Re: [Vo]:That doggone dogbone
Is it really the same size, If I read well the diameter' is much smaller, making much less radiative surface to dissipate heat ? 2014-12-08 2:50 GMT+01:00 Jones Beene : > Oops > > > > The MFMP has built a Rossi replica called the “dog-bone”… it is the same > size and weight as the Lugano original > > > > Even before adding nickel or hydrogen, the MFMP reactor was initially > testing to 1300 degrees with 732 watts input. > > > > Yet… Rossi was claiming in his tests, and Levi wrote it up this way: > “Upon completion of the gradual startup process procedure, the thermal > camera indicated an average temperature for the body of the reactor of > 1260°C, while the PCE recorded an electric power input to the E-Cat > fluctuating at around 810 W. > > > > And did Rossi/Levi not then claim that this was a large COP based on those > “calculations” of IR emission ? > > > > … yet it appears that MFMP was able to achieve higher thermal temperature, > using less input, and with more accurate measurement from a thermocouple > instead of a thermal camera - but guess what? Their reactor has no fuel nor > catalyst ! > > > > Now we have to ask, who’s the real dummy in this doggone soap opera? > > > > Levi for sure is dummy # 1 for allowing Rossi to take complete control > over a so-called “independent” experiment. > > >
Re: [Vo]:That doggone dogbone
Thanks Bob! Everyone's is very excited about this On Sun, Dec 7, 2014 at 8:58 PM, Bob Higgins wrote: > As I said, Alan Goldwater's work is on the small diameter coil that will > go into the dogbone in place of the LENR reactor core. Temperature > measurements made on it by itself, were made with a type-k thermocouple > placed inside the tiny alumina tube (4mm OD) used as a coil form for the > kanthal heater wire on the outside (6 mm OD coil). When the kanthal wound > tube was coated with a ceramic cement, there was insulation and not as much > convection and this coil got to the 1300C range inside the center of the > alumina tube. This is NOT the dogbone shaped convection tube. > > I know the text is confusing, having Alan's work described just below the > dogbone picture. The dogbone shaped convection tube has NOT been heated to > that temperature. > > You also have my opinion wrong. As I said, I am concerned that even > putting in a total of 3kW electric in our dogbone test, we may not get to > the same temperature as in the Lugano report. The electrical input in the > Lugano report was a little above 900W as I recall, and I don't believe it > is possible to get the dogbone to 1400C on the OUTSIDE with 900W input > based on our measurements. Also, the type of heater element we now believe > was used in the Lugano hotCat was not capable of delivering over about 1kW > of input heat. So if the hotCat was really putting out over 2.5kW of heat > to get it to 1400C, then there was definitely substantial gain. We will > know in January. > > Bob Higgins > > > On Sun, Dec 7, 2014 at 8:59 PM, Jones Beene wrote: > >> *From:* Blaze Spinnaker >> >> Aren't you compare the body average to the core?The body average >> means that it's sustaining 1260 over the entire body. Doesn't that mean >> it's outputting more energy than one core reading? >> >> That depends on heat transfer characteristics of the two - it could be >> more or it could be less, but the point is that there is a similarity >> and near identity in the two systems that should be alarming to those >> who think Rossi was showing COP >3. >> >> If the report is accurate (and apparently Bob thinks it is not), then the >> preliminary implication is that either Rossi’s version is not gainful or >> the dummy reactor is gainful. >> >> >
Re: [Vo]:That doggone dogbone
As I said, Alan Goldwater's work is on the small diameter coil that will go into the dogbone in place of the LENR reactor core. Temperature measurements made on it by itself, were made with a type-k thermocouple placed inside the tiny alumina tube (4mm OD) used as a coil form for the kanthal heater wire on the outside (6 mm OD coil). When the kanthal wound tube was coated with a ceramic cement, there was insulation and not as much convection and this coil got to the 1300C range inside the center of the alumina tube. This is NOT the dogbone shaped convection tube. I know the text is confusing, having Alan's work described just below the dogbone picture. The dogbone shaped convection tube has NOT been heated to that temperature. You also have my opinion wrong. As I said, I am concerned that even putting in a total of 3kW electric in our dogbone test, we may not get to the same temperature as in the Lugano report. The electrical input in the Lugano report was a little above 900W as I recall, and I don't believe it is possible to get the dogbone to 1400C on the OUTSIDE with 900W input based on our measurements. Also, the type of heater element we now believe was used in the Lugano hotCat was not capable of delivering over about 1kW of input heat. So if the hotCat was really putting out over 2.5kW of heat to get it to 1400C, then there was definitely substantial gain. We will know in January. Bob Higgins On Sun, Dec 7, 2014 at 8:59 PM, Jones Beene wrote: > *From:* Blaze Spinnaker > > Aren't you compare the body average to the core?The body average means > that it's sustaining 1260 over the entire body. Doesn't that mean it's > outputting more energy than one core reading? > > That depends on heat transfer characteristics of the two - it could be > more or it could be less, but the point is that there is a similarity and > near identity in the two systems that should be alarming to those who > think Rossi was showing COP >3. > > If the report is accurate (and apparently Bob thinks it is not), then the > preliminary implication is that either Rossi’s version is not gainful or > the dummy reactor is gainful. > >
RE: [Vo]:That doggone dogbone
From: Blaze Spinnaker Aren't you compare the body average to the core?The body average means that it's sustaining 1260 over the entire body. Doesn't that mean it's outputting more energy than one core reading? That depends on heat transfer characteristics of the two - it could be more or it could be less, but the point is that there is a similarity and near identity in the two systems that should be alarming to those who think Rossi was showing COP >3. If the report is accurate (and apparently Bob thinks it is not), then the preliminary implication is that either Rossi’s version is not gainful or the dummy reactor is gainful.
Re: [Vo]:That doggone dogbone
Aren't you compare the body average to the core?The body average means that it's sustaining 1260 over the entire body. Doesn't that mean it's outputting more energy than one core reading? On Sun, Dec 7, 2014 at 5:50 PM, Jones Beene wrote: > Oops > > > > The MFMP has built a Rossi replica called the “dog-bone”… it is the same > size and weight as the Lugano original > > > > Even before adding nickel or hydrogen, the MFMP reactor was initially > testing to 1300 degrees with 732 watts input. > > > > Yet… Rossi was claiming in his tests, and Levi wrote it up this way: > “Upon completion of the gradual startup process procedure, the thermal > camera indicated an average temperature for the body of the reactor of > 1260°C, while the PCE recorded an electric power input to the E-Cat > fluctuating at around 810 W. > > > > And did Rossi/Levi not then claim that this was a large COP based on those > “calculations” of IR emission ? > > > > … yet it appears that MFMP was able to achieve higher thermal temperature, > using less input, and with more accurate measurement from a thermocouple > instead of a thermal camera - but guess what? Their reactor has no fuel nor > catalyst ! > > > > Now we have to ask, who’s the real dummy in this doggone soap opera? > > > > Levi for sure is dummy # 1 for allowing Rossi to take complete control > over a so-called “independent” experiment. > > >
Re: [Vo]:That doggone dogbone
You MFMP guys have started posting photos. But please do the following: 1. Get a color calibration card, eg Kodak Color Separation Guide and Gray Scale (Q-13, 8" Long) http://www.bhphotovideo.com/bnh/controller/home?O=&sku=26662&gclid=CjwKEAiAkpCkBRCtstKQo5ia5nESJACsCikR0WtiGGjptERAk_sJ4mJxnfK3nRKGKJyBPBw76JmgVxoCz6rw_wcB&Q=&is=REG&A=details Include the card in every photo. 2. Make sure you use a camera with manual control, and use the same camera for every photo. Turn off Auto White Balance (AWB) and auto ISO. 3 Optional : also get a grayscale card --- and ONE TIME ONLY set the camera to get the white balance off the card. Otherwise, just pick a "suitable" value. Note the AWB value (color temperature). 4. Take every photo at the same AWB and preferably ISO. Make sure that no channels are over-exposed. - Original Message - From: "Bob Higgins" Sent: Sunday, December 7, 2014 6:40:57 PM
RE: [Vo]:That doggone dogbone
From: Bob Higgins I don't know where you have gotten this data, but I am working with MFMP on this and have not seen any such data http://www.e-catworld.com/2014/12/07/mfmps-project-dog-bone-thread-update-1-first-test-on-dummy-core/comment-page-2/#comments read the 3 paragraphs below the picture.
Re: [Vo]:That doggone dogbone
Jones, I don't know where you have gotten this data, but I am working with MFMP on this and have not seen any such data. There are 2 heaters being developed. One will model the coil that was used to heat the internal reactants - this is what the Lugano team applied electrical power to to heat the hotCat. The second coil will go in the middle to model the extra heat provided by Rossi's secret reactants. We are concerned that we will NOT be able to put in enough heat into these TWO coils together to get the dogbone convection tube to 1400C. We are planning to be able to put in about 2.4kW into the outer coil, and may be able to put in another 1kW in the inner coil. The plan is to try to put in enough electrical heat into these 2 coils such that the same view comes out of the same model of Optris camera (calibrated the same way as the factory) as what the Lugano team saw. Then the total electrical input that generates this matched thermal image will be the heat from the hotCat as a sum of the electrical hotCat input and the LENR output. We will also measure the temperature with type-B thermocouples, but this is just a check on the Lugano math. The real measure is how much electrical power must go into the dogbone replica to match the Optris view that the Lugano team got. Right now, the concern is that we may not be able to input that much electrical power to match the Lugano view. We will see in January when the team gets access to an Optris camera. For now, in testing the outer coils of the dogbone, the temperature has been taken nowhere near 1300C. Alan Goldwater has constructed and tested a coil on a small alumina tube coil form that will be used to model the LENR contribution to the heat. It will be placed inside the dogbone. Alan has been testing this and measuring the temperature on the inside of the small alumina tube, not convected on the outside. Please stay tuned for the real results. Any posts before the real test in January are bound to be bogus. On Sun, Dec 7, 2014 at 6:50 PM, Jones Beene wrote: > Oops > > > > The MFMP has built a Rossi replica called the “dog-bone”… it is the same > size and weight as the Lugano original > > > > Even before adding nickel or hydrogen, the MFMP reactor was initially > testing to 1300 degrees with 732 watts input. > > > > Yet… Rossi was claiming in his tests, and Levi wrote it up this way: > “Upon completion of the gradual startup process procedure, the thermal > camera indicated an average temperature for the body of the reactor of > 1260°C, while the PCE recorded an electric power input to the E-Cat > fluctuating at around 810 W. > > > > And did Rossi/Levi not then claim that this was a large COP based on those > “calculations” of IR emission ? > > > > … yet it appears that MFMP was able to achieve higher thermal temperature, > using less input, and with more accurate measurement from a thermocouple > instead of a thermal camera - but guess what? Their reactor has no fuel nor > catalyst ! > > > > Now we have to ask, who’s the real dummy in this doggone soap opera? > > > > Levi for sure is dummy # 1 for allowing Rossi to take complete control > over a so-called “independent” experiment. > > >
[Vo]:That doggone dogbone
Oops The MFMP has built a Rossi replica called the dog-bone it is the same size and weight as the Lugano original Even before adding nickel or hydrogen, the MFMP reactor was initially testing to 1300 degrees with 732 watts input. Yet Rossi was claiming in his tests, and Levi wrote it up this way: Upon completion of the gradual startup process procedure, the thermal camera indicated an average temperature for the body of the reactor of 1260°C, while the PCE recorded an electric power input to the E-Cat fluctuating at around 810 W. And did Rossi/Levi not then claim that this was a large COP based on those calculations of IR emission ? yet it appears that MFMP was able to achieve higher thermal temperature, using less input, and with more accurate measurement from a thermocouple instead of a thermal camera - but guess what? Their reactor has no fuel nor catalyst ! Now we have to ask, whos the real dummy in this doggone soap opera? Levi for sure is dummy # 1 for allowing Rossi to take complete control over a so-called independent experiment.
Re: [Vo]:History: Stanford Robert A. Huggins positive LENr result...
so it is good... I remember about Fire From Ice that there was very negative impact of some false positive it was simply isolated failure that was exploited ? 2014-12-07 23:41 GMT+01:00 Jed Rothwell : > Alain Sepeda wrote: > > >> I know there was many false positive at the beginning... >> > > No, there were not many false positives. I know of only one or two, and > they were not published. > > > >> what is the final story on that experiment? was it finally positive ? >> > > It was positive, and repeated several times. See: > > http://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/SchreiberMrecentmeas.pdf > > > >> It seems too short to have a positive result as most say few month are >> required just for loading? >> > > It takes a week or two, not months. I have never heard of an experiment > that took months to load. If it does not work after a month, it never will. > > - Jed > >
Re: [Vo]:History: Stanford Robert A. Huggins positive LENr result...
This article appeared a few weeks later. http://www.nytimes.com/1989/05/03/us/physicists-debunk-claim-of-a-new-kind-of-fusion.html quote from the second page: <> Harry On Sun, Dec 7, 2014 at 5:32 PM, Alain Sepeda wrote: > > Franck Ackalnd digged that old article on a sucessful LENr experiment in 89 > http://www.nytimes.com/1989/04/19/us/stanford-reports-success.html > > I know there was many false positive at the beginning... > what is the final story on that experiment? was it finally positive ? > > It seems too short to have a positive result as most say few month are > required just for loading? > > > > Stanford Reports Success >> By WILLIAM J. BROAD >> Published: April 19, 1989 >> > A team of scientists at Stanford University said yesterday that they had >> duplicated the experiment in which nuclear fusion was reportedly achieved >> in a jar of water at room temperature. The Stanford researchers said they >> measured heat but not radiation or subatomic particles that are often >> produced by nuclear fusion. >> >
Re: [Vo]:History: Stanford Robert A. Huggins positive LENr result...
Alain Sepeda wrote: > I know there was many false positive at the beginning... > No, there were not many false positives. I know of only one or two, and they were not published. > what is the final story on that experiment? was it finally positive ? > It was positive, and repeated several times. See: http://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/SchreiberMrecentmeas.pdf > It seems too short to have a positive result as most say few month are > required just for loading? > It takes a week or two, not months. I have never heard of an experiment that took months to load. If it does not work after a month, it never will. - Jed
[Vo]:History: Stanford Robert A. Huggins positive LENr result...
Franck Ackalnd digged that old article on a sucessful LENr experiment in 89 http://www.nytimes.com/1989/04/19/us/stanford-reports-success.html I know there was many false positive at the beginning... what is the final story on that experiment? was it finally positive ? It seems too short to have a positive result as most say few month are required just for loading? Stanford Reports Success > By WILLIAM J. BROAD > Published: April 19, 1989 > A team of scientists at Stanford University said yesterday that they had > duplicated the experiment in which nuclear fusion was reportedly achieved > in a jar of water at room temperature. The Stanford researchers said they > measured heat but not radiation or subatomic particles that are often > produced by nuclear fusion. >
Re: [Vo]:Do we live in a black hole?
The idea of our universe being inside a black hole has been around quite a while. Recently : http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2014/02/140218-black-hole-blast-explains-big-bang/
[Vo]:Sunday LENR Webxploration
Dear Friend, I have just published: http://egooutpeters.blogspot.ro/2014/12/daily-shared-lenr-discoveries-december.html It helps me/us to prepare future actions; if everything will go as expected we will have plenty of LENR and LENR+ information coming soon. If not, then not, so is life. Peter -- Dr. Peter Gluck Cluj, Romania http://egooutpeters.blogspot.com
Re: [Vo]:Do we live in a black hole?
If we lived in a black hole, then spacetime would be contracting toward us rather than expanding (and increasingly expanding at that). The exact opposite is more likely: that we live in a "white" hole. On Fri, Dec 5, 2014 at 5:04 PM, John Berry wrote: > Ok, so this is a trippy thought, but you may be aware of one theory that > stars are opposite ends of the universe might be moving apart with a > relative velocity greater than C, but that this is ok since space in this > case is considered to be moving along too... > > I could find a reference but it is a theory that is taken at least > somewhat seriously. > > And one of the implications of this is meant to be if I have it right, is > that light from a star at one endge of the universe could never reach the > other side due to this. > > And this then seems to quality it as an event horizon! > > And one made from moving space whatever that means. > > But an object falling into gravity is considered not to be accelerating > relative to space since space is in effect accelerating and the mass is > just going with it, this is pretty close to what has been said by other > before about gravity... > > So then in what way is a conventional black hole event horizon > fundamentally different to an expanding universe > > Sure, geometrically it might be the inverse, but that could be seen as > being in the inside of a black hole instead of the outside. > > And you could argue that it occurs over a larger swath of space, namely a > universe sized swath of space, but what we don't know of the geometry of > space from the inside of an event horizon is, well everything. > > So I am not taking this seriously, really just a jab at the Frankenstein's > monster created by extending the little we know of physics to the little we > know of cosmology and have the cheek to think it is somehow a science. > > John >
