date:20110208



On 02/08/2011 08:52 AM, OrionWorks - Steven Vincent Johnson wrote:
 Thanks for the posts.

 For better or worse, Rossi strikes me as the ultimate micromanager.

 Perhaps it part of an engineer's internal makeup - to want to stay in
 control of everything, including the purse strings.
   

It's a truism in the world of startups that the longer you can go before
you get outside financing, the better off you are:  if you have more to
show, you can sell a smaller share of the company for more dollars.

If you get financing when there's hardly anything there but an idea,
then you're likely to end up selling almost the whole company before you
get to square 1.

The trouble is, without money, it can be hard to get anywhere.

RE: [Vo]:Am-243 - the Rossi smoking gun? (smoking boot)?

You misunderstand. The purpose of the radioactive seed emitter in this
scenario is NOT to produce power, per se. 

It is to alter the QM probability field. The result is many orders of
magnitude enhancement.

QM fusion is all about probability enhancement. It sounds illogical - like
magic, but there are positive experiments for this, yet the underlying logic
is difficult to present. I am trying to write up a decent description of it,
but for now the Wiki entry for propagator is the best thing which can be
offered.

Take another look at Rusi's sonofusion experiment - where with ultrasound
alone there can be a few neutrons per second, or with the isotope seed and
no ultrasound there can be a few per second, but with both together there
are thousands. The Letts/Cravens effect with laser irradiation may or may
not be in this same category.

The bottom line is that there is a tiny stimulus, and usually it is
photonic, but the result is massive.



-Original Message-
From: mix...@bigpond.com 

Admittedly not a great fit, as catalysts go - but is it close enough for
government contracting ?

One problem is that each alpha particle would at most produce two photons,
and
each photon at most 1 fusion reaction, so your power output is limited to at
most two fusion reactions per alpha particle. That means that since a fusion
reaction and an alpha particle each represent about 5 MeV, that about 1/3 of
your output power has to be supplied by alpha particles, and that's assuming
the
best possible conditions, which in itself is extremely unlikely.

Regards,

Robin van Spaandonk

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

Re: [Vo]:How New Energy Times has become a crank web site.

2011-02-08 Thread Jed Rothwell

Steve Krivit wrote:


 In the last few years, we have figured out that there really is 
 http://newenergytimes.com/v2/news/2010/35/SR35902coldfusionisneither.shtmlno
 evidence for cold fusion and that the best so-called evidence for it was 
 http://newenergytimes.com/v2/news/2010/35/SR35903tangledtale.shtml
 fabricated.



Meshugana!

- Jed

[Vo]:Levi's interpretation of the two Rossi demos does not hold water, decisive critique by Joshua Cude: Rich Murray 2011.02.08

Levi's interpretation of the two Rossi demos does not hold water,
decisive critique by Joshua Cude: Rich Murray 2011.02.08

Why didn't I see this, right in my face for three weeks?

I really wanted the dream to be true, after 22 years...

3. If the flow rate measurement is accepted, and that could have been
made much more definitive, then less than 1 kW is being produced by
the reactor.
This could easily be explained by a hydrogen reaction; combustion
would require only a few tens of grams of hydrogen.
Considering that the measurement of the hydrogen consumption was
almost confounded by a piece of tape, hiding a 30-g change in 14 kg
would not have been difficult.

This makes  more reasonable my suggestions that hidden heat sources
may include H2 leaks leading to reaction with O2, Ni, Cu, Cr, Fe
(stainless steel), as well as leaks leading to diversion of electric
heating power from the resisters to heat the cooling water and any
unexpected conductive paths from deposits from electrochemical
corrosion, along with electrolysis of H2O into H2 and O2 -- a hidden
witch's brew of complex processes at 100s of degrees C and 80 bar
pressure for hours, days, weeks, months...

It may well be that Rossi and Focardi and others involved have simply
been mistaken.

Rich Murray

[H-Ni_Fusion] Levi's interpretation of the Rossi demo does not hold water   


fromjoshua.cude joshua.c...@yahoo.com
reply-toh-ni_fus...@yahoogroups.com
to  h-ni_fus...@yahoogroups.com
dateTue, Feb 8, 2011 at 3:15 AM
subject [H-Ni_Fusion] Levi's interpretation of the Rossi demo does not
hold water
mailing listH-Ni_Fusion.yahoogroups.com
3:15 AM (6 hours ago)

Levi's interpretation of the Rossi demo does not hold water

* What is observed:

The temperature of the output fluid begins at about 15C, and increases
over a period of about 1/2 an hour to near 100C (101.6 is claimed),
and then remains at that temperature for another 30 to 40 minutes.
According to the figure in Levi's report, the *average* input power
during the plateau was about 1 kW, not 400 W as has been frequently
quoted.

* What is claimed by Levi:

Given the flow rate, and the temperature change, the amount of power
transferred to the water before boiling at say 99C is about 1.2 kW.
One minute later, when the temperature reads 101.6C, Levi claims the
water is all being vaporized, meaning the power transferred is more
than 10 kW.
So, although it took 30 minutes to increase from zero to 1.2 kW, he
expects us to believe it takes only one minute or so to increase
8-fold to 10 kW.
When it reaches the necessary power transfer to vaporize all the
water, the increase stops abruptly;
5% more power would increase the temperature of the steam by 60C.

* Why it doesn't hold water:

1. Presumably, the H-Ni system is not aware of what is happening
inside the conduit, so the notion that at the exact moment the
temperature hits boiling, its power output would increase 8-fold is
not believable.
Even less believable is the notion that it would stop increasing
exactly when the water is all converted to steam, and not a per cent
more.
How could the nickel know?

No, the fact that the temperature becomes constant over a long time
period should be taken as strong evidence that the phase change is not
complete, and therefore that the actual power transfer is not known.

2. The only way to increase the power delivered to the water, assuming
the flow rate is constant, is to increase the temperature of the
conduit.
Before boiling the power increases about 1 kW in 30 minutes, so you
might expect an additional kW or so over the next 30 minutes, which on
average would amount to less than 2 kW during the plateau.

3. In test 2, the temperature is not pinned at the plateau during the
entire period, and in fact, about half-way through, briefly drops by a
few degrees, suggesting that on the plateau, power is only slightly
above the level needed to heat the water to boiling.
Otherwise, if the power is really 10 kW just before and after this
dip, then the power would have to decrease 8-fold and then increase
8-fold in a matter of minutes.
The heat capacity of the conduit would make this impossible.

* What would make 10 kW believable:

If the power transfer to the water increases at a continuous rate, the
output fluid temperature will increase to boiling over a time period,
and then remain at (or near) boiling for about 7 times that time
period, and then increase to higher temperatures.
When the temperature increases substantially above boiling (110C),
you can be reasonably sure that the steam is dry.

So, to believe the 10 kW claim, the temperature should be increased to
110C or higher.
If Levi's interpretation were correct, and all the water was converted
to steam, then a slightly lower water flow would cause the temperature
to increase rapidly.
And yet, even though the flow rates in the two tests were quite
different, the temperature was exactly the

Re: [Vo]:Levi's interpretation of the two Rossi demos does not hold water, decisive critique by Joshua Cude: Rich Murray 2011.02.08

2011-02-08 Thread Jed Rothwell

Rich Murray rmfor...@gmail.com wrote:


 1. Presumably, the H-Ni system is not aware of what is happening
 inside the conduit, so the notion that at the exact moment the
 temperature hits boiling, its power output would increase 8-fold is
 not believable.
 Even less believable is the notion that it would stop increasing
 exactly when the water is all converted to steam, and not a per cent
 more.
 How could the nickel know?


This is nonsense. Has this author ever made a pot of soup?!? When you adjust
the flame, the water boils, stops boiling, and boils again abruptly.

The transition is inherently abrupt but it is smoothed somewhat by latent
heat in the metal of the pot, even though the specific heat of metal is 10
times lower than water.

Furthermore, as the Rossi device or Hydrodynamics gadget approaches boiling,
because water is pumped through it, a mixture of steam and boiling hot water
comes out of it, so there is, in fact, an intermediate state.

- Jed

[Vo]:Re: Levi's interpretation of the two Rossi demos does not hold water, decisive critique by Joshua Cude: Rich Murray 2011.02.08

Rich, /please/ */STOP CROSSPOSTING!!/*

It's a violation of list rules and it's a pain in the neck when responding!

On 02/08/2011 12:15 PM, Rich Murray wrote:
 When it reaches the necessary power transfer to vaporize all the
 water, the increase stops abruptly;
 5% more power would increase the temperature of the steam by 60C.
   

OMG I totally missed this!!

*No, Jed, this observation isn't nonsense* -- you need to think this
through.  It's the difference between a voltage source and a current
source.  We've been looking at this as though it's a voltage source, but
it's really a current source, and the alleged behavior /doesn't make sense/.

If the heater power level is fixed, but the water flow rate is allowed
to vary, the rate at which water boils away will be determined by that
power level.  Steam will flow out of the system at, or very near to, 100
C; the amount of steam will be determined by the power level.  /That's
what we see when we boil water in a teakettle./  It's what we /seem/ to
see in this system, as well.

If the water flow rate is fixed, and the power level is allowed to vary,
then, if steam is coming out, its temperature will vary, and will be
determined at any moment by how much larger the power is than the
absolute minimum necessary to exactly boil away all the water.

In this case, the flow rate is fixed by the positive displacement pump
at what seems to be an arbitrary value, and the power level is whatever
the reactor puts out.  It's an enormous coincidence that the temperature
of the effluent was within 2 degrees of boiling.  You would think
hitting it that close to on the nose would require very careful tuning
of the input flow rate, or it would require some kind of feedback
control of the pump.  Neither is present here, as far as I can tell.

I have a hard time with coincidences of that scale.



As to the weight issue of the hydrogen bottle, it's perhaps worth asking
who handled the bottle after the experiment and before it was weighed.

But really, that's a separate issue.  The thing that stands out like a
sore thumb, now that somebody had the sense to point it out, is that it
should have been /difficult/ to hold the output temperature that close
to boiling.  It is not a natural result of this setup, in the least.

Re: [Vo]:Levi's interpretation of the two Rossi demos does not hold water, decisive critique by Joshua Cude: Rich Murray 2011.02.08



On 02/08/2011 12:42 PM, Jed Rothwell wrote:
 Rich Murray rmfor...@gmail.com mailto:rmfor...@gmail.com wrote:
  

 1. Presumably, the H-Ni system is not aware of what is happening
 inside the conduit, so the notion that at the exact moment the
 temperature hits boiling, its power output would increase 8-fold is
 not believable.
 Even less believable is the notion that it would stop increasing
 exactly when the water is all converted to steam, and not a per cent
 more.
 How could the nickel know?


 This is nonsense. Has this author ever made a pot of soup?!? When you
 adjust the flame, the water boils, stops boiling, and boils again
 abruptly.

You are making the objector's point.

When boiling water on the stove, the output flow rate is /not fixed./ 
It is determined /by the power level/, and that, in turn, determines the
volume of steam produced.  In short, the steam volume varies /in order
to keep the output temperature at boiling./

In the experiment, the output flow rate was necessarily nailed to the
input water flow rate, and that, in turn, was nailed by the constant
displacement pump.  There was no feedback from the applied power level
to the input flow rate, and there is no apparent reason for the output
temperature to hold steady at barely above boiling, as it did.

Re: [Vo]:Re: Levi's interpretation of the two Rossi demos does not hold water, decisive critique by Joshua Cude: Rich Murray 2011.02.08

Due largely, I suspect, to Rich's cross posting, I'm getting responses
off-list to my comments. I'll repost one of them here, because it might
be worthwhile for others to see it.


On 02/08/2011 02:59 PM, Dan G wrote:
 there is no apparent reason for the output
 
 temperature to hold steady at barely above boiling, as it did.

 Um, no live steam buffs here apparently.  At sea level an open boiler system 
 releases heat at 100 c.  Increase your heat source all you want, you will 
 burn your tubes but still only get 100 c. out.  You must pressurize the 
 system to raise the temp.  (pressure cookers to cook above 212 f.).
   

[sal responds:]

Nuh, uh.

You, also, are making the mistake of imagining this as a boiler with a
fixed water supply, with a /submerged/ heating element, and with the
steam emission rate determined by the power level.  None of those
assumptions are correct.

In this case, the steam output rate is *fixed* and is determined by the
positive displacement pump.  It is not related to the power level.

Let me say it again:  *This is not an open boiler!*  This is a tube,
open at one end, with water being pumped in the other end, at a
constant, /fixed/ rate, and sufficient heat being applied in the middle
of the tube to (at least) boil all the water as it arrives.  What,
exactly, keeps the newly produced steam which is produced from absorbing
*more* heat from the walls of the tube as it continues its way along the
reactor?  Nothing, of course.

Furthermore, water vapor, like any gas, obeys PV = nRT, and if you boost
the temperature of the steam while holding the pressure constant at 1
atm, you just boost its volume.  Nothing magic there!  To claim you
can't have steam hotter than 100C unless you put it under more than 1
atm of pressure makes about as much sense as saying you can't have
oxygen hotter than -183C unless you put it under more than 1 atm of
pressure!  (Seriously, think about that one -- the analogy is exact.)

In an open boiler with a submerged heating element, the steam won't rise
above 100 C, because its temperature is buffered by the liquid water
with which it's in contact.  In a pipeline, once the water has boiled
away to steam, the steam is no longer in intimate contact with liquid
water, but it's still in contact with the heating element, and there's
nothing to keep it from getting hotter as it moves along the tube.

Re: [Vo]:Re: Levi's interpretation of the two Rossi demos does not hold water, decisive critique by Joshua Cude: Rich Murray 2011.02.08

stephen, the steam does absorb more energy, but this manifests as a faster flow 
of steam rather than as a temperature increase.
Harry
From: Stephen A. Lawrence sa...@pobox.com
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Sent: Tue, February 8, 2011 3:29:42 PM
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Re: Levi's interpretation of the two Rossi demos does not 
hold 
water, decisive critique by Joshua Cude: Rich Murray 2011.02.08

Due largely, I suspect, to Rich's cross posting, I'm getting responses 
off-list 
to my comments. I'll repost one of them here, because it might be worthwhile 
for 
others to see it.

On 02/08/2011 02:59 PM, Dan G wrote: 
there is no apparent reason for the output 
temperature to hold steady at barely above boiling, as it did.  Um, no live 
steam buffs here apparently.  At sea level an open boiler system releases heat 
at 100 c.  Increase your heat source all you want, you will burn your tubes 
but 
still only get 100 c. out.  You must pressurize the system to raise the temp.  
(pressure cookers to cook above 212 f.).   

[sal responds:]

Nuh, uh.

You, also, are making the mistake of imagining this as a boiler with a fixed 
water supply, with a submerged heating element, and with the steam emission 
rate 
determined by the power level.  None of those assumptions are correct.

In this case, the steam output rate is fixed and is determined by the positive 
displacement pump.  It is not related to the power level.

Let me say it again:  This is not an open boiler!  This is a tube, open at one 
end, with water being pumped in the other end, at a constant, fixed rate, and 
sufficient heat being applied in the middle of the tube to (at least) boil all 
the water as it arrives.  What, exactly, keeps the newly produced steam which 
is 
produced from absorbing more heat from the walls of the tube as it continues 
its 
way along the reactor?  Nothing, of course.

Furthermore, water vapor, like any gas, obeys PV = nRT, and if you boost the 
temperature of the steam while holding the pressure constant at 1 atm, you just 
boost its volume.  Nothing magic there!  To claim you can't have steam hotter 
than 100C unless you put it under more than 1 atm of pressure makes about as 
much sense as saying you can't have oxygen hotter than -183C unless you put it 
under more than 1 atm of pressure!  (Seriously, think about that one -- the 
analogy is exact.)

In an open boiler with a submerged heating element, the steam won't rise above 
100 C, because its temperature is buffered by the liquid water with which it's 
in contact.  In a pipeline, once the water has boiled away to steam, the steam 
is no longer in intimate contact with liquid water, but it's still in contact 
with the heating element, and there's nothing to keep it from getting hotter as 
it moves along the tube.

RE: [Vo]:Am-243 - the Rossi smoking gun? (smoking boot)?

... two more details worth mentioning about seeding in LENR, such as with
a radioactive isotope, only this time it is not an exotic isotope. And that
infamous Bologna reactor, shaped like the boot of Italy, is starting to
really smoke, now.

The secret could be thorium. The second confirming detail for this is
Rossi's transmuted copper. As it turns out, the transmutation of
thorium-to-copper, specifically, has been oft reported in the history of
LENR going back 15 years... ergo, in a situation where there is nickel
seeded with thorium, the copper that shows up may come from the thorium.
That would be the Rossi/Cincinnati/Celani connection.

Obviously Rossi would not want to admit that thorium was present in the
first place, if it turns out to be the secret catalyst. And it would explain
a number of other troubling details in this unfolding mystery, as well.

Recently, Nick mentioned the Cincinnati group, from the mid-1990s - where
thorium was transmuted rapidly to other elements, and a major end-product
was said to be copper. And there is this, with a similar claim of *visual
levels* of copper from transmutation (as was Rossi's claim = visual levels):

http://www.lightparty.com/Energy/TransmutationNuclearWaste.html

Also worth mentioning - Lewis Larsen is now on the thorium LENR bandwagon, 

http://www.slideshare.net/lewisglarsen/thoriumseed-lenr-networkfigslattice-e
nergydec-7-2010-6177745

Lots of coincidences here. Not the least of which is this - from Celani no
less!

http://docs.google.com/viewer?a=vq=cache:1qybllxuy_QJ:lss.fnal.gov/archive/
other/lnf-98-019-p.pdf+cincinnati+thorium+transmutation+copperhl=engl=usp
id=blsrcid=ADGEESg-RjXcYVaL4W9ZX1mRFvc1FBFIQgVjc5tf6iC5ORVOxMhMZUcTUYLTNEda
7GrLRhw0SI5RwQf3cQKrbj6lKlRwp3ZX_7rVq4H_ocmxKiDpKKkcNWE79gCvwg2zKrCRku7yC53e
sig=AHIEtbTGJvvnMSbJh0nwaiomIUqo5STNTQ
Had Rossi been using thorium as his secret catalyst, he would have surely
known of Celani's connection via this article above. In fact, it may have
been his inspiration for trying it. Years later, at the demo in Bologna, he
would have guessed that Celani probably suspected thorium was present, and
had his meter calibrated to find it ! Thus - Rossi stopped only Celani, when
at least two other meters were looking for other kinds of emissions that he
did not care about ! 

Jones

BTW A previous stab at verbalizing probability enhancement was:

http://www.mail-archive.com/vortex-l@eskimo.com/msg39553.html


-Original Message-

. The purpose of the radioactive seed emitter in this
scenario is NOT to produce power, per se. It is to alter the QM probability
field.

Re: [Vo]:Re: Levi's interpretation of the two Rossi demos does not hold water, decisive critique by Joshua Cude: Rich Murray 2011.02.08

2011-02-08 Thread OrionWorks - Steven V Johnson

Let me second and third some of the counter claims raised about the
steam temperature issue.

From Mr. Lawrence,

...

 If the water flow rate is fixed, and the power level is allowed
 to vary, then, if steam is coming out, its temperature will vary,
 and will be determined at any moment by how much larger the power
 is than the absolute minimum necessary to exactly boil away all
 the water.

Wait a minute. No, the temperature will not necessarily vary. It seems
to me the above logic does not take a crucial factor into
consideration: Pressure.

I confess that I am a little puzzled over the proposed facts
pertaining to this latest skeptical claim. From my POV, an output
temperature measurement of 101 C seems to me to be what one would
expect - IF one presumes external water is constantly replenishing the
reactor's reservoir AND that the (boiling) water and steam are not
held under undue pressure.

Let me put it this way. I recall a 9th grade high school chemistry lab
session. Our assignment was to boil a prepared liquid solution which
had been placed in a flask containing several unknown liquids
previously prepared by our chemistry teacher. Our assignment was to
heat the liquid in the flask to the boiling point while constantly
monitoring and recording the temperatures. We turned our Bunsen
burners on. The liquid in our flasks began to rise. When the solution
began to boil the rising temperature suddenly plateaued (remained
steady) for several minutes. The temp remained steady until all the
molecules associated with that particular solution boiled away. After
the initial solution boiled away the temperature of the remaining
solution began to increase again. The temperature increased until once
again we reached the boiling point of the next unknown solution, at
which point temperature once again hovered for several minutes. This
cyclical process of plateauing followed by temp increases was observed
and recorded to have occurred several times. Afterwords we were
instructed to look through a table of boiling points attributed to
various liquids in order to determine what kinds of liquids were in
the flask. Actually, it was a fun assignment. Any assignment where I
didn't break a flash of acid all over myself and my lab partner, or
singe the hair off of the top of my scalp, or burn down the lab - I
considered the results to be a passing grade in my book.

The point I'm trying to make here is that water boils at 100 C. You
can't increase the temperature of a volume of actively boiling water
above 100 C - unless the contents are contained under pressure, such
as what happens inside of a typical pressure cooker.  Was the boiling
water within the Rossi reactor contained under significant pressure?
If not then the steam is going to escape pretty quickly out through
the end of the black hose. It seems to me that the constantly
generated steam which then immediately makes its way through the black
hose will not remain within the reactor core long enough to
significantly increase its steam temperature - at least not much
above the 100 C boiling point temperature of the adjacent water.
Again, I'm presuming the combined water and steam are NOT under
pressure.

Am I mistaken about the water within reactor core contents being under pressure?

 It's an enormous coincidence that the temperature of the effluent
 was within 2 degrees of boiling.

Seems to me it wouldn't be a coincidence at all if the water  steam
are not held under pressure - not a coincidence at any power level,
fixed or variable. It's just thermodynamics at work.


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


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

Re: [Vo]:Re: Levi's interpretation of the two Rossi demos does not hold water, decisive critique by Joshua Cude: Rich Murray 2011.02.08

2011-02-08 Thread Terry Blanton

On Tue, Feb 8, 2011 at 3:29 PM, Stephen A. Lawrence sa...@pobox.com wrote:

 In an open boiler with a submerged heating element, the steam won't rise
 above 100 C, because its temperature is buffered by the liquid water with
 which it's in contact.  In a pipeline, once the water has boiled away to
 steam, the steam is no longer in intimate contact with liquid water, but
 it's still in contact with the heating element, and there's nothing to keep
 it from getting hotter as it moves along the tube.

You are making assumptions about the geometry of the device.  How do
you know there is no liquid water reservoir?

T

Re: [Vo]:Re: Levi's interpretation of the two Rossi demos does not hold water, decisive critique by Joshua Cude: Rich Murray 2011.02.08



On 02/08/2011 03:43 PM, Harry Veeder wrote:
 stephen, the steam does absorb more energy, but this manifests as a
 faster flow of steam rather than as a temperature increase.

No.   Remember, PV = nRT for steam, just like any reasonable gas.  That
means,

V = nRT/P

If the steam flow accelerates with no change in pressure, and the
diameter of the pipe is uniform, then its volume must be increasing as
it moves along the pipe -- the steam is spreading out in the pipe.

If its volume is increasing while pressure is constant, and nobody's
adding more water vapor (so moles per second coming out the end of the
pipe is constant), then its temperature must be increasing.

And note -- the number of moles per second, n/time, is fixed by the
constant displacement pump.

QED.




Incidentally, what happens if we turn up the pump rate just a little?

Either (a) the thing starts spewing water, because the water no longer
boils, or (b) the power level increases.

Similarly, what happens if we turn *down* the water pump rate just a
little?  If the temperature doesn't suddenly start taking off, then the
power level must have dropped.

If the results of the test didn't depend, very critically, on the exact
rate at which the pump was running, what can we conclude?

Whoa, nelly!  The power output is controlled by the water pump!

Re: [Vo]:Am-243 - the Rossi smoking gun? (smoking boot)?

In reply to  Jones Beene's message of Tue, 8 Feb 2011 06:42:25 -0800:
Hi,
[snip]
I am trying to write up a decent description of it


...I await with bated breath. :)

Regards,

Robin van Spaandonk

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

Re: [Vo]:Am-243 - the Rossi smoking gun? (smoking boot)?

hmm could naturally occuring radioactive palladium be playing role in PF  cells?

http://www.webelements.com/palladium/isotopes.html

btw radioactive pallidium seeds are used to treat protaste cancer.

Harry



From: Jones Beene jone...@pacbell.net
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Sent: Tue, February 8, 2011 3:50:49 PM
Subject: RE: [Vo]:Am-243 - the Rossi smoking gun? (smoking boot)?


... two moredetailsworth mentioning about seeding in LENR, such as with a 
radioactive isotope, only this time it is not an exotic isotope. And that 
infamousBolognareactor, shaped like the boot of Italy,is starting to really 
smoke, now.
The secret could be thorium. The second confirming detail for this is Rossi's 
transmuted copper. As it turns out, the transmutation of thorium-to-copper, 
specifically, has been oft reported in the history of LENR going back 15 
years... ergo, in a situation where there is nickel seeded with thorium, the 
copper that shows up may come from the thorium. That would be the 
Rossi/Cincinnati/Celani connection.
Obviously Rossi would not want to admit that thorium was present in the first 
place, if it turns out to be the secret catalyst. And it would explain a 
number 
of other troubling details in this unfolding mystery, as well.
Recently, Nick mentioned the Cincinnati group, from the mid-1990s - where 
thorium was transmuted rapidly to other elements, and a major end-product was 
said to be copper. And there is this, with a similar claim of *visual 
levels*of 
copper from transmutation (as was Rossi's claim = visual levels):
http://www.lightparty.com/Energy/TransmutationNuclearWaste.html
Also worth mentioning - Lewis Larsen is now on the thorium LENR bandwagon, 
http://www.slideshare.net/lewisglarsen/thoriumseed-lenr-networkfigslattice-energydec-7-2010-6177745

Lots of coincidences here. Not the least of which is this - from Celani no 
less!
http://docs.google.com/viewer?a=vq=cache:1qybllxuy_QJ:lss.fnal.gov/archive/other/lnf-98-019-p.pdf+cincinnati+thorium+transmutation+copperhl=engl=uspid=blsrcid=ADGEESg-RjXcYVaL4W9ZX1mRFvc1FBFIQgVjc5tf6iC5ORVOxMhMZUcTUYLTNEda7GrLRhw0SI5RwQf3cQKrbj6lKlRwp3ZX_7rVq4H_ocmxKiDpKKkcNWE79gCvwg2zKrCRku7yC53esig=AHIEtbTGJvvnMSbJh0nwaiomIUqo5STNTQ

Had Rossi been using thorium as his secret catalyst, he would have surely 
known 
of Celani's connection via this article above. In fact, it may have been 
hisinspiration for trying it. Years later, at the demo in Bologna, he would 
have 
guessed that Celani probably suspected thorium was present, and had his meter 
calibrated to find it ! Thus - Rossi stopped only Celani, when at least two 
other meters were looking for other kinds of emissions that he did not care 
about ! 

Jones
BTW A previousstab at verbalizing probability enhancement was:
http://www.mail-archive.com/vortex-l@eskimo.com/msg39553.html
-Original Message-
…The purpose of the radioactive seed emitter in this
scenario is NOT to produce power, per se. It is to alter the QM probability 
field.

Re: [Vo]:Re: Levi's interpretation of the two Rossi demos does not hold water, decisive critique by Joshua Cude: Rich Murray 2011.02.08



On 02/08/2011 03:52 PM, OrionWorks - Steven V Johnson wrote:
 Let me second and third some of the counter claims raised about the
 steam temperature issue.

 From Mr. Lawrence,

 ...

   
 If the water flow rate is fixed, and the power level is allowed
 to vary, then, if steam is coming out, its temperature will vary,
 and will be determined at any moment by how much larger the power
 is than the absolute minimum necessary to exactly boil away all
 the water.
 
 Wait a minute. No, the temperature will not necessarily vary. It seems
 to me the above logic does not take a crucial factor into
 consideration: Pressure.
   

The hose is open on the end, so the pressure in the hose is fixed at 1 atm.

 I confess that I am a little puzzled over the proposed facts
 pertaining to this latest skeptical claim. From my POV, an output
 temperature measurement of 101 C seems to me to be what one would
 expect - IF one presumes external water is constantly replenishing the
 reactor's reservoir AND that the (boiling) water and steam are not
 held under undue pressure.
   

NO NO NO NO NO.

You are making an unconscious assumption here, which is that water is
being added just exactly fast enough to replenish the water which is
boiled away.

That's not what's happening!  The water is being added at a constant
rate, with no feedback from the reactor!

And that is exactly the point.

Turn on your stove, at a nice high heat.  Put a pot on the stove.  Start
pouring water into the pot.

Pour in the water exactly fast enough so that the water *just* boils
away, and the surface of the pot stays at boiling, and doesn't rise any
higher.

Easy, eh?  Just watch the pot to see what's going on.  That's a
situation with feedback.

Now, do it again, this time with your eyes closed, without checking to
see how fast the water is boiling away.  How hard is that?  Not so easy,
eh?  You'd expect to either get a red hot pot bottom, or water running
over onto the floor.

That's what's going on here -- the constant displacement pump has its
eyes closed.

Note well:  If the pot were a tube, in the case where you don't pour
fast enough and it's heated red hot, the steam coming out the other end
would be 'way above 100C.



 Let me put it this way. I recall a 9th grade high school chemistry lab
 session. Our assignment was to boil a prepared liquid solution which
 had been placed in a flask containing several unknown liquids
 previously prepared by our chemistry teacher. Our assignment was to
 heat the liquid in the flask to the boiling point while constantly
 monitoring and recording the temperatures. We turned our Bunsen
 burners on. The liquid in our flasks began to rise. When the solution
 began to boil the rising temperature suddenly plateaued (remained
 steady) for several minutes. The temp remained steady until all the
 molecules associated with that particular solution boiled away.

This is irrelevant, because you're confusing, essentially, voltage and
current.  Your experiment involved fixed power input and variable steam
flow rate.  Here we've got variable power input and fixed steam flow
rate -- very different.

See above.

 The point I'm trying to make here is that water boils at 100 C. You
 can't increase the temperature of a volume of actively boiling water
 above 100 C - unless the contents are contained under pressure, such
 as what happens inside of a typical pressure cooker.

You, too, have missed the point that the steam must have traveled inside
the tube which is inside the reactor *after* it turned into steam.  That
is where it would pick up extra heat -- where it wasn't in close
contact with liquid water.

This is not an open boiler, and the heating element is not submerged.

Re: [Vo]:Am-243 - the Rossi smoking gun? (smoking boot)?

In reply to  Jones Beene's message of Tue, 8 Feb 2011 12:50:49 -0800:
Hi,
[snip]

1/3 of 300 gm of Ni = 100 gm of copper ~= 1.6 Mol * 150 MeV / Th fission
reaction = 6.3E6 kWh of thermal power = 126 times more than 5 kWh. 
One has to wonder where it all went to. (Not to mention that Th fission would
likely create lots of different radioisotopes, besides a small amount of Cu).

... two more details worth mentioning about seeding in LENR, such as with
a radioactive isotope, only this time it is not an exotic isotope. And that
infamous Bologna reactor, shaped like the boot of Italy, is starting to
really smoke, now.

The secret could be thorium. The second confirming detail for this is
Rossi's transmuted copper. As it turns out, the transmutation of
thorium-to-copper, specifically, has been oft reported in the history of
LENR going back 15 years... ergo, in a situation where there is nickel
seeded with thorium, the copper that shows up may come from the thorium.
That would be the Rossi/Cincinnati/Celani connection.

Obviously Rossi would not want to admit that thorium was present in the
first place, if it turns out to be the secret catalyst. And it would explain
a number of other troubling details in this unfolding mystery, as well.

Recently, Nick mentioned the Cincinnati group, from the mid-1990s - where
thorium was transmuted rapidly to other elements, and a major end-product
was said to be copper. And there is this, with a similar claim of *visual
levels* of copper from transmutation (as was Rossi's claim = visual levels):

http://www.lightparty.com/Energy/TransmutationNuclearWaste.html

Also worth mentioning - Lewis Larsen is now on the thorium LENR bandwagon, 

http://www.slideshare.net/lewisglarsen/thoriumseed-lenr-networkfigslattice-e
nergydec-7-2010-6177745

Lots of coincidences here. Not the least of which is this - from Celani no
less!

http://docs.google.com/viewer?a=vq=cache:1qybllxuy_QJ:lss.fnal.gov/archive/
other/lnf-98-019-p.pdf+cincinnati+thorium+transmutation+copperhl=engl=usp
id=blsrcid=ADGEESg-RjXcYVaL4W9ZX1mRFvc1FBFIQgVjc5tf6iC5ORVOxMhMZUcTUYLTNEda
7GrLRhw0SI5RwQf3cQKrbj6lKlRwp3ZX_7rVq4H_ocmxKiDpKKkcNWE79gCvwg2zKrCRku7yC53e
sig=AHIEtbTGJvvnMSbJh0nwaiomIUqo5STNTQ
Had Rossi been using thorium as his secret catalyst, he would have surely
known of Celani's connection via this article above. In fact, it may have
been his inspiration for trying it. Years later, at the demo in Bologna, he
would have guessed that Celani probably suspected thorium was present, and
had his meter calibrated to find it ! Thus - Rossi stopped only Celani, when
at least two other meters were looking for other kinds of emissions that he
did not care about ! 

Jones

BTW A previous stab at verbalizing probability enhancement was:

http://www.mail-archive.com/vortex-l@eskimo.com/msg39553.html


-Original Message-

. The purpose of the radioactive seed emitter in this
scenario is NOT to produce power, per se. It is to alter the QM probability
field. 

Regards,

Robin van Spaandonk

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

Re: [Vo]:Re: Levi's interpretation of the two Rossi demos does not hold water, decisive critique by Joshua Cude: Rich Murray 2011.02.08

2011-02-08 Thread P.J van Noorden




On January 15th 2011 the airpressure in Bologna about 1025 hPa ( High 
pressure system) . At that airpressure water boils at 101 deg C. So the 
higher temperature of the steam can be explained by the higher airpressure 
and not be superheated steam.


Peter


- Original Message - 
From: Terry Blanton hohlr...@gmail.com

To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Sent: Tuesday, February 08, 2011 9:52 PM
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Re: Levi's interpretation of the two Rossi demos does not 
hold water, decisive critique by Joshua Cude: Rich Murray 2011.02.08



On Tue, Feb 8, 2011 at 3:29 PM, Stephen A. Lawrence sa...@pobox.com 
wrote:



In an open boiler with a submerged heating element, the steam won't rise
above 100 C, because its temperature is buffered by the liquid water with
which it's in contact. In a pipeline, once the water has boiled away to
steam, the steam is no longer in intimate contact with liquid water, but
it's still in contact with the heating element, and there's nothing to 
keep

it from getting hotter as it moves along the tube.


You are making assumptions about the geometry of the device.  How do
you know there is no liquid water reservoir?

T

Re: [Vo]:Am-243 - the Rossi smoking gun? (smoking boot)?

In reply to  Harry Veeder's message of Tue, 8 Feb 2011 13:05:47 -0800 (PST):
Hi,
[snip]
hmm could naturally occuring radioactive palladium be playing role in PF  
cells?

All naturally occurring isotopes of Pd are stable.


http://www.webelements.com/palladium/isotopes.html

btw radioactive pallidium seeds are used to treat protaste cancer.

Harry



From: Jones Beene jone...@pacbell.net
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Sent: Tue, February 8, 2011 3:50:49 PM
Subject: RE: [Vo]:Am-243 - the Rossi smoking gun? (smoking boot)?


... two moredetailsworth mentioning about seeding in LENR, such as with a 
radioactive isotope, only this time it is not an exotic isotope. And that 
infamousBolognareactor, shaped like the boot of Italy,is starting to really 
smoke, now.
The secret could be thorium. The second confirming detail for this is Rossi's 
transmuted copper. As it turns out, the transmutation of thorium-to-copper, 
specifically, has been oft reported in the history of LENR going back 15 
years... ergo, in a situation where there is nickel seeded with thorium, the 
copper that shows up may come from the thorium. That would be the 
Rossi/Cincinnati/Celani connection.
Obviously Rossi would not want to admit that thorium was present in the first 
place, if it turns out to be the secret catalyst. And it would explain a 
number 
of other troubling details in this unfolding mystery, as well.
Recently, Nick mentioned the Cincinnati group, from the mid-1990s - where 
thorium was transmuted rapidly to other elements, and a major end-product was 
said to be copper. And there is this, with a similar claim of *visual 
levels*of 
copper from transmutation (as was Rossi's claim = visual levels):
http://www.lightparty.com/Energy/TransmutationNuclearWaste.html
Also worth mentioning - Lewis Larsen is now on the thorium LENR bandwagon, 
http://www.slideshare.net/lewisglarsen/thoriumseed-lenr-networkfigslattice-energydec-7-2010-6177745

Lots of coincidences here. Not the least of which is this - from Celani no 
less!
http://docs.google.com/viewer?a=vq=cache:1qybllxuy_QJ:lss.fnal.gov/archive/other/lnf-98-019-p.pdf+cincinnati+thorium+transmutation+copperhl=engl=uspid=blsrcid=ADGEESg-RjXcYVaL4W9ZX1mRFvc1FBFIQgVjc5tf6iC5ORVOxMhMZUcTUYLTNEda7GrLRhw0SI5RwQf3cQKrbj6lKlRwp3ZX_7rVq4H_ocmxKiDpKKkcNWE79gCvwg2zKrCRku7yC53esig=AHIEtbTGJvvnMSbJh0nwaiomIUqo5STNTQ

Had Rossi been using thorium as his secret catalyst, he would have surely 
known 
of Celani's connection via this article above. In fact, it may have been 
hisinspiration for trying it. Years later, at the demo in Bologna, he would 
have 
guessed that Celani probably suspected thorium was present, and had his meter 
calibrated to find it ! Thus - Rossi stopped only Celani, when at least two 
other meters were looking for other kinds of emissions that he did not care 
about ! 

Jones
BTW A previousstab at verbalizing probability enhancement was:
http://www.mail-archive.com/vortex-l@eskimo.com/msg39553.html
-Original Message-
The purpose of the radioactive seed emitter in this
scenario is NOT to produce power, per se. It is to alter the QM probability 
field. 


Regards,

Robin van Spaandonk

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

Re: [Vo]:Re: Levi's interpretation of the two Rossi demos does not hold water, decisive critique by Joshua Cude: Rich Murray 2011.02.08



On 02/08/2011 03:52 PM, Terry Blanton wrote:
 On Tue, Feb 8, 2011 at 3:29 PM, Stephen A. Lawrence sa...@pobox.com wrote:

   
 In an open boiler with a submerged heating element, the steam won't rise
 above 100 C, because its temperature is buffered by the liquid water with
 which it's in contact.  In a pipeline, once the water has boiled away to
 steam, the steam is no longer in intimate contact with liquid water, but
 it's still in contact with the heating element, and there's nothing to keep
 it from getting hotter as it moves along the tube.
 
 You are making assumptions about the geometry of the device.  How do
 you know there is no liquid water reservoir?
   

No, I am not making assumptions about its geometry, beyond one very
simple assumption:  The total volume of water which flowed through the
device was significantly larger than the internal water storage volume
of the device.  With that assumption, we can ignore what goes on inside
the device.

If that assumption is false, then the whole test is worthless anyway
because there are all kinds of games you can play if you've got
substantial excess volume.

I am also assuming that essentially all the heat produced was carried
off by the steam.  If these two assumptions are true, then we can
completely ignore the internal geometry of the device.

It's easiest to think of it as a simple tube, but the internal shape of
the water jacket really doesn't matter.  What matters is the amount of
heat which must be carried off -- unless it EXACTLY matches the heat
needed to warm the water to 100 C and then vaporize it, you won't get
pure dry steam at very close to 100 C coming out.  And the amount of
heat needed for that is set by the *pump*, with no feedback from the
reactor.

On the other hand, if the device was getting scorching hot in spots and
radiating away a lot of its heat, then we can imagine a configuration in
which the output temperature could be held fixed near 100C even with
varying flow rates.  But it seems to me that's stretching things a bit
-- among other things it pushes us to the conclusion that it's really
producing substantially more than the claimed 12 kW, but its water
jacket is so badly designed that the heat's escaping instead of being
measured.


 T

Re: [Vo]:Re: Levi's interpretation of the two Rossi demos does not hold water, decisive critique by Joshua Cude: Rich Murray 2011.02.08



On 02/08/2011 04:10 PM, P.J van Noorden wrote:


 On January 15th 2011 the airpressure in Bologna about 1025 hPa ( High
 pressure system) . At that airpressure water boils at 101 deg C. So
 the higher temperature of the steam can be explained by the higher
 airpressure and not be superheated steam.

Curiouser and curiouser!

This means the steam temperature was only 0.6 C away from boiling. 
That's essentially exact.

To hit it that close depends on the water flow rate *exactly* matching
the power production.

And there was no feedback controlling the water flow rate.

Re: [Vo]:Re: Levi's interpretation of the two Rossi demos does not hold water, decisive critique by Joshua Cude: Rich Murray 2011.02.08

In reply to  Stephen A. Lawrence's message of Tue, 08 Feb 2011 13:22:25 -0500:
Hi,
[snip]
In this case, the flow rate is fixed by the positive displacement pump
at what seems to be an arbitrary value, and the power level is whatever
the reactor puts out.  It's an enormous coincidence that the temperature
of the effluent was within 2 degrees of boiling.  You would think
hitting it that close to on the nose would require very careful tuning
of the input flow rate, or it would require some kind of feedback
control of the pump.  Neither is present here, as far as I can tell.

I have a hard time with coincidences of that scale.

[snip]
Perhaps the power level was being deliberately controlled to ensure that the
steam was just above boiling (i.e. dry)?

IOW maybe the controls were designed to ensure precisely that?

Regards,

Robin van Spaandonk

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

Re: [Vo]:Re: Levi's interpretation of the two Rossi demos does not hold water, decisive critique by Joshua Cude: Rich Murray 2011.02.08



On 02/08/2011 04:22 PM, mix...@bigpond.com wrote:
 In reply to  Stephen A. Lawrence's message of Tue, 08 Feb 2011 13:22:25 -0500:
 Hi,
 [snip]
   
 In this case, the flow rate is fixed by the positive displacement pump
 at what seems to be an arbitrary value, and the power level is whatever
 the reactor puts out.  It's an enormous coincidence that the temperature
 of the effluent was within 2 degrees of boiling.  You would think
 hitting it that close to on the nose would require very careful tuning
 of the input flow rate, or it would require some kind of feedback
 control of the pump.  Neither is present here, as far as I can tell.

 I have a hard time with coincidences of that scale.
 
 [snip]
 Perhaps the power level was being deliberately controlled to ensure that the
 steam was just above boiling (i.e. dry)?

 IOW maybe the controls were designed to ensure precisely that?
   

As far as I can see, that's the only explanation (other than sopping wet
steam) that doesn't require us to wave away an unpleasantly large
coincidence.

It would be nice if we'd seen some mention of the ability to precisely
control the reaction rate by adjusting the electrical input, though. 
All the comments I've seen on the heater supply seemed to lead to the
opposite conclusion -- the control is gross, on/off, not at all fine.

Re: [Vo]:Gerald Celente: Cold fusion greatest investment opportunity of the 21st Cent.

In reply to  Mitchell Swartz's message of Tue, 08 Feb 2011 01:29:48 -0500:
Hi,
[snip]
Also: Gerald Celente puts new energy as a top trend for 2011.
Gerald Celente of Trends Institute has put new energy as a top trend for 
2011. He made the statement on Eric Kings King World News interview for 
Wednesday, December 29, 2010Funding LENR research will start a whole new 
economic paradigm, employing skilled workers, developing a path for young 
scientists, and jumpstart a new manufacturing sector based on a new energy 
technology.


Now why do you think the Mayan calendar marks 21 Dec 2012 as the end of one age
and the beginning of the next? ;)

Regards,

Robin van Spaandonk

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

[Vo]:The New Thorium Cycle ?

You may think these comments are a bit premature, but .

There are some heavy hitters in DoE and the major Universities behind
thorium as a replacement for uranium. But that is for use in an expensive
breeding cycle which has most of the negatives of any fission scheme.

Imagine how surprised they will be to find that there is (could be) a low
energy version. A cheap version, suitable for home use, perhaps. One that
has been known for 15 years or more. It would most likely is based on a new
form of accelerated decay, instead of fission.

This speculation presumes what almost no one has sensed so far - that the
Rossi device is actually based on thorium, probably in the form of thoria -
with nano-nickel being the spillover catalyst that deposits hydrogen into
the dielectric, which is the thoria. Damn! The Cincinnati group came so
close - if they had only changed a few details, and known about the
advantages of nano then this could have happened at least a decade ago.

Don't laugh too hard just yet. Of all the speculation which is out there now
about Rossi, this one is starting to sound better and better; and it can
explain the very robust nature of the device. Nickel-hydrogen, in contrast,
has been fickle in the past. Only a fool would be trying to produce 100
units of any device, at such an untested state - unless it was
extraordinarily robust, well beyond expectations of prior nickel-based LENR
- and Rossi is no fool. 

BTW - Thorium is about four times more abundant than uranium, and is about
as common as lead. 

The USA is well positioned with massive supplies. Australia and India have
large deposits as well.

One problem, as Robin hinted in another post, is that the energy extractable
by accelerated decay (if that turns out to be the M.O.) is probably only a
fraction of what it would be available in Th-fission. 

Even so, the prospect is most exciting. Let's go prospecting, so to speak!

Jones

[Vo]:Re: [Vo]:Gerald Celente: Cold fusion “greatest investment opportunity of the 21st Cent.”

Great Scott!
http://images.thetruthaboutcars.com/2008/12/mr-fusion.jpg

the Doc returns from 2015 to 1985 with a commericial LENR device.

Harry



- Original Message 
 From: mix...@bigpond.com mix...@bigpond.com
 To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
 Sent: Tue, February 8, 2011 4:43:43 PM
 Subject: Re: [Vo]:Gerald Celente: Cold fusion “greatest investment 
 opportunity 
of the 21st Cent.”
 
 In reply to  Mitchell Swartz's message of Tue, 08 Feb 2011 01:29:48 -0500:
 Hi,
 [snip]
 Also: Gerald Celente puts new energy as a top trend for 2011.
 Gerald Celente of Trends Institute has put new energy as a top trend for 
2011. He made the statement on Eric King’s King World News interview for 
Wednesday, December 29, 2010Funding LENR research will start a whole new 
economic paradigm, employing skilled workers, developing a path for young 
scientists, and jumpstart a new manufacturing sector based on a new energy 
technology.
 
 
 Now why do you think the Mayan calendar marks 21 Dec 2012 as the end of one 
age
 and the beginning of the next? ;)
 
 Regards,
 
 Robin van Spaandonk
 
 http://rvanspaa.freehostia.com/Project.html

Re: [Vo]:Re: Levi's interpretation of the two Rossi demos does not hold water, decisive critique by Joshua Cude: Rich Murray 2011.02.08

The gas law is only accurate for systems which are in thermodynamic 
equilibrium.This system is not in a state of equilibrium.

The steam is not only spreading out, it is also moving en masse in one 
direction.

harry



From: Stephen A. Lawrence sa...@pobox.com
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Sent: Tue, February 8, 2011 3:56:49 PM
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Re: Levi's interpretation of the two Rossi demos does not 
hold 
water, decisive critique by Joshua Cude: Rich Murray 2011.02.08



On 02/08/2011 03:43 PM, Harry Veeder wrote: 
stephen, the steam does absorb more energy, but this manifests as a faster 
flow 
of steam rather than as a temperature increase.

No.   Remember, PV = nRT for steam, just like any reasonable gas.  That means,

V = nRT/P

If the steam flow accelerates with no change in pressure, and the diameter of 
the pipe is uniform, then its volume must be increasing as it moves along the 
pipe -- the steam is spreading out in the pipe.

If its volume is increasing while pressure is constant, and nobody's adding 
more 
water vapor (so moles per second coming out the end of the pipe is constant), 
then its temperature must be increasing.

And note -- the number of moles per second, n/time, is fixed by the constant 
displacement pump.

QED.




Incidentally, what happens if we turn up the pump rate just a little?

Either (a) the thing starts spewing water, because the water no longer boils, 
or 
(b) the power level increases.

Similarly, what happens if we turn *down* the water pump rate just a little?  
If 
the temperature doesn't suddenly start taking off, then the power level must 
have dropped.

If the results of the test didn't depend, very critically, on the exact rate at 
which the pump was running, what can we conclude?

Whoa, nelly!  The power output is controlled by the water pump!

Re: [Vo]:Re: Levi's interpretation of the two Rossi demos does not hold water, decisive critique by Joshua Cude: Rich Murray 2011.02.08

2011-02-08 Thread OrionWorks - Steven V Johnson

From Mr. Lawrence:

...

 You are making an unconscious assumption here, which is that
 water is being added just exactly fast enough to replenish
 the water which is boiled away.

 That's not what's happening!  The water is being added at
 a constant rate, with no feedback from the reactor!

 And that is exactly the point.

Yes, I do see your point. I DON'T know what kinds of checks and
balances are presumed to have been built into Rossi's device to make
sure an adequate supply of water would always be maintained within the
reactor core. I admit, I'm no expert on thermodynamic matters.
Nevertheless, I would assume (perhaps naively) that Rossi, an engineer
mind you, would have been intimately aware of the thermodynamic issues
for which you have brought up here in a sincere manner. I freely admit
the fact that I'm making a presumption here, an assumption that Rossi
probably designed his prototype through a painful series of trials and
errors... plus a few sobering lab fires. I'm presuming Rossi learned
what fixed flow rate probably works best to regulate the core's
innards. How??? Well... how many years has he been at it??? OTOH, I
ain't the engineer here! I'm just gessin... My best guestimate would
be that over the years Rossi naturally accumulated an extensive
knowledge base as to the typical thermal characteristics of the
reactor. It seems reasonable for me to assume that Rossi would thereby
know, generally speaking, how much water to feed into the system - for
a period of time, oh let's say... for 30 minutes. As such, I could see
the 30 minute limit as prudent reason (on Rossi's part) as to why he
didn't want to push the demonstration any longer - for fear that his
ball park fixed flow rates estimates might no longer apply anymore.
He might have been concerned that the internal core would have dried
up, which in turn would have caused a run-away temperature situation,
and ultimately ending up with a permanently damaged prototype.

Again, my perception on the presumed internal regulation matter could
be way off base. It might be naïve.

To clarify, the original point I was trying to make (quite consciously
I might add) is that IF we presume Rossi's reservoir always contains
sufficient amounts of water within the reactor core the temperature of
the vented steam will not increase all that much above 100 C no matter
how hot the surface of the internal reactor might get, the internal
surface that is in direct contact with the reservoir of water. Again,
I'm making a presumption here that the entire contents are NOT under
pressure. I'm assuming the generated steam is allowed to escape
immediately from within the presumed hellish conditions within the
reactor core.

Can anyone clarify and/or append technical data that helps clarify
exactly how the external input water is fed into Rossi's reactor? How
flexible/inflexible is the system? Can anyone make a reasonable
assessment as to how much flexibility could possibly be built into
Rossi's device?

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

Re: [Vo]:Re: Levi's interpretation of the two Rossi demos does not hold water, decisive critique by Joshua Cude: Rich Murray 2011.02.08



On 02/08/2011 06:03 PM, OrionWorks - Steven V Johnson wrote:

 To clarify, the original point I was trying to make (quite consciously
 I might add) is that IF we presume Rossi's reservoir always contains
 sufficient amounts of water within the reactor core the temperature of
 the vented steam will not increase all that much above 100 C no matter
 how hot the surface of the internal reactor might get, the internal
 surface that is in direct contact with the reservoir of water. Again,
 I'm making a presumption here that the entire contents are NOT under
 pressure. I'm assuming the generated steam is allowed to escape
 immediately from within the presumed hellish conditions within the
 reactor core.

   
This assumption leads to a *lot* of heat after death.

This system didn't show that.

Re: [Vo]:group seeks to discredit Rossi

2011-02-08 Thread Horace Heffner

A few spikes in power from a 230 V source, due to a few brief shorts,  
can not explain a half hour's production of heat. Also, resistors  
typically fail to an open circuit.  Hydrogen burning is not a good  
explanation either, because the hydrogen use was monitored. The  
experiment is said to be capable of heat after death.  This to me  
means either it is nuclear, or there is a means of chemical energy  
storage.  I provided a plausible means to reproduce the experiment by  
chemical means:


http://www.mail-archive.com/vortex-l%40eskimo.com/msg42287.html

The fact that the energy actually produced could be as low as a kW  
should be no surprise. See my calorimetry notes and related table at  
the end of the above post.


I would also note that the above scenario is somewhat consistent with  
Stephan A Lawrence's premise that the output is controlled by the  
water pump, at least until the zeolite becomes saturated (not that  
zeolite is the only way the results can be obtained) and the heat  
generated tails off.  Such a tail-off  was also observed. It does  
require that the container of zeolite have eventual thermal contact  
with a pool of water in the device, which has 30-45 minutes to  
accumulate.


It is unfortunate we are left here in the peanut gallery with nothing  
to do but throw peanuts. We are left to make guesses about what  
remains intentionally hidden.  This doesn't seem very worthwhile,  
given we supposedly will have the truth this year.


Best regards,

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



On Feb 7, 2011, at 6:12 AM, Rich Murray wrote:


Well, Horace, there were a series of spikes on the input electric
power record in Test 1 on Dec. 16.

And in Test 2 on Jan. 14, a catastrophic welding failure on a
heating resister...

In science, experimenters largely find only what they make an  
effort to find.


Leaks and resulting shorts could be small and transient, and still
unleash complex effects in H2 at 80 bar and 100's of degrees C.

We need to know the exact voltages and currents used for heating, and
also for any thermocouples and pressure transducers inside the cell,
and the quality of the power production and measuring devices.

Note that data recording failed for Test 2...

And today, feedback that the output power may be only 1.6 kw, not  
over 10 kw...


Rossi has mentioned explosions several times, without giving
details, contributing to the risk run by independent experimenters who
attempt replications.

I want to be wrong, but all doubts have to be candidly explored in
this very important scientific debate, in which Rossi at least could
share critical details with some independent  scientists of repute who
can be trusted with secrets.

I respect your urbane good sense and experience.

Rich

On Mon, Feb 7, 2011 at 1:07 AM, Horace Heffner  
hheff...@mtaonline.net wrote:

.
This kind of irrational debunking is laughable. The one thing done  
well in
the experiment was measuring the input.  You don't think a short  
would show
up on a power meter, or even just a current meter, or even blow a  
fuse?


Best regards,

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

RE: [Vo]:The New Thorium Cycle ?

2011-02-08 Thread George Holz

Jones Beene [mailto:jone...@pacbell.net]  wrote:

[JB] There are some heavy hitters in DoE and the major Universities
behind thorium as a replacement for uranium. But that is for use 
in an expensive breeding cycle which has most of the negatives 
of any fission scheme.

[GH] The company behind the thorium + uranium cycle is Lightbridge.
The improvements this fuel provides are very significant and solve 
many of the major problems with present reactors with just a change
in the fuel rods. Read about the technology on their website. 

http://www.ltbridge.com/technologyservices/fueltechnology/designs

[snip]

[GH] At the risk of encouraging further speculation, here are some more
details about the Cincinnati Group results. The device used zirconium
electrodes
and  high current AC electrolysis resulting in both high temperature (280 F)
and significant pressure ( 4 atm.) inside the bolted together mostly metal
device.
Extensive analysis work was done in several labs mostly  by ICP/MS. The
starting solution was thorium nitrate. The thorium was apparently
transformed
 into titanium and copper with 10x as much titanium as copper. The isotopic
ratios of both elements were very far from normal.
Much information is available in IE Vol. 3 No. 13  No. 14 double issue
1997.

George Holz 
Varitronics Systems

[Vo]:Pole Shift Causing Superstorms

2011-02-08 Thread Terry Blanton

http://www.salem-news.com/articles/february042011/globaltemp.php

Magnetic Polar Shifts Causing Massive Global Superstorms

Terrence Aym Salem-News.com
Superstorms can also cause certain societies, cultures or whole
countries to collapse. Others may go to war with each other.

(CHICAGO) - NASA has been warning about it.scientific papers have been
written about it.geologists have seen its traces in rock strata and
ice core samples.

Now it is here: an unstoppable magnetic pole shift that has sped up
and is causing life-threatening havoc with the world's weather.

Forget about global warming.man-made or natural.what drives planetary
weather patterns is the climate and what drives the climate is the
sun's magnetosphere and its electromagnetic interaction with a
planet's own magnetic field.

When the field shifts, when it fluctuates, when it goes into flux and
begins to become unstable anything can happen. And what normally
happens is that all hell breaks loose.

Magnetic polar shifts have occurred many times in Earth's history.
It's happening again now to every planet in the solar system including
Earth.

The magnetic field drives weather to a significant degree and when
that field starts migrating superstorms start erupting..

much more

Maybe this is of what the Mayans speak.  A worthy read.

T

[Vo]:Corn Starch the Next Blowout Plug

2011-02-08 Thread Terry Blanton

http://www.wired.com/wiredscience/2011/02/oobleck-top-kill


Dr. Seussian Mystery Fluid Could Have Saved Top Kill
By Lisa Grossman   February 7, 2011  |  2:00 pm  |  Categories:
Miscellaneous, Physics

A mixture of cornstarch and water best known for entertaining
kindergartners could have plugged the spewing Macondo oil well in the
Gulf of Mexico, say physicists.

Where regular drilling mud failed to stop the flow, oobleck — a
complex fluid that seems to switch between liquid and solid —
succeeded in simulations published Jan. 31 in Physical Review Letters.

“We couldn’t do a full scale experiment on a real well that was
blowing out 50,000 barrels a day, but to the extent that you can do a
smaller experiment in the laboratory it’s basically the same physics,”
said physicist Jonathan Katz of Washington University in St. Louis.
“And it seems to work.”

more

Re: [Vo]:Am-243 - the Rossi smoking gun? (smoking boot)?

Re the tiny copper flake found inside the Cincinnati group stainless
steel chamber after high temperature, high pressure electrolysis for
hours (1997?) -- I looked up the composition of the stainless steel at
the Los Alamos National Lab library, and found that copper was about
5%... uh, possible electrochemical corrosion. Rich Murray

On Tue, Feb 8, 2011 at 1:50 PM, Jones Beene jone...@pacbell.net wrote:
... two more details worth mentioning about seeding in LENR, such as with
a radioactive isotope, only this time it is not an exotic isotope. And that
infamous Bologna reactor, shaped like the boot of Italy, is starting to
really smoke, now.

The secret could be thorium. The second confirming detail for this is
Rossi's transmuted copper. As it turns out, the transmutation of
thorium-to-copper, specifically, has been oft reported in the history of
LENR going back 15 years... ergo, in a situation where there is nickel
seeded with thorium, the copper that shows up may come from the thorium.
That would be the Rossi/Cincinnati/Celani connection.

Obviously Rossi would not want to admit that thorium was present in the
first place, if it turns out to be the secret catalyst. And it would explain
a number of other troubling details in this unfolding mystery, as well.

Recently, Nick mentioned the Cincinnati group, from the mid-1990s - where
thorium was transmuted rapidly to other elements, and a major end-product
was said to be copper. And there is this, with a similar claim of *visual
levels* of copper from transmutation (as was Rossi's claim = visual levels):

http://www.lightparty.com/Energy/TransmutationNuclearWaste.html

Also worth mentioning - Lewis Larsen is now on the thorium LENR bandwagon,

http://www.slideshare.net/lewisglarsen/thoriumseed-lenr-networkfigslattice-energydec-7-2010-6177745

Lots of coincidences here. Not the least of which is this - from Celani no
less!

http://docs.google.com/viewer?a=vq=cache:1qybllxuy_QJ:lss.fnal.gov/archive/other/lnf-98-019-p.pdf+cincinnati+thorium+transmutation+copperhl=engl=uspid=blsrcid=ADGEESg-RjXcYVaL4W9ZX1mRFvc1FBFIQgVjc5tf6iC5ORVOxMhMZUcTUYLTNEda7GrLRhw0SI5RwQf3cQKrbj6lKlRwp3ZX_7rVq4H_ocmxKiDpKKkcNWE79gCvwg2zKrCRku7yC53esig=AHIEtbTGJvvnMSbJh0nwaiomIUqo5STNTQ

Had Rossi been using thorium as his secret catalyst, he would have surely
known of Celani's connection via this article above. In fact, it may have
been his inspiration for trying it. Years later, at the demo in Bologna, he
would have guessed that Celani probably suspected thorium was present, and
had his meter calibrated to find it ! Thus - Rossi stopped only Celani, when
at least two other meters were looking for other kinds of emissions that he
did not care about !

Jones

BTW A previous stab at verbalizing probability enhancement was:

http://www.mail-archive.com/vortex-l@eskimo.com/msg39553.html

-Original Message-

… The purpose of the radioactive seed emitter in this

scenario is NOT to produce power, per se. It is to alter the QM probability
field.

Re: [Vo]:Re: Levi's interpretation of the two Rossi demos does not hold water, decisive critique by Joshua Cude: Rich Murray 2011.02.08

As Steven J., points out it could simply be the water delivery system is 
designed to maintain the same amount of water in the reactor at all times. I 
don't think that would be an extra-ordinary feat of engineering.

harry

- Original Message 
 From: OrionWorks - Steven V Johnson svj.orionwo...@gmail.com
 To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
 Sent: Tue, February 8, 2011 6:03:23 PM
 Subject: Re: [Vo]:Re: Levi's interpretation of the two Rossi demos does not 
hold water, decisive critique by Joshua Cude: Rich Murray 2011.02.08

 From Mr. Lawrence:

 ...

  You are making an unconscious assumption here, which is that
  water is being added just exactly fast enough to replenish
  the water which is boiled away.

  That's not what's happening!  The water is being added at
  a constant rate, with no feedback from the reactor!

  And that is exactly the point.

 Yes, I do see your point. I DON'T know what kinds of checks and
 balances are presumed to have been built into Rossi's device to make
 sure an adequate supply of water would always be maintained within the
 reactor core. I admit, I'm no expert on thermodynamic matters.
 Nevertheless, I would assume (perhaps naively) that Rossi, an engineer
 mind you, would have been intimately aware of the thermodynamic issues
 for which you have brought up here in a sincere manner. I freely admit
 the fact that I'm making a presumption here, an assumption that Rossi
 probably designed his prototype through a painful series of trials and
 errors... plus a few sobering lab fires. I'm presuming Rossi learned
 what fixed flow rate probably works best to regulate the core's
 innards. How??? Well... how many years has he been at it??? OTOH, I
 ain't the engineer here! I'm just gessin... My best guestimate would
 be that over the years Rossi naturally accumulated an extensive
 knowledge base as to the typical thermal characteristics of the
 reactor. It seems reasonable for me to assume that Rossi would thereby
 know, generally speaking, how much water to feed into the system - for
 a period of time, oh let's say... for 30 minutes. As such, I could see
 the 30 minute limit as prudent reason (on Rossi's part) as to why he
 didn't want to push the demonstration any longer - for fear that his
 ball park fixed flow rates estimates might no longer apply anymore.
 He might have been concerned that the internal core would have dried
 up, which in turn would have caused a run-away temperature situation,
 and ultimately ending up with a permanently damaged prototype.

 Again, my perception on the presumed internal regulation matter could
 be way off base. It might be naïve.

 To clarify, the original point I was trying to make (quite consciously
 I might add) is that IF we presume Rossi's reservoir always contains
 sufficient amounts of water within the reactor core the temperature of
 the vented steam will not increase all that much above 100 C no matter
 how hot the surface of the internal reactor might get, the internal
 surface that is in direct contact with the reservoir of water. Again,
 I'm making a presumption here that the entire contents are NOT under
 pressure. I'm assuming the generated steam is allowed to escape
 immediately from within the presumed hellish conditions within the
 reactor core.

 Can anyone clarify and/or append technical data that helps clarify
 exactly how the external input water is fed into Rossi's reactor? How
 flexible/inflexible is the system? Can anyone make a reasonable
 assessment as to how much flexibility could possibly be built into
 Rossi's device?

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

RE: [Vo]:Am-243 - the Rossi smoking gun? (smoking boot)?

-Original Message-
From: Rich Murray 

Re the tiny copper flake found inside the Cincinnati group stainless
steel chamber after high temperature, high pressure electrolysis for
hours (1997?) -- I looked up the composition of the stainless steel at
the Los Alamos National Lab library, and found that copper was about
5%... uh, possible electrochemical corrosion.  Rich Murray


You are mistaken. There is almost no copper in 200,300 or 400 grade
stainless. 

Chemical Composition of Stainless 314 (used in Dewars, 304 is similar)

* Carbon 0.25 max
* Manganese 2.00 max
* Silicon 1.50-3.00
* Phosphorus 0.045 max
* Sulfur 0.03 max
* Chromium 23.0-26.0
* Nickel 19.0-22.0
* Iron balance

[Vo]:Article on Rossi vs BLP

2011-02-08 Thread OrionWorks - Steven Vincent Johnson

A reasonably salient article comparing Rossi vs. BLP.

http://pesn.com/2011/02/08/9501758_Black_Light_Power_and_Rossis_Cold_Fusion_
related/

http://tinyurl.com/673823b


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

Re: [Vo]:Pole Shift Causing Superstorms

In reply to  Terry Blanton's message of Tue, 8 Feb 2011 20:11:58 -0500:
Hi,
[snip]
http://www.salem-news.com/articles/february042011/globaltemp.php

[snip]

Quote:-

Worse, what shields the planet from cancer-causing radiation is the magnetic
field. It acts as a shield deflecting harmful ultra-violet, X-rays and other
life-threatening radiation from bathing the surface of the Earth. With the field
weakening and cracks emerging, the death rate from cancer could skyrocket and
mutations of DNA can become rampant.

What complete nonsense. While the Earth's field does deflect charged particles,
it has no effect on UV or X-rays, and what *really* shields us is not the
magnetic field, but the atmosphere.

Regards,

Robin van Spaandonk

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

RE: [Vo]:The New Thorium Cycle ?

Thanks for the information George.

As you know, there is little way to avoid further speculation in this
group, but I am going to try to abstain, as it is probably counterproductive
at this stage.

Jones



-Original Message-
From: George Holz 

Jones Beene wrote:

[JB] There are some heavy hitters in DoE and the major Universities
behind thorium as a replacement for uranium. But that is for use 
in an expensive breeding cycle which has most of the negatives 
of any fission scheme.

[GH] The company behind the thorium + uranium cycle is Lightbridge.
The improvements this fuel provides are very significant and solve 
many of the major problems with present reactors with just a change
in the fuel rods. Read about the technology on their website. 

http://www.ltbridge.com/technologyservices/fueltechnology/designs

[snip]

[GH] At the risk of encouraging further speculation, here are some more
details about the Cincinnati Group results. The device used zirconium
electrodes and  high current AC electrolysis resulting in both high
temperature (280 F) and significant pressure ( 4 atm.) inside the bolted
together mostly metal device.

Extensive analysis work was done in several labs mostly  by ICP/MS. The
starting solution was thorium nitrate. The thorium was apparently
transformed into titanium and copper with 10x as much titanium as copper.
The isotopic ratios of both elements were very far from normal.
Much information is available in IE Vol. 3 No. 13  No. 14 double issue
1997.

George Holz 
Varitronics Systems

Re: [Vo]:Re: Levi's interpretation of the two Rossi demos does not hold water, decisive critique by Joshua Cude: Rich Murray 2011.02.08



On 02/08/2011 08:32 PM, Harry Veeder wrote:
 As Steven J., points out it could simply be the water delivery system is 
 designed to maintain the same amount of water in the reactor at all times. I 
 don't think that would be an extra-ordinary feat of engineering.
   

The water delivery system was specified to deliver a fixed rate of
water, independent of anything going on in the reactor.

Levi said it, Jed said it, and I see no reason to disbelieve it.  That's
the whole point in the emphasis on use of a positive displacement pump.

And that absolutely rules out any possibility that the water delivery
system was set up to maintain a fixed water level in the reactor.

Re: [Vo]:group seeks to discredit Rossi



On 02/08/2011 07:10 PM, Horace Heffner wrote:
 A few spikes in power from a 230 V source, due to a few brief shorts,
 can not explain a half hour's production of heat. Also, resistors
 typically fail to an open circuit.  Hydrogen burning is not a good
 explanation either, because the hydrogen use was monitored. The
 experiment is said to be capable of heat after death.  This to me
 means either it is nuclear, or there is a means of chemical energy
 storage.  I provided a plausible means to reproduce the experiment by
 chemical means:

 http://www.mail-archive.com/vortex-l%40eskimo.com/msg42287.html

 The fact that the energy actually produced could be as low as a kW
 should be no surprise. See my calorimetry notes and related table at
 the end of the above post.

 I would also note that the above scenario is somewhat consistent with
 Stephan A Lawrence's premise that the output is controlled by the
 water pump,

I didn't actually intend that as a premise!

It was a sort of black joke -- the only obvious way for the system to
work as specified would be if the output were controlled by the water pump.

But your scenario makes it into a plausible assumption ... hmmm

 at least until the zeolite becomes saturated (not that zeolite is the
 only way the results can be obtained) and the heat generated tails
 off.  Such a tail-off  was also observed. It does require that the
 container of zeolite have eventual thermal contact with a pool of
 water in the device, which has 30-45 minutes to accumulate.

 It is unfortunate we are left here in the peanut gallery with nothing
 to do but throw peanuts. We are left to make guesses about what
 remains intentionally hidden.  This doesn't seem very worthwhile,
 given we supposedly will have the truth this year.

But it's irresistible, none the less.



 Best regards,

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



 On Feb 7, 2011, at 6:12 AM, Rich Murray wrote:

 Well, Horace, there were a series of spikes on the input electric
 power record in Test 1 on Dec. 16.

 And in Test 2 on Jan. 14, a catastrophic welding failure on a
 heating resister...

 In science, experimenters largely find only what they make an effort
 to find.

 Leaks and resulting shorts could be small and transient, and still
 unleash complex effects in H2 at 80 bar and 100's of degrees C.

 We need to know the exact voltages and currents used for heating, and
 also for any thermocouples and pressure transducers inside the cell,
 and the quality of the power production and measuring devices.

 Note that data recording failed for Test 2...

 And today, feedback that the output power may be only 1.6 kw, not
 over 10 kw...

 Rossi has mentioned explosions several times, without giving
 details, contributing to the risk run by independent experimenters who
 attempt replications.

 I want to be wrong, but all doubts have to be candidly explored in
 this very important scientific debate, in which Rossi at least could
 share critical details with some independent  scientists of repute who
 can be trusted with secrets.

 I respect your urbane good sense and experience.

 Rich

 On Mon, Feb 7, 2011 at 1:07 AM, Horace Heffner
 hheff...@mtaonline.net wrote:
 .
 This kind of irrational debunking is laughable. The one thing done
 well in
 the experiment was measuring the input.  You don't think a short
 would show
 up on a power meter, or even just a current meter, or even blow a fuse?

 Best regards,

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

[Vo]:The New Thorium Cycle ?

2011-02-08 Thread francis

Jones,

You mentioned an avalanche in your other thread due to increasing
the QM probability using a
Radioactive seed that should also apply to Thorium. I think you may have
guessed their process or an an equivalent one!
Your threads on this subject combined make a nice theory. I still think the
avalanching itself consists of catalyzed groups of mini H2 that are being
driven across the disassoc threshold by the radiation - the disassociation
is discounted by the lattice's opposition to f/h2 random migration vs f/h1
migration such that one disassociation can trigger an avalanche. Rest time
to re-associate and build up more opposition to migration and repeat. I
think the different PWM, laser, radioactive seeding and other stimulus
schemes are all based on triggering this disassociation suddenly before the
lattice opposition to h2 migration repels the molecule away and the discount
is lost as kinetic energy. This discount is a function of the random motion
of gas and change in nano geometry. I think this or some other Heisenberg
trap is required as an interim step to the nuclear reactions.
Fran

[Vo]:Thorium

Hi Jones,

Here's a nice little clean (no radioisotopes) fission reaction for you, using H
clusters:-)


Th232 + 8H (cluster) = Ti50 + Os190 + 183.9 MeV

A fission reaction is essentially guaranteed given that for heavy metals such as
Th, U etc. it doesn't take much to cause them to fission. When you add a neutron
to U235, you are only adding 6.5 MeV which is apparently enough, yet when you
add 8 protons to Th232 you are adding 35.7 MeV, which should be more than
enough.
Regards,

Robin van Spaandonk

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

Re: [Vo]:Am-243 - the Rossi smoking gun? (smoking boot)?

Well, Jones,

Rossi claims anomalous elements found on disrupted small regions on
his Ni: Cr and Mn...

Also, there is plenty of Cu pipe, coated with Ni as the reaction
surface, and as the cooling water pipe, and if I recall correctly, not
supposed to be oxidized -- dimensions not given -- I recall dimly that
the Ni is 0.1 mm thick.

 You are mistaken. There is almost no copper in 200, 300 or 400 grade
 stainless.

 Chemical Composition of Stainless 314 (used in Dewars, 304 is similar)

    * Carbon 0.25 max
    * Manganese 2.00 max
    * Silicon 1.50-3.00
    * Phosphorus 0.045 max
    * Sulfur 0.03 max
    * Chromium 23.0-26.0
    * Nickel 19.0-22.0
    * Iron balance

Moreover, as participant among many for months on V-L re transmutation
claims re the Cincinnati group:

Sept. 25, 1997
Note by Rich Murray:

In Properties of Materials:
Properties, Processing, and Selection of Materials,
Table 16.24 (PART A), p. 16.62,
for AISI Type (UNS) Stainless Steel, (S30430),
the Typical Composition (%) is
3-4 Cu,  17- 19 Cr,  8-10 Ni,  0.08 C,  2.0 Mn,
1.0 Si,  0.045 P,  0.030 S, and, of course, Fe.

[ I did an onsite search at Los Alamos Scientific Lab library. ]

Rich, the turd in the punch bowl at the cold fusion party...

On Tue, Feb 8, 2011 at 7:01 PM, Jones Beene jone...@pacbell.net wrote:
 -Original Message-
 From: Rich Murray

 Re the tiny copper flake found inside the Cincinnati group stainless
 steel chamber after high temperature, high pressure electrolysis for
 hours (1997?) -- I looked up the composition of the stainless steel at
 the Los Alamos National Lab library, and found that copper was about
 5%... uh, possible electrochemical corrosion.  Rich Murray


 You are mistaken. There is almost no copper in 200,300 or 400 grade
 stainless.

 Chemical Composition of Stainless 314 (used in Dewars, 304 is similar)

    * Carbon 0.25 max
    * Manganese 2.00 max
    * Silicon 1.50-3.00
    * Phosphorus 0.045 max
    * Sulfur 0.03 max
    * Chromium 23.0-26.0
    * Nickel 19.0-22.0
    * Iron balance

Re: [Vo]:The New Thorium Cycle ?

Hello Jones,

I'm glad to see the possibilities of cold thorium fission being explored.

As an technically unqualified scientific layman, I was one of the
skeptics in months of debate on V-L in 1997 re the transmutation
claims by the Cincinnati group -- you may not be surprised that the
skeptics agreed that all the specific evidence claimed for
transmutation did not withstand detailed critical assessments by some
of the experts involved, as
ICP/MS interpretations can easily go astray in many situations.

Rich Murray

On Tue, Feb 8, 2011 at 7:52 PM, Jones Beene jone...@pacbell.net wrote:

 Thanks for the information George.

 As you know, there is little way to avoid further speculation in this
 group, but I am going to try to abstain, as it is probably counterproductive
 at this stage.

 Jones

 -Original Message-
 From: George Holz

 Jones Beene wrote:

 [JB] There are some heavy hitters in DoE and the major Universities

 behind thorium as a replacement for uranium. But that is for use

 in an expensive breeding cycle which has most of the negatives

 of any fission scheme.

 [GH] The company behind the thorium + uranium cycle is Lightbridge.

 The improvements this fuel provides are very significant and solve

 many of the major problems with present reactors with just a change

 in the fuel rods. Read about the technology on their website.

 http://www.ltbridge.com/technologyservices/fueltechnology/designs

 [snip]

 [GH] At the risk of encouraging further speculation, here are some more

 details about the Cincinnati Group results. The device used zirconium

 electrodes and  high current AC electrolysis resulting in both high
 temperature (280 F) and significant pressure ( 4 atm.) inside the bolted
 together mostly metal device.

 Extensive analysis work was done in several labs mostly  by ICP/MS. The

 starting solution was thorium nitrate. The thorium was apparently

 transformed into titanium and copper with 10x as much titanium as copper.
 The isotopic ratios of both elements were very far from normal.

 Much information is available in IE Vol. 3 No. 13  No. 14 double issue

 1997.

 George Holz

 Varitronics Systems

[Vo]:H2 O2 gases mixed at high pressures -- a modest proposal: Rich Murray 2011.02.08

H2 O2 gases mixed at high pressures -- a modest proposal: Rich Murray 2011.02.08

Yakking with Michael Barron today, I imagined the tall green H2
bottle, attached to the Rossi demos -- he tells me that the standard
maximum pressure is 3,000 psi [ 200 atmospheres ] -- what if such a
bottle, pumped free of air, with some water put in, had temporary
wires via the inlet for DC electricity to electrolyze the water until
3,000 psi was reached -- how much energy would that store?

Wouldn't it be fairly safe, as long as the H2  O2 mixture was inside
the steel bottle and metal pipes, without exposure to any catalysts?

How long could that much gas be fed into a 1 liter size reactor, that
used catalysts to generate 1 KW to 10 KW heat with hot steam output?

How much energy could a small high pressure gas tank within the 1
liter reactor supply?

If the reactor is made of nonmagnetic copper and stainless steel, then
external magnetic fields could move small magnets inside to turn the
gas on and off and adjust the rate of heat and steam output.

To simulate nuclear reaction radiation signals, various tiny isotopic
sources within tubes in a lead block could be moved out and in via
magnetic fields to provide alpha, beta, gamma, and neutrons.

Just imagining, folks...

We could start an elite private company to discreetly sell very high
end black boxes to well heeled ambitious innovators.

Rich, a dream, or a dreamer?

Re: [Vo]:Re: Levi's interpretation of the two Rossi demos does not hold water, decisive critique by Joshua Cude: Rich Murray 2011.02.08




Stephen A. Lawrence wrote: 
 
 On 02/08/2011 08:32 PM, Harry Veeder wrote:
  As Steven J., points out it could simply be the water delivery system is 
  designed to maintain the same amount of water in the reactor at all times. 
  I 

  don't think that would be an extra-ordinary feat of engineering.
   
 
 The water delivery system was specified to deliver a fixed rate of
 water, independent of anything going on in the reactor.
 
 Levi said it, Jed said it, and I see no reason to disbelieve it.  That's
 the whole point in the emphasis on use of a positive displacement pump.
 
 And that absolutely rules out any possibility that the water delivery
 system was set up to maintain a fixed water level in the reactor.
 

Suppose the fixed rate of water consists of new water and recycled hot water, 
i.e any water that does not turn to steam.
The rate of new water entering the reactor would increase over time, but the 
total rate of water entering the reactor would 

be fixed. However, Rossi would need to ensure that the fixed rate was high 
enough so that it would never be entirely boiled
off by the reactor.

Harry

Re: [Vo]:Am-243 - the Rossi smoking gun? (smoking boot)?