Re: [Vo]:Of NAEs and nothingness...
On Fri, May 31, 2013 at 9:11 AM, Edmund Storms stor...@ix.netcom.comwrote: On May 30, 2013, at 11:39 PM, Harry Veeder wrote: On Thu, May 30, 2013 at 11:00 AM, Edmund Storms stor...@ix.netcom.comwrote: Harry, imagine balls held in line by springs. If the end ball is pull away with a force and let go, a resonance wave will pass down the line. Each ball will alternately move away and then toward its neighbor. If outside energy is supplied, this resonance will continue. If not, it will damp out. At this stage, this is a purely mechanical action that is well understood. In the case of the Hydroton, the outside energy is temperature. The temperature creates random vibration of atoms, which is focused along the length of the molecule. Again, this is normal and well understood behavior. The strange behavior starts once the nuclei can get within a critical distance of each other as a result of the resonance. This distance is less than is possible in any other material because of the high concentration of negative charge that can exist in this structure and environment. The barrier is not eliminated. It is only reduced enough to allow the distance to become small enough so that the two nuclei can see and respond. The response is to emit a photon from each nuclei because this process lowers the energy of the system. Ed, With each cycle energy of the system is only lowered if the energy of the emitted photon is greater than the work done by the random vibration of atoms on the system. NO Harry! Ed, I am trying to help you understand your model. I am not trying to tear it down. There is no work done by the random vibrations. These are the result of normal temperature. The photon is emitted from the nucleus and carries with it the excess mass-energy of the nucleus. Let us return to your ball and spring model of the hydroton and assume an ideal spring which doesn't dissipate energy by getting warm during compressions. If heat energy is the vibration of atoms in the lattice, then the spring is compressed by atoms from the lattice pushing on the spring. As the spring is compressed work is done on the spring, however, the spring will eventually bounce back to its original length so no net work is done on the spring in the course of one oscillation. The oscillations will repeat indefinitely with the same amplitude as long as the temperature remains constant. However, in your model the spring does not return to its original length. Now for sake argument assume no photon is emitted. This means some work has been performed on the spring, which means the spring has effectively turned a little thermal energy into potential energy and thereby slightly cooled the lattice. Now assume a photon is emitted. The subsequent temperature of the lattice will depend on the energy of this emitted photon. If the energy of the photon is less than the work done (W) then the temperature of the lattice will not return to the initial the temperature. The cycle can repeat until the protons fuse but the temperature will gradually decline and the end result can aptly be described as cold fusion! On the other hand if the energy of the photon is greater than W then the temperature of the lattice will be greater after fusion. The change is analogous to an exothermic chemical reaction which requires some activation energy to initiate but the reaction products are in a lower energy state. Because of the shape of the coulomb hill the hill can only be climbed if the energy emitted increases with each cycle. No! The hill height is reduced by an intervening negative charge. As a result, the hill height is reduced so that it can be surmounted by the vibrations occuring in the Hydroton. Normally, the hill is too high for such small vibrations to have any effect. The hill is reduced in height as a result of the Hydroton forming. As a result, it is the unique condition required to make CF work. All the theories use something similar, but without a clear description. The barrier is reduced by the electron but I think the net effect only reduces the force of repulsion by 1/2. However, this is not a problem since you have theoretically enlarged the total energy of a p-e-p association (or molecule as you call it) to include all the excess mass-energy as well as the electrostatic energy of the association. Therefore the p-e-p association can shrink in size by entering a lower energy through the conversion of mass into a photon. This is like a ball rolling between two hills. It rolls down the side of one hill, through the valley and up the other side. In the process, it picks up a little energy from the surroundings (temperature in this case) to reach the top, where it throws a switch and turns on a light for a brief time. Immediately, it starts to roll back down and returns to the first hill where it again reaches the top and turns on a light for a brief time. This back and forth continues
Re: [Vo]:Adding Energy to get Energy
Jones, Did he make the background measure and the active run measure with the detector in the same place and same orientation? If he did, then the dip recorded during the active run would mean an _active_ ecat can reduce background radiation. Harry On Sun, Jun 2, 2013 at 12:08 AM, mix...@bigpond.com wrote: In reply to Jones Beene's message of Sat, 1 Jun 2013 19:59:52 -0700: Hi, [snip] Let me add that in the appendix to the Penon report, David Bianchini finds not only no significant radiation over background, but actually the peak radiation counts are slightly less during the experiment than background, indicating the apparatus shields the detector from cosmic rays slightly. That wouldn't surprise me if contained a couple of cm of lead shielding. Regards, Robin van Spaandonk http://rvanspaa.freehostia.com/project.html
[Vo]:Mars waits for no man
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2013/05/130530145930.htm Round trip to Mars would push radiation safety limits Astronauts could easily soak up their lifetime allowance Mars waits for no man. The Mars astronauts need the awesome power of LENR to get to the Red Planet as fast as possible. How big does the reactor need to be to get to push the Mars rocket to its destination in just a few weeks? An ion engine could be coupled to a LENR based stirling engine electric generator. This power source would be both light and powerful. Such an engine would be lighter than the weight of the shielding required for a slow flight. It looks like LENR is coming along just at the right time to make space colonization possible.
Re: [Vo]:Mars waits for no man
On Jun 2, 2013, at 10:01 AM, Axil Axil janap...@gmail.com wrote: Round trip to Mars would push radiation safety limits. Astronauts could easily soak up their lifetime allowance That is true. But also Mars voyage might reduce the cancer risk of smokers, because smokers are forced to quit smoking. Also cancer risk is small compared to the risk that something critical goes wrong. How big does the reactor need to be to get to push the Mars rocket to its destination in just a few weeks? Some calculations does require 200 MW reactor in order to get into Mars less than one month. ―Jouni
Re: [Vo]:LENR a gateway into the theory of everything.
Axil, I agree, this is my take on LENR at higher GeV range in our Brane World... http://sdsimonson.files.wordpress.com/2013/04/dbrane-316079-image06.jpg Stewart Darkmattersalot.com On Sunday, June 2, 2013, Axil Axil wrote: LENR could be a gateway into the theory of everything. The central dilemma at the very heart of LENR is what causes nuclear reactions at low energy levels. But are the energies generated in LENR low, or are they potentially gigantic beyond the reach of any possible supercollider. Grand unification energy is something less than around 10^^16 GeV, Could LENR produce such high energies. Well at least the unification of the electroweak forces and the strong force might someday be possible. This force unification might be a possibility in view of some kinds of violent nuclear rearrangement seen in some LENR systems experiments. To start off with, what causes the nuclei of most elements to fall apart and reassemble their subatomic parts in new ways? Two new papers dealing with the nature and workings of the vacuum lend insight into the LENR question. http://arxiv.org/pdf/1302.6165.pdf *The quantum vacuum as the origin of the speed of light* http://arxiv.org/pdf/1301.3923v1.pdf *A sum rule for charged elementary particles* These papers suggest that the nature of the vacuum is defined by electromagnetic mechanisms revolving around the action of the constant creation and destruction of virtual dipoles. The nature of radioactive decay is also driven off the action of the virtual particle life cycle and its electromagnetic consequences. These papers also suggest that the nature of space/time can be changed and controlled by augmentation of this virtual dipole mechanism. It is generally recognized that the Fine Structure constant (FSC) is not really constant at all and can vary. If this FSC can be changed by as little as 4% either more or less, the delicate balance between the strong force and the electromagnetic force will fatally disrupt the forces inside the nucleus. A successful LENR system will setup a positive feedback loop that produces enhanced dipole production caused by enhanced electron tunneling. If the proper dipole production topology is created, dipole production begets enhanced electron tunneling and vice versa. In this way, an extreme dipole EMF field can be concentrated is a localized volume of space. The extreme dipole EMF fields thus produced gets so strong that the fabric of the vacuum within this nanoscopic localized volume is distorted to the point that the nuclei of atoms in that volume become unbalanced. The greatly enhanced and increased dipole EMF counteracts the actions of the strong force and the nuclei inside the localized volume bereft of the strong force will fall apart. The control of this strong force negation process is possible. Through the control of the dipole production topology, the amount of nuclear disruption is proportional to the strength of the dipole field, and this could be adjusted from slight to extreme. The next consideration to consider is how the dipole force can grow to such high levels that the resultant EMF can disrupt the internal mechanisms inside the nucleus. Each individual dipole is a member of a global mirrored Bose-Einstein condensate of polaritons and holes in which all the combined dipole EMF is available to each member of the global dipole ensemble in linear superposition as a quantum mechanical potential. This EMF is carried by virtual photons that can be in quantum mechanical linear superposition. When any given nucleus succumbs to the combined power of the global entangled dipole force, the superposition of the EMF photons is resolved and energy of the nuclear breakup is transferred coherently in micro quantities to the other members of the dipole ensemble. The BEC is immediately reestablished over the disrupted nucleus within the local volume of dipole EMF influence and the superpositions of potential nuclear disintegrations are restored globally throughout the system. Reference: http://arxiv.org/pdf/1203.1261v1 *Rydberg excitation of a Bose-Einstein condensate* Any nuclear reaction that produces a gamma that occurs in a BEC will undergo frequency reduction based on the super-atom formula Gamma frequency = Square root (Number of BEC atoms)(Thermalized frequency) The frequency of the gamma will be shared by N BEC member atoms. To conclude this discussion with an example, the BEC of positive mirrored ions in the dipole ensemble can be considered a huge positive particle effectively a billion times larger than a proton. But this super-positive particle is only a few nanomenters away from a give nucleus. This short distance exposes the localized linear volume to the full force of the EMF. That unfortunate nucleus would experience powerful disruptive EMF charge
RE: [Vo]:Adding Energy to get Energy
From: David Roberson Robin, how would Rossi prevent the lead from melting at the elevated temperatures? Do you suspect that he has it confined within a closed shell of some kind? I do not recall seeing any place for it to hide. Let me add that in the appendix to the Penon report, David Bianchini finds not only no significant radiation over background, but actually the peak radiation counts are slightly less during the experiment than background, indicating the apparatus shields the detector from cosmic rays slightly. That wouldn't surprise me if contained a couple of cm of lead shielding. Lead shielding is not used by Rossi anymore. That tells you something. He has no worry of high energy radiation. The fact that there is no radiation at all detectable (at kW thermal output) from Rossi's device (above a threshold of tens of keV) is rather conclusive that there is no fusion, and essentially no nuclear reaction of any kind in the MeV range. Even if Robin is correct about fusion with fractional hydrogen having no prompt gamma, the occasional spallation neutron and the numerous Augur cascades brought on by fast ions would create reactions which would be easily detectable by Bianchini - and there would be lots of them at this kind of thermal gain level (unless most of the energy comes from another reaction). The gain in Rossi's device can be nuclear, but not from any known reaction which dumps MeV of energy. This would have been seen. The onus is on the proponent of such a theory to demonstrate how this gain does not involve yet another miracle (in addition to the overcoming the threshold of the primary reaction). The most likely explanation, based on all that we know about the Rossi reaction, is that gain happens in the soft x-ray spectrum and/or the EUV spectrum - which is not detectable with Bianchini's equipment. Hagelstein's magic phonons can be ruled out as a local CoE violation (which he admits). I have written Bianchini to ask that - if given another opportunity to test - will he please look specifically for soft x-rays. That would answer many questions, depending on the outcome. Jones attachment: winmail.dat
[Vo]: DC Meter Cheat Spice Model to be Replicated
I have good news to report. My hypothesis is that DC current generated by load rectification and thus flowing through the input AC sine wave power source (3 phase input to Rossi's ECAT) does not result in the stealing of any power from that source. Also, any second and higher order harmonic currents flowing through that source will not effect the measured, calculated and actual power being delivered by that sine wave source. I have a simple world view of this process where all of the power being delivered from the sine source can be determined uniquely by observing the sine wave current and voltage at the fundamental frequency of that source. This understanding is in line with the instrument measurements performed during Rossi's latest testing. Some of the critics have raised questions about the validity of my hypothesis so I constructed a simple spice model which confirmed my understanding. I have requested that Cude or any others interested in finding the truth construct a similar model and prove me wrong. This request has remained unanswered until yesterday when Duncan (who proposed the DC stealing concept) agreed to perform a replication. We are currently agreeing upon the setup and how to confirm which hypothesis is accurate. This is admirable of Duncan and I want to offer my appreciation to him for being open minded and willing to prove something of importance. His position is far removed from that of Cude who talks but never performs. I promise to post the results of this replication attempt on this list once it has been completed. No matter what the outcome, the data will be shown in a fair and open manner. This will allow anyone harboring additional questions an opportunity to seek clarification. This is the way science should be conducted and I hope that it represents the future of cooperation between all parties concerned. Dave
Re: [Vo]:Mars waits for no man
Jouni Valkonen jounivalko...@gmail.com wrote: Some calculations does require 200 MW reactor in order to get into Mars less than one month. Ed Storms is an expert on this subject. Maybe he can point us to some papers. At Los Alamos they did some work on fission engines for spacecraft. I think Ed told me these could get to Mars in a few weeks. They could also carry heavier shielding. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:Ekstrom critique of Levi et al.
I confirms the opinion control technology. I try to control it too with counter-measure. Hardest point is staying calm ;-) Most calm people, like Jed or ed, do a great job in controlling broadcasted lies in some thread. people have to see that the pretended skeptics are in fact conspiracy theorist of the worst species. Like similar conspiracy theorist they sometime raise interesting points, mostly useless, yet true, and otherwise mostly BS and FUD. anyway, lie, lie, there will always be something that remain. (french proverb) 2013/6/2 Axil Axil janap...@gmail.com The tactic of the obstructionist is to avoid dealing with the case presented by the derided through justly committed believer, but to prejudice the less technically conversant members of the general public who might be evaluating the debate. The obstructionist realizes that neither his farfetched pejorative case nor his propaganda of recrimination is wasted on the knowledgeable LENR expert. His goal is to undercut any spark of belief among the common folk before it is rightly turns into a conflagration of LENR enthusiasm. On Fri, May 31, 2013 at 2:47 PM, David Roberson dlrober...@aol.comwrote: So, do you need help with that spice model? The remainder of your discussion is nothing more than using words to avoid the issue. It would take you less time to perform the spice experiment than to write a million words that prove nothing. You wrote a large number of unsubstantiated and untrue statements which I want to take apart one by one. It takes far too much time and is frankly boring to the other members of vortex to respond with the volume of material needed to rebut each one. That is why I ask you to concentrate upon one of your choice. Is that asking too much? Dave -Original Message- From: Joshua Cude joshua.c...@gmail.com To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Fri, May 31, 2013 2:01 pm Subject: Re: [Vo]:Ekstrom critique of Levi et al. On Fri, May 31, 2013 at 8:59 AM, David Roberson dlrober...@aol.comwrote: Bring on your proof that what I have pointed out is not true. Take a few moments to show how DC flowing into the control box due to its internal rectification changes the power delivered to it. You're just repeating your arguments and ignoring the responses I've already given to them. Obviously I have no proof. How could I? True believers insist on an explanation of how deception might explain the alleged observations, but do not hold themselves to the same standard to give an explanation for how nuclear reactions could be initiated in those circumstances, or how they could produce that much heat without radiation, or how NiH could produce 100 times the power density of nuclear fuel without melting, regardless of what produces the energy. That doesn't stop you from believing it happens though. There's various ways to create illusions, and I don't necessarily know how it might have been done. But I know there was a rat's nest of wires, and an unnecessarily complex method of supplying power, and that deception on Rossi's part is far more likely than cold fusion. Most people looking at the cheese power video could not prove there was a trick from the video alone, and especially not from a paper written to describe the experiment, by people who actually believed in cheese power. But that doesn't mean they would not be nearly certain there is one. And it would be easy for anyone with elementary knowledge of electricity to set up an experiment to demonstrate cheese-power unequivocally, if it were real. Likewise, the same could be done for the ecat. But when they use 3-phase, when single would do, when the wiring is in place ahead of time, when close associates choose the instruments which are completely inadequate, when the blank run uses different conditions, when the input timing is determined from a video tape, when the COP just happens to equal the reciprocal of the duty cycle, when the power supply box is off-limits, and the power measurements are restricted, and when the claim is as unlikely as cheese-power, it is ok to be suspicious. You will fail miserably I assure you! You love to make unsupported statements and then fail to do any of the simple tests required to clear up your misunderstanding. I have waited a long time for you or Andrew or Duncan to make that spice model that will demonstrate that what I say is accurate. I will be happy to help you set up a model that will take perhaps 15 minutes of your time to run. If you do not know how to makes such a model then you should remove yourself from this discussion since that would demonstrate a lack of understanding of basic EE knowledge. Dave -Original Message- From: Joshua Cude joshua.c...@gmail.com To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Fri, May 31, 2013 4:19 am Subject: Re: [Vo]:Ekstrom critique of Levi et al. On Thu, May 30, 2013 at 3:35 PM, David
Re: [Vo]:Of NAEs and nothingness...
On Jun 2, 2013, at 12:15 AM, Harry Veeder wrote: On Fri, May 31, 2013 at 9:11 AM, Edmund Storms stor...@ix.netcom.com wrote: On May 30, 2013, at 11:39 PM, Harry Veeder wrote: On Thu, May 30, 2013 at 11:00 AM, Edmund Storms stor...@ix.netcom.com wrote: Harry, imagine balls held in line by springs. If the end ball is pull away with a force and let go, a resonance wave will pass down the line. Each ball will alternately move away and then toward its neighbor. If outside energy is supplied, this resonance will continue. If not, it will damp out. At this stage, this is a purely mechanical action that is well understood. In the case of the Hydroton, the outside energy is temperature. The temperature creates random vibration of atoms, which is focused along the length of the molecule. Again, this is normal and well understood behavior. The strange behavior starts once the nuclei can get within a critical distance of each other as a result of the resonance. This distance is less than is possible in any other material because of the high concentration of negative charge that can exist in this structure and environment. The barrier is not eliminated. It is only reduced enough to allow the distance to become small enough so that the two nuclei can see and respond. The response is to emit a photon from each nuclei because this process lowers the energy of the system. Ed, With each cycle energy of the system is only lowered if the energy of the emitted photon is greater than the work done by the random vibration of atoms on the system. NO Harry! Ed, I am trying to help you understand your model. I am not trying to tear it down. I know and I appreciate the effort. However, I want you to accurately understand what I'm proposing. Only then can you add a new insight. You are not accurately describing what I proposing. There is no work done by the random vibrations. These are the result of normal temperature. The photon is emitted from the nucleus and carries with it the excess mass-energy of the nucleus. Let us return to your ball and spring model of the hydroton and assume an ideal spring which doesn't dissipate energy by getting warm during compressions. If heat energy is the vibration of atoms in the lattice, then the spring is compressed by atoms from the lattice pushing on the spring. As the spring is compressed work is done on the spring, however, the spring will eventually bounce back to its original length so no net work is done on the spring in the course of one oscillation. The oscillations will repeat indefinitely with the same amplitude as long as the temperature remains constant. However, in your model the spring does not return to its original length. Now for sake argument assume no photon is emitted. This means some work has been performed on the spring, which means the spring has effectively turned a little thermal energy into potential energy and thereby slightly cooled the lattice. Now assume a photon is emitted. The subsequent temperature of the lattice will depend on the energy of this emitted photon. If the energy of the photon is less than the work done (W) then the temperature of the lattice will not return to the initial the temperature. The cycle can repeat until the protons fuse but the temperature will gradually decline and the end result can aptly be described as cold fusion! On the other hand if the energy of the photon is greater than W then the temperature of the lattice will be greater after fusion. No analogy is perfect and you are extending my effort to get one idea understood and applying it to a different idea, which is not correct. The vibration is like a periodic switch acting on the nucleus. The vibration itself does not release energy. It has no friction. Energy is totally conserved during the vibration. However, the vibration causes the nuclei to emit a proton because the vibration periodically causes them to get within a critical distance of each other. All atoms vibrate, but normally in random ways. The Hydroton forces this vibration into a particular direction. In fact all chemical bonds do this. For example, in the water molecule, the H-O-H bond vibrates and causes the molecule to periodically gets slightly longer and shorter, and cause the angle to change. This process does not cause a nuclear reaction because the H and O are too far apart. In contrast, the H in the hydroton are close enough that this vibration periodically causes the nuclei to release mass-energy. This ability of a bond to do this is very rare. Nevertheless, I suspect it can happen when the bond with or between H or D is especially strong. The conditions producing the Hydroton just happen to be so efficient at producing the rare condition that the effect is easily detectable, and now has enough attention to be acknowledged when it is detected.
Re: [Vo]:Mars waits for no man
I don't know the model they use for radiation impact, and I imagine they use the false LLNT law. http://nextbigfuture.com/2011/12/dna-repair-mechanism-works-much-better.html moreover it is not only false (lower dose have no toxicity), but the dose concept is false http://nextbigfuture.com/2012/05/prolonged-low-dose-radiation-study-at.html long exposition is harmless, compared to short pulse. (it is not new knowledge, but it was suppressed and public like LENR) eg: in french: in2p3 effet des faibles doses nucléaires tubianahttp://e2phy.in2p3.fr/2001/tubiana2.doc few hundred Sievert are in the intermediate zone that trigger hormesis, thus may have mixed good/bad effects. Hormesis is observed in place irradiated about 100mSv, less cancer, better immune system. see http://nextbigfuture.com/2012/07/background-radiation-levels.html and http://www.angelfire.com/mo/radioadaptive/ramsar.html ( Inhabitants who live in some houses in this area receive annual doses as high as 132 mSv from external terrestrial sources. Based on results obtained in studies on high background radiation areas of Ramsar, high levels of natural radiation may have some bio-positive effects such as enhancing radiation-resistance. More research is needed to assess if these bio-positive effects have any implication in radiation protection (Mortazavi et al. 2001). The risk from exposure to low-dose radiation has been highly politicized for a variety of reasons. This has led to a frequently exaggerated perception of the potential health effects, and to lasting public controversies. There are many other areas with high levels of background radiation around the world, and epidemiological studies have indicated that natural radiation in these areas is not harmful for the inhabitants. Results obtained in our study are consistent with the hypothesis that a threshold possibly separates the health effects of natural radiation from the harm of large doses. This threshold seems to be much higher than the greatest level of natural radiation. A travel to mars, with huge average dose is harmless probably compared to the risk of the travel itself. irradiation pulse may be more concerning, but give a high average dose, we can expect hormesis to protect from pulse. have to be studied. anyway, LLNT law is to be put in the toilet of history, like CF cannot exist. 2013/6/2 Jouni Valkonen jounivalko...@gmail.com On Jun 2, 2013, at 10:01 AM, Axil Axil janap...@gmail.com wrote: Round trip to Mars would push radiation safety limits. Astronauts could easily soak up their lifetime allowance That is true. But also Mars voyage might reduce the cancer risk of smokers, because smokers are forced to quit smoking. Also cancer risk is small compared to the risk that something critical goes wrong. How big does the reactor need to be to get to push the Mars rocket to its destination in just a few weeks? Some calculations does require 200 MW reactor in order to get into Mars less than one month. —Jouni
[Vo]:“Lithium Problem”
Big-bang nucleosynthesis (BBN) theory, together with the precise WMAP cosmic baryon density, makes tight predictions for the abundances of the lightest elements. Deuterium and 4He measurements agree well with expectations, but 7Li observations lie a factor 3 - 4 below the BBN+WMAP prediction. This 4 - 5 mismatch constitutes the cosmic lithium problem, with disparate solutions possible. (1) Astrophysical systematics in the observations could exist but are increasingly constrained. (2) Nuclear physics experiments provide a wealth of well-measured cross-section data, but 7Be destruction could be enhanced by unknown or poorly-measured resonances. Physics beyond the Standard Model can alter the 7Li abundance, though D and 4He must remain unperturbed; Physics is inventing outlandish theories for this puzzle including decaying Super symmetric particles and time-varying fundamental constants. Present and planned experiments could reveal which (if any) of these is the solution to the problem. Why dose's Astrophysics consider LENR??? Because they have a closed mind toward LENR! http://sait.oat.ts.astro.it/MSAIt780307/PDF/2007MmSAI..78..476G.pdf The electron screening of lithium nuclear reactions are as high as 17.4 MeV. Clearly, LENR is why there is a Lithium Problem ,but if science can't believe that, Lithium Problem will always remains a comic mystery. http://www.newscientist.com/special/13-more-things
[Vo]:Fact checking: Did Nature (or others) publicly decide to reject all cold fusion papers?
Hi, I would like to ask to people who follow the LENr domain whetehr or not there is an official policy in Scientific Journal to reject LENR/Cold Fusion papers ? Maybe is it more complex, so please describe. With Oriani, Report41 Deninno, Jed asking rectification of caltech paper, I know that it is implemented, but maybe is it not so official ?
Re: [Vo]:Adding Energy to get Energy
OK, Jones, let me try to summarize what you propose. You believe CF is like the Mills effect even though CF is known to produce nuclear products and the Mills effect does not. You believe that Rossi made the Ni-H2 system create energy using the Mills effect while everyone else who explored this combination detected evidence of a nuclear process. Even Mills has apparently failed to make his method work this effectively, which seems ironic. You do not accept my theory of how the presence of D, H, or H+D can change the nuclear products from the same mechanism and account for the behavior. Instead, you propose at least two different mechanisms are operating to produce a very strange and rare energy release. You believe that no gamma is emitted by the e-Cat because no gamma is reported to be detected outside the apparatus. You come to this conclusion in spite of gamma being detected on occasion by several studies using light hydrogen and that Celani claimed the e-Cat emitted gamma during startup. Rossi was even concerned enough to put a lead shield in his early design. If Rossi is causing the Mills effect, then his e-Cat is accumulating hydrinos, which should be easy to detect. In addition, I'm asking him to look for deuterium and tritium. The tritium would be easy to detect and would provide unambiguous support for my model and a clear rejection of the Mills effect. This this summary correct? Ed Storms On Jun 1, 2013, at 3:02 PM, Jones Beene wrote: From: Jed Rothwell wrote: Bianchini finds zero radiation over hundreds of hours of careful radiation testing. Most cold fusion experiments produce no measurable radiation over hundreds of hours, including Pd-D ones. Most cold fusion experiments have been milliwatt level and do not use the very sophisticated setup of Bianchini – who after all is measuring kilowatts and is a leading expert at this. Essen finds no radioactivity in the ash. No excess deuterium or tritium have been documented in Rossi. I doubt anyone has looked for deuterium. It would be very difficult to find. Moderately difficult but not “very difficult” - but as a practical matter for a theoretician – is it wise to build a theory on a foundation that depends upon the viability of an extremely rare reaction (P-e-P), unless you have tested the ash in some basic way - and found a skewed H/D ratio or other indication of excess D? In short, the Rossi effect looks very much like the Mills effect. And the Mills effect looks like cold fusion. And that is precisely why it was a mistake to bifurcate the two, circa 1992. So we're back where we started. I agree with Mike McKubre about the conservation of miracles. But cold fusion requires more miracles than Mills, who with his funding has now proved many details. Mills predicts UV lines and finds them – miracle erased. He predicts no gamma and there is none. He predicts and captures the fractional hydrogen as physical atoms, and has the species tested - and it shows up differently from hydrogen in NMR etc. In fact the only problem with Mills in the miracle department is the lack of the commercial product – and if Rossi gets there first due to the high level of a more robust reaction, and especially if AR has accurately predicted Ni-62 then he wins the big prize... Gulp. Three cheers for Rossi, but in the end – it is LENR, and not cold fusion per se as Ed wants to define it. The ultimate source of energy cannot be determined as of now but Rossi’s hundreds of hours of operation at kilowatt levels with no gammas clearly indicates NO fusion. Which is to say, the Rossi effect is not fusion but can still be a new kind of nuclear reaction if one can be found with no gamma radiation. I expect that all of these effects are either nuclear in something like the conventional sense, or they are Mills superchemical shrinking hydrogen. I doubt there are two unrelated phenomena so similar in nature. Agreed– and there is one common denominator – QM tunneling. Things tend to be unified at some deep level, as are combustion and metabolism (to use Chris Tinsley's favorite example). Exactamundo! There are probably 5-6 similar variations on the theme of quantum tunneling which result in either 1)full fusion (as in the cold fusion of deuterium into helium) 2)some kind of weak force beta decay (W-L or related theory) 3)accelerated decay or internal conversion decay 4)UV supra-chemistry (energy coming from electron angular momentum) 5)QCD strong force effects (quantum chromodynamics) 6)Any combination of the above – even several of them in the same experiment! Any theory which aspires to encompass all of these begins with QM tunneling, but no simpler theory from there on - works. It cannot be true that all excess heat in Ni-H comes from a single kind of reaction, as the result do not allow this. Even in
Re: [Vo]:Ekstrom critique of Levi et al.
Alain Sepeda alain.sep...@gmail.com wrote: people have to see that the pretended skeptics are in fact conspiracy theorist of the worst species. I agree. Plus they judge everything by personality and their own assumptions, and they see only one side to a personality. They point to Rossi's odd behavior and his dodgy business, but they ignore the fact that he works 12 hours a day and he has invested large sums of his own money. (As Jones Beene pointed out, this is a matter of public record.) You cannot square this behavior with the con-man hypothesis. Con men do not spend years making and testing hundreds of reactors. Mind you, Rossi may well be a con-man in the same sense that Edison and Jobs were. They were dodgy people You Would Not Want to Deal With. Jobs got his start stealing from the phone company and his partner Woz. People who invested with Edison were often fleeced and usually furious. His method was to gather huge sums of money for a given purpose and then splurge on whatever instruments he felt like, keeping no records and paying no bills he could get away with ignoring. When one investor sent a forensic accountant to find out where the last draft of a hundred thousand dollars had vanished, Edison greeted the accountant saying: It is about time you got here. Did you bring more money? We're running out again. He told the investor to stop worrying about how much it was costing because it would pay off many more times than that. He was right. Still Edison did squander something like $10 million on various hare-brained schemes, which was a lot of money back than. He was not a safe investment for the faint-hearted. I have no doubt that if Dr. Alessio Guglielmi, Yugo, Cude or Park had been alive in 1879 they would have condemned Edison as fraud upon the public a disgrace, who takes up backwards and a failure masquerading as success. I know they would, because those are quotes from distinguished professors and other self-appointed experts at that time. Such people have been common in every era. They meet every invention and new idea with same tired set of objections, conspiracy theories and ad hominem arguments. Benjamin Franklin, one of the greatest scientists of all times and an acute observer of human nature, described these people to a T. anyway, lie, lie, there will always be something that remain. (french proverb) In English that would be throw enough mud and something will stick. http://idioms.thefreedictionary.com/Throw+dirt+enough,+and+some+will+stick - Jed
[Vo]:Soft x-ray reflectance and transmission
An important question about the Rossi reaction (as epitomized by that powerful image of the glowing HotCat) - is in the context of identifying whether or not its thermal gain is expressed in the soft x-ray spectrum. Gain cannot be seen in a higher spectrum, so soft x-rays is the best bet. Determining this may involve both reflectance and transmission of photons in a narrow range. Due to Rydberg ionization values of Nickel, in the context of CQM theory, the photon radiation in question could be ~300 eV. There is a fair chance that this involves a limited chain reaction similar to a version of the Mossbauer effect. Once we know the spectrum in which the Rossi gain originates, it will be easier to frame an accurate theory. There is evidence of transmission of soft x-rays through SiC, SiN and stainless at 800 C. Even if the rate of transmission is low (ppm ?) the possibility of detection could still be significant - to the extent that this radiation can be intensified and focused by mirroring. Can it be focused? The knee-jerk reaction is NO - since UV light in an nearby spectrum is universally absorbed by all elements, making detection difficult. With soft x-rays, however, as opposed to EUV- we seem to be lucky. Soft x-ray mirroring is a reality, at least in Space. Thus - aside from practical applications of how to convert the gain into electricity, mirroring points to an easy way to falsify the hypothesis of the soft x-ray spectrum. The region of interest would be measurements from about 4-6 nanometers. As fate would have it - nickel has been chosen as a thin-film reflective coating in NASA Satellites for use with optical systems in this range, as far back as the sixties. Thus we know the low angle reflectance of nickel for 4 nm wavelength x-rays is about 45 % which is more than adequate- if not extraordinary, given that for UV at 40 nm, it is zero. This also has relevance for what is going on inside the Rossi reactor - in the sense of a photon chain reaction which is a softer variation of the Mossbauer effect. More on that later. Nickel film - as parabolic trough mirror, surrounding the Rossi HotCat should be able to intensify the soft x-ray emittance by a large factor, perhaps up to 10,000,000 to one as felt by a detector. Although the chance of soft x-rays getting through all of those external layers of the HotCat seems slim, even the slight possibility is worth investigating since $100 of nickel foil, and the proper photocells (on loan from NIST) is all that one would need to discover a very important detail. Jones attachment: winmail.dat
Re: [Vo]:Ekstrom critique of Levi et al.
I meant to write that Edison was called a disgrace, who takes *us*backwards. Us meaning people working on electrical engineering and incandescent lighting. As I recall, one of Edison's commercial rivals said that. You will find similar quotes from Rossi's jealous rivals in cold fusion. That was from the biography A Streak of Luck. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:Fact checking: Did Nature (or others) publicly decide to reject all cold fusion papers?
Alain Sepeda alain.sep...@gmail.com wrote: I would like to ask to people who follow the LENr domain whetehr or not there is an official policy in Scientific Journal to reject LENR/Cold Fusion papers ? Yes. Most journals send a short rejection letter to any paper related to cold fusion. They do not submit papers to peer-review. They reject them out of hand. Nature and several others do this. There are not many examples of these one-page letters. I saw some in the collected papers of Martin Fleischmann and a few in Mizuno's files. There are few examples because after 1990, no researchers I know bothered to send papers to these journals. Everyone knows their policy. Nature made this policy abundantly clear in their editorials and letters to researchers. There are some quotes and links to the Nature editorials here: http://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/RothwellJhownaturer.pdf Along the same lines, the Washington Post, the New York Times, Time magazine and others have often published attacks by Robert Park and other opponents accusing researchers of being frauds, criminals and lunatics. To my knowledge they have never allowed any researcher to publish an objection or a rebuttal. These attacks have caused great harm to people's professional and personal lives. New Scientist is the only one I can think of that has printed accusations of fraud, criminality and so on but also a few articles with quotes from Miles and others objecting to these attacks. - Jed
RE: [Vo]:Adding Energy to get Energy
From: Edmund Storms OK, Jones, let me try to summarize what you propose You believe CF is like the Mills effect even though CF is known to produce nuclear products and the Mills effect does not. Not even close, Ed. I specifically said that I do not address anything to do with cold fusion, as opposed to LENR, and most importantly, this is not an either/or proposition. LENR can have both heat with nuclear products OR heat without nuclear products. And thirdly, we do not need Mills complete theory - but we must borrow parts from his theory to understand Rossi. I have always stated your theory fits Piantelli's experiments, but not Rossi's. You believe that Rossi made the Ni-H2 system create energy using the Mills effect while everyone else who explored this combination detected evidence of a nuclear process. Certainly not everyone else. Ahern's fine replication of Arata finds zero evidence of a nuclear effect and Celani finds none either - basically Piantelli supports the fusion viewpoint, but his work is less convincing Plus - Rossi has possibly advanced the Mills effect - which is now the Rossi effect, by identifying Ni-62 as the active species. BUT in the end - Bianchini has proved that there is NO nuclear products nor nuclear radiation in the Rossi effect. Even Mills has apparently failed to make his method work this effectively, which seems ironic. Mills' proponents, such as Jeff Driscoll think he has proved this. Many others are not convinced. Rossi seems to have gone well beyond Mills, and best of all - by pinpointing the active isotope. You do not accept my theory of how the presence of D, H, or H+D can change the nuclear products from the same mechanism and account for the behavior. Wrong. I do accept that your theory fits the physical evidence for some experiments, like Piantelli, but NOT Rossi's work. You want your theory to cover everything, but unfortunately it does not. Instead, you propose at least two different mechanisms are operating to produce a very strange and rare energy release. Yes. At least five similar mechanisms are present that all involved QM tunneling in one form or another. You believe that no gamma is emitted by the e-Cat because no gamma is reported to be detected outside the apparatus. You come to this conclusion in spite of gamma being detected on occasion by several studies using light hydrogen and that Celani claimed the e-Cat emitted gamma during startup. Rossi was even concerned enough to put a lead shield in his early design. Yes, this is all completely consistent with my hypothesis of multiple related pathways. Rossi no longer uses lead, and the very best testing for radioactivity which has ever been done in LENR finds no radiation in the Rossi effect. I emphasize NONE since there is not the slightest hint of any radiation in Bianchini's results. If Rossi is causing the Mills effect, then his e-Cat is accumulating hydrinos, which should be easy to detect. That could be true - but Rossi has an incentive not to permit this kind of testing. I have also provided a way to partially falsify my hypothesis of soft x-rays. In addition, I'm asking him to look for deuterium and tritium. The tritium would be easy to detect and would provide unambiguous support for my model and a clear rejection of the Mills effect. No. That is not correct. Tritium would have already have been detected by Bianchini if it was there, and it was not there. And it would not reject Mills unless all the complete gain was attributable to fusion, which cannot be the case. In any event, the presence of a small amount of tritium, which is not commensurate with the thermal gain, would bolster my hypothesis of several routes to gain. Jones attachment: winmail.dat
Re: [Vo]:Adding Energy to get Energy
Jones Beene jone...@pacbell.net wrote: No. That is not correct. Tritium would have already have been detected by Bianchini if it was there . . . I do not think so. Tritium would be trapped inside the cell. The decay product is a low energy beta. If a little tritium leaks out of the cell it is not likely to reach the detector, which only covers a small amount of the surface surrounding the cell. The only way Bianchini could detect this would be if Rossi makes a cell with a high quality tube and connectors to the cell contents and allows Bianchini to sample the gas. That is also the only way anyone could detect an increase in deuterium or any other gaseous nuclear product. This is a very difficult and involved thing to do. You have to purge the tube and other hardware. You have to use Swaglok connectors and you have to pay fanatical attention to cleanliness. If you touch any part of metal where the gas will flow, your fingerprint will contain more hydrogen than all of the reaction products from several days of high temperature heat production. Consider this: assuming the ratio of heat to helium is the same as plasma fusion, a Pd-D automobile that runs for a year, producing as much heat as the average gasoline burning automobile, will consume roughly 1 g of D2O. That's 48 million miles per gallon of D2O. - Jed
RE: [Vo]: DC Meter Cheat Spice Model to be Replicated
My complements to Duncan for stepping up to the plate and taking time to do this. and of course to Dave Roberson for making the model in the first place. Thank you Dave/Duncan! -Mark Iverson From: David Roberson [mailto:dlrober...@aol.com] Sent: Sunday, June 02, 2013 7:22 AM To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: [Vo]: DC Meter Cheat Spice Model to be Replicated I have good news to report. My hypothesis is that DC current generated by load rectification and thus flowing through the input AC sine wave power source (3 phase input to Rossi's ECAT) does not result in the stealing of any power from that source. Also, any second and higher order harmonic currents flowing through that source will not effect the measured, calculated and actual power being delivered by that sine wave source. I have a simple world view of this process where all of the power being delivered from the sine source can be determined uniquely by observing the sine wave current and voltage at the fundamental frequency of that source. This understanding is in line with the instrument measurements performed during Rossi's latest testing. Some of the critics have raised questions about the validity of my hypothesis so I constructed a simple spice model which confirmed my understanding. I have requested that Cude or any others interested in finding the truth construct a similar model and prove me wrong. This request has remained unanswered until yesterday when Duncan (who proposed the DC stealing concept) agreed to perform a replication. We are currently agreeing upon the setup and how to confirm which hypothesis is accurate. This is admirable of Duncan and I want to offer my appreciation to him for being open minded and willing to prove something of importance. His position is far removed from that of Cude who talks but never performs. I promise to post the results of this replication attempt on this list once it has been completed. No matter what the outcome, the data will be shown in a fair and open manner. This will allow anyone harboring additional questions an opportunity to seek clarification. This is the way science should be conducted and I hope that it represents the future of cooperation between all parties concerned. Dave
Re: [Vo]:Fact checking: Did Nature (or others) publicly decide to reject all cold fusion papers?
Ok, so nothing official, but clear behavioral evidence of a short clear policy. A conspiracy ? (ah ah) I note. by the way, remind me to call for a Nuremberg trial on Cold Fusion. Some people have to be fired. They have done more pain than the banksters (to whom I find the excuse that they were fulfilling population desire). 2013/6/2 Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com Alain Sepeda alain.sep...@gmail.com wrote: I would like to ask to people who follow the LENr domain whetehr or not there is an official policy in Scientific Journal to reject LENR/Cold Fusion papers ? Yes. Most journals send a short rejection letter to any paper related to cold fusion. They do not submit papers to peer-review. They reject them out of hand. Nature and several others do this. There are not many examples of these one-page letters. I saw some in the collected papers of Martin Fleischmann and a few in Mizuno's files. There are few examples because after 1990, no researchers I know bothered to send papers to these journals. Everyone knows their policy. Nature made this policy abundantly clear in their editorials and letters to researchers. There are some quotes and links to the Nature editorials here: http://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/RothwellJhownaturer.pdf Along the same lines, the Washington Post, the New York Times, Time magazine and others have often published attacks by Robert Park and other opponents accusing researchers of being frauds, criminals and lunatics. To my knowledge they have never allowed any researcher to publish an objection or a rebuttal. These attacks have caused great harm to people's professional and personal lives. New Scientist is the only one I can think of that has printed accusations of fraud, criminality and so on but also a few articles with quotes from Miles and others objecting to these attacks. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:Adding Energy to get Energy
Jed is correct. Tritium can not be detected by an ordinary detector because the beta is too weak. Unless the required special detector is used, tritium would be totally missed no matter how much is present. That is why tritium is dangerous. Nevertheless, modern methods can detect tritium at a very low level. I suggest the Ni removed from the hot Cat would contain enough tritium to be easily detected if the proper method were used. I have no expectation this effort will be made until the laboratory is found to be contaminated purely by a chance survey done for other reasons. Rossi is playing with fire. Ed Storms On Jun 2, 2013, at 10:20 AM, Jed Rothwell wrote: Jones Beene jone...@pacbell.net wrote: No. That is not correct. Tritium would have already have been detected by Bianchini if it was there . . . I do not think so. Tritium would be trapped inside the cell. The decay product is a low energy beta. If a little tritium leaks out of the cell it is not likely to reach the detector, which only covers a small amount of the surface surrounding the cell. The only way Bianchini could detect this would be if Rossi makes a cell with a high quality tube and connectors to the cell contents and allows Bianchini to sample the gas. That is also the only way anyone could detect an increase in deuterium or any other gaseous nuclear product. This is a very difficult and involved thing to do. You have to purge the tube and other hardware. You have to use Swaglok connectors and you have to pay fanatical attention to cleanliness. If you touch any part of metal where the gas will flow, your fingerprint will contain more hydrogen than all of the reaction products from several days of high temperature heat production. Consider this: assuming the ratio of heat to helium is the same as plasma fusion, a Pd-D automobile that runs for a year, producing as much heat as the average gasoline burning automobile, will consume roughly 1 g of D2O. That's 48 million miles per gallon of D2O. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:Fact checking: Did Nature (or others) publicly decide to reject all cold fusion papers?
Hi, On 2-6-2013 18:28, Alain Sepeda wrote: by the way, remind me to call for a Nuremberg trial on Cold Fusion. Some people have to be fired. I'm afraid you cannot compare this with the Nuremberg trial as some of the accused and sentenced got a death penalty. I don't see any death penalty as a solution to whatever crime anyone has ever committed. Kind regards, Rob
[Vo]:existence of hydrino
Why do people keep asking to see a hydrino if we know it requires an NAE to translate to this state? Are they asking to see the gas / powder in situ? There is no reason to suspect the hydrogen will remain translated when it exits the lattice although it would be interesting to know if a dihydrino could retain some fraction of translation apart from the NAE.. this might even explain some of the Columb weakening proposed for 3 party collisions where 2 parties are represented by a dihydrino molecule or pico H2. There is also the sunburn experienced by Professor Conrads when he was exposed to Mills powder configured as a plasma lamp.. still no hydrino but an indirect measurement of the shifted spectrum photons emitted by hydrino.. this may be as close to proof as you can come if the hydrogen needs to be in the lattice to translate to this state. http://www.heise.de/tp/artikel/28/28977/1.html [snip]Critics object that such confirmations cannot be labelled independent because BlackLight Power was either in a consultant role or their laboratory had been used. Both has been avoided by German physics professor Johannes Conrads. The plasma researcher had a private interest in this work but the employer he had worked for for 30 years, the Jülich Research Center, feared repercussions if he engaged in experiments. He found an open ear at Bochum Ruhr University provided that no crazy theories were involved. But Mills plasma lamp burned. I very well remember the sunburn I had the next day, says Thomas Wrubel who was involved in the experiment. The BlackLight Power reaction produces intense ultraviolet light. Such an extreme ultraviolet emission is not expected, Gerrit Kroesen from the Technical University of Eindhoven comments who is currently engaged in studying the BlackLight Process himself. You have to make very difficult mental bends to explain it. Conrads and Wrubel tried to get to the bottom of the mysterious light emission using well-founded and established methods, even modifying the experiment. For one year they worked on the experiment on and off. But they never found an explanation for the plasma because the minimally required energy was by all the rules not available. We either have a new chemical reaction we could not nail down or it is something else strange, Wrubel looks back wondering. For the 2003 publication http://www.iop.org/EJ/abstract/0963-0252/12/3/312/ Mills was added as a co-author because he had supplied the reaction vessel. Wrubel does not work in research anymore. [/snip] Fran
Re: [Vo]:existence of hydrino
The hydrino if it exists may be a result of LENR not a causation. On Sun, Jun 2, 2013 at 12:41 PM, Frank froarty...@comcast.net wrote: ** ** ** Why do people keep asking to see a hydrino if we know it requires an NAE to translate to this state? Are they asking to see the gas / powder in situ? There is no reason to suspect the hydrogen will remain translated when it exits the lattice although it would be interesting to know if a dihydrino could retain some fraction of translation apart from the NAE.. this might even explain some of the Columb weakening proposed for 3 party collisions where 2 parties are represented by a dihydrino molecule or “pico” H2. There is also the “sunburn” experienced by Professor Conrads when he was exposed to Mills powder configured as a plasma lamp.. still no hydrino but an indirect measurement of the shifted spectrum photons emitted by hydrino.. this may be as close to proof as you can come if the hydrogen needs to be in the lattice to translate to this state. ** ** http://www.heise.de/tp/artikel/28/28977/1.html [snip]Critics object that such confirmations cannot be labelled independent because BlackLight Power was either in a consultant role or their laboratory had been used. Both has been avoided by German physics professor Johannes Conrads. The plasma researcher had a private interest in this work but the employer he had worked for for 30 years, the Jülich** **Research** **Center, feared repercussions if he engaged in experiments. He found an open ear at Bochum** **Ruhr** **University provided that no crazy theories were involved. But Mills’ plasma lamp burned. I very well remember the sunburn I had the next day, says Thomas Wrubel who was involved in the experiment. The BlackLight Power reaction produces intense ultraviolet light. Such an extreme ultraviolet emission is not expected, Gerrit Kroesen from the Technical University of Eindhoven comments who is currently engaged in studying the BlackLight Process himself. You have to make very difficult mental bends to explain it. Conrads and Wrubel tried to get to the bottom of the mysterious light emission using well-founded and established methods, even modifying the experiment. For one year they worked on the experiment on and off. But they never found an explanation for the plasma because the minimally required energy was by all the rules not available. We either have a new chemical reaction we could not nail down or it is something else strange, Wrubel looks back wondering. For the 2003 publicationhttp://www.iop.org/EJ/abstract/0963-0252/12/3/312/Mills was added as a co-author because he had supplied the reaction vessel. Wrubel does not work in research anymore. [/snip] Fran
RE: [Vo]:Adding Energy to get Energy
You do not need to remove the gas. I know you have heard of Bremsstrahlung, even if the word is almost unspellable to Anglos. Thank heavens for spell checkers and Wiki vids. Here is a little video that tells you why Bianchini would see tritium, if it was there. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yYLzarnlcUE It is not the beta decay which is seen - but instead it is the secondary gammas aka Bremsstrahlung . and yes - they would be on the edge of detectability, but a signal should show up above background on his meter - especially when the Rossi device is disassembled, as it is in the Penon report. From: Jed Rothwell Jones Beene wrote: No. That is not correct. Tritium would have already have been detected by Bianchini if it was there . . . I do not think so. Tritium would be trapped inside the cell. The decay product is a low energy beta. If a little tritium leaks out of the cell it is not likely to reach the detector, which only covers a small amount of the surface surrounding the cell. The only way Bianchini could detect this would be if Rossi makes a cell with a high quality tube and connectors to the cell contents and allows Bianchini to sample the gas. That is also the only way anyone could detect an increase in deuterium or any other gaseous nuclear product. This is a very difficult and involved thing to do. You have to purge the tube and other hardware. You have to use Swaglok connectors and you have to pay fanatical attention to cleanliness. If you touch any part of metal where the gas will flow, your fingerprint will contain more hydrogen than all of the reaction products from several days of high temperature heat production. Consider this: assuming the ratio of heat to helium is the same as plasma fusion, a Pd-D automobile that runs for a year, producing as much heat as the average gasoline burning automobile, will consume roughly 1 g of D2O. That's 48 million miles per gallon of D2O. - Jed
Re: [Vo]: DC Meter Cheat Spice Model to be Replicated
Dave, Can the power analyzer sense DC voltages? I haven't been able to figure this out from the manual or the datasheet, but I'm sure someone who has actual experience with three-phase power measurements should be able to answer that question. -- Berke Durak
Re: [Vo]:Fact checking: Did Nature (or others) publicly decide to reject all cold fusion papers?
Alain Sepeda alain.sep...@gmail.com wrote: Ok, so nothing official . . . It is official. All of the major journals have a clear policy of rejecting cold fusion papers out of hand. All mass media newspapers and magazines, except CBS and Forbes, have made it their policy to publish attacks on cold fusion researchers without allowing a defense by the accused. . . . but clear behavioral evidence of a short clear policy. The policy was stated by the editors of Nature and others. In 1990 they called for unrestrained mockery, even a little unqualified vituperation. They could not have said it more clearly than that! A conspiracy ? No, just a consensus of opinion. It is not as if the editors from the Scientific American, Nature and the Washington Post secretly met together and planned this. That would be a conspiracy. by the way, remind me to call for a Nuremberg trial on Cold Fusion. Some people have to be fired. No laws have been broken, so there can be no trial. If cold fusion ever succeeds I expect the people who led the attacks will say they were for it all along. They will take credit, and they will be rewarded. That is the usual pattern of history. After the Three Mile Island disaster, the NRL engineer who repeated warned it would happened was forced out. The upper managers who first ignored him and then ordered him to shut up were promoted and given a cash reward. - Jed
Re: [Vo]: DC Meter Cheat Spice Model to be Replicated
Berke, I have not seen an indication that that power meter senses DC directly. The DC that flows into of from the source supply does not need to be sensed in order to calculate the power being delivered from that source. I realize that this seems contrary to common sense, but there is mathematical support as well as spice model demonstration of this behavior. I can directly measure all of the power being given to the series diode and load resistor by the AC sine wave source by multiplying the RMS source voltage times the RMS fundamental current magnitude and taking into account the phase shift between them. All other harmonics and DC make no difference to the determination. The spice model replication will offer a second verification. This should put to rest the issue being repeated by Cude and other skeptics. Dave -Original Message- From: Berke Durak berke.du...@gmail.com To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Sun, Jun 2, 2013 12:51 pm Subject: Re: [Vo]: DC Meter Cheat Spice Model to be Replicated Dave, Can the power analyzer sense DC voltages? I haven't been able to figure this out from the manual or the datasheet, but I'm sure someone who has actual experience with three-phase power measurements should be able to answer that question. -- Berke Durak
Re: [Vo]:Adding Energy to get Energy
Jones, you are simply wrong. I have worked with tritium and I know how it behaves. It cannot be detected using its Bremsstrahlund unless a huge amount is present because this radiation is produced at only a small fraction of the beta and is absorbed very quickly by only a small amount of material in the case of tritium. The video does not show anything about tritium. We simply do not know or are told what is in the supposed light stick or how much tritium is present. To the extent the container holding the tritium containing fluid is thin enough to pass Bremsstrahlund and generate useful light, the amount of tritium would be very dangerous if the container broke. If Rossi had produce enough tritium to be detected this way, everyone in the room would have serious health and legal problems if the tritium got out of the E-Cat. Ed Storms On Jun 2, 2013, at 10:48 AM, Jones Beene wrote: You do not need to remove the gas. I know you have heard of Bremsstrahlung, even if the word is almost unspellable to Anglos. Thank heavens for spell checkers and Wiki vids. Here is a little video that tells you why Bianchini would see tritium, if it was there. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yYLzarnlcUE It is not the beta decay which is seen – but instead it is the secondary gammas aka Bremsstrahlung … and yes – they would be on the edge of detectability, but a signal should show up above background on his meter - especially when the Rossi device is disassembled, as it is in the Penon report. From: Jed Rothwell Jones Beene wrote: No. That is not correct. Tritium would have already have been detected by Bianchini if it was there . . . I do not think so. Tritium would be trapped inside the cell. The decay product is a low energy beta. If a little tritium leaks out of the cell it is not likely to reach the detector, which only covers a small amount of the surface surrounding the cell. The only way Bianchini could detect this would be if Rossi makes a cell with a high quality tube and connectors to the cell contents and allows Bianchini to sample the gas. That is also the only way anyone could detect an increase in deuterium or any other gaseous nuclear product. This is a very difficult and involved thing to do. You have to purge the tube and other hardware. You have to use Swaglok connectors and you have to pay fanatical attention to cleanliness. If you touch any part of metal where the gas will flow, your fingerprint will contain more hydrogen than all of the reaction products from several days of high temperature heat production. Consider this: assuming the ratio of heat to helium is the same as plasma fusion, a Pd-D automobile that runs for a year, producing as much heat as the average gasoline burning automobile, will consume roughly 1 g of D2O. That's 48 million miles per gallon of D2O. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:Adding Energy to get Energy
On Jun 2, 2013, at 10:05 AM, Jones Beene wrote: From: Edmund Storms OK, Jones, let me try to summarize what you propose You believe CF is like the Mills effect even though CF is known to produce nuclear products and the Mills effect does not. Not even close, Ed. I specifically said that I do not address anything to do with cold fusion, as opposed to LENR, and most importantly, this is not an either/or proposition. Please Jones, do not split hairs. You know exactly what I mean by CF and LENR, which I explained before. We are discussing either a nuclear process (CF or LENR) or a nonnuclear process (Mills). This is a clear either/or situation. LENR can have both heat with nuclear products OR heat without nuclear products. No LENR cannot be both. You are simply changing the definition to fit your personal wishes. This is not how the rest of the world defines the word. If you want to make up a different word, please do. This is like calling an apple an orange because you happen to like oranges. Your approach simply causes confusion because we can not discuss the same effect. And thirdly, we do not need Mills complete theory - but we must borrow parts from his theory to understand Rossi. I have always stated your theory fits Piantelli's experiments, but not Rossi's. The Mills theory is a complete and unified model. You can not extract parts that you happen to like. In addition, my theory explains both Rossi and Piantelli. Rossi simply made the effect Piantelli observed stronger. I explain how this might have been done. You might not agree, but nevertheless I have logically explained how this might happen. You have not. I have predicted what is expected to be observed. You have not. I have explained how the Rossi effect must be controlled. You have not. You can accept or reject, but please acknowledge what I claim and discuss the consequences of the idea rather rejecting my ideas by redefining words and proposing ambiguous mechanisms. You believe that Rossi made the Ni-H2 system create energy using the Mills effect while everyone else who explored this combination detected evidence of a nuclear process. Certainly not everyone else. Ahern's fine replication of Arata finds zero evidence of a nuclear effect and Celani finds none either - basically Piantelli supports the fusion viewpoint, but his work is less convincing Of course, some people do not see any effect. This failure is common in this field. In contrast, the effect is clearly seen by other people. Which experience you choose to believe determines how you explain or reject the ideas. I make clear exactly what I accept and reject, and why. Plus - Rossi has possibly advanced the Mills effect - which is now the Rossi effect, by identifying Ni-62 as the active species. BUT in the end - Bianchini has proved that there is NO nuclear products nor nuclear radiation in the Rossi effect. No, Bianchini only failed to detect the energy of radiation his instruments were designed to detect. In addition, he could not demonstrate that radiation was not made inside and being absorbed to below the detection limit. We do know that the light hydrogen system makes low energy radiation that can only result from a nuclear reaction. Whether the proper method was used to detect this radiation emitted from the Ross device is still unknown. Even Mills has apparently failed to make his method work this effectively, which seems ironic. Mills' proponents, such as Jeff Driscoll think he has proved this. Many others are not convinced. Rossi seems to have gone well beyond Mills, and best of all - by pinpointing the active isotope. Rossi claims that Ni62 produces energy because it transmutes to Cu. Mills claims that energy is given off when the electron in a H atom is able to go below the quantum level of 1 by giving this energy to a catalyst. Are you proposing that this catalyst is Ni62? Why would this be the case? Please explain because it makes no sense using the Mills theory. You do not accept my theory of how the presence of D, H, or H+D can change the nuclear products from the same mechanism and account for the behavior. Wrong. I do accept that your theory fits the physical evidence for some experiments, like Piantelli, but NOT Rossi's work. You want your theory to cover everything, but unfortunately it does not. It does not fit everything only because you say it doesn't. I say it does and can predict behavior. We will see who is right when the predictions are tested. Instead, you propose at least two different mechanisms are operating to produce a very strange and rare energy release. Yes. At least five similar mechanisms are present that all involved QM tunneling in one form or another. OK, this is clear.
RE: [Vo]:Adding Energy to get Energy
From: Edmund Storms Jones, you are simply wrong. I have worked with tritium and I know how it behaves. You apparently have not worked with tritium very intuitively, if you cannot understand this simple video. It cannot be detected using its Bremsstrahlund unless a huge amount is present because this radiation is produced at only a small fraction of the beta and is absorbed very quickly by only a small amount of material in the case of tritium. That is not what is being demonstrated before your eyes. Why am I not surprised that you do not want to acknowledge this? Ah. is it because you want tritium to be present in the Rossi reactor when it is not indicated. The video does not show anything about tritium. That is a silly comment, and you know it. We simply do not know or are told what is in the supposed light stick or how much tritium is present. Did you take the time to follow up on the specs? It takes about 5 seconds to find the Wiki site http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tritium_illumination To the extent the container holding the tritium containing fluid is thin enough to pass Bremsstrahlund and generate useful light, the amount of tritium would be very dangerous if the container broke. There are safety concerns, and I would not use this product - but that is not material to the fact that tritium can be detected by its Bremsstrahlung. If Rossi had produced enough tritium to be detected this way, everyone in the room would have serious health and legal problems if the tritium got out of the E-Cat Then it is a good thing that the Rossi effect produces no tritium! But of course, it should if your theory was correct for his device - but it is not correct for the Rossi device. QED Jones
Re: [Vo]:Adding Energy to get Energy
Apparently Jones, I have to be clearer and more emphatic. Tritium can not be detected when it is in a container as massive as the E-cat. THIS IS A FACT. Please at least acknowledge that I might know something about tritium that you do not. The video only shows that some unknown amount of tritium mixed with unknown other radioactive elements was detected in an container of unknown absorption. You are extrapolating this demonstation to conditions that have no relevance to the demonstration. I hope this is clear and we can go on to other subjects. Ed Storms On Jun 2, 2013, at 11:49 AM, Jones Beene wrote: From: Edmund Storms Jones, you are simply wrong. I have worked with tritium and I know how it behaves. You apparently have not worked with tritium very intuitively, if you cannot understand this simple video. It cannot be detected using its Bremsstrahlund unless a huge amount is present because this radiation is produced at only a small fraction of the beta and is absorbed very quickly by only a small amount of material in the case of tritium. That is not what is being demonstrated before your eyes. Why am I not surprised that you do not want to acknowledge this? Ah… is it because you want tritium to be present in the Rossi reactor when it is not indicated. The video does not show anything about tritium. That is a silly comment, and you know it. We simply do not know or are told what is in the supposed light stick or how much tritium is present. Did you take the time to follow up on the specs? It takes about 5 seconds to find the Wiki site http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tritium_illumination To the extent the container holding the tritium containing fluid is thin enough to pass Bremsstrahlund and generate useful light, the amount of tritium would be very dangerous if the container broke. There are safety concerns, and I would not use this product - but that is not material to the fact that tritium can be detected by its Bremsstrahlung. If Rossi had produced enough tritium to be detected this way, everyone in the room would have serious health and legal problems if the tritium got out of the E-Cat Then it is a good thing that the Rossi effect produces no tritium! But of course, it should if your theory was correct for his device – but it is not correct for the Rossi device. QED Jones
Re: [Vo]:Fact checking: Did Nature (or others) publicly decide to reject all cold fusion papers?
when can I find something that i can oppose to those who say I make libelous claims ? even on you letter to nature to correct Caltech paper, I find nothing else instance of bad science, not a general procedure... about Nuremberg idea, I defend the principle of reasonable specific punishment, yet protection of the public... just fired and ridiculed. no death penalty, yet technically a serial guinner have less blood on his hand but as you say it will not be so, on the opposite. Someone said to me that Vengeance is done only on the Innocent. Nassim Nicholas Taleb in Antifragile explain that history is rewritten by the losers and that typically they say that academics have invented all, and hide the garage tinkerers and other practitioners... And even if not stealing property they transform hardcord tinkererd into ethereal theorist. Taleb even start to see that on his job, I start to understand what happened with LENR, AGW, Finance, Software Engineering... same scheme... 2013/6/2 Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com Alain Sepeda alain.sep...@gmail.com wrote: Ok, so nothing official . . . It is official. All of the major journals have a clear policy of rejecting cold fusion papers out of hand. All mass media newspapers and magazines, except CBS and Forbes, have made it their policy to publish attacks on cold fusion researchers without allowing a defense by the accused.
Re: [Vo]:Fact checking: Did Nature (or others) publicly decide to reject all cold fusion papers?
There may be a condition imposed on all who depend on LENR licensing or any product availability regarding their corporate hiring practices. A lie detector test should be a requirement of employment for their institution which asks the critical question: “Do you or have you ever opposed the idea of LENR to have ever put LENR at a disadvantage in science.” As a next step, all positive responses will be reviewed rigorously before the holy office of the LENR inquisition for doctrinal purity to assess the danger to the best interests of LENR. Due to his long experience, William Beaty may be the best qualified to be the first pontiff of the first ecclesiastical tribunal whose motto is: quoniam punitio non refertur primo per se in correctionem bonum eius qui punitur, sed in bonum publicum ut alij terreantur, a malis committendis avocentur. For punishment does not take place primarily and per se for the correction and good of the person punished, but for the public good in order that others may become terrified and weaned away from the evils they would commit. On Sun, Jun 2, 2013 at 2:10 PM, Alain Sepeda alain.sep...@gmail.com wrote: when can I find something that i can oppose to those who say I make libelous claims ? even on you letter to nature to correct Caltech paper, I find nothing else instance of bad science, not a general procedure... about Nuremberg idea, I defend the principle of reasonable specific punishment, yet protection of the public... just fired and ridiculed. no death penalty, yet technically a serial guinner have less blood on his hand but as you say it will not be so, on the opposite. Someone said to me that Vengeance is done only on the Innocent. Nassim Nicholas Taleb in Antifragile explain that history is rewritten by the losers and that typically they say that academics have invented all, and hide the garage tinkerers and other practitioners... And even if not stealing property they transform hardcord tinkererd into ethereal theorist. Taleb even start to see that on his job, I start to understand what happened with LENR, AGW, Finance, Software Engineering... same scheme... 2013/6/2 Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com Alain Sepeda alain.sep...@gmail.com wrote: Ok, so nothing official . . . It is official. All of the major journals have a clear policy of rejecting cold fusion papers out of hand. All mass media newspapers and magazines, except CBS and Forbes, have made it their policy to publish attacks on cold fusion researchers without allowing a defense by the accused.
Re: [Vo]:Ethics of the E-Cat investigation put into question
On Sat, Jun 1, 2013 at 3:54 AM, Joshua Cude joshua.c...@gmail.com wrote: But the ecat just uses electricity to make heat. So if the ecat already makes heat, it should self-sustain on that. Like combustion. I passed over this point too quickly. One question is why in Rossi's device the heat generated by the reaction would not be sufficient to sustain the reaction, as in combustion, without some kind of external drive. This does seem like an odd requirement. Giving Rossi the benefit of the doubt, the fact that an external stimulus is required in the form of resistance heating (also heat, as has been pointed out), this seems to indicate that one of two phenomena, or both, would need to be occurring: - The general area of the reaction is somewhat localized, and the normal thermal gradient that would lead heat to dissipate from that location must be countered from outside of it by the resistance heaters, so that sufficient heat is retained in that area. - The reaction depends upon a flux of heat, and not simply elevated an temperature on its own. My knowledge of thermodynamics is limited, so I might be missing something important. Eric
RE: [Vo]:Fact checking: Did Nature (or others) publicly decide to reject all cold fusion papers?
From Jed ... No laws have been broken, so there can be no trial. If cold fusion ever succeeds I expect the people who led the attacks will say they were for it all along. They will take credit, and they will be rewarded. That is the usual pattern of history. After the Three Mile Island disaster, the NRL engineer who repeated warned it would happened was forced out. The upper managers who first ignored him and then ordered him to shut up were promoted and given a cash reward. Hush money, for doing a great job of containment? I'd suspect upper management would nevertheless know a few things that managers even higher than upper management would prefer remain in the closet. How could they not know! Regards, Steven Vincent Johnson svjart.OrionWorks.com www.zazzle.com/orionworks tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/newvortex/
Re: [Vo]:Fact checking: Did Nature (or others) publicly decide to reject all cold fusion papers?
On Sun, Jun 2, 2013 at 11:38 AM, Axil Axil janap...@gmail.com wrote: As a next step, all positive responses will be reviewed rigorously before the holy office of the LENR inquisition for doctrinal purity to assess the danger to the best interests of LENR. I'm not sure if you are having fun with my religious jurisprudence comment. I think I had something more along the lines of splitting hairs, counting the number of angels on the head of a pin, biblical exegesis, etc., in mind. Although a doctrinal court to try heresies might be useful here as well. Eric
RE: [Vo]:Adding Energy to get Energy
Ed, You are not very good at misdirection, try hard as you might - and you are fighting a losing battle in trying to wedge an incorrect theory into the most important LENR experiment out there at present. My advice is to quit before you are completely embarrassed. You theory works in some situations, but it does not work for Rossi's results. Get used to it. Please acknowledge that you read the Penon report and understand that the device was completely disassembled after over 4 megawatt hours of heat was produced, and that no radiation was detected. How much tritium should have been present - if your theory were to be valid? Enough that we would no doubt not be hearing from those guys again. Yet they are still with us and your theory still falls as flat as a pancake, insofar as Rossi is concerned. QED. and yes . let's do move on. Jones From: Edmund Apparently Jones, I have to be clearer and more emphatic. Tritium can not be detected when it is in a container as massive as the E-cat. THIS IS A FACT. Please at least acknowledge that I might know something about tritium that you do not. The video only shows that some unknown amount of tritium mixed with unknown other radioactive elements was detected in an container of unknown absorption. You are extrapolating this demonstation to conditions that have no relevance to the demonstration. I hope this is clear and we can go on to other subjects. Ed Storms On Jun 2, 2013, at 11:49 AM, Jones Beene wrote: From: Edmund Storms Jones, you are simply wrong. I have worked with tritium and I know how it behaves. You apparently have not worked with tritium very intuitively, if you cannot understand this simple video. It cannot be detected using its Bremsstrahlund unless a huge amount is present because this radiation is produced at only a small fraction of the beta and is absorbed very quickly by only a small amount of material in the case of tritium. That is not what is being demonstrated before your eyes. Why am I not surprised that you do not want to acknowledge this? Ah. is it because you want tritium to be present in the Rossi reactor when it is not indicated. The video does not show anything about tritium. That is a silly comment, and you know it. We simply do not know or are told what is in the supposed light stick or how much tritium is present. Did you take the time to follow up on the specs? It takes about 5 seconds to find the Wiki site http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tritium_illumination To the extent the container holding the tritium containing fluid is thin enough to pass Bremsstrahlund and generate useful light, the amount of tritium would be very dangerous if the container broke. There are safety concerns, and I would not use this product - but that is not material to the fact that tritium can be detected by its Bremsstrahlung. If Rossi had produced enough tritium to be detected this way, everyone in the room would have serious health and legal problems if the tritium got out of the E-Cat Then it is a good thing that the Rossi effect produces no tritium! But of course, it should if your theory was correct for his device - but it is not correct for the Rossi device. QED Jones
Re: [Vo]:Adding Energy to get Energy
Jones Beene jone...@pacbell.net wrote: . . . a signal should show up above background on his meter - especially when the Rossi device is disassembled, as it is in the Penon report. They disassemble it by cutting it in half with a saw, don't they? There is no way you could capture tritium by this method! - Jed
Re: [Vo]:Adding Energy to get Energy
OK Jones, useful discussion has come to an end. I will wait until the proper measurements are made . Then we will talk again. Ed Storms On Jun 2, 2013, at 12:59 PM, Jones Beene wrote: Ed, You are not very good at misdirection, try hard as you might - and you are fighting a losing battle in trying to wedge an incorrect theory into the most important LENR experiment out there at present. My advice is to quit before you are completely embarrassed. You theory works in some situations, but it does not work for Rossi’s results. Get used to it. Please acknowledge that you read the Penon report and understand that the device was completely disassembled after over 4 megawatt hours of heat was produced, and that no radiation was detected. How much tritium should have been present - if your theory were to be valid? Enough that we would no doubt not be hearing from those guys again. Yet they are still with us and your theory still falls as flat as a pancake, insofar as Rossi is concerned. QED… and yes … let’s do move on. Jones From: Edmund Apparently Jones, I have to be clearer and more emphatic. Tritium can not be detected when it is in a container as massive as the E- cat. THIS IS A FACT. Please at least acknowledge that I might know something about tritium that you do not. The video only shows that some unknown amount of tritium mixed with unknown other radioactive elements was detected in an container of unknown absorption. You are extrapolating this demonstation to conditions that have no relevance to the demonstration. I hope this is clear and we can go on to other subjects. Ed Storms On Jun 2, 2013, at 11:49 AM, Jones Beene wrote: From: Edmund Storms Jones, you are simply wrong. I have worked with tritium and I know how it behaves. You apparently have not worked with tritium very intuitively, if you cannot understand this simple video. It cannot be detected using its Bremsstrahlund unless a huge amount is present because this radiation is produced at only a small fraction of the beta and is absorbed very quickly by only a small amount of material in the case of tritium. That is not what is being demonstrated before your eyes. Why am I not surprised that you do not want to acknowledge this? Ah… is it because you want tritium to be present in the Rossi reactor when it is not indicated. The video does not show anything about tritium. That is a silly comment, and you know it. We simply do not know or are told what is in the supposed light stick or how much tritium is present. Did you take the time to follow up on the specs? It takes about 5 seconds to find the Wiki site http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tritium_illumination To the extent the container holding the tritium containing fluid is thin enough to pass Bremsstrahlund and generate useful light, the amount of tritium would be very dangerous if the container broke. There are safety concerns, and I would not use this product - but that is not material to the fact that tritium can be detected by its Bremsstrahlung. If Rossi had produced enough tritium to be detected this way, everyone in the room would have serious health and legal problems if the tritium got out of the E-Cat Then it is a good thing that the Rossi effect produces no tritium! But of course, it should if your theory was correct for his device – but it is not correct for the Rossi device. QED Jones
RE: [Vo]:Adding Energy to get Energy
Tritium is preferentially absorbed into nickel. Most of it would be retained in the nickel powder, if it were present. From: Jed Rothwell . . . a signal should show up above background on his meter - especially when the Rossi device is disassembled, as it is in the Penon report. They disassemble it by cutting it in half with a saw, don't they? There is no way you could capture tritium by this method! - Jed
Re: [Vo]:Adding Energy to get Energy
Jones Beene jone...@pacbell.net wrote: Tritium is preferentially absorbed into nickel. Most of it would be retained in the nickel powder, if it were present. Good point. Still, if you were doing a serious study you would not cut it in half. McKubre devised a complicated way to puncture the Arata cells to collect a sample of gas from them. Something like this might be done. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:Caveats to using SPICE for thermal analysis
From: Robert Ellefson vortex-h...@e2ke.com Sent: Saturday, June 1, 2013 8:59:31 PM Hello Vortex-L participants, First, I’d like to introduce myself, since this is my first time posting to the list. Hi ! Welcome on board. I have skimmed a few recent threads discussing thermal modeling using SPICE that David Roberson (and others?) has been posting about, and finally found a point I might add. David has been concentrating on the control aspects, I have been doing RC modelling similar to that described in your very helpful paper. I did a detailed mesh model of a heat exchanger ... but gave it up because it was too sensitive to the parameter for heat transfer from water to metal. See http://lenr.qumbu.com/rossi_ecat_oct11_c.php and http://lenr.qumbu.com/rossi_ecat_oct11_spice.php I'm now working on an RC model of the eCat .. progressing from a lumped model to a ladder model. The heat from the resistors is indeed represented by a step function (actually, a quick rise, a 150 sec hold, and a quick fall with an off time of 300 seconds) the overall time constant being about 1000 seconds. Some elements of the model can be calibrated from data given by the experimenters -- others could be obtained from data they have, but have not released. (Basically, we need the rise time when the ecat is first turned on, and the fall time when it is turned off.) My present results are interesting, but inconclusive ... I'll try and get some plots later today. We all seem to be using ltspice http://www.linear.com/designtools/software/?gclid=COjAl8aKxrcCFSFyQgodoUUAHQ#LTspice I'm happy to share my models/schematics with anyone who wants them. (Warts and all) If anyone wants a specific sub-task, it's writing a nonlinear model for the radiation component. Power is known to vary as (T1^4 - T0^4) : I have a model that works for a voltage source, but goes bananas (technical term : laymen don't have to use it) for a current source. There are limitations to using capacitive elements to represent thermal mass with transient inputs, particularly with discontinuous input functions. In addition, appropriate element sizing and granularity is important; too few elements or the wrong size elements will see results diverge from real responses. I found one decent appnote that discusses some of these points in detail, as applied to semiconductor packages: www.onsemi.com/pub/Collateral/AND8218-D.PDF If I find any more write-ups, I’ll post them. It’s been too long since I was directly involved in SPICE thermal modeling, but I do recall a number of warnings from experts about divergences, subtle and not. Hope this helps, Robert Ellefson
[Vo]:Autonomous Airborne Wind Turbine
Brought to you by Google! http://www.gizmag.com/google-x-makani-power-airborne-wind-turbine/27668/ The birds are gonna love this one!
Re: [Vo]:Ethics of the E-Cat investigation put into question
I wrote: - The general area of the reaction is somewhat localized, and the normal thermal gradient that would lead heat to dissipate from that location must be countered from outside of it by the resistance heaters, so that sufficient heat is retained in that area. There is a third possibility as well. The reaction is localized, and it depends upon an elevated temperature to kick off. But the local region is destroyed by the reaction, so you have apply heat once more to initiate the reaction in other parts of the charge. You don't want to do this too fast, however, since if you do the process will become self-sustaining for a brief period and result in runaway and the destruction of the charge. So you have to turn up the heat, then turn it down and then turn it up again, etc., using little temperature excursions. Eric
Re: [Vo]:Autonomous Airborne Wind Turbine
From: Terry Blanton hohlr...@gmail.com Sent: Sunday, June 2, 2013 12:28:07 PM Brought to you by Google! http://www.gizmag.com/google-x-makani-power-airborne-wind-turbine/27668/ The birds are gonna love this one! Heck, we already HAVE an Airborne Wind Turbine -- though they haven't figured out how to get the power back to ground. Question from 2010 : Twisters vs. turbines: What if a tornado swept through a wind farm? http://www.reporternews.com/news/2010/may/09/twisters-vs-turbines-what-if-a-to rnado-swept-a/ Answer 2013 : Turbine blade : https://www.wind-watch.org/news/wp-content/uploads/2013/06/BLs9sMuCQAAgWUn.jpg -large.jpg So now we have 1/3 of the answer : 1/4 mile away Location of the other two blades : unknown. Video at http://www.windaction.org/videos/38527 Details at about 1:10 ... 1:32 the bolts are intact, ripped out of their mounting. (I think they come back to the turbine later as well)
Re: [Vo]:Fact checking: Did Nature (or others) publicly decide to reject all cold fusion papers?
Axil Axil janap...@gmail.com wrote: A lie detector test should be a requirement of employment for their institution which asks the critical question: “Do you or have you ever opposed the idea of LENR to have ever put LENR at a disadvantage in science.” Don't be a wimp. Waterboard 'em! They are guilty until proven innocent. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:Ethics of the E-Cat investigation put into question
Eric, The resistive heating requirement is to be able to reverse the temperature excursion at the proper time by removing the extra input. Constant heat input will result in the destruction of the device when useful output power is generated. Dave -Original Message- From: Eric Walker eric.wal...@gmail.com To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Sun, Jun 2, 2013 2:39 pm Subject: Re: [Vo]:Ethics of the E-Cat investigation put into question On Sat, Jun 1, 2013 at 3:54 AM, Joshua Cude joshua.c...@gmail.com wrote: But the ecat just uses electricity to make heat. So if the ecat already makes heat, it should self-sustain on that. Like combustion. I passed over this point too quickly. One question is why in Rossi's device the heat generated by the reaction would not be sufficient to sustain the reaction, as in combustion, without some kind of external drive. This does seem like an odd requirement. Giving Rossi the benefit of the doubt, the fact that an external stimulus is required in the form of resistance heating (also heat, as has been pointed out), this seems to indicate that one of two phenomena, or both, would need to be occurring: The general area of the reaction is somewhat localized, and the normal thermal gradient that would lead heat to dissipate from that location must be countered from outside of it by the resistance heaters, so that sufficient heat is retained in that area. The reaction depends upon a flux of heat, and not simply elevated an temperature on its own. My knowledge of thermodynamics is limited, so I might be missing something important. Eric
Re: [Vo]:Fact checking: Did Nature (or others) publicly decide to reject all cold fusion papers?
On Sun, 2 Jun 2013 16:14:35 -0400 Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com wrote: Axil Axil janap...@gmail.com wrote: A lie detector test should be a requirement of employment for their institution which asks the critical question: “Do you or have you ever opposed the idea of LENR to have ever put LENR at a disadvantage in science.” Don't be a wimp. Waterboard 'em! They are guilty until proven innocent. I like it. Posters everywhere will show Rossi glowering at them - like the picture at the top of Gary Wright's website. Rossi will become known as 'Big Rossi', and people like Robert Park, after being hideously tortured with devices powered by LENR modules, will fervently cry 'I love Big Rossi'.
RE: [Vo]:Adding Energy to get Energy
Let me say that almost everyone concerned, other than Andrea Rossi himself - would be delighted if tritium had been found in the spent fuel of the HotCat. If tritium were found in proportion to thermal gain - this would explain the mechanism in accordance with Ed Storm's theory - and not only that: the ash would become a valuable by-product as well. It would make everything clearer and pave the road to commercialization. However, aside from that - the best reason to think that that Rossi has it right this time, and has made a major breakthrough with the HotCat relates to his bombshell patent change to bet the farm on Ni-62. This comes into the tritium discussion through the back door, in a perverse way. There is no obvious reason why tritium would have any connection to Ni-62. It does not. Consequently, if tritium were proved to be responsible for the gain via proton fusion, then it would also indicate that Rossi lost the farm, on his bet, since he would have little IP protection. I apologize to Ed for coming-off as unnecessarily derogatory of his theory as applied to Rossi's results, but it should be clear to all concerned that if Ed is correct, Andrea loses almost everything in the race to market by holding a worthless patent. Most of us are interesting in finding the scientific truth - regardless of who wins the pot-of-gold; but if tritium turns up, Rossi is toast in more ways than one, and there seems to be a bit of unfairness there. There are very different implications for framing a valid theory based around the one isotope. This starts with the realization that Rossi (possibly at the insistence of Focardi) did perform experiment with all of the various nickel isotopes, and out of that effort he is now convinced that he has found the one which is responsible: the smoking gun. This opens up a new avenue for understanding which may be more difficult, but not impossible to navigate. Maybe Rossi deserves some kind of penalty for his antics, but in the 'big picture' it also looks like he may have come around at the perfect time to revive a languishing technology. perhaps making the next age of man the Nickel Age. after all he is. http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embeddedv=L-4zfsy6rsM v=L-4zfsy6rsM Hope that is not overly dramatic. and . yes, there is the little problem of not yet proved. but if it arrives soon, Rossi may insist that we start the Calendar over next January and call 2014 the year 1 AR. Jones
Re: [Vo]:Ethics of the E-Cat investigation put into question
On Sun, Jun 2, 2013 at 1:22 PM, David Roberson dlrober...@aol.com wrote: The resistive heating requirement is to be able to reverse the temperature excursion at the proper time by removing the extra input. Constant heat input will result in the destruction of the device when useful output power is generated. Dave, I don't disagree with this assessment. But there's a subtlety that the original question is getting at. I don't know how to express the idea with much accuracy, but consider two different models: 1. There is near-uniform heating in the charge. Temperature above a certain point kicks off the reaction. Once going, the reaction itself feeds energy back the into bulk of the charge, where it has been generated, and the reaction becomes self-sustaining. 2. There is non-uniform heating in the charge. Heat flows from hot spots to surrounding areas. The heat that dissipates from hot spots can either be (a) sufficient to kick off the reaction elsewhere or (b) insufficient, in which case it is just dissipated. There is a threshold temperature below which you get (b) and above which you get (a). It seems like a mixture of gasoline or a load of coal that has been ignited is generates heat somewhat uniformly and follows model (1). It seems that model (1), if applied to the E-Cat, would make the resistance heaters superfluous, however. So I take it that we are forced into model (2). To someone approaching things without further context, it's not clear why model (1) would not apply, and that would raise questions about the resistance heaters. Further, I think we have to assume that the heating transients in model (2) are quite high, since there is the possibility of runaway. These are the subtleties I'm getting at. It seems that the requirement for resistance heaters places constraints that can be used to infer useful information about what is going on. Eric
Re: [Vo]:Fact checking: Did Nature (or others) publicly decide to reject all cold fusion papers?
Vorl Bek vorl@antichef.com wrote: Don't be a wimp. Waterboard 'em! They are guilty until proven innocent. I like it. Posters everywhere will show Rossi glowering at them - like the picture at the top of Gary Wright's website. I like it! Gary Wright himself will be in charge of this pogram. There is no true believer like an apostate from the opposition. Stalin trained for the ministry. (For those unfamiliar with Wright, he is a creepy fellow who runs this website: http://shutdownrossi.com/ He seem to be obsessed with Rossi.) - Jed
[Vo]:Re: [Vo]:“Lithium Problem”
Axil, I value your thoughts and opinion very much, but I keep looking at those waterspouts pulling an intense vacuum, condensing water vapor along their surface and decaying over time and I am starting to believe the Sun is spitting large energetic, decaying super symmetric particles/strings at us within her gravity field, which I think is not smooth and actually kind of frumpy, like Einstein's hair... We know it as our weather. Stewart Darkmattersalot.com On Sunday, June 2, 2013, Axil Axil wrote: Big-bang nucleosynthesis (BBN) theory, together with the precise WMAP cosmic baryon density, makes tight predictions for the abundances of the lightest elements. Deuterium and 4He measurements agree well with expectations, but 7Li observations lie a factor 3 - 4 below the BBN+WMAP prediction. This 4 - 5 mismatch constitutes the cosmic lithium problem, with disparate solutions possible. (1) Astrophysical systematics in the observations could exist but are increasingly constrained. (2) Nuclear physics experiments provide a wealth of well-measured cross-section data, but 7Be destruction could be enhanced by unknown or poorly-measured resonances. Physics beyond the Standard Model can alter the 7Li abundance, though D and 4He must remain unperturbed; Physics is inventing outlandish theories for this puzzle including decaying Super symmetric particles and time-varying fundamental constants. Present and planned experiments could reveal which (if any) of these is the solution to the problem. Why dose's Astrophysics consider LENR??? Because they have a closed mind toward LENR! http://sait.oat.ts.astro.it/MSAIt780307/PDF/2007MmSAI..78..476G.pdf The electron screening of lithium nuclear reactions are as high as 17.4 MeV. Clearly, LENR is why there is a Lithium Problem ,but if science can't believe that, Lithium Problem will always remains a comic mystery. http://www.newscientist.com/special/13-more-things
Re: [Vo]:Adding Energy to get Energy
Jones, I agree with your conclusion about Rossi. However, tritium is not his only problem. His patent will probably not reveal how the Ni can be treated to make it active. Simply adding Ni62 is obviously not the only thing he does to the Ni. Without the ability to replicate the patent by a person skilled in the art, it is worthless. I suspect Rossi does not care about the patent because he intends to keep this a trade secret. The Ni62 is only a distraction. I suspect he expects to use the patent to send researches on a wild goose chase and then use legal distractions when this does not work. He is in an untenable situation. He has no idea how or why the effect works, yet he can make extra energy. He needs to sell the device while pretending he understands how it functions. The patent helps him pursued people that he knows what he is doing - for awhile. He hopes that when the truth be known, he is rich enough to fight the challenge. Meanwhile, he is bringing useful attention to the field, which ironically will encourage people to find his error that much sooner. I would hate to be in his shoes. Ed Storms On Jun 2, 2013, at 2:35 PM, Jones Beene wrote: Let me say that almost everyone concerned, other than Andrea Rossi himself - would be delighted if tritium had been found in the spent fuel of the HotCat. If tritium were found in proportion to thermal gain - this would explain the mechanism in accordance with Ed Storm’s theory – and not only that: the ash would become a valuable by-product as well. It would make everything clearer and pave the road to commercialization. However, aside from that - the best reason to think that that Rossi has it right this time, and has made a major breakthrough with the HotCat relates to his bombshell patent change to “bet the farm” on Ni-62. This comes into the tritium discussion through the back door, in a perverse way. There is no obvious reason why tritium would have any connection to Ni-62. It does not. Consequently, if tritium were proved to be responsible for the gain via proton fusion, then it would also indicate that Rossi “lost the farm,” on his bet, since he would have little IP protection. I apologize to Ed for coming-off as unnecessarily derogatory of his theory as applied to Rossi’s results, but it should be clear to all concerned that if Ed is correct, Andrea loses almost everything in the race to market by holding a worthless patent. Most of us are interesting in finding the scientific truth – regardless of who wins the pot-of-gold; but if tritium turns up, Rossi is toast in more ways than one, and there seems to be a bit of unfairness there. There are very different implications for framing a valid theory based around the one isotope. This starts with the realization that Rossi (possibly at the insistence of Focardi) did perform experiment with all of the various nickel isotopes, and out of that effort he is now convinced that he has found the one which is responsible: the smoking gun. This opens up a new avenue for understanding which may be more difficult, but not impossible to navigate. Maybe Rossi deserves some kind of penalty for his antics, but in the ‘big picture’ it also looks like he may have come around at the perfect time to revive a languishing technology… perhaps making the next “age of man” the Nickel Age… after all he is… http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embeddedv=L-4zfsy6rsM Hope that is not overly dramatic… and … yes, there is the little problem of “not yet proved”… but if it arrives soon, Rossi may insist that we start the Calendar over next January and call 2014 the year 1 AR… Jones
Re: [Vo]:Ethics of the E-Cat investigation put into question
Eric, Model 1 appears to be more in line with what I suspect is happening except for the explanation of the lack of external heat for control issue. You need to consider that the peak heat power being generated inside the core is only about 2 times greater than the resistor heating required to control it at the turn around point. Rossi has stated this on several occasions and it matches my model. When such a large percentage of the net power at that node is taken away abruptly, a turn around in temperature direction occurs. This is a complicated positive feedback system where a large fraction of the internally generated heat is being absorbed by the thermal mass of the device. Enough external heat is removed to force the core to be starved. That reverses the temperature path. Once reversed, the positive feedback works in a manner that accelerates the falling core temperature toward room. If you are very good, or lucky, you can reverse the core at just below an optimum point which will allow the temperature to languish there for an extended time before it begins it rapid decent. This is how you achieve a high value of COP. The core has a lot of time during which it puts out large values of heat energy before requiring a refresh drive pulse. The drive remains off for a longer time while the high temperature lingers. Does this help to explain the operation according to my model? Dave -Original Message- From: Eric Walker eric.wal...@gmail.com To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Sun, Jun 2, 2013 4:39 pm Subject: Re: [Vo]:Ethics of the E-Cat investigation put into question On Sun, Jun 2, 2013 at 1:22 PM, David Roberson dlrober...@aol.com wrote: The resistive heating requirement is to be able to reverse the temperature excursion at the proper time by removing the extra input. Constant heat input will result in the destruction of the device when useful output power is generated. Dave, I don't disagree with this assessment. But there's a subtlety that the original question is getting at. I don't know how to express the idea with much accuracy, but consider two different models: There is near-uniform heating in the charge. Temperature above a certain point kicks off the reaction. Once going, the reaction itself feeds energy back the into bulk of the charge, where it has been generated, and the reaction becomes self-sustaining. There is non-uniform heating in the charge. Heat flows from hot spots to surrounding areas. The heat that dissipates from hot spots can either be (a) sufficient to kick off the reaction elsewhere or (b) insufficient, in which case it is just dissipated. There is a threshold temperature below which you get (b) and above which you get (a). It seems like a mixture of gasoline or a load of coal that has been ignited is generates heat somewhat uniformly and follows model (1). It seems that model (1), if applied to the E-Cat, would make the resistance heaters superfluous, however. So I take it that we are forced into model (2). To someone approaching things without further context, it's not clear why model (1) would not apply, and that would raise questions about the resistance heaters. Further, I think we have to assume that the heating transients in model (2) are quite high, since there is the possibility of runaway. These are the subtleties I'm getting at. It seems that the requirement for resistance heaters places constraints that can be used to infer useful information about what is going on. Eric
Re: [Vo]:Ethics of the E-Cat investigation put into question
Dave, I agree. You have described the process very well. The only thing missing from your model is the thermal contact between the source, (Ni) and the sink (the mass of the E-cat). The better the thermal contact, the longer the temperature can remain high while control is maintained and the less external power is required to keep control. In fact, a better design would be to have the heaters inside the container while the Ni was against the outside wall of the apparatus. This way, energy from the Ni could flow directly out and be radiated into space, which would allow for a fast cooling rate of the Ni once the internal power was turned off. Ed Storms On Jun 2, 2013, at 3:10 PM, David Roberson wrote: Eric, Model 1 appears to be more in line with what I suspect is happening except for the explanation of the lack of external heat for control issue. You need to consider that the peak heat power being generated inside the core is only about 2 times greater than the resistor heating required to control it at the turn around point. Rossi has stated this on several occasions and it matches my model. When such a large percentage of the net power at that node is taken away abruptly, a turn around in temperature direction occurs. This is a complicated positive feedback system where a large fraction of the internally generated heat is being absorbed by the thermal mass of the device. Enough external heat is removed to force the core to be starved. That reverses the temperature path. Once reversed, the positive feedback works in a manner that accelerates the falling core temperature toward room. If you are very good, or lucky, you can reverse the core at just below an optimum point which will allow the temperature to languish there for an extended time before it begins it rapid decent. This is how you achieve a high value of COP. The core has a lot of time during which it puts out large values of heat energy before requiring a refresh drive pulse. The drive remains off for a longer time while the high temperature lingers. Does this help to explain the operation according to my model? Dave -Original Message- From: Eric Walker eric.wal...@gmail.com To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Sun, Jun 2, 2013 4:39 pm Subject: Re: [Vo]:Ethics of the E-Cat investigation put into question On Sun, Jun 2, 2013 at 1:22 PM, David Roberson dlrober...@aol.com wrote: The resistive heating requirement is to be able to reverse the temperature excursion at the proper time by removing the extra input. Constant heat input will result in the destruction of the device when useful output power is generated. Dave, I don't disagree with this assessment. But there's a subtlety that the original question is getting at. I don't know how to express the idea with much accuracy, but consider two different models: There is near-uniform heating in the charge. Temperature above a certain point kicks off the reaction. Once going, the reaction itself feeds energy back the into bulk of the charge, where it has been generated, and the reaction becomes self-sustaining. There is non-uniform heating in the charge. Heat flows from hot spots to surrounding areas. The heat that dissipates from hot spots can either be (a) sufficient to kick off the reaction elsewhere or (b) insufficient, in which case it is just dissipated. There is a threshold temperature below which you get (b) and above which you get (a). It seems like a mixture of gasoline or a load of coal that has been ignited is generates heat somewhat uniformly and follows model (1). It seems that model (1), if applied to the E-Cat, would make the resistance heaters superfluous, however. So I take it that we are forced into model (2). To someone approaching things without further context, it's not clear why model (1) would not apply, and that would raise questions about the resistance heaters. Further, I think we have to assume that the heating transients in model (2) are quite high, since there is the possibility of runaway. These are the subtleties I'm getting at. It seems that the requirement for resistance heaters places constraints that can be used to infer useful information about what is going on. Eric
Re: [Vo]:Ethics of the E-Cat investigation put into question
On Sun, Jun 2, 2013 at 2:10 PM, David Roberson dlrober...@aol.com wrote: Does this help to explain the operation according to my model? Yes. But I think your SPICE model is working at a higher level than what I was describing. Your model is looking at the thermodynamics of the system as a whole, and when you take away a third of the heat by cutting power to the resistance heaters, the core is starved and so on. This is a macroscopic view of the core, where the temperature would appear uniform to a set of thermocouples. I'm looking at the microscopic level, where if you could zoom in you'd see a different level of activity. I think your SPICE model is more consistent with my model (2) than my model (1). I have in mind specifically the SPAWAR video [1]. One detail I should elaborate on for model (2) is that there would not necessarily be a threshold temperature, per se, above which you'd get runaway and below which you'd get dissipation. Instead there would appear to be a bounded temperature range, at the lower bound of which you're less likely to get local temperature excursions and at the upper bound of which you'd be more likely to get them. At the upper bound of the range, you'd cross over into runaway. Eric [1] http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OUVmOQXBS68
Re: [Vo]:Ethics of the E-Cat investigation put into question
Thanks Ed, I have concentrated upon the overall picture with my model instead of the microscopic improvements that are no doubt available. You are certainly correct that the thermal contacts could be improved which will interact in different ways with the system. A balance has to be achieved where the thermal run away temperatures, which greatly depend upon what you say, are practical for best ECAT operation. Rossi needs to have solid positive feedback to get high COP, and he needs this to occur at a convenient temperature which performs well with the core materials. The issue of hot spots is certain to come up during his design meetings and much of that depends upon how the material is bound to the heat sinking and how uniform it is deposited, etc. I suspect the solutions to this type of problem are keeping him busy. There are a number of challenging engineering questions that will arise as he handles the temperature effects associated with the heat exchange process. That team is going to have a busy schedule. Dave -Original Message- From: Edmund Storms stor...@ix.netcom.com To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Cc: Edmund Storms stor...@ix.netcom.com Sent: Sun, Jun 2, 2013 5:20 pm Subject: Re: [Vo]:Ethics of the E-Cat investigation put into question Dave, I agree. You have described the process very well. The only thing missing from your model is the thermal contact between the source, (Ni) and the sink (the mass of the E-cat). The better the thermal contact, the longer the temperature can remain high while control is maintained and the less external power is required to keep control. In fact, a better design would be to have the heaters inside the container while the Ni was against the outside wall of the apparatus. This way, energy from the Ni could flow directly out and be radiated into space, which would allow for a fast cooling rate of the Ni once the internal power was turned off. Ed Storms On Jun 2, 2013, at 3:10 PM, David Roberson wrote: Eric, Model 1 appears to be more in line with what I suspect is happening except for the explanation of the lack of external heat for control issue. You need to consider that the peak heat power being generated inside the core is only about 2 times greater than the resistor heating required to control it at the turn around point. Rossi has stated this on several occasions and it matches my model. When such a large percentage of the net power at that node is taken away abruptly, a turn around in temperature direction occurs. This is a complicated positive feedback system where a large fraction of the internally generated heat is being absorbed by the thermal mass of the device. Enough external heat is removed to force the core to be starved. That reverses the temperature path. Once reversed, the positive feedback works in a manner that accelerates the falling core temperature toward room. If you are very good, or lucky, you can reverse the core at just below an optimum point which will allow the temperature to languish there for an extended time before it begins it rapid decent. This is how you achieve a high value of COP. The core has a lot of time during which it puts out large values of heat energy before requiring a refresh drive pulse. The drive remains off for a longer time while the high temperature lingers. Does this help to explain the operation according to my model? Dave -Original Message- From: Eric Walker eric.wal...@gmail.com To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Sun, Jun 2, 2013 4:39 pm Subject: Re: [Vo]:Ethics of the E-Cat investigation put into question On Sun, Jun 2, 2013 at 1:22 PM, David Roberson dlrober...@aol.com wrote: The resistive heating requirement is to be able to reverse the temperature excursion at the proper time by removing the extra input. Constant heat input will result in the destruction of the device when useful output power is generated. Dave, I don't disagree with this assessment. But there's a subtlety that the original question is getting at. I don't know how to express the idea with much accuracy, but consider two different models: There is near-uniform heating in the charge. Temperature above a certain point kicks off the reaction. Once going, the reaction itself feeds energy back the into bulk of the charge, where it has been generated, and the reaction becomes self-sustaining. There is non-uniform heating in the charge. Heat flows from hot spots to surrounding areas. The heat that dissipates from hot spots can either be (a) sufficient to kick off the reaction elsewhere or (b) insufficient, in which case it is just dissipated. There is a threshold temperature below which you get (b) and above which you get (a). It seems like a mixture of gasoline or a load of coal that has been ignited is generates heat somewhat uniformly and follows
[Vo]:ITER Gets Its Blankie
http://www.iter.org/doc/www/content/com/Lists/list_items/Attachments/507/2013_Blanket.pdf Reminds me of the weakest part of Shuttle, the tiles.
Re: [Vo]:ITER Gets Its Blankie
ITER is s boring. 1 news every year or so. I think Rossi is better in this aspect. 2013/6/2 Terry Blanton hohlr...@gmail.com http://www.iter.org/doc/www/content/com/Lists/list_items/Attachments/507/2013_Blanket.pdf Reminds me of the weakest part of Shuttle, the tiles. -- Daniel Rocha - RJ danieldi...@gmail.com
Re: [Vo]:Ethics of the E-Cat investigation put into question
OK, if you are looking at that level of detail, you face many possibilities. We are greatly hampered in our ability to analyze these types of problems due to lack of knowledge about Rossi's material and its engineering behavior. We all suspect that they will find variation throughout the device due to manufacturing type issues. I have also been wondering how he handles the local hot spots that must surface and apparently we are not the only ones with this concern. One thing in his favor is the thermal conductivity of the metal enclosing the core material. This metal will make a strong effort to smooth out the temperatures. And, it appears that Rossi has done a fair job with the heating resistors since they are symmetric. We are not privy to how the active material is bound to the black metal cylinder, but I suspect that this is part of an important method for smoothing the internal temperatures. I am afraid there is not much more that we can do beyond constructing a model without much more extensive data from Rossi. Dave -Original Message- From: Eric Walker eric.wal...@gmail.com To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Sun, Jun 2, 2013 5:22 pm Subject: Re: [Vo]:Ethics of the E-Cat investigation put into question On Sun, Jun 2, 2013 at 2:10 PM, David Roberson dlrober...@aol.com wrote: Does this help to explain the operation according to my model? Yes. But I think your SPICE model is working at a higher level than what I was describing. Your model is looking at the thermodynamics of the system as a whole, and when you take away a third of the heat by cutting power to the resistance heaters, the core is starved and so on. This is a macroscopic view of the core, where the temperature would appear uniform to a set of thermocouples. I'm looking at the microscopic level, where if you could zoom in you'd see a different level of activity. I think your SPICE model is more consistent with my model (2) than my model (1). I have in mind specifically the SPAWAR video [1]. One detail I should elaborate on for model (2) is that there would not necessarily be a threshold temperature, per se, above which you'd get runaway and below which you'd get dissipation. Instead there would appear to be a bounded temperature range, at the lower bound of which you're less likely to get local temperature excursions and at the upper bound of which you'd be more likely to get them. At the upper bound of the range, you'd cross over into runaway. Eric [1] http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OUVmOQXBS68
Re: [Vo]:Ethics of the E-Cat investigation put into question
On Sun, Jun 2, 2013 at 2:59 PM, David Roberson dlrober...@aol.com wrote: I am afraid there is not much more that we can do beyond constructing a model without much more extensive data from Rossi. Perhaps. But I think we can say that given what we know about the need for the control system and what we've seen in the temperature measurements, the thermodynamic properties of the E-Cat core at the macroscopic level are different from those of a load of ignited coal, unless I'm mistaken -- instead they're those of the SPICE model you're making. As far as I can tell, the behaviors of the two systems are very different. Assuming this is true, the challenge is to tease out what the microscopic differences might be that differ between an ignited load of coal and the charge in the E-Cat. I think you are right that we can only get so far, since we're missing important details. But I think it might be possible to place some constraints on the microscopic system. Eric
Re: [Vo]:Adding Energy to get Energy
In reply to Jones Beene's message of Sun, 2 Jun 2013 06:15:39 -0700: Hi, [snip] The fact that there is no radiation at all detectable (at kW thermal output) from Rossi's device (above a threshold of tens of keV) is rather conclusive that there is no fusion, and essentially no nuclear reaction of any kind in the MeV range. Even if Robin is correct about fusion with fractional hydrogen having no prompt gamma, the occasional spallation neutron and the numerous Augur cascades brought on by fast ions would create reactions which would be easily detectable by Bianchini - and there would be lots of them at this kind of thermal gain level (unless most of the energy comes from another reaction). I suspect that most of the energy release is from f/h formation, with a few low level fusion reactions thrown in. The number of such reactions varies and is essentially not a well controlled parameter. This is because it depends on the degree of shrinkage of the f/h. Though, as any given device is used longer, the average shrinkage level should increase, and consequently the number of fusion reactions should also increase. Perhaps another reason why Rossi switches cartridges every 6 months. That also means that as a device ages, the COP should increase (unless it is deliberately kept at a specific level.) BTW the highest energy X-ray you get from Ni is about 8 keV, IOW it's soft. Other substances present (with possible exception of the secret sauce), have lower values. [snip] Regards, Robin van Spaandonk http://rvanspaa.freehostia.com/project.html
Re: [Vo]:ITER Gets Its Blankie
I had a cat. For some reason, I just couldn't bring myself to call her Shuttle. I had to put the in front, as in HEEERE The Shuttle, HEEERE kiteekiteekitee!! On Sun, Jun 2, 2013 at 4:55 PM, Terry Blanton hohlr...@gmail.com wrote: http://www.iter.org/doc/www/content/com/Lists/list_items/Attachments/507/2013_Blanket.pdf Reminds me of the weakest part of Shuttle, the tiles.
Re: [Vo]:ITER Gets Its Blankie
Oh gosh darn it anyway! I forgot I called her The *Space* Shuttle as in HEEERE The Space Shuttle, HEEERE Kiteekiteekitee!! On Sun, Jun 2, 2013 at 7:24 PM, James Bowery jabow...@gmail.com wrote: I had a cat. For some reason, I just couldn't bring myself to call her Shuttle. I had to put the in front, as in HEEERE The Shuttle, HEEERE kiteekiteekitee!! On Sun, Jun 2, 2013 at 4:55 PM, Terry Blanton hohlr...@gmail.com wrote: http://www.iter.org/doc/www/content/com/Lists/list_items/Attachments/507/2013_Blanket.pdf Reminds me of the weakest part of Shuttle, the tiles.
Re: [Vo]:LENR a gateway into the theory of everything.
If LENR is the result of BECs like Y E Kim's theory predicts, then we will have a relatively straightforward way to set up and capitalise on this fifth state of matter. The other 4 states are Solid, Liquid, Gas, and Plasma. To expect an atom to behave in the same fashion while in one state as it does in the other is obtuse, yet that is what modern physicists insist on when they say that the nuclear fusion branches for plasma are the same as for BECs. On Sat, Jun 1, 2013 at 10:26 PM, Axil Axil janap...@gmail.com wrote: *Rydberg excitation of a Bose-Einstein condensate* Any nuclear reaction that produces a gamma that occurs in a BEC will undergo frequency reduction based on the super-atom formula Gamma frequency = Square root (Number of BEC atoms)(Thermalized frequency) The frequency of the gamma will be shared by N BEC member atoms. To conclude this discussion with an example, the BEC of positive mirrored ions in the dipole ensemble can be considered a huge positive particle effectively a billion times larger than a proton. But this super-positive particle is only a few nanomenters away from a give nucleus. This short distance exposes the localized linear volume to the full force of the EMF. That unfortunate nucleus would experience powerful disruptive EMF charge amplification which would make the space/time in the local nano-volume that the nucleus lived in a killing field for the nuclear forces that hold the nucleus together. If the BEC is scalable, how powerful can a Entangled Dipole EMF become? I can’t wait to find out. Reference: http://arxiv.org/pdf/1212.0135v1.pdf
Re: [Vo]:LENR a gateway into the theory of everything.
I never understood how Kim's BEC get rid of the gammas. 2013/6/2 Kevin O'Malley kevmol...@gmail.com If LENR is the result of BECs like Y E Kim's theory predicts, then we will have a relatively straightforward way to set up and capitalise on this fifth state of matter. The other 4 states are Solid, Liquid, Gas, and Plasma. To expect an atom to behave in the same fashion while in one state as it does in the other is obtuse, yet that is what modern physicists insist on when they say that the nuclear fusion branches for plasma are the same as for BECs. On Sat, Jun 1, 2013 at 10:26 PM, Axil Axil janap...@gmail.com wrote: *Rydberg excitation of a Bose-Einstein condensate* Any nuclear reaction that produces a gamma that occurs in a BEC will undergo frequency reduction based on the super-atom formula Gamma frequency = Square root (Number of BEC atoms)(Thermalized frequency) The frequency of the gamma will be shared by N BEC member atoms. To conclude this discussion with an example, the BEC of positive mirrored ions in the dipole ensemble can be considered a huge positive particle effectively a billion times larger than a proton. But this super-positive particle is only a few nanomenters away from a give nucleus. This short distance exposes the localized linear volume to the full force of the EMF. That unfortunate nucleus would experience powerful disruptive EMF charge amplification which would make the space/time in the local nano-volume that the nucleus lived in a killing field for the nuclear forces that hold the nucleus together. If the BEC is scalable, how powerful can a Entangled Dipole EMF become? I can’t wait to find out. Reference: http://arxiv.org/pdf/1212.0135v1.pdf -- Daniel Rocha - RJ danieldi...@gmail.com
[Vo]:A Language Upgrade Needed for LENR?
Hi All, I have a new post up where I explore the issue of the language used to describe LENR. I would be interested in the views of others here regarding this matter as I always find your opinions of interest and valuable. http://www.lenr-coldfusion.com/2013/06/03/language-upgrade-needed-lenr/ Best regards, Jack
[Vo]:Sonoluminescence
Interesting video clip featuring Dr. Seth Putterman describing his thoughts on A star in a jar. Sorry if this had been posted and i missed it. Been hard to keep up with the list lately. :) This is a clip from a longer BBC video i believe. http://youtu.be/LWO93G-zLZ0
[Vo]:The Believers out on Blu-Ray
Available for order now. Don't remember seeing this news on here. can be ordered here: http://www.137films.org/store.html
Re: [Vo]:LENR a gateway into the theory of everything.
This paper verifies that a photon eradiated Bose-Einsteincondensate will cut the frequency of incoming photons by dividing that frequency between N numbers of atoms. http://arxiv.org/pdf/1203.1261v1.pdf On Sun, Jun 2, 2013 at 5:47 PM, Daniel Rocha danieldi...@gmail.com wrote: I never understood how Kim's BEC get rid of the gammas. 2013/6/2 Kevin O'Malley kevmol...@gmail.com If LENR is the result of BECs like Y E Kim's theory predicts, then we will have a relatively straightforward way to set up and capitalise on this fifth state of matter. The other 4 states are Solid, Liquid, Gas, and Plasma. To expect an atom to behave in the same fashion while in one state as it does in the other is obtuse, yet that is what modern physicists insist on when they say that the nuclear fusion branches for plasma are the same as for BECs. On Sat, Jun 1, 2013 at 10:26 PM, Axil Axil janap...@gmail.com wrote: *Rydberg excitation of a Bose-Einstein condensate* Any nuclear reaction that produces a gamma that occurs in a BEC will undergo frequency reduction based on the super-atom formula Gamma frequency = Square root (Number of BEC atoms)(Thermalized frequency) The frequency of the gamma will be shared by N BEC member atoms. To conclude this discussion with an example, the BEC of positive mirrored ions in the dipole ensemble can be considered a huge positive particle effectively a billion times larger than a proton. But this super-positive particle is only a few nanomenters away from a give nucleus. This short distance exposes the localized linear volume to the full force of the EMF. That unfortunate nucleus would experience powerful disruptive EMF charge amplification which would make the space/time in the local nano-volume that the nucleus lived in a killing field for the nuclear forces that hold the nucleus together. If the BEC is scalable, how powerful can a Entangled Dipole EMF become? I can’t wait to find out. Reference: http://arxiv.org/pdf/1212.0135v1.pdf -- Daniel Rocha - RJ danieldi...@gmail.com
Re: [Vo]:LENR a gateway into the theory of everything.
That's not good. It violates the 2nd law of thermo. 2013/6/2 Kevin O'Malley kevmol...@gmail.com This paper verifies that a photon eradiated Bose-Einsteincondensate will cut the frequency of incoming photons by dividing that frequency between N numbers of atoms. http://arxiv.org/pdf/1203.1261v1.pdf On Sun, Jun 2, 2013 at 5:47 PM, Daniel Rocha danieldi...@gmail.comwrote: I never understood how Kim's BEC get rid of the gammas. 2013/6/2 Kevin O'Malley kevmol...@gmail.com If LENR is the result of BECs like Y E Kim's theory predicts, then we will have a relatively straightforward way to set up and capitalise on this fifth state of matter. The other 4 states are Solid, Liquid, Gas, and Plasma. To expect an atom to behave in the same fashion while in one state as it does in the other is obtuse, yet that is what modern physicists insist on when they say that the nuclear fusion branches for plasma are the same as for BECs. On Sat, Jun 1, 2013 at 10:26 PM, Axil Axil janap...@gmail.com wrote: *Rydberg excitation of a Bose-Einstein condensate* Any nuclear reaction that produces a gamma that occurs in a BEC will undergo frequency reduction based on the super-atom formula Gamma frequency = Square root (Number of BEC atoms)(Thermalized frequency) The frequency of the gamma will be shared by N BEC member atoms. To conclude this discussion with an example, the BEC of positive mirrored ions in the dipole ensemble can be considered a huge positive particle effectively a billion times larger than a proton. But this super-positive particle is only a few nanomenters away from a give nucleus. This short distance exposes the localized linear volume to the full force of the EMF. That unfortunate nucleus would experience powerful disruptive EMF charge amplification which would make the space/time in the local nano-volume that the nucleus lived in a killing field for the nuclear forces that hold the nucleus together. If the BEC is scalable, how powerful can a Entangled Dipole EMF become? I can’t wait to find out. Reference: http://arxiv.org/pdf/1212.0135v1.pdf -- Daniel Rocha - RJ danieldi...@gmail.com -- Daniel Rocha - RJ danieldi...@gmail.com
Re: [Vo]:A Language Upgrade Needed for LENR?
Until everyone agrees on what cold fusion is, there is no point to inventing a new name for it. It does not matter in any case, because the name is not the thing. Many words are technically inaccurate, obsolete or misleading. A solid-state disk (SSD) is not disk-shaped, and a round shape tells you nothing about the function of an SSD. A computer folder does not fold. Words such as folder and folder icons on the computer screen are skeuomorphs. When my daughter was around 10 she came to my office and saw a real manilla folder for the first time, and said, so *that's* what it shows on the computer screen. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:A Language Upgrade Needed for LENR?
Hi Jed, I agree that it doesn't matter to us who have looked into the research, but do you think it would make a difference with the broader population of scientists, general public, and the patent office? Jack On Sun, Jun 2, 2013 at 9:07 PM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com wrote: Until everyone agrees on what cold fusion is, there is no point to inventing a new name for it. It does not matter in any case, because the name is not the thing. Many words are technically inaccurate, obsolete or misleading. A solid-state disk (SSD) is not disk-shaped, and a round shape tells you nothing about the function of an SSD. A computer folder does not fold. Words such as folder and folder icons on the computer screen are skeuomorphs. When my daughter was around 10 she came to my office and saw a real manilla folder for the first time, and said, so *that's* what it shows on the computer screen. - Jed
RE: [Vo]:A Language Upgrade Needed for LENR?
Jed sez: Until everyone agrees on what cold fusion is, there is no point to inventing a new name for it. As well as to denigrate what is essentially a placeholder word. Unfortunately, countless attempts to suggest this to Mr. Krivit have failed. In the meantime, see Lomax's latest critique of NET's latest installment. Just posted, Sunday evening. See Yahoo NewVortex. Unfortunately, my attempt to post the actual link appear to be targeted as SPAM. As is Mr. Lomax's style, his latest installment is lengthy and very detailed. Bon appetit! Regards, Steven Vincent Johnson svjart.OrionWorks.com www.zazzle.com/orionworks tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/newvortex/
Re: [Vo]:A Language Upgrade Needed for LENR?
From: Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com Sent: Sunday, June 2, 2013 7:07:32 PM Subject: Re: [Vo]:A Language Upgrade Needed for LENR? Until everyone agrees on what cold fusion is, there is no point to inventing a new name for it. I think I'll go with LENT .. Low Energy Nuclear Transformation It's more pronouncable than LENNER and shorter (and less specific) than Cold Fusion Also because if you believe in it you have to give up all pleasures for 40 days// years ...
Re: [Vo]:LENR a gateway into the theory of everything.
On Sun, Jun 2, 2013 at 7:04 PM, Daniel Rocha danieldi...@gmail.com wrote: That's not good. It violates the 2nd law of thermo. ***It is an experimental finding. Like Feynman says, experiment trumps theory.
Re: [Vo]:Ethics of the E-Cat investigation put into question
On Sun, Jun 2, 2013 at 2:39 PM, Eric Walker eric.wal...@gmail.com wrote: Giving Rossi the benefit of the doubt, the fact that an external stimulus is required in the form of resistance heating (also heat, as has been pointed out), this seems to indicate that one of two phenomena, or both, would need to be occurring: - The general area of the reaction is somewhat localized, and the normal thermal gradient that would lead heat to dissipate from that location must be countered from outside of it by the resistance heaters, so that sufficient heat is retained in that area. - The reaction depends upon a flux of heat, and not simply elevated an temperature on its own. My knowledge of thermodynamics is limited, so I might be missing something important. Good ideas Harry
Re: [Vo]:LENR a gateway into the theory of everything.
There are theories that avoid the violation of the 2nd law. 2013/6/3 Kevin O'Malley kevmol...@gmail.com On Sun, Jun 2, 2013 at 7:04 PM, Daniel Rocha danieldi...@gmail.comwrote: That's not good. It violates the 2nd law of thermo. ***It is an experimental finding. Like Feynman says, experiment trumps theory. -- Daniel Rocha - RJ danieldi...@gmail.com
Re: [Vo]:Sonoluminescence
have gamma rays been detected coming from these bubbles? If not then the phenomena is probably another example of LENR-CF-f/h- Harry On Sun, Jun 2, 2013 at 9:51 PM, Joe Hughes jhughe...@comcast.net wrote: Interesting video clip featuring Dr. Seth Putterman describing his thoughts on A star in a jar. Sorry if this had been posted and i missed it. Been hard to keep up with the list lately. :) This is a clip from a longer BBC video i believe. http://youtu.be/LWO93G-zLZ0
[Vo]:OT: scrabble challenge
With the seven letters LENR CF H make a word. Harry
Re: [Vo]:Sonoluminescence
Like most things in the perverse field of LENR, Sonoluminescence is counter intuitive. The star in the bottle is impressive but that false spark in the deep ultra-blue is a false trail to anything useful. The power that that spark wastes is turned outward. To be effective, the plasmonic field must be turned inward in a dark mode to build in a cascade of amplification. The cavitation bubble is one of the most powerful forms of power concentration but such is its plight to be ordinary. The lust for gamma rays have been amply supplied by LeClair to such an abundant extent that they as dangerous. And yet even the LENR faithful ignore LeClair’s results and he is not supported in any way. It must be his bubbles; there just too plain and inconspicuous not like the shining stars in the bottle. On Sun, Jun 2, 2013 at 9:51 PM, Joe Hughes jhughe...@comcast.net wrote: Interesting video clip featuring Dr. Seth Putterman describing his thoughts on A star in a jar. Sorry if this had been posted and i missed it. Been hard to keep up with the list lately. :) This is a clip from a longer BBC video i believe. http://youtu.be/LWO93G-zLZ0
RE: [Vo]:OT: scrabble challenge
FRENCH Original Message Subject: [Vo]:OT: scrabble challenge From: Harry Veeder hveeder...@gmail.com Date: Mon, June 03, 2013 3:14 pm To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Withthe sevenletters LENR CF H make a word.Harry
Re: [Vo]:LENR a gateway into the theory of everything.
On Sun, Jun 2, 2013 at 9:00 PM, Daniel Rocha danieldi...@gmail.com wrote: There are theories that avoid the violation of the 2nd law. ***Then as long as those theories can explain this experimental result, everything is in good shape. Why would you say That's not good? This is an experimental finding, not a theory. 2013/6/3 Kevin O'Malley kevmol...@gmail.com On Sun, Jun 2, 2013 at 7:04 PM, Daniel Rocha danieldi...@gmail.comwrote: That's not good. It violates the 2nd law of thermo. ***It is an experimental finding. Like Feynman says, experiment trumps theory. -- Daniel Rocha - RJ danieldi...@gmail.com
Re: [Vo]:LENR a gateway into the theory of everything.
I don't understand what you mean... 2013/6/3 Kevin O'Malley kevmol...@gmail.com On Sun, Jun 2, 2013 at 9:00 PM, Daniel Rocha danieldi...@gmail.comwrote: There are theories that avoid the violation of the 2nd law. ***Then as long as those theories can explain this experimental result, everything is in good shape. Why would you say That's not good? This is an experimental finding, not a theory. 2013/6/3 Kevin O'Malley kevmol...@gmail.com On Sun, Jun 2, 2013 at 7:04 PM, Daniel Rocha danieldi...@gmail.comwrote: That's not good. It violates the 2nd law of thermo. ***It is an experimental finding. Like Feynman says, experiment trumps theory. -- Daniel Rocha - RJ danieldi...@gmail.com -- Daniel Rocha - RJ danieldi...@gmail.com
Re: [Vo]:LENR a gateway into the theory of everything.
Dear Daniel The laws of our classical reality are but and illusion that fails us when we try to understanding the quantum world around us. This Quantum mechanical paradox is the biggest problem that LENR faces. It is just too weird. On Mon, Jun 3, 2013 at 1:30 AM, Daniel Rocha danieldi...@gmail.com wrote: I don't understand what you mean... 2013/6/3 Kevin O'Malley kevmol...@gmail.com On Sun, Jun 2, 2013 at 9:00 PM, Daniel Rocha danieldi...@gmail.comwrote: There are theories that avoid the violation of the 2nd law. ***Then as long as those theories can explain this experimental result, everything is in good shape. Why would you say That's not good? This is an experimental finding, not a theory. 2013/6/3 Kevin O'Malley kevmol...@gmail.com On Sun, Jun 2, 2013 at 7:04 PM, Daniel Rocha danieldi...@gmail.comwrote: That's not good. It violates the 2nd law of thermo. ***It is an experimental finding. Like Feynman says, experiment trumps theory. -- Daniel Rocha - RJ danieldi...@gmail.com -- Daniel Rocha - RJ danieldi...@gmail.com
Re: [Vo]:LENR a gateway into the theory of everything.
The problem with such theories it is that they violate their own principles. 2013/6/3 Axil Axil janap...@gmail.com Dear Daniel The laws of our classical reality are but and illusion that fails us when we try to understanding the quantum world around us. This Quantum mechanical paradox is the biggest problem that LENR faces. It is just too weird. On Mon, Jun 3, 2013 at 1:30 AM, Daniel Rocha danieldi...@gmail.comwrote: I don't understand what you mean... 2013/6/3 Kevin O'Malley kevmol...@gmail.com On Sun, Jun 2, 2013 at 9:00 PM, Daniel Rocha danieldi...@gmail.comwrote: There are theories that avoid the violation of the 2nd law. ***Then as long as those theories can explain this experimental result, everything is in good shape. Why would you say That's not good? This is an experimental finding, not a theory. 2013/6/3 Kevin O'Malley kevmol...@gmail.com On Sun, Jun 2, 2013 at 7:04 PM, Daniel Rocha danieldi...@gmail.comwrote: That's not good. It violates the 2nd law of thermo. ***It is an experimental finding. Like Feynman says, experiment trumps theory. -- Daniel Rocha - RJ danieldi...@gmail.com -- Daniel Rocha - RJ danieldi...@gmail.com -- Daniel Rocha - RJ danieldi...@gmail.com
