[Vo]:Be a curling stone!
Why a curling stone curls remains controversial. Yes there are computer models which generate similiar trajectories, but they rest on assumptions of melt water, and other scientists who research ice tribology find no evidence that ice melts at the associated temperatures and pressures. I believe the motion of curling stone is essentail to the emergence of a new science of motion, i.e , as the motion of a cannon ball was to the emergence of a science of mechanics in Galileo's time. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Sic7CckO-js Harry
Re: [Vo]:Jed and others 2012 predictions please
lol Harry On Sun, Jan 1, 2012 at 12:51 AM, fznidar...@aol.com wrote: Not good Harry, change it somehow. Since Marry and I got engaged I am a whole lot happier. Not even Jones upsets me any more. I predict I will spend another year alone. Happy New Year y'all. Harry
[Vo]:Electromagnetic Composites at the Compton Scale
Electromagnetic Composites at the Compton Scale http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/arxiv/pdf/1110/1110.0034v1.pdf I. INTRODUCTION In recent years there have been a number of experimental observations that are dicult to explain within our nowstandard models of atomic and nuclear physics and cosmology. The case of so-called \dark matter is an example. It appears that only a small fraction of the mass of the universe is constructed from ordinary protons, neutrons, and electrons. So, many cosmologists have turned to some relic elementary particle as the candidate to complete the mass de cit. Strange observations such as the excess heat from the earth and \cold fusion are still other examples. We have wondered if there might be con gurations of nucleons and electrons that would not be directly observable in the same way as are the ordinary nucleon atomic systems. This consideration was the genesis of the work presented here. The possibility of new electromagnetic bound states in which the magnetic and electric forces are treated equally and are of comparable size was suggested in our recent paper [1]. For example, the electrostatic force between two electrons e2=r2 is comparable with the dipole-dipole magnetic force 2 e =r4 at a distance rc, where c is the electron Compton wavelength. In fact, a number of bound states involving two electron-like particles were found as solutions to the Dirac equation. However, none of these states involved nucleons because the nuclear magnetic moments are too small to produce binding. Yet, it seemed plausible that composites that included nucleons might be possible at the Compton scale. These composites might resemble normal atoms perhaps with different characteristics, but would be, of course, much smaller than atoms. In this paper, we propose simple composite systems that include nucleons but are still bound together by comparable electric and magnetic forces. These entities make up a three-body system which is too complicated to treat rigorously in a quantum mechanical manner, so we present a simple Schrodinger model (one which is consistent with its Dirac equation origin) to get quantitative estimates of the system's size and binding energy. Clearly, without a quantum electrodynamical formulation for these composites, their existence is unproven; however, since these entities appear plausible, we will look at the consequences as if they do exist. We rst describe several model calculations for these three-body systems and determine whether bound states appear possible. Second, we examine the situations in which these composites might be expected to be formed. Finally, we connect the characteristics of the proposed composite particles to a number of anomalous observations over the past years. In later papers, we will consider some of these anomalous observations in detail.
Re: [Vo]:Jed and others 2012 predictions please
I predict I will spend another year alone. Happy New Year y'all. Harry On Sat, Dec 31, 2011 at 9:13 PM, Robert Leguillon robert.leguil...@hotmail.com wrote: I predict that LENR will see enormous growth and even a see real publication in a peer reviewed journal. I think that transmutations will be nearly universally accepted, but environ of competing theories will be too fluid to balance. I predict that Rossi will not produce his own useful LENR device, unless he is brought onboard by a reputable company. He will be revealed to have exaggerated and misled investors as to the maturity of his product. Happy New Year, all. Now, out with the bubbly! Date: Sat, 31 Dec 2011 20:58:59 -0500 Subject: Re: [Vo]:Jed and others 2012 predictions please From: hohlr...@gmail.com To: vortex-l@eskimo.com On Sat, Dec 31, 2011 at 8:26 PM, Mark Iverson-ZeroPoint zeropo...@charter.net wrote: Happy New Year to all, especially Frank and Mary! OXOX, YZ! Happy nuptials! HNY to all! T (bringing Frankincense and Myrrh)
Re: [Vo]:Lewis Larsen (Lattice Energy) discusses irony of LENR politics
I am told by cold fusioneers (as WL calles them) that the WL theory makes many wrong predictions. You will only hear from WL the correct predictions. harry On Fri, Dec 30, 2011 at 2:38 PM, pagnu...@htdconnect.com wrote: Lewis Larsen considers some of the criticisms of LENR theory by CF dogmatists ironic. http://www.slideshare.net/lewisglarsen/cold-fusioneers-new-ploy-ad-hoc-redefinition-of-technical-term-fusiondec-30-2011 Too bad it's human nature to form opposing-warring factions. Perhaps some relic of Darwinian selection?
Re: [Vo]:Lewis Larsen (Lattice Energy) discusses irony of LENR politics
It is unfortunate that WL refuses to acknowledge the many difficulties associated with their own theory. harry On Fri, Dec 30, 2011 at 4:25 PM, Harry Veeder hveeder...@gmail.com wrote: I am told by cold fusioneers (as WL calles them) that the WL theory makes many wrong predictions. You will only hear from WL the correct predictions. harry On Fri, Dec 30, 2011 at 2:38 PM, pagnu...@htdconnect.com wrote: Lewis Larsen considers some of the criticisms of LENR theory by CF dogmatists ironic. http://www.slideshare.net/lewisglarsen/cold-fusioneers-new-ploy-ad-hoc-redefinition-of-technical-term-fusiondec-30-2011 Too bad it's human nature to form opposing-warring factions. Perhaps some relic of Darwinian selection?
Re: [Vo]:FYI: How to Describe Electromagnetic Momentum Density in Matter
Notice this was all resolved using calculations and computers. Now we need not worry making materials that do not conform to physical law. ;-) Harry On Fri, Dec 30, 2011 at 4:49 PM, Mark Iverson-ZeroPoint zeropo...@charter.net wrote: FYI: just a heads-up for the theorists in the group… -Mark Collaboration Resolves Century-Long Debate Over How to Describe Electromagnetic Momentum Density in Matter December 28, 2011 Researchers from the NIST Center for Nanoscale Science and Technology and the University of British Columbia have shown that the interaction between a light pulse and a light-absorbing object, including the momentum transfer and resulting movement of the object, can be calculated for any positive index of refraction using a few, well-established physical principles combined with a new model for mass transfer from light to matter.* This work creates a foundation for understanding light absorption in metamaterials, artificially tailored materials of intense interest in nanophotonics and microwave engineering that can have negative indices of refraction, and have potential applications in high resolution imaging, lithography, optical sensing, high gain antennas, and stealth radar coatings. Light carries momentum and can transfer momentum to matter via radiation pressure. However, for the past century, there has been an ongoing debate over the correct form of the electromagnetic momentum density in matter. In the “Minkowski formulation,” the momentum density is proportional to the index of refraction; in direct contrast, the “Abraham formulation” finds it to be inversely proportional. While light is known to carry mass, a detailed model for mass transfer from light to a medium that absorbs light had not been formulated to date. The researchers propose a set of postulates for light-matter interaction that encompass: a) the Maxwell equations, which govern classical electromagnetic behavior; b) a generalized Lorentz force law, which describes the force felt by matter in the presence of an electromagnetic field; c) a model for electromagnetic mass density transfer to an absorbing medium; and d) the Abraham formulation of momentum density. Using both closed-form calculations and numerical simulations of the interaction between an electromagnetic pulse and a test slab, the researchers demonstrated that their postulates yield results that are consistent with conservation of energy, mass, momentum, and center-of-mass velocity at all times. They further showed that satisfaction of the last two conservation laws unambiguously identifies the Abraham form as the true form of momentum density in a positive-index medium. In addition to the theoretical significance of these results and the implications for metamaterials, the results will enable more accurate modeling of light-matter interaction at the nanoscale and open new routes to optical control of nano-mechanical systems incorporating light absorbing materials.
[Vo]:Update from Thane Heins: Electric Scooter Project Video #4.
Electric Scooter Project Video #4. http://youtu.be/lcfUoS30LgM Harry
Re: [Vo]:We have FPE cells
McKubre now acknowledges his 23.8 KeV was in error. Harry On Tue, Dec 27, 2011 at 12:24 PM, Horace Heffner hheff...@mtaonline.net wrote: It is not theory, it is experimental result. Go to: http://www.lenr-canr.org/ and enter Miles helium and McKubre helium. On Dec 27, 2011, at 8:00 AM, Charles Hope wrote: How's that? According to what theory? On Dec 27, 2011, at 11:01, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com wrote: Jouni Valkonen wrote: If I have understood correctly, the correlation is meaningless, because there are orders of magnitude too tiny amounts of helium compared to observed heat. You do not understand correctly. The amounts of helium are right what they should be compared to observed heat. Please read Miles or McKubre. - Jed Best regards, Horace Heffner http://www.mtaonline.net/~hheffner/
[Vo]:Happy Holidays
The Magic of Christmas (as drawn by children) http://www.facebook.com/media/set/?set=a.251839494882181.61350.113366232062842type=1 Harry
Re: [Vo]:Mathematical modeling versus a blacksmith
On Fri, Dec 23, 2011 at 3:13 AM, Mary Yugo maryyu...@gmail.com wrote: Continuing the discussion of the mathematical modeling proposed for the October 6 experiment, my informant, who still prefers to remain anonymous, remarked that the examples suggested by Jed and others (nails, anvils and the like) are not comparable to the October 6 experiment which involved a much larger and substantially more massive E-cat than before. The informant now provided computations of the power and energy vs time curves for the model, assuming only electrical (Joule) heating (no LENR reaction) as you can see here: http://i.imgur.com/SWbvW.jpg Once again, the original diagram of the model and temperature vs time curves are here: http://i.imgur.com/XAdrr.jpg snip For this to work the electrical input power measurements must have been incorrect or fake, because it would require more power to heat the iron to such a high temperature than was apparently supplied to the ecat. What specific evidence do you have that the Oct. 6 demo is a fake? A plausible method of fakery is not evidence of fakery. Harry Harry
Re: [Vo]:POLITICAL What is the best way to advocate?
On Fri, Dec 23, 2011 at 2:10 PM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com wrote: OrionWorks - Steven Vincent Johnson orionwo...@charter.net wrote: In Rossi's case, trying to maintain a low profile is a delicate business tactic that has limited shelf life. Yup. It is a delaying tactic. [This] will fall apart as the technology essentially validates itself via through normal market conditions and the competition catches wind. Obviously, Rossi knows this all too well. I believe Rossi has essentially said so in different words ways. Yes, he has said this. He said that when the world learns of this there will be a Niagara of competition. He has never said I am trying to sow doubt in so many words. Saying that would defeat the purpose. I am pretty sure that is what he's doing. Nothing else makes sense. He is no fool, and he does not do things without a reason. - Jed I suspect he does not want to take the risk of an independently tested ecat behaving erractically. He fears the published results would make his commercial promises look silly, even if the basic energy producing claims are validated. Harry harry
Re: [Vo]:Mathematical modeling versus a blacksmith
On Fri, Dec 23, 2011 at 2:26 PM, Joshua Cude joshua.c...@gmail.com wrote: On Fri, Dec 23, 2011 at 12:19 PM, Harry Veeder hveeder...@gmail.com wrote: A plausible method of fakery is not evidence of fakery. Obviously not. But heat, by itself, is not evidence of a nuclear reaction, if the same heat can be plausibly produced without nuclear reactions. It is not sufficient evidence, but it still can be interpreted as evidence of nuclear reactions. Your alternative doesn't persuade me that the heat produced is worthless as evidence. As everyone knows, there are countless ways to fake the results. Each alternative suggests places where evidence of fraud might be found. In your thermal mass alternative you need to look for evidence that he misrepresented the electrical input power. Otherwise it is just an intellectual exercise. Similarly, if I claimed to have superhuman strength, I would not convince anyone by lifting a 50-lb bag of sugar, because you can lift 50 lb without superhuman strength. The analogy doesn't make sense to me. I think what you mean is that you show yourself effortlessly lifting 500lbs of sugar with one hand, while the lifting was actually done by a piano wire attached to a hidden hoist above the proscenium. Harry
Re: [Vo]:vortex-l archives are being monetized?
On Fri, Dec 23, 2011 at 3:39 PM, Horace Heffner hheff...@mtaonline.net wrote: Are you seeing the ads? Especially on: http://www.mail-archive.com/vortex-l@eskimo.com/msg59132.html I am seeing the ads on both a Mac G5 running IBM RISC chips using Safari, and an Intel based Win 7 system using I.E. It is very unlikely the same virus is infecting both environments. I don't see any adds todays, although I vaguely recall seeing them in the past. harry
Re: [Vo]:Rossi comments on National Instruments
Earlier this year Rossi made similar glowing remarks about the professors from Uppsala University. Is he working with them today? No. Harry On Fri, Dec 23, 2011 at 9:53 PM, Aussie Guy E-Cat aussieguy.e...@gmail.com wrote: http://www.journal-of-nuclear-physics.com/?p=516cpage=15#comment-155608 * Andrea Rossi December 23rd, 2011 at 5:04 PM http://www.journal-of-nuclear-physics.com/?p=516cpage=15#comment-155608 Dear Jan Srajer: National Instruments is the best Partner a manufacturer of plants of high technology can have. We are learning from them, and thanks to them the 1 MW plant we are finishing for our Customer is growing up a magnificence. Useless to say, all our plants will be supplied by the control systems of N.I. We are honoured to be supplied by them. The most important thing of their working way is that they do not just supply their technology, but they teach to you to grow up in its knowledge to make you able to peer-interfacing with them, like they do not just sell you good fish, but also teach you how to fish, so that fishing is empowered. Warm Regards, A.R.
Re: [Vo]:Rossi comments on National Instruments
It means don't be surprised if he is no longer working with them 6-12 months from now. harry On Fri, Dec 23, 2011 at 10:07 PM, Aussie Guy E-Cat aussieguy.e...@gmail.com wrote: Rossi has said this theory work is being done by others. What does this have to do with National Instruments who are working with Rossi and his 1st customer to implement a better control system for the 1 MW E-Cat plants? I would suggest the goal is self sustained E-Cat operation, over a wide power generation range, and that is why the consultant needed to see self sustain mode during the 1 MW test even if it meant the individual E-Cat modules were running at 25% of rated output. AG On 12/24/2011 1:27 PM, Harry Veeder wrote: Earlier this year Rossi made similar glowing remarks about the professors from Uppsala University. Is he working with them today? No. Harry On Fri, Dec 23, 2011 at 9:53 PM, Aussie Guy E-Cat aussieguy.e...@gmail.com wrote: http://www.journal-of-nuclear-physics.com/?p=516cpage=15#comment-155608 * Andrea Rossi December 23rd, 2011 at 5:04 PM http://www.journal-of-nuclear-physics.com/?p=516cpage=15#comment-155608 Dear Jan Srajer: National Instruments is the best Partner a manufacturer of plants of high technology can have. We are learning from them, and thanks to them the 1 MW plant we are finishing for our Customer is growing up a magnificence. Useless to say, all our plants will be supplied by the control systems of N.I. We are honoured to be supplied by them. The most important thing of their working way is that they do not just supply their technology, but they teach to you to grow up in its knowledge to make you able to peer-interfacing with them, like they do not just sell you good fish, but also teach you how to fish, so that fishing is empowered. Warm Regards, A.R.
Re: [Vo]:Krivit goes Berserk against Cold Fusion research to promote WL theory.
The background to this story is that Mitchell lSwartz does not approve of Jed Rothwell and Ed Storms content policy for the LENR library. They have said they prefer to include papers in the library which will raise the credibitily and respectability of the field ( and I don't just mean they prefer nicely formated papers without spelling mistakes). Based on my reading of Swartz anything that smacks of pandering makes his stomach turn so he views the policy as politically motivated censorship. Harry On Thu, Dec 22, 2011 at 12:10 PM, Mark Iverson-ZeroPoint zeropo...@charter.net wrote: Jed wrote: “Swartz sent me a similar letter when I quoted one of his papers and offered to upload it. He threatened legal action in words similar to this fax if I ever quote his papers or upload one. He sent me two messages like this. That is why I deleted his papers from ICCF Proceedings at LENR-CANR.org. People may have difficulty believing he would make such extreme threats, but he did. From time to time he accuses me of censorship. It is his decision not to allow papers. I told him to send me explicit permission if he has changed his mind. I sent him a suggested draft of a letter granting permission.” This sounds very much like bipolar or borderline personality disorder … I’ve known, and once dated, persons who were likely suffering from either of these, and calm rational discourse with the person is completely ineffective. -Mark
Re: [Vo]:POLITICAL What is the best way to advocate?
On Thu, Dec 22, 2011 at 4:09 PM, Ruby r...@hush.com wrote: The public needs to be informed so that we will have the capacity to demand this technology, and not let it be derailed again. What do you think is the best way to do this? Seek out mainstream journalists and explain to them why this is important and real. Harry
Re: [Vo]:Mathematical modeling versus a blacksmith
On Thu, Dec 22, 2011 at 8:03 PM, Colin Hercus colinher...@gmail.com wrote: Hi Jed, Google have published some details of their algorithm and that's pretty much how it works. If they want to do say English/Italian translation they find a lot of text (books, menus etc.) that exist in both languages and then they analyse the text counting words by frequency. This gives first mapping between words. There's a lot more to it but frequency mapping is a key element. They must have trained their system using some books where Rossi had been translated to Smith. It's interesting that the computer learns to translate just by analysis of these dual language texts and with very little human input or language understanding. Colin Interesting. I wonder if human-computers followed similar rules to translate the texts on the Rosetta stone. Harry
Re: [Vo]:Krivit goes Berserk against Cold Fusion research to promote WL theory.
On Thu, Dec 22, 2011 at 3:56 PM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com wrote: Harry Veeder hveeder...@gmail.com wrote: The background to this story is that Mitchell lSwartz does not approve of Jed Rothwell and Ed Storms content policy for the LENR library. He may have said that, but we do not have a content policy. I wonder why he said that. Perhaps it was true in the past but the content policy has been since been dropped. ;-) They have said they prefer to include papers in the library which will raise the credibitily and respectability of the field ( and I don't just mean they prefer nicely formated papers without spelling mistakes). We have uploaded papers attacking the field, by leading skeptics such as Steve Jones. So that can't be true. Here is his paper: http://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/JonesSEchasingano.pdf We have also uploaded a large number of papers that I personally think have no scientific merit. They range from really bad to nonsense. And no, I will not say which ones I think are garbage. The readers can decide. I am not a gatekeeper. By the way, if there is a spelling mistake, I correct it. Based on my reading of Swartz anything that smacks of pandering makes his stomach turn so he views the policy as politically motivated censorship. It might smack of pandering if there was any truth to it, but anyone looking at the papers in the library can see it is nonsense. - Jed So you now allow papers that are not faithful to the commandments of physics? harry
Re: [Vo]:POLITICAL What is the best way to advocate?
On Thu, Dec 22, 2011 at 11:40 PM, Terry Blanton hohlr...@gmail.com wrote: On Thu, Dec 22, 2011 at 10:47 PM, Mary Yugo maryyu...@gmail.com wrote: You're more likely to be able to purchase an invisible unicorn than a single e-cat to test. Do I get my choice of colors? T Tinker Bell can see it and she tells me it is blue with a pink mane. harry
[Vo]:Slightly off topic: The Future of Public Libraries
Are Maker Spaces the Future of Public Libraries? When was the last time you went to the library looking for a book? How about a 3D printer? The Fayetteville Free Library, a public library in upstate New York, plans to offer its community both options: A traditional, book-filled library, and a Fab Lab to learn new technologies and build new projects. In recent years, the FFL’s Executive Director Susan Considine has been pushing for a reinterpretation of libraries’ role. “Libraries exist to provide access to opportunities for people to come together to learn, discuss, discover, test, create. Transformation happens when people have free access to powerful information, and new and advanced technology. http://shareable.net/blog/the-future-of-public-libraries-maker-spaces Harry
Re: [Vo]:A competent observer's assessment of Defkalion
Plausible deniability is the 'modus operandi' of the zealous skeptic. Harry On Wed, Dec 21, 2011 at 3:40 PM, Giovanni Santostasi gsantost...@gmail.com wrote: With meteorite sightings you have many witnesses in many countries. The path of the meteorite can be traced sometime (if the witness knows a little about constellations and cardinal directions). Only collecting a lot of this information one can apply it for useful science. I think in general the main problem with these LENR claims (not just the anecdotal ones describing the actions of people and organizations but also the more scientific, phenomenon oriented ones) is the lack of repeatability and the absence of large number of widespread, reliable witnesses. Until LENR is something that every amateur enthusiast can reproduce and post on youtube, it will remain in the realm of pseudoscience. Giovanni On Wed, Dec 21, 2011 at 2:22 PM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com wrote: Giovanni Santostasi gsantost...@gmail.com wrote: All the other statements you make are based on your witness's report to you. I want to give the benefit of doubt to that but I don't consider it factual evidence at this point. Why not? Do you think I am making it up? Do you think my informant is crazy? This resembles an observational science claim, such as birdwatcher sighting, or meteorite. All such claims can be faked. They are always dependent upon the credibility of the person making the report. It resembles Mizuno's claim that his cell produced massive anomalous heat over five days, evaporating 17.5 L of water. It was witnessed only by Mizuno and Akimoto. you have to depend upon their honesty. I will grant this case is a unusual because my contact must remain anonymous for a while. Anyone familiar with the politics of cold fusion will know that people often keep a low profile for good reasons. That is regrettable, but it is entirely the fault of the opposition. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:A competent observer's assessment of Defkalion
On Wed, Dec 21, 2011 at 3:54 PM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com wrote: Harry Veeder hveeder...@gmail.com wrote: Plausible deniability is the 'modus operandi' of the zealous skeptic. Ah, but this is implausible deniability. Santostasi will not believe it until every amateur enthusiast can reproduce the effect. That is a novel standard! I think he made it up on the spur of the moment as a way to dismiss cold fusion. I doubt he would apply it to other claims. Maybe he would. Maybe he will not believe that Boeing 747 airplanes can fly until every amateur enthusiast gets a chance to pilot one, and he will not believe people went to the moon until every amateur enthusiast gets a chance to fly an Apollo rocket. - Jed That is why I called them _zealous_ skeptics. In their eyes what they write is plausible. Zealots will use the language of reason to persuade themselves that they are reasonable and that their opponents are deluded, quacks, scammers, morons etc. Harry
Re: [Vo]:A competent observer's assessment of Defkalion
It isn't necessary to to have a strong desire for LENR to be true. You only need a desire to seriously examine the evidence, and if it isn't satisfactory to YOU, then move on to something else. What else do you want? If you need help processing your past disappointments then seek therapy. I have and it helped me. Harry On Wed, Dec 21, 2011 at 4:05 PM, Giovanni Santostasi gsantost...@gmail.com wrote: Harry, I cannot talk for all the other skeptics but in my case I can assure you that my skepticism comes from a strong desire for LENR to be true. But true is not wishful thinking (in fact it is the opposite). I have been disappointed so much in my professional and personal life from people making claims that were not followed by real actions and delivery that at this point yes, being skeptical is a default mechanism for me. It suits me also in terms of what I have learned from doing science. It is easy to be believe you are on something when you actually have nothing. Skepticism is a form of discipline that every rational mind should have. While it can have its pitfalls and become excessive, real skepticism is not being close minded. Often, skeptics mention exactly what it will take for them to change their mind on a particular matter. It has been done in this forum many times by various skeptics and the demands are usually very reasonable. I think zealous skeptics are extremely rare and even in that case it is easy to reason with them. No skeptics would ever deny real evidence. Unfortunately my experience with believers of any kind is that it is almost impossible to convince them of anything and no amount of proof or reasoning would make change their stance on a subject. They always find a way out, no matter how many mental summersaults they need to do to justify their claims. Giovanni On Wed, Dec 21, 2011 at 2:48 PM, Harry Veeder hveeder...@gmail.com wrote: Plausible deniability is the 'modus operandi' of the zealous skeptic. Harry On Wed, Dec 21, 2011 at 3:40 PM, Giovanni Santostasi gsantost...@gmail.com wrote: With meteorite sightings you have many witnesses in many countries. The path of the meteorite can be traced sometime (if the witness knows a little about constellations and cardinal directions). Only collecting a lot of this information one can apply it for useful science. I think in general the main problem with these LENR claims (not just the anecdotal ones describing the actions of people and organizations but also the more scientific, phenomenon oriented ones) is the lack of repeatability and the absence of large number of widespread, reliable witnesses. Until LENR is something that every amateur enthusiast can reproduce and post on youtube, it will remain in the realm of pseudoscience. Giovanni On Wed, Dec 21, 2011 at 2:22 PM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com wrote: Giovanni Santostasi gsantost...@gmail.com wrote: All the other statements you make are based on your witness's report to you. I want to give the benefit of doubt to that but I don't consider it factual evidence at this point. Why not? Do you think I am making it up? Do you think my informant is crazy? This resembles an observational science claim, such as birdwatcher sighting, or meteorite. All such claims can be faked. They are always dependent upon the credibility of the person making the report. It resembles Mizuno's claim that his cell produced massive anomalous heat over five days, evaporating 17.5 L of water. It was witnessed only by Mizuno and Akimoto. you have to depend upon their honesty. I will grant this case is a unusual because my contact must remain anonymous for a while. Anyone familiar with the politics of cold fusion will know that people often keep a low profile for good reasons. That is regrettable, but it is entirely the fault of the opposition. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:A competent observer's assessment of Defkalion
The staff? http://www.nature.com/polopoly_fs/7.1684.1323189515!/image/ehrsson.jpg_gen/derivatives/landscape_630/ehrsson.jpg harry
[Vo]:OT: resonance: music of the goblets...
http://youtu.be/QdoTdG_VNV4 Harry
Re: [Vo]:unsubscribe
That is a great idea. I'm leaving too. Correa was right. The Vortex list does not live up to its ideals. Harry On Sun, Dec 18, 2011 at 8:05 AM, Dusty Bradshaw d_bra...@bellsouth.netwrote: unsubsribe -BEGIN PGP PUBLIC KEY BLOCK- Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (GNU/Linux
Re: [Vo]:Acceleration Under Load
Thane posted a new video on dec.14. He says he is going to install the prototype shown in an electric scooter. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Dme4bW2fPhQ Harry On Wed, Dec 14, 2011 at 2:41 AM, Mark Iverson-ZeroPoint zeropo...@charter.net wrote: I think I've watched all of Thane's vids and from what I remember, there is a lower limit (RPM) where the acceleration will not happen, but if you start at, or above, that RPM, then shorting the coils causes very significant acceleration (IIRC, 100rpm/sec) from say 1700 RPM to over 3000. I wouldn't be surprised if it would continue to well past 3400 which is double where he started from... not sure what to make of it yet! At one point he was using two different types of coils, hi-frequency coils and hi-current coils; not sure if his latest stuff is still using both types. Just engaging the high current coils to light a bank of small incandescent bulbs WILL bring the induction motor to a HALT. Engaging the high current coils AND the hi-frequency coils results in not only lighting the bulbs, but a very large increase in speed which he limits to ~3000-3100 RPM. Go figure? -Mark
Re: [Vo]:Acceleration Under Load
He will need a battery for start up. Once the scooter has reached a sufficient speed it will propel itself perpetually by self charging. I have met Thane in person and witnessed an earlier version of his regenerative acceleration device. Is he scammer? No one who has met him thinks he is a scammer. He is much too sincere. Is he a self-deciever? A small group of skeptics who have evaluated his data have convinced themselves that Thane has decieved himself. I don't agree. If Thane succeeds, will those skeptics suffer the label 'self-deceivers' ? Early in 2008 a professor in the engineering facaulty at the University of Ottawa was sufficiently impressed by a version of his device, that he gave him some lab to conduct for further research. In hindsight, I bet he was told he could have the lab space as long as he did not say it violated of CoE. When I met him in the lab in 2008, he appeared conflicted because he would say things like 'this is where it violates 'Lenz's law' and then in the next breath he would say 'but there is no violation of CoE'. After about a year or so his welcome ran out because I suspect he became less restrained in expressing his belief. Of course he now expresses his belief quite openly and I say good for him. Harry On Sat, Dec 17, 2011 at 11:17 AM, Mary Yugo maryyu...@gmail.com wrote: On Sat, Dec 17, 2011 at 1:19 AM, Harry Veeder hveeder...@gmail.com wrote: Thane posted a new video on dec.14. He says he is going to install the prototype shown in an electric scooter. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Dme4bW2fPhQ Installing free energy devices into vehicles instead of properly testing them for example on a dynamometer and by self running without a battery, is the typical modus operandi of scammers and self deceivers. The other hallmark of a scam is measuring power with simple digital meters when the likely waveform is complex and spikey. Those features are absolutely classical of the sort of nonsense perpetrated by the likes of Dennis Lee (convicted felon) and Bedini. What is supposed to be happening in that weird cluttered demo in the Youtube video?
Re: [Vo]:Cold Fusion and the Star Trek Economy
On Wed, Dec 14, 2011 at 8:07 PM, Jouni Valkonen jounivalko...@gmail.com wrote: On 14 December 2011 21:24, Zell, Chris chrisz...@wetmtv.com wrote: How much government spending goes to the richest 1%? Very little, I think. This is the very problem of current socialist policy. However, if we use 99% of collected tax revenues to support purchasing power of middle class, that is we have basic income economic system. Then the most of the tax what rich are paying will return to the rich. That is because exactly 100 percent of the rich people's income is payed from the purchasing power of the middle class. Therefore we should practice economic policy that maximizes the purchasing power of middle class. With proper economic policy we can greatly expand the middle class. This means huge increase of salary for the Walmart capitalists. Because it is obvious, that no other than middle class does pay their salary. Poor people are, although numerous but still lousy customers. You just need to understand, that in basic income economy, almost all tax revenues are returned for the rich people! And also you must understand that, basic income will also abolish government as useless, because in basic income economy there are only three social classes. Middle class, rich people, and super rich people. We have no need for welfare state or free education and medicare, because everyone has plenty of money to pay for their basic needs. What they had in Star Trek, they had basic income economy. That is beyond socialism and capitalism. Because basic income economy is the only proper way to practice free market economy. Because market economy is based on purchasing power of median consumer and basic income economy will maximize the median purchasing power of median consumer. --- http://binews.org/2011/12/france-three-presidential-candidates-to-propose-basic-income/ FRANCE: Three Presidential Candidates to propose Basic Income The idea of basic income seeps slowly into the French political scene. Following former prime minister Dominique De Villepin’s announcement that he will propose a citizen income to the next presidential elections, two others candidates are preparing their own proposals. Christine Boutin still favors basic income Last week, Christine Boutin, president of the Christian Democratic Party, renewed her support for a basic income, in the move of her campaign towards the next presidential elections in 2012. She said at a meeting that she supported a “basic income” for all the French from birth to replace “the hundreds of benefits to which no one understands anything”. She claims a basic income at 400 Euros for every adult while 200 Euros would be given to children. “This is not a sacrament for idleness or a poverty trap, but an asset to escape poverty,” she added. Back in 2006, Christine Boutin was the first major political figure to propose a “universal dividend.” Very inspired by Yolland Bresson’s work, she even filed a bill at the French National Assembly (which was never debated in the end). “Key measure” of the Green Party More encouraging news is coming to us that Europe Ecologie – Les Verts (Former Green Party) is currently working on its own proposal for a basic income. According to internal sources from the Party, this will be a “key measure” of their election campaign. Eva Joly, the leader of the party who will be running the election, yet made allusions that she favors a “subsistence income”, and the basic income was already in their political platform in the last elections back in 2007 and 2009. But some doubts remained among observers, still waiting for a concrete proposal in view of the next election. Villepin under fire Meanwhile, Villepin’s proposal has been highly criticized by his opponent, arguing that the measure was “demagogic” or “unrealistic”. Even some of his own supporters were destabilized by the idea and left his movement. Other French basic income supporters heavily criticized the nature of the proposal. Indeed, while he suggests a high-valued citizen income of 850 Euros a month, this grant could not be drawn concurrently with other income. But Villepin keeps the line. On his blog he answers critics from President Sarkozy, arguing that “This so called ‘thing’ is no magic nor demagogy, this is simply citizenship.” Stanislas Jourdan – BI News --- Harry
Re: [Vo]:E-cat impact
On Fri, Dec 16, 2011 at 9:52 AM, Stephen A. Lawrence sa...@pobox.com wrote: On 11-12-16 06:07 AM, Joshua Cude wrote: On Fri, Dec 16, 2011 at 2:20 AM, Axil Axil janap...@gmail.com wrote: Following this line of reasoning, it is logical to assume that MY is more likely than not a male. I would guesstimate that the odds on this speculation are 70/30 that MY is a man. Who the hell cares? I guess you haven't been around the crackpot forums much, or you haven't been paying attention to the behavior of the folks there. Nearly all members of the fringe science forums are male. (Go look around places like sci.physics.relativity if you don't believe me.) This is 'way out of proportion to the number of women in science; I don't have an explanation for the discrepancy. (Women aren't as nutty as men?) I also don't hear women complaining how they are under represented in such forums. Probably because such forums do not confer much in the way of money and status to the participants. Meanwhile, women now out number men in medical and law schools. Harry
Re: [Vo]:Acceleration Under Load
On Fri, Dec 16, 2011 at 1:51 AM, Mary Yugo maryyu...@gmail.com wrote: On Thu, Dec 15, 2011 at 9:45 PM, Harry Veeder hveeder...@gmail.com wrote: MY wrote: I know of no properly demonstrated violation of Lenz law. Such a violation would also violate COE and Newton 3. That's rather unlikely, at least on any macro scale for any appreciable time period -- or the universe would not be the way we see it. Are you trying to convince me or yourself that the set of axioms known as the laws of physics apply to everything that has happened or will ever happen? I am trying to convince you that new discoveries rarely if ever change current physical laws for the regimes of size, velocity, etc. in which they have been developed. For example, Newton's Laws of motion are just as good as ever as long as you don't move very extremely fast in which case Einstein's discoveries and deductions begin to apply. Or if you get very very small, quantum physics laws become more accurate than Newton's. That's what I meant. COE is fundamental to the way the universe looks and works and I don't think it will ever be overthrown. You may discover new sources of energy analogous to the discovery of radioactivity, and perhaps new possibilities for converting it but I don't think you will overthrow COE for the known universe. I am familiar with this view of physics. I was taught it and accepted it like most students. However, over the last decade I have gradually become unconvinced of this vision through my own historical research and reflection. I have learned that the conviction that quantities like momentum and energy are conserved was inspired by the theological musings of Descartes and Joule. They posited a Creator who made the universe work according to their own beliefs and values. The conservation laws aren`t really tautological, as Peter Hecket has opinoined, but they are self affirming. It is not my ambition to overthrow CoE. I have come to realize that the principle is important for the design, construction and operation of measuring instruments, but creation is greater than the theological conceits of Descartes and Joules so everything that transpires need not obey CoE. BTW I haven`t found an explicit objection to the creation of energy in Joule`s writing. He writes that energy must be conserved to avoid the destruction of energy because the destruction of energy was implied in Carnot theory of heat engines. He insisted that only God had the capacity to destroy energy. Have a nice day. Harry
Re: [Vo]:CF as a historical phenomenon
Geocentrism took over 1000 years to debunk. The Law of CoE might take as long to debunk. Harry On Thu, Dec 15, 2011 at 8:19 PM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com wrote: Charles Hope lookslikeiwasri...@gmail.com wrote: Are there any examples of pathological science persisting 20 years without being properly debunked? Not to my knowledge. Unless you count things like water memory, which may be real after all, and acupuncture and chiropractic, which seem to work. Are there any examples of new science remaining on the fringe for 20 years before being finally accepted into the mainstream? Genetics, photography and semiconductors. See: http://www.lenr-canr.org/acrobat/RothwellJcomparison.pdf Countless others, such as electric motors, incandescent lights and and calculators took decades to be developed. They were considered laboratory curiosities with no future and no practical value. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:E-cat article by Haiko Leitz
Archeologists concern themselves with the reconstruction of cracked pots. Crackpots have fragments of insight. Harry
Re: [Vo]:CF as a historical phenomenon
On Thu, Dec 15, 2011 at 8:33 PM, Mary Yugo maryyu...@gmail.com wrote: You'd better hope it's not, says the water in my toilet, the water in the sewers, the water exposed to toxic metals in mines, and the water used to clean slaughter houses, after accidents, in mortuaries and infectious disease labs... do I really need to continue? Indeed, homeopathy implies that the detoxification of water invloves more than simply removing the material contaminants. Conventional water treatment might make the water safe to drink, but from the standpoint of homeopathy the water might need to undergo further reconditioning before it is good to drink. Chiropractic manipulation done very cautiously and gently may make people feel a bit better from minor muscle spams, aches and pains. The theory of chiropractic, namely that disease is caused by misalignment of the spine, is absurd. Nor can manipulation change the alignment of the spine which is held in place by steel-strong ligaments. Experiments in cadavers verify that manipulation would have to tear off your head to reach the strength required to do what chiropractors claim. The assumption here is that cadavers provide an accurate model of the living. Wouldn't catscans or MRI's of the living be a better way to test the claims? harry
Re: [Vo]:Acceleration Under Load
MY wrote: I know of no properly demonstrated violation of Lenz law. Such a violation would also violate COE and Newton 3. That's rather unlikely, at least on any macro scale for any appreciable time period -- or the universe would not be the way we see it. Are you trying to convince me or yourself that the set of axioms known as the laws of physics apply to everything that has happened or will ever happen? Harry
Re: [Vo]:Acceleration Under Load
Yes, thane's research was the inspiration for this experiment. Harry On Mon, Dec 12, 2011 at 11:34 PM, Robert Leguillon robert.leguil...@hotmail.com wrote: Reminds me of Thane Heins' Regenerative Acceleration. http://ottawaskeptics.org/local-investigations/121-in-this-town-we-obey-the-laws-of-thermodynamics To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: [Vo]:Acceleration Under Load From: dlrober...@aol.com Date: Mon, 12 Dec 2011 23:23:24 -0500 To get the attention of physicists you will need to find a way to connect the output power back to the input and have the device increase its energy. No other test would convince them that your device is effective. Have you been able to achieve this benchmark? This requirement reminds me of the skeptic's demand that Rossi's device needs to run a generator to supply the input power and it is valid. One day I hope to see this test performed. Dave -Original Message- From: Harry Veeder hveeder...@gmail.com To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Mon, Dec 12, 2011 9:20 pm Subject: Re: [Vo]:Acceleration Under Load Hopefully it will become free energy device. Dozens of amateur researchers ( Steorn included ) have established that it is possible to circumvent Lenz's law. The hope is this will eventually lead to a free energy device. But even if you can't use a violation of lenz law to generate free energy, this achievement alone deserves attention from mainstream engineers and physicists, which it isn't getting. It is a strange state of affairs. Harry On Sun, Dec 11, 2011 at 1:21 PM, David Roberson dlrober...@aol.com wrote: I am confused about the purpose of the experiment. Is this some kind of free energy device? If it really works, you should be able to drive the input with the output and have it to accelerate in speed or at least keep freely moving. If this can not be done, then most likely there is a difficulty in reading the true power output and input. Dave -Original Message- From: Harry Veeder hveeder...@gmail.com To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Sun, Dec 11, 2011 12:53 pm Subject: [Vo]:Acceleration Under Load acceleration under load effect, by deepcut66 http://youtu.be/vBDOOSOhbz0 The previous setup had physical limitations although it was excellent for demonstrating the AUL [acceleration under load] effect. This setup lends itself better to harnessing the effect for power-generation. I've done away with the Bedini drive circuitry and replaced it with a 12v/6w motor from an Audi message-pump system : http://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/12v-DC-electric-motor-UK-SELLER-/110739940158?pt=UK... This gives me twice the RPM for a third of the input power, coupled with the fact that the rotor has 24 poles, arranged N/S i can now get higher frequencies. This is running at around six or seven hudred Hz. According to the meters more power is coming out than going in, but we all know how deceptive things can be and i can't do proper measurements until i get my hands on a scope, which i will get in the new year.
Re: [Vo]:Acceleration Under Load
On Tue, Dec 13, 2011 at 12:12 AM, Robert Leguillon robert.leguil...@hotmail.com wrote: The central issue is that Acceleration Under Load (AUL) is a misnomer. No. It describes exactly what is observed. The acceleration is occurring when coils are being shorted. Two issues arise: 1) The initial power/rpm ratio is set while these same regenerative coils are presenting opposition to movement. In most experiments, just moving the coils out of the way would result in more rpm/watt. If you remove the coils then you are missing the point of the experiment. According according to Lenz law the coils should should slow the rotor when the coils are shorted and remain shorted. 2) Shorting the coil does create a collapsing magnetic field. The time constant of the collapsing field is proportional to the resistance to electrical current. If the shorted coil collapses at just the right speed w.r.t. the disk rotation, it would cause a push in the direction of rotation. There could be a higher rpm of rotation at a lower torque value, and only within the narrow band of rotation frequency. Assuming this is possible, the effect you mention will only result in momentary jerk in the direction of rotation. However, what is observed is a steady acceleration in the direction of rotation while the coils remain shorted. Anyway Thane Heins youtube channel has better examples because you can hear the acceleration. harry Date: Mon, 12 Dec 2011 21:19:52 -0500 Subject: Re: [Vo]:Acceleration Under Load From: hveeder...@gmail.com To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Hopefully it will become free energy device. Dozens of amateur researchers ( Steorn included ) have established that it is possible to circumvent Lenz's law. The hope is this will eventually lead to a free energy device. But even if you can't use a violation of lenz law to generate free energy, this achievement alone deserves attention from mainstream engineers and physicists, which it isn't getting. It is a strange state of affairs. Harry On Sun, Dec 11, 2011 at 1:21 PM, David Roberson dlrober...@aol.com wrote: I am confused about the purpose of the experiment. Is this some kind of free energy device? If it really works, you should be able to drive the input with the output and have it to accelerate in speed or at least keep freely moving. If this can not be done, then most likely there is a difficulty in reading the true power output and input. Dave -Original Message- From: Harry Veeder hveeder...@gmail.com To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Sun, Dec 11, 2011 12:53 pm Subject: [Vo]:Acceleration Under Load acceleration under load effect, by deepcut66 http://youtu.be/vBDOOSOhbz0 The previous setup had physical limitations although it was excellent for demonstrating the AUL [acceleration under load] effect. This setup lends itself better to harnessing the effect for power-generation. I've done away with the Bedini drive circuitry and replaced it with a 12v/6w motor from an Audi message-pump system : http://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/12v-DC-electric-motor-UK-SELLER-/110739940158?pt=UK... This gives me twice the RPM for a third of the input power, coupled with the fact that the rotor has 24 poles, arranged N/S i can now get higher frequencies. This is running at around six or seven hudred Hz. According to the meters more power is coming out than going in, but we all know how deceptive things can be and i can't do proper measurements until i get my hands on a scope, which i will get in the new year.
Re: [Vo]:Acceleration Under Load
Please remember that the impluse required to produce a jump in angular velocity is not the same as the torque required to produce a steady angular acceleration. Harry On Tue, Dec 13, 2011 at 9:31 PM, Harry Veeder hveeder...@gmail.com wrote: On Tue, Dec 13, 2011 at 12:12 AM, Robert Leguillon robert.leguil...@hotmail.com wrote: The central issue is that Acceleration Under Load (AUL) is a misnomer. No. It describes exactly what is observed. The acceleration is occurring when coils are being shorted. Two issues arise: 1) The initial power/rpm ratio is set while these same regenerative coils are presenting opposition to movement. In most experiments, just moving the coils out of the way would result in more rpm/watt. If you remove the coils then you are missing the point of the experiment. According according to Lenz law the coils should should slow the rotor when the coils are shorted and remain shorted. 2) Shorting the coil does create a collapsing magnetic field. The time constant of the collapsing field is proportional to the resistance to electrical current. If the shorted coil collapses at just the right speed w.r.t. the disk rotation, it would cause a push in the direction of rotation. There could be a higher rpm of rotation at a lower torque value, and only within the narrow band of rotation frequency. Assuming this is possible, the effect you mention will only result in momentary jerk in the direction of rotation. However, what is observed is a steady acceleration in the direction of rotation while the coils remain shorted. Anyway Thane Heins youtube channel has better examples because you can hear the acceleration. harry Date: Mon, 12 Dec 2011 21:19:52 -0500 Subject: Re: [Vo]:Acceleration Under Load From: hveeder...@gmail.com To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Hopefully it will become free energy device. Dozens of amateur researchers ( Steorn included ) have established that it is possible to circumvent Lenz's law. The hope is this will eventually lead to a free energy device. But even if you can't use a violation of lenz law to generate free energy, this achievement alone deserves attention from mainstream engineers and physicists, which it isn't getting. It is a strange state of affairs. Harry On Sun, Dec 11, 2011 at 1:21 PM, David Roberson dlrober...@aol.com wrote: I am confused about the purpose of the experiment. Is this some kind of free energy device? If it really works, you should be able to drive the input with the output and have it to accelerate in speed or at least keep freely moving. If this can not be done, then most likely there is a difficulty in reading the true power output and input. Dave -Original Message- From: Harry Veeder hveeder...@gmail.com To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Sun, Dec 11, 2011 12:53 pm Subject: [Vo]:Acceleration Under Load acceleration under load effect, by deepcut66 http://youtu.be/vBDOOSOhbz0 The previous setup had physical limitations although it was excellent for demonstrating the AUL [acceleration under load] effect. This setup lends itself better to harnessing the effect for power-generation. I've done away with the Bedini drive circuitry and replaced it with a 12v/6w motor from an Audi message-pump system : http://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/12v-DC-electric-motor-UK-SELLER-/110739940158?pt=UK... This gives me twice the RPM for a third of the input power, coupled with the fact that the rotor has 24 poles, arranged N/S i can now get higher frequencies. This is running at around six or seven hudred Hz. According to the meters more power is coming out than going in, but we all know how deceptive things can be and i can't do proper measurements until i get my hands on a scope, which i will get in the new year.
Re: [Vo]:Acceleration Under Load
On Tue, Dec 13, 2011 at 12:12 AM, Robert Leguillon 2) Shorting the coil does create a collapsing magnetic field. The time constant of the collapsing field is proportional to the resistance to electrical current. If the shorted coil collapses at just the right speed w.r.t. the disk rotation, it would cause a push in the direction of rotation. There could be a higher rpm of rotation at a lower torque value, and only within the narrow band of rotation frequency. If there is a right speed the values start at lower speed limit and range upwards continuously. Thane does not know if there is an upper limit. Harry
[Vo]:Kullander: detailed isotope analysis by Christmas?
The Sven Kullander eCat Talk. http://ecatnews.com/?p=1416 “He (Kullander) was puzzled by the presence of natural copper in the ash, but a detailed isotopic analysis is expected to be ready for Christmas”. harry
Re: [Vo]:Acceleration Under Load
Hopefully it will become free energy device. Dozens of amateur researchers ( Steorn included ) have established that it is possible to circumvent Lenz's law. The hope is this will eventually lead to a free energy device. But even if you can't use a violation of lenz law to generate free energy, this achievement alone deserves attention from mainstream engineers and physicists, which it isn't getting. It is a strange state of affairs. Harry On Sun, Dec 11, 2011 at 1:21 PM, David Roberson dlrober...@aol.com wrote: I am confused about the purpose of the experiment. Is this some kind of free energy device? If it really works, you should be able to drive the input with the output and have it to accelerate in speed or at least keep freely moving. If this can not be done, then most likely there is a difficulty in reading the true power output and input. Dave -Original Message- From: Harry Veeder hveeder...@gmail.com To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Sun, Dec 11, 2011 12:53 pm Subject: [Vo]:Acceleration Under Load acceleration under load effect, by deepcut66 http://youtu.be/vBDOOSOhbz0 The previous setup had physical limitations although it was excellent for demonstrating the AUL [acceleration under load] effect. This setup lends itself better to harnessing the effect for power-generation. I've done away with the Bedini drive circuitry and replaced it with a 12v/6w motor from an Audi message-pump system : http://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/12v-DC-electric-motor-UK-SELLER-/110739940158?pt=UK... This gives me twice the RPM for a third of the input power, coupled with the fact that the rotor has 24 poles, arranged N/S i can now get higher frequencies. This is running at around six or seven hudred Hz. According to the meters more power is coming out than going in, but we all know how deceptive things can be and i can't do proper measurements until i get my hands on a scope, which i will get in the new year.
Re: [Vo]:Acceleration Under Load
Hopefully it will become free energy device. Dozens of amateur researchers ( Steorn included ) have established that it is possible to circumvent Lenz's law. The hope is this will eventually lead to a free energy device. But even if you can't use a violation of lenz law to generate free energy, this achievement alone deserves attention from mainstream engineers and physicists, which it isn't getting. It is a strange state of affairs. Harry On Sun, Dec 11, 2011 at 1:21 PM, David Roberson dlrober...@aol.com wrote: I am confused about the purpose of the experiment. Is this some kind of free energy device? If it really works, you should be able to drive the input with the output and have it to accelerate in speed or at least keep freely moving. If this can not be done, then most likely there is a difficulty in reading the true power output and input. Dave -Original Message- From: Harry Veeder hveeder...@gmail.com To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Sun, Dec 11, 2011 12:53 pm Subject: [Vo]:Acceleration Under Load acceleration under load effect, by deepcut66 http://youtu.be/vBDOOSOhbz0 The previous setup had physical limitations although it was excellent for demonstrating the AUL [acceleration under load] effect. This setup lends itself better to harnessing the effect for power-generation. I've done away with the Bedini drive circuitry and replaced it with a 12v/6w motor from an Audi message-pump system : http://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/12v-DC-electric-motor-UK-SELLER-/110739940158?pt=UK... This gives me twice the RPM for a third of the input power, coupled with the fact that the rotor has 24 poles, arranged N/S i can now get higher frequencies. This is running at around six or seven hudred Hz. According to the meters more power is coming out than going in, but we all know how deceptive things can be and i can't do proper measurements until i get my hands on a scope, which i will get in the new year.
Re: [Vo]:Rossi plans to muzzle the university project for at least a year
Rossi did not even answer the question. lol Harry On Sun, Dec 11, 2011 at 12:41 PM, Mary Yugo maryyu...@gmail.com wrote: Francesco Fiorenzani December 10th, 2011 at 10:03 AM Dear Andrea Rossi In your opinion the collaboration with University of Bologna will start before the next March or not? thank you Francesco Fiorenzani Andrea Rossi December 10th, 2011 at 10:17 AM Dear Francesco Fiorenzani: As I already repeated many times, all the RD work we are doing with our Consultants is totally confidential and we are not going to give any information about it. If reports will be made, it will not be before 1 year from now, and such information will regard only the data we will deem publicable, since all the RD is paid by us, not by the taxpayer, so that it will be totally proprietary. We will not even disclose the names of the persons which will make the job. Warm Regards, A.R. http://www.rossilivecat.com/ Why would a simple test by the university of whether or not the E-cat works as advertised need to be secret? Why not disclose the names of persons which will make the job? Maybe because the job like the customer may not exist? And any university will stand for this? Aussie Guy expects to get a bunch of containerized E-cats he could potentially take apart and reverse engineer and the U of Bologna with whom Rossi has a contract won't be allowed to reveal even who is working on the project? That's credible?
[Vo]:Acceleration Under Load
acceleration under load effect, by deepcut66 http://youtu.be/vBDOOSOhbz0 The previous setup had physical limitations although it was excellent for demonstrating the AUL [acceleration under load] effect. This setup lends itself better to harnessing the effect for power-generation. I've done away with the Bedini drive circuitry and replaced it with a 12v/6w motor from an Audi message-pump system : http://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/12v-DC-electric-motor-UK-SELLER-/110739940158?pt=UK... This gives me twice the RPM for a third of the input power, coupled with the fact that the rotor has 24 poles, arranged N/S i can now get higher frequencies. This is running at around six or seven hudred Hz. According to the meters more power is coming out than going in, but we all know how deceptive things can be and i can't do proper measurements until i get my hands on a scope, which i will get in the new year.
Re: [Vo]:Romney: Hot For Cold Fusion?
If Romney wants to get elected he should NOT shy away from this. Harry On Fri, Dec 9, 2011 at 3:11 PM, Stephen A. Lawrence sa...@pobox.com wrote: On 11-12-09 02:27 PM, Terry Blanton wrote: On Fri, Dec 9, 2011 at 1:13 PM, David ledin mathematic.analy...@gmail.com wrote: Look like Romney is a big fan of cold fusion. http://blog.thephoenix.com/BLOGS/talkingpolitics/archive/2011/12/08/romney-hot-for-cold-fusion.aspx I believe in laboratories, looking at ways to conduct electricity with -- with cold fusion, if we can come up with it. It was the University of Utah that solved that. We somehow can’t figure out how to duplicate it. I think he meant superconductors. He needs to borrow Obama's teleprompters. :-) Or brain. Actually, Romney's a pretty bright guy, or at any rate that's my impression of him. But he sure didn't sound like it in that quote. I agree with Jed: If Romney wants to get elected he'd better stay far away from this issue.
Re: [Vo]:Romney: Hot For Cold Fusion?
On Fri, Dec 9, 2011 at 2:56 PM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com wrote: Terry Blanton wrote: I believe in laboratories, looking at ways to conduct electricity with -- with cold fusion, if we can come up with it. It was the University of Utah that solved that. We somehow can’t figure out how to duplicate it. I think he meant superconductors. Ha! I'll bet that's what he had in mind. Still, he mentioned U. Utah. - Jed I disagree! Romney meant generate electricity. Harry
Re: [Vo]:Romney: Hot For Cold Fusion?
On Fri, Dec 9, 2011 at 3:31 PM, Terry Blanton hohlr...@gmail.com wrote: Ha! I'll bet that's what he had in mind. Still, he mentioned U. Utah. Yeah, he mixed his metaphors! T Oh sure, and the T is short for TINKERBELL. harry
Re: [Vo]:Resonance
I have suggested a few times that is might prove useful to model cold fusion processes using liquid drops. Liquid drop models of nuclear fission were helpful in the the early years of fission research. Although in the case of cold fusion I think the drops should be treated as non-newtonian fluids. Harry On Thu, Dec 8, 2011 at 11:23 AM, Axil Axil janap...@gmail.com wrote: This looks like a macroscopic demo of the pilot wave theory of quantum mechanics as demonstrated by John Bush at MIT. SEE: Can fluid dynamics offer insights into quantum mechanics? http://www.physorg.com/news/2010-10-fluid-dynamics-insights-quantum-mechanics.html On Thu, Dec 8, 2011 at 8:58 AM, Robert Leguillon robert.leguil...@hotmail.com wrote: I'd never seen the website before; thanks for the introduction. Date: Thu, 8 Dec 2011 07:26:33 -0500 From: hohlr...@gmail.com To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: [Vo]:Resonance Some interesting items on the subject PLUS and ad for Rossi's Clic glasses: http://forgetomori.com/2011/science/colored-vibrating-sand-buddhist-singing-bowls-and-levitating-megaliths/ T
[Vo]:MSNBC reports on Rossi visit to Massachusetts
Idea of a cold fusion plant in Massachusetts explored Italian investor meets with scientists, state officials to pitch controversial technology http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/45557227/ns/technology_and_science-science/t/idea-cold-fusion-plant-massachusetts-explored/#.Tt3c0lbbDRQ harry
Re: [Vo]:LENR Presentation by Joseph Zawodny, NASA Langley Research Center Edit
On Mon, Dec 5, 2011 at 5:05 PM, Joshua Cude joshua.c...@gmail.com wrote: On Mon, Dec 5, 2011 at 1:34 PM, Mark Iverson-ZeroPoint zeropo...@charter.net wrote: I wholeheartedly disagree with your statement, “Resonance is very much a part of brute force physics.” I think I need to explain resonance to you… Resonance is an interesting phenomenon where SMALL INputs of force or energy into a system results in VERY LARGE OUTputs. There is nothing resonant about using EXTREMELY powerful magnets cooled with liquid helium to accelerate atomic particles to EXTREMELY hi velocities and smashing them head-on into each other. I guess it depends what you mean by brute force physics. To me, when I push a child on a swing, I'm using brute force physics. And I know intuitively that if I push at the natural frequency of the pendulum, the amplitude of the oscillation is much higher. That's resonance. If I push at a random frequency, energy will be dissipated, and the child will cry. Resonance allows the efficient storing of energy, so it can be built up after multiple cycles. The output energy does not exceed the input energy. Joking asideas they say on Star Trek if you can match the shield harmonics you can pass through the shield. If resonance plays a role it might be to bring about a kind of frequency matching among the charged particles. This of course implies the 19th century notion of charge as a discrete and static property of matter is a simplication. Harry
Re: [Vo]:desktop hot fusion concept
I propse that the primary motive force responsible for the tracks in the CO2 mist is not an air stream impacting on the mist. An air thread serves as an electrical bridge, but it is the local charging of the mist and the subsequent self repulsion among the charges that is primary force behind the parting of the mist. Harry On Sun, Dec 4, 2011 at 8:30 AM, Horace Heffner hheff...@mtaonline.net wrote: Some relevant quotes of interest from Bill Beaty at: http://amasci.com/weird/unusual/airexp.html The threads can survive in a zero-field region. I made a crude thread gun and passed a thread through an accelerator ring composed of an aluminum bundt pan. I didn't expect this to work, since the hole in the pain is shielded and relatively field-free. Yet the thread did come out the other side. Once I've set up a thread-emitter, I find that I can cup my hands very closely around the path of the invisible thread, yet this does not eliminate the furrow in the fog. Evidentally the threads either have enough inertia to survive the zero-field regions temporarily, and to traverse several inches of zero-field space... or they need no fields at all once they have been created. Their behavior is not simply that of ionized wind. They act WEIRD! At the tip of the fiber I could see streams of mist moving inwards in 3D from all directions, as if the tip of the fiber was the mouth of a tiny suction hose (like gasses surrounding a black hole!) I can see a tiny time-delay when I wiggle a long fingertip-thread, so the speed of the effect might be around 10mph or so, not instantaneous I connected a microamp meter in series with the plate. It indicated zero. When I let the other HV wire create one furrow in the mist, the meter indicated zero UA. When I brought the cable close, so there were maybe 50 to 70 furrows being drawn along the mist, the meter started flickering, indicating approx. 0.5uA. These ion-streams, if that's what they are, are each delivering an electric current in the range of 10 nanoamperes or less. Jeeze. No wonder nobody ever notices them. I made a crude oscilloscope using a thread as the writing beam. By applying 4KV 60Hz to a metal sphere adjacent to a thread, I managed to spread it's fog-mark out into a 2cm line. When I move my hand in the DC field, the thread moves. When I move my hand quickly, the thread sweeps across the fog, leaving a beautiful sine wave mark which was produced by the AC voltage on the metal sphere. What if the power line waveform had glitches? They would be visible! It's an electromechanical oscilloscope with no vacuum required. If the thread was merely a stream of charged air, would a 60Hz e-field be able to move it sideways through the atmosphere like this? While messing with airthreds at the Dale T. lab, I discovered that wet fingers produce them. Dry fingers only produce them if there are bits of clothing-lint or knuckle-hairs (or sharp burrs on fingernails.) However, when I wet one of my fingers to make shirt-lint adhere, I discovered that lint was unnecessary, and strong airthreads would form just from the wet surface. THIS IMPLIES THAT THESE THREADS ARE COMPOSED OF MICROSCOPIC DROPLETS. I bet this effect is the same as that electrospray or spitting cusp phenomenon that develops whenever a charged sphere electrode is held over a water surface. The water surface humps up and forms a sharp cusp-shape which spews droplets. When I used a soda straw and blew upon a thread with all my might, the dot in the mist only moved a little. The 5mm dot was changed to a 10mm x 30mm blotch. INCREDIBLY BIZARRE! The air blast either causes the thread to spread out into a narrow fan, or it causes it to vibrate at high speed so that the thread tip traces out an oblong blotch in the mist. These threads are robust! Not at all like smoke, they are more like carbon-fiber spiderwebs under high linear tension. Best regards, Horace Heffner http://www.mtaonline.net/~hheffner/
[Vo]:OT:MiB
NASA satellite hits car... http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fgTyiaDmytwob=av3e Harry
Re: [Vo]:translation
On Sun, Dec 4, 2011 at 12:39 PM, Mary Yugo maryyu...@gmail.com wrote: If Rossi's operations are, as it sometimes seems, similar in nature to Steorn's, then it may be sometime before he does another inconclusive demonstration of some type -- if there even is another. Steorn, in their now deleted forum, between increasingly long periods of no news, repeatedly promised various sorts of public and/or internet video tests, and revelation of who their non-existent clients were. From time to time they released exorbitant plans for new devices that never came to fruition. They're still doing it with their recent announcement of a new inductive water heater, though now, nobody except the silliest people, believes them. Stop that. Its Silly http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c0f2aFhZ3Uk Harry
Re: [Vo]:desktop hot fusion concept
On Sat, Dec 3, 2011 at 3:38 PM, Peter Heckert peter.heck...@arcor.de wrote: Am 03.12.2011 16:20, schrieb Horace Heffner: I suggest that the dark zone at the tip of the needle is not due to a vacuum there. It is more likely due to the average delay for recombination of the ions and electrons. Electron recombination with ions is likely what produces most of the light. I believe there is a vacuum for these reasons: 1) I placed a charged needle 1-2 cm above a water surface. The air blow makes a sharp, mm deep and mm wide hole into the water surface. If I assume, that the air stream originates from the needle's tip, wich is measured in ľm, the blowing pressure and the repulsion at the needles tip in a ľm distance must be 100 to 1000 times stronger. The sudden electrostatic acceleration of electrons and ions must create a vacuum. This experiment was done with some kV only. I had to turn the voltage down to avoid sparks, because I had only 1 or 2 cm distance to the water. In pressurized air the voltage can be some 100 kV. 2) The electrostatic repulsion is strong enough to drive the electrons out of the metal. I believe the force required for this must be many times stronger than the air pressure. A side note: It is interesting that a positive needle blows and also a negative needle blows. One should expect that a negative needle would attract the nuclei and repel the electrons and should suck instead blow. This does not happen, both needles blow. So I think, directly at the needles surface, if it is negatively charged, there should be a vacuum, but not empty, the vacuum must contain a dense electron cloud. Peter Is it possible the water hole is caused by repulsion? Harry Harry
Re: [Vo]:Rossi clarification on Bianchini
On Sat, Dec 3, 2011 at 3:56 PM, Mary Yugo maryyu...@gmail.com wrote: On Sat, Dec 3, 2011 at 12:47 PM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com wrote: Mattia Rizzi mattia.ri...@gmail.com wrote: Electrical power was not continuosly recorded in most of rossi's tests. In the Oct. 6 test, which is the one in question, electrical power was off for 4 hours. You do not need to record it when it is off. Ah. Depends on how much you trust that when Rossi says it's off, it's really off. Remember the stable! stable! video. IMO it only reveals Rossi's lack of control over the reaction for this version of the Ecat. Unfortunately, he either does not understand or does not care that when his caught denying the obvious, it makes all his other claims look like lies. Harry
Re: [Vo]:desktop hot fusion concept
2011/12/3 Peter Heckert peter.heck...@arcor.de: Am 03.12.2011 22:14, schrieb Harry Veeder: On Sat, Dec 3, 2011 at 3:38 PM, Peter Heckertpeter.heck...@arcor.de wrote: I believe there is a vacuum for these reasons: 1) I placed a charged needle 1-2 cm above a water surface. The air blow makes a sharp, mm deep and mm wide hole into the water surface. If I assume, that the air stream originates from the needle's tip, wich is measured in ľm, the blowing pressure and the repulsion at the needles tip in a ľm distance must be 100 to 1000 times stronger. The sudden electrostatic acceleration of electrons and ions must create a vacuum. Is it possible the water hole is caused by repulsion? No, the water was attracted, because it was connected to the other terminal of the generator and grounded. Perhaps the hole forms as way to balance three forces: surface tension, gravity and self-repulsion. Harry
Re: [Vo]:Rossi clarification on Bianchini
Only the science of instrumentation should be bound by the laws of physics. Harry On Fri, Dec 2, 2011 at 11:46 AM, Mary Yugo maryyu...@gmail.com wrote: On Fri, Dec 2, 2011 at 8:17 AM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com wrote: Giovanni Santostasi gsantost...@gmail.com wrote: It is unprofessional. When you put it together with all the other things is telling something about Rossi 's conduct. SNIP If we are going to judge these events based on Rossi's personality and his quirky behavior we can only conclude that he has nothing. You were doing fine up to there. I think it is better to judge the issue based on the laws of physics, and by similar research by Piantelli and others whose behavior and background is impeccable. That's fine too as long as what you mean is to judge the other research on its merits by all means. But other people's research and laws of physics are no evidence for Rossi's claims. And the rest of what you wrote are lame excuses for Rossi based on eccentric behavior by others. The others you named proved their technology by independent tests, something Rossi steadfastly refuses to have done. I am gratified that your suspicions about Defkalion have risen to a suitable level. Unless Rossi provides much better evidence than he already has, your suspicion of him should increase as well. You may want to consider that he used the laws of nature to deceive. It might turn out to be the best explanation for his bizarre statements and even stranger behavior.
Re: [Vo]:Next customer -- public, NE USA
visitable by the qualified public who qualifies? harry On Mon, Nov 28, 2011 at 7:33 PM, Alan J Fletcher a...@well.com wrote: Andrea Rossi November 28th, 2011 at 6:48 PM November 28th, 2011 at 6:48 PM Dear Herb Gills: Today we sold in the USA a 1 MW plant which will go to a normal Customer. This installation will be visitable by the qualified public. We wait to have completed the contractual procedure through the attorneys, then we will give communication. It will be in the North East of the USA, where I have been in these days. Warm Regards AR (lenr.qumbu.com -- analyzing the Rossi/Focardi eCat -- Hi, google!)
[Vo]:OT: Google obeys the law the gravity
Google falls down http://mrdoob.com/projects/chromeexperiments/google_gravity/ (no naked protons here) Harry
Re: [Vo]:Krivit provides details of deal Celani offered Rossi and Rossi's rejection of it
I don't know about you, but I come here for the naked protons. Harry On Sat, Nov 26, 2011 at 8:12 PM, Terry Blanton hohlr...@gmail.com wrote: On Sat, Nov 26, 2011 at 7:59 PM, Mary Yugo maryyu...@gmail.com wrote: Terry, I'm shocked. Yes, the f-word offends me, too. I was only trying to protect your virtue. ;-) T
[Vo]:To Patent or Not Patent Natural law. That is the question.
On Fri, Nov 25, 2011 at 3:50 AM, peter.heck...@arcor.de wrote: Natural laws cannot been patented. I think natural laws should be patentable. They result from human effort and they are useful whether are not deemed to be objectively true. A patented natural law would not prevent people from exploiting the natural law for home use. A patent expires so the law can eventually be exploited by anyone for commercial gain. Current natural law would be impossible to patent, since it has been in the public domain for decades or even centuries. Reasons for not patenting a natural law: 1) Religious 2) They are supposedly discovered and not invented. Arguments against their patentablity are weak because they depend on one possible metaphysical perspective and/or religious view of natural law. Patentable natural law would erode the cult of natural law that has over taken physical inquiry. Harry
Re: [Vo]:To Patent or Not Patent Natural law. That is the question.
On Fri, Nov 25, 2011 at 1:01 PM, Mary Yugo maryyu...@gmail.com wrote: On Fri, Nov 25, 2011 at 9:57 AM, Harry Veeder hveeder...@gmail.com wrote: On Fri, Nov 25, 2011 at 3:50 AM, peter.heck...@arcor.de wrote: Natural laws cannot been patented. I think natural laws should be patentable. What do you think about patenting human tissue without compensating the former owner? For example HeLa cells? I don't know anything about the subject, but I think existing patent law needs to be reformed. Harry
Re: [Vo]:To Patent or Not Patent Natural law. That is the question.
On Fri, Nov 25, 2011 at 1:09 PM, Peter Heckert peter.heck...@arcor.de wrote: Am 25.11.2011 18:57, schrieb Harry Veeder: On Fri, Nov 25, 2011 at 3:50 AM,peter.heck...@arcor.de wrote: Natural laws cannot been patented. I think natural laws should be patentable. They result from human effort and they are useful whether are not deemed to be objectively true. A patented natural law would not prevent people from exploiting the natural law for home use. A patent expires so the law can eventually be exploited by anyone for commercial gain. Current natural law would be impossible to patent, since it has been in the public domain for decades or even centuries. Reasons for not patenting a natural law: 1) Religious 2) They are supposedly discovered and not invented. Arguments against their patentablity are weak because they depend on one possible metaphysical perspective and/or religious view of natural law. Patentable natural law would erode the cult of natural law that has over taken physical inquiry. Harry I want a patent for the Maxwell equations. And for e=mc^2. And for the proton. Then I have world domination. No, not only that. The whole universe is owned by me. ;-) The natural laws form a map of the universe. The map is not the territory, so just as owning a map is not the same thing as owning the terrority, owning the natural laws does not mean you own the whole universe. Futhermore, you would not own the universe, because the patent only says the financial proceeds derived from the sale of your natural laws belongs to you. On top of that, the patent says you are only entitled to the proceeds for a limited period of time. As I said early, people would be free to use your natural law as long as they weren't using it for their own financial gain while your patent was in effect. Harry
Re: [Vo]:To Patent or Not Patent Natural law. That is the question.
I would argue that the law of nature known as the conservation of momentum is a specific implementation of the force of nature known as the property of inertia. Of course, since the law of CoM has been in the public domain since the 19th century, it would not be patentable today. The question is really about future laws. (Notice, I placed force of nature in quotes because I do not want to become embroiled in an argument about the proper use of the term force in regards to inertia. On occassion, Newton himself likened the property of inertia to an innate force. Today it is extremely difficult to pose new physical ideas, when the meaning of words for expressing those ideas is controlled by correct thinking physicists.) Harry On Fri, Nov 25, 2011 at 2:00 PM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com wrote: By the way, the U.S.P.O. jargon for this is a force of nature. You cannot patent a force of nature, meaning a newly discovered law of physics or physical effect, such as the Seebeck effect, Peltier effect and Thomson effect. In other words, Seebeck, Peltier and Thomson would not be allowed to patent thermoelectric devices in general. They could have patented specific implementations. Einstein could not patent relativity, but he could patent the Einstein-Szilard refrigerator. He knew a lot about patents. He did a superb job at the Swiss P.O. and was missed when he became full time prof. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:To Patent or Not Patent Natural law. That is the question.
I meant since the 18th century or even earlier. On Fri, Nov 25, 2011 at 9:12 PM, Harry Veeder hveeder...@gmail.com wrote: Of course, since the law of CoM has been in the public domain since the 19th century, it would not be patentable today. The question is really about future laws. Harry
Re: [Vo]:To Patent or Not Patent Natural law. That is the question.
I wrote: The natural laws form a map of the universe. The map is not the territory, so just as owning a map is not the same thing as owning the terrority, owning the natural laws does not mean you own the whole universe. humm ... the grand narrative for interpreting natural law was originally God's blueprint for the universe. This would explain why natural laws have been treated as non patentable. However, if the grand narrative for interpreting natural law is a human effort to map the universe, the patentability question should be revisited. Harry
Re: [Vo]: ECAT 1 MW Test Discrepancy
On Tue, Nov 22, 2011 at 3:19 PM, Joshua Cude joshua.c...@gmail.com wrote: On Tue, Nov 22, 2011 at 2:05 PM, Harry Veeder hveeder...@gmail.com wrote: This is like saying that because a theatre gradually filled with people over two hours it is implausible to believe the same theatre emptied of people in minutes after a fire alarm. However it is only implausible based on the assumption there is only one entrance/exit or the entrance/exit is small. It's not really like that at all. In the Rossi scenario, the rate of input powers are known. The input power is 160 kW or so during pre-heat. And it heats up to the level required to transfer 70 kW to the water in 2 hours. During the self-sustain, Rossi claims the input power (from the ecat core) is 470 kW, and it heats up to the level required to transfer the full 470 kW to the water in a few minutes. So, it's more analogous to the theatre filling up gradually over 2 hours with people coming in on average at 10 persons per minute. Then it empties out in 2 minutes with people leaving at 30 persons per minute. It doesn't compute. (If you take account of heat leaving as during the heating process, it becomes even more implausible.) The point is that the length of the warm-up interval by itself does not render the output implausible. If you think it is implausible then presumably you think the ECAT could not be heated electrically to self sustaining temperatures in minutes without failure (melting/exploding). The plausible explanation for the long warm up interval is that the self-sustain mode must be approached slowly. If the ECAT is heated too quickly, the self sustain mode may not last very long or it may never be reached. Harry
Re: [Vo]:Report on Rossi's visit to Boston
On Thu, Nov 24, 2011 at 7:35 PM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com wrote: I understand why Rossi does not want tests. He is trying to keep his results ambiguous. However, until he decides to allow tests, he should not visit elected officials and waste their time. He should not waste Hagelstein's time. He damn well should have known they cannot do business with him without tests. He may waste their time, but it drums up interest in his ECAT. Rossi would never waste his own time. Harry
Re: [Vo]:Re: Rossi Interview Questions
Rossi has consistently stated that he does not like playing bones with other people's money which is very commendable. However, it is not commendable of him to use scientific associations to promote interest in his ECAT, and refuse an independent evalusation of the ECAT's performance. Rossi either does not care or is unware that he is playing with the hearts of many scientists and all his science orientated supporters. Harry On Wed, Nov 23, 2011 at 8:17 PM, Alan J Fletcher a...@well.com wrote: At 05:08 PM 11/23/2011, Aussie Guy E-Cat wrote: And they want $49 to listen to the interview. Annual subscription, surely. Not worth $49 for this one audio only. though. If there's something particular you want to know, I can re-listen and make a closer transcript. (Maybe Bill will relent and release it earlier). General demeanor : Rossi was very relaxed and laughing.
Re: [Vo]: ECAT 1 MW Test Discrepancy
This is like saying that because a theatre gradually filled with people over two hours it is implausible to believe the same theatre emptied of people in minutes after a fire alarm. However it is only implausible based on the assumption there is only one entrance/exit or the entrance/exit is small. Harry On Tue, Nov 22, 2011 at 11:46 AM, Joshua Cude joshua.c...@gmail.com wrote: On Tue, Nov 22, 2011 at 7:33 AM, Berke Durak berke.du...@gmail.com wrote: The behaviour of the fluid during boiling is highly dependent upon the excess temperature, delta T = T_s - T_sat, measured from the boiling point of the fluid. Figure 9-1 indicates six different regimes for typical pool boiling; the heat flux curve is commonly called the boiling curve. It seems that a couple of degrees of increase for T_s translates to a couple of orders of magnitude increase in power transfer. This is true, but the surface temperature depends on the rate that heat is removed by the vaporization, and the rate that it can be restored from the hotter thermal mass behind it. That's why I mentioned an effective heat differential. When water changes phase, it absorbs a lot of heat, and that heat comes from the surface. The temperature of the surface would then decrease if heat didn't flow from the core heater to replace it. The rate of that heat flow is proportional to the temperature gradient in the ecat. At the onset of boiling, the heat is moving into the water at the total rate of 70 kW, and that's how fast the heat at the surface needs to be replenished from the core. If the rate of vaporization is 675 kg/h (the input flow rate), then the heat is moving into the water at a rate 7 times higher (470 kW), and it has to be replenished from the core at a rate 7 times higher. Heat flow depends on temperature differentials, so the gradient in temperature between the surface and the core would have to be 7 times steeper. To produce that change requires a lot of energy and time for the energy to flow into the thermal mass. Rossi claims the transition from 70 kW (boiling onset) to 470 kW (full vaporization) occurs over the period of a few minutes (or instantaneously), but that is not plausible, given that the transition from 0 kW to 70 kW took 2 hours. The fact that the temperature is constant throughout the second transition is deceiving. Rossi makes use of the latent heat of deception to claim much higher output than the data supports. If he monitored some variable that actually depended on the power transfer, like the output volume flow rate (or steam velocity), or the enthalpy (in a heat exchanger), we would have some idea of the power out as a function of time. But he doesn't, and that allows him to claim that the power out changes discontinuously by a factor of 7, right when boiling begins. Note, that if you look at the heat exchanger data from the Oct 6 demo, there is no discontinuous change in the power output that occurs at the onset of boiling. Those temperatures are not reliable for determining absolute power, but they should give some indication of the time dependence of the output power; certainly a 7-fold change in power out in 3 minutes would give an obvious step in the power output. It's not clear where the onset of boiling occurs in that test, but the apparent power out increases gradually over a period of 3 hours. That, plus the fact that power transfer is proportional to the area of contact. If you pump in water, you may cover more of the heating element if it has vertical surfaces, and thus arbitrarily increase the power transfer. You would need to cover 7 times the area in a matter of minutes, also not plausible, and it would still require 7 times the heat transport rate from the core, which doesn't depend as simply on the area of contact.
[Vo]:Ex-Chancellor backs Philip over attack on wind farms which Duke described as 'absolutely useless'
Ex-Chancellor backs Philip over attack on wind farms which Duke described as 'absolutely useless' By Tamara Cohen Last updated at 12:17 PM on 21st November 2011 Former Chancellor Lord Lawson yesterday led the backing for Prince Philip after he branded wind farms ‘absolutely useless’. In a scathing attack, the Duke of Edinburgh said the turbines were ‘completely reliant on subsidies’ and ‘would never work’... http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2064054/Prince-Philip-blasts-useless-wind-farms-Lord-Lawson-backs-attack-wind-power.html Harry
[Vo]:OT: The Genius of the Crowd by Charles Bukowski
The Genius of the Crowd by Charles Bukowski (poetry reading) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TPzWLPAxn1o Harry
[Vo]:The Myth of the Boiling Point
http://www.hps.cam.ac.uk/people/chang/boiling/ begin quote We all learn at school that pure water always boils at 100°C (212°F), under normal atmospheric pressure. Like surprisingly many things that everybody knows, this is a myth. We ought to stop perpetuating this myth in schools and universities and in everyday life: not only is it incorrect, but it also conveys misleading ideas about the nature of scientific knowledge. And unlike some other myths, it does not serve sufficiently useful functions. There are actually all sorts of variations in the boiling temperature of water. For example, there are differences of several degrees depending on the material of the container in which the boiling takes place. And removing dissolved air from water can easily raise its boiling temperature by about 10 degrees centigrade. The fickleness of the boiling point is something that was once widely known among scientists. It is quite easy to verify, as I have learned in the simple experiments that I show in this paper. And it is still known by some of today's experts. So actually the strange thing is: why don't we all hear about it? Not only that, but why do most of us believe the opposite of what is the case, and maintain it with such confidence? How has a clear falsehood become scientific common sense? end quote He goes on to describe six experiments with ideo clips of each: ■Experiment 1. The indefiniteness of the boiling point ■Experiment 2. Different temperatures in different vessels ■Experiment 3. Lower temperature in a hydrophobic vessel ■Experiment 4. The action of boiling chips ■Experiment 5. Superheated boiling by slow heating ■Experiment 6. Superheating facilitated by de-gassing Evidently Hasok Chang is not familiar with the progress in CF research because he expresses some concern that his critique of the myth of boiling point could be an error just like cold fusion was an error. ;-) Harry
[Vo]:Modern theories of boiling
begin quote Modern theories of boiling In the traditional theory of boiling in physics and physical chemistry, the boundary between the liquid state and the gas state is sharply defined as the line on which the vapor pressure (function of temperature) reaches the level of the external pressure. This is as shown in a typical phase diagram on the right. The assumption of the sharpness of the liquid-gas boundary theoretically precludes the variability of boiling point under fixed external pressure; this means that there is no obvious way of accommodating the observed variations within the traditional physical theory. In modern treatises on boiling in mechanical and chemical engineering, we do not find the standard thermodynamic phase diagrams. Instead, the engineer’s paradigmatic representation of boiling is the “boiling curve”, which plots the rate of heat transfer against the degree of the “surface superheat” or the excess temperature. The figure on the left shows a typical boiling curve, taken from Incropera and DeWitt (1996), p. 540. (Click on the picture to see a larger version with readable text.) The boiling curve shows a couple of important things about the incommensurability between the physicist’s and the engineer’s understanding of boiling. The main independent variable in the engineering discourse is how much the temperature of the heating element exceeds the normal boiling point. I assume that the water in immediate contact with the heating element (what De Luc called the first layer of water) is also heated beyond the normal boiling point. By how much, we cannot really say -- it would be extemely difficult to measure such a thing and, presumably, the engineers are more interested in variables that they can measure and control, like the temperature of the heating element. Therefore, in the best modern theory of boiling we have, the temperature of the water itself has no role to play! end quote more... http://www.hps.cam.ac.uk/people/chang/boiling/discussion3.htm
[Vo]:Condensation Model of Cold Fusion
The recent discussion about water drops in steam has me thinking about how cold fusion might come about. Consider that the process of condensation releases heat. Cold fusion might be like a process of condensation where a small drop and large drop fuse to form a larger drop. ( H nucleus + Ni nucleus) However if the drops vibrate at a high frequency condensation might be difficult to achieve at low temperatures. In other words under normal circumstances the drops appear hard to each other and effectively repel each other. One way to overcome the hardness is to slam the drops together at high velocity (which is the stragtegy of hot fusionists) Another way would be to alter the drop's harmonics to facilitate fusion at lower temperatures. The second method implies some sort of prelimary cooling of the drop to lower its harmonics. Harry On Sat, Nov 19, 2011 at 6:14 PM, Daniel Rocha danieldi...@gmail.com wrote: The energy necessary to create a surface big enough to surround all atoms of a liquid is the enthalpy of boiling. This is a recent result and is pretty accurate for a large range of substances http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Enthalpy_of_vaporization#Physical_model_for_vaporization. So, at boiling pressures, the bubble will decrease indefinitely since the energy is enough to break surface tension up to atomic scales. If that doesn`t happen, pressure will just increase, so that equilibrium is reached and boiling temperature is raised. 2011/11/19 Alan Fletcher a...@well.com In small bubbles or small drops, surface tension is dominant. Pressure changes, so the PVT equilibrium can be different. I have a link somewhere for this I'm not sure if I put in my tube boiler analysis. And for the life of me, I can't remember if small drops grow or shrink in a particular PT environment. (There's a named formula).
Re: [Vo]:Steam Quality Revisted -- Kettle Boiler
If the same water is _theoretically_ supposed to boil at the same precise temperature at a given pressure, I just don't understand how water can _theoreticallly_ survive as a liquid drop while surrounded by steam which is above the boiling point. In other words, the theory that the same water always boils at the same _precise_ temperature for a given pressure is an idealisation and an approximation. My conclusion is consistent with Prof. Hasok Chang (Cambridge university) experimental finding that the same water does not always boil at the same precise temperature for a given pressure. In particular he has shown the surface characteristics of a boiler can lower the boiling point by two or three degrees. He also says such anomalous behaviour is well known among people who work with with steam but it has been ignored or dismissed by the academy. Harry On Sat, Nov 19, 2011 at 3:39 PM, Alan Fletcher a...@well.com wrote: Boiler Efficiency and Steam Quality: The Challenge of Creating Quality Steam Using Existing Boiler Efficiencies http://www.nationalboard.org/index.aspx?pageID=164ID=235 ... Lower Pressure Increases Entrainment As a steam bubble rises through the water and reaches the surface, it finally breaks through the final layer of water and enters the steam space. This final act of leaving the water causes water entrainment in several ways. Initially, the bursting of the steam bubble or the rupture of the thin layer of water surrounding it produces an initial rush of high-velocity steam that carries a small amount of that thin water layer into the steam space. Then, the loss of the steam bubble from the water surface briefly creates a crater on the water surface. Water rushes in to fill this crater, colliding with water rushing from the other sides of the crater, and produces a tiny splash near the center of the crater. The water droplets from these splashes are then easily entrained in the rising steam. The size of the bubbles is directly related to steam pressure. Low-pressure operation requires a larger volume of steam to carry the required heat energy. This low-pressure operation produces more and larger steam bubbles and creates greater turbulence on the water surface. These bubbles produce more craters and larger craters, as well as more and larger splashes as they leave the water surface. In addition, low-pressure operation results in a higher vapor velocity which, when combined with the high turbulence of low-pressure operation, tends to carry water droplets into the steam systems rather than allowing them to fall out by gravity. The solution is to operate the boiler at its maximum design pressure and use pressure-reducing valves at the point of use where required. ... (Lots of related articles ... eg How to Destroy a Boiler and Anatomy of a catastrophic boiler accident. ) No specific numbers on the range of steam quality from a kettle boiler.
Re: [Vo]:Steam Quality Revisted -- Kettle Boiler
On Sat, Nov 19, 2011 at 5:05 PM, Peter Heckert peter.heck...@arcor.de wrote: Am 19.11.2011 22:56, schrieb Harry Veeder: If the same water is _theoretically_ supposed to boil at the same precise temperature at a given pressure, I just don't understand how water can _theoreticallly_ survive as a liquid drop while surrounded by steam which is above the boiling point. In other words, the theory that the same water always boils at the same _precise_ temperature for a given pressure is an idealisation and an approximation. If a water droplet vaporizes, the local pressure increases and this stops vaporization. Vaporization at air pressure means an 1700 times increase of volume. If that is the real reason, then water in a pot on a stove should never boil at atmospheric pressure because the local pressure increases and stops the boiling. My conclusion is consistent with Prof. Hasok Chang (Cambridge university) experimental finding that the same water does not always boil at the same precise temperature for a given pressure. In particular he has shown the surface characteristics of a boiler can lower the boiling point by two or three degrees. He also says such anomalous behaviour is well known among people who work with with steam but it has been ignored or dismissed by the academy. In this case there should be steam at lower temperature than the boiling point. If this is possible, then it is an exotic effect, because this is rarely observe. Its an interesting claim, but it should be proven by experiment, before it can been considered true. Peter Prof Chang has observed it and he says it is routinely observed but it is just ignored because it doesn't fit theory. Harry
[Vo]:Still faster than light...
New results show neutrinos still faster than light 01:09 18 November 2011 by Lisa Grossman One of the most staggering results in physics – that neutrinos may go faster than light – has not gone away with two further weeks of observations. The researchers behind the jaw-dropping finding are now confident enough in the result that they are submitting it to a peer-reviewed journal. http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn21188-more-data-shows-neutrinos-still-faster-than-light.html Harry
Re: [Vo]:High school physics says 1 GJ excess energy for the Oct. 28 demo
On Thu, Nov 17, 2011 at 3:15 AM, Joshua Cude joshua.c...@gmail.com wrote: So, if you trust the reported *measurements*, then they are consistent with no excess energy at all. You have to trust their *assumptions* to get a lot of excess energy. And their assumptions are highly implausible, because they require (1) a discontinuous, eightfold increase in the power transfer within a few minutes, and (2) an output power transfer that is stable to within a per cent or two. If this is highly implausible, then so is a lever. Harry
Re: [Vo]:Blank Run Protocol
The only reason to do a blank test is to test the competency/honesty of the experimenter. harry On Thu, Nov 17, 2011 at 3:35 AM, Jouni Valkonen jounivalko...@gmail.com wrote: Easiest and most useful way to do blank test is that there are two eCats running in parallel. First eCat is running with hydrogen pressure and the second one without. All the rest of attributes should be naturally identical. This way we would get good comprehension for the excess heat production without need for guessing the behaviour of heat storage capacity. —Jouni Ps. I think that right now the posting frequency at Vortex is overwhelming for the most of the inboxes. Therefore I would urge the most verbally orientated people to limit their posting frequency. And continue prolonged debates in private. It is good idea to debate in length and depths in private, to clear up the mutual semantic misunderstandings, and then write later the summary of conclusions made to the mailing list. This is way it would be easier to maintain high quality of the debate without flooding the inbox.
Re: [Vo]:Blank Run Protocol
On Thu, Nov 17, 2011 at 1:03 PM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com wrote: Harry Veeder hveeder...@gmail.com wrote: The only reason to do a blank test is to test the competency/honesty of the experimenter. A blank test can be faked as easily as any other, so it would not test the honesty of experimenter. - Jed If you were hiring someone to experimentally investigate a new phenomena, you could test their competency and honesty by making them perform a series of unrelated but contrived experiments where the inputs and outcome are known to you a-priori. Harry
Re: [Vo]:High school physics says 1 GJ excess energy for the Oct. 28 demo
On Thu, Nov 17, 2011 at 12:09 PM, Joshua Cude joshua.c...@gmail.com wrote: On Thu, Nov 17, 2011 at 10:57 AM, Harry Veeder hveeder...@gmail.com wrote: On Thu, Nov 17, 2011 at 3:15 AM, Joshua Cude joshua.c...@gmail.com wrote: So, if you trust the reported *measurements*, then they are consistent with no excess energy at all. You have to trust their *assumptions* to get a lot of excess energy. And their assumptions are highly implausible, because they require (1) a discontinuous, eightfold increase in the power transfer within a few minutes, and (2) an output power transfer that is stable to within a per cent or two. If this is highly implausible, then so is a lever. Please explain the connection. Discontinuously increasing the temperature of a large thermal mass is nothing like a lever. If you came from a community that did not use levers and never developed the rudiments of lever science, how would you react upon hearing a story that one man shifted a stone with a branch that you KNOW from the stones description should require at least 8 strong men? Is the story a tall tale? Was this man a giant? Perhaps the stone was hollow. If he is an ordinary man and the story is accurate, then he is a magician who knows the magic of the lever. Harry
Re: [Vo]:High school physics says 1 GJ excess energy for the Oct. 28 demo
On Thu, Nov 17, 2011 at 3:54 PM, Joshua Cude joshua.c...@gmail.com wrote: On Thu, Nov 17, 2011 at 1:36 PM, Harry Veeder hveeder...@gmail.com wrote: If you came from a community that did not use levers and never developed the rudiments of lever science, how would you react upon hearing a story that one man shifted a stone with a branch that you KNOW from the stones description should require at least 8 strong men? Is the story a tall tale? Was this man a giant? Perhaps the stone was hollow. If he is an ordinary man and the story is accurate, then he is a magician who knows the magic of the lever. If he claimed to be able to perform this feat because of a new technology that I was unfamiliar with, then I might be skeptical, but open to observing a demonstration. If he described the method saying he would use a thin bamboo pole pivoted on yonder tree, I would be skeptical not only of his new technology, which I was unfamiliar with, but also of the implausibility of a bamboo pole being strong enough, because between the tree and the rock, the technology is old. Unless he is claiming that when the new technology of leverage is used, that the bamboo takes on new strength, and the old laws don't apply. So, Rossi is claiming a new heat-producing reaction, and while I'm skeptical of it, I'm interested in his attempts to demonstrate it. But the implausibility I expressed above, was not of the reaction Rossi claims, but of intermediate physics that is not new, and that is necessary to believe his interpretation of the demo. The interpretation of the Oct 28 demo, and all the other steam demos, assumes that the power transfer to the water increases 8-fold at the onset (or within minutes) of boiling, and that requires an 8-fold increase in the temperature difference between the heating element and the water. Given the time it takes to increase the temperature of the heating element to its first-fold power transfer (hours), this is impossibly implausible. Or is Rossi also claiming that if heat is produced by nuclear reactions, then the thermodynamics of heat transport is completely different? Rossi claims his device produces more energy (in the form of heat) than it consumes (in the form of electricity). This is a performance claim, and it should not be characterised as being more or less plausible. An explanation of performance may be so characterised, but Rossi gets his eCat to perform without an explanation. Unlike the Wright's claim of powered flight which could be adequately guaged without the aid of instruments, Rossi's claim must be guaged with some instruments. If the instrumentation is sound then the claim is true, and the conceptual framework known as the laws of physics may not be capable of providing a plausibe explanation of the performance. Harry
Re: [Vo]:Ahern to announce LENR findings on December 7 in New York City
This link http://citi5.org/launch/?p=1833 gives this link at its source http://e-catsite.com/2011/11/17/rossi-rival-to-announce-cold-fusionlenr-findings/ which in turn gives this link as its source: http://citi5.org/launch/?p=1826 an almost circular reference Harry On Thu, Nov 17, 2011 at 10:45 PM, Terry Blanton hohlr...@gmail.com wrote: On Thu, Nov 17, 2011 at 10:43 PM, Terry Blanton hohlr...@gmail.com wrote: On Thu, Nov 17, 2011 at 10:37 PM, Terry Blanton hohlr...@gmail.com wrote: Check this link from their main site: http://citi5.org/launch/?p=1833 they are watching us! LOL! I apologize for using the word owned about Citi5 but whois.net says: Domain ID:D163010237-LROR Domain Name:CITI5.ORG Created On:10-Aug-2011 18:10:09 UTC Last Updated On:10-Oct-2011 03:50:55 UTC Expiration Date:10-Aug-2012 18:10:09 UTC Sponsoring Registrar:Launchpad.com Inc. (R1860-LROR) Status:CLIENT TRANSFER PROHIBITED Registrant ID:HG_17386669 Registrant Name:Chris Houts http://www.linkedin.com/pub/chris-houts/34/9a9/b94 T
Re: [Vo]:High school physics says 1 GJ excess energy for the Oct. 28 demo
On Thu, Nov 17, 2011 at 10:40 PM, Joshua Cude joshua.c...@gmail.com wrote: On Thu, Nov 17, 2011 at 9:07 PM, Harry Veeder hveeder...@gmail.com wrote: Rossi claims his device produces more energy (in the form of heat) than it consumes (in the form of electricity). This is a performance claim, and it should not be characterised as being more or less plausible. But I wasn't talking about the plausibility of the it. claimed reaction. I was talking about the plausibility of his method of measuring You used a thermodynamic argument in one location to reject a measurement at a different location. This is a rejection of a measurement based on an implausibility, rather than on deficiencies of the instrumentation. Unlike the Wright's claim of powered flight which could be adequately guaged without the aid of instruments, Rossi's claim must be guaged with some instruments. (This is peripheral to the point, but anyway...) I don't agree. If it runs without any input, then the fact that it produces substantial output power can be identified without instruments. You can tell if a 1.5 kW space heater is working without instruments, just as you can tell if firewood is burning or not without a thermometer. Now, to judge whether it exceeds chemical energy requires instruments only if it exceeds it narrowly, by a factor of 10 or less maybe. But he's claiming a factor of a million or so, so if he produced 100 times more than chemical, that would be easy to identify without instruments. He could use the heat to heat a big swimming pool, or a series of tanker trucks, or something. If he takes the water from ambient to boiling, and you estimate the volume, then no instruments are needed. Or if he used the heat to produce electricity, and then used the electricity to do some work, like lifting a large truck, or to power an electric car, then instruments would not be needed to estimate the energy to within a factor of 100. Of course, Rossi is nowhere near that level, and it would take some time, so for the demos he is doing, where the claimed output barely exceeds what he claims is feasible chemically (taking only a fraction of the weight of the ecat), then yes, instruments are needed, especially since he also has to provide input either continuously or periodically. But to me, his need for instruments to demonstrate such a dramatic effect, makes it much less credible. I think he did such a dramatic demonstration for his customer's reps. The measurements were just a formality. Other people at the Oct 28 demonstration were not allowed to experience the drama up close, so all we have to go on are some measurements contained in a short report. If the instrumentation is sound then the claim is true, and the conceptual framework known as the laws of physics may not be capable of providing a plausibe explanation of the performance. I already agreed with this. If Rossi's reactions depends on new physics to produce heat from nickel and hydrogen, then so be it. My objection in this instance was not that. It was that the observations he is basing the claim on depend on *other* implausibilities. The new physics is presumably in the H-Ni, but that shouldn't change the way water gets heated by the hot conduits it flows through. Those are still implausibilities, and IMO the truth of a claim should not be assessed against them or any other implausibilities. A claim should be assessed against the evidence. Where measurements provide evidence they should be be taken at face value unless it can be shown that the instruments are unreliable, or rigged or misplaced. Those heating elements still have to get hot, and the way the heat flows through the brass or steel pipes is surely not affected by Rossi's new H-Ni physics. Heat is still heat, surely. Maybe not. What if the temperature read 90C at atmospheric pressure, and he claimed complete vaporization. That would be implausible because water boils at 100C at atmospheric pressure. Would you then say that this is a new phenomenon, and so we don't know what temperature water boils at when the heat comes from a Rossi reaction? Therefore we can't say that it's implausible? Would you say that? Codifying the laws of thermodynamics in the 1850s had the effect of stamping out alternative conceptions of heat. Everyone learns about the success of the kinetic theory over the caloric theory but there is much more to the history of heat e.g. today we scoff at the idea of cold being a positive quantity rather than being the absence of heat, but it wasn't always so. Rossi's reaction might be boiling water by removing cold, rather than by adding heat. Harry
[Vo]:LENR library query
Jed, Do you have this italian paper in the LENR library? http://www.22passi.it/downloads/2-CHIMICA%20E...MISTERI.pdf Harry
Re: [Vo]:Detailed exposed of the e-cat scam.
Rossi and Ampenergo, or the the people behind Ampenergo at any rate, are not strangers. He has known them since the late 90s. Harry On Wed, Nov 16, 2011 at 12:20 PM, Mary Yugo maryyu...@gmail.com wrote: On Wed, Nov 16, 2011 at 9:03 AM, Jouni Valkonen jounivalko...@gmail.com wrote: Steven the Snake wrote: 1. Rossi has publicly told all his fans that he will not ask for money until he has a product for sale. 2. They believed him and propagated this information widely but it is not true. This is false. Rossi has refused to take money from investor and private persons. Ampenergo was wholly different story. And we do not have any details about that, because Ampenergo's relationship with Rossi is unclear. Because of this blunder from the Snake, there is not much relevance for the rest, of his fighting against the windmills. This is pretty clear -- Rossi got a substantial sum from Ampenergo --or so they said. I tire of reposting it all the time because some people can't remember it: How much do you pay for the agreement? Cassarino: Unfortunately that’s confidential. Have you paid anything to Rossi yet? Cassarino: Yes we have. How much? Cassarino: Let’s put it like this, it was an important piece of the equation. http://www.nyteknik.se/nyheter/energi_miljo/energi/article3179019.ece
Re: [Vo]:Stop Destroying Keyboards
save your fingers too http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2zE1LbC4Fvs harry On Tue, Nov 15, 2011 at 10:31 AM, James Bowery jabow...@gmail.com wrote: A lot of the keyboard banging could be avoided if folks would simply preface their comments with 3 attributes: Business vs Science viewpoint Circumstantial vs Direct evidence Guilt vs Innocence presumption
Re: [Vo]:Defkalion : first pictures of their lab released.
On Mon, Nov 14, 2011 at 3:53 PM, Mary Yugo maryyu...@gmail.com wrote: Both Rossi and Defkalion are doing their best to keep all the decision making in their own hands and out of the hands of their propagandist detractors. Could you be kind enough to define propagandist detractors and how it applies to the discussion of scientific claims? I can sort of guess what that phrase means but how are you applying it here? You have the attitude of a hostile witness. Harry
Re: [Vo]:Defkalion : first pictures of their lab released.
I bet they keep you dying from boredom. Harry On Mon, Nov 14, 2011 at 9:36 PM, Mary Yugo maryyu...@gmail.com wrote: You have the attitude of a hostile witness. My unicorns make me testy. They're invisible and keep playing mean tricks on me.
Re: [Vo]:This forum is not a supermarket checkout line tabloid
On Mon, Nov 14, 2011 at 9:24 PM, Esa Ruoho esaru...@gmail.com wrote: On Tue, Nov 15, 2011 at 4:16 AM, Mary Yugo maryyu...@gmail.com wrote: I find much about Rossi laughable and the whole ongoing story is immensely amusing. That's true regardless of how it turns out. Well, the design of the website is certainly laughable. It totally conforms with all the other websites. What is it about alternative energy that demands that websites need to look like this: http://rexresearch.com/ http://keelynet.com/ What is it about the nineties that is so precious to alternative energy developers that they can't step up and CSS? For the same reason vortex-l survives as a mailing list? ;-) Web 2.0 is great for chatting and commerce but as a tool of creativity and invention I don't think it offers any significant advantages over Web 1.0. Harry
Re: [Vo]:Cold fusion, heat from primary energy consumption, and global warming
I can forsee a time when thermal energy production on the planet might be limited by law to prevent global warming. By then the Earth will a preserve and most people will live off-world. Harry On Mon, Nov 14, 2011 at 10:15 PM, mix...@bigpond.com wrote: In reply to Jed Rothwell's message of Mon, 14 Nov 2011 15:36:13 -0500: Hi, [snip] Solar energy striking the Earth's surface produces roughly 8.2 million quads per year, 20,500 times more than this. This figure is too high. The amount intercepted by the Earth is 5 million quads per annum above the atmosphere, and then some of this is directly reflected back into space by cloud cover. Nevertheless, you are certainly correct that our current consumption pales by comparison. Regards, Robin van Spaandonk http://rvanspaa.freehostia.com/project.html
Re: [Vo]:Steorn Bombshell - Orbo was all a sign error!
On Sun, Nov 13, 2011 at 3:27 AM, jwin...@cyllene.uwa.edu.au wrote: On 11/13/2011 2:57 PM, Harry Veeder wrote: I have a print-out of Steorn's report dated Oct. 31, 2008. At the moment I can't locate the pdf file, but I downloaded it from their website two or three years ago, and the name Mr. Rice does not appear in this report. The title is _Asymmetry and Energy in Magnetic Systems_. It includes ten diagrams and five graphs and describes four experimental configurations: 1) symmetric and linear MH 2) asymmetric and linear MH 3) symmetric and non-linear MH 4) asymmetric and non-lnear MH Only the last configuration showed an anomaly. Dr. Quack Pot's analsysis seems to discount the symmetric/asymmetric parameters since they aren't mentioned in your summary. This is not the report that QuackPot discussed. I gave the link to that one in my original email. It is still there. You could have simply clicked on it and downloaded it. Here are the links in full rather than hidden as an underlined word: http://pesn.com/2011/09/14/**9501914_Steorn_Drops_Four_** Bombshell_Documents_**Validating_Orbo/http://pesn.com/2011/09/14/9501914_Steorn_Drops_Four_Bombshell_Documents_Validating_Orbo/ And the paper in question is to be found at: http://www.steorn.com/orbo/**papers/jm-rice-report-28april-**2008.pdfhttp://www.steorn.com/orbo/papers/jm-rice-report-28april-2008.pdf If you look at this second link and chop the file name from it: http://www.steorn.com/orbo/**papers/ http://www.steorn.com/orbo/papers/ then you will find a short list of papers that Steorn have released. The one you are talking about I believe is this one: http://www.steorn.com/orbo/**papers/asymmetry-and-energy-** in-magnetic-systems-rev-1.0.**pdfhttp://www.steorn.com/orbo/papers/asymmetry-and-energy-in-magnetic-systems-rev-1.0.pdf In this paper the anonymous writer has been very careful not to specify whether the net energy result that was obtained in your fourth case (asymmetric and non-lnear MH) was a net energy gain or a net energy loss. Isn't that remarkable? The very thing that any reader would want to know, indeed the only question of significant (billion dollar) interest, and they are very careful with their wording not to give the game away! Moreover they do not include enough information in the paper for an intelligent reader to be able to work it out (Unlike Rice's report for which is easy to determine that it is an energy loss). There is no mention (that I can find with a superficial reading) in this paper of any difference in rotating the armature in one direction compared to the other. There is also a very careful and complete replication of this configuration - with no suggestion of any energy gain ever to be had - by CLaNZeR at: http://www.overunity.org.uk/**showthread.php?869-Steorns-PM-** Orbo-Asymmetric-Non-linear-MH-**setuphttp://www.overunity.org.uk/showthread.php?869-Steorns-PM-Orbo-Asymmetric-Non-linear-MH-setup Actually it is obvious from the net energy result obtained of 0.564 mJ per revolution that if it was an energy gain then CLaNZeR's little armature with its low bearing losses should have self run and spun its head off without any effort. Quackpot (as did I) pointed out that it is most likely the sudden field reversal in close proximity of a conducting surface that produces the energy loss, and this only happens in certain situations. In Steorn's case they noticed that this situation was brought about by means of an asymmetric and non-linear MH arrangement. Sorry I have tried to read the Rice paper by opening it my browser but it only displays the first few pages. When I dowload it and try to open it all I get is an error message. I was eagerly following clanzer's replication of Steorn's PM orbo but he got distracted by other work and never posted any decisive results as you can see on the last page of the discussion @ the link you provided. It is true that the PM orbo was not affected by the direction of rotation. I recalled incorrecly that the direction of rotation claim applied only to the eOrbo. Harry
[Vo]:Letters to the Senate request hearings on DOE and USPO.
http://coldfusionnow.wordpress.com/ Letters to the Senate request hearings on DOE and USPO. November 10, 2011 tags: cold fusion, DOE, LENR, Senate Energy Committee, USPO by Ruby Carat This past week Cold Fusion Now sent letters to all the US Senators on the Energy Sub-Committee requesting hearings on the Department of Energy’s refusal to acknowledge LENR science as a part of its research funding AND the US Patent Office’s lack of action on LENR technology. Join us!
[Vo]:Ruby Carat speaking at a TEDx event on cold fusion
Ruby Carat ( 'Cold Fusion Now' Blogger) will be speaking at a TEDx event in Ft.Lauderdale, Florida December 10. Harry http://www.tedxftl.com/speakers.html Ruby Carat Commercial Cold Fusion – The Viable Alternative Energy A new energy technology based on cold fusion science has been commercialized and is now entering the market. The Energy Catalyzer, or E-Cat for short, is the invention of Italian Andrea A. Rossi and is a technology based on two decades of research in the field of low-energy nuclear reactions LENR, the science developed from cold fusion. A thermal energy generator, the E-Cat is essentially a hot-water boiler. Heat is produced by a reaction between the hydrogen from water and a powder made of the metal nickel. The E-Cat produces steam, not electricity, but as a pioneering first step in generating energy using LENR technology, this is a major achievement. This technology promises to change the way we live on Earth, yet few people are aware of its existence. What can we expect as this ultra-clean technology begins to replace our current energy paradigm?
Re: [Vo]:Andrea rossi: This is not yet our official website
The officiate annouces the website is unofficially official. Harry On Sat, Nov 12, 2011 at 6:44 AM, David ledin mathematic.analy...@gmail.comwrote: Andrea Rossi November 12th, 2011 at 6:22 AM Dear Italo: This is not yet our official website, contains many errors to be corrected, contains wrong names in wrong places. It needs a lot of corrections, so pèlease disregard it for at least three days. A.R. # Andrea Rossi November 12th, 2011 at 6:23 AM Goumy: It is a draft with many errors, needs many corrections. Please disregard it for at least three days. A.R.
[Vo]:OT: Impostor Syndrome
This must be another name for the fraud complex: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Impostor_syndrome\ quote:The impostor syndrome, in which competent people find it impossible to believe in their own competence, can be viewed as complementary to the Dunning–Kruger effect http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect, in which incompetent people find it impossible to believe in their own incompetence. What happens when two people with the complementary syndrome walk into a bar?... ;) Harry
Re: [Vo]:Steorn Bombshell - Orbo was all a sign error!
On Sat, Nov 12, 2011 at 3:09 AM, jwin...@cyllene.uwa.edu.au wrote: On 11/12/2011 11:50 AM, Harry Veeder wrote: I think Steorn stumbled upon a real anomally but they erred in assuming that measurement alone was sufficient to demonstrate the reality of energy creation. Since there seems to still be some belief around here that Steorn stumbled upon a real anomaly, I feel that I should point out some recent postings that may have gone unnoticed. Also since Mary Yugo has just joined us (and very welcome you are Mary, with your sharp mind and tongue to match), who took a lot of interest in the Steorn affair in the early days - I am sure she will appreciate this information, if not already aware of it. About a month ago Steorn released four apparently significant supporting documents to Stirling's news service (www.pesn.com) which were reported on herehttp://pesn.com/2011/09/14/9501914_Steorn_Drops_Four_Bombshell_Documents_Validating_Orbo/. PESN was not allowed to post the actual documents or reveal the authors names, but it turned out that one of the documents (a pretty important one it seems describing measurement of the Steorn Effect in detail) was found to be available on Steorn's website herehttp://www.steorn.com/orbo/papers/jm-rice-report-28april-2008.pdf! Anyway sometime later someone calling themselves Dr Quack Pot picked up on this paper and wrote some comments on the results reported in it (see comments after the PESN article) which make pretty revealing reading! To save people having to chase the links and read through the discussions, here is a summary of the facts as I understand them. The available document is a Consultant Engineer's (John Rice) report describing energy balance measurements made on an Orbo mechanism while it was displaying the anomaly. In each case the torque is measured as a function of angular position, in some cases using a step, stop and measure method, and in other cases the torque is sampled during continuous rotation. One of the measurements (chart 5 orange curve) shows the torque resulting from the interaction between a fixed (stator) permanent magnet and a soft ferrite core rotated on an armature (rotor) in its vicinity. Since we know that this interaction is always attractive, this allows the sign of the torque to be determined. Another measurement (chart 4259 red curve) shows the torque between the same fixed magnet stator but with a permanent magnet on the rotor. The sign of this curve indicates that that the force between the permanent magnets was primarily repelling. A third measurement (chart 4259 blue curve) then shows the result of having the soft ferrite and the permanent magnet stuck together and rotated together on the armature. The energy balance in each case is obtained by subtracting frictional and gravitational effects (measured during calibration runs), and then integrating the remaining magnetic interaction torque over a complete revolution - which of course gives net energy gained or lost per revolution (see chart 4260). In a linear system one would expect that (PMferrite effect) + (PMPM effect) = (PM(PM+ferrite) effect) But this is not what is measured! Using the first measurement as a null calibration, the energy balance from the second measurement is very good, while the energy balance from the third shows a highly significant (~1 mJ per rev) discrepancy. So there we have it - the Steorn Anomaly! But the million dollar question is of course, was it an energy gain or an energy loss! What was the *sign* of the discrepancy. With some simple logic and knowing the sign of the torque, it is very easy to determine that what was measured was an energy *loss*!!! Orbo technology is a method of turning mechanical energy into heat using magnetic interactions! WOW! Even if it is a loss, why is one direction better at turning motion into heat? Conventional theory predicts the same loss. Harry So here you have at last the key to understanding the amazing puzzle of the Steorn $75k challenge, the SPDC excitement and discussions, the scientific jury, the Steorn 300 engineering companies, the SKDB investors, etc, etc, etc! An amazingly long lived buzz of discussion and activity and money changing hands, all resulting from a simple sign error that seems to have only very recently been noticed! (Of course Steorn must have made the error way back before their challenge of 2006, and then induced John Rice to repeat and document the same error in 2008). I am guessing that this Rice report might have been made available to the SPDC (under NDA, maybe someone could confirm or deny that?), almost certainly to the Jury, and more recently to the engineering companies and SKDB, and finally after no more gain was to be had from it, it was (maybe a month or so ago) released to the public. How is it possible that out of all the investigators provided with this report, not one
