Re: [Vo]:We have FPE cells
That is the plan. With the help of Jed's archives, other private emails, the loan cell supplier and our local uni, we are confident to produce a simple FPE demo device that can be supplied to a wide market. AG On 12/26/2011 5:13 PM, Peter Gluck wrote: ...The history of demo cells in CF is very complex and cannot be called a series of triumphs; you have to change this.
[Vo]:Spontaneous parametric down-conversion (SPDC)
Some insights from quantum mechanics… Spontaneous parametric down-conversion Reference: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spontaneous_parametric_down-conversion The rule that comes out of this quantum mechanical process is that energy is shared approximately equally between N entangled particles with each entangled particle getting 1/N amount of the energy. The originating frequency of the nuclear radiation is also shared between the N particles and is therefore divided approximately equally between the N particles and is therefore also divided in its calculation by 1/N. Spontaneous parametric down-conversion (SPDC) is an important process in quantum optics, used especially as a source of entangled photon pairs, and of single photons. In quantum optics, when energy is shared between two entangled particles with one particle being excited and the other standing off at a distance, that energy is not equally divided into 1/2 the energy of the original excited particle. Energy is conserved though, and the division is *very* close to equal. When entangled particles share energy from a nuclear reaction, that energy emerges from the nuclear reaction, but the photons come out slightly off axis. The actual variation in this angle is, to a small extent, a measure of the variation of the energy/wavelength of the photon stream. To say it another way: what is collected and used in experiments is extremely close to equal, but there is a dispersion of particles which are not collected which is less close to equal. Rserence: http://people.whitman.edu/~beckmk/QM/grangier/Thorn_ajp.pdf See equations 15 and 16 in the reference. The above consideration explains how the lattice does not melt after a cold fusion nuclear reaction and there is no gamma rays that emanate from a cold fusion nuclear reaction involving N entangled particles. More specifically, those entangled particles are one or more entangled copper pairs of protons configured in an entangle proton ensemble comprising N protons.
Re: [Vo]:We have FPE cells
I take you do not read what I have written on this subject? We were ready to do a deal for the 1 MW thermal plant but Rossi suggested we wait as he is not ready to sell us a high temp thermal oil 1 MW E-Cat plant. Why? Because the plant is still in RD and the necessary technical specifications are not yet available. Without the tech specs we can't construct a purchase order with performance specs that need to be met before we part with our money. Rossi is very conservative and has never attempted to over sell his product. More to the point he says it will do what the specs say it will do and nothing more. I respect him for that conservative stance. I expect what Rossi will offer us is a complete package, including the 330 Ac kW gen set, all tied up with a nicely integrated NI thermal kW and Ac kW control system. That would be nice. When Rossi is ready to offer the system to us, we are ready to evaluate his offering. AG On 12/26/2011 6:17 PM, Mary Yugo wrote: On Sun, Dec 25, 2011 at 5:39 PM, Aussie Guy E-Cat aussieguy.e...@gmail.com mailto:aussieguy.e...@gmail.com wrote: I have allocated $100k to the cell replication project. I was ready to spend $200k to buy a 100 kW E-Cat system. When Rossi is ready to provide the detailed specifications for his 330 Ac kW E-Cat, we will again restart the process to acquire a unit from Leonardo. I'm confused. I thought you already had an iron clad deal with Rossi to buy one of his contraptions with the 100 or so E-cats in a container and were going to add electrical power generators. Is that off now, or what? You wrote about it as if it would happen practically tomorrow. Changed your mind?
[Vo]:Energy teleportation in an entangled system.
Energy teleportation in an entangled system. The following references explains that the extreame amount of nuclear energy derived from the cold fusion of a cooper pair of protons into the nickel nucleus is teleported far from the nickel lattice and widely dispersed in the hydrogen envelope of the Ni/H reactor. See the following for an overview Physicist proposes method to teleport energy http://www.physorg.com/news184597481.html See the following for the math: Energy Entanglement Relation for Quantum Energy Teleportation http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/arxiv/pdf/1002/1002.0200v2.pdf
[Vo]:Unwsu
-BEGIN PGP PUBLIC KEY BLOCK- Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (GNU/Linux
[Vo]:unsubscribe
Re: [Vo]:Spontaneous parametric down-conversion (SPDC)
This is an interesting discussion but I have one question. The reference you mentioned suggests that the process of down conversion is extraordinarily inefficient and that the probability of a gamma being down converted is virtually nil. Did I misunderstand this for some reason? Is the process much more efficient for high energy photons? Dave -Original Message- From: Axil Axil janap...@gmail.com To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Mon, Dec 26, 2011 3:47 am Subject: [Vo]:Spontaneous parametric down-conversion (SPDC) Some insights from quantum mechanics… Spontaneous parametric down-conversion Reference: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spontaneous_parametric_down-conversion The rule that comes out of this quantum mechanical process is that energy is shared approximately equally between N entangled particles with each entangled particle getting 1/N amount of the energy. The originating frequency of the nuclear radiation is also shared between the N particles and is therefore divided approximately equally between the N particles and is therefore also divided in its calculation by 1/N. Spontaneous parametric down-conversion (SPDC) is an important process in quantum optics, used especially as a source of entangled photon pairs, and of single photons. In quantum optics, when energy is shared between two entangled particles with one particle being excited and the other standing off at a distance, that energy is not equally divided into 1/2 the energy of the original excited particle. Energy is conserved though, and the division is *very* close to equal. When entangled particles share energy from a nuclear reaction, that energy emerges from the nuclear reaction, but the photons come out slightly off axis. The actual variation in this angle is, to a small extent, a measure of the variation of the energy/wavelength of the photon stream. To say it another way: what is collected and used in experiments is extremely close to equal, but there is a dispersion of particles which are not collected which is less close to equal. Rserence: http://people.whitman.edu/~beckmk/QM/grangier/Thorn_ajp.pdf See equations 15 and 16 in the reference. The above consideration explains how the lattice does not melt after a cold fusion nuclear reaction and there is no gamma rays that emanate from a cold fusion nuclear reaction involving N entangled particles. More specifically, those entangled particles are one or more entangled copper pairs of protons configured in an entangle proton ensemble comprising N protons.
RE: [Vo]:We have FPE cells
Hi Aussie, I expect what Rossi will offer us is a complete package, including the 330 Ac kW gen set, all tied up with a nicely integrated NI thermal kW and Ac kW control system. That would be nice. When Rossi is ready to offer the system to us, we are ready to evaluate his offering. Do you have a best guestimate as to when you think Rossi might get around to delivering the goods? Regards, Steven Vincent Johnson www.OrionWorks.com www.zazzle.com/orionworks
Re: [Vo]:We have FPE cells
This could be extremely valuable for the field, and profitable for AG. It would be great to bring these to ICCF-17. Measuring ~1 W is not difficult. I recommend a Seebeck calorimeter. It simplifies matters and it has a large s/n ratio compared to other types, in this range of power. At ~10 W or above it does not matter what kind of calorimeter you use. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:Spontaneous parametric down-conversion (SPDC)
In Spontaneous parametric down-conversion (SPDC) as a process in quantum optics, a nonlinear crystal is used to split photons into pairs of other photons. The efficiency of that process is proportional to the amount of quantum mechanical entanglement that is produced by the incident laser on the nonlinear crystal lattice used to split photons into pairs of photons. The frequency at which this entanglement is produced is low as a funtion of the number of photons that are contained in the incident UV laser beam. On the other hand, we known from the copper isotopes that are produced as ash in the Rossi reactor, thanks to the analysis of both DR, Kim and Horace Heffner, almost all cold fusion nuclear reactions involve the fusion of entangled cooper pairs of protons in the nucleus of nickel atoms. So in the case of the Rossi reaction, the probability of entanglement is very high. Therefore the probability of power and frequency splitting of the radiation produced by the cold fusion nuclear reactions in the nickel lattice as well as its teleportation into the surrounding hydrogen envelope is almost certain. On Mon, Dec 26, 2011 at 10:10 AM, David Roberson dlrober...@aol.com wrote: This is an interesting discussion but I have one question. The reference you mentioned suggests that the process of down conversion is extraordinarily inefficient and that the probability of a gamma being down converted is virtually nil. Did I misunderstand this for some reason? Is the process much more efficient for high energy photons? Dave -Original Message- From: Axil Axil janap...@gmail.com To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Mon, Dec 26, 2011 3:47 am Subject: [Vo]:Spontaneous parametric down-conversion (SPDC) Some insights from quantum mechanics… Spontaneous parametric down-conversion Reference: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spontaneous_parametric_down-conversion The rule that comes out of this quantum mechanical process is that energy is shared approximately equally between N entangled particles with each entangled particle getting 1/N amount of the energy. The originating frequency of the nuclear radiation is also shared between the N particles and is therefore divided approximately equally between the N particles and is therefore also divided in its calculation by 1/N. Spontaneous parametric down-conversion (SPDC) is an important process in quantum optics, used especially as a source of entangled photon pairs, and of single photons. In quantum optics, when energy is shared between two entangled particles with one particle being excited and the other standing off at a distance, that energy is not equally divided into 1/2 the energy of the original excited particle. Energy is conserved though, and the division is *very* close to equal. When entangled particles share energy from a nuclear reaction, that energy emerges from the nuclear reaction, but the photons come out slightly off axis. The actual variation in this angle is, to a small extent, a measure of the variation of the energy/wavelength of the photon stream. To say it another way: what is collected and used in experiments is extremely close to equal, but there is a dispersion of particles which are not collected which is less close to equal. Rserence: http://people.whitman.edu/~beckmk/QM/grangier/Thorn_ajp.pdf See equations 15 and 16 in the reference. The above consideration explains how the lattice does not melt after a cold fusion nuclear reaction and there is no gamma rays that emanate from a cold fusion nuclear reaction involving N entangled particles. More specifically, those entangled particles are one or more entangled copper pairs of protons configured in an entangle proton ensemble comprising N protons.
Re: [Vo]:We have FPE cells
On Mon, Dec 26, 2011 at 12:56 AM, Aussie Guy E-Cat aussieguy.e...@gmail.com wrote: I take you do not read what I have written on this subject? I try but sometimes my email client hiccups. Last I remember, you had sealed a deal with Rossi and getting a whatever-watt plant was just around the corner and an absolute certainty. You were going to provide the container and generators. I forgot who was assembling it all but it doesn't matter. Now, you're apparently waiting for specifications of some machine to be delivered in the indefinite future. This is progress? As for the PFE cells, if they make 5 watts from 1 watt or even 1 watt from 200 mW, then there has to be some way to make them self-running for as long as the fuel lasts by recycling output power to the input. And given it's nuclear, the fuel should last a long time and yield a huge amount of energy. Want respect, not mention tons of fame and fortune? Close the loop and make them self running except for (rare) refueling. You'd be the first. That's for sure.
Re: [Vo]:We have FPE cells
Here's what Rossi wrote today (good old Rossi -- always worth a laugh): 1. Andrea Rossi December 26th, 2011 at 11:39 AMhttp://www.journal-of-nuclear-physics.com/?p=563cpage=7#comment-157154 Dear Francesco Fiorenzani: I hope within 2012. We must have a production of 1 million pieces immediately, to put the price at a level to reach these strategic targets: 1- allow everybody to buy it 2- kill the competition Warm Regards, A.R. Surely, there's something in that million pieces for Aussie Guy. Also, by the time ICCF-17 in Korea rolls around next August, I'm sure both Rossi and Defkalion will show robustly and continuously working polished production/agency-approved and licensed machines, right? And credible independently acquired evidence that they work as advertised, right? Because if not, what *possible* excuse could there be by then? What lame rationalizations will be made? Will all the customers still be anonymous for all the million pieces that will be sold? Given what Rossi has said and done thus far, It wouldn't surprise me!
Re: [Vo]:We have FPE cells
MaryYugo Wrote: Want respect, not mention tons of fame and fortune? Close the loop and make them self running except for (rare) refueling. You'd be the first. That's for sure. I wonder why the people AG bought the gadgets from did not close the loop, or why the high school students who made something amazing (supposedly) did not close the loop. Nobody ever closes the loop.
[Vo]:US DoE believes in LENR after all?
Hello group, Have a read at this. I can't tell whether these emails are to be trusted or not (personally I believe they're authentic), but it appears that some individuals in the US Department of Energy believe that LENRs are possible, after all. Might this be a good thing? McKubre recently said that the reason why researchers like him can work on LENR devices is that the DoE doesn't believe that they can possibly work. But what they change their idea on this matter? This is the website where this story originated, to my knowledge: http://e-catsite.com/2011/12/26/more-helpful-e-mails-from-the-doe/ Cheers, S.A.
Re: [Vo]:We have FPE cells
On 2011-12-26 19:23, Mary Yugo wrote: Want respect, not mention tons of fame and fortune? Close the loop and make them self running except for (rare) refueling. You'd be the first. That's for sure. With a small thermal excess power it's not trivial to close the loop in my opinion. It would be better to work on accurate (but not overly complex) calorimetry and to find clear evidence that nuclear reactions are occurring. Cheers, S.A.
Re: [Vo]:Spontaneous parametric down-conversion (SPDC)
Perhaps the same entanglement is responsible for the fusion such that if a seemingly low probability fusion event occurs under these circumstances then the down conversion will also occur? Two different facets of the same environmental cause? Fran Axil Axil Mon, 26 Dec 2011 08:33:20 -0800 In Spontaneous parametric down-conversion (SPDC) as a process in quantum optics, a nonlinear crystal is used to split photons into pairs of other photons. The efficiency of that process is proportional to the amount of quantum mechanical entanglement that is produced by the incident laser on the nonlinear crystal lattice used to split photons into pairs of photons. The frequency at which this entanglement is produced is low as a funtion of the number of photons that are contained in the incident UV laser beam. On the other hand, we known from the copper isotopes that are produced as ash in the Rossi reactor, thanks to the analysis of both DR, Kim and Horace Heffner, almost all cold fusion nuclear reactions involve the fusion of entangled cooper pairs of protons in the nucleus of nickel atoms. So in the case of the Rossi reaction, the probability of entanglement is very high. Therefore the probability of power and frequency splitting of the radiation produced by the cold fusion nuclear reactions in the nickel lattice as well as its teleportation into the surrounding hydrogen envelope is almost certain.
Re: [Vo]:We have FPE cells
On Mon, Dec 26, 2011 at 10:51 AM, Akira Shirakawa shirakawa.ak...@gmail.com wrote: With a small thermal excess power it's not trivial to close the loop in my opinion. Agreed it's not trivial. But I was addressing Aussie Guy who said his devices have a COP of 5 in the range of watts and that they are B grade at that! With a power level measured in watts, and a COP of 5, it should be possible, especially using a grade A device (LOL) to close the loop. Look what's been done with miniaturized Sterling engines, micro motors and generators, and all sorts of other tiny devices. And any strong advocate of cold fusion would want to close the loop more than anything else. It would IMMEDIATELY give the field irrefutable proof of cold fusion (if you ran long enough) because there is no other way to explain away the phenomenon -- none whatever. It would be better to work on accurate (but not overly complex) calorimetry and to find clear evidence that nuclear reactions are occurring. Why not work on both? But at the moment, Aussie Guy has given no clearly defined specifications at all for his grade B PFE devices and their performance other than COP5 and power output in the watts range. That tends to make the story unclear if not suspicious. He can fix at least that part of it easily and at no risk of revealing trade secrets. Let's see if he gives some specifications and maybe from those we can judge how difficult closing the loop may be. So, AG, what's the input power and how is it supplied (in what form and from what)? What's the output power and how was it measured? You did get those data, right? Before you made the claims?
RE: [Vo]:We have FPE cells
MaryYugo Wrote: Want respect, not mention tons of fame and fortune? Close the loop and make them self running except for (rare) refueling. You'd be the first. That's for sure. I wonder why the people AG bought the gadgets from did not close the loop, or why the high school students who made something amazing (supposedly) did not close the loop. Nobody ever closes the loop. I think the majority of the Vort Collective understands the fact that Vorl and MY believe most CF/LENR claims are nothing more than horse manure. I wonder why Vorl simply doesn't state for the record that the inability of high school student to close the loop apparently causes him to doubt CF claims. Maybe if he had done so... But alas, it does not appear to me that Vorl is actually interested in educating himself. Instead, it would seem that Vorl would prefer to express his convictions in the form of an astonishing revelation. It would seem that Vorl is hoping his astonishing revelation will cause gullible CF believers to ponder the folly of their inability to think rationally. For 2012 I think another one of my insignificant little resolutions will be to place Vorl in my kill file, along with the rest of the sarcastic posters, like MY, who really haven't had all that much to contribute in a long while. By all means, feel free to return the favor. Regards, Steven Vincent Johnson www.OrionWorks.com www.zazzle.com/orionworks
Re: [Vo]:US DoE believes in LENR after all?
On Mon, Dec 26, 2011 at 10:48 AM, Akira Shirakawa shirakawa.ak...@gmail.com wrote: Hello group, Have a read at this. I can't tell whether these emails are to be trusted or not (personally I believe they're authentic), but it appears that some individuals in the US Department of Energy believe that LENRs are possible, after all. Might this be a good thing? McKubre recently said that the reason why researchers like him can work on LENR devices is that the DoE doesn't believe that they can possibly work. But what they change their idea on this matter? This is the website where this story originated, to my knowledge: http://e-catsite.com/2011/12/26/more-helpful-e-mails-from-the-doe/ The email, if genuine, suggests that DOE is going to let Rossi's scheme and presumably Defkalion's, whatever those are, play out before making more decisions. Would it not be true that if Rossi and/or Defkalion are at all truthful, then the whole issue of LENR research is moot? Won't it bloom rapidly, without DOE support, if that's proven to be the case? And if they're not, won't all the credulousness exhibited in the support they've been shown hurt the field?
Re: [Vo]:We have FPE cells
On Mon, Dec 26, 2011 at 11:53 AM, OrionWorks - Steven Vincent Johnson orionwo...@charter.net wrote: Nobody ever closes the loop. I think the majority of the Vort Collective understands the fact that Vorl and MY believe most CF/LENR claims are nothing more than horse manure. I wonder why Vorl simply doesn't state for the record that the inability of high school student to close the loop apparently causes him to doubt CF claims. Maybe if he had done so... But alas, it does not appear to me that Vorl is actually interested in educating himself. Instead, it would seem that Vorl would prefer to express his convictions in the form of an astonishing revelation. It would seem that Vorl is hoping his astonishing revelation will cause gullible CF believers to ponder the folly of their inability to think rationally. ** ** For 2012 I think another one of my insignificant little resolutions will be to place Vorl in my kill file, along with the rest of the sarcastic posters, like MY, who really haven't had all that much to contribute in a long while. And this sort of post contributes? Using high school student is an old trick of scammers like Bedini and his school girl magnetic motor made from a bicycle wheel, which of course does not work, no matter who makes it. That doesn't mean the research from the high school students was not valid. But it suggests that whatever they did, someone could do vastly more. Try responding to a real argument: if the claim, as Aussie Guy made it, is for a device with a COP of 5 over an input measured in watts, then why not close the loop? What COP would you need? 10? 100? what? Defkalion, by the way, claims 35x.
Re: [Vo]:Energy teleportation in an entangled system.
Good information. Thanks for posting. Possibly relevant to LENR, but too complicated to be sure. Masahiro Hotta has other papers on this at -- http://arxiv.org/find/grp_physics/1/AND+au:+Hotta_Masahiro+abs:+energy/0/1/0/all/0/1 His more recent paper -- Quantum Energy Teleportation: An Introductory Review http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/arxiv/pdf/1101/1101.3954v1.pdf -- is less terse, and looks more readable. This related paper (by different authors) may be of interest -- Undetectable quantum transfer through a continuum http://arxiv.org/abs/1106.2901 Energy teleportation in an entangled system. The following references explains that the extreame amount of nuclear energy derived from the cold fusion of a cooper pair of protons into the nickel nucleus is teleported far from the nickel lattice and widely dispersed in the hydrogen envelope of the Ni/H reactor. See the following for an overview Physicist proposes method to teleport energy http://www.physorg.com/news184597481.html See the following for the math: Energy Entanglement Relation for Quantum Energy Teleportation http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/arxiv/pdf/1002/1002.0200v2.pdf
Re: [Vo]:We have FPE cells
On 11-12-26 01:51 PM, Akira Shirakawa wrote: On 2011-12-26 19:23, Mary Yugo wrote: Want respect, not mention tons of fame and fortune? Close the loop and make them self running except for (rare) refueling. You'd be the first. That's for sure. With a small thermal excess power it's not trivial to close the loop in my opinion. It would be better to work on accurate (but not overly complex) calorimetry and to find clear evidence that nuclear reactions are occurring. The problem all along has been that wet CF cells produce low grade heat: The output is only slightly warmer than the input. Consequently it's almost impossible to do anything useful with it, including close the loop. Wikipedia gives the Carnot efficiency of a heat engine as 1 - (Tc /Th). If the temp rise in the cell which is attributable to the PF Effect is no more than ten degrees (which is probably typical of wet CF cells), then we're looking at a Carnot efficiency of roughly 1 - (283/273), or about 3.5 percent. So, a COP much below 30 will not get you in the door if you want to self power such a cell. A COP of 5 makes such a cell worthless, save as a curiosity. Note that you can heat the whole system up by pumping in more energy, which might seem like a way to get the Carnot efficiency up: Use a room temperature bath as your cold reservoir and heat the cell up to boiling. Such a strategy tends to be self defeating, though, because all the extra energy you need to put in to heat the cell far above ambient sends your COP into the bucket. (This is, of course, one reason Rossi's gadget is such a big noise: It supposedly produces high grade heat, which is easy to use for stuff.)
Re: [Vo]:We have FPE cells
Vorl Bek vorl@antichef.com wrote: Nobody ever closes the loop. That is incorrect. Many people have closed the loop, starting with Fleischmann and Pons. In cold fusion jargon, closing the loop is called running in heat after death mode. Fleischmann once called it fully ignited, borrowing the term from the plasma fusion scientists. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:We have FPE cells
On Mon, Dec 26, 2011 at 12:10 PM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.comwrote: Vorl Bek vorl@antichef.com wrote: Nobody ever closes the loop. That is incorrect. Many people have closed the loop, starting with Fleischmann and Pons. In cold fusion jargon, closing the loop is called running in heat after death mode. Fleischmann once called it fully ignited, borrowing the term from the plasma fusion scientists. Are you saying the cell runs in that mode indefinitely and at a level which totally rules out (hopefully by several orders of magnitude) anything other than a nuclear effect? If so, that's a paper I'd like to read and a demo I'd like to see. If it won't run indefinitely or at least long enough so that one can calculate the nuclear fuel has been exhausted or largely used up, then it's probably not what I mean by a closed loop.
Re: [Vo]:We have FPE cells
Vorl Bek vorl@antichef.com wrote: Nobody ever closes the loop. That is incorrect. Many people have closed the loop, starting with Fleischmann and Pons. In cold fusion jargon, closing the loop is called running in heat after death mode. Fleischmann once called it fully ignited, borrowing the term from the plasma fusion scientists. Why didn't FP, and all the other people who closed the loop, arrange demos, public or private, to interest investors? After 22 years, and all those loop-closing experiments, why do we still not have a Mr. Fusion water heater?
Re: [Vo]:We have FPE cells
On 11-12-26 02:57 PM, Mary Yugo wrote: Try responding to a real argument: if the claim, as Aussie Guy made it, is for a device with a COP of 5 over an input measured in watts, then why not close the loop? What COP would you need? 10? 100? what? Defkalion, by the way, claims 35x. As I said elsewhere, it depends on the temperature rise in the cell caused by the PF effect. Depending on how hot the cell operates, a reasonable estimate might be a COP of 30 to make it theoretically possible to close the loop. That's based on a guess that the PF effect warms the cell by 10 degrees C. In practice the requirement to close the loop with a wet CF cell is likely to be more stringent than that. Wet CF cells seem to me to be unlikely to ever be good for anything practical, regardless of how real the effect is, due to the poor quality of the heat produced. The gas phase cells, such as the alleged Rossi Roarer, seem to me to be much more likely to eventually evolve into something useful (likelihood that Rossi's a fraud aside). Defkalion's cells, though they may be made of smoke and mirrors, run sufficiently hot and with a sufficiently high COP to make closing the loop seem feasible. (Since they've never demonstrated anything, it's quite possible that they've already closed the loop, and drive their control hardware using heat from the reaction. After all, we haven't seen their cells in action, so we have no reason to think they don't!)
Re: [Vo]:We have FPE cells
On Mon, Dec 26, 2011 at 12:22 PM, Stephen A. Lawrence sa...@pobox.comwrote: On 11-12-26 02:57 PM, Mary Yugo wrote: Try responding to a real argument: if the claim, as Aussie Guy made it, is for a device with a COP of 5 over an input measured in watts, then why not close the loop? What COP would you need? 10? 100? what? Defkalion, by the way, claims 35x. As I said elsewhere, it depends on the temperature rise in the cell caused by the PF effect. Depending on how hot the cell operates, a reasonable estimate might be a COP of 30 to make it theoretically possible to close the loop. That's based on a guess that the PF effect warms the cell by 10 degrees C. In practice the requirement to close the loop with a wet CF cell is likely to be more stringent than that. I understand but, not to drive this into the ground, why is it necessarily so? Is there nothing you can do to such a cell to get a higher delta T? Larger electrodes? More current? Less coolant flow? Obviously I don't know -- just throwing out some guesses.
Re: [Vo]:We have FPE cells
Mary Yugo maryyu...@gmail.com wrote: In practice the requirement to close the loop with a wet CF cell is likely to be more stringent than that. I understand but, not to drive this into the ground, why is it necessarily so? Is there nothing you can do to such a cell to get a higher delta T? Larger electrodes? More current? Less coolant flow? Obviously I don't know -- just throwing out some guesses. I suggest you stop guessing and read the literature. Cells running heat after death have closed the loop. Apart from them, no laboratory scale device can produce electricity. Anyone who understands heat engines and familiar with the literature can see see why, and why skeptics who demand this are being absurd. The reasons are obvious: the reaction is very small, the water is not pressurized, and the reaction cannot be controlled. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:We have FPE cells
On 11-12-26 03:26 PM, Mary Yugo wrote: On Mon, Dec 26, 2011 at 12:22 PM, Stephen A. Lawrence sa...@pobox.com mailto:sa...@pobox.com wrote: On 11-12-26 02:57 PM, Mary Yugo wrote: Try responding to a real argument: if the claim, as Aussie Guy made it, is for a device with a COP of 5 over an input measured in watts, then why not close the loop? What COP would you need? 10? 100? what? Defkalion, by the way, claims 35x. As I said elsewhere, it depends on the temperature rise in the cell caused by the PF effect. Depending on how hot the cell operates, a reasonable estimate might be a COP of 30 to make it theoretically possible to close the loop. That's based on a guess that the PF effect warms the cell by 10 degrees C. In practice the requirement to close the loop with a wet CF cell is likely to be more stringent than that. I understand but, not to drive this into the ground, why is it necessarily so? Is there nothing you can do to such a cell to get a higher delta T? Larger electrodes? More current? Less coolant flow? Obviously I don't know -- just throwing out some guesses. That's really a different question. The question you first posed was a request to know whether or why not AG was or wasn't going to close the loop with his COP=5 cells, and that's all I was addressing: With COP=5 and a reasonably typical wet CF cell, it's theoretically impossible to close the loop. Hacking the borrowed cells to boost the efficiency is outside the scope of that particular question. Now, to take up your second question, should it be possible to build a wet CF cell which gives enough thermal boost due to the PF effect so that you can get something useful out of it? Jed and Ed Storms have, IIRC, both alleged that it should be possible. You seal the cell and pressurize it, so it can run toasty warm, and you do something nobody's figured out yet with the electrodes to get the reaction rate up really high, and the result is something which makes enough heat to be good for something. Frankly, it seems to me that starting with an electrolysis cell is starting with one foot in a bucket of cement if you want useful energy out, but I haven't run any numbers so the True Believers (as opposed to the so-so believers) will no doubt jump on me for being needlessly negative. (Somewhere along the line this starts looking like the SSPS argument, which I think I first heard back when I was in college: You can run an SSPS at a low enough downlink energy level so that the energy density is less than that of sunlight, and still get lots of power out of a reasonable size antenna farm, so the idea is obviously totally practical. BZZZT! says my intuition, That can't be right! If the energy density is that low, no way you're going to get anything useful out of a practical antenna farm ... and if you can why not replace the rectennas with solar panels and dispense with the satellites ... but all I've ever gotten for that observation is grief from the True Believers.)
Re: [Vo]:We have FPE cells
Stephen A. Lawrence sa...@pobox.com wrote: Now, to take up your second question, should it be possible to build a wet CF cell which gives enough thermal boost due to the PF effect so that you can get something useful out of it? Jed and Ed Storms have, IIRC, both alleged that it should be possible. You seal the cell and pressurize it, so it can run toasty warm, and you do something nobody's figured out yet with the electrodes to get the reaction rate up really high . . . Sure. If you spent a ton of money and did all of this, you could generate electricity and maintain the electrochemical reaction. It would be a pointless tour de force. It would not prove anything that a calorimeter does not prove. I do not know any researchers who would consider doing this. They figure that people who do not believe calorimetry would not believe this demonstration either. They have a good point. If someone revealed a device of this nature, Mary Yugo would surely say it must be fake, with hidden wires. Frankly, it seems to me that starting with an electrolysis cell is starting with one foot in a bucket of cement if you want useful energy out . . . That is a good characterization. I do not know any researchers who thought that a electrolytic bulk-Pd-D2O system could ever be made into a practical source of energy. It is a laboratory tool to explore the phenomenon. It resembles Faraday's first electric generator (a hand-cranked homopolar generator). The skeptics' demand that it be made into a practical device, or a self-sustaining device, is analogous to demanding that Faraday power a railroad engine. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:We have FPE cells
On Mon, Dec 26, 2011 at 12:43 PM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.comwrote: I suggest you stop guessing and read the literature. I suggest you stop referring vaguely to some amorphous literature and answer the question -- see below for a clarification. Cells running heat after death have closed the loop. Apart from them, no laboratory scale device can produce electricity. Apart from them? So the after death cells produce electricity? I don't think you mean that. Heat maybe. But please clarify. If you do mean they make electricity, I'd like to know exactly how much for how long with no input energy-- also the dimensions of the cells. Same question if it's heat -- how much, how long, how measured, how blanked and/or controlled, and what dimensions. Answering such questions clearly and unequivocally shouldn't be difficult if these things really exist. And I will ask again: is there an experiment in which all energy input is discontinued from a cell and it continues to provide heat or electricity (I don't care which) for a VERY LONG PERIOD-- such as weeks or more -- one which is well and properly documented by reliable people and which totally and irrevocably rules out (by proper blanking, controls and measurements) any source of energy OTHER THAN NUCLEAR? It seems to me, if there is, it would be spectacularly important, would have been widely replicated and published in major journals. If you didn't mean that, then say so. Otherwise, please give us a place where we can assure ourselves that there is such a thing and that it does what you claim. If anything about this request is not clear, please ask. Your previous answer was non-responsive in my opinion.
Re: [Vo]:We have FPE cells
On Mon, Dec 26, 2011 at 12:59 PM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.comwrote: hey figure that people who do not believe calorimetry would not believe this demonstration either. They have a good point. If someone revealed a device of this nature, Mary Yugo would surely say it must be fake, with hidden wires. I'd believe almost anything, including most particularly Defkalion and Rossi claims, if they were properly tested, the tests were independently and properly replicated and someone or some organization I trusted did them. As long as Rossi provides the venue, the power, the coolant, the pump and most of the output measuring equipment while refusing to make control runs, it's a strict NO GO. As long as Defkalion sticks to words and blurry photos, that's a complete no go as well. And no further comment is needed about Rossi's anonymous client who supposedly bought ONE THOUSAND THREE HUNDRED identical E-cats for some unstated purpose and won't identify or be interviewed. That is oh... s... convenient. And so not credible! A million E-cats this coming year, Rossi says ? Yah shoore. I apologize for having to state this over and over but Jed keeps saying the same silly claim about what I would say about hidden wires over and over.
RE: [Vo]:Spontaneous parametric down-conversion (SPDC)
Fran: Good point. I think the evidence supports the hypothesis that, *whatever* LENR is, it is not a single event; there are likely several different processes happening depending on what kind of system one has (e.g., electrochemical or gas-phase), and that it may also be a cascade of separate 'reactions'. If this down-conversion is happening, then perhaps the 'chain' in chain-reaction is that one or two of the many resulting separate reactions does indeed trigger another cascade; at least until it hits some unconformity which kills the domino-effect. -mark From: francis [mailto:froarty...@comcast.net] Sent: Monday, December 26, 2011 11:26 AM To: janap...@gmail.com Cc: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: [Vo]:Spontaneous parametric down-conversion (SPDC) Perhaps the same entanglement is responsible for the fusion such that if a seemingly low probability fusion event occurs under these circumstances then the down conversion will also occur? Two different facets of the same environmental cause? Fran Axil Axil Mon, 26 Dec 2011 08:33:20 -0800 In Spontaneous parametric down-conversion (SPDC) as a process in quantum optics, a nonlinear crystal is used to split photons into pairs of other photons. The efficiency of that process is proportional to the amount of quantum mechanical entanglement that is produced by the incident laser on the nonlinear crystal lattice used to split photons into pairs of photons. The frequency at which this entanglement is produced is low as a funtion of the number of photons that are contained in the incident UV laser beam. On the other hand, we known from the copper isotopes that are produced as ash in the Rossi reactor, thanks to the analysis of both DR, Kim and Horace Heffner, almost all cold fusion nuclear reactions involve the fusion of entangled cooper pairs of protons in the nucleus of nickel atoms. So in the case of the Rossi reaction, the probability of entanglement is very high. Therefore the probability of power and frequency splitting of the radiation produced by the cold fusion nuclear reactions in the nickel lattice as well as its teleportation into the surrounding hydrogen envelope is almost certain.
Re: [Vo]:We have FPE cells
Mary Yugo maryyu...@gmail.com wrote: I suggest you stop guessing and read the literature. I suggest you stop referring vaguely to some amorphous literature and answer the question . . . No can do. I learned years ago there is no point to spoon feeding information to skeptics. First they misunderstand. Then they demand more and more. You will have do your own homework. Apart from them? So the after death cells produce electricity? I rest my case. You can't be serious. And I will ask again: is there an experiment in which all energy input is discontinued from a cell and it continues to provide heat or electricity (I don't care which) for a VERY LONG PERIOD-- such as weeks or more -- one which is well and properly documented by reliable people . . . If I tell you they went for hours, you will say they should have gone for days. If I say they went for days, you demand weeks. You will move the goal posts to months, then years. This is all nonsense. The only relevant criterion is whether the heat after death reaction exceeds the limits of chemistry. It does, in most cases. For details, read the literature. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:We have FPE cells
Mary Yugo maryyu...@gmail.com wrote: I'd believe almost anything, including most particularly Defkalion and Rossi claims, if they were properly tested, the tests were independently and properly replicated and someone or some organization I trusted did them. No you will not believe almost anything. You believe nothing. These experiments have been replicated at over 180 major labs, independently and properly replicated. You don't believe a single one of them. You have not even bothered to look at most, and the few that you claim you read you say make no sense and are poorly written. Stop pretending you will believe. Stop pretending you will take the time to read papers, or make the effort to understand them. You have had 22 years to learn about this field, but you have learned nothing. The questions you are asking here are idiotic. Anyone who has bothered to read a few papers can see that. You will never bother to learn anything. Don't pretend otherwise. You are a hopelessly bigoted, ignorant naysayer. You never bother to do your own homework. Your attitude was starkly revealed in your response to my statement that doctors who do not wash their hands are infecting many patients. This is common knowledge. It has been reported in the mainstream press and in major medical journals. You can find papers on it U.S., European and Japanese national institutes of health. Yet when I mentioned this, instead of taking a few minutes to learn about it, you lashed out with snide, baseless allegations that this has only been discussed at some whacko website. When I and others showed you mainstream websites discussing this, you contradicted what it says at these websites with the first random unfounded nonsense that popped into your head: The problem is less with doctors and nurses than it is with aides of various types, janitors, food workers, and all the other less educated hospital staff. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:We have FPE cells
On Mon, Dec 26, 2011 at 1:27 PM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com wrote: Mary Yugo maryyu...@gmail.com wrote: I suggest you stop guessing and read the literature. I suggest you stop referring vaguely to some amorphous literature and answer the question . . . No can do. I learned years ago there is no point to spoon feeding information to skeptics. First they misunderstand. Then they demand more and more. You will have do your own homework. If that is the best you can do, and if you are one of the best known authorities in cold fusion/LENR, I am starting to understand why it is so difficult to get funding for more research. In case it slipped your mind, it's those who make the claims who have to support them. Do your own homework usually means the person saying it has no clue where to find the accurate and appropriate information or that such information doesn't exist or, at the very least, is not clear or not accepted as accurate by the scientific community. Apart from them? So the after death cells produce electricity? I rest my case. You can't be serious. Reread what you wrote. It implies the cells produce electricity. Here's the quote: Cells running heat after death have closed the loop. Apart from them, no laboratory scale device can produce electricity.The implication is clear. The cells can produce electricity. If that isn't what you meant, just say so. I even tried to help you correct it! Geez. Of course, I'm serious. Read what you wrote, man! And I will ask again: is there an experiment in which all energy input is discontinued from a cell and it continues to provide heat or electricity (I don't care which) for a VERY LONG PERIOD-- such as weeks or more -- one which is well and properly documented by reliable people . . . If I tell you they went for hours, you will say they should have gone for days. If I say they went for days, you demand weeks. You will move the goal posts to months, then years. This is all nonsense. The only relevant criterion is whether the heat after death reaction exceeds the limits of chemistry. It does, in most cases. For details, read the literature. It must do more than barely exceed the limits of chemistry, what ever exactly that is. It must be a properly performed and controlled/blanked/calibrated experiment. If it's a nuclear power source, why would it not exceed chemistry by orders of magnitude? What stops it from so doing? Why would you believe it's nuclear if it doesn't vastly exceed chemical limits? It seems to me it's questions like this and responses like Jed's which make it impossible to get funding. And Krivit's allegations of persistent fraud, if they get much traction, don't help either. It seems to me the CF/LENR community must do much better than it is if what Jed just wrote is an example of how it reacts to reasonable questions. With Rossi and Defkalion truly acting and writing like clowns, it's not hard to see why there is no major press coverage or much of anything else going on, a full year after the original announcement and hoopla. And Aussie Guy's extravagant writing and claims, followed by what amounts to backing down on them, doesn't help either. This stuff gets less credible and more fanciful every day.
Re: [Vo]:Mathematical modeling versus a blacksmith
On Sat, Dec 24, 2011 at 3:13 PM, David Roberson dlrober...@aol.com wrote: OK, I will wait further for the information. It is pretty important to me to determine if it is at all possible for enough energy to be stored and then released to achieve Rossi's results. A good model such as your friends would help immensely. You need to understand that it might become apparent that his model is not accurate since many vorts have the belief that Rossi's results are sound, but I will accept his conclusion if it passes my very difficult tests. My present feelings are that his model will fall short, but he can convince me otherwise. Sorry but I think my acquaintance doesn't wish to play with this any more. Maybe if Rossi does another show and tell, he'll get involved again -- I'll certainly ask him to if it seems indicated. Thanks for being a good sport about it. It's a ways away but looking forward to ICCF 17, we should know a lot more by then. If nothing is available to industry and the general public by then, and Rossi and Defkalion don't make an excellent showing at the meeting, it's probably all been fake.
Re: [Vo]:We have FPE cells
On Dec 26, 2011, at 16:57, Mary Yugo maryyu...@gmail.com wrote: With Rossi and Defkalion truly acting and writing like clowns, it's not hard to see why there is no major press coverage or much of anything else going on, a full year after the original announcement and hoopla. And Aussie Guy's extravagant writing and claims, followed by what amounts to backing down on them, doesn't help either. This stuff gets less credible and more fanciful every day. What, you don't believe in these cells that reliably produce heat, built by a secret research team unknown to this list and without any relation to anything in Jed's encyclopedic library, tested by a company flush in cash but that must remain anonymous? Geez, what will it take to convince you of anything?
Re: [Vo]:We have FPE cells
Mary Yugo maryyu...@gmail.com wrote: Cells running heat after death have closed the loop. Apart from them, no laboratory scale device can produce electricity.The implication is clear. The cells can produce electricity. If that isn't what you meant, just say so. Obviously I mean they produce heat in self sustaining mode. You have read nothing and you know nothing so you failed to understand that. You also fail to understand what anyone with elementary knowledge will know: any device which produces heat can be used to produce electricity with thermoelectric devices. Arata ran a small motor with one heated by a self-sustaining gas-loaded cell. All Seebeck calorimeters produce electricity, so any self-sustaining device inside of one is acting as electric generator, roughly on the scale of the plutonium-powered pacemakers of the 1970s. (Before you lash out with snide comments about how plutonium-powered pacemakers never existed, I suggest you look them up.) - Jed
Re: [Vo]:We have FPE cells
On Mon, Dec 26, 2011 at 2:16 PM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com wrote: Arata ran a small motor with one heated by a self-sustaining gas-loaded cell. Cool! Did anyone verify this or replicate it? And how long did it run and at what output level? Why is it that specific questions as to power output and duration are, to some cold fusion advocates, like sunshine to vampires? It's sort of reminiscent of Rossi typically rushing to shut down his demonstrations for dinner or whatever after only a few hours of operation ... and of Aussie Guy bowing out of providing data on his B level cells after saying qualitatively how fantasmagoric they were. It's so discouraging and prevalent a phenomenon that I am thinking of naming it. Maybe Cold Fusion Evasion.
Re: [Vo]:We have FPE cells
We need to generate electricity. To do that we need more than 120 deg C steam. So we wait for the high temp thermal oil E-Cat. The fame belongs to FP. I'm nothing more than a system integrator. As for closing the loop with a thermal FPE device, you do understand the Carnot cycle? If not, please review: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carnot_cycle and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heat_Engine#Efficiency What you suggest is not possible with a simple low temperature lab cell. With a FPE device that can generate 450 deg C steam, it is possible to Close the Loop. In fact it will be required of any FPE electricity generation system. All thermal fossil and nuclear electricity generation plants run Closed Loop. I expect Rossi to show this very soon. AG On 12/27/2011 4:53 AM, Mary Yugo wrote: On Mon, Dec 26, 2011 at 12:56 AM, Aussie Guy E-Cat aussieguy.e...@gmail.com mailto:aussieguy.e...@gmail.com wrote: I take you do not read what I have written on this subject? I try but sometimes my email client hiccups. Last I remember, you had sealed a deal with Rossi and getting a whatever-watt plant was just around the corner and an absolute certainty. You were going to provide the container and generators. I forgot who was assembling it all but it doesn't matter. Now, you're apparently waiting for specifications of some machine to be delivered in the indefinite future. This is progress? As for the PFE cells, if they make 5 watts from 1 watt or even 1 watt from 200 mW, then there has to be some way to make them self-running for as long as the fuel lasts by recycling output power to the input. And given it's nuclear, the fuel should last a long time and yield a huge amount of energy. Want respect, not mention tons of fame and fortune? Close the loop and make them self running except for (rare) refueling. You'd be the first. That's for sure.
Re: [Vo]:We have FPE cells
Mary Yugo maryyu...@gmail.com wrote: It must do more than barely exceed the limits of chemistry, what ever exactly that is. The first report in the literature showed it exceeding the limits by a factor of 1,700. That's not barely; that is a lot. Like a person pole vaulting 10 km high. If you do not understand what exactly the limits of chemical reactions are, you are not capable of understanding cold fusion. That is the most important concept in the field. It is the starting point. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:We have FPE cells
I know he is very busy. I see getting the NI control system working very well is his current priority. I agree with that. I do know electricity generation is a high priority. He needs to show this before Defkalion does. The first to show electricity generation from their device will gain high ground, secure a place in history and have a very full order book as then almost ALL the doubts are gone. What will remain are operational questions such as MTBF, MTTR, LCOE, etc. AG On 12/27/2011 1:47 AM, OrionWorks - Steven Vincent Johnson wrote: Hi Aussie, I expect what Rossi will offer us is a complete package, including the 330 Ac kW gen set, all tied up with a nicely integrated NI thermal kW and Ac kW control system. That would be nice. When Rossi is ready to offer the system to us, we are ready to evaluate his offering. Do you have a best guestimate as to when you think Rossi might get around to delivering the goods? Regards, Steven Vincent Johnson www.OrionWorks.com www.zazzle.com/orionworks
[Vo]:US DOE alters it's stance on LENR and Rossi?
http://ecatnews.com/?p=1717
Re: [Vo]:US DOE alters it's stance on LENR and Rossi?
Better link: http://e-catsite.com/2011/12/26/more-helpful-e-mails-from-the-doe/ AG On 12/27/2011 9:19 AM, Aussie Guy E-Cat wrote: http://ecatnews.com/?p=1717
RE: [Vo]:We have FPE cells
MaryYugo asks: Why is it that specific questions as to power output and duration are, to some cold fusion advocates, like sunshine to vampires? And Mary, the same could be said for your ANONYMOUS modeler. When asked in a very polite, respectful manner some specific questions by Dave Roberson, YOUR ANONYMOUS 'modeler' responded with, Sorry but I think my acquaintance doesn't wish to play with this any more. So it's ok for your side to avoid answering when the questions get tough? Sorry, NO GO. What's good for the goose is good for the gander. Please do the Collective a favor and take your anonymous, repetitious and hypocritical arrogance elsewhere; same goes for your chickensh*t 'acquaintance'. -Mark == On Sat, Dec 24, 2011 at 2:35 PM, David Roberson dlrober...@aol.com wrote: Mary, it is quite unfortunate that he does not want to share additional information concerning his model. This is just the sort of model that is needed to determine whether or not it is possible to replicate Rossi results with heat storage. I am trying to keep an open mind as much as possible in this case and really would like to proceed with more details. Please discuss this with the guy and let me know if he really wants to find the truth. I can only assume that he is hiding something if he runs like this when asked probing questions. I have many more items to compare. It might be possible that I am reading your friends output in an erroneous manner. I thought that he had a direct model of the temperature at T2 just as with the real ECAT. Why would we not compare these two curves if they are available? This is more like comparing apples with apples versus some other parameter. Does he in fact calculate the water temperature or did I miss something? By the way, it is nonsense to suggest that this is like showing that Santa does not exist. I am maintaining an open mind regarding whether or not Rossi is real in this case and it would be a crime to assume otherwise. I seek the truth only. Dave Hi Dave, After Xmas, I'll approach him to see if he wants to continue. I doubt he has anything to hide but he's busy and Rossi to him is just a diversion. I'm pretty sure he does calculate the output water temperature. I will look again later at the curves and ask him about it. I have also suggested to him to get his own anonymous email and to interact directly. The Santa reference doesn't refer to you or to anyone else who has an open mind and includes in their thinking the substantial probability that Rossi does not have what he claims and that his experiments were in some way deceptive. I suspect it's about people who write like Jed and AussieGuy but then, it wasn't my analogy so I really don't know. Merry Xmas. M. Y.
Re: [Vo]:US DOE alters it's stance on LENR and Rossi?
On Mon, Dec 26, 2011 at 2:52 PM, Aussie Guy E-Cat aussieguy.e...@gmail.comwrote: Better link: http://e-catsite.com/2011/12/26/more-helpful-e-mails-from-the-doe/ An email to Mr. X? Hah! Now we know who Rossi's anonymous buyer is. It's none other than Mr. X!!
Re: [Vo]:We have FPE cells
On Mon, Dec 26, 2011 at 3:03 PM, Mark Iverson-ZeroPoint zeropo...@charter.net wrote: MaryYugo asks: “Why is it that specific questions as to power output and duration are, to some cold fusion advocates, like sunshine to vampires?” ** ** And Mary, the same could be said for your ANONYMOUS modeler. When asked in a very polite, respectful manner some specific questions by Dave Roberson, YOUR ANONYMOUS ‘modeler’ responded with, “Sorry but I think my acquaintance doesn't wish to play with this any more.” ** ** So it’s ok for your side to avoid answering when the questions get tough? Sorry, NO GO. What’s good for the goose is good for the gander… ** ** Please do the Collective a favor and take your anonymous, repetitious and hypocritical arrogance elsewhere; same goes for your chickensh*t ‘acquaintance’. My acquaintance (who, in reality, I only know as an Internet identity) replied to three or four of Dave's inquiries in meticulous detail. After that, he may have felt that Dave was not following his argument. I don't know for sure and I have no opinion on that -- I wish and would have preferred it if he had made the assumptions underlying the model, the identity of the software, and the parameters of the simulation more clear but I'm not him. I don't control him. My opinion on the modeling is that it's probably good enough to cast a doubt on the Rossi and Lewan data of October 6 -- a doubt which is so easily resolved in the real world by a proper experimental design and a second much longer experiment, that the model itself is not worth arguing at length about. BTW, that is also what NASA officially wrote about the event specifically and about Rossi in general (as quoted by Krivit). My informant's reluctance is no justification or excuse for Jed's failure to supply proper citations for his, as usual, exorbitant and florid claims about life after death cells that run but we seem never to know how long or making how much power, how it was verified and independently replicated.It's also no excuse for Aussie Guy's claims which make it seem as if everything with Rossi and him is a done deal and all of it is happening soon -- until he reveals there is no contract, no delivery date, and no deal at all. Maybe Aussie should become an anonymous client to get a better delivery position? Rossi seems to prefer that type of customer. As for the rest of your remarks, I am very tempted to reply as rudely as you but out of respect for the others, I will resist the impulse, with some difficulty.
Re: [Vo]:US DOE alters it's stance on LENR and Rossi?
What no comment on this: My change of mind was a direct result of talking with Dr. Dennis Bushnell, the Chief Scientist for NASA Langley who has assured me that over 100 experiments worldwide indicate that LENR is real, capable of producing energy much greater that chemical reactions, with minimal radiation AG On 12/27/2011 9:34 AM, Mary Yugo wrote: On Mon, Dec 26, 2011 at 2:52 PM, Aussie Guy E-Cat aussieguy.e...@gmail.com mailto:aussieguy.e...@gmail.com wrote: Better link: http://e-catsite.com/2011/12/26/more-helpful-e-mails-from-the-doe/ An email to Mr. X? Hah! Now we know who Rossi's anonymous buyer is. It's none other than Mr. X!!
Re: [Vo]:Spontaneous parametric down-conversion (SPDC)
I think that the frequency of the outgoing down-converted photons will remain the same whether the incoming high frequency photon is absorbed by one atom or collectively by N-atoms. A coherent multi-atom absorption will create a Schroedinger-Cat-like state of one excited atom and (N-1) ground state atoms, which should still radiate at the same lower frequencies. However, multi-atom absorption could result in strong variation in emitted intensity bursts (superradiance). But, maybe there's more to it than that. Some anomalous down-conversion of gamma-rays were reported in the 1930s. I do not know whether they have been explained since then. If interested, the papers are at: The Nature of the Interaction between Gamma-Radiation and the Atomic Nucleus http://rspa.royalsocietypublishing.org/content/136/830/662.full.pdf+html Phenomena Associated with the Anomalous Absorption of High Energy Gamma Radiation. II http://rspa.royalsocietypublishing.org/content/143/850/681.full.pdf+html Phenomena Associated with the Anomalous Absorption of High Energy Gamma Radiation. III http://rspa.royalsocietypublishing.org/content/143/850/706.full.pdf+html Some insights from quantum mechanics Spontaneous parametric down-conversion Reference: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spontaneous_parametric_down-conversion The rule that comes out of this quantum mechanical process is that energy is shared approximately equally between N entangled particles with each entangled particle getting 1/N amount of the energy. The originating frequency of the nuclear radiation is also shared between the N particles and is therefore divided approximately equally between the N particles and is therefore also divided in its calculation by 1/N. Spontaneous parametric down-conversion (SPDC) is an important process in quantum optics, used especially as a source of entangled photon pairs, and of single photons. [...]
Re: [Vo]:US DOE alters it's stance on LENR and Rossi?
On Mon, Dec 26, 2011 at 3:19 PM, Aussie Guy E-Cat aussieguy.e...@gmail.comwrote: What no comment on this: My change of mind was a direct result of talking with Dr. Dennis Bushnell, the Chief Scientist for NASA Langley who has assured me that over 100 experiments worldwide indicate that LENR is real, capable of producing energy much greater that chemical reactions, with minimal radiation I'd be happy to comment after Mr. Opdenaker confirms he wrote it and allows questions. At the moment, it's nothing but an unverified email exchange with a Mr.X, an unidentified party, on a weird believer-oriented web site full of silly comments from obviously ignorant participants. It's also a web site whose owner is unknown. I will say immediately that Dr. Bushnell is entitled to his opinion but until he shown the most spectacular experiments and answers the critiques to them, believing anything because he says so is simply an appeal to authority logical fallacy. Far as I know, Dr. Bushnell has not repeated and independently confirmed any of the experiments. If he had, and had done so properly, his opinion, if the quote is accurate, would be worthy of more consideration. Meanwhile, I'd think you'd want to put pressure on Defkalion and Rossi to get independent testing. Defkalion seems to keep promising it without producing it while Rossi keeps prattling about anonymous customers and a million E-cats to the public this coming year when nobody EVER has been able to prove they got a SINGLE E-cat.
RE: [Vo]:We have FPE cells
This pretty much sums it up. If there is anything I have learned from the pathoskeps over the past year is that intellectual and well-reasoned arguments are not really necessary to get your point across, and that annoying repetition can be effective. -m
Re: [Vo]:US DOE alters it's stance on LENR and Rossi?
Why not call Mr. Opdenaker to confirm? His phone number and email are listed. I find it amazing how easily you put down Dr. Bushnell, casting aside his statement as if it has no value? MY if you were really after the truth, you could have seen a working FPE device by now. AG On 12/27/2011 9:57 AM, Mary Yugo wrote: On Mon, Dec 26, 2011 at 3:19 PM, Aussie Guy E-Cat aussieguy.e...@gmail.com mailto:aussieguy.e...@gmail.com wrote: What no comment on this: My change of mind was a direct result of talking with Dr. Dennis Bushnell, the Chief Scientist for NASA Langley who has assured me that over 100 experiments worldwide indicate that LENR is real, capable of producing energy much greater that chemical reactions, with minimal radiation I'd be happy to comment after Mr. Opdenaker confirms he wrote it and allows questions. At the moment, it's nothing but an unverified email exchange with a Mr.X, an unidentified party, on a weird believer-oriented web site full of silly comments from obviously ignorant participants. It's also a web site whose owner is unknown. I will say immediately that Dr. Bushnell is entitled to his opinion but until he shown the most spectacular experiments and answers the critiques to them, believing anything because he says so is simply an appeal to authority logical fallacy. Far as I know, Dr. Bushnell has not repeated and independently confirmed any of the experiments. If he had, and had done so properly, his opinion, if the quote is accurate, would be worthy of more consideration. Meanwhile, I'd think you'd want to put pressure on Defkalion and Rossi to get independent testing. Defkalion seems to keep promising it without producing it while Rossi keeps prattling about anonymous customers and a million E-cats to the public this coming year when nobody EVER has been able to prove they got a SINGLE E-cat.
Re: [Vo]:We have FPE cells
Your assuming their pay check allows them to change their opinion. MY and others put in so much time that I feel they have a stake in the game and it is not about FPE devices being accepted as real. AG On 12/27/2011 10:00 AM, Mark Iverson-ZeroPoint wrote: This pretty much sums it up… “If there is anything I have learned from the pathoskeps over the past year is that intellectual and well-reasoned arguments are not really necessary to get your point across, and that annoying repetition can be effective.” -m
Re: [Vo]:US DOE alters it's stance on LENR and Rossi?
On Mon, Dec 26, 2011 at 3:35 PM, Aussie Guy E-Cat aussieguy.e...@gmail.comwrote: Why not call Mr. Opdenaker to confirm? His phone number and email are listed. I don't want to pester him by telephone but I am thinking of sending an email. I'd rather someone from the press do it -- perhaps Krivit will.0 BTW, do you think it wise to place an email address openly on the internet where robots/spyders can grab it? I bet he got lots of penis enlargement ads and plenty of offers to open new bank accounts to deposit millions of inheritance dollars from Nigeria.
Re: [Vo]:US DOE alters it's stance on LENR and Rossi?
And here I thought I was the only person to get those. Damn I'm not so special alter all. Oh well time to play with my FPE cell. Did I tell you I have learned how to make it levitate and act like a room temperature superconducting ring magnet? Amazing technology. Now if I can just get the right dial-in code I can unlock the 9th chevron and start mining Naquadah, my fortune is assured. AG On 12/27/2011 10:10 AM, Mary Yugo wrote: I bet he got lots of penis enlargement ads and plenty of offers to open new bank accounts to deposit millions of inheritance dollars from Nigeria.
Re: [Vo]:We have FPE cells
http://i.imgur.com/YdetE.png
Re: [Vo]:We have FPE cells
On Mon, Dec 26, 2011 at 4:12 PM, Mary Yugo maryyu...@gmail.com wrote: http://i.imgur.com/YdetE.png That was a response by Aber0der to this Alsetalokin remark: I'll buy a Mac when you can pour water in one end and make espresso with the steam from the internal iEcat out the other end. Here: http://www.moletrap.co.uk/forum/comments.php?DiscussionID=2715page=1 (a sign on and password may be needed but they're free and readily available for the asking) http://www.moletrap.co.uk/forum/comments.php?DiscussionID=2715page=1
Re: [Vo]:US DoE believes in LENR after all?
Looks like it may have been a fake letter. The original site about the September letter has already taken it down: http://coldfusionnow.wordpress.com/2011/09/20/department-of-energy-policy-continues-to-ignore-http://coldfusionnow.wordpress.com/2011/09/20/department-of-energy-policy-continues-to-ignore-revolutionary-new-energy/%20http:/ revolutionary-new-energy/%20http:/http://coldfusionnow.wordpress.com/2011/09/20/department-of-energy-policy-continues-to-ignore-revolutionary-new-energy/%20http:/ It is also highly unlikely that a DOE public official such as Opdenaker will advocate, even in jest, a statement such as: Perhaps the thing to do is to go out and buy a whole boatload of nickel futures! On Mon, Dec 26, 2011 at 1:48 PM, Akira Shirakawa shirakawa.ak...@gmail.comwrote: .. This is the website where this story originated, to my knowledge: http://e-catsite.com/2011/12/**26/more-helpful-e-mails-from-**the-doe/http://e-catsite.com/2011/12/26/more-helpful-e-mails-from-the-doe/ Cheers, S.A.
Re: [Vo]:US DOE alters it's stance on LENR and Rossi?
AG, I would like to get my hands on one of those levitating FPE devices. My UFO drive needs to be improved since the old one has exhausted its N-H system. Have you had to change a flat when far away from home? Actually, I want to congratulate you for your efforts in this field. We need to have more people that are willing to go the extra mile. Dave -Original Message- From: Aussie Guy E-Cat aussieguy.e...@gmail.com To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Mon, Dec 26, 2011 6:55 pm Subject: Re: [Vo]:US DOE alters it's stance on LENR and Rossi? And here I thought I was the only person to get those. Damn I'm not so pecial alter all. Oh well time to play with my FPE cell. Did I tell you have learned how to make it levitate and act like a room temperature uperconducting ring magnet? Amazing technology. Now if I can just get he right dial-in code I can unlock the 9th chevron and start mining aquadah, my fortune is assured. AG n 12/27/2011 10:10 AM, Mary Yugo wrote: I bet he got lots of penis enlargement ads and plenty of offers to open new bank accounts to deposit millions of inheritance dollars from Nigeria.
Re: [Vo]:We have FPE cells
Mary, I would like very much to work with your acquaintance to see how his model compares to some of the in dept analysis I completed upon the October 6 test data. I totally understand how his model must work and just want to see how it represents some of the fingerprints of LENR that I have found to exist. The most apparent one is the bump in T2 that I was referring to at the time stamp of 16:00 according to his graph. My theory is that a significant amount of LENR energy is released due to the drive waveform shape just prior to that time and I do not see any suggestion of it yet within your friends model. This is one of several important points that need comparison. I would like to have his model to experiment with, but I would not be able to run it at this location. I considered building one with the tools I have here, but felt that I would not be successful. I plead with this gentleman to work with me to help uncover the truth about any excess energy that might be found to arise out of LENR. If none shows up after the correct questions are presented and carefully discussed, I would not hesitate to report those results. It is in all of our interests to reveal the truth and I do not believe in hiding facts. It is hoped that the gentleman will come back to the table and have an honest and open discussion which I think will be productive. Mary, here is an opportunity for you to help me to prove or disprove Rossi's test results. Dave -Original Message- From: Mary Yugo maryyu...@gmail.com To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Mon, Dec 26, 2011 6:19 pm Subject: Re: [Vo]:We have FPE cells On Mon, Dec 26, 2011 at 3:03 PM, Mark Iverson-ZeroPoint zeropo...@charter.net wrote: MaryYugo asks: “Why is it that specific questions as to power output and duration are, to some cold fusion advocates, like sunshine to vampires?” And Mary, the same could be said for your ANONYMOUS modeler. When asked in a very polite, respectful manner some specific questions by Dave Roberson, YOUR ANONYMOUS ‘modeler’ responded with, “Sorry but I think my acquaintance doesn't wish to play with this any more.” So it’s ok for your side to avoid answering when the questions get tough? Sorry, NO GO. What’s good for the goose is good for the gander… Please do the Collective a favor and take your anonymous, repetitious and hypocritical arrogance elsewhere; same goes for your chickensh*t ‘acquaintance’. My acquaintance (who, in reality, I only know as an Internet identity) replied to three or four of Dave's inquiries in meticulous detail. After that, he may have felt that Dave was not following his argument. I don't know for sure and I have no opinion on that -- I wish and would have preferred it if he had made the assumptions underlying the model, the identity of the software, and the parameters of the simulation more clear but I'm not him. I don't control him. My opinion on the modeling is that it's probably good enough to cast a doubt on the Rossi and Lewan data of October 6 -- a doubt which is so easily resolved in the real world by a proper experimental design and a second much longer experiment, that the model itself is not worth arguing at length about. BTW, that is also what NASA officially wrote about the event specifically and about Rossi in general (as quoted by Krivit). My informant's reluctance is no justification or excuse for Jed's failure to supply proper citations for his, as usual, exorbitant and florid claims about life after death cells that run but we seem never to know how long or making how much power, how it was verified and independently replicated.It's also no excuse for Aussie Guy's claims which make it seem as if everything with Rossi and him is a done deal and all of it is happening soon -- until he reveals there is no contract, no delivery date, and no deal at all. Maybe Aussie should become an anonymous client to get a better delivery position? Rossi seems to prefer that type of customer. As for the rest of your remarks, I am very tempted to reply as rudely as you but out of respect for the others, I will resist the impulse, with some difficulty.
Re: [Vo]:US DoE believes in LENR after all?
On 2011-12-27 02:31, Ahsoka Tano wrote: Looks like it may have been a fake letter. The original site about the September letter has already taken it down: The URL you provided appears to be wrong. This one works: http://coldfusionnow.wordpress.com/2011/09/20/department-of-energy-policy-continues-to-ignore-revolutionary-new-energy/ Cheers, S.A.
Re: [Vo]:US DoE believes in LENR after all?
On Mon, Dec 26, 2011 at 8:31 PM, Ahsoka Tano ashot...@gmail.com wrote: It is also highly unlikely that a DOE public official such as Opdenaker will advocate, even in jest, a statement such as: Perhaps the thing to do is to go out and buy a whole boatload of nickel futures! Palladium futures spiked after the March 1989 announcement by FP. It looks like someone has shorted Ni futures and is attempting to spike the market. Anyone who tries to make money on commodity futures is taking a big risk, unless you know that the orange crop is large in advance. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TSZKDkLgzhk T
Re: [Vo]:We have FPE cells
At 07:32 PM 12/25/2011, Aussie Guy E-Cat wrote: I can't discuss the cell technology yet. I can say I consider a Ni-H cell as a FPE device. You can call a pig an eagle, but that won't make it fly. Seriously, the term Fleischman-Pons effect is taken. It usually refers to the Fleischman-Pons Heat Effect, FPHE, and is used only for PdD devices. The FPHE is, in my view, an established phenomenon, serious opposition to it disappeared from peer-reviewed journals years ago. The *cause* of the FPHE remains in question, but the evidence is quite strong that it's a process that converts deuterium to helium, see Storms, Status of cold fusion (2010), Naturwissenschaften, October, 2010. I have seen no peer-reviewed criticisms that manage to impeach the *correlation* of heat with helium. That is, if there is anomalous heat with PdD, there is helium. No heat, no helium. The statistical significance is very high. NiH LENR has no such well-established foundation. It may or may not be the same reaction. I've seen the comment, I like to be parsimonious with miracles, but that's not a solid argument that the two reactions are the same. It's a reason to *suspect* that they might be the same. (Obviously, they are not literally the same reaction; rather, it's possible that some kind of mechanism can be elucidated, eventually, that would apply to both PdD and NiH reactions, and, as well, to some other possibilities hinted in the literature, but we should not found the name of a reaction on speculation about the mechanism, or on speculative similarity. That was the problem with calling the FPHE cold fusion, though, in fact, it almost certainly is some kind of fusion; it took years for the clear evidence to surface on that.) So, if these devices are not PdD devices, please don't call them FPE devices, and, if they work, and are NiH, *that would not prove that the FPHE was real.* However, we already know the FPHE is real, but, in the other direction, that certainly doesn't demonstrate that NiH LENR is real. It only makes it a bit more believable, not quite as outrageous.
Re: [Vo]:US DoE believes in LENR after all?
On Mon, Dec 26, 2011 at 8:52 PM, Terry Blanton hohlr...@gmail.com wrote: It looks like someone has shorted Ni futures (bought Ni for delivery in 6 mos. at today's price). T
Re: [Vo]:We have FPE cells
I say DDSLA, Different Dog, Same Leg Action. Until it is proven what causes the FPE is not what causes the Ni-H effect, I'll continue to refer to ALL such devices as FPE devices. I will not stand by and see FP denied the right to the effect they discovered. To go further, after we start commercialization, we will pay 5% of our profits to FP. I would suggest that Leonardo and Defkalion should consider doing likewise. AG On 12/27/2011 12:24 PM, Abd ul-Rahman Lomax wrote: At 07:32 PM 12/25/2011, Aussie Guy E-Cat wrote: I can't discuss the cell technology yet. I can say I consider a Ni-H cell as a FPE device. You can call a pig an eagle, but that won't make it fly. Seriously, the term Fleischman-Pons effect is taken. It usually refers to the Fleischman-Pons Heat Effect, FPHE, and is used only for PdD devices. The FPHE is, in my view, an established phenomenon, serious opposition to it disappeared from peer-reviewed journals years ago. The *cause* of the FPHE remains in question, but the evidence is quite strong that it's a process that converts deuterium to helium, see Storms, Status of cold fusion (2010), Naturwissenschaften, October, 2010. I have seen no peer-reviewed criticisms that manage to impeach the *correlation* of heat with helium. That is, if there is anomalous heat with PdD, there is helium. No heat, no helium. The statistical significance is very high. NiH LENR has no such well-established foundation. It may or may not be the same reaction. I've seen the comment, I like to be parsimonious with miracles, but that's not a solid argument that the two reactions are the same. It's a reason to *suspect* that they might be the same. (Obviously, they are not literally the same reaction; rather, it's possible that some kind of mechanism can be elucidated, eventually, that would apply to both PdD and NiH reactions, and, as well, to some other possibilities hinted in the literature, but we should not found the name of a reaction on speculation about the mechanism, or on speculative similarity. That was the problem with calling the FPHE cold fusion, though, in fact, it almost certainly is some kind of fusion; it took years for the clear evidence to surface on that.) So, if these devices are not PdD devices, please don't call them FPE devices, and, if they work, and are NiH, *that would not prove that the FPHE was real.* However, we already know the FPHE is real, but, in the other direction, that certainly doesn't demonstrate that NiH LENR is real. It only makes it a bit more believable, not quite as outrageous.
Re: [Vo]:We have FPE cells
At 03:14 PM 12/26/2011, Mary Yugo wrote: On Mon, Dec 26, 2011 at 12:10 PM, Jed Rothwell mailto:jedrothw...@gmail.comjedrothw...@gmail.com wrote: Vorl Bek mailto:vorl@antichef.comvorl@antichef.com wrote: Nobody ever closes the loop. That is incorrect. Many people have closed the loop, starting with Fleischmann and Pons. In cold fusion jargon, closing the loop is called running in heat after death mode. Fleischmann once called it fully ignited, borrowing the term from the plasma fusion scientists. Are you saying the cell runs in that mode indefinitely and at a level which totally rules out (hopefully by several orders of magnitude) anything other than a nuclear effect? If so, that's a paper I'd like to read and a demo I'd like to see. If it won't run indefinitely or at least long enough so that one can calculate the nuclear fuel has been exhausted or largely used up, then it's probably not what I mean by a closed loop. A great deal of mischief is done by applying standards for commercial application to what amounts to, still, research efforts. Let's set Rossi aside, there is way too much noise, a speculative amount of heat (large by comparison with FPHE results), and no light there. CF (FPHE) cells have produced many times the energy put into them, but erratically. Excess heat is more reliable, and independently verifiable if helium is measured (i.e., calorimetry error would not generate correlated helium!) HAD (Heat after death) cells are operating with no power input. Therefore they have infinite COP. However, this doesn't rule out, at least not immediately and obviously, that the heat is due to, say, the cigarette lighter effect, from stored deuterium combustion. I.e., the cell outgasses deuterium, which then spontaneously, at the surface, supposedly, combines with oxygen to produce heat. That hypothesis has a few problems. For starters, there isn't nearly enough oxygen in the cells to do that, the outgassing deuterium (and it will outgas) would drive the relatively small amount of residual oxygen out. (Sure, oxygen was generated stochiometrically with the deuterium, and if the oxygen were stored in the cell with the same pressure as is the deuterium, it would be quite a bit of fireworks. Devastating, in fact. However, in open cells, the oxygen leaves the cell as it is generated, and in closed cells, excess oxygen is still vented, my understanding (otherwise the pressure would rise very high, as oxygen isn't loaded into palladium. Some of the oxygen combines with deuterium that bubbles up, in a closed cell, at the recombiner, but the amount of deuterium in a fully loaded piece of palladium is phenomenal. Problem is, getting energy from that without combining it with oxygen ... I can imagine someone figuring out a way that oxygen could slowly leak into the cell and sustain some heat, but the hot water vapor would surely extinguish that, you'd have to work really hard to keep that going. And none of this would make helium.) But these cells don't go on producing heat indefinitely. Jed knows more about what's been done in this way, but my understanding is that, on occasion, the cells have indeed produced more energy than could be explained by all available chemical components. However, the real proof of nuclear is a nuclear product, when such can be found. (One might have a nuclear reaction with no nuclear product, if the product isotopes are those found naturally; perhaps the cell would alter natural abundances, but FPHE cells don't produce massive amounts of transmuted elements, with one huge exception: helium. They produce helium if they are producing excess heat, in quantities that are roughly what would be expected if the reaction causing the anomalous heat is deuterium fusion.) People who focus on possible commercial success often delude themselves into thinking that if there is no readily available commercial application, therefore the reaction must be bogus. This is backwards. For some years, now, I've been urging interested people to look at the helium evidence. Storms covers it well in his book (The science of Low Energy Nuclear Reaction) and his Naturwissenschaften review Status of cold fusion (2010). It's a nuclear reaction, all right, though the helium doesn't tell us much more than that, for any reaction that starts with deuterium and ends with helium would produce roughly the same heat ratio to helium.
Re: [Vo]:We have FPE cells
On Mon, Dec 26, 2011 at 5:48 PM, David Roberson dlrober...@aol.com wrote: Mary, I would like very much to work with your acquaintance to see how his model compares to some of the in dept analysis I completed upon the October 6 test data. I totally understand how his model must work and just want to see how it represents some of the fingerprints of LENR that I have found to exist. The most apparent one is the bump in T2 that I was referring to at the time stamp of 16:00 according to his graph. My theory is that a significant amount of LENR energy is released due to the drive waveform shape just prior to that time and I do not see any suggestion of it yet within your friends model. This is one of several important points that need comparison. I would like to have his model to experiment with, but I would not be able to run it at this location. I considered building one with the tools I have here, but felt that I would not be successful. I plead with this gentleman to work with me to help uncover the truth about any excess energy that might be found to arise out of LENR. If none shows up after the correct questions are presented and carefully discussed, I would not hesitate to report those results. It is in all of our interests to reveal the truth and I do not believe in hiding facts. It is hoped that the gentleman will come back to the table and have an honest and open discussion which I think will be productive. Mary, here is an opportunity for you to help me to prove or disprove Rossi's test results. Dave Answered by personal email.
Re: [Vo]:We have FPE cells
At 03:19 PM 12/26/2011, Vorl Bek wrote: Vorl Bek vorl@antichef.com wrote: Nobody ever closes the loop. That is incorrect. Many people have closed the loop, starting with Fleischmann and Pons. In cold fusion jargon, closing the loop is called running in heat after death mode. Fleischmann once called it fully ignited, borrowing the term from the plasma fusion scientists. Why didn't FP, and all the other people who closed the loop, arrange demos, public or private, to interest investors? After 22 years, and all those loop-closing experiments, why do we still not have a Mr. Fusion water heater? Because nobody has figured out how to harness the FPHE to make a reliable water heater. After less than a decade of investment, the large institutional investors who funded some of the early cold fusion research realized that, even if this worked, it was far from being a commercial possibility in the short term. Cold fusion is real, but classifying Pons and Fleischmann as free energy promoters is really offensive. They were scientists, and the research they were doing was not initially aimed at commercial applications, they were simply studying the predictions of the approximations of standard quantum mechanics to the situation in condensed matter. They imagined that any difference would be small, probably below detection. They were surprised, then, when one of their cells melted down. It took them five years to get to the point where they were seeing measurable excess heat in one cell out of about six, and that's when intellectual property issues caused the University of Utah to force them to announce. They were not ready. If you look at more recent surveys of cold fusion results, there are approaches that produce excess heat nearly all the time, but the amount varies greatly. Rumors existed in the community regarding Rossi's work, but most researchers didn't really believe it, so far was this from what was well-known. And that's where we are at, for we have no proof regarding Rossi, in any way that allows true scientific examination of it. If Rossi is real, then PdD is probably little more than a scientific curiosity, of little commercial value, because the approach is so fragile and the materials so expensive. Still, Fleischmann and Pons really deserve a Nobel Prize, ultimately. Even if no usable commercial energy is produced by the FPHE. Rather, they showed us (together with the work of hundreds of scientists who succeeded in replicating the effect) that what we thought we knew about nuclear reactions was shallow. Very accurate, to be sure, as long as we confine ourselves to two-body, plasma interactions. But unable to accurately predict the behavior of condensed matter.
Re: [Vo]:We have FPE cells
At 04:27 PM 12/26/2011, Jed Rothwell wrote: Mary Yugo mailto:maryyu...@gmail.commaryyu...@gmail.com wrote: I suggest you stop guessing and read the literature. I suggest you stop referring vaguely to some amorphous literature and answer the question . . . No can do. I learned years ago there is no point to spoon feeding information to skeptics. First they misunderstand. Then they demand more and more. You will have do your own homework. Apart from them? So the after death cells produce electricity? I rest my case. You can't be serious. Mary, let me explain what Jed is talking about. He's concluding, from your question, that you haven't done your homework. And you haven't. Look, I was quite skeptical about cold fusion, I believed, with about everyone else capable of understanding the issues, that what Pons and Fleischmann had claimed had not been confirmed. In order to change my mind, I had to really start reading on the subject. I was a Wikipedia editor, and I'd come across some strange stuff happening with the Cold fusion article, so I started reading the sources. I eventually bought a series of books, what I could find cheap, and my purchases included the major skeptical books (I.e., Huizenga, Taubes, etc.) The title of Huizenga's book was Cold fusion: scientific fiasco of the century. He didn't realize the irony, I think. It was that, a fiasco, but not just in one direction, as quite a number of writers have pointed out. Scientists abandoned scientific protocol, resorting to polemic and insult. It was really a mess. I do suggest reading the material. I do ultimately recommend two books: Storms, The Science of Low Energy Nuclear Reaction (World Scientific,2007), but also a more popular book, Beaudette, Excess Heat, which I think was published around 2002, and it is available as a free PDF from lenr-canr.org. I bought the book, though. Jed is a bit crusty, it comes from years of dealing with certain kinds of skeptics, who do have their fingers stuffed in their ears, they will raise preposterous explanation after preposterous explanation, giving their own loony ideas complete credence, while, at the same time, dismissing as delusional the confirmed reports of serious researchers. It's easy to understand a certain initial skepticism here. After all, if LENR was possible, particularly PdD LENR, why wasn't it reported before? Of course, it turns out that it was (possibly) reported before, and, futher, after the FP announcement, people who had worked with highly loaded PdD did recall certain anomalies, that they had simply passed off as unexplainable. Mizuno, for example, Jed translated his book. Thanks, Jed! Then there is that pesky Coulomb barrier. What I found, though, was that there was ample opinion among quantum physicists that it was possible that the unexplored conditions of condensed matter just might provide some pathway around that, some kind of tunneling or alternate reaction. Recent work has actually predicted fusion from a physical arrangement of deuterium that *might* be present, quite rarely, in highly loaded PdD. That's using, apparently, standard quantum mechanics, but that theory is as yet unverified. Basically, the math that the energized skeptics applied to claim that cold fusion was impossible was probably correct, for the reaction that they applied it to. That isn't the reaction! And that explains why the neutrons and tritium and He-3 that this reaction (d-d) predicted were (mostly) absent. It all boiled down to hubris, assuming that we knew something that we did not know. How could we possibly know that *no unknown reaction was possible? Don't worry, Mary, you don't have to believe in anything; what I'm suggesting is that you reserve a portion of your skepticism for the claims of standard scientists who apply what they know from one narrow field and from that assume they can make pronouncements about what they have never researched. If you have researched cold fusion, and succeeded in replicating the effect, they will call you a believer, completely dismissing all the work you did to be careful about your measurements, to avoid jumping to conclusions, etc. Why is it, I've seen it asked, that all the glowing reports about cold fusion are from believers? Well, would you do what Miles described as the most difficult experimental work of his long career, if you thought the whole thing was a crock and totally impossible? The famous negative replicators in 1989-1990 spend a fraction of the time necessary to build up high D loading in palladium, and when they saw nothing, we we can confidently predict (in hindsight) from their experimental descriptions, they concluded that Pons and Fleischmann were charlatans. You may believe that Rossi is a charlatan, he certainly looks like one, I love that video of him looking up from the controls during the Mats Lewan demo. I imagine him saying Oh, I
Re: [Vo]:We have FPE cells
At 04:52 PM 12/26/2011, Jed Rothwell wrote: Mary Yugo mailto:maryyu...@gmail.commaryyu...@gmail.com wrote: I'd believe almost anything, including most particularly Defkalion and Rossi claims, if they were properly tested, the tests were independently and properly replicated and someone or some organization I trusted did them. No you will not believe almost anything. You believe nothing. These experiments have been replicated at over 180 major labs, independently and properly replicated. You don't believe a single one of them. You have not even bothered to look at most, and the few that you claim you read you say make no sense and are poorly written. Jed, that's really unfair. You are mixing up two very different situations, the Rossi/Defkalion issue, and the full body of data in cold fusion, which is what you are referring to here. Mary might indeed be confused about this. You should not be. Please don't mix the extensive, voluminous published research on cold fusion with the sketchy, questionable reports regarding Rossi's work. There is no comparison.
Re: [Vo]:We have FPE cells
Abd ul-Rahman Lomax a...@lomaxdesign.com wrote: You have not even bothered to look at most, and the few that you claim you read you say make no sense and are poorly written. Jed, that's really unfair. You are mixing up two very different situations, the Rossi/Defkalion issue, and the full body of data in cold fusion, which is what you are referring to here. You misunderstand. Yugo said she read McKubre and Miles and found them confusing, poorly written and unconvincing. That is what I referred to. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:We have FPE cells
At 05:31 PM 12/26/2011, Mary Yugo wrote: On Mon, Dec 26, 2011 at 2:16 PM, Jed Rothwell mailto:jedrothw...@gmail.comjedrothw...@gmail.com wrote: Arata ran a small motor with one heated by a self-sustaining gas-loaded cell. Cool! Did anyone verify this or replicate it? And how long did it run and at what output level? Mary! You can find this stuff yourself. Arata cells generate a low level of heat, without any input, and the experimental runs I've seen end at 3000 minutes, still cranking out the heat. Unfortunately we don't have a lot of data on how much heat is really involved, quantitatively. Arata's been replicated, that has been published as well. (This is all fairly recent. To be sure, investors are not falling over themselves to put money into a device that, with 7 grams of nanoparticle palladium and some deuterium gas, runs 4 degrees C hotter than the environment for 50 hours. In theory this could be scaled up, but at that level, I figured that with a mere $100,000 worth of palladium, I might be able to build a home hot water heater that would run for a while. However, there is a little problem: apparently the reaction ultimately poisons or uses up the reaction sites. If Rossi has found a way around that, it would indeed be remarkable. ) Why is it that specific questions as to power output and duration are, to some cold fusion advocates, like sunshine to vampires? We have that data for lots of experiments. Rossi is by no means typical of work in the field, beyond a certain class of workers in the field who aren't really scientists -- he isn't. Neither is Aussie Guy. It's sort of reminiscent of Rossi typically rushing to shut down his demonstrations for dinner or whatever after only a few hours of operation ... and of Aussie Guy bowing out of providing data on his B level cells after saying qualitatively how fantasmagoric they were. It's so discouraging and prevalent a phenomenon that I am thinking of naming it. Maybe Cold Fusion Evasion. It's been called fusion confusion. Look, Aussie Guy is anonymous, what he writes is next to meaningless. Don't mix this up with the huge corpus of work from hundreds of scientists around the world.
Re: [Vo]:US DOE alters it's stance on LENR and Rossi?
At 06:19 PM 12/26/2011, Aussie Guy E-Cat wrote: What no comment on this: My change of mind was a direct result of talking with Dr. Dennis Bushnell, the Chief Scientist for NASA Langley who has assured me that over 100 experiments worldwide indicate that LENR is real, capable of producing energy much greater that chemical reactions, with minimal radiation I'll comment on it: he went on to say, but it isn't fusion. That's apparently because he's swallowed, lock, stock, and sinker, Widom-Larsen theory, and isolated, idiosyncratic attempt to explain LENR by coming up with even more preposterous hypotheses, none of which have been tested and shown to be of predictive value. He knows, though, of the heat evidence, and, indeed, Jed's right, that evidence does show, once we look carefully at the reactions, at what is in the cells under study, heat far beyond that possible from chemical reactions in the cell -- unless they are totally unknown chemical reactions, between elements not known to be present in the cells, somehow being supplied. One can imagine that with Rossi, many have attempted it. With standard FPHE, the chemistry is well-known, and if all the cell components were to be maximally reactions, we'd still be far, far short of what these cells have demonstrated. Put it this way, if this isn't a nuclear reaction, it is some kind of super-battery, probably worth billions just for that. Unfortunately for this battery idea, ... helium.
Re: [Vo]:US DOE alters it's stance on LENR and Rossi?
At 06:27 PM 12/26/2011, Mary Yugo wrote: On Mon, Dec 26, 2011 at 3:19 PM, Aussie Guy E-Cat mailto:aussieguy.e...@gmail.comaussieguy.e...@gmail.com wrote: What no comment on this: My change of mind was a direct result of talking with Dr. Dennis Bushnell, the Chief Scientist for NASA Langley who has assured me that over 100 experiments worldwide indicate that LENR is real, capable of producing energy much greater that chemical reactions, with minimal radiation I'd be happy to comment after Mr. Opdenaker confirms he wrote it and allows questions. At the moment, it's nothing but an unverified email exchange with a Mr.X, an unidentified party, on a weird believer-oriented web site full of silly comments from obviously ignorant participants. It's also a web site whose owner is unknown. I will say immediately that Dr. Bushnell is entitled to his opinion but until he shown the most spectacular experiments and answers the critiques to them, believing anything because he says so is simply an appeal to authority logical fallacy. Far as I know, Dr. Bushnell has not repeated and independently confirmed any of the experiments. If he had, and had done so properly, his opinion, if the quote is accurate, would be worthy of more consideration. Mary, Bushnell is not talking about Rossi on that point, and that you seem to think he is, shows how easily you are misunderstanding this field. LENR is real. That says practically nothing about whether or not Rossi is real. Rossi is not established as to science. There have been no independent replications, and the original work hasn't been published in the normal way, and much of what Rossi does remains secret. Secret means we don't know, that we can only speculate. People seem inclined to speculate in ways that confirm what they already believe. Amazing how we do that, eh?
Re: [Vo]:US DOE alters it's stance on LENR and Rossi?
As I read Dr Bushnell, he is saying 5 things: 1) Excess heat is real and has been replicated in 100s of labs around the world. 2) The scale of the heat generated is beyond current chemistry. 3) What is being observed to occur is not Fusion (Hot or Cold) as it is currently understood. 4) WL seem to be on the right track in developing a workable theory. 5) NASA is interested and has done replications. AG On 12/27/2011 2:02 PM, Abd ul-Rahman Lomax wrote: At 06:19 PM 12/26/2011, Aussie Guy E-Cat wrote: What no comment on this: My change of mind was a direct result of talking with Dr. Dennis Bushnell, the Chief Scientist for NASA Langley who has assured me that over 100 experiments worldwide indicate that LENR is real, capable of producing energy much greater that chemical reactions, with minimal radiation I'll comment on it: he went on to say, but it isn't fusion. That's apparently because he's swallowed, lock, stock, and sinker, Widom-Larsen theory, and isolated, idiosyncratic attempt to explain LENR by coming up with even more preposterous hypotheses, none of which have been tested and shown to be of predictive value. He knows, though, of the heat evidence, and, indeed, Jed's right, that evidence does show, once we look carefully at the reactions, at what is in the cells under study, heat far beyond that possible from chemical reactions in the cell -- unless they are totally unknown chemical reactions, between elements not known to be present in the cells, somehow being supplied. One can imagine that with Rossi, many have attempted it. With standard FPHE, the chemistry is well-known, and if all the cell components were to be maximally reactions, we'd still be far, far short of what these cells have demonstrated. Put it this way, if this isn't a nuclear reaction, it is some kind of super-battery, probably worth billions just for that. Unfortunately for this battery idea, ... helium.
[Vo]:Orbital Stressing and Deflation Fusion
The applicability of deflation fusion concepts to fusion, especially Ni plus hydrogen fusion were discussed here: http://www.mtaonline.net/~hheffner/NiProtonRiddle.pdf http://www.mail-archive.com/vortex-l@eskimo.com/msg44662.html The probability of the deflated electron state is increased as electron flux through or very near a hydrogen nucleus is increased. This kind of electron flux can be induced on an absorbed hydrogen via various mechanisms, such as directly applied currents, flux of conduction band electrons through partial orbitals, surface currents, EM induced conduction ring currents, such as that provided by a benzene ring, or magnetic vortices in magnetic materials. The deflated state of heavy nucleus components can be induced by dense electron flux, but the above methods can not conveniently do this. Creation of a heavy nucleus deflated state, and thus the increase of its nuclear magnetic moment by orders of magnitude, is important to nuclear reactions involving heavy nuclei without nuclear magnetic moments, such as various Ni nuclei. The primary way to induce large electron flux through a heavy nucleus is to displace it from its atomic center of charge. The electron flux then involved is that of the heavy atom itself, consisting primarily of the innermost and thus most energetic of its electrons. This displacement can be induced by imposition of EM fields, and other means of orbital stressing, such as raising temperature or increasing lattice stress by loading and then thermal cycling. The methods, value and potential uses of orbital stressing to place nuclei into a strong electron flux were discussed in this 1997 article: http://mtaonline.net/~hheffner/Ostressing.pdf As discussed in this article, lattice nuclei are confined in linked electron cages. Since the nuclei are 1000 times heavier than the electrons, the electron cages are, for the most part, going to move around the nuclei as a single lattice unit. The nucleons will not be involved in most of the motion. Thus the amount of mass involved in actual motion is small, three orders of magnitude less than the entire lattice mass, which is good for creating higher speed action. The hard part, it seems, is keeping the lattice electron motion uniform throughout the sample, thus avoiding heat loss. Coherent, or nearly coherent motion of the electron cages can slowly induce periodic motion of the nuclei. The electron cages of nanoparticles are small. They are thus more subject to coherent motion when stimulated electro-magnetically than large lattices. Brief moments of electromagnetic stimulation can create coherent cage motion, followed by increased nucleus motions and thus degeneration of the coherent cage motion into coordinated opposed nuclear motions, and then the randomization into heat. Throughout the process, the nuclei are dislocated from their centers of charge, and thus exposed to higher than normal through-nucleus electron flux. The initial coordinated electron cage motion should be most easily generated in nano-particles. Their small size permits small and thus energetic EM wavelengths to be effective. Isolating metal nanoparticles in dielectric pore arrays should provide a means to coordinate the stimulation via localized resonances. Conveniently, such coordinated electron cage motion also increases the population of the deflated state of hydrogen simultaneously. Electrical isolation of conducting nanoparticles in dielectric arrays permits large displacements of nuclei within the nanoparticles via use of large electrostatic fields. The use of nanoparticles permits a large surface to volume exposure, and thus a large voltage differential across a volume of interest. A surface effect is thereby converted into a volume effect, at least to some depth. The addition of the AC stimulation then is additive to this electrostatic field stress. The discussed methods of orbital stressing should be useful in improving fusion rates in any lattice with absorbed hydrogen. Best regards, Horace Heffner http://www.mtaonline.net/~hheffner/
Re: [Vo]:We have FPE cells
I'm a new member of the list, but I'm reading the posts since January. I'm addicted... If we have a large COP (10-100), I believe we can use thin film thermogenerators (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thermoelectricity) such as these http://www.micropelt.com/down/datasheet_mpg_d651_d751.pdf to make a self sustain wet cell... We can put thousands of those around a wet cell. They produce useful power with as little as 10 degrees Celsius (see datasheet). Cheers, Alberto.
Re: [Vo]:US DOE alters it's stance on LENR and Rossi?
In reply to Abd ul-Rahman Lomax's message of Mon, 26 Dec 2011 22:32:07 -0500: Hi, [snip] Put it this way, if this isn't a nuclear reaction, it is some kind of super-battery, probably worth billions just for that. Unfortunately for this battery idea, ... helium. You appear to have ignored the possibility of super-chemistry, a la Mills or IRH. Regards, Robin van Spaandonk http://rvanspaa.freehostia.com/project.html
Re: [Vo]:We have FPE cells
The 2.5 x 2.5 mm device has a max power output of approx 0.8 mW at 10 deg K differential. Assuming 1 Watt excess with a COP 5 yields 200 mW input. Would need around 300 of the MPG-D615 devices with fitted finned heat sinks to each device's COLD side to get good thermal transfer into the air. Could be doable with 75 devices per finned heat sink assembly per side of a square container. Optimal load resistance could be a issue. Something to look at in the future. AG On 12/27/2011 2:42 PM, Alberto De Souza wrote: I'm a new member of the list, but I'm reading the posts since January. I'm addicted... If we have a large COP (10-100), I believe we can use thin film thermogenerators (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thermoelectricity) such as these http://www.micropelt.com/down/datasheet_mpg_d651_d751.pdf to make a self sustain wet cell... We can put thousands of those around a wet cell. They produce useful power with as little as 10 degrees Celsius (see datasheet). Cheers, Alberto.
Re: [Vo]:We have FPE cells
Hi Abd Lomax, I'm glad to see you posting a lot now, and expressing strong doubts about Rossi. Are you continuing to develop your low cost tiny CF kits for electrolytic codeposition of Pd in deuterium heavy water electrolyte, using plastic to record the impacts of any generated neutrons, according to the SPAWAR paradigm? within mutual service, Rich On Mon, Dec 26, 2011 at 7:24 PM, Abd ul-Rahman Lomax a...@lomaxdesign.com wrote: At 05:31 PM 12/26/2011, Mary Yugo wrote: On Mon, Dec 26, 2011 at 2:16 PM, Jed Rothwell mailto:jedrothw...@gmail.comjedrothw...@gmail.com wrote: Arata ran a small motor with one heated by a self-sustaining gas-loaded cell. Cool! Did anyone verify this or replicate it? And how long did it run and at what output level? Mary! You can find this stuff yourself. Arata cells generate a low level of heat, without any input, and the experimental runs I've seen end at 3000 minutes, still cranking out the heat. Unfortunately we don't have a lot of data on how much heat is really involved, quantitatively. Arata's been replicated, that has been published as well. (This is all fairly recent. To be sure, investors are not falling over themselves to put money into a device that, with 7 grams of nanoparticle palladium and some deuterium gas, runs 4 degrees C hotter than the environment for 50 hours. In theory this could be scaled up, but at that level, I figured that with a mere $100,000 worth of palladium, I might be able to build a home hot water heater that would run for a while. However, there is a little problem: apparently the reaction ultimately poisons or uses up the reaction sites. If Rossi has found a way around that, it would indeed be remarkable. ) Why is it that specific questions as to power output and duration are, to some cold fusion advocates, like sunshine to vampires? We have that data for lots of experiments. Rossi is by no means typical of work in the field, beyond a certain class of workers in the field who aren't really scientists -- he isn't. Neither is Aussie Guy. It's sort of reminiscent of Rossi typically rushing to shut down his demonstrations for dinner or whatever after only a few hours of operation ... and of Aussie Guy bowing out of providing data on his B level cells after saying qualitatively how fantasmagoric they were. It's so discouraging and prevalent a phenomenon that I am thinking of naming it. Maybe Cold Fusion Evasion. It's been called fusion confusion. Look, Aussie Guy is anonymous, what he writes is next to meaningless. Don't mix this up with the huge corpus of work from hundreds of scientists around the world.
Re: [Vo]:We have FPE cells
On Dec 26, 2011, at 22:10, Abd ul-Rahman Lomax a...@lomaxdesign.com wrote: Then there is that pesky Coulomb barrier. What I found, though, was that there was ample opinion among quantum physicists that it was possible that the unexplored conditions of condensed matter just might provide some pathway around that, some kind of tunneling or alternate reaction. Recent work has actually predicted fusion from a physical arrangement of deuterium that *might* be present, quite rarely, in highly loaded PdD. That's using, apparently, standard quantum mechanics, but that theory is as yet unverified. Oh? Citation, please?
Re: [Vo]:US DOE alters it's stance on LENR and Rossi?
Abd ul-Rahman Lomax wrote: I'll comment on it: he went on to say, but it isn't fusion. That's apparently because he's swallowed, lock, stock, and sinker, Widom-Larsen theory, and isolated, idiosyncratic attempt to explain LENR by coming up with even more preposterous hypotheses, none of which have been tested and shown to be of predictive value. Abd, If you reject W-L theory, what would you regard as the most reasonable explanation for all of the transmutations reported? Is there a particular paper that you could recommend. I'm too overwhelmed by the complexity of solid state reactions to take any side in the controversy. Thanks, Lou Pagnucco
