Re: [Vo]:new paper- help MFMP, please!
From: Peter Gluck peter.gl...@gmail.com MFMP Plans E-Cat Replication Attempt Starting in 6 Days, Design Posted http://www.e-catworld.com/2014/10/17/mfmp-plan-e-cat-replication-attempt-starting-in-6-days-post-design/ https://www.facebook.com/MartinFleischmannMemorialProject/posts/851100978253936 I doubt that the MFMP will be able to find the Rossi Sauce, so their failure will just be another nail in the ecat coffin. What they could usefully do is construct a new dummy as close to Rossi's design as possible, and power it not only by the spiral resistors used by Rossi, but also by resistors strung through the center, to see what electrical power is needed replicate the Lugano results. This might also shed some light on the source of the visible banding. (And I can't resist noting that Levi et al should have done this).
Re: [Vo]:new paper- help MFMP, please!
Dear Alan, You will be surprised when you will see what they want to do. They are skilled smart and seem to be adept in research strategy and system thinking. Peter On Sat, Oct 18, 2014 at 5:12 PM, Alan Fletcher a...@well.com wrote: *From: *Peter Gluck peter.gl...@gmail.com MFMP Plans E-Cat Replication Attempt Starting in 6 Days, Design Posted http://www.e-catworld.com/2014/10/17/mfmp-plan-e-cat-replication-attempt-starting-in-6-days-post-design/ https://www.facebook.com/MartinFleischmannMemorialProject/posts/851100978253936 I doubt that the MFMP will be able to find the Rossi Sauce, so their failure will just be another nail in the ecat coffin. What they could usefully do is construct a new dummy as close to Rossi's design as possible, and power it not only by the spiral resistors used by Rossi, but also by resistors strung through the center, to see what electrical power is needed replicate the Lugano results. This might also shed some light on the source of the visible banding. (And I can't resist noting that Levi et al should have done this). -- Dr. Peter Gluck Cluj, Romania http://egooutpeters.blogspot.com
RE: [Vo]:new paper- help MFMP, please!
Alan Fletcher wrote: * * What they could usefully do is construct a new dummy as close to Rossi's design as possible, and power it not only by the spiral resistors used by Rossi, but also by resistors strung through the center, to see what electrical power is needed replicate the Lugano results….This might also shed some light on the source of the visible banding. (And I can't resist noting that Levi et al should have done this). Right-on. In fact, a fellow named Barry Kort, on another forum, apparently has already done the simple experiment with Inconel in an alumina tube. However, he may not have used the same IR camera, so his results need to be verified. His conclusion is that the power reported by Levi from calculations (which were not calibrated at the high temperature), could have resulted in a massive miscalculation, so that in reality - there is essentially no gain at all. I have not seen his data and hope he will publish it soon so that the data from MFMP can be compared with it. Jones
RE: [Vo]:new paper- help MFMP, please!
The most interesting detail, which will not be resolved for several days, is whether the “dummy” reactor was secretly loaded with active material – and delivered that way. In which case, it would have shown gain in a calibration run (which was not performed). Or … whether the assumptions about emissivity were bogus and there is no gain at all. Or…(this is my hope)… the gain could be real based on correct IR readings and emissivity assumptions, but Rossi cheated (in order to confuse potential competitor in LENR) with a “salted” sample. Either way, one conclusion is obvious. The field of LENR would be far better served if this report had never surfaced. One hopes that the Swedes may have realized too late that they had been duped, and wanted to keep it private. Thus the delay. The other alternative is that they are extraordinarily incompetent. Alan Fletcher wrote: * * What they could usefully do is construct a new dummy as close to Rossi's design as possible, and power it not only by the spiral resistors used by Rossi, but also by resistors strung through the center, to see what electrical power is needed replicate the Lugano results….This might also shed some light on the source of the visible banding. (And I can't resist noting that Levi et al should have done this). Right-on. In fact, a fellow named Barry Kort, on another forum, apparently has already done the simple experiment with Inconel in an alumina tube. However, he may not have used the same IR camera, so his results need to be verified. His conclusion is that the power reported by Levi from calculations (which were not calibrated at the high temperature), could have resulted in a massive miscalculation, so that in reality - there is essentially no gain at all. I have not seen his data and hope he will publish it soon so that the data from MFMP can be compared with it. Jones
Re: [Vo]:new paper- help MFMP, please!
On Sat, Oct 18, 2014 at 7:12 AM, Alan Fletcher a...@well.com wrote: (And I can't resist noting that Levi et al should have done this). Yes. Even if you you're worried about running the E-Cat without fuel at high temperatures, a resistance heater running at the same power should be fine. That would have provided a better basis for calibration than running the same E-Cat to be tested at a much lower temperature. Eric
Re: [Vo]:new paper- help MFMP, please!
This is an excellent idea and I assume that the MFMP guys will perform the experiment. Their results will be quite revealing. Dave -Original Message- From: Eric Walker eric.wal...@gmail.com To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Sat, Oct 18, 2014 11:33 am Subject: Re: [Vo]:new paper- help MFMP, please! On Sat, Oct 18, 2014 at 7:12 AM, Alan Fletcher a...@well.com wrote: (And I can't resist noting that Levi et al should have done this). Yes. Even if you you're worried about running the E-Cat without fuel at high temperatures, a resistance heater running at the same power should be fine. That would have provided a better basis for calibration than running the same E-Cat to be tested at a much lower temperature. Eric
Re: [Vo]:new paper- help MFMP, please!
Dave and Eric- I think you assume running the heating coils at a power to produce the operating temperature without the added heat source of the LENR would be possible. The heating wires may not have been able to get to the necessary power level whether they are resistance or inductive heaters to reach the operating temperature of about 1000 degrees. Such a test may not have been possible. Keep in mind that we do not know the nature of the heating elements, be they resistive or inductive. The thermocouple inside the reactor should be the best indicator of internal temperatures. What did it read at the calibration and at operation? Bob - Original Message - From: David Roberson To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Saturday, October 18, 2014 9:10 AM Subject: Re: [Vo]:new paper- help MFMP, please! This is an excellent idea and I assume that the MFMP guys will perform the experiment. Their results will be quite revealing. Dave -Original Message- From: Eric Walker eric.wal...@gmail.com To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Sat, Oct 18, 2014 11:33 am Subject: Re: [Vo]:new paper- help MFMP, please! On Sat, Oct 18, 2014 at 7:12 AM, Alan Fletcher a...@well.com wrote: (And I can't resist noting that Levi et al should have done this). Yes. Even if you you're worried about running the E-Cat without fuel at high temperatures, a resistance heater running at the same power should be fine. That would have provided a better basis for calibration than running the same E-Cat to be tested at a much lower temperature. Eric
Re: [Vo]:new paper- help MFMP, please!
It was not too long ago as marked by the painfully slow march of science that Steven* Chu* won himself a Nobel Prize in Physics in 1997 for his ground breaking research at Bell Labs in cooling and trapping of atoms with laser light. His fame in this supreme accomplishment afforded him the privilege to serve as the 12th United States Secretary of Energy from 2009 to 2013. This Chu experiment produced a *Bose–Einstein condensate* (*BEC*): a state of matter of a dilute gas of bosons cooled to temperatures very close to absolute zero (that is, very near 0 K or −273.15 °C). Under such conditions, a large fraction of the bosons occupy the lowest quantum state, at which point quantum effects become apparent on a macroscopic scale. But these days progress in science is moving so very fast that science cannot keep track of all the advances it is making by the hour. There is huge resistance from the scientific community being deluded in a religious fervor that a BEC is a state of matter that can only exist at extreme temperatures very near absolute zero. However what is little known among the rank and file among science is that polariton condensates have been experimentally demonstrated to persist at room temperatures as recent quantum nanoplasmonic experiments have shown. Unlike atoms, polaritons are malleable forms of the Electromagnetic force shaped and combined as a composite waveform of infrared photons and electrons involved in dipole motion. A great scientific breakthrough was demonstrated in the latest third party test of Rossi’s E-Cat. A polariton BEC was established for days at 1400C protecting the structure of the reactor from meltdown. This demonstration alone is worth a Nobel Prize. And yet science is ignoring this technical breakthrough. When science ignores this experimental feat, they are shooting themselves in the foot; they are also tossing away a paradigm changing demonstration of quantum mechanics, and worst of all they are showing how smart people can be the worst kinds of fools. In this new form of light/matter environment, a new quantum mechanical environment is created in which radiation is evenly distributed throughout the entire structure of the Rossi reactor. With science failing to pick up the ball here, it is now up to the engineers to make proper use of this new wonder. When the full extent of this dereliction of duty by the scientific community is finally realized by ordinary people, and you can be assured that it will be, there will be hell to pay among those who should have known better. On Sat, Oct 18, 2014 at 9:05 AM, Peter Gluck peter.gl...@gmail.com wrote: Dear Friends, I have just published this: http://egooutpeters.blogspot.ro/2014/10/victory-or-defeat-all-combinations.html It is intended for a weekend lecture, a bit relaxed after so much Rossi Report confrontationalism, therefore it has a dosis of cultural ballast. However decisively more important is the appeal to help The Martin Fleischmann Memorial Project group in the bold and very necessary attempt to replicate the Lugano Hot Cat experiment. After 251/2+ years the time is ripe to understand what we are searching.. Peter -- Dr. Peter Gluck Cluj, Romania http://egooutpeters.blogspot.com
Re: [Vo]:new paper- help MFMP, please!
You are right Bob. It might not be possible to perform the experiment in a manner that we would prefer. I do believe that they should make every attempt to reach that goal within reason. If not successful, I would like to see a report describing the obstacles that they encountered. There may be important observations that so far have avoided our detection. Dave -Original Message- From: Bob Cook frobertc...@hotmail.com To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Sat, Oct 18, 2014 1:09 pm Subject: Re: [Vo]:new paper- help MFMP, please! Dave and Eric- I think you assume running the heating coils at a power to produce the operating temperature without the added heat source of the LENR would be possible. The heating wires may not have been able to get to the necessary power level whether they are resistance or inductive heaters to reach the operating temperature of about 1000 degrees. Such a test may not have been possible. Keep in mind that we do not know the nature of the heating elements, be they resistive or inductive. The thermocouple inside the reactor should be the best indicator of internal temperatures. What did it read at the calibration and at operation? Bob - Original Message - From: David Roberson To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Saturday, October 18, 2014 9:10 AM Subject: Re: [Vo]:new paper- help MFMP, please! This is an excellent idea and I assume that the MFMP guys will perform the experiment. Their results will be quite revealing. Dave -Original Message- From: Eric Walker eric.wal...@gmail.com To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Sat, Oct 18, 2014 11:33 am Subject: Re: [Vo]:new paper- help MFMP, please! On Sat, Oct 18, 2014 at 7:12 AM, Alan Fletcher a...@well.com wrote: (And I can't resist noting that Levi et al should have done this). Yes. Even if you you're worried about running the E-Cat without fuel at high temperatures, a resistance heater running at the same power should be fine. That would have provided a better basis for calibration than running the same E-Cat to be tested at a much lower temperature. Eric
