Re: [Vo]:a longer duration black box test would prove issue without disclosure
Stephen A. Lawrence wrote: */PLEASE!/* Let's strive for a little more precision in the language here! It was *not* disinformation, which is misinformation that is _deliberately_ disseminated in order to influence or confuse rivals (WordNet 2.0) Exactly right. There is no advantage to a device that runs at 1500 deg C, and no reason Rossi would want people to think it runs at that temperature. On the contrary, that would be dangerous. 400 deg C is much better from a commercial standpoint. This is the temperature the uranium core is kept at in a conventional reactor. It is relatively mild so it reduces wear and tear. If 1500 deg C was a commercial advantage, this is might be disinformation. The only use for such high temperatures would be in aerospace apps. As I said before, there is a major language gap here. Several people have told me that Rossi's English is not good, and this has caused misunderstandings. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:a longer duration black box test would prove issue without disclosure
On 01/19/2011 11:06 AM, Jones Beene wrote: Stephen - How can you presume that there has been no deliberate attempt to confuse the situation? OK, my apologies! I /assumed/ (apparently incorrectly!) that your choice of words was accidental rather than intentional. Of course if you meant to imply that Rossi was intentionally trying to mislead everyone when he said it was 1500 degrees in there, then 'disinformation' was indeed the right word. After all, there a few skeptics out there who have so much of their intellectual net worth tied up in the premise that LENR is pathological science - that deliberate sabotage in an early stage cannot be ruled out. IOW -- it is inappropriate for Stephen at this point in time, to counter one minor presumption with another one, even though I agree in principle that le mot juste is closer mis, not diss. It is too early to get to that level of precision. Since Stephen has chosen to assume a silly role here to be the self-appointed nit-picker deluxe, Hey, I'm a computer programmer. I pick nits for a living. Sometimes it sloshes over into real life (/er, if we can consider Vortex to be real life...)/ Anyhow sorry about the semantic pickiness. lets apply the same standard to his incorrect presumptions, as he would apply them to others. Of course! :-) Jones *From:* Stephen A. Lawrence On 01/19/2011 10:25 AM, Jones Beene wrote: Peter, Thank you for clearing up the fact that the internal temperature is 400 C. There was some disinformation circulating about a much higher temperature. */PLEASE!/* Let's strive for a little more precision in the language here! It was *not* disinformation, which is misinformation that is _deliberately_ disseminated in order to influence or confuse rivals (WordNet 2.0) The assertion that it was 1500 degrees was clearly either true or a simple error. It wasn't anyone's /deliberate/ attempt at clouding the issue. Jones *From:* Peter Gluck [mailto:peter.gl...@gmail.com] *Sent:* Tuesday, January 18, 2011 10:10 PM *To:* vortex-l@eskimo.com mailto:vortex-l@eskimo.com *Subject:* Re: [Vo]:a longer duration black box test would prove issue without disclosure When used for heating in homes, the device delivers very probably hot water. In the case of the experiment, the flow of the water was seemingly limited by the pump (we don't know its performance characteristics), the connection tube, the cooling space. Cooling water moves in pipe with maximum 2-3 meters/second Please do not forget- the temperature inside the generator is tipically 400 C so it is easy to deliver steam- and that's in some way more convincing than hot water Peter On Tue, Jan 18, 2011 at 11:52 PM, Stephen A. Lawrence sa...@pobox.com mailto:sa...@pobox.com wrote: On 01/18/2011 02:52 PM, Jed Rothwell wrote: Stephen A. Lawrence wrote: CLOSE THE LOOP. He [Rossi] says he can run without any electrical input. Ergo he /can/ close the loop, without the expense of a Stirling motor and generator. Actually, that is heat input, from an AC resistance heater. Presumably it would work as well with combustion heating. He said he can run without heat input, but it is dangerous. I do not think he elaborated on that. I gather it means he uses heat to modulate the reaction. The Piantelli Ni experiments required high temperature and external heating. I believe the control factors are heat and pressure. The H2 is at 2 atm, according to Celani. When you depressurize the cell, the reaction soon stops. That's good news. Cold fusion reactions are sometimes nearly as difficult to stop as they are to start. I assume the Rossi device has some internal self-regulation, or what Stan Pons called a memory that keeps electrochemical cells going back to the same power level after you refill the cell, tap on it, or disturb it some other way. I also assume there is something about the Rossi device that acts analogously to a self-quenching CANDU nuclear reactor. I am only speculating; I have no knowledge of this. The mechanism would be something like the metal degassing at very high temperature, cooling down, and then absorbing the gas and reacting again. That would explain why it quickly stops when you degas manually. I suspect the electric heater is in the core, and the cold fusion reaction occurs in the Ni powder surrounding that. I recall some of the Piantelli devices had heaters attached directly to the Ni bar. I think Rossi claimed the internal temperature of this thing is 1500°C. Ed Storms pointed out that cannot be right, because the melting point of Ni is 1,453°C. Perhaps that is a misunderstanding, or a mistranslation. Still, it must be pretty hot in there because the device is small and well insulated. Even with 400 W or 1000 W from the AC heater it must be quite hot internally. I assume (but I do not know) that the heater is the hottest
Re: [Vo]:a longer duration black box test would prove issue without disclosure
In reply to Stephen A. Lawrence's message of Wed, 19 Jan 2011 11:31:25 -0500: Hi, [snip] Of course if you meant to imply that Rossi was intentionally trying to mislead everyone when he said it was 1500 degrees in there, then 'disinformation' was indeed the right word. [snip] You are all making a mountain out of a molehill. Obviously the average temperature was 400 ºC, while there were hot spots where the temperature exceeded the melting point of Ni, as it became fused in places. Regards, Robin van Spaandonk http://rvanspaa.freehostia.com/Project.html
Re: [Vo]:a longer duration black box test would prove issue without disclosure
mix...@bigpond.com wrote: You are all making a mountain out of a molehill. Obviously the average temperature was 400 ºC, while there were hot spots where the temperature exceeded the melting point of Ni, as it became fused in places. Takahashi told me there is a form of low-temperature fusion, similar to sintering. It happens with pure Pd-black in the presence of hydrogen (or deuterium) at temperatures well below the melting point of Pd. The hydrogen plays a role. I do not recall the details . . . I think he mentioned the spillover effect as playing a role. He said that some samples of Pd-black were heated in vacuo in pre-treatment. The particles did not clump together. Later, in the experiment they heated in the presence of deuterium to lower temperatures, yet they clumped together. I think that may have happened even with samples that did not produce anomalous heat. Anyway, particles clump together differently in different circumstances, and it does not always mean they melted and fused. In this case, maybe they did and that can be confirmed in other ways, but clumping alone is not proof. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:a longer duration black box test would prove issue without disclosure
Jed, I emailed you. Please respond. From: Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Wed, January 19, 2011 8:17:19 PM Subject: Re: [Vo]:a longer duration black box test would prove issue without disclosure mix...@bigpond.com wrote: You are all making a mountain out of a molehill. Obviously the average temperature was 400 ºC, while there were hot spots where the temperature exceeded the melting point of Ni, as it became fused in places. Takahashi told me there is a form of low-temperature fusion, similar to sintering. It happens with pure Pd-black in the presence of hydrogen (or deuterium) at temperatures well below the melting point of Pd. The hydrogen plays a role. I do not recall the details . . . I think he mentioned the spillover effect as playing a role. He said that some samples of Pd-black were heated in vacuo in pre-treatment. The particles did not clump together. Later, in the experiment they heated in the presence of deuterium to lower temperatures, yet they clumped together. I think that may have happened even with samples that did not produce anomalous heat. Anyway, particles clump together differently in different circumstances, and it does not always mean they melted and fused. In this case, maybe they did and that can be confirmed in other ways, but clumping alone is not proof. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:a longer duration black box test would prove issue without disclosure
On Wed, Jan 19, 2011 at 8:33 PM, noone noone thesteornpa...@yahoo.com wrote: Jed, I emailed you. Please respond. Is that no one or noonie? I used to get a nooner occasionally. eg T
Re: [Vo]:a longer duration black box test would prove issue without disclosure
Roarty, Francis X francis.x.roa...@lmco.com wrote: Rossi could keep his black box method and still prove his claims with a 24 hour stress test that would produce far more energy than he could possibly Conceal inside the black box. He has done that. People have told me they witnessed that, albeit not at a national university setting, with professors doing the installation and running of the calorimetry. I think they did some longer runs in the weeks leading up to this demo, but I have not heard how long they were. I asked, but they did not get around to answering. Despite Rossi's odd nature, he has done a good job of revealing his device. I think he has done as much as anyone can do without revealing trade secrets. I am afraid it is futile to try to protect trade secrets, but I understand why he is trying. It is hard to think of a better way to proceed given the patent situation. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:a longer duration black box test would prove issue without disclosure
On 01/18/2011 11:04 AM, Jed Rothwell wrote: Roarty, Francis X francis.x.roa...@lmco.com mailto:francis.x.roa...@lmco.com wrote: Rossi could keep his black box method and still prove his claims with a 24 hour stress test that would produce far more energy than he could possibly Conceal inside the black box. He has done that. People have told me they witnessed that, albeit not at a national university setting, with professors doing the installation and running of the calorimetry. I think they did some longer runs in the weeks leading up to this demo, but I have not heard how long they were. I asked, but they did not get around to answering. Despite Rossi's odd nature, he has done a good job of revealing his device. I think he has done as much as anyone can do without revealing trade secrets. I am afraid it is futile to try to protect trade secrets, but I understand why he is trying. It is hard to think of a better way to proceed given the patent situation. CLOSE THE LOOP. He says he can run without any electrical input. Ergo he /can/ close the loop, without the expense of a Stirling motor and generator. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:a longer duration black box test would prove issue without disclosure
On 01/18/2011 02:52 PM, Jed Rothwell wrote: Stephen A. Lawrence wrote: CLOSE THE LOOP. He [Rossi] says he can run without any electrical input. Ergo he /can/ close the loop, without the expense of a Stirling motor and generator. Actually, that is heat input, from an AC resistance heater. Presumably it would work as well with combustion heating. He said he can run without heat input, but it is dangerous. I do not think he elaborated on that. I gather it means he uses heat to modulate the reaction. The Piantelli Ni experiments required high temperature and external heating. I believe the control factors are heat and pressure. The H2 is at 2 atm, according to Celani. When you depressurize the cell, the reaction soon stops. That's good news. Cold fusion reactions are sometimes nearly as difficult to stop as they are to start. I assume the Rossi device has some internal self-regulation, or what Stan Pons called a memory that keeps electrochemical cells going back to the same power level after you refill the cell, tap on it, or disturb it some other way. I also assume there is something about the Rossi device that acts analogously to a self-quenching CANDU nuclear reactor. I am only speculating; I have no knowledge of this. The mechanism would be something like the metal degassing at very high temperature, cooling down, and then absorbing the gas and reacting again. That would explain why it quickly stops when you degas manually. I suspect the electric heater is in the core, and the cold fusion reaction occurs in the Ni powder surrounding that. I recall some of the Piantelli devices had heaters attached directly to the Ni bar. I think Rossi claimed the internal temperature of this thing is 1500°C. Ed Storms pointed out that cannot be right, because the melting point of Ni is 1,453°C. Perhaps that is a misunderstanding, or a mistranslation. Still, it must be pretty hot in there because the device is small and well insulated. Even with 400 W or 1000 W from the AC heater it must be quite hot internally. I assume (but I do not know) that the heater is the hottest part. That's how I imagine it works. Actually, I'd expect the joule heater to be rather cool relative to the reactive elements once the thing gets rolling. The reaction is contributing 10 kW or more at that point; the joule heater is just plugging along at 400 watts. That, also, makes it seem a little surprising that the joule heater continues to be used *after* ignition. It's contributing just 4% of the total heat; you'd think they could just shut it off after the thing starts up. Of course, the reacting surface area may be large enough that it stays cooler than the heater, and perhaps the intense heat near the heater wire has something to do with the reason they continue to use it after ignition. Incidentally, a 1500 degree internal temperature also makes the use of unpressurized water for a coolant seem to me to be a little iffy. Perhaps that has something to do with the reason they boil it all to steam, rather than running the pump harder and getting out hot water (which, it has been suggested, might have provided a more rock-solid output heat measure). - Jed
Re: [Vo]:a longer duration black box test would prove issue without disclosure
Stephen A. Lawrence wrote: That, also, makes it seem a little surprising that the joule heater continues to be used *after* ignition. It's contributing just 4% of the total heat; you'd think they could just shut it off after the thing starts up. Of course, the reacting surface area may be large enough that it stays cooler than the heater, and perhaps the intense heat near the heater wire has something to do with the reason they continue to use it after ignition. That is my guess. I think the AC heater wire is hotter than the active material. As I said, it is my understanding that heat and hydrogen pressure are the two control factors. I do not know how they work. I don't know which knob you twist to make the thing go. Rossi said that removing the AC heat completely is dangerous. That give me the willies. If the external electricity cuts off, will the machine overheat? Or if it is built in a self sustaining device and the generator fails, will it overheat or go out of control? It would be nice if the heat triggered the reaction, and removing the heat simply quenched it, but based on Rossi's comment that is is dangerous to run without the auxiliary heat, that is not the case. Who knows what to make of it! Rossi is hiding many details. - Jed
RE: [Vo]:a longer duration black box test would prove issue without disclosure
This is not surprising. My guess is that there is strong temperature inversion, and a prohibitive trigger temperature with instant quench. The trigger could be say at 800 C, and the inversion 1000 C, giving some room for error. There are zones and only one of them is externally heated. This is the insurance. This amplification of input is why he has named it the way he has. You cannot EVER let normal fluctuations in the fuel temperature go below the trigger, or else the whole thing will instantly quench. You spread out the active material so that once you get over the trigger in one zone, it can then go over everywhere, and continues up, since the inversion pushes it up to the limit of heat transfer. The heater will be placed to heat one a small area in the reactor only - the failsafe zone, so to speak. Jones -Original Message- From: Jed Rothwell Stephen A. Lawrence wrote: That, also, makes it seem a little surprising that the joule heater continues to be used *after* ignition. It's contributing just 4% of the total heat; you'd think they could just shut it off after the thing starts up. Of course, the reacting surface area may be large enough that it stays cooler than the heater, and perhaps the intense heat near the heater wire has something to do with the reason they continue to use it after ignition. That is my guess. I think the AC heater wire is hotter than the active material. As I said, it is my understanding that heat and hydrogen pressure are the two control factors. I do not know how they work. I don't know which knob you twist to make the thing go. Rossi said that removing the AC heat completely is dangerous. That give me the willies. If the external electricity cuts off, will the machine overheat? Or if it is built in a self sustaining device and the generator fails, will it overheat or go out of control? It would be nice if the heat triggered the reaction, and removing the heat simply quenched it, but based on Rossi's comment that is is dangerous to run without the auxiliary heat, that is not the case. Who knows what to make of it! Rossi is hiding many details. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:a longer duration black box test would prove issue without disclosure
On Tue, Jan 18, 2011 at 5:37 PM, Jones Beene jone...@pacbell.net wrote: This amplification of input is why he has named it the way he has. Although, it would not really be amplification, would it? The reaction has a known instability and he uses the 400 W stable source to mask that instability. Real time measurements of the core would tell the truth. T
Re: [Vo]:a longer duration black box test would prove issue without disclosure
OrionWorks - Steven V Johnson wrote: Based on what I've read so far, I know I'd prefer the full protection and experience of a major utility company managing the reactor . . . Me too! I would think that only after a considerable amount of experience combined with a good track record has been built up, plus a theory that everyone can agree on, would consumer products even be considered. I think so too. But here's what I predict: the calendar time it takes to generate that considerable track record will be more compressed than any industrial development in history, including the development of nuclear power and bombs during WWII. Once it becomes generally known that this is a real nuclear effect that is likely to lower the cost of energy by a factor of 10 at first, and thousands more later, every industrial corporation on earth will pile onto it. Hundreds of thousands of researchers will work frantically to understand it, control it, and bring it to market. So even though it will take billions and probably an act of Congress, I am sanguine. It will happen swiftly. Someone who is talking to investors about Rossi asked me what I thought the projected cost per thermal kWh would be. I told him that Rossi described the consumables and 6-month maintenance, and estimates about $0.01/kWh. But my guess is that first generation machine of that nature are far more expensive than anyone anticipates. Then I wrote: Frankly, I do not think that a conventional analysis such as the cost of thermal kWh in the initial implementation does this justice. We are talking about the most revolutionary technology in history. Making the decision to invest or not based on the initial performance would resemble the decisions made by DEC and Data General not to go into the personal computer business because the first PCs had lower performance per dollar than minicomputers. That was true, but not for long. In 1980, any computer company that decided not to pursue the PC market was signing its own death warrant. If Rossi is not mistaken, and this thing is real, and if even ONE company, anywhere decides to develop it, then every other major industrial company will either follow suit and invest billions in the technology, or it will go bankrupt in a few decades. GE, Toyota or Mitsubishi -- it makes no difference how big or powerful they are now. They will either develop this or they will vanish like the Pennsylvania Railroad, General Motors, DEC and all the other great corporations that went out of business in the 20th century. Cold fusion will be the core technology to as many different products as integrated circuits are today. Can you imagine how long GE would last today if they had no expertise in integrated circuits or computers? That's what I would tell investors . . . - Jed
Re: [Vo]:a longer duration black box test would prove issue without disclosure
All Catalysts are normally considered accelerators of standard reactions and skeletal catalysts are based on Casimir geometry / suppression of energy density which is known to lead To relativistic effects on the half lives of radioactive gas. Perhaps Rossi is using sodium or other very slightly radioactive material to make an accelerator into an amplifier? My premise is that Both the radioactive gas and the hydrogen reactions are aging relative to us at a rate related to the Casimir force/geometry turning relatively innocuous materials into radiation emitters from our perspective but unchanged from their own local perspective. I don't know how such seemingly sparse radiation would be translated back to our frames - a single emission an hour might appear a thousand fold faster from our perspective but the radiation leaves the particle normally from a local perspective . I guess my question is would time dilation concentrate or dilute radiation during a space time translation? Could the dimension of time be acting like a radiation shield? Fran Terry Blanton Tue, 18 Jan 2011 14:46:12 -0800 On Tue, Jan 18, 2011 at 5:37 PM, Jones Beene jone...@pacbell.net wrote: This amplification of input is why he has named it the way he has. Although, it would not really be amplification, would it? The reaction has a known instability and he uses the 400 W stable source to mask that instability. Real time measurements of the core would tell the truth. T
Re: [Vo]:a longer duration black box test would prove issue without disclosure
When used for heating in homes, the device delivers very probably hot water. In the case of the experiment, the flow of the water was seemingly limited by the pump (we don't know its performance characteristics), the connection tube, the cooling space. Cooling water moves in pipe with maximum 2-3 meters/second Please do not forget- the temperature inside the generator is tipically 400 C so it is easy to deliver steam- and that's in some way more convincing than hot water Peter On Tue, Jan 18, 2011 at 11:52 PM, Stephen A. Lawrence sa...@pobox.comwrote: On 01/18/2011 02:52 PM, Jed Rothwell wrote: Stephen A. Lawrence wrote: CLOSE THE LOOP. He [Rossi] says he can run without any electrical input. Ergo he *can* close the loop, without the expense of a Stirling motor and generator. Actually, that is heat input, from an AC resistance heater. Presumably it would work as well with combustion heating. He said he can run without heat input, but it is dangerous. I do not think he elaborated on that. I gather it means he uses heat to modulate the reaction. The Piantelli Ni experiments required high temperature and external heating. I believe the control factors are heat and pressure. The H2 is at 2 atm, according to Celani. When you depressurize the cell, the reaction soon stops. That's good news. Cold fusion reactions are sometimes nearly as difficult to stop as they are to start. I assume the Rossi device has some internal self-regulation, or what Stan Pons called a memory that keeps electrochemical cells going back to the same power level after you refill the cell, tap on it, or disturb it some other way. I also assume there is something about the Rossi device that acts analogously to a self-quenching CANDU nuclear reactor. I am only speculating; I have no knowledge of this. The mechanism would be something like the metal degassing at very high temperature, cooling down, and then absorbing the gas and reacting again. That would explain why it quickly stops when you degas manually. I suspect the electric heater is in the core, and the cold fusion reaction occurs in the Ni powder surrounding that. I recall some of the Piantelli devices had heaters attached directly to the Ni bar. I think Rossi claimed the internal temperature of this thing is 1500°C. Ed Storms pointed out that cannot be right, because the melting point of Ni is 1,453°C. Perhaps that is a misunderstanding, or a mistranslation. Still, it must be pretty hot in there because the device is small and well insulated. Even with 400 W or 1000 W from the AC heater it must be quite hot internally. I assume (but I do not know) that the heater is the hottest part. That's how I imagine it works. Actually, I'd expect the joule heater to be rather cool relative to the reactive elements once the thing gets rolling. The reaction is contributing 10 kW or more at that point; the joule heater is just plugging along at 400 watts. That, also, makes it seem a little surprising that the joule heater continues to be used *after* ignition. It's contributing just 4% of the total heat; you'd think they could just shut it off after the thing starts up. Of course, the reacting surface area may be large enough that it stays cooler than the heater, and perhaps the intense heat near the heater wire has something to do with the reason they continue to use it after ignition. Incidentally, a 1500 degree internal temperature also makes the use of unpressurized water for a coolant seem to me to be a little iffy. Perhaps that has something to do with the reason they boil it all to steam, rather than running the pump harder and getting out hot water (which, it has been suggested, might have provided a more rock-solid output heat measure). - Jed
