Re: [Vo]: ECAT 600 C Operations
Jed, I beg to disagree. ad (1) 'legitimate earning of money' happens, but is more rare than common, and more often happens under a pretext of chance than ability. ad (2) Maybe, at times. But it rarely does. Philantropists are more often wrong than right when directing of their surplus money. My judgement of people like Branson, Ellison or Allen or Gates or Buffett on which way to go is not very favourable. ad (3) Money is a measure of exploitation more often than not. See the slave-ownership--bubble, which forced the US-North to fight this money/property-'bubble'. This factoid enlightened me re what was going on in the US in the mid-19th century. I was very astonished, when I learned about that. ad (4) Freedom for whom? I value You, because of your deep dedication to an important cause. Wrt that you are a very atypical person, with a deep sense of importance and a dedication to your case. (I do not do this easily, because judging a person always implies that I somehow have the competence to do so, which I do not have by some inborn faculty of being superior. But I judge the likes of eg (2) nevertheless, because they collide with my worldview and my logic, which I cultivated over the years.) Anyway. Let us keep this debate out of the equation. It is enough when I occasionally speculate on Rossi -vs- Karl May, and we disagree. It is always -sort of- a pleasure (for me) to have some headwind from a sharp mind. All the best. Guenter Von: Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com An: vortex-l@eskimo.com Gesendet: 0:03 Dienstag, 10.Juli 2012 Betreff: Re: [Vo]: ECAT 600 C Operations Guenter Wildgruber wrote: Decent, humble scientifically oriented minds consider that, and are not distracted by possible billions. That is an absurd thing to say. 1. Money and wealth earned by legitimate ... 2. Money promotes science, technology and exploration. 3. Money is a measure of social benefit, albeit a crude one. 4. Money is a measure of freedom. - Jed
Re: [Vo]: ECAT 600 C Operations
Eric, Agree. There seem to be two types of people: a) the ones to want to be compensated by money, and translate this to power b) the ones being humble enough to recognize that they stand on the shoulders of giants, as maybe Einstein did. Can you imagine Einstein aspiring being a billionaire? I do'nt. Great minds should convince by their ideas, not mediated by money, which is just a vehicle of exerting power anonymously. Right now we should all see how destructive all sorts of money-mediated power is. Rossi a trillionaire? All hevaens beware! Guenter Von: Eric Walker eric.wal...@gmail.com An: vortex-l@eskimo.com Gesendet: 0:38 Dienstag, 10.Juli 2012 Betreff: Re: [Vo]: ECAT 600 C Operations My own personal issue (and you may not be addressing comments that I have made in the past) lies not in rewarding innovation. It lies in overcompensation and the setting up of a system of extracting rents. ... I am not against hardworking, innovative (and sometimes paranoid) people being rewarded handsomely for their efforts. I'm against trillions going to some while others who can barely afford a meal must pay more for electricity as a result of patent enforcement, even if the license fees are amortized over a large population. Eric
Re: [Vo]: ECAT 600 C Operations
Guenter Wildgruber gwildgru...@ymail.com wrote: b) the ones being humble enough to recognize that they stand on the shoulders of giants, as maybe Einstein did. Can you imagine Einstein aspiring being a billionaire? Einstein was an ambitious young man, looking for main chance in physics. He was not even a little bit humble, although it was the style back then to talk as if you were. He drove a hard bargain in 1911, when he negotiated a professorship in Berlin. He got . . . a ridiculous offer, far and away the best deal any European thinker could hope for. This included Academy membership, directorship of the new physics institute, a generous salary and professorship without teaching responsibilities. (Levenson, Einstein in Berlin.) He was no ivory tower academic. He understood political power and how to cut deals to his own advantage. He also understood his own considerable charisma and sex appeal. He had the kind of face and manners that set women's hearts pitter-pattering in 1900. (I don't recall the source of that delicious quote.) In the 1920s and 30s he was a good catch having numerous affairs with famous women. He enjoyed wealth and power. He was also cruel to his first wife and children. Those biographical details have no bearing on his accomplishments, and are of no importance. But to describe Einstein, of all people, as being humble or selfless is ridiculous. He was a nice fellow by all accounts, except to his own immediate family. He got along well with his second wife, his cousin, because she treated him as Herr Doctor Professor, bringing him a sweater and never asking him to deal with tedious affairs of daily life. More like a servant than a wife, by modern American standards. - Jed
Re: [Vo]: ECAT 600 C Operations
Jojo, by this you imply that the US-Navy is somehow the keeper of wisdom and knowledge. As a European I sometimes encounter this US-centric-idea, that some US-institution has superior knowledge. Those insaide institutions are mostly stupid buerocrats, which gives the state a bad name, with some clever people inside, to whom normally nobody listens, because institutionalized 'stupidity' trumps insight. This must be worse than average in a command-hierarchy. Compare this to NASA, where there is no such hierarchy, but nevertheless they make errors galore. Implicitly You suggest that a command-structure is superior to a more flat one. If this should be the case, the Peter-principle would not apply. See: ... The Peter Principle is a belief that in an organization where promotion is based on achievement, success, and merit, that organization's members will eventually be promoted beyond their level of ability. The principle is commonly phrased, employees tend to rise to their level of incompetence. In more formal parlance, the effect could be stated as: employees tend to be given more authority until they cannot continue to work competently. ... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peter_Principle There is an interesting podcast by George Kenney, btw, concerning UFO's and what thay are all about, from the position of an US-ARMY insider. http://www.electricpolitics.com/podcast/2012/05/ufos_what_are_they.html Guenter Von: Jojo Jaro jth...@hotmail.com An: Vortex Vortex-l@eskimo.com Gesendet: 2:11 Dienstag, 10.Juli 2012 Betreff: Re: [Vo]: ECAT 600 C Operations No, Rossi did not discover his LENR2 mechanism from the Chinese. He got help from our own US Navy skunkworks. Jojo
Re: [Vo]: ECAT 600 C Operations
Harry, I mostly agree, The general topic is 'power structure research'. Fascinating. Domhoff et al in the US, Krysmansky in Germany. The possible breakup of this structure fascinates a lot of people, including myself. Could we heal the environment, before the Utopians and Greedy use LENR as a tool to leave the solar system, because they destroyed everything livable over here? I am very much down to earth, wrt that. Heal the base first. Guenter Von: Harry Veeder hveeder...@gmail.com An: vortex-l@eskimo.com Gesendet: 3:59 Dienstag, 10.Juli 2012 Betreff: Re: [Vo]: ECAT 600 C Operations Since the subject of economics has come I recommend this lecture by Guy Standing. The Precariat: The new dangerous class http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-jJt-5i_dls Labour economist Professor Guy Standing identifies one of the alarming impacts of globalisation on the labour market; the rise of a new class of insecure workers - the precariat. He calls for governments world-wide to address the inequalities this new class suffer from, as we can't sustain what is happening without major threats along the way. He is an economist and has studied the effect of trade liberalisation on labour over the last 30 years and advocates a basic income for everyone. He uses the marxian concepts of a class for itself and a class in the making, and identifies the precariat as a class in the making. He answers five questions that structure his book: 1) What is the precariat? 2) Why care about it? 3) Why is it growing? 4) Who is in the precariat? 5) and where is it taking us as society? He breaks society down into 5 classes. at the top are the super rich 1. elite (super rich). 2. salariat 3. working class 4. precariat 5. underclass Harry
Re: [Vo]: ECAT 600 C Operations
Jed, You are tough and rightly so. Now Einstein had his peculiarities in his personal live and possibly other aspects. Being a womanizer and such, which I personally do not quite find very amusing, whatever. But this is not what it is all about. It is about the peers and the attitude towards them. Eg Newton was a bloody bigot, speculating in the stock market and such while reading the bible every day. Maybe at his time this all nicely fitted together in a latter day realization of protestant ethics, which he should have found, that this is is a silly imagination. Seems to be more difficult than postulating the law of gravity, right? So maybe I have to retreat to an abstract ideal of a honest person-- the hypothetical 'Jesus' of an agnostic I am, as a norm of decent behavior. The 'ideal' You refer to, which I tried to deconstruct, is some protestant ethic person as a posterboy for capitalism, which as such does not exist either. So let us agree that we are en par wrt that. (Btw, complaints mount, that this is something offtopic. I beg to differ. This belongs to the large scheme of things.) What You seem to see as an excuse, concerning Rossi --that he is human, all-to human-- for me is a suspicion. maybe unjustified, maybe not. If it were so easy. Guenter Von: Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com An: vortex-l@eskimo.com Gesendet: 21:59 Dienstag, 10.Juli 2012 Betreff: Re: [Vo]: ECAT 600 C Operations Guenter Wildgruber gwildgru...@ymail.com wrote: b) the ones being humble enough to recognize that they stand on the shoulders of giants, as maybe Einstein did. Can you imagine Einstein aspiring being a billionaire? But to describe Einstein, of all people, as being humble or selfless is ridiculous. He was a nice fellow by all accounts, except...
Re: [Vo]: ECAT 600 C Operations
Eric, thanks for the reference, That is exactly the point. As far as I can remember there are similar reports from eg Piantelli and others. What is missing is the conclusions in a wider context. Which actually should be intuitively plausible: If a LENR-reaction starts, it produces A LOT of energy at a certain spot. My back-of the napkin estimates go in the order of magnitude of from 1000 to 10k base-material-atoms involved. Remember: 1k Ni-Atoms are a cube of approx 5nm^3. This zone heats up in a sub-microsecond-scale, and most probably melts or even explodes, ie releases local energy via a gaseous phase, the rest simply melting and possibly/probably losing its capability to start up another reaction, because it is structurally 'kaput'. Most of the evidence for LENR comes from quite low-key energy release, which must have a reason. My guess is, that these low-key reactions as maybe the MIT experiments do NOT cause melting or even explosions. We have a problem here: such low-key reactions are commercially uninteresting. So there is a need to prop up this meager evidence, and make a midge -at least in its current state- appear like an elephant. Decent, humble scientifically oriented minds consider that, and are not distracted by possible billions. So I listen more to the humble side , and not subjects or entities driven by an illusion of grandeur and big profit. It is enough that we have those artists in the financial business. No need to have them in the scientific/technological sector also. Guenter Von: Eric Walker eric.wal...@gmail.com An: vortex-l@eskimo.com Gesendet: 5:32 Montag, 9.Juli 2012 Betreff: Re: [Vo]: ECAT 600 C Operations I wrote: I would be surprised if the answer to the second question [Is it possible under any circumstance for an NiH system to operate at or above 600 C?] were unequivocally negative; it is possible to think up scenarios in which the nuclear active environment rarely reaches the melting point of nickel, even with a low-grade reaction proceeding. I just happened upon a writeup by Stan Szpak, from SPAWAR, and others, concerning the PdD co-deposition process he pioneered, in which palladium is electroplated on a gold or copper or similar base. The SPAWAR video I have referred to elsewhere, which shows a number of bright hot spots rapidly appearing and disappearing against a red and blue background, is of one of these assemblies. What the authors have to say about it sounds similar to what Guenter guessed might be going on, where a small region destructively melts, or, in their words, explodes: The ‘hot spots’ observed in the infrared imaging experiments are suggestive of ‘miniexplosions’ (Figure 1b). To verify this, the Ag electrode on a piezoelectric transducer was used as the substrate for the Pd/D co-deposition. If a mini-explosion occurred, the resulting shock wave would compress the crystal. The shock wave would be followed by a heat pulse that would cause the crystal to expand. In these experiments, sharp downward spikes followed by broader upward spikes were observed in the piezoelectric crystal response. The downward spikes were indicative of crystal compression while the broader upward spikes are attributed to the heat pulse and the consequent crystal expansion following the explosion. http://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/SzpakSlenrresear.pdf So there may be no reason to try to think up a nuclear active environment that is long-lived; it is possible that the NAE (if things can be generalized, here) typically explodes and goes away, with the reaction continuing on elsewhere in the substrate. Eric
Re: [Vo]: ECAT 600 C Operations
Jojo, maybe I missed that. but in my humble opinion carbon-nanostructures are hypothetical conceptual vehicles, which nobody in the field ever investigated. I don not want to say that such structures could not exist, but I do not see any evidence in the literature known to me. This would be a deep research-issue, I suspect, to bring it into reality, and is an OPEN TOPIC. Question: do You think that Rossi solved that, with a little help of some Chinese wizards, who promise everything and deliver something of questionable value, if you only pay., eg Android 4.0 devices for $80. Pay a Chinese (sorry folks) 1million to detect the Higgs Boson, they faithfully deliver it via UPS, tax-free in four weeks. Excuse my sarcasm. Guenter Von: Jojo Jaro jth...@hotmail.com An: Vortex Vortex-l@eskimo.com Gesendet: 6:41 Montag, 9.Juli 2012 Betreff: Re: [Vo]: ECAT 600 C Operations Guenter, once again I believe you missed the point. I thought I did a good job in explaining in the last post, but apparently I did not. So let me try again. You only have the 400C recrystallization issue or the Curie Point issue or any other temp-limiting issue if your NAE is Nickel Lattice or some other transistion metal (with the exception of possibly Tungsten). If your NAE is cracks, or patches, or unusual geometry on the Nickel lattice, then you have this temp limitation and higher temper it s will destroy these environments. But if your NAE is Carbon Nanostructures, you do not have an NAE that is easily destroyed by temperatures. Carbon Nanostructures like nanotubes and graphene can easily resist higher temperatures without its structure being destroyed. You can host higher temps on Carbon Nanostructures NAE. Carbon Nanostructures have demonstrated higher temperature resistance. Jojo - Original Message - From: Guenter Wildgruber To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Monday, July 09, 2012 12:19 AM Subject: Re: [Vo]: ECAT 600 C Operations Jojo, Maybe, maybe not. Count me in the doubter's camp. As I tried to explain: 400++ degC is a domain where recrystallization occurs. this is not your comfortable home-temperature. See 'the laws of recrystallization', subtopic -- Laws of recrystallization -- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Recrystallization_(metallurgy) It is ONE thing to question ONE law, but a different thing to question quite a bunch of them simultaneously,. As an engineer with some philosophical leanings (quite rare) I tell You that I am not quite ready to put Rossi into the alltime hall of fame of the likes of Plato, Aristoteles or Einstein. My guess is, that he is more like a Karl May character, who pretended to have visited distant lands, without ever experiencing them, or messing things up, doing a disservice to us all. Sorry. Guenter Von: Jojo Jaro jth...@hotmail.com An: Vortex Vortex-l@eskimo.com Gesendet: 17:31 Sonntag, 8.Juli 2012 Betreff: Re: [Vo]: ECAT 600 C Operations Yes, 600c seems like an overstretch only because we do not understand what's going on. Just like how Huzienga and Parks would think of Cold Fusion. They don't understand it, so it is an overstretch. However, Axil seems to have done a good job in stitching together a probable explanation that can easily explain this 600C. This result is entirely probable in the context of Carbon Nanostructure-based LENR. Carbon Nanostructure-based LENR can be more consistent and controllable so I do not see a problem with 600C, or even 1000C reaction temps. Many seems to have recognized the possibility of Carbon Nanostructure-based LENR paradigm, most notable of which may include both Ed Storms and WL. I have speculated repeatedly in the past that one of the reason why Rossi changed to a flat design was due to the need to deliver more consistent Sparking/arc discharge. Now, evidence is mounting that such an environment is consistent with Carbon Nanosturcture-based LENR, as these Carbon Nanostructures are easily created in such an electric discharge environment. In fact, I would go one step further and speculate that I believe Rossi's new flat design may be a hybrid Arc Discharge/CVD reactor that creates abundant Carbon Nanostructures that appear to be critical to increased power density. We know that Carbon Nanotubes are good NAE candidates. In Lou's post of WL slides, WL presents compelling evidence of the possibility of Graphene as a possible NAE. Both of these Nanosturcutures appear to be good platforms for the Nuclear Active Environment. If one recognizes the possibility of these Carbon Nanostructures as the NAE, one will not have too much problems believing the Rossi 600C stable operating temps. Jojo - Original Message - From: Guenter Wildgruber To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Sunday, July 08, 2012 10:50 PM Subject: Re: [Vo
Re: [Vo]: ECAT 600 C Operations
Guenter Wildgruber wrote: Decent, humble scientifically oriented minds consider that, and are not distracted by possible billions. That is an absurd thing to say. People should be distracted by the likelihood that cold fusion is worth billions of dollars. I consider it _grossly irresponsible_ to pretend it is not worth huge sums of money. I also dislike this Mandarin attitude toward money as being filthy lucre that should now sway a pure-minded academic scientist. I have heard this attitude from time to time, that there is something unseemly or morally wrong with making money. I strongly disagree, for the following reasons: 1. Money and wealth earned by legitimate means, without causing much harm or pollution, are socially beneficial. 2. Money promotes science, technology and exploration. One of the NASA people at WM had a slide with a great quote about this: If God had wanted people to go to space, she would have given them more money -- Mark Albert. 3. Money is a measure of social benefit, albeit a crude one. An invention that makes millions of dollars and causes no harm is good for humanity. An invention that makes billions of dollars and also causes no harm is even better for humanity. Cold fusion will earn trillions and save countless trillions more that would have been spent on fossil fuel. 4. Money is a measure of freedom. It allows people to live however they please. Someday in the future (and perhaps not in the distant future) robots will do all physical work. If we are smart enough to make an economy worthy of our technological genius, then every person on earth will be fabulously wealthy by present day standards. Every person will be free to do anything he or she pleases, every day of her life, the way a multimillionaire is today, or the way Thomas Jefferson was. This should be the birthright of any person born on the Earth or anywhere else in the solar system. Every baby should be welcomed with all food, water, education, Internet access and transportation he or she wants, for a lifetime, just for showing up. Go anywhere, live anywhere, do whatever you please. In such a society, some people may feel ennui or dissatisfaction, but that is the best and most fulfilling future we can hope for. On balance I am confident that most people will contribute more to human happiness and creativity in those circumstances than they would in today's world where you have to work to make a living. To achieve that we must have much more technology and more money. Fewer material resources perhaps, but lots more computing power. Every person will need something like a hundred Watson-class supercomputers at his disposal. Every person deserves that. - Jed
Re: [Vo]: ECAT 600 C Operations
On Mon, Jul 9, 2012 at 3:03 PM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com wrote: If we are smart enough to make an economy worthy of our technological genius, then every person on earth will be fabulously wealthy by present day standards. Every person will be free to do anything he or she pleases, every day of her life, the way a multimillionaire is today, or the way Thomas Jefferson was. This should be the birthright of any person born on the Earth or anywhere else in the solar system. Every baby should be welcomed with all food, water, education, Internet access and transportation he or she wants, for a lifetime, just for showing up. I agree very strongly with this description. My own personal issue (and you may not be addressing comments that I have made in the past) lies not in rewarding innovation. It lies in overcompensation and the setting up of a system of extracting rents. An outcome I see very likely is this: one or more patents will stick and be enforced at some point, and manufacturers in poor countries will find it harder to build on top of LENR technology without paying the license fees, either raising the cost of their products for people who can ill afford to pay the additional price or denying an international market for their products. You see a similar dynamic with genetically modified seed. Such an arrangement, if allowed to form with LENR, would be a tragedy in my opinion. For this reason I will not lose a second of sleep if any and all patents relating to the fundamental LENR processes can be systematically undermined; indeed, it is a cherished hope of mine that this can be brought about. I see the USPTO's refusal to consider LENR patents as a windfall. I am not against hardworking, innovative (and sometimes paranoid) people being rewarded handsomely for their efforts. I'm against trillions going to some while others who can barely afford a meal must pay more for electricity as a result of patent enforcement, even if the license fees are amortized over a large population. Eric
Re: [Vo]: ECAT 600 C Operations
Yes, Carbon Nanostructure-based LENR (what I call LENR2) is new, not-understood, unproven and certainly untested. Absolutely - that's why it's the bleeding edge of LENR research. And whoever has evidence for it will surely not share it. You have to rediscover this on your own if you want a piece of it. No one can give you an LENR2 reactor yet; but then again, no one can give you an LENR or LENR+ reactor as well. But, evidence for LENR2 mechanism is accumulating. In Carbon Nanosturctues such as nanotubes and graphene, many have discovered critical properties to LENR reactions such as superconductivity at high temperatures, ballistic conduction and charge accumulation. One needs to recognize that these are the properties that are likely the properties that are necessary for a NAE. No, Rossi did not discover his LENR2 mechanism from the Chinese. He got help from our own US Navy skunkworks. Jojo - Original Message - From: Guenter Wildgruber To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Tuesday, July 10, 2012 4:42 AM Subject: Re: [Vo]: ECAT 600 C Operations Jojo, maybe I missed that. but in my humble opinion carbon-nanostructures are hypothetical conceptual vehicles, which nobody in the field ever investigated. I don not want to say that such structures could not exist, but I do not see any evidence in the literature known to me. This would be a deep research-issue, I suspect, to bring it into reality, and is an OPEN TOPIC. Question: do You think that Rossi solved that, with a little help of some Chinese wizards, who promise everything and deliver something of questionable value, if you only pay., eg Android 4.0 devices for $80. Pay a Chinese (sorry folks) 1million to detect the Higgs Boson, they faithfully deliver it via UPS, tax-free in four weeks. Excuse my sarcasm. Guenter -- Von: Jojo Jaro jth...@hotmail.com An: Vortex Vortex-l@eskimo.com Gesendet: 6:41 Montag, 9.Juli 2012 Betreff: Re: [Vo]: ECAT 600 C Operations Guenter, once again I believe you missed the point. I thought I did a good job in explaining in the last post, but apparently I did not. So let me try again. You only have the 400C recrystallization issue or the Curie Point issue or any other temp-limiting issue if your NAE is Nickel Lattice or some other transistion metal (with the exception of possibly Tungsten). If your NAE is cracks, or patches, or unusual geometry on the Nickel lattice, then you have this temp limitation and higher temper it s will destroy these environments. But if your NAE is Carbon Nanostructures, you do not have an NAE that is easily destroyed by temperatures. Carbon Nanostructures like nanotubes and graphene can easily resist higher temperatures without its structure being destroyed. You can host higher temps on Carbon Nanostructures NAE. Carbon Nanostructures have demonstrated higher temperature resistance. Jojo - Original Message - From: Guenter Wildgruber To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Monday, July 09, 2012 12:19 AM Subject: Re: [Vo]: ECAT 600 C Operations Jojo, Maybe, maybe not. Count me in the doubter's camp. As I tried to explain: 400++ degC is a domain where recrystallization occurs. this is not your comfortable home-temperature. See 'the laws of recrystallization', subtopic -- Laws of recrystallization -- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Recrystallization_(metallurgy) It is ONE thing to question ONE law, but a different thing to question quite a bunch of them simultaneously,. As an engineer with some philosophical leanings (quite rare) I tell You that I am not quite ready to put Rossi into the alltime hall of fame of the likes of Plato, Aristoteles or Einstein. My guess is, that he is more like a Karl May character, who pretended to have visited distant lands, without ever experiencing them, or messing things up, doing a disservice to us all. Sorry. Guenter -- Von: Jojo Jaro jth...@hotmail.com An: Vortex Vortex-l@eskimo.com Gesendet: 17:31 Sonntag, 8.Juli 2012 Betreff: Re: [Vo]: ECAT 600 C Operations Yes, 600c seems like an overstretch only because we do not understand what's going on. Just like how Huzienga and Parks would think of Cold Fusion. They don't understand it, so it is an overstretch. However, Axil seems to have done a good job in stitching together a probable explanation that can easily explain this 600C. This result is entirely probable in the context of Carbon Nanostructure-based LENR. Carbon Nanostructure-based LENR can be more consistent and controllable so I do not see a problem with 600C, or even 1000C reaction temps. Many seems to have recognized
Re: [Vo]: ECAT 600 C Operations
On Mon, Jul 9, 2012 at 3:38 PM, Eric Walker eric.wal...@gmail.com wrote: I am not against hardworking, innovative (and sometimes paranoid) people being rewarded handsomely for their efforts. I'm against trillions going to some while others who can barely afford a meal must pay more for electricity as a result of patent enforcement, even if the license fees are amortized over a large population. I am barely familiar with patent law, and there are no doubt a number of mistaken assumptions in the analysis I just provided. But to give people a sense of the precariousness of the situation, consider that right now LENR research right now is driven by a handful of capable people, but people who are woefully underfunded, or amateurs, or both. Petroleum companies, by contrast, have lots of funding, and at any point they could decide to direct substantial resources towards figuring out what's going on with LENR. Suppose they do and successfully file a series of patents in all countries but the US, and eventually the US, relating for a number of critical steps in a fuel refinement process which, upon later reflection, turns out to be the cheapest way to do things by far. They could then control the spigot, so to speak -- they would have a significant degree of control over the rate at which LENR was adopted. If it suited their interests (and it surely would), they could influence things towards a very high point for LENR's use. The petroleum companies are not the only concern to be considered. Even the concentration of wealth likely to arise from a successful patent defense would be bad. If we in the US have been smarting over the influence of Rupert Murdoch and the Citizens United decision, consider the mischief that someone with 750 billion to 1.5 trillion could wreak. I do not know what the actual numbers would look like, but I can imagine that the income would be on the high side as far as patent revenue streams go. Other industries whose international development has already been warped by patent enforcement: - Pharmaceuticals - Agriculture - Software There's not the slightest reason to think that LENR would be different upon a successful defense of a patent relating to a crucial process. Eric
Re: [Vo]: ECAT 600 C Operations
Since the subject of economics has come I recommend this lecture by Guy Standing. The Precariat: The new dangerous class http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-jJt-5i_dls Labour economist Professor Guy Standing identifies one of the alarming impacts of globalisation on the labour market; the rise of a new class of insecure workers - the precariat. He calls for governments world-wide to address the inequalities this new class suffer from, as we can't sustain what is happening without major threats along the way. He is an economist and has studied the effect of trade liberalisation on labour over the last 30 years and advocates a basic income for everyone. He uses the marxian concepts of a class for itself and a class in the making, and identifies the precariat as a class in the making. He answers five questions that structure his book: 1) What is the precariat? 2) Why care about it? 3) Why is it growing? 4) Who is in the precariat? 5) and where is it taking us as society? He breaks society down into 5 classes. at the top are the super rich 1. elite (super rich). 2. salariat 3. working class 4. precariat 5. underclass Harry On Mon, Jul 9, 2012 at 6:03 PM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com wrote: Guenter Wildgruber wrote: Decent, humble scientifically oriented minds consider that, and are not distracted by possible billions. That is an absurd thing to say. People should be distracted by the likelihood that cold fusion is worth billions of dollars. I consider it grossly irresponsible to pretend it is not worth huge sums of money. I also dislike this Mandarin attitude toward money as being filthy lucre that should now sway a pure-minded academic scientist. I have heard this attitude from time to time, that there is something unseemly or morally wrong with making money. I strongly disagree, for the following reasons: 1. Money and wealth earned by legitimate means, without causing much harm or pollution, are socially beneficial. 2. Money promotes science, technology and exploration. One of the NASA people at WM had a slide with a great quote about this: If God had wanted people to go to space, she would have given them more money -- Mark Albert. 3. Money is a measure of social benefit, albeit a crude one. An invention that makes millions of dollars and causes no harm is good for humanity. An invention that makes billions of dollars and also causes no harm is even better for humanity. Cold fusion will earn trillions and save countless trillions more that would have been spent on fossil fuel. 4. Money is a measure of freedom. It allows people to live however they please. Someday in the future (and perhaps not in the distant future) robots will do all physical work. If we are smart enough to make an economy worthy of our technological genius, then every person on earth will be fabulously wealthy by present day standards. Every person will be free to do anything he or she pleases, every day of her life, the way a multimillionaire is today, or the way Thomas Jefferson was. This should be the birthright of any person born on the Earth or anywhere else in the solar system. Every baby should be welcomed with all food, water, education, Internet access and transportation he or she wants, for a lifetime, just for showing up. Go anywhere, live anywhere, do whatever you please. In such a society, some people may feel ennui or dissatisfaction, but that is the best and most fulfilling future we can hope for. On balance I am confident that most people will contribute more to human happiness and creativity in those circumstances than they would in today's world where you have to work to make a living. To achieve that we must have much more technology and more money. Fewer material resources perhaps, but lots more computing power. Every person will need something like a hundred Watson-class supercomputers at his disposal. Every person deserves that. - Jed
Re: [Vo]: ECAT 600 C Operations
I wrote about Guy Standing's class analysis: He breaks society down into 5 classes. at the top are the super rich 1. elite (super rich). 2. salariat 3. working class 4. precariat 5. underclass It is actually 6 classes. I forgot the proficians. 1. elite 2. salariat 3. proficians 4. working class 5. precariat 6. underclass This clip discusses these classes in more detail. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PYoaV6f78wM Harry
Re: [Vo]: ECAT 600 C Operations
Mark, You're right, ofcourse, and maybe I just overreacted. Just summarized my argument in a personal mail to Eric, which I reproduce here: Eric, basically I think that LENR needs some crystalline structure of the base-material (Ni, Pd,...) to start and be maintained. This structure weakens with increasing temperature. If the material melts, the process stops. This we know. Now the process is not homogenous, but seems to concentrate on hot spots. wrt this I refer to the electron microscopic analysis of material which has been active for some time, where the material definitely melted at those spots. Now 600degC would not be a problem, because the melting point of eg Ni is far above above that. It even could be a positive thing, because of recrystallization-effects. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Recrystallization_(metallurgy) So my argument critically depends on the inhomogeneity of the process. If eg 10% of the material (I expect much less at a given time) is active, for the whole system to produce an average temperature of 600degC, these active zones would have to be MUCH hotter than that, basically surpassing the melting point, which stops the process. So another zone has to take over. Upon further thinking, this actually could be the case, under some very special conditions, ie one zone melts, then recrystallizes, later on becomes active again. But this critically depends on the zones being quite small -- sub-micrometer -- AND maintaining enough surface for H+ or D+ to enter the crystal again. Here lies my difficulty. But maybe I'm wrong. So maybe I should restate: I would be VERY SURPRISED. Anyway, lets hope the best, expect the worst. Guenter Von: MarkI-ZeroPoint zeropo...@charter.net An: vortex-l@eskimo.com Gesendet: 1:23 Sonntag, 8.Juli 2012 Betreff: RE: [Vo]: ECAT 600 C Operations So Guenter, Why would seriously challenging you worldview worry you? Wouldn’t you prefer the truth, even if it completely decimates your worldview? As a scientist/engineer, I want to know what *IS*, not what happens to agree with my current understanding of what is… -Mark From:Guenter Wildgruber [mailto:gwildgru...@ymail.com] Sent: Saturday, July 07, 2012 3:50 PM To: Peter Gluck Cc: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: [Vo]: ECAT 600 C Operations Peter, somehow I missed that. Anyway. 200 degC would be quite something. 400degC would be disruptive. 600degC earth-shattering. A range where I am having some conceptual difficulties with. Presumably theory also. But this is commonsensical extrapolation from my side,without any firm ground, I must confess. As stated, such a simple parameter like temperature could seriously challenge my worldview, which worries me somehow, but I do not reject it out of hand. We will see. all the best Guenter Von:Peter Gluck peter.gl...@gmail.com An: Guenter Wildgruber gwildgru...@ymail.com CC: vortex-l@eskimo.com vortex-l@eskimo.com Gesendet: 20:27 Samstag, 7.Juli 2012 Betreff: Re: [Vo]: ECAT 600 C Operations Dear Guenter, Nothing easier- if you make a Google Search for Defkalion 650C or a search on their Forum for 650C you will find tens of links. It was also written at Mats's Nyteknik. An example from many: Real news from Defkalion « nickelpower nickelpower.org/2012/03/26/real-news-from-defkalion/ 26 Mar 2012 – Rossi is a “one-man-band” and Defkalion has 27 scientists. they say that they reactor work until 650C (limit of bare rector test) and according . I had a cognitive shock- what they have is a process different from Piantelli's based on preformed nanoclusters. Those clusters are destroyed fast over 400C. There are many implications but I don't think we have to change our world/science views. And now Rossi re-discovers this high temperature process. Progress! Peter On Sat, Jul 7, 2012 at 7:31 PM, Guenter Wildgruber gwildgru...@ymail.com wrote: Dear Peter, obviously I missed this one, Could You provide a link? The temperature issue obviously is a very central one, and, I must confess, contradicts my theories of the inner working of the e-cat/Hyperion, which is somewhat like a random heating up on several locations. If this would be the case , those random heat-centers (estimated 1000degC) would be self-annihilate by melting. Ofcourse we are theoretizing on this issue, but controllability in the 650degC domain would indicate that the process is quite homogenous, and not sporadicly dispersed over say 1-10 um2 heat centers- as I up to now hypothesized, on hopefully realistic grounds. But maybe this is only my worldview, which crumbles. If this would be the case, it would indicate that this is a VERY benign process, and, I must confess, I would -as said- have to rework my entire worldview, which is based on randomness and the universe's
Re: [Vo]: ECAT 600 C Operations
to be clear: a) LENR is a real effect to me. b) What I doubt are the claims of Rossi/DGT. (a) should put the scientific community to shame and reconsider their methods. (b) is a different animal: Pseudo-engineers, companies, speculators, phantasts claiming that a midge is an elephant. No need to elaborate on (a) on this time and place. This is confined to the laboratory and the minds of scientists. But (b) needs careful consideration, because, well, it is potentially earth-shattering in the physical domain of our livelihood. Not Your average Higgs Boson, which is just a mental construct, albeit interesting. We should not fool ourselves wrt (b). I dare to apply some commonsense plus engineering principles plus -ahem- psychology. I explicitly exclude science here, because it is corruptable on several levels. The main being self-deception or bogus theories. Engineering being different, because it has to show some real-world-evidence. There is no proof for (b). Only claims. To keep my sanity, I critically watch the claims, and reject them if they contradict my principles. Those are not hammered in stone, ie I am hopefully able to revise on evidence and reorder my principles. Maybe I even believe in 'God' if he talks to me in a convincing manner. But up to now he did not show up. What I am trying to do, is apply my methods of thinking and acting, therefore I stand where I stand. 600degC claims on an industrial scale for a sufficiently long time without side-effects currently do not pass my smell-test. Watch the caveats, or the fine-print, as it is said! That's it, folks. Guenter
Re: [Vo]: ECAT 600 C Operations
A (psycho)analysis of Rossi/DGT or an exercise in the theory and practice of (self-)deception. There is some LENR effect, I am sure. This just as a disclaimer. We all can bend spoons,right?, But Uri Geller did it better. Why? He had a magic sauce. Interestingly enough Feynman met Geller, and had to say this: ... I also looked into extrasensory perception, and PSI phenomena, and the latest craze there was Uri Geller, a man who is supposed to be able to bend keys by rubbing them with his finger. So I went to his hotel room, on his invitation, to see a demonstration of both mindreading and bending keys. He didn't do any mindreading that succeeded; nobody can read my mind, I guess. And my boy held a key and Geller rubbed it, and nothing happened. Then he told us it works better under water, and so you can picture all of us standing in the bathroom with the water turned on and the key under it, and him rubbing the key with his finger. Nothing happened. So I was unable to investigate that phenomenon. ... -- 'Cargo Cult Science' Actually Feynman did not figure out what Geller's trick was, but it was one, which later on was found to be some chemical treatment of his spoons, which Geller did not seem to have at hand when Feynman visited him. Now Geller is still a celebrity in some circles, whereas Feynman is known to some physics geeks and folks eg interested in the analysis of the Challenger-catastropy, where he applied common sense and some basic principles. No quantum magic. Not so spectacular, right? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Space_Shuttle_Challenger_disaster As said. A cautionary tale. Hope I am wrong. Guenter
Re: [Vo]: ECAT 600 C Operations
There are situation where comfortable doubt is just another delusion. If you apply the same standard of proof to normal facts, nothing is proven. LENR is real, so why apply the stupid exceptional evidence ? good critics don't need exceptional bias. the behavior of DGT is not coherent with having nothing, nor having low power. however it is coherent with unexpected problems for DGT, or with better more professional public relation management. 2012/7/8 Guenter Wildgruber gwildgru...@ymail.com A (psycho)analysis of Rossi/DGT or an exercise in the theory and practice of (self-)deception. There is some LENR effect, I am sure. This just as a disclaimer. We all can bend spoons,right?, But Uri Geller did it better. Why? He had a magic sauce. Interestingly enough Feynman met Geller, and had to say this: ... I also looked into extrasensory perception, and PSI phenomena, and the latest craze there was Uri Geller, a man who is supposed to be able to bend keys by rubbing them with his finger. So I went to his hotel room, on his invitation, to see a demonstration of both mindreading and bending keys. He didn't do any mindreading that succeeded; nobody can read my mind, I guess. And my boy held a key and Geller rubbed it, and nothing happened. Then he told us it works better under water, and so you can picture all of us standing in the bathroom with the water turned on and the key under it, and him rubbing the key with his finger. Nothing happened. So I was unable to investigate that phenomenon. ... -- 'Cargo Cult Science' Actually Feynman did not figure out what Geller's trick was, but it was one, which later on was found to be some chemical treatment of his spoons, which Geller did not seem to have at hand when Feynman visited him. Now Geller is still a celebrity in some circles, whereas Feynman is known to some physics geeks and folks eg interested in the analysis of the Challenger-catastropy, where he applied common sense and some basic principles. No quantum magic. Not so spectacular, right? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Space_Shuttle_Challenger_disaster As said. A cautionary tale. Hope I am wrong. Guenter
Re: [Vo]: ECAT 600 C Operations
Alain, ... nothing is proven. .. yes, ofcourse. this is the doubter's dilemma. You cannot disprove the solipsist position, except applying -- and accepting -- a minimum of common sense. It is the dose, which makes the poison, to cite Paracelsus. wrt ...exceptional evidence ... I do not use that term, which is, as you imply, very problematic. It is actually a rewording of Ockham's principle, if you carefully analyze it, and belongs to the set of axioms of our belief system, but only applies to immaterial beliefs, so to say. If I kick You in the butt, so to say, immaterial beliefs stop to work, and Your inner solipsist is deeply challenged to ignore the evidence. All the best Guenter Von: Alain Sepeda alain.sep...@gmail.com An: Vortex List vortex-l@eskimo.com Gesendet: 14:11 Sonntag, 8.Juli 2012 Betreff: Re: [Vo]: ECAT 600 C Operations There are situation where comfortable doubt is just another delusion. If you apply the same standard of proof to normal facts, nothing is proven. LENR is real, so why apply the stupid exceptional evidence ?
Re: [Vo]: ECAT 600 C Operations
What, pray tell, is the chemical that can bend spoons without eating the flesh off your fingers? A quick google of the terms Geller Spoon Bending Chemical revealed nothing. Many are so sure that Geller's spoon bending feat is a trick (and I'm not saying that it's not), but they can't say how it's done. The point I am making is simply this: Many people are SO sure that Rossi is a fraud, yet they can not say exactly How Rossi is doing this alleged fraud. (Does this remind you of Mary Yugo?) That is what differentiates a true skeptic from a pseudo-skeptic. You see, a true skeptic can not explain the results he sees so he keeps an open mind. A pseudo-skeptic can not explain in his mind the results, therefore, in his mind, since he can not explain it, must be a fraud. The assumption undergriding a pseudo-skeptics attitude is that he understands everything there is to understand about the subject, therefore whatever he does not understand must be false. This of course is the sad state of attitude prevailing in modern science nowadays. Jojo - Original Message - From: Guenter Wildgruber To: Guenter Wildgruber ; vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Sunday, July 08, 2012 7:14 PM Subject: Re: [Vo]: ECAT 600 C Operations A (psycho)analysis of Rossi/DGT or an exercise in the theory and practice of (self-)deception. There is some LENR effect, I am sure. This just as a disclaimer. We all can bend spoons,right?, But Uri Geller did it better. Why? He had a magic sauce. Interestingly enough Feynman met Geller, and had to say this: ... I also looked into extrasensory perception, and PSI phenomena, and the latest craze there was Uri Geller, a man who is supposed to be able to bend keys by rubbing them with his finger. So I went to his hotel room, on his invitation, to see a demonstration of both mindreading and bending keys. He didn't do any mindreading that succeeded; nobody can read my mind, I guess. And my boy held a key and Geller rubbed it, and nothing happened. Then he told us it works better under water, and so you can picture all of us standing in the bathroom with the water turned on and the key under it, and him rubbing the key with his finger. Nothing happened. So I was unable to investigate that phenomenon. ... -- 'Cargo Cult Science' Actually Feynman did not figure out what Geller's trick was, but it was one, which later on was found to be some chemical treatment of his spoons, which Geller did not seem to have at hand when Feynman visited him. Now Geller is still a celebrity in some circles, whereas Feynman is known to some physics geeks and folks eg interested in the analysis of the Challenger-catastropy, where he applied common sense and some basic principles. No quantum magic. Not so spectacular, right? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Space_Shuttle_Challenger_disaster As said. A cautionary tale. Hope I am wrong. Guenter
Re: [Vo]: ECAT 600 C Operations
In fact, and it is my own position, and I understand that some disagree, For DGT I have passed the I cannot explain. With my experience, my behavioral analysis of business, and various data and analysis gathered, I can say that the positive outcome (at a few details uncertain), is sure beyond the reasonable doubt. For Rossi, I'm still uncomfortable, but beside clear lies and probable lies, and things to check, the key facts seems good, because of others reaction and claims. note that for me the claims are only action that someone do to expect reactions. I believe in something when the interpreted intent of that action, is only coherent with the positive outcome. to be simple, DGT have gone so far that assuming fraud or delusion, their reaction are neither rational, not even coherent with their psychiatric ( : ) profile, and others reactions around. Their data, their discussions are coherent and evidence of knowledge linked to a real reactor, and their effort are nonsense is that real react is not mostly working maybe a little erratic, but enough stable to convince to bet your balls). their critics are even supporting their claims. Thanks to stremmenos and Rossi. thanks also to their board of director and their economic profile (anti-Rossi style). For Rossi, in fact his best support for me is DGT. don't laugh. Concezzi too. With my acquired conviction, I jump from a probabilistic conviction of 99.9%, to the translation in normal life : I'm SURE, more than most of the things that circulate on TV, in news, in science... and believe me, I'm very skeptical in many things, from conspiracy theories to mainstream consensus, even to myself. I say you I'm SURE, but like sur rise in the morning, it have to be checked every morning, in case something have changed. I was criticizing the tendency in LENR community to be overcarefull. There is a moment in real life when you have to bet your ball, or rather stay in your bed and wait for death, which is sure. I'm sure LENR is real, DGT have a reactor not far from said, Rossi have good results. Anyway tomorrow morning, have to check if that have changed. 2012/7/8 Jojo Jaro jth...@hotmail.com ** A pseudo-skeptic can not explain in his mind the results, therefore, in his mind, since he can not explain it, must be a fraud. The assumption undergriding a pseudo-skeptics attitude is that he understands everything there is to understand about the subject, therefore whatever he does not understand must be false. This of course is the sad state of attitude prevailing in modern science nowadays.
Re: [Vo]: ECAT 600 C Operations
Jojo, rest assured that I deplore pathoskeptizism as much as You do. But this does not make me change flags and join the other side. This is just like in a war. if You recognize that your party is wrong, You have two options: a) change sides b) be a pacifist Pathoskeptics firmly belong to the (a)-camp. I myself am trying to be in the (b)-camp ofcourse, which means: be skeptical wrt BOTH sides. Thhis metaphor has its weaknesses, and I do not want to overstretch it. This would be silly in its own right. Sitting in between, repeating myself ad nauseam, I must say that on the one hand LENR is REAL, on the other hand Rossi/DGT probably overbid their hand, in poker-speech. In other words: They CLAIM to have an elephant, which is more probably than not a midge, or a sparrow, with lots of fleas and lice and other parasites. Did You ever have a sparrow in your hands? I did. You would be surprised! Rossi, the sparrow does a good job of concealing his hand, in poker speech. And endlessly promises. Bids up his hand to 600degC, knowing that 1000degC would give him a good laugh, even from the most friendly of his friends. What I tried to do, is argue, that 600degC is already an overstretch of the poker-hand from both sides: Rossi AND DGT. Maybe I am wrong. Actually I hope so, because the planet would be safe for another couple of hundred years, and could heal from human folly. Guenter Guenter Von: Jojo Jaro jth...@hotmail.com An: Vortex Vortex-l@eskimo.com Gesendet: 15:25 Sonntag, 8.Juli 2012 Betreff: Re: [Vo]: ECAT 600 C Operations ...The assumption undergriding a pseudo-skeptics attitude is that he understands everything there is to understand about the subject, therefore whatever he does not understand must be false. This of course is the sad state of attitude prevailing in modern science nowadays. Jojo
Re: [Vo]: ECAT 600 C Operations
Alain, You most probably make an error of judgement. DGT up to now delivered 'facts' which I could assemble on a sunday afternoon (like today). Peter Gluck did a good job of briefing them, so at least they are coherent in WHAT THEY SAY! What they DO or HAVE is an another matter altogether. Rossi is telling us that the sun is rising when in fact it is setting. Beautiful, when he talks to his believers. Rossi exactly delivered nothing except blabbering about his second generation of vaporware. Not far behind is DGT, which exactly did what? Deliver nothing. To repeat: I think, as a matter of fact, that LENR is real, but not nearly as far to commercial application as Rossi/DGT claim. The next two months will show us the evidence. Please do not be disappointed.. At least I will not, because it is hard to disappoint a pessimist/cautious realist (not pathoskeptic). Guenter Von: Alain Sepeda alain.sep...@gmail.com An: vortex-l@eskimo.com Gesendet: 16:36 Sonntag, 8.Juli 2012 Betreff: Re: [Vo]: ECAT 600 C Operations In fact, and it is my own position, and I understand that some disagree, For DGT I have passed the I cannot explain. With my experience, my behavioral analysis of business, and various data and analysis gathered, I can say that the positive outcome (at a few details uncertain), is sure beyond the reasonable doubt. For Rossi, I'm still uncomfortable, but beside clear lies and probable lies, and things to check, the key facts seems good, because of others reaction and claims. ...
Re: [Vo]: ECAT 600 C Operations
Yes, 600c seems like an overstretch only because we do not understand what's going on. Just like how Huzienga and Parks would think of Cold Fusion. They don't understand it, so it is an overstretch. However, Axil seems to have done a good job in stitching together a probable explanation that can easily explain this 600C. This result is entirely probable in the context of Carbon Nanostructure-based LENR. Carbon Nanostructure-based LENR can be more consistent and controllable so I do not see a problem with 600C, or even 1000C reaction temps. Many seems to have recognized the possibility of Carbon Nanostructure-based LENR paradigm, most notable of which may include both Ed Storms and WL. I have speculated repeatedly in the past that one of the reason why Rossi changed to a flat design was due to the need to deliver more consistent Sparking/arc discharge. Now, evidence is mounting that such an environment is consistent with Carbon Nanosturcture-based LENR, as these Carbon Nanostructures are easily created in such an electric discharge environment. In fact, I would go one step further and speculate that I believe Rossi's new flat design may be a hybrid Arc Discharge/CVD reactor that creates abundant Carbon Nanostructures that appear to be critical to increased power density. We know that Carbon Nanotubes are good NAE candidates. In Lou's post of WL slides, WL presents compelling evidence of the possibility of Graphene as a possible NAE. Both of these Nanosturcutures appear to be good platforms for the Nuclear Active Environment. If one recognizes the possibility of these Carbon Nanostructures as the NAE, one will not have too much problems believing the Rossi 600C stable operating temps. Jojo - Original Message - From: Guenter Wildgruber To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Sunday, July 08, 2012 10:50 PM Subject: Re: [Vo]: ECAT 600 C Operations Rossi, the sparrow does a good job of concealing his hand, in poker speech. And endlessly promises. Bids up his hand to 600degC, knowing that 1000degC would give him a good laugh, even from the most friendly of his friends. What I tried to do, is argue, that 600degC is already an overstretch of the poker-hand from both sides: Rossi AND DGT. Maybe I am wrong. Actually I hope so, because the planet would be safe for another couple of hundred years, and could heal from human folly. Guenter Guenter -- Von: Jojo Jaro jth...@hotmail.com An: Vortex Vortex-l@eskimo.com Gesendet: 15:25 Sonntag, 8.Juli 2012 Betreff: Re: [Vo]: ECAT 600 C Operations ...The assumption undergriding a pseudo-skeptics attitude is that he understands everything there is to understand about the subject, therefore whatever he does not understand must be false. This of course is the sad state of attitude prevailing in modern science nowadays. Jojo
Re: [Vo]: ECAT 600 C Operations
Jojo, Maybe, maybe not. Count me in the doubter's camp. As I tried to explain: 400++ degC is a domain where recrystallization occurs. this is not your comfortable home-temperature. See 'the laws of recrystallization', subtopic -- Laws of recrystallization -- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Recrystallization_(metallurgy) It is ONE thing to question ONE law, but a different thing to question quite a bunch of them simultaneously,. As an engineer with some philosophical leanings (quite rare) I tell You that I am not quite ready to put Rossi into the alltime hall of fame of the likes of Plato, Aristoteles or Einstein. My guess is, that he is more like a Karl May character, who pretended to have visited distant lands, without ever experiencing them, or messing things up, doing a disservice to us all. Sorry. Guenter Von: Jojo Jaro jth...@hotmail.com An: Vortex Vortex-l@eskimo.com Gesendet: 17:31 Sonntag, 8.Juli 2012 Betreff: Re: [Vo]: ECAT 600 C Operations Yes, 600c seems like an overstretch only because we do not understand what's going on. Just like how Huzienga and Parks would think of Cold Fusion. They don't understand it, so it is an overstretch. However, Axil seems to have done a good job in stitching together a probable explanation that can easily explain this 600C. This result is entirely probable in the context of Carbon Nanostructure-based LENR. Carbon Nanostructure-based LENR can be more consistent and controllable so I do not see a problem with 600C, or even 1000C reaction temps. Many seems to have recognized the possibility of Carbon Nanostructure-based LENR paradigm, most notable of which may include both Ed Storms and WL. I have speculated repeatedly in the past that one of the reason why Rossi changed to a flat design was due to the need to deliver more consistent Sparking/arc discharge. Now, evidence is mounting that such an environment is consistent with Carbon Nanosturcture-based LENR, as these Carbon Nanostructures are easily created in such an electric discharge environment. In fact, I would go one step further and speculate that I believe Rossi's new flat design may be a hybrid Arc Discharge/CVD reactor that creates abundant Carbon Nanostructures that appear to be critical to increased power density. We know that Carbon Nanotubes are good NAE candidates. In Lou's post of WL slides, WL presents compelling evidence of the possibility of Graphene as a possible NAE. Both of these Nanosturcutures appear to be good platforms for the Nuclear Active Environment. If one recognizes the possibility of these Carbon Nanostructures as the NAE, one will not have too much problems believing the Rossi 600C stable operating temps. Jojo - Original Message - From: Guenter Wildgruber To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Sunday, July 08, 2012 10:50 PM Subject: Re: [Vo]: ECAT 600 C Operations Rossi, the sparrow does a good job of concealing his hand, in poker speech. And endlessly promises. Bids up his hand to 600degC, knowing that 1000degC would give him a good laugh, even from the most friendly of his friends. What I tried to do, is argue, that 600degC is already an overstretch of the poker-hand from both sides: Rossi AND DGT. Maybe I am wrong. Actually I hope so, because the planet would be safe for another couple of hundred years, and could heal from human folly. Guenter Guenter Von: Jojo Jaro jth...@hotmail.com An: Vortex Vortex-l@eskimo.com Gesendet: 15:25 Sonntag, 8.Juli 2012 Betreff: Re: [Vo]: ECAT 600 C Operations ...The assumption undergriding a pseudo-skeptics attitude is that he understands everything there is to understand about the subject, therefore whatever he does not understand must be false. This of course is the sad state of attitude prevailing in modern science nowadays. Jojo
Re: [Vo]: ECAT 600 C Operations
I undesrtand your reasoning, and from that point of view it is right. the claims are claims. but when someone own assets (reputation, investment, clients, ...) claims have a concrete effect that varies depending on the future, in which they have more data than us. Only them know if their claims are right or wrong, but their belief or knowledge have an effect on their strategy, even if they are irrational a little. so when i hear a claim, I translate into commitment, image risk, cornering. they can be self deluded, but , unlike you are supported by a strong group like is the mainstream, the delusion cannot be too far from facts. I have received data from them, and also behavioral data, and competence signals. It is easy to differential a hollywood movie bomb, from a terrorist bomb, and you can even guess their intent, education, culture and competence from the design. DGT gave strong signal about managing details that match a real capacity to sell to public (safety, regulation, green/ROHS). they have made rational choice that mean that when choosing, they choose the standard, simple, recognized alternative (H2 circuit, metal, shape, shielding). They have proposed some key design that mean that they have touched a real complex reactor, and found an uncommon but smart control technique. of course , those evidences are not easy to transfer to third party (maybe you ca read the technical discussion, but part of the evidence is in my experience, yet maybe some other is in someone else and I missed it). finally there is a good reason to lower the standard of proof, it is that reading Celani, Pianteli, Focardi, all of that is SIMPLE to do (for a gang of engineer with budget, i mean like LHC one magnet is easy to build). the only real concern I have is that nobody else in the LENR community (for mainstream they are self-delusioned and won't recognize their mother with a LENR logo T-shirt) seems to have success in making a powerful gas reactor. Maybe short budget, maybe just hiding and preparing for fast sales soon, however alternative are not coherent either. DGT might have problem on longterm usage (the buzz is possible), but their claims, on the horizon of few weeks, and as far as they could test, was correct when done. And latest behaviors show that they were anyway confident, and betting their balls. The same kind of reasoning with Concezzi and NIWeek, make me hugely confident. we should stop being afraid of our shadow. LENr is normal physic, and LENR energy is more rational industry than renewable. I've noticed that behavior of oppressed minorities (like bikes on roads. see http://www.johnforester.com ), that integrate the beliefs of the mainstream, despite the facts that everyday prove the opposite, and even for those who oppose strongly the mainstream. It is very hard not to absorb the mainstream values (I think it is the subject of some cognitive science sector, on which I've read some article), even if you know it is wrong. I see everyday very various pathological science, there are some in LENR who look pathologic, but mainstream is crowded with such too. Without the support of groupthink, LENR is quite easily cleaned from bad science. 2012/7/8 Guenter Wildgruber gwildgru...@ymail.com Alain, You most probably make an error of judgement. DGT up to now delivered 'facts' which I could assemble on a sunday afternoon (like today). Peter Gluck did a good job of briefing them, so at least they are coherent in WHAT THEY SAY! What they DO or HAVE is an another matter altogether. Rossi is telling us that the sun is rising when in fact it is setting. Beautiful, when he talks to his believers. Rossi exactly delivered nothing except blabbering about his second generation of vaporware. Not far behind is DGT, which exactly did what? Deliver nothing. To repeat: I think, as a matter of fact, that LENR is real, but not nearly as far to commercial application as Rossi/DGT claim. The next two months will show us the evidence. Please do not be disappointed.. At least I will not, because it is hard to disappoint a pessimist/cautious realist (not pathoskeptic). Guenter -- *Von:* Alain Sepeda alain.sep...@gmail.com *An:* vortex-l@eskimo.com *Gesendet:* 16:36 Sonntag, 8.Juli 2012 *Betreff:* Re: [Vo]: ECAT 600 C Operations In fact, and it is my own position, and I understand that some disagree, For DGT I have passed the I cannot explain. With my experience, my behavioral analysis of business, and various data and analysis gathered, I can say that the positive outcome (at a few details uncertain), is sure beyond the reasonable doubt. For Rossi, I'm still uncomfortable, but beside clear lies and probable lies, and things to check, the key facts seems good, because of others reaction and claims. ...
Re: [Vo]: ECAT 600 C Operations
Alain, You again make a categorical error : ...DGT gave strong signal... I do not care about 'signals' unchecked. Only if they are verified by MY or other trustable person's experience, and cross-checked again by my humble common sense. As Korzybski said: The map is not the territory -- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alfred_Korzybski -- What DGT actually did ,as Rossi repeatedly does, is, that their stated 'map' is somehow correlated to the territory of reality. You can pretend as long as you will, as long as you have a sufficient number of followers to satisfy your ambitions. Any storyteller satisfies that sort of belief. Even Uri Geller. Embarrasment impersonated. Geller proves one thing: how easy it is to get people to believe fairytales like eg the bible. And No: I am NOT maryjugo or whatever this person is calling itself. I am who I am. And:Yes, I think LENR is real. I am just embarrassed by extraordinary claims without sufficient backing. Which makes me angry at times. All the best Guenter Von: Alain Sepeda alain.sep...@gmail.com An: Vortex List vortex-l@eskimo.com Gesendet: 18:54 Sonntag, 8.Juli 2012 Betreff: Re: [Vo]: ECAT 600 C Operations I undesrtand your reasoning, and from that point of view it is right. the claims are claims. but when someone own assets (reputation, investment, clients, ...) claims have a concrete effect that varies depending on the future, in which they have more data than us. Only them know if their claims are right or wrong, but their belief or knowledge have an effect on their strategy, even if they are irrational a little. so when i hear a claim, I translate into commitment, image risk, cornering. they can be self deluded, but , unlike you are supported by a strong group like is the mainstream, the delusion cannot be too far from facts. I have received data from them, and also behavioral data, and competence signals. It is easy to differential a hollywood movie bomb, from a terrorist bomb, and you can even guess their intent, education, culture and competence from the design. DGT gave strong signal about managing details that match a real capacity to sell to public (safety, regulation, green/ROHS). they have made rational choice that mean that when choosing, they choose the standard, simple, recognized alternative (H2 circuit, metal, shape, shielding). They have proposed some key design that mean that they have touched a real complex reactor, and found an uncommon but smart control technique. of course , those evidences are not easy to transfer to third party (maybe you ca read the technical discussion, but part of the evidence is in my experience, yet maybe some other is in someone else and I missed it). finally there is a good reason to lower the standard of proof, it is that reading Celani, Pianteli, Focardi, all of that is SIMPLE to do (for a gang of engineer with budget, i mean like LHC one magnet is easy to build). the only real concern I have is that nobody else in the LENR community (for mainstream they are self-delusioned and won't recognize their mother with a LENR logo T-shirt) seems to have success in making a powerful gas reactor. Maybe short budget, maybe just hiding and preparing for fast sales soon, however alternative are not coherent either. DGT might have problem on longterm usage (the buzz is possible), but their claims, on the horizon of few weeks, and as far as they could test, was correct when done. And latest behaviors show that they were anyway confident, and betting their balls. The same kind of reasoning with Concezzi and NIWeek, make me hugely confident. we should stop being afraid of our shadow. LENr is normal physic, and LENR energy is more rational industry than renewable. I've noticed that behavior of oppressed minorities (like bikes on roads. see http://www.johnforester.com ), that integrate the beliefs of the mainstream, despite the facts that everyday prove the opposite, and even for those who oppose strongly the mainstream. It is very hard not to absorb the mainstream values (I think it is the subject of some cognitive science sector, on which I've read some article), even if you know it is wrong. I see everyday very various pathological science, there are some in LENR who look pathologic, but mainstream is crowded with such too. Without the support of groupthink, LENR is quite easily cleaned from bad science. 2012/7/8 Guenter Wildgruber gwildgru...@ymail.com Alain, You most probably make an error of judgement. DGT up to now delivered 'facts' which I could assemble on a sunday afternoon (like today). Peter Gluck did a good job of briefing them, so at least they are coherent in WHAT THEY SAY! What they DO or HAVE is an another matter altogether. Rossi is telling us that the sun is rising when in fact it is setting. Beautiful, when he talks to his believers. Rossi exactly delivered nothing except blabbering about his second
Re: [Vo]: ECAT 600 C Operations
At 10:13 AM 7/8/2012, Guenter Wildgruber wrote: To repeat: I think, as a matter of fact, that LENR is real, but not nearly as far to commercial application as Rossi/DGT claim. Two entirely separate issues here, though, of course, the second depends on the first. LENR is real, there is practically no room for rational doubt about that, but those who are not familiar with the publication record may, of course, remain unconvinced or even sure that LENR is unreal. It's a piece of work to become familiar. Those who think that a peer-reviewed review in a major journal might be a clue could read Status of cold fusion (2010), by Edmund Storms, Naturwissenschaften. To head off some common objections: 1. Ed Storms is a believer. As if someone professionaly competent would become a world-class expert on a topic, doing real research with it, while not accepting the reality of the topic. What is significant about this review is not the author, who already wrote a monograph on the topic, published by World Scientific in 2007 (The Science of Low Energy Nuclear Reactions), but the publisher, Springer-Verlag, which is one of the two largest scientific publishers in the world. 2. Naturwissenschaften is a life sciences journal. This is based on two facts: NW is Springer-Verlag's flagship multidisciplinary journal (their description). SV has organized its vast array of journals into administrative units. It doesn't have a pile of multidisciplinary journals, and, perhaps because NW does publish a lot of articles related to the life sciences (most of them are in some way), the Life Sciences division makes sense. However, the life sciences journal issue is raised to imply that NW would not have access to physics-competent peer review. That is completely false. 3. This paper has not been cited in other peer-reviewed papers. That's true. *It is not controversial,* the conclusions are well-established, and for many years now, other papers on cold fusion, some published in peer-reviewed journals, simply assume what is clearly stated in this review, that the Fleischmann-Pons Heat Effect is due to some process that fuses deuterium to helium, mechanism unknown. The paper does not make controversial claims. The summary in the abstract hasn't seen contradiction in the peer-reviewed literature for many years. 4. The paper (allegedly) still shows that most experiments to confirm the FPHE came up empty. Well, no, but there is a chart that can be interpreted that way. It's also quite possible that the most experiments claim is true, because many negative results have not been published. However, claiming that this is negative as to the reality of cold fusion would be like claiming that there are no fish in a lake, because most fishers who try to catch one fail. The experimental evidence, from early on, showed clearly that the FPHE was difficult to reproduce, that it depended on poorly understood conditions and, while recent research tends to be more reliable, it is still true that the effect is unreliable. I.e. that the conditions are poorly controlled, generally depending on catalyst nanostructure, and, given that the mechanism is not understood, still, improving design is hit-or-miss. (We know, however, that the effect is real because the ash has been identified (helium) and it has been shown to be highly correlated with the reported anomalous heat. That would not happen with non-existent heat, a result of error in calorimetry, nor would it happen with leaked helium, the usual objections.) In 1989 and 2004, U.S. Department of Energy panels recommended further research. Those reviews have often been presented as if they concluded there was no effect. That's not so. In 1989, it's true, the large majority of the panel might have been prepapred to make such a statement, but they did not, due to the influence -- and threat to resign -- of a Nobel Prize-winning physicist who was co-chair. In 2004, it's apparent, the recommendation for continued research to resolve basic questions was a genuine consensus, the summarizing bureaucrat says it was unanimous. In spite of continued popular opinion among physicists, particularly, that cold fusion was impossible, evidenced in some of the individual reviewer reports, the panel was evenly split on the reality of the heat effect, and one-third considered evidence for the nuclear origin of the heat to be at least somewhat convincing. A careful reading of the DoE review paper, and the review, shows that some of the panel and the bureaucrat misread the paper and especially the evidence for helium as the ash (which Storms covers well in his 2010 Review). What is, objectively, very strong evidence for heat/helium correlation, was misstated by a reviewer and the bureaucrat as if it were an anti-correlation. Simple error. Made easy by the speed of the review, there was a one-day meeting, with very little back-and-forth. If
Re: [Vo]: ECAT 600 C Operations
On Sun, Jul 8, 2012 at 9:19 AM, Guenter Wildgruber gwildgru...@ymail.com wrote: As I tried to explain: 400++ degC is a domain where recrystallization occurs. this is not your comfortable home-temperature. See 'the laws of recrystallization', subtopic -- Laws of recrystallization -- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Recrystallization_(metallurgy) In this discussion I think it's important to separate three related but distinct questions: - Does Andrea Rossi's new model operate at or above 600 C? - Is it possible under any circumstance for an NiH system to operate at or above 600 C? - Is an Ni + H reaction the main one responsible for heat in an NiH system? I have no strong opinions on any of these questions. I will be anxious to see independent confirmation of a positive answer to the first one if such becomes possible in the near term. I would be surprised if the answer to the second question were unequivocally negative; it is possible to think up scenarios in which the nuclear active environment rarely reaches the melting point of nickel, even with a low-grade reaction proceeding. Eric
Re: [Vo]: ECAT 600 C Operations
I wrote: I would be surprised if the answer to the second question [Is it possible under any circumstance for an NiH system to operate at or above 600 C?] were unequivocally negative; it is possible to think up scenarios in which the nuclear active environment rarely reaches the melting point of nickel, even with a low-grade reaction proceeding. I just happened upon a writeup by Stan Szpak, from SPAWAR, and others, concerning the PdD co-deposition process he pioneered, in which palladium is electroplated on a gold or copper or similar base. The SPAWAR video I have referred to elsewhere, which shows a number of bright hot spots rapidly appearing and disappearing against a red and blue background, is of one of these assemblies. What the authors have to say about it sounds similar to what Guenter guessed might be going on, where a small region destructively melts, or, in their words, explodes: The ‘hot spots’ observed in the infrared imaging experiments are suggestive of ‘miniexplosions’ (Figure 1b). To verify this, the Ag electrode on a piezoelectric transducer was used as the substrate for the Pd/D co-deposition. If a mini-explosion occurred, the resulting shock wave would compress the crystal. The shock wave would be followed by a heat pulse that would cause the crystal to expand. In these experiments, sharp downward spikes followed by broader upward spikes were observed in the piezoelectric crystal response. The downward spikes were indicative of crystal compression while the broader upward spikes are attributed to the heat pulse and the consequent crystal expansion following the explosion. http://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/SzpakSlenrresear.pdf So there may be no reason to try to think up a nuclear active environment that is long-lived; it is possible that the NAE (if things can be generalized, here) typically explodes and goes away, with the reaction continuing on elsewhere in the substrate. Eric
Re: [Vo]: ECAT 600 C Operations
Guenter, once again I believe you missed the point. I thought I did a good job in explaining in the last post, but apparently I did not. So let me try again. You only have the 400C recrystallization issue or the Curie Point issue or any other temp-limiting issue if your NAE is Nickel Lattice or some other transistion metal (with the exception of possibly Tungsten). If your NAE is cracks, or patches, or unusual geometry on the Nickel lattice, then you have this temp limitation and higher temps will destroy these environments. But if your NAE is Carbon Nanostructures, you do not have an NAE that is easily destroyed by temperatures. Carbon Nanostructures like nanotubes and graphene can easily resist higher temperatures without its structure being destroyed. You can host higher temps on Carbon Nanostructures NAE. Carbon Nanostructures have demonstrated higher temperature resistance. Jojo - Original Message - From: Guenter Wildgruber To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Monday, July 09, 2012 12:19 AM Subject: Re: [Vo]: ECAT 600 C Operations Jojo, Maybe, maybe not. Count me in the doubter's camp. As I tried to explain: 400++ degC is a domain where recrystallization occurs. this is not your comfortable home-temperature. See 'the laws of recrystallization', subtopic -- Laws of recrystallization -- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Recrystallization_(metallurgy) It is ONE thing to question ONE law, but a different thing to question quite a bunch of them simultaneously,. As an engineer with some philosophical leanings (quite rare) I tell You that I am not quite ready to put Rossi into the alltime hall of fame of the likes of Plato, Aristoteles or Einstein. My guess is, that he is more like a Karl May character, who pretended to have visited distant lands, without ever experiencing them, or messing things up, doing a disservice to us all. Sorry. Guenter Von: Jojo Jaro jth...@hotmail.com An: Vortex Vortex-l@eskimo.com Gesendet: 17:31 Sonntag, 8.Juli 2012 Betreff: Re: [Vo]: ECAT 600 C Operations Yes, 600c seems like an overstretch only because we do not understand what's going on. Just like how Huzienga and Parks would think of Cold Fusion. They don't understand it, so it is an overstretch. However, Axil seems to have done a good job in stitching together a probable explanation that can easily explain this 600C. This result is entirely probable in the context of Carbon Nanostructure-based LENR. Carbon Nanostructure-based LENR can be more consistent and controllable so I do not see a problem with 600C, or even 1000C reaction temps. Many seems to have recognized the possibility of Carbon Nanostructure-based LENR paradigm, most notable of which may include both Ed Storms and WL. I have speculated repeatedly in the past that one of the reason why Rossi changed to a flat design was due to the need to deliver more consistent Sparking/arc discharge. Now, evidence is mounting that such an environment is consistent with Carbon Nanosturcture-based LENR, as these Carbon Nanostructures are easily created in such an electric discharge environment. In fact, I would go one step further and speculate that I believe Rossi's new flat design may be a hybrid Arc Discharge/CVD reactor that creates abundant Carbon Nanostructures that appear to be critical to increased power density. We know that Carbon Nanotubes are good NAE candidates. In Lou's post of WL slides, WL presents compelling evidence of the possibility of Graphene as a possible NAE. Both of these Nanosturcutures appear to be good platforms for the Nuclear Active Environment. If one recognizes the possibility of these Carbon Nanostructures as the NAE, one will not have too much problems believing the Rossi 600C stable operating temps. Jojo - Original Message - From: Guenter Wildgruber To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Sunday, July 08, 2012 10:50 PM Subject: Re: [Vo]: ECAT 600 C Operations Rossi, the sparrow does a good job of concealing his hand, in poker speech. And endlessly promises. Bids up his hand to 600degC, knowing that 1000degC would give him a good laugh, even from the most friendly of his friends. What I tried to do, is argue, that 600degC is already an overstretch of the poker-hand from both sides: Rossi AND DGT. Maybe I am wrong. Actually I hope so, because the planet would be safe for another couple of hundred years, and could heal from human folly. Guenter Guenter -- Von: Jojo Jaro jth...@hotmail.com An: Vortex Vortex-l@eskimo.com Gesendet: 15:25 Sonntag, 8.Juli 2012 Betreff: Re: [Vo]: ECAT
Re: [Vo]: ECAT 600 C Operations
Dear Axil I agree- however DGTG started to speak about temperatures over 650 C from February this year, so if somebody has invented LENR ++- it was Defkalion. peter On Sat, Jul 7, 2012 at 12:01 AM, Axil Axil janap...@gmail.com wrote: Extending on Peter Gluck’s concept of LENR+ as a supplemented LENR design, I offer to classify this new Rossi design as a LENR++ design. DGT LENR+ technology has been superseded by Rossi’s new LERN++ design. I will wait for this new Rossi device to be commercially available for home use before I make a buying decision on my own personal LENR unit. Cheers: Axil On Fri, Jul 6, 2012 at 4:51 PM, David Roberson dlrober...@aol.com wrote: This new information is the major reason for my post. The control is now far superior if the recent reports are accurate. The actual operating temperature of the core internally is not different unless it can now be elevated without danger of thermal run away, and if the process is totally under control of something as simple as an electric current then he has a much improved device. Dave -Original Message- From: Axil Axil janap...@gmail.com To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Fri, Jul 6, 2012 4:12 pm Subject: Re: [Vo]: ECAT 600 C Operations In the old style E-Cat core, the flow of coolant water was the way the E-Cat heat production process was controlled. Water flow was increased to retard the reaction, and conversely water flow was retarded to increase the reaction. On the other hand, the DGT core is also thermionic. DGT turns the reaction off and on to produce a pulsed heat source where heat generation is averaged over a period of time. Because the reaction mechanism is no longer thermionic, there is no coolant involved, electric control alone can regulate the reaction in the E-Cat core. In the new solid state E-Cat design,a steady flow of input electric current results in a steady level of direct output of heat production. The elimination of thermionic control is major progress made possible by the design of the solid state E-Cat, IMHO. Cheers: Axil On Fri, Jul 6, 2012 at 3:25 PM, Harry Veeder hveeder...@gmail.comwrote: I just want to remind people that the claimed operating temperature of 600C is not new. When Rossi presented the ecat in Jan 2011, he said the core would reach temperatures around 600C, but the heated water only just boiled. Now he claims the core is stable at 600C but he is not doing anything with the generated heat. Is this progress or puffery? Harry On Fri, Jul 6, 2012 at 1:56 PM, David Roberson dlrober...@aol.com wrote: Recently it has been reported that the latest version of the Rossi ECAT can operate at 600 degrees centigrade or more without going unstable. This is a remarkable improvement if accurate and it is suggested that the proof will be delivered soon. The earlier versions of the device tended to become unstable when the temperature increased much beyond the operational level and now that appears to be under control. To operate in such a manner suggests that the mechanism which establishes the LENR activity is mostly independent of temperature of the device. Actually it might imply that now there is a form of negative feedback operating which tends to throttle back the energy generation process once a threshold temperature is reached. I have long hoped that the driver source could become independent of the output states in LENR devices since that would devoice the devices from the strong temperature effects that have made stability a big problem to contend with. Imagine how wonderful it will be if we are able to control the reaction by just changing the drive with minor temperature degradations. There has been a lot of recent activity related to carbon nanotubes and variation in the waveforms driving the LENR devices. Perhaps Rossi has found a good combination of hydrogen storage with release control and an electrical signal that work together as a system. Time will reveal if all or any of this is true. Maybe someone within the group has knowledge of the operation of the Patterson cells which seemed to use an electric current as the control handle. Was that device sensitive to temperature in the manner associated with positive feedback or more benign as would be expected if negative feedback were dominate? I for one would welcome the improvements in the Rossi device that have been outlined, but have learned from experience that it is easy to say something remarkable but then not follow up with the goods. Perhaps this time we will see the results that we so much anticipate. Dave -- Dr. Peter Gluck Cluj, Romania http://egooutpeters.blogspot.com
Re: [Vo]: ECAT 600 C Operations
Dear Peter, obviously I missed this one, Could You provide a link? The temperature issue obviously is a very central one, and, I must confess, contradicts my theories of the inner working of the e-cat/Hyperion, which is somewhat like a random heating up on several locations. If this would be the case , those random heat-centers (estimated 1000degC) would be self-annihilate by melting. Ofcourse we are theoretizing on this issue, but controllability in the 650degC domain would indicate that the process is quite homogenous, and not sporadicly dispersed over say 1-10 um2 heat centers- as I up to now hypothesized, on hopefully realistic grounds. But maybe this is only my worldview, which crumbles. If this would be the case, it would indicate that this is a VERY benign process, and, I must confess, I would -as said- have to rework my entire worldview, which is based on randomness and the universe's indifference to our human desires at large. (hope this is understandable) I am not ready for that. Therefore I remain sceptical. LENR: Yes. Saving us from our follies - or extending them: No. All the best Guenter Von: Peter Gluck peter.gl...@gmail.com An: vortex-l@eskimo.com Gesendet: 15:19 Samstag, 7.Juli 2012 Betreff: Re: [Vo]: ECAT 600 C Operations Dear Axil I agree- however DGTG started to speak about temperatures over 650 C from February this year, so if somebody has invented LENR ++- it was Defkalion. peter
Re: [Vo]: ECAT 600 C Operations
Dear Guenter, Nothing easier- if you make a Google Search for Defkalion 650C or a search on their Forum for 650C you will find tens of links. It was also written at Mats's Nyteknik. An example from many: Real news from Defkalion « nickelpower nickelpower.org/2012/03/26/real-news-from-defkalion/ 26 Mar 2012 – Rossi is a “one-man-band” and Defkalion has 27 scientists. they say that they reactor work until 650C (limit of bare rector test) and according . I had a cognitive shock- what they have is a process different from Piantelli's based on preformed nanoclusters. Those clusters are destroyed fast over 400C. There are many implications but I don't think we have to change our world/science views. And now Rossi re-discovers this high temperature process. Progress! Peter On Sat, Jul 7, 2012 at 7:31 PM, Guenter Wildgruber gwildgru...@ymail.comwrote: Dear Peter, obviously I missed this one, Could You provide a link? The temperature issue obviously is a very central one, and, I must confess, contradicts my theories of the inner working of the e-cat/Hyperion, which is somewhat like a random heating up on several locations. If this would be the case , those random heat-centers (estimated 1000degC) would be self-annihilate by melting. Ofcourse we are theoretizing on this issue, but controllability in the 650degC domain would indicate that the process is quite homogenous, and not sporadicly dispersed over say 1-10 um2 heat centers- as I up to now hypothesized, on hopefully realistic grounds. But maybe this is only my worldview, which crumbles. If this would be the case, it would indicate that this is a VERY benign process, and, I must confess, I would -as said- have to rework my entire worldview, which is based on randomness and the universe's indifference to our human desires at large. (hope this is understandable) I am not ready for that. Therefore I remain sceptical. LENR: Yes. Saving us from our follies - or extending them: No. All the best Guenter -- *Von:* Peter Gluck peter.gl...@gmail.com *An:* vortex-l@eskimo.com *Gesendet:* 15:19 Samstag, 7.Juli 2012 *Betreff:* Re: [Vo]: ECAT 600 C Operations Dear Axil I agree- however DGTG started to speak about temperatures over 650 C from February this year, so if somebody has invented LENR ++- it was Defkalion. peter -- Dr. Peter Gluck Cluj, Romania http://egooutpeters.blogspot.com
Re: [Vo]: ECAT 600 C Operations
Peter, somehow I missed that. Anyway. 200 degC would be quite something. 400degC would be disruptive. 600degC earth-shattering. A range where I am having some conceptual difficulties with. Presumably theory also. But this is commonsensical extrapolation from my side,without any firm ground, I must confess. As stated, such a simple parameter like temperature could seriously challenge my worldview, which worries me somehow, but I do not reject it out of hand. We will see. all the best Guenter Von: Peter Gluck peter.gl...@gmail.com An: Guenter Wildgruber gwildgru...@ymail.com CC: vortex-l@eskimo.com vortex-l@eskimo.com Gesendet: 20:27 Samstag, 7.Juli 2012 Betreff: Re: [Vo]: ECAT 600 C Operations Dear Guenter, Nothing easier- if you make a Google Search for Defkalion 650C or a search on their Forum for 650C you will find tens of links. It was also written at Mats's Nyteknik. An example from many: Real news from Defkalion « nickelpower nickelpower.org/2012/03/26/real-news-from-defkalion/ 26 Mar 2012 – Rossi is a “one-man-band” and Defkalion has 27 scientists. they say that they reactor work until 650C (limit of bare rector test) and according . I had a cognitive shock- what they have is a process different from Piantelli's based on preformed nanoclusters. Those clusters are destroyed fast over 400C. There are many implications but I don't think we have to change our world/science views. And now Rossi re-discovers this high temperature process. Progress! Peter On Sat, Jul 7, 2012 at 7:31 PM, Guenter Wildgruber gwildgru...@ymail.com wrote: Dear Peter, obviously I missed this one, Could You provide a link? The temperature issue obviously is a very central one, and, I must confess, contradicts my theories of the inner working of the e-cat/Hyperion, which is somewhat like a random heating up on several locations. If this would be the case , those random heat-centers (estimated 1000degC) would be self-annihilate by melting. Ofcourse we are theoretizing on this issue, but controllability in the 650degC domain would indicate that the process is quite homogenous, and not sporadicly dispersed over say 1-10 um2 heat centers- as I up to now hypothesized, on hopefully realistic grounds. But maybe this is only my worldview, which crumbles. If this would be the case, it would indicate that this is a VERY benign process, and, I must confess, I would -as said- have to rework my entire worldview, which is based on randomness and the universe's indifference to our human desires at large. (hope this is understandable) I am not ready for that. Therefore I remain sceptical. LENR: Yes. Saving us from our follies - or extending them: No. All the best Guenter Von: Peter Gluck peter.gl...@gmail.com An: vortex-l@eskimo.com Gesendet: 15:19 Samstag, 7.Juli 2012 Betreff: Re: [Vo]: ECAT 600 C Operations Dear Axil I agree- however DGTG started to speak about temperatures over 650 C from February this year, so if somebody has invented LENR ++- it was Defkalion. peter -- Dr. Peter Gluck Cluj, Romania http://egooutpeters.blogspot.com
RE: [Vo]: ECAT 600 C Operations
So Guenter, Why would seriously challenging you worldview worry you? Wouldn’t you prefer the truth, even if it completely decimates your worldview? As a scientist/engineer, I want to know what *IS*, not what happens to agree with my current understanding of what is… -Mark From: Guenter Wildgruber [mailto:gwildgru...@ymail.com] Sent: Saturday, July 07, 2012 3:50 PM To: Peter Gluck Cc: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: [Vo]: ECAT 600 C Operations Peter, somehow I missed that. Anyway. 200 degC would be quite something. 400degC would be disruptive. 600degC earth-shattering. A range where I am having some conceptual difficulties with. Presumably theory also. But this is commonsensical extrapolation from my side,without any firm ground, I must confess. As stated, such a simple parameter like temperature could seriously challenge my worldview, which worries me somehow, but I do not reject it out of hand. We will see. all the best Guenter _ Von: Peter Gluck peter.gl...@gmail.com An: Guenter Wildgruber gwildgru...@ymail.com CC: vortex-l@eskimo.com vortex-l@eskimo.com Gesendet: 20:27 Samstag, 7.Juli 2012 Betreff: Re: [Vo]: ECAT 600 C Operations Dear Guenter, Nothing easier- if you make a Google Search for Defkalion 650C or a search on their Forum for 650C you will find tens of links. It was also written at Mats's Nyteknik. An example from many: Real news from Defkalion « nickelpower nickelpower.org/2012/03/26/real-news-from-defkalion/ 26 Mar 2012 – Rossi is a “one-man-band” and Defkalion has 27 scientists. they say that they reactor work until 650C (limit of bare rector test) and according . I had a cognitive shock- what they have is a process different from Piantelli's based on preformed nanoclusters. Those clusters are destroyed fast over 400C. There are many implications but I don't think we have to change our world/science views. And now Rossi re-discovers this high temperature process. Progress! Peter On Sat, Jul 7, 2012 at 7:31 PM, Guenter Wildgruber gwildgru...@ymail.com wrote: Dear Peter, obviously I missed this one, Could You provide a link? The temperature issue obviously is a very central one, and, I must confess, contradicts my theories of the inner working of the e-cat/Hyperion, which is somewhat like a random heating up on several locations. If this would be the case , those random heat-centers (estimated 1000degC) would be self-annihilate by melting. Ofcourse we are theoretizing on this issue, but controllability in the 650degC domain would indicate that the process is quite homogenous, and not sporadicly dispersed over say 1-10 um2 heat centers- as I up to now hypothesized, on hopefully realistic grounds. But maybe this is only my worldview, which crumbles. If this would be the case, it would indicate that this is a VERY benign process, and, I must confess, I would -as said- have to rework my entire worldview, which is based on randomness and the universe's indifference to our human desires at large. (hope this is understandable) I am not ready for that. Therefore I remain sceptical. LENR: Yes. Saving us from our follies - or extending them: No. All the best Guenter _ Von: Peter Gluck peter.gl...@gmail.com An: vortex-l@eskimo.com Gesendet: 15:19 Samstag, 7.Juli 2012 Betreff: Re: [Vo]: ECAT 600 C Operations Dear Axil I agree- however DGTG started to speak about temperatures over 650 C from February this year, so if somebody has invented LENR ++- it was Defkalion. peter -- Dr. Peter Gluck Cluj, Romania http://egooutpeters.blogspot.com http://egooutpeters.blogspot.com/
[Vo]: ECAT 600 C Operations
Recently it has been reported that the latest version of the Rossi ECAT can operate at 600 degrees centigrade or more without going unstable. This is a remarkable improvement if accurate and it is suggested that the proof will be delivered soon. The earlier versions of the device tended to become unstable when the temperature increased much beyond the operational level and now that appears to be under control. To operate in such a manner suggests that the mechanism which establishes the LENR activity is mostly independent of temperature of the device. Actually it might imply that now there is a form of negative feedback operating which tends to throttle back the energy generation process once a threshold temperature is reached. I have long hoped that the driver source could become independent of the output states in LENR devices since that would devoice the devices from the strong temperature effects that have made stability a big problem to contend with. Imagine how wonderful it will be if we are able to control the reaction by just changing the drive with minor temperature degradations. There has been a lot of recent activity related to carbon nanotubes and variation in the waveforms driving the LENR devices. Perhaps Rossi has found a good combination of hydrogen storage with release control and an electrical signal that work together as a system. Time will reveal if all or any of this is true. Maybe someone within the group has knowledge of the operation of the Patterson cells which seemed to use an electric current as the control handle. Was that device sensitive to temperature in the manner associated with positive feedback or more benign as would be expected if negative feedback were dominate? I for one would welcome the improvements in the Rossi device that have been outlined, but have learned from experience that it is easy to say something remarkable but then not follow up with the goods. Perhaps this time we will see the results that we so much anticipate. Dave
Re: [Vo]: ECAT 600 C Operations
http://pesn.com/2012/06/30/9602121_Solid_State_E-Cat/ The New Solid State E-Cat It is my considered opinion, the new E-Cat Reactor Core is now under precise electric control. Cheers:Axil On Fri, Jul 6, 2012 at 1:56 PM, David Roberson dlrober...@aol.com wrote: Recently it has been reported that the latest version of the Rossi ECAT can operate at 600 degrees centigrade or more without going unstable. This is a remarkable improvement if accurate and it is suggested that the proof will be delivered soon. The earlier versions of the device tended to become unstable when the temperature increased much beyond the operational level and now that appears to be under control. To operate in such a manner suggests that the mechanism which establishes the LENR activity is mostly independent of temperature of the device. Actually it might imply that now there is a form of negative feedback operating which tends to throttle back the energy generation process once a threshold temperature is reached. I have long hoped that the driver source could become independent of the output states in LENR devices since that would devoice the devices from the strong temperature effects that have made stability a big problem to contend with. Imagine how wonderful it will be if we are able to control the reaction by just changing the drive with minor temperature degradations. There has been a lot of recent activity related to carbon nanotubes and variation in the waveforms driving the LENR devices. Perhaps Rossi has found a good combination of hydrogen storage with release control and an electrical signal that work together as a system. Time will reveal if all or any of this is true. Maybe someone within the group has knowledge of the operation of the Patterson cells which seemed to use an electric current as the control handle. Was that device sensitive to temperature in the manner associated with positive feedback or more benign as would be expected if negative feedback were dominate? I for one would welcome the improvements in the Rossi device that have been outlined, but have learned from experience that it is easy to say something remarkable but then not follow up with the goods. Perhaps this time we will see the results that we so much anticipate. Dave
Re: [Vo]: ECAT 600 C Operations
I just want to remind people that the claimed operating temperature of 600C is not new. When Rossi presented the ecat in Jan 2011, he said the core would reach temperatures around 600C, but the heated water only just boiled. Now he claims the core is stable at 600C but he is not doing anything with the generated heat. Is this progress or puffery? Harry On Fri, Jul 6, 2012 at 1:56 PM, David Roberson dlrober...@aol.com wrote: Recently it has been reported that the latest version of the Rossi ECAT can operate at 600 degrees centigrade or more without going unstable. This is a remarkable improvement if accurate and it is suggested that the proof will be delivered soon. The earlier versions of the device tended to become unstable when the temperature increased much beyond the operational level and now that appears to be under control. To operate in such a manner suggests that the mechanism which establishes the LENR activity is mostly independent of temperature of the device. Actually it might imply that now there is a form of negative feedback operating which tends to throttle back the energy generation process once a threshold temperature is reached. I have long hoped that the driver source could become independent of the output states in LENR devices since that would devoice the devices from the strong temperature effects that have made stability a big problem to contend with. Imagine how wonderful it will be if we are able to control the reaction by just changing the drive with minor temperature degradations. There has been a lot of recent activity related to carbon nanotubes and variation in the waveforms driving the LENR devices. Perhaps Rossi has found a good combination of hydrogen storage with release control and an electrical signal that work together as a system. Time will reveal if all or any of this is true. Maybe someone within the group has knowledge of the operation of the Patterson cells which seemed to use an electric current as the control handle. Was that device sensitive to temperature in the manner associated with positive feedback or more benign as would be expected if negative feedback were dominate? I for one would welcome the improvements in the Rossi device that have been outlined, but have learned from experience that it is easy to say something remarkable but then not follow up with the goods. Perhaps this time we will see the results that we so much anticipate. Dave
Re: [Vo]: ECAT 600 C Operations
In the old style E-Cat core, the flow of coolant water was the way the E-Cat heat production process was controlled. Water flow was increased to retard the reaction, and conversely water flow was retarded to increase the reaction. On the other hand, the DGT core is also thermionic. DGT turns the reaction off and on to produce a pulsed heat source where heat generation is averaged over a period of time. Because the reaction mechanism is no longer thermionic, there is no coolant involved, electric control alone can regulate the reaction in the E-Cat core. In the new solid state E-Cat design,a steady flow of input electric current results in a steady level of direct output of heat production. The elimination of thermionic control is major progress made possible by the design of the solid state E-Cat, IMHO. Cheers: Axil On Fri, Jul 6, 2012 at 3:25 PM, Harry Veeder hveeder...@gmail.com wrote: I just want to remind people that the claimed operating temperature of 600C is not new. When Rossi presented the ecat in Jan 2011, he said the core would reach temperatures around 600C, but the heated water only just boiled. Now he claims the core is stable at 600C but he is not doing anything with the generated heat. Is this progress or puffery? Harry On Fri, Jul 6, 2012 at 1:56 PM, David Roberson dlrober...@aol.com wrote: Recently it has been reported that the latest version of the Rossi ECAT can operate at 600 degrees centigrade or more without going unstable. This is a remarkable improvement if accurate and it is suggested that the proof will be delivered soon. The earlier versions of the device tended to become unstable when the temperature increased much beyond the operational level and now that appears to be under control. To operate in such a manner suggests that the mechanism which establishes the LENR activity is mostly independent of temperature of the device. Actually it might imply that now there is a form of negative feedback operating which tends to throttle back the energy generation process once a threshold temperature is reached. I have long hoped that the driver source could become independent of the output states in LENR devices since that would devoice the devices from the strong temperature effects that have made stability a big problem to contend with. Imagine how wonderful it will be if we are able to control the reaction by just changing the drive with minor temperature degradations. There has been a lot of recent activity related to carbon nanotubes and variation in the waveforms driving the LENR devices. Perhaps Rossi has found a good combination of hydrogen storage with release control and an electrical signal that work together as a system. Time will reveal if all or any of this is true. Maybe someone within the group has knowledge of the operation of the Patterson cells which seemed to use an electric current as the control handle. Was that device sensitive to temperature in the manner associated with positive feedback or more benign as would be expected if negative feedback were dominate? I for one would welcome the improvements in the Rossi device that have been outlined, but have learned from experience that it is easy to say something remarkable but then not follow up with the goods. Perhaps this time we will see the results that we so much anticipate. Dave
Re: [Vo]: ECAT 600 C Operations
This new information is the major reason for my post. The control is now far superior if the recent reports are accurate. The actual operating temperature of the core internally is not different unless it can now be elevated without danger of thermal run away, and if the process is totally under control of something as simple as an electric current then he has a much improved device. Dave -Original Message- From: Axil Axil janap...@gmail.com To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Fri, Jul 6, 2012 4:12 pm Subject: Re: [Vo]: ECAT 600 C Operations In the old style E-Cat core, the flow of coolant water was the way the E-Cat heat production process was controlled. Water flow was increased to retard the reaction, and conversely water flow was retarded to increase the reaction. On the other hand, the DGT core is also thermionic. DGT turns the reaction off and on to produce a pulsed heat source where heat generation is averaged over a period of time. Because the reaction mechanism is no longer thermionic, there is no coolant involved, electric control alone can regulate the reaction in the E-Cat core. In the new solid state E-Cat design,a steady flow of input electric current results in a steady level of direct output of heat production. The elimination of thermionic control is major progress made possible by the design of the solid state E-Cat, IMHO. Cheers: Axil On Fri, Jul 6, 2012 at 3:25 PM, Harry Veeder hveeder...@gmail.com wrote: I just want to remind people that the claimed operating temperature of 600C is not new. When Rossi presented the ecat in Jan 2011, he said the core would reach temperatures around 600C, but the heated water only just boiled. Now he claims the core is stable at 600C but he is not doing anything with the generated heat. Is this progress or puffery? Harry On Fri, Jul 6, 2012 at 1:56 PM, David Roberson dlrober...@aol.com wrote: Recently it has been reported that the latest version of the Rossi ECAT can operate at 600 degrees centigrade or more without going unstable. This is a remarkable improvement if accurate and it is suggested that the proof will be delivered soon. The earlier versions of the device tended to become unstable when the temperature increased much beyond the operational level and now that appears to be under control. To operate in such a manner suggests that the mechanism which establishes the LENR activity is mostly independent of temperature of the device. Actually it might imply that now there is a form of negative feedback operating which tends to throttle back the energy generation process once a threshold temperature is reached. I have long hoped that the driver source could become independent of the output states in LENR devices since that would devoice the devices from the strong temperature effects that have made stability a big problem to contend with. Imagine how wonderful it will be if we are able to control the reaction by just changing the drive with minor temperature degradations. There has been a lot of recent activity related to carbon nanotubes and variation in the waveforms driving the LENR devices. Perhaps Rossi has found a good combination of hydrogen storage with release control and an electrical signal that work together as a system. Time will reveal if all or any of this is true. Maybe someone within the group has knowledge of the operation of the Patterson cells which seemed to use an electric current as the control handle. Was that device sensitive to temperature in the manner associated with positive feedback or more benign as would be expected if negative feedback were dominate? I for one would welcome the improvements in the Rossi device that have been outlined, but have learned from experience that it is easy to say something remarkable but then not follow up with the goods. Perhaps this time we will see the results that we so much anticipate. Dave
Re: [Vo]: ECAT 600 C Operations
Extending on Peter Gluck’s concept of LENR+ as a supplemented LENR design, I offer to classify this new Rossi design as a LENR++ design. DGT LENR+ technology has been superseded by Rossi’s new LERN++ design. I will wait for this new Rossi device to be commercially available for home use before I make a buying decision on my own personal LENR unit. Cheers: Axil On Fri, Jul 6, 2012 at 4:51 PM, David Roberson dlrober...@aol.com wrote: This new information is the major reason for my post. The control is now far superior if the recent reports are accurate. The actual operating temperature of the core internally is not different unless it can now be elevated without danger of thermal run away, and if the process is totally under control of something as simple as an electric current then he has a much improved device. Dave -Original Message- From: Axil Axil janap...@gmail.com To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Fri, Jul 6, 2012 4:12 pm Subject: Re: [Vo]: ECAT 600 C Operations In the old style E-Cat core, the flow of coolant water was the way the E-Cat heat production process was controlled. Water flow was increased to retard the reaction, and conversely water flow was retarded to increase the reaction. On the other hand, the DGT core is also thermionic. DGT turns the reaction off and on to produce a pulsed heat source where heat generation is averaged over a period of time. Because the reaction mechanism is no longer thermionic, there is no coolant involved, electric control alone can regulate the reaction in the E-Cat core. In the new solid state E-Cat design,a steady flow of input electric current results in a steady level of direct output of heat production. The elimination of thermionic control is major progress made possible by the design of the solid state E-Cat, IMHO. Cheers: Axil On Fri, Jul 6, 2012 at 3:25 PM, Harry Veeder hveeder...@gmail.com wrote: I just want to remind people that the claimed operating temperature of 600C is not new. When Rossi presented the ecat in Jan 2011, he said the core would reach temperatures around 600C, but the heated water only just boiled. Now he claims the core is stable at 600C but he is not doing anything with the generated heat. Is this progress or puffery? Harry On Fri, Jul 6, 2012 at 1:56 PM, David Roberson dlrober...@aol.com wrote: Recently it has been reported that the latest version of the Rossi ECAT can operate at 600 degrees centigrade or more without going unstable. This is a remarkable improvement if accurate and it is suggested that the proof will be delivered soon. The earlier versions of the device tended to become unstable when the temperature increased much beyond the operational level and now that appears to be under control. To operate in such a manner suggests that the mechanism which establishes the LENR activity is mostly independent of temperature of the device. Actually it might imply that now there is a form of negative feedback operating which tends to throttle back the energy generation process once a threshold temperature is reached. I have long hoped that the driver source could become independent of the output states in LENR devices since that would devoice the devices from the strong temperature effects that have made stability a big problem to contend with. Imagine how wonderful it will be if we are able to control the reaction by just changing the drive with minor temperature degradations. There has been a lot of recent activity related to carbon nanotubes and variation in the waveforms driving the LENR devices. Perhaps Rossi has found a good combination of hydrogen storage with release control and an electrical signal that work together as a system. Time will reveal if all or any of this is true. Maybe someone within the group has knowledge of the operation of the Patterson cells which seemed to use an electric current as the control handle. Was that device sensitive to temperature in the manner associated with positive feedback or more benign as would be expected if negative feedback were dominate? I for one would welcome the improvements in the Rossi device that have been outlined, but have learned from experience that it is easy to say something remarkable but then not follow up with the goods. Perhaps this time we will see the results that we so much anticipate. Dave
Re: [Vo]: ECAT 600 C Operations
From Axil Things are moving very fast in LENR and is difficult to keep up with Rossi let along surpass him. ...and from David: The control is now far superior if the recent reports are accurate. I suspect not everyone within the Vort Collective shares what appears to be a new level enthusiasm coming from certain members. Too many implied predictions from Rossi over the past year and a half have come and gone, causing many to become just a tad jaded. While I genuinely hope Rossi's latest accomplishments in the solid state realm are exactly what they claim to be, major accomplishments, the man also appears to be an accomplished carnival barker. It's not that I'm implying Rossi is deliberately lying about his latest claims. For me, it's more a matter of recalling something Mr. Spock once said: I exaggerated. IOW, Calculated [dis?]information to keep the wheels greased. I wait for more forthcoming solid evidence and independent validation. A prototype where we are allowed to kick the tires would be nice too. Regards Steven Vincent Johnson www.OrionWorks.com www.zazzle.com/orionworks
Re: [Vo]: ECAT 600 C Operations
Competition is always beneficial to the consumer in any product offering. The refresher course that Microsoft has provided us in the preceding decades shows that the consumer is not well served by a monopoly. The monopolist is free to call his own shots, charge what the market will bear, and release product at a measured pace that he judges best for his best interests and disposition. The more venders that supply a given product, the greater is the advantage to the consumer. Rossi is attempting to corner the LENR market through the offering of a superior technology. It is up to the competitors of Rossi to flush him out into the open so the competitive forces in the marketplace can flow with great vigor. When the big multinational energy providers recognize that LENR is real and can produce a profit, Rossi’s technology will be exposed to intense competition. Rossi is wise to take his time to get all his ducks in order to face that competition and try to stay ahead of it for as long as he can. Rosssi is smart to keep the sleeping beasts in the energy business as dead to the LENR world as long as he can manage. So time is on Rossi’s side until a competitor steps forth (DGT ?) to shake up the world of the multinational energy producers into frantic and frenzied action. Cheers: Axil On Fri, Jul 6, 2012 at 5:14 PM, OrionWorks - Steven V Johnson svj.orionwo...@gmail.com wrote: From Axil Things are moving very fast in LENR and is difficult to keep up with Rossi let along surpass him. ...and from David: The control is now far superior if the recent reports are accurate. I suspect not everyone within the Vort Collective shares what appears to be a new level enthusiasm coming from certain members. Too many implied predictions from Rossi over the past year and a half have come and gone, causing many to become just a tad jaded. While I genuinely hope Rossi's latest accomplishments in the solid state realm are exactly what they claim to be, major accomplishments, the man also appears to be an accomplished carnival barker. It's not that I'm implying Rossi is deliberately lying about his latest claims. For me, it's more a matter of recalling something Mr. Spock once said: I exaggerated. IOW, Calculated [dis?]information to keep the wheels greased. I wait for more forthcoming solid evidence and independent validation. A prototype where we are allowed to kick the tires would be nice too. Regards Steven Vincent Johnson www.OrionWorks.com www.zazzle.com/orionworks
Re: [Vo]: ECAT 600 C Operations
Your puzzling is puzzling, Harry. Rossi is claiming (I think it was) 10 KWatts of power from a unit. There are few practical ways to measure that besides (in essence) boiling water. A gale of air? I will give you, that Rossi may not have /simultaneously/ attained 600 degC and 10 KWatts. This is what an efficient electric power generator needs, so a shortcoming here could indeed show puffery. In either case, a useful device, at least for pool heating! How many gallons can you keep at 10 degC above ambient, with 10 KWatts ? Ol' Bab On 7/6/2012 3:25 PM, Harry Veeder wrote: I just want to remind people that the claimed operating temperature of 600C is not new. When Rossi presented the ecat in Jan 2011, he said the core would reach temperatures around 600C, but the heated water only just boiled. Now he claims the core is stable at 600C but he is not doing anything with the generated heat. Is this progress or puffery? Harry On Fri, Jul 6, 2012 at 1:56 PM, David Roberson dlrober...@aol.com wrote: Recently it has been reported that the latest version of the Rossi ECAT can operate at 600 degrees centigrade or more without going unstable. This is a remarkable improvement if accurate and it is suggested that the proof will be delivered soon. The earlier versions of the device tended to become unstable when the temperature increased much beyond the operational level and now that appears to be under control. To operate in such a manner suggests that the mechanism which establishes the LENR activity is mostly independent of temperature of the device. Actually it might imply that now there is a form of negative feedback operating which tends to throttle back the energy generation process once a threshold temperature is reached. I have long hoped that the driver source could become independent of the output states in LENR devices since that would devoice the devices from the strong temperature effects that have made stability a big problem to contend with. Imagine how wonderful it will be if we are able to control the reaction by just changing the drive with minor temperature degradations. There has been a lot of recent activity related to carbon nanotubes and variation in the waveforms driving the LENR devices. Perhaps Rossi has found a good combination of hydrogen storage with release control and an electrical signal that work together as a system. Time will reveal if all or any of this is true. Maybe someone within the group has knowledge of the operation of the Patterson cells which seemed to use an electric current as the control handle. Was that device sensitive to temperature in the manner associated with positive feedback or more benign as would be expected if negative feedback were dominate? I for one would welcome the improvements in the Rossi device that have been outlined, but have learned from experience that it is easy to say something remarkable but then not follow up with the goods. Perhaps this time we will see the results that we so much anticipate. Dave
Re: [Vo]: ECAT 600 C Operations
I suggest LENRv2 or LENR2 instead of LENR++ as this is a totally different reaction, not just an enhancement of the previous process. Version 2 is based on electric control of Carbon Nanotubes instead of temperature control of Thermionic Catalysts. Jojo - Original Message - From: Axil Axil To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Saturday, July 07, 2012 5:01 AM Subject: Re: [Vo]: ECAT 600 C Operations Extending on Peter Gluck’s concept of LENR+ as a supplemented LENR design, I offer to classify this new Rossi design as a LENR++ design. DGT LENR+ technology has been superseded by Rossi’s new LERN++ design. I will wait for this new Rossi device to be commercially available for home use before I make a buying decision on my own personal LENR unit. Cheers: Axil On Fri, Jul 6, 2012 at 4:51 PM, David Roberson dlrober...@aol.com wrote: This new information is the major reason for my post. The control is now far superior if the recent reports are accurate. The actual operating temperature of the core internally is not different unless it can now be elevated without danger of thermal run away, and if the process is totally under control of something as simple as an electric current then he has a much improved device. Dave -Original Message- From: Axil Axil janap...@gmail.com To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Fri, Jul 6, 2012 4:12 pm Subject: Re: [Vo]: ECAT 600 C Operations In the old style E-Cat core, the flow of coolant water was the way the E-Cat heat production process was controlled. Water flow was increased to retard the reaction, and conversely water flow was retarded to increase the reaction. On the other hand, the DGT core is also thermionic. DGT turns the reaction off and on to produce a pulsed heat source where heat generation is averaged over a period of time. Because the reaction mechanism is no longer thermionic, there is no coolant involved, electric control alone can regulate the reaction in the E-Cat core. In the new solid state E-Cat design,a steady flow of input electric current results in a steady level of direct output of heat production. The elimination of thermionic control is major progress made possible by the design of the solid state E-Cat, IMHO. Cheers: Axil On Fri, Jul 6, 2012 at 3:25 PM, Harry Veeder hveeder...@gmail.com wrote: I just want to remind people that the claimed operating temperature of 600C is not new. When Rossi presented the ecat in Jan 2011, he said the core would reach temperatures around 600C, but the heated water only just boiled. Now he claims the core is stable at 600C but he is not doing anything with the generated heat. Is this progress or puffery? Harry On Fri, Jul 6, 2012 at 1:56 PM, David Roberson dlrober...@aol.com wrote: Recently it has been reported that the latest version of the Rossi ECAT can operate at 600 degrees centigrade or more without going unstable. This is a remarkable improvement if accurate and it is suggested that the proof will be delivered soon. The earlier versions of the device tended to become unstable when the temperature increased much beyond the operational level and now that appears to be under control. To operate in such a manner suggests that the mechanism which establishes the LENR activity is mostly independent of temperature of the device. Actually it might imply that now there is a form of negative feedback operating which tends to throttle back the energy generation process once a threshold temperature is reached. I have long hoped that the driver source could become independent of the output states in LENR devices since that would devoice the devices from the strong temperature effects that have made stability a big problem to contend with. Imagine how wonderful it will be if we are able to control the reaction by just changing the drive with minor temperature degradations. There has been a lot of recent activity related to carbon nanotubes and variation in the waveforms driving the LENR devices. Perhaps Rossi has found a good combination of hydrogen storage with release control and an electrical signal that work together as a system. Time will reveal if all or any of this is true. Maybe someone within the group has knowledge of the operation of the Patterson cells which seemed to use an electric current as the control handle. Was that device sensitive to temperature in the manner associated with positive feedback or more benign as would be expected if negative feedback were dominate? I for one would welcome the improvements in the Rossi device that have been outlined, but have learned from experience
Re: [Vo]: ECAT 600 C Operations
Rossi behaviour and speech is puzzling. ;-) I gave up in november trying to weave a coherent picture of his research. Harry On Fri, Jul 6, 2012 at 8:07 PM, David L Babcock ol...@rochester.rr.com wrote: Your puzzling is puzzling, Harry. Rossi is claiming (I think it was) 10 KWatts of power from a unit. There are few practical ways to measure that besides (in essence) boiling water. A gale of air? I will give you, that Rossi may not have simultaneously attained 600 degC and 10 KWatts. This is what an efficient electric power generator needs, so a shortcoming here could indeed show puffery. In either case, a useful device, at least for pool heating! How many gallons can you keep at 10 degC above ambient, with 10 KWatts ? Ol' Bab On 7/6/2012 3:25 PM, Harry Veeder wrote: I just want to remind people that the claimed operating temperature of 600C is not new. When Rossi presented the ecat in Jan 2011, he said the core would reach temperatures around 600C, but the heated water only just boiled. Now he claims the core is stable at 600C but he is not doing anything with the generated heat. Is this progress or puffery? Harry On Fri, Jul 6, 2012 at 1:56 PM, David Roberson dlrober...@aol.com wrote: Recently it has been reported that the latest version of the Rossi ECAT can operate at 600 degrees centigrade or more without going unstable. This is a remarkable improvement if accurate and it is suggested that the proof will be delivered soon. The earlier versions of the device tended to become unstable when the temperature increased much beyond the operational level and now that appears to be under control. To operate in such a manner suggests that the mechanism which establishes the LENR activity is mostly independent of temperature of the device. Actually it might imply that now there is a form of negative feedback operating which tends to throttle back the energy generation process once a threshold temperature is reached. I have long hoped that the driver source could become independent of the output states in LENR devices since that would devoice the devices from the strong temperature effects that have made stability a big problem to contend with. Imagine how wonderful it will be if we are able to control the reaction by just changing the drive with minor temperature degradations. There has been a lot of recent activity related to carbon nanotubes and variation in the waveforms driving the LENR devices. Perhaps Rossi has found a good combination of hydrogen storage with release control and an electrical signal that work together as a system. Time will reveal if all or any of this is true. Maybe someone within the group has knowledge of the operation of the Patterson cells which seemed to use an electric current as the control handle. Was that device sensitive to temperature in the manner associated with positive feedback or more benign as would be expected if negative feedback were dominate? I for one would welcome the improvements in the Rossi device that have been outlined, but have learned from experience that it is easy to say something remarkable but then not follow up with the goods. Perhaps this time we will see the results that we so much anticipate. Dave
