Re: [Vo]: Radon not a likely explanation for GS5.2

[Eric Walker]

I wrote:

Would it be possible to add some labels to the overlaid graph so that the
> correspondence between the two is made clearer, and one can see which peak
> in one graph corresponds to a peak in the other?
>

Upon a closer look it's not too difficult to tell which peaks correspond to
which in both graphs.  Reading from right to left, I think we have peaks at
1.39 MeV, 1.13 MeV, 0.77 MeV and 0.61 MeV.  The alignment of the peaks with
the new x-axis is not exact, so there's some difference, but I think the
general correspondence is apparent.

Eric

Re: [Vo]: Radon not a likely explanation for GS5.2

[Eric Walker]

On Thu, Mar 10, 2016 at 9:50 AM, Bob Higgins 
wrote:

I took this graph, digitized it, calibrated the energy scale, and resampled
> it to the same energy scale and samples as the GS5.2 Spectrum-07 calibrated
> signal data.
>

This is an interesting excercise.

I am having trouble lining up the two graphs according to photon energy.
In the original graph of 226Ra and progeny, the range in energies is from
approx. 0 to a final peak at 2.46 MeV.  In the combined graph, with the
resampled version of the 226Ra graph overlaid on top, the range of energies
is from 0 to 1.6 MeV.  Would it be possible to add some labels to the
overlaid graph so that the correspondence between the two is made clearer,
and one can see which peak in one graph corresponds to a peak in the other?

Eric

Re: [Vo]:Progress in humanoid robots

[Axil Axil]

AI beats human Go grandmaster... again (Update)

http://phys.org/news/2016-03-ai-human-grandmaster.html

AI has creativity and intuition now,

On Fri, Feb 26, 2016 at 3:34 PM, Jed Rothwell  wrote:
> There is a remarkable video in this article, showing the latest humanoid
> robot from Boston Dynamics. Clearly this machine is not humanoid in the
> emotional sense, because if it were, it might punch the operator in the
> nose. I felt sorry for the poor thing, which is like feeling sorry for a
> dishwasher.
>
> http://www.slate.com/blogs/future_tense/2016/02/26/atlas_the_new_robot_from_boston_dynamics_sets_a_new_standard_for_robot_capabilities.html
>
> - Jed
>

Re: [Vo]:Statement from Industrial Heat

[a.ashfield]

I read it rather like Axil.  That is to say no matter that the regular 
E-Cat 1 MW plant performed successfully the E-Cat X is the future and 
the statement was to prepare us for further delays. Industrial Heat have 
been keen on a long term demo before going to market and this probably 
means a test for the E-Cat X.

Re: [Vo]:Statement from Industrial Heat

[Axil Axil]

On Christmas last and just after, Rossi was very free with info on the
Xcat. Lately, he is tight lipped again about it. IMHO, Rossi was free
with technical info because of his excitement of discovery. But now
that the XCat will replace the low temperature wafers in the 1
Megawatt plant, he is back in secret mode. He has decided that the
quark is the only reactor module he will use in his family of products
and the only module that he will manufacture.

He is pressing to get the Quark technology ready for the 1 megawatt
reactor application. Any info that we get about the big industrial
reactor using non-quark wafers will be obsolete. That info will only
serve to assure investors that progress is being made. The discovery
of the quark will delay LENR commercialization by more than a year or
possibly much longer.

On Thu, Mar 10, 2016 at 2:57 PM, Russ George  wrote:
> I am sure Rossi and IH have good ‘curmudgeon’ filters as this field is rift
> with such pests. They have been remarkably and admirably open to date and I
> see no reason for them to change that behavior. As they get closer to
> ‘success’ more caution not less is warranted. Of course caution is the bane
> of the world of social media where beneath every ‘sata bridge’ lie legions
> of trolls ready to reach out to pounce or rather slime.
>
> I think Rossi et al have plenty of cash at hand. Rossi is very adept of
> working in a very economical manner. It would seem that sufficient Italian
> bread crumbs that might lead those ‘skilled in the art’ to replicate have
> been and continue to be dropped by Rossi. One problem is that the bread
> crumbs are mostly gobbled up and regurgitated by quacks who are not ‘skilled
> in the art’ and angry about that fact.
>
>
>
> From: Lennart Thornros [mailto:lenn...@thornros.com]
> Sent: Thursday, March 10, 2016 11:32 AM
> To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
> Subject: Re: [Vo]:Statement from Industrial Heat
>
>
>
> I think you are right Russ. However, I do not thing that rumors by 'fans' or
> negative statements (a la Ahern) has any impact on IH's statements. I read
> the statement as background to admit problems and to induce a positive
> climate for the benefits shown by this long (and costly) test. They can
> hardly continue to send money into a total failure. They would have
> abandoned the test long time ago if it did not show indications of a
> possible good outcome.
>
>
>
> Next step is going to take some serious capital. They will need to raise
> that capital one way or the other (sell the concept, develop the market and
> distribution etc.) I think the statement is there to keep the interest up
> until they want to produce the result. I can see a lot of reason why they
> want to delay ( patents, negotiations with third party etc.)
>
>
>
> I do not read the statement as preparation for a negative report. Why would
> they have to prepare for that? They hopefully have better ways to
> communicate with the investors than by making general statements. Negative
> results would have been shared with major investors long time ago.
>
>
>
> I do not know if Peter Gluck's number is correct. Does it matter? It is a
> report built on rumors and therefore we cannot evaluate it - we do not know
> the source. It could be IH making sure that they get attention.:)
>
>
> Best Regards ,
> Lennart Thornros
>
>
>
>
>
> lenn...@thornros.com
> +1 916 436 1899
>
>
>
> Whatever you vividly imagine, ardently desire, sincerely believe and
> enthusiastically act upon, must inevitably come to pass. (PJM)
>
>
>
>
>
> On Thu, Mar 10, 2016 at 10:16 AM, Russ George  wrote:
>
> It's clear they (IH & Rossi) are not happy with Peter Gluck's (and others)
> speculative boosterism post(s)/reports on the effectiveness of the e-cat
> extended mewling test. Rossie and IH are clearly out to monetize whatever
> tech they have and offering the details to competitors as all of the social
> media caterwauling calls for is not the smart path. Doing what e-cat fans
> and groupies (and competitors) call for would certainly be evidence of not
> showing legally mandated fiduciary responsibility to their investors and
> stock-holders. In fact they risk staggering legal challenges and costs with
> regard to breaching their fiduciary responsibility to their investors
> regardless of whether such legal challenges even see a court room or not.
> Neither Rossi nor Darden are that naïve. Meow!
>
>
>
>
>
> From: Jed Rothwell [mailto:jedrothw...@gmail.com]
> Sent: Thursday, March 10, 2016 8:32 AM
> To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
> Subject: [Vo]:Statement from Industrial Heat
>
>
>
> [Marianne Macy asked me to post this]
>
>
>
> The following statement has been released from Industrial Heat for Infinite
> Energy Magazine today, March 10, 2016.   —Marianne Macy
>
>
>
> Statement of Industrial Heat Regarding LENR Industry Developments
>
>
>
> March 10, 2016
>
>
>
> Industrial Heat’s objective is to make clean, safe and affordable energy
> 

Re: [Vo]:Politicians and Clean Energy

[Lennart Thornros]

No, Chris it is not a mystery.
I think your  history description is correct.
To me it says three things:
1. Decisions made for a good reason and seemingly fair at the time of
decision may backfire if not constantly monitored and renewed.
2. Decisions made by large organizations are unlikely to be changed.
3. Decisions made to eliminate the market powers will do more harm than
good in the long run.

Of course the coal workers are angry so will the auto industry workers be
(if it is not already a fact), because they priced themselves out of the
market place.
Prevailing wages for government work - anyone's guess?
Minimal wages - anyone's guess?
Of course the situation is ripe in such situation to be the first and most
lucrative target of new technology. No, puzzlement.

Best Regards ,
Lennart Thornros


lenn...@thornros.com
+1 916 436 1899

Whatever you vividly imagine, ardently desire, sincerely believe and
enthusiastically act upon, must inevitably come to pass. (PJM)


On Thu, Mar 10, 2016 at 6:53 AM, Chris Zell  wrote:

> Clean energy and jobs?  Once Upon a Time, there were coal miners who were
> well paid in large part because a previous generation paid a price in blood
> for unionization.
>
> They heap the coal onto railroad cars – also operated, quite often by well
> paid union members.
>
> After that, the coal is off-loaded by well paid utility workers into
> boilers to make electricity.
>
>
>
> Then they installed windmills and after the temp jobs in their
> construction ended,  all of the above got fired and  an IT guy manages
> loads on a computer.  Once a year or so, a maintenance guy works on the
> windmill.
>
> And that’s that.
>
>
>
> In the years that followed, pundits and other famous commentators
> expressed puzzlement as to why so many voters were so angry. A mystery,
> they said…..
>
>
>

RE: [Vo]:Statement from Industrial Heat

[Russ George]

I am sure Rossi and IH have good ‘curmudgeon’ filters as this field is rift 
with such pests. They have been remarkably and admirably open to date and I see 
no reason for them to change that behavior. As they get closer to ‘success’ 
more caution not less is warranted. Of course caution is the bane of the world 
of social media where beneath every ‘sata bridge’ lie legions of trolls ready 
to reach out to pounce or rather slime.

I think Rossi et al have plenty of cash at hand. Rossi is very adept of working 
in a very economical manner. It would seem that sufficient Italian bread crumbs 
that might lead those ‘skilled in the art’ to replicate have been and continue 
to be dropped by Rossi. One problem is that the bread crumbs are mostly gobbled 
up and regurgitated by quacks who are not ‘skilled in the art’ and angry about 
that fact.

 

From: Lennart Thornros [mailto:lenn...@thornros.com] 
Sent: Thursday, March 10, 2016 11:32 AM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Statement from Industrial Heat

 

I think you are right Russ. However, I do not thing that rumors by 'fans' or 
negative statements (a la Ahern) has any impact on IH's statements. I read the 
statement as background to admit problems and to induce a positive climate for 
the benefits shown by this long (and costly) test. They can hardly continue to 
send money into a total failure. They would have abandoned the test long time 
ago if it did not show indications of a possible good outcome.

 

Next step is going to take some serious capital. They will need to raise that 
capital one way or the other (sell the concept, develop the market and 
distribution etc.) I think the statement is there to keep the interest up until 
they want to produce the result. I can see a lot of reason why they want to 
delay ( patents, negotiations with third party etc.)   

 

I do not read the statement as preparation for a negative report. Why would 
they have to prepare for that? They hopefully have better ways to communicate 
with the investors than by making general statements. Negative results would 
have been shared with major investors long time ago.

 

I do not know if Peter Gluck's number is correct. Does it matter? It is a 
report built on rumors and therefore we cannot evaluate it - we do not know the 
source. It could be IH making sure that they get attention.:)  




Best Regards ,
Lennart Thornros

 

 

lenn...@thornros.com  
+1 916 436 1899

 

Whatever you vividly imagine, ardently desire, sincerely believe and 
enthusiastically act upon, must inevitably come to pass. (PJM)

 

 

On Thu, Mar 10, 2016 at 10:16 AM, Russ George  > wrote:

It's clear they (IH & Rossi) are not happy with Peter Gluck's (and others) 
speculative boosterism post(s)/reports on the effectiveness of the e-cat 
extended mewling test. Rossie and IH are clearly out to monetize whatever tech 
they have and offering the details to competitors as all of the social media 
caterwauling calls for is not the smart path. Doing what e-cat fans and 
groupies (and competitors) call for would certainly be evidence of not showing 
legally mandated fiduciary responsibility to their investors and stock-holders. 
In fact they risk staggering legal challenges and costs with regard to 
breaching their fiduciary responsibility to their investors regardless of 
whether such legal challenges even see a court room or not.  Neither Rossi nor 
Darden are that naïve. Meow!

 

 

From: Jed Rothwell [mailto:jedrothw...@gmail.com  
] 
Sent: Thursday, March 10, 2016 8:32 AM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com  
Subject: [Vo]:Statement from Industrial Heat

 

[Marianne Macy asked me to post this]

 

The following statement has been released from Industrial Heat for Infinite 
Energy Magazine today, March 10, 2016.   —Marianne Macy

 

Statement of Industrial Heat Regarding LENR Industry Developments

 

March 10, 2016

 

Industrial Heat’s objective is to make clean, safe and affordable energy 
available everywhere, and in doing this we want to build a company that 
demonstrates respect for all. LENR is a key focus of Industrial Heat and we 
believe multiple technologies in this sector warrant further investigation and 
development.

 

Industrial Heat has licensed, acquired or invested in several LENR technologies 
from around the world. We have developed a group of LENR thought leaders, and 
we have built a world-class engineering team. We are pleased with the 
technologies we have assembled and with the group of scientists and engineers 
working on them. Presently, the Industrial Heat team is in the midst of 
assessing and prioritizing the technologies in our portfolio.

 

Our operating philosophy is to foster scientific and engineering rigor in the 
development of LENR. We will thoroughly assess data derived from sound 
experiments which we design, control and 

Re: [Vo]:Cellani replication 'flea bitten' lenr radiation NOT

[Axil Axil]

It is possible that the powder of dust under discussion is produced by
the LENR device. It is also possible that both Radon and the LENR
device are producing reactive dust.

The LENR dust could be metalized hydrogen that is not properly
confined by the LENR device. There have been experiments that have
checked how to confined LENR reactive dust. In terms of confinement,
steel works and aluminum does not confine this LENR dust.

The wire reactor is confined using quartz. This experiment should be
done using steel confinement. It is possible that when very hot
hydrogen will pass through steel.

On Thu, Mar 10, 2016 at 2:43 PM, Jones Beene  wrote:
> -Original Message-
> From: H LV
>
>> Since the apparatus was not enclosed in a calorimeter, Thermacore's estimate 
>> for excess heat production depends on the assumption that the "heat loss to 
>> the environment"  is the same for the calibration runs and the active runs.
>
> Yes, but that parameter can be accurately controlled and measured by skilled 
> experts.
>
> Thermacore is possibly the leading expert in the world at heat measurement. 
> They invented the heat pipe, for instance. Thermal engineering is their 
> specialty.
>

RE: [Vo]:Cellani replication 'flea bitten' lenr radiation NOT

[Jones Beene]

-Original Message-
From: H LV 

> Since the apparatus was not enclosed in a calorimeter, Thermacore's estimate 
> for excess heat production depends on the assumption that the "heat loss to 
> the environment"  is the same for the calibration runs and the active runs.

Yes, but that parameter can be accurately controlled and measured by skilled 
experts. 

Thermacore is possibly the leading expert in the world at heat measurement. 
They invented the heat pipe, for instance. Thermal engineering is their 
specialty.

Re: [Vo]:Statement from Industrial Heat

[Lennart Thornros]

I think you are right Russ. However, I do not thing that rumors by 'fans'
or negative statements (a la Ahern) has any impact on IH's statements. I
read the statement as background to admit problems and to induce a positive
climate for the benefits shown by this long (and costly) test. They can
hardly continue to send money into a total failure. They would have
abandoned the test long time ago if it did not show indications of a
possible good outcome.

Next step is going to take some serious capital. They will need to raise
that capital one way or the other (sell the concept, develop the market and
distribution etc.) I think the statement is there to keep the interest up
until they want to produce the result. I can see a lot of reason why they
want to delay ( patents, negotiations with third party etc.)

I do not read the statement as preparation for a negative report. Why would
they have to prepare for that? They hopefully have better ways to
communicate with the investors than by making general statements. Negative
results would have been shared with major investors long time ago.

I do not know if Peter Gluck's number is correct. Does it matter? It is a
report built on rumors and therefore we cannot evaluate it - we do not know
the source. It could be IH making sure that they get attention.:)

Best Regards ,
Lennart Thornros


lenn...@thornros.com
+1 916 436 1899

Whatever you vividly imagine, ardently desire, sincerely believe and
enthusiastically act upon, must inevitably come to pass. (PJM)


On Thu, Mar 10, 2016 at 10:16 AM, Russ George  wrote:

> It's clear they (IH & Rossi) are not happy with Peter Gluck's (and others)
> speculative boosterism post(s)/reports on the effectiveness of the e-cat
> extended mewling test. Rossie and IH are clearly out to monetize whatever
> tech they have and offering the details to competitors as all of the social
> media caterwauling calls for is not the smart path. Doing what e-cat fans
> and groupies (and competitors) call for would certainly be evidence of not
> showing legally mandated fiduciary responsibility to their investors and
> stock-holders. In fact they risk staggering legal challenges and costs with
> regard to breaching their fiduciary responsibility to their investors
> regardless of whether such legal challenges even see a court room or not.
> Neither Rossi nor Darden are that naïve. Meow!
>
>
>
>
>
> *From:* Jed Rothwell [mailto:jedrothw...@gmail.com]
> *Sent:* Thursday, March 10, 2016 8:32 AM
> *To:* vortex-l@eskimo.com
> *Subject:* [Vo]:Statement from Industrial Heat
>
>
>
> [Marianne Macy asked me to post this]
>
>
>
> The following statement has been released from Industrial Heat for
> Infinite Energy Magazine today, March 10, 2016.   —Marianne Macy
>
>
>
> Statement of Industrial Heat Regarding LENR Industry Developments
>
>
>
> March 10, 2016
>
>
>
> Industrial Heat’s objective is to make clean, safe and affordable energy
> available everywhere, and in doing this we want to build a company that
> demonstrates respect for all. LENR is a key focus of Industrial Heat and we
> believe multiple technologies in this sector warrant further investigation
> and development.
>
>
>
> Industrial Heat has licensed, acquired or invested in several LENR
> technologies from around the world. We have developed a group of LENR
> thought leaders, and we have built a world-class engineering team. We are
> pleased with the technologies we have assembled and with the group of
> scientists and engineers working on them. Presently, the Industrial Heat
> team is in the midst of assessing and prioritizing the technologies in our
> portfolio.
>
>
>
> Our operating philosophy is to foster scientific and engineering rigor in
> the development of LENR. We will thoroughly assess data derived from sound
> experiments which we design, control and monitor.
>
>
>
> Embracing failure as well as success is important, because we learn from
> both. Unfortunately, there is a long and continuing pattern of premature
> proclamations in the LENR sector.
>
>
>
> Because of this, we encourage open-minded skepticism. We believe society
> suffers when technological advances and innovative experimentation are
> stifled; likewise, society and the industry suffer when results are
> promoted and claims are made without rigorous verification and precise
> measurement.
>
>
>
> We value credibility through sound LENR research. That’s why any claims
> made about technologies in our portfolio should only be relied upon if
> affirmed by Industrial Heat and backed by reputable third parties who have
> verified our results in repeated experiments.
>
>
>
> Our portfolio of work has never been stronger and we remain excited about
> the potential we see. This optimism is grounded in more than just hope, yet
> a great deal of work remains. The energy challenges of today must be met
> with viable, clean, safe and affordable solutions.
>
>
>

RE: [Vo]:Statement from Industrial Heat

[Jones Beene]

-Original Message-
From: Craig Haynie 

> Reading between the lines... Does it sound like they're preparing us for a 
> negative report on Rossi's one year test?

Yes

RE: [Vo]: Radon not a likely explanation for GS5.2

[Jones Beene]

Good work Bob.

 

Eliminating a possible radon signal will make a stronger case from gammas when 
the experiment is replicated. Russ’s suggestion is wise… the Aware device is 
also worth buying as it is simple, responsive and permits data-logging of 
radiation in another way which will overlap with the NaI.

 

 

From: Russ George 

 

Interesting work. One simple thing to perhaps try is to set up a ‘radon flea’ 
trap at the lab, capture some ‘fleas’ and examine their spectra with the 
instrument. This comparison would settle this question one way or the other 
pretty quick and easy.

 

The fellow who runs Aware Electronics and make Geigers has pages and pages of 
info on catching and examining radon fleas.  http://www.aw-el.com

 

Russ

 

From: Bob Higgins 

 

Based on comments from Jones and others, I have done some analysis to determine 
if the GS5.2 signal in Spectrum-07 could have come from gamma produced from 
radon gas decay progeny.  First, Alan Goldwater produced a map showing the 
areas where radon levels were high in his area.  In the area of his lab, radon 
levels are low, but they are higher where Jeff Morris did his work.  Internet 
participant, Ecco, found a plot of gamma emissions from radon progeny - I put 
it here:  

   https://drive.google.com/open?id=0B5Pc25a4cOM2cnV6U0V5Z3MxSXM

I took this graph, digitized it, calibrated the energy scale, and resampled it 
to the same energy scale and samples as the GS5.2 Spectrum-07 calibrated signal 
data.  Then I hypothesized, what if the Spectrum-07 signal came from radon?  
So, I normalized the radon progeny spectrum to have the same total counts as 
the Spectrum-07 signal and overlaid the two on the same graph.  You can find 
the high resolution graph here:

   https://drive.google.com/open?id=0B5Pc25a4cOM2Yk8xQlNZOHo3ZVk

I am going to try to include a small version of the graph in this email, but I 
am not it will be passed on:


​

What can be seen in the overlay is that the two spectra are clearly different.  
If the GS5.2 Spectrum-07 signal were due to radon progeny gamma, a distinct 
peak would have been seen at 610 keV, and by contrast, the GS5.2 Spectrum-07 
signal is clearly smooth.

 

Re: [Vo]:Progress in humanoid robots

[H LV]

Great. Here is an American interviewing a Canadian about an upcoming
Basic income experiment in Ontario, Canada.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Okx60F3eHpo

Harry

On Sun, Mar 6, 2016 at 11:17 PM, Lennart Thornros  wrote:
> Harry,
> I liked the discussion.
> There was much to take from this debate.
> Just as important is to change the tax  system and the power distribution.
> Obviously a progressive tax system but a smooth progress. Take away all
> deductions and tax all type of income equally.
> Eliminate all double taxation.
> The definition of work needs to be looked upon with reality in mind.
> When the garbage workers go on strike it is an emergency after a week or
> two.
> When the bankers went on strike in Ireland everything went on as usual and
> after six months the bankers began work again.
> There is work and then there is work.
> Finland an Switzerland are considering seriously to implement the idea.
> I suppose the US should try at least to look into the issue. We certainly
> have a more complicated social system than most European countries.
> The debate showed that there are not without problem to implement something
> like basic income.
> Unfortunately there is a lot of people that think a step wise change would
> be good.
> It reminds me of the proposal when Sweden went from left to right side
> driving in -67; "why don't we start with the trucks?"
> We have a tendency to overthink things. In Switzerland they talk about 2,500
> CH franken (CHF) per adult and 800 CHF for children.
> I think that type of complication will open up for complications.
> Anyhow, the debate was good. I think we need something to make things more
> equal all over the world.
> I think the timing is ripe. Just like all changes it has resistance.
>
> Best Regards ,
> Lennart Thornros
>
>
> lenn...@thornros.com
> +1 916 436 1899
>
> Whatever you vividly imagine, ardently desire, sincerely believe and
> enthusiastically act upon, must inevitably come to pass. (PJM)
>
>
> On Sun, Mar 6, 2016 at 5:23 PM, H LV  wrote:
>>
>> http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/p03kptyk
>> BBC audio
>> What if governments paid all their citizens a basic income? Whether
>> rich or poor, you would receive the same amount of money, and you
>> would keep it whether you went out to work and received a salary or
>> not. It is an idea that has been around for centuries, but one that
>> has been gaining traction in recent times as welfare payments become
>> ever more complex and expensive to administer. Proponents also argue
>> that it would remove the 'poverty trap' where people are dissuaded
>> from seeking work because they would lose their benefits if they did
>> so. There is also the issue of machines taking over many of the jobs
>> that we all do to earn a living - not just basic manual tasks, but
>> increasingly 'intelligent' work that will in the future be carried out
>> by robots. Join Owen Bennett Jones and his panel of expert guests as
>> they discuss the future of work and how we pay for it. Should we give
>> free money to everyone and let robots take the strain?
>>
>

RE: [Vo]:Statement from Industrial Heat

[Russ George]

It's clear they (IH & Rossi) are not happy with Peter Gluck's (and others) 
speculative boosterism post(s)/reports on the effectiveness of the e-cat 
extended mewling test. Rossie and IH are clearly out to monetize whatever tech 
they have and offering the details to competitors as all of the social media 
caterwauling calls for is not the smart path. Doing what e-cat fans and 
groupies (and competitors) call for would certainly be evidence of not showing 
legally mandated fiduciary responsibility to their investors and stock-holders. 
In fact they risk staggering legal challenges and costs with regard to 
breaching their fiduciary responsibility to their investors regardless of 
whether such legal challenges even see a court room or not.  Neither Rossi nor 
Darden are that naïve. Meow!

 

 

From: Jed Rothwell [mailto:jedrothw...@gmail.com] 
Sent: Thursday, March 10, 2016 8:32 AM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Subject: [Vo]:Statement from Industrial Heat

 

[Marianne Macy asked me to post this]

 

The following statement has been released from Industrial Heat for Infinite 
Energy Magazine today, March 10, 2016.   —Marianne Macy

 

Statement of Industrial Heat Regarding LENR Industry Developments

 

March 10, 2016

 

Industrial Heat’s objective is to make clean, safe and affordable energy 
available everywhere, and in doing this we want to build a company that 
demonstrates respect for all. LENR is a key focus of Industrial Heat and we 
believe multiple technologies in this sector warrant further investigation and 
development.

 

Industrial Heat has licensed, acquired or invested in several LENR technologies 
from around the world. We have developed a group of LENR thought leaders, and 
we have built a world-class engineering team. We are pleased with the 
technologies we have assembled and with the group of scientists and engineers 
working on them. Presently, the Industrial Heat team is in the midst of 
assessing and prioritizing the technologies in our portfolio.

 

Our operating philosophy is to foster scientific and engineering rigor in the 
development of LENR. We will thoroughly assess data derived from sound 
experiments which we design, control and monitor. 

 

Embracing failure as well as success is important, because we learn from both. 
Unfortunately, there is a long and continuing pattern of premature 
proclamations in the LENR sector. 

 

Because of this, we encourage open-minded skepticism. We believe society 
suffers when technological advances and innovative experimentation are stifled; 
likewise, society and the industry suffer when results are promoted and claims 
are made without rigorous verification and precise measurement.

 

We value credibility through sound LENR research. That’s why any claims made 
about technologies in our portfolio should only be relied upon if affirmed by 
Industrial Heat and backed by reputable third parties who have verified our 
results in repeated experiments.

 

Our portfolio of work has never been stronger and we remain excited about the 
potential we see. This optimism is grounded in more than just hope, yet a great 
deal of work remains. The energy challenges of today must be met with viable, 
clean, safe and affordable solutions.

 

RE: [Vo]: Radon not a likely explanation for GS5.2

[Russ George]

Interesting work. One simple thing to perhaps try is to set up a ‘radon flea’ 
trap at the lab, capture some ‘fleas’ and examine their spectra with the 
instrument. This comparison would settle this question one way or the other 
pretty quick and easy.

 

The fellow who runs Aware Electronics and make Geigers has pages and pages of 
info on catching and examining radon fleas.  http://www.aw-el.com

 

Russ

 

From: Bob Higgins [mailto:rj.bob.higg...@gmail.com] 
Sent: Thursday, March 10, 2016 7:50 AM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Subject: [Vo]: Radon not a likely explanation for GS5.2

 

Based on comments from Jones and others, I have done some analysis to determine 
if the GS5.2 signal in Spectrum-07 could have come from gamma produced from 
radon gas decay progeny.  First, Alan Goldwater produced a map showing the 
areas where radon levels were high in his area.  In the area of his lab, radon 
levels are low, but they are higher where Jeff Morris did his work.  Internet 
participant, Ecco, found a plot of gamma emissions from radon progeny - I put 
it here:  

   https://drive.google.com/open?id=0B5Pc25a4cOM2cnV6U0V5Z3MxSXM

I took this graph, digitized it, calibrated the energy scale, and resampled it 
to the same energy scale and samples as the GS5.2 Spectrum-07 calibrated signal 
data.  Then I hypothesized, what if the Spectrum-07 signal came from radon?  
So, I normalized the radon progeny spectrum to have the same total counts as 
the Spectrum-07 signal and overlaid the two on the same graph.  You can find 
the high resolution graph here:

   https://drive.google.com/open?id=0B5Pc25a4cOM2Yk8xQlNZOHo3ZVk

I am going to try to include a small version of the graph in this email, but I 
am not it will be passed on:


​

What can be seen in the overlay is that the two spectra are clearly different.  
If the GS5.2 Spectrum-07 signal were due to radon progeny gamma, a distinct 
peak would have been seen at 610 keV, and by contrast, the GS5.2 Spectrum-07 
signal is clearly smooth.

 

Re: [Vo]:Statement from Industrial Heat

[Craig Haynie]

Reading between the lines... Does it sound like they're preparing us for
a negative report on Rossi's one year test?

Craig

On Thu, 2016-03-10 at 11:32 -0500, Jed Rothwell wrote:
> [Marianne Macy asked me to post this]
> 
> 
> The following statement has been released from Industrial Heat for
> Infinite Energy Magazine today, March 10, 2016.   —Marianne Macy
> 
> 
> Statement of Industrial Heat Regarding LENR Industry Developments
> 
> 
> March 10, 2016
> 
> 
> Industrial Heat’s objective is to make clean, safe and affordable
> energy available everywhere, and in doing this we want to build a
> company that demonstrates respect for all. LENR is a key focus of
> Industrial Heat and we believe multiple technologies in this sector
> warrant further investigation and development.
> 
> 
> Industrial Heat has licensed, acquired or invested in several LENR
> technologies from around the world. We have developed a group of LENR
> thought leaders, and we have built a world-class engineering team. We
> are pleased with the technologies we have assembled and with the group
> of scientists and engineers working on them. Presently, the Industrial
> Heat team is in the midst of assessing and prioritizing the
> technologies in our portfolio.
> 
> 
> Our operating philosophy is to foster scientific and engineering rigor
> in the development of LENR. We will thoroughly assess data derived
> from sound experiments which we design, control and monitor. 
> 
> 
> Embracing failure as well as success is important, because we learn
> from both. Unfortunately, there is a long and continuing pattern of
> premature proclamations in the LENR sector. 
> 
> 
> Because of this, we encourage open-minded skepticism. We believe
> society suffers when technological advances and innovative
> experimentation are stifled; likewise, society and the industry suffer
> when results are promoted and claims are made without rigorous
> verification and precise measurement.
> 
> 
> We value credibility through sound LENR research. That’s why any
> claims made about technologies in our portfolio should only be relied
> upon if affirmed by Industrial Heat and backed by reputable third
> parties who have verified our results in repeated experiments.
> 
> 
> Our portfolio of work has never been stronger and we remain excited
> about the potential we see. This optimism is grounded in more than
> just hope, yet a great deal of work remains. The energy challenges of
> today must be met with viable, clean, safe and affordable solutions.
> 
> 

Re: [Vo]:Cellani replication 'flea bitten' lenr radiation NOT

[H LV]

Since the apparatus was not enclosed in a calorimeter, Thermacore's
estimate for excess heat production depends on the assumption that the
"heat loss to the environment"  is the same for the calibration runs
and the active runs.

Harry

On Wed, Mar 9, 2016 at 11:15 PM, Jones Beene  wrote:
> Here is the relevant citation from the LENR-CANR library – it is one of the
> strongest demonstrations of Ni-H out there, in the sense of the credibility
> of the High Technology company doing the work, and acceptance by the funder
> (USAF - WRIGHT-PATTERSON) and the fact they ran a similar experiment for
> over a year of gain. Modest gain but solid proof.
>
> http://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/GernertNnascenthyd.pdf
>
> I would be extremely happy if Rossi’s result was the same range of COP (1.5)
> as long as the proof was as verifiable as this.
>
> One has to wonder about the credibility of an anonymous poster who claims to
> get excess heat in a Celani experiment, publishes no data, and instead of
> using Constantin wire as does Celani – he uses nickel. Or is the data and
> other details posted somewhere?
>
> At best - that makes it a Thermacore experiment, which actually gives it
> more credibility than Celani. But it should not be confused with Celani
> where the wire treatment is said to be critical.
>
> There is no doubt that Thermacore had about the same gain using nickel and
> also could not make it go higher than about COP ~1.5.
>
> From: Jack Cole
>
> me356 seems fairly certain about getting excess heat repeatedly in Celani
> type experiments (up to 1.5x).  He does mention using 30ft of wire!  Maybe
> that matters.
>
> https://www.lenr-forum.com/forum/index.php/Thread/2850-me356-Celani-Ni-Wire-replication/?pageNo=1
>
> Andrew Hrischanovich also reports achieving 1.5x in Celani type experiments
> and notes higher pressure seemed to help ~10 bar.  In personal
> communication, he indicates being unable to push it beyond that and is
> currently focused on TiH2.
>
> http://www.e-catworld.com/2016/02/05/tales-from-the-laboratory-of-experimental-physics-lenr-research-in-ukraine-and-russia-by-andrew-hrischanovich-alan-smith/
>
> Of course as we have seen time and again, there is often something
> discovered which invalidates the results.
>
> Jack
>
>

[Vo]:vital difference: LENR vs. LENR+

[Peter Gluck]

http://egooutpeters.blogspot.ro/2016/03/mar-10-2016-lenr-live-difference.html

a few documents to be studied and interpreted...

Peter

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

[Vo]:Statement from Industrial Heat

[Jed Rothwell]

[Marianne Macy asked me to post this]

The following statement has been released from Industrial Heat for Infinite
Energy Magazine today, March 10, 2016.   —Marianne Macy

Statement of Industrial Heat Regarding LENR Industry Developments

March 10, 2016

Industrial Heat’s objective is to make clean, safe and affordable energy
available everywhere, and in doing this we want to build a company that
demonstrates respect for all. LENR is a key focus of Industrial Heat and we
believe multiple technologies in this sector warrant further investigation
and development.

Industrial Heat has licensed, acquired or invested in several LENR
technologies from around the world. We have developed a group of LENR
thought leaders, and we have built a world-class engineering team. We are
pleased with the technologies we have assembled and with the group of
scientists and engineers working on them. Presently, the Industrial Heat
team is in the midst of assessing and prioritizing the technologies in our
portfolio.

Our operating philosophy is to foster scientific and engineering rigor in
the development of LENR. We will thoroughly assess data derived from sound
experiments which we design, control and monitor.

Embracing failure as well as success is important, because we learn from
both. Unfortunately, there is a long and continuing pattern of premature
proclamations in the LENR sector.

Because of this, we encourage open-minded skepticism. We believe society
suffers when technological advances and innovative experimentation are
stifled; likewise, society and the industry suffer when results are
promoted and claims are made without rigorous verification and precise
measurement.

We value credibility through sound LENR research. That’s why any claims
made about technologies in our portfolio should only be relied upon if
affirmed by Industrial Heat and backed by reputable third parties who have
verified our results in repeated experiments.

Our portfolio of work has never been stronger and we remain excited about
the potential we see. This optimism is grounded in more than just hope, yet
a great deal of work remains. The energy challenges of today must be met
with viable, clean, safe and affordable solutions.

[Vo]: Radon not a likely explanation for GS5.2

[Bob Higgins]

Based on comments from Jones and others, I have done some analysis to
determine if the GS5.2 signal in Spectrum-07 could have come from gamma
produced from radon gas decay progeny.  First, Alan Goldwater produced a
map showing the areas where radon levels were high in his area.  In the
area of his lab, radon levels are low, but they are higher where Jeff
Morris did his work.  Internet participant, Ecco, found a plot of gamma
emissions from radon progeny - I put it here:

   https://drive.google.com/open?id=0B5Pc25a4cOM2cnV6U0V5Z3MxSXM

I took this graph, digitized it, calibrated the energy scale, and resampled
it to the same energy scale and samples as the GS5.2 Spectrum-07 calibrated
signal data.  Then I hypothesized, what if the Spectrum-07 signal came from
radon?  So, I normalized the radon progeny spectrum to have the same total
counts as the Spectrum-07 signal and overlaid the two on the same graph.
You can find the high resolution graph here:

   https://drive.google.com/open?id=0B5Pc25a4cOM2Yk8xQlNZOHo3ZVk

I am going to try to include a small version of the graph in this email,
but I am not it will be passed on:


​
What can be seen in the overlay is that the two spectra are clearly
different.  If the GS5.2 Spectrum-07 signal were due to radon progeny
gamma, a distinct peak would have been seen at 610 keV, and by contrast,
the GS5.2 Spectrum-07 signal is clearly smooth.

Re: [Vo]:Cellani replication 'flea bitten' lenr radiation NOT

[Jack Cole]

It is interesting.  And 500' of nickel tubing is far beyond the amount of
nickel used in any experiment I've seen.

On Wed, Mar 9, 2016 at 10:15 PM Jones Beene  wrote:

> Here is the relevant citation from the LENR-CANR library – it is one of
> the strongest demonstrations of Ni-H out there, in the sense of the
> credibility of the High Technology company doing the work, and acceptance
> by the funder (USAF - WRIGHT-PATTERSON) and the fact they ran a similar
> experiment for over a year of gain. Modest gain but solid proof.
>
> *http://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/GernertNnascenthyd.pdf*
> 
>
> I would be extremely happy if Rossi’s result was the same range of COP
> (1.5) as long as the proof was as verifiable as this.
>
> One has to wonder about the credibility of an anonymous poster who claims
> to get excess heat in a Celani experiment, publishes no data, and instead
> of using Constantin wire as does Celani – he uses nickel. Or is the data
> and other details posted somewhere?
>
> At best - that makes it a Thermacore experiment, which actually gives it
> more credibility than Celani. But it should not be confused with Celani
> where the wire treatment is said to be critical.
>
> There is no doubt that Thermacore had about the same gain using nickel and
> also could not make it go higher than about COP ~1.5.
>
> *From:* Jack Cole
>
> me356 seems fairly certain about getting excess heat repeatedly in Celani
> type experiments (up to 1.5x).  He does mention using 30ft of wire!  Maybe
> that matters.
>
>
> *https://www.lenr-forum.com/forum/index.php/Thread/2850-me356-Celani-Ni-Wire-replication/?pageNo=1*
> 
>
> Andrew Hrischanovich also reports achieving 1.5x in Celani type
> experiments and notes higher pressure seemed to help ~10 bar.  In personal
> communication, he indicates being unable to push it beyond that and is
> currently focused on TiH2.
>
>
> *http://www.e-catworld.com/2016/02/05/tales-from-the-laboratory-of-experimental-physics-lenr-research-in-ukraine-and-russia-by-andrew-hrischanovich-alan-smith/*
> 
>
> Of course as we have seen time and again, there is often something
> discovered which invalidates the results.
>
> Jack
>
>
>

[Vo]:Politicians and Clean Energy

[Chris Zell]

Clean energy and jobs?  Once Upon a Time, there were coal miners who were well 
paid in large part because a previous generation paid a price in blood for 
unionization.
They heap the coal onto railroad cars - also operated, quite often by well paid 
union members.
After that, the coal is off-loaded by well paid utility workers into boilers to 
make electricity.

Then they installed windmills and after the temp jobs in their construction 
ended,  all of the above got fired and  an IT guy manages loads on a computer.  
Once a year or so, a maintenance guy works on the windmill.
And that's that.

In the years that followed, pundits and other famous commentators expressed 
puzzlement as to why so many voters were so angry. A mystery, they said.

Re: [Vo]:Politicians beginning to count on "clean energy" for job creation

[Alain Sepeda]

note that Russia, and especially Putin have an agenda to reduce dependency
of Russian economy to oil. Ther was some success, ane recent embargo did
much to help, but this is still very insufficient.

Oil rent is a trap, anyone with some vision of history know that it is a
cursed resource, far more than the Dutch disease.
It promotes concentrated easy resources, increase corruption, increase
strategic dependency (operators and clients), reduce employability of
workforce

2016-03-09 18:23 GMT+01:00 Lennart Thornros :

> Jed,
> Why do you think it is OK that people in Russia and Saudi loses job. I
> could accept your idea 100 years ago as an egoistical stance. Today it does
> not even have that excuse. We live in an interconnected world.
> Now I think there will be transfer of work due to introduction of LENR.
> Reality is that the 'winners' will have to support the 'losers'. This
> transfer will create jobs just in the transfer. Then you will find that
> what was not so plausible before will now be very much an option. For
> example with very low energy cost we here in CA would rather build
> desalination plants in South CA then try to import water from far away.
> Thus creating development jobs, construction jobs, maintenance jobs etc.
> I have said it before it is not a zero sum game. On the contrary lower
> cost, more effective solutions opens up new ways to do things.
> I do think you are right in that many (particularly trade unions and the
> political establishment) will cry over what might be lost, because they
> cannot see outside there own little box. Everything outside is unknown and
> scary.
>
> Best Regards ,
> Lennart Thornros
>
>
> lenn...@thornros.com
> +1 916 436 1899
>
> Whatever you vividly imagine, ardently desire, sincerely believe and
> enthusiastically act upon, must inevitably come to pass. (PJM)
>
>
> On Wed, Mar 9, 2016 at 7:23 AM, Jed Rothwell 
> wrote:
>
>> Not to introduce politics but . . .
>>
>> A Clinton campaign spokesperson is quoted in the news today: "We think
>> that she came into Michigan with a very strong economic agenda and message
>> about how she would create jobs and put manufacturing sector around clean
>> energy . . ."
>>
>> I think people in both parties are starting to say this. They are
>> justified. Alternative energy is labor-intensive. It now employs more
>> people than coal mining. That is one of the reasons wind and solar remain
>> more expensive than coal-fired electricity. (They are arguably less
>> expensive when you take into account the cost of pollution and global
>> warming, but the immediate costs are higher.)
>>
>> From our point of view, the problem with this is that cold fusion will
>> not be labor-intensive. On the contrary, it will wipe out all jobs related
>> to energy. It will take only a few thousand people to implement. Most of
>> them will be researchers, who are seldom paid much money. Cold fusion will
>> wipe out an entire sector of the economy. Whether it will add new sectors
>> remains to be seen.
>>
>> This means that cold fusion will have yet another built-in enemy as soon
>> as it emerges from the laboratory. Yet another vested interest will be
>> opposed to it. Not only will it face opposition from fossil fuels, wind
>> solar and other alternative energy, but also from organized labor and
>> politicians in both parties who want to "preserve jobs."
>>
>> My guess is that in the long term cold fusion may create new industries,
>> but in the first twenty years it is used, it will mainly reduce expenses.
>> When you save money, someone else loses income. You may spend that money
>> elsewhere, but in the meanwhile someone, somewhere is hurt. In the case of
>> fossil fuels, many of the people who will lose income are in Saudi Arabia
>> and Russia. I do not feel sorry for them.
>>
>> - Jed
>>
>>
>