Re: [Vo]:from Rossi's blog

[David Roberson]

The discussion by Rossi of powering the device for 1/4 of the time during which 
the COP is greater than 1 and then letting it run in a self sustaining mode for 
the other 3/4 of the time is fairly consistent with my heat controlled model.  
He has maintained this position for a couple of years now so I believe it is 
true.  He needs a duty cycle of this sort in order to obtain an overall COP of 
6 +.  This is also evidence that he is pushing the device fairly close to the 
thermal run away region which is necessary for the high COP performance.

Dave

 

 

 

-Original Message-
From: Jed Rothwell 
To: vortex-l 
Sent: Fri, Dec 27, 2013 8:19 pm
Subject: Re: [Vo]:from Rossi's blog



James Bowery  wrote:


What is the time one might expect for the "necessary safety certifications" of 
"domestic appliances"?  It has been 2 years since the October, 2011 1MW 
demonstration which ganged up a bunch of "appliance"-scale devices.



That was in Italy. I believe he means there are certifications approved in the 
U.S. Two years to accomplish this would be lightning fast, for a device as 
radical as this. Frankly, I can't imagine how it could be done. Maybe the 
people testing it do not think it is a nuclear device?


I think the approvals are only for industrial users, not for home use. I 
believe safety standards for consumer-level appliances are more demanding than 
for industry. I mean that many machines in factories are dangerous, and would 
not be allowed in houses. In industry you assume that trained experts will 
operate the equipment.


This device is far different from the modules of the 1 MW reactor. It would 
have to be re-certified from scratch, I am sure.


I have some doubts about Rossi's claims relating to business, but his previous 
technical claims were confirmed by ELFORSK. I expect his present technical 
claims will also be confirmed, such as the surface temperature of 1,100°C and 
40% Carnot efficiency.


I have heard that he really is working with a major U.S. corporation. It sounds 
like it is going well. This is excellent news.


- Jed

[Vo]:Lattice Energy - Nagaokas 1920s Gold Experiments

[pagnucco]

New presentation on past reports of transmutations

Lattice Energy LLC - Mystery of Nagaokas 1920s Gold Experiments
- Why Did Work Stop by 1930 - Dec 27 2013

http://lide.com/www.slideshare.net/lewisglarsen/lattice-energy-llc-mystery-of-nagaokas-1920s-gold-experiments-why-did-work-stop-by-1930-dec-27-2013

[Vo]:Improving fuel economy up to 40-100%

[Axil Axil]

NASA Glenn develops automated flywheel pulse-and-glide system; improving
fuel economy up to 40-100%

http://www.greencarcongress.com/2013/12/20131227-glenn.html


I wonder how the oil industry will try to undercut this technology?

[Vo]:my next project another book

[fznidarsic]

I learned how to write books in order to bypass journal editors.  Now, with 
this knowledge,  I am writing books in other fields.  I hope to sell a few.  
The introduction to my next book, of course, it is technical.


Do you already know how to build client side HTML webpages?  You have never 
built a dynamicXML web page and you have never written a server side Perl 
script.  If you have a little computer experience andyou would like to quickly 
learn to program in XML and in Perl;  this project is for you!  Upon the 
completion of the project, you willhave built your own Blog.
The project teaches you how to build a HTML table.  This table transmits its 
data to a serverside Perl script.  You will construct thePerl script that 
decodes the form data and saves in a file at the server.  The Perl script then 
automatically constructsan XML data file.  This XML fileencapsulates your data 
into a form that that can be displayed within your webpage.  Finally, a Java 
Script within yourHTML web page decodes the XML file and embeds the data in a 
table.  Many examples and explanations areprovided.  This background 
information isdesigned to instruct and to give you a feel for programming 
techniques that arebeyond the scope of this project.
The project requires that you have access to aweb hosting service that provides 
access to a CGI gateway and that allows forthe building of Perl scripts.  
Manyhosting services do this for a small fee. I use Angelfire.  It costs 
about$5 a month and it has worked well for me.

Re: [Vo]:from Rossi's blog

[Jed Rothwell]

James Bowery  wrote:

>
> So paraphrasing your answer to my question:
>
> If the certifying institution (say UL) is "aware" that they are dealing
> with a nuclear device, 2 years would be "lightning fast".  Even if they
> treated it as an ordinary water boiler (operating around 100C as were the
> modules in the 1MW plant) 2 years would be "fast".
>

Yes. It is just my opinion that a nuclear device would take much longer.

I have heard that certification for any boiler takes a long time. I assume
that a boiler based on an unknown aneutronic nuclear reaction would take
even longer. Frankly, if I were a regulator, I would not pass it no matter
what. I would insist that just about every major nuclear research
laboratory in the world should first spend a year or two investigating it
intensely, and that meetings of thousands of experts should be held to
confirm that it is nuclear and that it causes no harm.

I think it is crazy to waltz ahead putting these things into a few
factories now, without first getting world-wide confirmation that the
reaction causes no harm. Celani measured a burst of intense radiation from
an earlier Rossi reactor. What if that starts happening again after a few
thousand are installed? What if it kills people? That would be a disaster
for cold fusion and -- by extension -- for the future of the world.

When x-rays were first discovered, Edison and others used them freely,
without checking for harm. Some poor man was shot. They used so many x-rays
to look for the bullet, they killed him. When you have something totally
new and unknown to science, the prudent thing to do is to investigate it
thoroughly, and to subject lab rats and other species to the reaction for
millions of hours before using it for practical applications.

- Jed

Re: [Vo]: Collective Phenomena

[mixent]

In reply to  Eric Walker's message of Sat, 21 Dec 2013 08:28:54 -0800:
Hi,
[snip]
>This sounds a little like a rogue wave phenomenon [1]; Jones mentioned
>something similar sometime back [2].  I'm personally guessing the planets
>in the simulation are being ejected because of a gradual floating point
>error (I think James Bowery alluded to this) or just insufficiently
>sophisticated handling of the startup of the system.
>

Things do occasionally get ejected from the Oort cloud.

Regards,

Robin van Spaandonk

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

Re: [Vo]:from Rossi's blog

[James Bowery]

Right my question was specifically about consumer-level "appliances" of
course.

So paraphrasing your answer to my question:

If the certifying institution (say UL) is "aware" that they are dealing
with a nuclear device, 2 years would be "lightning fast".  Even if they
treated it as an ordinary water boiler (operating around 100C as were the
modules in the 1MW plant) 2 years would be "fast".

I pretty much suspected this when I asked my question and it is only
partially an answer to my question since I was not asserting that the
device should have been certified within 2 years.




On Fri, Dec 27, 2013 at 3:46 PM, Jed Rothwell  wrote:

> I wrote:
>
>
>> I think the approvals are only for industrial users, not for home use. I
>> believe safety standards for consumer-level appliances are more demanding
>> than for industry. . .  In industry you assume that trained experts will
>> operate the equipment.
>>
>
> That is what Rossi said in the message. I believe it is correct.
>
> - Jed
>
>

Re: [Vo]:from Rossi's blog

[Jed Rothwell]

I wrote:


> I think the approvals are only for industrial users, not for home use. I
> believe safety standards for consumer-level appliances are more demanding
> than for industry. . .  In industry you assume that trained experts will
> operate the equipment.
>

That is what Rossi said in the message. I believe it is correct.

- Jed

Re: [Vo]:from Rossi's blog

[Jed Rothwell]

James Bowery  wrote:

What is the time one might expect for the "necessary safety certifications"
> of "domestic appliances"?  It has been 2 years since the October, 2011 1MW
> demonstration which ganged up a bunch of "appliance"-scale devices.
>

That was in Italy. I believe he means there are certifications approved in
the U.S. Two years to accomplish this would be lightning fast, for a device
as radical as this. Frankly, I can't imagine how it could be done. Maybe
the people testing it do not think it is a nuclear device?

I think the approvals are only for industrial users, not for home use. I
believe safety standards for consumer-level appliances are more demanding
than for industry. I mean that many machines in factories are dangerous,
and would not be allowed in houses. In industry you assume that trained
experts will operate the equipment.

This device is far different from the modules of the 1 MW reactor. It would
have to be re-certified from scratch, I am sure.

I have some doubts about Rossi's claims relating to business, but his
previous technical claims were confirmed by ELFORSK. I expect his present
technical claims will also be confirmed, such as the surface temperature of
1,100°C and 40% Carnot efficiency.

I have heard that he really is working with a major U.S. corporation. It
sounds like it is going well. This is excellent news.

- Jed

Re: [Vo]:from Rossi's blog

[James Bowery]

What is the time one might expect for the "necessary safety certifications"
of "domestic appliances"?  It has been 2 years since the October, 2011 1MW
demonstration which ganged up a bunch of "appliance"-scale devices.


On Fri, Dec 27, 2013 at 11:59 AM, H Veeder  wrote:

> Andrea Rossi
> December 26th, 2013 at 8:41 
> PM
>
> Steven N. Karels:
> Your comment has been erroneously spammed ( my fault, I am very tired and
> stressed, and I pushed the wrong botton) but here are the answers to your
> questions, which I remember:
> 1- within March 2014 I think will be completed the first part of the long
> term validation and the results will be published positive or negative as
> they might be.
> 2- we are aiming to obtain at least 3/4 of the time of operation in self
> sustained mode and the remaining 1/4 with a COP>1, so that the energy
> produced will be more than the energy consumed also during the periods with
> the drive on.
> 3- we are working now permanently at temperature (on the surface of the
> heat exchanging surface) that will allow an efficiency of 40% with the
> Carnot cycle. In these very days ( also during Christmas) the Hot Cat is
> working in our USA factory with a temperature upon the external surface,
> before cooling, around 1 000 °C. Enormous progress has been made in these
> months working with the Team of our US Partner. Here I found materials,
> expertise, professonality and, mainly, a moving trust in me that makes me
> feel extremely indebted. These factors are generating a strong force, with
> interesting results.
> 4- the publication of the theory behind the so called Rossi Effect I think
> will be published in 2014, but this is not a guarantee, because many are
> the factors this decision will depend from
> 5- the industrial plants are already for sale, because they have already
> obtained the safety certification, being operated by certified operators,
> while the domestic appliances, which will be operated by anybody, will need
> time to obtain the necessary safety certifications.
> Please say hello to my beloved New Hampshire, where my US work has been
> started in 1996….
> Warm Regards,
> A.R.
>

Re: [Vo]:from Rossi's blog

[Jed Rothwell]

This is pretty good.

I think item 1 refers to the long duration ELFORSK test. I asked Rossi to
confirm this.

- Jed

Re: [Vo]:Toyota Replicates Mitsubishi LENR Transmutation Experiment

[pagnucco]

Pardon if this was already posted, but did the presentation include more
details than revealed in his recent patent application below?

Excess enthalpy upon pressurization of dispersed palladium with hydrogen
or deuterium  -  US 20130316897 A1

Abstract

Disclosed herein is a method for producing excess enthalpy by (a) either
dispersing atomic metal ions or clusters on a support and reacting the
metal ions with a chelating ligand or dispersing chelated atomic metal
ions on a support and (b) pressurizing with hydrogen or deuterium to
reduce the metal ion to a metal atom resulting in the growth of dispersed
metal particles less than 2 nm in diameter on the support. During the
particle growth, there is a growth period during which a critical particle
size is reached and excess enthalpy is produced. The growth period is
typically several days long.

https://www.google.com/patents/US20130316897

Ruby wrote:
> Cold Fusion Now took video of Kidwell's presentation at ICF-18, but we
> did not get permission to upload publicly.  He did not want his picture
> taken at all.  I complied with his wishes.
> [...]

Re: [Vo]:Toyota Replicates Mitsubishi LENR Transmutation Experiment

[James Bowery]

At this point there needs to be a detailed account of what Kidwell mean't
by "lucky tweezers".


On Fri, Dec 27, 2013 at 12:58 PM, Ruby  wrote:

>
> Cold Fusion Now took video of Kidwell's presentation at ICF-18, but we did
> not get permission to upload publicly.  He did not want his picture taken
> at all.  I complied with his wishes.
>
> After his talk, Iwamura, and others, vociferously answered Kidwell's
> claims, and stood by their results.  Kidwell was disparaging of most
> results found in the field, from early on till the present (even nagging
> them about particulars in the elevator!).
>
> While his message of careful data acquisition is important, Kidwell's
> mistrust of competent and talented scientists in the field could be called
> zealotry, though some diplomatically call it a "conversation":
>
> Iwamura at ICCF-18 "Recent Advances "
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nYGZ5EwiqRw
>
>
>
> On 12/26/13 1:50 PM, James Bowery wrote:
>
>> That is a slide presentation.  It would be helpful if there were a video
>> with the audio narrative.
>>
>
> --
> Ruby Carat
> r...@coldfusionnow.org
> Skype ruby-carat
> www.coldfusionnow.org
>
>
>

Re: [Vo]:Toyota Replicates Mitsubishi LENR Transmutation Experiment

[Ruby]

Cold Fusion Now took video of Kidwell's presentation at ICF-18, but we 
did not get permission to upload publicly.  He did not want his picture 
taken at all.  I complied with his wishes.


After his talk, Iwamura, and others, vociferously answered Kidwell's 
claims, and stood by their results.  Kidwell was disparaging of most 
results found in the field, from early on till the present (even nagging 
them about particulars in the elevator!).


While his message of careful data acquisition is important, Kidwell's 
mistrust of competent and talented scientists in the field could be 
called zealotry, though some diplomatically call it a "conversation":


Iwamura at ICCF-18 "Recent Advances "
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nYGZ5EwiqRw


On 12/26/13 1:50 PM, James Bowery wrote:
That is a slide presentation.  It would be helpful if there were a 
video with the audio narrative.


--
Ruby Carat
r...@coldfusionnow.org
Skype ruby-carat
www.coldfusionnow.org

[Vo]:from Rossi's blog

[H Veeder]

Andrea Rossi
December 26th, 2013 at 8:41
PM

Steven N. Karels:
Your comment has been erroneously spammed ( my fault, I am very tired and
stressed, and I pushed the wrong botton) but here are the answers to your
questions, which I remember:
1- within March 2014 I think will be completed the first part of the long
term validation and the results will be published positive or negative as
they might be.
2- we are aiming to obtain at least 3/4 of the time of operation in self
sustained mode and the remaining 1/4 with a COP>1, so that the energy
produced will be more than the energy consumed also during the periods with
the drive on.
3- we are working now permanently at temperature (on the surface of the
heat exchanging surface) that will allow an efficiency of 40% with the
Carnot cycle. In these very days ( also during Christmas) the Hot Cat is
working in our USA factory with a temperature upon the external surface,
before cooling, around 1 000 °C. Enormous progress has been made in these
months working with the Team of our US Partner. Here I found materials,
expertise, professonality and, mainly, a moving trust in me that makes me
feel extremely indebted. These factors are generating a strong force, with
interesting results.
4- the publication of the theory behind the so called Rossi Effect I think
will be published in 2014, but this is not a guarantee, because many are
the factors this decision will depend from
5- the industrial plants are already for sale, because they have already
obtained the safety certification, being operated by certified operators,
while the domestic appliances, which will be operated by anybody, will need
time to obtain the necessary safety certifications.
Please say hello to my beloved New Hampshire, where my US work has been
started in 1996….
Warm Regards,
A.R.

RE: [Vo]:Proton Mass not stable?

[Hoyt A. Stearns Jr.]

FWIW:  Analysis of proton mass using Dewey B. Larson's Reciprocal system:

http://reciprocalsystem.org/PDFa/Subatomic%20Mass%20Recalculated%20(Peret,%2
0Bruce).pdf

http://www.reciprocalsystem.com/rs/cwkvk/secondary.htm






_
From: Jones Beene [mailto:jone...@pacbell.net] 
Sent: Friday, December 27, 2013 9:25 AM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Subject: [Vo]:Proton Mass not stable?


From: Mark Iverson (about 9 months ago):  This story might tie in to what
Jones has been saying in a number of vortex postings. Is the radius of a
proton wrong?

http://phys.org/news/2013-02-textbook-radius-proton-wrong.html

In answering Mark, back then, a little more detail was added to the
contention that the proton, despite being a fundamental particle - is
surprisingly NOT very well known, physically !  To requote Asimov: The most
exciting phrase to hear in science, the one that heralds new discoveries, is
not "Eureka!" ("I found it!") but rather "hmm ... that's funny ..." ...



---
This email is free from viruses and malware because avast! Antivirus protection 
is active.
http://www.avast.com
<>

[Vo]:Proton Mass not stable?

[Jones Beene]

From: Mark Iverson (about 9 months ago):  This story might tie in to what
Jones has been saying in a number of vortex postings. Is the radius of a
proton wrong?

http://phys.org/news/2013-02-textbook-radius-proton-wrong.html

In answering Mark, back then, a little more detail was added to the
contention that the proton, despite being a fundamental particle - is
surprisingly NOT very well known, physically !  To requote Asimov: The most
exciting phrase to hear in science, the one that heralds new discoveries, is
not "Eureka!" ("I found it!") but rather "hmm ... that's funny ..."

I'm bringing this up again today, in the context of LENR, since there is
apparently a new paper out (which I have not seen yet) which builds on the
observation that an all-important factor [slight variation in proton mass]
can provide a theoretical short-cut to an more effective theory for thermal
gain in LENR.

In short, the size and mass of the proton are not certain with great
precision, and probably not stable, and certainly not quantized. That may
come as a surprise, but if the quark mass is not quantized, then how could
the proton mass be, since it depends on quark mass? It is true that what can
be called the "average proton mass" is known to within the range of PPM
(parts per million), but there is still a lot of potential "overage" (mass
above the average mass) which can be employed to provide excess heat in LENR
experiments - yet with none of the normal indicia of nuclear reactions. As
little as one PPM of "overage" in the heavier protons in any experiment
(including the protons of the host metal), if fully used and converted into
energy, provides a thousand times more energy than chemical processes.

In fact, this overage-mass is not exactly "nuclear" but more precisely
"subnuclear" in the sense that no real nuclear change takes place in the
identity of the reactant, and the identity of the proton stays intact.
Subnuclear mass will change within the mélange of various particles,
resulting in a range for the larger accumulation. The textbook values for
other physical properties of protons are almost as flakey. Mass of the
proton, historically, was measured at different values in different
countries using different techniques, and even in modern times with Penning
traps, there are severe problems with the generally accepted value. And
since a 125 GeV Higgs isn't compatible with the Standard Model, the
reference frame is crumbling.

Believe it or not - along with the lack of definitive physical measurement -
there is NO decent model or hypothesis to predict the mass of a Proton! Wow.
Many in fizzix assume there is at least a workable model, but they are
wrong. (there have been dozens of efforts to do this, as in QCD - but none
has gotten much traction AFAIK.)

Since proton mass cannot be derived elegantly from other known values, it is
taken on faith as a practical matter. I should mention that this unit of
mass could be related to various beta-decay processes - and it has been
derived that way (several attempts have been made). However, there are too
many transformations to account for in nuclear decay - such as spin, kinetic
energy, weak isospin, weak hypercharge, color charge, bosons/gluon identity,
not to mention: quark mass and neutrino mass and therefore: the quandary of
variable-mass remains. We need a derivation from first principles which
matches actual measurements. None exists. 

My contention is that no proper derivation exists because the mass of the
proton is inherently variable. 

BTW - in the Standard Model, the mass of the proton is given as 1.672 621
637 x 10^ -27 kg, or 938.272013 MeV, or 1.007 276 466 77 atomic mass units.
Other values can still be found in "official" sources and I'm not sure where
this one comes from, but who cares? It is slightly wrong ... if the billions
spent on the Higgs was well-spent.

More on this topic - when the details and citation for the paper in question
arrives.

Jones   

 
 


<>