Re: [Vo]:Anticipating skeptical objections to a 1 MW demonstration

[Roarty, Francis X]

On Thursday, March 03, 2011 10:37 PM Dennis wrote
> I don't see the risk in the electrical conversion conversion failure.  I 
> don't think that the device
would fail to disaster  if the stimulation/heater/ whatever  (80 or so Watts 
used in the demo)
would be removed.  Perhaps if the cooling water is turned off but not the 
stimulation.<

I agree the "explosion " scenario is unlikely but I could see a loss of 
catalytic properties if the metal powder were to get so plastic hot as to grow 
whiskers
And relieve the stiction forces. I think this is why the powder used in Rowan 
demos had to be reactivated after use.
Regards
Fran


From: Dennis [mailto:den...@netmdc.com]
Sent: Thursday, March 03, 2011 10:37 PM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Subject: EXTERNAL: Re: [Vo]:Anticipating skeptical objections to a 1 MW 
demonstration

Yes, I meant that it would be more convincing if a smaller device was used 
(10's to 100KW) and that
it turned a steam engine, stirling,.   that could convert the heat and it 
then could be run without any
access to external power sources.
Notice I do not wish to imply that the water flow also be required to be 
powered by the device.


I don't see much advantage in going from an uncontrolled 10 kW demo with no 
control and little
instrumentation to a 1MW device with no control and even less instrumentation 
with no
chance of independent verification of the measurements and check by first 
principles.

I would expect you would have to have some external power source to start the 
device.

I don't see the risk in the electrical conversion conversion failure.  I don't 
think that the device
would fail to disaster  if the stimulation/heater/ whatever  (80 or so Watts 
used in the demo)
would be removed.  Perhaps if the cooling water is turned off but not the 
stimulation.

A self powered device that heats a water flow would be fairly convincing - if 
run
for an extended time.

D2



From: Jed Rothwell
Sent: Thursday, March 03, 2011 7:41 PM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Anticipating skeptical objections to a 1 MW demonstration

Jones Beene mailto:jone...@pacbell.net>> wrote:

He cannot safely "unplug" it, we are told.

I think Cravens meant Rossi should use the heat to generate electricity and 
make the device self-sustaining. He added: "If his claims are real, he should 
have enough gain for that even at only 5% conversion rates."

That probably refers to thermoelectric generator conversion rates.

I don't think he meant the machine should be literally unplugged. As you said, 
that is reportedly dangerous. That is why I suppose the control electronics 
should have a battery back up system.

I think it would be unwise to make a thermoelectric generator and a completely 
stand-alone machine at this stage. For safety's sake, AC input with a battery 
backup is the most reliable, tried-and-true method. Stand-alone operation would 
not prove anything that 1:200 input:output ratio does not already prove. A 
skeptic who would question the 1:200 ratio would also doubt that the 
thermoelectric stand alone machine is what it appears to be.

If it were safe to turn off the power completely, then perhaps a thermoelectric 
stand-alone machine would be a good idea.

In the future, after the technology matures, a stand alone self-sustaining 
machine should be perfectly safe. I'll bet it will still have a battery though 
. . . for decades to come. It will be needed for safety and also for a cold 
start, assuming anyone ever shuts down one of these things. (Why would you? 
Maybe for maintenance or to ship it before installation.)

- Jed

RE: [Vo]:Anticipating skeptical objections to a 1 MW demonstration

[Roarty, Francis X]

On  Thursday, March 03, 2011 9:21 PM Jones Beene wrote
> In so doing, only one cell in the entire
array need to be elaborately controlled by electrical input - and the
remaining 99 (if there are 100) are cascaded off the hot water (superheated)
output of the first cell, in stages. Superheated water under pressure will
allow temperature far in excess of the usual boiling point (100°C) up to the
critical temperature (374°C).<

Jones, 
I disagree, I think the electrical control slaves the repetition rate 
and duty factor from slipping into runaway or starvation. In addition to the 
thermal "pulse" there is also the magnetic pulse associated with this change in 
current through the heater which radiates out into the Ni powder much faster 
than the thermal pulse. The "system" requires a pulse that briefly exceeds this 
temperature threshold and a cooling system that draws it back down under during 
the PWM dead time. I think this particular recipe is normally a runaway 
reaction once initiated but by using a very small duty factor and a monster 
cooling rate it becomes exploitable. Modifications to the cooling system 
without something to initiate the reaction is impossible - trying to balance 
the once initiated reaction with the cooling rate would be almost impossible 
because you still need a PWM scheme relative to the threshold to repeatedly 
take you into and out of reaction. 
Regards
Fran








Subject: EXTERNAL: RE: [Vo]:Anticipating skeptical objections to a 1 MW 
demonstration

He cannot safely "unplug" it, we are told. 

However, one thing everyone seems to be overlooking in why Rossi is choosing
to construct a machine which has a large number of modular units - is that
it lends itself to the energy "cascade," with extremely high iterative gain.

A cascade will allow his COP to soar from 30:1 to 2500:1 with complete
control, and consequently there will be no doubt about the magnitude of
gain. Rossi seems to be reluctant to allow (unplugged) self-power, due to
the risk of a runaway - otherwise a smaller system could be used.

This analysis assumes that the major consideration which is needed for the
reaction to proceed is to maintain a narrow range of temperatures over a
threshold, but below a failsafe. In so doing, only one cell in the entire
array need to be elaborately controlled by electrical input - and the
remaining 99 (if there are 100) are cascaded off the hot water (superheated)
output of the first cell, in stages. Superheated water under pressure will
allow temperature far in excess of the usual boiling point (100°C) up to the
critical temperature (374°C). 

So long as the threshold for the reaction is around ~350°C, which has been
reported - then this kind of staged cascade can work beautifully, because
the "return" of the hot water coming back into the system from the heat
exchanger (which serves as the load) can be easily be mixed into the
superheated water via a thermo-coupled proportioning valve (solenoid
controlled valve) arrangement. This is common is industrial processes.
Control is possible to one degree C. In effect no additional electrical
input is required past the first cell. Elegant.

Think about it this way. You have one key cell in the cascade - and it is
constructed with the same kind of elaborate PLC control as in the Bologna
demo, and superheated water from it then feeds two adjoining cells; and
those two feed the next four; then eight, 16, 32 and then the final 37 in
last series. All 99 have proportioning valves to control the input heat in a
narrow range.

None of the 99 subsequent cells in the cascade need to have any lossy
electrical input at all - except for the valve-control arrangement so that
temperature is a function of incoming hot water, mixed with the colder
return flow water. This is actually a lot simpler to do than it sounds.

All of the dependent stages essentially are heated by the preceding stage.
But the first cell is the only one that gets electrical power (~400 watts),
and the heat range for the others is controlled by the superheated water
from the previous stage, by admixing hot water from a return line. 

Most of the output heat comes from only the last stage in the cascade, but
since there is little input the COP is essentially 1,000,000/400 = 2,500.

If it works out this way for a few hours, hopefully for a few days, it will
surely convince any skeptic. 2,500:1 is essentially infinite gain which is
tempered by the need to control against a runaway.

Jones


-Original Message-
From: Dennis 

Unless he can "unplug it"... Most any system will tend to be messy at that
level for any system that runs for extended times (days??) to rule out
chemistry.

I think he would do better by just making something in the 1 to 10 KW 
(thermal) range that ran for a week unplugged.  If his claims are real, he
should have enough gain for that even at only 5% conversion rates.

Re: [Vo]:Anticipating skeptical objections to a 1 MW demonstration

[Jed Rothwell]

Jones Beene  wrote:

Yes. Your fear would be shared by the majority in the USA, and that is
> likely to be the major reason that Rossi is not doing it here. He knows he
> would not see this device sold here during his lifetime, due to the NRC.
>

I think you are exaggerating the power of the NRC! If this machine succeeds
at all, it will be on the front pages of every newspaper on earth for weeks.
It will be talked about everywhere. Every industrial company will be anxious
to start manufacturing units, knowing that if they are late, they will soon
face bankruptcy. There will be tremendous public pressure to allow the
technology, simply because it will reduce the cost of energy by a large
factor. The NRC cannot fight that. Neither can the fossil fuel industry. I
am sure they will do everything they can to stop it or slow it down, but
they will fail. When the public stands to gain trillions of dollars, nothing
can stop it.

- Jed

Re: [Vo]:Anticipating skeptical objections to a 1 MW demonstration

[Jed Rothwell]

Roarty, Francis X  wrote:



> I agree the “explosion “ scenario is unlikely but I could see a loss of
> catalytic properties . . .
>

I do not know of any reason to think that there might be a nuclear explosion
but based on the 130 kW heat excursion with the small unit I think there is
some danger of a steam explosion.

- Jed

Re: [Vo]:Anticipating skeptical objections to a 1 MW demonstration

[Jed Rothwell]

Dennis  wrote:


> I don't see much advantage in going from an uncontrolled 10 kW demo with no
> control and little
> instrumentation to a 1MW device with no control and even less
> instrumentation with no
> chance of independent verification of the measurements and check by first
> principles.
>

I agree with this characterization.


A self powered device that heats a water flow would be fairly convincing -
> if run
> for an extended time.
>


Fairly convincing? Is that the best you've got? FAIRLY? If it were on a
small scale and you could confirm there were no wires going into it, why
would you not say it is totally convincing?

- Jed

Re: [Vo]:Anticipating skeptical objections to a 1 MW demonstration

[Dennis]

In the early days of CF I talked with some SALT treaty people at LANL about the 
legal implications of
cold fusion.  Basically, if a device is not producing neutrons or is using 
materials with none-natural 
isotopic materials it seems to fall outside of the legal jurisdiction of such 
treaties and organization.

Basically the "system" did not anticipate "nuclear" systems that emit no 
neutrons go figure.

I am not sure that a "proton capture" device would fall within the 
jurisdictions of the NRC.
Perhaps some other group that governs low level radiation.

D2


From: Jed Rothwell 
Sent: Friday, March 04, 2011 7:20 AM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com 
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Anticipating skeptical objections to a 1 MW demonstration


Jones Beene  wrote:


  Yes. Your fear would be shared by the majority in the USA, and that is
  likely to be the major reason that Rossi is not doing it here. He knows he
  would not see this device sold here during his lifetime, due to the NRC.



I think you are exaggerating the power of the NRC! - Jed

Re: [Vo]:Anticipating skeptical objections to a 1 MW demonstration

[OrionWorks - Steven V Johnson]

>From Jones

...
> Others apparently feel as I do, that a device that cannot be "safely"
> unplugged makes me nervous.
>
> Yes. Nuclear reactors (fission type) make me nervous. I wouldn't want
> to live near one.

Indeed, the current lack of a clear understanding of the engineering
(and theory) involved would HAVE to spark considerable debate within
the US for years - assuming Rossi & Focardi's device turns out to be a
winner. Risk concerns (risks which I gather are unconfirmed at this
moment) of unwanted/unshielded radiation exposure, versus the more
familiar risks of continued unpredictable price fluctuations from the
international petroleum scene ought to keep PACS & politicians busy
and well funded for quite a while.

On one side of the street protesters will carry picket signs warning:

"Don't let them Rossi-date your water!"

H... who could be funding this grass-roots organization... I just wonder.

...whereas on the other side of the street:

"Kill ITER!"

...and then, there's Mills & Co., presumably getting ready to strike
before the end of 2011. Way too many variables to keep track of.

Hopefully, a major fallout will turn out to be electric & heating
bills at a fraction of their current costs. Hopefully within my
lifetime.

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

Re: [Vo]:Anticipating skeptical objections to a 1 MW demonstration

[OrionWorks - Steven V Johnson]

>From Jones

...
> Others apparently feel as I do, that a device that cannot be "safely"
> unplugged makes me nervous.
>
> Yes. Nuclear reactors (fission type) make me nervous. I wouldn't want
> to live near one.

Indeed, the current lack of a clear understanding of the engineering
(and theory) involved would HAVE to spark considerable debate within
the US for years - assuming Rossi & Focardi's device turns out to be a
winner. Risk concerns (risks which I gather are unconfirmed at this
moment) of unwanted/unshielded radiation exposure, versus the more
familiar risks of continued unpredictable price fluctuations from the
international petroleum scene ought to keep PACS & politicians busy
and well funded for quite a while.

On one side of the street protesters will carry picket signs warning:

"Don't let them Rossi-date your water!"

H... who could be funding this grass-roots organization... I just wonder.

...whereas on the other side of the street:

"Kill ITER!"

...and then, there's Mills & Co., presumably getting ready to strike
before the end of 2011. Way too many variables to keep track of.

Hopefully, a major fallout will turn out to be electric & heating
bills at a fraction of their current costs. Hopefully within my
lifetime.

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

RE: [Vo]:Anticipating skeptical objections to a 1 MW demonstration

[Jones Beene]

Fran,

Yes, if a magnetic pulse is needed you are correct and cascading won't work.
Brian Ahern also tells me superheated water will not work for this, which
would mean that a molten salt would be needed instead. There could be other
advantages to a molten salt as well. I wonder if a magnetic pulse, or a
pulse wave is involved in the operation.

In trying to look at it from Rossi's POV, the "cascade" was the only
rationale which made logical sense to me - as to why he would go 100+
modular units. 

Maybe there is another reason, or maybe he is not being as logical as I
presumed. Otherwise - what is being accomplished, other than pandering to
skeptics by making a chemical origin for the power seem less likely?

Jones




-Original Message-
From: Roarty, Francis X 

Jones Beene wrote

> In so doing, only one cell in the entire array needs to be elaborately
controlled by electrical input - and the remaining 99 (if there are 100) are
cascaded off the hot water (superheated) output of the first cell, in
stages. Superheated water under pressure will allow temperature far in
excess of the usual boiling point (100°C) up to the
critical temperature (374°C).

Jones, 
I disagree, I think the electrical control slaves the repetition
rate and duty factor from slipping into runaway or starvation. In addition
to the thermal "pulse" there is also the magnetic pulse associated with this
change in current through the heater which radiates out into the Ni powder
much faster than the thermal pulse. The "system" requires a pulse that
briefly exceeds this temperature threshold and a cooling system that draws
it back down under during the PWM dead time. I think this particular recipe
is normally a runaway reaction once initiated but by using a very small duty
factor and a monster cooling rate it becomes exploitable. Modifications to
the cooling system without something to initiate the reaction is impossible
- trying to balance the once initiated reaction with the cooling rate would
be almost impossible because you still need a PWM scheme relative to the
threshold to repeatedly take you into and out of reaction. 
Regards
Fran








Subject: EXTERNAL: RE: [Vo]:Anticipating skeptical objections to a 1 MW
demonstration

He cannot safely "unplug" it, we are told. 

However, one thing everyone seems to be overlooking in why Rossi is choosing
to construct a machine which has a large number of modular units - is that
it lends itself to the energy "cascade," with extremely high iterative gain.

A cascade will allow his COP to soar from 30:1 to 2500:1 with complete
control, and consequently there will be no doubt about the magnitude of
gain. Rossi seems to be reluctant to allow (unplugged) self-power, due to
the risk of a runaway - otherwise a smaller system could be used.

This analysis assumes that the major consideration which is needed for the
reaction to proceed is to maintain a narrow range of temperatures over a
threshold, but below a failsafe. In so doing, only one cell in the entire
array need to be elaborately controlled by electrical input - and the
remaining 99 (if there are 100) are cascaded off the hot water (superheated)
output of the first cell, in stages. Superheated water under pressure will
allow temperature far in excess of the usual boiling point (100°C) up to the
critical temperature (374°C). 

So long as the threshold for the reaction is around ~350°C, which has been
reported - then this kind of staged cascade can work beautifully, because
the "return" of the hot water coming back into the system from the heat
exchanger (which serves as the load) can be easily be mixed into the
superheated water via a thermo-coupled proportioning valve (solenoid
controlled valve) arrangement. This is common is industrial processes.
Control is possible to one degree C. In effect no additional electrical
input is required past the first cell. Elegant.

Think about it this way. You have one key cell in the cascade - and it is
constructed with the same kind of elaborate PLC control as in the Bologna
demo, and superheated water from it then feeds two adjoining cells; and
those two feed the next four; then eight, 16, 32 and then the final 37 in
last series. All 99 have proportioning valves to control the input heat in a
narrow range.

None of the 99 subsequent cells in the cascade need to have any lossy
electrical input at all - except for the valve-control arrangement so that
temperature is a function of incoming hot water, mixed with the colder
return flow water. This is actually a lot simpler to do than it sounds.

All of the dependent stages essentially are heated by the preceding stage.
But the first cell is the only one that gets electrical power (~400 watts),
and the heat range for the others is controlled by the superheated water
from the previous stage, by admixing hot water from a return line. 

Most of the output heat comes from only the last stage in the cascade, but
since there is little input the COP is ess

Re: [Vo]:Anticipating skeptical objections to a 1 MW demonstration

[OrionWorks - Steven V Johnson]

>From Jed:

>> From Jones:
>> Yes. Your fear would be shared by the majority in the USA,
>> and that is likely to be the major reason that Rossi is not
>> doing it here. He knows he would not see this device sold
>> here during his lifetime, due to the NRC.
>
> I think you are exaggerating the power of the NRC! If this
> machine succeeds at all, it will be on the front pages of
> every newspaper on earth for weeks. It will be talked about
> everywhere. Every industrial company will be anxious to start
> manufacturing units, knowing that if they are late, they will
> soon face bankruptcy. There will be tremendous public pressure
> to allow the technology, simply because it will reduce the
> cost of energy by a large factor. The NRC cannot fight that.
> Neither can the fossil fuel industry. I am sure they will do
> everything they can to stop it or slow it down, but they will
> fail. When the public stands to gain trillions of dollars,
> nothing can stop it.

I am also in sympathy with Jed's POV on this matter. I truly hope
Jed's prediction turns out to be accurate.

However, do not underestimate the capacity of politicians and society
in general to behave some of the most stupid counter-productive ways
imaginable. Having been personally involved for weeks in on-going
debates over Wisconsin's budget concerning the contentious matter of
destroying collective bargaining rights for public employees, an issue
that has now garnered national attention over the matter of what does
killing this provision have to do with balancing Wisconsin's budget...
I have to say pretty conclusively that when well-funded ideology grabs
the steering wheel, logic, practicality, and pragmatism, are often
forced to the back of the bus.

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

[Vo]:How to fake a large-scale demonstration

[Jed Rothwell]

I described the test of the Hydrodynamics heater at the fire department in
Georgia. They used the water meter to determine the flow rate, dial
thermometers to measure temperature, and a power analyzer to determine total
energy consumption.

If a person had several months to prepare and a few hundred thousand
dollars, I do not think it would be difficult to fake a demonstration of
this nature. (I do not think the county Facilities Management engineer faked
the tests he described to me because he would have no motivation to do that,
but a con-man would have motivation.)

It is impossible to hide a 1 MW power supplies but you could hide a few
hundred kilowatts. You might rent the building next door and run a cable
underground. You could hide a large, conventional boiler next door and run
hidden pipes.

A 1 MW boiler probably has to be bolted to the floor. Even if it is free
standing, a person cannot pick it up and look underneath. This gives plenty
of opportunity to run hidden wires and pipes through the legs. Once you can
do this it is easy to think of different ways to cheat. A 100 gpm flow can
be run through a surprisingly small pipe. You can see that with swimming
pool equipment:

http://www.poolplaza.com/pool-pump-sizing-2.shtml

This shows a 2 inch pipe for 75 gpm in "Spa mode."

I have not given much thought to this, but I suppose a convenient method of
arranging a fake demonstration would be:

1. Hide a large conventional boiler, perhaps next door. (These things are
noisy so you would want it some distance away.)

2. Have the tap water divert secretly with the flow rate of 100 gpm, so that
the water meter shows the correct amount going through. You might have the
tap water enter the fake device and then flow out through a hidden pipe,
before it reaches the outlet.

3. Meanwhile, you pump in hot water from the hidden boiler, and have that go
out the outlet, instead the tap water.

4. You might also have water coming out of the machine look like it is going
down the drain (to the sewer) while you secretly divert it back to the
hidden boiler. In other words the same water would circulate around and
around, and the temperature would gradually rise. It would look like the
machine is gradually warming up. When the temperature reaches the target
level of 40°C you turn off the hidden boiler. This allows you to use a
smaller hidden boiler, saving money on equipment, and reducing the noise and
space taken by the hidden equipment.

The Hydrodynamics machine was tested in one configuration by circulating the
water from a large tank over and over again. In that case the tank was
visible and everyone can see that was why the inlet temperature was
gradually rising. We took that into account.

Here are some stupid tricks that could easily be discovered --

You could divert a large amount of the cold water directly to the drain. It
would look like 100 gpm was going it, but 50 gpm would be secretly diverted
with hidden pipes and only 50 gpm would go through come out as hot water. It
is difficult for an observer without instruments to tell the difference
between 50 and 100 gpm. But if a person were to hang around for a week and
use something like a steel drum to collect the outlet stream, this trick
would soon be revealed.

You could purchase several dial thermometers with different ranges and
replace the face of one with the other. Again, an independent observer with
a Radio Shack thermistor could collect a sample of the outlet water and see
through this trick.

You could use a power analyzer that had been secretly altered. I think
hidden wires would be a better choice. An outside observer might rent a
power analyzer and demand the opportunity to verify the reading.

If I had lots of money and time I think I would find it easier to fake a
large demonstration than a 10 kW one.

People here and elsewhere have discussed elaborate methods of faking the 10
kW demonstration, such as hiding wires, replacing the wires in the walls to
allow more electric power input, or using a fluid that looks like water but
is not. If you had hundreds of thousands of dollars and months to prepare,
you might be able to arrange this sort of thing. But my point is that with a
small-scale device, it is much easier to catch such tricks. An outside
observer can stop by Radio Shack and purchase a few tools such as the Kill A
Watt meter, a thermistor and an ordinary bucket to measure all of the key
parameters. The machine is not bolted to the floor. It is free standing on a
piece of wood. So there is no way to hide wires going through the table
legs.

I am NOT suggesting that Rossi is planning to do any of the above. I am
pointing out how a suspicious person would view a test of this nature. I
think is a given that if a 1 MW test is reported many people in the mass
media and on the Internet will claim that something like what I described
here must have occurred. They will not be convinced.

- Jed

Re: [Vo]:Anticipating skeptical objections to a 1 MW demonstration

[Dennis]

Yes, the "system" tends toward inaction instead of action.
Like in Wisconsin, some senators ran away to avoid voting and acting
while there is great pain and hostility developing from their avoiding
the democratic process.  People tend to do nothing instead of acting.

I fear that the "system" when confronted with a new technology
will mainly run away to avoid acting while society suffers pain from
the lack of clean energy.  Large level implementation will suffer.

However, the inaction may also result in implementing some of the
technology.  There seems little way to control its low level implementation
by individuals. It would take a concerted effort and lots of action to 
prevent "backwoods" use of say 1-5 kW home heaters built by "good old

boys". Think about what it would take to prevent people from accessing
Nickel and hydrogen and a steel tube and perhaps a reasonable vacuum
pump made from an old refrigerator compressor.

I for one will be trying be in a position to heat my house within 2 years,
assuming I can get something to work.  I have found no rules, laws,
material restrictions, preventing that path.

Dennis C
--
From: "OrionWorks - Steven V Johnson" 


However, do not underestimate the capacity of politicians and society
in general to behave some of the most stupid counter-productive ways
imaginable. Having been personally involved for weeks in on-going
debates over Wisconsin's budget concerning the contentious matter of
destroying collective bargaining rights for public employees, an issue
that has now garnered national attention over the matter of what does
killing this provision have to do with balancing Wisconsin's budget...
I have to say pretty conclusively that when well-funded ideology grabs
the steering wheel, logic, practicality, and pragmatism, are often
forced to the back of the bus.

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

RE: [Vo]:Anticipating skeptical objections to a 1 MW demonstration

[Roarty, Francis X]

On  Friday, March 04, 2011 9:55 AM Jones Beene wrote

>I wonder if a magnetic pulse, or a
pulse wave is involved in the operation.<

Jones,
I am now coming to this same conclusion, thermal transfer rates from 5 PLC 
heaters spread throughout 1 liter of powder doesn't seem fast enough. If the 
PWM were just accumulating an average temp over many cycles it would only 
represent a fine temp control and not be turning the reaction on and off each 
cycle as I think it needs to do to prevent runaway. The pulse wave, be it 
mechanical, electrical or magnetic needs to push the gas very briefly over the 
reaction threshold and then go away. As long as the average temp and cooling 
loop are able to pull it back under the threshold before the next cycle you 
have a valid control system. The energy originally required to bring the mass 
up close to this threshold only has to be invested once because iterative PWM 
cycles can take over this "housekeeping" chore and then progress to even higher 
levels in lockstep with increased heat exchange. 
Regards
Fran

Re: [Vo]:How to fake a large-scale demonstration

[Dennis]

I believe that a 1MW system is not the way for Rossi to go.  I do not 
understand the rational.
What would you do with 1MW composed of 100 units? 

Again, several independent 1 to 10 KW system are more realistic.  
They could easily be placed on a "glass table" or something like that or be 
free to move from location to
location.

Even in the 10 to 100 kW range a system that could say - move a car would be 
more believable by
the public and prove no hidden wires..  (steam dune buggy--- he said 
smiling)

I would suggest that 2 or 3 separate 1-10kW systems to be tested by others 
would be more convincing than
a un examinable 1MW system with no controls or ways to isolate it. 

Again I am not he, but I would opt for several small units to prove 
reproducibility, allow for free examination to 
show no faking, allow for use of other's measurement systems to show no 
mistaken numbers, and run for extended 
times to show unique reactions. 

But then I think he is busy on his own direction (tunnel vision) and will not 
be reading these blogs.


D2



 
If I had lots of money and time I think I would find it easier 
to fake a large demonstration than a 10 kW one.



People here and elsewhere have discussed elaborate methods of faking the 10 kW 
demonstration, such as hiding wires, replacing the wires in the walls to allow 
more electric power input, or using a fluid that looks like water but is not. 
If you had hundreds of thousands of dollars and months to prepare, you might be 
able to arrange this sort of thing. But my point is that with a small-scale 
device, it is much easier to catch such tricks. An outside observer can stop by 
Radio Shack and purchase a few tools such as the Kill A Watt meter, a 
thermistor and an ordinary bucket to measure all of the key parameters. The 
machine is not bolted to the floor. It is free standing on a piece of wood. So 
there is no way to hide wires going through the table legs.


I am NOT suggesting that Rossi is planning to do any of the above. I am 
pointing out how a suspicious person would view a test of this nature. I think 
is a given that if a 1 MW test is reported many people in the mass media and on 
the Internet will claim that something like what I described here must have 
occurred. They will not be convinced.


- Jed

Re: [Vo]:Anticipating skeptical objections to a 1 MW demonstration

[Dennis]

On  Friday, March 04, 2011 9:55 AM Jones Beene wrote


I wonder if a magnetic pulse, or a

pulse wave is involved in the operation.<

Jones,
I am now coming to this same conclusion, thermal transfer rates from 5 PLC 
heaters spread throughout 1 liter of powder doesn't seem fast enough. 




I had the feeling that the heating was by directly passing the current 
through the metal bed - that would make for very fast transfer.


Dennis 

Re: [Vo]:Anticipating skeptical objections to a 1 MW demonstration

[Jed Rothwell]

Americans spend $2500 per capita on energy. $10,000 per year for a family of
four. When every person in the US fully realizes that we can reduce that
cost a few dollars per year, and that people in China and every other
country art rapidly doing that, there is absolutely positively no force on
earth that will prevent us from doing it. The most powerful politician, the
biggest industries, OPEC and Exxon Mobile alike can no more stop that than a
spider web can stop a Mack Truck.

The power of money is the one irresistible force in society.

I'm sure there will be a monumental brouhaha last for many years. I am sure
the DoE and Exxon Mobile will fight tooth and nail. But in the end the
opposition will be swept away.

The U.S. military will not stand aside passively while the Chinese and
others rearm with cold fusion powered weapons. as I pointed out in my book,
these weapons would give a military force the kind of advantage the British
had over the Chinese in the opium wars. A small number of cold fusion
powered ships or aircraft could completely destroy the largest force on
earth as quickly as the British destroyed the Chinese. Any military office
will soon see this.

Having said that, I fully agree with Steven V Johnson:



> Indeed, the current lack of a clear understanding of the engineering
> (and theory) involved would HAVE to spark considerable debate within
> the US for years - assuming Rossi & Focardi's device turns out to be a
> winner. Risk concerns (risks which I gather are unconfirmed at this
> moment) of unwanted/unshielded radiation exposure, versus the more
> familiar risks of continued unpredictable price fluctuations from the
> international petroleum scene ought to keep PACS & politicians busy
> and well funded for quite a while.
>
> On one side of the street protesters will carry picket signs warning:
>
> "Don't let them Rossi-date your water!"
>

I myself would be inclined to man the picket lines. Deploying the technology
of this nature without first fully verifying that it is harmless, and
without first making every effort to understand the fundamental physics of
it, would be insane. This would cost only a few billion dollars. It would
add a few pennies to the cost of every machine. There are countless
government regulatory agencies such as NIST and the NIH, and industry
organizations such as Underwriters Laboratories, that could perform all of
the verification tests needed in a few years.

Manufacturers such as GE would submit prototypes to NIST be tested for
safety, while the NIH make certain there are no hidden effects on health, by
testing laboratory rats and other species. this is how new technology is
normally deployed in the US and there is no reason to think cold fusion
would not be treated the same way, once the political objections and
irrational opposition by the DoE is swept aside by the power of voters
wanting to save thousands of dollars a year.

- Jed

[Vo]:my guess

[Peter Gluck]

Dear Colleagues,
my guess is that the next Bologna demonstration
(oficial or not) will be a long term experiment
with zero or very small input. ( a month?)
Piantelli had  a cell of 70W output working for
more months more than 2 years ago.
Ni-H cells work.
It will be very interesting to know how much hydrogen
is consumed in such a test

-- 
Dr. Peter Gluck
Cluj, Romania
http://egooutpeters.blogspot.com

RE: [Vo]:Anticipating skeptical objections to a 1 MW demonstration

[Jones Beene]

Fran,

Yes you could be exactly right! Nanopowder or nickel black or Raney is poor
for heat transfer, and passing current through it as Dennis suggests, could
risk damaging the nanostructure. It would not be very conductive
electrically anyway.

This may indeed be one major key to the thermodynamics of this device: an
internal gas pressure wave, based on pulsation of the pressurized hydrogen,
such that it increases heat transfer to the tube wall, in order to cycle the
powder temporarily over and under the threshold. 

Ironically the high pressure of the sine wave serves to increases cooling,
not heating, and immediately the heat begins to increase as the wave crest
passes through. The wave is working with the high flow rate of coolant, so
the control is via the coolant working against the inversion temperature
(hotter towards the middle of the tube).

In looking at the data charts of inversion temperature in a similar ongoing
experiment - yes, the thermal transfer rate seems to be way too low to
control rapidly via external cooling (or heating) alone! 

A pulse of gas would be considerably more effective, and that dynamic
rationale also meshes with the need for 5 controllers. He must want to set
up a travelling wave, and five is about the minimum number it would take. It
is possible to do a travelling wave with three but five gives redundancy. If
it were only controlled via current - you would not need five.

This is my best guess for TGIF, but it is good for only the next 15 minutes,
until someone comes up with a better suggestion :)

This still does not answer the looming question of why is he going to 100
modular units. If we can get a handle on that, it might tell us a lot. 

I think there is a valid reason for the 100, but again - I see Rossi as a
genius who also got lucky, whereas others write him off as just a lucky
crank. 

Try to imagine why an inventive genius would want to risk so much, with all
of the unanticipated pitfalls which can happen, in order to convert a good
demo at 10kW into a shockingly impressive demo at 1MW. There must a valid
reason, but it could relate more to the funders than to Rossi himself.

Jones



-Original Message-
From: Roarty, Francis X 

Jones Beene wrote

>I wonder if a magnetic pulse, or a pulse wave is involved in the operation.

Jones,
I am now coming to this same conclusion, thermal transfer rates from 5 PLC
heaters spread throughout 1 liter of powder doesn't seem fast enough. If the
PWM were just accumulating an average temp over many cycles it would only
represent a fine temp control and not be turning the reaction on and off
each cycle as I think it needs to do to prevent runaway. The pulse wave, be
it mechanical, electrical or magnetic needs to push the gas very briefly
over the reaction threshold and then go away. As long as the average temp
and cooling loop are able to pull it back under the threshold before the
next cycle you have a valid control system. The energy originally required
to bring the mass up close to this threshold only has to be invested once
because iterative PWM cycles can take over this "housekeeping" chore and
then progress to even higher levels in lockstep with increased heat
exchange. 
Regards
Fran

RE: [Vo]:How to fake a large-scale demonstration

[Mark Iverson]

Dennis wrote:
"Again I am not he, but I would opt for several small units to prove 
reproducibility,"
 
It should be obvious by now, and Rossi has stated it many times... his opinion 
on how to convince
anyone, be they political or scientific or the press, is to build and install a 
decent size plant.
CF researchers have been trying the scientific route for 22 years, and barely 
making any headway!
Trying to convince the scientific mainstream or the press is a waste of time, 
as far as he's
concerned... you and most on this list have an open mind and could be convinced 
with just a few
specific tests... but we are not the ones who need to be convinced to blow this 
thing wide open.
The mainstream has such a jaded view of anything related to CF, that it will 
take a (1MW)
sledgehammer to convince them.  Given the history of CF and the way the 
mainstream deals with major
breakthroughs, I think his sledgehammer should do an adequate job... and, as a 
backup, he is
continuing with the scientific testing at the U of B.  No, I think he's thought 
this thru quite
well... 

-Mark

 

Re: [Vo]:Vimana Found in Afghanistan?

[Man on Bridges]

Terry,

Very interesting radio-interview.
Did you listen to the Second part too?
It really becomes very interesting around 1:45 when a link with
"cold-fusion" and materials like Red Mercury, Platinum, Paladium,
Graphite rods etc are made.

So the suggestion that Rossi is from the "future" isn't as far fetched
as someone suggested before???

Kind regards,

MoB


On 4-3-2011 1:00, Terry Blanton wrote:

http://projectavalon.net/forum4/showthread.php?14114-Vimana-(UFO)-Found-In-Cave-In-Afghanistan!!!&s=a4cac42f6f636c2cb9015ae1a68805c3

What's a Vimana?

http://www.google.com/search?rlz=1C1GGGE_enUS360US360&aq=f&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8&q=vimana

(Submitted mostly for entertainment purposes.)

T

[Vo]:"inversion temperature" vs "thermal inversion"

[Jones Beene]

Please excuse the long posting. It will never happen again :-)

There is the possibility of a multitude of semantic ambiguities when these
two phrases are used together: "inversion temperature" vs "thermal
inversion". which should be cleared up - especially now that we are in a
situation where the two can interact in such a way as to supply synergy.

The inversion temperature of hydrogen relates to the inversion of the
Joule-Thomson effect. With H2, the value is below ambient, as the table
below indicates. There is no expected cooling effect on expansion of
hydrogen - as with an ideal gas, nor is there the normal range of heating on
compression. 

In fact, H2 can and does heat on expansion.  That is part of the M. O. of
the infamous "palladium cigarette lighter". If not for the inversion
temperature heating effect, the Pd in the lighter would never release much
gas to begin with, and no cigarettes would get lit. Note this was an actual
lighter design at one time, and addicts do not like to get fooled by having
no flame from a lighter that costs as much as a luxury car.

In contrast - "thermal inversion" as happens in LENR refers to an internal
heating effect of the active material. For instance, if two RTDs are placed
in a reactor, so that there is an internal and external temperature
measurement - then when there is active electrical heating on the outside,
the expectation is that the outside RTD will remain hotter at all times.
However, when the internal reading is higher, sometimes significantly
hotter, then the logical explanation is that LENR has been triggered. 

I should mention that a few experts like Ed Storms are suspicious of this
method of validation of LENR, and others like Jed Rothwell see it as
perfectly valid. I think it is meaningful, as long as the experiment is run
for long enough, and the inversion remains relatively constant over time. 

At any rate, the two terms: "inversion temperature" vs "thermal inversion"
can not only overlap, but also influence each other - in LENR experiments
using gas phase. We are so accustomed to the Joule-Thomson effect and the
ideal gas law as operating the way Boyle sez it should operate, that we
often do not realize this 'problem' (now a feature). 

But the message is clear that any gas expanded at constant enthalpy will
experience a temperature decrease ONLY if it is below the inversion
temperature. If above, it can experience a temperature increase. On cycling,
no net gain is expected, of course, and when net gain is seen - this points
to an energy anomaly of some kind, but not limited to LENR.

The inversion temperature of hydrogen and two other noble gases are lower
than ambient, as the table below indicates:
 
GasInversion Temp (Deg K)
 
Helium 51
Hydrogen (H2)  205
Neon   242
Nitrogen  (N2)   621
Argon 723
Krypton  727

Oxygen  (O2) 893

This can fit into an alternative M.O. for some experiments, to the degree
that this oddity about hydrogen being able to heat up on expansion can be
exploited in some way. To be exploitable, there would need to be asymmetry
in sequential cycling. The asymmetry could related to ZPE, in the same way
that the Lamb shift relates to ZPE. 

As most vorticians realize, the Lamb shift is a small asymmetry between two
energy levels of the hydrogen atom in quantum electrodynamics (QED). It is
small, tiny really - but absolutely real - and when we are talking about
trigger temperatures in near IR, the "transaction rate" of sequential
cycling can be 10^13 times per second and up. 

BTW this shift shows up in a frequency of about 1 GHz, which is similar to
the observed energy shift. That is not much per photon but it is more than a
third as much as your microwave oven, and also coherent - and a few of us
have a suspicion that this may be the real driving force behind the Rossi
device. It is a falsifiable hypothesis.

You heard it first on vortex. (going back to January, in this thread:
http://www.mail-archive.com/vortex-l@eskimo.com/msg41193.html
where Terry gives the energy equivalent of the Lamb shift as 10^-6 eV.

I guess it is worth adding now that even this low amount of "energy per
shift" is quite significant when multiplied by a sequential transaction rate
in the IR range. 

.which explains something in the common vernacular that you may not have
realized before .  . there is such a thing as "cold as hell" - thanks to
ZPE.

Jones

Re: [Vo]:How to fake a large-scale demonstration

[Jed Rothwell]

Mark Iverson  wrote:


> It should be obvious by now, and Rossi has stated it many times... his
> opinion on how to convince anyone, be they political or scientific or the
> press, is to build and install a decent size plant.
>

That's right. Rossi has often said this, and I see no reason to doubt he
means it.


CF researchers have been trying the scientific route for 22 years, and
> barely making any headway!
>

Well, if they could have done something like this, the controversy would
have ended. Only the most obtuse scientist would claim there might be a
problem with the 15 kW test.


> The mainstream has such a jaded view of anything related to CF, that it
> will take a (1MW) sledgehammer to convince them.  Given the history of CF
> and the way the mainstream deals with major breakthroughs, I think his
> sledgehammer should do an adequate job... and, as a backup, he is continuing
> with the scientific testing at the U of B.  No, I think he's thought this
> thru quite well...
>

I think he does intend to use the 1 MW reactor as a sledgehammer, and he has
thought it through. If he succeeds, no one will be more delighted and
relieved than me. But I fear he may not succeed, for the reasons I outlined
here; i.e., it would take only a couple of 2" pipes to fake this
demonstration, and the skeptics and mass media will dismiss it for that
reason.

I hope I am wrong. Based on the history of cold fusion, I fear that I am
right.

Over the last year I have often told Rossi and his associates that I think a
1 to 10 kW scale demonstration would achieve their goals more effectively,
cheaper and faster, for the reasons I laid out here. They disagree. They
have been polite, but it is clear they are not interested in my opinion. I
do not know if they follow this discussion group or the various blogs, but I
am sure they will not be influenced by them.

In case it turns out I'm right, and Rossi's strategy misfires, I hope that
Brian Ahern or Dennis Cravens can demonstrate an Ni-H system that produces
somewhere between 100 Watts and 1000 W. That would independently establish
the validity of these claims. It might pry open more funding from the
scientific establishment so that other people can make efforts to
independently replicate Rossi and explore this technique. I wish Rossi all
success, and I think he deserves all the money and fame imaginable, but I
hate to see such vitally important technology in the hands of only one
person, who is working on it in obscurity, with far less money and manpower
than the job calls for.

It would be best for everyone if Rossi could get a patent, so that other
scientists could replicate.

- Jed

[Vo]:OT: Why Amazon would be smart to give away the Kindle

[OrionWorks - Steven V Johnson]

Hey, Jed and all,

Have you all seen the following commentary:

"Why Amazon would be smart to give away the Kindle"

http://www.cnn.com/2011/TECH/mobile/03/04/amazon.free.kindle/index.html?hpt=C2

http://tinyurl.com/4catda6

Excerpt:

Last year, nearly $1 billion in e-books were sold, according to
Forrester. By 2015, this is expected to jump to $3 billion. That's an
awful lot of money to be made selling e-books.

At that point, selling e-readers at any price might just become an
obstacle to selling more e-books. So why not just give away some
e-readers for free?

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

Re: [Vo]:How to fake a large-scale demonstration

[Jed Rothwell]

I wrote:

Only the most obtuse scientist would claim there might be a problem with the
> 15 kW test.
>

I mean, a problem other than the possibility it is fake, with Levi in
cahoots with Rossi. I think everyone acknowledges that is possible. Aside
from that, I do not think there are any valid objections left, after the
Feb. 10 tests.

An example of an obtuse objection is the notion that you can heat tap water
at the rate of 1 L/s to 40°C, but that is not caused by 130 W of heat; it is
caused by "a positional flow error."

- Jed

Re: [Vo]:OT: Why Amazon would be smart to give away the Kindle

[OrionWorks - Steven V Johnson]

> "Why Amazon would be smart to give away the Kindle"
>
> http://www.cnn.com/2011/TECH/mobile/03/04/amazon.free.kindle/index.html?hpt=C2
>
> http://tinyurl.com/4catda6
>

Additional excerpt:

According to Kelly, Bezos "merely smiled and said, 'Oh, you noticed
that!' And then smiled again."

...

Make it free with the purchase of several of your favorite authors. No problemo.

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

Re: [Vo]:Anticipating skeptical objections to a 1 MW demonstration

[Jed Rothwell]

I meant to say that any military OFFICER will see the advantages of cold 
fusion powered equipment, such as aircraft and tanks. A cold fusion 
powered nuclear bomb would not be necessary and I doubt such a thing is 
possible. Direct use of cold fusion energy to destroy objects with 
lasers, heat or by accelerating objects is likely but it will be on same 
scale as chemical energy releases from conventional munitions. I hope 
so, anyway.


Note that the primary differences between the British and Chinese fleets 
in the first Opium War (1839 - 1842) was in the use of energy. Mainly in 
two ways: the British fleet has auxiliary steam power, especially in the 
ironclad Nemesis, and they had better cannons. You can think of a 
19th-century cannon as a device to concentrate energy. They were not 
particularly accurate over long range. The Chinese also had artillery 
and muskets.


In the U.S. Civil War, the Confederate ironclad Virginia was technically 
possible because it used steam rather than sails. The power supply was 
the main difference, and the enabling technology. Sail-powered ironclad 
ships would be impossible, especially in narrow channels and inland 
waterways. The Virgina was designed right at the edge of its power 
limits, meaning it was so heavy, it barely able to navigate. (The steam 
engine was 1,200 HP, manufactured in Boston in 1856.)


The Virginia easily destroyed two large wooden U.S. Navy ships in one 
day, March 8, 1862. This is an excellent example of how energy 
technology can decisively improve military effectiveness. The energy 
need not be used directly in combat, to cause harm.


- Jed

Re: [Vo]:OT: Why Amazon would be smart to give away the Kindle

[Jed Rothwell]

They already do give away Kindle readers. You can download Kindle-reader 
software for any computer, PC or Mac, for free. The IPad version is also 
free. It has been clear for some time that their strategy is to make 
money from the books, not the hardware.


If they were to give away the Kindle hardware gadget at this stage, I 
imagine the government anti-trust people would look askance. Amazon 
would be giving away the gadgets at a substantial loss, and I suppose 
regulators would see that as an unfair way to squelch competing e-book 
readers. I sure would.


- Jed

Re: [Vo]:How to fake a large-scale demonstration

[Peter Gluck]

Industrial tests can bring surprises, therefore Rossi will have to prepare
some alternatives. He and the Defkalion people will make a sufficient number
of rehearsals before going public.
By the way- this website http://www.defkalion-energy.com/ is active now.
Gives address, phone etc.

On Fri, Mar 4, 2011 at 8:35 PM, Jed Rothwell  wrote:

> I wrote:
>
> Only the most obtuse scientist would claim there might be a problem with
>> the 15 kW test.
>>
>
> I mean, a problem other than the possibility it is fake, with Levi in
> cahoots with Rossi. I think everyone acknowledges that is possible. Aside
> from that, I do not think there are any valid objections left, after the
> Feb. 10 tests.
>
> An example of an obtuse objection is the notion that you can heat tap water
> at the rate of 1 L/s to 40°C, but that is not caused by 130 W of heat; it is
> caused by "a positional flow error."
>
> - Jed
>
>


-- 
Dr. Peter Gluck
Cluj, Romania
http://egooutpeters.blogspot.com

Re: [Vo]:Re: Rossi credibility

[Abd ul-Rahman Lomax]

At 05:20 PM 3/3/2011, Terry Blanton wrote:
On Thu, Mar 3, 2011 at 3:15 PM, Abd ul-Rahman Lomax 
 wrote:


> There is allegedly some device that enhances battery life in golf carts, I
> had some discussion with a fellow who claimed to be working for 
the company,

> which he would not disclose.

It's no secret:

http://energenx.com/products.html

The Bedini pulse charger removes sulfides from the plates.


Maybe that's it, maybe not. My impression was of a European company, 
but that could have been a mistake on my part.


He was claiming that the thing does far more than simply enhance 
battery performance. It should be easy to test this! His claim was 
that they could only market it this way because the Great Powers 
would shut them down if they openly claimed overunity. 

Re: [Vo]:How to fake a large-scale demonstration

[Jed Rothwell]

Peter Gluck wrote:

Industrial tests can bring surprises, therefore Rossi will have to 
prepare some alternatives.


As far as I know, they have no intention of doing that. They are putting 
all of their eggs in a 1 MW basket.


- Jed

RE: [Vo]:Storms comments on Rossi

[Abd ul-Rahman Lomax]

At 06:37 PM 3/3/2011, you wrote:

BTW - If you haven't seen it, here is the preliminary WIPO rejection notice
of most of the claims of the Rossi patent

http://www.newenergytimes.com/v2/news/2011/36/Rossi-Patent-Application-WO-2009-125444-PrelimReport.pdf


Just not surprising at all. My hypothesis would be that Rossi 
expected this, and filed the patent only to create publicity. The 
disclosures in the patent were not adequate, at all.

Re: [Vo]:Storms comments on Rossi

[Jed Rothwell]

Abd ul-Rahman Lomax wrote:

Just not surprising at all. My hypothesis would be that Rossi expected 
this, and filed the patent only to create publicity.


Bad publicity. Frankly, it makes him look stupid. I cannot think of any 
reason why he would want to do that.



The disclosures in the patent were not adequate, at all.


They were not.

Why not assume that things are as they appear to be? Why not take things 
at face value? Rossi does a poor job expressing himself in his blog. I 
suppose he wrote a bad patent because he is not good at writing patents. 
He often publishes sloppy mistakes such as the wrong name of the company 
in Greece, and he makes weird claims such as having a PhD from a defunct 
diploma mill. It seems clear to me that he is bad at public relations. 
He does not care about PR, his image, or people's opinions. He may have 
a good business strategy but effective communication is not part of it.


I don't think he is playing mind games. I think he is a technical genius 
but that does not mean he is good at PR or business strategy. Beware of 
ascribing multiple talents to people who happen to excel in one 
particular area.


- Jed

[Vo]:Rossi 1 Year Experiment at Bologna

[Alan Fletcher]

Hi folks .. I've been following you for a while, but this is my first post

March 3rd, 2011 at 6:25 PM


Dear Renaissance Man:

Thank you for your kind blessing. I always appreciate it. I need it.
We are now making a R&D work with the University of Bologna. It will last one 
year, during which we will make throughly tests. The resulta will be published 
at the end of the research. In the meantime we will start up our plant of 1 MW 
we have to deliver to our Customer in Greece. After that, our product will be 
in the market.
Warm Regards,
A.R. 

Re: [Vo]:How to fake a large-scale demonstration

[Dennis]

Jed,

Oh, another way to fake a large test is to have specific pre-designated test 
points for heat.
Just use a Hilsch tube type configuration within the plumbing so that the 
test point does
not represent the average temperature of the flow or to use thermocouples 
and

have RF noise near one probe.

Again, I hope and trust they are correct.  However, I don't think a bid demo 
will do much for
them.   And what are they going to do for the mega liters of hot water 
if they run

for weeks?

The bottom line for me is that just being larger does not bring more 
verification.
Being open, allowing access to the device, running for very long runs, 
is better-

what ever the size.


Dennis

[Vo]:Rossi 1 Year Experiment at Bologna

[Alan J Fletcher]

Hi folks .. I've been following you for a while, but this is my first post

March 3rd, 2011 at 6:25 PM


Dear Renaissance Man:

Thank you for your kind blessing. I always appreciate it. I need it.
We are now making a R&D work with the University of Bologna. It will 
last one year, during which we will make throughly tests. The resulta 
will be published at the end of the research. In the meantime we will 
start up our plant of 1 MW we have to deliver to our Customer in 
Greece. After that, our product will be in the market.

Warm Regards,
A.R. 

Re: [Vo]:OT: Why Amazon would be smart to give away the Kindle

[OrionWorks - Steven V Johnson]

>From Jed:

...

> If they were to give away the Kindle hardware gadget at
> this stage, I imagine the government anti-trust people
> would look askance. Amazon would be giving away the gadgets
> at a substantial loss, and I suppose regulators would see
> that as an unfair way to squelch competing e-book readers.
> I sure would.

You bring up anti-trust issues that I had not considered. Good point.
Indeed, I think it is a good idea to maintain and cultivate
competition in the e-book arena for as long as possible.

Nevertheless, as you also stated "...at this stage." Seems to me that
it just a matter of time before products like the Kindle, or its
progeny will end up being given away for free, with perhaps the
purchase of one or two novels, or perhaps some other special
promotional deal. Already, at certain discount furniture stores they
now "give away" HD TVs if you purchase a living room set. I'm sure
they aren't losing money on the deal.

My biggest complaint against the current Kindle configuration is
admittedly an eccentric one, a criticism that probably isn't shared by
the vast majority of Kindle enthusiasts. It's too damned small for me!
I realize the current size is perfect for toting around town.
Nevertheless, being an artist I want lots of visual real estate, and
of course it has to be in color. Granted, I'm sure traditional coffee
table art books will never go away. Printed books will only become
more valuable. Nor will children books disappear such as the kind you
show pop-up pictures to your kids and read at bedtime. As display
panel technology continues to improve and get cheaper by the square
inch I'm convinced that eventually there will be a market for bigger
magazine size e-readers, fold-out versions sporting two side-by-side
panels - and of course all of this in glorious hi-def color. There may
even be a viable market for a e-triptychs, a three-panel "fold-out"
version - for Playboy enthusiasts.

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

[Vo]:I doubt there is any threat to Rossi, or any cold fusion researcher

[Jed Rothwell]

Jones Beene wrote:

As any fool can see, this kind of device would be ideal for the 
military – tank, submarine, drone airplane that stays aloft for months 
… Maybe some observers thought we were joking about a threat from 
Russian interests (or Chinese, Arabs, Israel etc) .


With this kind of gain, the threat to Rossi or his family is no joke.



That is one thing I do not think we need to worry about. That is the one 
benefit of being locked out of the mass media. The establishment remains 
completely unaware of Rossi. Even if he demonstrates a 1 MW reactor I 
think there will be no reports in any major media outlet. The oil 
companies and the DOE will not take action against them until it is too 
late. Perhaps if they knew what was going on and they believed the 
effect is real, he might be in danger.


I have been in contact with bigwigs at oil companies, industrial 
companies, the Pentagon and elsewhere. My impression is that even when 
they have some knowledge of this research, in their heart of hearts they 
cannot bring themselves to take it seriously or believe a word of it. 
Even when they do believe it at some level, they cannot bring themselves 
to imagine the ramifications.


Right now, they take this less seriously than I take magnetic motor 
claims, or Aviso's self-running demonstration. They agree with Robert 
Park that it is all wack-a-doodle tin-foil cap stuff, criminal fraud, 
and lunacy. That is what Park says, and what most of the high 
muckety-muck decision makers say. I have no reason to think they are 
lying. I wish it were otherwise. I look for indications they secretly 
take it seriously, but I see none. The best proof is that they have not 
invested in the research. These people have billions of dollars at their 
fingertips. What better proof can you ask for that they do not take it 
seriously, and do not think it is worth investigating?


There are a few corporations taking a serious look at cold fusion. But 
they have not invested anything in it as far as I know. There are 
several in Italy making somewhat frantic efforts to replicate Rossi.


As far as I know, in the history of cold fusion only Stan Pons was 
subjected to threats to himself or his family. There were many 
orchestrated attacks against on the reputations and work of Fleischmann, 
Pons and other researchers, such as the ones organized by the MIT plasma 
fusion people a few days after cold fusion was announced, and the 
attacks against Taleyarkhan. There were reports of sabotaged 
experiments, with horse manure dumped into them, broken glassware and so 
on. That is what you expect from academic scientists. They tend to be 
sophomore jerks. But they are wusses and I do not think they have made 
any threats of violence. I doubt they are capable of it. Except for the 
late J. P. Vigier who was in the French Resistance during WWII. He went 
around assassinating German officers. He once demonstrated the technique 
on me. He was in his 80s but he could have killed me in two seconds flat.


- Jed

Re: [Vo]:OT: Why Amazon would be smart to give away the Kindle

[Jed Rothwell]

OrionWorks - Steven V Johnson wrote:


Nevertheless, as you also stated "...at this stage." Seems to me that
it just a matter of time before products like the Kindle, or its
progeny will end up being given away for free . . .


Sure. As soon as they can demonstrate to the regulators that the cost of 
the hardware is negligible, they will be free to give it away. Telephone 
companies that provide cell phone service are allowed to give away free 
phones. An automobile company can throw in a free radio. When they first 
started including radios in cars in the 1930s they were hit with 
antitrust motions by Uncle Sam, I assume because radio manufacturers 
complained.




My biggest complaint against the current Kindle configuration is
admittedly an eccentric one, a criticism that probably isn't shared by
the vast majority of Kindle enthusiasts. It's too damned small for me!


Have a look at the bigger Kindle DX with the 9.7" display. I got one of 
these for my daughter this Christmas. Rob Duncan uses one for PDF files 
and recommended it.


- Jed

[Vo]:How to Fake the Jan/Feb 10KW Demonstration

[Alan J Fletcher]

I initially commented on ways of faking and detecting the January 
setup in Physorg (posting as alanf777):


http://www.physorg.com/news/2011-01-italian-scientists-cold-fusion-video.html

but discussion there has died down.

My basic methodology of eliminating fakes is to presume that the 
ENTIRE unobserved structure is made up of the fake material, and then 
calculate how long you would have to run it at the observed power 
levels to exhaust the material.


The December/January test was so short that a number of fakes could 
have done it.


For the February test (I wonder if Levi will issue a report) only ONE 
of my candidates is still in the running.


I've just finished writing this up at

http://lenr.qumbu.com/  (just an index page)  and  a first draft is at:

How to Make and Detect a FAKE Rossi/Focardi eCAT LENR
http://lenr.qumbu.com/fake_rossi_ecat_v1.php

I've tried to identify who first proposed each specific fake.

If anyone's interested, I'll continue updating it.  Any comments are 
appreciated (directly or in this thread.)


Alan

RE: [Vo]:How to Fake the Jan/Feb 10KW Demonstration

[Jones Beene]

Nice work.

I'm assuming that you recognize that there is a fair probability of the
Rossi device being gainful, in a non-chemical way and non-deceptive way ...
or else you would have remained at the higher comfort level of Physorg-style
reflexive tunnel-vision ... which most of those dinosaurs are afflicted
with.

Jones




-Original Message-
From: Alan J Fletcher 
Subject: [Vo]:How to Fake the Jan/Feb 10KW Demonstration

I initially commented on ways of faking and detecting the January 
setup in Physorg (posting as alanf777):

http://www.physorg.com/news/2011-01-italian-scientists-cold-fusion-video.htm
l

but discussion there has died down.

My basic methodology of eliminating fakes is to presume that the 
ENTIRE unobserved structure is made up of the fake material, and then 
calculate how long you would have to run it at the observed power 
levels to exhaust the material.

The December/January test was so short that a number of fakes could 
have done it.

For the February test (I wonder if Levi will issue a report) only ONE 
of my candidates is still in the running.

I've just finished writing this up at

http://lenr.qumbu.com/  (just an index page)  and  a first draft is at:

How to Make and Detect a FAKE Rossi/Focardi eCAT LENR
http://lenr.qumbu.com/fake_rossi_ecat_v1.php

I've tried to identify who first proposed each specific fake.

If anyone's interested, I'll continue updating it.  Any comments are 
appreciated (directly or in this thread.)

Alan

Re: [Vo]:How to Fake the Jan/Feb 10KW Demonstration

[Jed Rothwell]

In the document you wrote:

"For FUTURE WATER versions we need:

Input electrical power (BETWEEN the control panel and the reactor)"

Why does this matter? What difference can it make? We know how much
electricity goes into the box, and there is no way more than that can go
into the machine.


"Sealed unit, to prevent drawing air as a fuel."

It is sealed. There are no visible holes, according to Levi and other people
who have seen it close up. You would need large ventilation holes to sustain
combustion at ~12 kW. My home water heater puts out 12 kW. The flames and
ventilation holes are quite large, and you can easily see the flames. I
expect that a 130 kW reaction in a 1 L volume would be incandescent, so if
there were holes, you would notice.

This is a useful exercise, but bear in mind that during the February 10 run
the machine produced more than 1000 MJ. That is as much as 26 kg of gasoline
(39 L). The only active material was the mystery substance inside the 1 L
volume. No common chemical and very few exotic chemicals can produce more
energy than gasoline, and of course gasoline requires oxygen, so as a
practical matter this is far more than a chemical reaction can produce.

Levi concluded that this test eliminates any possibility that it is a
chemical reaction. I agree with him.

- Jed

Re: [Vo]:How to Fake the Jan/Feb 10KW Demonstration

[Jed Rothwell]

I wrote:


> No common chemical and very few exotic chemicals can produce more energy
> than gasoline . . .
>

By volume or by weight, as far as I know.

Gasoline produces ~45 MJ/kg according to most sources.

Wikipedia, which is sometimes good for something, says methane produces 50
MJ/kg. See:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heat_of_combustion

I did not include "hydrogen" among common chemicals. As far as I know it is
the most energy dense chemical fuel by weight, at 142 MJ/kg. That's why they
use it for rocket fuel.

In my book, in chapter 1, p. 12, I discussed this issue by comparing a
hypothetical cell filled with hydrogen and oxygen to a cold fusion cell. I
was assuming that hydrogen and oxygen has more energy by weight than any
other chemical fuel. I am ignoring the weight of the container, and problems
with compressing the gas, and all other real-world considerations.

- Jed

Re: [Vo]:How to Fake the Jan/Feb 10KW Demonstration

[Alan J Fletcher]

At 01:34 PM 3/4/2011, you wrote:

In the document you wrote:

"For FUTURE WATER versions we need:

Input electrical power (BETWEEN the control panel and the reactor)"

Why does this matter? What difference can it make? We know how much 
electricity goes into the box, and there is no way more than that 
can go into the machine.


For the January test it would have eliminated the possibility of any 
hidden power coming from the Control Unit.

For future tests it would actually give a HIGHER power multiplication factor.

From http://www.lenr-canr.org/News.htm
> Input power from control electronics: variable, average 80 W, 
closer to 20 W for 6 hours

> Observers estimated average power as 16 kW.

Power multiplier =  16 KW / 80W = 200
16KW / 20W = 800

If half of that went into driving the electronics:

 16KW / 10W = 16000

So this is to the non-fake advantage.

Of course, the excess power is a less dramatic number:

16KW - 80W  or 16KW - 10W makes no practical difference to the results.



"Sealed unit, to prevent drawing air as a fuel."

It is sealed. There are no visible holes, according to Levi and 
other people who have seen it close up. You would need large 
ventilation holes to sustain combustion at ~12 kW. My home water 
heater puts out 12 kW. The flames and ventilation holes are quite 
large, and you can easily see the flames. I expect that a 130 kW 
reaction in a 1 L volume would be incandescent, so if there were 
holes, you would notice.


To TEST it you'd either have to seal it, or at least run a smoke test 
over the whole surface and see if it sucks in air or expells 
combustion products.


I draw the distinction between "not NOTICED" and "tested and NOT FOUND".

Anything which is not TESTED must be ruled in favor of the FAKE.

This is a useful exercise, but bear in mind that during the February 
10 run the machine produced more than 1000 MJ. That is as much as 26 
kg of gasoline (39 L). The only active material was the mystery 
substance inside the 1 L volume. No common chemical and very few 
exotic chemicals can produce more energy than gasoline, and of 
course gasoline requires oxygen, so as a practical matter this is 
far more than a chemical reaction can produce.


As I said, the only candidates which are not ELIMINATED are 
Beryllium/Air and (probably -- I haven't calculated it yet) Beryllium/Oxygen.



Levi concluded that this test eliminates any possibility that it is 
a chemical reaction. I agree with him.


I agree with his informal statement.  I'm just putting numbers to it, 
as an upper bound.


Alan 

Re: [Vo]:How to Fake the Jan/Feb 10KW Demonstration

[Alan J Fletcher]

At 01:46 PM 3/4/2011, you wrote:
I wrote:
 


No common chemical and very few exotic chemicals can produce more
energy than gasoline . . .


By volume or by weight, as far as I know.
Gasoline produces ~45 MJ/kg according to most sources.
Wikipedia, which is sometimes good for something, says methane produces
50 MJ/kg. See:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heat_of_combustion
I did not include "hydrogen" among common chemicals. As far as
I know it is the most energy dense chemical fuel by weight, at 142 MJ/kg.
That's why they use it for rocket fuel.

I included compressed hydrogen/oxygen because they are readily
obtainable, and the by-product can "easily" be hidden (Jan:
vent through the steam outlet Feb: condense and vent through the water
outlet.)
In my book, in chapter 1, p. 12,
I discussed this issue by comparing a hypothetical cell filled with
hydrogen and oxygen to a cold fusion cell. I was assuming that hydrogen
and oxygen has more energy by weight than any other chemical fuel. I am
ignoring the weight of the container, and problems with compressing the
gas, and all other real-world considerations.
Book? I gotta read BOOKS ???     =8-)
- Jed
Nobody WEIGHED anything, so I have to use VOLUME.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy_density  gives Gasoline 34
MJ/L Diesel 37.3 (with air from outside).
I just noticed that Boron is a bit higher than Beryllium (which I like,
because -- theoretically -- it could be self-contained.)
ps : I hoped that this would start a new thread .. but it's ending up in
the 1MW 

Re: [Vo]:How to Fake the Jan/Feb 10KW Demonstration

[Jed Rothwell]

Alan J Fletcher wrote:

12 kW. The flames and ventilation holes are quite large, and you can 
easily see the flames. I expect that a 130 kW reaction in a 1 L 
volume would be incandescent, so if there were holes, you would notice.


To TEST it you'd either have to seal it, or at least run a smoke test 
over the whole surface and see if it sucks in air or expells 
combustion products.


I draw the distinction between "not NOTICED" and "tested and NOT FOUND".


Actually, with a 12 kW reaction in a closed room you would not only 
notice most chemical reactions, you would be asphyxiated by many of 
them. There is no way you can burn something like gasoline without 
noticing the odor. You would be choking on the fumes. That is a serious 
assertion. The human nose is one of the best chemical detectors around, 
capable of detecting ppm amounts of many chemicals, and things like 
hydrogen sulfide at levels of 0.01 ppm (according to one source I just 
found).


The role of sulfur in early transistor research was first elucidated 
when one of the researchers smelled sulfur fumes after producing a batch 
of devices.


In other words, direct visual observation of light from incandescence, 
and smelling chemical products with the nose is a TEST as good as any 
you can perform with instruments. That's what I say to you young 
wiper-snappers. That's what doctors should learn about making diagnoses.


As far as I know, the only hydrocarbon fuels that you can burn in an 
enclosed room that would be both safe and not instantly detectable by 
sense of smell would be butane and hydrogen. I have no idea whether 
burning beryllium in air would produce an odor, but beryllium is one of 
the most dangerous elements, and if they were burning it in air, I think 
they would be dead. I am not being flippant. This is a reasonable way to 
analyze the likelihood of one reaction or another. It is a variation of 
the "dead graduate student problem" which proves beyond question that 
cold fusion is not plasma fusion. (Skeptics think it proves that cold 
fusion does not exist but I take a different lesson from the fact that 
cold fusion cells do not kill people with neutrons.)


- Jed

Re: [Vo]:How to Fake the Jan/Feb 10KW Demonstration

[Jed Rothwell]

Alan J Fletcher wrote:


Book? I gotta read BOOKS ???=8-)


Hey, it's on line. Even on the Kindle. I think I have sold a dozen 
copies on the Kindle in two years.




Nobody WEIGHED anything, so I have to use VOLUME.


They weighed the hydrogen tank, before and after. That's a crude method, 
but if the gadget had been burning hydrogen from that tank, that would 
have been revealed.


They did not weight the whole Rossi gadget before and after as far as I 
know.


- Jed

Re: [Vo]:How to Fake the Jan/Feb 10KW Demonstration

[Alan J Fletcher]

Book? I gotta read BOOKS ???=8-)
Hey, it's on line. Even on the Kindle. I think I have sold a dozen 
copies on the Kindle in two years.


I'll google it.

I looked at the combustion wiki, but they only give energy by weight. 
I'll stick with the energy density.


They weighed the hydrogen tank, before and after. That's a crude 
method, but if the gadget had been burning hydrogen from that tank, 
that would have been revealed.


I need to include that ... and calculate the energy it would have 
produced, if burned.  2g ... ?

[Vo]:How NOT to worry about Fakes

[Dennis]

There is another way to view all this.

For weeks now there has been discussion here about how the system could be 
faked or what Rossi should do.  I seriously doubt that he cares what is said 
here and likely does not read it.
It could be that he does not even need to worry about others doubts and how 
to "prove" his system.


For example what if some company just says: here is a warehouse, here is a 
sewer drain, here is a water hydrant, and here is an electric utility pole 
and meter.  Now just give us 1MW of heat in the water flow for 2 weeks.  He 
moves his device(s) into the warehouse and does it.---Game over, no cries of 
fake, no problem.   If I was a company, that is how I would proceed.


That would explain his actions to me.

Dennis

Re: [Vo]:How to Fake the Jan/Feb 10KW Demonstration

[Alan J Fletcher]

 Jed Rothwell  
:  That's what I say to you young wiper-snappers.
I haven't been called a whipper-snapper in ... what .. 40 years or more
!
I do admit to being more of a reformed physicist than a reformed
chemist.
My background :
B.Sc. -- Physics and Math  (1963)  One course in
chemistry!
B.Sc Hons -- Physics (Yes .. it's a separate degree) (1965)
    I operated an ionosonde (swept-frequency radar) for
ionospheric research,  
   and built a Mills Cross radio telescope (with which I
observed the 1420 Mhz 
   hydrogen emission of the Galaxy. Either that, or a plot of
the temperature of the
   observing hut!)
M.Sc. -- Radio Astronomy (1967) -- Jodrell Bank
  

http://i.telegraph.co.uk/multimedia/archive/01118/Jodrell_Bank_1118890c.jpg
  
   Yes, I've walked in the bowl (when parked) and climbed to
the focal point to test a new 
    antenna feed I'd designed.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/manchester/content/images/2007/10/05/lovell_clouds_450_450x330.jpg

    The place was famous and got a lot of mail ..
congratulatory and crank.
    Professor (later Sir) Bernard Lovell insisted that
every letter was answered 
    The crank letters were delegated to staff, who
delegated them to students,
    to politely point out any scientific errors.
Ph.D. -- Computer Science (it wasn't called that, back then)
(1970).
I have to point out that I'm Units-confused. I suffered changes from FPS,
to cgs, to MKS to SI  so my memory of physical constants is very
haphazard.
(I would have been perfectly at home in NASA ...)
Since then I've been involved with Computer Aided Design / Electronic
Design Automation, but I've retained an active interest in science in
general and "fringe" science in particular.
The other influence was, of course, SF Quoting from a post I made on the
well -- my online home :
science 663: Cosmology and the Universe
#
591 of 1246: Repeal the Law of Gravity.  Tue 08 Jan 2008 (10:48
AM) 
The 'next best thing' will quite possibly come from the
fringes/crackpot zone rather
than main-stream academia.

I remember an SF story from a LONG time ago .. about a father whose
son crawled under his bed and -- due to a some anomalous configuration
of matter -- opened into another dimension. Various scientists and
government officials arrived and pondered -- but the father eventually
just reached through, groped around and pulled the kid out.  (I
don't
remember if the gap closed up).


 
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Little_Girl_Lost
 Richard Matheson from his short story published in The Shores
of Space (1953)

I thought of this with respect to both cold fusion and Podkletnov's
home-brewed superconducting rotating disk antigravity generator. Maybe
it wasn't fake, and depended on some unknown crystal configuration.
Similarly, the cold fusion effects depend heavily on the structure on
the cathode. Some batches are 'hot', some are 'cold'. 




  

Re: [Vo]:How to Fake the Jan/Feb 10KW Demonstration

[Horace Heffner]

On Mar 4, 2011, at 12:46 PM, Jed Rothwell wrote:


I wrote:

No common chemical and very few exotic chemicals can produce more  
energy than gasoline . . .


By volume or by weight, as far as I know.



Even aluminum, silicon, and anthracite beat gasoline in MJ/liter.  See:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Energy_density.svg

Lithium borohydride beats it in MJ/kg.

As you can see from the above chart, silicon has a huge potential for  
energy storage and long distance transport of energy.  This was noted  
in the following,


http://www.mtaonline.net/~hheffner/BigPicture.pdf

and not a new idea as can be seen by the the reference:

http://www.dbresearch.com/PROD/DBR_INTERNET_EN-PROD/ 
PROD00079095.pdf






Gasoline produces ~45 MJ/kg according to most sources.

Wikipedia, which is sometimes good for something, says methane  
produces 50 MJ/kg. See:


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heat_of_combustion

I did not include "hydrogen" among common chemicals. As far as I  
know it is the most energy dense chemical fuel by weight, at 142 MJ/ 
kg. That's why they use it for rocket fuel.


In my book, in chapter 1, p. 12, I discussed this issue by  
comparing a hypothetical cell filled with hydrogen and oxygen to a  
cold fusion cell. I was assuming that hydrogen and oxygen has more  
energy by weight than any other chemical fuel. I am ignoring the  
weight of the container, and problems with compressing the gas, and  
all other real-world considerations.


- Jed



Best regards,

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

Re: [Vo]:How NOT to worry about Fakes

[Jed Rothwell]

Dennis wrote:

For example what if some company just says: here is a warehouse, here 
is a sewer drain, here is a water hydrant, and here is an electric 
utility pole and meter.  Now just give us 1MW of heat in the water 
flow for 2 weeks.  He moves his device(s) into the warehouse and does 
it.---Game over, no cries of fake, no problem.   If I was a company, 
that is how I would proceed.


Right. That is Rossi's approach, and it fulfills his goals. However, it 
does not fulfill my goal, which is to convince the world that cold 
fusion is real and should be funded.


Rossi intends to work quietly at U. Bologna for another year, while 
setting up a 1 MW reactor in some obscure place in Greece. My guess is 
that he does not want attention, he does not want mass media exposure. I 
do not think he wants competition. My goals are the opposite. I would 
love to trigger widespread interest and see thousands of companies 
working frantically on cold fusion as soon as possible. So, I am looking 
at how this demo will be viewed by the mass media and by skeptics. I 
don't like what I see . . . I hope I am wrong. For the sake of his 
business plans, Rossi would probably prefer to see the skeptics continue 
their attacks, although he sometimes admits that the attack irk him 
personally.


Rossi is aware that my goals are not the same as his.

This business strategy might be labeled "obscurity is good for me." 
Patterson had an even more extreme version of this. A fat lot of good it 
did him!


Some people have speculated that the patent was a considered attempt to 
make himself look bad and keep people off his trail. I think it was 
inept. I don't get the sense that he is good at mind games or clever 
subterfuge.


Some people have the mistaken impression that my goal is to cheat Rossi 
out of his intellectual property. Nothing could be further from the 
truth. If thousands of companies are soon working feverishly on this 
product I hope they would soon be paying him royalties. At the pace he 
is developing the thing there will be no significant royalties before 
the patent expires. I think my strategy would earn him hundreds of 
billions of dollars, whereas his strategy will earn him millions at most 
-- and probably zero. He does not agree.


I have described what I assume must happen for cold fusion to be 
deployed: "countless government regulatory agencies such as NIST and the 
NIH, and industry organizations such as Underwriters Laboratories" all 
doing verification tests with prototypes from GE, Mitsubishi and others. 
I think the obverse is true. If a gigantic effort is not undertaken, and 
billions of dollars are not spent to ensure safety and begin mass 
production, cold fusion will not be deployed. There is far too much 
political opposition for that to happen. The DoE and fossil fuel 
companies will easily stop cold fusion if it is only being deployed by 
tiny company such as Rossi's. They will swat it away by filing one 
motion in court. The public would never hear about it. The mass media 
would not report one word of it. They will tell Congress to pass a law 
banning the sale of nickel nanopowder to private individuals to keep 
Cravens and others from doing experiments. Cravens wrote:


"It would take a concerted effort and lots of action to prevent 
'backwoods use of say 1-5 kW home heaters built by 'good old boys."


I am sure that will not be a problem. The oil companies will see to it 
that Uncle Sam makes that concerted effort and the taxpayers pay for it. 
Fossil fuel companies don't play fair. The coal companies are trying to 
pass laws banning the use of wind turbines in the US and tearing down 
all existing wind turbines. They will not get that law passed, because 
the wind industry also pays hefty bribes to members of Congress, but 
they would if they could!


I do not believer in conspiracy theories but I know damn well how big 
corporations and government agencies operate! They are not going to roll 
over and play dead while Rossi takes trillions of dollars away from 
them. That's ridiculous.


A low-profile garage-scale operation will not work. You need the 
powerful allies. You need the public and General Electric on your side. 
Stephen Lawrence hit the nail on the head the other day:


"He's acting more like he's invented a nifty new kind of windshield 
washing fluid which can be produced in 100 gallon lots in a small 
factory, rather than like he's invented something which could 
revolutionize everything and which will necessarily be mass produced in 
every country on Earth if the potential demand is to be met."


- Jed

[Vo]:China aims to settle nationwide trade in yuan by 2011

[Horace Heffner]

New battle ensues in the attack on the dollar:

http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/03/02/china-economy-yuan- 
idUSBJA00246420110302


http://tinyurl.com/4oyblda

"(Reuters) - China hopes to allow all exporters and importers to  
settle their cross-border trades in the yuan by this year, the  
central bank said on Wednesday, as part of plans to grow the  
currency's international role."


"In a statement on its website www.pbc.gov.cn, the central bank said  
it would respond to overseas demand for the yuan to be used as a  
reserve currency."


google (reuters www.pbc.gov.cn reserve currency)

This could eventually make oil, and many other things, unaffordable  
to the USA. We can't keep printing our way out of the crisis. We need  
LENR energy now.


Best regards,

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

[Vo]:Trapped electrons

[mixent]

Hi Horace,

I have been thinking about trapped electrons, and I am not sure they are trapped
at all. My reasoning is as follows, please correct any errors.

I'll use the following reaction as an example:

Ni62 + H -> Cu63 + 6.123 MeV

In Cu63 there are no electrons in the nucleus (normally), so the binding energy
we have for Cu63 isn't what it would be with an electron in the nucleus.
When an electron is in the nucleus, it masks (compensates for) the charge of a
proton, so the repulsion of that proton to all the others doesn't exist.

That means that when such a masked proton enters the nucleus the energy gain is
larger than 6.123 MeV because the nuclear binding force is not opposed by the
proton repulsion. It is only once the electron has left that we are left with
Cu-63 which was the end product in the reaction above. So what I am trying to
say is that 6.123 MeV is what is left over *after the electron has left the
nucleus*, not what is left over with the electron still in the nucleus.

You can also see this by doing the following:

1) Convert the initial H atom into a neutron by adding 782 keV.

   H + 782 keV -> n

2) Add the neutron to Ni62 creating Ni63.

   Ni62 + n -> Ni63 + 6.837 MeV (as gamma radiation)

   At this point one essentially has the situation where both proton and
electron are in the nucleus together, except that 782 keV has been added when
converting H to neutron.

3) Allow the Ni63 to decay to Cu63 expelling the electron as beta radiation.

   Ni63 -> Cu63 + e- + 67.9 keV (this is where the electron leaves the nucleus)

At this point we have the same result as in the first reaction, i.e. the
electron is now outside the nucleus.

The net energy balance is as follows:

-0.782 MeV   (negative because we had to add it to create the neutron)
+6.837 MeV
+0.068 MeV
--
+6.123 MeV = reaction energy from the first reaction (as one would expect).

In short after H has fused with Ni62 and the electron has left the nucleus there
is still 6.123 MeV left over, hence the electron is not trapped, in fact there
is enough energy for the electron to leave the nucleus and still have 6.123 MeV
left over. That means that when a masked proton reacts, the electron could carry
the reaction energy rather than it coming out in the form of gamma rays. That
isn't the case with a neutron because the neutron first has to undergo a slow
weak force reaction, whereas a masked proton is essentially still two separate
particles, and no weak force mediated reaction is needed to "create" the
electron.
Regards,

Robin van Spaandonk

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

[Vo]:Detecting a Fake 10KW Rossi/Focardi eCat Device

[Alan J Fletcher]

Thanks for your comments.  I think it's worth finishing this up.

I've taken the liberty of renaming the subject line to separate it 
from the 1MW discussion and to add keywords


Previous discussion started at 
:  http://www.mail-archive.com/vortex-l@eskimo.com/msg43298.html


The index remains as :
http://lenr.qumbu.com/  (which will pick up the latest version).

I've posted a new version V2 :  http://lenr.qumbu.com/fake_rossi_ecat_v2.php

Main changes :

a) On re-reading the Feb report, I see that Levi was allowed to look 
INSIDE the reactor chamber

The bad news is that he doesn't provide a volume for the reactor as a whole!

b) I've summarized some of the discussions (mainly with Jed Rothwell)

Re: [Vo]:China aims to settle nationwide trade in yuan by 2011

[John Fields]

>This could eventually make oil, and many other things, unaffordable  
>to the USA. We can't keep printing our way out of the crisis. We need  
>LENR energy now.

---
Unfortunately, LENR doesn't seem to available yet, so, in my opinion,
we should bite the bullet and buy American made, and try to keep most
of the cash at home.

---
JF

Re: [Vo]:Aviso Ponders Open Sourcing his Self-Running Electric Car Technology

[mixent]

In reply to  OrionWorks - Steven Vincent Johnson's message of Thu, 3 Mar 2011
07:28:51 -0600:
Hi,
[snip]
>Any reasonable guesstamate as to how much energy, theoretically speaking
>here, could be tapped into? 

A rough calculation of the power delivered by the average Solar wind based on an
Earth radius of 1.1 times the planet radius yields a value of 111 GW. Of course
that doesn't mean we could actually retrieve all of it.

If the average car travels 15000 km / yr @ 60 km/hr, and uses say 20 hp to do
it, then 111 GW would be enough to power about 260 million cars.


>My initial impression is that it would not be
>all that much, especially if you start setting up lots of devices in close
>proximity to each other. I was wondering if the closer each device is placed
>next to a similar device they might start competing against each other for
>the same resonate "waves" 

Yes, I expect they would. 
[snip]
Regards,

Robin van Spaandonk

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

Re: [Vo]:Perfect Moonbase Site

[mixent]

In reply to  Horace Heffner's message of Thu, 3 Mar 2011 10:12:11 -0900:
Hi,
[snip]
>
>On Mar 3, 2011, at 8:59 AM, Terry Blanton wrote:
>
>> http://blastr.com/2011/03/giant-chamber-on-the-moon.php
>>
>> with must-see piccy.
>
>Apparently it is a lava tube.
>
>http://www.siliconindia.com/shownews/ISRO_finds_cave_in_moon_can_be_used_as_base_station_for_astronauts-nid-79567.html
>
>http://tinyurl.com/467qjpt

"a safe environment from hazardous radiations, micro-meteoritic impacts, extreme
temperatures and dust storms."

...just how does one get a dust storm when there is no atmosphere, and what is
the white line behind the blue thing, which casts a shadow on the floor of the
cave?

Regards,

Robin van Spaandonk

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

Re: [Vo]:Perfect Moonbase Site

[mixent]

In reply to  Horace Heffner's message of Thu, 3 Mar 2011 12:23:50 -0900:
Hi,
[snip]
>
>On Mar 3, 2011, at 8:59 AM, Terry Blanton wrote:
>
>> http://blastr.com/2011/03/giant-chamber-on-the-moon.php
>>
>> with must-see piccy.
>
>Source article on the lava tube:
>
>http://www.lpi.usra.edu/meetings/lpsc2010/pdf/1484.pdf
>
>41st Lunar and Planetary Science Conference (2010)
>
>IDENTIFICATION OF LUNAR VOLCANIC TUBES, A POTENTIAL SITE FOR HUMAN  
>SETTLEMENT USING 3D CHANDRYAAN 1 – TMC DATA . A.S. Arya1,  
>R.P.Rajasekhar1, Ajai1 , A.S Kiran Kumar1, R.R. Navalgund1 , Space  
>Applications Centre, Indian Space Research Organization, Ahmedabad– 
>380 015 (India), arya...@sac.dos.gov.in.

"This un-damaged tube is about 360 m wide and 2.0
km long, which furnishes a safe and substantial
dwelling site for human settlements in future missions."

...provided there isn't already a UFO base in it. ;)

Regards,

Robin van Spaandonk

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

Re: [Vo]:Re: Rossi credibility

[mixent]

In reply to  Abd ul-Rahman Lomax's message of Fri, 04 Mar 2011 14:39:04 -0500:
Hi,
[snip]
>>It's no secret:
>>
>>http://energenx.com/products.html
>>
>>The Bedini pulse charger removes sulfides from the plates.

Isn't that "sulfates"?

>
>Maybe that's it, maybe not. My impression was of a European company, 
>but that could have been a mistake on my part.
>
>He was claiming that the thing does far more than simply enhance 
>battery performance. It should be easy to test this! His claim was 
>that they could only market it this way because the Great Powers 
>would shut them down if they openly claimed overunity. 

...well, as I have mentioned here before, Pb is not energetically forbidden from
alpha decaying to Hg, e.g.

Pb208 => Hg204 + He4 + 519 keV

If someone found a way of electrically/magnetically stimulating the decay, then
they could get quite a bit of energy from a lead acid battery.

Ditto for a CF reaction, perhaps even a fusion/fission reaction, such as 

Pb108 + 4H => Pt196 + O16 + 44.7 MeV

...anyone want same waste platinum, going cheap? ;^)

Regards,

Robin van Spaandonk

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

[Vo]:The Pictet / Rumford experiments on the reflection of radiant cold.

[Harry Veeder]

This paper published in 1984 describes a little known experiment in radiant 
cooling done in the late 18th century by Pictet and repeated a few years later 
by Count Rumford.
 
http://www2.ups.edu/faculty/jcevans/Pictet's%20experiment.pdf
 
What we usually hear about Rumford is his canon boring evidence against the 
caloric theory of heat. However, less well known is his theory of frigorific 
rays.He held that cold emanations were as real as hot emenations and he 
interpreted the Pictet experiment as evidence of his theory.
   
In the paper the radiant cooling effect observed is explained using modern 
radiantive heat transfer theory. However, the geometric symmetry of the 
experiment does not invalidate the existence of frigorific rays. Although 
Rumfords "acoustic" [my label] conception of frigorific rays has some 
predicative problems, what interests me was his intuition that cold is more 
than 

just the absence of heat, i.e. that cold has some positive existence.
 
I think it is possible to redesign the experiment so that it would either 
clearly support Rumfords intuition or dispose of it. 
 
It is relevant to note that well before Rumford, Francis Bacon also regarded 
cold as having an independent existence from heat, although his particular of 
conceptions of cold as a "contractive power" and heat as an "expansive power" 
were different from Rumford's.
 
Harry

Re: [Vo]:Trapped electrons

[Horace Heffner]

On Mar 4, 2011, at 3:13 PM, mix...@bigpond.com wrote:


Hi Horace,

I have been thinking about trapped electrons, and I am not sure  
they are trapped

at all. My reasoning is as follows, please correct any errors.


I assume you mean "correct" from the perspective of my deflation  
fusion theory.  I don't have time right now to correct this with  
regards to what I consider wrong theories like W&L.  In fact I was  
about to depart vortex for a while.  It appears most everything  
constructive to be said about Rossi's demo has been said.  I became  
active to contribute to that discussion. Certainly I've said all I  
care to.  At this point it seems best to wait and see what happens  
with the installed unit over a years time, or maybe much sooner.





I'll use the following reaction as an example:

Ni62 + H -> Cu63 + 6.123 MeV

In Cu63 there are no electrons in the nucleus (normally), so the  
binding energy
we have for Cu63 isn't what it would be with an electron in the  
nucleus.
When an electron is in the nucleus, it masks (compensates for) the  
charge of a
proton, so the repulsion of that proton to all the others doesn't  
exist.



Not necessarily, and certainly not from the perspective of my  
theory.  It is only necessary for the wavefunctions of the proton and  
electron to have a sufficient probability of simultaneous  
wavefunction collapse upon the target nucleus. What happens post  
collapse is another thing entirely. To be clear, it is not the  
repulsion of that proton from the others which creates the energy  
deficit.  On the contrary, it is the very fast joining of the proton  
to the target nucleus via the strong force that unites the  
*attraction* of the Z protons to the electron.  It is the radius r of  
the joint wavefunction immediately post collapse which has most to do  
with the energy deficit ΔΕ:


ΔΕ = (Z-1) (1.44 x 10-9 ev m) / r

as derived and described here:

   http://www.mtaonline.net/~hheffner/CFnuclearReactions.pdf

and calculated in brackets, under the *very conservative* assumption  
that r is the radius of the compound nucleus of mass Z, in the report:


   http://www.mtaonline.net/~hheffner/RptB.pdf

including for:

   62Ni28 + p* --> 63Cu29 + 6.122 MeV [-1.984 MeV] (B_Ni:28)

As I clarified, it is useful to think of the deflated state as a  
physical state, a cloaked state, or "masked" state in your terms, of  
the proton (or deuteron) involved in the long range tunneling which  
is only possible for a net charge zero ensemble.








That means that when such a masked proton enters the nucleus the  
energy gain is
larger than 6.123 MeV because the nuclear binding force is not  
opposed by the

proton repulsion.


Not true.  Once the new nucleus is formed by the strong force it's  
strong force binding energy, and binding energy release, is  
determined. However, the electromagnetic energy involved is *not*  
determined, because the size of the composite wavefunction at the  
moment of collapse is not determined and, as I suggested in my  
theory, it is a random variable.




It is only once the electron has left that we are left with
Cu-63 which was the end product in the reaction above.



The nucleus is formed by the strong force. The energy from the strong  
force binding is well known from naked high energy kinetic reactions  
which form the proposed compound nucleus.  The electron has only to  
momentarily move beyond the radius of the new compound nucleus to be  
free of it for the purposes of estimating the mass of the compound  
nucleus - based on your principle of "proton repulsion".  I propose  
the motions of the electron trapped near the new nucleus produces  
radiation, but not in one or two photons, but in the form of numerous  
photons. This further increases the trapping energy.





So what I am trying to
say is that 6.123 MeV is what is left over *after the electron has  
left the
nucleus*, not what is left over with the electron still in the  
nucleus.



But that is an inherent and explicit part of my theory. I account for  
the electron's ability to leave a nucleus, (even) when there is net  
negative energy, by the ability of the electron wavefunction to  
expand via energy supplied by the zero point field. There is no  
inherent conservation of energy in each cold nuclear, LENR, transaction.






You can also see this by doing the following:

1) Convert the initial H atom into a neutron by adding 782 keV.

   H + 782 keV -> n



This kind of pre-reaction is not part of my theory.



2) Add the neutron to Ni62 creating Ni63.

   Ni62 + n -> Ni63 + 6.837 MeV (as gamma radiation)


Totally irrelevant.  This kind of explanation, if correct, should  
also apply to Pd + d reactions.  It provides no insight into the  
experimentally observed missing energy of heavy element LENR, or the  
highly skewed branching ratios of cold hydrogen fusion. The gamma  
radiation does not occur. To get a better feel for the energies  
involved see:


htt

[Vo]:Chiral Graviton ? New Scientist

[Ron Kita]

Greetings Vortex-l

Chiral Graviton    New Scientist:
http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg20928024.100-gravitys-bias-for-left-may-be-writ-in-the-sky.html

Ron Kita , Chiralex

[Vo]:H-H dipole interactions in fcc metals

[Horace Heffner]

Here:

http://www.mail-archive.com/vortex-l@eskimo.com/msg42574.html

I posted, "If the elements of a hydrogen cluster are energetically  
entangled, even by a small thermal energy amount, and their  
wavefunctions overlapped, then a deflation fusion event feasible by  
one member of the cluster could involve multiple members of the  
cluster, namely all those members adjacent to and coupled with the  
tunneling member could experience wavefunction collapse on the target  
nucleus."


The number of such candidate cluster members could be larger than  
ordinarily expected, even within a regular lattice.  See J.S.  
Brown,"H-H dipole interactions in fcc metals", 27 Mar 2007:


http://arxiv.org/abs/cond-mat/0703715

Best regards,

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

Re: [Vo]:"Tunneling"

[Harry Veeder]

>
>From: "Roarty, Francis X" 
>To: "vortex-l@eskimo.com" 
>Sent: Thu, March 3, 2011 9:26:31 AM
>Subject: RE: [Vo]:"Tunneling"
>
>
>on  Wednesday, March 02, 2011 11:27 Harry Veeder wrote
>[snip]The concept of quantum mechanical tunneling suggests that a 
>particle can, 

>with a certain probability, bore its way through a columb 
>barrier. Suppose, instead, the probability is indicative of a 
>fluctuating columb field in which portals momentarily open and close. 
>A particle 
>
>that happens to be moving quickly enough and is headed in the right direction 
>would be able to coast through an opening before it closes.[/snip]
> 
>Harry, Your description also supports Naudt’s proposal of relativistic 
>hydrogen 

>– this isn’t hydrogen at near C spatial velocity but equivalent acceleration

I am not familiar with this concept of equivalent acceleration.

 
>caused by DIRECT manipulation of vacuum energy density using suppression.

Is the lattice responsible for this suppression?

> Your 
>statement [snip] “A particle that happens to be moving quickly enough and 
>is headed in the right direction would be able to coast through an opening 
>before it closes.[/snip] has a temporal interpretation. The “opening” of which 
>you speak is the Pythagorean difference of matter in different inertial frames 
>to the time axis, IMHO the hydrogen undergoes the same gamma transformation as 
>if were travelling at near luminal SPATIAL velocity and coasting into a 
>stationary Ni atom. From a 4d perspective the “equivalent” velo city of 
>Hydrogen 
>
>persists (coasts) long enough to interact with nearly stationary (by 
>comparison) 
>
>Ni.  The 3D orientation of the stationary Ni coulomb barrier to the time axis 
>is 
>
>different than the orientation of the 3D electric field of the accelerated 
>hydrogen to the time axis. The opposition is discounted by the reduced overlap 
>of 3D space – from each others perspective they both seem reduced in physical 
>size but unlike Lorentzian contraction on a spatial vector I believe 
>“equivalent” acceleration results in a symetrical contraction on all spatial 
>axis because the “equivalent” vector is displaced 90 degrees from the spatial 
>plane. Perhaps this is why UFO’s give the APPEARANCE of rapid spatial velocity 
>and turning ability but are so difficult for radar to track :_)

The 4D stuff is hard to follow. ;-)