In an environment populated with Ni nuclei and H nuclei, the spontaneous
fusion of a H nucleus with another H nucleus is favoured over spontaneous
fusion with a Ni nucleus because the electrostatic force of repulsion is
smaller between two H nucleus than it is between an H nucleus and an Ni
Did the testing team check the electrical power provided by Rossis team?
Is ground the ground?
Are all 3 phases, the 3 phases at 120° each? (Are all that 3 phases
effectively measured by the PCE-830 ?)
Is the neutral the neutral?
What are the voltages? (Between phases, between phase and
Motl is deleting my comment, lol.
Funny
Giovanni
On Tue, May 21, 2013 at 4:37 PM, Giovanni Santostasi
gsantost...@gmail.comwrote:
My argument against what Motl claims (what I wrote on his post):
I think Lumo you are wrong on this issue of epsilon. The camera doesn't
know about
Jones, there is no ash because no one has looked for deuterium.
Everyone who might find enough deuterium to detect is focused on
transmutation. If they now find deuterium, their favorite explanation
will go up in smoke and the patents that claim to need nickel will be
useless. I'm trying
I think it's valuable to approach this topic as would a stage magician - just
recall how far this sort of keen observational common sense got Randi; you
don't need a whole lot of physics, but you do need a jaundiced eye. Rossi is
not renowned for his honesty, after all, and therefore one has to
I could have predicted that, Giovanni, which is why I, having raised the issue
here, chose not to do that. He is an egomaniac, and you attempted to beard the
lion in its own den. The man has little integrity, quite frankly. However, he
is IMHO a quite talented physicist.
Andrew
-
Yes, Harry this is one of the several reasons why transmutation cannot
be the source of energy. Four more remain.
Ed Storms
On May 21, 2013, at 3:45 PM, Harry Veeder wrote:
In an environment populated with Ni nuclei and H nuclei, the
spontaneous fusion of a H nucleus with another H nucleus
Does even teach or do research in any public institution anymore?
Giovanni
On Tue, May 21, 2013 at 4:56 PM, Andrew andrew...@att.net wrote:
**
I could have predicted that, Giovanni, which is why I, having raised the
issue here, chose not to do that. He is an egomaniac, and you attempted to
Motl is deleting my comment
That doesn't surprise me.
I too posted a comment. we'll see if he deletes it as well.
Here is my post:
It is patently obvious that you have NOT read the paper, or only skimmed it
due to your *belief* that this is a scam.
1) you
Andrew I thought about the same thing about a way to send power via RF to
the device. The only issue with that is we are talking about a lot of power
and a power source would have to emit it in every direction. So much RF
power should interfere easily with the electronics and it should be
Do you guys agree with my analysis of the use of epsilon? Basically it is
irrelevant what value you use if you use it twice
in determining temperature first and estimating power from temperature
later. The contribution of epsilon would be cancelled out.
Giovanni
On Tue, May 21, 2013 at 5:07
Nickel nano-particles are superparamagnetic. They interact with dipole
vibration. This may be the reason why nickel nanostructures are important
in the nanoplasmonic causation of LENR.
*
Magnetic relaxation of a system of superparamagnetic particles weakly
coupled by dipole-dipole interactions
Can we discuss the content of this report?
Let me start with thanking our Italian and Swedish colleagues for this
detailed and comprehensive report, its a great report that deserves
detailed analysis and critical review. My perspective on the issue of
cold fusion, LENR or unknown energy source is
In reply to Jones Beene's message of Tue, 21 May 2013 08:13:14 -0700:
Hi Jones,
You may be right. Time will tell.
Original Message-
From: mix...@bigpond.com mailto:mix...@bigpond.com
If you go to
https://register.epo.org/espacenet/application?number=EP08873805lng=entab=
doclist
I guess I should follow my own advice.
J
I had the steel and ceramic cylinders reversed; the SiN ceramic is the
*outermost* cylinder.
Still, why does he bring up the emissivity of nickel?
Obviously he has not read the paper past the abstract or first page.
-mark
From: MarkI-ZeroPoint
In reply to Alan Fletcher's message of Mon, 20 May 2013 20:30:59 -0700 (PDT):
Hi,
:)
From: mix...@bigpond.com
Sent: Monday, May 20, 2013 8:11:12 PM
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Hot Cat report published -- Final Ragone Plot
In reply to Alan Fletcher's message of Mon, 20 May 2013 13:20:06
I think
On Tue, May 21, 2013 at 1:49 PM, Andrew andrew...@att.net wrote:
There's another way to perpetrate the output hoax, and that's to secrete
infrared lasers in the ceiling and heat the device up remotely.
Lasers?! Don't you think that seems just a little farfetched? And it
raises, once again, as
Geller had collaborators. Did you ever hear about them? - I doubt it. Look,
there's big money involved here. We are human. Do I really need to state the
obvious? We are better served by eliminating possible hoaxes by deductive
reasoning than we are by closing our eyes tight and wishing for
If Ni62 is not consumed, the cost is somewhat academic.
Hello group,
Today, international Business Times Italy featured an article about the
recently released third party report about several E-Cat HT tests
performed in Ferrara by Levi et al.:
http://it.ibtimes.com/articles/49127/20130521/fusione-fredda-e-cat-andrea-rossi.htm
(in Italian
It's been pointed out here in comments by Isaac Brown
http://www.extremetech.com/extreme/156393-cold-fusion-reactor-independently-verified-has-1-times-the-energy-density-of-gas
that the input power measurement was done on the E-Cat side of the supply box.
You might think that this
Mr. Gibbs, welcome to our world.
Andrew, infrared lasers? Really.
Okay, somehow these scientists missed the hidden CO2 laser which would
create spot heating of the test device.
:-)
Whew. The paper which started this conversation indicates the
scientists involved and their academic affiliation. I would like to
caution some people, you know who you are, that this particular list,
Vortex-l is widely read.
Further caution, I have seen many statements which could be considered
From: Edmund Storms
Jones, there is no ash because no one has looked for deuterium. Everyone who
might find enough deuterium to detect is focused on transmutation. If they
now find deuterium, their favorite explanation will go up in smoke and the
patents that claim to need nickel will be
You probably mean me. Everything I say is my own private opinion and I do not
represent any other persons or organisations or institutions, nor am I
affiliated with such. I am an engineer with a physics degree and am currently
unemployed. Were I acting per pro others, I would have made that
What do you think of my hoax theories?
Well, when I look for a hoax, I also ask myself Where is the benefit?
Personally, I would avoid any implication that these scientists nor
their institutions are implicit in a hoax.
On Tue, May 21, 2013 at 7:14 PM, Terry Blanton hohlr...@gmail.com wrote:
What do you think of my hoax theories?
Well, when I look for a hoax, I also ask myself Where is the benefit?
Kevin,
Glad you think it's funny. I hope you find it just as amusing should your
work ever be misappropriated without the thief even asking.
[mg]
On Tue, May 21, 2013 at 10:56 AM, Kevin O'Malley kevmol...@gmail.comwrote:
Mark:
Welcome to da internets. I hope you don't 'loose' your
Andrew,
This isn't about believe or disbelieve. black or white. Any good scientist
uses a 'sliding scale', and as more data comes in, that scale is adjusted as
to whether a given phenomenon or claim has gained in credibility, or
diminished. For me, this test has pushed that sliding scale a
The thing about a successful hoax, Terry, is that it is the investigating
scientists who are fooled. Nobody is suggesting the sort of grand conspiracy
you mention. Unfortunately, the door is left wide open for speculations of
bamboozlement, because precautions against them are not discussed in
I am with Mark. Kevin needs to grow some ethics.
Andrew
- Original Message -
From: Mark Gibbs
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Sent: Tuesday, May 21, 2013 4:28 PM
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Fwd: CMNS: Rossi's 3rd party test released:
Kevin,
Glad you think it's funny. I hope you find it
On Tue, May 21, 2013 at 7:34 PM, Andrew andrew...@att.net wrote:
The thing about a successful hoax, Terry, is that it is the investigating
scientists who are fooled. Nobody is suggesting the sort of grand conspiracy
You might not be, but others are. I understand your point about
fooling
Wow! I am glad Levi is being so forthright and positive.
- Jed
I was very puzzled how a thin resistor wire in a red-hot cavity could cast a
broad shadow on the outside surface.
Figs. 1-2. Two images from the test performed on Nov. 20th 2012. Here, the
activation of the
charge (distributed laterally in the reactor) is especially obvious. The darker
Bastiaan Bergman bastiaan.berg...@gmail.com wrote:
Another reason to require a COP of more than 2.5 is an economical end
technological reason. Because the E-Cat has a high-entropy input
(electricity) and a low-entropy output . . .
This is not an issue. The COP can easily be improved.
Vortex will not accept an attachment so you will have to find the
paper elsewhere.
J. Condensed Matter Nucl. Sci. 11 (2013) 1–15
Research Article
Nature of Energetic Radiation Emitted from a Metal Exposed to H2
Edmund Storms∗ and Brian Scanlan
Begin forwarded message:
From: Edmund Storms
Andrew andrew...@att.net wrote:
And note that all this was done inside Rossi's own facility. Note further
that, according to Randi, scientists are the most easily-fooled audience of
all. Just ask Geller and Taylor.
I have corresponded with Randi. He does not understand the first thing
about
This is good to know. Can you specifically talk about the clamp-on ammeter
probes and their frequency response? What is your understanding here? For
example, if there exists a HF power component, could it be missed by using
these clamp-on probes?
I have to ask these questions because the paper
Andrew,
I would be very surprised to find that these highly educated and qualified
scientists would fall for a power input trick. They had many days to uncover
anything of that nature.
Has anyone checked into the specifications of the instruments used by them to
see if this were even the
And, of course, the reason that they misread the instruments was that they were
all blinded by the high power IR. Give me a break.
Dave
-Original Message-
From: Terry Blanton hohlr...@gmail.com
To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com
Sent: Tue, May 21, 2013 6:52 pm
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Levi
Dave,
That would be great if they joined in. It's not that I think there was foul
play so much as, going by what's been written in the paper, there's nothing to
suggest that they guarded against it. So, for example, there's no frequency
spectrum published on the input power feed. The paper
Andrew andrew...@att.net wrote:
Rossi has stated that the input waveform is proprietary. Therefore the
obvious question is whether these researchers were even allowed to look at
it.
I do not think they were allowed to look at it, but it is irrelevant. They
measured the power going into the
Andrew andrew...@att.net wrote:
**
This is good to know. Can you specifically talk about the clamp-on ammeter
probes and their frequency response?
No, I do not know enough about that to comment. I will leave that to others.
- Jed
Hey, I admit that's a bit far out. But lasers can be straightforwardly coerced
into producing something that's not a spot, you know.
If there's foul play, my money is on the input side, frankly.
Andrew
- Original Message -
From: David Roberson
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Sent:
http://phys.org/news/2013-05-physicists-revolutionary-low-power-polariton-laser.html
*Physicists develop revolutionary low-power polariton laser*
LENR is like a polaritor laser turned in onto itself. Dark mode EMF is not
allowed to exit the lattice (nuclear active environment). The EMF just
I don't know if you are an EE in any way (I am), but irrelevant it is not. If
the measurement probes only work up to 60 Hz and the majority of the power is
being pumped at 200 Hz (arbitrary numbers), and the probes are 40 dB down at
200 Hz
Andrew
- Original Message -
From: Jed
Andrew andrew...@att.net wrote:
**
I don't know if you are an EE in any way (I am),
Not at all.
but irrelevant it is not. If the measurement probes only work up to 60 Hz
and the majority . . .
I suggest you read the paper and find out if it has enough information to
eliminate this
Andrew,
Don't you think that it would be unusual for them to specifically mention that
they carefully inspected the waveforms to ensure that there was no fraud
attempt? The assumption is that Rossi and others are not trying to influence
the test. They discussed the power measured and had
I think you're right. Would you be interested in their response?
I have said several times that I've read the paper. Nevertheless, it seems time
for another reading.
Andrew
- Original Message -
From: Jed Rothwell
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Sent: Tuesday, May 21, 2013 6:39 PM
You definitely should drop any reference to powerful lasers. Can you imagine
the liability that Rossi would face when reflections or direct path radiation
caused serious injuries? This is far outside the realm of reality.
The input questions are much more relevant, and I suspect that they
Andrew andrew...@att.net wrote:
**
I think you're right. Would you be interested in their response?
Of course. I am sure we would all be interested.
I have said several times that I've read the paper. Nevertheless, it seems
time for another reading.
I find I must read a paper like this
The remaining output hoax possibility is beamed RF into the antenna
resistors. Now, I do realise that this entails Prof. Levi crawling around in
the rafters like Quasimodo...LOL. No, I am inclined to say that the input side
is where attention needs to be focussed. There's a black box there -
I agree with Jed's advice Andrew. This is an important issue which perhaps you
should pursue.
Dave
-Original Message-
From: Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com
To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com
Sent: Tue, May 21, 2013 9:40 pm
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Levi Hot Cat paper is a gem
Andrew
It would be really cool if the lasers are mounted on sharks.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Bh7bYNAHXxw
Harry
On Tue, May 21, 2013 at 9:47 PM, David Roberson dlrober...@aol.com wrote:
You definitely should drop any reference to powerful lasers. Can you
imagine the liability that Rossi
I'm not getting anything like the buzz I experienced in 1989 on
sci.physics.fusion, I must say. I suspect it's because I'm older!
Andrew
- Original Message -
From: Jed Rothwell
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Sent: Tuesday, May 21, 2013 6:49 PM
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Levi Hot Cat paper
On Tue, May 21, 2013 at 8:28 PM, Edmund Storms stor...@ix.netcom.comwrote:
Vortex will not accept an attachment so you will have to find the paper
elsewhere.
J. Condensed Matter Nucl. Sci. 11 (2013) 1-15
Research Article
Nature of Energetic Radiation Emitted from a Metal Exposed to H2
The ECAT is made of metal if I recall correctly which would not allow RF to
penetrate to activate the resistor antennas. Some might be able to follow the
wiring into the device, but the level would have to be quite large which would
most likely demolish the instrument readings.
Andrew, are
But that would mean another device, a circuit, which modified the input
when they compared with the empty reactor.
2013/5/21 Andrew andrew...@att.net
**
I don't know if you are an EE in any way (I am), but irrelevant it is not.
If the measurement probes only work up to 60 Hz and the majority
Dave,
Good call on the metal screening. I'll tell Harry to call off the mutant and
ill-tempered sea bass :)
I started out this morning very gung-ho about it all, and as the day has
progressed, and I read more peripheral material, I ended up with more open
questions than answers. I think of
On Tue, May 21, 2013 at 8:39 AM, DJ Cravens djcrav...@hotmail.com wrote:
Ni-62
If we assume that speculation about Rossi is correct, what materials other
than Ni-62 could be used?
If it is p + X reaction, what other isotopes other than Ni62 could be used?
Or perhaps it is really a p+p
Daniel,
I'm misunderstanding this reference of yours to the control with the empty
reactor. If there's a gizmo, then I assume it's either in the power supply or
the waveform generator. I suspect you're making a serious point that I'm
missing here.
Andrew
- Original Message -
They tested a dummy device, that is, an empty reactor, which showed a
supposedly correct IR emission. The input was the same.
2013/5/21 Andrew andrew...@att.net
**
Daniel,
I'm misunderstanding this reference of yours to the control with the empty
reactor. If there's a gizmo, then I assume
Andrew,
That is all that anyone can ask of you. Keep an open mind and hopefully you
will eventually find the truth. It appears that there will always be questions
to answer and it is good to resolve as many as possible. The scientists that
performed these experiments are high caliber and
Given the history of Cold Fusion, when Rossi was having some success with
H2, wouldn't you expect him to try to amp-up the result by using D2 instead
of H2? Wouldn't Focardi have suggested the experiment? Rossi, claims that
D2 doesn't work in his reactor - a claim made as though he has tried it
Eric,
It appears that you would like to see an experiment where the mix of D to P is
adjusted. Have you seen any correlation in the data from earlier tests that
support the idea that a 50/50 mix would be the most active?
Dave
-Original Message-
From: Eric Walker
In reply to Edmund Storms's message of Tue, 21 May 2013 18:28:19 -0600:
Hi,
[snip]
However, if protium was fusing into deuterium, which is an
extremely rare reaction to begin with, there should be gamma
radiation.
There is no gamma radiation from the p-e-p reaction (as distinct from the
On Tue, May 21, 2013 at 7:25 PM, David Roberson dlrober...@aol.com wrote:
It appears that you would like to see an experiment where the mix of D to
P is adjusted. Have you seen any correlation in the data from earlier
tests that support the idea that a 50/50 mix would be the most active?
Two things that confuse me about the two tests.
First, they both utilized completely different power sources that were
supposedly part of his trade secret. the supply during the first test was a
three phase supply but the second one was a single phase output supply. Is it
practical that for
Robin, you are making an assumption here. You are assuming that no
energy has been lost before the neutrino is emitted and the electron
is absorbed. Suppose, as I have proposed, the energy is lost as a
series of photons before the electron is added so that no energy
remains to be carried
From: Andrew andrew...@att.net
Sent: Tuesday, May 21, 2013 7:07:19 PM
Dave,
Good call on the metal screening. I'll tell Harry to call off the
mutant and ill-tempered sea bass :)
I started out this morning very gung-ho about it all, and as the day
has progressed, and I read more
FYI (To anyone):
Here's a link to Info on the Optris PI160 Thermal Imager:
http://www.optris.com/thermal-imager-pi160
- Mark
no Ni H data well not from gas but you might want to look up the CETI
data.
George Miley did an analysis on some of that data. Recall the outer layer was
Ni
or Ni with a slight Pd overcoat.
Dennis
From: eric.wal...@gmail.com
Date: Tue, 21 May 2013 19:43:44 -0700
Subject: Re:
From: Joe Hughes jhughe...@comcast.net
Sent: Tuesday, May 21, 2013 7:45:55 PM
Two things that confuse me about the two tests.
Second, Rossi
is incredibly paranoid and for good reason i might add, so was their
something the first test showed that he was concerned about which
caused him to
FYI (To anyone):
Here's a link to Info on the PCE Instruments PCE-830-1 Power Analyzer :
http://www.pce-instruments.com/english/measuring-instruments/installation-tester/power-analyzer-pce-holding-gmbh-power-analyzer-pce-830-1-det_60706.htm
- Mark
Joe,
As time advances Rossi is improving his design. He has made marvelous progress
during the last couple of years and I hope that we can convince him to begin
production of a useful device soon. It is reasonable to assume that the drive
system can be of a single phase which is less
From: Mark Jurich jur...@hotmail.com
Sent: Tuesday, May 21, 2013 8:15:19 PM
FYI (To anyone):
Here's a link to Info on the PCE Instruments PCE-830-1 Power Analyzer
Interesting. To quote from the spec
Frequency range in automatic mode
45 to 65Hz / 0.1Hz / 0.1Hz
The frequency characteristics of the probes is unknown, but presumably they
match this roughly.
Andrew
- Original Message -
From: Mark Jurich jur...@hotmail.com
To:
The meter appears to have important limitations. We need to see data showing
the actual input waveform in real time in order to be confident that the
measurements are accurate. I assume that the scientists performed this test
during their evaluation.
Dave
-Original Message-
From:
Daniel Rocha wrote:
They tested a dummy device, that is, an empty reactor, which showed a
supposedly correct IR emission. The input was the same.
and this is important here. I'm not done thinking about this. Let's say that
there's a covert HF power feed, for example. For Daniel's statement to
User manual is at :
http://www.industrial-needs.com/manual/power-anlayser-pce-830.pdf
Again, no mention of DC.
- Original Message -
From: Mark Jurich jur...@hotmail.com
Sent: Tuesday, May 21, 2013 8:15:19 PM
FYI (To anyone):
Here's a link to Info on the PCE Instruments
My sense is that Rossi forbade them using a scope on the power feed in order to
protect proprietary drive waveform information. I really need to re-read that
paper now. If they were only allowed to use this power meter, all sorts of
shenanigans might be possible. Only theoretically of course :)
On Tue, May 21, 2013 at 3:20 PM, Mark Gibbs mgi...@gibbs.com wrote:
I'm still somewhat skeptical about the whole thing simply because there are
too many unknowns but the arguments that it is just a hoax are getting
harder to believe ... it would have to be the biggest, most elaborate hoax
in
If we're going all Bayesian on this, we'd need to calculate some priors. It's
my impression that generally speaking it's not easy to bribe a high-ranking
scientist, and not easy to bribe Swedish people, so as far as bribing a
high-ranking Swedish scientist, I'm going to say not very likely :).
Joe Hughes said:
Also I always enjoyed reading Dr. Kim's papers on lenr and i think these
tests make some of those theories less plausible,
Axil asks:
What are your reasons for thinking this way?
On Tue, May 21, 2013 at 10:45 PM, Joe Hughes jhughe...@comcast.net wrote:
Two things that
From: Andrew andrew...@att.net
Sent: Tuesday, May 21, 2013 9:34:42 PM
If we're going all Bayesian on this, we'd need to calculate some
priors. It's my impression that generally speaking it's not easy to
bribe a high-ranking scientist, and not easy to bribe Swedish
people, so as far as
On Tue, May 21, 2013 at 8:56 AM, Michele Comitini
michele.comit...@gmail.com wrote:
The following argument is complete nonsense and stops me from reading the
full article. No one, unless writing a book that requires complex
mathematical notation is so foul to use TeX instead of LaTeX. If one
101 - 186 of 186 matches
Mail list logo
