[Vo]:Abd's comments to my Synthesis paper
Dear Friends, I am pleased to publish: http://egooutpeters.blogspot.ro/2013/09/abds-comments-to-my-paper-everything-i.html It is fine, a CFauthorithy takes my paper seriously; together we will discover the truth (first priority for Abd) and the solution (my primary aim) Peter -- Dr. Peter Gluck Cluj, Romania http://egooutpeters.blogspot.com
Re: [Vo]:Improved calibrations from Mizuno
I wrote: He says he waits up to 138 hours per step to be sure the temperature is stable. That can't be right . . . Off by an order of magnitude! It is 14 hours per step. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:Improved calibrations from Mizuno
Could this not be purely chemical given the level of output? On Fri, Sep 20, 2013 at 8:37 AM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com wrote: I wrote: He says he waits up to 138 hours per step to be sure the temperature is stable. That can't be right . . . Off by an order of magnitude! It is 14 hours per step. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:synthesis of my ideas re the past, present and future of our field
This may be an interesting development: http://www.fromquarkstoquasars.com/new-discovery-simplifies-quantum-physics/ Ron --On Thursday, September 19, 2013 8:12 PM -0400 Axil Axil janap...@gmail.com wrote: I am getting a bad feeling that LENR is still here way before its time. Science is not at a stage that will accept LENR as a possibility. It looks to me like magnetism is a key factor in the quantum mechanical processes at the heart of the disruption of nuclear stability. Looking back at the recent history of experimental and theoretical physics that occurred in the mid 1990's, magnetism turned out to be the primary causative factor in the weird and hard to understand experimental results that first revealed the quantum hall effect. Experiments showed that resistance could be quantized when electrons were highly constrained dimensionally and were also acted on by a strong magnetic field. Even weirder, electric charge could be fractionalized when electrons were exposed to a strong magnetic field. This process of electron charge fractionalization is very difficult to visualize physically. So physicists have come up with a quasiparticle concept called a composite fermion to depict what is happening to many electrons affected by a strong magnetic field. Back then, the physics community was pained to explain this perplexing experimental fractional charge result. But this experimental shock created a new burst of innovation in string theory and quantum field theory which is still nascent and not yet fully understood. There are still many perplexities in particle physics. Almost half a century ago, Yang and Mills introduced a remarkable new framework to describe elementary particles using structures that also occur in geometry. Quantum Yang-Mills theory is now the foundation of most of elementary particle theory, and its predictions have been tested at many experimental laboratories, but its mathematical foundation is still unclear. The successful use of Yang-Mills theory to describe the strong interactions of elementary particles depends on a subtle quantum mechanical property called the mass gap: the quantum particles have positive masses, even though the classical waves travel at the speed of light. This property has been discovered by physicists from experiment and confirmed by computer simulations, but it still has not been understood from a theoretical point of view. Progress in establishing the existence of the Yang-Mills theory and a mass gap and will require the introduction of fundamental new ideas both in physics and in mathematics. The Clay Mathematics Institute American Mathematical Society has offered a million dollar prize to anyone who can supply this new physics and mathematics. http://www.claymath.org/library/monographs/MPPc.pdf This tells me that the theoretical and mathematical foundation that a valid theory of LENR can be built on is not in place yet. LENR is very much like the fractionalized quantum Hall Effect (FQHE) in that electrons and quarks are fermions. But where in the FQHE, the strong directly applied magnetic field causes the charge of the electron to be cut to factions and even completely eliminated, the strong magnetic fields involved in LENR causes the charges of quarks to be greatly reduced or even completely eliminated. When the charge and spin properties of the quarks in the nucleus are disrupted in the nucleus, new quark configurations will after the strong magnetic field is removed. This is the basis of transmutation and even fusion. Where theoretical physics finally realizes this experimental wonder that is LENR, there will be a new rebirth in string and quantum field theory thinking not unlike what is currently happening with the FQHE. Theoretical physics has been alienated by completely inappropriate theoretical explanations of LENR experimental results over the decades that counter the current theoretical directions and aspirations of theoretical physics. In this branch of conservative science, much damage to the credibility of LENR has been done that can only be corrected by the Rossi method of pushing experimental reality in the face of incomplete theoretical physics through the release of a hitherto completely magical and unexplained commercial product. On Thu, Sep 19, 2013 at 1:54 AM, Peter Gluck peter.gl...@gmail.com wrote: Dear Friends, I published now: http://egooutpeters.blogspot.ro/2013/09/everything-i-knew-about-cold-fus ion-was.html It is an appeal to a Paradigm Shift, actually I have published these ideas long ago, now I just made a synthesis of them. I am realist and I know this paper will have a limited impact, preponderemtly negative. I don't csre. I care for the future of LENR. LENR will be technological, or will not be. Peter -- Dr. Peter Gluck Cluj, Romania http://egooutpeters.blogspot.com
Re: [Vo]:Improved calibrations from Mizuno
Jack Cole jcol...@gmail.com wrote: Could this not be purely chemical given the level of output? There is no chemical fuel in the system. It is just D2 gas and Pd (or H2 and Ni). See: http://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/MizunoTmethodofco.pdf - Jed
[Vo]:Cravens report on NI Week demo
See: http://www.infinite-energy.com/images/pdfs/NIWeekCravens.pdf
Re: [Vo]:Improved calibrations from Mizuno
But doesn't hydrogen/deuterium absorption by palladium/nickel produce heat? I'm not saying this is not LENR. I'm trying to see if there are alternative explanations. See: https://www.google.com/url?sa=trct=jq=esrc=ssource=webcd=3ved=0CEEQFjACurl=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.platinummetalsreview.com%2Fpdf%2Fpmr-v4-i4-132-137.pdfei=4ZM8UvPrLYiC9gSQ-oHADwusg=AFQjCNGlBq20oD9panaeqmqUTB2bt5l5gQsig2=mn0wgtRuMneSMFp-mK0OuQbvm=bv.52434380,d.eWU On Fri, Sep 20, 2013 at 1:23 PM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com wrote: Jack Cole jcol...@gmail.com wrote: Could this not be purely chemical given the level of output? There is no chemical fuel in the system. It is just D2 gas and Pd (or H2 and Ni). See: http://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/MizunoTmethodofco.pdf - Jed
RE: [Vo]:Cravens report on NI Week demo
-Original Message- From: Terry Blanton Jed Rothwell wrote: http://www.infinite-energy.com/images/pdfs/NIWeekCravens.pdf Such a simple, magnificent demonstration. Can you make me a charger for my Tesla car? Charming. Indeed it is - and understated since the hot sphere transfers heat to the bed and to the control - so the actual gain is more than it appears. ... hey, Terry - are you the proud owner of a Tesla (or just wishing you were)?
[Vo]:The lighter side of WWIII
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z-sdO6pwVHQ Very funny.
Re: [Vo]:Improved calibrations from Mizuno
On Fri, Sep 20, 2013 at 12:13 PM, Jack Cole jcol...@gmail.com wrote: But doesn't hydrogen/deuterium absorption by palladium/nickel produce heat? I'm not saying this is not LENR. I'm trying to see if there are alternative explanations. The absorption of hydrogen and deuterium by palladium produces a lot of heat. So heat transients by themselves aren't an indication of LENR. I believe the way to address questions about the importance of this particular process is to measure the heat over time and add it up -- if the total energy implied by a series of temperature readings well-exceeds what can be put out by such a process, then another explanation must be sought. This is where long-running calorimetry becomes important. Eric
Re: [Vo]:Cravens report on NI Week demo
It is not clear how any form of energy gain is associated with this experiment. The demonstration appears to generate LENR energy, but the input function is not present. It would be educational to have a plot of energy generation versus temperature. Dave -Original Message- From: Jones Beene jone...@pacbell.net To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Fri, Sep 20, 2013 3:53 pm Subject: RE: [Vo]:Cravens report on NI Week demo -Original Message- From: Terry Blanton Jed Rothwell wrote: http://www.infinite-energy.com/images/pdfs/NIWeekCravens.pdf Such a simple, magnificent demonstration. Can you make me a charger for my Tesla car? Charming. Indeed it is - and understated since the hot sphere transfers heat to the bed and to the control - so the actual gain is more than it appears. ... hey, Terry - are you the proud owner of a Tesla (or just wishing you were)?
RE: [Vo]:Improved calibrations from Mizuno
From: Eric Walker Jack Cole wrote: But doesn't hydrogen/deuterium absorption by palladium/nickel produce heat? I'm not saying this is not LENR. I'm trying to see if there are alternative explanations. The absorption of hydrogen and deuterium by palladium produces a lot of heat. So heat transients by themselves aren't an indication of LENR. I believe the way to address questions about the importance of this particular process is to measure the heat over time and add it up -- if the total energy implied by a series of temperature readings well-exceeds what can be put out by such a process, then another explanation must be sought. This is where long-running calorimetry becomes important. This also highlights the point that - in addition to LENR and chemistry, there are a couple of other possibilities for thermal gain, especially from unpowered systems. This may be one of the “others”. There is fractional hydrogen - f/H (and/or the Mills hydrino) which is often lumped-in with LENR, but is more chemistry than nuclear. However, it normally requires energy input. And there is the zero point field – ZPE. ZPE may be more amenable to unpowered gain than any of the above. Here is a Puthoff paper from last year http://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/1204/1204.1952.pdf ZPE can manifest itself in the asymmetry of phase change, or in nanomagnetism, or in angular momentum of electron orbital (renormalization) or in electrogravity or in Roarty’s time distortion. If Mark I is tuned-in, he may add a few more. Absorption of protons into metals creates phase-change - and asymmetry is a known feature of a few kinds of phase-change. The main thing missing is how the “ultimate” source of energy which we simply label as ZPE - gets harnessed as excess heat. In naïve terms, when spillover hydrogen is created and absorbed on a nickel surface, the catalyst creates a “potential gain” of about 4.5 eV. That kind of gain cannot be maintained normally over time (or even more than once) and CoE usually holds, because the catalyst is quickly passivated. Enter ZPE. Consult with experts for the details. Cravens would probably disagree, but his experiment can look more like something Puthoff can explain more cogently than anyone else. (unless, of course helium or neutrons turn up then LENR may be at work but even then it could be the case of ZPE triggering LENR). Jones attachment: winmail.dat
Re: [Vo]:Improved calibrations from Mizuno
Jed, Thank you. Yes, that makes much more sense to me now, and would be well above heat produced from absorption. On Fri, Sep 20, 2013 at 4:07 PM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com wrote: Jack Cole jcol...@gmail.com wrote: But doesn't hydrogen/deuterium absorption by palladium/nickel produce heat? A tiny, TINY amount. There is only an itty-bitty amount of Ni (or Pd) in the whole cell. The excess heat in the last 7 experiments has ranged from 16 to 4,880 kJ, which far exceed the heat of absorption: Input, Output, Excess (kJ) 212, 301, 89 125, 141, 16 1,780, 2,970, 1190 2,390, 2,964, 574 393, 499, 106 3,370, 8,250, 4880 2,860, 3,180, 320 That's a range of 5 to 23 W excess, continuing 18 to 21 hours I think. That is, 2,390 kJ input = 2,390,000 J/31 W = 77,097 seconds, which is 21 hours if I haven't once again misplaced an order of magnitude. Any heat from absorption would be swamped by the heat from 1000 V AC glow discharge. It would be in the noise. There is a lot of hot plasma in there. You can see it in the photos here, taken through the window: http://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/MizunoTposterform.pdf That's only 31 W but the electrode goes up to ~170°C at that power level during calibration, and ~270°C with excess heat. The plasma is there most of the time, except during heat after death. He can goose H.A.D. by adding a little more hydrogen gas. The heat shows up immediately with a puff of gas, which it would not do from absorption. Anyway, the nanoparticles are saturated. I'm not saying this is not LENR. I'm trying to see if there are alternative explanations. The only alternative I can imagine would be a mistake caused by bad calorimetry. It was pretty bad until he sent me the latest calibrations. It is now moderately good. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:Cravens report on NI Week demo
How much does it cost to get the NI demo device duplicated? On Fri, Sep 20, 2013 at 4:14 PM, DJ Cravens djcrav...@hotmail.com wrote: E vs. temp was not done at the demo. However below are some typical (average) values from some old lab runs. I did not calibrate at the demo. I only showed that the sample was warmer than the control. That was the only point that was attempted there so there was no claim of amount of energy but it was around 4 watts. I did not want to confuse things and there was no time to calibrate. Just one sphere was hotter than its environment- that was it. The important point is that excess increases with temperature. You may want wait till the next issue of IE comes out to see some empirical models (Letts, in #112) for better data. Letts has fitted hundreds of data sets. temp C excess W 292 0.2 312 0.6 332 1.2 352 3.9 372 6.2 397 7.1 -- To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: [Vo]:Cravens report on NI Week demo From: dlrober...@aol.com Date: Fri, 20 Sep 2013 16:00:27 -0400 It is not clear how any form of energy gain is associated with this experiment. The demonstration appears to generate LENR energy, but the input function is not present. It would be educational to have a plot of energy generation versus temperature. Dave -Original Message- From: Jones Beene jone...@pacbell.net To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Fri, Sep 20, 2013 3:53 pm Subject: RE: [Vo]:Cravens report on NI Week demo -Original Message- From: Terry Blanton Jed Rothwell wrote: http://www.infinite-energy.com/images/pdfs/NIWeekCravens.pdf Such a simple, magnificent demonstration. Can you make me a charger for my Tesla car? Charming. Indeed it is - and understated since the hot sphere transfers heat to the bed and to the control - so the actual gain is more than it appears. ... hey, Terry - are you the proud owner of a Tesla (or just wishing you were)?
Re: [Vo]:Improved calibrations from Mizuno
Jack Cole jcol...@gmail.com wrote: But doesn't hydrogen/deuterium absorption by palladium/nickel produce heat? A tiny, TINY amount. There is only an itty-bitty amount of Ni (or Pd) in the whole cell. The excess heat in the last 7 experiments has ranged from 16 to 4,880 kJ, which far exceed the heat of absorption: Input, Output, Excess (kJ) 212, 301, 89 125, 141, 16 1,780, 2,970, 1190 2,390, 2,964, 574 393, 499, 106 3,370, 8,250, 4880 2,860, 3,180, 320 That's a range of 5 to 23 W excess, continuing 18 to 21 hours I think. That is, 2,390 kJ input = 2,390,000 J/31 W = 77,097 seconds, which is 21 hours if I haven't once again misplaced an order of magnitude. Any heat from absorption would be swamped by the heat from 1000 V AC glow discharge. It would be in the noise. There is a lot of hot plasma in there. You can see it in the photos here, taken through the window: http://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/MizunoTposterform.pdf That's only 31 W but the electrode goes up to ~170°C at that power level during calibration, and ~270°C with excess heat. The plasma is there most of the time, except during heat after death. He can goose H.A.D. by adding a little more hydrogen gas. The heat shows up immediately with a puff of gas, which it would not do from absorption. Anyway, the nanoparticles are saturated. I'm not saying this is not LENR. I'm trying to see if there are alternative explanations. The only alternative I can imagine would be a mistake caused by bad calorimetry. It was pretty bad until he sent me the latest calibrations. It is now moderately good. - Jed
RE: [Vo]:Cravens report on NI Week demo
Arent the temperatures below in K instead °C? Im pretty sure the water bath wasnt at 397°C neither 292°C _ From: DJ Cravens [mailto:djcrav...@hotmail.com] Sent: vendredi 20 septembre 2013 23:14 To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: RE: [Vo]:Cravens report on NI Week demo E vs. temp was not done at the demo. However below are some typical (average) values from some old lab runs. I did not calibrate at the demo. I only showed that the sample was warmer than the control. That was the only point that was attempted there so there was no claim of amount of energy but it was around 4 watts. I did not want to confuse things and there was no time to calibrate. Just one sphere was hotter than its environment- that was it. The important point is that excess increases with temperature. You may want wait till the next issue of IE comes out to see some empirical models (Letts, in #112) for better data. Letts has fitted hundreds of data sets. temp C excess W 292 0.2 312 0.6 332 1.2 352 3.9 372 6.2 397 7.1 _ To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: [Vo]:Cravens report on NI Week demo From: dlrober...@aol.com Date: Fri, 20 Sep 2013 16:00:27 -0400 It is not clear how any form of energy gain is associated with this experiment. The demonstration appears to generate LENR energy, but the input function is not present. It would be educational to have a plot of energy generation versus temperature. Dave -Original Message- From: Jones Beene jone...@pacbell.net To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Fri, Sep 20, 2013 3:53 pm Subject: RE: [Vo]:Cravens report on NI Week demo -Original Message- From: Terry Blanton Jed Rothwell wrote: http://www.infinite-energy.com/images/pdfs/NIWeekCravens.pdf Such a simple, magnificent demonstration. Can you make me a charger for my Tesla car? Charming. Indeed it is - and understated since the hot sphere transfers heat to the bed and to the control - so the actual gain is more than it appears. ... hey, Terry - are you the proud owner of a Tesla (or just wishing you were)?
RE: [Vo]:Cravens report on NI Week demo
E vs. temp was not done at the demo. However below are some typical (average) values from some old lab runs. I did not calibrate at the demo. I only showed that the sample was warmer than the control. That was the only point that was attempted there so there was no claim of amount of energy but it was around 4 watts. I did not want to confuse things and there was no time to calibrate. Just one sphere was hotter than its environment- that was it. The important point is that excess increases with temperature. You may want wait till the next issue of IE comes out to see some empirical models (Letts, in #112) for better data. Letts has fitted hundreds of data sets. temp C excess W 292 0.2 312 0.6 332 1.2 352 3.9 372 6.2 397 7.1 To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: [Vo]:Cravens report on NI Week demo From: dlrober...@aol.com Date: Fri, 20 Sep 2013 16:00:27 -0400 It is not clear how any form of energy gain is associated with this experiment. The demonstration appears to generate LENR energy, but the input function is not present. It would be educational to have a plot of energy generation versus temperature. Dave -Original Message- From: Jones Beene jone...@pacbell.net To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Fri, Sep 20, 2013 3:53 pm Subject: RE: [Vo]:Cravens report on NI Week demo -Original Message- From: Terry Blanton Jed Rothwell wrote: http://www.infinite-energy.com/images/pdfs/NIWeekCravens.pdf Such a simple, magnificent demonstration. Can you make me a charger for my Tesla car? Charming. Indeed it is - and understated since the hot sphere transfers heat to the bed and to the control - so the actual gain is more than it appears. ... hey, Terry - are you the proud owner of a Tesla (or just wishing you were)?
RE: [Vo]:Cravens report on NI Week demo
oops you are right K I convert them over as I was doing some kinetic fits. Sorry From: arnaud.kod...@lakoco.be To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: RE: [Vo]:Cravens report on NI Week demo Date: Fri, 20 Sep 2013 23:51:13 +0200 Aren’t the temperatures below in K instead °C? I’m pretty sure the water bath wasn’t at 397°C … neither 292°C From: DJ Cravens [mailto:djcrav...@hotmail.com] Sent: vendredi 20 septembre 2013 23:14 To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: RE: [Vo]:Cravens report on NI Week demo E vs. temp was not done at the demo. However below are some typical (average) values from some old lab runs. I did not calibrate at the demo. I only showed that the sample was warmer than the control. That was the only point that was attempted there so there was no claim of amount of energy but it was around 4 watts. I did not want to confuse things and there was no time to calibrate. Just one sphere was hotter than its environment- that was it. The important point is that excess increases with temperature. You may want wait till the next issue of IE comes out to see some empirical models (Letts, in #112) for better data. Letts has fitted hundreds of data sets. temp C excess W 292 0.2 312 0.6 332 1.2 352 3.9 372 6.2 397 7.1 To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: [Vo]:Cravens report on NI Week demo From: dlrober...@aol.com Date: Fri, 20 Sep 2013 16:00:27 -0400 It is not clear how any form of energy gain is associated with this experiment. The demonstration appears to generate LENR energy, but the input function is not present. It would be educational to have a plot of energy generation versus temperature. Dave -Original Message- From: Jones Beene jone...@pacbell.net To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Fri, Sep 20, 2013 3:53 pm Subject: RE: [Vo]:Cravens report on NI Week demo -Original Message-From: Terry Blanton Jed Rothwell wrote: http://www.infinite-energy.com/images/pdfs/NIWeekCravens.pdf Such a simple, magnificent demonstration. Can you make me a chargerfor my Tesla car? Charming. Indeed it is - and understated since the hot sphere transfers heat to thebed and to the control - so the actual gain is more than it appears. ... hey, Terry - are you the proud owner of a Tesla (or just wishing youwere)?
Re: [Vo]:Improved calibrations from Mizuno
In reply to Jed Rothwell's message of Fri, 20 Sep 2013 09:37:15 -0400: Hi, [snip] I wrote: He says he waits up to 138 hours per step to be sure the temperature is stable. That can't be right . . . Off by an order of magnitude! It is 14 hours per step. 13.8 ? - Jed Regards, Robin van Spaandonk http://rvanspaa.freehostia.com/project.html
[Vo]:Re: [Vo]:Cravens report on NI Week demo
Not yet. Just a quote from the IE article. Sent from my Verizon Wireless 4G LTE Fartphone - Reply message - From: Jones Beene jone...@pacbell.net To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: [Vo]:Cravens report on NI Week demo Date: Fri, Sep 20, 2013 3:53 PM -Original Message- From: Terry Blanton Jed Rothwell wrote: http://www.infinite-energy.com/images/pdfs/NIWeekCravens.pdf Such a simple, magnificent demonstration. Can you make me a charger for my Tesla car? Charming. Indeed it is - and understated since the hot sphere transfers heat to the bed and to the control - so the actual gain is more than it appears. ... hey, Terry - are you the proud owner of a Tesla (or just wishing you were)?
RE: [Vo]:Cravens report on NI Week demo
the costs is fairly significant.(pd, chemicals, specialized C...) The main cost is opportunity costs. It takes a LOT of time in material preparations that would detract me from my existing efforts which seem much more useful and practical. You get much better results at elevated temperatures with electrical stimulation. I will say that several people are attempting replication. I would say wait a while until the replications are completed. I have been at this long enough to know that a one off is not that significant. Replication is very important. However, I feel that is only good when done by independent third parties.It should be noted that the chemical preps are not easy and require some finesse and risk taking. Although, if someone is really interested, I would say just start with Case's material and then heat it-- being sure that there is a volume for convections, a temperature gradient across the material, and a non trivial B field. If you recall, the He-4 measures made at SRI was with commercially available Pd in C in a sphere having a thermal gradient. Measuring exact power levels is tricky with thermal gradients. You will want to read Letts' empirical model next month. Basically, the excess goes about exp. with temp and energy of vacancy of formation, a linear with mass, and B field. Again, I have made some material, but would not recommend the time, expense, and risk for someone just starting. Start with the commercial Pd/C materials (alfa aesar, 5%- replace water with D2O a few times) D2 Date: Fri, 20 Sep 2013 16:42:37 -0500 Subject: Re: [Vo]:Cravens report on NI Week demo From: jabow...@gmail.com To: vortex-l@eskimo.com How much does it cost to get the NI demo device duplicated? On Fri, Sep 20, 2013 at 4:14 PM, DJ Cravens djcrav...@hotmail.com wrote: E vs. temp was not done at the demo. However below are some typical (average) values from some old lab runs. I did not calibrate at the demo. I only showed that the sample was warmer than the control. That was the only point that was attempted there so there was no claim of amount of energy but it was around 4 watts. I did not want to confuse things and there was no time to calibrate. Just one sphere was hotter than its environment- that was it. The important point is that excess increases with temperature. You may want wait till the next issue of IE comes out to see some empirical models (Letts, in #112) for better data. Letts has fitted hundreds of data sets. temp C excess W 292 0.2 312 0.6 332 1.2 352 3.9 372 6.2 397 7.1 To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: [Vo]:Cravens report on NI Week demo From: dlrober...@aol.com Date: Fri, 20 Sep 2013 16:00:27 -0400 It is not clear how any form of energy gain is associated with this experiment. The demonstration appears to generate LENR energy, but the input function is not present. It would be educational to have a plot of energy generation versus temperature. Dave -Original Message- From: Jones Beene jone...@pacbell.net To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Fri, Sep 20, 2013 3:53 pm Subject: RE: [Vo]:Cravens report on NI Week demo -Original Message- From: Terry Blanton Jed Rothwell wrote: http://www.infinite-energy.com/images/pdfs/NIWeekCravens.pdf Such a simple, magnificent demonstration. Can you make me a charger for my Tesla car? Charming. Indeed it is - and understated since the hot sphere transfers heat to the bed and to the control - so the actual gain is more than it appears. ... hey, Terry - are you the proud owner of a Tesla (or just wishing you were)?
RE: [Vo]:Re: [Vo]:Cravens report on NI Week demo
the guy that said that was an owner of a Tesla and had billions. I have his card and he said call him when I have a charger. :) I wish. He said he wanted the first fusion car. I told him he could have the second one. :) I have one ready to just charge as soon as I start getting net electrical energy. I was excited and thought last year I was ready. But it now looks years away. D2 To: vortex-l@eskimo.com From: hohlr...@gmail.com Date: Fri, 20 Sep 2013 18:12:35 -0400 Subject: [Vo]:Re: [Vo]:Cravens report on NI Week demo Not yet. Just a quote from the IE article. Sent from my Verizon Wireless 4G LTE Fartphone - Reply message - From: Jones Beene jone...@pacbell.net To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: [Vo]:Cravens report on NI Week demo Date: Fri, Sep 20, 2013 3:53 PM -Original Message- From: Terry Blanton Jed Rothwell wrote: http://www.infinite-energy.com/images/pdfs/NIWeekCravens.pdf Such a simple, magnificent demonstration. Can you make me a charger for my Tesla car? Charming. Indeed it is - and understated since the hot sphere transfers heat to the bed and to the control - so the actual gain is more than it appears. ... hey, Terry - are you the proud owner of a Tesla (or just wishing you were)?
Re: [Vo]:Cravens report on NI Week demo
Thanks for clearing that up. I was wondering how to compare this list of numbers with the observation at the conference. This result makes me curious as to whether or not the device reaches thermal run away at some drive temperature. Perhaps the components you have chosen tend to fall apart before the required drive temperature is achieved. This demonstration should make an impact upon those who witness it provided they believe that it runs for the extended time you mention. Is there any chance that you can construct one that hold together thermally until run away begins? I suspect that the magnetic source powder would fail before that temperature is reached. In that case, would a large external field perform the required task? Dave -Original Message- From: DJ Cravens djcrav...@hotmail.com To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Fri, Sep 20, 2013 5:55 pm Subject: RE: [Vo]:Cravens report on NI Week demo oops you are right K I convert them over as I was doing some kinetic fits. Sorry From: arnaud.kod...@lakoco.be To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: RE: [Vo]:Cravens report on NI Week demo Date: Fri, 20 Sep 2013 23:51:13 +0200 Aren’t thetemperatures below in K instead °C? I’m pretty sure the water bath wasn’tat 397°C … neither 292°C From:DJ Cravens [mailto:djcrav...@hotmail.com] Sent: vendredi 20 septembre 201323:14 To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: RE: [Vo]:Cravens reporton NI Week demo E vs. temp was not done at thedemo. However below are some typical (average) values from some old lab runs. I did not calibrate at the demo. I only showed that thesample was warmer than the control. That was the only point that was attemptedthere so there was no claim of amount of energy but it was around 4watts. I did not want to confuse things and there was no time tocalibrate. Just one sphere was hotter than its environment- that was it. The important point is that excess increases with temperature. You may want wait till the next issue of IE comes out to see someempirical models (Letts, in #112) for better data. Letts has fittedhundreds of data sets. temp C excess W 292 0.2 312 0.6 332 1.2 352 3.9 372 6.2 397 7.1 To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: [Vo]:Cravens report on NI Week demo From: dlrober...@aol.com Date: Fri, 20 Sep 2013 16:00:27 -0400 It isnot clear how any form of energy gain is associated with thisexperiment. The demonstration appears to generate LENR energy,but the input function is not present. It would be educational to have aplot of energy generation versus temperature. Dave -OriginalMessage- From: Jones Beene jone...@pacbell.net To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Fri, Sep 20, 2013 3:53 pm Subject: RE: [Vo]:Cravens report on NI Week demo -Original Message- From: Terry Blanton Jed Rothwell wrote: http://www.infinite-energy.com/images/pdfs/NIWeekCravens.pdf Such a simple, magnificent demonstration. Can you make me a charger for my Tesla car? Charming. Indeed it is - and understated since the hot sphere transfers heat to the bed and to the control - so the actual gain is more than it appears. ... hey, Terry - are you the proud owner of a Tesla (or just wishing you were)?
RE: [Vo]:Cravens report on NI Week demo
again, watch for Lett's IE article next month. There is a least that model that helps suggests some operational conditions. ..heat and alloying to drop that energy of vacancy of formation are the keys. D2 To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: [Vo]:Cravens report on NI Week demo From: dlrober...@aol.com Date: Fri, 20 Sep 2013 18:32:11 -0400 I agree Jed. My comment was made to point out that the energy is being produced internally as a result of elevated temperature. This is an ideal indication of LENR activity. No input as such is required! Of course, the best possible proof to those who fail to listen would be to witness a thermal run away with no wires attached. I have begged Rossi to produce a curve of energy generated versus temperature applied to his material to no avail. With that type of information one can begin to actually engineer a device that functions on demand provided the material is not too inconsistent. The process reminds me of the work that was done during WWII toward determining the amount of material needed for a critical mass. In this case it would be the critical mass required to reach thermal run away under controlled conditions. Dave
Re: [Vo]:Cravens report on NI Week demo
On Fri, Sep 20, 2013 at 3:32 PM, David Roberson dlrober...@aol.com wrote: I have begged Rossi to produce a curve of energy generated versus temperature applied to his material to no avail. With that type of information one can begin to actually engineer a device that functions on demand provided the material is not too inconsistent. Btw, I've come to the working hypothesis that Rossi really does have a catalyst (just as he has always claimed). The catalyst in this instance would either be heat activated or possibly activated from electrical stimulation (I assume there is not much difference in the resulting behavior). When the catalyst kicks in, at the right threshold or level of electrical stimulation, one would see more of an heat effect. I suppose this might or might not be accompanied with runaway, but the two are not necessarily the same -- increased activity, on one hand, and runaway, above and beyond such an increase, on the other. It would be interesting to see the results of your model with the effect of a catalyst added in. I assume in Rossi's case the catalyst is temperature activated (e.g., a thermionic beta emitter). Eric
Re: [Vo]:Cravens report on NI Week demo
On Fri, Sep 20, 2013 at 2:04 PM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com wrote: See: http://www.infinite-energy.com/images/pdfs/NIWeekCravens.pdf Such a simple, magnificent demonstration. Can you make me a charger for my Tesla car? Charming.
RE: [Vo]:Cravens report on NI Week demo
I was using Sm Co based magnetic powder. Curie point around 700C but it is only useable up to about 250C. (I expect some degradation of the material in hot H/D gas. Remember the old parking lot demo at ICCF-4 with the Samarium cobalt? I can't remember the couple's name at the moment. I am not sure about the thermal runaway. I have never been over 150C with it. (limits of my calorimeter and plastic parts). I would think that the Al bead bath would be a fairly good heat sink. Remember the transfer to the sink goes up with temp differentials. One of the replicators has made their own hot bead bath and will be trying at elevated temperatures. My first inclination was to submerge the whole thing into aerogel and a dewar. But, as Les Case found out, you have to have a thermal gradient or you have to circulate the gas through the powder or, as I am doing now, use some external stimulation for non-equilibrium hydrogen/deuterium. I am seeing a better results with a little D in with the H for Ni systems. D2 To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: [Vo]:Cravens report on NI Week demo From: dlrober...@aol.com Date: Fri, 20 Sep 2013 18:19:13 -0400 Thanks for clearing that up. I was wondering how to compare this list of numbers with the observation at the conference. This result makes me curious as to whether or not the device reaches thermal run away at some drive temperature. Perhaps the components you have chosen tend to fall apart before the required drive temperature is achieved. This demonstration should make an impact upon those who witness it provided they believe that it runs for the extended time you mention. Is there any chance that you can construct one that hold together thermally until run away begins? I suspect that the magnetic source powder would fail before that temperature is reached. In that case, would a large external field perform the required task? Dave -Original Message- From: DJ Cravens djcrav...@hotmail.com To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Fri, Sep 20, 2013 5:55 pm Subject: RE: [Vo]:Cravens report on NI Week demo oops you are right K I convert them over as I was doing some kinetic fits. Sorry From: arnaud.kod...@lakoco.be To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: RE: [Vo]:Cravens report on NI Week demo Date: Fri, 20 Sep 2013 23:51:13 +0200 Aren’t the temperatures below in K instead °C? I’m pretty sure the water bath wasn’t at 397°C … neither 292°C From: DJ Cravens [mailto:djcrav...@hotmail.com] Sent: vendredi 20 septembre 2013 23:14 To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: RE: [Vo]:Cravens report on NI Week demo E vs. temp was not done at the demo. However below are some typical (average) values from some old lab runs. I did not calibrate at the demo. I only showed that the sample was warmer than the control. That was the only point that was attempted there so there was no claim of amount of energy but it was around 4 watts. I did not want to confuse things and there was no time to calibrate. Just one sphere was hotter than its environment- that was it. The important point is that excess increases with temperature. You may want wait till the next issue of IE comes out to see some empirical models (Letts, in #112) for better data. Letts has fitted hundreds of data sets. temp C excess W 292 0.2 312 0.6 332 1.2 352 3.9 372 6.2 397 7.1 To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: [Vo]:Cravens report on NI Week demo From: dlrober...@aol.com Date: Fri, 20 Sep 2013 16:00:27 -0400 It is not clear how any form of energy gain is associated with this experiment. The demonstration appears to generate LENR energy, but the input function is not present. It would be educational to have a plot of energy generation versus temperature. Dave -Original Message- From: Jones Beene jone...@pacbell.net To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Fri, Sep 20, 2013 3:53 pm Subject: RE: [Vo]:Cravens report on NI Week demo -Original Message-From: Terry Blanton Jed Rothwell wrote: http://www.infinite-energy.com/images/pdfs/NIWeekCravens.pdf Such a simple, magnificent demonstration. Can you make me a chargerfor my Tesla car? Charming. Indeed it is - and understated since the hot sphere transfers heat to thebed and to the control - so the actual gain is more than it appears. ... hey, Terry - are you the proud owner of a Tesla (or just wishing youwere)?
Re: [Vo]:Cravens report on NI Week demo
I agree Jed. My comment was made to point out that the energy is being produced internally as a result of elevated temperature. This is an ideal indication of LENR activity. No input as such is required! Of course, the best possible proof to those who fail to listen would be to witness a thermal run away with no wires attached. I have begged Rossi to produce a curve of energy generated versus temperature applied to his material to no avail. With that type of information one can begin to actually engineer a device that functions on demand provided the material is not too inconsistent. The process reminds me of the work that was done during WWII toward determining the amount of material needed for a critical mass. In this case it would be the critical mass required to reach thermal run away under controlled conditions. Dave -Original Message- From: Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Fri, Sep 20, 2013 6:18 pm Subject: Re: [Vo]:Cravens report on NI Week demo David Roberson dlrober...@aol.com wrote: It is not clear how any form of energy gain is associated with this experiment. The demonstration appears to generate LENR energy, but the input function is not present. That's 'cause there is no input! It is all heat after death (as we call it). It resembles Arata's first experiments with Zr-Ni. Cravens does have to heat up the whole environment, presumably because Ni does not absorb H at lower temperatures, but he heats up the blank in the same environment, to the same extent, so this is the local ambient temperature. There is no extra heat or stimulation going into the cold fusion cell. It is a splendid demonstration. One of the best in the history of the field. It is a lot better than Dennis himself realizes, I think. He told me he sees little difference between this and some of the other leading experiments. I pointed out some crucial differences: 1. This is heat after death; no input. Like Arata, as I said, only way better calorimetry. 2. The heat is stable. That's important! 3. It uses cheap, widely available materials, like Rossi. 4. It appears to be reproducible. I hope it is. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:Improved calibrations from Mizuno
mix...@bigpond.com wrote: Off by an order of magnitude! It is 14 hours per step. 13.8 ? Give or take. I have only seen one graph of a calibration step, but I doubt he comes flying into the lab at 3 a.m. to stop it at 13.8 hours exactly. To do a calibration, you step up the power in the morning, and again in the evening before you go home, increasing about 5 W each time. I would recommend you also drop back from 50 W to 25 W or so to make sure nothing has changed. You collect all the data and throw away the first few hours after each step up. You average from hour 3 to 18 (I guess -- eyeballing this sample). If it is working, you end up with a fairly straight line that starts at the origin, 0,0. It bends slightly down at higher temperatures. Do it wrong and the line intercepts at a positive or negative place and it wavers around, or it bends the wrong way. The first calibration data Mizuno sent me did that. I said, what gives?!? and after a few days he said, Oops, I just realized the sensor on the outside of the cell is loose. Disregard that data. He calibrated with a vacuum and with different gases at different pressures, as shown in Fig. 22. The temperature at the center of the cell, where the electrode is located, varied only a little under these different conditions. That is surprising. The temperature on the outside cell wall did not vary with gas pressure or the type of gas, as you would expect. Look closely at the papers at LENR-CANR and you will find some odd calorimetry. I once saw a lavishly funded project with a calibration curve that intercepted at plus several watts, meaning they have a perpetual motion machine. Not really. It means they didn't notice it wasn't working. If you can't even do that . . . You can't do cold fusion. (I do not think that was published.) One of the people who tried to replicate Celani after ICCF17 calibrated from A to B with a wire, and then ran the same wire from B to C (at a higher temperature range). Nope, sorry, that does not work either. Who would think to do that?!? - Jed
Re: [Vo]:Cravens report on NI Week demo
David Roberson dlrober...@aol.com wrote: It is not clear how any form of energy gain is associated with this experiment. The demonstration appears to generate LENR energy, but the input function is not present. That's 'cause there is no input! It is all heat after death (as we call it). It resembles Arata's first experiments with Zr-Ni. Cravens does have to heat up the whole environment, presumably because Ni does not absorb H at lower temperatures, but he heats up the blank in the same environment, to the same extent, so this is the local ambient temperature. There is no extra heat or stimulation going into the cold fusion cell. It is a splendid demonstration. One of the best in the history of the field. It is a lot better than Dennis himself realizes, I think. He told me he sees little difference between this and some of the other leading experiments. I pointed out some crucial differences: 1. This is heat after death; no input. Like Arata, as I said, only way better calorimetry. 2. The heat is stable. That's important! 3. It uses cheap, widely available materials, like Rossi. 4. It appears to be reproducible. I hope it is. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:Cravens report on NI Week demo
The point about the heat transfer into the beads increasing with temperature differential is well taken. Also, as you say, the beads offer an excellent sink for any energy being internally generated and flowing through the surface area of the spheres. The net result is that the sphere looks outwards and sees a thermal resistance into which it delivers its power. My model of Rossi's ECAT suggests that the instantaneous slope of temperature rise as a function of power exiting the device is one of the key factors that determines when thermal run away begins. This is another way to describe the thermal resistance facing the device. The other factor is the instantaneous slope of power generated by the device material as a function of the temperature applied to that material. When the product of these factors becomes greater than unity thermal run away can begin to occur. This is the point where positive feedback begins to dominate the behavior. You can manipulate either of these factors to achieve an unstable operating point. Your thoughts about putting the sphere within an insulating gel appears to be sound. I guess the main question is what happens as the device heats up. Does the magnetic effect of the Sm Co get wiped out by the rising temperature? When this occurs, does the heat generating mechanism cease, causing the system to cool? Something of this nature might escape observation if it happens quickly. I don't understand why the gas needs to be circulating yet, but apparently convection alone might not be adequate. Is there reason to believe that this movement extracts used gas molecules away from the metal surface allowing fresh input? Or, do you suspect that this movement is required to take away heat from the reaction sites? I am fascinated to hear that you have several replication attempts being conducted. It should be obvious to anyone that LENR is at work in your design when the behavior continues for a long time period and this might be the demonstration we have been waiting for. Even the most profound skeptic would have a difficult time explaining how you must be cheating. Of course, they can always suggest that some RF generator is driving the sphere from afar. I suppose that someone with a tightly closed mind can always propose a method of some nature. Dave -Original Message- From: DJ Cravens djcrav...@hotmail.com To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Fri, Sep 20, 2013 6:34 pm Subject: RE: [Vo]:Cravens report on NI Week demo I was using Sm Co based magnetic powder. Curie point around 700C but it is only useable up to about 250C. (I expect some degradation of the material in hot H/D gas. Remember the old parking lot demo at ICCF-4 with the Samarium cobalt? I can't remember the couple's name at the moment. I am not sure about the thermal runaway. I have never been over 150C with it. (limits of my calorimeter and plastic parts). I would think that the Al bead bath would be a fairly good heat sink. Remember the transfer to the sink goes up with temp differentials. One of the replicators has made their own hot bead bath and will be trying at elevated temperatures. My first inclination was to submerge the whole thing into aerogel and a dewar. But, as Les Case found out, you have to have a thermal gradient or you have to circulate the gas through the powder or, as I am doing now, use some external stimulation for non-equilibrium hydrogen/deuterium. I am seeing a better results with a little D in with the H for Ni systems. D2 To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: [Vo]:Cravens report on NI Week demo From: dlrober...@aol.com Date: Fri, 20 Sep 2013 18:19:13 -0400 Thanks for clearing that up. I was wondering how to compare this list of numbers with the observation at the conference. This result makes me curious as to whether or not the device reaches thermal run away at some drive temperature. Perhaps the components you have chosen tend to fall apart before the required drive temperature is achieved. This demonstration should make an impact upon those who witness it provided they believe that it runs for the extended time you mention. Is there any chance that you can construct one that hold together thermally until run away begins? I suspect that the magnetic source powder would fail before that temperature is reached. In that case, would a large external field perform the required task? Dave -Original Message- From: DJ Cravens djcrav...@hotmail.com To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Fri, Sep 20, 2013 5:55 pm Subject: RE: [Vo]:Cravens report on NI Week demo oops you are right K I convert them over as I was doing some kinetic fits. Sorry From: arnaud.kod...@lakoco.be To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: RE: [Vo]:Cravens report on NI Week demo Date: Fri, 20 Sep 2013 23:51:13 +0200 Aren’t thetemperatures below in K instead °C? I’m pretty sure the water bath
Re: [Vo]:Cravens report on NI Week demo
Eric, Rossi has done an excellent job of hiding the details of his catalyst. The facts will come out before long if production begins in earnest on his system. Do you have any idea what function is performed by his catalyst? My first thoughts are that it facilitates the breaking up of the hydrogen molecules into individual atoms somewhat like what happens when a spark passes though the low energy gas. This is just a guess since DGT appears to achieve the same goal with their system. Dave -Original Message- From: Eric Walker eric.wal...@gmail.com To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Fri, Sep 20, 2013 6:39 pm Subject: Re: [Vo]:Cravens report on NI Week demo On Fri, Sep 20, 2013 at 3:32 PM, David Roberson dlrober...@aol.com wrote: I have begged Rossi to produce a curve of energy generated versus temperature applied to his material to no avail. With that type of information one can begin to actually engineer a device that functions on demand provided the material is not too inconsistent. Btw, I've come to the working hypothesis that Rossi really does have a catalyst (just as he has always claimed). The catalyst in this instance would either be heat activated or possibly activated from electrical stimulation (I assume there is not much difference in the resulting behavior). When the catalyst kicks in, at the right threshold or level of electrical stimulation, one would see more of an heat effect. I suppose this might or might not be accompanied with runaway, but the two are not necessarily the same -- increased activity, on one hand, and runaway, above and beyond such an increase, on the other. It would be interesting to see the results of your model with the effect of a catalyst added in. I assume in Rossi's case the catalyst is temperature activated (e.g., a thermionic beta emitter). Eric
Re: [Vo]:Cravens report on NI Week demo
On Fri, Sep 20, 2013 at 5:41 PM, David Roberson dlrober...@aol.com wrote: Do you have any idea what function is performed by his catalyst? I can only guess. My guess at this point is that a beta emitter is involved here. Perhaps it is stimulating rydberg states in the hydrogen, or perhaps it is altering the electron charge density in the nickel lattice, or perhaps both things are going on. Whatever it is, I assume it increases the rate of p+d tunneling by many orders of magnitude. The resulting highly unstable [pd]* intermediate state decays by dumping its energy directly into the electronic structure of the metal rather than yielding a gamma. This heats up the electronic structure by about 5 MeV in this case, which might or might not back into the reaction. The 3He that is born would be nearly motionless. A few weeks ago I wrote up a short discussion that goes into greater detail here: http://rolling-balance.blogspot.com/2013/08/lenr-and-thermionic-emission.html My first thoughts are that it facilitates the breaking up of the hydrogen molecules into individual atoms somewhat like what happens when a spark passes though the low energy gas. This is just a guess since DGT appears to achieve the same goal with their system. I wouldn't be surprised if whatever is going on facilitates dissociation. Note that hydrogen dissociation occurs in connection with an increase in the surrounding charge density, as the molecular hydrogen migrates into the metal. About DGT's sparks -- my working assumption is that these are to stimulate the catalyst, perhaps directly or perhaps through heat (I suspect they are using a catalyst similar in nature to Rossi's). Eric
[Vo]:Re: CMNS: Abd's comments to my Synthesis paper
OK, dear Abd, you are more idealist than me. I think to understand and to be able to apply in practice are stages of knowledge. Nature has no problems just solutions. We have problems and it is our duty to work out solutions for them. It is very bad (ineffective inefficient- see Peter Drucker for the difference when somebody tries too hard to *apply the same Solution to all problems.* On Sat, Sep 21, 2013 at 12:04 AM, Abd ul-Rahman Lomax a...@lomaxdesign.comwrote: At 03:21 AM 9/20/2013, Peter Gluck wrote: I am pleased to publish: http://egooutpeters.blogspot.**ro/2013/09/abds-comments-to-** my-paper-everything-i.htmlhttp://egooutpeters.blogspot.ro/2013/09/abds-comments-to-my-paper-everything-i.html htt**p://egooutpeters.blogspot.ro/**2013/09/abds-comments-to-my-** paper-everything-i.htmlhttp://egooutpeters.blogspot.ro/2013/09/abds-comments-to-my-paper-everything-i.html It is fine, a CFauthorithy takes my paper seriously; together we will discover the truth (first priority for Abd) and the solution (my primary aim) Well, I don't consider Truth and Solution as being distinct. Solutions are real, or they aren't solutions. The real truth is Reality, not our ideas about it. As to CF authority, I'm new to the field, compared to Peter. However, I have the detachment of a wide-eyed child, that allows me to be quick in certain ways. I have declared Fun! for now and for the rest of my life, a fun that is independent of conditions. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups CMNS group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to cmns+unsubscribe@googlegroups.**comcmns%2bunsubscr...@googlegroups.com . To post to this group, send email to c...@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/**group/cmnshttp://groups.google.com/group/cmns . For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/**groups/opt_outhttps://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out . -- Dr. Peter Gluck Cluj, Romania http://egooutpeters.blogspot.com
