subject:"\[Vo\]\:An expert reviewed and approves of this configuration"

Brian Ahern just called me to say that he spoke with expert in thermal
imaging. The expert went over the paper and said this was exactly the right
kind of camera for these materials and this range of temperatures. The guy
said surface roughness and various other factors come into play. He knows
something about alumina and he said these are the instruments and
wavelengths he would select.

Brian said his own doubts have been resolved.

Normally I would have jotted down more details, such as the expert's name,
but I didn't because Brian promised to send me a note with the particulars.
It occurs to me he is not a good correspondent. He is a busy bee . . . If
he does not send me the info. I'll call him back and get it.

This expert does things like measure the temperature of rocket plumes. I
told Brian I have heard of people using IR cameras for volcanoes. They are
good for uncontrolled, high-temperature phenomena.

Details to follow.

Brian is a good egg.

- Jed

Re: [Vo]:An expert reviewed and approves of this configuration

2014-10-13 Thread Foks0904 .

Thanks for posting Jed -- I too appreciated Brian's efforts to add to our
collective understanding on this matter. We need to get as many expert eyes
on this as possible, and each of us drawing on our own network of experts
is actually a big deal and necessary I think.

John

On Mon, Oct 13, 2014 at 2:26 PM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com wrote:

 Brian Ahern just called me to say that he spoke with expert in thermal
 imaging. The expert went over the paper and said this was exactly the right
 kind of camera for these materials and this range of temperatures. The guy
 said surface roughness and various other factors come into play. He knows
 something about alumina and he said these are the instruments and
 wavelengths he would select.

 Brian said his own doubts have been resolved.

 Normally I would have jotted down more details, such as the expert's name,
 but I didn't because Brian promised to send me a note with the particulars.
 It occurs to me he is not a good correspondent. He is a busy bee . . . If
 he does not send me the info. I'll call him back and get it.

 This expert does things like measure the temperature of rocket plumes. I
 told Brian I have heard of people using IR cameras for volcanoes. They are
 good for uncontrolled, high-temperature phenomena.

 Details to follow.

 Brian is a good egg.

 - Jed

RE: [Vo]:An expert reviewed and approves of this configuration

I talked to Brian also, and I know the reputation of the person he refers to 
and that he can be trusted. Both are good eggs.

 

Thus, the excess heat is likely to be real, but that says nothing about the 
isotope analysis. But it does narrow the controversy down to the single issue.

 

Brian’s suspicions are as strong as ever about the isotope analysis, maybe more 
so. The reality of excess heat make that deception even more important to 
understand.

 

Jones

 

From: Foks0904 

 

Thanks for posting Jed -- I too appreciated Brian's efforts to add to our 
collective understanding on this matter. We need to get as many expert eyes on 
this as possible, and each of us drawing on our own network of experts is 
actually a big deal and necessary I think.

 

John

 

Jed Rothwell wrote:

 

Brian Ahern just called me to say that he spoke with expert in thermal imaging. 
The expert went over the paper and said this was exactly the right kind of 
camera for these materials and this range of temperatures. The guy said surface 
roughness and various other factors come into play. He knows something about 
alumina and he said these are the instruments and wavelengths he would select.

 

Brian said his own doubts have been resolved.

 

Normally I would have jotted down more details, such as the expert's name, but 
I didn't because Brian promised to send me a note with the particulars. It 
occurs to me he is not a good correspondent. He is a busy bee . . . If he does 
not send me the info. I'll call him back and get it.

 

This expert does things like measure the temperature of rocket plumes. I told 
Brian I have heard of people using IR cameras for volcanoes. They are good for 
uncontrolled, high-temperature phenomena.

 

Details to follow.

 

Brian is a good egg.

 

- Jed

Re: [Vo]:An expert reviewed and approves of this configuration

Jones Beene jone...@pacbell.net wrote:

 I talked to Brian also, and I know the reputation of the person he refers
 to and that he can be trusted. Both are good eggs.


So, are you going to retract your previous assertions about how Rossi
cheated on the calorimetry, magically affecting it from thousands of
kilometers away? And about how Rossi is playing me like a harp? Or should
we just forget you said anything like that?

You should maybe think consider -- oh, I don't know -- apologizing for your
damned unfounded obnoxious insults to me and others. Just a thought.



 Brian’s suspicions are as strong as ever about the isotope analysis, maybe
 more so. The reality of excess heat make that deception even more important
 to understand.


When are you going to learn not to make rash, unfounded accusations?

You do not have a scrap of evidence that deception occurred. Furthermore,
as I pointed out here, there is no motive for Rossi or anyone else in this
project to put fake ash into the reactor. If they did this, it is certain
they will be caught in the next phase. Absolutely, unquestionably certain.
If Rossi did it, that will not help him get a patent. It will only damage
his credibility and delay finding the correct answer by a few months. If
anyone else in the project it, it will mean the end of their career.

This hypothesis does not make any sense. The people who keep repeating it
are pathological skeptics who will not face the truth and will not admit
they have been wrong about Rossi all along.

It is possible the mass spectroscopy is in error. It might even be
contamination. But it is not credible and hardly possible it was
deliberately introduced by anyone because there is no motive to do that.

- Jed

RE: [Vo]:An expert reviewed and approves of this configuration

From: Jed Rothwell .

 

*  So, are you going to retract your previous assertions about how Rossi 
cheated on the calorimetry, magically affecting it from thousands of kilometers 
away?

 

I made it clear that the cheating was in the isotope analysis, and that is even 
more clear now than before.

 

*  And about how Rossi is playing me like a harp? Or should we just forget you 
said anything like that?

 

He faked the isotope analysis and he is still playing you like a harp.

* 

*  You should maybe think consider -- oh, I don't know -- apologizing for your 
damned unfounded obnoxious insults to me and others. Just a thought.

 

You are a fine one to complain about throwing out insults. Just a thought.

* 

*  Brian’s suspicions are as strong as ever about the isotope analysis, maybe 
more so. The reality of excess heat make that deception even more important to 
understand.

 

*  When are you going to learn not to make rash, unfounded accusations?

 

This is neither rash nor unfounded. Rossi has cheated on the isotopes. There is 
no doubt in my mind.

* 

*  You do not have a scrap of evidence that deception occurred.

 

And you know this, how?

 

*  Furthermore, as I pointed out here, there is no motive for Rossi or anyone 
else in this project to put fake ash into the reactor.

 

Of course there is financial motive. You have pointed out your own ignorance of 
the situation. Have you seen his agreement? Since you have not, then stuff a 
sock in you silly homily about no motive. There is motive.

 

*  f they did this, it is certain they will be caught in the next phase. 
Absolutely, unquestionably certain. 

 

Yes we agree on that. He will be caught. 

 

*  It is possible the mass spectroscopy is in error. It might even be 
contamination. But it is not credible and hardly possible it was deliberately 
introduced by anyone because there is no motive to do that.

 

What? You can’t be serious. No- it is not contamination. And yes, he 
deliberately introduced the pure isotopes, and yes he does have financial 
motive to do this and yes, he will be caught.

 

The harp music is kind of shrill, can you retune your instrument?

 

Jones

Re: [Vo]:An expert reviewed and approves of this configuration

Brian did not add much detail. He did not mention the guy's name. Maybe we
can persuade Jones Beene to enlighten us on that, perhaps by playing him
like a harp.

Brian said that he asked the guy whether it was correct to use a pyrometer
centered on 7-13 microns. The guy said that is exactly the right range.

Brian added that the expert:

. . . performs such measurements every day for over 35 years.

He actually uses the same pyrometer for measuring things like rocket plumes
with temperatures up to 2000C.

He believes the  data is accurate and was conducted in a manner consistent
with his experience. The measurements rely on accurate emissivity data and
he says they were indeed accurate.

As I mentioned, a lot of this depends upon the material and surface
roughness but this expert is familiar with high temperature alumina vessels
and he thinks this was the right choice for them.

- Jed

Re: [Vo]:An expert reviewed and approves of this configuration

2014-10-13 Thread Peter Gluck

If you look at the paper I have published on my blog yesterday, the isotope
results not more so improbable.
Li-Ni nuclear interactions can explain some isitopes. The bad side is that
the analysis is not complete
waht happens to Fe and Ak for example and what light elements are
nucleosynthesized? No dat.
Peter


On Mon, Oct 13, 2014 at 10:27 PM, Jones Beene jone...@pacbell.net wrote:

   *From:* Jed Rothwell .



 Ø  So, are you going to retract your previous assertions about how Rossi
 cheated on the calorimetry, magically affecting it from thousands of
 kilometers away?



 I made it clear that the cheating was in the isotope analysis, and that is
 even more clear now than before.



 Ø  And about how Rossi is playing me like a harp? Or should we just
 forget you said anything like that?



 He faked the isotope analysis and he is still playing you like a harp.

 Ø

 Ø  You should maybe think consider -- oh, I don't know -- apologizing for
 your damned unfounded obnoxious insults to me and others. Just a thought.



 You are a fine one to complain about throwing out insults. Just a thought.

 Ø

 Ø  Brian’s suspicions are as strong as ever about the isotope analysis,
 maybe more so. The reality of excess heat make that deception even more
 important to understand.



 Ø  When are you going to learn not to make rash, unfounded accusations?



 This is neither rash nor unfounded. Rossi has cheated on the isotopes.
 There is no doubt in my mind.

 Ø

 Ø  You do not have a scrap of evidence that deception occurred.



 And you know this, how?



 Ø  Furthermore, as I pointed out here, there is no motive for Rossi or
 anyone else in this project to put fake ash into the reactor.



 Of course there is financial motive. You have pointed out your own
 ignorance of the situation. Have you seen his agreement? Since you have
 not, then stuff a sock in you silly homily about no motive. There is motive.



 Ø  f they did this, it is certain they will be caught in the next phase.
 Absolutely, unquestionably certain.



 Yes we agree on that. He will be caught.



 Ø  It is possible the mass spectroscopy is in error. It might even be
 contamination. But it is not credible and hardly possible it was
 deliberately introduced by anyone because there is no motive to do that.



 What? You can’t be serious. No- it is not contamination. And yes, he
 deliberately introduced the pure isotopes, and yes he does have financial
 motive to do this and yes, he will be caught.



 The harp music is kind of shrill, can you retune your instrument?



 Jones








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

Re: [Vo]:An expert reviewed and approves of this configuration

2014-10-13 Thread Axil Axil

There is a boatload of bad assumptions made by you, the testers and Rossi
involving the mechanisms of the reaction. I believe that the DGT theory of
the reaction is the correct one and the Rossi theory of the reaction is
wrong.

In the DGT theory, the nickel powder sets up a high temperature boson
condensate throughout the entire volume of the reactor including all the
alumina. It is in the alumina where the reaction is centered. At high
temperatures, any transmutation that happens in the nickel is secondary and
does not contribute that much to the production of power when the reactor
is in a maximum power configuration.

Jones, your analysis points to some understandable contradictions between
valid everyday engineering assumptions and the actual processes that are
going on inside of the reactor. These factors are hard to reconcile. But
the pictures of the nickel particles (particle 1) that we are given in the
latest third party study show us at least one particle that has not melted
since it is still covered with tubercles. This single particle was
representative of many more still operational nickel particles. Other
nickel particles have melted, so the temperature of the reactor was right
on the hairy edge of particle meltdown but not completely over it.

To reconcile these contradictions between what engineering would rightly
expect and what is really going on inside the reactor points to isothermal
heat distribution throughout the entire structure of the reactor as
supported by the boson condensate.

This even heat distribution implies that the entire reactor is quantum
mechanically coherent including the alumina body. The entire reactor is
participating in a boson condensate.

Heat cannot be coming only from the nickel particles because they would be
just too hot to produce the concentrated heat flow needed to support
observed black body heat distribution. The entire structure of the reactor
is producing even heat (isothermal) including the alumina.

The nickel powder is setting up the quantum mechanical field conditions to
cause the entire reactor structure to produce heat.

This assumption is consistent with what we know happens during reactor
meltdown. During meltdown the temperature of the reactor goes beyond 2000C
which is well beyond the melting point of the nickel powder and eventually
the alumina. The alumina even becomes hot enough to produce sapphires. The
energy output of the reactor goes beyond one megawatt in ten seconds. A few
flakes of nickel powder cannot produce this much power not even from a
nuclear source.

We must assume that the alumina is producing the heat and not the nickel
powder. Even heat production by the alumina would work against any stress
effects on the alumina. Nothing is liquefying. The nickel and lithium is
just an enabler of the LENR reaction and not its primary source.

The heater wire must be tungsten that is encased inside the alumina to
protest is from oxidation.

The alumina should have been put under isotopic study to see if it was LENR
active.

On Mon, Oct 13, 2014 at 2:49 PM, Jones Beene jone...@pacbell.net wrote:

  I talked to Brian also, and I know the reputation of the person he
 refers to and that he can be trusted. Both are good eggs.



 Thus, the excess heat is likely to be real, but that says nothing about
 the isotope analysis. But it does narrow the controversy down to the single
 issue.



 Brian’s suspicions are as strong as ever about the isotope analysis, maybe
 more so. The reality of excess heat make that deception even more important
 to understand.



 Jones



 *From:* Foks0904



 Thanks for posting Jed -- I too appreciated Brian's efforts to add to our
 collective understanding on this matter. We need to get as many expert eyes
 on this as possible, and each of us drawing on our own network of experts
 is actually a big deal and necessary I think.



 John



 Jed Rothwell wrote:



 Brian Ahern just called me to say that he spoke with expert in thermal
 imaging. The expert went over the paper and said this was exactly the right
 kind of camera for these materials and this range of temperatures. The guy
 said surface roughness and various other factors come into play. He knows
 something about alumina and he said these are the instruments and
 wavelengths he would select.



 Brian said his own doubts have been resolved.



 Normally I would have jotted down more details, such as the expert's name,
 but I didn't because Brian promised to send me a note with the particulars.
 It occurs to me he is not a good correspondent. He is a busy bee . . . If
 he does not send me the info. I'll call him back and get it.



 This expert does things like measure the temperature of rocket plumes. I
 told Brian I have heard of people using IR cameras for volcanoes. They are
 good for uncontrolled, high-temperature phenomena.



 Details to follow.



 Brian is a good egg.



 - Jed

RE: [Vo]:An expert reviewed and approves of this configuration

From: Jed Rothwell 

 

Brian did not add much detail. He did not mention the guy's name. Maybe we can 
persuade Jones Beene to enlighten us on that, perhaps by playing him like a 
harp.

 

He is a researcher at a top Aerospace company who for peer-related reasons does 
not want to be identified with LENR.


He believes the data is accurate and was conducted in a manner consistent with 
his experience. The measurements rely on accurate emissivity data and he says 
they were indeed accurate.

 

Not exactly. Since that time, I have heard from Mitchell Swartz who is highly 
qualified as well. He says that the person whom Brian spoke was talking about 
measured temperature only. Rossi's group did not calibrate at that high 
temperature-  which they should have done. Thus they could not account for heat 
loss (thermal power). I am assuming that this controversy is not over now that 
Mitchell brings his expertise into the fray.

 

Of course, Rothwell and Swartz have traded barbs and insults over the years, so 
the Rossi story continues to bring out all the heavy artillery. 

 

Anyway - I have always opined that excess heat was there, but doubted the high 
COP level only – not the excess.

 

Now - we move can start to move into next phase. Rothwell says that Rossi – who 
had every opportunity to tamper with the sample, did not because he “has no 
motive”.

 

I say that he did because physics does not permit the results which were seen, 
they cannot happen, with or without motive. Plus some other evidence.

 

The is no way in nuclear science to convert the reactants seen in the way seen. 
The most logical answer is to suspect the person with the financial motive. 
Follow the buck.

 

More to come on that.

 

Jones

Re: [Vo]:An expert reviewed and approves of this configuration

2014-10-13 Thread Stefan Israelsson Tampe

 IThe is no way in nuclear science to convert the reactants seen in the
way seen. T


This is probably true, there might be a dog buried, we need to look in that
direction. But also, it is our current view of nuclear science, all
reaction chains depends heavily on some extra constraints that you impose
on the reaction (conservation of (angular) momentum, conservation of
energy) If you can connect the nuclear reaction with a deallocated electron
field - very much like a field, not a particle, and we don't know if QM is
some kind of probability density of an actual particle or an actual field,
so you have fraction matter to carry momentum and energy between the
reaction cite and the surrounding. Nuclear physics is not designed and
developed to handle this scenario so, really, with some imagination you can
construct a system where all 100 years of experience in nuclear science
fall flat on earth. Of cause this is whishful thinking, but we cannot prove
it false especially since well if QM probably is just a advanced curve
fitted theory, which Randi Mills theory really proves quite well by it's
simplicity to handle many body problems and atom physics.

On Mon, Oct 13, 2014 at 9:55 PM, Jones Beene jone...@pacbell.net wrote:

   *From:* Jed Rothwell



 Brian did not add much detail. He did not mention the guy's name. Maybe we
 can persuade Jones Beene to enlighten us on that, perhaps by playing him
 like a harp.



 He is a researcher at a top Aerospace company who for peer-related reasons
 does not want to be identified with LENR.


 He believes the data is accurate and was conducted in a manner consistent
 with his experience. The measurements rely on accurate emissivity data and
 he says they were indeed accurate.



 Not exactly. Since that time, I have heard from Mitchell Swartz who is
 highly qualified as well. He says that the person whom Brian spoke was
 talking about measured temperature only. Rossi's group did not calibrate at
 that high temperature-  which they should have done. Thus they could not
 account for heat loss (thermal power). I am assuming that this controversy
 is not over now that Mitchell brings his expertise into the fray.



 Of course, Rothwell and Swartz have traded barbs and insults over the
 years, so the Rossi story continues to bring out all the heavy artillery.



 Anyway - I have always opined that excess heat was there, but doubted the
 high COP level only – not the excess.



 Now - we move can start to move into next phase. Rothwell says that Rossi
 – who had every opportunity to tamper with the sample, did not because he
 “has no motive”.



 I say that he did because physics does not permit the results which were
 seen, they cannot happen, with or without motive. Plus some other evidence.



 The is no way in nuclear science to convert the reactants seen in the way
 seen. The most logical answer is to suspect the person with the financial
 motive. Follow the buck.



 More to come on that.



 Jones

RE: [Vo]:An expert reviewed and approves of this configuration

Vorts.

While Rothwell is trying to squirm out of this latest twist on the thermal
gain, but probably will not report his dilemma - another highly qualified
expert has turned up on CMNS. I will quote his main point:

“This is a serious error if in fact the authors did not take into account
the much higher emissivity of alumina in the wavelength range of their
camera.”

This, if true, essentially means exactly
what Mitchell says – even though Levi got the temperature right, since did
not calculate the correct thermal power.



Brian did not add much detail. He did not
mention the guy's name. Maybe we can persuade Jones Beene to enlighten us on
that, perhaps by playing him like a harp.

He is a researcher at a top Aerospace company who for
peer-related reasons does not want to be identified with LENR.

He believes the data is accurate and was
conducted in a manner consistent with his experience. The measurements rely
on accurate emissivity data and he says they were indeed accurate.

Not exactly. Since that time, I have heard from Mitchell
Swartz who is highly qualified as well. He says that the person whom Brian
spoke was talking about measured temperature only. Rossi's group did not
calibrate at that high temperature-  which they should have done. Thus they
could not account for heat loss (thermal power). I am assuming that this
controversy is not over now that Mitchell brings his expertise into the
fray.

Of course, Rothwell and Swartz have traded barbs and insults
over the years, so the Rossi story continues to bring out all the heavy
artillery. 

Anyway - I have always opined that excess heat was there,
but doubted the high COP level only – not the excess.

Now - we move can start to move into next phase. Rothwell
says that Rossi – who had every opportunity to tamper with the sample, did
not because he “has no motive”.

I say that he did because physics does not permit the
results which were seen, they cannot happen, with or without motive. Plus
some other evidence.

The is no way in nuclear science to convert the reactants
seen in the way seen. The most logical answer is to suspect the person with
the financial motive. Follow the buck.

More to come on that.

Jones



attachment: winmail.dat

Re: [Vo]:An expert reviewed and approves of this configuration

Jones Beene jone...@pacbell.net wrote:


 He believes the data is accurate and was conducted in a manner consistent
 with his experience. The measurements rely on accurate emissivity data and
 he says they were indeed accurate.



 Not exactly.


Yes, exactly. This is what Brian wrote: He [the expert] believes the  data
is accurate and was conducted in a manner consistent with his experience.
The measurements rely on accurate emissivity data and he says they were
indeed accurate.



 Of course, Rothwell and Swartz have traded barbs and insults over the
 years, so the Rossi story continues to bring out all the heavy artillery.


We never trade barbs about technical issues. I know nothing about his
technical claims. He threatened to sue me if I discuss his papers so I have
not read them. I seldom read his comments. I cannot make head or tail of
most of them.




 Anyway - I have always opined that excess heat was there, but doubted the
 high COP level only – not the excess.


Oh yes, this is always what you said . . . as of 10 minutes ago anyway.
Except for, I don't know, THIS and a dozen other messages like it:


Are you blind – or you are not listening? There is a massive problem. Ahern
is an expert with pyrometry and high temperature measurement. A pyrometer
is the only way to test high temperature accurately. The IR is completely
deficient in this situation. Ahern was doing this kind of testing as far
back as when Rossi was operating the Petrodragon scam.



No one would ever use an IR camera in this situation unless they have the
intent to deceive. Especially when the IR camera was NOT PROPERLY
CALIBRATED.



If the camera had been calibrated to 1400 C instead of 500 C it would have
shown the same ~3.5 OU on the dummy load as was later seen on the active
load!



The fact that Rossi would not permit calibration to 1400 C is fully
indicative of the fact the he knew this would be discovered before it ever
got off the ground.



Anyone reading that would assume you think the entire experiment was fraud.
That's what you said, and that is what you meant. That is what we were
talking about when you said Rossi is playing me like a harp. I have only
discussed calorimetry. I have not said anything about the mass spectroscopy
and I have no opinion about it. So obviously we were not talking about that.

Also, I was the first to point it was not properly calibrated. Anyone can
see that.

- Jed

Re: [Vo]:An expert reviewed and approves of this configuration

Jones Beene jone...@pacbell.net wrote:

Vorts.

 While Rothwell is trying to squirm out of this latest twist on the thermal
 gain . . .


This has nothing to do with me! We are discussing claims made by Ahern, an
unnamed expert, and now this guy on CMNS. (I hope you got permission from
him -- you're not supposed to quote CMNS messages without permission.)

I have not endorsed these results. I know little about IR cameras. I did
point out that the color is wrong, at least in the photograph we have seen.
It should be incandescent white. I also pointed out several ways to
determine whether there is an error, such as comparing the temperature to
the thermocouple, and looking for large differences in different zones.

I also pointed out that some of the hypotheses offered by other people are
probably wrong. And I posted various messages from correspondents. Not by
me.



 The is no way in nuclear science to convert the reactants
 seen in the way seen. The most logical answer is to suspect the person with
 the financial motive. Follow the buck.


There is no potential financial motive here as far as I know. Rossi has
been bought out by IH. It will not help him to put fake ashes in. It will
only confuse the issue and delay RD.

- Jed

RE: [Vo]:An expert reviewed and approves of this configuration

From: Jed Rothwell 

 

There is no potential financial motive here as far as I know. 

 

That is the major problem here, stated simply: you do not know.

Re: [Vo]:An expert reviewed and approves of this configuration

2014-10-13 Thread Kevin O'Malley

This is a good point.  If all that transmutation occurred in such a
homogeneous fashion it would be good evidence that BECs were forming.  Once
there's a BEC working around such a large soup of constituents, some very
conventional physics get thrown out the window.  Strangely enough, the weak
nuclear force might be the driving motivator inside of a BEC, and
Widom-Larson would be the winners.
Ni(58) + n  Ni(59)
Ni(59) + n  Ni(60)
Ni(60) + n  Ni(61)
Ni(61) + n  Ni(62)

On Mon, Oct 13, 2014 at 12:43 PM, Axil Axil janap...@gmail.com wrote:

 There is a boatload of bad assumptions made by you, the testers and Rossi
 involving the mechanisms of the reaction. I believe that the DGT theory of
 the reaction is the correct one and the Rossi theory of the reaction is
 wrong.

 In the DGT theory, the nickel powder sets up a high temperature boson
 condensate throughout the entire volume of the reactor including all the
 alumina. It is in the alumina where the reaction is centered. At high
 temperatures, any transmutation that happens in the nickel is secondary and
 does not contribute that much to the production of power when the reactor
 is in a maximum power configuration.

 Jones, your analysis points to some understandable contradictions between
 valid everyday engineering assumptions and the actual processes that are
 going on inside of the reactor. These factors are hard to reconcile. But
 the pictures of the nickel particles (particle 1) that we are given in the
 latest third party study show us at least one particle that has not melted
 since it is still covered with tubercles. This single particle was
 representative of many more still operational nickel particles. Other
 nickel particles have melted, so the temperature of the reactor was right
 on the hairy edge of particle meltdown but not completely over it.

 To reconcile these contradictions between what engineering would rightly
 expect and what is really going on inside the reactor points to isothermal
 heat distribution throughout the entire structure of the reactor as
 supported by the boson condensate.

 This even heat distribution implies that the entire reactor is quantum
 mechanically coherent including the alumina body. The entire reactor is
 participating in a boson condensate.

 Heat cannot be coming only from the nickel particles because they would be
 just too hot to produce the concentrated heat flow needed to support
 observed black body heat distribution. The entire structure of the reactor
 is producing even heat (isothermal) including the alumina.

 The nickel powder is setting up the quantum mechanical field conditions to
 cause the entire reactor structure to produce heat.

 This assumption is consistent with what we know happens during reactor
 meltdown. During meltdown the temperature of the reactor goes beyond 2000C
 which is well beyond the melting point of the nickel powder and eventually
 the alumina. The alumina even becomes hot enough to produce sapphires. The
 energy output of the reactor goes beyond one megawatt in ten seconds. A few
 flakes of nickel powder cannot produce this much power not even from a
 nuclear source.

 We must assume that the alumina is producing the heat and not the nickel
 powder. Even heat production by the alumina would work against any stress
 effects on the alumina. Nothing is liquefying. The nickel and lithium is
 just an enabler of the LENR reaction and not its primary source.

 The heater wire must be tungsten that is encased inside the alumina to
 protest is from oxidation.

 The alumina should have been put under isotopic study to see if it was
 LENR active.

 On Mon, Oct 13, 2014 at 2:49 PM, Jones Beene jone...@pacbell.net wrote:

  I talked to Brian also, and I know the reputation of the person he
 refers to and that he can be trusted. Both are good eggs.



 Thus, the excess heat is likely to be real, but that says nothing about
 the isotope analysis. But it does narrow the controversy down to the single
 issue.



 Brian’s suspicions are as strong as ever about the isotope analysis,
 maybe more so. The reality of excess heat make that deception even more
 important to understand.



 Jones



 *From:* Foks0904



 Thanks for posting Jed -- I too appreciated Brian's efforts to add to our
 collective understanding on this matter. We need to get as many expert eyes
 on this as possible, and each of us drawing on our own network of experts
 is actually a big deal and necessary I think.



 John



 Jed Rothwell wrote:



 Brian Ahern just called me to say that he spoke with expert in thermal
 imaging. The expert went over the paper and said this was exactly the right
 kind of camera for these materials and this range of temperatures. The guy
 said surface roughness and various other factors come into play. He knows
 something about alumina and he said these are the instruments and
 wavelengths he would select.



 Brian said his own doubts have been resolved.



 Normally I would have jotted

Re: [Vo]:An expert reviewed and approves of this configuration

2014-10-13 Thread Brad Lowe

Part of the problem is that the authors have not made themselves
available to discuss the report and the questions that have come up.
What are they doing? Are they answering questions? If not, why not?
All authors (except one?) are on linkedin.com and I could email
them--but I don't feel I should be the one. Surely someone on this
list can get further clarification. Maybe they still have access to
the lab and a empty reactor and can do a high temperature dummy run.

With the reactor over 1000C, it would be difficult for Rossi to swap
out fuel or ash. At the end of the demo, he says he was with the
committee when they opened the reactor and put the contents in a test
tube for analysis. Rossi slipping a quantity of Ni62 into the ash
after the demo seems hard to imagine--all eyes would be on the sample
as it came out of the reactor. We all understand chain of custody
from CSI shows.

I find it  hard to believe that the authors are just going back to
their day-to-day lives, after signing off on a report suggesting a new
energy source. Maybe they're shorting their energy stocks.. maybe
they're writing a rebuttal.. but answers to a few questions from the
peanut gallery would be nice.




On Mon, Oct 13, 2014 at 1:33 PM, Jones Beene jone...@pacbell.net wrote:
 From: Jed Rothwell



 There is no potential financial motive here as far as I know.



 That is the major problem here, stated simply: you do not know.

Re: [Vo]:An expert reviewed and approves of this configuration

Jones Beene jone...@pacbell.net wrote:


 There is no potential financial motive here as far as I know.



 That is the major problem here, stated simply: you do not know.


Do you know? Do you want to tell us? Because if you do not know or you are
not at liberty to discuss this, I suggest you shut up. You should not make
unfounded allegations about unethical and possibly criminal acts. That's
libel. If you want to quote other people, the way I quoted Gamberale on
Defkalion, that is not libel. It is reporting.

Based on what is been published in the mass media, I cannot see any reason
why Rossi would want to confuse the issue by changing the ashes. There is
no way that could help his patent application or any other aspect of his
work as far as I can see.


In any case let me reiterate that I have only discussed the calorimetry,
not the mass spectroscopy, so it is not possible that you were disputing
with me any technical aspects of the mass spectroscopy. The previous
message I quoted from you was definitely an accusation of fraud in the
calorimetry: No one would ever use an IR camera in this situation unless
they have the intent to deceive. It is ridiculous for you to deny that is
what you meant.

By the way, as far as I know Rossi had no say in design of this experiment.
The decision to use an IR camera in the situation was made by Levi et al.
Perhaps you thought they had the intent to deceive.

- Jed

Re: [Vo]:An expert reviewed and approves of this configuration

Brad Lowe ecatbuil...@gmail.com wrote:

Part of the problem is that the authors have not made themselves
 available to discuss the report and the questions that have come up.
 What are they doing? Are they answering questions?


Supposedly they will answer 10 of the questions here:

http://www.lenr-forum.com/forum/index.php/Thread/722-Ask-questions-to-the-Working-Group-ECAT-long-term-test/

I have the impression that the authors are busy.

- Jed

Re: [Vo]:An expert reviewed and approves of this configuration

2014-10-13 Thread Jack Cole

Jed,

I don't think this is correct (about it needing to be white hot).  When I
examine the colors, they almost border on being too hot.

White hot puts you up in the 6000+C range according to Wikipedia.  Or am I
misunderstanding something?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Color_temperature

Jed wrote:
I have not endorsed these results. I know little about IR cameras. I did
point out that the color is wrong, at least in the photograph we have seen.
It should be incandescent white. I also pointed out several ways to
determine whether there is an error, such as comparing the temperature to
the thermocouple, and looking for large differences in different zones.

RE: [Vo]:An expert reviewed and approves of this configuration

From: Jed Rothwell  

There is no potential financial motive here as far as I know.  

*  That is the major problem here, stated simply: you do not know.

And it really does not matter what I know, when it is clear that you have no 
clue, and are basing an entire scientific argument on having “no motive” which 
is absurd on a science forum. 

*  The previous message I quoted from you was definitely an accusation of fraud 
in the calorimetry: No one would ever use an IR camera in this situation 
unless they have the intent to deceive. 

 

Of course I meant it - in the context that they received intense criticism for 
doing this in the previous report, and yet they went ahead and did it anyway 
without any additional concern for the accuracy – as was clearly the problem 
before. 

 

Callous disregard for the truth is tantamount to intent. As for libel, I would 
love to enter “discovery” with this Levi and his group. Bring it on.

 

*  By the way, as far as I know Rossi had no say in design of this experiment. 
The decision to use an IR camera in the situation was made by Levi et al. 

 

And do you know that Levi has received no financial remuneration or promise of 
future funding  from this work ?  It would be a huge surprise if he had not. 

 

In short - all you really know is that you want this grossly deficient paper to 
transform into rock-solid proof of LENR, whether it is compromised or not… 

 

This isotope analysis stinks, and if it goes down, so can the rest of it.

 

Jones

Re: [Vo]:An expert reviewed and approves of this configuration

2014-10-13 Thread a.ashfield


http://www.mail-archive.com/search?l=vortex-l@eskimo.comq=date:20141013

Jack Cole wrote:
Jed,

I don't think this is correct (about it needing to be white hot).  When I
examine the colors, they almost border on being too hot.

White hot puts you up in the 6000+C range according to Wikipedia.  Or am I
misunderstanding something?

***

I am used to looking inside glass melting furnaces running 1400 to nearly 1600C.
Your require a tinted glass to do so.  1400C is indeed white hot but not a 
blindingly so a say 1550C

Re: [Vo]:An expert reviewed and approves of this configuration

2014-10-13 Thread Jack Cole

My hypothesis about the dummy run is the following:

Out of a now-proven-irrational desire to avoid even the appearance of
cordiality between the scientists and the inventor, they neglected to share
information about the experimental protocol and reactor operating
characteristics (that the reactor can run at up 900W input).  This resulted
in a dummy run that allowed for proper instrument calibration and
demonstrated the accuracy of the measurements, but is unsatisfactory to
some critics.

From all appearances, the point is mute anyway.  The transparency of
alumina is to wavelengths outside of the range measured by the IR cameras.

On Mon, Oct 13, 2014 at 5:02 PM, Jack Cole jcol...@gmail.com wrote:

 Jed,

 I don't think this is correct (about it needing to be white hot).  When I
 examine the colors, they almost border on being too hot.

 White hot puts you up in the 6000+C range according to Wikipedia.  Or am I
 misunderstanding something?

 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Color_temperature

 Jed wrote:
 I have not endorsed these results. I know little about IR cameras. I did
 point out that the color is wrong, at least in the photograph we have seen.
 It should be incandescent white. I also pointed out several ways to
 determine whether there is an error, such as comparing the temperature to
 the thermocouple, and looking for large differences in different zones.

Re: [Vo]:An expert reviewed and approves of this configuration

a.ashfield a.ashfi...@verizon.net wrote:


 http://www.mail-archive.com/search?l=vortex-l@eskimo.comq=date:20141013

 Jack Cole wrote:
 Jed,

 I don't think this is correct (about it needing to be white hot).  When I
 examine the colors, they almost border on being too hot.

 White hot puts you up in the 6000+C range according to Wikipedia.


I confess I am going by the Wikipedia color bar here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Incandescence#mediaviewer/File:Incandescence_Color.jpg

I am just eyeballing it. As I just mentioned you have to bring up a copy of
the color bar on the screen next to the Acrobat document. I printed the
document and got a different orange.

Srinivasan told me ~1300°C is a yellowish color similar to the one shown on
this bar for 1200°C. I think it is what you see with some an old-fashioned
incandescent bulbs.

Those bulbs produced a wide range of colors.

I am used to looking inside glass melting furnaces running 1400 to
nearly 1600C.
 Your require a tinted glass to do so.  1400C is indeed white hot but not a 
 blindingly so a say 1550C

 Interesting. Thanks for the info.

- Jed

Re: [Vo]:An expert reviewed and approves of this configuration

Jack Cole jcol...@gmail.com wrote:


 My hypothesis about the dummy run is the following:

 Out of a now-proven-irrational desire to avoid even the appearance of
 cordiality between the scientists and the inventor, they neglected to share
 information about the experimental protocol . . .


My hypotheses are:

1. There doesn't appear to be much cordiality between them. Maybe there
isn't? Rossi is not what you would call charm school material.

2. This is purely my imagination, but maybe a true account would be: At
first we were nervous we would melt the thing; we did not know how high the
input power would be. After the test we were so excited, it did not occur
to us to calibrate again. We just couldn't wait to open up that sucker!

I am guessing they were excited like kids with a new toy, so they messed
up. That's forgivable.

- Jed

Re: [Vo]:An expert reviewed and approves of this configuration

2014-10-13 Thread Alan Fletcher

 From: Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com 
 Sent: Monday, October 13, 2014 3:23:26 PM 
 I confess I am going by the Wikipedia color bar here: 

 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Incandescence#mediaviewer/File:Incandescence_Color.jpg
  

 I am just eyeballing it. As I just mentioned you have to bring up a copy of 
 the color bar on the screen next to the Acrobat document. I printed the 
 document and got a different orange. 

 Srinivasan told me ~1300°C is a yellowish color similar to the one shown on 
 this bar for 1200°C. I think it is what you see with some an old-fashioned 
 incandescent bulbs. 

 Those bulbs produced a wide range of colors. 

I wouldn't put too much faith in a jpg photo from an unknown camera, shot with 
unknown settings, an unknown color space and unknown post-processing. 

Secondly, what material is used for the wiki Incandescence color? (Where did 
that picture come from, anyway?) 

Look again at the Manara paper for Alumina. 

Figure 5 : the emittance value increases almost linearly over the visible 
range, from 0.1 to 0.95 
That means that the proportion of red light emitted will be greater than blue 
light, so I would EXPECT an orange/red cast. 

Figure 6 : this is complicated by transmission, which may be happening in the 
visible range. (IF the helical shadows are indeed images or shadows of the 
coiuls. But I still think they represent different conduction zones of a 
ceramic holder, as in the March test). However, this has a broad peak near the 
center of the visible range, so the blue might be enhanced a little. 

In short : not enough information. And we don't even know when the picture was 
taken. 

Speaking of which, we don't even have a thermographic image taken DURING the 
run.

Re: [Vo]:An expert reviewed and approves of this configuration

Alan Fletcher a...@well.com wrote:


 I wouldn't put too much faith in a jpg photo from an unknown camera, shot
 with unknown settings, an unknown color space and unknown post-processing.


Sure. It is a rough approximation at best. I am guessing 900°C but who
knows. It isn't white, anyway.

- Jed

Re: [Vo]:An expert reviewed and approves of this configuration

Jones Beene jone...@pacbell.net wrote:


 Ø  The previous message I quoted from you was definitely an accusation of
 fraud in the calorimetry: No one would ever use an IR camera in this
 situation unless they have the intent to deceive.



 Of course I meant it - in the context that they received intense criticism
 for doing this in the previous report, and yet they went ahead and did it
 anyway without any additional concern for the accuracy – as was clearly the
 problem before.



 Callous disregard for the truth is tantamount to intent.


Oh, okay. Now you are back to saying the calorimetry was callous disregard
for the truth tantamount to fraud. I thought you agreed with Brian Ahern
and his expert friend. Okay, that was 6 hours ago and you have flip-flopped
again.



 As for libel, I would love to enter “discovery” with this Levi and his
 group. Bring it on.


I meant that libel here is bad form. A million people on the Internet
attack Rossi and Levi with unfounded BS. But we are not supposed to do that
here. Especially not when you have zero evidence he has done anything
wrong, and no reason to think he would do anything wrong -- other than your
own private scientific theory that his results are impossible.

I have been hearing people say this is impossible so it must be fraud
since 1989.





 Ø  By the way, as far as I know Rossi had no say in design of this
 experiment. The decision to use an IR camera in the situation was made by
 Levi et al.



 And do you know that Levi has received no financial remuneration or
 promise of future funding  from this work ?  It would be a huge surprise if
 he had not.


Ah, so he is on the take. And when Levi destroys his own reputation by
putting in fake ash, or using an IR camera knowing it is the wrong choice,
this will help Rossi and Levi . . . how again? Never mind. I am sure you
have an elaborate conspiracy theory. We don't need the details. Anyway, in
6 hours you will have a different theory.



  In short - all you really know is that you want this grossly deficient
 paper to transform into rock-solid proof of LENR, whether it is compromised
 or not…



 This isotope analysis stinks, and if it goes down, so can the rest of it.


Ah, so the calorimetry is fraud -- again -- because you are convinced the
mass spectrometry is. Or no, it isn't fraud, but the rest of it um . . .
can go down. Because if Rossi committed fraud with fake ashes that means
we cannot trust the calorimetry performed by other people when Rossi was
absent. Because . . . because . . . we can't! We just can't. Rossi has
magical ESP and he can change IR camera readings in the dead of night from
another continent.

- Jed

RE: [Vo]:An expert reviewed and approves of this configuration

2014-10-13 Thread Orionworks - Steven Vincent Johnson

 Anyway - I have always opined that excess heat was there, but doubted

 the high COP level only – not the excess.

 

 Now - we move can start to move into next phase. Rothwell says that

 Rossi – who had every opportunity to tamper with the sample, did not

 because he “has no motive”.

 

 I say that he did because physics does not permit the results which

 were seen, they cannot happen, with or without motive. Plus some

 other evidence.

 

 The is no way in nuclear science to convert the reactants seen in the

 way seen. The most logical answer is to suspect the person with the

 financial motive. Follow the buck.

 

 More to come on that.

 

and then there was this exchange between Rothwell and Jones:

 

JR: There is no potential financial motive here as far as I know. 

 

JB: That is the major problem here, stated simply: you do not know.

 

I'm going to follow up on something Rothwell recently brought up.

 

Jones, you seem to be suggesting that because the physics books explicitly tell 
us the isotopic shift the experiment revealed is blatantly impossible, Rossi 
HAD to have been the cause. IOW, you seem to be claiming Rossi cheated. You 
seem convinced Rossi had to have performed some kind of shell game with the 
spent fuel. 

 

You then suggest we Follow the buck.

 

It seems to me that if you want us to follow that buck you need to explain what 
you think Rossi's plan is. Said differently, regardless of whether Rossi's plan 
would actually work or not, how do you think Rossi believes he will profit by 
playing this shell game with the isotopes.

 

Regards,

Steven Vincent Johnson

svjart.orionworks.com

zazzle.com/orionworks

Re: [Vo]:An expert reviewed and approves of this configuration

2014-10-13 Thread Robert Lynn

It seems clear that the thermography is way off - because the built in
inconel heater wires would fail at 1350°C. (The peak temp from
thermography is 1412°C).  And the wires would necessarily be much hotter
than the external surface of the reactor - if they are wound tightly around
an inner core with little or no conductive contact with outer shell then
that outer shell will only be around 1000°C and there will have been little
or no LENR output.

Until or unless that can be explained satisfactorily the rest of the test
results are nothing but castles in the air.

On 14 October 2014 09:06, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com wrote:

 Jones Beene jone...@pacbell.net wrote:


 Ø  The previous message I quoted from you was definitely an accusation
 of fraud in the calorimetry: No one would ever use an IR camera in this
 situation unless they have the intent to deceive.



 Of course I meant it - in the context that they received intense
 criticism for doing this in the previous report, and yet they went ahead
 and did it anyway without any additional concern for the accuracy – as was
 clearly the problem before.



 Callous disregard for the truth is tantamount to intent.


 Oh, okay. Now you are back to saying the calorimetry was callous disregard
 for the truth tantamount to fraud. I thought you agreed with Brian Ahern
 and his expert friend. Okay, that was 6 hours ago and you have flip-flopped
 again.



 As for libel, I would love to enter “discovery” with this Levi and his
 group. Bring it on.


 I meant that libel here is bad form. A million people on the Internet
 attack Rossi and Levi with unfounded BS. But we are not supposed to do that
 here. Especially not when you have zero evidence he has done anything
 wrong, and no reason to think he would do anything wrong -- other than your
 own private scientific theory that his results are impossible.

 I have been hearing people say this is impossible so it must be fraud
 since 1989.





 Ø  By the way, as far as I know Rossi had no say in design of this
 experiment. The decision to use an IR camera in the situation was made by
 Levi et al.



 And do you know that Levi has received no financial remuneration or
 promise of future funding  from this work ?  It would be a huge surprise if
 he had not.


 Ah, so he is on the take. And when Levi destroys his own reputation by
 putting in fake ash, or using an IR camera knowing it is the wrong choice,
 this will help Rossi and Levi . . . how again? Never mind. I am sure you
 have an elaborate conspiracy theory. We don't need the details. Anyway, in
 6 hours you will have a different theory.



  In short - all you really know is that you want this grossly deficient
 paper to transform into rock-solid proof of LENR, whether it is compromised
 or not…



 This isotope analysis stinks, and if it goes down, so can the rest of it.


 Ah, so the calorimetry is fraud -- again -- because you are convinced the
 mass spectrometry is. Or no, it isn't fraud, but the rest of it um . . .
 can go down. Because if Rossi committed fraud with fake ashes that means
 we cannot trust the calorimetry performed by other people when Rossi was
 absent. Because . . . because . . . we can't! We just can't. Rossi has
 magical ESP and he can change IR camera readings in the dead of night from
 another continent.

 - Jed

RE: [Vo]:An expert reviewed and approves of this configuration

2014-10-13 Thread Orionworks - Steven Vincent Johnson

Jones,

 

I'd like to add...

 

I can respect your doubt, your suspicions. I understand the credibility factor 
that Rossi does not inspire in many. I also get it what the text books are 
saying, that the alleged isotope shift is impossible, not without a hell of a 
lot of nasty radiation for which the experimenters apparently claim they did 
not detect. It seems to me that we have a fascinating mystery here. No one 
doubts the fact that this matter needs a much closer look. 

 

Correct me if I’m wrong but I’ll assume you're using the Occam’s razor 
explanation - that the most likely explanation is that it’s all due to a shell 
game on Rossi’s part because, well, cuz the text books say this just couldn’t 
happen. Certainly, that is a logical assumption one can make. But IMO it’s just 
one of many explanations. It's also possible, however improbable it might be 
after eliminating all the other explanations, that perhaps the textbooks will 
eventually need to be revised. In the meantime we have yet to eliminate many 
other potential explanations that are bound to come up soon.

 

Truth of the matter is... I just don’t know what really happened. I think I can 
live with that, at least for now. Can you?

 

I realize you may disagree with me on this matter, but everything you have said 
so far pertaining to why you appear to believe Rossi’s cheated gives me the 
impression that you really don’t know Rossi’s motivations, not any more than I 
know. Perhaps this comes across as insulting since I suspect I don’t have as 
much formal physics education under my belt as you seem to display. But no 
matter. Truth of the matter, I’m beginning to devalue your conjecture on 
Rossi's motives because I get tired of watching your posts constantly be on 
offensive. What I know about such debating tactics is that it's really just 
another learned defense strategy… a political deflection… to make the other 
candidate look more like the real idiot. It deflects personal scrutiny on you. 
Over and over, I've noticed this strategy of offense on your part. It's 
incredibly predictable, particularly whenever you and Rothwell come to odds 
with each other's opinions. It quickly devolves into a pissing match. Granted, 
I must admit it can be a form of low-brow entertainment for the rest of us. On 
a higher-brow note, it's a good example of how humans engage in the fight vs. 
flight response via the medium of debating. (My debating genes are better than 
yours.)

 

Let me be even clearer on this point. You give me the strong impression that 
you really need to convince yourself that Rossi cheated. Who and what is 
telling you definitively resolve the unexpected isotopic shift findings? Why 
put such an unnecessary responsibility on your shoulders? All that is likely to 
do is turn you into another Krivit, and we all see how well that is working out 
for him. What I’m trying to suggest here is that it would not be a disgrace to 
entertain the possibility that Rossi's actions remain an enigma for most of us. 
Why should you think you are any different? To admit such a possibility may be 
the wisest thing we CAN admit to ourselves. It can be incredibly freeing to the 
psyche.

 

Just my two “free” cents.

 

Steven Vincent Johnson

Svjart.orionworks.com

Zazzle.com/orionworks

Re: [Vo]:An expert reviewed and approves of this configuration

Robert,

I am not convinced the wires are wound tightly around an inner core.  I
think they may be imbedded within the alumina shell and work primarily thru
induction and not conduction.  Alumina is a good insulator and may  protect
them (somewhat) from the hi temp core.

The alumina shell may have been originally cast around a pipe/tube that was
later removed. And don't ask me to prove that.

Stewart

On Monday, October 13, 2014, Robert Lynn robert.gulliver.l...@gmail.com
wrote:

 It seems clear that the thermography is way off - because the built in
 inconel heater wires would fail at 1350°C. (The peak temp from
 thermography is 1412°C).  And the wires would necessarily be much hotter
 than the external surface of the reactor - if they are wound tightly around
 an inner core with little or no conductive contact with outer shell then
 that outer shell will only be around 1000°C and there will have been little
 or no LENR output.

 Until or unless that can be explained satisfactorily the rest of the test
 results are nothing but castles in the air.

 On 14 October 2014 09:06, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com
 javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','jedrothw...@gmail.com'); wrote:

 Jones Beene jone...@pacbell.net
 javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','jone...@pacbell.net'); wrote:


 Ø  The previous message I quoted from you was definitely an accusation
 of fraud in the calorimetry: No one would ever use an IR camera in this
 situation unless they have the intent to deceive.



 Of course I meant it - in the context that they received intense
 criticism for doing this in the previous report, and yet they went ahead
 and did it anyway without any additional concern for the accuracy – as was
 clearly the problem before.



 Callous disregard for the truth is tantamount to intent.


 Oh, okay. Now you are back to saying the calorimetry was callous
 disregard for the truth tantamount to fraud. I thought you agreed with
 Brian Ahern and his expert friend. Okay, that was 6 hours ago and you have
 flip-flopped again.



 As for libel, I would love to enter “discovery” with this Levi and his
 group. Bring it on.


 I meant that libel here is bad form. A million people on the Internet
 attack Rossi and Levi with unfounded BS. But we are not supposed to do that
 here. Especially not when you have zero evidence he has done anything
 wrong, and no reason to think he would do anything wrong -- other than your
 own private scientific theory that his results are impossible.

 I have been hearing people say this is impossible so it must be fraud
 since 1989.





 Ø  By the way, as far as I know Rossi had no say in design of this
 experiment. The decision to use an IR camera in the situation was made by
 Levi et al.



 And do you know that Levi has received no financial remuneration or
 promise of future funding  from this work ?  It would be a huge surprise if
 he had not.


 Ah, so he is on the take. And when Levi destroys his own reputation by
 putting in fake ash, or using an IR camera knowing it is the wrong choice,
 this will help Rossi and Levi . . . how again? Never mind. I am sure you
 have an elaborate conspiracy theory. We don't need the details. Anyway, in
 6 hours you will have a different theory.



  In short - all you really know is that you want this grossly deficient
 paper to transform into rock-solid proof of LENR, whether it is compromised
 or not…



 This isotope analysis stinks, and if it goes down, so can the rest of it.


 Ah, so the calorimetry is fraud -- again -- because you are convinced the
 mass spectrometry is. Or no, it isn't fraud, but the rest of it um . . .
 can go down. Because if Rossi committed fraud with fake ashes that means
 we cannot trust the calorimetry performed by other people when Rossi was
 absent. Because . . . because . . . we can't! We just can't. Rossi has
 magical ESP and he can change IR camera readings in the dead of night from
 another continent.

 - Jed

Re: [Vo]:An expert reviewed and approves of this configuration

P.S.,

I almost burned down a research lab in Portland, ME as a co-op engineer in
1984 when the polymer shell we were spinning onto a roll cover caught fire
and evacuated the building from thick black smoke.

So that qualifies me as an expert.

On Monday, October 13, 2014, ChemE Stewart cheme...@gmail.com wrote:

 Robert,

 I am not convinced the wires are wound tightly around an inner core.  I
 think they may be imbedded within the alumina shell and work primarily thru
 induction and not conduction.  Alumina is a good insulator and may  protect
 them (somewhat) from the hi temp core.

 The alumina shell may have been originally cast around a pipe/tube that
 was later removed. And don't ask me to prove that.

 Stewart

 On Monday, October 13, 2014, Robert Lynn robert.gulliver.l...@gmail.com
 javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','robert.gulliver.l...@gmail.com'); wrote:

 It seems clear that the thermography is way off - because the built in
 inconel heater wires would fail at 1350°C. (The peak temp from
 thermography is 1412°C).  And the wires would necessarily be much hotter
 than the external surface of the reactor - if they are wound tightly around
 an inner core with little or no conductive contact with outer shell then
 that outer shell will only be around 1000°C and there will have been little
 or no LENR output.

 Until or unless that can be explained satisfactorily the rest of the test
 results are nothing but castles in the air.

 On 14 October 2014 09:06, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com wrote:

 Jones Beene jone...@pacbell.net wrote:


 Ø  The previous message I quoted from you was definitely an accusation
 of fraud in the calorimetry: No one would ever use an IR camera in this
 situation unless they have the intent to deceive.



 Of course I meant it - in the context that they received intense
 criticism for doing this in the previous report, and yet they went ahead
 and did it anyway without any additional concern for the accuracy – as was
 clearly the problem before.



 Callous disregard for the truth is tantamount to intent.


 Oh, okay. Now you are back to saying the calorimetry was callous
 disregard for the truth tantamount to fraud. I thought you agreed with
 Brian Ahern and his expert friend. Okay, that was 6 hours ago and you have
 flip-flopped again.



 As for libel, I would love to enter “discovery” with this Levi and his
 group. Bring it on.


 I meant that libel here is bad form. A million people on the Internet
 attack Rossi and Levi with unfounded BS. But we are not supposed to do that
 here. Especially not when you have zero evidence he has done anything
 wrong, and no reason to think he would do anything wrong -- other than your
 own private scientific theory that his results are impossible.

 I have been hearing people say this is impossible so it must be fraud
 since 1989.





 Ø  By the way, as far as I know Rossi had no say in design of this
 experiment. The decision to use an IR camera in the situation was made by
 Levi et al.



 And do you know that Levi has received no financial remuneration or
 promise of future funding  from this work ?  It would be a huge surprise if
 he had not.


 Ah, so he is on the take. And when Levi destroys his own reputation by
 putting in fake ash, or using an IR camera knowing it is the wrong choice,
 this will help Rossi and Levi . . . how again? Never mind. I am sure you
 have an elaborate conspiracy theory. We don't need the details. Anyway, in
 6 hours you will have a different theory.



  In short - all you really know is that you want this grossly
 deficient paper to transform into rock-solid proof of LENR, whether it is
 compromised or not…



 This isotope analysis stinks, and if it goes down, so can the rest of
 it.


 Ah, so the calorimetry is fraud -- again -- because you are convinced
 the mass spectrometry is. Or no, it isn't fraud, but the rest of it um .
 . . can go down. Because if Rossi committed fraud with fake ashes that
 means we cannot trust the calorimetry performed by other people when Rossi
 was absent. Because . . . because . . . we can't! We just can't. Rossi has
 magical ESP and he can change IR camera readings in the dead of night from
 another continent.

 - Jed

Re: [Vo]:An expert reviewed and approves of this configuration

2014-10-13 Thread Axil Axil

The testers has no access to anything inside the reactor or any access to
its IP. The opinion of the testers  that these wires are Inconel could be
wrong. The wires could well be tungsten or one of its alloys.

There is a boatload of assumption being made about this test that is
detrimental to analysis.

On Mon, Oct 13, 2014 at 10:10 PM, Robert Lynn 
robert.gulliver.l...@gmail.com wrote:

 It seems clear that the thermography is way off - because the built in
 inconel heater wires would fail at 1350°C. (The peak temp from
 thermography is 1412°C).  And the wires would necessarily be much hotter
 than the external surface of the reactor - if they are wound tightly around
 an inner core with little or no conductive contact with outer shell then
 that outer shell will only be around 1000°C and there will have been little
 or no LENR output.

 Until or unless that can be explained satisfactorily the rest of the test
 results are nothing but castles in the air.

 On 14 October 2014 09:06, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com wrote:

 Jones Beene jone...@pacbell.net wrote:


 Ø  The previous message I quoted from you was definitely an accusation
 of fraud in the calorimetry: No one would ever use an IR camera in this
 situation unless they have the intent to deceive.



 Of course I meant it - in the context that they received intense
 criticism for doing this in the previous report, and yet they went ahead
 and did it anyway without any additional concern for the accuracy – as was
 clearly the problem before.



 Callous disregard for the truth is tantamount to intent.


 Oh, okay. Now you are back to saying the calorimetry was callous
 disregard for the truth tantamount to fraud. I thought you agreed with
 Brian Ahern and his expert friend. Okay, that was 6 hours ago and you have
 flip-flopped again.



 As for libel, I would love to enter “discovery” with this Levi and his
 group. Bring it on.


 I meant that libel here is bad form. A million people on the Internet
 attack Rossi and Levi with unfounded BS. But we are not supposed to do that
 here. Especially not when you have zero evidence he has done anything
 wrong, and no reason to think he would do anything wrong -- other than your
 own private scientific theory that his results are impossible.

 I have been hearing people say this is impossible so it must be fraud
 since 1989.





 Ø  By the way, as far as I know Rossi had no say in design of this
 experiment. The decision to use an IR camera in the situation was made by
 Levi et al.



 And do you know that Levi has received no financial remuneration or
 promise of future funding  from this work ?  It would be a huge surprise if
 he had not.


 Ah, so he is on the take. And when Levi destroys his own reputation by
 putting in fake ash, or using an IR camera knowing it is the wrong choice,
 this will help Rossi and Levi . . . how again? Never mind. I am sure you
 have an elaborate conspiracy theory. We don't need the details. Anyway, in
 6 hours you will have a different theory.



  In short - all you really know is that you want this grossly deficient
 paper to transform into rock-solid proof of LENR, whether it is compromised
 or not…



 This isotope analysis stinks, and if it goes down, so can the rest of it.


 Ah, so the calorimetry is fraud -- again -- because you are convinced the
 mass spectrometry is. Or no, it isn't fraud, but the rest of it um . . .
 can go down. Because if Rossi committed fraud with fake ashes that means
 we cannot trust the calorimetry performed by other people when Rossi was
 absent. Because . . . because . . . we can't! We just can't. Rossi has
 magical ESP and he can change IR camera readings in the dead of night from
 another continent.

 - Jed

Re: [Vo]:An expert reviewed and approves of this configuration

It would induce currents/heat something like this

http://www.acrossinternational.com/90mm-ID-with-8mm-Copper-Tubing-Insulated-Vertical-Induction-Coil-IHVC908.htm

On Monday, October 13, 2014, Axil Axil janap...@gmail.com wrote:

The testers has no access to anything inside the reactor or any access to
its IP. The opinion of the testers that these wires are Inconel could be
wrong. The wires could well be tungsten or one of its alloys.

There is a boatload of assumption being made about this test that is
detrimental to analysis.

On Mon, Oct 13, 2014 at 10:10 PM, Robert Lynn
robert.gulliver.l...@gmail.com
javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','robert.gulliver.l...@gmail.com'); wrote:

It seems clear that the thermography is way off - because the built in
inconel heater wires would fail at 1350°C. (The peak temp from
thermography is 1412°C). And the wires would necessarily be much hotter
than the external surface of the reactor - if they are wound tightly around
an inner core with little or no conductive contact with outer shell then
that outer shell will only be around 1000°C and there will have been little
or no LENR output.

Until or unless that can be explained satisfactorily the rest of the test
results are nothing but castles in the air.

On 14 October 2014 09:06, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com
javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','jedrothw...@gmail.com'); wrote:

Jones Beene jone...@pacbell.net
javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','jone...@pacbell.net'); wrote:

Ø The previous message I quoted from you was definitely an accusation
of fraud in the calorimetry: No one would ever use an IR camera in this
situation unless they have the intent to deceive.

Of course I meant it - in the context that they received intense
criticism for doing this in the previous report, and yet they went ahead
and did it anyway without any additional concern for the accuracy – as was
clearly the problem before.

Callous disregard for the truth is tantamount to intent.

Oh, okay. Now you are back to saying the calorimetry was callous
disregard for the truth tantamount to fraud. I thought you agreed with
Brian Ahern and his expert friend. Okay, that was 6 hours ago and you have
flip-flopped again.

As for libel, I would love to enter “discovery” with this Levi and his
group. Bring it on.

I meant that libel here is bad form. A million people on the Internet
attack Rossi and Levi with unfounded BS. But we are not supposed to do that
here. Especially not when you have zero evidence he has done anything
wrong, and no reason to think he would do anything wrong -- other than your
own private scientific theory that his results are impossible.

I have been hearing people say this is impossible so it must be fraud
since 1989.

Ø By the way, as far as I know Rossi had no say in design of this
experiment. The decision to use an IR camera in the situation was made by
Levi et al.

And do you know that Levi has received no financial remuneration or
promise of future funding from this work ? It would be a huge surprise if
he had not.

Ah, so he is on the take. And when Levi destroys his own reputation by
putting in fake ash, or using an IR camera knowing it is the wrong choice,
this will help Rossi and Levi . . . how again? Never mind. I am sure you
have an elaborate conspiracy theory. We don't need the details. Anyway, in
6 hours you will have a different theory.

In short - all you really know is that you want this grossly
deficient paper to transform into rock-solid proof of LENR, whether it is
compromised or not…

This isotope analysis stinks, and if it goes down, so can the rest of
it.

Ah, so the calorimetry is fraud -- again -- because you are convinced
the mass spectrometry is. Or no, it isn't fraud, but the rest of it um .
. . can go down. Because if Rossi committed fraud with fake ashes that
means we cannot trust the calorimetry performed by other people when Rossi
was absent. Because . . . because . . . we can't! We just can't. Rossi has
magical ESP and he can change IR camera readings in the dead of night from
another continent.

- Jed

Re: [Vo]:An expert reviewed and approves of this configuration

2014-10-13 Thread H Veeder

On Mon, Oct 13, 2014 at 6:51 PM, Alan Fletcher a...@well.com wrote:



 Figure 6 : this is complicated by transmission, which may be happening in
 the visible range. (IF the helical shadows are indeed images or shadows of
 the coiuls. But I still think they represent different conduction zones of
 a ceramic holder, as in the March test). However, this has a broad peak
 near the center of the visible range, so the blue might be enhanced a
 little.
 




I find it odd the dark bands (a.k.a the shadows) persist.  I can
understand how differences in conduction

play a role when the reactor first starts but in the long run shouldn't
the dark bands disappear?

Harry

Re: [Vo]:An expert reviewed and approves of this configuration

The coil stays cooler than the core when it is heating thru induction due
to less resistance in the coil so that is why I think the coil is
darker/cooler

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Induction_cooking

In an induction cooker, a coil of copper wire is placed underneath the
cooking pot . An alternating . In turn, most of the energy becomes heat
in the high- resistance steel, while the driving coil stays cool.

On Monday, October 13, 2014, H Veeder hveeder...@gmail.com wrote:



 On Mon, Oct 13, 2014 at 6:51 PM, Alan Fletcher a...@well.com
 javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','a...@well.com'); wrote:



 Figure 6 : this is complicated by transmission, which may be happening in
 the visible range. (IF the helical shadows are indeed images or shadows of
 the coiuls. But I still think they represent different conduction zones of
 a ceramic holder, as in the March test). However, this has a broad peak
 near the center of the visible range, so the blue might be enhanced a
 little.
 




 I find it odd the dark bands (a.k.a the shadows) persist.  I can
 understand how differences in conduction

 play a role when the reactor first starts but in the long run shouldn't
 the dark bands disappear?

 Harry

Re: [Vo]:An expert reviewed and approves of this configuration

Mix some Fe, etc in your secret sauce to get the resistance/heating
properties and sautéing you desire.

Rossi is an Italien Chef...

On Monday, October 13, 2014, ChemE Stewart cheme...@gmail.com wrote:

 The coil stays cooler than the core when it is heating thru induction due
 to less resistance in the coil so that is why I think the coil is
 darker/cooler

 http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Induction_cooking

 In an induction cooker, a coil of copper wire is placed underneath the
 cooking pot . An alternating . In turn, most of the energy becomes heat
 in the high- resistance steel, while the driving coil stays cool.

 On Monday, October 13, 2014, H Veeder hveeder...@gmail.com
 javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','hveeder...@gmail.com'); wrote:



 On Mon, Oct 13, 2014 at 6:51 PM, Alan Fletcher a...@well.com wrote:



 Figure 6 : this is complicated by transmission, which may be happening
 in the visible range. (IF the helical shadows are indeed images or shadows
 of the coiuls. But I still think they represent different conduction zones
 of a ceramic holder, as in the March test). However, this has a broad peak
 near the center of the visible range, so the blue might be enhanced a
 little.
 




 I find it odd the dark bands (a.k.a the shadows) persist.  I can
 understand how differences in conduction

 play a role when the reactor first starts but in the long run shouldn't
 the dark bands disappear?

 Harry

Re: [Vo]:An expert reviewed and approves of this configuration

2014-10-13 Thread H Veeder

The banded regions should absorb heat and in the long run reach the same
temperature as their surroundings. The fact that they persist is a sign of
something significant...and I don't mean fraud or incompetence.

Harry

On Mon, Oct 13, 2014 at 10:54 PM, ChemE Stewart cheme...@gmail.com wrote:

 The coil stays cooler than the core when it is heating thru induction due
 to less resistance in the coil so that is why I think the coil is
 darker/cooler

 http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Induction_cooking

 In an induction cooker, a coil of copper wire is placed underneath the
 cooking pot . An alternating . In turn, most of the energy becomes heat
 in the high- resistance steel, while the driving coil stays cool.

 On Monday, October 13, 2014, H Veeder hveeder...@gmail.com wrote:



 On Mon, Oct 13, 2014 at 6:51 PM, Alan Fletcher a...@well.com wrote:



 Figure 6 : this is complicated by transmission, which may be happening
 in the visible range. (IF the helical shadows are indeed images or shadows
 of the coiuls. But I still think they represent different conduction zones
 of a ceramic holder, as in the March test). However, this has a broad peak
 near the center of the visible range, so the blue might be enhanced a
 little.
 




 I find it odd the dark bands (a.k.a the shadows) persist.  I can
 understand how differences in conduction

 play a role when the reactor first starts but in the long run shouldn't
 the dark bands disappear?

 Harry

Re: [Vo]:An expert reviewed and approves of this configuration