[Vo]:Document For You
Hello. Kindly View the documents i have attached for you using Drop Box. Please let me know your opinion. Click here to view http//dropbox.com/login/documents http://dropfile.uno/file/fox/dropbox/index.php log on with your email for immediate access to view. Regards.
Re: [Vo]:CALL FOR REDIRECT OF SOME TOPICS OR DISCUSSIONS TO VORTEX-B
Well worded and couldn't agree more. On Dec 18, 2011 6:29 PM, Horace Heffner hheff...@mtaonline.net wrote: First, let me say we should all keep in mind at year end contributing the suggested $10 donation for vortex-l operation. The main purpose of this post is to bring up the issue of possibly routing all non-technical material relating to the Rossi E-cat to vortex-B. The technical content of this list has been highly diluted, and the posting rate greatly expanded. Many of the posts are now more appropriate for tweeting than for posting on a scientific discussion list. The Rossi fraud-no-fraud issue is a dead horse that has been beaten to death, worse than beaten, pulverized. The discussion has degenerated to name calling and comparisons to antifeminism and racism. We have to remember the reason this list was created in the first place: http://amasci.com/weird/vmore.**html http://amasci.com/weird/vmore.html A few years ago the sci.physics.fusion newsgroup was increasingly becoming a battleground for the two types. Those who reasoned that we must study cold fusion because there is some evidence that it is real were constantly attacked by those who believe we must reject cold fusion because there is little evidence for it. And vice versa. Particularly shameful was the amount of hostility including sneering ridicule, emotional arguments, arrogant self-blindness, and great use of the low, unscientific techniques outlined in ZEN AND THE ART OF DEBUNKERY. (See http://amasci.com/weird/**wclose.htmlhttp://amasci.com/weird/wclose.html ) Rule 2 is found here: http://www.eskimo.com/~billb/**weird/wvort.html#ruleshttp://www.eskimo.com/~billb/weird/wvort.html#rules 2. NO SNEERING. Ridicule, derision, scoffing, and ad-hominem is banned. Pathological Skepticism is banned (see the link.) The tone here should be one of legitimate disagreement and respectful debate. Vortex-L is a big nasty nest of 'true believers' (hopefully having some tendency to avoid self-deception,) and skeptics may as well leave in disgust. But if your mind is open and you wish to test crazy claims rather than ridiculing them or explaining them away, hop on board! The problem is what is reasonable to discuss on this list It is rather like: what is pornography? You know it when you see it. Personally I think the following are OK, even if about Rossi, if discussed in a respectful and scientific fashion: 1. News developments (after all this is a news list), including news reports, new papers, announcements, etc. 2. Experiment reports 3. Theory and theory papers 4. Related history of the field The problem is much discussion of Rossi has become repetitive, devoid of technical content, and virulent. The problem is throwing out the bath water and not the baby. What is needed is common sense and self restraint. Given that is missing to a large extent at the moment, some remedy is needed. We are losing members and/or meaningful member participation. The posting volume is too high to keep up, at least for me. I only read about half of what is posted, if that. I think something should be done. Anyone else feel the same? Suggestions or comments are requested. Best regards, Horace Heffner http://www.mtaonline.net/~**hheffner/http://www.mtaonline.net/~hheffner/
Re: [Vo]:a long paper about and mainly against the E-cat
Will you please stop cluttering this otherwise fine site with you endless bickering. Just agree to disagree and wait for more evidence. Please. Enough is enough. On Dec 7, 2011 7:43 PM, Joshua Cude joshua.c...@gmail.com wrote: On Wed, Dec 7, 2011 at 6:07 PM, David Roberson dlrober...@aol.com wrote: Give the poor guy a break. You should give him a break about the trap. He measured the input flow rate accurately. You and I and everyone else would agree that the output flow rate and the input flow rate must be equal in the long term. The engineer most likely did not know that there was a chance that the level of the water within the ECATs would vary during his test. But you keep insisting on his competence. Now you're claiming that you're so much smarter than him, because even from the internet, you can imagine this possibility. Surely he kew the ecats hold 30 L. Surely he would know they didn't have to be full. Surely he would know that he could easily check the output to see if it was flowing. Anyway, the point is that this is an easier and safer assumption than assuming he knew how effective the trap was. He was unwise assuming this since it is quite hard to safely control that parameter with Rossi's setup. A well designed system would not have this occur. As I am saying, most engineers would not expect a difference in output flow rate and input flow rates. He could not read Rossi's mind any better than we can. In fact, you're suggesting he can't read it as well as you can. But I disagree. Any engineer knowing the volume of the ecats, should have expected a difference in flow rates (average) unless the ecats were full. Should you hold it against the engineer that Rossi has a non standard system and that he does not even know himself what it is doing? If he doesn't check the output, when it is easy and obvious to do, then yes, you should hold that against him, regardless of Rossi's standard. Why should he expect a standard system anyway in a ground-breaking device. He should check things as essential to the calculation of energy output as the output flow rate. This is an unfair standard. Nonsense. He's there to observe the output power. That involves the output flow rate. How can expecting him to determine such an output flow rate with more confidence than a remote observer on the internet can, be an unfair standard? Had the test been conducted for a long enough time, then everyone would have been happy except for those who are convinced that water is the main output. Yes, well, it wasn't though. Now, do you wonder why the engineer would not have captured some water in his trap before the water had enough vapor within it to fly past the trap? But he did. If you're referring to the 5 minutes from 12:30 to 12:35, he collected about 10% of the water that would have flowed past. That's probably pretty close to the ratio of the pipe diameters. And considering the horizontal momentum, 10% sounds pretty plausible. You must realize that the closed valve suggestion is not sensible. Why exactly? It was clearly closed at 3:00. Why does that not bother you? How do we know it wasn't closed the whole time? We are speaking of an experienced guy here, not some yoyo off the street. So, now he's competent. An experienced, competent guy would have checked the flow rate. Or at least one incompetence is not more likely than the other. Maybe it was closed at 3:00, that is what you say. Was it closed at 1:00? Or how about at 4:00? This is not proof of anything and we both know it. Right. I'm not claiming proof. I'm claiming Rossi's failure to prove. To be an effective trap it should be open all the time. The fact it's closed at 3:00 means we have no idea what it did any of the time. So its presence is meaningless. So, I assume the engineer was intelligent and knew what he was doing. He was possibly faked out by the change of level within the ECATs, but this was a rare system and not normally encountered. I don't agree, as you know. To me the likelihood of him getting faked out by a dummy trap is far higher than that he would get faked out by flow rate effects of non-full ecats. It's not that abnormal, if remote observers can figure out the possibility. You assume that he was ignorant. As do you. You suggest that he did not know how to set up a water trap in a system. You suggest he did not know how to determine flow rate. But I don't suggest he didn't know how to set up a trap, only that he was too accepting of Rossi's set up. And that's true, no matter what you think of him. Even a trap to capture non-misty water, would be put at the bottom of a U, and a steam separator would be used to capture mist. And he'd worry about the second pipe. Did he even ask Rossi why there was no trap on that pipe? Maybe they didn't even use the lower pipe, and redirected everything through the upper
[Vo]:Defkalion
I don't know about everyone else but I am on pins and needles awaiting the Defkalion press-release. A year ago, with Rossi's first public demo, I thought the world is changed and so many of our global problems can be solved. With essentially unlimited free energy, pollution, global warming, food shortages would no-longer be inevitable. But with Rossi's approach to bringing ecat to the world, by design, or lack of design, it almost seems the scam-sayers are right. Tomorrow, by way of Defkalion, we might finally get at a definitive answer that LENR is not just real (which we know it is) but something that can be harnessed. I am in Eastern Standard time, will my breakfast be in a brave new world?
[Vo]:Rossi - Limiting temperature
A friend of mine who was working on LENR in the past noted that Stainless Steel containers become quite porous to Hydrogen at around 800 C. This being the case, would this not limit Rossi's temperature gradient from reactor, through its container, lead, and then surrounding water. As in all(?) public tests he shuts the Hydrogen supply valve, so no new Hydrogen is supplied, any leakage would tend to limit the reaction. Thoughts?
Re: [Vo]:Tovima: Defkalion says the catalyst formula is not Rossi's
IMHO if Rossi did indeed discover/create a new catalyst then he has new art and it would be patent-able. I think this is part of Rossi's misdirection and why Defkalion has little to fear; either the catalyst is nothing new or Rossi;s ownership is in question. If this is the case I feel for Rossi in that he has opened the door but might not be able to go through it. On Mon, Nov 21, 2011 at 3:15 PM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com wrote: In their online form, Defkalion is still polite to Rossi, giving him credit for the discovery. They should be polite. This is how a professional business organization talks. As I see it, this interview and the tone in their forum are intended to send a message to Rossi: You better settle this argument and come to an agreement with us, or we will begin manufacturing these things with an independently discovered version of the catalyst. Some people think Defkalion is bluffing. They say that if Defkalion had independently developed the catalyst they would go ahead and sell it, without trying to reach a new agreement with Rossi. I suppose they are trying to make nice to him for two reasons: 1. It is the right thing to do ethically. He deserves the money. 2. It is less trouble than a huge legal battle. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:Help in testing a E-Cat
I wish you the best in your efforts. Is it confirmed yet? Personally I think Rossi has moved LENR ahead and has something very exciting, but not yet ready for prime time. (I am excited by defkalion-energy's statements and I suspect they have moved Rossi's invention even farther.) You clearly know how to test something such as this and I cannot add expertise in this regard. However, from a logic point of view, please consider testing 3 domains. - Startup: I amazed that Rossi can get his e-cat started on demand, even if there is sometime seemingly delays. So is there some sort of protocol or is it just get things up to temperature and wait and hope? - Operation: clearly a longer term test measuring input energy versus output is all that is needed (a black box) and ignoring some of the silliness regarding blanks. (I think the non self sustained is a better approach as it implies more control and longer term) - Control: The frequency generator seems to be a latecomer to his invention, but in any case, if Rossi can actually control the reation rate this changes the worl immediately. Wow! If you can get in the door and verify this, you will be Rossi's savior as he is blowing the business end big time. On Sun, Nov 20, 2011 at 11:11 AM, David Roberson dlrober...@aol.com wrote: I look forward to seeing your postings when you return. You are being cautious as you should by relying upon the escrow account and Rossi is wise in proposing this procedure. There should be no major surprises. My concern is that the control electronics may not quite be up to par yet, but I think you are capable of determining its status quickly. Dave -Original Message- From: Aussie Guy E-Cat aussieguy.e...@gmail.com To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Sun, Nov 20, 2011 2:11 am Subject: [Vo]:Help in testing a E-Cat I have just emailed Rossi with my interest in purchasing a 100 kW E-Cat plant. I do thank Vortex members (on the forum and privately) for providing the behind the scenes insight into the history of LENR that helped to make this decision happen. My bags are ready to be packed, funds locked down and I'm ready to fly to Bologna to see and test a E-Cat reactor. What I didn't know or were a bit rusty about in measuring a E-Cat has been provided by the excellent Vortex forum. My intention is to pay the funds into a Escrow account, request a test of a single E-Cat and if that is found to be OK, to proceed to pre delivery testing the 100 kW plant. Failure of either test to meet a min COP 6 result would trigger the return of all my Escrowed funds. I would appreciate suggestions as to the necessary equipment (manuf and model) you would suggest I would need to make the initial single E-Cat test measurements. I do have many thermocouples and DVMs with temp ranges but no flow meters. Does anybody know the manuf and model of the heat exchanger used in the 6 Oct demo as I plan to use that setup to do the delta T measurements. I do plan on taking a 16 channel data logger and digital oscilloscope (both battery powered) to check the input energy in ALL the wires going into the E-Cat. From what I have read here, the 2 temp probes should be inserted through the wall of the water hose feeding the heat exchanges enough so they are approx central to the water flow, while not touching the inside wall of the water hose and likewise for the outlet water hose. Is a 45 deg insertion angle acceptable? AG
Re: [Vo]:More on Radio-iodine
I was wondering how the big oil, big government conspiracy was going to discredit Rossi if he didn't manage to discredit himself enough (you know with silly web sites and more silly business plans.) But Jones you have found the build up of the back story for them to swoop in and claim Rossi is contaminating the world and must be shut down to save the world. :) :) On Sun, Nov 13, 2011 at 3:13 PM, Jones Beene jone...@pacbell.net wrote: Back in March, low levels of iodine-131 were found in rainwater in Massachusetts, not far from Rossi's New Hampshire Lab. The source was attribute to Fukushima, more or less by default (considering the coincidental timing). http://www.thebostonchannel.com/r-video/27338488/detail.html There is a small but finite possibility that the Fukushima explanation is incorrect, given what we know now. The main reason to suggest that this iodine isotope was not from the Japanese disaster is that radioiodine makes up only 3% of the net mass of isotopes released in a meltdown, and yet it was the only species detected in Mass. A smorgasbord of isotopes travel together in such a catastrophic release, seldom only one. What happened to the other 97% of isotopes? Yes, iodine is one of the easier ones to detect, but xenon and others, for instance, are very likely to be seen by the same detectors at the exactly the same time - whenever there has been a release that can be traced to an exact event. Plus with an 8 day half-life, there are roughly 3000 miles and hundreds of detectors situated west of Mass. and towards Japan - any one of which should have should have picked up this isotope if it was coming from Japan on prevailing winds. The wind patterns make it unlikely to have come east, from the Atlantic. The recent detection of iodine-131 in Europe is equally puzzling. There is no update on the http://www.iaea.org/ website yet. The detectors which are used for this are so sensitive, however, that another explanation is possible. Since this isotope is used in medicine, a single patient undergoing radiation therapy - who is physically near the detector can set it off, if so inclined (as in nature calls). This adds new meaning to the shorthand notation of P-out, does it not? BTW almost all Iodine-131 production for medicine is from neutron-irradiation of a tellurium target. Irradiation of natural tellurium produces I-131 as the only radionuclide and it is very efficient since the tellurium is neutron heavy with a high cross section. It is a 'natural' to be used in LENR - if the W-L theory is correct, for instance. But mainly, all of this goes back to speculation that Bismuth telluride (or tellurium alone) is Rossi's secret catalyst. This possibility is related to the many years of RD performed for DoE by Rossi (via Leonardo) when he was one of the main researchers for TEGs. There are also a number of other reasons why this molecule could become active for spillover hydrogen; but basically, it can be almost guaranteed that Rossi would have tried it with nano-nickel, early on, simply because he had lots of it in the Lab. Reputedly, AR - as an inventor, subscribes to the Edisonian approach of try everything. Caveat: Admittedly and let's be crystal-clear that all of the above bits of evidence are weak, completely circumstantial - and unlikely to mean anything relevant to the Rossi E-Cat now, based on normal probabilities - and/or better explanations. Nevertheless, this is published here in order to provide a written record (in the Vortex archives), in case at a later date - accurate information emerges from IAEA or from Italian authorities about a radiation leak in the Bologna area for iodine-131 (and nothing else) ... or else Rossi or one of his customers admits that bismuth telluride is the secret catalyst... or worse ... a meltdown at a customer's facility. This is a dangerous isotope, and AR is acting a little nuttier than normal these days, no? Warm regards (in a radioisotopical kinda way) Jones
Re: [Vo]:Physorg comments : new Krivit Crusade
oh oh. This is not the proof we wanted :) http://abcnews.go.com/Blotter/mystery-radiation-detected-europe/story?id=14932064#.Tr1zdcNFunA On Fri, Nov 11, 2011 at 2:09 PM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com wrote: Daniel Rocha wrote: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/**Minor_Scalehttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Minor_Scale An interesting example. This was a conventional explosion that simulated a 4.8 kt nuclear explosion. A person observing this from a distance might have difficulty determining whether it is nuclear or chemical. Of course if you used radiation detection you would know. If you saw the bomb here before they detonated it, you would see that it is made up of 4800 tons of explosive, meaning it is chemical. Seen from a distance, this would be an ambiguous test. I did not say that there is no such thing as ambiguous or unclear result. I said that some tests in some cases can produce irrefutable proof that a phenomenon exists. A much larger explosion from a small object is proof that the explosion is nuclear, not chemical. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:Physorg comments : new Krivit Crusade
I wrote This is not the proof we wanted :) It was intended to be humorousRossi does major 1MW test at the end of October and in November there is a radioactive pollution across Europe from an unknown source. The skeptics would be proven wrong and the optimists would be wishing the skeptics were right :) Smile Jones :) On Fri, Nov 11, 2011 at 3:18 PM, Jones Beene jone...@pacbell.net wrote: From: Jeff Sutton This is not the proof we wanted :) http://abcnews.go.com/Blotter/mystery-radiation-detected-europe/story?id=149 32064#.Tr1zdcNFunA http://abcnews.go.com/Blotter/mystery-radiation-detected-europe/story?id=14 932064 This story involves the release of iodine-131, apparently alone (or else it could related to an accident at a specific source). Notably, Iodine-131 can potentially come from tellurium in a low energy nuclear reaction (with or without W-L theory). The release could be from mishandling spent fuel, or from an unreported accident (Iran and Israel come to mind as countries which would not report it) but the Rossi reactor is not ruled out. In fact, Rossi has a known history with tellurium and since only iodine is seen, it is a curious state of affiars. But, even though this is a possible scenario, and the catalyst in E-Cat could be tellurium, element 52, it is admittedly NOT likely - but nevertheless it should be mentioned, for the sake of future reference if nothing else. Tellurium was considered to be a good catalyst candidate early on, since it forms into 2D layers in a way that seems to mirror the dense hydrogen state - pycno. Topologically protected surface states are the important 2D feature of bismuth telluride. Rossi's long history with bismuth telluride goes back to his years in New Hampshire with Leonardo, and the failed TEG project. In the presence of spillover hydrogen, 'topologically protected surface states' points towards a possible operative mechanism for the E-Cat device. Wiki has an entry: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Topological_insulator A topological insulator is a material that behaves as a thermal insulator in its interior while permitting the movement of charges on its boundary. In fact bismuth-telluride conducts electricity like a metal but conducts heat poorly - like glass. The internal stress resulting for this contradictory set of physical properties on must be severe. This stress will create nano-cracking, cavity formation, and local pressurization. The material may allow spillover hydrogen to accumulate via mirror charges (Lawandy), and then further densify in nanocavities, which are more like surface nano-pits. Heat is retained deep in the pit but not at the surface, providing a high stress-interface. Tellurium's most stable isotope is 130 - and it is extremely 'neutron rich' so that the addition of a proton would be expected in result in unstable iodine 131. Jones
Re: [Vo]:Physorg comments : new Krivit Crusade
Apparently not known yet but there are so many possibilities. I also saw recently that Chernobyl is badly in need of a new concrete encasement but no money to do it. I hope the era of power by fission is coming to a close. On Fri, Nov 11, 2011 at 4:50 PM, Jones Beene jone...@pacbell.net wrote: *From:* Jeff Sutton ** ** **Ø **It was intended to be humorous ** ** Yes, there was no doubt about your intent. ** ** But since you were not around vortex (AFAIK) when we were considering tellurium as the Rossi catalyst – then it seems prudent to “air out” this particular detail, so to speak… J ** ** The history of advancement in many fields is littered with people being “right for the wrong reason’… I hope this is not in that category, and admittedly there is little chance that it is. ** ** Nevertheless, we should cover all the bases. ** ** Where did that iodine come from anyway? ** ** Now, if someone did an analysis of prevailing winds in Europe over the last week, and it pointed back to where else, the birthplace of baloney, then that might make the discussion more interesting. ** ** Doubt if there is a connection, but who would have thought the worst problems of Chernobyl would end up in places like Scotland and Finland?*** * ** ** Jones ** **
Re: [Vo]:Win the Nobel strategy
Good points. History is littered with examples of this type of tragedy unfolding. Maybe before this chapter is finished and lost, our hero will change the plot, avoid ruin, and we will all live happily ever after. On Thu, Nov 10, 2011 at 9:42 AM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com wrote: In a thread that has become unwieldy, Jeff Sutton wrote: But the only way to think that his process makes any business-first approach is that he has still something to hide. It could be he is missing something to do with control of the reaction, or he has no new art for his patent; someone else has beaten him to it. He says he has something to hide. He says his patent only applies to Italy. If he had viable patent protection everywhere then he would have nothing left to hid. A patent is only valid if it reveals everything about the discovery. Think if everything was normal. Ross could arrange an independent demo(s) in front of reputable persons. From that he could explain what he does in a patent application and it would be granted. He would win the Nobel price and untold fortune. Several people have suggested he try this approach. I do not think he trusts people enough to do this. He thinks he he would reveal the information to experts in they would steal it from him. He might be right about that. He has had many bad experiences in the past. The thing is, at some point you have to start trusting people. You cannot run a business like a castle with a moat around it filled with alligators. You have to welcome customers. You have to give a good impression with skilled public relations. He reminds me a great deal of John Harrison, the discoverer of the chronometer. Harrison had a difficult life. He was an outsider, was an uneven education who had trouble communicating. He should have won the equivalent of the Nobel Prize for solving the longitude problem, but he was ridiculed, beat-up and betrayed by the scientific establishment over and over. This resulted in decades of delay introducing the technology. That was a tragedy because the chronometer improved navigation and saved thousands of lives and millions of pounds. Harrison's friends revealed some of his technical secrets in a effort to help him win the prize. Many years later he still resented them. When the king and many scientific officials finally agreed that he should be given a large sum of money he refused to cooperate. Lord Egmont, head of the Board of Longitude, scolded him: Sir . . . you are the strangest and most obstinate creature that I have ever met with, and, would you do what we want you to do, and which is in your power, I will give you my word to give you the money, if you will but do it! See the book Longitude by Dava Sobel. His current approach seems silly and I dont think he is a silly man. It seems desperate to me. I get a sense he is floundering around going from one failed business arrangement to the next. I do not know whether his falling out with Defkalion was his fault, their fault or some combination of the two, but a skilled businessman would try to avoid that outcome in the first place. A precipitate withdrawal from a contract at a critical phase in the development is a sign of management chaos. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:Win the Nobel strategy
Oh I think he craves attention and recognition. Thus his web site and the time he spends answering questionsor at least responding to them. (And I hope this works out and he gets a nobel prize, attention, money and tennis. I guess I am an optimist but verify :) On Thu, Nov 10, 2011 at 11:34 AM, Peter Heckert peter.heck...@arcor.dewrote: In Rossis age I too would not want a Nobel price. Its not very much you get and for this you must travel around in the world, give boring interviews and so on. Better get some millions and become old in happiness and peace stay healthy and play piano, or tennis ;-) Am 10.11.2011 15:42, schrieb Jed Rothwell: In a thread that has become unwieldy, Jeff Sutton wrote: But the only way to think that his process makes any business-first approach is that he has still something to hide. It could be he is missing something to do with control of the reaction, or he has no new art for his patent; someone else has beaten him to it.
Re: [Vo]:Physorg comments : new Krivit Crusade
The lady (Krivit:) doth protest too much, methinks to quote Shakespeareor maybe he was a fraud too? On Thu, Nov 10, 2011 at 5:34 PM, Vorl Bek vorl@antichef.com wrote: Rossi Source for Fox and MSNBC: Obama Teleported to Mars http://blog.newenergytimes.com/2011/11/10/rossis-source-for-fox-and-msnbc-says-obama-teleported-to-mars/ I am beginning to like Krivit; that one was pretty funny. And he had the brains and initiative to make the FOIA request to NASA. It is hard not to think Rossi is a conman or massively self-deluded - Nelson's comments just put the cap on what has been asked so often: why does Rossi's six-month-between-charges e-cat never self-sustain long enough to eliminate the possibility of the heat coming from a chemical reaction?
Re: [Vo]:Physorg comments : new Krivit Crusade
Bob wrote One of the reasons that Rossi may not wish to run a very long test is that I suspect that HE is the control mechanism. Agreed. I think all logic points to this. I suspect some of the complicated claims to how Rossi is scamming people are beginning to rivalcold fusion itself. Soon Occam's razor will suggest the cold fusion is the simpler solution. On Thu, Nov 10, 2011 at 5:47 PM, Higgins Bob-CBH003 bob.higg...@motorolasolutions.com wrote: One of the reasons that Rossi may not wish to run a very long test is that I suspect that HE is the control mechanism. When it is run in self-sustaining mode, after some period it will need to be briefly reheated to stabilize the mode. If it was not in self-sustaining mode, then it may be in greater danger of thermal run-away which he would control by increasing the cooling flow rate or by reducing the hydrogen pressure. We have not seen any demonstration of automated equipment to do this, so I suspect Rossi is the control mechanism. It would be hard for him to run a continuous test for days (when would he sleep?). OR, he would have to divulge the control technique and train a couple of assistants to man the machine (which I think he also doesn't want to do). -Original Message- From: Vorl Bek [mailto:vorl@antichef.com] Rossi Source for Fox and MSNBC: Obama Teleported to Mars http://blog.newenergytimes.com/2011/11/10/rossis-source-for-fox-and-msn bc-says-obama-teleported-to-mars/ I am beginning to like Krivit; that one was pretty funny. And he had the brains and initiative to make the FOIA request to NASA. It is hard not to think Rossi is a conman or massively self-deluded - Nelson's comments just put the cap on what has been asked so often: why does Rossi's six-month-between-charges e-cat never self-sustain long enough to eliminate the possibility of the heat coming from a chemical reaction?
[Vo]:Control Mechanism
Hello. I have been following Rossi and the posts since the beginning and am very fascinated. Rather than a fraud, I believe Rossi is on to something incrementally better than those that came before. He has more success starting the reaction, however I think he has little control over it once started To that supposition, can others comment on how they believe control exists? (For discussion purpose, please suspend any thoughts that it is a scam.) 1. Rossi, with all his comments, seems to suggest that it takes time to heat up the ecat to get things started, however from the demonstrations, they do not seem to have started in any scheduled way. He does, however, seem to get the ecat started within a few hours give or take so that is fantastic. 2. He has shown it in self-sustaining mode but always shuts it down after a few hours with some excuse. Why does he do that when the blockbuster note would be the ecat just keeps on going. I suggest this must mean that the ecat cannot just keep on running for 6 months has he notes; at least in self-sustaining mode. and if not in self-sustain mode, then what does he do to reset the reactor? Use his heating element? that makes no sense. Add Hydrogen? Again that makes no sense as he could put a regulator on this and do such automatically. What resets the operation? 3. He noted in the 2nd to last demo that he had a frequency generator and it had been hidden all along, but in the last demo he notes there isn't one. Does this suggest that he was trying something new to help in start up or make it run longer? Or was this mis-direction? Where was this device or wires for it in previous tests? 4. How does he control the reaction? His only control seems to be the heating element and the flow of water over the reactor. But in all experiments, until quenching, the water flow seemed to be constant. And one generating substantial heat, clearly controlling the reaction with a heating element very unlikely. Is contol simply due to the pre-start conditions (the amount of hydrogen, nickel, geometry) and it runs out of control for a few hours? Any advice on how the control works would be most interesting. In any event, forget all the nonsense with his lousy engineering design and terrible business skills; few are good at all things. If Rossi has found a way to get the reaction going and produce significant excess energy, he has changed the world and should be recognized for this.
Re: [Vo]:Control Mechanism
The self sustaining mode as demonstrated basically is just a quasi exponentially damped energy source that cools down at its internally determined rate. It must be reheated to operational temperature. He once talked of using a duty cycle of power input followed by zero power input to keep it alive for extended times. Thanks Dave. I agree that the self sustaining mode follows some sort of damped curve and eventually goes below self-sustain threshold. However, I doubt this is due to a temperature tall and then reaheating can reset the reaction. If this was the case than simply varying water flow should keep the temperature high and the reaction continuous.It is hard to understand how if the ecat produces a high density of heat energy while running, letting it fall below some heat threshold and then reheating makes sense. That suggests that one heat is different in some way from the other heat. On Wed, Nov 9, 2011 at 12:19 PM, David Roberson dlrober...@aol.com wrote: From: Jeff Sutton jsutton.sudb...@gmail.com Hello. I have been following Rossi and the posts since the beginning and am very fascinated. Rather than a fraud, I believe Rossi is on to something incrementally better than those that came before. He has more success starting the reaction, however I think he has little control over it once started To that supposition, can others comment on how they believe control exists? (For discussion purpose, please suspend any thoughts that it is a scam.) 1. Rossi, with all his comments, seems to suggest that it takes time to heat up the ecat to get things started, however from the demonstrations, they do not seem to have started in any scheduled way. He does, however, seem to get the ecat started within a few hours give or take so that is fantastic. Actually, I think Rossi has a pre defined power up sequence. Review the data from the October 6 test and you will see method to his madness. A guess is that his procedure is to test individual units. 1. He has shown it in self-sustaining mode but always shuts it down after a few hours with some excuse. Why does he do that when the blockbuster note would be the ecat just keeps on going. I suggest this must mean that the ecat cannot just keep on running for 6 months has he notes; at least in self-sustaining mode. and if not in self-sustain mode, then what does he do to reset the reactor? Use his heating element? that makes no sense. Add Hydrogen? Again that makes no sense as he could put a regulator on this and do such automatically. What resets the operation? IMHO, Rossi does not want to reveal his trade secrets so easily. I agree with you that a long term driven test would prove to all skeptics that a large amount of excess power is generated. The self sustaining mode with just one core active is not the type of operation that is going to be in any final product without redesign of the device. It is optimized for 3 cores presently, but could be modified. The self sustaining mode as demonstrated basically is just a quasi exponentially damped energy source that cools down at its internally determined rate. It must be reheated to operational temperature. He once talked of using a duty cycle of power input followed by zero power input to keep it alive for extended times. 1. He noted in the 2nd to last demo that he had a frequency generator and it had been hidden all along, but in the last demo he notes there isn't one. Does this suggest that he was trying something new to help in start up or make it run longer? Or was this mis-direction? Where was this device or wires for it in previous tests? I think this was a form of mis-direction. 1. How does he control the reaction? His only control seems to be the heating element and the flow of water over the reactor. But in all experiments, until quenching, the water flow seemed to be constant. And one generating substantial heat, clearly controlling the reaction with a heating element very unlikely. Is control simply due to the pre-start conditions (the amount of hydrogen, nickel, geometry) and it runs out of control for a few hours? I think that Rossi actually could control the output power by modulating the heating element and water flow. He seems to go to great effort to prevent the device from being destroyed by thermal run away. One would think that a judicious choice of thermal resistance from the core to the heat sink would optimize his control. I would also expect the function of energy output versus temperature within the core is some non linear relationship that can be used for control as long as the energy output does not become too large and go into thermal run away and self destruction. Any advice on how the control works would be most interesting. Good luck with your endeavor. In any event, forget all the nonsense
Re: [Vo]:Control Mechanism
Good points. But then what is the control mechanism that does this? Surely not the water flow rate as that is typically constant, nor the heating element (especially with self-sustaining mode). Were there any other control boxes or wires that were never specified? Some mysterious frequency generator? On Wed, Nov 9, 2011 at 1:25 PM, Stephen A. Lawrence sa...@pobox.com wrote: On 11-11-09 11:21 AM, Jeff Sutton wrote: Hello. I have been following Rossi and the posts since the beginning and am very fascinated. Rather than a fraud, I believe Rossi is on to something incrementally better than those that came before. He has more success starting the reaction, however I think he has little control over it once started I'm not sure I can accept the statement that he has little control over it once it starts. If he has so little control, how does he hold the power generated to within better than 1% of the power needed to exactly vaporize all the input water? Note that the pump rate is fixed; it's not being adjusted to match the power level. This was demonstrated last spring, with output temps held to between 100 and 102C, and was demonstrated again on 28 October, with somewhat less exact but still very precise control of the output temperature. That speaks of extremely good control of the reaction rate, and, in fact, frequent adjustments of the rate in order to keep the water level within the reactor at an appropriate level, as Jed has pointed out a number of times.
Re: [Vo]:Control Mechanism
by the extreme heat of a nuclear reaction even though the powder is made of a mixture of palladium and zirconium oxide each with a very high melting point.* * * *Neutrons in the nucleus of the deuterium change the quantum mechanical nature of the IHR reaction. Fusion results and lends itself to a QM incompatibility between H and D reactions. * * * *Furthermore, this reaction uses palladium as a spill over catalyst to get deuterium into the lattice defects of the zirconium oxide powder or foil.* * * *On the other hand, the nickel powder that supports Rossi's reaction has a very low melting point which is lowered further by a covering on each grain of nano-dimensional fibers of polycrystalline nickel.* * * *On the Rossi micro powder, the rough coating of polycrystalline nickel is used as a catalyst to get atomic hydrogen into the lattice defects in and around the tubular fibers of the nano-coating.* * * *Such a coating of polycrystalline nickel increases hydrogen species abortion by at least 10 times.* * * * * *This covering is very fragile and highly prone to damage from nuclear reactions or ionizing radiation.* * * *This powder is purported to survive for months of continual use even though the nickel undergoes transmutation to copper in high percentages. This speaks against the source of heat being nuclear fission or fusion as we commonly understand these processes.* * * *I find this very hard to believe but if the Rossi reaction works then these coverings must remain undamaged.* * * *The fermionic condensate formed by fermionic particles: namely protons in the Rossi H(-1) must transfer heat from a quantum mechanical mechanism other than fission or fusion because of the low temperature and gentle nature of that powder source.* * * *The heat of the Rossi reaction must be from an as yet unknown quantum process(es) in the lattice defects where the H(-1) picks up energy and continually transfers it to the surrounding lattice when the proper lattice excitation temperature is reached.* * * *Some have speculated that it is Casmir forced based energy or zero point energy or in general Rossi may be tapping into the inherent quantum energy that permeates the vacuum of space.* * * *Copper transmutation in the micro-powder may be caused by proton tunneling expelled from the H(-1) as hydrogen is continually recycled and replenished into the defect structures in and around the nano-fibers.* * * *The quantum blockade of the fermionic condensate H(-1) in the defects has both a very long lifetime and a range that covers the entire micro particle. This process must reduce the gamma emissions of the copper formation process into the x-ray radiation range. It must also speed up or eliminate nuclear product decay processes form by proton absorption in a Relativistic Time Dilation process in the quantum blockade phenomena that speeds the stabilization of excited nuclear products.* * * *This effect has been seen in cavitation based nuclear waste treatments.* * * *As far as reactor controls concerned, when the internal heater is shut down, a fixed amount of H(-1) or H(1) is produced. In self-sustain mode, this material is consumed for up to 5 hours before the Rossi reaction starts to decline.* * * *I doubt that the Rossi reactor can be fired up again in a short timeframe without the production of gamma radiation and micro partial damage on the polycrystalline nickel coating that would result when the hydrogen reaction switches over from H(-1) to the negative ion mechanism.* * * * * *On another note, since the Rossi reaction happens only in the surface tubular coating of the micro particles, the special effects of Ni62 and Ni64 could be localized there,* * * *In a closing conjecture, the enrichment of Ni62 and Ni64 could be done only in this tubular coating of the nickel micro particles. The particle coating material may involve only about 2000 times less material than the total mass of the nickel micro particles. * * * *The inner bulk of these particles may be composed of base nickel where Ni58 is found at normal levels. When a magnetic field is used during nickel vapor disposition, not much energy is needed to enrich Ni62 and Ni64 during the tubule coating formation process.* On Wed, Nov 9, 2011 at 11:21 AM, Jeff Sutton jsutton.sudb...@gmail.comwrote: Hello. I have been following Rossi and the posts since the beginning and am very fascinated. Rather than a fraud, I believe Rossi is on to something incrementally better than those that came before. He has more success starting the reaction, however I think he has little control over it once started To that supposition, can others comment on how they believe control exists? (For discussion purpose, please suspend any thoughts that it is a scam.) 1. Rossi, with all his comments, seems to suggest that it takes time to heat up the ecat to get
Re: [Vo]:Control Mechanism
Agreed regarding self-sustaining time and there is something in the reactor that needs to be reset. I suggest however, that simply adding heat again cannot be it as that is saying one type of heat is different from the other. Is the heater a DC device or AC with some important frequency? On Wed, Nov 9, 2011 at 1:43 PM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com wrote: Jeff Sutton jsutton.sudb...@gmail.com wrote: He has shown it in self-sustaining mode but always shuts it down after a few hours with some excuse. Why does he do that when the blockbuster note would be the ecat just keeps on going. I suggest this must mean that the ecat cannot just keep on running for 6 months has he notes; at least in self-sustaining mode. . . . Did he say it can go 6 months in self-sustaining mode? I don't recall hearing that. He said that one of them ran for a year or so in Italy -- the address was listed in a patent. But I do not think it was self-sustaining the whole time. I don't know if it was self-sustaining at all. The data from that patent always shows some input power. Technologically, there is no point to a self-sustaining reaction. A reaction with a low level of input power to control it is better. Rossi has said lately that 6 hours is about the limit of a self sustaining reaction. The reasons are unclear. Maybe it peters out. Or does it go out of control? Who knows. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:Control Mechanism
Thank you and nice thoughts regarding control/gain. I had missed the RF wires. On Wed, Nov 9, 2011 at 4:33 PM, Aussie Guy E-Cat aussieguy.e...@gmail.comwrote: Rossi has said that each of the 107 E-Cat reactor boxes in the 1 MW demo had a individual control system. Running in self sustain mode, with the heater not being activated, the only other wires going into the reactor box are those called RF as per the attachment. One would then assume these wires have something to do with controlling the reactor in self sustain mode. I also note that Fe was found in the analysed fuel sample. Was the Fe a ferrite powder and does Rossi use the RF wires to apply low frequency EM induction to the Fe / ferrite powder to somehow assist control of the speed / gain / of the reactor when running in self sustain mode? I see the E-Cat as a sort of a amplified on the verge of breaking into oscillation where in self sustain mode, with a output heat energy feedback into the input, gain must somehow be closely controlled less you get oscillation, while in heater applied mode, control is much easier as you can control the input heat via the heater energy. Maybe the Fe and the RF assist the self sustained mode control? Ferrites when moving up and down their BH curves do undergo slight physical dimensional changes. Can these ferrite shape changes cause the Ni nano powder, which I assume packs very densely, to alter the number of Ni atoms that are available to the H- ions? Assuming the Fe is a ferrite and it has a high permeability, this could create a lot of localized micro magnetic fields inside the packed Ni nano powder. I also note that Rossi said the genset was running because of safety. Did he mean that if one of the E-Cats, running in high gain self sustain mode got out of control, he would then drop the reactor gain, dropping them out of self sustain mode and switch back to heater mode to regain control of all the E-Cats? Somehow Rossi seems to be able to control the gain of the reaction and in heater mode run at a lower reactor gain with external heat applied (more safety as he seems to imply) and when self sustain mode is required, which he does not seem to like, (maybe he has seen 1 too many reactor melt downs) boost the gain so as to use the generated heat as input to the reaction but at the risk of a run away reactor. Rossi did say that the reason he limited the 1 MW visitors to 2 was because of the time it would take to evacuate the reactor room if something went wrong. I do suggest Rossi has seen these reactors go very wrong and was generally worried about visitor safety. Just some thoughts from down under. AG On 11/10/2011 2:51 AM, Jeff Sutton wrote: Hello. I have been following Rossi and the posts since the beginning and am very fascinated. Rather than a fraud, I believe Rossi is on to something incrementally better than those that came before. He has more success starting the reaction, however I think he has little control over it once started To that supposition, can others comment on how they believe control exists? (For discussion purpose, please suspend any thoughts that it is a scam.) 1. Rossi, with all his comments, seems to suggest that it takes time to heat up the ecat to get things started, however from the demonstrations, they do not seem to have started in any scheduled way. He does, however, seem to get the ecat started within a few hours give or take so that is fantastic. 2. He has shown it in self-sustaining mode but always shuts it down after a few hours with some excuse. Why does he do that when the blockbuster note would be the ecat just keeps on going. I suggest this must mean that the ecat cannot just keep on running for 6 months has he notes; at least in self-sustaining mode. and if not in self-sustain mode, then what does he do to reset the reactor? Use his heating element? that makes no sense. Add Hydrogen? Again that makes no sense as he could put a regulator on this and do such automatically. What resets the operation? 3. He noted in the 2nd to last demo that he had a frequency generator and it had been hidden all along, but in the last demo he notes there isn't one. Does this suggest that he was trying something new to help in start up or make it run longer? Or was this mis-direction? Where was this device or wires for it in previous tests? 4. How does he control the reaction? His only control seems to be the heating element and the flow of water over the reactor. But in all experiments, until quenching, the water flow seemed to be constant. And one generating substantial heat, clearly controlling the reaction with a heating element very unlikely. Is contol simply due to the pre-start conditions (the amount of hydrogen, nickel, geometry) and it runs out of control for a few hours? Any advice on how
Re: [Vo]:Minor progress
I don't doubt that Rossi has something new and fantastic, and I don't doubt that he is eccentric in some way as are most of us and this explains some of the nonsensical things. I also believe he is quite intelligent. But the only way to think that his process makes any business-first approach is that he has still something to hide. It could be he is missing something to do with control of the reaction, or he has no new art for his patent; someone else has beaten him to it. Think if everything was normal. Ross could arrange an independent demo(s) in front of reputable persons. From that he could explain what he does in a patent application and it would be granted. He would win the Nobel price and untold fortune. His current approach seems silly and I dont think he is a silly man. On Wed, Nov 9, 2011 at 6:18 PM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com wrote: Horace Heffner hheff...@mtaonline.net wrote: Fraud or self delusion are of course possibilities I recognize, as do many others, especially given Rossi's inability numerous times to provide anything other than highly flawed calorimetry data, or refusal to admit the importance of such mundane scientific concepts as controls, etc. The lives of billions of people are affected by Rossi's actions now, regardless the outcome. Why will he never make the tiny incremental effort required to properly demonstrate he produces nuclear heat? That's a little unfair. Assume for a moment that Rossi really does have a customer and that Fioravanti is a real HVAC engineer hired by the customer. In that case he has done everything right. You cannot ask for better test than an industrial scale professional boiler test. I think it comes down to a few simple questions: Is Fioravanti who he claims to be? Is that sheet of paper he signed what it appears to be -- a sales contract test acceptance report? If so, then Rossi has done exactly what he claimed he would to all long. No one can fault his business-first approach. The fact that he does not do academic science-style tests with proper controls and so on is irrelevant. A professional boiler test is *far more convincing* and more relevant. As I have often pointed out, HVAC engineers have completely different standards from physicists in academic laboratories. Engineers do not do blank experiments. They do not do controls. That is not part of their protocol. Asking them to do such things is ridiculous. Do not impose the standards of academic science on industrial engineering, or vice versa. The two are very different, for good reasons. What works well in a science lab may not work in a factory. Rossi is an industrial engineer. He makes large machines. Fioravanti tests large machines (assuming he is for real). It makes no sense to demand they use methods appropriate to the lab bench top. As I said, I do not fault his business first-approach. I wish he would pursue business and money more aggressively on a larger scale. - Jed
