RE: [Vo]:DGT Screenshot

[Peter B]

Thanks Mark 
That should help quite a bit 
Pete

From: zeropo...@charter.net
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Subject: RE: [Vo]:DGT Screenshot
Date: Wed, 1 Feb 2012 20:05:10 -0800



JoJo wrote:“Axil, Please, by all means keep the speculations and the 
"embarrassing" experimental advice coming.  I have learned a lot from you and 
many other people here.  Vortex has been the most useful forum as far as 
gaining insight into replicating Rossi. And PeterB wrote:“I have only been on 
Vortex a few months and I have gained much insight. There's a lot of smart 
people here with a wide range of views. I’m starting to learn to appreciate the 
criticisms more as well. It’s good to be challenged” Indeed!  The Collective 
has been much more functional and in line with its founding principles when the 
disfunctionals are gone… keep the focus on the technical/scientific issues, and 
less on the personalities.  TOGETHER, we have the technical/scientific 
expertise, the theoretical as well as the engineering expertise to make 
valuable contributions.  There is no reason that we can’t help push this 
technology along… perhaps the people of the planet will succeed once again 
where governments and ‘professionals’ have failed. To all the newcomers since 
early 2011, you might want to use the web-interface to the forum 
here:http://www.mail-archive.com/search?l=vortex-l@eskimo.com&a=1&haswords=and 
do Searches in order to gather up the various discussions that went on after 
the Jan demo by Rossi… -Mark  

[Vo]:RE: [Vo]:"The cooper pair dance".

[Mark Iverson-ZeroPoint]

Lou:
I looked at the subject lines of the author's other papers and it seems he's
focused on ball lightning... and it may be relevant.

The other thing that comes to mind are 'charge clusters' which came out of
Ken Shoulders'  and Hal Puthoff's research.  Try searching for 'charge
clusters' and/or KS or HP.

Buggin' out for the rest of the night...
-Mark

-Original Message-
From: pagnu...@htdconnect.com [mailto:pagnu...@htdconnect.com] 
Sent: Wednesday, February 01, 2012 7:44 PM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Subject: Re: [Vo]:"The cooper pair dance".


Perhaps this has already been discussed on Vortex-l, but a quick search
yielded the following paper -

"Formation of Cooper pairs in quantum oscillations of electrons in plasma"
http://arxiv.org/abs/0902.4596

- I have only briefly perused it, but if it's correct, it may point out some
connections of high-temp Cooper-pairing, plasmons, and anomalous fusion.
Some other papers by the author also address this issue:

http://arxiv.org/find/physics/1/au:+Dvornikov_M/0/1/0/all/0/1

Any opinions on this series of papers?

- Lou Pagnucco


Axil Axil wrote:
> When protons enter a micro cavity, they rattle and dance around it for 
> a long, long time. All the while, the walls are vibrating.moving back 
> and forth in a random fashion in the protons reference frame, As they 
> bounce of the walls, the walls give and take energy away on each 
> bounce. So when the protons encounter each other, they never have the 
> same quantum mechanical properties.
> [...]

RE: [Vo]:DGT Screenshot

[Mark Iverson-ZeroPoint]

JoJo wrote:

"Axil, Please, by all means keep the speculations and the "embarrassing"
experimental advice coming.  I have learned a lot from you and many other
people here.  Vortex has been the most useful forum as far as gaining
insight into replicating Rossi.

 

And PeterB wrote:

"I have only been on Vortex a few months and I have gained much insight.
There's a lot of smart people here with a wide range of views. I'm starting
to learn to appreciate the criticisms more as well. It's good to be
challenged"

 

Indeed!  The Collective has been much more functional and in line with its
founding principles when the disfunctionals are gone. keep the focus on the
technical/scientific issues, and less on the personalities.  TOGETHER, we
have the technical/scientific expertise, the theoretical as well as the
engineering expertise to make valuable contributions.  There is no reason
that we can't help push this technology along. perhaps the people of the
planet will succeed once again where governments and 'professionals' have
failed.

 

To all the newcomers since early 2011, you might want to use the
web-interface to the forum here:

http://www.mail-archive.com/search?l=vortex-l@eskimo.com

&a=1&haswords=

and do Searches in order to gather up the various discussions that went on
after the Jan demo by Rossi.

 

-Mark

Re: [Vo]:“The cooper pair dance”.

[pagnucco]

Perhaps this has already been discussed on Vortex-l, but a quick search
yielded the following paper -

"Formation of Cooper pairs in quantum oscillations of electrons in plasma"
http://arxiv.org/abs/0902.4596

- I have only briefly perused it, but if it's correct, it may point out
some connections of high-temp Cooper-pairing, plasmons, and anomalous
fusion.  Some other papers by the author also address this issue:

http://arxiv.org/find/physics/1/au:+Dvornikov_M/0/1/0/all/0/1

Any opinions on this series of papers?

- Lou Pagnucco


Axil Axil wrote:
> When protons enter a micro cavity, they rattle and dance around it for a
> long, long time. All the while, the walls are vibrating…moving back and
> forth in a random fashion in the protons reference frame, As they bounce
> of
> the walls, the walls give and take energy away on each bounce. So when the
> protons encounter each other, they never have the same quantum mechanical
> properties.
> [...]

Re: [Vo]:To Sinter or Not to Sinter

[Terry Blanton]

On Wed, Feb 1, 2012 at 10:14 PM, Peter B  wrote:
> Terry
>
> Tim Robbins ...That's him ...always helps me decide what I'm going
> to do when I think Im down for the count
>
> Decide to . fight or surrender

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mTv1Dmu5CYc&feature=fvst

T

RE: [Vo]:To Sinter or Not to Sinter

[Peter B]

Terry 
Tim Robbins ...That's him ...always helps me decide what I'm going to 
do when I think Im down for the count 
Decide to . fight or surrender 
Some things take years but its worth it 
Pete

> Date: Wed, 1 Feb 2012 19:09:36 -0500
> Subject: Re: [Vo]:To Sinter or Not to Sinter
> From: hohlr...@gmail.com
> To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
> 
> On Wed, Feb 1, 2012 at 6:43 PM, Peter B  wrote:
> > Managed Danger
> >
> > Agreed
> >
> > There a great "Saying "in a movie  "Shawshank Redemption"  that I love .
> > It had 2 main actors , Morgan Freedman and the other ..( I forget)
> >
> > Anyway it  was ."Get busy living or get busy dieing "
> 
> Tim Robbins.  Great movie!
> 
> T
> 
  

[Vo]:Magnet Motor Video..Hmmmmm????? 267,500 hits- goes Viral.

[Ron Kita]

Greetings Vortex-L:

I  have a strong dislike for Magnet Motors VideosBUT...this one seems
to have gone viral 267,500+ hits --with many many likes:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FLek_3Hpwus&feature=player_embedded

Note: For Entertainment Purposes Only.

Ron Kita...IS it a Fake?

Re: [Vo]:NASA Roadmap

[David Roberson]

They are expecting great things from fusion I see.  Wonder what happened to the 
positive outlook that they expressed earlier?

Dave


-Original Message-
From: Alan J Fletcher 
To: vortex-l 
Sent: Wed, Feb 1, 2012 8:35 pm
Subject: [Vo]:NASA Roadmap


Fusion is on the list for Energy generation ... but with a ranking of ZERO !!!
ttp://www.nap.edu/openbook.php?record_id=13354&page=191
n a scale from 0 to 400
ttp://www.nap.edu/openbook.php?record_id=13354&page=201
(I'm looking at the low-quality preview .. you can register to get the PDF)
(lenr.qumbu.com -- analyzing the Rossi/Focardi eCat  -- Hi, google!) 

[Vo]:NASA Roadmap

[Alan J Fletcher]

Fusion is on the list for Energy generation ... but with a ranking of ZERO !!!
http://www.nap.edu/openbook.php?record_id=13354&page=191
On a scale from 0 to 400
http://www.nap.edu/openbook.php?record_id=13354&page=201

(I'm looking at the low-quality preview .. you can register to get the PDF)

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

Re: [Vo]:Cold Fusion.. "openly" demonstrated at MIT

[mixent]

In reply to  Jones Beene's message of Wed, 1 Feb 2012 16:18:58 -0800:
Hi,
[snip]
>-Original Message-
>From: mix...@bigpond.com 
>
>... this implies a negative ion, which I think means that Rossi
>subscribes to the "shrinking negative ion theory".
>
>
>Robin,
>
>... sure you did not mean to say the "minimal hydrino hydride theory" :-)

No, I was talking about what Rossi thinks, not what I think. ;)

>
>J. 
>
Regards,

Robin van Spaandonk

http://rvanspaa.freehostia.com/project.html

Re: [Vo]:Mr. Krivit continues to advocate for the W-L camp

[Terry Blanton]

On Wed, Feb 1, 2012 at 7:43 PM, Jones Beene  wrote:
> The Thieving Magpie ?? Is this a meta4 Lewis ?

Lewis, Kivit and the whole production.  Not to mention that it brings
to mind a Clockwork Orange, a dystopian dream.

I am now reading China Mieville's "The City & the City", which is
probably influencing my derailed train of thoughtcrime.

(Actually, I am reading two books at this time.  The second is "The
Giver" by Lois Lowry with a mysterious merger among the books and my
reality.)

:0

T

RE: [Vo]:Mr. Krivit continues to advocate for the W-L camp

[Jones Beene]

The Thieving Magpie ?? Is this a meta4 Lewis ?

-Original Message-
From: Terry Blanton 

Reminds me of ROSSIni's "La Gazza Ladra".  :)

T

<>

RE: [Vo]:Cold Fusion.. "openly" demonstrated at MIT

[Jones Beene]

-Original Message-
From: mix...@bigpond.com 

... this implies a negative ion, which I think means that Rossi
subscribes to the "shrinking negative ion theory".


Robin,

... sure you did not mean to say the "minimal hydrino hydride theory" :-)

J. 


<>

Re: [Vo]:To Sinter or Not to Sinter

[Terry Blanton]

On Wed, Feb 1, 2012 at 6:43 PM, Peter B  wrote:
> Managed Danger
>
> Agreed
>
> There a great "Saying "    in a movie  "Shawshank Redemption"  that I love .
> It had 2 main actors , Morgan Freedman and the other ..( I forget)
>
> Anyway it  was ."Get busy living or get busy dieing "

Tim Robbins.  Great movie!

T

Re: [Vo]:Mr. Krivit continues to advocate for the W-L camp

[Terry Blanton]

On Wed, Feb 1, 2012 at 6:33 PM, OrionWorks - Steven V Johnson
 wrote:

> The laundry will eventually sort itself out.

Reminds me of ROSSIni's "La Gazza Ladra".  :)

T

RE: [Vo]:To Sinter or Not to Sinter

[Peter B]

Managed Danger 
Agreed 
There a great "Saying "in a movie  "Shawshank Redemption"  that I love . It 
had 2 main actors , Morgan Freedman and the other ..( I forget)  
Anyway it  was ."Get busy living or get busy dieing "
Safety is a priority to me , but not dieing of regret or bordom is a close 
secound . 
I would hate to get to 90 yrs old and be full of   "If only we had tried"
Play safe  and as Spock would say   "Live long and Prosper" 
Pete

Date: Wed, 1 Feb 2012 17:32:36 -0500
Subject: Re: [Vo]:To Sinter or Not to Sinter
From: cheme...@gmail.com
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com

Jojo,

I agree.  There is a certain amount of risk in just getting out of bed in the 
morning


On Wednesday, February 1, 2012, Jojo Jaro  wrote:

> Axil, Please, by all means keep the speculations and the "emabarassing" 
> experimental advice coming.  I have learned a lot from you and many other 
> people here.  Vortex has been the most useful forum as far as gaining insight 
> into replicating Rossi.

>  
> Yes, I have a gieger counter that will detect gammas as well as thermal 
> neutrons.  Do I need a detector for fast neutrons?   I will be placing this 
> detector inside the blast chamber with the reactor so that it can detect any 
> of these radiations.  I figured 8" of concrete should be sufficient to block 
> most of the gammas.

>  
> As for your other advise, I have no idea how to implement many of those.  For 
> instance, you suggested using a cloud chamber.  How do you build one?  How 
> does one detect 6 MeV protons?  Where can I buy a scintillation detector?  
> What kind?

>  
> Remember, I am not a physicist and my background is not physics.  So, sorry 
> for the stupid questions.
>  
> And if we are afraid of danger all the time, we can never achieve anything 
> worthwhile.  I think danger should be managed, not avoided.

>  
>  
> Jojo
>  
> 

Re: [Vo]:Mr. Krivit continues to advocate for the W-L camp

[OrionWorks - Steven V Johnson]

>From Alan:

> McKubre's response at
> http://newenergytimes.com/v2/sr/McKubreM4/20111210McKubreResponse.shtml
...

McKubre states:

> People sometimes question the value a "traditional" scientific
> education but this case highlights one of its clear benefits. Poor
> Steve simply does not know what he does not know.   ...
> Interpretation of data without access to the lab notebooks and
> detailed knowledge of the procedures actually employed, is worse
> than fruitless, as this case demonstrates.

McKubre's commentary was extracted from the private CMNS list group.

It's my understanding Mr. Krivit is not a CMNS member. Therefore,
someone must be feeding CMNS info to him. Once again Krivt appears to
have posted private information not meant for public consumption.
However, based on past experience, I'm sure McKubre suspected that Mr.
Krivit would somehow acquire the details of his "private" response.
The fact that Mr. Krivit proceeded to quickly defend his M4 actions
suggests to me that he is concerned about his perceived reputation. I
suspect McKubre knows this as well.

In Mr. Krivt's rebuttal, he begins with:

http://newenergytimes.com/v2/sr/McKubreM4/20111221ToWhomItMayConcern.shtml

> To whom it may concern:
>
> In 2010, I conducted an investigation of the EPRI-funded SRI International
> experiment "M4," performed by Michael McKubre and staff in 1994, and
> I published my findings. I also provided them to the federal intelligence 
> community.

To "... the federal intelligence community!" Wow! Mr. Krivit really
did that? ...as if to insinuate the seriousness of McKubre's alleged
M4 transgressions. Be that as it may, I'm under the impression that
McKubre, for the most part, really doesn't give a crap how Mr. Krivit
has chosen to interpret his M4 work.

The laundry will eventually sort itself out.

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

RE: [Vo]:DGT Screenshot

[Peter B]

Hi   JoJo 
More information  , thankyou . I have only been on Vortex a few months and I 
have gained much insight . There's a lot of smart people here with a wide range 
of views . Im starting to learn to  appreciate  the critisisims more  as well . 
Its good to be challenged 
There are a few different industries that use 50 mm steel pipeing that handle  
over 6000 psi . You just have find a proffessional machinist thats worked with 
extremme  pressures and heat , that understands whats needed in the area of 
seals and elements , especially if you continually want to re-open and seal it 
for different types of testing , which is what we intend to do . This is where 
it gets dangerous . 
I have a few ideas on this , once I am convinced in myself it will work , I 
will share  . Safety and the ability to change over materials \catyalyst  
quicker than most , is my challenge. 
And yes I noticed that ebay seller has different lengths at different  watts , 
should help for the future (if we ever find a reaction ) 
Thanks again 
Pete 



From: jth...@hotmail.com
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Subject: Re: [Vo]:DGT Screenshot
Date: Wed, 1 Feb 2012 18:45:07 +0800










Pete, you're welcome.
 
I'm using this same heating element in my disposable 
reactor.  I'm attempting replication of Rossi, not Phen\Chan which I think 
may be a red herring.  Something just does not smell right to me about 
Chan\Phen's method.  I suspect Chan\Phen may have ignited the propane in 
his tube and initiated a low-grade chemical burning of his mineral oil 
bath.  Using Mineral Oil as coolant and propane as "Inert gas" just  
does not seem right to me.
 
Anyways, I calculated that I load the reactor at 30C (room 
temp) or around 300K and at 300-360 psi (Rossi's initial H pressure).  
Heating the reactor to 700K (423C - Focardi's "Ideal" temp) would bring the H 
pressure to around 700 psi according to the Ideal Gas Law formula.
 
I don't think 700 psi is that difficult to handle in a 
reactor.  My initial attempt will be to use a copper tube rated to 2240 psi 
@ 72F.  Derating charts I found said to derate the psi rating when temp 
increases.  So I suspect, my copper tube should handle 700psi @ 423C.  
If not, I'll upgrade to a stainless steel tube, which will do 2000psi 
@350F.  These are "official" safety ratings, so the actual burst rating 
would be about 3-5 times higher.  I intend to place the reactor in a blast 
chamber (8" concrete walls) and monitor using Wireless IP camera.
 
At 700 psi reactor target pressure, this heating element 
should work.  
 
 
BTW, did you notice that the same seller lists other 
similar heating element of various sizes?  Go to his store, he has other 
sizes.
 
 
Jojo
 
 

  - Original Message - 
  From: 
  Peter B 

  To: Vortex Ron 
  Sent: Wednesday, February 01, 2012 5:52 
  PM
  Subject: RE: [Vo]:DGT Screenshot
  

  JoJo   Thankyou  for helping , it might just do the 
  trick 
  

  I have a young  electrical  engineer  helping me out once 
  a week , he is concerned the element it self may not handle  the 
  pressures building up in the chamber 
  

  In our intended experiments  we are going to do 2 main 
  types 
  

  1.   Phen\Chan way  
  

  2.Rossi way 
  

  

  Phen doesnt heat the chamber while the H is at  2000psi 
  

  But Rossi  seems to do this 
  

  The engineer seems to think by heating the chamber to 400 C increases the 
  PSI  x 3  (approx)
  

  Which means the pressures  would be around 6000 psi 
  

  He questions if most elements could handle this type of 
  pressures 
  

  

  Question :   Do you think Rossi  heats the chamber while 
  the H is pressuised at 2000 psi 
  

  Thanks Pete

  

  


  
  
  
  From: jth...@hotmail.com
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Subject: RE: [Vo]:DGT 
  Screenshot
Date: Wed, 1 Feb 2012 16:27:03 +0800


  
  

  Peter,  How about this cheap heating 
  element.  Fits inside a 1/4" copper tube perfectly.
   
   
  
http://www.ebay.com/itm/350505999493?ru=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.ebay.com%3A80%2Fsch%2Fi.html%3F_from%3DR40%26_trksid%3Dm570.l1313%26_nkw%3D350505999493%26_sacat%3DSee-All-Categories%26_fvi%3D1&_rdc=1
   
   
   
  Jojo

Re: [Vo]:Rama Found?

[Alan J Fletcher]

At 03:00 PM 2/1/2012, OrionWorks - Steven V Johnson wrote:
Boy! What if it eventually does turn out to be a 400 by 60 meter 
long "cylinder"?


My first thought was a crashed zepellin ... but Graf v Z is 236 by 30 
: about half the size. 

RE: [Vo]:DGT Screenshot

[Peter B]

Thanks Robert 
I appreciate you advice 
Im in no hurry and safety is my main concern . Overall  I dont build anything . 
I get other proffesionals to build . I have a machinist who has worked with 
enourmous pressures and gasses . Our chamber will be very small , with several 
shut down features . Also enclosed in a half inch steel glove box . Hydrogen 
Bottle will be disconected and removed before all experiments so even if we 
find a extreme reaction , there shouldnt be a megga explosion . 
Im working on a 6000 psi release valve  design , just in case 
Again thankyou 
Pete

Date: Wed, 1 Feb 2012 11:56:00 +
Subject: Re: [Vo]:DGT Screenshot
From: robert.gulliver.l...@gmail.com
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com

2000-6000psi hydrogen is pretty dangerous, be very careful about your design 
and setup, make sure all your valves seals and fittings are able to withstand 
those pressures, keep those valves, seals and fittings away from high 
temperatures, and try to keep reactor vessel volume small.

I believe Rossi operates at about 25bar (350psi).  But that might just be the 
cold loading pressure.  I am not sure if he used a pressure regulator on his 
reactor to limit the pressure.  He probably did for the 1MW container, but 
maybe not for some of his smaller demos (where I seem to remember that he 
disconnected the hydrogen supply during the test).  Remember that (hopefully) a 
lot of the hydrogen is loaded into the nickel, so the reactor pressure might 
not rise as much as you think - it might even drop.  However for safety it is a 
good idea to disconnect the hydrogen supply during the test and design assuming 
3-4 times the loading pressure.

Your heating element does not need to be in the reactor - just put it inside a 
tube that penetrates through the middle of the reactor.  The heater element 
heats the tube and the tube heats the reactor without requiring any high 
pressure-electrical feedthroughs.  You can measure reactor temperature the same 
way, with a  thermocouple in a tube.  This is a standard industrial technique, 
though it is slower to respond than having the thermocouple exposed directly to 
the hydrogen in the reactor.

There are lots of easy ways to make a heating element, but easiest is buying 
ceramic rod type cartridge heaters used in soldering irons off-the shelf for 
<$20, these should be able to operate red-hot (>500°C)

On 1 February 2012 09:52, Peter B  wrote:





JoJo   Thankyou  for helping , it might just do the trick 
I have a young  electrical  engineer  helping me out once a week , he is 
concerned the element it self may not handle  the pressures building up in the 
chamber 

In our intended experiments  we are going to do 2 main types 
1.   Phen\Chan way  
2.Rossi way 

Phen doesnt heat the chamber while the H is at  2000psi 

But Rossi  seems to do this 
The engineer seems to think by heating the chamber to 400 C increases the PSI  
x 3  (approx)
Which means the pressures  would be around 6000 psi 

He questions if most elements could handle this type of pressures 

Question :   Do you think Rossi  heats the chamber while the H is pressuised at 
2000 psi 

Thanks Pete



From: jth...@hotmail.com

To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Subject: RE: [Vo]:DGT Screenshot
Date: Wed, 1 Feb 2012 16:27:03 +0800










Peter,  How about this cheap heating 
element.  Fits inside a 1/4" copper tube perfectly.
 
 
http://www.ebay.com/itm/350505999493?ru=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.ebay.com%3A80%2Fsch%2Fi.html%3F_from%3DR40%26_trksid%3Dm570.l1313%26_nkw%3D350505999493%26_sacat%3DSee-All-Categories%26_fvi%3D1&_rdc=1

 
 
 
Jojo  

  

Re: [Vo]:Rama Found?

[OrionWorks - Steven V Johnson]

>From Terry,

> Probably not the MF; but, this one:
>
> "Using side-scan sonar, the team found a 60-meter diameter
> cylinder-shaped object, with a rigid tail 400 meters long."
>
> We have not seen the image.  A cylinder 18 stories high by four
> football fields long?  I know it's not Rama; but, that's one huge fuel
> tank!

Yeah, I'd sure like to know what they mean by the phrase: "... with a
rigid tail 400 meters long." At present I'm inclined to speculate that
the "tail" they are referring to is actually just the skid marks that
were detected at the bottom of the floor, adjacent to the
cylinder-shaped object. IOW, the "tail" isn't something that could be
considered solid, like the 60-meter diameter circle clearly visible in
the radar image.

Boy! What if it eventually does turn out to be a 400 by 60 meter long
"cylinder"?

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

Re: [Vo]:Rama Found?

[Terry Blanton]

On Wed, Feb 1, 2012 at 5:32 PM, OrionWorks - Steven V Johnson
 wrote:

> Chewy! That's the last time I'll let you park the Falcon using the
> automatic setting!

Probably not the MF; but, this one:

"Using side-scan sonar, the team found a 60-meter diameter
cylinder-shaped object, with a rigid tail 400 meters long."

We have not seen the image.  A cylinder 18 stories high by four
football fields long?  I know it's not Rama; but, that's one huge fuel
tank!

T

Re: [Vo]:To Sinter or Not to Sinter

[Chemical Engineer]

Jojo,

I agree.  There is a certain amount of risk in just getting out of bed in
the morning


On Wednesday, February 1, 2012, Jojo Jaro  wrote:
> Axil, Please, by all means keep the speculations and the "emabarassing"
experimental advice coming.  I have learned a lot from you and many other
people here.  Vortex has been the most useful forum as far as gaining
insight into replicating Rossi.
>
> Yes, I have a gieger counter that will detect gammas as well as thermal
neutrons.  Do I need a detector for fast neutrons?   I will be placing this
detector inside the blast chamber with the reactor so that it can detect
any of these radiations.  I figured 8" of concrete should be sufficient to
block most of the gammas.
>
> As for your other advise, I have no idea how to implement many of those.
For instance, you suggested using a cloud chamber.  How do you build one?
How does one detect 6 MeV protons?  Where can I buy a scintillation
detector?  What kind?
>
> Remember, I am not a physicist and my background is not physics.  So,
sorry for the stupid questions.
>
> And if we are afraid of danger all the time, we can never achieve
anything worthwhile.  I think danger should be managed, not avoided.
>
>
> Jojo
>
>

Re: [Vo]:To Sinter or Not to Sinter

[Axil Axil]

See

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RVj69R66Agg
This cloud chamber build seems the most convergent to me. You don’t need to
pick up any dry ice here.

When in YouTub, search on “cloud chamber” There are many how to do it
videos on this subject.

The following paper contains a picture of a proton coming from nickel in a
cloud chamber.


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



 *OVERVIEW OF H-NI SYSTEMS: OLD EXPERIMENTS AND NEW SETUP*




On Wed, Feb 1, 2012 at 4:47 PM, Jojo Jaro  wrote:

> **
> Axil, Please, by all means keep the speculations and the "emabarassing"
> experimental advice coming.  I have learned a lot from you and many other
> people here.  Vortex has been the most useful forum as far as gaining
> insight into replicating Rossi.
>
> Yes, I have a gieger counter that will detect gammas as well as thermal
> neutrons.  Do I need a detector for fast neutrons?   I will be placing this
> detector inside the blast chamber with the reactor so that it can detect
> any of these radiations.  I figured 8" of concrete should be sufficient to
> block most of the gammas.
>
> As for your other advise, I have no idea how to implement many of those.
> For instance, you suggested using a cloud chamber.  How do you build one?
> How does one detect 6 MeV protons?  Where can I buy a scintillation
> detector?  What kind?
>
> Remember, I am not a physicist and my background is not physics.  So,
> sorry for the stupid questions.
>
> And if we are afraid of danger all the time, we can never achieve anything
> worthwhile.  I think danger should be managed, not avoided.
>
>
> Jojo
>
>
>

Re: [Vo]:Rama Found?

[OrionWorks - Steven V Johnson]

>From Terry:

> http://edition.cnn.com/2012/01/28/world/europe/swedish-shipwreck-hunters/index.html

I've been more-or-less following this event when it first came out. I
hope they get the funding they need in order to take a closer look.

Obviously, it's fun to speculate on what this very odd shape might
turn out to be. It's fun to entertain the possibility that it came
from outer space. Nevertheless, Occam's razor would suggest (at least
to me) that this is probably just a large object that accidentally
fell off the deck of a ship, perhaps in the middle of gale force
winds. Perhaps it will turn out to be something as mundane as a lost
crab ring that got dragged across the ocean floor. ...A very LARGE
crab ring.

...or not. ;-)

Chewy! That's the last time I'll let you park the Falcon using the
automatic setting!

Arrr-arrr rreeuug rumpg!

Ok, ok. It was a mistake anyone could have made. Don't choke on a hair ball!

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

Re: [Vo]:Cold Fusion.."openly" demonstrated at MIT

[mixent]

In reply to  Ron Kita's message of Wed, 1 Feb 2012 07:10:26 -0500:
Hi,
[snip]
>Greetings Vortex:
>
>http://world.std.com/~mica/cft.html
>
>Great news,
>Ron Kita, Chiralex

Quote (on Rossi E-cat):-

"RADIO FREQUENCY GENERATORS -- He claims that the radio frequency generator
allows the forces that would normally prevent the fusion process from taking
place (Coulomb forces) to work for you, and not against you. "

The only way the Coulomb force could work for you is if the fusing particle were
negatively charged. This implies a negative ion, which I think means that Rossi
subscribes to the shrinking negative ion theory.

Regards,

Robin van Spaandonk

http://rvanspaa.freehostia.com/project.html

Re: [Vo]:To Sinter or Not to Sinter

[Jojo Jaro]

Axil, Please, by all means keep the speculations and the "emabarassing" 
experimental advice coming.  I have learned a lot from you and many other 
people here.  Vortex has been the most useful forum as far as gaining insight 
into replicating Rossi.

Yes, I have a gieger counter that will detect gammas as well as thermal 
neutrons.  Do I need a detector for fast neutrons?   I will be placing this 
detector inside the blast chamber with the reactor so that it can detect any of 
these radiations.  I figured 8" of concrete should be sufficient to block most 
of the gammas.

As for your other advise, I have no idea how to implement many of those.  For 
instance, you suggested using a cloud chamber.  How do you build one?  How does 
one detect 6 MeV protons?  Where can I buy a scintillation detector?  What kind?

Remember, I am not a physicist and my background is not physics.  So, sorry for 
the stupid questions.

And if we are afraid of danger all the time, we can never achieve anything 
worthwhile.  I think danger should be managed, not avoided.


Jojo

[Vo]:“The cooper pair dance”.

[Axil Axil]

When protons enter a micro cavity, they rattle and dance around it for a
long, long time. All the while, the walls are vibrating…moving back and
forth in a random fashion in the protons reference frame, As they bounce of
the walls, the walls give and take energy away on each bounce. So when the
protons encounter each other, they never have the same quantum mechanical
properties.



It’s like spinning the roulette wheel, the result is a randomization of the
proton collision process in terms of kinetic energy and other things. Out
of the trillions of such proton encounters and near approaches, one
collision will eventually see in the fullness of time two protons with
identical properties. In the off chance that will most always occur given a
very large number of encounters, the two protons will eventually stick
together to form a cooper pair.



See the “The cooper pair dance”. To be quantum mechanically accurate, the
dancers should be bouncing off the moving walls  of the room…just use your
imaginations on this point.



http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7kVVacwz2ng

RE: [Vo]:To Sinter or Not to Sinter

[Jojo Jaro]

Jones, while I feel the task to replicate Rossi would be very difficult, I do 
not believe it is impossible.  Rossi was able to get lucky so I feel my chances 
are good given the quality of the people in this collective.  And given that we 
have already narrrowed down many of the factors, like powder size, degassing 
procedures, catalysts and other things, I feel that it would not take that long 
to replicate Rossi.  Besides, I'm still young and semi-retired and I've got 
nothing else to do.  This R&D seems like a worthwhile endeavor.  Even If I do 
not achieve a breakthrough, it is still worth it in keeping me from getting 
bored and end up doing something useless with my time.

And I am not a stranger to lab research myself as I have done experiments of 
significant complexity during my graduate years.  You're the physicist, tell us 
engineers what to do and what procedure to use, what equipment to use based on 
your current understanding.  Like I said, your insight will go a long ways in 
helping set the research direction.  Keep the ideas and the theoritical 
speculations coming.  They may seem irrelevant but builders like us are gaining 
a lot of insights from it.

But anyways, I am taking a lot of precautions.  My reactor will be placed 
inside a 4" pipe that will act as a first blast shield, then put the set up in 
a corner behind my vacuum pump, then place some 3/8" steel plates, then place 
it in a blast chamber with 8" concrete walls.  The concrete wall will act as a 
radiation shield and a blast shield.  I suspect my blast chamber will withstand 
a stick of dynamite.  

And since my reactor is small, I do not expect a massive and devastating 
explosion, although I am hoping for an explosion so that I will know I have 
identified the catalyst.

Re: [Vo]:Rama Found?

[zer tte]

So, two 60 meters or so objects with drag marks some 200m aparts ... weird.
The team said they'll be back on the site in may, looking for investors (lol), 
and they might bring tourists too.
Who wants to go diving ?

http://a.abcnews.com/images/Technology/ht_bactic_sonar_mystery_thg_120130_wg.jpg

Re: [Vo]:To Sinter or Not to Sinter

[Axil Axil]

I am sorely tempted to give experimental advice even though I have no right
to. So let me succumb.


I would not do this stuff myself out of fear of bodily harm.



In the beginning of your experimentation, I would keep it as simple as
possible.



IMHO, the excess heat detection route is not the easiest and most sensitive
way to go.



I would look for excess high energy protons at 6 MeV, or in general any
change in radiation production as an indicator of research progress.



To start out stay away from powder, use a bar or foil of nickel to get the
Nickel surface preparation right.



Expose the bar to hydrogen and when you think that the reaction has
stabilized, remove it from your reactor, place it in a radiation detection
device: cloud chamber (Build it yourself for $10), Particle Detectors -
Geiger Counter, Scintillation Detector, Solid State Detectors …something
that detects ionizing radiation… and see if there is an increased level of
radiation over the background that you have initially measured before the
hydration process.


Use the increase or decrease in radiation levels as a feedback mechanism to
hone your surface prep. When you think that you have optimized this step,
only then move on to micro powder.

BE very careful.



So sorry, please excuse me…Even at the risk of embarrassing myself,
succumbing to temptation always feels good.



Best regards,



Axil




On Wed, Feb 1, 2012 at 1:17 PM, Jojo Jaro  wrote:

> **
> With all the floating theories on how Rossi Cold Fusion works, do we have
> a consensus on whether the Ni powder needs to be attached to the reactor
> walls? or free floating inside the reactor?
>
> There are very good reasons for either strategy. I have read all the
> comments on this collective on this.   On the one hand, sintering the Ni
> powder may improve thermal conduction, thereby improving reaction stability
> by allowing for more efficient removal of heat; on the other hand, free
> floating Ni nanopowder may make a larger surface area available for
> reaction.  Does anybody have info on whether DGT sinters their powder?  I
> haven't read anything on that.
>
> I'd like to hear the best educated guesses of the smartest people in our
> collective.  I will adjust my reactor design based on what the collective
> thinks is the best initial guess.
>
>
> Jojo
>
>
>
>

Re: [Vo]:Mr. Krivit continues to advocate for the W-L camp

[Alan J Fletcher]

McKubre's response at 
http://newenergytimes.com/v2/sr/McKubreM4/20111210McKubreResponse.shtml :


People sometimes question the value a "traditional" scientific 
education but this case highlights one of its clear benefits. Poor 
Steve simply does not know what he does not 
know.   ...  Interpretation of data without access to the lab 
notebooks and detailed knowledge of the procedures actually employed, 
is worse than fruitless, as this case demonstrates.


(Of course, SK adds a disclaimer)

RE: [Vo]:To Sinter or Not to Sinter

[Jones Beene]

I agree with Günter here, with one proviso. If you very clever to start out 
with, do your homework perfectly, take adequate precautions and have lots of 
Lab experience - then you might get lucky even on a low budget, if everything 
were to go perfectly. In retrospect, once all is known, this will probably be 
fairly easy (except for obtaining the correct nanopowder). Hindsight is 20/20, 
as they say.

 

For instance – an interesting book is out (but not available in English AFAIK). 
Experts in the USA had assumed the Nazi effort to build an A-bomb was way 
behind us, since they could not put adequate resources into it at the time - 
and this cannot be done cheaply. Then a historian named Karlsch made the claim 
that the SS almost got lucky, on a pittance …

 

http://physicsworld.com/cws/article/print/22270

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

 

This means absolutely nothing, and Karlsch was most likely wrong on many 
details - plus it would have been a ‘dirty bomb’ anyway – except to say that 
very daunting tasks often have an easy solution, in retrospect. Maybe I should 
find a better example of that premise, anyway :-)

 

However, back to Ni-H - there is one commercially available 10 nm nanopowder 
which is known to work. It is expansive. Brad Lowe of ecatbuilders has gotten 
hold of some (and I see you have posted to that forum) so why not wait to see 
what his results are? Otherwise, I put your chances at almost zero on a minimal 
budget - unless you can get hold of the proper nanopowder, which is known to 
work and go from there. Brad has the least expensive possible setup, and it is 
a simple comparison test of two identical reactors, with-and-without - but if 
he gets lucky with this, then so could you. 

 

Let me say that this R&D is very dangerous, involves toxic materials and 
explosive gases, and myself nor anyone on this forum are responsible in any way 
for personal or financial injuries or losses. You assume the complete risk for 
this. There have been three deaths which I am aware of – two experimenters with 
hydrogen (HHO) in Southern California and one at SRI in cold fusion. 

 

Forewarned is forearmed.

 

 

From: Günter Wildgruber 


Jojo,

 

Just an educated guess from someone peripherally related to the field.

 

Which means, that, because there is no agreed theory, You have to rely to a lot 
of trial and error and educated guesses.

 

If You do'nt have a good basic environment >>100k$,  and have no colleagues for 
brainstorming, You do not stand a chance of doing something substantial.

 

I actually am in an environment to hypothetically do this, but I don’t.

It starts with the funding. We have other things to do, albeit we would have 
lets say 80% of the infrastructure and knowledge to do something like that.

 

What is missing, is an educated guess --a basic workable theory- which gives 
preliminary results in the first place.

 

This is a very strange field indeed. Krivit summed it up quite convincingly, to 
my opinion.

 

http://newenergytimes.com/v2/sr/McKubreM4/McKubre-Experiment-M4.shtml

 

If you place your bet on Ni-H, feel free to do that.

Any other reactions do not have any societal/commercial value anyhow.

 

Then you have to place Your bets on LENR, against 'cold fusion', in Krivits 
sense.

 

Next You have to cultivate Your intuition:

How should the reactive nickel-surface look like?

100nm? 5um? This seems to be the range.

Look at what is possible.

 

One has to have an extremely good intuition, how to choose the right parameters 
in say 10 dimensions.

Does Rossi have it?

Defkalion?

 

We do not know.

 

 



 

 

Re: [Vo]:To Sinter or Not to Sinter

[Guenter Wildgruber]

 Von: Jojo Jaro 
An: Vortex-l  
Gesendet: 20:52 Mittwoch, 1.Februar 2012
Betreff: Re: [Vo]:To Sinter or Not to Sinter
 

...Before long, I have no 
doubts I will need a glove box, and industrial microwave, some custom RF 
equipment and...

Jojo,
I myself am involved in the design of RF-generators for plasma-generation, and 
naturally was curiuous, what to see about that in the real setups, both 
theoretically and experimentally. (Rossi/Defkalion)

This is a very sensible matter, I can assure you, but I cannot see any hint, 
that RF-generation of any sophistication is involved.
Maybe as a dirt-effect, so to say, but it does not seem to be essential in 
initiationg or controlling the process.
Apart from Terahertz differential Laser excitations, which by nature are 
difficult, I cannot see anything akin to RF-induced excitation.

Either the process is quite simple, -without any RF- or it is very elaborate.

Just my five cents.





 
- Original Message - 
>From: Guenter  Wildgruber 
>To: vortex-l@eskimo.com 
>Sent: Thursday, February 02, 2012 3:31  AM
>Subject: Re: [Vo]:To Sinter or Not to  Sinter
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Von: Jojo Jaro 
>An: Vortex-l  
>Gesendet: 19:17 Mittwoch, 1.Februar  2012
>Betreff: [Vo]:To Sinter  or Not to Sinter
>
>
> 
>With all the floating theories on how Rossi Cold  Fusion works, do we have a 
>consensus ..
>
>---
> 
>Jojo,
> 
>Just an  educated guess from someone peripherally related to the field.
> 
>Which  means, that, because there is no agreed theory, You have to rely to a 
>lot of  trial and error and educated guesses.
> 
>If You  do'nt have a good basic environment >>100k$,  and have no colleagues 
>for  brainstorming, You do not stand a chance of doing something  substantial.
> 
>I  actually am in an environment to hypothetically do this, but I  don’t.
>It  starts with the funding. We have other things to do, albeit we would have 
>lets  say 80% of the infrastructure and knowledge to do something like  that.
> 
>What is  missing, is an educated guess --a basic workable theory- which gives  
>preliminary results in the first place.
> 
>This is  a very strange field indeed. Krivit summed it up quite convincingly, 
>to my  opinion.
> 
>http://newenergytimes.com/v2/sr/McKubreM4/McKubre-Experiment-M4.shtml
> 
>If you  place your bet on Ni-H, feel free to do that.
>Any  other reactions do not have any societal/commercial value anyhow.
> 
>Then  you have to place Your bets on LENR, against 'cold fusion', in Krivits  
>sense.
> 
>Next  You have to cultivate Your intuition:
>How  should the reactive nickel-surface look like?
>100nm?  5um? This seems to be the range.
>Look at  what is possible.
> 
>One has  to have an extremely good intuition, how to choose the right 
>parameters in say  10 dimensions.
>Does  Rossi have it?
>Defkalion?
> 
>We do  not know.
>
> 
>    
> 
>
>

Re: [Vo]:A huge Rossi (bad) thing to be revealed soon. (Daniele Passerini)

[Alan J Fletcher]

New E-Cat
Terminology

http://22passi.blogspot.com/2012/01/new-e-cat-terminology.html

This time Passi lets us know he's JOKING :
I share with readers of all 22 steps, to joke a little 'minds and
refreshing the hottest, the written text of a funny email from a friend
last week.
PS And please, someone explain to advance to "those of Vortex
"which is just a game, if not, well this time, translating with
Google-translate come to believe that it is a serious thing!
;-)

To measure an E-Cat will take new terminologies.
For example, there will certainly be a critical dimension of that special
combination H + Ni + secret ingredients, under which an E-Cat can not
work. This amount will be the Mouse : Minimum Operational Unit
Sufficient Extent . Cat-And there will be small, 1 mouse, and E-Cat
largest, 2, 5 or n MOUSE. You will have to determine which is the
energy produced by 1 mouse, and what is the mass and volume of the same
mouse. It can not operate with less than 1 Cat-MOUSE.
Then, every E-Cat must have a ETAIL ( Energy Transfer And Input
Line), or an E-tail, almost a double tube where cold water enters and
exits hot water.
Finally, the unit's power emitted by an E-Cat is the MEOW
:Measurement of Energy Outlined in Watts . In fact MEOW 1 Watt =
1.
And so on and so forth:)

Re: [Vo]:To Sinter or Not to Sinter

[Jojo Jaro]

Yes, an investment of 100K is possible.  I've actually budgeted 2 Million for 
this endeavor, although at this stage, I am starting with very cheap and simple 
reactor and calorimeter designs.  I am only spending a few hundred right now.   
 Before long, I have no doubts I will need a glove box, and industrial 
microwave, some custom RF equipment and an SEM with X-Ray backscattering 
capabilities to characterize the individual atoms.

Right now, I am trying to get a handle on Research Direction, more than the 
equipment itself.  I feel I can test many of the Ideas here without spending 
too much right now.
  

Jojo


  - Original Message - 
  From: Guenter Wildgruber 
  To: vortex-l@eskimo.com 
  Sent: Thursday, February 02, 2012 3:31 AM
  Subject: Re: [Vo]:To Sinter or Not to Sinter







--
  Von: Jojo Jaro 
  An: Vortex-l  
  Gesendet: 19:17 Mittwoch, 1.Februar 2012
  Betreff: [Vo]:To Sinter or Not to Sinter



  With all the floating theories on how Rossi Cold Fusion works, do we have a 
consensus ..

  ---

  Jojo,

  Just an educated guess from someone peripherally related to the field.

  Which means, that, because there is no agreed theory, You have to rely to a 
lot of trial and error and educated guesses.

  If You do'nt have a good basic environment >>100k$,  and have no colleagues 
for brainstorming, You do not stand a chance of doing something substantial.

  I actually am in an environment to hypothetically do this, but I don’t.
  It starts with the funding. We have other things to do, albeit we would have 
lets say 80% of the infrastructure and knowledge to do something like that.

  What is missing, is an educated guess --a basic workable theory- which gives 
preliminary results in the first place.

  This is a very strange field indeed. Krivit summed it up quite convincingly, 
to my opinion.

  http://newenergytimes.com/v2/sr/McKubreM4/McKubre-Experiment-M4.shtml

  If you place your bet on Ni-H, feel free to do that.
  Any other reactions do not have any societal/commercial value anyhow.

  Then you have to place Your bets on LENR, against 'cold fusion', in Krivits 
sense.

  Next You have to cultivate Your intuition:
  How should the reactive nickel-surface look like?
  100nm? 5um? This seems to be the range.
  Look at what is possible.

  One has to have an extremely good intuition, how to choose the right 
parameters in say 10 dimensions.
  Does Rossi have it?
  Defkalion?

  We do not know.



  

Re: [Vo]:Cold Fusion.."openly" demonstrated at MIT

[Peter Gluck]

Sorry, Ron but is this Pd-D or Ni-H, aqueous
or vapor phas, at what  power level?
I don't find any relevant information by simple fast search.
Thank you for any data
Peter

On Wed, Feb 1, 2012 at 2:10 PM, Ron Kita  wrote:

> Greetings Vortex:
>
> http://world.std.com/~mica/cft.html
>
> Great news,
> Ron Kita, Chiralex
>



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

Re: [Vo]:Cold Fusion.."openly" demonstrated at MIT

[Rich Murray]

er, I have a bad feeling about this...

within mutual service, Rich Murray rmfor...@gmail.com

On Wed, Feb 1, 2012 at 8:40 AM, Harry Veeder  wrote:

> No pictures of the demonstration?
>
> harry
>
> On Wed, Feb 1, 2012 at 7:10 AM, Ron Kita  wrote:
>> Greetings Vortex:
>>
>> http://world.std.com/~mica/cft.html
>>
>> Great news,
>> Ron Kita, Chiralex
>

Re: [Vo]:To Sinter or Not to Sinter

[Guenter Wildgruber]

 Von: Jojo Jaro 
An: Vortex-l  
Gesendet: 19:17 Mittwoch, 1.Februar 2012
Betreff: [Vo]:To Sinter or Not to Sinter
 

 
With all the floating theories on how Rossi Cold 
Fusion works, do we have a consensus ..

---
 
Jojo,
 
Just an
educated guess from someone peripherally related to the field.
 
Which
means, that, because there is no agreed theory, You have to rely to a lot of
trial and error and educated guesses.
 
If You
do'nt have a good basic environment >>100k$,  and have no colleagues for 
brainstorming, You
do not stand a chance of doing something substantial.
 
I actually
am in an environment to hypothetically do this, but I don’t.
It starts
with the funding. We have other things to do, albeit we would have lets say 80%
of the infrastructure and knowledge to do something like that.
 
What is
missing, is an educated guess --a basic workable theory- which gives
preliminary results in the first place.
 
This is a
very strange field indeed. Krivit summed it up quite convincingly, to my
opinion.
 
http://newenergytimes.com/v2/sr/McKubreM4/McKubre-Experiment-M4.shtml
 
If you
place your bet on Ni-H, feel free to do that.
Any other
reactions do not have any societal/commercial value anyhow.
 
Then you
have to place Your bets on LENR, against 'cold fusion', in Krivits sense.
 
Next You
have to cultivate Your intuition:
How should
the reactive nickel-surface look like?
100nm? 5um?
This seems to be the range.
Look at
what is possible.
 
One has to
have an extremely good intuition, how to choose the right parameters in say 10
dimensions.
Does Rossi
have it?
Defkalion?
 
We do not
know.

Re: [Vo]:To Sinter or Not to Sinter

[Jojo Jaro]

Thanks Axil,

What do you think of my recipe below:


I plan to heat Ni powder to say 300-400C (below curie point) in open air to 
allow creation of Nickel Oxides.  Also heat some copper powder and some iron 
powder in open air for the same purpose.  Mix about 7% copper and 3% iron 
powder with Ni powder so prepared.  Place the mixture into the reactor and 
perform the Piantilli style heating to 400c and vacuuming and then loading H2, 
and repeating several times to totally boil off the oxides.  All the 3 powders 
should have lots and lots of micro-cavities.  This should improve the copper's 
and iron's ability to split H2 to H+.  At least that's the theory.

Then cool the reactor to room temp and then do a final load of H2 at 300-360 
psi.  Then start the reaction.

Any flaws in my thinking?




Jojo



  - Original Message - 
  From: Axil Axil 
  To: vortex-l@eskimo.com 
  Sent: Thursday, February 02, 2012 2:52 AM
  Subject: Re: [Vo]:To Sinter or Not to Sinter


  The one big disadvantage of using the reactor walls is in replacing the 
embedded powder. When the powder is spent, the whole core must be 
discarded...not competitive.

  On the other hand, nano-powder may be too tiny to allow surface phonons to 
propagate correctly (however that might work). Nano powder might not work.

  The compromise in micro powder in the 5 micror size range. This powder is 
replaceable, yet big enough to carry effective phonon vibrations.

  The challenge is to properly form the surface of the micro-powder to provide 
micro-cavities that allow protons to become synchronized (coherent).

  Like Jones has posted, protons repel each other but when you put them in a 
small quantum well, they bounce off each other and also off the cavity walls 
for a very long time until they just so happen in a one in a million encounter 
to approach in just the right  way to syncronize their quantom properties. That 
is the only job of the micro-powder, to get protons to sync up into coherent 
pairs. 

  IMHO, Nano powder is too small to perform this function and the reactor walls 
are too inconvenient, but micro powder is just the right size and weight…and 
the surface needs to have the most effective micro cavities formed on each 
particle too. 




 








   

  On Wed, Feb 1, 2012 at 1:17 PM, Jojo Jaro  wrote:

With all the floating theories on how Rossi Cold Fusion works, do we have a 
consensus on whether the Ni powder needs to be attached to the reactor walls? 
or free floating inside the reactor?

There are very good reasons for either strategy. I have read all the 
comments on this collective on this.   On the one hand, sintering the Ni powder 
may improve thermal conduction, thereby improving reaction stability by 
allowing for more efficient removal of heat; on the other hand, free floating 
Ni nanopowder may make a larger surface area available for reaction.  Does 
anybody have info on whether DGT sinters their powder?  I haven't read anything 
on that.

I'd like to hear the best educated guesses of the smartest people in our 
collective.  I will adjust my reactor design based on what the collective 
thinks is the best initial guess.


Jojo

Re: [Vo]:To Sinter or Not to Sinter

[Axil Axil]

The one big disadvantage of using the reactor walls is in replacing the
embedded powder. When the powder is spent, the whole core must be
discarded...not competitive.

On the other hand, nano-powder may be too tiny to allow surface phonons to
propagate correctly (however that might work). Nano powder might not work.

The compromise in micro powder in the 5 micror size range. This powder is
replaceable, yet big enough to carry effective phonon vibrations.

The challenge is to properly form the surface of the micro-powder to
provide micro-cavities that allow protons to become synchronized (coherent).

Like Jones has posted, protons repel each other but when you put them in a
small quantum well, they bounce off each other and also off the cavity
walls for a very long time until they just so happen in a one in a million
encounter to approach in just the right  way to syncronize their quantom
properties. That is the only job of the micro-powder, to get protons to
sync up into coherent pairs.

IMHO, Nano powder is too small to perform this function and the reactor
walls are too inconvenient, but micro powder is just the right size and
weight…and the surface needs to have the most effective micro cavities
formed on each particle too.














On Wed, Feb 1, 2012 at 1:17 PM, Jojo Jaro  wrote:

> **
> With all the floating theories on how Rossi Cold Fusion works, do we have
> a consensus on whether the Ni powder needs to be attached to the reactor
> walls? or free floating inside the reactor?
>
> There are very good reasons for either strategy. I have read all the
> comments on this collective on this.   On the one hand, sintering the Ni
> powder may improve thermal conduction, thereby improving reaction stability
> by allowing for more efficient removal of heat; on the other hand, free
> floating Ni nanopowder may make a larger surface area available for
> reaction.  Does anybody have info on whether DGT sinters their powder?  I
> haven't read anything on that.
>
> I'd like to hear the best educated guesses of the smartest people in our
> collective.  I will adjust my reactor design based on what the collective
> thinks is the best initial guess.
>
>
> Jojo
>
>
>
>

[Vo]:Reactor design

[marten]

I do have some design ideas to ask the collective about.

What if:

We had a standing reactor vessel with a heater at the bottom, that is 
not cooled in any way so it does get red hot quickly.
fill the vessel with h2 and a pile of nano nickel on the bottom and 
fire up the heater, in my mind , this would heat up the nickel very 
fast, and start a thermal siphon of nickel dust towards the top of the 
vessel, where it cools down by the cool walls of the reactor, then sinks 
to the
bottom and it all starts again, the h2 would probably lessen this 
effect somewhat by the high thermal conductivity, but we would non the 
less
have a up and down going motion, a fluid bed type reactor, probably 
more efficient than a small cramped tube laying on its side and with a 
core electric heater right ?


I mean that the rossi type of reactor must be slow, it has 2 heaters, 
where one is fitted outside the chamber with coolant between the reactor
vessel and the heater, why ? ( weird to heat the coolant instead of the 
reactor? )
And it has a small cramped space filled with nickel and a heater, that 
does not allow for much movement of the nickel powder, very little of 
the nickel can be in contact with the h2 at any given moment ( the h2 
has great permeability, yes but it cant penetrate a pile of nickel very 
efficient ? )


I have been using up my napkins today and made some plans for a 
standing reactor type, but i need some comments and ideas .




Bash me with comments, do not be afraid to hurt my feelings :)

Marten

RE: [Vo]:Name that tune

[Mark Iverson-ZeroPoint]

YW!

-mark

 

From: David Roberson [mailto:dlrober...@aol.com] 
Sent: Wednesday, February 01, 2012 9:23 AM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Name that tune

 

Thanks Mark!  This is excellent information that I missed since I joined to 
group much later.

 

Dave



-Original Message-
From: Mark Iverson-ZeroPoint <  
zeropo...@charter.net>
To: vortex-l <  vortex-l@eskimo.com>
Sent: Wed, Feb 1, 2012 4:23 am
Subject: RE: [Vo]:Name that tune

David:

Who knows what Rossi is using for the heating elements! J  Things change on a 
weekly basis with him…

 

IIRC, earlier last year, Rossi said they used a “Programmable Lighting 
Controller”… PLC.  However, that acronym has different meanings; to most in the 
USA, PLC stands for “Programmable LOGIC/LADDER Controller”.  There was a lot of 
discussion on this very topic within the Collective the first half of 2011, so 
you might want to do a Search for articles using various keywords (PLC, 
‘resistive element’, ‘band heater’.  We covered many different ideas, including 
using one of the heating elements to form an E-field within the core… passing a 
current between the two heating elements… we can get pretty creative!! J

 

Here are some link to Threads which cover the topic…. But be sure to scan 
entire posting as some of the relevant info is further down in the posting, in 
sections being referenced…

 

  
http://www.mail-archive.com/vortex-l@eskimo.com/msg51041.html

 

  
http://www.mail-archive.com/vortex-l@eskimo.com/msg49522.html

 

  
http://www.mail-archive.com/vortex-l@eskimo.com/msg46416.html

 

  
http://www.mail-archive.com/vortex-l@eskimo.com/msg49529.html

 

  
http://www.mail-archive.com/vortex-l@eskimo.com/msg51010.html

 

  
http://www.mail-archive.com/vortex-l@eskimo.com/msg46322.html

 

  
http://www.mail-archive.com/vortex-l@eskimo.com/msg52470.html

 

-Mark

 

[Vo]:To Sinter or Not to Sinter

[Jojo Jaro]

With all the floating theories on how Rossi Cold Fusion works, do we have a 
consensus on whether the Ni powder needs to be attached to the reactor walls? 
or free floating inside the reactor?

There are very good reasons for either strategy. I have read all the comments 
on this collective on this.   On the one hand, sintering the Ni powder may 
improve thermal conduction, thereby improving reaction stability by allowing 
for more efficient removal of heat; on the other hand, free floating Ni 
nanopowder may make a larger surface area available for reaction.  Does anybody 
have info on whether DGT sinters their powder?  I haven't read anything on that.

I'd like to hear the best educated guesses of the smartest people in our 
collective.  I will adjust my reactor design based on what the collective 
thinks is the best initial guess.


Jojo

Re: [Vo]:"The Believers" - Documentary about CF History.

[Randy Wuller]

Vortex:

By coincidence I will be in Chicago on the 11th and in the "Spirit" of the 
year of "Cold Fusion" :) I thought I would go see the film.  Anyone from the 
Vortex planning to attend the event.  Just Curious.


Ransom


http://www.137films.org/NewsDetailPage/Work-in-progress-screening.

"The Believers" test screening February 11

Work-in-Progress Screening of The Believers at The Gene Siskel Film Center
If you've been waiting to see our new film, The Believers, now is
your chance! The Chicago Council on Science and Technology is
presenting a work-in-progress screening of The Believers on Saturday,
February 11 at noon at the Gene Siskel Film Center, and filmmakers
Monica Ross and Clayton Brown will be in attendance for a Q & A
session after the film.

You can attend for free by becoming a 137 Films Backer.  Click here
for information on how to do it.

We hope to see you on February 11!
---

Harry

Re: [Vo]:Name that tune

[David Roberson]

Thanks Mark!  This is excellent information that I missed since I joined to 
group much later.

Dave



-Original Message-
From: Mark Iverson-ZeroPoint 
To: vortex-l 
Sent: Wed, Feb 1, 2012 4:23 am
Subject: RE: [Vo]:Name that tune



David:
Who knows what Rossi is using for the heating elements! J  Things change on a 
weekly basis with him…
 
IIRC, earlier last year, Rossi said they used a “Programmable Lighting 
Controller”… PLC.  However, that acronym has different meanings; to most in the 
USA, PLC stands for “Programmable LOGIC/LADDER Controller”.  There was a lot of 
discussion on this very topic within the Collective the first half of 2011, so 
you might want to do a Search for articles using various keywords (PLC, 
‘resistive element’, ‘band heater’.  We covered many different ideas, including 
using one of the heating elements to form an E-field within the core… passing a 
current between the two heating elements… we can get pretty creative!! J
 
Here are some link to Threads which cover the topic…. But be sure to scan 
entire posting as some of the relevant info is further down in the posting, in 
sections being referenced…
 
http://www.mail-archive.com/vortex-l@eskimo.com/msg51041.html
 
http://www.mail-archive.com/vortex-l@eskimo.com/msg49522.html
 
http://www.mail-archive.com/vortex-l@eskimo.com/msg46416.html
 
http://www.mail-archive.com/vortex-l@eskimo.com/msg49529.html
 
http://www.mail-archive.com/vortex-l@eskimo.com/msg51010.html
 
http://www.mail-archive.com/vortex-l@eskimo.com/msg46322.html
 
http://www.mail-archive.com/vortex-l@eskimo.com/msg52470.html
 
-Mark
 

From: David Roberson [mailto:dlrober...@aol.com] 
Sent: Tuesday, January 31, 2012 10:36 PM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Name that tune

 

Good question Peter.  I have asked a number of questions on the DGT forum in 
the past but they do not answer consistently.  The Vortex has a number of 
excellent members with a great deal of knowledge about many subjects.  A 
question such as the ones that I have presented are much more likely to fall 
upon fertile ground here.

 

Dave



-Original Message-
From: Peter Gluck 
To: vortex-l 
Sent: Wed, Feb 1, 2012 12:19 am
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Name that tune

"The question illuminates, not the answer" (Eugene Ionesco) 

Why you are not asking on the DGT forum?

Peter

On Wed, Feb 1, 2012 at 5:15 AM, David Roberson  wrote:

I have always assumed that the heating elements within the Rossi ECAT are using 
AC.  The frequency of the current is assumed to be 60 or 50 hertz, but I do not 
recall anyone measuring it.  One interesting possibility to consider is that 
the large AC magnetic field associated with this current contained within the 
core might be strong enough to agitate the nickel due to its magnetic 
properties at modest temperatures.  Also, do we know how electrically 
conductive the core materials are?  I wonder if the core net resistive value is 
consistent enough to carry current for heating power?

 

What if the extra spike that we observe in the waveform can be triggered by the 
large magnetic field or current that flows within the core region?

 

A lot of questions and few answers.  Maybe some of them will cause a light to 
shine within one of our collective minds.

 

Dave  




-Original Message-
From: francis 
To: vortex-l 
Sent: Tue, Jan 31, 2012 9:56 pm
Subject: RE: [Vo]:Name that tune


Why does everyone assume the heater elements use DC? A transformer would be the 
easiest way to adjust the voltage or current to larger rms values and would 
explain the isolation transformer. The blue control box then might simply gate 
this AC power through the transformer for longer or shorter durations. This 
wouldn’t be called an RFG but it would have the same effect while 
simultaneously heating the reactor elements.

Fran

 

 

Jones Beene
Tue, 31 Jan 2012 15:09:19 -0800

Mine too, and now ... the real reason for this inquiry - why do you need

one?

 

Coincidentally, as you mentioned in the preceding message, they claim NOT to

use an RFG. 

 

Which technically does not mean they do not have a fair amount of RF noise

in the reactor, does it? It means only that they have no dedicated RF

generator.

 

There are other reasons for having an isolation transformer than to protect

your Variac and other instruments and computers from a source of disruptive

electrical spikes, so it's not a smoking gun - but is there a good reason

not to suspect either a spark gap or glow discharge arrangement inside the

reactor somewhere?

 

After all, if we were talking about resistance heating elements (ala AR)

being your thermal input and your P-in, then an isolation transformer would

not be needed, correct ?

 

 




 

Re: [Vo]:Name that tune

[David Roberson]

I have a great deal of confidence in DGT and their products.  I think you must 
have misunderstood my statement if you believe that I hold them with any 
serious suspicion.  Also no one would say that I am hostile toward themin 
fact I am extremely happy that they offer an alternative to the ECAT products.

Where do you see that they answered my questions promptly?  I would like to 
review that information.  I think of the Vortex members as being of very high 
caliber and with enormous insight and that is the reason that I pose questions 
toward them.  I understand that DGT is busy and does not have time to respond 
to many questions so a lot go unanswered.  This does not suggest that they are 
incompetent, just busy.  And of course they might choose not to answer many 
questions which would reveal trade secrets.

Does this clarify the reason for my questions directed toward the collective?

Dave



-Original Message-
From: Peter Gluck 
To: vortex-l 
Sent: Wed, Feb 1, 2012 3:49 am
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Name that tune


You see that they have answered promptly.
Are you contented with the answer?

In my opinion it is not justified and not reasonable to treat these gentlemen 
with suspicion and/or hostility, why should they pay for Rossi's disastruous  
PR methods?
Peter


On Wed, Feb 1, 2012 at 8:35 AM, David Roberson  wrote:

Good question Peter.  I have asked a number of questions on the DGT forum in 
the past but they do not answer consistently.  The Vortex has a number of 
excellent members with a great deal of knowledge about many subjects.  A 
question such as the ones that I have presented are much more likely to fall 
upon fertile ground here.
 
Dave




-Original Message-
From: Peter Gluck 
To: vortex-l 
Sent: Wed, Feb 1, 2012 12:19 am
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Name that tune


"The question illuminates, not the answer" (Eugene Ionesco) 
Why you are not asking on the DGT forum?
Peter


On Wed, Feb 1, 2012 at 5:15 AM, David Roberson  wrote:

I have always assumed that the heating elements within the Rossi ECAT are using 
AC.  The frequency of the current is assumed to be 60 or 50 hertz, but I do not 
recall anyone measuring it.  One interesting possibility to consider is that 
the large AC magnetic field associated with this current contained within the 
core might be strong enough to agitate the nickel due to its magnetic 
properties at modest temperatures.  Also, do we know how electrically 
conductive the core materials are?  I wonder if the core net resistive value is 
consistent enough to carry current for heating power?
 
What if the extra spike that we observe in the waveform can be triggered by the 
large magnetic field or current that flows within the core region?
 
A lot of questions and few answers.  Maybe some of them will cause a light to 
shine within one of our collective minds.
 
Dave  




-Original Message-
From: francis 
To: vortex-l 
Sent: Tue, Jan 31, 2012 9:56 pm
Subject: RE: [Vo]:Name that tune



Why does everyone assume the heater elements use DC? A transformer would be the 
easiest way to adjust the voltage or current to larger rms values and would 
explain the isolation transformer. The blue control box then might simply gate 
this AC power through the transformer for longer or shorter durations. This 
wouldn’t be called an RFG but it would have the same effect while 
simultaneously heating the reactor elements.
Fran
 
 
Jones Beene
Tue, 31 Jan 2012 15:09:19 -0800
Mine too, and now ... the real reason for this inquiry - why do you need
one?
 
Coincidentally, as you mentioned in the preceding message, they claim NOT to
use an RFG. 
 
Which technically does not mean they do not have a fair amount of RF noise
in the reactor, does it? It means only that they have no dedicated RF
generator.
 
There are other reasons for having an isolation transformer than to protect
your Variac and other instruments and computers from a source of disruptive
electrical spikes, so it's not a smoking gun - but is there a good reason
not to suspect either a spark gap or glow discharge arrangement inside the
reactor somewhere?
 
After all, if we were talking about resistance heating elements (ala AR)
being your thermal input and your P-in, then an isolation transformer would
not be needed, correct ?
 
 








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










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

Re: [Vo]:Cold Fusion.."openly" demonstrated at MIT

[Harry Veeder]

No pictures of the demonstration?

harry

On Wed, Feb 1, 2012 at 7:10 AM, Ron Kita  wrote:
> Greetings Vortex:
>
> http://world.std.com/~mica/cft.html
>
> Great news,
> Ron Kita, Chiralex

Re: [Vo]:Name that tune

[Terry Blanton]

On Wed, Feb 1, 2012 at 10:34 AM, Jones Beene  wrote:

> Correct me if I am wrong, but DGT have never claimed the long runs of Rossi
> where there are 4-6 hours of high heat with no input (other than 50 watts
> RF). Or have they?

To my knowledge, they have never claimed to run at all without input energy.

T

Re: [Vo]:Name that tune

[Alain Sepeda]

2012/2/1 Jones Beene 

> ... and we have seen indications in other images of the
> purported controller (Arduino box)
>

Cool, so they use Arduino ! an open platform for micro-controller... good
choice.
good tools, open, cheap, multi-source, and enough for the job.

ahh I regret to have a good interesting job...


>
> Correct me if I am wrong, but DGT have never claimed the long runs of Rossi
> where there are 4-6 hours of high heat with no input (other than 50 watts
> RF). Or have they?
>
they have a tendency not to claim much without testing it long, then
calling the boss and the PR...
their video probably make the boss... "talking loud" a little 8>>

I'm sure, from their behavior and design, they have made long test, but
don' expect much public talk.
It would even be logical that they keep one of their old reactor/machine
running for long, just to test the aging of the fuel and components, and
detect long term problems... I would do that, and they seems more competent
than me.

Re: [Vo]:DGT Screenshot

[Jed Rothwell]

Robert Lynn wrote:

A cheap thermocouple with error of 1-2°C is OK for an amateur 
experiment measuring reactor temperatures that are in the range 
4-700°C . . .


Many professional HVAC engineers use K-Type thermocouples. They are not 
only for amateurs.


- Jed

Re: [Vo]:DGT Screenshot

[Robert Lynn]

I my previous job as a IC engine development engineer we used platinum RTDs
(also called PRTs) for most water and air temperatures (<200°C), but
thermocouples for all exhaust temperatures (>500°C) where errors of 1-2°C
don't really matter.

While platinum RTDs are best, they are several times the price of
thermocouples, and in many cases will not be rated for operation at the
higher (500°C +) temperatures that are of interest for these new NiH LENR
reactors. Platinum RTDs are much more essential for accurate low
temperature differential calorimetry that requires long term stability, but
even then for shorter experiments a thermocouple can work OK as long as you
calibrate them before or after the experiment.

A cheap thermocouple with error of 1-2°C is OK for an amateur experiment
measuring reactor temperatures that are in the range 4-700°C and where it
is probably not worth using expensive RTDs to measure with high accuracy
because other sources of error will likely be far greater than the
thermocouple inaccuracy; in most cases the temperature will not be used for
low temperature difference calorimetry and the temperature will vary
throughout the reactor anyway.  For a low cost high pressure and high
temperature amateur experiment it is far better to spend money on making
the reactor and hydrogen system safe than on high temperature RTDs.

On 1 February 2012 15:05, Jones Beene  wrote:

>   This is bad practice ! (and it is not a small point). Often
> “thermocouple” is used generically.
>
> ** **
>
> Thermocouples are NOT adequate for this kind of measurement, in the long
> term. They are cheaper but degrade too easily.
>
> ** **
>
> For reliable measurement of hydrogen at higher temps - you should use
> RTDs. They are more expensive but can be exposed to almost anything and
> maintain accuracy.
>
> * *
>
> Typically RTDs are platinum on the exterior. See the Wiki entry.
>
> * *
>
> * *
>
> **Ø **
>
> **Ø  **This is a standard industrial technique, though it is slower to
> respond than having the thermocouple exposed directly to the hydrogen in
> the reactor. 
>
> ** **
>
> ** **
>
> ** **
>

RE: [Vo]:Name that tune

[Jones Beene]

Especially since the implication of this is that the "triggering" is via
resistance heating (what else could it be operating at 24 VDC?) ... and
consequently the purpose of the variac is to vary the temperature manually
via voltage into an AC/DC converter (diode and filters) instead of
automatically with software - oops...

... but once again, this video is said to represent ongoing testing for
optimizing the catalyst, and we have seen indications in other images of the
purported controller (Arduino box) so nothing seen so far is contradictory.
We wish they used RTDs instead of thermocouples but other than that ... we
are entertaining one hope for the coming week.

Of course, what we hope to see soon is a video of a long run, using the heat
transfer fluid, and heat exchangers, where is there is no issue with steam
or phase change - and it is all under computer control, indicating high but
achievable COP.

Correct me if I am wrong, but DGT have never claimed the long runs of Rossi
where there are 4-6 hours of high heat with no input (other than 50 watts
RF). Or have they?


-Original Message-
From: Terry Blanton 

"The reactor tested during such shots was equipped with a triggering
Mechanism... This requires DC 24V and ... this is a typical 230/24V AC/DC
transformer.

Now I wonder why they need a variac.  :)

T

RE: [Vo]:DGT Screenshot

[Jones Beene]

This is bad practice ! (and it is not a small point). Often "thermocouple"
is used generically.

 

Thermocouples are NOT adequate for this kind of measurement, in the long
term. They are cheaper but degrade too easily.

 

For reliable measurement of hydrogen at higher temps - you should use RTDs.
They are more expensive but can be exposed to almost anything and maintain
accuracy.

 

Typically RTDs are platinum on the exterior. See the Wiki entry.

 

 

* 

*  This is a standard industrial technique, though it is slower to respond
than having the thermocouple exposed directly to the hydrogen in the
reactor. 

 

 

 

[Vo]:Mr. Krivit continues to advocate for the W-L camp

[OrionWorks - Steven Vincent Johnson]

Widom - Larsen advocate, Steven Krivit, recently published three articles,
two of which were either authored by Lewis Larsen, or contained references
to Larsen's theory. The third article is an index compiled by Krivit
pertaining to his on-going attempt to undermine the legitimacy of McKubre's
"M4" work. 

 

See:

http://blog.newenergytimes.com/2012/01/31/index-for-investigation-of-mckubre
s-m4-experiment-created/

 

http://blog.newenergytimes.com/2012/01/17/prescient-1994-insights-from-fleis
chmann-pons-and-preparata-on-lenr-theory/

 

http://blog.newenergytimes.com/2012/01/31/index-for-investigation-of-mckubre
s-m4-experiment-created/

 

I've made it a point to clearly state that, in my opinion, Mr. Krivit has
established himself to be an ADVOCATE for the Widom Larsen camp. I bring
this up because Mr. Krivit at one time personally told me that he didn't
want to be perceived as an ADVOCATE. An ADVOCATE, however, promotes a
particular theory or cause while simultaneously undermining opposing causes
and theories. In my view, Mr. Krivit continues to show a propensity to give
the Widom-Larsen camp free reign to say whatever they want to say at NET.
Meanwhile, Mr. Krivit also shows a propensity to attack the credibility of
those who may be perceived as competition, or simply beg to differ with the
position of the W-L camp. This suggests to me that Mr. Krivit doesn't really
understand what his actual intentions are.

 

When will Mr. Krivit come out of the closet and clarify to his readers what
kind of relationship he has established with the Widom-Larsen camp? 

 

I think Mr. Krivit's readership deserves to know his intentions.

 

Regards,

Steven Vincent Johnson

www.OrionWorks.com

www.zazzle.com/orionworks 

Re: [Vo]:DGT Screenshot

[Alain Sepeda]

be careful with the effect of hydrogen on any metal (make hydrides, make
brittle, leaks and then self-ignite- H can burns a µg/min according to
wikipedia, check airliquide.com for safety of H2...)

maybe (I have no clue) H2 can transform the characteristics of a
thermocouple, especially at high heat and pressure... Defkalion seems to
use void and argon for their electronics , to protect from H.

by the way, If you are not professional, be very very careful... this gas
is "traitor".

2012/2/1 Robert Lynn 

> This is a standard industrial technique, though it is slower to respond
> than having the thermocouple exposed directly to the hydrogen in the
> reactor.
>
>
>

vortex-l@eskimo.com

[Alain Sepeda]

ok, thanks.

about other problems with the assumptions, I cited an official critic by a
phisicist on the assumptions...
maybe you already are reading it.

2012/2/1 Gigi DiMarco 

> I succeded in fixing the issue during the night, while sleeping...

Re: [Vo]:Name that tune

[Terry Blanton]

On Wed, Feb 1, 2012 at 12:13 AM, Peter Gluck  wrote:
> "The question illuminates, not the answer" (Eugene Ionesco)
> Why you are not asking on the DGT forum?

I did and they responded:

"The reactor tested during such shots was equipped with a triggering
mechanism, as it appears in our spec sheet. This requires DC 24V and
this is a typical 230/24V AC/DC transformer.

Thank you"

Now I wonder why they need a variac.  :)

T

[Vo]:Cold Fusion.."openly" demonstrated at MIT

[Ron Kita]

Greetings Vortex:

http://world.std.com/~mica/cft.html

Great news,
Ron Kita, Chiralex

Re: [Vo]:DGT Screenshot

[Robert Lynn]

2000-6000psi hydrogen is pretty dangerous, be very careful about your
design and setup, make sure all your valves seals and fittings are able to
withstand those pressures, keep those valves, seals and fittings away from
high temperatures, and try to keep reactor vessel volume small.

I believe Rossi operates at about 25bar (350psi).  But that might just be
the cold loading pressure.  I am not sure if he used a pressure regulator
on his reactor to limit the pressure.  He probably did for the 1MW
container, but maybe not for some of his smaller demos (where I seem to
remember that he disconnected the hydrogen supply during the test).
 Remember that (hopefully) a lot of the hydrogen is loaded into the nickel,
so the reactor pressure might not rise as much as you think - it might even
drop.  However for safety it is a good idea to disconnect the hydrogen
supply during the test and design assuming 3-4 times the loading pressure.

Your heating element does not need to be in the reactor - just put it
inside a tube that penetrates through the middle of the reactor.  The
heater element heats the tube and the tube heats the reactor without
requiring any high pressure-electrical feedthroughs.  You can measure
reactor temperature the same way, with a  thermocouple in a tube.  This is
a standard industrial technique, though it is slower to respond than having
the thermocouple exposed directly to the hydrogen in the reactor.

There are lots of easy ways to make a heating element, but easiest is
buying ceramic rod type cartridge heaters used in soldering irons off-the
shelf for <$20, these should be able to operate red-hot (>500°C)

On 1 February 2012 09:52, Peter B  wrote:

>  JoJo   Thankyou  for helping , it might just do the trick
>
> I have a young  electrical  engineer  helping me out once a week , he is
> concerned the element it self may not handle  the pressures building up in
> the chamber
>
> In our intended experiments  we are going to do 2 main types
>
> 1.   Phen\Chan way
>
> 2.Rossi way
>
>
> Phen doesnt heat the chamber while the H is at  2000psi
>
> But Rossi  seems to do this
>
> The engineer seems to think by heating the chamber to 400 C increases the
> PSI  x 3  (approx)
>
> Which means the pressures  would be around 6000 psi
>
> He questions if most elements could handle this type of pressures
>
>
> *Question *:   Do you think Rossi  heats the chamber while the H is
> pressuised at 2000 psi
>
> Thanks Pete
>
>
>
> --
> From: jth...@hotmail.com
> To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
> Subject: RE: [Vo]:DGT Screenshot
> Date: Wed, 1 Feb 2012 16:27:03 +0800
>
>
> Peter,  How about this cheap heating element.  Fits inside a 1/4" copper
> tube perfectly.
>
>
>
> http://www.ebay.com/itm/350505999493?ru=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.ebay.com%3A80%2Fsch%2Fi.html%3F_from%3DR40%26_trksid%3Dm570.l1313%26_nkw%3D350505999493%26_sacat%3DSee-All-Categories%26_fvi%3D1&_rdc=1
>
>
>
> Jojo
>

Re: [Vo]:DGT Screenshot

[Jojo Jaro]

Pete, you're welcome.

I'm using this same heating element in my disposable reactor.  I'm attempting 
replication of Rossi, not Phen\Chan which I think may be a red herring.  
Something just does not smell right to me about Chan\Phen's method.  I suspect 
Chan\Phen may have ignited the propane in his tube and initiated a low-grade 
chemical burning of his mineral oil bath.  Using Mineral Oil as coolant and 
propane as "Inert gas" just  does not seem right to me.

Anyways, I calculated that I load the reactor at 30C (room temp) or around 300K 
and at 300-360 psi (Rossi's initial H pressure).  Heating the reactor to 700K 
(423C - Focardi's "Ideal" temp) would bring the H pressure to around 700 psi 
according to the Ideal Gas Law formula.

I don't think 700 psi is that difficult to handle in a reactor.  My initial 
attempt will be to use a copper tube rated to 2240 psi @ 72F.  Derating charts 
I found said to derate the psi rating when temp increases.  So I suspect, my 
copper tube should handle 700psi @ 423C.  If not, I'll upgrade to a stainless 
steel tube, which will do 2000psi @350F.  These are "official" safety ratings, 
so the actual burst rating would be about 3-5 times higher.  I intend to place 
the reactor in a blast chamber (8" concrete walls) and monitor using Wireless 
IP camera.

At 700 psi reactor target pressure, this heating element should work.  


BTW, did you notice that the same seller lists other similar heating element of 
various sizes?  Go to his store, he has other sizes.


Jojo


  - Original Message - 
  From: Peter B 
  To: Vortex Ron 
  Sent: Wednesday, February 01, 2012 5:52 PM
  Subject: RE: [Vo]:DGT Screenshot


  JoJo   Thankyou  for helping , it might just do the trick 


  I have a young  electrical  engineer  helping me out once a week , he is 
concerned the element it self may not handle  the pressures building up in the 
chamber 


  In our intended experiments  we are going to do 2 main types 


  1.   Phen\Chan way  


  2.Rossi way 




  Phen doesnt heat the chamber while the H is at  2000psi 


  But Rossi  seems to do this 


  The engineer seems to think by heating the chamber to 400 C increases the PSI 
 x 3  (approx)


  Which means the pressures  would be around 6000 psi 


  He questions if most elements could handle this type of pressures 




  Question :   Do you think Rossi  heats the chamber while the H is pressuised 
at 2000 psi 


  Thanks Pete







--
  From: jth...@hotmail.com
  To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
  Subject: RE: [Vo]:DGT Screenshot
  Date: Wed, 1 Feb 2012 16:27:03 +0800


  Peter,  How about this cheap heating element.  Fits inside a 1/4" copper tube 
perfectly.


  
http://www.ebay.com/itm/350505999493?ru=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.ebay.com%3A80%2Fsch%2Fi.html%3F_from%3DR40%26_trksid%3Dm570.l1313%26_nkw%3D350505999493%26_sacat%3DSee-All-Categories%26_fvi%3D1&_rdc=1



  Jojo

RE: [Vo]:DGT Screenshot

[Peter B]

JoJo   Thankyou  for helping , it might just do the trick 
I have a young  electrical  engineer  helping me out once a week , he is 
concerned the element it self may not handle  the pressures building up in the 
chamber 
In our intended experiments  we are going to do 2 main types 
1.   Phen\Chan way  
2.Rossi way 

Phen doesnt heat the chamber while the H is at  2000psi 
But Rossi  seems to do this 
The engineer seems to think by heating the chamber to 400 C increases the PSI  
x 3  (approx)
Which means the pressures  would be around 6000 psi 
He questions if most elements could handle this type of pressures 

Question :   Do you think Rossi  heats the chamber while the H is pressuised at 
2000 psi 
Thanks Pete



From: jth...@hotmail.com
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Subject: RE: [Vo]:DGT Screenshot
Date: Wed, 1 Feb 2012 16:27:03 +0800










Peter,  How about this cheap heating 
element.  Fits inside a 1/4" copper tube perfectly.
 
 
http://www.ebay.com/itm/350505999493?ru=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.ebay.com%3A80%2Fsch%2Fi.html%3F_from%3DR40%26_trksid%3Dm570.l1313%26_nkw%3D350505999493%26_sacat%3DSee-All-Categories%26_fvi%3D1&_rdc=1
 
 
 
Jojo  

RE: [Vo]:Name that tune

[Mark Iverson-ZeroPoint]

David:

Who knows what Rossi is using for the heating elements! J  Things change on a 
weekly basis with him…

 

IIRC, earlier last year, Rossi said they used a “Programmable Lighting 
Controller”… PLC.  However, that acronym has different meanings; to most in the 
USA, PLC stands for “Programmable LOGIC/LADDER Controller”.  There was a lot of 
discussion on this very topic within the Collective the first half of 2011, so 
you might want to do a Search for articles using various keywords (PLC, 
‘resistive element’, ‘band heater’.  We covered many different ideas, including 
using one of the heating elements to form an E-field within the core… passing a 
current between the two heating elements… we can get pretty creative!! J

 

Here are some link to Threads which cover the topic…. But be sure to scan 
entire posting as some of the relevant info is further down in the posting, in 
sections being referenced…

 

http://www.mail-archive.com/vortex-l@eskimo.com/msg51041.html

 

http://www.mail-archive.com/vortex-l@eskimo.com/msg49522.html

 

http://www.mail-archive.com/vortex-l@eskimo.com/msg46416.html

 

http://www.mail-archive.com/vortex-l@eskimo.com/msg49529.html

 

http://www.mail-archive.com/vortex-l@eskimo.com/msg51010.html

 

http://www.mail-archive.com/vortex-l@eskimo.com/msg46322.html

 

http://www.mail-archive.com/vortex-l@eskimo.com/msg52470.html

 

-Mark

 

From: David Roberson [mailto:dlrober...@aol.com] 
Sent: Tuesday, January 31, 2012 10:36 PM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Name that tune

 

Good question Peter.  I have asked a number of questions on the DGT forum in 
the past but they do not answer consistently.  The Vortex has a number of 
excellent members with a great deal of knowledge about many subjects.  A 
question such as the ones that I have presented are much more likely to fall 
upon fertile ground here.

 

Dave



-Original Message-
From: Peter Gluck 
To: vortex-l 
Sent: Wed, Feb 1, 2012 12:19 am
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Name that tune

"The question illuminates, not the answer" (Eugene Ionesco) 

Why you are not asking on the DGT forum?

Peter

On Wed, Feb 1, 2012 at 5:15 AM, David Roberson  wrote:

I have always assumed that the heating elements within the Rossi ECAT are using 
AC.  The frequency of the current is assumed to be 60 or 50 hertz, but I do not 
recall anyone measuring it.  One interesting possibility to consider is that 
the large AC magnetic field associated with this current contained within the 
core might be strong enough to agitate the nickel due to its magnetic 
properties at modest temperatures.  Also, do we know how electrically 
conductive the core materials are?  I wonder if the core net resistive value is 
consistent enough to carry current for heating power?

 

What if the extra spike that we observe in the waveform can be triggered by the 
large magnetic field or current that flows within the core region?

 

A lot of questions and few answers.  Maybe some of them will cause a light to 
shine within one of our collective minds.

 

Dave  



-Original Message-
From: francis 
To: vortex-l 
Sent: Tue, Jan 31, 2012 9:56 pm
Subject: RE: [Vo]:Name that tune

Why does everyone assume the heater elements use DC? A transformer would be the 
easiest way to adjust the voltage or current to larger rms values and would 
explain the isolation transformer. The blue control box then might simply gate 
this AC power through the transformer for longer or shorter durations. This 
wouldn’t be called an RFG but it would have the same effect while 
simultaneously heating the reactor elements.

Fran

 

 

Jones Beene
Tue, 31 Jan 2012 15:09:19 -0800

Mine too, and now ... the real reason for this inquiry - why do you need

one?

 

Coincidentally, as you mentioned in the preceding message, they claim NOT to

use an RFG. 

 

Which technically does not mean they do not have a fair amount of RF noise

in the reactor, does it? It means only that they have no dedicated RF

generator.

 

There are other reasons for having an isolation transformer than to protect

your Variac and other instruments and computers from a source of disruptive

electrical spikes, so it's not a smoking gun - but is there a good reason

not to suspect either a spark gap or glow discharge arrangement inside the

reactor somewhere?

 

After all, if we were talking about resistance heating elements (ala AR)

being your thermal input and your P-in, then an isolation transformer would

not be needed, correct ?

 

 

 

vortex-l@eskimo.com

[Gigi DiMarco]

Dear all,

I succeded in fixing the issue during the night, while sleeping...
>From the point of view of congruence of figures, a term is missing in Eq.
(23), that is the inverse of 4*pi*epsilon-zero (the dielectric constant).
In you put this term, then the figure in Eq.(25) turns out to be exact. a
is the Bohr radius as stated in Eq. (24). I don't know which unit system
the authors are using (maybe atomic units) but since from time to time they
switch to MKSA, I think it would have been savier to clearly state it,
otherwise the poor reader has to figure out a lot of things. Maybe the
"strange" equal sign has a different meaning from what I could imagine.
I've still some concerns about the assumptions, but this is another issue,
I'll keep you informed if I found other discrepancies.
Thank you for your attention

Grazie dell'interesse, Giovanni.


2012/1/31 Gigi DiMarco 

> I've a problem with the W&L theory. I read carefully their published paper
>
>
> http://newenergytimes.com/v2/library/2006/2006Widom-UltraLowMomentumNeutronCatalyzed.pdf
>
> and I found what seems to me to be a major flaw.
> I'm sure I'm totally wrong but I would ask you to check.
> It is only arithmetics, no advanced physics.
>
> My attention was catched by Eq. (25), where an electric field around one
> million of millions V/m appears.
> Too much, I told myself.
> As a comparison the proton induced electrical field at a Bohr distance is
> only about 10 to minus 7 V/m, that is 18 orders of magnitude less.
>
> So I checked the calculations starting from Eq. (23) where the electric
> field is 4 times proton charge divided by 3 times Bohr distance to the
> third power, all multiplied by a term, under square root, that represents
> the proton displacement during its oscillatory motion.
> In Eq. (25) a term equal to the Bohr distance is transported under the
> square root.
> So the term to be evaluated reads:
>
> 4 |e| / 3 a^2
>
> This term provides us with a numerical value equal to  7.63 V/m, that is
> 11 orders of magnitude less than the value appearing in the paper.
>
> That turns out to be a huge problem for the authors, since the threshold
> criteria for electron capture  Eq. (6) and Eq. (27) are no more satisfied
> by a large amount and the ultra low momentum neutron plus neutrino pair can
> not be produced.
>
> Is anybody here that can confirm or disproof my calculations?
>
>
> Best regards
>
> GDM
>
>
>

Re: [Vo]:Name that tune

[Peter Gluck]

You see that they have answered promptly.
Are you contented with the answer?
In my opinion it is not justified and not reasonable to treat these
gentlemen with suspicion and/or hostility, why should they pay for Rossi's
disastruous  PR methods?
Peter

On Wed, Feb 1, 2012 at 8:35 AM, David Roberson  wrote:

> Good question Peter.  I have asked a number of questions on the DGT forum
> in the past but they do not answer consistently.  The Vortex has a number
> of excellent members with a great deal of knowledge about many subjects.  A
> question such as the ones that I have presented are much more likely to
> fall upon fertile ground here.
>
> Dave
>
>
>  -Original Message-
> From: Peter Gluck 
> To: vortex-l 
> Sent: Wed, Feb 1, 2012 12:19 am
> Subject: Re: [Vo]:Name that tune
>
> "The question illuminates, not the answer" (Eugene Ionesco)
> Why you are not asking on the DGT forum?
> Peter
>
> On Wed, Feb 1, 2012 at 5:15 AM, David Roberson  wrote:
>
>> I have always assumed that the heating elements within the Rossi ECAT are
>> using AC.  The frequency of the current is assumed to be 60 or 50 hertz,
>> but I do not recall anyone measuring it.  One interesting possibility to
>> consider is that the large AC magnetic field associated with this current
>> contained within the core might be strong enough to agitate the nickel due
>> to its magnetic properties at modest temperatures.  Also, do we know how
>> electrically conductive the core materials are?  I wonder if the core
>> net resistive value is consistent enough to carry current for heating power?
>>
>> What if the extra spike that we observe in the waveform can be triggered
>> by the large magnetic field or current that flows within the core region?
>>
>> A lot of questions and few answers.  Maybe some of them will cause a
>> light to shine within one of our collective minds.
>>
>> Dave
>>
>>
>>   -Original Message-
>> From: francis 
>> To: vortex-l 
>> Sent: Tue, Jan 31, 2012 9:56 pm
>> Subject: RE: [Vo]:Name that tune
>>
>>  Why does everyone assume the heater elements use DC? A transformer
>> would be the easiest way to adjust the voltage or current to larger rms
>> values and would explain the isolation transformer. The blue control box
>> then might simply gate this AC power through the transformer for longer or
>> shorter durations. This wouldn’t be called an RFG but it would have the
>> same effect while simultaneously heating the reactor elements.
>> Fran
>>
>>
>> *Jones Beene*
>> Tue, 31 Jan 2012 15:09:19 -0800
>> Mine too, and now ... the real reason for this inquiry - why do you need
>> one?
>>
>> Coincidentally, as you mentioned in the preceding message, they claim NOT
>> to
>> use an RFG.
>>
>> Which technically does not mean they do not have a fair amount of RF noise
>> in the reactor, does it? It means only that they have no dedicated RF
>> generator.
>>
>> There are other reasons for having an isolation transformer than to
>> protect
>> your Variac and other instruments and computers from a source of
>> disruptive
>> electrical spikes, so it's not a smoking gun - but is there a good reason
>> not to suspect either a spark gap or glow discharge arrangement inside the
>> reactor somewhere?
>>
>> After all, if we were talking about resistance heating elements (ala AR)
>> being your thermal input and your P-in, then an isolation transformer
>> would
>> not be needed, correct ?
>>
>>
>>
>
>
>
>  --
> Dr. Peter Gluck
> Cluj, Romania
> http://egooutpeters.blogspot.com
>
>


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

RE: [Vo]:DGT Screenshot

[Jojo Jaro]

Peter,  How about this cheap heating element.  Fits inside a 1/4" copper tube 
perfectly.


http://www.ebay.com/itm/350505999493?ru=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.ebay.com%3A80%2Fsch%2Fi.html%3F_from%3DR40%26_trksid%3Dm570.l1313%26_nkw%3D350505999493%26_sacat%3DSee-All-Categories%26_fvi%3D1&_rdc=1



Jojo