[Vo]:Definitive Divorce- Defkalion is no more Rossi's partner
Despite rumors and info from the Greek press. the divorce is a definitive, and perhaps implicitly irrreversible Rossi dixit: Andrea Rossi August 12th, 2011 at 2:54 AMhttp://www.journal-of-nuclear-physics.com/?p=501cpage=12#comment-61201 Dear Sterling Allan: It is totally false that EFA srl has cured the agreement with Defkalion. There is nothing at all to add to the press release already published the last week (August 6th 2011). This answer is valid also for many other Readers who have asked us the same thing. Andrea Rossi and: Andrea Rossi August 12th, 2011 at 3:05 AMhttp://www.journal-of-nuclear-physics.com/?p=501cpage=12#comment-61210 Dear H. Visscher: Again, and for the last time: IT IS TOTALLY FALSE THAT WE AND DEFKALION ARE TOGETHER AGAIN. THE PRESS RELEASE THAT HAS BEEN PUBLISHED BY EFA SRL ON AUGUST 6TH 2011 HAS ALREADY EXPLAINED THE SITUATION. WE WILL NOT RETURN ON THIS ISSUE. Peter -- Dr. Peter Gluck Cluj, Romania http://egooutpeters.blogspot.com
Re: [Vo]:DGT citation: unsuccesful test of end of july 2011
This is a fake message from a Swedish forum. They are laughing at you! :D http://www.energikatalysatorn.se/forum/viewtopic.php?f=2t=217start=110
Re: [Vo]:PhysOrg reports on Krivit's latest article...
Some would like to characterize Krivit as a snake. Rossi, particularly. In my view Krivit is simply a cynic. Being a cynic is neither good or bad. It's what one does with one's innate sense of cynicism that determines whether honoring such a perception of their surroundings serves them (and their readership) well - or not. Regards Steven Vincent Johnson www.OrionWorks.com www.zazzle.com/orionworks
Re: [Vo]:PhysOrg reports on Krivit's latest article...
On Fri, Aug 12, 2011 at 10:12 AM, OrionWorks - Steven V Johnson svj.orionwo...@gmail.com wrote: Being a cynic is neither good or bad. It's what one does with one's innate sense of cynicism that determines whether honoring such a perception of their surroundings serves them (and their readership) well - or not. The truly progressive cynic eventually forms a crusty chrysalis from which eventually emerges a jaded dung beetle. T (jaded)
Re: [Vo]:PhysOrg reports on Krivit's latest article...
Terry sez: The truly progressive cynic eventually forms a crusty chrysalis from which eventually emerges a jaded dung beetle. IMHO, a truly progressive cynic has a sense of humor. Some cynics make marvelous comedians. About a year ago I recall Mr. Krivit demanding that Mr. Rothwell publicly apologize for something Jed had sed that offended Krivit's sensibilities. I don't recall the particulars of that spat, nor do I care to - only that Jed didn't apologize. Soon after, Mr. Krivit announced that he was leaving the Vort Collective, presumably to avoid being the brunt of what he perceived as additional personal insults lobbed in his general direction - like farts. I perceive Mr. Krivit as working very hard at the task of being the best investigative journalist that he can be. I think he may still achieve that goal. Incidentally, as Dirty Harry once said: A man's got to know his limitations http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0070355/quotes Despite the fact that I perceive Mr. Krivit as possessing the sensibilities of a cynic I think he has wisely chosen not to pursue the path of a comedian. Regards Steven Vincent Johnson www.OrionWorks.com www.zazzle.com/orionworks
Re: [Vo]:PhysOrg reports on Krivit's latest article...
I sed: I perceive Mr. Krivit as working very hard at the task of being the best investigative journalist that he can be. I think he may still achieve that goal. I just realized that the way I stated the above could imply that I don't perceive Mr. Krivit as possessing very good journalistic skills. This is obviously incorrect. I should have stated the above as: I perceive Mr. Krivit as working very hard at becoming an excellent investigative journalist. I think he may still achieve that goal. In some corners I suspect he may have already achieved it. Still, I would not recommend Mr. Krivit pursue the craft of comedy. One needs to be able to laugh at oneself. I see little evidence of such a trait in Krivit's public outpourings. Regards Steven Vincent Johnson www.OrionWorks.com www.zazzle.com/orionworks
Re: [Vo]:Speaking of finely divided nickel
I find Jones’ post on finely divided nickel exceedingly interesting, informative, and valuable. For what it is worth, the content and logic of this post fits in well with my thinking on the Rossi question. To further the discussion, I believe that the nano-structures that actively mediate the Ni-H reaction must sit on top of or be welded to a metal lattice. This rough and rigid surface configuration will ionize the Rydburg atoms due to the differing and randomized crystal structures of these nickel nano-protuberances. This double tiered topology would act in a similar fashion or preform the same function as a spill over catalyst would. That is, these random crystal outcrops use sharp changes in surface work function caused by cryptologic variability to electrostatically disrupt and ionize the hydrogen Rydberg atoms. There have been reports that Rossi uses big micro grain sized particles as a lattice support structure to buttress small nano-dimensioned tubule structures of nickel. This more complex topology would cut down some on the maximum surface area that would be provided by a single tiered uniform nano particle topology. In addition as time goes by through the continuing action of heat, I speculate that the double tiered nano/micro particles would tend to weld themselves together at their contact points to form a kind of micro dimensioned porous metal-foam further reducing the total available surface area. On Thu, Aug 11, 2011 at 4:05 PM, Jones Beene jone...@pacbell.net wrote: “Nano” is the key to many anomalies, and the follow numbers tend to support a surprising conclusion, to wit: Rossi’s “industrial secret” catalyst is NOT nearly as good as the original … ** ** In 1994 in a series of experiments lasting over a year, but before nickel nanopowder was available, Thermacore was able to get ~50 watts of continuous excess energy – output over the input - from what works out to 143 cm^2 surface area of nickel. ** ** This is based on the surface area of polished capillary tubing, which was in contact with a catalyst (one of several alkali metals, as specified in CQM theory based on Rydberg’s constant). If the surface area had been etched and pitted, as would be expected, then the true surface area could be a multiple of that, but probably not over 400 cm^2. ** ** BTW Rydberg was a Swede, and his constant was found experimentally – since it predated the development of quantum theory. But nowadays, it can be derived from quantum mechanics, which gives it extra credence. Perhaps this is a detail which has attracted the Swedes to the recent incarnation of this early experiment. http://free-energy.xf.cz/H2/papers/Anomalous-Heat-from-Atomic-Hydrogen.pdf ** ** Now fast-forward 17 years. The spec sheets from nano-nickel suppliers say that 400,000 cm^2/gm of surface area is available from this geometry as opposed to the ~400 cm^2/gm of the older tubing. ** ** Therefore, only one gram of nano nickel should give an increase of (400,000/400) or about 3 orders of magnitude more surface area. If surface area correlates well to excess energy, and this is almost a given – then this incredible increase should easily push the 50 watts seen in 1994 above the heat level now claimed by AR. ** ** Is there a surprising conclusion that one draw from this set of circumstances ? ** ** Guess what, sports fans: this could indicates that Rossi’s catalyst may NOT be as good as the potassium carbonate used initially ! ** ** But even if it is exactly the same catalyst (or one the other alkali metals mentioned in the CQM theory) – then this fact, plus the old experiment, may also indicate why the present inventor has been reluctant to disclose its true identity. ** ** Jones
[Vo]:DGT Continues Playing Dodge Ball
From PESN.COM Questions: Did Andrea Rossi ever provide your company the industrial secret, which would include the information about how to produce an operating kernel or reactor core? Can you confirm that your company has assembled, built, and tested the kernels (even if they are the exact same design as Andrea Rossi's), that produce the heat for your final Hyperion systems? The response that Defkalion's representative, Symeon Tsalikoglou gave is: Regarding the questions [above], we would prefer to say no comment. We do not need to enter into online conversations / verifications. Although we understand and value the efforts of the community at large to learn more, please respect the fact that we are working hard for this business to move forward and cannot commit more time and efforts toward the growing interest for information - at the moment. end After AR said he did not give them the sauce, it looks like: 1) DGT has no working Hyperions. 2) DGT has working Hyperions and stole the sauce. 3) DGT has their own receipe. T
[Vo]:JNP Cold Nuclear Fusion paper
Andrea Rossi August 12th, 2011 at 10:58 AM TO ALL OUR READERS: TODAY HAS BEEN PUBLISHED ON THE JOURNAL OF NUCLEAR PHYSICS THE VERY INTERESTING PAPER COLD NUCLEAR FUSION OF E.N. TSYGANOV, UNIVERSITY OF TEXAS SOUTHWESTERN, TEXAS, USA. http://www.journal-of-nuclear-physics.com/?p=510
Re: [Vo]:PhysOrg reports on Krivit's latest article...
Noteworthy that Krivit's 200 page report included detailed contributions by 25 volunteer experts, who showed a broad consensus for a skeptical assessment about excess energy... So it's not just Krivit... Not included -- thermal electrochemical corrosion of the electric input power heating resistor in the Rossi device: Rich Murray 2011.07.19 http://rmforall.blogspot.com/2011_07_01_archive.htm Tuesday, July 19, 2011 [ at end of each long page, click on Older Posts ] http://groups.yahoo.com/group/astrodeep/message/90 [ you may have to Copy and Paste URLs into your browser ] within mutual service, Rich Murray rmfor...@gmail.com 505-819-7388 rich.murray11 Skype audio, video
Re: [Vo]:The Galantini report examined in detail
At 11:39 PM 8/10/2011, Jed Rothwell wrote: Abd ul-Rahman Lomax mailto:a...@lomaxdesign.coma...@lomaxdesign.com wrote: The maximum error in the actual measurement, then, will be +/- 0.1 degree, plus a little, so that it *might* be off by another digit under some circumstances. I.e, suppose the calibration reads 100.0, but the internals of the meter is saying 100.0499. So we then have a systematic error of -0.0499 degree. Then we go to measure a temperature of 100.0998 degrees. The meter will read 100.0499, rounding down to 100.0. An error of almost 0.1 degree. Good point. On a meter with a fixed display, you cannot calibrate any finer than the last digit displayed, minus a tad. McKubre can calibrate RTDs (I think they are) to a fraction of a degree because he is looking at a computer screen with as many digits as you like. Thanks, Jed. You can display to as many digits as you want, but the issue will be, for resolution, the resolution of the A/D converter in the data capture device. It can get complex. I'll have to deal with resolution of the A/D converter in the LabJack, unless I build or use an external amplifier. The signal itself from the thermocouple is analog, so theoretical resoluton is infinite; however, there is also noise to consider. By averaging many readings, noise can effectively be cancelled If they wanted to really know the pressure accurately, and the true temperature behavior, they'd need to use something more sophisticated than what they did. The value in all this is in preparing for truly conclusive demonstrations. Being thorough in understanding errors and possible errors in the early demonstrations is an important part of this.
Re: [Vo]:JNP Cold Nuclear Fusion paper
This seems to me, an unqualified, careful scientific layman, to be reasonable, simple theory, citing recent experiments: Recent experiments on fusion of elements on accelerators For atom-atom collisions the expression of the probability of penetration through a Coulomb barrier for bare nuclei should be modified, because atomic electrons screen the repulsion effect of nuclear charge. Such a modification for the isolated atom collisions has been performed in H.J. Assenbaum and others [6] using static Born-Oppenheimer approximation. The experimental results that shed further light on this problem were obtained in relatively recent works C. Rolfs [7] and K. Czerski [8]. Review of earlier studies on this subject is contained in the work of L. Bogdanova [9]. In these studies a somewhat unusual phenomenon was observed: the sub-barrier fusion cross sections of elements depend strongly on the physical state of the matter in which these processes are taking place. Figure 1 (left) shows the experimental data [8], demonstrating the dependence of the astrophysical factor S(E) for the fusion of elements of sub-threshold nuclear reaction on the aggregate state of the matter that contains the target nucleus 7Li. The same figure (right) presents similar data [7] for the DD reaction, when the target nucleus was embedded in a zirconium crystal. It must be noted that the physical nature of the phenomenon of increasing cross synthesis of elements in the case where this process occurs in the conductor crystal lattice is still not completely clear 7. C. Rolfs, “Enhanced Electron Screening in Metals: A Plasma of the Poor Man”, Nuclear Physics News, Vol. 16, No. 2, 2006. 8. A. Huke, K. Czerski, P. Heide, G. Ruprecht, N. Targosz, and W. Zebrowski, “Enhancement of deuteron-fusion reactions in metals and experimental implications”, PHYSICAL REVIEW C 78, 015803 (2008. 9. L.N. Bogdanova, Proceedings of International Conference on Muon Catalyzed Fusion and Related Topics, Dubna, June 18–21, 2007, published by JINR, E4, 15-2008-70, p. 285-293. Can these papers be shared in full or in part? within mutual service, Rich Murray rmfor...@gmail.com 505-819-7388 rich.murray11 Skype audio, video On Fri, Aug 12, 2011 at 9:31 AM, Alan J Fletcher a...@well.com wrote: Andrea Rossi August 12th, 2011 at 10:58 AM TO ALL OUR READERS: TODAY HAS BEEN PUBLISHED ON THE JOURNAL OF NUCLEAR PHYSICS THE VERY INTERESTING PAPER “COLD NUCLEAR FUSION” OF E.N. TSYGANOV, UNIVERSITY OF TEXAS SOUTHWESTERN, TEXAS, USA. http://www.journal-of-nuclear-physics.com/?p=510
Re: [Vo]:The Galantini report examined in detail
Abd ul-Rahman Lomax wrote: Good point. On a meter with a fixed display, you cannot calibrate any finer than the last digit displayed, minus a tad. McKubre can calibrate RTDs (I think they are) to a fraction of a degree because he is looking at a computer screen with as many digits as you like. Thanks, Jed. You can display to as many digits as you want, but the issue will be, for resolution, the resolution of the A/D converter in the data capture device. It can get complex. Of course. I did not mean to imply that the 4 digits Rossi displays are all significant. In McKubre's case as I recall, 3 digits are significant. My point was only that the display is not limited by the hardware as it is with a hand-held meter, so it can display beyond the significant (meaningful) digits. As I said, I was assuming Galantini was watching the screen display, waiting for it to go above 100°C. Maybe he wasn't. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:DGT Continues Playing Dodge Ball
Terry Blanton wrote: After AR said he did not give them the sauce, it looks like: 1) DGT has no working Hyperions. 2) DGT has working Hyperions and stole the sauce. 3) DGT has their own receipe. You are saying these are the only three likely scenarios, right? They seem to cover all eventualities. I do not know what the situation is, but my guess is that if they have working reactors in a development laboratory, with instrumentation, and if they have developed equipment to fabricate reactors, then even if they do not have the recipe for the powder it would not be difficult to reverse engineer it. As I said before, my reading of the first statement from Defkalion is that Rossi showed them how to fabricate the powder, and they are prepared to fabricate it in industrial quantities. - Jed
RE: [Vo]:JNP Cold Nuclear Fusion paper
Abstract of Tsyganov paper. http://www.journal-of-nuclear-physics.com/?p=510 Recent accelerator experiments on fusion of various elements have clearly demonstrated that the effective cross-sections of these reactions depend on what material the target particle is placed in. In these experiments, there was a significant increase in the probability of interaction when target nuclei are imbedded in a conducting crystal or are a part of it. These experiments open a new perspective on the problem of so-called cold nuclear fusion. This paper could be important for two reasons. The actual fusion situation is covered in the paper. However, there is probably zero to very little actual fusion in the Rossi device, and the Russian findings relate to accelerator experiments anyway - not lower energy LENR. The paper would therefore be almost irrelevant to the E-Cat, except for one finding - embedded target material. What is completely missed in the paper is that the important precursor state (particles imbedded in so-called conducting crystals) could be even more effective for non-fusion than fusion (to be explained). Apparently from Rossi's surprising interest in this paper - this could be almost an admission that Rossi is imbedding nickel in a conducting ceramic, in the well-known way. Rossi has never claimed fusion before. This 'embedding' technique is essentially what Arata made famous, and is precisely what Ahern replicated using material from Ames. The conducting ceramic is zirconia. The technique results in millions of nickel nanoparticles islands imbedded in ~50 micron ceramic powder. A non-fusion modality (as an alternative to fusion, or weak force interaction) has been alluded to many times here, and it is based on extending the Nyman paper to cover nickel-hydrogen QED. This hypothesis is an outgrowth and enhancement of Nyman's modeling of quark interaction, together with the assumption of having IRH - Inverted Rydberg hydrogen - being formed continuously in the reactor from hydrogen spillover, collecting in cavities or pits or between nanoparticles - and other details which have the effect of putting protons into close proximity - within occasional strong force attraction. http://dipole.se/ In this paper, simulations made with two different kinds of physics software both show the following: 1. Two protons placed closely together will repel each other most of the time. 2. Two protons shot at each other will bounce off and repel each other most of the time. 3. However, it is occasionally possible to shoot two protons at each other with the right speed and *quark alignment* so that they latch onto each other instead of repel... IOW quark placement can overcome Coulomb repulsion, in standard physics!!! No magic required (so far). This is where Nyman fails to make the right conclusion. He opines the protons will fuse, which is impossible in these conditions. However, the net reaction which is instigated by strong force attraction can still be gainful as Rossi demonstrates. And indeed the driving force for gain must be a depletion of nuclear mass (by default). However, this reaction does not result in either fusion, or transmutation normally. It does result in fast protons and on occasion these may cause secondary reactions, but net gain is there without anything else. This suggestion is an alternative to the P-e-P reaction where no deflated or other improbable kind of electron is involved, and in the end no fusion will occur. Two protons in this circumstance would have severe negative binding energy, so several things will happen instead of fusion. This is where Nyman falls short - since all we need to know to explain the net gain without nuclear transmutation is that strong force attraction does happen (which essentially the free ingredient) followed by some kind of energetic expulsion without fusion. The energy derives from mass loss - and is probably a statistical depletion of nuclear mass (from pions, gluons or gauge bosons). However, we do not need to pin a name on it at this point in time. It is simply energetic, gainful, not fusion, low gamma, low transmutation - and essentially it is new physics. Jones From: Alan J Fletcher Subject: [Vo]:JNP Cold Nuclear Fusion paper Andrea Rossi August 12th, 2011 at 10:58 AM http://www.journal-of-nuclear-physics.com/?p=501cpage=12 TO ALL OUR READERS: TODAY HAS BEEN PUBLISHED ON THE JOURNAL OF NUCLEAR PHYSICS THE VERY INTERESTING PAPER COLD NUCLEAR FUSION OF E.N. TSYGANOV, UNIVERSITY OF TEXAS SOUTHWESTERN, TEXAS, USA. http://www.journal-of-nuclear-physics.com/?p=510 attachment: winmail.dat
RE: [Vo]:Speaking of finely divided nickel
From: Axil Axil * There have been reports that Rossi uses big micro grain sized particles as a lattice support structure to buttress small nano-dimensioned tubule structures of nickel. This more complex topology would cut down some on the maximum surface area that would be provided by a single tiered uniform nano particle topology. It doesn't seem likely that the tubules themselves are actually composed of nickel, although it is possible. But whatever they are composed of - they would serve the purpose of 'ventilation' of a lattice-like structure, as you indicate. Someone (maybe it was you) had speculated before that the tubules could be carbon nanotubes, or titania nanotubes - both of which are commercially available. These nanotubes could be simply mixed in with a larger grain size of loaded micro-particle which has nano-islands, in order to facilitate migration or circulation of hydrogen deeper into and around the powder. That makes a fair amount of sense based on conflicting statements from Rossi. It also makes sense as an alternative - to provide circulation of hydrogen in a way similar to Thermacore was doing with porous nickel capillary tubing. But instead of having the reaction occur on the capillaries themselves add the nanopowder and catalyst as a mix. Either way, it would seem that the reactor must provide a way for hydrogen to circulate and contact as much surface area as possible, when large particles are being used. Using PWM to pulse the heat input would essentially pump hydrogen as well. Rossi gives every indication of being well-read and aware of what is in the LENR literature. If he missed the Thermacore papers (there are a least three of them out there, two on gas phase and one electrolytic) then that would be a bigger surprise than if he was able to modify the technique and improve it by using carbon nanotubes instead of nickel capillary tubes. Jones attachment: winmail.dat
Re: [Vo]:The Galantini report examined in detail
At 10:46 PM 8/10/2011, Jed Rothwell wrote: Abd ul-Rahman Lomax mailto:a...@lomaxdesign.coma...@lomaxdesign.com wrote: No, they wouldn't. You can use the resolution to make temperature comparisons. Jed, maybe I misread the specifications. I did not, however, make this up. And I do know for a fact that most instruments have higher resolution than accuracy. I have not seen an electronic thermometer that does. Apples and Oranges. Sure, it might be possible to calibrate the thing. Galantini mentioned no calibration. If you don't calibrate, it does not work. No tool works if you do not follow directions and you use it wrong. My Geo Metro gets 35 mpg. If you borrow it and you never shift out of first gear, you will not get 35 mpg. Plus I suppose you would wreck the transmission. Now, I didn't check something. There is a high-precision probe, but Galantini has not specified it. It does have an accuracy of +/- 0.05 C. However, Galantini, in his mail to Krivit, said he used testo 176 H2 That's a 4-channel data logger for temperature and humidity. Accuracy, +/- 0.4 C. (Resolution 0.1 C). But those are the probes that come with it. Well, maybe he is confused in that case. Maybe he forgot which probe he used. Again, this is like what you said above: maybe he did not calibrate. Yes, we all agree that if you don't calibrate or you use the wrong probe, it does not work. Yes, people do make mistakes. (I think my HH12B auto-adjusts the display from 0.1 deg C to show 1 deg C when you put a different kind of probe with a wide range into it. Haven't got one . . .) He used another kind of instrument in earlier tests. As I recall, same accuracy and resolution. However, it's tedious to keep going over and over this. The +/- 0.4 C probes are displayed by the device with 0.1 degree resolution. It would make no sense to have a probe with +/- 0.05 C accuracy and display that with only 0.1 C resolution. So I'm quite sure that the higher accuracy probe will display with more resolution. Looking at the data reported from the demonstrations, all of them report to 0.1 C. Hence, my conclusion about the resolution of the device with its probe is Lucky guess! This isn't about percentage accuracy. It's about absolute temperature accuracy. I know. You have to calibrate to achieve that. That's what the manual says. Put it in boiling water. Compare it to a better instrument. That's what you have to do with at $74 electronic thermometer. Then, for the rest of the week, you can be sure it will hit the same spot accurately. Only Mats Lewan reported calibration like that. But pressure is also important, because, of course, boiling point depends on pressure. I see no sign that the actual pressure inside the E-cat was measured directly. However, it's easy to infer from the temperature and the behavior that the pressure was elevated enough to explain the elevated steam temperature, that this elevated temperature was not a symptom of dry steam. That's one place where Galantini totally fell on his face. This is what we'd see with dry steam: As the E-cat reaches full operating temperature, the temperature would very slowly rise as the steam pressure increases. At first, overflow water would continue, gradually reducing as the vaporization was increased. When the device reaches maximum generation, to reach full vaporization, the water level must lower, because until more heating surface is removed from direct contact with liquid water, the steam temperature cannot increase over boiling. Full vaporization will not occur even if all input water is being emitted as normally wet steam. What would be seen, then, would be the gradual increase in temperature mentioned, as heat evolution increases and as that increased heat is conducted to the coolant chamber. When the outflow water increases beyond input, there would be a region of relatively constant temperature as the level lowers. At some point the coolant chamber walls would start to heat beyond boiling as the level lowers. At this point temperature would start to rise again and dryness would increase, and fairly quickly, I'd guess, the steam would become fully dry, being truly heated beyond boiling. It's looking like the power controls on the E-cat are crude, power may only be adjusted in 5% or 10% of full power increments. Thus exact regulation is unlikely unless complex regulation were used, when all indications are that the control is simply manual, with the dimmers. There is no sign in any of the reports of the increase of temperature beyond a value cosistent with mildly elevated pressure due to some steam generation in a space with a relatively small exit port. Therefore there is no evidence of truly dry steam. Therefore the original Galantini report of dry steam was non-quantitative and only an almost certainly false impression he derived from apparent misconceptions about the behavior of
Re: [Vo]:How to present arguments against cold fusion critics
At 06:30 AM 8/11/2011, Jouni Valkonen wrote: Therefore if someone knows some high impact factor journals that has published recent could fusion findings, I would appreciate to have some examples. See http://en.wikiversity.org/wiki/Cold_fusion/Recent_sources This is a list of journal and academic publications as found in the Britz database. Reviews of the field are shown in bold. The most significant journal to publish a review is Naturwissenschaften. That journal is of an importance commensurable with Scientific American, when I did the research. The pseudoskeptical position has almost entirely disappeared from mainstream journals. There is a little normal skepticism, for example Ludwik Kowalski's criticism of SPAWAR work. I'm aware of other publications of note, for example a textbook on models of the nucleus that treats cold fusion as an experimental reality, recently published by an expert on nuclear models, not some cold fusion believer.
Re: [Vo]:DGT Continues Playing Dodge Ball
Even if DGT can build a Rossi knockoff, their own testing has shown the knockoff to be potentially dangerous and hard to control. If such a product was sold to the public in general, DGT would be legally exposed if the knockoff cause harm to life or property. It is in the business interest of DGT to improve the Rossi design to make that design or some homegrown derivative safe to sell in the marketplace. On Fri, Aug 12, 2011 at 1:54 PM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com wrote: Terry Blanton wrote: After AR said he did not give them the sauce, it looks like: 1) DGT has no working Hyperions. 2) DGT has working Hyperions and stole the sauce. 3) DGT has their own receipe. You are saying these are the only three likely scenarios, right? They seem to cover all eventualities. I do not know what the situation is, but my guess is that if they have working reactors in a development laboratory, with instrumentation, and if they have developed equipment to fabricate reactors, then even if they do not have the recipe for the powder it would not be difficult to reverse engineer it. As I said before, my reading of the first statement from Defkalion is that Rossi showed them how to fabricate the powder, and they are prepared to fabricate it in industrial quantities. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:DGT Continues Playing Dodge Ball
Axil Axil wrote: Even if DGT can build a Rossi knockoff, their own testing has shown the knockoff to be potentially dangerous and hard to control. I do not know where you got that information. The Defkalion reactors appear to be better controlled and safer than Rossi's own prototypes. If such a product was sold to the public in general, DGT would be legally exposed if the knockoff cause harm to life or property. They would be exposed to liability to the same extent no matter where the design originated. If Ford licenses Toyota's hybrid technology, and something goes wrong, they are just as liable as they would be if they invented it themselves. It is in the business interest of DGT to improve the Rossi design to make that design or some homegrown derivative safe to sell in the marketplace. They say they have done this. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:How to present arguments against cold fusion critics
From: Abd ul-Rahman Lomax a...@lomaxdesign.com To: vortex-l@eskimo.com; vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Friday, August 12, 2011 3:12:23 PM Subject: Re: [Vo]:How to present arguments against cold fusion critics At 06:30 AM 8/11/2011, Jouni Valkonen wrote: Therefore if someone knows some high impact factor journals that has published recent could fusion findings, I would appreciate to have some examples. See http://en.wikiversity.org/wiki/Cold_fusion/Recent_sources This is a list of journal and academic publications as found in the Britz database. Reviews of the field are shown in bold. The most significant journal to publish a review is Naturwissenschaften. That journal is of an importance commensurable with Scientific American, when I did the research. The pseudoskeptical position has almost entirely disappeared from mainstream journals. There is a little normal skepticism, for example Ludwik Kowalski's criticism of SPAWAR work. I'm aware of other publications of note, for example a textbook on models of the nucleus that treats cold fusion as an experimental reality, recently published by an expert on nuclear models, not some cold fusion believer. Is this it? p. 175 of _Models of the Atomic Nucleus_ http://tinyurl.com/3py89vx Harry
RE: [Vo]:The Galantini report examined in detail
Abd wrote: But pressure is also important, because, of course, boiling point depends on pressure. I see no sign that the actual pressure inside the E-cat was measured directly. I just read a quote yesterday from Galantini, not sure where, but I think is may have been on Passerini's site, where Galantini specifically states that he measured the pressure INSIDE the chimney. What am I missing here??? -Mark
Re: [Vo]:How to present arguments against cold fusion critics
Thanks great many Abd ul-Rahman and also Jed. I presented devastating counter-argument to Finnish pseudoskeptics. That Naturwissenschaften article: Status of Cold-Fusion (Storms 2010) http://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/StormsEstatusofcoa.pdf was something that might be worthy of reading while I find some time. So special thank you for that! –Jouni 2011/8/12 Abd ul-Rahman Lomax a...@lomaxdesign.com: At 06:30 AM 8/11/2011, Jouni Valkonen wrote: Therefore if someone knows some high impact factor journals that has published recent could fusion findings, I would appreciate to have some examples. See http://en.wikiversity.org/wiki/Cold_fusion/Recent_sources This is a list of journal and academic publications as found in the Britz database. Reviews of the field are shown in bold. The most significant journal to publish a review is Naturwissenschaften. That journal is of an importance commensurable with Scientific American, when I did the research. The pseudoskeptical position has almost entirely disappeared from mainstream journals. There is a little normal skepticism, for example Ludwik Kowalski's criticism of SPAWAR work. I'm aware of other publications of note, for example a textbook on models of the nucleus that treats cold fusion as an experimental reality, recently published by an expert on nuclear models, not some cold fusion believer.
Re: [Vo]:DGT Continues Playing Dodge Ball
Some personal speculations of my own: FWIW, the one little itch that I can't ignore is why does DGT continue to behave in what strikes me as being distinctly conciliatory in their characterization of Rossi's recent actions. DGT claims they have developed more control and a greater safety margin with their own in-house hyperon designed modules that are presumably based on Rossi's original eCat design. If that is the case why would DGT care if Rossi stays on board, or flies the coop? But that doesn't seem to be the case. DGT, continues to give me the impression that they still need Rossi, perhaps desperately so. If so, why? All we know is that Rossi claims he is still the only individual in sole possession of the magic secret sauce. There is some debate on that matter. In regards to the following PESN link: http://pesn.com/2011/08/10/9501891_Defkalion_Responds_in_Support_of_Rossi/ DGT sez: Defkalion is preparing all of its labs, the industrial production lines and support systems needed for the Hyperion kW range and MW range of products as designed, following all Andrea Rossi's specs on instruments and production machinery, including specialized systems necessary for the preparation, on an industrial scale, of the ingredients placed within the reactor. These are built by Defkalion's scientists and technicians, following the standards, specifications and designs provided and approved by Andrea Rossi himself. IMHO, the above carefully worded statement allows one to INTERPRET a conclusion that DGT possesses a viable secret sauce formula. The point being, it's an INTERPRETATION that may not necessarily be the actual truth, particularly when the lawyers get around to parsing the actual meaning. The point being, as far as I can tell DGT still does not appear to have specifically stated that they are in possession of the actual formula itself - Rossi's catalyst. In the meantime, being in possession of the secret sauce formula would certainly be what I would want all potential investors to INTERPRET as being the truth. Otherwise, why would any investor put out? Cynically speaking, if the above unsubstantiated speculation is reasonably accurate, I could see why DGT continues to remain exceedingly conciliatory towards Rossi. It would suggest that DGT still needs Rossi, desperately so. Jed, I'm curious. Do you have any commentary on this? Regards Steven Vincent Johnson www.OrionWorks.com www.zazzle.com/orionworks
Re: [Vo]:JNP Cold Nuclear Fusion paper
Cold Nuclear Fusion, recent experiments and theory re electron shielding in metals: EN Tsyganov, (UA9 collaboration) University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center at Dallas, Texas: Rich Murray 2011.08.12 [Vo]:JNP Cold Nuclear Fusion paper fromAlan J Fletcher a...@well.com reply-tovortex-l@eskimo.com to vortex-l@eskimo.com dateFri, Aug 12, 2011 at 9:31 AM subject [Vo]:JNP Cold Nuclear Fusion paper 9:31 AM (21 minutes ago) Andrea Rossi August 12th, 2011 at 10:58 AM TO ALL OUR READERS: TODAY HAS BEEN PUBLISHED ON THE JOURNAL OF NUCLEAR PHYSICS THE VERY INTERESTING PAPER COLD NUCLEAR FUSION OF E.N. TSYGANOV, UNIVERSITY OF TEXAS SOUTHWESTERN, TEXAS, USA. http://www.journal-of-nuclear-physics.com/?p=510 free full text by E.N. Tsyganov (UA9 collaboration) University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center at Dallas, Texas, USA http://www.journal-of-nuclear-physics.com/files/Cold%20nuclear%20fusion.pdf Direct Download 7 pages Abstract Recent accelerator experiments on fusion of various elements have clearly demonstrated that the effective cross-sections of these reactions depend on what material the target particle is placed in. In these experiments, there was a significant increase in the probability of interaction when target nuclei are imbedded in a conducting crystal or are a part of it. These experiments open a new perspective on the problem of so-called cold nuclear fusion. PACS.: 25.45 – deuterium induced reactions Submitted to Physics of Atomic Nuclei/Yadernaya Fizika in Russian This seems to me, an unqualified, careful scientific layman, to be reasonable, simple theory, citing recent experiments: Recent experiments on fusion of elements on accelerators For atom-atom collisions the expression of the probability of penetration through a Coulomb barrier for bare nuclei should be modified, because atomic electrons screen the repulsion effect of nuclear charge. Such a modification for the isolated atom collisions has been performed in H.J. Assenbaum and others [6] using static Born-Oppenheimer approximation. The experimental results that shed further light on this problem were obtained in relatively recent works C. Rolfs [7] and K. Czerski [8]. Review of earlier studies on this subject is contained in the work of L. Bogdanova [9]. In these studies a somewhat unusual phenomenon was observed: the sub-barrier fusion cross sections of elements depend strongly on the physical state of the matter in which these processes are taking place. Figure 1 (left) shows the experimental data [8], demonstrating the dependence of the astrophysical factor S(E) for the fusion of elements of sub-threshold nuclear reaction on the aggregate state of the matter that contains the target nucleus 7Li. The same figure (right) presents similar data [7] for the DD reaction, when the target nucleus was embedded in a zirconium crystal. It must be noted that the physical nature of the phenomenon of increasing cross synthesis of elements in the case where this process occurs in the conductor crystal lattice is still not completely clear 7. C. Rolfs, “Enhanced Electron Screening in Metals: A Plasma of the Poor Man”, Nuclear Physics News, Vol. 16, No. 2, 2006. 8. A. Huke, K. Czerski, P. Heide, G. Ruprecht, N. Targosz, and W. Zebrowski, “Enhancement of deuteron-fusion reactions in metals and experimental implications”, PHYSICAL REVIEW C 78, 015803 (2008. 9. L.N. Bogdanova, Proceedings of International Conference on Muon Catalyzed Fusion and Related Topics, Dubna, June 18–21, 2007, published by JINR, E4, 15-2008-70, p. 285-293. Can these papers be shared in full or in part? http://www.utsouthwestern.edu/findfac/research/0,2357,17436,00.html Name: Edward N. Tsyganov, Ph.D. 214-648-3689 Academic Title: Assistant Professor Administrative Title: Clinical Assistant Professor Primary Appointment: Radiology School: Southwestern Medical School Affiliations: Radiology RESEARCH OVERVIEW Novel detectors for X-ray and gamma particles. Positron emission tomography, single photon emission tomography, X-ray tomography (CT). Novel 3D reconstruction algorithms for PET, SPECT, CT and optical imaging. Gas Electron Multiplying Detectors for Medical Applications. RESEARCH INTERESTS Positron emission tomography; 3-D imaging reconstruction; novel nuclear detectors. E. N. Tsyganov, Concept of DD fusion in crystals Laboratory Nazionali Di Frascati, LNF-09/ 10 (P):1-6, September 2009 E. N. Tsyganov, DD fusion in crystals Physics of Atomic Nuclei, Vol. 73, No. 12:pp. 1981-1989, December 2010 http://www.verticalnews.com/premium_newsletters/Physics-Week/2011-04-26/63540PH.html Physics Week Welcome to VerticalNews! We're a pay-per-view site for premium content. If you'd like to purchase this article, it's only $3.00. Nuclear Physics Research Data from E.N. Tsyganov and Colleagues Update Understanding of Nuclear Physics April 26th, 2011 The article
Re: [Vo]:DGT Continues Playing Dodge Ball
OrionWorks - Steven V Johnson svj.orionwo...@gmail.com wrote: FWIW, the one little itch that I can't ignore is why does DGT continue to behave in what strikes me as being distinctly conciliatory in their characterization of Rossi's recent actions. DGT claims they have developed more control and a greater safety margin with their own in-house hyperon designed modules that are presumably based on Rossi's original eCat design. If that is the case why would DGT care if Rossi stays on board, or flies the coop? It seems obvious to me. Because he invented the thing. Because they cut a deal with him, and he transferred the technology to them. An honest, good businessman will make every effort to patch up a relationship. A conciliatory attitude is always good. It is better to have him as a friend than an enemy. I know nothing about the details of the dispute, but as a general rule, having lawsuits and accusations fly back and forth is not good for business. Controversy is not good for business. They are looking for dealers with 40 million euros. If I were a potential dealer, and I heard that Rossi has denounced them and has ended the relationship, I would hesitate to invest. But that doesn't seem to be the case. DGT, continues to give me the impression that they still need Rossi, perhaps desperately so. Their statements give me the impression they have a business deal with him, and they want to continue it. Rossi apparently believes they have not honored their obligations. I have no idea what obligations those might be, or whether they have reneged as Rossi claims. Jed, I'm curious. Do you have any commentary on this? I think it is a bad idea to speculate about contracts I have not read. I have no idea what the dispute is about and no way of knowing whether Rossi's anger is justified. Without speculating about anything, and looking at strictly as a businessman, I note that: 1. Controversy is bad for business, as I said. 2. Defkalion willingly cut a deal with Rossi some time ago. I assume they still desire to continue this relationship. Why wouldn't they? To be specific, the press reported they will pay him 100 million euros after the 1 MW reactor test. They thought it was worth that much money when they made the deal, and I suppose they still think so. I wouldn't know. This seems dirt-cheap to me. 100 million euros is a pittance for this technology. I cannot imagine any serious business executive who would balk at this figure, even if all you get is a trade secret and no patent. The technology is worth billions of euros. Not up front, but over 10 or 20 years that would be a reasonable sum, I suppose. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:DGT Continues Playing Dodge Ball
Controversy is bad for both sides, right? This might disturb any other partner that Rossi is or might contract. I just hope this whole affair ends with Rossi just retreating from any business for a long time. In any case, I would be happy if Defkalion just kicked the bucket and went ahead with their Hyperion. Rossi cannot do much because he is so paranoid with the formula that he didn't patent it and he is probably not let any specialist from any court to compare any whatever catalyzer he has with the one that belongs to Defkalion.
Re: [Vo]:DGT Continues Playing Dodge Ball
On August 8th, 2011 at 1:38 PM Rossi said in part on his blog as follows: “ “I have already perfectly in schedule my 1 MW plant, while the production in big series of the E-Cats was not my duty ( by the way, I always said them that this policy was completely wrong, for the first 2 years, but they were free to do what they want in reece and Balkans);” Rossi redesigned the BIG(10KW – 1000CC core) eCat to solve the well know control problem(remember the 130KW runaway). His current design uses a 50CC core in and effort to develop a more stable system. I draw from Rossi'e quote listed above that DGT did not redesign the 1000cc core by downsizing it to the 50CC core in their in house unit. This DGT homegrown unit may still be unstable and Rossi feels he is not responsible to fix the 1000C core for DGT. Rossi is still changing(improving?) his design almost on a daily basis and I doubt that DGT keeps their reactor designs current with Rossi's latest revisions. As a commercial reactor designer, Rossi may not be capable or willing to handle the riggers of quality and revision control for a major product release. On Fri, Aug 12, 2011 at 4:20 PM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com wrote: Axil Axil wrote: Even if DGT can build a Rossi knockoff, their own testing has shown the knockoff to be potentially dangerous and hard to control. I do not know where you got that information. The Defkalion reactors appear to be better controlled and safer than Rossi's own prototypes. If such a product was sold to the public in general, DGT would be legally exposed if the knockoff cause harm to life or property. They would be exposed to liability to the same extent no matter where the design originated. If Ford licenses Toyota's hybrid technology, and something goes wrong, they are just as liable as they would be if they invented it themselves. It is in the business interest of DGT to improve the Rossi design to make that design or some homegrown derivative safe to sell in the marketplace. They say they have done this. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:DGT Continues Playing Dodge Ball
On Fri, Aug 12, 2011 at 10:12 PM, Axil Axil janap...@gmail.com wrote: As a commercial reactor designer, Rossi may not be capable or willing to handle the riggers of quality and revision control for a major product release. Well, there are a lot of engineers willing to help him gratis if he would only ask. But, it seems there is a pride issue here. T
RE: [Vo]:The Galantini report examined in detail
At 04:40 PM 8/12/2011, Mark Iverson wrote: Abd wrote: But pressure is also important, because, of course, boiling point depends on pressure. I see no sign that the actual pressure inside the E-cat was measured directly. I just read a quote yesterday from Galantini, not sure where, but I think is may have been on Passerini's site, where Galantini specifically states that he measured the pressure INSIDE the chimney. What am I missing here??? How did he do that? He says he did it, but the pressure probe doesn't handle 100 C. Further, he gave no readings, no actual measurements.
