Re: [Vo]:Rossi: Neutrons? : COP200, Linearity
The input is not directly transformed into output but you must initially apply heat of some type to coax Rossi's ECAT to put out excess heat energy. It does nothing until the heat input occurs and after that the amount of heat generated depends upon the internal temperature. What controls does he have to make a useful system? As far as I can determine, his only input is resistive heating and the output heat is directed to the coolant or radiated to some point. He must be able to turn off the device in some manner and it is evident that cutting the drive power is the way he does it. Rossi has never demonstrated in public an ECAT that is truly self sustaining. The internal temperature has always dropped toward room in his experiments. The famous October test of last year did not continue at the maximum power output for very long (less than an hour if I recall) and certainly not forever. Furthermore, Rossi has stated on more occasions than I can count that his device will not have a COP specification of greater than 6 if it is controlled and useful. Read his journal if you question this statement; it is very clearly posted many times to different persons. There are other systems that behave in different manners, such as the DGT device, where they achieve control by effectively starving the thing of fuel. And I am not sure any of the electrolysis mechanisms are controlled that exhibit significant amounts of output power. Could you direct me to any of these devices that put out heat energy that is at least 2 times the input energy and can be turned on and off? If these devices only put out low quality heat, then COP might not be useful in describing them. The entire concept of controlled constant self sustaining power output is a fallacy. Constant output devices typically employ negative feedback to achieve stability. The open loop gain determines how closely the output matches the input. Rossi type LENR devices put out additional heat energy as the temperature rises which is a recipe for instability. This constitutes positive feedback and it comes in handy if your goal is to get plenty of output with a minimum of input power. The catch is that the internally generated heat can supply all the drive needed once it reaches a critical level. If that occurs you are on your way toward a latching point where most attempts on your part to lower the drive power for control are over ruled. If a system reaches an operating point that is controlled by positive feedback as in Rossi's case, there is no standing still allowed. These types of devices are balanced on a razors edge at the self sustaining point and the slightest noise will send it off in one of two directions. The only place they will not remain is at the self sustaining point. Rossi has made it quite clear that his devices attempt to thermally run away which is associated with the positive feedback operation. So, if Rossi wants to have a useful device that is controlled he is required to supply modulated input power to achieve that function. Clearly the less input required, the better from an efficiency point of view. So, it makes perfect sense to attempt to optimize the device at the largest controlled value of COP that he can safely handle. He is no fool, and he realizes that the input power required is not a good thing and thus would love to reduce it. This is not as easy as some think. I want to mention again that Rossi could use controlled cooling in conjunction with his controlled heating to gain additional control, but thus far this has not been seen in his public displays. The magic word is control. COP and control are bound together in a Rossi type device. Jed, you are entitled to your opinion just like everyone else. Some of us are convinced that COP in Rossi's device is important, including him. Dave -Original Message- From: Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Sat, Sep 22, 2012 11:52 pm Subject: Re: [Vo]:Rossi: Neutrons? : COP200, Linearity Jones Beene jone...@pacbell.net wrote: This is most interestingin light of the totality of past experiments in LENR which are “believable”going back twenty years. There seems to beexcellent evidence for long-term COP of over one but less than two . . . The term COP has no meaning in the context of a cold fusion experiment. Output power is not -- in any way -- contingent upon or dependent upon input. Input is not amplified or transformed in any sense. Input can easily be turned off and output continues, with a COP of infinity. This is true of all cold fusion experiments and it has been been observed by just about every researcher I know. The only reason there is any input power in a cold fusion experiment is to form the hydride, and to keep it from de-gassing and unforming itself. In gas loading and other systems, no input power is needed. The ratio
Re: [Vo]:Rossi: Neutrons? : COP200, Linearity
Reminder, http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_Va3objv1cIE/SeCVwj_HVwI/AYs/FYmv70j8LbM/s400/elephant.gif RFG Complex Electronics AC or DC heating Toroidal Chamber Electro Magnetic Damping Grain of sand on beach conversion (E=MC^2) Hydrides Energy Barriers Phonon Lattice Oscillations Nano Structures Catalyists Ionization Where does it all end? My goodness, it is an Elephant! Your Sweetness David Roberson said: Sat, 22 Sep 2012 23:58:24 -0700 The input is not directly transformed into output but you must initially apply heat of some type to coax Rossi's ECAT to put out excess heat energy. It does nothing until the heat input occurs and after that the amount of heat generated depends upon the internal temperature. What controls does he have to make a useful system? As far as I can determine, his only input is resistive heating and the output heat is directed to the coolant or radiated to some point. He must be able to turn off the device in some manner and it is evident that cutting the drive power is the way he does it. Rossi has never demonstrated in public an ECAT that is truly self sustaining. The internal temperature has always dropped toward room in his experiments. The famous October test of last year did not continue at the maximum power output for very long (less than an hour if I recall) and certainly not forever. Furthermore, Rossi has stated on more occasions than I can count that his device will not ! have a COP specification of greater than 6 if it is controlled and useful. Read his journal if you question this statement; it is very clearly posted many times to different persons. There are other systems that behave in different manners, such as the DGT device, where they achieve control by effectively starving the thing of fuel. And I am not sure any of the electrolysis mechanisms are controlled that exhibit significant amounts of output power. Could you direct me to any of these devices that put out heat energy that is at least 2 times the input energy and can be turned on and off? If these devices only put out low quality heat, then COP might not be useful in describing them. The entire concept of controlled constant self sustaining power output is a fallacy. Constant output devices typically employ negative feedback to achieve stability. The open loop gain determines how closely the output matches the input. Rossi type LENR devices put out additional heat energy as t! he temperature rises which is a recipe for instability. This c! onstitutes positive feedback and it comes in handy if your goal is to get plenty of output with a minimum of input power. The catch is that the internally generated heat can supply all the drive needed once it reaches a critical level. If that occurs you are on your way toward a latching point where most attempts on your part to lower the drive power for control are over ruled. If a system reaches an operating point that is controlled by positive feedback as in Rossi's case, there is no standing still allowed. These types of devices are balanced on a razors edge at the self sustaining point and the slightest noise will send it off in one of two directions. The only place they will not remain is at the self sustaining point. Rossi has made it quite clear that his devices attempt to thermally run away which is associated with the positive feedback operation. So, if Rossi wants to have a useful device that is controlled he is required to supply modulated input power to achieve! that function. Clearly the less input required, the better from an efficiency point of view. So, it makes perfect sense to attempt to optimize the device at the largest controlled value of COP that he can safely handle. He is no fool, and he realizes that the input power required is not a good thing and thus would love to reduce it. This is not as easy as some think. I want to mention again that Rossi could use controlled cooling in conjunction with his controlled heating to gain additional control, but thus far this has not been seen in his public displays. The magic word is control. COP and control are bound together in a Rossi type device. Jed, you are entitled to your opinion just like everyone else. Some of us are convinced that COP in Rossi's device is important, including him. Dave -Original Message- From: Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Sat, Sep 22, 2012 11:52 pm Subject: Re: [Vo]:Rossi: Neutrons? : COP200, Line! arity Jones Beene jone...@pacbell.net wrote: This is most interesting! in light of the totality of past experiments in LENR which are “believable”going back twenty years. There seems to beexcellent evidence for long-term COP of over one but less than two . . . The term COP has no meaning in the context of a cold fusion experiment. Output power is not -- in any way -- contingent upon or dependent upon input. Input is not amplified or
Re: [Vo]:Rossi: Neutrons? : COP200, Linearity
You forgot dark/collapsed matter On Sun, Sep 23, 2012 at 7:34 AM, Mint Candy m.ca...@gmx.us wrote: Reminder, http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_Va3objv1cIE/SeCVwj_HVwI/AYs/FYmv70j8LbM/s400/elephant.gif RFG Complex Electronics AC or DC heating Toroidal Chamber Electro Magnetic Damping Grain of sand on beach conversion (E=MC^2) Hydrides Energy Barriers Phonon Lattice Oscillations Nano Structures Catalyists Ionization Where does it all end? My goodness, it is an Elephant! Your Sweetness David Roberson said: Sat, 22 Sep 2012 23:58:24 -0700 The input is not directly transformed into output but you must initially apply heat of some type to coax Rossi's ECAT to put out excess heat energy. It does nothing until the heat input occurs and after that the amount of heat generated depends upon the internal temperature. What controls does he have to make a useful system? As far as I can determine, his only input is resistive heating and the output heat is directed to the coolant or radiated to some point. He must be able to turn off the device in some manner and it is evident that cutting the drive power is the way he does it. Rossi has never demonstrated in public an ECAT that is truly self sustaining. The internal temperature has always dropped toward room in his experiments. The famous October test of last year did not continue at the maximum power output for very long (less than an hour if I recall) and certainly not forever. Furthermore, Rossi has stated on more occasions than I can count that his device will not have a COP specification of greater than 6 if it is controlled and useful. Read his journal if you question this statement; it is very clearly posted many times to different persons. There are other systems that behave in different manners, such as the DGT device, where they achieve control by effectively starving the thing of fuel. And I am not sure any of the electrolysis mechanisms are controlled that exhibit significant amounts of output power. Could you direct me to any of these devices that put out heat energy that is at least 2 times the input energy and can be turned on and off? If these devices only put out low quality heat, then COP might not be useful in describing them. The entire concept of controlled constant self sustaining power output is a fallacy. Constant output devices typically employ negative feedback to achieve stability. The open loop gain determines how closely the output matches the input. Rossi type LENR devices put out additional heat energy as the temperature rises which is a recipe for instability. This constitutes positive feedback and it comes in handy if your goal is to get plenty of output with a minimum of input power. The catch is that the internally generated heat can supply all the drive needed once it reaches a critical level. If that occurs you are on your way toward a latching point where most attempts on your part to lower the drive power for control are over ruled. If a system reaches an operating point that is controlled by positive feedback as in Rossi's case, there is no standing still allowed. These types of devices are balanced on a razors edge at the self sustaining point and the slightest noise will send it off in one of two directions. The only place they will not remain is at the self sustaining point. Rossi has made it quite clear that his devices attempt to thermally run away which is associated with the positive feedback operation. So, if Rossi wants to have a useful device that is controlled he is required to supply modulated input power to achieve that function. Clearly the less input required, the better from an efficiency point of view. So, it makes perfect sense to attempt to optimize the device at the largest controlled value of COP that he can safely handle. He is no fool, and he realizes that the input power required is not a good thing and thus would love to reduce it. This is not as easy as some think. I want to mention again that Rossi could use controlled cooling in conjunction with his controlled heating to gain additional control, but thus far this has not been seen in his public displays. The magic word is control. COP and control are bound together in a Rossi type device. Jed, you are entitled to your opinion just like everyone else. Some of us are convinced that COP in Rossi's device is important, including him. Dave -Original Message- From: Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Sat, Sep 22, 2012 11:52 pm Subject: Re: [Vo]:Rossi: Neutrons? : COP200, Linearity Jones Beene jone...@pacbell.net wrote: This is most interestingin light of the totality of past experiments in LENR which are “believable”going back twenty years. There seems to beexcellent evidence for long-term COP of over one but less than two
RE: [Vo]:Rossi: Neutrons? : COP200, Linearity
You could not be more wrong - at least if you are classifying Ni-H as cold fusion which it isn't. Input is clearly being amplified by a positive feedback modality. There is zero evidence of any self-running system - albeit lots of unsubstantiated talk. The hallmark of nickel hydrogen, or cobalt hydrogen- is maintenance of system parameters above the trigger threshold, so that positive feedback can operate. This is the sine qua non. I should qualify this by saying that it is possible in the future, with clever use of thermal recirculation, and via storage of very hot fluid (molten salt above the trigger temp), or else by minimal electric input which is computer controlled by the drop in thermal output (on removal of input) we can eventually raise COP enormously, but COP will always be the major concern from the perspective of commercialization. Thus far, there is no evidence of a self-running system. Celani, at one of his demos, spoke as if he had accomplished this, but later retracted; recently he has raised COP significantly but still requires periodic electrical input. Do not confuse self-running with slow-cooling. From: Jed Rothwell The term COP has no meaning in the context of a cold fusion experiment. Output power is not -- in any way -- contingent upon or dependent upon input. Input is not amplified or transformed in any sense. Input can easily be turned off and output continues, with a COP of infinity.
Re: [Vo]:Rossi: Neutrons? : COP200, Linearity
David Roberson dlrober...@aol.com wrote: The input is not directly transformed into output but you must initially apply heat of some type to coax Rossi's ECAT to put out excess heat energy. That is true, but once it heats up you can turn off the heat input. What controls does he have to make a useful system? I do not know if it is useful, but it can be run without input. Any cold fusion system can be. Rossi has never demonstrated in public an ECAT that is truly self sustaining. Yes, he did. He ran for 4 hours with no input. The internal temperature has always dropped toward room in his experiments. That is incorrect. It starts at room temperature and rises. During the 4-hour run with no input, the temperature rose twice. Furthermore, Rossi has stated on more occasions than I can count that his device will not have a COP specification of greater than 6 if it is controlled and useful. I think he is incorrect. The entire concept of controlled constant self sustaining power output is a fallacy. I do not know whether it can be controlled or not but I am sure it has happened. I doubt that external heating would be a good method of control. Celani has greatly reduced his input power since ICCF17, with no apparent decrease in control, so I do not think external heating is a method of control. Jed, you are entitled to your opinion just like everyone else. Some of us are convinced that COP in Rossi's device is important, including him. It may be important but it is possible to run any cold fusion device without input power. That is a matter of fact, not opinion. Many people have done this, with Pd and Ni. Even if you distrust Rossi's claims, many others have done this. You cannot argue with replicated experimental data. I have not heard that systems in heat after death tend to go out of control. - Jed
RE: [Vo]:Rossi: Neutrons? : COP200, Linearity
From: Jed Rothwell Rossi has never demonstrated in public an ECAT that is truly self sustaining. Yes, he did. He ran for 4 hours with no input. Wrong. His cell was connected during this time. He claimed the connection was minimal or some such excuse - but no one ever got to test it.
Re: [Vo]:Rossi: Neutrons? : COP200, Linearity
Jones Beene jone...@pacbell.net wrote: You could not be more wrong – at least if you are classifying Ni-H as “cold fusion” which it isn’t. Are you suggesting that Pd-D is fusion and Ni-H is not? Or that they both are not fusion? I do not see how Pd-D can produce helium at the same ratio to the heat as plasma fusion does if it is not fusion. If you are saying they are different phenomena, I am not aware of any experimental evidence for that. I do not know of any theory papers that say that. As far as I know, the researchers all assume that the Pd and Ni effects are the same, if for no other reason then for what McKubre calls the conservation of miracles. What makes you think they are different? Or that both are not fusion? There is zero evidence of any self-running system – albeit lots of unsubstantiated talk. No, there are many papers from Fleischmann, McKubre, Mizuno and others describing heat after death, which is to say self-running. This is not unsubstantiated talk. If you think it is, you have not read the literature carefully. Or you are ignoring replicated experimental data, which is to say, you are engaged in a form of faith-based religion, rather than science. The first and most fundamental rule of science is that you must believe experimental evidence. It overrules everything else. Thus far, there is no evidence of a self-running system. Celani, at one of his demos, spoke as if he had accomplished this, but later retracted . . . No, he did not claim that. Not in discussions with me, anyway. He said he will increase insulation and he hopes to reduce input to zero. He has reduced input from 48 W to around 10 W. I hope that he will soon reduce it to zero. In any case, many other Ni systems have been run with zero input power after initial heating. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:Rossi: Neutrons? : COP200, Linearity
Jones Beene jone...@pacbell.net wrote: Rossi has never demonstrated in public an ECAT that is truly self sustaining. ** ** Yes, he did. He ran for 4 hours with no input. ** ** Wrong. His cell was connected during this time. He claimed the connection was “minimal” or some such excuse - but no one ever got to test it. Other people at the demonstration confirmed there was no input power. However, if you doubt that, and you think Rossi bamboozled these observers, I suggest you ignore Rossi and look only at reports of heat after death from other researchers. People who distrust Rossi should ignore him completely, and look only at other cold fusion research. Rossi has made important contributions in my opinion, but you can ignore him and still learn all there is to know about this field by looking at other researchers. - Jed
RE: [Vo]:Rossi: Neutrons? : COP200, Linearity
In any event neither 4 hours - nor heat after death is adequate - these are thermal excursion which are far from self-sustaining. Of course, there is no real definition for what this parameter needs to be - but in the context of a reactor having significant thermal insulation - at least 24 hours and probably a week would be needed to please most observers. From: Jed Rothwell Rossi has never demonstrated in public an ECAT that is truly self sustaining. Yes, he did. He ran for 4 hours with no input. Wrong. His cell was connected during this time. He claimed the connection was minimal or some such excuse - but no one ever got to test it.
Re: [Vo]:Rossi: Neutrons? : COP200, Linearity
Jones Beene jone...@pacbell.net wrote: Input is clearly being amplified by a positive feedback modality. That is true, without doubt. Fleischmann pointed that out in 1990. He triggered the boil-off events with an external heat pulse. It works the same way whether the heat comes from outside or whether it is self-generating in positive feedback as McKubre calls it. No one disputes that heat triggers and enhances the reaction, with Pd-D and Ni-H. But that does not mean you cannot cut off the external heating completely, once you reach the operating temperature. I do not see how an external heat source can be used to control the reaction, because internal heating soon overtakes it in any case. If positive feedback can cause an out-of-control reaction (such as an explosion), I do not see how external heating can prevent that. It is not clear what the control factors are, but I am sure the reaction can be controlled. It does not always run out of control and explode, so there must be some mechanism preventing that. It is not like putting a flame to loose gunpowder. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:Rossi: Neutrons? : COP200, Linearity
Jones Beene jone...@pacbell.net wrote: In any event neither “4 hours” – nor “heat after death” is adequate 4 hours far exceeds the limits of chemistry with this device, so it is adequate. If there were 100 kg of potential chemical fuel and oxidizer in the machine of course it would not be adequate. The only meaningful criterion is whether the device can be run on chemical fuel for the duration of the test. That is, chemical fuel actually present in the machine. Heat after death simply means self-sustaining operation. It is the same thing exactly, just as cold fusion is the same as LENR. It is jargon invented by Fleischmann. I use the expression only because that is the search term you need to find papers in the literature with a Google search. (Incidentally, the Google search at LENR-CANR.org is limited to papers and HTML screens within that web site.) – these are thermal excursion which are far from self-sustaining. They are self-sustaining by definition. The cooling curves show that the device would reach room temperature in a half-hour. Of course, there is no real definition for what this parameter needs to be . . . Yes, there is. The device has to exceed the limits of chemistry by a large margin. This definition was first published by Fleischmann. – but in the context of a reactor having significant thermal insulation - at least 24 hours and probably a week would be needed to please most observers. It would not please the skeptics, but in any case this criterion is arbitrary and meaningless. All you have to do is show the cooling curve with no input power and no anomalous power. With the Rossi device, anyone can see it cools down to room temperature in 30 minutes or so. It remained quite hot for 4 hours, assuming there were no dishonest tricks. Also, no device without input -- chemical or anomalous input -- can heat up. The temperature always falls monotonically. If you suspect there were dishonest tricks, you should ignore this data. If you think that Flesichmann, McKubre, Mizuno and everyone else who has reported heat after death with Pd or Ni are dishonest, you should ignore this entire field. - Jed
RE: [Vo]:Rossi: Neutrons? : COP200, Linearity
From: Jed Rothwell Jones Beene wrote: You could not be more wrong - at least if you are classifying Ni-H as cold fusion which it isn't. Are you suggesting that Pd-D is fusion and Ni-H is not? Yes, that is exactly what I am suggesting. Most of us on vortex agree that Pd-D seems to have all the characteristics of fusion (to helium) but Ni-H has no characteristics of fusion. And Krivit has looked into the proportionality issue (thermal gain compared to claimed helium) and found none, but let's don't go there - we should strive to divorce the two fields. They are fundamentally different. there are many papers from Fleischmann, McKubre, Mizuno and others describing heat after death, which is to say self-running No - it is not to say self-running instead it is to say that they operate on a completely different reaction. These are researchers involved with deuterium. High school kids routinely fuse deuterium in Farnsworth Fusors. It is almost mundane. We know this happens with deuterium only, never with hydrogen. We should strive to drop all association of Pd-D when we are discussing Ni-H, as the two reactions are unlikely to be related. Hydrogen does almost nothing unusual in pure palladium, for instance. The reaction demands a ferromagnetic metal - either nickel or cobalt. When palladium is alloyed with nickel, hydrogen will then become a valid fuel for thermal gain - but NOT with pure Pd. That should tell you volumes about the underlying mechanism. Jones attachment: winmail.dat
Re: [Vo]:Rossi: Neutrons? : COP200, Linearity
Jones Beene jone...@pacbell.net wrote: Are you suggesting that Pd-D is fusion and Ni-H is not? Yes, that is exactly what I am suggesting. Most of us on vortex agree that Pd-D seems to have all the characteristics of fusion (to helium) but Ni-H has no characteristics of fusion. Have you taken a poll? How do you know what most of us agree upon? In any case, science is not a popularity contest. Until there is published data showing that Ni-H does or does not produce something equivalent to the He from Pd-D (but obviously not He), no one will have any basis to say Ni-H is not fusion. There have been no studies of this as far as I know. No one has looked for products. I think it might be even more difficult to find them than it is with Pd-D. McKubre and many others assume that Pd and Ni produce the same basic effect, because it seems unlikely there are many different heretofore undiscovered sources of anomalous non-chemical heat from hydrides. That is what he jokingly calls the conservation of miracles hypothesis. I agree with him. Granted, that is not based on theory or experimental observations. As I said, no one has done any experiments or made any observations. No one has looked for products yet. And Krivit has looked into the proportionality issue (thermal gain compared to claimed helium) and found none, but let's don't go there . . . Krivit has many fine qualities but his analytic skills seem wanting to me. - we should strive to divorce the two fields. They are fundamentally different. Until there is some experimental evidence for this I will disagree. I do not think we should assume we know the answer to questions that we have never asked of nature. I do not think it is a good idea to assume we know for sure how experiments will turn out before we do the experiments. People often do that, but it is contrary to the scientific method. The reaction demands a ferromagnetic metal - either nickel or cobalt. When palladium is alloyed with nickel, hydrogen will then become a valid fuel for thermal gain - but NOT with pure Pd. Obviously there are differences. Pd only works with D, for example. That should tell you volumes about the underlying mechanism. What does it tell you? (Serious question.) - Jed
Re: [Vo]:Rossi: Neutrons? : COP200, Linearity
I wrote: Thus far, there is no evidence of a self-running system. Celani, at one of his demos, spoke as if he had accomplished this, but later retracted . . . No, he did not claim that. Not in discussions with me, anyway. He said he will increase insulation and he hopes to reduce input to zero. As you can see from the videos, Celani's English is sometimes hard to understand. It would not surprise me if some people got the mistaken impression this is what he claimed. However, I am sure he did not. I talked with him and with Brian from NI. Neither of them said he has already run the Ni wire system without input heating power. They both said he hopes to increase the insulation, heat the system, and then turn off the heating, to let it run for an extended period. Several days or weeks. That is what he is doing. He has reduced the input power. As of a few weeks ago when I last heard from him, he had not eliminated it completely, but that is his goal. Some people at ICCF17 criticized Celani's approach. They felt it would better for him to build something like a flow calorimeter, which can measure the heat with much more confidence. Then he can be sure the heat is real even with some level of input power. I prefer Celani's approach, but I can see these critics have a valid point of view, and their method has some advantages. Celani does have a precision flow calorimeter. He has used it for Ni-H studies. But not with this particular material and this system. It would not work. He would have to re-engineer the instrument, he says. I am not sure why. I think the sample is too big, and it runs too hot. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:Rossi: Neutrons? : COP200, Linearity
Running a device for 4 hours as it cools off is not self sustaining. Self sustaining suggests that it will continue indefinitely since the energy required to keep the device hot and active is being generated within and Rossi has not stated that this is possible with the ECAT. As far as I recall, he speaks of a 50% duty cycle drive waveform at 1/3 output power level and I agree with him that this is required if he is to use a thermal control process. Can you show me any document where he suggests that the COP is not limited to approximately 6? I was discussing Rossi's ECAT in my post and not the other researchers or systems with regard to self sustaining operation. Please read my post as I agree that some of the other electrolysis devices have been run in a semi continuous nature as they generate heat without drive. Rossi seems to have the best shot at a product in the shortest time to market. According to him, he already is selling the 1 MW system to a military customer and it does not run in a self sustaining mode by any reasonable definition. Maybe it is a good time to define what the phrase self sustaining means. My definition of this term is that a device that exhibits this mode will continue indefinitely to put out the same amount of heat without any input power required to drive it after initial ignition. Perhaps you do not agree with this definition? Also, we must choose a minimum time frame during which this constant power is generated if we are to ensure that stored heat or chemical heating is not the source of the energy. A few hours is far too short of a period if we are serious. And, in the case of Rossi's demonstration, the temperature of the device was drifting downward and not steady throughout the test. Dave -Original Message- From: Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Sun, Sep 23, 2012 11:14 am Subject: Re: [Vo]:Rossi: Neutrons? : COP200, Linearity Jones Beene jone...@pacbell.net wrote: Rossi has never demonstrated in public an ECAT that is truly selfsustaining. Yes, he did. He ran for 4 hours with no input. Wrong. His cell wasconnected during this time. He claimed the connection was “minimal”or some such excuse - but no one ever got to test it. Other people at the demonstration confirmed there was no input power. However, if you doubt that, and you think Rossi bamboozled these observers, I suggest you ignore Rossi and look only at reports of heat after death from other researchers. People who distrust Rossi should ignore him completely, and look only at other cold fusion research. Rossi has made important contributions in my opinion, but you can ignore him and still learn all there is to know about this field by looking at other researchers. - Jed
RE: [Vo]:Rossi: Neutrons? : COP200, Linearity
From: Jed Rothwell * That should tell you volumes about the underlying mechanism. What does it tell you? (Serious question.) It tells me that Ni-H (as opposed to Pd-D) 1)Is a QM reaction involving ferromagnetic host material in nano-geometry 2)Magnons are the energy transfer mechanism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magnon) 3)QCD is the field that explains how magnons within the proton are produced during color change 4)QCD explains why this does not happen with deuterons, or with any other nucleus except the proton 5)The ultimate source of energy is a reduction in proton average mass following the helium-2 reversible reaction, which instigates the color change - so this is quasi-nuclear and not chemical 6)The gain is related to the strong-force, and only the strong force (via QCD) and there is almost no weak-force contribution (in stark contrast to W-L theory) 7)This theory is falsifiable, unlike others.
Re: [Vo]:Rossi: Neutrons? : COP200, Linearity
David Roberson dlrober...@aol.com wrote: Running a device for 4 hours as it cools off is not self sustaining. This is wrong for two reasons: 1. It did not cool off. It got hotter, then cooler, than hotter again, before finally cooling. This proves there was some source of energy in the cell. That is fundamental to the laws of thermodynamics. 2. The cooling curves show that it cools to room temperature in about a half hour. Those are the facts of the matter. You need to deal with them. Do not say it cools off when in fact it got hotter. If you think Rossi is dishonest and these results are fake, that would be a valid reason for you to ignore them, but you should not make assertions that are contrary to the laws of thermodynamics. That is not a valid scientific argument. Unless you assert those laws are incorrect. Self sustaining suggests that it will continue indefinitely . . . That is incorrect. Mizuno's device self-sustained for several days but eventually the reaction quenched itself. Obviously, there is enough fuel in the system to let it run for centuries or thousands of years, but some mechanism within it prevents that. Still, it is self-sustaining. Can you show me any document where he suggests that the COP is not limited to approximately 6? Rossi's assertions are not the issue here. I can show you lots of documents showing that cold fusion cells run without input power, both Pd and Ni cells. Also, the engineering definition of COP has nothing to do with external heating power, and it cannot be altered by improving insulation, as Celani has done recently, and as Mizuno did in his Ni studies. Maybe it is a good time to define what the phrase *self sustaining*means. My definition of this term is that a device that exhibits this mode will continue indefinitely to put out the same amount of heat without any input power required to drive it after initial ignition. Perhaps you do not agree with this definition? Indefinitely should not be part of it, since these systems tend to stop for unknown reasons, as Mizuno's did. I would stick to Fleischmann's definition, which is that the system runs far longer than it would with any chemical source of fuel. In Rossi's case, it not only ran without input, it got hotter, which proves there was some source of input. Also, we must choose a minimum time frame during which this constant power is generated if we are to ensure that stored heat or chemical heating is not the source of the energy. That's easy. Just use rocket fuel as your baseline. In a closed cell the fuel has to to include the oxygen, as rocket fuel does. You also have to have a delivery system, or the cell will explode. Needless to say, there is no delivery system or rocket fuel or any other fuel in Rossi's device. A few hours is far too short of a period if we are serious. No it isn't too short. Not if you confirm there is no rocket fuel or any other chemical fuel in the cell, in amounts large enough to be seen with the naked eye. A mass of chemical fuel large enough to produce this much heat is macroscopic. You can easily see it. And, in the case of Rossi's demonstration, the temperature of the device was drifting downward and not steady throughout the test. No, it was increasing. The increase is readily apparent. The only way it could be false is if the demonstration was fake. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:Rossi: Neutrons? : COP200, Linearity
Jed says: I do not see how an external heat source can be used to control the reaction, because internal heating soon overtakes it in any case. If positive feedback can cause an out-of-control reaction (such as an explosion), I do not see how external heating can prevent that. One can establish control of a positive feedback ECAT system by taking away enough of the internal device heat so it no longer possess the temperature required to regenerate the self sustaining energy. The total heat power being released within the device is the sum of the drive power and the internally generated power. Remove the drive and you are left with the internal source. It is important that the internal source is limited by design to a level that does not exceed the self sustaining point. This can be achieved by limiting the internal heating power to less than approximately 2 times the drive power. Incidentally, the closer you allow the internally generated heat to become to the critical self sustaining level, the higher the COP since the thermal time constants approach infinity at that exact level. This is important because the refresh input drive can be spaced further apart as the time constant increases. Less often drive results in increased COP. My simulation demonstrates this behavior. Dave
Re: [Vo]:Rossi: Neutrons? : COP200, Linearity
David Roberson dlrober...@aol.com wrote: One can establish control of a positive feedback ECAT system by taking away enough of the internal device heat so it no longer possess the temperature required to regenerate the self sustaining energy. Yes, I see that. But it seems like a dicey way to control the reaction. I do not think it would work quickly enough with an actual large-scale energy source for something like a locomotive engine. There must be other factors at work that inhibit or enhance the reaction. If that were not the case, Rossi's cell running in heat after death would not have self-heated, nor would Mizuno's and the others that were cooled at a constant rate. In the early days of steam engines and later Diesel engines there were various control mechanisms applied that did not work well enough. They were too slow (as I suspect this one is), or too crude (such as regulating the fuel supply without fine control), or because other unknown control mechanism were at work. This resulted in run-away engines and boiler explosions. If Rossi is trying to control the thing using thermal methods alone, my hunch is that will not work, for reasons similar to the problems with early heat engines. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:Rossi: Neutrons? : COP200, Linearity
Ed Storms remarked that his theory can explain both Pd and Ni reactions. I believe other theories attempt to explain both as manifestations of the same fundamental reaction. Jones Beene has now listed some reasons to doubt this. He believes there are multiple unrelated miracles. That is a perfectly valid point of view, but it would be surprising. Beene believes this is a a reduction in proton average mass following the helium-2 reversible reaction . . . Since the proton is in the nucleus, that would make this a nuclear reaction. I can't imagine how it would be reversible, which I suppose means it can sometime be endothermic. I have not seen any experimental evidence for massive endothermic reactions with Ni or Pd that far exceed the limits of endothermic chemical reactions. Beene says this is falsifiable. That is fine, but until it is tested and confirmed or falsified it remains in limbo, like any other theory. Ed's theory is also falsifiable, as are others. I know little about theory, and I care less, so I have nothing more to add to this particular discussion. I do know that Rossi's cell had no power going into it and it was not cooling, so anyone who says it was is making false assertions. You are confusing the issue. Please stop doing that. It is perfectly okay to say you don't believe Rossi's data. We all agree that the instruments were inadequate and Rossi's credibility is not all it should be. However, if you grant that the data is real, then please stop saying it shows a cell that is cooling down monotonically. Anyone glancing at the graphs can see that is wrong. - Jed
RE: [Vo]:Rossi: Neutrons? : COP200, Linearity
From: Jed Rothwell This is wrong for two reasons: 1. It did not cool off. It got hotter, then cooler, than hotter again, before finally cooling. This proves there was some source of energy in the cell. That is fundamental to the laws of thermodynamics. No! this does not prove anything of the kind - except for the superficially of your understanding of thermodynamic principles. You do not understand Preparata, or superradiance. You have forgotten the lesson of recalescence which we have talked about here before. You do not understand that phase-change alone can provide heat after death. The simple proof the incorrectness of your logic is found in a mundane phenomenon the singing bowl and it can be seen in some tuning forks. The bowl is struck and begins to vibrate. In normal bells or tuning forks, the frequency tails off, and is always decreasing. However, with specialty metals - the vibration is not a linear decrease, and the frequency can actually increase, before finally decreasing. This is increase in frequency is directly applicable to heating-gain after power shut-off. The same thing happens in recalescence and other forms of phase change. Preparata and Dicke explained this as super-radiance. It does not violate the laws of thermodynamics. Jones
Re: [Vo]:Rossi: Neutrons? : COP200, Linearity
I'll just add that Defkalion claims that after a pulse of few dozens of joules the reactor have a heat after death during few dozens of minutes, of few hundreds of joules. It works for few days, but electrodes wears out... anyway I imagine that we can eliminate chemical hypothesis after few cycles... about positive feedback it was clear since long. Iv'e erad in a CEA Grenoble report that they tried boiling mills cell to have more heat produced. note that it is not heat but temperature that help reaction, thus if you control the thermal insulation so that temperature get high enough for the excess heat, it get self sustaining... to reach self-sustain then overheating, just put a reactor in a perfectly insulated container... it will get warmer, produce more heat, get warmer, and melt... insulate less nicely but not too much and it will get self sustain, or slow decrease if heat. the control is hard to guess... if temperature increase, heat flow increase with the cooling fluid, and can stabilize or not the reaction. the reactor can also change of positive feedback with time... if it increase, the reactor overheat and meltdown. if it decrease, it extinguish. note also that there might exist many phenomenons with different time-constant, different feedback, and you should put external feed back loops of different contant time, and fifferent gains, to stabilize it as you want... I suspect that defkalion cause shortterm supercriticality, then longterm subcriticality... Rossi hotcat setup seems rough, with the two pairsof similar gauge (are they 2 heaters, heater + thermocouple, else?..) much more rough maybe is ther an intrinsic mechanism to stabilize the reactor, like there is on nuclear reactors with the power/temp resonance, and with the delayed neutrons... maybe is this a kind of catalyst (in fact a stabilizer)... what is sure is that self-sustain is not a problem of power but of control. it is much harder than triggering... 2012/9/23 Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com Jones Beene jone...@pacbell.net wrote: In any event neither “4 hours” – nor “heat after death” is adequate 4 hours far exceeds the limits of chemistry with this device, so it is adequate. If there were 100 kg of potential chemical fuel and oxidizer in the machine of course it would not be adequate. The only meaningful criterion is whether the device can be run on chemical fuel for the duration of the test. That is, chemical fuel actually present in the machine. Heat after death simply means self-sustaining operation. It is the same thing exactly, just as cold fusion is the same as LENR. It is jargon invented by Fleischmann. I use the expression only because that is the search term you need to find papers in the literature with a Google search. (Incidentally, the Google search at LENR-CANR.org is limited to papers and HTML screens within that web site.)
Re: [Vo]:Rossi: Neutrons? : COP200, Linearity
Jones Beene jone...@pacbell.net wrote: You do not understand that phase-change alone can provide “heat after death”. A phase change -- from meaning from gas to liquid, or liquid to solid -- can change the rate of cooling but it cannot make it anything other than a monotonic decrease as far as I know. Perhaps you should cite a textbook on this. We are talking about kilowatt levels of heat lasting for hours. In the electrochemical systems, changes in the lattice loading phase change the gas release rate and can make a recombination increase or decrease. This would increase the heat. You can see this happen quite clearly with the naked eye. The number of bubbles on a Pd the cathode surface dramatically increases as one phase ends and another begins. This is a fuel delivery system. Rossi's cell is not electrochemical, obviously. I do not think there is any mechanism that would free up hydrogen gas, and in any case the hydrogen is not burning (recombing) because it is not escaping from the cell (degassing) and because there is no oxygen. The pressure is the same at the end as at the beginning. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:Rossi: Neutrons? : COP200, Linearity
Alain Sepeda alain.sep...@gmail.com wrote: what is sure is that self-sustain is not a problem of power but of control. it is much harder than triggering... Quite right. It is much harder, and much more dangerous. The two are related but not the same. - Jed
RE: [Vo]:Rossi: Neutrons? : COP200, Linearity
From: Jed Rothwell A phase change -- from meaning from gas to liquid, or liquid to solid -- can change the rate of cooling but it cannot make it anything other than a monotonic decrease as far as I know. Since you do not know - then why comment at all? When you persist in such continuing levels of disinformation, it does not inspire confidence in your other pronouncements, many of which are in areas where you do have expertise. Not in thermodynamics - apparently. Recalescence can be a deadly phenomenon in some situations. It is a sudden burst of heat during cooling. In fact, recalescence is the prototypical version of heat after death. The death toll in steel mills - due to recalescence - is likely to be in the thousands, over the centuries, including an in-law. The surge of energy can be massive. It hard to understand how anyone in LENR manages to remain completely ignorant of the latent energy of phase-transitions in metals, since they can be at the heart of the causative phenomena. The trigger temperature of Ni-H is just such a transitions, which does not involve gas, solid or liquid phases. Ref: The American Heritage(r) Dictionary of the English Language: Fourth Edition. 2000. Recalescence: A sudden glowing in a cooling metal caused by liberation of the latent heat of transformation. The energy surge is in the range of chemical, but in a counter-intuitively way, this energy is instigated by cooling. The short time frame for dumping large amount of latent heat can make the energy transfer appear to be greater than it is. In the context of heat after death with deuterium cells - a sudden thermal surge in the electrodes, due to recalescence can in fact be the cause of the recurrence of the same nuclear reactions which were effectively quenched - when the electrical power was cut. Thus a persistence of heat continues for an extended period due to both phase transitions and induced nuclear reactions. As with normal recalescence, and in a counter-intuitively way, this energy release is instigated by cooling. It is not coincidental that Celani recently reports the same endothermic periods which Ahern reported last year. Jones BTW - it turns out that a few housewives are familiar with a minimal version of recalescence. If a cook removes a hot cast iron skillet from the stove with a dish-cloth over the hot handle, and places the hot skillet immediately under the tap, so that it is rapidly water-cooled, there can be a sudden surge of heat due to recalescence - which makes the handle much hotter than before... you may not have realized she was capable of that level of profanity. FWIW - here are a baker's dozen of phase transitions, not involving the simple solid, liquid, and gaseous phases (from Wiki) some of which are quite energetic 1) Eutectic transformation, 2) Peritectic transformation, 3) Spinodal decomposition 4) Transition to a mesophase between solid and liquid 5) The transition between the ferromagnetic and paramagnetic phases, at the Curie point. 6) The transition between ordered, commensurate or incommensurate, magnetic structures 7) The Martensitic transformation in carbon steel 8) Austenite transformation of iron. 9) Other order-disorder transitions - such as in alpha-titanium aluminides. 10) The emergence of superconductivity 11) The transition between molecular structures (polymorphs, allotropes) 12) Quantum condensation - Bose-Einstein Condensation 13) The breaking of symmetries in the laws of physics during the early history of the universe as its temperature cooled. attachment: winmail.dat
Re: [Vo]:Rossi: Neutrons? : COP200, Linearity
A great deal depends upon exactly how the reaction behaves when the internal temperature of the core is changed. Rossi can very rapidly cut off the power to the heating element so slow response is not important in that operation. After that point in time we are left with the effects of internally generated power which is not sufficient to keep the temperature at its level just prior to the cut off. There has been no evidence to support the notion that the internal heating increases once the electrical heater is shut down, so it makes sense to assume that the core temperature will begin to go down instead of up. The positive feedback in effect will next force the core temperature downward at an ever faster rate as the device becomes further away from the critical self sustaining region. Rossi most likely allows the internal heating to approach the critical region since that is what allows him to achieve a good COP. The thermal time constant becomes infinite at the critical self sustaining level in which case he could theoretically wait a very long time to generate the refresh heating. My simulation suggests that keeping the temperature maximum to about 90% of the critical level results in his specified COP. Of course Rossi has to supply refresh pulses of heating when the core temperature reaches the proper lower limit. This action allows the positive feedback to force the temperature upward for another major heating event. This is an early version of Rossi's design and he may face problems that are difficult to handle, but it is not possible to compare this device to a steam engine unless we are comparing apples to oranges. There is no issue about other factors needing to be present to get heat after death in Rossi's device. I am confident that LENR heat is being generated for most, if not all, of the time that the core is at an elevated temperature. A non LENR active device would merely release stored heat when the drive power is eliminated. In this case, both LENR as well as stored heat will exit the core during the cool down phase. The total heat released could be many times that of an inactive core. I hope to address the temperature rise alluded to in a following post. Dave -Original Message- From: Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Sun, Sep 23, 2012 12:53 pm Subject: Re: [Vo]:Rossi: Neutrons? : COP200, Linearity David Roberson dlrober...@aol.com wrote: One can establish control of a positive feedback ECAT system by taking away enough of the internal device heat so it no longer possess the temperature required to regenerate the self sustaining energy. Yes, I see that. But it seems like a dicey way to control the reaction. I do not think it would work quickly enough with an actual large-scale energy source for something like a locomotive engine. There must be other factors at work that inhibit or enhance the reaction. If that were not the case, Rossi's cell running in heat after death would not have self-heated, nor would Mizuno's and the others that were cooled at a constant rate. In the early days of steam engines and later Diesel engines there were various control mechanisms applied that did not work well enough. They were too slow (as I suspect this one is), or too crude (such as regulating the fuel supply without fine control), or because other unknown control mechanism were at work. This resulted in run-away engines and boiler explosions. If Rossi is trying to control the thing using thermal methods alone, my hunch is that will not work, for reasons similar to the problems with early heat engines. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:Rossi: Neutrons? : COP200, Linearity
On Sun, Sep 23, 2012 at 12:52 PM, David Roberson dlrober...@aol.com wrote: There has been no evidence to support the notion that the internal heating increases once the electrical heater is shut down, so it makes sense to assume that the core temperature will begin to go down instead of up. The evidence we have for Rossi's device is sketchy. But in the LENR experiments, it is not uncommon to read about a reaction that basically carries on autonomously, with intermittent temperature excursions and dips, until an unknown factor quenches the process at some time well after power has been switched off. Eric
Re: [Vo]:Rossi: Neutrons? : COP200, Linearity
Jones Beene jone...@pacbell.net wrote: Recalescence can be a deadly phenomenon in some situations. It is a sudden burst of heat during cooling. In fact, recalescence is the prototypical version of heat after death. The death toll in steel mills . . . Ah, I see. Thank you for explaining this. It would appear these heat releases associated with phase changes are very rapid, one time surge of heat. The heat after death reported by Fleischmann, Rossi and others lasted for a long time. The heat was steady for hours or days. I do not think the phase change heat release you describe can account for these events. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:Rossi: Neutrons? : COP200, Linearity
We are discussing an interesting group of concepts here and I have counter discussions for each one here. I may break it into several different posts to make each of a reasonable length. Rossi has never demonstrated in public an ECAT that is truly self sustaining. Yes, he did. He ran for 4 hours with no input. Here our definitions vary. There is an operation level where the device will internally generate all of the heat exiting the core and keep the core at a constant temperature for a long period of time. This is theoretical since it would be virtually impossible to actually hold the device at this output level. If it were possible then heat would be generated for a very long time and 4 hours would be insignificant in comparison. Forget the fact that there is no chemical that can make more energy since that is not what we are doing. The definition needs to be based upon a physics model. There is one particular case where the output can become saturated at a high level that will continue to operate until melting resets the process. Rossi has mentioned this on several occasions. I do not like to think of this as a self sustaining point since it would take a major cooling event to stop the reaction at will. And I suspect that the device would become useless after this behavior so it is best to avoid it. What controls does he have to make a useful system? I do not know if it is useful, but it can be run without input. Any cold fusion system can be. This statement is too broad. Any system of any kind can run without input. It depends upon the definition of run. I wanted an input from you that would reveal how Rossi controls his device if it is not modulation of the input power. Furthermore, Rossi has stated on more occasions than I can count that his device will not have a COP specification of greater than 6 if it is controlled and useful. I think he is incorrect. He has done a great deal of testing and I have a tendency to think he understands what he is measuring. Jed, you are entitled to your opinion just like everyone else. Some of us are convinced that COP in Rossi's device is important, including him. It may be important but it is possible to run any cold fusion device without input power. That is a matter of fact, not opinion. Many people have done this, with Pd and Ni. Even if you distrust Rossi's claims, many others have done this. You cannot argue with replicated experimental data. I have not heard that systems in heat after death tend to go out of control. Take a look at the lab explosions that are on your site. I hope they were not intentional! The recent experiment by Celani appears to demonstrate what happens when a system of this nature is not under control. The positive feedback takes over on each of the power excursions and only ceases when some limit is reached. I am guessing that it is melting of a small region of the active wire. Dave
RE: [Vo]:Rossi: Neutrons? : COP200, Linearity
From: Jed Rothwell Recalescence can be a deadly phenomenon in some situations. It is a sudden burst of heat during cooling. In fact, recalescence is the prototypical version of heat after death. The death toll in steel mills . . . Ah, I see. Thank you for explaining this. It would appear these heat releases associated with phase changes are very rapid, one time surge of heat. The heat after death reported by Fleischmann, Rossi and others lasted for a long time. The heat was steady for hours or days. I do not think the phase change heat release you describe can account for these events. Recalescence may not be related to this phenomenon. I would love to see the best available chart of heat-after-death, showing the thermal curve for a substantial time frame after electrical power has been cut. Do you know of one example in the Library, which is most illustrative of the phenomenon? Yes, recalescence relates to far from equilibrium conditions, and cannot by itself account for gain over hours, or net gain. It is fully conservative, unless it stimulates a secondary reaction. However, what I was intending to convey (and doing a poor job of it) is that recalescence could be more than the driving force for a one-time burst of heat, insofar as that transition itself then stimulates further nuclear reactions in loaded Pd (when no electrical power is present). There could be a string of peaks and valleys in temperature, where the phase structure of the electrodes would revert to a lower entropy, following a bunching of fusion reactions, and then the process would repeat - in see-saw fashion for an extended time period. This would be obvious form a thermal chart. If such a chart of heat-after-death exists - and it were to show some kind of see-saw or up-and-down shape, as opposed to a flat continuity of temperature, then that would be consistent with the modality which I'm trying to describe. If not, and the thermal curve is nearly flat over time, then phase-transitions do not play a meaningful role.
Re: [Vo]:Rossi: Neutrons? : COP200, Linearity
On Sun, Sep 23, 2012 at 1:35 PM, David Roberson dlrober...@aol.com wrote: Take a look at the lab explosions that are on your site. I hope they were not intentional! The recent experiment by Celani appears to demonstrate what happens when a system of this nature is not under control. The positive feedback takes over on each of the power excursions and only ceases when some limit is reached. I am guessing that it is melting of a small region of the active wire. The explosions may be due to sudden power excursions, but I wonder instead whether they are due to the evolution of oxygen and nitrogen, which then explosively combine with hydrogen. Eric
Re: [Vo]:Rossi: Neutrons? : COP200, Linearity
I suspect that I did not get across what I had in mind in that paragraph. I was assuming that we were operating below the critical self sustaining level per my definition. In that case the net power being delivered to the core after the drive is removed is not sufficient to keep the device at the present temperature. This results in sustained cooling. Also, I am directing all of these effects to the operation of Rossi ECAT and not to LENR in general. Dave -Original Message- From: Eric Walker eric.wal...@gmail.com To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Sun, Sep 23, 2012 4:00 pm Subject: Re: [Vo]:Rossi: Neutrons? : COP200, Linearity On Sun, Sep 23, 2012 at 12:52 PM, David Roberson dlrober...@aol.com wrote: There has been no evidence to support the notion that the internal heating increases once the electrical heater is shut down, so it makes sense to assume that the core temperature will begin to go down instead of up. The evidence we have for Rossi's device is sketchy. But in the LENR experiments, it is not uncommon to read about a reaction that basically carries on autonomously, with intermittent temperature excursions and dips, until an unknown factor quenches the process at some time well after power has been switched off. Eric
Re: [Vo]:Rossi: Neutrons? : COP200, Linearity
David Roberson dlrober...@aol.com wrote: Take a look at the lab explosions that are on your site. I hope they were not intentional! They were not intentional, but the cells were not in heat after death as far as I know. I am sure that Mizuno, Biberian and the Chinese cells that exploded were undergoing electrolysis. I expect FP's cube was, as well. I do not know of any evidence that heat after death is related to cells going out of control and exploding. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:Rossi: Neutrons? : COP200, Linearity
Eric Walker eric.wal...@gmail.com wrote: The explosions may be due to sudden power excursions, but I wonder instead whether they are due to the evolution of oxygen and nitrogen, which then explosively combine with hydrogen. The energy release far exceeds the amount of energy available in free hydrogen and oxygen. Biberian looked at the energy balance, estimated the energy release and reached this conclusion. In Mizuno's cell, the effluent gas was vented so there was no free hydrogen and oxygen. It was vented through the hose you see in the photo. The hose was not blocked, twisted or otherwise obstructed. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:Rossi: Neutrons? : COP200, Linearity
Do you recall an event mentioned by FP where the device burned it way through a table or floor? The amount of heat released would most likely be more than expected by a chemical reaction. I suspect that none of us are aware of the dangers that might lurk in some of these rough experiments. Dave -Original Message- From: Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Sun, Sep 23, 2012 4:47 pm Subject: Re: [Vo]:Rossi: Neutrons? : COP200, Linearity David Roberson dlrober...@aol.com wrote: Take a look at the lab explosions that are on your site. I hope they were not intentional! They were not intentional, but the cells were not in heat after death as far as I know. I am sure that Mizuno, Biberian and the Chinese cells that exploded were undergoing electrolysis. I expect FP's cube was, as well. I do not know of any evidence that heat after death is related to cells going out of control and exploding. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:Rossi: Neutrons? : COP200, Linearity
David Roberson dlrober...@aol.com wrote: Do you recall an event mentioned by FP where the device burned it way through a table or floor? That as the cube I referred to. I listed it in my book. There are no photos or other physical evidence, I am sorry to say. As far as I know, electrolysis was running when this occurred. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:Rossi: Neutrons? : COP200, Linearity
From: Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com Sent: Sunday, September 23, 2012 8:53:26 AM Obviously there are differences. Pd only works with D, for example. U Godes..McKubre ICCF17 : http://newenergytimes.com/v2/conferences/2012/ICCF17/ICCF-17-Godes-Controlled-Electron-Capture-Paper.pdf Sure seem to be talking about Pd-H and Ni-H (sorry for the link .. it's in the wired article)
Re: [Vo]:Rossi: Neutrons? : COP200, Linearity
I want to discuss the temperature readings from Rossi's October demonstration. I think calling that experiment controversial is an understatement. First of all, we are only given the temperature at the output of the device which as far as I know approximates the region above the internal water bath. Rossi does not give any information or measurement data about the core of his device so we have no idea what it is doing. He further complicates the measurements by placing some type of pressure release valve at the output after the bath. I consider this a parlor trick. Mats tried to blow air through the passage and found it obstructed, again pointing to a restriction. I wrote an interpretation of the data which is on their web site within which I found an excellent reason for the strange temperature behavior: Initially the core is hot when the input power is cut off to the ECAT. The measured ECAT temperature begins to fall slowly as we all expect until it reaches a flat region and then heads upward a few degrees until Rossi shuts down the system as it begins to fall again. Many folks seem to think that this means that the core has become hotter, but this is most likely not true. The volume above the water bath has become hotter after the dip, but I found a way to explain why this rise does not demonstrate extra core temperature rise. After the drive waveform has expired and the core reaches its maximum temperature, the ECAT generates a large amount of power which outruns the water pump as water within the bath is turned into steam. The extra vaporization shows up as elevated temperature and causes the water level within the bath to fall. The core temperature continues to drop until the pump can begin replacing water within the bath increasing the total volume of water held. We reach a flat region when the temperature has dropped sufficiently to reduce the violent boiling. Now the output temperature reads flat for some amount of time until the water bath fills completely thereby obstructing the output port. This obstruction forces the internal pressure and associated boiling temperature to rise within the bath. We see the rise in output temperature and equate it to a rise in core temperature. This is a conclusion that we reach assuming that there is nothing unusual about the setup, but it is not correct. This scenario explains all of the behavior witnessed during the October test and I believe that it is correct. So I conclude that there is no evidence of any unusual rise in the core temperature that suggests anything of a strange LENR nature. I am not saying that Rossi's device did not generate excess heat since I am convinced that it did, but only that the amount of heat energy was much less than I initially believed. The internal temperature has always dropped toward room in his experiments. That is incorrect. It starts at room temperature and rises. During the 4-hour run with no input, the temperature rose twice. So Jed, I still believe that the temperature of the core was falling continuously during the Rossi demonstration and the rise you mention is an illusion similar to a magic trick. I see no reason to be concerned about the initial rise during this discussion. Dave
Re: [Vo]:Rossi: Neutrons? : COP200, Linearity
I am not sure I would call the demonstration fake just because a trick is used to enhance the apparent performance. The main observation I received from the show was that Rossi's device appears to generate significant excess energy as a result of LENR. That is where the meat is. I have another post pending where I explain the temperature behavior of the Rossi core. The data supplied by Rossi does not in any way prove that the core does anything but exponentially drop in temperature. I will deal with the facts when they are honest, but refuse to accept deception. Maybe you should ask why Rossi denied that he had a pressure dropping device hidden within the output port during that demonstration even after it was pointed out. The laws of thermodynamics are not violated if the core cools down monotonically and a simple trick modifies the behavior elsewhere within the device. You should give serious consideration to my theory of what transpired in October. Dave -Original Message- From: Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Sun, Sep 23, 2012 12:27 pm Subject: Re: [Vo]:Rossi: Neutrons? : COP200, Linearity David Roberson dlrober...@aol.com wrote: Running a device for 4 hours as it cools off is not self sustaining. This is wrong for two reasons: 1. It did not cool off. It got hotter, then cooler, than hotter again, before finally cooling. This proves there was some source of energy in the cell. That is fundamental to the laws of thermodynamics. 2. The cooling curves show that it cools to room temperature in about a half hour. Those are the facts of the matter. You need to deal with them. Do not say it cools off when in fact it got hotter. If you think Rossi is dishonest and these results are fake, that would be a valid reason for you to ignore them, but you should not make assertions that are contrary to the laws of thermodynamics. That is not a valid scientific argument. Unless you assert those laws are incorrect. Self sustaining suggests that it will continue indefinitely . . . That is incorrect. Mizuno's device self-sustained for several days but eventually the reaction quenched itself. Obviously, there is enough fuel in the system to let it run for centuries or thousands of years, but some mechanism within it prevents that. Still, it is self-sustaining. Can you show me any document where he suggests that the COP is not limited to approximately 6? Rossi's assertions are not the issue here. I can show you lots of documents showing that cold fusion cells run without input power, both Pd and Ni cells. Also, the engineering definition of COP has nothing to do with external heating power, and it cannot be altered by improving insulation, as Celani has done recently, and as Mizuno did in his Ni studies. Maybe it is a good time to define what the phrase self sustaining means. My definition of this term is that a device that exhibits this mode will continue indefinitely to put out the same amount of heat without any input power required to drive it after initial ignition. Perhaps you do not agree with this definition? Indefinitely should not be part of it, since these systems tend to stop for unknown reasons, as Mizuno's did. I would stick to Fleischmann's definition, which is that the system runs far longer than it would with any chemical source of fuel. In Rossi's case, it not only ran without input, it got hotter, which proves there was some source of input. Also, we must choose a minimum time frame during which this constant power is generated if we are to ensure that stored heat or chemical heating is not the source of the energy. That's easy. Just use rocket fuel as your baseline. In a closed cell the fuel has to to include the oxygen, as rocket fuel does. You also have to have a delivery system, or the cell will explode. Needless to say, there is no delivery system or rocket fuel or any other fuel in Rossi's device. A few hours is far too short of a period if we are serious. No it isn't too short. Not if you confirm there is no rocket fuel or any other chemical fuel in the cell, in amounts large enough to be seen with the naked eye. A mass of chemical fuel large enough to produce this much heat is macroscopic. You can easily see it. And, in the case of Rossi's demonstration, the temperature of the device was drifting downward and not steady throughout the test. No, it was increasing. The increase is readily apparent. The only way it could be false is if the demonstration was fake. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:Rossi: Neutrons? : COP200, Linearity
At 03:55 PM 9/23/2012, Jed Rothwell wrote: David Roberson mailto:dlrober...@aol.comdlrober...@aol.com wrote: Do you recall an event mentioned by FP where the device burned it way through a table or floor? That as the cube I referred to. I listed it in my book. There are no photos or other physical evidence, I am sorry to say. As far as I know, electrolysis was running when this occurred. Maybe. We may not have any way to find out, though Pons' son Joey might know better than anyone. Beaudette, Excess Heat, Why Cold Fusion Prevailed, writes (2nd edition, 2002, p. 36): By the late fall of 19843, the experiment had been running continuously for several months. At one point, Pons raised the current from its nominal rate of 0.75 amperes to 1.5 amperes, and that the end of the day, sent Joey to turn off the current. They left the laboratory for the night. Joey came in the next morning and found the experiment in a shambles. In the Preliminary Note (1989), PFH wrote: We have to report here that under the conditions of the last experiment, even using D2O alone, a substantial portion of the cathode fused (melting point 1554 deg. C), part of it vapourised, and the cell and contents and a part of the fume cupboard housing the experiment were destroyed. Beaudette addes a report from Kevin Ashley, a graduate student of Pons at the time, stating that, The bench was one of those black top benches that was made of very, very hard material. There were cabinets under on end of the bench, but the experiment was near the middle where there was nothing underneath. I was asonished that there was a hole through the thing. The hole was about a foot in diameter. Under the hole was a pretty good pit in the concrete floor. It may have been as much as four inches deep. What really surprised me, Ashley continued, was that Stan and Martin Fleischmann had those looks on their face as though they were the cat that had just swallowed the canary. They were happy about what had happened. I was rather surprised by this, very surprised by this. A centimeter cube of palladium, heavily loaded with deuterium. That's a lot of deuterium, but ... it's difficult to imagine a chemical accident that would generate the heat necessary to do what was described. One can determine the heat available from assuming very high loading, say, 95%, it was quite likely less than that. This heat would not be immediately available, though. If we imagine that the cube started degassing with power off, there wouldn't be a reason to expect ignition. The release of deuterium from palladium is endothermic. The gas would simply be generated and would escape. There is only a little oxygen in the cell, but it would be an explosive mixture at this point. The fumes was still dust in the air, Ashley reports, in the morning, so the explosion probably didn't happen immediately. As the palladium deloaded, it would cool and also flush the oxygen out of the cell. If it were ignited, the flame would heat the palladium, increasing degassing, but the flame would be limited by the available oxygen, and it would rather quickly be quenched, I'd expect, by the water vapor. Only if the cell were breached by an explosion would more oxygen be available, and I'd expect flame, not an explosion. Only right at the beginning of this process would there be an explosive mixture, but later, ignition would not be possible, I'd think. No source of oxygen in the cell. Now that we know that PdD can sometimes trigger D fusion, regardless of what the mechanism is, and we also know about Heat After Death as a commonly reported phenomenon -- i.e., a heat burst, which can last a long time, after the electrolytic current is turned off -- the meltdown isn't so mysterious. They got one whopper of a heat burst. They -- and nearly everyone after them -- scaled down, because they might have been lucky. What if that heat burst was at the low end of possibility rather than the high end, as we tend to assume, given how difficult it's often been to set up the Fleischmann-Pons Heat Effect? Palladium is 12 g/cm^3. Its atomic weight is 106.42. So the number of moles of Pd is 12/106.42, or 0.113. For simplicity, let's assume a tad under 1:1 loading, so we have about a tenth of a mole of deuterium. The enthalpy of combustion for hydrogen (close to that of deuterium) is 286 kJoules per mole. So there is about 29 kJ available from combustion. To raise a tenth of a mole of palladium about 1500 degrees to the melting point will take, from the molar heat capacity of 25.98 J/(mole*deg K), about 3.9 kJ, and another 1.7 kJ to actually melt it. So there is enough energy available; however, the problem would be releasing this energy so rapidly and with such efficiency of transfer to the palladium, that the palladium would be heated to melting. The image here would be of a flaming piece of palladium. There could be no oxygen inside the
Re: [Vo]:Rossi: Neutrons? : COP200, Linearity
David Roberson dlrober...@aol.com wrote: Do you consider this an out of control cold fusion device? It certainly has that appearance to me. Of course it was out of control. However, as far as I know, when the runaway reaction began the cell was undergoing electrolysis. It did not begin to go out of control in heat after death mode. Obviously by the time the cathode reached the table top the cell was shattered and the cathode was in H.A.D. mode. There is no evidence that H.A.D. causes a runaway reaction, but the obverse is true. A runaway reaction causes H.A.D. when it interrupts electrolysis. Actually, anyone can cause H.A.D. anytime while doing a cold fusion experiment that is producing anomalous heat. Just turn off the power. The anomalous heat continues for a while. This is probably not a particularly significant or important quality. It just proves that the input power is only needed to keep the hydride at high loading. Hydrides do not deload instantaneously, so the reaction is bound to continue for a while. Input power does not cause or modulate output power, except indirectly, by loading the cathode or stimulating it with a high temperature or flux. The ratio between the two is pretty much meaningless, as I said. With gas loading, the ratio is governed by the quality of the insulation. That's not profound. It is not even interesting. There is nothing to be learned from it. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:Rossi: Neutrons? : COP200, Linearity
At 07:53 PM 9/23/2012, Jed Rothwell wrote: David Roberson mailto:dlrober...@aol.comdlrober...@aol.com wrote: Do you consider this an out of control cold fusion device? It certainly has that appearance to me. Of course it was out of control. However, as far as I know, when the runaway reaction began the cell was undergoing electrolysis. It did not begin to go out of control in heat after death mode. Obviously by the time the cathode reached the table top the cell was shattered and the cathode was in H.A.D. mode. As I wrote, but Jed may not have read yet, Beaudette has that Pons' son turned off the power before they left for the evening. However, that doesn't quite make sense to me. Turning off the power would allow loss of deuterium, which is not what they generally wanted. HAD could explain the triggering of the event, which would be a combination of heat high enough to break or melt the glass cell, plus, then, combustion of the deuterium. My own analysis, such as it is, expects that the burning of deuterium would not get the palladium hot enough to melt, because most of the heat from combustion would not transfer to the metal. It would be like the burner in a gas stove: it gets hot, but not very hot, not as hot as the flame. Most of the heat goes up in the air. It occurred to me that if the palladium got very hot, it would burn rapidly through the bench, and sitting on the floor, the rising deuterium gas would burn, thus creating the *large* hole in the lab bench (and filling the air with smoke as reported). I still find it hard to understand why there would be so much damage to the floor. Normally you can build a fire on concrete and it doesn't do much. So it must have been very hot palladium, would molten palladium do it? It may have gotten hotter than that. This thing did not explode, it burned. (and apparently some of the palladium vaporized, which is entirely too hot for explanation by the burning of the deuterium, though I didn't calculate that specifically.) To repeat, one of the difficulties of generating so much heat chemically, quickly enough to melt the palladium, would be getting enough oxygen quickly enough to the deuterium gas. That's why ordinary flames are nowhere near as hot as torches where oxygen is supplied under pressure like the combustible gas is. And a candle flame doesn't burn the wick, except high up, where the wax doesn't reach. There is no evidence that H.A.D. causes a runaway reaction, but the obverse is true. A runaway reaction causes H.A.D. when it interrupts electrolysis. But that could amplify a runaway reaction. HAD doesn't normally melt stuff However, the reaction is generally considered to increase with temperature. There is danger of runaway there, and that may have happened with the 1985 meltdown. If the cell in 1985 started heating rapidly enough, the heavy water would boil away, so even if this didn't start out as HAD, it would become that. Actually, anyone can cause H.A.D. anytime while doing a cold fusion experiment that is producing anomalous heat. Just turn off the power. The anomalous heat continues for a while. Sometimes. Sometimes the heat dies down pretty much with the thermal inertia of the system. For example, look at P14 in the P13/14 pair, when they lower the electrolytic power back to the trickle. XP declined rapidly, back to the noise level. This is probably not a particularly significant or important quality. It just proves that the input power is only needed to keep the hydride at high loading. Hydrides do not deload instantaneously, so the reaction is bound to continue for a while. Input power does not cause or modulate output power, except indirectly, by loading the cathode or stimulating it with a high temperature or flux. The ratio between the two is pretty much meaningless, as I said. With gas loading, the ratio is governed by the quality of the insulation. That's not profound. It is not even interesting. There is nothing to be learned from it. It's purely political. For research purposes, it's enough that the calorimetry is calibrated and confirmed. It does not matter if power is externally supplied or is looped back from output, say as self-heating. XP is XP. Because of heat/helium -- and even before that, from all the excellent calorimetry that has been done -- we are beyond needing to prove there is excess heat. It's real. It is only a question of research convenience. It's easier to control if devices are not designed to self-power. Self-power, then, is not important for research, but only for killer demonstrations, which are a commercial phenomenon, really. They tell us nothing, and if people doubt the results, they can still doubt them with apparent self-power, and some will. Rossi has quite a few demonstrations he has done which convinced some. None of them are equivalent to what exists with PdD cold fusion: independent replication and
Re: [Vo]:Rossi: Neutrons? : COP200, Linearity
From: Eric Walker eric.wal...@gmail.com Sent: Saturday, September 22, 2012 8:23:24 AM First, the Neutrons were observed occasionally, and only at COP=200. There's another discussion of COP at : Steven N. Karels September 17th, 2012 at 8:34 AM http://www.journal-of-nuclear-physics.com/?p=733cpage=3#comment-326141 eCat and Control Linearity ... It is desirable to have a linear control of a heat generation system. ... So does COP imply control linearity? Perhaps Andrea Rossi will illumine us? .. Rossi : Yes
Re: [Vo]:Rossi: Neutrons? : COP200, Linearity
I saw that information on Rossi's journal. I am inclined to believe that he does not have anything resembling linear control otherwise he could raise the COP above 6 with little concern. Does anyone in vortex actually believe that the LENR activity goes up linearly with drive power? It would be great if true, but I would bet against it. Dave -Original Message- From: Alan Fletcher a...@well.com To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Sat, Sep 22, 2012 6:26 pm Subject: Re: [Vo]:Rossi: Neutrons? : COP200, Linearity From: Eric Walker eric.wal...@gmail.com Sent: Saturday, September 22, 2012 8:23:24 AM First, the Neutrons were observed occasionally, and only at COP=200. There's another discussion of COP at : Steven N. Karels September 17th, 2012 at 8:34 AM http://www.journal-of-nuclear-physics.com/?p=733cpage=3#comment-326141 eCat and Control Linearity ... It is desirable to have a linear control of a heat generation system. ... So does COP imply control linearity? Perhaps Andrea Rossi will illumine us? .. Rossi : Yes
Re: [Vo]:Rossi: Neutrons? : COP200, Linearity
From: David Roberson dlrober...@aol.com Sent: Saturday, September 22, 2012 6:43:00 PM Subject: Re: [Vo]:Rossi: Neutrons? : COP200, Linearity I saw that information on Rossi's journal. I am inclined to believe that he does not have anything resembling linear control otherwise he could raise the COP above 6 with little concern. Does anyone in vortex actually believe that the LENR activity goes up linearly with drive power? It would be great if true, but I would bet against it. I don't think anyone but Rossi BELIEVES it ... but he sure sticks with it, all the way up to 1200C. (Or has any idea how a resistive heating control could still work at 1200C. Actually, he uses a lower number -- 1080C?). If he was scamming and had nothing to show, he'd surely have raised his COP to See Defkalion. (Poker terms.) And the un-public test rumors are that Defkalion couldn't deliver stable results.
Re: [Vo]:Rossi: Neutrons? : COP200, Linearity
I have run many simulations of an ECAT type device where temperature is the controlling parameter and find that the only way to get a decent COP (2) is to use positive feedback. In this mode the device is thermally running away to generate effective gain and must be reversed just before total control is lost on each cycle. If a truly linear heat output versus material temperature is available one can have constant COP gain, but this is not true for any other function. An exception to this simulation rule might occur if strong active cooling of some type is used which overpowers the internal heat source and lowers the material temperature sufficiently to bring it back to planet earth. An example would be to apply a large pulse of low temperature coolant that extracts the additional heat energy quickly. I do not see anything of this nature within Rossi's design. Dave -Original Message- From: Alan Fletcher a...@well.com To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Sat, Sep 22, 2012 9:52 pm Subject: Re: [Vo]:Rossi: Neutrons? : COP200, Linearity From: David Roberson dlrober...@aol.com Sent: Saturday, September 22, 2012 6:43:00 PM Subject: Re: [Vo]:Rossi: Neutrons? : COP200, Linearity I saw that information on Rossi's journal. I am inclined to believe that he does not have anything resembling linear control otherwise he could raise the COP above 6 with little concern. Does anyone in vortex actually believe that the LENR activity goes up linearly with drive power? It would be great if true, but I would bet against it. I don't think anyone but Rossi BELIEVES it ... but he sure sticks with it, all the way up to 1200C. (Or has any idea how a resistive heating control could still work at 1200C. Actually, he uses a lower number -- 1080C?). If he was scamming and had nothing to show, he'd surely have raised his COP to See Defkalion. (Poker terms.) And the un-public test rumors are that Defkalion couldn't deliver stable results.
RE: [Vo]:Rossi: Neutrons? : COP200, Linearity
This is most interesting in light of the totality of past experiments in LENR which are believable going back twenty years. There seems to be excellent evidence for long-term COP of over one but less than two, often written off as measurement error; but far less reliability for experiments which have COP greater than two. Yeah, I know: believability or reliability is too subjective of a criterion to be meaningful - but what you are saying has a surprising ring of truth to me, which is not easy to verbalize. From: David Roberson I have run many simulations of an ECAT type device where temperature is the controlling parameter and find that the only way to get a decent COP (2) is to use positive feedback. In this mode the device is thermally running away to generate effective gain and must be reversed just before total control is lost on each cycle. If a truly linear heat output versus material temperature is available one can have constant COP gain, but this is not true for any other function.
Re: [Vo]:Rossi: Neutrons? : COP200, Linearity
Jones Beene jone...@pacbell.net wrote: This is most interesting in light of the totality of past experiments in LENR which are “believable” going back twenty years. ** ** There seems to be excellent evidence for long-term COP of over one but less than two . . . The term COP has no meaning in the context of a cold fusion experiment. Output power is not -- in any way -- contingent upon or dependent upon input. Input is not amplified or transformed in any sense. Input can easily be turned off and output continues, with a COP of infinity. This is true of all cold fusion experiments and it has been been observed by just about every researcher I know. The only reason there is any input power in a cold fusion experiment is to form the hydride, and to keep it from de-gassing and unforming itself. In gas loading and other systems, no input power is needed. The ratio of input to output can easily be changed by altering the physical shape of the anode or cathode, or the distance between them. The techniques are trivial, and known to any electrochemist. The ratio is not optimized because that would interfere with other aspects of the experiment. Once we learn to control the reaction it will easily be adjusted to any number we want. Attempts to optimize it now are a waste of time. All discussions of this ratio, and the so-called COP, are a waste of time in my opinion. - Jed
