[Vo]:Re: [Vo]:Torbjörn Hartman describes power measurments
If anyone cares to read the user manual for the power analyzer, see: https://www1.elfa.se/data1/wwwroot/assets/datasheets/okCA8335_manual_en.pdf -Mark Iverson From: Andrew [mailto:andrew...@att.net] Sent: Sunday, May 26, 2013 10:55 PM To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: [Vo]:Re: [Vo]:RE: [Vo]:Re: [Vo]:Torbjörn Hartman describes power measurments Did you actually check the photos of the current clamps against the PCE catalogue? What a weird thing to say. It's almost as if you had an agenda. - Original Message - From: Jones Beene mailto:jone...@pacbell.net To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Sunday, May 26, 2013 7:53 PM Subject: [Vo]:RE: [Vo]:Re: [Vo]:Torbjörn Hartman describes power measurments From: Duncan Cumming So is it your position that a current clamp without a Hall effect unit can measure DC? Mine is that it cannot. Did you actually check the PCE site? It looks to me like all the current clamps on the PCE power analyzer site measure both AC and DC http://www.industrial-needs.com/technical-data/current-detector-PCE-DC-3.htm
Re: [Vo]:Isotope separation technology can be improved
On Sat, May 25, 2013 at 10:30 AM, Edmund Storms stor...@ix.netcom.comwrote: On May 24, 2013, at 10:38 PM, Harry Veeder wrote: The process you have described has the characteristics of a ratchet. Curiously, Jones used the ratchet metaphor in another post where he characterised the effect of modulating the input on the cell. Yes Harry, this can be called a ratchet. All kinds of ratchets exist in Nature. The challenge is to find the cause. In this case, the nuclei have to communicate before they have fused into a single nuclei. The form of htat communication is unknown, but very important. Once discovered, this will get someone the Nobel prize. Imagine the following sequence. The nuclei are held apart by an electron bond, which is normally the case. Once formed, this structure starts to resonate so that the two nuclei get periodically closer together. As they approach each other, information is exchanged between the nuclei that tells them they have too much mass -energy for being this close. After all, if they were in contact, the excess mass-energy would be 24 MeV if the nuclei were deuterons. But they are not in contact yet, so that the excess mass-energy is less than the maximum. Nevertheless, this excess must be dissipated, which each nuclei does by emitting a photon having 1/2 of the excess energy for the distance achieved. After the photons are emitted, the resonance moves the two nuclei apart, but this time not as far as previously the case. The next resonance cycle again brings the nuclei close, but this time they come closer than before, again with emission of two photons. This cycle repeats until all energy has been dissipated and the two nuclei are in contact. The intervening electron, that was necessary to the process, is sucked into the final nucleus. Because very little energy is released by entry of the electron, the neutrino, if it is emitted at all, has very little energy available to carry away. This process, I suggest, is the unique and previously unknown phenomenon that CF has revealed. Ed, Typically we associate quantization with attractive forces as is the case with an electron and a proton in a hydrogen atom, but your system involves quantization with repulsive forces. If pushing an electron and proton apart can happen in steps through the absorption of photons, I guess it follows that pushing together of protons can happen in steps through the emission of photons. However, in the former situation the pushing apart is the effect but the absorption of the photons is the cause, whereas in the latter situation the pushing together is the cause, and the emission of photons is effector is it? ;-) If it is the cause, then the emission of photons serves to pull the protons together. Harry PS. Wikipedia says the fractional quantum hall effect also involves quantized states of repulsion although they are between electrons rather than protons and deuterons.
Re: [Vo]: Constant temperature Operation of ECAT?
David’s model should be able to make a projection about the reaction time of the positive feedback loop. Even through there are non-linearities involved, the model might be detailed enough to get close enough to the critical point so that a linier approximation could be made. You know, like in calculus when the delta is very small.
Re: [Vo]:Isotope separation technology can be improved
Quantum mechanics governs both attraction and repulsion between charges. Ax far as the maths is concerned, it's just a sign change. If you come at this as an interaction characterised by exchange of quanta, then (via a momentum model) only repulsion makes intuitive sense. But that's OK - QM is nothing if not unintuitive. Andrew - Original Message - From: Harry Veeder To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Sunday, May 26, 2013 11:17 PM Subject: Re: [Vo]:Isotope separation technology can be improved On Sat, May 25, 2013 at 10:30 AM, Edmund Storms stor...@ix.netcom.com wrote: On May 24, 2013, at 10:38 PM, Harry Veeder wrote: The process you have described has the characteristics of a ratchet. Curiously, Jones used the ratchet metaphor in another post where he characterised the effect of modulating the input on the cell. Yes Harry, this can be called a ratchet. All kinds of ratchets exist in Nature. The challenge is to find the cause. In this case, the nuclei have to communicate before they have fused into a single nuclei. The form of htat communication is unknown, but very important. Once discovered, this will get someone the Nobel prize. Imagine the following sequence. The nuclei are held apart by an electron bond, which is normally the case. Once formed, this structure starts to resonate so that the two nuclei get periodically closer together. As they approach each other, information is exchanged between the nuclei that tells them they have too much mass -energy for being this close. After all, if they were in contact, the excess mass-energy would be 24 MeV if the nuclei were deuterons. But they are not in contact yet, so that the excess mass-energy is less than the maximum. Nevertheless, this excess must be dissipated, which each nuclei does by emitting a photon having 1/2 of the excess energy for the distance achieved. After the photons are emitted, the resonance moves the two nuclei apart, but this time not as far as previously the case. The next resonance cycle again brings the nuclei close, but this time they come closer than before, again with emission of two photons. This cycle repeats until all energy has been dissipated and the two nuclei are in contact. The intervening electron, that was necessary to the process, is sucked into the final nucleus. Because very little energy is released by entry of the electron, the neutrino, if it is emitted at all, has very little energy available to carry away. This process, I suggest, is the unique and previously unknown phenomenon that CF has revealed. Ed, Typically we associate quantization with attractive forces as is the case with an electron and a proton in a hydrogen atom, but your system involves quantization with repulsive forces. If pushing an electron and proton apart can happen in steps through the absorption of photons, I guess it follows that pushing together of protons can happen in steps through the emission of photons. However, in the former situation the pushing apart is the effect but the absorption of the photons is the cause, whereas in the latter situation the pushing together is the cause, and the emission of photons is effector is it? ;-) If it is the cause, then the emission of photons serves to pull the protons together. Harry PS. Wikipedia says the fractional quantum hall effect also involves quantized states of repulsion although they are between electrons rather than protons and deuterons.
Re: [Vo]: Constant temperature Operation of ECAT?
I suspect David's model to be mainly descriptive at first order, and that the regulation of it to require nothing more sophisticated than zeroth order. - Original Message - From: Axil Axil To: vortex-l Sent: Sunday, May 26, 2013 11:22 PM Subject: Re: [Vo]: Constant temperature Operation of ECAT? David’s model should be able to make a projection about the reaction time of the positive feedback loop. Even through there are non-linearities involved, the model might be detailed enough to get close enough to the critical point so that a linier approximation could be made. You know, like in calculus when the delta is very small.
Re: [Vo]:Isotope separation technology can be improved
I experience momentum exchange as a push, but also don't think the cause of everything must be explained in terms that are consistent with momentum exchange. However, I am well aware that this has been a dogma of physics for hundreds of years. Harry On Mon, May 27, 2013 at 2:24 AM, Andrew andrew...@att.net wrote: ** Quantum mechanics governs both attraction and repulsion between charges. Ax far as the maths is concerned, it's just a sign change. If you come at this as an interaction characterised by exchange of quanta, then (via a momentum model) only repulsion makes intuitive sense. But that's OK - QM is nothing if not unintuitive. Andrew - Original Message - *From:* Harry Veeder hveeder...@gmail.com *To:* vortex-l@eskimo.com *Sent:* Sunday, May 26, 2013 11:17 PM *Subject:* Re: [Vo]:Isotope separation technology can be improved On Sat, May 25, 2013 at 10:30 AM, Edmund Storms stor...@ix.netcom.comwrote: On May 24, 2013, at 10:38 PM, Harry Veeder wrote: The process you have described has the characteristics of a ratchet. Curiously, Jones used the ratchet metaphor in another post where he characterised the effect of modulating the input on the cell. Yes Harry, this can be called a ratchet. All kinds of ratchets exist in Nature. The challenge is to find the cause. In this case, the nuclei have to communicate before they have fused into a single nuclei. The form of htat communication is unknown, but very important. Once discovered, this will get someone the Nobel prize. Imagine the following sequence. The nuclei are held apart by an electron bond, which is normally the case. Once formed, this structure starts to resonate so that the two nuclei get periodically closer together. As they approach each other, information is exchanged between the nuclei that tells them they have too much mass -energy for being this close. After all, if they were in contact, the excess mass-energy would be 24 MeV if the nuclei were deuterons. But they are not in contact yet, so that the excess mass-energy is less than the maximum. Nevertheless, this excess must be dissipated, which each nuclei does by emitting a photon having 1/2 of the excess energy for the distance achieved. After the photons are emitted, the resonance moves the two nuclei apart, but this time not as far as previously the case. The next resonance cycle again brings the nuclei close, but this time they come closer than before, again with emission of two photons. This cycle repeats until all energy has been dissipated and the two nuclei are in contact. The intervening electron, that was necessary to the process, is sucked into the final nucleus. Because very little energy is released by entry of the electron, the neutrino, if it is emitted at all, has very little energy available to carry away. This process, I suggest, is the unique and previously unknown phenomenon that CF has revealed. Ed, Typically we associate quantization with attractive forces as is the case with an electron and a proton in a hydrogen atom, but your system involves quantization with repulsive forces. If pushing an electron and proton apart can happen in steps through the absorption of photons, I guess it follows that pushing together of protons can happen in steps through the emission of photons. However, in the former situation the pushing apart is the effect but the absorption of the photons is the cause, whereas in the latter situation the pushing together is the cause, and the emission of photons is effector is it? ;-) If it is the cause, then the emission of photons serves to pull the protons together. Harry PS. Wikipedia says the fractional quantum hall effect also involves quantized states of repulsion although they are between electrons rather than protons and deuterons.
[Vo]:BEC transforms photon frequency
This paper verifies that a photon eradiated Bose-Einstein condensate will cut the frequency of incoming photons by dividing that frequency between N numbers of atoms. http://arxiv.org/pdf/1203.1261v1.pdf Rydberg excitation of a Bose-Einstein condensate “The results of theoretical simulations are represented by the continuous lines. According to the super-atom picture the collective Rabi frequency for the coherent excitation of N atoms is frequency (collective) = square root(number of atoms) X frequency(single); Where the single-particle Rabi frequency (single) is app 2 pi x 200 kHz for our experimental parameters.”
RE: [Vo]:Water Window, Hexavalency, Bergius and Rossi
Getting further down that rabbit hole, Jones! I'd just like to comment on this part of your posting. Note that I've capitalized a few words I'd like to emphasize: --- The simulation showed that all of the springs shared the same amount of vibrational energy; and thus almost verified one of the most basic tenets of statistical thermodynamics. However, this is not the end of story, and they quickly found a strong qualification to the rule - local anomalies of EXTREME proportions at low nanometer geometry. When Ulam changed the simulation slightly in a way consistent with chaotic feedback, the rest is history. Surprisingly, even a MINISCULE amount of nonlinearity causes the energy to become HIGHLY localized. A number of the springs go into PERMANENT LARGE amplitude oscillations balanced by the remaining masses becoming vibrationally cold. If this sort of thing is happening in or around the NAE, whatever they turn out to be, then it could very well explain how the Coulomb barrier is overcome... The very first sentence above, The simulation showed that all of the springs shared the same amount of vibrational energy; and thus almost verified one of the most basic tenets of statistical thermodynamics. This is the usual and normal BULK behavior that nearly all of physics and chemistry is based on. When one delves into the nanoscale or other extremes (like single layer carbon (graphene sheets)), it is not unusual to find behaviors which VIOLATE the rules that apply for the bulk. It's similar to making the mistake of applying the laws of plasma fusion to LENR, and claiming that observed behaviors are 'impossible'. THERE ARE LIMITS TO THE APPLICABILITY OF THE RULES. Anyone who insists on applying those rules to the NAE, is potentially missing the true path leading to understanding of what's happening at those dimensions. -Mark _ From: Jones Beene [mailto:jone...@pacbell.net] Sent: Sunday, May 26, 2013 5:54 PM To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: [Vo]:Water Window, Hexavalency, Bergius and Rossi In pursuit of more evidence for the ~300 eV photon - in the sense of it being the active energy transfer particle for the Rossi effect, another curiosity turns up - the water window. This is a favorable scaling region at the border of EUV and x-radiation for near-coherency and transparency. The wavelength is around 4 nm in the spectral region between the Carbon and Oxygen K shell absorption edges. The Rossi effect does not employ planned coherency it would seem, unless AR is cleverer than anyone imagines. However, from the earliest days, Dicke superradiance was thought to be involved in LENR in a causative way, even if inadvertent. Preparata expanded on this - and it was called DPSR or Dicke-Preparata Superradiance. Ahern calls it energy localization. This all goes back to simulations done by Fermi, Pasta and Ulam on one of the first supercomputers at LANL. They simulated a one-dimensional array of masses connected by ideal springs obeying Hooke's Law. They gave the system x-amount of vibrational energy and followed the oscillators over time. The simulation showed that all of the springs shared the same amount of vibrational energy; and thus almost verified one of the most basic tenets of statistical thermodynamics. However, this is NOT the end of story, and they quickly found a strong qualification to the rule - local anomalies of extreme proportions at low nanometer geometry. When Ulam changed the simulation slightly in a way consistent with chaotic feedback, the rest is history. Surprisingly, even a miniscule amount of nonlinearity causes the energy to become highly localized. A number of the springs go into permanent large amplitude oscillations balanced by the remaining masses becoming vibrationally cold Note: there is no violation of CoE per se - at least not until the abnormally large vibrations are able to stimulate another unrelated kind of reaction - such as transient hexavalent ionization (nuclear fusion is possible but far less likely). The water window is a spectrum where the semi-coherency effect is seen, and this turns up in Forster resonance, where all of it ties into hexavalency by way of the Rydberg value of certain transition metals, notably nickel - which have the 300 eV ionization potential at the 6th cumulative IP (which will catalyze hydrogen into a deeply redundant ground state). As a result, no nuclear fusion is required for large thermal gain, only loss of electron angular momentum. As we know, hexavalency is an unusual property in some compounds for unpredictable reasons. In a most bizarre case, hexavalency permits uranium, one of the densest elements (twice the density of lead) to become gaseous. Bizarre. Nickel is not normally hexavalent, but it can become so in the Rossi effect -thus harnessing electron spin for large energy gain. Battelle knows this, and may have scooped the LENR/Rossi/Mills crowd on the patent
RE: [Vo]:Re: [Vo]:Re: [Vo]:Re: [Vo]:Torbjörn Hartman describes power measurments
If you want to sneak DC into a system, you'd never get it passed a clamp meter, if you just use some diodes. You'll need serious decoupling. I say serious, because the load is substantial and will quickly drain the reservoir capacitors. Any ripple on the DC will generate a varying magnetic field, albeit small if your ripple is small, and this variation is what a clamp meter picks up. Anyway... next piece of equipment on the shopping list (for the next test) ought to be http://www.tortech.com.au/category/3-phase-isolation/ Plug everything into an isolation transformer. That should do it. .s
RE: [Vo]:Re: [Vo]:Re: [Vo]:Re: [Vo]:Torbjörn Hartman describes power measurments
or a scope and LOOK at the damn thing : D Anyway... next piece of equipment on the shopping list (for the next test) ought to be http://www.tortech.com.au/category/3-phase-isolation/ Plug everything into an isolation transformer. That should do it. .s
Re: [Vo]:The inanity of the hidden input power hypothesis
The only doubt that was raised recently was from Levi interview that let me fear that Rossi did not let much freedom to the team to test DC... Where the testers allowed to measure DC ? Where they allowed to change the cable ? Where they allowed to use a wattmeter that is put as a in-out plug ? I don't care about what they did, ability is enough ? beside that what was the detail out instruments pluggen on the same socket ? Were the splitter mounted by the testers or by rossi ? I focus more on the freedom to test than on the freedom really used... If fraud can be detected, there is no fraud. 2013/5/27 Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com Some skeptics have proposed highly unlikely scenarios that they imagine might be possible. This is the only reason for this discussion, and it has nothing to do with Rossi or Levi et al. Skeptics will continue to propose ever-more outlandish reasons to reject this until the day the scientific establishment admits it is real. At that moment, the skeptics will claim they believed it all along, and they will modestly take credit for it. - Jed
[Vo]:Re: [Vo]:Re: [Vo]:Re: [Vo]:Re: [Vo]:Torbjörn Hartman describes power measurments
Right, that was a know problems with simple rectification and transformers that get magnetized. however you can clearly see it on the waveform. You see the asymetry of shape. impossible to miss. second point is that mixing two voltage, it will kill or trouble other instruments plugged (peak too high), if not using transformer. Rossi would have to know no classic switch power supply will be plugged. this is why the only question if how far Rossi controlled the installation. This is the only important point about fraud : was there enough freedom for testers to make fraud too risky. 2013/5/27 Duncan Cumming spacedr...@cumming.info Some people find the difference between current and voltage confusing. What I am saying here is that if you connect a resistor in series with a diode to a wall socket, then the CURRENT drawn is direct even though the VOLTAGE at the socket is alternating. (Rossi does not seem to understand this concept judging by his message that got posted today). So unless you use a DC rated current meter (such as a shunt) you will not sense all of the current, and hence power, drawn from the wall socket.
[Vo]:Re: [Vo]:Re: [Vo]:Re: [Vo]:Re: [Vo]:Torbjörn Hartman describes power measurments
by the way, not a bridge but a single wave (one diode) rectification... usual bridge does not cause asymetry, neither double wave. 2013/5/27 David Roberson dlrober...@aol.com Assume that you have a bridge rectifier in the blue box. This is followed by a filtering capacitor. The DC is then used by the electronics connected to the capacitor. Are you saying that it is not possible to determine the power input to this type of network by measuring the input AC voltage and current? Or are you saying that someone has performed a scam and put a DC supply in series with the normal AC voltage?
Re: [Vo]:My evaluation of the Rossi test
On May 26, 2013, at 8:38 PM, mix...@bigpond.com wrote: In reply to Edmund Storms's message of Sat, 25 May 2013 12:14:15 -0600: Hi Ed, [snip] OK Eric, I understand. My confusion resulted because you had Ni in the equation. You are really suggesting H+D = He3 fusion. This was suggested in 1989 and efforts were made to look for the resulting He3 without success. Was anyone looking at Ni+H at this time, or were they all Pd+D experiments? This interest was applied only to PdD. However, if D+H can make He3 at all, the system would not matter. The presence of D and H is the only requirement, other than the conditions required to initiate the reaction. The only time He3 was detected, it resulted from tritium decay. Nevertheless, tritium IS detected, which can only result from H+D fusion with an electron added. I though T was only detected in Pd+D experiments? (Where it is to be expected from the occasional D+D = p + T reaction.) Tritium has been been made when either D2 or H2 were present because in both cases a little of the other isotope is always present. The tritium does not come from the reaction you note. It apparently results from D+H+e fusion, which was proposed as early as 1996 based on the effect of the D/H ratio. My theory is an attempt to show why this happens and apply the mechanism to all isotopes of hydrogen. Ed Storms [snip] Regards, Robin van Spaandonk http://rvanspaa.freehostia.com/project.html
[Vo]:a book, perhaps useful now
I think this book, signaled by the wonderful Cultural Offering can help in dealing with the most stubborn and vocal enemies of our field whose imagination has no limits and no constraints as decency or elementary logic http://culturaloffering.com/2013/05/27/a-history-of-swearing.aspx Peter -- Dr. Peter Gluck Cluj, Romania http://egooutpeters.blogspot.com
Re: [Vo]: Constant temperature Operation of ECAT?
David, I understand the IP problem, but I do not see how a model as you describe can be patented. The problem of control that the nuclear process presents is obvious and trivial. It is the same problem of control present in any positive feed back system. A unique feature would only be present in the model if the LENR process were fully understood and this understanding were included in an unique way. You apparently have not done this, if for no other reason than you do not understand how LENR works. I can easily create a similar model using my theory, but this would be premature. Such a model is only useful when it is applied to an actual design. The design would justify the patent, not the model that lead to the design. To assume otherwise would be like attempting to patent a law of thermodynamics because it was used to find a more efficient way to manufacture a chemical compound. Ed Storms On May 26, 2013, at 10:00 PM, David Roberson wrote: I prefer to keep my model private at this time due to IP associated with the effort involved in developing it. I am happy to answer questions regarding results of model behavior runs to help all of us understand some of the more elusive concepts. Rossi, and everyone else associated with this field keep IP closely guarded. If this secrecy changes, I will do likewise. Don't you think that it would be unfair for some of us to be free with potentially valuable IP, while others hold on to it and patent just about every idea? I wish it were different. Dave -Original Message- From: James Bowery jabow...@gmail.com To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Sun, May 26, 2013 9:42 pm Subject: Re: [Vo]: Constant temperature Operation of ECAT? The Spice file would suffice. What do I plan to do with the information? I don't know. Isn't it standard practice to share one's model when speaking of it in a collegial manner? Do you have a proprietary interest in it? On Sun, May 26, 2013 at 7:14 PM, David Roberson dlrober...@aol.com wrote: Not without a lot of serious thinking. The model is in the form of a spice file with non linear elements. Perhaps this can be done, but I have not attempted it so far. Could you explain what you plan to do with that information if it can be obtained? Dave -Original Message- From: James Bowery jabow...@gmail.com To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Sun, May 26, 2013 8:07 pm Subject: Re: [Vo]: Constant temperature Operation of ECAT? Could you post the differential equations of the control system? On Sun, May 26, 2013 at 6:44 PM, David Roberson dlrober...@aol.com wrote: My model demonstrates that constant temperature operation of the ECAT is not going to work under normal conditions. The relatively high value of COP when temperature control is used depends upon operation in a positive feedback region. This can be thought of as related to the question that always arises about why the device does not supply its own drive and therefore run continuously in SSM. Once the loop gain becomes greater than 1, the device will tend to move in the direction that it is currently heading. This allows it to heat up to a relatively larger temperature than that due to the drive alone. When rising in temperature, the device begins to put out additional heat, more with time. The trick is to turn the process around at a good point before it goes too far. The best turn around temperature is well defined and shows up as a tendency for the device to continue putting out power at a constant rate with time. Unfortunately, this exact point would be impossible to achieve while maintaining control. It is a balance between how long you want the temperature to remain nearly constant and the risk of loosing control. Rossi chose a relatively safe turn around temperature for the last test which caused the COP to drop below his desired value of 6. I suspect he chose this because a COP of 3 well demonstrates that the process is real and also has enough margin to keep the device safe from melt down. I think I would have done the same under the same constraints. Dave
Re: [Vo]:Re: Constant temperature Operation of ECAT?
I suppose that it would be easier in person to discuss this issue, but that is not available. Yes, we are on the same page regarding the positive feedback threshold leading to self destruction. I refer to what you mention as active cooling of the system. We have discussed this in vortex on several occasions in the past. I think that it is a winning idea, but so far I have not detected Rossi putting it into his design. It appears to be a technique that would allow Rossi to force the loop gain back to below unity at an elevated temperature that would normally be beyond recovery with heat input modulation alone. This should result in a downward retreat of his temperature excursion and looks very promising for high power operation. Dave -Original Message- From: Andrew andrew...@att.net To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Mon, May 27, 2013 1:35 am Subject: Re: [Vo]:Re: Constant temperature Operation of ECAT? We are totally at cross-purposes here; if we were in the same room, this crap wouldn't happen. So here's the deal. I'm considering the scenario whereby we operate the heating system to bring the device just past the stable temperature; further heating results in thermal runaway (at least, that's what's claimed for Rossi's device - it actually melted down due to the application of constant heating, but whatever). To keep the thing stable when it wants to apply positive feedback to itself, we need to apply negative feedback. And hence I began to discuss and describe characteristics desirable of an active cooling system. You dig? - Original Message - From: David Roberson To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Sunday, May 26, 2013 5:22 PM Subject: Re: [Vo]:Re: Constant temperature Operation of ECAT? But, we are talking about the ECAT.It operates by using positive feedback to get high gain. You are the one that mentioned a negative feedback system that achieves the same thing.That is not comparable. Stable operation of negative feedback systems is trivial. Think of taking a tunnel diode and keeping it within the negative resistance region without heavy resistive loading. The problem is similar to that which Rossi faces. Dave -Original Message- From: Andrew andrew...@att.net To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Sun, May 26, 2013 8:14 pm Subject: Re: [Vo]:Re: Constant temperature Operation of ECAT? Of course I'm talking exclusively about a negative feedback system!! The positive feedback purportedly occurs internally to the device itself. Andrew - Original Message - From: David Roberson To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Sunday, May 26, 2013 5:09 PM Subject: Re: [Vo]:Re: Constant temperature Operation of ECAT? No, there is a large difference between a negative feedback system and a positive feedback system. Tell us how to make your temperature controller hold a constant temperature with positive feedback and a loop gain of greater than 1. If you do, you might find that it matches my model. Dave -Original Message- From: Andrew andrew...@att.net To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Sun, May 26, 2013 8:05 pm Subject: Re: [Vo]:Re: Constant temperature Operation of ECAT? See my follow-up on this. There's always going to be a tracking error, no matter how sophisticated the regulation algorithm. I think the prime objective here is not to have absolutely constant temperature per se; rather, it's to guarantee that thermal runaway cannot occur. Andrew - Original Message - From: David Roberson To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Sunday, May 26, 2013 5:00 PM Subject: Re: [Vo]:Re: Constant temperature Operation of ECAT? How many of these controllers use positve thermal feedback to keep the sink at a constant temperature? Dave -Original Message- From: Andrew andrew...@att.net To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Sun, May 26, 2013 7:52 pm Subject: [Vo]:Re: Constant temperature Operation of ECAT? Seems to me that if active cooling control is used as the only control input, thus satisfying the unplug it! sceptics (and I'm one of them), then it only has a chance of working if there is good thermal contact and good thermal conductivity and substantial enough heat capacity in the active cooling implementation. I don't know why this is supposed to be hard. Gaming PC's of the high-end variety use this all the time. Prompt temperature feedback to the cooling pump is all that's needed, plus a simple PID controller. This is very well-known
Re: [Vo]: About the March test
A little humor never hurts! The bottom line is that the average power being emitted by the ECAT must be equal to the peak duty cycled drive when the COP is 3 and the duty cycle is 33%. This is by definition. Dave -Original Message- From: Andrew andrew...@att.net To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Mon, May 27, 2013 1:39 am Subject: Re: [Vo]: About the March test You have stopped processing information and now are talking about bullfrogs. When you return from bullfrog land, we might be able to resume a serious dialogue. Until then, have a hoppingly great time. - Original Message - From: David Roberson To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Sunday, May 26, 2013 6:29 PM Subject: Re: [Vo]: About the March test I read that section and found that this is not a problem. The input is applied for 1/3 of the time while the average output is roughly equal to that value. The calculation shows that the COP is therefore approximately 3. This is what they say in the report. The maximum instantaneous peak power output should be greater than the peak input. This is consistent. Operation at low temperatures and therefore COP are limited. I prefer to see them run her at full warp, but control issues make this difficult for long duration tests. Dave -Original Message- From: Andrew andrew...@att.net To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Sun, May 26, 2013 8:20 pm Subject: Re: [Vo]: About the March test p22. Emitted Power E-Cat HT2 = (741.3 + 17 + 58) [W] = (816.3± 2%) [W] = (816±16) [W] (24) Instantaneous Power Consumption E-Cat HT2 = (920 110) [W ]= 810 [W] (25) - Original Message - From: David Roberson To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Sunday, May 26, 2013 5:17 PM Subject: Re: [Vo]: About the March test Where does this statement appear? I suspect that you are misreading. Dave -Original Message- From: Andrew andrew...@att.net To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Sun, May 26, 2013 8:12 pm Subject: Re: [Vo]: About the March test I continue to be worried about the fact that the input and output power are measured equal in the report in the pulse ON state. One would have thought that, if the device truly is generating its own energy, that this should not be the case. Andrew - Original Message - From: Andrew To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Sunday, May 26, 2013 4:23 PM Subject: Re: [Vo]: About the March test Eric, The idea here is that the extras (DC and/or RF) are undetectable to the meter using clamp ammeters (we know this for a fact), and when this extra gets passed on to the control box, it's able to pass them on to the device, perhaps with some customisation. The device, being chiefly ohmic, will dissipate DC and will likely also dissipate RF. So no customisation by the control box of the extras is in principle necessary - the power simply gets passed along to the device, which consumes it and generates heat as a result. Now, as I've described, the shenanigans chiefly occur during the pulse OFF state, so there will have to be some customisation in the control box. The idea here is to dissipate the extras during pulse ON and pass them along during pulse OFF. The mains doesn't know about the pulse schedule, so cannot itself switch the extras in or out (actually, a Byzantine arrangement could be made to work in this way, but I'm not going that far out). Since no type of electronics control circuitry could survive colocated with the device, the implication is that the control box has to dissipate significant power continuously. That raises a question about the control box temperature. Since it's a sealed unit, and we're talking a couple hundred watts at least, it would have to get bloody hot. There's another data point we don't have. But you'd think they would have mentioned it. I'm talking myself out of this, aren't I? :) Andrew - Original Message - From: Eric Walker To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Sunday, May 26, 2013 4:00 PM Subject: Re: [Vo]: About the March test On Sun, May 26, 2013 at 3:45 PM, Andrew andrew...@att.net wrote: B) seems unlikely because it would require batteries, and Hartman states that it was much lighter than that. Battery technology does not exist that
Re: [Vo]:The inanity of the hidden input power hypothesis
Hi, On 26-5-2013 5:55, Duncan Cumming wrote: Now for the argument that Rossi runs the risk that somebody will try a type B meter (DC capable), or, for that matter, a simple oscilloscope. He simply does not permit such things. He claims not to allow an oscilloscope because it would reveal a proprietary waveform. By keeping tight control over the test conditions, he is able to ensure that his questionable power measurements are not exposed. By not allowing inspection of the heater controller, he keeps the diode (or asymmetrical firing of the Triacs) from public view. Rossi behaves as if a mundane heater control is super-secret technology - does nobody else find this strange? I can hardly believe that when you connect a scope to the same wall plug as to which the input for the E-cat is connected that Andrea will not allow this. If my assumption is right that: a: the proprietary waveform is of a much higher frequency/waveform then the AC from the wall plug, b: Andrea might be afraid for feedback signals coming from the E-cat control box back into the grid, then a low-pass filter (up to ~ 50 Hz) between the wall plug and the E-cat control box should be sufficient for: a: the scope not being able to detect the proprietary waveform generated in the control box and fed back to the grid, b: at the same time still be able to detect any possible strange waveforms trying to being inserted through the wall plug into the control box of the E-cat, c: and also preventing any strange waveforms to be passing through the low-pass filter into the control box of the E-cat :-) . B.t.w. if Andrea is afraid of the proprietary waveform generated in the control box and fed back to the grid from happening he should redesign his control box and include the low-pass filter as a part of the internal circuitry. Kind regards, Rob
Re: [Vo]:Isotope separation technology can be improved
On May 27, 2013, at 12:17 AM, Harry Veeder wrote: On Sat, May 25, 2013 at 10:30 AM, Edmund Storms stor...@ix.netcom.com wrote: On May 24, 2013, at 10:38 PM, Harry Veeder wrote: The process you have described has the characteristics of a ratchet. Curiously, Jones used the ratchet metaphor in another post where he characterised the effect of modulating the input on the cell. Yes Harry, this can be called a ratchet. All kinds of ratchets exist in Nature. The challenge is to find the cause. In this case, the nuclei have to communicate before they have fused into a single nuclei. The form of htat communication is unknown, but very important. Once discovered, this will get someone the Nobel prize. Imagine the following sequence. The nuclei are held apart by an electron bond, which is normally the case. Once formed, this structure starts to resonate so that the two nuclei get periodically closer together. As they approach each other, information is exchanged between the nuclei that tells them they have too much mass -energy for being this close. After all, if they were in contact, the excess mass-energy would be 24 MeV if the nuclei were deuterons. But they are not in contact yet, so that the excess mass-energy is less than the maximum. Nevertheless, this excess must be dissipated, which each nuclei does by emitting a photon having 1/2 of the excess energy for the distance achieved. After the photons are emitted, the resonance moves the two nuclei apart, but this time not as far as previously the case. The next resonance cycle again brings the nuclei close, but this time they come closer than before, again with emission of two photons. This cycle repeats until all energy has been dissipated and the two nuclei are in contact. The intervening electron, that was necessary to the process, is sucked into the final nucleus. Because very little energy is released by entry of the electron, the neutrino, if it is emitted at all, has very little energy available to carry away. This process, I suggest, is the unique and previously unknown phenomenon that CF has revealed. Ed, Typically we associate quantization with attractive forces as is the case with an electron and a proton in a hydrogen atom, but your system involves quantization with repulsive forces. Like charges repel and unlike charges attract. Quantization is always a balance between attraction and repulsion. Consequently, I do not understand your point. Resonance occurs when an object can alternate between between attraction and repulsion. This combination results in forces that can move an object between these two extremes as long as energy is supplied. If pushing an electron and proton apart can happen in steps through the absorption of photons, I guess it follows that pushing together of protons can happen in steps through the emission of photons. Your description is not correct. Photon emission only occurs when the electron RETURNS to its original energy level. I'm not suggesting the electron has an role in emitting a photon. I'm proposing that a photon is emitted FROM THE NUCLEUS when two nuclei get too close to each other. Nuclei can not normally get this close. Consequently, the process is not normally possible. The conditions in the NAE make this possible. However, in the former situation the pushing apart is the effect but the absorption of the photons is the cause, whereas in the latter situation the pushing together is the cause, and the emission of photons is effector is it? ;-) The protons try to get close, but this is not possible because of the Coulomb barrier. Nevertheless, at a critical distance, they discover that if they gave off a little energy they could get closer. This is like an explosive suddenly discovering that if it rearranged the atoms, it could give off energy. In the case of the protons, the resonance process intervenes and stops the energy release before it can be complete. As a result, only a photon having low energy can be released. But then resonance again brings the two protons close and another photon is emitted from each proton. This process repeats until all energy is removed and the final nucleus is formed. Ed Storms If it is the cause, then the emission of photons serves to pull the protons together. Harry PS. Wikipedia says the fractional quantum hall effect also involves quantized states of repulsion although they are between electrons rather than protons and deuterons.
Re: [Vo]:Re: [Vo]:Re: [Vo]:Re: [Vo]:Re: [Vo]:Torbjörn Hartman describes power measurments
Do you think that Rossi would be stupid enough to have DC voltage at the power socket pins which would be so easy to check? The testers could have looked at this at any time and his gig would have been up. This is not reasonable to assume as he was not around to prevent this from happening. Dave -Original Message- From: Andrew andrew...@att.net To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Mon, May 27, 2013 1:57 am Subject: [Vo]:Re: [Vo]:Re: [Vo]:Re: [Vo]:Re: [Vo]:Torbjörn Hartman describes power measurments By direct admission of the team, posted here, it did not occur to them to check for a DC level change. - Original Message - From: David Roberson To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Sunday, May 26, 2013 8:46 PM Subject: Re: [Vo]:Re: [Vo]:Re: [Vo]:Re: [Vo]:Torbjörn Hartman describes power measurments Robin, The problem at hand is that the skeptic claims that power due to the DC current can be very large and not detected. There has been no discussion of the AC current reading being affected by the DC so far.That is a different issue entirely. I would like for them to answer the questions because then they might realize that their position is invalid. I can explain this if required. No one is suggesting that Rossi actually has a DC power supply hidden within the wall I hope. This would be beyond reality since it would be so easy to measure with a voltmeter or any monitor that looks at the voltage. The testers did a visual look at the voltage from what I have determined. So, skeptics, what say you? Dave -Original Message- From: mixent mix...@bigpond.com To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Sun, May 26, 2013 11:08 pm Subject: Re: [Vo]:Re: [Vo]:Re: [Vo]:Re: [Vo]:Torbjörn Hartman describes power measurments In reply to David Roberson's message of Sun, 26 May 2013 22:35:09 -0400 (EDT): Hi, This is a little different. A full bridge rectifier will allow for both halves of the AC current to pass, and so it should be measured as little different to a purely resistive load. However a single diode will only allow one half to pass, which *may* mess up magnetic field based current measurements. (I guess whether if does or not depends on the sophistication of the device.) Assume that you have a bridge rectifier in the blue box. This is followed by a filtering capacitor. The DC is then used by the electronics connected to the capacitor. Are you saying that it is not possible to determine the power input to this type of network by measuring the input AC voltage and current? Or are you saying that someone has performed a scam and put a DC supply in series with the normal AC voltage? You do know that this could easily be measured by a simple DC voltmeter, right? Dave [snip] Regards, Robin van Spaandonk http://rvanspaa.freehostia.com/project.html
Re: [Vo]:The inanity of the hidden input power hypothesis
Hi, On 26-5-2013 12:28, Andrew wrote: A fuse blows when a certain *current* passes through it. P = V I cos (theta); *power is voltage x current x power factor*. Thus you can supply high power at low current if you use high voltage, which is how a thin wire can be used to sneak in high power. Jed made the same mistake as you, thinking that you need high current to get high power; it's not necessarily the case. Incidentally, I've known all this kind of stuff since age 9, when I began building radios. Correct, but you are forgetting an important thing. The generally used cables are rated and tested for maximum voltages and cannot be used for much higher voltages (kV) due to safety reasons. If you would want to do this you would need special cables which can be used for high breakdown voltages! Kind regards, Rob
Re: [Vo]:The inanity of the hidden input power hypothesis
b: Andrea might be afraid for feedback signals coming from the E-cat control box back into the grid, Exactly my thoughts. The trouble is even with a low-pass filter I think you might see the waveform of the control on the scope if it is RF. I've certainly seen this with HFAC without the scope even being connected. Rossi would probably have to do an NDA to allow a scope when the control is operating depending on what the control is actually doing. Best regards, Jack
Re: [Vo]:Re: [Vo]:Re: [Vo]:Re: [Vo]:Re: [Vo]:Torbjörn Hartman describes power measurments
The concept mentioned below by Duncan is not correct. The DC current that flows into the resistor from the wall socket finds a short circuit to ground in the power transformer center tap in most cases. All of the power being delivered into the resistor from the wall socket can be determined by taking the AC voltage which is a sine wave and multiplying it by the fundamental frequency of the AC current(also a sine wave). This must be adjusted by multiplication by the cosine of the phase angle between the supply voltage and fundamental current. There can be no power associated with this imaginary DC source since its drive value is 0. This is difficult to understand and has lead to a lot of confusion about the power input. Harmonic currents can not deliver power from the line source either. This is also confusing. This fact leads to interesting measurements such as that the pf can be .5 in the case at hand. Harmonic currents due to distortion show up in the RMS reading of the power meter since they are real. They can be significant if a rectifier or phase modulation triac control is used but they do not contribute to power being delivered from the mains. I hope this clears up some of the confusion that has been rampart. Dave -Original Message- From: Alain Sepeda alain.sep...@gmail.com To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Mon, May 27, 2013 8:25 am Subject: [Vo]:Re: [Vo]:Re: [Vo]:Re: [Vo]:Re: [Vo]:Torbjörn Hartman describes power measurments Right, that was a know problems with simple rectification and transformers that get magnetized. however you can clearly see it on the waveform. You see the asymetry of shape. impossible to miss. second point is that mixing two voltage, it will kill or trouble other instruments plugged (peak too high), if not using transformer. Rossi would have to know no classic switch power supply will be plugged. this is why the only question if how far Rossi controlled the installation. This is the only important point about fraud : was there enough freedom for testers to make fraud too risky. 2013/5/27 Duncan Cumming spacedr...@cumming.info Some people find the difference between current and voltage confusing. What I am saying here is that if you connect a resistor in series with a diode to a wall socket, then the CURRENT drawn is direct even though the VOLTAGE at the socket is alternating. (Rossi does not seem to understand this concept judging by his message that got posted today). So unless you use a DC rated current meter (such as a shunt) you will not sense all of the current, and hence power, drawn from the wall socket.
Re: [Vo]:The inanity of the hidden input power hypothesis
Andrew andrew...@att.net wrote: They therefore have access to that place electronically. So in principle, they could have attached a spectrum analyser and a scope. But they didn't, because it wasn't allowed in pulsed mode; they were only allowed to do it in manual mode. They were allowed to do anything they wanted. - Jed
RE: [Vo]:The inanity of the hidden input power hypothesis
Whoa. Someone is building a mountain out of a molehill here - and for what purpose? To show that a that cheating could have been accomplished - as an exercise in remote possibilities or magic tricks? ... or is it to express frustration that the poster does not understand the experiment? Rossi did not want an oscilloscope present - period. This has nothing to do with its placement. Of course there would be little apparent harm to connect a scope to the same wall plug to which the power input for the E-cat is connected, but if a scope is present anywhere, then it can be used to inadvertently expose a trade secret. Thus - no scope permitted, only power analyzers. To go further than what an o'scope could tell us that a power analyzer could not exposes bias. Not that bias needs exposing, since this entire thread is surely the pinnacle of lame bickering over nothing of importance. Never did Rossi say that DC capable clamps would not be allowed. In fact he would have expected that DC capable clamps could have been used - had he taken the time to reflect on the issue. To think that any scammer risks exposure by rewiring the lab is absurd - since the independent testers were permitted to have a DC capable clamp or power analyzers that could have measured DC, even if this one did not. This whole collection of dozens of needless postings is itself the pathetic invention of frustrated skeptics who think that Rossi must be cheating - but cannot prove it ... so they are grasping at straws. If Rossi had altered the wiring with DC or RF, it could have been discovered with a permitted instrument, over which AR had no control. Moreover, if Rossi cheated in this way, it could have physically injured the participants (given that skeptics are looking for an extra kilowatt or more of input). Does he risk that? No way! To say that he does risk it - exposes the silliness of this stance, since there is no real motive. If there is a mistake in measurement, it is most likely on the output side, not the input. In short: Get over it! There is NO MODIFICATION OF THE LAB WIRING. Move on to something has a minimum level of credulity! Jones -Original Message- From: Rob Dingemans Hi, Duncan Cumming wrote: Now for the argument that Rossi runs the risk that somebody will try a type B meter (DC capable), or, for that matter, a simple oscilloscope. He simply does not permit such things. He claims not to allow an oscilloscope because it would reveal a proprietary waveform. By keeping tight control over the test conditions, he is able to ensure that his questionable power measurements are not exposed. By not allowing inspection of the heater controller, he keeps the diode (or asymmetrical firing of the Triacs) from public view. Rossi behaves as if a mundane heater control is super-secret technology - does nobody else find this strange? I can hardly believe that when you connect a scope to the same wall plug as to which the input for the E-cat is connected that Andrea will not allow this. If my assumption is right that: a: the proprietary waveform is of a much higher frequency/waveform then the AC from the wall plug, b: Andrea might be afraid for feedback signals coming from the E-cat control box back into the grid, then a low-pass filter (up to ~ 50 Hz) between the wall plug and the E-cat control box should be sufficient for: a: the scope not being able to detect the proprietary waveform generated in the control box and fed back to the grid, b: at the same time still be able to detect any possible strange waveforms trying to being inserted through the wall plug into the control box of the E-cat, c: and also preventing any strange waveforms to be passing through the low-pass filter into the control box of the E-cat :-) . B.t.w. if Andrea is afraid of the proprietary waveform generated in the control box and fed back to the grid from happening he should redesign his control box and include the low-pass filter as a part of the internal circuitry. Kind regards, Rob
Re: [Vo]:The inanity of the hidden input power hypothesis
Sounds like an excellent idea Bob. A hitch might develop if the testers bring the LPF along with them and attempt to power down the ECAT to insert it. It does seem ludicrous for anyone to suggest that Rossi would not allow the scientists to view the waveform at the power socket. If this happened, please let us hear from the testers for confirmation. Anyone with an ounce of integrity would immediately quit the test and file a negative report had they attempted to make this measurement and been turned away. Dave -Original Message- From: Rob Dingemans manonbrid...@aim.com To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Mon, May 27, 2013 10:05 am Subject: Re: [Vo]:The inanity of the hidden input power hypothesis Hi, On 26-5-2013 5:55, Duncan Cumming wrote: Now for the argument that Rossi runs the risk that somebody will try a type B meter (DC capable), or, for that matter, a simple oscilloscope. He simply does not permit such things. He claims not to allow an oscilloscope because it would reveal a proprietary waveform. By keeping tight control over the test conditions, he is able to ensure that his questionable power measurements are not exposed. By not allowing inspection of the heater controller, he keeps the diode (or asymmetrical firing of the Triacs) from public view. Rossi behaves as if a mundane heater control is super-secret technology - does nobody else find this strange? I can hardly believe that when you connect a scope to the same wall plug as to which the input for the E-cat is connected that Andrea will not allow this. If my assumption is right that: a: the proprietary waveform is of a much higher frequency/waveform then the AC from the wall plug, b: Andrea might be afraid for feedback signals coming from the E-cat control box back into the grid, then a low-pass filter (up to ~ 50 Hz) between the wall plug and the E-cat control box should be sufficient for: a: the scope not being able to detect the proprietary waveform generated in the control box and fed back to the grid, b: at the same time still be able to detect any possible strange waveforms trying to being inserted through the wall plug into the control box of the E-cat, c: and also preventing any strange waveforms to be passing through the low-pass filter into the control box of the E-cat :-) . B.t.w. if Andrea is afraid of the proprietary waveform generated in the control box and fed back to the grid from happening he should redesign his control box and include the low-pass filter as a part of the internal circuitry. Kind regards, Rob
Re: [Vo]:The inanity of the hidden input power hypothesis
Jones Beene jone...@pacbell.net wrote: Rossi did not want an oscilloscope present - period. Where did you hear this? The people testing the system said that he put no restrictions on the instruments they used. He only said they had to measure the power on the outside of the power supply. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:Isotope separation technology can be improved
Ed, do you consider the emission of photons as a result of interaction of the protons due to the coulomb force between them or the strong force? It seems that the initial distances are much to far apart to involve interaction by strong force. Dave -Original Message- From: Edmund Storms stor...@ix.netcom.com To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Cc: Edmund Storms stor...@ix.netcom.com Sent: Mon, May 27, 2013 10:11 am Subject: Re: [Vo]:Isotope separation technology can be improved On May 27, 2013, at 12:17 AM, Harry Veeder wrote: On Sat, May 25, 2013 at 10:30 AM, Edmund Storms stor...@ix.netcom.com wrote: On May 24, 2013, at 10:38 PM, Harry Veeder wrote: The process you have described has the characteristics of a ratchet. Curiously, Jones used the ratchet metaphor in another post where he characterised the effect of modulating the input on the cell. Yes Harry, this can be called a ratchet. All kinds of ratchets exist in Nature. The challenge is to find the cause. In this case, the nuclei have to communicate before they have fused into a single nuclei. The form of htat communication is unknown, but very important. Once discovered, this will get someone the Nobel prize. Imagine the following sequence. The nuclei are held apart by an electron bond, which is normally the case. Once formed, this structure starts to resonate so that the two nuclei get periodically closer together. As they approach each other, information is exchanged between the nuclei that tells them they have too much mass -energy for being this close. After all, if they were in contact, the excess mass-energy would be 24 MeV if the nuclei were deuterons. But they are not in contact yet, so that the excess mass-energy is less than the maximum. Nevertheless, this excess must be dissipated, which each nuclei does by emitting a photon having 1/2 of the excess energy for the distance achieved. After the photons are emitted, the resonance moves the two nuclei apart, but this time not as far as previously the case. The next resonance cycle again brings the nuclei close, but this time they come closer than before, again with emission of two photons. This cycle repeats until all energy has been dissipated and the two nuclei are in contact. The intervening electron, that was necessary to the process, is sucked into the final nucleus. Because very little energy is released by entry of the electron, the neutrino, if it is emitted at all, has very little energy available to carry away. This process, I suggest, is the unique and previously unknown phenomenon that CF has revealed. Ed, Typically we associate quantization with attractive forces as is the case with an electron and a proton in a hydrogen atom, but your system involves quantization with repulsive forces. Like charges repel and unlike charges attract. Quantization is always a balance between attraction and repulsion. Consequently, I do not understand your point. Resonance occurs when an object can alternate between between attraction and repulsion. This combination results in forces that can move an object between these two extremes as long as energy is supplied. If pushing an electron and proton apart can happen in steps through the absorption of photons, I guess it follows that pushing together of protons can happen in steps through the emission of photons. Your description is not correct. Photon emission only occurs when the electron RETURNS to its original energy level. I'm not suggesting the electron has an role in emitting a photon. I'm proposing that a photon is emitted FROM THE NUCLEUS when two nuclei get too close to each other. Nuclei can not normally get this close. Consequently, the process is not normally possible. The conditions in the NAE make this possible. However, in the former situation the pushing apart is the effect but the absorption of the photons is the cause, whereas in the latter situation the pushing together is the cause, and the emission of photons is effector is it? ;-) The protons try to get close, but this is not possible because of the Coulomb barrier. Nevertheless, at a critical distance, they discover that if they gave off a little energy they could get closer. This is like an explosive suddenly discovering that if it rearranged the atoms, it could give off energy. In the case of the protons, the resonance process intervenes and stops the energy release before it can be complete. As a result, only a photon having low energy can be released. But then resonance again brings the two protons close and another photon is emitted from each proton. This process repeats until all energy is removed and the final nucleus is formed. Ed Storms If it is the cause, then the emission of photons serves to pull the protons together. Harry PS. Wikipedia says the fractional quantum hall effect also involves quantized states
Re: [Vo]: About the March test
I agree with that! First MIT attempt at Rossi Reactor: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gBy01pgJrEofeature=youtube_gdata_player On Monday, May 27, 2013, David Roberson wrote: A little humor never hurts! The bottom line is that the average power being emitted by the ECAT must be equal to the peak duty cycled drive when the COP is 3 and the duty cycle is 33%. This is by definition. Dave --
Re: [Vo]: Constant temperature Operation of ECAT?
I have no idea how nano-particles might be associated with the Rossi device. I do however think that any final product that he produces must have a panic button of some sort when the process gets out of control. Perhaps your idea might constitute a safety process. Dave -Original Message- From: Axil Axil janap...@gmail.com To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Mon, May 27, 2013 1:41 am Subject: Re: [Vo]: Constant temperature Operation of ECAT? Assuming that the Rossi reaction is based on nano-particles, say of hydrogen and potassium, it may be possible to disrupt these clusters electrically. This will reduce the vigor of the reaction. But in a short time the hydrogen and potassium nano-clusters will build again, requiring that they be continually disrupted in a cycle. As long as the cluster disruption circuit is working, the reactor will not overheat. I the circuit fails, another mechanism to stop the reactor must be used such a blowing off the hydrogen. The cluster disruption circuit would allow the reactor to walk the knife’s edge of stability at a very high temperature. I wanted to get your expert opinion on this idea.
[Vo]:Enough with the conspiracy theories!!! / Watt meters
Andrew andrew...@att.net wrote: ** By direct admission of the team, posted here, *it did not occur to them to check* for a DC level change. Okay, so they will do it next time, or the time after that. If Rossi is doing anything like this, it is inevitable that he will be caught. Sooner or later someone will use a conventional commercial watt meter. These devices are miniature calorimeters, in one mode. (They have 3 modes, as I recall, and they use all three.) They put a small resistor across the circuit and measure the temperature of it. Power is a function of temperature. There is no way you can sneak power past this, with any waveform, AC or DC. Andrew also wrote, in response to this: 7. Will you test the power supplied to the device with oscilloscope during the next test? This is a question for Prof. G. Levi who provides the instrumentation.Oops, what a giveaway. I assume this means that Andrew is convinced that Levi is part of a conspiracy, so this is a giveaway. Okay, let me repeat what I said, modified: The next time, or the time after that , someone will use an instrument that detects this trick. If Rossi and Levi are doing anything like this, they will inevitably be caught. They know that. There is no point to fooling people with a method that will be exposed as sure as night follows day. Andrew should address this fact. He should stop repeating this tiresome nonsense. Andrew wrote: Thus you can supply high power at low current if you use high voltage, which is how a thin wire can be used to sneak in high power. Jed made the same mistake as you, thinking that you need high current to get high power . . . No, I did not forget that. I am aware that power is I*V. However these is a limit to how much power you can conduct with any wire. You cannot conduct enough to melt a steel cylinder with an ordinary wire. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:Isotope separation technology can be improved
Dave, the interaction is unique and not related to the strong force as normally defined. Some additional kind of interaction is revealed by the phenomenon. Or perhaps the strong force is poorly understood. In any case, the two protons know that they have too much mass-energy for the distance. If the distance is reduced too quickly, as during hot fusion, all the energy either comes out as a single intense gamma or the resulting nucleus fragments. CF allows the process to occur slowly enough for the details to be seen. The structure creates a condition in which the proton can oscillate along the chain created by the linear molecule. This oscillation is fueled by the temperature in the NAE region, which is much greater than the bulk temperature, and by attraction when the protons are far apart and repulsion when they get too close. The only thing making this structure unique is the ability of the protons to get closer than any other way, but for only a brief time. In contrast, the muon allows this close distance, but once the distance is reduced, the loss of energy is immediately total, causing hot fusion. In this case, the process is not stopped and goes to completion as expected. In the case of the Hydroton, the resonance moves the proton close only for a brief time, which allows only a short burst of energy release. The resonance cycle then moves the proton too far away to cause energy release. The next cycle brings the two protons close again. I would attach a picture but Vortex does not like attachments. This process allows only a short time for the energy to be released as a proton (gamma), with a repeated release created by the resonance, thereby creating the observed behavior. Ed Storms On May 27, 2013, at 9:07 AM, David Roberson wrote: Ed, do you consider the emission of photons as a result of interaction of the protons due to the coulomb force between them or the strong force? It seems that the initial distances are much to far apart to involve interaction by strong force. Dave -Original Message- From: Edmund Storms stor...@ix.netcom.com To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Cc: Edmund Storms stor...@ix.netcom.com Sent: Mon, May 27, 2013 10:11 am Subject: Re: [Vo]:Isotope separation technology can be improved On May 27, 2013, at 12:17 AM, Harry Veeder wrote: On Sat, May 25, 2013 at 10:30 AM, Edmund Storms stor...@ix.netcom.com wrote: On May 24, 2013, at 10:38 PM, Harry Veeder wrote: The process you have described has the characteristics of a ratchet. Curiously, Jones used the ratchet metaphor in another post where he characterised the effect of modulating the input on the cell. Yes Harry, this can be called a ratchet. All kinds of ratchets exist in Nature. The challenge is to find the cause. In this case, the nuclei have to communicate before they have fused into a single nuclei. The form of htat communication is unknown, but very important. Once discovered, this will get someone the Nobel prize. Imagine the following sequence. The nuclei are held apart by an electron bond, which is normally the case. Once formed, this structure starts to resonate so that the two nuclei get periodically closer together. As they approach each other, information is exchanged between the nuclei that tells them they have too much mass -energy for being this close. After all, if they were in contact, the excess mass-energy would be 24 MeV if the nuclei were deuterons. But they are not in contact yet, so that the excess mass-energy is less than the maximum. Nevertheless, this excess must be dissipated, which each nuclei does by emitting a photon having 1/2 of the excess energy for the distance achieved. After the photons are emitted, the resonance moves the two nuclei apart, but this time not as far as previously the case. The next resonance cycle again brings the nuclei close, but this time they come closer than before, again with emission of two photons. This cycle repeats until all energy has been dissipated and the two nuclei are in contact. The intervening electron, that was necessary to the process, is sucked into the final nucleus. Because very little energy is released by entry of the electron, the neutrino, if it is emitted at all, has very little energy available to carry away. This process, I suggest, is the unique and previously unknown phenomenon that CF has revealed. Ed, Typically we associate quantization with attractive forces as is the case with an electron and a proton in a hydrogen atom, but your system involves quantization with repulsive forces. Like charges repel and unlike charges attract. Quantization is always a balance between attraction and repulsion. Consequently, I do not understand your point. Resonance occurs when an object can alternate between between attraction and repulsion. This combination results in forces that can
Re: [Vo]:The inanity of the hidden input power hypothesis
Hi, On 27-5-2013 17:01, Jones Beene wrote: Whoa. Someone is building a mountain out of a molehill here - and for what purpose? To show that a that cheating could have been accomplished - as an exercise in remote possibilities or magic tricks? ... or is it to express frustration that the poster does not understand the experiment? Just to clarify things, I don't believe that Andrea is performing any tricks at all. From the events I've been following the last two years I'm sincerely convinced that what he has detected/invented is for real. My remarks are only an attempt to point out the flaws in the theories of other people who seem possibly to believe that Andrea is performing any tricks. Similar story with the high voltage low amp suggestion, which should in my opinion for safety reasons resulting in a possible fire hazard completely be discarded. Kind regards, Rob
Re: [Vo]:Enough with the conspiracy theories!!! / Watt meters
On 27-5-2013 17:26, Jed Rothwell wrote: Andrew wrote: Thus you can supply high power at low current if you use high voltage, which is how a thin wire can be used to sneak in high power. Jed made the same mistake as you, thinking that you need high current to get high power . . . No, I did not forget that. I am aware that power is I*V. However these is a limit to how much power you can conduct with any wire. You cannot conduct enough to melt a steel cylinder with an ordinary wire. Exactly my point, which should in my opinion for safety reasons resulting in a possible fire hazard due to the breakdown voltage completely be discarded. The generally used cables are rated and tested for maximum voltages and cannot be used for much higher voltages (kV) due to safety reasons. If you are using these cables for kVs you are willing creating a huge safety hazard. Kind regards, Rob
Re: [Vo]:BEC transforms photon frequency
Then is that an explanation of why Gamma rays are not observed in LENR? If 2 of the atoms inside a multi-atom BEC fuse together, the incoming radiation (to the rest of the BEC) gets subdivided based upon how many atoms have formed the BEC. Right? On Mon, May 27, 2013 at 12:49 AM, Axil Axil janap...@gmail.com wrote: This paper verifies that a photon eradiated Bose-Einstein condensate will cut the frequency of incoming photons by dividing that frequency between N numbers of atoms. http://arxiv.org/pdf/1203.1261v1.pdf Rydberg excitation of a Bose-Einstein condensate “The results of theoretical simulations are represented by the continuous lines. According to the super-atom picture the collective Rabi frequency for the coherent excitation of N atoms is frequency (collective) = square root(number of atoms) X frequency(single); Where the single-particle Rabi frequency (single) is app 2 pi x 200 kHz for our experimental parameters.”
Re: [Vo]:The inanity of the hidden input power hypothesis
On Mon, May 27, 2013 at 7:05 AM, Rob Dingemans manonbrid...@aim.com wrote: If my assumption is right that: a: the proprietary waveform is of a much higher frequency/waveform then the AC from the wall plug, I get the impression the proprietary waveform might not be all that fancy, and that it is at a very low frequency -- on the order of seconds. See Plot 8 in the paper; this might be the waveform. (Note that the x axis is in seconds.) Eric
[Vo]:Manual for PCE-DC 3 Current detector
See: Manual, PCE-DC 3 Current detector http://www.industrial-needs.com/manual/manual-clamp-meter-pce-cd3.pdf Current sensor: Hall effect sensor type You have to select AC or DC. I doubt it does both simultaneously. Although if someone managed to run both, I do not see why the voltmeter would not catch this. I am certain that an expensive industrial watt meter will catch this or any other waveform. That's what a watt meter is for: catching errors and problems with electricity, to prevent equipment damage, fires and electrocution. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:The inanity of the hidden input power hypothesis
I wrote: I get the impression the proprietary waveform might not be all that fancy, and that it is at a very low frequency -- on the order of seconds. See Plot 8 in the paper; this might be the waveform. (Note that the x axis is in seconds.) On second thought, that might just be the duty cycle. ;) It's good to learn new things -- electricity, for one. Eric
RE: [Vo]:Water Window, Hexavalency, Bergius and Rossi
Mark, Yes - the energy localization aspect of Ahern/Dicke/Preparata and the superradiance modality could apply to any secondary reaction which benefits from local mechanical pressure at the nm geometry. However, the NAE implies a nuclear reaction, which may not be necessary. The absence of gamma radiation presents the prima facie case that no traditional nuclear reaction takes place. The is no good reason to propose a known nuclear reaction, if good alternatives exist, which is the case. Ahern and others, including Mitchell Swartz seem to be leaning towards an explanation where thermal gain is QM-based and mediated by spin dynamics - which involves the magnon. The source for energy mediated by magnons can itself be nuclear or non-nuclear. This is where semantics enters the picture - but one is on firmer theoretical ground using QM magnons as an operative modality - rather than LENR cold fusion. The magnon is a Goldstone boson (wiki has an entry) and can turn up in both magnetic anomalies and nuclear anomalies. It is spin based. The magnon can be said to be the quantum of spin. Actually subnuclear is the preferred semantics for the ultimate energy source for magnons since pions are themselves pseudo-Goldstone bosons, at a minimum and there are no other nuclear indicia. When the nucleus is involved via a magnon modality, mass will be converted into energy in smaller packets, and without a change in the identity of the nucleon. That is the key semantic difference between subnuclear and nuclear. Thus, we can propose using the term subnuclear energy to describe magnon mediated conversion, instead of nuclear energy since the later almost always implies an identity change in the nucleus (and larger packets of energy). _ From: MarkI-ZeroPoint If this sort of thing is happening in or around the NAE, whatever they turn out to be, then it could very well explain how the Coulomb barrier is overcome... _ From: Jones Beene In pursuit of more evidence for the ~300 eV photon - in the sense of it being the active energy transfer particle for the Rossi effect, another curiosity turns up - the water window. This is a favorable scaling region at the border of EUV and x-radiation for near-coherency and transparency. The wavelength is around 4 nm in the spectral region between the Carbon and Oxygen K shell absorption edges. The Rossi effect does not employ planned coherency it would seem, unless AR is cleverer than anyone imagines. However, from the earliest days, Dicke superradiance was thought to be involved in LENR in a causative way, even if inadvertent. Preparata expanded on this - and it was called DPSR or Dicke-Preparata Superradiance. Ahern calls it energy localization attachment: winmail.dat
[Vo]:Re: [Vo]:Torbjörn Hartman describes power measurments
From an interview with Hanno Essen, posted here earlier: Q. Will you test the power supplied to the device with oscilloscope during the next test? Essen: This is a question for Prof. G. Levi who provides the instrumentation. So, we're all clear that this was an independent test? Right? Andrew - Original Message - From: Sunil Shah s.u.n@hotmail.com To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Monday, May 27, 2013 3:39 AM Subject: RE: [Vo]:Re: [Vo]:Re: [Vo]:Re: [Vo]:Torbjörn Hartman describes power measurments or a scope and LOOK at the damn thing : D Anyway... next piece of equipment on the shopping list (for the next test) ought to be http://www.tortech.com.au/category/3-phase-isolation/ Plug everything into an isolation transformer. That should do it. .s
RE: [Vo]:The inanity of the hidden input power hypothesis
The duty cycle could be the carrier wave… this explains part of AR’s reluctance to have this detail broadcast. The waveform in question may in fact be not so much “proprietary” as it is part of the claim of another patent application from a potential competitor (Energetics LLC) From: Eric Walker I get the impression the proprietary waveform might not be all that fancy, and that it is at a very low frequency -- on the order of seconds. See Plot 8 in the paper; this might be the waveform. (Note that the x axis is in seconds.) On second thought, that might just be the duty cycle. ;)
Re: [Vo]:The inanity of the hidden input power hypothesis
Eric, I suspect that the duty cycle is indeed most of the proprietary information. That must be adjusted to compensate for a lot of parameters associated with the ECAT. The model I speak of often suggests that the duty cycle is what keeps the device under control. I wonder if anyone in Rossi's group is monitoring what we are saying in this list. If they are then they would know that we are on to that type of control. There may also be a DC or complex shaped AC drive applied to the ECAT directly from the control box. We have no other information than the fact that this waveform draws a constant power from the AC mains. The complex actions taken by the controller are not known to us. Dave -Original Message- From: Eric Walker eric.wal...@gmail.com To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Mon, May 27, 2013 12:36 pm Subject: Re: [Vo]:The inanity of the hidden input power hypothesis I wrote: I get the impression the proprietary waveform might not be all that fancy, and that it is at a very low frequency -- on the order of seconds. See Plot 8 in the paper; this might be the waveform. (Note that the x axis is in seconds.) On second thought, that might just be the duty cycle. ;) It's good to learn new things -- electricity, for one. Eric
Re: [Vo]:The inanity of the hidden input power hypothesis
On Mon, May 27, 2013 at 8:01 AM, Jones Beene jone...@pacbell.net wrote: This whole collection of dozens of needless postings is itself the pathetic invention of frustrated skeptics who think that Rossi must be cheating - but cannot prove it ... so they are grasping at straws. Perhaps. But it has been very educational for the non-EE's, even if the concerns are misplaced. Eric
Re: [Vo]:BEC transforms photon frequency
That is the idea. However, why would only a few hydrons fuse leaving just enough unreacted hydrons available to carry all the energy without it producing energetic radiation? I would expect occasionally, many hydrons would fuse leaving too few unreacted hydrons so that the dissipated energy would have to be very energetic and easily detected. Also, how is this mass-energy coupled to the unreacted hydrons? The BEC is not stable at high temperatures, which would be present inside the BEC when mass-energy was released. I would expect this release would destroy the BEC, leaving the fused hydrons to dissipate energy by the normal hot fusion method. The concept appears to have many logical flaws. Ed Storms On May 27, 2013, at 10:08 AM, Kevin O'Malley wrote: Then is that an explanation of why Gamma rays are not observed in LENR? If 2 of the atoms inside a multi-atom BEC fuse together, the incoming radiation (to the rest of the BEC) gets subdivided based upon how many atoms have formed the BEC. Right? On Mon, May 27, 2013 at 12:49 AM, Axil Axil janap...@gmail.com wrote: This paper verifies that a photon eradiated Bose-Einstein condensate will cut the frequency of incoming photons by dividing that frequency between N numbers of atoms. http://arxiv.org/pdf/1203.1261v1.pdf Rydberg excitation of a Bose-Einstein condensate “The results of theoretical simulations are represented by the continuous lines. According to the super-atom picture the collective Rabi frequency for the coherent excitation of N atoms is frequency (collective) = square root(number of atoms) X frequency(single); Where the single-particle Rabi frequency (single) is app 2 pi x 200 kHz for our experimental parameters.”
Re: [Vo]:Re: Constant temperature Operation of ECAT?
Glad we're back in sync. Although there's definite evidence for thermal runaway 25 years ago with PF, with Rossi's kit I'm not so certain. In fact, I don't know of a single example. He only got the meltdown when he applied continuous power at a level far above that which he uses now. Andrew - Original Message - From: David Roberson To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Monday, May 27, 2013 7:00 AM Subject: Re: [Vo]:Re: Constant temperature Operation of ECAT? I suppose that it would be easier in person to discuss this issue, but that is not available. Yes, we are on the same page regarding the positive feedback threshold leading to self destruction. I refer to what you mention as active cooling of the system. We have discussed this in vortex on several occasions in the past. I think that it is a winning idea, but so far I have not detected Rossi putting it into his design. It appears to be a technique that would allow Rossi to force the loop gain back to below unity at an elevated temperature that would normally be beyond recovery with heat input modulation alone. This should result in a downward retreat of his temperature excursion and looks very promising for high power operation. Dave -Original Message- From: Andrew andrew...@att.net To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Mon, May 27, 2013 1:35 am Subject: Re: [Vo]:Re: Constant temperature Operation of ECAT? We are totally at cross-purposes here; if we were in the same room, this crap wouldn't happen. So here's the deal. I'm considering the scenario whereby we operate the heating system to bring the device just past the stable temperature; further heating results in thermal runaway (at least, that's what's claimed for Rossi's device - it actually melted down due to the application of constant heating, but whatever). To keep the thing stable when it wants to apply positive feedback to itself, we need to apply negative feedback. And hence I began to discuss and describe characteristics desirable of an active cooling system. You dig? - Original Message - From: David Roberson To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Sunday, May 26, 2013 5:22 PM Subject: Re: [Vo]:Re: Constant temperature Operation of ECAT? But, we are talking about the ECAT. It operates by using positive feedback to get high gain. You are the one that mentioned a negative feedback system that achieves the same thing. That is not comparable. Stable operation of negative feedback systems is trivial. Think of taking a tunnel diode and keeping it within the negative resistance region without heavy resistive loading. The problem is similar to that which Rossi faces. Dave -Original Message- From: Andrew andrew...@att.net To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Sun, May 26, 2013 8:14 pm Subject: Re: [Vo]:Re: Constant temperature Operation of ECAT? Of course I'm talking exclusively about a negative feedback system!! The positive feedback purportedly occurs internally to the device itself. Andrew - Original Message - From: David Roberson To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Sunday, May 26, 2013 5:09 PM Subject: Re: [Vo]:Re: Constant temperature Operation of ECAT? No, there is a large difference between a negative feedback system and a positive feedback system. Tell us how to make your temperature controller hold a constant temperature with positive feedback and a loop gain of greater than 1. If you do, you might find that it matches my model. Dave -Original Message- From: Andrew andrew...@att.net To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Sun, May 26, 2013 8:05 pm Subject: Re: [Vo]:Re: Constant temperature Operation of ECAT? See my follow-up on this. There's always going to be a tracking error, no matter how sophisticated the regulation algorithm. I think the prime objective here is not to have absolutely constant temperature per se; rather, it's to guarantee that thermal runaway cannot occur. Andrew - Original Message - From: David Roberson To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Sunday, May 26, 2013 5:00 PM Subject: Re: [Vo]:Re: Constant temperature Operation of ECAT? How many of these controllers use positve thermal feedback to keep the sink at a constant temperature? Dave -Original Message- From: Andrew andrew...@att.net To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Sun, May 26, 2013 7:52 pm Subject: [Vo]:Re: Constant temperature Operation of ECAT? Seems to me that if active cooling control is used as the only control input, thus satisfying the unplug it! sceptics (and I'm one of them), then it only has a chance of working if there is good thermal contact and good thermal conductivity and substantial enough heat
Re: [Vo]: About the March test
Sure, I completely understand that the calculated COP in the report is wholly due to the 35% duty cycle. But this misses my point. Let me say it again: If input and output power are equal, then there is no energy generation by the device itself. Andrew - Original Message - From: David Roberson To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Monday, May 27, 2013 7:03 AM Subject: Re: [Vo]: About the March test A little humor never hurts! The bottom line is that the average power being emitted by the ECAT must be equal to the peak duty cycled drive when the COP is 3 and the duty cycle is 33%. This is by definition. Dave -Original Message- From: Andrew andrew...@att.net To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Mon, May 27, 2013 1:39 am Subject: Re: [Vo]: About the March test You have stopped processing information and now are talking about bullfrogs. When you return from bullfrog land, we might be able to resume a serious dialogue. Until then, have a hoppingly great time. - Original Message - From: David Roberson To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Sunday, May 26, 2013 6:29 PM Subject: Re: [Vo]: About the March test I read that section and found that this is not a problem. The input is applied for 1/3 of the time while the average output is roughly equal to that value. The calculation shows that the COP is therefore approximately 3. This is what they say in the report. The maximum instantaneous peak power output should be greater than the peak input. This is consistent. Operation at low temperatures and therefore COP are limited. I prefer to see them run her at full warp, but control issues make this difficult for long duration tests. Dave -Original Message- From: Andrew andrew...@att.net To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Sun, May 26, 2013 8:20 pm Subject: Re: [Vo]: About the March test p22. Emitted Power E-Cat HT2 = (741.3 + 17 + 58) [W] = (816.3± 2%) [W] = (816±16) [W] (24) Instantaneous Power Consumption E-Cat HT2 = (920 110) [W ]= 810 [W] (25) - Original Message - From: David Roberson To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Sunday, May 26, 2013 5:17 PM Subject: Re: [Vo]: About the March test Where does this statement appear? I suspect that you are misreading. Dave -Original Message- From: Andrew andrew...@att.net To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Sun, May 26, 2013 8:12 pm Subject: Re: [Vo]: About the March test I continue to be worried about the fact that the input and output power are measured equal in the report in the pulse ON state. One would have thought that, if the device truly is generating its own energy, that this should not be the case. Andrew - Original Message - From: Andrew To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Sunday, May 26, 2013 4:23 PM Subject: Re: [Vo]: About the March test Eric, The idea here is that the extras (DC and/or RF) are undetectable to the meter using clamp ammeters (we know this for a fact), and when this extra gets passed on to the control box, it's able to pass them on to the device, perhaps with some customisation. The device, being chiefly ohmic, will dissipate DC and will likely also dissipate RF. So no customisation by the control box of the extras is in principle necessary - the power simply gets passed along to the device, which consumes it and generates heat as a result. Now, as I've described, the shenanigans chiefly occur during the pulse OFF state, so there will have to be some customisation in the control box. The idea here is to dissipate the extras during pulse ON and pass them along during pulse OFF. The mains doesn't know about the pulse schedule, so cannot itself switch the extras in or out (actually, a Byzantine arrangement could be made to work in this way, but I'm not going that far out). Since no type of electronics control circuitry could survive colocated with the device, the implication is that the control box has to dissipate significant power continuously. That raises a question about the control box temperature. Since it's a sealed unit, and we're talking a couple hundred watts at least, it would have to get bloody hot. There's another data point we don't have. But you'd think they would have mentioned it. I'm talking myself out of this, aren't I? :) Andrew - Original Message - From: Eric Walker To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Sunday, May 26, 2013 4:00 PM Subject: Re: [Vo]: About the March test On Sun, May 26, 2013 at 3:45 PM, Andrew andrew...@att.net wrote: B) seems unlikely because it would require batteries, and Hartman states that it was much lighter than that. Battery technology
[Vo]:Peter Thieberger's “Power Magic”
Having followed the various interesting arguments here relating to the PCE-830, DC bias (e.g., diode + smoothing capacitor), high frequency AC etc., as conceivable anomalous input energies, I today revisited the intriguing “Power Magic” diagram from Peter Thieberger: http://scienceblogs.com/startswithabang/2013/05/21/the-e-cat-is-back-and-people-are-still-falling-for-it/ It appears that this ingenious wiring and switching arrangement would successfully bamboozle any clamp-on ammeter while providing correct voltage readings, and, via a suitable three state control cycle scenario (on/“off”/disconnect), could yield time domain response curves consistent with Plot 7 / Plot 8 in the recent Levi et al. technical report on the E-Cat HT. Am I correct? If so what technical measures might eliminate this source of uncertainty in a future experiment? Apologies if the diagram has already been discussed. Charles
Re: [Vo]:Re: Constant temperature Operation of ECAT?
The earlier posts by Rossi on his blog mention many cases where thermal run away happened. Most of these were when he was developing the earlier versions of his mechanism. The fact that thermal run away can occur has been common knowledge for a very long time. Anytime a positive temperature coefficient is present thermal runaway is possible under certain conditions. Power transistors are a prime example of this when they self destruct unless the heat sinking is adequate to reduce the thermal resistance so that the positive feedback loop gain is below unity. Rossi has a similar problem to deal with. In his case, he is using what is normally a problem to his advantage to improve his COP. Without this help he would have a far lower COP. You get a COP of 1 for free, and much beyond that might result in unstable operation. Even operating at a COP of 3 has risk of thermal run away. Dave -Original Message- From: Andrew andrew...@att.net To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Mon, May 27, 2013 1:03 pm Subject: Re: [Vo]:Re: Constant temperature Operation of ECAT? Glad we're back in sync. Although there's definite evidence for thermal runaway 25 years ago with PF, with Rossi's kit I'm not so certain. In fact, I don't know of a single example. He only got the meltdown when he applied continuous power at a level far above that which he uses now. Andrew - Original Message - From: David Roberson To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Monday, May 27, 2013 7:00 AM Subject: Re: [Vo]:Re: Constant temperature Operation of ECAT? I suppose that it would be easier in person to discuss this issue, but that is not available. Yes, we are on the same page regarding the positive feedback threshold leading to self destruction. I refer to what you mention as active cooling of the system. We have discussed this in vortex on several occasions in the past. I think that it is a winning idea, but so far I have not detected Rossi putting it into his design. It appears to be a technique that would allow Rossi to force the loop gain back to below unity at an elevated temperature that would normally be beyond recovery with heat input modulation alone. This should result in a downward retreat of his temperature excursion and looks very promising for high power operation. Dave -Original Message- From: Andrew andrew...@att.net To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Mon, May 27, 2013 1:35 am Subject: Re: [Vo]:Re: Constant temperature Operation of ECAT? We are totally at cross-purposes here; if we were in the same room, this crap wouldn't happen. So here's the deal. I'm considering the scenario whereby we operate the heating system to bring the device just past the stable temperature; further heating results in thermal runaway (at least, that's what's claimed for Rossi's device - it actually melted down due to the application of constant heating, but whatever). To keep the thing stable when it wants to apply positive feedback to itself, we need to apply negative feedback. And hence I began to discuss and describe characteristics desirable of an active cooling system. You dig? - Original Message - From: David Roberson To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Sunday, May 26, 2013 5:22 PM Subject: Re: [Vo]:Re: Constant temperature Operation of ECAT? But, we are talking about the ECAT. It operates by using positive feedback to get high gain. You are the one that mentioned a negative feedback system that achieves the same thing. That is not comparable. Stable operation of negative feedback systems is trivial. Think of taking a tunnel diode and keeping it within the negative resistance region without heavy resistive loading. The problem is similar to that which Rossi faces. Dave -Original Message- From: Andrew andrew...@att.net To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Sun, May 26, 2013 8:14 pm Subject: Re: [Vo]:Re: Constant temperature Operation of ECAT? Of course I'm talking exclusively about a negative feedback system!! The positive feedback purportedly occurs internally to the device itself. Andrew - Original Message - From: David Roberson To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Sunday, May 26, 2013 5:09 PM Subject: Re: [Vo]:Re: Constant temperature Operation of ECAT? No, there is a large difference between a negative feedback system and a positive feedback system.Tell us how to make your temperature controller hold a constant temperature with positive feedback and a loop gain of greater than 1. If you do, you might find that it
Re: [Vo]:Re: Constant temperature Operation of ECAT?
OK, thanks for the info - I had not seen those reports. Certainly it is in general expected to happen if it's known that the reaction rate increases with temperature. So the trick with active negative feedback (cooling) applied at higher temperature is that this technique holds the promise for much higher COP values. Indeed, an excellently engineered device promises to be very hot, to be under complete temperature control, and to perhaps to generate double digit COP values. Assuming that at some point Rossi licences this technology, the thermal control and the temperature operating point look like they would be key market differentiators. Do we have data as to how low the temperature can go, and still maintain over-unity COP? Andrew - Original Message - From: David Roberson To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Monday, May 27, 2013 10:18 AM Subject: Re: [Vo]:Re: Constant temperature Operation of ECAT? The earlier posts by Rossi on his blog mention many cases where thermal run away happened. Most of these were when he was developing the earlier versions of his mechanism. The fact that thermal run away can occur has been common knowledge for a very long time. Anytime a positive temperature coefficient is present thermal runaway is possible under certain conditions. Power transistors are a prime example of this when they self destruct unless the heat sinking is adequate to reduce the thermal resistance so that the positive feedback loop gain is below unity. Rossi has a similar problem to deal with. In his case, he is using what is normally a problem to his advantage to improve his COP. Without this help he would have a far lower COP. You get a COP of 1 for free, and much beyond that might result in unstable operation. Even operating at a COP of 3 has risk of thermal run away. Dave -Original Message- From: Andrew andrew...@att.net To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Mon, May 27, 2013 1:03 pm Subject: Re: [Vo]:Re: Constant temperature Operation of ECAT? Glad we're back in sync. Although there's definite evidence for thermal runaway 25 years ago with PF, with Rossi's kit I'm not so certain. In fact, I don't know of a single example. He only got the meltdown when he applied continuous power at a level far above that which he uses now. Andrew - Original Message - From: David Roberson To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Monday, May 27, 2013 7:00 AM Subject: Re: [Vo]:Re: Constant temperature Operation of ECAT? I suppose that it would be easier in person to discuss this issue, but that is not available. Yes, we are on the same page regarding the positive feedback threshold leading to self destruction. I refer to what you mention as active cooling of the system. We have discussed this in vortex on several occasions in the past. I think that it is a winning idea, but so far I have not detected Rossi putting it into his design. It appears to be a technique that would allow Rossi to force the loop gain back to below unity at an elevated temperature that would normally be beyond recovery with heat input modulation alone. This should result in a downward retreat of his temperature excursion and looks very promising for high power operation. Dave -Original Message- From: Andrew andrew...@att.net To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Mon, May 27, 2013 1:35 am Subject: Re: [Vo]:Re: Constant temperature Operation of ECAT? We are totally at cross-purposes here; if we were in the same room, this crap wouldn't happen. So here's the deal. I'm considering the scenario whereby we operate the heating system to bring the device just past the stable temperature; further heating results in thermal runaway (at least, that's what's claimed for Rossi's device - it actually melted down due to the application of constant heating, but whatever). To keep the thing stable when it wants to apply positive feedback to itself, we need to apply negative feedback. And hence I began to discuss and describe characteristics desirable of an active cooling system. You dig? - Original Message - From: David Roberson To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Sunday, May 26, 2013 5:22 PM Subject: Re: [Vo]:Re: Constant temperature Operation of ECAT? But, we are talking about the ECAT. It operates by using positive feedback to get high gain. You are the one that mentioned a negative feedback system that achieves the same thing. That is not comparable. Stable operation of negative feedback systems is trivial. Think of taking a tunnel diode and keeping it within the negative resistance region without heavy resistive loading. The problem is similar to that which Rossi faces. Dave -Original Message- From: Andrew andrew...@att.net To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Sun, May 26,
Re: [Vo]: About the March test
Yes, what you say in bold type is true but not a problem in this case. Why do you think that energy must be radiated and convected at a level that is greater than the input throughout the entire cycle? Consider energy storage within the device as the place where some of the generated energy is deposited. You are over simplifying the system and leaving out important details. If you are now acknowledging that the COP might be greater than one, then we are making some headway. :-) Dave -Original Message- From: Andrew andrew...@att.net To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Mon, May 27, 2013 1:06 pm Subject: Re: [Vo]: About the March test Sure, I completely understand that the calculated COP in the report is wholly due to the 35% duty cycle. But this misses my point. Let me say it again: If input and output power are equal, then there is no energy generation by the device itself. Andrew - Original Message - From: David Roberson To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Monday, May 27, 2013 7:03 AM Subject: Re: [Vo]: About the March test A little humor never hurts! The bottom line is that the average power being emitted by the ECAT must be equal to the peak duty cycled drive when the COP is 3 and the duty cycle is 33%. This is by definition. Dave -Original Message- From: Andrew andrew...@att.net To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Mon, May 27, 2013 1:39 am Subject: Re: [Vo]: About the March test You have stopped processing information and now are talking about bullfrogs. When you return from bullfrog land, we might be able to resume a serious dialogue. Until then, have a hoppingly great time. - Original Message - From: David Roberson To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Sunday, May 26, 2013 6:29 PM Subject: Re: [Vo]: About the March test I read that section and found that this is not a problem. The input is applied for 1/3 of the time while the average output is roughly equal to that value. The calculation shows that the COP is therefore approximately 3. This is what they say in the report. The maximum instantaneous peak power output should be greater than the peak input. This is consistent. Operation at low temperatures and therefore COP are limited. I prefer to see them run her at full warp, but control issues make this difficult for long duration tests. Dave -Original Message- From: Andrew andrew...@att.net To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Sun, May 26, 2013 8:20 pm Subject: Re: [Vo]: About the March test p22. Emitted Power E-Cat HT2 = (741.3 + 17 + 58) [W] = (816.3± 2%) [W] = (816±16) [W] (24) Instantaneous Power Consumption E-Cat HT2 = (920 110) [W ]= 810 [W] (25) - Original Message - From: David Roberson To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Sunday, May 26, 2013 5:17 PM Subject: Re: [Vo]: About the March test Where does this statement appear? I suspect that you are misreading. Dave -Original Message- From: Andrew andrew...@att.net To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Sun, May 26, 2013 8:12 pm Subject: Re: [Vo]: About the March test I continue to be worried about the fact that the input and output power are measured equal in the report in the pulse ON state. One would have thought that, if the device truly is generating its own energy, that this should not be the case. Andrew - Original Message - From: Andrew To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Sunday, May 26, 2013 4:23 PM Subject: Re: [Vo]: About the March test Eric, The idea here is that the extras (DC and/or RF) are undetectable to the meter using clamp ammeters (we know this for a fact), and when this extra gets passed on to the control box, it's able to pass them on to the device, perhaps with some customisation. The device, being chiefly ohmic, will dissipate DC and will likely also dissipate RF. So no customisation by the control box of the extras is in principle necessary - the power simply gets passed along to the device, which consumes it and generates heat as a result. Now, as I've described, the shenanigans chiefly occur during the pulse OFF state, so there will have to be some customisation in the control box. The idea here is to dissipate the extras during pulse ON and pass them along during pulse OFF. The mains
[Vo]:Synchronization
How the world becomes lockstep: http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embeddedv=W1TMZASCR-I
Re: [Vo]: About the March test
I am not acknowledging any such thing - yet :). That's because I don't know what's going on during the pulse OFF time, which is 66% of the total time. Certainly the temperature drops a little during that time, as the report shows. The question is whether there truly is no power delivered during OFF time. It seems clear that during ON time the device behaves just like an electrical resistor. Andrew - Original Message - From: David Roberson To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Monday, May 27, 2013 10:26 AM Subject: Re: [Vo]: About the March test Yes, what you say in bold type is true but not a problem in this case. Why do you think that energy must be radiated and convected at a level that is greater than the input throughout the entire cycle? Consider energy storage within the device as the place where some of the generated energy is deposited. You are over simplifying the system and leaving out important details. If you are now acknowledging that the COP might be greater than one, then we are making some headway. :-) Dave -Original Message- From: Andrew andrew...@att.net To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Mon, May 27, 2013 1:06 pm Subject: Re: [Vo]: About the March test Sure, I completely understand that the calculated COP in the report is wholly due to the 35% duty cycle. But this misses my point. Let me say it again: If input and output power are equal, then there is no energy generation by the device itself. Andrew - Original Message - From: David Roberson To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Monday, May 27, 2013 7:03 AM Subject: Re: [Vo]: About the March test A little humor never hurts! The bottom line is that the average power being emitted by the ECAT must be equal to the peak duty cycled drive when the COP is 3 and the duty cycle is 33%. This is by definition. Dave -Original Message- From: Andrew andrew...@att.net To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Mon, May 27, 2013 1:39 am Subject: Re: [Vo]: About the March test You have stopped processing information and now are talking about bullfrogs. When you return from bullfrog land, we might be able to resume a serious dialogue. Until then, have a hoppingly great time. - Original Message - From: David Roberson To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Sunday, May 26, 2013 6:29 PM Subject: Re: [Vo]: About the March test I read that section and found that this is not a problem. The input is applied for 1/3 of the time while the average output is roughly equal to that value. The calculation shows that the COP is therefore approximately 3. This is what they say in the report. The maximum instantaneous peak power output should be greater than the peak input. This is consistent. Operation at low temperatures and therefore COP are limited. I prefer to see them run her at full warp, but control issues make this difficult for long duration tests. Dave -Original Message- From: Andrew andrew...@att.net To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Sun, May 26, 2013 8:20 pm Subject: Re: [Vo]: About the March test p22. Emitted Power E-Cat HT2 = (741.3 + 17 + 58) [W] = (816.3± 2%) [W] = (816±16) [W] (24) Instantaneous Power Consumption E-Cat HT2 = (920 110) [W ]= 810 [W] (25) - Original Message - From: David Roberson To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Sunday, May 26, 2013 5:17 PM Subject: Re: [Vo]: About the March test Where does this statement appear? I suspect that you are misreading. Dave -Original Message- From: Andrew andrew...@att.net To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Sun, May 26, 2013 8:12 pm Subject: Re: [Vo]: About the March test I continue to be worried about the fact that the input and output power are measured equal in the report in the pulse ON state. One would have thought that, if the device truly is generating its own energy, that this should not be the case. Andrew - Original Message - From: Andrew To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Sunday, May 26, 2013 4:23 PM Subject: Re: [Vo]: About the March test Eric, The idea here is that the extras (DC and/or RF) are undetectable to the meter using clamp ammeters (we know this for a fact), and when this extra gets passed on to the control box, it's able to pass them on to the device, perhaps with some customisation. The device, being chiefly ohmic, will dissipate DC and will likely also dissipate RF. So no customisation by the control box of the extras is in principle necessary - the power simply gets passed along to the device, which consumes it and generates heat as a result. Now, as I've
Re: [Vo]:Synchronization
And in more complex systems: http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embeddedv=JWToUATLGzs Does this apply to items of current interest? On Mon, May 27, 2013 at 1:36 PM, Terry Blanton hohlr...@gmail.com wrote: How the world becomes lockstep: http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embeddedv=W1TMZASCR-I
Re: [Vo]:BEC transforms photon frequency
On Mon, May 27, 2013 at 10:03 AM, Edmund Storms stor...@ix.netcom.comwrote: That is the idea. However, why would only a few hydrons fuse leaving just enough unreacted hydrons available to carry all the energy without it producing energetic radiation? I would expect occasionally, many hydrons would fuse leaving too few unreacted hydrons so that the dissipated energy would have to be very energetic and easily detected ***That would account for the very occasional neutron being observed, right? And it also would account for how few of them get observed as well. They only happen when a multiple-fusion event takes place inside the BEC and there isn't enough BEC infrastructure to absorb the energy. . Also, how is this mass-energy coupled to the unreacted hydrons? The BEC is not stable at high temperatures, which would be present inside the BEC when mass-energy was released. I would expect this release would destroy the BEC, leaving the fused hydrons to dissipate energy by the normal hot fusion method. ***I would expect it as well. Like an explosion taking place inside a house, the structure blocks much of the energy while it is momentarily in place. And then another BEC forms, 2 atoms fuse, and the reaction goes on on. The concept appears to have many logical flaws. Ed Storms On May 27, 2013, at 10:08 AM, Kevin O'Malley wrote: Then is that an explanation of why Gamma rays are not observed in LENR? If 2 of the atoms inside a multi-atom BEC fuse together, the incoming radiation (to the rest of the BEC) gets subdivided based upon how many atoms have formed the BEC. Right? On Mon, May 27, 2013 at 12:49 AM, Axil Axil janap...@gmail.com wrote: This paper verifies that a photon eradiated Bose-Einstein condensate will cut the frequency of incoming photons by dividing that frequency between N numbers of atoms. http://arxiv.org/pdf/1203.1261v1.pdf Rydberg excitation of a Bose-Einstein condensate “The results of theoretical simulations are represented by the continuous lines. According to the super-atom picture the collective Rabi frequency for the coherent excitation of N atoms is frequency (collective) = square root(number of atoms) X frequency(single); Where the single-particle Rabi frequency (single) is app 2 pi x 200 kHz for our experimental parameters.”
Re: [Vo]:BEC transforms photon frequency
Ed has hit upon the secret of LENR in a back handed way. BEC can form at extreme temperatures; this miracle is the backbone of LENR. Electrons can be broken apart into thier constituent components: charge, angular momentum, and spin. http://arstechnica.com/science/2012/04/electrons-like-gaul-come-in-three-parts/ http://www.physics.harvard.edu/Thesespdfs/tserkovnyak.pdf In thin nanoantennas, charge is broken free of the electron and is free to combine with light to form a polariton. Since light can readily form condensates, AKS lasers, charge is taken along for the ride. Extreme amounts of charge are accumulated and light/charge is compressed into a dark photon singularity. Ed must eventually understand the new science of topological materials and the formation of quasiparticles. On Mon, May 27, 2013 at 1:03 PM, Edmund Storms stor...@ix.netcom.comwrote: That is the idea. However, why would only a few hydrons fuse leaving just enough unreacted hydrons available to carry all the energy without it producing energetic radiation? I would expect occasionally, many hydrons would fuse leaving too few unreacted hydrons so that the dissipated energy would have to be very energetic and easily detected. Also, how is this mass-energy coupled to the unreacted hydrons? The BEC is not stable at high temperatures, which would be present inside the BEC when mass-energy was released. I would expect this release would destroy the BEC, leaving the fused hydrons to dissipate energy by the normal hot fusion method. The concept appears to have many logical flaws. Ed Storms On May 27, 2013, at 10:08 AM, Kevin O'Malley wrote: Then is that an explanation of why Gamma rays are not observed in LENR? If 2 of the atoms inside a multi-atom BEC fuse together, the incoming radiation (to the rest of the BEC) gets subdivided based upon how many atoms have formed the BEC. Right? On Mon, May 27, 2013 at 12:49 AM, Axil Axil janap...@gmail.com wrote: This paper verifies that a photon eradiated Bose-Einstein condensate will cut the frequency of incoming photons by dividing that frequency between N numbers of atoms. http://arxiv.org/pdf/1203.1261v1.pdf Rydberg excitation of a Bose-Einstein condensate “The results of theoretical simulations are represented by the continuous lines. According to the super-atom picture the collective Rabi frequency for the coherent excitation of N atoms is frequency (collective) = square root(number of atoms) X frequency(single); Where the single-particle Rabi frequency (single) is app 2 pi x 200 kHz for our experimental parameters.”
[Vo]:The Real Space Age
I was saddened by the day that NASA essentially abandoned manned space flight thinking it was the end of the Space Age. Was I ever wrong! You probably know about most of these companies; but, here is a compilation: http://nymag.com/news/features/space-travel-2013-5/
Re: [Vo]:Re: Constant temperature Operation of ECAT?
Rossi keeps this information secret. It is unfortunate that he does this, but that is his nature. I would love to see a number of measurements associated with his material, but all questions of that sort are blocked due to IP concerns. It is frustrating to be kept at arms length from such important and history making knowledge. You mention active cooling in the context of negative feedback and I suppose that might be somewhat applicable. Systems can be stabilized by adding an overall negative feedback loop around the process but in this case I do not see how any form of reference temperature can be used to generate an error signal for correction. Do you detect a reference upon which this loop would act? Dave -Original Message- From: Andrew andrew...@att.net To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Mon, May 27, 2013 1:30 pm Subject: Re: [Vo]:Re: Constant temperature Operation of ECAT? OK, thanks for the info - I had not seen those reports. Certainly it is in general expected to happen if it's known that the reaction rate increases with temperature. So the trick with active negative feedback (cooling) applied at higher temperature is that this technique holds the promise for much higher COP values. Indeed, an excellently engineered device promises to be very hot, to be under complete temperature control, and to perhaps to generate double digit COP values. Assuming that at some point Rossi licences this technology, the thermal control and the temperature operating point look like they would be key market differentiators. Do we have data as to how low the temperature can go, and still maintain over-unity COP? Andrew - Original Message - From: David Roberson To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Monday, May 27, 2013 10:18 AM Subject: Re: [Vo]:Re: Constant temperature Operation of ECAT? The earlier posts by Rossi on his blog mention many cases where thermal run away happened. Most of these were when he was developing the earlier versions of his mechanism. The fact that thermal run away can occur has been common knowledge for a very long time. Anytime a positive temperature coefficient is present thermal runaway is possible under certain conditions. Power transistors are a prime example of this when they self destruct unless the heat sinking is adequate to reduce the thermal resistance so that the positive feedback loop gain is below unity. Rossi has a similar problem to deal with. In his case, he is using what is normally a problem to his advantage to improve his COP.Without this help he would have a far lower COP. You get a COP of 1 for free, and much beyond that might result in unstable operation.Even operating at a COP of 3 has risk of thermal run away. Dave -Original Message- From: Andrew andrew...@att.net To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Mon, May 27, 2013 1:03 pm Subject: Re: [Vo]:Re: Constant temperature Operation of ECAT? Glad we're back in sync. Although there's definite evidence for thermal runaway 25 years ago with PF, with Rossi's kit I'm not so certain. In fact, I don't know of a single example. He only got the meltdown when he applied continuous power at a level far above that which he uses now. Andrew - Original Message - From: David Roberson To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Monday, May 27, 2013 7:00 AM Subject: Re: [Vo]:Re: Constant temperature Operation of ECAT? I suppose that it would be easier in person to discuss this issue, but that is not available. Yes, we are on the same page regarding the positive feedback threshold leading to self destruction. I refer to what you mention as active cooling of the system. We have discussed this in vortex on several occasions in the past. I think that it is a winning idea, but so far I have not detected Rossi putting it into his design. It appears to be a technique that would allow Rossi to force the loop gain back to below unity at an elevated temperature that would normally be beyond recovery with heat input modulation alone. This should result in a downward retreat of his temperature excursion and looks very promising for high power operation. Dave -Original Message- From: Andrew andrew...@att.net To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Mon, May 27, 2013 1:35 am Subject: Re: [Vo]:Re: Constant temperature Operation of ECAT? We are totally at cross-purposes here; if we were in the same room, this crap wouldn't happen. So here's the deal. I'm considering the scenario whereby we operate the heating system to bring the device just past the stable temperature; further heating results in thermal runaway (at least, that's what's claimed for Rossi's
Re: [Vo]: About the March test
Come on Andrew. Bite the bullet. Review the pictures in the report regarding the time domain response of the device in both the on and off state. The writers make a big deal about the difference between the behavior of the ECAT and a regular resistor. I see the effects of positive feedback. Dave -Original Message- From: Andrew andrew...@att.net To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Mon, May 27, 2013 1:39 pm Subject: Re: [Vo]: About the March test I am not acknowledging any such thing - yet :). That's because I don't know what's going on during the pulse OFF time, which is 66% of the total time. Certainly the temperature drops a little during that time, as the report shows. The question is whether there truly is no power delivered during OFF time. It seems clear that during ON time the device behaves just like an electrical resistor. Andrew - Original Message - From: David Roberson To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Monday, May 27, 2013 10:26 AM Subject: Re: [Vo]: About the March test Yes, what you say in bold type is true but not a problem in this case. Why do you think that energy must be radiated and convected at a level that is greater than the input throughout the entire cycle? Consider energy storage within the device as the place where some of the generated energy is deposited. You are over simplifying the system and leaving out important details. If you are now acknowledging that the COP might be greater than one, then we are making some headway. :-) Dave -Original Message- From: Andrew andrew...@att.net To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Mon, May 27, 2013 1:06 pm Subject: Re: [Vo]: About the March test Sure, I completely understand that the calculated COP in the report is wholly due to the 35% duty cycle. But this misses my point. Let me say it again: If input and output power are equal, then there is no energy generation by the device itself. Andrew - Original Message - From: David Roberson To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Monday, May 27, 2013 7:03 AM Subject: Re: [Vo]: About the March test A little humor never hurts! The bottom line is that the average power being emitted by the ECAT must be equal to the peak duty cycled drive when the COP is 3 and the duty cycle is 33%. This is by definition. Dave -Original Message- From: Andrew andrew...@att.net To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Mon, May 27, 2013 1:39 am Subject: Re: [Vo]: About the March test You have stopped processing information and now are talking about bullfrogs. When you return from bullfrog land, we might be able to resume a serious dialogue. Until then, have a hoppingly great time. - Original Message - From: David Roberson To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Sunday, May 26, 2013 6:29 PM Subject: Re: [Vo]: About the March test I read that section and found that this is not a problem. The input is applied for 1/3 of the time while the average output is roughly equal to that value. The calculation shows that the COP is therefore approximately 3. This is what they say in the report. The maximum instantaneous peak power output should be greater than the peak input. This is consistent. Operation at low temperatures and therefore COP are limited. I prefer to see them run her at full warp, but control issues make this difficult for long duration tests. Dave -Original Message- From: Andrew andrew...@att.net To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Sun, May 26, 2013 8:20 pm Subject: Re: [Vo]: About the March test p22. Emitted Power E-Cat HT2 = (741.3 + 17 + 58) [W] = (816.3± 2%) [W] = (816±16) [W] (24) Instantaneous Power Consumption E-Cat HT2 = (920 110) [W ]= 810 [W] (25) - Original Message - From: David Roberson To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Sunday, May 26, 2013 5:17 PM Subject: Re: [Vo]: About the March test Where does this statement appear? I suspect that you are misreading. Dave -Original Message- From: Andrew andrew...@att.net To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Sun, May 26, 2013 8:12 pm Subject: Re: [Vo]: About the March test I continue to be worried about the fact that the input and output power are measured equal in the report in
Re: [Vo]:BEC transforms photon frequency
Let me be clear, Axil. I have not hit on anything. Kim first suggested a BEC can form at high temperatures in a lattice. I do not believe this is possible. I DO NOT accept this as an explanation of LENR. The BEC is known from experience and theory to only form near absolute zero. If a lattice is able to form a BEC based on hydrogen at room temperature and above, this by itself would be a Nobel Prize discovery if true. I see no reason to apply an explanation that is so unique to explain CF. In addition, the behavior, as I note below, is not consistent with what is observed. This does not account for the few neutrons. The few neutrons are near background and can be more easily explained as a result of fractofusion. Ed Storms On May 27, 2013, at 11:44 AM, Axil Axil wrote: Ed has hit upon the secret of LENR in a back handed way. BEC can form at extreme temperatures; this miracle is the backbone of LENR. Electrons can be broken apart into thier constituent components: charge, angular momentum, and spin. http://arstechnica.com/science/2012/04/electrons-like-gaul-come-in-three-parts/ http://www.physics.harvard.edu/Thesespdfs/tserkovnyak.pdf In thin nanoantennas, charge is broken free of the electron and is free to combine with light to form a polariton. Since light can readily form condensates, AKS lasers, charge is taken along for the ride. Extreme amounts of charge are accumulated and light/charge is compressed into a dark photon singularity. Ed must eventually understand the new science of topological materials and the formation of quasiparticles. On Mon, May 27, 2013 at 1:03 PM, Edmund Storms stor...@ix.netcom.com wrote: That is the idea. However, why would only a few hydrons fuse leaving just enough unreacted hydrons available to carry all the energy without it producing energetic radiation? I would expect occasionally, many hydrons would fuse leaving too few unreacted hydrons so that the dissipated energy would have to be very energetic and easily detected. Also, how is this mass-energy coupled to the unreacted hydrons? The BEC is not stable at high temperatures, which would be present inside the BEC when mass-energy was released. I would expect this release would destroy the BEC, leaving the fused hydrons to dissipate energy by the normal hot fusion method. The concept appears to have many logical flaws. Ed Storms On May 27, 2013, at 10:08 AM, Kevin O'Malley wrote: Then is that an explanation of why Gamma rays are not observed in LENR? If 2 of the atoms inside a multi-atom BEC fuse together, the incoming radiation (to the rest of the BEC) gets subdivided based upon how many atoms have formed the BEC. Right? On Mon, May 27, 2013 at 12:49 AM, Axil Axil janap...@gmail.com wrote: This paper verifies that a photon eradiated Bose-Einstein condensate will cut the frequency of incoming photons by dividing that frequency between N numbers of atoms. http://arxiv.org/pdf/1203.1261v1.pdf Rydberg excitation of a Bose-Einstein condensate “The results of theoretical simulations are represented by the continuous lines. According to the super-atom picture the collective Rabi frequency for the coherent excitation of N atoms is frequency (collective) = square root(number of atoms) X frequency(single); Where the single-particle Rabi frequency (single) is app 2 pi x 200 kHz for our experimental parameters.”
[Vo]:Re: [Vo]:Torbjörn Hartman describes power measurments
Actually it is not beyond the bounds of possibility to set up such a demonstration. What exactly do you have in mind, and who would be interested in seeing such a demo? Do you have any contacts on the Rossi team? I don't think Rossi would travel to the USA to see such a demo. Electrical Engineers already know that a diode will convert AC to DC. Pretty much all scientists know that an AC current clamp will not measure DC. (Of course, DC rated Hall effect clamps are available but were not used in the demo, partially because Rossi appears to believe that an AC outlet will only deliver AC current - this is far from being the case). So who would your intended audience be for such a demonstration? Duncan On 5/26/2013 7:26 PM, David Roberson wrote: Not my position. You need to show how it was done. Dave -Original Message- From: Duncan Cumming spacedr...@cumming.info To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Sun, May 26, 2013 9:47 pm Subject: Re: [Vo]:Re: [Vo]:Torbjörn Hartman describes power measurments So is it your position that a current clamp without a Hall effect unit can measure DC? Mine is that it cannot. Duncan On 5/26/2013 5:34 PM, David Roberson wrote: How do we know that your diode trick will actually do what you think? You need to prove that this is possible, otherwise anyone can make the assumption that it might not work just as with the ECAT tests. If you do not prove that this will work, then why should we accept it as a possibility? A lot of time and energy is being wasted trying to see if bull frogs can fly. Some might actually be born with wings. Have we proven that none of them can fly? Rossi and the testers have done a lot to prove that the ECAT works. No one has proven that it does not. The only offers from the other side of the table assume fraud. Is this a valid position for them to take? Dave -Original Message- From: Duncan Cumming spacedr...@cumming.info To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Sun, May 26, 2013 8:18 pm Subject: Re: [Vo]:Re: [Vo]:Torbjörn Hartman describes power measurments I am not trying to assert anything as fact. I am merely pointing out that a simple diode inside the controller box (to which access was forbidden by Rossi) COULD HAVE given the observed results. I am NOT saying that it, in fact, did, merely speculating that it could have. For any scientific experiment, the onus is on the experimenters to produce the result. The best way to do this is to provide sufficient information for others to replicate the experiment. Duncan On 5/26/2013 5:07 PM, David Roberson wrote: Perhaps you should build one of these scam machines and prove that it will work without being detected. That would be the best way to show that it is possible. Why should we accept this assertion as fact any more than believing that the testers missed finding the scam? We can spend an equal amount of time knocking down any theory that is put forth as others can spend assuming they are real. Dave -Original Message- From: Duncan Cumming spacedr...@cumming.info To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Sun, May 26, 2013 7:59 pm Subject: [Vo]:Re: [Vo]:Torbjörn Hartman describes power measurments The only possibility to fool the power-meter then is to raise the DC voltage on all the four lines This turns out not to be the case. You could also draw DC current through any of the lines, which current would not register on the clamps. The simplest way to do this would be just to use a diode in series with the heating element. Since power = current x voltage x pf, it is NOT necessary to change the voltage in order to change the power. Duncan On 5/26/2013 2:21 PM, Jed Rothwell wrote: A Swedish correspondent sent me this link: http://www.energikatalysatorn.se/forum/viewtopic.php?f=2t=560sid=5450c28dab532569dee72f88a43a56f0start=330 This is a discussion in Swedish, which Google does a good job translating. Before you translate it, you will see that in the middle of it is a message from one of the authors, Torbjörn Hartman, in English. Here it is, with a few typos corrected. QUOTE: Remember that there were not only three clamps to measure the current on three phases but also four connectors to measure the voltage on the three phases and the zero/ground line. The protective ground line was not used and laid curled up on the bench. The only possibility to fool the power-meter then is to raise the DC voltage on all the four lines but that also means that the current must have an other way to leave the system and I tried to find such hidden connections when we were there. The control box had no connections through the wood on the table. All cables in and out were accounted for. The E-cat was just lying on the metal frame that was only free-standing on the floor with no cables going to it. The little socket, where the mains cables from the wall connector where connected with the cables to the box and where we had the
Re: [Vo]:Re: [Vo]:Re: [Vo]:Re: [Vo]:Torbjörn Hartman describes power measurments
What I am proposing is a lot simpler than that. No bridge rectifier, no capacitor, just a simple diode. I am saying that given a diode in series with a resistor, it is not possible to measure the power using a clamp on ammeter. I am not suggesting that anybody has performed a scam. I am suggesting that the equipment used would not have measured the power consumed by the resistor if rectification were present in the controller box. Is there anybody reading this that can do SPICE simulations? Might it be possible to simulate a resistor in series with a diode and determine the actual and apparent power if an AC coupled current meter is used? Duncan P.S. I never mentioned either bridge rectifiers or capacitors. In the case of a bridge rectifier type power supply, then a clamp on ammeter will work OK. I do not suspect such a thing in the demo. On 5/26/2013 7:35 PM, David Roberson wrote: Assume that you have a bridge rectifier in the blue box. This is followed by a filtering capacitor. The DC is then used by the electronics connected to the capacitor. Are you saying that it is not possible to determine the power input to this type of network by measuring the input AC voltage and current? Or are you saying that someone has performed a scam and put a DC supply in series with the normal AC voltage? You do know that this could easily be measured by a simple DC voltmeter, right? Dave -Original Message- From: Duncan Cumming spacedr...@cumming.info To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Sun, May 26, 2013 10:01 pm Subject: Re: [Vo]:Re: [Vo]:Re: [Vo]:Re: [Vo]:Torbjörn Hartman describes power measurments Almost. The power being fed to the heater exceeds that measured at the wall, because the sensor used (an AC current clamp) cannot sense the direct current being drawn from the wall socket. Some people find the difference between current and voltage confusing. What I am saying here is that if you connect a resistor in series with a diode to a wall socket, then the CURRENT drawn is direct even though the VOLTAGE at the socket is alternating. (Rossi does not seem to understand this concept judging by his message that got posted today). So unless you use a DC rated current meter (such as a shunt) you will not sense all of the current, and hence power, drawn from the wall socket. The electrical power meter in your house certainloy IS rated for DC, so you will certainly be BILLED for the power even though you didn't measure it yourself! V = IR Power = Voltage * Current * Power Factor Duncan On 5/26/2013 5:57 PM, Eric Walker wrote: I wrote: On Sun, May 26, 2013 at 5:18 PM, Duncan Cumming spacedr...@cumming.info mailto:spacedr...@cumming.info wrote: I am not trying to assert anything as fact. I am merely pointing out that a simple diode inside the controller box (to which access was forbidden by Rossi) COULD HAVE given the observed results. I am NOT saying that it, in fact, did, merely speculating that it could have. Am I right in understanding that this line of reasoning requires tampering with the mains itself, where the electrical measurements were made, in addition to any sly customizations that might have been made at the controller? I think I'm starting to understand. This is a separate line of reasoning to the one about the possibility of hidden DC and RF passing undetected through the clamp meters at the mains. In this line of reasoning, the duty cycle (35 percent ON) is misunderstood, and there is a hidden DC component from the controller delivering power to the E-Cat, but not above what was read from the wall -- am I describing this right? Eric
[Vo]:Updated Fakes Document
http://lenr.qumbu.com/ root http://lenr.qumbu.com/rossi_ecat_proof_frames_v430.php frames Summary : In May 2013 the results of a Third Party test were presented as an arxiv.org paper. A summary is at Forbes. Unlike previous eCat models which heated water, producing steam, the Hot Cat was evaluated on its own, producing heat as radiation and by convection. Three tests were performed: November 2012. A test was started with a new Hot Cat (HT), but the eCat ran away -- The performance of this device was such that the reactor was destroyed, melting the internal steel cylinder and the surrounding ceramic layers. December 2012. A 96-hour run was made, giving a calculated COP of 5.6 March 2013. A 112-hour run was made, intentionally at a lower temperature, giving a calculated COP of 2.6 In all cases the output energy was calculated based on the radiation emitted by the device, and the calculated thermal convection. The AC input power was measured with an appropriate wide-band meter. They did not, however, check the DC component of the input power, or use their own cable between the Rossi-supplied power socket and Rossi's controller. The investigators were not allowed to see the magic powder (they were allowed to see its container), or to examine the waveforms on the wires between Rossi's controller and the eCat. Neither of these affect the calorimetric results. So we are left with a few options: The reported results are true (with minor debate about the accuracy of some measurements) There was a Wiring Fake -- either by special wires, or by a large DC component. The investigators are co-conspirators with Rossi and the whole experiment must be ignored. The rest of my analysis assumes the results are true. I will use the energy densities based on the volume of the eCat's components. The result shows that with even a highly implausible fake (the entire visible cylinder consists of Boron, which burns with external air) the eCat ran over 500 times longer than the fake.
Re: [Vo]:Re: [Vo]:Torbjörn Hartman describes power measurments
Duncan, Read some of my recent posts and you will see why it will not work. Unless Rossi has hidden a DC source behind the wall plug it does not matter how much DC flows into the control box due to rectification. The input power is uniquely defined by the AC voltage and AC current waveforms leaving the wall. You are mistaken about the DC effects since the transformer driving the building should present a DC short to ground. If not, I suspect major code violations are present. If you continue to insist that Rossi is conducting a scam by altering the power socket then there is no reason to continue with this discussion. If you honestly believe that there is some form of DC trick that can be done with the control box, then we can clear up this misunderstanding. Your call. Dave -Original Message- From: Duncan Cumming spacedr...@cumming.info To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Mon, May 27, 2013 1:59 pm Subject: [Vo]:Re: [Vo]:Torbjörn Hartman describes power measurments Actually it is not beyond the bounds of possibility to set up such a demonstration. What exactly do you have in mind, and who would be interested in seeing such a demo? Do you have any contacts on the Rossi team? I don't think Rossi would travel to the USA to see such a demo. Electrical Engineers already know that a diode will convert AC to DC. Pretty much all scientists know that an AC current clamp will not measure DC. (Of course, DC rated Hall effect clamps are available but were not used in the demo, partially because Rossi appears to believe that an AC outlet will only deliver AC current - this is far from being the case). So who would your intended audience be for such a demonstration? Duncan On 5/26/2013 7:26 PM, David Roberson wrote: Not my position. You need to show how it was done. Dave -Original Message- From: Duncan Cumming spacedr...@cumming.info To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Sun, May 26, 2013 9:47 pm Subject: Re: [Vo]:Re: [Vo]:Torbjörn Hartman describes power measurments So is it your position that acurrent clamp without a Hall effect unit can measure DC?Mine is that it cannot. Duncan On 5/26/2013 5:34 PM, David Roberson wrote: How do we know that your diode trick will actually do what you think? You need to prove that this is possible, otherwise anyone can make the assumption that it might not work just as with the ECAT tests. If you do not prove that this will work, then why should we accept it as a possibility? A lot of time and energy is being wasted tryingto see if bull frogs can fly. Some might actuallybe born with wings. Have we proven that none ofthem can fly? Rossi and the testers have done a lot to provethat the ECAT works. No one has proven that itdoes not. The only offers from the other side ofthe table assume fraud. Is this a valid positionfor them to take? Dave -OriginalMessage- From: Duncan Cumming spacedr...@cumming.info To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Sun, May 26, 2013 8:18 pm Subject: Re: [Vo]:Re: [Vo]:Torbjörn Hartman describes power measurments I am not trying to assert anything as fact. I am merely pointing out that a simple diode inside the controller box (to which access was forbidden by Rossi) COULD HAVE given the observed results. I am NOT saying that it, in fact, did, merely speculating that it could have. For any scientific experiment, the onus is on the experimenters to produce the result. The best way to do this is to provide sufficient information for others to replicate the experiment. Duncan
[Vo]:Re: [Vo]:Re: [Vo]:Re: [Vo]:Re: [Vo]:Re: [Vo]:Torbjörn Hartman describes power measurments
http://www.circuitstoday.com/half-wave-rectifiers *(ii)**Disadvantages:1.* The output current in the load contains,* in addition to dc component*, *ac components of basic frequency equal to that of the input voltage frequency*. Ripple factor is high and an elaborate filtering is, therefore, required to give steady dc output. *(iii)*2.The power output and, therefore, rectification efficiency is quite low. This is due to the fact that power is delivered only half the time. *(iv)*3.Transformer utilization factor is low. *(v)*4.*DC saturation of transformer core resulting in magnetizing current and hysteresis losses and generation of harmonics.* transformer are not perfect and saturation solve the DC component problem. 2013/5/27 David Roberson dlrober...@aol.com The concept mentioned below by Duncan is not correct. The DC current that flows into the resistor from the wall socket finds a short circuit to ground in the power transformer center tap in most cases.
[Vo]:Ekstrom critique of Levi et al.
Comments on the report 'Indication of anomalous heat energy production in a reactor device containing hydrogen loaded nickel powder' by Giuseppe Levi et al. Peter Ekström, Department of Physics, Lund University http://nuclearphysics.nuclear.lu.se/lpe/files/62739576.pdf This document stands as its own rebuttal. - ed
Re: [Vo]:BEC transforms photon frequency
I posted this not long ago as follows: http://phys.org/news/2013-05-physicists-revolutionary-low-power-polariton- laser.html *Physicists develop revolutionary low-power polariton laser* LENR is like a polaritor laser turned in onto itself. Dark mode EMF is not allowed to exit the lattice (nuclear active environment). The EMF just builds and builds until the space and matter around it breaks apart. When nuclear energy is released, the coherence is broken, and the EMF buildup starts all over again, in an endless cycle In nanopasmonics, they have named this polaritron laser Spaser *arxiv.org/pdf/1210.7086* *also see* http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spaser From *Nature*:[3] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spaser#cite_note-3 A spaser is the nanoplasmonic counterpart of a laserhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laser, but it (ideally) does not emit photonshttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Photons. It is analogous to the conventional laser, but in a spaser photons are replaced by surface plasmons and the resonant cavity is replaced by a nanoparticle, which supports the plasmonic modes. Similarly to a laser, the energy source for the spasing mechanism is an active (gain) medium that is excited externally. This excitation field may be optical and unrelated to the spaser’s operating frequency; for instance, a spaser can operate in the near-infrared http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Infrared but the excitation of the gain medium can be achieved using an ultraviolethttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ultravioletpulse. The reason that surface plasmons in a spaser can work analogously to photons in a laser is that their relevant physical properties are the same. First, surface plasmons are bosons http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bosons: they are vector excitations and have spinhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spin_(physics)1, just as photons do. Second, surface plasmons are electrically neutral excitations. And third, surface plasmons are the most collective material oscillations known in nature, which implies they are the most harmonic (that is, they interact very weakly with one another). As such, surface plasmons can undergo stimulated emission, accumulating in a single mode in large numbers, which is the physical foundation of both the laser and the spaser. Spasers are no big thing, Ed. Just another day at the office for nanoplasmonics. https://www.google.com/# On Mon, May 27, 2013 at 2:01 PM, Edmund Storms stor...@ix.netcom.comwrote: Let me be clear, Axil. I have not hit on anything. Kim first suggested a BEC can form at high temperatures in a lattice. I do not believe this is possible. I DO NOT accept this as an explanation of LENR. The BEC is known from experience and theory to only form near absolute zero. If a lattice is able to form a BEC based on hydrogen at room temperature and above, this by itself would be a Nobel Prize discovery if true. I see no reason to apply an explanation that is so unique to explain CF. In addition, the behavior, as I note below, is not consistent with what is observed. This does not account for the few neutrons. The few neutrons are near background and can be more easily explained as a result of fractofusion. Ed Storms On May 27, 2013, at 11:44 AM, Axil Axil wrote: Ed has hit upon the secret of LENR in a back handed way. BEC can form at extreme temperatures; this miracle is the backbone of LENR. Electrons can be broken apart into thier constituent components: charge, angular momentum, and spin. http://arstechnica.com/science/2012/04/electrons-like-gaul-come-in-three-parts/ http://www.physics.harvard.edu/Thesespdfs/tserkovnyak.pdf In thin nanoantennas, charge is broken free of the electron and is free to combine with light to form a polariton. Since light can readily form condensates, AKS lasers, charge is taken along for the ride. Extreme amounts of charge are accumulated and light/charge is compressed into a dark photon singularity. Ed must eventually understand the new science of topological materials and the formation of quasiparticles. On Mon, May 27, 2013 at 1:03 PM, Edmund Storms stor...@ix.netcom.comwrote: That is the idea. However, why would only a few hydrons fuse leaving just enough unreacted hydrons available to carry all the energy without it producing energetic radiation? I would expect occasionally, many hydrons would fuse leaving too few unreacted hydrons so that the dissipated energy would have to be very energetic and easily detected. Also, how is this mass-energy coupled to the unreacted hydrons? The BEC is not stable at high temperatures, which would be present inside the BEC when mass-energy was released. I would expect this release would destroy the BEC, leaving the fused hydrons to dissipate energy by the normal hot fusion method. The concept appears to have many logical flaws. Ed Storms On May 27, 2013, at 10:08 AM, Kevin O'Malley wrote: Then is that an explanation of why Gamma rays are not observed in
RE: [Vo]:Water Window, Hexavalency, Bergius and Rossi
Mornin' Jones! NAE might imply to some 'nuclear', but I qualified it with , ..in or around the NAE, *whatever they turn out to be*, I use the term NAE more in a general sense to refer to the localized areas that are conducive to the reaction/process... it obviously is quite different than the bulk, or else there would be a big hole in the earth, instead of the tabletop! ;-) Processes in the bulk can be considered random and disordered, and therefore one must use QM and probabilities to predict behaviors. I would bet that once we understand what is going on in NAEs (generally speaking), it will NOT be random, and will be modeled in a more classical manner. I see much discussion about the conditions necessary to overcome the coulomb barrier. In trying to think their way thru it, they apply some scientific 'rules' so as to propose something that is at least reasonable, and rightfully so. However, the 'rules' seem to me to be taken from what's expected of the bulk properties, and I take issue with that. The concept of resonances and coherent (or in-phase) oscillatory systems can cause long-term localized regions which concentrate energy; the bulk's physics of chaotic randomness does NOT support this concentration of energy. For the localized areas (NAEs), is the concentration of energy enough to overcome the coulomb barrier? Time will tell. Tesla was generating potentials of tens of millions of volts in his secondary from only a few hundred volts in his primary, so amplification factors of 4 to 6 orders of magnitude are perfectly reasonable... -Mark _ From: Jones Beene [mailto:jone...@pacbell.net] Sent: Monday, May 27, 2013 9:54 AM To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: RE: [Vo]:Water Window, Hexavalency, Bergius and Rossi Mark, Yes - the energy localization aspect of Ahern/Dicke/Preparata and the superradiance modality could apply to any secondary reaction which benefits from local mechanical pressure at the nm geometry. However, the NAE implies a nuclear reaction, which may not be necessary. The absence of gamma radiation presents the prima facie case that no traditional nuclear reaction takes place. The is no good reason to propose a known nuclear reaction, if good alternatives exist, which is the case. Ahern and others, including Mitchell Swartz seem to be leaning towards an explanation where thermal gain is QM-based and mediated by spin dynamics - which involves the magnon. The source for energy mediated by magnons can itself be nuclear or non-nuclear. This is where semantics enters the picture - but one is on firmer theoretical ground using QM magnons as an operative modality - rather than LENR cold fusion. The magnon is a Goldstone boson (wiki has an entry) and can turn up in both magnetic anomalies and nuclear anomalies. It is spin based. The magnon can be said to be the quantum of spin. Actually subnuclear is the preferred semantics for the ultimate energy source for magnons since pions are themselves pseudo-Goldstone bosons, at a minimum and there are no other nuclear indicia. When the nucleus is involved via a magnon modality, mass will be converted into energy in smaller packets, and without a change in the identity of the nucleon. That is the key semantic difference between subnuclear and nuclear. Thus, we can propose using the term subnuclear energy to describe magnon mediated conversion, instead of nuclear energy since the later almost always implies an identity change in the nucleus (and larger packets of energy). _ From: MarkI-ZeroPoint If this sort of thing is happening in or around the NAE, whatever they turn out to be, then it could very well explain how the Coulomb barrier is overcome... _ From: Jones Beene In pursuit of more evidence for the ~300 eV photon - in the sense of it being the active energy transfer particle for the Rossi effect, another curiosity turns up - the water window. This is a favorable scaling region at the border of EUV and x-radiation for near-coherency and transparency. The wavelength is around 4 nm in the spectral region between the Carbon and Oxygen K shell absorption edges. The Rossi effect does not employ planned coherency it would seem, unless AR is cleverer than anyone imagines. However, from the earliest days, Dicke superradiance was thought to be involved in LENR in a causative way, even if inadvertent. Preparata expanded on this - and it was called DPSR or Dicke-Preparata Superradiance. Ahern calls it energy localization attachment: winmail.dat
Re: [Vo]:RE: [Vo]:Re: [Vo]:Torbjörn Hartman describes power measurments
My source was Hanno Essen, one of the authors. He answered a question asked by email by one Sterling D. Allan http://sterlingdallan.com/ / of Pure Energy Systems News/, reported earlier in this list. /4. Have you tried to test the output of the power supply to exclude that/ /also a DC current is supplied to the device, which clamp amperometers/ /could not detect?/ No, we did not think of that. The power came from a normal wall socket and there did not seem to be any reason to suspect that it was manipulated in some special way. Now that the point is raised we can check this in future tests. The PCE clamp to which you link is, indeed, DC rated. But Essen does seem to believe, erroneously, that it is not possible to draw direct current from an ordinary AC outlet. In fact, a simple diode does enable one to take fluctuating DC from an AC outlet, which outlet has not been manipulated in any special way. Maybe Essen does not have an EE background? On 5/26/2013 7:53 PM, Jones Beene wrote: *From:*Duncan Cumming So is it your position that a current clamp without a Hall effect unit can measure DC? Mine is that it cannot. Did you actually check the PCE site? It looks to me like all the current clamps on the PCE power analyzer site measure both AC and DC http://www.industrial-needs.com/technical-data/current-detector-PCE-DC-3.htm
Re: [Vo]:Re: Constant temperature Operation of ECAT?
Sure, the reference would be the set point, and that's simply the operating temperature. Notionally you set this as high as possible, consistent with materials integrity and the ability to regulate a strongly intrinsically-positive feedback system (the device itself). The idea is that you end up with Kp*Kn = 1, where Kp is the intrinsic positive feedback gain (1, and becoming higher at higher temperature), and Kn is the negative feedback gain (1, representing the characteristics of the active cooling system). Of course, it's more complex than that due to first (and higher) order time differentials, and an integral term due to stored heat energy, but that's the basic proportional rule. Designing that would be fun. The most fun I had in my 40+ engineering career was designing industrial robots. Right now, I'm looking for a new job. Andrew - Original Message - From: David Roberson To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Monday, May 27, 2013 10:49 AM Subject: Re: [Vo]:Re: Constant temperature Operation of ECAT? Rossi keeps this information secret. It is unfortunate that he does this, but that is his nature. I would love to see a number of measurements associated with his material, but all questions of that sort are blocked due to IP concerns. It is frustrating to be kept at arms length from such important and history making knowledge. You mention active cooling in the context of negative feedback and I suppose that might be somewhat applicable. Systems can be stabilized by adding an overall negative feedback loop around the process but in this case I do not see how any form of reference temperature can be used to generate an error signal for correction. Do you detect a reference upon which this loop would act? Dave -Original Message- From: Andrew andrew...@att.net To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Mon, May 27, 2013 1:30 pm Subject: Re: [Vo]:Re: Constant temperature Operation of ECAT? OK, thanks for the info - I had not seen those reports. Certainly it is in general expected to happen if it's known that the reaction rate increases with temperature. So the trick with active negative feedback (cooling) applied at higher temperature is that this technique holds the promise for much higher COP values. Indeed, an excellently engineered device promises to be very hot, to be under complete temperature control, and to perhaps to generate double digit COP values. Assuming that at some point Rossi licences this technology, the thermal control and the temperature operating point look like they would be key market differentiators. Do we have data as to how low the temperature can go, and still maintain over-unity COP? Andrew - Original Message - From: David Roberson To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Monday, May 27, 2013 10:18 AM Subject: Re: [Vo]:Re: Constant temperature Operation of ECAT? The earlier posts by Rossi on his blog mention many cases where thermal run away happened. Most of these were when he was developing the earlier versions of his mechanism. The fact that thermal run away can occur has been common knowledge for a very long time. Anytime a positive temperature coefficient is present thermal runaway is possible under certain conditions. Power transistors are a prime example of this when they self destruct unless the heat sinking is adequate to reduce the thermal resistance so that the positive feedback loop gain is below unity. Rossi has a similar problem to deal with. In his case, he is using what is normally a problem to his advantage to improve his COP. Without this help he would have a far lower COP. You get a COP of 1 for free, and much beyond that might result in unstable operation. Even operating at a COP of 3 has risk of thermal run away. Dave -Original Message- From: Andrew andrew...@att.net To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Mon, May 27, 2013 1:03 pm Subject: Re: [Vo]:Re: Constant temperature Operation of ECAT? Glad we're back in sync. Although there's definite evidence for thermal runaway 25 years ago with PF, with Rossi's kit I'm not so certain. In fact, I don't know of a single example. He only got the meltdown when he applied continuous power at a level far above that which he uses now. Andrew - Original Message - From: David Roberson To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Monday, May 27, 2013 7:00 AM Subject: Re: [Vo]:Re: Constant temperature Operation of ECAT? I suppose that it would be easier in person to discuss this issue, but that is not available. Yes, we are on the same page regarding the positive feedback threshold leading to self destruction. I refer to what you mention as active cooling of the system. We have discussed this in vortex on several occasions in the past. I think that it is a winning idea, but so far I have not detected
Re: [Vo]: Constant temperature Operation of ECAT?
nuclear reactor have a power versus temperature curve with multiple resonance, normally you set the reactor in the negative slope... if you move it too violently, even to the low, to can get to the positive slope on the next resonance that is tchernobyl as someone told me... reactor was in bad condition because or (xenon?) contamination, they pushed, pushed, no reaction, pushed, pushed and boum... the exact story is more complex but that is a short summary... 2013/5/27 David Roberson dlrober...@aol.com I am not too familiar with a nuclear reactor, but I suspect that the movement of the rods must be extremely careful and minor to keep it from getting dangerously out of control. It looks a lot like a nuclear bomb in slow motion. Dave
Re: [Vo]:Re: [Vo]:Re: [Vo]:Re: [Vo]:Torbjörn Hartman describes power measurments
Yes, Robin is correct. Duncan On 5/26/2013 8:08 PM, mix...@bigpond.com wrote: In reply to David Roberson's message of Sun, 26 May 2013 22:35:09 -0400 (EDT): Hi, This is a little different. A full bridge rectifier will allow for both halves of the AC current to pass, and so it should be measured as little different to a purely resistive load. However a single diode will only allow one half to pass, which *may* mess up magnetic field based current measurements. (I guess whether if does or not depends on the sophistication of the device.) Assume that you have a bridge rectifier in the blue box. This is followed by a filtering capacitor. The DC is then used by the electronics connected to the capacitor. Are you saying that it is not possible to determine the power input to this type of network by measuring the input AC voltage and current? Or are you saying that someone has performed a scam and put a DC supply in series with the normal AC voltage? You do know that this could easily be measured by a simple DC voltmeter, right? Dave [snip] Regards, Robin van Spaandonk http://rvanspaa.freehostia.com/project.html
[Vo]:Re: [Vo]:Re: [Vo]:Torbjörn Hartman describes power measurments
Word up Duncan - Rossi currently resides in Florida! You could call it The Power Sneaker. Andrew - Original Message - From: Duncan Cumming To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Monday, May 27, 2013 10:59 AM Subject: [Vo]:Re: [Vo]:Torbjörn Hartman describes power measurments Actually it is not beyond the bounds of possibility to set up such a demonstration. What exactly do you have in mind, and who would be interested in seeing such a demo? Do you have any contacts on the Rossi team? I don't think Rossi would travel to the USA to see such a demo. Electrical Engineers already know that a diode will convert AC to DC. Pretty much all scientists know that an AC current clamp will not measure DC. (Of course, DC rated Hall effect clamps are available but were not used in the demo, partially because Rossi appears to believe that an AC outlet will only deliver AC current - this is far from being the case). So who would your intended audience be for such a demonstration? Duncan On 5/26/2013 7:26 PM, David Roberson wrote: Not my position. You need to show how it was done. Dave -Original Message- From: Duncan Cumming spacedr...@cumming.info To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Sun, May 26, 2013 9:47 pm Subject: Re: [Vo]:Re: [Vo]:Torbjörn Hartman describes power measurments So is it your position that a current clamp without a Hall effect unit can measure DC? Mine is that it cannot. Duncan On 5/26/2013 5:34 PM, David Roberson wrote: How do we know that your diode trick will actually do what you think? You need to prove that this is possible, otherwise anyone can make the assumption that it might not work just as with the ECAT tests. If you do not prove that this will work, then why should we accept it as a possibility? A lot of time and energy is being wasted trying to see if bull frogs can fly. Some might actually be born with wings. Have we proven that none of them can fly? Rossi and the testers have done a lot to prove that the ECAT works. No one has proven that it does not. The only offers from the other side of the table assume fraud. Is this a valid position for them to take? Dave -Original Message- From: Duncan Cumming spacedr...@cumming.info To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Sun, May 26, 2013 8:18 pm Subject: Re: [Vo]:Re: [Vo]:Torbjörn Hartman describes power measurments I am not trying to assert anything as fact. I am merely pointing out that a simple diode inside the controller box (to which access was forbidden by Rossi) COULD HAVE given the observed results. I am NOT saying that it, in fact, did, merely speculating that it could have. For any scientific experiment, the onus is on the experimenters to produce the result. The best way to do this is to provide sufficient information for others to replicate the experiment. Duncan On 5/26/2013 5:07 PM, David Roberson wrote: Perhaps you should build one of these scam machines and prove that it will work without being detected. That would be the best way to show that it is possible. Why should we accept this assertion as fact any more than believing that the testers missed finding the scam? We can spend an equal amount of time knocking down any theory that is put forth as others can spend assuming they are real. Dave -Original Message- From: Duncan Cumming spacedr...@cumming.info To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Sun, May 26, 2013 7:59 pm Subject: [Vo]:Re: [Vo]:Torbjörn Hartman describes power measurments The only possibility to fool the power-meter then is to raise the DC voltage on all the four lines This turns out not to be the case. You could also draw DC current through any of the lines, which current would not register on the clamps. The simplest way to do this would be just to use a diode in series with the heating element. Since power = current x voltage x pf, it is NOT necessary to change the voltage in order to change the power. Duncan On 5/26/2013 2:21 PM, Jed Rothwell wrote: A Swedish correspondent sent me this link: http://www.energikatalysatorn.se/forum/viewtopic.php?f=2t=560sid=5450c28dab532569dee72f88a43a56f0start=330 This is a discussion in Swedish, which Google does a good job translating. Before you translate it, you will see that in the middle of it is a message from one of the authors, Torbjörn Hartman, in English. Here it is, with a few typos corrected. QUOTE: Remember that there were not only three clamps to measure the current on three phases but also four connectors to measure the voltage on the three phases and the zero/ground line. The protective ground line was not used and laid curled up on the bench. The only possibility to fool the power-meter then is to raise the DC voltage on all the four lines but
Re: [Vo]:Re: [Vo]:Re: [Vo]:Re: [Vo]:Re: [Vo]:Re: [Vo]:Torbjörn Hartman describes power measurments
Half wave rectifiers are not the way to go. They have been all but abandoned in the electronic world because of the issues you have found. Full wave bridges eliminate the DC component from the mix and should be used. This does not suggest that accurate power measurements can not be obtained from the AC waveforms. This can be done and is the reason for much of the discussion taking place. Dave -Original Message- From: Alain Sepeda alain.sep...@gmail.com To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Mon, May 27, 2013 2:19 pm Subject: [Vo]:Re: [Vo]:Re: [Vo]:Re: [Vo]:Re: [Vo]:Re: [Vo]:Torbjörn Hartman describes power measurments http://www.circuitstoday.com/half-wave-rectifiers (ii)Disadvantages:1. The output current in the load contains, in addition to dc component, ac components of basic frequency equal to that of the input voltage frequency. Ripple factor is high and an elaborate filtering is, therefore, required to give steady dc output. (iii)2.The power output and, therefore, rectification efficiency is quite low. This is due to the fact that power is delivered only half the time. (iv)3.Transformer utilization factor is low. (v)4.DC saturation of transformer core resulting in magnetizing current and hysteresis losses and generation of harmonics. transformer are not perfect and saturation solve the DC component problem. 2013/5/27 David Roberson dlrober...@aol.com The concept mentioned below by Duncan is not correct. The DC current that flows into the resistor from the wall socket finds a short circuit to ground in the power transformer center tap in most cases.
[Vo]:Re: [Vo]:Torbjörn Hartman describes
With chopped DC, a clamp on ammeter will show the AC component. So if you had 0 to 1 amp chopped, the ammeter would show 0.5 amps peak AC. So you get a partial reading, substantially less than the true current that is actually flowing. IMHO, this could have happened at the demo. I am not saying that it did (I was not there), merely that it could have. Duncan On 5/26/2013 8:09 PM, a.ashfield wrote: Duncan Cumming No, it does not. What happens is that the diode rectifies the mains to DC, and the DC is not sensed by the clamp-type current meter. What would the clamp on meter show with chopped DC?
[Vo]:Re: [Vo]:Re: [Vo]:Torbjörn Hartman describes power measurments
Dave, there are a couple of things wrong with your analysis. First off, the insertion of an isolation capacitor between the main grid transformer and the plug takes care of your short circuit problem. And then there's the possibility of injection of RF also, also capacitatively coupled into the plug lines. Andrew - Original Message - From: David Roberson To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Monday, May 27, 2013 11:17 AM Subject: Re: [Vo]:Re: [Vo]:Torbjörn Hartman describes power measurments Duncan, Read some of my recent posts and you will see why it will not work. Unless Rossi has hidden a DC source behind the wall plug it does not matter how much DC flows into the control box due to rectification. The input power is uniquely defined by the AC voltage and AC current waveforms leaving the wall. You are mistaken about the DC effects since the transformer driving the building should present a DC short to ground. If not, I suspect major code violations are present. If you continue to insist that Rossi is conducting a scam by altering the power socket then there is no reason to continue with this discussion. If you honestly believe that there is some form of DC trick that can be done with the control box, then we can clear up this misunderstanding. Your call. Dave -Original Message- From: Duncan Cumming spacedr...@cumming.info To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Mon, May 27, 2013 1:59 pm Subject: [Vo]:Re: [Vo]:Torbjörn Hartman describes power measurments Actually it is not beyond the bounds of possibility to set up such a demonstration. What exactly do you have in mind, and who would be interested in seeing such a demo? Do you have any contacts on the Rossi team? I don't think Rossi would travel to the USA to see such a demo. Electrical Engineers already know that a diode will convert AC to DC. Pretty much all scientists know that an AC current clamp will not measure DC. (Of course, DC rated Hall effect clamps are available but were not used in the demo, partially because Rossi appears to believe that an AC outlet will only deliver AC current - this is far from being the case). So who would your intended audience be for such a demonstration? Duncan On 5/26/2013 7:26 PM, David Roberson wrote: Not my position. You need to show how it was done. Dave -Original Message- From: Duncan Cumming spacedr...@cumming.info To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Sun, May 26, 2013 9:47 pm Subject: Re: [Vo]:Re: [Vo]:Torbjörn Hartman describes power measurments So is it your position that a current clamp without a Hall effect unit can measure DC? Mine is that it cannot. Duncan On 5/26/2013 5:34 PM, David Roberson wrote: How do we know that your diode trick will actually do what you think? You need to prove that this is possible, otherwise anyone can make the assumption that it might not work just as with the ECAT tests. If you do not prove that this will work, then why should we accept it as a possibility? A lot of time and energy is being wasted trying to see if bull frogs can fly. Some might actually be born with wings. Have we proven that none of them can fly? Rossi and the testers have done a lot to prove that the ECAT works. No one has proven that it does not. The only offers from the other side of the table assume fraud. Is this a valid position for them to take? Dave -Original Message- From: Duncan Cumming spacedr...@cumming.info To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Sun, May 26, 2013 8:18 pm Subject: Re: [Vo]:Re: [Vo]:Torbjörn Hartman describes power measurments I am not trying to assert anything as fact. I am merely pointing out that a simple diode inside the controller box (to which access was forbidden by Rossi) COULD HAVE given the observed results. I am NOT saying that it, in fact, did, merely speculating that it could have. For any scientific experiment, the onus is on the experimenters to produce the result. The best way to do this is to provide sufficient information for others to replicate the experiment. Duncan On 5/26/2013 5:07 PM, David Roberson wrote: Perhaps you should build one of these scam machines and prove that it will work without being detected. That would be the best way to show that it is possible. Why should we accept this assertion as fact any more than believing that the testers missed finding the scam? We can spend an equal amount of time knocking down any theory that is put forth as others can spend assuming they are real. Dave -Original Message- From: Duncan Cumming spacedr...@cumming.info To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Sun, May 26, 2013 7:59 pm Subject: [Vo]:Re: [Vo]:Torbjörn Hartman describes power measurments The only possibility to fool
Re: [Vo]:The Real Space Age
Terry: It is the fulfillment of a lot of effort by citizen groups who lobbied Congress. I led some of them. We asked that they encourage NASA to withdraw from the transportation industry and stimulate the private sector to take its place. Had the economy not crashed in 2008 and had Congress implemented some of the proposals more aggressively, I think the roll out would have already occurred. If LENR verifies, the age of space will open with a flurry in the next 10 years. It's what got me interested in watching LENR. Even without this revolution in energy, the space age will open to non government participants shortly. Should be fun. Ransom Sent from my iPhone On May 27, 2013, at 12:46 PM, Terry Blanton hohlr...@gmail.com wrote: I was saddened by the day that NASA essentially abandoned manned space flight thinking it was the end of the Space Age. Was I ever wrong! You probably know about most of these companies; but, here is a compilation: http://nymag.com/news/features/space-travel-2013-5/
Re: [Vo]: Constant temperature Operation of ECAT?
I would put the Rossi reaction tube in the middle of a lithium heat pipe. This pipe conducts heat great. Its thermal conductivity is billions of times as efficient as water. This would equate to a large and highly reactive thermal mass. You should try to model this type of design. On Mon, May 27, 2013 at 11:26 AM, David Roberson dlrober...@aol.com wrote: I have no idea how nano-particles might be associated with the Rossi device. I do however think that any final product that he produces must have a panic button of some sort when the process gets out of control. Perhaps your idea might constitute a safety process. Dave -Original Message- From: Axil Axil janap...@gmail.com To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Mon, May 27, 2013 1:41 am Subject: Re: [Vo]: Constant temperature Operation of ECAT? Assuming that the Rossi reaction is based on nano-particles, say of hydrogen and potassium, it may be possible to disrupt these clusters electrically. This will reduce the vigor of the reaction. But in a short time the hydrogen and potassium nano-clusters will build again, requiring that they be continually disrupted in a cycle. As long as the cluster disruption circuit is working, the reactor will not overheat. I the circuit fails, another mechanism to stop the reactor must be used such a blowing off the hydrogen. The cluster disruption circuit would allow the reactor to walk the knife’s edge of stability at a very high temperature. I wanted to get your expert opinion on this idea.
Re: [Vo]:Ekstrom critique of Levi et al.
From: Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com Sent: Monday, May 27, 2013 11:20:43 AM Comments on the report 'Indication of anomalous heat energy production in a reactor device containing hydrogen loaded nickel powder' by Giuseppe Levi et al. Peter Ekström, Department of Physics, Lund University http://nuclearphysics.nuclear.lu.se/lpe/files/62739576.pdf This document stands as its own rebuttal. In line 1 he makes a dig at Rossi's spelling indipendent : that's NOT in the paper. Yes, it was originally written in Italian and translated. So? He follows Motl in treating the outer cylinder as steel, not steel-ceramic-paint. Did we do the math on this? It was very clearly explained in the paper why they went for a lower COP in March. He's following Krivit (or MaryYugo, but they're the same person, aren't they?) on Levi/Rossi being old buddies. There's no evidence that Levi met Rossi before the Dec 2010 test, and was introduced to him by Forcadi. etc etc
[Vo]:Re: [Vo]:Re: [Vo]:Re: [Vo]:Torbjörn Hartman describes power measurments
Duncan Cumming wrote: (Of course, DC rated Hall effect clamps are available but were not used in the demo, partially because Rossi appears to believe that an AC outlet will only deliver AC current - this is far from being the case). 1. People have been measuring DC amperage by measuring a magnetic field since 1820. 2. These are Hall effect clamps. See the specifications They are rated for very low DC power: http://www.industrial-needs.com/manual/manual-clamp-meter-pce-cd3.pdf 3. Rossi played no role in this. His beliefs about AC are probably not as you describe them, but in any case he had no say in the matter. - Jed
[Vo]:Re: [Vo]:Torbjörn Hartman describes power measurments
I am not sure if I count as a skeptic, because I am not saying that any kind of scam was perpetrated. I am certainly not suggesting that there was a DC power supply hidden in the wall! My doubts are related to the electrical engineering skills evident in the published paper, attempting the notoriously difficult task of measuring three phase non sinusoidal power. Not only is the waveform non sinusoidal, it is a trade secret! I am merely saying that rectification will cause a misleadingly low value of current to be registered using a clamp on ammeter. Since the DC is not smooth, there will, indeed, be a small reading from the ammeter but substantially lower than the actual current. This will, in turn, lead to a misleadingly low power measurement. Duncan On 5/26/2013 8:46 PM, David Roberson wrote: Robin, The problem at hand is that the skeptic claims that power due to the DC current can be very large and not detected. There has been no discussion of the AC current reading being affected by the DC so far. That is a different issue entirely. I would like for them to answer the questions because then they might realize that their position is invalid. I can explain this if required. No one is suggesting that Rossi actually has a DC power supply hidden within the wall I hope. This would be beyond reality since it would be so easy to measure with a voltmeter or any monitor that looks at the voltage. The testers did a visual look at the voltage from what I have determined. So, skeptics, what say you? Dave -Original Message- From: mixent mix...@bigpond.com To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Sun, May 26, 2013 11:08 pm Subject: Re: [Vo]:Re: [Vo]:Re: [Vo]:Re: [Vo]:Torbjörn Hartman describes power measurments In reply to David Roberson's message of Sun, 26 May 2013 22:35:09 -0400 (EDT): Hi, This is a little different. A full bridge rectifier will allow for both halves of the AC current to pass, and so it should be measured as little different to a purely resistive load. However a single diode will only allow one half to pass, which *may* mess up magnetic field based current measurements. (I guess whether if does or not depends on the sophistication of the device.) Assume that you have a bridge rectifier in the blue box. This is followed by a filtering capacitor. The DC is then used by the electronics connected to the capacitor. Are you saying that it is not possible to determine the power input to this type of network by measuring the input AC voltage and current? Or are you saying that someone has performed a scam and put a DC supply in series with the normal AC voltage? You do know that this could easily be measured by a simple DC voltmeter, right? Dave [snip] Regards, Robin van Spaandonk http://rvanspaa.freehostia.com/project.html
Re: [Vo]:Re: Constant temperature Operation of ECAT?
I do not follow how the set point can be the operating temperature. How is this inputting to the comparator? Are you proposing some external heat source which remains constant at that temperature? For a loop to function it must have a reference that does not change with the controlled parameter. If this is not the case, then the temperature will drift toward one of its limits. The beauty of positive feedback is that this type of behavior is exactly what you desire. As long as you can reverse the drift direction periodically you are in control. Dave -Original Message- From: Andrew andrew...@att.net To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Mon, May 27, 2013 2:23 pm Subject: Re: [Vo]:Re: Constant temperature Operation of ECAT? Sure, the reference would be the set point, and that's simply the operating temperature. Notionally you set this as high as possible, consistent with materials integrity and the ability to regulate a strongly intrinsically-positive feedback system (the device itself). The idea is that you end up with Kp*Kn = 1, where Kp is the intrinsic positive feedback gain (1, and becoming higher at higher temperature), and Kn is the negative feedback gain (1, representing the characteristics of the active cooling system). Of course, it's more complex than that due to first (and higher) order time differentials, and an integral term due to stored heat energy, but that's the basic proportional rule. Designing that would be fun. The most fun I had in my 40+ engineering career was designing industrial robots. Right now, I'm looking for a new job. Andrew - Original Message - From: David Roberson To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Monday, May 27, 2013 10:49 AM Subject: Re: [Vo]:Re: Constant temperature Operation of ECAT? Rossi keeps this information secret. It is unfortunate that he does this, but that is his nature. I would love to see a number of measurements associated with his material, but all questions of that sort are blocked due to IP concerns. It is frustrating to be kept at arms length from such important and history making knowledge. You mention active cooling in the context of negative feedback and I suppose that might be somewhat applicable. Systems can be stabilized by adding an overall negative feedback loop around the process but in this case I do not see how any form of reference temperature can be used to generate an error signal for correction. Do you detect a reference upon which this loop would act? Dave -Original Message- From: Andrew andrew...@att.net To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Mon, May 27, 2013 1:30 pm Subject: Re: [Vo]:Re: Constant temperature Operation of ECAT? OK, thanks for the info - I had not seen those reports. Certainly it is in general expected to happen if it's known that the reaction rate increases with temperature. So the trick with active negative feedback (cooling) applied at higher temperature is that this technique holds the promise for much higher COP values. Indeed, an excellently engineered device promises to be very hot, to be under complete temperature control, and to perhaps to generate double digit COP values. Assuming that at some point Rossi licences this technology, the thermal control and the temperature operating point look like they would be key market differentiators. Do we have data as to how low the temperature can go, and still maintain over-unity COP? Andrew - Original Message - From: David Roberson To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Monday, May 27, 2013 10:18 AM Subject: Re: [Vo]:Re: Constant temperature Operation of ECAT? The earlier posts by Rossi on his blog mention many cases where thermal run away happened. Most of these were when he was developing the earlier versions of his mechanism. The fact that thermal run away can occur has been common knowledge for a very long time. Anytime a positive temperature coefficient is present thermal runaway is possible under certain conditions. Power transistors are a prime example of this when they self destruct unless the heat sinking is adequate to reduce the thermal resistance so that the positive feedback loop gain is below unity. Rossi has a similar problem to deal with. In his case, he is using what is normally a problem to his advantage to improve his COP. Without this help he would have a far lower COP. You get a COP of 1 for free, and much beyond that might result in unstable operation. Even operating at a COP of 3 has risk of thermal run away. Dave -Original Message- From: Andrew andrew...@att.net To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Mon, May 27, 2013 1:03 pm Subject: Re:
[Vo]:Re: [Vo]:Re: [Vo]:Torbjörn Hartman describes power measurments
The measurement task has been made unnecessarily difficult by specifying 3-phase input to the control box. Normal single-phase input would suffice here, given the power levels. They redesigned the control box between the December and March tests, changing the output from 3-phase to single-phase. I would suggest that they do the same sort of thing on the input side. Measurement ambiguity would be reduced as a consequence. Just a suggestion to the Rossi team (on the off-chance they are reading any of this). Andrew - Original Message - From: Duncan Cumming To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Monday, May 27, 2013 11:38 AM Subject: [Vo]:Re: [Vo]:Torbjörn Hartman describes power measurments I am not sure if I count as a skeptic, because I am not saying that any kind of scam was perpetrated. I am certainly not suggesting that there was a DC power supply hidden in the wall! My doubts are related to the electrical engineering skills evident in the published paper, attempting the notoriously difficult task of measuring three phase non sinusoidal power. Not only is the waveform non sinusoidal, it is a trade secret! I am merely saying that rectification will cause a misleadingly low value of current to be registered using a clamp on ammeter. Since the DC is not smooth, there will, indeed, be a small reading from the ammeter but substantially lower than the actual current. This will, in turn, lead to a misleadingly low power measurement. Duncan On 5/26/2013 8:46 PM, David Roberson wrote: Robin, The problem at hand is that the skeptic claims that power due to the DC current can be very large and not detected. There has been no discussion of the AC current reading being affected by the DC so far. That is a different issue entirely. I would like for them to answer the questions because then they might realize that their position is invalid. I can explain this if required. No one is suggesting that Rossi actually has a DC power supply hidden within the wall I hope. This would be beyond reality since it would be so easy to measure with a voltmeter or any monitor that looks at the voltage. The testers did a visual look at the voltage from what I have determined. So, skeptics, what say you? Dave -Original Message- From: mixent mix...@bigpond.com To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Sun, May 26, 2013 11:08 pm Subject: Re: [Vo]:Re: [Vo]:Re: [Vo]:Re: [Vo]:Torbjörn Hartman describes power measurments In reply to David Roberson's message of Sun, 26 May 2013 22:35:09 -0400 (EDT): Hi, This is a little different. A full bridge rectifier will allow for both halves of the AC current to pass, and so it should be measured as little different to a purely resistive load. However a single diode will only allow one half to pass, which *may* mess up magnetic field based current measurements. (I guess whether if does or not depends on the sophistication of the device.) Assume that you have a bridge rectifier in the blue box. This is followed by a filtering capacitor. The DC is then used by the electronics connected to the capacitor. Are you saying that it is not possible to determine the power input to this type of network by measuring the input AC voltage and current? Or are you saying that someone has performed a scam and put a DC supply in series with the normal AC voltage? You do know that this could easily be measured by a simple DC voltmeter, right? Dave [snip] Regards, Robin van Spaandonk http://rvanspaa.freehostia.com/project.html
Re: [Vo]:Re: [Vo]:Re: [Vo]:Torbjörn Hartman describes power measurments
Forget the RF for now. That is another annoyance. Please explain how much DC power will be propagated through that isolation capacitor. Putting these in place will ensure that no DC can find its way into the device. Dave -Original Message- From: Andrew andrew...@att.net To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Mon, May 27, 2013 2:31 pm Subject: [Vo]:Re: [Vo]:Re: [Vo]:Torbjörn Hartman describes power measurments Dave, there are a couple of things wrong with your analysis. First off, the insertion of an isolation capacitor between the main grid transformer and the plug takes care of your short circuit problem. And then there's the possibility of injection of RF also, also capacitatively coupled into the plug lines. Andrew - Original Message - From: David Roberson To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Monday, May 27, 2013 11:17 AM Subject: Re: [Vo]:Re: [Vo]:Torbjörn Hartman describes power measurments Duncan, Read some of my recent posts and you will see why it will not work. Unless Rossi has hidden a DC source behind the wall plug it does not matter how much DC flows into the control box due to rectification.The input power is uniquely defined by the AC voltage and AC current waveforms leaving the wall. You are mistaken about the DC effects since the transformer driving the building should present a DC short to ground. If not, I suspect major code violations are present. If you continue to insist that Rossi is conducting a scam by altering the power socket then there is no reason to continue with this discussion. If you honestly believe that there is some form of DC trick that can be done with the control box, then we can clear up this misunderstanding. Your call. Dave -Original Message- From: Duncan Cumming spacedr...@cumming.info To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Mon, May 27, 2013 1:59 pm Subject: [Vo]:Re: [Vo]:Torbjörn Hartman describes power measurments Actually it is not beyond the bounds of possibility to set up such a demonstration. What exactly do you have in mind, and who would be interested in seeing such a demo? Do you have any contacts on the Rossi team? I don't think Rossi would travel to the USA to see such a demo. Electrical Engineers already know that a diode will convert AC to DC. Pretty much all scientists know that an AC current clamp will not measure DC. (Of course, DC rated Hall effect clamps are available but were not used in the demo, partially because Rossi appears to believe that an AC outlet will only deliver AC current - this is far from being the case). So who would your intended audience be for such a demonstration? Duncan On 5/26/2013 7:26 PM, David Roberson wrote: Not my position. You need to show how it was done. Dave -Original Message- From: Duncan Cumming spacedr...@cumming.info To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Sun, May 26, 2013 9:47 pm Subject: Re: [Vo]:Re: [Vo]:Torbjörn Hartman describes power measurments So is it your position that a current clamp without a Hall effect unit can measure DC? Mine is that it cannot. Duncan On 5/26/2013 5:34 PM, David Roberson wrote: How do we know that your diode trick will actually do what you think? You need to prove that this is possible, otherwise anyone can make the assumption that it might not work just as with the ECAT tests. If you do not prove that this will work, then why should we accept it as a possibility? A lot of time and energy is being wasted trying to see if bull frogs can fly. Some might actually be born with wings. Have we proven that none of them can fly? Rossi and the testers have done a lot to prove that the ECAT works. No one has proven that it does not. The only offers from the other side of the table assume fraud. Is this a valid position for them to take? Dave -Original Message- From: Duncan Cumming spacedr...@cumming.info To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Sun, May 26, 2013 8:18 pm Subject: Re: [Vo]:Re: [Vo]:Torbjörn Hartman describes power measurments I am not trying to assert anything as fact. I am merely pointing out that a simple diode inside the controller box (to which access was forbidden by Rossi) COULD HAVE given the observed results. I am NOT saying that it, in fact, did, merely speculating that it could have. For any scientific experiment, the onus is on the experimenters to produce the result. The best way to do this is to provide sufficient information for others to replicate the experiment. Duncan On 5/26/2013 5:07 PM, David Roberson wrote: Perhaps
[Vo]:Re: [Vo]:Torbjörn Hartman describes power measurments
I will give it my best shot. Consider a diode in series with a resistor, and connected to an AC outlet. For the first half of the cycle the diode conducts, and a positive current flows. For the second half, the diode does not conduct and NO NEGATIVE CURRENT FLOWS, even though a negative voltage is present. This is the function of a diode. So what you have is an intermittent flow of positive current, which delivers power to the load resistors. The magnitude of this power is given by I^2*R. If you were to measure the current using a clamp on ammeter which is DC rated, then the current would be determined accurately and the RMS value determined by the digital voltmeter (which must be a true RMS type, of course). Multiplying this by the voltage gives the power dissipated in the resistor. If you were to measure the current using a clamp on ammeter which is NOT DC rated, then only the fluctuations in current would be measured, which fluctuations would be a lot less than the true value of current. So a misleadingly low value of current would be measured, leading to a substantial under estimate of the power dissipated in the resistor. This is electrical engineering 101, but it shows some of the problems involved in measuring AC power with a non-sinusoidal waveform. There are those who assume that a commercially available power meter measures just that, but in fact this is a difficult task that should be undertaken by a qualified engineer with knowledge of the waveform that he is measuring. The specs of such an instrument clearly indicate the limitations to which it is subject, and one must be careful not to exceed these limitations. An absence of DC sensing capability is one such limitation. In the diode example above, the diode itself does not provide any power whatever. It merely confuses some types of power meters. On 5/26/2013 9:51 PM, David Roberson wrote: It does not make any difference whether or not the instrument measures DC current through the input power cables. That issue is dead unless someone wants to insist that Rossi or one of his partners hid a DC supply inside the wall, or in some other place which allows the DC to appear at the power input terminals. This would have been obvious to anyone looking at the voltage. Andrew or Duncan please explain how the DC current through the input power cable is able to deliver a large power to the load resistors? It can not be done with any type of diode hidden within the blue box. Are you ready to concede the point? Dave -Original Message- From: Alan Goldwater a...@magicsound.us To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Mon, May 27, 2013 12:19 am Subject: Re: [Vo]:RE: [Vo]:Re: [Vo]:Torbjörn Hartman describes power measurments That is a different instrument. The one used in the tests (PCE-830 http://www.industrial-needs.com/technical-data/power-anlayser-PCE-830.htm) does not measure DC. On 5/26/2013 7:53 PM, Jones Beene wrote: Did you actually check the PCE site? It looks to me like all the current clamps on the PCE power analyzer site measure both AC and DC http://www.industrial-needs.com/technical-data/current-detector-PCE-DC-3.htm
Re: [Vo]:Re: [Vo]:Torbjörn Hartman describes power measurments
Duncan, I hate to keep repeating myself that the power can be measured by analyzing the AC components only. When will you guys show why this is not true? I suggest that you start with the simple system you proposed of a diode in series with a resistor driven by an AC wall socket. Explain how it works as you say and I promise to show you the error of your calculations. Dave -Original Message- From: Duncan Cumming spacedr...@cumming.info To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Mon, May 27, 2013 2:38 pm Subject: [Vo]:Re: [Vo]:Torbjörn Hartman describes power measurments I am not sure if I count as a skeptic, because I am not saying that any kind of scam was perpetrated. I am certainly not suggesting that there was a DC power supply hidden in the wall! My doubts are related to the electrical engineering skills evident in the published paper, attempting the notoriously difficult task of measuring three phase non sinusoidal power. Not only is the waveform non sinusoidal, it is a trade secret! I am merely saying that rectification will cause a misleadingly low value of current to be registered using a clamp on ammeter. Since the DC is not smooth, there will, indeed, be a small reading from the ammeter but substantially lower than the actual current. This will, in turn, lead to a misleadingly low power measurement. Duncan On 5/26/2013 8:46 PM, David Roberson wrote: Robin, The problem at hand is that the skeptic claims that power due to the DC current can be very large and not detected. There has been no discussion of the AC current reading being affected by the DC so far. That is a different issue entirely. I would like for them to answer the questions because then they might realize that their position is invalid. I can explain this if required. No one is suggesting that Rossi actually has a DC power supply hidden within the wall I hope. This would be beyond reality since it would be so easy to measure with a voltmeter or any monitor that looks at the voltage. The testers did a visual look at the voltage from what I have determined. So, skeptics, what say you? Dave -Original Message- From: mixent mix...@bigpond.com To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Sun, May 26, 2013 11:08 pm Subject: Re: [Vo]:Re: [Vo]:Re: [Vo]:Re: [Vo]:Torbjörn Hartman describes power measurments In reply to David Roberson's message of Sun, 26 May 2013 22:35:09 -0400 (EDT): Hi, This is a little different. A full bridge rectifier will allow for both halves of the AC current to pass, and so it should be measured as little different to a purely resistive load. However a single diode will only allow one half to pass, which *may* mess up magnetic field based current measurements. (I guess whether if does or not depends on the sophistication of the device.) Assume that you have a bridge rectifier in the blue box. This is followed by a filtering capacitor. The DC is then used by the electronics connected to the capacitor. Are you saying that it is not possible to determine the power input to this type of network by measuring the input AC voltage and current? Or are you saying that someone has performed a scam and put a DC supply in series with the normal AC voltage? You do know that this could easily be measured by a simple DC voltmeter, right? Dave [snip] Regards, Robin van Spaandonk http://rvanspaa.freehostia.com/project.html
[Vo]:Re: [Vo]:Re: [Vo]:Torbjörn Hartman describes power measurments
On Mon, May 27, 2013 at 10:59 AM, Duncan Cumming spacedr...@cumming.infowrote: I don't think Rossi would travel to the USA to see such a demo. How about a YouTube video? Eric
Re: [Vo]:Synchronization
Ferromagnetism behaves like this. Ditto para- and dia-magnetism too, if I'm not mistaken. Long range order is the watchword, if memory serves. Andrew - Original Message - From: David Roberson To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Monday, May 27, 2013 11:03 AM Subject: Re: [Vo]:Synchronization Best to keep these soldiers off of that long bridge. Very nice effect Terry. This appears to be a consequence of very high Q(low loss) and coupling between many resonators tuned to the same frequency. It has some interesting implications if a process like this actually occurs within a material. I have always given up on trying to figure how a zillion resonators in the form of atoms would interact, perhaps this offers guidance. Dave -Original Message- From: Terry Blanton hohlr...@gmail.com To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Mon, May 27, 2013 1:39 pm Subject: Re: [Vo]:Synchronization And in more complex systems: http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embeddedv=JWToUATLGzs Does this apply to items of current interest? On Mon, May 27, 2013 at 1:36 PM, Terry Blanton hohlr...@gmail.com wrote: How the world becomes lockstep: http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embeddedv=W1TMZASCR-I
Re: [Vo]:Re: [Vo]:Re: [Vo]:Re: [Vo]:Torbjörn Hartman describes power measurments
OK, you are mistaken with this analysis. The input power is determined by the AC 50/60 hertz fundamental and the fundamental component of the current flowing from the wall socket. The DC just comes along for the ride since it is converted from some of the input AC power. And yes, you can measure accurately the input power with a good instrument that does not measure the DC component. I can explain further if you like. Dave -Original Message- From: Duncan Cumming spacedr...@cumming.info To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Mon, May 27, 2013 2:11 pm Subject: Re: [Vo]:Re: [Vo]:Re: [Vo]:Re: [Vo]:Torbjörn Hartman describes power measurments What I am proposing is a lot simpler than that. No bridge rectifier, no capacitor, just a simple diode. I am saying that given a diode in series with a resistor, it is not possible to measure the power using a clamp on ammeter. I am not suggesting that anybody has performed a scam. I am suggesting that the equipment used would not have measured the power consumed by the resistor if rectification were present in the controller box. Is there anybody reading this that can do SPICE simulations? Might it be possible to simulate a resistor in series with a diode and determine the actual and apparent power if an AC coupled current meter is used? Duncan P.S. I never mentioned either bridge rectifiers or capacitors. In the case of a bridge rectifier type power supply, then a clamp on ammeter will work OK. I do not suspect such a thing in the demo. On 5/26/2013 7:35 PM, David Roberson wrote: Assume that you have a bridgerectifier in the blue box. This is followed by a filteringcapacitor. The DC is then used by the electronics connectedto the capacitor. Are you saying that it is not possible todetermine the power input to this type of network by measuring the input AC voltage and current? Or are you saying that someone has performed a scam and put a DC supplyin series with the normal AC voltage? You do know that this could easily be measured by a simple DC voltmeter, right? Dave -Original Message- From: Duncan Cumming spacedr...@cumming.info To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Sun, May 26, 2013 10:01 pm Subject: Re: [Vo]:Re: [Vo]:Re: [Vo]:Re: [Vo]:Torbjörn Hartman describes power measurments Almost. The power being fedto the heater exceeds that measured at the wall, becausethe sensor used (an AC current clamp) cannot sense thedirect current being drawn from the wall socket. Some people find the difference between current and voltage confusing. What I am saying here is that if you connect a resistor in series with a diode to a wallsocket, then the CURRENT drawn is direct even though theVOLTAGE at the socket is alternating. (Rossi does notseem to understand this concept judging by his messagethat got posted today). So unless you use a DC ratedcurrent meter (such as a shunt) you will not sense allof the current, and hence power, drawn from the wall socket. The electrical power meter in your house certainloy IS rated for DC, so you will certainly be BILLED for the power even though you didn't measure it yourself! V = IR Power = Voltage * Current * Power Factor Duncan On 5/26/2013 5:57 PM, Eric Walker wrote: I wrote: On Sun, May 26, 2013 at 5:18 PM, Duncan Cumming spacedr...@cumming.info wrote: I am not trying to assert anything as fact. I am merely pointing out that a simple diode inside the controller box (to which access was forbidden by Rossi) COULD HAVE given the observed results. I am NOT saying that
[Vo]:Re: [Vo]:Re: [Vo]:Re: [Vo]:Torbjörn Hartman describes power measurments
On Mon, May 27, 2013 at 11:31 AM, Andrew andrew...@att.net wrote: ** Dave, there are a couple of things wrong with your analysis. First off, the insertion of an isolation capacitor between the main grid transformer and the plug takes care of your short circuit problem. And then there's the possibility of injection of RF also, also capacitatively coupled into the plug lines. Assume that the three-phase power coming into the transformer has not been tampered with (seems like a safe assumption, but you never know ;). Assume as well that Dave is correct that at the transformer there will be a DC short to ground. With these assumptions, am I correct in drawing one of the two following conclusions? - No hidden DC to the E-Cat resistors exceeded the power measured at the mains; or - Rossi or an associate intentionally added an isolation capacitor (i.e., tampered with the mains). Eric
Re: [Vo]:Ekstrom critique of Levi et al.
Ekstrom's critique made me think about the output side more. I've been making a mistake about emissivity. P = s*e*T^4 (s=Boltzmann's constant, e = emissivity, T=temp in deg K). At a measured temperature, if the actual emissivity is lower than the value used to calculate output power, then the actual output power will indeed be less than the calculated value. Bottom line is that if the emissivity is actually 3 times lower than thought, then what was thought to be a COP=3 changes to a COP=1. It wasn't Motl that had it backwards - it was I. Oh and also the guy who got deleted from Motl's blog (apologies but I don't remember who that was). And I remember Jed agreeing with me, so there's at least 3 of us who had it wrong. Andrew - Original Message - From: Jed Rothwell To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Monday, May 27, 2013 11:20 AM Subject: [Vo]:Ekstrom critique of Levi et al. Comments on the report 'Indication of anomalous heat energy production in a reactor device containing hydrogen loaded nickel powder' by Giuseppe Levi et al. Peter Ekström, Department of Physics, Lund University http://nuclearphysics.nuclear.lu.se/lpe/files/62739576.pdf This document stands as its own rebuttal. - ed
Re: [Vo]:Synchronization
The tiny but regular oscillations of the platform enables the synchronisation. However I bet if you constantly nudge the platform the synchronisation will vanish. Harry On Mon, May 27, 2013 at 2:03 PM, David Roberson dlrober...@aol.com wrote: Best to keep these soldiers off of that long bridge. Very nice effect Terry. This appears to be a consequence of very high Q(low loss) and coupling between many resonators tuned to the same frequency. It has some interesting implications if a process like this actually occurs within a material. I have always given up on trying to figure how a zillion resonators in the form of atoms would interact, perhaps this offers guidance. Dave -Original Message- From: Terry Blanton hohlr...@gmail.com To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Mon, May 27, 2013 1:39 pm Subject: Re: [Vo]:Synchronization And in more complex systems: http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embeddedv=JWToUATLGzs Does this apply to items of current interest? On Mon, May 27, 2013 at 1:36 PM, Terry Blanton hohlr...@gmail.com wrote: How the world becomes lockstep: http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embeddedv=W1TMZASCR-I
Re: [Vo]:Ekstrom critique of Levi et al.
Ekstrom makes the same point as I have failed to make with Dave (and upon which nobody else here has raised concern). Here it is Plot 9 shows COP and the ON/OFF status of the resistor coils. Is it a coincidence that zero feeding for two thirds of the time results in COP=3, but constant feeding would yield COP=1? Andrew - Original Message - From: Andrew To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Monday, May 27, 2013 12:10 PM Subject: Re: [Vo]:Ekstrom critique of Levi et al. Ekstrom's critique made me think about the output side more. I've been making a mistake about emissivity. P = s*e*T^4 (s=Boltzmann's constant, e = emissivity, T=temp in deg K). At a measured temperature, if the actual emissivity is lower than the value used to calculate output power, then the actual output power will indeed be less than the calculated value. Bottom line is that if the emissivity is actually 3 times lower than thought, then what was thought to be a COP=3 changes to a COP=1. It wasn't Motl that had it backwards - it was I. Oh and also the guy who got deleted from Motl's blog (apologies but I don't remember who that was). And I remember Jed agreeing with me, so there's at least 3 of us who had it wrong. Andrew - Original Message - From: Jed Rothwell To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Monday, May 27, 2013 11:20 AM Subject: [Vo]:Ekstrom critique of Levi et al. Comments on the report 'Indication of anomalous heat energy production in a reactor device containing hydrogen loaded nickel powder' by Giuseppe Levi et al. Peter Ekström, Department of Physics, Lund University http://nuclearphysics.nuclear.lu.se/lpe/files/62739576.pdf This document stands as its own rebuttal. - ed
Re: [Vo]:Re: [Vo]:Torbjörn Hartman describes power measurments
That is a good try. I agree with all that you say except for one key item. 1). No negative current flows due to the diode. 2). The instantaneous power being delivered to the resistor is I^2*R as you suggest. 3). The DC rated clamp on meter should measure the total RMS current provided it can handle distorted AC waveforms. Now, here is where you have a problem with the measurement. You say to multiply the true RMS current by the voltage and that is where the problem arises. I am confident that you realized that as soon as you said it! All of the power that is applied to the resistor comes from the wall socket. The voltage at this location is a sinewave at the frequency supplied by the electrical service. There is no DC voltage component, so the DC power being supplied is 0. The AC component of the input frequency is the only one that can have power supplied and that can only be given to current at its fundamental frequency. So, to determine how much power the resistor absorbs you must take the fundamental current component and multiply it by the fundamental voltage supplied by the wall socket. This needs to be corrected for phase shift if any exists with the product by the cosine of the difference in phase of the two components. Therefore, the DC flowing through the rectifier does not contribute to the measurement. Dave -Original Message- From: Duncan Cumming spacedr...@cumming.info To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Mon, May 27, 2013 2:56 pm Subject: [Vo]:Re: [Vo]:Torbjörn Hartman describes power measurments I will give it my best shot. Consider a diode in series with a resistor, and connected to an AC outlet. For the first half of the cycle the diode conducts, and a positive current flows. For the second half, the diode does not conduct and NO NEGATIVE CURRENT FLOWS, even though a negative voltage is present. This is the function of a diode. So what you have is an intermittent flow of positive current, which delivers power to the load resistors. The magnitude of this power is given by I^2*R. If you were to measure the current using a clamp on ammeter which is DC rated, then the current would be determined accurately and the RMS value determined by the digital voltmeter (which must be a true RMS type, of course). Multiplying this by the voltage gives the power dissipated in the resistor. If you were to measure the current using a clamp on ammeter which is NOT DC rated, then only the fluctuations in current would be measured, which fluctuations would be a lot less than the true value of current. So a misleadingly low value of current would be measured, leading to a substantial under estimate of the power dissipated in the resistor. This is electrical engineering 101, but it shows some of the problems involved in measuring AC power with a non-sinusoidal waveform. There are those who assume that a commercially available power meter measures just that, but in fact this is a difficult task that should be undertaken by a qualified engineer with knowledge of the waveform that he is measuring. The specs of such an instrument clearly indicate the limitations to which it is subject, and one must be careful not to exceed these limitations. An absence of DC sensing capability is one such limitation. In the diode example above, the diode itself does not provide any power whatever. It merely confuses some types of power meters. On 5/26/2013 9:51 PM, David Roberson wrote: It does not make any difference whether or not theinstrument measures DC current through the input powercables. That issue is dead unless someone wants toinsist that Rossi or one of his partners hid a DC supplyinside the wall, or in some other place which allows theDC to appear at the power input terminals. This wouldhave been obvious to anyone looking at the voltage. Andrew or Duncan please explain how the DC currentthrough the input power cable is able to deliver a largepower to the load resistors? It can not be done withany type of diode hidden within the blue box. Are youready to concede the point? Dave -Original Message- From: Alan Goldwater a...@magicsound.us To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Mon, May 27, 2013 12:19 am Subject: Re: [Vo]:RE: [Vo]:Re: [Vo]:Torbjörn Hartman describes power measurments
[Vo]:Re: [Vo]:Torbjörn Hartman describes power measurments
This is only true for sinusoidal waveforms. As soon as you introduce non-sinusoidal waveforms, such as by using a diode, then different calculations must be used. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Power_factor On 5/27/2013 7:49 AM, David Roberson wrote: All of the power being delivered into the resistor from the wall socket can be determined by taking the AC voltage which is a sine wave and multiplying it by the fundamental frequency of the AC current(also a sine wave). This must be adjusted by multiplication by the cosine of the phase angle between the supply voltage and fundamental current.
RE: [Vo]:Synchronization
Excellent examples Terry! Trying to get millions of these to sync-up is more akin to what's happening in bulk matter, and I think it's obvious why the probability of that is nearly nonexistent, which is why bulk matter behavior dominates our everyday lives, and physical laws (theory). -Mark -Original Message- From: Terry Blanton [mailto:hohlr...@gmail.com] Sent: Monday, May 27, 2013 10:40 AM To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: [Vo]:Synchronization And in more complex systems: http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embeddedv=JWToUATLGzs Does this apply to items of current interest? On Mon, May 27, 2013 at 1:36 PM, Terry Blanton hohlr...@gmail.com wrote: How the world becomes lockstep: http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embeddedv=W1TMZASCR-I
Re: [Vo]:Re: Constant temperature Operation of ECAT?
What? In the control regulation, everything is represented as either a voltage or a current (because it's, like, electronics, duh). Normally, temperature comes out of a thermocouple and is thus a voltage. The reference voltage, to which the actual temperature voltage is compared in order to generate an error signal for regulation, will be a fixed voltage representing the set-point temperature, as would be output by that thermocouple at the set-point temperature. Why is this so hard for you to understand? Your characterisation of the ease of regulation of a system with intrinsic positive feedback is grossly over-simplified. Andrew - Original Message - From: David Roberson To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Monday, May 27, 2013 11:44 AM Subject: Re: [Vo]:Re: Constant temperature Operation of ECAT? I do not follow how the set point can be the operating temperature. How is this inputting to the comparator? Are you proposing some external heat source which remains constant at that temperature? For a loop to function it must have a reference that does not change with the controlled parameter. If this is not the case, then the temperature will drift toward one of its limits. The beauty of positive feedback is that this type of behavior is exactly what you desire. As long as you can reverse the drift direction periodically you are in control. Dave -Original Message- From: Andrew andrew...@att.net To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Mon, May 27, 2013 2:23 pm Subject: Re: [Vo]:Re: Constant temperature Operation of ECAT? Sure, the reference would be the set point, and that's simply the operating temperature. Notionally you set this as high as possible, consistent with materials integrity and the ability to regulate a strongly intrinsically-positive feedback system (the device itself). The idea is that you end up with Kp*Kn = 1, where Kp is the intrinsic positive feedback gain (1, and becoming higher at higher temperature), and Kn is the negative feedback gain (1, representing the characteristics of the active cooling system). Of course, it's more complex than that due to first (and higher) order time differentials, and an integral term due to stored heat energy, but that's the basic proportional rule. Designing that would be fun. The most fun I had in my 40+ engineering career was designing industrial robots. Right now, I'm looking for a new job. Andrew - Original Message - From: David Roberson To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Monday, May 27, 2013 10:49 AM Subject: Re: [Vo]:Re: Constant temperature Operation of ECAT? Rossi keeps this information secret. It is unfortunate that he does this, but that is his nature. I would love to see a number of measurements associated with his material, but all questions of that sort are blocked due to IP concerns. It is frustrating to be kept at arms length from such important and history making knowledge. You mention active cooling in the context of negative feedback and I suppose that might be somewhat applicable. Systems can be stabilized by adding an overall negative feedback loop around the process but in this case I do not see how any form of reference temperature can be used to generate an error signal for correction. Do you detect a reference upon which this loop would act? Dave -Original Message- From: Andrew andrew...@att.net To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Mon, May 27, 2013 1:30 pm Subject: Re: [Vo]:Re: Constant temperature Operation of ECAT? OK, thanks for the info - I had not seen those reports. Certainly it is in general expected to happen if it's known that the reaction rate increases with temperature. So the trick with active negative feedback (cooling) applied at higher temperature is that this technique holds the promise for much higher COP values. Indeed, an excellently engineered device promises to be very hot, to be under complete temperature control, and to perhaps to generate double digit COP values. Assuming that at some point Rossi licences this technology, the thermal control and the temperature operating point look like they would be key market differentiators. Do we have data as to how low the temperature can go, and still maintain over-unity COP? Andrew - Original Message - From: David Roberson To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Monday, May 27, 2013 10:18 AM Subject: Re: [Vo]:Re: Constant temperature Operation of ECAT? The earlier posts by Rossi on his blog mention many cases where thermal run away happened. Most of these were when he was developing the earlier versions of his mechanism. The fact that thermal run away can occur has been common knowledge for a very long time. Anytime a positive temperature coefficient is present thermal runaway is possible under certain conditions. Power
Re: [Vo]:Re: [Vo]:Re: [Vo]:Re: [Vo]:Torbjörn Hartman describes power measurments
Eric, the isolation capacitor does not serve a purpose in this discussion. It would ensure that no DC gets through. You assumption that no DC power exceeds the input power measured at the mains should be accurate. It would be very difficult to keep excess DC flowing at a higher level for the long periods associated with the PWM. Dave -Original Message- From: Eric Walker eric.wal...@gmail.com To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Mon, May 27, 2013 3:09 pm Subject: [Vo]:Re: [Vo]:Re: [Vo]:Re: [Vo]:Torbjörn Hartman describes power measurments On Mon, May 27, 2013 at 11:31 AM, Andrew andrew...@att.net wrote: Dave, there are a couple of things wrong with your analysis. First off, the insertion of an isolation capacitor between the main grid transformer and the plug takes care of your short circuit problem. And then there's the possibility of injection of RF also, also capacitatively coupled into the plug lines. Assume that the three-phase power coming into the transformer has not been tampered with (seems like a safe assumption, but you never know ;). Assume as well that Dave is correct that at the transformer there will be a DC short to ground. With these assumptions, am I correct in drawing one of the two following conclusions? No hidden DC to the E-Cat resistors exceeded the power measured at the mains; or Rossi or an associate intentionally added an isolation capacitor (i.e., tampered with the mains). Eric
[Vo]:Re: [Vo]:Re: [Vo]:Re: [Vo]:Torbjörn Hartman describes power measurments
You mean an annoyance like the advance of the perihelion of Mercury? :) OK, once again you furiously misunderstand. The isolation capacitor is in series between the grid transformer and the wall plug. Behind the wall plug, downstream of that capacitor, a DC power supply is connected in a T configuration. It's possible to do this but you can't just attach a wire. Some circuitry is involved to provide a DC shift without compromising the AC and without blowing up the DC power supply. Andrew - Original Message - From: David Roberson To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Monday, May 27, 2013 11:50 AM Subject: Re: [Vo]:Re: [Vo]:Re: [Vo]:Torbjörn Hartman describes power measurments Forget the RF for now. That is another annoyance. Please explain how much DC power will be propagated through that isolation capacitor. Putting these in place will ensure that no DC can find its way into the device. Dave -Original Message- From: Andrew andrew...@att.net To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Mon, May 27, 2013 2:31 pm Subject: [Vo]:Re: [Vo]:Re: [Vo]:Torbjörn Hartman describes power measurments Dave, there are a couple of things wrong with your analysis. First off, the insertion of an isolation capacitor between the main grid transformer and the plug takes care of your short circuit problem. And then there's the possibility of injection of RF also, also capacitatively coupled into the plug lines. Andrew - Original Message - From: David Roberson To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Monday, May 27, 2013 11:17 AM Subject: Re: [Vo]:Re: [Vo]:Torbjörn Hartman describes power measurments Duncan, Read some of my recent posts and you will see why it will not work. Unless Rossi has hidden a DC source behind the wall plug it does not matter how much DC flows into the control box due to rectification. The input power is uniquely defined by the AC voltage and AC current waveforms leaving the wall. You are mistaken about the DC effects since the transformer driving the building should present a DC short to ground. If not, I suspect major code violations are present. If you continue to insist that Rossi is conducting a scam by altering the power socket then there is no reason to continue with this discussion. If you honestly believe that there is some form of DC trick that can be done with the control box, then we can clear up this misunderstanding. Your call. Dave -Original Message- From: Duncan Cumming spacedr...@cumming.info To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Mon, May 27, 2013 1:59 pm Subject: [Vo]:Re: [Vo]:Torbjörn Hartman describes power measurments Actually it is not beyond the bounds of possibility to set up such a demonstration. What exactly do you have in mind, and who would be interested in seeing such a demo? Do you have any contacts on the Rossi team? I don't think Rossi would travel to the USA to see such a demo. Electrical Engineers already know that a diode will convert AC to DC. Pretty much all scientists know that an AC current clamp will not measure DC. (Of course, DC rated Hall effect clamps are available but were not used in the demo, partially because Rossi appears to believe that an AC outlet will only deliver AC current - this is far from being the case). So who would your intended audience be for such a demonstration? Duncan On 5/26/2013 7:26 PM, David Roberson wrote: Not my position. You need to show how it was done. Dave -Original Message- From: Duncan Cumming spacedr...@cumming.info To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Sun, May 26, 2013 9:47 pm Subject: Re: [Vo]:Re: [Vo]:Torbjörn Hartman describes power measurments So is it your position that a current clamp without a Hall effect unit can measure DC? Mine is that it cannot. Duncan On 5/26/2013 5:34 PM, David Roberson wrote: How do we know that your diode trick will actually do what you think? You need to prove that this is possible, otherwise anyone can make the assumption that it might not work just as with the ECAT tests. If you do not prove that this will work, then why should we accept it as a possibility? A lot of time and energy is being wasted trying to see if bull frogs can fly. Some might actually be born with wings. Have we proven that none of them can fly? Rossi and the testers have done a lot to prove that the ECAT works. No one has proven that it does not. The only offers from the other side of the table assume fraud. Is this a valid position for them to take? Dave -Original Message- From: Duncan Cumming spacedr...@cumming.info To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Sun, May 26, 2013 8:18 pm Subject: Re: [Vo]:Re: [Vo]:Torbjörn Hartman describes power measurments I am
Re: [Vo]:The inanity of the hidden input power hypothesis
I am not suggesting that there was any modification of the laboratory wiring, such a thing would be ridiculous as you correctly point out. What I AM suggesting is that an oscilloscope be used to measure the CURRENT waveform at the electrical outlet, not the voltage. The voltage is obviously a sine wave as with any electrical outlet socket. As you also correctly point out - Rossi did not want an oscilloscope present - period. I would expand upon this by saying that he will also probably not permit an osciloscope in the future, particularly measuring current (using a DC rated current probe,of course). We seem to mostly be in agreement about the facts here, only the motivation for Rossi and his critics seems to be in dispute. Duncan On 5/27/2013 8:01 AM, Jones Beene wrote: Whoa. Someone is building a mountain out of a molehill here - and for what purpose? To show that a that cheating could have been accomplished - as an exercise in remote possibilities or magic tricks? ... or is it to express frustration that the poster does not understand the experiment? Rossi did not want an oscilloscope present - period. This has nothing to do with its placement. Of course there would be little apparent harm to connect a scope to the same wall plug to which the power input for the E-cat is connected, but if a scope is present anywhere, then it can be used to inadvertently expose a trade secret. Thus - no scope permitted, only power analyzers. To go further than what an o'scope could tell us that a power analyzer could not exposes bias. Not that bias needs exposing, since this entire thread is surely the pinnacle of lame bickering over nothing of importance. Never did Rossi say that DC capable clamps would not be allowed. In fact he would have expected that DC capable clamps could have been used - had he taken the time to reflect on the issue. To think that any scammer risks exposure by rewiring the lab is absurd - since the independent testers were permitted to have a DC capable clamp or power analyzers that could have measured DC, even if this one did not. This whole collection of dozens of needless postings is itself the pathetic invention of frustrated skeptics who think that Rossi must be cheating - but cannot prove it ... so they are grasping at straws. If Rossi had altered the wiring with DC or RF, it could have been discovered with a permitted instrument, over which AR had no control. Moreover, if Rossi cheated in this way, it could have physically injured the participants (given that skeptics are looking for an extra kilowatt or more of input). Does he risk that? No way! To say that he does risk it - exposes the silliness of this stance, since there is no real motive. If there is a mistake in measurement, it is most likely on the output side, not the input. In short: Get over it! There is NO MODIFICATION OF THE LAB WIRING. Move on to something has a minimum level of credulity! Jones -Original Message- From: Rob Dingemans Hi, Duncan Cumming wrote: Now for the argument that Rossi runs the risk that somebody will try a type B meter (DC capable), or, for that matter, a simple oscilloscope. He simply does not permit such things. He claims not to allow an oscilloscope because it would reveal a proprietary waveform. By keeping tight control over the test conditions, he is able to ensure that his questionable power measurements are not exposed. By not allowing inspection of the heater controller, he keeps the diode (or asymmetrical firing of the Triacs) from public view. Rossi behaves as if a mundane heater control is super-secret technology - does nobody else find this strange? I can hardly believe that when you connect a scope to the same wall plug as to which the input for the E-cat is connected that Andrea will not allow this. If my assumption is right that: a: the proprietary waveform is of a much higher frequency/waveform then the AC from the wall plug, b: Andrea might be afraid for feedback signals coming from the E-cat control box back into the grid, then a low-pass filter (up to ~ 50 Hz) between the wall plug and the E-cat control box should be sufficient for: a: the scope not being able to detect the proprietary waveform generated in the control box and fed back to the grid, b: at the same time still be able to detect any possible strange waveforms trying to being inserted through the wall plug into the control box of the E-cat, c: and also preventing any strange waveforms to be passing through the low-pass filter into the control box of the E-cat :-) . B.t.w. if Andrea is afraid of the proprietary waveform generated in the control box and fed back to the grid from happening he should redesign his control box and include the low-pass filter as a part of the internal circuitry. Kind regards, Rob
