Re: [Vo]:Re: How Current Loops and Solenoids Curve Space-time

[Roarty, Francis X]

Harry, I can’t speak to your method but I am convinced that you are correct in 
thinking whatever method provides LENR anomalies should work both ways and that 
driving the system in reverse we should be able  to “push” against whatever the 
underlying source of force of the anomaly happens to ultimately be.. if I am 
correct about relativistic/ZPE we will get inertia less drive soon after robust 
LENR is mastered.  I am also  ok with the source being a new form of nuclear 
reaction – at this point I don’t care who is right just want to see a working 
device demonstrated  so the ball will finally get rolling.
Fran

From: H Veeder [mailto:hveeder...@gmail.com]
Sent: Thursday, January 14, 2016 2:20 AM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Subject: EXTERNAL: Re: [Vo]:Re: How Current Loops and Solenoids Curve Space-time

Here is example of resonant system.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Aaxw4zbULMs
Treat the concealed spring mechanism within each metronome as a model of a 
nucleus. However, instead of the pendulum being driven from previously stored 
energy in the spring, as happens in the video, imagine redesigning the link 
between the pendulum and the spring so that the spring is wound up as the 
pendulum oscillates. The pendulum oscillations would be powered from a force 
pushing the platform back and forth on the cans.

Harry

On Wed, Jan 13, 2016 at 7:33 PM, Bob Cook 
> wrote:
Harry--

It may be possible with proper design.  It would seem to take a coherent system 
(entangled QM system) of electrons and various nuclei in which the electronic 
structure could be excited to an elevated energy state which would then be 
brought into resonance with a nucleus or several nucleus which would then 
transition to a metastable state or new nuclei will less stability (greater 
binding energy per nucleon) than the original coherent system of nuclei and 
electrons.  (Einstein's assumed equivalence of the various types of energy 
would apply here.)

Bob Cook


From: H Veeder
Sent: Monday, January 11, 2016 10:48 AM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Subject: Re: RE:[Vo]:How Current Loops and Solenoids Curve Space-time

Could this process work in reverse, so that the energy of the electrons could 
be transferred to the nucleons and stored in the nucleus?

Harry

On Mon, Jan 11, 2016 at 10:23 AM, Bob Cook wrote:


I have long thought that the magnetic field in a metal aligns the spins of the 
electrons as well as the nucleons and provides a coupling mechanism to match 
resonances and hence allow transfer of nuclear spin  potential energy to the 
phonic energy of electrons.

RE: [Vo]:Re: How Current Loops and Solenoids Curve Space-time

[Roarty, Francis X]

I wonder if said nucleons would then tie together multiple inertial frames and 
if so would the inertia of the macro object be modified? Maybe a grain of truth 
behind claims of gravity modification / levitation myths without the need for 
collider scale superconductors using instead quantum effect of suppression 
geometry on ambient trapped gas inside limestone lattice.
Fran

From: Bob Cook [mailto:frobertc...@hotmail.com]
Sent: Wednesday, January 13, 2016 7:33 PM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Subject: EXTERNAL: [Vo]:Re: How Current Loops and Solenoids Curve Space-time

Harry--

It may be possible with proper design.  It would seem to take a coherent system 
(entangled QM system) of electrons and various nuclei in which the electronic 
structure could be excited to an elevated energy state which would then be 
brought into resonance with a nucleus or several nucleus which would then 
transition to a metastable state or new nuclei will less stability (greater 
binding energy per nucleon) than the original coherent system of nuclei and 
electrons.  (Einstein's assumed equivalence of the various types of energy 
would apply here.)

Bob Cook


From: H Veeder
Sent: Monday, January 11, 2016 10:48 AM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Subject: Re: RE:[Vo]:How Current Loops and Solenoids Curve Space-time

Could this process work in reverse, so that the energy of the electrons could 
be transferred to the nucleons and stored in the nucleus?

Harry

On Mon, Jan 11, 2016 at 10:23 AM, Bob Cook wrote:


I have long thought that the magnetic field in a metal aligns the spins of the 
electrons as well as the nucleons and provides a coupling mechanism to match 
resonances and hence allow transfer of nuclear spin  potential energy to the 
phonic energy of electrons.

Re: [Vo]:20 kW E-Cat X Reactor is Size of Cigarette Packet

[Axil Axil]

yes

On Thu, Jan 14, 2016 at 3:59 PM, Jed Rothwell  wrote:

> Axil Axil  wrote:
>
>>
>> Recalculate assuming a 50/50 split between DC electric production and heat 
>> production.
>> That reduces the heat output to 10 KW.
>>
>
>
>
> It does seem to indicate this produces both heat and electricity. I find
> that hard to believe. Is there any indication they are split 50/50? Did
> Rossi say that somewhere?
>
> - Jed
>
>

Re: [Vo]:20 kW E-Cat X Reactor is Size of Cigarette Packet

[Axil Axil]

Andrea Rossi
January 1st, 2016 at 12:19 AM


Dear Readers of the JoNP:
It’s 00.00.01″ of January 1st 2016.
Update: the 1 MW E-Cat is stable and in ssm, the E-Cat X is very promising
and still operating and making heat, electricity.
The E-Cat X is very close to the design of the core of the apparatus
described in the US Patent, I mean the wafer. It has been engineered to
resist to very high temperatures. The electricity exits directly from the
wafer.
As I said , several nights ago I had a dream. The E-Cat X had been produced
in billions pieces, each of them assembled with others in various
combinations to make public lamps: a town was totally illuminated by the
E-Cat X and from every lamp a network of pipes and of wires was able to
distribute heat and electricity to the houses.
In that town there were about 1 million lamps each of them of 500 watts,
consuming about 50 watts; consequently, there were 450 MWh/h produced, of
which about half were turned into heat distributed to the houses through a
network of well insulated pipes, running inderground, like optic fibers,
the other half was used to enlight the town and to distribute electricity
to the households. The cost of the E-Cat X was around 50 $/kW of power, due
to the production of billions of pieces per year in all the world, with
tens of thousands of jobs. Less taxes were paid by the people, due to the
saves derived from low pollution and low energy cost for public services.
Millions of persons were also earning money selling E-Cats and every owner
of E-Cats was saving money in utilities ( electricity, heat, light).
Then I heard the alarm clock: it was time to return to the factory, to make
true the dream. F9.
Happy new year, I love you all.
I am drinking my cup of Korbel champagne, then i have to return to the
gauges of the plant. She is good, tonight.
Again, Happy 2016, may God bless you all,
Andrea

On Thu, Jan 14, 2016 at 6:23 PM, Axil Axil  wrote:

> yes
>
> On Thu, Jan 14, 2016 at 3:59 PM, Jed Rothwell 
> wrote:
>
>> Axil Axil  wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> Recalculate assuming a 50/50 split between DC electric production and
>>> heat production. That reduces the heat output to 10 KW.
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>> It does seem to indicate this produces both heat and electricity. I find
>> that hard to believe. Is there any indication they are split 50/50? Did
>> Rossi say that somewhere?
>>
>> - Jed
>>
>>
>

Re: [Vo]:20 kW E-Cat X Reactor is Size of Cigarette Packet

[Jed Rothwell]

Thanks for providing this. I read it before but I did not catch the 50/50
split.

This seems like a crazy scheme to me, even if it works.

I doubt the devices produce both heat and electricity, and it seems a
little odd that the wattage of the two should be exactly the same . . .
And yet, with Rossi you never know. As Churchill said of Russia, Rossi
is "a riddle wrapped in a mystery inside an enigma." (A sort of turducken.)

- Jed


On Thu, Jan 14, 2016 at 6:31 PM, Axil Axil  wrote:

> Andrea Rossi
> January 1st, 2016 at 12:19 AM
> 
>
> Dear Readers of the JoNP:
> It’s 00.00.01″ of January 1st 2016.
> Update: the 1 MW E-Cat is stable and in ssm, the E-Cat X is very promising
> and still operating and making heat, electricity.
> The E-Cat X is very close to the design of the core of the apparatus
> described in the US Patent, I mean the wafer. It has been engineered to
> resist to very high temperatures. The electricity exits directly from the
> wafer.
> As I said , several nights ago I had a dream. The E-Cat X had been
> produced in billions pieces, each of them assembled with others in various
> combinations to make public lamps: a town was totally illuminated by the
> E-Cat X and from every lamp a network of pipes and of wires was able to
> distribute heat and electricity to the houses.
> In that town there were about 1 million lamps each of them of 500 watts,
> consuming about 50 watts; consequently, there were 450 MWh/h produced, of
> which about half were turned into heat distributed to the houses through a
> network of well insulated pipes, running inderground, like optic fibers,
> the other half was used to enlight the town and to distribute electricity
> to the households. The cost of the E-Cat X was around 50 $/kW of power, due
> to the production of billions of pieces per year in all the world, with
> tens of thousands of jobs. Less taxes were paid by the people, due to the
> saves derived from low pollution and low energy cost for public services.
> Millions of persons were also earning money selling E-Cats and every owner
> of E-Cats was saving money in utilities ( electricity, heat, light).
> Then I heard the alarm clock: it was time to return to the factory, to
> make true the dream. F9.
> Happy new year, I love you all.
> I am drinking my cup of Korbel champagne, then i have to return to the
> gauges of the plant. She is good, tonight.
> Again, Happy 2016, may God bless you all,
> Andrea
>
> On Thu, Jan 14, 2016 at 6:23 PM, Axil Axil  wrote:
>
>> yes
>>
>> On Thu, Jan 14, 2016 at 3:59 PM, Jed Rothwell 
>> wrote:
>>
>>> Axil Axil  wrote:
>>>

 Recalculate assuming a 50/50 split between DC electric production and
 heat production. That reduces the heat output to 10 KW.

>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> It does seem to indicate this produces both heat and electricity. I find
>>> that hard to believe. Is there any indication they are split 50/50? Did
>>> Rossi say that somewhere?
>>>
>>> - Jed
>>>
>>>
>>
>

Re: [Vo]:20 kW E-Cat X Reactor is Size of Cigarette Packet

[Jed Rothwell]

 wrote:


> Note that this was a dream. It doesn't necessarily mean that any of it has
> been
> realized as yet, though it seems reasonable to suspect that it can at
> least be
> extrapolated from current experiments.
>

Good point. Perhaps it can be extrapolated. Could it be pure speculation?

For once I cannot accuse Rossi of fantasizing because he says that is what
he is doing.

- Jed

Re: [Vo]:20 kW E-Cat X Reactor is Size of Cigarette Packet

[mixent]

In reply to  Jed Rothwell's message of Thu, 14 Jan 2016 20:31:57 -0500:
Hi,
[snip]
>Thanks for providing this. I read it before but I did not catch the 50/50
>split.
>
>This seems like a crazy scheme to me, even if it works.
>
>I doubt the devices produce both heat and electricity, and it seems a
>little odd that the wattage of the two should be exactly the same . . .
>And yet, with Rossi you never know. As Churchill said of Russia, Rossi
>is "a riddle wrapped in a mystery inside an enigma." (A sort of turducken.)
>
>- Jed

Note that this was a dream. It doesn't necessarily mean that any of it has been
realized as yet, though it seems reasonable to suspect that it can at least be
extrapolated from current experiments.

Regards,

Robin van Spaandonk

http://rvanspaa.freehostia.com/project.html

Re: [Vo]:20 kW E-Cat X Reactor is Size of Cigarette Packet

[Axil Axil]

The XUV type of LENR reaction has a very high power density and produces
tons of subatomic particles. These decay into muons and electrons. Rossi
must see a large over unity production of electrons coming off his new
X-Cat prototype. I believe that the same will be true regarding the SunCell.

The light coming off the SunCell and the X-Cat might be the same and caused
by the same reaction. This may be the same reaction LENR reaction that
powers the sun.

Someone should check the SunCell for Muon production.

On Thu, Jan 14, 2016 at 10:19 PM, Jed Rothwell 
wrote:

>  wrote:
>
>
>> Note that this was a dream. It doesn't necessarily mean that any of it
>> has been
>> realized as yet, though it seems reasonable to suspect that it can at
>> least be
>> extrapolated from current experiments.
>>
>
> Good point. Perhaps it can be extrapolated. Could it be pure speculation?
>
> For once I cannot accuse Rossi of fantasizing because he says that is what
> he is doing.
>
> - Jed
>
>

Re: [Vo]:Brilliant Light Power- at the demo

[Axil Axil]

I predict that there will be a huge muon flux coming out of the SunCell.

On Thu, Jan 14, 2016 at 4:15 PM, Bob Cook  wrote:

> The demo by Brilliant Light Power, formerly Black Light Power, Randy
> Mills’ invention, has produced an interesting demo, see:
> http://brilliantlightpower.com/plasma-video/
>
> It seems Dr. Mills is progressing and changing the name of his company to
> better fit the invention characteristics.
>
> The recent demonstration seems to be self sustaining with addition of
> water.  However this is not absolutely clear.
>
> Do any Vorts understand what Mills claims happens to the stable hydrino
> ash that is implied to be produced by the brilliant light process?  What is
> the nature of the dense hydrogen—hydrino’s that are proposed by Mills?
>
> An upcoming sequel demonstration by Brilliant Light Power would be great,
> if it produced some evidence of the hydrinos.
>
> Bob Cook
>

Re: [Vo]:20 kW E-Cat X Reactor is Size of Cigarette Packet

[Axil Axil]

On Thu, Jan 14, 2016 at 2:21 PM, Jed Rothwell  wrote:

> Rossi claims here that the reactor produces 20 kW and it is "like a 20
> cigarette packet, while the weight could be 300-400 grams."
>
> Quick sanity check --
>
> If it is 400 g, that would be 50 W/g.
>
> A cigarette pack is 88 mm x 55 mm x 22 mm, giving it 160 cm^2 surface
> area, and 107 cm^3 volume. So that's 125 W/cm^2, and 187 W/cm^3.
>
> A uranium fuel pellet produces 32 W/cm^2, or 180 W/cm^3. That is close to
> the upper limit for power production and heat output for uranium oxide. Any
> hotter and the metal is damaged. 125 W/cm^2 sounds like a lot to me. It is
> plausible I guess. It depends on how hot the material can get. I think the
> object would be incandescent white, the way I suppose the Lugano test
> reactor must have been if it reached the temperatures that were claimed.
>
> - Jed
>
> Recalculate assuming a 50/50 split between DC electric production and heat 
> production.
That reduces the heat output to 10 KW.

Re: [Vo]:20 kW E-Cat X Reactor is Size of Cigarette Packet

[Jack Cole]

Or maybe it wouldn't have to be that hot with sufficient heat transfer.  If
it is running consistently at 1400C as claimed by Rossi, it would hurt the
eyes to look at it!

On Thu, Jan 14, 2016 at 1:21 PM Jed Rothwell  wrote:

> Rossi claims here that the reactor produces 20 kW and it is "like a 20
> cigarette packet, while the weight could be 300-400 grams."
>
> Quick sanity check --
>
> If it is 400 g, that would be 50 W/g.
>
> A cigarette pack is 88 mm x 55 mm x 22 mm, giving it 160 cm^2 surface
> area, and 107 cm^3 volume. So that's 125 W/cm^2, and 187 W/cm^3.
>
> A uranium fuel pellet produces 32 W/cm^2, or 180 W/cm^3. That is close to
> the upper limit for power production and heat output for uranium oxide. Any
> hotter and the metal is damaged. 125 W/cm^2 sounds like a lot to me. It is
> plausible I guess. It depends on how hot the material can get. I think the
> object would be incandescent white, the way I suppose the Lugano test
> reactor must have been if it reached the temperatures that were claimed.
>
> - Jed
>
>

[Vo]:Brilliant Light Power- at the demo

[Bob Cook]

The demo by Brilliant Light Power, formerly Black Light Power, Randy Mills’ 
invention, has produced an interesting demo, see:
http://brilliantlightpower.com/plasma-video/

It seems Dr. Mills is progressing and changing the name of his company to 
better fit the invention characteristics.

The recent demonstration seems to be self sustaining with addition of water.  
However this is not absolutely clear.

Do any Vorts understand what Mills claims happens to the stable hydrino ash 
that is implied to be produced by the brilliant light process?  What is the 
nature of the dense hydrogen—hydrino’s that are proposed by Mills?  

An upcoming sequel demonstration by Brilliant Light Power would be great, if it 
produced some evidence of the hydrinos.  

Bob Cook

[Vo]:Re: 20 kW E-Cat X Reactor is Size of Cigarette Packet

[Bob Cook]

Rossi pointed out that the volume identified did not include the apparatus 
needed to collect and/or use the energy produced.  I believe that there are 
fission reactor fuel elements that produce significantly more energy than what 
Jed suggests for a uranium fuel pellet.  

Also keep in mind that some of the energy produced my be radiation and need to 
be collected away from the actual reactor.  From how Rossi has described the 
E-Cat-X production of radiant EM radiation would not surprise me. 

Bob Cook

From: Jed Rothwell 
Sent: Thursday, January 14, 2016 11:21 AM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com 
Subject: Re: [Vo]:20 kW E-Cat X Reactor is Size of Cigarette Packet

Rossi claims here that the reactor produces 20 kW and it is "like a 20 
cigarette packet, while the weight could be 300-400 grams."

Quick sanity check --


If it is 400 g, that would be 50 W/g.

A cigarette pack is 88 mm x 55 mm x 22 mm, giving it 160 cm^2 surface area, and 
107 cm^3 volume. So that's 125 W/cm^2, and 187 W/cm^3.

A uranium fuel pellet produces 32 W/cm^2, or 180 W/cm^3. That is close to the 
upper limit for power production and heat output for uranium oxide. Any hotter 
and the metal is damaged. 125 W/cm^2 sounds like a lot to me. It is plausible I 
guess. It depends on how hot the material can get. I think the object would be 
incandescent white, the way I suppose the Lugano test reactor must have been if 
it reached the temperatures that were claimed. 

- Jed

Re: [Vo]:20 kW E-Cat X Reactor is Size of Cigarette Packet

[Jed Rothwell]

Axil Axil  wrote:

>
> Recalculate assuming a 50/50 split between DC electric production and heat 
> production.
> That reduces the heat output to 10 KW.
>



It does seem to indicate this produces both heat and electricity. I find
that hard to believe. Is there any indication they are split 50/50? Did
Rossi say that somewhere?

- Jed

[Vo]:NO LENR INERRANCY YET, NOBODY INFALLIBLE

[Peter Gluck]

Published now- depressing ideas re Science  - temporary  effect
http://egooutpeters.blogspot.ro/2016/01/jan-14-2016-we-are-still-far-from-lenr.html

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

Re: [Vo]:20 kW E-Cat X Reactor is Size of Cigarette Packet

[Jed Rothwell]

Rossi claims here that the reactor produces 20 kW and it is "like a 20
cigarette packet, while the weight could be 300-400 grams."

Quick sanity check --

If it is 400 g, that would be 50 W/g.

A cigarette pack is 88 mm x 55 mm x 22 mm, giving it 160 cm^2 surface area,
and 107 cm^3 volume. So that's 125 W/cm^2, and 187 W/cm^3.

A uranium fuel pellet produces 32 W/cm^2, or 180 W/cm^3. That is close to
the upper limit for power production and heat output for uranium oxide. Any
hotter and the metal is damaged. 125 W/cm^2 sounds like a lot to me. It is
plausible I guess. It depends on how hot the material can get. I think the
object would be incandescent white, the way I suppose the Lugano test
reactor must have been if it reached the temperatures that were claimed.

- Jed

[Vo]:20 kW E-Cat X Reactor is Size of Cigarette Packet

[a.ashfield]

Energy is the key to prosperity.   The results of the one year trial of 
Industrial Heat's 1 MW plant is due Feb/Mar 2016.  I am increasingly 
optimistic the trial will be a success.
Obviously the E-Cat X is still in the research/experimental stage and 
Rossi won't release details until it has be tested for a reasonable 
period of time.  If the 1 MW plant does indeed work there is reason to 
take Rossi at his word on the E-Cat X.

http://www.e-catworld.com/2016/01/13/rossi-20-kw-e-cat-x-reactor-is-size-of-cigarette-packet/

[Vo]:Re: 20 kW E-Cat X Reactor is Size of Cigarette Packet

[Bob Cook]

Yes.  Rossi indicated a 50/50 split in energy production—heat and  electrical 
energy.

Bob Cook

From: Jed Rothwell 
Sent: Thursday, January 14, 2016 12:59 PM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com 
Subject: Re: [Vo]:20 kW E-Cat X Reactor is Size of Cigarette Packet

Axil Axil  wrote:
  
  Recalculate assuming a 50/50 split between DC electric production and heat 
production. That reduces the heat output to 10 KW.


It does seem to indicate this produces both heat and electricity. I find that 
hard to believe. Is there any indication they are split 50/50? Did Rossi say 
that somewhere?

- Jed