Re: [Vo]:we're at the very beginning
Cold fusion often is also associated with Adobe Coldfusion.
For good results you need a second search item to go with it, like rossi
etc.
Op dinsdag 23 juli 2013 schreef Eric Walker (eric.wal...@gmail.com) het
volgende:
On Mon, Jul 22, 2013 at 8:55 PM, Eric Walker
eric.wal...@gmail.comjavascript:_e({}, 'cvml', 'eric.wal...@gmail.com');
wrote:
I suspect that is not the date of something that happened, but instead
people catching up with Rossi's October 2012 demo.
Small but important detail -- 2011, not 2012.
Eric
Re: [Vo]:Defkalion Green Technologies - Italian Demo
Its at 11:45 into the video. Thank you, H. Veeder. On Mon, Jul 22, 2013 at 11:11 PM, H Veeder hveeder...@gmail.com wrote: A COP can be calculated from this screen capture https://docs.google.com/file/d/0BxxczzEYA5C5ajA3MndVbHd5NGM/edit?usp=sharing which comes from the fourth video on this page http://new.livestream.com/triwu2/Defkalion-ita Harry On Mon, Jul 22, 2013 at 10:24 PM, blaze spinnaker blazespinna...@gmail.com wrote: I think I read 5 somewhere. 1,6 kWe for 8 kWth You can watch the video. they have some graphs in the background: http://new.livestream.com/triwu2/Defkalion-ita Personally, if you're an english speaker, I'd wait for tomorrow's video though for things like that. It'll be at: http://new.livestream.com/triwu2/Defkalion-US On Mon, Jul 22, 2013 at 6:05 PM, James Bowery jabow...@gmail.comwrote: Thanks for the correction, Akira. So, where, exactly, are we to find the actual Coefficient of Performance attained by today's demonstration in Italy? Chapter and verse please. On Mon, Jul 22, 2013 at 7:42 PM, Akira Shirakawa shirakawa.ak...@gmail.com wrote: On 2013-07-23 02:04, James Bowery wrote: That's not what the article says: http://it.ibtimes.com/**articles/53211/20130722/** fusione-fredda-defkalion-**video-streaming-presentazione.**htmhttp://it.ibtimes.com/articles/53211/20130722/fusione-fredda-defkalion-video-streaming-presentazione.htm It says a 4:1 ratio: Gamberale is talking about the notorious scientific paper by De Ninno et al. (ENEA), colloquially referred to as Rapporto 41 (Report #41, which Google translates to Ratio 41): http://www.fusione.enea.it/**pubblications/TR/2002/RT-2002-** 41-FUS.pdfhttp://www.fusione.enea.it/pubblications/TR/2002/RT-2002-41-FUS.pdf Cheers, S.A.
Re: [Vo]:we're at the very beginning
moreover there is a big media about a coldfusion software bug which allowed some serious security breach and real attack... 2013/7/23 Teslaalset robbiehobbiesh...@gmail.com Cold fusion often is also associated with Adobe Coldfusion. For good results you need a second search item to go with it, like rossi etc. Op dinsdag 23 juli 2013 schreef Eric Walker (eric.wal...@gmail.com) het volgende: On Mon, Jul 22, 2013 at 8:55 PM, Eric Walker eric.wal...@gmail.comwrote: I suspect that is not the date of something that happened, but instead people catching up with Rossi's October 2012 demo. Small but important detail -- 2011, not 2012. Eric
[Vo]:Defkalion GT demo to be streamed live at 10:00 CDT
Hello group, As a reminder, this is the URL where today's demo (intended for the ICCF18 audience) will be broadcast live, in English: http://new.livestream.com/triwu2/Defkalion-US Some tech details about the streaming Some tech details Hello everybody, for your information, this streaming is broadcast from the real Defkalion labs with light equipment and crew. Yesterday (during the italian pre-cast) we had some problems with the internet bandwidth. We are not going to use any special connection (we had no time to arrange it) and in case the link drops it will be reestablished as soon as possible. Please be patient and consider that the event will be available after the broadcast also. Cheers, S.A.
Re: [Vo]:Defkalion GT demo to be streamed live at 10:00 EDT
On 2013-07-23 14:13, Akira Shirakawa wrote: Hello group, I actually meant 10:00 EDT. That's 14:00 UTC / 16:00 CEST (local time), or about 1 hour and 40 minutes from now. I hope this clears things up, S.A.
RE: [Vo]:Defkalion GT demo to be streamed live at 10:00 CDT
Thx Akira, Watching it now! -mark -Original Message- From: Akira Shirakawa [mailto:shirakawa.ak...@gmail.com] Sent: Tuesday, July 23, 2013 5:13 AM To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: [Vo]:Defkalion GT demo to be streamed live at 10:00 CDT Hello group, As a reminder, this is the URL where today's demo (intended for the ICCF18 audience) will be broadcast live, in English: http://new.livestream.com/triwu2/Defkalion-US Some tech details about the streaming Some tech details Hello everybody, for your information, this streaming is broadcast from the real Defkalion labs with light equipment and crew. Yesterday (during the italian pre-cast) we had some problems with the internet bandwidth. We are not going to use any special connection (we had no time to arrange it) and in case the link drops it will be reestablished as soon as possible. Please be patient and consider that the event will be available after the broadcast also. Cheers, S.A.
[Vo]:The ICCF-18 Hyperoion Demo Is In Milan -- Not UofM
There was some confusion about the physical location of the demonstration of the Hyperon during today's ICCF-18 session starting at 9AM CDT: Some had the impression there would be a demonstration conducted at the UofM conference. It is not being conducted at that location. It, like yesterday's demo broadcast in Italian, is being broadcast from Milan, Italy.
[Vo]:From no info to TMI from Defkalion
Defkalion is giving their presentation at ICCF18 now. As I see it, their presentation has gone fromno info, or insufficient info, to TMI (too much information). I guess I can't complain about that! But, based on my experience giving technical presentations . . . I think it would have worked better if they prepare a little more to boil down the presentation to a more limited duration with just essential points. I hope this is recorded because we had no sound at first. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:From no info to TMI from Defkalion
No idea how to get to this on line. Sorry. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:From no info to TMI from Defkalion
http://new.livestream.com/triwu2/Defkalion-US No idea how to get to this on line. Sorry. http://new.livestream.com/triwu2/Defkalion-US Craig
RE: [Vo]:From no info to TMI from Defkalion
http://new.livestream.com/triwu2/Defkalion-US Date: Tue, 23 Jul 2013 09:28:07 -0500 Subject: Re: [Vo]:From no info to TMI from Defkalion From: jedrothw...@gmail.com To: vortex-l@eskimo.com No idea how to get to this on line. Sorry. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:From no info to TMI from Defkalion
Thanks for the link! I gather this is being recorded. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:From no info to TMI from Defkalion
Should be, the Italian one was archived: http://new.livestream.com/triwu2/Defkalionhttp://new.livestream.com/triwu2/Defkalion-US -ita On Tue, Jul 23, 2013 at 8:28 AM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com wrote: Thanks for the link! I gather this is being recorded. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:From no info to TMI from Defkalion
It's unfortunate that Mats Lewan stated that he can't guarantee anything because he can't see all the cables (at ~69 minutes) Sort of makes his presence rather irrelevant. Hopefully they'll let the reviewers open up all the wires at the end of the demo. On Tue, Jul 23, 2013 at 8:33 AM, blaze spinnaker blazespinna...@gmail.comwrote: Should be, the Italian one was archived: http://new.livestream.com/triwu2/Defkalionhttp://new.livestream.com/triwu2/Defkalion-US -ita On Tue, Jul 23, 2013 at 8:28 AM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.comwrote: Thanks for the link! I gather this is being recorded. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:From no info to TMI from Defkalion
Today is the break-out day. Two groups, both getting high power, high quality results? People will start to take a lot more notice. Craig
Re: [Vo]:From no info to TMI from Defkalion
The world will take notice only when a reproducible experiment showing high COP (1.5?) is generally available. These black box tests only convince the insiders and perhaps potentially risk taking investors. On Tue, Jul 23, 2013 at 8:54 AM, Craig cchayniepub...@gmail.com wrote: Today is the break-out day. Two groups, both getting high power, high quality results? People will start to take a lot more notice. Craig
Re: [Vo]:From no info to TMI from Defkalion
Blaze, in this case what is your alternative to a blackbox? I think the skeptihawks, steam- maniacs (not an issue here) and invisible wire -obsessed are watching. Do you, Mary? Where is the black magic, Joshua? Peter On Tue, Jul 23, 2013 at 7:02 PM, blaze spinnaker blazespinna...@gmail.comwrote: The world will take notice only when a reproducible experiment showing high COP (1.5?) is generally available. These black box tests only convince the insiders and perhaps potentially risk taking investors. On Tue, Jul 23, 2013 at 8:54 AM, Craig cchayniepub...@gmail.com wrote: Today is the break-out day. Two groups, both getting high power, high quality results? People will start to take a lot more notice. Craig -- Dr. Peter Gluck Cluj, Romania http://egooutpeters.blogspot.com
[Vo]:Defkalion Green Technologies - English Demo
Test is looking professional so far and promising. One concern for me though is that after all that careful flow calibration, they switched the water flow from bucket to sink - thereby changing the system under test. For example, by restricting water flow using a hidden control valve, they might cause the system to run much hotter even though the pump is doing the same work and could therefore report a much greater flow than is actually the case. Obviously, the wires need to be cut at the end of the test to check for sub-wires (or coax) that could deceive the clamp on meters. There is a labyrinth of redundant wires that should be disconnected if possible. Not happy about the interruption of the video stream, hope the observers check for tampering during this time. Charles
Re: [Vo]:Defkalion Green Technologies - English Demo
The pre-recorded movie that shows the layout of the Defkalion reactor and test plan is here: http://new.livestream.com/triwu2/Defkalion-US/videos/25223839 - Brad On Tue, Jul 23, 2013 at 10:10 AM, Charles Francis fran...@datacomm.chwrote: Test is looking professional so far and promising. One concern for me though is that after all that careful flow calibration, they switched the water flow from bucket to sink – thereby changing the system under test. For example, by restricting water flow using a hidden control valve, they might cause the system to run much hotter even though the pump is doing the same work and could therefore report a much greater flow than is actually the case. Obviously, the wires need to be cut at the end of the test to check for sub-wires (or coax) that could deceive the clamp on meters. There is a labyrinth of redundant wires that should be disconnected if possible. Not happy about the interruption of the video stream, hope the observers check for tampering during this time. ** ** Charles
Re: [Vo]:Defkalion Green Technologies - English Demo
Keep in mind that this is a demonstration, and not an experiment. There will certainly be several things that will come up which will eventually need to be addressed, as has happened in every demonstration. But if this group is getting the same results as Rossi, with the same methodology, then that's the best sign of all that the results are what they appear to be. Craig On 07/23/2013 01:10 PM, Charles Francis wrote: Test is looking professional so far and promising. One concern for me though is that after all that careful flow calibration, they switched the water flow from bucket to sink – thereby changing the system under test. For example, by restricting water flow using a hidden control valve, they might cause the system to run much hotter even though the pump is doing the same work and could therefore report a much greater flow than is actually the case. Obviously, the wires need to be cut at the end of the test to check for sub-wires (or coax) that could deceive the clamp on meters. There is a labyrinth of redundant wires that should be disconnected if possible. Not happy about the interruption of the video stream, hope the observers check for tampering during this time. Charles
Re: [Vo]:Defkalion Green Technologies - English Demo
Looks like ignition! http://new.livestream.com/triwu2/Defkalion-US Craig
Re: [Vo]:The ICCF-18 Hyperoion Demo Is In Milan -- Not UofM
No idea where it is but we barely had a chance to see it. They went over their time slot and were cut off, just when it was getting interesting. For some reason we cannot play back the recording. People watching at home can see it better than we can. When they give you 20 minutes to make a presentation at a physics conference, that is how long you should take. The first 15 minutes was introduction. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:From no info to TMI from Defkalion
On 7/23/2013 9:27 AM, Peter Gluck wrote: Blaze, in this case what is your alternative to a blackbox? I think the skeptihawks, steam- maniacs (not an issue here) and invisible wire -obsessed are watching. Do you, Mary? Where is the black magic, Joshua? Peter On Tue, Jul 23, 2013 at 7:02 PM, blaze spinnaker blazespinna...@gmail.com mailto:blazespinna...@gmail.com wrote: Peter, Don't you just get it, this is all an elaborate scam. Mary will never be convinced of anything else, never, ever!! It is worthless to spend any amount of energy trying to convince her (him) of anything, other than this is all a complete hoax. I think that no response to Mary, is the only rational recourse to his (her) endless spewing. Bob The world will take notice only when a reproducible experiment showing high COP (1.5?) is generally available. These black box tests only convince the insiders and perhaps potentially risk taking investors. On Tue, Jul 23, 2013 at 8:54 AM, Craig cchayniepub...@gmail.com mailto:cchayniepub...@gmail.com wrote: Today is the break-out day. Two groups, both getting high power, high quality results? People will start to take a lot more notice. Craig -- Dr. Peter Gluck Cluj, Romania http://egooutpeters.blogspot.com No virus found in this message. Checked by AVG - www.avg.com http://www.avg.com Version: 2013.0.2904 / Virus Database: 3204/6513 - Release Date: 07/23/13
[Vo]:DGT Temperature Output Appears to Have a Problem
I have been watching the DGT demo with enthusiasm. The technique that they use to measure the output power gives me pause because of the elevated output reading that they use to calculate the power. I noticed that the output temperature is in the ballpark of 150 C, which I have a strong suspicion is not what the output water is actually exhibiting. This may be a metallic structure reading instead of water since the internal temperature readings are so large. I am not capable of interacting with the on line demo so perhaps someone else might ask them about this issue for me. They should increase the water flow enough to keep the water from boiling in order to prove that the power is as measured by their experiment. Otherwise, I would just assume that the water is boiling and at 100 C provided it is proven dry. Does anyone else share this concern? Dave
Re: [Vo]:From no info to TMI from Defkalion
Mary Yugo is really the CEO of Exxon Mobil On Tue, Jul 23, 2013 at 3:19 PM, Robert Dorr rod...@comcast.net wrote: ** On 7/23/2013 9:27 AM, Peter Gluck wrote: Blaze, in this case what is your alternative to a blackbox? I think the skeptihawks, steam- maniacs (not an issue here) and invisible wire -obsessed are watching. Do you, Mary? Where is the black magic, Joshua? Peter On Tue, Jul 23, 2013 at 7:02 PM, blaze spinnaker blazespinna...@gmail.com wrote: Peter, Don't you just get it, this is all an elaborate scam. Mary will never be convinced of anything else, never, ever!! It is worthless to spend any amount of energy trying to convince her (him) of anything, other than this is all a complete hoax. I think that no response to Mary, is the only rational recourse to his (her) endless spewing. Bob The world will take notice only when a reproducible experiment showing high COP (1.5?) is generally available. These black box tests only convince the insiders and perhaps potentially risk taking investors. On Tue, Jul 23, 2013 at 8:54 AM, Craig cchayniepub...@gmail.com wrote: Today is the break-out day. Two groups, both getting high power, high quality results? People will start to take a lot more notice. Craig -- Dr. Peter Gluck Cluj, Romania http://egooutpeters.blogspot.com No virus found in this message. Checked by AVG - www.avg.com Version: 2013.0.2904 / Virus Database: 3204/6513 - Release Date: 07/23/13
RE: [Vo]:DGT Temperature Output Appears to Have a Problem
Yup, seems to be a big problem. Doesn't look good. From: David Roberson [mailto:dlrober...@aol.com] Sent: Tuesday, July 23, 2013 3:23 PM To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: [Vo]:DGT Temperature Output Appears to Have a Problem I have been watching the DGT demo with enthusiasm. The technique that they use to measure the output power gives me pause because of the elevated output reading that they use to calculate the power. I noticed that the output temperature is in the ballpark of 150 C, which I have a strong suspicion is not what the output water is actually exhibiting. This may be a metallic structure reading instead of water since the internal temperature readings are so large. I am not capable of interacting with the on line demo so perhaps someone else might ask them about this issue for me. They should increase the water flow enough to keep the water from boiling in order to prove that the power is as measured by their experiment. Otherwise, I would just assume that the water is boiling and at 100 C provided it is proven dry. Does anyone else share this concern? Dave
RE: [Vo]:DGT Temperature Output Appears to Have a Problem
Dave, I'm fully agreed with you, but maybe to keep the reactor running, they need that temp out . Arnaud _ From: David Roberson [mailto:dlrober...@aol.com] Sent: mardi 23 juillet 2013 21:23 To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: [Vo]:DGT Temperature Output Appears to Have a Problem I have been watching the DGT demo with enthusiasm. The technique that they use to measure the output power gives me pause because of the elevated output reading that they use to calculate the power. I noticed that the output temperature is in the ballpark of 150 C, which I have a strong suspicion is not what the output water is actually exhibiting. This may be a metallic structure reading instead of water since the internal temperature readings are so large. I am not capable of interacting with the on line demo so perhaps someone else might ask them about this issue for me. They should increase the water flow enough to keep the water from boiling in order to prove that the power is as measured by their experiment. Otherwise, I would just assume that the water is boiling and at 100 C provided it is proven dry. Does anyone else share this concern? Dave
Re: [Vo]:DGT Temperature Output Appears to Have a Problem
Arnaud, The internal temperature is most likely what must be maintained to keep it running. If they could conduct a bit less heat outward then the internal heat could be maintained high at the same time. This would be a balancing act though. Someone would have to play with the cooling coils to adjust their position and contact. Mats should find a way to expose the output water stream to the air and see if it is violently ejected due to the pressure that should be associated with the elevated output temperature of the steam. My suspicion is that they are not getting an accurate reading of the steam itself. This is unfortunate. Dave -Original Message- From: Arnaud Kodeck arnaud.kod...@lakoco.be To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Tue, Jul 23, 2013 3:28 pm Subject: RE: [Vo]:DGT Temperature Output Appears to Have a Problem Dave, I’m fully agreedwith you, but maybe to keep the reactor running, they need that temp out … Arnaud From:David Roberson [mailto:dlrober...@aol.com] Sent: mardi 23 juillet 2013 21:23 To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: [Vo]:DGT TemperatureOutput Appears to Have a Problem I havebeen watching the DGT demo with enthusiasm. The technique that they useto measure the output power gives me pause because of the elevated outputreading that they use to calculate the power. Inoticed that the output temperature is in the ballpark of 150 C, which I have astrong suspicion is not what the output water is actually exhibiting. This may be a metallic structure reading instead of water since theinternal temperature readings are so large. I am not capable ofinteracting with the on line demo so perhaps someone else might ask them aboutthis issue for me. Theyshould increase the water flow enough to keep the water from boiling in orderto prove that the power is as measured by their experiment. Otherwise, Iwould just assume that the water is boiling and at 100 C provided it is provendry. Doesanyone else share this concern? Dave
RE: [Vo]:DGT Temperature Output Appears to Have a Problem
To do that, they will need to insulate the reactor from the coolant. So they can increase the flow rate of cold water and keep same temp in the reactor. Then another the problem might occur about stability of the reaction. I've asked on the chat box to show the steam out the pipe. No answer :-( Bad sign. _ From: David Roberson [mailto:dlrober...@aol.com] Sent: mardi 23 juillet 2013 21:32 To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: [Vo]:DGT Temperature Output Appears to Have a Problem Arnaud, The internal temperature is most likely what must be maintained to keep it running. If they could conduct a bit less heat outward then the internal heat could be maintained high at the same time. This would be a balancing act though. Someone would have to play with the cooling coils to adjust their position and contact. Mats should find a way to expose the output water stream to the air and see if it is violently ejected due to the pressure that should be associated with the elevated output temperature of the steam. My suspicion is that they are not getting an accurate reading of the steam itself. This is unfortunate. Dave -Original Message- From: Arnaud Kodeck arnaud.kod...@lakoco.be To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Tue, Jul 23, 2013 3:28 pm Subject: RE: [Vo]:DGT Temperature Output Appears to Have a Problem Dave, I'm fully agreed with you, but maybe to keep the reactor running, they need that temp out . Arnaud _ From: David Roberson [mailto:dlrober...@aol.com mailto:dlrober...@aol.com? ] Sent: mardi 23 juillet 2013 21:23 To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: [Vo]:DGT Temperature Output Appears to Have a Problem I have been watching the DGT demo with enthusiasm. The technique that they use to measure the output power gives me pause because of the elevated output reading that they use to calculate the power. I noticed that the output temperature is in the ballpark of 150 C, which I have a strong suspicion is not what the output water is actually exhibiting. This may be a metallic structure reading instead of water since the internal temperature readings are so large. I am not capable of interacting with the on line demo so perhaps someone else might ask them about this issue for me. They should increase the water flow enough to keep the water from boiling in order to prove that the power is as measured by their experiment. Otherwise, I would just assume that the water is boiling and at 100 C provided it is proven dry. Does anyone else share this concern? Dave
Re: [Vo]:DGT Temperature Output Appears to Have a Problem
From: David Roberson dlrober...@aol.com Sent: Tuesday, July 23, 2013 12:22:32 PM I have been watching the DGT demo with enthusiasm. The technique that they use to measure the output power gives me pause because of the elevated output reading that they use to calculate the power. I noticed that the output temperature is in the ballpark of 150 C, which I have a strong suspicion is not what the output water is actually exhibiting. This may be a metallic structure reading instead of water since the internal temperature readings are so large. I am not capable of interacting with the on line demo so perhaps someone else might ask them about this issue for me. They should increase the water flow enough to keep the water from boiling in order to prove that the power is as measured by their experiment. Otherwise, I would just assume that the water is boiling and at 100 C provided it is proven dry. Does anyone else share this concern? It's back to steam quality! (Yes, I wish they'd kept the water at 99C by increasing the flow rate). IF there is no water going out of the tube (I posted a request for Mats to check) .. THEN a temp of 143.55 means a COP of 13 See my Steam Calculator at http://tinyurl.com/def-1220 (I guessed ambient and boiling) But they are reporting the COP as if it were water (at high pressure -- 5 bars) -- gives 3.5 vs 13.4 If there is any water in the output flow then it's somewhere between the two.
Re: [Vo]:DGT Temperature Output Appears to Have a Problem
From: Arnaud Kodeck arnaud.kod...@lakoco.be Sent: Tuesday, July 23, 2013 12:42:25 PM I’ve asked on the chat box to show the steam out the pipe. No answer L Bad sign. There seem to be TWO chat streams .. the comments (where I've posted) and the bar on the right (which has the most action). I haven't figured out how to use the one on the right.
[Vo]:Secrets
No dependence on isotopes! Heat gradient in reactor cell! WOW, this has been an exciting day.
Re: [Vo]:DGT Temperature Output Appears to Have a Problem
Alan, What would happen if a good metallic connection exists between the device metal case and the temperature sensor? I can imagine that the water and vapor flows past at 100 C while the metal is quite a bit hotter. They would need to use an output temperature of 100 in that case would they not? Dave -Original Message- From: Alan Fletcher a...@well.com To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Tue, Jul 23, 2013 3:42 pm Subject: Re: [Vo]:DGT Temperature Output Appears to Have a Problem From: David Roberson dlrober...@aol.com Sent: Tuesday, July 23, 2013 12:22:32 PM I have been watching the DGT demo with enthusiasm. The technique that they use to measure the output power gives me pause because of the elevated output reading that they use to calculate the power. I noticed that the output temperature is in the ballpark of 150 C, which I have a strong suspicion is not what the output water is actually exhibiting. This may be a metallic structure reading instead of water since the internal temperature readings are so large. I am not capable of interacting with the on line demo so perhaps someone else might ask them about this issue for me. They should increase the water flow enough to keep the water from boiling in order to prove that the power is as measured by their experiment. Otherwise, I would just assume that the water is boiling and at 100 C provided it is proven dry. Does anyone else share this concern? It's back to steam quality! (Yes, I wish they'd kept the water at 99C by increasing the flow rate). IF there is no water going out of the tube (I posted a request for Mats to check) .. THEN a temp of 143.55 means a COP of 13 See my Steam Calculator at http://tinyurl.com/def-1220 (I guessed ambient and boiling) But they are reporting the COP as if it were water (at high pressure -- 5 bars) -- gives 3.5 vs 13.4 If there is any water in the output flow then it's somewhere between the two.
RE: [Vo]:DGT Temperature Output Appears to Have a Problem
You need to be registered to livestream. -Original Message- From: Alan Fletcher [mailto:a...@well.com] There seem to be TWO chat streams .. the comments (where I've posted) and the bar on the right (which has the most action). I haven't figured out how to use the one on the right.
Re: [Vo]:Secrets
Except for Ni61 that is On Tue, Jul 23, 2013 at 9:46 PM, Terry Blanton hohlr...@gmail.com wrote: No dependence on isotopes! Heat gradient in reactor cell! WOW, this has been an exciting day.
RE: [Vo]:Secrets
_ From: Terry Blanton [mailto:hohlr...@gmail.com] Sent: mardi 23 juillet 2013 21:47 To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: [Vo]:Secrets No dependence on isotopes! = Ni61 doesn't react according Defkalion Heat gradient in reactor cell! = To have H flow inside the reactor? If yes then the reaction is in fact a multi stages reaction. WOW, this has been an exciting day.
Re: [Vo]:DGT Temperature Output Appears to Have a Problem
See my Steam Calculator at http://tinyurl.com/def-1240 I added the reported input temperature (ambient isn't used) COP -- Water : 3.8 Steam: 13.8
Re: [Vo]:DGT Temperature Output Appears to Have a Problem
From: Arnaud Kodeck arnaud.kod...@lakoco.be Sent: Tuesday, July 23, 2013 12:47:07 PM You need to be registered to livestream. I registered, but that only lets me comment at the bottom of the screen, not on the right.
RE: [Vo]:DGT Temperature Output Appears to Have a Problem
Scroll to top ? -Original Message- From: Alan Fletcher [mailto:a...@well.com] Sent: mardi 23 juillet 2013 22:02 To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: [Vo]:DGT Temperature Output Appears to Have a Problem From: Arnaud Kodeck arnaud.kod...@lakoco.be Sent: Tuesday, July 23, 2013 12:47:07 PM You need to be registered to livestream. I registered, but that only lets me comment at the bottom of the screen, not on the right.
Re: [Vo]:Secrets
Also, reaction starts at the debye temperature of Nickel, 450 K The HV spark going to the reactor's two modified spark plugs is reported to be 10kV at 110mw. - Brad On Tue, Jul 23, 2013 at 12:50 PM, Teslaalset robbiehobbiesh...@gmail.comwrote: Except for Ni61 that is On Tue, Jul 23, 2013 at 9:46 PM, Terry Blanton hohlr...@gmail.com wrote: No dependence on isotopes! Heat gradient in reactor cell! WOW, this has been an exciting day.
Re: [Vo]:DGT Temperature Output Appears to Have a Problem
Scroll to top ? I didn't realize the blank line at the top WAS the post box.
Re: [Vo]:Secrets
On Tue, Jul 23, 2013 at 4:03 PM, Brad Lowe ecatbuil...@gmail.com wrote: Also, reaction starts at the debye temperature of Nickel, 450 K The HV spark going to the reactor's two modified spark plugs is reported to be 10kV at 110mw. 110 mA. I think they said 11 pps.
Re: [Vo]:DGT Temperature Output Appears to Have a Problem
There may of course be a pressure gradient through the long, thin exit hose.
Re: [Vo]:DGT Temperature Output Appears to Have a Problem
On 07/23/2013 03:52 PM, Alan Fletcher wrote: See my Steam Calculator at http://tinyurl.com/def-1240 I added the reported input temperature (ambient isn't used) COP -- Water : 3.8 Steam: 13.8 Can you publish the calculations you use for water and for steam? Thanks, Craig
Re: [Vo]:DGT Temperature Output Appears to Have a Problem
From: Craig cchayniepub...@gmail.com Sent: Tuesday, July 23, 2013 1:08:24 PM On 07/23/2013 03:52 PM, Alan Fletcher wrote: See my Steam Calculator at http://tinyurl.com/def-1240 I added the reported input temperature (ambient isn't used) COP -- Water : 3.8 Steam: 13.8 Can you publish the calculations you use for water and for steam? All of the fields are in the calculator. The flow rate is in liters/minute, so I set the time period to 1 minute. For the enthalpy calculations I used a javascript library by Leon Kos -- see link at the bottom. I use these calculations in three zones : water from input to boiling, steam quality horizontal from 0 to 1, then saturated (dry) steam above that. I presumed a typical atmospheric pressure at the point where the output temperature is measured. But there MAY be back pressure up the hose. It's all in javascript, so you can see the code. (I prefer to keep my sloppy coding habits in PHP, where nobody can see them!) They don't cover the region at the peak of the curve, which is why it's a bit jagged there. (But you won't ever get there except in the core of a run-away nuclear reactor) In any event, calculating the COP as if it were water is a MAJOR under-estimate.
Re: [Vo]:DGT Temperature Output Appears to Have a Problem
It does look to me like the COP is being measured as if the outflow was only water, which it can't be at that high temperature. Are my numbers correct? If so, then the COP is much higher. Heat = mass X specific heat X temperature change = 500g / minute X 1 calorie / gram X (140 - 25) = 57,500 calories / minute = 57,500 calories / minute X 60 minutes = 3,450,000 calories / hour = 3,450,000 calories / hour X 1.163E-6 kWh / calories =~ 4,000 kWh/h Craig On 07/23/2013 03:52 PM, Alan Fletcher wrote: See my Steam Calculator at http://tinyurl.com/def-1240 I added the reported input temperature (ambient isn't used) COP -- Water : 3.8 Steam: 13.8
Re: [Vo]:DGT Temperature Output Appears to Have a Problem
Water-only at 143C would need a pressure of 4 bars. Unlikely.
RE: [Vo]:DGT Temperature Output Appears to Have a Problem
The tap water is above 1 bar (Around 5 bars, depending the water tower position). Could the pressure from the tap still be above 4 bars until pipe exhaust? -Original Message- From: Alan Fletcher [mailto:a...@well.com] Sent: mardi 23 juillet 2013 22:25 To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: [Vo]:DGT Temperature Output Appears to Have a Problem Water-only at 143C would need a pressure of 4 bars. Unlikely.
Re: [Vo]:Secrets
That was odd. My variac draws 13 watts on standby.. and the conversion to HV might take a few more.. Which means ~220 watts applied to the system as high voltage.. - Brad On Tue, Jul 23, 2013 at 1:17 PM, Teslaalset robbiehobbiesh...@gmail.comwrote: The explanation of the HV power was a bit vague. 10KV @ 110mW is 1100 Watt if operated in continuous mode, where the display shows around 210 Watts. Then later they explained it's modulated HV. So I conclude its 10KV @ 20% duty cycle drawing 110 mA in the active time. On Tue, Jul 23, 2013 at 10:07 PM, Terry Blanton hohlr...@gmail.comwrote: On Tue, Jul 23, 2013 at 4:03 PM, Brad Lowe ecatbuil...@gmail.com wrote: Also, reaction starts at the debye temperature of Nickel, 450 K The HV spark going to the reactor's two modified spark plugs is reported to be 10kV at 110mw. 110 mA. I think they said 11 pps.
Re: [Vo]:DGT Temperature Output Appears to Have a Problem
From: Craig cchayniepub...@gmail.com Sent: Tuesday, July 23, 2013 1:26:51 PM On 07/23/2013 04:17 PM, Alan Fletcher wrote: In any event, calculating the COP as if it were water is a MAJOR under-estimate. Did they mention this? That they are underestimating like this? Otherwise, it makes them look sloppy. I THINK they mentioned it ... but it might have been a comment that they said it !!??
Re: [Vo]:DGT Temperature Output Appears to Have a Problem
On 07/23/2013 04:17 PM, Alan Fletcher wrote: In any event, calculating the COP as if it were water is a MAJOR under-estimate. Did they mention this? That they are underestimating like this? Otherwise, it makes them look sloppy. Craig
[Vo]:DGT Control Not Trivial
It has been an interesting day indeed. One observation that I made is that the thermal and plasma control of the DGT device is not so easy. It appeared to take quite a balancing act in order for the device to work within its desired range and the guys handling the controls had their hands full most of the time. I harbored hope that this device would be more dependent upon the plasma generation and less core temperature, but that is not entirely clear at this time. The behavior that I observed reminded me a lot of the ECAT in its positive feedback mode, but it is early to be confident of exactly how difficult it will be to have firm control of a product using this technology. I assume that operations will improve with time, or that a computerized controller would be capable of working all of the controls to achieve the desired level of output power. As a matter of fact, I am a little concerned that this demonstration was not under any automatic control at this point in development. They should be working on various algorithms by now unless this particular situation is far removed from normal operation. So, I suppose that overall I am pleased with what I have seen and look forward to the future of LENR in saving the world from its various problems. It is hoped that this and other recent demonstrations will catch the attention of the powers and lead to rapid development. There did appear to be holes in the demonstration that need backfilling if the skeptics are to be satisfied. Of course, it might not be possible to reach that degree of performance in this lifetime. Mats performed his duties very well and his work will keep some of the skeptics a little less vocal. Hopefully, more time will be available to complete answering some issues. Dave
Re: [Vo]:DGT Control Not Trivial
From: David Roberson dlrober...@aol.com Sent: Tuesday, July 23, 2013 1:32:36 PM Subject: [Vo]:DGT Control Not Trivial It has been an interesting day indeed. One observation that I made is that the thermal and plasma control of the DGT device is not so easy. It appeared to take quite a balancing act in order for the device to work within its desired range and the guys handling the controls had their hands full most of the time. From the QA I *think* they said that they a) balance the front-to-back temperature b) Use the SLOPE of one of the curves (I forget which) as a simple and accurate control c) Turn the pulses on and off (here they kept it constant) I suspect that c) is there main control method, so they have to juggle the other parameters more than usual. The last time I looked they lowered the heater temp and the output temp dropped dramatically (100-ish). It's rising again, but erratically.
Re: [Vo]:DGT Control Not Trivial
The last time I looked they lowered the heater temp and the output temp dropped dramatically (100-ish). It's rising again, but erratically. I think they're shutting it down (oscillating wildly) .. flow rate is much reduced. (I lost sound)
Re: [Vo]:DGT Temperature Output Appears to Have a Problem
They did mention that they treated it as water only with no heat of vaporization assumed. The problem that I have is that I suspect that the water and vapor mixture is at much lower temperature than they are assuming. Perhaps, any vaporized water at all at 100 C would imply good COP. I have not done that calculation, but maybe you have Alan. Dave -Original Message- From: Alan Fletcher a...@well.com To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Tue, Jul 23, 2013 4:31 pm Subject: Re: [Vo]:DGT Temperature Output Appears to Have a Problem From: Craig cchayniepub...@gmail.com Sent: Tuesday, July 23, 2013 1:26:51 PM On 07/23/2013 04:17 PM, Alan Fletcher wrote: In any event, calculating the COP as if it were water is a MAJOR under-estimate. Did they mention this? That they are underestimating like this? Otherwise, it makes them look sloppy. I THINK they mentioned it ... but it might have been a comment that they said it !!??
Re: [Vo]:DGT Control Not Trivial
I think controlling it is probably like driving a Testarossa in downtown Atlanta traffic. Lots of energy gain from a small core On Tuesday, July 23, 2013, Alan Fletcher wrote: From: David Roberson dlrober...@aol.com javascript:; Sent: Tuesday, July 23, 2013 1:32:36 PM Subject: [Vo]:DGT Control Not Trivial It has been an interesting day indeed. One observation that I made is that the thermal and plasma control of the DGT device is not so easy. It appeared to take quite a balancing act in order for the device to work within its desired range and the guys handling the controls had their hands full most of the time. From the QA I *think* they said that they a) balance the front-to-back temperature b) Use the SLOPE of one of the curves (I forget which) as a simple and accurate control c) Turn the pulses on and off (here they kept it constant) I suspect that c) is there main control method, so they have to juggle the other parameters more than usual. The last time I looked they lowered the heater temp and the output temp dropped dramatically (100-ish). It's rising again, but erratically.
Re: [Vo]:DGT Temperature Output Appears to Have a Problem
From: David Roberson dlrober...@aol.com Sent: Tuesday, July 23, 2013 1:46:55 PM They did mention that they treated it as water only with no heat of vaporization assumed. The problem that I have is that I suspect that the water and vapor mixture is at much lower temperature than they are assuming. Perhaps, any vaporized water at all at 100 C would imply good COP. I have not done that calculation, but maybe you have Alan. Water to 100C would be COP=1.6
Re: [Vo]:DGT Temperature Output Appears to Have a Problem
I was mildly amused that Mary Yugo aka George Hody of La Jolla, CA was complaining about their not having adding heat of vaporization to their power output metric after he had complained so much about Rossi having added heat of vaporization to his power output metric. I was merely mildly amused because his schtick is pretty old. He should find a new joke. On Tue, Jul 23, 2013 at 3:51 PM, Alan Fletcher a...@well.com wrote: From: David Roberson dlrober...@aol.com Sent: Tuesday, July 23, 2013 1:46:55 PM They did mention that they treated it as water only with no heat of vaporization assumed. The problem that I have is that I suspect that the water and vapor mixture is at much lower temperature than they are assuming. Perhaps, any vaporized water at all at 100 C would imply good COP. I have not done that calculation, but maybe you have Alan. Water to 100C would be COP=1.6
[Vo]:Rossi Replication
For those that wanted an independent replication of Rossi's experiment, this was it, aside from the write-up. They replicated the process from the ground - up, in two years. Are they planning to write-up the process, or are they trying to keep it secret, too? Craig
Re: [Vo]:From no info to TMI from Defkalion
Exxon have contacted Defkalion ? Shell have investigated LENR in the old time? Ammoco funded research on Tritium LENR SAIPEM of ENI group follow LENR conference and Rossi... The only who I blame today are the few big physics departments of major universities (the 3 sisters and others), who have declared the truth and terrorized the dissenters... the entrepreuneur and corps have tested all, and abandonned when it looked just wiothout application... it is a leading Physicist delusion, no more, no less. probably driven by administrative scientists. 2013/7/23 ChemE Stewart cheme...@gmail.com Mary Yugo is really the CEO of Exxon Mobil On Tue, Jul 23, 2013 at 3:19 PM, Robert Dorr rod...@comcast.net wrote: ** On 7/23/2013 9:27 AM, Peter Gluck wrote: Blaze, in this case what is your alternative to a blackbox? I think the skeptihawks, steam- maniacs (not an issue here) and invisible wire -obsessed are watching. Do you, Mary? Where is the black magic, Joshua? Peter On Tue, Jul 23, 2013 at 7:02 PM, blaze spinnaker blazespinna...@gmail.com wrote: Peter, Don't you just get it, this is all an elaborate scam. Mary will never be convinced of anything else, never, ever!! It is worthless to spend any amount of energy trying to convince her (him) of anything, other than this is all a complete hoax. I think that no response to Mary, is the only rational recourse to his (her) endless spewing. Bob The world will take notice only when a reproducible experiment showing high COP (1.5?) is generally available. These black box tests only convince the insiders and perhaps potentially risk taking investors. On Tue, Jul 23, 2013 at 8:54 AM, Craig cchayniepub...@gmail.com wrote: Today is the break-out day. Two groups, both getting high power, high quality results? People will start to take a lot more notice. Craig -- Dr. Peter Gluck Cluj, Romania http://egooutpeters.blogspot.com No virus found in this message. Checked by AVG - www.avg.com Version: 2013.0.2904 / Virus Database: 3204/6513 - Release Date: 07/23/13
Re: [Vo]:DGT Temperature Output Appears to Have a Problem
The presenter said near the beginning of today's demo that the the power output calculations were not based on the enthalpy of steam although steam is present. He said it was their gift to the skeptics. Harry On Tue, Jul 23, 2013 at 4:22 PM, Craig cchayniepub...@gmail.com wrote: It does look to me like the COP is being measured as if the outflow was only water, which it can't be at that high temperature. Are my numbers correct? If so, then the COP is much higher. Heat = mass X specific heat X temperature change = 500g / minute X 1 calorie / gram X (140 - 25) = 57,500 calories / minute = 57,500 calories / minute X 60 minutes = 3,450,000 calories / hour = 3,450,000 calories / hour X 1.163E-6 kWh / calories =~ 4,000 kWh/h Craig On 07/23/2013 03:52 PM, Alan Fletcher wrote: See my Steam Calculator at http://tinyurl.com/def-1240 I added the reported input temperature (ambient isn't used) COP -- Water : 3.8 Steam: 13.8
Re: [Vo]:Rossi Replication
They're a business. They have to keep it secret if they can't patent it. On Tue, Jul 23, 2013 at 3:59 PM, Craig cchayniepub...@gmail.com wrote: For those that wanted an independent replication of Rossi's experiment, this was it, aside from the write-up. They replicated the process from the ground - up, in two years. Are they planning to write-up the process, or are they trying to keep it secret, too? Craig
Re: [Vo]:DGT Temperature Output Appears to Have a Problem
an expert on car engines told me that on formula 1 they succeed in keeping water liquid around 150-160C, which allow better cooling in radiators, wghich can be smaller, thus cause less drag... strangely the range is the one of DGT measurement 2013/7/23 Alan Fletcher a...@well.com Water-only at 143C would need a pressure of 4 bars. Unlikely.
Re: [Vo]:Secrets
You know we are not looking at the state of DGT's art. So many secrets were revealed today that they must be much farther along in the development of a marketable product. No doubt they do already have automated reactor control and COPs greater than two figures.
Re: [Vo]:DGT Temperature Output Appears to Have a Problem
On Tue, Jul 23, 2013 at 5:40 PM, Alain Sepeda alain.sep...@gmail.comwrote: an expert on car engines told me that on formula 1 they succeed in keeping water liquid around 150-160C, which allow better cooling in radiators, wghich can be smaller, thus cause less drag... Pressurized radiators. Your automobile pressurizes around 20 lbs.
Re: [Vo]:DGT Temperature Output Appears to Have a Problem
Lewan: Calculations based on heating water only. However, at the output I only saw steam. No water dropping. https://twitter.com/matslew/status/359784137680367616
Re: [Vo]:Secrets
If I understand well they have a better R6 reactor, and work on a R7 small,lighter... 2013/7/23 Terry Blanton hohlr...@gmail.com You know we are not looking at the state of DGT's art. So many secrets were revealed today that they must be much farther along in the development of a marketable product. No doubt they do already have automated reactor control and COPs greater than two figures.
[Vo]:Now what will they ever do?
Those decision makers who are scientifically uninitiated are going to search around for guidance from some experts in the scientific field that they think might cover this Defkalion demo. Well, they think… it must obviously be some sort of fusion reaction, so we should ask the plasma scientists worldwide to evaluate this demo for experimental content and theory. But wait a minute; these experts already have billions of dollars of next year’s funding requests submitted to fusion hungry governments all over the world. So now that LENR is verging on respectability, and knowing the weakness of human nature, can’t we now rightfully view the pursuit of big box hot fusion as a scam to extract unending funding to perpetuate a fraudulent science that has little chance of crystalizing into an engineering success story? Can they ever expect to get an honest evaluation from the hot plasma folks? What are these poor misguided design makers to do? Where can they get the truth? And what to do with scientists that have spent 40 billion dollars over all those same years that they ridiculed LENR as a possibility and actively sought to destroy the people that wanted to advance it,
Re: [Vo]:Now what will they ever do?
http://web.archive.org/web/20081212122631/http://www.geocities.com/jim_bowery/BussardsLetter.html Dr. Bussard's cover letter contains some historically very important disclosures concerning the founding of the United States government's fusion energy program - in particular this excerpt: The DoE committment to very large fusion concepts (the giant magnetic tokamak) ensures only the need for very large budgets; and that is what the program has been about for the past 15 years - a defense-of-budget program - not a fusion-achievement program. As one of three people who created this program in the early 1970's (when I was an Asst. Dir. of the AEC's Controlled Thermonuclear Reaction Division) I know this to be true; we raised the budget in order to take 20% off the top of the larger funding, to try all of the hopeful new things that the mainline labs would not try. Each of us left soon thereafter, and the second generation management thought the big program was real; it was not. Ever since then, the ERDA/DoE has rolled Congress to increase and/or continue big-budget support. This worked so long as various Democratic Senators and Congressmen could see the funding as helpful in their districts. But fear of undermining their budget position also made DoE bureaucrats very autocratic and resistant to any kind of new approach, whether inside DoE or out in industry. This led DoE to fight industry wherever a non-DoE hopful new idea appeared. On Tue, Jul 23, 2013 at 5:51 PM, Axil Axil janap...@gmail.com wrote: Those decision makers who are scientifically uninitiated are going to search around for guidance from some experts in the scientific field that they think might cover this Defkalion demo. Well, they think… it must obviously be some sort of fusion reaction, so we should ask the plasma scientists worldwide to evaluate this demo for experimental content and theory. But wait a minute; these experts already have billions of dollars of next year’s funding requests submitted to fusion hungry governments all over the world. So now that LENR is verging on respectability, and knowing the weakness of human nature, can’t we now rightfully view the pursuit of big box hot fusion as a scam to extract unending funding to perpetuate a fraudulent science that has little chance of crystalizing into an engineering success story? Can they ever expect to get an honest evaluation from the hot plasma folks? What are these poor misguided design makers to do? Where can they get the truth? And what to do with scientists that have spent 40 billion dollars over all those same years that they ridiculed LENR as a possibility and actively sought to destroy the people that wanted to advance it,
Re: [Vo]:Now what will they ever do?
I already spotted some preacher of fear preparing to scaremonger peoples on LENR. I'm afraid LENR will be forbidden by the preachers of fear before it is industrial. It became so in France for shales, GMO, and few other heretic researches. when I mean forbidden, it is FORBIDDEN TO SEARCH. we have no lesson to give to the people of middle age. 2013/7/24 Axil Axil janap...@gmail.com Those decision makers who are scientifically uninitiated are going to search around for guidance from some experts in the scientific field that they think might cover this Defkalion demo. Well, they think… it must obviously be some sort of fusion reaction, so we should ask the plasma scientists worldwide to evaluate this demo for experimental content and theory. But wait a minute; these experts already have billions of dollars of next year’s funding requests submitted to fusion hungry governments all over the world. So now that LENR is verging on respectability, and knowing the weakness of human nature, can’t we now rightfully view the pursuit of big box hot fusion as a scam to extract unending funding to perpetuate a fraudulent science that has little chance of crystalizing into an engineering success story? Can they ever expect to get an honest evaluation from the hot plasma folks? What are these poor misguided design makers to do? Where can they get the truth? And what to do with scientists that have spent 40 billion dollars over all those same years that they ridiculed LENR as a possibility and actively sought to destroy the people that wanted to advance it,
Re: [Vo]:Now what will they ever do?
Cold Fusion isn't necessarily the good news everyone thinks it is. Unfettered access to unlimited fusion energy you can generate in your DIY basement lab probably has a few downsides. Like the chinese say: may you live in interesting times. On Tue, Jul 23, 2013 at 4:32 PM, Alain Sepeda alain.sep...@gmail.comwrote: I already spotted some preacher of fear preparing to scaremonger peoples on LENR. I'm afraid LENR will be forbidden by the preachers of fear before it is industrial. It became so in France for shales, GMO, and few other heretic researches. when I mean forbidden, it is FORBIDDEN TO SEARCH. we have no lesson to give to the people of middle age. 2013/7/24 Axil Axil janap...@gmail.com Those decision makers who are scientifically uninitiated are going to search around for guidance from some experts in the scientific field that they think might cover this Defkalion demo. Well, they think… it must obviously be some sort of fusion reaction, so we should ask the plasma scientists worldwide to evaluate this demo for experimental content and theory. But wait a minute; these experts already have billions of dollars of next year’s funding requests submitted to fusion hungry governments all over the world. So now that LENR is verging on respectability, and knowing the weakness of human nature, can’t we now rightfully view the pursuit of big box hot fusion as a scam to extract unending funding to perpetuate a fraudulent science that has little chance of crystalizing into an engineering success story? Can they ever expect to get an honest evaluation from the hot plasma folks? What are these poor misguided design makers to do? Where can they get the truth? And what to do with scientists that have spent 40 billion dollars over all those same years that they ridiculed LENR as a possibility and actively sought to destroy the people that wanted to advance it,
Re: [Vo]:From no info to TMI from Defkalion
Oh, I agree with the other sentiments, don't bother trying to convince the pathoskeptics. The MaryYugos of the world add nothing to the conversation, they clearly have no desire to find the truth rather their only interest seems to be to convince others of their prejudices. It gives me a headache just watching people engage them. I just think the world has developed a queer blind spot with regards to cold fusion, and I think only an open, consistently reproducible experiment will fix that. Hopefully Defkalion's patents will be visible soon and that will fix that problem. On Tue, Jul 23, 2013 at 12:19 PM, Robert Dorr rod...@comcast.net wrote: ** On 7/23/2013 9:27 AM, Peter Gluck wrote: Blaze, in this case what is your alternative to a blackbox? I think the skeptihawks, steam- maniacs (not an issue here) and invisible wire -obsessed are watching. Do you, Mary? Where is the black magic, Joshua? Peter On Tue, Jul 23, 2013 at 7:02 PM, blaze spinnaker blazespinna...@gmail.com wrote: Peter, Don't you just get it, this is all an elaborate scam. Mary will never be convinced of anything else, never, ever!! It is worthless to spend any amount of energy trying to convince her (him) of anything, other than this is all a complete hoax. I think that no response to Mary, is the only rational recourse to his (her) endless spewing. Bob The world will take notice only when a reproducible experiment showing high COP (1.5?) is generally available. These black box tests only convince the insiders and perhaps potentially risk taking investors. On Tue, Jul 23, 2013 at 8:54 AM, Craig cchayniepub...@gmail.com wrote: Today is the break-out day. Two groups, both getting high power, high quality results? People will start to take a lot more notice. Craig -- Dr. Peter Gluck Cluj, Romania http://egooutpeters.blogspot.com No virus found in this message. Checked by AVG - www.avg.com Version: 2013.0.2904 / Virus Database: 3204/6513 - Release Date: 07/23/13
[Vo]:ICCF18 Day 2
Good report by Ruby http://coldfusionnow.org/iccf-18-day-2-strong-claims-and-rebuttals/ (Ed Storms got the Distinguished Scientist award -- Congrats). Best news : http://cdn.coldfusionnow.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/07/DSC_2515.jpg Greybeards for sure ... but plenty of Young'uns (that's under 60 for me ...) !!
Re: [Vo]:Mats Lewan's comments on Defkalion reactor demo in Milan
'also to cut cables' Cool. On Tue, Jul 23, 2013 at 5:31 PM, Akira Shirakawa shirakawa.ak...@gmail.comwrote: Here on his blog: http://matslew.wordpress.com/**2013/07/24/comments-on-** defkalion-reactor-demo-in-**milan/http://matslew.wordpress.com/2013/07/24/comments-on-defkalion-reactor-demo-in-milan/ Cheers, S.A.
Re: [Vo]:Mats Lewan's comments on Defkalion reactor demo in Milan
From: blaze spinnaker blazespinna...@gmail.com Sent: Tuesday, July 23, 2013 5:37:32 PM ' also to cut cables' Cool. Offer made, but not accepted. (I made the suggestion in the comments). So Mary's still got something to hang on to. He says he did check the flow rate, and for DC ... plus the output changing from water to steam-only. All in all a good report (although he seems surprised as to his role ... I guess the CERN scientist never showed up. )
Re: [Vo]:Mats Lewan's comments on Defkalion reactor demo in Milan
If all the water was vaporized, the output thermal power would have been above 27 kW. Sounds very thrilling! I think the real mystery now is why given all the scientists all over the world working on this they can't even get one measly consistent reproducible experiment going with a reasonable COP. On Tue, Jul 23, 2013 at 5:43 PM, Alan Fletcher a...@well.com wrote: From: blaze spinnaker blazespinna...@gmail.com Sent: Tuesday, July 23, 2013 5:37:32 PM ' also to cut cables' Cool. Offer made, but not accepted. (I made the suggestion in the comments). So Mary's still got something to hang on to. He says he did check the flow rate, and for DC ... plus the output changing from water to steam-only. All in all a good report (although he seems surprised as to his role ... I guess the CERN scientist never showed up. )
Re: [Vo]:Now what will they ever do?
*Consider this thought experiment. If many electric utility customers leave the grid to take advantage of personal independent power production, then the total cost to build and maintain the grid will fall upon the necks of a very few customers. * * * *These grid based customers who are stuck on the grid will have to bear the entire cost of an underutilized and little used grid made very expensive by connectivity to all the far flung shared centralize power stations.* * * *This will make personal power production increasingly economically attractive compared to grid connection.* * * *This price competitive advantage will make personal power production exponentially accelerated in its adoption.* * * * * On Tue, Jul 23, 2013 at 8:03 PM, blaze spinnaker blazespinna...@gmail.comwrote: Cold Fusion isn't necessarily the good news everyone thinks it is. Unfettered access to unlimited fusion energy you can generate in your DIY basement lab probably has a few downsides. Like the chinese say: may you live in interesting times. On Tue, Jul 23, 2013 at 4:32 PM, Alain Sepeda alain.sep...@gmail.comwrote: I already spotted some preacher of fear preparing to scaremonger peoples on LENR. I'm afraid LENR will be forbidden by the preachers of fear before it is industrial. It became so in France for shales, GMO, and few other heretic researches. when I mean forbidden, it is FORBIDDEN TO SEARCH. we have no lesson to give to the people of middle age. 2013/7/24 Axil Axil janap...@gmail.com Those decision makers who are scientifically uninitiated are going to search around for guidance from some experts in the scientific field that they think might cover this Defkalion demo. Well, they think… it must obviously be some sort of fusion reaction, so we should ask the plasma scientists worldwide to evaluate this demo for experimental content and theory. But wait a minute; these experts already have billions of dollars of next year’s funding requests submitted to fusion hungry governments all over the world. So now that LENR is verging on respectability, and knowing the weakness of human nature, can’t we now rightfully view the pursuit of big box hot fusion as a scam to extract unending funding to perpetuate a fraudulent science that has little chance of crystalizing into an engineering success story? Can they ever expect to get an honest evaluation from the hot plasma folks? What are these poor misguided design makers to do? Where can they get the truth? And what to do with scientists that have spent 40 billion dollars over all those same years that they ridiculed LENR as a possibility and actively sought to destroy the people that wanted to advance it,
Re: [Vo]:Now what will they ever do?
It's like asymmetric warfare. Putting e=mc2 in the hands of the individual seems like a recipe for, well, something. I'm just saying, there's room for fear here. On the flipside, we do have this global warming problem... On Tue, Jul 23, 2013 at 6:10 PM, Axil Axil janap...@gmail.com wrote: *Consider this thought experiment. If many electric utility customers leave the grid to take advantage of personal independent power production, then the total cost to build and maintain the grid will fall upon the necks of a very few customers. * * * *These grid based customers who are stuck on the grid will have to bear the entire cost of an underutilized and little used grid made very expensive by connectivity to all the far flung shared centralize power stations.* * * *This will make personal power production increasingly economically attractive compared to grid connection.* * * *This price competitive advantage will make personal power production exponentially accelerated in its adoption.* * * * * On Tue, Jul 23, 2013 at 8:03 PM, blaze spinnaker blazespinna...@gmail.com wrote: Cold Fusion isn't necessarily the good news everyone thinks it is. Unfettered access to unlimited fusion energy you can generate in your DIY basement lab probably has a few downsides. Like the chinese say: may you live in interesting times. On Tue, Jul 23, 2013 at 4:32 PM, Alain Sepeda alain.sep...@gmail.comwrote: I already spotted some preacher of fear preparing to scaremonger peoples on LENR. I'm afraid LENR will be forbidden by the preachers of fear before it is industrial. It became so in France for shales, GMO, and few other heretic researches. when I mean forbidden, it is FORBIDDEN TO SEARCH. we have no lesson to give to the people of middle age. 2013/7/24 Axil Axil janap...@gmail.com Those decision makers who are scientifically uninitiated are going to search around for guidance from some experts in the scientific field that they think might cover this Defkalion demo. Well, they think… it must obviously be some sort of fusion reaction, so we should ask the plasma scientists worldwide to evaluate this demo for experimental content and theory. But wait a minute; these experts already have billions of dollars of next year’s funding requests submitted to fusion hungry governments all over the world. So now that LENR is verging on respectability, and knowing the weakness of human nature, can’t we now rightfully view the pursuit of big box hot fusion as a scam to extract unending funding to perpetuate a fraudulent science that has little chance of crystalizing into an engineering success story? Can they ever expect to get an honest evaluation from the hot plasma folks? What are these poor misguided design makers to do? Where can they get the truth? And what to do with scientists that have spent 40 billion dollars over all those same years that they ridiculed LENR as a possibility and actively sought to destroy the people that wanted to advance it,
Re: [Vo]:Now what will they ever do?
There was a scifi story -- don't recall the author -- based on the premise that the Second Amendment was actually enforced throughout US history. The US basically retains its Jeffersonian yeoman farmer settler culture and urbanization is minimal. On Tue, Jul 23, 2013 at 8:34 PM, blaze spinnaker blazespinna...@gmail.comwrote: It's like asymmetric warfare. Putting e=mc2 in the hands of the individual seems like a recipe for, well, something. I'm just saying, there's room for fear here. On the flipside, we do have this global warming problem... On Tue, Jul 23, 2013 at 6:10 PM, Axil Axil janap...@gmail.com wrote: *Consider this thought experiment. If many electric utility customers leave the grid to take advantage of personal independent power production, then the total cost to build and maintain the grid will fall upon the necks of a very few customers. * * * *These grid based customers who are stuck on the grid will have to bear the entire cost of an underutilized and little used grid made very expensive by connectivity to all the far flung shared centralize power stations.* * * *This will make personal power production increasingly economically attractive compared to grid connection.* * * *This price competitive advantage will make personal power production exponentially accelerated in its adoption.* * * * * On Tue, Jul 23, 2013 at 8:03 PM, blaze spinnaker blazespinna...@gmail.com wrote: Cold Fusion isn't necessarily the good news everyone thinks it is. Unfettered access to unlimited fusion energy you can generate in your DIY basement lab probably has a few downsides. Like the chinese say: may you live in interesting times. On Tue, Jul 23, 2013 at 4:32 PM, Alain Sepeda alain.sep...@gmail.comwrote: I already spotted some preacher of fear preparing to scaremonger peoples on LENR. I'm afraid LENR will be forbidden by the preachers of fear before it is industrial. It became so in France for shales, GMO, and few other heretic researches. when I mean forbidden, it is FORBIDDEN TO SEARCH. we have no lesson to give to the people of middle age. 2013/7/24 Axil Axil janap...@gmail.com Those decision makers who are scientifically uninitiated are going to search around for guidance from some experts in the scientific field that they think might cover this Defkalion demo. Well, they think… it must obviously be some sort of fusion reaction, so we should ask the plasma scientists worldwide to evaluate this demo for experimental content and theory. But wait a minute; these experts already have billions of dollars of next year’s funding requests submitted to fusion hungry governments all over the world. So now that LENR is verging on respectability, and knowing the weakness of human nature, can’t we now rightfully view the pursuit of big box hot fusion as a scam to extract unending funding to perpetuate a fraudulent science that has little chance of crystalizing into an engineering success story? Can they ever expect to get an honest evaluation from the hot plasma folks? What are these poor misguided design makers to do? Where can they get the truth? And what to do with scientists that have spent 40 billion dollars over all those same years that they ridiculed LENR as a possibility and actively sought to destroy the people that wanted to advance it,
Re: [Vo]:Now what will they ever do?
blaze spinnaker blazespinna...@gmail.com wrote: Cold Fusion isn't necessarily the good news everyone thinks it is. Unfettered access to unlimited fusion energy you can generate in your DIY basement lab probably has a few downsides. I think it is unlikely cold fusion can be used to create a nuclear bomb scale explosion. Any other harm it might cause would be no different from harm caused by conventional energy. Fleischmann and Teller worried about this when cold fusion began, but most theorists I know say that it cannot cause a large explosion because the lattice vaporizes before many deuterons react. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:Now what will they ever do?
Axil Axil janap...@gmail.com wrote: *These grid based customers who are stuck on the grid will have to bear the entire cost of an underutilized and little used grid made very expensive by connectivity to all the far flung shared centralize power stations.* No, they will not. This will not be a problem. The power company stockholders will bear the cost, not the customers. The power companies will go bankrupt. This is what always happens when a technology becomes obsolete. Consider: U.S. passenger railroads lost many customers in the 1930s as cars become widespread, and they lost them all by 1970. But the railroads did not raise their fares high for the last passengers. The same thing happened with ocean liners between Europe and the U.S. in the 1960s, in competition to airplanes. At the end they did not charge more; they charged less and less, in a desperate effort to attract customers. The last people to buy old-style mainframe computers and minicomputers got very good deals. The prices were cut to to the bone, but personal computers were cheaper. There are many other examples. The power companies and the oil companies will lose billions of dollars. In they end they will go bankrupt. They will leave useless infrastructure everywhere, such as power plants, wires on poles, supertankers and oil refineries. This is worth trillions of dollars now but it will only be worth the scrap value. It will be have to be cleaned up and scrapped at public expense, but that will only cost a small fraction of the money we will save by using cold fusion. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:Now what will they ever do?
On Tue, Jul 23, 2013 at 5:03 PM, blaze spinnaker blazespinna...@gmail.comwrote: Unfettered access to unlimited fusion energy you can generate in your DIY basement lab probably has a few downsides. For sure. Any of the following would cause some inconvenience: - The downsizing of energy companies, loss of jobs and shareholder value and increasing market uncertainty. - Mechanization of those parts of industrial production for which robots have not been economical up to now along with attendant layoffs of unskilled and semi-skilled labor and an increasing concentration of wealth. - Ready enrichment of 238U to 239Pu. - A new arms race, and drones that can hover over a location for months at a time. If it turns out that LENR is readily commercializable, I think it will be disruptive. It will not necessarily be to the benefit of the general public right away. It could be awhile before the dust settles. Eric
RE: [Vo]:Now what will they ever do?
Blaze, it is not a given that the energy source is nuclear, the data shows some nuclear activity but I am not convinced that it is the cause of the energy or just a side effect of intense heating based on ZPE. The need for atomic hydrogen and thermal gradient does support endless reversible reactions between h2 and h1 where the heat discounts the disassociation threshold beyond unity. The h2 reforms and cools down once outside the powder as it follows a circulation path back into range of the spark plugs. IMHO the disassociation and reformation is multiplied endlessly while the gas is moving thru the powder tapestry, effectively DCE, which will discount the threshold when it changes value from the level at which the fractional molecule forms. Fran From: blaze spinnaker [mailto:blazespinna...@gmail.com] Sent: Tuesday, July 23, 2013 9:34 PM To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: [Vo]:Now what will they ever do? It's like asymmetric warfare. Putting e=mc2 in the hands of the individual seems like a recipe for, well, something. I'm just saying, there's room for fear here. On the flipside, we do have this global warming problem... On Tue, Jul 23, 2013 at 6:10 PM, Axil Axil janap...@gmail.com wrote: Consider this thought experiment. If many electric utility customers leave the grid to take advantage of personal independent power production, then the total cost to build and maintain the grid will fall upon the necks of a very few customers. These grid based customers who are stuck on the grid will have to bear the entire cost of an underutilized and little used grid made very expensive by connectivity to all the far flung shared centralize power stations. This will make personal power production increasingly economically attractive compared to grid connection. This price competitive advantage will make personal power production exponentially accelerated in its adoption. On Tue, Jul 23, 2013 at 8:03 PM, blaze spinnaker blazespinna...@gmail.com wrote: Cold Fusion isn't necessarily the good news everyone thinks it is. Unfettered access to unlimited fusion energy you can generate in your DIY basement lab probably has a few downsides. Like the chinese say: may you live in interesting times. On Tue, Jul 23, 2013 at 4:32 PM, Alain Sepeda alain.sep...@gmail.com wrote: I already spotted some preacher of fear preparing to scaremonger peoples on LENR. I'm afraid LENR will be forbidden by the preachers of fear before it is industrial. It became so in France for shales, GMO, and few other heretic researches. when I mean forbidden, it is FORBIDDEN TO SEARCH. we have no lesson to give to the people of middle age. 2013/7/24 Axil Axil janap...@gmail.com Those decision makers who are scientifically uninitiated are going to search around for guidance from some experts in the scientific field that they think might cover this Defkalion demo. Well, they think. it must obviously be some sort of fusion reaction, so we should ask the plasma scientists worldwide to evaluate this demo for experimental content and theory. But wait a minute; these experts already have billions of dollars of next year's funding requests submitted to fusion hungry governments all over the world. So now that LENR is verging on respectability, and knowing the weakness of human nature, can't we now rightfully view the pursuit of big box hot fusion as a scam to extract unending funding to perpetuate a fraudulent science that has little chance of crystalizing into an engineering success story? Can they ever expect to get an honest evaluation from the hot plasma folks? What are these poor misguided design makers to do? Where can they get the truth? And what to do with scientists that have spent 40 billion dollars over all those same years that they ridiculed LENR as a possibility and actively sought to destroy the people that wanted to advance it,
Re: [Vo]:Mats Lewan's comments on Defkalion reactor demo in Milan
blaze spinnaker blazespinna...@gmail.com wrote: I think the real mystery now is why given all the scientists all over the world working on this they can't even get one measly consistent reproducible experiment going with a reasonable COP. This is not even slightly mysterious. If you had any idea difficult it is, you would be amazed that the experiments are as reproducible as they are. If you understood anything about the effect you would realize that the COP makes no difference; no one is trying to improve it at present; and it would be a waste of time and resources to do so. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:Secrets
On Tue, Jul 23, 2013 at 12:46 PM, Terry Blanton hohlr...@gmail.com wrote: No dependence on isotopes! By isotopes, I take it you're referring to the nickel and not the hydrogen? Or was the comment directed both to the nickel (and any other part of the substrate), together with the hydrogen? (I.e., it does not matter whether there is hydrogen or deuterium.) Eric
Re: [Vo]:Mats Lewan's comments on Defkalion reactor demo in Milan
Let me add: . . . going with a reasonable COP. This is pure bullshit. Many experiments have infinite COPs, with no input power. Yet the skeptics and Spinnaker ignore there results and natter on about low COPs. Once the reaction can be controlled, ramping it up or improving the COP will minor engineering problems. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:Mats Lewan's comments on Defkalion reactor demo in Milan
On 2013-07-24 02:49, blaze spinnaker wrote: If all the water was vaporized, the output thermal power would have been above 27 kW. Sounds very thrilling! They've also been conservative about heat losses through the insulating reactor enclosure, not accounted for. During the inactive Argon run only about 85% the input energy made it to the coolant outlet. Losses might have increased with temperature during the active run. Cheers, S.A.
[Vo]:Forbes LENR Coverage
Ladies and Gentlemen, Following my last post to my blog on Forbes ( http://www.forbes.com/sites/markgibbs/2013/07/23/defkalion-demonstrates-lenr-live-right-now/) my tenure with that organization has come to an end. Before the conspiracy theorists proclaim that it was due to my ongoing interest in LENR be aware that there is no (obvious) evidence for that conclusion and it probably owes more to editorial policy and poor communication than anything overtly conspiratorial. I will still cover any significant LENR developments in my Network World blog (http://www.networkworld.com/community/blog/96) but the focus there is considerably different so unless it has a significant bearing on IT the topic won't get covered. Thanks for all your plaudits, criticisms, and comments in my Forbes postings over the last couple of years. Regards, Mark Gibbs.
Re: [Vo]:Forbes LENR Coverage
Thanks for keeping an open mind about this stuff On Tue, Jul 23, 2013 at 11:23 PM, Mark Gibbs mgi...@gibbs.com wrote: Ladies and Gentlemen, Following my last post to my blog on Forbes ( http://www.forbes.com/sites/markgibbs/2013/07/23/defkalion-demonstrates-lenr-live-right-now/) my tenure with that organization has come to an end. Before the conspiracy theorists proclaim that it was due to my ongoing interest in LENR be aware that there is no (obvious) evidence for that conclusion and it probably owes more to editorial policy and poor communication than anything overtly conspiratorial. I will still cover any significant LENR developments in my Network World blog (http://www.networkworld.com/community/blog/96) but the focus there is considerably different so unless it has a significant bearing on IT the topic won't get covered. Thanks for all your plaudits, criticisms, and comments in my Forbes postings over the last couple of years. Regards, Mark Gibbs.
Re: [Vo]:Secrets
It was reported that the nickel isotopes all react, except that Ni 61 does not react. (Ideas why this would be?) Further, it was reported that the hydrogen gas was regular H2. Transmutation and radiation was not tested as part of the demonstration. - Brad On Tue, Jul 23, 2013 at 7:42 PM, Eric Walker eric.wal...@gmail.com wrote: On Tue, Jul 23, 2013 at 12:46 PM, Terry Blanton hohlr...@gmail.comwrote: No dependence on isotopes! By isotopes, I take it you're referring to the nickel and not the hydrogen? Or was the comment directed both to the nickel (and any other part of the substrate), together with the hydrogen? (I.e., it does not matter whether there is hydrogen or deuterium.) Eric
Re: [Vo]:Forbes LENR Coverage
From: Mark Gibbs mgi...@gibbs.com Sent: Tuesday, July 23, 2013 8:23:20 PM Following my last post to my blog on Forbes ( http://www.forbes.com/sites/markgibbs/2013/07/23/defkalion-demonstrates-lenr-live-right-now/ ) my tenure with that organization has come to an end. Gee [ and we won't even get the final report =8-( ] --- wishing you the best for your ongoing endeavors. Alan
Re: [Vo]:Forbes LENR Coverage
Mark: No (obvious) evidence and probably? I enjoyed your blog posts. Ransom Sent from my iPhone On Jul 23, 2013, at 10:23 PM, Mark Gibbs mgi...@gibbs.com wrote: Ladies and Gentlemen, Following my last post to my blog on Forbes (http://www.forbes.com/sites/markgibbs/2013/07/23/defkalion-demonstrates-lenr-live-right-now/) my tenure with that organization has come to an end. Before the conspiracy theorists proclaim that it was due to my ongoing interest in LENR be aware that there is no (obvious) evidence for that conclusion and it probably owes more to editorial policy and poor communication than anything overtly conspiratorial. I will still cover any significant LENR developments in my Network World blog (http://www.networkworld.com/community/blog/96) but the focus there is considerably different so unless it has a significant bearing on IT the topic won't get covered. Thanks for all your plaudits, criticisms, and comments in my Forbes postings over the last couple of years. Regards, Mark Gibbs.
Re: [Vo]:Forbes LENR Coverage
On Tue, Jul 23, 2013 at 9:13 PM, Alan Fletcher a...@well.com wrote: Gee [ and we won't even get the final report =8-( ] --- wishing you the best for your ongoing endeavors. Same here. That's too bad. Good luck with your next engagement. Forbes and Wired are practically the only mainstream publications that have been touching LENR in the past few years. I'm sure there were some letters written to your supervisors, trying to help them understand that you were putting Forbes's reputation at risk. They will have used monetary terms -- Forbes will lose X dollars in revenue from lost visits if it continues to allow itself to be used as a platform for pseudoscience boosterism. This kind of thing can be scary for managers. Perhaps there was no conspiracy; but neither I would not write one off right away. Eric
Re: [Vo]:Defkalion Green Technologies - English Demo
In reply to Craig's message of Tue, 23 Jul 2013 14:06:28 -0400: Hi, [snip] Looks like ignition! http://new.livestream.com/triwu2/Defkalion-US Craig I wonder why T_out is coloured, while all the other numbers are black? Is this possibly indicative of an error condition? (If so then the output energy calculation is not reliable.) Regards, Robin van Spaandonk http://rvanspaa.freehostia.com/project.html
Re: [Vo]:Mats Lewan's comments on Defkalion reactor demo in Milan
You're purposely misunderstanding what I'm saying and just talking past me because you're overly emotional about all this.I know you think LENR is your personal crusade, but don't drag me into that. The fact is, two completely separate teams have now seemingly achieved these impressive(even magical) demonstrations of massive sustained COP seemingly at will. And yet there still doesn't exist a simple consistent, reproducible experiment showing any sort of reasonable sustained excess thermal energy. This is a puzzle, no matter how you slice it. On Tue, Jul 23, 2013 at 7:47 PM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com wrote: Let me add: . . . going with a reasonable COP. This is pure bullshit. Many experiments have infinite COPs, with no input power. Yet the skeptics and Spinnaker ignore there results and natter on about low COPs. Once the reaction can be controlled, ramping it up or improving the COP will minor engineering problems. - Jed
RE: [Vo]:Forbes LENR Coverage
I only wish that I could cancel my non-existent subscription in protest. The capitalist tool is already infamous for giving its advertisers a high level of editorial voice which is pretty much in line with the emerging doctrine of corporate personhood and other niceties of the brave new world, so I guess we better get used to it. This probably means that a few corporate advertisers and trade groups already control most of the content of this magazine in hidden ways, including silencing voices which threaten the various hegemonies - not just oil. How long before all magazines give the same level of control - abdicating any sense of fairness or journalistic responsibility, and just as openly? The unification of advertising and journalism is scary, to say the least, but actually using that kind of influence to silence other voices is scarier. Forbes certainly appears to wants to be the frontrunner in moving the bar beyond even personhood . Malcolm would be so proud of little Stevie. You can easily judge the character of a man by how he treats those who can do nothing for him.-Malcolm S. Forbes. Jones From: mark.gi...@gmail.com Ladies and Gentlemen, Following my last post to my blog on Forbes (http://www.forbes.com/sites/markgibbs/2013/07/23/defkalion-demonstrates-len r-live-right-now/) my tenure with that organization has come to an end. Before the conspiracy theorists proclaim that it was due to my ongoing interest in LENR be aware that there is no (obvious) evidence for that conclusion and it probably owes more to editorial policy and poor communication than anything overtly conspiratorial. I will still cover any significant LENR developments in my Network World blog (http://www.networkworld.com/community/blog/96) but the focus there is considerably different so unless it has a significant bearing on IT the topic won't get covered. Thanks for all your plaudits, criticisms, and comments in my Forbes postings over the last couple of years. Regards, Mark Gibbs.
Re: [Vo]:Defkalion Green Technologies - English Demo
wonder why T_out is coloured, while all the other numbers are black? Is this possibly indicative of an error condition? Interesting speculation. Are you familiar with LabView and that's why you say that? I think I'd be more concerned about them juking the flow rate as steam was coming out when high temps were reached. If flow rate remained consistent throughout the experiment and assuming the water wasn't collecting somewhere out of sight, then the only thing you need to worry about is input energy - right? On Tue, Jul 23, 2013 at 9:23 PM, mix...@bigpond.com wrote: In reply to Craig's message of Tue, 23 Jul 2013 14:06:28 -0400: Hi, [snip] Looks like ignition! http://new.livestream.com/triwu2/Defkalion-US Craig I (If so then the output energy calculation is not reliable.) Regards, Robin van Spaandonk http://rvanspaa.freehostia.com/project.html
Re: [Vo]:Defkalion Green Technologies - English Demo
In reply to blaze spinnaker's message of Tue, 23 Jul 2013 21:42:10 -0700: Hi, [snip] wonder why T_out is coloured, while all the other numbers are black? Is this possibly indicative of an error condition? Interesting speculation. Are you familiar with LabView and that's why you say that? No, I'm not familiar with LabView, but it's the sort of thing I might do myself if I were programming it. That's why I ask. I think I'd be more concerned about them juking the flow rate as steam was coming out when high temps were reached. Regards, Robin van Spaandonk http://rvanspaa.freehostia.com/project.html
RE: [Vo]:Forbes LENR Coverage
Looks like you must have rattled a few cages Mark. This is hardly surprising given the establishment's close ties to the fossil fuel lobby. If I had 400 Trillion in fossil fuel assets I would be VERY glad you had stopped writing about LENR. Good that you managed to raise awareness of LENR while you were there.All the best!Craig Original Message Subject: [Vo]:Forbes LENR Coverage From: Mark Gibbs mgi...@gibbs.com Date: Wed, July 24, 2013 1:23 pm To: "vortex-l@eskimo.com" vortex-l@eskimo.com Ladies and Gentlemen,Following my last post to my blog on Forbes (http://www.forbes.com/sites/markgibbs/2013/07/23/defkalion-demonstrates-lenr-live-right-now/) my tenure with that organization has come to an end. Before the conspiracy theorists proclaim that it was due to my ongoing interest in LENR be aware that there is no (obvious) evidence for that conclusion and it probably owes more to editorial policy and poor communication than anything overtly conspiratorial. I will still cover any significant LENR developments in my Network World blog (http://www.networkworld.com/community/blog/96) but the focus there is considerably different so unless it has a significant bearing on IT the topic won't get covered. Thanks for all your plaudits, criticisms, and comments in my Forbes postings over the last couple of years.Regards,Mark Gibbs.
[Vo]:Ni 61 does not react. (Ideas why this would be?)
Brad Lowe: It was reported that the nickel isotopes all react, except that Ni 61 does not react. (Ideas why this would be?) The LENR story is turning out to be a puzzle with many parts. The most obscure piece of this puzzle is the shape and character of the EMF that forms in the “Hot Spot” when nanoantennas concentrate photons through “dark mode” resonance formation. This resonance formation process packs huge vortex currents together in a nano-scopic volume. One possible formation that this ball of charged light can assume is the anapole ring which resembles the plasmoid. Today, Defkalion stated that the reactor packs huge magnetic fields capable of disrupting all electronic equipment in the general vicinity of the reactor core. The core had to be shielded by a double ply faraday cage. That huge field is produced by nano-particles in a bath of infrared radiation. This type and strength of magnetism is important in the nucleus of an atom. These nuclei also pack huge magnetic fields. These fields are greatly effected by Parity non conservation (PNC) effects. For the nuclei with an unpaired neutron the Parity non conservation (PNC) effects may be strongly suppressed! This is true for odd numbered nucleons. The nuclear magnetic field is not symmetrical; it is unbalanced like a top with a weight glued to its outer edge. What is PCN? Here is some background info http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WHp-ocXIs1U Parity Non-Conservation in the Weak Interaction Defkalion states as follows: “We realized also that Ni58, Ni60, Ni62 and Ni64 stable isotopes where “willing” to participate in a LENR reaction, while Ni61 was not.” In general, we know that the isotopes with an odd number of nucleons do not react under LENR; only the ones with even number of nucleons do. This means that there is a nuclear configuration component that is important in the LENR process. How the quarks are paired makes a difference in LENR. Parity non conservation (PCN) may be a determining factor in the LENR reaction involving anapole magnetic effects. If it were simply a matter of shear EMF disruptive power, the configuration of the nucleons in the nucleus would not be important. If it were simply a matter of charge concentration, PCN would not be important. This charge concentration is what Dr, Kim and Defkalion think is at the center of the even isotope mystery. But it is a strong anapole single polled magnetic field that could change the handedness of some subatomic particles resulting in a disruptive nuclear reaction. Higgs superconductivity is not easy to disrupt but when it is disrupted, the quarks are all rearranged because of it. By the way, when nickel get to 137C, its magnetic field breaks into spin ice of rotating vortex magnetic fields. Every bit of anapole magnetic power helps disrupt that even nucleus.
