Re: [Vo]:questions on McKubre cells and AC component

[H Veeder]

On Mon, Oct 27, 2014 at 3:37 PM, Jed Rothwell  wrote:

> H Veeder  wrote:
>
>
>> ​Unless heat is absorbed during charging and is released during discharge
>> a calorimeter can't tell you if an endothermic reaction occurred.
>>
>
> "The heat being absorbed" is the definition of an endothermic reaction.
> That's exactly what it is. Even if the energy is not subsequently released,
> you can still see the deficit during the storage phase. That is to say, if
> you were to charge up a battery but not later discharge it, then you would
> see a deficit with no compensating exothermic reaction following that. When
> you removed the battery from the calorimeter it would be fully charged up.
>
>
​From the point of the calorimeter heat is not absorbed since no heat
vanishes. Like all measuring instruments a calorimeter is incapable of
doing anything other than it was designed to do and that consists in
detecting changes or lack of changes in heat content. Whether or not the
data it supplies  represents exothermic or endothermic reactions requires
further interpretation based on additional knowledge.

​

> The only exception to this would be if the endothermic phase occurs over a
> very long time and the deficit is very small. It might be too small to
> detect with a given calorimeter. It might then be released as a short
> burst. We can rule out this scenario for most cold fusion experiments,
> including McKubre's, because the periods when there is no heat are shorter
> than the continuous periods when there is heat. So the deficit would have
> to be as large or larger than the positive heat release.
>
>
>

Whether or not an excess heat event is long or short is relative to when
the accounting period begins.
Does he include the time and energy spent loading?​




> You also need a-priori knowledge of how the energy is stored.
>>
>
> No, you don't. Energy is energy. All energy in all forms is either stored
> or it converts to heat. Because entropy.
>
>
​The calorimeter doesn't tell you there is a "deficit".  The only thing it
tells you is how much and how quickly the heat content of the system
changes.The "deficit" is an *interpretation* of this raw data.​
​



>
>> The calorimeter by itself only tells you that there was a mildly
>> exothermic reaction followed by more intense exothermic reaction.
>>
>
> No, the two would have to balance in intensity if they were roughly of the
> same duration. As I said in most cases endothermic phase would have to be
> shorter so it would be more intense and easier to measure.
>
>

>
>> Charging a battery is endothermic because it absorbs *electrical* energy,
>> not because it absorbs *heat* energy.
>>
>
> Other reactions that absorb heat energy (or any other form or source of
> energy) show a similar pattern in a calorimeter. For example, reactions
> that absorb laser light energy will also show a deficit -- assuming you
> measure the laser input correctly, which can be tricky.
>
>
To repeat, unless the temperature falls a calorimeter by itself cannot tell
you if an endothermic process has occurred. You need additional information
to interpret the meaning of the lack of rise in temperature .





> A battery happens to be a convenient way to demonstrate this but any
> endothermic reaction will do.
>
>
>
>> If a calorimeter were good at detecting all types of endothermic
>> reactions then you could substitute them for volt meters.
>>
>
> Well, a watt meter, not a volt meter. Yes, you can, and the instrument
> makers do. All high-quality, high-powered wattmeters use calorimetry. That
> is to say the heat up a resistor wired in series with the load, measure the
> temperature and convert that to power. This method eliminates any
> possibility of exotic waveforms or extremely rapid changes in electric
> power being missed by the instrument. This method detects every joule of
> electricity, no matter what.
>
>
​Of course, but you need to know what is causing the temperature change.

harry

Re: [Vo]:Deconstructing Rossi

[Eric Walker]

On Tue, Oct 28, 2014 at 6:05 AM, Jones Beene  wrote:

Robert Greenyer has a different take on Rossi's initial product: a "dogbone"
> heater element for furnaces.
>

Nice homework on Greenyer's part.  He makes an interesting case that IH is
going to try to make use of LENR in an application that is not at the
forefront of many people's minds but to which it would be well-suited.  The
name "Industrial Heat" kind of suggests this direction as well.

Eric

Re: [Vo]:MFMP interviews spokesman from WILLIAMSON

[Eric Walker]

On Wed, Oct 29, 2014 at 12:54 PM, Terry Blanton  wrote:

It's not difficult to sell furnace heating elements which provide 4.6
> watts of output for one watt of input.
>

As an entry point into industry, it is a little obscure, and one that the
accountants paying the electricity bill will be first to notice.  But if
accountants can be the advocates of LENR, this is a good thing.

Eric

RE: [Vo]:A new type of laser is born?

[Robert Ellefson]

There was some discussion last week about these reactions, based on 
newly-released papers, on this thread:

“[Vo]:Is the E-Cat reaction a plasmon-driven instance of a 
metastable innershell molecular state (MIMS) mediated neutron exchange?”

http://www.mail-archive.com/vortex-l%40eskimo.com/msg98968.html

 

The recent MIMS papers by Young K Bae are linked in that first message, and 
they are well-worth a read.

 

-Bob

 

 

From: H Veeder Sent: Wednesday, October 29, 2014 5:15 PM
Subject: Re: [Vo]:A new type of laser is born?

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metastable_Innershell_Molecular_State
 
<

Re: [Vo]:A new type of laser is born?

[H Veeder]

On Tue, Oct 28, 2014 at 5:24 PM, Robert Ellefson 
wrote:

>
>
> In any case, I really do not wield the depth of knowledge in chemistry or
> physics to proclaim particular reactions as being correct or not, I am
> simply trying to apply match what may be possible with what has been
> observed.  I think the unusual and dynamic nature of this system requires
> that we consider reaction pathways that lie outside of
> previously-characterized reaction domains.  For me, a prime example of this
> is the recently-released work from YK Bae on MIMS.
>
>


​http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metastable_Innershell_Molecular_State

<>

<<
​
MIMS can be also formed with two different elements.[18] Currently, such
heteronucleus MIMS formed with H+ and He+ with other elements are proposed
to be observed in H+ and He+ impact on a range of solids. Based on Equation
of States (EOS) of materials,[6][7] it can be predicted that pressures
required to form homonucleus L-shell MIMS are on the order of 100 Mbar (10
TPa), while homonucleus K-shell MIMS on the order of 10 – 100 Gbar (1,000 –
10,000 TPa). Pressures required to form heteronucleus MIMS are predicted to
be considerably smaller than that for homonucleus MIMS.
>>

​Harry​

Re: [Vo]:Empirical Transmutation Model for LENR

[Alan Fletcher]

From: "Bob Cook"  
Sent: Wednesday, October 29, 2014 2:40:42 PM 

The authors suggest it allows compliance with conservation of energy, charge in 
integral units, momentum and angular momentum and spin. 
Alan--What do you think it defies? 
Bob 

JOKE! (See Motls, Pomp, Siegel et al) -- I WAS going to add "because there is 
no experimental evidence for it" 

But the paper was quite well received (10 citations). 

http://scholar.google.com/scholar?espv=2&biw=1124&bih=939&bav=on.2,or.r_cp.r_qf.&bvm=bv.78597519,d.cGU&ion=1&um=1&ie=UTF-8&lr=&cites=5348392371497276203
 

eg http://fs.gallup.unm.edu/~smarandache/PiP-2008-03.pdf#page=72 (Progress in 
Physics) 

It also points out the the "literature equation" (1) p + v -> n + e+ is WRONG 
and can't be corrected, because the quarks don't add up right. 

Re: [Vo]:Empirical Transmutation Model for LENR

[Bob Cook]

The authors suggest it allows compliance with conservation of energy, charge in 
integral units, momentum and angular momentum and spin.  

Alan--What do you think it defies?

Bob 
  - Original Message - 
  From: Alan Fletcher 
  To: vortex-l@eskimo.com 
  Sent: Wednesday, October 29, 2014 1:08 PM
  Subject: Re: [Vo]:Empirical Transmutation Model for LENR


  Ignore it. It defies the known laws of physics.



--

  From: "Bob Cook" 
  Sent: Wednesday, October 29, 2014 11:00:41 AM
   
  Axil Axil at a Vortex-l entry--Tuesday, October 28, 2014 11:13 PM -- 
identified a paper by D.V. FILIPPOV, L.I. URUTSKOEV to be found at 
http://uf.narod.ru/public/recom_e05.pdf .  It was written in 2004.

  This work provides an empirical model for transmutation of many isotopes with 
only low energy transitions involved. 

Re: [Vo]:Empirical Transmutation Model for LENR

[Alan Fletcher]

Ignore it. It defies the known laws of physics. 

- Original Message -

From: "Bob Cook"  
Sent: Wednesday, October 29, 2014 11:00:41 AM 
Axil Axil at a Vortex-l entry-- Tuesday, October 28, 2014 11:13 PM -- 
identified a paper by D.V. F ILIPPOV , L.I. U RUTSKOEV to be found at 
http://uf.narod.ru/public/recom_e05.pdf . It was written in 2004. 
This work provides an empirical model for transmutation of many isotopes with 
only low energy transitions involved. 

Re: [Vo]:MFMP interviews spokesman from WILLIAMSON

[Terry Blanton]

On Wed, Oct 29, 2014 at 1:14 PM, Axil Axil  wrote:
> This last post is a wonderful one. The way the E-Cat produces and then
> radiates energy is a complete unknown and there is a absolute and
> uncompromising need in this unique situation to calibrate the temperature
> sensor used in this particular kind of test in a complete and  fined grained
> detail if the true COP of this reactor is to be determined reliably.

My prediction is that this is the last test you will see from Rossi.
The reactor looks like a pre-production prototype.  My bet is you will
probably see commercial products shipping within the next two years.
It's not difficult to sell furnace heating elements which provide 4.6
watts of output for one watt of input.

[Vo]:publication about two problems

[Peter Gluck]

Dear Friends,

I have just published:

http://egooutpeters.blogspot.ro/2014/10/the-dinosaurs-femur-motto-i-have.html

In LENR-land the things are not going too well, more questions than
answers, ore problems than solutions, but the situation will be improved
soon.
Peter

-- 
Dr. Peter Gluck
Cluj, Romania
http://egooutpeters.blogspot.com

[Vo]:Empirical Transmutation Model for LENR

[Bob Cook]

Axil Axil at a Vortex-l entry--Tuesday, October 28, 2014 11:13 PM -- identified 
a paper by D.V. FILIPPOV, L.I. URUTSKOEV to be found at 
http://uf.narod.ru/public/recom_e05.pdf .  It was written in 2004.

This work provides an empirical model for transmutation of many isotopes with 
only low energy transitions involved. 

The author's  discussion and conclusions follow:
"The major conclusion of the paper is that the potentiality of a 
hypothetical collective process of low-energy nuclear transformations is 
shown to be
compatible with the known fundamental conservation laws. This claim is 
suggested by our successful attempt for a phenomenorogical description of
such a process -- first of all, by unumber of successful qualitative predictions
verified by the experiment.

Specifically, comparison of the results of modeling with experimental data show 
that the known fundamental conservation laws allow the existence
of a hypothetical collective process of low-energy nuclear transformations 
which rnay manifest itself in the following way.

1. This process may proceed at small input/output energies per participating 
atom,  namely those of the scale of chemical energies.
2. The final ensernbles with values of energy closest to that of the initial 
ensemble appear to consist of stable isotopes, tf the initital ensemble corr-
sists of stable isotopes as well.  In other words, the success of the proposed 
phenomenological model may be considered as an indirect evidence for:


  (i) probable collective nature of a hypothetical process of nuclear 
transformation and,
  (ii) probable importance of weak inreractions in describing the above 
process (more precisely - the importance of proton-neutron transformations due
  to the known fundamental interactions, namely, weak interaction, or some 
unknown ones).


Completion of the proposed model, even without specification of the mechanism 
of transformation, will allow making preliminary estimates of
the expected production of elements from the given input elements, and what is 
even more important, estimating the relevant input elements to produce 
requested output elements
.

It looks like now there are no theories capable of describing the phenomenon 
under consideration. Though the mechanism of transformation of
nuclei is not understood yet, it is natural to assume that there is some 
catalyst which may unite nuclei in a cluster and thus create  conditions for a 
reso-
nance, which might initiate an exchange of nucleons.  We consider the George 
Lochak's magnetic monopole to be one of possible candidates for
such a catalyst.   Magnetic monopole, proposed by Lochak, is a lepton, i.e., 
partictpates in the electroweak interactions and can be trealed as a 
magnetically excited state of neutrino.  Such a monopole is massless (or nearly 
massless), very light (from the viewpoint of energy scale) and can be born, for
example, in electromagnetic phenomena in condensed matter."



IMHO this paper should be given at least 1/2 hours of study by anyone 
interested in potential LENR mechanisms.   An assessment of the recent  Levi 
etal., paper and Rossi's and Focardi's statements about catalysts and 
transmutations seem to be forcast by this paper written in 2004.   These 
statements should be evaluated in more detail relative to its predictive model 
of  FILIPPOV and URUTSKOEV.

Bob Cook

Re: [Vo]:MFMP interviews spokesman from WILLIAMSON

[Axil Axil]

This last post is a wonderful one. The way the E-Cat produces and then
radiates energy is a complete unknown and there is a absolute and
uncompromising need in this unique situation to calibrate the temperature
sensor used in this particular kind of test in a complete and  fined
grained detail if the true COP of this reactor is to be determined
reliably.



On Wed, Oct 29, 2014 at 12:36 PM, David Roberson  wrote:

> All indications are that the visible spectrum contains very little of the
> energy being radiated so what we see can not be used to figure the radiated
> power.   Many other variables appear to get into the fray which forces us
> to rely upon calibration if we are to achieve accurate accounting of the
> radiated and convected power.  It is unfortunate that the input power was
> not the same during both the dummy run and the active one since the
> increased apparent temperature would have clearly demonstrated excess power
> if any was present.
>
> I am left with believing that excess power was generated due to the rapid
> increase in calculated output power when a small increase in input power
> was applied.  This is a characteristic of an ECAT system with positive
> thermal feedback.  A passive system would not display this behavior.
>
> Dave
>
>
>
>  -Original Message-
> From: Alan Fletcher 
> To: vortex-l 
> Sent: Wed, Oct 29, 2014 11:35 am
> Subject: Re: [Vo]:MFMP interviews spokesman from WILLIAMSON
>
>   *From: *"Eric Walker" 
> *Sent: *Tuesday, October 28, 2014 10:20:52 PM
>
>   On Tue, Oct 28, 2014 at 12:36 PM, Alan Fletcher  wrote:
>
>  Basically what happens is that as the temperature changes the peak of
>> the blackbody spectrum moves through different parts of the
>> emissivity/wavelength curve.
>
>
> Are you assuming a standard Boltzmann curve that just shifts its peak
> according to emittance?  Is it possible that the frequency and
> heat-dependant combination of emittance, transmissivity and reflection make
> it so that there is a distribution other than a Boltzmann distribution for
> the alumina shell?
>
>  Eric
>
>  Yes, that's how Planck's formula/integration works. It TRIES to send a
> Boltzmann curve, but this is modulated by the emissivity spectrum.
> As the temperature increases the spectral peak get higher and shifts to
> shorter wavelengths. If the emissivity is higher  then the total power will
> increase, otherwise (as in this case) it decreases.
>
>  Per Manara the transmission looks negligible outside the visible range,
> where there's practically no blackbody power anyway up to 1400C. (It moves
> to the visible at much higher temperatures -- 4000  to 6000C).
>
>
>

Re: [Vo]:MFMP interviews spokesman from WILLIAMSON

[David Roberson]

All indications are that the visible spectrum contains very little of the 
energy being radiated so what we see can not be used to figure the radiated 
power.   Many other variables appear to get into the fray which forces us to 
rely upon calibration if we are to achieve accurate accounting of the radiated 
and convected power.  It is unfortunate that the input power was not the same 
during both the dummy run and the active one since the increased apparent 
temperature would have clearly demonstrated excess power if any was present.

I am left with believing that excess power was generated due to the rapid 
increase in calculated output power when a small increase in input power was 
applied.  This is a characteristic of an ECAT system with positive thermal 
feedback.  A passive system would not display this behavior.

Dave

 

 

 

-Original Message-
From: Alan Fletcher 
To: vortex-l 
Sent: Wed, Oct 29, 2014 11:35 am
Subject: Re: [Vo]:MFMP interviews spokesman from WILLIAMSON



From: "Eric Walker" 
Sent: Tuesday, October 28, 2014 10:20:52 PM




On Tue, Oct 28, 2014 at 12:36 PM, Alan Fletcher  wrote:



Basically what happens is that as the temperature changes the peak of the 
blackbody spectrum moves through different parts of the emissivity/wavelength 
curve.
 
Are you assuming a standard Boltzmann curve that just shifts its peak according 
to emittance?  Is it possible that the frequency and heat-dependant combination 
of emittance, transmissivity and reflection make it so that there is a 
distribution other than a Boltzmann distribution for the alumina shell?



Eric


Yes, that's how Planck's formula/integration works. It TRIES to send a 
Boltzmann curve, but this is modulated by the emissivity spectrum.
As the temperature increases the spectral peak get higher and shifts to shorter 
wavelengths. If the emissivity is higher  then the total power will increase, 
otherwise (as in this case) it decreases.


Per Manara the transmission looks negligible outside the visible range, where 
there's practically no blackbody power anyway up to 1400C. (It moves to the 
visible at much higher temperatures -- 4000  to 6000C).

Re: [Vo]:MFMP interviews spokesman from WILLIAMSON

[Alan Fletcher]

From: "Eric Walker"  
Sent: Tuesday, October 28, 2014 10:20:52 PM 

On Tue, Oct 28, 2014 at 12:36 PM, Alan Fletcher < a...@well.com > wrote: 



Basically what happens is that as the temperature changes the peak of the 
blackbody spectrum moves through different parts of the emissivity/wavelength 
curve. 


Are you assuming a standard Boltzmann curve that just shifts its peak according 
to emittance? Is it possible that the frequency and heat-dependant combination 
of emittance, transmissivity and reflection make it so that there is a 
distribution other than a Boltzmann distribution for the alumina shell? 

Eric 

Yes, that's how Planck's formula/integration works. It TRIES to send a 
Boltzmann curve, but this is modulated by the emissivity spectrum. 
As the temperature increases the spectral peak get higher and shifts to shorter 
wavelengths. If the emissivity is higher then the total power will increase, 
otherwise (as in this case) it decreases. 

Per Manara the transmission looks negligible outside the visible range, where 
there's practically no blackbody power anyway up to 1400C. (It moves to the 
visible at much higher temperatures -- 4000 to 6000C). 

Re: [Vo]:RE: New analysis

[Alain Sepeda]

we don't know how the current is switcher, and it seems to be not a Delta
but a V wiring...
there are triac, unknown circuitry.

it is funny to see many skeptics so prompt to assume there is no complexity
in the device, just to assume the wattmeter is broke.

the wattmeter is much more reliable than our imagination.

provided there is practically no HF or DC voltage, even if the is HF and DC
current, the wattmeter will do the job.

since the transparency case is solved, tha last question is the emissivity
curve, and the IR cam algorithm to compute temperature...

you can add questions about the convection, but unless you assume the
convection of the blank was much more huge than imagined from the radiation
estimated, the convection have a non determinant impact on the final
result, and mostly it can be a cause of  undersestimation...


the games about the wires heat loss is laughable compared to the main
problem...

it is like questioning the weigh of the poo of an elephant in the kitchen,
and ignore the impact of the elephant on the floor resistance.




2014-10-29 2:41 GMT+01:00 Jones Beene :

>  This guy makes an interesting point that is not clear to me.
>
> Terry, Dave, Bob et al - what do you EEs who have looked at the input
> power think about this approach?
>
> “The currents in the three C1 wires are all equal and they are measured
> by the true RMS
>
> instrument PCE-830. The three heating resistors are also equal and
> therefore they will
>
> all be heated by equal currents, I2. The authors of the report have
> assumed that I2 is half
>
> of the current in the C1 wires. That turns out to be not true. Instead the
> full current I1 is alternating between the two wires in the C2 wire
> pairs, so the voltage drop will be the same as for a single wire. For
> calculation of the resistance Re in the wire system, see paragraph E1in
> the spreadsheet and reference.
>
>  *From:* Brad Lowe
>
> *http://lenr.fysik.org/eCat/COP=1_or_3.pdf*
> 
>
> Sent from my iPhone
>