[Vo]:Conditioned Ferrite Heating Demo

[Harvey Norris]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hRiNxkdWD8U
Pioneering the Applications of Interphasal Resonances 
http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/teslafy/


  

[Vo]:a longer duration black box test would prove issue without disclosure

[Roarty, Francis X]

Rossi could keep his black box method and still prove his claims with a 24 hour 
stress test that would produce far more energy than he could possibly
Conceal inside the black box.

Re: [Vo]:The dawn of a new era?

[peatbog]

> 
> 
> On 01/17/2011 09:55 PM, Jed Rothwell wrote:
> > Stephen A. Lawrence mailto:sa...@pobox.com>>
> > wrote: 
> 
> One of the major photography rags of the era (Pop Photo or Modern
> Photography, I forget which) ran an article on him, partly due
> to his claim to be able to "think" things onto film, which claim
> they didn't care for.   Apparently the folks at SRI weren't as
> careful as the photography magazine's reporter, who found Randi
> unconvincing.
> 
When the reporter was out of the room, Geller lifted the lens cap
an inch or so off the reporter's camera and snapped a picture,
presumably thinking it would result in a blur and he could then
claim to have been thinking at it or something.

He didn't realize that the camera was fitted with a 'fisheye'
lens, and the resulting picture was a clear shot of Geller's
fingers holding the lens cap and Geller peering at the lens.

Re: [Vo]:Nagel: Check List for LENR Validation Experiments

[P.J van Noorden]

I wondered why people had no problems with the 8 liters of watervapour which 
was released into the room during the Rossi experiment. A simple experiment in 
which I evaporised 8 liters of water in a room of 100 m3 with a powersource of 
9 kW ( 3 heaters of each 3 kW) did produce a very humid atmosphere ( 
approaching RH 90%) and the temperature rose to more then 30 degr.
Why wasn`t this detected during the experiment of Rossi?  If the aircon was 
powerfull enough one would still notice a turbulence of warm and cold airflow 
in the room.

Peter
  - Original Message - 
  From: Jeff Driscoll 
  To: vortex-l@eskimo.com 
  Sent: Tuesday, January 18, 2011 4:08 AM
  Subject: Re: [Vo]:Nagel: Check List for LENR Validation Experiments


  That meter that was listed can measure Relative Humidity but it can not 
measure the quality of the steam.   As you know, relative humidity just means 
how saturated the air is for for the given temperature - it says absolutely 
nothing about the quality (dryness or "wetness") of the steam.

  The quality of the steam (a.k.a. dryness on Vortex) gives you the ratio of 
the mass of vapor to the total mass of water (liquid and vapor) in a given 
sample.
  It takes complicated expensive instruments to measure the quality of steam 
(one device is called a "throttling calorimeter").   A common or even expensive 
Relative Humidity instrument can not do it.

  If Rossi used an ultrasonic fogger in boiling water, he could get micron 
sized droplets at 100 C.  That's close enough to 101 C with errors due to 
calibration. They should insulate the black hose and stick it in a barrel of 
water.   12 kW of steam that is fed into 50 gallons of water (or some number of 
gallons) will raise the temperature at rate that could be easily measurable. 

   If it can be done, find out exactly what information rules out "wet" steam.  

  Here is a photo of an ultrasonic fogger using water to produce what looks 
like steam, but is in fact micron sized water droplets:

  http://www.buzzle.com/articles/ultrasonic-fogger-how-does-it-work.html

  Here is a link to a description of a "throttling calorimeter" which is a 
device that measures the quality ("wetness") of steam.  Basically the 
throttling calorimeter involves letting the pressurized steam expand into a 
cavity and measuring the temperature of the resulting gas.  It only works with 
pressurized steam such as 30 psia steam or higher so that it can expand down to 
15 psia or atmospheric pressure.

  http://www.plantservices.com/articles/2003/378.html?page=full



  On Mon, Jan 17, 2011 at 8:38 PM, Jed Rothwell  wrote:

Jeff Driscoll  wrote:
  
  How can you use an indoor air quality meter (listed in Jed's email) to 
measure the dryness of the steam? (you can't)


Apparently you can. The person who did this is reportedly an expert in 
steam. I gather this meter measures RH in steam as well as air.



  Can it be faked the following way:

  Use an ultrasonic fogger operating at 1.6 MHz to create micron size 
droplets.  Heat the droplets to 90 C and then send it down the black hose.


The temperature of the steam out the outlet is measured with a 
thermocouple. It is 101 deg C. So it is definitely steam, or a mixture of steam 
and water. The RH meter ensures that is all dry steam.


- Jed

Re: [Vo]:Nagel: Check List for LENR Validation Experiments

[Stephen A. Lawrence]

On 01/17/2011 11:24 PM, Jed Rothwell wrote:
> Peristaltic pumps are an example of technology that by rights should
> not work, but they managed to pull it off. They overcame what seemed
> to be insurmountable problems with plastics. You have a wheel pressing
> down and squeezing the plastic tube thousands of times an hour for
> weeks or months. Early plastics quickly became brittle and broke. I
> don't recall who did this, but I read about it and I got the
> impression that person really, really, REALLY wanted to make
> peristaltic pumps work, driven by some inscrutable inner desire.

I have the impression that pumps like that are really good for pumping
whole blood.  Anything with an identifiable impeller also has edges
inside, and tends to cause clots.  If you can get away with nothing but
a smooth tube, you can -- maybe! -- avoid ripping platelets and forming
clots inside the pump.

But I have no idea where I might have run across that information...

>
> - Jed
>

Re: [Vo]:PesWiki's report on Focardi and Rossi

[Stephen A. Lawrence]

On 01/18/2011 12:03 AM, Harry Veeder wrote:
> Rossi also says that they  have had one reactor that has run
> continually for two years, providing heat  for a factory. 
>   

Slightly longer quote from the Peswiki page:

> Rossi also says that they have had one reactor that has run
> continually for two years, providing heat for a factory.  Also, the
> reactors can self sustain by turning off the input, but they prefer to
> have an input.

So if they need some electricity to control it, why don't they use the
output to run a generator, and close the loop?  At 10:1, they ought to
be able to turn the heat output into enough electricity to drive the
thing with a good bit left over.   Then they could provide heat /and/
run the lights in the factory.  And at that point they'd be off the
grid, and they'd be completely shut of the old "Well are you /sure/ it's
OU?" question.  And wouldn't /that/ make a whizzy demo!

Starting can be done with batteries, of course, just like you start your
car with a battery.  You need some electricity to run an ICE, but
/nobody/ plugs their gasoline car into the mains to get it going in the
morning (block heaters excepted).

"We don't close the loop because we /prefer/ to have an input."That
seems strange, to put it mildly.

Kind of like saying, "I make all the electricity I need with
photoelectrics on the roof, but I /prefer/ to buy some from Ontario
Hydro as well."


>
> The results of last week's demonstration pale in comparison to this claim.
>
>
> Harry
>
>
>   

Re: [Vo]:Nagel: Check List for LENR Validation Experiments

[Peter Gluck]

You are right, Stephen- see e.g.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peristaltic_pump (and many leaflets)

Have used such pumps mainly for agressive liquids as HCl that corrodes
almost all metals. But also for liquid cyanhydric acid (no problems) and for
liquefied phosgene - great trouble had to neutralize a lot of this stuff-
with gaseous ammonia- very unpleasant.
A good choice for the Italian setup, I think.

On Tue, Jan 18, 2011 at 4:50 PM, Stephen A. Lawrence wrote:

>
>
> On 01/17/2011 11:24 PM, Jed Rothwell wrote:
> > Peristaltic pumps are an example of technology that by rights should
> > not work, but they managed to pull it off. They overcame what seemed
> > to be insurmountable problems with plastics. You have a wheel pressing
> > down and squeezing the plastic tube thousands of times an hour for
> > weeks or months. Early plastics quickly became brittle and broke. I
> > don't recall who did this, but I read about it and I got the
> > impression that person really, really, REALLY wanted to make
> > peristaltic pumps work, driven by some inscrutable inner desire.
>
> I have the impression that pumps like that are really good for pumping
> whole blood.  Anything with an identifiable impeller also has edges
> inside, and tends to cause clots.  If you can get away with nothing but
> a smooth tube, you can -- maybe! -- avoid ripping platelets and forming
> clots inside the pump.
>
> But I have no idea where I might have run across that information...
>
> >
> > - Jed
> >
>
>

Re: [Vo]:Nagel: Check List for LENR Validation Experiments

[Jeff Driscoll]

Was the "steam" exiting the Rossi device transparent or was it an opaque
white? (right at the top where it transitions from the aluminum foil covered
"chimney" to the black hose)

If it is transparent then that would mean it is water vapor - and truly 12
kW of steam.

But if it was white then that would indicate condensed tiny
liquid droplets (or ultrasonic fogging) and fraudulent scamming.

Water vapor is virtually invisible.

On a tea kettle, the steam immediately coming out of the kettle is
transparent but roughly 1 or 2 inches away the vapor condenses to tiny
droplets which become a white fog.



On Tue, Jan 18, 2011 at 8:49 AM, P.J van Noorden  wrote:

>
>
> I wondered why people had no problems with the 8 liters of watervapour
> which was released into the room during the Rossi experiment. A simple
> experiment in which I evaporised 8 liters of water in a room of 100 m3 with
> a powersource of 9 kW ( 3 heaters of each 3 kW) did produce a very humid
> atmosphere ( approaching RH 90%) and the temperature rose to more then 30
> degr.
> Why wasn`t this detected during the experiment of Rossi?  If the aircon
> was powerfull enough one would still notice a turbulence of warm and cold
> airflow in the room.
>
> Peter
>
> - Original Message -
> *From:* Jeff Driscoll 
> *To:* vortex-l@eskimo.com
> *Sent:* Tuesday, January 18, 2011 4:08 AM
> *Subject:* Re: [Vo]:Nagel: Check List for LENR Validation Experiments
>
> That meter that was listed can measure Relative Humidity but it can not
> measure the quality of the steam.   As you know, relative humidity just
> means how saturated the air is for for the given temperature - it says
> absolutely nothing about the quality (dryness or "wetness") of the steam.
> The quality of the steam (a.k.a. dryness on Vortex) gives you the ratio of
> the mass of vapor to the total mass of water (liquid and vapor) in a given
> sample.
>
> It takes complicated expensive instruments to measure the quality of steam
> (one device is called a "throttling calorimeter").   A common or even
> expensive Relative Humidity instrument can not do it.
>
> If Rossi used an ultrasonic fogger in boiling water, he could get micron
> sized droplets at 100 C.  That's close enough to 101 C with errors due to
> calibration. They should insulate the black hose and stick it in a barrel of
> water.   12 kW of steam that is fed into 50 gallons of water (or some number
> of gallons) will raise the temperature at rate that could be easily
> measurable.
>  If it can be done, find out exactly what information rules out "wet"
> steam.
>
> Here is a photo of an ultrasonic fogger using water to produce what looks
> like steam, but is in fact micron sized water droplets:
>
> http://www.buzzle.com/articles/ultrasonic-fogger-how-does-it-work.html
>
> Here is a link to a description of a "throttling calorimeter" which is a
> device that measures the quality ("wetness") of steam.  Basically the
> throttling calorimeter involves letting the pressurized steam expand into a
> cavity and measuring the temperature of the resulting gas.  It only works
> with pressurized steam such as 30 psia steam or higher so that it can expand
> down to 15 psia or atmospheric pressure.
>
> http://www.plantservices.com/articles/2003/378.html?page=full
>
>
>
> On Mon, Jan 17, 2011 at 8:38 PM, Jed Rothwell wrote:
>
>>  Jeff Driscoll  wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> How can you use an indoor air quality meter (listed in Jed's email) to
>>> measure the dryness of the steam? (you can't)
>>>
>>
>> Apparently you can. The person who did this is reportedly an expert in
>> steam. I gather this meter measures RH in steam as well as air.
>>
>>
>>
>>> Can it be faked the following way:
>>>
>>> Use an ultrasonic fogger operating at 1.6 MHz to create micron size
>>> droplets.  Heat the droplets to 90 C and then send it down the black hose.
>>>
>>
>> The temperature of the steam out the outlet is measured with a
>> thermocouple. It is 101 deg C. So it is definitely steam, or a mixture of
>> steam and water. The RH meter ensures that is all dry steam.
>>
>> - Jed
>>
>>
>

Re: [Vo]:Nagel: Check List for LENR Validation Experiments

[Jed Rothwell]

Stephen A. Lawrence  wrote:


> I have the impression that pumps like that are really good for pumping
> whole blood.  Anything with an identifiable impeller also has edges
> inside, and tends to cause clots.


That's a good point. I recall they were developed for medical
applications. The other advantage it that the fluid is enclosed in sterile
plastic throughout the loop. It never touches metal or any other surface. It
never leaves the tube to enter a pump cylinder.

- Jed

Re: [Vo]:PesWiki's report on Focardi and Rossi

[Jed Rothwell]

Stephen A. Lawrence  wrote:


> So if they need some electricity to control it, why don't they use the
> output to run a generator, and close the loop?  At 10:1, they ought to be
> able to turn the heat output into enough electricity to drive the thing with
> a good bit left over.
>

Designing or purchasing a heat engine for this would be expensive and time
consuming. In the first round of installations it makes more sense to use AC
power for the control current


And at that point they'd be off the grid, and they'd be completely shut of
> the old "Well are you *sure* it's OU?" question.  And wouldn't *that* make
> a whizzy demo!
>

It would make a great demo, and I would love to see it, but anyone not
convinced by 0.4 kW in and 12 kW out will not be convinced by anything. At
this stage, engineering a heat engine just to close the loop would be a
distraction.

If the control current were 1000 times smaller than the output, you could
use thermoelectric chips which require little engineering and work over a
broad range of temperature. The Russians have some for camping and
remote villages, which can be used with burning wood. In the U.S. there are
some for small yachts which use burning natural gas, I think.

- Jed

Re: [Vo]:a longer duration black box test would prove issue without disclosure

[Jed Rothwell]

Roarty, Francis X  wrote:

Rossi could keep his black box method and still prove his claims with a 24
> hour stress test that would produce far more energy than he could possibly
>
> Conceal inside the black box.
>

He has done that. People have told me they witnessed that, albeit not at a
national university setting, with professors doing the installation and
running of the calorimetry. I think they did some longer runs in the weeks
leading up to this demo, but I have not heard how long they were. I asked,
but they did not get around to answering.

Despite Rossi's odd nature, he has done a good job of revealing his device.
I think he has done as much as anyone can do without revealing trade
secrets. I am afraid it is futile to try to protect trade secrets, but I
understand why he is trying. It is hard to think of a better way to proceed
given the patent situation.

- Jed

RE: [Vo]:Nagel: Check List for LENR Validation Experiments

[Mark Iverson]

I not sure about whether clotting was a problem, but hemolysis (breaking apart 
the red blood cells)
is.  Pumping blood requires very gentle movements in order to avoid damaging 
the cells.  Just
modestly squeezing your finger can burst blood cells.  When a diabetic is 
taking a blood sample and
squeezes their finger too much, it causes a significant error in the glucose 
meter's reading, and
this is caused by bursting too many blood cells and their intracellular 
contents diluting the
glucose concentration of the plasma...

-Mark


-Original Message-
From: Stephen A. Lawrence [mailto:sa...@pobox.com] 
Sent: Tuesday, January 18, 2011 6:51 AM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Nagel: Check List for LENR Validation Experiments

On 01/17/2011 11:24 PM, Jed Rothwell wrote:
> Peristaltic pumps are an example of technology that by rights should 
> not work, but they managed to pull it off. They overcame what seemed 
> to be insurmountable problems with plastics. You have a wheel pressing 
> down and squeezing the plastic tube thousands of times an hour for 
> weeks or months. Early plastics quickly became brittle and broke. I 
> don't recall who did this, but I read about it and I got the 
> impression that person really, really, REALLY wanted to make 
> peristaltic pumps work, driven by some inscrutable inner desire.

I have the impression that pumps like that are really good for pumping whole 
blood.  Anything with
an identifiable impeller also has edges inside, and tends to cause clots.  If 
you can get away with
nothing but a smooth tube, you can -- maybe! -- avoid ripping platelets and 
forming clots inside the
pump.

But I have no idea where I might have run across that information...

>
> - Jed
>

Re: [Vo]:PesWiki's report on Focardi and Rossi

[Stephen A. Lawrence]

On 01/18/2011 11:00 AM, Jed Rothwell wrote:
> Stephen A. Lawrence mailto:sa...@pobox.com>> wrote:
>  
>
> So if they need some electricity to control it, why don't they use
> the output to run a generator, and close the loop?  At 10:1, they
> ought to be able to turn the heat output into enough electricity
> to drive the thing with a good bit left over.
>
>
> Designing or purchasing a heat engine for this would be expensive and
> time consuming. In the first round of installations it makes more
> sense to use AC power for the control current
>
>
> And at that point they'd be off the grid, and they'd be completely
> shut of the old "Well are you /sure/ it's OU?" question.  And
> wouldn't /that/ make a whizzy demo!
>
>
> It would make a great demo, and I would love to see it, but anyone not
> convinced by 0.4 kW in and 12 kW out will not be convinced by
> anything. At this stage, engineering a heat engine just to close the
> loop would be a distraction.

Sure.  But the quote from PW makes it sound like they have had this in
place for some time.  Seems like it would have been an obvious thing to
do back when they were setting up to heat the factory with a reactor --
unless, of course, the "factory" is one room and the "heating" is done
just by running the generator and letting it warm up its surroundings a
bit.  (Depending on where they are in Italy, the heat required might be
pretty minimal, come to think of it.)

And as to "not being convinced by anything" ... as long as the
conclusions are based on precise heat measurements there is room for
doubt.  Once the loop is closed there is no more room for doubt.  This
issue has come up time and again with perpetual motion machine
claimants, along with rumors of a factory powered by a magic motor. 
There *is* a good reason for closing the loop, and their assertion that
they could run with no electrical input, but just don't want to, sounds
absurd.

I do not need to take measurements to be sure the furnace in this house
really works.  All I need to do is step in the front door, and my senses
give me a conclusive, albeit qualitative, answer.

Here is a truism:  /As long as you need calorimetry to determine if a
heater works, it doesn't work well enough to be interesting./  Their
device works well enough that they could dispense with the calorimetry,
just by running it /unplugged/ and showing that it still gets hot.  But
they prefer not to.  Errrm.


>
> If the control current were 1000 times smaller than the output, you
> could use thermoelectric chips which require little engineering and
> work over a broad range of temperature. The Russians have some for
> camping and remote villages, which can be used with burning wood. In
> the U.S. there are some for small yachts which use burning natural
> gas, I think.
>
> - Jed
>

Re: [Vo]:a longer duration black box test would prove issue without disclosure

[Stephen A. Lawrence]

On 01/18/2011 11:04 AM, Jed Rothwell wrote:
> Roarty, Francis X  > wrote:
>
> Rossi could keep his black box method and still prove his claims
> with a 24 hour stress test that would produce far more energy than
> he could possibly
>
> Conceal inside the black box.
>
>
> He has done that. People have told me they witnessed that, albeit not
> at a national university setting, with professors doing the
> installation and running of the calorimetry. I think they did some
> longer runs in the weeks leading up to this demo, but I have not heard
> how long they were. I asked, but they did not get around to answering.
>
> Despite Rossi's odd nature, he has done a good job of revealing his
> device. I think he has done as much as anyone can do without revealing
> trade secrets. I am afraid it is futile to try to protect trade
> secrets, but I understand why he is trying. It is hard to think of a
> better way to proceed given the patent situation.

CLOSE THE LOOP.

He says he can run without any electrical input.  Ergo he /can/  close
the loop, without the expense of a Stirling motor and generator.



>
> - Jed
>

[Vo]: More accurate van der Waals measurement...

[Mark Iverson]

Research at Univ of Arizona...
They've come up with a way to more accurately measure van der Waals forces... 
specifically the force
between an atom and a surface, which may have some bearing on LENR.
 
Here is the interesting bit...
"The most significant discovery was that an atom's inner electrons, orbiting 
the nucleus at a closer
range than the atom's outer electrons, influence the way the atom interacts 
with the surface.  'We
show that these core electrons contribute to the atom-surface potential,' Lonij 
said, 'which was
only known in theory until now. This is the first experimental demonstration 
that core electrons
affect atom-surface potentials.' "

-Mark

[Vo]:Wikipedia's entry on Cold Fusion, unchanged.

[OrionWorks - Steven V Johnson]

As best as I can tell, Wikipedia's entry on Cold Fusion has remained
blissfully unaware of the recent weekend events in Italy.

I wonder if Mr. Lomax might like to comment.

Regards
Steven Vincent Johnson
www.OrionWorks.com
www.zazzle.com/orionworks

[Vo]:Richard C Macaulay

[Horace Heffner]

Many of you I am sure fondly remember the many fun postings here from  
the "Dime Box Saloon" by Richard C Macaulay.  I was surprised  
recently to find this obituary for him:


http://obit.memorialoakschapel.com/obitdisplay.html?task=Print&id=757483

He died Feb. 19, 2010.

He had much expertise in the practical generation and use of  
vortices, as well as the politics of energy and economics in Texas.  
His contributions and good humor posted from the Dime Box Saloon, his  
fictitious hangout, have been missed.


Best regards,

Horace Heffner
http://www.mtaonline.net/~hheffner/

Re: [Vo]:Richard C Macaulay

[OrionWorks - Steven V Johnson]

>From Horace,

> Many of you I am sure fondly remember the many fun postings here from the
> "Dime Box Saloon" by Richard C Macaulay.  I was surprised recently to find
> this obituary for him:
>
> http://obit.memorialoakschapel.com/obitdisplay.html?task=Print&id=757483
>
> He died Feb. 19, 2010.
>
> He had much expertise in the practical generation and use of vortices, as
> well as the politics of energy and economics in Texas. His contributions and
> good humor posted from the Dime Box Saloon, his fictitious hangout, have
> been missed.

Thanks, Horace.

Nice to hear from you.

Richard's DBS was a whimsical place to hang out in. He is probably
bartending there right now.

Regards
Steven Vincent Johnson
www.OrionWorks.com
www.zazzle.com/orionworks

[Vo]:Pycno or no?

[Jones Beene]

The Rossi collective seem to be convinced, or at least promoting the
hypothesis that the fusion of a proton with nickel, resulting in copper, is
the main heat source in this device.

There are other options. 

One possibility is related to dense hydrogen or "pycno". This could include
Miley's inverse Rydberg hydrogen or the less dense variety. Here is an
important Miley paper where he sees clusters of about 100 atoms in a
"defect" . (Casimir cavity ??)

http://iopscience.iop.org/1742-6596/244/3/032036/pdf/1742-6596_244_3_032036.
pdf

Inverse Rydberg states of hydrogen atoms are far denser than 100 atoms, of
course, and relatively "long-lived". Here is the citation (fee) - if it is
confirmed by other experimenters, then it could be one of the most important
papers in LENR: 

"Ultrahigh-density deuterium of Rydberg matter clusters for inertial
confinement fusion targets" L. Holmlid, H. Hora, G. Miley and X. Yang, Laser
and Particle Beams 27 (2009) 529-532.

Holmlid, Miley and associates, claim that the density seen in their testing
works out to the equivalent of ~10^29 atoms/cm^3, which more than enough for
the "solar variety" of proton-proton tunneling reaction (or chain reaction)
which is one of the prime fusion reactions by which stars convert hydrogen
to energy. The proton-proton chain reaction dominates in stars the size of
our Sun or smaller, which are in this range of density.

In 1939, Hans Bethe proposed that one of the protons in this reaction will
beta+ decay into a neutron via the weak interaction during the fusion,
making deuterium as an initial product in the chain that leads to helium -
and he won the Nobel Prize, in part for this insight. It adds new meaning to
one of the early idioms for cold fusion - "sun in a bottle".

In reading Ed Storms recent musings, he seems to favor a rare version of
this H+H reaction for Rossi - one that does not involve extreme density -
known as the P-e-P reaction, which also results in deuterium, as the 'ash'.

However, if we add the Holmlid/Miley finding into the mix - extremely dense
IRH (inverse Rydberg hydrogen) or even the 100 atom cluster, then we can
possibly stay with better known solar reaction, involving beta+ decay.

The falsifiability of this hypothesis can be related to the appearance of
deuterium and perhaps the gamma signature of the positron, as it either
annihilates or goes to positronium with the UV signature (6.8 eV). 

This kind of fusion is consistent with all we know if the copper is
explained as migration or occasional fusion. Furthermore, the 'catalyst' of
Rossi could changing gaseous hydrogen via spillover, into dense deuterium,
or even IRH. The catalyst is the breakthrough, and my take on it is that it
is a spillover catalyst and possibly it is the same NaH which is used by
Mills. That would be powerful incentive

Jones

RE: [Vo]:Richard C Macaulay

[Jones Beene]

I was afraid of this, back when Richard stopped posting. 

I had even checked the obits in that area a couple of times when he didn't
answer email.

... a true character ... but I'm not so sure the Dime Box was fictitious ?



-Original Message-
From: Horace Heffner To: Vortex-L
Subject: [Vo]:Richard C Macaulay

Many of you I am sure fondly remember the many fun postings here from the
"Dime Box Saloon" by Richard C Macaulay.  I was surprised  
recently to find this obituary for him:

http://obit.memorialoakschapel.com/obitdisplay.html?task=Print&id=757483


He died Feb. 19, 2010.

He had much expertise in the practical generation and use of  
vortices, as well as the politics of energy and economics in Texas.  
His contributions and good humor posted from the Dime Box Saloon, his
fictitious hangout, have been missed.

Best regards,

Horace Heffner
http://www.mtaonline.net/~hheffner/

Re: [Vo]:PesWiki's report on Focardi and Rossi

[Jed Rothwell]

Stephen A. Lawrence wrote:

And as to "not being convinced by anything" ... as long as the 
conclusions are based on precise heat measurements there is room for 
doubt.


These conclusions are based on somewhat imprecise measurements, and you 
can be just as certain with no measurements at all. Just look at the 
thing. You see water going in at about a liter every three minutes, 
steam coming out, and only a thin, ordinary wire going to the power 
supplies. It would be physically impossible for that wire to supply the 
electricity needed to vaporize that much water. Impossible by a wide 
margin; at least a factor of 4. You don't even need to see the power 
meter or thermometers to be sure of this.




  Once the loop is closed there is no more room for doubt.


As far as I am concerned, this is first principle proof, and it is as 
convincing as a self sustaining machine, or as Fleischmann's boil-off 
video. Unless there are camera tricks or hidden wires involved this is 
massive anomalous heat. I do not think there are tricks or hidden wires 
because the professors involved would notice that, and they would not 
stand for it. If it were only the inventor, and everything was under his 
exclusive control, I might suspect a fake, but I would be just as 
suspicious of a self-sustaining demo under the control of the inventor.


- Jed

Re: [Vo]:Richard C Macaulay

[OrionWorks - Steven V Johnson]

Speaking of another old warrior, we have not heard from Mike Carrell
in a spell. Actually, for quite some time now. Considering recent
events I would have expected something akin to a rebuttal from Mike,
particularly in regards to his position, (or defense), of BLP. Mike is
up there in years. Several years ago he had what I believe was a minor
stroke that slightly impaired his speech.

An email I sent to Mike last weekend has not yet been answered. I hope
he is vacationing.

Can anyone shed any light on the matter?

Regards
Steven Vincent Johnson
www.OrionWorks.com
www.zazzle.com/orionworks

Re: [Vo]:PesWiki's report on Focardi and Rossi

[Jed Rothwell]

Harry Veeder wrote:


Rossi also says that they  have had one reactor that has run
continually for two years, providing heat  for a factory.


The results of last week's demonstration pale in comparison to this claim.


They sure do! I wish I knew the name of that factory, and I could see 
photos or interviews.


If I had heard this from Rossi before the Jan. 14 demo, I would have 
discounted it. Now, I am not sure what to make of it. I do not accuse 
him of being a liar. But there have been several miscommunications from 
him. His English is poor. I think sometimes he may be talking about 
future plans and hypotheticals and he inadvertently makes it sound like 
an accomplished fact. This is a common problem people speaking a second 
language. English tense is complicated and unlike other languages.


- Jed

[Vo]:Celani's report on Rossi January 14 test

[Jed Rothwell]

[Francesco gave me permission to distribute this.]

Dear Colleagues,

I attended last Friday (January 14, 2011) the "demonstration" of Andrea 
Rossi-Sergio Focardi experiment.


It was held in an "industrial" building, far from Bologna City (about 10km).

* Only people that get *PERSONAL invitation* were able to attend it.
There were several security people around the hall and outside the building.
Total people attending was 40-50 (according to my estimation).
There were several people from Physics Department from Bologna 
University, Director included.
Moreover, also the Director of Bologna Section of National Institute of 
Nuclear Physics  attended, in almost official way, the demonstration.


* The experiment started at about 15:30 and ended at (about )16:45.

The experiment measurement about energy emission was based on a modified 
"flow calorimeter" method (peristaltic pump, small size, about 10-20W of 
power).

They warmed-up the water up to 102°C, pressurised vapor condition.
They consumed water was about 12-14 liters (my evaluation).

/** All the measurements were made, INDEPENDENTLY, from a Researcher 
(and Technicians) of Bologna University. Rossi made only supervision 
about key safety aspects.

*/
The amount of the reactant wasn't clear but can be of the order of few gram.
According to Rossi, it is a complex mixture of *Nickel* and another (*1 
or 2, SECRET) additives,* key for the energy emission.

All the material is in the state of *nano-particles* or colloid.

In the pressurised (about 2 Atm.) chamber, volume of the order of 1-2 
liters, there were the cooling pipe and the reactants.

Hydrogen gas was added continuously, at low rate.
According to the Authors, they say that the "trigger" is just heat (at 
quite high temperatures: T>T_Curie of Nikel ???), other people 
speculated about ultrasounds.

The input power was of the order of 500-700W at maximum.
An approximate calculation, supposing no thermal dissipation from the 
reactor, give:


Input Energy (3600s): (500--700 W)*3600=(1.8--2.52)MJ
Output Energy to increase the water temperature of 90°C: 4.2* 
(102°C-12°C)=378 J/g

Vaporitation enthalpy, about 40.6kJ/mole water= 2633J/g
Total energy (with 13 liter of water vaporized)= 378+2633=3011J/g of 
water=>39.14MJ


The energy gain is of the order of a factor 15-20=>really large!

* It was assembled also a twin gamma ray detector in order to detect 
e+e- annihilation: this time almost no results.
Focardi was confident that they will get large amounts of such signal, 
as in previous experiment.
This time the counts were close to background for coincidences and only 
some uncorrelated signal were over background.


* I bring a gamma detector, battery operated, 1.25" NaI(Tl). Energy 
range=25keV-2000keV.
I measured some increase of counts near the reactor (about 50-100%) 
during operation, in a erratic (unstable) way, in respect to background.
I decided to move the gamma detector from "counts" to "spectra" mode. 
After few minutes Eng. Rossi realised that I was trying to identify 
something "secret" inside the reactor: I was forced to stop the 
measurements.


The discussion, mostly scientific and even "hot" about details, lasted 
up to 18:45.
Some Italian news-paper made on-line report of the whole experiment 
(over 3h).

The government television report isn't still now not allowable.

* As soon as I will get more details I will send to You.

Thanks for Your attention,

Francesco CELANI

Re: [Vo]:a longer duration black box test would prove issue without disclosure

[Jed Rothwell]

Stephen A. Lawrence wrote:


CLOSE THE LOOP.

He [Rossi] says he can run without any electrical input.  Ergo he 
/can/  close the loop, without the expense of a Stirling motor and 
generator.


Actually, that is heat input, from an AC resistance heater. Presumably 
it would work as well with combustion heating. He said he can run 
without heat input, but it is dangerous. I do not think he elaborated on 
that. I gather it means he uses heat to modulate the reaction.


The Piantelli Ni experiments required high temperature and external heating.

I believe the control factors are heat and pressure. The H2 is at 2 atm, 
according to Celani. When you depressurize the cell, the reaction soon 
stops. That's good news. Cold fusion reactions are sometimes nearly as 
difficult to stop as they are to start.


I assume the Rossi device has some internal self-regulation, or what 
Stan Pons called a "memory" that keeps electrochemical cells going back 
to the same power level after you refill the cell, tap on it, or disturb 
it some other way. I also assume there is something about the Rossi 
device that acts analogously to a self-quenching CANDU nuclear reactor. 
I am only speculating; I have no knowledge of this. The mechanism would 
be something like the metal degassing at very high temperature, cooling 
down, and then absorbing the gas and reacting again. That would explain 
why it quickly stops when you degas manually. I suspect the electric 
heater is in the core, and the cold fusion reaction occurs in the Ni 
powder surrounding that. I recall some of the Piantelli devices had 
heaters attached directly to the Ni bar.


I think Rossi claimed the internal temperature of this thing is 1500°C. 
Ed Storms pointed out that cannot be right, because the melting point of 
Ni is 1,453°C. Perhaps that is a misunderstanding, or a mistranslation. 
Still, it must be pretty hot in there because the device is small and 
well insulated. Even with 400 W or 1000 W from the AC heater it must be 
quite hot internally. I assume (but I do not know) that the heater is 
the hottest part. That's how I imagine it works.


- Jed

Re: [Vo]:Celani's report on Rossi January 14 test

[Terry Blanton]

On Tue, Jan 18, 2011 at 1:57 PM, Jed Rothwell  wrote:
> [Francesco gave me permission to distribute this.]
>
> Dear Colleagues,



> After
> few minutes Eng. Rossi realised that I was trying to identify something
> "secret" inside the reactor: I was forced to stop the measurements.

Which would indicate that Rossi has a greater understanding of the
reaction than his papers and his patents indicate.

T

RE: [Vo]:Pycno or no?

[Jones Beene]

This is from Ed Storms in response to the previous post.

 

It is essential to analyze the results in terms of how we know Nature has to
behave.  By doing this, we can gain increased understanding of what is
actually happening in the Rossi apparatus, information that Rossi has not
provided. First, we must accept that the excess power is real and ask what
characteristics of the energy-producing reaction would produce the observed
behavior. 

 

If the energy-producing reaction were exothermic with a positive temperature
coefficient, the device could not be controlled and the temperature would
continue to rise until the device was destroyed.  This would be like mixing
H2 and O2 gas and then trying to slow the reaction by removing heat at the
correct rate to produce a constant rate and temperature as the reaction
proceeded. This kind of control is simply not possible. Therefore, the
energy-producing reaction must be self-controlling, i.e have a negative
feedback mechanism. How is this possible?  

 

The energy producing reaction for the Rossi and all CF applications has two
components. The nuclear reaction requires a structure to be produced in
which the nuclear reaction is initiated and allows the energy to be
dissipated. I call this structure the nuclear-active-environment (NAE).
Formation of this structure has been observed to be spontaneous, therefore
it is exothermic and the rate of formation increases with temperature. If
this were the only process, CF and the Rossi device would heat until the
apparatus was destroyed, a fact that most theories ignore. Fortunately, as
temperature is increased, the concentration of the reactant, hydrogen in
Rossi's case and deuterium in the other branch of the effect, is reduced.
We all know from basic chemistry that when the concentration of a reactant
is reduced, the rate of reaction using that reactant must go down.
Consequently, competition between the rate being increased by temperature
and decreased by loss of hydrogen or deuterium, results in a temperature at
which the energy-producing reaction has a maximum rate. In Rossi's case,
this temperature is above but near 101° C.   If the temperature attempts to
go above this value, the rate of energy production automatically drops and
the temperature is prevented from rising higher. This is how all systems
containing a negative feed-back mechanism must behave. 

 

Suppose we want to remove energy from such a system. Removing energy causes
the temperature to drop, which reduces the rate of energy generation. If we
want to maximize the rate of energy generation, we must hold the temperature
constant at the critical value. This can be done by changing the applied
energy and matching it with the energy loss caused by cooling. If this
process is done carefully, a source of constant power at constant
temperature can be achieved. So far, this is all basic engineering 101. 

 

The behavior of the Rossi device demonstrates that he has achieved this
stable condition, which is only possible if the two conditions described
above are operating in  his apparatus. These two conditions will operate in
ALL CF cells producing energy.  We see how the two conditions interact on a
small scale in the flashes of light observed by Szpak et al. when Pd is
electrodeposited - energy is produced, temperature rises, D is lost,
temperature drops with the cycle repeating as D is taken up by the active
region.  Rossi has caused the effect on a large scale while under control.

 

Consequently, the Rossi effect is consistent with how all CF devices are
expected to behave and provides an insight into how they must be designed.
Because the critical temperature might exist only over a small temperature
range, failure to cause CF might be partially related to not having entered
this critical temperature range.  If the temperature is too low, the
formation rate of the NAE is too small to produce detectable heat and if the
temperature is too high, the concentration of D is too low to allow a rate
that produces detectable heat. In other words, some cells might have the
ability to produce power if the right temperature were used.

 

Rossi has shown that this insight is important and that his reaction, even
though it uses H2 and Ni rather than D2 and Pd, has all the characteristics
of what we have identified as cold fusion. I suspect the heat does not
result from transmutation but from formation H-H-e fusion to give deuterium.
The small amount of transmutation that results gives stable isotopes just
like such transmutation found in CF cells. Consequently, we need to examine
his results using what we know about the deuterium system.

 

The bottom line is that Rossi is initiating cold fusion and the reactions
have all the characteristics observed when deuterium is used.  Nature has
only one song but with different words.

 

Ed

 

 

From: Jones Beene 

 

The Rossi collective seem to be convinced, or at least promoting the
hypothesis that the fusion of a p

RE: [Vo]:Nagel: Check List for LENR Validation Experiments

[Jones Beene]

Here are some calculations that imply certain water/humidity effects which
should have been observed at the demo. 

This is from an associate LENR researcher - Jeff Morriss, in response to the
other issues on steam/vapor raised by Jeff Driscoll and Peter van Noorden,
which so far do not have convincing answers. 
 
Nagel states that 150 grams of water are boiled every 30 sec, or 5 cc/sec.
Taking the density of steam at 100C as .590 Kg/m**3 and ratio-ing it against
the density of liquid water as 1000 kG/m**3 yields a volume increase of
1690. So each 5 cc of water is converted into 8450 cc of steam every second.
If we estimate the area of the vent hose at ~1 cm**2, then the steam
velocity must be 8450 cm/sec of 84.5 m/sec. This is about 1/4 the speed of
sound and should produce quite a jet of steam. Did anyone observe this?
Also, the steam would condense and quickly produce a saturated atmosphere
and condensation on metal surfaces. Again, did anyone observe this?
 
Here is a second sanity check. The specific heat of dry air at 1 atm is 1.14
kJ/Km**3. If we assume a room volume of 300 m**3 (about the size of an
average classroom) then it takes
 (300 m**3)*(1.14 kJ/Km**3) = 342 kJ 

to raise the temperature of the room by one degree.  The energy required to
boil 18 liters of water is 4.7E4 kJ. So if no heat escaped the room and we
ignored the additional energy change due to an increase in relative humidity
then the ambient temperature should have increased by 4.7e4/342 or about 137
degrees C.  Even if the air in the room cycled every 6 minutes (and that
would require special ventilation) the ambient would still rise by 13.7C,
which would be noticeably hot and muggy.
 
Finally, the 4.7E4 kJ/hour is equivalent to 1.31E4J/sec. As a basis of
comparison, it would be equivalent to 240V at 54 Amps, which is the capacity
of an electric furnace for a large house.

You may want to pass my calculations by someone else for checking, but I
believe they are correct.

Jeff


From: Jeff Driscoll

Was the "steam" exiting the Rossi device transparent or was it an opaque
white? (right at the top where it transitions from the aluminum foil covered
"chimney" to the black hose) .If it is transparent then that would mean it
is water vapor - and truly 12 kW of steam. But if it was white then that
would indicate condensed tiny liquid droplets (or ultrasonic fogging) and
fraudulent scamming.
 
Water vapor is virtually invisible.. On a tea kettle, the steam immediately
coming out of the kettle is transparent but roughly 1 or 2 inches away the
vapor condenses to tiny droplets which become a white fog.
 

On Tue, Jan 18, P.J van Noorden  wrote:
 
 
I wondered why people had no problems with the 8 liters of watervapour which
was released into the room during the Rossi experiment. A simple experiment
in which I evaporised 8 liters of water in a room of 100 m3 with a
powersource of 9 kW ( 3 heaters of each 3 kW) did produce a very humid
atmosphere ( approaching RH 90%) and the temperature rose to more then 30
degr.
Why wasn`t this detected during the experiment of Rossi?  If the aircon was
powerfull enough one would still notice a turbulence of warm and cold
airflow in the room.
 
Peter
- Original Message - 
From: Jeff Driscoll 
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com 
Sent: Tuesday, January 18, 2011 4:08 AM
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Nagel: Check List for LENR Validation Experiments

That meter that was listed can measure Relative Humidity but it can not
measure the quality of the steam.   As you know, relative humidity just
means how saturated the air is for for the given temperature - it says
absolutely nothing about the quality (dryness or "wetness") of the steam.
The quality of the steam (a.k.a. dryness on Vortex) gives you the ratio of
the mass of vapor to the total mass of water (liquid and vapor) in a given
sample.
It takes complicated expensive instruments to measure the quality of steam
(one device is called a "throttling calorimeter").   A common or even
expensive Relative Humidity instrument can not do it.
If Rossi used an ultrasonic fogger in boiling water, he could get micron
sized droplets at 100 C.  That's close enough to 101 C with errors due to
calibration. They should insulate the black hose and stick it in a barrel of
water.   12 kW of steam that is fed into 50 gallons of water (or some number
of gallons) will raise the temperature at rate that could be easily
measurable. 
 If it can be done, find out exactly what information rules out "wet" steam.

 
Here is a photo of an ultrasonic fogger using water to produce what looks
like steam, but is in fact micron sized water droplets:
 
http://www.buzzle.com/articles/ultrasonic-fogger-how-does-it-work.html
 
Here is a link to a description of a "throttling calorimeter" which is a
device that measures the quality ("wetness") of steam.  Basically the
throttling calorimeter involves letting the pressurized steam expand into a
cavity and measuring the temperature of the resulting gas.  It on

Re: [Vo]:Celani's report on Rossi January 14 test

[albedo5]

Jed,

If he did a spectrum measurement for "a few minutes", he should have a
decent sampling.  This depends on the detector, of course, but all handhelds
that I've dealt with (which is a limited sample) are designed for rapid
detection/spectra collection.  NaI isn't the best detector material, but it
should be adequate.  Usually the detector stores the last spectrum
collected.

If he wants the spectrum he did get analyzed, I can get this done in several
different ways.  Chances are the "secret" may not be a gamma emitter at all,
but it's worth a go.

Is there any chance he a) still has the spectrum he did collect, and b)
would be willing to share it?


Debbie

On Tue, Jan 18, 2011 at 1:57 PM, Jed Rothwell  wrote:

>  [Francesco gave me permission to distribute this.]
>
> Dear Colleagues,
>
[...]

>
> * It was assembled also a twin gamma ray detector in order to detect e+e-
> annihilation: this time almost no results.
> Focardi was confident that they will get large amounts of such signal, as
> in previous experiment.
> This time the counts were close to background for coincidences and only
> some uncorrelated signal were over background.
>
> * I bring a gamma detector, battery operated, 1.25" NaI(Tl). Energy
> range=25keV-2000keV.
> I measured some increase of counts near the reactor (about 50-100%) during
> operation, in a erratic (unstable) way, in respect to background.
> I decided to move the gamma detector from "counts" to "spectra" mode. After
> few minutes Eng. Rossi realised that I was trying to identify something
> "secret" inside the reactor: I was forced to stop the measurements.
>
> [...]


> Francesco CELANI
>
>

RE: [Vo]:Celani's report on Rossi January 14 test

[Jones Beene]

From: albedo5 

 

. Chances are the "secret" may not be a gamma emitter at all, but it's worth
a go.

With a lead-shielded reactor it is doubtful that any radiation other than
gammas could be detected.

 

 

[Vo]:Uploaded short interview with Levi

[Jed Rothwell]

I uploaded a short interview with Levi, and the recommendations made by 
Nagel that I posted here previously. See:


Macy, M.,/Specifics of Andrea Rossi's "Energy Catalyzer" Test, 
University of Bologna, January 14, 2011/. 2011, LENR-CANR.org.


http://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/MacyMspecificso.pdf


Nagel, D.J.,/Check List for LENR Validation Experiments/. 2011, 
LENR-CANR.org.


http://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/NagelDJchecklistf.pdf

- Jed

Re: [Vo]:Celani's report on Rossi January 14 test

[albedo5]

You could probably see neutrons, if any were emitted - if the detector has a
neutron capability, of course.  Even if you see them, you now know a neutron
emitter is present, nothing else.

So the chances of seeing anything useful other than high-energy gammas is
really pretty low.  The algorithms that identify components within a
spectrum are rather sophisticated, though.  Hope springs eternalas
always.


On Tue, Jan 18, 2011 at 4:10 PM, Jones Beene  wrote:

>   *From:* albedo5
>
>
>
> … Chances are the "secret" may not be a gamma emitter at all, but it's
> worth a go.
>
> With a lead-shielded reactor it is doubtful that any radiation other than
> gammas could be detected.
>
>
>
>
>

Re: [Vo]:Pycno or no?

[mixent]

In reply to  Jones Beene's message of Tue, 18 Jan 2011 10:16:45 -0800:
Hi,
[snip]
>Holmlid, Miley and associates, claim that the density seen in their testing
>works out to the equivalent of ~10^29 atoms/cm^3, which more than enough for
>the "solar variety" of proton-proton tunneling reaction (or chain reaction)
>which is one of the prime fusion reactions by which stars convert hydrogen
>to energy. The proton-proton chain reaction dominates in stars the size of
>our Sun or smaller, which are in this range of density.
>
>In 1939, Hans Bethe proposed that one of the protons in this reaction will
>beta+ decay into a neutron via the weak interaction during the fusion,
>making deuterium as an initial product in the chain that leads to helium -
>and he won the Nobel Prize, in part for this insight. It adds new meaning to
>one of the early idioms for cold fusion - "sun in a bottle".
>
>In reading Ed Storms recent musings, he seems to favor a rare version of
>this H+H reaction for Rossi - one that does not involve extreme density -
>known as the P-e-P reaction, which also results in deuterium, as the 'ash'.

Calculations I have done in this direction tend to indicate that P-e-P fusion
within a maximally shrunken Hydrino molecule is still too slow to be of use,
unless the radius goes as the square of the quantum number rather than linear
with it. This is a consequence of the weak force decay reaction. However I must
admit that I have trouble sorting out which effects different sources include in
their reaction rate constants.

Regards,

Robin van Spaandonk

http://rvanspaa.freehostia.com/Project.html

Re: [Vo]:Pycno or no?

[mixent]

In reply to  Jones Beene's message of Tue, 18 Jan 2011 10:16:45 -0800:
Hi,
[snip]
>The falsifiability of this hypothesis can be related to the appearance of
>deuterium and perhaps the gamma signature of the positron, as it either
>annihilates or goes to positronium with the UV signature (6.8 eV). 

AFAIK positronium has a fairly short life before it too annihilates (see
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Positronium).

Regards,

Robin van Spaandonk

http://rvanspaa.freehostia.com/Project.html

Re: [Vo]:a longer duration black box test would prove issue without disclosure

[Stephen A. Lawrence]

On 01/18/2011 02:52 PM, Jed Rothwell wrote:
> Stephen A. Lawrence wrote:
>
>> CLOSE THE LOOP.
>>
>> He [Rossi] says he can run without any electrical input.  Ergo he
>> /can/  close the loop, without the expense of a Stirling motor and
>> generator.
>
> Actually, that is heat input, from an AC resistance heater. Presumably
> it would work as well with combustion heating. He said he can run
> without heat input, but it is dangerous. I do not think he elaborated
> on that. I gather it means he uses heat to modulate the reaction.
>
> The Piantelli Ni experiments required high temperature and external
> heating.
>
> I believe the control factors are heat and pressure. The H2 is at 2
> atm, according to Celani. When you depressurize the cell, the reaction
> soon stops. That's good news. Cold fusion reactions are sometimes
> nearly as difficult to stop as they are to start.
>
> I assume the Rossi device has some internal self-regulation, or what
> Stan Pons called a "memory" that keeps electrochemical cells going
> back to the same power level after you refill the cell, tap on it, or
> disturb it some other way. I also assume there is something about the
> Rossi device that acts analogously to a self-quenching CANDU nuclear
> reactor. I am only speculating; I have no knowledge of this. The
> mechanism would be something like the metal degassing at very high
> temperature, cooling down, and then absorbing the gas and reacting
> again. That would explain why it quickly stops when you degas
> manually. I suspect the electric heater is in the core, and the cold
> fusion reaction occurs in the Ni powder surrounding that. I recall
> some of the Piantelli devices had heaters attached directly to the Ni bar.
>
> I think Rossi claimed the internal temperature of this thing is
> 1500°C. Ed Storms pointed out that cannot be right, because the
> melting point of Ni is 1,453°C. Perhaps that is a misunderstanding, or
> a mistranslation. Still, it must be pretty hot in there because the
> device is small and well insulated. Even with 400 W or 1000 W from the
> AC heater it must be quite hot internally. I assume (but I do not
> know) that the heater is the hottest part. That's how I imagine it works.

Actually, I'd expect the joule heater to be rather cool relative to the
reactive elements once the thing gets rolling.  The reaction is
contributing 10 kW or more at that point; the joule heater is just
plugging along at 400 watts.

That, also, makes it seem a little surprising that the joule heater
continues to be used *after* "ignition".  It's contributing just 4% of
the total heat; you'd think they could just shut it off after the thing
starts up.

Of course, the reacting surface area may be large enough that it stays
cooler than the heater, and perhaps the intense heat near the heater
wire has something to do with the reason they continue to use it after
"ignition".

Incidentally, a 1500 degree internal temperature also makes the use of
unpressurized water for a coolant seem to me to be a little iffy. 
Perhaps that has something to do with the reason they boil it all to
steam, rather than running the pump harder and getting out hot water
(which, it has been suggested, might have provided a more rock-solid
output heat measure).


>
> - Jed
>

Re: [Vo]:PesWiki's report on Focardi and Rossi

[mixent]

In reply to  Jed Rothwell's message of Tue, 18 Jan 2011 13:52:45 -0500:
Hi,
[snip]
>They sure do! I wish I knew the name of that factory, and I could see 
>photos or interviews.
[snip]
It's probably the factory mentioned in the patent:-

"A practical embodiment of the inventive apparatus, installed on October 16,
2007, is at present perfectly operating 24 hours per day, and provides an amount
of heat sufficient to heat the factory of the

Company EON of via Carlo Ragazzi 18, at Bondeno

(Province of Ferrara) . For better understanding the invention, the main
components of the above mentioned apparatus have been schematically shown in
Table 2."

(See
http://www.wipo.int/pctdb/en/wo.jsp?WO=2009125444&IA=IT2008000532&DISPLAY=DESC)
Regards,

Robin van Spaandonk

http://rvanspaa.freehostia.com/Project.html

RE: [Vo]:Celani's report on Rossi January 14 test

[Jones Beene]

Well, neutrons may be out, since the patent mentions lots of boron and few
neuts would escape anyway, and there are almost no secondaries from the
boron ash: lithium and alpha (as we know from BNCT).

 

Celani's comment are indeed a bit puzzling, given the shielding - and the
already admitted failure to see anything at 511 keV. That makes a lot of
sense.

 

. however .

 

I have suggested in a previous post that Rossi - like BLP, could be using
sodium hydride as the (spillover) catalyst, giving him a strong reason to
hide this (Mills' IP portfolio). 

 

Yikes! it is a very strong reason, come to think of it.

 

If so, and if there are energetic protons, then the Na(p,gamma) reaction is
the culprit. Especially since this one is very important in cosmology, thus
well studied, and with a characteristic 1.275 MeV signature.

 

Aha. This little detail does make NaH an even better candidate.

 

Jones

 

 

From: albedo5 

 

You could probably see neutrons, if any were emitted - if the detector has a
neutron capability, of course.  Even if you see them, you now know a neutron
emitter is present, nothing else.

So the chances of seeing anything useful other than high-energy gammas is
really pretty low.  The algorithms that identify components within a
spectrum are rather sophisticated, though.  Hope springs eternalas
always.



 

. Chances are the "secret" may not be a gamma emitter at all, but it's worth
a go.

With a lead-shielded reactor it is doubtful that any radiation other than
gammas could be detected.

 

 

 

Re: [Vo]:Pycno or no?

[Jed Rothwell]

Ed Storms wrote:

Consequently, competition between the rate being increased by 
temperature and decreased by loss of hydrogen or deuterium, results in 
a temperature at which the energy-producing reaction has a maximum 
rate. In Rossi's case, this temperature is above but near 101° C.




I think the temperature inside the machine is a lot higher than 101°C. 
The steam is at 101°C because the pipe is short and unpressurized, like 
an open saucepan of boiling water. It does not make any difference how 
hot you make the saucepan, the steam will always be just a little above 
boiling.


I agree with the rest of this analysis. As I mentioned Pons also 
described the fact that the reaction is stable and tends to return to 
the same power level. I assume this is a function of the amount of 
active material in the sample.


Rossi believes the temperature at the core is 1500°C. As I mentioned 
here, Ed thinks that is impossible because it is above the melting point 
of nickel.


- Jed

Re: [Vo]:Nagel: Check List for LENR Validation Experiments

[Stephen A. Lawrence]

This point has  come up over and over, and I don't recall seeing an answer.

Just exactly what did happen to the steam?  Does anyone know?  Was it
vented outside, vented into the room, or recondensed?  If it was
condensed, what happened to the coolant?  I.e., was there a stream of
cooling water running down a drain somewhere, or what?

(Have I just not been paying enough attention?  (Something new and
different -- not!))

(I've seen one off-hand reference to "the condenser" but it wasn't in a
description of the apparatus; it was, IRRC, in a remark by Terry and
seemed to be more of an assumption than anything else.)


On 01/18/2011 03:35 PM, Jones Beene wrote:
>
> Here are some calculations that imply certain water/humidity effects
> which should have been observed at the demo.
>
> This is from an associate LENR researcher - Jeff Morriss, in response
> to the other issues on steam/vapor raised by Jeff Driscoll and Peter
> van Noorden, which so far do not have convincing answers.
>
>  
>
> Nagel states that 150 grams of water are boiled every 30 sec, or 5
> cc/sec. Taking the density of steam at 100C as .590 Kg/m**3 and
> ratio-ing it against the density of liquid water as 1000 kG/m**3
> yields a volume increase of 1690. So each 5 cc of water is converted
> into 8450 cc of steam every second. If we estimate the area of the
> vent hose at ~1 cm**2, then the steam velocity must be 8450 cm/sec of
> 84.5 m/sec. This is about 1/4 the speed of sound and should produce
> quite a jet of steam. Did anyone observe this? Also, the steam would
> condense and quickly produce a saturated atmosphere and
> condensation on metal surfaces. Again, did anyone observe this?
>
>  
>
> Here is a second sanity check. The specific heat of dry air at 1 atm
> is 1.14 kJ/Km**3. If we assume a room volume of 300 m**3 (about the
> size of an average classroom) then it takes
>
>  (300 m**3)*(1.14 kJ/Km**3) = 342 kJ
>
> to raise the temperature of the room by one degree.  The energy
> required to boil 18 liters of water is 4.7E4 kJ. So if no heat escaped
> the room and we ignored the additional energy change due to an
> increase in relative humidity then the ambient temperature should have
> increased by 4.7e4/342 or about 137 degrees C.  Even if the air in the
> room cycled every 6 minutes (and that would require special
> ventilation) the ambient would still rise by 13.7C, which would be
> noticeably hot and muggy.
>
>  
>
> Finally, the 4.7E4 kJ/hour is equivalent to 1.31E4J/sec. As a basis of
> comparison, it would be equivalent to 240V at 54 Amps, which is the
> capacity of an electric furnace for a large house.
>
> You may want to pass my calculations by someone else for checking, but
> I believe they are correct.
>
> Jeff
>
>
> From: Jeff Driscoll
>
> Was the "steam" exiting the Rossi device transparent or was it an
> opaque white? (right at the top where it transitions from the aluminum
> foil covered "chimney" to the black hose) ...If it is transparent then
> that would mean it is water vapor - and truly 12 kW of steam... But if
> it was white then that would indicate condensed tiny
> liquid droplets (or ultrasonic fogging) and fraudulent scamming.   
>
>  
>
> Water vapor is virtually invisible On a tea kettle, the steam
> immediately coming out of the kettle is transparent but roughly 1 or 2
> inches away the vapor condenses to tiny droplets which become a white fog.
>
>  
>
> On Tue, Jan 18, P.J van Noorden  wrote:
>
>  
>
>  
>
> I wondered why people had no problems with the 8 liters of watervapour
> which was released into the room during the Rossi experiment. A simple
> experiment in which I evaporised 8 liters of water in a room of 100 m3
> with a powersource of 9 kW ( 3 heaters of each 3 kW) did produce a
> very humid atmosphere ( approaching RH 90%) and the temperature rose
> to more then 30 degr.
>
> Why wasn`t this detected during the experiment of Rossi?  If the
> aircon was powerfull enough one would still notice a turbulence of
> warm and cold airflow in the room.
>
>  
>
> Peter
>
> - Original Message -
>
> From: Jeff Driscoll
>
> To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
>
> Sent: Tuesday, January 18, 2011 4:08 AM
>
> Subject: Re: [Vo]:Nagel: Check List for LENR Validation Experiments
>
> That meter that was listed can measure Relative Humidity but it can
> not measure the quality of the steam.   As you know, relative humidity
> just means how saturated the air is for for the given temperature - it
> says absolutely nothing about the quality (dryness or "wetness") of
> the steam.
>
> The quality of the steam (a.k.a. dryness on Vortex) gives you the
> ratio of the mass of vapor to the total mass of water (liquid and
> vapor) in a given sample.
>
> It takes complicated expensive instruments to measure the quality of
> steam (one device is called a "throttling calorimeter").   A common or
> even expensive Relative Humidity instrument can not do it.   
>
> If Rossi used an ultrasonic fogger in boiling water, he could get
> 

Re: [Vo]:a longer duration black box test would prove issue without disclosure

[Jed Rothwell]

Stephen A. Lawrence wrote:

That, also, makes it seem a little surprising that the joule heater 
continues to be used *after* "ignition".  It's contributing just 4% of 
the total heat; you'd think they could just shut it off after the 
thing starts up.


Of course, the reacting surface area may be large enough that it stays 
cooler than the heater, and perhaps the intense heat near the heater 
wire has something to do with the reason they continue to use it after 
"ignition".


That is my guess. I think the AC heater wire is hotter than the active 
material.


As I said, it is my understanding that heat and hydrogen pressure are 
the two control factors. I do not know how they work. I don't know which 
knob you twist to make the thing go.


Rossi said that removing the AC heat completely is dangerous. That give 
me the willies. If the external electricity cuts off, will the machine 
overheat? Or if it is built in a self sustaining device and the 
generator fails, will it overheat or go out of control? It would be nice 
if the heat triggered the reaction, and removing the heat simply 
quenched it, but based on Rossi's comment that is is "dangerous" to run 
without the auxiliary heat, that is not the case.


Who knows what to make of it! Rossi is hiding many details.

- Jed

Re: [Vo]:PesWiki's report on Focardi and Rossi

[Harry Veeder]

- Original Message 
> From: "mix...@bigpond.com" 
> To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
> Sent: Tue, January 18, 2011 4:52:48 PM
> Subject: Re: [Vo]:PesWiki's report on Focardi and Rossi
> 
> In reply to  Jed Rothwell's message of Tue, 18 Jan 2011 13:52:45  -0500:
> Hi,
> [snip]
> >They sure do! I wish I knew the name of that  factory, and I could see 
> >photos or interviews.
> [snip]
> It's  probably the factory mentioned in the patent:-
> 
> "A practical embodiment of  the inventive apparatus, installed on October 16,
> 2007, is at present  perfectly operating 24 hours per day, and provides an 
>amount
> of heat  sufficient to heat the factory of the
> 
> Company EON of via Carlo Ragazzi  18, at Bondeno
> 
> (Province of Ferrara) . For better understanding the  invention, the main
> components of the above mentioned apparatus have been  schematically shown in
> Table 2."
> 
> (See
> 
http://www.wipo.int/pctdb/en/wo.jsp?WO=2009125444&IA=IT2008000532&DISPLAY=DESC)
> Regards,
> 
> Robin  van Spaandonk
> 
> http://rvanspaa.freehostia.com/Project.html
> 


great work Robin.

I used google maps and input: via Carlo Ragazzi 18 Bondeno Ferrara.
The satellite view shows something like a factory at that location.

harry

Re: [Vo]:Pycno or no?

[Terry Blanton]

On Tue, Jan 18, 2011 at 5:02 PM, Jed Rothwell  wrote:

> Rossi believes the temperature at the core is 1500°C. As I mentioned here,
> Ed thinks that is impossible because it is above the melting point of
> nickel.

I think Rossi is operating near the edge of a runaway reaction.  He
uses the resistive heating device to ensure runaway does not happen.
If he tried to self-sustain, he gets runaway.  With the added 400 W of
resistive heating, he can operate the cell just below the runaway
temperature.

This is why he mysteriously says that it will self-sustain; but, he
does not do it.

Or not.

T

Re: [Vo]:Celani's report on Rossi January 14 test

[Terry Blanton]

On Tue, Jan 18, 2011 at 3:51 PM, albedo5  wrote:


> If he wants the spectrum he did get analyzed, I can get this done in several
> different ways.

Oh, so now you are a nuclear scientist.  I'll have to change your moniker.

(N)T

Re: [Vo]:PesWiki's report on Focardi and Rossi

[Jed Rothwell]

Harry Veeder  wrote:


> great work Robin.
>
> I used google maps and input: via Carlo Ragazzi 18 Bondeno Ferrara.
> The satellite view shows something like a factory at that location.
>

Oh brave new world! Now, if you could only zoom in and see inside the
building, we'd have it. See:

The Googling

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fPgV6-gnQaE

- Jed

Re: [Vo]:Nagel: Check List for LENR Validation Experiments

[Terry Blanton]

On Tue, Jan 18, 2011 at 5:02 PM, Stephen A. Lawrence  wrote:

> (I've seen one off-hand reference to "the condenser" but it wasn't in a
> description of the apparatus; it was, IRRC, in a remark by Terry and seemed
> to be more of an assumption than anything else.)


Ackshully, not an assumption.  I read, somewhere, that the steam was
condensed (damned if I can remember where).

If you look as some of the piccys in Jed's post, the black hose is
extended as though it is connected to something.  If the first piccy,
it is lying on the floor and spraying steam onto the H cannister.  The
cannister is black at the base and there is a circle of black stain on
the floor; but, the center is clean.

I surmise that the hose has been disconnected from the "condenser" to
measure the humidity of the steam and left lying on the floor for a
period of time.  The hose as seen at the top of the device is no
longer extended during this photo.

But who the f knows?

T

RE: [Vo]:a longer duration black box test would prove issue without disclosure

[Jones Beene]

This is not surprising. My guess is that there is strong temperature
inversion, and a prohibitive trigger temperature with instant quench. The
trigger could be say at  800 C, and the inversion 1000 C, giving some room
for error. There are zones and only one of them is externally heated. This
is the insurance.

This amplification of input is why he has named it the way he has.

You cannot EVER let normal fluctuations in the fuel temperature go below the
trigger, or else the whole thing will instantly quench. You spread out the
active material so that once you get over the trigger in one zone, it can
then go over everywhere, and continues up, since the inversion pushes it up
to the limit of heat transfer.

The heater will be placed to heat one a small area in the reactor only - the
"failsafe zone", so to speak.

Jones


-Original Message-
From: Jed Rothwell 

Stephen A. Lawrence wrote:

> That, also, makes it seem a little surprising that the joule heater 
> continues to be used *after* "ignition".  It's contributing just 4% of 
> the total heat; you'd think they could just shut it off after the 
> thing starts up.
>
> Of course, the reacting surface area may be large enough that it stays 
> cooler than the heater, and perhaps the intense heat near the heater 
> wire has something to do with the reason they continue to use it after 
> "ignition".

That is my guess. I think the AC heater wire is hotter than the active 
material.

As I said, it is my understanding that heat and hydrogen pressure are 
the two control factors. I do not know how they work. I don't know which 
knob you twist to make the thing go.

Rossi said that removing the AC heat completely is dangerous. That give 
me the willies. If the external electricity cuts off, will the machine 
overheat? Or if it is built in a self sustaining device and the 
generator fails, will it overheat or go out of control? It would be nice 
if the heat triggered the reaction, and removing the heat simply 
quenched it, but based on Rossi's comment that is is "dangerous" to run 
without the auxiliary heat, that is not the case.

Who knows what to make of it! Rossi is hiding many details.

- Jed

Re: [Vo]:Pycno or no?

[Terry Blanton]

On Tue, Jan 18, 2011 at 5:13 PM, Terry Blanton  wrote:

> I think Rossi is operating near the edge of a runaway reaction.  He
> uses the resistive heating device to ensure runaway does not happen.
> If he tried to self-sustain, he gets runaway.  With the added 400 W of
> resistive heating, he can operate the cell just below the runaway
> temperature.


Let's see.  Using 400 W to maintain his window of stability on a
12,000 W reactor implies that he is a far cry from a "safe" reactor.
It implies that, if he pushes it to 13,000 W, he gets runaway.

Based on this (gross) assumption, some really good feedback controls
are going to be required on a commercial product.

T

Re: [Vo]:a longer duration black box test would prove issue without disclosure

[Terry Blanton]

On Tue, Jan 18, 2011 at 5:37 PM, Jones Beene  wrote:

> This amplification of input is why he has named it the way he has.

Although, it would not really be amplification, would it?  The
reaction has a known instability and he uses the 400 W stable source
to mask that instability.

Real time measurements of the core would tell the truth.

T

Re: [Vo]:Pycno or no?

[mixent]

In reply to  Terry Blanton's message of Tue, 18 Jan 2011 17:38:25 -0500:
Hi,
[snip]
>On Tue, Jan 18, 2011 at 5:13 PM, Terry Blanton  wrote:
>
>> I think Rossi is operating near the edge of a runaway reaction.  He
>> uses the resistive heating device to ensure runaway does not happen.
>> If he tried to self-sustain, he gets runaway.  With the added 400 W of
>> resistive heating, he can operate the cell just below the runaway
>> temperature.
>
>
>Let's see.  Using 400 W to maintain his window of stability on a
>12,000 W reactor implies that he is a far cry from a "safe" reactor.
>It implies that, if he pushes it to 13,000 W, he gets runaway.
>
>Based on this (gross) assumption, some really good feedback controls
>are going to be required on a commercial product.
>
>T
He also says that he has run with a COP up to 400+.

Regards,

Robin van Spaandonk

http://rvanspaa.freehostia.com/Project.html

Re: [Vo]:Pycno or no?

[Jed Rothwell]

Terry Blanton wrote:


Based on this (gross) assumption, some really good feedback controls
are going to be required on a commercial product.


Whether that is true or not, one thing seems certain to me: it would 
lunacy to install thousands of these machines without regulations, and 
without first spending billions of dollars to ensure safety. Our modern, 
high-tech industrial civilization simply will not allow people to 
install these things on their own, without oversight, approval by 
Underwriter's Laboratory, regulations covering the disposal of the 
tritium and other radioactive byproducts, and so on, and so forth. The 
red tape is onerous, but I doubt anyone would want to go back to life as 
it was before we had all this red tape, and people could do what they 
wanted. Libertarians wax nostalgic about the past, but I doubt they 
would want people in their neighborhood installing nuclear fusion 
reactors that work for unknown reasons, and that the inventor (Rossi) 
says can be dangerous.


Rossi's plan is to start selling these things and make a lot of money. I 
just don't see that happening. After he sells a few hundred, regulators 
are bound to take notice, and they will step in. I do not know if this 
falls in the bailiwick of the NRC or Consumer Product Safety Commission 
or what. I expect the regulators themselves will not know, and they will 
end up fighting over who gets to regulate it. He deserves any amount of 
money, but I fear he will not get it by won't get it by this method. 
He'll be stopped by the regulators, and then swindled by the big 
industrial corporations.


- Jed

Re: [Vo]:a longer duration black box test would prove issue without disclosure

[OrionWorks - Steven V Johnson]

>From Jed:

...

> Rossi said that removing the AC heat completely is dangerous. That give me
> the willies. If the external electricity cuts off, will the machine
> overheat? Or if it is built in a self sustaining device and the generator
> fails, will it overheat or go out of control? It would be nice if the heat
> triggered the reaction, and removing the heat simply quenched it, but based
> on Rossi's comment that is is "dangerous" to run without the auxiliary heat,
> that is not the case.
>
> Who knows what to make of it! Rossi is hiding many details.

Granted, the most knowledgeable individuals within the Vort collective
are shooting in the dark with their best educated guesses.
Nevertheless, the gist of what seems to be forming in my mind is the
fact that the "Rossi Effect", if verified, implies that whatever might
be initially built (presumably for the benefit of you and I) is not
likely be translated into consumer products destined for the shelves
WallMart and Home Depot anytime soon.

Based on what I've read so far, I know I'd prefer the full protection
and experience of a major utility company managing the "reactor" -
certainly initially. Hopefully, enuf of them will step up to the
plate. I would assume retrofitting the boilers of a utility would be
economically feasible in many cases

I would think that only after a considerable amount of experience
combined with a good track record has been built up, plus a theory
that everyone can agree on, would consumer products even be
considered.

As Dirty Harry once said: "A man's gotta know his limitations."

Regards
Steven Vincent Johnson
www.OrionWorks.com
www.zazzle.com/orionworks

Re: [Vo]:Pycno or no?

[Terry Blanton]

On Tue, Jan 18, 2011 at 5:56 PM,   wrote:

> He also says that he has run with a COP up to 400+.


And he has had a few fires.

T

Re: [Vo]:a longer duration black box test would prove issue without disclosure

[Jed Rothwell]

OrionWorks - Steven V Johnson wrote:


Based on what I've read so far, I know I'd prefer the full protection
and experience of a major utility company managing the "reactor" . . .


Me too!



I would think that only after a considerable amount of experience
combined with a good track record has been built up, plus a theory
that everyone can agree on, would consumer products even be
considered.


I think so too. But here's what I predict: the calendar time it takes to 
generate that "considerable track record" will be more compressed than 
any industrial development in history, including the development of 
nuclear power and bombs during WWII.


Once it becomes generally known that this is a real nuclear effect that 
is likely to lower the cost of energy by a factor of 10 at first, and 
thousands more later, every industrial corporation on earth will pile 
onto it. Hundreds of thousands of researchers will work frantically to 
understand it, control it, and bring it to market.


So even though it will take billions and probably an act of Congress, I 
am sanguine. It will happen swiftly.


Someone who is talking to investors about Rossi asked me what I thought 
the projected cost per thermal kWh would be. I told him that Rossi 
described the consumables and 6-month maintenance, and estimates about 
$0.01/kWh. But my guess is that "first generation machine of that nature 
are far more expensive than anyone anticipates." Then I wrote:



"Frankly, I do not think that a conventional analysis such as the cost 
of thermal kWh in the initial implementation does this justice. We are 
talking about the most revolutionary technology in history. Making the 
decision to invest or not based on the initial performance would 
resemble the decisions made by DEC and Data General not to go into the 
personal computer business because the first PCs had lower performance 
per dollar than minicomputers. That was true, but not for long. In 1980, 
any computer company that decided not to pursue the PC market was 
signing its own death warrant. If Rossi is not mistaken, and this thing 
is real, and if even ONE company, anywhere decides to develop it, then 
every other major industrial company will either follow suit and invest 
billions in the technology, or it will go bankrupt in a few decades. GE, 
Toyota or Mitsubishi -- it makes no difference how big or powerful they 
are now. They will either develop this or they will vanish like the 
Pennsylvania Railroad, General Motors, DEC and all the other great 
corporations that went out of business in the 20th century.


Cold fusion will be the core technology to as many different products as 
integrated circuits are today. Can you imagine how long GE would last 
today if they had no expertise in integrated circuits or computers?


That's what I would tell investors . . ."


- Jed

Re: [Vo]:Nagel: Check List for LENR Validation Experiments

[Jeff Driscoll]

The calculations of the steam velocity below translates to a 188 mph jet of
steam coming out of a hose having an area of 1 cm^2  (equates to a 1.13 cm
inner diameter hose or .44" inner diamter)

Double the area of the hose and the velocity will drop by a factor of 2 to
94 mph.

The steam should be transparent for many inches beyond the end of the hose
if sprayed into the room - did it?   How do people describe the velocity and
volume of the steam?

On Tue, Jan 18, 2011 at 3:35 PM, Jones Beene  wrote:

>  Here are some calculations that imply certain water/humidity effects
> which should have been observed at the demo.
>
> This is from an associate LENR researcher - Jeff Morriss, in response to
> the other issues on steam/vapor raised by Jeff Driscoll and Peter van
> Noorden, which so far do not have convincing answers.
>
>
>
> Nagel states that 150 grams of water are boiled every 30 sec, or 5 cc/sec.
> Taking the density of steam at 100C as .590 Kg/m**3 and ratio-ing it
> against the density of liquid water as 1000 kG/m**3 yields a volume increase
> of 1690. So each 5 cc of water is converted into 8450 cc of steam every
> second. If we estimate the area of the vent hose at ~1 cm**2, then the steam
> velocity must be 8450 cm/sec of 84.5 m/sec. This is about 1/4 the speed of
> sound and should produce quite a jet of steam. Did anyone observe this?
> Also, the steam would condense and quickly produce a saturated atmosphere
> and condensation on metal surfaces. Again, did anyone observe this?
>
>
>
> Here is a second sanity check. The specific heat of dry air at 1 atm is
> 1.14 kJ/Km**3. If we assume a room volume of 300 m**3 (about the size of
> an average classroom) then it takes
>
>  (300 m**3)*(1.14 kJ/Km**3) = 342 kJ
>
> to raise the temperature of the room by one degree.  The energy required to
> boil 18 liters of water is 4.7E4 kJ. So if no heat escaped the room and we
> ignored the additional energy change due to an increase in relative
> humidity then the ambient temperature should have increased by 4.7e4/342 or
> about 137 degrees C.  Even if the air in the room cycled every 6 minutes
> (and that would require special ventilation) the ambient would still rise
> by 13.7C, which would be noticeably hot and muggy.
>
>
>
> Finally, the 4.7E4 kJ/hour is equivalent to 1.31E4J/sec. As a basis of com
> parison, it would be equivalent to 240V at 54 Amps, which is the capacity
> of an electric furnace for a large house.
>
> You may want to pass my calculations by someone else for checking, but I
> believe they are correct.
>
> Jeff
>
> From: Jeff Driscoll
>
> Was the "steam" exiting the Rossi device transparent or was it an opaque
> white? (right at the top where it transitions from the aluminum foil
> covered "chimney" to the black hose) …If it is transparent then that would
> mean it is water vapor - and truly 12 kW of steam… But if it was white
> then that would indicate condensed tiny liquid droplets (or ultrasonic
> fogging) and fraudulent scamming.
>
>
>
> Water vapor is virtually invisible…. On a tea kettle, the steam immediately
> coming out of the kettle is transparent but roughly 1 or 2 inches
> away the vapor condenses to tiny droplets which become a white fog.
>
>
>
> On Tue, Jan 18, P.J van Noorden  wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> I wondered why people had no problems with the 8 liters of watervapour
> which was released into the room during the Rossi experiment. A simple
> experiment in which I evaporised 8 liters of water in a room of 100 m3 with
> a powersource of 9 kW ( 3 heaters of each 3 kW) did produce a very humid
> atmosphere ( approaching RH 90%) and the temperature rose to more then 30
> degr.
>
> Why wasn`t this detected during the experiment of Rossi?  If the aircon
> was powerfull enough one would still notice a turbulence of warm and cold
> airflow in the room.
>
>
>
> Peter
>
> - Original Message -
>
> From: Jeff Driscoll
>
> To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
>
> Sent: Tuesday, January 18, 2011 4:08 AM
>
> Subject: Re: [Vo]:Nagel: Check List for LENR Validation Experiments
>
> That meter that was listed can measure Relative Humidity but it can not
> measure the quality of the steam.   As you know, relative humidity just
> means how saturated the air is for for the given temperature - it says
> absolutely nothing about the quality (dryness or "wetness") of the steam.
>
> The quality of the steam (a.k.a. dryness on Vortex) gives you the ratio of
> the mass of vapor to the total mass of water (liquid and vapor) in a given
> sample.
>
> It takes complicated expensive instruments to measure the quality of steam
> (one device is called a "throttling calorimeter").   A common or even
> expensive Relative Humidity instrument can not do it.
>
> If Rossi used an ultrasonic fogger in boiling water, he could get micron
> sized droplets at 100 C.  That's close enough to 101 C with errors due to
> calibration. They should insulate the black hose and stick it in a barrel of
> water.   12 kW of steam that is fed

Re: [Vo]:a longer duration black box test would prove issue without disclosure

[francis]

 

All Catalysts are normally considered accelerators of standard reactions and
skeletal catalysts are based on Casimir geometry / suppression of energy
density which is known to lead

To relativistic effects on the half lives of radioactive gas. Perhaps Rossi
is using sodium or other very slightly radioactive material to make an
accelerator into an amplifier? My premise is that

Both the radioactive gas and the hydrogen reactions are aging relative to us
at a rate related to the Casimir force/geometry turning relatively innocuous
materials into radiation emitters from our perspective but unchanged from
their own local perspective.  I don't know how such seemingly sparse
radiation would be translated back to our frames -  a single emission an
hour might appear a thousand fold faster from our perspective but the
radiation leaves the particle normally from a local perspective . I guess my
question is would time dilation concentrate or dilute radiation during a
space time translation? Could the dimension of time be acting like a
radiation shield?

Fran

 

Terry Blanton
Tue, 18 Jan 2011 14:46:12 -0800

On Tue, Jan 18, 2011 at 5:37 PM, Jones Beene  wrote:

 

> This amplification of input is why he has named it the way he has.

 

Although, it would not really be amplification, would it?  The

reaction has a known instability and he uses the 400 W stable source

to mask that instability.

 

Real time measurements of the core would tell the truth.

 

T

 

 

RE: [Vo]:Richard C Macaulay

[Kyle Mcallister]

--- On Tue, 1/18/11, Jones Beene  wrote:

> ... a true character ... but I'm not so sure the Dime Box
> was fictitious ?

The romantic in me likes to think it was real. Maybe not in this plane of 
reality, whatever it is, but *somewhere*.

I liked R.C.

We talked quite a bit off-list about many things. All sorts of topics, 
scientific or otherwise. When he stopped responding, I had hoped it was just 
due to being busy or perhaps only a transient illness.

R.C., wherever you are, take care my friend. And give 'em hell the next time 
two guys play an ace of diamonds at the same time. And save me a stool at the 
bar, life's only a few days and full of trouble. I'll walk in the door one day, 
in the course of time.

--Kyle


  

Re: [Vo]:My inquiry to Society for Classical Physics Yahoo group rejected

[OrionWorks - Steven V Johnson]

Apparently, my original query back in November to R. Mills' Society
for Classical Physics group regarding a possible demonstration of the
CIHT process in 2011 got lost. The moderator asked me to resubmit my
query. I did.

Regards,
Steven Vincent Johnson
www.orionworks.com
www.zazzle.com/orionworks




On Mon, Jan 17, 2011 at 6:26 PM, OrionWorks - Steven V Johnson
 wrote:
> Late in December of last year I sent an inquiry to the officially
> recognized Society for Classical Physics Yahoo group. I asked Dr.
> Mills if BLP was planning on assembling kind of a demonstration since
> certain news feeds I'd received earlier in the month seemed to imply
> that something would be demonstrated later in 2011. I sent the
> following inquiry:
>
> **
>
> Hello Dr. Mills,
>
> I noticed in one or two of my recent Google News Feeds keyed to
> "BlackLight Power" that an interesting claim is being made. For
> example, from PBT Consulting, Strategic Marketing, Business Planning,
> Research, Venture Capital and Financing, one can read the following
> excerpt:
>
> -
>
> "BLACKLIGHT POWER IS BACK IN THE NEWS,
> SAYS IT CAN GENERATE ELECTRICITY FOR $25 A KILOWATT, A PUBLIC DEMO IS
> SLATED FOR 2011"
>
> See:
>
> http://tommytoy.typepad.com/tommy-toy-pbt-consultin/2010/11/blacklight-power-is-back-in-the-news-says-it-can-generate-electricity-for-25-a-kilowatt-a-public-dem.html
>
> http://tinyurl.com/2awqfsm
>
> -
>
> According to this link I have found myself speculating that a possible
> public POC (proof-of-concept) demonstration of the CIHT (Catalyst
> Induced Hydrino Transition) process may in the works for next year,
> 2011.
>
> Can you confirm this, or at least clarify BLP's position on the
> matter? I thought it might be useful to go to the source for
> clarification.
>
> Thanks for your input. As always, wishing you and BLP the best of
> success in the coming years.
>
> Regards,
> Steven Vincent Johnson
> www.OrionWorks.com
>
> **
>
> I never heard back. I assumed my email might have gotten lost in all
> the holiday static. Well... Apparently not.
>
> I just received the following rejection letter:
>
> 
>
> Hello,
>
> Your message to the SocietyforClassicalPhysics group was not approved.
> The owner of the group controls the content posted to it and has the
> right to approve or reject messages accordingly
>
> 
>
> Hmmm. Was it something I said
>
>
> Regards
> Steven Vincent Johnson
> www.OrionWorks.com
> www.zazzle.com/orionworks
>
>



-- 
Regards
Steven Vincent Johnson
www.OrionWorks.com
www.zazzle.com/orionworks

Re: [Vo]:Celani's report on Rossi January 14 test

[albedo5]

It seems I spend most of my waking hours lately analysing spectra, with
handheld detector characterisation a close second.  It's a good thing I have
such great toys to do it with.  I recently dreamed about daughter isotopes
prancing around a lovely neutron waterfall, with Bremsstrahlung providing
the background music.  Now THAT is scary.

Interestingly enough, one of the detector materials I've had to delve into
lately is NaI.  I suspect I have the detector definition used in at least
one application, so if there's anything to be found, I can dig it out (with
some serious help).  I'm writing a white paper right now describing a
numerical method I created to match detector resolution parameters with
Gaussian broadening parameters, with NaI being one of the materials.  It
keeps me off the streets, and it also pays well.  :)

I'd love to finally contribute something here!

Debbie

On Tue, Jan 18, 2011 at 5:15 PM, Terry Blanton  wrote:

> On Tue, Jan 18, 2011 at 3:51 PM, albedo5  wrote:
>
>
> > If he wants the spectrum he did get analyzed, I can get this done in
> several
> > different ways.
>
> Oh, so now you are a nuclear scientist.  I'll have to change your moniker.
>
> (N)T
>
>

Re: [Vo]:Miles Mathis

[Dr Joe Karthauser]

On 14 Jan 2011, at 10:04, Mauro Lacy  wrote:

> A demolishing criticism of Miles Mathis, particularly on his paper about Pi 
> being 4 (among many other things, Miles shows that Pi equals four, with an 
> elegant(and wrong) "proof", which basically boils down to this)

That was a fun read. Thanks :)
Joe

Re: [Vo]:PesWiki's report on Focardi and Rossi

[Rich Murray]

A hidden factor of 4 increase in electric power input to a resistive
heater is possible: Rich Murray 2011.01.18

1. Use four power input wires, one hidden from the floor up through
the inside of each of the four table legs -- in fact table legs could
conceal as many as 4 -- 9 wires each -- has anyone tried moving the
table?

2. A single thin wire can supply power at lower current and higher
voltage, as a thin layer of insulating plastic can insulate 880 AC
volts, 4 X 220 volts, and 1/4 the current at 220 volts, as Er = V**2 X
I = 4**2 X 1/4 = 16 X 1/4 = 4 ...,ie, 4X more energy.

Such an additional thin wire, 1/2 the diameter (1/4 the area) of a 220
volt wire, could be easily hidden within a regular 3 wire extension
cord, for instance by being disguised as the third "ground" wire -- or
such extra wires may be in power cables made for special purposes,
where some device needs a high voltage feed in addition to 240 volt
AC.

3. Gold wires carry much more power than Cu wires...

Strict testing might necessitate bringing in a standard propane gas
motor electric generator, or a special power input box to monitor the
actual power outputs from the 3-prong plug, with attention to
capability to detect current flows from hidden wires of metal or
conducting plastic, glass, films, or paint.

Also, H2 gas and other gas or liquid fluids could be fed into the
device via tubes hidden in the H2 and H20 input and exit tubes.

The reported gamma rays are, however, possibly definite evidence of
nuclear reactions.

So, there are many feasible ways for fraud to elude the usual scrutiny
of academic scientists -- and these are ideas from an unskilled
layman...

Rich Murray  505-819-7388  rmfor...@gmail.com


On Tue, Jan 18, 2011 at 11:27 AM, Jed Rothwell  wrote:
> Stephen A. Lawrence wrote:
>
>> And as to "not being convinced by anything" ... as long as the conclusions
>> are based on precise heat measurements there is room for doubt.
>
> These conclusions are based on somewhat imprecise measurements, and you can
> be just as certain with no measurements at all. Just look at the thing. You
> see water going in at about a liter every three minutes, steam coming out,
> and only a thin, ordinary wire going to the power supplies. It would be
> physically impossible for that wire to supply the electricity needed to
> vaporize that much water. Impossible by a wide margin; at least a factor of
> 4. You don't even need to see the power meter or thermometers to be sure of
> this.
>
>
>>  Once the loop is closed there is no more room for doubt.
>
> As far as I am concerned, this is first principle proof, and it is as
> convincing as a self sustaining machine, or as Fleischmann's boil-off video.
> Unless there are camera tricks or hidden wires involved this is massive
> anomalous heat. I do not think there are tricks or hidden wires because the
> professors involved would notice that, and they would not stand for it. If
> it were only the inventor, and everything was under his exclusive control, I
> might suspect a fake, but I would be just as suspicious of a self-sustaining
> demo under the control of the inventor.
>
> - Jed
>
>

Re: [Vo]:Pycno or no?

[Stephen A. Lawrence]

On 01/18/2011 05:56 PM, mix...@bigpond.com wrote:
> In reply to  Terry Blanton's message of Tue, 18 Jan 2011 17:38:25 -0500:
> Hi,
> [snip]
>   
>> On Tue, Jan 18, 2011 at 5:13 PM, Terry Blanton  wrote:
>>
>> 
>>> I think Rossi is operating near the edge of a runaway reaction.  He
>>> uses the resistive heating device to ensure runaway does not happen.
>>> If he tried to self-sustain, he gets runaway.  With the added 400 W of
>>> resistive heating, he can operate the cell just below the runaway
>>> temperature.
>>>   
>>
>> Let's see.  Using 400 W to maintain his window of stability on a
>> 12,000 W reactor implies that he is a far cry from a "safe" reactor.
>> It implies that, if he pushes it to 13,000 W, he gets runaway.
>>
>> Based on this (gross) assumption, some really good feedback controls
>> are going to be required on a commercial product.
>>
>> T
>> 
> He also says that he has run with a COP up to 400+.
>   

If he's run with the input shut off, as other statements of his imply,
then he's run with a COP of infinity.


> Regards,
>
> Robin van Spaandonk
>
> http://rvanspaa.freehostia.com/Project.html
>
>
>   

Re: [Vo]:Miles Mathis

[Stephen A. Lawrence]

On 01/14/2011 05:04 AM, Mauro Lacy wrote:
> A demolishing criticism
> 
> of Miles Mathis, particularly on his paper about Pi being 4
>  (among many other things, Miles shows
> that Pi equals four, with an elegant(and wrong) "proof", which
> basically boils down to this
> )

Nice, and that last link's a very cute proof, and nice illustration of
what arc-length /doesn't/ mean, as well as being an example of an
unexpected encounter with a fractal.

Here's another, vaguely related "one-page-puzzle" (uses the same goofy
grinning head, otherwise unrelated):

http://i.imgur.com/IKFiu.jpg

It's so totally crude, so silly, and yet ... so hard to see why it won't
work...

Re: [Vo]:Pycno or no?

[Harry Veeder]

Jed wrote:
>
>
>Rossi believes the temperature at the core is 1500°C. As I mentioned here, 
>Ed thinks that is impossible because it is above the melting point of 
>nickel.
>


Does it have to be pure nickel or can it be an alloy of nickel which would have 
a higher melting point?

Harry

Re: [Vo]:Nagel: Check List for LENR Validation Experiments

[Harry Veeder]

> 
> But who the f  knows?
> 
> T


The elusive Dr. f 

Harry

Re: [Vo]:PesWiki's report on Focardi and Rossi

[Stephen A. Lawrence]

But, Rich, the input power was measured -- /not/ by Rossi -- and the
setup was apparently done by the other profs, /not/ by Rossi himself.

The power supply and the other paraphernalia (aside from the reactor)
were apparently provided by various other profs, /not/ by Rossi.

So unless you're assuming a conspiracy of at least two or three of the
presenters, scenarios which require hollow legs in the table, special
wiring to the outlet, phony power supply leads, and so forth just will
not fly.



On 01/18/2011 10:25 PM, Rich Murray wrote:
> A hidden factor of 4 increase in electric power input to a resistive
> heater is possible: Rich Murray 2011.01.18
>
> 1. Use four power input wires, one hidden from the floor up through
> the inside of each of the four table legs -- in fact table legs could
> conceal as many as 4 -- 9 wires each -- has anyone tried moving the
> table?
>
> 2. A single thin wire can supply power at lower current and higher
> voltage, as a thin layer of insulating plastic can insulate 880 AC
> volts, 4 X 220 volts, and 1/4 the current at 220 volts, as Er = V**2 X
> I = 4**2 X 1/4 = 16 X 1/4 = 4 ...,ie, 4X more energy.
>
> Such an additional thin wire, 1/2 the diameter (1/4 the area) of a 220
> volt wire, could be easily hidden within a regular 3 wire extension
> cord, for instance by being disguised as the third "ground" wire -- or
> such extra wires may be in power cables made for special purposes,
> where some device needs a high voltage feed in addition to 240 volt
> AC.
>
> 3. Gold wires carry much more power than Cu wires...
>
> Strict testing might necessitate bringing in a standard propane gas
> motor electric generator, or a special power input box to monitor the
> actual power outputs from the 3-prong plug, with attention to
> capability to detect current flows from hidden wires of metal or
> conducting plastic, glass, films, or paint.
>
> Also, H2 gas and other gas or liquid fluids could be fed into the
> device via tubes hidden in the H2 and H20 input and exit tubes.
>
> The reported gamma rays are, however, possibly definite evidence of
> nuclear reactions.
>
> So, there are many feasible ways for fraud to elude the usual scrutiny
> of academic scientists -- and these are ideas from an unskilled
> layman...
>
> Rich Murray  505-819-7388  rmfor...@gmail.com
>
>
> On Tue, Jan 18, 2011 at 11:27 AM, Jed Rothwell  wrote:
>   
>> Stephen A. Lawrence wrote:
>>
>> 
>>> And as to "not being convinced by anything" ... as long as the conclusions
>>> are based on precise heat measurements there is room for doubt.
>>>   
>> These conclusions are based on somewhat imprecise measurements, and you can
>> be just as certain with no measurements at all. Just look at the thing. You
>> see water going in at about a liter every three minutes, steam coming out,
>> and only a thin, ordinary wire going to the power supplies. It would be
>> physically impossible for that wire to supply the electricity needed to
>> vaporize that much water. Impossible by a wide margin; at least a factor of
>> 4. You don't even need to see the power meter or thermometers to be sure of
>> this.
>>
>>
>> 
>>>  Once the loop is closed there is no more room for doubt.
>>>   
>> As far as I am concerned, this is first principle proof, and it is as
>> convincing as a self sustaining machine, or as Fleischmann's boil-off video.
>> Unless there are camera tricks or hidden wires involved this is massive
>> anomalous heat. I do not think there are tricks or hidden wires because the
>> professors involved would notice that, and they would not stand for it. If
>> it were only the inventor, and everything was under his exclusive control, I
>> might suspect a fake, but I would be just as suspicious of a self-sustaining
>> demo under the control of the inventor.
>>
>> - Jed
>>
>>
>> 
>
>   

Re: [Vo]:PesWiki's report on Focardi and Rossi

[Jed Rothwell]

Rich Murray  wrote:

A hidden factor of 4 increase in electric power input to a resistive
> heater is possible: Rich Murray 2011.01.18
>

It would have to be a factor of 30, not 4. The power meter shows 400 W, and
the output is 12 kW.


>
> 1. Use four power input wires, one hidden from the floor up through
> the inside of each of the four table legs -- in fact table legs could
> conceal as many as 4 -- 9 wires each -- has anyone tried moving the
> table?
>

That's preposterous. You can see that the machine is sitting on a board with
rubber feet and has been moved around from one photo to the next. You know
that the researchers who verified it inserted the temperature probes and
tubes, insulation and blue tape all over it. Do you really, seriously think
they would not notice wires going into it?

This is real life, not a pulp thriller novel or James Bond.



>
> 2. A single thin wire can supply power at lower current and higher
> voltage, as a thin layer of insulating plastic can insulate 880 AC
> volts, 4 X 220 volts, and 1/4 the current at 220 volts, as Er = V**2 X
> I = 4**2 X 1/4 = 16 X 1/4 = 4 ...,ie, 4X more energy.
>

Have you ever seen the size of the wires going into a 10 kW electric motor
or heater? It is enormous!

- Jed

Re: [Vo]:Miles Mathis

[Harry Veeder]

The philosophical foundations of geometry interests me.
Thanks for this link.

Harry


>
>From: Stephen A. Lawrence 
>To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
>Sent: Tue, January 18, 2011 11:11:04 PM
>Subject: Re: [Vo]:Miles Mathis
>
>
>
>On 01/14/2011 05:04 AM, Mauro Lacy wrote: 
>A demolishingcriticism of Miles Mathis, particularly on his paper about Pi 
>being 4 (among many other things, Miles shows that Pi equals four, with an 
>elegant(and wrong) "proof", which basically boils down to this)
>>
Nice, and that last link's a very cute proof, and nice illustration of what 
arc-length doesn't mean, as well as being an example of an unexpected encounter 
with a fractal.

Here's another, vaguely related "one-page-puzzle" (uses the same goofy grinning 
head, otherwise unrelated):

http://i.imgur.com/IKFiu.jpg

It's so totally crude, so silly, and yet ... so hard to see why it won't work...

[Vo]: how to stop runaway condition... I must be missing something!

[Mark Iverson]

I am finally caught up with reading all the postings, and I fully expected 
someone to have pointed
out the obvious way to stop a runaway condition... Shut off the hydrogen!!  Has 
it not been said
NUMEROUS times that the thing stops very quickly after the hydrogen supply is 
shut off??

I MUST be missing something here... That's too simple, and I'm the slow one of 
the bunch!

If that won't reverse the runaway condition fast enough, inject a contaminating 
gas... Perhaps, of
all things, steam?  

I have to disagree about Jed's assertion of how long and difficult it will be 
to make the thing
'safe'... There are thousands of top-notch engineers who could devise any 
number of solutions and
safeguards in no time at all. But if regulatory agencies have to also approve 
it, all I can say is I
hope I live long enough to at least see it approved!

-Mark


-Original Message-
From: Jed Rothwell [mailto:jedrothw...@gmail.com] 
Sent: Tuesday, January 18, 2011 3:24 PM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Pycno or no?

Terry Blanton wrote:

> Based on this (gross) assumption, some really good feedback controls 
> are going to be required on a commercial product.

Whether that is true or not, one thing seems certain to me: it would lunacy to 
install thousands of
these machines without regulations, and without first spending billions of 
dollars to ensure safety.

[...deleted...]

[Vo]:a challenge for skeptics -- hidden H2 source would have to supply 36--216 kg H2 to make Rossi heat: Rich Murray 2011.01.18

[Rich Murray]

a challenge for skeptics -- hidden H2 source would have to supply
36--216 kg H2 to make Rossi heat: Rich Murray 2011.01.18

[ Rich Murray: "100 to 600 more than the sensitivity of the scale",
which may be 0.1 gm, gives 10 -- 60 gm/second ranges of H2 used --
36,000 -- 216,000 gm = 36 -- 216 kg H2 -- that would be a lot to deliver from a
hidden source... ]

" The first measurements Levi described were energy measurements to
determine the
input of energy inside the reactor and the output of energy of the
reactor. “I don't have
conclusive data on radiation but absolutely we have measured ~12 kW
(at steady state) of
energy produced with an input of about just 400 watts. I would say
this is the main result.
We have seen also this energy was not of chemical origin, by checking
the consumption
of hydrogen. There was no measurable hydrogen consumption, at least
with our mass 2
measurement.” By measuring with a very sensitive scale, within a
precision of a 10 th
of a gram, Levi measured the weight of the hydrogen bottle before and
after the experiment
“If the energy was of chemical origin you would have expected to
consume about 100 to
600 more than the sensitivity of the scale. You measure the bottle
before and after and
then you see in your measurements there was almost no hydrogen consumed.” "



http://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/MacyMspecificso.pdf

Macy, M., Specifics of Andrea Rossi's "Energy Catalyzer" Test,
University of Bologna, January 14, 2011.
2011, LENR-CANR.org.

Specifics of Andrea Rossi’s “Energy Catalyzer” Test,
University of Bologna, 1/14/2001

Marianne Macy

On January 14, 2011, Andrea Rossi submitted his “Energy Catalyzer”
reactor, which
burns hydrogen in a nickel catalyst, for examination by scientists at
the University of
Bologna and The INFN (Italian National Institute of Nuclear Physics).
The test was
organized by Dr. Giuseppe Levi of INFN and the University of Bologna
and was assisted
by other members of the physics and chemistry faculties. This result
was achieved
without the production of any measurable nuclear radiation. The
magnitude of this result
suggests that there is a viable energy technology that uses commonly
available materials,
that does not produce carbon dioxide, and that does not produce
radioactive waste and
will be economical to build.

The reactor used less than 1 gram of hydrogen, less than 1,000 W of
electricity to
convert 292 grams of water per minute at ~20°C into dry steam at
~101°C. The unit was
turned ON and began producing some steam in a few minutes, and once it
reached steady
state continued producing steam until it was turned OFF. The amount of
power required
to heat water 80°C and convert it to steam is approximately 12,000
watts. Dr. Levi and
his team will be producing a technical report detailing the design and
execution of their
evaluation.

A representative of the investment group stated that they were looking
to produce a
20 kW unit and that within two months they would make a public announcement. He
declared that their completed studies revealed a “huge, favorable
difference in numbers”
between the cost to produce the Rossi Catalyzer and other green
technologies. “We had a
similar demonstration six months ago with the same success we’ve had
today. We are
almost ready with the industrialized product, which we think is going
to be a revolution.
It is a totally green energy.” The representative offered that the
company was called
Defkalion Energy, named for the father of the Greco Roman empire, and
was based in
Athens.

Giuseppe Levi, PhD in nuclear physics at the University of Bologna and
who works at
INFN, offers exclusive comments on the test, which he deemed “an open
experiment for
physicists. The idea was like a conference: to tell everybody what was
going on and
eventually to start new research programs on that topic.”

The first measurements Levi described were energy measurements to determine the
input of energy inside the reactor and the output of energy of the
reactor. “I don't have
conclusive data on radiation but absolutely we have measured ~12 kW
(at steady state) of
energy produced with an input of about just 400 watts. I would say
this is the main result.
We have seen also this energy was not of chemical origin, by checking
the consumption
of hydrogen. There was no measurable hydrogen consumption, at least
with our mass 2
measurement.” By measuring with a very sensitive scale, within a
precision of a 10 th
of a gram, Levi measured the weight of the hydrogen bottle before and
after the experiment
“If the energy was of chemical origin you would have expected to
consume about 100 to
600 more than the sensitivity of the scale. You measure the bottle
before and after and
then you see in your measurements there was almost no hydrogen consumed.”

[ Rich Murray: "100 to 600 more than the sensitivity of the scale",
which may be 0.1 gm, gives 10 -- 60 gm/second ranges of H2 used --
36,000 -- 216,000 gm = 36 -- 216 kg H2 -- that would be a lot to deliver fro

[Vo]:Thousands of Birds and Fish Dropping Dead

[Horace Heffner]

See: http://forum.prisonplanet.com/index.php?topic=196881.240

See posts in the above URL in Re: "Thousands of Birds and Fish  
Dropping Dead Across Multiple States"


Also note URL list of events in the above, and quoted below.  If this  
is real then it seems to be highly anomalous.


Quote:
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
BIRDS

Arkansas – 5000 +
http://www.cnn.com/2011/US/01/03/arkansas.falling.birds/index.html? 
hpt=T2


Louisiana – 500 +
http://www.2theadvocate.com/news/112843019.html

Kentucky – dozens
http://www.wpsdlocal6.com/news/local/Woman-reports-dozens-of-dead- 
birds-in-her-yard-112830524.html


New Zealand
http://www.stuff.co.nz/environment/4490315/Weather-patterns-lead-to- 
mass-bird-deaths


Japan and Hong Kong, (H1N1 blamed)
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/01/04/health/04global.html?_r=4

Germany
http://www.presseportal.de/polizeipresse/pm/8/1742717/polizei_dueren

UK
http://news.bbc.co.uk/local/norfolk/hi/people_and_places/nature/ 
newsid_9309000/9309398.stm


North Carolina - hundreds of Pelicans (autopsy have ruled out humans  
killing birds)
http://www.carteretnewstimes.com/articles/2010/12/28/topsail_voice/ 
news/doc4d120c21c2083603738750.txt


Italy - 300 doves
http://www.geapress.org/ambiente/faenza-piovono-tortore-morte-foto/10282

Bats in Arizona:
http://www.azcentral.com/news/articles/2010/12/28/20101228tucson-70- 
dead-bats-found.html


Bats in New Hampshire
http://www.wildlife.state.nh.us/Newsroom/News_2010/News_2010_Q2/ 
NG_Bats_041210.html



FISH & SEA LIFE

Arkansas
http://www.todaysthv.com/news/local/story.aspx?storyid=136401&catid=2

Fish in Maryland
http://www.wbaltv.com/r/26357581/detail.html

Florida
http://www.wftv.com/news/26367953/detail.html

More Florida
http://www.cfnews13.com/article/news/2010/december/183768/Dead-fish- 
turn-up-in-Cocoa


Texas
http://www.ksat.com/news/26316464/detail.html

Indiana
http://www.wndu.com/localnews/headlines/ 
Dead_fish_wash_up_on_Washington_Park_beach_112105654.html


Brazil, 100 tons of dead fish was ashore in the last week.
http://www.parana-online.com.br/editoria/cidades/news/502434/? 
noticia=MORTANDADE+MISTERIOSA+DE+PEIXES+NO+LITORAL


New Zealand
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=10697906
http://www.3news.co.nz/Dead-fish-as-far-as-the-eye-can-see-PHOTOS/ 
tabid/1160/articleID/193199/Default.aspx


New Zealand (perhaps interesting when you look at the more recent  
events not related to nets)
http://www.stuff.co.nz/auckland/local-news/rodney-times/4477740/ 
Enlisted-to-help-with-deadly-haul


Canada
http://www.torontosun.com/news/canada/2011/01/04/16757321.html

Australia
http://www.themorningbulletin.com.au/story/2010/12/13/barramundi- 
found-dead-after-flood/


More Australia
http://www.smh.com.au/environment/water-issues/fish-dying-in- 
blackwater-20101214-18wtn.html


UK
http://www.bymnews.com/news/newsDetails.php?id=79520

More in UK
http://www.peterboroughtoday.co.uk/news/environment/ 
concern_as_fish_die_in_beauty_spot_brook_1_2224957


More in UK
http://www.liverpoolecho.co.uk/liverpool-news/local-news/2010/12/24/ 
hundreds-of-fish-killed-in-greenbank-park-lake-after-water-freezes- 
over-100252-27879505/


100,000 fish in Italy
http://www.bymnews.com/news/newsDetails.php?id=79520

Viet Nam (150 Tons)
http://business.asiaone.com/Business/News/Story/ 
A1Story20101231-255737.html


Philippines
http://globalnation.inquirer.net/cebudailynews/news/view/ 
20101218-309667/Residents-gather-eat-dead-fish-floating-in-barangay-Ibo


Haiti
http://www.france24.com/en/20101227-authorities-probe-dead-fish- 
haitian-lake


Florida Manatee deaths
http://www.orlandosentinel.com/news/local/fl-treasure-coast- 
manatees-20110104,0,7714948.story


Starfish, jellyfish
http://www.abcnews4.com/Global/story.asp?S=13735801

Whales
http://www.mysailing.com.au/news/dead-whale-found-floating-off-ballina
http://www.beachconnection.net/news/smellwh010310_729.php
http://www.newsday.com/long-island/suffolk/no-explanation-on-east- 
hampton-beached-whale-1.2550130
http://www.northernadvocate.co.nz/local/news/tropical-whale-long-way- 
from-home/3935650/
http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2010/12/28/3102597.htm? 
site=illawarra§ion=news&date=(none)

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
end quote

Best regards,

Horace Heffner
http://www.mtaonline.net/~hheffner/

Re: [Vo]:a challenge for skeptics -- hidden H2 source would have to supply 36--216 kg H2 to make Rossi heat: Rich Murray 2011.01.18

[Rich Murray]

Correctio -- I should say, 36 -- 216 kg/hour H2...

On Tue, Jan 18, 2011 at 10:21 PM, Rich Murray  wrote:
> a challenge for skeptics -- hidden H2 source would have to supply
> 36--216 kg H2 to make Rossi heat: Rich Murray 2011.01.18
>
> [ Rich Murray: "100 to 600 more than the sensitivity of the scale",
> which may be 0.1 gm, gives 10 -- 60 gm/second ranges of H2 used --
> 36,000 -- 216,000 gm = 36 -- 216 kg H2 -- that would be a lot to deliver from 
> a
> hidden source... ]
>
> " The first measurements Levi described were energy measurements to
> determine the
> input of energy inside the reactor and the output of energy of the
> reactor. “I don't have
> conclusive data on radiation but absolutely we have measured ~12 kW
> (at steady state) of
> energy produced with an input of about just 400 watts. I would say
> this is the main result.
> We have seen also this energy was not of chemical origin, by checking
> the consumption
> of hydrogen. There was no measurable hydrogen consumption, at least
> with our mass 2
> measurement.” By measuring with a very sensitive scale, within a
> precision of a 10 th
> of a gram, Levi measured the weight of the hydrogen bottle before and
> after the experiment
> “If the energy was of chemical origin you would have expected to
> consume about 100 to
> 600 more than the sensitivity of the scale. You measure the bottle
> before and after and
> then you see in your measurements there was almost no hydrogen consumed.” "
>
>
>
> http://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/MacyMspecificso.pdf
>
> Macy, M., Specifics of Andrea Rossi's "Energy Catalyzer" Test,
> University of Bologna, January 14, 2011.
> 2011, LENR-CANR.org.
>
> Specifics of Andrea Rossi’s “Energy Catalyzer” Test,
> University of Bologna, 1/14/2001
>
> Marianne Macy
>
> On January 14, 2011, Andrea Rossi submitted his “Energy Catalyzer”
> reactor, which
> burns hydrogen in a nickel catalyst, for examination by scientists at
> the University of
> Bologna and The INFN (Italian National Institute of Nuclear Physics).
> The test was
> organized by Dr. Giuseppe Levi of INFN and the University of Bologna
> and was assisted
> by other members of the physics and chemistry faculties. This result
> was achieved
> without the production of any measurable nuclear radiation. The
> magnitude of this result
> suggests that there is a viable energy technology that uses commonly
> available materials,
> that does not produce carbon dioxide, and that does not produce
> radioactive waste and
> will be economical to build.
>
> The reactor used less than 1 gram of hydrogen, less than 1,000 W of
> electricity to
> convert 292 grams of water per minute at ~20°C into dry steam at
> ~101°C. The unit was
> turned ON and began producing some steam in a few minutes, and once it
> reached steady
> state continued producing steam until it was turned OFF. The amount of
> power required
> to heat water 80°C and convert it to steam is approximately 12,000
> watts. Dr. Levi and
> his team will be producing a technical report detailing the design and
> execution of their
> evaluation.
>
> A representative of the investment group stated that they were looking
> to produce a
> 20 kW unit and that within two months they would make a public announcement. 
> He
> declared that their completed studies revealed a “huge, favorable
> difference in numbers”
> between the cost to produce the Rossi Catalyzer and other green
> technologies. “We had a
> similar demonstration six months ago with the same success we’ve had
> today. We are
> almost ready with the industrialized product, which we think is going
> to be a revolution.
> It is a totally green energy.” The representative offered that the
> company was called
> Defkalion Energy, named for the father of the Greco Roman empire, and
> was based in
> Athens.
>
> Giuseppe Levi, PhD in nuclear physics at the University of Bologna and
> who works at
> INFN, offers exclusive comments on the test, which he deemed “an open
> experiment for
> physicists. The idea was like a conference: to tell everybody what was
> going on and
> eventually to start new research programs on that topic.”
>
> The first measurements Levi described were energy measurements to determine 
> the
> input of energy inside the reactor and the output of energy of the
> reactor. “I don't have
> conclusive data on radiation but absolutely we have measured ~12 kW
> (at steady state) of
> energy produced with an input of about just 400 watts. I would say
> this is the main result.
> We have seen also this energy was not of chemical origin, by checking
> the consumption
> of hydrogen. There was no measurable hydrogen consumption, at least
> with our mass 2
> measurement.” By measuring with a very sensitive scale, within a
> precision of a 10 th
> of a gram, Levi measured the weight of the hydrogen bottle before and
> after the experiment
> “If the energy was of chemical origin you would have expected to
> consume about 100 to
> 600 more than the sensitivity of the

RE: [Vo]:Thousands of Birds and Fish Dropping Dead

[Mark Iverson]

Welcome back to the fray, Horace! Its been about 9 months since your last 
postings... 
Glad you didn't decide to join Richard for a drink yet...

Wow, your extensive compilation is overwhelming!  
Are all of those incidents within the last few weeks?

A few days ago I read an article that stated it was Newcastle disease that 
killed hundreds of
blackbirds... Doubt fish get that.

Cold fusion in Italy... Dead birds all over the place.
Just our luck We figure out the secret to cheap, clean energy, and it ends 
up killing all other
life on earth!  Don't sell your BP stock just yet! :-)

-Mark


-Original Message-
From: Horace Heffner [mailto:hheff...@mtaonline.net] 
Sent: Tuesday, January 18, 2011 9:29 PM
To: Vortex-L
Subject: [Vo]:Thousands of Birds and Fish Dropping Dead

See: http://forum.prisonplanet.com/index.php?topic=196881.240

See posts in the above URL in Re: "Thousands of Birds and Fish Dropping Dead 
Across Multiple States"

Also note URL list of events in the above, and quoted below.  If this is real 
then it seems to be
highly anomalous.

Quote:
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - BIRDS

Arkansas - 5000 +
http://www.cnn.com/2011/US/01/03/arkansas.falling.birds/index.html? 
hpt=T2

Louisiana - 500 +
http://www.2theadvocate.com/news/112843019.html

Kentucky - dozens
http://www.wpsdlocal6.com/news/local/Woman-reports-dozens-of-dead-
birds-in-her-yard-112830524.html

New Zealand
http://www.stuff.co.nz/environment/4490315/Weather-patterns-lead-to-
mass-bird-deaths

Japan and Hong Kong, (H1N1 blamed)
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/01/04/health/04global.html?_r=4

Germany
http://www.presseportal.de/polizeipresse/pm/8/1742717/polizei_dueren

UK
http://news.bbc.co.uk/local/norfolk/hi/people_and_places/nature/
newsid_9309000/9309398.stm

North Carolina - hundreds of Pelicans (autopsy have ruled out humans killing 
birds)
http://www.carteretnewstimes.com/articles/2010/12/28/topsail_voice/
news/doc4d120c21c2083603738750.txt

Italy - 300 doves
http://www.geapress.org/ambiente/faenza-piovono-tortore-morte-foto/10282

Bats in Arizona:
http://www.azcentral.com/news/articles/2010/12/28/20101228tucson-70-
dead-bats-found.html

Bats in New Hampshire
http://www.wildlife.state.nh.us/Newsroom/News_2010/News_2010_Q2/
NG_Bats_041210.html


FISH & SEA LIFE

Arkansas
http://www.todaysthv.com/news/local/story.aspx?storyid=136401&catid=2

Fish in Maryland
http://www.wbaltv.com/r/26357581/detail.html

Florida
http://www.wftv.com/news/26367953/detail.html

More Florida
http://www.cfnews13.com/article/news/2010/december/183768/Dead-fish- 
turn-up-in-Cocoa

Texas
http://www.ksat.com/news/26316464/detail.html

Indiana
http://www.wndu.com/localnews/headlines/ 
Dead_fish_wash_up_on_Washington_Park_beach_112105654.html

Brazil, 100 tons of dead fish was ashore in the last week.
http://www.parana-online.com.br/editoria/cidades/news/502434/? 
noticia=MORTANDADE+MISTERIOSA+DE+PEIXES+NO+LITORAL

New Zealand
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=10697906
http://www.3news.co.nz/Dead-fish-as-far-as-the-eye-can-see-PHOTOS/ 
tabid/1160/articleID/193199/Default.aspx

New Zealand (perhaps interesting when you look at the more recent  
events not related to nets)
http://www.stuff.co.nz/auckland/local-news/rodney-times/4477740/ 
Enlisted-to-help-with-deadly-haul

Canada
http://www.torontosun.com/news/canada/2011/01/04/16757321.html

Australia
http://www.themorningbulletin.com.au/story/2010/12/13/barramundi- 
found-dead-after-flood/

More Australia
http://www.smh.com.au/environment/water-issues/fish-dying-in- 
blackwater-20101214-18wtn.html

UK
http://www.bymnews.com/news/newsDetails.php?id=79520

More in UK
http://www.peterboroughtoday.co.uk/news/environment/ 
concern_as_fish_die_in_beauty_spot_brook_1_2224957

More in UK
http://www.liverpoolecho.co.uk/liverpool-news/local-news/2010/12/24/ 
hundreds-of-fish-killed-in-greenbank-park-lake-after-water-freezes- 
over-100252-27879505/

100,000 fish in Italy
http://www.bymnews.com/news/newsDetails.php?id=79520

Viet Nam (150 Tons)
http://business.asiaone.com/Business/News/Story/ 
A1Story20101231-255737.html

Philippines
http://globalnation.inquirer.net/cebudailynews/news/view/ 
20101218-309667/Residents-gather-eat-dead-fish-floating-in-barangay-Ibo

Haiti
http://www.france24.com/en/20101227-authorities-probe-dead-fish- 
haitian-lake

Florida Manatee deaths
http://www.orlandosentinel.com/news/local/fl-treasure-coast- 
manatees-20110104,0,7714948.story

Starfish, jellyfish
http://www.abcnews4.com/Global/story.asp?S=13735801

Whales
http://www.mysailing.com.au/news/dead-whale-found-floating-off-ballina
http://www.beachconnection.net/news/smellwh010310_729.php
http://www.newsday.com/long-island/suffolk/no-explanation-on-east- 
hampton-beached-whale-1.2550130
http://www.northernadvocate.co.nz/local/news/tropical-whale-long-way- 
from-home/3935650/
http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2010/12/28/3102597.htm? 
site=illawarra§ion=news&date=

Re: [Vo]:PesWiki's report on Focardi and Rossi

[Rich Murray]

Thanks for the lively counter-arguments!

Say, was or was not the demo on the same table in the same corner in
the same room in the same huge industrial building within which tests
have been run over and over in recent months?...

High voltages allow much thinner wires to carry the same energy with
smaller currents...

I suggest skeptical ideas, so they can hopefully be decisively dispatched.

I was impressed by Ed Storms' explanation that steady input energy
can serve to stabilize a positive feedback energy generation process
just under the level of high output beyond which meltdown or explosion
occurs...

So, also, it seems that a undercover operator could use hidden
portable gamma and neutron intensity and spectral analyzers to
accurately and quickly garner critical information while hanging
around near a operating unit, wearing a tweed jacket, if not a trench
coat or a white lab coat?

I'd like to know more about NiH as a "spillover" catalyst -- can
someone explain in detail and give sources?

Thanks,  Rich

On Tue, Jan 18, 2011 at 9:29 PM, Jed Rothwell  wrote:
> Rich Murray  wrote:
>>
>> A hidden factor of 4 increase in electric power input to a resistive
>> heater is possible: Rich Murray 2011.01.18
>
> It would have to be a factor of 30, not 4. The power meter shows 400 W, and
> the output is 12 kW.
>
>>
>> 1. Use four power input wires, one hidden from the floor up through
>> the inside of each of the four table legs -- in fact table legs could
>> conceal as many as 4 -- 9 wires each -- has anyone tried moving the
>> table?
>
> That's preposterous. You can see that the machine is sitting on a board with
> rubber feet and has been moved around from one photo to the next. You know
> that the researchers who verified it inserted the temperature probes and
> tubes, insulation and blue tape all over it. Do you really, seriously think
> they would not notice wires going into it?
> This is real life, not a pulp thriller novel or James Bond.
>
>>
>> 2. A single thin wire can supply power at lower current and higher
>> voltage, as a thin layer of insulating plastic can insulate 880 AC
>> volts, 4 X 220 volts, and 1/4 the current at 220 volts, as Er = V**2 X
>> I = 4**2 X 1/4 = 16 X 1/4 = 4 ...,ie, 4X more energy.
>
> Have you ever seen the size of the wires going into a 10 kW electric motor
> or heater? It is enormous!
> - Jed
>

Re: [Vo]:a longer duration black box test would prove issue without disclosure

[Peter Gluck]

When used for heating in homes, the device delivers very probably hot water.
In the case of the experiment, the flow of the water was seemingly limited
by the pump (we don't know its performance characteristics), the connection
tube, the cooling space. Cooling water moves in pipe with maximum 2-3
meters/second
Please do not forget- the temperature inside the generator is tipically >400
C so it is easy to deliver steam- and that's in some way more convincing
than hot water

Peter

On Tue, Jan 18, 2011 at 11:52 PM, Stephen A. Lawrence wrote:

>
>
> On 01/18/2011 02:52 PM, Jed Rothwell wrote:
>
> Stephen A. Lawrence wrote:
>
> CLOSE THE LOOP.
>
> He [Rossi] says he can run without any electrical input.  Ergo he *can*
> close the loop, without the expense of a Stirling motor and generator.
>
>
> Actually, that is heat input, from an AC resistance heater. Presumably it
> would work as well with combustion heating. He said he can run without heat
> input, but it is dangerous. I do not think he elaborated on that. I gather
> it means he uses heat to modulate the reaction.
>
> The Piantelli Ni experiments required high temperature and external
> heating.
>
> I believe the control factors are heat and pressure. The H2 is at 2 atm,
> according to Celani. When you depressurize the cell, the reaction soon
> stops. That's good news. Cold fusion reactions are sometimes nearly as
> difficult to stop as they are to start.
>
> I assume the Rossi device has some internal self-regulation, or what Stan
> Pons called a "memory" that keeps electrochemical cells going back to the
> same power level after you refill the cell, tap on it, or disturb it some
> other way. I also assume there is something about the Rossi device that acts
> analogously to a self-quenching CANDU nuclear reactor. I am only
> speculating; I have no knowledge of this. The mechanism would be something
> like the metal degassing at very high temperature, cooling down, and then
> absorbing the gas and reacting again. That would explain why it quickly
> stops when you degas manually. I suspect the electric heater is in the core,
> and the cold fusion reaction occurs in the Ni powder surrounding that. I
> recall some of the Piantelli devices had heaters attached directly to the Ni
> bar.
>
> I think Rossi claimed the internal temperature of this thing is 1500°C. Ed
> Storms pointed out that cannot be right, because the melting point of Ni is
> 1,453°C. Perhaps that is a misunderstanding, or a mistranslation. Still, it
> must be pretty hot in there because the device is small and well insulated.
> Even with 400 W or 1000 W from the AC heater it must be quite hot
> internally. I assume (but I do not know) that the heater is the hottest
> part. That's how I imagine it works.
>
>
> Actually, I'd expect the joule heater to be rather cool relative to the
> reactive elements once the thing gets rolling.  The reaction is contributing
> 10 kW or more at that point; the joule heater is just plugging along at 400
> watts.
>
> That, also, makes it seem a little surprising that the joule heater
> continues to be used *after* "ignition".  It's contributing just 4% of the
> total heat; you'd think they could just shut it off after the thing starts
> up.
>
> Of course, the reacting surface area may be large enough that it stays
> cooler than the heater, and perhaps the intense heat near the heater wire
> has something to do with the reason they continue to use it after
> "ignition".
>
> Incidentally, a 1500 degree internal temperature also makes the use of
> unpressurized water for a coolant seem to me to be a little iffy.  Perhaps
> that has something to do with the reason they boil it all to steam, rather
> than running the pump harder and getting out hot water (which, it has been
> suggested, might have provided a more rock-solid output heat measure).
>
>
>
> - Jed
>
>

Re: [Vo]:Pycno or no?

[mixent]

In reply to  Harry Veeder's message of Tue, 18 Jan 2011 20:13:24 -0800 (PST):
Hi,
[snip]
>Jed wrote:
>>
>>
>>Rossi believes the temperature at the core is 1500°C. As I mentioned 
>>here, 
>>Ed thinks that is impossible because it is above the melting point of 
>>nickel.
>>

Where does Rossi actually say it's 1500 ºC? ( I have seen a value of 400 ºC).

>
>
>Does it have to be pure nickel or can it be an alloy of nickel which would 
>have 
>a higher melting point?
>
>Harry
Regards,

Robin van Spaandonk

http://rvanspaa.freehostia.com/Project.html

Re: [Vo]:Pycno or no?

[mixent]

In reply to  Stephen A. Lawrence's message of Tue, 18 Jan 2011 22:30:47 -0500:
Hi,
[snip]
>> He also says that he has run with a COP up to 400+.
>>   
>
>If he's run with the input shut off, as other statements of his imply,
>then he's run with a COP of infinity.
[snip]
He still needs some power to operate the cooling pump and vary the gas pressure.

Regards,

Robin van Spaandonk

http://rvanspaa.freehostia.com/Project.html

Re: [Vo]: how to stop runaway condition... I must be missing something!

[mixent]

In reply to  Mark Iverson's message of Tue, 18 Jan 2011 21:18:11 -0800:
Hi,
[snip]
>I am finally caught up with reading all the postings, and I fully expected 
>someone to have pointed
>out the obvious way to stop a runaway condition... Shut off the hydrogen!!  
>Has it not been said
>NUMEROUS times that the thing stops very quickly after the hydrogen supply is 
>shut off??
>
>I MUST be missing something here... That's too simple, and I'm the slow one of 
>the bunch!
>
>If that won't reverse the runaway condition fast enough, inject a 
>contaminating gas... Perhaps, of
>all things, steam?  

Probably not a good idea. Hot finely divided Ni and steam => NiO + H2. In short
one would be adding Hydrogen. ;)

BTW perhaps this is what happened to all the water?? ;^)

Regards,

Robin van Spaandonk

http://rvanspaa.freehostia.com/Project.html

Re: [Vo]:PesWiki's report on Focardi and Rossi

[mixent]

In reply to  Rich Murray's message of Tue, 18 Jan 2011 20:25:31 -0700:
Hi,
[snip]
>3. Gold wires carry much more power than Cu wires...

Gold is not as good a conductor as copper. Silver is slightly better.

Regards,

Robin van Spaandonk

http://rvanspaa.freehostia.com/Project.html

Re: [Vo]:Miles Mathis

[mixent]

In reply to  Stephen A. Lawrence's message of Tue, 18 Jan 2011 23:11:04 -0500:
Hi,
[snip]
>
>
>On 01/14/2011 05:04 AM, Mauro Lacy wrote:
>> A demolishing criticism
>> 
>> of Miles Mathis, particularly on his paper about Pi being 4
>>  (among many other things, Miles shows
>> that Pi equals four, with an elegant(and wrong) "proof", which
>> basically boils down to this
>> )
>
>Nice, and that last link's a very cute proof, and nice illustration of
>what arc-length /doesn't/ mean, as well as being an example of an
>unexpected encounter with a fractal.
>
>Here's another, vaguely related "one-page-puzzle" (uses the same goofy
>grinning head, otherwise unrelated):
>
>http://i.imgur.com/IKFiu.jpg
>
>It's so totally crude, so silly, and yet ... so hard to see why it won't
>work...
>
Look at the energy required to force open the valve on the "air" side as a ball
enters the water (at depth against the water pressure).

Regards,

Robin van Spaandonk

http://rvanspaa.freehostia.com/Project.html