Re: [Vo]:New MOND order?
On Wed, 02 Mar 2011 18:22 Robin van Spaandonk wrote [snip] Ah..in short you reject the Hydrino hypothesis outright, since below ground state orbitals are the very core of his theory. Regards,[/snip] If Naudt's is correct about relativistic hydrogen then both sides are correct. Sub ground states caused by a catalyst are no different then relativistic hydrogen caused by suppression of vacuum energy density. It's all a matter of perspective Regards Fran
RE: [Vo]:Aviso Ponders Open Sourcing his Self-Running Electric Car Technology
From Robin: ... It's ordinary physics. Charged particles circling around in a magnetic field must radiate cyclotron radiation. If you set up a resonant receiver, you should be able to pick it up. For the lower Van Allen belt, the height and frequency are approximately such that you could be about 1 wavelength from the source, so a resonant transfer would go as 1/r rather than 1/r^2. Any reasonable guesstamate as to how much energy, theoretically speaking here, could be tapped into? My initial impression is that it would not be all that much, especially if you start setting up lots of devices in close proximity to each other. I was wondering if the closer each device is placed next to a similar device they might start competing against each other for the same resonate waves ... but I am obviously uninformed on this topic. Regards, Steven Vincent Johnson www.OrionWorks.com www.zazzle.com/orionworks
RE: [Vo]:Tunneling
on Wednesday, March 02, 2011 11:27 Harry Veeder wrote [snip]The concept of quantum mechanical tunneling suggests that a particle can, with a certain probability, bore its way through a columb barrier. Suppose, instead, the probability is indicative of a fluctuating columb field in which portals momentarily open and close. A particle that happens to be moving quickly enough and is headed in the right direction would be able to coast through an opening before it closes.[/snip] Harry, Your description also supports Naudt's proposal of relativistic hydrogen - this isn't hydrogen at near C spatial velocity but equivalent acceleration caused by DIRECT manipulation of vacuum energy density using suppression. Your statement [snip] A particle that happens to be moving quickly enough and is headed in the right direction would be able to coast through an opening before it closes.[/snip] has a temporal interpretation. The opening of which you speak is the Pythagorean difference of matter in different inertial frames to the time axis, IMHO the hydrogen undergoes the same gamma transformation as if were travelling at near luminal SPATIAL velocity and coasting into a stationary Ni atom. From a 4d perspective the equivalent velocity of Hydrogen persists (coasts) long enough to interact with nearly stationary (by comparison) Ni. The 3D orientation of the stationary Ni coulomb barrier to the time axis is different than the orientation of the 3D electric field of the accelerated hydrogen to the time axis. The opposition is discounted by the reduced overlap of 3D space - from each others perspective they both seem reduced in physical size but unlike Lorentzian contraction on a spatial vector I believe equivalent acceleration results in a symetrical contraction on all spatial axis because the equivalent vector is displaced 90 degrees from the spatial plane. Perhaps this is why UFO's give the APPEARANCE of rapid spatial velocity and turning ability but are so difficult for radar to track :_) Regards Fran
Re: [Vo]:Aviso Ponders Open Sourcing his Self-Running Electric Car Technology
To my understanding - there is no limit. Just as there is no limit as to how many magnets you can use in the world. The basis of the technology is an abstraction of magnetism to electricity. Just as North-North magnets repel eachother -- North-North electricity/electrons repel eachother. The invention involves the electricity being shorted - that is accelerating towards eachother and then being deflected away from eachother. This is then done several times so that the amplification in energy can continue indefinitely as long as the wires can handle the amperage. There is more information on the following thread regarding some of the internal principles that have been revealed: http://www.overunity.com/index.php?topic=9720 On Thu, Mar 3, 2011 at 2:28 PM, OrionWorks - Steven Vincent Johnson orionwo...@charter.net wrote: From Robin: ... It's ordinary physics. Charged particles circling around in a magnetic field must radiate cyclotron radiation. If you set up a resonant receiver, you should be able to pick it up. For the lower Van Allen belt, the height and frequency are approximately such that you could be about 1 wavelength from the source, so a resonant transfer would go as 1/r rather than 1/r^2. Any reasonable guesstamate as to how much energy, theoretically speaking here, could be tapped into? My initial impression is that it would not be all that much, especially if you start setting up lots of devices in close proximity to each other. I was wondering if the closer each device is placed next to a similar device they might start competing against each other for the same resonate waves ... but I am obviously uninformed on this topic. Regards, Steven Vincent Johnson www.OrionWorks.com www.zazzle.com/orionworks
RE: [Vo]:New MOND order?
Good point . From: Roarty, Francis X Subject: Re: [Vo]:New MOND order? Robin van Spaandonk wrote Ah..in short you reject the Hydrino hypothesis outright, since below ground state orbitals are the very core of his theory. If Naudts is correct about relativistic hydrogen then both sides are correct. Sub ground states caused by a catalyst are no different than relativistic hydrogen caused by suppression of vacuum energy density. It's all a matter of perspective Regards Fran
RE: [Vo]:Fleischmann's Type A palladium
One more detail, for Dennis or anyone else looking into a Rossi replication based on an educated guess of what the inventor could have been doing at the time of the discovery of the energy anomaly. Rossi's first thermoelectric generator patent, assigned to Leonardo Technologies #6,620,994 might contain a clue about materials which he was working with prior to the switch from the TEG device to LENR. http://www.google.com/patents/about?id=yDoOEBAJdq=6,620,994 ... The first thermoelectrode is doped with palladium, selenium, or a combination of the two. The second thermoelectrode is doped with antimony, gold, or a combination of the two... Jones
[Vo]:Perfect Moonbase Site
http://blastr.com/2011/03/giant-chamber-on-the-moon.php with must-see piccy.
RE: [Vo]:Perfect Moonbase Site
Obviously a sandworm burrow ... -Original Message- From: Terry Blanton http://blastr.com/2011/03/giant-chamber-on-the-moon.php with must-see piccy.
Re: [Vo]:Perfect Moonbase Site
On Mar 3, 2011, at 8:59 AM, Terry Blanton wrote: http://blastr.com/2011/03/giant-chamber-on-the-moon.php with must-see piccy. The picture of what looks like a round crater does not match the description. Discovered by the Chandrayaan-1 spacecraft, this chamber is more than one mile long and 393 feet wide. That means over 13 times as long as wide. Perhaps it was meant to say, ... more than one mile in diameter and 393 feet deep. Not sure that sounds right either. The best place is probably on the poles, near the ice deposits. It is natural to speculate such a structure formed as an sub-surface ice deposit, which sublimated. A meteor impact then punched a hole in the roof. If so, it is of interest just how big the chamber is under the surface, and how stable the surface layer is. The picture could be an illusion. More needed. Too bad no coordinates or references were given. Best regards, Horace Heffner http://www.mtaonline.net/~hheffner/
RE: [Vo]:Fleischmann's Type A palladium
At 10:39 AM 3/2/2011, Jones Beene wrote: - However, if you are going to use several layers of plating, which is good, then there is no reason not to start with copper as the base - for reasons of cost control. Perhaps. Silver is pretty cheap, by comparison with gold and palladium!
Re: [Vo]:Typical dismissive attitudes toward cold fusion
At 03:16 PM 3/2/2011, Jed Rothwell wrote: I imagine they do not think it is worth the trouble to comment on, or to check out. That is how I feel about claims of harvesting energy from the surroundings such as the one just reported here, by Aviso: http://pesn.com/2011/02/27/9501773_Aviso_Ponders_Open_Sourcing_Self-Running_EV_Tech/ I resemble Park in that I consider that a violation of the conservation of energy; I think it cannot be right, and I wouldn't spend 10 minutes checking it out. I differ from Park in that I don't mind this claim, and I would not attack it either. Aviso has every right to be mistaken. Being mistaken about such things seldom causes harm. Interesting and very weird. A linked story appears to claim that he's harvesting cell tower energy. I built a radio when I was in high school that was powered by rectifying and filtering radio energy, to then power a small radio. It worked. However, the energy was very, very small. If that cell tower is putting out a lot of energy, and the receiving antenna was able to intercept and use a decent chunk of it, this would work. Of course, the cell tower coverage would get whacked! Big enough antenna would be key here! It's amazing that he's got a device, and is depending on apparent battery charge to determine overunity. He's claiming 135%, is that 35 percent more than battery, or is that 135% more? If the lower figure, this is iffy. If the higher, then it should be possible to make the thing self-powered, you could get it going with the battery, then it would generate its own power and you could pull the battery. But he hasn't done that. These breathless reporters never seem to ask hard questions!
Re: [Vo]:Perfect Moonbase Site
On Mar 3, 2011, at 8:59 AM, Terry Blanton wrote: http://blastr.com/2011/03/giant-chamber-on-the-moon.php with must-see piccy. Apparently it is a lava tube. http://www.siliconindia.com/shownews/ ISRO_finds_cave_in_moon_can_be_used_as_base_station_for_astronauts- nid-79567.html http://tinyurl.com/467qjpt Best regards, Horace Heffner http://www.mtaonline.net/~hheffner/
Re: [Vo]:New MOND order?
That was kind of a silly refutation of Mills. Hydrinos, if real, result from occupation of previously unknown states below the ground state. In other words, the ground state is not the ground state, merely a plateau that is normally not punctured. The scientific question is whether or not those below ground states exist. I'm not convinced, but what do I know? Indeed, what does anyone know? Not enough, I'd say, to rule out completely the possibility of new and previously undiscovered phenomena. Probably, by now, these phenomena would have to be rare, or, at least, not normally produce grossly observable effects but Sometimes nobody looked in places where nothing new was expected. At 09:21 PM 3/2/2011, mix...@bigpond.com wrote: In reply to Jones Beene's message of Wed, 2 Mar 2011 13:32:46 -0800: Hi, [snip] There is NO such reduction. Mills is clearly wrong on that, as all his detractors have correctly stated. Potential energy exists when a force acts upon an object that tends to restore it to a lower energy configuration, and there is no lower energy configuration than the ground state. Ah..in short you reject the Hydrino hypothesis outright, since below ground state orbitals are the very core of his theory. Regards, Robin van Spaandonk http://rvanspaa.freehostia.com/Project.html
Re: [Vo]:Typical dismissive attitudes toward cold fusion
At 03:45 PM 3/2/2011, Jed Rothwell wrote: I have heard about a guy living under high tension power lines who made a gadget to extract useful amounts of energy. Supposedly the power company sued him. It's outrageous if they actually did! Imagine bombarding his family with RF and then suing him for using it. The question would be if his device increased the drain. It might. However, a fair settlement would be that he paid for the increased drain. He might still be ahead if he is using otherwise-wasted power. The authorities still maintain there is no harm from power lines. I don't believe 'em. This is one time I side with conspiracy theorists, per Upton Sinclair's dictum: It is difficult to get a man to understand something when his salary depends on his not understanding it. Yeah. Along the same lines, the letters to the editor in a recent edition of the Sci. Am. included several critiques of the assertion that cell phones cause no harm because the radiation is not strong enough to break chemical bonds. Some people wrote to say the same thing we said here: the heat alone may be a problem. The author responded by evading the issue and restating the obvious. I dislike theory as a proof of anything. It should be possible to determine damage by experiment, and difficult only if the damage is confined to humans, in which case experimentation is iffy. Epidemiological studies remain possible, but they are not so conclusive, generally, way too many difficult-to-control variables.
Re: [Vo]:Perfect Moonbase Site
On Mar 3, 2011, at 8:59 AM, Terry Blanton wrote: http://blastr.com/2011/03/giant-chamber-on-the-moon.php with must-see piccy. Here is a picture that shows the lava tube: http://parallelspirals.blogspot.com/2010/03/lava-tubes-found-on- moon.html http://tinyurl.com/4awbun6 A rille system is a region on the Moon where lava flow had occured through tubes and its roof had capsized leading to the formation of a valley. In some regions of the Moon, these lava tubes have not collapsed. These are believed to be natural shelters for human colonies on the Moon. TMC data from Oceanus Procellarum (Central Longitude: 58.3170 W / Latitude: 14.1110 N) has helped identify one such lava tube. Best regards, Horace Heffner http://www.mtaonline.net/~hheffner/
[Vo]:Re: Rossi credibility
At 05:38 PM 2/21/2011, Jed Rothwell wrote: His strategy might be reasonable. But a consequence of that strategy is that I'm not going to believe that Rossi is a demonstration of cold fusion. That's rather short-sighted of you. Please do not confuse not going to believe with believe that it is not. You do not know what is going on inside a Pd-D cathode either. You can look right at it, and learn all there is to know from the ENEA database, but you still do not know. If U. Bologna publishes a more detailed, convincing report describing the 18-hour run, there will be practically no room left to doubt this. David Kidwell told me that if they could have the Rossi device in their 10 kW-scale testbed at the NRL, they could conclude within an hour that it is real, and they would not have to know the first thing about what is inside it. (The testbed is described in ICCF-16 paper ET01. It is way better than the U. Bologna calorimeter. It resembles the industrial-scale testbed at Hydrodynamics, Inc., which was designed by the Dean of Mech. Eng. at Georgia Tech. That system was bulletproof as far as I know -- and as far as the Dean knew.) As is quite traditional, I remain in some level of doubt until there is independent confirmation. The more confirmation, the less doubt. That's all. It's simply natural consequences. Lack of confirmation is no proof of error, you know that. Even independent efforts to confirm don't prove original error. Failure is failure. Failure *can* be caused by original error, but it can also be caused, easily, by uncontrolled variables. So ... we need to wait, sometimes, if we want clarity and certainty. There is some human discomfort with not knowing, so people rush to judgment. Kidwell did say he would insist they conduct a test with Rossi not present. I think this is slight case of magical thinking. I do not see how a person standing in a room can affect dial thermometers and watt-meters. The person can insure that untoward interference doesn't happen. It's merely a sign, Jed. Kidwell wasn't crazy. I'm not going to claim that it's fraud, on the other hand. I'm going to claim that *I don't know* and that I think I don't have enough information to decide. You will soon, if we get a better report from Levi. I think you can be 95% sure it is real now. The fraud hypothesis is awfully far fetched, and getter farther fetched with each new test. Frankly, I don't think it is worth worrying about. Well, Jed, I respect *to a degree* your judgment. I'm certainly much more inclined to be friendly to Rossi's report because of your comments. But that's all I can say, and that's good, otherwise we could get a domino effect from trust relationships. It's better if we have independent judgment. Again, depending on so many details about which we know nothing, so far, and may not ever know. What do you mean we Kemo Sabe? (Quoting the old joke about the Lone Ranger surrounded by hostile Indians.) I mean that I think you do not have all the details, though you certainly have more than I. I've argued that making a huge fuss over Rossi simply discredits the field . . . I don't see why. For one thing, other researchers are not responsible for what Rossi claims, except perhaps Focardi. Levi is not a cold fusion research. Or he wasn't before Jan. 14. It discredits the field because other scientists, reading about this, and seeing the obvious reasons to be skeptical, if they see the cold fusion researchers falling over themselves to praise Rossi or to validate Rossi, see this as proof of their gullibility. I'm suggesting prudence and caution, that's all. Some of the damage will be done anyway. People are already using Rossi as an example of overblown, inflated claims. I don't see any damage. I've seen it. Your turn to trust me, Jed. People will say that it is fraud or inflated no matter who makes what claim. Heck, they say that about Energetics Tech., even after SRI replicated them spot on with some cathodes. So far I have not seen any evidence that Rossi has made inflated claims. On the contrary, he said it was 12 kW and it was probably closer to 15 kW. That will not surprise anyone familiar with calorimetry. The method they used was very lossy, as I said. You are trusting evidence that has not been *independently* confirmed. That's your choice! But the problem I'm talking about remains. That could backfire, for them, but, then, if Rossi doesn't show up with his 1 MW reactor, we end up looking very foolish. I doubt he will complete that within a year! I am hoping we can persuade him to let the NRL and others test the smaller gadget. That's better than a 1 MW machine. More convincing, in a way. I agree. However, Jed, Rossi doesn't agree, and can you see how this increases my skepticism? I sure as heck would not want to be present in Florida when they turn on the big machine! The radiation
Re: [Vo]:Perfect Moonbase Site
On Mar 3, 2011, at 8:59 AM, Terry Blanton wrote: http://blastr.com/2011/03/giant-chamber-on-the-moon.php with must-see piccy. Source article on the lava tube: http://www.lpi.usra.edu/meetings/lpsc2010/pdf/1484.pdf 41st Lunar and Planetary Science Conference (2010) IDENTIFICATION OF LUNAR VOLCANIC TUBES, A POTENTIAL SITE FOR HUMAN SETTLEMENT USING 3D CHANDRYAAN 1 – TMC DATA . A.S. Arya1, R.P.Rajasekhar1, Ajai1 , A.S Kiran Kumar1, R.R. Navalgund1 , Space Applications Centre, Indian Space Research Organization, Ahmedabad– 380 015 (India), arya...@sac.dos.gov.in. Best regards, Horace Heffner http://www.mtaonline.net/~hheffner/
RE: [Vo]:New MOND order?
-Original Message- From: Abd ul-Rahman Lomax That was kind of a silly refutation of Mills. Hydrinos, if real, result from occupation of previously unknown states below the ground state. In other words, the ground state is not the ground state, merely a plateau that is normally not punctured. On the contrary - this seems to be the only logical approach at present. However, I have made your same argument to vortex in past postings, so let me express why - myself and other former fence straddlers have abandoned some of Randy's CQM theory, in total frustration. The burden of proof for such a contentious claim is on Mills, of course, and he has not met the burden - although his experimental work is top notch. That is the problem. There is gain in his experiments, but not enough to justify an unlikely theory. Over the past twenty years Mills has not been able to physically produce (for independent testing) the particle itself, despite saying he has collected them, so why should anyone waste time with the lame rationalization? Because of the Thermacore work, the line broadening, calorimetry, NASA rocket engine and UV, he certainly earned a temporary benefit of doubt - for a decade and more, but the continuing inability to produce hydrinos for independent testing, as well as outright duplicity about his close friend Jansson - is the last nail in the coffin IMO. There are other (better) ways to explain the gain, including a form of LENR (aka - the Italian job - Focardi, Piantelli, Celani, Rossi) etc ... not to mention a ZPE effect and/or the relativistic argument. Many of Mills technical arguments, in the absence of physical proof, have also fallen by the wayside. http://arxiv.org/abs/0704.0631v2 Tom Stolper wrote a convincing and flattering book on Mills (America's Newton) and I have a lot of respect for Tom and Mike Carroll ... but lately even Mills' best cheerleaders seem to have given-up trying bail a sinking ship. Having said all that - I'll be the first to jump back onboard the Maru Hydrino, if Mills can ever stand and deliver, but he has certainly not earned the continuing trust of open-minded science, or investors - and deserves zero benefit of doubt now, after such a long string of disappointments. Jones
Re: [Vo]:Re: Rossi credibility
On Thu, Mar 3, 2011 at 3:15 PM, Abd ul-Rahman Lomax a...@lomaxdesign.com wrote: There is allegedly some device that enhances battery life in golf carts, I had some discussion with a fellow who claimed to be working for the company, which he would not disclose. It's no secret: http://energenx.com/products.html The Bedini pulse charger removes sulfides from the plates. T
Re: [Vo]:Perfect Moonbase Site
On Thu, Mar 3, 2011 at 4:23 PM, Horace Heffner hheff...@mtaonline.net wrote: Source article on the lava tube: http://www.lpi.usra.edu/meetings/lpsc2010/pdf/1484.pdf 41st Lunar and Planetary Science Conference (2010) IDENTIFICATION OF LUNAR VOLCANIC TUBES, A POTENTIAL SITE FOR HUMAN SETTLEMENT USING 3D CHANDRYAAN 1 – TMC DATA . A.S. Arya1, R.P.Rajasekhar1, Ajai1 , A.S Kiran Kumar1, R.R. Navalgund1 , Space Applications Centre, Indian Space Research Organization, Ahmedabad–380 015 (India), arya...@sac.dos.gov.in. Some believe they are already in use but not by humans! T
[Vo]:Anticipating skeptical objections to a 1 MW demonstration
Yesterday I wrote that it can be surprisingly difficult to evaluate the performance of a large machine. That probably sounds odd. Let me explain a bit, while I try to anticipate some of the honest skeptical objections that might be raised about a 1 MW demonstration. Rossi is sometimes open to suggestions and if we can come up with ways to avoid these problems perhaps he will make adjustments. Let's look at what we know about the proposed demonstration, and think about how to measure the effect. THE 1 MW DEMO Rossi said that the 1 MW unit will be used to generate hot water. Not to generate steam, not to be used as an electric generator. (This seems like a wise goal to me, because the conditions needed to generate steam or electricity are more extreme.) Assume the ratio of control electronics power to output is the same as the small device, 1:200, the control electronics will take about 5 kW. Okay, let us assume the target temperature is 40°C. Max power is 1 MW = 238,000 calories/second so the flow rate will be 5952 ml/s = 6 L per second (95 gallons per minute). That is not as large of a flow rate as I thought. A 100 gpm pump costs $642 and takes only 0.5 HP (372 W -- really?!). That seems kind of low. Fire pumps of this capacity are rated at 10 HP. A large pump used in a swimming pool is about 75 gpm. You have probably felt the surge of water from one of these. TEST PROCEDURE To test the 15 kW machine, you can buy all equipment you need at Home Depot and Radio Shack for less than $100. You need a thermistor, a Kill A Watt efficiency monitor, a large bucket marked in liters, and a stopwatch (nowadays a virtual stopwatch on a computer). Install the Kill A Watt between the wall outlet and the control electronics box, to circumvent skeptical doubts about waveforms. This equipment will give you a reliable answer to within 10%, which is enough to be certain that 80 W are going in and 15,000 W coming out. To test a 1 MW machine, you need thousands of dollars worth of specialized equipment, starting with a large AC wattmeter (power analyzer), which costs anywhere from $800 to $15,000. The point is, a professor or outside observer would not have this sort of thing handy. Someone like a consulting engineer would. You also need specialized flowmeters and temperature probes. The testbed at Hydrodynamics cost tens of thousands of dollars as I recall, and it took months to build. It had to measure mechanical torque as well as electric power, which added to the cost. The point is, this is not something you can throw together with a few universally available parts. You might be forced to depend upon Rossi himself to provide the instruments and set them up before the demonstration. This would compromise the results. It is challenging to install a temperature sensor into such a strong flow of water. An old-fashioned dial thermometer is probably a good choice. These things are inaccurate. You could take samples of tap water input and bucketfuls of the output to measure the temperature independently. You probably want an IR sensor and some other stuff to do sanity-check tests. I would recommend a great deal of nuclear safety equipment; Geiger counters and the like. Badges to measure radiation exposure. Rossi says there is no radiation but Celani says he measured it. I would not bet my life that Rossi is right. I am sure there would be other challenges I have not thought of. Flow calorimetry on this scale is quite different from anything in the laboratory. As I mentioned, measuring industrial processes is not only difficult, it is surprisingly inaccurate by the standards of the laboratory. There are good reasons why people do experiments on the level of 1 to 10 W. See: http://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/RothwellJbutterside.pdf REASONABLE SKEPTICAL OBJECTIONS As noted, if Rossi supplies the instruments even a sympathetic observer would have doubts. This would not be an independent test in any sense. This is a large machine. It would probably have to be bolted to the floor. It would be dangerous to poke around inside it, even if everything is turned off. I believe that the control electronics are critical to the performance of this machine. It would be dangerous to allow these electronics to turn off completely in the event of a power failure, so I think the control electronics will require a large battery backup. A power failure might also disable the flow of water if they use a pump instead of tap pressure. the point is you will have a lot more equipment and many more wires which a suspicious person might reasonably suspect is actually supplying power to the machine. you would have to carefully sort out what is what, and what where goes where. It is harder to determine the layout and functionality of the components than with the small 15 kW machine. I think it would take a few days, and I would want a mechanical engineer to do the job. I
[Vo]:Storms comments on Rossi
Here is a message Ed sent to Abd and me, reprinted with permission -- This debate of whether to believe Rossi ignores two very important facts. We now know that chemically assisted nuclear reactions are possible, thanks to the CF work. This not like the claims for over unity based on odd electric circuits or motors. Second, Rossi has been working with people who have published evidence for excess energy and nuclear products using Ni and H2. Consequently, he has not come out of left field with a novel claim. His contribution is the increase in magnitude. Given the state of CF these days, a person would gain no advantage by creating a fake. First of all, no one would believe it and when it was exposed, the game would be over. So, Rossi has shown all the characteristics of a real claim. The fact that he does not take the path that Jed advocates means nothing. If I had such a discovery that did not have patent protection, I would take the same path. Rossi's goal is to keep people confused so that no one discovers his secret until he gets a patent. I suspect a lot is going on under the radar using NDA that allow Rossi to contact investors and the US patent office. As for the 1 MW device, I expect it has been delivered and is being tested right now. By Oct. the device will be well under control and will have a history of performance as Rossi claims. I expect by then, his patent will be granted. The man is no fool and obviously has talented people working with him. He is doing exactly what a rational person would do under the circumstances. Ed My response: I do not advocate any action that would endanger Rossi's intellectual property, or his chances of getting a patent. I do not know much about patents. If the actions I advocate would endanger the patent I hereby un-advocate them. I do not have as much respect for Rossi's business acumen as Ed does. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:Anticipating skeptical objections to a 1 MW demonstration
and I would like to see what he will use as his control. Dennis -- From: Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com Sent: Thursday, March 03, 2011 3:50 PM To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: [Vo]:Anticipating skeptical objections to a 1 MW demonstration Yesterday I wrote that it can be surprisingly difficult to evaluate the performance of a large machine. That probably sounds odd. Let me explain a bit, while I try to anticipate some of the honest skeptical objections that might be raised about a 1 MW demonstration. Rossi is sometimes open to suggestions and if we can come up with ways to avoid these problems perhaps he will make adjustments. Let's look at what we know about the proposed demonstration, and think about how to measure the effect. THE 1 MW DEMO
Re: [Vo]:Anticipating skeptical objections to a 1 MW demonstration
Dennis wrote: and I would like to see what he will use as his control. I am more concerned about control in the other sense -- can he can keep it under control. Seriously, a thing like this does not need a control (null comparison). A null is vital for small scale experiments -- under ~10 W or so I would say -- but above that the positive is so positive you don't need to compare it to anything. - Jed
RE: [Vo]:Storms comments on Rossi
BTW - If you haven't seen it, here is the preliminary WIPO rejection notice of most of the claims of the Rossi patent http://www.newenergytimes.com/v2/news/2011/36/Rossi-Patent-Application-WO-20 09-125444-PrelimReport.pdf
[Vo]:Vimana Found in Afghanistan?
http://projectavalon.net/forum4/showthread.php?14114-Vimana-(UFO)-Found-In-Cave-In-Afghanistan!!!s=a4cac42f6f636c2cb9015ae1a68805c3 What's a Vimana? http://www.google.com/search?rlz=1C1GGGE_enUS360US360aq=fsourceid=chromeie=UTF-8q=vimana (Submitted mostly for entertainment purposes.) T
Re: [Vo]:Anticipating skeptical objections to a 1 MW demonstration
Dennis, Indeed . And that would be controls. It might be a minority view; several controls are needed. He needs a metachronous 1 MW pulse for enough time and energy for the system to reach the same temp and heat deposited that the LANR system would expect to achieve in the steady state, ... and synchronous calibration pulses of a fraction of that power. Would also suggest a temperature control for his pyrometer to match the peak temp recorded at point. The additional controls for calorimetry including correcting for positional flow error, and for background in any measurement of ionizing radiation (which they are doing) and near-IR (which you know who is doing), and thermal waveform reconstruction are obvious. Probably would also add a flow measurement calibration, and check that humidity sensors are valid with two calibrations if the temperature exceeds 96C. Best regards, m === At 06:05 PM 3/3/2011, you wrote: and I would like to see what he will use as his control. Dennis -- From: Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com Sent: Thursday, March 03, 2011 3:50 PM To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: [Vo]:Anticipating skeptical objections to a 1 MW demonstration Yesterday I wrote that it can be surprisingly difficult to evaluate the performance of a large machine. That probably sounds odd. Let me explain a bit, while I try to anticipate some of the honest skeptical objections that might be raised about a 1 MW demonstration. Rossi is sometimes open to suggestions and if we can come up with ways to avoid these problems perhaps he will make adjustments. Let's look at what we know about the proposed demonstration, and think about how to measure the effect. THE 1 MW DEMO
Re: [Vo]:Anticipating skeptical objections to a 1 MW demonstration
Unless he can unplug it... Most any system will tend to be messy at that level for any system that runs for extended times (days??) to rule out chemistry. I think he would do better by just making something in the 1 to 10 KW (thermal) range that ran for a week unplugged. If his claims are real, he should have enough gain for that even at only 5% conversion rates. D2 -- From: Mitchell Swartz m...@theworld.com Sent: Thursday, March 03, 2011 6:06 PM To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: [Vo]:Anticipating skeptical objections to a 1 MW demonstration Dennis, Indeed . And that would be controls. It might be a minority view; several controls are needed. He needs a metachronous 1 MW pulse for enough time and energy for the system to reach the same temp and heat deposited that the LANR system would expect to achieve in the steady state, ... and synchronous calibration pulses of a fraction of that power. ..
Re: [Vo]:Anticipating skeptical objections to a 1 MW demonstration
Mitchell Swartz m...@theworld.com wrote: He needs a metachronous 1 MW pulse for enough time and energy for the system to reach the same temp and heat deposited that the LANR system would expect to achieve in the steady state, Ah. That is a skeptical objection I did not anticipate. I think this requirement is highly impractical. The only device capable of making a 1 MW pulse of heat long enough to achieve steady state in a flow of water would be a 1 MW water heater (a boiler). I believe that would cost about $200,000. That is quite a lot to pay for a calibration. Based on what I learned from the people at Hydrodynamics, the County Property Manager's department and other Hydrodynamics customers, I do not think any HVAC engineer in the world ask for this kind of calibration. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:Anticipating skeptical objections to a 1 MW demonstration
Having said all of that . . . Looking back at my notes from Hydrodynamics and the County Facility engineer who measured excess heat from the gadget installed in the Fire Department, I should report their methods could not be simpler. In the case of the Fire Department, they did the following: They asked the firemen not to use cold water for an hour or so. They read the water meter and wrote down the setting. (I mean the meter outside the building used for billing purposes.) They measured the tap water temperature. They ran the hot water and measured the outlet temperature with a dial thermometer. All boilers have these things. They recorded the temperature every 5 minutes. They measured the power input with an expensive wattmeter, set to record kilowatt hours on a paper tape. After a while they stopped, and recorded the water meter reading again. In other words, it was simple flow calorimetry. A water meter is a rather crude instrument, but highly reliable. Ditto a bimetalic dial thermometer. As you can imagine, this method gives you only 5% or 10% accuracy but that is enough to distinguish 5 kW input from 1,000 kW output. It would satisfy any engineer on planet earth. I guess I was exaggerating the difficulties in that sense. HOWEVER, this test will not be enough to satisfy skeptics and scientists, as we just saw from the comments by Mitchel Swartz. They will demand a calibration and a null run, and they will come up with many novel theories as to why the test is invalid, such as the positional flow error. I do not know if it is possible to devise a test to satisfy such critics. Certainly it would cost hundreds of thousands or millions of dollars. Skeptics who suspect a scam will not be satisfied there are no hidden wires, or fake instrument, or professors in cahoots with Rossi. Perhaps it would wise for Rossi to ignore this sort of thing, and try to convince engineers only. - Jed
RE: [Vo]:Anticipating skeptical objections to a 1 MW demonstration
He cannot safely unplug it, we are told. However, one thing everyone seems to be overlooking in why Rossi is choosing to construct a machine which has a large number of modular units - is that it lends itself to the energy cascade, with extremely high iterative gain. A cascade will allow his COP to soar from 30:1 to 2500:1 with complete control, and consequently there will be no doubt about the magnitude of gain. Rossi seems to be reluctant to allow (unplugged) self-power, due to the risk of a runaway - otherwise a smaller system could be used. This analysis assumes that the major consideration which is needed for the reaction to proceed is to maintain a narrow range of temperatures over a threshold, but below a failsafe. In so doing, only one cell in the entire array need to be elaborately controlled by electrical input - and the remaining 99 (if there are 100) are cascaded off the hot water (superheated) output of the first cell, in stages. Superheated water under pressure will allow temperature far in excess of the usual boiling point (100°C) up to the critical temperature (374°C). So long as the threshold for the reaction is around ~350°C, which has been reported - then this kind of staged cascade can work beautifully, because the return of the hot water coming back into the system from the heat exchanger (which serves as the load) can be easily be mixed into the superheated water via a thermo-coupled proportioning valve (solenoid controlled valve) arrangement. This is common is industrial processes. Control is possible to one degree C. In effect no additional electrical input is required past the first cell. Elegant. Think about it this way. You have one key cell in the cascade - and it is constructed with the same kind of elaborate PLC control as in the Bologna demo, and superheated water from it then feeds two adjoining cells; and those two feed the next four; then eight, 16, 32 and then the final 37 in last series. All 99 have proportioning valves to control the input heat in a narrow range. None of the 99 subsequent cells in the cascade need to have any lossy electrical input at all - except for the valve-control arrangement so that temperature is a function of incoming hot water, mixed with the colder return flow water. This is actually a lot simpler to do than it sounds. All of the dependent stages essentially are heated by the preceding stage. But the first cell is the only one that gets electrical power (~400 watts), and the heat range for the others is controlled by the superheated water from the previous stage, by admixing hot water from a return line. Most of the output heat comes from only the last stage in the cascade, but since there is little input the COP is essentially 1,000,000/400 = 2,500. If it works out this way for a few hours, hopefully for a few days, it will surely convince any skeptic. 2,500:1 is essentially infinite gain which is tempered by the need to control against a runaway. Jones -Original Message- From: Dennis Unless he can unplug it... Most any system will tend to be messy at that level for any system that runs for extended times (days??) to rule out chemistry. I think he would do better by just making something in the 1 to 10 KW (thermal) range that ran for a week unplugged. If his claims are real, he should have enough gain for that even at only 5% conversion rates.
Re: [Vo]:Anticipating skeptical objections to a 1 MW demonstration
Jones Beene jone...@pacbell.net wrote: He cannot safely unplug it, we are told. I think Cravens meant Rossi should use the heat to generate electricity and make the device self-sustaining. He added: If his claims are real, he should have enough gain for that even at only 5% conversion rates. That probably refers to thermoelectric generator conversion rates. I don't think he meant the machine should be literally unplugged. As you said, that is reportedly dangerous. That is why I suppose the control electronics should have a battery back up system. I think it would be unwise to make a thermoelectric generator and a completely stand-alone machine at this stage. For safety's sake, AC input with a battery backup is the most reliable, tried-and-true method. Stand-alone operation would not prove anything that 1:200 input:output ratio does not already prove. A skeptic who would question the 1:200 ratio would also doubt that the thermoelectric stand alone machine is what it appears to be. If it were safe to turn off the power completely, then perhaps a thermoelectric stand-alone machine would be a good idea. In the future, after the technology matures, a stand alone self-sustaining machine should be perfectly safe. I'll bet it will still have a battery though . . . for decades to come. It will be needed for safety and also for a cold start, assuming anyone ever shuts down one of these things. (Why would you? Maybe for maintenance or to ship it before installation.) - Jed
RE: [Vo]:Anticipating skeptical objections to a 1 MW demonstration
If you talking about closing the loop, then the Stirling engine is a good choice. Here is one he could use. http://www.whispergen.com/main/PRODUCTS/ If I am correct about the cascade, then a Stirling can provide about 15% conversion of heat to electricity (due to the low Carnot spread) but 15% of a megawatt is overkill, except for the nefarious few who may be snooping around on this demo ... and who love that word 'overkill' (literally). As any fool can see, this kind of device would be ideal for the military - tank, submarine, drone airplane that stays aloft for months . Maybe some observers thought we were joking about a threat from Russian interests (or Chinese, Arabs, Israel etc) . With this kind of gain, the threat to Rossi or his family is no joke. Jones From: Jed Rothwell I think Cravens meant Rossi should use the heat to generate electricity and make the device self-sustaining.
RE: [Vo]:Anticipating skeptical objections to a 1 MW demonstration
At 09:21 PM 3/3/2011, Jones Beene wrote: He cannot safely unplug it, we are told. Others apparently feel as I do, that a device that cannot be safely unplugged makes me nervous. Yes. Nuclear reactors (fission type) make me nervous. I wouldn't want to live near one.
RE: [Vo]:Anticipating skeptical objections to a 1 MW demonstration
Yes. Your fear would be shared by the majority in the USA, and that is likely to be the major reason that Rossi is not doing it here. He knows he would not see this device sold here during his lifetime, due to the NRC. At some level, one's tolerance level for risk is proportionate to the availability and cost of the safer alternative. -Original Message- From: Abd ul-Rahman Lomax At 09:21 PM 3/3/2011, Jones Beene wrote: He cannot safely unplug it, we are told. Others apparently feel as I do, that a device that cannot be safely unplugged makes me nervous. Yes. Nuclear reactors (fission type) make me nervous. I wouldn't want to live near one.
Re: [Vo]:Anticipating skeptical objections to a 1 MW demonstration
Yes, I meant that it would be more convincing if a smaller device was used (10's to 100KW) and that it turned a steam engine, stirling,. that could convert the heat and it then could be run without any access to external power sources. Notice I do not wish to imply that the water flow also be required to be powered by the device. I don't see much advantage in going from an uncontrolled 10 kW demo with no control and little instrumentation to a 1MW device with no control and even less instrumentation with no chance of independent verification of the measurements and check by first principles. I would expect you would have to have some external power source to start the device. I don't see the risk in the electrical conversion conversion failure. I don't think that the device would fail to disaster if the stimulation/heater/ whatever (80 or so Watts used in the demo) would be removed. Perhaps if the cooling water is turned off but not the stimulation. A self powered device that heats a water flow would be fairly convincing - if run for an extended time. D2 From: Jed Rothwell Sent: Thursday, March 03, 2011 7:41 PM To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: [Vo]:Anticipating skeptical objections to a 1 MW demonstration Jones Beene jone...@pacbell.net wrote: He cannot safely unplug it, we are told. I think Cravens meant Rossi should use the heat to generate electricity and make the device self-sustaining. He added: If his claims are real, he should have enough gain for that even at only 5% conversion rates. That probably refers to thermoelectric generator conversion rates. I don't think he meant the machine should be literally unplugged. As you said, that is reportedly dangerous. That is why I suppose the control electronics should have a battery back up system. I think it would be unwise to make a thermoelectric generator and a completely stand-alone machine at this stage. For safety's sake, AC input with a battery backup is the most reliable, tried-and-true method. Stand-alone operation would not prove anything that 1:200 input:output ratio does not already prove. A skeptic who would question the 1:200 ratio would also doubt that the thermoelectric stand alone machine is what it appears to be. If it were safe to turn off the power completely, then perhaps a thermoelectric stand-alone machine would be a good idea. In the future, after the technology matures, a stand alone self-sustaining machine should be perfectly safe. I'll bet it will still have a battery though . . . for decades to come. It will be needed for safety and also for a cold start, assuming anyone ever shuts down one of these things. (Why would you? Maybe for maintenance or to ship it before installation.) - Jed
