Re: [Vo]:Violante and others are trying the engineering approach

On Thu, Feb 21, 2013 at 11:41 AM, Paul Breed wrote: I realize that I've shown up here as a newbe and immediately gored the > sacred cows and questioned the answers of some of the most respected > longest contributing members on this list. I do so with great respect > for your opinions and only w

Re: [Vo]:Violante and others are trying the engineering approach

- From: Jed Rothwell To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Thursday, February 21, 2013 9:39 PM Subject: Re: [Vo]:Violante and others are trying the engineering approach Jones Beene wrote: Somewhat amazing that no major lab has taken the initiative to replicate (or debunk), after

RE: [Vo]:Violante and others are trying the engineering approach

  Dennis Cravens wrote: I would say that one “wind tunnel” type series experiments I did was nothing more than 2 dozen small co-deposited wires with various additives. Their test tubes were all placed in the same water bath (in series for the same curr

Re: [Vo]:Violante and others are trying the engineering approach

Paul Breed wrote: > sustained in continuous, stable reactions lasting > up to 3 months at Toyota, so there is no question that if the reaction can > be controlled, it can be made into a useful source of energy. > > > Is there a paper or other reference on this experiment? > > http://www.lenr-can

Re: [Vo]:Violante and others are trying the engineering approach

Jed Said: 6. Power density and temperatures roughly equivalent to the core of a fission reactor have been sustained in continuous, stable reactions lasting up to 3 months at Toyota, so there is no question that if the reaction can be controlled, it can be made into a useful source of energy. Is

RE: [Vo]:Violante and others are trying the engineering approach

Date: Thu, 21 Feb 2013 11:41:40 -0800 Subject: Re: [Vo]:Violante and others are trying the engineering approach From: p...@rasdoc.com To: vortex-l@eskimo.com >Another problem with this is that in order to bring the cathode surface to a >place where the IR camera can detect heat, you

Re: [Vo]:Violante and others are trying the engineering approach

Jones Beene wrote: Somewhat amazing that no major lab has taken the initiative to replicate (or > debunk), after all these years... > Srinivasan thought he replicated this at BARC. He got heat and tritium. Then he spent 6 months at SRI trying to do it again. He finally concluded that his results

RE: [Vo]:Violante and others are trying the engineering approach

For the record - the Thermacore Ni-H gas-phase experiment is less well-known than the electrolytic - but is available: http://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/GernertNnascenthyd.pdf Somewhat amazing that no major lab has taken the initiative to replicate (or debunk), after all these years...

Re: [Vo]:Violante and others are trying the engineering approach

Paul Breed wrote: > The wright brothers tiny wind tunnel allowed them to measure the > parameters necessary to build a plane. > Along these lines, the people at the NRL in Washington are using a microcalorimeter with a fast response rate. The sample is tiny. You cannot tell where, within the s

Re: [Vo]:Violante and others are trying the engineering approach

>Another problem with this is that in order to bring the cathode surface to a place where the IR camera can detect heat, you pretty much have to clobber the experiment. >Plus you make it impossible to do ordinary calorimetry. Yes very hard to do IR temp sensing in a wet cell electrolytic system. S

RE: [Vo]:Violante and others are trying the engineering approach

From: paulsphone.uroc...@gmail.com The case for excess heat in wet Pd-D systems seems iron clad. The case for excess heat in dry H-Ni systems seems less iron clad Whoa. Thermacore ran both wet and gas-phase Ni-H cells for DARPA continuously for over a year - with somethi

Re: [Vo]:Violante and others are trying the engineering approach

> H2 system generates photons having enough energy for some to exit the apparatus I 100% agree that detecting penetrating photons with some sort of GM tube would be the almost ideal sensing scheme... There are several problems with this scheme... its not very precise, ie If one tests an array of 1

Re: [Vo]:Violante and others are trying the engineering approach

Paul Breed wrote: > The state of the art in IR temperature sensing should be able to tell you > in a matter of 200msec if a potential sample under test > has made excess heat by measuring the temp increase of the sample. > . . . > > Is anyone doing this? > See: http://lenr-canr.org/wordpress

Re: [Vo]:Violante and others are trying the engineering approach

Edmund Storms wrote: The supplier made these samples 8 different ways. They did not give > details. Yes, once the critical variables are mastered, the manufacturing > could be automated. > The testing described in "How to . . ." could also be automated. Or you could hire grad students. That is w

Re: [Vo]:Violante and others are trying the engineering approach

I wrote: However, the reaction cannot be controlled and -- as Ed pointed out -- the > material does not last . . . > Arata and others claim that nanoparticle gas loaded Pd lasts much longer then electrochemically loaded bulk Pd, and it produces more stable heat. I do not think the electrochemica

Re: [Vo]:Violante and others are trying the engineering approach

The supplier made these samples 8 different ways. They did not give details. Yes, once the critical variables are mastered, the manufacturing could be automated. At this time, most of the variables are unknown. That is the basic reason why LENR is so hard to cause. We do not understand the

Re: [Vo]:Violante and others are trying the engineering approach

Mark Gibbs wrote: > > That's only success within a limited context which is the duration of the > experiments (or "tests" or whatever you'd like to call them). > The entire process is an experiment. One continuous segment with one sample is a test. > I'm not pooh-poohing the results but I thi

Re: [Vo]:Violante and others are trying the engineering approach

The problem with tis approach is the need to apply energy to get the process started. This takes the form of electrolytic power or increased temperature. As a result, the material starts hotter than the environment. The question is, Is this extra temperature natural or extra. Looking at the

Re: [Vo]:Violante and others are trying the engineering approach

Thanks, Ed. How were the samples made? Is it a process that can be automated? Jed's original assertion was "Ed stated with 90 cathodes. He tested them and identified 4 that met all of his criteria. These 4 worked robustly, and repeatedly. So, is that a 5% success rate, starting from the 90 cathode

Re: [Vo]:Violante and others are trying the engineering approach

Mark Gibbs wrote: > Regarding the four cathodes that "worked robustly, and repeatedly" ... how > long did they work for? . . . > As I mentioned, see also Ed's paper "How to . . ." > Are they still working? Do you know why they worked? Can working > duplicates be made? > Yes! You have to be

Re: [Vo]:Violante and others are trying the engineering approach

If one is doing a broad search it strikes me that reducing the detecton tme and thus the cycle time is paramount. A calorimeter is a slow sensing device Building a reactor before one has gathered the "wind tunnel data" gives you Langley's result not the wright brothers result. The writghts d

Re: [Vo]:Violante and others are trying the engineering approach

Edmund Storms wrote: All electrolytic cathodes eventually die. Many work for weeks and can be > removed from the cell and be restarted. > Ed described this here: http://www.lenr-canr.org/acrobat/StormsEhowtoprodu.pdf See also: http://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/CravensDfactorsaff.pdf F&P got some

Re: [Vo]:Violante and others are trying the engineering approach

All electrolytic cathodes eventually die. Many work for weeks and can be removed from the cell and be restarted. But, at some point, the energy production stops. I suspect so much material is deposited on the surface and so much stress is created by changes in composition that the active c

Re: [Vo]:Violante and others are trying the engineering approach

(Replying to Jed on success rate) Earlier discussion starting at   http://www.mail-archive.com/vortex-l@eskimo.com/msg71026.html #1 150/150 http://newenergytimes.com/v2/conferences/2012/ICCF17/ICCF-17-Godes-Controlled-Electron-Capture-Paper.pdf Abstract —We have run over 150 experiments using

Re: [Vo]:Violante and others are trying the engineering approach

A question for Ed: On Thu, Feb 21, 2013 at 6:56 AM, Jed Rothwell wrote: > The definition of "success rate" in these experiments is fuzzy. Ed stated > with 90 cathodes. He tested them and identified 4 that met all of his > criteria. These 4 worked robustly, and repeatedly. So, is that a 5% succe

Re: [Vo]:Violante and others are trying the engineering approach

Alan Fletcher wrote: > 1. There is anomalous heat generation in most experiments which follow the > "Craven and Letts" (and/or Storms) criteria > The definition of "success rate" in these experiments is fuzzy. Ed stated with 90 cathodes. He tested them and identified 4 that met all of his crite

Re: [Vo]:Violante and others are trying the engineering approach

At 07:04 PM 2/20/2013, Jed Rothwell wrote: Alan Fletcher wrote:   2A. Experiments for a particular batch by a particular experimenter have improved from "some cells show excess heat", to "most cells show excess heat" and recently, to  "all cells show excess heat". Where? With P

Re: [Vo]:Violante and others are trying the engineering approach

Alan Fletcher wrote: > 2A. Experiments for a particular batch by a particular experimenter have > improved from "some cells show excess heat", to "most cells show excess > heat" and recently, to "all cells show excess heat". > Where? With Pd? > 2B The excess heat can range from barely detec

Re: [Vo]:Violante and others are trying the engineering approach

At 05:33 PM 2/20/2013, Mark Gibbs wrote: And here we come back again to the question of what is this thing that's called "LENR"? Let's call lab stuff such as Cellini's work and whatever Rossi and Defkalion are doing, "experiments." So: 1. There is claimed to be anomalous heat generation in som

Re: [Vo]:Violante and others are trying the engineering approach

Mark Gibbs wrote: > Wrong person! Ed was speaking loosely. >> > > Ah, so if Ed speaks "loosely" it's OK and forgivable but if I do such a > thing I'm simply wrong? > Not if you are speaking loosely! > And here we come back again to the question of what is this thing that's > called "LENR"? L

Re: [Vo]:Violante and others are trying the engineering approach

On Wed, Feb 20, 2013 at 4:49 PM, Jed Rothwell wrote: > Mark Gibbs wrote: > > >> Gibbs didn't say anything about the Wright Brothers ... that was Ed >> Storms: >> > > Wrong person! Ed was speaking loosely. > Ah, so if Ed speaks "loosely" it's OK and forgivable but if I do such a thing I'm simply

Re: [Vo]:Violante and others are trying the engineering approach

Mark Gibbs wrote: > Gibbs didn't say anything about the Wright Brothers ... that was Ed Storms: > Wrong person! Ed was speaking loosely. The point is, it wasn't a theory, it was data. They had tables of lift and drag for different airfoils, with different chambers, at various different angles o

Re: [Vo]:Violante and others are trying the engineering approach

On Wed, Feb 20, 2013 at 3:27 PM, Jed Rothwell wrote: > Mark Gibbs wrote: > > >> On Wed, Feb 20, 2013 at 11:47 AM, Kevin O'Malley wrote: >> >>> They did not need to put first-principles theories of flight in their >>> patent. Gibbs seems to think this has been a requirement all along. >>> >> >>

[Vo]:Violante and others are trying the engineering approach

Mark Gibbs wrote: > On Wed, Feb 20, 2013 at 11:47 AM, Kevin O'Malley wrote: > >> They did not need to put first-principles theories of flight in their >> patent. Gibbs seems to think this has been a requirement all along. >> > > O'Malley is making unfounded assumptions. Gibbs never wrote or imp