Re: [Vo]:Robert Godes comments on the report
6p+3e-li6 (add the neutrino) it can be made zero momentum I take it from hydroton theory, with a possibility that it is not 1D, but 3D reaction It is not so crazy as Iwamura transmutations are 1/2/3 pairs of deuteron pairs of hydrogen nucleus is logical to conserve momentum 3D is much harder to accept, but for that reaction it can explain why only 6 half electrons are merged, while a 1D model would put 4... my model is maybe wrong, but not more than all our speculations... being sure of anything, ruling out possibilities is more than premature. 2014-10-13 18:04 GMT+02:00 Jones Beene jone...@pacbell.net: *From:* Alain Sepeda you forgot the clear logic... it is a product of fusion, Fusion of what? Please state clearly the reaction you have in mind. All we are asking for is some semblance of science here.
Re: [Vo]:Has the secret sauce been revealed by duplicity?
problem is there is no motive, and strong opposite motiveµ. he have no explanation for that, it cost much, it bring only doubt, moreover it may mean tha the reactor consume nickel, that it was exhausted... we have a complex phenomenon called LENR, that clearly does not respect the free-space 2-body rules you see in text book. it is as stupid to blindly use disintegration tables, fusion or fission tables, as it is to use balistic to understand birds, ohm laws inside intricated systems liek superconductors or laser. of course the conservation laws apply (energy, momentum, charge,numbers) but above that we shoudl be careful using our experimence in nuclear physics out of it's validity domain. I don't say that some phenomenological laws of dayly nuclear physics don't apply... we simply do'nt know when they don' apply. it is sure something happen differently. 2014-10-13 22:31 GMT+02:00 Jones Beene jone...@pacbell.net: *From:* Randy Wuller With all due respect, I don’t think the text books would support any nuclear change under the circumstances. What makes NI62 which is found in nature and was in both the before and after sample disturbing? The energy release from 58Ni to Ni62 is massive. Gamma radiation would be evident for one thing - but more troubling is that there is no feasible pathway to get there, which does not leave a long trail of “debris” so to speak or involve multi-body reactions. When a person is known to have the pure isotope, then the most likely scenario for how it appears in the sample is that the individual put it there intentionally. As to the LI6, why is that product any more unlikely than the nuclear process itself which many would say is impossible as to any isotopic or elemental change? The massive isotopic shift is the problem. Li6 is rare in nature and it does not decay from Li7 which is the common isotope. But Li6 can be bought as a nearly pure isotope. There are more details of course, but ask any nuclear physicist. These results are absolutely preposterous to the extent that intentional deceit is the only possible explanation. A massive shift in isotope balance, as a probability - would be akin to two unrelated people having identical DNA. Jones
[Vo]:Building Space Elevators
Towards the end of his life, science fiction writer Sir Arthur C. Clarke predicted that a space elevator would be built ten years after everybody stopped laughing. By the time he died, in 2008, everybody had. *Scientists Might Have Accidentally Solved The Hardest Part Of Building Space Elevators* http://news.yahoo.com/scientists-might-accidentally-solved-hardest-155000475.html
Re: [Vo]:Determining the transmittance . . . of semitransparent materials at elevated temperatures
On Mon, Oct 13, 2014 at 9:23 AM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com wrote: A corespondent sent me this link: http://www.eurotherm2008.tue.nl/Proceedings_Eurotherm2008/papers/Radiation/RAD_6.pdf He commented: My interpretation of figure 6 is that the tranmissivity of alumina goes down to zero. Hence, this shows the arguments about alumina translucency are moot. - Jed does this imply the dark bands are not cast shadows? Harry
Re: [Vo]:Interesting Simulation Results
you explain the new shape of the reactor covering, with the || || || shapes, as a required increase of convection ? what I see in that reactor is dozens of engineering innovations, not so sexy as LENR, but the kind engineer do everyday to make rocket fly. 2014-10-13 23:21 GMT+02:00 David Roberson dlrober...@aol.com: I decided to review my ECAT simulation model to see if it were reasonable to achieve a COP of around 3.5 while operating within a non thermal runaway region under steady state conditions. The earlier runs and model tended to indicate that it is quite precarious to operate the ECAT at a COP of greater than 2 without the pulse wide modulation input power waveform. Once a decision is made to operate within a potentially unstable region, it becomes necessary to turn the input power on and off periodically to prevent thermal run away. To the best of my knowledge, Rossi has used this type of operation until the latest test. In that demonstration the input drive is relatively constant and operation in the so called SSM mode not used. The new HotCat expels the internal heat through a combination of radiated, convected and conducted paths. The radiation path is quite useful when one attempts to prevent thermal run away conditions since a small increase in surface temperature results in a large increase in thermal radiation. Everyone by now has seen that the radiation goes up proportional to the forth power of the temperature and that puts the brakes upon increases in extra power generation due to internal temperature increases. My main question was related to understanding how he now can operate without having to worry so much about overheating and thermal run away while that was such a problem before. The trick apparently is in the geometry of the device. A large surface area is available to radiate away the escaping heat at a manageable surface temperature. Also, the surface of the main cylinder is specially treated with grooves to enhance thermal escape due to convection. This carefully constructed design is capable of removing enough heat to quench the positive feedback action that the internal core would normally encounter at the elevated operating temperatures. My model needed to take into account the new geometry features that were not present in the earlier devices. When I first ran a simulation of the new device I noticed that it was easy to limit the maximum temperature since the radiation was so efficient at handling the extra internal heat energy generated by any moderate increase in core temperature. I model the core heat generation by means of a polynomial power series and as long as the main terms contributing to the core heating are below forth order, a stable operating point is obtained. It would be useful to have the actual power series from an operating device, but that is apparently too much to expect at this time. A problem appeared when the input power was removed. As expected the temperature dropped a large amount in the core, but it reached a point of stable continuous output. This situation would not be tolerable and fortunately not seen within the test. I scratched my head and then realized that a cure to the problem was available. I adjusted the coefficient of the linear term that represented the convection heat emission and found that a value could be chosen that allowed the output temperature to continue downwards when input drive is removed. This adjustment very much falls into line with the real device since a lot of effort was expended in designing the groove structure. When the dust settled I had an opportunity to figure out exactly what was required to achieve a stable system. The surface area of the device must be designed so that convection currents carry away more heat than is generated within the lower temperature regions. This is needed to ensure that a low temperature latching performance is not obtained. Also, the surface areas must be able to radiate the correct amount of heat at the desired operation point. In that case, the sum of the drive power and the internally generated core power has to match the power that is emitted due to radiation, convection and conduction. This new model is amazingly simple in structure but demonstrates interesting insight into operation of the new CAT. Operation with a COP of approximately 3.5 did not seem to be too difficult with the optimum parameters according to the latest model. I plan to continue to evaluate my model as time permits and new data and questions arise. Dave
Re: [Vo]:Analysis of New E-Cat Report by McKubre
the gamma is only required if - the reaction is not zeromomentum (you see why I support that geometry is the kety adn reaction have to be geometrically symmetric) - or energy cannot be transmited as another potential energy to an object that have enoug energy state to dissipate it in smaller quanta X-rays or below... there is no other choise, since we don't see any gamma in LENR , it happens... 1- no free neutrons, so aneutronic... 2- no gamma, so geometrically symmetric reaction, with a big object strongly bound to absorb MeV, and multi-body to dissipate it as many quanta I know this idea is shocking some, but if we talk of LAWS of physics, we shoul start by the most strong laws, and the one which apply to object that don't suffer from the lattice context. the miracle is not specific to Rossi and Ni62... it happens also with iwamura, to FP, to Miley... 2014-10-14 1:17 GMT+02:00 Jones Beene jone...@pacbell.net: McKubre is a very careful in his wording. He has to be in his position – almost a diplomat. When he says: “If one were to reshuffle the neutrons of the five stable Ni isotopes in the directions of the revealed changes, we would have a great deal of energy—possibly far too much”... Yup. That is the understatement of the year… it is like 100 times too much energy depending on how representative the sample was – yet with gamma radiation near background, if not below. This is a physical impossibility. That speaks volumes to those who categorically reject the idea that there is “no motivation for deceit.” The sample was compromised. Jones
Re: [Vo]:An expert reviewed and approves of this configuration
the hypothesis that ther is a huge artifact in the measurement is more rational than fraud. Since rossi and IH are baffled by the result, this is a big option... anyway that it is real and Rossi don't underatdn all the reactio is not at all to exclude. never forget we have no theory. You should behave like good policemen, like Sherlock Holmes or CSI. 1- gather evidence without trying to interpret 2- eliminate what is REALLY impossible (not probable, not frequent, impossible) 3- what is the only remaining possible, is necessarily the reality. I know it is not popular here, but much more than the hydroton, the approach of ed storms have a great sense. respect the hard laws of science, the mass of experimental results, and forget the old habits. of course be careful with unreplicated results like here, but forget conspiracies 2014-10-13 21:09 GMT+02:00 Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com: spectroscopy
Re: [Vo]:neutron transfer reactions
I think we can eliminate 2 kind of impossible reaction : - those involving free neutrons that would be thermalized even rarely, and detected - those not geometrically balanced which would creat a gamma tha would be detected. geometry is the key because of CoM. probably the electron is too, but that is not sure... 2014-10-14 7:22 GMT+02:00 mix...@bigpond.com: Hi, (This email best viewed with a fixed width font). Prime candidates are even numbered elements with an odd number of neutrons. This is because subtracting or adding a neutron produces an even-even nucleus, and these tend to be stable. The reactions that yield the most energy would use a neutron source where the neutron is only bound loosely. Here is a table with some isotopes and the binding energy of the odd neutron (the lower the binding energy, the easier it is to remove):- Isotope Energy (MeV)ppm of the element in the Earth's crust D 2.2 ! Li7 7.2513 ! Be9 1.573 1.5 C13 4.946 200 Mg257.331 32000 ! Si298.474 267700 ! Ca437.933 52900 ! Ti478.885400 ! Ti498.142! Ge736.783 1.6 Se777.419 0.05 Sr878.428 260 Zr917.194 100 Mo957.369 1 Mo976.821 Pd105 7.094 0.001 Cd111 6.976 0.098 Sn117 6.943 2.5 Sn119 6.483 Ba135 6.973 250 Ba137 6.90 The most useful isotopes are likely to be those of low atomic number, high abundance, and reasonably large isotopic percentage of the element in question. These have been indicated with an !. In particular, Mg25 may be an opportunity that has been missed so far. It is interesting both because of it's abundance, and because of the neutron binding energy comparable to that of Lithium. Possible interesting reaction:- 25Mg + 25Mg = 26Mg + 24Mg + 3.763 MeV Furthermore the energy is divided over two nuclei of almost equal mass, hence each gets about half (1.9 MeV), so this could be a very clean reaction. Regards, Robin van Spaandonk http://rvanspaa.freehostia.com/project.html
Re: [Vo]:Analysis of New E-Cat Report by McKubre
If all the electrons and photons are joined in a boson condensate that have come to a common energy state, a photon blockade is established for new EMF. as an analogy... EMF behaves like a drop of hot water that is dropped into a large glass of ice water. The hot water mixes and thereby shares it energy to the cold ensemble of more massive numbers of colder water molecules. On Tue, Oct 14, 2014 at 2:35 AM, Alain Sepeda alain.sep...@gmail.com wrote: the gamma is only required if - the reaction is not zeromomentum (you see why I support that geometry is the kety adn reaction have to be geometrically symmetric) - or energy cannot be transmited as another potential energy to an object that have enoug energy state to dissipate it in smaller quanta X-rays or below... there is no other choise, since we don't see any gamma in LENR , it happens... 1- no free neutrons, so aneutronic... 2- no gamma, so geometrically symmetric reaction, with a big object strongly bound to absorb MeV, and multi-body to dissipate it as many quanta I know this idea is shocking some, but if we talk of LAWS of physics, we shoul start by the most strong laws, and the one which apply to object that don't suffer from the lattice context. the miracle is not specific to Rossi and Ni62... it happens also with iwamura, to FP, to Miley... 2014-10-14 1:17 GMT+02:00 Jones Beene jone...@pacbell.net: McKubre is a very careful in his wording. He has to be in his position – almost a diplomat. When he says: “If one were to reshuffle the neutrons of the five stable Ni isotopes in the directions of the revealed changes, we would have a great deal of energy—possibly far too much”... Yup. That is the understatement of the year… it is like 100 times too much energy depending on how representative the sample was – yet with gamma radiation near background, if not below. This is a physical impossibility. That speaks volumes to those who categorically reject the idea that there is “no motivation for deceit.” The sample was compromised. Jones
Re: [Vo]:neutron transfer reactions
those not geometrically balanced which would creat a gamma tha would be detected No... this is a bad assumption, The gammas could be shielded by quantum mechanical processes that are pervasive throughout the entire body of the reactor On Tue, Oct 14, 2014 at 2:53 AM, Alain Sepeda alain.sep...@gmail.com wrote: I think we can eliminate 2 kind of impossible reaction : - those involving free neutrons that would be thermalized even rarely, and detected - those not geometrically balanced which would creat a gamma tha would be detected. geometry is the key because of CoM. probably the electron is too, but that is not sure... 2014-10-14 7:22 GMT+02:00 mix...@bigpond.com: Hi, (This email best viewed with a fixed width font). Prime candidates are even numbered elements with an odd number of neutrons. This is because subtracting or adding a neutron produces an even-even nucleus, and these tend to be stable. The reactions that yield the most energy would use a neutron source where the neutron is only bound loosely. Here is a table with some isotopes and the binding energy of the odd neutron (the lower the binding energy, the easier it is to remove):- Isotope Energy (MeV)ppm of the element in the Earth's crust D 2.2 ! Li7 7.2513 ! Be9 1.573 1.5 C13 4.946 200 Mg257.331 32000 ! Si298.474 267700 ! Ca437.933 52900 ! Ti478.885400 ! Ti498.142! Ge736.783 1.6 Se777.419 0.05 Sr878.428 260 Zr917.194 100 Mo957.369 1 Mo976.821 Pd105 7.094 0.001 Cd111 6.976 0.098 Sn117 6.943 2.5 Sn119 6.483 Ba135 6.973 250 Ba137 6.90 The most useful isotopes are likely to be those of low atomic number, high abundance, and reasonably large isotopic percentage of the element in question. These have been indicated with an !. In particular, Mg25 may be an opportunity that has been missed so far. It is interesting both because of it's abundance, and because of the neutron binding energy comparable to that of Lithium. Possible interesting reaction:- 25Mg + 25Mg = 26Mg + 24Mg + 3.763 MeV Furthermore the energy is divided over two nuclei of almost equal mass, hence each gets about half (1.9 MeV), so this could be a very clean reaction. Regards, Robin van Spaandonk http://rvanspaa.freehostia.com/project.html
Re: [Vo]:Analysis of New E-Cat Report by McKubre
rewriting... If all the electrons and photons are joined in a boson condensate that have come to a common energy state, a photon blockade is established for new EMF. as an analogy... Here, energetic EMF like gamma rays behaves like a drop of hot water that is dropped into a large glass of ice water. The hot water mixes and thereby shares it energy with the more massive ensemble of colder water molecules. On Tue, Oct 14, 2014 at 2:56 AM, Axil Axil janap...@gmail.com wrote: If all the electrons and photons are joined in a boson condensate that have come to a common energy state, a photon blockade is established for new EMF. as an analogy... EMF behaves like a drop of hot water that is dropped into a large glass of ice water. The hot water mixes and thereby shares it energy to the cold ensemble of more massive numbers of colder water molecules. On Tue, Oct 14, 2014 at 2:35 AM, Alain Sepeda alain.sep...@gmail.com wrote: the gamma is only required if - the reaction is not zeromomentum (you see why I support that geometry is the kety adn reaction have to be geometrically symmetric) - or energy cannot be transmited as another potential energy to an object that have enoug energy state to dissipate it in smaller quanta X-rays or below... there is no other choise, since we don't see any gamma in LENR , it happens... 1- no free neutrons, so aneutronic... 2- no gamma, so geometrically symmetric reaction, with a big object strongly bound to absorb MeV, and multi-body to dissipate it as many quanta I know this idea is shocking some, but if we talk of LAWS of physics, we shoul start by the most strong laws, and the one which apply to object that don't suffer from the lattice context. the miracle is not specific to Rossi and Ni62... it happens also with iwamura, to FP, to Miley... 2014-10-14 1:17 GMT+02:00 Jones Beene jone...@pacbell.net: McKubre is a very careful in his wording. He has to be in his position – almost a diplomat. When he says: “If one were to reshuffle the neutrons of the five stable Ni isotopes in the directions of the revealed changes, we would have a great deal of energy—possibly far too much”... Yup. That is the understatement of the year… it is like 100 times too much energy depending on how representative the sample was – yet with gamma radiation near background, if not below. This is a physical impossibility. That speaks volumes to those who categorically reject the idea that there is “no motivation for deceit.” The sample was compromised. Jones
Re: [Vo]:Analysis of New E-Cat Report by McKubre
Dear Jed, See please the 1 =0 Rule- http://egooutpeters.blogspot.ro/2013/05/the-1-0-rule-generalized.html I have learned it from the failures in actual tecghnological research. Just now it seems an error that all the nickel eggs were put in a single alumina basket. I think that performing three consecutive parallel experiments in different conditions - according to some logic and plan would have been increased the performance three times, at only 10% increased effort, 60% increased expenses and 10 times more muzzles put to the Rossi killers. Peter On Tue, Oct 14, 2014 at 1:05 AM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com wrote: See: http://www.infinite-energy.com/iemagazine/issue118/analysis.html Jed's opinion: I completely agree with everything McKubre says here about the calorimetry. I share his reservations. I agree with the rest of this report except the nuclear theory is partly over my head. No opinion about that. I like this statement: One experimental result equates to zero experimental results. Nothing in science can be known without repetition. Very true and people often forget it. Or, as I have been saying, definitive experiments only happen in Hollywood movies. McKubre emphasizes the need for more communication from the authors. Yes! That would be a big help. I hope the authors respond to the questions here: http://www.lenr-forum.com/forum/index.php/Thread/722-Ask-questions-to-the-Working-Group-ECAT-long-term-test/ Especially I hope they respond to *my* questions. I will be nervous about this experiment until they say the cell was incandescent white. That is the simplest way to confirm that the temperature really was around 1300°C. The photograph in Fig. 12 shows it around 700°C, judging by the dull red color. See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Incandescence#mediaviewer/File:Incandescence_Color.jpg I do not know when they took that photo. - Jed -- Dr. Peter Gluck Cluj, Romania http://egooutpeters.blogspot.com
[Vo]:Re: CMNS: surprising attacker of the Rossi report
Dear Sunil, Planck was right- in principle- but dogmatism and age are -, alas! weakly correlated. The Paradigm Shift is more difficult, Yama alone cannot solve it. But we must do it. Peter On Tue, Oct 14, 2014 at 12:40 PM, Sunil Auluck skhaul...@gmail.com wrote: I think it is appropriate to recall Max Planck's wise observation:A new scientific truth does not triumph by convincing its opponents and making them see the light, but rather because its opponents eventually die, and a new generation grows up that is familiar with it. http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Max_Planck This is immortalized in the Planck's Principle of Scientific Progress: Science advances one funeral at a time! Sunil On Mon, Oct 13, 2014 at 11:36 PM, Peter Gluck peter.gl...@gmail.com wrote: Dear Friends I hope that my paper: http://egooutpeters.blogspot.ro/2014/10/learning-from-confrontationalist.html will show that we can learn from very unexpected attacks. The enemy is enemy is enemy. Peter -- Dr. Peter Gluck Cluj, Romania http://egooutpeters.blogspot.com -- 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+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to c...@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/cmns. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. -- Prof. S.K.H. Auluck Homi Bhabha National Institute (Deemed University) Outstanding Scientist, Physics Group, Bhabha Atomic Research Center Mumbai, 400085, India, -- 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+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to c...@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/cmns. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. -- Dr. Peter Gluck Cluj, Romania http://egooutpeters.blogspot.com
[Vo]:SSI Tesla generator
Anyone following this? http://forum.keshefoundation.org/forum/keshe-official/34787-breakthrough-in-the-world-of-science It looks like they got up to 62T off of 10w of energy. They are live streaming the entire thing. interesting.
Re: [Vo]:SSI Tesla generator
If my memory is correct the origins of the Keshe Foundation is Iran. Also...they have been promising UFO tech for years...I stopped watching them. Ad Astra, Ron On Tue, Oct 14, 2014 at 6:39 AM, Blaze Spinnaker blazespinna...@gmail.com wrote: Anyone following this? http://forum.keshefoundation.org/forum/keshe-official/34787-breakthrough-in-the-world-of-science It looks like they got up to 62T off of 10w of energy. They are live streaming the entire thing. interesting.
Re: [Vo]:Has the secret sauce been revealed by duplicity?
Interesting analysis, Jones. I agree there is a scenario such that the current fuel he has is economically prohibitive which would be motivation for him to mess with the results. Another scenario is he simply doesn't want other people to replicate his work just yet and is using these guys for the purpose of obfuscation and misdirection. It was inherently a mistake to publish the results and have Rossi involved in the way that he was. For this reason alone, I do not believe paper is worthy of publication. The mere fact they don't have a video (even though a camera was clearly available in the top corner of the room) and the extremely peculiar response by Rossi who felt the need to deny a video exists (why does he care people think there is one?). That being said, I am still encouraged by Darden's desire to call Industrial Heat our company. He's taken responsibility for all of this. He must have good reason to believe there is something here. On Mon, Oct 13, 2014 at 11:21 PM, Alain Sepeda alain.sep...@gmail.com wrote: problem is there is no motive, and strong opposite motiveµ. he have no explanation for that, it cost much, it bring only doubt, moreover it may mean tha the reactor consume nickel, that it was exhausted... we have a complex phenomenon called LENR, that clearly does not respect the free-space 2-body rules you see in text book. it is as stupid to blindly use disintegration tables, fusion or fission tables, as it is to use balistic to understand birds, ohm laws inside intricated systems liek superconductors or laser. of course the conservation laws apply (energy, momentum, charge,numbers) but above that we shoudl be careful using our experimence in nuclear physics out of it's validity domain. I don't say that some phenomenological laws of dayly nuclear physics don't apply... we simply do'nt know when they don' apply. it is sure something happen differently. 2014-10-13 22:31 GMT+02:00 Jones Beene jone...@pacbell.net: *From:* Randy Wuller With all due respect, I don’t think the text books would support any nuclear change under the circumstances. What makes NI62 which is found in nature and was in both the before and after sample disturbing? The energy release from 58Ni to Ni62 is massive. Gamma radiation would be evident for one thing - but more troubling is that there is no feasible pathway to get there, which does not leave a long trail of “debris” so to speak or involve multi-body reactions. When a person is known to have the pure isotope, then the most likely scenario for how it appears in the sample is that the individual put it there intentionally. As to the LI6, why is that product any more unlikely than the nuclear process itself which many would say is impossible as to any isotopic or elemental change? The massive isotopic shift is the problem. Li6 is rare in nature and it does not decay from Li7 which is the common isotope. But Li6 can be bought as a nearly pure isotope. There are more details of course, but ask any nuclear physicist. These results are absolutely preposterous to the extent that intentional deceit is the only possible explanation. A massive shift in isotope balance, as a probability - would be akin to two unrelated people having identical DNA. Jones
Re: [Vo]:SSI Tesla generator
Keshe Foundation is a legal entity in Belgium. Not very credible due to lack of facts On Tue, Oct 14, 2014 at 1:08 PM, Ron Kita chiralex.k...@gmail.com wrote: If my memory is correct the origins of the Keshe Foundation is Iran. Also...they have been promising UFO tech for years...I stopped watching them. Ad Astra, Ron On Tue, Oct 14, 2014 at 6:39 AM, Blaze Spinnaker blazespinna...@gmail.com wrote: Anyone following this? http://forum.keshefoundation.org/forum/keshe-official/34787-breakthrough-in-the-world-of-science It looks like they got up to 62T off of 10w of energy. They are live streaming the entire thing. interesting.
RE: [Vo]:Robert Godes comments on the report
From: Alain Sepeda 6p+3e-li6 (add the neutrino) it can be made zero momentum I take it from hydroton theory, with a possibility that it is not 1D, but 3D reaction Please clarify: six protons coming together at one time is a six-body reaction, no? How do all 6 get there at the same instant in any dimension?
Re: [Vo]:An expert reviewed and approves of this configuration
ChemE Stewart cheme...@gmail.com wrote: P.S., I almost burned down a research lab in Portland, ME as a co-op engineer in 1984 when the polymer shell we were spinning onto a roll cover caught fire and evacuated the building from thick black smoke. So that qualifies me as an expert. An expert is a man who has made all the mistakes which can be made . . . - Niels Bohr That's hilarious. Great story! - Jed
[Vo]:Inconel f/H and SPP
In searching the TP2 document, Inconel is mentioned 11 times, but never the grade. Great technical writing, for sure. All of the grades have substantial nickel of course, and a few are loaded with what are known as Mills' catalysts in addition to nickel. Inconel 617 would be especially active due to the high molybdenum and Inconel 625 is known to load and retain hydrogen at high temperature. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inconel http://cat.inist.fr/?aModele=afficheNcpsidt=2722217 A common theme in Mills' papers is the synergy of using many catalysts instead of one or two. When carrying 3-phase current, there will be a part of each cycle where the wire attracts protons. All of the hydrogen could in principle be stored in the Inconel after it has been released from the carrier alloy where it is poised to densify. In any event, there seems to be no good reason to eliminate the Inconel as being active, since it contains lots of nickel - especially in the context of SPP. The main way that SPP are known to form is on the interface of a metal and ceramic in the presence of a light source and an electric field, which would be the resistance wire itself. Sounds like the ideal setup for SPP, no? Would SPP alone supply excess heat? Dunno. That has apparently never been considered. Alternatively would SPP catalyze the formation of f/H or DDL? Probably. If it were known that SPP alone produced excess heat when the reactor was operated above 500C, (where IR light starts to be produced at sufficient wavelength) that would be a reason that one would not want to calibrate above this temperature, as it would reveal too much. But it would not surprise anyone who has followed both LENR and Mills, and assuming that excess heat will be validated, if the Mills camp picks up on the Inconel wires - to claim that this is hydrino tech. Jones attachment: winmail.dat
Re: [Vo]:Inconel f/H and SPP
The Inconel wire could be the Mouse integrated into the reactor design. On Tue, Oct 14, 2014 at 10:10 AM, Jones Beene jone...@pacbell.net wrote: In searching the TP2 document, Inconel is mentioned 11 times, but never the grade. Great technical writing, for sure. All of the grades have substantial nickel of course, and a few are loaded with what are known as Mills' catalysts in addition to nickel. Inconel 617 would be especially active due to the high molybdenum and Inconel 625 is known to load and retain hydrogen at high temperature. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inconel http://cat.inist.fr/?aModele=afficheNcpsidt=2722217 A common theme in Mills' papers is the synergy of using many catalysts instead of one or two. When carrying 3-phase current, there will be a part of each cycle where the wire attracts protons. All of the hydrogen could in principle be stored in the Inconel after it has been released from the carrier alloy where it is poised to densify. In any event, there seems to be no good reason to eliminate the Inconel as being active, since it contains lots of nickel - especially in the context of SPP. The main way that SPP are known to form is on the interface of a metal and ceramic in the presence of a light source and an electric field, which would be the resistance wire itself. Sounds like the ideal setup for SPP, no? Would SPP alone supply excess heat? Dunno. That has apparently never been considered. Alternatively would SPP catalyze the formation of f/H or DDL? Probably. If it were known that SPP alone produced excess heat when the reactor was operated above 500C, (where IR light starts to be produced at sufficient wavelength) that would be a reason that one would not want to calibrate above this temperature, as it would reveal too much. But it would not surprise anyone who has followed both LENR and Mills, and assuming that excess heat will be validated, if the Mills camp picks up on the Inconel wires - to claim that this is hydrino tech. Jones
[Vo]:Three hypotheses for Rossi mass spec results
Broadly speaking, I think three explanation have been offered for the astounding mass spec results: 1. Tentative acceptance, or at least acceptance for the sake of argument. That, it seems to me, is McKubre's position. As McKubre says, this result is so different from previous ones it should be considered one-off, and not yet replicated. 2. Mistake. This seems unlikely given the magnitude of the effect. On the other hand mass spectroscopy is a difficult art. The people at Mitsubishi and the National Synchrotron lab both saw pronounced isotopic shifts in Iwamura's samples. The people at the NRL looked at those samples and saw nothing. I believe they were the very same samples in some cases. 3. Fraud. Surely you jest. This has been proposed by skeptics thousands of times to dismiss cold fusion results. It is an intellectual dead end. It can seldom be tested. I cannot judge the likelihood of 1 or 2. #3 seems unlikely because, as I said, there is no motive. Rossi already has what he wants from IH. I doubt IH has any investment (fiscal or psychological) in Rossi's Ni theories. No industrialist cares about theory, except insofar as they want a theory to speed up development. - Jed
RE: [Vo]:Inconel f/H and SPP
From: Axil Axil The Inconel wire could be the Mouse integrated into the reactor design. Or there could be another chamber. Think about the way it is filled. Does the powder drop all the way down the tube so that if the other end cap was designed to be the “mouse” then that that is what is being filled? The Inconel could then have been preloaded with hydrogen, but it would not become active until the mouse was filled. Jones Beene wrote: In searching the TP2 document, Inconel is mentioned 11 times, but never the grade. Great technical writing, for sure. All of the grades have substantial nickel of course, and a few are loaded with what are known as Mills' catalysts in addition to nickel. Inconel 617 would be especially active due to the high molybdenum and Inconel 625 is known to load and retain hydrogen at high temperature. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inconel http://cat.inist.fr/?aModele=afficheNcpsidt=2722217 A common theme in Mills' papers is the synergy of using many catalysts instead of one or two. When carrying 3-phase current, there will be a part of each cycle where the wire attracts protons. All of the hydrogen could in principle be stored in the Inconel after it has been released from the carrier alloy where it is poised to densify. In any event, there seems to be no good reason to eliminate the Inconel as being active, since it contains lots of nickel - especially in the context of SPP. The main way that SPP are known to form is on the interface of a metal and ceramic in the presence of a light source and an electric field, which would be the resistance wire itself. Sounds like the ideal setup for SPP, no? Would SPP alone supply excess heat? Dunno. That has apparently never been considered. Alternatively would SPP catalyze the formation of f/H or DDL? Probably. If it were known that SPP alone produced excess heat when the reactor was operated above 500C, (where IR light starts to be produced at sufficient wavelength) that would be a reason that one would not want to calibrate above this temperature, as it would reveal too much. But it would not surprise anyone who has followed both LENR and Mills, and assuming that excess heat will be validated, if the Mills camp picks up on the Inconel wires - to claim that this is hydrino tech. Jones attachment: winmail.dat
Re: [Vo]:Three hypotheses for Rossi mass spec results
2. Mistake. This seems unlikely given the magnitude of the effect. On the other hand mass spectroscopy is a difficult art. The people at Mitsubishi and the National Synchrotron lab both saw pronounced isotopic shifts in Iwamura's samples. The people at the NRL looked at those samples and saw nothing. I believe they were the very same samples in some cases. Ah, is that right? That's interesting. On Tue, Oct 14, 2014 at 7:25 AM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com wrote: Broadly speaking, I think three explanation have been offered for the astounding mass spec results: 1. Tentative acceptance, or at least acceptance for the sake of argument. That, it seems to me, is McKubre's position. As McKubre says, this result is so different from previous ones it should be considered one-off, and not yet replicated. 2. Mistake. This seems unlikely given the magnitude of the effect. On the other hand mass spectroscopy is a difficult art. The people at Mitsubishi and the National Synchrotron lab both saw pronounced isotopic shifts in Iwamura's samples. The people at the NRL looked at those samples and saw nothing. I believe they were the very same samples in some cases. 3. Fraud. Surely you jest. This has been proposed by skeptics thousands of times to dismiss cold fusion results. It is an intellectual dead end. It can seldom be tested. I cannot judge the likelihood of 1 or 2. #3 seems unlikely because, as I said, there is no motive. Rossi already has what he wants from IH. I doubt IH has any investment (fiscal or psychological) in Rossi's Ni theories. No industrialist cares about theory, except insofar as they want a theory to speed up development. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:Inconel f/H and SPP
what is SPP? Harry On Tue, Oct 14, 2014 at 10:10 AM, Jones Beene jone...@pacbell.net wrote: In any event, there seems to be no good reason to eliminate the Inconel as being active, since it contains lots of nickel - especially in the context of SPP.
RE: [Vo]:Inconel f/H and SPP
SPP = surface plasmon polariton. This is a favorite hypothesis of NASA at the moment. Violante discovered over 10 years ago that SPP can produce nuclear reactions. Paper is on LENR-CANR From: H Veeder what is SPP? Harry In any event, there seems to be no good reason to eliminate the Inconel as being active, since it contains lots of nickel - especially in the context of SPP.
Re: [Vo]:Three hypotheses for Rossi mass spec results
4. Jed don't think Rossi owes him money -- Daniel Rocha - RJ danieldi...@gmail.com
[Vo]:Super-fluidic heat flow.
Tomclarke wrote: Reactor surface (claimed) temperature, for several days 1400C at 2.8kW flux, Al2O3 heat capacity, cylinder 4mm ID/ 20mm OD heat difference is 200C So temperature of powder must be 1600C continuous at least - more if thermal conductivity to Al2O3 is not large. T = P*ln(d1/d2)/(2*pi*L*k) where k is the thermal conductivity, d1,d2 are outer and inner cylinder diameters, L is length of cylinder, T is temperature difference. The melting point of pure nickel is 1455C. Any admixture of other elements decreases this. So if the claims here are correct all nickel grains in ash should be melted. Axil wrote: This is good grist for deductive reasoning. If this condition did exist then…. This is what leads me to the suspect that the heat flow is isothermal: caused by superfuildity through the auspices of a boson condensate in which the infrared photons produced by the reactor participate. Having condensed, all the photons are at the same energy level thus resulting in a singular wavelength. Any new energy input into the condensate is shared equally among the members of the condensate providing a unitary thermal state. This is part of the gamma thermalization process.
Re: [Vo]:Three hypotheses for Rossi mass spec results
On Tue, Oct 14, 2014 at 10:25 AM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com wrote: Broadly speaking, I think three explanation have been offered for the astounding mass spec results: 1. Tentative acceptance, or at least acceptance for the sake of argument. That, it seems to me, is McKubre's position. As McKubre says, this result is so different from previous ones it should be considered one-off, and not yet replicated. 2. Mistake. This seems unlikely given the magnitude of the effect. On the other hand mass spectroscopy is a difficult art. The people at Mitsubishi and the National Synchrotron lab both saw pronounced isotopic shifts in Iwamura's samples. The people at the NRL looked at those samples and saw nothing. I believe they were the very same samples in some cases. 3. Fraud. Surely you jest. This has been proposed by skeptics thousands of times to dismiss cold fusion results. It is an intellectual dead end. It can seldom be tested. I cannot judge the likelihood of 1 or 2. #3 seems unlikely because, as I said, there is no motive. Rossi already has what he wants from IH. I doubt IH has any investment (fiscal or psychological) in Rossi's Ni theories. No industrialist cares about theory, except insofar as they want a theory to speed up development. - Jed Robert Ellefson makes a good case why the ash is not fake without reference to motive or magic tricks: https://www.mail-archive.com/vortex-l%40eskimo.com/msg98444.html I do not believe that the discovery of highly-enriched isotopes is the result of fraud. I think that the variable fractions of isotopes between the surface and the bulk of the ash indicates that isotopic enrichment was occurring in-situ. The apparent fact (if true) that the bulk of the nickel is 99.3% Ni-62, while it is 98.7% Ni-62 on the surface, along with an even larger lithium isotope gradient from surface-to-bulk, demonstrates that we are looking at the ash of a nuclear reaction, and not a faked result. I have no idea how Rossi could achieve such gradients in with a laboratory-supply feedstock of enriched nickel achieving both the surface morphology that the ash grain displayed and the isotope fractionation gradient that it displayed. I highly doubt this would be possible to fake even with tremendous effort. So, rather than providing evidence of fraud, I very much believe that this isotope fractionation gradient clearly indicates that some kind of nuclear reaction is taking place in during this experiment. Harry
Re: [Vo]:Engineering and materials issues with high temperature hot-cat Lugano demo
Robert, I think a lot of your observations are spot on. I would like to continue discussion of the likely construction of the latest IH hotCat. You are likely correct that the corrosion of liquid and vapor phase lithium would be terrible for use of a metal reactor vessel. That is probably why they switched to alumina. Alumina is a wonderful ceramic from a thermal, mechanical, and electrical properties standpoint. Its only drawback is that it has to be fired at a very high temperature to form it, but Coors has been doing it for decades. It is high thermal conductivity, very low electrical conductivity (a good dielectric), and extremely chemically stable. It is mechanically tough, even in thin wafers (it has been used as a substrate for hybrid electronic circuits also for decades). One thing that strikes me is that heater wires at this temperature have 2 related constraints: a) they must be sealed away from oxygen, and b) there must be a good way to remove the heat from the wire to prevent hot spots from run-away temperature rise. Regarding a) - long before these wires melt, they will oxidize and burn up in oxygen. Usually this means that the wires must be sealed inside a ceramic oxide to prevent exposing the hot metal heater wire to free oxygen. For b), it is necessary to spread the heat from the wire. This is usually done by bonding the wire to another ceramic body, usually with a refractory cement. Now lets consider the issue of using a refractory cement to bond the heater wire to the inside of a ceramic tube. You would need to have the coils pre-formed and slipped inside such a tube and then paint them inside with the refractory ceramic. This would be very painful. Instead, I imagine a central alumina tube with the heater wires wrapped on its outside. This could then be painted with a refractory cement to seal out the oxygen and help thermally spread the wire's heat over the ceramic tube. Normally such refractory cements have an organic binder that dries in air at room temperature. They also contain both low temperature glass and ceramic fibers. As the cement is heated, it would first drive off any organic. Then the glass melts and further binds the joint. Then as temperature gets hotter the glass wicks into the ceramic fiber and a glass-ceramic hybrid is formed. The joint can be air tight at basically all temperatures until the ceramic itself melts. Also, because we are talking about 3-phase coils, there will be cross-overs of the wire that must be brought out to the ends of the reactor. These will have to be very carefully managed so as not to short. This is another practical reason why I believe the coils must be created wound on the outside of an alumina tube; that tube being coaxially internal to the alumina tube that is visible on the outside. Probably after a first heating of the coil (either self-heating or having been placed in a curing furnace), the inner alumina tube with the wrapped coils could be coated with a similar refractory cement and slipped (glued) inside the outer tube. Imperfect cement contact between the inner and outer alumina tubes could cause the appearance of uneven heating on the outside tube. Another point has to do with how the heat is conveyed from a LENR reaction. Since the LENR reaction is likely a nano-scale event, heat must be conveyed from the reaction in a way that doesn't make the NAE the hottest spot. Otherwise, none of the reported melt-downs would be possible - the NAE would evaporate itself before it could create enough heat to melt the macro apparatus. This implies that the heat is conveyed from the NAE by photons - not such high energy that they readily escape the reactor, but high enough that it can penetrate through a mm or so of the surrounding materials (which could be LENR powder), depositing heat as the photons are attenuated in penetration. The important take-away is that the NAE cannot be the hottest spot - it must heat its surroundings more than itself. Given this, it is possible that the heat from the LENR is being absorbed in the alumina in a distributed way, causing the LENR powder to be largely the same temperature as the surrounding ceramic. I don't believe it is necessary or probable that the core must be much higher temperature than the shell. Can we refocus this thread into discussion about the construction of the latest reactor? For example: - Why do we think the end caps are so big? Are they part of a lower temperature insulated mounting system? - Why do we think the 3-phase drive is used? - What else? Bob Higgins On Sun, Oct 12, 2014 at 9:43 PM, Robert Lynn robert.gulliver.l...@gmail.com wrote: 1% lithium in 1g fuel, so 0.01g, boils at 1342°C. At 1 bar,1342°C would fill about 180mL volume, reactor volume probably about 30-50mL so will be filled with lithium gas under pressure - operating as a heat-pipe to equalise pressure. I have just realised that we can probably infer the
Re: [Vo]:Engineering and materials issues with high temperature hot-cat Lugano demo
I agree the coil is imbedded within the alumina shell Maybe the end caps are heat sinks? I still think the unit works off induction from the coil On Tue, Oct 14, 2014 at 11:15 AM, Bob Higgins rj.bob.higg...@gmail.com wrote: Robert, I think a lot of your observations are spot on. I would like to continue discussion of the likely construction of the latest IH hotCat. You are likely correct that the corrosion of liquid and vapor phase lithium would be terrible for use of a metal reactor vessel. That is probably why they switched to alumina. Alumina is a wonderful ceramic from a thermal, mechanical, and electrical properties standpoint. Its only drawback is that it has to be fired at a very high temperature to form it, but Coors has been doing it for decades. It is high thermal conductivity, very low electrical conductivity (a good dielectric), and extremely chemically stable. It is mechanically tough, even in thin wafers (it has been used as a substrate for hybrid electronic circuits also for decades). One thing that strikes me is that heater wires at this temperature have 2 related constraints: a) they must be sealed away from oxygen, and b) there must be a good way to remove the heat from the wire to prevent hot spots from run-away temperature rise. Regarding a) - long before these wires melt, they will oxidize and burn up in oxygen. Usually this means that the wires must be sealed inside a ceramic oxide to prevent exposing the hot metal heater wire to free oxygen. For b), it is necessary to spread the heat from the wire. This is usually done by bonding the wire to another ceramic body, usually with a refractory cement. Now lets consider the issue of using a refractory cement to bond the heater wire to the inside of a ceramic tube. You would need to have the coils pre-formed and slipped inside such a tube and then paint them inside with the refractory ceramic. This would be very painful. Instead, I imagine a central alumina tube with the heater wires wrapped on its outside. This could then be painted with a refractory cement to seal out the oxygen and help thermally spread the wire's heat over the ceramic tube. Normally such refractory cements have an organic binder that dries in air at room temperature. They also contain both low temperature glass and ceramic fibers. As the cement is heated, it would first drive off any organic. Then the glass melts and further binds the joint. Then as temperature gets hotter the glass wicks into the ceramic fiber and a glass-ceramic hybrid is formed. The joint can be air tight at basically all temperatures until the ceramic itself melts. Also, because we are talking about 3-phase coils, there will be cross-overs of the wire that must be brought out to the ends of the reactor. These will have to be very carefully managed so as not to short. This is another practical reason why I believe the coils must be created wound on the outside of an alumina tube; that tube being coaxially internal to the alumina tube that is visible on the outside. Probably after a first heating of the coil (either self-heating or having been placed in a curing furnace), the inner alumina tube with the wrapped coils could be coated with a similar refractory cement and slipped (glued) inside the outer tube. Imperfect cement contact between the inner and outer alumina tubes could cause the appearance of uneven heating on the outside tube. Another point has to do with how the heat is conveyed from a LENR reaction. Since the LENR reaction is likely a nano-scale event, heat must be conveyed from the reaction in a way that doesn't make the NAE the hottest spot. Otherwise, none of the reported melt-downs would be possible - the NAE would evaporate itself before it could create enough heat to melt the macro apparatus. This implies that the heat is conveyed from the NAE by photons - not such high energy that they readily escape the reactor, but high enough that it can penetrate through a mm or so of the surrounding materials (which could be LENR powder), depositing heat as the photons are attenuated in penetration. The important take-away is that the NAE cannot be the hottest spot - it must heat its surroundings more than itself. Given this, it is possible that the heat from the LENR is being absorbed in the alumina in a distributed way, causing the LENR powder to be largely the same temperature as the surrounding ceramic. I don't believe it is necessary or probable that the core must be much higher temperature than the shell. Can we refocus this thread into discussion about the construction of the latest reactor? For example: - Why do we think the end caps are so big? Are they part of a lower temperature insulated mounting system? - Why do we think the 3-phase drive is used? - What else? Bob Higgins On Sun, Oct 12, 2014 at 9:43 PM, Robert Lynn robert.gulliver.l...@gmail.com wrote:
Re: [Vo]:Interesting Simulation Results
That seems to be the best explanation that is derived from my model. Stable operation of the HotCat is achieved when the heat generated by the core finds an easy escape from the device. Since it is highly likely that the heat energy generated within the core increases at a rate that is greater than linear and zero at low temperatures, it becomes necessary to remove the increasing heat that is generated as the core temperature rises. The radiation that occurs, which is proportional to the forth power of the temperature, takes care of the very high temperature region of operation. The simulation model initially latched at an intermediate temperature due to too much positive feedback in that operating range and the addition of a more robust method of extracting energy solved that issue. In this case a better sink turned out to be a more efficient convection or conduction term that is associated with a lower polynomial power. The geometry modification appears to be the best way to increase the convection and conduction terms to achieve the required stability. I have more to come with regard to my model and how it indicates that internal heat generation is a near certainty. This can be understood in light of the device behavior described within the latest report. Dave -Original Message- From: Alain Sepeda alain.sep...@gmail.com To: Vortex List vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Tue, Oct 14, 2014 2:29 am Subject: Re: [Vo]:Interesting Simulation Results you explain the new shape of the reactor covering, with the || || || shapes, as a required increase of convection ? what I see in that reactor is dozens of engineering innovations, not so sexy as LENR, but the kind engineer do everyday to make rocket fly. 2014-10-13 23:21 GMT+02:00 David Roberson dlrober...@aol.com: I decided to review my ECAT simulation model to see if it were reasonable to achieve a COP of around 3.5 while operating within a non thermal runaway region under steady state conditions. The earlier runs and model tended to indicate that it is quite precarious to operate the ECAT at a COP of greater than 2 without the pulse wide modulation input power waveform. Once a decision is made to operate within a potentially unstable region, it becomes necessary to turn the input power on and off periodically to prevent thermal run away. To the best of my knowledge, Rossi has used this type of operation until the latest test. In that demonstration the input drive is relatively constant and operation in the so called SSM mode not used. The new HotCat expels the internal heat through a combination of radiated, convected and conducted paths. The radiation path is quite useful when one attempts to prevent thermal run away conditions since a small increase in surface temperature results in a large increase in thermal radiation. Everyone by now has seen that the radiation goes up proportional to the forth power of the temperature and that puts the brakes upon increases in extra power generation due to internal temperature increases. My main question was related to understanding how he now can operate without having to worry so much about overheating and thermal run away while that was such a problem before. The trick apparently is in the geometry of the device. A large surface area is available to radiate away the escaping heat at a manageable surface temperature. Also, the surface of the main cylinder is specially treated with grooves to enhance thermal escape due to convection. This carefully constructed design is capable of removing enough heat to quench the positive feedback action that the internal core would normally encounter at the elevated operating temperatures. My model needed to take into account the new geometry features that were not present in the earlier devices. When I first ran a simulation of the new device I noticed that it was easy to limit the maximum temperature since the radiation was so efficient at handling the extra internal heat energy generated by any moderate increase in core temperature. I model the core heat generation by means of a polynomial power series and as long as the main terms contributing to the core heating are below forth order, a stable operating point is obtained. It would be useful to have the actual power series from an operating device, but that is apparently too much to expect at this time. A problem appeared when the input power was removed. As expected the temperature dropped a large amount in the core, but it reached a point of stable continuous output. This situation would not be tolerable and fortunately not seen within the test. I scratched my head and then realized that a cure to the problem was available. I adjusted the coefficient of the linear term that represented the convection heat emission and found that a value could be chosen that allowed the output temperature to continue downwards when input drive
Re: [Vo]:An expert reviewed and approves of this configuration
Yes, sorry -- I was referring back to the 2013 test. For that we had a picture of the ceramic frame holding the resistor wires, which was cast in two (I recall, without looking it up) sections. For a small area, we have a solid plate (complicated by fins), and then a cog-like structure with the gap towards the outside. Presuming that this makes good thermal contact to the outer cylinder we can approximate it as a rectangular block with a rectangular hole, with the wire in the center. The wire itself is mostly in poor contact with the holder, so it supplies heat by thermal radiation (or induction, though I think that's less likely). There are two pathways from the inner hot zone: by conduction through the solid part of the gear, and by radiation through the gap. ( It's probably close to thermal equilibrium.) Given that Alumina is an insulator, I don't know which wins, but there is definitely a possibility of a temperature difference, which may persist. I don't have the tools (comsol etc) to model the radiation in and across the gap. - Original Message - From: H Veeder hveeder...@gmail.com To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Monday, October 13, 2014 8:30:55 PM Subject: Re: [Vo]:An expert reviewed and approves of this configuration Maybe I misunderstood but when he said the march test, I thought he meant the march test of 2013. Harry On Mon, Oct 13, 2014 at 11:17 PM, ChemE Stewart cheme...@gmail.com wrote: Alumina is a top notch insulator and the coil is imbedded in it. More heat must be leaving other routes. Where r the fins? I have not studied the photos. On Monday, October 13, 2014, H Veeder hveeder...@gmail.com wrote: blockquote The banded regions should absorb heat and in the long run reach the same temperature as their surroundings. The fact that they persist is a sign of something significant...and I don't mean fraud or incompetence. blockquote blockquote blockquote AJF: Figure 6 : this is complicated by transmission, which may be happening in the visible range. (IF the helical shadows are indeed images or shadows of the coiuls. But I still think they represent different conduction zones of a ceramic holder, as in the March test). However, this has a broad peak near the center of the visible range, so the blue might be enhanced a little. I find it odd the dark bands (a.k.a the shadows) persist. I can understand how differences in conduction play a role when the reactor first starts but in the long run shouldn't the dark bands disappear? Harry /blockquote /blockquote /blockquote /blockquote
Re: [Vo]:Engineering and materials issues with high temperature hot-cat Lugano demo
See my thread: Super-fluidic heat flow On Tue, Oct 14, 2014 at 11:15 AM, Bob Higgins rj.bob.higg...@gmail.com wrote: Robert, I think a lot of your observations are spot on. I would like to continue discussion of the likely construction of the latest IH hotCat. You are likely correct that the corrosion of liquid and vapor phase lithium would be terrible for use of a metal reactor vessel. That is probably why they switched to alumina. Alumina is a wonderful ceramic from a thermal, mechanical, and electrical properties standpoint. Its only drawback is that it has to be fired at a very high temperature to form it, but Coors has been doing it for decades. It is high thermal conductivity, very low electrical conductivity (a good dielectric), and extremely chemically stable. It is mechanically tough, even in thin wafers (it has been used as a substrate for hybrid electronic circuits also for decades). One thing that strikes me is that heater wires at this temperature have 2 related constraints: a) they must be sealed away from oxygen, and b) there must be a good way to remove the heat from the wire to prevent hot spots from run-away temperature rise. Regarding a) - long before these wires melt, they will oxidize and burn up in oxygen. Usually this means that the wires must be sealed inside a ceramic oxide to prevent exposing the hot metal heater wire to free oxygen. For b), it is necessary to spread the heat from the wire. This is usually done by bonding the wire to another ceramic body, usually with a refractory cement. Now lets consider the issue of using a refractory cement to bond the heater wire to the inside of a ceramic tube. You would need to have the coils pre-formed and slipped inside such a tube and then paint them inside with the refractory ceramic. This would be very painful. Instead, I imagine a central alumina tube with the heater wires wrapped on its outside. This could then be painted with a refractory cement to seal out the oxygen and help thermally spread the wire's heat over the ceramic tube. Normally such refractory cements have an organic binder that dries in air at room temperature. They also contain both low temperature glass and ceramic fibers. As the cement is heated, it would first drive off any organic. Then the glass melts and further binds the joint. Then as temperature gets hotter the glass wicks into the ceramic fiber and a glass-ceramic hybrid is formed. The joint can be air tight at basically all temperatures until the ceramic itself melts. Also, because we are talking about 3-phase coils, there will be cross-overs of the wire that must be brought out to the ends of the reactor. These will have to be very carefully managed so as not to short. This is another practical reason why I believe the coils must be created wound on the outside of an alumina tube; that tube being coaxially internal to the alumina tube that is visible on the outside. Probably after a first heating of the coil (either self-heating or having been placed in a curing furnace), the inner alumina tube with the wrapped coils could be coated with a similar refractory cement and slipped (glued) inside the outer tube. Imperfect cement contact between the inner and outer alumina tubes could cause the appearance of uneven heating on the outside tube. Another point has to do with how the heat is conveyed from a LENR reaction. Since the LENR reaction is likely a nano-scale event, heat must be conveyed from the reaction in a way that doesn't make the NAE the hottest spot. Otherwise, none of the reported melt-downs would be possible - the NAE would evaporate itself before it could create enough heat to melt the macro apparatus. This implies that the heat is conveyed from the NAE by photons - not such high energy that they readily escape the reactor, but high enough that it can penetrate through a mm or so of the surrounding materials (which could be LENR powder), depositing heat as the photons are attenuated in penetration. The important take-away is that the NAE cannot be the hottest spot - it must heat its surroundings more than itself. Given this, it is possible that the heat from the LENR is being absorbed in the alumina in a distributed way, causing the LENR powder to be largely the same temperature as the surrounding ceramic. I don't believe it is necessary or probable that the core must be much higher temperature than the shell. Can we refocus this thread into discussion about the construction of the latest reactor? For example: - Why do we think the end caps are so big? Are they part of a lower temperature insulated mounting system? - Why do we think the 3-phase drive is used? - What else? Bob Higgins On Sun, Oct 12, 2014 at 9:43 PM, Robert Lynn robert.gulliver.l...@gmail.com wrote: 1% lithium in 1g fuel, so 0.01g, boils at 1342°C. At 1 bar,1342°C would fill about 180mL volume, reactor
Re: [Vo]:Determining the transmittance . . . of semitransparent materials at elevated temperatures
It has moderate transmissivity in the visible range, which is what the photograph shows. But it drops to zero by 6 and above, which is what the IR camera is measuring. So there could be visible shadows / glowing resistors seen through the ceramic, but the IR calculations are OK. - Original Message - From: H Veeder hveeder...@gmail.com Sent: Monday, October 13, 2014 11:27:44 PM He commented: My interpretation of figure 6 is that the tranmissivity of alumina goes down to zero. Hence, this shows the arguments about alumina translucency are moot. does this imply the dark bands are not cast shadows? Harry
Re: [Vo]:Engineering and materials issues with high temperature hot-cat Lugano demo
The caps must be resistant to hydrogen exfiltration, i.e. not sintered. Is there some mention in the test report that says that the outer alumina tube is hydrogen proof? Does it say that the outer tube is sintered alumina? On Tue, Oct 14, 2014 at 11:15 AM, Bob Higgins rj.bob.higg...@gmail.com wrote: Robert, I think a lot of your observations are spot on. I would like to continue discussion of the likely construction of the latest IH hotCat. You are likely correct that the corrosion of liquid and vapor phase lithium would be terrible for use of a metal reactor vessel. That is probably why they switched to alumina. Alumina is a wonderful ceramic from a thermal, mechanical, and electrical properties standpoint. Its only drawback is that it has to be fired at a very high temperature to form it, but Coors has been doing it for decades. It is high thermal conductivity, very low electrical conductivity (a good dielectric), and extremely chemically stable. It is mechanically tough, even in thin wafers (it has been used as a substrate for hybrid electronic circuits also for decades). One thing that strikes me is that heater wires at this temperature have 2 related constraints: a) they must be sealed away from oxygen, and b) there must be a good way to remove the heat from the wire to prevent hot spots from run-away temperature rise. Regarding a) - long before these wires melt, they will oxidize and burn up in oxygen. Usually this means that the wires must be sealed inside a ceramic oxide to prevent exposing the hot metal heater wire to free oxygen. For b), it is necessary to spread the heat from the wire. This is usually done by bonding the wire to another ceramic body, usually with a refractory cement. Now lets consider the issue of using a refractory cement to bond the heater wire to the inside of a ceramic tube. You would need to have the coils pre-formed and slipped inside such a tube and then paint them inside with the refractory ceramic. This would be very painful. Instead, I imagine a central alumina tube with the heater wires wrapped on its outside. This could then be painted with a refractory cement to seal out the oxygen and help thermally spread the wire's heat over the ceramic tube. Normally such refractory cements have an organic binder that dries in air at room temperature. They also contain both low temperature glass and ceramic fibers. As the cement is heated, it would first drive off any organic. Then the glass melts and further binds the joint. Then as temperature gets hotter the glass wicks into the ceramic fiber and a glass-ceramic hybrid is formed. The joint can be air tight at basically all temperatures until the ceramic itself melts. Also, because we are talking about 3-phase coils, there will be cross-overs of the wire that must be brought out to the ends of the reactor. These will have to be very carefully managed so as not to short. This is another practical reason why I believe the coils must be created wound on the outside of an alumina tube; that tube being coaxially internal to the alumina tube that is visible on the outside. Probably after a first heating of the coil (either self-heating or having been placed in a curing furnace), the inner alumina tube with the wrapped coils could be coated with a similar refractory cement and slipped (glued) inside the outer tube. Imperfect cement contact between the inner and outer alumina tubes could cause the appearance of uneven heating on the outside tube. Another point has to do with how the heat is conveyed from a LENR reaction. Since the LENR reaction is likely a nano-scale event, heat must be conveyed from the reaction in a way that doesn't make the NAE the hottest spot. Otherwise, none of the reported melt-downs would be possible - the NAE would evaporate itself before it could create enough heat to melt the macro apparatus. This implies that the heat is conveyed from the NAE by photons - not such high energy that they readily escape the reactor, but high enough that it can penetrate through a mm or so of the surrounding materials (which could be LENR powder), depositing heat as the photons are attenuated in penetration. The important take-away is that the NAE cannot be the hottest spot - it must heat its surroundings more than itself. Given this, it is possible that the heat from the LENR is being absorbed in the alumina in a distributed way, causing the LENR powder to be largely the same temperature as the surrounding ceramic. I don't believe it is necessary or probable that the core must be much higher temperature than the shell. Can we refocus this thread into discussion about the construction of the latest reactor? For example: - Why do we think the end caps are so big? Are they part of a lower temperature insulated mounting system? - Why do we think the 3-phase drive is used? - What else? Bob Higgins On Sun, Oct
Re: [Vo]:Interesting Simulation Results
Dear David. If there a way in your simulation to prove that the nickel particles would all be melted unless some LENR miracle is preventing it. See my tread Super-fluidic heat flow for tomclarks analysis. On Tue, Oct 14, 2014 at 11:24 AM, David Roberson dlrober...@aol.com wrote: That seems to be the best explanation that is derived from my model. Stable operation of the HotCat is achieved when the heat generated by the core finds an easy escape from the device. Since it is highly likely that the heat energy generated within the core increases at a rate that is greater than linear and zero at low temperatures, it becomes necessary to remove the increasing heat that is generated as the core temperature rises. The radiation that occurs, which is proportional to the forth power of the temperature, takes care of the very high temperature region of operation. The simulation model initially latched at an intermediate temperature due to too much positive feedback in that operating range and the addition of a more robust method of extracting energy solved that issue. In this case a better sink turned out to be a more efficient convection or conduction term that is associated with a lower polynomial power. The geometry modification appears to be the best way to increase the convection and conduction terms to achieve the required stability. I have more to come with regard to my model and how it indicates that internal heat generation is a near certainty. This can be understood in light of the device behavior described within the latest report. Dave -Original Message- From: Alain Sepeda alain.sep...@gmail.com To: Vortex List vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Tue, Oct 14, 2014 2:29 am Subject: Re: [Vo]:Interesting Simulation Results you explain the new shape of the reactor covering, with the || || || shapes, as a required increase of convection ? what I see in that reactor is dozens of engineering innovations, not so sexy as LENR, but the kind engineer do everyday to make rocket fly. 2014-10-13 23:21 GMT+02:00 David Roberson dlrober...@aol.com: I decided to review my ECAT simulation model to see if it were reasonable to achieve a COP of around 3.5 while operating within a non thermal runaway region under steady state conditions. The earlier runs and model tended to indicate that it is quite precarious to operate the ECAT at a COP of greater than 2 without the pulse wide modulation input power waveform. Once a decision is made to operate within a potentially unstable region, it becomes necessary to turn the input power on and off periodically to prevent thermal run away. To the best of my knowledge, Rossi has used this type of operation until the latest test. In that demonstration the input drive is relatively constant and operation in the so called SSM mode not used. The new HotCat expels the internal heat through a combination of radiated, convected and conducted paths. The radiation path is quite useful when one attempts to prevent thermal run away conditions since a small increase in surface temperature results in a large increase in thermal radiation. Everyone by now has seen that the radiation goes up proportional to the forth power of the temperature and that puts the brakes upon increases in extra power generation due to internal temperature increases. My main question was related to understanding how he now can operate without having to worry so much about overheating and thermal run away while that was such a problem before. The trick apparently is in the geometry of the device. A large surface area is available to radiate away the escaping heat at a manageable surface temperature. Also, the surface of the main cylinder is specially treated with grooves to enhance thermal escape due to convection. This carefully constructed design is capable of removing enough heat to quench the positive feedback action that the internal core would normally encounter at the elevated operating temperatures. My model needed to take into account the new geometry features that were not present in the earlier devices. When I first ran a simulation of the new device I noticed that it was easy to limit the maximum temperature since the radiation was so efficient at handling the extra internal heat energy generated by any moderate increase in core temperature. I model the core heat generation by means of a polynomial power series and as long as the main terms contributing to the core heating are below forth order, a stable operating point is obtained. It would be useful to have the actual power series from an operating device, but that is apparently too much to expect at this time. A problem appeared when the input power was removed. As expected the temperature dropped a large amount in the core, but it reached a point of stable continuous output. This situation would not be tolerable and fortunately not seen within
Re: [Vo]:Engineering and materials issues with high temperature hot-cat Lugano demo
My suspicion is that the end caps are the same diameter as the holes in which the numerous HotCats are inserted. Energy is transferred out of the CATs by radiation and convection plus conduction and space is needed for the flow of the convection material. The temperature of the surface of the holes needs to be significantly below that of the surface of the device in order to make the transfer of energy efficient and to allow adequate control of the system. It would seem reasonable for Rossi to coat the exterior of the hole surfaces with a black material to enhance the radiation paths. Dave -Original Message- From: Bob Higgins rj.bob.higg...@gmail.com To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Tue, Oct 14, 2014 11:15 am Subject: Re: [Vo]:Engineering and materials issues with high temperature hot-cat Lugano demo Robert, I think a lot of your observations are spot on. I would like to continue discussion of the likely construction of the latest IH hotCat. You are likely correct that the corrosion of liquid and vapor phase lithium would be terrible for use of a metal reactor vessel. That is probably why they switched to alumina. Alumina is a wonderful ceramic from a thermal, mechanical, and electrical properties standpoint. Its only drawback is that it has to be fired at a very high temperature to form it, but Coors has been doing it for decades. It is high thermal conductivity, very low electrical conductivity (a good dielectric), and extremely chemically stable. It is mechanically tough, even in thin wafers (it has been used as a substrate for hybrid electronic circuits also for decades). One thing that strikes me is that heater wires at this temperature have 2 related constraints: a) they must be sealed away from oxygen, and b) there must be a good way to remove the heat from the wire to prevent hot spots from run-away temperature rise. Regarding a) - long before these wires melt, they will oxidize and burn up in oxygen. Usually this means that the wires must be sealed inside a ceramic oxide to prevent exposing the hot metal heater wire to free oxygen. For b), it is necessary to spread the heat from the wire. This is usually done by bonding the wire to another ceramic body, usually with a refractory cement. Now lets consider the issue of using a refractory cement to bond the heater wire to the inside of a ceramic tube. You would need to have the coils pre-formed and slipped inside such a tube and then paint them inside with the refractory ceramic. This would be very painful. Instead, I imagine a central alumina tube with the heater wires wrapped on its outside. This could then be painted with a refractory cement to seal out the oxygen and help thermally spread the wire's heat over the ceramic tube. Normally such refractory cements have an organic binder that dries in air at room temperature. They also contain both low temperature glass and ceramic fibers. As the cement is heated, it would first drive off any organic. Then the glass melts and further binds the joint. Then as temperature gets hotter the glass wicks into the ceramic fiber and a glass-ceramic hybrid is formed. The joint can be air tight at basically all temperatures until the ceramic itself melts. Also, because we are talking about 3-phase coils, there will be cross-overs of the wire that must be brought out to the ends of the reactor. These will have to be very carefully managed so as not to short. This is another practical reason why I believe the coils must be created wound on the outside of an alumina tube; that tube being coaxially internal to the alumina tube that is visible on the outside. Probably after a first heating of the coil (either self-heating or having been placed in a curing furnace), the inner alumina tube with the wrapped coils could be coated with a similar refractory cement and slipped (glued) inside the outer tube. Imperfect cement contact between the inner and outer alumina tubes could cause the appearance of uneven heating on the outside tube. Another point has to do with how the heat is conveyed from a LENR reaction. Since the LENR reaction is likely a nano-scale event, heat must be conveyed from the reaction in a way that doesn't make the NAE the hottest spot. Otherwise, none of the reported melt-downs would be possible - the NAE would evaporate itself before it could create enough heat to melt the macro apparatus. This implies that the heat is conveyed from the NAE by photons - not such high energy that they readily escape the reactor, but high enough that it can penetrate through a mm or so of the surrounding materials (which could be LENR powder), depositing heat as the photons are attenuated in penetration. The important take-away is that the NAE cannot be the hottest spot - it must heat its surroundings more than itself. Given this, it is possible that the heat from the LENR is being absorbed
Re: [Vo]:Interesting Simulation Results
No. The simulation is quite limited in scope. Dave -Original Message- From: Axil Axil janap...@gmail.com To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Tue, Oct 14, 2014 11:46 am Subject: Re: [Vo]:Interesting Simulation Results Dear David. If there a way in your simulation to prove that the nickel particles would all be melted unless some LENR miracle is preventing it. See my tread Super-fluidic heat flow for tomclarks analysis. On Tue, Oct 14, 2014 at 11:24 AM, David Roberson dlrober...@aol.com wrote: That seems to be the best explanation that is derived from my model. Stable operation of the HotCat is achieved when the heat generated by the core finds an easy escape from the device. Since it is highly likely that the heat energy generated within the core increases at a rate that is greater than linear and zero at low temperatures, it becomes necessary to remove the increasing heat that is generated as the core temperature rises. The radiation that occurs, which is proportional to the forth power of the temperature, takes care of the very high temperature region of operation. The simulation model initially latched at an intermediate temperature due to too much positive feedback in that operating range and the addition of a more robust method of extracting energy solved that issue. In this case a better sink turned out to be a more efficient convection or conduction term that is associated with a lower polynomial power. The geometry modification appears to be the best way to increase the convection and conduction terms to achieve the required stability. I have more to come with regard to my model and how it indicates that internal heat generation is a near certainty. This can be understood in light of the device behavior described within the latest report. Dave -Original Message- From: Alain Sepeda alain.sep...@gmail.com To: Vortex List vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Tue, Oct 14, 2014 2:29 am Subject: Re: [Vo]:Interesting Simulation Results you explain the new shape of the reactor covering, with the || || || shapes, as a required increase of convection ? what I see in that reactor is dozens of engineering innovations, not so sexy as LENR, but the kind engineer do everyday to make rocket fly. 2014-10-13 23:21 GMT+02:00 David Roberson dlrober...@aol.com: I decided to review my ECAT simulation model to see if it were reasonable to achieve a COP of around 3.5 while operating within a non thermal runaway region under steady state conditions. The earlier runs and model tended to indicate that it is quite precarious to operate the ECAT at a COP of greater than 2 without the pulse wide modulation input power waveform. Once a decision is made to operate within a potentially unstable region, it becomes necessary to turn the input power on and off periodically to prevent thermal run away. To the best of my knowledge, Rossi has used this type of operation until the latest test. In that demonstration the input drive is relatively constant and operation in the so called SSM mode not used. The new HotCat expels the internal heat through a combination of radiated, convected and conducted paths. The radiation path is quite useful when one attempts to prevent thermal run away conditions since a small increase in surface temperature results in a large increase in thermal radiation. Everyone by now has seen that the radiation goes up proportional to the forth power of the temperature and that puts the brakes upon increases in extra power generation due to internal temperature increases. My main question was related to understanding how he now can operate without having to worry so much about overheating and thermal run away while that was such a problem before. The trick apparently is in the geometry of the device. A large surface area is available to radiate away the escaping heat at a manageable surface temperature. Also, the surface of the main cylinder is specially treated with grooves to enhance thermal escape due to convection. This carefully constructed design is capable of removing enough heat to quench the positive feedback action that the internal core would normally encounter at the elevated operating temperatures. My model needed to take into account the new geometry features that were not present in the earlier devices. When I first ran a simulation of the new device I noticed that it was easy to limit the maximum temperature since the radiation was so efficient at handling the extra internal heat energy generated by any moderate increase in core temperature. I model the core heat generation by means of a polynomial power series and as long as the main terms contributing to the core heating are below forth order, a stable operating point is obtained. It would be useful to have the actual power series from an operating device, but that is apparently too much to expect at this time. A problem
RE: [Vo]:Determining the transmittance . . . of semitransparent materials at elevated temperatures
Alan, And that is why they should have calibrated for thermal loss at the higher temperature, if Mitchell Swartz’s argument is accurate. Everyone seems to be missing this. Mitch sates: even an accurate temperature measurement is NOT power or heat loss. The person to whom Brian Ahern spoke was affirming that they measured temperature correctly, and that is all. Rossi's group did not calibrate for real heat loss at that high temperature, which they should have done (since the transmissivity in the visible range, which everyone acknowledges but then ignores, means that the assumption of blackbody radiator is wrong). If that assumption is wrong, then a systemic error then gets raised to the 4th power. Since, they did not account for heat loss (thermal power) properly – there could be substantial error. I hope I got that right. Mitch will shortly correct me if not :-) From: Alan Fletcher It has moderate transmissivity in the visible range, which is what the photograph shows. But it drops to zero by 6 and above, which is what the IR camera is measuring. So there could be visible shadows / glowing resistors seen through the ceramic, but the IR calculations are OK. _ From: H Veeder hveeder...@gmail.com Sent: Monday, October 13, 2014 11:27:44 PM He commented: My interpretation of figure 6 is that the tranmissivity of alumina goes down to zero. Hence, this shows the arguments about alumina translucency are moot. does this imply the dark bands are not cast shadows? Harry
Re: [Vo]:Analysis of New E-Cat Report by McKubre
Could another team make another test with McKubre other advices ? I'm afraid Rossi is tired of that, but it would help the others groups too. Maybe is it useless, as business circles seems aware... but what about citizen... the problem is to find volunteer that are ok to ruin their career but who are not yet flagged as LENR scientists. 2014-10-14 10:22 GMT+02:00 Peter Gluck peter.gl...@gmail.com: Dear Jed, See please the 1 =0 Rule- http://egooutpeters.blogspot.ro/2013/05/the-1-0-rule-generalized.html I have learned it from the failures in actual tecghnological research. Just now it seems an error that all the nickel eggs were put in a single alumina basket. I think that performing three consecutive parallel experiments in different conditions - according to some logic and plan would have been increased the performance three times, at only 10% increased effort, 60% increased expenses and 10 times more muzzles put to the Rossi killers. Peter On Tue, Oct 14, 2014 at 1:05 AM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com wrote: See: http://www.infinite-energy.com/iemagazine/issue118/analysis.html Jed's opinion: I completely agree with everything McKubre says here about the calorimetry. I share his reservations. I agree with the rest of this report except the nuclear theory is partly over my head. No opinion about that. I like this statement: One experimental result equates to zero experimental results. Nothing in science can be known without repetition. Very true and people often forget it. Or, as I have been saying, definitive experiments only happen in Hollywood movies. McKubre emphasizes the need for more communication from the authors. Yes! That would be a big help. I hope the authors respond to the questions here: http://www.lenr-forum.com/forum/index.php/Thread/722-Ask-questions-to-the-Working-Group-ECAT-long-term-test/ Especially I hope they respond to *my* questions. I will be nervous about this experiment until they say the cell was incandescent white. That is the simplest way to confirm that the temperature really was around 1300°C. The photograph in Fig. 12 shows it around 700°C, judging by the dull red color. See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Incandescence#mediaviewer/File:Incandescence_Color.jpg I do not know when they took that photo. - Jed -- Dr. Peter Gluck Cluj, Romania http://egooutpeters.blogspot.com
Re: [Vo]:Determining the transmittance . . . of semitransparent materials at elevated temperatures
Much of the red glow is confined to the central part of the alumina vessel, but there are areas where the red glow extends to the exterior surface of the vessel. Is all the red glow near the exterior surface just diffusion of red light from the central part due to the alumina's translucency or could some of it be indicative of the surface temperature in those areas? Harry On Tue, Oct 14, 2014 at 11:36 AM, Alan Fletcher a...@well.com wrote: It has moderate transmissivity in the visible range, which is what the photograph shows. But it drops to zero by 6 and above, which is what the IR camera is measuring. So there could be visible shadows / glowing resistors seen through the ceramic, but the IR calculations are OK. -- *From: *H Veeder hveeder...@gmail.com *Sent: *Monday, October 13, 2014 11:27:44 PM He commented: My interpretation of figure 6 is that the tranmissivity of alumina goes down to zero. Hence, this shows the arguments about alumina translucency are moot. does this imply the dark bands are not cast shadows? Harry
Re: Isotope conversion completeness, was RE: [Vo]:Pomp weighs in
In a recent email, Ed Storms observed that the sample of the Lugano ash that was tested was probably not at all representative of the material that was active in the reactor core. At the temperatures measured, many of the materials would have melted (or vaporized), and those that did not melt were sintered; probably sintering themselves to the walls of the inner alumina shell. Because of this, anything that could have emerged as a powder after the test when the vessel was opened would not be a representative sample of the true active ash which would have remained inside firmly attached to the walls of the reactor vessel. What was tested as ash is likely inert or random left-over inert slag in the reactor. Bob Higgins On Sat, Oct 11, 2014 at 5:50 PM, Robert Ellefson vortex-h...@e2ke.com wrote: Recall that the bulk results show 57% Li-6 enrichment, vs. 92% surface enrichment. I believe the higher fraction of Li-6 on the surface is the result of starvation of the reaction cycle resulting in an excess of Li-6 as compared to the steady-state balance during operation, which is reflected in the bulk composition. Read these messages for further details: http://www.mail-archive.com/vortex-l%40eskimo.com/msg98020.html (msg has an error, should read ni62, not ni68) http://www.mail-archive.com/vortex-l%40eskimo.com/msg98350.html http://www.mail-archive.com/vortex-l%40eskimo.com/msg98422.html -Bob
Re: [Vo]:Robert Godes comments on the report
clearly the 6 proton have to be synchronous/intricated/coherent if you succeed with a 3 body p-e-p (which need some be be coherent) why not 6. but you are right 1D variant looks more acceptable D-He4-li6 looks like Brillouin theory, but with Iwamura style (even hydrogen fusion). my reason to challenge the 1D sequence of pure hydroton is that the intermediate 4H disintegrate with gamma... but maybe simply is the electron a witness. there are many question, like the symmetry of electrons... it is more symmetric with 3D 3p-3e-3p fusion. I don't say I'm right (it is improbable ah ah ) , just that it is too early to eliminate hypothesis. Something coherent have to happen anyway. multibody reaction are required by LENR, this is not an argument. 3 body reaction without reaction and nearly impossible... 2 body is not observed. 3 or 6, are miracle, which mean there is a trick, an easy trick, easier than hotfusion; if easy for 3 why not for 6 ? 2014-10-14 15:03 GMT+02:00 Jones Beene jone...@pacbell.net: *From:* Alain Sepeda 6p+3e-li6 (add the neutrino) it can be made zero momentum I take it from hydroton theory, with a possibility that it is not 1D, but 3D reaction Please clarify: six protons coming together at one time is a six-body reaction, no? How do all 6 get there at the same instant in any dimension?
RE: [Vo]:Determining the transmittance . . . of semitransparent materials at elevated temperatures
To state it another way: 1) Accurate temperature measurement is NOT the same as power or heat loss. 2) Levi measured temperature accurately 3) The Stefan–Boltzmann law describes the power radiated from a blackbody 4) Levi then used Stefan-Boltzmann to calculate heat loss, which includes a fourth power 5) The Rossi device is obviously NOT a blackbody radiator since it glows in the visible range due to transmissivity in the visible range. The internal shadows are proof of that 6) It is therefore wrong to use Stefan–Boltzmann without prior calibration for the difference, which can be substantial 7) No calibration above 500 C was done due to Rossi’s “intervention” 8) Consequently the thermal balance of the Rossi cell has not been accounted for properly. With a nod to Mitchell Swartz. And that is why they should have calibrated for thermal loss at the higher temperature, if Mitchell Swartz’s argument is accurate. Everyone seems to be missing this. Mitch sates: even an accurate temperature measurement is NOT power or heat loss. The person to whom Brian Ahern spoke was affirming that they measured temperature correctly, and that is all. Rossi's group did not calibrate for real heat loss at that high temperature, which they should have done (since the transmissivity in the visible range, which everyone acknowledges but then ignores, means that the assumption of blackbody radiator is wrong). If that assumption is wrong, then a systemic error then gets raised to the 4th power. Since, they did not account for heat loss (thermal power) properly – there could be substantial error. I hope I got that right. Mitch will shortly correct me if not :-) From: Alan Fletcher It has moderate transmissivity in the visible range, which is what the photograph shows. But it drops to zero by 6 and above, which is what the IR camera is measuring. So there could be visible shadows / glowing resistors seen through the ceramic, but the IR calculations are OK. From: H Veeder hveeder...@gmail.com Sent: Monday, October 13, 2014 11:27:44 PM He commented: My interpretation of figure 6 is that the tranmissivity of alumina goes down to zero. Hence, this shows the arguments about alumina translucency are moot. does this imply the dark bands are not cast shadows? Harry attachment: winmail.dat
Re: [Vo]:Engineering and materials issues with high temperature hot-cat Lugano demo
On Tue, Oct 14, 2014 at 11:15 AM, Bob Higgins rj.bob.higg...@gmail.com wrote: Another point has to do with how the heat is conveyed from a LENR reaction. Since the LENR reaction is likely a nano-scale event, heat must be conveyed from the reaction in a way that doesn't make the NAE the hottest spot. Otherwise, none of the reported melt-downs would be possible - the NAE would evaporate itself before it could create enough heat to melt the macro apparatus. This implies that the heat is conveyed from the NAE by photons - not such high energy that they readily escape the reactor, but high enough that it can penetrate through a mm or so of the surrounding materials (which could be LENR powder), depositing heat as the photons are attenuated in penetration. The important take-away is that the NAE cannot be the hottest spot - it must heat its surroundings more than itself. Given this, it is possible that the heat from the LENR is being absorbed in the alumina in a distributed way, causing the LENR powder to be largely the same temperature as the surrounding ceramic. I don't believe it is necessary or probable that the core must be much higher temperature than the shell. What you are proposing is the existence of anomalous cooler zone which conflicts the thermal expectations of law bound scientists. Anyway, IMO, if anomalous cool zones exist I think it is more likely they are able to persist away from the core. Can we refocus this thread into discussion about the construction of the latest reactor? For example: - Why do we think the end caps are so big? Are they part of a lower temperature insulated mounting system? - Perhaps he assembles each tube into a larger array and the end caps keep them thermally isolated from each other. Harry - Why do we think the 3-phase drive is used? - What else? Bob Higgins
Re: [Vo]:Engineering and materials issues with high temperature hot-cat Lugano demo
On Tue, Oct 14, 2014 at 1:21 PM, H Veeder hveeder...@gmail.com wrote: On Tue, Oct 14, 2014 at 11:15 AM, Bob Higgins rj.bob.higg...@gmail.com wrote: Can we refocus this thread into discussion about the construction of the latest reactor? For example: - Why do we think the end caps are so big? Are they part of a lower temperature insulated mounting system? - Perhaps he assembles each tube into a larger array and the end caps keep them thermally isolated from each other. Harry Sorry, I just restated what you suggested. Harry
Re: [Vo]:Engineering and materials issues with high temperature hot-cat Lugano demo
In the steady state, I don't think the reaction powder will be any cooler than the vessel. If the photons are absorbed in the vessel and the vessel heats, the surrounding vessel will radiate, conduct, and convect heat back to the powder which will drive it to be the same temperature as the surrounding vessel. I also believe the 3-phase drive could be there to create a linear moving magnetic field. If there is any plasma inside the reactor vessel (perhaps Li), then the 3-phase drive will cause it to be driven from one end to the other, and in the end cause a convection circulation effect. Such an effect will rapidly equalize the temperature between the powder and inner shell. Don't think of these powders as somehow suspended in the center of the inner reactor tube. It is also likely that at the temperatures above 1000C that there is no active LENR powder that is free anymore. This powder probably has sintered itself to the inside of the inner alumina tube, where there will be direct thermally conductive contact - almost like a thick film paste on a substrate. On Tue, Oct 14, 2014 at 11:21 AM, H Veeder hveeder...@gmail.com wrote: On Tue, Oct 14, 2014 at 11:15 AM, Bob Higgins rj.bob.higg...@gmail.com wrote: Another point has to do with how the heat is conveyed from a LENR reaction. Since the LENR reaction is likely a nano-scale event, heat must be conveyed from the reaction in a way that doesn't make the NAE the hottest spot. Otherwise, none of the reported melt-downs would be possible - the NAE would evaporate itself before it could create enough heat to melt the macro apparatus. This implies that the heat is conveyed from the NAE by photons - not such high energy that they readily escape the reactor, but high enough that it can penetrate through a mm or so of the surrounding materials (which could be LENR powder), depositing heat as the photons are attenuated in penetration. The important take-away is that the NAE cannot be the hottest spot - it must heat its surroundings more than itself. Given this, it is possible that the heat from the LENR is being absorbed in the alumina in a distributed way, causing the LENR powder to be largely the same temperature as the surrounding ceramic. I don't believe it is necessary or probable that the core must be much higher temperature than the shell. What you are proposing is the existence of anomalous cooler zone which conflicts the thermal expectations of law bound scientists. Anyway, IMO, if anomalous cool zones exist I think it is more likely they are able to persist away from the core.
Re: [Vo]:Determining the transmittance . . . of semitransparent materials at elevated temperatures
Jonas: I seem to remember that the 4th power thing is due to (largely due to?) the strongly rising center of the frequency as temperature increases. Thus, the radiated power through a narrow window (visible band is only 1 octave) is probably only proportional to the /first/ power, at least when that window is well below the peak power frequency. If true, any error contributed by that window rapidly becomes unimportant as temperature increases. Ol' Bab, who was an engineer... On 10/14/2014 12:07 PM, Jones Beene wrote: 5) The Rossi device is obviously NOT a blackbody radiator since it glows in the visible range due to transmissivity in the visible range. The internal shadows are proof of that 6) It is therefore wrong to use Stefan–Boltzmann without prior calibration for the difference, which can be substantial --- This email is free from viruses and malware because avast! Antivirus protection is active. http://www.avast.com
[Vo]:OT: The Phone Cops
The phone cops https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cTPzTG1Lx60 Harry
Re: [Vo]:Inconel f/H and SPP
Ok. Anyway, I agree with your intuition that something odd might be occurring in the heater wire. harry On Tue, Oct 14, 2014 at 11:04 AM, Jones Beene jone...@pacbell.net wrote: SPP = surface plasmon polariton. This is a favorite hypothesis of NASA at the moment. Violante discovered over 10 years ago that SPP can produce nuclear reactions. Paper is on LENR-CANR *From:* H Veeder what is SPP? Harry In any event, there seems to be no good reason to eliminate the Inconel as being active, since it contains lots of nickel - especially in the context of SPP.
RE: [Vo]:Determining the transmittance . . . of semitransparent materials at elevated temperatures
From: David L. Babcock I seem to remember that the 4th power thing is due to (largely due to?) the strongly rising center of the frequency as temperature increases. Thus, the radiated power through a narrow window (visible band is only 1 octave) is probably only proportional to the first power, at least when that window is well below the peak power frequency. What frequency are you assuming is peak power? I would have suspected that the higher the photon frequency, the more power, such that visible should be peak. * If true, any error contributed by that window rapidly becomes unimportant as temperature increases. Yes, if true - but this depends on your assumption of peak power. Can you elaborate on why you think it would be longer wavelength rather than shorter? Thanks
Re: Isotope conversion completeness, was RE: [Vo]:Pomp weighs in
The fact the the Ni62 particle was still functional and had its tubericles intact points to the fact the particles was not melted and was no hotter than the outside of the reactor. To explain this LENR miracle, see my thread called: Super-fluidic heat flow. On Tue, Oct 14, 2014 at 12:57 PM, Bob Higgins rj.bob.higg...@gmail.com wrote: In a recent email, Ed Storms observed that the sample of the Lugano ash that was tested was probably not at all representative of the material that was active in the reactor core. At the temperatures measured, many of the materials would have melted (or vaporized), and those that did not melt were sintered; probably sintering themselves to the walls of the inner alumina shell. Because of this, anything that could have emerged as a powder after the test when the vessel was opened would not be a representative sample of the true active ash which would have remained inside firmly attached to the walls of the reactor vessel. What was tested as ash is likely inert or random left-over inert slag in the reactor. Bob Higgins On Sat, Oct 11, 2014 at 5:50 PM, Robert Ellefson vortex-h...@e2ke.com wrote: Recall that the bulk results show 57% Li-6 enrichment, vs. 92% surface enrichment. I believe the higher fraction of Li-6 on the surface is the result of starvation of the reaction cycle resulting in an excess of Li-6 as compared to the steady-state balance during operation, which is reflected in the bulk composition. Read these messages for further details: http://www.mail-archive.com/vortex-l%40eskimo.com/msg98020.html (msg has an error, should read ni62, not ni68) http://www.mail-archive.com/vortex-l%40eskimo.com/msg98350.html http://www.mail-archive.com/vortex-l%40eskimo.com/msg98422.html -Bob
Re: [Vo]:Robert Godes comments on the report
6 protons can fuse and produce three neutrons through the emission of three positrons. On Tue, Oct 14, 2014 at 1:02 PM, Alain Sepeda alain.sep...@gmail.com wrote: clearly the 6 proton have to be synchronous/intricated/coherent if you succeed with a 3 body p-e-p (which need some be be coherent) why not 6. but you are right 1D variant looks more acceptable D-He4-li6 looks like Brillouin theory, but with Iwamura style (even hydrogen fusion). my reason to challenge the 1D sequence of pure hydroton is that the intermediate 4H disintegrate with gamma... but maybe simply is the electron a witness. there are many question, like the symmetry of electrons... it is more symmetric with 3D 3p-3e-3p fusion. I don't say I'm right (it is improbable ah ah ) , just that it is too early to eliminate hypothesis. Something coherent have to happen anyway. multibody reaction are required by LENR, this is not an argument. 3 body reaction without reaction and nearly impossible... 2 body is not observed. 3 or 6, are miracle, which mean there is a trick, an easy trick, easier than hotfusion; if easy for 3 why not for 6 ? 2014-10-14 15:03 GMT+02:00 Jones Beene jone...@pacbell.net: *From:* Alain Sepeda 6p+3e-li6 (add the neutrino) it can be made zero momentum I take it from hydroton theory, with a possibility that it is not 1D, but 3D reaction Please clarify: six protons coming together at one time is a six-body reaction, no? How do all 6 get there at the same instant in any dimension?
Re: [Vo]:Inconel f/H and SPP
If the gas-fired eCat really works, and doesn't need some auxilliary electromagnetic pulses, then I don't think the heater wires are playing any other role. - Original Message - From: H Veeder hveeder...@gmail.com Sent: Tuesday, October 14, 2014 10:49:44 AM Ok. Anyway, I agree with your intuition that something odd might be occurring in the heater wire. In any event, there seems to be no good reason to eliminate the Inconel as being active, since it contains lots of nickel - especially in the context of SPP.
Re: [Vo]:Engineering and materials issues with high temperature hot-cat Lugano demo
This theory is based on the fact that heat is assumed to come from the nickel particles. I believe that heat comes from the alumina and the Ni particles provide field emitters to cause fusion at a distance far from the nickel particles. The Ni particles might be located in the coolest part of the reactor an must be heated by induction to keep their field emission's going. On Tue, Oct 14, 2014 at 1:29 PM, Bob Higgins rj.bob.higg...@gmail.com wrote: In the steady state, I don't think the reaction powder will be any cooler than the vessel. If the photons are absorbed in the vessel and the vessel heats, the surrounding vessel will radiate, conduct, and convect heat back to the powder which will drive it to be the same temperature as the surrounding vessel. I also believe the 3-phase drive could be there to create a linear moving magnetic field. If there is any plasma inside the reactor vessel (perhaps Li), then the 3-phase drive will cause it to be driven from one end to the other, and in the end cause a convection circulation effect. Such an effect will rapidly equalize the temperature between the powder and inner shell. Don't think of these powders as somehow suspended in the center of the inner reactor tube. It is also likely that at the temperatures above 1000C that there is no active LENR powder that is free anymore. This powder probably has sintered itself to the inside of the inner alumina tube, where there will be direct thermally conductive contact - almost like a thick film paste on a substrate. On Tue, Oct 14, 2014 at 11:21 AM, H Veeder hveeder...@gmail.com wrote: On Tue, Oct 14, 2014 at 11:15 AM, Bob Higgins rj.bob.higg...@gmail.com wrote: Another point has to do with how the heat is conveyed from a LENR reaction. Since the LENR reaction is likely a nano-scale event, heat must be conveyed from the reaction in a way that doesn't make the NAE the hottest spot. Otherwise, none of the reported melt-downs would be possible - the NAE would evaporate itself before it could create enough heat to melt the macro apparatus. This implies that the heat is conveyed from the NAE by photons - not such high energy that they readily escape the reactor, but high enough that it can penetrate through a mm or so of the surrounding materials (which could be LENR powder), depositing heat as the photons are attenuated in penetration. The important take-away is that the NAE cannot be the hottest spot - it must heat its surroundings more than itself. Given this, it is possible that the heat from the LENR is being absorbed in the alumina in a distributed way, causing the LENR powder to be largely the same temperature as the surrounding ceramic. I don't believe it is necessary or probable that the core must be much higher temperature than the shell. What you are proposing is the existence of anomalous cooler zone which conflicts the thermal expectations of law bound scientists. Anyway, IMO, if anomalous cool zones exist I think it is more likely they are able to persist away from the core.
Re: [Vo]:Super-fluidic heat flow.
Revised and extended as follows: If the nickel particles are producing heat, the reactor surface (observed) temperature, for several days 1400C at 2.8kW flux, Al2O3 heat capacity, cylinder 4mm ID/ 20mm OD heat difference is 200C So temperature of powder must be 1600C continuous at least - more if thermal conductivity to Al2O3 is not large. T = P*ln(d1/d2)/(2*pi*L*k) where k is the thermal conductivity, d1,d2 are outer and inner cylinder diameters, L is length of cylinder, T is temperature difference. The melting point of pure nickel is 1455C. Any admixture of other elements decreases this. So if the claims here are correct all nickel grains in ash should be melted. This is good grist for deductive reasoning. If this condition did exist then…. This is what leads me to the suspect that the heat flow is isothermal: caused by superfuildity through the auspices of a boson condensate in which the infrared photons produced by the reactor participate. Having condensed, all the photons are at the same energy level thus resulting in a singular infrared photon wavelength. Any new energy input into the condensate is shared equally among the members of the condensate providing a unitary thermal state. In this way, the boson condensate thermalizes the gamma radiation through super-absorbtion. The standard theory that everybody seems to hold to is based on the fact that heat is assumed to come from the nickel particles. This theory might not be true. I believe that heat comes from the alumina and the Ni particles provide field emitters to cause fusion at a distance far from the nickel particles. By casting a shadow, the heater wires appear to be cooler than the alumina that encases it, therefore, the Ni particles might be located in the coolest part of the reactor and must therefore be heated by induction provided by the integral coil embedded in the alumina to keep their field emission's going. On Tue, Oct 14, 2014 at 11:09 AM, Axil Axil janap...@gmail.com wrote: Tomclarke wrote: Reactor surface (claimed) temperature, for several days 1400C at 2.8kW flux, Al2O3 heat capacity, cylinder 4mm ID/ 20mm OD heat difference is 200C So temperature of powder must be 1600C continuous at least - more if thermal conductivity to Al2O3 is not large. T = P*ln(d1/d2)/(2*pi*L*k) where k is the thermal conductivity, d1,d2 are outer and inner cylinder diameters, L is length of cylinder, T is temperature difference. The melting point of pure nickel is 1455C. Any admixture of other elements decreases this. So if the claims here are correct all nickel grains in ash should be melted. Axil wrote: This is good grist for deductive reasoning. If this condition did exist then…. This is what leads me to the suspect that the heat flow is isothermal: caused by superfuildity through the auspices of a boson condensate in which the infrared photons produced by the reactor participate. Having condensed, all the photons are at the same energy level thus resulting in a singular wavelength. Any new energy input into the condensate is shared equally among the members of the condensate providing a unitary thermal state. This is part of the gamma thermalization process.
Re: Isotope conversion completeness, was RE: [Vo]:Pomp weighs in
Following on to this line of thought ... Given the temperatures that the reactor had been operating in actual operation, many of the constituents of the fuel powder would have either melted, vaporized, or sintered to the inside of the reactor core vessel. Thus, when removing the ash for test, the components that emerged may be completely unrepresentative of the active components which may have remained firmly attached to the inside of the reactor vessel. Perhaps only more benign and refractory components could have been extracted after the experiment. Thus, the analysis of this ash material should not necessarily be directly compared with the powder input at the beginning of the experiment as a before and after reaction analysis. Given this, the question arises, did the starting powder that was supplied by Rossi as about 1 g actually represent the active powder of the reaction? If the reactor had been used before, its ceramic core may not have been virgin. There could remain remnants, perhaps intentionally active remnants, sintered to the inside of the reaction tube. In which case, Rossi may have supplied only the consumables - perhaps mostly hydride. This would make analysis of the input powder of less value because it is not the whole fuel for his reaction. My question is, Had the reactor used in this experiment ever been used by anyone for an active LENR test prior to the test conducted by your group? Conversely, was the reactor virgin in the respect of having never before been used for a LENR reaction? Of course, this will still not entirely answer the question of whether the input powder was actually representative of the entire active LENR material. It could be that the active Ni portion had already been sintered onto the inside of the reactor vessel as part of preparing the apparatus. Then Rossi would only have added the consumable portion at the beginning of the experiment. Even if this active material had been sintered onto the inside of the reactor, it would not have been active in the dummy experiment without the consumable portion having been added. I can imagine Rossi essentially thick film coating his active Ni powder onto the inside of the central alumina tube as part of creating the reactor. Perhaps this would also include an alpha alumina washcoat that would render the alumina impermeable to hydrogen. Bob Higgins On Tue, Oct 14, 2014 at 10:57 AM, Bob Higgins rj.bob.higg...@gmail.com wrote: In a recent email, Ed Storms observed that the sample of the Lugano ash that was tested was probably not at all representative of the material that was active in the reactor core. At the temperatures measured, many of the materials would have melted (or vaporized), and those that did not melt were sintered; probably sintering themselves to the walls of the inner alumina shell. Because of this, anything that could have emerged as a powder after the test when the vessel was opened would not be a representative sample of the true active ash which would have remained inside firmly attached to the walls of the reactor vessel. What was tested as ash is likely inert or random left-over inert slag in the reactor. Bob Higgins On Sat, Oct 11, 2014 at 5:50 PM, Robert Ellefson vortex-h...@e2ke.com wrote: Recall that the bulk results show 57% Li-6 enrichment, vs. 92% surface enrichment. I believe the higher fraction of Li-6 on the surface is the result of starvation of the reaction cycle resulting in an excess of Li-6 as compared to the steady-state balance during operation, which is reflected in the bulk composition. Read these messages for further details: http://www.mail-archive.com/vortex-l%40eskimo.com/msg98020.html (msg has an error, should read ni62, not ni68) http://www.mail-archive.com/vortex-l%40eskimo.com/msg98350.html http://www.mail-archive.com/vortex-l%40eskimo.com/msg98422.html -Bob
Re: [Vo]:OT: The Phone Cops
To see how truly powerful TPC is, you have to watch this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_President's_Analyst
Re: Isotope conversion completeness, was RE: [Vo]:Pomp weighs in
Particle 1 was analyzed and found to contain Ni62. Its photo shows that its tubercles were not melted and the particle was therefore cold. Your reasoning must be reversed. Particle 1 came from the COLDEST part of the reactor. The induction coil is also cold and must have been located close to the nickel powder. On Tue, Oct 14, 2014 at 2:52 PM, Bob Higgins rj.bob.higg...@gmail.com wrote: Following on to this line of thought ... Given the temperatures that the reactor had been operating in actual operation, many of the constituents of the fuel powder would have either melted, vaporized, or sintered to the inside of the reactor core vessel. Thus, when removing the ash for test, the components that emerged may be completely unrepresentative of the active components which may have remained firmly attached to the inside of the reactor vessel. Perhaps only more benign and refractory components could have been extracted after the experiment. Thus, the analysis of this ash material should not necessarily be directly compared with the powder input at the beginning of the experiment as a before and after reaction analysis. Given this, the question arises, did the starting powder that was supplied by Rossi as about 1 g actually represent the active powder of the reaction? If the reactor had been used before, its ceramic core may not have been virgin. There could remain remnants, perhaps intentionally active remnants, sintered to the inside of the reaction tube. In which case, Rossi may have supplied only the consumables - perhaps mostly hydride. This would make analysis of the input powder of less value because it is not the whole fuel for his reaction. My question is, Had the reactor used in this experiment ever been used by anyone for an active LENR test prior to the test conducted by your group? Conversely, was the reactor virgin in the respect of having never before been used for a LENR reaction? Of course, this will still not entirely answer the question of whether the input powder was actually representative of the entire active LENR material. It could be that the active Ni portion had already been sintered onto the inside of the reactor vessel as part of preparing the apparatus. Then Rossi would only have added the consumable portion at the beginning of the experiment. Even if this active material had been sintered onto the inside of the reactor, it would not have been active in the dummy experiment without the consumable portion having been added. I can imagine Rossi essentially thick film coating his active Ni powder onto the inside of the central alumina tube as part of creating the reactor. Perhaps this would also include an alpha alumina washcoat that would render the alumina impermeable to hydrogen. Bob Higgins On Tue, Oct 14, 2014 at 10:57 AM, Bob Higgins rj.bob.higg...@gmail.com wrote: In a recent email, Ed Storms observed that the sample of the Lugano ash that was tested was probably not at all representative of the material that was active in the reactor core. At the temperatures measured, many of the materials would have melted (or vaporized), and those that did not melt were sintered; probably sintering themselves to the walls of the inner alumina shell. Because of this, anything that could have emerged as a powder after the test when the vessel was opened would not be a representative sample of the true active ash which would have remained inside firmly attached to the walls of the reactor vessel. What was tested as ash is likely inert or random left-over inert slag in the reactor. Bob Higgins On Sat, Oct 11, 2014 at 5:50 PM, Robert Ellefson vortex-h...@e2ke.com wrote: Recall that the bulk results show 57% Li-6 enrichment, vs. 92% surface enrichment. I believe the higher fraction of Li-6 on the surface is the result of starvation of the reaction cycle resulting in an excess of Li-6 as compared to the steady-state balance during operation, which is reflected in the bulk composition. Read these messages for further details: http://www.mail-archive.com/vortex-l%40eskimo.com/msg98020.html (msg has an error, should read ni62, not ni68) http://www.mail-archive.com/vortex-l%40eskimo.com/msg98350.html http://www.mail-archive.com/vortex-l%40eskimo.com/msg98422.html -Bob
[Vo]:two new publications
Dear Friends Just published http://egooutpeters.blogspot.ro/2014/10/confront-journal-october-14-2014-i-have.html and also AXIL's comment to the Siegel paper. See you tomorrow. Peter -- Dr. Peter Gluck Cluj, Romania http://egooutpeters.blogspot.com
Re: [Vo]:Determining the transmittance . . . of semitransparent materials at elevated temperatures
(Response in line) On 10/14/2014 12:51 PM, Jones Beene wrote: *From:*David L. Babcock I seem to remember that the 4th power thing is due to (largely due to?) the strongly rising center of the frequency as temperature increases. Thus, the radiated power through a narrow window (visible band is only 1 octave) is probably only proportional to the /first/ power, at least when that window is well below the peak power frequency. What frequency are you assuming is peak power? I would have suspected that the higher the photon frequency, the more power, such that visible should be peak. I get a glimmer that I'm off, here. I visualized the peak as well above the visible, in the ultra-violet. Unlikely, as nobody even hints that the perceived color was blue-white. So maybe I'm right, but not right about this particular case. ØIf true, any error contributed by that window rapidly becomes unimportant as temperature increases. Yes, if true - but this depends on your assumption of peak power. Can you elaborate on why you think it would be longer wavelength rather than shorter? Probably a typo here, as I was thinking the peak to be much /shorter/ wavelength. I may not be all that wrong. The cutoff is so many nm, the window doesn't tint ordinary light (I've seen some alumina), and the experts agree that the effect is small at the lower power used for cal. Or at least small enough to be easily calculated-out. Thanks Speaking of calculated-out, wouldn't the tester be using established equations (or tables from same) for alumina, which then would certainly account for any likely range of T? Then the short-coming of calibrating at the wrong temperature is reduced -magically!- to a second order effect. Perhaps 2% or 10%. Not enough to disapear the over-unity, just a small embarrassment. Thank you for the polite exchange Ol' Bab --- This email is free from viruses and malware because avast! Antivirus protection is active. http://www.avast.com
Re: [Vo]:Determining the transmittance . . . of semitransparent materials at elevated temperatures
Jones Beene jone...@pacbell.net wrote: You seem to be saying that it is not found in the “revised” or edited version? There is an edited version of the report, in which details like this are removed. Where is this edited version? What is the URL? Which is older? - Jed
[Vo]:E-cat : Minimum COP assuming worst mistakes possible
Hi Following Mickael McKubre critics, I posted a question for the testers but some here may answer with the public data - assuming the convection factor is maybe badly represented (underestimated for the dummy, over represented for the active) because the dummy was tested at lower temperature than the active, what is the minimum possible COP than one can absolutely judge from simply thermal radiation ? - can the moment when you increased the power by 100W and the apparent heat increased by 700W be enough to support a COP above 1 ? - is there a simple way , with minimal assumption, to be sure that the COP1 - it seems that the dummy was less hot with more power in, and the active version hotter with less power, do you confirm ? - was simply the active version wil less power visibly more brightly than the dummy when powered more without the load? (this one only for the testers) - is it thus impossible that COP is not above 1, even if many errors have been done, like on emissivity, transmissivity, calibration, convection ? - can you provide computation of different possible COP assuming huge errors in those parameters ? if the extraordinary claim of COP1 is confirmed, maybe the normal claim of calorimetry can be more easily accepted (even if McKubre remind us to be cautious on the exact number).
Re: [Vo]:E-cat : Minimum COP assuming worst mistakes possible
Alain Sepeda alain.sep...@gmail.com wrote: - is there a simple way , with minimal assumption, to be sure that the COP1 Look at the color. If it is dull red, it may be around 750°C which is where you would expect it to be in a straight line extrapolation calibration up to 800 W. If it is white it has to be around 1300°C, which is far higher than the calibration indicates it should be. A calibration curve will bend down. It never bends up. McKubre pointed this out: On page 7 of the report the authors state: “Subsequent calculation proved that increasing the input by roughly 100 watts had caused an increase of about 700 watts in power emitted.” This is interesting. The shape of the output vs. input power curve is observed (or implied) to strongly curve upwards in a manner completely inconsistent with the Stefan-Boltzmann law for radiative heat loss. It is also inconsistent with simple convective heat transfer but several issues need to be addressed before we can claim this as a qualitative or even “semi-quantitative” measure of excess heat production . . . Note that incandescent colors are similar for all materials. - Jed
RE: [Vo]:E-cat : Minimum COP assuming worst mistakes possible
McKubre’s point about the value of the implications of the input power step response is very important, and I entirely agree. In terms of systems analysis, when you have an input step function, the derivative of that input then becomes an approximation of the Dirac delta function, otherwise known as an impulse function. Sending an impulse through a system transfer function yields the transfer function itself, which is pretty handy to have. I’m glad that the testers included this step, and I think we all need to pay close attention to it. -Bob From: Jed Rothwell [mailto:jedrothw...@gmail.com] Sent: Tuesday, October 14, 2014 1:10 PM To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: [Vo]:E-cat : Minimum COP assuming worst mistakes possible Alain Sepeda alain.sep...@gmail.com mailto:alain.sep...@gmail.com wrote: * is there a simple way , with minimal assumption, to be sure that the COP1 Look at the color. If it is dull red, it may be around 750°C which is where you would expect it to be in a straight line extrapolation calibration up to 800 W. If it is white it has to be around 1300°C, which is far higher than the calibration indicates it should be. A calibration curve will bend down. It never bends up. McKubre pointed this out: On page 7 of the report the authors state: “Subsequent calculation proved that increasing the input by roughly 100 watts had caused an increase of about 700 watts in power emitted.” This is interesting. The shape of the output vs. input power curve is observed (or implied) to strongly curve upwards in a manner completely inconsistent with the Stefan-Boltzmann law for radiative heat loss. It is also inconsistent with simple convective heat transfer but several issues need to be addressed before we can claim this as a qualitative or even “semi-quantitative” measure of excess heat production . . . Note that incandescent colors are similar for all materials. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:neutron transfer reactions
In reply to Alain Sepeda's message of Tue, 14 Oct 2014 08:53:26 +0200: Hi, [snip] I think we can eliminate 2 kind of impossible reaction : - those involving free neutrons that would be thermalized even rarely, and detected The reactions described below do not involve free neutrons. A bound neutron migrates directly from one nucleus to another. This is a classic quantum tunneling reaction. - those not geometrically balanced which would creat a gamma tha would be detected. The initial energy of the reaction appears as kinetic energy of the daughter nuclei, both of which are created in their ground state because only a single nucleon transfers (this is a guess). Both new nuclei are stable. Hence no gammas. The new nuclei are heavy, and thus slow, so no bremsstrahlung to speak of is created. K shell electron displacement will only result in low energy X-rays, 7.5 keV for Ni, in the Ni-Li reaction, 1.2 keV for Mg in the Mg reaction. These are readily absorbed by the encasement. The first excited state of Mg26 is at 1.8 MeV. That of Mg24 is at 1.3 MeV. In the Mg25 reaction, both the new nuclei have about 1.9 MeV. Secondary radiation will be very low intensity because the high central charge on both nuclei (12) and the low velocity will mean that the first excited state of either Mg24 or Mg26 will only be activated on very rare occasions indeed. This is about as clean a nuclear reaction as you are going to find...and just the Magnesium in the top 1 km of the Earth's crust would supply all our energy needs at the current rate of use for 20 billion years (if I got my sums right). (Furthermore, there is a lot of Magnesium is sea water, which can be readily extracted with ion-exchange technology, ensuring that the landscape need not be disturbed by mining). geometry is the key because of CoM. probably the electron is too, but that is not sure... 2014-10-14 7:22 GMT+02:00 mix...@bigpond.com: Hi, (This email best viewed with a fixed width font). Prime candidates are even numbered elements with an odd number of neutrons. This is because subtracting or adding a neutron produces an even-even nucleus, and these tend to be stable. The reactions that yield the most energy would use a neutron source where the neutron is only bound loosely. Here is a table with some isotopes and the binding energy of the odd neutron (the lower the binding energy, the easier it is to remove):- Isotope Energy (MeV)ppm of the element in the Earth's crust D 2.2 ! Li7 7.2513 ! Be9 1.573 1.5 C13 4.946 200 Mg257.331 32000 ! Si298.474 267700 ! Ca437.933 52900 ! Ti478.885400 ! Ti498.142! Ge736.783 1.6 Se777.419 0.05 Sr878.428 260 Zr917.194 100 Mo957.369 1 Mo976.821 Pd105 7.094 0.001 Cd111 6.976 0.098 Sn117 6.943 2.5 Sn119 6.483 Ba135 6.973 250 Ba137 6.90 The most useful isotopes are likely to be those of low atomic number, high abundance, and reasonably large isotopic percentage of the element in question. These have been indicated with an !. In particular, Mg25 may be an opportunity that has been missed so far. It is interesting both because of it's abundance, and because of the neutron binding energy comparable to that of Lithium. Possible interesting reaction:- 25Mg + 25Mg = 26Mg + 24Mg + 3.763 MeV Furthermore the energy is divided over two nuclei of almost equal mass, hence each gets about half (1.9 MeV), so this could be a very clean reaction. Regards, Robin van Spaandonk http://rvanspaa.freehostia.com/project.html Regards, Robin van Spaandonk http://rvanspaa.freehostia.com/project.html
Re: [Vo]:Engineering and materials issues with high temperature hot-cat Lugano demo
Use of 3 ph. power is not really a mystery. Most industrial equipment is 3 ph. and each leg must be kept in balance with the others. This is easiest with 3 ph. delta configs.
Re: [Vo]:Super-fluidic heat flow.
Having condensed, all the photons are at the same energy level thus resulting in a singular wavelength. We call that monochromatic. Keep 'em in phase and you haz laser.
[Vo]:Z Machine Pinches More Neutrons
Two orders of magnitude more: The Sandia researchers reported this week in Physical Review Letters that they had heated the plasma to about 35 million degrees Celsius and detected about 2 trillion neutrons coming from each shot. (One reaction of fusing two deuteriums produces helium-3 and a neutron.) Although the result shows that a substantial number of reactions is taking place—100 times as many as the team achieved a year ago—the group will need to produce 10,000 times as many to achieve breakeven. “It is good progress but just a beginning,” says Sandia senior scientist Mike Campbell. “We need to get more energy into the gas and increase the initial magnetic field and see if it scales in the right direction.” more http://news.sciencemag.org/physics/2014/10/z-machine-makes-progress-toward-nuclear-fusion
[Vo]:Testing fuels without a reactor
Given the results of the SIMS analysis from the Lugano report, particularly as detailed in this posting: http://www.mail-archive.com/vortex-l@eskimo.com/msg98596.html I believe that it is possible to evaluate the nuclear activity of candidate fuel samples simply by sputter-cleaning them as part of a ToF-SIMS analysis. If researchers with access to such analytic equipment were willing to run the experiment, I believe that a successful replication of Rossi's reaction can be observed occurring with before-and-after spectra of the fuel. So, skip the reactors, start evaluating powders in the SEM itself! I sure hope this helps, -Bob Ellefson
Re: [Vo]:E-cat : Minimum COP assuming worst mistakes possible
The fact that the 100 watt input power increase yielded a calculated(and assumed) output power increase of 700 watts does indeed prove that the COP is greater than unity. My model shows that this is the general behavior that is expected from any device that has internally generated power. I have a great deal of information concerning this aspect of the CAT operation as modeled. The additional power contributed by the core is in the form of positive feedback. That is true since the core temperature increases beyond what would be expected from the addition of input power alone. My simulation reveals that you can treat this positive feedback behavior as though the thermal impedance of the ECAT is increasing with ever increasing amounts of core generated power. With that concept in mind you will realize that feeding a delta of input power into the device will result in a larger delta temperature change than expected in the absence of this feedback. The experimenters were worried by the large delta seen which they apparently thought was a tendency to head into device meltdown. That could indeed happen if the design was not protected by the rapidly increasing thermal radiation output path available to prevent just that occurrence. This design trick most likely is one of Rossi's trade secrets. I suspect that some of his earlier designs did not have sufficient heat sinking by radiation to offer the optimum protection. In those cases the positive feedback due to core heat generation could increase beyond a safe level until thermal runaway lead to device destruction. To reinforce my discussion you should refer to the previous test and the charts supplied within that report. The scientists pointed out the unusual shape of the temperature versus time plot and compared it to what they expected from a resistor load. What they plotted is entirely consistent with what is seen with my latest stable model. At the time I was convinced that Rossi actually was driving the device into an unstable region in order to get good COP. That was possible, but this latest data leads me to believe that he has designed his current device to avoid that dangerous unstable operation region. By careful geometry he must be balancing the radiation, convection, and conduction sinks with the internal power generation process. When such a design is optimized, the effective thermal impedance becomes very large and results in the observed much greater calculated delta in output power than that expected from the input drive delta. A device that did not have extra core generation of power would not behave in this manner. In my opinion this absolutely proves that the COP is greater than unity. My model suggests that the maximum COP actually occurs at an input power that is slightly above the region of maximum slope (delta output power)/(delta input power). The COP tends to fall off at a moderate rate once that maximum operating point is exceeded. The latest report clearly demonstrated that the scientists chose an operation point below the maximum. I can explain this further if anyone is interested. Every time I carefully examine the simulation runs and associated data I learn something new about the device behavior. I have to keep reminding myself that I have only a computer simulation and many important parameters must be hidden from my view. Dave -Original Message- From: Alain Sepeda alain.sep...@gmail.com To: Vortex List vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Tue, Oct 14, 2014 3:53 pm Subject: [Vo]:E-cat : Minimum COP assuming worst mistakes possible Hi Following Mickael McKubre critics, I posted a question for the testers but some here may answer with the public data assuming the convection factor is maybe badly represented (underestimated for the dummy, over represented for the active) because the dummy was tested at lower temperature than the active, what is the minimum possible COP than one can absolutely judge from simply thermal radiation ? can the moment when you increased the power by 100W and the apparent heat increased by 700W be enough to support a COP above 1 ? is there a simple way , with minimal assumption, to be sure that the COP1 it seems that the dummy was less hot with more power in, and the active version hotter with less power, do you confirm ? was simply the active version wil less power visibly more brightly than the dummy when powered more without the load? (this one only for the testers) is it thus impossible that COP is not above 1, even if many errors have been done, like on emissivity, transmissivity, calibration, convection ? can you provide computation of different possible COP assuming huge errors in those parameters ? if the extraordinary claim of COP1 is confirmed, maybe the normal claim of calorimetry can be more easily accepted (even if McKubre remind us to be cautious on the exact number).
RE: [Vo]:Testing fuels without a reactor
Bob, Just so you know, your insight is not being ignored - although you may reasonably suspect it is, since there are few comments. Lots of people are trying to come to grips with this data, as preposterous as it may seem at first glance. But the main problem remains: these are very energetic reactions with extreme Coulomb barriers. Obviously, if Ni-62 is the key to the Rossi effect - which is what his patent would suggest, and it fused with Li7, then there is a putative case for gallium-69. Beyond that, there is no support for anything close to this in the literature. -Original Message- From: Robert Ellefson Given the results of the SIMS analysis from the Lugano report, particularly as detailed in this posting: http://www.mail-archive.com/vortex-l@eskimo.com/msg98596.html I believe that it is possible to evaluate the nuclear activity of candidate fuel samples simply by sputter-cleaning them as part of a ToF-SIMS analysis. If researchers with access to such analytic equipment were willing to run the experiment, I believe that a successful replication of Rossi's reaction can be observed occurring with before-and-after spectra of the fuel. So, skip the reactors, start evaluating powders in the SEM itself! I sure hope this helps, -Bob Ellefson
RE: [Vo]:Testing fuels without a reactor
BTW Bob - you suggested a simple way to look for the Ni+Li reaction. There is a simpler way yet... get hold of some those exploding lithium batteries... you know ... the one's with nickel electrodes. Look for 69Ga in the debris field of the next Boeing Dreamliner crash. Krivit is on the case http://news.newenergytimes.net/2013/01/17/are-nuclear-reactions-causing-boei ng-dreamliner-battery-fires/ but he would face a huge problem if this turned out to be the Rossi effect :) Bob, Just so you know, your insight is not being ignored - although you may reasonably suspect it is, since there are few comments. Lots of people are trying to come to grips with this data, as preposterous as it may seem at first glance. But the main problem remains: these are very energetic reactions with extreme Coulomb barriers. Obviously, if Ni-62 is the key to the Rossi effect - which is what his patent would suggest, and it fused with Li7, then there is a putative case for gallium-69. Beyond that, there is no support for anything close to this in the literature. -Original Message- From: Robert Ellefson Given the results of the SIMS analysis from the Lugano report, particularly as detailed in this posting: http://www.mail-archive.com/vortex-l@eskimo.com/msg98596.html I believe that it is possible to evaluate the nuclear activity of candidate fuel samples simply by sputter-cleaning them as part of a ToF-SIMS analysis. If researchers with access to such analytic equipment were willing to run the experiment, I believe that a successful replication of Rossi's reaction can be observed occurring with before-and-after spectra of the fuel. So, skip the reactors, start evaluating powders in the SEM itself! I sure hope this helps, -Bob Ellefson
Re: [Vo]:Testing fuels without a reactor
On Tue, Oct 14, 2014 at 9:54 PM, Jones Beene jone...@pacbell.net wrote: BTW Bob - you suggested a simple way to look for the Ni+Li reaction. There is a simpler way yet... get hold of some those exploding lithium batteries... you know ... the one's with nickel electrodes. Or just ride the bus: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/technology/11158277/CCTV-mobile-phone-battery-explodes-in-womans-hands-on-bus.html
Re: [Vo]:Testing fuels without a reactor
Or just ride your bike... http://koin.com/2014/09/05/electric-bike-battery-may-have-caused-bend-house-fire/ On Tuesday, October 14, 2014, Terry Blanton hohlr...@gmail.com wrote: On Tue, Oct 14, 2014 at 9:54 PM, Jones Beene jone...@pacbell.net javascript:; wrote: BTW Bob - you suggested a simple way to look for the Ni+Li reaction. There is a simpler way yet... get hold of some those exploding lithium batteries... you know ... the one's with nickel electrodes. Or just ride the bus: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/technology/11158277/CCTV-mobile-phone-battery-explodes-in-womans-hands-on-bus.html
RE: [Vo]:Testing fuels without a reactor
-Original Message- From: Terry Blanton Jones Beene wrote: BTW Bob - you suggested a simple way to look for the Ni+Li reaction. There is a simpler way yet... get hold of some those exploding lithium batteries... you know ... the one's with nickel electrodes. Or just ride the bus: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/technology/11158277/CCTV-mobile-phone-battery-explodes-in-womans-hands-on-bus.html how galling ! One wonders - given the cost of the Dreamliner, if Boeing will not be far behind on catching onto this. They can easily put $100 mill into the task. The gall of them... Gall n. bold, impudent behavior. synonyms: effrontery, impudence, impertinence, cheek, cheekiness, insolence, audacity, temerity, presumption, cockiness, nerve, shamelessness, disrespect, bad manners; Hmm... I represent that remark...
Re: [Vo]:Testing fuels without a reactor
In general, I think it is not a good idea to fly plastic fuselage airplanes with lithium batteries @ 42,000 feet up near the ionosphere... On Tuesday, October 14, 2014, Jones Beene jone...@pacbell.net wrote: -Original Message- From: Terry Blanton Jones Beene wrote: BTW Bob - you suggested a simple way to look for the Ni+Li reaction. There is a simpler way yet... get hold of some those exploding lithium batteries... you know ... the one's with nickel electrodes. Or just ride the bus: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/technology/11158277/CCTV-mobile-phone-battery-explodes-in-womans-hands-on-bus.html how galling ! One wonders - given the cost of the Dreamliner, if Boeing will not be far behind on catching onto this. They can easily put $100 mill into the task. The gall of them... Gall n. bold, impudent behavior. synonyms: effrontery, impudence, impertinence, cheek, cheekiness, insolence, audacity, temerity, presumption, cockiness, nerve, shamelessness, disrespect, bad manners; Hmm... I represent that remark...
RE: [Vo]:Testing fuels without a reactor
How long will it be before the dreaded Ni-62 bombe (best Inspector Clouseau accent) From: ChemE Stewart In general, I think it is not a good idea to fly plastic fuselage airplanes with lithium batteries @ 42,000 feet up near the ionosphere... From: Terry Blanton Jones Beene wrote: BTW Bob - you suggested a simple way to look for the Ni+Li reaction. There is a simpler way yet... get hold of some those exploding lithium batteries... you know ... the one's with nickel electrodes. Or just ride the bus: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/technology/11158277/CCTV-mobile-phone-battery-explodes-in-womans-hands-on-bus.html how galling ! One wonders - given the cost of the Dreamliner, if Boeing will not be far behind on catching onto this. They can easily put $100 mill into the task. The gall of them... Gall n. bold, impudent behavior. synonyms: effrontery, impudence, impertinence, cheek, cheekiness, insolence, audacity, temerity, presumption, cockiness, nerve, shamelessness, disrespect, bad manners; Hmm... I represent that remark...
Re: [Vo]:Testing fuels without a reactor
Are you implying exploding pennies? On Tuesday, October 14, 2014, Jones Beene jone...@pacbell.net wrote: How long will it be before the dreaded Ni-62 bombe (best Inspector Clouseau accent) *From:* ChemE Stewart In general, I think it is not a good idea to fly plastic fuselage airplanes with lithium batteries @ 42,000 feet up near the ionosphere... From: Terry Blanton Jones Beene wrote: BTW Bob - you suggested a simple way to look for the Ni+Li reaction. There is a simpler way yet... get hold of some those exploding lithium batteries... you know ... the one's with nickel electrodes. Or just ride the bus: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/technology/11158277/CCTV-mobile-phone-battery-explodes-in-womans-hands-on-bus.html how galling ! One wonders - given the cost of the Dreamliner, if Boeing will not be far behind on catching onto this. They can easily put $100 mill into the task. The gall of them... Gall n. bold, impudent behavior. synonyms: effrontery, impudence, impertinence, cheek, cheekiness, insolence, audacity, temerity, presumption, cockiness, nerve, shamelessness, disrespect, bad manners; Hmm... I represent that remark...
[Vo]:NBC News article on Fusion Mentions E-Cat (Not Negatively)
http://www.e-catworld.com/2014/10/14/nbc-news-article-on-fusion-mentions-e-cat-not-negatively/ Harry
Re: [Vo]:An expert reviewed and approves of this configuration
So the heater coils in the 2013 test were embedded in ceramic sheath which covered a steel vessel. I was recalling the 2013 test as if the coils were inside the steel vessel. It all makes sense now. Harry On Tue, Oct 14, 2014 at 11:24 AM, Alan Fletcher a...@well.com wrote: Yes, sorry -- I was referring back to the 2013 test. For that we had a picture of the ceramic frame holding the resistor wires, which was cast in two (I recall, without looking it up) sections. For a small area, we have a solid plate (complicated by fins), and then a cog-like structure with the gap towards the outside. Presuming that this makes good thermal contact to the outer cylinder we can approximate it as a rectangular block with a rectangular hole, with the wire in the center. The wire itself is mostly in poor contact with the holder, so it supplies heat by thermal radiation (or induction, though I think that's less likely). There are two pathways from the inner hot zone: by conduction through the solid part of the gear, and by radiation through the gap. (It's probably close to thermal equilibrium.) Given that Alumina is an insulator, I don't know which wins, but there is definitely a possibility of a temperature difference, which may persist. I don't have the tools (comsol etc) to model the radiation in and across the gap. --
RE: [Vo]:Testing fuels without a reactor
Nah… that’s Randy’s gig. Say, in case it hasn’t dawned on ya’ … using up most of your Li-7 with nickel – which makes the ratio decrease compared Li-6 … this makes it look like you have converted Li-7 to Li-6 which is not the case. It still costs a helluva a lot to make power this way. From: ChemE Stewart Are you implying exploding pennies? Jones Beene wrote: How long will it be before the dreaded Ni-62 bombe (best Inspector Clouseau accent) From: ChemE Stewart In general, I think it is not a good idea to fly plastic fuselage airplanes with lithium batteries @ 42,000 feet up near the ionosphere... From: Terry Blanton Jones Beene wrote: BTW Bob - you suggested a simple way to look for the Ni+Li reaction. There is a simpler way yet... get hold of some those exploding lithium batteries... you know ... the one's with nickel electrodes. Or just ride the bus: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/technology/11158277/CCTV-mobile-phone-battery-exp lodes-in-womans-hands-on-bus.html how galling ! One wonders - given the cost of the Dreamliner, if Boeing will not be far behind on catching onto this. They can easily put $100 mill into the task. The gall of them... Gall n. bold, impudent behavior. synonyms: effrontery, impudence, impertinence, cheek, cheekiness, insolence, audacity, temerity, presumption, cockiness, nerve, shamelessness, disrespect, bad manners; Hmm... I represent that remark... attachment: winmail.dat
[Vo]:post-TIP2 interview with Andrea Rossi
See (hear): http://coldfusionnow.org/andrea-rossi-on-3rd-party-report-industrial-heat-1mw-plant-new-interview/ Courtesy of John Maguire and Ruby Carat. Rossi on the report (to paraphrase): the calculation of the COP in the report was very conservative; it's possible that the real COP was higher. Eric
Re: [Vo]:Testing fuels without a reactor
When the latest TPT is analyzed in the light of what happens in the context of an E-Cat reactor melt down, things start to make sense. Let us remember what the E-Cat meltdown is all about as follows: James Bowery December 28th, 2013 at 7:54 PM Dr. Rossi, When you say that reactors “explode” when out of control, do you mean they actually produce a loud noise? Or do they merely destructively over-heat? (As apparently happened to a HotCat in this photograph during the prior validation test:) [image: Image] --- Andrea Rossi December 28th, 2013 at 8:32 PM James Bowery: Very sorry, I cannot answer to this question exhaustively, but I can say something. Obviously, the experiments are made with total respect of the safety of my team and myself. During the destructive tests we arrived to reach temperatures in the range of 2,000 Celsius degrees, when the “mouse” excited too much the E-Cat, and it is gone out of control, in the sense that we have not been able to stop the raise of the temperature ( we arrived on purpose to that level, because we wanted to study this kind of situation). A nuclear Physicist, analysing the registration of the data, has calculated that the increase of temperature (from 1,000 Celsius to 2,000 Celsius in about 10 seconds), considering the surface that has increased of such temperature, has implied a power of 1 MW, while the Mouse had a mean power of 1.3 kW. Look at the photo you have given the link of, and imagine that the cylinder was cherry red, then in 10 seconds all the cylinder became white-blue, starting from the white dot you see in the photo ( after 1 second) becoming totally white-blue in the following 9 seconds, and then an explosion and the ceramic inside ( which is a ceramic that melts at 2,000 Celsius) turned into a red, brilliant stone, like a ruby. When we opened the reactor, part of the AISI 310 ss steel was not molten, but sublimated and recondensed in form of microscopic drops of steel. Warm Regards, A.R. Sometimes it good to step back and look at the big picture. That picture includes a endpoint of that energy band. There comes a point at the end of the energy band of the Rossi reaction when the nickel particles do not function anymore in the reaction. The nickel particles become irrelevant. These nickel particles vaporize and other facets of the reaction gain prominence and take over. Even the alumina begins to vaporize. What nickel isotopes are produced is not even relevant at that juncture. The reaction becomes much more exotic than that. In the Hot-cat, Rossi has adjusted the LENR reaction to function in a controllable band of it energy potential. Even in this relatively quiescent state, no gamma radiation is produced. And even in the violent and energetic meltdown state, still no gamma radiation or radioactive isotopes are produced. The very fact that the meltdown stage is so energetic proves that nuclear energy is being taped in ever increasing amounts to vaporize the reactor structure. The answer to the LENR riddle will not be found in what isotopes are being produced, the ultimate basic of the reaction is more wondrous than you can imagine now. On Wed, Oct 15, 2014 at 12:07 AM, Jones Beene jone...@pacbell.net wrote: Nah… that’s Randy’s gig. Say, in case it hasn’t dawned on ya’ … using up most of your Li-7 with nickel – which makes the ratio decrease compared Li-6 … this makes it look like you have converted Li-7 to Li-6 which is not the case. It still costs a helluva a lot to make power this way. From: ChemE Stewart Are you implying exploding pennies? Jones Beene wrote: How long will it be before the dreaded Ni-62 bombe (best Inspector Clouseau accent) From: ChemE Stewart In general, I think it is not a good idea to fly plastic fuselage airplanes with lithium batteries @ 42,000 feet up near the ionosphere... From: Terry Blanton Jones Beene wrote: BTW Bob - you suggested a simple way to look for the Ni+Li reaction. There is a simpler way yet... get hold of some those exploding lithium batteries... you know ... the one's with nickel electrodes. Or just ride the bus: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/technology/11158277/CCTV-mobile-phone-battery-exp lodes-in-womans-hands-on-bus.html how galling ! One wonders - given the cost of the Dreamliner, if Boeing will not be far behind on catching onto this. They can easily put $100 mill into the task. The gall of them... Gall n. bold, impudent behavior. synonyms: effrontery, impudence, impertinence, cheek, cheekiness, insolence,
Re: [Vo]:Engineering and materials issues with high temperature hot-cat Lugano demo
On Tue, Oct 14, 2014 at 8:15 AM, Bob Higgins rj.bob.higg...@gmail.com wrote: Why do we think the 3-phase drive is used? I'm guessing this has to do with an induction mode, perhaps creating a condition not unlike a microwave inside the E-Cat, with electric arcing between the various iron and nickel particles. I assume this arcing accelerates the 7Li into the substrate, causing neutron stripping, followed in turn by kinetic energy in the 6Li daughter, electronic excitation and dissipation of heat via soft x-rays and XUV as the electrons de-excite. Btw, here is what happens when aluminum foil is place on an induction stove: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Foil_on_induction_cooktop.jpg Eric
Re: [Vo]:Engineering and materials issues with high temperature hot-cat Lugano demo
On Tue, Oct 14, 2014 at 8:15 AM, Bob Higgins rj.bob.higg...@gmail.com wrote: Why do we think the end caps are so big? Are they part of a lower temperature insulated mounting system? The following is a bit speculative, but perhaps someone can correct any misstatements I make -- if there is a magnetic field being created by the cables coiling around the tube [1], I believe the field would point along the axis of the tube, creating a theta pinch, even if only momentarily. The larger caps may have been a development that came about because additional protection was needed to prevent catastrophic degradation of the material at the ends of the tube. Eric [1] I do not assume the cables are Inconel; they might be something that can sustain higher temperatures.
