[Vo]:Rossi's 3rd party test - Review
Can we discuss the content of this report? Let me start with thanking our Italian and Swedish colleagues for this detailed and comprehensive report, its a great report that deserves detailed analysis and critical review. My perspective on the issue of cold fusion, LENR or unknown energy source is that no-body can proof it's in-existence; not by failed experiments nor by theory. Failed experiments are never performed correctly and all theory is, by definition, based on known experiments. On the other hand, practically, it is not so useful to believe in the existence of anything that has not been proven. I think the current report by Levi et. al. justifies more investigation. The test report by Levi et. al. describes two tests of a Rossi device, called E-Cat, one test performed in December with a limited number of observers and one performed in March with a larger number of observers. Each test lasted for about 4 days and comprised of measuring the electric power going in and the thermal power going out. An excess in power-out is than claimed to be anomalous. To be truly anomalous its generally assumed that one needs to prove all of the following: -1- There is excess energy -2- This excess is more than could be stored within the reactor by conventional fuels such as chemical or nuclear fission components -3- The ratio of energy input over output, the COP, is more than a factor 2.5 Only 0.3 grams (or 1 gram including an error marge) of reactor material is unknown and secret while the rest of the reactor was inspected by all observers and deemed to be not a fuel. With the long operation time of the tests this potential amount of conventional fuel is insignificant, 0.003 kWh on a total of about 150 kWh. This means we don't need to test for point 2, provided excess energy was established well within the error bars of the measurement method. Since the test setup is evaluating thermal output as the measure for energy one needs to ensure this heat is not extracted from the environment. It is often assumed that this can best be proven with an excess energy of more than what is achievable with a Carnot cycle. While a COP of more than 2.5 to 3 would proof that an ordinary heat-pump scheme is not at play, it is not a necessary proof. Any implementation of a Carnot cycle heat pump needs, by definition, a cold side to extract heat from the environment. With the setup described in this report there is no reason to suspect a hidden form of heat extraction as a cold side would be obvious to any observer. Therefore we don't need to check for point 3 of the above, provided, again, that excess energy was established. Another reason to require a COP of more than 2.5 is an economical end technological reason. Because the E-Cat has a high-entropy input (electricity) and a low-entropy output (heat), efficiency losses need to be offset to make the E-Cat a truly economical and technological advance. This is a purely technological and economical argument and irrelevant in the determination of whether we have a truly anomalous energy source. Moreover, while at this stage of scientific discovery it is impossible to predict technological impact it is safe to say that an anomalous energy source of the claimed proportions will be an epic disruption. Remains to proof the excess energy, output energy more than the input energy and more than all potential measurement errors combined. I see no potential problems with the measurement method of the input energy. A simple and straightforward commercial apparatus is used, the application is simple and well within the capabilities of the instrument. Measurement of output energy is where problems arise. An IR camera is used to measure the intensity of IR radiation emitted from the reactor geometry. The IR intensity is than related to temperature through Planck's equation and than again related to power through Black-body radiation. This is a highly inaccurate method, black body radiation depends on temperature to the fourth power - A tiny error in the determined temperature will cause a huge error in the obtained power. Another error comes from the emissivity, no object is a truly Black body and estimations need to be made. The report quotes to be conservative with choosing a high emissivity of 1, which indeed relates to the lowest possible temperature, but fails to explain how such emissivity choice impacts the calculated radiation power. It is further unclear how the IR camera works, whether it measures IR intensity a a narrow bandwidth, at a wide bandwidth or whether it measures the center wavelength. Fortunately a blanco or dummy test was performed validating the method in exactly the power regime of interest. Indeed a measured temperature of 300 C equaled a power input and output of 800 Watt and indeed related, using the same assumptions, to a calculated power of 750 Watt. Since the performed test with loaded E-Cat's resulted in about the same temperature with only 1/3 of the input
[Vo]:Announcing Fusion-Base
We're proud to announce a new section on our website, the Fusion Base. With Fusion Base we aim to collect information on all companies active in the field of Low Energy Nuclear Reactions. While the rest of us is arguing whether Cold Fusion can exist, may exist or should exist, some people have already started in the direction they believe in. With this directory we aim to serve a comprehensive overview of all ventures, from start-ups to multinationals, that make a significant effort on bringing LENR technology to the market. Central in this directory are LENR patents as we believe they will play a key role in enabling the commercialization of the technology and further development of intelectual property rights. To help weed-out the existing base of patents we have teamed up with IP expert Rob Woudenberg ... More: http://www.fusioncatalyst.org/2012/07/announcing-fusion-base/
Re: [Vo]:Rossi catalyst-fuel speculation
Bob, Thanks for sharing. As you know, but other vortexers might not know, I am following roughly the same path. See also fusioncatalyst.org, if you like to join this crowd science approach. In addition to oxidation/reduction/melting cycles I believe carbon may play a role as it is active in oxidation and reduction reactions and reported to work in other LENR experiments (Lesley Case). K2CO3 is also repeatedly reported to be of influence in LENR reports. Elements that are known catalyst in chemistry and hydrogenation reactions are Pt, Pd, Rh, Ru and Ni. Note that catalyzation in chemistry is poorly understood at the microscopic level, possibly similar process play a role in catalyzation as in LENR. Interesting in this regard is hydrogen embrittlement, the effect that some stainless steels, especially Ni rich ones, sometimes fail to contain high pressure hydrogen. An unsolved mystery in 'normal' science. Cheers, Bastiaan. www.FusionCatalyst.org On 7/17/12, Jojo Jaro jth...@hotmail.com wrote: Thanks for sharing your process. Interesting. What is your proposed mechanism for the actual fusion? Do you have a hypothesis? I have done a similar process, but different, with no positive news to report. The process I have tried involved the Mircrowave Sintering of Nickel and Copper nanopowders in open air to result in oxidation which was then heated in an H2 atmosphere to reduce the oxides. But frankly, I have not been able to develop this process further as I had to postpone my experiments due to other considerations. When I get back, I will dedicate more time and effort into Carbon nanostructures than this path. It seems Carbon nanostructures are more promising NAEs. But, you might be on to something here. Jojo - Original Message - From: Bob Higgins To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Wednesday, July 18, 2012 1:22 AM Subject: [Vo]:Rossi catalyst-fuel speculation Since Rossi’s public display of his reactor and subsequent discussions of his technology, I have been anxious to reproduce his results – primarily just to know that it is a real phenomenon. I listen to the excellent exchanges on Vortex and have learned much from the posts here. As I continue down the path of trying to understand what Rossi, and potentially DGT have done, several people have asked me what I believe to be the catalyst-fuel that is used in Rossi’s and DGT reactors. To further stimulate open thought and development of a Rossi/DGT reproduction, I would like to share my thoughts on the catalyst fuel with Vortex and ask for your constructive feedback. Further, if you should try this and find excess heat, in the same spirit, please share your results with the rest of us. Some of this is re-hash of what has been previously posted on Vortex and some is my speculation of what Rossi has done. Just to be clear – I am speculating about Mr. Rossi’s invention and I salute his ingenuity and engineering. Clearly the bulk of the material is a NICKEL powder. I hear some speculations that the catalyst-fuel may be nickel nanopower – I believe this is clearly not Rossi’s catalyst-fuel. Rossi has said that the nickel powder has micro-dimensions, not nano-dimensions. Rossi says that Raney nickel (high surface area sponge nickel) will not work. I observe that the most likely powder for this application is a nickel powder produced by the reduction of nickel carbonyl (a common process for producing high activity nickel powder). This produces flower-like buds of roughly spherical diameter in the 3-10 micron range with “petals” in the 100 nanometer thickness range. This nickel powder has very high EXTERNAL surface area (as opposed to Raney nickel which has much of its area inside its sponge-like interior). Why the external surface area is important will become clear in a moment. Examples of this type of carbonyl nickel powder are Hunter Chemical’s AH50 (http://www.hunterchem.com/nickel-powder-carbonyl-process-hydrogen-reduced.html ) or Vale T255 (http://www.vale.com/en-us/o-que-fazemos/mineracao/niquel/produtos/Documents/Nickel%20powders/T255-nickel-powder.pdf ). I believe this type of nickel powder is the starting point. Rossi also talks of catalyst additives to the nickel powder. These are widely believed to be a nanopowder additive, but what nanopowder? Rossi states that the catalyst he used is inexpensive. One of the things found by examination of available nanopowders is that metal oxide nanopowders are far less expensive than pure elemental nanopowders. They are also far easier and safer to handle and to mix. Another clue is that partially oxidized (partly reduced) metal oxide nanopowders are good catalysts and will break the H2 molecules into monatomic hydrogen. However, the mean free path of an H1 atom, before recombining to form an H2, is very short. This means that the catalyst should be in direct contact with the nickel. I
Re: [Vo]:Asymmetric Magnetism and Cold Fusion- Brian Ahern
Akira +1 On Tue, Jul 17, 2012 at 9:20 AM, Akira Shirakawa shirakawa.ak...@gmail.comwrote: On 2012-07-17 17:56, Ron Kita wrote: Not sure IF this was posted before: http://www.e-catworld.com/**2012/07/brian-ahern-to-**announce-nanonickel- **breakthrough-is-product-of-**asymmetric-magnetism/http://www.e-catworld.com/2012/07/brian-ahern-to-announce-nanonickel-breakthrough-is-product-of-asymmetric-magnetism/ No, this wasn't posted before. To tell the truth, I was aware of this news, but the lack of detailed information from the event website [1], the apparent unwillingness of mr.Ahern to share more details about his participation to the event or the event itself, and that last year he backed out of a similar one in NYC without plausible explanations made me unsure whether to post it on Vortex-l or not. It appears he will unveil a new theory to explain the mechanism of LENR phenomena, according to which they are not based on nuclear effects, but rather on an asymmetrical magnetism effect (whatever this really means). To be honest, if he's getting significant, repeatable and controllable amounts of excess heat as reported (21 watts), an independent, thorough and undeniable validation of these results alone would already be an extraordinary breakthrough. We're not speaking of sub-watt or milliwatt-level excess heat! This is already something that could be commercially useful (assuming that input energy is a fraction of the output). That Brian Ahern expects the public to take these results for granted and embrace instead yet another theory that should explain for once and for all why LENRs occur... it's a bit of a put off for me to be honest. This is not what we need right now. Just my 2c. Cheers, S.A. [1] http://neny.org/neny/Events/**2012NESymposium.aspxhttp://neny.org/neny/Events/2012NESymposium.aspx
[Vo]:San Fransisco Bay Area LENR meetup
Anyone interested in a local meetup to discuss LENR science, business, advancements and gossip?
Re: [Vo]: European commission recommends funding for LENR research
Anyone an idea who these professionals are who gave the input to the European report? I think its a great step forward, bravo for those individuals and their brave contribution! - Bastiaan. On Thu, Jul 5, 2012 at 12:09 PM, Alan J Fletcher a...@well.com wrote: At 09:46 AM 7/4/2012, Harry Veeder wrote: http://ec.europa.eu/research/industrial_technologies/pdf/emerging-materials-report_en.pdf The effect takes place only with D in Pd, therefore a search for ashes (mainly He and Tritium) have to be included into the research program as a further task in order to define the effect. They don't seem to have heard of H+Ni ** ** (lenr.qumbu.com -- analyzing the Rossi/Focardi eCat -- and the defkalion hyperion -- Hi, google!)
[Vo]:Progress: Hardware Peer Pressure is ready
Hi Group, Just wanted to update you on my plans to replicate cold fusion claims, see http://www.fusioncatalyst.org/2012/04/peer-pressure/ Cheers, Bastiaan.
Re: [Vo]:more bad news
You were right, it was hard, very hard. In fact we needed zillions of 1 micron transistors to be able to make smaller ones. On Fri, Apr 6, 2012 at 12:14 PM, Alain Sepeda alain.sep...@gmail.com wrote: another malthusianst reasoning that will be proved false once again... I was convinced in 85 that it will hard to have transistor below 1µm... I laugh today of my lack of imagination. 2012/4/6 fznidar...@aol.com http://www.popsci.com/science/article/2012-04/new-research-tracks-40-year-old-prediction-world-economy-will-collapse-2030
Re: [Vo]:Plea for math/statistics expertise from RonPaulForums.com
LEAST significant digit. On Mar 16, 2012 2:48 AM, Xavier Luminous xavier.lumin...@googlemail.com wrote: Off the top of my head I'd like to mention that Benford's Law is particularly good at rooting out cheaters. Basically, the most significant digit from a sets of naturally occurring data tends to follow a well known power law distribution. This is true for things like lengths of rivers, street addresses, amounts entered on your taxes, etc. I know they use this in voting already, but I'm not sure exactly how. Would be interesting to see how this works out in this particular case. On Fri, Mar 16, 2012 at 5:03 AM, James Bowery jabow...@gmail.com wrote: The reason I'm posting this to vortex-l is that of all the candidates, the only one that represents a serious threat to establishment science is Ron Paul. The basic story is that a signature of vote flipping has turned up -- and the beneficiary in every case of this signature has been Mitt Romney. This analysis, if validated, could trigger the collapse of the Soviet, er, American Empire. http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?363915-We-NEED-more-hands-on-deck.-Significant-evidence-of-Algorithmic-vote-flipping . The first message is a good synopsis of the current arguments.
Re: [Vo]:To Spark or Not to Spark
I'm interested, where do you share your design? link? Guenter, the idea of an open source LENR project is worthwhile. I have shared my design and will continue to share it in the hopes that it will On Mon, Mar 12, 2012 at 7:40 PM, Jojo Jaro jth...@hotmail.com wrote: Thanks Bastiaan, very informative and timely link. This was just what I was looking for. 0.3 J per spark, means that at 300 hz, I am providing 90W of equivalent resistive heating to the reactor. I believe this should be enough to heat the reator to the necessary temperature to initiate the LENR effect. Guenter, the idea of an open source LENR project is worthwhile. I have shared my design and will continue to share it in the hopes that it will spur greater cooperation. My designs alway use off the shelf parts and pipe fittings you can get from McMaster, Lowe's or Ebay, so they are low cost. My entire setup including the vaccuum pump, the Data logging and all (except supplies) is under $350. My reactor design is disposable, and cost at the most $50 if using the best stainless steel fittings. I do not believe there will be any economies of scale to be had with my design cause they already use the cheapest parts. I think keeping it simple and low cost is one of the keys to successfully replicating Rossi. I wish Bill will consider converting this list into a forum format so that we can share attachments and other files. From: Bastiaan Bergman To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Tuesday, March 13, 2012 4:54 AM Subject: Re: [Vo]:To Spark or Not to Spark And a copy of the paper can be found here : http://www.fusioncatalyst.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/03/A-study-of-a-sparkdischarge-in-hydrogen-at-atmospheric-pressure.pdf On Mar 12, 2012 5:11 AM, Andre Blum andre_vor...@blums.nl wrote: www.fusioncatalyst.org Andre On 03/11/2012 09:20 AM, Guenter Wildgruber wrote: hello guys, just an idea: Working together on an open source-LENR-device. There seems to be quite some knowledge here at vortex, and a couple of people seem to work in their backyard on their own devices. This is suboptimal. How about that: introduce some economy of scale: lets say ten devices, which need not be identical, but have a common base, e.g. nano-Nickel, a certain type of reaction chamber, hydrogen etc. the basic construction could be implemented via division of labour. one builds the basic reaction-chamber, the other procures the nano-Nickel, the third provides for some basic electronics, and so on. It does not make sense to procure nano-Nickel in every individual case. I'm thinking of about maybe ten devices, which share a common design, and can be freeley varied to optimize the effect. The overall concept seems to be straightforward enough, to make this a reasonable approach. It would have the consequence, that nobody can monopolize the technology via patents or secret sausages etc. Waiting for Godot in the form of Rossi or Defkalion otr Miles or McKubre is starting to go onto my nerves. What do You think? Von: Jojo Jaro jth...@hotmail.com An: vortex-l@eskimo.com Gesendet: 11:14 Sonntag, 11.März 2012 Betreff: Re: [Vo]:To Spark or Not to Spark Awesome, Great minds think alike, eh? :-) Let us know how it goes. How are you driving your spark plug? I am planning a simple CDI Electronic Ignition Box for a CRRC-Pro 26cc engine: http://www.ebay.com/itm/130659127048
Re: [Vo]:To Spark or Not to Spark
And a copy of the paper can be found here : http://www.fusioncatalyst.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/03/A-study-of-a-sparkdischarge-in-hydrogen-at-atmospheric-pressure.pdf On Mar 12, 2012 5:11 AM, Andre Blum andre_vor...@blums.nl wrote: www.fusioncatalyst.org Andre On 03/11/2012 09:20 AM, Guenter Wildgruber wrote: hello guys, just an idea: Working together on an open source-LENR-device. There seems to be quite some knowledge here at vortex, and a couple of people seem to work in their backyard on their own devices. This is suboptimal. How about that: introduce some economy of scale: lets say ten devices, which need not be identical, but have a common base, e.g. nano-Nickel, a certain type of reaction chamber, hydrogen etc. the basic construction could be implemented via division of labour. one builds the basic reaction-chamber, the other procures the nano-Nickel, the third provides for some basic electronics, and so on. It does not make sense to procure nano-Nickel in every individual case. I'm thinking of about maybe ten devices, which share a common design, and can be freeley varied to optimize the effect. The overall concept seems to be straightforward enough, to make this a reasonable approach. It would have the consequence, that nobody can monopolize the technology via patents or secret sausages etc. Waiting for Godot in the form of Rossi or Defkalion otr Miles or McKubre is starting to go onto my nerves. What do You think? -- *Von:* Jojo Jaro jth...@hotmail.com jth...@hotmail.com *An:* vortex-l@eskimo.com *Gesendet:* 11:14 Sonntag, 11.März 2012 *Betreff:* Re: [Vo]:To Spark or Not to Spark Awesome, Great minds think alike, eh? :-) Let us know how it goes. How are you driving your spark plug? I am planning a simple CDI Electronic Ignition Box for a CRRC-Pro 26cc engine: http://www.ebay.com/itm/130659127048
Re: [Vo]:OT: $35 computer sells out on first day of launch
Jones, I respect you too, but also disagree, :-) Real fusion cannot occur without substantial gamma radiation What a nonsense is that? If you mean with real, established, then ok. I think there is no principal reason for gamma and neutron radiation in all fusion reactions (there is in plasma D-D fusion). There are reactions thinkable that do comply with conservation laws for energy/mass/momentum yet emit their energy in the form of phonons (lattice vibrations) and have no neutrons left over. I do agree with you that completely other things are thinkable (zero-point, hydrino's,.. etc. the sky is the limit if you allow yourself to break the laws.). I still don't get why Widom-Larsen claim their theory is not fusion, they have more details about the reaction mechanism, right or wrong, the energy still comes from the lower binding energy that lesserbigger nuclei have, aka fusion. Yes, Cold Fusion stinks but I have no problem getting over it, if it actually works. (if!) Cheers. On Thu, Mar 1, 2012 at 3:09 AM, Andre Blum andre_vor...@blums.nl wrote: reply to list my earlier message as I sent this to Guenter only due to his reply-to address On 02/29/2012 09:04 PM, Andre Blum wrote: Jones, I respect You, but here You are on the wrong track. This device is not intended to have any real-world-interfacing. It is located in a virtual world with only indirect interfacing to the r-w via USB. Look at olimexino and its relatives, how this is done. This is just 80MHz compared to the fancy 800MHz, but the difference is, that You talk to the 'world' (TM) with 80MHz, compared to 'Yourself ' (no TM) with 800MHz. So what is the difference, exactly? The device *does* have real world interfacing. In fact it has plenty. It has 2 i2c ports, SPI, UART, (not sure, but I believe also analog in), many GPIO's. It does however only have only 26 pins that you have to find a right muxing for to map them to your function. An arduino duemilanove has about the same # pins. A beaglebone has more like 80 of them. Arduino-like devices are very nice, too, and cheap. And you are right that you could use it just as well for controlling this kind of setups. Then, to control the arduino, you would need a computer for the necessary 'human interfacing'. With the idea in mind that people might actually want to have more than one peerpressure setup (for example for Defkalion-like inert/loaded comparisons), it is wise to have stand-alone controllers that can be managed over a web interface and also optionally can contact the internet database servers with their results on their own. Also, it is a matter of taste, but in my eyes a big pro that you can program these ARM devices like you can program your PC: use python, java, proper operating system calls, multitasking, memory allocation, nice storage support, etc.
Re: [Vo]:Test day in Greece time
Exactly! We should crowd-source the funding to get this going. Or better, since nobody has money and everbody here has an opinion of how to make it work, we should Crowd Science! That's what we aim for with our crowd science project with the Peer Pressure. Cheers, Bastiaan. On Fri, Feb 24, 2012 at 10:59 AM, Daniel Rocha danieldi...@gmail.comwrote: If this affair doesn't go anywhere, we could start a fund for an opensource development of LENR. 2012/2/24 Jarold McWilliams oldja...@hotmail.com If everyone was better off, including yourself, you'd still follow your values? I completely disagree with this. All I care about is making people's lives better. On Feb 24, 2012, at 12:32 PM, noone noone wrote: When it comes to sticking to my principles, it does not matter what people think of me. I'm the kind of person who goes into church and asks Christians, who would Jesus bomb. At that point I'm automatically considered an evil liberal. In this life you can usually take two roads when it comes to most decisions. The first road is the one that is a compromise of your principles, and branches out to many different roads. This road is often easier to ride on, has fewer bumps, and makes a commute easy. The second road is the one where you refuse to budge one inch on your principles. It is full of bumps, and can easily get you a flat tire. For example, a woman divorcing her husband after being cheated on (THE FIRST TIME) despite having ten kids and no way to financially support them, and her husband apologizing. Divorce is the only appropriate answer, even if it could mean the kids end up being sent to orphanages and never seeing each other again. Some may say she should have not divorced her husband, but I believe her principles are more important than anything else. If I were Andrea Rossi and if my technology had been copied without permission (I'm not saying it has) I would let the world consider me the most evil man in history. I would sleep just fine at night knowing that I did the right thing, by standing up for not only my rights, and the property rights of all other inventors. A world without absolute rights is not worth living in. Sadly, the way the world is going, individuals are having their rights violated more and more each day. -- *From:* OrionWorks - Steven V Johnson svj.orionwo...@gmail.com *To:* vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com *Sent:* Friday, February 24, 2012 1:21 PM *Subject:* Re: [Vo]:Test day in Greece time noone noone sez: If I invented a billion dollar technology and someone copied it without my permission, I would not accept a trillion dollars from a lawsuit. The only thing I would accept is for the other company to be forced to re-call all their products. Then I would make money by selling the products from my own company. Good luck. You give me the impression that you think you can go to court and win your case in a just few weeks, and then everything will be honky dorey. Think again. Think years. Many, many years. And during all those contentious years of unending litigation that will make many a lawyer rich, and while you are demanding all those recalls, and to a complete halt to sales, just think of all the good PR you will be generating for yourself. People across the planet are desperate for any kind of cheaper energy. But your sense of demanding justice could end up potentially denying a huge portion of the population that opportunity - all on personal principle. I'm sure they will all understand your personal sense of outrage for not getting even richer off of your invention. But of course you'll be right. You have that going for you. Don't get me wrong. I would be pissed off, too, if someone stole my invention. But consider the ramifications of how best to get even with the competition. Try to get even without turning yourself in to the energy pariah of the century - someone who will be written up in the history books as having denied millions of desperate individuals access to cheap energy because he was unhappy over the fact that someone was making profits off of something that he thought he should be profiting over himself. If Rossi's technology has been stolen, I hope he refuses any credit, money, or other compensation. I would also hope he would turn down the nobel prize. I hope his mission in life becomes to stop anyone who has used his technology without permission. Shish! I'm glad I don't think the way you do. Regards Steven Vincent Johnson www.OrionWorks.com http://www.orionworks.com/ www.zazzle.com/orionworks -- Daniel Rocha - RJ danieldi...@gmail.com
[Vo]:John Huizenga
Cold Fusion: The Scientific Fiasco of the Century Can some experienced guy tell us some history? Is John Huizenga the one who headed the two DOE reviews (1989 and 1994)? I remember reading that somewhere but can't find it anymore. Has anybody read his book, is it good? I know most of you will be offended by the title alone, but I want to make sure I have at least done my due diligence and therefore should have heard the critics. I buy it second hand from Amazon, so I'm not 'sponsoring' the pathological critics (in case he is one) ;-). Is he still a professor? Where? Other anecdotes? Thanks! Bastiaan.
Re: [Vo]:Wordpress mockup of LENR-CANR.org
Looks good! I especially like the library, what software do you use for that? I would drop the /wordpres/ part of your url and I wouldn't worry to much about themes. The theme of the day changes faster than you can keep up with anyway. Content is king. Cheers, Bastiaan. On Wed, Feb 22, 2012 at 8:53 AM, Michele Comitini michele.comit...@gmail.com wrote: +1 Can be improved of course. IMHO it's a good start. You should make the searchable part with similar colors. Add a few widgets for the social gossip like the following and you are half done: http://www.ignitesocialmedia.com/tools/follow-me/ mic Il 22 febbraio 2012 16:48, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com ha scritto: See: http://lenr-canr.org/wordpress/ What do people here think? I honestly do not see any advantage to this compared to old-fashioned HTML screens, but maybe I should give it a chance. This took an hour to produce. It is easy to work with, I will grant. Some of the pages and links here are functional. Hold the cursor over Special Collections. Select Special Collections (or click here): http://lenr-canr.org/wordpress/?page_id=57 And try clicking on BARC Studies in Cold Fusion Note that on this screen I removed the Google search and Recent Posts from the left side. I think I can put back something like a menu of special collections on the left side, instead of Recent Posts. Or if the section is too long I can put a list of headlines there, which would be a good idea in the section A look at experiments. The LIBRARY menu item goes to the new library screens. In the News section, I set the number of news items to 3, so the arrow appears at the bottom saying Older posts. In a real system I suppose I would set it to 10 or 20. This is a rudimentary, no-frills theme. There are thousands more available, ranging from bad to atrocious. See, for example: http://wordpress.org/extend/themes/ They all waste a lot of screen space. Most of them feature distracting and gratuitous graphics. I can instantly insert one of these other themes to change the overall appearance. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:NanoSpire Inc.
What experiment? Am I missing something? On Tue, Feb 21, 2012 at 8:08 AM, francis froarty...@comcast.net wrote: If this experiment occurred in 2009 and resulted in radiation sickness and transmuted elements at only 840 watts in I have to ask why it is only becoming news now and why the news isn’t all over the front page.. what I am missing that makes this less than earth shattering news?
Re: [Vo]:Elemental Ovens
There are reports decades before FP about cold fusion, Filimonenko Ivan Stepanovich for example... On Sat, Feb 18, 2012 at 6:34 AM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com wrote: Nigel Dyer l...@thedyers.org.uk wrote: Over Christmas I met someone whilst out on a walk, got chatting, and found that they had been working on Palladium/Hydrogen systems in the 1960's, and had become aware that there was something odd going on. . . . In his book, Mizuno said every electrochemist knew there were puzzling thermal and nuclear anomalies with palladium deuterides. He himself observed several. However, he eventually dismissed them as experimental errors. He gives full credit to FP for following up on these things and producing them with far higher s/n ratios and reproducibility. He says this discovery is theirs, and theirs alone. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:Elemental Ovens
given that thousands of scientists using billions of dollars in hydrogen and metal-hydride research (fuel cells and storage) have not stumbled upon E-Cat like processes for many years, I have to agree with you. unless, of course, the un-scientific evidence of Rossi was wrong to begin with. On Feb 17, 2012 11:41 AM, Randy Wuller rwul...@freeark.com wrote: Honestly, when I first heard that the theory for the origin of heavy elements in this universe was super nova's, my reaction was, that's got to be at best a SWAG (silly wild ass guess). I can't imagine we have enough evidence to confirm such a theory. Just a lawyer's gut reaction. Ransom - Original Message - From: Terry Blanton hohlr...@gmail.com To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Friday, February 17, 2012 1:19 PM Subject: [Vo]:Elemental Ovens Where do the elements heavier than iron originate? http://www.physorg.com/news/**2012-02-rare-earth-element-** tellurium-ancient.htmlhttp://www.physorg.com/news/2012-02-rare-earth-element-tellurium-ancient.html T
Re: [Vo]:Prediction on Antarctica's buried Lake
Jones, Haven't been following long enough yet. it is said that RM never actively pursues - or mentions the so-called deuterino (reduced orbital deuterium species) relates to potential weaponization. How can Deuterino's be weaponized? And why Deuterino's specifically? And why would one who gets convinced about the existence of Hydrino's not make the step to Deuterino's? Thnx, Bastiaan. On Wed, Feb 8, 2012 at 10:16 AM, Jones Beene jone...@pacbell.net wrote: -Original Message- From: Terry Blanton Then again, maybe the Ruskies are looking to weaponize the bugs. Funny you should mention that. But this thread might be more appropriate for the above top secret forum (if you don't mind being added to the list of those who are guaranteed a full body search on every airline flight). Anyone having followed Mills/BLP through the years- is probably aware that of one of the reasons it is said that RM never actively pursues - or mentions the so-called deuterino (reduced orbital deuterium species) relates to potential weaponization. IOW - It is rather obvious to anyone who thinks about the repercussions of having deuterinos at all, especially if they are mass-produced by a new kind of lifeform in tonnage (instead of the micrograms Mills has collected) that there is a strong military angle. Coulomb repulsion is the prime limitation on D+D fusion, and it is inverse square. Power laws are an amazing thing. A supply of deuterinos at deep redundancy - wow - that could drastically reduce the implosion energy necessary for fusion, on paper. This could push it into the level of triggering by conventional chemistry - especially if the stable hydride (extra electron) is included in a fraction of the mix, or especially if a nano-thermite is employed. Let's don't go there. In this case, the lesser of two evils for Lake Vostok is likely to be The Stuff ... :) mummm ... pass the Vanilla.
Re: [Vo]:Google insights seem to show waning interest for NET and W-L
Cool! The first time they talked about me was 1810. ;-) Not a fan of NET, but this seems to give a different view on it: http://siteanalytics.compete.com/newenergytimes.com/ On Mon, Feb 6, 2012 at 9:05 AM, Harry Veeder hveeder...@gmail.com wrote: google's Ngram analyzes all digitized material. Interstingly the term 'cold fusion' actually goes back to the 1700s. he references identify a particular metalsmithing process. http://books.google.com/ngrams/graph?content=cold+fusionyear_start=1750year_end=2000corpus=0smoothing=3 Harry
Re: [Vo]:Kullander's detailed isotopic analysis of ash from Rossi's E-Cat?
Anyone? I'm interested too... On Tue, Jan 17, 2012 at 11:18 AM, John Milstone john_sw_orla...@yahoo.com wrote: Hi everyone! Last November, Sven Kullander promised a detailed isotopic analysis of the ash from Rossi's E-Cat by Christmas. (http://ecatnews.com/?p=1416) It's now well past Christmas, and I haven't seen any signs of this report. Does anyone know what happened to it? John
Re: [Vo]:Goodbye Greg
I saw some good post from him. Can anyone place some pointers to (possibly) bad stuff? I mean, under tha name and email address of Aussie Guy. On Thu, Jan 19, 2012 at 10:26 AM, Daniel Rocha danieldi...@gmail.com wrote: Well, I am also new to this list. Been here for about 1 year. AG always was one of the well behaved and gave a lot of useful contribution and is even trying to test the damned e cat. . People accusing AG of anything today seem to be really crazy and wrong. 2012/1/19 Andre Blum andre_vor...@blums.nl I am pretty new to this list. Today, this one guy comes along and says Aussie Guy, who two weeks ago was almost certainly Dick Smith (who I didn't know) now is certainly Greg Watson (who I didn't know). Apparently some of you had bad experiences with that guy in the past. So now this is accepted as a fact? I must say that AG made a more than useful contribution to the discussons here. I liked him a lot! What if he isn't Greg Watson like he isn't Dick Smith? Andre On 01/19/2012 01:26 PM, Daniel Rocha wrote: But he didn't seem to offer any scam. He didn't promote or try to sell anything. In fact, he just seemed like a regular member who wanted to test an ecat. 2012/1/19 Jones Beene jone...@pacbell.net Daniel, Greg is a con-man deluxe who has preyed on alternative energy supporters for many years. He is the Aussie version of Dennis Lee. (if you know that name). If Aussie Guy really is Greg Watson, then I am blown away at the arrogance of this a__hole to come back on this forum, in particular. He should have been charged with criminal fraud over the SMOT fiasco. Not that it didn't work, which it didn't, but that he kept deposits and never shipped products. And now it looks like SunCube could be an even bigger scam. Hey - Vo - let's welcome Greg back tomorrow with a listing of his many lies ... maybe his Board will give him the butt-kicking he deserves, if not turn him over for prosecution. Chill out Greg, you may be on ice for a while. From: Daniel Rocha Who is this Greg Watson? I found a bunch of guys with this name on google. ROFL This must be the Comedy Channel ! I haven't had as many laughs in months. Say g'night to Greg, vorticians - we will likely not hear from this turkey again. Watson and Rossi - Birds of a feather, as they say ... they deserve each other. From: Eff Wivakeef Greg Watson aka Aussie Guy It is time for you to stop pulling your pudding! From: Aussie Guy E-Cat Steven, It is almost 4am here. Time for me to chill out and get some sleep. AG -- Daniel Rocha - RJ danieldi...@gmail.com -- Daniel Rocha - RJ danieldi...@gmail.com -- Daniel Rocha - RJ danieldi...@gmail.com
Re: [Vo]:LENR is not a disruptive technology...
Gold cannot be made from lead though fusion, it would require fission. There isn't much point making gold from platinum, I presume. To make Cu out of Ni though the Rossi claimed scheme it would release 3.4 GWh of heat per produced kg of Copper, that's an entirely new form of climate pollution! Unless you use that energy to make water out of gold of course :-) On Sun, Jan 15, 2012 at 9:54 PM, Mark Iverson-ZeroPoint zeropo...@charter.net wrote: AussieGuy wrote: “Transmutation of elements via the FPE may replace mining.” It’ll do more than that… it’ll kill the entire precious metals business which has been a foundation for countries’ *monetary systems*. What affect that will have on economic systems, and countries, is probably not going to be pretty… in the beginning. With energy being extremely cheap, it will drive down the cost of just about everything from raw materials to completed products… and it’ll be much cheaper to transport those things to the point of consumption, so we’re talking about much lower cost for most *everything*. It wouldn’t surprise me if govts stepped in to bring in the changes gradually… But how does one decide what to do when this is probably unlike anything that has ever happened; nothing to go on. *To call LENR a ‘disruptive’ technology doesn’t even begin to describe it!* -Mark
[Vo]:FusionCatalyst.org
Hi group, I'm excited to announce our newly formed non-profit organization to the advancement of cold fusion. We are planning an open catalyst project geared towards finding the secret catalyst needed to achieve nuclear fusion in the solid state. The plan is to use the power of the crowd to search and try the many different possibilities in a highly paralleled and fast way. By installing many many reactor-calorimeters in labs of participating scientist all over the world and by sharing all data in a structured way we envision an enormous advantage compared to the individual approach. For this purpose I designed a special reactor-calorimeter called the *Peer Pressure*, it is a simple reactor with extended data logging and autonomous Internet connectivity. Individual scientists can purchase a reactor, hook it up directly to the Internet through its TCP/IP connection, start testing materials and share results. The reactor is designed with a minimum of presumptions about the detailed working of cold fusion reactions and providing maximum versatility for the experimentalist. Please have a look at the Peer Pressure and let me know what you think of it, can you use it? Suggestions for improvement? http://www.fusioncatalyst.org/open-catalyst/peer-pressure/ Cheers, Bastiaan.
Re: [Vo]:FusionCatalyst.org
Horace, Calorimetry is done through temperature monitorring, simple on the equipment a bit more demanding on the experimentalist and analysis. In due time we will post more details on the analysis as a help. Device looks kinda small Yes and I put a lot effort in making it even smaller. The smaller the reactor is the less material (nickel powder, catalyst, hydrogen, etc) you will use, keeping the cost for operation down. Besides it will keep temperature control easier (this is a problem in Rossi's original E-Cat, thats why he moved to the flat-cat). It further will keep the power needs low so we can get a low power, hence cheaper, power supply. Finally, it adds to the safety, as a little bit of hydrogen is less dangerous than a lot of it. Why would you want a big one? Cheers, Bastiaan On Tue, Dec 20, 2011 at 2:18 AM, Horace Heffner hheff...@mtaonline.net wrote: Potentially a good idea for a non-profit, especially if donations can drive the price down well below cost. That said, where is the calorimeter? Also, the device looks too small. This looks more like a Rossi replicator idea than a general purpose LENR investigation device. That seems a bit premature, given the publicly released evidence provided by Rossi thus far is so lacking scientifically. If Rossi has a successful venture this research might be moot, given the way multi-year billion dollar budgets that likely will quickly develop. If Rossi is not successful, this approach might be barking up the wrong tree. On Dec 19, 2011, at 11:02 PM, Bastiaan Bergman wrote: Hi group, I'm excited to announce our newly formed non-profit organization to the advancement of cold fusion. We are planning an open catalyst project geared towards finding the secret catalyst needed to achieve nuclear fusion in the solid state. The plan is to use the power of the crowd to search and try the many different possibilities in a highly paralleled and fast way. By installing many many reactor-calorimeters in labs of participating scientist all over the world and by sharing all data in a structured way we envision an enormous advantage compared to the individual approach. For this purpose I designed a special reactor-calorimeter called the *Peer Pressure*, it is a simple reactor with extended data logging and autonomous Internet connectivity. Individual scientists can purchase a reactor, hook it up directly to the Internet through its TCP/IP connection, start testing materials and share results. The reactor is designed with a minimum of presumptions about the detailed working of cold fusion reactions and providing maximum versatility for the experimentalist. Please have a look at the Peer Pressure and let me know what you think of it, can you use it? Suggestions for improvement? http://www.fusioncatalyst.org/open-catalyst/peer-pressure/ Cheers, Bastiaan. Best regards, Horace Heffner http://www.mtaonline.net/~hheffner/
Re: [Vo]:FusionCatalyst.org
Materials and material preparation are the key to cold fusion. The hardest part by far. You cannot use just any Ni material. Exactly! That is why we want to engage the crowd! Because finding exactly the right stuff may be a daunting task. Moreover, even if you think you have found the right stuff you may in fact be wrong. e.g. the Patterson case, it worked then it didn't. Now we are building a database, if something works on and off we'll keep track of it. Maybe some day, some bright scientist sees the connection while slicing and dicing the database. More to the point, we do not know what Rossi's catalyst contains. I see no point to trying to replicate without the formula, True, Rossi has the secret, he found it and Rossi is our hero (mine at least). But he is not god, what he can find, we can! And I wouldn't be surprised if there were a zillion other materials that work just as well (or better). or with material from somewhere else, such as Ames N. L. Now you're getting there! You're following on this track, someone else follows-up on another. Maybe there is a theory that seems appealing, maybe you found a dusty paper explaining something? Maybe you're inspired by processes already happening in nature, maybe you stumbeld upon a somthing you now think might be explained with,.. C ..F... And everybody tries his own thing. Some don't work, some were stupid to begin with and some are going to work. We know that. Happy mailing! Bastiaan. On Tue, Dec 20, 2011 at 6:06 AM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com wrote: Horace Heffner hheff...@mtaonline.net wrote: This looks more like a Rossi replicator idea than a general purpose LENR investigation device. That seems a bit premature, given the publicly released evidence provided by Rossi thus far is so lacking scientifically. More to the point, we do not know what Rossi's catalyst contains. I see no point to trying to replicate without the formula, or with material from somewhere else, such as Ames N. L. Materials and material preparation are the key to cold fusion. The hardest part by far. You cannot use just any Ni material. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:FusionCatalyst.org
Mary, I'm looking into cooling, it won't be finished for the first version though. You can't just stick the reactor in a bath as the top and bottem of the reactor have things (eg electrical wires) sticking out from them. My plan is to use a 'springy' kind of copper tube coil, that sids around the middle of the reactor. Haven't looked into 'springy' copper tube though,.. suggestions are welcome. Specific suggestions for a pump, flowmeter and water temperature sensors are welcome too. As long as we don't attain tremendous fusion power I think cooling at the air will be sufficient. Cheers, Bastiaan. On Tue, Dec 20, 2011 at 12:33 PM, Mary Yugo maryyu...@gmail.com wrote: Hey Bastiaan, How to you remove the heat? Why don't you use a liquid coolant in a jacket surrounding the cell -- like Rossi seems to do? That would accomplish reasonably accurate calorimetry for you automatically with nothing more than a flow meter, two thermometers, a known electrical power source.for calibration, and a computer/data logger. All of those are cheap and easy these days. If you don't want to complicate the system, you don't need the coolant jacket -- you can run the device in a well insulated water bath. Calibration will compensate for any losses from the bath.
Re: [Vo]:Lattice Energy LLC comments on Rossi
I like his theory, it may well be the process happening. Even if it isn't entirely, it provides a good starting point for further research. I also very much like his notion of other systems that may show LENR processes already. Including failing Li-Ion batteries, (natural) isotope fractionation and processes in ordinairy car catalysts. After all if it's possible at low energy nature must already know about it! I don't understand his objection to cold fusion. From a science perspective, what he describes: H or D + Metal going in == very detailed and particle physics sound description of processes happening == Metal + He + E coming out. Most experimental claims from cold fusioneers don't disagree with his theory. cold fusion is just the abstract of the thing in the middle of his reaction scheme. I don't understand it from a business perspective either. What merit is there in claiming that all cold-fusion experiments are wrong and your theory is right? If he plays it right he might end up with the Nobel price for correctly describing cold fusion processes, which might have helped experimentalists. He might do further research building onto the Rossi device and making it better. If he plays it wrong, he will be the theorist who knows it all but have nothing. Nobody cares about the right theory for something that doesn't work, very few people care about the right theory for something that does work. On Sat, Nov 26, 2011 at 8:02 PM, pagnu...@htdconnect.com wrote: More controversy between LENR competitors --- Lewis Larsen-Lattice Energy LLC-Comments re Mr. Andrea Rossi E-Cat Technology-Nov 26 2011 http://www.slideshare.net/lewisglarsen/lewis-larsenlattice-energy-llccomments-re-mr-andrea-rossi-ecat-technologynov-26-2011
Re: [Vo]:bit.ly/cold-fusion
@Peter As an aside, please let me know how do you interpret Focardi's declaration that he does not know what Rossi's catayst is. I think the obvious interpretation is that Rossi invented it, and didn't tell Focardi. I think that's the official story anyway and I don't see anthing wrong with that? I have no opinion about who did the most work, and who was the most intelligent. I would buy your version pretty easily, but then, really, it doesn't matter. What matters for the world is that we get it to the mainstream, finally. @Noone Piantelli is like a person who discovers heavy crude oil. Andrea Rossi is the person who was able to refine it into high grade jet fuel, and use it to power an aircraft. I think both guys did great work, and many more will need to follow before we have a world powerd by cold fusion. There isn't one big name in oil, and the most famous or well known names aren't necessarily the ones who contributed the most. @Aussie Yes I agree, very interesting. If LENR really works at low energy it *must* be happening in nature already, and maybe also in some man-made processes that we didn't realize. There are reports on bacteria living on nickel,.. On Sun, Nov 27, 2011 at 2:02 PM, Alan Fletcher a...@well.com wrote: Rossi claims to have experimented with many materials. ISTR he said he tried one formula which gave a higher output than his current catalyst ... but it was too difficult to control.
Re: [Vo]:bit.ly/cold-fusion
All, Thanks for your input, I updated the paper to incorporate most of your comments. @Aussie Thanks; @Peter I maintain that Rossi forced the current big breakthrough, whether it is just an additive or not. I agree with you that it is fair to mention Piantelli and Focardi as founders and completely revised that section to include it. @Rich I believe I did pay a fair amount of attention to the critics. I summarized all point is the paragraph What the critics say and more in the paragraph about Rossi. I think the critique you summarize is equally valid for super-conduction. Any paper in professional literature can be found to lack of common sense on some points and short of some additional measurement that could have been done on others, once scrutinized by an army of skeptics. However, the sum of the work done by many independent laboratories using a variety of different approaches shows, without doubt, a pattern that is difficult to reject as pathological science. Small government funding for further investigation is well warranted. No point to criticize something that doesn't exist, if you don't like it, ignore it. But I do like your contributions Rich:-) @Alain I feel as if I missed something, about CF or about humanity - Exactly! What is going on? I feel like Truman in one of your human systems experiments ;-) @Robin I was a bit overly optimistic with the energy density, corrected it. 3 cubic mile oil - equivalents is our energy consumption, this includes coal and uranium (and renewables). 1 CMO is oil alone. I corrected it anyway, no point overstating that. Thanks for pointing this out, it's not worth getting caught on. Some (early version of?) H-bombs use multiple fission bombs, not all, and maybe none of the modern ones. It doesn't really matter, I feel like I have to underline the dirtiness of this business anyway. Intriguing in this regard I find the new studies that point out that there is very little evidence of the fusion part of these bombs contributing significantly to the power. Intriguing because the inventor of the H-bomb is a prominent cold-fusion skeptic, citing the lack of evidence... Hydrogen atoms do not repel each other. Naked protons repel each other. That's why hot fusion is so difficult - they insist on using naked protons. - I agree. For sake of simplicity I skipped over it. And technically it isn't wrong. Atoms attract at some length scales, but not at all. That's why hydrogen does form molecules but doesn't fuse just like that. I don't like the emphasis some people put on the stripping off of electrons, as if that's a big deal in the fusion process, as if that's hard, as if that gets you close to fusion itself. The sentence no one claims to know,... is wrong in itself, obviously. Of course there are many people claiming all sorts of stuff. The next sentence basically says so too. That cold fusion actually isn't fusion is a small step, I think. After one accepts that something happens that we don't understand why it's a small step to accept that something happens that is unknown all together. I still have to learn more about the Hydrino theory, a simple introduction to Hydrino's would be appreciated ;-). Thanks for all the style corrections. Bastiaan. bit.ly/cold-fusion On Sat, Nov 26, 2011 at 6:12 AM, Marcello Vitale mvit...@ucsbalum.net wrote: Thanks, Peter, fantastic citation [begin citation] Coherence of particles by radio waves is an obscure phenomenon that is not well understood even today. Recent experiments with particle coherers seem to have confirmed the hypothesis that the particles cohere by a micro-weld phenomenon caused by radio frequency electricity flowing across the small contact area between particles.[1] The underlying principle of so-called imperfect contact coherers is also not well understood, but may involve a kind of tunneling of charge carriers across an imperfect junction between conductors. [end citation] In a previoous job, I carried out the synthesis of silver nanocrystals of different sizes and with specific surface plasmon light absorption spectra, following some surprising literature. Starting with spherical seeds of less than 5 nm diameter, readily formed chemically, one could obtain thin (5-10 nm thick) platelets of triangular shape and different size simply by exposing for some time (1-7 days) the suspension in water to light of different wavelength. The literature had used both led's of specific wavelength and colored filters, we made our own filters and obtained the same results. Thermal tests never led to any platelet formation, although they could be formed thermally with different starting materials. But the photochemical route was very attractive. We followed through pushing the process (by changing the irradiation light spectrum) until the silver nanoplatelets were actually about one micron long and absorbed in the NIR. Got a couple of application patents using those. Anyway, my point is that
Re: [Vo]:hydrogen refill
tnx Giancarlo, for pointing this out! I think what this means is that he uses a separate bottle for demonstrations versus his own testing. maybe he has a big bottle that is hard to weight but more practical in daily operation? Maybe the hydrogen is a red Herring all together? the small amounts used and the little difference between big and small ecat means that it is mostly the plumbing that gets charged. one load of hydrogen doesn't necessary suffice for 6mo, it does for 6hour. what bothers me is that it is noted that the tank pressure drops. impossible with so little consumption, unless the tank valve wasn't actually open. then only the hydrogen still present in the tubing was used. but that also means that the ecat was running on a lower pressure ... Bastiaan. On Nov 25, 2011 6:29 AM, Alain dit le Cycliste alain.sep...@gmail.com wrote: FYI i've found this FAQ http://faq.ecat.com/113090/i-was-wondering-if-you-may-inform-us-as-to-the-amount-of-hydrogen-that-will-be-required-to-run-an-ecatfor/ say that for 24h the 10kW e-cat use 0.2g of H... it is hard to interpret about Ni... the 0.2g might be just the fixed value to fill the Ni for 6 month... in that case, it can fill 12g of nickel at loading factor 1/1... but what about the volume used to fill the pipes? maybe is it 0.1g of Ni, 0.0016g of H loaded, and the 0.198 rest to fill the pipes and chambers. it can also be just the leaks for one day, telling nothing about the quantity stored in the Ni, and thus, the Ni quantity... and implying that it consume 3.6kg of H for a 1MW on 6month... but what about Ni? it can be a mix... so, missing data to estimate Ni quantity, nor H consumption and cause of the consumption (loading, leaks, reactions)... not yet answer to my FAQ http://faq.ecat.com/113004/in-faq-how-much-nickel-and-hydrogen-will-it-take-to-generate-one-megawatt-of-heat-continuously-for-six/ on the site, but he seems to copy FAQ and answer from another source ... if someone know where to deposit question, so they ane answered clearly. if someone find a better analysis... 2011/11/24 Alain dit le Cycliste alain.sep...@gmail.com so two article of the same FAQ are not coherent. http://faq.ecat.com/112273/how-much-ni-is-in-the-cell/ http://faq.ecat.com/112449/how-much-nickel-and-hydrogen-will-it-take-to-generate-one-megawatt-of-heat-continuously-for-six-months/ is'nt there a known issue with an error of unit that rossi admit. I remember some comment about that mistake. 10g instead of 10kg... ??? note that the cost estimated of the powder is about 1 euro/MW.6month http://faq.ecat.com/112602/if-selling-price-is-planned-for-500-euros-per-1-kw-of-output-capability-this-is-5000-euros-for-10-kw/ and that 1kG of raw nickel is 13Eur/kg on the market... incoherences... To clear the doubt, I put the question on the FAQ. http://faq.ecat.com/113004/in-faq-how-much-nickel-and-hydrogen-will-it-take-to-generate-one-megawatt-of-heat-continuously-for-six/ maybe the different base numbers we have explain the disagreement.
[Vo]:bit.ly/cold-fusion
Hi group, As a physicist I feel obliged to spread the word on cold fusion and explain what it is to the general public. In that attempt I wrote the linked paper, please have a look and give me your blunt feedback. Also please use the paper however you see fit. http://bit.ly/cold-fusion Thanks, Bastiaan.
Re: [Vo]:Steam engines
A car running on 10kW electric from a cold fusion device connected to a 5% efficient heat to electric converter (steam or bismut or whatever) would spit out 200kW of waste heat, that is equivalent to 15 strong patio heaters. Are you really sure, Jed, we don't have to worry? On Fri, Oct 21, 2011 at 2:33 PM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com wrote: I wrote: What do you think it would cost to build a 2 TB hard disk in 1979? It couldn't be done but if someone did it would cost tens of millions of dollars. Now it costs $100. Correction, it would have cost roughly $400 million, in 1979 dollars. That is based on the cheapest hard disks available at that time which cost $193 per megabyte. 2 TB equals roughly 2 million MB * 193 = 384 million bucks. See: http://ns1758.ca/winch/winchest.html Regarding thermoelectric devices, however difficult it is to manufacture them today, it cannot be more difficult than making semiconductors or NiCad batteries, which are cheap. my point about the cost of bismuth is that material cost is modest. Heck, even if you make them out of gold the material costs will soon be cheaper than they are now. Extraction and recycling costs will fall with cold fusion. People say the amount of gold in the world is limited, but there is plenty of low grade ore, and -- to take the long view -- probably much more elsewhere in the solar system. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:Steam engines
Why would you do it that way? However you do it, it's hard to beat the 5-10%. The point is that efficiency does matter. On Fri, Oct 21, 2011 at 3:16 PM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com wrote: Bastiaan Bergman bastiaan.berg...@gmail.com wrote: A car running on 10kW electric from a cold fusion device connected to a 5% efficient heat to electric converter (steam or bismut or whatever) would spit out 200kW of waste heat . . . That would be a Rube Goldberg machine! Why would you do it that way? Put the cold fusion reactor in the car and use a heat engine to convert the heat directly to mechanical force. When the technology is first introduced it might be cheaper to make the car a hybrid like a Prius, where the mechanical force is sometimes converted to electric power and stored. Also, even small steam turbines are better than 5% efficient. Thermoelectric devices will not come into widespread use for cold fusion until efficiency is more like 20% I suppose. Present day ones are ~10% efficient at 500°C. See: http://www.electrochem.org/dl/interface/fal/fal08/fal08_p54-56.pdf In the 1960s and 70s, thermoelectric devices were used with plutonium in pacemakers, so they can be scaled down. In a pacemaker, wristwatch battery or earphone battery you need only a tiny trickle of electric power so efficiency does not matter. - Jed
[Vo]:Les Case, what where is he?
Hi Vortex-l eskimo's, Anyone knows what happened with Les Case's energy catalyzer? It seems to work in a similar way as Rossi's. Why did he not build the 1MW plant he was planning? Is he still working on this? Anyone knows where? (what lab/company?) Thanks, Bastiaan.
Re: [Vo]:John Maddox, editor Nature magazine around 1989
Thanks, Harry, Jed, Its clear now what his opinion was at least. Never liked Nature anyway :-). On Sep 19, 2011 1:29 PM, Harry Veeder hlvee...@yahoo.com wrote: For some context see 1:45 of this video posted by Steven Krivit. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K9Jp9L_6-BI Harry From: Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Monday, September 19, 2011 2:30:59 PM Subject: Re: [Vo]:John Maddox, editor Nature magazine around 1989 Bastiaan Bergman bastiaan.berg...@gmail.com wrote: At min 4:24 John Maddox Editor of Nature magazine says: It [cold fusion] will remain dead for a long long time This to me means that it is not dead for forever, or 'temporarily dead' be it for a long time. Does anyone know what Mr. Maddox meant to say? I believe that was taken from a BBC interview. I do not think that Maddox talked to us directly. That comment mystified Mallove and me. It was a distinctly odd thing to say. It mystified some of our British friends too, so it was not some British turn of phrase. There is no way to know what Maddox meant because he is dead. - Jed
[Vo]:John Maddox, editor Nature magazine around 1989
Hello group, I have a question, its not so important but it keeps bugging me. In the movie Heavy Watergate Written by Mallove, Rothwell Frank http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=6562030534380820378 At min 4:24 John Maddox Editor of Nature magazine says: It [cold fusion] will remain dead for a long long time This to me means that it is not dead for forever, or 'temporarily dead' be it for a long time. Does anyone know what Mr. Maddox meant to say? Was there maybe a piece of footage cut-of after these words, that could explain what he actually meant to say? Did mr. Maddox himself believe cold fusion was true? And did he believe that it would be dead for a long time because the publicity was so negative? In another movie the voice over on the same piece of footage suggest that Mr Maddox was NOT believing anything about cold fusion, saying Mr. Maddox was the last nail on the coffin. I know, it doesn't matter all that much, it just keeps bugging me. Thanks, Bastiaan.
Re: [Vo]:PhysOrg reports on Krivit's latest article...
Can somebody explain me how, it is likely a weak interaction involving neutrons, without fusion could possibly gain energy? And where do these neutrons come from? It looks like people are more skeptical on the claim 'cold fusion' than on the claim that 'abra-ca-dabra' can actually do something. On Thu, Aug 11, 2011 at 3:26 PM, Mark Iverson zeropo...@charter.net wrote: You can get the gist of it just by the hyperlink... http://www.physorg.com/news/2011-08-controversial-energy-generating-lacking-credibility-video.html -Mark
Re: [Vo]:Time for a new poll?
My take on it: a) Old question, again : Is the eCat steam quality a problem? Definitely not a problem Kullander-Essen report, even if 100% liquid phase still 2x! b) New question : Do you now think the eCat is Real or Fake?Definitely Fake Probably Real
Re: [Vo]:Is the itty-bitty photo visible?
I did the same, using a water cooker, and got about 90% efficiency assuming textbook heat to vaporize water. I am a little worried though, about: 1) The, to my feeling, rather slow rate of vapor/steam escaping Rossi's hose as seen in Krivits video My water cooker is 1.5kW, Rossi's water cooker is 15kW. But my water cooker seemed to have a more vibrant cook to it. Maybe the water condenses while traveling through the rubber hose? BTW steam is not invisible, just transparant. Like glas is not invisible but transparant. 2) Air humidifiers being able to do just that: make mist On the other hand, according to Kullander-Essen, water wouldn't exceed 60C if there wasn't some effect. On Mon, Jul 18, 2011 at 1:14 PM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com wrote: Peter Gluck wrote: It is perfectly visible. But let's measure the enthalpy of the steam not any other characteristic I am calibrating thermocouples. Is that not allowed? More calibrations and more specific information about temperatures, duration, the mass of metal and the mass of cooling water would enhance this discussion. To paraphrase the monster in Frankenstein and Bride of Frankenstein: Calibrations, good. Heat, go-o-o-od. Blather, bad. Unfounded speculation, bad. I measured the approximate enthalpy of steam a couple of months ago, with an electric frying pan. I did not observe the miraculous event that skeptics believe is so common, wherein the water disappeared at 7, or 20 or 1000 times the textbook rate. Due to inefficiencies and the frying pan heating the room air, I found it took considerably more energy to boil away the water than the textbooks indicate. No surprise. - Jed
[Vo]:Steven Chu
http://the-explorer.com/steven-chu-looks-at-lattice-assisted-nuclear-reactions-cold-fusion/2011/3429583.html/ It *suggests* that Steven Chu was at the MIT meeting. But it clearly *states* that he is looking at Cold Fusion. Anyone has a link supporting the last claim? Thanks! Bastiaan.
Re: [Vo]:Steve Krivit's initiative
How easy is it really to get steam from 300 Watts only? The difference between 12kW and 300W must be obvious, even for the naked eye. And no reports on input power? Is it measured at the plug, before whatever electronics he uses? Or at the input in the reactor? If the latest and if that is RF/pulsed there is definitely a measurement issue there, much more difficult than measuring steam. BB On Fri, Jun 17, 2011 at 12:43 PM, Jouni Valkonen jounivalko...@gmail.com wrote: About those pseudoskeptics who doubt the dryness of the steam. Why they do not just boil water on the stove and then calculate the energy concumption from water used. If the setup resembles Rossi's setup, then it would be child's play to calculate probable error margins. —Jouni
