Re: [Vo]:Interview with Professor Bo Hoistad regarding eCat report - please respond here
I get a distinct feeling that there is no love lost between these nuclear physicists and electrochemists. In this ongoing bloodbath, the physicists are hell bent to grind the handiwork of the electrochemists into the dust. In an instinctual battle for survival, the nuclear physicists have unleashed their most venomous attacks unconstrained by professional propriety or decorum knowing on the most basic level that their professional survival is on the line. I consider that Nanoplasmonics is the quintessential expression of the electrochemists art, a science conceived and brought into being by progenitor and paterfamilias of LENR, Martin Fleischmann himself back in 1974. The future holds bright promise for the underdog in this fight. In the end, the nuclear physicists will be reduced to inconsequence as their technology fades into obscurity, irrelevancy, and disuse... except for the bombs of course. They can always make a living off the bombs. On Mon, Jul 8, 2013 at 9:39 PM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com wrote: This thread title had a character that is not part of the U.S. ASCII system: ö The thread will run amok with multiple appearances. Please respond to this message if you wish to comment on it. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:Anyone willing to make a bet the eCat is not real?
So, Blaze on another thread you've reduced the odds down to 3:1. Does this mean that you aren't as confident betting against Rossi any more? Just spending some time on Vortex seems to have brought you from 10:1 skepticism down to 3:1. Eventually you'll go down to 2:1, then 1:1, and soon after that you'll be on the side betting FOR Rossi... ;-) Re: [Vo]:Interview with Professor Bo Hoistad regarding eCat report - please respond herehttp://www.mail-archive.com/search?l=vortex-l@eskimo.comq=subject:%22Re%3A+%5BVo%5D%3AInterview+with+Professor+Bo+Hoistad+regarding+eCat+report+-+please+respond+here%22 blaze spinnakerhttp://www.mail-archive.com/search?l=vortex-l@eskimo.comq=from:%22blaze+spinnaker%22 Mon, 08 Jul 2013 18:56:47 -0700http://www.mail-archive.com/search?l=vortex-l@eskimo.comq=date:20130708 Ah, good to know. Its good to see a full-throated defense from the co-authors. Between this and the Pekka patent, very encouraging. I'd still give odds the ecat doesn't exist, though. Maybe 3 to 1 and I'd take 10 to 1 On Monday, July 8, 2013, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com wrote: This thread title had a character that is not part of the U.S. ASCII system: ö The thread will run amok with multiple appearances. Please respond to this message if you wish to comment on it. - Jed On Fri, Jun 28, 2013 at 4:55 PM, Kevin O'Malley kevmol...@gmail.com wrote: Hello Blaze. I'm very pleased to see you posting here on Vortex. You may remember me on Intrade as ko, the guy who kept posting Cold Fusion articles. And I won quite a bit of money when the contract I posted was verified by Carl. So, yes. I'm very interested in such a bet. In particular I like the 10:1 odds. But we need to find an unbiased 3rd party to hold the money and make the decision. Who would that be, now that Intrade is defunct? Also, the parameters of the decision are different than I would settle upon. I don't hold Gibbs all that high in esteem. Perhaps something like, the 7 scientists who verified the energy density of the Ecat get their paper published in a peer reviewed publication? How I Made Money from Cold Fusion Saturday, January 23, 2010 12:28:49 PM · by Kevmo · 28 replies · 1,013+ views Exclusive Article for Free Republic | 1/23/10 | Kevmo http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-chat/2435697/posts On Fri, Jun 28, 2013 at 4:37 PM, blaze spinnaker blazespinna...@gmail.com wrote: As a possible set of parameters to this bet: I'm willing to bet my 5000 against anyone's 500 that Mark Gibbs doesn't publish an article in Forbes this year that states he personally believes without a doubt that LENR+ is real and has a power density matching what Levi/Essen published (within some reasonable margin of error). On Fri, Jun 28, 2013 at 3:27 PM, blaze spinnaker blazespinna...@gmail.com wrote: Is anyone willing here to bet me $$$ that the eCat will not be proven this year? I'm open to discussing the parameters of this bet. Ideally we'd mutually agree on a 3rd party to hold our money and be an impartial judge as to who wins by EOY. Let me know. Cheers, Blaze.
Re: [Vo]:Interview with Professor Bo Hoistad regarding eCat report - please respond here
blaze spinnaker blazespinna...@gmail.com wrote: It means if it exists, I get paid $10 for every $1 I bet. The implied probability is 1/(11) or ~9%. Forgive my continued confusion . . . but you are betting *in favor of* cold fusion? Right? Even though you do not think it exists. I don't get it. I never did understand betting, games of chance, or the musical Guys and Dolls. See: Horse Right Here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G6djgavbp7c - Jed
[Vo]:Prevenslik plasmon paper never mentions plasmons
One of the most provocative and insightful researchers in alternative energy is Thomas Prevenslik. Like many of us, he did not pick up on the plasmon connection to Casimir/ZPE/superradiance until fairly recently. I am not sure if he has yet framed the Rossi HotCat into this same category, but I suspect that he will sooner or later. The last 10 years has been the plasmon decade - in a way. Here is an old paper - not that 2004 is that old - about what the plasmon anomaly really is, but since it never mentions the word plasmon it is of interest in understanding the phenomenon from an earlier time frame. http://www.asian-energy-journal.info/Abstract/Blackbody%20radiation%20in%20m icroscopic%20gaps.pdf Blackbody Radiation in Microscopic Gaps T. V. Prevenslik Abstract: Planck's derivation of the radiation law for blackbody (BB) radiation that included the zero point energy (ZPE) was based on an oscillator in thermal equilibrium exchanging discrete quanta of energy linear with frequency. Einstein - Hopf classical theory for a free particle led to the Rayleigh-Jeans law absent the zero point energy. Boyer using classical theory extended Einstein and Hopf's notion of a free particle to include the interaction with the cavity wall to derive Planck's radiation law including the zero point energy. But in microscopic gaps having dimensions less than half the wavelength of the characteristic BB radiation, say in the far infrared (IR), none of prior derivations is valid. To explain why microscopic gaps enhance radiant heat transfer, a new theory of radiative heat transfer based on cavity quantum electrodynamics (QED) is proposed. attachment: winmail.dat
[Vo]:Prevenslik plasmon paper never mentions plasmons
On 7/9/13 Jones said [snip] To explain why microscopic gaps enhance radiant heat transfer, a new theory of radiative heat transfer based on cavity quantum electrodynamics (QED) is proposed. [/snip] Jones, So Thomas knew already something was going on at this geometry in the IR band before plasmons were mainstream.. nice citation. We communicated for several months in 2010 regarding Casimir theory and the ether vs electrostatic interpretations of which Thomas is the latter proponent but he often referred to efficient up and down frequency conversions induced by these geometries. I put him on cc in hopes he will comment directly. Also care to comment a little more on the SiC based sealant in regards to plasmons and the Rossi device? Was it total luck, inspired or just a natural consequence of the desired properties for hi temp sealants? Fran
Re: [Vo]:John O'M Bockris dies
Bockris @ 2:50 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iN26SszEBZQ Harry On Mon, Jul 8, 2013 at 9:46 PM, MarkI-ZeroPoint zeropo...@charter.netwrote: Oh No… not another true scientist. ** ** Infuriating does not describe the feeling that many who risked their careers will not be there to see this succeed and share in what they helped keep it alive when the multitudes tried to ‘pill the plug’ prematurely… ** ** ** ** -Mark Iverson ** ** *From:* Jed Rothwell [mailto:jedrothw...@gmail.com] *Sent:* Monday, July 08, 2013 6:35 PM *To:* vortex-l@eskimo.com *Subject:* [Vo]:John O'M Bockris dies ** ** I regret to announce that John O'M Bockis died on July 7, 2013 after a brief illness. He was hospitalized last week. He stayed alert and in good spirits, and was able to say goodbye to his friends and relatives. ** ** Here is a message from his assistant Trish Schulz: Dr. B has has some impact on all of our lives and he will be missed by many. He was loved and cared for greatly by my family and we shall miss him. He had wished to be cremated and there are plans for a Memorial Service in September. Arrangements are still being made at the moment and may change. Maureen will pass that information on as it becomes available. . . . Thank you all and God Bless, Trish Schulz – Friend and long time assistant to Dr. B ** ** ** ** - Jed ** **
[Vo]:Fukushima Ex-Manager Dies of Cancer
http://rt.com/news/fukushima-manager-yoshida-dies-cancer-829/ Craig
RE: [Vo]:Prevenslik plasmon paper never mentions plasmons
Did a search for this title in the Collective's memory and didn't find it, but think its relevant to the discussion! Plasmon-enhanced luminescence from nanocrystalline SiC films through adjusting spacer layer thickness http://proceedings.spiedigitallibrary.org/proceeding.aspx?articleid=1329919 Abstract: We report the photoluminescence enhancement of nc-SiC films by coating nanostructure Ag films and study the influences of surface plasmon on photoluminescence properties by varying spacer thickness. PL curves of the samples deposited with different thickness of α-SiNx present two PL peaks which are contributed to the interference in the films and surface plasmon resonance, respectively. The PL intensity of the sample coated with Ag film is quenched due to combination of Forster nonradiative process and coherent photonic mode reduction in nc-SiC films, while the PL intensity of the samples with inserted spacer α-SiNx is enhanced because of the surface plasmon resonance. I am certain that once we understand how to manipulate and tune the various oscillators which make up an atom, or an assemblage of atoms, we will be able to channel quanta of energy into whatever wavelength one wants. i.e., branching ratios and/or cross-sections are not constants; they can be manipulated/engineered, but NOT by brute force. -Mark Iverson From: Roarty, Francis X [mailto:francis.x.roa...@lmco.com] Sent: Tuesday, July 09, 2013 8:52 AM To: jone...@pacbell.net Cc: vortex-l@eskimo.com; Thomas Prevenslik Subject: [Vo]:Prevenslik plasmon paper never mentions plasmons On 7/9/13 Jones said [snip] To explain why microscopic gaps enhance radiant heat transfer, a new theory of radiative heat transfer based on cavity quantum electrodynamics (QED) is proposed. [/snip] Jones, So Thomas knew already something was going on at this geometry in the IR band before plasmons were mainstream.. nice citation. We communicated for several months in 2010 regarding Casimir theory and the ether vs electrostatic interpretations of which Thomas is the latter proponent but he often referred to efficient up and down frequency conversions induced by these geometries. I put him on cc in hopes he will comment directly. Also care to comment a little more on the SiC based sealant in regards to plasmons and the Rossi device? Was it total luck, inspired or just a natural consequence of the desired properties for hi temp sealants? Fran
RE: [Vo]:Prevenslik plasmon paper never mentions plasmons
From: Roarty, Francis X Also care to comment a little more on the SiC based sealant in regards to plasmons and the Rossi device? Was it total luck, inspired or just a natural consequence of the desired properties for hi temp sealants? I hope this chart below shows up. SiC (carborundum) either as a coating, sealant or as a ceramic containment tube has an unusual property for reflecting a narrow IR band of radiation over 10 microns, peaking about 12 microns - which coincidentally is where plasmons/polaritons are most likely to form and is near the operating temperature of the HotCat. It is like a mirror for the narrow spectrum and thus can be used with an electric power input to effectively control a trigger reaction which happens in that spectrum http://www.aanda.org/articles/aa/full/2008/20/aa8468-07/img60.gif attachment: winmail.dat
[Vo]:Rossi says -- 1st ecat untouched by him
Andrea Rossi July 8th, 2013 at 10:25 PM http://www.journal-of-nuclear-physics.com/?p=810cpage=2#comment-734612 Eugenio Mieli: I already answered to your questions: please see my answers on July 3rd and July 4th 2013. Please read carefully those answers: 1- The E-Cat technology is undergoing rigorous testing and the results- positive, negative, or inconclusive- will provide further guidance about its potential 2- We have great hopes for the E-Cat and what it can accomplish, and I am pleased about the findings of the other scientists who have participated in evaluating it so far. As this technology is still in the development stage and undergoing rigorous review, I want to allow the continued process of testing our technology to determine its potential and its uses. I am pleased with our progress to date and I will share more as our work continues. AND HERE IS AN UPDATE OF TODAY, JULY 8TH: The past three days have been holidays for most, but for us have been a tremendous period of work during which we made a historic page for what concerns our tech: for the first time, an E-Cat module, entirely produced by our USA Partner in the new factory ( a magnificence), charged with the charge made by the Partner’s CEO, using the materials we teached to buy, prepare,manipulate, treat, to make the charges, assembled , insulated, has started its operation, and the results are the same of the E-Cats built by us. This event means that for the first time an E-Cat not built by me, not controlled by me and not charged by me, not tested in my factory, but manufactured from third parties upon our instructions and know how has worked properly. This is the first unit of the plant that will give to the factory of our USA Partner all its necessary thermal energy, and is also the school ship for the employees. It is very important that it has been completely made by the Customer, not by me: it is the first of millions, but the first is always special. We celebrated with Coca Cola ( alcohol is forbidden in that factory). All the former plants, even if built in the USA, had been supplied with reactors cores made by me, so this is a very important step. 3- Technological development can require a long process, involving many changes as a technology moves forward. E-Cat is undergoing that process now. This process will continue as long as needed, until such time as the team believes the technology is able to fulfill its promise in commercial settings. 4- E-Cat is still also in a phase of RD, as I continue this work more findings will be released and additional technical information will be provided once practicable. As I focus on continuing my research, I will not be able to respond to each specific question. Warm Regards, A.R. - - - Arthur B.: You are right: the Factory will be totally supplied by the E-Cats for all the necessary thermal energy, starting this year. Warm Regards, A.R. [ Note : If he's The Chief Scientist and the charge made by the Partner’s CEO ... it seems unlikely that the USA Partner is a big or well-known company. ]
Re: [Vo]:Rossi says -- 1st ecat untouched by him
Excellent news! Rossi's technology is spreading on his terms, with his contracts, apparently without a US or European patent. Craig On 07/09/2013 01:31 PM, Alan Fletcher wrote: Andrea Rossi July 8th, 2013 at 10:25 PM http://www.journal-of-nuclear-physics.com/?p=810cpage=2#comment-734612 Eugenio Mieli: I already answered to your questions: please see my answers on July 3rd and July 4th 2013. Please read carefully those answers: 1- The E-Cat technology is undergoing rigorous testing and the results- positive, negative, or inconclusive- will provide further guidance about its potential 2- We have great hopes for the E-Cat and what it can accomplish, and I am pleased about the findings of the other scientists who have participated in evaluating it so far. As this technology is still in the development stage and undergoing rigorous review, I want to allow the continued process of testing our technology to determine its potential and its uses. I am pleased with our progress to date and I will share more as our work continues. AND HERE IS AN UPDATE OF TODAY, JULY 8TH: The past three days have been holidays for most, but for us have been a tremendous period of work during which we made a historic page for what concerns our tech: for the first time, an E-Cat module, entirely produced by our USA Partner in the new factory ( a magnificence), charged with the charge made by the Partner’s CEO, using the materials we teached to buy, prepare,manipulate, treat, to make the charges, assembled , insulated, has started its operation, and the results are the same of the E-Cats built by us. This event means that for the first time an E-Cat not built by me, not controlled by me and not charged by me, not tested in my factory, but manufactured from third parties upon our instructions and know how has worked properly. This is the first unit of the plant that will give to the factory of our USA Partner all its necessary thermal energy, and is also the school ship for the employees. It is very important that it has been completely made by the Customer, not by me: it is the first of millions, but the first is always special. We celebrated with Coca Cola ( alcohol is forbidden in that factory). All the former plants, even if built in the USA, had been supplied with reactors cores made by me, so this is a very important step. 3- Technological development can require a long process, involving many changes as a technology moves forward. E-Cat is undergoing that process now. This process will continue as long as needed, until such time as the team believes the technology is able to fulfill its promise in commercial settings. 4- E-Cat is still also in a phase of RD, as I continue this work more findings will be released and additional technical information will be provided once practicable. As I focus on continuing my research, I will not be able to respond to each specific question. Warm Regards, A.R. - - - Arthur B.: You are right: the Factory will be totally supplied by the E-Cats for all the necessary thermal energy, starting this year. Warm Regards, A.R. [ Note : If he's The Chief Scientist and the charge made by the Partner’s CEO ... it seems unlikely that the USA Partner is a big or well-known company. ]
[Vo]:Rossi update
http://www.e-catworld.com/2013/07/rossi-update-e-cat-built-by-partner-works- pefectly/ I'm sure the skeptics will double down on AR's unreliability, but to me this is one more nail in their coffin. attachment: winmail.dat
Re: [Vo]:Interesting paper from nature about successful cold fusion experiment
Ed, I was unaware that nearly touching metallic nanoparticles immediately fuse and start to grow a bigger particle, are you saying the lattices break and reassemble to form a solid or are you suggesting the stiction force reshapes the particles into perfect shapes to form closed surfaces?. I was under the impression that bulk powders remain individual grains until heated to the point of melting but given the video showing clear activity between the 2 surfaces I am now very curious regarding shape morphing since the force grows at the inverse cubed of plate spacing could the particles be stretched into closed surfaces? perhaps Axil can give more background on the video.. is the blurry motion between the particles an artifact of the sensor, Do we know if this interaction would still be present in a vacuum? Fran From: Edmund Storms [mailto:stor...@ix.netcom.com] Sent: Monday, July 08, 2013 6:43 PM To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Cc: Edmund Storms Subject: EXTERNAL: Re: [Vo]:Interesting paper from nature about successful cold fusion experiment Of course, Fran, you are correct. But this is irrelevant in the real world. When two nano-particles touch, they immediately fuse and start to grow a bigger particle. This is a common and well understood behavior. We are not free to ignore what actually happens in Nature. Of course, pores can be trapped in the growing structure but these are generally large and eventually disappear if the material is held at high temperature long enough. We are trying to explain what happens in the real world, not in some idealized version that Axil has. Ed On Jul 8, 2013, at 4:08 PM, Frank roarty wrote: Ed, Please consider Axil's movie from a 3d bulk perspective.. which is where I believe his argument was headed, the single point of contact becomes multipoint to many particles all self attracting into a bulk form... essentially a rigid if not solid conductor with open voids.. I do recognize the loss of mechanical stress you are citing but I do leave the door open because of Casimir and other forces that these geometries both share. Not asking you to change your preference only to allow for the possibility. Fran From: Edmund Storms [mailto:stor...@ix.netcom.com] Sent: Monday, July 08, 2013 4:53 PM To: vortex-l@eskimo.commailto:vortex-l@eskimo.com Cc: Edmund Storms Subject: Re: [Vo]:Interesting paper from nature about successful cold fusion experiment Axil, I know you are incapable of discussing or even believing what I suggest, but I see no indication in the movie you provided that the contact between particles is topologically identical to a crack on the surface of a material. Have you ever seen a crack, examined surfaces, or even explored cold fusion? A crack is created and held apart by stress. Two particles are not held apart and instead attempt to fuse to make a larger particle, thereby causing the well know sintering and loss of small particles. Ed On Jul 8, 2013, at 2:36 PM, Axil Axil wrote: Here is a movie of two nanoparticles touching. Notice the space above the point of contract is topologically identical to a crack on the surface of a material. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lK58AnokWl4 On Mon, Jul 8, 2013 at 3:47 PM, Axil Axil janap...@gmail.commailto:janap...@gmail.com wrote: generally too big to achieve what I think is required This is a false assumption not supported by experimental observation. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=opTbxZwUisg Because of electrostatic surface forces inherent in all types of nanoparticles, nanoparticle attracts each other. When free to move, nanoparticles will eventually touch and arrogate together. The irregular spaces around the point of particle contact is what we are discussing as the NAE. When nanoparticles touch at a contract point, this topology is the strongest generator of electromagnetic resonance. On Mon, Jul 8, 2013 at 3:15 PM, Edmund Storms stor...@ix.netcom.commailto:stor...@ix.netcom.com wrote: Fran, the gap between nano-particles is arbitrary, undefined, and generally too big to achieve what I think is required. In addition, CF occurs in the absence of nano-particles. Therefore, their presence is not required. We agree that a gap is required. The only difference is in how the gap forms. I believe a gap formed by stress relief is more general in its formation and has properties that I believe are important, that a gap between arbitrary particles having an unknown and complex shape does not have. That is the only difference between our views about a gap. Ed On Jul 8, 2013, at 11:52 AM, Roarty, Francis X wrote: Ed, I don't understand why you are so reluctant to consider the gap between nanoparticles as capable of supporting NAE. The geometry is essentially the inverse of a skeletal catalyst- I am more likely to believe the particles are inert and solid - only the geometry formed between particles is active - it is the same region
Re: [Vo]:Rossi says -- 1st ecat untouched by him
Or, conversely, he's setting it all up for someone else to be responsible for this massive fraud as he tries to detach himself from the entire enterprise. I wouldn't be surprised if we start hearing things like well, the timeline is up to my partner CEO.I'm not sure what my partner CEO is doing. You'd have to ask him what's going on, unfortunately, I can't share his information with you. etc etc On Tue, Jul 9, 2013 at 10:36 AM, Craig cchayniepub...@gmail.com wrote: Excellent news! Rossi's technology is spreading on his terms, with his contracts, apparently without a US or European patent. Craig On 07/09/2013 01:31 PM, Alan Fletcher wrote: Andrea Rossi July 8th, 2013 at 10:25 PM http://www.journal-of-nuclear-physics.com/?p=810cpage=2#comment-734612 Eugenio Mieli: I already answered to your questions: please see my answers on July 3rd and July 4th 2013. Please read carefully those answers: 1- The E-Cat technology is undergoing rigorous testing and the results- positive, negative, or inconclusive- will provide further guidance about its potential 2- We have great hopes for the E-Cat and what it can accomplish, and I am pleased about the findings of the other scientists who have participated in evaluating it so far. As this technology is still in the development stage and undergoing rigorous review, I want to allow the continued process of testing our technology to determine its potential and its uses. I am pleased with our progress to date and I will share more as our work continues. AND HERE IS AN UPDATE OF TODAY, JULY 8TH: The past three days have been holidays for most, but for us have been a tremendous period of work during which we made a historic page for what concerns our tech: for the first time, an E-Cat module, entirely produced by our USA Partner in the new factory ( a magnificence), charged with the charge made by the Partner’s CEO, using the materials we teached to buy, prepare,manipulate, treat, to make the charges, assembled , insulated, has started its operation, and the results are the same of the E-Cats built by us. This event means that for the first time an E-Cat not built by me, not controlled by me and not charged by me, not tested in my factory, but manufactured from third parties upon our instructions and know how has worked properly. This is the first unit of the plant that will give to the factory of our USA Partner all its necessary thermal energy, and is also the school ship for the employees. It is very important that it has been completely made by the Customer, not by me: it is the first of millions, but the first is always special. We celebrated with Coca Cola ( alcohol is forbidden in that factory). All the former plants, even if built in the USA, had been supplied with reactors cores made by me, so this is a very important step. 3- Technological development can require a long process, involving many changes as a technology moves forward. E-Cat is undergoing that process now. This process will continue as long as needed, until such time as the team believes the technology is able to fulfill its promise in commercial settings. 4- E-Cat is still also in a phase of RD, as I continue this work more findings will be released and additional technical information will be provided once practicable. As I focus on continuing my research, I will not be able to respond to each specific question. Warm Regards, A.R. - - - Arthur B.: You are right: the Factory will be totally supplied by the E-Cats for all the necessary thermal energy, starting this year. Warm Regards, A.R. [ Note : If he's The Chief Scientist and the charge made by the Partner’s CEO ... it seems unlikely that the USA Partner is a big or well-known company. ]
Re: [Vo]:Rossi says -- 1st ecat untouched by him
To be clear, obviously I do not know which. However, until the eCat is fully in the public eye I don't think anyone can authoritatively say either way, and I think it's a bit irresponsible trying to do so (negative or positive). On Tue, Jul 9, 2013 at 10:59 AM, blaze spinnaker blazespinna...@gmail.comwrote: Or, conversely, he's setting it all up for someone else to be responsible for this massive fraud as he tries to detach himself from the entire enterprise. I wouldn't be surprised if we start hearing things like well, the timeline is up to my partner CEO.I'm not sure what my partner CEO is doing.You'd have to ask him what's going on, unfortunately, I can't share his information with you. etc etc On Tue, Jul 9, 2013 at 10:36 AM, Craig cchayniepub...@gmail.com wrote: Excellent news! Rossi's technology is spreading on his terms, with his contracts, apparently without a US or European patent. Craig On 07/09/2013 01:31 PM, Alan Fletcher wrote: Andrea Rossi July 8th, 2013 at 10:25 PM http://www.journal-of-nuclear-physics.com/?p=810cpage=2#comment-734612 Eugenio Mieli: I already answered to your questions: please see my answers on July 3rd and July 4th 2013. Please read carefully those answers: 1- The E-Cat technology is undergoing rigorous testing and the results- positive, negative, or inconclusive- will provide further guidance about its potential 2- We have great hopes for the E-Cat and what it can accomplish, and I am pleased about the findings of the other scientists who have participated in evaluating it so far. As this technology is still in the development stage and undergoing rigorous review, I want to allow the continued process of testing our technology to determine its potential and its uses. I am pleased with our progress to date and I will share more as our work continues. AND HERE IS AN UPDATE OF TODAY, JULY 8TH: The past three days have been holidays for most, but for us have been a tremendous period of work during which we made a historic page for what concerns our tech: for the first time, an E-Cat module, entirely produced by our USA Partner in the new factory ( a magnificence), charged with the charge made by the Partner’s CEO, using the materials we teached to buy, prepare,manipulate, treat, to make the charges, assembled , insulated, has started its operation, and the results are the same of the E-Cats built by us. This event means that for the first time an E-Cat not built by me, not controlled by me and not charged by me, not tested in my factory, but manufactured from third parties upon our instructions and know how has worked properly. This is the first unit of the plant that will give to the factory of our USA Partner all its necessary thermal energy, and is also the school ship for the employees. It is very important that it has been completely made by the Customer, not by me: it is the first of millions, but the first is always special. We celebrated with Coca Cola ( alcohol is forbidden in that factory). All the former plants, even if built in the USA, had been supplied with reactors cores made by me, so this is a very important step. 3- Technological development can require a long process, involving many changes as a technology moves forward. E-Cat is undergoing that process now. This process will continue as long as needed, until such time as the team believes the technology is able to fulfill its promise in commercial settings. 4- E-Cat is still also in a phase of RD, as I continue this work more findings will be released and additional technical information will be provided once practicable. As I focus on continuing my research, I will not be able to respond to each specific question. Warm Regards, A.R. - - - Arthur B.: You are right: the Factory will be totally supplied by the E-Cats for all the necessary thermal energy, starting this year. Warm Regards, A.R. [ Note : If he's The Chief Scientist and the charge made by the Partner’s CEO ... it seems unlikely that the USA Partner is a big or well-known company. ]
Re: [Vo]:Rossi update
Jones Beene jone...@pacbell.net wrote: http://www.e-catworld.com/2013/07/rossi-update-e-cat-built-by-partner-works- pefectly/ I'm sure the skeptics will double down on AR's unreliability, but to me this is one more nail in their coffin. They will say -- with some justification -- that he is the only source of this news, and that he is unreliable. I say some justification because he has said inexplicable things about his business plans in the past, and he has abruptly changed his plans, for example with Defkalion. Doubt is also justified because we would like to see the name of this company, a photo of the equipment, and other information you would expect in an industrial corporation press release describing a factory start-up. A blog entry is oh-so-21st century, but informal. I believe this report. But I can understand why other people may have doubts about it. I think the best evidence in favor of Rossi published in recent weeks was the Ericsson and Pomp paper. I mean it. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:Rossi says -- 1st ecat untouched by him
blaze spinnaker blazespinna...@gmail.com wrote: Or, conversely, he's setting it all up for someone else to be responsible for this massive fraud as he tries to detach himself from the entire enterprise. Do you know of any evidence for this? Or are you merely speculating? I wouldn't be surprised if we start hearing things like well, the timeline is up to my partner CEO.I'm not sure what my partner CEO is doing.You'd have to ask him what's going on, unfortunately, I can't share his information with you. etc etc Why wouldn't that be true? If he were to say this, in what sense would it be suspicious? That sounds like a normal business arrangement. When you license someone to manufacture your technology, you do not get the right to run their business or set their schedule. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:Rossi says -- 1st ecat untouched by him
blaze spinnaker blazespinna...@gmail.com wrote: To be clear, obviously I do not know which. However, until the eCat is fully in the public eye I don't think anyone can authoritatively say either way, and I think it's a bit irresponsible trying to do so (negative or positive). My point exactly. It is a bit irresponsible when you write: . . . he's setting it all up for someone else to be responsible for this massive fraud as he tries to detach himself from the entire enterprise. This is not a big deal. There are hundreds of people out there saying bad things about Rossi. Heck, there is a web site devoted to it. Plus that wacky paper by Ericsson and Pomp. Rossi invites that kind of attack by acting squirrely. Still . . . unless you have evidence of fraud maybe you should follow your own advice here. What you wrote causes no harm. But I find it disagreeable, because I have been hearing over and over and OVER for 20 years about every cold fusion scientist is a fraud. I get sick of it. You are beating a dead horse. We know you think that. We don't care, and we don't want to hear it. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:Rossi says -- 1st ecat untouched by him
Rossi has a history of less than forthright dealings. Given his past and the secretive approach he's taken, it's not hard to conclude that something fishy might be going on. Personally, I think he'd probably be able to get patents much easier if he disclosed everything. He may find that his secretive approach is going to screw him and is partners if someone files patents for all of this first. On Tue, Jul 9, 2013 at 11:32 AM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com wrote: blaze spinnaker blazespinna...@gmail.com wrote: Or, conversely, he's setting it all up for someone else to be responsible for this massive fraud as he tries to detach himself from the entire enterprise. Do you know of any evidence for this? Or are you merely speculating? I wouldn't be surprised if we start hearing things like well, the timeline is up to my partner CEO.I'm not sure what my partner CEO is doing.You'd have to ask him what's going on, unfortunately, I can't share his information with you. etc etc Why wouldn't that be true? If he were to say this, in what sense would it be suspicious? That sounds like a normal business arrangement. When you license someone to manufacture your technology, you do not get the right to run their business or set their schedule. - Jed
RE: [Vo]:Rossi update
Although this came out a year and a half ago, this may identify the company and its CEO http://ecatmotor.com/e-cat-motor-on-techno-map/ as . Charlie Sutherland of Sutherland Products, Inc. in Mayodan, NC, USA. On the downside, recent posts of Charlie to JONP give no indication of such a close connection. It would have to have happened quickly. However, Mt Airy is one place where they would definitely celebrate with Coca-Cola instead of Veuve Clicquot. I suspect that the company is question, if not this one, is probably similar - with a factory need for process-heat and a hands-on CEO who can build things. IMO - this is NOT an Elon Musk, as some have speculated. He will hold out for the HotCat version. From what is online - it would not surprise me if Charlie (or someone else, possibly in Florida) licensed only the instructions of how to build the a low temperature version of ECat from Rossi/Ampenergo - since the HotCat is much more valuable. A low temp version will probably not make it into the home - due to government regulations, so it will be sold to many companies to make for themselves. From: Jed Rothwell http://www.e-catworld.com/2013/07/rossi-update-e-cat-built-by-partner-works- pefectly/ I'm sure the skeptics will double down on AR's unreliability, but to me this is one more nail in their coffin. They will say -- with some justification -- that he is the only source of this news, and that he is unreliable.. I believe this report. But I can understand why other people may have doubts about it.
Re: [Vo]:Rossi says -- 1st ecat untouched by him
You are beating a dead horse. I get sick of it. No, what you are sick of is the cognitive dissonance. The lack of clear, decisive proof that the eCat is real. You are unable to embrace the ambiguity and feel that the world must be black or white. The fact that it isn't is clearly upsetting you. Unfortunately, in the absence of inescapable proof either way, there is an ambiguity. A cognitive dissonance that our brains need to deal with. And yeah, it's sickening for sure, and some people deal with it better than others. Those who deal with it best I find make the best predictors of what's really about to happen next. While you are a very smart guy and well informed, your lack of ability to embace the dissonance here makes me wonder about your ability to estimate the probability of the eCat being real or not. MaryYugo is a pretty bright person as well. However, she is also someone that obviously can not embrace the ambiguity. On Tue, Jul 9, 2013 at 11:48 AM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com wrote: blaze spinnaker blazespinna...@gmail.com wrote: To be clear, obviously I do not know which. However, until the eCat is fully in the public eye I don't think anyone can authoritatively say either way, and I think it's a bit irresponsible trying to do so (negative or positive). My point exactly. It is a bit irresponsible when you write: . . . he's setting it all up for someone else to be responsible for this massive fraud as he tries to detach himself from the entire enterprise. This is not a big deal. There are hundreds of people out there saying bad things about Rossi. Heck, there is a web site devoted to it. Plus that wacky paper by Ericsson and Pomp. Rossi invites that kind of attack by acting squirrely. Still . . . unless you have evidence of fraud maybe you should follow your own advice here. What you wrote causes no harm. But I find it disagreeable, because I have been hearing over and over and OVER for 20 years about every cold fusion scientist is a fraud. I get sick of it. You are beating a dead horse. We know you think that. We don't care, and we don't want to hear it. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:Rossi says -- 1st ecat untouched by him
On Tue, Jul 9, 2013 at 11:48 AM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com wrote: But I find it disagreeable, because I have been hearing over and over and OVER for 20 years about every cold fusion scientist is a fraud. I get sick of it. You are beating a dead horse. We know you think that. We don't care, and we don't want to hear it. - Jed ***I don't mind hearing it from someone like Blaze because he's someone who will put his money where his mouth is... at least he used to be. He might even be willing to bet on what he just wrote, if we had a contract that said something like, Andrea Rossi to be charged with fraud in connection with the Ecat within 1 year. But I detect that Blaze is learning a thing or 2 while he spends time on Vortex, and that's reflected in his initial offer of 10:1 odds going down to 3:1 odds that the Ecat isn't real or Rossi != Wright Brothers. When money is on the table, the game tightens. Someone like Joshua Cude can just be blithely off by 4 THOUSAND orders of magnitude and nothing holds him accountable. But if Joshua were to put his money where his mouth was, a penny bet would generate more money than he could ever pay back in a hundred lifetimes. So when someone is willing to put their money where their mouth is, I consider them to be a small-s skeptic.
Re: [Vo]:Rossi update
Jones Beene jone...@pacbell.net wrote: However, “Mt Airy” is one place where they would definitely celebrate with Coca-Cola instead of Veuve Clicquot. H. . . It is in Surry County. The only dry county in the state is Graham. See: http://abc.nc.gov/faq/category.aspx So they could drink. But in rural places they often refrain from drinking. Also, the management will not allow anyone to drink in a well-run factory. I expect that violates an OSHA rule. (It probably should. Machinery and liquor do not mix.) I have been to many telephone and computer equipment cut-overs. You celebrate after hours with pizza and beer. Never on the factory floor. Mt. Airy sounds like a good place to set up a high-tech production line. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:Rossi says -- 1st ecat untouched by him
Come on Kevin, you know how this works. In the face of new evidence (Pekka Patent, full throated defense from co-author) we need to update our priors. The universe is not static. What's interesting really is not whether or not the eCat is real, but rather getting an accurate estimate of the probability of it being real at any point in time. On Tue, Jul 9, 2013 at 12:06 PM, Kevin O'Malley kevmol...@gmail.com wrote: On Tue, Jul 9, 2013 at 11:48 AM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.comwrote: But I find it disagreeable, because I have been hearing over and over and OVER for 20 years about every cold fusion scientist is a fraud. I get sick of it. You are beating a dead horse. We know you think that. We don't care, and we don't want to hear it. - Jed ***I don't mind hearing it from someone like Blaze because he's someone who will put his money where his mouth is... at least he used to be. He might even be willing to bet on what he just wrote, if we had a contract that said something like, Andrea Rossi to be charged with fraud in connection with the Ecat within 1 year. But I detect that Blaze is learning a thing or 2 while he spends time on Vortex, and that's reflected in his initial offer of 10:1 odds going down to 3:1 odds that the Ecat isn't real or Rossi != Wright Brothers. When money is on the table, the game tightens. Someone like Joshua Cude can just be blithely off by 4 THOUSAND orders of magnitude and nothing holds him accountable. But if Joshua were to put his money where his mouth was, a penny bet would generate more money than he could ever pay back in a hundred lifetimes. So when someone is willing to put their money where their mouth is, I consider them to be a small-s skeptic.
Re: [Vo]:Rossi says -- 1st ecat untouched by him
blaze spinnaker blazespinna...@gmail.com wrote: No, what you are sick of is the cognitive dissonance. The lack of clear, decisive proof that the eCat is real. You are unable to embrace the ambiguity and feel that the world must be black or white. The fact that it isn't is clearly upsetting you. That is not even a little bit true. I have been dealing with Rossi, in person, for years. And I just wrote here: [Skeptics] will say -- with some justification -- that he is the only source of this news, and that he is unreliable. I say some justification because he has said inexplicable things about his business plans in the past, and he has abruptly changed his plans, for example with Defkalion. . . . I believe this report. But I can understand why other people may have doubts about it. It is a matter of emphasis. I say doubts -- you say massive fraud. Unfortunately, in the absence of inescapable proof either way, there is an ambiguity. Inescapable proof? There is practically no such thing. People don't believe the moon landings. There is a lot of evidence in favor of Ross and *none whatever* against him. You statement that Rossi has a history of less than forthright dealings is not evidence. It is your gut feeling, supported by no personal knowledge and no published evidence as far as I know. It isn't true. I know several people who have dealt with him. They find him aggravating but forthright. So do I. Altogether too forthright at times. In-your-face forthright. He is mercurial. He changes his mind and his business strategy often. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:Rossi says -- 1st ecat untouched by him
On Tue, Jul 9, 2013 at 12:09 PM, blaze spinnaker blazespinna...@gmail.comwrote: Come on Kevin, you know how this works. In the face of new evidence (Pekka Patent, full throated defense from co-author) we need to update our priors. ***The Pekka patent has nothing to do with Rossi. And a co-author full throated defense should have been baked into your oddsmaking. But by going from 10:1 down to 3:1 over this flimsy level of development, you've change the odds by 700%. That would mean if you stick around another week or two, your odds will be 1:1 or even 2:1 FOR Rossi. Only now are you doing your due diligence. The universe is not static. What's interesting really is not whether or not the eCat is real, but rather getting an accurate estimate of the probability of it being real at any point in time. ***That was the beauty of Intrade. The odds were agreed upon between buyer and seller.
Re: [Vo]:Anyone willing to make a bet the eCat is not real?
The odds are not so clear, if we integrate a time factor. as explained the problem is not to prove that LENr is real, it have been done since long, and mainstream media will never admit it without a gun on their head. No evidence will work. The rest is betting on an industrial application. It takes time, much more time that what the authors imagine. standard process is the planning says 6 month to market, and 5 years in reality,with reduced ambitions, and the possibilities that the cowardliness of big industrialists and the defense on their economic rent (no conspiracy, just passive defense), ruin all hope of a revolution... betting on a startup like leonardo corporation, is venture capitalism... 95% of those companies will die of be bought in 5 years. all that is for standard innovation. LENR is an outlier, a blackswan... even more that Internet, steam engine, farming... It is a huge revolution in quality, but very conservative in fact since it is compatible with existing technology, yet allow many more organizations, and reduce many disadvantages and costs... It will kill many lobbies, benefit many people and industry who suffer from todays situation (pollution, monopolies, geopolitic, centralization)... Incentive to support it and to repress it are HUGE. It is desperate losers against hopeful winners. 2013/7/9 Kevin O'Malley kevmol...@gmail.com So, Blaze on another thread you've reduced the odds down to 3:1. Does this mean that you aren't as confident betting against Rossi any more? Just spending some time on Vortex seems to have brought you from 10:1 skepticism down to 3:1. Eventually you'll go down to 2:1, then 1:1, and soon after that you'll be on the side betting FOR Rossi... ;-) Re: [Vo]:Interview with Professor Bo Hoistad regarding eCat report - please respond herehttp://www.mail-archive.com/search?l=vortex-l@eskimo.comq=subject:%22Re%3A+%5BVo%5D%3AInterview+with+Professor+Bo+Hoistad+regarding+eCat+report+-+please+respond+here%22 blaze spinnakerhttp://www.mail-archive.com/search?l=vortex-l@eskimo.comq=from:%22blaze+spinnaker%22 Mon, 08 Jul 2013 18:56:47 -0700http://www.mail-archive.com/search?l=vortex-l@eskimo.comq=date:20130708 Ah, good to know. Its good to see a full-throated defense from the co-authors. Between this and the Pekka patent, very encouraging. I'd still give odds the ecat doesn't exist, though. Maybe 3 to 1 and I'd take 10 to 1 On Monday, July 8, 2013, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com wrote: This thread title had a character that is not part of the U.S. ASCII system: ö The thread will run amok with multiple appearances. Please respond to this message if you wish to comment on it. - Jed On Fri, Jun 28, 2013 at 4:55 PM, Kevin O'Malley kevmol...@gmail.comwrote: Hello Blaze. I'm very pleased to see you posting here on Vortex. You may remember me on Intrade as ko, the guy who kept posting Cold Fusion articles. And I won quite a bit of money when the contract I posted was verified by Carl. So, yes. I'm very interested in such a bet. In particular I like the 10:1 odds. But we need to find an unbiased 3rd party to hold the money and make the decision. Who would that be, now that Intrade is defunct? Also, the parameters of the decision are different than I would settle upon. I don't hold Gibbs all that high in esteem. Perhaps something like, the 7 scientists who verified the energy density of the Ecat get their paper published in a peer reviewed publication? How I Made Money from Cold Fusion Saturday, January 23, 2010 12:28:49 PM · by Kevmo · 28 replies · 1,013+ views Exclusive Article for Free Republic | 1/23/10 | Kevmo http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-chat/2435697/posts On Fri, Jun 28, 2013 at 4:37 PM, blaze spinnaker blazespinna...@gmail.com wrote: As a possible set of parameters to this bet: I'm willing to bet my 5000 against anyone's 500 that Mark Gibbs doesn't publish an article in Forbes this year that states he personally believes without a doubt that LENR+ is real and has a power density matching what Levi/Essen published (within some reasonable margin of error). On Fri, Jun 28, 2013 at 3:27 PM, blaze spinnaker blazespinna...@gmail.com wrote: Is anyone willing here to bet me $$$ that the eCat will not be proven this year? I'm open to discussing the parameters of this bet. Ideally we'd mutually agree on a 3rd party to hold our money and be an impartial judge as to who wins by EOY. Let me know. Cheers, Blaze.
Re: [Vo]:Interesting paper from nature about successful cold fusion experiment
*perhaps Axil can give more background on the video.. is the blurry motion between the particles an artifact of the sensor,* Francis, ** There are two categories of nano/micro particels, static and dynamic. Please allow me to define them. Dynamic particles Dynamic particles are produced from plasma as that plasma is cooled. This is Rydberg matter which has a variable life span and combine with other particles or discompose based on conditions in the surrounding environment. As a specific example of formation, in a discharge of an electric spark such as occur in the Propon-21 experiment, or in the explosion of a metal foil the electric discharge produces plasma of metal and gas that rapidly cools. This cooling produces nano-particles of various sizes. The latent energetic infrared environment provides the dipole excitation in this condensing nano-dust to support the LENR activity as these particles aggregate. After the energy of the system get below a given threshold, the LENR reaction stops. The same process occurs in electrolysis in water. For example, when pure carbon electrodes support spark discharge in pure water, carbon based buckeyballs form from the plasma produced by the spark discharge. These carbon based nanoparticles support the transmutation of the pure water and carbon into many other elements. In a Ni/H reactor, both hydrogen and other added low melting point elements added as a “secret sauce” support the formation of Rydberg matter including hydrogen clusters, potassium clusters, carbon clusters, potassium hydride clusters and so on. The lifetime of many of these Rydberg clusters may be finite and the clusters can decompose over time. Static nanoparticles are material that the builder of the LENR reactor uses to augment the action of the dynamic nanoparticles. They can be large in diameter in the microns and may be compound particles including nanostructures on their surfaces. For example in the high school reactor, tungsten powder of various and random diameters are used as static micro/nano particles. I general, these particles are not reactive enough to support a vigorous LENR reaction on their own. In the high school reactor dynamic hydrogen and potassium Rydberg matter nanoparticles are added to produce a vigorous LENR reaction. According to Nanoplasmonic principles, the size range of the family of both static and dynamic nano/micro particles should as wide as possible. Dynamic nanoparticles must be rebuilt periodically to renew the vigor of the LENR reaction through the vaporization of hydrogen and low melting point elements and subsequent reformulation of the set of dynamic nanoparticles. *Do we know if this interaction would still be present in a vacuum? * ** IMHO, yes I believe that many of the elements that are claimed to be produced in supernovas are formed in planetary and stellar nebulas when atomic matter gradually coalesces into dust of gradually larger diameters through electrostatic attraction. These dust clouds condense under the action of electrostatic dipole attraction until the mass of these particles become large enough for gravity to take over the condensation process. On Tue, Jul 9, 2013 at 1:50 PM, Roarty, Francis X francis.x.roa...@lmco.com wrote: Ed, I was unaware that *nearly touching metallic nanoparticles *immediately fuse and start to grow a bigger particle, are you saying the lattices break and reassemble to form a solid or are you suggesting the stiction force reshapes the particles into perfect shapes to form closed surfaces?. I was under the impression that bulk powders remain individual grains until heated to the point of melting but given the video showing clear activity between the 2 surfaces I am now very curious regarding shape morphing since the force grows at the inverse cubed of plate spacing could the particles be “stretched” into closed surfaces? perhaps Axil can give more background on the video.. is the blurry motion between the particles an artifact of the sensor, Do we know if this interaction would still be present in a vacuum? Fran ** ** *From:* Edmund Storms [mailto:stor...@ix.netcom.com] *Sent:* Monday, July 08, 2013 6:43 PM *To:* vortex-l@eskimo.com *Cc:* Edmund Storms *Subject:* EXTERNAL: Re: [Vo]:Interesting paper from nature about successful cold fusion experiment ** ** Of course, Fran, you are correct. But this is irrelevant in the real world. When two nano-particles touch, they immediately fuse and start to grow a bigger particle. This is a common and well understood behavior. We are not free to ignore what actually happens in Nature. Of course, pores can be trapped in the growing structure but these are generally large and eventually disappear if the material is held at high temperature long enough. We are trying to explain what happens in the real world, not in some idealized version that Axil has. ** ** Ed On Jul 8, 2013, at 4:08 PM,
Re: [Vo]:Anyone willing to make a bet the eCat is not real?
blaze spinnakerhttp://www.mail-archive.com/search?l=vortex-l@eskimo.comq=from:%22blaze+spinnaker%22 Mon, 08 Jul 2013 18:56:47 -0700http://www.mail-archive.com/search?l=vortex-l@eskimo.comq=date:20130708 Between this and the Pekka patent, very encouraging. I'd still give odds the ecat doesn't exist, though. Maybe 3 to 1 and I'd take 10 to 1 ***So if I'm reading this right, and it isn't a typo... you've gone from OFFERING 10:1 against Rossi to wanting to take that bet yourself. In the short timespan of about a week.
Re: [Vo]:Rossi says -- 1st ecat untouched by him
My odds have changed from around 0% (before the report) to ~5% to ~17% of the eCat being true.You need go to from the middle of the spread. Also, you're doing a somewhat linear analysis based on 2 data points. I could already be on an asymptote. I don't think the Pekka patent is particularly flimsy. I think it's detailed and well thought out by someone with a *track record* in the industry of building functional, useful things. That being said, the patent doesn't actually declare (from what I saw) any significant generation of heat for long periods of time. Never underestimate the value of track records. Bayesian probabilities rely upon this. The specific problem with Rossi is that, from a bayesian point of view, it seemed improbable that he had created anything useful. We didn't get a lot of context from the original paper as to exactly how strongly its authors supported their results. Also, a lot of arguments about wires have secretly provided unmeasured electricity was made. The fact that after all these arguments have been made, a co-author comes out and hits back hard, means that likely those wires were checked thoroughly by all involved. On Tue, Jul 9, 2013 at 12:31 PM, Kevin O'Malley kevmol...@gmail.com wrote: On Tue, Jul 9, 2013 at 12:09 PM, blaze spinnaker blazespinna...@gmail.com wrote: Come on Kevin, you know how this works. In the face of new evidence (Pekka Patent, full throated defense from co-author) we need to update our priors. ***The Pekka patent has nothing to do with Rossi. And a co-author full throated defense should have been baked into your oddsmaking. But by going from 10:1 down to 3:1 over this flimsy level of development, you've change the odds by 700%. That would mean if you stick around another week or two, your odds will be 1:1 or even 2:1 FOR Rossi. Only now are you doing your due diligence. The universe is not static. What's interesting really is not whether or not the eCat is real, but rather getting an accurate estimate of the probability of it being real at any point in time. ***That was the beauty of Intrade. The odds were agreed upon between buyer and seller.
Re: [Vo]:Anyone willing to make a bet the eCat is not real?
Kevin O'Malley kevmol...@gmail.com wrote: Maybe 3 to 1 and I'd take 10 to 1 ***So if I'm reading this right, and it isn't a typo... you've gone from OFFERING 10:1 against Rossi to wanting to take that bet yourself. In the short timespan of about a week. That's what I thought it meant. But I do not understand betting jargon. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:Anyone willing to make a bet the eCat is not real?
I was always willing to take a bet that eCat existed. Didn't you ever make a market on Intrade? And, yes, I've gone from 5% to 17% probability of eCat existing. Things are moving quickly right now before ICCF / NI-WEEK.We live in exciting times. On Tue, Jul 9, 2013 at 12:44 PM, Kevin O'Malley kevmol...@gmail.com wrote: blaze spinnakerhttp://www.mail-archive.com/search?l=vortex-l@eskimo.comq=from:%22blaze+spinnaker%22 Mon, 08 Jul 2013 18:56:47 -0700http://www.mail-archive.com/search?l=vortex-l@eskimo.comq=date:20130708 Between this and the Pekka patent, very encouraging. I'd still give odds the ecat doesn't exist, though. Maybe 3 to 1 and I'd take 10 to 1 ***So if I'm reading this right, and it isn't a typo... you've gone from OFFERING 10:1 against Rossi to wanting to take that bet yourself. In the short timespan of about a week.
Re: [Vo]:Rossi says -- 1st ecat untouched by him
On Tue, Jul 9, 2013 at 12:47 PM, blaze spinnaker blazespinna...@gmail.comwrote: My odds have changed from around 0% (before the report) to ~5% to ~17% of the eCat being true. ***Nonsense statement. 0% would represent astronomically high odds of a thousand or million to one. You need go to from the middle of the spread. ***I tried for the 10:1 odds, but now your story is changing. Mine hasn't. Also, you're doing a somewhat linear analysis based on 2 data points. I could already be on an asymptote. ***Which is why I think that within a year you'll be betting 2:1 FOR Rossi. You simply did not do your homework. I don't think the Pekka patent is particularly flimsy. ***It has nothing to do with Rossi. So, taking it into account for oddsmaking on Rossi is very, VERY flimsy. I think it's detailed and well thought out by someone with a *track record* in the industry of building functional, useful things. That being said, the patent doesn't actually declare (from what I saw) any significant generation of heat for long periods of time. ***It's nice to see someone doing their homework, but unfortunately for me I didn't get the fish before he started changing his tune. Never underestimate the value of track records. Bayesian probabilities rely upon this. The specific problem with Rossi is that, from a bayesian point of view, it seemed improbable that he had created anything useful. ***Then your odds should not have changed.Your backtracking has nothing to do with Bayesian analysis, it has to do with knowing that what you said was indefensible at the level you were saying it. We didn't get a lot of context from the original paper as to exactly how strongly its authors supported their results. Also, a lot of arguments about wires have secretly provided unmeasured electricity was made. ***And Dr. Essen said they directly looked at that possibility. If you had been an informed bettor, you'd have already known this. This paper is just a relatively basic defense, nothing special. Certainly wouldn't move my opinion by 700%. The fact that after all these arguments have been made, a co-author comes out and hits back hard, means that likely those wires were checked thoroughly by all involved. ***You're just backtracking, Blaze. In a way, I like what I see because it represents the intellectual light going on above your head. But in another way, you've taken 700% odds off the table, money out of my pocket. So I'm ambivalent. One thing that's been demonstrated is just how powerful the money aspect of debating can sharpen your thinking skills. Another powerful thing that's been demonstrated is just how on target Vortex is. You have benefited.
Re: [Vo]:Rossi says -- 1st ecat untouched by him
ok.Btw, how'd that bet on Romney winning in '12 work out for you? (speaking of track records) On Tue, Jul 9, 2013 at 1:07 PM, Kevin O'Malley kevmol...@gmail.com wrote: On Tue, Jul 9, 2013 at 12:47 PM, blaze spinnaker blazespinna...@gmail.com wrote: My odds have changed from around 0% (before the report) to ~5% to ~17% of the eCat being true. ***Nonsense statement. 0% would represent astronomically high odds of a thousand or million to one. You need go to from the middle of the spread. ***I tried for the 10:1 odds, but now your story is changing. Mine hasn't. Also, you're doing a somewhat linear analysis based on 2 data points. I could already be on an asymptote. ***Which is why I think that within a year you'll be betting 2:1 FOR Rossi. You simply did not do your homework. I don't think the Pekka patent is particularly flimsy. ***It has nothing to do with Rossi. So, taking it into account for oddsmaking on Rossi is very, VERY flimsy. I think it's detailed and well thought out by someone with a *track record* in the industry of building functional, useful things. That being said, the patent doesn't actually declare (from what I saw) any significant generation of heat for long periods of time. ***It's nice to see someone doing their homework, but unfortunately for me I didn't get the fish before he started changing his tune. Never underestimate the value of track records. Bayesian probabilities rely upon this. The specific problem with Rossi is that, from a bayesian point of view, it seemed improbable that he had created anything useful. ***Then your odds should not have changed.Your backtracking has nothing to do with Bayesian analysis, it has to do with knowing that what you said was indefensible at the level you were saying it. We didn't get a lot of context from the original paper as to exactly how strongly its authors supported their results. Also, a lot of arguments about wires have secretly provided unmeasured electricity was made. ***And Dr. Essen said they directly looked at that possibility. If you had been an informed bettor, you'd have already known this. This paper is just a relatively basic defense, nothing special. Certainly wouldn't move my opinion by 700%. The fact that after all these arguments have been made, a co-author comes out and hits back hard, means that likely those wires were checked thoroughly by all involved. ***You're just backtracking, Blaze. In a way, I like what I see because it represents the intellectual light going on above your head. But in another way, you've taken 700% odds off the table, money out of my pocket. So I'm ambivalent. One thing that's been demonstrated is just how powerful the money aspect of debating can sharpen your thinking skills. Another powerful thing that's been demonstrated is just how on target Vortex is. You have benefited.
Re: [Vo]:Rossi says -- 1st ecat untouched by him
blaze spinnaker blazespinna...@gmail.com wrote: Never underestimate the value of track records. Bayesian probabilities rely upon this. The specific problem with Rossi is that, from a bayesian point of view, it seemed improbable that he had created anything useful. Rossi made millions of dollars inventing Diesel engines that run on biofuel. This calls for detailed knowledge of catalysis, which is widely considered the kind of knowledge relevant to solving the cold fusion problem. So, you have this completely wrong. It is not improbable that Rossi has created anything useful; it is a matter of public record that he has. It was both useful and lucrative. And it was directly related to the cold fusion devices he is now working on. Also, a lot of arguments about wires have secretly provided unmeasured electricity was made. These arguments are based on the notion that a wire capable of conducting enough electricity to melt steel and ceramic is so thin you can't see it. That is nonsense. Even a wire capable of conducting the electricity measured in the second and third tests would be readily visible to anyone. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:Anyone willing to make a bet the eCat is not real?
On Tue, Jul 9, 2013 at 12:58 PM, blaze spinnaker blazespinna...@gmail.comwrote: I was always willing to take a bet that eCat existed. Didn't you ever make a market on Intrade? ***Yes. It had to do with Cold Fusion, as I posted earlier. But it was not me, the market maker, who changed his tune. It was all the naysayers on Intrade who talked big and loud, but didn't put their money down until it was barely worth it for me. Market makers are not supposed to change their tune by 700% within a week. The End of *Snide Remarks* Against *Cold Fusion* - Free Republic http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/bloggers/2265914/posts Free Republic, Gravitronics.net and Intrade ^ | 6/5/09 | *kevmo*, et al. Posted on 06/05/2009 5:56:08 PM PDT *.* And, yes, I've gone from 5% to 17% probability of eCat existing. ***You said 0%, now your tune changes again. You aren't making much sense as you backtrack. Things are moving quickly right now before ICCF / NI-WEEK.We live in exciting times. ***Again, backtracking. This time with a classic fallacy attached, which is the argument from silence (in this case the silence is from the future).At the rate you're currently going, you'll be taking 2:1 FOR Rossi within a month. On Tue, Jul 9, 2013 at 12:44 PM, Kevin O'Malley kevmol...@gmail.comwrote: blaze spinnakerhttp://www.mail-archive.com/search?l=vortex-l@eskimo.comq=from:%22blaze+spinnaker%22 Mon, 08 Jul 2013 18:56:47 -0700http://www.mail-archive.com/search?l=vortex-l@eskimo.comq=date:20130708 Between this and the Pekka patent, very encouraging. I'd still give odds the ecat doesn't exist, though. Maybe 3 to 1 and I'd take 10 to 1 ***So if I'm reading this right, and it isn't a typo... you've gone from OFFERING 10:1 against Rossi to wanting to take that bet yourself. In the short timespan of about a week.
Re: [Vo]:Rossi says -- 1st ecat untouched by him
Now you're just trying to change the subject. If ya wanna talk politics, click on that link I gave you. Vortex is for science subjects. (speaking of track records) ***Now, it appears yours is one of strong backtracking, here on Vortex. The End of *Snide Remarks* Against *Cold Fusion* - Free Republichttp://www.freerepublic.com/focus/bloggers/2265914/posts http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/bloggers/2265914/posts Free Republic, Gravitronics.net and Intrade ^ | 6/5/09 | *kevmo*, et al. Posted on 06/05/2009 5:56:08 PM PDT On Tue, Jul 9, 2013 at 1:12 PM, blaze spinnaker blazespinna...@gmail.comwrote: ok.Btw, how'd that bet on Romney winning in '12 work out for you? (speaking of track records) On Tue, Jul 9, 2013 at 1:07 PM, Kevin O'Malley kevmol...@gmail.comwrote: On Tue, Jul 9, 2013 at 12:47 PM, blaze spinnaker blazespinna...@gmail.com wrote: My odds have changed from around 0% (before the report) to ~5% to ~17% of the eCat being true. ***Nonsense statement. 0% would represent astronomically high odds of a thousand or million to one. You need go to from the middle of the spread. ***I tried for the 10:1 odds, but now your story is changing. Mine hasn't. Also, you're doing a somewhat linear analysis based on 2 data points. I could already be on an asymptote. ***Which is why I think that within a year you'll be betting 2:1 FOR Rossi. You simply did not do your homework. I don't think the Pekka patent is particularly flimsy. ***It has nothing to do with Rossi. So, taking it into account for oddsmaking on Rossi is very, VERY flimsy. I think it's detailed and well thought out by someone with a *track record* in the industry of building functional, useful things. That being said, the patent doesn't actually declare (from what I saw) any significant generation of heat for long periods of time. ***It's nice to see someone doing their homework, but unfortunately for me I didn't get the fish before he started changing his tune. Never underestimate the value of track records. Bayesian probabilities rely upon this. The specific problem with Rossi is that, from a bayesian point of view, it seemed improbable that he had created anything useful. ***Then your odds should not have changed.Your backtracking has nothing to do with Bayesian analysis, it has to do with knowing that what you said was indefensible at the level you were saying it. We didn't get a lot of context from the original paper as to exactly how strongly its authors supported their results. Also, a lot of arguments about wires have secretly provided unmeasured electricity was made. ***And Dr. Essen said they directly looked at that possibility. If you had been an informed bettor, you'd have already known this. This paper is just a relatively basic defense, nothing special. Certainly wouldn't move my opinion by 700%. The fact that after all these arguments have been made, a co-author comes out and hits back hard, means that likely those wires were checked thoroughly by all involved. ***You're just backtracking, Blaze. In a way, I like what I see because it represents the intellectual light going on above your head. But in another way, you've taken 700% odds off the table, money out of my pocket. So I'm ambivalent. One thing that's been demonstrated is just how powerful the money aspect of debating can sharpen your thinking skills. Another powerful thing that's been demonstrated is just how on target Vortex is. You have benefited.
Re: [Vo]:Anyone willing to make a bet the eCat is not real?
Sure, if an eCat is announced and publicly demonstrated, I certainly will be betting 2:1. Or better testing. I'm not a mary yugo. I don't start with a conclusion and work backwards. I'm merely trying to estimate the probability. BTW, I notice you haven't made a counter offer yet. Will you give me 2:1 that the eCat exists? Or, ick, let's use Intrade odds. Will you go long at 6.6 that eCat exists? On Tue, Jul 9, 2013 at 1:17 PM, Kevin O'Malley kevmol...@gmail.com wrote: On Tue, Jul 9, 2013 at 12:58 PM, blaze spinnaker blazespinna...@gmail.com wrote: I was always willing to take a bet that eCat existed. Didn't you ever make a market on Intrade? ***Yes. It had to do with Cold Fusion, as I posted earlier. But it was not me, the market maker, who changed his tune. It was all the naysayers on Intrade who talked big and loud, but didn't put their money down until it was barely worth it for me. Market makers are not supposed to change their tune by 700% within a week. The End of *Snide Remarks* Against *Cold Fusion* - Free Republic http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/bloggers/2265914/posts Free Republic, Gravitronics.net and Intrade ^ | 6/5/09 | *kevmo*, et al. Posted on 06/05/2009 5:56:08 PM PDT *.* And, yes, I've gone from 5% to 17% probability of eCat existing. ***You said 0%, now your tune changes again. You aren't making much sense as you backtrack. Things are moving quickly right now before ICCF / NI-WEEK.We live in exciting times. ***Again, backtracking. This time with a classic fallacy attached, which is the argument from silence (in this case the silence is from the future).At the rate you're currently going, you'll be taking 2:1 FOR Rossi within a month. On Tue, Jul 9, 2013 at 12:44 PM, Kevin O'Malley kevmol...@gmail.comwrote: blaze spinnakerhttp://www.mail-archive.com/search?l=vortex-l@eskimo.comq=from:%22blaze+spinnaker%22 Mon, 08 Jul 2013 18:56:47 -0700http://www.mail-archive.com/search?l=vortex-l@eskimo.comq=date:20130708 Between this and the Pekka patent, very encouraging. I'd still give odds the ecat doesn't exist, though. Maybe 3 to 1 and I'd take 10 to 1 ***So if I'm reading this right, and it isn't a typo... you've gone from OFFERING 10:1 against Rossi to wanting to take that bet yourself. In the short timespan of about a week.
Re: [Vo]:Rossi says -- 1st ecat untouched by him
These arguments are based on the notion that a wire capable of conducting enough electricity to melt steel and ceramic is so thin you can't see it. That is nonsense. Even a wire capable of conducting the electricity measured in the second and third tests would be readily visible to anyone. - Jed Well, we're all speculating as to how much or how little the investigators examined things. Unless they videotape the actual inspection (and even then) - we weren't there, and can only go by 3rd party reports. I think the full throated defense by the co-author shows that they probably went to town on these things.
Re: [Vo]:Rossi says -- 1st ecat untouched by him
Well, I am discussing probabilities and the ability to estimate them. Perhaps we could take this off list though. Maybe not everyone finds it as fascinating as you and I :) Honestly, I'm not the enemy here btw. I'm a big believer in LENR. I just think the probability of Rossi doing something worthwhile seems low. Plus I despise his desire to be secretive, since I am pretty sure public testing would result in patents (the whole point of patents). He must realize that he risks losing control over this someone else writes a better patent and demonstrates his device before he does. On Tue, Jul 9, 2013 at 1:22 PM, Kevin O'Malley kevmol...@gmail.com wrote: Now you're just trying to change the subject. If ya wanna talk politics, click on that link I gave you. Vortex is for science subjects. (speaking of track records) ***Now, it appears yours is one of strong backtracking, here on Vortex. The End of *Snide Remarks* Against *Cold Fusion* - Free Republichttp://www.freerepublic.com/focus/bloggers/2265914/posts http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/bloggers/2265914/posts Free Republic, Gravitronics.net and Intrade ^ | 6/5/09 | *kevmo*, et al. Posted on 06/05/2009 5:56:08 PM PDT On Tue, Jul 9, 2013 at 1:12 PM, blaze spinnaker blazespinna...@gmail.comwrote: ok.Btw, how'd that bet on Romney winning in '12 work out for you? (speaking of track records) On Tue, Jul 9, 2013 at 1:07 PM, Kevin O'Malley kevmol...@gmail.comwrote: On Tue, Jul 9, 2013 at 12:47 PM, blaze spinnaker blazespinna...@gmail.com wrote: My odds have changed from around 0% (before the report) to ~5% to ~17% of the eCat being true. ***Nonsense statement. 0% would represent astronomically high odds of a thousand or million to one. You need go to from the middle of the spread. ***I tried for the 10:1 odds, but now your story is changing. Mine hasn't. Also, you're doing a somewhat linear analysis based on 2 data points. I could already be on an asymptote. ***Which is why I think that within a year you'll be betting 2:1 FOR Rossi. You simply did not do your homework. I don't think the Pekka patent is particularly flimsy. ***It has nothing to do with Rossi. So, taking it into account for oddsmaking on Rossi is very, VERY flimsy. I think it's detailed and well thought out by someone with a *track record* in the industry of building functional, useful things. That being said, the patent doesn't actually declare (from what I saw) any significant generation of heat for long periods of time. ***It's nice to see someone doing their homework, but unfortunately for me I didn't get the fish before he started changing his tune. Never underestimate the value of track records. Bayesian probabilities rely upon this. The specific problem with Rossi is that, from a bayesian point of view, it seemed improbable that he had created anything useful. ***Then your odds should not have changed.Your backtracking has nothing to do with Bayesian analysis, it has to do with knowing that what you said was indefensible at the level you were saying it. We didn't get a lot of context from the original paper as to exactly how strongly its authors supported their results. Also, a lot of arguments about wires have secretly provided unmeasured electricity was made. ***And Dr. Essen said they directly looked at that possibility. If you had been an informed bettor, you'd have already known this. This paper is just a relatively basic defense, nothing special. Certainly wouldn't move my opinion by 700%. The fact that after all these arguments have been made, a co-author comes out and hits back hard, means that likely those wires were checked thoroughly by all involved. ***You're just backtracking, Blaze. In a way, I like what I see because it represents the intellectual light going on above your head. But in another way, you've taken 700% odds off the table, money out of my pocket. So I'm ambivalent. One thing that's been demonstrated is just how powerful the money aspect of debating can sharpen your thinking skills. Another powerful thing that's been demonstrated is just how on target Vortex is. You have benefited.
Re: [Vo]:Anyone willing to make a bet the eCat is not real?
Taking this convo off list, email me if you'd like to be CC'd / included. On Tue, Jul 9, 2013 at 1:23 PM, blaze spinnaker blazespinna...@gmail.comwrote: Sure, if an eCat is announced and publicly demonstrated, I certainly will be betting 2:1. Or better testing. I'm not a mary yugo. I don't start with a conclusion and work backwards. I'm merely trying to estimate the probability. BTW, I notice you haven't made a counter offer yet. Will you give me 2:1 that the eCat exists? Or, ick, let's use Intrade odds. Will you go long at 6.6 that eCat exists? On Tue, Jul 9, 2013 at 1:17 PM, Kevin O'Malley kevmol...@gmail.comwrote: On Tue, Jul 9, 2013 at 12:58 PM, blaze spinnaker blazespinna...@gmail.com wrote: I was always willing to take a bet that eCat existed. Didn't you ever make a market on Intrade? ***Yes. It had to do with Cold Fusion, as I posted earlier. But it was not me, the market maker, who changed his tune. It was all the naysayers on Intrade who talked big and loud, but didn't put their money down until it was barely worth it for me. Market makers are not supposed to change their tune by 700% within a week. The End of *Snide Remarks* Against *Cold Fusion* - Free Republic http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/bloggers/2265914/posts Free Republic, Gravitronics.net and Intrade ^ | 6/5/09 | *kevmo*, et al. Posted on 06/05/2009 5:56:08 PM PDT *.* And, yes, I've gone from 5% to 17% probability of eCat existing. ***You said 0%, now your tune changes again. You aren't making much sense as you backtrack. Things are moving quickly right now before ICCF / NI-WEEK.We live in exciting times. ***Again, backtracking. This time with a classic fallacy attached, which is the argument from silence (in this case the silence is from the future).At the rate you're currently going, you'll be taking 2:1 FOR Rossi within a month. On Tue, Jul 9, 2013 at 12:44 PM, Kevin O'Malley kevmol...@gmail.comwrote: blaze spinnakerhttp://www.mail-archive.com/search?l=vortex-l@eskimo.comq=from:%22blaze+spinnaker%22 Mon, 08 Jul 2013 18:56:47 -0700http://www.mail-archive.com/search?l=vortex-l@eskimo.comq=date:20130708 Between this and the Pekka patent, very encouraging. I'd still give odds the ecat doesn't exist, though. Maybe 3 to 1 and I'd take 10 to 1 ***So if I'm reading this right, and it isn't a typo... you've gone from OFFERING 10:1 against Rossi to wanting to take that bet yourself. In the short timespan of about a week.
Re: [Vo]:Anyone willing to make a bet the eCat is not real?
On Tue, Jul 9, 2013 at 1:23 PM, blaze spinnaker blazespinna...@gmail.comwrote: BTW, I notice you haven't made a counter offer yet. Will you give me 2:1 that the eCat exists? ***I accepted your original offer of 10:1. But you are not a man of your word. Or, ick, let's use Intrade odds. Will you go long at 6.6 that eCat exists? ***Dude, that's backwards, you're now giving me 1:2 odds. I predicted upthread that you'd do it within a month, and here you've done it within a matter of minutes. I was willing to go long at 80cents (whatever corresponds to 10:1), and you've completely gone the other way, changing your tune from 80 cents (10:1) to $6.60 (1:2), all within about a week. Do you consider your ability to comprehend to be representative of the average LENR skeptic?
Re: [Vo]:Anyone willing to make a bet the eCat is not real?
On Tue, Jul 9, 2013 at 1:36 PM, blaze spinnaker blazespinna...@gmail.comwrote: Taking this convo off list, email me if you'd like to be CC'd / included. ***Why?
Re: [Vo]:Anyone willing to make a bet the eCat is not real?
I think the conversation is primarily of interest to a limited group and probably just noise for the rest of the list. It's usually a good idea to do this when threads get overly long and only certain people are participating. On Tue, Jul 9, 2013 at 1:50 PM, Kevin O'Malley kevmol...@gmail.com wrote: On Tue, Jul 9, 2013 at 1:36 PM, blaze spinnaker blazespinna...@gmail.comwrote: Taking this convo off list, email me if you'd like to be CC'd / included. ***Why?
Re: [Vo]:Anyone willing to make a bet the eCat is not real?
***I accepted your original offer of 10:1. But you are not a man of your word. Dude, you and I both know those bets are not forever. New information arrives which forces us all to adjust our probabilities. BUT! If you still want to go with the original bet at 10:1 where the arvix report must be published in a journal of impact factor 15 (as I stated), I'll take your money though.
Re: [Vo]:Anyone willing to make a bet the eCat is not real?
Kevin O'Malley kevmol...@gmail.com wrote: The End of *Snide Remarks* Against *Cold Fusion* - Free Republic http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/bloggers/2265914/posts Free Republic, Gravitronics.net and Intrade ^ | 6/5/09 | *kevmo*, et al. Posted on 06/05/2009 5:56:08 PM PDT *.* This is from 2009 and it is regarding Arata. The snide remarks did not end, needless to say. They will not end until the reality of cold fusion is published in the headlines of every major mass media website from CNN to the Asahi Shimbun to the New York Times. Whether that will ever happen is impossible to say. I have devoted most of my working life to making it happen, but I have no confidence that it will. The outcome depends on politics, human nature and most of all, upon the will of the public. These things are unfathomable. The good news is that public opinion sometimes changes overnight. The horrendous air pollution in London, England continued for 700 years until the public demanded it be stopped in 1952. It abated within a generation. The expert H. E. C. Beaver said: . . . on public opinion, and on it alone, finally rests the issue. See the Introduction to my book. Here is what you must understand. The air pollution in London, Yokkaichi Japan, and Beijing this year were real. The air was filled with hideous filth that killed thousands of people. Global warming is also real, and it will kill millions of people if nothing is done to prevent it. But what is not real -- and never has been -- is the unavoidable need to live with these things. I mean the technical imperative. At any time after modern chemistry was in developed circa 1820, particulate air pollution might have been vastly reduced. It finally was after 1952, but it might have been in 1852. Any time after 1950 and the discovery of nuclear energy, photovoltaics, and modern wind turbines, the use of carbon-based fossil fuel might have been greatly reduced or eliminated. We have these problems because we *wish* to have them. Because we willfully ignorant. Not because we have no choice. We have always had a choice. The choice has been in front of us all along. The root of the problem is that most people despise science, change, and innovation. They fear these things. They prefer to live mired in poverty, filth, superstition and disease rather than allow their children to learn about nature. Rather than allow scientists to master nature. We have seen this over and over again, not only in places like Afghanistan, but to a lesser degree in India, South Korea and the U.S. This is a problem of human nature, not technology. - Jed
[Vo]:News about Defkalion Europe...
For Your information... http://www.lenr-forum.com/showthread.php?2111-Defkalion-Europe-some-comment-about-Defkalion-reactors-from-french-Agoravox on my french article Agoravox.fr , there was an interesting response in relation Defkalion Europe. http://www.agoravox.fr/actualites/te...0#forum3769829http://www.agoravox.fr/actualites/technologies/article/fusion-froide-lenr-resume-pour-130995?pn=1000#forum3769829 Hello, I am a Foreign Trade Advisor and live in Italy for 30 years. I am a friend of the Technical Director of Defkalion Europe in Milan, Luca Gamberale, who did me the honor of a demonstration of reactor R5. Impressive. The R5 reactor is small in size (approx 60 x 40 x 30). A very small amount of nickel and hydrogen (a few grams) are introduced into the heart of the reactor (sufficient to ensure a continuous cycle of 6 months). intake power (1.5 kW) will produce about 4.5 kilowatts of thermal energy, the reactor temperature can reach, in principle, the melting point of nickel (1,453 ° C). The temperature limit is given by the materials that make up the reactor, and have a degree of complexity which will focus on the engineering of next month effort. Currently, the temperatures obtained are of the order of 600 ° C in the secondary circuit through the use of appropriate thermal fluids. The reactor can be activated and deactivated in a short period of time and the reaction is quite mastered (about 20 to 30 minutes after start). the charge of the reactor can last six months of continuous operation and the product of the reaction is mainly copper and other metals not harmful to health and the environment. Difference between R5 compared to the E-Cat model E Corp. Leonardo. (Machine Rossi) is radical. Indeed, while the exothermic reaction in the E-Cat is controlled by the presence of a catalyst in the reaction R5 is triggered and modulated by a plasma discharge to very specific characteristics. It is precisely the presence of this discharge that allows a smooth and stable control of the reaction. R5 (soon to be replaced by the R6, a reactor substantially equivalent to R5 but with better performance) can easily be used to work in parallel to achieve any desired power, up to a few megawatts. It is easily understood that the cost per kWh is lower than any primary source currently available. Sincerely, Frederic Gilardone I could not identify the author absolutely, but it is consistent with the info I have.
Re: [Vo]:Anyone willing to make a bet the eCat is not real?
On Tue, Jul 9, 2013 at 1:52 PM, blaze spinnaker blazespinna...@gmail.comwrote: I think the conversation is primarily of interest to a limited group and probably just noise for the rest of the list. It's usually a good idea to do this when threads get overly long and only certain people are participating. You guys are funny. I'm reminded of the kind of banter that goes back and forth between fans of different sports teams. I think the idea that putting up actually money forces a sharpening of one's appraisal is an interesting one. I wish something other than money could be used. In the scientific world, I get the impression that it is reputation that is put on the line and that serves a similar purpose, for example, when publishing an article. Hence all of the importance attached to publishing. Eric
Re: [Vo]:News about Defkalion Europe...
I gotta jet, but Frederic Gilardone trade minister isn't showing anything in Google. If we can establish him as a real and independent person with a track record, this could be pretty exciting news. On Tue, Jul 9, 2013 at 2:35 PM, Alain Sepeda alain.sep...@gmail.com wrote: For Your information... http://www.lenr-forum.com/showthread.php?2111-Defkalion-Europe-some-comment-about-Defkalion-reactors-from-french-Agoravox on my french article Agoravox.fr , there was an interesting response in relation Defkalion Europe. http://www.agoravox.fr/actualites/te...0#forum3769829http://www.agoravox.fr/actualites/technologies/article/fusion-froide-lenr-resume-pour-130995?pn=1000#forum3769829 Hello, I am a Foreign Trade Advisor and live in Italy for 30 years. I am a friend of the Technical Director of Defkalion Europe in Milan, Luca Gamberale, who did me the honor of a demonstration of reactor R5. Impressive. The R5 reactor is small in size (approx 60 x 40 x 30). A very small amount of nickel and hydrogen (a few grams) are introduced into the heart of the reactor (sufficient to ensure a continuous cycle of 6 months). intake power (1.5 kW) will produce about 4.5 kilowatts of thermal energy, the reactor temperature can reach, in principle, the melting point of nickel (1,453 ° C). The temperature limit is given by the materials that make up the reactor, and have a degree of complexity which will focus on the engineering of next month effort. Currently, the temperatures obtained are of the order of 600 ° C in the secondary circuit through the use of appropriate thermal fluids. The reactor can be activated and deactivated in a short period of time and the reaction is quite mastered (about 20 to 30 minutes after start). the charge of the reactor can last six months of continuous operation and the product of the reaction is mainly copper and other metals not harmful to health and the environment. Difference between R5 compared to the E-Cat model E Corp. Leonardo. (Machine Rossi) is radical. Indeed, while the exothermic reaction in the E-Cat is controlled by the presence of a catalyst in the reaction R5 is triggered and modulated by a plasma discharge to very specific characteristics. It is precisely the presence of this discharge that allows a smooth and stable control of the reaction. R5 (soon to be replaced by the R6, a reactor substantially equivalent to R5 but with better performance) can easily be used to work in parallel to achieve any desired power, up to a few megawatts. It is easily understood that the cost per kWh is lower than any primary source currently available. Sincerely, Frederic Gilardone I could not identify the author absolutely, but it is consistent with the info I have.
Re: [Vo]:Rossi says -- 1st ecat untouched by him
On Tue, Jul 9, 2013 at 1:07 PM, Kevin O'Malley kevmol...@gmail.com wrote: Another powerful thing that's been demonstrated is just how on target Vortex is.You have benefited. Vortex is everything to everyone. Benefitting from the threads here is like having someone read tea leaves. There is a lot of interesting news and many interesting ideas, but also much to lead nearly everyone astray, each in his or her own direction. Eric
Re: [Vo]:News about Defkalion Europe...
From: blaze spinnaker blazespinna...@gmail.com Sent: Tuesday, July 9, 2013 3:00:43 PM I gotta jet, but Frederic Gilardone trade minister isn't showing anything in Google. Foreign Trade Advisor Could be any kind of speculator/punter.
Re: [Vo]:News about Defkalion Europe...
Frederic Gilardone foreign trade : lots of legitimate hits Frederic GILARDONE, MILANO, Bankwesen, Versicherungen, Energiewirtschaft, ... Councilman (Foreign trade) at the French Embassy in Rome. ... Frederic Gilardone. GEB-SOLUTIONS, Country Manager ... Junior export manager, Italian Institute for Foreign Trade - Rome. etc etc
[Vo]:Barns and Noble picked me up
http://www.barnesandnoble.com/w/energy-cold-fusion-antigravity-mr-frank-znidarsic-pe/1113883542?ean=9781480270237 Sent from my iPad
[Vo]:DGT or ECAT? Same Process?
Whenever I read about the DGT device I get the impression that it behaves much differently than the ECAT. The main difference I focus upon so far is the method of control. We have discussed the ECAT thermal positive feedback control on many occasions and have developed models that appear to explain its operation. The same is not yet true for the DGT beast. Thermal control such as that used by Rossi seems to have difficulty achieving a stable COP of 6 for the basic device excluding electrical power generation and feedback. Of course it is expected that one will be able to use the fed back electrical power to drive the device one day and achieve a net COP of infinity. This should become possible fairly soon and Rossi appears to be working hard to arrive at a reasonable design. DGT suggests that they potentially can already obtain a large COP, but I have questions about the design since little has been demonstrated in public. My reservations can easily be disposed of by additional information and I anxiously await that time. The spark plug like ignition system of the DGT animal bears little resemblance to the thermal operation of Rossi's ECAT. I have the suspicion that there is something important to be learned by the fact that these various devices both function. How can that be? What is it about the DGT design that appears to efficiently use the spark induced reactions while maintaining excellent control? We certainly are not interested in hot fusion products which tend to be associated with high voltages such as spark discharges. If acceleration due to high voltage is present then why does this not occur? Does DGT balance the spark magnitude carefully enough to avoid this fate while achieving adequate LENR activity? I want to learn from the DGT device as well as the ECAT. There appears to be an understanding among most of us that some form of NAE is present which allows LENR to proceed, but what form does it take? Is it the same for both designs? What does the spark of DGT offer that heat alone seems to neglect in the ECAT? It seems as if the ECAT would love to thermally run away without much provocation while the DGT device does not seem to exhibit that behavior. Perhaps DGT has done a good job of hiding this problem, but they offer information that suggests that this is not happening with their design. I find the description that the DGT design can be turned on and off rapidly to potentially find applications that are diverse such as transportation, the gold standard of mine as evidence. If thermal run away were a major issue, then the rapid control might not be so easy to demonstrate. From the information that I have gleaned, both systems appear to offer excellent energy density and good power output. This is extremely important for future applications. It will be interesting to witness the race between these two horses in the near future. Of course, others might enter the fray soon and we all will benefit it that occurs. I realize that I have touched upon a multitude of interesting issues in this post and I hope that some of our esteemed members can add important information to the discussion. And if the answers to some of my questions appear, then that would be fantastic. Dave
Re: [Vo]:Barns and Noble picked me up
From: fznidar...@aol.com Sent: Tuesday, July 9, 2013 3:34:49 PM http://www.barnesandnoble.com/w/energy-cold-fusion-antigravity-mr-frank-znidarsic-pe/1113883542?ean=9781480270237 Just before they go belly up? Congratulations, anyway.
Re: [Vo]:DGT or ECAT? Same Process?
On Tue, Jul 9, 2013 at 3:39 PM, David Roberson dlrober...@aol.com wrote: What does the spark of DGT offer that heat alone seems to neglect in the ECAT? This gets back to the earlier thread on the ion beam and glow discharge experiments. I suspect that some of what they're seeing in those experiments is real LENR, and that it is hasty to write it off as hot fusion. You may recall an experiment that was recently mentioned in which 350-1000 eV beams of deuterium nuclei were accelerated towards 1 um deuterated titanium foils, and out of the back came ~5 MeV particles (identity unknown). This is a little like dropping pennies onto the ground on one floor of a building and having cannonballs fall from the ceiling below. It's easy to lose sight of the difference between 350 eV and 5 MeV, but it's large. About the difference between a glow discharge/ion beam type arrangement like Defkalion's and a purely thermally driven one like the HotCat, it seems we can only speculate at this point. My current line of thinking for the ion beam stuff -- there is something in the electronic structure of the substrate that is at work here, be it plasmons, or shielding, or cracks, my favorite, sufficient deceleration in the fields of heavy lattice atoms to keep the interacting nuclei close to one another for a prolonged period of time sufficient to achieve tunneling and sharing of momentum with the spectator lattice atom. (Note that this also opens the possibility of a similar kind of interaction happening in a *gas*, e.g., heavy noble gas atoms like xenon, with sufficiently strong binding energies for the inner shell electrons.) Eric
Re: [Vo]:DGT or ECAT? Same Process?
On Tue, Jul 9, 2013 at 3:54 PM, Eric Walker eric.wal...@gmail.com wrote: My current line of thinking for the ion beam stuff -- there is something in the electronic structure of the substrate that is at work here, be it plasmons, or shielding, or cracks, my favorite, sufficient deceleration in the fields of heavy lattice atoms to keep the interacting nuclei close to one another for a prolonged period of time sufficient to achieve tunneling and sharing of momentum with the spectator lattice atom. That was a little word-salady. The electronic structure mentioned above is perhaps two things -- apart from its relevance in other contexts such as plasmons and so on, it is in this context, first, the Coulomb field of the heavy lattice atoms, which is used to beneficial effect through the deceleration it provides to oncoming light nuclei. It can be expected to cause them to linger around for a little while before they bounce back out; longer, at any rate, than they might have stuck around in free space or in simple elastic collisions with ligher nuclei. It's sort of like the longish bounce you get on a large trampoline versus the very quick bounce you get on a small, exercise trampoline. Second, electronic structure here is intended to refer to the Auger-like effect that has been proposed elsewhere where a light atom is accelerated in place of an Auger electron that would be ejected upon the receipt of an incoming photon in the normal course of events. Eric
Re: [Vo]:DGT or ECAT? Same Process?
Eric, if you attend ICCF-18, I will answer this question during my talk. Ed On Jul 9, 2013, at 4:54 PM, Eric Walker wrote: On Tue, Jul 9, 2013 at 3:39 PM, David Roberson dlrober...@aol.com wrote: What does the spark of DGT offer that heat alone seems to neglect in the ECAT? This gets back to the earlier thread on the ion beam and glow discharge experiments. I suspect that some of what they're seeing in those experiments is real LENR, and that it is hasty to write it off as hot fusion. You may recall an experiment that was recently mentioned in which 350-1000 eV beams of deuterium nuclei were accelerated towards 1 um deuterated titanium foils, and out of the back came ~5 MeV particles (identity unknown). This is a little like dropping pennies onto the ground on one floor of a building and having cannonballs fall from the ceiling below. It's easy to lose sight of the difference between 350 eV and 5 MeV, but it's large. About the difference between a glow discharge/ion beam type arrangement like Defkalion's and a purely thermally driven one like the HotCat, it seems we can only speculate at this point. My current line of thinking for the ion beam stuff -- there is something in the electronic structure of the substrate that is at work here, be it plasmons, or shielding, or cracks, my favorite, sufficient deceleration in the fields of heavy lattice atoms to keep the interacting nuclei close to one another for a prolonged period of time sufficient to achieve tunneling and sharing of momentum with the spectator lattice atom. (Note that this also opens the possibility of a similar kind of interaction happening in a *gas*, e.g., heavy noble gas atoms like xenon, with sufficiently strong binding energies for the inner shell electrons.) Eric
Re: [Vo]:DGT or ECAT? Same Process?
Eric, I recall mention of an experiment of that nature but do not recall specifics. Could you offer a link that I might follow? I can understand your interest in the results if less than 1000 eV Ds are used for the collision since that is far less than the normal energy used for hot fusion experiments. I read DGT's paper and see that they believe that Rydberg hydrogen is especially helpful toward making their device function at high efficiency and this might be an important clue. Who is certain about the actual energy that their ions have when driven by a spark? I highly suspect that the molecules are split apart first by the strong fields and then ionized before impacting the region surrounding the nickel. DGT promises that no dangerous radiation is emitted by their process, so it must be considered LENR. Hot fusion would not be acceptable for our needs and gammas of very strong energies would no doubt be seen. Dave -Original Message- From: Eric Walker eric.wal...@gmail.com To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Tue, Jul 9, 2013 6:54 pm Subject: Re: [Vo]:DGT or ECAT? Same Process? On Tue, Jul 9, 2013 at 3:39 PM, David Roberson dlrober...@aol.com wrote: What does the spark of DGT offer that heat alone seems to neglect in the ECAT? This gets back to the earlier thread on the ion beam and glow discharge experiments. I suspect that some of what they're seeing in those experiments is real LENR, and that it is hasty to write it off as hot fusion. You may recall an experiment that was recently mentioned in which 350-1000 eV beams of deuterium nuclei were accelerated towards 1 um deuterated titanium foils, and out of the back came ~5 MeV particles (identity unknown). This is a little like dropping pennies onto the ground on one floor of a building and having cannonballs fall from the ceiling below. It's easy to lose sight of the difference between 350 eV and 5 MeV, but it's large. About the difference between a glow discharge/ion beam type arrangement like Defkalion's and a purely thermally driven one like the HotCat, it seems we can only speculate at this point. My current line of thinking for the ion beam stuff -- there is something in the electronic structure of the substrate that is at work here, be it plasmons, or shielding, or cracks, my favorite, sufficient deceleration in the fields of heavy lattice atoms to keep the interacting nuclei close to one another for a prolonged period of time sufficient to achieve tunneling and sharing of momentum with the spectator lattice atom. (Note that this also opens the possibility of a similar kind of interaction happening in a *gas*, e.g., heavy noble gas atoms like xenon, with sufficiently strong binding energies for the inner shell electrons.) Eric
Re: [Vo]:Anyone willing to make a bet the eCat is not real?
I posted that the Impact Factor looked meaningless. I can't see if reasonable journals have a factor of 1, or 10 , or 100 or XYZ. There was never an answer to my post. Kevin O'Malleyhttp://www.mail-archive.com/search?l=vortex-l@eskimo.comq=from:%22Kevin+O%27Malley%22 Fri, 28 Jun 2013 22:53:40 -0700http://www.mail-archive.com/search?l=vortex-l@eskimo.comq=date:20130628 So far I can't get a handle on what Impact Factor really is. Reuters charges for their information. I need to see where various journals are in this ranking, such as Naturewieessen, American Chemical Society, Journal of Analytical Chemistry, Physics Letters A, Journal of Nuclear Physics,Nature, Journal of Electrochemistry and various other journals. In particular, I would like to know the rankings of the journals mentioned on page 18 in this paper from Jed Rothwell's LENR-CANR.org website: http://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/RothwellJtallyofcol.pdf On Tue, Jul 9, 2013 at 1:54 PM, blaze spinnaker blazespinna...@gmail.comwrote: ***I accepted your original offer of 10:1. But you are not a man of your word. Dude, you and I both know those bets are not forever. New information arrives which forces us all to adjust our probabilities. BUT! If you still want to go with the original bet at 10:1 where the arvix report must be published in a journal of impact factor 15 (as I stated), I'll take your money though.
Re: [Vo]:DGT or ECAT? Same Process?
On Tue, Jul 9, 2013 at 5:02 PM, David Roberson dlrober...@aol.com wrote: Eric, I recall mention of an experiment of that nature but do not recall specifics. Could you offer a link that I might follow? The thread was here [1]. Defkalion mention Rydberg hydrogen. An interesting thing that I recently read was that you can infer when hydrogen within a solid is ionic by its mobility under a voltage. Presumably ionic hydrogen will migrate readily whereas monoatomic hydrogen will not, because of the shielding from the electron. I wonder whether Defkalion are really dealing with Rydberg hydrogen. Eric [1] http://www.mail-archive.com/vortex-l@eskimo.com/msg84032.html
RE: [Vo]:DGT or ECAT? Same Process?
My take on their process is that the control and the sparks are related to the positive heat coef. of the reaction and the rate at which the heat is extracted. My best empirical model shows an almost exponential increase in max power output with temperature (due to vacancy production). A few very hot regions can produce a large fraction of the output. My reoccurring problem is to balance the temperature of the reaction species with the rate at which I remove the heat. You remove too much heat and the reaction sites cool down and the reaction slows. Most people seem to be looking at the global average temperature of the bulk and not the temperatures of local areas. By sparking to your sample you can have very high local temperatures and thus higher local reaction rates, IF your material is such that its resistivity increases with temperature. Notice this is the case for most metals. Since the sparks target the paths with greatest conductivity, the sparks are to new regions with lower temperatures and lower resistance. i.e. you hit new regions. I believe that they are basically sparking to a flat area within a cylinder. I prefer to use a spark into a bowl shaped target. You just simply make sure that your heat flow out of the system is large enough to stop any runaway reactions. (you are also saved by the 4th power law) For my system, it is a balancing act between heat production and heat transfer out of the system. I do that by both having a variable heat conductive path (variable contact areas by turning- think variable air caps) for rough tuning and then changing the spark rate (I use a strobe circuit). Dennis To: vortex-l@eskimo.com From: dlrober...@aol.com Date: Tue, 9 Jul 2013 18:39:06 -0400 Subject: [Vo]:DGT or ECAT? Same Process? Whenever I read about the DGT device I get the impression that it behaves much differently than the ECAT. The main difference I focus upon so far is the method of control. We have discussed the ECAT thermal positive feedback control on many occasions and have developed models that appear to explain its operation. The same is not yet true for the DGT beast. Thermal control such as that used by Rossi seems to have difficulty achieving a stable COP of 6 for the basic device excluding electrical power generation and feedback. Of course it is expected that one will be able to use the fed back electrical power to drive the device one day and achieve a net COP of infinity. This should become possible fairly soon and Rossi appears to be working hard to arrive at a reasonable design. DGT suggests that they potentially can already obtain a large COP, but I have questions about the design since little has been demonstrated in public. My reservations can easily be disposed of by additional information and I anxiously await that time. The spark plug like ignition system of the DGT animal bears little resemblance to the thermal operation of Rossi's ECAT. I have the suspicion that there is something important to be learned by the fact that these various devices both function. How can that be? What is it about the DGT design that appears to efficiently use the spark induced reactions while maintaining excellent control? We certainly are not interested in hot fusion products which tend to be associated with high voltages such as spark discharges. If acceleration due to high voltage is present then why does this not occur? Does DGT balance the spark magnitude carefully enough to avoid this fate while achieving adequate LENR activity? I want to learn from the DGT device as well as the ECAT. There appears to be an understanding among most of us that some form of NAE is present which allows LENR to proceed, but what form does it take? Is it the same for both designs? What does the spark of DGT offer that heat alone seems to neglect in the ECAT? It seems as if the ECAT would love to thermally run away without much provocation while the DGT device does not seem to exhibit that behavior. Perhaps DGT has done a good job of hiding this problem, but they offer information that suggests that this is not happening with their design. I find the description that the DGT design can be turned on and off rapidly to potentially find applications that are diverse such as transportation, the gold standard of mine as evidence. If thermal run away were a major issue, then the rapid control might not be so easy to demonstrate. From the information that I have gleaned, both systems appear to offer excellent energy density and good power output. This is extremely important for future applications. It will be interesting to witness the race between these two horses in the near future. Of course, others might enter the fray soon and we all will benefit it that occurs. I realize that I have touched upon a multitude of interesting issues in this post and I hope that some of our esteemed members can add
[Vo]:The real cost of coal
http://arstechnica.com/science/2013/07/coals-high-cost-in-china-2-5-billion-years-of-life-expectancy/ *Coal’s high cost in China: 2.5 billion years of life expectancy* Coal is the least efficient of the fossil fuels in terms of the amount of energy gained vs. CO2 released. Burning it also releases numerous toxic chemicals and particulates, which can exact a cost on a country's population in terms of reduced life expectancy and increased health costs. Figuring out the exact cost of coal use, however, is challenging because of a combination of different pollution controls and the mobility of the population. Thanks to an unusual combination of policies (some completely unrelated to pollution), China has accidentally provided the opportunity to put an exact number on the human cost of coal use. And that number turns out to be staggering: 5.5 years of reduced life expectancy that, when spread over the half-billion people of northern China, means a loss of 2.5 billion life-years.
Re: [Vo]:DGT or ECAT? Same Process?
That is very interesting Dennis. If I understand you correctly, you solve the thermal run away problem by extracting heat fast enough to keep the thermal positive feedback loop gain below unity. That should work provided there is enough energy released per pulse of drive to achieve a high enough COP. The behavior that you describe would not depend upon very much gain being augmented by thermal feedback as I suspect that Rossi is relying upon. Do you understand why a spark would be so efficient at producing LENR? You mention local heating as a possible factor, which certainly could cause small hot regions to develop. Is this the key to high gain without meltdown? Once a hot spot is initiated, what prevents the heat from spreading rapidly into the adjacent material and causing a sudden extreme burst of energy? Perhaps the distribution of active hydrogen in the NAE is such that areas capable of spreading the heat only exist in small patches and are easy to extinguish. If this is true, new active regions would need to form in time to take over the process as others die out. So what functions does the spark perform in a system of this type? Heating of a small region makes a great deal of sense as each spark strikes the surface. Also, do you expect that the spark breaks apart the hydrogen molecules as a second function? I can imagine a rain of protons falling upon the metal due to ionization as another possible piece of the puzzle. Has there been evidence of enhanced reaction caused be the magnetic field associated with the currents entering or leaving the metal surfaces? If I recall, DGT speaks of dipole behavior of Ryndberg hydrogen helping out. Can you describe any evidence of this? Your bowl shaped targets are quite interesting to consider. Does the bowl tend to spread out the spark contact region? From what you describe it appears that your reaction is almost entirely a surface effect. Would you expect a very thin layer of active metal to work in the same manner? A thin coating layered upon another passive metal might be helpful in preventing a large scale thermal event. Maybe one of Axils heat pipes underneath could extract the heat quickly enough to enhance the net energy density. Do you have to worry about the destruction of your active material as the process operates? Are you planning to demonstrate one of your devices at the conference? Dave -Original Message- From: DJ Cravens djcrav...@hotmail.com To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Tue, Jul 9, 2013 9:29 pm Subject: RE: [Vo]:DGT or ECAT? Same Process? My take on their process is that the control and the sparksare related to the positive heat coef. of the reaction and the rate at whichthe heat is extracted. My best empirical model shows an almost exponential increasein max power output with temperature (due to vacancy production). A few very hot regions can produce a largefraction of the output. My reoccurring problem is to balance the temperature of thereaction species with the rate at which I remove the heat. You remove too much heat and the reactionsites cool down and the reaction slows. Most people seem to be looking at the global average temperature of thebulk and not the temperatures of local areas. By sparking to your sample you can have very high local temperatures andthus higher local reaction rates, IF your material is such that its resistivityincreases with temperature. Notice thisis the case for most metals. Since thesparks target the paths with greatest conductivity, the sparks are to newregions with lower temperatures and lower resistance. i.e. you hit new regions. I believe that they are basically sparking toa flat area within a cylinder. I preferto use a spark into a bowl shaped target. You just simply make sure that your heat flow out of thesystem is large enough to stop any runaway reactions. (you are also saved bythe 4th power law) For mysystem, it is a balancing act between heat production and heat transfer out ofthe system. I do that by both having avariable heat conductive path (variable contact areas by turning- thinkvariable air caps) for rough tuning and then changing the spark rate (I use a strobe circuit). Dennis To: vortex-l@eskimo.com From: dlrober...@aol.com Date: Tue, 9 Jul 2013 18:39:06 -0400 Subject: [Vo]:DGT or ECAT? Same Process? Whenever I read about the DGT device I get the impression that it behaves much differently than the ECAT. The main difference I focus upon so far is the method of control. We have discussed the ECAT thermal positive feedback control on many occasions and have developed models that appear to explain its operation. The same is not yet true for the DGT beast. Thermal control such as that used by Rossi seems to have difficulty achieving a stable COP of 6 for the basic device excluding electrical power generation and feedback. Of course it is expected that one will be
Re: [Vo]:DGT or ECAT? Same Process?
Eric, Did you calculate the actual number of Ds impacting the target metal to generate a reasonable amount of energy? My quick estimate suggests that the number of energetic protons generated was far below enough to replace the beam energy. The effect might be larger than expected from current physics theory, but still too small to be practical. Dave -Original Message- From: Eric Walker eric.wal...@gmail.com To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Tue, Jul 9, 2013 8:15 pm Subject: Re: [Vo]:DGT or ECAT? Same Process? On Tue, Jul 9, 2013 at 5:02 PM, David Roberson dlrober...@aol.com wrote: Eric, I recall mention of an experiment of that nature but do not recall specifics. Could you offer a link that I might follow? The thread was here [1]. Defkalion mention Rydberg hydrogen. An interesting thing that I recently read was that you can infer when hydrogen within a solid is ionic by its mobility under a voltage. Presumably ionic hydrogen will migrate readily whereas monoatomic hydrogen will not, because of the shielding from the electron. I wonder whether Defkalion are really dealing with Rydberg hydrogen. Eric [1] http://www.mail-archive.com/vortex-l@eskimo.com/msg84032.html
Re: [Vo]:Barns and Noble picked me up
I'm at Amazon, Barns and Noble, and working with the Sidney Kimmel group on something. If that not good enough for you, what is? -Original Message- From: Alan Fletcher a...@well.com To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Tue, Jul 9, 2013 6:39 pm Subject: Re: [Vo]:Barns and Noble picked me up From: fznidar...@aol.com Sent: Tuesday, July 9, 2013 3:34:49 PM http://www.barnesandnoble.com/w/energy-cold-fusion-antigravity-mr-frank-znidarsic-pe/1113883542?ean=9781480270237 Just before they go belly up? Congratulations, anyway.
Re: [Vo]:DGT or ECAT? Same Process?
In reply to Eric Walker's message of Tue, 9 Jul 2013 15:54:10 -0700: Hi, [snip] This gets back to the earlier thread on the ion beam and glow discharge experiments. I suspect that some of what they're seeing in those experiments is real LENR, and that it is hasty to write it off as hot fusion. You may recall an experiment that was recently mentioned in which 350-1000 eV beams of deuterium nuclei were accelerated towards 1 um deuterated titanium foils, and out of the back came ~5 MeV particles (identity unknown). This is a little like dropping pennies onto the ground on one floor of a building and having cannonballs fall from the ceiling below. It's easy to lose sight of the difference between 350 eV and 5 MeV, but it's large. 2H+48Ti = 49Ti + 1H + 5.918 MeV Regards, Robin van Spaandonk http://rvanspaa.freehostia.com/project.html
Re: [Vo]:DGT or ECAT? Same Process?
In reply to David Roberson's message of Tue, 9 Jul 2013 20:02:08 -0400 (EDT): Hi, [snip] DGT promises that no dangerous radiation is emitted by their process, so it must be considered LENR. Hot fusion would not be acceptable for our needs and gammas of very strong energies would no doubt be seen. ..Actually, any kind of fusion would be a blessing. :) If it's not exactly clean, power production would remain centralized, but the fuel source would be essentially unlimited. Regards, Robin van Spaandonk http://rvanspaa.freehostia.com/project.html
Re: [Vo]:DGT or ECAT? Same Process?
Robin, do you see any reason why the particles leaving the active region would exit the opposite side when such a low energy input is applied? I would expect to see a random distribution. This effect, if true, would appear like a stimulated emission process. :) Wow, now we have a particle laser! Dave -Original Message- From: mixent mix...@bigpond.com To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Tue, Jul 9, 2013 10:54 pm Subject: Re: [Vo]:DGT or ECAT? Same Process? In reply to Eric Walker's message of Tue, 9 Jul 2013 15:54:10 -0700: Hi, [snip] This gets back to the earlier thread on the ion beam and glow discharge experiments. I suspect that some of what they're seeing in those experiments is real LENR, and that it is hasty to write it off as hot fusion. You may recall an experiment that was recently mentioned in which 350-1000 eV beams of deuterium nuclei were accelerated towards 1 um deuterated titanium foils, and out of the back came ~5 MeV particles (identity unknown). This is a little like dropping pennies onto the ground on one floor of a building and having cannonballs fall from the ceiling below. It's easy to lose sight of the difference between 350 eV and 5 MeV, but it's large. 2H+48Ti = 49Ti + 1H + 5.918 MeV Regards, Robin van Spaandonk http://rvanspaa.freehostia.com/project.html
Re: [Vo]:DGT or ECAT? Same Process?
On Tue, Jul 9, 2013 at 7:47 PM, David Roberson dlrober...@aol.com wrote: Did you calculate the actual number of Ds impacting the target metal to generate a reasonable amount of energy? My quick estimate suggests that the number of energetic protons generated was far below enough to replace the beam energy. I agree. This particular experiment does not seem to be very promising as far as potential energy sources go. But hopefully it and other similar ones shed light on what might be going on with Defkalion's device. Eric
