Re: [Vo]:New Interview with Mats Lewan On E-Cat Rossi
He paid the price, and the report may not be the end of the procedure, but the beginning. the only good news is that DGT admit they only have 5 clients and no money transferred. Sure that those clients (if real) will check the calorimetry twice, or run. The question is if Defkalion have nothing, a low performance reactor, or something real, and why they tried to fool Luca Gamberale in a so stupid way. I know that they are or pretend to be paranoid about industrial spying, that their governance is complex (Stremmenos said they were megalomaniac... maybe too general), but this looks so stupid even for a scam. They business model (big money upfront) is judged irrational by a specialist I've contacted. It can change. I can only hope that they have a real technology, and that either they demonstrate it seriously (not an option now), or that they are dismantled and a serious company develop it rationally. Now we should read the only evidence that remain, the report of Nelson. The attention Nelson put in avoiding water boiling is retrospectively very important. This may explain why the COP was low, not because of temperature but because the tricks did not work well or at all. Have to re-read the report, but it was not detailed enough. As expected since few month, it will be used by skeptics to fool the masses agains Ciold Fusion, pushing everybody to deny E-cat test, whatever are the results and the protocols. Whatever technology they own or not, they hurt LENR development. 2014-05-13 4:34 GMT+02:00 Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com: Jones Beene jone...@pacbell.net wrote: If Gamberale is not operating in the role of an exclusive agent for either party, that does not negate a joint agency… complicating matters. If his financial interests would align with DGT in any significant way, he can be construed as an agent. . . . Well, his interests did align, that's for sure. What you say makes sense. I do not know enough about the law to judge the particulars. Gamberale has guts. He is clearly a man of integrity. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:Increasing probability of Rossi being real upwards, to 35%
Luca is the ultimate insider and it reads like only almost an accusation. What we're seeing here is a continuation of the pattern that has made us so wary of cold fusion. Bayesian analysis relies on patterns, and the probability that Rossi will also follow this pattern has just increased significantly. This report is a terrible day for LENR. In the words of Luca (who is a deeply credible individual, a PHd with several papers to his name and experience working at major labs) - Gamberale told me that the findings he describes in the report could bring damage to serious research activities within LENR On Mon, May 12, 2014 at 10:47 PM, Eric Walker eric.wal...@gmail.com wrote: On Mon, May 12, 2014 at 10:41 PM, Blaze Spinnaker blazespinna...@gmail.com wrote: Decreasing the probability to 35% based on shattering news of the Defkalion demo being completely worthless. I hesitate to say it, but It almost sounds like fraud is being implied. http://animpossibleinvention.com/2014/05/12/defkalion-demo-proven-not-to-be-reliable/ At the time of the demo, few here were impressed with it, if I recall. I do not know why you would have increased your probability figure in connection with the demo, such that the recent evidence to come to light would take something back away from it. Eric
[Vo]:Kudos to Jed
Hats off to Jed. I have to admit, in someways the Defkalion news is heartening in that it shows you are credible in your ability to accurate predict who is real and who isn't. You've been warning us al about Defkalion for quite awhile. http://animpossibleinvention.com/blog/ If you were right about them, perhaps you are right about Rossi. Let's hope so. I feel very bad for Dr. Kim, however.
Re: [Vo]:Vector Potential Wave Radio
For wildlife it appears to be increased hypoxia effects within a 15 mile radius. It is strongly correlated with the total power level/number of overlapping radars. My p-value stats looked at 59 radar towers and 2 years of fish kills (1000) due to hypoxia/algae blooms. It compared them to 59 random/coastal locations. Melbourne, Florida is the 27th largest town but happens to have the most radars and tremendous disease problem in the lagoon. Many of the mammal necropsies are showing signs of shock http://articles.orlandosentinel.com/2014-02-01/news/os-manatee-deaths-indian-river-20140201_1_indian-river-lagoon-katie-tripp-dead-manatees Sort of like Dave building his transmitter and confusing power with energy Power(joules/sec) * duration (secs) = Energy (joules) Power Energy Water = Energy Flowrate of water = Power Fire hose on for 1/2 second knocks you on your ass using little energy but lots of power. NOAA does not know the difference. I think it is killing us one DNA/RNA strand at a time along with free radical/oxidative stress in our blood streams, just like the waterways. Take your anti-oxidants and eat fruits and vegetables! On Tuesday, May 13, 2014, MarkI-ZeroPoint zeropo...@charter.net wrote: ChemE, What is the avg radius of detrimental health effects around the Doppler stations? -mark *From:* ChemE Stewart [mailto:cheme...@gmail.comjavascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','cheme...@gmail.com');] *Sent:* Monday, May 12, 2014 4:29 PM *To:* vortex-l@eskimo.comjavascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','vortex-l@eskimo.com'); *Subject:* [Vo]:Vector Potential Wave Radio Bob, agreed. I told the biologist that is running statistics that I think the microwave radars may be breaking RNA/DNA strands and triggering single stranded RNA viruses like norovirus outbreaks on cruise ships. http://darkmattersalot.com/2014/04/27/were-cooked/ On Mon, May 12, 2014 at 12:19 PM, Bob Cook frobertc...@hotmail.com wrote: Dave-- One possible effect is the resonant absorbtion of radiation by biologically active molecules, which cause ionization and destruction of the molecules. This is particularly damaging when the molecule is a DNA or RNA molecule. Weak H bonds occur in these molecules and such destruction leads to modified DNA or RNA activity. The average heating idea also is appropriate, however it is not as much as a problem as the destruction or disabling of the large molecules that control the body's production of other complex molecules. DNA in skin and eye cells would be more susceptible than those more deeply situated in the body. Reproductive organs near the surface of the body are more venerable to such radiation and hence to genetic changes that are passed on to offspring. Such a problem applies to humans as well a smaller animals and birds that have the least amount of shielding of their gonads. The other issue associated with DNA destruction could be the stimulated emission of tritium by the exposure to the intense radiation of the radars. Tritium is a bad actor when it decays in a nucleus of a cell. The beta from the tritium is about 18 Kev. This energy is deposited over a path of about 6 microns. The average dimension of a cell nucleus is about 6 to 10 microns. This means a large fraction of the beta from tritium decay is deposited in the nucleus where it is bound to cause numerous double breaks of DNA molecules and the genetic damage that goes along with these breaks. Such mutagenic effects were observed in the vole population around Chernobyl after the nuclear accident as a result of tritium contamination in the drinking water consumed by the vole population. (Considering the damage to gene cells of the body, the EPA drinking water standard for tritium, 20,000 pico curies per liter, is way to high (about 100 times) to prevent unreasonable damage to gene cells. Small breeding populations of animals, including some populations of humans, can be unreasonably affected by such high bodily tritium concentrations as allowed by the current standards. The justification by the EPA and the ICRP that any defects in the genetics passed on to the society get greatly diluted to reduce risk, does not apply to small breeding populations. And of course, if you are one in a million of the people at risk that develop a health problem that is non-mutagenic , it does not help you at all.) I am one to believe that there should be no risk to vertebrates, except birds, existing around hazards that causes more than one health effect of the population subjected to the hazard. Important insects such as bees should be included in this no risk criteria. Bob - Original Message -
Re: [Vo]:Increasing probability of Rossi being real upwards, to 35%
Gamberale told me that the findings he describes in the report could bring damage to serious research activities within LENR Sady it have started... the anti-LENr already says that we cannot trust anything, about E-cat test because of the Milan demo tricks by Defkalion. It will be a very powerful tool to prevent people and media to even consider any results. The deniers have won. no evidence will be accepted, what ever it is. They will just say : somewhere a fraud have been done, so this is a fraud and the physicist will applaud, and the media will repeat, and the people will sit on the sofa quietly. that tragedy is well described in that fantastic article by jed http://www.lenr-canr.org/acrobat/RothwellJcoldfusion.pdf#page=4 Nobel will just says that E-cat test was bad, after reading the las sentence of the conclusion of an obscure report by incompetent skeptic, and nobody will question them. the only escape is Defkalion proving his device and explaining their stupid behavior. Even if they made mistakes, they should have worked with Luca and not ignored him. That stinks. 2014-05-13 11:16 GMT+02:00 Blaze Spinnaker blazespinna...@gmail.com: Luca is the ultimate insider and it reads like only almost an accusation. What we're seeing here is a continuation of the pattern that has made us so wary of cold fusion. Bayesian analysis relies on patterns, and the probability that Rossi will also follow this pattern has just increased significantly. This report is a terrible day for LENR. In the words of Luca (who is a deeply credible individual, a PHd with several papers to his name and experience working at major labs) - Gamberale told me that the findings he describes in the report could bring damage to serious research activities within LENR On Mon, May 12, 2014 at 10:47 PM, Eric Walker eric.wal...@gmail.comwrote: On Mon, May 12, 2014 at 10:41 PM, Blaze Spinnaker blazespinna...@gmail.com wrote: Decreasing the probability to 35% based on shattering news of the Defkalion demo being completely worthless. I hesitate to say it, but It almost sounds like fraud is being implied. http://animpossibleinvention.com/2014/05/12/defkalion-demo-proven-not-to-be-reliable/ At the time of the demo, few here were impressed with it, if I recall. I do not know why you would have increased your probability figure in connection with the demo, such that the recent evidence to come to light would take something back away from it. Eric
RE: [Vo]:Kudos to Jed
From: Blaze Spinnaker I feel very bad for Dr. Kim, however. You shouldn’t. Kim and others may not have been completely duped, and we must assume that although DGT could not show the type of gain which would allow massive funding, they still very likely have found an energy anomaly in the range of COP between 1 and 2. Everything Kim says could apply to a lower gain device, which is still beyond the Laws of Physics. This range of overunity gain has been seen for 25 years, going back to Thermacore, and even at NASA (see the Niedra report) and MIT (by Haldeman, never acknowledged by the University). Yet with the advent of Rossi, it is no longer of interest to many funders. The reality of the funding situation, given the large number of claimants in the LENR field is that a COP of greater than 1 but less than 2 is not going to generate A million dollar check, which was part of the flawed DGT business plan. In fact, they want $50 million per license LOL. The open issue wrt DGT, and it is a huge technical issue which needs to be addressed, hopefully by Dr. Kim - is the large magnetic field, reported by DGT. Jones
RE: [Vo]:Nickel and Palladium prices
From: Eric Walker if deuterium works well with nickel electrodes, as Mizuno indicates - then why would anyone want to pay hundreds of times more for palladium? Perhaps for the tritium. But is there any evidence that palladium is preferable for tritium? At the recent MIT show-and-tell, it seems like Claytor – the researcher most associated with tritium as his primary research goal, was using Mu metal as the active electrode. attachment: winmail.dat
Re: [Vo]:Increasing probability of Rossi being real upwards, to 35%
I would say that the Defkalion demise only adds to Rossi's credibility. He parted ways with Defkalion 2 or 3 years ago. His reasons may be consistent with the recent comments by Luca. I tend to agree with Jones that there is something in the way of LENR associated with the Defkalion device, however, it was not a robust energy producer and hence not as desirable as the Rossi device. Kim may have been overly optimistic about being able to engineer more output on the meager Defkalion budget. It will be interesting to see whether the Pd/D system goes the same route. Large energy output for a long time is the obvious proof needed to get development going on a number of fronts. Has anyone heard about the operation of the Rossi unit that was sold to the Swedish entity for the cost of the heat it produces? Mats Lewan talks about this event but does not have any follow-up about what happened TMK. Positive comments from the organization that received the Rossi power plant should add a good percent to Blaze's estimate. Bob - Original Message - From: Alain Sepeda To: Vortex List Sent: Tuesday, May 13, 2014 3:18 AM Subject: Re: [Vo]:Increasing probability of Rossi being real upwards, to 35% Gamberale told me that the findings he describes in the report could bring damage to serious research activities within LENR Sady it have started... the anti-LENr already says that we cannot trust anything, about E-cat test because of the Milan demo tricks by Defkalion. It will be a very powerful tool to prevent people and media to even consider any results. The deniers have won. no evidence will be accepted, what ever it is. They will just say : somewhere a fraud have been done, so this is a fraud and the physicist will applaud, and the media will repeat, and the people will sit on the sofa quietly. that tragedy is well described in that fantastic article by jed http://www.lenr-canr.org/acrobat/RothwellJcoldfusion.pdf#page=4 Nobel will just says that E-cat test was bad, after reading the las sentence of the conclusion of an obscure report by incompetent skeptic, and nobody will question them. the only escape is Defkalion proving his device and explaining their stupid behavior. Even if they made mistakes, they should have worked with Luca and not ignored him. That stinks. 2014-05-13 11:16 GMT+02:00 Blaze Spinnaker blazespinna...@gmail.com: Luca is the ultimate insider and it reads like only almost an accusation. What we're seeing here is a continuation of the pattern that has made us so wary of cold fusion. Bayesian analysis relies on patterns, and the probability that Rossi will also follow this pattern has just increased significantly. This report is a terrible day for LENR. In the words of Luca (who is a deeply credible individual, a PHd with several papers to his name and experience working at major labs) - Gamberale told me that the findings he describes in the report could bring damage to serious research activities within LENR On Mon, May 12, 2014 at 10:47 PM, Eric Walker eric.wal...@gmail.com wrote: On Mon, May 12, 2014 at 10:41 PM, Blaze Spinnaker blazespinna...@gmail.com wrote: Decreasing the probability to 35% based on shattering news of the Defkalion demo being completely worthless. I hesitate to say it, but It almost sounds like fraud is being implied. http://animpossibleinvention.com/2014/05/12/defkalion-demo-proven-not-to-be-reliable/ At the time of the demo, few here were impressed with it, if I recall. I do not know why you would have increased your probability figure in connection with the demo, such that the recent evidence to come to light would take something back away from it. Eric
Re: [Vo]:Kudos to Jed
Blaze Spinnaker blazespinna...@gmail.com wrote: Hats off to Jed. I have to admit, in someways the Defkalion news is heartening in that it shows you are credible in your ability to accurate predict who is real and who isn't. You've been warning us al about Defkalion for quite awhile. I cannot take credit for this. I have no special insight. Soon after the demonstration, I heard from various people that the flow rate may not have been measured correctly. Questions were being raised about it, by experts from NI and by others. John Hadjichristos himself acknowledged this. I think he said the flow rate was inaccurate. He did not say they measured a flow rate of zero as as 1 L/min. That is way beyond inaccurate. As I recall, I heard the flow rate was too low for the rated capacity of the flow meter. That is a common problem. As you see in the Gambarale report, the rate was low, but the problem was a backflow. I also heard they did not confirm the flow rate by another method, such as collecting liquid water or sparging steam. That's a red flag. I reported some of this here from time to time. I was not keeping it secret. But I did not know the details, and I did not have a definitive report such as Gambarale's. Anyone who would do this test without independently checking the flow rate is either deliberately deceptive or grossly incompetent. I am not going to speculate which applies to Defkalion. Note that the people visiting Rossi always did collect the flowing water to measure it. In one case they used a carafe as I recall. That is inaccurate but the point is to do a reality check, not to make an accurate measurement. If the flowmeter shows 1.16 L/min and you get some number between 0.9 and 1.3 you are good to go. If you collect only 0.5 L, or you collect no water at all (or with steam output you sparge the steam and the temperature of the water in your bucket does not rise) then you know the flowmeter is not working. It is that simple. If you were right about them, perhaps you are right about Rossi. Let's hope so. I sure hope so. And we have good, objective reasons to think so. The tests performed by Levi were pretty good. People say Levi is Rossi's friend. He wasn't originally. They became friends *after* Levi confirmed the results. So the friendship does not count. The unpublished tests performed by Ampernergo were also pretty good. I think ELFORSK's tests were excellent. The only weakness was in the input power measurement. Last year they told me they would address this, and I have heard they did. (That's the only thing I have heard about the present tests.) One other reason to have confidence in Rossi's tests -- crude as they are -- is that they have often failed to show any excess heat. They were not false positives. They were flat-out true negatives. Defkalion's test was a false positive. - Jed
RE: [Vo]:Increasing probability of Rossi being real upwards, to 35%
From: Bob Cook Has anyone heard about the operation of the Rossi unit that was sold to the Swedish entity for the cost of the heat it produces? Mats Lewan talks about this event but does not have any follow-up about what happened … I think he was referring to the Hydrofusion offer: http://hydrofusion.com/news/wanted-pilot-customer-for-ecat-1-mw-plant
Re: [Vo]:Increasing probability of Rossi being real upwards, to 35%
I agree that your reference is correct. I still wonder if there was/is a customer of Hydrofusion? Bob - Original Message - From: Jones Beene To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Tuesday, May 13, 2014 8:02 AM Subject: RE: [Vo]:Increasing probability of Rossi being real upwards, to 35% From: Bob Cook Has anyone heard about the operation of the Rossi unit that was sold to the Swedish entity for the cost of the heat it produces? Mats Lewan talks about this event but does not have any follow-up about what happened … I think he was referring to the Hydrofusion offer: http://hydrofusion.com/news/wanted-pilot-customer-for-ecat-1-mw-plant
Re: [Vo]:Kudos to Jed
whether they just have a modest COP and don't want to admit it because they sold huge COP before is one thing... having nothing seems hard to imagine, but pretending 10x more is possible for desperate startup... the claims of magnetic field seems exaggerated, but why claiming pure imagined phenomenon? anyway it is tragic for serious LENr actors, even if later Defkalion prove his reactor. 2014-05-13 15:43 GMT+02:00 Jones Beene jone...@pacbell.net: *From:* Blaze Spinnaker I feel very bad for Dr. Kim, however. You shouldn’t. Kim and others may not have been completely duped, and we must assume that although DGT could not show the type of gain which would allow massive funding, they still very likely have found an energy anomaly in the range of COP between 1 and 2. Everything Kim says could apply to a lower gain device, which is still beyond the Laws of Physics. This range of overunity gain has been seen for 25 years, going back to Thermacore, and even at NASA (see the Niedra report) and MIT (by Haldeman, never acknowledged by the University). Yet with the advent of Rossi, it is no longer of interest to many funders. The reality of the funding situation, given the large number of claimants in the LENR field is that a COP of greater than 1 but less than 2 is not going to generate A million dollar check, which was part of the flawed DGT business plan. In fact, they want $50 million per license LOL. The open issue wrt DGT, and it is a huge technical issue which needs to be addressed, hopefully by Dr. Kim - is the large magnetic field, reported by DGT. Jones
[Vo]:Blockbuster Big Bang Result May Fizzle, Rumor Suggests
Blockbuster Big Bang Result May Fizzle, Rumor Suggests The biggest discovery in cosmology in a decade could turn out to be an experimental artifact—at least according to an Internet rumor. The team that reported the discovery is sticking by its work, however. http://news.sciencemag.org/physics/2014/05/blockbuster-big-bang-result-may-fizzle-rumor-suggests Harry
Re: [Vo]:Kudos to Jed
I agree Alain. No one needs to pity Dr. Kim, I'm sure he (and others) have measured something of relevance, just nothing commercially viable. In regards to another point being stated explicitly or eluded to by others on vortex since this story dropped, I think it is rather premature to call fraud on DGT. That is a rather reactionary stance to take despite the shadow of a doubt this new report casts on DGT. As you've just said, I have a hard time believing all the data accumulated and/or publicized has been fraudulent, but rather over-sold, which is different. If we all just begin to villainize DGT this prematurely in a reactionary fashion, how are we any better than fundamentalist skeptics? We have to be careful. I'm not saying we need to be apologists for DGT by any stretch, but let's not get indignant either. Rather lets give this a few months to play out and let DGT respond before everyone goes crazy with accusations and innuendo. Just my thoughts. --- John On Tue, May 13, 2014 at 11:49 AM, Alain Sepeda alain.sep...@gmail.comwrote: whether they just have a modest COP and don't want to admit it because they sold huge COP before is one thing... having nothing seems hard to imagine, but pretending 10x more is possible for desperate startup... the claims of magnetic field seems exaggerated, but why claiming pure imagined phenomenon? anyway it is tragic for serious LENr actors, even if later Defkalion prove his reactor. 2014-05-13 15:43 GMT+02:00 Jones Beene jone...@pacbell.net: *From:* Blaze Spinnaker I feel very bad for Dr. Kim, however. You shouldn’t. Kim and others may not have been completely duped, and we must assume that although DGT could not show the type of gain which would allow massive funding, they still very likely have found an energy anomaly in the range of COP between 1 and 2. Everything Kim says could apply to a lower gain device, which is still beyond the Laws of Physics. This range of overunity gain has been seen for 25 years, going back to Thermacore, and even at NASA (see the Niedra report) and MIT (by Haldeman, never acknowledged by the University). Yet with the advent of Rossi, it is no longer of interest to many funders. The reality of the funding situation, given the large number of claimants in the LENR field is that a COP of greater than 1 but less than 2 is not going to generate A million dollar check, which was part of the flawed DGT business plan. In fact, they want $50 million per license LOL. The open issue wrt DGT, and it is a huge technical issue which needs to be addressed, hopefully by Dr. Kim - is the large magnetic field, reported by DGT. Jones
Re: [Vo]:Kudos to Jed
You shouldn't to pity Dr. Kim! -- Daniel Rocha - RJ danieldi...@gmail.com
Re: [Vo]:Kudos to Jed
yes that is a capacity I developed with LENR. Admit I need more data, and need suspend my judgement. I wish all people that support DGT with more confidence to be right. I have heard some possibilities/excuses... Bad degasing is one possibility for the reactor not to work well... if not an measurement error, it may be a last chance trick to avoid a pathetic failed demo... What i cannot understand is not answering Luca's questions... For that point I have report of possible justifications... basically, I cannot rule-out it works a little, and why not , really... I have contacted them and they answered like their web site... working on the reactor, news this summer... Given the scandal, if they have something that work, the best idea would be to be antifragile, enjoy the buzz tempest and quickly prove it works with a real 3rd party test, taking the risk to lose IP before their reputation is ruined. 2014-05-13 17:57 GMT+02:00 Foks0904 . foks0...@gmail.com: I agree Alain. No one needs to pity Dr. Kim, I'm sure he (and others) have measured something of relevance, just nothing commercially viable. In regards to another point being stated explicitly or eluded to by others on vortex since this story dropped, I think it is rather premature to call fraud on DGT. That is a rather reactionary stance to take despite the shadow of a doubt this new report casts on DGT. As you've just said, I have a hard time believing all the data accumulated and/or publicized has been fraudulent, but rather over-sold, which is different. If we all just begin to villainize DGT this prematurely in a reactionary fashion, how are we any better than fundamentalist skeptics? We have to be careful. I'm not saying we need to be apologists for DGT by any stretch, but let's not get indignant either. Rather lets give this a few months to play out and let DGT respond before everyone goes crazy with accusations and innuendo. Just my thoughts. --- John On Tue, May 13, 2014 at 11:49 AM, Alain Sepeda alain.sep...@gmail.comwrote: whether they just have a modest COP and don't want to admit it because they sold huge COP before is one thing... having nothing seems hard to imagine, but pretending 10x more is possible for desperate startup... the claims of magnetic field seems exaggerated, but why claiming pure imagined phenomenon? anyway it is tragic for serious LENr actors, even if later Defkalion prove his reactor. 2014-05-13 15:43 GMT+02:00 Jones Beene jone...@pacbell.net: *From:* Blaze Spinnaker I feel very bad for Dr. Kim, however. You shouldn’t. Kim and others may not have been completely duped, and we must assume that although DGT could not show the type of gain which would allow massive funding, they still very likely have found an energy anomaly in the range of COP between 1 and 2. Everything Kim says could apply to a lower gain device, which is still beyond the Laws of Physics. This range of overunity gain has been seen for 25 years, going back to Thermacore, and even at NASA (see the Niedra report) and MIT (by Haldeman, never acknowledged by the University). Yet with the advent of Rossi, it is no longer of interest to many funders. The reality of the funding situation, given the large number of claimants in the LENR field is that a COP of greater than 1 but less than 2 is not going to generate A million dollar check, which was part of the flawed DGT business plan. In fact, they want $50 million per license LOL. The open issue wrt DGT, and it is a huge technical issue which needs to be addressed, hopefully by Dr. Kim - is the large magnetic field, reported by DGT. Jones
[Vo]:Sources: Kim did not examine Defkalion reactor
Regarding Dr. Yeong E. Kim and his theory about Defkalion's reactor I have heard from two reliable sources that Kim based his theory papers on information provided to him by Defkalion. Defkalion would not let Kim get close to a reactor. One source says: They only provided him with data that they claimed was from experiments. Dr. Kim based all of his observations and writings on what DKG provided. He did not perform his own measurements at all. As I said, my sources say Kim was barred from accessing the machine. I guess it is possible he never asked to take measurements, or he did not want to. Either way, he looks bad. If he did *not* want to make measurements, that is irresponsible. If he is not good at hands-on experiments he should have brought along a grad student. Or he should have written in the paper: This is based on data provided by Defkalion. The author has not observed the machine in operation or taken any data. If he *did* want to take measurements, but they refused to let him, he should have packed his bags, gone home, and reported they are a bunch of frauds. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:Sources: Kim did not examine Defkalion reactor
It appears that everyone that had anything to do with DGT will be tainted by this unfortunate chapter in the book of cold fusion. I admit that I had great hopes for them despite the mounting evidence against their actually having a functioning product. Perhaps future developments will be forthcoming that will salvage their company reputation but that latest report suggests otherwise. Is it time to move on and be more discerning in the future regarding trust before careful verification? This is a tough blow to accept. Time for a stiff drink. Dave -Original Message- From: Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Tue, May 13, 2014 3:24 pm Subject: [Vo]:Sources: Kim did not examine Defkalion reactor Regarding Dr. Yeong E. Kim and his theory about Defkalion's reactor I have heard from two reliable sources that Kim based his theory papers on information provided to him by Defkalion. Defkalion would not let Kim get close to a reactor. One source says: They only provided him with data that they claimed was from experiments. Dr. Kim based all of his observations and writings on what DKG provided. He did not perform his own measurements at all. As I said, my sources say Kim was barred from accessing the machine. I guess it is possible he never asked to take measurements, or he did not want to. Either way, he looks bad. If he did not want to make measurements, that is irresponsible. If he is not good at hands-on experiments he should have brought along a grad student. Or he should have written in the paper: This is based on data provided by Defkalion. The author has not observed the machine in operation or taken any data. If he did want to take measurements, but they refused to let him, he should have packed his bags, gone home, and reported they are a bunch of frauds. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:New Interview with Mats Lewan On E-Cat Rossi
Alain Sepeda alain.sep...@gmail.com wrote: Now we should read the only evidence that remain, the report of Nelson. The attention Nelson put in avoiding water boiling is retrospectively very important. I do not think Nelson did all of these steps. His report was more of a checklist of suggestions. As far as I know, no independent observer has done a successful test of a Defkalion reactor. As I have said here, the people who went there all signed NDAs. Defkalion has not released any of their findings. However, some of those people told me confidentially that the machine did not work. Results were inconclusive at best. One said, I wouldn't bother going back. If Defkalion had a positive, independent report, I suppose they would have released it by now. They are strange people, but not that strange. They would not sit on a positive report when their reputation is in shreds. I do not think they have a positive report. At one point I recall they said something like, we can't release the positive reports because they would endanger intellectual property. That is nonsense. It would be easy to edit down a report to scrub out all technical details about the reactor, leaving only the calorimetry. You could add a statement to the beginning saying this is a partial version of the report describing only calorimetry. I am not going to accuse them of fraud, because I do not know anyone they have defrauded; I have no idea what they are up to; and I cannot imagine why they would do such stupid things. Who does flow calorimetry without confirming the flow rate?!? (Okay, Krivit did . . . Who else?) Here is my opinion: 1. I wouldn't trust them as far as I can throw them. 2. They are either frauds or idiots. 3. The sooner these people fold their tent and silently steal away, the better it will be for cold fusion. That is an OPINION, not an accusation. I have no evidence for it, just a lot of hearsay and an unpaid bill for $1,400. - Jed
[Vo]:Mats on Defkalion
Hello folks did anybody have the chance to read this? http://matslew.wordpress.com/2014/05/12/defkalion-demo-proven-not-to-be-reliable/ kinda unbelievable how was cheap the trick they used to fool Gamberale Cheers Suz
Re: [Vo]:Mats on Defkalion
Susanna Gipp susan.g...@gmail.com wrote: did anybody have the chance to read this? http://matslew.wordpress.com/2014/05/12/defkalion-demo-proven-not-to-be-reliable/ kinda unbelievable how was cheap the trick they used to fool Gamberale This trick is so cheap, and so transparent, I doubt it was a trick. My gut feeling is that it was a stupid mistake. It would be mind boggling if a trick like that would work on an engineer or scientist. I have heard that the people from NI took one look at the shoddy setup and told Defkalion they were no longer invited to NI Week. I do not know how long it took Gamberale to discover this problem, but . . . While I do not mean to boast here, it would take me 10 minutes to discover the flow rate is wrong by a margin as large as this. The first thing I do when checking flow calorimetry is measure the inlet and outlet temperatures with a hand-held thermocouple, and then I measure the flow rate with a stop watch and a graduated cylinder. (Or a carafe and a weight scale.) This is not rocket science! It is easy. I have done this several times at various labs. As I recall, I found large errors during Patterson's demo, during one of Gene's experiments, at Hydrodynamics, and at two other places I do not recall. That is why I do not trust flow meters. The darn things get clogged up, or they run backwards, as Gamberale described. They are the Achilles' heal of flow calorimetry. You can't trust them until you verify them. You need to keep checking them throughout the experiment. I recall the user manual for one of them specifically said you should test the instrument by collecting water in graduated cylinder. It is just common sense. As I said, when you measure the flow rate manually, the answer is approximate. If the flow meter says 1.16 L/min, and you get somewhere between 0.9 and 1.2 L, you are good to go. You know the thing is working right. Actually, though, with a little practice and several tries, you can get closer than that. You need to do this several times during the course of a test to be sure the flow rate is not fluctuating significantly. Try this at home! You do not even need a flow meter. Turn on the tap and measure the flow of water several times. You will see that the variation is small. Flush the toilet and see if you can measure the difference from the drop in water pressure. When the output is steam, you use a bucket of cold water to sparge the steam. Then you measure the increase in weight and temperature. It amounts to the same thing as measuring a flow of liquid water with a graduated cylinder. If I had been at Defkalion's test and they said no, you are not allowed to measure the flow rate I would have told them: Then I must assume you people are frauds, and I will take the next plane home and tell everyone that. That is more or less what I told Patterson when he refused to let me make my own measurements. He thought about it and changed his mind. Rossi told me I would not be allowed to make measurements so I did not go. I suppose Defkalion uninvited me three times after they realized I meant to actually measure things. I could not make manual measurements of high precision equipment such as SRI's. You can't monkey with that. Fortunately, people like McKubre, Storms and Miles are professionals who use redundant instruments and they check everything to a fare-thee-well. This is described in their papers. Still, if I were to visit them I would check the flow rate if I could. You cannot as easily check the performance of a Seebeck calorimeter. The blue Thermonetics Seebeck calorimeter in Ed's lab belongs to me, so I guess I should believe it. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:Blockbuster Big Bang Result May Fizzle, Rumor Suggests
On Tue, May 13, 2014 at 8:57 AM, H Veeder hveeder...@gmail.com wrote: http://news.sciencemag.org/physics/2014/05/blockbuster-big-bang-result-may-fizzle-rumor-suggests From the article: Part of the problem is that the Planck team has not made the raw foreground data available, he says. Instead, BICEP researchers had to do the best they could with a PDF file of that map that the Planck team presented at a conference. Moreover, Pryke says, conversations with members of the Planck team leave it uncertain exactly what is in the key plot. It is unclear what that plot shows, he says. Just to clarify -- it seems a critical piece of the reasoning that led to the conclusion that the traces of gravity waves from the very first instant of the universe's assumed inflation was based on the subtracting of an image in a PDF file whose underlying data were not made available to the reporting team and whose purport is not fully known by some of the members of the team that produced the original graphic. Or something like that. Eric
Re: [Vo]:Blockbuster Big Bang Result May Fizzle, Rumor Suggests
Gives me great confidence in the conclusions! Dave -Original Message- From: Eric Walker eric.wal...@gmail.com To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Tue, May 13, 2014 11:56 pm Subject: Re: [Vo]:Blockbuster Big Bang Result May Fizzle, Rumor Suggests On Tue, May 13, 2014 at 8:57 AM, H Veeder hveeder...@gmail.com wrote: http://news.sciencemag.org/physics/2014/05/blockbuster-big-bang-result-may-fizzle-rumor-suggests From the article: Part of the problem is that the Planck team has not made the raw foreground data available, he says. Instead, BICEP researchers had to do the best they could with a PDF file of that map that the Planck team presented at a conference. Moreover, Pryke says, conversations with members of the Planck team leave it uncertain exactly what is in the key plot. It is unclear what that plot shows, he says. Just to clarify -- it seems a critical piece of the reasoning that led to the conclusion that the traces of gravity waves from the very first instant of the universe's assumed inflation was based on the subtracting of an image in a PDF file whose underlying data were not made available to the reporting team and whose purport is not fully known by some of the members of the team that produced the original graphic. Or something like that. Eric
Re: [Vo]:Kudos to Jed
On Tue, May 13, 2014 at 8:57 AM, Foks0904 . foks0...@gmail.com wrote: We have to be careful. Without regard to DGT, specifically, I think there is a recurring lesson here. In the LENR and free energy fields, more than any other fields I have followed, there is a certain type of amped-up businessman who belongs in a late-night infomercial but instead makes wacky claims somewhere on the Internet. Whether you would call what they're doing fraud or not probably depends in part upon the mindset and intention of the people, if any, who have given them money. In this context it is something of a miracle that Rossi's work has stood out as likely being genuine and have not simply blended into the background. The LENR researchers, too, on the whole, do not fit this pattern, although some of them are obviously credulous. A few of them do appear to be infomercial salesmen as well. Even when people seem credible and genuine, it is good to follow up and ask for some data to support what they're saying. Eric
[Vo]:Re: Exponential Remediation of Civilization's Footprint
I made several significant corrections and clarifications. The result deserves examination even if only as a possible seasteading approach. I believe AlainCo made the original floating atoll entry at the seasteading wiki -- well this is a _lot_ more ambitious. On Mon, May 12, 2014 at 7:33 PM, James Bowery jabow...@gmail.com wrote: http://jimbowery.blogspot.com/2014/05/introduction-extinction-of-human-race.html
[Vo]:Nuclear isomer
Vorts, A Fellow Friend of Fringe Facts sent me to gander at this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_isomer And here is what caught my attention that might apply to LENR/CF: --- Internal conversion Metastable isomers may also decay by internal conversion - ***a process in which the energy of nuclear de-excitation is NOT emitted as a gamma ray***, but instead used to accelerate one of the inner electrons of the atom, so that it leaves at high speed and energy. This result occurs because inner atomic electrons penetrate the nucleus, where they are subject to the intense electric fields which result when the protons of the nucleus re-arrange in a different way. In nuclei which are far from stability in energy, still other decay modes are known. --- An added bonus was this statement which supports my model for electrons as dipole-like oscillations which either skirt, and/or pass thru the nucleus. .because inner atomic electrons penetrate the nucleus I guess it's going to take a 2x4 to the head to get the science mainstream's attention. or, to interrupt their mesmerized state brought on by indoctrination to the current paradigm. -mark iverson
RE: [Vo]:Nuclear isomer
To follow up, another interesting tidbit in that Wikipage is this: --- High spin suppression of decay The most common mechanism for suppression of gamma decay of excited nuclei, and thus the existence of a metastable isomer for the nucleus, is lack of a decay route for the excited state that will change nuclear angular momentum (along any given direction) by the most common amount of 1 quantum unit (h-bar) of spin angular momentum. Such a change is necessary to emit a gamma photon, which has a spin of 1 unit in this system. --- All together now. Where, oh where, did the gamma rays go... Oh where, oh where can they be! -mark iverson From: MarkI-ZeroPoint [mailto:zeropo...@charter.net] Sent: Tuesday, May 13, 2014 10:26 PM To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: [Vo]:Nuclear isomer Vorts, A Fellow Friend of Fringe Facts sent me to gander at this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_isomer And here is what caught my attention that might apply to LENR/CF: --- Internal conversion Metastable isomers may also decay by internal conversion - ***a process in which the energy of nuclear de-excitation is NOT emitted as a gamma ray***, but instead used to accelerate one of the inner electrons of the atom, so that it leaves at high speed and energy. This result occurs because inner atomic electrons penetrate the nucleus, where they are subject to the intense electric fields which result when the protons of the nucleus re-arrange in a different way. In nuclei which are far from stability in energy, still other decay modes are known. --- An added bonus was this statement which supports my model for electrons as dipole-like oscillations which either skirt, and/or pass thru the nucleus. .because inner atomic electrons penetrate the nucleus I guess it's going to take a 2x4 to the head to get the science mainstream's attention. or, to interrupt their mesmerized state brought on by indoctrination to the current paradigm. -mark iverson
