter 
sucks up zeropoint energy and converts it to matter.


There was a similar theory that was discussed by Clerk Maxwell and 
Boltzmann and others. They had the idea gravity is caused by radiation 
pressure. Matter absorbs this radiation and so we get an attraction 
force, which is a pressure force from outside.
Maxwell calulated this and finally came to the conclusion, that under 
this condition matter must infinitely heat up, and so this idea was 
finally rejected.
Now, he did not know "e=m*c^2". What happens if the energy is converted 
into mass?


Lets use air as an example for energy. Speed of sound is independent 
from pressure, but it is dependent from temperature.
c ~ sqrt(T).  If c is speed of sound and T is temperature, then c is 
proportional dependent from squareroot of temperature.

c^2 ~ T.  c squared is proportional to temperature.
T = p* c^2. p is the proportional factor.

Now, lets replace t by energy and p by mass, then we get e =m*c^2.

Because mass sucks up energy, the energy density near to a mass must be 
lower than far away.

With lower temperature in air we get lower speed of sound.
With lower energy density in space we get slower speed of c.
Therefore light is bent by gravitation.

But c is always measured constant! How this?
This is, because we use c to measure space and time. Distance is 
measured by an electromagnetic wavelength and time is measured from a 
resonancy frequency of atoms. So c is constant by definition of the 
measurement method.


So, instead measuring slower speed of c we must measure dilated time and 
dilated space as Einsteins relativity theory predicts.


Peter

Re: [Vo]:entanglement broadcasting

[Axil Axil]

Does anyone know if and how entanglement effects are explained in
stochastic electrodynamics?
--

See:

Second entanglement and (re)Born wave functions in Stochastic
Electrodynamics

http://nonloco-physics.0catch.com/aip05.pdf

On Thu, Dec 15, 2011 at 9:06 AM, Berke Durak  wrote:

> Axil Axil wrote:
>
> > "I think I can safely say no one understands quantum mechanics," the
> > late physicist Richard Feynman once famously explained.
>
> Does anyone know if and how entanglement effects are explained in
> stochastic electrodynamics?
> --
> Berke Durak
>
>

Re: [Vo]:Bob Park is back!

[OrionWorks - Steven V Johnson]

Thanks for posting the actual paragraph, Peter.

> 3. LET ME COUNT THE WAYS: PSEUDOSCIENCE IS AN ENORMOUS FIELD
> There are, I think, many more of them than there are of us. Let me mention
> just a few of the more notorious:  Stanley Pons and Martin Fleishman, who
> gave us Cold Fusion in 1989, are the most famous in the Free Energy
> Category. Even so, physicists had their number in a couple of weeks. More
> recently (2006) in the same category, the Steorn Company in Dublin gave us
> Orbo, a classic perpetual motion machine.  So classic it gets reinvented
> every century or so. Unfortunately Orbo is shy and refuses to perform when
> anyone’s watching. In the Chicken-Little Category, Devra Davis says the 5
> billion cell-phone users are toast when we reach the latency period of
> brain cancer.  Alas, I'm reaching my limit and there are hundreds more on
> my list. Maybe I'll write a book, or did I already do that?

And still no mention of Rossi, Defkalion, and the rest.

Seems to me this only makes Park's deliberate action of continuing to
ignore the elephant in the middle of the living room even more
striking. Does anyone seriously question the possibility that Park
remains unaware of Rossi, Defkalion, and the rest of the eCat gang?
Seriously?

This is deflection - trying to give CF a black eye by casting random
dispersions into the field. It won't work.

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

Re: [Vo]:E-cat article by Haiko Leitz

[Mary Yugo]

On Thu, Dec 15, 2011 at 12:42 PM, Jed Rothwell wrote:

>
> I am talking about YOUR STATEMENT, taken in isolation, strictly from a
> logical point of view. I am NOT TALKING ABOUT what Rossi can or cannot do.
>

Apart from everything else, why on earth would you want to do that?  This
is a practical situation-- not a debating society or a discussion about
rules of logic.


> I am not even talking about the content of your statement!
>

Well then, please do talk about it.  Seems to me, that's the issue!


> I am saying that as a rule of logic, all assertions much be falsifiable,
> and you cannot test or falsify this one. You cannot prove that some person
> out in the world knows how to accomplish X, Y or Z.
>

Maybe you didn't intend to phrase that this way?   Of course you can prove
someone can accomplish X, Y and Z.  By finding someone who can and showing
that they can.

You would have have to ask every stage magician on earth before determining
> whether this is true. That is impractical.
>

I don't see what you're getting at.  Or why or what it has to do with this
discussion?


> If you don't understand, then I suggest you read a book about logic. This
> is fundamental. It is about LOGIC and NOT THE PARTICULARS OF THIS CASE.
> Nothing to do with Rossi.
>

OK, maybe someone else can explain it to me in sixth grade terms I can
understand.  My last formal logic class was sometime ago.

Re: [Vo]:E-cat article by Haiko Leitz

[Jed Rothwell]

Mary Yugo  wrote:


> It is a problem of logic, as I explained to Yugo. An assertion that cannot
>> be tested or falsified cannot be debated. I cannot dispute it. Or agree
>> with it, for that matter. It is meaningless.
>>
>
> You keep saying that but other people and I keep pointing out to you that
> Rossi can falsify it simply by running long enough . . .
>

PLEASE Mary, for goodness sake, one last time:

READ THIS

I am talking about YOUR STATEMENT, taken in isolation, strictly from a
logical point of view. I am NOT TALKING ABOUT what Rossi can or cannot do.

I am not even talking about the content of your statement!

I am saying that as a rule of logic, all assertions much be falsifiable,
and you cannot test or falsify this one. You cannot prove that some person
out in the world knows how to accomplish X, Y or Z. You would have have to
ask every stage magician on earth before determining whether this is true.
That is impractical.

If you don't understand, then I suggest you read a book about logic. This
is fundamental. It is about LOGIC and NOT THE PARTICULARS OF THIS CASE.
Nothing to do with Rossi.

- Jed

Re: [Vo]:E-cat article by Haiko Leitz

[Alan J Fletcher]

At 11:08 AM 12/15/2011, Alan J Fletcher wrote:
I need to add phase-change salts
(and possibly even ceramic bricks) to my fakes paper. Can you give me /
point me to a likely candidate?

http://www.seas.upenn.edu/~meam502/project/reviewexample2.pdf
   (2007)
Very few with a melting-point above 100C -- and most of those are
categorized as Group II or III or "-"
Group I, most promising; group II, promising; group III, Less promising;
-- insufficient data.
Methyl fumarate (CHCO2NH3)2 102C 242kJ/kg Group I
MgCl26H2O 117C 167 kJ/kg Group I
(Compared to water specific heat at 4 kJ/kg K : Rock/Brick 0.9 kJ/kg
K)

Re: [Vo]:Bob Park is back!

[Peter Gluck]

no link yet, sorry  but this is the relevant text:

3. LET ME COUNT THE WAYS: PSEUDOSCIENCE IS AN ENORMOUS FIELD
There are, I think, many more of them than there are of us. Let me mention
just a few of the more notorious:  Stanley Pons and Martin Fleishman, who
gave us Cold Fusion in 1989, are the most famous in the Free Energy
Category. Even so, physicists had their number in a couple of weeks. More
recently (2006) in the same category, the Steorn Company in Dublin gave us
Orbo, a classic perpetual motion machine.  So classic it gets reinvented
every century or so. Unfortunately Orbo is shy and refuses to perform when
anyone’s watching. In the Chicken-Little Category, Devra Davis says the 5
billion cell-phone users are toast when we reach the latency period of
brain cancer.  Alas, I'm reaching my limit and there are hundreds more on
my list. Maybe I'll write a book, or did I already do that?

On Thu, Dec 15, 2011 at 10:16 PM, Mary Yugo  wrote:

>
>
> On Thu, Dec 15, 2011 at 12:10 PM, Peter Gluck wrote:
>
>> In his Dec 01 (?) "What's New", Bob Park
>> speaks in his usual style about cold fusion
>> see- LET ME COUNT THE WAYS: PSEUDOSCIENCE
>> IS AN ENORMOUS FIELD
>> CF is on the first place!
>>
>
>
> You must be on his mailing list.  The newest I find is Nov 28:
>
> http://bobpark.physics.umd.edu/index.html
>
> Do you have a link, pls?
>



-- 
Dr. Peter Gluck
Cluj, Romania
http://egooutpeters.blogspot.com

Re: [Vo]:E-cat article by Haiko Leitz

[Mary Yugo]

On Thu, Dec 15, 2011 at 12:12 PM, Jed Rothwell wrote:

>
> It is a problem of logic, as I explained to Yugo. An assertion that cannot
> be tested or falsified cannot be debated. I cannot dispute it. Or agree
> with it, for that matter. It is meaningless.
>

You keep saying that but other people and I keep pointing out to you that
Rossi can falsify it simply by running long enough when properly observed
therefore it can be tested or falsified.  Your continuing to say it can't
doesn't make it so.  What remains true is that Rossi has not properly
falsified the proposition that he's faking his results.



> I do not believe such a stage trick can exist, even in principle. I have
> some knowledge of stage magic.
>

Perhaps not enough.  If you did, you'd know some illusions are quite
complex and the method is not at all what one would predict from seeing it.



> As soon as the stage props are opened up and examined from the point of
> view of the magician -- that is, from the angle the audience cannot see --
> the mechanism is obvious. It is always simple. See, for example:
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sawing_a_woman_in_half#Methods_and_exposure
>
> No matter how you fake an eCat, the moment the reactor is opened up
> experts will see how it works. There is no way to hide wires. The cell is
> much too small to produce a chemical reaction of this magnitude, when you
> take into account the space needed for the equipment such as tanks and
> burners.
>

Yes but in the case of the Ottoman E-cat, it was never properly opened up.
One can argue a bit about the volume not seen in the finned case but it was
considerable.  Only Rossi knows what's in that sizeable box.

And there is nothing to stop Rossi from relying on several different
methods to falsify results.  In Levi's experiment, some have guessed the T
out thermocouple was in contact with a heating element, thus giving the
incredible 130 kW out "transient".  In the early small E-cat tests, Rossi
relied on heat of vaporization of steam which has been argued here
extensively and he also may have "goosed" the heater when nobody was
looking.   In the megawatt demo, there is nothing to discuss because nobody
saw the data being taken!   Good illusionists do not repeat the same
illusion in the same show to the same audience because eventually people
will catch on.  Rossi may have several methods to deceive.



> Arguments that cannot be tested, falsified or refuted are verboten in
> science,
>

Could you explain to me how a properly performed, well instrumented,
calibrated, long lasting and independent test of Rossi's device would not
(for all practical and any interesting purposes) falsify that he was faking
by illusion or any other mechanism?

Note: the hypothesis that he would pass such an independent test but have
faked at other times is a trivial case not worth considering for practical
purposes...  just in case you were thinking in that direction   :-)

Re: [Vo]:Bob Park is back!

[Mary Yugo]

On Thu, Dec 15, 2011 at 12:10 PM, Peter Gluck  wrote:

> In his Dec 01 (?) "What's New", Bob Park
> speaks in his usual style about cold fusion
> see- LET ME COUNT THE WAYS: PSEUDOSCIENCE
> IS AN ENORMOUS FIELD
> CF is on the first place!
>


You must be on his mailing list.  The newest I find is Nov 28:

http://bobpark.physics.umd.edu/index.html

Do you have a link, pls?

Re: [Vo]:E-cat article by Haiko Leitz

[Jed Rothwell]

I have bowed out of this discussion, but let me clarify this point:

Horace Heffner  wrote:


> Oh come now. I have dealt with fraud by pointing that Yugo's claims of
> stage magic is not falsifiable.
>
>
> Uhhh  how does that differ from  just ignoring it?
>

It is a problem of logic, as I explained to Yugo. An assertion that cannot
be tested or falsified cannot be debated. I cannot dispute it. Or agree
with it, for that matter. It is meaningless.

She claims there may be someone somewhere in the world who knows how to
hide wires or chemical fuel in such a way that experts opening the cell
would not be able to detect it. Until Yugo cites a specific stage magic
technique that might accomplish this, there is no basis to determine
whether it might be true or not.

I do not believe such a stage trick can exist, even in principle. I have
some knowledge of stage magic. As soon as the stage props are opened up and
examined from the point of view of the magician -- that is, from the angle
the audience cannot see -- the mechanism is obvious. It is always
simple. See, for example:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sawing_a_woman_in_half#Methods_and_exposure

No matter how you fake an eCat, the moment the reactor is opened up experts
will see how it works. There is no way to hide wires. The cell is much too
small to produce a chemical reaction of this magnitude, when you take into
account the space needed for the equipment such as tanks and burners.

Arguments that cannot be tested, falsified or refuted are verboten in
science, but they are allowed in some other academic fields, such as
literature critique or theology.

- Jed

[Vo]:Bob Park is back!

[Peter Gluck]

In his Dec 01 (?) "What's New", Bob Park
speaks in his usual style about cold fusion
see- LET ME COUNT THE WAYS: PSEUDOSCIENCE
IS AN ENORMOUS FIELD
CF is on the first place!
-- 
Dr. Peter Gluck
Cluj, Romania
http://egooutpeters.blogspot.com

Re: [Vo]:E-cat article by Haiko Leitz

[Jed Rothwell]

Mary Yugo  wrote:


> So these people support your views about the impossibility of storing
> enough heat during the warmup period in the large "Ottoman" E-cat of
> October 6 to account for the results?
>

It would be more correct to say I support their views, or we arrived at the
same conclusion.


Do they believe Rossi has accomplished cold fusion/LENR with his device?
>

Other than Talbot Chubb every researcher I have discussed this with
believes most of the claims. Not all to the same extent. There are shades
of belief. It is not an all or nothing.

The pople who are most convinced are those who observed the tests in
person, such as Celani.



> How do they explain the anemic and deficient tests that Rossi insists on
> doing instead of the proper and appropriate tests you, Josephson, Celani,
> and many many others have suggested to him?
>

See McKubre's recent talk:

http://lenr-canr.org/News.htm

As I said here, I agree with his characterization of Rossi and Rossi's
business strategy. To reiterate, McKubre began by calling Rossi a
"dodgy character" but technically brilliant. He discusses Rossi's business
plans. He says "Rossi is the master of misdirection." His business strategy
is also brilliant. He is keeping his results ambiguous to "avoid
competition and the evil eye of the DoE."

We have no proof of that, but it seems likely.

I am not sure I agree the business strategy is brilliant. But given his IP
problems, it is hard to come up with a better strategy.

- Jed

Re: [Vo]:E-cat article by Haiko Leitz

[Horace Heffner]

On Dec 15, 2011, at 8:49 AM, Jed Rothwell wrote:


Horace Heffner  wrote:

Your choice of my paper as an example is diversionary because (1)  
it only deals with one test . . .


I have dealt with the other tests, separately, as have others. Some  
of them are also definitive. The last one was not!



and (2) it assumes a configuration with no fraud, no chemical  
energy being provided . . .


Oh come now. I have dealt with fraud by pointing that Yugo's claims  
of stage magic is not falsifiable.


Uhhh  how does that differ from  just ignoring it?   If stage  
magic in this case is not falsifiable then buyer beware, especially  
given Rossi's history, self contradictory statements, and bizarre  
behavior.   The nature or limitations of such magic can be examined  
though, given various premises.



I have dealt with chemical energy by pointing out that in my  
opinion it is impossible to make a chemical fuel system this small  
that puts out this much energy. You disagree, but do not accuse me  
of ignoring these issues.


I haven't said you ignored these issues.  It appeared to me you did  
not recall what has been numerically proven to you, at least  in  
regards to the big E-cat, which is the only E-cat relevant to my  
paper.   If you are talking about the little ones then that issue is  
moot because the little ones could have been dumping almost all mass  
in the form of water.





We have to agree to disagree on these issues. That does not mean I  
have "forgotten" anything. It just means that if you are right, I  
am wrong.


It means you are wrong to the extent of dismissing quantitatively  
demonstrated feasibility.   That chemical fakes can be made which can  
be made to replicate the public tests it seems to me is indisputable.






. . . which demonstrates an output of between 1500 W and and 750 W   
between time 150 minutes and time 476 minutes.


That estimate is far too low. The heat radiating from the reactor  
plus the heat captured in the cooling loop far exceeds that.


Stating the estimate is "far too low"  is arm waving.  Also, as I  
said, that power is enough to (1) boil water, and (2) burn someone  
who touches the manifold.  That was your stated requirement.   If  
chemical means are added, the thermal flux can of course be many  
times higher.






Note. For some of the details I described here, I assume the  
cooling loop TC may be recording incorrectly but it does reflect  
the overall profile


The overall profile can be met using mixes of materials and active  
control.  Depending on the sophistication of the active control,  
*any* profile can be easily met of course.



and relative heat output at different times. When the heat  
increases, the second TC shows a higher temperature. When the TC  
zero intercept is 40 min. away, that is how long it takes to cool  
down.


That is how long it takes to cool down under the final conditions.   
This does not mean those conditions hold throughout the test.  This  
is an unwarranted assumption on your part.





Actually I'm pretty sure the cooling loop TC is correct to within a  
fraction of degree, but it does not matter. None of the instrument  
readings matter. That is fortunate, because Rossi' instrumentation  
is lousy, as we all know.


- Jed



His instrumentation was indeed lousy but easily fixed, and he  
certainly knew how to fix the problems, given the extensive world  
wide discussions!   The motive, means, and opportunity for fraud are  
certainly there in extremes, as well as a checkered past.   Extreme  
caution is justified, as is a more skeptical and numerical approach  
to data analysis.




Best regards,

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

Re: [Vo]:E-cat article by Haiko Leitz

[Mary Yugo]

On Thu, Dec 15, 2011 at 11:31 AM, Jed Rothwell wrote:

> Mary Yugo  wrote:
>
>>
>> Does he know who these knowledgeable people are?  Do we?
>>
>
> Cold fusion researchers who know a lot about calorimetry. The usual
> suspects.
>
> Horace is well acquainted with them, and generally held in high regard, I
> believe.
>

So these people support your views about the impossibility of storing
enough heat during the warmup period in the large "Ottoman" E-cat of
October 6 to account for the results?

Do they believe Rossi has accomplished cold fusion/LENR with his device?

How do they explain the anemic and deficient tests that Rossi insists on
doing instead of the proper and appropriate tests you, Josephson, Celani,
and many many others have suggested to him?

Do any of the experts you know have a theory about why anyone would buy and
accept a leaky, awkward, probably unserviceable, megawatt plant that ran at
half power connected to a generator?  For what purpose?  Why would anyone
buy a single one, much less 13?  And why, after almost a year since the
first demo has lapsed,  would Rossi not have thousands of clients instead
of one mysterious, anonymous one if his device were real?

Re: [Vo]:E-cat article by Haiko Leitz

[Jed Rothwell]

Mary Yugo  wrote:

>
> Does he know who these knowledgeable people are?  Do we?
>

Cold fusion researchers who know a lot about calorimetry. The usual
suspects.

Horace is well acquainted with them, and generally held in high regard, I
believe.

- Jed

Re: [Vo]:E-cat article by Haiko Leitz

[Mary Yugo]

On Thu, Dec 15, 2011 at 11:08 AM, Jed Rothwell wrote:

>
> As for the rest of your comments . . . I am not the only one who disagrees
> with you. So do all of the knowledgeable people I asked to review your
> paper. I suggest you ask one of them for a critique.
>

Does he know who these knowledgeable people are?  Do we?

Re: [Vo]:entanglement broadcasting

[pagnucco]

A pretty counter-intuitive phenomenon.
So were super-conductivity and lasing.

I believe both emission and absorption of radiation can be strongly
enhanced in a volume of entangled (coherent) particles - even when it's
spatial extent is greater than the radiation wave-length.

See: http://arxiv.org/abs/1104.2989

Maybe important in crystals?


> http://www.insidescience.org/research/1-2376
>
> In the Quantum World, Diamonds Can Communicate With Each Other.
>
> Oxford physicists using bizarre principle of "entanglement" to cause a
> change in a diamond they do not touch.
>
> Entanglement has been proven before but what makes the Oxford experiment
> unique is that concept was demonstrated with substantial solid objects at
> room temperature.
>
>
> Previous entanglements of matter involved submicroscopic particles, often
> at cold temperatures.
>
> This experiment employed millimeter-scale diamonds, "not individual atoms,
> not gaseous clouds," said Ian Walmsley, professor of experimental physics
> at Oxford's Clarendon Laboratory, one of the international team of
> researchers.
>
>
> "I think I can safely say no one understands quantum mechanics," the late
> physicist Richard Feynman once famously explained.
>
>
> This experiment supports my contention that entanglement, a key mechanism
> in the cold fusion process,  can be broadcast from one entangled ensemble
> to induce entanglement in another ensemble even at high temperatures.
>

Re: [Vo]:E-cat article by Haiko Leitz

[Jed Rothwell]

Horace Heffner  wrote:


> 3. The data shows that the reactor cools in ~40 min. when the power is
> cut. That is the actual, measured limit of stored heat with this system, at
> these temperatures and inputs.
>
>
> That is merely a measure of the stored heat and thermal conductivity at
> the end of the test.
>

No, also at the beginning, just before the self-sustaining event, around
minute 250. Same slope as at the end.

The power between 150 and 250 shown in the cooling loop is more or less
stable, meaning the thing has reached the terminal temperature. It has
achieved a balance between input and output. There is some excess energy
around 220 - 250. Since the cooling curve more or less balances the input
power curve during this segment, I assume the TC placement is not a big
problem. After the self-sustaining event begins, output goes way up, far
above the most you can input with electric power.

As for the rest of your comments . . . I am not the only one who disagrees
with you. So do all of the knowledgeable people I asked to review your
paper. I suggest you ask one of them for a critique.

Let's leave it at that. I will let you have the last word regarding the
rest of these issues.

- Jed

Re: [Vo]:E-cat article by Haiko Leitz

[Alan J Fletcher]

At 10:45 AM 12/15/2011, Horace Heffner wrote:
Just to be clear, no one is talking about 
heating the outside box metal envelope.   My 
focus is entirely the inside box, the 30 cm x 30 
cm x 30 cm inside box, the insides of which no 
one has seen.  It is easy to place a thermal 
mass inside this volume that can store and 
release sufficient energy to meet the 
requirement of producing some boiling water for 
4 hours, especially if phase changing salts are 
used.  Also, small ceramic kilns are commonly 
available that reach over 1200°C.  Graph 6S 
shows a maximum internal temperature of about 
1000°C being reached at time 270 minutes, 11 
minutes before converting power to the "frequency generator".



 30 cm x 30 cm x 30 cm


That's much bigger than is shown in Lewan's photo.
http://lenr.qumbu.com/111010_pics/lewan_DSC_0089_600_a.jpg

I'd say that it's 30 cm x 30 cm x 15 cm at MOST, 
and more likely closer to Rossi's 30 cm x 30 cm x 10 cm.


I need to add phase-change salts (and possibly 
even ceramic bricks) to my fakes paper. Can you 
give me / point me to a likely candidate?

Re: [Vo]:Crowd-funded test? List of pro-LENR scientists

[ecat builder]

I think DKG will have a Hyperion for a demo very soon. Take a few
barrels of water, a watch, thermometer and run it with power going
through a 3A fuse.
Heat a barrel of water in an hour, or a whole pool in a couple of days.
If DKG does it right, they'll have a number of scientists and
reporters on hand and will be ready to take orders or give a solid
estimated time to delivery.

As far as replication goes, I am leaning towards the Chan method--I
think Rossi's internal heater may be a coil used to vibrate the
nanoparticles at a resonate frequency. It should not be that hard to
take a tube of MgH2, Cu, Ni, Fe and heat it with a coil/RFG at monitor
the reaction for radiation. Maybe $5K worth of equipment.

- Brad

Re: [Vo]:Defkalion tells a reader : visit us

[Peter Heckert]

Am 15.12.2011 19:50, schrieb Alan J Fletcher:

At 10:32 AM 12/15/2011, Peter Heckert wrote:

The mechanism is constructed in such a way that any hard x-rays


so far, so good ...


or external gamma measurements are detected and it will trigger.


How can you detect an EXTERNAL gamma measurement?


This is a proprietary secret and not disclosed.
It will even detect bad emanations of pathologic sceptics by pheromon 
analysis and self destroy.

As I said, it is an 101% secure mechanism.

Or do you mean that an attempt to probe the inside from outside with 
gamma rays? I'm not sure that would give you any useful information 
anyway.

Re: [Vo]:Crowd-funded test? List of pro-LENR scientists

[Jed Rothwell]

Mary Yugo  wrote:


> I can't believe that Miley can't get $5K or even $100K of funds a year.
> That's chump change for any large company.


Well, he and I have been beating the bushes trying to get funding. Nothing
yet. If you know a company with that kind of chump change, please have them
contact Miley.

The thing you have to realize is, there is enormous opposition to cold
fusion because of academic politics. Experiments have not been funded since
1990. A professor or someone in the DoE who requests funding or even talks
about cold fusion will be harassed and probably fired. There is zero chance
of success. Why sacrifice your career for nothing?

Miley and his grad students are doing this for free, in their spare time.
It is "bootlegged." I do not think they will have any more spare time in
the future. They are getting other jobs and commitments.



>   And you say he can give a convincing demo.  I don't get it.   Why
> doesn't SAIC for example, jump on it?
>

Feel free to suggest it to them.

Akira Shirakawa  wrote:


> Would he really be able to replicate sustained kW-level excess heat (of
> course, with watt-level input) with just $50,000 in funding or so? Serious
> question.


I do not know if they can produce that much heat. I suppose that would
depend on how much material Ames N. L. can supply. Since Ames as part of
the DOE the whole thing may be cut off tomorrow, when someone at
headquarters finds out. I doubt anyone else can produce the material.
That's the hard part. Although Miley said he is doing a lot of the
post-production work himself now.

I do not see what difference it makes whether you get 100 W or 5000 W. Heat
is heat. As long as it can be measured with high confidence who cares how
much? The key thing is that it is controllable and stable. Once you have
that scaling up is a trivial matter.

- Jed

Re: [Vo]:Defkalion tells a reader : visit us

[Alan J Fletcher]

At 10:32 AM 12/15/2011, Peter Heckert wrote:

The mechanism is constructed in such a way that any hard x-rays


so far, so good ...


or external gamma measurements are detected and it will trigger.


How can you detect an EXTERNAL gamma measurement?

Or do you mean that an attempt to probe the inside from outside with 
gamma rays? I'm not sure that would give you any useful information anyway.

Re: [Vo]:Crowd-funded test? List of pro-LENR scientists

[Alan J Fletcher]

At 10:14 AM 12/15/2011, Akira Shirakawa wrote:
Would he really be able to replicate sustained kW-level excess heat 
(of course, with watt-level input) with just $50,000 in funding or 
so? Serious question.


Without the secret Magic Unicorn dust? Probably not.  

Re: [Vo]:E-cat article by Haiko Leitz

[Horace Heffner]

On Dec 15, 2011, at 6:21 AM, Jed Rothwell wrote:


Robert Leguillon  wrote:

You should read the report you cite again.  He doesn't ignore that  
the reactor remained at boiling temperatures for four hours.  He  
takes it head-on.  Go straight to pages 8 and 9.


I saw that. That is an attempt to explain the Tout thermocouple. It  
cannot explain palpable heat over the entire surface of the reactor  
lasting for four hours. That's preposterous! Putting iron or any  
other material in the walls or around the cell cannot do that for  
several reasons:


1. Stored energy can only cause the temperature to decline  
monotonically, very rapidly at first (Newton's law of cooling). Yet  
this heat increased during the event.


You apparently have forgotten that thermal pulses from a passive  
device can be delayed until long after the power is applied.


This is evidence of what I was talking about in this thread.  Your  
mind must be going.  I think I can recognize this because it is  
happening to me!   I don't  think this is a case of projection. I am  
stunned you are still saying this kind of thing.  Maybe you do not  
understand thermal pulses, so don't accept my data?  Do you not  
understand that the graphs:


http://www.mtaonline.net/~hheffner/Graph2S.png

http://www.mtaonline.net/~hheffner/Graph5S.png

http://www.mtaonline.net/~hheffner/Graph6S.png

are all from the same simulation, represent consistent data?  The  
maximum thermal flux occurs after the input energy is cut off.   This  
is fully passive heat transfer.  The maximum flux occurs after power  
cutoff.  This maximum thermal flux point can be further delayed  
beyond power cutoff by either choice of other passive materials, or  
by use of active controls.





2. You cannot heat the iron around the cell or in the call walls   
up to 543°C with electric heaters inside the cell. They would have  
to reach much higher temperatures than any electric heater is  
capable of.



Just to be clear, no one is talking about heating the outside box  
metal envelope.   My focus is entirely the inside box, the 30 cm x 30  
cm x 30 cm inside box, the insides of which no one has seen.  It is  
easy to place a thermal mass inside this volume that can store and  
release sufficient energy to meet the requirement of producing some  
boiling water for 4 hours, especially if phase changing salts are  
used.  Also, small ceramic kilns are commonly available that reach  
over 1200°C.  Graph 6S shows a maximum internal temperature of about  
1000°C being reached at time 270 minutes, 11 minutes before  
converting power to the "frequency generator".




3. The data shows that the reactor cools in ~40 min. when the power  
is cut. That is the actual, measured limit of stored heat with this  
system, at these temperatures and inputs.


That is merely a measure of the stored heat and thermal conductivity  
at the end of the test.   I have stated the data indicates  there is  
an active control mechanism by which the thermal conductivity, or  
water exposure to the stored heat, is reduced by application of main  
heater power, or "frequency generator" power.   When the power is  
reduced the thermal ouput increases.  Maximal thermal transfer thus  
only happens when all power is removed at the end of the run.  Water  
flow rate was supposedly increased then too.


Heiko Lietz asked Rossi why the output power momentarily rises when  
input power is cut.  Rossi's response was that this is confidential.




You cannot magically change it to 4 hours. The data shows a rapid  
decline in temperature. You cannot magically change that to an  
increase.


It takes no magic - a mere calculation, which I provided.  This is  
not magic or even arm waving.




Sorry to be harsh,


It's OK.  Why should you follow special rules?  8^)

but I took that section on p. 8 as politician-style evasion, along  
the lines of "we have to say something here, so let's fill in the  
blank with what we know just ain't so."


I don't know what you are talking about.  I provided a calculation  
example based on simple hypothesis that iron was involved in the  
thermal mass.  Later calculations, simulations, considered other  
possibilities.   Do you see the word "suppose"?  Other assumptions  
provide explanations closer to the observations.





This analysis cannot be taken seriously. It is full of gaping holes  
and impossibilities. I realize that Heffner does not see it that  
way, but I do.


- Jed




The only gaping holes in my opinion are the questions of just where  
the Tout thermocouple was located during the test, and whether an air  
pocket in the heat exchanger manifold affected the temperature at the  
Tout location.


Rossi's tests and explanations are full of holes and self  
contradictions, impossibilities.  It is Rossi's tests and  
explanations that matter.  All the blather from the peanut gallery is  
irrelevant, except possibly to alert the few gullible investors that  
might lis

Re: [Vo]:E-cat article by Haiko Leitz

[Yamali Yamali]

>  Stored heat can only emerge. It cannot stay hot. It has cool monotonically, 
>according to Newton's law:

You're burning the last point I held for Rossi (which was that I wondered 
whether scientists could be fooled so easily - apparently they can). Newton's 
law would not be violated, of course. If you heat one side of a homogeneous, 
iron block (or the inside, for that matter) the other side will heat up 
gradually until the entire thing reaches equilibrium. Overall it will naturally 
cool from the moment the heat source is removed - but overall cooling is not 
what's in question. Thermal conductivity of Iron reduces with rising 
temperature. Combined with an appropriate insulator its easy to build a heat 
storage system that yields more or less constant temperatures at a particualr 
point for a long time after the initial heating at another point has stopped. 
And, as Joshua Cude already pointed out, with water as the cooling medium being 
the only thing measured, its even easier. It doesn't have to be especially 
elaborate or even magic. I'm not saying it is, but it
 can surely be a really cheap trick.

Re: [Vo]:Defkalion tells a reader : visit us

[Peter Heckert]

Am 15.12.2011 19:12, schrieb Peter Heckert:

Am 14.12.2011 21:05, schrieb Mary Yugo:

On Wed, Dec 14, 2011 at 11:38 AM, Charly Sistovaris
wrote:


That's in Athens, not Xanthi which is a town in the North.
You often bring up good arguments, but the bickering is a tiresome.

I simply copied the information given by Defkalion and indeed it's 
Athens.


Questioning the veracity of Defkalion is hardly bickering.  Nothing they
ever said ever checked out!  And much of it, for example their self
destruct mechanism and the design for Hyperion power plants that rely 
for
continuing to operate on a telemetry link with their mothership that 
needs

to be continuously functional, seem fanciful at best.


This principle was invented by Mike Brady years ago.
Description in detail is here, unfortunately in german language.
http://magnetmotoren.info/interview-mit-perendev-motor-erfinder/


BTW, I have better ideas.
I would invent a security mechanism that injects an (harmless) acid into 
the device that destroys and pollutes everything, so that neither by 
chemical analysis nor by microscopic inspection the working principle 
can be revealed.
I guarantee, everybody who opens the device will find it destroyed, 
polluted and unusable.
The mechanism is constructed in such a way that any hard x-rays or 
external gamma measurements are detected and it will trigger.

This is an absolutely secure method and much cheaper.

Peter

Re: [Vo]:E-cat impact

[Mary Yugo]

It was joke-- pls. lighten up!

Re: [Vo]:Crowd-funded test? List of pro-LENR scientists

[Akira Shirakawa]

On 2011-12-15 19:08, Jed Rothwell wrote:


If you have $1 million burning a hole in your pocket, give it to me that
I will have this thing replicated in no time. People such as Miley could
replicate most of it in a short time if they had ~$50,000 in funding. Or
$5,000.


Would he really be able to replicate sustained kW-level excess heat (of 
course, with watt-level input) with just $50,000 in funding or so? 
Serious question.


Cheers,
S.A.

Re: [Vo]:E-cat impact

[OrionWorks - Steven V Johnson]

I'd be dead without spell checker.

I suspect I'm not alone on that.

I wonder if MY is taking lessons from Mr. Krivit.

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

Re: [Vo]:Defkalion tells a reader : visit us

[Peter Heckert]

Am 14.12.2011 21:05, schrieb Mary Yugo:

On Wed, Dec 14, 2011 at 11:38 AM, Charly Sistovaris
wrote:


That's in Athens, not Xanthi which is a town in the North.
You often bring up good arguments, but the bickering is a tiresome.


I simply copied the information given by Defkalion and indeed it's Athens.

Questioning the veracity of Defkalion is hardly bickering.  Nothing they
ever said ever checked out!  And much of it, for example their self
destruct mechanism and the design for Hyperion power plants that rely for
continuing to operate on a telemetry link with their mothership that needs
to be continuously functional, seem fanciful at best.


This principle was invented by Mike Brady years ago.
Description in detail is here, unfortunately in german language.
http://magnetmotoren.info/interview-mit-perendev-motor-erfinder/

Peter

Re: [Vo]:Crowd-funded test? List of pro-LENR scientists

[Mary Yugo]

On Thu, Dec 15, 2011 at 10:08 AM, Jed Rothwell wrote:

> Spending a million bucks for this is crazy. The machine will be obsolete
> in six months. Unless you have a need for 1 MW of heat, it will be useless.
>
> If you have $1 million burning a hole in your pocket, give it to me that I
> will have this thing replicated in no time. People such as Miley could
> replicate most of it in a short time if they had ~$50,000 in funding. Or
> $5,000.
>

I can't believe that Miley can't get $5K or even $100K of funds a year.
That's chump change for any large company.  And you say he can give a
convincing demo.  I don't get it.   Why doesn't SAIC for example, jump on
it?

As for testing a so-called megawatt plant, that's just nonsense.  There is
absolutely NOTHING that you can do with that, with respect to verifying the
principle, that you can't do more easily and faster with a simple off the
shelf old type E-cat (what I call a plumber's nightmare model) that Rossi
showed almost a YEAR AGO.

Re: [Vo]:Crowd-funded test? List of pro-LENR scientists

[Jed Rothwell]

Spending a million bucks for this is crazy. The machine will be obsolete in
six months. Unless you have a need for 1 MW of heat, it will be useless.

If you have $1 million burning a hole in your pocket, give it to me that I
will have this thing replicated in no time. People such as Miley could
replicate most of it in a short time if they had ~$50,000 in funding. Or
$5,000.

- Jed