Re: [Vo]: New Rossi lab photo has much information

[Alain Sepeda]

I agree that reported information are incoherent.
the statement that one average effective current is the sum of two others
implies that the 3 current are synchronous ...

the fact that people see 4 pulse in a cycle shows that is is not a simple
monophase controller however, but a triphase driving a single phase load
with 3 wires.

it seems the report is wrong in it's assumptions, even if the 2 powermeter
will anyway do the job of measuring power...

even if my speculation are wrong, it is important to consider that we may
be wrong about what is the electric circuitry. this is not a problem for
powermeter however, as long as there is no DC and few harmonics above 100x

2014-11-03 23:30 GMT+01:00 Arnaud Kodeck :

>  If Rossi has a problem with harmonics and or reactive power, he has
> better to rethink his electrical circuit. Nowadays, rectifying AC to DC and
> then again hash it to make AC is common circuits. The harmonics and the
> reactive power can easily be managed, if the main circuit is designed
> right. As we say in French,’Il met un emplâtre sur une jambe de bois’. He
> is using 30 years old solutions for a bad designed circuit.
>
>
>
> In the Lugano report page 5, there are 3 coils inside the eCat. At one
> time, one and only one coil is on while the 2 others are off. It is not
> possible to have 2 on and 1 off. So I don’t understand the speculation.
> Alain, could you explain more?
>
>
>  --
>
> *From:* alain.coetm...@gmail.com [mailto:alain.coetm...@gmail.com] *On
> Behalf Of *Alain Sepeda
> *Sent:* lundi 3 novembre 2014 22:51
> *To:* Vortex List
> *Subject:* Re: [Vo]: New Rossi lab photo has much information
>
>
>
> an idea to check from the surprising claim in the report that one of the
> wire effective current was abo the sum of the (equals) two others...
>
> after some rethinking, this imply all current are synchronous...
>
> this is a monophase devices, with simply 2 coils...
>
> what for ? only speculation that it may just make some thermal
> oscillations from left to right, or center to extremities, or else
> stabilize center and extremities...
>
> anyway the two currents are quite similar...
>
>
>
> note that this monophase current maybe the result of a triphase dimmer,
> switching various phases to reduce deforming power and increase frequency
> (to help filtering, and phase balance, when used by 3)...
>
>
>
> what looks as complexity is simply classical electric power  engineering...
>
>
>
> for the 100-200kWe used by the 1MWth power plant, this may be a hell to
> control phase and harmonics and reduce deforming and reactive power...
> electric companies bill you for that, and can even ban you if you inject
> that mess in the grid.
>
>
>
> 2014-11-03 19:10 GMT+01:00 Arnaud Kodeck :
>
> Bob,
>
>
>
> Nice analysis. The eCats are configured in star or triangle. I think from
> what analysed is that it is a star with a free neutral.
>
>
>
> This could be also disinformation. This configuration might have never
> worked at all and be published one year later to lead the replicator in the
> wrong direction.
>
>
>
> Arnaud
>   --
>
> *From:* Bob Higgins [mailto:rj.bob.higg...@gmail.com]
> *Sent:* lundi 3 novembre 2014 15:49
> *To:* vortex-l@eskimo.com
> *Subject:* [Vo]: New Rossi lab photo has much information
>
>
>
> Bob Greenyer of MFMP just posted this image of Rossi's lab with 3 hotCats
> being tested and I put it on my Google drive:
>
>
>
>
> https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B5Pc25a4cOM2U3FIWmpCMnlZaFE/view?usp=sharing
>
>
>
> A wealth of information can be gleaned from this:
>
> · Rossi is testing 3 hotCats simultaneously.
>
> · Each hotCat is connected with 2-wires only - Each IS CONNECTED
> SINGLE PHASE! This probably means that the hotCat only relies on heat-up,
> not magnetic field interaction - certainly not rotating field interaction.
>
> · The gray box has 3 thermocouple connections with one going to
> each hotCat
>
> · The gray box controller is controlling the energy to all 3
> hotCats via the red 3-phase SCR controller in such a way as to control the
> temperature of each hotCat independently.
>
> · This gray box controller is designed to control each hotCat
> solely based on 1 temperature measurement per hotCat.  The temperature
> controllers mounted on the gray box are probably each controlling the
> setpoint of each hotCat (I.E. they are not being used just as temperature
> meters).  A microcontroller in the gray box may read each meter (RS232) and
> then sets the SCR angle for that phase to control the power to each hotCat.
>
>
> · The red SCR box may be configured for delta SCR configuration
> for easy control of the individual hotCats, in which case a microprocessor
> would not be needed.  Each of the little PID temperature controller panel
> meters could directly control the corresponding SCR in the delta phase
> configuration.  Even if the red box had y-configured SCR

[Vo]:OT: New Curcumin ( spice) US Patent- Anticancer

[Ron Kita]

Greetings Vortex-L,

Curcumic-Turmeric  is a most amazing spice. About 5 years ago,Scientific
American had a article called: Spice Healer by Gary Stix..now must pay  for
the article due to its popularity.

Here is a recent 2014 Anticancer- Curcumin Patent from the University of
Brussels:
http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PTO2&Sect2=HITOFF&p=1&u=%2Fnetahtml%2FPTO%2Fsearch-bool.html&r=5&f=G&l=50&co1=AND&d=PTXT&s1=curcumin&s2=cancer.TI.&OS=curcumin+AND+TTL/cancer&RS=curcumin+AND+TTL/cancer


Ad Astra,
Ron Kita, Chiralex
Doylestown PA

Re: [Vo]:Energy is not conserved

[John Berry]

>
> once you change the board, the rules becomes meaningless.


Once you change the board on which the game is played,the rules becomes
meaningless.


On Tue, Nov 4, 2014 at 5:06 PM, John Berry  wrote:

> This is what I have been saying.
>
> Energy conservation is only true and other normal observations of physics
> are only true until the fabric of space and matter (aether, GR space-time)
> is changed, once you change the board, the rules becomes meaningless.
>
> This is why all the reports of the weird and wonderful (Free Energy,
> Antigravity, ghosts, aliens etc) all have multiple weird phenomena.
>
> It is changing reality, if you can do so to the right degree you just get
> some heat and transmutation, a bit of EM thrown in.
>
> If you go further levitation and various other effects can pop up.
>
> If the vacuum/aether/space time/dark matter/energy is conditioned
> carefully then the effects can be exact and limited to what is being sought.
>
> Consider a computer game version of monopoly, there is only so much money,
> and money is neither destroyed or created, it can only be earned, spent,
> maybe borrowed and repayed.
>
> As soon as you hack the game, the money supply can be changed since it is
> being done outside the system, externally to where such limitations have
> any meaning.
>
> There is no reason that the same can't be done with energy potentially, it
> could be fabricated as long as one works from outside the game of energy.
>
> John
>
>
>
>
> On Tue, Nov 4, 2014 at 6:37 AM, H Veeder  wrote:
>
>> ​Energy is not conserved​
>>
>>
>> http://www.preposterousuniverse.com/blog/2010/02/22/energy-is-not-conserved/
>>
>> ​quote ​
>>
>> <> still find it hard to believe that hundreds of cosmologists around the
>> world have latched on to an idea that violates a bedrock principle of
>> physics, simply because they “forgot” it. If the idea of dark energy were
>> in conflict with some other much more fundamental principle, I suspect the
>> theory would be a lot less popular.
>>
>> But many people have just this reaction. It’s clear that cosmologists
>> have not done a very good job of spreading the word about something that’s
>> been well-understood since at least the 1920′s: energy is not conserved in
>> general relativity. (With caveats to be explained below.)
>>
>> The point is pretty simple: back when you thought energy was conserved,
>> there was areason why you thought that, namely time-translation invariance.
>> A fancy way of saying “the background on which particles and forces evolve,
>> as well as the dynamical rules governing their motions, are fixed, not
>> changing with time.” But in general relativity that’s simply no longer
>> true. Einstein tells us that space and time are dynamical, and in
>> particular that they can evolve with time. *When the space through which
>> particles move is changing, the total energy of those particles is not
>> conserved*.
>> ​>>​
>>
>> Harry
>>
>
>

Re: [Vo]:Energy is not conserved

[John Berry]

This is what I have been saying.

Energy conservation is only true and other normal observations of physics
are only true until the fabric of space and matter (aether, GR space-time)
is changed, once you change the board, the rules becomes meaningless.

This is why all the reports of the weird and wonderful (Free Energy,
Antigravity, ghosts, aliens etc) all have multiple weird phenomena.

It is changing reality, if you can do so to the right degree you just get
some heat and transmutation, a bit of EM thrown in.

If you go further levitation and various other effects can pop up.

If the vacuum/aether/space time/dark matter/energy is conditioned carefully
then the effects can be exact and limited to what is being sought.

Consider a computer game version of monopoly, there is only so much money,
and money is neither destroyed or created, it can only be earned, spent,
maybe borrowed and repayed.

As soon as you hack the game, the money supply can be changed since it is
being done outside the system, externally to where such limitations have
any meaning.

There is no reason that the same can't be done with energy potentially, it
could be fabricated as long as one works from outside the game of energy.

John




On Tue, Nov 4, 2014 at 6:37 AM, H Veeder  wrote:

> ​Energy is not conserved​
>
>
> http://www.preposterousuniverse.com/blog/2010/02/22/energy-is-not-conserved/
>
> ​quote ​
>
> < still find it hard to believe that hundreds of cosmologists around the
> world have latched on to an idea that violates a bedrock principle of
> physics, simply because they “forgot” it. If the idea of dark energy were
> in conflict with some other much more fundamental principle, I suspect the
> theory would be a lot less popular.
>
> But many people have just this reaction. It’s clear that cosmologists have
> not done a very good job of spreading the word about something that’s been
> well-understood since at least the 1920′s: energy is not conserved in
> general relativity. (With caveats to be explained below.)
>
> The point is pretty simple: back when you thought energy was conserved,
> there was areason why you thought that, namely time-translation invariance.
> A fancy way of saying “the background on which particles and forces evolve,
> as well as the dynamical rules governing their motions, are fixed, not
> changing with time.” But in general relativity that’s simply no longer
> true. Einstein tells us that space and time are dynamical, and in
> particular that they can evolve with time. *When the space through which
> particles move is changing, the total energy of those particles is not
> conserved*.
> ​>>​
>
> Harry
>

Re: [Vo]:Energy is not conserved

[H Veeder]

Erratum

The fact that two of the biggest ideas in modern physics are logically
incompatible just goes to show that despite what modern physicists claim
they don't give a damn about logical consistency.

Harry


On Mon, Nov 3, 2014 at 10:46 PM, H Veeder  wrote:

> The fact that two of biggest ideas in modern physics are logically
> incompatible just goes to show that despite what modern physicists claim
> they don't give a damn about logically inconsistency.
>
> Harry
>
> On Mon, Nov 3, 2014 at 1:30 PM, Foks0904 .  wrote:
>
>> Wow. TYVM
>>
>> On Mon, Nov 3, 2014 at 12:37 PM, H Veeder  wrote:
>>
>>> ​Energy is not conserved​
>>>
>>>
>>> http://www.preposterousuniverse.com/blog/2010/02/22/energy-is-not-conserved/
>>>
>>> ​quote ​
>>>
>>> <>> would still find it hard to believe that hundreds of cosmologists around
>>> the world have latched on to an idea that violates a bedrock principle of
>>> physics, simply because they “forgot” it. If the idea of dark energy were
>>> in conflict with some other much more fundamental principle, I suspect the
>>> theory would be a lot less popular.
>>>
>>> But many people have just this reaction. It’s clear that cosmologists
>>> have not done a very good job of spreading the word about something that’s
>>> been well-understood since at least the 1920′s: energy is not conserved in
>>> general relativity. (With caveats to be explained below.)
>>>
>>> The point is pretty simple: back when you thought energy was conserved,
>>> there was areason why you thought that, namely time-translation invariance.
>>> A fancy way of saying “the background on which particles and forces evolve,
>>> as well as the dynamical rules governing their motions, are fixed, not
>>> changing with time.” But in general relativity that’s simply no longer
>>> true. Einstein tells us that space and time are dynamical, and in
>>> particular that they can evolve with time. *When the space through
>>> which particles move is changing, the total energy of those particles is
>>> not conserved*.
>>> ​>>​
>>>
>>> Harry
>>>
>>
>>
>

Re: [Vo]:Energy is not conserved

[H Veeder]

The fact that two of biggest ideas in modern physics are logically
incompatible just goes to show that despite what modern physicists claim
they don't give a damn about logically inconsistency.

Harry

On Mon, Nov 3, 2014 at 1:30 PM, Foks0904 .  wrote:

> Wow. TYVM
>
> On Mon, Nov 3, 2014 at 12:37 PM, H Veeder  wrote:
>
>> ​Energy is not conserved​
>>
>>
>> http://www.preposterousuniverse.com/blog/2010/02/22/energy-is-not-conserved/
>>
>> ​quote ​
>>
>> <> still find it hard to believe that hundreds of cosmologists around the
>> world have latched on to an idea that violates a bedrock principle of
>> physics, simply because they “forgot” it. If the idea of dark energy were
>> in conflict with some other much more fundamental principle, I suspect the
>> theory would be a lot less popular.
>>
>> But many people have just this reaction. It’s clear that cosmologists
>> have not done a very good job of spreading the word about something that’s
>> been well-understood since at least the 1920′s: energy is not conserved in
>> general relativity. (With caveats to be explained below.)
>>
>> The point is pretty simple: back when you thought energy was conserved,
>> there was areason why you thought that, namely time-translation invariance.
>> A fancy way of saying “the background on which particles and forces evolve,
>> as well as the dynamical rules governing their motions, are fixed, not
>> changing with time.” But in general relativity that’s simply no longer
>> true. Einstein tells us that space and time are dynamical, and in
>> particular that they can evolve with time. *When the space through which
>> particles move is changing, the total energy of those particles is not
>> conserved*.
>> ​>>​
>>
>> Harry
>>
>
>

RE: [Vo]:Something really scarry at Halloween

[Orionworks - Steven Vincent Johnson]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B3l0kpl5tA4

-Original Message-
From: Terry Blanton [mailto:hohlr...@gmail.com] 
Sent: Monday, November 03, 2014 9:12 PM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Something really scarry at Halloween

"King Of Pain"

There's a little black spot on the sun today
That's my soul up there.
It's the same old thing as yesterday
That's my soul up there.
There's a black hat caught in a high tree top
That's my soul up there.
There's a flag pole rag and the wind won't stop
That's my soul up there.

I have stood here before in the pouring rain
With the world turning circles running 'round my brain.
I guess I'm always hoping that you'll end this reign,
But it's my destiny to be the king of pain...

There's a fossil that's trapped in a high cliff wall
There's a dead salmon frozen in a waterfall
There's a blue whale beached by a springtime's ebb
There's a butterfly trapped in a spider's web

There's a king on a throne with his eyes torn out
There's a blind man looking for a shadow of doubt
There's a rich man sleeping on a golden bed
There's a skeleton choking on a crust of bread

There's a red fox torn by a huntsman's pack
There's a black-winged gull with a broken back
There's a little black spot on the sun today.
It's the same old thing as yesterday,
That's my soul up there...

I have stood here before in the pouring rain
With the world turning circles running 'round my brain.
I guess I always thought you could end this reign,
But it's my destiny to be the king of pain.

I'll always be king of pain

[Vo]:The mechanism of LENR unmasked

[Axil Axil]

http://phys.org/news/2014-11-electromagnetic-fluctuation-plasmas-analogous-so-called.html

*Electromagnetic fluctuation forces across plasmas analogous to so-called
weak nuclear interaction forces*

New experiment results tie EMF to processes that effect the dynamics that
occur inside the nucleus as a expression of the weak force. This is
exciting stuff for the LENR theorist. Mesons control what goes on inside
the nucleus. Mesons are just a kind of plasmons that exist between two or
more solids at very close distances. One example where this condition
applies is the situation that exists in the very small plasmon filled
spaces between nanoparticles. This implies that mesons are condensing
virtual particles pairs  that are equivalent to condensing virtual particle
plasmons or sheets of realized positions/electron pairs formed at high
energy caused by the Casimir force born in the small distances between
nanoparticles.

I guest at this all along. Its good that it has been discovered.

Re: [Vo]:Something really scarry at Halloween

[Terry Blanton]

"King Of Pain"

There's a little black spot on the sun today
That's my soul up there.
It's the same old thing as yesterday
That's my soul up there.
There's a black hat caught in a high tree top
That's my soul up there.
There's a flag pole rag and the wind won't stop
That's my soul up there.

I have stood here before in the pouring rain
With the world turning circles running 'round my brain.
I guess I'm always hoping that you'll end this reign,
But it's my destiny to be the king of pain...

There's a fossil that's trapped in a high cliff wall
There's a dead salmon frozen in a waterfall
There's a blue whale beached by a springtime's ebb
There's a butterfly trapped in a spider's web

There's a king on a throne with his eyes torn out
There's a blind man looking for a shadow of doubt
There's a rich man sleeping on a golden bed
There's a skeleton choking on a crust of bread

There's a red fox torn by a huntsman's pack
There's a black-winged gull with a broken back
There's a little black spot on the sun today.
It's the same old thing as yesterday,
That's my soul up there...

I have stood here before in the pouring rain
With the world turning circles running 'round my brain.
I guess I always thought you could end this reign,
But it's my destiny to be the king of pain.

I'll always be king of pain

Re: [Vo]:Konstantin Meyl's "Potential Vortex" Departure

[H Veeder]

Complex numbers may be able to reconcile the empirical observation that the
observed value for the speed of light i
​s
 constant with the classical intuition that the speed of light is variable.

If the speed of light
​c ​
is
​always ​
constant from an observational standpoint
​ and
 if the real component
​is identified with ​
c the
​n the​
imaginary part will remain
​superfluous​
. One way to ensure the imaginary component
​cannot be ignored​
 is to associate the observed constant value c with the magnitude of the
complex value.

Since the convention in mathematics is to use z to represent a complex
number I will rewrite what I wrote as:

z = a + ib,   |z| = sqrt( a^2 + b^2) = c

However, your question made me realize that another way to insure the
imaginary component cannot be dismissed  is to multiply c by the imaginary
number i and have that become the imaginary component and
​let

​the ​
real part vary from zero to infinity:


z = a + ib,if c = b   then  z = a + ic,   andc = (z - a)/i


​Harry​





On Sun, Nov 2, 2014 at 5:40 AM, James Bowery  wrote:
>
> Why would the act of measurement take the absolute value rather than,
say, the real component of the complex value?
>
> On Sat, Nov 1, 2014 at 6:44 PM, H Veeder  wrote:
>>
>> If the speed light in a vacuum c had a real and an imaginary components
too, then the components could vary with motion but
>> the measured value would appear constant and correspond to the magnitude
|c|.
>>
>> c = a + ib ,
>> |c| = sqrt( a^2 + b^2) = constant
>>
>> Harry
>>
>> On Thu, Oct 30, 2014 at 6:45 PM, James Bowery  wrote:
>>>
>>> A particularly intriguing notion of Konstantin Meyl's is that a
"complex speed of light" is derivable from the conventional interpretation
of the dielectric coefficient, rendering that conventional interpretation
"an offense against the basic principles of physics":
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
http://www.k-meyl.de/go/Primaerliteratur/2P9_0930-1-piers-extended_field_theory.pdf
>>>
>>> This seems to be his point of departure into "fringe" physics his
replacement of the vector potential with his derivation of the "potential
vortex".
>>
>>
>

[Vo]:Universe older than it looks

[H Veeder]

Universe older than it looks
​
http://phys.org/news/2014-10-universe-older.html​

When astronomers (Bond 2013) first dated the star HD 140283, which lies a
mere 190 lightyears from Earth in the constellation of Libra, they were
puzzled. This rare, star appeared to be rather ancient and was quickly
nicknamed the Methuselah star. It is a metal-poor sub-giant with an
apparent magnitude of 7.223. The star had been known for a century or so as
a high-velocity star, but its presence in our solar neighborhood and its
composition were at odds with theory. Moreover, HD140283 wasn't just an
oddity from at the dawn of the Universe, formed short time after the Big
Bang. Rather, it seems to be some 14.46 billion years old… which makes it
older than the Universe itself, currently estimated to be 13.817 billion
years old (estimated from the cosmic microwave background radiation).

Of course, it was ultimately revealed that the error margins on estimating
the age of the Methuselah star were in fact much wider than the original
research suggested, the astronomers add a margin of 800 million years. The
error bars could have it a lot younger, which makes it among the earliest
known stellar objects in the Universe, but certainly within the boundaries
of time since the Big Bang. But, what of that upper limit on the age? Is
there a possibility that this star could somehow be as old as the original
measurements suggested but still lie "this side of the Big Bang?

Writing in the International Journal of Exergy, Birol Kilkis of Baskent
University, in Ankara, Turkey, thinks so. In 2004, he introduced the
Radiating Universe Model (RUM). This intriguing concept suggests that
exergy, the energy that is available to do work and the first focus of
thermodynamics theory in the 19th Century, will flow from the Big Bang to
what Kilkis refers to a thermal sink of infinite size at absolute zero (0
Kelvin) far, far into the future. Using RUM, Kilkis calculated the age of
the universe to be 14.885 ± 0.040 billion years, which is marginally older,
in the grand scheme of things, than the microwave background estimate, but
easily accommodates the original age of HD 140283.

Interestingly, Kilkis' RUM theory gives a new dynamic value to the Hubble
constant and suggests that the expansion of the universe has been
accelerating since 4.4 billion years after the Big Bang, which may well
accommodate the notion of dark energy. Moreover, this accelerating rate of
increase is itself slowing, which in turn may be accounted for by dark
matter. Dark energy and dark matter are, as have been discussed widely,
controversial physical phenomena for which we have absolutely no
explanation whatsoever, but we do have observational evidence that suggests
they are real. In addition, RUM hints that Planck's constant is not a pure
constant at all but a cosmological variable, a point for which some
supported was reported in 2013 by Seshavatharam and Lakshminarayana.

"The yet unasked-unanswered question is where the observable universe is
expanding. If the expanding universe has a mass and volume, whatever its
shape is, it must be expanding into another medium," says Kilkis. That
"medium" is of infinite size and lies at absolute zero, thus acting as a
thermal sink for the universe, which is a thermally radiating source lying
within the sink.

​Harry

Re: [Vo]: New Rossi lab photo has much information

[Bob Higgins]

>From the other pictures, it is pretty clear that Rossi is using a sheathed
k-type thermocouple with the hotCat.  Because this thermocouple is not
rated to operate at the temperatures that the reactor convection tube was
supposedly operating, it appears that Rossi had placed (by design) the
thermocouple in a cooler section of the hotCat (the end for example) where
the temperature may be related to the temperature of the convection tube,
but not at as high of a temperature.  Because of this, the Lugano team may
not have wished to use the data from that thermocouple.

On the gray box there are 3 panel mounted PID temperature controllers - to
one of which the k-type thermocouple was connected.  This temperature
controller has a setpoint for the hotCat (may be only a high temperature
cutout) and will also provide a *constant readout of the temperature* that
the thermocouple measures.  So, those running the experiment would have
constantly seen the temperature that the thermocouple was reading.  I am
sure they would have used that temperature data if it appeared to be
useful.  They may have manually logged it.

On Mon, Nov 3, 2014 at 5:47 PM, Jed Rothwell  wrote:

> Alan Fletcher  wrote:
>
>
>> The thermocouple in the diagram is Rossi's control thermocouple.
>>
>
> I know. I got the impression they tapped into it, or displayed the numbers
> from it. I am still not sure they didn't.
>
>
>
>> They say in the paper that they tried to attach a thermocouple, but
>> couldn't because of the ridges (spiral?) .
>>
>
> Yeah. I guess that means they could not use the internal one.
>
> This does seem like a half-assed effort. Maybe it was a fully-assed effort
> but the report left out important details. Who knows?
>
> - Jed
>
>

Re: [Vo]: New Rossi lab photo has much information

[Jed Rothwell]

Alan Fletcher  wrote:


> The thermocouple in the diagram is Rossi's control thermocouple.
>

I know. I got the impression they tapped into it, or displayed the numbers
from it. I am still not sure they didn't.



> They say in the paper that they tried to attach a thermocouple, but
> couldn't because of the ridges (spiral?) .
>

Yeah. I guess that means they could not use the internal one.

This does seem like a half-assed effort. Maybe it was a fully-assed effort
but the report left out important details. Who knows?

- Jed

Re: [Vo]: New Rossi lab photo has much information

[Alan Fletcher]

From: "Jed Rothwell"  
Sent: Monday, November 3, 2014 2:12:43 PM 
I think the present method should be used with a thermocouple to confirm the IR 
camera. When this report was first published, I assumed a thermocouple was 
used, because one is shown in the schematic. It is not clear to me now whether 
it was or was not used. That is one of the questions I asked the authors. They 
have not responded. 

The thermocouple in the diagram is Rossi's control thermocouple. 

They say in the paper that they tried to attach a thermocouple, but couldn't 
because of the ridges (spiral?) . 

RE: [Vo]: New Rossi lab photo has much information

[Arnaud Kodeck]

If Rossi has a problem with harmonics and or reactive power, he has better
to rethink his electrical circuit. Nowadays, rectifying AC to DC and then
again hash it to make AC is common circuits. The harmonics and the reactive
power can easily be managed, if the main circuit is designed right. As we
say in French,’Il met un emplâtre sur une jambe de bois’. He is using 30
years old solutions for a bad designed circuit.

 

In the Lugano report page 5, there are 3 coils inside the eCat. At one time,
one and only one coil is on while the 2 others are off. It is not possible
to have 2 on and 1 off. So I don’t understand the speculation. Alain, could
you explain more?

 

  _  

From: alain.coetm...@gmail.com [mailto:alain.coetm...@gmail.com] On Behalf
Of Alain Sepeda
Sent: lundi 3 novembre 2014 22:51
To: Vortex List
Subject: Re: [Vo]: New Rossi lab photo has much information

 

an idea to check from the surprising claim in the report that one of the
wire effective current was abo the sum of the (equals) two others...

after some rethinking, this imply all current are synchronous...

this is a monophase devices, with simply 2 coils...

what for ? only speculation that it may just make some thermal oscillations
from left to right, or center to extremities, or else stabilize center and
extremities...

anyway the two currents are quite similar...

 

note that this monophase current maybe the result of a triphase dimmer,
switching various phases to reduce deforming power and increase frequency
(to help filtering, and phase balance, when used by 3)...

 

what looks as complexity is simply classical electric power  engineering...

 

for the 100-200kWe used by the 1MWth power plant, this may be a hell to
control phase and harmonics and reduce deforming and reactive power...
electric companies bill you for that, and can even ban you if you inject
that mess in the grid.

 

2014-11-03 19:10 GMT+01:00 Arnaud Kodeck :

Bob,

 

Nice analysis. The eCats are configured in star or triangle. I think from
what analysed is that it is a star with a free neutral.

 

This could be also disinformation. This configuration might have never
worked at all and be published one year later to lead the replicator in the
wrong direction.

 

Arnaud

  _  

From: Bob Higgins [mailto:rj.bob.higg...@gmail.com] 
Sent: lundi 3 novembre 2014 15:49
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Subject: [Vo]: New Rossi lab photo has much information

 

Bob Greenyer of MFMP just posted this image of Rossi's lab with 3 hotCats
being tested and I put it on my Google drive:

 

 
https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B5Pc25a4cOM2U3FIWmpCMnlZaFE/view?usp=sharin
g

 

A wealth of information can be gleaned from this:

* Rossi is testing 3 hotCats simultaneously.

* Each hotCat is connected with 2-wires only - Each IS CONNECTED
SINGLE PHASE! This probably means that the hotCat only relies on heat-up,
not magnetic field interaction - certainly not rotating field interaction.

* The gray box has 3 thermocouple connections with one going to each
hotCat

* The gray box controller is controlling the energy to all 3 hotCats
via the red 3-phase SCR controller in such a way as to control the
temperature of each hotCat independently.

* This gray box controller is designed to control each hotCat solely
based on 1 temperature measurement per hotCat.  The temperature controllers
mounted on the gray box are probably each controlling the setpoint of each
hotCat (I.E. they are not being used just as temperature meters).  A
microcontroller in the gray box may read each meter (RS232) and then sets
the SCR angle for that phase to control the power to each hotCat.  

* The red SCR box may be configured for delta SCR configuration for
easy control of the individual hotCats, in which case a microprocessor would
not be needed.  Each of the little PID temperature controller panel meters
could directly control the corresponding SCR in the delta phase
configuration.  Even if the red box had y-configured SCRs, they probably
could be controlled with the panel temperature controllers with simple
logic.

* Replication need not use a 3-phase heater coil inside the hotCat
because there is no need to simulate an industrial environment.  Replication
just got easier.  Basically each hotCat is just a small temperature
regulated mini-tube furnace.  It would be possible to design the replica to
operate on ordinary US 120VAC, even with a 15A outlet using a triac dimmer
with an inexpensive PID temperature controller from eBay.

Bob Higgins

 

 

Re: [Vo]: New Rossi lab photo has much information

[Jed Rothwell]

Jones Beene  wrote:


> There is little valid rationale for avoiding flow calorimetry – other than
> that the results would be embarrassing.
>

I disagree. I think that flow calorimetry would be difficult at these
temperatures for a device of this size. It would also make it impossible to
watch the device, and I would prefer to keep an eye on the thing. It might
be dangerous to seal it in a flow calorimeter.

Flow calorimetry for a gadget of this apparent power level and size is not
inherently difficult. Once the gadget is made fully reliable and
controllable, I am sure a commercial water heater could be designed for it.
(A water heater is a flow calorimeter.) However, in the laboratory test
phase I prefer the present method.

I think the present method should be used with a thermocouple to confirm
the IR camera. When this report was first published, I assumed a
thermocouple was used, because one is shown in the schematic. It is not
clear to me now whether it was or was not used. That is one of the
questions I asked the authors. They have not responded.

- Jed

Re: [Vo]: New Rossi lab photo has much information

[Alain Sepeda]

an idea to check from the surprising claim in the report that one of the
wire effective current was abo the sum of the (equals) two others...
after some rethinking, this imply all current are synchronous...
this is a monophase devices, with simply 2 coils...
what for ? only speculation that it may just make some thermal oscillations
from left to right, or center to extremities, or else stabilize center and
extremities...
anyway the two currents are quite similar...

note that this monophase current maybe the result of a triphase dimmer,
switching various phases to reduce deforming power and increase frequency
(to help filtering, and phase balance, when used by 3)...

what looks as complexity is simply classical electric power  engineering...

for the 100-200kWe used by the 1MWth power plant, this may be a hell to
control phase and harmonics and reduce deforming and reactive power...
electric companies bill you for that, and can even ban you if you inject
that mess in the grid.

2014-11-03 19:10 GMT+01:00 Arnaud Kodeck :

>  Bob,
>
>
>
> Nice analysis. The eCats are configured in star or triangle. I think from
> what analysed is that it is a star with a free neutral.
>
>
>
> This could be also disinformation. This configuration might have never
> worked at all and be published one year later to lead the replicator in the
> wrong direction.
>
>
>
> Arnaud
>  --
>
> *From:* Bob Higgins [mailto:rj.bob.higg...@gmail.com]
> *Sent:* lundi 3 novembre 2014 15:49
> *To:* vortex-l@eskimo.com
> *Subject:* [Vo]: New Rossi lab photo has much information
>
>
>
> Bob Greenyer of MFMP just posted this image of Rossi's lab with 3 hotCats
> being tested and I put it on my Google drive:
>
>
>
>
> https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B5Pc25a4cOM2U3FIWmpCMnlZaFE/view?usp=sharing
>
>
>
> A wealth of information can be gleaned from this:
>
> · Rossi is testing 3 hotCats simultaneously.
>
> · Each hotCat is connected with 2-wires only - Each IS CONNECTED
> SINGLE PHASE! This probably means that the hotCat only relies on heat-up,
> not magnetic field interaction - certainly not rotating field interaction.
>
> · The gray box has 3 thermocouple connections with one going to
> each hotCat
>
> · The gray box controller is controlling the energy to all 3
> hotCats via the red 3-phase SCR controller in such a way as to control the
> temperature of each hotCat independently.
>
> · This gray box controller is designed to control each hotCat
> solely based on 1 temperature measurement per hotCat.  The temperature
> controllers mounted on the gray box are probably each controlling the
> setpoint of each hotCat (I.E. they are not being used just as temperature
> meters).  A microcontroller in the gray box may read each meter (RS232) and
> then sets the SCR angle for that phase to control the power to each hotCat.
>
>
> · The red SCR box may be configured for delta SCR configuration
> for easy control of the individual hotCats, in which case a microprocessor
> would not be needed.  Each of the little PID temperature controller panel
> meters could directly control the corresponding SCR in the delta phase
> configuration.  Even if the red box had y-configured SCRs, they probably
> could be controlled with the panel temperature controllers with simple
> logic.
>
> · Replication need not use a 3-phase heater coil inside the
> hotCat because there is no need to simulate an industrial environment.
> Replication just got easier.  Basically each hotCat is just a small
> temperature regulated mini-tube furnace.  It would be possible to design
> the replica to operate on ordinary US 120VAC, even with a 15A outlet using
> a triac dimmer with an inexpensive PID temperature controller from eBay.
>
> Bob Higgins
>
>
>

Re: [Vo]:Energy is not conserved

[Axil Axil]

The Higgs field is a FIELD, and the Higgs particle is a temporary non
resonance disruption in the Higgs field akin to a virtual EMF
particle.  Being heavy, it does not exist for long. The lifetime of a
virtual particle is inversely proportional to its mass. The Higgs particle
 is like the W and Z boson also being a heavy non-resonance disturbance in
the weak force and  force carrier of the Weak force. The Higgs field gives
the W and Z boson their mass.

Those interested in LENR should understand what virtual particles are, how
they behave, what they do, and how the various types of fundamental forces
interact. Rossi should also be reading Feynman's books.

By the way, I know what I need to do, I just have problems doing it...LENR
is hard stuff.

I have a disagreement with the naysayer Tom Clarke, about the way virtual
particles behave. I say that they can be projected in a tight beam...Tom
says that they must radiate in all directions and follow the inverse square
law for spherical distribution. For radioactive isotopes to be rapidly
stabilized in LENR as embodied in the Ni/H reactor, the strength  of
virtual particles must somehow be amplified by a projection in a tight beam.

If this is found to be true in LENR for the EMF field, projection of the
Higgs particle in a tight beam might  also be accomplished in order to
amplify the action of Higgs field to produce extreme mass localized
 at small point in space. This might be used to create nano-black holes.

So sorry, please excuse me, just some vortex style speculation.

Re: [Vo]:Something really scarry at Halloween

[John Berry]

On Tue, Nov 4, 2014 at 3:59 AM, Jones Beene  wrote:

> http://www.pbs.org/newshour/updates/theres-giant-spot-sun-acting-weird/
>
>
>
> The Police warned tried to warn us:
>

I think it's either effecting your sentence structure, or my reading
comprehension too.

RE: [Vo]: New Rossi lab photo has much information

[Jones Beene]

From: Alan Fletcher 

 

The IR literature recently posted here shows that IR calorimetry CAN give 
temperatures with 2% accuracy. 

 

In principle yes – BUT  Alan, you know very well that this assumes a blackbody 
radiator – and the Williamson analysis and the spokesperson’s direct talks to 
Brian Ahern made it clear that this is NOT A BLACKBODY radiator - and the 
results could be way off. 

 

Thus the Lugano report is meaningless without confirmation from a calibrated 
thermocouple.

 

AF - (Not to mention that Rossi has access to the internal thermocouple, so 
he's now probably more interested in the distribution of heat and how to get it 
out of the tube.)

 

Well that is the very crux of the issue, isn’t it?  Failure to do the obvious.

 

The Lugano team should have used a platinum thermocouple and there would be not 
dispute, if the readings matched. Their incompetence is staggering. 

 

Jones

 

RE: [Vo]:Energy is not conserved

[Jones Beene]

From: H Veeder 

 

​Energy is not conserved​


http://www.preposterousuniverse.com/blog/2010/02/22/energy-is-not-conserved/

 

 

 

Coincidentally, this page has an ad promoting the same book seen in AR’s latest 
“leak”:

The Particle at the End of the Universe: How the Hunt for the Higgs Boson Leads 
Us to the Edge of a New World  

 

One wonders if the next AR theory will encompass Higgs or not.  After all, the 
Higgs is at its core, another name for the “aether”…

 

Of course on Vo, we have been there, done that in numerous ways including 
cross-identity with isotopes of barium, cesium and xenon – (including tellurium 
and iodine)… all having the approximate same rest mass as the Higgs (126 GeV). 
Possibly next go-around, the Lugano samples will be salted with barium… 

 

Not to mention the lighter side of a sheet-load of mass

https://www.mail-archive.com/vortex-l%40eskimo.com/msg67154.html


​

 

Re: [Vo]:Energy is not conserved

[Foks0904 .]

Wow. TYVM

On Mon, Nov 3, 2014 at 12:37 PM, H Veeder  wrote:

> ​Energy is not conserved​
>
>
> http://www.preposterousuniverse.com/blog/2010/02/22/energy-is-not-conserved/
>
> ​quote ​
>
> < still find it hard to believe that hundreds of cosmologists around the
> world have latched on to an idea that violates a bedrock principle of
> physics, simply because they “forgot” it. If the idea of dark energy were
> in conflict with some other much more fundamental principle, I suspect the
> theory would be a lot less popular.
>
> But many people have just this reaction. It’s clear that cosmologists have
> not done a very good job of spreading the word about something that’s been
> well-understood since at least the 1920′s: energy is not conserved in
> general relativity. (With caveats to be explained below.)
>
> The point is pretty simple: back when you thought energy was conserved,
> there was areason why you thought that, namely time-translation invariance.
> A fancy way of saying “the background on which particles and forces evolve,
> as well as the dynamical rules governing their motions, are fixed, not
> changing with time.” But in general relativity that’s simply no longer
> true. Einstein tells us that space and time are dynamical, and in
> particular that they can evolve with time. *When the space through which
> particles move is changing, the total energy of those particles is not
> conserved*.
> ​>>​
>
> Harry
>

Re: [Vo]: New Rossi lab photo has much information

[Alan Fletcher]

Jones, you're really going of the wall here. 

The IR literature recently posted here shows that IR calorimetry CAN give 
temperatures with 2% accuracy. But more importantly, once calibrated the method 
is a very quick AND accurate way of looking at differences, which is clearly 
what Rossi is doing here. It may not be scientifically satisfying, but it's 
what engineers do. (Not to mention that Rossi has access to the internal 
thermocouple, so he's now probably more interested in the distribution of heat 
and how to get it out of the tube.) 

It's also clear from the Greenyer video that the hotcats are intended to be 
used as plug-in heater elements for commercial heaters, operating in the 1000C+ 
range. 

Rossi didn't release this picture -- it was taken during an interview by Vessey 
(Vessela Nikolova) for his book - OVER A YEAR AGO. The book has just been 
released -- so the release of the photo now is promo for the book, not for 
Rossi or to mislead the MFMP. 

Since then IH have (apparently) sold a 1MW warm-cat to a commercial customer, 
so it's no surprise that Rossi is currently spending most of his time on that. 
(And he posted just today that he was having trouble with the gas-cat, but that 
he'd thought of a way round it. And I don't think he's given up on electric 
generation either). 


- Original Message -

From: "Jones Beene"  
Sent: Monday, November 3, 2014 9:31:56 AM 


A wealth of information can be gleaned from this … 






More likely - a wealth of disinformation. 



First and foremost –despite the criticism of thermometry in the first and 
second iterations – he seems to persist with a technique which none of his 
critics will find acceptable, if this is not a further charade. There is little 
valid rationale for avoiding flow calorimetry – other than that the results 
would be embarrassing. 



His supporters then argue that he doesn’t care about the critics. He has no 
interest in what others think. 



OK. Then why the hell release anything at all? This photo changes nothing in 
the mind of critics and it can only have one use. The only possible use which I 
can see is to further confuse anyone who might be trying to replicate the 
Lugano report. Rossi may have sent this specifically to Greenyer - in order to 
throw MFMP into further disarray. 



For months Rossi has been saying that his attention has shifted away from the 
HT version and to the so-called megawatt unit which is low temperature. The 
only scenario for this photo release - which makes any sense is that Rossi had 
noticed what MFMP was planning to do with the “dummy” - and thought that they 
were getting too close to the truth, so he wants to lead them astray now - if 
he can. 

RE: [Vo]: New Rossi lab photo has much information

[Arnaud Kodeck]

Bob,

 

Nice analysis. The eCats are configured in star or triangle. I think from
what analysed is that it is a star with a free neutral.

 

This could be also disinformation. This configuration might have never
worked at all and be published one year later to lead the replicator in the
wrong direction.

 

Arnaud

  _  

From: Bob Higgins [mailto:rj.bob.higg...@gmail.com] 
Sent: lundi 3 novembre 2014 15:49
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Subject: [Vo]: New Rossi lab photo has much information

 

Bob Greenyer of MFMP just posted this image of Rossi's lab with 3 hotCats
being tested and I put it on my Google drive:

 

 
https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B5Pc25a4cOM2U3FIWmpCMnlZaFE/view?usp=sharin
g

 

A wealth of information can be gleaned from this:

* Rossi is testing 3 hotCats simultaneously.

* Each hotCat is connected with 2-wires only - Each IS CONNECTED
SINGLE PHASE! This probably means that the hotCat only relies on heat-up,
not magnetic field interaction - certainly not rotating field interaction.

* The gray box has 3 thermocouple connections with one going to each
hotCat

* The gray box controller is controlling the energy to all 3 hotCats
via the red 3-phase SCR controller in such a way as to control the
temperature of each hotCat independently.

* This gray box controller is designed to control each hotCat solely
based on 1 temperature measurement per hotCat.  The temperature controllers
mounted on the gray box are probably each controlling the setpoint of each
hotCat (I.E. they are not being used just as temperature meters).  A
microcontroller in the gray box may read each meter (RS232) and then sets
the SCR angle for that phase to control the power to each hotCat.  

* The red SCR box may be configured for delta SCR configuration for
easy control of the individual hotCats, in which case a microprocessor would
not be needed.  Each of the little PID temperature controller panel meters
could directly control the corresponding SCR in the delta phase
configuration.  Even if the red box had y-configured SCRs, they probably
could be controlled with the panel temperature controllers with simple
logic.

* Replication need not use a 3-phase heater coil inside the hotCat
because there is no need to simulate an industrial environment.  Replication
just got easier.  Basically each hotCat is just a small temperature
regulated mini-tube furnace.  It would be possible to design the replica to
operate on ordinary US 120VAC, even with a 15A outlet using a triac dimmer
with an inexpensive PID temperature controller from eBay.

Bob Higgins

 

[Vo]:Energy is not conserved

[H Veeder]

​Energy is not conserved​

http://www.preposterousuniverse.com/blog/2010/02/22/energy-is-not-conserved/

​quote ​

<>​

Harry

[Vo]:Heat pipe system

[Axil Axil]

Peter Forsberg
November 3rd, 2014 at 3:14 AM


Dear Andrea,

I am probably in deep waters here, so correct me if my thinking is not
adequate.

I do not understand why you use the COP measurement as and indicator of the
ECat performance. I have never understood this. For me the COP measurement
is like comparing apples with pears. Or, rather apples with rotten pears.
You divide heat energy with electrical energy. They are really not very
compareable. Heat energy is the most useless type of energy that you can
have, whereas electrical energi is a very versitile type of energy. It is
easy to go from electrical energy to heat, but not vice versa.

We can use the exampel of electricity produce by a nuclear power plant. A
nuclear powerplant has an efficiency of 33%, so alot more energy (heat
waste in the powerplant) has actually been used by your ECat than the
electrical energy that you use in your calculations. So, I think that you
have to multiply the COP with 0.33 to get a realistic measurement of a
modCOP. If modCOP > 1 then the ECat has produced net energy according to my
thinking.

Luckilly, the ECat is guaranteed to produce at least COP 6 according to
many reports over the years, so modCOP is then 2.

Regards
Peter Forsberg

--

Andrea Rossi
November 3rd, 2014 at 7:58 AM


Peter Forsberg:
Thank you for your comment.
I think we must make a distinction between the COP under a scientific point
of view, related to the Thermodynamic first and second principles, and the
commercial point of view; besides, we also have to make a distinction
between thermal energy market and electric power market.
The COP ( Coefficient Of Performance) under a scientific point of view is
correct as it is calculated in all the existing literature on the matter,
because of the equivalence, under the energetic point of view, of a thermal
kWh and an electric kWh.
Thermal energy is a necessary commodity, without thermal energy most of the
industrial activities could not be performed and 3/4 of mankind could not
work ( or survive) during the cold months. To say that thermal energy is a
useless type of energy is groundless.
The fact that nuclear plants and also most of the existing electric power
generators working with the Carnot cycle waste about 2/3 of the energy does
not mean that thermal energy is a waste, means that we waste 2/3 of the
energy, which is a completely different thing. In the smartest plants heat
is recovered, as you surely know, by co-generation and by the most recent
tri-generation, and the heat is sold, not wasted. Your Country ( Sweden) is
very advanced in centralized heat distribution, as you obviously know.
Still remains a part of heat ( about 20%, if I am not wrong) that
necessarily gets lost , not because heat is a waste, but because exhaust
gases must be expelled above a certain temperature ( if I am not wrong
about 150°C) to avoid looping and fogs, and this is an unavoidable cost in
terms of heat for power generators that use the Carnot cycle.
On the contrary, you are right about the fact that the commercial ( not
physical) COP of the E-Cat must be divided by a factor 3 in case of
electric power production, because if we use electricity to drive the
E-Cat, to make 1 kWh of electricity is necessary to burn 3 kWh from a
thermal fuel. As you correctly say, to make the E-Cat convenient to produce
electric power we need one of the following at least:
1- get a COP > 3
2- make the E-Cat work with gas instead of electricity, issue upon which we
are making strong R&D with problems to resolve ( casually, your comment
arrives after the day during which- while riding my bike- I got a very good
idea that could resolve the problems: if this new invention works, soon we
will have the gas driven E-Cats, but there is work to do).
Thank you for your intelligent comment,
Warm Regards,
A.R.


---

My thoughts:

I have always believed that the Ni/H reactor should have been based on
a liquid metal heat pipe concept. The heat pipe concept is required
to keep the reaction zone inside the E-Cat free of combustion gases
that might come from using natural gas as a external heat source.

The heat pipe is a great heat isolation and transfer technique used to
move heat in a controlled manor. Heat flow in heat pipes can be setup
to use computer controlled flow valves to regulate how much heat
stimulation that a E-Cat might receive. As central Lithium storage
reservoir can connect all the 103 E-Cats together whereby the heat
from a subset of hot E-Cats could stimulate the reaction in a subset
of cooler and less active E-Cats.

The common Lithium reservoir might be initially bought up to operating
temperature using natural gas. As the E-Cat array got rolling, the
natural gas external heat source could be shut off an

RE: [Vo]: New Rossi lab photo has much information

[Jones Beene]

From: Bob Higgins 

 

A wealth of information can be gleaned from this…

 

 

More likely - a wealth of disinformation. 

 

First and foremost –despite the criticism of thermometry in the first and 
second iterations – he seems to persist with a technique which none of his 
critics will find acceptable, if this is not a further charade. There is little 
valid rationale for avoiding flow calorimetry – other than that the results 
would be embarrassing. 

 

His supporters then argue that he doesn’t care about the critics. He has no 
interest in what others think.

 

OK. Then why the hell release anything at all? This photo changes nothing in 
the mind of critics and it can only have one use. The only possible use which I 
can see is to further confuse anyone who might be trying to replicate the 
Lugano report. Rossi may have sent this specifically to Greenyer - in order to 
throw MFMP into further disarray.

 

For months Rossi has been saying that his attention has shifted away from the 
HT version and to the so-called megawatt unit which is low temperature. The 
only scenario for this photo release - which makes any sense is that Rossi had 
noticed what MFMP was planning to do with the “dummy” - and thought that they 
were getting too close to the truth, so he wants to lead them astray now - if 
he can. 

 

 

 

Re: [Vo]:JoNP

[Alan Fletcher]

From: "Alain Sepeda"  
Sent: Sunday, November 2, 2014 11:43:36 PM 

> do you think it is anyway possible that COP=1 even if 3.6 is uncertain ? 

Reading that IR review paper they have a formula that the calorimeter 
calculates temperature as 

T := e * [internal measured result] 

:= means I left out constants and other variables like area 

(Though I seem to recall from the Optris guide that there were other terms 
involving e ) 

Then (just using Stefan Boltzmann) 

P := e * T^4 -> e^5 

I'll go do the math when I have time. 

[Vo]:Re: [Vo]: New Rossi lab photo has much information

[hohlr...@gmail.com]

Ha!  Now why would they build a three phase test unit if they did not need the 
"magic" of three phase?  Because it automatically keeps your load balanced.  
Just reinforces my point that what they tested is a production product for an 
industrial environment.

Sent from my Verizon Wireless 4G LTE Smartphone

Re: [Vo]: New Rossi lab photo has much information

[Alan Fletcher]

From: "Bob Higgins"  
Sent: Monday, November 3, 2014 6:49:22 AM 

>From http://www.ecat-thenewfire.com/blog/rossi-three-hot-cats-row/ 
The white sphere at the left is a neutron detector. 

[Vo]:Something really scarry at Halloween

[Jones Beene]

http://www.pbs.org/newshour/updates/theres-giant-spot-sun-acting-weird/

 

The Police warned tried to warn us: 

 

There's a little black spot on the sun today.

 

Re: [Vo]: New Rossi lab photo has much information

[Daniel Rocha]

This is the book on his table:

http://www.amazon.com/The-Particle-End-Universe-Higgs/dp/0525953590


-- 
Daniel Rocha - RJ
danieldi...@gmail.com

[Vo]: New Rossi lab photo has much information

[Bob Higgins]

Bob Greenyer of MFMP just posted this image of Rossi's lab with 3 hotCats
being tested and I put it on my Google drive:


https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B5Pc25a4cOM2U3FIWmpCMnlZaFE/view?usp=sharing

A wealth of information can be gleaned from this:

   - Rossi is testing 3 hotCats simultaneously.
   - Each hotCat is connected with 2-wires only - Each IS CONNECTED SINGLE
   PHASE! This probably means that the hotCat only relies on heat-up, not
   magnetic field interaction - certainly not rotating field interaction.
   - The gray box has 3 thermocouple connections with one going to each
   hotCat
   - The gray box controller is controlling the energy to all 3 hotCats via
   the red 3-phase SCR controller in such a way as to control the temperature
   of each hotCat independently.
   - This gray box controller is designed to control each hotCat solely
   based on 1 temperature measurement per hotCat.  The temperature controllers
   mounted on the gray box are probably each controlling the setpoint of each
   hotCat (I.E. they are not being used just as temperature meters).  A
   microcontroller in the gray box may read each meter (RS232) and then sets
   the SCR angle for that phase to control the power to each hotCat.
   - The red SCR box may be configured for delta SCR configuration for easy
   control of the individual hotCats, in which case a microprocessor would not
   be needed.  Each of the little PID temperature controller panel meters
   could directly control the corresponding SCR in the delta phase
   configuration.  Even if the red box had y-configured SCRs, they probably
   could be controlled with the panel temperature controllers with simple
   logic.
   - Replication need not use a 3-phase heater coil inside the hotCat
   because there is no need to simulate an industrial environment.
   Replication just got easier.  Basically each hotCat is just a small
   temperature regulated mini-tube furnace.  It would be possible to design
   the replica to operate on ordinary US 120VAC, even with a 15A outlet using
   a triac dimmer with an inexpensive PID temperature controller from eBay.

Bob Higgins

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

[James Bowery]

Errata: I'm recovering from an operation on my arm so I'm using voice
recognition to do my typing and it makes error that sometimes I miss.

On Mon, Nov 3, 2014 at 6:37 AM, James Bowery  wrote:

> Barry Kort's critique may be invaluable because it may open up funding for
> cold fusion research. Note that even graduate students replicating cold
> fusion research is forbidden.  An honestly skeptical master's thesis
> however might not do career damage.  The implied experimental conditions
> are relatively inexpensive to reproduce. When I say reproduce I mean
> reduced the apparent excess heat.  The area in which these pseudo-skeptics
> always fail is to fail to reproduce the excess heat effect in accordance
> with their critique of the experiments. The kind of error Barry is talking
> about should appear in just about any electrolytic system whether deuterium
> or hydrogen based. It should also hear whether it is palladium or nickel
> based. It sounds like Barry is close to having a quantitative model. It
> should be able to predict quantity of excess heat appearing at various
> loading levels. It should be reliable.
>
> On Sun, Nov 2, 2014 at 11:25 AM, David Roberson 
> wrote:
>
>> I am in total agreement with the statements from Bob.  In every
>> simulation that I have conducted using LTspice the system input power is
>> accurately determined by the product of the constant current source DC
>> value and the average DC voltage measured at the node of entry.  During my
>> testing I used several different models.  In some systems I allowed the
>> resistance from the node to ground to vary according to a sine wave model,
>> while in others I toyed with square wave forms of variation.
>>
>> I also experimented with additional resistive loads connected effectively
>> in parallel with the DC entry node.  Both AC and DC connections were tested
>> for the external node.  For some testing I simulated a capacitor that was
>> capable of virtually shorting out the input voltage variations by absorbing
>> most of the AC current being generated by the changing resistance of the
>> modeled cell load.
>>
>> One interesting observation that I carefully observed to be true was that
>> the varying resistance within the cell due to a process such as bubbles
>> forming and breaking actually generates AC power that can be coupled away
>> from the cell under certain conditions.  This power can be terminated into
>> an external load and siphons away some of the input power that is supplied
>> by the DC current source.  Under this condition the actual input heating
>> power applied to the cell can be less than calculated by an amount equal to
>> that which is lost into the coupled load.   This lost power makes the real
>> COP greater than what is calculated.  Fortunately, the error is small and
>> only present when an external load is coupled to the cell.  There is no
>> indication that any significant load capable of absorbing the cell
>> generated AC power is present during Dr. McKubre's testing.
>>
>> I consider the internal conversion of input DC power into AC power that
>> can be transferred away from a cell such as this to be essentially the same
>> process as seen during the operation of an RF power amplifier.  In that
>> case, the device heats up to a temperature that is determined by the
>> difference between the DC input power and the RF output power that leaves
>> the system.  The true amplifier heating power will always be slightly lower
>> than what you would expect without any RF conversion taking place.  The
>> behavior of a class 'A' RF stage serves as an excellent example of what I
>> am observing in the simulations.
>>
>> Dave
>>
>>
>>  -Original Message-
>> From: Bob Higgins 
>> To: vortex-l 
>> Sent: Sat, Nov 1, 2014 2:42 pm
>> Subject: Re: [Vo]:questions on McKubre cells and AC component
>>
>>  BTW, David Roberson and I have corresponded with Barry Kort about the
>> claim that McKubre's measurements were as much as 3% in error due to
>> presumption of constant current and average voltage between samples for
>> calculation of average power.  The claimed mis-measurement is attributed to
>> the changing voltage due to the bubbles in the cell rapidly changing the
>> cell resistance and hence cell voltage.  Complicit in the argument is the
>> inability of the power supply in constant current mode to adequately slew
>> to keep up with the changes in resistance.  Barry claims that reflections
>> setup in the the connecting wires as transmission lines causes dissipation
>> of the time varying component.
>>
>>  David and I both did simulations of this setup using SPICE analysis in
>> transient simulation mode, which analyzes the circuit from first
>> principles.  In my simulation I used a model for a voltage source in a
>> feedback configuration with a sense resistor to comprise a current source
>> similar to how real power supply current sources are made.  Finite slew
>> rate of the voltage was introduced. A lo

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

[James Bowery]

Barry Kort's critique may be invaluable because it may open up funding for
cold fusion research. Note that even graduate students replicating cold
fusion research is forbidden.  An honestly skeptical master's thesis
however might not do career damage.  The implied experimental conditions
are relatively inexpensive to reproduce. When I say reproduce I mean
reduced the apparent excess heat.  The area in which these pseudo-skeptics
always fail is to fail to reproduce the excess heat effect in accordance
with their critique of the experiments. The kind of error Barry is talking
about should appear in just about any electrolytic system whether deuterium
or hydrogen based. It should also hear whether it is palladium or nickel
based. It sounds like Barry is close to having a quantitative model. It
should be able to predict quantity of excess heat appearing at various
loading levels. It should be reliable.

On Sun, Nov 2, 2014 at 11:25 AM, David Roberson  wrote:

> I am in total agreement with the statements from Bob.  In every
> simulation that I have conducted using LTspice the system input power is
> accurately determined by the product of the constant current source DC
> value and the average DC voltage measured at the node of entry.  During my
> testing I used several different models.  In some systems I allowed the
> resistance from the node to ground to vary according to a sine wave model,
> while in others I toyed with square wave forms of variation.
>
> I also experimented with additional resistive loads connected effectively
> in parallel with the DC entry node.  Both AC and DC connections were tested
> for the external node.  For some testing I simulated a capacitor that was
> capable of virtually shorting out the input voltage variations by absorbing
> most of the AC current being generated by the changing resistance of the
> modeled cell load.
>
> One interesting observation that I carefully observed to be true was that
> the varying resistance within the cell due to a process such as bubbles
> forming and breaking actually generates AC power that can be coupled away
> from the cell under certain conditions.  This power can be terminated into
> an external load and siphons away some of the input power that is supplied
> by the DC current source.  Under this condition the actual input heating
> power applied to the cell can be less than calculated by an amount equal to
> that which is lost into the coupled load.   This lost power makes the real
> COP greater than what is calculated.  Fortunately, the error is small and
> only present when an external load is coupled to the cell.  There is no
> indication that any significant load capable of absorbing the cell
> generated AC power is present during Dr. McKubre's testing.
>
> I consider the internal conversion of input DC power into AC power that
> can be transferred away from a cell such as this to be essentially the same
> process as seen during the operation of an RF power amplifier.  In that
> case, the device heats up to a temperature that is determined by the
> difference between the DC input power and the RF output power that leaves
> the system.  The true amplifier heating power will always be slightly lower
> than what you would expect without any RF conversion taking place.  The
> behavior of a class 'A' RF stage serves as an excellent example of what I
> am observing in the simulations.
>
> Dave
>
>
>  -Original Message-
> From: Bob Higgins 
> To: vortex-l 
> Sent: Sat, Nov 1, 2014 2:42 pm
> Subject: Re: [Vo]:questions on McKubre cells and AC component
>
>  BTW, David Roberson and I have corresponded with Barry Kort about the
> claim that McKubre's measurements were as much as 3% in error due to
> presumption of constant current and average voltage between samples for
> calculation of average power.  The claimed mis-measurement is attributed to
> the changing voltage due to the bubbles in the cell rapidly changing the
> cell resistance and hence cell voltage.  Complicit in the argument is the
> inability of the power supply in constant current mode to adequately slew
> to keep up with the changes in resistance.  Barry claims that reflections
> setup in the the connecting wires as transmission lines causes dissipation
> of the time varying component.
>
>  David and I both did simulations of this setup using SPICE analysis in
> transient simulation mode, which analyzes the circuit from first
> principles.  In my simulation I used a model for a voltage source in a
> feedback configuration with a sense resistor to comprise a current source
> similar to how real power supply current sources are made.  Finite slew
> rate of the voltage was introduced. A lossy transmission line was used
> between the source and a load resistor, that was modeled as having a
> sinusoidally varying resistance (+ a constant).  The simulated results were
> compared to that of an ideal current source driving the same load.  The
> instantaneous power waveform was co